Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 309) 9789042942103, 9789042942110, 904294210X

Table of contents :
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ON THE INTERPLAY OF METAPHORS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
“WHO IS LIKE YOU AMONG THE GODS, O YHWH?”
THE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION OF METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4
ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORS
INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES
BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

Citation preview

NETWORKS OF METAPHORS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE DANILO VERDE – ANTJE LABAHN

NETWORKS OF METAPHORS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

L.-L. Christians, J. Famerée, É. Gaziaux, J. Geldhof, A. Join-Lambert, M. Lamberigts, J. Leemans, D. Luciani, A.C. Mayer, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EXECUTIVE EDITORS

J. Famerée, M. Lamberigts, D. Luciani, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EDITORIAL STAFF

R. Corstjens – C. Timmermans

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

KU LEUVEN LEUVEN

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCCIX

NETWORKS OF METAPHORS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

EDITED BY

DANILO VERDE – ANTJE LABAHN

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2020

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4210-3 eISBN 978-90-429-4211-0 D/2020/0602/65 All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated data file or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers. © 2020 – Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

PREFACE

During the 2018 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Biblical Studies (Helsinki, 30 July – 3 August), the research unit “Metaphors in the Bible” held several sessions on the topic “Networks of Metaphors in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East”. We as editors of this volume and co-chairs of the research unit “Metaphors in the Bible” wish to express our gratitude to all panellists, some of whom contributed extended versions of their original papers to this collection of essays. This is the case for the chapters by Juan Cruz, Göran Eidevall, Tova L. Forti, Alison Gray, Francis Landy, Jean-Pierre Sonnet, and Ellen van Wolde. Antje Labahn’s contribution goes back to a paper read at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (Denver, 23-26 November). The recent panel on metaphors continued long-standing research on biblical metaphors within the European Association of Biblical Studies. This research resulted in a number of academic publications. Alongside individual publications originating from the research group, particularly worth mentioning are the two volumes published in the Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, namely Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (edited by Pierre Van Hecke, Peeters, 2005) and Metaphors in the Psalms (co-edited by Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn, Peeters, 2010), and the volume Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts: Proceedings of the Metaphor Research Group of the European Association of Biblical Studies in Lincoln 2009 (edited by Antje Labahn, De Gruyter, 2013). This new volume aims to foster current research on biblical metaphors, by focusing on a phenomenon that has only received scant attention thus far, namely the interplay between different metaphors in the texts of the Hebrew Bible. We would like to express our profound gratitude to all of the authors for participating in this project with their invaluable professionalism, knowledge, and expertise, which made the entire editing process very smooth and perfectly on schedule. Many thanks are due to Paul Creevey and Sarah Whitear for proofreading the initial manuscripts. We also owe deep gratitude to Joseph Verheyden, general editor of Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, and the other members of the editorial board for accepting our proposal. Furthermore, we owe our gratitude to Rita Corstjens for her assistance in preparing the final manuscript. We also appreciate the fellowship with the Peeters family, who continues

VIII

PREFACE

to follow our work with great interest. Last but not least, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Monastero delle Benedettine di Sant’Anna (Bastia Umbra, Italy) for their generous support. Danilo VERDE Antje LABAHN

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

Danilo VERDE (Leuven) On the Interplay of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . .

1

Danilo VERDE (Leuven) “Who Is Like You among the Gods, O YHWH!” (Exod 15,11): The Interweaving of Metaphors in the Song of the Sea . . . . . . .

13

Alison GRAY (Cambridge) The Affective Dimension of Metaphor Clusters in Deuteronomy 4

31

Francis LANDY (Victoria) Metaphorical Clusters in Isaiah 1–39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

Boris LAZZARO (Roma) If the Blind Walk: The Cognitive Metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING and Its Elaboration in Isa 42,16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

Georg FISCHER (Innsbruck) From Terror to Embrace: Deliberate Blending of Metaphors in Jeremiah 30–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

Dalit ROM-SHILONI (Tel Aviv) Nature Imagery in the Interplay between Different Metaphors in the Book of Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

Göran EIDEVALL (Uppsala) Of Burning Ovens, Half-Baked Cakes, and Helpless Birds: Exploring a Cluster of Metaphors in Hosea 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Juan CRUZ (Aberdeen) The Network of the Daughter Zion Metaphor and Other Metaphors in the Book of Micah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Ryan P. BONFIGLIO (Atlanta, GA) The LORD of Hosts Cares for His Flock: Mapping the Shepherd Metaphor in Second Zechariah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Andrea L. WEISS (New York) Commingled Metaphors in the Bible and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . 157

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Stefan M. ATTARD (Malta) From Well-fed Lions to Sitting Ducks: A Study of Complex Metaphors in Psalm 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Ellen VAN WOLDE (Nijmegen) Various Types of Metaphors and Their Different Functions in Psalm 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Susanne GILLMAYR-BUCHER (Linz) Metaphors of Space and Time: Imagining Stability in the Fourth Book of Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Tova L. FORTI (Beer Sheva) “Even the Sparrow Has Found a Home” (Ps 84,4): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Katharine J. DELL (Cambridge) – Tova L. FORTI (Beer Sheva) “When a Bird Flies through the Air”: Enigmatic Paths of Birds in Wisdom Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Christopher B. ANSBERRY (London) Arbors among Aphorisms: The Anatomy of the Tree in the Book of Proverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Edward L. GREENSTEIN (Ramat Gan) – Nehamit PERI (Ramat Gan) Metaphoric Chains in the Dialogues of Job: A Case in Point . . 281 Pierre VAN HECKE (Leuven) A Play on Plants: Metaphorical Networks in Job 12–14 . . . . . . 299 Jean-Pierre SONNET (Roma) Metaphor and Metonymy in the Canticle: A Parable of Desire

313

Craig G. BARTHOLOMEW (Cambridge) Qohelet as a Master of and Mastered by Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . 329 Antje LABAHN (Wuppertal/Bethel) God as a Gleaning Cook: A Conceptual Metaphor of Exodus in LamentationsLXX 2,20-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 INDEX OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

ON THE INTERPLAY OF METAPHORS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

A metaphor never comes alone. One metaphor calls for another and all together they remain alive thanks to their mutual tension and the power of each to evoke the whole network. P. RICŒUR1

In 1971, Warren Shibles edited an annotated bibliography on metaphor studies that contained more than three thousands entries, showing that the fascination with metaphor has never wavered over the last twenty-five hundred years2. A plethora of thinkers – many of whom are not included in Shibles’ list – have attempted to grasp this complex linguistic phenomenon: from Isocrates to Aristotle, from Cicero and Quintilianus to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, from Emanuele Tesauro and Giambattista Vico to Friedrich W. Nietzsche, from Ivor A. Richards and Max Black to Paul Ricœur, Hans Blumenberg and Umberto Eco3, to name just a few. Undoubtedly, cognitive linguistics is currently the central field of research and the main reference point for scholarly inquiry into what has traditionally been considered the queen of tropes4. Since George Lakoff and Mark Johnson co-authored their pioneering work entitled Metaphors We Live By in 19805, we have witnessed a tremendous burst of multi-, inter-, and 1. P. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics, in Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148, p. 94. 2. W.A. SHIBLES, Metaphor: An Annotated Bibliography and History, Whitewater, WI, Language Press, 1971. 3. For an overview of the history of metaphorology, see D. DONOGHUE, Metaphor, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2014, pp. 52-91; S. ARDUINI (ed.), Metaphors, Roma, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2007; A.M. LORUSSO (ed.), Metafora e conoscenza: Da Aristotele al cognitivismo contemporaneo (Il campo semiotico), Milano, Bompiani, 2005; G.R. BOYS-STONES (ed.), Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003; U. ECO, Metafora e semiosi, in ID., Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio, Torino, Einaudi, 1997, pp. 141-198. 4. For an overview of cognitive metaphor theory and some of its recent developments, see G. STEEN, The Cognitive-Linguistic Revolution in Metaphor Studies, in J. LITTLEMORE – J.R. TAYLOR (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (Bloomsbury Companions), London, Bloomsbury, 2014, 117-142; ID., The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved!, in Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (2011) 26-64; Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 22010; R.W. GIBBS (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008. 5. G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980.

2

D. VERDE

transdisciplinary studies on metaphor. The widespread and deep-seated academic interest in this stranger word (ὄνομα ἀλλοτρίου) – as Aristotle called metaphor6 – has also involved biblical scholarship, especially in the last few decades. Suffice it to mention the research conducted at the European Association of Biblical Studies and Society of Biblical Literature units specifically devoted to biblical metaphor, as well as the profusion of scholarly publications that currently make metaphor one of the most researched topics in biblical studies. In this regard, the two seminal volumes published in the Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium series are worth mentioning, namely Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Pierre Van Hecke (BETL, 187; 2005), and Metaphors in the Psalms, co-edited by Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn (BETL, 231; 2010). This third BETL volume on biblical metaphor focuses on a phenomenon that has only received scant attention thus far, namely the relationship and interplay between different metaphors in the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Metaphor does not come alone as Ricœur pointed out, not only in the obvious sense that individual metaphors always occur within a system of signifiants, as Ferdinand de Saussure would say7, but also in the narrow sense that one metaphor leads to another. As much in the flow of an oral speech as in the text continuum of a poem, a metaphor is often accompanied by other metaphors, which accumulate and intertwine in both the text/discourse and the perceiver’s mind, shaping an intricate web of signifiers and signified concepts. One of the best examples of networks of metaphors is the phenomenon of mixed metaphors, namely the “simultaneous application of multiple source domains to the same target”8. Raymond W. Gibbs has recently pointed out that the use of mixed metaphors does not have the most stellar reputation among guidelines for the composition of essays, books and, more generally, for writing style. It is often feared that mixed metaphors might lead to confusion and result in a conflict of concepts9. Such a widespread negative attitude towards mixed metaphors can even be found among professional writers. In his essay Politics and the English Language, for instance, George Orwell argued the following: 6. ARISTOTELES, De arte poetica liber, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit R. KASSEL (Oxford Classical Texts), Oxford, Clarendon, 1965, 1457b, 6-7. 7. F. DE SAUSSURE, Cours de linguistique générale, ed. C. BALLY – A. SECHEHAYE, Lausanne, Payot, 1916. 8 See in this volume R. BONFIGLIO, The LORD of Hosts Cares for His Flock: Mapping the Shepherd Metaphor in Second Zechariah, 139-156, p. 152. 9. R.W. GIBBS, Introduction, in ID. (ed.), Mixing Metaphor (Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 6), Amsterdam – Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, 2016, vii-xiv, p. viii.

ON THE INTERPLAY OF METAPHORS

3

By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash – as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot – it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking10.

Whatever Orwell inter alii might think, the reality is that mixed metaphors, which are all over the place in human communication, do not necessarily prevent speakers/writers and listeners/readers from understanding each other. Nor does the use of mixed metaphors necessarily reflect conceptual confusion and weakness. Rather, the widespread deliberate and non-deliberate practice of mixing metaphors “offers testimony to the cognitive flexibility that is the hallmark of human intelligence and creativity”11. Several studies, indeed, suggest that mixed metaphors often are cognitively very successful12. Granted, when this phenomenon occurs in literature, the process of understanding can be trickier. This depends on the fact that literary metaphor per se requires an effort of analysis and imagination on behalf of the reader, since it tends to be linguistically more elaborate, unconventional, and open-ended. Let alone clusters of intertwined ingenious metaphors. Nevertheless, the difficulty of the task does not relieve the interpreter from trying to understand such a striking linguistic phenomenon, which is particularly pervasive in poetry. A primary example of successful mixed metaphors can be found in the final stanza of Among School Children by William Butler Yeats, in which life is portrayed as labour that turns meaningful when opposite elements (body and soul, beauty and despair, ignorance and knowledge) are folded together into a harmonious unity: Labour is blossoming or dancing where The body is not bruised to pleasure soul, Nor beauty born out of its own despair, Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil. 10. G. ORWELL, Politics and the English Language (Penguin Books), London, Penguin, 2013, p. 13 [e-book version]. The emphasis is the author’s. 11. GIBBS, Introduction (n. 8), p. ix. 12. J.E. LONERGAN – R.W. GIBBS, Tackling Mixed Metaphors in Discourse: New Corpus and Psychological Evidence, in GIBBS (ed.), Mixing Metaphor (n. 8), 57-71; M. KIMMEL, Why We Mix Metaphors (and Mix Them Well): Discourse Coherence, Conceptual Metaphor, and Beyond, in Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 97-115; L. CAMERON, Metaphor Shifting in the Dynamics of Talk, in M.S. ZANOTTO – L. CAMERON – M. CAVALCANTI (eds.), Confronting Metaphor in Use: An Applied Linguistic Approach (Pragmatics and Beyond, 173), Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2008, 45-62; L. CAMERON – J. STELMA, Metaphor Clusters in Discourse, in Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (2004) 107-136.

4

D. VERDE

O chestnut tree, great rooted blossomer, Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole? O body swayed to music, O brightening glance, How can we know the dancer from the dance?13.

As Helen Vendler explains, throughout his poem Yeats “arranges his images in several antithetical diptychs, and then layers those different diptychs one upon another until they form a single dense palimpsest”14. The practice of mixing metaphors is only one way of intertwining metaphors. Whoever is familiar with literary terms knows the notion of extended metaphor, a metaphor developing in great detail beyond the sentence level, sometimes even encompassing an entire work. Whereas the communicative power of mixed metaphors consists in the resulting clash of ideas, in the incongruity created by drawing on and intertwining different source domains (or vehicles) that leave the reader with competing images, extended metaphor is usually employed in order to immerse the reader in a specific topic, by contrasting, juxtaposing, or exploring the similarities between the target and the chosen source domain. One of the most quoted examples of extended metaphor is the poem“Hope” is the thing with feathers by Emily Dickinson, in which hope is metaphorized as a bird that, perched in the human soul, keeps singing even in difficult times: “Hope” is the thing with feathers That perches in the soul And sings the tune without the words And never stops – at all And sweetest – in the Gale – is heard And sore must be the storm That could abash the little Bird That kept so many warm – I’ve heard it in the chillest land And on the strangest Sea Yet, never, in Extremity, It asked a crumb – of me15.

Through many interconnected metaphors, belonging to the same domain, the image of the feathered bird develops and grows stronger from line to line, and so does hope. 13. J.G. NICHOLAS (ed.), W.B. Yeats: Selected Poems, Richmond, VA, Alma Books, 2015, p. 94. 14. H.H. VENDLER, Poets Thinking: Pope, Whitman, Dickinson, Yeats, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 93. 15. T.H. JOHNSON (ed.), The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson, London, Faber and Faber, 1970, p. 116.

ON THE INTERPLAY OF METAPHORS

5

An extended metaphor, as aforementioned, can be employed at length throughout an entire work, by means of a series of figurative expressions that, scattered in non-adjacent parts of the text, recall each other and shape a dominant figurative leitmotif. When this phenomenon occurs, we can refer to it in terms of root metaphors or mega-metaphors. As Paul Werth argued, in literature we can find “an entire metaphorical ‘undercurrent’ running through a whole text, which may manifest itself in a large number and variety of ‘single’ metaphors”16. From a cognitive perspective, and following the insights of conceptual metaphor theory – according to which the same conceptual metaphor is entailed by different metaphorical expressions17 – Donald Freeman found that CONTAINER and PATH metaphors are widespread in Macbeth, giving coherence to language, characters, events, and plot of the Shakespearean tragedy18. Likewise, Antonio Barcelona Sánchez argued that LOVE IS A UNITY OF TWO COMPLEMENTARY PARTS is one of the most dominant conceptual metaphors in Romeo and Juliet, making the play’s view of romantic love systematic and coherent19. In my view, however, the interpreter’s task should not be the mere recovery of the conceptual metaphor that holds together individual metaphorical expressions in a network of images and thoughts. Rather, the interpreter should carefully observe how individual metaphorical expressions interact and thereby develop the complexity of the entailed conceptual metaphor. Borrowing Hrushovski’s words, “We must observe metaphors in literature not as static, discrete units, but as context-sensitive, dynamic patterns, changing in the text continuum […]”20. The volume Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible intends to investigate biblical metaphors not as “isolated events of discourse”, as Ricœur would say, but as parts of clusters of metaphors. Biblical metaphors very often come in chains, especially in poetry, in which individual metaphors may interact in a number of ways, e.g. they may modify, 16. P. WERTH, Extended Metaphor: A Text-World Account, in Language and Literature 3 (1994) 79-103, p. 80. 17. For instance, the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS PATH is entailed by a cluster of common metaphorical expressions, such as Look how far we’ve come, We’re at a crossroads, We’ll just have to go our separate ways, We can’t turn hack now, I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere. See LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 5), pp. 44-45. 18. D.C. FREEMAN, Catch[ing] the Nearest Way: Macbeth and Cognitive Metaphor, in Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995) 689-708. 19. A. BARCELONA SÁNCHEZ, Metaphorical Models of Romantic Love in Romeo and Juliet, in Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995) 667-688. 20. B. HRUSHOVSKI, Poetic Metaphor and Frames of Reference: With Examples from Eliot, Rilke, Mayakovsky, Mandelshtam, Pound, Creeley, Amichai, and the New York Times, in Poetics Today 5 (1984) 5-43, pp. 5-6. This article has been republished in B. HARSHAV, Explorations in Poetics, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2007, 32-74.

6

D. VERDE

reverse, shift, and even contradict or reinforce the previous ones. Biblical metaphors often create families of metaphors that form a genuine repertoire of images to think and talk about a specific target domain from multiple viewpoints. The same source domain often inspires clusters of thoughts about a wide variety of realities. The same root metaphor may run throughout an entire book or a section of a book, emerging on the surface level of a text in many ways and interacting with other metaphors along the text continuum. This volume commences with two papers dedicated to the first part of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah. Danilo VERDE faces the phenomenon of mixed metaphors in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15,1-18), looking for what holds them together, as well as for what the many shifts of metaphor add to the song’s discourse about YHWH. In his view, the poem’s mixed metaphors form part of the song’s rhetoric of wonder and try to answer the rhetorical question in Exod 15,11, “Who is like you?”, which occupies the central position in the poem. The implied answer is that “there is nobody like YHWH our God”, as Moses put it in Exod 8,6. Being poetry, the Song of the Sea shapes this answer during the reading process mainly via its intricate network of metaphors. Alison GRAY offers a visual reading of metaphor clusters in Deuteronomy 4, by drawing on Vernon K. Robbins’ category of “rhetography”, namely “the graphic images people create in their minds as a result of the visual texture of a text” (p. 34). She focuses on pathway metaphor clusters and fire metaphors in the space between heaven and earth. Gray argues that the network of metaphors in Deuteronomy 4, on the one hand, helps to express a powerful message while, on the other hand, facilitates the literary transition from the narrative on the wandering of Israel in the desert (chapters 1–3) to the Decalogue (chapter 5). Leaving the Torah, the volume addresses the topic of networks of metaphors in the latter Prophets. Francis LANDY shows that in Isaiah 1–39 different metaphors are grouped together and, as they are linked in chains, modify each other. He points out that the interweaving of metaphors often operate on the phonological level as in Isa 32,14-15. Landy observes that in Isaiah 1–39 metaphorical chains are a series of oxymorons; they often are bizarre – as in what he calls the “fluvial fantasy” in Isa 33,21 (p. 56) –, intensely sensory, and convey complex affects. Boris LAZZARO investigates the conceptual metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING in Isa 42,16, a conceptual metaphor that is widespread in the book of Isaiah and can be considered one of its megametaphors. In Isa 42,16, however, the conceptual metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING undergoes a peculiar literary elaboration, due to its combination with the WAY motif. Lazzaro argues that here two

ON THE INTERPLAY OF METAPHORS

7

conceptual metaphors intertwine, FREEDOM IS A JOURNEY and KNOWING IS The interweaving of these two conceptual metaphors make the liberation of the exiled people appear as an interior event, rather than a mere extrinsic historical fact. Georg FISCHER inquires into the book of Jeremiah and, more precisely, into the “Scroll of Consolation” (Jeremiah 30–31). The title of his contribution, From Terror to Embrace, summarizes the fundamental change occurring in the poetic core (Jer 30,5–31,22) of this section of the book of Jeremiah, a change operated by shifting images and metaphors. Fischer shows that different metaphors intertwine also in the prose texts of the Scroll of Consolation (Jer 31,23-40). He reads the network of metaphors in Jeremiah 30– 31 against the background of the historical events occurred between 597 and 587 BCE, to which the framing chapters (29 and 32) allude and argues that the main purpose of mixing metaphors in Jeremiah 30–31 is to console and evoke hope. Dalit ROM-SHILONI focuses on nature images in Ezekiel 15–23. In line with Ricœur’s view, according to which metaphors “never come alone”, she points out that nature metaphors in Ezekiel 15– 23 are woven into the wider context of chapters 1–24. By focusing on two nature metaphors – the metaphor of Israel as vine and the metaphor of the last Judean kings as hunted lions – Rom-Shiloni argues that Ezekiel utilizes and intertwines traditional metaphors in order to convey his exclusive ideology. Furthermore, following Ricœur’s insights on metaphor as “semantic innovation” – rather than mere rhetorical device underscoring resemblance – she shows that Ezekiel’s way of using and intertwining metaphors is in tension with Judean and, more generally, Mesopotamian literary and iconographic traditions. On the one hand, Ezekiel is clearly familiar with and draws on these traditions and, on the other hand, he introduces novel and significant changes in the ancient Near Eastern repertoire of images and metaphors. Göran EIDEVALL explores a cluster of metaphors in the book of Hosea (7,3-12), asking (1) whether and to what extent these metaphors can be regarded as a cluster, namely as interrelated and interacting, (2) how the shift from one source domain to another should be explained, and (3) what the interweaving of different metaphors and similes contribute to the overall message of Hosea 7. He argues that the theme of eating sews Hos 7,3-12 together and, therefore, all metaphors and similes can legitimately be considered a cluster linked to the conceptual domain of food. Whether the discourse refers to those responsible for the assassinations of kings, i.e., the people in general and the court officials in particular, or the nation, or the leaders, everything in Hos 7,3-12 is about “eating and being eaten”, as Eidevall put it (p. 122). Juan CRUZ has authored a contribution on the book of Micah. Using Benjamin Harshav’s WALKING TOWARDS/ENTERING.

8

D. VERDE

theories, Cruz shows that the daughter Zion metaphor and other metaphors form a network of metaphors that effectively conveys the suffering, the hope, and triumph of Jerusalem’s people. Many scholars contend that while Micah 1–3 contain the original sayings of the eighth century prophet, Micah 4–7 contain materials added by other authors in the sixth and seventh century BCE. Cruz, on the contrary, argues that the use of figurative language suggests the work of a final redactor, who tried to hold the book of Micah together and provided a fuller picture of the experiences of the people of Jerusalem through a network of different, but intertwined metaphors. Ryan P. BONFIGLIO investigates how shepherd imagery operates within a broader network of metaphorical expressions in the Second Zechariah (Zech 9–14). To do this, he addresses two main topics, namely (1) how different elements of the shepherding source domain are selected and used in order to describe different target domains, and (2) how the divine shepherd metaphors in Zech 9,16 and 10,3 mix with other metaphors, questioning whether the resulting blend of metaphors constitutes a genuine “mixed metaphor” for God. In addition, Bonfiglio argues suggestively that the effect of blending multiple metaphors in Second Zechariah is to create a kind of “verbal Rorschach inkblot”, in which readers can discern various images of YHWH simultaneously, depending on how they focus their eyes. At the turn of the Prophets and the Writings, Andrea L. WEISS contributes to the volume a chapter on the semantic and syntactic links between commingled metaphors in biblical poetry, devoting special attention to the prophetic texts as well as to the psalms. In her text, she discusses metaphorical word pairs (e.g., in Isa 64,7; Hos 5,14; 9,10; Ps 109,23), adjacent analogies (e.g., Jer 2,31-32; 14,8-9), and metaphoric clusters (e.g., in Hos 13,3; 13,7-8; Ps 18,3). In these cases, metaphors interact with relatively close proximity; however, there are other cases where multiple metaphors for the same referent are spread out throughout a larger biblical text. Weiss argues that “as the distance between metaphors expands, the perception of the metaphors as ‘mixed’ or incongruous diminishes” (p. 169). Since parataxis prevails in the Hebrew Bible, multiple metaphors usually appear in sequential statements, rather than within a single utterance. Consequently, we usually do not have the perception that in the Hebrew Bible metaphors are mixed in a haphazard way. Crossing the threshold of the third part of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings, Stefan M. ATTARD analyzes how different metaphorical images are buttressed together in Psalm 17. After describing the Sitz im Buch of the psalm in question (i.e., the group of Psalms 15–24), he provides its structure in light of the employed metaphors. Then he analyzes some particularly

ON THE INTERPLAY OF METAPHORS

9

significant metaphors, such as the representation of the enemy as a lion (v. 12), its interaction with the metaphor of God’s wings (v. 8), and the many body metaphors employed. After facing the crux interpretum of Ps 17,4.14b, Attard illustrates the many contrasts between the metaphors for the divine and the metaphors for the enemies, as well as the transition from the military scenario to the spousal one. In his view, “the believer in Psalm 17 is not content with mere protection from his foes by coming under God’s wings, but seeks a yet more intimate encounter with God” (p. 190). Grounded in cognitive metaphor theory, as well as in the deliberate metaphor theory of Gerard Steen, Ellen VAN WOLDE offers an analysis of four metaphorical clusters in Psalm 51. She differentiates between conventional and deliberate metaphors, arguing that “While conventional metaphors set the readers on the track of figurative reasoning, deliberate metaphors open people’s eyes for new dimensions in the world of the text” (p. 214). Van Wolde shows that these distinct metaphors shape a metaphorical network, in which the sum is more than its parts. Susanne GILLMAYR-BUCHER inquires into the fourth book of the Psalter (Psalms 90– 106) and argues that, after the sense of profound fragility and precariousness conveyed by Psalm 89, Psalms 90–106 insist on concepts of stability and continuity through their network of spatial and chronological metaphors. At the heart of this network lies the idea that God masters both space and time. According to Gillmayr-Bucher, spatial metaphors contribute to the construction of a “Thirdspace” that is the concept of a safe space fostering a different perception of the human space. Likewise, time metaphors convey God’s perspective on time, in light of which it is possible to cope with the limitations of human lifespan. Research into metaphorical networks also involves the analysis of how the same source domain is used to metaphorize different target domains. Tova L. Forti and Katharine J. Dell contribute a different perspective to the volume. In this regard, the first paper authored by Tova L. FORTI investigates how bird metaphors are used in didactic and psalmic literature to represent different realities, such as the fate of the evildoer and contrasting conditions of loneliness and intimacy. The analysis of bird metaphors is continued in a second paper, co-authored by Katharine J. DELL and Tova L. FORTI. Extending the analysis of bird metaphors to so-called “wisdom literature”, both biblical (mainly Proverbs and Job, but also Qohelet) and apocryphal (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon), Dell and Forti show how the sages used the family of bird metaphors to express a wide variety of ideas and metaphorize different realities, such as the spread of a curse and the importance of carefully choosing words; the mystery of creation and, ultimately, of human life; the ephemerality of life and our transitory

10

D. VERDE

path through this world. Following this is the study by Christopher B. ANSBERRY on the interconnections generated by the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES in the book of Proverbs. In Ansberry’s view, the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES cannot be considered a “megametaphor”, since “it is not the fundamental concept that underlies and unifies other metaphors in Proverbs” (p. 278). Nevertheless, the metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES “blossoms”, so to speak, namely it connects with other conceptual metaphors, such as ARROGANCE IS HIGH, DISSATISFACTION IS EMPTINESS, SATISFACTION IS FULLNESS, etc., and, in so doing, it enriches the book of Proverbs’ perspective on moral ontology and human discourse. Edward L. GREENSTEIN and Nehamit PERI show that in the book of Job speakers often respond to each other by using the same metaphor or conceptually related metaphors, although they develop the “recycled” metaphor(s) from their own perspective. This produces a chain of metaphors, in which the subsequent metaphors shed a different light on earlier ones. Greenstein and Peri contend that a full interpretation of a metaphor requires a thorough analysis of the entire chain to which that metaphor belongs, observing the various nuances and ironies that emerge when a metaphor responds to another. A second contribution on the book of Job is authored by Pierre VAN HECKE. He delves into the intricate web of metaphors in Job’s longest speech (chapters 12–14), focusing on metaphors that take some natural elements as their source domains to conceptualise Job’s fate and God’s involvement in it. Van Hecke shows that a number of different metaphors are employed in this speech, creating an intense dialogue between different metaphorical conceptualizations. Moreover, the metaphors used in Job 12–14 recall other identical or similar metaphors in other parts of the book, thus shaping a genuine network of natural metaphors. Moving from Job to the Song of Songs, Jean-Pierre SONNET observes another intriguing poetic phenomenon, the interweaving of metaphor and metonymy within clusters of images. By drawing on Sigmund Freud, Roman Jakobson, and Jacques Lacan, as well as on more recent studies in the field of psychoanalysis, Sonnet argues that “If metonymy translates the driving energy of desire, metaphor is desire’s most salutary metamorphosis” (p. 320). He contends that in the poem we can distinguish two different ways of clustering images, which correspond to two different dynamics of desire. The first is when metaphors induce metonymies, and the second is the other way around, when metonymies trigger metaphors. As Sonnet put it, “If metaphors flourish in the Song as miracles of (inter)subjective creation, they never mean the extinction of desire, which is always ready to bounce in its (metonymic) chase” (p. 328). Craig G. BARTHOLOMEW contributes a paper on the book of Qohelet or

11

ON THE INTERPLAY OF METAPHORS

Ecclesiastes. He argues that ‫ הבל‬functions as a megametaphor, as indicated by the envelope structure in 1,2 and 12,8, as well as by the many occurrences of the lexeme throughout the book. Such megametaphor organizes many other metaphors (see for instance Ecclesiastes 1). In Bartholomew’s view, Qohelet was a master of and mastered by metaphor, in the sense that, on the one hand, he constructed his entire worldview on the megametaphor “all is ‫ ”הבל‬and, on the other hand, even though he calls his epistemology “wisdom”, his metaphorical language and worldview put him in a very unenviable position, where he perceives wisdom as being very far away from him. Finally, Antje LABAHN concludes the volume opening up to future research on networks of metaphors in the Septuagint. She authors an essay on two conceptual metaphors in the Greek translation – which is more than a mere translation – of the book of Lamentations, (1) God as a cook, and (2) gleaning as process of total cooking. Alongside the metaphor of a gleaning cook, LamLXX presents further conceptual metaphors. Labahn focuses on the motifs of Exodus and captivity used throughout LamLXX as conceptual metaphors for permanent awful conditions in life. Enveloped by the Exodus tradition, this volume does not complete a full journey on the land of biblical metaphors; the hope is that other scholars would feel inspired to venture along the unfinished path that the authors contributing to this volume have outlined. KU Leuven Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Danilo VERDE

“WHO IS LIKE YOU AMONG THE GODS, O YHWH?” (EXOD 15,11) THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA*

The Song of the Sea (Exod 15,1-18) is a monumental text of the Hebrew Bible, a primary example of the crucial role of poetry in shaping Ancient Israel’s collective memory. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that scholarly research on such a milestone of biblical literature is restless1. Thus far, however, the interplay between different metaphors in the poem has received nowhere the extent of enquiry that it merits. Granted, individual metaphors, such as YHWH IS WARRIOR and YHWH IS KING, have been thoroughly investigated2 and the poem’s abundant use of ancient Near Eastern mythology and figurative language is well established3. Yet, the fact that the Song of the Sea is mainly made of mixed metaphors that, by constantly intertwining, shape a network of multiple interactions between the figures, asks for more attention4. Without claiming to be exhaustive, this paper inquires into the relationship between the different metaphors composing the Song of the Sea, looking for, on the one hand, what holds them together and, on the other hand, what the constant shifts of metaphor add to the poem’s discourse. Before getting to the heart of this essay, I shall explain my understanding of the poem’s literary arrangement, on which the successive metaphor analysis depends. * I would like to thank Georg Fischer, Francis Landy, and Jean-Pierre Sonnet for their generous and invaluable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper. I am also very grateful to Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher, Sigrid Eder, and Dorothea Erbele-Küster: our workshop on metaphors in the Song of the Sea during my visit to the University of Linz in March 2019 inspired much of the content of this paper. 1. For a general overview of scholarly research on Exod 15,1-18, see T.B. DOZEMAN, Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 326337. 2. E.g., S.W. FLYNN, YHWH Is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel (VT.S, 159), Leiden, Brill, 2014, pp. 47-58; T. LONGMAN – D. REID, God Is a Warrior (Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology), Carlisle, Paternoster, 1995, pp. 22-35. 3. E.g., J. DAY, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOT.S, 265), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2000, pp. 103-105, 114-116; M.S. SMITH, The Early History of God: Jahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco, CA, Harper, 1990, pp. 41-79; F.M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1973, pp. 112-144. 4. There is no consensus on the definition of “mixed metaphors”. This paper indicates metaphors drawing on different source domains. See K. SULLIVAN, Mixed Metaphors: Their Use and Abuse, London – New York, Bloomsbury Academic, 2019, pp. 18-23.

14

D. VERDE

I. THE FLOW OF THE DISCOURSE The issue of the so-called “literary structure” of the Song of the Sea has produced a number of different proposals5. A possible way of reading the flow of the discourse is to observe the poem’s main themes and the metaphors for YHWH, the main character. After linking the poem to the previous narrative (v. 1), the Song of the Sea presents two major themes, on the basis of which we can distinguish two poetic stanzas: I stanza: vv. 1-10; II stanza: vv. 12-18. These two poetic stanzas, which are separated by a rhetorical question emphatically repeated (v. 11, “Who is like you […] who is like you?”), correspond to the two main sections of the book of Exodus (I section: chapters 1–18; II section: chapters 19–40)6. The first theme is YHWH’s victory over the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds, which constitutes the focus of the first stanza and develops through the metaphor YHWH IS WARRIOR. The second theme is YHWH’s holy abode, a topic that holds the second stanza together through a series of different metaphors for God: YHWH IS SHEPHERD, YHWH IS REDEEMER, YHWH IS FARMER, YHWH IS BUILDER, and YHWH IS KING. The final verse (v. 18: “YHWH will reign forever and ever”) can also be considered an agile coda laconically concluding and summarizing the poem’s entire discourse about YHWH. Note that the catchwords “(right)hand/arm” (‫ימין‬/‫זרוע‬/‫ )יד‬that occur in vv. 6, 9, 12, 16, and 17 are metonymies for power. “Strength/power/force/ mighty” (‫עז‬/‫חיל‬/‫כח‬/‫אדיר‬/‫ )נאדר‬are key terms too, occurring in vv. 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 13. Likewise, “YHWH” (‫)יהוה‬, the divine name revealed to Moses, is one of most recurring words in the poem and is found in vv. 1, 3, 6, 11, 16, 17, and 18. The significance of these catchwords emerges when we consider that the Pharaoh was often represented as a divine warrior and that the motif of his victorious hand was widespread in the Egyptian propaganda7. The repetition of the divine name and the insistence on the belligerent YHWH and his powerful hand/arm in the Song of the Sea seem to be intentionally polemical and derisive: when the powerful God of Israel defeated the Pharaoh’s army, it turned upside down the Egyptians’ 5. E.g., J.P. FOKKELMAN, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis. Vol. 1: Ex. 15, Deut. 32, and Job 3 (SSN, 37), Assen, Van Gorcum, 1998, pp. 24-53; M. HOWELL, Exodus 15,1b-18: A Poetic Analysis, in ETL 65 (1989) 5-42; D.N. FREEDMAN, Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15, in ID., Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry, Winona Lake, IN, Eerdmans, 1980, 187-227. 6. For the role of the poem within the book, see G. FISCHER, Das Schilfmeerlied Exodus 15 in seinem Kontext, in Biblica 77 (1996) 32-47. 7. J.K. HOFFMEIER, The Arm of God versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives, in Biblica 67 (1986) 378-387.

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

15

delusional ideology without slaving away to do so (vv. 1-10)8. Through his powerful leadership, YHWH terrorized and defeated all enemies and led his people to safety to his holy abode, abode that he built with his own hands (vv. 12-18). In so doing, the poem succeeds in conveying its tone of astonishment for YHWH’s power, an astonishment that breaks out in the rhetorical questions of v. 11: Who is like you among the gods, o YHWH, Who is like you, mighty in holiness, fearsome in praise, worker of wonders9?

‫מי־כמכה באלם יהוה‬ ‫מי כמכה נאדר בקדש‬ ‫נורא תהלת עשה פלא‬

By splitting the poem into two stanzas, the rhetorical question in v. 11 occupies the central position. Notoriously, rhetorical questions are not genuine questions since they do not aim to gather information; rather, they are statements in disguise. The implied statement in Exod 15,11 can be phrased through Moses’ words in Exod 8,6: “there is nobody like YHWH our God”. The entire Song of the Sea seems to echo both the question (‫ )מי־כמכה‬and the implicit answer (‫ )אין כיהוה אלהינו‬contained in Exod 15,11, and aims at arousing the reader’s/listener’s wonder. Being poetry, the Song of the Sea develops its rhetoric of wonder10 mainly by interweaving metaphors, to which I now turn. II. YHWH’S VICTORY

AT THE

SEA OF REEDS

The metaphor YHWH IS WARRIOR clearly dominates the first stanza of the poem, in the sense that once it is anticipated in v. 1 (“horse and his rider he hurled into the sea”) and is explicitly installed in v. 3 (“YHWH is a man of war”), the entire stanza pictures the victory of YHWH over the Egyptians. Notoriously, the warlike representation of YHWH in Exod 15,1-10 has a number of parallels in both Ugaritic (Baal vs. Yam) and Babylonian mythology (Marduk vs. Tiamat)11. However, as Cross has rightly emphasized, Exod 15,1-10 radically transforms those myths, by presenting the sea – and the main elements of creation – as a weapon in YHWH’s hands, rather than as an enemy12. Upon close inspection, the military representation of 8. The motifs of the divine name and hand are quite recurring in the book of Exodus (e.g., 3,8.9.13,15.20; 4,17; 6,1.3.6; 7,5; 9,16; 18,9; 33,19; 34,5). 9. All biblical translations are mine, unless otherwise indicated. 10. On the rhetoric of wonder in Exod 15,11, see J.-P. SONNET, He Who Makes Wonders: God’s Mirabilia in the Hebrew Bible between Narrative and Poetry, in E. DI ROCCO (ed.), Astonishment: Essays on Wonder for Piero Boitani (Raccolta di studi e testi, 305), Roma, Edizioni di Storia e letteratura, 2019, 31-47, p. 42. 11. See note 3. 12. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (n. 3), pp. 131-132.

16

D. VERDE

overlaps and is mixed with a number of non-martial metaphors for himself, the Egyptians, the waters and the earth13. Several metaphors employ the domain BODY (e.g., “at the blast of your nostrils”, and “the heart of the sea” in v. 8). Others use the domains MINERALS (“like a stone” in v. 5; “like lead” in v. 10), FIRE (“you send out your fury” in v. 714), AGRICULTURE (“like straw” in v. 7), and ARCHITECTURE (“like a dam” in v. 815). In spite of the use of so many different source domains, all these metaphors fit together due to what cognitive linguistics calls “the verticality scheme” and “the shared entailments” between different domains. Within such a network of conceptually intertwined metaphors, a number of interactions between the figures is observable.

YHWH YHWH

1. Holding Multiple Metaphors Together Since our physical world is characterized by spatial relations (up/down; right/left; front/back), the human mind tends to understand and represent abstract concepts in spatial terms. Lakoff and Johnson called orientational conceptual metaphors the spatial schemes that we use to understand a wide variety of non-spatial realities (e.g., human qualities and emotions, social positions, hierarchical structures, etc.)16. For instance, expressions such as She’ll rise to the top, He’s climbing the ladder, He is at the bottom of the social hierarchy, She fell in status, etc., suggest that the human mind tends to conceptualize the experience of power, authority, prestige, and importance as “being up” and, conversely, weakness, subordination, failure, and inferiority as “being down”17. The conceptual metaphors MORE IS UP and LESS IS DOWN are cross-cultural and constitute some of the most fundamental schemes through which we think and talk18. Such a verticality scheme clearly opens and closes the first stanza of the Song of the Sea: while YHWH rises up majestically in v. 119, the enemies 13. In line with cognitive metaphor theory, I treat similes as types of metaphors. See B. DANCYGIER – E. SWEETSER, Figurative Language (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 137-150. 14. The association between ‫ חרון‬and fire is notorious. Here the fire imagery is also suggested by what follows: ‫תשלח חרנך יאכלמו כקש‬, “you send out your fury, it consumes them like straw”. 15. It is not very clear what the lexeme ‫ נד‬stands for. It seems to suggest the image of a dam or wall. See also Josh 3,13.16; Ps 33,7; 78,13. 16. G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980, pp. 14-21. See also M. JOHNSON, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 121-122. 17. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 16), p. 16. 18. DANCYGIER – SWEETSER, Figurative Language (n. 13), pp. 165-168. 19. Alter suggested that in Exod 15,1 ‫ גאה‬refers to the rising tide of the sea. Hence his translation, “He surged, O surged!”. R. ALTER, The Hebrew Bible. Vol. 1: The Five Books of Moses, London – New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 2018, p. 273.

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

17

sank like lead in mighty waters in v. 10. In other words, God’s triumph/ power and the enemy’s defeat/weakness are pictured along a vertical axis, in which YHWH and the Egyptians occupy the highest and the lowest position respectively. Since MORE IS UP, throughout the first stanza YHWH is pictured as overpowering the enemies from top to bottom: once risen up (v. 1), he hurled horse and his rider into the sea (v. 1), he cast the Egyptian infantry into the waters (v. 4), and he overthrew the enemies standing against him (v. 7). Furthermore, at his commands, waters piled up and stood up like a dam (v. 8). Since LESS IS DOWN, not only are the enemies pictured as covered by the abyss, they also go down like a stone (v. 5) and sink like lead (v. 10), while the deeps are congealed in the heart of the sea (v. 8). By marking the entire stanza, the underlying verticality scheme settles the question as who is MORE and who is LESS. If Exod 15,1-10 were a painting or the freeze-frame out of an action movie, it would suffice to look at who is UP and who is DOWN in order to grasp YHWH’s might and the Egyptians’ weakness with only one glance. The Song of the Sea employs a number of different source domains to picture the winner and the defeated, and, by so doing, it does not create a single unified image. For instance, we pass from visualizing YHWH as warrior (v. 3) to focus on his hand (v. 6), from seeing YHWH as a sort of monstrous being (vv. 7-8), to seeing waters piling up like a dam or a heap and being frozen in the “heart of the sea” (v. 8). We first picture the enemies as stones (v. 5), then as burned straw (v. 7), as ferocious creatures (v. 9), and, finally, as lead sinking into the waters (v. 10). Simultaneously, we see YHWH blowing with his breath and blasting from his nostrils (v. 10). Yet, all these disparate metaphors combine coherently, due to their shared entailment. By “shared entailment”, Lakoff and Johnson mean the same conceptual content that holds mixed metaphors together, making them conceptually coherent with one another and, therefore, easy for the reader’s/ listener’s mind to process20. In the first stanza, all metaphors address the same concept and follow the same purpose that is the representation of YHWH’s might versus the Egyptians’ weakness. According to many style manuals, mixed metaphors frequently result in illogical texts (and therefore they need to be avoided)21, yet this is not the case for Exod 15,1-10. Thanks to both the verticality scheme (MORE IS UP/LESS IS DOWN) and the shared entailments between different domains (YHWH’s might versus the Egyptians’ weakness), all metaphors are interconnected making the poem’s discourse everything but incongruous.

20. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 16), pp. 87-105. 21. See discussion and bibliographical references in the introduction to this volume.

18

D. VERDE

2. Interactions between Metaphors Not only does the constant mix of metaphors reinforce the text’s coherence, it is also what makes the poem’s discourse on YHWH’s might and the Egyptians’ weakness particularly compelling. Note, for instance, the striking contrast between the bodily metaphors for YHWH and the mineral metaphors for the enemies. YHWH’s frenzied body shapes a pulsepounding scene: his rising (vv. 1 and 7) is accompanied by waters surging at the blast of his nostrils (vv. 8-10) and by the earth breaking open at the stretching of his hand (v. 12). While he moves impetuously and acts vigorously (in vv. 4, 7-8, 12), the enemies, by contrast, are mostly inert: they just go down like a stone and like lead (vv. 5 and 10). On two occasions, the text does use bodily language for the enemies, but in order to underscore how overpowered they are and to emphasise the unequal character of the fighters: even though the enemies plan to despoil Israel with their hands (v. 9), they succumb to YHWH’s breath (v. 10); even though they are pictured as standing against God (v. 7), there is nothing that they can really do to resist YHWH’s overwhelming body. The enemies’ plans are tantamount to their frustration, their standing is just a prelude to their falling. Thanks to the metaphorical interaction between rhythm and sense, the shortness of these lines contributes to convey how easily the enemies are defeated (v. 7: ‫וברב גאונך תהרס קמיך‬, “When you rise majestically, you overthrow those who stand against you”; v. 10: ‫נשפת ברוחך כסמו ים‬, “You blew with your breath, the sea covered them”). Different metaphorical expressions are conceptually interconnected not only by contrast but also by conceptual proximity, which makes metaphorical expressions immediately understandable and, therefore, rhetorically very effective. This is the case for the metaphor of the fiery fury of God followed by the simile of the enemies like straw (v. 7). The association fire-straw is conceptually obvious, especially in agrarian cultures, and it is a stock image in biblical Hebrew poetry (e.g., Isa 5,24; 33,11; 47,14; Joel 2,5; Mal 3,19). Here it is made clear that the event at the Sea of Reeds is a mismatch rather than a genuine battle: how could straw possibly resist fire? How could the Egyptians possibly resist YHWH? In addition, different metaphors are intertwined also through cognate expressions, which work as attention-grabbing and relevance-producing literary devices; for instance, YHWH’s fury is said to consume/eat the Egyptians in v. 7. A few verses later, in v. 9, the Egyptians plan to fill their lust, while at the very beginning of the second stanza (v. 12) the earth is said to swallow them. In other words, the metaphor of fire eating straw seems to trigger the metaphor of the enemies, who want to eat their victims,

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

19

and the metaphor of the earth eating the Egyptians. In these verses, the conceptual domain EATING is clearly underlying the representation of YHWH, the Egyptians, and the earth, lending them something alike, namely they all seem to have bestiary treats. Indeed, the image of YHWH in vv. 8-9 recalls the image of a terrifying beast, steaming from his nose, so powerful that at the blast of his nostrils and by the blow of his breath he is able to move the waters. The enemies are equally epitomized by monstrous imagery too. Driven by a sort of inhuman lust, they appear to be like ferocious beasts, craving for devouring Israel (v. 9), a motif that is notoriously widespread in biblical Hebrew poetry, especially in the psalms. Tragically for the devourers, they are devoured by both YHWH and the earth. Through the chain of these metaphors, the stanza brings its core idea back up very dramatically and makes it cogent and emotionally very powerful: faced by YHWH, the Egyptians and their plans do not stand a chance; hence, Israel’s faith is not misplaced. Prior to proceeding to the second stanza, the relationship between socalled dead and alive metaphors in vv. 1-10 is worth considering. The distinction between these types of metaphors is well-established: dead metaphors are traditionally considered figures of speech that, due to frequent use, have lost their imaginative force and are not even recognized as metaphors anymore; alive metaphors, on the contrary, are “metaphors needing no artificial respiration, recognized by speaker and hearer as authentically ‘vital’ or ‘active’”, as Black put it22. Such trite classification has long been recognized as an unsatisfactory commonplace needing “drastic re-examination”23. It is only thanks to cognitive metaphor theory, however, that we fully realized that dead metaphors are not that dead, insofar as they rest upon very active conceptual metaphors24. We might even say that one of the most important shifts in metaphor studies occurred when Lakoff made “dead metaphors” the very focus of his theory25. If we followed the traditional classification, we could certainly say that some metaphors in the Song of the Sea are of the “dead-type”. For instance, in v. 2 the singers say: “This is my God, and I want to extol him/my father’s 22. M. BLACK, More about Metaphor, in A. ORTONY (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 21993, 19-41, p. 25. The distinction between dead and alive metaphors is at the foundation of Ricœur’s work La métaphore vive (1975). 23. I.A. RICHARDS, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York, Oxford University Press, 1936, p. 102. 24. See G. LAKOFF – M. TURNER, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1989, p. 129. 25. For a recent reconsideration of “dead metaphors”, see C. MÜLLER, Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View, Chicago, IL – London, University of Chicago Press, 2008, pp. 214-231.

20

D. VERDE

God, and I want to exalt him”. The polel form of the verb ‫ רום‬means “to exalt, extol” but also “to raise, rear, lift up”26. This double meaning seems to be grounded in the underlying metaphorical concept EXALTING SOMEONE IS PLACING SOMETHING AT THE TOP. When we look at the occurrences of the verb ‫ רום‬with the meaning of “to exalt”, it seems that the underlying metaphor is “asleep” (if not dead), namely it is not foregrounded (e.g., Isa 25,1; Ps 30,2; 99,5.9; 107,32; 118,28). Likewise, saying that “the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea” in v. 8 may be considered a mere common Hebrew way of referring to the profundity of the sea. It does imply the metaphorical conceptualization THE SEA IS A BODILY ORGANISM, but saying “the heart” instead of “the depth” is such a trite expression in Hebrew – and not only in Hebrew – that the entailed metaphor might not even be perceived. A similar case is the expression “I will bare my sword” in v. 9, an expression that is so commonly used in the Hebrew Bible that it can easily lose its figurative dimension (see, for instance, Lev 26,33; Ezek 28,7; 30,11). The hiphil form of the verb ‫ ריק‬literally means “to empty”27 and the idiomatic Hebrew expression “emptying the sword” seems to be a mere manner of speech based on a metonymy (emptying the sword instead of emptying the sheath). The question is that the classification of these expressions as “dead” serves no purpose and is even misleading, insofar as it prevents us from noticing the active role of these figures within the poem’s network of metaphors. The aforementioned verb ‫( רום‬v. 2), for instance, is perfectly in line with the verticality scheme of the first stanza, suggesting that it might have been used deliberately for its metaphorical character: singers raise their voice in praise to exalt YHWH, who shows his power by raising majestically (v. 1) and by making the waters raise against his enemies (vv. 7-8). Likewise, the reference to the heart of the sea (v. 8) reinforces the picture of the defeated and weak enemies, who can only go deep down into the waters, and is in line with the poems’ bodily language. Finally, what is noteworthy is the strong contrast between emptying the sword and filling the lust in v. 9, a contrast that can hardly be fortuitous and unconscious. It is true that the entire point of “dead metaphors” is to be unconscious, but their conceptual, visual, and communicative potential can easily and deliberately be awakened by both the writer/speaker and the reader/listener. Dead metaphors are never definitively dead. In sum, a chain of intertwined metaphors shapes a very busy scene in the first stanza of the Song of the Sea. While the metaphor YHWH IS WARRIOR certainly plays the major role, it develops by mixing several metaphors. 26. E. FIRMAGE – J. MILGROM – U. DAHMEN, ‫רום‬, in TWAT 6: 425-434. 27. B. KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, ‫ריק‬, in TWAT 6: 479-484.

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

21

The vertical scheme and the shared entailments between different domains hold together a network of metaphors reiterating the first stanza’s core idea, YHWH’s might. The whirlwind of metaphors contributes to a tempestuous military scene, a scene that is rhetorically very powerful. Caught in the net of the poem’s metaphors, the reader/listener can feel safe, trust in YHWH and, ultimately, join the choir: “My strength and my protection28 is Yah” (v. 2).

III. FROM

THE

SEA TO YHWH’S ABODE

As we enter, and make our way through the second stanza, we cannot fail to notice that even though in the background of vv. 12-18 the metaphor YHWH IS WARRIOR is still present, it gives way to other metaphors for the divine throughout the stanza. These metaphors are by no means disconnected from each other; on the contrary, they form a cluster, bound up with the main topic of the stanza that is YHWH’s abode. The motif of the divine abode can be considered a sort of “metaphor binding”, namely what integrates multiple metaphors in the larger discourse. At the same time, each of these metaphors sheds a different light on the main character of the poem, YHWH. From a stylistic point of view, the way different metaphors are mixed in vv. 12-18 seems somewhat different from vv. 1-10, suggesting the composite nature of the poem. At the same time, some metaphors and images interconnect the two stanzas, creating a sort of poetic uniformity that fosters the readers’ perception of the Song of the Sea as one poem. 1. The Fil Rouge Exod 15,12-18 extend the previous network of metaphors by introducing new metaphors for God, namely YHWH IS SHEPHERD (v. 13), YHWH IS REDEEMER (v. 16), YHWH IS FARMER (v. 17), YHWH IS BUILDER (vv. 17-18), and YHWH IS KING (v. 18). A detailed analysis of these metaphors goes far beyond the purpose and the possibilities of this section, which rather intends to focus on what interconnects these metaphors, as well as on what each metaphor adds to the poem’s discourse. 28. Although in several biblical passages ‫ זמרה‬clearly means “song” (e.g., Isa 51,3; Am 5,23; Ps 81,3; 98,5), the word-pair ‘z and ḏmr occurs in Ugaritic literature, conveying the ideas of strength/defence (KTU 1.108, 22-24). Nothing excludes the pun with the Hebrew ‫זמרה‬, “song”.

22

D. VERDE

The stanza opens with a transitional verse (v. 12) and the metonymy hand-power that, as Propp argues, is “Janus-faced, linked with both the preceding and the following verse”29: “You stretched out your hand, the earth swallowed them up”. On the one hand, v. 12 connects the second stanza to the previous one and to what YHWH’s hand did to the Egyptians: he made them drown in mighty waters and they were eaten by the earth (see supra), probably alluding to the subterranean underworld (‫ )ארץ‬as in 1 Sam 28,13; Isa 29,4; Ezek 26,10. On the other hand, v. 12 introduces the second part of the poem and the motif of the land (‫)ארץ‬. Note that the expression “the earth swallowed them up” closely recalls Num 16,30.32 opening a window on and anticipating somewhat those stories and events, in which YHWH’s hand will be against Israel’s rebellion. The first metaphor for God occurring in the second stanza is YHWH IS SHEPHERD. The presence of pastoral imagery in v. 13 does not easily emerge in modern translations, but the Hebrew text seems to allude to it, as some scholars recognize30: “You led (‫)נחית‬, in your steadfast love, this people that you redeemed / you guided them (‫)נהלת‬, in your strength, to your holy abode (‫”)אל־נוה קדשך‬. In the Hebrew Bible, the verbs ‫נחה‬, “to lead” and ‫נהל‬, “to give rest” sometimes indicate the way shepherds herd and graze their flock31. The lexeme ‫ נוה‬can simply connote “sojourn, dwelling place”, but it often indicates “pasture/abode of shepherd”32. None of these three lexemes, taken individually, establishes shepherd imagery – since each of them can also have non-pastoral meaning – but their co-occurrence in v. 13 makes the presence of the metaphor YHWH IS SHEPHERD very likely. Note the use of the expression “your holy abode”, to indicate the final destination of Israel’s journey under the leadership of YHWH. Exod 15,13 also refers to YHWH as the redeemer (“this people that you redeemed”). As Brueggemann explains, the verb ‫ גאל‬refers to economic action within a family in order to maintain family property (Lev 25:23ff.), or retributive terms to avenge in order to maintain family honor (Deut 19:6, 12). The image of the verb suggests something like family solidarity, in which Yahweh acts as a kinsperson for the maintenance and well-being of the family33. 29. See W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 2), New York, Doubleday, 1999, p. 528. 30. See, for instance, ibid., pp. 531-533; C. HOUTMAN, Exodus. Vol. 2: Exodus 7,14– 19,25 (HCOT), Kampen, Kok, 1996, pp. 287-288. 31. C. BARTH, ‫נָ ָחה‬, in TWAT 5: 334-342; A.S. KAPELRUD, ‫נָ ַהל‬, TWAT 5: 279. 32. H. RINGGREN, ‫נָ וֶ ה‬, in TWAT 5: 293-297. 33. W. BRUEGGEMANN, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1997, pp. 174-175. On the metaphor YHWH IS REDEEMER, see also P. NISKANEN, Yhwh as Father, Redeemer, and Potter in Isaiah 63:7–64:11, in CBQ 68

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

23

The idea of salvation as a sort of economic transaction introduced by ‫ גאל‬in v. 13 is reinforced by the verb ‫ קנה‬in v. 16 (“this people that you acquired”)34. The ultimate goal of YHWH’s redemption – probably in the sense of ransoming prisoners (e.g., Neh 5,8) or slaves (e.g., Exod 21,2; 24,24) – is to introduce his people in his abode that, in v. 17, is referred to as the mountain of God’s possession: “You will bring them, you will plant them on the mountain of your own possession”. Here the redeemer suddenly becomes a farmer and, in the second part of v. 17, a builder: “the place that you made your dwelling, O YHWH, the sanctuary that your hands have established, O Lord”. The poem ends in v. 18 by switching metaphor again: “YHWH will reign forever and ever”. The last metaphor for God, YHWH IS KING, follows the previous discourse coherently. Indeed, the Canaanite myth of Baal fighting against Yam (KTU 1.3.III.29-30; 1.3.VI.15-16), which in all likelihood is the textual model for the Song of the Sea, concludes with references to Baal’s royal enthronization in his palace/temple, on the mountain of his possession (ǧr nḥlty, KTU 1.3.III.30). Just as Baal in his palace/temple, YHWH performs his eternal kingship in his holy abode. In vv. 13-18, therefore, God’s dwelling place works as the fil rouge sewing all metaphors for YHWH together: after fighting for/in place of his people like a warrior, YHWH led (‫נהל‬/‫ )נחה‬them to his abode like a shepherd; he made them pass, the people that he bought (‫ )קנה‬like a redeemer (‫ ;)גאל‬like a farmer, he will plant them (‫ )נטע‬on the mountain on which his abode is located, the abode that he made (‫ )פעל‬and established ‫ כון‬with his hands like a builder; from that abode, he will reign (‫ )מלך‬like a king. The translation of the temporal aspect of Hebrew verbs in poetry in general, and in the Song of the Sea in particular, is a controversial matter, but if the proposed reading is correct YHWH’s abode is placed both in the past and in the future; it is both an occurred experience and an experience still to happen. This raises the question of (2006) 397-407; S.J. DILLE, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in DeuteroIsaiah (JSOT.S, 398), London, T&T Clark, 2004, pp. 78-84; C.R. NORTH, The Redeemer God: The Historical Basis of Biblical Theology, in Interpretation 2 (1948) 3-16. 34. When the verb ‫ קנה‬occurs in contexts of procreation and birth (Gen 4,1; Deut 32,6; Ps 139,13; Prov 8,22) it seems to mean “to engender”, although Ryan Thomas has recently argued that in West Semitic ‫ קנה‬never has the meaning “to (pro)create”. In his view, all occurrences can be explained as deriving from a single root with the basic meaning of “to acquire”. See R. THOMAS, ‫אל פנה אשרץ‬: Creator, Begetter, or Owner of the Earth?, in Ugarit-Forschung 48 (2007) 451-521. Whether or not Thomas is correct and contrary to what some scholars argue (e.g., Cross and Freedman, Propp), to my mind there is nothing that suggests the meaning of “to engender” in Exod 15,16. Rather, the parallel expression in v. 13 (‫עם־זו גאלת‬, “the people that you redeemed”) strongly supports the meaning of “to acquire” for ‫עם־זו קנית( קנה‬, “the people that you acquired”).

24

D. VERDE

the identification of the divine abode, an issue that is extremely complex and debated heatedly35. In my view, if the reader considers the narrative flow of the book of Exodus, to which the Song of the Sea now belongs, the reference to God’s abode in the poem can easily be linked to the Sinai, the book’s point of arrival. The Sinai is, so to speak, the “already” and the “not yet” in the sense that the final stop at the Sinai is anticipated at this point of the book through the literary technique called “prolepsis”; but also in the sense that the Sinai event is simultaneously something that has already happened, etched in the collective memory of the readers, and something that still has to take place in the book and in the reading experience. While referring to the Sinai, the poem also indicates Zion and its temple as YHWH’s abode, as several scholars pointed out36. Allusions to Zion and the Sinai are artfully blended, making the reader see double or, better stated, creating a sort of ambiguous figure (like the “eye beguiled” or “my wife and my mother-in-law” illustrations) that fluctuates in meaning depending on what the reader focuses on. We need to add that the land of Canaan seems to be evoked as well37. Like the Sinai, Canaan and Zion belong to both the past and the future, especially if we read the poem from the exile and post-exile perspective. The question of the identification of the abode is somewhat connected to the issue of the date of composition of the poem38 but, regardless of the text’s original intent, the readers of the poem, who have knowledge of the book of Exodus and the broader biblical story, can easily picture the Sinai, the land of Canaan, and Zion at the same time in vv. 12-18. God’s abode made the poet of the Song of the Sea think and talk of YHWH in many ways, namely as a shepherd, redeemer, farmer, builder, and king. Each of these metaphors conceptualizes the divine in its own way. 35. See PROPP, Exodus 1–18 (n. 29), pp. 533, 562-568. 36. Several textual elements evoke Zion and its temple, e.g., the use of the lexeme ‫נוה‬ in v. 13, a lexeme that elsewhere refers to Jerusalem (2 Sam 15,25; Isa 33,20; Jer 31,23; see also Ps 74,2); the expression ‫בהר נחלתך‬, “mountain of your own possession”, which recalls the already mentioned Ugaritic phrase (ǧr nḥlty) connected to Baal’s temple (KTU 1.3.III.30); the expression ‫ מכון לשבתך‬that only occurs in 1 Kgs 8,13 (and 2 Chr 6,2) to indicate the temple in Jerusalem. See PROPP, Exodus 1–18 (n. 29), pp. 562-565. 37. Canaan is explicitly mentioned in v. 15 and the Hebrew expression ‫עד־יעבר עם־זו‬ (v. 16) might refer to Israel’s crossing through the land. Additionally, the lexeme ‫נחלה‬ (v. 17) is notoriously one of the names for Canaan and the verb ‫( נטע‬v. 17) might refer to long-term settlement, as Propp suggests. See PROPP, Exodus 1–18 (n. 29), p. 567. 38. Contrary to a widespread understanding of the poem as one of the most ancient biblical texts, I hold that the final redaction of Exod 15,1-18 is relatively late. See M.L. BRENNER, The Song of the Sea: Ex 15:1-21 (BZAW, 195), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1991, pp. 11-21; T.B. DOZEMAN, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition, New York, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 154-158.

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

25

The metaphor YHWH IS SHEPHERD probably is one of the most well-known and best studied biblical metaphors for God39. In the Ancient Near East, shepherd imagery was widely used to characterize leadership, and in the Hebrew Bible it mainly (but not exclusively) conceptualizes YHWH’s leadership as caring and saving. In Exod 15,13, the metaphor YHWH IS SHEPHERD does not stand alone, but rather is surrounded by military imagery. The shepherd metaphor, indeed, is preceded by the description of the Egyptians’ military defeat at the hand of the God of Israel in vv. 110 and 12, and is followed by the motif of the conquest in vv. 14-15. Contaminated by such military context, in v. 13 the image of YHWH as shepherd acquires martial traits: YHWH simultaneously is a caring shepherd for Israel, and a menacing warrior for the enemies40. Such an overlap of pastoral and martial imageries succeeds in representing YHWH as a sure guide, able to lead his people, defend them from threats, and secure their future. To the sense of security conveyed by the shepherd/warrior image, the metaphor YHWH IS REDEEMER adds a profound sense of belonging: ‫גאל‬, indeed, recalls economic transactions and, at the same time, is kinship language41. Israel now belongs to YHWH, who has rights, as well as obligations, as the psalmist will remind him (Ps 74,2). YHWH IS FARMER (v. 17) adds a sense of prosperity. This picturing the divine as a farmer is common throughout biblical literature. Suffice it to mention the occurrences of the verb ‫נטע‬, “to plant”, having God as subject (e.g., Gen 2,8; Num 24,6; 2 Sam 7,10; Isa 5,2; Jer 2,21; Ps 44,3; 80,9.16; 104,16). In Exod 15,17, the metaphor YHWH IS FARMER seems to open a view to the future: the fact that YHWH will plant his people entails that he will make sure that their lives will flourish. From the sense of prosperity conveyed by the image of the farmer, the poem switches to the sense of solidity and sturdiness conveyed by the metaphor YHWH IS BUILDER (v. 17). The emphasis on YHWH’s commitment and effort is remarkable: “the place that you made your abode, O YHWH, the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established”. YHWH is a God actively engaged for the stability of his people, but also for the stability of his own power. Note the use of the title ‫אדון‬, “O Lord”, 39. See P. VAN HECKE, Pastoral Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, in R.P. GORDON – J.C. DE MOOR (eds.), Old Testament in Its World (OTS, 52), Leiden – New York, Brill, 2004, 200-217. 40. The overlap of shepherd and military imagery occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen 49,23-24; Isa 40,10-11; Zech 9,9-17; 10,3; Ps 80,1-3). See in this volume R. BONFIGLIO, The LORD of Hosts Cares for His Flock: Mapping the Shepherd Metaphor in Second Zechariah (139-155) 41. Mettinger insisted very much on the latter aspect, arguing that the main difference between ‫ גאל‬and ‫ פדה‬is that the former “underlines the blood tie linking the redeemer and the redeemed”. T.N.D. METTINGER, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1988, pp. 162-167, esp. p. 163.

26

D. VERDE

which in the Hebrew Bible always indicates a non-peer relationship (e.g., Gen 44,5; Exod 21,5; Num 32,25, 27; 2 Sam 11,11; Prov 30,10). When it is applied to God, ‫ אדון‬highlights his power and dominion (e.g., Isa 1,24; 3,1; 10,16; Ps 114,7)42. Security, belonging, prosperity, solidity, and power are summarized in the final metaphor, YHWH IS KING (v. 18), which stands out in the second stanza as the principal metaphor that includes all previous ones. As Brettler has shown, in the Hebrew Bible the metaphor YHWH IS KING is often accompanied by pastoral (e.g., Mic 2,12-13) and architectural language (e.g., Ps 78,69). Both agricultural and royal language are sometimes intertwined too (e.g., Num 24,5-7; 2 Sam 7,10-12). Note how the metaphors YHWH IS KING/REDEEMER/WARRIOR intertwine in Isa 44,6: “Thus says YHWH, Israel’s king, and his redeemer, YHWH of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God except me”. In the Song of the Sea, the metaphor YHWH IS KING is found at the very end of the poem as a kind of basin, into which the river of the previous metaphors naturally flows. The metaphor YHWH IS KING per se is very dense, and in the Hebrew Bible it is used to underscore different aspects of the divine, depending on the context in which it occurs. In Exod 15,18, one aspect seems to be particularly highlighted, the eternity of God’s power: “YHWH will reign forever and ever”. The phrase ‫ ]ל[עלם ועד‬is often used to express the wish for the everlasting duration of the king’s life and dominion, whether the earthly king or God (e.g., Ps 10,16; 21,5; 45,7.15.18; 89,37). In fact, wishes for the eternity of human kings (see also 1 Kgs 1,31; Neh 2,3; Dan 2,4; 3,9) were clearly hyperbolic, revealing the people’s genuine concern and hope for political stability. The death of a king usually implied or produced chaos and war, which were best to avoid. As for God, it is interesting to point out that in the Hebrew Bible references to God’s eternity are usually made in contexts related to his kingship43. In Exod 15,18, the profession of faith in YHWH’s everlasting kingship contains the same longing for security, prosperity, and stability highlighted by the second stanza’s metaphors (see supra) that in the Bible drives the people hope for the king’s longevity. The function of the metaphor YHWH IS KING seems to be to recapitulate the entire discourse, concluding the poem with great fanfare.

42. M.Z. BRETTLER, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOT.S, 76), Sheffield, JSOT, 1989, pp. 40-44. 43. Ibid., p. 52.

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

27

2. Intertwining Metaphors: A Cohesive Device Whereas a number of scholars take the Song of the Sea as an essentially unified poem (e.g., Cross, Muilenburg, Freedman, Howell, etc.), others argue for some sort of redactional development (e.g., Jeremias, Zenger, Butler, Norin, etc.)44. Both positions are grounded in the text that, on the one hand, appears to be profoundly unitary and, on the other hand, presents remarkable differences between its two parts. In my view, if we observe the stylistic use of metaphor and, more precisely, the stylistic way of mixing metaphors, the scales seem to tip in favour of redactional unity. Granted, the second stanza is as packed with metaphors as the first one and we find the same tendency to overlap metaphors. Nevertheless, the employed metaphors and the way they intertwine in the second stanza are less dizzying, giddy, chaotic and, so to speak, “baroque”. Note also that the up-down motif, which was crucial in vv. 1-10, disappears in vv. 12-18 and that the second stanza of the poem has a different focus, the abode rather than the defeat of the Egyptians. The fact that Exod 15,1-18 might be the result of some editorial work, the details of which are difficult to reconstruct, by no means implies that the two stanzas are poetically disconnected. On the contrary, figurative language seems to have been employed artfully as a cohesive devise. Since Halliday and Hasan wrote their seminal work Cohesion in English in 1976, the difference between a cohesive text and a mere set of utterances has been at the centre of scholarly debate in the field of linguistics45. According to Halliday and Hasan, a certain text has texture when it contains linguistic features, called ties, contributing to the passage’s total unity or cohesion. The term cohesion is often used as a synonym of coherence, although these are not interchangeable terms from the perspective of current psycholinguistics46. Whereas the former refers to linguistic ties between units of the text, the latter refers to the conceptual interconnections that the reader makes up during the reading process47. In the second stanza of the Song of the Sea, part of the employed imagery seems to work as a cohesive device giving texture to the poem. This is the case of the 44. Full bibliographical references in DOZEMAN, God at War (n. 38), p. 163, note 4. 45. M.A.K. HALLIDAY – R. HASAN, Cohesion in English (English Language Series, 9), London, Longman, 1976. 46. T. SANDERS – H. PANDER MAAT, Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches, in K. BROWN et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Amsterdam – London, Elsevier, 22006, 591-595, p. 592. 47. As van Wolde explains, coherence “is a dynamic interaction process between the text and the reader”. E. VAN WOLDE, The Creation of Coherence, in Semeia 18 (1998) 159174, p. 168.

28

D. VERDE

simile of the stone, the metaphor of the hand/arm, and the bodily images picturing the enemies. The simile of the enemy like stone is found in both the first (v. 5) and the second stanza (v. 16), but it would be a mistake to consider this repetition something merely pleonastic. In its two occurrences, indeed, the simile conveys different meanings: in v. 5 the Egyptians are said to go down in the deep like a stone, in v. 16 peoples are said to become still like a stone. The same simile shapes two contrasting images: the former is an image of continuous motion, the latter is an image of immobility. Granted, in both cases the adversaries are portrayed as being helpless and at the mercy of YHWH, but whilst in v. 5 the simile of the stone sinking into the waters pictures the inexorable character of the Egyptians’ defeat, their inability to resist YHWH’s power, in v. 16 it rather pictures the peoples’ freezing panic, their inability to react to YHWH’s power, the shock that prevents form both moving and talking (‫דמם‬, indeed, can mean both “be still” and “be silent”). On the one hand, by repeating the same simile (“like a stone”) the poem acquires linguistic and poetic cohesion and, on the other hand, by slightly modifying the simile the poem acquires more content and drama. Likewise, in the second stanza we find references to YHWH’s (right) hand/arm (vv. 12, 16, and 17) as in the first stanza (v. 6). The mention of YHWH’s hand/arm in v. 12 (“You stretched out your hand, the earth swallowed them up”) and v. 16 (“by the might of your arm, they became still like a stone”) is perfectly in line with the previous mention in v. 6 (“Your right hand, o YHWH, is mighty in power”): it is metonymy for God’s powerful action, which contrasts the enemies’ delusions in v. 9 (“My hand will despoil them”). In v. 17, however, the reference to the divine hand has a different nuance (“the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established”). Since here the active conceptual domain is not WAR but ARCHITECTURE, the metonymy of the hand does not foreground YHWH’s military might. Rather, it conveys his active engagement and personal commitment in building his sanctuary with his very hands, the sanctuary through which he intends to establish his dominion, as the final metaphor makes clear (“YHWH will reign forever and ever”). The previous image of the warrior’s hand, which destroys and terrifies, here gives way to the image of the builder’s hand, which founds and edifies. In so doing, what the entire Exodus is about is revealed: it is not a mere military victory, a mere deployment of power; rather, it is the foundational event of YHWH’s kingdom. Again, the use of the metonymy “YHWH’s hand/arm” in the second stanza certainly gives cohesion to the poem by connecting the metaphor of the warrior to the metaphor of the architect and, ultimately, to the metaphor

THE INTERWEAVING OF METAPHORS IN THE SONG OF THE SEA

29

of the king. At the same time, it adds new content and it even sheds light on the very sense of both the poem and the entire book of Exodus. In the second stanza, except for the mention of God’s hand, bodily images mainly occur in connection to the enemies, while in the first stanza it was YHWH’s body to be foregrounded (see supra). In v. 14, peoples are said to quake and the Philistines are described as seized by anguish. Likewise, in v. 15 trembling seized the leaders of Moab and the Canaanites are said to melt away. Even though no terms for body parts are used here, these expressions refer to physical responses to fear and, thereby, they do create bodily images. Through the metonymy “bodily effect/sensation for emotional cause”, the poem does not merely speak of the peoples’ panic (emotional cause), it makes us visualize their quailing bodies (bodily effect/sensation). The twice used verb ‫אחז‬, “seize, grasp, take hold, take possession”, might refer to some of the most common bodily responses to terror, namely being physically unable to escape (“anguish seized the inhabitants of Philistia”) and to stop trembling (“trembling seized them”). Even the verb ‫מוג‬, “to melt”, which in biblical Hebrew is often used metaphorically to express terror48, might metonymically refer to sweating and/ or to the increased blood circulation, which are typical bodily reactions responsible for the physical sensation of melting during experiences of intense fear. The bodily images for the enemies, which emphasize the peoples’ terror in the second stanza, contrast the bodily images for YHWH, which emphasize his might in the first stanza. A sort of metaphoric diptych, contrasting the majestic body of YHWH and the powerless bodies of the enemies, stands in front of the reader’s eyes. At the same time, the image of the solid bodies of the enemies melting away (v. 15) contrasts with the image of water currents that solidifies (vv. 8-9). Through its interconnected figures, the song reiterates its main theme, “YHWH’s might versus enemies’ weakness” and acquires poetic and thematic cohesion. In sum, even though the poem might not be unitary on the authorial level as several scholars suggest, the presence of shared imagery that sews the two stanzas together works as a cohesive device that fosters the perception of the Song of the Sea as a unitary composition. IV. CONCLUSION As Ricœur argued, “A metaphor never comes alone. One metaphor calls for another and all together they remain alive thanks to their mutual 48. E.g., Josh 2,9.24; 1 Sam 14,16; Isa 14,31; Jer 49,23; Ps 46,7; 107,26.

30

D. VERDE

tension and the power of each to evoke the whole network”49. In the Song of the Sea, on the one hand individual figures contribute to the poem their conceptual, pictorial, and communicative power – this even applies to so-called “dead metaphors” that in the poem are very much alive. On the other hand, albeit different from one another, the multiple metaphors composing the Song of the Sea are coherently intertwined and work as a net holding the entire poem together. All in all, the poem’s metaphors might be read as an attempt to answer the rhetorical questions in v. 11, “Who is like you?” (‫)מי־כמכה‬. While addressing the divine, the rhetorical question “Who is like you?” also triangulates the reader50. In poetry questions posit a relationship between the lyric voice and the listener, and the latter is expected to reply to the former51. If it is true, as Hollander contends, that poetic questions can only generate poetic answers52, this is even more true when it comes to the divine that is conceivable only through the poetic creation of multiple, intertwined metaphors – the Song of the Sea docet. KU Leuven Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Danilo VERDE

49. P. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics, in Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148, p. 94. 50. For the phenomenon of triangulated address in lyric texts, see J.D. CULLER, Theory of the Lyric, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2015, pp. 186-187. 51. D. FELDMAN, Poetry in Question: The Interrogative Lyric of Yeats’s Major Poems, in Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 12 (2014) 87-105, p. 88. 52. J. HOLLANDER, Melodious Guile: Fictive Pattern in Poetic Language, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1988. See especially the chapters “Questions of Poetry” (pp. 1840) and “Poetic Answers” (pp. 41-63).

THE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION OF METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

Deuteronomy 4 has generated considerable scholarly intrigue over the years, not only for its source-critical and literary complexity, but also for its theological richness1. It has been described as a “shibboleth” for the literary criticism of Deuteronomy2, and “a hermeneutical key for the rest of the book”3. The chapter serves as both the book’s theological overture and its summit. It is striking, then, that in rhetorical discussions of the text, little attention has been paid to its metaphorical language or landscape, features that can play such a key role in a text’s rhetorical strategy4. When individual words or phrases become the dominant focus, it is easy to ignore the broader canvas of the writer’s imagination, the pictures or back-drop being created by the words5. I. METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE IN DEUT 4,1-40 The culmination of Moses’ first speech in Deut 4,1-40 sets a striking paraenetic tone, introducing the book’s explicit warning against aniconism and idolatry. It is a prime example of catechesis, as Olson characterises the book as a whole, “a process of education in faith from one generation 1. For summaries of the history of its interpretation, see A.D.H. MAYES, Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy, in JBL 100 (1981) 23-51; N. MACDONALD, The Literary Criticism and Rhetorical Logic of Deuteronomy I–IV, in VT 56 (2006) 203224; J.G. MILLAR, Living at the Place of Decision, in J.G. MCCONVILLE – J.G. MILLAR (eds.), Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT.S, 179), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, 15-88, pp. 32-35; G.T. BEGG, The Literary Criticism of Deut. 4,1-40, in ETL 56 (1980) 20-55. 2. G. BRAULIK, Literarkritik und die Einrahmung von Gemälden, in RB 96 (1989) 266286, p. 266. 3. MILLAR, Living at the Place of Decision (n. 1), p. 34. 4. An exception to this, although metaphorical language is only named explicitly once, is Millar’s rhetorical study of time and place in Deuteronomy (Living at the Place of Decision [n. 1]). There are strong resonances between his approach to the text and this present study, although here I am probing the interpretation of individual word pictures in connection to metaphor clusters. 5. For a brief discussion of how a focus on Deuteronomy’s distinctive vocabulary has impacted the study of the book, see J.G. MCCONVILLE, Metaphor, Symbol and the Interpretation of Deuteronomy, in C. BARTHOLOMEW – C. GREENE – K. MÖLLER (eds.), After Pentecost: Language & Biblical Interpretation (Scripture and Hermeneutics, 2), Carlisle, Paternoster; Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 2001, 329-331.

32

A. GRAY

to another”6. Weinfeld cites Deut 4,9-10 in a list of key passages that manifest Deuteronomy’s “strong didactic temper”7. Metaphor clusters are often used in didactic texts because of their affective dimension – their ability to trigger emotions, to challenge or persuade: Metaphors are sparing of words yet capable of prompting reflection in ways that compel the reader or listener to regard a topic in a new or different light. In other words, metaphors teach, and they do so by reorienting the readers’ perception8.

This text therefore provides fruitful ground for an exploration of the rhetorical function and impact of particular metaphor clusters that frame or underpin Moses’ message. As this paper will demonstrate, the network of metaphors in Deuteronomy 4 frames and helps to express a powerful message, whilst also facilitating a literary transition between the historical/ paraenetic narrative of Israel’s wanderings in chapters 1–3 and the Decalogue that follows in chapter 5. Although recent decades have witnessed a proliferation of metaphor studies in biblical texts, the vast majority of these have focussed on imagery in wisdom literature, or in poetic and prophetic texts. Previous studies of Deuteronomy have tended to focus on vocabulary, literary style, source criticism and redaction history, rather than primarily on metaphors9. Unlike other parts of the Hebrew Bible, the book of Deuteronomy is not kaleidoscopic in its array or density of metaphors, yet the text framing the central law-code provides a colourful backdrop to Moses’ speeches to Israel, replete with bold images of God and Israel, persuasive pictures of how to live well, and symbolic landscapes. All of this is set within the narrative of Israel’s journey with God from Egypt to the promised land, which 6. D.T. OLSON, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1994, p. 11. With Brian Britt, I agree that there are issues with Olson’s vocabulary of “faith” here, but the term “catechesis” yields valuable insights into the dynamic rhetoric of Deuteronomy. See B. BRITT, Remembering Narrative in Deuteronomy, in D.N. FEWELL (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016, 157-167, p. 161. 7. M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 5), New York, Doubleday, 1991. 8. W.P. BROWN, The Didactic Power of Metaphor in the Aphoristic Sayings of Proverbs, in JSOT 29 (2004) 133-154, p. 152. 9. See note 1. A notable exception is MCCONVILLE, Metaphor (n. 5), pp. 329-331. Metaphors in Moses’ song (Deut 32) have also attracted considerable interest. See L.J. CLAASSENS, “I Kill and I Give Life”: Contrasting Depictions for God in Deuteronomy 32, in OTE 18 (2005) 35-46; M.P. KNOWLES, “The Rock; His Work Is Perfect”: Unusual Imagery for God in Deuteronomy XXXII, in VT 39 (1989) 307-322; S. DILLE, The Rock That Gave You Birth, in Classical Bulletin 86 (2010) 37-65.

METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

33

provides one of the most fundamental and dominant ethical metaphors in the book, that of “pathway”10. In the prose of the book of Deuteronomy, however, figurative language is skilfully interwoven with non-figurative language, and is consequently much less obvious. This is evident from McConville’s discussion of metaphor in Deuteronomy11, which aims to provide a sketch of “what the book’s symbolic world looks like”12. Metaphors and symbols are discussed briefly under the following theological topics: “kingship, treaty, land, the divine name, the brotherhood of Israelites, circumcision”13. It is striking, however, that Deuteronomy’s central metaphor and structuring device of journey is not included in this list. It is described instead as a “theology of place and ‘journey’” and only in passing, later, as a metaphor14. Similarly, in Millar’s discussion of time and place in Deuteronomy, although the language of the motif and rhetoric of journey is prevalent, he only once describes it (Israel’s journey in Deuteronomy 1–3) as a metaphor: “The ‘journey’ is a pregnant metaphor for life with Yahweh”15. This provokes some significant questions about the analysis of metaphors in prose texts in general, and the relationship between narrative and metaphor. It seems that what McConville calls “symbol-systems” could equally be expressed as networks or clusters of metaphors. In densely packed “visual” prose texts it is possible to overlook individual metaphors, because they blend into the imagery (and often rhetoric) of the whole passage. Indeed, there are good grounds for regarding figurative and non-figurative language as being on a spectrum16. This is particularly helpful to bear in mind when analysing narrative texts, in order to appreciate the images that are created by individual expressions as well as whole texts. In the case of Deuteronomy 4 (and this may well be true of the whole book), the image of path or journey is perhaps so obvious or so worn that it frequently does not receive the attention it deserves at the level of individual expressions. As Brown notes, “For the metaphor to work, an understanding of both domains must be gained before new insight is achieved”17. 10. Millar bases his discussion of time and place in Deuteronomy around the concept of journey. See MILLAR, Living at the Place of Decision (n. 1). 11. MCCONVILLE, Metaphor (n. 5), p. 342. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., p. 333. 14. Ibid., p. 335. 15. MILLAR, Living at the Place of Decision (n. 1), p. 32. 16. See D. AARON, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2001. 17. BROWN, The Didactic Power of Metaphor (n. 8), p. 135.

34

A. GRAY

In the case of pathway metaphors, then, it will be worth looking again at their source domains, so that we can see the conceptual associations being triggered by the metaphor, and gain insight into their performative function, or perlocutionary force18. Recent work in New Testament rhetorical criticism seems particularly well-suited to facilitate such an imagefocussed reading. II. INSIGHTS FROM RHETOGRAPHICAL EXEGESIS Borrowing insights from New Testament scholars Vernon Robbins and Roy Jeal, metaphor-oriented studies can benefit from rhetographical interpretation, which foregrounds the visual dimension of didactic texts. The term “rhetography”, coined by Robbins, describes “the graphic images people create in their minds as a result of the visual texture of a text”19. The language and ideas about rhetography overlap considerably with those found in biblical metaphor studies, e.g., phrases such as “seeing as” or “picturing as”, or talking about the “metaphorical landscape” of a text20. Roy Jeal, writing about the rhetorical art in Colossians21, describes how people reading or listening to literature are “drawn into the visuality, into what amounts to the visual art, of the texts” and how words and pictures “intersect in the mind, in the visual imagination”. One of his penetrating insights is that “the visual space [of a text] is often blurred 18. In discussions of biblical metaphor, a distinction is sometimes made between the informative and performative functions of metaphor, i.e., between a more descriptive function and one that persuades or warns. See, for instance, K. NIELSEN, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOT.S, 65), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989, pp. 56-60. Brown simply adopts the language of Speech Act Theory (see, for instance, J.L. AUSTIN, How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1962; J.R. SEARLE, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, London, Cambridge University Press, 1969), describing metaphor’s perlocutionary force. See BROWN, The Didactic Power of Metaphor (n. 8), p. 139. For a discussion of metaphor from the perspective of literary pragmatics, see M.-Y. TSENG, The Performative Potential of Metaphor, in Semiotica 180 (2010) 115-145. Contra Tseng, however, Brown’s aforementioned article demonstrates that a cognitive view of metaphor is indeed quite compatible with a performative one. 19. V.K. ROBBINS, Rhetography: A New Way of Seeing the Familiar Text, in C.C. BLACK – D.F. WATSON (eds.), Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy’s Rhetoric of the New Testament, Waco, TX, Baylor University Press, 2008, 81-106, p. 81. 20. See chapter 2 in A. GRAY, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor (BIS, 127), Leiden, Brill, 2014. 21. R.R. JEAL, Blending Rhetorical Arts in Colossians 2:6–3:4, in V.K. ROBBINS – W.S. MELION – R.R. JEAL (eds.), The Art of Visual Exegesis: Rhetoric, Texts, Images (Emory Studies in Early Christianity, 19), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2017, 55-88; all three following quotations are from pp. 57-58.

METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

35

or muted because interpreters become conditioned to analyzing the words and avoiding the images evoked in the mind”. This is precisely what seems to have happened in studies of Deuteronomy 4. The visual landscape has become muted due to a preoccupation with particular words and phrases, and the frequently changing forms of address (Numeruswechsel)22. Even when an explicitly literary reading is presented, with particular attention to images, there is no discussion of metaphor, nor a probing of images beyond individual words or word-pairs23. In poetic texts, metaphors provide an essential part of the fabric of interpretation. In prose texts, however, the clusters are less obvious and the relationship between the metaphors and the text in which they are embedded is more nuanced. By using the concept of rhetograph, we can explore the features of Deut 4,1-40 that are designed to elicit a response from its readers/listeners. A rhetograph is likened by Jeal to a visual space that tells a story, with a “foreground, a mid-ground, and a background”, and characters at the centre or periphery of the focal point24. He draws on Ezra Pound’s concept of phanopoeia, “the casting of images on the visual imagination”25, which describes an aspect of literature’s rhetorical power to affect its readers. Turning to Deut 4,1-40, we will pay attention to the “lines of sight” that are created by the text, and to the question of who is at the centre of the picture. What I offer here, then, is a visual reading of what I see as the key structural features of the chapter’s imagery and rhetoric. It will focus primarily on the horizontal visual plane of path or journey as the underlying metaphorical model, and then on the cosmic background of heaven and earth creating a vertical space as a setting for God’s self-revelation and the gift of the covenant at Horeb, which defines God’s relationship with Israel. In this way we can explore what the text invites us to see and hear, emphasised in the text itself by the repetition of the commands ‫ראה‬, “see!” and ‫שמע‬, “hear!” (Deut 4,1.5). It is only within such a visual interpretation that the phanopoiea (the meanings and impact of particular metaphors) can be grasped afresh by our imaginations. 22. Braulik, for example, focuses on individual lexemes or motifs rather than images or metaphors. See G. BRAULIK, Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik: Erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4,1-40 (AnBib, 68), Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. MacDonald’s analysis of Deuteronomy 1–4 focuses rather on themes. See MACDONALD, The Literary Criticism (n. 1), pp. 212-223. 23. E.g., S.A. GELLER, Fiery Wisdom: Logos and Lexis in Deuteronomy 4, in Prooftexts 14 (1994) 103-139. 24. JEAL, Blending Rhetorical Arts (n. 21), p. 66. 25. E. POUND, How to Read, New York, Haskell, 1971, pp. 25-26, quoted in JEAL, Blending Rhetorical Arts (n. 21), p. 63.

36

A. GRAY

III. THE VISUAL SPACE OF DEUT 4,1-40 The whole of Deuteronomy, presented as Moses’ valedictory sermon, is shaped by two axes: a temporal one, in which Israel’s present, past, and future relationship with God are interwoven26, and a geographical one. Along this placial trajectory, the book begins in the wilderness, looks back to the Exodus, and looks forward to the promised land, while also reaching further into the future, to exile and return27. Both of these axes are present in microcosm in chapter 4, creating a telescopic view of history that gives Israel’s relationship with YHWH cosmic significance28. First we will trace the cluster of metaphors around the theme of pathway and its intersection with the journey Israel is on. Then we will look at a distinctive feature of the temporal axis in chapter 4 that stretches right back to creation and intersects with the visual space of the rhetograph in the events at Horeb and the word pair “heaven and earth”. 1. Pathway Metaphor Clusters in Deut 4,1-40 The very opening of chapter 4 pulls the reader/listener29 back towards the preceding narrative, with the consequential “so now” (‫)ועתה‬. What follows builds on Israel’s collective experience of the journey through the wilderness in chapters 1–3, which has provided the “hermeneutics of history”30. That is, the paraenesis for the present and future is dependent on the experience of the past31. Immediately we are presented with the command to hear Moses’ instruction to keep the statutes and ordinances, so that the Israelites might live long in the land they are about to inherit. The external, geographical pathway lies behind, with the final destination of the promised land almost within reach. As part of the continuing journey, 26. L. RYKEN – J.C. WILHOIT – T. LONGMAN III (eds.), Deuteronomy, Book of, in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Downers Grove, IL, Inter-Varsity, 1998, 205-206, p. 206a. 27. MILLAR, Living at the Place of Decision (n. 1), p. 15. 28. See MCCONVILLE, Metaphor (n. 5), p. 112. 29. Part of Deuteronomy’s rhetorical power lies in its ability to address the current reader/listener in the second person, “today” (‫ )היום‬whilst narrating a speech to Israel given by Moses. The text therefore presents the current reader/listener with the same instructions and ethical choices that were set before Israel. For a discussion of how the Moab generation is conflated with the Horeb generation, see MILLAR, Living at the Place of Decision (n. 1), pp. 41ff. 30. P.D. MILLER, Deuteronomy (Interpretation), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1990, p. 54; WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11 (n. 7), p. 199. 31. J.R. LUNDBOM, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2013, p. 231; GELLER, Fiery Wisdom (n. 23), p. 3.

METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

37

an expected pathway of behaviour is set before them, namely to fulfil all the commandments, no more and no less, in order to have life (vv. 1 and 40). Although the command is to hear rather than to walk, the sharp command to listen to the statutes and ordinances is firmly connected to action (‫)לעשות‬, to life (‫)למען תחיו‬, and to the destination (‫)ובאתם וירשתם את־הארץ‬. In the following verse, the commandments are connected to the verb ‫שמר‬, and it is this verb that triggers such strong conceptual associations with journeys throughout the book of Deuteronomy. Note here some examples of ‫ שמר‬being used in conjunction with pathway and journey imagery32: Deut 5,32; 8,6; 13,5; 26,17; 28,13-14; 30,16. From these verses, we can begin to see the web of metaphor clusters in Deuteronomy, centring around the following metaphorical models33: – – –

LIFE IS A JOURNEY COMMANDMENTS34 ARE PARTICULAR PATHS ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR IS WALKING ON PARTICULAR PATHS: TURNING ASIDE FROM THE PATH IS DISOBEDIENCE; FOLLOWING THE PATH IS OBEDIENCE; TURNING ASIDE FROM THE PATH IS TO FOLLOW OTHER GODS

– –

TO LISTEN TO THE COMMANDMENTS IS TO KEEP TO THE PATH TO FOLLOW THE RIGHT PATH IS TO STAY CLOSE TO GOD

Within this complex of models, YHWH’s voice is used metonymically for his commandments, so to hear God’s voice is to listen to his words in the commandments (13,5; see also 30,16). Obedience is bound up with worshipping YHWH alone and staying in God’s presence, since to turn aside from the path is associated with worshipping other gods (28,14). To keep the commandments is to do them (5,32; 8,6), which is to walk in God’s ways, without turning aside to the right or to the left (28,14). A key 32. The verb plays a significant role in Deuteronomy. Out of 373 occurrences of the verb in the qal, 58 are in Deuteronomy (66 in the deuteronomistic history and 62 in the book of Psalms). Out of 37 occurrences in the niphal, 13 are in Deuteronomy. The verb is a characteristic element of Deuteronomic rhetoric: ‫ שמר‬+ ‫ עשה‬Deut 5,1.32; 6,3.25; 7,11; 8,1; 11,22.32; 12,1; 13,1[12,32]; 15,5; 17,10.19; 19,9; 24,8; 28,1.15.58; 31,12; 32,46. Other pairings include: ‫ שמר‬+ ‫ הלך‬3×;‫ שמר‬+ ‫ צוה‬12×; ‫ שמר‬+ ‫ שמע‬7×. 33. Here I follow the now conventional signification in cognitive semantic studies of putting key metaphors in small capital letters. However, as I have argued elsewhere, I do not consider these to be strictly metaphors but metaphorical models or underlying analogies – these are the concepts that generate specific verbal expressions that are metaphors. See GRAY, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures (n. 20), pp. 13-14, 22-24. These are very similar to the pathway metaphors in Proverbs 1–9 discussed by the general term “pathway imagery” by Weeks. See S. WEEKS, Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007. 34. Including ‫חקים‬, ‫ משפטים‬and ‫מצות‬.

38

A. GRAY

experience that provides part of the background to this metaphor is found in Deut 2,27. The messengers sent to Sihon, king of Heshbon, ask for safe passage through his land: Let me pass through your land; I will only go on the path, not turning to the left nor to the right

‫אעברה בארצך בדרך בדרך אלך‬ ‫לא אסור ימין ושמאול‬

An almost identical situation is described in Num 20,17ff. between messengers and the king of Edom. This demonstrates the persuasive force of a metaphor drawn from a real-life experience, that of sticking to a particular path in the context of negotiating safe passage through foreign territory. It creates what William Brown describes as an “effective metaphor”, one that “stands on the ground of shared knowledge and builds on such knowledge in a way that elicits new inferences and connections”35. Since the Israelites would have understood the concept of walking along a particular path as part of a political agreement, it provides an ideal source domain to be mapped onto the idea of obedience in the context of a covenantal agreement with YHWH, and thus forms a key ethical motif in the book (e.g., Deut 5,32; 28,14)36. The rhetorical power of this particular metaphor in Deut 5,32 and 28,14 comes from the various mappings from the source domain (a literal journey with an agreed, specified path) and the target domain (life in relationship with God). Keeping the commandments in Deut 4,2, then, has the ability to trigger any number of these image clusters in the constellation of the pathway models outlined above. In vv. 3-4 the metaphor clusters that constellate around the pathway model are key to understanding the word-pictures. The listener/reader is asked to look back, to remember what they have already seen: what the Lord did with those who followed (i.e., worshipped) Baal-Peor (see Num 25,1-5; Hos 9,10)37. They are presented with two groups of people, illustrated with powerful metaphors: those who went after (‫ )הלך אחר‬the Baal of Peor were destroyed, and “you” who clung to the Lord (‫ואתם‬ ‫)הדבקים ביהוה‬, who are alive today. Because of the immediacy of the call to heed Moses’ words and the use of the second person, the metaphors function as a choice to identify with those who followed after another god, and those who stuck closely to the Lord. One path resulted in death, the other in life. However, the language here needs a closer look. The 35. BROWN, The Didactic Power of Metaphor (n. 8), p. 135. 36. For an explanation of Lakoff and Johnson’s language of source and target domains, see G. LAKOFF – M. TURNER, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 38-39. For a summary discussion of cognitive metaphor theory, see GRAY, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures (n. 20), pp. 22-24. 37. Again, this is not within their particular experience, but Israel’s collective memory.

METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

39

conventional translation of cling or adhere for ‫דבק‬, does not sufficiently bring out the image of the two contrasting pathways that underpin the text’s rhetoric. It seems that the translation of ‫ דבק‬as “holding fast”38, or “cleave”39 in theological contexts seems to have been unduly influenced by its occurrence in Gen 2,24, describing a man leaving his parents to “cling” to his wife, often interpreted as a static image of an embrace (see Ruth 1,14)40. However, there is no reason why it may not have a dynamic sense of pursuing or following after in each of these cases. Other occurrences of the verb are in contexts of following or pursuing, frequently in battle41. Lundbom, following Driver42, describes it as “a Deuteronomic expression for showing loyal devotion”, and interprets its parallel expression (‫הלך‬ ‫ )אחרי‬as judicial, meaning “serve”43. Both expressions may well convey worship44, but that does not take away from their underlying conceptual image being one of following closely behind someone (see the use of ‫הלך‬ ‫ אחרי‬in Jer 2,5, where it is contrasted with going far away from YHWH). Its use in 2 Kgs 18,6 is particularly instructive here: And he stuck closely to the Lord, not turning aside from following him, but kept the commandments that the Lord had given to Moses45.

‫וידבק ביהוה לא־סר מאחריו וישמר מצותיו‬ ‫אשר־צוה יהוה את־משה‬

Here it occurs in collocation with ‫סור‬, “turn aside”, found several times, as here, in association with turning away from the commandments (e.g., Deut 5,32; 28,14). If we look at other instances of ‫ דבק‬in Biblical Hebrew, it is frequently found with the sense of “following closely behind”. In the story of Ruth, the verb describes the action of keeping close to the women in the field for safety, and of following behind the young men in order to glean46. 38. E.g., ESV; NRSV; NIV; WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11 (n. 7), p. 201; D.L. CHRISDeuteronomy 1–11 (WBC, 6A), Dallas, TX, Word Books, p. 77. 39. KJV; JPS (1917); S.R. DRIVER, Deuteronomy, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1895, p. 64. 40. The Genesis reference is cited by Lundbom in his commentary on Deut 4,4: LUNDBOM, Deuteronomy (n. 31), p. 237. 41. See Gen 19,19; 31,23; Judg 18,22; 20,42.45; 1 Sam 14,22; 31,2; 2 Sam 1,6; 20,2; Jer 42,16; 1 Chr 10,2, etc. This is not to deny the sense of “cling” elsewhere (e.g., Ezek 3,26; Ps 22,15; Job 19,20, etc.), but the frequent collocation of ‫ דבק‬with other verbs of movement in theological contexts strongly suggests that these occurrences need to be re-evaluated. 42. DRIVER, Deuteronomy (n. 39), p. 64. 43. LUNDBOM, Deuteronomy (n. 31), p. 237. 44. NLT renders the expressions as “worshipped” and “were faithful to”. 45. My translation. 46. It occurs twice with the preposition ‫( עם‬Ruth 2,8.21) and once with ‫( ב‬Ruth 2,23), with no discernible difference in meaning. TENSEN,

40

A. GRAY

When Solomon is described as being led astray by his foreign wives (1 Kgs 11,2), the expression ‫ דבק‬with ‫ ב‬occurs in close collocation with other expressions of turning away from YHWH (hiphil ‫ נטה‬in 11,3.4) or following after other gods (‫ הלך אחרי‬in 11,5). If we ignore the vast network of interconnected metaphors around pathways in the book of Deuteronomy (and perhaps also in the deuteronomistic history), this can affect the translation of ‫דבק‬, creating a static image rather than one of movement. Similar expressions occur in Deut 10,20; 11,22; 13,5; and 30,20 with ‫ב‬. In Deut 13,5, ‫ הלך אחרי‬forms an inclusio with ‫דבק‬: You shall walk after (‫ תלכו‬... ‫ )אחרי‬the Lord your God, b and fear him c and keep (‫ )תשמרו‬his commandments c1 and obey his voice b1 and you shall serve him a1 and stick closely behind him (‫)ובו תדבקון‬47. a

From the other pairings (fear/serve, keep/obey) it seems reasonable to regard these expressions as loosely synonymous, confirming the dynamic aspect of the verb ‫ דבק‬here. Following this presentation in 4,2-4 of two choices on the journey, Moses presents the statutes and ordinances as a choice to manifest wisdom (vv. 5-6). The nation who obeys its statutes and ordinances will impress its neighbours with its wisdom and discernment. If we compare the constellation of pathway metaphors in Deuteronomy with the first few chapters of Proverbs we find very similar conceptual imagery: a choice of pathways, one resulting in death and destruction, the other in life. One is the way of darkness and crookedness (2,13.31-32; 4,19), associated with the foolish woman who leads men astray (2,18-19; 5,5-8; 7,27), and the other path is one of righteousness (2,20), of wisdom (3,17.23; 4,11-12), of light (4,18) – a way that is firm (4,26), directed, guarded and protected by the Lord (2,7-12; 3,6). There are also similar motifs associated with journeying, of not turning aside from the path (Prov 4,2748), and of seeking and finding (Deut 4,29-30 and Prov 2,4-5)49. 47. See also Josh 22,5; 23,8.12 (and possibly 1 Kgs 11,2; 2 Kgs 3,3; 18,6). 48. The choice of verb in this verse is different from Deut 5,32 and 28,14, but the image is nearly identical: ‫אל־תט־ימין ושמאול הסר רגלך מרע‬, “Do not swerve to the left or to the right, but turn your foot from evil”. 49. Discussions of the dependence of one text on the other can be found on both sides of the argument and provide a fascinating sense of the power of the constellation of pathway metaphors in didactic texts. See, for instance, P. OVERLAND, Did the Sage Draw

METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

41

In both Deuteronomy 4 and Proverbs 1–9, the right “path” is closely associated with God’s presence: in Proverbs, choosing the righteous path brings protection on the journey of life, and in Deuteronomy, obedience to the commandments brings prosperity and life in the promised land (4,1.40). If they go astray (Deut 4,19) or do evil in the sight of YHWH (v. 25), they will be destroyed, scattered and led out among other nations (vv. 26-28). By focussing on shared clusters of metaphors between texts, the didactic power of this imagery becomes more evident: obedience to the commandments is wisdom (see Prov 2,11.20). Unlike the Proverbial path, however, the Deuteronomic path is unique to Israel, as YHWH’s own possession (v. 20: ‫)נחלה‬, and defines the boundaries and presence of their relationship. In order to keep doing the commandments, and walking along the right paths, there is an active “guarding” and “remembering” required, connected to this relationship of possession and inheritance. In vv. 910, figurative and non-figurative commands slide and elide, so that again, one might miss the visual texture. The verb ‫שמר‬, which features so prominently in this chapter50, is found again in what Driver describes “a favourite Deuteronomic expression”51 (see v. 23; 6,12; 8,11; 11,16; 12,13.19.30; 15,9): Deut 4,9 Only take care and watch yourselves closely, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen and they turn away from your heart all the days of your life […]52.

‫רק השמר לך ושמר נפשך מאד פן־תשכח‬ ‫את־הדברים אשר־ראו עיניך ופן־יסורו‬ […] ‫מלבבך כל ימי חייך‬

The verb ‫סור‬, frequently found in association with turning aside from the right path in a literal and metaphorical sense (e.g., Deut 28,14) is used here with a strikingly different subject. Now it is the memories of the experience at Horeb themselves that are in danger of falling away from

from the Shema? A Study of Proverbs 3:1-12, in CBQ 62 (2000) 424-440; M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, Clarendon, 1972, pp. 298ff. For a discussion about path imagery in Deuteronomy (and deuteronomistic history) and elsewhere, see also WEEKS, Instruction and Imagery (n. 33), especially chapter 5 (“The Strange Woman and the Path Imagery”). 50. See similar expressions of “guarding oneself” in Prov 13,3. 51. DRIVER, Deuteronomy (n. 39), p. 65. 52. Further connections can be seen between Proverbs and Deuteronomy, where guarding yourself is equated with guarding your path in Prov 16,17: ‫מסלת ישרים סור מרע שמר‬ ‫נפשו נצר דרכו‬.

42

A. GRAY

their minds and must be guarded carefully. Stephen Geller expresses this aptly as a “unity of outer and inner realms, of action and conviction”53. This metaphor therefore carries huge rhetorical force: their very memories can turn aside, causing them to turn aside from following the Lord if they don’t safeguard their memories of what God has done in the past, by passing it on to their children and their children’s children. The object of this remembering is the focal point of the chapter: God’s revelation at Horeb through the gift of the commandments. The pathway metaphor cluster depicting Israel’s journey with God continues in the second half of the chapter. If they are led astray, they will be scattered and led away (v. 27), but if they seek YHWH they will find him again (v. 29) and return (‫ )שוב‬to him (v. 30). The pathway images are visible at the edges of the rhetograph, and underpin the whole picture in the context of the book as a whole. It provides a constant background, occasionally brought to the foreground by a particular word-picture. We turn now to the centre of the rhetograph. 2. Horeb: The Space between Heaven and Earth At Horeb (Sinai), the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the rhetograph intersect. Like the horizontal image of law-keeping as walking along the right pathway, the vertical word-pictures of God’s revelation from heaven to earth, manifest in fire and in the words of the law, are central to understanding the rhetoric of chapter 4. Despite the dynamic pathway imagery we have observed, the centre of the chapter requires Israel to take stock of all they have seen and heard, to stand still and remember how God has been (and is) present with them. The first layer of this image is introduced in vv. 7-8 with two rhetorical questions that demonstrate the incomparability of Israel and the incomparability of YHWH: 7

For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him? 8And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today54?

‫כי מי־גוי גדול אשר־לו אלהים קרבים אליו‬ ‫כיהוה אלהינו בכל־קראנו אליו׃‬ ‫ומי גוי גדול אשר־לו חקים ומשפטים‬ ‫צדיקם ככל התורה הזאת אשר אנכי נתן‬ ‫לפניכם היום‬

53. GELLER, Fiery Wisdom (n. 23), p. 106. 54. (NRSV translation). Rhetorical questions are typical of statements of incomparability. See BRAULIK, Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik (n. 22), p. 64.

METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

43

As Miller observes, “the two verses are precisely parallel syntactically [...] God draws near in the law that God gives”55. These rhetorical questions are echoed towards the end of the chapter in vv. 36-37 with two more, again emphasising the incomparability of Israel and her God, and the nearness of YHWH to Israel. God’s presence is continually found in, and through obedience to, the commandments. On the temporal axis, vv. 9-10 call Israel back to the past, to remember God’s presence at Horeb. The picture is built up in v. 11, with a vivid portrayal of the mountain blazing with fire to the heart of the heavens (‫)עד־לב השמים‬, surrounded by dark clouds. The fact that there was no form to this appearance, only a voice from the fire (vv. 12 and 15) becomes the grounds for the Bilderverbot in the second commandment (vv. 16-18)56. Israel must not make an “illegitimate means of divine presence”57. It is this nearness of divine revelation in the words from the fire that makes YHWH’s relationship with Israel so unique (v. 33) and provides the basis for their belief that the Lord alone is God (v. 35). The same unique relationship requires absolute obedience, with dire consequences for forgetting the covenant (vv. 23-28). The colour and texture of the rhetograph are filled with creation language (see Gen 1,20–21,24)58. Our gaze is drawn up to heaven again in v. 19 to see the sun, moon and stars, the whole host of heaven, providing a cosmic backdrop for the law-giving. Other nations create images of things on the earth, or worship what they see in heaven, but Israel has been given God’s own words from heaven, his covenant. YHWH is superior to other gods, since in his revelation in words from the fire at Horeb he has shown himself to be God in heaven and on earth (v. 39)59. Both heaven and earth are at YHWH’s service: he can summon heaven and earth as witnesses against Israel (v. 26). This metaphor strengthens the image of YHWH as king and judge, in the law-court of the plains of Moab, as the covenant is recited. Much has been made of the “formlessness” of the revelation in this chapter and the corresponding emphasis on the transcendence of God (vv. 12.15). Geller, for example, goes to great lengths to argue that sight and immanence are subordinated to hearing and transcendence, as a deliberate corrective to the Wisdom tradition60. While the two word-pairs he 55. MILLER, Deuteronomy (n. 30), p. 56. 56. N. MACDONALD, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (FAT, 2/1), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 22012, p. 197. 57. Ibid., p. 198. 58. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11 (n. 7), p. 205. 59. MACDONALD, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (n. 56), p. 196. 60. GELLER, Fiery Wisdom (n. 23), pp. 128ff.

44

A. GRAY

identifies, “see-hear” and “heaven-earth”, do carry significant weight in the peroratio (vv. 32-40)61, they do not need to be understood as oppositional. Rather, God’s presence in heaven and on earth is affirmed (vv. 26.36.39), as is the importance of what they have seen for remembering and doing the commandments (vv. 9 and 34): “YHWH’s words proceed, not from heaven, but from the fire. It is not that the heavenly aspect of the Horeb revelation is substantial, whilst the earthly is superficial. The two aspects of the revelation form a whole”62. The image that dominates the rhetograph, then, is of God’s presence in fire (vv. 11.12.15.24.33.36)63. Contra Weinfeld, it is not the case that the transcendent God remains in heaven whilst fire appears on earth64. The fire is a manifestation of YHWH’s presence and his voice comes from its midst65. This is what Israel has seen and must not forget. Deuteronomy 4 adds a distinctive element to the description of YHWH’s presence, which is not found in the Exodus account: YHWH is described “a devouring fire, a jealous god” (v. 24). This metaphor is familiar from theophanic imagery elsewhere in the Bible in contexts of judgement and salvation. For example, in Ps 18,9 consuming fire comes directly from YHWH’s mouth, as his anger burns with fire against the psalmist’s enemy (see similar images in Isa 30,27.33; Jer 4,4; Ps 29,7; 50,3; 97,2-4). The devouring fire motif is found in the prophets (e.g., Isa 30,30; Amos 1,4) and also, significantly, in Deuteronomy, where YHWH assures Israel of his presence with them in battle against the Anakim (9,3). This metaphor powerfully holds together the dual affirmation of God’s judgement and mercy in this chapter. God’s fiery anger will be provoked by disobedience (v. 25) and yet his mercy will guarantee that they are not destroyed (v. 31). The metaphorical model of GOD IS FIRE is multi-faceted. The fire that reveals God’s presence and covenant is the same fire of anger and destruction. The affective impact of this image compels Israel not only to remember the mysterium tremendum et fascinans at Horeb66, but instils fear of judgement for disobedience.

61. Ibid. 62. MACDONALD, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (n. 56), p. 193. 63. Ibid., p. 194. 64. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11 (n. 7), p. 204, see MACDONALD’s criticisms of Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” [n. 56], p. 192). 65. I. WILSON, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (SBL Dissertation Series, 151), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 1995, pp. 52 and 68. 66. R. OTTO, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational, London, 1924, quoted in MACDONALD, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (n. 56), p. 195.

45

METAPHOR CLUSTERS IN DEUTERONOMY 4

IV. CONCLUSION One wonders whether the persistent tradition of Deuteronomy’s preference for the verbal over the visual67 has inadvertently deterred scholars from seeing the images in the text. If so, a rhetographical approach with particular attention to metaphor clusters provides a complementary perspective on the text’s interpretation. The underlying pathway metaphors in Deuteronomy 4 reveal that obedience to the commandments ensures the ongoing presence of God with his people, and that this obedience is achieved by not forgetting the experience of God’s presence in the words from the fire at Horeb. The rhetograph in Deuteronomy 4 has been created with a sophisticated palette. At the centre stands the fire they have seen as a reminder of the words they have heard. These words and fire reveal YHWH’s presence with Israel and create the paths of obedience that define the territory of their covenantal relationship. This brief study of some of the metaphor clusters in Deuteronomy 4 demonstrates the importance of exploring the meaning and interpretation of individual metaphors against the broader background of the networks with which they are associated. Examining a metaphor cluster within a book, such as those centred around the pathway model, can help to clarify a particular image, such as the meaning of ‫ דבק‬in Deut 4,4. Similarly, networks of metaphors in the whole of the Hebrew Bible, such as those picturing fire, can provide a semantic compass point for a single image in a text, such as the revelation of God to Israel at Horeb in Deut 4,11-12. Westminster College Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0AA UK [email protected]

67. Ibid., pp. 192-193.

Alison GRAY

METAPHORICAL CLUSTERS IN ISAIAH 1–39

In Isaiah 1–39 metaphors are characteristically grouped together, doubled, or linked in chains, so that every element modifies every other. Not only is there a transposition of one concept onto another, as in classical metaphorical theory, but the two are then mapped onto yet another, and so on. The direction can be reversed, as in Max Black’s interaction theory1; the source and target domains2 may become confused, may blend3. Metaphors participate in networks; especially in a long work, such as Isaiah, and an ever-expanding biblical poetic corpus, each metaphor will be conditioned by occurrences elsewhere of the same metaphor or similar ones. Metaphors are highly contextually and culturally dependent4; they may acquire therefore a metonymic quality, as an attribute of a particular thing. The longer the metaphorical chain, the more uncertain will be the relation of the source domain to the target one: the images will augment each other, 1. M. BLACK, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1962. A special issue of Poetics Today (38/2017) is devoted to evaluating Black’s theory from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. 2. There is a seemingly infinite variety of terms for the two parts of the metaphor: the source and target of the cognitive school correspond to the vehicle and tenor of I.A. Richards and to the secondary and primary topics of others. In “God is a fire”, for instance, “fire” is the source, whose qualities are projected on to the target, God. 3. For the “conceptual blending” approach to metaphor, see G. FAUCONNIER – M. TURNER, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York, Basic Books, 2002. The theory is updated in their contribution, Rethinking Metaphor, in R.W. GIBBS (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008, 53-66. See also G. FAUCONNIER, Ten Lectures on Cognitive Construction of Meaning, Leiden, Brill, 2018. The conceptual blending approach holds that metaphor results from a double focus on two or more concepts, which are integrated through a blend of their common factors. Characteristically, there are multiple blends in even the simplest metaphor. In contrast, in George Lakoff’s original formulation of the cognitive approach to metaphor, a distinguishing feature of metaphor is that it is irreversible. God may be a fire, but a fire is not God. 4. For a succinct discussion, see the section “Metaphor and the Context Wars” in D. HILLS, Metaphor, in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2017) [https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2017/entries/metaphor/]. According to Hills, “metaphors exhibit a profound and conspicuous context-sensitivity”. This is one of the problems with Donald Davidson’s theory that the meaning of a metaphor consists in the literal meaning of the words, since every statement is surrounded by a penumbra of contextually determined connotations. See D. DAVIDSON, What Metaphors Mean, in Critical Inquiry 5 (1978) 31-47, reprinted in ID., The Essential Davidson, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, 209-224. For a forcible critique, see M. BLACK, How Metaphor Works: A Reply to Donald Davidson, in Critical Inquiry 6 (1979) 131-143, reprinted in ID., Perplexities, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1990, 77-91.

48

F. LANDY

undermine each other, or shift the ground of the relationship. Furthermore, metaphors may operate on every linguistic level – semantic, syntactic, rhythmic, and phonological – every correlation of sound suggests one of sense5. There is thus a vertical as well as sequential dimension to the metaphorical complex, so that two or more metaphors may be in play simultaneously, counterpointing or complementing each other. Metaphors combine sensual, emotive, and conceptual aspects; they are the product of a minute and complex interplay of affects, ideas, and images, which in turn may combine synaesthetic correspondences, ambiguities, and indeterminacy6. If, as Lakoff and his followers argue, metaphors are extrapolated from primary experiences, these are not just conceptual organizations of the world (up-down etc.), but invested with primary needs, passions, pleasure, and pain7. Including the experience of beauty. For example, Isa 32,1-28: ‫הן לצדק ימלך־מלך‬ Behold, a king will reign in righteousness, ‫ולשרים למשפט ישרו‬ and as for ministers, they will administer justly. 2 And every one shall be like a hiding place from wind, ‫והיה־איש כמחבא־רוח‬ and a shelter from flood, ‫וסתר זרם‬ like streams of water in drought, ‫כפלגי־מים בציון‬ like the shadow of a ponderous rock in a parched land ‫כצל סלע־כבד בארץ עיפה‬ 1

5. Roman Jakobson was an early proponent of the metaphorical potential of the phonemic substratum of poetry. See in particular his famous summation in R. JAKOBSON, Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics, in T.A. SEBEOK (ed.), Style in Language, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1960, 350-377. For him, the poetic function of language consists in a focus on the message as such, on its material basis. See also J. KRISTEVA, Revolution in Poetic Language, transl. L.S. Roudiez (European Perspective Series), New York, Columbia University Press, 1984. Julia Kristeva argues that poetry, especially revolutionary poetry, consists in the irruption of what she calls the semiotic, the preverbal play of sound, into the symbolic, the socially accepted system of meanings and values. 6. Affect has become a fashionable topic in biblical studies. See the program unit on “Bible and Emotion” of the SBL, and the “Emotion and Affect in Mediterranean Antiquity” seminar of the CSBS (Canadian Society of Biblical Studies); F.C. BLACK – J.L. KOOSED (eds.), Reading with Feeling: Affect Theory and the Bible, Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2019. See also my paper “Metaphor and Affect”, delivered at the CSBS Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, June 2019. 7. See G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980; G. LAKOFF, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1987. For the emotional effect of metaphor from the point of view of cognitive science, see R.W. GIBBS, Feeling Moved by Metaphor, in S. CSABI – J. ZERKOWITZ (eds.), Textual Secrets: The Message of the Medium, Budapest, Eotvos Lorand University Press, 2002, 13-28, reprinted in R. CARTER – P. STOCKWELL (eds.), The Language and Literature Reader, London – New York, Routledge, 2008, 209-218. See also Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor and Emotion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000. 8. All biblical translations are mine, unless otherwise indicated.

METAPHORICAL CLUSTERS IN ISAIAH 1–39

49

Here we have a transfer from the idea of the king and officials ruling in justice and righteousness to the sensory experiences of wind, storm, water, thirst, and shade, all linked to elemental terrors and gratifications. The success of metaphors is proportional to their difficulty. Commonplace metaphors or clichés require little challenge or mental effort to decode9. If, as Gilles Fauconnier argues, analogical thinking is an immense evolutionary achievement, the greater the effort required to decode the metaphor, the more remote the resemblance, the greater the sense of poetic and intellectual achievement10. Hence the success of surrealist imagery. In Isaiah, in my experience, we do not have the extended metaphors that we find in Hosea and, in a completely different form, in Ezekiel11. This perhaps is a major stylistic distinction between the poetics of Isaiah and Hosea. However, the prevalence of chains of images, compounding or conflicting with each other, provides an equivalent level of difficulty on the sequential plane: X is like Y is like Z ad infinitum. For example, we have to work out in what way a person is like a hiding place from wind, a shelter from flood, whether these are complementary or contrasted, and so on. Metaphor is a series of transactions or transferences, from unconscious to conscious, from self to other; it is the way we fit our world together, from vocalic, visual, and visceral memories, impressions, corporeal needs, drives, and rhythms, alternating movement and stillness. The cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter sees the development of a sense of self as being the result of a series of strange circular loops, in the brain as well as in the world, whereby consciousness became self-reflective, seeing itself in the mirror of the world as well as the world in the mirror of consciousness, an interesting elaboration of Lacan’s primary narcissism12. Our selves are constructed of numerous bits and pieces, always shifting. Poets are peculiarly skilled at navigating these shoals, of giving us a sense of what it is to be 9. This is in fact their value. If, as Lakoff et al. rightly argue, metaphor is foundational to thought, our minds habitually use elementary and largely unconscious metaphors. For the role of these metaphors in politics, see G. LAKOFF – E. WEHLING, Your Brain’s Politics: How the Science of Mind Explains the Political Divide, Exeter, Imprint Academic, 2016. 10. See the discussion in FAUCONNIER, Ten Lectures (n. 3), pp. 154-159. Fauconnier points to the sudden explosion of art and technological innovation about 40,000 years ago, which he attributes to the ability to produce “double scope blends” such as counter-factual ones. An example is that of cave paintings, in which animal features may be blended with human ones (p. 154). 11. In Hosea, the parade example is the metaphor of the baker’s oven in 7,4-9. See F. LANDY, Hosea, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 22012, pp. 101-107. Ezekiel is full of baroque examples: the adulterous woman, the eagles, the ship, the cedar of Lebanon. For the ship, see I.D. WILSON, Tyre, A Ship: The Metaphorical World of Ezekiel 27 in Ancient Judah, in ZAW 125 (2013) 249-262. 12. D. HOFSTADTER, I am a Strange Loop, New York, Basic Books, 2007.

50

F. LANDY

really human, finding words for the intangible. Margaret Freeman, in a series of essays on poetic metaphor, contrasts Giambattista Vico’s concept of “poetic wisdom” (sapienza poetica), comprised of memory, imagination and what he calls ingegno – invention or creativity, the ability to make something new – with Descartes’s scientific methodology, precisely in its ability to develop a multi-layered as well as transpersonal set of identifications and correspondences13. Prophetic poetry, like sacred poetry in general, integrates, or at least puts into relation, divine and human realms. The poet finds words for (or maybe receives words for) that which is beyond human experience and language. For that reason, poets compose in “alternate states of consciousness”, and prophets explicitly so14. The alternate state of consciousness – the visionary sense – in turn is productive of metaphors representative of that state, which induce a violent wrenching of our habitual modes of thought15. 13. M.H. FREEMAN, The Poem as Complex Blend: Conceptual Mappings of Metaphor in Sylvia Plath’s ‘the Applicant’, in Language and Literature 14 (2005) 25-44; EAD., Blending: A Response, in Language and Literature 15 (2006) 107-117; EAD., Revisiting/ Revisioning the Icon through Metaphor, in Poetics Today 29 (2008) 353-370; EAD., The Aesthetics of Human Experience: Minding, Metaphor, and Icon in Poetic Expression, in Poetics Today 52 (2011) 717-752; EAD., Multimodalities of Metaphor: A Perspective from the Poetic Arts, in Poetics Today 38 (2017) 61-92. Freeman discusses Vico especially in Minding, Metaphor, and Icon (pp. 718-725) using the example of Matthew Arnold’s Dover Beach. 14. I have discussed this aspect of prophetic poetry in an unpublished paper, “Shamanic Poetics: With Stammering Lips and Another Tongue Will He Speak to This People”, presented at the EABS Annual Meeting 2017 (Berlin). Pieter Craffert has discussed the panMediterranean phenomena of alternate states of consciousness as the source of prophetic inspiration. See P.F. CRAFFERT, Shamanism and the Shamanic Complex, in Biblical Theology Bulletin 41 (2011) 49-57; ID., Alternate States of Consciousness and Biblical Research: The Contribution of John Pilch, in Biblical Theology Bulletin 47 (2017) 100-110. See also L.L. GRABBE, Shaman, Preacher, or Spirit Medium: The Israelite Prophet in the Light of Anthropological Models, in J. DAY (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 2010, 117-133. 15. For the visionary sense in Isaiah and its implications for the reader as well as the poet, see R.P. CARROLL, Blindsight and the Vision Thing: Blindsight and Vision in the Book of Isaiah, in C.C. BROYLES – C.A. EVANS (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, vol. 1 (VT.S, 70/1), Leiden, Brill, 1997, 7993. More generally, see M. LIEB, The Visionary Mode: Biblical Prophecy, Hermeneutics and Cultural Change, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1991. See also my articles, F. LANDY, Vision and Voice in Isaiah, in JSOT 88 (2000) 19-36, reprinted in ID., Beauty and the Enigma and Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible (JSOT.S, 312), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 371-391; ID., I and Eye in Isaiah or Gazing at the Invisible, in JBL 131 (2012) 85-97. Carroll uses the metaphor of blindsight, the ability of blind people to respond to visual stimuli they do not consciously see, to describe the prophetic experience. Similarly, for the prophet normal reality becomes invisible, a screen through which he or she sees the true reality of things. Carroll is influenced by P. DE MAN, Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1971.

METAPHORICAL CLUSTERS IN ISAIAH 1–39

51

Yvonne Sherwood talks of the rabbinic metaphor of “breaking the ear” in the context of violent metaphors in Amos16. Metaphors may be integrative or disintegrative, fragmenting the world as well as putting it together, and often the two processes work together. This is clearly the case with Isaiah, in which a world destroyed is the forerunner of the one to come. Hence the bewilderment that is often a concomitant of successful metaphor; its resistance to interpretation. I. LITERAL AND METAPHORICAL Not everything in poetry is metaphor; it frequently juxtaposes the literal and the metaphorical. Otherwise, we would never know what it is talking about. A vivid example is the one quoted above. There the first verse, “Behold17, a king will reign in righteousness, and officials will officiate in justice” (Isa 32,1), is painstakingly literal – literally, kings king it, officials officiate – in a passage that insists that in an ideal world everything means exactly what it says. It is the ground for the following dazzling chain of similes18. But what do these similes do exactly? They may be simple, conventional metaphors: RIGHTEOUSNESS/JUSTICE IS SHELTER, WATER, SHADE life-giving, protecting etc. But then, and leaving aside the ambiguities, they are also images of a different world, the desert; one can imagine life as a journey, another familiar metaphor, the weary or inundated traveller finding a safe place. The displacement, with its immense cultural resonance, takes us away from king and courtier, especially if one reads, as I do, ‫ איש‬in 32,2 not as “each one” but as “a person”, anyone, who can be a hiding place from wind, and thus contributes 16. Y. SHERWOOD, On Fruit, and Corpses, and Wordplay Visions: Picturing Amos 8,1-3, in JSOT 92 (2001) 5-27, pp. 16-17. The quotation is from Mekh. Ish., Bah., 4 ll. 9-16 (J.Z. Lauterbach). In the context, the phrase actually refers to a theory of accommodation; metaphors serve to filter the full impact of the divine word (it means “break in” rather than “break open”). It is the opposite of what Sherwood intends by it (the reference is also somewhat scrambled). See also Y. SHERWOOD – J. CAPUTO, Otobiographies, or How a Torn and Disembodied Ear Hears a Promise of Death, in Y. SHERWOOD – K. HART (eds.), Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments, London – New York, Routledge, 2005, 209-239, p. 224. 17. There is some ambiguity whether the initial ‫ הן‬means “behold”, as here, “when” or “if”. See H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (The Didsbury Lectures), Carlisle, Paternoster, 1997, p. 63. 18. I do not make a radical distinction between similes and metaphors. For me, simile is simply a marked form of metaphor, deployed strategically and rhetorically, for example to emphasize difference, or to create a sense of an alternate reality. See P. RICŒUR, The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in Language, transl. R. Czerny, London, Routledge, 2003, p. 220.

52

F. LANDY

to the “democratization” of Davidic kingship one finds in these chapters19. Aesthetically, it is about prime somatic experiences and pleasures, like finding shade on a hot day – and what about the “exhausted land”, ‫( ארץ עיפה‬32,2)? Only secondarily, and indeterminately, do they attach themselves to the ostensible subjects. Poetry, as Stephen Owen writes, is an “art of multiple deflections”20. II. PHONOLOGICAL METAPHORS Some metaphors operate on the phonological plane, as I have mentioned. A good example is Isa 32,14-15: 14

For the palace is uprooted the multitudinous city abandoned the earthwork and the watchtower have become forever caverns the joy of wild asses, a pasture for flocks 15 Until there is unfolded21 upon us a spirit from above, and the wilderness become a fruitful land and the fruitful land be considered a forest

‫כי־ארמון נטש‬ ‫המון עיר עזב‬ ‫עפל ובחן היה בעד מערות עד־עולם‬ ‫משוש פראים מרעה עדרים‬ ‫עד־יערה עלינו רוח ממרום‬ ‫והיה מדבר לכרמל‬ ‫והכרמל ליער יחשב‬

The city (‫ )עיר‬becomes hollowed, empty (‫)מערות‬, and a pasture (‫מרעה‬ ‫ ;)עדרים‬under the influence of the spirit (‫ )יערה‬the fruitful land turns into forest (‫)יער‬. Between city and forest, there is the interchange of just one consonant: ‫יער > עיר‬. Metathesis is the ground of metamorphosis, through the unfolding (‫ )יערה‬of the spirit that joins them. Similarly, the insistent syllable ‫ עד‬both conveys the irreversibility of the destruction, through its repetition in ‫בעד מערות עד־עולם‬, “have become forever caverns”, the flocks (‫ )עדרים‬that graze on the ruins, and the moment of metanoia (‫)עד־יערה‬22. 19. Scholars universally see the subject as the rulers of the first verse, but there is no reason why it should not be contrastive. For the democratization of kingship in chapter 32, see M.W. HAMILTON, Isaiah 32 as Literature and Political Meditation, in JBL 131 (2012) 663-684. 20. S. OWEN, Mi-Lou: Poetry and the Labyrinth of Desire, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1989, p. 27. 21. Beuken correctly identifies the basic meaning of ‫ ערה‬here as “unveil” rather than “pour out” with most commentators. See W.A.M. BEUKEN, Isaiah. Vol. 2: Isaiah 28–39, transl. B. Doyle (HCOT), Leuven, Peeters, 2000, p. 221. However, he appears to change his mind in ID., Jesaja 28–39: Übersetzt und ausgelegt, transl. A. Spans (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2010, p. 239. See also H. BARTH, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1977, p. 212. 22. For a very good discussion of these interconnections, see J. LINVILLE, Of an Imagination All Compact: The Garden, the Forest and the Wasteland as the Apple of the

METAPHORICAL CLUSTERS IN ISAIAH 1–39

53

The metaphorical transfers here are very complicated and intricately related to images in the rest of the chapter, but there is a fulcrum round which everything turns: ‫עד־יערה עלינו רוח ממרום‬, “Until there is unfolded upon us a wind/spirit from above”23. Between city and forest, there is but the slightest difference; the metathesis suggests that one can easily turn into the other. The transformation of fortifications into caverns communicated by ‫ בעד‬24 rhymes with the eternity of ‫עד־עולם‬, “forever”, culminating in the instantaneousness of ‫עד־יערה‬, “until it is unfolded”. As Beuken and others have pointed out, the prospective ritual of lament in v. 11, in which women are summoned to “bare themselves” (‫ )ערה‬is echoed in the caverns (‫)מערות‬, and then in the unfolding or unwinding of the wind/spirit (‫)יערה‬, like a cloth that unravels25. Progressive stripping is a prelude to reconstitution. The wind/spirit is intangible; that it unfolds upon us, whoever “we” are, suggests too that the change is not only in the landscape but in our consciousness. The powerful visual images of desolation and ecological interchange are superimposed on the vocalic play, which intimates hidden connections. But a breath separates the old and new worlds, dystopia and utopia, a ‫( רוח‬v. 15) evoked by the flow of shifting sound, with its open syllables and repeated liquids and glottals, which just inflect the current of air. The same collocation recurs in v. 19: “And hail/in the falling, the felling of the forest (‫)יער‬, and in lowliness the city (‫ )עיר‬shall be laid low”. I shall not attempt to interpret this verse, which has defeated the most assiduous exegete, particularly given the ambiguity of the initial ‫וברד‬, which may refer to “hail” or be parallel to the succeeding ‫“( ברדת‬in the felling”) and to the repetition of ‫“( שפל‬low”) in the second part of the verse26. Clearly Prophetic Poet’s Eye, in E. BEN ZVI – C.V. CAMP – D.M. GUNN – A.W. HUGHES (eds.), Poets, Prophets, and Texts in Play: Studies in the Biblical Poetry and Prophecy in Honour of Francis Landy (LHB/OTS, 597), London, T&T Clark, 2015, 3-18, p. 16. 23. Tull notes that “whiplash-inducing about-faces” are frequent in this part of Isaiah, and “this one turns on a sheckel [sic]”. See P.K. TULL, Isaiah 1–39, Macon, GA, Smyth & Helwys, 2010, p. 474. In contrast, Barth sees it as a redactional hinge, which seems to me to mistake its pivotal role in the poetic construction of the passage. See BARTH, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit (n. 21), p. 212. See also M.A. SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL, 16), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2016, p. 417. 24. ‫ בעד‬has caused difficulties for all commentators. I take it as signifying opposition or exchange value, as in Job 2,4 (see KBL). 25. BEUKEN, Isaiah, vol. 2 (n. 21), p. 221; LINVILLE, Of an Imagination (n. 22), p. 16. 26. Most commentators see ‫וּב ַרד‬ ָ as a verbal form of ‫ברד‬, “hail”. Wildberger reads ‫וירד‬, with the meaning “and it will be ruined”. See H. WILDBERGER, Isaiah 28–39, transl. T.H. Trapp (CC), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2002, p. 257. Watts follows Wildberger but reads the expression as “with condescension” to give a nice pun. J.D.W. WATTS, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC, 24), Waco, TX, Word Books, 22005, p. 487. See also R.E. CLEMENTS, Isaiah 1–39

54

F. LANDY

there are correspondences elsewhere in the book, for instance with the forest as a metaphor for Assyria in Isa 10,18-19 and the fall and regeneration of the stump in 6,13 (see also 11,1)27. What matters here is the proximity and polarity of city and forest, subject to a like fate. Perhaps the city is a forest, as in the metaphor of the urban jungle. Or perhaps they comprise a merismus, expressing the totality of destruction. Maybe it recalls YHWH’s judgment on the trees in 2,12, as emblems of pride. It may correspond to the transformations in vv. 13-14, in which “the houses of joy” become “the joy of wild asses”. The city may be an anti-city, just as the caverns (‫ )מערות‬are the reverse of its imposing fortifications28. III. JERUSALEM, A TRANQUIL PASTURE My last example, Isa 33,20-21.23a, is the most complex, as well as most interconnected with other sequences. It might once have formed the conclusion to an early version of Isaiah. I have touched on it before: 20 Gaze at Zion, the city of our festival Your eyes will see Jerusalem a tranquil pasture, a tent that will not move, whose pegs will not budge for ever, whose ropes will not be snapped. 21 for there YHWH is mighty for us a place of rivers, streams broad of span, no oared galley will go there no stately ship pass there […] 23 Your cords are loosened; they have no strength; so is their mast, they have spread no sail […]

‫חזה ציון קרית מועדנו‬ ‫עיניך תראינה ירושלם‬ ‫נוה שאנן אהל בל־יצען‬ ‫בל־יסע יתדתיו לנצח‬ ‫וכל־חבליו בל־ינתקו‬ ‫כי אם־שם אדיר יהוה לנו‬ ‫מקום־נהרים יארים‬ ‫רחבי ידים בל־תלך בו‬ ‫אני־שיט וצי אדיר לא יעברנו‬ […] ‫נטשו חבליך‬ ‫בל־יחזקו‬ […] ‫כן־תרנם בל־פרשו נס‬

(NCBC), London, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980, p. 264. Repetition of the root ‫שפל‬ in the second half of the verse would lead one to expect a similar repetition in the first. While “it will hail” is the primary sense, the wordplay results in a condensation of the two meanings. Hamilton suggests that there may be an element of anti-Assyrian polemic in the image, in line with 28,2 and 30,30-31. See HAMILTON, Isaiah 32 (n. 19), p. 682, n. 66. 27. K. NIELSEN, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOT.S, 65), Sheffield, JSOT, 1989, p. 179. Sweeney thinks it is a reference to the downfall of the Davidic dynasty, as metonymically associated with the House of the Forest of Lebanon (see Isa 22,8; 1 Kgs 7,2). See SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39 (n. 23), p. 412. The pusillanimous Davidic dynasty is compared to a trembling forest in Isa 7,3, and 10,31 may be another instance. However, I do not see strong evidence for Sweeney’s identification. 28. For the anti-urban theme in Isaiah, see especially J. BLENKINSOPP, Cityscape to Landscape: The “Back to Nature” Theme in Isaiah 1–35, in R.D. HAAK – L.L. GRABBE (eds.), Every City Shall Be Forsaken: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOT.S, 330), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 35-44, p. 44.

METAPHORICAL CLUSTERS IN ISAIAH 1–39

55

I will only make a few points. (1) The metaphors are a series of oxymorons. The city is a tranquil pasture. The city is then a reversion to a pastoral past, which in Isaiah (at least Proto-Isaiah) is the subject of nostalgic desire and utopian prediction; it is the opposite of the busy, noisy, corrupt city, which is the object of Isaiah’s condemnation. There is perhaps a pastoral enclave within the city, especially since ‫נוה‬, “pasture”, is elsewhere a metaphor for the Temple (Exod 15,13; 2 Sam 15,25). The image, moreover, corresponds to a phrase in the previous chapter, one of the numerous linkages that make chapters 32 and 33 a diptych: “and my people shall dwell in a peaceful pasture (‫)נוה שלום‬, in trusty habitations and tranquil resting-places” (32,18). There it is part of a general inversion, intimated by the unfolding of the spirit, of city into forest, desert into fertile land. The images are both literal – my people may really dwell in a peaceful pasture – and figurative, since the previous verses make it clear that the natural transformation is equivalent to or the consequence of an ethical one – justice dwells in the wilderness, righteousness in the newly forested ‫כרמל‬, “fertile land” (vv. 16-17). The tranquil pasture is followed by an even stranger and more remote image: “a tent that does not move”29. A tent is a mobile home; a tent that does not move might suggest a trailer park. In contrast to the city, a tent is the typical residence of a desert dweller, a nomad. Like the pasture, it transposes the image of the city onto its opposite, the opposite of all stable, agrarian economies. If you want to be a Lakoffian, you will say THE CITY IS A DESERT. But of course it is much more. The desert is the place of nostalgic recollection, as in Hos 2,16-17. The tent may also recall “the tent of meeting” (‫ )אוהל מועד‬and hence the complex identification of and tension between Tabernacle and Temple30. This is a motif that we find throughout Isaiah, in its various incarnations, for example in the presumably late 4,5-6, in which the idealized future Jerusalem repeats the wilderness wanderings. Both these metaphors – pasture, tent – correlate with and parallel the first part of the verse: “Gaze at Zion, the city of our festival” (‫חזה ציון‬ 29. ‫יצען‬, “move”, is a hapax. See the discussion in WILDBERGER, Isaiah 28–39 (n. 26), p. 296; J. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1–39 (AB, 19A), New York, Doubleday, 2000, p. 444. 30. Beuken likewise sees a reference to the “tent of YHWH”. See BEUKEN, Isaiah, vol. 2 (n. 21), p. 273. For comparable references elsewhere in Isaiah, see C. DILLER, Zeltmotivik und Nomadenfiktion im Jesajabuch, in K. OLASON – S.Ø. STEINGRIMSSON (eds.), Literaturund sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zu alttestamentlichen Texten: Wolfgang Richter zum 80. Geburtstag (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 83), St. Otilien, EOS, 2007, 1-21; C. BALOGH, He Filled Zion with Justice and Righteousness: The Composition of Isaiah 33, in Biblica 89 (2008) 477-504, p. 501.

56

F. LANDY

‫)קרית מועדנו‬. Zion is of course the sacred name of Jerusalem, and indicates its cultic centrality. It is subject to numerous metatheses, as in our first example (32,2), in which ‫בציון‬, “like streams of water in drought (‫”) ְבּ ָציוֹן‬, could be read ‫ ְבּ ִציוֹן‬31: Zion, if unwatered by divine, royal or human streams, is a dry place indeed. The context in v. 20 is relief from the enemy siege. One looks at Zion with new eyes (“your eyes will see Jerusalem, a tranquil pasture”), and it is “the city (‫ )קרית‬of our festival”. The festival suggests a ritual setting, perhaps in celebration of its deliverance, but evoking the annual liturgical cycle, with its mythical resonance. Jerusalem is already more than Jerusalem; ritual is steeped with symbolic meaning. (2) In v. 21 there is a bizarre collocation: ‫מקום־נהרים יארים‬, “a place of rivers, streams” – literally, “Euphrateses, Niles”. This is a familiar motif, which I have elsewhere called the “fluvial fantasy”: all the world’s rivers come from Zion, and correspondingly, all the world’s peoples receive their life from it32. But the Euphrates and Nile are also representative of their respective civilizations, and thus of the geopolitical stage in which Isaiah takes place, the poles between which events play out and whose reconciliation is an ultimate horizon, as in 19,24-25 and 27,13. They are the enemies whose symbolic and material power is co-opted by Jerusalem and its deity33. But there are many Niles and Euphrates, apparently, as if our Nile and Euphrates, with their corresponding empires, can be multiplied indefinitely. We are somewhere between geography, history, and the fantastic replication of alternative worlds. But we are also back at Eden, with its juxtaposition of actual and mythological rivers (2,10-14). This again is a familiar motif, according to which Jerusalem is superimposed on images of the garden of Eden34. 31. Blenkinsopp notes the pun. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1–39 (n. 29), p. 446. See also U.F. BERGES, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, transl. M.C. Lind, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012, p. 215. 32. F. LANDY, Fluvial Fantasies, in E. BEN ZVI – C. LEVIN (eds.), Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (BZAW, 461), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014, 437-455. 33. Blenkinsopp thinks that this suggests a fantasy of a Greater Israel, “on which the sun never sets”. See BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1–39 (n. 29), p. 446. Likewise, Balogh considers that the Nile and the Euphrates represent the boundaries of a renewed Davidic Empire, as in 11,11-16. See BALOGH, He Filled Zion (n. 30), p. 500. More probable, in my view, is the idealization of Jerusalem as the world city, of which all inhabitants of the world may be citizens, as in Psalm 87. As Levenson argues “the Temple is the epitome of the world”. See J. LEVENSON, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible, Minneapolis, MN, Seabury, 1985, pp. 138-139. Carroll eloquently describes the symbolic function of Jerusalem as “the city of humankind” and Babylon redivivus. See R.P. CARROLL, City of Stone, City of Flesh: Urbanscapes in Prophetic Discourse, in HAAK – GRABBE (eds.), Every City Shall Be Forsaken (n. 28), 45-61, pp. 56-58. 34. Balogh elaborates on these mythological connections, adducing also El’s place at the headwaters of rivers in the Baal cycle. So does Roberts. See BALOGH, He Filled Zion

METAPHORICAL CLUSTERS IN ISAIAH 1–39

57

(3) V. 21 continues: “no oared galley will go there, no stately ship pass there”35. Rivers on which no ships sail are free from commerce or possible danger. Berges notes that it interweaves motifs from Psalms 46 and 4836. In Ps 46,5 the river, with its streams, rejoices the city of God; in Ps 48,8 the ships of Tarshish are shattered, putting an end to the conspiracy of the nations against YHWH and his human representatives, whether king or city37. It is followed, as in our text, by a celebration, in which the towers of Jerusalem are counted. The motif of the sedition of the nations is thus superimposed on that of the primordial struggle between the sea and God, which, we find, for instance, in Psalm 9338.

(n. 30), pp. 498-499; J.J.M. ROBERTS, Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire, in T. ISHIDA (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1982, 93-108, p. 101. See also LEVENSON, Sinai and Zion (n. 33), pp. 129-131. In general, the passage has occasioned a great deal of emendation and many scholars see it as intrusive. Balogh neatly suggests a connection to the “waters” of 32,20 and sees the referent of ‫ אדיר‬as the Davidic king, while Roberts proposes that ‫מקום‬, “place”, puns with ‫( מקוה‬miqwē), “reservoir”, with an enclitic mem, and that both YHWH and “there” could thus be the antecedent. See BALOGH, He Filled Zion, p. 500; J.J.M. ROBERTS, First Isaiah: A Commentary, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2015, p. 429. For miqwē-m, see W.H. IRWIN, Isaiah 28–33: Translation with Philological Notes (BibOr, 30), Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977, p. 159. Weissert reads ‫ שׁם‬as ‫שׂם‬, “set”, and thinks that ‫ אדיר‬is an instrument in the hand of God through which the canals which surround Jerusalem are dug; it contrasts with ‫ אדיר‬in 10,34, which refers to the destructive axe of the Assyrians, likewise God’s instrument. See E. WEISSERT, Jesajas Beschreibung der Hybris des Assyrischen Königs und seine Auseinandersetzung mit ihr, in J. RENGER (ed.), Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 5), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2011, 287-310, p. 304. 35. “Stately ship” is Blenkinsopp’s felicitous translation. See BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1– 39 (n. 29), p. 444. Scurlock argues that ‫ צי‬does not mean “ship” but is derived from ‫יצא‬ and refers to YHWH’s coming forth. See J. SCURLOCK, Departure or Ships? An Investigation of ‫ צי‬in Numbers 24.24 and Isaiah 33.23, in JSOT 33 (2010) 267-282, p. 275. She bases her case on the other possible occurrence of the word in Num 24,24 and the unlikelihood that an alleged Egyptian loanword for “river ship” should be used for sea-going vessels. But that would exactly fit our context, as well as making a good parallelism! 36. See BERGES, The Book of Isaiah (n. 31), p. 226. Murray writes of the shared vocabulary and imagery with Psalm 46, but not of Psalm 48. See R. MURRAY, Prophecy and the Cult, in R. COGGINS – A. PHILLIPS – M. KNIBB (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 200216, p. 206. 37. Zenger sees a linkage between the Messianic psalms, such as Psalm 2, and Psalm 87, particularly through the transformation of the imagery of water. From being the mother of Israel Zion becomes the mother of the nations. The Korah psalms 45–48 are crucial in this transformation. The defeat of the seafaring nations leads to their celebration of YHWH. See E. ZENGER, Zion as the Mother of the Nations in Psalm 87, in E.R. KALIN (ed.), The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, 123-160. 38. See LANDY, Fluvial Fantasies (n. 32), pp. 450-452, and especially the references listed on p. 451, n. 40.

58

F. LANDY

In v. 23, the image of the ship returns, at least according to my reading39, and is the last of the series of metaphors for Zion: “your cords are loosened; they have no strength; so is their mast, they have spread no sail”. On the edenic rivers that flow from the sacred mountain and ultimately emanate from YHWH there is a ship, which, however, is stationary; its lines are slack, its sail is not spread. The reference to the rigging (‫)חבליך‬ connects it to the tent in v. 20, whose ropes (‫ )חבליו‬are not broken. Like the unmoving tent, this is a ship that will not sail, that is safely in harbour. The imagery connects with that of the vanished enemy in vv. 18-19 and the experience of a new, untroubled world. In v. 21, ‫צי אדיר‬, “stately ship”, evokes the description of YHWH as ‫אדיר‬ earlier in the verse, just as in Ps 93,4 the mighty waters of the sea (‫מים רבים‬ ‫ )אדירים‬contrast with and affirm the transcendent might (‫ )אדיר‬of YHWH on high. The majesty of YHWH “for us” in Zion counteracts that of the ships and foreign powers; the multiplication of synonyms for “ship” suggests, too, a plurality of antagonists and the variety of vessels40; in Isa 2,16, ships are both the climactic instances of the pride in human accomplishment visited in the day of YHWH, and objects of desire, as indicated by their description as ‫שכיות החמדה‬, “the splendid vessels”. They exemplify both human mastery of the sea and thus the realm of chaos, and aesthetic achievement. In 33,23, the ship is evoked metonymically, by its mast and its ensign or sail; it is replaced as subject by the feminine personification of Zion, denoted by the suffix of (‫)חבליך‬41, the ultimate referent of all the metaphors. 39. This is the traditional interpretation, which is supported by several authors (e.g., Balogh, Oswalt, Sawyer, and Childs). Some authors (e.g., Balogh and Oswalt) somewhat moralistically see the ship as a symbol of Judean pride and folly, while Sawyer puts the words in the mouth of the enemies. Some other scholars (e.g., Childs, Holmyard, Berges, and Roberts) think it refers to the impotent enemy ships. Others avoid the oddity of the image in two ways: (1) Excising it as a supplement or a stray insertion from a different oracle, for example against Tyre or Egypt (Wildberger and Blenkinsopp). (2) Arguing for a different referent. For instance, Sweeney thinks that ‫ חבליך‬means “pains”, and the entire phrase is a cry of distress (SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39 [n. 23], p. 426). Beuken suggests that the ‫נס‬, “ensign”, and ‫“ תרן‬mast, standard” are both military metaphors, representing Judean inviolability (BEUKEN, Isaiah, vol. 2 [n. 21], pp. 244, 275-276). Scurlock thinks that it reverts to the metaphor of the tent from v. 20 (SCURLOCK, Departure or Ships? [n. 35], p. 279). Finally, Watts reads ‫ חבליך‬as “land apportionments”, anticipating equitable land distribution among the peasantry (WATTS, Isaiah 1–33 [n. 26], pp. 499-500). He incorrectly holds that this is the normal meaning of ‫חבל‬. A common objection to the standard reading is that ‫ נס‬is not normally used for sails. See, however, Ezek 27,7. There is no more regular term. 40. The combination ‫ אני־שיט‬is usually seen as a hendiadys (“oared galley” or the like) though they could denote different kinds of vessel. ‫ שיט‬is a hapax. 41. Holmyard argues that the reference is to the enemy ships, since ‫ אני‬is feminine. See H.R. HOLMYARD, Does Isaiah 33:23 Address Israel or Israel’s Enemy?, in Biblioteca

METAPHORICAL CLUSTERS IN ISAIAH 1–39

59

The lexemes ‫תרן‬, “mast”, and ‫נס‬, “sail, ensign”, have appeared in parallel before, in 30,17: “until you are left like a pole (‫ )תרן‬on a mountaintop and like a banner (‫ )נס‬on a hill”. There they represent a state of bare survival, like the ‫סכה‬, “hut”, in 1,8; and as there, they can be transformed into figures of deliverance. The term ‫נס‬, in particular, recurs in the book both as the standard of the invading armies (5,26) and the Davidic root to which the nations are drawn in 11,10.12 (see also 13,2). Likewise, ‫נטשו‬, “are loosened”, echoes and reverses the abandoned (‫ )נטש‬palace of 32,14, as part of the wide-ranging coupling of chapters 32 and 33. (4) The sequence is interrupted by interjections concerning YHWH: “For there YHWH is mighty (‫ )אדיר‬for us” (v. 21a) and “For YHWH is our judge; YHWH is our ruler; YHWH is our king; he will save us” (v. 22). They introduce a liturgical, performative impression42; whether or not they conform to any actual liturgy, we can imagine a “we” group proclaiming it, with startling immediacy43. This is how the relief of Zion is celebrated, seemingly. It concludes, too, a dramatic underpinning of the chapter, beginning with the plea for deliverance in v. 2, continuing with the quest by the “sinners in Zion” for one who will withstand the eternal flames in v. 14, and culminating in the acclamation of divine sovereignty in our verse. There are various correlations, for example with the king in v. 17, and justice in v. 5. However, the dominant figure is not metaphor, but anaphora: the threefold repetition of YHWH in v. 22, followed by the modulation into “he” (‫ )הוא‬at the end. All the attributes – judge, ruler, king, saviour – converge on this one name, with everything that it signifies. Repetition makes it into a mantra, an invocation that calls YHWH to mind perpetually. YHWH then becomes the source, and also the referent, of the dazzling chain of metaphors. YHWH and Jerusalem are conjoint; while the ostensible subject is Jerusalem, it is indissoluble from and only has its symbolic status because of its divine patron. The ambivalence is clear in ‫מקום־נהרים יארים‬, “a place of Euphrates, Niles”, where the place could either be Jerusalem or YHWH himself, as the source of the world’s rivers44. Similarly, YHWH is the implied shepherd because of whom the pasture is tranquil, the Sacra 152 (2005) 273-78, p. 274. In my view, it more naturally introduces Zion as the feminine subject of the last verses. See BEUKEN, Isaiah, vol. 2 (n. 21), pp. 243, 247. 42. Gunkel interpreted the text as a liturgical drama (or, more precisely, as using liturgical forms to appeal to the reader). See H. GUNKEL, Jesaja 33, eine prophetische Liturgie, in ZAW 42 (1924) 177-208. Murray sees in it echoes of an ancient New Year’s ritual. See MURRAY, Prophecy and the Cult (n. 36). 43. On the “we” in the book, see especially E.W. CONRAD, Reading Isaiah (Overtures to Biblical Theology), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1991, pp. 83-116. 44. Many scholars see YHWH, and not Jerusalem, as the antecedent of ‫מקום‬. For a good account of the alternatives, see ROBERTS, First Isaiah (n. 34), p. 429.

60

F. LANDY

inhabitant of the tent, the convener of the citadel of our festival, ‫קרית‬ ‫( מועדנו‬33,20) where ‫ מועדנו‬literally means the meeting place. If the metaphors are intensely sensory, as we have seen, and convey complex affects, YHWH is both the recipient of all these images and their accompanying emotions, and eludes them. The repetition of the name YHWH suggests not only invisibility, a deity for whom no images are adequate, but also ineffability, the name as a screen word for the unknown. Metaphors as metaphors for that which is beyond language, an attempt to find words and images for the unspoken45. University of Alberta 999, Newport Avenue Victoria, BC Canada V8S 5H8 [email protected]

Francis LANDY

45. One may think analogously of Levinas’s distinction between Le Dire – the openness to whatever the prophet is called upon to say – and Le Dit, the totality of what has already been said. See E. LEVINAS, Otherwise than Being, or Beyond Essence, transl. A. Lingis, Pittsburgh, PA, Duquesne University Press, 1981, esp. pp. 37-38.

IF THE BLIND WALK THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR “KNOWING IS SEEING” AND ITS ELABORATION IN ISA 42,16

The hardening of the audience occupies a prominent place among the literary and theological themes of the book of Isaiah. Expressed emblematically in the scene of Isa 6,9-10, the theme is reiterated in various ways in the first (chapters 1–39), second (chapters 40–55), and third part (chapters 56–66) of the scroll, helping to strengthen its unity on a literary level1. Normally, the intellectual deficit of the audience is not explicitly stated. The authors of the Isaianic corpus and their tradents preferentially resort to the medium of metaphor, describing the inability to understand in terms of sight and/or hearing2. Such a trait of the Isaianic metaphorical system, is well represented by the aforementioned Isa 6,9-10:

1. The bibliography on the subject is quite extensive. See R.E. CLEMENTS, Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes, in JSOT 31 (1985) 95-113, pp. 101-104; C.A. EVANS, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (JSOT.S, 64), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989, pp. 17-52; R. RENDTORFF, Jesaja 6 im Rahmen der Komposition des Jesajabuches, in J.E. VERMEYLEN (ed.), The Book of Isaiah – Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1989, 73-82; J.-P. SONNET, Le motif de l’endurcissement (Is 6,9-10) et la lecture d’Isaïe, in Biblica 73 (1992) 208-239; J.L. MCLAUGHLIN, Their Hearts Were Hardened: The Use of Isaiah 6,9-10 in the Book of Isaiah, in Biblica 75 (1994) 1-25; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 22005, pp. 46-51; J. FERRY, Isaïe: Comme les mots d’un livre scellé... (Is 29, 11) (LD, 221), Paris, Cerf, 2008, pp. 142-153; T. UHLIG, The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah: An Analysis of Communicative Action (FAT, 39), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010. 2. See CLEMENTS, Beyond Tradition-History (n. 1), pp. 101-104. See also R.E. CLEMENTS, Patterns in the Prophetic Canon: Healing the Blind and the Lame, in G.M. TUCKER – D.L. PETERSEN – R.R. WILSON (eds.), Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1988, 189200; K.T. AITKEN, Hearing and Seeing: Metamorphoses of a Motif in Isaiah 1–39, in P.R. DAVIES – D.J.A. CLINES (eds.), Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings (JSOT.S, 144), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, 12-41; R.P. CARROLL, Blindsight and the Vision Thing: Blindsight and Vision in the Book of Isaiah, in C.C. BROYLES – C.A. EVANS (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, vol. 1 (VT.S, 70/1), Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill, 1997, 79-93.

62 9

B. LAZZARO

And he said: Go and tell this people: Hear ye indeed, but without understanding see ye indeed, but without recognizing. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, weigh down their ears and smear their eyes, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and return and be healed3.

‫ויאמר‬ ‫לך ואמרת לעם הזה‬ ‫שמעו שמוע‬ ‫ואל־תבינו‬ ‫וראו ראו‬ ‫ואל־תדעו‬ ‫השמן לב־העם הזה‬ ‫ואזניו הכבד‬ ‫ועיניו השע‬ ‫פן־יראה בעיניו‬ ‫ובאזניו ישמע‬ ‫ולבבו יבין‬ ‫ושב ורפא לו‬

At v. 9, the connection between the sensory side of sight/hearing and that of intelligence is articulated first of all in a self-contradictory injunction. In fact, on the one hand, God commands attentive listening (‫ )שמעו שמוע‬and insightful observation (‫)וראו ראו‬, while, on the other hand, forbids any access to the meaning of the discourse (‫ ואל־תבינו‬and ‫)ואל־תדעו‬4. More vividly, v. 10 relates the insensitivity (√‫ )שמן‬of the heart to the weighing down (√‫ )כבד‬of the ears and to the smearing (√‫ )שעע‬of the eyes. In the context of cognitive linguistics, this recourse to the semantics of sight/hearing in reference to knowledge, is explained much more simply as a cognitive metaphor, that is, as a conventional way of conceiving knowledge through the “embodied” experience of seeing/listening5. According to Lakoff and Johnson, in fact, metaphor is primarily a property of thought and only secondarily one of language6. Thus, the many Isaianic texts expressing the event of knowledge in terms of sight/hearing (Isa 29,910.11-12.18; 32,3-4; 35,5; 42,7.16.18-20; 43,8; 44,18) are special cases of a double cognitive metaphor: KNOWING IS SEEING and KNOWING IS HEARING. Both concepts are really two megametaphors7, because, appearing in the 3. This translation and all the following are my own. 4. See F. LANDY, Strategies of Concentration and Diffusion in Isaiah 6, in ID. (ed.), Beauty and the Enigma and Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible (JSOT.S, 312), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 298-327, p. 310. 5. On the embodiment of cognitive metaphors, see G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, New York, Basic Books, 1999, especially, pp. 45-59. 6. For a general introduction to cognitive metaphors, see G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980, 22003. See also W. CROFT – D.A. CRUSE, Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 193-221; M. KNOWLES – R. MOON, Introducing Metaphor, London – New York, Routledge, 2006; Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 22010. 7. See KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 6), pp. 57-59.

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

63

corpus in a recursive way, they carry out a strategical function for the hermeneutics of the book. The advantage of the use of cognitive linguistics in this field of research is noteworthy. It allows us to gather in a unified framework variegated and, at the same time, similar aspects of Isaianic poetry. The similarity originates from the sharing of the same metaphorical concept on the cognitive level. The difference is determined instead by the concrete linguistic expression of this concept on the morphological, syntactic, and semantic level. Let us take two examples. In Isa 6,10, the conventional metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING is denied8, according to the theology of hardening. As mentioned above, the procedure is conveyed by the use of the imperative ‫השע‬, which designates the smearing of the eyes, as if the eyelids must stick to the pupils, even to the point of suspending the visual faculty. Moreover, the verb conveys a sense of weight, strengthened by the collateral imperatives ‫השמן‬, “make fat” and ‫הכבד‬, “weigh down”, related to the heart and ears, respectively. In Isa 29,9, the elaboration of the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING is different. Conjugated to hithpalpel and qal, the verb ‫ )השתעשעו ושעו( שעע‬indicates here a paradoxical state of self-blinding (“Smear yourself and remain smeared”). The injunction, moreover, anticipates the developments of a more extensive metaphor of drunkenness (vv. 9-10), with its individual effects (staggering, drowsiness, glazed eyes, cloudiness of the mind)9. These two texts show the synergy between the cognitive level and the linguistic concretion of the metaphor. In the interpretive act, the two aspects can cooperate profitably in the elaboration of the metaphorical meaning, avoiding, on the one hand, reducing the metaphor to a rigid concept, misunderstanding the richness of its poetic expression. On the other hand, however, the identification of the cognitive processes underlying the metaphorical creation, can better explain the association of linguistic aspects, which, on the semantic level, do not seem entirely congruent. On the basis of this methodological clarification, in the second part of this paper, I will examine a text of Isaiah in which the concept KNOWING IS SEEING undergoes a peculiar literary elaboration, combining with the topic of the WAY. The text is Isa 42,16. 8. Together with combination, extension and elaboration, questioning is one of the four main ways in which artistic creativity reformulates a conventional metaphorical concept. See G. LAKOFF – M. TURNER, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 67-72. 9. An in-depth analysis of this metaphor appears in B. LAZZARO, Isaia l’oscuro: Forme dell’oscurità linguistica isaiana e storia della loro recezione nell’attestazione di Is 29 (Diss. Pontificio Istituto Biblico), Roma, 2018, pp. 150-158.

64

B. LAZZARO

I. THE METAPHOR OF ISA 42,16 O. Lund has carefully studied the metaphor of Isa 42,1610. He examines the individual elements of this large imaginative picture (blind, way/path, darkness/light, crooked places/plains). According to Lund, the conventionality of the images is finally reduced to two key-concepts: LIFE IS A LANDSCAPE and LIFE IS A JOURNEY. My contribution intends to deepen and rectify this interpretation, highlighting other important aspects of the metaphor, on the poetic, semantic and cognitive level. 1. The Interweaving of Two Concepts Isa 42,16 16a I will make the blind walk on a way unknown to them, on paths unknown to them I will cause them to tread. 16b I will change darkness into light before them, and crooked places into plains. 16c These things I did for them nor did I abandon them.

‫והולכתי עורים‬ ‫בדרך לא ידעו‬ ‫בנתיבות לא־ידעו‬ ‫אדריכם‬ ‫אשים מחשך לפניהם לאור‬ ‫ומעקשים למישור‬ ‫אלה הדברים עשיתם‬ ‫ולא עזבתים‬

Isa 42,16 belongs to the announcement of salvation of 42,14-16* 11. While v. 15 describes a drastic drying up of the environment, v. 16 introduces a group of characters, the blind, into this dingy scenario, imagining their prodigious path through the desert roads. In this way, v. 16 combines the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING, as discussed in the previous paragraph, with the topic of the WAY, typical of Deutero-Isaiah. The intertwining of the two dimensions is visible in the sequence of the discursive elements that make up v. 16a. As shown in Table 1, the elements of the discourse alternate in a recursive and binary form, like a melody in which only two notes are stubbornly followed, that of the WAY and that of SEEINGKNOWING.

10. See O. LUND, Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40–55 (FAT, 2/28), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 125-145. 11. In Isa 42,14-16, the prophet elaborates freely the literary genre of the proclamation of salvation. See C. WESTERMANN, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66 (ATD, 19), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966, p. 87 and W.A.M. BEUKEN, Jesaja IIa (De Prediking van het Oude Testament), Nijkerk, Callenbach, 1979, p. 145. The asterisk in the text indicates that vv. 14-16 are the original extension of such a proclamation; v. 17 is an addition that imposes a new thematic orientation. See U. BERGES, Jesaja 40–48 (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2008, pp. 253 and 258-259.

65

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

Table 1 ‫אדריכם‬ SEEING-

WAY

KNOWING

‫לא ידעו‬

‫בנתיבות‬

SEEING-

WAY

KNOWING

‫לא ידעו‬

‫בדרך‬

SEEING-

WAY

KNOWING

‫עורים‬

‫והולכתי‬

SEEING-

WAY

KNOWING

However, the semantic role played by the two concepts is not the same. The grammatical structure of the verse reveals this. On the syntactic level, v. 16a consists of two hemistichs in a chiastic position. As Table 2 evinces, the verbs opening and closing the verse (√‫ הלך‬hiphil and √‫ דרך‬hiphil), with the locations (‫ בדרך‬and ‫)בנתיבות‬, insist on the dimension of the path. The themes (‫ עורים‬and the suffix 3 m.pl in ‫ )אדריכם‬and the two clauses ‫לא‬ ‫ ידעו‬underline the concept of SEEING-KNOWING. This last concept, however, is subordinated to the cognitive domain of the WAY. The word ‫עורים‬, in fact, acts as the object of the two verbs, while the double locution ‫לא ידעו‬ restricts itself to specify the quality of the places crossed. Moreover, in the specular construction of the two hemistichs, the verbs of movement are placed at the beginning and at the end of the discourse, as the first and last word of the overall metaphorical framework. Table 2 v. 16aα

Verb

Theme

Location

Subordinate clause

v. 16aβ

Location

Subordinate clause

Verb + Theme inserted

On the whole, these syntactic aspects, operating on the surface of the discourse, lead us to think that, in v. 16a, the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING is inserted into the topic of the WAY, occupying, in a certain way, a subordinate position. This puts v. 16a in continuity with v. 15, for the common insistence on the environmental imaginary. At v. 16b the linguistic exhibition of the cognitive dimensions of the WAY and of SEEING-KNOWING appears slightly changed. The lexemes afferent to one and the other sphere are linked to the same verb, in the periphrastic construction √‫ שים‬qal + x + ‫ ל‬+ y. Table 3 darkness

into light

I will change before them and crooked places into plains

66

B. LAZZARO

The synthetic parallelism between darkness-light and crooked placesplains suggests the complementarity between the two cognitive dimensions: the prodigious change invests the atmosphere and the earth and, with them, the double sphere of vision and of the path. However, in Hebrew, the placement of the locution before them in an intermediate position between the elements of darkness and light (‫ )מחשך לפניהם לאור‬lends a certain priority to the visual aspect. Another factor supports this interpretation: by synecdoche, the expression ‫( לפניהם‬literally, “towards their faces”) puts the change in front of the travelers’ eyes. In other words, it indicates the point of view from which to watch the miracle. In the final analysis, the subordination of the concept KNOWING IS SEEING to the domain of the WAY, supposed by the syntax of v. 16a, is questioned in v. 16b. On the contrary, here, the terms relating to the dimension of seeing-knowing become dominant and govern the overall interpretation of the image. In their sequence, v. 16a.b thus reveal the problematic intertwining of these two cognitive dimensions. 2. Blind: A Dissonant Note In Isa 42,16, the peculiar role of the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING appears even more evident on the semantic level, since the adjective ‫עורים‬, “blind”, introduces a strident note in the text. Why should YHWH make blind walk in the desert? After the causative forms of ‫ הלך‬and ‫ דרך‬it is more usual and, no doubt, more congruous to a scene of journey in the desert, to have a reference to the people (Ezek 36,12; Ps 136,16) or to one of their portions (the fathers, Jer 2,6; the redeemed, Ps 107,7). So, an alternative formulation, such as: “I will make my people walk on unknown roads”, would certainly be more fitting, because it would provide a more fluid and coherent image. On the other hand, if we replace blind with lame, we will obtain a hyperbolic statement: “I will make (even) the lame walk on unknown roads”. Overall, however, the image would continue to maintain a certain coherence, the adjective lame being inherent in the same semantic field of the other elements of the sentence (“I will make walk” and “roads”). Isa 42,16a differs from these rather conventional examples, since the adjective blind inserts into the context a semantic impertinence, which at least donne à penser, as Ricœur would say12. Also paradoxical is the fact that the blind have not been healed before setting out in the desert (see 35,5). 12. The linguistic aspect involved here is the collocation, that is, the frequency with which two or more words co-occur. See J. SINCLAIR, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation,

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

67

Therefore, as a discretely heterogeneous and disturbing element in 42,16a, the adjective ‫עורים‬, “blind”, becomes important for the hermeneutics of the utterances. Rather, despite the syntactic subordination to the elements related to the cognitive domain of the WAY, the word ‫ עורים‬and, with it, the dimension of SEEING-KNOWING (see Table 1), take on a strategic role in the interpretation of the text. Indeed, in its semantic impertinence, the adjective implies also a translated reading of the dimension of the WAY. Otherwise, the wandering of some blind people in the desert would seem at least surreal, especially in the face of such prodigious metamorphoses of the landscape. Thus, the way becomes a metaphor of a path of another kind, which these anonymous wayfarers will have to undertake13. The more precise determination of this second cognitive metaphor will emerge from the analysis of the verbs ‫ הלך‬and ‫דרך‬. But it is important to clarify firstly the metaphorical range of the word ‫ עור‬in Deutero-Isaiah. 3. The Deutero-Isaianic Use of ‫עור‬ The distinctive role of ‫ עור‬in the metaphor-device is reaffirmed by the special use of this adjective by Deutero-Isaiah. The adjective is absent from the texts attributable to the son of Amoz. It occurs exclusively in the second part of the Isaianic scroll (42,7.16.18.19 [3×]; 43,8) or in subsequent rewritings, dependent on it (29,18; 35,5; 56,10; 59,10). Additionally, in the other poetic books of the Hebrew Bible the lexeme appears very seldom (Jer 31,8; Zeph 7,17; Mal 1,8; Ps 146,8; Job 29,15; Lam 4,14). All these aspects points to the preference of Deutero-Isaiah for this adjective. Moreover, the occurrences of the lexeme are all concentrated in chapters 42–43. Here, together with other words and phrases related to the semantics of seeing-knowing or imprisonment, ‫ עור‬draws a thin red thread that ties the parts together in a macro-unit14. In this regard, it is worth noting the intertwining between the semantics of blindness and that of imprisonment, which connotes the use of ‫ עור‬even with diversified accentuations, according to the contexts. The articulation of the two semantic registers can be explicit (42,7), implicit (43,8), or bound to the development Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991; M. STUBBS, Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001. 13. The metaphorical reading of Isa 42,16 is preferable. See LUND, Way Metaphors (n. 10), pp. 129-131. 14. See R.F. MELUGIN, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 (BZAW, 141), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1976, pp. 106-109. According to Melugin, in addition to ‫עור‬, the words or phrases that connect the various parts of cc. 42-43 are: ‫( אור‬42,6.16), ‫( כלא‬42,7.22; 43,6), ‫( תורה‬42,4.21.24), ‫( לא ידעו‬42,16[2×].25) and √‫ הלך‬+ ‫ ב‬+ ‫( דרך‬42,16.24). To these data I could add the mention of darkness, in the lexical variants ‫( חשך‬42,7) and ‫( מחשך‬42,16).

68

B. LAZZARO

of the broader context (42,18.19). Nonetheless, it influences the connotation of the adjective. I verify these assertions in the texts aforementioned. a) Isa 42,7 To open the blind eyes, to get the prisoners out of the dungeon, from the house of confinement those who live in darkness

‫לפקח עינים עורות‬ ‫להוציא ממסגר אסיר‬ ‫מבית כלא ישבי חשך‬

In 42,7, blindness is directly related to imprisonment thanks to the synthetic parallelism that associates the opening (√‫ פקח‬qal) of the eyes of the blind to the release (√‫ יצא‬hiphil) of the prisoners and the liberation of those who live in darkness. The contiguity of the utterances emphasizes the cognitive elements common to the images15: as the perception of the blind is immersed in the darkness, so the prisoners’ home is confined to gloomy spaces (‫)ישבי חשך‬. In this perspective, the blind and the prisoners share a similar form of oppression and relegation in the darkness. b) Isa 43,8 Bring out the people who are blind – and yet they have eyes, the deaf – and yet they have ears!

‫הוציא עם־עור‬ ‫ועינים יש‬ ‫וחרשים‬ ‫ואזנים למו‬

The case of 43,8 is more intricate. Here the author does not combine the two semantic fields by means of a parallel structure, but coordinates them directly within a single statement: “Bring out the people who are blind”. Unlike 42,7, in 43,8 is missing the explicit lexicon of jailing, relating to prisoners (‫ אסיר‬and ‫ )ישבי חשך‬and to places of detention (‫מסגר‬ and ‫)בית כלא‬. The semantics of imprisonment, limited to the use of √‫יצא‬ hiphil, remains in the background. The liberation of the blind indicates mainly the abandonment of mental hardening, which prevents understanding the identity and the salvific role of YHWH for the people (vv. 1013). Moreover, the newly acquired intelligence (√‫ ידע‬and √‫בין‬, v. 10) enables the Judahites to be representative witnesses (‫אתם עדי‬, vv. 10.12) before the nations. The dimension of captivity continues to be active, even though it remains in the background. This inference is supported by the cognitive link between blindness and imprisonment, mentioned above. Therefore, the 15. This is the well-known principle of equivalence of R. JAKOBSON, Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics, in T.A. SEBEOK (ed.), Style in Language, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1964, 350-377, p. 358. On the equivalence of the same images in Isa 42,7, see E. BEAUCAMP, “Chant nouveau du retour” (Is 42,10-17): Un monstre de l’exégèse moderne, in Revue des Sciences Religieuses 56 (1982) 145-158, p. 153.

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

69

metaphor of the liberation of the blind not only indicates access to a new form of understanding, it also indicates, albeit in a veiled way, the oppressive character of mental opacity, in which one can confine oneself as in a prison. On the discourse-surface, as already noted, the poet links these two cognitive dimensions (blindness and imprisonment), making the adjective ‫ עור‬the attribute of the object of the verb ‫הוציא‬: “Bring out the people who are blind!”. c) Isa 42,18.19 18

O deaf, hear! O blind, look that you may see! 19 Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger whom I send? Who is blind as the perfect one, or blind as the servant of YHWH?

‫החרשים שמעו‬ ‫והעורים הביטו לראות‬ ‫מי עור כי אם־עבדי‬ ‫וחרש כמלאכי אשלח‬ ‫מי עור כמשלם‬ ‫ועור כעבד יהוה‬

The meaning of ‫ עור‬is different in 42,18.19. The derogatory designation blind/deaf is expressly referred to the obtuseness of the respondents. As such, it constitutes an accusation, a fault. The respondents, in fact, have seen many things, but have not adequately understood them (‫)ראית רבות ולא תשמר‬, they have opened their ears, but have not been able to hear (‫פקוח אזנים ולא ישמע‬, v. 20). The inability to understand is still stigmatized at vv. 23.25. In essence, in the broader context of 42,18-2516, the people are designated as blind and deaf, because they do not recognize the divine action. Besides, the introductory apostrophe, in its paradoxical trait, points out from the beginning the metaphorical value of ‫עור‬ and the related ‫“( חרש‬O deaf, hear! O blind, look that you may see!”). In any case, it is also true that at v. 22 a series of terms relating to the conceptual domain of imprisonment is introduced. The people appear to be preyed upon (‫)עם־בזוז ושסוי‬, trapped in narrow spaces (‫הפח בחורים‬ ‫)כלם‬, hidden in prisons (‫)ובבתי כלאים החבאו‬, deprived of freedom (‫ואין‬ ‫מציל‬, ‫)אין־אמר השב‬. The description does not adhere to the concrete experience of exile17. Rather, on the metaphorical and in a vividly hyperbolic form, it refers to the affective experience of the people. Also in this case, therefore, the dimension of imprisonment ends up conditioning the semantic range of the adjectives ‫ עור‬and ‫חרש‬. It is noteworthy that, in the larger 16. For the textual problems of this section, see D. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 2: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO, 50/2), Fribourg/CH, Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986, pp. 306-311. 17. See B. BALDAUF, Jes 42,18-25: Gottes tauber und blinder Knecht, in F.V. REITERER (ed.), Ein Gott: Eine Offenbarung. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualität. FS N. Füglister, Würzburg, Echter, 1991, 13-36, pp. 32-33; J.L. KOOLE, Isaiah III, vol. 1 (HCOT), Kampen, Kok Pharos, 1997, p. 275; BERGES, Jesaja 40–48 (n. 11), p. 265.

70

B. LAZZARO

context, the two dimensions are not completely uncoupled. On the grammatical level, in fact, the connection between blindness/deafness and imprisonment is upheld by the emphatic pronoun ‫והוא‬, which opens v. 22, favoring the identification between the blind servant (v. 19a.d) and the hunted people (v. 22). Secondly, in closing (v. 25), the use of the vocabulary of knowledge (√‫ ידע‬and √‫ שים‬+ ‫ )על־לב‬in reference to the chastised people, creates an inclusion with the initial apostrophe against the blinddeaf people. d) Blindness, Imprisonment, Dereliction, Not-Understanding In the texts examined, the adjective ‫ עור‬reveals a peculiar semantic density: blindness is connected to a fault of the people and this fault concerns mainly the sphere of knowledge or, better, the understanding of the design of YHWH in history18. The lack of understanding of the divine plan throws the people into a state of dereliction, which is likened to imprisonment19. The opacity itself, by blocking understanding, becomes a kind of prison. In the texts I just examined, the continuous tangency between the dimension of blindness and that of imprisonment is explained more simply on the cognitive level. While ‫ עור‬is a spy of the primary metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING, the vocabulary of imprisonment implies rather a complex metaphor: DERELICTION IS A DARK PRISON. In this last metaphor the emotional state of the dereliction of the exiles is understood as a place without light. As already noted, the two conceptual metaphors can be associated because they share a characterizing element: the dimension of darkness. In fact, both the blind man and the prisoner live in darkness. 4. Blind on the Road (v. 16a) After analyzing the semantic range of ‫ עור‬in Deutero-isaianic use, I will now examine its graft in 42,16a. This will allow me to enucleate the cognitive metaphor supposed by the semantics of the way. In a second step, I will study the development of the image in v. 16b. a) ‫הלך‬/‫דרך‬ Isa 42,16a exhibits a significant element for the hermeneutics of the metaphor. Here, the blind are not subjects of action. A blind man can stand autonomously, though, in the attempt to walk (√‫ הלך‬qal, Zehp 1,17), 18. For the cognitive link between blindness, loss of wisdom and oppression, see especially Deut 28,28-29. 19. This metaphor, which conceives interior suffering as a prison, is well represented by Ps 107,10 (“prisoners of affliction”) and 142,8 (“Bring my soul out of prison”).

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

71

he gropes (√‫ משש‬piel, Deut 28,29; √‫ גשש‬piel, Isa 59,10), often staggers (√‫ נגע‬qal, Lam 4,14) and stumbles (√‫ כשל‬qal, Isa 59,10). In Isa 42,16a, however, the blind do not enjoy their own autonomy. They are led by YHWH on unknown paths. An appropriate interpretation of the metaphor of 42,16a must therefore take due account of the semantic register of the way, carried by the verbs ‫ הלך‬and ‫ דרך‬and the clauses ‫ בדרך לא ידעו‬and ‫בנתיבות לא־ידעו‬. Now, to indicate, in a literal sense, the leading of the people out of Babylon, Deutero-Isaiah uses the verb ‫ בוא‬hiphil (43,5.6; 49,22)20. When, instead, he describes the same event through more elaborate images, he resorts to the verbs ‫ נהג‬piel (49,10), ‫ נהל‬piel (40,11; 49,10) or, indeed, ‫ הלך‬hiphil (42,16; 48,21) and ‫ דרך‬hiphil (42,16). In Isa 42,16, the combination of ‫ הלך‬and ‫ דרך‬emphasizes the physical dimension of walking21, rather than that of a general leading in the desert22. The emphasis is accentuated by the locations ‫בדרך‬/‫בנתיבות‬, with reduplication of √‫דרך‬. This gives the overall image a certain vividness, representing the blind, while walking on paths never known, with an uncertain and staggering pace. The interference of the verbs ‫ הלך‬and ‫ דרך‬triggers further cognitive processes. In particular, the use of √‫ הלך‬hiphil underlines the link between blindness and imprisonment, which, as we have seen, connotes the use of ‫ עור‬in 42,7.18.19; 43,8. This verbal form, in fact, can indicate the deportation of prisoners (Deut 28,36; 2 Kgs 24,15; 25,20; Jer 52,26; 2 Chr 33,11; 36,6) or, on the contrary, their journey to freedom (Isa 48,21; Jer 31,9; Ezek 36,12). This last semantic aspect is, moreover, consistent with the use of √‫ הלך‬hiphil in reference to the exodus and, more exactly, to the crossing of the sea (Isa 63,12.13; Ps 106,9) or to the path in the desert (Deut 8,15; 29,24; Jer 2,6; Amos 2,10; Ps 136,16). In this perspective, the blind of Isa 42,16 are metaphors of the exiles, initiated by YHWH himself towards redemption. For them, liberation is a journey. 20. In this sense, ‫ בוא‬hiphil is used also in the third part of the scroll of Isa (see 56,7; 60,9; 66,20). In 48,15, however, the verb refers to Cyrus. 21. For the emphasis on the physical dimension of walking, see Deut 29,4 (“I have led you [√‫ ]הלך‬in the wilderness [...] and your sandals have not worn out off your feet”); Isa 11,15 (“[YHWH] will enable them to walk across [√‫ ]דרך‬in their sandals”); Jer 51,33 (“The daughter of Babylon is like a threshing floor at the time it is stamped firm [√‫;)”]דרך‬ Hab 3,19 (“[YHWH] makes my feet like hinds’ feet and makes me walk [√‫ ]דרך‬on my high places”); Job 12,17.19 (“[YHWH] makes walk [√‫ ]הלך‬barefoot”). 22. The conceptual distinction between √‫ נהג‬qal and √‫ הלך‬hiphil is evident in Lam 3,2. Here the parallelism between the two verbs allows to represent in sequence the movement of someone who, guided by others, is forced to walk in the dark (“He led me [‫ ]נהג‬and made me walk [‫ ]וילך‬into darkness and not into light”). Unlike ‫הלך‬, the verb ‫ נהג‬also favors pastoral metaphors (see Isa 63,14; Ps 78,52; 80,2). For expressing metaphors of this type, Deutero-Isaiah uses the co-referent ‫( נהל‬40,11).

72

B. LAZZARO

The verb ‫ דרך‬introduces a further nuance in the speech. In the Hebrew Bible, √‫ דרך‬hiphil is often linked to the topic of the WAY as a way of life (see Ps 25,5.9; 119,35; Prov 4,11)23. In these cases, next to the verbal form stays a locative adjunct that clarifies the meaning of the metaphor. It will be said, for example, “I make you walk on the paths of uprightness” (Prov 4,11) or “Lead me in your faithfulness” (Ps 25,5). This rather conventional metaphor is known by Deutero-Isaiah too. In the divine self-proclamation of 48,17, it denotes one of the attributes of YHWH, through the participle ‫מדריכך‬: “I am [...] the one who leads you in the way you should go”. The parallelism with the divine attribute “who teaches you (‫ )מלמדך‬to your benefit”, together with the reproach for not paying attention (√‫ קשב‬hiphil) to the commandments (v. 18), highlights the cognitive link between the dimension of conduct of life and that of understanding. Indeed, in the wider context of the discourse (vv. 16-19), the people are blamed not for a perversion in moral behavior, but rather for a deficiency in the recognition of the divine plan of salvation. For this reason, in the apostrophe (v. 16), YHWH invites his interlocutors to come close and hear what he has to say, protesting that he had not spoken to them in an incomprehensible manner. Therefore, the “way” within which the people should walk is first of all the recognition of the salvific plan of YHWH. It is, in other words, a path of knowledge and, only secondarily, of moral behavior. This connection between the concepts of WAY and KNOWLEDGE is even more evident in Isa 42,16a, the only other passage where Deutero-Isaiah employs √‫ דרך‬hiphil. The evidence is given by the fact that the locative adjunct that matches the verb, does not possess here a moral specification24. In fact, the blind must not tread “in the path of your commands”, as in Ps 119,35, or “in the paths of uprightness”, as in Prov 4,11. They must walk “on paths unknown to them”. The double clause ‫ לא ידעו‬remarks the knowledge or, better, the not-understanding of the interlocutors25. 23. This differentiates √‫ דרך‬hiphil from √‫ הלך‬hiphil. A single metaphorical use of this type is attested (Ps 125,5) for the latter verb. 24. The words ‫ דרך‬and ‫נתיבה‬, singly or in combination, are often connotative of the metaphor MORAL LIFE IS A JOURNEY. For the extensive use of ‫ דרך‬in this sense, see J. BERGMAN – A. HALDAR – H. RINGGREN – K. KOCH, ‫דּ ֶרְך‬,ֶ derekh, in TDOT 3: 270-294. With this meaning, ‫ נתיבה‬is used in Isa 59,8; Ps 119,105; Job 24,13; Prov 8,2.20; 12,28 (for the male equivalent ‫נתיב‬, see Ps 119,135). The combination of the two lexemes appears in Jer 6,16; 18,15; Prov 1,15; 3,17; 7,25. This combination could also suggest a reference to the experience of the exodus, as in Isa 43,16. However, in 42,16 the exodus-reference remains somewhat faded. At the very most, it contributes, as a background knowledge, to the connotation of the path of the blind to freedom. 25. Deutero-Isaiah uses the clause ‫ לא‬+ √‫ ידע‬qal 3mpl, in two other places (44,18 and 45,20) to denote the insipidity generated by idolatry. In particular, 44,18 is significant.

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

73

Ultimately, Deutero-Isaiah seems to manipulate the conventional metaphor MORAL LIFE IS A JOURNEY, strengthening his theological argument: the constitutive inability of the people to grasp the divine plan in history. Therefore, the way on which the blind are conducted, functions as a metaphor for the access to a knowledge hitherto ignored. To such a knowledge, in spite of themselves, they will be introduced, like a blind man forced to walk on ways never before known. b) The Emergence of Two Other Metaphors On the basis of the data collected so far, we can state that the peculiar interweaving of the concept KNOWING IS SEEING with the WAY-topic in Isa 42,16a, gives origin to two new metaphors: FREEDOM IS A JOURNEY and KNOWING IS WALKING TOWARDS/ENTERING. The first of the two metaphors is generated by the cognitive link between blindness and imprisonment, which is activated by the contact between the adjective ‫ עור‬and √‫ הלך‬hiphil in the meaning of “to lead [deported]”. The second metaphor is triggered by the contact between the words relating to the semantics of the way as a way of life (√‫ דרך‬hiphil + ‫ בדרך‬and ‫ )בנתיבות‬and those relating to the domain of SEEING-KNOWING (‫ עורים‬and the clause ‫)לא ידעו‬. So, the poet bends the topic of the WAY as a way of life to the demands of the theology of hardening. He shows that the path to liberation begins in the heart of the exiles, to the extent that they understand and welcome the divine redemption. 5. Environmental Changes (v. 16b) In the second part of the verse (Table 3), KNOWING IS SEEING continues to be combined with the WAY-domain. Since the antonimy ‫מחשך‬/‫ אור‬impacts on the external conditions of visibility, the antonimy ‫מעקשים‬/‫ מישור‬denotes the conditions of the road. a) From ‫ מחשך‬to ‫אור‬ The light/darkness binomial is rather conventional in the Hebrew Bible. In the lexical form ‫מחשך‬/‫ אור‬appears only in Isa 42,16. The opposition ‫חשך‬/‫ אור‬is more frequent. Associated with the metaphor of the WAY, the latter lexical couple can denote, in a negative sense, the loss of reason (Job 12,25) or a state of extreme affliction (Lam 3,2), caused by a regime of social injustice (Isa 59,9). In a positive sense, the pre-eminence of Here the clause contributes to define the hardening of the audience. The cognitive association between blindness and lack of knowledge reappears in 56,10, where the locution ‫ לא ידעו‬co-occurs with the adjective ‫ עורים‬in the characterization of the leaders.

74

B. LAZZARO

light over darkness, on the other hand, expresses the guarantee of divine protection even in the midst of the troubles of life (Job 29,3) or liberation from slavery (Isa 9,1). Beyond the connection with the semantics of the journey, taken in itself, the change from light to darkness can describe the approach to death (Ps 139,11; Job 17,25; 18,18) or the divine punishment (Isa 5,30; Amos 5,18.20). In other cases, however, the binomial connects to the conceptual domain of knowledge. Qoh 2,13 is especially representative of this metaphorical use: “I realized that wisdom excels folly, as light excels darkness”. On balance, the polarity light/darkness becomes a metaphor for the conceptual opposition between knowledge and not knowledge, between joy and dereliction, between freedom and slavery. In Isa 42,16b, the transformation of darkness into light has a positive value and expresses the passage from slavery to freedom, from dereliction to joy26, but also from not knowledge to knowledge. The polysemy of this scenographic detail is supported by the connotation of blind characterizing the anonymous protagonists of the march in the desert. As we have seen, in the Deuteroisaianic use, the adjective is expressive not only of a deficit of knowledge, but also of a state of dereliction akin to the condition of the prisoner. So, the light that brightens the journey, means not only the path to freedom and joy (see, for example, 51,3.11; 55,12), but also the access to a new knowledge of God and of his plan for the people. This hermeneutics is upheld by the comparison with other Deuteroisaianic texts, where the motif of the transformation of the environment appears and/or that of the return through the desert. In none of these passages27, appears the scenographic set of darkness/light. Changing, in a miraculous way, are the landscape, the vegetation, the viability, but not the luminous element. Only in Isa 42,16b, both are changing, the ground and the visibility. Therefore, it is possible to infer that the mention of light/ darkness was prompted by the insertion of the cognitive metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING in the structural topic of the WAY. Besides, light characterizes both concepts: it is a necessary condition for visibility and an outward circumstance facilitating the journey28. 26. The noun ‫ מחשך‬is normally implicated in the semantics of suffering (see Ps 74,20; 88,7.19; 143,3; Lam 3,6). In Isa 29,15, the lexeme concerns dissimulation. 27. For the motif of the desert and the transformation of nature, see Isa 40,3-5.6-8; 41,1720; 43,14-21; 44,1-5; 51,3. For the motif of the departure/return, see 48,20-21; 49,7-12; 51,9-11; 52,11-12; 55,12-13. For this classification, see U. BERGES, Der zweite Exodus im Jesajabuch: Auszug oder Verwaltung?, in F.-L. HOSSFELD – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), “Das Manna fällt auch heute noch”: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. FS E. Zenger (HBS, 44), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004, 77-95. 28. The two metaphors share an element of their conceptual mapping. For this cognitive category, see KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 6), pp. 7-10. Commenting Isa 42,7, Hitzig had already

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

75

b) Two Intertextual Comparisons The interpretation so far proposed, is further substantiated by the intertextual link of Isa 42,16 with 9,1 and Lam 3,2. Is 42,16 I will make the blind walk on a way unknown to them, on paths unknown to them I will cause them to tread. I will change darkness into light before them, and crooked places into plains. These things I did for them nor did I abandon them. Isa 9,1 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who dwelt in a very dark land, upon them has the light shone. Lam 3,2 He has driven me and has made [me] walk in darkness and not in light.

‫והולכתי עורים‬ ‫בדרך לא ידעו‬ ‫בנתיבות לא־ידעו‬ ‫אדריכם‬ ‫אשים מחשך לפניהם לאור‬ ‫ומעקשים למישור‬ ‫אלה הדברים עשיתם‬ ‫ולא עזבתים‬ ‫העם ההלכים בחשך‬ ‫ראו אור גדול‬ ‫ישבי בארץ צלמות‬ ‫אור נגה עליהם‬ ‫אותי נהג‬ ‫וילך חשך‬ ‫ולא־אור‬

The three texts share significant lexical contacts. See in particular the common use of verbs related to the domain of the path (√‫ הלך‬qal, Isa 9,1; √‫ הלך‬hiphil, Isa 42,16 and Lam 3,2; √‫ נהג‬qal, Lam 3,2) and of numerous terms related to the semantics of light/darkness (‫חשך‬, ‫מחשך‬, ‫אור‬, ‫צלמות‬, √‫)נלה‬. Moreover, the three passages reproduce the same descriptive scene, by analogy (Isa 9,1 and 42,16), or by antithesis (Isa 42,16 and Lam 3,2). I analyze separately the relationship of Isa 42,16 with these two texts. In Isa 9,129, a group of men sets off into the darkness and suddenly sees the light appearing in front of them. Here too there are prisoners (v. 3), finally liberated. However, while in 9,1 the group moves independently (√‫ הלך‬qal), in 42,16 the travelers are completely at the mercy of another (God). Moreover, while in 9,1 the people see the light (‫)ראו אור‬, in 42,16 the vision of light is prevented by blindness. Compared to Lam 3,2, Isa 42,16 seems to overturn the scene. While in Lam 3,2, a man chastised and consumed by pain is led into darkness, in Isa 42,16 the blind men make the reverse path, passing from darkness to light. The links between the two passages are strengthened, when we observe intuited the double ascription of the metaphor of light to the dimension of knowledge and that of liberation. See F. HITZIG, Der Prophet Jesaja, Heidelberg, Winter, 1833, p. 494. 29. See R. LACK, La symbolique du Livre d’Isaïe: Essai sur l’image littéraire comme élément de structuration (AnBib, 59), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1973, p. 94.

76

B. LAZZARO

the wider context of Lam 3,1-2030: after the collapse of Jerusalem, the dereliction of the people is expressed by the images of reclusion in dark places (v. 6), chains (v. 7), obstruction of the path (‫ דרך‬and ‫נתיבה‬, v. 9). On the whole, Deutero-Isaiah seems to have elaborated in a paradoxical way a scene already tested, in which the path in light is a metaphor of freedom (FREEDOM IS A JOURNEY IN LIGHT). The paradox is triggered precisely by the problematic reference to the blind. This keeps the question open: why do blind people walk on unknown roads? Why not heal them first? In § 5d, I will offer an answer to this question. c) From ‫ מעקשים‬to ‫משור‬ The second landscape change concerns the viability of the ground: “I will change the crooked places into plains”. This further component is rather recurrent in the Deutero-isaianic scenography31. In the Hebrew Bible, especially in the wisdom-texts, √‫ עקש‬conventionally characterizes the metaphor of behavior as a way (Isa 59,8; Prov 2,15; 10,9; 11,20; 22,5; 28,6.18). Similarly, the noun ‫ מישור‬is part of this expressive register (Ps 26,12; 27,11; 143,10). Even in the context of Isa 42,16, this new landscape detail restores the metaphor MORAL LIFE IS A JOURNEY, as if to suggest a passage from perversity to rectitude. This metaphorical movement, however, is secondary because of the reference to the blind, presupposed by ‫לפניהם‬, which keeps the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING active in this second hemistich. In this way, the smoothing of the road does not primarily concern the moral dimension, but rather the dimension of knowledge: understanding will be facilitated and, with it, the access to freedom. d) A Problematic Issue In v. 16a.b, the blind remain as such. A lot of things change around them: the intensity of the light, the conditions of the journey. What does not change is their physical condition. The paradox is made worse by the fact that these external changes are expressly placed before their eyes (‫)לפניהם‬. Evidently, they cannot perceive it, except in a limited way. Therefore, the transformation of darkness into light and of the crooked places into plains is not a metaphor of an interior conversion, according to the widespread metaphor INTERIOR LIFE IS A LANDSCAPE. More precisely, the extent of such a metaphor is limited by the permanence of the men in blindness and by the irony of the phrase ‫לפניהם‬. 30. See LUND, Way Metaphors (n. 10), pp. 132-133. 31. See supra, n. 27.

77

KNOWING IS SEEING AND ISA 42,16

At the same time, however, the landscape’s change has a positive impact on the characterization of the author of the miracle: YHWH. He is the one who improved external visibility and facilitated the path. God, therefore, does not deceive the people making them wander in the desert, as was done sometimes with the blind (Lev 19,14; Deut 27,28; 2 Kgs 6,9). YHWH, rather, behaves benevolently, like Job: He is “eyes to the blind” (Job 29,15). Nevertheless, while paving the way towards redemption for the exiles, he does not intervene in their hearts. So, the path to freedom, promoted and facilitated by YHWH, still remains difficult for people, not allowing themselves to be entirely healed. II. CONCLUSION In the book of Isa, knowledge is often represented as an event of vision or listening. According to the categories of cognitive linguistics, this representative mode is condensed into two distinct metaphorical concepts: KNOWING IS SEEING and KNOWING IS HEARING. In this paper, I have focused on a special case of this pervasive metaphorical process: Isa 42,16. Here the concept KNOWING IS SEEING undergoes a particular elaboration, combining with the Deutero-isaianic topic of the WAY. The interweaving of the two cognitive dimensions generates two complex metaphors: FREEDOM IS A JOURNEY and KNOWING IS WALKING TOWARDS/ENTERING. In this way, the liberation of the exiled people does not simply appear as an extrinsic historical fact. Rather, it is shown as an interior event, bound to the understanding and acceptance of the salvific plan of YHWH. In the metaphor, however, there remains a paradox: although God tries to facilitate such an interior journey, he encounters the blindness of the people, that is, their stubborn skepticism, which imprisons them in dereliction. The analysis has highlighted the fruitfulness of an integrated approach to the meaning of metaphor, which combines the instances of cognitive linguistics with those, more common, of grammar and semantics. The relevance of such integration is determined by the multidimensionality of metaphor: it does not resolve itself in a generic mental conception, but implies a concrete linguistic formulation, with all the poetic and semantic nuances that this entails. Strada Grotti di Torri 54 IT-02032 Fara in Sabina Rieti Italy [email protected]

Boris LAZZARO

FROM TERROR TO EMBRACE DELIBERATE BLENDING OF METAPHORS IN JEREMIAH 30–31

The “Scroll of Consolation”1 (Jeremiah 30–31) has a very special role within the book of Jeremiah. In the second part of the book (Jeremiah 26– 52), prose largely dominates, whereas Jeremiah 30–31 mostly consists of poetry. It also stands out from its immediate surroundings (chapters 29 and 32), which are concerned with those in Babylon and an event during the siege of Jerusalem. As Barbara Bozak has shown2, Jeremiah 30–31 constitute a distinct unit and contain six poems as their core in 30,5–31,22. Jer 30,1 is an introduction formula that only occurs elsewhere in 7,1; 11,1; and 18,1. The new introduction formula in 32,1 marks the end of the unit3. These two chapters are full of images, comparisons, and figurative language and are therefore very suitable for the study of “networks of metaphors”, which is the aim of this volume. The analysis of metaphors has gained much attention in recent years4; for the book of Jeremiah, the work of Job Jindo has proved groundbreaking5. Another important contribution to the understanding of metaphors has come from Benjamin Harshav6, who directs attention to their contexts and speaks of “frames”. My aim in this article is to present some major features of the Scroll of Consolation7 with respect to metaphors. Before doing so, a general remark 1. This title, or alternatively “booklet of consolation”, for these two chapters of Jeremiah is appropriate for two reasons. First, God commands Jeremiah to write the following words into a scroll (30,2). Second, compared to Isaiah 40–55 (or even up to Isaiah 66), often named “Trostbuch”, book of consolation, Jeremiah 30–31 is much shorter. 2. B.A. BOZAK, Life ‘Anew’: A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31 (AnBib, 122), Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. 3. For this delimitation, see G. FISCHER, Das Trostbüchlein: Text, Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30–31 (SBB, 26), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993, pp. 6-7. 4. Grohmann gives a good overview of these developments and presents a working definition for metaphor: “[…] eine Stilfigur, in der mittels eines sprachlichen Bildes, d.h. in übertragenem Sinn, auf einen Sachverhalt Bezug genommen wird”. M. GROHMANN, Metapherntheorien und Altes Testament, in Theologische Literaturzeitung 142 (2017) 11531166, col. 1156. 5. J.Y. JINDO, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24 (HSM, 64), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2010. 6. B. HARSHAV, Explorations in Poetics, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2007. See especially chapter 2, “Metaphor and Frames of Reference” (pp. 32-75). 7. The majority opinion favours the Septuagint of the book of Jeremiah or its Vorlage. In my opinion, the Masoretic text is closer to the original and more solid. Therefore, I will

80

G. FISCHER

is necessary which touches deeply on the understanding of metaphors in the book of Jeremiah. If a saying, for instance the gathering and return from the Exile in Babylon promised in Jer 29,14 and other texts, stems from the prophet who lived around 600 BCE in Judah, the reference to historical situations may be predominant. Yet if the same saying originates in a much later period8, it makes a big difference: what in one setting appears to be a prophetic announcement, may be, in the latter case, a metaphoric statement about spiritual processes of community building and conversion to God. This example shows that assumptions about the formation of the book of Jeremiah play a key role for our theme. I. METAPHORS IN THE SIX POEMS IN JER 30,5–31,22 The title of this contribution tries to grasp the development and fundamental change between the beginning and the end of the poetic core of this small scroll. Jer 30,5-6 depict a group of men struck by fear and behaving like a woman in labour, reacting with terror to a situation of extreme danger. The last sentence of the sixth poem in 31,22, ‫נקבה תסובב גבר‬, is enigmatic9, but in any case forms a contrast and final resolution to the start in the first poem. “A female surrounds/embraces a strong man”10 picks up the two genders, reverses their traditional roles by giving the initiative to women, and shows by the verb a completely altered situation, where love and empathy have overcome the panic of before11. Metaphoric usage is present in the question in 30,6, “Is a man giving birth?”, and in the phrase at the end, “and all faces have been turned yellowish”12. The first case applies an activity otherwise exclusively used use MT for this investigation as textual base. See G. FISCHER, Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007, pp. 1753. 8. The number, variety, and pervasive presence of the intertextual links of the book of Jeremiah with other biblical scrolls require a date not earlier than the 4th century BCE for its composition and writing. See G. FISCHER, Jeremia 1–25 (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2005, pp. 74 and 120. 9. For various interpretations, see T. ODASHIMA, Heilsworte im Jeremiabuch: Untersuchungen zu ihrer vordeuteronomistischen Bearbeitung (BWANT, 125), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1989, pp. 129-138; A. BAUER, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading (Studies in Biblical Literature, 5), New York, Peter Lang, 1999, pp. 139-145; G. FISCHER, Jeremia 26–52 (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2005, pp. 163-165. 10. All English translations of biblical texts are mine, unless otherwise indicated. 11. Bozak points to the link of 31,22 with 30,5-6. This functions like a frame for the six poems. See BOZAK, Life ‘Anew’ (n. 2), p. 104. 12. HALAT (420) renders as first meaning of ‫ ירקון‬as “Gelbheit” (yellow color), used several times for a disease of grain (e.g., Deut 28,22). It is only in Jer 30,6 that it takes

DELIBERATE BLENDING OF METAPHORS IN JEREMIAH 30–31

81

with reference to women to men, thus creating an element of surprise. It serves as a starting point, presents a situation “out of order”, and thus asks for some kind of solution to it. The term ‫ ירקון‬for the paleness13 of the faces in the second case, transfers an originally abstract noun to a bodily experience and perception, as an expression of weakness and dread. Both metaphors thus work together to convey an image of powerless men. In contrast to this beginning, the conclusion of the six poems in 31,22 brings a peaceful union of both woman and man. The subject is ‫נקבה‬, literally a “pierced one”, mostly indicating abstractly a female gender. This usage is strange, as the normal word would have been ‫אשה‬, “woman”, and better suited for the correspondence with the object “strong man/ hero” (‫)גבר‬. Once again, this seems to be metaphoric language, combining a noun denoting the concept “womanish” with an action involving the participation of the body, mingling two levels of thought. The first poem (30,5-11) continues in v. 8 with another set of metaphors, the parallelism of “I will break his yoke from off your neck”14 // “and your bonds, I will tear”. “Yoke” and “bonds” do not apply to real elements made of wood or metal, and leather, but indicate the suppression of a foreign nation. This alien dominion will end, and the community will serve “David, their king” in v. 9. The name of the dynasty founder used by the prophet or the book’s author even later cannot refer to the ruler of the 10th century BCE. It envisages a future leader for the people, one equal to the former conceived as a model and ideal15. Jer 30,10-11 allude by “the land of their captivity” and “where I have scattered you” to the exile; as said in the beginning, this is either a realistic announcement in the proposed setting in Jeremiah’s lifetime, or a metaphoric usage at a much later stage, when the book was written. Then the end of the first poem would proclaim divine liberation from all kinds of bondage and alienation. The second poem (30,12-17) starts with an image of sickness: “Your fracture is incurable, your (wound effected by a) blow is severe”16. Jer 30,13 continues the theme of illness, mixing it with a legal motif: “Nobody is the figurative sense of paleness, lividity. In Modern Hebrew, the root ‫ ירק‬may also indicate a green colour. 13. It does not matter whether the pallor is of yellow, green, bluish, or whitish tinge. 14. The communication changes from the third person for Jacob/the people to an address in second person (“your neck”), whereas the referent of the third person (“his yoke”) is not identified. The difficulty is probably due to the fact that the book of Jeremiah quotes Isa 10,27. 15. Once again, the book of Jeremiah seems to draw on another prophet for this announcement, this time Hosea: the sequence of six words starting from “YHWH, their God […]” is identical with Hos 3,5. 16. The last three words of v. 12 in Hebrew, ‫לשברך נחלה מכתך‬, are the same as in Nah 3,19. There it refers to Nineveh.

82

G. FISCHER

pleading your cause regarding purulence […]”. In v. 14, “all your lovers” alludes to intimate relationships with foreign peoples (see also 22,20.22), before switching to the divine interpretation, explaining the “blow” as punishment for the sins of the woman addressed17. Jer 30,15 confirms the connection of sickness and guilt. It thus becomes clear that it is not a body that is ill; instead, these verses talk about the bad/fatal state of the community, on at least three levels: it is broken and wounded. The absence of juridical support does not indicate a court situation, but missing assistance. The “lovers” introduces the dimension of lost intimacy, thus interpreting the fact that the seemingly “good” connections with other nations have vanished18. As in the first poem, the last two verses of the second poem reveal an essential change. Jer 30,16 talks of the woman’s enemies as ‫אכליך‬, “(those who have) eaten you”, and announces that they, too, “will be eaten”. The usage of nourishment is a metaphor for what two further lines describe partially as to “plunder” and to “spoil”. The image of “eating” is wider in its meaning than the two other actions of the foes and thus serves well to convey at the beginning a concept of devouring that includes many aspects. In the final v. 17, God picks up the motif of sickness and promises healing, against the depiction of hopelessness in vv. 12-13. The third poem (30,18–31,1) switches again to new imagery. The beginning in v. 18 surprises with two unique combinations, namely ‫שבות‬, “turning, change”, referring to tents, and divine compassion, with the verb ‫רחם‬, for dwellings. The promised reversal of fates19, normally addressed to humans, extends here to their abodes. Both metaphors indicate that God’s mercy and restoration also encompasses homes/edifices and thus the places where these people live. The question in 30,21, who would “pledge his heart”, is unique, too. The phrase combines the language of business with the central human organ20, and transforms an act of guaranty into a personal process involving one’s whole self. The last two verses of Jeremiah 30 announce divine judgment, using the images of a whirling storm (twice the root ‫ סער‬in v. 23) and of a glowing fire (‫הרון‬, v. 24) for God’s fury.

17. The second poem stands out by its “feminine address” (BOZAK, Life ‘Anew’ [n. 2], p. 21). Only at the end, will v. 17 identify her with “Zion”. 18. See Jer 30,14: “[…] have forgotten you, they do not seek you”. 19. The expression ‫שוב שבות‬, used for the first time in Deut 30,3, is a prominent theme in the book of Jeremiah, which holds 11 out of 25 occurrences within the Hebrew Bible, starting with Jer 29,14. 20. H.W. WOLFF, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, München, Kaiser, 1973, pp. 7072. He deals abundantly with the various aspects of the human heart (pp. 68-90).

DELIBERATE BLENDING OF METAPHORS IN JEREMIAH 30–31

83

The start of the fourth poem (31,2-7) might also use metaphors (v. 2). This depends on what is intended by “desert”, “(those who escaped) the sword”, and “to give him rest” (‫)להרגיעו‬. Some, as Rashi did, understand this as talking of the Exodus out of Egypt and Israel’s way to the Promised Land. However, as the Scroll of Consolation largely deals with the recent past and envisages a brighter future, these terms may well refer in a figurative sense to another kind of reality, namely “the desert of the people”, the survival from the danger of death and extinction, and a new peaceful existence at home21. The verb ‫בנה‬, “to build”, in connection with a woman, as an expression for receiving offspring, is familiar from Sarai and Rachel in Gen 16,2 and 30,3, both times also in the niphal (“be built”) as in Jer 31,4. Now God promises such a way of “building” to the “virgin Israel”22. When God calls the people “virgin”, it is in contrast to her previous behaviour (see Jer 2,20; 3,2-3.6; 4,30, etc.). This shows that he is obviously overlooking her past, offering her a better status and a new relationship, such as they had at the beginning23. It will lead to joy and to her becoming a mother of children. The fifth poem (31,7-14) contains many metaphors. It starts with the “head of the nations” (v. 7), further clarified in the same verse as “your people” and the “rest of Israel”. The highest part of the body, which, with its brain and senses, is mainly responsible for its organization, is taken as an image for the dominant, leading role of the remainder of YHWH’s faithful in relation to other peoples. If we assume a setting of the Scroll of Consolation in the late Persian era24, the gathering “from the ends of the earth” and the return of the “blind and lame, the pregnant and those giving birth” (v. 8) also assumes a figurative sense. It indicates the reunion of all kinds of dispersed individuals, with special emphasis on handicapped people and women with children. The message is: God wants to assemble a new community, including all types of weak groups. The continuation (v. 9) describes a return with joyful weeping25, comforted by God, alongside “brooks of water”, on an “even way” where they do not stumble. As in the previous verse, this may be taken spiritually, here as a process of conversion, with the experience of a wonderful 21. For the varying interpretations, see FISCHER, Jeremia 26–52 (n. 9), pp. 145-146. 22. This designation occurs again in v. 21. Jer 18,13 had already used it. 23. K. ENGELKEN, Frauen im Alten Israel (BWANT, 130), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1990, p. 43. 24. See above in the introduction; it is impossible to fix the date of the composition of the book of Jeremiah exactly, yet the use of other biblical scrolls points to this period. However, it might even be later, in the early Hellenistic time. 25. FISCHER, Jeremia 26–52 (n. 9), p. 151.

84

G. FISCHER

journey, where the abundance of water quenches every thirst and the easy path presents no obstacles or dangers. The end of v. 9 applies family imagery to the relationship between God and “Ephraim”, standing here symbolically for the young, beloved generation of Israel26. God declares himself “father”27 and the people to be his “firstborn”, picking up the declaration from Exod 4,22. In v. 10, the nations receive a command to proclaim. Its content starts with a unique title for God, “the one spreading Israel” (‫)מזרה ישׂראל‬, and continues with a comparison for him, “like a shepherd his flock”28. The care of a human pastor for a group of animals serves as an example of the relationship of God to his people29. Jer 31,12 compares ‫נפשם‬, “their soul/longing/desire”30 to a “watered garden”, which has only one other occurrence in Isa 58,11. There God promises such an experience of well-being and fruitfulness to those fasting in the right way. Both prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, bring together two spheres, a human one and cultivated nature. Whereas Isaiah 58 addresses “you” in the singular, Jeremiah 31 seems to focus more on yearning or a spiritual dimension. Two roots of the comparison in v. 12, ‫ נפש‬and ‫רוה‬, recur again two verses later. In v. 14, God announces: “I will water/soak (‫ רוה‬piel)31 the soul/longing/desire of the priests [with] fat (‫”)דשן‬. At least two different levels come together here, with “[to] water” and “fat” a material one, however in a strange contrast32, and the dimension of an inner yearning, unless one supposes that God guarantees to appease the appetite of his priests. In any case, the phrase in v. 14 involves two (or three) frames of reference and indicates metaphorical usage, maybe in various combinations. 26. Bozak underlines for the mention of “Ephraim” as “firstborn” the aspects of intimacy, choice, and gratuity. See BOZAK, Life ‘Anew’ (n. 2), pp. 86-87. 27. The most recent study for this designation for God in the book of Jeremiah is N.K. RÜTTGERS, Gott als Vater im Jeremiabuch: Eine exegetische Analyse (FzB, 136), Würzburg, Echter, 2019. She is right in correcting the tense of my translation in the commentary (pp. 141 and 151); it should be “I have become father for Israel” (and not future: “Ich werde sein”). 28. Hunziker-Rodewald deals extensively with this passage. See R. HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis (BWANT, 155), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2001, pp. 139-148. 29. Jer 31,11 uses the verbs ‫“ פדה‬ransom” and ‫“ גאל‬redeem” in parallel. Especially the latter verb might also be metaphorical usage, as it transfers a custom in society (see Lev 25,25) to how God acts on behalf of his people. 30. NRSV translates as “their life”, and NIVSB as “they”. The exact meaning of ‫נפש‬ is often hard to determine, as also here. 31. HALAT (1115) renders the piel of ‫ רוה‬with “satt zu trinken geben, satt tränken”. 32. The combination of the root ‫ רוה‬with “fat” occurs again only in Ps 36,9. However, there ‫ רוה‬is not in the piel, but in the qal. HALAT (1115) gives its significance as “sich laben” (“to refresh / to satiate oneself”), better suited for the object.

DELIBERATE BLENDING OF METAPHORS IN JEREMIAH 30–31

85

The last poem (31,15-22) is different from the previous ones, as it switches the main subjects/addressees three times33. Rachel, the beloved wife of Jacob/Israel, occurs only here (v. 15) within the Latter Prophets, and it is the only instance of its use as a symbolic figure in the Hebrew Bible, out of 47 mentions. Genesis portrays her as the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, and Jer 31,15-17 attributes to her a role as “mother of the people” weeping bitterly about her lost children, most likely referring to all those who died in the events around the siege and conquest of Jerusalem or who had to go into the Exile. The second stanza (vv. 18-20), at the beginning, reports Ephraim speaking (v. 18). As in the case of Rachel, it is not the figure narrated in Genesis, namely the second child of Joseph and Aseneth (Gen 41,5052), but a designation for a “new generation of the people”, indicating, by its literary background, special affection, preference, and blessing (see Gen 48,5.8-20)34. Ephraim confesses his guilt (v. 18) and compares himself to an “undisciplined calf”, probably picking up Hos 10,11, the only instance containing both words, but in a feminine form and without negation. Jeremiah 31 adjusts the gender to the masculine Ephraim who here shows increased awareness of his fault by admitting that, beyond behaving like a young animal, he had, earlier, refused to accept training/teaching/ discipline. God’s reaction (v. 20) is full of care and love. In his soliloquy, he talks of Ephraim as “precious son” and “darling child” (‫)ילד שעשעים‬. The latter expression applies a human experience of paternal fondness and emotion to his relationship with the people. Jer 31,21-22 is the third and last stanza of the sixth and last poem of the Scroll of Consolation. Its conclusion, “A female surrounds/embraces a strong man”, connects with the beginning of the poetic section in 30,56, forming a frame, and has already been dealt with (see above, at the start of this part). Jer 31,21 starts off with the command to “put up waymarks/ guideposts” for the return “to these your cities”. In the setting of the aftermath of Judah’s invasion and Jerusalem’s destruction, this may be an invitation to prepare a spatial movement. However, if the way back includes a spiritual dimension as in v. 8, the “road signs” are indicators of another type of journey and of receiving orientation for it. The continuation with the order “Set your heart for the highway […]!” uses again metaphorical language, and translations often render it as such35. Already 30,21 used the 33. Note that vv. 15-17 speak of Rachel, vv. 18-20 of Ephraim, vv. 21-22 again about female figures. See BOZAK, Life ‘Anew’ (n. 2), p. 93. 34. In addition, Ephraim’s name, taken from the root ‫“ פרה‬to be fruitful”, points to the meaning of fertility. 35. NRSV reads “consider well the highway” and NIVSB translates as “Take note of the highway […]”.

86

G. FISCHER

heart in a similar way (see above); here it refers to the direction of one’s thoughts and actions. Jer 30,22 completes the female vocabulary of the poetic core of the Scroll of Consolation with “daughter”36 (and ‫“ נקבה‬female”). As God is speaking, once again a paternal relationship is in focus, transferring human experiences to his dealings with the people. Analogous to “virgin” in 31,4, “daughter” envisages a social role and includes, as a complementary element, a father protecting and taking responsibility for his child37.

II. METAPHORS IN JER 31,23-40 Poetry has a greater affinity for metaphors than prose. Nevertheless, figurative language is present in the rest of the Scroll of Consolation, where prose predominates, although not exclusively38. Jer 31,23-40 consists of five sub-units, namely vv. 23-26; 27-30; 31-34; 35-37; and 38-40. With the exception of the last one, all contain metaphors. Jer 31,23 refers to the “country of Judah and its cities” and quotes a blessing for them, calling them therein ‫נוה־צדק‬, “pasture/mead of justice” and ‫הר הקדש‬, “mountain of the sanctuary”. The second designation envisages the temple mount and probably extends its special character and aura to Judah as a whole. The first one employs a term normally used for areas where animals stay or graze, and combines it with the abstract noun “justice”, expressing a value very dear to God39. Doing so, v. 23 applies an image of nature and a relational quality to a region inhabited by people and marked by their culture in the cities. The expression “I will abundantly water the weary soul/longing” (v. 25) uses again the combination of ‫ רוה‬and ‫ נפש‬found already in 31,14, however this time with the verb in the hiphil. What God promised to the desire of priests in the fifth poem, he vows now for those who are tired and languishing. This extends divine graciousness and shows how poetry and prose may use the same metaphors. 36. Bourguet treats in depth the use of “daughter” as a metaphor in the book of Jeremiah. See D. BOURGUET, Des métaphores de Jérémie (Études Bibliques, 9), Paris, Gabalda, 1987, pp. 477-510. 37. M. HÄUSL, Bilder der Not: Weiblichkeits- und Geschlechtermetaphorik im Buch Jeremia (HBS, 37), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2003, pp. 83-84. 38. See BOZAK, Life ‘Anew’ (n. 2), pp. 106-128, especially p. 123, where she deals with Jer 31,35-37. 39. The only other occurrence of ‫נוה־צדק‬, “pasture, mead of justice” is Jer 50,7, there referring to God himself.

DELIBERATE BLENDING OF METAPHORS IN JEREMIAH 30–31

87

The final verse of the first prose sub-unit (v. 26) is difficult to interpret. It talks of “awake” and “sleep” with reference to a first person singular, the identification of which remains open40. In any case, the motif of becoming conscious again after a phase of slumber interrupts the presentation of the processes of restoration and switches to personal experience as a kind of reaction to them. However, v. 26 does not seem to refer to normal “sleep”, but to a state of mind where one does/did not realize what is going on. In the same vein, “awake” indicates a new level of perception and apprehension. The second sub-unit (31,27-30) starts with God announcing, “I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah (with) the seed of humans and the seed of animals” (v. 27). This phrase is unique in several respects: “seed of humans” (‫ )זרע אדם‬as well as “seed of animals” (‫ )זרע בהמה‬occur only here, but present no problems. The combination “sow the house” (‫ )זרע את־בית‬is also a phrase not used elsewhere; however, it brings together the idea of making plants grow with a word for a building. The use of “house” is also metaphorical, as it refers to the people of Israel and Judah. The next verse (v. 28) uses seven verbs for destroying/plucking up and building/planting and offers the longest passage for this typically Jeremian motif 41. As in the previous verse with “sowing”, these activities may have a concrete meaning, yet point here to another dimension, namely all kinds of divine dealings with the community, be it breaking them down, or edifying and raising them up42. Jer 31,29 (like 18,2) has the same proverb of parents eating sour grapes and their children having to suffer the consequences, their teeth being damaged43. The intention of this saying is to show that what the present society is doing will affect future generations. To “eat grapes” and “teeth set on edge” are images for a connection on a level other than that of consuming food. Probably the most famous passage of the book of Jeremiah, the promise of a New Covenant in 31,31-34, adds two further metaphors. In v. 32, God talks of his engagement at the Exodus out of Egypt by ‫החזיקי בידם‬ 40. There are five options: God, Jeremiah, the people, the author, or in view of the readers. See FISCHER, Jeremia 26–52 (n. 9), pp. 166-167. 41. Main texts are Jer 1,10; 18,7.9; 24,6; 42,10; 45,4. 42. The repetition of ‫שקד עליהם‬, “watch over them”, underlines such an understanding. 43. Leene has convincingly shown the dependence of the book of Jeremiah on Ezekiel in this case. H. LEENE, Ezekiel and Jeremiah: Promises of Inner Renewal in Diachronic Perspective, in J.C. DE MOOR – H.F. VAN ROOY (eds.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44), Leiden, Brill, 2000, 150-175, pp. 170171.

88

G. FISCHER

“my taking them by their hand”. This phrase evokes tender guidance and protection on the way, and applies human parental leadership in an anthropomorphic way to God. One of the new elements in this covenant is the divine declaration in v. 33, “I will write it [the Torah] on their heart”, which has no exact parallel elsewhere44. Obviously, this kind of inscribing envisions not heart surgery, but a type of spiritual information and orientation. God gives the knowledge and appreciation of his instructions and commandments inwardly (“heart”, in singular, indicating a unity of the community) and in a lasting manner (“write”) to his people. This goes far beyond the former Sinai covenant, written on tablets of stone. Jer 31,35-37 is again poetic, like the core of the Scroll of Consolation, and adds at least one metaphor to the rich variety seen so far. ‫חקת ירח‬ ‫“ וכוכבים‬the laws of moon and stars”45 applies a term used for divine or human decrees to celestial bodies and their regular movements. This evokes the impression that they, like men, are obedient to God who is “giving” these statutes. The conditions of the last v. 37, “if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below can be explored”, might have a metaphorical sense, too; however, this is not certain, as one can understand “measure” and “explore” also as a real investigation and search. The continuation of the Scroll of Consolation thus shows that the use of metaphors does not end after its poetic core46. III. A NETWORK OF CONSOLATION

AND

HOPE

The poetic core (30,5–31,22) is immensely rich in metaphors and displays a great diversity in their use. Besides involving many areas and dimensions, such as nature, human relations, dwellings, parts of the body, etc., it employs them even on structural levels and in a repeated, systematic way: a) Jer 30,5-6 and 31,22 form a frame for the poetic core, by playing with the reversal of traditional gender roles. b) The main figures of the individual poems display a regular change of gender, thus fostering the consciousness that both genders are equal 44. Jer 17,1 comes closest with “The sin of Judah is written with an iron tool, engraved on the tablet of their heart”. It is possible to write on a tablet, but hardly on the inner organ itself. 45. Translations struggle with the Hebrew phrase. NRSV renders with “the fixed order of […]”, and NIVSB paraphrases freely by “who decrees the moon and stars […]”. 46. The final sub-unit (31,38-40) is full of geographical indications and void of metaphors, unless one takes “uproot”, used for Jerusalem in the last verse, in such a sense.

DELIBERATE BLENDING OF METAPHORS IN JEREMIAH 30–31

89

and together form society. In addition to this, the last poem switches three times between female and male figures. c) The names of Jacob (30,7.10 and 31,7, also called Israel), Rachel (31,15), and Ephraim (31,9.18.20) constitute a symbolic extended “family”47. All of them have received privileged treatment in the “past” in the book of Genesis. Rachel and Jacob are further examples of a couple in love, and Ephraim as their grandchild signifies a leap into the third generation, bypassing their sons (Reuben, Simeon, and their brothers) in between. This might indicate the loss that occurred at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction and through the Exile. d) Numerous aspects come to the fore in the portrayal of YHWH. He is father and shepherd, cares for buildings and people, can bring storms, yet also guides sensitively and comforts those grieving, etc. This is a sign that the author wanted to present him as all-embracing, as the Lord of the universe (see also set up “laws for stars” in 31,35) and at the same time emotionally engaged with humankind. e) The dynamic of these six poems reveals yet another device. In each of them, there is a change for the better towards the end48. God deals with all kinds of want, misery, and deprivation. He will heal everything. The poetic core of the Scroll of Consolation (30,5–31,22) thus contains several types of networks of metaphors. They show up in the presentation of gender relationships, inner processes49, speaking about God, symbolic figures (see also “David” in 30,9), and in the repeated use of motifs (images of nature, building and houses, etc.). This points to a deliberate literary technique and to the desire to combine various areas of human and religious experiences. The aim behind this unique combination of metaphors seems to become apparent in the movement of the frame, indicating a radical change from a situation of terror to one of embrace and mutual appreciation and support. The main actor for this is God himself who, under all these aspects of the various metaphors in the individual poems, wants to comfort50, to motivate, to orient anew, and to resuscitate his people. 47. FISCHER, Jeremia 26–52 (n. 9), p. 157 (“eine Symbol-Großfamilie geliebter Menschen”). 48. This occurs always at the end of the individual poems. See, for instance, 30,8-11 and 30,16-17. The last poem concludes with a very large positive section in 31,16-22 containing three distinct aspects (“mother” Rachel, “grandchild” Ephraim, and a daughter/female person). 49. See the repeated metaphorical use of “soul/longing” and “heart”. Jer 31,26 adds, further, the symbolism of awakening from sleep. 50. God assures this in Jer 31,13, in a kind of reversal of 16,7, where such consolation is missing even in cases of death. The divine reaction to Rachel’s grief in 31,15-17 is another instance of God giving solace.

90

G. FISCHER

The rest of the Scroll of Consolation (31,23-40), although consisting largely of prose, continues on this line. “Pasture” and “sow” pick up images from nature, “soul” and “heart” words from the poetic core. Jer 31,28 with its list of verbs corresponds to all kinds of divine intervention and its tendency towards a positive outcome. The next verse (v. 29) guarantees that the people will not have to bear the consequences of the faults of the ancestors and is thus also a source of comfort. God’s “taking the hand” tenderly in 31,32 is close to his intimate relationship as described in 31,9.20. In both corpora there are unique phrases dealing with buildings (see 30,18 and 31,27). Jeremiah 30–31 occupies a special position within the book of Jeremiah. The previous chapter (Jeremiah 29) is situated after 597 BCE and focusses on those exiled to Mesopotamia and issues connected with them. The next chapter (Jeremiah 32) deals with the prophet’s acquisition of the field in Anathoth shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, and the following prayer-dialogue. The Scroll of Consolation, which contains no explicit time setting, thus is sandwiched between the two conquests of Jerusalem. In contrast to its contexts, it contains a large number of metaphors and is mostly poetic. This “mixture” serves a specific purpose. Within the “net” of the period 597-587 alluded to in the framing chapters, Jeremiah 30–31 extends the horizon to a hopeful future and to God giving new life under many additional aspects51. In addition, these chapters fulfil an important role within the entire book of Jeremiah. A question like the one in 8,22, “Why does not rise up healing for the daughter-my-people?”, finds a precise answer in the second poem in 30,17, where God promises such healing to Zion. The people’s request in 14,21, “Do not break your covenant with us!”, finds an answer in the New Covenant announced in 31,31-34, which goes even beyond what they demanded. Jer 2,32; 3,21; and 13,25 mention, as Israel’s fault, that she has “forgotten” her God. In a kind of reversal, this falls back upon her in 30,14, now from her lovers. Jeremiah 30–31, in many ways, offer answers to open questions or requests found in the former part of the book, or bring to completion earlier motifs52, thus playing a key role for Jeremiah, corresponding to its “heart”. The similarities in the usage of metaphors in the poetic core and the rest of the Scroll of Consolation point to their belonging together and forming a literary unity. They share many motifs, the same dynamic towards 51. Jeremiah 29 (especially vv. 5-7; 10-14; and 32,37-44) is replete with announcements of a better time to come, too. However, the Scroll of Consolation exceeds them all, as salvation completely dominates and encompasses far more dimensions. 52. For further instances, see FISCHER, Das Trostbüchlein (n. 3), pp. 155-176.

DELIBERATE BLENDING OF METAPHORS IN JEREMIAH 30–31

91

salvation in all sub-units, a concern for women and the weak, and an estimation of Israel’s special role among the peoples, leading up to 31,3537, promising its eternal permanence parallel to the lasting existence of the cosmos. Networks of metaphors thus span Jeremiah 30–31 on various levels: within the individual units, among them, and between the poetic core and its continuation. They create the impression of intense planning, most probably by one author who wanted to bring together numerous aspects in a kind of great synthesis53. In their great variety they are not disparate, but have a specific function and a main thrust, namely to console and to evoke hope. University of Innsbruck Karl-Rahner-Platz 1 AT-6020 Innsbruck Austria [email protected]

Georg FISCHER, SJ

53. Ibid., pp. 238-270. Furthermore, the Scroll of Consolation seems to use systematically other biblical writings as sources (see in this article the references to Isa 10,27; Hos 3,5; and Deut 30,3), forming in this way an anthology in a mosaic style. – I thank Mrs. Felicity Stephens in correcting this article and for having done so for many years.

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN DIFFERENT METAPHORS IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL*

Among his contemporaries in Babylonia, Ezekiel gained fame as a great, even passionate, rhetorician (Ezek 33,30-33). One of his greatest skills is his virtuosic use of images. In both prose and poetry, the book of Ezekiel utilizes a rich plethora of metaphors, drawing from both the human and natural spheres. In the anthropological sphere, political metaphors as well as familial ones may illustrate either the ongoing covenant relationship between YHWH and his people, i.e., the Jehoiachin exiles (e.g., Ezek 20,1-38), or the rejection of Jerusalem as an adopted child and adulterous wife sentenced to death (e.g., Ezekiel 16 and 23). Put more bluntly, Ezekiel’s mastery of these metaphorical systems to characterize the God-people relationship, allows him to use them either to legitimize or to delegitimize the Judahite communities of Babylonia and Judah, respectively, in the fierce polemic between them during the early sixth century BCE1. The present study focuses on nature images that serve as metaphoric narratives, or even full-scale allegories in the first unit of the book, chapters 1–24, and particularly in chapters 15–23, which were recognized as having a concentration of different metaphoric narratives and allegories, only some of which were built on nature images2. Two goals are set in conversation with Paul Ricœur’s 1975 study on metaphor and the metaphorical process, a study that seems not to have lost its importance over the years3. * This paper was written with the help of the Israel Science Foundation (ISF 462/15). A shorter version was presented in Aberdeen, Scotland, at IOSOT 2019. I am grateful to Tallay Ornan of the Hebrew University for our conversations about literary and pictorial Mesopotamian and Western Levantine traditions, and specifically about nature images and lion hunts in Mesopotamian iconography. Needless to say, any errors are my own responsibility. As ever, I am indebted to Dr. Ruth Clements for her insightful comments and thoughts. 1. See D. ROM-SHILONI, Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology, in HUCA 76 (2005) 1-45; and more broadly, EAD., Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–5th Centuries BCE) (LHB/ OTS, 543), New York – London, T&T Clark, 2013, esp. pp. 156-169. Ezekiel’s manipulation of these metaphoric arenas for sociological needs could be compared to Jeremiah’s utilization of the same metaphoric systems in other ways; see EAD., The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Employment of Marital and Political Metaphors, in R. BAUTCH – G. KNOPPERS (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2015, 153-174. 2. P.M. JOYCE, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHB/OTS, 482), New York – London, T&T Clark, 2007, p. 129. 3. P. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics, in Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148, pp. 75-106: “The Metaphorical Process”.

94

D. ROM-SHILONI

First, along with Ricœur’s attention to clusters or networks of metaphors, that “never come alone”4, the present discussion illustrates how nature metaphors were woven by the prophet and/or his followers into the wider context of chapters 1–24. The first unit of Ezekiel establishes the fundamental dichotomy between Jerusalem, with its sins, and its judgment of total annihilation (e.g., chapters 5, 7, 11,1-13; 22, 23, and 24); and the community of Jehoiachin exiles, which, though displaced to Babylon is destined to be the Judean community that continues the religious-national heritage as the people of YHWH (e.g., 11,14-21; 20,1-38, etc.). Looking closely at two nature metaphors – the metaphor of Israel as vine, applied to “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (15), Zedekiah (17,5-10), and “the royal mother/kingdom of Judah” (19,10-14); and the metaphor of the last Judean kings as hunted lions (19,1-9) – this study argues that Ezekiel utilizes traditional metaphors in innovative ways to serve his extreme exclusive ideology. Second, the present discussion employs some of Ricœur’s observations on metaphorical statements, i.e., linguistic units that are broader than a sentence5. Speaking about the “play of resemblance” in the metaphorical statement, Ricœur noted that a metaphor assimilates “things which do not go together”6. Thus, it is not the resemblance between two elements that unites the tenor and the vehicle (nor the substitution of one for the other), but the distinction between them, and the tension created by bringing them together; this requires the author (and likewise the reader) to draw them closer to one another in a “calculated error”. According to Ricœur’s “theory of tension”, metaphor is a “semantic innovation” and “[i]n this way metaphor is closer to the active resolution of an enigma than to simple association by resemblance. It is the resolution of a semantic dissonance”7. The nature imagery in Ezekiel locates us in the broader realm of narrative structures where the metaphor is built into a whole scene, a narrative plot8. Both the “play of resemblance” and the necessary tension between the components that create the metaphorical process are set, in Ricœur’s terms, “between the insight displayed by the fiction and our ordinary way of looking at things”9. Studying the two nature metaphors, adds, however, a further dimension to Ricœur’s theory of tension. I want to describe the 4. Ibid., p. 94. 5. Ibid., pp. 95-96. 6. Ibid., p. 79, and the broader discussion, pp. 75-80. 7. Ibid., p. 79; on the “theory of tension”, pp. 77-80. Ricœur added that “good metaphors are those which institute a resemblance more than those which simply register one” (p. 79). 8. Ibid., pp. 88-96. 9. Ibid., pp. 95-96.

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

95

many dimensions of metaphoric “interplay” – by which I mean, the dynamic interactions between image and content within metaphors – in Ezekiel’s use of nature imagery. Apart from the tension between metaphor and reality, the metaphoric language Ezekiel utilizes is deeply embedded in, and in clear tension with, literary and iconographic traditions that may be distinguished as Judean or Mesopotamian. The constant negotiation between image and content within metaphors taken from distinctive cultural repertoires introduces another element into the innovative interplay of resemblances and distinctions that informs these metaphors, which creates a powerful interplay between images and contents10. The metaphor of the vine rests on Judean metaphoric traditions, and that of the lions works within the Mesopotamian metaphoric world. Both metaphors are handled in very creative ways by the prophet, who introduces significant changes into the metaphoric statements and traditions. I. INTERPLAY

NATURE METAPHORS IN EZEKIEL 15–21

WITHIN AND BETWEEN

1. An Interplay within the Metaphor of Israel as Vine The metaphor of Israel as vine appears in both prophetic and psalmodic literature. The vine was connected to the eponymic forefather, Judah, in Jacob’s blessing (Gen 49,11-12)11; and it certainly has an agricultural background, reflecting the central role of the grapevine and its produce in the economy of the mountains of Judah as well as that of Ephraim-Samaria during the second and first millennia BCE12. 10. M. Black uses the language of “associated commonplaces” or “associated implications” to describe the dynamic relationship between tenor and vehicle. See M. BLACK, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1962, pp. 30-47. This approach was illustrated in the context of Hebrew Bible theological metaphors by M.Z. BRETTLER, The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible, in R. BISSCHOPS – J. FRANCIS (eds.), Metaphor, Canon and Community: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Approaches, Bern, Peter Lang, 1999, 219-232, esp. pp. 221229. The present discussion suggests looking at traditional metaphoric associations from the perspective of Ricœur’s theory of tension. 11. Commentators have pointed out literary connections between Ezekiel and this blessing; see M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 22), New York, Doubleday, 1983, pp. 357-358; D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1997, p. 608; and see below. 12. Literary evidence for the importance of the vine in ancient Israel daily life may be gathered from its inclusion as one of the seven species (Deut 8,8); as the second component of the triad ‫( דגן תירוש ויצהר‬e.g., Num 18,12; Deut 11,14; Hos 2,10; Jer 31,12), and its frequent mention in relation to private residences (e.g., 1 Kgs 5,5) as well as plantations,

96

D. ROM-SHILONI

The prophets of the eighth through the six-fifth centuries (Isaiah, Hosea, Habakkuk, Joel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi), used the metaphor of Israel as vine in several contexts: (a) to admonish Judah/ Israel for their ungrateful behavior toward YHWH, the good farmer, who had planted high-quality vines and hoped for the best produce (Isa 5,1-7; Jer 2,21; Hos 10,1)13; (b) to portray Israel/Judah’s destruction through the destruction of the vineyards and their produce (Isa 24,7; 32,12; 34,4; Jer 5,17; 6,9; 8,1314; Hos 2,14; Joel 1,12; Hab 3,17); (c) to portray the restoration of the land as reviving the cultivation of fruitful vines (Hos 14,8; Mic 4,4; Hag 2,19; Zech 3,10; 8,12; Mal 3,11). Throughout, the vine is praised for its valuable fruits, fresh juice, ‫( תירוש‬Judg 9,13), and wine, ‫( יין‬Jer 40,12). These brief comments are required to appreciate the innovative change Ezekiel introduces time and again to this wellknown metaphor that occurs explicitly in three passages in Ezekiel 15; 17; 19,10-14, and implicitly in 21,1-5. a) The Inhabitants of Jerusalem as Vinestock, Ezekiel 15 This metaphoric narrative uses the typical two-part structure of judgment prophecies. Verses 1-5 set out the metaphor; vv. 6-8 provide the prophetic explanation15. As a “first take” on this metaphoric narrative with its abundant rhetorical questions (vv. 1-5), the comparison of a vinestock to the trees of the forest sounds ridiculous. The repeated question – “Would it be useful” for woodwork (‫היקח ממנו עץ לעשות למלאכה‬, v. 3a)? Would it be suitable for any work (‫היצלח למלאכה‬, v. 4b)? – is inevitably answered in v. 5 with, “Even when it was whole it could not be used for anything” (‫ ;)הנה בהיותו תמים לא יעשה למלאכה‬now that it has been burnt, “can it still be used for anything?” (‫ונעשה עוד למלאכה‬, v. 5b)16. in Jezerel (1 Kgs 21,1), Samaria (Jer 31,4), and Judah (Isa 7,23). See D. ZOHARY – M. HOPF – E. WEISS, Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 42012, pp. 121-126. 13. See the metaphor of Israel as vine in Psalm 80. 14. See further in prophecies against the neighboring nations of cis-Jordan, e.g., Amon (Isa 16,8-9); Moab (Jer 48,32). 15. See GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), p. 268; JOYCE, Ezekiel (n. 2), p. 129; W. ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel. Vol. 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, transl. R.E. Clements – J.D. Martin (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1979, pp. 318 and 319. 16. The plentitude of rhetorical questions in the parable led Zimmerli to designate the parable as “a disputation saying”. See ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), p. 318. Moreover, Zimmerli saw this parable as a “historical parable”, reflecting the two stages of the destruction of Jerusalem by fire: first, at the Jehoiachin exile, and the second still to come (p. 320). Verse 7ba, where the prophet proclaims Jerusalem’s judgment to his fellow exiles, led Zimmerli to date this prophecy to “the period before 587 BC” (p. 319).

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

97

The charm of this metaphoric narrative lies exactly in its ability to articulate two levels of absurdity17. The first lies in the tension between the narrative and reality (i.e., the grapevine would never be considered a type of wood to be used for work), and the second, in the tension between the literary tradition of the Israel as vine metaphor and Ezekiel’s innovative (and negative) twist. The comparison of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to the vine in Ezek 15,6 is on the one hand clearly in line with the metaphoric tradition of Israel as vine. But on the other hand, Ezekiel’s negative portrayal of the vinestock among the trees of the forest is totally exceptional18. This treatment requires some elaboration, including a look at additional aspects of tension, this time between the depiction of the vine in this metaphor and its botanical features. The grapevine is one of the scandent plants. Under good conditions of soil and water, the grapevine grows quickly, sending out its branches (3 cm per day; about 4.5 m in a season). The branches remain green and sprout a rich amount of both leaves and fruit branches, but they cannot hold the weight of this abundant growth and heavy load of fruit. Thus, the vine either spreads its branches on the ground, and becomes “a spreading vine of low stature” (‫לגפן סרחת שפלת קומה‬, Ezek 17,6), or grows by climbing over other plants, fences, walls, wires, etc., which serve as its major supports (‫ דליות‬/ ‫שלח פארות‬, Ezek 17,6b.7b). The main stem of the vine lasts from year to year and serves as its trunk, and while thickening over the years, it will still remain fairly thin (10-20 cm in diameter). The vine’s shoots become “woody”, and turn brown and dry up over the winter. These branches are annually cut towards the end of the rainy season, to encourage the next year’s new growth and to increase fruit production. This agricultural activity is called ‫( זמיר‬Song 2,12); the verb is ‫( זמר‬Lev 25,34), and the cut branch is the ‫( עת הזמורה‬e.g., Num 13,23)19. These cut branches of the previous season are bundled and used to light fires. The parable in Ezek 15,1-5 focuses, not on the produce of the grapevine, but on a comparison of the vine to the trees of the forest, in relation to two qualities: its usefulness and its ability to be destroyed by fire. (1) Usefulness: Through an inclusio using the phrase ‫( עשה למלאכה‬vv. 3.5), the issue of the usability of the wood is sarcastically presented. The parable looks at the quality, density, and strength of the wood produced from trees of 17. For “absurdity” as another feature of the metaphoric tension, see RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics (n. 3), p. 78. 18. ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), p. 319. 19. For the syntactical difficulties in 15,2, see GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), p. 264; ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), p. 317; or suggestions for a secondary gloss in ‫הזמורה‬ or even the entire phrase ‫הזמורה אשר היה בעצי‬, see W. EICHRODT, Ezekiel, transl. C. Quin (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1970, p. 192.

98

D. ROM-SHILONI

the forest, qualities with which the thin and weak branches of the vine cannot really compete20. (2) Destruction by fire: In this arena, dry vine branches come out on top. They are easy to burn, and the parable repeats the phrase ‫ אכלה האש‬three times in vv. 4-5. This metaphoric narrative is interpreted in v. 6: “Like the wood of the grapevine among the trees of the forest (‫)כאשר עץ הגפן בעץ היער‬, which I have designated to be fuel for fire, so will I treat the inhabitants of Jerusalem (‫”)כן נתתי את ישבי ירושלים‬21; v. 7 adds to this harsh pronouncement the proclamation “they escaped from fire, but fire shall consume them (‫”)מהאש יצאו והאש תאכלם‬. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are doomed. Thus, in terms of its message, Ezekiel 15 coheres with all the other judgment prophecies against Jerusalem in Ezekiel 1–24. It predicts total annihilation and the complete desolation of the land (e.g., Ezekiel 5; 11,1-13). However, in its literary form, this prophecy marks a significant deviation from the metaphoric tradition of Israel as vine22. The silence regarding the much-praised fruits of the vine, and the focus on the vine’s stocks and growth, represent the prophet’s calculated and polemical choice to depict the community that remained in Judah following the Jehoiachin exile in very different colours than those implied by the well-known metaphor. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are the useless, weak, and ultimately burned vinestock; they are clearly not the vine’s choice fruits! b) Zedekiah as Vine, Ezek 17,5-10 The allegory of the two eagles, the cedar, and the vine is the most complicated and fascinating political allegory that Ezekiel produced23. Two eagles, representing the two imperial forces of that period (Babylon and Egypt); two trees, the cedar and the vine, standing for the two Judahite kings, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah; two judgments, inflicted by the great eagle and by the east wind upon the vine, thus by the human enemy and by YHWH – every riddle-like component of this allegory (vv. 1-10) is 20. For a discussion of the composition of the biblical ‫יער‬, see Forest, ‫יער‬, Forest/ Chapparal, DNI Bible (http://dni.tau.ac.il/). 21. See GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), p. 266. 22. For Eichrodt the primary topic of this parable was “Israel’s position in the sight of God” (p. 195); the exceptional vine imagery serves to admonish the people for “falsification of the consciousness of belonging to the elect” (p. 194). See EICHRODT, Ezekiel (n. 19), pp. 193-196. The present discussion does not take the image in such an inclusive way. 23. See M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II, in JBL 76 (1957) 304-309; ID., Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), pp. 307-324; A.A. RIVLIN, The Allegory of the Eagles, the Cedar and the Vine, in Beit Mikra 18 (1973) 342-359 (Hebrew); D. VOGEL, Ambiguities of the Eagle, in Jewish Bible Quarterly 26 (1998) 85-92.

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

99

interpreted in vv. 11-21, and together they create what Greenberg termed the “duality” that “pervades the prophecy”24. For the sake of the current study, I focus only on one segment of this beautiful allegory – the choice to represent the Judean kings as cedar and as vine – in order to highlight another aspect of Ezekiel’s calculated nuancing of the metaphor of Israel as vine. Jehoiachin is figured as “the top of the cedar” (v. 3), originally rooted in “Lebanon” (interpreted as Jerusalem in v. 12)25, who has now been taken away to “the land of Canaan”, “the city of traders” (v. 3), which wittily stands for Babylon (v. 12)26. Zedekiah, on the other hand, is taken from “the seed of the land” (‫ )ויקח מזרע הארץ‬and planted locally on a fertile field (‫( )ויתנהו בשדה זרע‬v. 5)27. It is only in vv. 6-10 that we learn that this local seed is actually a vine28. Verse 6 opens by describing the great eagle’s political intentions, i.e., to sustain this seed as “a spreading vine of low stature” (v. 14)29 but this vine goes through a tremendous transformation (v. 6b), and independently turns toward the second and less famous eagle, the king of Egypt (vv. 7.15). This vine had the potential of becoming “a noble vine” (‫להיות לגפן אדרת‬, v. 8), which would both extend its branches and produce fruits (‫לעשות ענף ולשאת פרי‬, v. 8b). But due to its sheer stupidity (according to the allegory, v. 8), interpreted as politically and theologically treacherous behaviour (vv. 15-19), this vine/Zedekiah will instead suffer two different sources of affliction: one from the great eagle (v. 9), who will uproot the vine and “cause its fruit to rot and wither” (v. 9b, interpreted in vv. 16-18)30; and the other from the east wind, which will wither it completely (v. 10, interpreted in vv. 19-21). The choice to represent the Judean Kings as cedar and as vine is another aspect of Ezekiel’s calculated nuancing of this metaphor. While the deported king, Jehoiachin, is presented as the great (and most prestigious) tree of 24. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), pp. 317-322. 25. See further Jer 22,15; Jerusalem as Lebanon (e.g., Jer 22,6-7.20-23). These metaphors may rely on the use of cedars for the royal buildings in the capital by David (2 Sam 5,11-12; 7,2) and Solomon (1 Kgs 5,15-32; 6,14-18; 7,2-5.7.9-12). 26. The identification of ‫ ארץ כנען‬and ‫ עיר רכלים‬as the land of Babylonia and its capital Babylon is required by the allegory, as interpreted in v. 12; and is also suggested by Ezek 16,29. This explanation rests on ‫( כנען‬the Phoenicians) as a metonym for “trader” (e.g., Isa 23,8; Job 40,30; Prov 31,24), and thus here parallel to ‫( רכל‬pl. ‫רכלים‬, for the parallel of ‫ סחר‬and ‫רכל‬, see 1 Kgs 10,15; Ezek 27,15). 27. V. 5b (‫ )קח על מים רבים צפצפה שמו‬remains a riddle, although it is interpreted in v. 14, see GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), p. 311. 28. Nevertheless, see Isa 17,10 (‫)וזמרת זר תזרענו‬. Otherwise the verb used for planting a vine is ‫נטע‬, and the shoot is ‫( כנה‬e.g., Ps 80,16). 29. Reading ‫ ויצמח ויהי‬in v. 6 as jussive forms, conveying intention, purpose; so GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), p. 311. 30. So GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), pp. 308, 313.

100

D. ROM-SHILONI

the forest, the cedar of Lebanon, Zedekiah is metaphorized by the local Judean fruit tree, the vine. As in Ezekiel 15, fruitfulness is clearly not the point compared in this allegory. Rather, in its beauty and the usage of its wood for vessels of the highest quality, the cedar resembles the qualities of majestic height, strength, royal prestige, and Jehoiachin is at its top (vv. 3.4)31. Zedekiah – like the vine that spreads it shoots on the ground or sends out shoots to sturdier plants or structures to sustain itself – is presented as weak and as dependent on others for his basic existence. While the top of the cedar is taken to Babylon, but does not seem to change its royal nature, the vine is doomed to total annihilation. Hence, in this second deployment of the metaphor of Israel as vine, Ezekiel focuses again on those less than complimentary features of the vine, identifying it with Zedekiah, the king of those who remained. c) The Royal Mother/Kingdom of Judah as Vine, Ezek 19,10-14 The lament in Ezek 19,10-14 is adjacent to the lament over the “princes of Israel” in 19,1-9 (discussed below), and yet it seems to be working on a completely different symbolic track32. The “mother” is no longer the royal mother, but may stand for either the Davidic royal house33 or the people of Judah34. The king is represented by the vine branches (‫מטות עז‬ and ‫שבטי משלים‬, v. 11, in the plural); but the phrases “it towered highest […] it was conspicuous by its height” (‫ותגבה קומתו ]…[ וירא בגבהו‬, v. 11ab) seem to refer to a specific ruler who had grown too high, and is thus accused of hubris35. Accordingly, the judgment against the vine is uprooting, a disaster brought upon its last king himself (vv. 12bβ.14aβ), and upon 31. Vv. 22-24 return to king Jehoiachin (or his descendants), in a restoration prophecy. Greenberg considered those verses to be part and parcel of the chapter, a “coda” added by the prophet himself. See GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), pp. 319-324. However, discrepancies between vv. 22-24 and the allegory (v. 3) cause me to take vv. 22-24 as a secondary addition; see ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), pp. 359 and 366-368. 32. For the genre of this lament, or possibly funeral dirge, where actually “nobody dies”, see C. CARVALHO, Putting the Mother Back in the Center: Metaphor and Multivalence in Ezekiel 19, in J.J. AHN – S.L. COOK (eds.), Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, New York – London, T&T Clark, 2009, 208-221. 33. So ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), p. 397. Eichrodt linked these verses with 1-9, identifying the “you” of 19,10 as Zedekiah and the vine as his mother, Hamutal (see discussion below). See EICHRODT, Ezekiel (n. 19), pp. 256-258. 34. Block suggested that the vine symbolizes “the tribe/nation of Judah” in general, with no specific identification of the ruling sprouts. Furthermore, Block argued that the addressees here are Ezekiel’s fellow exiles. See BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), pp. 608-610. The present discussion presumes a clear distinction between the two Judean communities; I take Ezekiel’s criticism as addressed at those who remained in Jerusalem and Judah. 35. So ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), p. 398; GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), p. 358; and BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), p. 609.

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

101

his country (vv. 12a-bα.14aα), thus lowered from the height it ambitiously tried to reach36. In addition, the east wind is here responsible for withering the vine’s fruits (v. 10; compare to 17,9, where destruction was inflicted by the great eagle), and in contrast to 17,9-10, fire consumes the bough (compare 15,4-5.6). This passage introduces a new element of interplay with the two previous vine episodes. As Greenberg noted, in this third passage of vine imagery (19,10-14), “the prophet repeats earlier expressions”, and yet continues to innovate37. This third passage again focuses on the vine plant itself; when planted with ample water it can bear abundant fruit and grow high (vv. 10-11), but once uprooted, it withers and its fortunes are reversed (v. 12). The one major new feature in this passage is the reference to the replanting of the vine in the desert (v. 13), clearly not its optimal habitat; here, too, the boughs and fruit are said to be caught by fire (v. 14). This vine has no innate abilities or powers to sustain itself, or even to exist. In contrast to Ezekiel 15 (6-8) and 17 (11-21), the metaphorical narrative in Ezek 19,10-14 has no interpretive component. Thus, several questions remain unclear, such as the identity of “your mother”; the identity of the “high-growing branch”; the geographical location of the replanting. Building upon the elements in common with the other examples of Ezekiel’s unique usage of the vine metaphor, I would classify this passage as yet another reference to the undermined community of those who remained. Verses 13-14 may thus refer to Zedekiah’s exile in Babylon, deprived of any powers of control and doomed to death. d) Summary: The Metaphor of Israel as Vine in Ezekiel 15–21 In the three passages discussed here, we have seen that Ezekiel creates a metaphoric language that is deeply rooted in the traditional (prophetic) metaphor of Israel as vine, premised on admiration of the grapevine for its valuable fruits and products. Yet, interestingly and exceptionally, Ezekiel interplays with this tradition, and repeatedly focuses on the weakest of all qualities concerning the vine – the vinestock, its fast growth and weak structure, the poor quality of its wood, and its ultimate fragility. The prophet, then, takes the well-known metaphor, with its important positive connotations, and makes a witty reversal, which enables him to use the image to disparage the Judean community of those who remained, including their leader, King Zedekiah. 36. Greenberg highlighted the uniqueness of 19,12. See GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), p. 358. In 17,9, the vine is merely uprooted; here, ‫( ותתש בחמה לארץ השלכה‬19,12) contrasts with the vine’s previous exalted stature. 37. Ibid., p. 358. For discussions of some of the differences between chapters 19,10-14 and 17, see ibid., p. 359; ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), p. 392.

102

D. ROM-SHILONI

From this standpoint, I want to look at one additional passage, although it lacks explicit reference to the vine. Ezek 21,1-538 relates another metaphoric narrative, which is explained in vv. 6-1039. This harsh judgment prophecy against ‫ יער השדה נגב‬or ‫( יער הנגב‬vv. 2.3), in which the prophet sets his face towards ‫נגב‬, ‫דרום‬, ‫תימן‬, forecasts a huge and enduring fire, which is said in v. 7 to be directed against Jerusalem and the “land of Israel”40. The thread that ties together the two passages (vv. 1-5.6-10) is the geographical region affected – the entire land from south to north (vv. 3.9)41. But while vv. 1-5 focus on the trees of the ‫יער‬, including both green trees (‫ )כל עץ לח‬and withered ones (‫)כל עץ יבש‬, vv. 6-10 are addressed to Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and the inhabitants thereof. Like the green and the withered trees, both the righteous and the wicked, that is, the entire population remaining in Judah, will be consumed by the sword (vv. 8-9). As a climax to the succession of Israel as vine metaphors in chapters 15–21, the image of the destruction of even the trees of the forest intensifies the magnitude of the disaster. While in chapters 15 (vv. 4-5) and 19 (vv. 12.14), fire caught the withered vinestock or the entire vine, in chapter 21 the fire is so much more intensive that it consumes the trees themselves, not only the withered but also the green ones. At the close of this metaphoric interplay, the opposition between the vinestock and the trees of the forest (15), and specifically the cedar of Lebanon (19), closes down with a mention of the forest of Israel, deprived of the vine and totally burnt; the vine of Israel is no more. 2. The Metaphor of the Last Judean Kings as Hunted Lions (19,1-9) Ezekiel’s allegory of the lioness and her two cubs (19,1-9) places us in a very different metaphoric arena. In this necessarily brief presentation, I want to look more carefully at Ezekiel’s metaphoric narrative against 38. MT Ezek 21,1-5 is designated as 20,45-49 in KJV, RSV, and other translations. Joyce adopts this division, and thus he does not take 21,6-12 as the interpretation of the previous unit, but as the first unit in the theme of the sword. See JOYCE, Ezekiel (n. 2), pp. 155-156. 39. For the literary and thematic unity of Ezek 21,1-10, see M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 21– 37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 22A), New York, Doubleday, 1997, pp. 438-439; BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), pp. 661 and 665-669. Zimmerli however, argued for a redactional structure, see ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), pp. 419 and 421-422. 40. ‫נגב‬, ‫דרום‬, ‫ תימן‬in the narrative may stand for a cluster of localities, but more plausibly it may reflect a more general region, or even the direction southward, “‘south’ of Babylon” which are then deciphered as referring to Jerusalem. See EICHRODT, Ezekiel (n. 19), p. 287; GREENBERG, Ezekiel 21–37 (n. 39), pp. 418-419; BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), p. 663. 41. Kimhi and Kara understood that ‫ יער הנגב‬stands for Jerusalem, and that the green and the withered trees stand respectively for the righteous and wicked there. For these terms and their identifications, see BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), pp. 666-669.

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

103

the background of the great treasure of leonine imagery in the Hebrew Bible and in Mesopotamian sources. The lion, “the mightiest of the beasts” (‫ליש גבור בבהמה‬, Prov 30,30), appears one hundred and fifty-four times in the Hebrew Bible, under seven different names42. Narratives, prophecies, poetry, and wisdom passages, all allude to diverse interactions between lions and humans. The lion’s anatomical characteristics, habitats, social characteristics, hunting strategies and predatory habits, qualities of power, heroism and persistence, etc., have all served the biblical authors to illustrate, on the one hand, the bravery of warriors and the supremacy of leaders, invoked in contexts of blessing and praise for tribes (Gen 49,9; Deut 33,22) and their leaders (e.g., 2 Sam 1,23; 2 Sam 17,10). More common in the national sphere (and thus in the prophetic literature), on the other hand, are allusions to the lion’s threatening aspects, i.e., his roar, power, and cruelty as a predator, all of which may characterize the cruel violence of leaders, kings, royal officials (e.g., Prov 28,15), or the fierce (imperial) enemies of the nation (e.g., Jer 4,7)43. Even God himself may be portrayed, like a lion, as a dangerous and threatening predator (e.g., Isa 31,4; Jer 25,34-38). Ezekiel rarely utilizes leonine imagery, although it is clear that the prophet is familiar with its use44. On the domestic front, the prophet admonishes Jerusalem’s prophets “like roaring lions in her midst, rending prey” (‫כארי שואג טרף טרף‬, Ezek 22,25)45. In the international arena, Ezekiel mocks Pharaoh, king of Egypt, saying he considers himself to be like “the beast among the nations” (‫)כפיר גוים‬, while he actually is no more than a dragon/crocodile in the seas/waters (32,2)46. This brief epithet indicates that Ezekiel is aware of the imperial leonine imagery. It is 42. This high number denotes the explicit references to lions in the Hebrew Bible. Strawn adduced about fifty more implicit references. See B.A. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO, 212), Fribourg/CH, Academic Press; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, Appendix 1, pp. 293-325, and Appendix 2, pp. 327-356. See the DNI Bible, “Lion, ‫אריה‬, Panthera leo persica” (forthcoming, http://dni.tau.ac.il/). 43. See, for instance, Ps 7,3; 22,14.22 for leonine portraits of enemies of individuals. 44. Leonine images occur in only four prophetic passages in Ezekiel: 19,1-9; 22,25; 32,2; 38,13. In two additional contexts, lion imagery shows familiarity with iconographical representations: the “visions of YHWH” (1,10; 10,14); and the vision of the future Temple, ornamented with alternating human and lion faces (41,19); these might stem from acquaintance with either Judahite or Mesopotamian (Assyrian) iconographic traditions. 45. Ezek 22,23-31 refers in succession to prophets, priests, officials, prophets (again), and Am Ha’aretz. Prophets and officials are portrayed as lions and wolves, respectively (vv. 25, 27). 46. Thus JOYCE, Ezekiel (n. 2), p. 187. See also P.C. BEENTJES, What a Lioness Was Your Mother: Reflections on Ezekiel 19, in B. BECKING – M. DIJKSTRA (eds.), On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van DijkHemmes, Leiden, Brill, 1996, 21-35, esp. p. 28.

104

D. ROM-SHILONI

interesting that Ezekiel applies this images to the king of Egypt, and not to others47. Ezek 19,1-9 is unusual in several respects in comparison to the Hebrew Bible leonine imagery, and specifically to Ezekiel’s lion passages. Four of the seven biblical terms for lion are concentrated here: the feminine ‫לביא‬ (v. 2); ‫ אריה‬in its plural form, ‫( אריות‬vv. 2.6); ‫( ]אריה[ גור‬vv. 2b.5); and ‫( כפיר‬vv. 2b.5.6)48. In contrast to general usage, however, the heroic or threatening leonine qualities are not the focus of this passage. Rather, this lament (‫ )קינה‬addressed to the “princes of Israel” (‫)נשיאי ישראל‬, i.e., the ruling royal family (see also Ezek 7,27; 12,10.12), portrays them as hunted beasts, pursued by the royal hierarchy in the land of Egypt (19,4), or by the king of Babylon (19,9). This metaphoric narrative reveals the prophet’s familiarity with the literary/iconographic portrayal of the Mesopotamian royal hunt, a familiarity otherwise unattested in the Hebrew Bible. Ezekiel portrays the lioness consistently with her natural roles in the social community of a pride of lions, where the lioness is indeed the parent that raises the cubs. She teaches them how to hunt, “he learned to hunt prey” (‫וילמד לטרף טרף‬, vv. 3b.6b)49. The lions that prefer human prey (‫אדם‬ ‫אכל‬, vv. 3b.6b) for a time gain dominance among the pride (v. 6; note also v. 4, and possibly v. 7)50. However, their preeminence is brought to an end when they are captured: by net (vv. 4a.8b), by hooks (vv. 4b.9a), and by cage (v. 9a). The hunted lions are brought to the king, the only authority figure who can actually kill the beasts (v. 9), although there is no explicit mention of their deaths. All these details may be seen in Mesopotamian sources, most commonly in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions and iconography51. 47. For royal ideologies in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and other ancient Near Eastern cultures, and their much more prominent use of leonine imagery, see STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 42), pp. 174-183, esp. 177. In Ezek 38,13, ‫ כפריה‬could be symbolic of Tarshish’s officials or merchants, see also Ezek 27,11-24. For the particular “symbolic ‘systems’” behind lion imagery in royal inscriptions and pictography, see C.E. WATANABE, Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia: A Contextual Approach (Wiener offene Orientalistik, 1), Wien, Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 2002, pp. 42-56, 65-68, 76-88, esp. p. 68. 48. The other terms are ‫ארי‬, ‫לביא‬, ‫ליש‬, and ‫שחל‬. The female ‫ לביא‬otherwise occurs only in the plural form, Nah 2,12-13 (v. 13). While ‫ גור‬could potentially be referring to cubs of any species, it is mostly restricted to lions (Gen 49,9; Deut 33,22; Jer 51,38; Ezek 19,2.3.5; Nah 12,13; with one exception, Lam 4,3, referring to the jackal’s cubs). 49. Kottsieper challenged the “naturalistic” background of this narrative. See I. KOTTSIEPER, Was ist deine Mutter? Eine Studie zu Ez 19,2-9, in ZAW 105 (1993) 444-461. 50. Scholars debate whether the description in 19,7 should be taken as part of the leonine imagery, or as an intrusion of the tenor into the vehicle. See Rashi and Kimhi, who follow Leviticus-Rabbah 19,6 cf. Targum, Eliezer of Beaugency, among others; and see GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), pp. 351-352; BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), pp. 602-603. 51. E. WEISSERT, Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82,5–22,2), in S. PARPOLA – R.M. WHITING (eds.), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki,

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

105

The major challenge of this allegory is its interpretation. Why did Ezekiel choose to portray the lions in terms of their vulnerability? What does the prophet want to say concerning the fortunes of the two cubs? – and of course, who are the mother-lioness and two royal cubs52? One thing that needs to be highlighted is the way in which Ezekiel draws on diverse metaphoric worlds to construct his allegory. Scholars have drawn connections between the leonine imagery in Ezek 19,1-9 and the Judean imagery of Judah and the Davidic dynasty as lions (with specific echoes of Jacob’s blessing to Judah, Gen 49,8-12)53. However, I contend that the positive portrayal of Judean strength and leadership as like a strong lion is only in the background. This traditional image sets the grounds for a great metaphoric tension through a reversal of inherited traditions. Ezekiel highlights the contrasts between the assured, strong, lion-king of the national heritage and the present portrayal of the Judean kings as lions on the run, hunted and captured by the emperor, the king of Babylon. To speak briefly to the question of the identity of the lioness and the two lions, with the majority of interpreters, I find it plausible that the first ‫כפיר‬ (vv. 2-4) should be identified as Jehoahaz, the elder son of Josiah, who was captured by the Egyptian Necho and deported to Egypt (2 Kgs 23,3135)54. The identification of the second and more powerful ‫( כפיר‬vv. 5-9) is more challenging; Zedekiah seems the best choice, given that Jehoahaz and Zedekiah were sons of the same royal mother, Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah (23,31; 24,18), and in view of Ezekiel’s generally antagonistic attitude towards Zedekiah (compare Ezekiel 17)55. September 7-11, 1995, Helsinki, The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997, 339-358; see fig. 3, pp. 354-355 for the one (and only) image of a lion coming out of a cage. 52. See C.T. BEGG, The Identity of the Princes in Ezekiel 19: Some Reflections, in ETL 65 (1989) 358-369. For a discussion of the use of ‫( אמך‬your “mother”), see BEENTJES, What a Lioness (n. 46), pp. 24-25, 31-35. 53. See GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (n. 11), pp. 357-358; BEENTJES, What a Lioness (n. 46), pp. 27, 29-30; BEGG, Identity (n. 52), p. 366; BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), pp. 599-603, and 608; CARVALHO, Putting the Mother (n. 32), p. 213. 54. See BEGG, Identity (n. 52), pp. 358-359. Among Jewish medieval exegetes, Rashi, Kimhi, Kara, Eliezer of Beaugency identified the first lion cub with Jehoahaz and the second with Jehoiakim. Mitrani suggested that Zedekiah is referred to only in vv. 10-14. Block seems to have followed this line of exegesis. See BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), pp. 604605. 55. Zimmerli identifies the second ‫ כפיר‬with Jehoiachin. See ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel, vol. 1 (n. 15), pp. 395-396. Eichrodt, however, rejected this option and argued in favour of Zedekiah. See EICHRODT, Ezekiel (n. 19), pp. 252-256. So also L. BOADT, Ezekiel (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary), Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1990, pp. 305328, esp. p. 318. But ultimately Begg suggested that chapter 19 refers to all four last kings of Judah, presumably constructed on the “model” of Jer 22,10–23,8. Thus the line-up would be Jehoahaz (Ezek 19,3-4); Jehoiakim (19,5-9); and in the vine imagery, Jehoiachin (vv. 11b-12) and Zedekiah (vv. 13-14). See BEGG, Identity (n. 52), pp. 368-369.

106

D. ROM-SHILONI

Ezek 19,1-9 is thus a parodic lament over two of the last Judean kings56, surprisingly portrayed as hunted lions, enemies of the (Egyptian and) Babylonian king(s). The royal Mesopotamian (mainly Neo-Assyrian) hunt imagery reveals Ezekiel’s setting in Babylon and his exposure to Mesopotamian literary and pictorial traditions. Well-acquainted with both the Judean heritage and Mesopotamian royal hunt imagery, the prophet intentionally and thoughtfully brings them together to recast the Judah/the king as lion metaphor in negative rather than positive terms. The virtuosic reversal in this passage, matches Ezekiel’s treatment of the Israel as vine metaphor, i.e., the inversion of traditional symbols of Judahite identity to rob them of their positive content. Little wonder that the lion passage is followed by Ezekiel’s third treatment of the transformed vine metaphor. Ideologically, through this metaphoric interplay with the Judean leonine imagery tradition, this further reversal of the hunted lion serves as rhetorical weapons in Ezekiel’s polemical campaign to undermine the claims of the Judahite community that remained in the land to be the true people of God, and their king, Zedekiah, to be the legitimate continuation of the Davidic dynasty. II. CONCLUSION This study has demonstrated Ezekiel’s use of two nature metaphors, Israel as vine and Judean kings as lions. Each of the two metaphors has deep roots in Hebrew Bible sources, of which (we may presume) the prophet was profoundly aware. Following Ricœur’s theory of tension in metaphoric statements, I discussed the tensions Ezekiel creates, or rather manipulates, in relation to each of the two metaphors, in ways that indeed mark them as innovative metaphoric statements. The tensions between the literary traditions of each metaphor (from their Judean and/or Mesopotamian backgrounds), the reality of the prophet’s times, and his ideological agenda, furnish the power of these unique metaphorical narratives. No other prophet has so treated these two symbols of Judah’s greatness. The intriguing challenge for deciphering Ezekiel’s crafting of the two metaphors was to discover the deep extent to which the prophet was 56. For the parodic features in this passage, see BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24 (n. 11), pp. 594595. Beentjes discussed the specific transformation of the qinah (lament) over a deceased person into “an accusation of the audience”, and argued that Ezekiel regularly addresses a collective in the qinah passages. See BEENTJES, What a Lioness (n. 46), pp. 21-35; cf. CARVALHO (Putting the Mother [n. 32], pp. 213-221), who found ch. 19 to be a manipulation of “an abbreviated city lament”.

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

107

familiar with the Judean metaphorical world, which in turn points to the intention and craft involved in Ezekiel’s transformation of each of the metaphors time and again to suit the specific contexts. Focusing on the weakest qualities of the vine, the ridiculous comparison of the vinestock to the trees of the forest serves first to denigrate the inhabitants of Jerusalem in general (15), and then specifically to depreciate king Zedekiah in two nuanced ways (17; 19,10-14), before the last (and implicit) reference returns to the entire community in Jerusalem, now deprived of the vine, but consumed as trees of the forest by a great fire (21,1-5). The lions imagery twists the Judean leonine imagery by means of Mesopotamian literary and iconographic sources, and presents the last Judean kings as hunted lions. Examining Ezekiel’s nature images has raised a simple question with a complex answer: What is the nature (the natural “ground”) Ezekiel refers to in his metaphors – is it Judah, or Babylon? This basic question may be accompanied by several others57: What is the weight of literary traditions in these nature images? What is the contribution of iconography to Ezekiel’s images of nature? The locus of the nature to which Ezekiel refers in these two metaphors is twofold. The metaphor of the vine clearly has a Judean basis. As Pauline Albenda argued, grape vines are rare in everyday life in Mesopotamia, as well as in literary and iconographic sources. Not surprisingly, when grapevines do appear, they are either planted in the royal gardens (thus imported), or are attributed to the occupied territories of the Levant (like the grapevines on the Lachish reliefs from Nineveh)58. However, the image of the royal hunt is clearly Mesopotamian; while this image draws on Old Babylonian sources and on mythic tales of confronting the wild, it became part of the dominant royal ideology and theology 57. A question that seems to have persisted in Ezekiel scholarship is that of the prophet’s setting. See D. ROM-SHILONI, Ezekiel among the Exiles, in C. CARVALHO (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Ezekiel, Oxford, Oxford University Press (forthcoming). 58. See P. ALBENDA, Grapevines in Ashurbanipal’s Garden, in BASOR 215 (1974) 5-17. Albenda showed that grapevines were planted in the Assyrian royal garden (with grapes brought fresh to Ashurnasripal II royal table) already in the ninth century BCE (p. 6). But grapevines next appear only in pictorial evidence from Ashurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh (seventh century), where according to Albenda, the “wedded vine” to a pine tree in Ashurbanipal’s reliefs shows “this method of viticulture was newly introduced into Assyria” (p. 14). See also P. ALBENDA, Landscape Bas-Reliefs in the Bit-Hilani of Ashurbanipal, in BASOR 224 (1976) 49-72; continued in BASOR 225 (1977) 29-48. Could Ezekiel’s focus on the growth of the vine up high (Ezekiel 17; 19) be influenced by the picture of the wedded vine over a pine tree? And could this image also be behind the description of the vine among the trees of the forest? If indeed, we would then have to assume another iconographical Neo-Assyrian influence on Ezekiel even in the context of the vine imagery.

108

D. ROM-SHILONI

in the Neo-Assyrian period, highlighted especially by Ashurbanipal in his confrontations with his enemies59. The extent to which it was employed by Nebuchadnezzar II in Neo-Babylonian royal ideology is currently considered to be negligible and peripheral60. The path of acculturation by which the prophet Ezekiel was exposed to this royal hunt theme still remains obscure, but the highly interesting point remains – Ezekiel found ways to combine a longstanding Judean imagery tradition with a Mesopotamian one. This integration was achieved through his familiarity with various literary traditions and possibly also with Mesopotamian iconography, motivated by his ideological aims. Ezekiel’s reversal of the metaphor of Israel as vine in chapters 15–21 is but one subordinate metaphoric arena (with multiple examples) within a larger structure of metaphoric narratives (chapters 16 and 23), symbolic actions (e.g., 24,15-24), etc.; the single passage using the hunted lions imagery joins in from a different arena. Nevertheless, by their content and function, these two nature metaphors are well connected both to one another and to the wider metaphorical universe of Ezekiel’s prophecies. As he does with the root metaphors of God as king and the political or familial metaphors that spin off of this primary framework, so also here: the prophet draws on and subverts traditional conceptions to institute and describe a new configuration of relationships between God and each of the two Judean communities of the time, the Jehoiachin exiles in Babylon and those who had remained in Judah.

59. See WATANABE, Animal Symbolism (n. 47), pp. 76-88. On the ideological and theological significance of the king as lion-hunter in Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions, i.e., the brave and skillful warrior, who protects humans and beasts in the plain, who brings order and justice amid chaotic forces that endanger them outside the gates of his city, see WEISSERT, Royal Hunt (n. 51), pp. 342-346, 350-356. 60. There is only one indication that Nebuchadnezzar II was also aware of this lionhunt motif, and it was found in the periphery of his kingdom, in an inscription from Wadi Brisa in Lebanon. To date there is no such Neo-Babylonian example in Babylon or in its main land regions. See R. DA RIVA, The Inscriptions of Nebuchanezzar at Brisa (Wadi EshSharbin, Lebanon): A Historical and Philological Study (Archiv für Orientforschung, 32), Wien, Eigentümer Verlager, 2012, pp. 94-95; J. BÖRKER-KLÄHN, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und Vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Baghdader Forschungen, 4), Mainz am Rhein, Philip von Zabern, 1982, Texts no. 259, 260, 263-264, 266. Nevertheless, Da Riva assumed that the royal hunt motif was known also to Babylonians during the period of the Assyrian domination, although it does not form part of the royal activities in Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions. She argued that the use of this NA motif is chosen for political and ideological reasons, as the control over the NA territories “would have prompted Nebuchadnezzar to use an Assyrian motif to lay claim to his territorial dominance” (p. 94). I thank Tallay Ornan for introducing this data to me.

NATURE IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

109

In this overall context, the interplay of these nature metaphors in this part of the book, supports the very sophisticated exclusivist ideology espoused by Ezekiel in asserting that the Jehoiachin exilic community, and it alone, is to be considered “God’s people” in the aftermath of their deportation from Jerusalem and following the destruction of Judah61. Tel Aviv University PoB 49040 Tel Aviv 6139001 Israel [email protected]

Dalit ROM-SHILONI

61. See ROM-SHILONI, Exclusive Inclusivity (n. 1), pp. 139-197.

OF BURNING OVENS, HALF-BAKED CAKES, AND HELPLESS BIRDS EXPLORING A CLUSTER OF METAPHORS IN HOSEA 7

In this article, I explore a cluster of metaphors in the book of Hosea. This prophetic book is replete with figurative language, and several scholars have investigated its many metaphors and similes from literary and/or theological points of view1. Some recent Hosea commentaries include helpful discussions of the use of imagery2. Biblical scholars have occasionally paid attention to the phenomenon that might be called metaphorical networks or clusters3. There are, however, no previous detailed studies of such clusters in the book of Hosea. There is no established methodology for such an enterprise, based on modern metaphor theory. Hence, the ensuing analysis can be characterized as innovative and experimental, and the results should be regarded as tentative. I have chosen to analyse a substantial (yet not too extensive) part of Hosea 7, namely verses 3-124. This passage, which can be divided into two sections (I: vv. 3-7; II: vv. 8-12), displays a bewildering array of images. Passions are likened to fire in an oven (vv. 4-7); the nation is depicted as poorly baked bread (v. 8), but also as a silly dove (v. 11); the punitive acts of YHWH are, finally, described in terms of catching birds with a net (v. 12). The analysis seeks to answer the following questions: to what extent can the various metaphors in Hos 7,3-12 be regarded as a cluster, that is, as interrelated and interacting? How is each transition from one 1. See, for instance, G. EIDEVALL, Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4–14 (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament, 43), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996; E.O. NWAORU, Imagery in the Prophecy of Hosea (Ägypten und Altes Testament, 41), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1999; B. SEIFERT, Metaphorisches Reden von Gott im Hoseabuch (FRLANT, 166), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996; B. OESTREICH, Metaphors and Similes for Yahweh in Hosea 14:2-9 (1-8), Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang, 1998. 2. In this regard, I find these two commentaries particularly helpful: J.A. DEARMAN, The Book of Hosea (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2010; F. LANDY, Hosea, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 22012. 3. Mention should be made of J.C. EXUM, Of Broken Pots, Fluttering Birds and Visions in the Night: Extended Simile and Poetic Technique in Isaiah, in CBQ 43 (1981) 331-352. Exum’s pioneering analysis of clusters of similes in the book of Isaiah has served as a source of inspiration for this article. 4. This delimitation has been made for pragmatic reasons. There is, admittedly, no sharp dividing line between 7,12 and 7,13. However, the metaphors that dominate vv. 3-7 and 8-12 are discontinued in 7,13-16.

112

G. EIDEVALL

source domain to another best explained? How does this assemblage of different metaphors and similes contribute to the overall message of Hosea 7? My methodological approach is to a certain extent informed by cognitive metaphor theory. It is thus argued that the recognition of two underlying, and overlapping, conceptual metaphors, namely PASSION IS FIRE and THE BODY IS A CONTAINER OF EMOTIONS, provides important keys to the interpretation of 7,3-7. It is further argued that the two sections 7,3-7 and 7,8-12 are connected by metaphorical language drawing on the source domain of baking bread. In addition, the metaphorical theme of eating/ devouring serves as a bridge between these two sections. Finally, I suggest that the entire metaphorical cluster in Hos 7,3-12 is held together by thematic links to the conceptual domain of food. I. WICKEDNESS AT THE ROYAL COURT: FIRE IN AN OVEN (7,3-7) Hos 7,3-75 With their wickedness they make the king rejoice, and the officials with their lies. 4 They are adulterers, all of them, like a burning oven6; the baker desists from stirring [the coals] from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. 5 On the day of our king, the officials became sick from the heat of the wine. He stretched out his hand to mockers. 6 They draw near; their heart/mind is like an oven in their ambush. All night their anger is asleep, but in the morning it blazes up like a flaming fire. 7 All of them are hot like an oven, they consume/devour their rulers all their kings have fallen. None among them calls upon me. 3

‫ברעתם ישמחו־מלך‬ ‫ובכחשיהם שרים‬ ‫כלם מנאפים‬ ‫כמו תנור בער הם‬ ‫אפה ישבות מעיר‬ ‫מלוש בצק עד־חמצתו‬ ‫יום מלכנו‬ ‫החלו שרים חמת מיין‬ ‫משך ידו את־לצצים‬ ‫כי־קרבו כתנור לבם בארבם‬ ‫כל־הלילה ישן אפהם‬ ‫בקר הוא בער כאש להבה‬ ‫כלם יחמו כתנור‬ ‫ואכלו את־שפטיהם‬ ‫כל־מלכיהם נפלו‬ ‫אין־קרא בהם אלי‬

For several reasons, Hos 7,3-7 should be regarded as a unit7. This passage looks like a carefully designed composition, held together by the refrain “like an oven”. The setting for the events described is the royal court in 5. All English translations are mine, unless otherwise indicated. 6. See BHSapp. 7. Thus also, e.g., F.I. ANDERSEN – D.N. FREEDMAN, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24), New York, Doubleday, 1980, pp. 447-454; J. JEREMIAS, Der Prophet Hosea (ATD, 24/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983, p. 95.

EXPLORING A CLUSTER OF METAPHORS IN HOSEA 7

113

Samaria. This is clearly indicated in the prologue, by means of references to a “king (‫ ”)מלך‬and to a group of “officials/princes (‫( ”)שרים‬v. 3). As regards the topic, v. 3 supplies a general theme that will be further developed and specified by the ensuing utterances, namely “wickedness” (‫)רעה‬. In light of the statement that “all their kings have fallen” (v. 7b), it is reasonable to assume that the passage refers to the repeated assassinations of kings, which took place during the last, turbulent decades of the Northern Kingdom8. As I intend to demonstrate, however, Hos 7,3-7 primarily depicts (and condemns) the underlying motives and desires which, according to the prophet or the editor, led to this situation of increasing violence and instability. The passage is dominated by a series of three similes (vv. 4a, 6a, and 7a). Since the refrain “like an oven (4a: ‫ ;כמו תנור‬6a and 7a: ‫”)כתנור‬ appears in all three, one may get the impression that exactly the same metaphor is being repeated. On a closer examination, however, the movement from one simile to the next is characterized by significant elements of variation and progress. In the first simile, a sweeping assertion is made concerning people at the court: “They are adulterers, all of them, like a burning oven” (v. 4a). From the perspective of metaphor studies, the accusation of adultery is ambiguous. I suggest that one may speak of two levels. At one level, the accusation might be understood quite literally. At another level, it is possible that adultery, in its turn, serves as a metaphor for political and/or religious unfaithfulness9. In the following analysis, I will mainly focus on the first level of interpretation, according to which the metaphorical process of mapping involves one target domain, adultery (or: illicit sexual desires), and one source domain, “fire in an oven”. Cognitive metaphor theory would seem to provide useful keys to the interpretation of the imagery in v. 4. I suggest that two cross-culturally widespread conceptual metaphors are involved, namely EMOTION IS HEAT and THE BODY IS A CONTAINER FOR THE EMOTIONS10. When these two ideas are combined, 8. In this respect, I agree with virtually all modern commentators. However, because the analysis in this paper focuses solely on the use of metaphor, no attempt will be made to determine which coup d’état is described. For various suggestions, see M.I. GRUBER, Hosea: A Textual Commentary (LHB/OTS, 653), London, T&T Clark, 2017, p. 308; A.A. MACINTOSH, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1997, pp. 256-261; M.A. SWEENEY, The Twelve Prophets. Vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Berit Olam), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, pp. 78-79; H.W. WOLFF, Hosea, transl. G. Stansell (Hermeneia), Philadephia, PA, Fortress, 1974, p. 124. 9. On this issue, see especially E. BEN ZVI, Hosea (FOTL, 21A/1), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2005, p. 150. See also LANDY, Hosea (n. 2), p. 101. 10. For a detailed discussion of the effects of combining the metaphors anger is heat and the body is a container for the emotions, with a large number of examples in English,

114

G. EIDEVALL

merging into a conceptual metaphor, which I will call PASSION IS FIRE (in an oven), it becomes possible to describe the entire complexity of human emotions. Thus, in Hos 7,4, both the intensity and the secrecy of the dangerous desires are being emphasized. The passions of the conspirators are strong, like flaming fire, but at the same time they are concealed, like fire burning within an oven. The additional information provided by v. 4b, that “the baker desists from stirring [the coals] from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened” (v. 4b), does not introduce a main character in the drama (the baker)11. Rather, this utterance introduces a new source domain, “baking bread”. Evidently, the two domains “fire in an oven” and “baking bread” are overlapping, since certain types of bread were produced in ovens heated by fire. But what is the point of this elaboration? Arguably, it adds precision. As shown by other texts in the Hebrew Bible (such as Gen 15,17 and Mal 3,19), the lexeme ‫ תנור‬could sometimes denote a flaming furnace. In this case, it clearly refers to an oven that was used for baking bread12. By drawing attention to a specific moment in the baking process, when the dough is rising while the fire is reduced, the author clarifies that the (metaphorical) fire is smouldering. At the surface, everything would seem to be calm, but underneath the embers (standing for forbidden desires) are glowing. The motif of heat seems to resurface briefly in v. 5, within a description of a royal feast. The text is difficult, and open to more than one interpretation regarding such fundamental issues as who does what to whom13. Still, the following can be said with certainty: Wine is served, and the court officials become sick because of “the heat [?] of the wine (‫”)חמת מיין‬ see G. LAKOFF, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 383-389. Illuminating examples of this type of metaphorical phrases are also provided by Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 22010, pp. 187-191 (ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER) and 211-216 (EMOTION IS HEAT). 11. Hence, in my opinion, discussions about the baker’s role in the conspiracy are pointless. For an example of lofty speculations concerning the “mysterious baker”, see ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea (n. 7), pp. 449-454 (quote on p. 449). According to LANDY, Hosea (n. 2), p. 101, the baker could somehow symbolize the king or even God. 12. Stuart has offered a helpful description of such an oven, as well as its use: “It was a round, domed, beehive structure made from fired clay with floor-level apertures and a large door on top […]. A roaring fire was […] allowed to burn until the interior was glowing hot […]. The bread loaves were then pressed onto the oven walls, or laid among the coals […] and the bread was left to bake in the retained heat”. D. STUART, Hosea– Jonah (WBC, 31), Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1988, p. 119. 13. For various reconstructions of the text and the events described, see ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea (n. 7), pp. 457-459; GRUBER, Hosea (n. 8), pp. 309-312; MACINTOSH, Hosea (n. 8), pp. 259-261.

EXPLORING A CLUSTER OF METAPHORS IN HOSEA 7

115

(v. 5a). The lexeme ‫ חמה‬is probably etymologically related to the concept of “heat”, but its attested senses include both “fury” (Gen 27,44; Deut 9,19) and “poison” (Deut 32,24; Ps 58,5). Hence, Hos 7,5 might refer to poisoned wine. Alternatively, the text describes heavy drinking of ordinary wine. In that case, it is conceivable that the intoxicating effect of the alcohol is pictured metaphorically, in terms of heat. The topic of the second simile (v. 6a) is conspiracy: “They draw near, their mind (is) like an oven in their ambush”. The meaning of the Hebrew text is not immediately transparent. In what respect could the “mind” or “heart” (‫ )לב‬of the conspirators be “like an oven” (‫ ?)כתנור‬The answer is indicated by the elaboration in v. 6b: “All night their anger is asleep, (but) in the morning it blazes up like a flaming fire”14. Thus, in this extended simile the focus lies on one of the main driving forces behind the conspiracy against the king: anger. In technical terms, the construction resembles that of the first simile: the domain of anger is (re)structured by the combined conceptual metaphors EMOTION IS HEAT and THE BODY IS A CONTAINER FOR THE EMOTIONS. To be more precise, the mind is here pictured as a container (an oven) for the fury of the plotters. The aspect of secrecy is underlined by yet another motif: the anger is described as sleeping. This motif serves as a parallel to the image of unstirred coals in v. 4b. However, v. 6b moves on to another stage of the process, a point where the latent destructive emotions become visible, as the scheming results in violent action. Notably, the anger of the conspirators is personified. A person who is slumbering may easily awake. However, this implied notion is not spelled out in the text. Instead, the depiction switches back to the dominant source domain, fire in an oven. Thus, in the last line of v. 6b “the sudden outburst of secretly nourished feelings of hatred and wrath” is depicted as a smouldering fire that suddenly blazes up15. The third simile (v. 7a) summarizes the previous descriptions of dangerous passions in a few words, “all of them are hot like an oven”. At the same time, the gradual transformation of the motif of a burning oven (‫ )כתנור‬reaches its climax, the culmination of a crescendo from glowing embers in a baker’s oven (v. 4) via open flames (v. 6) to an image of a terrifying furnace with deadly fire (v. 7). The aspect of destructivity is foregrounded in this metaphorical reference to regicide: “they consume/ devour (‫ )ואכלו‬their rulers”. In a metonymic extension of the metaphor 14. With most modern commentators, I regard the MT ’ōpēhem “their baker”, as a mistaken vocalization, inspired by v. 4b. One should rather read ’appĕhem, “their anger”, with support from Peshitta and the Targum. So also DEARMAN, The Book of Hosea (n. 2), p. 202, and WOLFF, Hosea (n. 8), p. 107. 15. Quote from EIDEVALL, Grapes in the Desert (n. 1), p. 112.

116

G. EIDEVALL

PASSION IS FIRE,

the persons driven by murderous passions are here, apparently, themselves depicted as burning flames. Notably, since the basic sense of the verb ‫ אכל‬is “to eat”, the language used evokes the image of the assassinated kings being eaten by their subjects. The following outline of the structure of Hos 7,3-7 shows the appearance and interaction of source domains and target domains in this part of the metaphorical cluster: (v. 3) Prologue. Topic: wickedness and joy at the royal court (v. 4a) Simile. Target: illicit desires; source: fire in an oven; conceptual metaphor: PASSION IS FIRE (v. 4b) Elaboration. Target: conspiracy; source: baking bread in a heated oven (v. 5) Interlude. Target: sickness/drunkenness; source: heat (?) (v. 6a) Simile. Target: conspiracy (and anger); source: fire in an oven; conceptual metaphor: PASSION IS FIRE (v. 6b) Elaboration. Target: anger; sources: sleeping + fire in an oven (v. 7a) Simile. Target: regicide; sources: fire in an oven + eating (v 7b) Epilogue. Topics: assassinated kings, lack of communication with YHWH

II. EPHRAIM AMONG THE NATIONS: BAKING BREAD AND CATCHING BIRDS (7,8-12) 8

Ephraim among the nations: He mingles. Ephraim has become an unturned cake. 9 Strangers have eaten/devoured his strength, but he does not know it. Mould is [or: grey hairs are] sprinkled upon him but he does not know it. 10 Israel’s pride testifies against him. Yet they have not returned to YHWH their God, or sought him, for all this. 11 Ephraim has become like a dove [who is] easily deceived, without sense They call to Egypt, they go to Assyria. 12 As they go, I will spread out my net over them; like birds in the sky, I will bring them down. I will chastise them according to the report of their assembly.

‫אפרים בעמים הוא יתבולל‬ ‫אפרים היה עגה בלי הפוכה‬ ‫אכלו זרים כחו‬ ‫והוא לא ידע‬ ‫גם־שיבה זרקה בו‬ ‫והוא לא ידע‬ ‫וענה גאון־ישראל בפניו‬ ‫ולא־שבו אל־יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫ולא בקשהו בכל־זאת‬ ‫ויהי אפרים כיונה‬ ‫פותה אין לב‬ ‫מצרים קראו אשור הלכו‬ ‫כאשר ילכו אפרוש עליהם רשתי‬ ‫כעוף השמים אורידם‬ ‫איסרם כשמע לעדתם‬

In terms of topic, the transition from Hos 7,3-7, with its focus on life and violent death at the royal court, to the next section (7,8-12), which deals with foreign affairs, is rather abrupt. However, as regards the imagery used, one may discover interesting links. Some scholars suggest that the

EXPLORING A CLUSTER OF METAPHORS IN HOSEA 7

117

“fire in an oven” metaphor that dominated the preceding passage continues in vv. 8-916. I would prefer a more cautious formulation though, speaking of connections, rather than unbroken continuity17. The opening phrase of v. 8 could be read as a heading for the entire section 7,8-12: “Ephraim among the nations”. It is followed by a brief but intriguing statement: ‫הוא יתבולל‬. In this context, it seems to mean “he mingles”, or the like. The verb ‫ בלל‬is not attested in the hithpoel elsewhere. In qal, it denotes the act of mixing things, either languages (Gen 11,7.9) or baking ingredients (that is, oil and flour; Exod 29,2; Lev 2,4.5)18. Taken on its own, v. 8a is only vaguely metaphorical, but in light of the ensuing image of a bread-cake (v. 8b) it is reasonable to assume that the source domain is “baking bread”. Apparently, Ephraim (the Northern Kingdom), or its foreign policy, is pictured as batter or dough in the making. But what could be the point of such a metaphor? Several scholars maintain that it is about the loss of identity; a people meant to be holy should not mix with others19. In my opinion, this looks like an over-interpretation, possibly inspired by Ezra–Nehemiah. Based on the observation that the metaphors in verses 8a and 8b represent two different stages in the process of baking, I suggest that the point made is something like “the proof is in the pudding”. The nation’s efforts on the international arena (in terms of “mingling”) are likened to the first stage, preparation (mixing the ingredients). The evaluation of these efforts corresponds to the final stage in the baking process, the product (checking the bread). Thus, the verdict is delivered by the metaphor in v. 8b, which describes the poor quality of the bread: “Ephraim has become an unturned cake (‫”)עגה בלי הפוכה‬. The bread type mentioned, called ‫עגה‬, was like a 16. Wolff, for instance, argues that “the metaphorical language in v 8 indicates that the simile of the oven connected with the theme ‘revolt against the throne’ is still in effect”. WOLFF, Hosea (n. 8), p. 126. See also J.L. MAYS, Hosea: A Commentary, London, SCM, 1969, p. 108. 17. In the same vein, Ben Zvi describes the cake metaphor in v. 8 as a “thematic bridge” to 7,3-7. In this context, notably, he reminds the reader that bridges “not only link places but also call attention to the gap between them”. BEN ZVI, Hosea (n. 9), pp. 150-151. In my opinion, the metaphorical connections between Hos 7,3-7 and 7,8-12 have been downplayed too much by Nwaoru. See E.O. NWAORU, The Role of Images in the Literary Structure of Hosea vii 8–viii 14, in VT 54 (2004) 216-222. See also ID., Imagery in the Prophecy of Hosea (n. 1), pp. 76-77. 18. See further S.M. PAUL, The Image of the Oven and the Cake in Hosea vii 4-10, in VT 18 (1968) 114-120, p. 117. He adds the suggestion (based on a comparison with an Akkadian cognate, balālu) that the verb ‫ בלל‬here denotes “the process of kneading”. 19. See, for instance, E. BONS, Das Buch Hosea (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament, 23/1), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996, p. 99; G.I. DAVIES, Hosea (NCBC), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1992, p. 186; DEARMAN, The Book of Hosea (n. 2), p. 208.

118

G. EIDEVALL

pancake20. You had to turn it after a short while. If not, it became practically inedible and useless, since it was “burnt on one side and uncooked on the other”21. In other words, the end result of Israel’s diplomatic activities is described as a complete disaster, due to carelessness22. Evidently, there is a connection between the metaphors in v. 8 and the preceding passage (7,3-7). In 7,4b, the source domain “baking bread” was introduced, in order to clarify some aspects of the domain “fire in an oven”. A baker was mentioned, as well as dough, but nothing was said about the bread. Hence, you might say that v. 8 picks up this imagery and develops it further. Still, I cannot agree with Wolff that the oven metaphor is “still in effect”23. No oven is mentioned in verse 8. In fact, one did not need an oven to make a flat bread-cake of the ‫ עגה‬type. It was made very quickly (see Gen 18,6; Exod 12,39). Pieces of dough would typically be placed either directly in the ashes or on hot stones (1 Kgs 19,6)24. In other words, although the domain “baking bread” serves as a bridge between these two sections, 7,3-7 and 7,8-12, the image of the oven has in fact been dropped when we reach v. 8. In v. 9, the phrase “but he does not know (it)” is repeated like a refrain. Clearly, the main topic is ignorance, on a national level. According to the opening utterance, “strangers/foreigners have eaten/devoured (‫ )אכלו‬his [that is, Ephraim’s] strength” (v. 9a). This could refer to Assyrian oppression, in the form of economic exploitation. The verb ‫“( אכל‬to eat”) creates an ironic effect, because of the juxtaposition to v. 8b with its image of a cake that probably no one would want to eat25. In addition, ‫ אכל‬serves as a catchword connection to v. 726. The metaphor in v. 9b can be interpreted in two ways, on two different levels. The main point remains the same. On one level, the nation, Ephraim/ Israel, is personified as an old man who has not noticed that his hair has turned grey. This is perfectly compatible with the preceding assertion that the nation had lost its strength27. On another level, it is actually possible 20. I owe this congenial comparison to DEARMAN, The Book of Hosea (n. 2), p. 208. 21. DAVIES, Hosea (n. 19), p. 187. 22. See also NWAORU, The Role of Images (n. 17), p. 219. 23. WOLFF, Hosea (n. 8), p. 126. 24. See further G. DALMAN, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Band 4: Brot, Öl und Wein, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1935, pp. 34-35. See also JEREMIAS, Der Prophet Hosea (n. 7), p. 98. 25. Alternatively, the expression in v. 8b indicates that the cake was eaten too soon (and therefore remained unturned). For reference to the use of this phrase “in the Jewish liturgy of the Day of Atonement”, see GRUBER, Hosea (n. 8), p. 321. 26. See further BEN ZVI, Hosea (n. 9), p. 153. 27. For an interpretation along these lines, see NWAORU, The Role of Images (n. 17), p. 219.

EXPLORING A CLUSTER OF METAPHORS IN HOSEA 7

119

to find yet another bread metaphor here. As pointed out by Shalom Paul, the sentence ‫גם־שיבה זרקה בו‬, which is commonly translated “grey hairs are sprinkled upon him” (NRSV), could also mean, “mould is sprinkled upon it”, that is, on the bread cake28. In the Gilgamesh epic, an Akkadian phrase, which is a near semantic equivalent to the Hebrew phrase used in Hos 7,9, occurs in a description of a piece of bread that had been left uneaten29. Such a metaphorical expression is easily understandable, since mould tends to be greyish in colour and hair-like in shape. Hence, the source domain “baking bread” would seem to hold the sub-unit of vv. 8-9 together. I suggest that one may even discern a development in three stages: the preparation of the dough (mixing ingredients, v. 8a), the product (half-baked bread, v. 8b) and, finally, a process of deterioration creating an utterly inedible bread cake (v. 9b). From the point of view of metaphor analysis, v. 10 is an interlude of little interest, which asserts that the people have failed to “seek” YHWH. In v. 11, the topic of international diplomacy is continued. At the same time, a new source domain, “the life of birds”, is introduced, which (as will be shown) holds together the sub-unit of vv. 11-12. It is asserted, “Ephraim has become like a dove, [who is] easily deceived, with out sense (‫כיונה‬ ‫”)פותה אין לב‬. But what is the point of this simile? According to some commentators, doves had a reputation of being extremely silly and gullible30. I doubt that. As pointed out by Francis Landy, “folly is not a common attribute of doves” in the Hebrew Bible31. They are frequently associated with love (in the Song of Songs) or with lamenting (in the Psalms, because of their moaning sound), but never with stupidity. On the contrary, such passages as Genesis 8 and Hos 11,11 indicate that the biblical authors were familiar with this bird’s remarkable capacity to navigate and to find its way back home32. I suggest that this metaphor is structurally similar to the bread metaphor in v. 8. There, Ephraim was depicted as an exceptional cake, a useless one. In a similar vein, the nation (or its leadership) 28. See PAUL, Image of the Oven (n. 18), pp. 119-120. See also ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea (n. 7), pp. 462 and 467. 29. The Akkadian phrase in question is šība ittadi. Paul offers the following translation of the relevant passage from the Gilgamesh Epic (Tablet XI, lines 223-226): “His first wafer is dried out; the second is gone bad; the third is soggy; the crust of the fourth has turned white; the fifth has a moldy cast (ši-ba it-ta-di); the sixth (still) is freshly baked; the seventh – just as he touched him, the man awoke”. PAUL, Image of the Oven (n. 18), p. 119. 30. See, for instance, DEARMAN, The Book of Hosea (n. 2), p. 210; GRUBER, Hosea (n. 8), p. 324. 31. LANDY, Hosea (n. 2), p. 108. 32. See O. KEEL, Vögel als Boten (OBO, 14), Freiburg/CH, Universitätsverlag, 1977, pp. 79-142.

120

G. EIDEVALL

is here in v. 11a likened to an exceptionally silly dove, without any sense of orientation33. Concerning the alleged stupidity of doves, it should however be conceded that they, like many other birds, are easily caught. That particular aspect, which creates a vital link to the fowling imagery in v. 12, would seem to be emphasized here34. In v. 11b, the dove simile is developed in a way that clarifies its applicability on the topic of diplomacy: “they call to Egypt, they go to Assyria”. This saying alludes to two of the dove’s most prominent traits: its characteristic “calling” sound, and its capacity to fly long distances. But in line with v. 11a, the activities described fail to make sense. Apparently, those responsible for Israel’s foreign policy could not make up their mind: Assyria or Egypt? Like a stupid dove, they would call in one direction, and go in another. At the same time, it is implied that they forget to call out to YHWH and to seek his advice35. In v. 12, the source domain “the life of birds” is given another twist: “As they go, I will spread out my net over them”. YHWH is here portrayed as a fowler, equipped with a net, and prepared to catch the people of Israel, pictured as a flock of birds. This kind of imagery emphasizes the superiority of one agent (the fowler) and the utter helplessness of some others (the birds). In Psalms and Proverbs, the fowlers usually stand for enemies and evildoers36. Hence, the message of the concluding part of v. 12a, “Like birds in the sky, I will bring them down”, would seem to be very sinister. YHWH is acting as a powerful enemy. Yet it might perhaps be possible to interpret v. 12 somewhat more hopefully. On the assumption that the constant expeditions to Egypt and Assyria were regarded as dangerous, someone would have to stop them. To a certain extent, then, v. 12 can be seen as ambiguous or open-ended. However, one should keep in mind that, as a rule, birds that were caught in a net would be killed. Fowling was, after all, a way of gathering food. The following outline of the structure of Hos 7,8-12 shows the appearance and interaction of source and target domains in the second part of this metaphorical cluster: (8a) Introduction. Target: international relations; source: mixing. Preparatory stage of baking bread: mixing ingredients in the dough (8b) Metaphor. Target: outcome of diplomacy; source: baking bread. Product of baking process: unturned, half-baked cake 33. See also the image of the slack bow in Hos 7,16 (exceptional and useless). 34. For a similar analysis of the dove simile in 7,11, see SEIFERT, Metaphorisches Reden (n. 1), pp. 167-168. 35. With LANDY, Hosea (n. 2), p. 108. 36. On this type of metaphors, see P. RIEDE, Im Netz des Jägers: Studien zur Feindmetaphorik der Individualpsalmen (WMANT, 85), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2000.

EXPLORING A CLUSTER OF METAPHORS IN HOSEA 7

121

(9a) Explication. Target: foreign exploitation of Israel; source: eating (9b) Metaphor. Target: increasing national weakness; source 1: ageing, grey hairs (personification of the nation); source 2: mould on a bread (Ephraim as a bread cake, see v. 8b) (10) Interlude. Topic: Israel’s pride, the people’s failure to “seek” YHWH (11a) Simile. Target: diplomacy; source: the life of birds; Ephraim as a dove without sense (11b) Elaboration of simile. A dove without sense, flying to and from (12a) Simile. Target: divine intervention; source: the life of birds; YHWH as a fowler with a net, catching the people, pictured as a flock of birds (12b) Concluding statement. Topic: judgement

III. THE METAPHORICAL CLUSTER The analysis above of interconnected metaphors and similes in Hos 7,312 can be summarized in terms of a chain. Throughout this passage, every new metaphorical expression is somehow linked to imagery found in the immediately preceding formulations. Thus, the simile in v. 4a, which depicts illicit passions as fire in an oven, is developed in 4b, in a way that introduces the domain of baking bread (in an oven). Whereas v. 5 picks up the metaphorical motif of heat, v. 6 returns to the image of fire in an oven metaphor. The first part of the cluster (which is neatly held together by the combined conceptual metaphors EMOTION IS HEAT and THE BODY IS A CONTAINER FOR THE EMOTIONS) reaches a climax in v. 7, where rage, resulting in repeated regicide, is described in terms of consuming flames of fire. It is worth noting that the metaphorical theme of “eating, consuming” (linked to the verb ‫ )אכל‬is introduced in v. 7. Despite the shift of topic, from conspiracy at the court (vv. 3-7) to international diplomacy (vv. 8-12), the chain of interconnected images is continued in v. 8. Here the source domain of baking bread (from v. 4) is developed in two different ways: the mixing of the dough (v. 8a) and the unturned (half-baked) cake (v. 8b). In v. 9a, the motif of “eating, consuming” is picked up (from v. 7) and given a new twist. This is followed by a metaphorical expression (v. 9b) that can be interpreted in two ways, or on two levels: either as an image of the nation, Ephraim, as an ageing person, getting grey hair, or as an image of a bread cake covered by mould. In other words, verses 8 and 9 are held together by the domain of baking bread. One may even discern a development in three successive stages: preparation (mixing the ingredients), product (halfbaked cake), and a process of deterioration (moulding). So far, overviewing vv. 3-9, the chain of metaphors and similes looks rather solid. However, one may ask whether it is really possible to speak of a chain that runs through the entire passage studied here, comprising

122

G. EIDEVALL

vv. 3-12. To begin with, the flow of images is interrupted by v. 10. Further, a completely new target domain, the life of birds, is introduced in v. 11. It seems difficult to find a common denominator that would connect the bird imagery in vv. 11-12 (the dove without sense, in v. 11, and the fowler spreading his net in order to catch a flock of birds, in v. 12) to the oven and bread metaphors in vv. 3-9. I suggest, nonetheless, that there is such a connecting link, namely the theme of eating (see especially verses 7 and 9). Why does a fowler catch birds (v. 12)? As a rule, it is in order to get food. In one way or another, then, all the metaphors and similes within Hos 7,3-12 can be linked to the conceptual domain of food, if this is defined broadly (including food production as well as consumption). Whereas bread was everyday food, pigeon was probably considered a rather delicious dish. From this perspective, one might say that the passage 7,3-12 is about eating and being eaten. In the first part of the cluster (vv. 3-7), those responsible for the assassinations of kings (the people in general and the court officials in particular) are pictured as a devouring fire. In the second part, the nation is pictured first as a bread cake, which could be eaten by others (even though it is described as more or less inedible), and then as a bird, or a flock of birds, about to be caught by YHWH, pictured as a fowler. According to v. 7, both people and leaders have neglected YHWH: “None of them calls upon me”. This accusation is repeated in v. 10: “they have not returned to YHWH their God, or sought him”. One might infer that they have failed to consult their patron deity in important matters, for instance through his prophets. Arguably, “seeking” YHWH would also involve prayer, accompanied by sacrifices. Interestingly, both bread cakes and doves or pigeons of various species were regularly offered as sacrificial gifts (see Lev 1,1417 and 2,4-10). This observation adds yet another dimension to the metaphorical cluster in Hos 7,3-1237. Uppsala University Engelska parken, Thunbergsvägen 3 B Box 511 SE-751 20 Uppsala Sweden [email protected]

Göran EIDEVALL

37. For a discussion of the sacrificial dimension of the metaphorical language in the book of Hosea as a whole, see the section “A world built on sacrifice” in EIDEVALL, Grapes in the Desert (n. 1), pp. 246-248.

THE NETWORK OF THE DAUGHTER ZION METAPHOR AND OTHER METAPHORS IN THE BOOK OF MICAH

Previous volumes on metaphor research published in the Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium have presented a wide variety of approaches to metaphors in the Hebrew Bible1, using theories including those developed by Richards, Black, Ricœur, Lakoff, Johnson, Turner, Kittay, and Kövecses2. To my knowledge, however, none have incorporated the theories of Benjamin Harshav (formerly known as Benjamin Hrushovski). In this essay, I aim to briefly introduce Harshav’s theories of how metaphors operate in networks, using examples from the Minor Prophets, and the book of Micah in particular. I will argue that the daughter Zion metaphor and other metaphors in Micah form a network of metaphors, which conveys the punishment, emotion, suffering, hope and triumph of Jerusalem’s people. My essay is divided into three sections. First, I will briefly discuss redaction criticism of the book of Micah in the light of the daughter Zion metaphor. In doing so, I hope to show how this form of criticism has hitherto neglected the importance of metaphors, and provide a framework for the analysis of metaphors which follows. Second, I will explain the theories of Harshav, which inform my work. Finally, I will present my analysis proper of the metaphors in the book of Micah3.

1. See P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 2005; P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (BETL, 231), Leuven, Peeters, 2010. 2. See I.A. RICHARDS, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York – London, Oxford University Press, 1936; M. BLACK, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1962; P. RICŒUR, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, transl. R. Czerny – K. McLaughlin – J. Costello, Toronto – Buffalo, NY – London, University of Toronto Press, 1977; G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980; G. LAKOFF – M. TURNER, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1989; E.F. KITTAY, Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Oxford, Clarendon, 1987; Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 22010. 3. I would like to thank Danilo Verde for his comments and suggestions that helped improve my essay.

124

J. CRUZ

I. REDACTION CRITICISM OF THE BOOK OF MICAH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DAUGHTER ZION METAPHOR Redaction criticism of Micah is concerned with determining which parts of the book are, in fact, the work of the prophet thought to have lived in Judah in the eighth century BCE, and which have been added subsequently by other authors. This question has been the subject of scholarly interest for approximately 140 years. The pioneer of this approach was G.H.A. von Ewald in 1876, who argued that chapters 1–5 were the original words of the eighth century prophet, while chapters 6–7 and the superscription in Mic 1,1 belonged to another hand4. Bernard Stade, in a series of articles in 1883 and 1884, considerably revised this account, suggesting that chapters 1–3, except for 2,12-13, were the work of the original prophet, while chapters 4–7 were added by later authors in the sixth and seventh centuries BCE5. Stade’s view came to gain widespread acceptance, with many subsequent Micah scholars adopting one version or another of his theory6. In 1976, James L. Mays similarly assigned most of the oracles in chapters 1–3 to Micah7, and argued that the oracles of chapters 4–7 are inconsistent with the prophetic concerns of the first three chapters8. He described the transition from 3,9-12 to 4,1-5 as a “breathtaking shift”9, taking us from the destruction of Jerusalem to the establishment of YHWH’s reign in Zion. Hans W. Wolff argued likewise in 1982: “In chaps. 4–7 we find hardly a text whose language is comparable to Micah’s”10, and added that “[t]he sayings in chaps. 4–5 contain not one sentence of accusation or proclamation of judgement against Judah or Jerusalem”11. 4. G.H.A. VON EWALD, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament, vol. 2, transl. J.F. Smith, London, Williams and Norgate, 1876, p. 292. 5. B. STADE, Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha, in ZAW 1 (1881) 161-172; ID., Weitere Bemerkungen zu Micha 4.5, in ZAW 3 (1883) 1-16; ID., Bemerkungen zu Nowack, über das Buch Micha, in ZAW 4 (1884) 291-297. 6. Stade’s position attracted succeeding scholars in the early 20th century including K. MARTI, Das Dodekapropheton (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, 13), Tübingen, Mohr, 1904; J.M.P. SMITH et al., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1912; W. NOWACK, Die kleinen Propheten (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, 3/4), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922; T.H. ROBINSON – F. HORST, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, 1/14), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1938. 7. Except 1,1, 1,2, 1,6-7, and 1,13b, see J.L. MAYS, Micah: A Commentary (OTL), London, SCM, 1976, pp. 14, 23, 25, 36-37, 42, and 58. 8. Ibid., pp. 13-14 and 130. 9. Ibid., p. 4. 10. H.W. WOLFF, Micah: A Commentary, transl. G. Stansell, Minneapolis, MN, Augsburg, 1990, p. 13. 11. Ibid., p. 13; J.A. WAGENAAR, Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2–5 (VT.S, 85), Leiden, Brill, 2001, presented the most recent work

DAUGHTER ZION AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH

125

However, problems with these statements arise when we take into consideration the metaphorical language of the book, particularly the image of “daughter Zion” (‫)בת־ציון‬. This specific metaphor is introduced in Mic 1,13 and then appears a further three times in Mic 4 (vv. 8.10 and 13). The first three chapters of the book of Micah cannot therefore be described as wholly disconnected from the rest of the book. The daughter Zion metaphor links Mic 1,13 and 4,8.10.13 in a network of metaphors which stretches throughout the book of Micah. It is likely that this linkage is the work of the final redactor of Micah, and that this person wanted these various instances of metaphors to be read in connection with one another. My paper will examine the connections between each use of the daughter Zion metaphor and attempt to articulate its overall argument within the context of the whole book. It will also consider the relationships between this metaphor and other metaphors in the text, and so try to give a full explanation of its place within the network of metaphors which exists in Micah. II. HARSHAV’S THEORY OF METAPHOR Harshav’s theories of metaphor are part of the larger theory of meaning called “Integrational Semantics”, which he defines as “the theory of meanings resulting from processes of integration of semantic material, within a text and outside of it”12. Harshav’s ideas can make sense of examples of metaphors that stretch throughout a passage, interact with other metaphors, and develop as a book progresses. Whereas Aristotle and Paul Ricœur identify the semantic unit of metaphor as an individual word and sentence respectively, Harshav argues that these are both too restrictive13. He proposes a wider concept on the composition history of the book of Micah in this monograph, which is a revision of his 1995 PhD thesis. Wagenaar evaluated the form, size and date of the collected sayings of Micah 2–5 in various stages of the history of the development of the book and claimed that the book of Micah reached its final form through five stages of development. Most of the oracles in chapter 1 and chapters 2–5 were collected in stage four (p. 324) and then chapters 1,2–5,14 and 6,1–7,20 + 1,1 were combined in stage five (pp. 324-325). Wagenaar posited that the revision and collection of the sayings took place in the early exilic period by Micah’s disciples who constituted the circles around the prophet Jeremiah (pp. 255-261 and 320). If there were original sayings to be attributed to the eighth century prophet, Wagenaar believes them to comprise of only three verses in chapter 2, namely vv. 8, 9 and 10 (pp. 260 and 318). Wagenaar has little to say about the relation between the daughter Zion passages in the book. 12. B. HARSHAV, Explorations in Poetics, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2007, p. 77. 13. Ibid., pp. 33 and 38.

126

J. CRUZ

of metaphor, which might include a passage of sentences, an entire poem, or even a whole book14. Harshav therefore aims to provide metaphor with a wider space for its semantic play. Central to Harshav’s theories is what he calls the frame of reference, or fr (or simply “frame”), which he defines as follows: any continuum of two or more referents to which parts of a text or its interpretations may relate: either referring directly and describing or simply mentioning, implying, or evoking. It may indicate an object, a scene, a situation, a person, a state of affairs, a mental state, a history, a theory; it may be real, hypothetical, or fictional. It may appear in reality or in the reader’s network of knowledge, or projected uniquely in a given text. Its ontological status is immaterial to semantics: it is anything we can talk about, no matter whether and how it exists15.

In other words, a frame of reference is a semantic unit of discourse on which a metaphor is based. Each fr integrates two or more words or phrases (or “referents”) that are linked in a continuous relationship within a text. These are not confined to a single sentence, but can be dispersed throughout the poem. They may be syntactically discontinuous, but are connected within their frame. Harshav also acknowledges that the amount of information about [a frame of reference] (an fr) given in a text or available outside of the text may be detailed or partial or spotty: it is not a complete object, merely a frame of reference to which we can refer, in which we can indicate specific referents. Thus, material objects or scenes in fiction, as well as characters, ideas, or experiences, do not have to be defined or presented in full in a text; they may simply be named, referred to, hinted at, or evoked through some of their details16.

A frame of reference is also capable of accommodating additional information, and therefore being expanded. Harshav explains that “the same fr may receive additional material in other segments”17 of text. A frame of reference “expands filled-in details of the fictional world in concentric circles, reaching out more and more widely with and offering more and more details”18 and so “builds an ever-enlarging world”19. 14. See KITTAY, Metaphor (n. 2), pp. 13 and 19. 15. HARSHAV, Explorations in Poetics (n. 12), p. 40. 16. Ibid., pp. 8 and 40. 17. Ibid., p. 42. 18. B. HARSHAV, Three Thousand Years of Hebrew Versification: Essays in Comparative Prosody, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2014, p. 46. 19. Ibid., p. 57.

127

DAUGHTER ZION AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH

Harshav regards any given text as made up of a network of frames that may intersect with each other within a larger frame called Field of Reference (FR), “a large, multidimensional, hypothetical universe, containing a multitude of cotextual, crisscrossing and interrelated frs of various kinds”20. The heterogeneous frs may initially appear totally disconnected, because they are drawn from different semantic fields, but readers are encouraged to look at their possible relations, construct their “hypothetical continuum”21 and work out their integration. It is important to note that Harshav sees no significant difference between a Field of Reference and a large frame of reference, because both are represented by several frames or referents which are to be integrated, and project a hypothetical continuum22. However, Harshav also acknowledges that frames of reference may create parallel and contradictory relationships23. He says that “a passage describing a character or an event may be supplemented or contradicted in later passages of the same text. Or a newspaper passage […] may be supplemented, modified, or contradicted by previous, later, or outside information”24. Furthermore, semantic elements within their frame create not only complementary but also tensional relationships25. Therefore, frames of metaphors and referents within a certain frame may not be completely integrated. I will now present my analysis of the daughter Zion metaphor and other metaphors in the book of Micah. Unfortunately, I do not have space at present to develop my application of Harshav’s ideas beyond these constraints.

III. THE DAUGHTER ZION METAPHOR IN RELATION OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH 1,13-16 13

Harness the chariot to the horses26, O inhabitants of Lachish; she is the beginning of sin to the daughter Zion, for in you were found the transgressions of Israel. 14 Therefore, you will give parting gifts to Moresheth-gath; 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

TO

‫רתם המרכבה לרכש‬ ‫יושבת לכיש‬ ‫ראשית חטאת היא לבת־ציון‬ ‫כי־בך נמצאו פשעי ישראל‬ ‫לכן תתני שלוחים‬ ‫על מורשת גת‬

HARSHAV, Explorations in Poetics (n. 12), pp. 6 and 42. Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., pp. 6-7. Ibid., p. 51. Ibid., p. 42. Ibid., p. 41. All translations from Hebrew to English are mine.

128

J. CRUZ

the houses of Achzib will be deceptive to the kings of Israel. 15 Again I will bring a conqueror to you, O inhabitants of Mareshah; to Adullam will come the glory of Israel. 16 Shave and shear because of the children of your delight; enlarge your baldness like the vulture, for they have gone from you into exile.

‫בתי אכזיב לאכזב‬ ‫למלכי ישראל‬ ‫עד הירש אבי לך‬ ‫ושבת מרשה‬ ‫עד־עדלם יבוא‬ ‫כבוד ישראל‬ ‫קרחי וגזי‬ ‫על־בני תענוגיך‬ ‫הרחבי קרחתך כנשר‬ ‫כי גלו ממך‬

1. The Metaphor of Daughter Zion The daughter Zion metaphor is introduced in Mic 1,13, which describes Jerusalem directly as a daughter. It should be noted at this point that the daughter Zion metaphor in Micah has two different references: the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the city itself. We will attempt to keep this distinction in mind during the discussion that follows. The metaphorization of Jerusalem occurs gradually as the book of Micah progresses. Jerusalem initially appears along with Samaria at the superscription in 1,1; both cities are intended addressees of the words of YHWH that came to Micah. In v. 5, Jerusalem again appears with Samaria, and is accused of installing “high places” in Judah. Next, Jerusalem is portrayed in v. 9 as a sick city because it has been infected by the incurable wounds that come from Samaria. Mic 1,12 then says that a disaster from the Lord has come to the gate of Jerusalem. In v. 13, Jerusalem is personified in the figure of a daughter and linked with Lachish, where its transgression is said to originate. Jerusalem is finally punished in v. 16, in which two additional metaphors are introduced: the lamenting mother, who mourns the banishment of her children, and the bald vulture, which provides a visual image of a woman who becomes unattractive after losing her hair. By the time we reach the end of chapter 1, therefore, images for Jerusalem abound, forming a cluster of metaphors. It is in 1,13 that the metaphor of daughter Zion opens its frame. We have identified two frames of references thus far: Jerusalem and daughter Zion, which both appear directly in the text. Any subsequent appearance of the daughter Zion metaphor in Micah ultimately needs to be linked to 1,13, where the metaphor opens its frame. Frame 2 (daughter Zion) and all subsequent metaphorical frames will relate back to frame 1 (Jerusalem), which will therefore be enlarged and become a Field of Reference. The main information provided by the daughter Zion metaphor is the accusation and judgement of Jerusalem’s people. Micah 1 takes the form

DAUGHTER ZION AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH

129

of a divine trial in which YHWH is a divine “witness” (‫ )עד‬in 1,2, who testifies against the cities of Samaria and Jerusalem. The former is figuratively described as a prostitute (‫ )זנה‬in 1,7, and is the first female persona to be judged and punished for her transgression. Jerusalem, personified as daughter Zion, is then also accused and punished. Ehud Ben Zvi has suggested that Jerusalem might escape divine judgement27, concluding that “the fate of Jerusalem remains a central [and] open issue”28. Additionally, he questions whether the lamenting mother in v. 16 in fact represents Jerusalem, as the text does not explicitly link this persona with daughter Zion29. However, I will argue that the ultimate target of divine judgement in Mic 1,2-16 is indeed Jerusalem. The sequence of the divine trial begins with the accusation and judgement of Samaria in 1,6-7. Samaria is then linked to Jerusalem using the metaphor of “wounds” (‫)מכות‬, near the middle of the chapter (see v. 9); Samaria’s wounds have infected Jerusalem and so both cities have now become sick. The trial concludes with Jerusalem being indicted and condemned in 1,13-16. Therefore, the text ultimately builds towards holding Jerusalem accountable for its rebellion. What, then, is the nature of Jerusalem’s transgression? Francis I. Andersen and David N. Freedman have argued that the principal sin of daughter Zion in 1,13 is idolatry30, but I believe that it is more likely to be reliance on military might. Lachish was a military fortress in Judah with a wellplanned defence system, and is denounced in the text as the beginning of daughter Zion’s sin. Moreover, the noun “chariot” (‫ )מרכבה‬in 1,13a has obvious military connotations, recalling the “war chariot” of Exod 14,25 and 15,4. The use of such weapons is condemned in prophetic literature (Isa 2,7; 31,1) and in the Psalms (20,8; 33,16-17), because they represent human arrogance31 as opposed to trust in YHWH, who is said to delight in those who fear him and put their hope in his unfailing love, rather than in the strength of the horse (Ps 147,10-11). 27. E. BEN ZVI, Micah (FOTL, 21B), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2000, p. 36. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid., p. 37. 30. F.I. ANDERSEN – D.N. FREEDMAN, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24), New York, Doubleday, 2000, pp. 229-230. 31. See T.L. FORTI, “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms (Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible, 10), University Park, PA, Eisenbrauns, 2018, p. 81; B.A. FOREMAN, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah (FRLANT, 238), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, pp. 131-139; J. BARTON, Understanding Old Testament Ethics: Approaches and Explorations, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2003, p. 37; R. ALBERTZ, Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the “Book of the Four”, in P.L. REDDITT – A. SCHART (eds.), Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW, 325), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2003, 231-251, p. 239.

130

J. CRUZ

2. The Metaphor of the Lamenting Mother The eventual fate of daughter Zion is confirmed in 1,16, which introduces two further frames of metaphor for Jerusalem: the lamenting mother and the bald vulture, which we may respectively refer to as frames 3 and 4. These images prompt the reader to re-imagine Jerusalem, which had previously been portrayed as a daughter. The second of these metaphors, the lamenting mother, does not appear directly in the text, but several indicators in the text suggest this maternal figure: the second feminine addressee, the shaving of the female’s head to express sorrow, and the reference to children (‫)בני‬. In Lam 4,1-5.16, we find a similar depiction of daughter Zion as a lamenting mother, again in the context of divine judgement, which reinforces the link between daughter Zion and the lamenting mother, who bewails the loss of her children as a result of her sin32. The lamenting figure invokes the relationship between mother and child, which is clearly one of intense emotional intimacy. However, the text also suggests that this intimacy will be disrupted. The verb of motion, ‫גלה‬, and the preposition ‫ מן‬in v. 16d, indicate that the children will break this intimacy by leaving their mother, causing great sorrow to each of them. 3. The Metaphor of Bald Vulture The third metaphor for Jerusalem in the text is the bald “vulture” (‫)נשר‬, a visual image of the mother Zion during the period of lament. In this frame, the mother is commanded to shave (‫)קרח‬, to shear (‫ )גזז‬and to enlarge (‫ )רחב‬her baldness like that of a vulture. I shall not analyse each of these referents in detail, but it will suffice to note that the basic meaning of the final verb, ‫רחב‬, is to “become broad, wide, expansive”33; thus, the “baldness” (‫ )קרחה‬of mother Zion is extensive. Hair is a “natural adornment”34 for a woman; shaving it off would make her look ugly like a bald vulture. Thus, the shaving of mother Zion’s head indicates a loss of beauty. 32. For further commentary on the relationship between daughter Zion and a lamenting mother who weeps for her suffering and missing children, see D.A. BOSWORTH, Daughter Zion and Weeping in Lamentations 1–2, in JSOT 28 (2013) 217-237. For studies on “Daughter Zion” in the book of Lamentations, see F.W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (BibOr, 44), Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993; C.R. MANDOLFO, Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations (SBL Semeia Studies, 58), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. 33. R. BARTELMUS, ‫רחב‬, in TDOT 13: 427-437, p. 427. 34. WOLFF, Micah (n. 10), p. 64.

DAUGHTER ZION AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH

131

Furthermore, the command to enlarge baldness can be interpreted as a call to mourning. As Leslie C. Allen notes, the exhortation to shave the head is also a summons to perform a full mourning rite to express grief35, which the mother Zion carries out because the children of her delight are going to be deported. The shaving of mother Zion’s head can therefore be understood as an outward expression of deep inner sorrow. As M. Weiss highlights, biblical metaphor “not only assists understanding, but it also activates and stimulates all kinds of emotional overtones and ancillary ideas”36. The emotive images of lamenting mother and bald vulture depict the personal anguish of mother Zion, evoke sympathy for her, and provide a physical image of her suffering. The metaphors which are added near the end of Micah 1 therefore appeal to our emotions and senses, as well as to our imagination. IV. THE DAUGHTER ZION METAPHOR AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MIC 4,8-13 8

And you, tower of the flock, hill of daughter Zion; to you will come and enter, the former sovereignty, the kingship of daughter Jerusalem. 9 Now, why do you cry aloud? Is there no king among you? Or, has your counsellor perished that pain seizes you like a woman in childbirth? 10 Writhe and tremble, daughter Zion, like a woman in childbirth; for now you must go out from the city and dwell in the open field. And you will go to Babylon, there you will be delivered. There YHWH will redeem you, from the hand of your enemy. 11 Now many nations are gathered against you, saying, “let her be desecrated and let our eyes gloat over Zion”. 12 But they do not know the thoughts of the Lord or understand his plan,

‫ואתה מגדל־עדר‬ ‫עפל בת־ציון‬ ‫עדיך תאתה ובאה‬ ‫הממשלה הראשנה‬ ‫ממלכת לבת־ירושלם‬ ‫עתה למה תריעי רע‬ ‫המלך אין־בך‬ ‫אם־יועצך אבד‬ ‫כי־החזיקך חיל כיולדה‬ ‫חולי וגחי בת־ציון כיולדה‬ ‫כי־עתה תצאי מקריה‬ ‫ושכנת בשדה‬ ‫ובאת עד־בבל‬ ‫שם תנצלי‬ ‫שם יגאלך יהוה‬ ‫מכף איביך‬ ‫ועתה נאספו עליך גוים רבים‬ ‫האמרים תחנף‬ ‫ותחז בציון עינינו‬ ‫והמה לא ידעו מחשבות יהוה‬ ‫ולא הבינו עצתו‬

35. L.C. ALLEN, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1976, p. 283. 36. M. WEISS, The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation, transl. B.J. Schwartz, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1984, p. 156.

132

J. CRUZ

that he has gathered them like sheaves on a threshing floor. 13 Arise and thresh, daughter Zion, for I will make your horn iron and I will make your hoofs bronze; you will pulverise many nations and devote their gain to YHWH, even their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.

‫כי קבצם כעמיר גרנה‬ ‫קומי ודושי בת־ציון‬ ‫כי־קרנך אשים ברזל‬ ‫ופרסתיך אשים נחושה‬ ‫והדקות עמים רבים‬ ‫והחרמתי ליהוה בצעם‬ ‫וחילם לאדון כל־הארץ‬

1. The Metaphor of the Tower of the Flock The frame of the daughter Zion metaphor reopens in Mic 4,8 with a dramatic shift of tone and mood, offering words of hope and consolation to daughter Zion, who had previously been condemned and punished. Here, daughter Zion assumes an appositional relationship to the “tower of the flock” (‫)מגדל־עדר‬, and therefore the daughter Zion metaphor branches out to the tower of the flock metaphor, which now becomes a fourth frame of metaphor for Jerusalem. The new frame of the tower of the flock metaphor portrays the city of Jerusalem as a place of security for its inhabitants. Although Bruce K. Waltke takes the vocative ‫ מגדל־עדר‬as an epithet for Jerusalem37, it may also be taken as a metaphor for the city. The lexeme ‫ מגדל‬may refer to a literal tower that stands together with a gate or wall and secures its fortifications (Isa 33,18; Ps 48,13)38, but ‫ מגדל‬can also be a metaphor for security and protection. For example, the name of YHWH is referred to elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as a “strong tower” (‫ ;)מגדל־עז‬the righteous run into it and are safe (Prov 18,10; see Ps 61,3). ‫עדר‬, meanwhile, recalls Mic 2,12 in which Israel’s remnant, the dispersed people living outside Judah and Israel, are metaphorically described as flock (‫ )עדר‬that YHWH, the shepherd-king, will gather and put together like sheep in a pen. These people will be restored to their ancestral home in Zion, and be transformed into a strong nation, to be reigned over by YHWH forever (Mic 4,6-7). A more significant piece of information provided by the frame of daughter Zion is that she will be restored in the future to her “former dominion” (‫)הממשלה הראשנה‬. Many scholars agree that this is probably a specific reference to the state of sovereignty enjoyed by David and Solomon in ancient times39. In addition, the frame of daughter Zion delivers a promise 37. B.K. WALTKE, A Commentary on Micah, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2007, p. 231. 38. D. KELLERMANN, ‫מגדל‬, in TDOT 8: 69-73, p. 71. 39. See G.W. WADE, The Books of the Prophets: Micah, Obadiah, Joel and Jonah: With Introduction and Notes, London, Methuen & Co., 1925, p. 34; WALTKE, A Commentary on Micah (n. 37), p. 235; D.R. HILLERS, Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1984, p. 56; M.A. SWEENEY, The Twelve

DAUGHTER ZION AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH

133

that kingship will come to “daughter Jerusalem” (‫)בת־ירושלם‬, an expression which echoes that of “daughter Zion” (see Isa 37,22; Zeph 3,14; Zech 9,9). Jerusalem will therefore be the centre of YHWH’s authority where he reigns as the ultimate shepherd-king of his people. Some scholars discern a negative sense to 4,8. Wade suggests that the text envisions Jerusalem as a desolate city, with “its surviving buildings being no better than temporary shelters”40. Similarly, W. Rudolf argues that “v. 8 presupposes that Jerusalem has been laid waste and that the Davidic dynasty has been overthrown”41. However, it is clear to me that the emphasis of the text is that which J. Wellhausen calls as “die Erneuerung des untergegangenen Königtums”42, and the tone and mood of the text is one of optimism and triumph. The chief concern of 4,8 is the restoration of the dominion of daughter Zion. 2. The Metaphor of a Woman in Childbirth Shortly afterwards, however, daughter Zion in v. 10 is likened to “a woman in the pains of childbirth” (‫)כיולדה‬, which becomes the sixth frame of metaphor for Jerusalem. Daughter Zion is commanded to writhe and burst forth like a woman in labour as she leaves the city to camp in the open field and then go to Babylon. This metaphor of a woman in labour pains conveys the suffering, both physical and psychological, of the people of Jerusalem during exile. The metaphor initially appears in Mic 4,9d to describe the distress that grips the inhabitants of Jerusalem because of their lack of leadership, and then recurs in 4,10b to metaphorically portray the crisis of exile. The childbirth metaphor is constructed in v. 10 from several referents. The first is the verb ‫חיל‬, often used in the Hebrew Bible when dealing with birth (Isa 13,8; 23,4-5; 45,10). A. Bauman explains that this word is “a comprehensive term for everything from the initial contractions to the birth itself”43, and refers to a state “characterized by recurring spasms of pain which are not subject to conscious control, during which the woman in labor writhes – a process that can be accompanied by a sense of fear or anxiety, screams, and groans”44. Prophets. Vol. 2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, p. 384. 40. WADE, The Books of the Prophets (n. 39), p. 34. 41. Cited by W. MCKANE, The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, p. 131. 42. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und Erklärt, Berlin, Georg Reimer, 1898, p. 144. 43. A. BAUMAN, ‫חיל‬, in TDOT 4: 344-347, p. 345. 44. Ibid.

134

J. CRUZ

The second referent of the metaphor is the verb ‫ גיח‬translated as “to groan”45 or “to labour to give birth”46. In BDB, ‫ גיח‬is rendered as “burst forth” and associated with the rolling of a river (Job 40,23), the approach of armies (Judg 20,33), and the drawing of a child from the mother’s womb (Ps 22,10)47. J. Wellhausen regards ‫ חיל‬and ‫ גיח‬as synonymous48, while W. McKane refers to them together as “writhe and give birth”49. Claudia D. Bergmann suggests that “writhe and tremble” is a more apt translation, with both verbs describing the “trembling movements caused by pain and fear”50 during childbirth. These two verbs in v. 10a are used metaphorically and integrated into the frame of the childbirth metaphor. The third referent is the participle ‫ כיולדה‬in v. 10b, from the consonants ‫ילד‬, meaning “to bear” or “to bring forth” a child51. ‫ ילד‬in the qal form, as Sarah J. Dille notes, is “[t]he standard term for giving birth”52 in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 30,3; 35,15-16; Exod 1,19; Lev 12,2; 1 Sam 4,19; 1 Kgs 3,17-18; Isa 30,14; 26,17-18; Jer 20,14)53. The participle ‫ כיולדה‬is a figurative usage of ‫כיולדה ;ילד‬, as Claudia D. Bergmann says, is the most common form of the simile “like a woman giving birth” in the Hebrew Bible54 (Isa 13,8; 42,14; Jer 6,24; 30,6; 49,24; 50,43; Mic 4,9; 4,10; Ps 48,7). This simile again invokes the trauma and fear associated with childbirth, a process in which the lives of the mother and baby both become fragile. The final referent of the childbirth metaphor is the verb ‫“( רוע‬to shout” or “to cry”), which appeared earlier in v. 9a. It usually refers to a “war cry” that is raised during battle55, but it is used in v. 9 as “a cry for lament” at the lack of leadership endured by the people of Jerusalem. However, since ‫ רוע‬is associated with ‫חיל‬, the language of childbirth, it is possible to integrate it in the frame of the present metaphor. Dille was probably the first to link ‫ רוע‬to the metaphor of childbirth, stating that ‫“ רוע‬refers to a sound 45. See ESV, NRSV, and RSV. 46. See NASB and KJV. 47. BDB, p. 161. 48. WELLHAUSEN, Die Kleinen Propheten (n. 42), p. 144. 49. MCKANE, The Book of Micah (n. 41), p. 143. 50. C.D. BERGMANN, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1–18 (BZAW, 382), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2008, p. 111. 51. J. SCHREINER – G.J. BOTTERWECK, ‫ילד‬, in TDOT 6: 76-81, p. 81; See BDB, p. 408. 52. S.J. DILLE, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah (JSOT.S, 398), London, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 27. 53. The verb ‫ ילד‬also refers to a male giving birth, see Gen 4,18; 10,8.13.15.24.26; 22,23; and Prov 23,22. 54. BERGMANN, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis (n. 50), p. 71. 55. H. RINGGREN, ‫רוע‬, in TDOT 13: 412-415, p. 413.

DAUGHTER ZION AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH

135

like a woman giving birth”56. The verb ‫ רוע‬therefore indicates a cry of a woman in childbirth and the pain (‫ )חיל‬she suffers becomes a labour pain. The verb ‫ רוע‬is thus polysemic in that it may refer literally to a war cry or a lamentation, or figuratively to the sound of a woman giving birth. All of the above referents are dispersed throughout vv. 9-10, but may be brought into a meaningful and continuous relationship by means of the frame of the woman-in-childbirth metaphor, an image of distress to which each referent contributes. As the passage continues, the childbirth metaphor is linked to the situation it describes – the experience of the inhabitants of Jerusalem during exile in v. 10c-e. This connection is established by means of the particle ‫כי‬. Verse 10c-e goes on to describe the banishment of these people from Jerusalem; firstly, the act of “going out” (‫)יצא‬, during which the inhabitants of Jerusalem appear as captives leaving their city57. Next, the text describes the act of “dwelling” (‫ )שׁכן‬in the open field, implying exposure to dangers such as violence (Deut 21,1; 22,25), wild beasts (Exod 22,30[31]), and swords of the enemy (Jer 6,25; 14,18). Finally, we see the act of “coming” (‫ )בוא‬to Babylon, which indicates the exiles’s arrival in the land of their enemies58. All these verbs convey physical stages of the displacement of these people from Jerusalem to Babylon. In her 2008 monograph, Claudia D. Bergmann argues that childbirth was used in the ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible as a metaphor for crisis. Referring to Mic 4,9-10, Bergmann remarks that the crisis depicted in the image of a woman in childbirth is “focused on pain and suffering” and “has the potential to end in death”59. Phinehas’s wife, for example, died because of severe pains in childbirth (1 Sam 4,19-20). Bergmann further notes that [c]hildbirth or the experience of crisis can cause certain utterances, crying, screaming, or changes in breathing […]. Most effects of living through a crisis or through the difficult experience of giving birth […] are of a psychological nature and influence the mind as well as the body. These effects can include feelings of fear, terror, distress, or loss of courage60.

I believe that Bergmann’s analysis is valid and want to argue more specifically that the metaphor of childbirth in Mic 4,10 conveys the physical and psychological sufferings of the exiled inhabitants of Jerusalem. 56. DILLE, Mixing Metaphors (n. 52), p. 47. 57. See WALTKE, A Commentary on Micah (n. 37), p. 242. 58. Ibid., p. 243. 59. BERGMANN, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis (n. 50), p. 111. 60. C.D. BERGMANN, We Have Seen the Enemy, and He Is Only a “She”: The Portrayal of Warriors as Women, in CBQ 69 (2007) 651-672, p. 658.

136

J. CRUZ

These sufferings are not made explicit in the description of their experience in v. 10c-e, but are expressed through the graphic image of a woman giving birth, expressing the agony, terror and distress of the deported Judeans. In short, the language of childbirth is used to apply a new perspective to the experience of this exiled people. Their predicament is compared to a bodily process which is both intensely distressing and can put one’s life at immediate risk61. Bergmann points out that the birth metaphor also has a positive aspect in that it “takes into consideration the potential for a new beginning after the crisis has passed”62. The assurance of redemption given to daughter Zion in v. 10f-h may well refer metaphorically to the period after birth when labour pains recede. YHWH will redeem “her” (the inhabitants of Jerusalem) from the place of her captivity. This word of hope signals both the end of the crisis of exile and the beginning of a life in freedom for daughter Zion. 3. The Metaphor of the Mighty Warrior Immediately after this verse, however, the tone shifts again as daughter Zion is commanded to rise and thresh her enemies. In its final appearance in 4,11-13, daughter Zion emerges as a mighty warrior who triumphs over her enemies. The text says that many nations gather against Zion to pervert and ridicule her, but they do not know the thoughts of the Lord, who plots to gather them like sheaves to the threshing floor (vv. 11-12). The daughter Zion then receives an order to attack and destroy many of her enemies (v. 13). The metaphor of mighty warrior, which forms the seventh frame for Jerusalem, does not appear explicitly in the text, but it is evoked through some features of a warrior. The references to horn (‫)קרן‬, iron (‫)ברזל‬, and bronze (‫ )נחושה‬on the one hand, and sheaves (‫ )עמיר‬on the other, depict Zion as strong and mighty and the enemy nations as fragile. Thus, daughter Zion, who has just been portrayed with an image 61. For studies dealing with the themes of exile, suffering, and displacement, see B. BECKING – D. HUMAN (eds.), Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA Pretoria August 2007 (OTS, 50), Leiden, Brill, 2009; J. AHN, Exile as Forced Migrations: A Sociological, Literary, and Theological Approach on the Displacement and Settlement of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (BZAW, 417), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2011; B.E. KELLE – F.R. AMES – J.L. WRIGHT (eds.), Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts (AIL, 10), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. See also R. ALBERTZ, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., transl. D. Green (SBL Studies in Biblical Literature, 3), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. 62. BERGMANN, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis (n. 50), p. 8.

DAUGHTER ZION AND OTHER METAPHORS IN MICAH

137

of distress, suddenly turns so fierce that she crushes and grinds the enemy nations like sheaves on a threshing floor. Therefore, the implicit metaphor of warrior stands in marked contrast to the metaphor of woman in childbirth. A sharp tension between frames of metaphors evidently exists here. V. CONCLUSION Previously, redaction critics of the book of Micah separated chapters 1–3 of the book from chapters 4–7 on the basis that the former represents the original sayings of the eighth century prophet, whereas the latter contains materials added by other authors in the sixth and seventh centuries BCE. However, this approach prevents us from interpreting the book holistically, particularly with regard to the recurring daughter Zion metaphor. As we have seen, this metaphor is introduced in Micah 1 and then reappears on three occasions in Micah 4, and thus represents a point of unity between the two parts of the book. In addition, we have argued that the manner in which the daughter Zion metaphor stretches throughout the book is most likely the deliberate work of the book’s final redactor, who intended all instances of this metaphor to be read as a whole, in order to provide a fuller picture of the experiences of Jerusalem’s people expressed here. Therefore, this metaphor provides us with evidence about the ultimate redaction of the book, as well as linking texts within it that have previously been regarded as separate entities. Using Harshav’s theories, which integrate semantic materials dispersed within the text, I have also shown how the different instances of the daughter Zion metaphor interact with other metaphors in the book of Micah. The metaphors throughout the book variously depict Jerusalem as a daughter, a lamenting mother, a bald vulture, a tower of flock, a woman in childbirth, and a mighty warrior. There is therefore not one single metaphor for Jerusalem in Micah, but several metaphors which cast Jerusalem in multiple images, and which meaningfully interact and sometimes contradict one another. Paul Ricœur has correctly observed that “a metaphor never comes alone. One metaphor calls for another and altogether they remain alive thanks to their mutual tension and the power of each to evoke the whole network”63. The various metaphors in Micah comprise heterogeneous frames, which are drawn from different semantic fields, and are scattered in different places within the book, but they do not exist in isolation from each other because they are textually linked by the daughter 63. P. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermenutics, in Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148, p. 94.

138

J. CRUZ

Zion metaphor, which concurrently branches out additional frames of metaphors. Bringing them now together in the larger frame of Jerusalem (frame 1) which also functions as a Field of Reference in which all the frames of metaphors interrelate and are accommodated, I argue that overall, daughter Zion and other metaphors in Micah form a complex network that creatively conveys the punishment, emotion, suffering, hope and triumph of the inhabitants of Jerusalem within the book of Micah. 31 Jesmond Avenue North Aberdeen AB22 8WJ Scotland [email protected]

Juan CRUZ

THE LORD OF HOSTS CARES FOR HIS FLOCK MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

Of the number of metaphors utilized in Second Zechariah, the most frequently occurring are those that characterize the activity of a leader in terms of what a shepherd does to care for and look after his flock. Motivated by human experience of pastoral animal husbandry in the ancient world, the LEADERSHIP IS SHEPHERDING conceptual metaphor gives rise to a range of literary expressions. Each of these is the result of systematic correspondences between the shepherding source domain (the specific contours of which come into focus through the root ‫ )רעה‬and various types of leaders, whether human or divine. In Zechariah 9–14, such metaphors appear in no fewer than five places (9,16; 10,2-3; 11,3; 11,4-17; 13,7-9) and cut across an extended discourse about the restoration of Persian period Yehud in the face of both external and internal threats. Due to its prominence in these chapters, shepherd metaphors have received considerable attention in previous work on Second Zechariah1. In a number of studies, shepherd metaphors are approached as clues that must be examined in order to solve certain literary puzzles, be it the relationship between discrete redactional units or the intertextual allusions between these chapters and other biblical texts that foreground shepherd imagery (e.g., Jer 10,17-22; 23,1-6; Ezekiel 34)2. In other studies, attention is focused on deciphering the specific historical leader the shepherd 1. Notable contributions include: P.L. REDDITT, The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4-17, in CBQ 55 (1993) 676-686; Q.D. TRAN, Yahweh, the Bad Shepherd? Defamiliarization and Pastoral Symbolism in Zechariah 11:7-17, in The Expository Times 126 (2015) 530-539; R.L. FOSTER, Shepherds, Sticks, and Social Destabilization: A Fresh Look at Zechariah 11:4-17, in JBL 126 (2007) 735-753; R.J. BAUTCH, Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant, in R.J. BAUTCH – G.N. KNOPPERS (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2015, 255-270; and A.R. PETTERSON, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah, New York, T&T Clark, 2009, 149-212. 2. For studies on composition history, see P.L. REDDITT, Israel’s Shepherds: Hope and Pessimism in Zechariah 9–14, in CBQ 51 (1989) 631–642; and S.L. COOK, The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of Zechariah 11:17 + 13:7-9, in CBQ 55 (1993) 453-466. For studies focused on intertextual allusions, see R.L. MASON, Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. 9–14, in Grace Theological Journal 3 (1982) 51-65; and Mason’s unpublished dissertation, now available in an edited and expanded form in M.J. BODA – M.H. FLOYD (eds.), Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (JSOT.S, 370), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

140

R.P. BONFIGLIO

metaphor is referring to. This is nowhere more evident than in the treatment of the three deposed shepherds of Zech 11,8. As many as 40 possible referents have been suggested, and the matter shows no signs of being settled any time soon3. Though different in their focus, these approaches tend to treat shepherd metaphors as a type of literary “window dressing” that must be pulled back in order to reveal what lies on the other side of the curtain – that is, the identity of the historical figure targeted by the metaphor or the text’s tradition history and intertextuality4. In studies that take up shepherd metaphors in this fashion, little attention, in the end, is given to the analysis of the shepherd metaphor qua metaphor. As a way of offering a more “metaphor-forward” approach, the following study provides a detailed assessment of the inner workings of the shepherd metaphor in Second Zechariah, including how shepherd imagery operates within a broader network of metaphorical expressions. Two main topics will be addressed. First, this study analyzes a particular – and somewhat peculiar – aspect of the shepherd metaphor in Second Zechariah: namely, how different elements of the shepherding source domain are selectively utilized in order to describe not only the one who dutifully cares for, guides, and protects his flock (the “good shepherd”) but also the one who through malice or negligence abuses, endangers, and scatters his flock (the “bad shepherd” or the “anti-shepherd”)5. It will be shown how different mapping patterns enable the same source domain to characterize starkly different target domains. Second, this study examines how the divine shepherd metaphors of Zech 9,16 and 10,3 relate to and mix with other metaphorical descriptions of YHWH that draw on seemingly disparate source domains (king, warrior, and archer). Specific attention will be paid to whether the resulting blend of metaphorical language constitutes a “mixed metaphor” for God. 3. Options include three nations (Assyria, Babylonia, Persia), offices (kings, priests, prophets), groups (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes), and individuals (Moses, Aaron, Miriam). For an early appraisal of these possibilities, see H.G. MITCHELL, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1912, pp. 306-307. 4. A representative example of this view is found in Petterson, who at the outset of his discussion of the shepherd metaphor in Second Zechariah, notes: “In order to understand these passages […] it is necessary to identify the shepherd in each instance and to establish the way that the passages relate to each other”. See PETTERSON, Beyond Your King (n. 1), p. 149. Though surely important, identifying who these shepherds are does not exhaust the meaning of the metaphor. 5. I follow Van Hecke in using the term “anti-shepherd” to describe this type of leader. For further discussion, see P. VAN HECKE, Pastoral Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, in R.P. GORDON – J.C. DE MOOR (eds.), Old Testament in Its World (OTS, 52), Leiden – New York, Brill, 2004, 200-217.

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

141

I. SELECTIVE UTILIZATION OF THE SHEPHERDING SOURCE DOMAIN One of the most curious dimensions of the LEADERSHIP IS SHEPHERDING metaphor in Second Zechariah is the way in which the same source domain is drawn on to characterize the activity of compassionate and effective leaders (9,16) as well as negligent and abusive leaders (11,4-17; 13,7-9). The capacity of a given source domain to describe antithetical targets is a function of the fact that the systematic correspondences between a source and target domain are only ever partial in nature. In any given metaphor, only certain aspects of the target domain are highlighted, or brought into focus, by a given source domain. For instance, that ancient kings are crowned, anointed, wear royal garments, and (typically) inherit power through a biological line of succession are aspects of leadership that are not readily accounted for by the source domain of shepherding. Conversely, only select elements of the source domain are utilized in the mapping structure, and thus not everything that is known about shepherding is deemed useful for understanding leadership. As an example, shepherds are typically responsible for sheering their sheep and milking their goats, but neither of these aspects of the source domain are utilized to describe the responsibilities of a leader in the Hebrew Bible. The partial nature of metaphorical mappings is inevitable. No single source domain is adequate to fully comprehend a given target, and not every aspect of a source domain would help language users better comprehend the target domain in view. The latter aspect of partial mapping, which is referred to as utilization, is often the result of logical constraints in the systematic correspondences that arise between source and target domains. Consider the metaphor ARGUMENTS ARE BUILDINGS. This conceptual metaphor enables one to talk about arguments having strong foundations, being well constructed, or standing on their own. In these expressions, what ends up being utilized from the building source domain are those elements that relate to a building being able to stand upright as a physical structure. Architectural elements that are not crucial to a building being able to stand upright – windows, chimneys, doors, siding, ventilations systems, HVAC units, and so forth – tend not to be utilized in the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENTS ARE BUILDINGS because they are not perceived to be useful in structuring the concept of arguments. That is, while windows, chimneys, doors, siding, ventilations systems, HVAC units, and so forth all emerge from the rich knowledge of buildings, in most cases they are not part of the mapping structure of the ARGUMENTS ARE BUILDINGS conceptual metaphor.

142

R.P. BONFIGLIO

In the above example, the partial mapping of the source domain is both inevitable and reflective of logical constraints. However, in certain instances selective utilization patterns can also be a function of rhetorical strategy. Certain elements of the source domain can be intentionally left underutilized or un-activated in order to advance a particular point or to shape understandings of a given target in a certain manner. In Second Zechariah, it is this process of selective utilization that produces the contrasting profiles of the good shepherd and anti-shepherd. 1. The Good Shepherd In Second Zechariah the utilization patterns that lead to the “good shepherd” metaphor only ever target YHWH. This is evident in two places, the first of which is Zech 9,16. This text describes YHWH as a shepherd acting on behalf of “the flock of his people”6. The possessive construction is important to note since elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the flock under the care of a shepherd did not necessarily belong to the shepherd himself. The young David kept his father’s sheep (1 Sam 17,34), while both Jacob (Gen 30,31) and Moses (Exod 3,1) tended flocks belonging to their fathers-in-law. YHWH, however, looks after his own flock (cf. Ps 77,20; 79,13). This aspect of the metaphorical mapping not only emphasizes YHWH’s close, personal relationship with his sheep (they are his sheep, not someone else’s), but it also relativizes the status of any human king or leader insofar as they, like David, Moses, and Jacob, shepherd flocks that ultimately belong to another. Along with the task of guiding a flock from pasture to pasture in search of both green grass (‫נאות דשא‬, Ps 23,2) and refreshing water (‫מי מנחות‬, Ps 23,2), the primary responsibility of a shepherd in the ancient world was to protect his flock from predators. Such predators would have included bears and lions (1 Sam 17,34) as well as thieves who might steal an animal in order to sell it for profit (Exod 22,1). The imagery in Zech 9,16 specifically draws upon this aspect of shepherding. This selective utilization is reflected in the choice of the verb (‫ )ישע‬to describe what YHWH will do for his flock (i.e., save). When used in the hiphil stem as is the case here, ‫ ישע‬typically refers to saving or delivering people from danger. This activity is often done in response to cries for help by those threatened by either political enemies (e.g., Deut 14,30; Hab 3,13) or personal afflictions (2 Sam 14,4; Ps 72,4). That a military threat is in view in 6. The NRSV renders the Hebrew ‫ כצאן עמו‬as “for they are the flock of his people”, even though the Hebrew construction is, technically, a simile.

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

143

Zechariah 9 is evident from the language of v. 10, which highlights the way in which God will de-weaponize Yehud’s enemies by cutting off the chariot and the battle bow. It is also evident from v. 15, which describes God as protecting (‫ )גנן‬his flock. The root of this latter verb underlies the Hebrew word for shield (‫)מגן‬, thus further enforcing the military connotations at play. The use of the shepherd metaphor to frame YHWH’s deliverance of Israel from dangerous geo-political “predators” is not unique to Second Zechariah. In Ps 78,52-54, the exodus from Egypt is described in terms of YHWH having “led out his people like sheep” from bondage under Pharaoh, and bringing them to the safer pastures of “his holy hill”. Ps 77,20 builds upon a similar tradition, referring to God as having “led [his] people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron”. In this context, Moses and Aaron can be understood either as co-shepherds with YHWH or as the instruments of God’s shepherding. In framing the return from exile as a second exodus, Isa 49,8-13 draws upon a similar metaphorical concept of God as a shepherd who cares for a flock that had previously been scattered. This metaphor is made even more explicit in Jer 31,8-14, where God promises to gather in his scattered people “from the farthest parts of the earth” (v. 8)7. Saving and protecting a flock from predators is carried out by means of the two instruments most often associated with a shepherd in the Hebrew Bible: a rod (‫ )שבט‬and a staff (‫)משענת‬8. The former term refers to a straight wooden pole that could be used as a weapon against wouldbe predators. The latter term is likely to be understood as a hooked staff (i.e., a crook), whose curved top was used to hook the neck or leg of a sheep in order to round them up or, alternatively, free them if they became entangled. Even though the rod and staff are to be understood as functionally distinct implements, it is likely the case that one of them – the ‫ – משענת‬could be used for both purposes (i.e., as a weapon to protect the flock from danger and as a hook to rescue an animal from entanglement). In either case, neither instrument is explicitly mentioned in Zechariah 9. Instead, in v. 13 YHWH is portrayed as wielding a bow 7. For the occurrence of this motif in Exod 15,13-14, see in this volume D. VERDE, “Who Is Like You among the Gods, O YHWH!” (Exod 15,11): The Interweaving of Metaphors in the Song of the Sea (13-30). 8. Though paired in Ps 23,4, these two items are not mentioned together elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. One possible exception is Isa 10,24, where both a rod and staff are mentioned in association with the Assyrians. However, in this context they appear as weapons without any connection to the shepherd metaphor. Further, the word translated as “staff” (‫ )מטה‬by the NRSV in this verse is not the same Hebrew word that is translated as “staff” in Ps 23,4 (‫)משענת‬.

144

R.P. BONFIGLIO

(‫ )קשת‬and sword (‫)חרב‬. In this context, these two weapons are likely to be understood as the equivalents of the shepherd’s rod and staff, albeit through more expressly militarized imagery. The good shepherd metaphor is given an unexpected twist in Zech 9,16b. Here, an element of the source domain, the sheep, becomes the target of a different metaphor. Specifically, the animals tended to by YHWH are described as being like “jewels of a crown” that “shine on his [YHWH’s] land”. The effect of metaphorizing the source domain in this fashion is to underscore how valuable the flock is in the eyes of the caring shepherd9. Just as jewels enhance the splendor and beauty of a crown, so too do the sheep returned to their proper pasture enhance the beauty and splendor of God’s land. The sheep, so it seems, make the shepherd look good. The second instance of the good shepherd metaphor in Second Zechariah occurs in 10,3, a text which declares, “The Lord of hosts cares (‫)פקד‬ for his flock”. The English word “care” can account for a variety of things a good shepherd should do, from feeding and protecting a flock to leading and guiding them to good pasture. However, given the ambiguities of the underlying Hebrew verb (‫)פקד‬, the precise aspect of the source domain utilized in this expression is difficult to determine. At least three connotations are possible. First, the root ‫ פקד‬can mean to avenge or afflict. Often associated with YHWH’s judgment, the verb utilized in this sense is typically translated as “to punish” (e.g., Exod 32,34; Job 35,15; Jer 6,15; 21,17). This connotation seems also to be at play in the first half of Zech 10,3, where YHWH declares that he “will punish (‫ )פקד‬the leaders”. However, it is unlikely that the second occurrence of the verb (v. 3b) carries the same connotation as the first (v. 3a). This point is manifested in the grammar of the verse. While in 10,3a ‫ פקד‬is used with the adversative preposition ‫“( על‬against”), in 10,3b it is used with the accusative marker ‫את‬. In the broader context of this verse, the point seems to be that God is protecting his flock from the leaders indicted in 10,3a, not punishing the flock along with them. The second possibility is that ‫ פקד‬in 10,3b carries the sense of “attending to” or “caring for”. This view finds ample support not only in other texts that utilize this same verb to describe God’s gracious intervention and care for his people (e.g., Exod 3,16; Jer 29,10; Ps 80,14; Ruth 1,16) but also in Jer 23,2, which characterizes the negligent shepherd as one who has “not attended” (‫ )לא פקדתם‬to God’s flock. In this reading, two different senses of ‫ פקד‬are being exploited in the space of a single verse. 9. D.L. PETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1995, p. 66.

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

145

While God punishes (‫ )פקד‬the failed shepherds, he graciously cares for (‫ )פקד‬his flock. This reading is almost uniformly reflected in English translations, with most rendering the second occurrence of ‫ פקד‬as “cares for”. However, a third possibility must also be considered. In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ פקד‬can also mean “to make careful inspection of” or “to check over”, often in the context of a commander reviewing his army in advance of military activities. This is the case in numerous places in 1 Samuel as the people prepare to battle the Philistines and other foes (1 Sam 13,15; 14,17; 15,4). The same is true of the book of Numbers, where the people are counted or “enrolled” as part of a census in preparation for war in the land of Canaan (Num 1,3.19; 3,10.15.39.40). If a similar connotation obtains in Zech 10,3, then a different aspect of the shepherding source domain comes into focus. Rather than caring for his flock, YHWH can be understood as counting his flock. This possibility gains support from Jer 23,4. Under the new and improved shepherds that YHWH will raise up, the flock “shall not fear any longer, or be dismayed, nor shall any be missing (‫”)ולא יפקדו‬. The implication here, as in Zech 10,3, is that attending to one’s flock involves making sure that all of the animals are accounted for. Thus counting sheep (or any other type of animal) is core to a shepherd’s job description. The idiom “to pass under the shepherd’s rod” (Lev 27,32; Ezek 20,37) likely refers to a particular way of counting sheep, either by lightly tapping each animal as it passes by or by lowering the rod after a certain number have gone through as a way of demarcating a set. If understood in light of the military connotations that often go along with this use of ‫פקד‬, then YHWH’s counting of his flock is, in effect, a way of taking a census in preparation for war. This idea is hinted at in the ensuing verses. Here the flock is transformed into YHWH’s “proud war horse” (v. 3c) as they are mobilized for battle. Further, Zech 10,4 specifies that out of this flock shall come commanders who are equipped for “trampling the foe” (v. 5). For these reasons, the translation “the Lord of hosts counts his flock” is to be preferred over the more common “the Lord of hosts cares for his flock”. One final point must be made about YHWH’s profile as a good shepherd in the context of Second Zechariah. In the ancient world, it was possible that flocks could change hands from one shepherd to another, often as a result of a financial transaction. Though this aspect of the source domain is not explicitly foregrounded in the Hebrew Bible, it can inform metaphorical entailments in which good shepherds take over flocks formerly tended by other shepherds. Such an entailment is in view in 10,3, where YHWH counts his own flock only after punishing the ineffective leaders

146

R.P. BONFIGLIO

whom he replaces. The transfer of oversight of a flock is also evident in Zech 11,8. YHWH, through the symbolic action of the prophet, becomes the shepherd of a “flock doomed to slaughter” and immediately thereafter disposes of (‫ )כחד‬three shepherds, who, presumably, looked after the flock prior to YHWH taking over. The verb used here implies not just removing from office, but the blotting out or destroying of an enemy (cf. Exod 23,23; 2 Chr 32,21). Disposing of these shepherds is thus nothing short of a military coup. In sum, when targeting a good shepherd, Second Zechariah selectively utilizes several aspects of the shepherding source domain: (1) saving the flock from the danger of predators; (2) valuing the flock as a precious commodity; (3) keeping track of or counting the flock; and (4) taking over flocks formerly under the oversight of other shepherds. While not the only qualities of a good shepherd, these entailments are crucial for understanding how these chapters structure ideas around what a good leader is and does. 2. The Anti-Shepherd The anti-shepherd motif in Second Zechariah is most evident in Zech 11,4-11, a text fraught with interpretive difficulties10. The goal here is not to resolve the questions typically raised about this material, including those about its genre, the identity of the disposed shepherds, or the socio-historical settings that lie behind this discourse. Rather, the goal is to attend closely to how the idea of an anti-shepherd is constructed based on the selective utilization of various components of the shepherding source domain. At the outset of this text the prophet is commissioned to symbolically serve as a “shepherd of the flock doomed for slaughter” (v. 4). This is a striking image that makes use of a rare metaphorical entailment of this conceptual metaphor. While a shepherd would occasionally kill a small portion of his flock for food, the vast majority of the sheep would be preserved for breeding, milk production, or supplying wool. To set apart the whole flock for slaughter is not only counter-productive and short-sighted, but in this context it seems to be done for selfish financial gain (v. 5b). The shepherd here is thus held responsible for gross mismanagement. This conclusion is evident from the fact that those who buy and kill the 10. Samuel R. Driver famously referred to Zech 11,4-17 as “the most enigmatic passage in the entire Old Testament”. See S.R. DRIVER, The Minor Prophets (Century Bible), Edinburgh, T.C. & E.J. Jack, 1906, p. 23.

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

147

sheep “go unpunished” (‫)ל יאשמו‬, presumably because it is the shepherd who is held responsible for selling the flock in the first place11. The actions of the leaders are summarized in terms of the shepherds having “no pity” (‫לא יחמול‬, v. 5c) on their people. While no text in the Hebrew Bible explicitly describes the work of a shepherd in terms of having pity (‫ )חמל‬on the flock, such an entailment seems to naturally follow from what it is that a good shepherd was supposed to do: care for, provide, and protect the sheep under his care. In addition, the word pity (‫ )חמל‬is found in other places in the Hebrew Bible with reference to animals doomed for slaughter. Specifically, the rich sheep owner in Nathan’s memorable parable is critiqued for having “no pity” (‫לא־חמל‬, 2 Sam 12,6) when he took the poor man’s sole ewe lamb to prepare a feast for his visitor. If read in light of this story, the lack of pity displayed by the shepherd in Zechariah 11 takes on added significance. He, like the rich man in Nathan’s parable, is driven by the greed of his privilege rather than a concern for the welfare of others. Read in the other direction, that the rich man in the parable is a stand-in for the king further underscores the fact that David, at least on this occasion, is a king made in the image of an anti-shepherd. If v. 6 is to be understood as the interpretation of the sign act described in v. 5, then it follows that the attitude of the prophet-shepherd mirrors that of the divine-shepherd. Both, in the end, have no pity on their people. Thus, even after the three (presumably bad) shepherds are deposed in v. 8, YHWH does not step in to take their place as one might expect. Rather, YHWH asserts: “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another!” (v. 9). YHWH is pictured as a shepherd who refuses to shepherd. This refusal is symbolized by the ensuing sign act. The two staffs mentioned and named in v. 7 are subsequently broken: the staff named “Favor” in v. 10 and the staff named “Unity” in v. 14. In each of these three verses, the term translated “staff” is ‫מקל‬. This is not the term typically used for either of the two instruments associated with a shepherd. An exception is 1 Sam 17,40, where the young shepherd boy David faces off against Goliath equipped with only his staff (‫)מקלו‬, a shepherd’s bag, five stones, and a sling. Whatever historical events these sign acts are meant to correspond to, within the logic of the conceptual metaphor the point is clear: to destroy the instruments usually associated with the 11. An alternative, and preferable, translation of this Hebrew phrase would be “are not guilty”.

148

R.P. BONFIGLIO

work of a shepherd is, in effect, to deny and to give up one’s responsibility over a given flock. This imagery is developed further in v. 15. In the next sign act the prophet-shepherd is called to once again take up “the implements of the worthless shepherd (‫”)רעה אולי‬. If these implements refer to the two broken staffs mentioned earlier, the implication would be that the shepherd in view is called to work with defective equipment12. With such instruments in hand, a shepherd would not be able to properly care for the flock since he would have no means of protecting them against predators or extracting them from entanglements. As such, v. 16 describes a shepherd without staffs – or with broken staffs – as one who cannot “care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heal the maimed, or nourish the healthy”. Such a shepherd is indeed “worthless” (‫אולי‬, v. 15). Similar language is used again in v. 17. It is possible that the word found in v. 17 (‫ )אליל‬reflects a textual corruption of the word found in v. 15 (‫)אולי‬13. However, the Septuagint reads these as different words (ἀπείρου in v. 15; μάταια in v. 17), with the former implying a lack of skill and the latter implying something that is insignificant. While ‫ אליל‬can, in fact, mean insignificant, it is also used as a derisive term for pagan idols (Lev 19,4; 26,1; Isa 2,8; 10,10; 19,1; 31,7; Hab 2,18; Ps 97,7). The potential association between the anti-shepherd and an idol is made more plausible in light of the verb used earlier to describe what is done to the shepherd’s staffs: ‫“( גדע‬break”, vv. 10.14). In the context of cult reforms, ‫“( גדע‬hew down”) is used to refer to what should be done with illicit cult objects (Deut 7,5; 2 Chr 14,3), including idols (Deut 12,3). In an ironic reversal, the anti-shepherd treats instruments intended to care for and protect God’s flock as if they were worthless idols. Such actions imply that it is the shepherd himself who is worthless, little better than an idol14. Though less well developed, the anti-shepherd motif continues in Zech 13,7-9. Here YHWH summons his sword to strike the shepherd, perhaps in reference to the “worthless shepherd” mentioned in 11,1715. That YHWH strikes the anti-shepherd might reflect an entailment of the good shepherd metaphor discussed above. In fact, what YHWH does with the 12. Thus it might be better to refer to the “worthless implements of a shepherd”. 13. This view is reflected in the NRSV and other English translations that use the same English word for both Hebrew terms. 14. See, for instance, the KJV translation of 11,17, “Woe to the idol shepherd”. A similar translation is found in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, “O shepherd, and idol”. 15. Due to the thematic link with 11,4-17, a number of commentators have suggested that 13,7-9 originally followed immediately after 11,17. This is reflected in at least one English translation (NEB).

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

149

sword in Zech 13,7a (“strike” ‫ )נכה‬is exactly what the young shepherd David does to the predators that attacked his father’s flock in 1 Sam 17,35 (‫ נכה‬is used twice in this verse). But in Zechariah 13, YHWH’s striking is not a means of protecting the flock but rather of scattering it (13,7b). In fact, the divine anti-shepherd turns his hand against “the little ones” (v. 7c), a phrase which likely refers to the youngest and most vulnerable of the flock. One third of the flock is spared (v. 8), and this portion is refined (‫ )צרף‬in fire like silver and gold (v. 9). Even if this fact is taken to mean that this version of the divine shepherd is not all bad (i.e., at least some are spared), this entailment shifts the typical sense of what shepherds were supposed to do. Rather than making sure that none of his sheep are lost, this shepherd divides his flock, discarding all but a few. In contrast to the good shepherd of Zech 10,3 whose whole flock is referred to as “his people”, in Zech 13,9 it is only this partial remnant that God calls “my people” (v. 9c). In light of the above analysis, the anti-shepherd is one who: (1) allows his flock to be slaughtered rather than protecting them from predators; (2) has no pity on the animals under his care; (3) explicitly declines the position of being a shepherd; (4) operates with defective equipment; and (5) scatters and divides his flock rather than seeking after the lost and keeping the whole intact. The use of the shepherding source domain to describe failed leaders is not a unique feature of Second Zechariah. Nahum taunts Assyrian kings by pointing out that their people will be scattered due to their shepherd’s self-satisfied slumbering (3,18). In Jeremiah, Israel’s leaders are denounced for abusing their flock (12,10) and are held responsible for allowing their sheep to become scattered (23,1-2). The anti-shepherd motif is most fully developed in Ezek 34,1-16. The opening nine verses of this chapter offer a scathing critique of the “shepherds of Israel” (presumably its kings) that highlights their failure to do the very things shepherds ought to do: feed their flock, seek the lost, bring back those animals that have strayed, fend off predators, and provide safe pasture. As a result of there being “no shepherd” (v. 5) – or, rather, no good shepherd – the flock is scattered (v. 6) and the sheep become food for wild animals (v. 7). In response, God steps in to serve as a replacement shepherd (v. 10), re-gathering the scattered flock (vv. 11-12), providing them food and water (v. 13), and once again giving them safe pasture on “the mountain heights of Israel” (v. 14)16. 16. One might also note a further extension of this anti-shepherd imagery in Ps 49,15 [Eng. 14], where death is described as a shepherd for a people whose ultimate pastureland is Sheol.

150

R.P. BONFIGLIO

While similar dynamics are at play in Second Zechariah, the interplay of the good shepherd and the anti-shepherd is more complex in this context for at least two reasons. First, unlike Ezekiel 34, Second Zechariah is not a cohesive literary unit in which the indictment of the negligent shepherd is immediately followed (and corrected) by a description of the good shepherd (YHWH). Rather, in the final form of Second Zechariah, in which originally disparate materials have been redacted together, images of both types of shepherds shift back and forth and with little discernible progression from one to the other. What results is a complex network of shepherding metaphors that draw from the same source domain but are deployed for vastly different purposes. Second, YHWH is not unequivocally the good shepherd in Second Zechariah as he seems to be in Ezekiel 34. While YHWH shows up as the shepherd who “saves” (‫ )ישע‬and “cares for” (‫)פקד‬ his flock in 9,16 and 10,3b, respectively, later he is the one who causes the flock to be scatted (13,7). Not only is YHWH not the solution to the bad shepherd, at times he seems to be part of the problem. For instance, the fact that the anti-shepherd of 11,4-5 has “no pity” (‫ )לא יחמול‬on his sheep mirrors the fact that YHWH also “will no longer have pity” (‫לא‬ ‫אחמול עוד‬, 11,6) on his people. By describing the anti-shepherd using the same source domain that is at play with the good shepherd, Second Zechariah intentionally makes use of the partial nature of metaphorical mappings for its rhetorical and theological purposes. Characterizing a failed leader as an anti-shepherd as opposed to, say, a lion (cf. Hos 13,5-8) highlights the fact that the leader in question has turned bad or failed at his appointed task rather than being a natural predator from the start17. Furthermore, preserving the shepherd metaphor in relation to ineffective leaders facilitates what is from a broader canonical perspective a contrast between Israel’s kings and the Persian King Cyrus. While Israel’s shepherds do “not care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heal the maimed, or nourish the healthy” (Zech 11,16), God has raised up a foreign shepherd, King Cyrus, to carry out his purposes of re-gathering his scattered flock (Isa 44,28), bringing them back from exile to the better pastures of Yehud. That Cyrus is called to “strip kings of their robes” (Isa 45,1) might find resonance with the fact that the staffs of the anti-shepherds of Zechariah 11 are broken. The defrocking of kings is metaphorically rendered through the disarming of shepherds.

17. Thus, one might say that the anti-shepherd is more of an anti-hero than a villain.

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

151

II. MIXING SHEPHERD METAPHORS As already shown, in Second Zechariah the shepherding source domain can be drawn upon to characterize two starkly different targets: the good shepherd and the negligent shepherd. But the converse is also true. The same target, God, is characterized by multiple source domains. In the space of a few chapters, God is variously “metaphorized” as a shepherd, king, archer, and warrior18. The fact that Second Zechariah makes use of multiple source domains to describe YHWH is hardly surprising. Target domains often require multiple source domains to bring about adequate comprehension. For instance, we commonly talk about arguments as buildings (see above). With these metaphors, the rich knowledge associated with the source domain proves useful in characterizing arguments in terms of their basis (foundations), logical structure (framing and construction), and internal consistency (stand on its own). But the building source domain only gets us so far. We also tend to talk about arguments in terms of war: defending ideas, shooting down arguments, criticisms being on target, claims being indefensible, etc. The war source domain comes with elements that, when utilized in the mapping structure, expand how it is that we can talk about the nature of arguments, especially as it pertains to the ways in which arguments can be rejected or opposed. What is true of arguments is all the truer of a target as complex and omnifarious as God. One would surely need source domains associated with shepherds, kings, archers, and warriors – and indeed, many, many more things – to adequately describe the nature and activity of God’s leadership. This, in fact, is one of the reasons why such a wide range of source domains is utilized in the Hebrew Bible when it comes to metaphorically characterizing YHWH. Yet, what is striking about Second Zechariah is that the shepherd, king, archer, and warrior source domains seem to be applied to YHWH not just sequentially but simultaneously. That is, YHWH is not a king, then a warrior, then an archer, and then a shepherd all in the space of an extended corpus of literature. Rather, in Second Zechariah YHWH is a king, warrior, archer, and shepherd all at once and all at the same time. This is nowhere more evident than in Zech 9,9-17. This text first introduces YHWH as a king “triumphant and victorious” who comes to Zion 18. The reference to an archer could be considered as a subset of the warrior source domain. However, as I have shown elsewhere, the archer imagery is distinct. See R.P. BONFIGLIO, Archer Imagery in Zechariah 9:11-17 in Light of Achaemenid Iconography, in JBL 131 (2012) 507-527.

152

R.P. BONFIGLIO

on a donkey (v. 9). In the very next verse, YHWH is found in the guise of a divine warrior, de-weaponizing Israel’s enemies (v. 10a) and establishing his royal dominion (v. 10b). But YHWH is not just imaged as a generic warrior. He is specifically imaged as an archer. In v. 13, YHWH bends Judah as his bow and loads Ephraim as his arrow. In v. 14, YHWH appears overhead shooting forth arrows as lightning. By v. 16, YHWH the king-warriorarcher has become YHWH the shepherd, saving “the flock of his people”. As a result of being packed into the space of nine verses, these four source domains blend together. The shepherd is militarized and the sheep are like the jewels in a king’s crown. The archer is a type of warrior who establishes royal dominion. The (near) simultaneous application of multiple source domains to the same target is often referred to as a mixed metaphor. In English grade school grammar lessons, mixed metaphors are frowned upon. To quote Strunk and White’s well-known textbook on literary style, “When you use a metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don’t start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass”19. At first glance, this seems to be exactly what the author of Second Zechariah is doing. He begins by calling YHWH a king only to end by calling him a shepherd. If anything, the mixing of metaphors in Zechariah 9 is far worse than what Strunk and White imagine because along the way from king to shepherd, YHWH also is called a warrior and archer. The mixing is fourfold, not just twofold. Be that as it may, in order for a metaphor to be considered “mixed” it must meet a second criterion beyond the simultaneous application of multiple source domains to the same target. In a mixed metaphor, the source domains in question also must be understood as being categorically dissimilar and perhaps even incompatible. This is certainly the case with the example cited by Strunk and White. Swordfishes, after all, have nothing to do with hourglasses, and one could hardly be faulted for thinking of them as being completely incongruous. But sometimes the incongruity between multiple source domains is more apparent than real. Consider Ps 18,2, “The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock in whom I take refuge, my 19. W. STRUNK – E.B. WHITE, The Elements of Style, Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon, 2004, p. 80. For further discussion of mixed metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, see I.J. DE HULSTER – B.A. STRAWN, Figuring YHWH in Unusual Ways: Deuteronomy 32 and Other Mixed Metaphors for God in the Old Testament, in I.J. DE HULSTER – B.A. STRAWN – R.P. BONFIGLIO (eds.), Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: An Introduction to Its Method and Practice, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 117-134.

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

153

shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold”. Here, YHWH is described in terms of no fewer than seven discrete images in the space of a single verse. The psalmist, apparently, was not aware of Strunk and White’s admonition against mixing metaphors. However, upon closer inspection Ps 18,2 proves to be something other than a mixed metaphor. While applied simultaneously, the source domains at play do not meet the criterion of being sufficiently dissimilar. In fact, all of the elements mentioned (rock, fortress, deliverer, refuge, shield, horn, stronghold) can be understood as entailments of the same underlying conceptual metaphor: GOD IS A REFUGE. That is to say, rocks, fortresses, deliverers, shields, horns, and strongholds all can function as types of refuge, providing protection from the physical elements or from the attacks of enemies. What Ps 18,2 gives us is thus not so much a mixed-metaphor, but a meta-metaphor – that is, one in which an abstract concept (refuge) lies behind and gives rise to a range of literary expressions, each of which is the product of the rich knowledge associated with sources of refuge in the ancient world. What, then, of Zech 9,9-17? Is the juxtaposition of source domains in this pericope more like the swordfish-hourglass of Strunk and White or the rock-fortress-deliverer-refuge-shield-horn-stronghold of Ps 18,2? There is good reason to believe that it is the latter. Just as the various elements of Ps 18,2 find coherence in the concept of refuge, so too do the various elements in Zech 9,9-17 find coherence in the concept of the king. As already noted above, the concept of shepherd and king were frequently mingled in the ancient world. Shepherd metaphors were commonly applied to royal figures, both in the Hebrew Bible and in Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature20. Further, kings in the ancient world were de facto commanders in chief of the military. Even if in reality kings often stayed far removed from the fray, in both text and iconography royal figures were portrayed as wielding weapons in battle, smiting and subduing their foes. A classic iconographic expression of the shepherd-king-warrior blend is found in Neo-Assyrian royal seal impressions in which the king is depicted grasping a rearing lion (the chief predator of sheep) by the lower part of its mane while simultaneously plunging a dagger or sword into its body21. The mingling of shepherd, king, and warrior imagery is also implied in 20. For a comprehensive study, see R. HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis (BWANT, 155), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2001. 21. For further discussion, see B.A. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO, 212), Fribourg/ CH, Academic Press; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, pp. 237-240.

154

R.P. BONFIGLIO

1 Sam 17,34-36. In defense of his petition to Saul to fight against Goliath, David refers to his experience as a shepherd and his ability to successfully defend his father’s flock from predators. This not only points to David’s physical prowess, but it also suggests that, as a shepherd, he has already the (metaphorical) profile of a king. That the reference to David’s work as a shepherd is meant to foreshadow his kingship is facilitated by the particular imagery in view. David is described as having grasped the lion by its beard before striking it down and killing it (v. 35) – a literary description that has remarkable correspondence to the artistic imagery of the above mentioned Neo-Assyrian seal impressions. The coherence of king and archer source domains is less initially obvious. In early biblical literature, kings, whether divine or human, are not often portrayed as bearing a bow and arrows. In Exodus 15, the only named weapon that accompanies YHWH’s powerful right hand and the blast from his nostrils is a sword. David had his sling and Saul his sword. However, during the Persian period, which, not incidentally, is the time Second Zechariah was likely written, Achaemenid kings were characteristically portrayed as archers. This is especially evident in a series of coins minted by King Darius near the beginning of the fifth century. Though the various designs in the series exhibit some variety, each of the four main types depict a crowned archer dressed in a full-sleeved royal robe. So mingled were the ideas of archer and king that Aeschylus calls Darius the toxarchos or chief archer (Pers. 556). The use of archer iconography to portray the king is also employed in Persian period glyptic art22. Among the 367 seal impressions featuring humans or human activity in the massive Persepolis Fortification Archive, the most prominent motif involves archer-related imagery. While it is less clear that the archers on the seals are explicitly royal figures, art historian Mark B. Garrison has concluded that these seals develop concurrently with the royal archer motifs in the above-mentioned coins. Further, the carving style of many of the seals bearing archer motifs shares a strong similarity with the archer series coins. The iconographic evidence offered by these Persian period artifacts strongly suggests that at about the time when Second Zechariah was written, there existed a strong conceptual correspondence between the image of the king and that of an armed archer. In light of these observations, what we have in Zech 9,9-17 is not the simultaneous application of four dissimilar and incongruous source domains. Rather, we have the application of one complex source domain (king/kingship) that comes, as it were, pre-blended with elements from 22. For further discussion, see BONFIGLIO, Archer Imagery in Zechariah 9:11-17 (n. 18).

MAPPING THE SHEPHERD METAPHOR IN SECOND ZECHARIAH

155

source domains related to shepherds, warriors, and archers23. This can be explained by the fact that rich knowledge of kingship in the Persian period led to metaphorical entailments of an underlying YHWH IS KING conceptual metaphor that picked up on associations between the king and warriors, archers, and shepherds. Put differently, archer, warrior, and shepherd entailments are part of the YHWH IS KING metaphor in much the same way as rocks, fortresses, deliverers, shields, horns, and strongholds are entailments of the GOD IS REFUGE metaphor of Ps 18,2. The effect of such blending in Second Zechariah is to create something of a verbal Rorschach inkblot. Viewers can discern in the same inkblot multiple different images depending on how they focus their eyes. In a similar fashion, within the space of a self-contained literary frame, Second Zechariah makes multiple perceptions of YHWH simultaneously available in a single, blended image (metaphor). As with a Rorschach inkblot, one can be aware that various images are present, even as it is difficult, if not impossible, to bring each into focus at the same time. The result is a supple portrayal of the deity that is capable of manifesting more than one conception of YHWH’s activity as a leader. Perhaps such an image is precisely what was called for in a Persian period context. The presumed audience of Second Zechariah was anything but homogenous. It consisted of those who had recently returned from Babylon as well as those who had remained in the land, of priestly aristocrats and prophetic visionaries, of those who hoped for the restoration of a Davidic line of rulers and those who were willing to embrace the relative freedom offered by submitting to a foreign king. This mixed community might well have needed the mixed (or more properly, blended) metaphor for God that Second Zechariah provides. In this sense, the blending of divine metaphors in Zech 9,9-17 (and elsewhere) is a theological, and linguistic, response to the challenges of speaking God to the heterogenous community of postexilic Yehud. Candler School of Theology 1531 Dickey Dr. Atlanta, GA 30322 USA [email protected]

Ryan P. BONFIGLIO

23. My use of the term “blending” with respect to the processes through which metaphors are produced is related to, but distinct from, what is typically meant by advocates of conceptual blending theory. In the latter, blending occurs as elements of both source and target domains are projected into the same “mental space”. In my usage of the term, blending refers to the way in which the entailments of a single source domain express multiple, seemingly dissimilar aspects of kingship.

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

For over two thousand years, since the time of Aristotle, writers have ruminated on the proper uses of metaphor and the factors that engender artful and effective metaphors. Some of these discussions include the consideration of how metaphors interact1. For instance, early Homeric commentators observed that two or more similes “densely packed” in close succession emphasize the subject at hand2. In contrast, the fourth century BCE orator Demetrius looked less favorably on this phenomenon and advised that “metaphors should not be packed too closely together”3. Quintilian, the first century CE teacher of rhetoric, cautioned that the frequent use of metaphor can “obscure our language and weary our audience”4. He warned his readers “never to mix your metaphors” or a “hideously incongruous effect” might result5. These ancient scholars call attention to a facet of metaphor usage that still receives considerable attention today: the ways in which metaphors interact in spoken and written language. Although we do not possess these sorts of reflections on the proper use of metaphor from those who composed the texts of the Hebrew Bible, certain biblical authors clearly relished and relied upon metaphor. Metaphors abound in the Bible, particularly in poetic passages where multiple metaphors frequently interact in interesting and instructive ways. In a 1999 article on biblical metaphors for God, Marc Brettler observed: “The way in which such metaphors are constructively combined has received scant attention in biblical scholarship”6. While a number of subsequent scholars have sought to address this deficiency (as noted below), the current volume represents an important contribution to this topic, a way to expand our understanding of how metaphor operates, not just in 1. QUINTILIAN, The Institutio Oratoria, transl. H.E. Butler, London, William Heinemann; New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921, 8.6.16-17, p. 309. Also see the writers cited by D. INNES, Metaphor, Simile, and Allegory as Ornaments of Style, in G.R. BOYS-STONES (ed.), Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, 7-27, pp. 10, 13, and 16-17. 2. INNES, Metaphor, Simile, and Allegory (n. 1), pp. 9-10. 3. Quoted ibid., p. 17. 4. QUINTILIAN, The Institutio Oratoria (n. 1), p. 309. 5. Ibid. 6. M. BRETTLER, The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible, in R. BISSCHOPS – J. FRANCIS (eds.), Metaphor, Canon and Community: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Approaches, Bern, Peter Lang, 1999, 219-232, p. 225.

158

A.L. WEISS

the Bible, but in language and literature in general. Scholars from multiple disciplines who study metaphor as a linguistic or cognitive phenomenon draw upon a range of corpuses, from novels and newspapers to the two billion-word Oxford English Corpus7. So far, however, few if any scholars from outside the field of Bible have recognized the value of the Bible as a corpus filled with metaphors or made reference to research by the ever expanding cadre of biblical scholars actively engaged in the serious study of metaphor. This chapter seeks to contribute to the broader study of mixed metaphors by focusing special attention on the semantic and syntactic links between commingled metaphors in biblical poetry. I. OVERTURNING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MIXED METAPHORS From Quintilian on, arbiters of proper written and spoken language have expressed an aversion to mixed metaphors. To cite but one of countless admonitions against mixed metaphors, Theodore M. Bernstein insists that writers must re-examine their “brief flights into poetry to be certain they have not stumbled on the quicksands of incongruity, if one may mix the metaphor”. Then he adds: “And one may not”8. More recently, this attitude has started to shift. In the most influential modern work on metaphor, Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson recognize that not all mixed metaphors are problematic. They contend that seemingly inconsistent metaphors can be considered coherent – and hence “permissible” mixed metaphors – if certain entailments overlap. Impermissible mixed metaphors, on the other hand, occur with a lack of shared entailments9. In a subsequent study that diverges from Lakoff and Johnson by shifting the focus from 7. See A. DEIGNAN, Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam – Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, 2005. She defines a corpus as “a relatively large collection of naturallyoccurring texts, which have been stored in machine-readable form” (p. 76). For an example of the use of the Oxford English Corpus to study metaphor, see E. SEMINO, A CorpusBased Study of “Mixed Metaphor” as a Metalinguistic Comment, in R.W. GIBBS (ed.), Mixing Metaphor, Amsterdam – Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, 2016, 203-222. 8. T.M. BERNSTEIN, The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage, New York, Atheneum, 1965, p. 276. He terms mixed metaphors a “mixaphor” (p. 275). For more references, see K. SULLIVAN, Mixed Metaphors: Their Use and Abuse, London – New York, Bloomsbury Academic, 2019, pp. 14-15. 9. G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980, pp. 92 and 94. They explain: “Metaphorical entailments also play an essential role in linking two different metaphorical structurings of a single concept (as in the JOURNEY and CONTAINER metaphors for ARGUMENT) […]. Where there is an overlapping of purposes, there is an overlapping of metaphors and hence a coherence between them. Permissible mixed metaphors fall into this overlap” (p. 96).

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

159

the conceptual to the verbal level of metaphor, Cornelia Müller questions the long held assumption that a mixed metaphor is a “thinking error”10 that “occurs unwittingly” because speakers are unaware of the metaphoricity of an expression11. Pointing out that most speakers and addressees have no problem making sense of mixed metaphors, Müller views mixed metaphors as a natural way of using language that occurs through the dynamic foregrounding and backgrounding of metaphoric meaning12. Müller’s approach reflects a more recent trend that seeks to better understand why mixed metaphors occur so frequently and to reappraise the negative reputation of mixed metaphors. Approaching the topic from a discourse dynamics perspective, Lynne Cameron declares: “Mixed metaphors appear to be a non-issue”. She contends: “Semantic risks of mixed metaphors appear exaggerated; such advice is more about preferred or conventionalized stylistic preferences”13. In the introduction to the 2016 volume, Mixing Metaphors, Raymond W. Gibbs questions the assumption that mixed metaphors are “simply cognitive errors, bad writing, or failed attempts at humor”. He introduces a different possibility: “that mixing metaphors actually demonstrates people’s cognitive flexibility to think of abstract topics in a myriad of metaphorical ways” and that this type of cognitive flexibility “is the hallmark of human intelligence and creativity”14. For proof of this positive perception of mixed metaphor as a sign of intelligence and creativity, Gibbs and his co-authors need only turn to the Bible, where metaphors commingle with remarkable frequency. Brettler, a pioneer in the study of metaphor in the Bible, explores this topic in a 1998 article entitled Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40–66. His essay examines the way this prophetic corpus brings together diverse divine metaphors, such as God as warrior and as woman in labor in Isa 42,13-14 and God as shepherd and as warrior in Isa 40,10-1115. He concludes that together, these seemingly contradictory metaphors project an image of a powerful and caring God that could not be communicated by either 10. C. MÜLLER, Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 2008, p. 153. 11. Ibid., p. 134. 12. C. MÜLLER, Why Mixed Metaphors Make Sense, in GIBBS (ed.), Mixing Metaphor (n. 7), 31-56, pp. 31 and 52. She explains that language users mix metaphors as they selectively focus attention on semantic and syntactic information, suppressing certain aspects of meaning and activating others. See also MÜLLER, Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking (n. 10), pp. 153, 158-160. 13. L. CAMERON, Mixed Metaphor from a Discourse Perspective: A Non-Issue?, in GIBBS (ed.), Mixing Metaphor (n. 7), 17-30, p. 18. 14. R.W. GIBBS, Introduction, in ID. (ed.), Mixing Metaphor (n. 7), vii-xiv, pp. xiii-ix. 15. M. BRETTLER, Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40–66, in JSOT 78 (1998) 97-120.

160

A.L. WEISS

metaphor in isolation16. Sarah Dille more fully develops this subject in her 2004 monograph, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah17. Employing Lakoff and Johnson’s terminology, she identifies certain divine metaphors as “inconsistent” because they are drawn from separate source domains, but “coherent” because of their shared entailments. She makes the noteworthy point that the juxtaposition of two different metaphors highlights their common qualities and downplays aspects of the metaphors they do not share18. Göran Eidevall tracks the juxtaposition of different metaphors in his 1996 book, Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4– 14. He characterizes the compilation of different biblical metaphors as “a radical relativization” that resists giving any single metaphor a “monopolistic position”19. As part of a 2005 study of lion images and metaphors in the Bible and ancient Near East, Brent Strawn puts forth alternative terminology for this metaphoric phenomenon, referring to the lion metaphors that often appear in conjunction with other animal metaphors as “complex- or combined-metaphors”20. Echoing Lakoff and Johnson’s assertion that we need multiple metaphors when “no one metaphor that will do the job”21, Strawn speculates as to why so many divine metaphors appear in the Bible: “One metaphor alone by itself […] cannot, in the words of Brueggemann, get this God said right”22. My own research over the past decade has investigated the various ways metaphors in the Bible interact by focusing less on the theological or rhetorical motives for combining metaphors in a given passage, and more on the poetic factors that bring metaphors together. Because my first foray into this topic was prompted by an invitation to participate in a 2009 University of Maryland conference honoring Adele Berlin, it occurred to me that Berlin’s approach to poetic parallelism might shed light on the many 16. Ibid., p. 119. 17. S. DILLE, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah, London, T&T Clark, 2004. 18. Ibid., p. 16. 19. G. EIDEVALL, Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4–14 (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament, 43), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996, p. 229. 20. B.A. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO, 212), Fribourg/CH, Academic Press; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, p. 271. Also see a more recent article on this topic: I.J. DE HULSTER – B.A. STRAWN, Figuring YHWH in Unusual Ways: Deuteronomy 32 and Other Mixed Metaphors for God in the Old Testament, in I.J. DE HULSTER – B.A. STRAWN – R.P. BONFIGLIO (eds.), Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: An Introduction to Its Theory, Method, and Practice, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 117-133. 21. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 9), p. 95. 22. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 20), p. 271.

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

161

instances in which different metaphors appear as word pairs in a bi- or tri-colon. That early paper applied Berlin’s conception of poetic parallelism as involving an array of grammatical and semantic elements that relate to one another with varying degrees of equivalence and contrast23 to passages in the book of Hosea where metaphors24 for the same entity (God or Israel) are matched as word pairs within parallel poetic lines25. Subsequent research has studied commingled metaphors throughout the Bible that relate to one another with different forms of textual proximity: in parallel poetic lines, within a single verse or sequential verses, or across the wider expanse of a discrete literary unit26. My initial interest in this topic was sparked by the puzzling disconnect between the persistent negative attitude toward mixed metaphors in society at large and the pervasive, seeming positive presence of commingled metaphors in the Bible. What has sustained my interest has been a fascination with how metaphors in the Bible interact and what patterns emerge from an in-depth analysis of the available evidence. II. CATEGORIZING METAPHORIC WORD PAIRS A large percentage of biblical metaphors are made manifest through lexemes in various syntactic guises that appear in poetic parallelism, where the metaphors are brought together as word pairs in a bi- or tri-colon. Metaphoric word pairs fall within three general categories. First, some 23. A. BERLIN, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1985, pp. 27-30. 24. I use the term “metaphor” broadly to include both metaphors and similes. For a discussion of the similarities and differences between these two tropes, see A.L. WEISS, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2006, pp. 161-177; also H. LOLAND, Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46, and 49, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, pp. 47-51. 25. Hos 4,16; 5,1.12-14; 6,1.3.4; 9,10; 11,11; 13,3.7-8; 14,6. See A.L. WEISS, From “Mixed Metaphors” to “Adjacent Analogies”, in M.L GROSSMAN (ed.), Built by Wisdom, Established by Understanding: Essays on Biblical and Near Eastern Literature in Honor of Adele Berlin, Bethesda, MD, University Press of Maryland, 2013, 109-127. 26. See A.L. WEISS, Motives behind Biblical Mixed Metaphors, in D.J.A. CLINES – K.H. RICHARDS – J.L. WRIGHT (eds.), Making a Difference: Essays on the Bible and Judaism in Honor of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, Sheffield, Shefield Phoenix Press, 2012, 317-328. This article investigates metaphors for God in Isaiah and Jeremiah that appear within the same verse or sequential verses (Isa 8,14-15; 31,4-5; 42,13-14; 45,9-10; 64,7; Jer 2,31-32; 3,1920; 14,8-9; 25,30). The topic also was explored in an unpublished November 18, 2012 Society of Biblical Literature paper on metaphor clusters in Psalm 18, which was part of a session organized by the Metaphor Theory and Hebrew Bible group on “The Interplay of Metaphors within Psalm 18”. My current work involves a widespread study of metaphors for God in the Bible entitled, “God in the Biblical Imagination: The Mechanics and Theology of Metaphor”.

162

A.L. WEISS

passages couple two terms with a high degree of semantic equivalence to project a single metaphor. For example, Hos 5,14 employs two leonine terms to portray God as a ferocious beast of prey poised to ravage its victim: “I will be like a lion (‫ )כשחל‬to Ephraim, and like a young lion (‫ )וככפיר‬to the house of Judah”27. Similarly, Hos 11,11 envisions Israel as a bird flying home, summoned by the roar of the divine lion depicted in the prior verse: “They shall flutter like a bird (‫ )כצפור‬from Egypt, and like a dove (‫ )וכיונה‬from the land of Assyria”. In many of the Category 1 examples28, a more general term parallels a second, more specific word, thus illustrating what Robert Alter refers to as an “impulse to intensification”. He explains: “The predominant pattern of biblical poetry is to move from a standard term in the first verset to a more literary or highfalutin term in the second verset”, from an ordinary to a more poetic term29. In these cases, the two lexemes under consideration exhibit a sufficient degree of synonymousness so that they create a single analogy for the subject at hand. In the second metaphoric grouping, the two components of the word pair are marked by a greater degree of semantic contrast, thus establishing two separate but related analogies for a single referent. If the examples in Category 1 might be labeled “synonymous word pairs”, the examples in Category 2 might be called “resemblant word pairs”. In Hos 9,10, God recalls: “Like grapes (‫ )כענבים‬in the wilderness I found Israel; like the early fruit on a fig tree (‫ )כבכורה בתאנה‬in its first season I saw your ancestors”. These parallel lines connect two distinct varieties of fruit (grapes and figs); but they both represent choice, cherished produce, a fitting analogy for the early election of Israel30. Similarly, in Hos 6,4 the prophet disapprovingly compares Israel’s covenantal faithfulness to two atmospheric features that appear in the early morning but disperse as the day unfolds: 27. According to Strawn, the terms are not entirely synonymous, in that ‫ שחל‬functions as a more generic term for a lion, whereas ‫ כפיר‬represents a young lion. See STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 20), p. 309. For similar examples of lionine word pairs involving ‫ אריה‬and ‫כפיר‬, see Isa 31,4 and Ps 17,12. Translations are my own. 28. For just a few of the many examples, see Isa 8,14; 42,13; Hos 5,13; 6,3b; Ps 72,6. 29. R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York, Basic Books, 1985, p. 13. Likewise, James Kugel asserts that the B term in two parallelistic lines often particularizes or expands the meaning of the more general A term. See J. KUGEL, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, p. 8. 30. For other examples of verses that pair different forms of vegetation, see Hos 14,6: “He shall blossom like a lily (‫)כשושנה‬, and shall strike root like Lebanon (‫ ;”)כלבנון‬and Ps 92,13: “The righteous bloom like a date-palm (‫ ;)כתמר‬they thrive like a cedar in Lebanon (‫”)כארז בלבנון‬.

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

What shall I do for you Ephraim? What shall I do for you Judah? Your loyalty is like a morning cloud, and like dew that goes away early.

163

‫מה אעשה־לך אפרים‬ ‫מה אעשה־לך יהודה‬ ‫וחסדכם כענן־בקר‬ ‫וכטל משכים הלך‬

These clauses create two separate images, each with unique connotations; but they come from a related semantic field and convey a similar message. Likewise, in Hos 5,1, the prophet addresses the priests, the people, and the royal house, charging: “You have become a trap (‫ )פח‬for Mizpah, and a net (‫ )ורשת‬spread out on Tabor”. The first term denotes a trap placed on the ground by a fowler31 that springs up when a bird swoops down to retrieve the bait32; the second designates a net that a fowler or hunter spreads out on the ground to capture its victim33. While these nouns refer to two distinct apparatuses, each serves a similar function: to ensnare an animal. Hence both utterances communicate a similar metaphoric message34. In the third group of examples, a bi- or tri-colon brings together analogies with a more marked semantic contrast, thus establishing two distinct metaphors for the same referent, what could be labeled “divergent word pairs”. For instance, in Ps 109,23, the speaker captures a feeling of being downtrodden and dispirited through similes that come from two separate semantic realms: “Like a lengthening shadow (‫ )כצל כנטותו‬I depart, I am shaken off like a locust (‫”)כארבה‬. Elsewhere, Ps 89,27 pairs human and nonhuman divine metaphors when the psalmist envisions David saying to God: “My father (‫ )אבי‬are You, my God and the rock of my rescue (‫וצור‬ ‫”)ישועתי‬. In a number of Category 3 examples, the potential sense of incongruity that might be created by combining markedly different analogies is tempered by the presence of certain shared characteristics as well as by grammatical or syntactic features that unite the metaphors. Ps 121,5 illustrates this pattern as the verse juxtaposes two other human and nonhuman metaphors for God: “YHWH is your guard (‫)שמרך‬. YHWH is your shadow (‫ )צלך‬at your right hand”. Note that on a semantic level, the element of protection connects these two images; and on a grammatical level, the participle and noun in these two nominal sentences both end with a second person singular suffix. Similarly, in Isa 64,7, the prophet first depicts God as a parent, which implies a corresponding image of Israel as a child: 31. Hos 9,8; Ps 91,3. 32. Amos 3,5; see S.M. PAUL, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1991, pp. 110-111. 33. Also see Ezek 12,13; 19,8; Prov 1,17. 34. For examples of other analogies assigned to this category, see Jer 2,23-24; 14,8; Hos 5,12; Ps 19,6.

164

A.L. WEISS

“And now, YHWH, our father (‫ )אבינו‬are You”. Then, in the subsequent colon, the prophet shifts to an explicit metaphor of Israel as clay as he introduces an image of God as a potter: “We are the clay, and You are our potter (‫)יצרינו‬, and we are all the work of Your hands”. While this verse pairs two distinctly different human roles (parent and potter), the analogies share a conceptual link (both involve the act of creation) and grammatical links (both nouns appear in nominal clauses with a second person singular pronoun and both end with a first person plural suffix). This same tendency can be seen when the proximity of the commingled metaphors expands beyond word pairs in adjoining poetic lines to adjacent analogies within the expanse of a larger verse or sequential verses. III. ANALYZING ADJACENT ANALOGIES The book of Jeremiah contains several passages that combine metaphors in word pairs and in consecutive verses in a concise poetic unit. In Jer 14,89, the people cry out to God: 8

Hope of Israel, its rescuer in times of trouble, why are You like a sojourner in the land, and like a traveler who turns aside to lodge? 9 Why are You like a helpless man, like a hero who cannot rescue? But You are in our midst, YHWH, and Your name upon us is called. Do not leave us!

‫מקוה ישראל‬ ‫מושיעו בעת צרה‬ ‫למה תהיה כגר בארץ‬ ‫וכארח נטה ללון‬ ‫למה תהיה כאיש נדהם‬ ‫כגבור לא־יוכל להושיע‬ ‫ואתה בקרבנו יהוה‬ ‫ושמך עלינו נקרא‬ ‫אל־תנחנו‬

The metaphoric pair in v. 8 falls within the second category discussed above, for two somewhat different images combine to depict the same general notion of God as a transient presence. Note how the two nouns are followed by clauses that call attention to the features that distinguish the similes: a “sojourner” (‫ )גר‬represents a person who temporarily resides “in the land”, whereas a “traveler” (‫ )ארח‬only “turns aside to lodge” for a night or two. The following verse falls more within the first category, for it pairs the more general noun “man” (‫ )איש‬with the more specific term “hero” (‫)גבור‬. The modifying phrases “helpless”35 and “who cannot 35. While a certain degree of uncertainty surrounds the hapax legomenon ‫נדהם‬, Lundbom argues persuasively that the expression refers to “a helpless man”. He explains: The verb “is commonly taken to mean, ‘be astonished, surprised’, based largely on a comparison with Arabic. But the word has shown up on a late seventh century ostracon from Yavhen-Yam, in the N-stem, where the meaning appears to be ‘helpless (to save)’, the exact opposite of savior”. See J.R. LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21A), New York, Doubleday, 1999, p. 702.

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

165

rescue” make clear that the two cola express a similar sentiment, envisioning God as a valiant hero who does not live up to expectations and cannot rescue those in need. Together, vv. 8-9 cast God in two different human roles, both of which reveal the people’s anxiety about not experiencing God’s lasting, efficacious presence36. Turning from semantics to syntax, the two metaphoric pairs begin with the same interrogative, followed by the identical verb, and then the same particle introducing the simile: “Why are You like (‫ )למה תהיה כ‬a sojourner […]. Why are You like (‫למה תהיה‬ ‫ )כ‬a helpless man?’”. These syntactic similarities reinforce the conceptual links between the metaphors, thereby creating a sense of structural coherence that goes alongside the semantic equivalence and contrast at play in these commingled metaphors. Likewise, semantic and syntactic features unite two metaphoric word pairs in Jer 2,31-32. This passage presents a set of unique and contrasting divine metaphors, comparing God to the wilderness and women’s finery: 31

[…] Have I become like a wilderness for Israel, or a land of darkness? Why do my people say, “We roam freely37 and we will not come again to you”? 32 Shall a young woman forget her jewels, a bride her sashes? But my people have forgotten me, days without number.

‫]…[ המדבר הייתי לישראל‬ ‫אם ארץ מאפליה‬ ‫מדוע אמרו עמי רדנו‬ ‫לוא־נבוא עוד אליך‬ ‫התשכח בתולה עדיה‬ ‫כלה קשריה‬ ‫ועמי שכחוני‬ ‫ימים אין מספר‬

In many ways, these seem like opposing divine metaphors. The first metaphoric pair compares God to a place, the second to a material object. The first pair carries negative associations, suggesting that God resembles the dark, desolate wilderness; the second connotes the positive associations of treasured accessories and apparel. However, both Category 2 metaphoric word pairs (wilderness and women’s finery) are phrased as questions that begin with an interrogative ‫ה‬. The rhetorical questions create an implicit connection between these two substantially different analogies, raising the unexpected possibility that a woman might forget or neglect her wedding finery, just as people avoid or neglect inhospitable territory. In both cases, the metaphoric pair in the first half of the verse is followed by a 36. Interestingly, both metaphoric questions undermine the non-figurative statements that frame these two verses. Although the people describe God as their “rescuer in times of trouble” (v. 8), they fear that God “cannot rescue” (v. 9). Although they bemoan God’s ephemeral nature (v. 8), they assert with confidence that God is in their midst (v. 9). 37. This translation of this problematic root follows LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 1–20 (n. 35), p. 292.

166

A.L. WEISS

non-figurative statement that explicates the analogy; in addition, the phrase “my people” (‫ )עמי‬repeats in the second half of each verse. The passage ends with a nonfigurative statement that summarizes the point of these heterogeneous metaphors: “But my people have forgotten me, days without number”. The second book of Samuel (22,5-6) offers another example of two adjacent metaphoric word pairs. Here, the speaker gives voice to the dire circumstances that have left him at God’s mercy, desperate for the One on high to answer his urgent cries for help. The text is rendered here in a way that replicates the word order of the Hebrew and hence preserves the chiastic structure: 5

For Aencompassed me Bthe breakers38 of death, the torrents of Belial A’terrified me. 6C The ropes of Sheol Dencircled me, D’ confronted me C’the traps of death. B’

‫כי אפפני משברי־מות‬ ‫נחלי בליעל יבעתני‬ ‫חבלי שאול סבני‬ ‫קדמני מקשי־מות‬

The passage combines four metaphoric utterances to characterize the speaker’s nearly fatal situation, with a Category 2 metaphoric word pair in each verse. Verse 5 refers first to ocean waves and then to streams that suddenly flood in the rainy season, two different types of water that can surge and drown someone in their path. Verse 6 envisions the speaker ensnared in two types of devises used by hunters to trap their victims. Here, too, certain grammatical features create a sense of cohesion that knits together the various metaphors: all four two-word nominal phrases appear in construct form, and the four verbs each contain a first person suffix. Furthermore, the first and fourth lines end with the word “death”, thus uniting the unit with an inclusio structure. What does the string of metaphoric phrases accomplish that a single metaphor or even one metaphoric word pair would not? Cumulatively, the four metaphoric utterances emphasize the magnitude and the inescapable nature of the psalmist’s predicament. Commenting on the parallel passage in Ps 18,5-6, John Goldingay postulates that the “impossibility of escape is suggested by the repetitious way the psalm describes the situation in the parallel cola”39. He implies that syntax reinforces semantics: the overlapping utterances generate a sense of being entangled or overwhelmed that mirrors the experience of the speaker. 38. The parallel passage in Ps 18,5-6, reads “ropes of death” (‫ )חבלי מות‬instead of “breakers of death” (‫)משברי מות‬. 39. J. GOLDINGAY, Psalms. Vol. 1: Psalms 1–41, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 2006, pp. 258-259.

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

167

IV. CONSIDERING METAPHORIC CLUSTERS Metaphors in the Bible interact not only as word pairs and adjacent analogies, but also as metaphoric clusters, here defined as a passage that contains four or more metaphoric utterances for the same referent in a compact unit with a limited number of consecutive poetic lines. Ps 18,3 illustrates this phenomenon as the verse emphasizes God’s role in protecting and rescuing the psalmist by packing nine nouns or nominal phrases and one verbal clause into three cola: YHWH,

my crag, and my fortress, and my savior my God, my rock, in which I shelter my shield, and horn of my rescue, my refuge

‫יהוה סלעי ומצודתי ומפלטי‬ ‫אלי צורי אחסה־בו‬ ‫מגני וקרן־ישעי משגבי‬

Altogether, the collocation of nouns in this verse presents four basic metaphors: two synonymous terms for God as a rock (‫ סלע‬and ‫( )צור‬Category 1), two nouns that designate somewhat different types of fortifications (‫ מצודה‬and ‫( )משגב‬Category 2), and two distinct analogies depicting God as a shield (‫ )מגן‬and the horn of an altar (‫( )קרן‬Category 3)40. At the same time that the verse brings together these divergent divine images, certain features create a sense of cohesion. Semantically, all four metaphors share the element of protection. Grammatically, the first-person suffix used eight times in this verse unites the lexemes. The abundance of metaphors and non-figurative terms strung together in Ps 18,3 aim to perform a persuasive function, moving the addressee to take action on the speaker’s behalf. Hos 13,3 contains a metaphoric cluster that exhibits the type of interplay between semantic and grammatical equivalence and contrast seen in other commingled metaphors. In this verse, the prophet strings together four similes to paint a vivid picture of the punishment that awaits as a consequence of Israel’s idolatrous behavior: Therefore they will be like a morning cloud and like dew that goes away early, like chaff whirled from the threshing floor, and like a smoke from a window.

‫לכן יהיו כענן־בקר‬ ‫וכטל משכים הלך‬ ‫כמץ יסער מגרן‬ ‫וכעשן מארבה‬

The first half of the verse contains the same Category 2 metaphoric pairing found in Hos 6,4 (discussed above), which pairs two weather 40. The phrase ‫ קרן ישעי‬has been interpreted as a symbol of strength and victory, derived from the image of an animal with its horns triumphantly raised high (Dan 8,3) or as a place of refuge, related to the horns of the altar to which individuals fled when in search of asylum (1 Kgs 1,50-51; 2,28). The latter interpretation better fits with the surrounding images.

168

A.L. WEISS

related phenomena: one in the sky and the other on the ground. The third simile shifts the semantic focus to an agricultural product found on the floor; the fourth simile returns the metaphoric gaze upward, introducing a new entity in a new setting: smoke from a window. As seen elsewhere, the dissonance between the different metaphors is mitigated by their shared entailments. In each colon, the prophet employs a supplemental modifying clause to make explicit the ephemeral quality that these four items have in common: the cloud is only present “in the morning” and then burns off; the dew “goes away early”; the chaff is blown away from the threshing floor; the cloud drifts out the window. Furthermore, the initial verb “to be” (‫ )יהיו‬governs all four cola and the preposition “like” (‫ )כ‬marks each simile. These grammatical features41 reinforce the sense cohesion created by the common properties that unite these different entities. Several verses later, another metaphoric cluster conveys a foreboding message about Israel’s future. Hos 13,7-8 warns: 7

And I will be to them like a lion; like a leopard by the road I will watch. 8 I will confront them like a bereaved bear, and I will rip open the enclosure of their heart, and I will devour them there like a lion; a beast of the field42 will rip them apart.

‫ואהי להם כמו־שחל‬ ‫כנמר על־דרך אשור‬ ‫אפגשם כדב שכול‬ ‫ואקרע סגור לבם‬ ‫ואכלם שם כלביא‬ ‫חית השדה תבקעם‬

With four similes, this passage presents three images of God as a ferocious beast of prey that will attack and mutilate its victim, namely the sheep introduced as a metaphor for Israel in v. 6. While lion, leopard, and bear constitute different animals, the verbs in these verses highlight their shared behaviors. Furthermore, the piling on of four distinct but related similes emphasizes their common characteristics and downplays their differences, thus lessening the sense of semantic dissonance that the mixture conveys. Altogether, these four similes contribute to a cumulative picture of God’s savage annihilation of Israel. 41. These unifying features appear alongside the other components of the verse that exhibit considerable grammatical contrast: v. 3a contains a two-word construct phrase, v. 3b two participles, v. 3c an imperfect verb and a ‫ מ‬prepositional phrase, and v. 3b another ‫מ‬ prepositional phrase. 42. Some read this last clause as a fifth simile: e.g., “as a wild animal would mangle them” (NRSV). However, the structure of the verse (with similes in the first and third of the four clauses in v. 8) and the absence of a first person verb in this concluding clause lend support for retaining the Masoretic text and reading the reference to wild beasts as the final stage of the punishment, not another divine metaphor.

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

169

V. REFLECTING ON TEXTUAL PROXIMITY IN COMMINGLED METAPHORS In the examples analyzed above, the metaphors interact with relatively close proximity: as word pairs, adjacent analogies, or cluster in the same or subsequent verses. This compares to other cases where multiple metaphors for the same referent are spread out over a wider expanse of a defined biblical unit, such as the depictions of God in Psalm 23 as both a shepherd (vv. 1-4) and banquet host (v. 5), or the images of God in Shirat Haazinu (Deuteronomy 32) as a rock (vv. 4.18) father (v. 6), eyelid (v. 10), eagle (v. 11), nursing mother (v. 13), and woman in labor (v. 18). As the distance between metaphors expands, the perception of the metaphors as “mixed” or incongruous diminishes. This rich corpus of data thus demonstrates that textual proximity matters when creating or interpreting commingled metaphors. This topic has been raised in a number of recent studies of mixed metaphors. In a 2009 article entitled, Why We Mix Metaphors (and Mix Them Well)43, Michael Kimmel challenges the notion of mixed metaphors as “awkwardly used language”, for he observes that speakers frequently enhance their discourse through the use of well-crafted clusters of metaphors44. His research yields the “unsurprising finding” that “speakers tend to stick to a topic they talk about, even when using different (sourcedomain related) kinds of metaphors for it”45. Metaphors often are “aligned ‘to tell a story’ about the target”, with different metaphors combined to “shed light on various aspects of the same topic”46. In the second half of the article, Kimmel shifts his attention from metaphoric selection – why speakers readily combine metaphors – to metaphoric binding – how metaphors “hang together”47. He asserts: In my view, many mixed metaphors are processed unproblematically because the grammatical structure of the passage exercises little pressure to integrate them conceptually, and simply lets us interpret them as referring to different ontological levels. We can answer major part of the mixed metaphor riddle by paying close attention to how adjacent metaphors are distributed over clauses and what degree of grammatical integration these clauses show.

Kimmel goes on to show that many mixed metaphors prove unproblematic in terms of comprehension since “most textually adjacent metaphors 43. M. KIMMEL, Why We Mix Metaphors (and Mix Them Well): Discourse Coherence, Conceptual Metaphor, and Beyond, in Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 97-115. 44. Ibid., p. 98. 45. Ibid., p. 102. 46. Ibid., pp. 107-108. 47. Ibid., p. 99.

170

A.L. WEISS

are distributed over clauses” as opposed to being combined in a single utterance. The syntactic separation hence reduces the “cognitive incentive to blend metaphorical imagery”48 in a way that the listener might experience as confusing or awkward. In a subsequent article that builds upon Kimmel’s research, Elena Semino raises a methodological question about textual proximity: “how close do two different uses of metaphor have to be in order to be potentially described or perceived as ‘mixed’?”49. She notes that examples found in the literature usually involve multiple metaphors that occur in the same clause or sentence. In contrast to Kimmel, her data “suggest[s] that neither clause boundaries nor sentence boundaries can, in principle, block the perception of clashes between metaphor that are described as ‘mixed’”50. She posits that there is an “expectation of coherence, regardless of the presence of clause and sentence boundaries” when the metaphors apply to the same topic51. This assertion leads to an observation that aligns with the biblical material analyzed above: “In a number of cases, moreover, there is some kind of grammatical parallelism between the units within which the different metaphors occur”. Semino then notes that “grammatical parallelism may contribute to expectations about semantic relationships of similarity and contrast”52. Commingled metaphors in the Bible reinforce these recent findings, showing that textual proximity influences the ways different metaphors interact. This certainly proves true in the poetic sections of the Bible, since poetic parallelism creates close relationships between words and lines in compact textual units. Because parataxis prevails throughout the Bible, biblical metaphors most often appear in sequential statements, as opposed to being combined within a single utterance53. This reduces the perception of the metaphors having been mixed together in a haphazard way that might “obscure our language and weary our audience”54. At the same time, the syntactic separation between metaphors often goes along with various conceptual and structural links that bind the metaphors and reinforce the 48. Ibid., pp. 113-114. 49. SEMINO, A Corpus-Based Study of “Mixed Metaphor” (n. 7), p. 205. 50. Ibid., pp. 215-216. 51. Ibid., p. 216. 52. Ibid. 53. As part of his exegesis of Psalm 23, James Kugel observes: “In general, since almost every line of biblical poetry is end-stopped and quite independent, each is felt to stand on its own in a way not common in other literatures … Consistency or even continuity from line to line is not crucial”. J. KUGEL, The Great Poems of the Bible, New York, The Free Press, 1999, p. 196. 54. QUINTILIAN, The Institutio Oratoria (n. 1), p. 309.

COMMINGLED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE AND BEYOND

171

“expectation of coherence”55. Thus, through a variety of mechanisms, two forces are at play as biblical metaphors commingle: separation and cohesion. All of this contributes to the artistry and complexity of the multitude of metaphors that biblical authors employ to tell the story of an ancient land and its inhabitants, a people striving to live out a covenantal relationship with its God, a deity who can only be grasped through the depths of the human imagination. Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion Andrea L. WEISS One West Fourth Street New York, NY 10012 [email protected]

55. SEMINO, A Corpus-Based Study of “Mixed Metaphor” (n. 7), p. 216.

FROM WELL-FED LIONS TO SITTING DUCKS A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

Psalm 17 is a somewhat tricky psalm in that it contains some poetical formulations which, being rather terse, compromise their hermeneutical import. The very diverse ways in which some translations render certain verses, sometimes not even agreeing on the subject of the clauses, is witness to this impasse. When such exegetical choices are made, one risks translating the particular words or clauses merely in terms of their general linguistic meaning, without giving due weight to the larger context of the psalm. However, a translation that is sensitive to the entire network of metaphors in the psalm is imperative, for such difficult expressions were created with such conceptual images in mind. No one metaphor is suitable enough to fully express any aspect of any subject being treated. Oftentimes, metaphorical images buttressed together more aptly convey the intended meaning. In any case, it is necessary to resort to unpacking the conceptual implications of every single metaphor employed as well as factoring in the conceptual relations between them. Clusters of metaphors are, therefore, particularly suitable to express complex ideas, though the interrelation of such metaphors would then need to be carefully considered. As Eidevall has put it, “It is important to keep in mind that many biblical metaphors have a predominantly relational function. In the psalms of lament, the metaphors are distributed according to the role played by each participant in the drama”1. The same applies to allegories which, like metaphors, may create what has been referred to as the blend within a novel conceptual structure, as shown by the Conceptual Blending Theory2. Gray is to be commended for her threefold approach to the analysis of metaphor in Psalm 18, wherein she studies the text from a lexical semantic, a pragmatic, and a cognitive linguistic perspective3. This article will expand 1. G. EIDEVALL, Images of God, Self, and the Enemy in the Psalms: On the Role of Metaphor in Identity Construction, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 55-65, p. 63. 2. See P. VAN HECKE, Conceptual Blending: A Recent Approach to Metaphor. Illustrated with the Pastoral Metaphor in Hos 4,16, in ID. (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (n. 1), 215-231, p. 229, n. 49. 3. See A. GRAY, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor (BIS, 127), Leiden, Brill, 2014, pp. 31-32.

174

S.M. ATTARD

on the lexical semantic aspect as well as the cognitive linguistic one. Giving weight to the different directions of influence created by the psalms neighbouring Psalm 17 would surely enrich the present enquiry (Gray too does not overlook the question of the Sitz im Buch of Psalm 18)4, however, due to length constraints, only a preliminary overview can be offered here. I. CONTEXT AND CONTENT Psalms 15–24 form a group within the first book of the Psalter which have been schematised concentrically according to their genre, with Psalms 17 and 22 being supplications (“Bittgebete”)5. Though the Torah is not mentioned specifically, the structural import of this book (Psalms 15, 19 and 24 focus on the Torah) is reflected in Psalm 17 in which the psalmist declares his adherence to God’s paths (v. 5) in the context of an exegetically ambiguous reference to what God’s lips have commanded (v. 4). Unlike the preceding group (Psalms 3–14), where laments are numerous, Psalms 15–24 exude a more positive mood, not only because of the torah motif, but also thanks to the genres of trust (Psalms 16; 23) and thanksgiving (Psalms 18; 21)6. There are also several thematic connections that bind Psalm 17 to the preceding Psalm 16. Barbiero avers: “Das Gefälle „Vertrauen“ (Ps 16) → „Klage“ (Ps 17) ist sicher ungewöhnlich. Aber es wurde schon in der Folge Ps 9–10 vorgefunden”7. He posits that the logic of the juxtaposition of Psalms 16 and 17 shows that union with God brings persecution, not recognition. Interestingly, Psalm 17 ends with a reaffirmation of the psalmist’s union with God, hence linking back as though with a spiral effect to a principal theme of Psalm 16, namely union with God. It is in the first book of the Psalter that the image of the lion or young lion as a threat mostly features: 7,3; 10,9; 17,12; 22,14.22; 34,11; 35,17 (then in 57,5; 58,7; 91,13). The context of persecution which David faces is persistent, which explains the high content of lament psalms in this part of the Psalter. Despite the presence of a few penitential psalms 4. Ibid., pp. 50-51. 5. See, for instance, N. FÜGLISTER, Die Verwendung und das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters um die Zeitenwende, in J. SCHREINER (ed.), Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung: Psalm 2 und 22 (FzB, 60), Würzburg, Echter, 1988, 319-394, p. 372, n. 127. 6. See T. LORENZIN, I Salmi (I Libri Biblici, 14), Milano, Paoline, 2002, p. 21. 7. G. BARBIERO, Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: Eine synchrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41 (Österreichische Biblische Studien, 19), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1999, p. 215.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

175

(6; 32; 38), assertions of innocence are not lacking either. Psalm 17 is one such psalm where the lyrical subject expects God to save him because of his own righteousness. The structure of the psalm follows, by and large, the normal pattern of a lament psalm. What I would like to highlight here is not simply its form critical division using the usual criteria employed (such as addresser/ addressee, plea, assertion of innocence, request, vow, prophetic perfect, and the like), but rather its division in terms of its metaphors qua metaphors. To our knowledge, psalm structures are rarely categorized specifically in terms of the metaphors they contain. The following are the main ones that emerge from the text: vv. 1-2 vv. 3-5 vv. 6-8

God listens to and sees the psalmist God examines the psalmist at night God’s ear, right hand, eye and the shadow of his wings protect the psalmist vv. 9-12 The enemy is a hungry lion ready to feed on the psalmist from his hiding place vv. 13-14 God is to rise, brandish a sword and feed (believers or foes?) v. 15 God’s face and form beheld after awakening in the morning

As can be seen, the psalm is replete with metaphors, most of which concern God. In the process of analysing networks of metaphors, it would be ideal to commence with an overview of some of the more salient ones, before homing in on particular ones which deserve more attention, particularly due to the multivalent character they possess. II. SIGNIFICANT METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS To begin with, though Psalm 17 lacks a Davidic biographical title, it nonetheless immediately qualifies the psalm as a Davidic prayer (‫תפלה‬ ‫לדוד‬, v. 1). In a broad sense, the very attribution of such a composition to David and its classification as a prayer of the king resembles the technique employed in creating metaphors, which is the association of two independent realms such that one is read in the light of the other. More specifically, the discoverable aspect of a vague concept is portrayed using another concept that is known8. At the time of the redaction of the Psalter 8. See B. JANOWSKI, Das Licht des Lebens: Zur Lichtmetaphorik in den Psalmen, in P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (BETL, 231), Leuven, Peeters, 2010, 87-113, pp. 112-113. Janowski makes reference to C. Baldauf who notes the difference between the abstractness of the target and the concrete, perceptible nature of the source domain.

176

S.M. ATTARD

when the Davidic connection was made, the entire psalm (the origin of which was no longer accessible to the redactor) was now read in line with the title in v. 1. Thus, the more historically defined life of David henceforth furnished the overarching image given to the reader by which to interpret the psalm. In this highly theo-logical psalm (where God, his actions, or some other aspect of his feature in no less than 11 verses out of 15), God’s actions are described in positive terms, for instance he probes, examines and tests (v. 3). Conversely, those of the psalmist are formulated in negative terms – he planned no evil, his mouth did not transgress (v. 3). However, he also actively guarded himself from the ways of the ravenous (v. 4)9, who in turn watched the steps of the believers (v. 11). Nonetheless, adherence to God’s laws alone does not guarantee safety unless God actively protects the believer and intervenes in case of need. Hence, the watchfulness of the psalmist must be coupled with that of God (see ‫ שמר‬in vv. 4 and 8 respectively). The synonymous parallel phrases in v. 8 concerning the apple of God’s eye and his wings refer to this divine activity, as indicated by the imperatives used10. In v. 12 the enemy figures as a lion11. His description commences in vv. 9-11, with a gradual increase of images that resemble those of a predator animal. The build-up is such that it seems as though the psalmist then easily associated the evil human actions of the adversary with the movements of a lion (v. 12). Though lion imagery was often employed to represent power and strength, the immediate implication here is one of craftiness and fierceness on the part of the foe, and danger with regard to the psalmist. The author may have meant to anticipate these leonine threats by requesting refuge and protection under God’s wings (v. 8). In fact, though God is not described as a lion, his wings could bring to mind ancient representations of winged lions such as the beast mentioned in Dan 7,4, or even lion-headed figures such as Imdugud in Sumer12. In the ancient Near 9. Isa 35,9 links the term ‫“( פריץ‬ravenous”) to a lion by parallelism, which motif is found further down in Psalm 17. 10. See G. KWAKKEL, Under YHWH’s Wings, in VAN HECKE – LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (n. 8), 141-165, p. 163. 11. The lion motif in the Bible and the ancient Near East has been treated by, among others, I. CORNELIUS, The Lion in the Art of the Ancient Near East: A Study of Selected Motifs, in Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 15 (1989) 53-85; B.A. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO, 212), Fribourg/CH, Academic Press; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005; P. STEFANOV, The Lion and the Leopard in the Bible, in Journal of the Iconographic Studies 2 (2009) 47-52. 12. See O. KEEL, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, transl. T.J. Hallett, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1997, p. 123.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

177

East, lions or lion features together with wings were often associated with adverse forces or gods13. I am in agreement with scholars for whom the metaphor of the shadow of God’s wings, as mentioned in v. 8, is not a referent to the winged cherubim in the temple14. Such an association is too limited and robs the metaphor of God’s wings of its power to point to the many other ways in which God could offer shelter from harm. The wings placed on lions in the cultures surrounding Israel denoted agility and strength, and like a bird in flight, which evades human grasp, they call to mind that space that was unreachable for man in antiquity, before jet planes began to rule the skies. Given the perilous context of Psalm 17, it is unlikely that the psalmist likened God’s wings to those of a hen, since such a metaphor would jar with that of the ferocious lion15. For this reason, unless by wings the psalmist intended their plain association with protection as an abstract concept, it is plausible to surmise that here these function as a kind of synecdoche of a winged lion, which brings to mind mighty strength which is not of the natural order. God’s supra-human and supra-leonine aura in vv. 13-14 would seem to confirm this reading16. As for the enemies that are described as watching the steps of the faithful (v. 11), these give the impression that they are crouching on the ground, such that their spatial ambit is low. However, in v. 13, God is asked to bring them down (hiphil ‫)כרע‬. Though the spatial dimension is the same, this verb refers not so much to a physical position with respect to some scale of verticality, as a state in which the power of the enemy is subdued. Nonetheless, this contrasts to the notion of the exalted self expressed

13. For instance, in Mesopotamia there was Chaos (as a winged lion), and the ušumgal (a creature related to the dragon Tiamat with lion-paws and wings); see ibid., p. 49. 14. Cf. M. DAHOOD, Psalms: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 1: Psalms 1–50 (AB, 16), Garden City, NY, Doubleday & Company, 1966, p. 97, for a comparison with eagle’s wings. With reference to the notion of the shadow of God’s wings in Psalm 57, Riede states: “Dieses Bild stammt möglicherweise ursprünglich aus der Vogelwelt, bezieht sich somit nicht auf die Flügel der Cheruben, wie häufig angenommen wurde”. P. RIEDE, Die Sprache der Bilder: Zur Bedeutung und Funktion der Metaphorik in den Feindpsalmen des Alten Testaments am Beispiel der Psalmen 57 und 59, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 19-40, p. 29 (see also notes 59 and 60 for detailed information about pertinent literature in this regard). 15. In Matt 23,37 and Luke 13,34, Jesus likened himself to a hen wishing to gather its chicks under its wings. Here, however, the presence of a specific foe is missing, for the troublemakers were the very people whom Jesus wanted to draw to himself. 16. Psalm 57, like Psalm 17, speaks of refuge sought under God’s wings and also refers to the enemy as a lion. Riede notes the contrast between these two images. See RIEDE, Die Sprache der Bilder (n. 14), p. 29,

178

S.M. ATTARD

by the term ‫ גאות‬in v. 10 (“their mouths speak haughtily”) which, though meaning “arrogance”, also means “ascent”. The foregoing observations could give the impression that the metaphorical language in Psalm 17 is restricted to faunal terminology. This is not the case, since several aspects of the human body feature, most notably to describe God, in whose case only the wings belong to the animal world. Table 1 below clearly shows how the numerous body parts used metaphorically in connection with God create a mental picture of his being, practically from head to toe17. Table 1 – Body metaphors employed GOD18 ear (v. 6) eyes (v. 2) apple of the eye (v. 8) lips (v. 4) face (v. 15) (great love, hence heart v. 7)

PSALMIST

ADVERSARY eyes (v. 11)

lips (v. 1) mouth (v. 3)

mouth (v. 10)

heart (v. 3) fat (interior of body; heart? v. 10)

shadow of his wings (v. 8) right hand (v. 7) hand (v. 14) (paths, hence feet v. 5) form (v. 15)

feet (v. 5)

Further to the above observation about Psalm 17 being highly theological, one notes that eight explicit metaphors are used in connection with God, with other terms (namely loving kindness, path, and form) further building an image of God in the reader’s mind, where it is his face that is most fully delineated. In fact, the face is mentioned together with the 17. Following Ricœur, Gray speaks of root metaphors and sub-metaphors, giving YHWH and YHWH IS JUDGE as examples of iconic metaphors. See GRAY, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures (n. 3), p. 14. Both of these suitably fit Psalm 17. 18. All of these terms have a 2nd masc. sing. suffix referring to God, with the exception of “the apple of the eye” where God’s eye is clearly implied, as rendered by several translations. IS WARRIOR

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

179

ear and the eyes, the two most important organs by which one can perceive another and be able to be alerted to his or her needs. Contrasting the several divine metaphors to those used for the enemy, the latter only gets three such occurrences, thereby implying the smallness of his stature vis-à-vis God. In his case, the central metaphor, the mouth, features again at the end of the psalm, though this time implicitly. In v. 14, as will be seen below, God is envisaged as filling the stomach, seemingly of the adversary. Such a scenario brings to mind Ps 60,5 and Isa 63,6 where God makes his people and his enemies respectively have toxic drink or wine. In the latter case, this is then followed by a fatal blow wherein God causes the lifeblood of his enemies to seep through the ground. Could the same divine manoeuvre be suggested here too? It is striking that, despite an awareness of being watched by the adversary, the psalmist is able to construct a literary network of metaphors which furnishes a complete image of God on whom his gaze is already focused. The representation of God that results, which is a product of the author’s faith-imbued imagination, tallies with the form of God that he hopes to behold spiritually (v. 15)19.

III. THE CRUX INTERPRETUM OF PS 17,4.14B Vv. 4 and 14 pose particular exegetical challenges partly because the diverse interpretations that are possible are hermeneutically viable. It is my contention that the most plausible readings can be arrived at by taking all the pertinent metaphorical elements into consideration. Given the complexities of v. 14 with respect to v. 4, the former will receive more attention than the latter20. Eaton makes the following remark: “The translation of v. 14 is so uncertain that it is almost best left out of account”21! However, the interpretation of this verse is to be considered crucial if the most numerous metaphorical implications of the psalm are to be deciphered.

19. Referring to Hos 13,7-8 as an example, Strawn uses the term “Mischmetaphors” to describe the use of multiple animal metaphors in relation to God. See STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 11), p. 271. In Psalm 17, the same concept may apply with regard to different body parts used with the same divine subject, even though they are not synecdoches as such. 20. The Jewish Study Bible (2004) notes that for the last phrase of v. 3, as well as v. 4a and the first phrase of v. 14bα, the meaning of the Hebrew text is uncertain. 21. J. EATON, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation, London, The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008, p. 36. Incidentally, our understanding of this verse and v. 4 differs from that of Eaton.

180

S.M. ATTARD

1. Various Readings of Ps 17,4 In v. 4 the identity of the one who is employing God’s words (‫דבר שפתיך‬ “the word of your lips”) is unclear. There are two possibilities, namely either the man committing evil deeds (v. 4aα), or the lyrical subject himself (‫ אני‬v. 4b)22. The deeds of man with the word of your lips I have watched the paths of the ravenous

‫לפעלות אדם‬ ‫בדבר שפתיך‬ ‫אני שמרתי ארחות פריץ‬

A number of translations seem to favour linking “the word of your lips” with the psalmist’s activity of guarding himself from the ways of the wicked. But these ignore the ’aṯnāḥ which divides the verse in such a way that “the word of your lips” is predicated of ‫אדם‬, hence ‫“( בדבר שפתיך‬by the word of your lips”) complements ‫“( לפעלות אדם‬As for the deeds of man”) and consequently the term ‫“( פריץ‬ravenous”) is in synonymous parallelism with ‫אדם‬. Jer 7,11 recalls the same hypocritical milieu in that the place called by God’s name had become a den of violent men (‫)פרצים‬. Following the ’aṯnāḥ, ‫ אני‬introduces a new subject in antithetic parallelism with ‫אדם‬, thus rendering: “With regard to man having the word of your lips”, where such a word is understood to be uttered cunningly. The deeds of the wicked are described in vv. 9-12. Hence, this man is not unlike the evil one of Ps 50,16 who has the audacity to recite God’s statutes and to take his covenant on his lips. Ps 55,22 too describes the deceitful words of the friend-turned-foe, which words are reproduced in v. 23 – which are a smokescreen to deceive the psalmist. Ps 17,3-4 therefore render this contrast between the evil man and the pious one: v. 3 v. 4

the psalmist’s thoughts; his mouth does not “exceed” them the evil man’s wicked deeds; he executes them by using God’s words

The one employing God’s words is the adversary who makes vain use of God’s words in order to deceive, whilst the psalmist is careful not to speak words that are not in agreement with his real thoughts23. The motif 22. See Kraus, Alonso Schökel and Carniti, and Lorenzin for the latter. NKJ can be interpreted in both ways. Though NIV associates the divine words with the psalmist, its rendering v. 4aα as “Though people tried to bribe me” would have easily taken “with the word of your lips” as referring to that bribe. The problem actually commences at the end of v. 3, since ‫בל־יעבר־פי‬, “my mouth did not transgress”, is sometimes read in tandem with v. 4aα as follows: “I have not sinned with my mouth as most people do” (NJB). However, the sôph pāsûq and the sillûq cause the ‫ בל‬of this phrase to fall within the same verse with the ‫ בל‬of the immediately preceding phrase and is in parallelism with it. 23. D. BARTHEĹ EMY – S. RYAN – A. SCHENKER, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 4: Psaumes, Fribourg/CH, Academic Press, 2005, p. 73: ‫ זמתי בל־יעבר־פי‬is rendered “Ce que j’ai pensé n’a pas dépassé ma bouche”.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

181

of deception versus truth is in the foreground, as can be seen in the opening verse where David states that his prayer does not rise from lips that are deceitful (‫)מרמה‬24. 2. Various Readings of Ps 17,14b May what you have hidden (or stored up) fill their stomachs may their sons be satisfied and leave their surplus to their children

‫וצפינך תמלא בטנם‬ ‫ישבעו בנים‬ ‫והניחו יתרם לעולליהם‬

V. 14b creates a conundrum in that its interpretation is difficult partly due to a kethib (from ‫“ צפין‬treasure”) and qere (from ‫ צפן‬qal “to hide”) which render the phrase ambiguous and open to two major possibilities25. The first reads ‫וּצפוּנְ ָך‬ ְ as the qal of the verb ‫ צפן‬and would be translated as “your hidden one”. When this is overlapped with the meaning of the nominal form, the kethib, the hidden ones of God would seem to refer to his treasured ones. Alter connects the notion of “your hidden ones” to that of protection found under God’s wings in v. 826. Hence, the stomachs filled by God in v. 14 would be those of the faithful seeking refuge in God. This would not differ from the scenario in Psalm 23 where protection from the enemy is granted by God who, acting also as a host, feeds the psalmist in the presence of his enemies27. The second possibility involves bringing into play the nuance of the niphal, thus referring to what God has “stored up” for the wicked or the faithful. The fact that being satisfied with abundance for a number of generations has positive implications in the Hebrew Bible, one might conclude that v. 14b refers to the faithful ones, not the wicked, who are given what God has stored up for them. However, the quantitative shift in v. 14b from the kethib/qere singular form to the plural (‫ )בטנם‬shows that the two 24. With regard to the faulty use of the mouth in v. 3, L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL – C. CARNITI, I Salmi, vol. 1, Roma, Borla, 2007, p. 357, state: “Se si riferisce a relazioni fra persone, la trasgressione della bocca è la menzogna e l’inganno che viziano o inquinano queste relazioni”. In my view, this creates a contrast to the underhanded use of God’s words by the evil man in v. 4. 25. The kethib and qere forms also occur for this term in Ps 56,7 and Prov 2,7, though the difference in each seems to be a confusion between the yod and the waw, which is not a surprising scribal error. 26. See R. ALTER, Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, vol. 3, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 2019, p. 54. For G. RAVASI, Il libro dei Salmi: Commento e Attualizzazione, Bologna, Dehoniane, 92002, p. 315, the term appears in 83,4 as a metaphor for the faithful protected by God. Given the numerous instances where the psalmist speaks of finding refuge in God in the Psalms, one might expect a positive use of the term to be more common. 27. See P. RIEDE, “Du bereitest vor mir einen Tisch”: Zum Tischmotiv in den Psalmen 23 und 69, in VAN HECKE – LABAHN, Metaphors in the Psalms (n. 8), 217-233, pp. 218225.

182

S.M. ATTARD

concepts do not correspond. Even if God’s “hidden one” were the pious psalmist seeking refuge under God’s wings, the shift to the plural form (‫ בטנם‬etc.) creates confusion. It is thus more plausible to theorize that the plural forms in v. 14b correspond to those in v. 14a, the subject of which were the impious ones. Barthélemy’s interpretation that ‫ מתים‬refers to the wretched poor (“pauvres hères”) whose only consolation is what the world offers does not seem viable28. Such a reading jars with v. 15 where ‫ אני‬is to be read as an adversative expression in contrast to the preceding verse. Its primary position adds emphasis to the lyrical subject, causing him to stand above the rest of the aforementioned individuals. Hence, it would be more viable to take ‫ צפונך‬and ‫ בטנם‬as referring to a hidden object of God and to the stomachs of the foes respectively – the mundane sounding reference to the ‫ בטן‬would tally with the notion of a transitory world (‫ חלד‬v. 14). If so, it could imply a somewhat positive stance or a purely negative one. As for the former, the Italian CEI translation renders a precative formulation where God is asked to fill the stomachs of the wicked who long only for earthly realities29. In other words, let them have it if that is what they want! In this case, what is being requested for the adversary is not something that is intrinsically evil or harmful30. The negative request would ensue when taking the qal passive participle of ‫צפן‬, meaning “to be hidden”, or the niphal meaning “to be stored up” to indicate some woe which will eventually befall the adversary. This is the translation which seems to suit this context most31. In the previous two verses, the second person masculine singular suffix with reference to God was attached to his sword (‫ )חרבך‬and his hand (‫)ידך‬. It is with his hand, holding his sword, that he would bring salvation to the believer. Could what he has hidden and kept in store for his adversaries be his sword, which he will introduce into the bellies of such enemies (see the arrows in Figure 1)? Such a conclusion may be uncertain, particularly since v. 14 carries the notion of being sated, which naturally has positive connotations. The idea of being satiated by a sword is outlandish. 28. BARTHÉLEMY et al., Critique textuelle (n. 23), p. 78. 29. 2008 edition. Ps 17,14b: “Sazia pure dei tuoi beni il loro ventre, se ne sazino anche i figli e ne avanzi per i loro bambini”. 30. God feeds lions in Ps 104,21 and in Job 38,39-40. 31. The similar text of Job 21,19 is mentioned by C.A. BRIGGS – E.G. BRIGGS, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1 (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1960, p. 133, who interpret what God hides as his penalty for the wicked who will receive it in full. Though this fits the context of Job 21,19 perfectly, the notion of being “satisfied” (‫ שבע‬Ps 17,14) with such a penalty seems awkward and hence disqualifies such an interpretation.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

183

Figure 1: Assurbanipal – lion hunt32

3. Intertextual and Cultural Considerations In point of fact, the motifs mentioned above appear scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible. In Ps 74,11, God is said to keep his right hand in his bosom. It is not that he hides it there, but rather that he holds it back, hence signifying his seeming reluctance to intervene in warfare against his people’s enemies. The connection between hand and food appears in the following psalm as follows: “In the hand of the Lord is a cup full of foaming wine mixed with spices; he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs” (Ps 75,8). The food he gives them becomes the trap by which they become fatally wounded. A trap often involves offering something which is desirable but which turns out to be a snare. In this respect, it is worth mentioning Riede’s analysis of Psalm 69 where he elaborates on the motif of the table that becomes a snare for the enemy33. Such a concept can be said to be shared with Psalm 17. In a semantically related context, Job’s friend Zophar speaks of the wicked man who will have to vomit up from his stomach the wealth he 32. The arrows penetrate the head, open mouth and belly of the lion. See KEEL, Symbolism (n. 12), p. 282, fig. 382. On the nose and mouth as a target, see STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 11), p. 162. 33. See RIEDE, Tischmotiv (n. 27), pp. 225-233.

184

S.M. ATTARD

swallowed – Job 20,15 (‫)מבטנו יורשנו‬34. Given the implication of injustices committed vis-à-vis the poor (see v. 10), the reference to an emptying of the stomach through the undesired reflux of vomiting clearly refers to God’s way of ensuring restitution even by means of compulsion. The verb ‫ ירש‬used here, which often expresses the act of dispossessing someone from land or property, is more suitable than verbs like hiphil ‫יצא‬ (“to bring out”) to represent the stomach’s contents as a metaphorical picture of the former possessions of the poor. Further down, one encounters another food-related metaphor that does not involve throwing up food ingested. Zophar states: “When he has filled his stomach (‫למלא בטנו‬, the wicked man being the subject), he [God] will cast on him his anger” (Job 20,23). Offering food signifies hospitality, but force-feeding bears the imprint of a completely different social setting that betrays a sense of an overpowering strength and possibly even aggression. In Num 11,19-20, God warns: “You will not eat it [the meat] for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, but for a whole month – until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it – because you have rejected the Lord…”. Force-feeding geese in order to fatten their livers seems to have been an age-old practice (see Figure 2). Though the relationship between man and foe and between man and geese is different, in the latter case, the slaughtering of the animal is the ultimate aim of the breeder. Reading Ps 17,14 in the light of Num 11,19-20 and Job 20,23, portrays God as exploiting food in order to discipline or condemn35. Job 20,23 seems to depend heavily on the notion that the best time to assault a prey is when it is satiated, which is when slumber creeps in. In the sapiential Psalm 73, where the psalmist considers himself innocent as in Psalm 17, the seeming amassment of wealth would eventually lead to destruction (indeed, deception: ‫ משואה‬v. 18), even though things seem to be going well for the wicked. Considering the link between abundance or satisfaction and destruction, the notion of killing a satiated lion does not really feature in the ancient Near East probably because it reduces the thrill associated with the hunt and diminishes the propagandistic value for the king using such a metaphor to represent military enterprises.

34. This is a buildup on the immediately preceding reference to evil words as food which becomes the venom of serpents within his belly (‫ מעה‬Job 20,14). 35. Though the term ‫ רשע‬is common in the HB/OT, the fact that both Ps 17,14 and Job 20,23 employ the term twice each to designate evildoers further validates an intertextual reading.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

185

Figure 2: Geese feeding in the 3rd millennium BC Reconstruction relief from private funerary mastaba of Ptahhotep (Getty)36

IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE METAPHORS EMPLOYED The psalm must have been constructed in such a way as to create a contrast between evil human action and retributive divine action as a foundational metaphor that bolsters other contrasting metaphors, particularly those related to seeing and to being surrounded/enveloped. I have averred that v. 4 refers to divine words which the ravenous deceitfully have on their lips. If v. 4 presents the ravenous one as having a mouth filled with God’s words in order to entrap the faithful, v. 14 presents the same individual as having their mouths and bellies filled with something that, like God’s word, is of divine origin but which will turn out to be detrimental to the ravenous man himself. The image is particularly powerful since the enemy was described in v. 10 as having a closed heart (‫)סגר‬. Conversely, in v. 14, the idea of having food force-fed into their belly which becomes full of it implies the opening of an organ against one’s will. The author thus plays on the same image and overturns it to his advantage, suggesting 36. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/ancient-foie-gras-debate.

186

S.M. ATTARD

that punishment will be meted out to the wicked in a way that is inversely proportional to his stance. This also obtains from the contrast mentioned earlier, namely the haughtiness (in exalted speech; v. 10) of the enemy and God’s bringing him down (v. 13). The verb used in this regard and which was highlighted earlier, namely hiphil ‫( כרע‬v. 13), is intriguing on two counts. Firstly, its hiphil form means “to cause to bow”. Hence, in relation to the exalted speech mentioned in v. 10, God’s first and most important “assault” is on the element of pride that characterises the adversary. It is only later that the poet describes, by use of more explicit metaphors related to feeding, the way by which God could execute this action. Secondly, apart from expressing the request to God to bring down the enemies, ‫ כרע‬also appears with reference to lions crouching, as is the case in Gen 49,9, where it is associated with lying down to rest (‫)רבץ‬: “Judah is a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him (‫”?)מי יקימנו‬ (Gen 49,9). In Psalm 17, God’s bringing down the adversary who acts like a lion could very well reflect this state where the lion is sated and ready to sleep. The imperative in v. 13 for God to arise (‫ )קומה‬may be an indication of a reversal of roles – God becomes the real lion who acts against the lion-like adversary, though descriptions of his tearing their flesh as in 50,22 are missing37. The description of the precarious situation in which the psalmist has found himself comes within a particular context. In fact, the psalm is divided into two main sections, the first concerning the pious psalmist (vv. 1-8) and the second concerning the wicked (vv. 9-14). The final verse, that is v. 15, draws our attention back to the psalmist once again. Within the two major sections are four distinct yet related scenarios that may be grouped according to the activity or inactivity of the main protagonists, namely God, psalmist and foe. The contrasting images that appear are the following: v. 3: psalmist examined at night – the time of inactivity of the faithful [God’s judgment] v. 8: space of the faithful one’s stillness (being hidden; ‫[ )סתר‬safety] v. 12: space of the foe’s stillness (in hiding; ‫[ )מסתר‬danger] v. 14: bellies filled (followed by sleep) – the time of inactivity of the wicked [God’s judgment]

37. Here too, as in 17,12, the verb used to refer to this tearing apart is ‫טרף‬. The same root is associated with lions in Gen 49,9; Isa 31,4; Jer 5,6; Amos 3,4; Mic 5,7; Nah 2,13; Pss 7,3; 22,14.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

187

At the far ends, God’s “judgement” is first carried out on the psalmist then on the wicked, however, because of the psalmist’s professed innocence, the outcome is different as can be surmised from the very final verse. The psalmist’s blamelessness thus ensures that God’s probing of his heart (v. 3) will lead to his protection under his wings (v. 8). Conversely, the hiding of the wicked (v. 12) will lead to their own destruction (v. 14). In v. 8, the psalmist prays that he might become imperceptible to the keen eye of the foe by hiding under God’s wings. This request relativizes the subsequent description of danger in v. 12 (and v. 11) where the wicked is secretly watching the believer. The two references to God’s eye (v. 2) and the apple of his eye (v. 8) precede the reference to the enemy’s eye (v. 11). The effect of this order and this imbalance intimate that God’s vision is superior to that of the enemies. This also results from the fact that the latter’s gaze is shallow, since they stretched their eyes down to the ground (oculos suos statuerunt declinare in terram; VUL 16,11). Thus, even before the lyrical subject details the dreadful advances of the foe, God’s superiority already can be said to be set in stone. That the notion of filled bellies would lead to sleep can be inferred not only from the foregoing argument, nor merely from the fact that naturally, filled stomachs lead to a state of lower mental alertness, but also from the contrast that is created with v. 15. Here, the psalmist claims that he will behold God’s form when he awakes from sleep (‫)בהקיץ‬. This may suggest that the psalmist is referring to the morning, the moment when a revelation of God’s victory is manifested or proclaimed (see 5,4; 30,6; 46,6; 49,15; 143,8)38. A curious relationship to the Egyptian conceptualisation of the universe may be present here; Keel notes that in Egypt, the lion was likened both to the night as a mortal power (“yesterday”) and also to rebirth (“tomorrow”)39. Could the psalmist have been ridiculing the notion of the lion-enemy “rebirth” (also hinted at through the reference to the offspring) by suggesting that such an adversary will be put to death? It is interesting that the psalmist’s confidence in God’s help is so strong that he does nothing to confront the enemy except to pray (‫תפלה‬ v. 1). Given the total sense of surrender that transpires through this prayer, it is plausible to classify this composition as a psalm of trust, though it is not generally categorized as such. The psalmist can actually sleep throughout the ordeal, despite the fact that he is being watched by 38. Barbiero calls Psalm 17 “ein Psalm des Morgens”. BARBIERO, Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit (n. 7), p. 215. 39. See KEEL, Symbolism (n. 12), p. 25.

188

S.M. ATTARD

the enemy (‫ עיניהם ישיתו‬v. 11), convinced that God’s observing him (‫עיניך‬ ‫ תחזינה‬v. 2) will prove beneficial40. The verb used to describe the way God looks at the psalmist and the way the psalmist looks at God is ‫חזה‬, and this functions as an inclusio. This is different from the verb employed at the centre when describing the enemy’s gaze on the psalmist, namely ‫שית‬. The implication is that the seeing or beholding of God and the psalmist are not of the same quality as the surveying of the adversary. The former are associated with life, the latter with death. In relation to one’s perception of the other, one may also point out the following. If the kethib of ‫“( צפין‬treasure”) is given any weight, a sarcastic overtone would ensue, whereby God’s treasure is harmful to the foe. But the psalm spoke about a different treasure too, though in an implicit way – in v. 8, the believer asked God to guard him as the pupil of his eye. This notion of special protection indicates the high value and worth which the psalmist believes to have in God’s eyes. If God’s feeding the enemies will lead to their slaughter, speaking of descendents (‫ בנים ]…[ עולליהם‬v. 14) does not jar with the notion of the annihilation of the wicked man – the latter can easily be envisaged as already having offspring (see Ps 37,28). The prolongation of the metaphor to include the descendents of the wicked man surely has the purpose of signifying the blow inflicted upon his name which, like his desires, becomes short-lived (see Job 20,8.21). That this image fits in with the rest of the psalm can be seen from the fact that v. 12 depicts the enemy both as a lion (‫ )אריה‬and as a young lion (‫)כפיר‬. This, therefore, paves the way for the request to ultimately have the successive generations destroyed. As for the transition from v. 13 to v. 14, it is senseless to portray God as brandishing a sword against the enemies and simultaneously feeding them. It turns out that, contrary to a superficial reading of the juxtaposed vv. 13-14, which seemingly display highly imbalanced manifestations of divine strength, v. 14 explicates the conditions under which the action of v. 13 will be carried out. That both verses are conceptually related can be seen from the terms “sword” (v. 13) and “your hand” (v. 14). Naturally, the weapon is held by the hand, and that the right hand is implied can be inferred from the connection with v. 7 which, likewise, speaks of salvation wrought by it.

40. Briggs and Briggs correctly contend that this awakening may not refer to a rising after death, as some had suggested. If the psalmist is referring to nocturnal sleeping and not the slumber of death, the element of trust is even more pointed, since the reader can perceive a sense of calm in the believer who is free of restlessness, anxiety or sleeplessness. See BRIGGS – BRIGGS, Book of Psalms, vol. 1 (n. 31), p. 133.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

v. 7

189

Show your marvellous loving-kindness by your right hand,

saviour of those who take refuge in you from those who rise up (against them) v. 13 with your sword save my life from the wicked one v. 14 By your hand save me from men

Despite the preposition ‫( מן‬+ ‫ )מתים‬in v. 14, the rescuing from involves more than a mere plucking out of danger. It involves slaughtering the wellfed foe. So whilst v. 4 portrayed the deceptive schemes of the wicked, here we witness a reversal of roles wherein God deceives and overpowers the psalmist’s enemies who are caught off guard. The motif of deception seems to have been introduced in v. 4 as a form of entrapment for the psalmist, but then it proved fatal for the enemies themselves. In actual fact, before even suggesting the problem of deception by the enemy, the psalmist presented himself in a totally different guise by insisting on the blamelessness and uprightness of his lips and mouth (vv. 1 and 3). This is confirmed in a subtle way by the use of the term ‫( אמרה‬v. 6) to refer to the believer’s speech. The word means “speech”, but what is curious is that, with this one exception, in the Psalter it is always employed with reference to God’s speech, not that of the psalmist. This, therefore, points to the flawless character of the psalmist’s speech. The contrast to the wicked in v. 4 that use God’s words to deceive is evident. At the end of the psalm, the different nuance of the verb ‫“( שבע‬to be sated”) in vv. 14 and 15 results from reading ‫ אני‬in v. 15 in an adversative sense with respect to the preceding subjects of v. 14 just as in v. 4. Indeed, in v. 15 the stance of the psalmist, who longs to be satisfied with God alone, is a world apart from the mundane desires that may be implied in v. 14 concerning the adversaries, their sons and their offspring. The contrast between the use of ‫ שבע‬in v. 14 and v. 15 has to do with the curious aspect of the technique of repetition of words or concepts – this was stressed by Alter who also based himself on the thought of the Russian semiotician Jurij Lotman41. The same can be said of refrains, which though identical, may have a different nuance depending on their position within a psalm. As Barbiero puts it, “Tali ripetizioni hanno spesso un

41. Lotman avers: “Strictly speaking, unconditional repetition is impossible in poetry. The repetition of a word in a text, as a rule, does not mean the mechanical repetition of a concept. Most often it points to a more complex, albeit unified, semantic context. The reader accustomed to the graphic perception of a text sees the repeated outlines of a word on paper and assumes that he is looking at the mere duplication of a concept. In fact he is usually dealing with another, more complex concept, that is related to the given word, but whose complication is by no means quantitative”. As quoted in R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York, Basic Books, 1985, p. 64.

190

S.M. ATTARD

valore mnemotecnico, servono come aiuto per la recitazione a memoria. Non infrequenti sono però anche gli accostamenti contenutistici”42. Interestingly, the movement from the general context of conflict and war which is portrayed in the psalm ends with a completely different scenario which expresses a longing of the believer for God. A similarity with Psalm 45 can be detected, for there too, one beholds a transition from a military context to a spousal one. That the believer in Psalm 17 is not content with mere protection from his foes by coming under God’s wings, but seeks a yet more intimate encounter with God, implies that the beholding of God’s face will be proof of the believer’s righteousness. Conversely, in Ps 90,14 the same request to be satisfied in the morning with God’s mercy is made in a spirit of repentance. V. CONCLUSION The picture that emerges from this psalm is one in which the concrete visual beholding of God is anticipated by the profuse employment of metaphors that depict him in bodily form. The interplay between God’s gaze on the psalmist and the psalmist’s gaze on God is such that it renders the wicked man’s observation futile. The overt or subtle references to the day or night serve as a leitmotif that holds the psalm together by structuring it according to a temporally defined narrative. The curious shift from the leonine imagery for the foe to discourse on the filling of human bellies raised the question as to whether the former animal imagery was being applied here too. In other words, had the psalmist shifted from using the lion metaphor in vv. 9-12, to simply speaking about human beings (‫)מתים‬ in v. 14? In my opinion, the human beings and their bellies in v. 14 are imbued with a leonine aura, hence one may be able to speak of a residual metaphor by which I mean the partial, implied association of a vehicle to a tenor. The partiality is due to the conceptual tension between the metaphor intended (the vehicle) and the reality being presented (the tenor), given the increased concretisation and tangibility of the tenor in question. In brief, the enemy is initially described with blatant animal imagery, but subsequently that imagery is only implied. A precise linguistic analysis that also employs text-critical considerations is imperative. However, in cases where compositions are particularly difficult to interpret due to their terse poetic character, it may be safer to 42. G. BARBIERO, Il regno di JHWH e del suo messia: Salmi scelti dal primo libro del salterio (Studia Biblica), Roma, Città Nuova Editrice, 2008, p. 20.

A STUDY OF COMPLEX METAPHORS IN PSALM 17

191

depend more heavily on the constellation of metaphors that are more easily discernible without recourse to emendations to the text or the forced import and application of other Hebrew Bible interpretations. Undeniably, these may not sit comfortably with the actual text in question. In a study on allegories in Psalm 45, it was pointed out that the interpretation of the complex of allegories in that psalm can best be deciphered when allowing adjacent psalms to bear on that interpretation43. The analysis of the metaphors of Psalm 17 does not seem to necessitate a broadening of the hermeneutical scope beyond the psalm itself. Here, these linguistic figures suffice to create a meaningful cluster of metaphors which are coherent, logically interrelated and self-explanatory. Indeed, though there are various exegetical and hermeneutical possibilities that this challenging text offers, what wins the day is ultimately that particular exegetical reading that is most adequately supported by the corresponding metaphors arrayed. University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 Malta [email protected]

Stefan M. ATTARD

43. S. ATTARD, The Bride and Her Companions in Psalm 45: Making Sense out of an Allegory, in Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 10 (2018) 463-475, pp. 473-474.

VARIOUS TYPES OF METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

“Metaphors move in families” is the motto of the present volume, and, one could add, these families are rooted in a specific time and place. Metaphors are usually not stand-alone units, but are very often components of larger chains that build into complex clusters, which function in transaction and interaction processes between a sender and an addressee. In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is in the first place regarded as a conceptual phenomenon. However, contrary to what Lakoff and Johnson in the eighties stated, metaphors cannot be understood as processed in “thought” only, but are also processed in communication. Metaphors are produced and received by people who are jointly aligning in their exchange, whether face to face or across vast amounts of space and time. The use of metaphors has, therefore, at least three dimensions, namely a linguistic, a conceptual and a communicative dimension1. In recent, discourse event based, cognitive approaches to metaphors these three dimensions take up a central position. Such an approach includes three elements: a linguistic study that is directed towards the language system and considers its morphological, grammatical, and syntactic aspects; a conceptual study of the language use in a certain context, which relates to its semantic, cognitive, and experiential components; and a communicative study that is aimed at the discourse event in which an utterance is produced, received and exchanged. Discourse events are higher-level processes of verbal interaction than language use2. Literary texts like narratives or poems are examples of such discourse events. Literary texts make use of the language system, create new combinations in a textual edifice, and are parts of a connected line of argument aimed at persuasion or emotion. Various types of metaphors are used differently along these lines of processing. (1) In linguistic processing, that is, in someone’s employment of a language code, such as English or Hebrew, linguistically fixed metaphors are included that originally may have demanded cross-domain 1. The description of the discourse event and its three dimensions is based on G. STEEN, Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic Assumptions, Main Tenets, Urgent Issues, in Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (2017) 1-24. However, the further distinction between a linguistic system, language use and discourse event, its description and its application to Psalm 51 is the present author’s. 2. See J. GAVINS, Metaphor Studies in Retrospect and Prospect: An Interview with Gerard Steen, in Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2014) 493-510, p. 498.

194

E. VAN WOLDE

mapping, but which were over time conventionalised and now are hardly noticed as metaphors anymore. (2) In a text or speech, metaphors occur that are not fixed linguistic expressions, but require active cross-domain mapping in thought. These metaphors are of a conceptual character, while some of them are more conventional than others. (3) In the literary, political, religious, rhetorical or other forms of communicative processing of a discourse, someone (the sender or producer) attempts to let others share his or her perspective on the described events, attempts to convince them, attempts to encourage them to take action, to entice them or to let them experience beauty. In these processes, metaphors are deliberately used, are often new in form and function, and are primarily applied for rhetorical or stylistic reasons. These deliberate metaphors are, therefore, of a discursive character. In most discourse events, the distinct types of metaphors are used side by side. Often, they build upon each other, layer upon layer, from non-figurative descriptive language via the more conventional and slightly newer conceptual metaphors to the most innovative metaphors. Together they create an entire discourse based metaphorical network. The present study operates within the framework of such a discourse based, cognitive approach to textual metaphors3. In it, I intend to offer an analysis of the metaphorical network of Psalm 51, mainly based on a cognitive linguistic approach in combination with Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT). The latter is a theory about properties of metaphor in language use and discourse, which has emerged over the past decades in a series of publications by Gerard Steen4. Its central thesis is that in order to understand a literary metaphorical network one should differentiate between various distinct types of metaphors. As far as I know, DMT has so far only been applied in biblical studies by members of the Leuven School of biblical metaphor studies5. The structure of this article is as follows. It opens with a short introduction of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (section I), followed by the body of the paper with analyses of four metaphorical clusters in Psalm 51 3. An analysis of Psalm 51 will be published in VT (2020, forthcoming). The application of DMT to Psalm 51 is unique for the present article. 4. See, for instance, G. STEEN, The Paradox of Metaphor: Why We Need a ThreeDimensional Model of Metaphor, in Metaphor & Symbol 23 (2008) 213-241; ID., From Three Dimensions to Five Steps: The Value of Deliberate Metaphor, in Metaphorik.de 21 (2011) 83-110; ID., Developing, Testing and Interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory, in Journal of Pragmatics 90 (2015) 67-72. 5. Initiated by and under the leadership of Pierre Van Hecke. For the application of G. Steen’s metaphor theories, see D. VERDE – P. VAN HECKE, The Belligerent Woman in Song 1,9, in Biblica 98 (2017) 208-226, esp. pp. 218-221; H. VAN LOON, Metaphors in the Discussion on Suffering in Job 3–31: Visions of Hope and Consolation (BIS, 165), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2018; D. VERDE, In Love as in War: The Warlike Imagery in the Song of Songs (AIL), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press (forthcoming).

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

195

(sections II-V). A comparison of these metaphors will allow us to differentiate between conventional and deliberate metaphors, and their distinctive roles in the psalm. Thus, I intend to show that out of these distinct metaphors a metaphorical network emerges, in which the sum is more than its parts. I. DELIBERATE METAPHOR THEORY: CONVENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE METAPHORS Variation in metaphor processing stands at the heart of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT). Many metaphors are conventional and do not call for active cross-domain mapping, while other metaphors require more attention. Conventional metaphors have entrenched metaphorical meanings that are directly accessed. In contrast, deliberate metaphors concern the intentional use of metaphors as metaphors between sender and addressee. Not all discourse-events are the same and some genre events are more prone to deliberate metaphor use than others, like poetry. “It is one goal of DMT to highlight this variation in metaphor in language use from the perspective of discourse”6. The basic tenets of DMT are the following. Firstly, deliberate metaphors are intentionally used as metaphors. Secondly, they draw attention to separate details in the source domains and thus ask for more activity in the working memory, whereas non-deliberate metaphors do not. Thirdly, they have the communicative aim to change the addressee’s perspective on the topic; they are perspective changers in the context of communication. According to DMT, non-deliberate metaphor “does not ask the addressee to pay conscious attention to the structure of an alien source domain that may be involved in the semantics of the words used”7. The communicative aim of the writer or speaker correlates with the linguistic and discursive use of metaphors. The writer who intends to cause a shift of perspective may employ grammatical and/or lexical means to signal the introduction of a source domain. The writer may employ deliberately used metaphors to shift the perspective of the addressee by choosing a source domain that fits his or her argument, to focus attention on aspects of the target domain 6. STEEN, Deliberate Metaphor Theory (n. 1), p. 4. 7. STEEN, From Three Dimensions to Five Steps (n. 4), p. 37. Steen criticises his previous position in which he used the term consciousness as a synonym of deliberate. He explains why deliberate metaphor is not the same as conscious metaphor: “Consciousness is knowing that you are aware, while awareness itself is the content of what is in people’s window of attention. […] One problem is that consciousness and awareness or attention are often conflated, both in metaphors studies (like the first version of DMT in Steen 2008, 2011)”. STEEN, Deliberate Metaphor Theory (n. 1), p. 6.

196

E. VAN WOLDE

that are specifically relevant for him or her, to modify the recipient’s action or conviction, or to evoke feelings of beauty. The latter metaphorical processing depends on the textual genre: political texts and advertisements employ deliberate metaphors to modify the reader’s or listener’s conviction or action (buying); poetry, on the other hand, employs deliberate metaphors to create a concentrated imaginative awareness of language and a specific emotional response8. The distinction between deliberate and conventional metaphors as described and explained by DMT is very helpful indeed. To apply this theory in the study of metaphors in biblical texts, I propose the following three-step framework9. The first step is to identify conventional metaphors in a biblical text that are based on the Hebrew language system regarding its morphological, grammatical, and syntactic aspects. These metaphors are conventional in the sense of the “ordinary” or “everyday” way of talking and thinking about events; although a metaphor lies at the base of it, it is not experienced as such anymore because it became entrenched in the language system. Examples in English are: prepositions (“He was in a state of shock”, “It happened up to a year ago”) and metaphors in which time is primarily conceptualised in terms of space (“Christmas is coming”; “The economy is going from bad to worse”). In the Hebrew Bible, one could mention various prepositions such as ‫לפני‬, ‫מלפני‬, ‫על־פני‬, ‫מעל פני‬, which are conceptually related to “face” but became conventionalised as prepositions that mark the spatial positioning of someone relative to someone/something else: “in front of” or “before”. An example of the metaphorical base of a Hebrew verb is ‫“ לקח‬take” which is used 939 times in the Hebrew Bible to designate a non-figurative, spatial meaning in the sense of “getting” or “moving”. However, in the fixed-word combination ‫לקח אשה‬, “to take a girl” (104 times) it is employed as a metaphor in the context of marriage, designating “to marry a girl”, which is based on the girl’s spatial and judicial transfer from her father’s house to her husband’s house. Hence, the metaphor MARRIAGE IS MOTION FROM ONE FATHER’S HOUSE TO ANOTHER lies at the base of this conventional expression. The second step is a study of the conceptual metaphors occurring in (biblical) texts, which are used more regularly and are usually accessed without much cross-domain mapping, although they once did presuppose 8. GAVINS, Metaphor Studies in Retrospect and Prospect (n. 2), p. 497. 9. Steen proposes a five-step framework based on various linguistic schools and developments, which is, in my view, too linguistically (and not literary) oriented in scope for biblical studies. These steps identify: 1. words in a surface text, 2. concepts in a text base, 3. identification of open comparison, 4. referents in a situation model, 5. topics and perspectives in a context model. See STEEN, From Three Dimensions to Five Steps (n. 4); ID., Deliberate Metaphor Theory (n. 1).

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

197

such activities. Examples in English are well-known metaphors such as and YOU ARE THE STONE UPON WHICH THIS CHURCH IS BUILT. Examples from the Hebrew Bible include: YHWH IS KING, DEATH IS A PLACE OF DARKNESS, FAMILY IS THE CORNERSTONE OF SOCIETY, THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD, REPENTANCE IS RETURNING/HOMECOMING TO GOD10. The third step is an analysis of the unique discourse-event in which new and deliberate metaphors are used in the literary context of the Hebrew Bible that call for attention to its form and enhance imagination and thought. The real task of such an analysis is not merely to catalogue the cases of metaphor, but to understand the dramatic and rhetorical effects of the implicit meanings of the text11. An example in the Hebrew Bible is: NATIONS ARE THE REBELLIOUS WATERS THAT CHALLENGE GOD’S AUTHORITY (Isa 17,12-13). Inspired by the studies of conventional and deliberate metaphors in DMT, and translating it into the above described three-step approach, I will address the various conventionally and deliberately used metaphors in Psalm 51. But first, in section II, I will address the structure and content of Psalm 51 and its discussion in recent biblical scholarship. ARGUMENT IS WAR,

II. VERSES 12-14: A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO MAIN PARTS OF PSALM 51 The heading of Psalm 51 in vv. 1-2 attributes the mizmor to David “after the prophet Nathan came to him, after he had come into Bathsheba”, while the two final vv. 20-21 refer to Zion and Jerusalem after they have been purified from their sins and conclude with: “then you [God] will delight in righteous sacrifices and offerings … on your altar”. Together these opening and concluding verses represent the Psalm’s framework and describe the king’s and the city’s circumstances in which the direct speeches are embedded. These direct speeches are presented in vv. 3-19 and show an apparent thematic disjunction between two parts, namely vv. 3-11 and vv. 12-1912. 10. For the last metaphor, see D. LAMBERT, How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016. 11. See A.L. WEISS, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2006, p. 33. 12. Most scholars make a distinction between vv. 3-11 and 12-19 as the main parts of the Psalm and distinguish vv. 12-14 as a smaller unit within the second part. See P. AUFFRET, Notes sur la structure littéraire de Psaume VI, 1-19, in VT 26 (1976) 142-147; H. SPIECKERMANN, Psalmen und Psalter: Suchbewegungen des Forschens und Betens, in F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – E. NOORT (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. Festschrift A.S. van der Woude (VT.S, 73), Leiden, Brill, 1998, 137-153;

198

E. VAN WOLDE

In the former part, someone who is contending with sin expresses his own responsibility for what he has done and appeals to the deity for absolution, whereas in the latter part the topic shifts from personal penitential language to collective and cultic language. This shift from individual to community is noticeable in the contrast between the singular transgressor in vv. 5-8 and the plural transgressors in v. 15, and in the reference in vv. 18-19 to the sacrifices and the centralised altar in Jerusalem. An important difference between the two main parts of the psalm is that the first part contains confessions of sinfulness and petitions for purification from sin in an “I-You” dialogic relationship, whereas the second part reverses it into a petition for salvation of others. Less clear, however, is the exact border between these two parts: do the verses 12-14 belong to the individual prayer or to the collective part? Based on the division above, it would belong to the latter part. The appeal in v. 13 that God’s holy spirit should not be withdrawn fits the corporate view, for the Hebrew Bible connects God’s holiness with the temple, the priest and the king, or the people as whole rather than with ordinary individuals. The terms ‫ רוח‬and ‫ לב‬do occur both in vv. 12-14 and in v. 19, which builds up a thematic line as well. On the other hand, the cleansing topic relates v. 12 to the previous prayers, as the term ‫ טהור‬in ‫לב טהור‬ shows. Most commentators take vv. 12-14 as the central unit, both structurally and thematically. Whether it should be considered a central unit or not remains to be seen, but it is clear that verses 12-14 function as a bridge between the two parts of the psalm that makes the transition possible from the individual confession to the corporate confessions and appeals. III. PSALM 51 AND THE METAPHORICAL CLUSTER OF SIN One of the characteristics of Psalm 51 is its great evocative power, this is partly due to the great number of metaphors in it, which can be divided into four families or metaphorical clusters. These are the metaphorical clusters of sin, of polity, of holiness and purity, and of destruction and F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100 (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder 2000, pp. 44-47; J.P. FOKKELMAN, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible. Vol. 2: 85 Psalms and Job 4–14 (SSN, 41), Assen, Van Gorcum, 2000, pp. 164-169; C. SÜSSENBACH, Der elohistische Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie von Ps 42–83 (FAT, 2/7), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005, pp. 88-89; H. PFEIFFER, “Ein reines Herz schaffe mir, Gott!” Zum Verständnis des Menschen nach Ps 51, in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 102 (2005) 293-311; P. VAN DER LUGT, Cantos and Strophes in Biblical Poetry. Vol. 2: Psalms 42–89 (OTS, 57), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2010; C. ABART, Lebensfreude und Gottesjubel: Studien zu psychisch erlebter Freude in den Psalmen (WMANT, 142), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2015, p. 175.

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

199

construction. These clusters are the scaffolding of the text and build it into an impressive figurative edifice. The most obvious metaphors, namely those of sins and forgiveness, are present throughout Psalm 51. In his fascinating monograph on the Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible, Joseph Lam presents analyses of four metaphors that express the notions of sin in the Hebrew Bible: SIN IS A BURDEN, SIN IS AN ACCOUNT, SIN IS A PATH/DIRECTION, and SIN IS A STAIN/IMPURITY13. The metaphor of sin as “burden” draws from the shared human experience of the carrying of physical objects to provide a vocabulary for sin and its consequences in the Hebrew Bible. The metaphor of sin as an “account” draws on the mundane language of record-keeping. The metaphor of sin as a “path” or “direction” draws on spatial terms: walking on the path of sin, turning away from sin, etc. Finally, the metaphor of sin as a “stain” or “impurity” involves the representation of sin as an object that intrudes the body it contacts, or as an impurity that disrupts the homogeneity of a pure state, and often involves usages of terms derived from the roots ‫ טמא‬and ‫טהור‬. In the light of DMT, these widespread metaphors can be described as conventional conceptual metaphors. Each usage in a biblical text specifies these conventional contents in its own way. Ps 51,1-11 contains three nouns designating sins, iniquities or transgressions, most of them marked with pronominal suffixes in the first person singular: ‫“ פשעי‬my transgressions” vv. 3 and 5, ‫עוון‬/‫“ עוני‬my sin/iniquity” in v. 4 and 7, ‫“ חטאתי‬my sin/iniquity” in vv. 4, 5, and 6, and ‫חטא‬/‫“ חטאי‬my sin/iniquity” in vv. 7 and 11. They are used in combination with verbs of blotting out ‫מחה‬, washing away ‫כבס‬, and purifying/cleansing ‫טהור‬/‫חטא‬, which allows us to distinguish the following metaphors: Metaphorical cluster of sin in Ps 51,1-11 SIN IS AN ACCOUNT RESTORATION IS BLOTTING OUT THE ACCOUNT SIN IS A STAIN RESTORATION IS WASHING AWAY THE STAIN SIN IS AN IMPURITY RESTORATION IS PURIFICATION

blot out my transgressions ‫( מחה פשעי‬v. 3b) blot out all my iniquities ‫( וכל־עונתי מחה‬v. 11b) wash me from my iniquity ‫( כבסני מעוני‬v. 4a) wash me ‫( תכבסני‬v. 9b) purify me from my sin ‫( ומחטאתי טהרני‬v. 4b) I shall be clean ‫( תחטאני‬v. 9a)

13. J. LAM, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016.

200

E. VAN WOLDE

The metaphor of sin as an account assumes the notion of an external accountant or judge. It imagines God as a judge who sees all and keeps accurate accounts and whose acquittal is a blotting out of the written sins. Biblical usages of the verb ‫ מחה‬show a strong connection to writing: it denotes the erasure of writing of all kinds. Both biblical and inscriptional attestations that deal with writing point at the important connection between writing and memory. Because writing was associated with permanence, erasure of writing entails elimination of memory. This is discernible in contexts dealing with sin as well: the word combination of the verb ‫ מחה‬with a sin-noun is a conventionalised way of expressing the metaphorical erasing of written sins before God. The other two metaphors of sin, namely sin as stain and as impurity, share the idea of sin as an intrusion: they presuppose a thing that is outside of us, an intrusion that does not belong. In the restoration of these sins the focus is on the stain or sin as the object of exclusion. On all these occasions in vv. 3-11 the metaphors of sin are located in the individual. In vv. 15-21, on the other hand, words for sin, iniquity and transgression do not occur. Only once, in v. 15, reference is made to the transgressors and sinners in combination with “your ways” and “to return to you”, which points at the following metaphor: Metaphorical cluster of sin in Ps 51,15 SIN IS A PATH/DIRECTION RESTORATION IS RETURN TO THE RIGHT WAY TO

GOD

I will teach transgressors your ways ‫אלמדה פשעים דרכיך‬ and sinners will return to you ‫וחטאים אליך ישובו‬

The metaphor of sin as a path is the result of mapping moral experience onto the realm of spatial movement; deviation involves metaphorically traversing a landscape. The forsaking of sinful actions is imagined as a change of direction: a return to the deity and to his road. Sin’s locus in v. 15 is in the community. Thus, a difference is visible between the first part of the Psalm with metaphors marking sin as an individual state, while the metaphor in v. 15 marks sin as a collective movement. The repair or restoration of the sinful state in vv. 3-11 is conceived as a change of state: the account is clean again, the stain is cleansed, the sin is forgiven. In v. 15, however, restoration is conceived as a change in direction: they may return “to you”. Thus the movement is conceived as a kind of home-coming: the absolved sinners will be allowed to live again in the presence of God14. 14. See LAMBERT, How Repentance Became Biblical (n. 10).

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

201

Together these metaphors of sin and repair in vv. 3-11 and v. 15 constitute a single metaphorical pattern of sin, a cluster that reflects a family of interrelated conventional ideas on what sin is and on how one can face it and cope with it. The reception of this cluster of metaphors by readers, whether face to face or across vast amounts of space and time, does not ask a lot of activity from their working memories, because the concepts are conventional and the metaphors are entrenched in ancient Israel’s collective memory and in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In general, Christian reception history shows that its conventional understanding of sin and of the metaphors of sin is more individual oriented, whereas the text in the Hebrew Bible contains both an individual and a collective notion of sin and of the restoration from a state of sin. IV. PSALM 51 AND THE METAPHORICAL CLUSTER OF POLITY In addition to this metaphorical pattern, a metonymical pattern figures predominantly in Psalm 51 that relates to the kingship of David. The opening verses, vv. 1-2, refer to king David, and imply (a) that the speaking voice in this Psalm stands for David and (b) that David’s process of transition from patient to agent stands for the audience’s passage from the recipient role to the agent role15. These verses function therefore on the basis of two metonyms: THE KING STANDS FOR THE NATION (king David in the role of confessing and petitioning leader stands for the Jerusalemites) and THE SINNERS STAND FOR THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM. Both are examples of pars-pro-toto metonyms. Linked to these metonyms of human kingship are the metaphors that express the authority of God. Psalm 51 portrays God with such terms as ‫“ שפט‬judging”, ‫“ קדשך‬your holiness”, as the one capable of washing away stains, blotting away iniquities, and purifying sins, and, finally, as ‫“ אדני‬my Lord”. In fact, the entire Psalm figures on the ground of the metaphors GOD IS JUDGE and GOD IS KING16, and the two are closely related because judging is the major activity of God as a king. Both metaphors 15. See the passage from “you will make me know” in v. 8 to “I will teach the transgressors your ways” in v. 15; and the passage from “make me hear joy and gladness” in v. 10 to “my tongue, my lips, my mouth will joyfully sing of your righteousness” in vv. 16-17. 16. Because of this metaphorical conceptualisation, the speaking voice could say “Against you, you only, I have sinned” (v. 6). Without it, this verse would have raised questions. For example, one could ask why the speaker does not say that he had sinned against Bathsheba or against Uriah. The might and power of God’s kingship is also assumed in vv. 10b and 19a: “you, God, have broken the bones”, and “the broken spirit and the broken and contrite of heart” are conceived as the consequence of the divine punishment of the sinner.

202

E. VAN WOLDE

entail the servants’ loyalty to the king(s) and belong to the metaphorical pattern of polity. In this pattern, divine kingship is understood in terms of human kingship. The very same metaphors are widespread in the Hebrew Bible, and they are fully conventionalised17. As conventional metaphors they do not require much activity in the working memory of the recipients of biblical texts. In the final verses of Psalm 51, vv. 17-21, the two metaphorical patterns of sin and kingship are transferred to the cultic domain. God is not portrayed anymore as the supreme judge, but as the deity. The speaking voice addresses him as ‫“ אדני‬my Lord” and speaks of praise. Most prominently presented are the sacrifices and the conditions of their acceptance by the deity. Seen from the perspective of these final verses, the process of restoration from sin and purification of the heart are requisite to obtain the goal aimed for, namely that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be permitted to sacrifice in the temple and may live in God’s presence again. V. PS 51,12-14 AND THE METAPHORICAL CLUSTER OF HOLINESS AND PURITY So far we have discussed the more conventional metaphorical clusters. However, the most interesting, attention demanding metaphors are of a nonconventional nature. Unique word combinations or rare usages of words signal to the readers that these are deliberate metaphors. Ps 51,12-14 offers such unique combinations, namely ‫“ טהור לב‬a pure heart”, ‫“ רוח נכון‬a steadfast spirit”, ‫“ רוח קדשך‬the spirit of your holiness”, and ‫“ רוח נדיבה‬a willing spirit”. A syntactic and semantic analysis of these verses and of their components will elucidate their metaphorical content18. 12

Set apart for me a pure heart, O God and renew a steadfast spirit in me 13 Do not remove me from your presence and do not take away the spirit of your holiness 14 Return to me the joy of your salvation and sustain me with a willing spirit

‫לב טהור ברא־לי אלהים‬ ‫ורוח נכון חדש בקרבי‬ ‫אל־תשליכני מלפניך‬ ‫ורוח קדשך אל־תקח ממני‬ ‫השיבה לי ששון ישעך‬ ‫ורוח נדיבה תסמכני‬

Syntactically and semantically, verses 12-14 form a tightly knitted unity. The fronted positions of the direct object in the clauses 12a, 12b, (not in v. 13a because of the negation), 13b, and 14b, distinguish these clauses 17. See M.Z. BRETTLER, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOT.S, 76), Sheffield, JSOT, 1989. 18. The translation is based on the analysis of the elements presented in the next sections.

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

203

clearly from the preceding and following verses, which have the regular word order with a verb in front position. This topicalization draws attention to the fronted direct objects ‫ לב טהור‬and ‫רוח‬. The triple usage of the noun ‫ רוח‬in each of the three verses confirms their cohesion. Unique in Psalm 51 is the usage of the indirect object ‫“ לי‬to me” or “for me” in v. 12a and v. 14a, which marks the first person in its semantic role of locative or benefactive. In the other clauses of vv. 12-14, the first person is often collocated with a spatial preposition: “within me” (v. 12b), “me away from your face” (v. 13a), and “away from me” (v. 13b). The verbs also seem to entail a notion of spatiality, as the verbs “casting out”, “taking away”, “returning to”, and “upholding/sustaining” show. Based on these features, the cohesion of vv. 12-14 can be described as follows. Verses 12 and 14 constitute the frame marked by repetitive use of the indirect object ‫ לי‬in v. 12a and v. 14a. They explicitly address the speaking voice as “to me”. The clauses in vv. 12b and 14b regard the steadfastness or sustainability of the spirit “within me” or “upholding me” and elaborate on the addressed “me” position in v. 12a and v. 14a. Hence, the entire verses 12 and 14 profile “me” as an entity in itself. This stands in contrast to v. 13 which focuses on the relationship between “me” and “you”, while using the most urgent terms to express this relationship: “(do not cast) me out from your face/presence” and “(do not take) away from me the spirit of your holiness”. What is at stake here is the presence of “me” before God and the threat that God’s holiness will be removed from “me”. If that happens, no contact with the deity would be possible anymore. Thus v. 13 appears to be the heart of the unit vv. 12-14 and the crux of the entire Psalm, since it discloses what the ultimate threat of sin is: that the sinner will be cast out of the presence of God. 1. The “Spirit of God’s Holiness” in Ps 51,13 The almost unique word combination ‫( רוח קדשך‬it occurs only here and in Isa 63,10-11) means literally “the spirit of your holiness”, but is commonly translated with “your holy spirit”. An entire conceptual world resonates in the word ‫קדש‬, “holy”19. In it, God, peoples, animals, places, 19. The here presented study of ‫ קדש‬is based on: M. DOUGLAS, Purity and Danger, London, Routledge, 1966; E.L. GREENSTEIN, Biblical Law, in B.W. HOLTZ (ed.), Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1984 (reprinted in 1992), 91-103; T. FRYMER-KENSKY, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, New York, Free Press, 1992; J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3A), New York, Doubleday, 1991, pp. 704-736, 763-767, 986-1004; ID., Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3B), New York, Doubleday, 2000, pp. 1594-1725;

204

E. VAN WOLDE

and times are classified according to a category that is best typified in Lev 10,10: “You must distinguish between the sacred/holy (‫ )קדש‬and the profane/common (‫)חל‬, between the impure (‫ )טמא‬and pure (‫”)טהור‬. Milgrom analysed this compound category of [HOLY/COMMON] and [PURE/ IMPURE] and shows that persons and objects are subject to four possible states: holy, common, pure, and impure. What is holy must be kept separate from what is not – for the sake of both domains – and in order to approach the holy, human beings must keep themselves separate from what is impure. Whereas the concepts of ‫ קדש‬and ‫ טהור‬can be aligned, impurity is a state opposed and detrimental to the holiness or sacredness. This sacredness or holiness is closely related to YHWH: He is the source of holiness and holiness is the extension of his nature. The rare combination of ‫ רוח‬and ‫ קדשך‬in Ps 51,13b enables us to elaborate on this characteristic. The term ‫ רוח‬represents a spectrum of meanings ranging from wind and breath, to spirit and mind, and has as its basic meaning “movement of air”20. With regard to human beings the term is often used to indicate the driving force that acts in someone, while actions that lie beyond normal human nature are usually attributed to God and his ‫ רוח‬which then represents a presence or a moving force that drives someone to act in certain ways21. Therefore, the word combination ‫ רוח קדשך‬expresses God’s holiness as an active presence that pervades everything and as a life force that keeps everything going. Concepts and metaphor at the base of ‫ רוח קדשך‬in Ps 51,13 Concepts GOD IS THE SOURCE OF HOLINESS AND

Metaphor “THE SPIRIT OF YOUR HOLINESS” IS

HOLINESS IS THE EXTENSION OF

GOD’S HOLINESS AS AN ACTIVE AND

HIS NATURE

DRIVING PRESENCE

SPIRIT STANDS FOR ACTIVE PRESENCE

J. JOOSTEN, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (VT.S, 67), Leiden, Brill, 1996; J. NAUDÉ, ‫קדש‬, in NIDOTTE 3: 877-887; E.J. VAN WOLDE, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009, pp. 206-268. 20. M. DREYTZA, Der theologische Gebrauch von Ruah im Alten Testament: Eine wortund satz-semantische Studie (Monographien und Studienbücher, 358), Giessen – Basel, Brunnen 1990, 21992, p. 38; H. SCHLÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, Ruah bewegt die Welt: Gottes schöpferische Lebenskraft in der Krisenzeit des Exils (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 151), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992; A. KRÜGER, Das Lob des Schöpfers: Studien zu Sprache, Motivik und Theologie von Psalm 104 (WMANT, 124), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2010. 21. R.A. DI VITO, Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity, in CBQ 61 (1999) 217-238.

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

205

Because the spirit of God’s holiness is exclusively related to him, God can also take it away again. In v. 13, the speaker (identified in v. 1 as David) fears that due to his transgressions God will decide to stay no longer in midst of the Israelites. For the impurity generated by David, the king of Israel, will be projected onto the sanctuary, which in this way will be defiled. The final effect will be the withdrawal of divinity from his earthly dwelling, for his holiness cannot co-exist with impurity. Therefore, aligned with ‫ רוח קדשך‬in v. 13 is ‫ לב טהור‬in v. 12: purity is the sine qua non for God’s spirit to stay present and to keep active in the midst of the Israelites. The notion of purity in v. 12 is, therefore, crucial in this context. Its meaning and the unique combination of the terms “heart” and “purity” is the subject of the next sections. 2. Recent Studies of ‫לב‬/‫“ לבב‬Heart” in the Hebrew Bible In the classical twentieth-century approach, represented most prominently by Wolff and Fabry, scholars concentrated on the study of the separate anthropological words, such as ‫נפש‬, ‫בשר‬, ‫רוח‬, and ‫לב‬, to understand their meaning22. One of the conclusions of this research was that ‫לב‬/‫ לבב‬in the Hebrew Bible is not simply a bodily organ (in a physiological or metaphorical sense), but represents the centre of the human being: ‫ לב‬stands for the inner world in which all kind of thoughts, feelings, emotions, wishes, reflections are located. At the same time it was noticed that these faculties were not linked to the heart alone, but also to ‫נפש‬ “vital power”, ‫“ רוח‬breath”, ‫“ כבד‬liver”, and that often these notions are interchangeable23. This classical approach became criticised as “reduction of anthropology to semantics”, that is to say, as an approach in which one studied words as if their meaning coincides with conceptual 22. W.H. SCHMIDT, Anthropologische Begriffe im Alten Testament: Anmerkungen zum hebräischen Denken, in Evangelische Theologie 24 (1964) 374-388; H.W. WOLFF, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973, 72002; F. STOLZ, ‫לב‬, in THAT 1: 861-867; R. LAUHA, Psychophysischer Sprachgebrauch im Alten Testament: Eine struktur-semantische Analyse von “lev”, “nefesh” und “ruah” (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 35), Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1983; H.-J. FABRY, ‫לב‬, in TWAT 4: 413-451; S. SCHROER – T. STAUBLI, Die Körpersymbolik der Bibel, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 22005; T. KRÜGER, Das “Herz” in der alttestamentlichen Anthropologie, in A. WAGNER (ed.), Anthropologische Aufbrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur historischen Anthro pologie, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009, 103-118; B. JANOWSKI, Das Herz: Ein Beziehungsorgan. Zum Personverständnis des Alten Testaments, in ID. – C. SCHWÖBEL (eds.), Dimensionen der Leiblichkeit: Theologische Zugänge, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2015, 1-45. 23. WOLFF, Anthropologie (n. 22), p. 29; LAUHA, Psychophysischer Sprachgebrauch im Alten Testament (n. 22), p. 148; DREYTZA, Der theologische Gebrauch (n. 20), p. 148.

206

E. VAN WOLDE

meaning24. However, the conceptual meaning of words is intimately linked to the way the world is viewed and structured in a culture, to the way the human body is understood, and to views on the individual, the family, the society, the deity/deities and their relationships. New questions arose, such as: should not the study of ‫ לב‬be embedded in the wider discussion of the self and is it still true that the heart stands for the inner self? If one adheres to the view that ancient Israelites thought themselves in terms of collectivity and heteronomy and not in terms of individuality and autonomy25, does this affect their view of the heart? Two recent studies have dealt with these kinds of questions26. Jan Dietrich observes that in many texts in the Hebrew Bible ‫ לב‬often is combined with verbs of hearing, speaking, impression of the senses, and experiences, and that the heart is inspired by the outside world rather than by the inner world27. Another difference between the ancient and modern view of the heart becomes visible as well. Whereas in modern culture the “inner heart” is judged positively, in the Hebrew Bible the “inner heart” is evaluated negatively, while the heart that is guided by the world outside is judged good and social28. It appears that the term ‫ לב‬is used in such a way that it does not get a positive connotation when linked to the inner self, but is only evaluated positively when it relates the human being to the world outside oneself. This is why in wisdom and prophetic literature humans are called upon not to withdraw themselves into their inner world as behind walls, but to open their heart and to enter into contact with the world outside. In another recent study of ‫לב‬, David Lambert comes to similar conclusions, although he starts his analysis from a different perspective. He criticises “the broad scale translation of biblical words into the terms of 24. See, among others, J. BARR, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1961; A. WAGNER, Wider die Reduktion des Lebendigen: Über das Verhältnis der sog. anthropologischen Grundbegriffe und die Unmöglichkeit, mit ihnen die alttestamentliche Menschenvorstellung zu fassen, in ID. (ed.), Anthropologische Aufbrüche (n. 20), 183-201. 25. Hagedorn offers a survey of recent literature on group-embedded/group-oriented or collectivist views. See A.C. HAGEDORN, Between Moses and Plato: Individual and Society in Deuteronomy and Ancient Greek Law (FRLANT, 204), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. 26. J. DIETRICH, Individualität im Alten Testament, Alten Ägypten und Alten Orient, in A. BERLEJUNG – J. DIETRICH – J.F. QUACK (eds.), Menschenbilder und Korperkonzepte im Alten Israel, in Ägypten und im Alten Orient (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike, 9), Tübingen, Mohr-Siebeck, 2012, 77-96; D. LAMBERT, Refreshing Philology: James Barr, Supersessionism, and the State of Biblical Words, in BibInt 24 (2016) 332-356. 27. DIETRICH, Individualität (n. 26), p. 83. 28. Ibid., p. 84.

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

207

individual subjectivity”29, and wishes to look behind the modern idealist view of the subjective psyche. Inspired by Vološinov’s conceptualisation of the “subjective psyche” as a “borderline”, defining the encounter “between the organism and the outside world”, Lambert makes a renewed study of ‫לב‬, and presents a series of examples of ‫ לב‬that mark the boundaries of the self. In his more extensive analysis of Deut 6,5, he asks: “What does it mean that ‘You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might’ (Deut 6,5)?”. What is at stake in this passage clearly involves the performance of commandments. In fact, Deut 6,5 describes a YHWH loyalist as someone who is consistently present to YHWH and fully committed to the service of the deity. Lambert concludes that this verse may not describe the quality of an “inner life” at all, not something that exists inside or proceeds from an individual, but points to a social relationship, a proximity between two beings, an interrelation of borderlines. Based on his analysis of these and other texts, Lambert proposes to consider “heart” as “a rhetorical mode for describing a being in relation to outside forces”30. The recent expositions by Dietrich and Lambert account for aspects in the ancient conceptualisation of the heart that have been neglected for a long time. Influenced by modern idealist views and maybe also by Christian views of individual subjectivity, the heart was either seen as an organ or as a (metaphorical) state, but always limited to the inner life of an individual. Their studies demonstrate that the heart is closely related to the outside world, that it represents a contact point or borderline where the outside and the inside world meet31. The heart thus figures both as the access point of impressions and insights inspired by the outside world and as the point of departure of actions and speech32. This is visible, for example, in the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kgs 3,9 where the king petitions God to “give your servant a listening heart to judge your people, to distinguish between good and bad”, and in Ps 86,11 “let my heart be undivided to fear your name”. The aim of the improvement of the heart is to act as a 29. LAMBERT, Refreshing Philology (n. 26), p. 348. 30. Ibid., p. 346. 31. It is exemplified in Prov 23,33, “Your eyes will see strange sights; Your heart will speak distorted things”. 32. See DIETRICH, Individualität (n. 26), p. 87: “Vorherrschend ist allerdings nicht das Ideal, dass sich der Mensch in seine Innerlichkeit wie in einen Schutzwall zurückzieht, sondern vielmehr diejenige des immer schon auf die Außenwelt bezogenen ‘innengeleiteten Menschen’. Der hebräische Mensch als vornehmlich relationales Wesen soll sein Vernunft (‫ )לב‬nicht etwa dazu nutzen, um sich selbst allein zu sein (secum esse) und sich in einer Art Selbstgespräch (secum loqui) den Tiefen der eigenen Innerlichkeit zu widmen, sondern um von ihr ausgehend in der Welt entsprechende Worte und Taten folgen zu lassen”.

208

E. VAN WOLDE

better king or judge, or to pay complete attention to and fear God. Based on these studies, we can formulate the hypothesis that the heart is conceived as the physical organ in the chest that functions as the contact point between the outside and inside world, where experiences, emotions and thoughts amalgamate and spring into language and behaviour, into words and deeds. 3. The “Pure Heart” in Ps 51,12 Scholars such as Mary Douglas, Jacob Milgrom and Edward Greenstein (and many others) have shown that the conceptual link between God’s holiness and human purity is based on separation: pure entities must be kept apart from impure entities or an impure environment, and this may regard pure animals that have to be separated from impure animals, or pure Israelites that have to stay away from infectious and impure non-Israelites. All this is necessary because God’s holiness would be polluted by an impure environment. He can, therefore, not tolerate impure behaviour of any kind. This is also expressed in Ps 51,12-13. God’s holiness in v. 13 and the heart’s purity in v. 12 are closely linked to each other. The collocation ‫לב טהור‬ “a pure heart” designates the heart as the contact point with the outside world that is separated from or is kept apart from staining impurities, be they experiences, thoughts or deeds. It is not the purity of the heart itself, but the process of purification that is expressed here, as the verbal clause ‫ לב טהור ברא־לי‬shows. In this clause the verb ‫ ברא‬marks the act of separation or purification, so that “the ore remains” (as in metal refining), that is, the heart purified or cleared of sins33. In an earlier article on the verb ‫ברא‬, in which the pros and cons of the meaning “to create” or “to separate” were discussed, I expressed a preference for the latter meaning34. This view is confirmed by the present study of Ps 51,12, since it does not point to the creation of the heart, but to the purification of the heart. The beneficiary of this act of purification is “me”, the supplicant. He asks the deity to attribute to him a heart that 33. Because v. 12a is a verbal clause, in which the verb ‫ ברא‬expresses an action and the adjective ‫ טהור‬designates the state or quality of the heart, the translation “make/build/create a purified heart” has to be dismissed. The translation of ‫ טהור‬as “purified” would entail the action of purification. However, the adjective does not denote an action but quality of the heart. Only together, the verb ‫ ברא‬and the heart’s state as a “pure heart” express the action or temporal process of purification. 34. See E.J. VAN WOLDE, Separation and Creation in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104: A Continuation of the Discussion of the Verb ‫ברא‬, in VT 67 (2017) 611-647, also for an extensive bibliography.

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

209

is guided by the world outside yet set apart from previously accumulated impurities and sins. By placing the direct object in front position it receives full emphasis, not as the state of an individual subject, but as the relational state of proximity that allows the speaker (and the people whom he represents) to remain in the presence of God. Only then he (and they) can remain committed to the worship of the deity. The metonym and metaphor that are active in vv. 12-13 can be summarized as follows: Metonymy and metaphor of the (pure) heart in Ps 51,12-13 THE HEART IS THE CONTACT POINT

A PURE HEART IS THE CONTACT

WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD

POINT THAT IS KEPT APART FROM STAINING IMPURITIES

Furthermore, v. 12b speaks of a “steadfast spirit”. The adjective ‫ נכון‬is used in the Hebrew Bible to express the firmness of solid constructions, such as “the world” (‫ – תבל‬the earth as a material disk) and “YHWH’s throne”, “the mountain of YHWH’s house”, “the pillars of the temple”, and “the house” or “the throne” of the king35. In all these instances a material base structure is imagined as a firm and everlasting construction. This concrete meaning is then expanded metaphorically to describe the firmness of the heart, of knowledge and of words. On all these occasions it marks not the enduring state as such, but the quality or capacity of remaining firm. Therefore, by asking for a steadfast spirit the supplicant shows that he does not opt for a temporal change of mind, but for an enduring spirit that can uphold him against future attacks of impurities or sins. Thus v. 12b appears to be the logical consequence of v. 12a: once the heart has been purified, the supplicant needs a steadfast spirit, a force that will keep on driving and protecting him with firmness in future. The metaphors of the pure heart and the steadfast spirit are unique, apparently deliberately used to signal the reader to shift his or her attention from the regular ideas of purity in a cultic context and transfer them to the cognitive domain of the heart. As the contact point with the outside world, the heart may be infected by impurity, which would prohibit contact with the deity. Once infected, it has to be cleaned and cleared.

35. The dictionaries (BDB, DCH, NIDOTTE) describe the term ‫ נדיב‬as an inner motivation of persons, the attitude of freewill, willingness or generosity that moves a person to act. In the light of the recent theories and studies of the self a further analysis of this notion is needed.

210

E. VAN WOLDE

VI. PSALM 51 AND THE METAPHORICAL CLUSTER OF DESTRUCTION AND (RE)CONSTRUCTION In the final section of the psalm, yet another layer of metaphors is building up on the metaphors presented in vv. 12-14. Verses 18-21 construe a new metaphorical layer, fully employing the possibilities of vv. 12-14 and creating a unique network of interrelated metaphors. In v. 19, the words ‫ רוח‬and ‫ לב‬point back to the pure heart and steadfast spirit in vv. 12-14. In v. 19 they are said to be broken and crushed, ‫רוח‬ ‫ נשברה‬and ‫לב־נשבר ונדכה‬. In the metaphorical image of v. 19b the heart is materialised: it is imagined as the material access point and departure point broken down or crushed under extreme pressure. In these circumstances the heart cannot function anymore as a meeting point between the outside world and inside world. Nevertheless, v. 19b states that the deity ‫לא תבזה‬ “will not despise” the broken and crushed heart. Usually when something is destroyed or broken, you throw it away, because it is of no more use. The idea expressed here, is the opposite: although the heart and mind are “crushed”, God will not reject them. He will repair and reconstruct them. In the light of this metaphor, “the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem” in v. 20b makes sense. It forms another element in the metaphorical cluster of destruction/reconstruction. Metaphorical cluster of destruction and (re)construction in Ps 51,19-20 SPIRIT AND HEART ARE MATERIAL OBJECTS A SINFUL HEART IS A DESTRUCTED HEART

FORGIVENESS IS RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY WALLS

a broken spirit ‫( רוח נשברה‬v. 19a) and broken and destructed heart ‫( לב־נשבר ונדכה‬v. 19b) you will build the walls of Jerusalem ‫( תבנה חומות ירושלם‬v. 20b)

Thus everything falls into place: the metaphor in which the effect of sin is described in terms of states of destruction and brokenness and the metaphor in which the effect of forgiveness is described in terms of reconstruction and rebuilding built into one coherent metaphorical pattern. The building of the walls of Jerusalem has surprised many commentators on Psalm 5136. Yet, it can be understood as an element of a larger 36. See E. HAAG, Psalm 51, in Trierer Theologische Zeitung 96 (1987) 169-198; R. MOSIS, Die Mauern Jerusalems: Beobachtungen zu Ps 51,20f, in J. HAUSMANN – H.-J. ZOBEL (eds.), Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1992, 201-215. D.J. HUMAN, God Accepts a Broken Spirit and a Contrite Heart: Thoughts on Penitence,

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

211

metaphorical cluster. The renewal of the steadfast and solid spirit (‫רוח נכון‬ in v. 12a) and the upholding of the willing spirit (‫ ורוח נדיבה תסמכני‬in v. 14b) to provide the supplicant with support and strength, are metaphorically represented by the (re)building of the walls of Jerusalem: both walls and spirit will protect the city and the altar against dangers coming from the outside world. Because of the conceptual link of the steadfast spirit with the city walls, it is plausible that the heart as the materialised point of access and departure to the city metaphorically represents the city gate. If so, then the following metaphors are active on the background of Ps 51,12-21: Metaphors of the heart and spirit in Ps 51,12-21 THE HEART

THE STEADFAST AND SUSTAINED SPIRIT

IS THE CITY GATE

IS THE CITY WALL

Depending on the time in which the Psalm is written or edited and depending on the time frame in which the Psalm is set a mental image is formed of the city walls and the city gate. When set or understood to figure in pre-exilic times, the walls are impressive architectural structures and the gate a complex gate structure. In that case, the city gate could have an administrative function and conceptually be related to the power of the king (see king David and king Solomon who take their seat in the city gate to judge). When set or understood to figure in post-exilic times, the walls of Jerusalem are impressive building structures and the gate remains the point of access point and departure of the city, but it could not have an administrative function. Consequently, if Psalm 51 is rooted in pre-exilic times, the city gate can be active as a metonym of the administrative or royal power: THE CITY GATE IS ADMINISTRATION. In contrast, if Psalm 51 is rooted in post-exilic times, the city gate mainly constitutes the borderline between the inside and outside world and can only figure as a metonym of the contact point with the outside world: THE CITY GATE IS THE CONTACT POINT. Along the same line of reasoning, Psalm 51 may develop its own metaphors of the city wall and city gate, viz. THE STEADFAST AND A WILLING SPIRIT IS THE CITY WALL and THE HEART IS THE CITY GATE, to define more clearly what is at stake here. To explain that the heart has to be purified and set apart again as a pure entity over and against the impure and defiling Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Psalm 51, in Verbum et Ecclesia 26 (2005) 114-132; PFEIFFER, “Ein reines Herz schaffe mir, Gott!” (n. 12); HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalmen 51– 100 (n. 12). L. DI FRANSICO, Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusion through Metaphor: Washing Away Sin in Psalm 51, in VT 65 (2015) 542-557.

212

E. VAN WOLDE

elements, the metaphor of the heart as city gate elucidates its vulnerability: as an entrance structure of objective and intruding forces the heart is, like the city gate, always in danger of being infected by impurities from the outside world. It has, therefore, to be kept apart, in order to defend itself. Only when this is achieved and the spirit is renewed and reinforced again, can the Jerusalemites once more use the altar and enter into contact with YHWH. In short: Metaphorical cluster of the heart and spirit in Psalm 51 Metonyms

Metaphors

THE CITY GATE

THE HEART

IS THE CONTACT POINT

IS THE CITY GATE

THE HEART

A PURE HEART

IS THE CONTACT POINT

IS THE CONTACT POINT KEPT APART FROM STAINING IMPURITIES THE STEADFAST AND WILLING SPIRIT IS THE CITY WALL FORGIVENESS IS RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY WALL

VII. CONCLUSION The here presented study of four metaphorical clusters in Psalm 51 allows us to discuss the different types of metaphors and their distinct communicative functions. The first metaphorical cluster of sin and repair of sin reflects a family of interrelated ideas expressed in conventional conceptual metaphors: SIN IS AN ACCOUNT / RESTORATION IS BLOTTING OUT THE ACCOUNT; SIN IS A STAIN / RESTORATION IS WASHING AWAY THE STAIN and SIN IS AN IMPURITY / RESTORATION IS PURIFICATION. The second metaphorical cluster of polity assumed in the entire psalm (and in the Hebrew Bible) is based on fixed conventional metaphors, namely GOD IS JUDGE and GOD IS KING. The third cluster of holiness and purity, on the other hand, is more original and is based on two metaphors: THE SPIRIT OF HOLINESS IS GOD’S HOLINESS AS AN ACTIVE AND DRIVING PRESENCE, and A PURE HEART IS THE CONTACT POINT THAT IS KEPT APART FROM STAINING IMPURITIES. The fourth metaphorical cluster of destruction and construction is, in combination with the third cluster, the most innovative. The unique metaphors THE HEART IS THE CITY GATE and A

METAPHORS AND THEIR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN PSALM 51

213

PURE HEART IS THE CONTACT POINT KEPT APART FROM STAINING IMPURITIES,

on the one hand, and THE STEADFAST AND WILLING SPIRIT IS THE CITY WALL and FORGIVENESS IS RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY WALL, on the other hand, form the final metaphorical cluster of deliberately used metaphors. These perspective changing metaphors are not immediately distinguishable as similes or easy comparisons (“a=b”), but proceed from and build progressively on the previously introduced conceptual metaphors. In fact, these deliberate metaphors open our eyes for new dimensions, never imagined before. Instead of the sequential mode of thinking assumed when one understands metaphors as the results of linguistic and conceptual processing only, the layer-upon-layer processing of metaphors in literary texts and rhetorical discourses assume that metaphors are not linearly or sequentially ordered, but accessed like fractals. In communication, senders and recipients (or writers/editors and readers) start to reason and interact from the most obvious to the more rarely and unique conceptual relations. With regard to figurative language, they progress from linguistically fixed to conventionally entrenched conceptual metaphors. From there, discourse users zoom in on certain aspects, in a way that is very similar to fractal structures37. Less conventional metaphors and highly innovative metaphors shift the reader’s perspective from the general picture into a new image. In Psalm 51, this innovation is achieved in the last layer of metaphors in the text, where the perspective shifts from the heart of the individual sinner to the city gate and walls of Jerusalem. This social-relational dimension of the repair of sin is one of the important eye-openers of this text. The need felt by some modern biblical scholars to skip the last lines of Psalm 51 can thus be warded off. They can, at least in the psalm’s present form, be explained satisfactorily as the top layer of an edifice of figurative and non-figurative images, in which individual and community interact continuously. While conventional metaphors set the readers on the track of figurative reasoning, deliberate metaphors open people’s eyes for new dimensions in the world of the text. Radboud University P.O. Box 9103 NL-6500 HD Nijmegen The Netherlands [email protected]

Ellen

VAN

WOLDE

37. See E. VAN WOLDE, The Limits of Linearity, in Bijdragen 62 (2001) 371-392; ID., Chance in the Hebrew Bible: Views in Job and Genesis, in K. LANDSMAN – E. VAN WOLDE, The Challenge of Chance: A Multidisciplinary Approach from Science and the Humanities. Springer Open 2016, 131-150 (Open Access). Available on: radboud.academia.edu/ ellenvanwolde.

METAPHORS OF SPACE AND TIME IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

At the end of the third book of psalms (Psalms 73–89), Psalm 89 laments the loss of the Davidic kingdom and with it a stable political and religious frame. Consequently, the fourth book starts with the question of gaining stability. Looking for an answer, the psalms focus on God as an assurance of their hope when they try to (re)establish the concept of earthly and human stability1. In this process, metaphors of space and time play an important role. They are used to confirm well-known concepts of stability but they also introduce new perspectives. The network of spatial and chronological metaphors in the fourth book of psalms (Psalms 90–106) offers insights into concepts of stability and reveals, how the psalms envision continuity and stability, despite all experiences of unpredictability and human fragility.

I. SPATIAL CONCEPTS OF STABILITY When the psalms envision the world, they construct a spatial concept by reflecting their experience of physical, social and religious space. The construction of space thus mirrors the hopes and fears of the lyrical speakers, it is part of their retrospection and it is also a sphere where new imaginations, hopes, and dreams are shaped, which may even rearrange the world2. The psalms show that spatial concepts are not static; rather, the construction of space is a process. When the lyrical speaker envisions the ongoing creation of space, he/she artfully arranges selected spatial elements to an overall picture. Furthermore, space is also presented as a synthesis, an insight into given constellations and their evaluation in relation to an idealised spatial concept. Such an insight is based on a selective perception focusing on specific spatial elements while ignoring others. Hence, synthesis like spacing is a creative activity producing new patterns 1. D. TUCKER, The Ordered World of Psalm 92, in OTE 32 (2019) 358-377. 2. The idea that space is a social construction has been emphasised by works of the so-called “critical spatiality”. E.g., H. LEFEBVRE, The Production of Space, Oxford, Blackwell, 1991; E. SOJA, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places, Malden, MA, Blackwell, 92007.

216

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

of spatial orientation3. In this way, synthesis proves to be an important aspect affirming and encouraging actions of spacing. It also provides the basis for creating a “Thirdspace”, a space of resistance and the possibility to engage in divergent ways of spacing4. In the metaphorical images of Psalms 90–106, two different spatial aspects are frequently mentioned. On a cosmic level, they highlight the synthesis that the world is firmly established and will not be shaken. Stability is presented as a well-ordered space, which God establishes, provides and maintains. On a personal level, spatial stability focusses on the vision of save and stable places for the people (“Thirdspace”). In metaphorical expressions, God is experienced as such a stable space people may come to and find refuge. However, neither the stability of the world nor the stability of human life is taken for granted or widely experienced; thus it remains a desirable good. Looking for stability in a volatile world, the psalms form a network of metaphors connecting different point of views and thus allowing the readers to envision the divine space as an antitype to human space, but nonetheless, as a “Thirdspace” they are looking for. 1. “Majestic Is YHWH on High”: God’s Own Space Descriptions of God’s own space in Psalms 90–106 use different metaphors. One of the most prominent images is God’s space in the height (Ps 92,9; 93,4; 102,20; 104,3). This image envisions God’s position in opposition to humans or any other forces. The height emphasises YHWH’s sublime position, enabling him to overlook the world, dominate it and guarantee its stability5. In this way, the metaphorical image of God in the height offers an orientation, summarising the divine superiority with the spatial metaphor UP IS GOOD/SUPERIOR6. As each psalm uses the metaphorical 3. According to the theoretical approach of Martina Löw, spaces are created by “spacing”, arranging social goods and people, and “synthesis”, the combination of different elements through perception. Spatial actions and spatial structures are mutually dependent; thus, creating and perceiving space is inextricably linked. See M. LÖW, Einführung in die Stadt- und Raumsoziologie, Opladen, Budrich, 22008, pp. 63-65. 4. Soja calls such a concept “thirdspace”. This space “is an act of resistance, a way of using space that points out its constructed nature […]. Thirdspace always presents possibilities for resistance, for popular activity that redefines the realities of space”. J. BERQUIST, Introduction: Critical Spatiality and the Uses of Theory, in C.V. CAMP – J.L. BERQUIST (eds.), Constructions of Space I: Theory, Geography, and Narrative (LHB/OTS, 481), London, T&T Clark, 2007, 1-12, p. 5. 5. F. HARTENSTEIN, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (WMANT, 75), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1997, p. 47. 6. G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980, pp. 14-17.

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

217

image in a slightly different way, the repeated usage not only highlights this spatial metaphor but it also creates a network of related images. Ps 93,4 uses this metaphor in the most general way by presenting God as being superior to all majestic forces: “Majestic is YHWH on high”. The powerful image of the mighty waters, with its splendid and threatening aspects, is surpassed by YHWH’s majesty7. While Psalm 93 emphasises God’s superiority in general, Ps 92,9 contrasts God’s chronological and spatial stability with the volatile success of the wicked and evildoers, who sprout like grass (v. 8). Although they quickly thrive and successfully cover the space, their obvious prosperity is doomed to end. Their spatial success thus is put into perspective by their limited time. In sharp contrast to their fate, v. 9 points out God’s spatial and chronological superiority: “But you (are) on high (‫ )מרום‬forever (‫”)עולם‬. From the lyrical speaker’s point of view, stability can only be found with YHWH. Ps 102,20 also uses the metaphor UP IS SUPERIOR in the context of a threatening situation, but it goes beyond a general comparison of the enemies and God, envisioning a divine intervention. “For YHWH looked down from the height of his holiness / from heaven he looked upon the earth”. In the context of Psalm 102, the image of God in the height points out God’s distance from the earth to emphasise the divine overview of the earth, which in turn leads to the vision that God is able to intervene from above, that is outside the spatial range of human activities. God’s course of action thus clearly differs from human possibilities and surpasses them. The divine space on high places God in a position beyond human reach, it is God’s exclusive space, and simultaneously, it endows him with the unlimited use of the vertical dimension. The metaphorical image of God’s space in the height thus emphasises God’s independence from any human and earthly constraints. In this way, the image of God’s own, exclusive space lays the foundation for the confidence, that God is able to organise earthly space and to provide a stable environment for humans8. 7. Ps 93,4 highlights in a climactic stair like parallelism God’s superiority. First, the waters’ voices and their majesty are pointed out in form of a comparison, without mentioning whom or what they are compared with. Hence, the sole emphasis lies on the mighty waters, before the third line mentions God as superior force putting a special emphasis on YHWH as the final element of the verse. See S.A. GELLER, Myth and Syntax in Psalm 93, in N.S. FOX – D.A. GLATT-GILAD – M.J. WILLIAMS (eds.), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009, 321-331, pp. 326-327. 8. Another metaphor used to highlight the stability of God’s space is the image of the divine thrones. In the context of the metaphor “God is king” the throne represents God’s reign (Ps 93,2), and its stability indicates the permanence of God’s kingly rule.

218

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

2. “He Established the Earth on Its Foundations”: God as a Master Builder In the textual world of the fourth book of psalms, the master builder of the human world is God. The firm resolution, that his divine power determines the existence of the world and the stability of its inhabitants, is frequently emphasised and joyfully proclaimed (e.g., Ps 93,1; 96,10). So, for example, the metaphorical image used in Ps 104,5 envisions God acting like a builder, who lays the foundation (‫ )יסד‬of the earth or, according to Ps 102,26, makes the heavens with his hands9. A similar image is also applied to God (re)building (‫ )בנה‬Zion (Ps 102,17). When the activity of a builder is applied to God, unlimited divine possibilities blend with the craftsmanship of a master builder, enhancing the imagined builder’s competence and reliability. Hence, the confidence in the building and its stability is likewise increased. Furthermore, the image of God as a master builder is closely connected to the metaphor GOD IS KING. Within this image, the task of a master builder is just one of numerous royal functions10. When Psalm 93 and the following Psalms 95–99 unfold this metaphor further, it becomes clear, that one major function of the divine king is to guarantee the world’s stability. Repeatedly, these psalms express the confidence, that the world will stand firm (‫)כון‬11 and will not be shaken (‫)מוט‬12. With this statement, the psalms reveal a fundamental hope for the entire, inhabited world (‫)תבל‬. In the realm of the speaker of these psalms, God’s kingdom manifests itself in the stability of the earth13. The close links between the images of God’s own space, his spacebuilding activities and royal reign establish a metaphorical network presenting and explaining God’s superiority and unlimited ability to act. 3. “You Are My Dwelling Place”: God as a Stable Space for the People More than in God’s own space, however, the psalms are interested in images of a stable space for humans. Several metaphors envision God as a secure place for the people, blending images of natural and man-made 9. See also Isa 48,13; 51,13.16; Ps 8,4. 10. With this metaphor, the image of the stability God may provide is widened. The king is not only responsible for spatial stability, but also for the stability of society, the implementation of justice and righteousness, as well as for protection from hostile forces. 11. E.g., Ps 90,17; 93,1.2; 96,10; 99,4; 101,7; 102,29; 103,19. 12. E.g., Ps 93,1; 96,10; 104,5. 13. See M. LEUENBERGER, Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 83), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2004, p. 142.

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

219

structures, which provide stability, with God. These metaphors are quite prominent in the Psalms 90–104, offering varied, yet networked images of such a divine space. Already Psalm 90, the first psalm in the fourth book of psalms, puts an explicit emphasise on the concept of stability. Ps 90,1 opens with a metaphor of spatial stability: “Lord, you have been a residence (‫ )מעון‬for us”. The term ‫ מעון‬describes a dwelling place, it is frequently used in connection with wild animals14, but it also may designate a human habitat (2 Chr 36,15) or even refer to YHWH’s dwelling place15. If ‫ מעון‬is used in a metaphor, it adds the basic image of a dwelling place as a (permanent) place of residence or retreat. But it might also bring in further information, depending on whose dwelling place it is. From a human perspective, animal dwellings may become a menace if they threaten to replace a human settlement (Jer 9,10; 10,22; 49,33; 51,37); while God’s dwelling place, on the other hand, appears as a highly desirable place (e.g., Deut 33,27; Ps 71,3). In contrast to a human habitat, which is always volatile, God’s dwelling place is imagined as an epitome of security where people might find refuge. In this line of thought, the longing for a safe habitation is expressed with the metaphor GOD IS A DWELLING PLACE. The lyrical speaker’s hope of experiencing God as space exceeds the reality of an earthly space by blending it with a spiritual experience, a religious encounter. Therewith the psalm creates a new, a “Thirdspace”, where the yearning for stability might be fulfilled. Despite the risks and shortcomings of an earthly and human space, the security people may find in God, opens such an alternative space. The image of God guaranteeing stability and safety against all threats is the central metaphor in Psalm 9116, where it is presented in several variations and from the perspective of different speakers. Together they form a metaphorical network offering a reliable and safe space. First, a heterodiegetic speaker opens the psalm with two statements introducing the main image: “Dwelling in the hiding place (‫ )סתר‬of the Most High, he will pass the night in the shadow (‫ )צל‬of the Almighty” (v. 1). While the verbs used, suggest that somebody is living with God17 (like 14. E.g., Amos 3,4; Nah 2,12; Ps 104,22; Job 37,8; Song 4,8. 15. E.g., Deut 26,15; 1 Sam 2,29.32; Jer 25,30; Zech 2,17; Ps 26,8; 68,6; 2 Chr 30,27; 36,15. 16. Like Psalm 90, this psalm starts (vv. 1-2) with the metaphorical reassurance that God is a safe and stable place. 17. Ps 91,1 uses the terms ‫ עליון‬and ‫ שדי‬in a parallelism, thus putting Elyon’s hiding place and Šadday’s shadow on the same level. These aspects accumulate, and, as Hunziker points out, are subsumed under the image of Adonay (v. 2). See R. HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, Bild und Wort im Gespräch mit Gott: Gedanken zur Kommunikationspragmatik in Psalm 91, in W. GRÄB – J. COTTIN (eds.), Imaginationen der inneren Welt: Theologische, psychologische

220

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

a guest)18, the specified places suggest a divine hiding place, where someone may not only stay undiscovered but where he/she is hidden and thus protected by God19. These metaphors are then continued, calling God refuge (‫מחסה‬, vv. 2 and 9), fortress (‫מצודה‬, v. 2), and dwelling (‫מעון‬, v. 9). The variety of different metaphorical expressions highlights several aspects of the hoped for stable space: it offers refuge, it is a hiding place or a place difficult to access, so dangerous forces and enemies cannot reach it. Such a separate place is an ideal dwelling place. Furthermore, the metaphorical images hint that God’s space is accessible only to the lyrical speaker and people like him. A second, anonymous speaker joins the first speaker in v. 3, encouraging and confirming the first speaker’s hope in God by unfolding the divine actions of protection and rescue. Therein, the metaphor of God’s wings20 (v. 4) complements the cluster of spatial images of stability. In contrast to the other metaphorical spaces, this image emphasises the aspect of active protection that may be experienced in the close proximity to God. The metaphorical variation highlights the confidence that God will offer protection and stability21. Twice (vv. 1-2 and 9), these metaphorical images of God as a stable place, offering shelter, function as a summary, that is followed by examples of threatening situations God will rescue from. The security of the divine space forms a sharp contrast to the dangers and the instability experienced. Psalm 91 claims that it is possible to remain in God’s space and thus to elude the dangers. The images create and unfold an extensive and detailed alternative space (“Thirdspace”), offering the experience of stability and security22. The metaphors of God as a stable space are repeated in the following psalms, although not with the same intensity. Ps 92,16 picks up this basic image with the metaphor GOD IS MY ROCK (‫)צור‬, thus recalling the elaborate images of Psalm 91 and highlighting the stability God offers23. In addition und ästhetische Reflexionen zur spirituellen Dimension der Kunst (Religion – Ästhetik – Medien, 3), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2012, 123-140, pp. 127-128. 18. F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100 (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2000, p. 621. 19. The protective shade is metaphorically ascribed to the king (e.g., Judg 9,15; Lam 4,20) and God (Isa 49,2; 51,16; Hos 14,8-9). See M.E. TATE, Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1990, p. 104. 20. See O. KEEL, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der Psalmen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, pp. 170172. 21. This line of thought is also complemented by the metaphors of God as shield and buckler (v. 4); or God (re)arranging the spatial order in favour of the one who needs help (vv. 12-13; see Ps 106,9). 22. Unlike Psalm 104, that offers a well-ordered concept of the world, Psalm 91 presents a space which can only be experienced in hopeful confidence. 23. This frequently used metaphor occurs three times in the fourth book of psalms (Ps 92,16; 94,22; 95,1).

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

221

to the metaphors used in Psalms 90 and 91, a rock evokes images of a stable, natural formation that does not need construction measures. In Ps 92,16, the metaphor is part of the final summary, envisioning the joyful fate of the righteous. The foundation of their success lies in their proclamation of God’s stability, of God as their experienced alternative space. In a similar way, Ps 94,22 uses the metaphor GOD IS MY ROCK to express a hope despite all perils and enemies. The past experience of God as a stronghold, confirms the lyrical speaker in his/her confidence that the construction of God as a “Thirdspace” still holds strong. In v. 22 the metaphor of God is specified as “rock of my (secure) height/retreat” and, furthermore, it is complemented by another metaphor, i.e., GOD IS A SECURE HEIGHT/FORTRESS/STRONGHOLD (‫)משגב‬. The underlying image is the security of a height, an unreachable place24. In this way, the basic image is specified, emphasising the stronghold as a place up high, offering refuge in times of a crisis25. It is a space outside the realm of danger. Psalm 95 immediately continues the image of Psalm 94 as it addresses a joyful praise to YHWH, who is metaphorically called “rock of our salvation (‫”)ישע‬. The specification “our salvation” blends a stationary and a dynamic image, whereby the stability and permanence of the rock is transferred to the event of the salvation. In this way, salvation becomes accessible, it may be climbed like a rock. Salvation is not imagined as a one-time event, but an ongoing, permanently available space. The metaphor thus refers to an already existing and ongoing relation between God and the people. In the song, this psalm invites his audience to join in; this “Thirdspace” is remembered, experienced and proclaimed. Another metaphor in Ps 95,7 further supplements the network of images of God as a stable place for his people. Here, the well-known images of “being God’s people” or being “a flock of God’s pasture” (e.g., Ps 74,1; 79,13; 103,3) seem to be mixed: “Yes, he is our God, and we are people of his pasture/and sheep of his hand”26. With this modification a special emphasis is put on the space, presenting the relation between the people and YHWH as a spatial connection. The parallel spatial elements, God’s pasture and his hand, blend divine space and power and thus evoke the image of God as a nourishing and unassailable space27. Unlike the metaphors of God as a 24. Here, the metaphoric spatial orientation UP IS GOOD/SECURE is used again. 25. The verb ‫ שגב‬means to be strong (qal), or to be exalted (niphal), to lift high, to protect (piel). From the 17 occurrences of the noun ‫ משגב‬most appear in the metaphorical language of prayers. Isa 25,12; 33,16, and Jer 48,1 are the only occurrences outside a psalm prayer. 26. Watson calls it a “metathetic parallelism”. W. WATSON, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (JSOT.S, 170), Sheffield, JSOT, 1994, p. 254. 27. The image of God’ hand is often used to point out divine power and agency. The use of a genitive relation (sheep of his hand) indicates, that the sheep belong to God’s hand, they thus are God’s property and responsibility.

222

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

safe place, people can choose to live in, or were they may take refuge, these images highlight the people’s belonging to the divine space; it is their native space. 4. “Sprouting Like a Palm-Tree”: Stability in Plant Images A safe and stable space does not only offer refuge or a safe place to live, it also provides new possibilities for the people. There they may prosper and unfold the full potential of their lives. To imagine this hopedfor possibility, Psalm 92 compares these people to well-known trees. Although plant images are frequently used to express instability and transience, comparing human life to the short cycle of growing and withering of grass and small greenery28, long living trees, however, offer images of duration and stability (see Ps 1,3). In Ps 92,13-15 the image of a long and fruitful life is described in two comparisons and two (verbal) metaphors. The parallel descriptions present images for vivacious sprouting and stability, provided that a special place is available. First, v. 13 depicts a process of sprouting and growing29: “The righteous sprout (‫ )פרח‬like a palm-tree, they grow/thrive (‫ )שגה‬like a cedar in Lebanon”. The images already evoked by the verbs are enhanced by the comparisons with the trees mentioned, the palm-tree and the cedar. Besides being tall, even majestic trees30 and in high demand for their fruit or timber, these trees have one more thing in common: they only grow in a specific environment. While the palm-tree, in particular the date-palm, needs an ample supply of (ground)water31, the cedar only grows and multiplies in the cooler climate of the mountains32. In this way, not only the trees themselves, but also the specific conditions of the place, where they 28. See C. STICHER, “Die Gottlosen Gedeihen wie Gras”: Zu einigen Pflanzenmetaphern in den Psalmen. Eine kanonische Lektüre, in P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (BETL, 231), Leuven, Peeters, 2010, 251-268. 29. The verb ‫ פרח‬denotes the act of a plant’s sprouting, flourishing or springing up. Such a description is sometimes used in a non-figurative way (e.g., Gen 40,10; Ezek 17,24; Hos 10,4; Song 6,11; 7,12), or it might be interpreted as sign (e.g., Num 17,20.23; Ezek 7,10), but more frequently it is used figuratively, emphasising an (unexpected) break through. In a positive sense this can be a hopeful vision of new vitality, or, in a negative sense, it may point to an unexpected and unwanted appearance of something (e.g., a disease; see Exod 9,9; Lev 13,12.20.25; 13,42). The verbs ‫( שגה‬Ps 73,12; 92,13; Job 8,7.11) and ‫( נוב‬Zech 9,17; Ps 62,11; 92,15; Prov 10,31) focus on thriving and prospering. 30. The metaphor UP IS GOOD is used for God in v. 9, he is located in a high place, and in v. 13 the height is used as an image for the righteous. See G. VAN EK, Tijd en Ruimte: Een studie over Psalm 92, Zoetermeer, Meinema, 2002, p. 107. 31. Therefore, the palm tree is linked to water sources and oases, e.g., Elim (Num 33,9) and Jericho (Deut 34,3; Judg 1,16; 3,13). See TATE, Psalms 51–100 (n. 19), p. 467. 32. Especially the seeds of the cedar need a cold period to shoot.

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

223

might flourish, is highlighted. The next verses replicate the process of growing; first, v. 14 repeats the verb ‫פרח‬, and v. 15 carries on with another verb of thriving and prospering (‫)נוב‬: “Planted in the house of YHWH they sprout (‫ )פרח‬in the courts of YHWH, they still prosper (‫ )נוב‬in old age, they are fat and green”. This parallel statement also emphasises a special place, now identifying it with the house of YHWH and its courts33. The divine space offers ideal conditions to blossom and grow34. Furthermore, v. 15 also highlights the chronological aspect already inherent in the image of the cedar. Like a cedar may flourish for centuries on the Lebanon, old age and high vitality match in the metaphorical space of YHWH. Again, stability is rooted in a space ascribed to God35. Here, it is not only a place of stability and safety but also a place for development, growth and permanence36. In this way, the envisioned divine space provides stability enabling people to fully develop their potential37. 5. “You Have Raised My Horn”: Strengthening the Praying Person The metaphors so far mainly described the divine space and the possibilities that arise from this for the people. The main actor thus is YHWH, providing spatial stability of the world and offering stable places as refuge, nonetheless, humans also take part in the organisation of their space. From the perspective of the psalms, the wicked and evil doers are frequently portrayed to claim (all) the space, while the righteous may not be able to 33. The hope to reside in the temple, in God’s proximity, is also emphasised in Psalm 23. See M.Z. BRETTLER, Those Who Pray Together Stay Together: The Role of Late Psalms in Creating Identity, in M.S. PAJUNEN – J. PENNER (eds.), Functions of Psalms and Prayers in the Late Second Temple Period (BZAW, 486), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2017, 277-304, p. 297. 34. Trees planted in temple gardens are well-known throughout the Ancient Near East. They may symbolise divine blessings or allude to God’s garden. See KEEL, Die Welt der altorientalische Bildsymbolik (n. 20), p. 118; TATE, Psalms 51–100 (n. 19), p. 468. 35. Here, the connection to the temple, that is implicitly present in many metaphors imagining God as a secure space of refuge, is made explicit. The image of the temple as “a place in which God hides and protects the speaker” and the spatial image of God merge. See S.E. HOLTZ, God as Refuge and Temple as Refuge in the Psalms, in S. FINE (ed.), The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah (The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 29), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 17-26, p. 22. See also W.P. BROWN, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor, Louisville, KY – London, Westminster John Knox, 2002, pp. 22-27. 36. This spatial aspect is also a main contrast to plant metaphors of transience, where this special place is usually missing. In Ps 92,7, for example, the wicked are not assigned to a space and their fate lacks stability, although they also sprout (‫ )פרח‬and blossom (‫)צוץ‬. See Ps 90,5-6; 102,5-6; 103,15-16. 37. Brettler points out, that such images help to “form and reinforce the identity of a temple-centric group”. See BRETTLER, Those Who Pray (n. 33), p. 297.

224

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

find or keep a space for themselves38. In such a situation God is presented as the one who empowers the righteous to protect and keep their own space. The metaphor “You have raised my horn” (Ps 92,11) uses the image of a victorious animal, which after it defeated its opponent, raises his head – and hence his horns – in triumph. The space the lyrical speaker is able to defend establishes his/her position39. In retrospective, the psalm describes this experience as a divine intervention strengthening the lyrical speaker to successfully act on his/her own40. Only in this psalm, the metaphorical image of raising one’s horn is further specified. The comparison of the (new) horn with that of a wild ox, adds the strength of one of the most powerful animals to this image41. This psalm thus proclaims that there is no doubt on the outcome of a struggle, if God supports the praying person. Then he/she will be able to defend the own position, holding his/ her head high. Seen in the context of the metaphorical network of the safe and stable space God provides, the last two metaphors expanded the network by the aspect of an empowered human agency. Nonetheless, these aspects are firmly linked with the other metaphors by causal connections – growth is only possible in a safe divine space, and human power depends on divine strengthening – and also by the repetition of the orientational metaphor UP IS GOOD. With God’s help, the people are able to experience a “high place”, in the image of a tall tree, or a horn held high. II. CHRONOLOGICAL CONCEPTS OF STABILITY The aspect of spatial stability is complemented by images of chronological stability. The human experience of a limited time span and, maybe even more challenging, the experience of the impermanence of all their 38. Although most of the time, the focus lies on the threatened space of the righteous, Psalm 101 elaborates on what it looks like, if the righteous constructs his/her own space. Here, the lyrical speaker takes over the spacing, offering stability and refuge to the righteous (v. 6), but turning away the deceitful (v. 7). 39. P. RIEDE, “Doch du erhöhtest wie einem Wildstier mein Horn”: Zur Metaphorik in Ps 92,11, in VAN HECKE – LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (n. 28), 209-216, pp. 210-211. 40. The metaphorical image of “raising a horn” is frequently used as a hopeful or joyful expression of God’s support for the king, the people or an individual (e.g., 1 Sam 2,1.10; Ps 89,18.25; 92,11; 112,9; 148,14; 1 Chr 25,5). It can also be used as a warning (Ps 75,5.6), or a proclamation of misery, when God raises the horn of the enemies (Lam 2,17). 41. This image is also used to emphasise the strength of the enemies (e.g., Ps 22,22), or divine power (e.g., Num 23,22; 24,8; Job 39,9-12). See RIEDE, “Doch du erhöhtest wie einem Wildstier mein Horn” (n. 39), pp. 213-214.

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

225

efforts and achievements, encourages the psalms to search for a concept of time, which is able to offer stability. Again, the psalms compare divine and human concepts. While God’s existence is unlimited, he is able to act outside a human time frame and he also has a perfect chronological overview, human life is limited, as is their perspective. Thus, divine and human time concepts are presented as totally different42. From this follows that a vision, in which humans might participate in a divine time frame, needs to create new perspectives of how to envision time. Like divine and human space, which overlaps in the metaphorical images of a “Thirdspace”, the psalms are searching for images to envision an alternative concept of time. Again, such a concept is outlined by a network of metaphors, offering selected insights, which, however, are modified and expanded in the context of the network. By pointing out the differences between a divine and a human perception of time, the psalms search for a concept of stability that is able to cope with the time limit of human existence43. 1. “Before the Mountains Were Born”: God’s Unlimited Existence Right at the beginning of the fourth book of psalms, Ps 90,2 introduces the theme of chronological stability: “Before the mountains were born, and (before) you travailed44 with earth and world, from everlasting to everlasting (are) you, God”. 42. Nonetheless, in order to provide insights into a divine time frame, metaphorical descriptions based on human experience of time are used. So, for example, birth and death, the cycle of generations but also common experiences of growing and withering plants or things wearing out and being replaced are used as input spaces for images envisioning God’s unlimited time. 43. The numerous metaphors of transience in these psalms further highlight the longing for chronological stability, by pointing out contrasting experiences. 44. The consonants of the verbal form ‫ תחולל‬are ambiguous. MT reads it as wawconsecutive 2 m./3 f.sg. polel “you/she brought to birth / were in labor”. The metaphorical image of God giving birth can be found in Deut 32,18 (‫חיל‬, where it is also used in a parallelism with ‫ילד‬. See M. GROHMANN, Metaphors of God, Nature and Birth in Psalm 90,2 and Psalm 110,3, in VAN HECKE – LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (n. 28), 23-33, p. 24; J. SCHNOCKS, Vergänglichkeit und Gottesherrschaft: Studien zu Psalm 90 und dem vierten Psalmenbuch (Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 140), Berlin – Wien, Philo Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002, 50-54; HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100 (n. 18), p. 604; T. KRÜGER, Psalm 90 und die ‘Vergänglichkeit des Menschen’, in Biblica 75 (1994) 191219, p. 193. Hence, God’s active creation is emphasised, pointing out that God is bodily engaged in this process. The consonants, however, also allow to read passive polal. Reading 3 f.sg. polal, would lead to the translation: “earth and world were in labour”. What they are going to bring forth is not mentioned explicitly. In this image, the earth is personified and takes part in the creation process. See A. WEISER, Die Psalmen (ATD, 14-15), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966, p. 407; H.J. KRAUS, Psalmen. Band 2: Psalmen

226

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

The psalm starts with a metaphorical description of God’s time, using the creation of space as a metaphorical point of reference45. The lyrical speaker imagines a time before the world where only God existed. To give this unimaginable time of divine pre-existence some structure, Psalm 90 uses a metaphor based on human experience of life. The metaphor of a birth uses the image of a woman of childbearing age. It assumes that she has lived several years before giving birth, and usually lives for several more years thereafter. If this image is transferred to a cosmic and divine sphere, the time periods vary, the basic time ratio, however, remains. Hence, the metaphorical image is convincing, and it is easily comprehensible that God existed before and after he delivered the world. The incomparable aspect, however, lies in the duration of the divine time before and after the birth. Ps 90,2 defines this time as unlimited46, from an indefinite time in retrospect (‫ )מעולם‬to an indefinite time in the future (‫)עד עולם‬47. 2. “You Will Change Them Like a Robe”: God Acts Outside an Earthly Time Frame Ps 90,3 continues with a time-related image of change: “You (always) brought48 humankind back to dust and you said: Return children of Adam!” Here God is presented as the cause for the time limit of human lives; 60–150 (BKAT, 15), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1989, p. 89; H. GUNKEL, Die Psalmen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 41926, p. 397. Reading the passive form puts a distance between God and the creation process, and thus the description functions primarily as a reference to time, pointing out God’s pre-existence. 45. The metaphor of God giving birth to the world can be seen in the light of the myths of the Ancient Near East, which show phenomena of nature as having a numinous, even personal character. See GROHMANN, Metaphors of God (n. 44), p. 28. 46. In contrast to the divine existence, the time of everything created is characterised by circulation: humans exist from generation to generation (Ps 90,1; 100,5; 102,13.25), and even heaven and earth are subjected to a circulation (Ps 102,27). 47. Similar expressions occur in Ps 103,17; 1 Chr 29,10. With a sole focus on the past, Ps 93,2 underlines God’s unlimited existence from everlasting (‫)מעולם‬, a time before and beyond (historical) time. See H. IRSIGLER, Thronbesteigung in Psalm 93? Der Textverlauf als Prozeß syntaktischer und semantischer Interpretation, in W. GROSS (ed.), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, St. Ottilien, EOS Verlag, 1991, 155-190, pp. 171-172; D. HUMAN, Psalm 93: Yahweh Robed in Majesty and Mightier Than the Great Waters, in ID. (ed.), Psalms and Mythology (LHB/OTS, 462), New York, T&T Clark, 2007, 147-169, pp. 159-160. 48. The shortened form of the imperfect may be used to express a general experience. See W. GROSS, Verbform und Funktion wayyiqṭol für die Gegenwart? Ein Beitrag zur Syntax poetischer Texte (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache, 1), St. Ottilien, EOS Verlag, 1976, p. 153.

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

227

hence, the human life cycle is part of God’s shaping the world. This further implies, that God acts outside the human time frame. A quite similar but more elaborate image based on a human perception of change over time is used in Ps 102,27: “They will perish but you will remain, and they will all wear out like a garment; you will change them like a robe and they will pass by”. The line of thought already starts in v. 26 with the metaphor of God as builder, who laid the foundations of the earth in primeval times, and formed heaven and earth. Instead of highlighting their stability, v. 27 continues with a disturbing image of chance. When the psalm compares heaven and earth with a garment, the time-limited usability of clothes is used as a starting point. Like a garment, heaven and earth will grow old and wear out49. Thus, their usefulness is strictly limited and they have to be replaced periodically. In contrast to God, their time is measured and will be completed. The contrast between the lifetime of robes and the lifetime of the one, who uses and changes them, is used to describe the differences between creator and creation. Implicitly, the different availability of time for God and humans is also further enhanced. While people only have very little time available compared to the existence of heaven and earth, even this unimaginable long time is only a short period in God’s perception of time. This difference is further highlighted by the way the creator and his creation act. While heaven and earth, like robes, inevitably grow old, God reacts actively. However, the image of God replacing heaven and earth is singular. In the context of the fourth book of psalms it continues and widens the image of God giving and taking life from all creatures (Ps 90,3; 104,2930) to the whole creation (represented in the merism of heaven and earth). The metaphor of God (repeatedly) changing heaven and earth, envisions God as acting outside an earthly time frame. This image goes one step further than the metaphors on the stability of the earth and cosmos; here, even they are subject to God’s planned cycle of life. In this way, God is presented as a sovereign of time, controlling and shaping all chronological processes of his creation. With this network of images, the passing of time is subdued to a divine acting and a divine plan. Although time is unpredictable from a human point of view, it is not arbitrary from a divine perspective. Insights into the divine perception thus may yield knowledge that can be applied to the understanding of human time. 49. Isa 51,6 also uses the image of earth wearing out (‫ )בלה‬like a garment to convince the addressees of the divine stability.

228

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

3. “A Thousand Years (Are) in Your Sight Like a Previous Day”: Human and Divine Perception of Time In order to envision God’s perspective on time, Ps 90,4 describes the divine perception by combining different human time units. “Yes, a thousand years (are) in your sight like a previous day, when it passes, or (as) a watch in the night”50. Here, different units, namely years, days and fractions of a day, are equated. In this way, 1000 years correspond to one day, or even only a night watch51. Such an equation is only plausible if it is based on the human experience, that time appears to move at different speed, depending on the context and on who is watching. For humans, with a life-span of 70/80 years at the most (Ps 90,10), thousand years span many generations. Seen from the perspective of God’s unlimited time, the human experience of a thousand years corresponds to one day or even only a few hours in the divine experience of time. Thus, from the divine point of view, human time is characterised by change, their generations change like the night guards52. Although God is imagined to share the same kind of experiencing time as humans, the divine time does not equal a human time scale53. The radical difference is the impression time makes on the divine or human perception. This different experience of the passing of time is emphasised by highlighting that the point of comparison is not even a day, but a retrospective view on a day gone by54. This image makes it evident, that the human and divine time span are totally different, so that there is no use of hoping to participate in God’s time. Thus, stability of time for humans cannot be achieved by visions of a prolonged lifespan55, nor is it of any help to lament the limited human lifetime.

50. The use of the imperfect is striking, it does point to a day that has already passed, but focusses on the point of view: in retrospect, a previous day passes very quickly. The time scale, that is compared, does not use the experience of the lived-through previous day, but the passing of this day as it is remembered. 51. ‫ אשמורה‬is one shift of the night watch (see Judg 7,19; 1 Sam 11,11; Lam 2,19). 52. K. SEYBOLD, Zu den Zeitvorstellungen in Psalm 90, in Theologische Zeitschrift 53 (1997) 97-108, p. 102. 53. Ibid., p. 101. 54. This additional description is based on another metaphorical concept, namely “time is space”. When time passes by, it is moving like objects in space. See Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 47-51. 55. Even the life span of the people before the flood (Genesis 5) is short compared to God’s time measuring.

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

229

4. “To Number Our Days, So Teach Us”: Human Coping with Impermanence Although the psalms emphasise that human and divine time is totally different, and human life is fleeting, they still are confident that God may provide chronological stability for his people. Important aspects of this hope are God’s steadfast love (‫)חסד‬56 that endures forever and his faithfulness (‫ )אמונה‬to all generations57. One metaphor, however, stands out from these broader images, namely the request to be told how to measure the days in Ps 90,12: “To count (‫ )מנה‬our days, teach (us); and we will bring a heart of wisdom”. This expression is singular in the Hebrew Bible: as Kartje argues, while “there is nothing unusual about the request for wisdom, the idea that one can acquire it by the numbering of days is unique in the MT”58. Although most things are countable59, huge quantities60 or things humans do not fully understand or control61 may be considered as uncountable. With regard to time, days may be counted in cultic contexts, to schedule festivals (e.g., Lev 23,16; 25,8; Deut 16,9) or to be aware of the duration of one’s impurity (e.g., Lev 15,13.28; Ezek 44,26). These counting schemes allow the people to maintain order, by guaranteeing the cycle of festivities and restoring a desirable cultic status (to be clean) within a given time frame. Counting the days thus implies stability, as it allows people to uphold (God-given) chronological cycles62. However, to be aware of the number of days of one’s life is not granted to humans. This is reserved for God, who also assigns a specific time to people’s lives (see Dan 5,26). The reason why the lyrical speaker in Psalm 90 asks to count the days is to bring a wise heart. In wisdom literature, the expression ‫ לב חכם‬is 56. See Ps 100,5; 103,17; 106,1. 57. See Ps 100,5. In a similar way, Ps 93,5 points to God’s trustworthy (‫ )אמן‬testimonies and unlimited impact of God’s temple for the people. 58. J. KARTJE, Wisdom Epistemology in the Psalter: A Study of Psalms 1, 73, 90, and 107 (BZAW, 472), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014, p. 130. 59. Like in Ps 90,4, this image is based on the metaphor “time is space” and hence days can be counted like objects. 60. E.g., Abraham’s descendants (Gen 13,16; 15,5), Joseph’s grain/sand (Gen 41,49); the people (1 Kgs 3,8), Solomon’s offerings (1 Kgs 8,5; 2 Chr 5,6). 61. E.g., things lacking (Qoh 1,15); God’s wondrous deeds (Ps 40,5) and thoughts (Ps 139,18), clouds (Job 38,37) or the months of an animal’s pregnancy (Job 39,2). 62. Kartje argues, that the verb ‫ מנה‬does not express “the simple act of counting, but rather an ordering – and thus an understanding – of the nature of things (...) that only Yhwh may rightfully engage in and that only he is fully capable of performing. Thus, when the psalmist asks to be taught to ‘number’ (‫ )מנה‬his days (Ps 90,12), he may well be boldly asking for a type of knowledge that is proper to Yhwh himself”. KARTJE, Wisdom Epistemology in the Psalter (n. 58), p. 137.

230

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

used several times as a pars pro toto for a wise person (e.g., Prov 16,23; Qoh 7,4; 8,5; 10,2). However, using the “wise heart” as an object63 and hoping to bring it (forth)64 is singular and puts a special emphasis on this formulation. A wise heart, as it is depicted in Proverbs, provides understanding, enables to teach, or leads the right way65. Particularly interesting is its mention in an instruction on the wise man’s behaviour before a king: “Who keeps a command will know no evil thing, and a wise heart will know (‫ )ידע‬proper time (‫ )עת‬and judgment” (Qoh 8,5). Here, like in Ps 90,12, knowledge of time is connected with a wise heart. The lyrical speaker’s request to be taught to count the days thus may aim at the possibility to make active use of their days66, that is to recognise the requirements at any given time and live accordingly67. In this way, people would be able to order their days and to account for their days in the light of God’s commandments68. Continuing this line of thought, stability of time is not measured by its length, but by its usage. As a consequence, time is no longer something unknown, but it is meaningfully structured and thus countable. Seen as a network of time-metaphors, the irreconcilable differences between divine and human time and its perception become comprehensible. Although the differences remain, the metaphorical network offers a perspective that enables the readers to not only acknowledge them but to find stability within the volatility of human time.

63. The only other text using the wise heart as an object is 1 Kgs 3,12, God promising Solomon to give him a wise heart. 64. See Isa 16,3 “Bring forth (‫בוא‬, hiphil) counsel”. 65. Clifford also points out that wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬refers to a “practical knowledge enabling one to act rightly in a situation”. R.J. CLIFFORD, Psalm 90: Wisdom Meditation or Communal Lament?, in P.W. FLINT (ed.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VT.S, 99), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 190-205, p. 204. 66. See K. LIESS, Sättigung mit langem Leben: Vergänglichkeit, Lebenszeit und Alter in den Psalmen 90–92, in M. BAUKS – K. LIESS (eds.), Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2008, 329-342, p. 331; C. FORSTER, Begrenztes Leben als Herausforderung: Das Vergänglichkeitsmotiv in weisheitlichen Psalmen, Zürich, Pano Verlag, 2000, p. 191. 67. With this plea, the lyrical speaker also refers back to the iniquities mentioned in v. 8, which disturb the people’s time by causing their years to vanish like a sigh. 68. In this line of thought, a wise heart is shaped by divine commandments. Bringing (forth) such a wise heart might bear a vague allusion to an offering. The verb ‫ בוא‬hiphil is frequently used in the context of sacrifices, however, the addressee of the sacrifice or an information where the offering is brought to, is usually mentioned. See R. BRANDSCHEIDT, “Unsere Tage zu zählen, so lehre du” (Psalm 90,12): Literarische Gestalt, theologische Aussage und Stellung des 90. Psalms im vierten Psalmenbuch, in Trierer Theologische Zeitung 113 (2004) 1-33, p. 25.

IMAGINING STABILITY IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF PSALMS

231

III. CONCLUSION In the context of the fourth book of the Psalms, the challenging question of gaining stability is raised at the very beginning. Discussing the possibility of human permanence, these psalms oppose the human experience of impermanence with images of stability. In this line of thought, they imagine human stability as a dynamic concept, they envision a beneficial development, fully unfolding human potential in a stable and secure environment. The foundation for such images is built on the psalms’ concept of God as the centre of stability and unchallenged sovereign of space and time. Searching for human stability, the metaphors create points of intersection between a divine and human perspective on space and time. In this way, they widen human perception, enabling the lyrical speaker to create new spaces, or shifting the focus from the immediate situation to an overview, offering new insights on causal and temporal relations. The various spatial metaphors envision a stable space that is not taken for granted, but mostly hoped for. This vision, however, is carefully constructed and argued. Although at first glance, the metaphors might seem unrelated, they form a network that becomes more obvious with each metaphor. At the heart of this network lies the idea, that God is the sole master of space. From this follows, that divine space is stable and unassailable, that God guarantees the stability of the word, offers a protected space to his people and is able to empower people to shape and maintain their own space. By repeating and varying the spatial metaphors, the psalms deepen and enhance the awareness of a divine space that is stable and also partially available for human experience. In this way, the metaphors contribute significantly to the construction of a “Thirdspace” that offers a safe dwelling place and allows them to experience their space differently. Like spatial metaphors, metaphors of time create a stable perspective if they are viewed as a metaphorical network. Again, God, his perspective and handling of time, is used as a point of focus. These metaphors envision God as a sovereign, whose time is not limited, and who has unrestricted access to all events. However, a human participation is not envisioned as sharing God’s time, but as participation in a divine perspective on time. Metaphors of time are used to present an insight into God’s perception of time and to deduce thereof a way not only to cope with the limitations of human lifespan, but to construct stability within their limited time69. 69. This hopeful perspective is envisioned for the righteous, who live in accordance with the divine testimonies (see Ps 90,16-17; 92,12-14; 102,28).

232

S. GILLMAYR-BUCHER

Furthermore, the networks of spatial and chronological metaphors of stability not only reveal new perspectives, they are also emotionally charged. If the people are able to experience stability they react with joy. Hence, in retrospective the psalms joyfully proclaim God’s steadfastness (Psalm 100), they tell about their experiences and invite others to join in their joy, and they hopefully anticipate a stable and thus joyful future (Ps 90,14-15). Catholic Private University of Linz Bethlehemstraße 20 AT-4020 Linz Linz, Austria [email protected]

Susanne GILLMAYR-BUCHER

“EVEN THE SPARROW HAS FOUND A HOME” (PS 84,4) FROM UPROOTING AND WANDERING TO SAFETY AND INTIMACY

Searching for the cultural-contextual setting of any metaphor is a prerequisite for understanding its meaning that can enrich the reader’s perspective. In a paper entitled “Wild Animals and Chasing Shadows”1, when discussing animal metaphors in Lamentations, Labahn contends that the interaction of the metaphor’s elements, namely tenor and vehicle, “bears a variety of senses, which is even further enlarged by the metaphor’s reception”. Furthermore, decoding the full meaning of the metaphor entails, according to Ricœur, understanding the processes by which linguistic imagination creates and recreates meaning through metaphor2. This literary approach guides my reading of two bird-related metaphors that appear in didactic and psalmic literature. The first example deals with the metaphor of the trapped bird as a vehicle for concretizing the fate of the evildoer. He is ensnared by the trap that he himself has set for the innocent. I. METAPHORS OF TRAPPED BIRDS Hunting terminology inspired biblical poetry and prose and was frequently invoked in similes and metaphors or used in idioms. This reveals the problem of nomenclature, namely the difficulty for us readers of identifying some devices and defining how they worked. Moreover, biblical poets often chose a hunting term just for its sound play. An example is the play of words ‫פחד‬, ‫פחת‬, ‫פח‬, “terror”, “pit”, and “trap” in Jer 48,44. As I shall go on to show, metaphors of snared birds are dispersed throughout the Bible, though especially in the prophetic and poetical books. Thus, many psalms borrow terms from hunting to describe both the 1. A. LABAHN, Wild Animals and Chasing Shadows: Animal Metaphors in Lamentations as Indicators for Individual Threat, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 69-97, p. 69. 2. P. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics, in Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148, p. 94; ID., The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, transl. R. Czerny – K. McLaughlin – J. Costello, Toronto – Buffalo, NY – London, University of Toronto Press, 1977.

234

T.L. FORTI

distress of the persecuted righteous person and the retribution meted out to the evildoer3. A metaphor of trapping birds operates within the teaching of the book of Proverbs, chapter 1, verse 17: “For in the eyes of every winged creature the net is outspread in vain”4. The unit (verses 10-19) describes the temptation posed by sinners to young men, exemplifying the outworking of the didactic purpose announced in the opening verses of the book: “to teach shrewdness to the simple, knowledge and prudence to the young” (Prov 1,4; NRSV). The structure and style of this passage are typical of exhortations, with the wise teacher directly addressing his audience with a prohibition appropriate to his standing. The speaker lays out a hypothetical scenario: if sinners entice you “do not consent”. The second conditional clause describes the evildoer’s plans in vivid detail, delineating both the victim’s fate and the loot the plunderers hope to share amongst themselves: “If they say, ‘Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lie in wait for the innocent; like Sheol let us swallow them alive and whole, like those who go down to the Pit. We shall obtain every precious treasure; we shall fill our houses with booty. Throw in your lot among us; we will all have one purse’” (Prov 1,11-14). The final section adduces two reasons for heeding the speaker’s admonition. The first is moral: “For their feet run to evil, they hurry to shed blood” (v. 16; see Isa 59,7; NJPS)5. The second reason employs hunting imagery, portraying the outspread net of the winged creature as a device for concretizing their ultimate failure: “For in the eyes of every winged creature the net is outspread in vain; but they lie in wait for their own lives” (vv. 17-18). The passage concludes with a result clause that invokes the principle of retribution: “Such is the end of all who are greedy for gain; it takes away the life of its possessors” (v. 19; NRSV) – i.e., the life of the perpetrator. The adverbial feature ‫חנם‬, “in vain” or “without cause” in verse 17 in relation to the innocent victim, reverberates a parallel paradigm of reward which employs the same metaphor of hunting in Ps 35,7 (NRSV): “For without cause (or: in vain) they hid their net for me”. Here too, the evildoer will eventually be trapped by the very same net he had hid for the innocent (see Ps 57,7). However, the image of the bird representing the innocent is not mentioned. It is mentioned explicitly elsewhere, in Lam 3,52, using 3. See, e.g., Ps 124,7; 140,6 and Job 18,8-10. See T.L. FORTI, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (VT.S, 118), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2008, pp. 84-86. 4. English translations of biblical citations are mine unless otherwise indicated. Chapter and verse numbering follow the MT. 5. Clifford contends that v. 16 (see also Isa 59,7) is a late interpolation by a copyist of Proverbs who did not understand v. 17. See R.J. CLIFFORD, Proverbs: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1999, p. 39.

FROM UPROOTING AND WANDERING TO SAFETY AND INTIMACY

235

the same metaphorical pattern to denote the innocent person’s persecution by his enemies: “I have been hunted like a bird by those who were my enemies in vain / without cause”. Turning to the hunting metaphor in Proverbs, the image of the bird may symbolize the danger embodied in associating with the wicked. Such winged creatures do not understand the hazards that nets pose to them – in the same way evildoers do not recognize that they may fall victim to their own plots6. Here, the metaphor of trapping birds offers the innocent victim an escape route, the wicked person being ensnared by the trap he himself has set. The image of the outspread net concretizes the jeopardy faced by young men if they associate with evildoers, figuratively illustrating the principle of retribution. Though this metaphor in Proverbs recalls metaphors of hunting in Psalms and Lamentations, here it seems more complex and elaborate. The setting of the imagery serves to disrupt the act-consequence nexus, disconnecting v. 16 (“For their feet run to evil, and they hurry to shed blood”) from v. 18 (“but they lie in wait for their own lives ”). Although the compositional phenomenon of a secondary interpolation is not marked here by the means of a Wiederaufnahme, the author appears to have deliberately (if rather enigmatically) inserted the conventional adverb ‫)ל(חנם‬, “in vain”, known elsewhere to denote the ineffective net. And in fact, the image of the outspread net, “in vain” ‫ חנם‬in Prov 1,17, is interwoven more firmly by its recurrence within the familiar idiomatic construct ‫“ דם חנם‬innocent blood” in verse 11: “If they say, ‘Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lie in wait for the innocent (without cause!)’”7. The picture of the birds and net thus appears to have been added at some point, either by the author himself or by a later compiler, both familiar with the conventional metaphor of the bird and the spread net representing both the innocent victim and the fate of the evildoer. II. METAPHORS OF BIRDS AS REPRESENTATION OF CONTRASTING SENTIMENTS My second discussion of bird-related metaphors evokes opposite conditions of loneliness and intimacy in human life, located along a continuum 6. According to Delitzsch, the net “leads us to think only either of the net of the malicious designs, or the net of the alluring deceptions”, those warned being expected to apply the image and stay away from evildoers just as the bird flees the net – the application of the phrase “for the net is outspread in vain” being the avoiding of ensnarement. See F. DELITZSCH, Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon, vol. 1, transl. M.G. Easton, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 66. For a discussion of the verb ‫מזרה‬, see T.L. FORTI, Two Cases of Secondary Interpolation, in RB 116 (2009) 234-236. 7. For the idiom “innocent blood”, see, for instance 1 Sam 19,5; 1 Sam 25,31; 1 Kgs 2,31.

236

T.L. FORTI

from the motifs of wandering in Prov 27,8, and loneliness and desolation in Ps 102,7-8, to the motif of intimacy and safety in Ps 84,4. Prov 27,8 reads‫“ ׃‬Like a bird wandering from its nest is one who wanders from his home”. This aphorism mentions the motif of wandering without any indication of its historical or ideological background8. However, the biblical root ‫נדד‬, “wandering”, is applied to both human beings and animals in relation to devastation9. In the prophetic literature, the root ‫ נדד‬signifies destruction and exile, famine and thirst, which cause people to migrate like birds driven from their nest as, for example, in Isa 16,2: “Like the fugitive birds [‫]כעוף־נודד‬, like nestlings driven away, so are the daughters of Moab at the fords of the Arnon” (see Jer 9,9)10. Some of the occurrences of “wandering” refer to destruction and exile, and are best rendered as flight. Such is the cause of wandering provided in the book of Isa 21,15: “For they have fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, from the bent bow, and from the stress of battle” [NRSV]. Thus, the phrase ‫“ ממקומו‬from his place” in Prov 27,8 may suggest the meaning of uprootedness and alienation11. The motif of wandering birds is clearly related to desolation and solitude as we can see in Ps 102,7-8: “I am like an owl in the wilderness – a little owl among the ruins. I lie awake, like a lone bird on a roof”12. Psalm 102 employs an admixture of literary forms primarily characteristic of the “individual lament” (in verses 1-12, 24-25) and of hymnic psalmody (in verses 13-23, 26-29). The lack of uniform style and texture and the abrupt transitions of perspective from personal to national and vice versa, have prompted scholars to attempt to trace the various stages of the psalm’s compilation and identify the historical background and cultural setting of each compositional unit13. On the view that the psalm 8. Gemser adduces in Prov 27,8 sociocultural reasons for travelling – trade or the search for knowledge (see Sir 29,24; 39,5). See B. GEMSER, Sprüche Salomos, Tübingen, Mohr, 1937, p. 96. 9. See on ‫“ צפור נודד‬wandering bird” in B.A. FOREMAN, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah (FRLANT, 238), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, p. 184. 10. The phrase ‫משלח קן‬, “nestlings driven away” (pual of ‫ )שלח‬echoes the prohibition in Deut 22,6 of removing chicks from their mothers. 11. See Gen 18,33; 30,25; Judg 11,19; 1 Sam 2,20. 12. The image is broadly discussed in my recent monograph entitled “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms (Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible, 10), University Park, PA, Eisenbrauns, 2018, pp. 72-78. 13. Broyles divides the “psalm of lament” into “plea” and “complaint”, ascribing Psalm 102 to the latter category as expressive of a cry for the rectification of an intolerable situation (vv. 11, 14). See C.C. BROYLES, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form Critical and Theological Study (JSOT.S, 52), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989, pp. 209-212.

FROM UPROOTING AND WANDERING TO SAFETY AND INTIMACY

237

reveals a gradual transformation from, or adaptation of, a personal lament into a communal liturgy composed during exile, those passages that describe the personal distress and suffering of the petitioner are generally regarded as its original kernel. Other passages intimating destruction, exile, and salvation (vv. 15-17), typical of prophetic literature, are perceived to have been added during the exile. The latter date is said to be corroborated by the hymnal formulae that reflect apocalyptic notions (vv. 22-23)14. The solitary complaint of suffering and sickness in vv. 3-8 is intensified by a picturesque observation of nocturnal predatory birds. Verses 7-8 adduce birds as a picture of the psalmist’s desolation, interrupting his lament15. Jackals, hyenas and birds of prey, all generally agreed to have negative connotations, appear as symbols of desolation in the Hebrew Bible16. Several of the prophets use these animals in predicting the gloomy future (Jer 49,33; 50,39). The two closest texts to the bird imagery in our psalm – Isa 34,11-15 and Zeph 2,14 – describe the punishment that will fall on Israel’s enemies for having scoffed at and scorned them17. Nineveh, which once dwelt in safety and security, is destined to become desolated, its abandoned ruins inhabited by the “desert owl and the screech owl” (Zeph 2,14)18. Burned and razed Edom will likewise become a home to jackals, ostriches, and owls. In the biblical context, the name ‫קאת מדבר‬ 14. Briggs and Briggs posit two psalms (vv. 2-12 and 13-23, 29), the remaining verses being glosses: C.A. BRIGGS – E. BRIGGS, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 2, New York, Bloomsbury Academic, 2000, pp. 317-318. For the link between eschatological motifs – such as God looking down from heaven and hearing the moaning of those imprisoned (vv. 20-23), the terms ‫ מועד‬and ‫עת‬, “appointed time” (v. 14), and ‫נראה בכבודו‬, “He will appear in his glory” (v. 17) – with prophetic literature, see H. GUNKEL, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, transl. J.D. Nogalsky, Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1998, pp. 251-277. 15. Zeidel interprets ‫מקול אנחתי‬, “Because of my loud groaning” in v. 6 as a reference to the bird ‫( קול‬see Zeph 2,14), thus rendering: “my groaning is louder than that of the owl”. See M. ZEIDEL, Birds’ Names, in Ḥikrê lashon, Jerusalem, 1952, pp. 54-58 (Hebrew). 16. B.R. FOSTER, Animals in Mesopotamian Literature, in B.J. COLLINS (ed.), A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, Leiden, Brill, 2002, 271-306, pp. 275276. 17. The identification of these birds, in particular the ‫קול‬, “barn owl”, is supported by the Deir ‘Alla Inscription. See J. HOFTIJZER – G. VAN DER KOOIJ, Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla, Leiden, Brill, 1976; IID. (eds.), The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-evaluated, Leiden, Brill, 1991; S. AHITUV, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, Jerusalem, Carta, 2008, pp. 433-465; D. TALSHIR, Living Names: Fauna, Places and Humans, Jerusalem, Bialik Institute, 2012, pp. 39-46 (Hebrew). 18. See W. RUDOLPH, Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja (KAT, 13/2), Gütersloh, Mohn, 1975, pp. 276-278. The English translations differ in identifying the animals and birds. The NRSV, for example, renders ‫“ קאת‬hawk” in Isa 34,11 and “desert owl” in Zeph 2,14. The NJPS translates “jackdaw” (a passerine bird in the crow family) in both texts, the NASB “pelican”.

238

T.L. FORTI

generally signifies a land fowl that inhabits desert areas and ruins. It is associated with other birds that live among ruins such as the ‫עורב‬, “raven”, ‫ינשוף‬, “eagle owl”, ‫דיה‬, “kite”, and ‫קפוז‬, “owl” (see Isa 34,11, 15; Zeph 2,14). The second bird mentioned in the poetic trope is ‫כוס חרבות‬, which is also described as dwelling in ruins. The modern identification of the ‫כוס‬, as the “little owl” follows the 19th century interpretation of Tristram (1867), who notes that it is called “mother of ruins” in Arabic because it makes its home in desolate places and derelict buildings19. The psalmist is comparing himself in his affliction and solitude to an owl in the wilderness. Thus the avian simile has what Schaefer calls a “focusing effect”20. The dual reference to nocturnal predatory birds, whose natural habitat is deserted places and ruins, intensifies his sense of alienation. This is further compounded by the image of the “lone bird on a roof” (v. 8). The wilderness, ruin, and roof all accentuate a feeling of remoteness and removal from populated areas. The sentiment of solitude is reinforced by the root ‫שקד‬, “to lie awake, in wait, to watch”, which signifies an alert, active state. In contrast to personified Wisdom in Proverbs “watching daily at the gates of the wise” (8,34), the faunal simile introduces the idea of an isolated animal vulnerable to being torn to pieces and attacked from all quarters. For example, in Jer 5,6 we read “… a leopard is watching [‫ ]שקד‬against their cities; everyone who goes out of them shall be torn in pieces” (NRSV)21. The reference to the roof also echoes the fact that mourners often sought high places on which to lament: Isa 15,3 says “they bind on sackcloth; on the housetops and in the squares everyone wails and melts in tears”(NRSV; see Jer 48,38; Jdt 8,5)22. The mourning motifs are thus also readily transferable from the personal to the communal framework. While the original poem was a personal complaint, the poet who transformed it into a communal lament strengthens the motif 19. H.B. TRISTRAM, The Natural History of the Bible, London, SPCK, 1867, pp. 195197. The LXX (see also Vulg.) renders ‫ כוס חורבות‬as νυκτικόραξ “night raven”. Radak posits that the names are onomatopoeic, reflecting the birds’ cries. The species cannot be precisely identified on this basis, however. See also G.R. DRIVER, Birds in the Old Testament, in PEQ 86 (1955) 5-20; 87 (1956) 129-140; see also ID., Once Again: Birds in the Bible, in PEQ 90 (1958) 56-58. The Aramaic ‫( צדה‬Deir ‘Alla Inscription, line 8; Sefire Inscription 1:33) is identified with the ‫“ כוס‬little owl”. See TALSHIR, Living Names (n. 17), pp. 43-44. 20. K. SCHAEFER, Psalms (Berit Olam), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001, p. 251. For ‫“ דמ״ה‬to liken” as synonymous with ‫ מש״ל‬and ‫שו״ה‬, see Isa 40,25, 46,5; Lam 2,13. 21. See the “watchman” set on the city walls to give the alarm in case of danger in Ps 127,1. 22. P. RIEDE, Im Spiegel der Tiere: Studien zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Tier im alten Israel (OBO, 187), Freiburg/CH, Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002, p. 51.

FROM UPROOTING AND WANDERING TO SAFETY AND INTIMACY

239

of desolation by integrating bird imagery (vv. 7-9) borrowed from the prophetic convention of the public lament23. Wandering birds wander along a continuum from isolation and desolation to intimacy and safety. In Ps 55,7, the “wings of a dove” with which the psalmist seeks to “fly away and find rest” take him not to God’s House but to refuge in the wilderness: “If any survivors escape, they shall be found on the mountains like doves of the valleys …” (Ezek 7,16; NRSV; see Jer 48,28). Here, the reference appears to be to the rock dove, which, according to the Song of Songs (2,14), lives in niches in the cliffs24. The psalmist thus likens himself to a small bird seeking to nest under the shadow of God’s wings, just as the tiny sparrow in Psalm 84 will ultimately find its safe home in God’s House. The image of birds nesting in the shadow of the temple altars serves as a poetic trope to express the sense of safety and intimacy imbued by dwelling in God’s presence. Thus Ps 84,4 reads: “Even the bird finds a house, and the sparrow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, at Your altars, O LORD of hosts, my king and my God”. Although the vivid scene of birds nesting under the altars in the temple symbolises the psalmist’s longing for God’s presence in His House, the emphatic conjunctive particle ‫גם‬, “even” and the shift from personalconfessional style in Ps 84,2-3 to the third person in v. 4 suggests that the imagery constitutes an interpretative expansion designed to concretize the psalm’s key motif – longing for the House of God25. The explanatory relative clause “where she may lay her young, at Your altars” links the faunal theme of “nesting” to the temple’s sanctuary. With the prophetic idiomatic imagery of “fugitive birds” in mind, the “uprooted” poet, driven by his longing for the temple courts, conjures up the image of nesting, associating it with rejoicing: “my heart and my flesh sing for joy [‫ ]ירננו‬to the living God” (v. 3; NRSV; see Ps 63,8). Scholars are divided over the literary genre of this psalm, debating whether it is cultic or poetic. Those who interpret the psalm as a “liturgy at the temple portal” posit that it was recited during a festival celebration or royal anniversary, reflecting both priestly prayer and pilgrim longings26. 23. For a survey of scholarly views of Psalm 102 as a redactional unit comprised of distinctive layers, see L.C. ALLEN, Psalms 101–150 (WBC, 21), Waco, TX, Word, 1983, pp. 16-19. 24. See Song 4,1; 5,2; 6,9. See O. KEEL, The Song of Songs, transl. F.J. Gaiser (CC), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1994, p. 106. 25. F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER, Psalms. Vol. 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2005, p. 353. 26. K. KOCH, Tempeleinlassliturgien und Dekaloge: Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1961, pp. 4560.

240

T.L. FORTI

Those who view the locus of the temple as spiritual interpret it as a nostalgic post-exilic prayer – or more specifically, a “prayer of lament”27. The psalmist’s desire for God’s abode is indicated by his introductory exclamation: “How beloved are your dwelling places!” (v. 2)28. This yearning bears the pilgrims along their way towards their destination (vv. 23), the verbs signifying their all-consuming passion – ‫רנן‬, ‫כסף‬, ‫כלה‬, “cry out/rejoice, long/desire, expended”. The magnitude of their longing is evinced by the fact that it involves all of their being – ‫נפש‬, ‫לב‬, ‫בשר‬, “soul, heart, and flesh” (v. 3)29. Verses 1112 describe the benefits of abiding in His presence, employing an array of terms to denote the temple and its precincts – “dwellings of God”, “courts”, “house of God”, and “altars”30. The repeated epithet ‫מגן‬, “shield”, in vv. 10, 12 accentuates the motif of God as a source of refuge and protection to those who seek and trust in Him. Verses 4-5 depict the ideal picture of the prayer under the protective roof of God. The sense of security is stressed by the dual terms ‫בית‬, “home”, and ‫קן‬, “nest”, and is also intensified by the reference to the young, who must be cared for and protected. The precise species of the nesting birds denoted by the ‫ צפור‬and ‫דרור‬ are difficult to identify, neither possessing reliable Semitic cognates31. Ancient and modern commentators vary widely in their rendering of the two terms. Ancient and modern commentators vary widely in their rendering of the two terms. My suggestion to identify ‫ צפור‬as bird in 27. Gunkel identifies Psalm 84 as a “Zion song”. See GUNKEL, Introduction to Psalms (n. 14), vol. 2, pp. 17, 26, 52. Hossfeld and Zenger argue that the close ties it exhibits with another Korahite psalm (42) suggest that it was a prayer of lament spoken far away from the temple. See HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalms, vol. 2 (n. 25), pp. 350-351. Not finding in it any clues to the poet’s identity or history, Cohen focuses on its poetic value and the way in which it gives expression to religious sentiments of value to every epoch. See A. COHEN, Psalms: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary, London, Soncino, 1992, p. 275. 28. E.S. GERSTENBERGER, Psalms: Part 1, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL, 14), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1988, p. 123. 29. H.-J. KRAUS, Psalms 60–150, transl. H.C. Oswald (CC), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1989, p. 168. 30. Entrance liturgies are intimately associated with Zion (Ps 84,8; see 132,13). See J. JEREMIAS, Lade und Zion: Zur Entstehung der Zionstradition, in H.W. WOLF (ed.), Probleme Biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburstag, München, Kaiser, 1971, 183-198; H.-J. KRAUS, Psalms 1–59 (CC), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1993, pp. 68-69. For entrance/gate liturgies, see KOCH, Tempeleinlassliturgien und Dekaloge (n. 26), pp. 4560. 31. For the problem of nomenclature in general and the zoological identification of birds in ancient sources in particular, see the Introduction in FORTI, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (n. 3), pp. 5-7; E.B. FIRMAGE, Zoology (Fauna), in ABD 6: 1144, 1151, 1154, and nn. 34-64.

FROM UPROOTING AND WANDERING TO SAFETY AND INTIMACY

241

general and ‫ דרור‬as “sparrow” (domesticus passer) stands against the rendering of the English translations to identify ‫ צפור‬as “sparrow” and ‫דרור‬ as “swallow”32. Although the sparrow nests near human habitation in attics, gutters, windowsills and skylights – as well as caves, rock crannies and trees – it is not easily domesticated33. The rabbinic Sages, who understood the collocation ‫דרור‬/‫ צפור‬as a single noun, associated it with two folk etymologies: ‫דור‬, “reside, dwell”, reflecting its habit of nesting close to human dwellings, and the abstract noun ‫דרור‬, “freedom, liberty”, signifying its reluctance to be tamed34. As in Prov 26,2 – “Like a bird [‫ ]כצפור‬in its flitting, like a sparrow [‫ ]כדרור‬in its flying, an undeserved curse goes nowhere” – the two terms serve as separate substantives here, their division between the parallel clauses producing a poetic effect. While ancient Near Eastern cultures may not have followed the same gender division with regard to tasks as we do today, they nonetheless identified the female bird as sitting on the nest. “Even the bird finds a house”, using the feminine qatal verb ‫“ מצאה‬it finds” (a home/nest), portrays this phenomenon as a universal experiential truth35. Although the male is responsible for selecting the nesting place, the feminine gender of ‫צפור‬ invokes the maternal aspect of caring for the young. In describing the ancient attitude towards coupling in sacred places – including animal mating – Herodotus notes: Many animals, they say, and various kinds of birds, may be seen to couple in the temples and the sacred precincts, which would certainly not happen if the gods were displeased at it. ... In these points the Egyptians are specially careful, as they are indeed in everything which concerns their sacred edifices (Hist. 2.64).

As in the East, in ancient Greece the birds that nested in temples were regarded as sacred. Here, too, Herodotus tells us that Aristodicus drove 32. The LXX renders them ὄρνεα “birds” and στρουϑοί “sparrows” in Prov 26,2 and στρουϑίον “sparrow” and τρυγὼν “turtle-dove” in our text. 33. H.B. TRISTRAM, The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013; ID., Natural History of the Bible (n. 19), pp. 201, 204; F.S. BODENHEIMER, Animal Life in Biblical Lands, vol. 1, Jerusalem, Bialik Institute, 1950, pp. 89, 183, 185; ID., Animal Life in Palestine, Jerusalem, L. Mayer, 1935, pp. 156 and 164; E. SMOLI, Birds in Israel, Tel Aviv, Massada, 1957, pp. 128, and 170-171 (Hebrew). 34. “Said Rabbah b. Huna: We treat here [with respect to chasing a bird on Sabbath] of a wild bird which does not submit to taming [i.e., when entering a house is not easily captured]. For the School of R. Ishmael taught: Why is it called a free-bird? Because it dwells in the house as in the fields [i.e., even inside it is not domesticated]” (b. Beṣah 24a). 35. See P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, vol. 2, Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991, §112d.

242

T.L. FORTI

the sparrows in the temple of Branchidae from their shelter as a symbolic act of protest against the verdict given by the oracle: Thus Aristodicus inquired; and the god again gave the same answer, that Pactyes should be surrendered to the Persians. With that Aristodicus did as he had already decided; he went around the temple, and took away the sparrows and all the families of nesting birds that were in it. But while he was doing so, a voice (they say) came out of the inner shrine calling to Aristodicus, and saying, “Vilest of men, how dare you do this? Will you rob my temple of those that take refuge with me?” (Hist. 1.159)36.

As Keil and Delitzsch note, by the “bird that has found a comfortable snug home on the place of the altars of Yahve in the Temple-court and in the Temple-house, he [the psalmist] means his self”. The image derives from direct observation of birds spreading their wings over their young in the nest or protecting them against predators: “As an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes them up, and bears them aloft on its pinions” (Deut 32,11; NRSV)37. The idea of sheltering under the wings of a protective god is well-known in Egyptian literature, also being associated with “hovering”38. It was said of King Ahmose, for example, that “the splendor of Re is hovering above him; Amun is his protection”39. This idea is beautifully depicted in Ps 91,1-4. Surprisingly, in this specific psalm we find an intersection of both metaphors – the trapped bird and the protected and safe one: The same God who delivers the bird from the snare of the fowler will cover him with His wings and under His wings he will find refuge: “For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence; he will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge […] (vv. 3-4; NRSV). 36. A.F. KIRKPATRICK, The Books of Psalms with Introduction and Notes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1902, p. 506. 37. C.F. KEIL – F. DELITZSCH, Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 5: The Psalms, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1980, pp. 3-4; L. EVANS, Bird Behavior in Ancient Egyptian Art, in R. BEILLEUL-LESUER (ed.), Between Heaven and Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, Chicago, IL, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012, p. 94; R. SHONKWILER, Sheltering Wings: Birds as Symbols of Protection in Ancient Egypt, ibid., 49-57, p. 49; W.P. BROWN, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor, Louisville, KY – London, Westminster John Knox, 2002, pp. 15-30. 38. Thus, for example, on the stele erected at Abydos in memory of his father, Seti I declares: “I am like a falcon over my parent(?), (with) my wings (extended) over him in flight I have protected his body[…]”. Thoth similarly tells Merneptah on a stele at Hermopolis: “I shall assume my form of the noble Ibis in order to fly up over your head and protect you with the plumes of (my) wings, that I may provide your protection like Re”. See K.A. KITCHEN, Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical, vol. 1, Oxford, Blackwell, 1975, p. 114, lines 1-2 and 38, lines 13-14; SHONKWILER, Sheltering Wings (n. 37), pp. 49-57. 39. K. SETHE, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums 4, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1906-1909, p. 18, lines 15-16.

FROM UPROOTING AND WANDERING TO SAFETY AND INTIMACY

243

III. CONCLUSION In conclusion: various phenomena that are drawn from the avian world reflect daily experience and familiarity with their lives and habits. The first bird related metaphor exemplifies the semantic field of hunting and trapping birds which inspired the figurative and paradigmatic expression of the innocent entrapped by the evildoer. The second metaphor encompasses a long psychological process of conceptualization, from the petitioner’s trauma of uprootedness and wandering to the intimate experience of safety provided to those who dwell in the house of God. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva 84105 Israel [email protected]

Tova L. FORTI

“WHEN A BIRD FLIES THROUGH THE AIR” ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

Images in the Bible drawn from the avian world reflect familiarity with the habits and characteristics of a wide range of birds. One such example is the observation of the seasonal migration of four common birds in Jer 8,7: “Even the stork in the heavens knows its times; and the turtledove, swallow and crane observe the time of their coming”1. Within the wisdom corpus this is paralleled in Job 39,26 when God speaks to Job regarding the habits of the hawk: “Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars and spreads its wings toward the south?” (see discussion below). This article has as its background concern the hermeneutics of metaphors of birds. While dealing with figurative language we follow the conceptual definition of “figuration” – as Shapiro expresses it, “the transmutation of ideas into images, is the product of the formative power of human cognition and is realized in all the ways in which verbal, mental, perceptual, optical, and graphic images interact”2. In an introduction to his monumental book The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, Ricœur contends that “the rhetoric of metaphor takes the word as its unit of reference. Metaphor, therefore, is classed among the single-word figures of speech and is defined as a trope of resemblance. As figure, metaphor constitutes a displacement and an extension of the meaning of words; its explanation is grounded in a theory of substitution”3. Thus, the classical relationship that Aristotle saw between metaphor and simile is subsequently reversed; “simile is no longer a sort of metaphor, but metaphor a sort of simile, namely an abbreviated simile. Only the elision of the term of comparison distinguishes metaphor from simile”4. Or, phrased in a more concise way – “Metaphor is the trope of resemblance par excellence”5. 1. English translations of biblical citations follow the NRSV unless otherwise indicated. Chapter and verse numbering follow the MT. 2. M. SHAPIRO, Figuration, in A.A. PREMINGER et al. (eds.), The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1993, 408-409, p. 408. 3. P. RICŒUR, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, transl. R. Czerny – K. McLaughlin – J. Costello, Toronto, University of Toronto Press – Scholarly Publishing Division, 1993, p. 3. 4. Ibid., p. 174. 5. Ibid., p. 173.

246

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

Inspired by Ricœur’s theory, metaphors are neither isolated nor to be considered individually but are, rather, dynamic and constantly reinterpreted6. Thus, their mutual tension and the power of each to evoke a whole network of images “engenders an unlimited number of potential interpretations at a more conceptual level”7. This literary-philosophical approach reveals the processes by which linguistic imagination creates and recreates meaning through metaphor. From this perspective, each metaphor is laden with different meanings and contextual implications, namely the lesson of each metaphor bears the ideational worldview of its author(s). Thus, as we shall discuss, the metaphor of the mysterious path of the bird considered a source of wonder in Proverbs and Job becomes a metaphor for transience in shaping the concept of reward in the Wisdom of Solomon. Though the definitions of metaphor are numerous, the basic components of these definitions are first, “two relatively different things”; and second, “a relationship of resemblance between them”8. In Lakoff’s cognitive linguistics theory, a metaphor hence transfers something between two conceptual domains, the source domain and the target domain9. The source domain, namely the conceptual and emotional inherent properties and characterization of comparable entity, affects the metaphorical mapping of the target domain. The main concern of this article is to look at a rich selection of metaphors and images of birds that relate to their mysterious paths, in turn evoking human wonder and questioning. The path is a well-known metaphor in Proverbs, used to express the progression of a human life in relation to life-long learning10. By contrast, the paths of birds can be observed by humans, but the innate process by which they behave is inscrutable and mysterious. The sages explore human behaviour at the limits of human knowledge and understanding, using bird metaphors to express this mystery. 6. P. RICŒUR, Le conflit des interprétations: Essais d’herméneutique, Paris, Seuil, 1969. 7. P. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics, in Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148, p. 94. 8. For a survey, see G. LAKOFF – M. TURNER, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1989. 9. G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980. 10. In its figurative sense the term ‫דרך‬, “way” (occurring 75 times in Proverbs) and its synonyms (‫נתיב‬, ‫ אורח‬, ‫מישרים‬, ‫ )מעגל‬express (1) “course of life”, (2) “conduct of life”, namely a moral road that offers the choice between righteousness, justice, equity (2,8) and perverseness of evil (2,14), and (3) “consequences of that conduct”, namely the inevitable destiny of the chosen lifestyle. See B. CUROYER, Le chemin de vie en Égypte et en Israël, in RB 56 (1949) 428-432; K. KOCH, ‫דרך‬, in TDOT 3: 272-273; B.K. WALTKE, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2004, pp. 193-194.

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

247

This is part of a wider polarity found in wisdom texts between human freedom and ability to master life on the one hand and human limitation in relation to the mysterious activity of God on the other: “All one’s ways (‫ )דרך‬may be pure in one’s own eyes, but the LORD weighs the spirit” (Prov 16,2)11. In the passage in Job 39,26, cited above, it is not human mastery of life that causes the hawk to behave as it does – this is the realm of God working within the natural world. The examples used in this paper are all from the so-called “wisdom literature”, both biblical and apocryphal12. The first two examples treat didactic advice using the metaphor of the bird to express the spread of a curse, illustrating the way that thoughts and words cannot be controlled once thought or spoken, in itself a mysterious process (Prov 26,2; Qoh 10,20; see The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar). The second set of examples expresses the human sense of the mystery and often hiddenness of the path of birds (Jer 8,6; Prov 30,18-19; Job 12,7-8; 28,6; 39,26), reflecting the superiority of divine knowledge through wisdom over limited human knowledge. The final examples take the image of the path of a bird to express the ephemerality of life (Job 9,25-26; Wis 5,9-14). Wis 5,9-14 is a particularly rich passage that expresses the idea that there is no trace of a bird, once it has gone past. This is explored in relation to other metaphors of shadows, ships and arrows and compared to the fleeting nature of human life, whether good or wicked. In order to highlight the particular view of categorization that is held in conceptual metaphor theory we see the concept “bird” as an entity characterized by a set of inherent properties, hence distinguishable from the concept of any other faunal category13. However, rather than thinking of the concepts of singing, flying, having a beak, and laying eggs as inherent properties of that category, we endeavour to evaluate the further images that make up the conceptual domain of the birds’ path. Though the following 11. See Prov 16,1.9; 19,21; 20,24 and G. VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, Nashville, TN – New York, Abingdon, 1970, pp. 97-110. 12. The nomenclature of “wisdom literature” has been recently questioned by Kynes, who demonstrates that the category is a nineteenth century invention. See W. KYNES, An Obituary for “Wisdom Literature”: The Birth, Death, and Intertextual Reintegration of a Biblical Corpus, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2019. Whilst we acknowledge potential problems in defining such limits for inclusion of material, we continue to use it here as it is a category that is well-known and understood in the scholarship. See the discussion in K.J. DELL, Deciding the Boundaries of Wisdom: Applying the Concept of Family Resemblance, in M.R. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies (AIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 145-160. 13. G. LAKOFF, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1987, p. 5.

248

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

metaphors of birds are not limited to one particular topic or target domain, they use the source domain of space and displacement. Spatial metaphorical expressions of birds draw on universal human observation and experience14. I. BIRD METAPHORS AND THE SPREADING OF

A

CURSE

Cursing is a serious matter – once uttered a curse cannot be retracted. A curse is uttered with the intent of bringing misfortune upon its target. From a biblical viewpoint, any curse is endowed with magical powers that stalk and ultimately capture the target, e.g., “All these curses shall come upon you, pursuing and overtaking you until you are destroyed” (Deut 28,45a). The severity of the biblical punishment for cursing one’s parents is a good example of Israelite belief in the power of a curse (e.g., Exod 21,17; Lev 20,9; Prov 30,11). In the book of Proverbs we find practical advice against incurring the curse of another (e.g., Prov 30,1015). In the book of Job, in a radical gesture of complaint against God’s treatment of him, Job curses the day of his birth and the night of his conception (Job 316). In the book of Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth makes a particular point of the dangers of curses, especially when faced by an authority figure such as the King (e.g., Qoh 8,2.417; 10,4; see Prov 14,35; 16,14-15)18. In one of our key examples of bird 14. For a comprehensive survey of theories on spatial metaphor, see J. DE JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes and the Theology of the Book of Job: An Analysis of Job’s Spatial Metaphors (VT.S, 179), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2018, pp. 46-67. 15. McKane comments on this example that “it is unwise to pass on to master damaging gossip about a domestic servant, even if the slander or denunciation has some basis”. W. MCKANE, Proverbs: A New Approach (OTL), London, SCM, 1970, p. 650. 16. In its cursing of the past rather than the present, this particular example is sometimes seen as an invalid curse. So David Clines (p. 81) contends that “Strictly speaking, this is not a curse, but a wish or malediction directed essentially against the two events that made his [Job’s] life possible, his conception and birth”. D.J.A. CLINES, Job 1–20 (WBC, 17), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1989. See also, S.H. BLANK, The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath, in HUCA 23 (1950-1951) 73-95; H.C. BRICHTO, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (JBL Monograph Series, 13), Philadelphia, PA, Society of Biblical Literature, 1963. 17. See Exod 22,28: “You shall not revile God or curse a leader of your people”. The verb ‫ קלל‬expresses a breach of trust, either of a sacred oath of loyalty to the king taken in God’s name or God’s oath regarding kingship. Thus, making a fierce or abusive verbal attack on a king or any other high-ranking authority may lead to royal recrimination and the death penalty to the abuser. 18. Kings are likened to beasts of prey from whom it is difficult to escape (e.g., Prov 19,12; 20,2; 28,15). See T.L. FORTI, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (VT.S, 118), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2008, pp. 57-66. For a fuller discussion on king’s perception in wisdom literature, see K.J. DELL, The King in the Wisdom Literature, in J. DAY (ed.), King and

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

249

imagery, Qoh 10,20, the recipient of the curse is the king (in the first line), and the rich (in the second). Both categories represent the upper class who are to be treated with caution. The metaphor of a bird is skilfully used in a highly figurative admonition: Do not curse the king, even in your thoughts19, or curse the rich, even in your bedroom; for a bird of the air may carry your voice, or some winged creature tell the matter

‫גם במדעך מלך אל־תקלל‬ ‫ובחדרי משכבך אל־תקלל עשיר‬ ‫כי עוף השמים יוליך את־הקול‬ ‫ובעל הכנפים יגיד דבר‬

Both the bird and winged creature act as a metaphor for the way that the human voice carries, if not simply physically, also in terms of the gossiping of others. The message of this warning is that even when one thinks that one is cursing in private, it somehow becomes public20. No matter how hidden and safe we may think the place where we speak, the secret will escape. Because of the aforementioned heady mixture of power and unpredictability on the part of kings and rulers, those in subordinate positions need to be very careful what they say and even what they think. A common phrase in English is “walls have ears”21. Since “in your thoughts” is a perfect parallel for “in your bedroom” in conveying the idea of secrecy, the different suggestions for emending ‫“ במדעך‬in your thoughts” seem superfluous22. The prophet Micah warns in similar vein using a parallel situation of intimacy in which the revelation of secrets is all too easy: “Put no trust in a friend, have no confidence in a loved one; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your embrace” (7,5-6). The motive clause in Qoh 10,20 follows in the last two parallel clauses of the verse (10,20cd) introducing the metaphor of the “bird of the air” and an indefinite “some winged creature” who may carry the utterance, and report the matter. Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOT.S, 270), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, 163-186. 19. The noun ‫ מדע‬means basically “knowledge” and it is Late Biblical Hebrew (see 2 Chr 1,10.11.12; Dan 1,4.17; Sir 3,13; 13,8). 20. Seow interprets Qoh 10,20 as an allusion to the ubiquitous presence of spies, “various government informants during the Persian period known as ‘the eyes and ears of the king’” (XENOPHON, Cyropaedia, VIII.ii.10; HERODOT, Historiae, 1.114). C.-L. SEOW, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 18C), New York, Doubleday, 1997, p. 341. 21. See the Rabbinic proverb ‫“ אזנים לכותל‬walls have ears” in Lev. Rab., ch. 32; Qoh. Rab. ad loc.; Midrash Tillim, ch. 7. 22. Some exegetes connect the noun ‫ מדעך‬with the sexual connotation of ‫ ידע‬suggesting “bedroom” or “intimates” (in accordance with the poetic parallelism ‫חדרי משכבך‬, “your bedroom” in verse 20). Others emend ‫“ מדעך‬your thoughts/your mind” into ‫“ מצעך‬your bed”. F. PERLES, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments, Leipzig, Engel, 1922, p. 71, cited by A.B. EHRLICH, Prophecy, Mikra ki-Pheschuto, vol. 3, Berlin, M. Poppelauer’s Buchhandlung, 1901 (Repr. New York, Ktav, 1969) [Hebrew]. The NJPS reads ‫( מדע‬with holem) “acquaintance, friend” (see ‫“ מודע‬relative” in Ruth 2,2) translating “among your intimates”.

250

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

In this verse one can picture a bird sitting outside the window of one’s bedroom, a bird that hears your curse and then flies off with the knowledge to the very person from whom one intended to keep the secret. Of course, this is the language of metaphor and we are not to take the image literally. Neither birds nor winged creatures (both generic categories and not specific birds or other creatures with wings) can speak – rather the idea is to use the image of the flight of a bird from one specific place to a second specific place to convey the message that one’s spoken words are never safe or private23. Thus, the spatial source domain of the displacement of a bird conceptualizes the expropriation of the most intimate thoughts once uttered. Crenshaw writes of this verse “Qohelet urges extreme caution lest one’s true feelings become known to powerful persons whose fury will lead to avoidable suffering on the part of the offender”24. In Proverbs too we find mention of a curse in 26,2: Like a bird in its flitting, like a sparrow in its flying, so a gratuitous curse will not alight25.

‫כצפור לנוד כדרור לעוף‬ ‫כן קללת חנם )לא( ]לו[ תבא‬ (ketiv: ‫[ ;)לא‬qere: ‫]לו‬

The use of similarity and analogy is the hallmark of the comparative saying as often used in Proverbs. The explicit (or implicit) simile offers a concrete illustration of the message. Some comparative sayings focus on negative social types (such as the sluggard, fool, or quarrelmonger) or on negative traits of a ruler or host; still others refer to common social values and beliefs (e.g., 11,22; 26,3). The saying in Prov 26,2 evaluates the effectiveness of gratuitous curses. The parallel images of a flitting bird and a flying sparrow seems to refer to the movement or fluttering of wings, rather than to seasonal migration. There is no consistency in how translators, both ancient and modern, identify ‫ צפור‬and ‫ דרור‬26. Nevertheless, 23. In English we have the phrase “a little bird told me”. R.E. MURPHY, Ecclesiastes (WBC, 23A), Nashville, TN – Dallas, TX, Thomas Nelson, 1992, p. 106. The same “bird in the sky” image to express communication occurs in ARISTOPHANES: “nobody knows my treasure except then some bird” (The Birds, 601.49ff) and in JUVENAL (Satires ix. pp. 102108): “Ah Corydon, Corydon, do you really believe a rich man’s secrets can ever stay hidden? If the slaves are mute his horses will talk, his dog, his doorposts, his marble floors. Close the shutters, curtain the cracks, bar the doors, quench the light. Make everyone leave the place, have no one sleep nearby; By the second cock-crow what the man does will still be known to the nearest tradesman, well before dawn” (translated by A.S. KLINE, 2011: https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/Hist_416/hist420/JuvenalSatirespdf.pdf.) 24. J.L. CRENSHAW, Ecclesiastes, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1987, p. 178. 25. Our translation follow the ketiv (cf. LXX, Tg. and Syr.). The Vg. follows the qere. 26. Modern English translations (KJV, NRV, and NJPS) customarily render ‫ צפור‬as “sparrow” and ‫ דרור‬as “swallow”. However, the term ‫ צפור‬denotes all birds (e.g., Gen 7,14; Deut 4,17; 14,11; 22,6-7; Amos 3,5; Lam 3,52). It appears as a collective noun in parallel with a particular species or category (e.g., Hos 11,11; Ps 84,4; Qoh 7,4). For a discussion

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

251

it is commonly accepted that the ‫ דרור‬is the sparrow (domesticus passer), a permanent resident of the land of Israel. Though the ‫ צפור‬is mentioned as epitome of wandering (as in Prov 27,8) the pair of birds ‫דרור‬/‫צפור‬ do nest (Ps 84,4). The sparrow nests near human habitations, but is not easily domesticated. This recalls the way some birds seem to hover rather than fly. The translation of the second part of this proverb influences how we read it – if a curse goes nowhere it suggests that the flitting and flying are in vain or pointless. However, we know from common observation that the passage of birds often does have a specific destination in view. This image is in contrast to the idea of the curse backfiring27. This would fit better with the image in Qoh 10,12. The following is our preferred translation and option: the qere replaces the negative of the ketiv (‫ )לא תבא‬with the object pronoun ‫לו‬, which means that, instead of harming its target, the curse will boomerang on the person who uttered it. This reading reflects a circular perception of retribution. However, the bird image that is invoked as similar to the causeless curse supports the ketiv, ‫לא תבא‬, lit. “will not arrive”. Thus, the causeless curse hovers without ever alighting at its destination. Here the metaphor suggests that the birds have something to do with the curse’s transmission, although this is not as clear as in the Ecclesiastes passage above. In sum, the analogies (a wandering bird, a flying sparrow) exemplify not coming to a particular goal rather than targeting someone. Finally, in the Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar we find a similar warning to be careful about what one says also in relation to uttering a curse28: [My] son, do not c[ur]se the day until you have seen [nig]ht, Do n[ot] let it come upon your mind, Since their e[yes] and their ears are everywhere. As regards your mouth, watch yourself; Let it not be [their] prey. on both terms, see FORTI, Animal Imagery (n. 18), pp. 68-69. See also EAD., “Even the Sparrow Has Found a Home” (Ps 84,4): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy, in this volume. Of course, birds vary in type and quantity in different parts of the world and different peoples have different perceptions of the habits of certain birds and so it this leads to problems of nomenclature for the translator. 27. This reading is in contrast to the idea of the curse backfiring, following the qere ‫( לו‬so JPS). Michael V. Fox presumes that a scribe may have thought that the noun “curse” implies an actant (a curser), and it is to him that the curse would return (as in Ps 109,17). M.V. FOX, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary (The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, p. 341. 28. Knowing that the Jewish community of Elephantine corresponded with their kinfolk in Palestine, Seow presupposes that a sage writing in the Achaemenid period might have been familiar with the Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. SEOW, Ecclesiastes (n. 20), p. 63, and pp. 333-334.

252

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

Above all watchfulness, watch your mouth, And against him who [is listening] harden (your) heart; For a word is a bird and one who releases it is without sense (TAD 1.1.80-82)

In similar vein here, a word is carried by a bird – the bird is a witness to one’s words. Once spoken, a word is a bird because the two become synonymous. The elliptical expression forces the reader to give a new meaning to this trope – an extension of meaning which allows it to make sense where a literal interpretation does not. As Ricœur observes, the rhetorical conception of metaphor, i.e., the role of resemblance, is often misunderstood29. Thus, to study the metaphor is to study the nomenclature of the images which illustrate the idea. The striking affinities between Ahiqar and Qoheleth evoke a network of metaphors – one metaphor calls for another. In both, the metaphor of the bird is a figurative expression both for insulting rumours and verbal sedition. The admonition against cursing is the target domain of the trope. On a more conceptual level, the message of warning may reflect a common context of court life. It is only senseless fools that speak thus30. II. THE MYSTERIOUS OR HIDDEN PATHS/WAYS OF BIRDS There are a number of passages that speak of the paths or ways of birds. These are unlike human pathways because they are in the air above our heads. In that open space above us it is hard to see how there might be purpose in the directions in which birds fly. The ancients perceived that there was purpose, but it would never be known to human beings – it is the secret of both bird and the God who created each and every type of them. In Prov 30,18-19 we have an example of numerical listing (even heightening) using four strong metaphors. The heading “Three things are beyond 29. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics (n. 7), p. 78. 30. Proverbs 10,8, for example, contrasts the “wise of heart” who “will heed commandments” and the “babbling fool” who “will come to ruin”. The implication here is that the fool is so busy listening to himself that he doesn’t hear important instruction or pay heed to external factors (e.g., 14,3; 15,2; 18,6-7). Fools are not capable of subtle speech, so Prov 17,7 makes the point that “Fine speech is not becoming to a fool; still less is false speech to a ruler”. Glib words are ridiculous in the mouths of fools, but the more important point in this proverb is the comparison with a ruler who has power and should know better than to utter lies with his smooth speech. The wise show great respect for their betters, notably the king who is at the top of the social scale. See K.J. DELL, The Laughter of Fools: The Relevance of Wisdom in Today’s World, in K.J. DELL – A. KEEFER (eds.), The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World, Religions 2015, no. 6 (e-journal). Special issue, 2016, pp. 1-14.

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

253

me; Four I cannot fathom” (v. 18) enumerates a number of phenomena drawn from various categories but essentially specifying the trait they have in common31: How a vulture makes its way over the sky32; How a snake makes its way over a rock33; How a ship makes its way through the high seas; How a man has his way with a maiden34.

‫דרך הנשר בשמים‬ ‫דרך נחש עלי צור‬ ‫דרך־אניה בלב־ים‬ ‫ודרך גבר בעלמה‬

In this passage from Proverbs the sage considers four seemingly unrelated phenomena that are wondrous to him, beyond his understanding. The formula of astonishment [‫ ]נפלאו‬arouses our curiosity and spurs us on to investigate the poet’s observation as he searches to understand marvels that are beyond his grasp35. The first two examples make use of animal imagery: the vulture, as an example of flight through the air; and the 31. W.M.W. ROTH, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament: A Form-Critical Study (VT.S, 13), Leiden, Brill, 1965, pp. 5-9. 32. In Israel the vulture is a much more common bird and so ‘vulture’ would perhaps be a culturally preferable translation. The ‫ נשר‬is mentioned 28 times in the Bible, more than any other bird. The biblical references to the ‫ נשר‬allude to its impressive qualities that aroused admiration among ancient peoples: its large size and wingspan (Ezek 17,3; Jer 49,22); the way that it glides lightly despite its weight (Deut 28,49; Isa 40,31; Jer 4,13; 48,40; 49,15.22; Ezek 17,3.7; Job 39,26; Lam 4,19); and the way it soars easily and freely symbolizes the renewal of youthful strength (2 Sam 1,23; Isa 40,3; Jer 4,13; Hab 1,8; Ps 103,5; Lam 4,19). The vulture builds its nest up in the crannies of cliffs (Jer 49,16; Obad 4; Job 39,27-28), whereas the eagle nests on trees. The translation can also be contextual, depending on the wider description. See G.R. DRIVER, Once Again: Birds in the Bible, in PEQ 90 (1958) 56-58 where he argues for the translation “eagle” in Exod 19,4 and Deut 32,11 (i.e., golden eagle) rather than “vulture”. The name occurs in various Semitic languages and is conventionally rendered “eagle” or “falcon”. However, the references and images of the ‫ נשר‬in biblical sources seem to indicate the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus), rather than the eagle (Aquila spp.). On ‫ נשר‬identified as vulture, see G.R. DRIVER, Birds in the Old Testament, in PEQ 87 (1955) 5-20, p. 8; H.B. TRISTRAM, Natural History of the Bible, London, SPCK, 1867, pp. 95-96, 172-179, 182-186; Y. FELIX, Animals in the Bible, Tel Aviv, Sinai Press, 1954, p. 66 [Hebrew]; FORTI, Animal Imagery (n. 18), pp. 30-31, 125-126; D. TALSHIR, Transformations in the Meaning of ‫ נשר‬and ‫עיט‬, in ID., Living Names: Fauna, Places and Humans, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute, 2012, 47-64 [in Hebrew]. 33. The name ‫ נחש‬denotes any reptile of the sub-order Ophidia. The onomatopoeic noun is a generic term for a variety of snakes, including ‫שפיפון‬, ‫אפעה‬, ‫פתן‬, ‫צפעוני‬, ‫צפע‬. The snake is a mythological beast in the literature of Syria-Palestine (see, for instance, Isa 27,1; Amos 9,3; Ps 74,13-14). 34. Our translation. 35. This stylistic expression of wonder recalls Job’s reaction to natural wonders [‫( ]נפלאות ממני‬42,3). The Psalmist (139,6-10) also uses the language of flying and wings to express his inability to hide from the omnipresent God: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me [‫ ;]פליאה ממני‬it is so high that I cannot attain it” (v. 6). On the importance of wonder as a feature in wisdom literature, see W.P. BROWN, Wisdom’s Wonder: Character, Creation and Crisis in the Bible’s Wisdom Literature, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2014.

254

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

snake, as the representative of the earthbound movement of reptiles36. The ‫ נשר‬comes first in the lists of the impure birds (Lev 11,13-19; Deut 14,1218), following the principle that the most important and widespread item is the first to be listed in any category. We should identify ‫ נשר‬as the vulture, which is one of the most common birds of prey in Israel. We are familiar with the snake or serpent from Genesis 3, an aetiology of whose habits are provided in Gen 3,14, but also from Exodus 7 where the staff of Moses turns into a snake. The personified snake or serpent in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, who conducts a conversation with the woman and tempts her to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, has shaped all later perceptions of the snake as the arch enemy of humankind (Gen 3,15; 49,17; Ps 91,13). Here though, allegedly, it seems to be a simple image of the manner in which the snake takes the same path to warm itself on a sunny rock on a daily basis. In each line of the rhetorical pattern of the numerical saying, the anaphoric catchword ‫דרך‬, “way/path”, is used, recalling the idea of a path or way as in Proverbs 1–9. Nonetheless, here the term ‫דרך‬ generates a metaphoric implication with reference to physical motion: the flight of a vulture, the slithering of a snake over a rock, and the passage of a ship over the sea. In the fourth case, however, it is a metaphor for a sexual relationship, “the way of a man with a maiden”. The shift of meaning of ‫ דרך‬paves the way for linking the four wonders to the adulterous woman and to moral reflection on human conduct (see discussion above). Here, however, the ways of the four items have in common that they disappear from human view. As Forti writes, “Thus we may interpret the way of the ship in the high seas as the route that leaves no traces apart from the foam that subsides and vanishes in the ship’s wake. In this fashion, the ‘way of a ship’ resembles the ways of the vulture and the snake”37. We will consider the key passage from the apocryphal book the Wisdom of Solomon 5 below, but it is worth noting here that the imagery of Prov 30,18-19 is taken up in Wis 5,9-14. As Clifford correctly contends, “of all the biblical books, Proverbs has exercised the greatest influence upon Wisdom of Solomon”38. The latter appears to borrow two images 36. Ibn Ezra emphasizes the wonder of a legless snake’s “walking” on a rock (see Gen 3,14). Gersonides stresses the mystery of the passing by of a snake with no sign that he has been there. Toy mentions also that the mystery is that the snake moves freely without feet. C.H. TOY, The Book of Proverbs (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1959, p. 531. 37. FORTI, Animal Imagery (n. 18), p. 126. According to Greenstein, the common denominator among the phenomena mentioned is that “in each case, the subject departing on a course of movement cannot see the desired destination and yet reaches that destination”. E.L. GREENSTEIN, Finding One’s Way in Proverbs 30:18-19, in S. YONA et al. (eds.), Marbeh Ḥokma: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2015, 261-268, p. 266. 38. R.J. CLIFFORD, Proverbs as a Source for Wisdom of Solomon, in N. CALDUCHBENAGES – J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

255

from this numerical saying in Proverbs that convey the idea of phenomena beyond human comprehension, the vulture’s flight through the sky and the ship’s course through the sea. Both are notable for being accomplished without leaving any observable trace. The underlying assumption seems to be that the skills required for both avian air travel and human sea travel are sufficiently astonishing to be regarded as divinely bestowed (see Ezek 27,8.25-26; Ps 104,24-26; 107,23-27)39. The skill required for successfully navigating a ship at sea can thus be attributed to the divine gift of wisdom, much as the specialized architectural skills of Bezalel and his cohorts, that were needed for constructing the tabernacle, were granted to them by God (Exod 31,1-6)40. However, Wisdom of Solomon places the images in a very different context. Whereas in Proverbs both phenomena, are a source of wonder per se to humans, in the latter composition the target domain is transformed into a moralistic lesson, namely the author interprets them in the context of judgement – the ungodly will lose their riches as a ship is lost as it passes through water and a bird through the air, so changing the image to one of the ephemerality of human life (see below). The vibrant association between the metaphoric expressions in Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon epitomizes Ricœur’s theory of “networks of metaphors” – “One metaphor calls for another and altogether they remain alive thanks to their mutual tension and the power of each to evoke the whole network”41. Imagery using predatory birds continues in Job. In Job 28,7: That path no bird of prey knows, and the hawk’s eye has not seen it42.

‫נתיב לא־ידעו עיט‬ ‫ולא שזפתו עין איה‬

of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL, 143), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1999, 255-263, p. 255. 39. See T. FORTI – D.A. GLATT-GILAD, At the Intersection of Intellect and Insolence: The Historiographic Significance of Solomon’s and Jehoshaphat’s “Tarshish Ships” in the Light of a Wisdom Motif, in A. BARUCH-UNNA et al. (eds.), “Now It Happened in Those Days”: Studies in Biblical, Assyrian, and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Mordechai Cogan on His 75th Birthday, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2017, 67-80. 40. Note that, in another context, flight and navigation – that is, avian movement and boat travel – are linked, i.e., in Job 9,25-26. 41. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics (n. 7), p. 94. 42. Our translation. The identification of specific Hebrew words with particular species of birds is again problematic. The name ‫ עיט‬does not appear in the lists of impure birds (Lev 11,13-19; Deut 14,12-18), however it occurs in juxtaposition with the generic category of beasts of the earth and beasts of the field (Isa 18,6; Jer 12,9; Ezek 39,4). Thus ‫עיט‬ (Job 28,7a) seems to denote a generic category of all kinds of birds of prey: “And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away” (Gen 15,11). The name ‫( איה‬Job 28,7b) is often translated by “falcon” or “hawk” and probably represents many species: “falcons of every variety” (Lev 11,14). See TALSHIR, Transformations in the Meaning of ‫ נשר‬and ‫( עיט‬n. 32), pp. 52-54; E.B. FIRMAGE, Zoology (Fauna), in ABD 6: 11441146.

256

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

The sight of both the bird of prey and the hawk reaches from above down to specific points beneath. In chapter 28 the context is the quest for wisdom, which is highly elusive, and it is revealed that only God knows the way to her. Wisdom is portrayed in Proverbs 1–9 as calling to a path that young men may follow and so the reference here is to the very same path that, in this poem, is out of reach. In Job 28, when it comes to the mysteries of creation, both its ultimate secrets and the Wisdom involved in its setting up and sustaining (Prov 3,19; 8,27-29), are hidden. Only God knows the way to wisdom, just as only God understands the mysterious ways of birds, ways unknowable by human beings. This imagery then recalls the way that birds of prey can see what is happening on the ground from high up – their eyesight is such that they can pinpoint a prey on the ground within seconds and they swoop down to pick it up and soar high in the next moment. Thus, the remoteness of the avian path of birds makes the human perspective even more limited. Another facet of this esteem for animals and their behaviour is the recognition of their mysterious ability to orient themselves in their natural habitats. In Jer 8,7, cited at the start of this article, the prophet employs the motif of the path of the migration of birds as a source of mystery to humans – he also asks how animals know their times of fertility: how does the stork “know her times/seasons” (see Qoh 3,1-8)? The comparison here is between regularity and knowability on the one hand and the fact that, on the other, the people of God ignore the very law which is supposed to give stability and regularity to their lives: “but my people do not know the ordinance of the Lord” (Jer 8,7c). The concept of human inaccessibility to nature’s wonders continues in Job 39,26-30 through imagery of the birds’ distinctive perspective of flight. God asks Job: 26

Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars43, and spreads its wings toward the south? 27 Is it at your command that the vulture mounts up and makes its nest on high? 28 It lives on the rock and makes its home in the fastness of the rocky crag. 29 From there it spies the prey; its eyes see it from far away. 30 Its young ones suck up blood; and where the slain are, there it is44.

‫המבינתך יאבר־נץ‬ ‫יפרש כנפיו לתימן‬ ‫אם־על־פיך יגביה נשר‬ ‫וכי ירים קנו‬ ‫סלע ישכן ויתלנן‬ ‫על־שן־סלע ומצודה‬ ‫משם חפר־אכל‬ ‫למרחוק עיניו יביטו‬ ‫ואפרחיו יעלעו־דם‬ ‫ובאשר חללים שם הוא‬

43. The term ‫( נץ‬Lev 11,16; Deut 14,15) is generic (Falconidae class of birds). See TRISTRAM, Natural History of the Bible (n. 32), p. 189. 44. Our translation of “vulture” for ‫ נשר‬in v. 27.

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

257

This text pays great attention to spatial configurations. The strong wings that enable the hawk to migrate to the south45, and the high lodging of the vulture express varying degrees of wisdom allotted and distributed by God46. God’s suggestion here is that Job has no such power, nor the knowledge of the ways of such birds. It is part of the put-down of Job using rhetorical questions. It is a rich portrayal of the ways of birds of prey and in many ways expands on the image used in Job 28. The traits of nesting in high rocks, gliding as it spreads its wings and searching for prey to provide food for its young are all paralleled in other biblical passages47. Admiration of the Wisdom hidden in nature and the unconscious intelligence of beasts, who share a mysterious and at times esoteric knowledge inaccessible to humans, is a recurring leitmotif in the hymns of praise to the Creator that are prominent in the wisdom tradition. An intriguing passage occurs in Job 12,7-8: 7 But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; The birds of the sky, they will tell you, 8 Or speak to the earth48, it will teach you; The fish of the sea, they will inform you (NJPS)

‫ואולם שאל־נא בהמות ותרך‬ ‫ועוף השמים ויגד־לך‬ ‫או שיח לארץ ותרך‬ ‫ויספרו לך דגי הים‬

Here there is a suggestion that animals and birds have something to teach us, as indeed do fish of the sea. As Dell has written elsewhere, “These non-humans are aware of the omniscient hand of God in all things, in the created order and in the life of every sentient being”49. Dell continues, “In a sense this passage is anthropocentric in that a dialogue takes place involving human beings i.e. between Job and his so-called friends. Yet it is almost an attack on anthropocentrism in that a key message of this passage is that human beings don’t always have all the answers. Another key point is that there is a relationship between the natural world and God, which doesn’t involve human beings, and in fact may have a lot to teach them”50. This is not to be taken literally, rather metaphorically, but it is a 45. The verb in the hiphil ‫( יאבר‬lit. “to fly”) is a denominative of ‫“ אברה‬pinion” (also ‫)כנף‬. 46. De JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes (n. 14), p. 225. 47. See Deut 28,49; Isa 40,31; Jer 4,13; 48,40; 49,16.22; Ezek 17,3.7; Obad 4; Hab 1,8; Lam 4,19. 48. Many emend ‫שיח לארץ‬, lit. “speak to earth”, to ‫חית הארץ‬, “the animals of the earth” (or: ‫שרץ הארץ‬, “reptiles of the earth”) in accordance with other faunal categories (cattle, birds, and fish). However, the meaning of ‫שיח‬, “tell/converse/speak”, integrates with the didactic vocabulary of the rest of the passage. 49. K.J. DELL, The Significance of the Wisdom Tradition in the Ecological Debate in Ecological Hermeneutics, in D.G. HORRELL et al. (eds.), Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives, London, T&T Clark, 2010, 56-69, p. 56. 50. Ibid.

258

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

potent reminder of the need for humans to interact with the natural world and allow it to speak to them. III. BIRD IMAGERY AND THE EPHEMERALITY OF HUMAN LIFE In the following vignette Job laments the brevity of his life. But here the motif of ephemerality is related to his tragic personal experience, thus “not the brevity of life as such but the misery of life that is in no way relieved by the progression of the days”51. And so we read in Job 9,25-26: 25

My days are swifter than a runner52; They flee without seeing happiness; 26 They pass like reed-boats53, like a vulture swooping onto its prey54.

‫וימי קלו מני־רץ‬ ‫ברחו לא־ראו טובה‬ ‫חלפו עם־אניות אבה‬ ‫כנשר יטוש עלי־אכל‬

Here the days are described using rich metaphors. Job likens the fleetingness of his life to three different images; a swift carrier, a floating reed-boat, and a vulture swooping onto its prey. The spatial similes draw on universal everyday experience representing different spheres – land, water, and air – to illustrate the quick passage of time. However, the third figure, the vulture which swoops upon its prey, concretizes the idea of Job’s increasingly shortened days, anticipating his expected death. The swift movement of the boat and the bird as images of the ephemeral life are developed in the Wisdom of Solomon. Here in the apocryphal material we find a rich set of images that form a longer section in 5,9-1455: 9

All those things have vanished like a shadow, and like a rumour that passes by: Like a ship that sails through the billowy water, and when it has passed no trace can be found, no track of its keel in the waves;

10

51. CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 16), p. 240. 52. See “my days are swifter” in Job 7,6. Here, the verb ‫ קלו‬qal (‫“ )קלל‬swift” is associated with the warrior who serves as a courier on the battlefield, as indicated by 2 Sam 2,18: “Asahel was as swift of foot [‫ ]קל ברגליו‬as a wild gazelle”. Qoh 9,11b reads: “The race is not won by the swift” in parallel with Amos 2,15: “the swift of foot shall not save themselves” (‫)וקל ברגליו לא ימלט‬. The noun ‫( רץ‬Job 9,25) “runner/courier” is used as a technical term for “messenger” (see Jer 51,31). 53. Though ‫ אבה‬is hapax, it is attested in Akk. Apu, Arab. ’abā, “reed”. The reed boats are the Egyptian papyrus skiffs (‫ )כלי גמא‬mentioned in Isa 18,1-2 as transporting “swift messengers” and perhaps alluded to again in Job 24,18. See CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 16), pp. 219, 240. 54. Our translation. 55. The simile, in the technical sense of the word, is simply an auxiliary means; namely it links two sentences put in parallel thanks to a tertium comparationis. See RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics (n. 7), pp. 90-91.

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

259

11

or as, when a bird flies through the air, no evidence of its passage is found; the light air, lashed by the beat of its pinions and pierced by the force of its rushing flight, is traversed by the movement of its wings, and afterward no sign of its coming is found there; 12 or as, when an arrow is shot at a target, the air, thus divided, comes together at once, so that no one knows its pathway. 13 So we also, as soon as we were born, ceased to be, and we had no sign of virtue to show, but were consumed in our wickedness. 14 Because the hope of the ungodly is like thistledown carried by the wind, and like a light frost2 driven away by a storm; it is dispersed like smoke before the wind, and it passes like the remembrance of a guest who stays but a day56.

A series of similes is used to describe the fleeting wealth of the ungodly. The wider context of this passage is a judgment scene (4,20–5,23), in which “the righteous person rises up with confidence before the wicked, who now recognize their error and confess that they have not understood the nature of reality”57. The language of way and path is used in Wis 5,6.7 to describe the choices that the wicked have made, climaxing in “but the way of the Lord we have not known” (v. 7). Their wealth and pleasure in tormenting the righteous, as described, give no permanent pleasure or benefit – they vanish without trace like a shadow (v. 9), a ship (v. 10) or a bird (v. 11)58. For the purposes of this paper, however, of most interest is the bird imagery which here is using the idea that there is no trace of a bird once it has gone past (v. 11). This, as with the other metaphors, is compared to the fleeting nature of human life, whether good or wicked. As Forti writes, “The most admirable aspect of navigation or aviation is the invisible course of movement; either the ship in sea or the eagle in air, proceed a course without leaving any traces”59. We have already seen the ship and 56. See Jer 14,8: “like a traveller turning aside for the night?”. 57. CLIFFORD, Proverbs as a Source for Wisdom of Solomon (n. 38), pp. 257-258. 58. This passage is filled with images of ephemerality starting with the shadow (v. 9) (cf. Ps 144,4; Job 14,2; Qoh 6,12), as expressed by Mazzinghi when he renders the Greek text: “Like a shadow that passes; like a message handed on in a hurry and then forgotten; like the wake of the ship’s hull among the waves of the sea that have been disturbed; like a bird that flies off beating the air with its wings; like the speedy passage of an arrow through the air: so the life of the ungodly does not leave any visible trace behind it and is immediately forgotten”. L. MAZZINGHI, Wisdom (International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2019, p. 149. 59. T.L. FORTI, Of Ships and Seas, and Fish and Beasts: Viewing the Concept of Universal Providence in the Book of Jonah through the Prism of Psalms, in JSOT 35 (2011) 359-374, pp. 363-364.

260

K.J. DELL – T.L. FORTI

bird images in Proverbs 30. This author takes the proverbial observation of wonderful aspects of life and applies them in a moral context to elaborate the remorse of the ungodly at the time of judgement. The ungodly understand the consequences of their arrogance, comparing the vanishing of their riches to the passing of a ship through the water and a bird through the air. The point of this passage from a human perspective comes in vv. 13-14 which express the ephemerality of life, such that it seems as if death follows all too quickly on from birth, especially for the wicked. The rhetorical and moralistic tone is most prominent in these verses and is the most significant difference from Proverbs. This passage states that the things on which the wicked based their hopes, such as wealth and posturing, leave no trace. The implication, according to Collins, seems to be that since they have no immortal qualities, such as righteousness, they are simply consumed60. The imagery is rich and goes on to include the fragile spider’s web and the image of smoke scattered by the wind. As R.H. Charles writes: The images in vv. 9ff. that are vivid and poetic are used to denote the transitory nature of life: “whether they are quite appropriate in the mouth of those in whom the agony of remorse is supposed to be working, is another question”61. Horbury argues that the similes of transitoriness in Wis 5,9–12,14 are biblically inspired, citing the very passages that we have considered above and adding Ps 1,4 (which likens the wicked to chaff that blows away, see Wis 5,14). He writes, “Nine largely biblically inspired short and long similes of transitoriness (vv. 9-12, 14; Job 9:25-26; Prov 30:19; Ps 1:4; Jer 14:8) evoke the fleeting world of the unrighteous and their desires (cf. 1 Jn 2:17)”62. His comment ties our passages together well as we end our discussion of this avian topic. IV. CONCLUSION It is clear from our analysis of this material, that bird metaphors and wider imagery is a rich field of enquiry and that more work remains to be done in the area. Within the wisdom literature, such imagery is at home in a corpus of literature that uses many images from the natural world to illuminate human behaviour. We have seen how the sages used bird metaphors 60. J.J. COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, pp. 185-187. 61. R.H. CHARLES, Apocrypha, Oxford, Clarendon, 1913, p. 542. 62. W. HORBURY, The Wisdom of Solomon, in J. BARTON – J. MUDDIMAN (eds.), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, 650-667, p. 657.

ENIGMATIC PATHS OF BIRDS IN WISDOM LITERATURE

261

to express the spread of a curse and linked it to their communication theme regarding a careful choice of words and of when to utter them, for “walls have ears!”. We have also seen how mysterious to human beings are the paths of birds, when it comes to migration and other habits. Clearly, more is known nowadays about birds than at the time when the sages were writing down their wisdom, however there is always a sense of mystery and wonder when human beings look at the created world around them. These observations remind us that God is in charge and that through wisdom he knows the intricate patterns of every one of his creatures. Finally, we explored ideas of the ephemerality of life, as also denoted by the swift passage of a bird – life is short and so we are all exhorted to make of it the best we can. When a bird flies through the air, we too are reminded of our transitory path through this world: “a generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains for ever” (Qoh 1,4). University of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom [email protected] Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva 84105 Israel [email protected]

Katharine J. DELL

Tova L. FORTI

ARBORS AMONG APHORISMS THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

Various metaphors populate the lush landscape projected in the book of Proverbs. The root metaphor of the “way” creates a complex network of paths, each of which are marked by different terrains, associated with different women, directed toward different houses, and oriented to different fates1. And along these paths, one encounters various characters and motifs that are conceptualized through common source domains2. While various source domains have been ploughed and particular target domains as well as metaphorical networks have been harvested, one plant remains unaccounted for in Proverbs’ conceptual landscape: the tree3. This essay will explore the interconnections generated by the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES4. Through the arboreal source domain and its frame of reference, the essay will consider the anatomy of the tree in Proverbs with 1. For the root metaphor of the WAY and its “satellite images”, see N.C. HABEL, The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9, in Interpretation 26 (1972) 131-157; R.C. VAN LEEUWEN, Liminality and Worldview in Proverbs 1–9, in Semeia 50 (1990) 111-144; M.V. FOX, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 18A), New York, Doubleday, 2000, pp. 128-131. 2. See T.L. FORTI, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (VT.S, 118), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2008; M.B. SZLOS, Body Parts as Metaphor and the Value of a Cognitive Approach: A Study of the Female Figure in Proverbs via Metaphor, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 185-195; G.S. GOERING, Honey and Wormwood: Taste and the Embodiment of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 5 (2016) 23-41; A.W. STEWART, Poetic Ethics in Proverbs: Wisdom Literature and the Shaping of the Moral Self, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2016; N.L. TILFORD, Sensing World, Sensing Wisdom: The Cognitive Foundation of Biblical Metaphors (AIL, 31), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2017. 3. By contrast, the tree or plant domain is considered in several works that focus on poetic texts in general and certain prophets in particular. See, K. NIELSEN, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOT.S, 65), Sheffield, JSOT, 1989; W.P. BROWN, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor, Louisville, KY – London, Westminster John Knox, 2002, pp. 55-79; J.Y. JINDO, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24 (HSM, 64), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2010; W.R. OSBORNE, Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East (Bulletin for Biblical Research. Supplement, 18), University Park, PA, Eisenbrauns, 2018. 4. G. LAKOFF – M. TURNER, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 5-6; see Ps 1,3; 52,10; 92,12-13; Job 14,7-10.

264

C.B. ANSBERRY

a view to projecting the range of its intersignifications and the network of metaphors that dwell under its shade5. I. AN (IN)ACCESSIBLE ARBOR: A TREE OF LIFE Although trees are scarce in metaphorical explorations of Proverbs, the arbor is by no means absent from ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple instructional compositions6. The fourth chapter of the Instruction of Amenemope, for example, employs the image of the tree to sketch the nature and fate of the “heated man” and the “truly silent”, respectively7. The former is painted as a sick tree, growing indoors without access to sunlight, whose shoots sprout momentarily, before it is cut down, removed far from its place, and burnt with fire. The “truly silent”, by contrast, is depicted as a healthy, verdant tree, basking in the sunlight, producing an abundance of sweet fruit, and standing before its god, until it comes to rest in the garden. Whereas Amenemope uses the image of a tree to conceptualize the nature and fate of particular moral prototypes, Ben Sira deploys the arbor to disclose different dimensions of wisdom. According to Ben Sira, the “root” of wisdom is the fear of YHWH (Sir 1,20a); and personified Wisdom is a tall, fragrant, blossoming tree, rooted in Zion, who offers nourishment and honor to all who eat her fruit and drink from her boughs (Sir 24,12-22). These representative texts bear witness to the metaphorical use of the tree in ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple instructional compositions. The tree provided a source domain from which to depict certain character types, wisdom, and the nature of Lady Wisdom. While the target domain differs in each text, these targets are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are inextricably linked to one another in Proverbs. And this link is formed by a common source, a particular tree, namely, a tree of life. As many have noted, with the exception of Genesis 2–3 and certain aphorisms within Proverbs, the expression “tree of life” (‫ )עץ־חיים‬is not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see LXX Isa 65,22). Its place within the text continuum of Proverbs opens dynamic intertextual and 5. For frames of reference and their function as the basic unit of metaphor and semantic integration, see B. HARSHAV, Metaphor and Frames of Reference: With Examples from Eliot, Rilke, Mayakovsky, Mandelshtam, Pound, Creeley, Amichai, and the New York Times, in ID., Explorations in Poetics, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2007, 32-75. 6. For discussion of this compositional tradition, see S. WEEKS, Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 4-66. 7. The Instruction of Amenemope (AEL 2,150-151).

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

265

intratextual horizons. More than recalling the Eden narrative, it situates the tree in the conceptual landscape of Proverbs and creates a frame of reference that illuminates and integrates other local arboreal metaphors under the canopy of the concept PEOPLE ARE TREES. The productive nature of ‫ עץ־חיים‬is evinced through its use in four texts, each of which deserves specific comment. 1. Wisdom Is a Tree of Life (Prov 3,18) The first is cast in the final couplet of a macarism, which celebrates the happiness of the one who has found and embraced wisdom (Prov 3,13-18). The beatitudinal poem catalogues the beatific state of wisdom’s possessor through an extended rationale that consists of two strophes (vv. 14-15.1617) and a concluding couplet (v. 18). The initial strophe employs economic terms and a series of comparative constructions to highlight wisdom’s quantitative and qualitative value: her earnings exceed the market value of precious metals (v. 14) and her intrinsic worth surpasses that of corals (v. 15a). Nothing – neither wealth, nor jewels, nor anything else – compares with her (v. 15b). In view of wisdom’s incomparable worth, the second strophe outlines the blessed life that wisdom offers her lovers; it is a life characterized by longevity, “substantial wealth” (v. 16)8, as well as harmony and wholeness (v. 17). Whereas the personification of wisdom is implicit in the first strophe, it is explicit in the second. And the desirability of this matchless woman reaches a crescendo in the final couplet (Prov 3,18): she is a tree of life to those who embrace her, and those who hold fast to her are blessed9.

‫עץ־חיים היא למחזיקים בה‬ ‫ותמכיה מאשר‬

The arboreal metaphor crystalizes wisdom’s value and desirability through a fertile image that evokes an ancient Near Eastern mythological motif in general and the Eden narrative in particular (Gen 2,9; 3,22.24). While some consider ‫ עץ־חיים‬as a “faded metaphor” drained of its mythological connotations and cut off from the semantic field cultivated in Eden10, such a reading underdetermines the thickness of the expression. The prevalence of the motif in ancient Near Eastern texts and iconography11, combined with the correspondence between Wisdom’s harmonious way and the form of life in Eden (Prov 3,17), intimates that ‫ עץ־חיים‬is far from 8. For this hendiadys, see FOX, Proverbs 1–9 (n. 1), p. 157. 9. For the use of the singular, predicate participle with a plural subject, see GKC §145l. 10. R. MARCUS, The Tree of Life in Proverbs, in JBL 62 (1943) 117-120; FOX, Proverbs 1–9 (n. 1), pp. 158-159. 11. See OSBORNE, Trees and Kings (n. 3), pp. 36-75.

266

C.B. ANSBERRY

dead. As an indefinite expression, it may not match the tree of life in Genesis 2–3; but it is organically and conceptually related to the primeval arbor. And this relationship produces various metaphorical entailments. The conceptual metaphor WISDOM IS A TREE OF LIFE depicts Wisdom as one who offers a life marked by flourishing, healing, wholeness, peace, well-being, delight, and abundance. That is, Wisdom offers a form of life that mirrors the shape of human life in Eden12. The ‫ דרך‬to the tree that was once forbidden (Gen 3,22-24) is now a network of open ‫ דרכים‬to an arbor that is accessible (Prov 3,13.18)13. And the tree that was banned from human touch (Gen 3,3) is now a tree that one must grasp (Prov 3,18). East of Eden, Wisdom provides access to a long, temporal life of shalom for all who embrace her trunk and grasp her boughs (see Sir 1,20b). 2. The Righteous Are a Tree of Life (Prov 11,30) The initial mention of ‫ עץ־חיים‬links Wisdom to an Edenic form of life that is open to human embrace (Prov 3,18). The second (Prov 11,30) associates the righteous with ‫ עץ חיים‬that is available to human taste: The fruit of the righteous: a tree of life; and one who ‘takes lives’ is wise.

‫פרי־צדיק עץ חיים‬ ‫ולקח נפשות חכם‬

When read within the text continuum of Proverbs, the aphorism indicates that ‫ עץ חיים‬is not an isolated arbor related to Wisdom; it is also the natural produce of the anthology’s moral exemplar: the righteous14. The first line of the saying is elliptical. It may be rendered as “the fruit of the righteous is (like the fruit of) the tree of life”15, or, perhaps better, as “the fruit of the righteous is (the fruit of) a tree of life”16. The line operates under the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES17. The righteous are depicted as a tree. Their attitudes, actions, and speech are the fruit that hangs from their branches. And this fruit is ‫ ;עץ חיים‬it is ripe produce, nurtured and sustained by an exemplary moral character, that provides 12. T. STORDALEN, Echoes of Eden: Gen 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 25), Leuven, Peeters, 2000, p. 375. 13. C.R. YODER, Proverbs (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 2009, p. 16. 14. S.M. LYU, Righteousness in the Book of Proverbs (FAT, 2/55), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2012, p. 62. 15. M.V. FOX, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 18B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2009, p. 545. 16. S.R. MILLAR, When a Straight Road Becomes a Garden Path: The ‘False Lead’ as a Pedagogical Strategy in the Book of Proverbs, in JSOT 43 (2018) 67-82, p. 77, n. 31. 17. STORDALEN, Echoes of Eden (n. 12), p. 89.

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

267

nourishment, healing, and vitality for the community. Whereas the fruit of the tree of life was barred from consumption in Eden (Gen 3,22-23), this fruit may now be plucked and eaten from the boughs of the righteous. The tree metaphor orients one to the character of the righteous and activates several metaphorical entailments. As lush trees that yield life-sustaining fruit, the righteous not only provide wholeness, flourishing, delight, and satisfaction for the community, but they also embody a normative ontology. By virtue of their moral character, the righteous, like a tree, fulfill their designated function within the socio-moral world of Proverbs: they bear fruit, the fruit of a tree of life18. This concern with ontology is developed in Prov 11,30b. The line shifts from the righteous to this moral exemplars’ intellectual counterpart19. And it moves from the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES to the metaphor of MORAL ESSENCE. As Lakoff and Johnson note, this moral metaphor operates under several assumptions, two in particular: “If you know how a person has acted, you know what that person’s character is”; and “If you know what a person’s character is, you know how that person will act”20. Prov 11,30b gestures to both in order to clarify the character of the wise and shape the moral reasoning of the reader. The initial half of the line foregrounds the first assumption through a conventional phrase: ‫לקח נפשות‬. Since the expression denotes killing elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible21, one might conclude that the line profiles an aberrant character type, whose extermination of life stands in sharp contrast with the righteous’ provision of life (11,30a). The last word in the line, however, forces one to reconsider this conclusion, for the action is characterized as ‫ חכם‬22. This characterization foregrounds Lakoff and Johnson’s second assumption, challenging the reader to reexamine the initial half of the line. While some resolve the apparent discrepancy in 11,30b by emending ‫ חכם‬to ‫ חמס‬23, the revision is unnecessary. The characterization of the action as wise prompts the 18. See M. WEISS, The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation, transl. B.J. Schwartz, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1984, pp. 154-155. 19. For the co-referential relationship between the righteous, the wise, and other character types in Proverbs, see K.M. HEIM, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1–22:16 (BZAW, 273), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2001, pp. 77-103. 20. G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, New York, Basic, 1999, p. 306. 21. 1 Sam 24,11; 1 Kgs 19,10.14; Ps 31,13; Prov 1,19. 22. For the phenomenon of the “false lead”, see MILLAR, When a Straight Road (n. 16). 23. C.H. TOY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1899, pp. 238-239; W. MCKANE, Proverbs: A New Approach (OTL), London, SCM, 1970, pp. 432-433; R.E. MURPHY, Proverbs (WBC, 22), Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson, 1998, p. 80.

268

C.B. ANSBERRY

reader to interpret the idiom ‫ לקח נפשות‬contrary to its conventional sense24. In this respect, “one who takes lives” should be understood as “one who wins lives”25, alluring others with their attractive behavior and persuasive speech. By moving from the first to the second assumption that undergirds the metaphor of MORAL ESSENCE, the line hones the moral reasoning of the reader26. The wise win lives. This action is a characteristic feature of their moral essence and a manifestation of their being or ontology. Just as the righteous fulfill their function by providing the fruit of a tree of life, the wise fulfill their function by captivating others. Both nurture and sustain life27. While the conceptual metaphors that structure the individual lines differ, their concern with character, ontology, and the preservation of communal life indicate they are not mutually exclusive. They maintain a dynamic relationship. 3. Desire Fulfilled Is a Tree of Life (Prov 13,12) The third mention of ‫ עץ חיים‬in Proverbs complements both Prov 3,18 and 11,30. Whereas the former associated “tree of life” with Wisdom and touch and the latter linked “tree of life” to the righteous and taste, Prov 13,12 relates “tree of life” to desire. A drawn-out hope makes the heart sick; but a tree of life is a desire fulfilled.

‫תוחלת ממשכה מחלה־לב‬ ‫ועץ חיים תאוה באה‬

The aphorism explores a common, psychosomatic condition though two interrelated conceptual metaphors: DISSATISFACTION IS EMPTINESS and SATISFACTION IS FULLNESS28. The former structures the initial line, while the latter informs the second. According to the first, the perpetual postponement of an expectation engenders severe psychological and somatic effects. Hope that never finds temporal fulfillment leaves one empty, dissatisfied, and debilitated. A desire “that has come” (‫)באה‬, by contrast, is ‫עץ חיים‬ – a source of health, healing, and satisfaction that quenches desire and revives individuals with its fruit29. The expression “tree of life” creates 24. R.J. CLIFFORD, Proverbs: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1999, p. 127; MILLAR, When a Straight Road (n. 16), pp. 76-77. 25. A. MEINHOLD, Die Sprüche. Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1–15 (Zürcher Bibelkommentar, 16/1), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1991, p. 201; FOX, Proverbs 10–31 (n. 15), p. 45; M. SÆBØ, Sprüche (ATD, 16,1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012, p. 180. 26. See MILLAR, When a Straight Road (n. 16), pp. 81-82. See A. STEWART, Wisdom’s Imagination: Moral Reasoning and the Book of Proverbs, in JSOT 40 (2016) 351-372. 27. See W.H. IRWIN, The Metaphor in Prov 11,30, in Biblica 65 (1984) 97-100. 28. See TILFORD, Sensing World (n. 2), p. 128. 29. MEINHOLD, Die Sprüche (n. 25), p. 223; FOX, Proverbs 10–31 (n. 15), p. 566.

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

269

a rich source domain through which to consider the hollowness of dissatisfaction and the extent of sickness as well as the psychological refreshment and physical restoration of a desire fulfilled. SATISFACTION IS FULLNESS may serve as the overarching conceptual metaphor of the second line; but “tree of life” furnishes a particular source that illuminates the dimensions of this fullness. More than this, the use of “tree of life” with “desire fulfilled” recasts elements of the Eden narrative. Whereas the tree that the woman found delightful brought death and dissatisfaction, a longing fulfilled satisfies desire, bringing life and gratification. 4. Soothing Speech Is a Tree of Life (Prov 15,4) The final use of ‫ עץ חיים‬within Proverbs (15,4) moves beyond the target domains of wisdom, the righteous, and desire to fertilize the subject of speech. A soothing tongue, a tree of life; but perversion in it breaks the spirit.

‫מרפא לשון עץ חיים‬ ‫וסלף בה שבר ברוח‬

The arboreal image enriches the qualities of gentle, restorative speech. It portrays this form of discourse as an instrument of healing as well as a cool, soothing shade that revives others. While “perversion” (‫ )סלף‬does not serve as a precise parallel to a gentle tongue, it introduces notions of verbal dishonesty that expand the aphorism’s projection of the effects of speech. And the destruction caused by the twisted tongue appears to extend the imagery of the arbor into the second line. The noun ‫ שבר‬is multivalent. It can refer to cracked pottery (Isa 30,14), collapsed walls (Isa 30,13), or fractured limbs (Lev 21,19; 24,20). When read in the light of the initial line, however, it may express the breaking of branches (see Ezek 31,12; Ps 29,5; 105,33)30. Soothing speech germinates and sprouts a healing, comforting tree of life. Perverse speech, by contrast, splinters the spirit and breaks the boughs of members of the community. Both lines traffic in the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES, drawing on aspects of the arboreal source domain to depict discrete effects of speech. 5. Conclusion Taken together, the references to ‫ עץ חיים‬plant a rich arboreal metaphor within Proverbs. This tree serves as a source for particular target domains, ranging from Wisdom (Prov 3,18) and the righteous (Prov 11,30) to desire 30. W.P. BROWN, The Didactic Power of Metaphor in the Aphoristic Sayings of Proverbs, in JSOT 29 (2004) 133-154, p. 145; YODER, Proverbs (n. 13), p. 168.

270

C.B. ANSBERRY

(Prov 13,12) and speech (Prov 15,4). It cultivates and conveys concepts of vitality, health, healing, wholeness, flourishing, well-being, and abundance. And the image generates a fruitful intertextual dialogue with the Eden narrative. While ‫ עץ חיים‬has occupied the attention of many, few have shifted their gaze beyond the image to other arbors that populate the landscape of Proverbs. The ‫ עץ חיים‬creates a frame of reference that gathers other arboreal expressions and images into the arboretum of Prov 1,1–9,18 and 10,1–22,1631. The extent of this arboretum and the anatomy of the tree within these collections require inspection. II. THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN PROVERBS 1,1–9,18 10,1–22,16

AND

The arboreal frame of reference activated by ‫ עץ חיים‬produces an array of metaphorical intersignifications within Proverbs. These intersignifications are generated through semantic elements related to the tree in general and the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES in particular. Scattered among the aphorisms in Proverbs, these semantic elements exist in dynamic relationship with diverse conceptual metaphors; and they coalesce to project the anatomy of the tree: its roots, trunk, branches, and fruit. 1. The Roots of the Tree The roots of the arbor penetrate two particular sayings, each of which operates under moral metaphors that pervade the conceptual landscape of Proverbs. No one is established through wickedness; but the root of the righteous will never totter.

‫לא־יכון אדם ברשע‬ ‫ושרש צדיקים בל־ימוט‬

The first saying (Prov 12,3) assesses character through the metaphor of MORAL STRENGTH32. Among the various metaphors that constitute the concept, Prov 12,3 privileges the notion of (in)stability, presumably in the face of external forces. The respective lines, however, employ distinct images and metaphors to portray this moral (in)stability. The first incorporates an architectural image. Gesturing to the concept PEOPLE ARE BUILDINGS/CITIES (see Job 19,7-12; Lam 3,5-9), it captures the unstable structure of wickedness. A life constructed through wickedness will not 31. HARSHAV, Metaphor and Frames of Reference (n. 5), p. 41. 32. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh (n. 20), pp. 298-301.

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

271

be established, for it rests on an uneven foundation manufactured by defective moral materials. The second line, by contrast, utilizes the image of a tree. The righteous are rendered as a tree with deep, unshakable roots. Whether these roots are anchored in and nourished by YHWH or the fertile foundation of the created order, they remain immovable. The root of the righteous will never “totter” or fall. The use of ‫ ימוט‬to describe the stable root of the righteous is unusual. Trees may collapse; but roots do not tend to “totter”. The curious characterization of the root of the righteous serves as an invitation to extend the arboreal metaphor. The righteous are a tree, firmly planted in the moral order, with unwavering roots that stabilize and secure their being before the storms of life. The aphorism blends architectural and arboreal metaphors with the metaphor of MORAL STRENGTH in order to capture the stability of moral character and to motivate a moral life through the expectation of safety. Similar to Prov 11,30, the second aphorism (Prov 12,12) pertaining to roots grafts the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES onto the metaphor of MORAL ESSENCE. The wicked desires a snare for evil things; but the root of the righteous gives.

‫חמד רשע מצוד רעים‬ ‫ושרש צדיקים יתן‬

When read in the light of Prov 12,11, the saying develops the essential properties of particular character types. Just as the one who “lacks sense” pursues things that match his moral essence (Prov 12,11), so also the character of the wicked matches the objects of their desires (Prov 12,12a). The nature of these desires, however, is unclear (Prov 12,12a). The object of the wicked person’s desire may be “the catch of evil people”33, that is, the prey entangled in the net of the evil. It could be read as “a snare for the wicked”34, that is, something that, in reality and unbeknown to the wicked, is a snare. Or it could be construed as “a snare for evil things” – a trap that captures all the wicked desire. The latter translation makes good sense and contributes to the sense of the second line. This line reiterates the expression ‫( שרש צדיקים‬Prov 12,3b.12b). The arboreal expression activates the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES; and it uses this metaphor to cultivate the moral ontology or moral essence of the righteous. If the metaphor of MORAL ESSENCE structures the aphorism, then the emendation of the second line is both unnecessary and unsatisfying. The verb ‫ יתן‬may lack an object; but its absence is more of an asset than a liability. The lack of an object not only engages the imagination and shapes 33. CLIFFORD, Proverbs (n. 24), p. 131. 34. FOX, Proverbs 10–31 (n. 15), p. 553.

272

C.B. ANSBERRY

the moral reasoning of the reader; it also directs one’s attention to the essential nature of the righteous. The righteous are a tree with stable roots (Prov 12,3b) that “give” (Prov 12,12b): they seep deep into the earth, protecting the community from moral erosion; and they transfer nutrients from the soil to the leaves, where they can produce pleasing aromas and choice fruit. Like the roots of a tree, the righteous function in accord with their actual being35. They give. When read in conjunction with the first line, the saying offers a vivid portrait of the moral essence of the wicked and the righteous. The wicked desire a snare for things that nourish their character and satisfy their longings, while the “root of the righteous gives”, nourishing their boughs and satisfying the longings of others. The metaphor of MORAL ESSENCE provides the soil within which the concept PEOPLE ARE TREES develops the ontological status and essential nature of the righteous. They are organically related to one another in Prov 12,12. 2. The Trunk of the Tree As roots anchor and animate a tree, so the roots profiled in Prov 12,3 and 12,12 vitalize and integrate images associated with the trunk of the tree within the anthology. This trunk emerges in a few sayings, three in particular. The first (Prov 10,7) reflects on the nature of one’s name. The memory of the righteous, for a blessing; but the name of the wicked rots.

‫זכר צדיק לברכה‬ ‫ושם רשעים ירקב‬

Both ‫ זכר‬and ‫ שם‬function as metonymies for one’s reputation. And, as the saying intimates, one’s reputation has present as well as posthumous implications36. According to the initial line, the character of the righteous provides individuals with beatitudinal content that celebrates, revives, and preserves the reputation of this moral exemplar within the collective speech and memory of the community. The memory of the wicked, by contrast, ‫ירקב‬. With the exception of Prov 10,7b, the verb occurs elsewhere only in Isa 40,20, where it describes a piece of wood suitable for the formation of an idol. Similar to the use of the nominal form in Proverbs (Prov 12,4; 14,30), the verb may derive from the domain of the dead, connoting the stench, deterioration, and disappearance of the name of the wicked. In addition to its association with the disintegration of a corpse, however, 35. See WEISS, The Bible from Within (n. 18), pp. 155-156. 36. FOX, Proverbs 10–31 (n. 15), p. 515.

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

273

the verb may signify the decay of a tree. The arboreal source domain structures the withering memory of one’s name elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Job 18,16-17). And this source domain develops the characterization of one’s reputation in Prov 10,7. While most of the elements in the constituent lines maintain a close parallel relationship, the correspondence between the final elements is imprecise37. The expected counterpart to “for a blessing” would be “for a curse”38; and the parallel to “rots” would be “flourishes” or “endures”. If Prov 10,7 is a case of imprecise parallelism, the aphorism requires supplementation. The addition of these elliptical elements revives the arboreal imagery latent in the saying: “The memory of the righteous endures for a blessing; but the name of the wicked rots for a curse”. Whereas the being, character, and reputation of the righteous is depicted as a flourishing tree, whose stature and benefits thrive within the memory and discourse of the community, the name of the wicked is portrayed as a rotten tree, moldering in the memory of the community and momentarily revived for the sake of maledictory discourse. When read within the text continuum of the anthology, Prov 10,7b alludes to the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES. And when interpreted as an example of imprecise parallelism, the condition of the trunk emerges from the aphorism. While the trunk of the tree emerges from a single verb in Prov 10,7, it expands in Prov 10,30 through the aphorism’s organic relationship with two intertexts. The righteous will never be shaken; and the wicked will not dwell in the land.

‫צדיק לעולם בל־ימוט‬ ‫ורשעים לא ישכנו־ארץ‬

The first intertext is Prov 12,3. Similar to Prov 12,3, the initial line employs the phrase ‫בל־ימוט‬. The arboreal expression not only diagnoses the MORAL STRENGTH of root of the righteous (Prov 12,3); it also characterizes the MORAL STRENGTH of this persona’s trunk (Prov 10,30). Together with Prov 12,3, the righteous are rendered as a tree with stable roots and an immoveable trunk that weathers the winds and endures the storms of life (see Prov 10,25). The wicked, however, are removed from a fertile ecosystem. They will be severed from the community, exiled to live in an isolated place. Whether the term ‫ ארץ‬refers to the earth in general or the land of Israel in particular, the second line indicates that the wicked dwell outside of their natural habitat. Their immoral ontology matches their 37. For the phenomenon of imprecise parallelism in Proverbs, see M.V. FOX, The Rhetoric of Disjointed Proverbs, in JSOT 29 (2004) 165-177. 38. This is the proposed emendation in BHS.

274

C.B. ANSBERRY

physical location. They are sub-human39; so, like an unnatural tree, they are transplanted to an unnatural place. Arboreal imagery is foregrounded in the first line. With Prov 12,3, the aphorism blends the metaphor of MORAL STRENGTH with the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES to depict the stability and permanence of the righteous. The presence of the arbor may be implicit in the second line; but its trunk appears when the line is read in conjunction with the second intertext of Prov 10,30, viz., Prov 2,21-22. Situated at the conclusion of the second parental lecture, Prov 2,21-22 sketches a graphic portrait of the preservation of the upright and the destruction of the wicked: 21

for the upright will dwell in the land, and the blameless will remain in it; 22 but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be uprooted from it.

‫כי־ישרים ישכנו ארץ‬ ‫ותמימים יותרו בה‬ ‫ורשעים מארץ יכרתו‬ ‫ובוגדים יסחו ממנה‬

The expression ‫ ישכנו ארץ‬mirrors Prov 10,30b. In fact, these are the only occurrences of the phrase within the book of Proverbs. Whereas the wicked will not dwell in the natural habitat of humanity (Prov 10,30b), the upright and the blameless will remain within it (Prov 2,21). The designation ‫ישרים‬ introduces the metaphor of MORAL STRENGTH through its related concept BEING MORAL IS BEING UPRIGHT40. And when these moral metaphors are read in relation to the “land”, it appears that one’s moral ontology corresponds with one’s physical posture and geographical place. The upright, like a healthy tree, fulfil their ontological function in the moral economy of Proverbs. They embody a strong, vertically straight posture that remains within and is nourished by the land of the living41. Similar to Prov 10,30b, the presence of the arbor may be opaque within Prov 2,21. Its explicit emergence in Prov 2,22, however, intimates that the metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES resides in the backdrop of the portrait of the upright. The upright and blameless will remain in the land; but the wicked and the treacherous will not. The fate of these aberrant character types is portrayed through the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES. This metaphor is activated through the verbs ‫ יכרתו‬and ‫יסחו‬. The wicked, like a rotten tree, will be felled and removed from the soil that sustains them, while the treacherous, like a shallow tree, will be ripped out of the earth that anchors them (see Deut 28,63; Ps 52,7[5]; Job 19,10; Prov 15,25; 39. See J. JINDO, On the Biblical Notion of the “Fear of God” as a Condition for Human Existence, in BibInt 19 (2012) 433-453. 40. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh (n. 20), p. 299. 41. See JINDO, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered (n. 3), p. 226.

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

275

Ezra 6,11). The metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES structures and shapes the respective fates of the wicked and the treacherous. Like the righteous (Prov 10,30; 11,30; 12,3.12), these aberrant character types are depicted as arbors. But in the light of their immoral ontology, they meet a much different end: not a healthy, long life flourishing within the land of the living, but a momentary life that culminates in their removal from humanity’s natural habitat and their relocation to a place that matches their ontological status, the land of the dead42. 3. The Branches of the Tree The trunk that emerged in the sayings surveyed above expands the arboreal network within Proverbs 1,1–9,18 and 10,1–22,16. And the branches linked to this trunk reveal the color and character of the tree within the landscape of Proverbs. These features are explored in two particular aphorisms. The first aphorism (Prov 11,28) employs a simile, associating the righteous with a flourishing tree, whose branches sprout with green foliage. One who trusts in his wealth – he will fall; but the righteous will sprout like foliage.

‫בוטח בעשרו הוא יפל‬ ‫וכעלה צדיקים יפרחו‬

The second line intermingles several metaphorical concepts, ranging from the metaphor of MORAL ESSENCE and the concept of MORAL HEALTH to the metaphorical construct PEOPLE ARE TREES. Similar to many of the aphorisms explored above (Prov 10,30; 11,30; 12,3.12), the righteous are conceptualized as an arbor. By virtue of their character or moral essence, they “sprout” or “flourish”, sending forth shoots and branches from their trunk. And these branches manifest the moral health of the tree, for they are compared with ‫עלה‬, that is, with verdant vegetation that offers shade, comfort, and fresh air for the community. The evocative imagery within the second line extends the arboreal network in Proverbs. It links the root and trunk of the righteous to their leaves; it integrates the metaphor of MORAL HEALTH into the matrix of moral metaphors used in other arboreal sayings. And it moves one to reevaluate the imagery within the first line. The verb ‫ יפל‬may draw from the domain of architecture to depict the collapse of one who trusts in his wealth43. But when it is read in the light of the arboreal metaphor in the second line, the verb conceptualizes this collapse as a falling tree. Like foliage, the righteous are a tree with 42. See ibid. 43. TOY, Proverbs (n. 23), p. 237.

276

C.B. ANSBERRY

healthy branches that perennially sprout. The one who trusts in his wealth, however, is a hollow, unhealthy tree, destined for felling. The second aphorism (Prov 14,3) pertaining to branches employs an ironic arboreal image that satirizes the speech of the fool. In the mouth of the fool, a sprig of pride; but the lips of the wise guard them.

‫בפי־אויל חטר גאוה‬ ‫ושפתי חכמים תשמורם‬

While some emend the end of the first line to create a precise parallel with its counterpart in the second, in view of the phenomenon of imprecise parallelism in Proverbs, the change is unnecessary. The fool’s discourse is depicted through an inchoate pair of metaphors that sprout in the reader’s imagination. These metaphors include PEOPLE ARE TREES and ARROGANCE IS HIGH. The fool is portrayed as a tree; and his mouth is projected as the top of the trunk from which a “sprig” springs. The ‫ חטר‬may be a small and delicate shoot (see Isa 11,1)44; but its characterization as proud suggests otherwise. This characterization engenders an orientational metaphor frequently associated with arboreal images elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, namely, ARROGANCE IS HIGH45. The fool “sp(r)outs” arrogant speech46; but, ironically, his high, haughty words are nothing more than a small stem springing from his mouth. This sprig of arrogant speech may assault others; but it is unable to overcome the verbal prowess of the wise (Prov 14,3b). 4. The Fruit of the Tree Sprigs and branches spring from trunks in the arboretum projected in Proverbs. And these branches bear fruit in several sayings, four in particular. The first (Prov 10,31) intermingles moral and intellectual classifications to depict the fruit that hangs from the branches of the righteous. The mouth of the righteous produces wisdom; but the tongue of the perverse is cut off.

‫פי־צדיק ינוב חכמה‬ ‫ולשון תהפכות תכרת‬

As some have noted, the initial line includes the metaphors WORDS ARE FOOD and WISDOM IS A SATISFYING FRUIT47. These metaphors, however, are extensions of the more general concept PEOPLE ARE TREES. The righteous 44. In the light of the ancient versions and its rendering in Aramaic, ‫ חטר‬may be translated as “rod”. Since the term is used elsewhere only in Isa 11,1 and the arboreal connotation makes good sense in the line, it is retained. See W. BÜHLMANN, Vom Rechten Reden und Schweigen: Studien zu Proverbien 10–31 (OBO, 12), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976, pp. 127-129. 45. See OSBORNE, Trees and Kings (n. 3), pp. 116-133. 46. YODER, Proverbs (n. 13), p. 158. 47. See BROWN, The Didactic Power of Metaphor (n. 30), pp. 140-148; TILFORD, Sensing World (n. 2), p. 193.

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

277

person is a tree; and his mouth is the source of discursive branches that “produce” or “bear the fruit of” (‫ )ינוב‬wisdom. Wisdom, rather than righteousness, is the natural by-product of the anthology’s moral exemplar48. The tongue of the perverse, by contrast, is portrayed as a dry branch, incapable of producing fruit, that is cut off. The arboreal metaphor in the first line intimates that the tree colors the connotation of the verb in the second49. The tongue of the perverse is likened to a felled tree (see Job 14,7). But the healthy branches and fruitful discourse of the righteous produce intellectual and edible fare that satisfies the palate and sustains life. The metaphorical concepts flourishing in the seedbed of Prov 10,31 extend their branches into the final three aphorisms devoted to the fruit of the tree. PEOPLE ARE TREES, WORDS ARE FOOD, and WISDOM IS A SATISFYING FRUIT occupy and organize Prov 12,14; 13,2, and 18,20. Since these aphorisms are “variant repetitions”, they may be treated together50. 12,14 From the fruit of his mouth, one is satisfied with good things, and the work of one’s hands returns to him.

‫מפרי פי־איש ישבע־טוב‬

13,2 From the fruit of his mouth, one eats good things, but the throat of the treacherous, violence.

‫מפרי פי־איש יאכל טוב‬ ‫ונפש בגדים חמס‬

18,20 From the fruit of his mouth one’s belly is satisfied; he is satisfied by the produce of his lips.

‫וגמול ידי־אדם ישיב לו‬

‫מפרי פי־איש תשבע בטנו‬ ‫תבואת שפתיו ישבע‬

The repeated expression ‫ מפרי פי־איש‬assumes the conceptual metaphor This general metaphor generates a pair of particular metaphorical concepts. The fruit produced by the branches of the mouth associates speech with the production of food and extends the arboreal image to include the conceptual metaphor WORDS ARE FOOD. With this concept in view, the expressions pertaining to the consumption and satisfaction of ‫ טוב‬create and incorporate the complex metaphor WISDOM IS A SATISFYING FRUIT into the conceptual network of the variant repetitions. On an initial reading, the implicit image of the tree and the explicit mention of fruit may appear to be “dead” metaphors. But when these features are read in relation to the other arboreal images within Proverbs, it appears that their metaphoricity is resuscitated51. PEOPLE ARE TREES.

48. FOX, Proverbs 10–31 (n. 15), p. 529. 49. Ibid. 50. The expression “variant repetition” is taken from K.M. HEIM, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry (Bulletin of Biblical Research. Supplement, 4), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2013, pp. 3-5. 51. See JINDO, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered (n. 3), p. 201.

278

C.B. ANSBERRY

In addition to expanding the network of metaphors related to the concept these variant repetitions condense an extended experience. As Nicole Tilford has argued, the initial line in each of the variant repetitions presupposes a particular sequence52. By virtue of their moral stature and speech, the wise produce fruit. This fruit nourishes and satisfies others. Others then produce discursive fruit. And this fruit nourishes and satisfies the wise. The initial line of the variant repetitions compresses this act-consequence connection into a single event: the mouth that produces the fruit of edible speech is the mouth that consumes the fruit53. Following Tilford, the condensed event “increases the immediacy of the speaker’s reward and emphasizes the inherent benefit of speaking wisely”54. And the condensed event invites the reader to hone their moral reasoning by considering the metaphorical concepts squeezed into the sayings: PEOPLE ARE TREES, WORDS ARE FOOD, and WISDOM IS A SATISFYING FRUIT. PEOPLE ARE TREES,

III. THE TREE: A LOCAL METAPHOR IN THE LANDSCAPE OF PROVERBS When the arboreal images and expressions within Proverbs 1,1–9,18 and 10,1–22,16 are read together, the anatomy of the tree emerges in the text continuum of Proverbs. This is not surprising. The tree metaphor populates the landscape of many other texts within the Hebrew Bible. Its presence in Proverbs, however, is not overwhelming. The conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES is not a “megametaphor” within the anthology55; that is, it is not the fundamental concept that underlies and unifies other metaphors in Proverbs. But it does serve as a significant local metaphor. And this local metaphor develops from the distinctive use of ‫עץ חיים‬. This expression generates a frame of reference that illuminates images and gathers semantic elements related to the arbor in Proverbs56. These images and elements combine to form a vivid portrait of the tree’s anatomy; and the formation of this arboreal anatomy appears to confirm Paul Ricœur’s comments on the dynamics of metaphor. According to Ricœur, metaphors “save themselves from complete evanescence by means of a whole array of intersignifications. One metaphor, in effect, calls for another and each one stays

52. TILFORD, Sensing World (n. 2), p. 190. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid. 55. Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 22010, pp. 57-59. 56. HARSHAV, Metaphor and Frames of Reference (n. 5), p. 41.

THE ANATOMY OF THE TREE IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

279

alive by conserving its power to evoke the whole network”57. On this account, ‫ עץ חיים‬saves the arbor from disappearing in Proverbs. It engenders a network of intersignifications, calling for other arboreal metaphors. The roots of the tree appear and call for the trunk. The trunk calls for the branches; and the branches call for the fruit. The arboreal metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES blossoms through a particular frame of reference within Proverbs. And this metaphor connects with several other conceptual metaphors that populate the networks of moral character and human discourse. These include the metaphors of MORAL ESSENCE, MORAL STRENGTH, and MORAL HEALTH as well as the concepts ARROGANCE IS HIGH, DISSATISFACTION IS EMPTINESS, SATISFACTION IS FULLNESS, WORDS ARE FOOD, and WISDOM IS A SATISFYING FRUIT. The metaphor PEOPLE ARE TREES creates an additional conceptual framework through which to perceive one’s moral character and the matter of speech within the world projected by Proverbs. It is a local, yet significant metaphor that intermingles with the prevalent concepts noted above to enrich Proverbs’ multi-perspectival conceptualization of moral ontology in general and to extend its portrayal of human discourse in particular. Oak Hill College London N14 4PS United Kingdom [email protected]

Christopher B. ANSBERRY

57. P. RICŒUR, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, Fort Worth, TX, Texas Christian University Press, 1976, p. 64.

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB A CASE IN POINT

As cognitive linguistic approaches to understanding and interpreting metaphors have shown, individual metaphors reflect an underlying concept and therefore naturally correlate with other metaphors that derive from the same underlying concept1. A hermeneutical lesson drawn from this observation is nicely formulated by Jindo: “Since the phenomenon of metaphor involves systematic correspondences between two conceptual domains, the exegete should approach metaphor holistically and not atomistically”2. In a complex literary work such as the book of Job, several metaphors can be connected to and explained by the same basic conceptual framework, as they form a network of related figures. Among the conceptual frames that have been discussed in the relatively recent literature on Job are: SPEECH IS WIND3, WISDOM IS REMOTE4, LIGHT IS SUFFERING (as a reversal of the conventional DARKNESS IS SUFFERING)5, DIVINE GAZE IS HARASSMENT6,

1. See, for instance, G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980; Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford – NewYork, Oxford University Press, 22010. 2. J.Y. JINDO, Toward a Poetics of the Biblical Mind: Language, Culture, and Cognition, in VT 59 (2009) 222-243, p. 228. See further his discussion in ID., Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24 (HSM, 64), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2010, pp. 25-53. 3. L.R. HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition in the Book of Job (Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplement, 26), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018, pp. 90-105. 4. E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Poem on Wisdom in Job 28 in Its Conceptual and Literary Contexts, in E. VAN WOLDE (ed.), Job 28: Cognition in Context (BIS, 64), Leiden, Brill, 2003, 253-280. 5. S. WÄLCHLI, Job 3: Metaphors Turned into Their Contrary, in A. LABAHN (ed.), Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts: Proceedings of the Metaphor Research Group of the European Association of Biblical Studies in Lincoln 2009 (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts, 18), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2013, 63-67; compare P. VAN HECKE, “I Melt Away and Will No Longer Live”: The Use of Metaphor in Job’s SelfDescription, in LABAHN (ed.), Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts, 75-79; H. VAN LOON, Metaphors in the Discussion on Suffering in Job 3–31: Visions of Hope and Consolation (BIS, 165), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2018, pp. 109-112 (the unconventional use), pp. 141-143 (the conventional use). 6. VAN HECKE, “I Melt Away and Will No Longer Live” (n. 5), pp. 79-83.

282

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

WELLNESS IS WHOLENESS/ ILLNESS IS DISINTEGRATION7, ETHICS IS A JOURNEY8.

Our purpose in the present essay is not to refine the theory of metaphor per se9 but rather to illustrate a phenomenon of figurative usage in the poetry of Job by which metaphors cluster in a certain way10. One metaphorical usage appears to trigger another, as the respondent to a former speaker in a dialogue adopts the same or a conceptually related metaphor11. This dynamic is particularly interesting when Job and a companion are responding or reacting to each other. The prompt of one metaphorical usage by another produces a chain12, as subsequent uses throw new or additional light on earlier ones. A full interpretation of any metaphorical instance will accordingly need to entail an analysis of the entire chain of metaphors to which it belongs, as the reader considers the various nuances and ironies that emerge in any metaphorical response to a metaphorical prompt. In a sense, the linking of one metaphor from a particular conceptual domain to another from the same domain functions to unpack it, as it were, enhancing our understanding of each. 7. E.L. GREENSTEIN, Metaphors of Illness and Wellness in Job, in S.C. JONES – C.R. YODER (eds.), “When the Morning Stars Sang”: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (BZAW, 500), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2018, 39-50. Contrast VAN HECKE, “I Melt Away and Will No Longer Live” (n. 5), pp. 83-89; J. DE JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes and the Theology of the Book of Job: An Analysis of Job’s Spatial Metaphors (VT.S, 179), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill 2018, pp. 82-85. 8. DE JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes (n. 7), pp. 134-145. Omitted here is the oft-cited metaphorical character of Job’s lawsuit against the deity. We claim that the lawsuit is not metaphorical but real, as it is pursued step by step from the first to the last stage; see E.L. GREENSTEIN, A Forensic Understanding of the Speech from the Whirlwind, in M.V. FOX et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1996, 241-258. 9. For important studies of metaphor from both a cognitive and usage perspective, see, for instance, T. SOVRAN, Metaphor as Reconciliation: The Logical-Semantic Basis of Metaphorical Juxtaposition, in Poetics Today 14 (1993) 25-48; ID., Language and Meaning: The Birth and Growth of Cognitive Semantics, Haifa, Haifa University Press, 2005, pp. 160-175 (Hebrew); Y. CHEN, Principles of Metaphor Interpretation and the Notion of “Domain”: A Proposal for a Hybrid Model, in Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 16321653; G. FAUCONNIER – M. TURNER, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York, Basic Books, 2002; R.W. GIBBS (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008; C. MÜLLER, Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View, Chicago, IL – London, University of Chicago Press, 2008. 10. See, for instance, P. VAN HECKE, Metaphors in the Psalms: An Introduction, in ID. – A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (BETL, 231), Leuven, Peeters, 2010, xi-xxxiv, p. xiii. See also HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition (n. 3), p. 39. 11. See N. PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job, in T. SOVRAN (ed.), New Faces and Directions in Contemporary Jewish Studies (Te‘uda, 24), Tel-Aviv, Tel-Aviv University, 2011, 21-44 (Hebrew). 12. See in general KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 1), p. 21.

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

283

Our approach to the analysis of metaphor is, as was said, primarily interpretative. We regard each metaphor from both sides – from that of the source and that of the target, understanding that the fuller the exploration of the possible senses of each, the richer the exegetical result13. For the present study, we shall begin with a statement of Job in his first discourse and follow its intertextual associations and its intratextual developments in order to show how the poet spins a rich web of meanings out of a single, but densely packed, utterance. This study is in two main parts. In the first, we analyse four key metaphors that appear together in Job 3,24. PAIN, which is the target domain in all four, is conceptualized through four source domains: EATING AND DRINKING, a PERSONIFIED AGENT THAT MOVES THROUGH SPACE, HUNTING (the lion), and FLUIDS (venom). In the second part we examine the various uses to which the metaphors are put in the dialogues. In this way we reveal an implicit argument among the speakers. I. THE CHAIN BEGINNING IN JOB 3,24 1. Job Metaphorizes His Pain After seeking to eliminate his having been conceived and born post eventum by means of a curse, and then lamenting his having been given life (Job 3), Job addresses the reason for his extraordinary attitude. He complains of the pain that he suffers several times a day, at least as often as he eats and drinks: ‫כי לפני לחמי אנחתי תבא ויתכו כמים שאגתי‬, “For my moans come to me like14 my bread, and my growls are doled out15 like water” (Job 3,24)16. The verse-initial conjunction ‫ כי‬connects the utterance 13. See, for instance, T. REINHART, On Understanding Poetic Metaphor, in Poetics 5 (1976) 383-402; see E. VAN WOLDE, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009; and see our own programmatic studies: E.L. GREENSTEIN, Some Metaphors in the Poetry of Job, in M.L. GROSSMAN (ed.), Built by Wisdom, Established by Understanding: Essays on Biblical and Near Eastern Literature in Honor of Adele Berlin, Bethesda, MD, University Press of Maryland, 2013, 179-195; PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job (n. 11). 14. Here, especially in parallelism with the preposition ‫כמו‬, the preposition ‫ לפני‬means “like” (see HALOT 2: 942b). 15. More literally, “poured out”; see further below. 16. Unless otherwise noted, all translations from Job are taken from E.L. GREENSTEIN, Job: A New Translation, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 2019. Translations from other biblical texts are by us, unless otherwise noted. Our understanding of this verse differs considerably from that of VAN LOON (Metaphors in Job 3–31 [n. 5], pp. 72-73). She does not understand the metaphor to express so much the frequency of Job’s pain as the deleterious effects of his food. In our understanding, the metaphor is not about the food

284

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

to the preceding context, indicating that it provides the reason for his complaint17. Job speaks out of profound suffering. Several images and analogies can be discerned in this statement. First is the simile EXPERIENCING PAIN IS AS REGULAR AS EATING AND DRINKING. Eating and drinking are conventionally linked, together indicating an act of dining18. The consumption of some food and drink is something people do on all ordinary days, and usually three times a day – morning, midday, and evening19. Accordingly, by likening his expressions of pain to something as quotidian as eating bread and drinking water, Job conveys the sense that his suffering is for him as regular as his diet and that his expression of pain is as necessary as eating. The fact that Job mentions only “bread” and “water” – as opposed to some particular food or drink, like wine – may also suggest that his diet has been adapted to his situation as a mourner20. Fasting is an attested ritual of mourning in the Bible21, and a curtailed diet is closely akin to fasting. The psalmist explains that moaning in pain can prevent a person from eating (Ps 102,5-6)22. Job does not name his pain as such, as he does elsewhere (e.g., ‫כעשי‬, “my anguish” in 6,2; ‫עצבותי‬, “my afflictions” in 9,2823; ‫“ כאבי‬my pain” in 16,6). Rather, he expresses it by means of a representative gesture, by moaning24. Feelings are routinely expressed metonymically, by way of being bad but rather about the food being regular; see, for instance, R. GORDIS, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978, p. 39; J.E. HARTLEY, The Book of Job (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1988, pp. 99-100; G.H. WILSON, Job (NIBCOT), Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2007, p. 41. Hakham interprets similarly to us, suggesting that the verbs – “come”, “poured” – in the yqtol form indicate their recurrence: the moans and growls are continual; A. HAKHAM, The Book of Job (Da‘at Miqra’), Jerusalem, Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1970, p. 25 (Hebrew). 17. E.g., D.J.A. CLINES, Job 1–20 (WBC, 17), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1989, p. 102. 18. D.M. SHARON, Patterns of Destiny: Narrative Structures of Foundation and Doom in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, pp. 40-117. 19. P.J. KING – L.E. STAGER, Life in Biblical Israel, Louisville, KY – London, Westminster John Knox, 2001, pp. 67-68. 20. See C. WESTERMANN, The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-critical Analysis, transl. C.A. Muenchow, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1981, p. 37. 21. X.H.T. PHAM, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (JSOT.S, 302), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, p. 27; Y. SHEMESH, Mourning in the Bible: Coping with Loss in Biblical Literature, Tel Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015, p. 110 (Hebrew). 22. See B. SZOLD, The Book of Job with a New Commentary, Baltimore, MD, Siemers, 1886, pp. 30-31 (Hebrew). 23. The word ‫עצבותי‬, “my pain”, should be read for ‫עצמותי‬, “my bones” in Job 7,13 as well; see also Ps 147,3 and compare many commentaries, for instance, S.R. DRIVER – G.B. GRAY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 2 (ICC), New York, Scribner’s, 1921, p. 47, where several earlier scholars are cited as well. 24. J.A. DAVIES, Lift Up Your Heads: Nonverbal Communication and Related Body Imagery in the Bible, Eugene, OR, Pickwick, 2018, p. 43.

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

285

gestures, in the Bible25. The gesture, in turn, gains in intensity and is endowed with agency by its being personified26. Job does not say that he emits moans in pain but rather that his moaning “comes” to him, as though it were an independent agent. In this respect, his pain operates the way a disease does in the biblical world: it attacks the victim from outside27. Job expresses his sense that he is quite literally stricken with pain. He is a victim of hostile aggression. By portraying himself as a victim, Job expresses a sense of helplessness in the face of his ordeal. Elsewhere, Job will represent his suffering metaphorically as an assault by the divine warrior28. Here, he does not identify the source of the pain, but it may be implied within its context that it is the deity. Throughout this part of his first discourse (chapter 3)29, Job barely alludes to God; but we may infer that the one who is condemned for granting life and light to the afflicted is the deity (see 3,20)30. Ironically, in the same breath, so to speak, Job complains that the deity seals off human fate from his sight (3,23)31. The conflicting notions that God both ignores and persecutes Job provide one of the dramatic tensions throughout the book. A most significant figurative turn is made in the second line of the couplet 3,24. Whereas Job represents his pain in the first line by means of the very human gesture of moaning, in the second line he represents his vocal expression of pain as “growls” (‫)שאגות‬32. The association with 25. See VAN HECKE, “I Melt Away and Will No Longer Live” (n. 5), pp. 70-72. We differ from Van Hecke in our claim that gestures are better understood as metonyms rather than metaphors of emotions. 26. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 1), pp. 33-34; compare VAN LOON, Metaphors in Job 3–31 (n. 5), pp. 19-20. 27. For the perception of disease as an external assailant, see GREENSTEIN, Metaphors of Illness and Wellness in Job (n. 7), pp. 39-41. For an analogous concept see DE JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes (n. 7), pp. 95, 164-172. 28. See, for instance, GREENSTEIN, A Forensic Understanding of the Speech from the Whirlwind (n. 8), p. 248; HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition (n. 3), pp. 135-136 and n. 62. For a discussion of a metaphor from the same domain, “Shaddai’s arrows” (Job 6,4), see PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job (n. 11), pp. 30-31. 29. Recent studies suggest that Job’s first discourse continues in 4,12-21. See especially E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Extent of Job’s First Speech, in S. VARGON et al. (eds.), Presented to Menachem Cohen (Studies in Bible and Biblical Exegesis, 7), Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press, 2005, 245-262 (Hebrew); K. BROWN, The Vision in Job 4 and Its Role in the Book (FAT, 2/75), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016. 30. J.G. JANZEN, Job (Interpretation), Atlanta, GA, John Knox, 1985, pp. 65-66. 31. Although widely misinterpreted, the sense of this verse is made clear by comparing the source of its language in Isa 40,27. See E.L. GREENSTEIN, Challenges in Translating the Book of Job, in J.W. BARKER – A. LEDONNE – J.N. LOHR (eds.), Found in Translation: Essays on Jewish Biblical Translation in Honor of Leonard J. Greenspoon, West Lafayette, IN, Purdue University Press, 2018, 179-199, pp. 188-189. 32. See the textual data and discussion in HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition (n. 3), pp. 118122; compare B.A. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor

286

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

eating is apparent from a comparison with Ps 104,21: “Lions growl (‫ )שאגים‬for prey, seeking their food from God” (see Ezek 22,25)33. Job claims to suffer in the manner of a hungry lion. Moreover, by characterizing his “groans” as the “growls” of a beast, Job conveys his sense that his behaviour is, like an animal’s, instinctive and natural. Contrary to what his companions may think or wish, his response to his personal tragedies is not calculated but automatic – not the sort of thing that a person can control (contrast Eliphaz in his response, who urges Job to contain his response; see below). Hawley does not see the appropriateness of the leonine image in Job 3,24 and therefore minimizes the profile of the metaphor there. It may, he suggests, have the muted effect of a conventional metaphor34. Hawley may be correct, that readers of Job may not appreciate the significance of Job’s representation of himself as a lion in 3,24. However, we intend to show in this study that a highly ironic meaning will be attached to this metaphor once it triggers a response in the following discourse of Eliphaz (see shortly below). But, before proceeding to the reverberations of Job 3,24 in the subsequent discourses, we would call attention to the figure of pouring out water that, in the form of a simile, describes the metaphorical outpouring of Job’s growls. Underlying the metaphor is a more basic one: THE BODY IS A CONTAINER35. The outpouring of water appears in the second line of the couplet. In the first line, Job compares the rate of his moaning to the intake of food and water. In the second line, in contrast to the image of intake we find an image of emission – the pouring out of water. On the source side of the metaphor, the pouring of water is completely banal – water is poured from a vessel for the purpose of drinking. However, in the context of an analogy by which the growls representing the hero’s pain are poured out as often as one’s quotidian drink, and in view of the use of the verb ‫“ נתך‬to pour”, one may call to mind Jer 42,18: ‫כאשר נתך אפי וחמתי על ישבי ירושלם כן תתך‬ ‫חמתי עליכם בבאכם מצרים‬, “Just my anger and venom were poured out on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so will my venom be poured out on you when you enter Egypt”36. This kindred metaphor, ANGER IS VENOM, encapsulated

in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO, 212), Fribourg/CH, Academic Press; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, pp. 345-346. 33. The lion also growls when it pursues and captures its prey; see Isa 5,29; Amos 3,4; Ps 22,14. 34. HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition (n. 3), pp. 119-122. 35. See DE JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes (n. 7), pp. 68-69. 36. Compare Nah 1,6. In Isa 42,25 we find a similar expression using the verb ‫שפך‬, “to pour”.

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

287

in the word ‫חמה‬, literally “venom” but conventionally employed in the metonymically derived sense of “anger”37, is widely used (e.g., Isa 51,17: “cup of venom”; see Lam 4,21). By means of this association, the pouring out of Job’s growls, representing his outcries of pain, takes on a particularly morbid tenor. Moreover, subsequent allusions to anger and vexation may, by association, be understood as reactions to Job’s expression of poured out pain. 2. Eliphaz Picks Up the Lion Metaphor In the first response to Job’s outcry, Eliphaz the Temanite takes up and reuses several of the images and associations aroused by Job’s highly troped utterance in 3,2438. Most salient among these is Eliphaz’s extended metaphor of the lion in 4,10-11: 10

The lion growls39 and the beast roars; But the teeth of the predators (finally) crack40. 11 The lion perishes for lack of prey, And the lion whelps are eradicated41.

‫שאגת אריה וקול שחל‬ ‫ושני כפירים נתעו‬ ‫ליש אבד מבלי־טרף‬ ‫ובני לביא יתפרדו‬

It is clear from context that Eliphaz employs the lion in its traditional metaphorical representation of the wicked42. Just as lions thrive for a limited time until their heyday is over, and they then deteriorate, so do the wicked seem to prosper for a while until fate catches up to them, and they suffer an inglorious end43. Moreover, because the lion is a predator that victimizes weaker animals, the wicked are by means of this figure characterized as predators that victimize the weak44. 37. HALOT 1: 326. For the derivation, see E.L. GREENSTEIN, Some Developments in the Study of Language and Some Implications for Interpreting Ancient Texts and Cultures, in S. IZRE’EL (ed.), Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century (Israel Oriental Studies, 20), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, 441-479, pp. 456-457. 38. N. KLAUS, Between Job and His Companions: Linguistic Parallels between Job and His Companions in the First Cycle of Dialogue, in ID., Studies in Biblical Narrative: Speeches, Concentric Structures, and Comparisons, Tel Aviv, Am Oved, 1990, 145-168, pp. 145-146 (Hebrew); HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition (n. 3), p. 127. 39. More literally, “the growl of the lion”. 40. For the pseudo-Aramaic use of ‫ נתע‬here instead of the expected Hebrew ‫נתץ‬, see E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function, in JBL 122 (2003) 651666, p. 663; compare GREENSTEIN, Some Metaphors in the Poetry of Job (n. 13), p. 188, n. 33. See, for instance, E. DHORME, A Commentary on the Book of Job, transl. H. Knight, London, Thomas Nelson, 1967, p. 47. 41. GREENSTEIN, Some Metaphors in the Poetry of Job (n. 13), p. 188. 42. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 32), pp. 50-52; GREENSTEIN, Some Metaphors in the Poetry of Job (n. 13), pp. 187-189. 43. GREENSTEIN, Some Metaphors in the Poetry of Job (n. 13), pp. 188-189. 44. Ibid., p. 189.

288

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

What is particularly pertinent with regard to the argument of this study is that, once the metaphor of the lion, adumbrated in Job’s figuration of his outcries as “growls”, is elaborated by Eliphaz in its depiction of the wicked, the reader may retrospectively find a bitter irony in Job’s selfpresentation in 3,24, in which he may unwittingly suggest that he himself is wicked45. Of course, Job, while never claiming to be perfect (see 7,20), maintains his integrity throughout the dialogues (see especially 27,1-7 and his prominent “oath of innocence” in chapters 30–31)46; but at the same time his companions increasingly come to regard him as pernicious. The irony is produced only after Eliphaz takes up Job’s metaphorical reference to the lion, which may be prompted by the employment of the very same word for “growl”, ‫שאגה‬. The “growls” of the wicked in Eliphaz’s metaphor may suggest that some misconduct by Job constitutes the cause of the Job’s “growls” – his pain. 3. Job Picks Up the Figure of the Arrows In his next discourse Job tries to explain to Eliphaz and the others that his disturbing outburst of distress emerges out of his profound vexation (6,1-4). The terms Job uses in v. 2 to describe his inner turmoil are ‫כעש‬ and ‫הוה‬. The former becomes a common stem denoting “anger” in the Hebrew of the Persian period47, during which the book of Job was almost certainly composed48. This usage is found in proximity to the use of ‫חמה‬ “venom, anger” (for which, see above). In v. 4 Job metaphorizes his afflictions as “Shaddai’s arrows” (see above), the poison (“venom”) on which saps (lit., “drinks”) his life-force (‫)רוח‬49. Accordingly, the semantic link between ‫ כעש‬and ‫ חמה‬underscores their association in plaguing Job. Job’s distress (‫ )כעש‬is figured as the poison (“venom”) that gradually takes the life out of him. In adopting the term ‫“ כעש‬vexation, anger” to describe his distress and the figure of the divine warrior’s arrows to relate their effect, Job is reacting to the use of the same theme and image, respectively, in the preced45. See ibid., p. 188, n. 36. 46. See, for instance, M.B. DICK, Job 31, the Oath of Innocence, and the Sage, in ZAW 95 (1983) 31-53. 47. See A. HURVITZ, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (VT.S, 160), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2014, pp. 142-144. 48. For a recent judicious discussion, see C.L. SEOW, Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary (Illuminations), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2013, pp. 39-46. 49. The ambiguous syntax allows for a complementary reading: Job’s “life-force drinks up the poison (‘venom’)” off the arrows, figuratively representing his suffering at the hands of the deity.

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

289

ing discourse of Eliphaz50. Eliphaz had apparently discerned an excess of turmoil in his friend Job, and so he offered him an object lesson from which Job might reform himself before sliding down the slippery slope (5,2): ‫כי לאויל יהרג כעש ופתה תמית קנאה‬, “For exasperation can kill the rogue, and passion can bring death to the fool”. The alarming implication is that, if Job does not overcome his grief, he will end up a rogue/fool and will bring about his own death. What Job endeavours to explain to Eliphaz is that, his pain is far more severe than his friends will allow themselves to imagine – metaphorically, it weighs more than the sand on the seashore (6,2-3)51. He is not the cause of his own affliction; he is a passive victim. Job, as was said, figures his afflictions as “Shaddai’s arrows”. This image appears to be a reflex of Eliphaz’s seemingly more innocuous use of arrows in the preceding discourse. There Eliphaz wants to assuage Job’s resentment by suggesting that suffering is endemic to being human (5,6-7): 6

For suffering does not stem from the dust, Nor does travail grow from the ground. 7 But a human is born to travail, As “sons of Resheph” fly up high.

‫כי לא־יצא מעפר און‬ ‫ומאדמה לא־יצמח עמל‬ ‫כי־אדם לעמל יולד‬ ‫ובני־רשף יגביהו עוף‬

Some interpreters understand “sons of Resheph” (‫ )בני רשף‬to be sparks, basing themselves primarily on Song 8,652. However, a likely intratextual connection to “Shaddai’s arrows” in 6,4, together with a parallel in Ps 76,4 (see Deut 32,23-24) and the facts that the Canaanite god Resheph is both visually represented as an archer and in Ugaritic is dubbed “Lord of the Arrow” (b‘l ḥẓ; CAT 1.82 line 3)53, convince us that it is arrows that are shot upward, and not sparks that fly upward in Job 5,754. Eliphaz invokes 50. See PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job (n. 11), pp. 25-31. See for the echo of ‫כעש‬, H.H. ROWLEY, Job (NCBC), London, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1976, p. 58; HARTLEY, Book of Job (n. 16), p. 132; CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 17), p. 169; E.M. GOOD, In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job with a Translation, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1990, p. 213. For the echo of the arrows, see N.C. HABEL, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1985, p. 145. For an elaborate analysis of the relationship between Eliphaz’s lesson and Job’s retort, see SEOW, Job 1–21 (n. 48), pp. 454-458. 51. For analysis of this metaphor, see GREENSTEIN, Some Metaphors in the Poetry of Job (n. 13), pp. 185-186; compare PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job (n. 11), p. 28. 52. See especially M.M. MÜNNICH, The God Resheph in the Ancient Near East (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike, 11), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2013, pp. 228-233. 53. See G. DEL OLMO LETE, Incantations and Anti-Witchcraft Texts from Ugarit (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records, 4), Boston, MA – Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014, p. 111. 54. E.L. GREENSTEIN, “On My Skin and In My Flesh”: Personal Experience as a Source of Knowledge in the Book of Job, in K.F. KRAVITZ – D.M. SHARON (eds.), Bringing the Hidden to Light: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2007, 63-77, p. 73, n. 27. See P. XELLA, Resheph, in K. VAN DER TOORN – B. BECKING –

290

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

the image of arrows, which, whether for hunting or military purposes, are menacing, and Job takes the image a step further and ascribes them to a deity who is hostile toward him. Indeed, in the third line of the triplet in which Job figures his afflictions as the poisonous “arrows of Shaddai” that drain the life out of him, Job delineates the “terrors of Eloah that are arrayed against me” – more literally, “Eloah’s terrors array themselves against me” (6,4). The use of the verb ‫“ ערך‬to array” is clearly drawn from the domain of warfare, where armies take position against one another55. Compare, for example, 1 Sam 17,21: ‫ותערך ישראל ופלשתים מערכה לקראת מערכה‬, “Israel and the Philistines arrayed themselves array opposite array”. Job here represents his affliction as a direct assault of the deity, as though he had come against Job with an army56 – an image that Job will elaborate in 19,11-12: 11

He has inflamed his anger against me, And reckoned me one of his enemies; 12 His troops come at me at once, They clear an attack-road against me, And they camp surrounding my tent.

‫ויחר עלי אפו‬ ‫ויחשבני לו כצריו‬ ‫יחד יבאו גדודיו‬ ‫ויסלו עלי דרכם‬ ‫ויחנו סביב לאהלי‬

In the first segments of Job 6,4 the innocent sufferer depicts the deity as a lone archer, poised against him, a figure he will marshal again toward the end of this discourse, in 7,20: ‫למה שמתני למפגע לך‬, “Why have you made me your target?”; and see also 16,12c-13 below (compare Lam 2,4). But the image in the last segment of the verse, citing unnamed and therefore potentially even more frightening “terrors” in the plural, evokes the attack of an entire army, mobilized by the deity against a solitary victim. 4. Job Combines the Images of the Lion and the Warrior In 10,16-17 Job expands upon the figure of a hostile deity, bringing an army against him. But he adds to this image a most nefarious aspect by taking up Eliphaz’s figure of the wicked as predatory lions (4,10-11; see above) and applying it to God. This is not merely a passing trope adopted and inverted by Job but an image that he will use and then elaborate in his subsequent discourses57. Job had regarded himself (3,24) as a hungry, P.W. VAN DER HORST (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill, 1995, cols. 1324-1330. 55. PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job (n. 11), pp. 30-31; compare, for instance, T. LONGMAN III, Job (Baker Commentary on the OT), Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 2012, p. 137. 56. See, for instance, WILSON, Job (n. 16), p. 58. 57. See, for instance, STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 32), pp. 58-59, 333334; HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition (n. 3), pp.128-131. We strongly differ with those

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

291

suffering lion; the deity he views as a mighty lion on the prowl, hunting down and tearing apart its prey (16,9.12). In the first instance (10,16-17), Job accuses God of persecuting him even if he were completely in the right: 16

And if (my head)58 were to loom, you would hunt me down like a lion; You would work wonders against me over and over!59 17 You would renew your hostilities60 toward me, As your anger grows great against me, Arraying reinforcements61 against me.

‫ויגאה‬ ‫כשחל תצודני‬ ‫ותשב תתפלא־בי‬ ‫תחדש עדיך נגדי‬ ‫ותרב כעשך עמדי‬ ‫חליפות וצבא עמי‬

The metaphors of God as predatory lion and as hostile warrior are combined in juxtaposition. The same juxtaposition is presented by Job in 16,9.12-14, where the figures of the lion on the hunt and the warrior in combat are interlaced: 9 His anger rages, he strikes a hostile pose; He gnashes his teeth at me; My enemy sharpens his eyes at me […] 12 I was tranquil, then he tore me apart,

‫אפו טרף וישטמני‬ ‫חרק עלי בשניו‬ ‫צרי ילטוש עיניו לי‬

[…]

‫שלו הייתי ויפרפרני‬

commentators cited by Hawley and with Hawley himself, who identify the predatory lion in 10,16 with Job. As Strawn has shown, the image of the deity as a predatory lion is highly conventional. Some suggest that Job regards the lion as a victim of the hunt and therefore identifies with it; e.g., S.E. BALLENTINE, Job (Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary), Macon, GA, Smyth & Helwys, 2006, pp. 175-176. However, the image of the lion as victim does not jibe with its representation elsewhere in the dialogues. 58. Referenced in the preceding verse; see, for instance, S. TERRIEN, Job (Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament, 13), Neuchatel, Delachaux & Niestlé, 1963, p. 104; HABEL, Book of Job (n. 50), p. 200; C.A. NEWSOM, The Book of Job: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 4, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1996, 317-637, pp. 414415. 59. For this sense of the verse and for an analysis of the unique verb ‫התפלא‬, “to act extraordinarily” in a negative sense, see E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Invention of Language in the Poetry of Job, in J.K. AITKEN – J.M.S. CLINES – C.M. MAIER (eds.), Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines, Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2013, 331-346, pp. 338-339. 60. The plural form of the noun serves, as in the case of many other such forms in Job, to indicate an abstract concept. See ibid., pp. 340-341. However, contra the derivation of the form at p. 340, the word ‫ עדים‬here should be understood as cognate to Arabic ‘adāwa, “hostility”; see A.B. EHRLICH, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, vol. 6, Hildesheim, Olms, 1968 [1913], p. 223. I (Greenstein) thank my colleague and friend M.A. Friedman for setting me straight on this matter. 61. For ‫ חליפה‬as “replacement”, hence “reinforcements” here, compare Job 14,14 and see T. NOVICK, Wages from God: The Dynamics of a Biblical Metaphor, in CBQ 73 (2011) 708-722, p. 718 with notes. Contrast VAN LOON, Metaphors in the Discussion on Suffering in Job 3–31 (n. 5), p. 103, nn. 70-71. Note that the verb “array” does not occur here in the Hebrew; it is provided in the translation for the sake of sense.

292

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

Seized me by the neck and ripped me apart. He set me up as his target. 13 His archers surround me; He pierces my innards, showing no mercy. He spills my gall to the ground. 14 He opens against me breach upon breach62; He runs at me like a warrior.

‫ואחז בערפי ויפצפני‬ ‫ויקימני לו למטרה‬ ‫יסבו עלי רביו‬ ‫יפלח כליותי ולא יחמול‬ ‫ישפך לארץ מררתי‬ ‫יפרצני פרץ על־פני־פרץ‬ ‫ירץ עלי כגבור‬

The passage begins with a mix of the two metaphors (v. 9)63. One can hardly separate the image of the enemy soldier from that of the lion gnashing its teeth and fixing its gaze upon its prey64. In Lam 2,16 the “gnashing of teeth” is metaphorically ascribed to the attackers of Jerusalem, melding the image of the lion and a human or divine enemy there as here. The poet seems deliberately to intertwine the two figures by opening with the phrase ‫אפו טרף‬, “his (the deity’s) anger rages”. From a literal perspective, the phrase seems to conjoin the noun ‫ אף‬in the sense of “anger”65 and the verb ‫ טרף‬in its usual sense of “tearing apart”. This verb is predicated of a lion over a dozen times in the Bible, so that in this context, Job’s use of the expression ‫ אפו טרף‬is apt to evoke the image of that predator66. The deity describes himself as a ravaging lion, making use of the verb ‫ טרף‬in such verses as Hos 5,14. The actual derivation and analysis of the expression is somewhat complex67. The phrase ‫ אף טרף‬arises out of a scribal error in Amos 1,11: ‫ויטרף לעד אפו ועברתו שמרה נצח‬, “His anger rages forever, and his wrath burns eternally”. A comparison with Jer 3,5 shows that the requisite verb for indicating wrath is ‫נטר‬, parallel to ‫שמר‬, and that the form ‫ ויטרף‬in Amos 1,11 is a miscopy of ‫ ויטר‬68. Accordingly, many scholars emend that 62. The image of the “breach” evokes the siege attack of a walled city by an army; see, for instance, DHORME, Commentary on Job (n. 40), p. 237; M.H. POPE, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 15), Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1965, p. 116. 63. See L.G. PERDUE, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job, Sheffield, Almond Press, 1991, p. 171; HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition (n. 3), pp. 135-136. Perdue observes that Job’s depiction of the deity as the fierce enemy responds to Eliphaz’s description of the wicked brazenly attacking the deity in 15,24-27. 64. See, for instance, ROWLEY, Job (n. 50), pp. 118-119. 65. The use of ‫ אף‬alone as a term for “anger” results from an ellipsis of the complete expression ‫חרון אף‬, usually understood as “burning of the nose/face”; see GREENSTEIN, Some Developments in the Study of Language (n. 37), p. 456, n. 23. 66. STRAWN, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? (n. 32), p. 337. See, for instance, DHORME, Commentary on Job (n. 40), p. 234; WILSON, Job (n. 16), p. 176. 67. See E.L. GREENSTEIN, “Difficulty” in the Poetry of Job, in D.J.A. CLINES – E. VAN WOLDE (eds.), A Critical Engagement: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of J. Cheryl Exum (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 38), Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix, 2011, 186-195, pp. 189191. 68. See S.M. PAUL, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1991, pp. 66-67 with notes.

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

293

text. Held has shown that the verbal pair ‫שמר‬/‫ נטר‬is etymologically distinct from the better known Hebrew verbs meaning “to keep, guard”; the two verbs are homonyms of those Hebrew verbs but are cognate with the poetic pair of Akkadian verbs šamāru/nadāru, both meaning “to rage”69. We cannot know if the Joban poet understood that ‫אף טרף‬, “to be angry”, which is found in Amos, is connected to the expression ‫אף נטר‬, which is found in Jeremiah. But, it seems clear that he chose to use the locution ‫ אף טרף‬in Job 16,9 in order to feature the verb ‫טרף‬, literally and ordinarily “to tear apart (prey)”, and thus evoke the image of a predatory lion, the image by which Job depicts the deity. 5. Bildad Deconstructs Job’s Metaphor Bildad is aggravated by Job’s attribution to God of such a beastly image, and so he takes up the expression ‫אף טרף‬, by which Job figures divine rage, and deconstructs it70. He inverts the syntax, turning the subject noun ‫אף‬ into the object of a preposition in an adverbial phrase, and attributes the savage rage of the deity in Job’s discourse to that of Job in Bildad’s discourse (18,4). Job, says Bildad, is “one who tears himself apart in his anger” (‫)טרף נפשו באפו‬. He describes what has happened to Job as the fate of the fool who is destroyed by excessive passion in Eliphaz’s warning in 5,2 (see above). It is not God who ruins Job, Bildad maintains; it is Job who does this to himself71. By use of the expression ‫אף טרף‬, in its form in Job 16 as in Amos 1, literally “anger tears apart”, one is reminded of 3,24, where Job unwittingly implies that he is a lion and therefore wicked. In this recursive figuration two metaphors come together: ANGER IS A PREDATORY BEAST and THE WICKED IS A PREDATORY BEAST72. At any rate, the image of the deity as a lion on the hunt, which grabs its prey by the neck and rips it apart, intermeshes here with the figure of the warrior, whose archers’ arrows pierce his body, tearing it open, and spilling his guts on the ground – “without showing mercy” (16,13)73. The 69. M. HELD, Studies in Biblical Homonyms in the Light of Akkadian, in Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 3 (1970-1971) 46-55. 70. See GREENSTEIN, “Difficulty” in the Poetry of Job (n. 67), pp. 189-191; F.I. ANDERSEN, Job: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale OT Commentaries), Leicester, UK, Inter-Varsity, 1975, p. 188. 71. Compare DHORME, Commentary on Job (n. 40), p. 259; GORDIS, Book of Job (n. 16), p. 190; HABEL, Book of Job (n. 50), p. 285; HARTLEY, Book of Job (n. 16), p. 274. TERRIEN (Job [n. 58], p. 139) makes the interesting suggestion that in Bildad’s characterization of Job as a beast, he is responding to Job’s implication that his companions have only an animal’s intelligence (see 18,3), when he advises them to turn to the animals for wisdom in 12,7. 72. See PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job (n. 11). 73. See, for instance, NEWSOM, The Book of Job (n. 58), pp. 458-459.

294

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

last phrase, recalling the refrain of divine cruelty in Lamentations (2,2.17.21; 3,43; see 3,42)74, by its very superfluity underscores Job’s attitude toward his abuse by the deity. 6. The Image of Water Variously Elaborated The final link in the metaphoric chain that we have the space to address here is the figure of poured water, to the regularity of which Job likens his emissions of pain. As indicated above, in 3,24 water is a staple of subsistence, the least a person must drink several times a day. The daily dole of water in Job’s image takes on substantial magnitude as Eliphaz praises the magnificence of the deity, who, among other marvellous acts, “gives rain (‫ )מטר‬over the face of earth, and sends water (‫ )מים‬over the face of the ranges” (5,10). The term for “water” is the same in both verses. Eliphaz’s reference transforms the meagre amount of water Job associates with himself into a virtual inundation of water reflecting the plenitude of God’s blessing. The contrast symbolizes the conflict between Job and his companions. Whereas he needs to make them aware of his own deep suffering at the hands of the deity, the companions take for granted the constant beneficence of the divine. We suggest that these uses of water in representing Job’s expressions of pain and Eliphaz’s doxology of the deity’s prowess trigger far more telling and more argumentative images of water in the immediately following discourses75. In one of the most extensive metaphorical passages in the poem of Job, the protagonist, who had expected support from his friends, but had received instead a profound lack of understanding, portrays his companions as a water source, but a water source that had run completely dry (6,15-20): 15

My brothers have betrayed me like a wadi, Like the bed that the wadis stream through. 16 They turn dark from ice, And snow piles up76 on them. 17 In the season they are scorched77, they are devastated;

‫אחי בגדו כמו־נחל‬ ‫כאפיק נחלים יעברו‬ ‫הקדרים מני קרח‬ ‫עלימו יתעלם שלג‬ ‫בעת יזרבו נצמתו‬

74. E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Wrath at God in the Book of Lamentations, in H. Graf REVENTLOW – Y. HOFFMAN (eds.), The Problem of Evil and Its Symbols in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOT.S, 366), London – New York, T&T Clark, 2004, 29-42, p. 39. 75. For a more extended discussion, see PERI, Conceptual Metaphors in the Book of Job (n. 11), pp. 32-35. 76. The verb ‫ התעלם‬here is a pseudo-Aramaism of ‫ ;התערם‬DHORME, Commentary on Job (n. 40), p. 87. See on this phenomenon GREENSTEIN, The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function (n. 40). 77. The verb ‫ זרב‬is a pseudo-Aramaism of ‫ ;צרב‬DHORME, Commentary on Job (n. 40), p. 87; N.H. TUR-SINAI, The Book of Job: A New Commentary, Jerusalem, Kiryath Sepher,

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

In the seasonal heat, they dissolve from their place. 18 Caravans turn a twisting route, They go into the desert and are lost. 19 Caravans from Tema look out (for the wadis), Convoys from Sheba hold out for them. 20 They balk78 for having relied (on them), They arrive (at the spot) and are dismayed.

295

‫בחמו נדעכו ממקומם‬ ‫ילפתו ארחות דרכם‬ ‫יעלו בתהו ויאבדו‬ ‫הביטו ארחות תמא‬ ‫הליכת שבא קוו־למו‬ ‫בשו כי־בטח‬ ‫באו עדיה ויחפרו‬

Job describes his friends metaphorically as a stream that in good times (the rainy season) runs full but in the present time, in the time of Job’s great distress (the summer), runs dry. Job reaches beyond the mere indication of letting him down but extrapolates entire scenes of whole caravans journeying through the desert and counting on the stream for sustenance – only to find that the streams that had once run deep are completely empty. By multiplying the number of victims of this metaphoric betrayal – caravans from here and there – Job magnifies the measure of his disappointment79. Any well-versed reader of Job at once realizes that Job’s image of a failing, deceptive stream, a dry wadi, is drawn from an image of Jeremiah, in which he refers to the deity, whom he believes has abandoned him, as a dry wadi – an ‫אכזב‬. The verb from which ‫ אכזב‬is derived, ‫כזב‬, “to disappoint, to deceive”80, is not employed in this passage, but it is used in the succeeding passage in a reversed sense by Job, when, contrasting himself with his companions, he says “I won’t lie (‫ )אכזב‬to your faces” (6,28). Job is therefore saying to his companions, I will not let you down the way you have let me down – and the way that the deity seemingly let Jeremiah down. In Jeremiah God is figured as a “source of living water” (‫מקור מים חיים‬, 2,13), making it all the more ironic and tragic that that source seemed to have stopped flowing for the prophet. That the deity is a water source, a source of nourishment, is a biblical cliché81. But that traditional image is unsurprisingly the one that is adopted rev. ed., 1967, p. 124. See on this phenomenon GREENSTEIN, The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function (n. 40). 78. Reading with some versions and many scholars the plural ‫ ;בטחו‬see BHK ad loc. 79. See further on the theme of Job’s sense of abandonment by his friends: N. HABEL, “Only the Jackal Is My Friend”: On Friends and Redeemers in Job, in Interpretation 31 (1977) 227-236; E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Loneliness of Job, in L. MAZOR (ed.), Job in the Bible, Philosophy, and Art, Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Publications, 1995, 43-53 (Hebrew). 80. See E.L. GREENSTEIN, Jeremiah as an Inspiration to the Poet of Job, in J. KALTNER – L. STULMAN (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East – Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon (JSOT.S, 378), London – New York, T&T Clark, 2004, 98-110, pp. 100-101. For the sense of “disappoint, let one down”, see, for instance, Num 23,19. 81. See, for instance, E.K. HOLT, The Fountain of Living Water and the Deceitful Brook: The Pool of Water Metaphors in the Book of Jeremiah, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.),

296

E.L. GREENSTEIN – N. PERI

by Bildad in his reaction to Job’s implication that the deity, as well as the companions, is as unfaithful to Job as a dried-up stream to a desert traveller. Bildad claims to quote a number of traditional sayings to the effect that a person will thrive only when watered by the divine spring (8,11-12.16-19): 11

“Can papyrus grow without marshland? Can a canebrake thrive without water? 12 While yet in the flower, it cannot be plucked; And it withers even sooner than grass” […] 16 [The righteous] remains moist even in the sun; And out of his spring his sapling grows. 17 His roots intertwine round a pile-of-stones; He can cut through even a house of stones. 18 If he is transplanted from his place, So that it denies him: “I don’t recognize you!” 19 Then he moves his growth-path, And sprouts from another (piece of) ground82.

‫היגאה־גמא בלא בצה‬ ‫ישגה־אחו בלי־מים‬ ‫עדנו באבו לא יקטף‬ ‫ולפני כל־חציר ייבש‬ […] ‫רטב הוא לפני־שמש‬ ‫ועל גנתו ינקתו תצא‬ ‫על־גל שרשיו יסבכו‬ ‫בית אבנים יחזה‬ ‫אם־יבלענו ממקומו‬ ‫וכחש בו לא ראיתיך‬ ‫הן־הוא משוש דרכו‬ ‫ומעפר אחר יצמחו‬

That Bildad understands the deity to be the source of sustenance is clear from the explicit reference to his agency in 8,20. In this instance, one of the companions takes up a metaphor laid out by Job in order to chastise them and, instead of turning it around against Job by producing a metaphor that claims the opposite of Job’s contention – that the friends are providing a source of sustenance to Job – he rather uses the occasion to ignore Job’s complaint and defend the honour of the deity and the principle of just retribution. The righteous, says Bildad, will be nourished by God. II. CONCLUSION Thus in recycling metaphors, Job and his companions do not typically engage in the same argument. As has often been observed, they pick up a figure or image from a preceding speaker and develop it in the direction of their own outlook. Nevertheless, even from this one case in point, we can Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 2005, 99-117; ID., “…ad fontes aquarum”: God as Water in the Psalms?, in VAN HECKE – LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (n. 10), 71-85. 82. For philological and literary analysis of this passage in its context, see E.L. GREENSTEIN, Bildad Lectures Job: A Close Reading of Job 8, in J.B. COUEY – E.T. JAMES (eds.), Biblical Poetry and the Art of Close Reading, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, 63-79, pp. 71-77.

METAPHORIC CHAINS IN THE DIALOGUES OF JOB

297

see how a constellation of metaphors in a single utterance of Job (3,24) can prompt one play on that figure after another. Had we more space, we could follow the chain we have described even further, virtually until the end of the dialogues83. Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 52900 Israel [email protected] [email protected]

Edward L. GREENSTEIN Nehamit PERI

83. Just for example, one could suggest that Job’s metaphoric use of the verb ‫ נתך‬is used by Job in 10,10 to describe his formation by the deity from “poured out” milk. See VAN HECKE, “I Melt Away and Will No Longer Live” (n. 5), p. 85.

A PLAY ON PLANTS METAPHORICAL NETWORKS IN JOB 12–14

The book of Job abounds in metaphors to describe the protagonist’s fate, hopes and despair, the human condition in general, and God’s involvement in the former1. This multiplicity of metaphors is drawn from a great many different source domains: Job’s fate is described in terms of light and darkness, of locations and paths, of solidity and fluidity, of being chased and being spied upon, to name just a few of the most important metaphors, which I studied in a previous article2. In the present contribution, I propose to analyse the intricate web of metaphors in Job’s longest speech found in chapters 12 to 14, in particular the metaphors that take natural elements as their source domains. In this speech, in particular in its second half, the hope of people – or the lack thereof – is conceptualized metaphorically with images taken from nature, specifically with tree and water images. The reason for starting from this speech is that it demonstrates eminently how the book of Job, and biblical literature in general, makes use of metaphor. Moreover, this speech plays an important role in the whole of the book of Job. Buried as it lies in the middle of the long dialogues between Job and his friends, chapters 12– 14 do not exactly enjoy the most attention in exegesis. Nonetheless, they deserve better: not only do these chapters constitute the longest of Job’s speeches, they are also Job’s first response after having heard his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar3. Moreover, this speech of Job marks a turning point in his argumentation, as I have argued elsewhere4. In these chapters, Job comes to the formal decision to file a lawsuit against God, a 1. See the three recent monographs on the topic: L.R. HAWLEY, Metaphor Competition in the Book of Job, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018, and the two published KU Leuven doctorates: J. DE JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes and the Theology of the Book of Job: An Analysis of Job’s Spatial Metaphors (VT.S, 179), Leiden, Brill, 2018, and H. VAN LOON, Metaphors in the Discussion on Suffering in Job 3–31: Visions of Hope and Consolation (BIS, 165), Leiden, Brill, 2018. 2. P. VAN HECKE, “I Melt Away and Will No Longer Live”: The Use of Metaphor in Job’s Self-Descriptions, in A. LABAHN (ed.), Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts, Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias Press, 2013, 79-100. 3. D.J.A. CLINES, Job 1–20 (WBC, 17), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1989, p. 285; P. VAN HECKE, From Linguistics to Hermeneutics: A Functional and Cognitive Approach to Job 12– 14 (SSN, 55), Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 3-5. 4. VAN HECKE, Job 12–14 (n. 3).

300

P. VAN HECKE

decision that will have a defining impact on the further development of the action in the book. In this speech, a great number of different metaphors are used, both taken from nature and from other domains, by which an intense dialogue between these different metaphorical conceptualisations is created. I. DIALOGUE BETWEEN METAPHORS The dialogue between metaphors in a text, which often becomes a reversal of metaphors in biblical literature, may take different forms: on the one hand, within a text the same target domain may be conceptualised with different, often inconsistent sources, which may moreover either be part of a common source domain or be taken from different source domains. An example of the former case is Ezekiel 34, in which the leaders of the land are conceptualised both as (bad) shepherds (v. 2 and passim), and as the leading animals of the flock (vv. 17-22). These two conceptualisations are inconsistent (one cannot be a shepherd and a ram at the same time), yet are taken from the same source domain of pastoralism, stressing the reversal in roles the leaders of the land are about to undergo. Inconsistent metaphors in a single text may also be drawn from different source domains. This is for example the case in Psalm 23, in which God is portrayed both as a shepherd (vv. 1-4) and as the host of a banquet (v. 5). A different type of dialogue between metaphors occurs when, in a single text, the same source domain is used to conceptualise two (or more) different target domains. The extended metaphorical chapter 34 of the book of Ezekiel can again serve as an example: while in the first part of the chapter (vv. 2-10), it is the leaders of the people who are described as shepherds, the second part (vv. 11-22) conceptualises God himself as taking up the office of the shepherd, followed by a third part (vv. 23-24) in which God appoints a Davidic king as future shepherd of his people. Also, this type of development, or even reversal of the metaphors plays an important role in the way in which arguments are developed in a literary text. Finally, metaphors often echo previous uses of the same or similar metaphors in a biblical book, and are themselves taken up again later in the book, thus creating a genuine network of metaphors. In this contribution, I intend to demonstrate how these different forms of dialogue between metaphors operate in Job 12–14, showing how source domains are used to conceptualise different target domains, and reversely how one target domain can be conceptualised with the help of different source domains,

METAPHORICAL NETWORKS IN JOB 12–14

301

and finally how the metaphors in these chapters are related and linked to comparable metaphors elsewhere in the book of Job (and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible).

II. METAPHORS IN JOB 12–14 1. Metaphors in 12,1–13,17 5 In his central speech, Job makes use of an intricate network of metaphors to conceptualise his fate, and God’s involvement in it. In the first half of the speech, which is addressed to the friends, Job makes almost no recourse to metaphorical language, however. Only in 12,22 and 12,25 does Job make use of metaphors of light and darkness6: in 12,22 – after a series of other qualifications – Job describes God’s power as His ability to “uncover the deeps out of darkness, and bring deep darkness to light”7. Even though it is difficult to establish to what the verse refers exactly8, it is clear that God’s bringing to light of deep and dark things is to be understood metaphorically, conceptualising his ability to reveal knowledge of things that remain unknown to people. Reversely, God’s capacity of taking away knowledge and insight from human leaders is described a few verses later as follows: “He strips understanding from the leaders of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless waste. They grope in the dark without light; he makes them stagger like a drunkard” (12,24-25). Metaphors of journeying (“wander, grope, stagger”) are combined here with metaphors that conceptualise the impediments for journeying, viz. lack of light and drunkenness, brought about by God. It is not the first time that Job conceptualises God in this manner. Also in the description of his own fate, Job had portrayed God as the one who hides his paths and obstructs his movements, as can be read in 3,23: “Why is light given to one who 5. For the division of Job 12–14 in two parts, i.e., 12–13,17 and 13,18–14,22, see ibid., pp. 250-253. 6. It should be remarked that metaphors with light and darkness as source domain are very frequent in the book of Job. A limited statistical survey of the keywords of Job has shown that the words ‫“ אור‬light” and ‫“ חשך‬darkness” occur strikingly often in the course of the book. Though these words are frequent in the totality of the Hebrew Bible, their distribution in the book of Job is around ten times higher than what one would expect. These figures already suggest that the concepts of light and darkness play an important part in the dialogues of the book of Job and in the description of human fate and life, and this is affirmed in the book’s contents (see VAN HECKE, The Use of Metaphor in Job’s SelfDescriptions [n. 2]). 7. Unless noted otherwise, all biblical references are taken from the NRSV. 8. CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 3), p. 302.

302

P. VAN HECKE

cannot see the way, whom God has fenced in?”9. When Job describes God’s actions with regards to the leaders of the earth as making them walk in darkness, he therefore speaks partly from his own experience, as he has perceived it. Job returns only once to using metaphorical speech in his response to his friends, viz. when he describes their interventions as follows: “Your maxims are proverbs of ashes, your defenses are defenses of clay” (13,12). With these final words to his friends, before turning to God himself in the remainder of the speech, Job qualifies his friends’ arguments as worthless once more, after the derogatory opening of Job’s speech: “No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you” (12,2). Apart from these isolated instances, however, Job does not make use of metaphors to argue with his friends. This observation contrasts with the frequent use of figurative speech in the second part of Job’s discourse, in which he addresses God, and to which I will now turn. 2. Metaphors in 13,18–14,22 In the second part of his speech, Job predominantly makes use of metaphors taken from the natural world. Several of these metaphors also occur earlier in the book, or are well known in the Hebrew Bible, but they are used here in novel ways, and form an intricate network in these chapters. a) Windblown Leaf (13,25) A first instance of a metaphor taken from the plant world can be found in 13,25: Will you frighten a windblown leaf and pursue dry chaff?

‫העלה נדף תערוץ‬ ‫ואת־קש יבש תרדף‬

In this verse, Job compares himself to a driven leaf or dry chaff that is being chased by God as by the wind, an image also found outside the book of Job (Isa 40,24; 41,2; 64,5; Jer 13,24; Ps 83,14). The two items of comparison, viz. a fallen leaf and dry chaff, are obviously chosen because of their characteristic of being easily blown around by the wind. This attribute conceptualises how easy a victim Job is for God’s overpowering actions. Fallen leaves and dry chaff share another trait, however: they are both dead and worthless vegetal material, separated from the plant that used to provide them with their saps, and thus with life. By comparing himself to a fallen leaf or to dry chaff, Job stresses that he is not only 9. For an elaborate discussion of the metaphor in this verse, see VAN LOON, Metaphors (n. 1), pp. 69-72.

METAPHORICAL NETWORKS IN JOB 12–14

303

completely at God’s mercy, being tossed around in all directions, but also that his existence has become worthless, and even devoid of all life, which makes God’s overpowering actions all the more painful10. This conceptualisation of God chasing Job, and humankind in general, can also be found elsewhere in the book of Job (see, e.g., 7,17-20), and should even perhaps be read two verses later in 13,27, as I have argued before11: You put my feet in the stocks, and watch all my paths; you set a bound to the soles of my feet.

‫ותשם בסד רגלי‬ ‫ותשמור כל־ארחותי‬ ‫על־שרשי רגלי תתחקה‬

Job here complains that God has put his feet in ‫סד‬, and counts all his ways. The Hebrew word, which only occurs here and in Job 33,11 in a similar context, is usually interpreted as “stocks, fetters”. In his commentary, Fohrer suggests, however, that the Hebrew word ‫“ סד‬fetter” be read with a different vocalisation as sid, meaning “chalk”12. The meaning of both verses would thus be that God dunks the feet of humankind in chalk so as to trace all their steps (as found in the Dutch Willibrordvertaling). Though this translation is not accepted by all commentators and translators13, it is far from improbable. More than the translation favoured by the majority, this interpretation is in line with the second part of the verse that elaborates the idea that God watches over humanity. The rendering of the Hebrew word ‫ סד‬as “chalk” – the critical point in this translation – is supported by the Aramaic Targum14, and though it is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, there are parallels with a related word with the same meaning in the Semitic languages (Koehler-Baumgartner, 709; Pirqe Abot 2,9). Job thus expresses in marked metaphorical language the extent to which he feels spied upon by God: by putting his feet in the chalk, God can perfectly follow his traces wherever he turns. Although this metaphor does not offer the same conceptualisation of God’s dealing with humankind, it is quite coherent with that of God chasing Job as a leaf or as chaff, found two verses earlier. 10. CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 3), p. 320. 11. VAN HECKE, The Use of Metaphor in Job’s Self-Descriptions (n. 2). The discussion in the following paragraph is taken from this publication. 12. G. FOHRER, Das Buch Hiob (KAT, 16), Gütersloh, Gerd Mohn, 1963, p. 253. 13. For instance, “You put my feet in the stocks” (NRSV); “pour que tu mettes mes pieds dans les fers” (TOB); “In den Block legst du meine Füße” (EÜ). 14. Though Dhorme takes note of this Aramaic translation, he interprets the Aramaic metaphor again in line with the Greek and Latin renderings of the text. Dhorme translates the Aramaic as “comme dans le ciment”. This implies the immobilizing of the feet, whilst the Aramaic word in fact refers more to something like plaster, that is, a material that can hardly be used to block somebody’s feet. Cf. P. DHORME, Le livre de Job (Études Bibliques), Paris, Gabalda, 1923, p. 174.

304

P. VAN HECKE

Also, the concept of decay and death, expressed in the words “dead leaf” or “dry chaff” is taken up again in the following verse, namely in the final verse 28 of chapter 13: One wastes away like a rotten thing, like a garment that is moth-eaten.

‫והוא כרקב יבלה‬ ‫כבגד אכלו עש‬

Even though the identification of the third person subject has caused some scholarly dispute15, it is clear that this metaphorical description continues to conceptualise human fate. The first part of the verse may be read literally, describing the decay or the rottenness of human bones (compare with Hab 3,16, Prov 12,4; 14,30 for ‫ ;)רקב‬the second half clearly conceptualises human decay as a piece of clothing eaten by the larvae of the clothes moth, who feed on keratin present in animal fibers such as wool and fur. Also the verb ‫ בלה‬used to designate the wasting away of human beings, is prototypically used of the wearing out of garments16. Even though the metaphors of leaves and chaff are inconsistent with that of moth-eaten garments, they are quite coherent in the way in which they describe human fate as perishable materials. b) Withering Flower (14,2) The first verses of chapter 14, immediately following 13,28, return to a vegetal metaphor – and a more conventional one this time – for the brevity of human life. In verse 14,2, humanity is described as a flower that buds, only to fade away immediately, and – in parallel – as a fleeing shadow: [A mortal] comes up like a flower and withers, flees like a shadow and does not last.

‫כציץ יצא וימל‬ ‫ויברח כצל ולא יעמוד‬

The short life of flowers (or grass) as a metaphor for the brevity of life occurs frequently in the Hebrew Bible (see, e.g., Ps 103,15-16), and also in the book of Job itself the concept of the withering (‫ )ימל‬of a plant is used to describe the end-of-life. In 18,16 it is said of the wicked that “their branches wither above”, whereas in 24,24 it is told that God will bring down the mighty, after an initial period of success: “they are gathered in as all others, and wither as the tops of the ears of corn” (JPS)17. Even though one could argue that the ripening of the ears of corn is not a negative image, the context makes clear that what is highlighted in this metaphor, is the 15. CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 3), p. 323; FOHRER, Hiob (n. 12), p. 253. 16. See Deut 8,4; 29,4(bis); Josh 9,4(bis).5(bis). 17. Some commentators and translators (like the KJV, RSV and NIV) interpret the verb ‫ מלל‬as “to cut off”. The use of the same verb in Ps 37,2 and 90,6 constitutes a convincing argument for the meaning of “to wither”, however.

METAPHORICAL NETWORKS IN JOB 12–14

305

dying of the plant, the transience of life18. The presence of the metaphor of the withering plant in 14,2 thus not only continues the vegetal metaphors in Job’s speech, after the chasing of the dead leaves in 13,25, but also announces similar metaphors in later discourses. It should be noted, however, that in 14,2 Job describes the fate of humanity in general as withering like plants, whereas in 18,16 and 24,24 it is the fate of the wicked in particular that is described as such. This is understandable, given the different positions Job (speaking in 14,2) and his friends (speaking in 18,16) have on human fate, and on the fate of the wicked in particular. More difficult is 24,24, which is attributed to Job in the present organisation of the book, but which many authors believe either to be a quotation of the friends, an independent poem, or to be transposed and thus to have been part of one of the friends’ speeches. One of the most important arguments for this suggestion is that the negative (metaphorical) description of the fate of the wicked is quite opposite to what Job had been saying previously in the book19. c) Tree (14,7-10) In Job 14,7-10, an interesting reversal in the plant metaphors takes place. While in the previous verses it is shown how human fate is like that of (parts of) plants (leaves, chaff, flowers), in the present verses it is argued that human fate is unlike that of other plants, viz. that of trees. 7 For there is hope for a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. 8 Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground, 9 yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth branches like a young plant. 10 But mortals die, and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they?

‫כי יש לעץ תקוה‬ ‫אם־יכרת ועוד יחליף‬ ‫וינקתו לא תחדל‬ ‫אם־יזקין בארץ שרשו‬ ‫ובעפר ימות גזעו‬ ‫מריח מים יפרח‬ ‫ועשה קציר כמו־נטע‬ ‫וגבר ימות ויחלש‬ ‫ויגוע אדם ואיו‬

The image needs little explanation: unlike a tree that is cut down and appears to be dead but will grow again under the right conditions, human death is irreversible. This use of the tree metaphor is particular, however, when compared to other instances in the book of Job where trees are mentioned metaphorically. In 19,10, Job complains about God’s actions 18. See D.J.A. CLINES, Job 21–37 (WBC, 18A), Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson, 2006, pp. 672-673. 19. Ibid., pp. 667-669. N. HABEL, The Book of Job (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1985, p. 357: “There are real problems with accepting vs. 18-24 as representative of Job’s position. For this section is diametrically opposed to the stance of Job enunciated in 21:7ff”.

306

P. VAN HECKE

in the following: “He breaks me down (‫ )נתץ‬on every side, and I am gone, he has uprooted my hope like a tree”. Judging by the use of the verb ‫נתץ‬, which is commonly used for the destruction of built structures20, Job conceptualises himself as a house or building in the first half of this verse 19,10, while turning to the tree metaphor in the second half. Against the background of the similar metaphor in 14,7-8, where the hope of the tree resided precisely in its roots, the use of the metaphor of uprooting the tree in this verse expresses to what extent Job’s hopes are irreversibly destroyed. Job 24,20 takes the tree imagery even a step further: in this verse the destruction of the (wickedness of the) godless is conceptualised as the breaking of a tree. Just as it is improbable that a tree would break – the only biblical case where the same expression is used being the destruction of trees by the hail during the plagues of Egypt (Exod 9,25; Ps 105,33) – it might seem unlikely that the wickedness of the godless would ever be broken21, yet this is precisely what is about to happen. Returning to Job 14,7, Job further explains the tree’s hope: it may sprout again, and its shoots (‫ )ינקתו‬may return. It is interesting to see how Job takes over this imagery of the shoots – with the exact same word – from the description that Bildad offers of the (temporary) prosperity of the wicked in Job 8, a chapter to which I will return. Moreover, the term ‫ ינקתו‬is taken up again for a third time in Eliphaz’ answer to Job’s speech in chapter 15, to describe the downfall of the godless this time. Given the fact that the term ‫ ינקת‬is rare indeed, occurring only three times outside of the book of Job (Ezek 17,22; Hos 14,7; Ps 80,12), and three times in the aforementioned verses in Job, this repetition is striking. In contrast to his friends who reserve this vegetal imagery to describe the ill fate of the wicked, Job uses the very same metaphors to describe the fate of humankind in general, in accordance with his general arguments: suffering and destruction do not only befall the godless, but are the fate of every human being. d) Water (14,9) What brings the tree’s roots and stump back to life in Job’s comparison, is the scent of water. The importance of water for vegetal growth is obvious, and is repeatedly the source of metaphorical conceptualisations throughout the Hebrew Bible. Ps 1,3 is a prime example: “And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water”, but also in Bildad’s aforementioned 20. Typical objects of the verb include altars (e.g., Exod 34,13), houses (Lev 14,45) and city-walls (Jer 39,8) and towers (Ezek 26,9). 21. J.H. KROEZE, Job (Commentaar op het Oude Testament), Kampen, Kok, 1961, p. 276.

METAPHORICAL NETWORKS IN JOB 12–14

307

speech (8,11) the same idea is put forward: “Can reeds flourish where there is no water?”. Also, when in 29,19 Job recalls the vision he used to have of his future blessed life, he makes recourse to plant and water imagery: “my roots spread out to the waters, with the dew all night on my branches”. However, two aspects make the water metaphor in this verse stand out against all other similar uses in the Hebrew Bible. The first is the mention of the “scent” of water, which by itself will be able to revive the tree’s root and stump (14,9). This hyperbole underlines the fact that – dead as a tree may seem – it does not take much for it to sprout again, much in contrast to the fate of humans, which is irreversible. The second peculiarity of the water metaphor here is its juxtaposition to quite a different mention of water not more than two verses later. After having opposed human fate to that of a tree, Job now brings that same fate in relation to the evaporation of water. 11

Waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, 12 and mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep22.

‫אזלו־מים מני־ים‬ ‫ונהר יחרב ויבש‬ ‫ואיש שכב ולא־יקום‬ ‫עד־בלתי שמים לא יקיצו‬ ‫ולא־יערו משנתם‬

According to the majority opinion23, v. 11 presents a series of comparative clauses to v. 12, resulting in the NRSV translation: “As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep”. In this opinion, the two parts of the comparison are connected by the conjunction waw at the beginning of 12a, which is to be understood as the waw of comparison in the grammars24. As I have argued elsewhere25, however, this reading of the text has its problems, first of all with regard to its meaning. Most commentators in some way or another share Clines’ opinion that “these verses draw a comparison between water that evaporates or drains away and the human being who sinks down into the dust of the earth”26, an interpretation which is rather 22. Adapted from the NRSV. 23. Already in Symmachus (ὡς) and in the Vulgate (quomodo si), but not in the LXX. See also CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 3), pp. 329f.; DHORME, Job (n. 14), p. 181 discussing, but rejecting the view. 24. See G-K-C § 161a; J-M § 174h. The fact that both grammars list Job 14,11ff. as an example of this waw adaequationis has doubtlessly added to the acceptance of this interpretation. 25. VAN HECKE, Job 12–14 (n. 3), pp. 206-209. The argument in this and the following paragraph is taken and adapted from this publication. 26. CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 3), p. 329 (italics mine).

308

P. VAN HECKE

unlikely, in my opinion. If the author wished to compare fading human life to evaporating water, why would he have chosen precisely those bodies of surface water that are the least likely to evaporate, viz. a ‫ ים‬and a ‫ ?נהר‬The former noun refers to a large body of water, viz. the sea, a lake or a broad river27, while the latter is used for perennial rivers, i.e., rivers that do not dry up in summer28, in contrast to a number of related nouns such as for example ‫נחל‬, used for seasonal water courses29. It is true that there are a number of instances in the Hebrew Bible in which the drying up of bodies of water is described, examples that are of course eagerly provided by the proponents of the majority opinion on the present verses. However, only in one case is this phenomenon described as natural, viz. in 1 Kgs 17,7, in which case precisely a different noun is used, viz. ‫נחל‬. In all the other instances, the drying up of seas, lakes or rivers is exceptional, and is, in most cases, described as the result of God’s intervention30. It is rather improbable, to say the least, that the author would compare the inevitable and irreversible death of man to a phenomenon that is very unlikely to happen, and that only occurs, if ever, after divine intervention. Moreover, it is not clear what the common ground or the tertium comparationis is for comparing evaporating rivers and dying humans. In 14,12, man is described as lying down not to rise up or wake up again, but not as vanishing like evaporating or draining water. Moreover, also the identification of the conjunction waw at the beginning of verse 12 as a waw of comparison is problematic. When comparing the present case with the other examples of this use of the conjunction provided in the grammars of Classical Hebrew noted above, some differences can be noted. All other instances31 are short gnomic sayings with a 27. HALAT 395. 28. P. REYMOND, L’eau, sa vie et sa signification dans l’Ancien Testament (VT.S, 6), Leiden, Brill, 1958, p. 85: “Un fleuve (‫נָ ָהר‬, araméen ‫)נהר‬ ָ se définit avant tout en hébreu comme un ‘cours d’eau permanent’ ayant un gros débit”. Reymond continues on the present verse: “C’est du reste bien ainsi que Job le comprend: dans un raisonnement par l’absurde, il montre qu’il est pratiquement impossible que les fleuves et la mer viennent à être à sec (xiv 11)”. 29. See L.A. SNIJDERS, in TWAT 5: 281-291, here c. 283. 30. In Gen 8,7.13 the drying up of the flood waters can hardly be regarded as a regular natural phenomenon. In the following cases, God is invariably the direct or indirect cause of the drying up of water: Isa 44,27; Jer 50,38; Joel 1,20; Nah 1,4; Ps 66,6; 74,15; 106,9. 31. Job 5,7; 12,11; 34,3; Prov 17,3; 25,3; 26,3.9.14; 27,21. Parallel “comparative” clauses without waw: Jer 17,11; Job 24,19. A more extensive list of cases, gathered from a larger set of grammars and lexical works, can be found in J. SAUTERMEISTER, Psalm 149,6 und die Diskussion um das sogenannte waw adaequationis, in Biblische Notizen 101 (2000) 64-80, p. 70. Of the 30 cases proposed in those works, Sautermeister retains 13 possibly valid instances, leaving out some of the instances mentioned above, and adding Ps 125,2; Prov 25,20.25; 26,7.10.20; Qoh 5,2; 7,1.

METAPHORICAL NETWORKS IN JOB 12–14

309

strong structural parallel between the clauses that are compared32. Moreover, if these cases consist of verbal clauses they invariably have marked constituent orders with fronted preverbal constituents. These characteristics are essential: it is not so much the conjunction waw that makes two clauses into a comparative expression. Rather, it is by virtue of a strong semantic and syntactic parallel, marked by fronted constituents, that two clauses can be understood as standing in a comparative relation; moreover, the shorter the expression, the easier it will be recognized as comparative. Both characteristics are absent from the present case: Job 14,11-12, with its multiple clauses in both halves of the “comparison”, can hardly be called a sharp and short aphorism, and, more importantly, there is no structural parallel between the parts of the comparison. Concluding, it is very unlikely that the author would ever have conceived v. 11 as a series of comparative clauses to v. 12. Rather than interpreting the relation between v. 11 and v. 12 as comparative33, it seems better either to read v. 11 with a conditional or concessive nuance (“even if”, “even though”) with the waw at the beginning of v. 12 as a waw apodoseos34 or, better still, to interpret the waw of v. 12 as introducing an adversative clause (“but”)35. In both cases, the gist of the clauses is that the very improbable events of seas/lakes evaporating or rivers drying up are more likely to occur than that a human being would rise up from death, as several authors and translators have argued36, in the same way as it is said in 12c that the heavens would cease to exist before a human would wake up from death. 32. See, e.g., the already mentioned verse Job 12,11: // ‫הלא־אזן מלין תבחן וחך אכל יטעם־לו‬ 33. Clines’s remark that “the ‘and’ at the beginning of v. 12 [. . .] can only be the ‘and’ of comparison” (CLINES, Job 1–20 [n. 3], p. 329) underestimates the variety of uses and meanings the conjunction can take. Moreover, his assertion that the waw adaequationis “has just now been used to mark the comparison/contrast between a tree and humankind at the beginning of v. 10” is stretching the application of the category of waw adaequationis beyond the point of having explanatory force. Syntactically speaking, the waw at the beginning of v. 10 does not at all introduce the main clause after a comparative clause; indeed, vv. 7-9 can in no way be regarded syntactically as comparative clauses to v. 10. Moreover, the waw adaequationis, as understood in Hebrew grammar, is used between clauses that are to some extent equated, as the Latin term suggests, and not between clauses that are contrasted, as is the case in Job 14,7-10. The waw introducing v. 10 can, therefore, in no way be regarded as a so-called waw adaequationis. 34. This interpretation is not to be preferred, since the waw of the apodosis is usually left out before a noun, see J-M § 176d; 176l. 35. See J-M § 172. 36. So DHORME, Job (n. 14), p. 182; F. HORST, Hiob (BKAT, 16/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1968, p. 209: “Sogar hochst unwahrscheinliche Geschehnisse werden als eher möglich erklärt, denn das ein gestorbener Mensch zu einem neuen Leben komme”. French Bible de Jérusalem: “Les eaux de la mer pourront disparaître, les fleuves tarir et se dessécher: l’homme une fois couché ne se relèvera pas, les cieux s’useront avant qu’il ne s’éveille, ou ne soit réveillé de son sommeil”.

310

P. VAN HECKE

In 14,11-12 no direct comparison is made therefore, in my opinion, between water and the human fate, yet indirectly the irreversibility of human finiteness is compared to the very unlikely events of waters evaporating from the sea, or the heavens ceasing to exist. The close proximity between the two references to water in this chapter of Job invites the reader to conceptually bring the two instances together: whereas for a felled tree even the scent of water, i.e., the slightest amount of evaporated water, is enough to restore it to life, all the surface water of the earth may evaporate before mortals would ever return to life. The conclusion can only be that, unlike for a tree, there is absolutely no hope for humanity. Interestingly enough, the loss of human hope is described with the help of water imagery elsewhere in this very same speech of Job. In vv. 18-19 of the same chapter 14, Job exclaims: 18

But the mountain falls and crumbles away, and the rock is removed from its place; 19 the waters wear away the stones; the torrents wash away the soil of the earth; so you destroy the hope of mortals.

‫ואולם הר־נופל יבול‬ ‫וצור יעתק ממקמו‬ ‫אבנים שחקו מים‬ ‫תשטף־ספיחיה עפר־ארץ‬ ‫ותקות אנוש האבדת‬

Human hope is conceptualised here as solid materials that gradually crumble into ever smaller pieces, to be worn away and washed away by water at the end of the process37. Quite explicitly, then, God’s actions are compared, among other things, to the destructive force of water, which even wears out the hardest of stones and washes away the soil of the earth. This conceptualisation stands in sharp contrast to other places in the Hebrew Bible where God is described as life-giving water (e.g., Ps 42,2 and 65,10). In his same speech, however, Job had already pointed out to God’s literal command of the waters: “If he withholds the waters, they dry up; if he sends them out, they overwhelm the land” (12,15). In the latter verse, God is not described himself as water, but as the one who governs the waters, including their destructive powers (compare also with 38,8-11). This third mention of water in the same chapter, this time in a straightforward metaphorical manner, does add a new level of development into Job’s argument: whereas the two first instances already established that humankind does not have any reason to hope, this third instance makes clear that whatever hope mortals would have, even if it be solid as a rock, it will be destroyed by God’s relentless attitude towards humanity. 37. CLINES, Job 1–20 (n. 3), p. 335: “Secondly, what is in view in the fourfold image is the gradual destruction of what appears immovable, with the implication that no matter how firm anything is, it cannot resist persistent wearing down. That is how it is also with human hope”.

311

METAPHORICAL NETWORKS IN JOB 12–14

III. PLANT METAPHORS IN JOB 8;14

AND

24

Water metaphors describing human fate do occur later in the book, viz. in the highly debated pericope 24,18-24, already mentioned above, but again with a notable difference with Job 14. Whereas in 14,18-19 water is the force that metaphorically destroys human hopes, solid as they may have been, in 24,19 human fate – that of the sinners in particular – is conceptualised itself as water: Drought and heat snatch away the snow waters; so does Sheol those who have sinned.

‫ציה גם־חם יגזלו מימי־שלג‬ ‫שאול חטאו‬

As Clines has argued, the use of the verb ‫“ גזל‬to snatch” may either conceptualise the speed with which the wicked are taken away by death, or may rather point to the fact that the wicked disappear in death without even leaving a trace, just like the heat does with snow waters38. The fact that the three main natural elements used in Job 14, viz. the withering of plants, the tree and water, are also used in 24,18-24, but in quite a different way, can in my opinion best be accounted for if the latter pericope is regarded as quite an intentional reversal of Job’s own position: whereas Job 14 paints a very negative picture of human fate, devoid of hope, as Job sees it, Job 24,18-24 seems to argue that this negativity is only warranted when speaking about the fate of the wicked. By taking up the same natural images, the speaker of 24,18-24 explicitly distances himself from the position defended in chapter 14. This, therefore, seems to be another argument against regarding Job as the speaker in the former. The natural images in Job 14 are not only taken up later by other speakers later in the book, many of the metaphors used in Job’s central speech (12–14) had themselves previously been used before in Bildad’s address in Job 8. Bildad’s first speech presents the most elaborate conceptualisation of human fate (in this case specifically the fate of the wicked) in terms of plants metaphors: vegetal imagery is arguably one of the key elements of Bildad’s speech39. In verses 11 to 13 of this chapter, the fate of the “godless”, of those who forget God, is likened to that of papyrus or of reeds that lack water: 11

Can papyrus grow where there is no marsh? Can reeds flourish where there is no water?

‫יגאה־גמא בלא בצה‬ ‫ישגה־אחו בלי־מים‬

38. CLINES, Job 21–37 (n. 18), p. 670. 39. See DE JOODE, Metaphorical Landscapes (n. 1), pp. 100-102, for a discussion of these metaphors, in particular with regard to the relation between place and rootedness in these metaphors.

312

P. VAN HECKE

12 While yet in flower and not cut down, they wither before any other plant. 13 Such are the paths of all who forget God; the hope of the godless shall perish.

‫עדנו באבו לא יקטף‬ ‫ולפני כל־חציר ייבש‬ ‫כן ארחות כל־שכחי אל‬ ‫ותקות חנף תאבד‬

In this pericope, the wicked are conceptualised as plants, and in particular as plants that grow on river banks, and thus are highly dependent on the presence of water. The perishing of the wicked is subsequently understood as the plants’ withering because of a lack of water. Although the equation is not made explicitly, one could understand the lack of water as metaphorically describing the forgetting of God by the wicked, drawing again on the more traditional metaphor of God as life-giving water mentioned above. There is a notable difference, however, between Bildad’s and Job’s respective use of comparable imagery: whereas Bildad sees the withering of the godless as the result of their forgetting of God, which is understood as their lacking of water, Job stresses the fact that the ephemerality of life – resembling that of withering plants and being different from that of trees, which may always hope to sprout again – is a characteristic of every human being. If humans have such a vulnerable existence, why then would God even bother to chase human beings as dry leaves, to take up Job’s first metaphor again. The use of natural imagery in Job 12–14 thus proves to build an intricate network of intersecting metaphors, which together conceptualise the fate of humanity, as Job views it. The images used are moreover strongly related to similar metaphors elsewhere in the book of Job and in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, and their meaning therefore develops in the dialogue with these other biblical passages. Consistency in the imagery used is hardly a goal in Job’s speech, as little as it usually is elsewhere in Biblical literature, yet the subtle shifts and oppositions on the one hand, and continuities between metaphors on the other, greatly add to the nuance in Job’s argument. KU Leuven Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Pierre VAN HECKE

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE A PARABLE OF DESIRE

“A metaphor never comes alone. One metaphor calls for another and all together they remain alive thanks to their mutual tension and the power of each to evoke the whole network”1. How not to agree with Paul Ricœur’s statement? How not to join him in the attention to the networking of images in literary texts? Yet, why should we limit the play of figures evoked by Ricœur just to metaphors? Another master trope may be involved in this play – metonymy. In this essay, taking Song of Songs as a test case, I intend to show how deeply connected are metaphors and metonymies in the phenomenon of image clustering in Hebrew poetry2. A token of the connection in question is found in the opening verses of the Song. The first metaphor in the Song is coupled with a metonymy. The end of v. 3 reads: Perfume poured out is your name3

‫שמן תורק שמך‬

The metaphor of the poured perfume is associated with the metonymy “your name” – for “your person”, “your very self”, a most biblical metonymy at that4. “What’s in a name?”, asks Juliet in Shakespeare’s tragedy5. The fragrance of the loved one, answers the Song. To say “your name 1. P. RICŒUR, Biblical Hermeneutics, in Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148, p. 94. 2. For a prior discussion of the issue, see J.-P. SONNET, Du chant érotique au chant mystique: Le ressort poétique du Cantique des cantiques, in J.-M. AUWERS (ed.), Regards croisés sur le Cantique des cantiques (Le livre et le rouleau, 22), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2005, 79-105, pp. 95-100. 3. All biblical translations are mine, unless otherwise indicated. 4. Metonymy surfaces in expressions such as ‫בשם־‬, “in the name of”, “on behalf of” (see 1 Sam 25,5.9) or in social practices, for instance when one’s name is called on something as token of ownership (see 2 Sam 12,28), or in cases of damnatio memoriae, consisting in the obliteration of someone’s name (Exod 17,14; Deut 25,19). Yet, it is essentially in relation to God that the word “name” thrives as a metonymy in the Hebrew Bible. See, for instance, Exod 23,21, in which the angel sent ahead by God is to be feared “for my name is in him”, and the deuteronomic phrase “the place that the Yhwh your God will choose as a dwelling for his name” (Deut 12,11; 14,23; 16,2.6.11; 26,2). See F.V. REITERER, ‫שׁם‬, ֵ in TDOT 15: 128-176, pp. 135-136. These uses can be loaded with emotions, as in the Song, in phrases like “the lovers of your name (‫( ”)אהבי שמך‬Ps 5,12; 69,37; 119,132) or “those who fear your name (‫( ”)יראי שמך‬Ps 61,6; 86,11). 5. W. SHAKESPEARE, Romeo and Juliet, in J. JOWETT – W. MONTGOMERY – G. TAYLOR – S. WELLS (eds.), The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 22005, Act 2, Scene 2, l. 43, p. 379.

314

J.-P. SONNET

(‫ ”)שמך‬is, moreover, the best way to answer the initial metaphor, “perfume, balm (‫”)שמן‬, given the phonetic echoing that unites the two words. The sound affinity expresses the intimate appeal of the loved one, whose inner self (‫ )שם‬pours out like a fragrance (‫)שמן‬. The first (micro) cluster in the Song thus, as a pass key to the rest of the poem, associates a metaphor and a metonymy. I. METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE SONG OF SONGS: DREAMS, DESIRE AND POETRY In a first step, I will present the theoretical model of the present inquiry, in dialogue with some verses of the Song. Because of its way of combining erotic and oneiric desire, the Song, more than any other text in the Bible, calls for a linguistic, literary, and hermeneutical model that brings into relation metaphor and metonymy. The Song is erotic from its first line, as the young woman says, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth / for your caresses (‫ )דדיך‬are more delightful than wine” (1,2). The word associated with sexual fondling (‫דדים‬, in the plural, see 1,4; 4,10; 7,13) echoes, in the singular, the designation of the male lover by the woman (‫דודי‬, see 1,13.14.16; 2,3.8.9.10; etc.): to mention him is to caress him and to be caressed by him. Erotic desire surfaces in the word ‫תשוקה‬, “desire, lust, urge” (7,11). It is used by the female lover in a graphic evocation of her male lover’s sexual urge: “I am my beloved’s, and right on me (‫ )עלי‬is his desire (‫( ”)תשוקתו‬7,11)6. Throughout the Song, erotic desire is pulsing, within the lines and between the lines, within the words and between the words. Erotic, the Song is equally oneiric, for dream, in the Song, is never far away. “I sleep, but my heart is wakeful (‫”)אני ישנה ולבי ער‬, the woman declares in 5,2. She presents herself as awake in her sleep; in other words, she presents herself as dreaming, and her dream has a contagious quality in the poem7. As Harold Fisch explains, 6. In Gen 3,16, the same word is associated with the woman’s desire for her mate, yet it is construed with the preposition ‫אל‬, “toward” (‫ואל־אישך תשוקתך‬, “and toward your man shall be your longing”). 7. Johann Leonhard Hug (1765-1846) was the first to conceive of the Song as an extended dream sequence. “Wir müssten […] auf alle Fälle annehmen, wenn unser Gedicht aus den Überresten mehrerer Eklogen zusammengesetzt ist, dass der Verfasser Traumgedichte in größerer Anzahl verfertigt habe”. J.L. HUG, Das Hohe Lied in einer noch unversuchten Deutung, Freiburg i.Br. – Konstanz, Herder, 1813, p. 9; ID., Schutzschrift für seine Deutung des Hohen Liedes, und derselben weitere Erläuterung, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1816. For a more recent statement of the hypothesis (elaborating upon 5,2), see S.B. FREEHOF, The

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE

315

Though there are only three identifiable dream sequences8, they are very centrally located and the mood and imagery of these scenes merge with the rest of the poem. There is no clear division between the waking and dreaming portions, no announcement by the lady that she is now quite wide awake and that we are to take her account of events from now on in a different, more everyday sense. The whole poem is dominated by a heightened dreamy atmosphere […]. Many problems of understanding disappear once we recognize in the poem the free flow of images and the shifting kaleidoscope of a dream9.

In other words, the (double) stream of consciousness that runs throughout the Song is in many senses a (double) stream of unconsciousness, in a close dialogue between dream tropes and poetic tropes. To say it with the Song (in 7,10), the words of the poem are “flowing gently over lips of sleepers (‫”)דובב שפתי ישנים‬10. Because of this dream-like character, the Song of Songs: A General Suggestion, in Jewish Quarterly Review 39 (1948-1949) 397-402. The biblical book, Freehof points out, “is full of strange flights and sudden movements from place to place, the characteristic activities in dreams” (p. 400). The dream hypothesis has been reformulated in several ways. In place of actual dreaming (the emblematic verb ‫חלם‬, “to dream”, does not appear in the Song), Marvin H. Pope, for instance, substitutes daydreaming. “[T]his would suit very well the condition of one expecting or hoping for a tryst with a lover”. M.H. POPE, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 7C), Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1977, p. 511. The extension of the dream sequence has also been reconsidered: in recent scholarship, it is often limited to discrete units, reporting either actual dreaming (in particular 3,1-5 and 5,2-8) or daydreaming. See, for instance, Y. ZAKOVITCH, Das Hohelied (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004, p. 40; ID., The Song of Songs: Riddle of Riddles (JSOT.S, 673), London, T&T Clark, 2019, pp. 73-87. On the other hand, stringent criticism has been levelled at the dream hypothesis, seeing it as a hermeneutical expedient to defuse the realism of sex and social violence in the Song. See the chapter significantly entitled “Undreaming the Song’s World” in C. MEREDITH, Journeys in the Songscape: Space and the Song of Songs (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 53), Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013, pp. 31-68. In my view, the oneiric aspect of the Song is indissociable from its poetic (and erotic) dimensions. Far from reporting actual dreaming, the Song produces a dreamlike “milieu” through poetic figures. See G. GERLEMAN, Ruth. Das Hohelied (BKAT, 18), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1965, pp. 165-166; O. KEEL, The Song of Songs, transl. F.J. Gaiser (CC), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1994, p. 188; T. LONGMAN, Song of Songs (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2001, pp. 128 and 165. What the Song repeatedly displays is, as Hug already put it, “Traumgedichte”. 8. To the two sections usually associated with dream (3,1-5; 5,2-8), Fisch adds a third text (2,9-14). 9. H. FISCH, Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 89. 10. Many scholars emend the initial yod of ‫ ישנים‬as waw and translate the emended unit as “and teeth”, following the LXX, καὶ ὀδοῦσιν (same reading in Syr and Vg). In so doing, a supposed parallelism is restored: “gliding over lips and teeth” (NRSV). The Masoretic reading (“of the sleepers”), however, “is by no means impossible”, as Gianni Barbiero writes. “In fact in the language of the Song, ‘to sleep’ is a metaphor for love. It is derived, indirectly, from the ‘refrain of awakening’ (Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4), where there is a request not to ‘awaken’ the two lovers from the sleep of love”. G. BARBIERO, Song of Songs: A

316

J.-P. SONNET

flow of the poetic images in the Song mirrors something of the stream of oneiric representations. Driven by the energy of desire, the kaleidoscope of the Song screens before us poetic configurations that are simultaneously dream-like images. The intricate association of the erotic with the oneiric in the poetry of the Song calls for an appropriate elucidation. A model progressively elaborated by Sigmund Freud, Roman Jakobson, and Jacques Lacan provides a fitting perspective in this respect. It is built on the relationship of metaphor and metonymy at the interface of poetry, erotic desire, and dream activity. That metaphor finds in metonymy its constitutive counterpart has been evinced by Roman Jakobson in his seminal essay Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances (1956)11. Two types of aphasia are detectable, Jakobson indicates, which refer to two linguistic axes, i.e. a paradigmatic one, associated with the selection of words and symbolized in metaphor, and a syntagmatic one, associated with the combination of words and epitomized in metonymy. Whereas metaphor is described as the trope of similarity, matching up two separate entities, metonymy is characterized as the trope of contiguity, availing itself of adjacencies within a given code. Jakobson’s intellectual flair has moreover led him to establish a parallel between the two poles in question and the phenomena that Sigmund Freud had singled out as the main “tropes” of dream activity, condensation and displacement. “Dream-displacement and dream-condensation”, Freud writes in The Interpretation of Dreams, “are the two foremen in charge of the dream-work, and we may put the shaping of our dreams down mainly to their activity”12. In the case of condensation, in German Verdichtung, a single image occupies the forefront of the dream, precipitating and thickening in itself (Verdichtung), with intense energy, several latent contents. In the case of displacement (Verschiebung), what Close Reading (VT.S, 144), Leiden, Brill, 2011, p. 401. Likewise, according to Lys, while she is thinking of her lover, the woman here evokes “l’étreinte qui les unit, les enivre et les assoupit (cf. 2,7; 3,5)”. D. LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création: Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques (LD, 51), Paris, Cerf, 1968, p. 270. 11. See R. JAKOBSON, Language in Literature, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 95-114. Jakobson’s research on the typology of aphasic impairments intersected with the pioneering work by Alexander R. Luria (1902-1977), in particular on the issue of paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic association. See A.R. LURIA, Basic Problems of Neurolinguistics, Den Haag, Mouton, 1976. For an assessment, see T.V. AKHUTINA, Roman Jakobson and the Development of Russian Neurolinguistics, in Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 41 (2003) 129-158. 12. S. FREUD, The Interpretation of Dreams, transl. J. Crick, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 258 [“Traumverschiebung und Traumverdichtung sind die beiden Werkmeister, deren Tätigkeit wir die Gestaltung des Traumes hauptsächlich zuschreiben dürfen”. ID., Gesammelte Werke, 2. Band, Frankfurt a.M., Fischer Taschenbuch-Verlag, 1999, p. 313].

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE

317

takes place in the dream is the continual passage from one content to the next, with lighter energy, along an associative chain. The two oneiric kinetics, Jakobson has discerned, correspond to the respective dynamics of metaphor and metonymy in poetic language13. The French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan has next elaborated Jakobson’s insight into a general theory of desire, meaning, and subjectivity, first formulated in his essay The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious (1957)14. If “the unconscious is structured like a language”15, so is desire, which asserts itself through the two tropes of metonymy and metaphor. In their respective logics, the two figures of speech are symmetrical. “Whereas metonymy emphasizes the incessant sliding of signifiers and the delaying of a fixed signified, metaphor is the structure that allows the emergence of signification”, Dirk De Schutter writes16. As a psychoanalyst, Alfredo Zenoni echoes, “Whereas in metonymy one holds nostalgically the object despite its loss, through metaphor, one elaborates the mourning of the object. The metaphor consents to the ‘loss’ of the object, not as the loss of something irreplaceable, but as the lack from which anything else can be said”17. The emergence of signification in metaphor simultaneously means the emergence of subjectivity. Through the metaphor, the 13. Freud himself associated the dream-process with the logic of poetry and even added a double reference to the Song of Songs in the third edition of Die Traumdeutung. See S. FREUD, The Interpretation of Dreams, transl. J. Strachey, New York, Basic Books, 2010, p. 360. In their mutual compenetration, the dream thoughts, he writes, are “working as a poet does. If a poem is to rhyme, the second rhyme line is bound by two conditions: it has to express its due meaning, and it must find the same sound as the first rhyming line. The best poems, I suppose, are those where we do not notice the intention to find the rhyme, but where from the outset each thought has induced the other to choose the verbal expression that with a little adaptation will allow the rhyme to emerge”. FREUD, Interpretation, p. 256. See also Freud’s penetrating statement: “The depths of mankind’s eternal nature, which the poet invariably counts on arousing in his listeners, are made of those motions of our inner life rooted in that time of our childhood which later becomes prehistoric” (p. 190). In the wake of Freud’s statements, and before Jakobson’s observations, Ella Freeman Sharpe (1875-1947), a leading figure in the early development of psychoanalysis in Britain, has proposed understanding the mechanisms of the dream through the figures of rhetoric, as if the dream were articulated as a poem. 14. J. LACAN, The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason since Freud, in ID., Écrits: A Selection, transl. B. Fink, New York – London, W.W. Norton, 2002, 138168. Lacan first met Jakobson in 1950; the two maintained an intellectual relationship over the years. 15. “Translating Freud, we say – the unconscious is a language”. J. LACAN, The Seminar. Book III: The Psychoses, ed. J.-A. MILLER, transl. R. Grigg, New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 1993, p. 11. 16. D. DE SCHUTTER, A Study of Metaphor and Metonymy in Lacan, in Auslegung 10 (1983) 65-74, p. 68. 17. A. ZENONI, Métaphore et métonymie dans la théorie de Lacan, in Cahiers internationaux du symbolisme 31-32 (1976) 187-198, p. 195 (my translation). See also B. TOBOUL, La condensation, la métaphore et le réel, ou la structure revisitée, in Figures de la psychanalyse 11 (2005) 33-61.

318

J.-P. SONNET

subject accedes to the ultimate sense of his/her desire, as dispossessed and creative desire of the other as other18. 1. Metonymy in the Song of Songs When it comes to metonymy, the word that counts is “contiguity”, as Jakobson has contended. In a recent essay, Rethinking Metonymy, Sebastian Matzner indicates that, before Jakobson, Roman rhetoricians characterized metonymy as a trope implying semantic proximity, by using words like consequens (“following on”, “accompanying”), propinquus, (“near”, “neighboring”), finitimus (“bordering”, “adjoining”)19. Vindicating Jakobson’s hypothesis, Matzner writes that metonymy “should be understood as lexical […] contiguity […] as a lateral shift within the terminology of one semantic field”20, a semantic field available under the guise of a cultural code. John Z. Wee offers this fine definition, in cognitive terms: “While metaphor maps attributes from a source domain to a non-contiguous target domain, metonymy deals with only a single contiguous domain, and substitutes one element for another based on their conceptual closeness”21. In the line of Song 1,3 quoted in the introductive paragraph, to say “your name” for “your very self” does not bring into play an extraneous source domain. It amounts to relying on a given, received, cultural code, where the lemma “name” is contiguous to the lemma “person”, and where “name” can be said (and understood) for “person”. In Lacan’s theory, the trope of metonymy is designated as the core trope of desire, in its conscious or unconscious realization. “The metonymic substitution”, Zenoni writes, “presupposes the wide-ranging discourse by which things are distinguished, classified, referred to and opposed to one another, as part of a whole, container of a content, instrument of an agent, effect of a cause, means to an end, opposite of a positive, species of a genre, etc.”22. Desire makes the most of this system of connections. 18. As Élisabeth Roudinesco writes, “This extraordinary intellectual operation, by means of which Lacan endowed psychoanalytic doctrine with a Cartesian theory of the subject and a ‘post-Saussurian’ conception of the unconscious, arose not only out of Lacan’s reading of Jakobson but also out of his meeting with the great linguist: after Kojève and Koyré, the third representative of the exiled Russian intelligentsia to play an essential part in Lacan’s development”. E. ROUDINESCO, Jacques Lacan, transl. B. Bray, New York, Columbia University Press, 1997, p. 273. 19. See S. MATZNER, Rethinking Metonymy: Literary Theory and Poetic Practice from Pindar to Jakobson, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 47. 20. Ibid., p. 8. 21. J.Z. WEE, To What May I Liken Metaphor?, in ID. (ed.), The Comparable Body: Analogy and Metaphor in Ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greco-Roman Medicine (Studies in Ancient Medicine, 49), Leiden, Brill, 2017, 1-11, p. 11. 22. ZENONI, Métaphore et métonymie (n. 17), p. 192.

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE

319

In its nostalgia for its object(s), it is essentially metonymical: it passes from the whole to the parts, from the cause to the effect, from the agent to the instrument, from an etymon to its multifold derivations in a given language, “being caught in the rails – eternally stretching forth towards the desire for something else – of metonymy”23. If the Song mentions untiring “little foxes” (2,15), desire gets a totem animal in the ferret: “It is there” (i.e., in the contiguities of the system of signs) “that what we call desire crawls, slips, escapes, like the ferret”24. Lacan is referring to the traditional song in French, “The ferret, it runs, it runs […] It passed by here […] it will pass by there”, a song associated with a dance and a game around a disappearing object. The desire does so in “the sheer infinite and ludic metonymy of the signifying chain”25. In its voicing of desire from its first to its last verse, the Song multiplies metonymic junctures. They can be minimal, as in Song 7,13-14, when the male lover says: 13

Let us go early to the vineyards. We shall see if the vine is in flower, if the blossoms have opened, if the pomegranates are blooming. 14 There I will give you my love the love-apples give forth fragrance

‫נשכימה לכרמים‬ ‫נראה אם פרחה הגפן‬ ‫פתח הסמדר‬ ‫הנצו הרמונים‬ ‫שם אתן את דדי לך‬ ‫הדודאים נתנו ריח‬

No metaphor is found in this sequence, but a lateral shift within the semantic field of “aphrodisiaca”, from love-making (‫ )דדי‬to the aphrodisiacal love-apple (or mandrake) plant (‫)דודאים‬26, a cause of sexual arousing (see Gen 30,14-16). The passage is facilitated by the phonetic closeness between the two words (‫ דּ ַֹדי‬/ ‫)דּוּד ִאים‬ ָ and by the syntactic play with the verb ‫נתן‬: “I will give you (‫ )אתן‬my love // the love-apples give forth (‫)נתנו‬ fragrance”. The desire of the lover thus makes its way, drifting on the contiguities in the code27. Another example is found, this time in the speech of the young woman, in Song 5,4-5: 23. LACAN, Instance (n. 14), p. 167. 24. J. LACAN, The Seminar. Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, ed. J.-A. MILLER, transl. A. Sheridan, New York, W.W. Norton, 1977, p. 214. 25. J. LACAN, The Seminar. Book X: Anxiety, ed. J.-A. MILLER, transl. A.R. Price, Cambridge, MA, Polity, 2014, p. 336. 26. The noun ‫דודאים‬, here translated by “love-apple” (to echo the “love-making” of ‫)דדי‬ refers to the mandrake, or mandragora officinarum, a plant native of the Mediterranean area, renowned for the virtues of its roots, aphrodisiac efficacy included. See POPE, Song of Songs (n. 7), pp. 647-650. As pointed out by Pope, Hesychius of Alexandria (5th or 6th century CE) notes in his lexicon that mandragoritis was an epithet of Aphrodite (p. 648). 27. A similar metonymic process is observed in Song 4,13, when the male lover is shifting from one fragrance to the other, in a series alternating whole and parts. The whole is the “orchard” mentioned in 13b, and the parts are all the species that then follow:

320

J.-P. SONNET

4 My beloved thrust his hand28 into the opening and my inmost being yearned for him 5 I arose to open to my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh my fingers with liquid myrrh, upon the handles of the bolt.

‫דודי שלח ידו מן־החר‬ ‫ומעי המו עליו‬ ‫קמתי אני לפתח לדודי‬ ‫וידי נטפו־מור‬ ‫ואצבעתי מור עבר‬ ‫על כפות המנעול‬

The flow of the speech, again, is made possible by contiguities in the code that spell out the parts of the hand: “hand”, “fingers”, as well as the figurative term ‫כפות המנעול‬, “the handles of the bolt” (“the handles”, that is, what is manipulated by the hand, actually, by the palm, ‫)כף‬. The poet (in our case, the woman) thus profits from these connections to create a most suggestive scene. What facilitates the gliding quality of the metonymy is the myrrh that drips from her hands and fingers and lubricates the elements of the door (v. 5). A sexual fantasy, to be sure, a dreamlike fantasy, all the more so since the episode opens with “I slept, but my heart was awake (‫( ”)אני ישנה ולבי ער‬5,2). Whatever the actual state of consciousness of the lover, the poetic drifting of her speech mimics the gliding of oneiric images. 2. Metaphor in the Song of Songs If metonymy translates the driving energy of desire, metaphor is desire’s most salutary metamorphosis. As Jakobson and Lacan have contended, what takes place in a metaphor is analogous to what takes place in dream “cypress with nard, nard and saffron, cane and cinnamon, with all fragrant woods, myrrh and aloes, with all prime perfumes”. What is at work is no longer a focus on a saturated (verbal) image, but a gliding along a lexical axis, the list of all the fragrant species. And this, potentially, ad infinitum. The concluding phrase, Franz Delitzsch comments, amounts to “poet[ic] et cetera”. F. DELITZSCH, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, transl. M.G. Easton, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1891, p. 86. 28. About the phallic sense of the substantive ‫יד‬, “hand”, see the uses in Isa 57,8-10, in the Ugaritic poem The Birth of the Gracious Gods (KTU 1.23,33-35), and in Qumran’s Manual of Discipline (1 QS VII,13). The male organ finds its female counterpart in the “opening” or “hole” (‫ )חר‬in the same poetic line. As Freud has indicated, the scenario in Song 5,4-5 is, moreover, a type scene in dream activity: “Anyone who has had experience in the translating of dreams will, of course, immediately perceive that penetrating into narrow spaces, and opening locked doors, belong to the commonest sexual symbolism”. FREUD, Interpretation (n. 13), p. 218. However, as Jill. M. Munro makes clear, “The poet teases the reader with the suggestiveness of his language yet he is careful to avoid making direct references to coitus”. D.J.M. MUNRO, Spikenard and Saffran: A Study in the Poetic Language of the Song of Songs (JSOT.S, 203), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, p. 130. On his part, Paul Beauchamp points out that most remarkable in the passage is that the meeting takes place, with the help of the dream, “sur la porte et non dans les corps, faisant de la porte avec ses accessoires comme une redondance de chaque corps en une seule paroi”. P. BEAUCHAMP, L’un et l’autre Testament. Vol. 2: Accomplir les Écritures, Paris, Seuil, 1990, p. 172.

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE

321

condensation. An innovative metaphor is always intrusive, bringing about an initial “semantic impertinence”29. Yet, if successful, the metaphor in question demonstrates a high potential of integration and concentration, as does a dream-condensation. Whereas the metonymic image was centrifugal, the metaphoric one is centripetal: it is endowed with a magnetic force. Magnetic and integrative metaphors are not lacking in the Song. One of them is the metaphor of the garden in Song 4,12: A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden [pool] locked, a fountain sealed30.

‫גן נעול אחתי כלה‬ ‫גל נעול מעין חתום‬

The metaphoric garden turns out to be most hospitable; it provides the setting of love scenes throughout chapters 5 and 6: “I come to my garden, my sister, my bride” (5,1); “My beloved has gone down to his garden” (6,2); “I went down to the grove of nut trees” (6,12). The enclosed garden makes itself a semantic enclosure, pregnant with meaning. Its being locked is the token of the beloved’s secrecy, out of reach of immediate possession. If the garden’s luxuriance is rich in sexual connotations31, it is so indirectly, by virtue of the metaphors and the “knowing” they require. The garden, moreover, induces a temporality of its own, expressed in 5,2-3 by the verb ‫רעה‬, “to browse” (“My lover has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to browse [‫ ]לרעות‬in the gardens and to gather lilies” [6,2]). Gardens, as Robert Harrison writes, are spaces that have the effect of slowing down time32. To relate to the beloved as a garden thus creates 29. P. RICŒUR, The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling, in Critical Inquiry 5 (1978) 143-159, p. 145 (in a reference to J. COHEN, Structure du langage poétique, Paris, Flammarion, 1966). 30. The enigmatic MT reading ‫ גל‬in Song 4,12b is rendered as “pool” by Pope, on the basis of Ugaritic gl, “cup” (imagining thus a bowl-shaped pool). POPE, Song of Songs (n. 7), pp. 488-489. Most commentators, however, prefer to follow some fifty Hebrew manuscripts that spell out the word as ‫גן‬, “garden”, instead of ‫גל‬, a reading echoed in the LXX, the Vulgate and the Syriac version and understood as a repetition of the ‫גן‬, “garden”, mentioned in v. 12a. 31. See in particular R.A. VEENKER, Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near East Sexual Metaphors, in HUCA 70/71 (1999-2000) 57-73, pp. 58-69. 32. See R.P. HARRISON, Gardens: An Essay on the Human Condition, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 2008, p. 54. Harrison further writes: “Whatever else they may be, gardens are first and foremost places where appearances draw attention to themselves, presenting themselves to us as freely given. This is true of gardens in general (with the inevitable exceptions), but it takes a lyrical garden like this one [evoked in R.M. Rilke’s poem “Slumbersong”] to accentuate the presence of something mysterious or impenetrable in the simple appearance of things. It does not dissimulate the mystery with an obstructing green hill or enfolded plot but agitates, albeit in a calm way, the strange and elusive depths from which the forms of the visible world arise. Appearances in the garden present themselves as freely given, and as fully given, yet they never exhaust their potential for self-manifestation in the punctual moment of presence” (ibid.).

322

J.-P. SONNET

around her a space and a time loaded with desire, yet protected by secrecy and slowness. In this enclosure, she is the fountain of meaning. A second key metaphor complements the vegetal metaphor of the garden: the animal metaphor of the dove. Significantly enough, the metaphor enters the Song (in 1,15) associated with the eyes of the woman – the most subjective, expressive, and exposed part of her face and her person: How beautiful you are, my love! How beautiful! Your eyes are doves.

‫הנך יפה רעיתי‬ ‫הנך יפה עיניך יונים‬

Her way of being beautiful (‫יפה‬, repeated twice) culminates in her dove-like eyes (‫יונים‬, opening with a third and climaxing yod), and we can presume that shyness and vividness meet in the eyes-as-doves image33. The expressive character of the dove metaphor surfaces again in 2,14: My dove, in the clefts of the rock, in the covert of the cliff let me see your face, let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely.

‫יונתי בחגוי הסלע‬ ‫בסתר המדרגה‬ ‫הראיני את־מראיך‬ ‫השמיעיני את־קולך‬ ‫כי־קולך ערב‬ ‫ומראיך נאוה‬

The point of the metaphoric address is to give room to the loved one’s subjectivity. Hidden in the clefts of the rock, she is invited to reveal herself (in her face, through her voice). Far from objectifying the other, the metaphor of the dove highlights the other as other, as the source of her otherness. Later on in the Song, she vibrates in unison with his metaphoric creation as she shares her dream that he would call her “my dove”: “My beloved is knocking. ‘Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my perfect one (‫( ”’)יונתי תמתי‬5,2). The most expressive use of the dove metaphor appears in 6,9, paradoxically at the end of a metonymic sequence. The second portrait of the young woman (6,4-9) concludes on a numerical trope (v. 8): There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number.

‫ששים המה מלכות‬ ‫ושמנים פילגשים‬ ‫ועלמות אין מספר‬

The reference to the queens, concubines, and maidens, sounds as an allusion to a Solomonic way of life and way of love (cf. 1 Kgs 11,3). With Solomon’s 33. The metaphorical statement is repeated in the first waṣf portrait in Song 4,1 (about the waṣf genre, see note 42).

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE

323

“catalogue” in mind34, one measures the turn of v. 9 in the numerical scheme, a turn, actually, from metonymical to metaphorical logic: One is my dove, my perfect one.

‫אחת היא יונתי תמתי‬

It is most revealing that the exclusivity in love is expressed by a metaphor, contrasting with the previous metonymical sequence. The half-verse significantly opens with aleph (‫אחת‬, “one”) and closes with taw – in the first and last syllable of ‫“( תמתי‬my perfect”), an adjective connoting completeness. As just explained, the dove has entered the poem as a metaphor for the woman’s eyes in 1,15 (in the plural, see also 4,1), and she has dreamt of being called by him “my dove, my perfect (‫( ”)יונתי תמתי‬5,2)35. In 6,9 only is the expression prefaced with ‫אחת‬, “one”. At this point, condensation is maximal, and it does not mean possession, quite the opposite. The possessive suffix in ‫יונתי‬, “my dove”, should indeed not be deceptive. The two lovers are of course in a tight relation of mutual belonging: “My beloved is mine and I am his” (2,16; 6,3; cf. 7,11). The metaphor of the ‫יונה‬, however, introduces a new direction in this relation. The image of the dove is, indeed, a living one: it brings into play a living animal, graceful and shy, always ready to fly away. The beloved is this elusive being. The metaphor, in Lacan’s perspective, means a creative and dispossessed access to the other as other. In the Song, the metaphor of the ‫ יונה‬expresses best the young woman’s otherness, her elusive beauty – her “birdy” way of existing. In her person, he sees what he saw in her eyes, “doves”, ‫– יונים‬ the gracefulness of proud shyness and elusiveness. In the final verse of the Song, she will answer his poetic creation. The Song, as we know, ends with a “metaphorical imperative”36, that is, the imperative to be like shy and swift young animals. In the last verse, she enjoins her lover: “Make haste, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young stag upon the mountains of spices!” (8,14). This is how love survives in a threatening world: thanks to choice metaphors “to love by”37 – metaphors of alert and amiable animals. 34. In Western culture, it is impossible not to hear an echo of Song 6,8 in the “Catalogue Aria” of Mozart’s Don Giovanni, “Madamina, il catalogo è questo”, sung by Leporello to Elvira: “In Italy, six hundred and forty; in Germany, two hundred and thirty-one; a hundred in France; in Turkey, ninety-one; but in Spain already one thousand and three” (Act I, Scene 5). Don Giovanni is the metonymic man par excellence, the one who has turned “metonymical” flitting into a way of life, loving his conquests one after the other. 35. Interestingly enough, the woman uses the same metaphor about her lover’s eyes in Song 5,12: “His eyes are like doves beside springs of water”. The image of the dove apropos the eyes is thus a shared metaphor, expressing, however, what makes each of them subjectively unique. 36. See SONNET, Chant érotique (n. 2), p. 101. 37. I owe the expression to Danilo Verde; it is actually the concluding line of his forthcoming book: D. VERDE, In Love as in War: The Warlike Imagery in the Song of Songs (AIL), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press.

324

J.-P. SONNET

II. METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE SONG: TWO WAYS OF CLUSTERING In the second part of this essay, I will suggest that the Song presents two symmetrical ways to articulate metaphor and metonymy, thus creating contrasted clusters of images. In the first way, the metaphor is what triggers one or more than one metonymies; in the second, it is the metonymy that prompts metaphorical elaborations. 1. When Metaphors Induce Metonymies In the Song, the introduction of a metaphor (and thus of a new frame or field of reference38) is repeatedly accompanied by a lateral exploration of this field – extensions, ramifications, and other shifts. As if the creation of the metaphor were not enough, the imaginative desire has to spin the initial image, generating (col)lateral images within the frame just introduced. At this point, metonymy gains the upper hand39. So in Song 2,3 (she is speaking): As an apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among young men. In his shade I desire and sit, and his fruit is sweet to my palate.

‫כתפוח בעצי היער‬ ‫כן דודי בין הבנים‬ ‫בצלו חמדתי וישבתי‬ ‫ופריו מתוק לחכי‬

The simile “as an apple tree…” introduces the semantic field of trees and fruit trees, and the lover right away prolongs the image of the apple tree with associated images, no longer on the basis of similarity but on the basis of contiguity in the code. Trees give shade and grow fruit – in nature, of course, but also in the particular organization of the Hebrew language, where any ‫עץ‬, “tree”, gives ‫צל‬, “shade”, with an echoing effect between the two words, and where the ‫“( תפוח‬apple”)-tree grows ‫“( פרי‬fruit”). The ingenious desire of the woman takes advantage of these contiguities. ‫חמדתי‬, “I desire”, she says (and desire is indeed the driving force of these lateral shifts), in a zoom from “tree” to “shade” that brings her close to the arborescence of his hair and thus to the delight of his mouth. The mention of the “palate” (‫ )חך‬triggers, in the next lines (vv. 4-5), the evocation of pleasures of taste – associated with wine, raisin cakes and apples (‫ – )תפוחים‬the fruit of the initial apple tree (‫)תפוח‬. 38. See B. HARSHAV, Metaphor and Frames of Reference with Examples from Eliot, Rilke, Mayakovsky, Mandelshtam, Pound, Creely, Amichai, and The New York Times, in ID., Explorations in Poetics, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2007, 32-75. 39. About these lateral shifts (yet without the category of metonymy), see R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York, Basic Books, 22011, pp. 244-254.

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE

325

In similar fashion, the metaphor of the tower, in 4,4, triggers the mention of contiguous items in the semantic field of military defence (shields, bucklers, heroes or warriors). The metaphor of the garden in 4,12 about the “sister bride” is continued by the mention of “delectable fruits” and “fragrant woods” listed in vv. 13-14: “cypress with nard, nard and saffron, cane and cinnamon, with all fragrant woods, myrrh and aloes, with all prime perfumes”. Within the semantic enclosure of the metaphorical garden, we watch a gliding along a lexical axis, the list of all the fragrant species. And this, potentially, ad infinitum40. In 7,3, the metaphor of the “bowl” or “goblet” for the navel prompts the mention of the wine meant to fill the cup in question (content for container). In chapter 8, the warlike metaphors of the ‫“( חומה‬wall”) in v. 9 and of the ‫“( מגדל‬tower”) in v. 10 trigger the reference to ‫שלום‬, “peace” (‫כמוצאת שלום‬, “as one who finds peace”), as the opposite pole in the semantic field. More than once, a metaphor gives way to prolongations according to a metonymical logic (part of the whole, species for the genre, content for the container, opposite of the positive, etc.)41. 2. When Metonymies Induce Metaphors In the second general scheme, it is now the metonymy that triggers metaphorical elaborations. The most impressive realization of the scheme is found in the four descriptive portraits of the lovers’ bodies, commonly designated as waṣf (Song 4,1-7; 5,10-16; 6,4-7; 7,2-8)42. Francis Landy calls them “itemized portrait(s)”43 – not only “atomized” but “itemized”, 40. See the reference to Delitzsch in note 27. 41. See also the metaphor of the wall, used by the brothers about their sister in Song 8,9, which prompts the scenario of the “battlement of silver”, the “door”, and the “cedar board”. The metonymic laterality can be very subtle. In 5,12, “His eyes are like doves / beside springs of water // by the water streams”, the metaphor (actually, the simile) “eye – dove” makes the most of the double meaning of ‫עין‬, meaning either “eye” or “spring of water”. Moreover, the lateral shift can take advantage of the pairs of words in a given language. Hence the sequential plays in the Song from “gold” to “silver” (1,11; 3,10), from “sun” to “moon” (6,10), from “wine” to “oil” (4,10), from “oil” to “honey” (4,10-11), from “milk” to “honey”, and from “right” to “left” (“His left [arm] is under my head, / and his right arm embraces me” [2,6; 8,3]). 42. The term waṣf is the Arabic word used for praise songs performed in weddings (in Syria, up to the nineteenth century), in which each part of the bride’s and the groom’s body is described and praised in turn, often using exotic, extravagant, or even far-fetched metaphors. See J.G. WETZSTEIN, Die syrische Dreschtafel, in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5 (1873) 270-302. In an earlier work, Ernest Renan had noted a certain degree of correspondence between the Song of Songs and Syrian wedding poetry. See E. RENAN, Le Cantique des Cantiques, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1860. 43. F. LANDY, Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity and Difference in the Song of Songs, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 22011, p. 78.

326

J.-P. SONNET

and this puts us on the right track to understanding the waṣf phenomenon in the Song. In these catalogues, the desire of the lover details the body of the loved one in a “parts for the whole” (and thus metonymic) dynamic, from body part to body part, each provisory stop prompting a metaphoric elaboration. The sequence “eyes, hair, teeth, lips, cheeks, neck, breasts” (in the first waṣf) or “feet, thighs, navel, belly, breasts, neck, eyes, nose, head, locks” (in the last one) translates the “transport” of desire in its pursuit of the attractive but equally elusive beloved one. The scrutiny could run endlessly, feeding itself on partial satisfactions, from body part to body part44. It has, however, to be somehow suspended, and it is suspended in two cases with a generalizing ‫כל‬, “all”: “All of you is beautiful (‫ ”)כלך יפה‬in 4,7 (about her), and “he is altogether desirable (‫וכלו‬ ‫ ”)מחמדים‬in 5,16. About the first case, “You are altogether beautiful (‫כלך‬ ‫)יפה‬, my love; / there is no flaw in you”, F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp writes that this conclusion “makes clear that the partial catalogue inscribed here is intended as a collective metonym for the beauty of the woman’s entire self – body, mind and soul, which has ‘no flaw’”45. It is a collective metonym, underpinned by the metonymic drive of desire. In the waṣf catalogue, each one of the body parts elicits metaphoric expansions: her eyes are doves, whereas her hair is like a flock of goats (4,1); his cheeks are like beds of spices, and his lips are lilies (5,13). It is important to observe that the metaphoric amplifications in the waṣf portraits are not connected to each other, elaborating only some general themes (geography, fauna, artefacts). The successive images do not generate each other, and together they are far from cohering in a unified representation of his or her body, his or her person. Each metaphor (or simile) is a world in itself, all the more so when the metaphor is an animated scene (goats moving down the slopes of Gilead, shorn ewes coming up from the washing, fawns feeding among the lilies, lilies distilling liquid myrrh, etc.). Phenomenologically speaking, the experience is of discontinuity. Each metaphor (however pregnant) is interrupted by the next one in the lover’s speech. This is no surprise, since the waṣf portraits actually bring into play the dynamics of two divergent tropes. On the one hand metonymy, which specializes in fragmentation and itemization46, on the other metaphor, which specializes in integration and concentration. 44. See M.E. COUTO-FERREIRA, From Head to Toe: Listing the Body in Cuneiform Texts, in WEE (ed.), Comparable Body (n. 21), 43-70. 45. F.W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, The Delight of Beauty and Song of Songs 4:1-7, in Interpretation 59 (2005) 260-277, p. 263. 46. The metonymic logic of fragmentation calls to mind the concept of “fragmented body” (“corps morcelé”) developed by Lacan in the context of the “mirror stage” as an

METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE CANTICLE

327

I have just said that the metaphors drawn out in the portraits are unconnected to each other. There is a nice exception to the rule, and a significant one. In the fourth and last waṣf, in 7,8, the male lover says: Your stature resembles the palm, and your breasts the clusters.

‫זאת קומתך דמתה לתמר‬ ‫ושדיך לאשכלות‬

We are moving from one bodily feature to the next – from the “stature” to the “breasts”. Each focus on the body prompts a metaphor – the “palm tree”, the “cluster of fruit”. Similarity is at work, as the verb ‫ דמתה‬makes clear. The lover could enjoy such a generous Gestalt for itself – the compounded image of the palm tree and its clusters. Yet the two successive metaphors are themselves in a metonymic relation – the whole and the element; the plant and its fruit. Metonymic desire right away exploits the contiguity. “I will climb the palm tree”, announces the lover, “I will grasp its ‫( סנסניו‬branches? foliage? fruit?)”47. The metonymic process, however, does not stop here. In the next lines (vv. 9-10), as Robert Alter explains, the poetic speech piles on “a series of images contiguous with the initial one but not identical with it: from clusters of dates to grape clusters, from branches to apples […], from the breath of the mouth and from grapes to wine-sweet kisses”48. In this sequence, the metaphorical images are somehow processed by the metonymic desire in its incessant drifting. III. CONCLUSION The Song’s moving kaleidoscope screens before us a parable of what desire is all about. Desire, in its very nature, is metonymic; in other words, it is unbounded. It could pass forever from signifier to signifier in its quest of its evanescent object. Driven by desire, the lovers of the Song are thus meant to metonymize, yet they are also able to metaphorize, that is, to create the essential metaphors of their love. The most remarkable achievement of the Song lies in its way to stage the coexistence of these two dynamics of desire. To paraphrase Ricœur’s statement quoted at the image of castration and dismemberment expressing the subject’s feeling that his/her body lacks any substantial unity. “The anxiety provoked by this feeling of fragmentation fuels the identification with the specular image by which the ego is formed. However, the anticipation of a synthetic ego is henceforth constantly threatened by the memory of this sense of fragmentation”. D. EVANS, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, London – New York, Routledge, 1996, p. 67. 47. See the perspicacious analysis of the (metonymic) progression of the images in 7,810, in their “tacit displacement”, in LANDY, Paradoxes (n. 43), p. 44. 48. ALTER, Biblical Poetry (n. 39), p. 245 (my italics).

328

J.-P. SONNET

beginning of this essay, metaphors never come alone. When desire is the driving force, metaphors are always preceded, accompanied, and followed by metonymies. If metaphors flourish in the Song as miracles of (inter) subjective creation, they never mean the extinction of desire, which is always ready to bounce in its (metonymic) chase. The felicitous metaphor in 6,9, “One is my dove, my perfect one”, albeit loaded with desire and meaning, does not result in an extenuation of desire; it is succeeded by streams of images in metonymic association (6,10: dawn, moon, sun, banners, i.e., constellations; 6,11: orchard, blossom, valley, vines, and pomegranates). Desire thrives in such metonymic connections. Yet, despite the profuseness of its images, the metonymic transport cannot overshadow the role of key metaphors as meaningful havens. In the Song it is the case of the metaphor of the dove, which unites the first chapter (1,15) and the last (8,13). The last invitation addressed by the young man to his beloved, in the penultimate verse of the Song, “You who dwell in the gardens with friends in attendance, let me hear your voice! (‫”)לקולך השמיעיני‬, echoes his invitation in 2,14: “My dove, in the clefts of the rock (…), let me hear your voice (‫”)השמיעיני את־קולך‬49. It is as a dove that she will make her voice heard in their threatened love, in a metaphor (by him) somehow suspended to her initiative (“let me hear your voice”). In a similar fashion, she enjoins him, in the very last verse of the Song, to behave as a swift young deer. The metonymic profusion cannot vie with it: it is in the metaphor that their love survives. In Lacan’s words, “the most serious reality, and even for man the only serious one, given [his/her] role in maintaining the metonymy of [his/her] desire, can only be retained in metaphor”50. Pontifical Gregorian University Piazza della Pilotta 4 IT-00187 Roma Italy [email protected]

Jean-Pierre SONNET

49. Interestingly enough, the two key metaphors of the garden (“You who dwell in the gardens”) and of the dove (“let me hear your voice”, cf. Song 2,14) join in 8,13, in a focus on the other subject’s free response. 50. LACAN, Seminar. Book XI, p. 892, adapted according to J. LACAN, Écrits, Paris, Seuil, 1966, p. 892.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

As befits its subject matter – a desperate, shocking1 quest for the meaning of life – Ecclesiastes is a puzzle. Just as Qohelet finds himself in a struggle to make sense of life “under the sun” so too this puzzling book performs its message by making the reader grapple with how it all fits together. And metaphor is a major vehicle by which the author articulates his message or instruction (see 12,9) and engages his readers in the quest. Ecclesiastes is awash with metaphor from beginning to end: the name or nickname “Qohelet” (1,1: “the gatherer”) is a metaphor and the epilogue (12,9-14) is full of metaphors; so too is the body of the work. Thus, Qohelet’s journey of exploration is opened up, developed, circles around again and again to similar conclusions, makes breakthroughs and reaches a conclusion, all with metaphor central. I. ECCLESIASTES AS PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE Ecclesiastes is arguably the most philosophical book of the HB/OT. However, this may seem unlikely to both HB/OT scholars and philosophers. In analytic philosophy it is only recently that the question of the meaning of life has found its way back onto philosophical agendas as a question worthy of discussion. Once back on philosophical agendas, Ecclesiastes has received a surprising amount of attention2. Much modern philosophy seeks to purge philosophical language from metaphors and such an approach makes Ecclesiastes an unlikely candidate for serious philosophical reflection. The explosion of studies in what is known as cognitive metaphor goes a long way to solving this conundrum since, as Johnson rightly observes, “Philosophy’s debt to metaphor is profound and immeasurable”3.

1. On “shock” in literature see R. FELSKI, Uses of Literature, Oxford, Blackwell, 2008, pp. 105-131. 2. See J.W. SEACHRIS (ed.), Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide, Oxford, Wiley Blackwell, 2013. It contains the full text of Ecclesiastes as one of its chapters. See also J.W. SEACHRIS – S. GOETS (eds.), God and Meaning: New Essays, London, Bloomsbury, 2016. This work contains two chapters on Ecclesiastes, one by the author. 3. M. JOHNSON, Philosophy’s Debt to Metaphor, in R.W. GIBBS (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008, 3953, p. 39. As Eco argues, “The majority of our messages, in everyday life or in academic

330

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

In HB/OT studies, Ecclesiastes has been approached as a fragmented text made up of multiple sources. More recently, and especially in the light of Michael Fox’s creative work, it is approached as a literary whole, with the possible exception of the epilogue. However, its profound message tends to be interpreted either as negative or positive (the minority view). Failure to attend closely to the literary, organic and metaphoric nature of Ecclesiastes has been debilitating for its translation and its interpretation. Translation after translation tries to pin the meaning of ‫ הבל‬down to one meaning and word, and there are repeated attempts to analyze the logical structure of Ecclesiastes. There is a structure, but it is literary and organic, with metaphors guiding its development. In 1,12-18 and onwards Qohelet’s exploration is depicted as a journey of exploration. In common with many English speakers he makes “extensive use of the domain of journey to think about the highly abstract and elusive concept of life”4. This mapping of a concept from a source domain onto an object domain (the meaning of life) leads us into defining metaphor. II. METAPHOR In earlier work I used the category of “symbol” to account for the role of words like ‫ הבל‬in Ecclesiastes. Eco, however, asserts that “there is a clear-cut test for distinguishing a metaphor from a symbol: a trope cannot be taken ‘literally’ without violating a pragmatic maxim according to which a discourse is supposed to tell the truth; it must be interpreted as a figure of speech […]. On the contrary, the instances of the symbolic mode do suggest a second sense, but could also be taken literally without jeopardizing the communicational sense”5. Thus “Zion” functions as a symbol in many HB/OT texts but clearly ‫ הבל‬cannot be read “literally” in Ecclesiastes and I will categorize it below as a megametaphor. However, the recent decades of intense study of metaphor have revealed that metaphor is more than a literary trope. All language contains metaphors including that of scientific and philosophical theories. Cognitive linguistics defines metaphor as “understanding one conceptual domain in terms of philosophy, are lined with metaphors”. U. ECO, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1979, p. 69. 4. Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 22010, pp. 3-4. Note that Qohelet does not use the expression “life is a journey” but it underlies his description of his investigation. 5. U. ECO, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, p. 141.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

331

another conceptual domain”6. The source domain is the one we draw from in order to understand the target domain. In light of the new understanding of metaphor Goodman defines it evocatively as follows: “Briefly, a metaphor is an affair between a predicate with a past and an object that yields while protesting […]. Where there is metaphor, there is conflict: […]. Application of a term is metaphorical only if to some extent contra-indicated”7. If recent studies have subverted the literary versus metaphorical distinction, a danger of “all language is metaphorical” is to reduce everything to metaphor and thus metaphor to nothing. Distinctions need to be made between different types of metaphorical language and not least in relation to literary texts such as Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is a literary and poetic text, and the function of metaphor in literature is a crucial element in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes, an element which some charge cognitive metaphor with underemphasizing. Lakoff, Turner, and Gibbs explain that poets use a variety of devices to create unusual language and images, devices such as extending, elaboration, questioning8 and combining9. To these Kövecses adds personification, image metaphors and megametaphors or extended metaphors10. As Semino and Steen note, “While the formalist view of metaphor as linguistic deviation can no longer be sustained, the idea that some metaphorical expressions are more foregrounded than others remains highly relevant, and is not at all incompatible with more recent cognitive approaches”11. Semino and Steen also note that some scholars have drawn attention to the way in which an author’s use of metaphorical patterns reflects the individual’s worldview12. This is certainly true of Qohelet whose repetitive use of key metaphors foregrounds his worldview. Murphy notes, for example, that “The poem on the repetition of events in 1,4-11 is as it were a symbol of this style; repetition is its trademark. This repetition is manifest in vocabulary and also in a phraseology that is almost formulaic”13. 6. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 4. 7. N. GOODMAN, Languages of Art, Indianapolis, IN, Hackett, 1976, p. 69. 8. Rhetorical questions are common throughout Ecclesiastes – see 1,3; 2,2.15.19.25; 3,9.21.22; 4,8.11; 5,6[5].11[10].16[15]; 6,8.11; 7,13.16.18; 8,1.4.7; 10,14. 9. G. LAKOFF – M. TURNER, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1989; R.W. GIBBS, The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994. 10. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), pp. 55-59. Kövecses notes that time is frequently personified (pp. 55-56). Intriguingly, in Eccl 3,1-8 time is not personified. 11. E. SEMINO – G. STEEN, Metaphor in Literature, in GIBBS (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (n. 3), 232-246, p. 238. 12. Ibid., p. 239. 13. R.E. MURPHY, Ecclesiastes (WBC, 23A), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1992, p. xxix.

332

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

Context has also come to be seen to be vital for metaphor14, and Ecclesiastes’ background in Proverbs with its own cluster of metaphors is the crucial literary context against which the metaphors of Ecclesiastes need to be interpreted. It has been argued that the author of Ecclesiastes writes with the early chapters of Genesis open before him and this context is also vital for interpreting the book15. Here, metaphor and intertextuality overlap. III. THE MEGAMETAPHOR OF ‫הבל‬ Megametaphors are found primarily in literary texts. “They are largescale metaphors […] ‘behind’ a text that underlie other, more local metaphors (called ‘micrometaphors’). Their cognitive function is to organize the local metaphors into a coherent metaphorical structure in the text”16. In Ecclesiastes, I propose, ‫ הבל‬functions as a megametaphor. This is indicated by the inclusio or envelope structure in 1,2 and 12,8 and the recurrence of ‫ הבל‬throughout the book, especially in the conclusions that Qohelet comes to. We can see, for example, how ‫“ הבל‬organizes” the many metaphors of Eccl 1, metaphors such as under the sun, under heaven, goes and comes, remains, hurries, round and round, not full, the eye is not satisfied, the ear filled, an unhappy business, a chasing after wind, what is crooked, make straight. All these metaphors connect back into ‫ הבל‬and fill it with content. According to BDB, ‫’הבל‬s basic meaning is vapour or breath (Isa 57,13; Prov 21,6). This meaning is mapped onto the target domain, namely ‫הכל‬. “The all” refers to the totality of things, to all of the creation. If it is true that the author of Ecclesiastes knew the early chapters of Genesis well, then it is hard to avoid an intertextual link here between Ecclesiastes and Gen 1,3117: And God saw all that he made and indeed it was very good18.

‫וירא אלהים את־כל־אשר עשה והנה־טוב‬ ‫מאד‬

14. Z. KÖVECSES, Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Metaphor in Context, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015. 15. H.W. HERTZBERG, Der Prediger (KAT, 17/4), Gütersloh, Mohn, 1963, pp. 227230. He asserts that there can be no doubt; the author of Ecclesiastes wrote the book with Genesis 1–4 in front of him! (p. 230). 16. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 325. 17. On intertextual coherence, see ibid., pp. 285-286. 18. All biblical translations are my own.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

333

The context of Gen 1 and the HB/OT concept of creation enable us to see the radicality and novelty of this megametaphor in Ecclesiastes. In Genesis 1 God sees that everything (“all”) he made is ‫טוב מאד‬, “very good”. Qohelet, by comparison maps “vapour” or “breath” onto “the all”. Another intertextual allusion to Gen 4,1-16, namely the link with the use of ‫ הבל‬as a proper name, alerts us to the troubled and shocking mapping involved. This confirms the negative use of ‫ הבל‬in Isa 57,13 and Prov 21,6. Irwin asserts that “What Ecclesiastes says is that ‘the all’ – that is, the totality of things, the entire purport of the universe – lacks meaning or value. Whatever may be thought of this conclusion, at least here is philosophy in the full sense of the term, though certainly not in its full scope as we have come to know it”19. Irwin’s recognition of Ecclesiastes as philosophical is insightful and relates to our discussion above. What is less helpful is his interpretation of ‫ הבל‬as lacking meaning or value. ‫ הבל‬is an image-schema and as Kövecses observes “image-schemas are structures with very little detail filled in”20. ‫ הבל‬is a central word in Ecclesiastes, occurring 38 times. Traditionally translated as “vanity”, in recent decades an astonishing variety of translations of ‫ הבל‬have been proposed. Can metaphor help us here? I believe it can. Because ‫ הבל‬is an image schema little detail is filled in and thus we make a mistake when we try and define the meaning of ‫ הבל‬too quickly or too closely. ‫ הבל‬is also an original, disturbingly creative metaphor and “Original, creative literary metaphors such as this are typically less clear but richer in meaning than either everyday metaphors or metaphors in science”21. As an image ‫ הבל‬is clearly negative but part of the journey the reader is taken on will be to see more precisely why Qohelet regards a whole variety of spheres of life as ‫הבל‬. Indeed, the mapping of ‫ הבל‬onto “the all” makes it highly likely that different nuances will emerge in different contexts. And this is precisely what does occur: in 2,1 ‫ הבל‬is the failure of pleasure and indulgence to fulfill. Here ‫ הבל‬carries the nuance of emptiness. In 2,15 the fate of death awaits both the wise and the foolish (see 3,19); this is ‫הבל‬. In 2,18-19 one has no control over one’s legacy; this is ‫הבל‬. In both of these cases ‫ הבל‬evokes creaturely limits and lack of final control22. In 2,22 work is full of stress (see 5,10); this is ‫הבל‬. Here ‫ הבל‬relates to the 19. W.A. IRWIN, The Hebrews, in H. FRANKFORT et al., The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1946, 223-360, p. 242. 20. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 44. 21. Ibid., p. 49. 22. Death as the end of the journey is a common metaphor. See ibid., p. 50.

334

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

brokenness of life and unfulfilled expectations. In 4,4 the motive for work is found in envy; this is ‫הבל‬. ‫ הבל‬here relates to disappointment of higher expectations. In 5,10 money does not satisfy; this is ‫הבל‬. In 6,11 ‫ הבל‬increases with more words. In 8,10.14 injustice is ‫הבל‬, subverting a moral expectation. Clearly ‫ הבל‬manifests itself differently in the context of different situations so that if one looks at many of the proposals for translating ‫הבל‬, many of them do not fit all its uses in Ecclesiastes. And yet, these different nuances do seem to point to a common core in ‫ הבל‬as a metaphor. A vital function of metaphors and especially megametaphors is to provide coherence to a discourse23. The question thus arises: can companion metaphors help us in this respect? In 1,14; 2,11.17.26; 4,4.16 and 6,9 ‫ הבל‬is accompanied by the expression “and a chasing after wind”. The word “chasing” (‫ )רעות‬can mean to shepherd or to feed; to associate with; to strive; to desire24. “To shepherd” and “to strive” fit the context best. It also resonates with the description of Abel as a ‫רעה צאן‬, “keeper of sheep”25. If “shepherd” is the right meaning then we are dealing with a metaphor in which language from the source domain of shepherding is mapped onto the target domain of the wind. If striving, then language from the source domain of fighting is mapped onto the target domain of the wind. Within the HB/OT it is not uncommon to hear God referred to as the one who controls the wind, but this is an impossible task for humans. The metaphor of shepherding the wind also resonates with the “one shepherd” ‫ מרעה אחד‬of 12,11, God as the source of wisdom. Thus, this accompanying metaphorical expression alerts us to the impossibility of the task in which Qohelet is engaged. It is not that the wind is not real, but shepherding it is an impossible task for humans. In this way this metaphor alerts us to the fact that there is something about Qohelet’s journey that is simply not possible, and this renders it ‫הבל‬. This also illumines the irony in Qohelet’s name, itself a metaphor. Qohelet is “the gatherer” but try as he might he cannot gather “the all” together in a way that fulfills him. Another way of pursuing the meaning of ‫ הבל‬is to attend to Qohelet’s journey of investigation. In 1,12 he uses the verbs “to seek and to search” to describe his investigation, thereby mapping the metaphor of the journey onto “all that is done under heaven”. The metaphor of the journey underlies the rest of Ecclesiastes until 12,13 “the end of the matter”. However, the deployment of this metaphor is an example of “extending” in which 23. Ibid., p. 285. 24. BDB, 944-946. 25. I am grateful to my colleague Dr. Peter Williams for alerting me to this.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

335

an ordinary, conventional metaphor is expressed in new ways26. Kövecses uses an example from Dante’s Divine Comedy: In the middle of life’s road I found myself in a dark wood27.

The new element here is the idea of life’s journey passing through a dark wood. With Qohelet the new element is that the journey keeps running up against an impasse, invariably expressed by ‫הבל‬. Indeed, a breakthrough occurs in 7,23-29 in which Qohelet reflects on the fact that his journey has kept running aground. Qohelet uses multiple metaphors in 7,23-29 to express this impasse: e.g., far from me; deep, very deep; Dame Folly/Dame Wisdom28. Also new is the juxtaposition of Qohelet’s impasses with the very different carpe diem passages29, namely 2,24-26; 3,10-15; 3,16-22; 8,10-15; 9,7-10; 11,7–12,7. Qoh 2,24 begins with the ‫( אין־טוב‬better than) form. This form occurs four times in Ecclesiastes, here and in 3,12.22; 8,15; on each occasion it occurs in one of the carpe diem passages. Ogden’s analysis shows that it has two basic modes of expression. As in 2,24 the introductory ‫ אן־טוב‬is followed by a preposition plus ‫ )באדם( אדם‬and either the relative ‫ אשר‬/ ‫ ש‬with qal imperfect verb forms or ‫ כי אם‬with infinitive constructs30. The ‫ אין־טוב‬form is unique to Ecclesiastes but is likely a development of the “better than” form in Proverbs31, of which Prov 16,8 and 27,10 are examples32. The status and meaning of these passages is contested. For Ogden these carpe diem passages function as the answer to Qohelet’s struggle and programmatic question. In my view instead of functioning as an answer they are juxtaposed with the ‫ הבל‬conclusions as an alternative response to the programmatic question (1,3). The carpe diem passages contain rich metaphors evoking a life of shalom. Qohelet can “see” – a central metaphor in Qohelet’s epistemology – both, but he cannot resolve the gap or tension between them. Thus, if the carpe diem passages embody shalom, ‫ הבל‬points to the opposite. 26. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 53. 27. Ibid., p. 53. 28. Qoh 7,23-29 contains many metaphors. Despite his best efforts Qohelet has fallen into the trap of Dame Folly. Kövecses notes of metaphors of morality that DOING EVIL IS FALLING. See KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 69. 29. As Robert Alter commented to me, this may not be the most appropriate term for these passages because it implies a hedonistic attitude which they do not teach. 30. G.S. OGDEN, Qoheleth’s Use of the “Nothing Is Better” – Form, in JBL 98 (1979) 339-350, p. 350. 31. Ibid. 32. There are some twenty of these in Proverbs.

336

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

Is there then a core meaning to the metaphor ‫ ?הבל‬There need not be, but in my view a close approximation is something like “enigma/enigmatic”33. It is not that there is no meaning in the many areas Qohelet explores but he cannot discern it, try as he may. IV. METAPHOR SYSTEMS Kövecses identifies three major metaphor systems: the great chain of being metaphor, complex systems metaphor and the event structure metaphor34. Qohelet’s journey is structured along the lines of an event structure: “The Event Structure metaphor has various aspects of events as its target domain. The aspects of events include states that change, causes that produce changes, change itself, action, purpose of action, and so on”35. Kövecses illustrates this event system as in the table below (p. 337). Qohelet’s journey is dynamic and full of events, such as applying his mind to seek and search (1,12); observing (e.g., 1,14); speaking to himself (1,16); making a test (2,1); making great works (2,4-8); becoming great (2,9); desiring (2,10); considering (2,11); etc. All the elements Kövecses lists in his diagram are present in Qohelet’s journey: he follows numerous paths in his quest; there are key moments in which his insight deepens (4,17 [5,1]; 7,23-29; 11,7–12,7) and he changes as a result; external events play a major role in his journey (4,1); his state and location as a Solomonike figure in Jerusalem is important (1,1); his journey encounters repeated impediments; his journey is self-propelled. The event structure metaphor of Ecclesiastes alerts us to the enormous amount Qohelet has invested in his quest and the extent to which it is, for him, a manifestation of a major intellectual crisis. ‫ הבל‬overshadows Qohelet’s journey as an extended metaphor and so too does another common, extended metaphor in Ecclesiastes, namely “under the sun” (‫)תחת השמש‬, which occurs 28 times. The reader instinctively knows that this expression is oppressive; metaphor helps to explain why. “Under the sun” is not only an extended metaphor in Ecclesiastes but also an orientational one36. “Orientational metaphors provide even less conceptual structure for target concepts than ontological ones. Their 33. See C.G. BARTHOLOMEW, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 2009. 34. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), pp. 149-169. 35. Ibid., p. 163. 36. See G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1980, pp. 14-21.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

337

DIFFICULT IMPEDIMENTS

STATE: LOCATION

EXTERNAL EVENTS: LARGE MOVING OBJECTS

CAUSE: FORCE

EVENTS

CHANGE: MOTION

ACTION: SELF-PROPLELLED MOTION

MEANS: PATHS PROGRESS: TRAVEL SCHEDULE

cognitive job, instead, is to make a set of target concepts coherent in our conceptual system”37. In his discussion of coherence in this regard Kövecses notes that CONTROL IS UP, LACK OF CONTROL IS DOWN38. As an example of this he refers to the expression: “He is under my control”. This illumines Qohelet’s use of “under the sun”; his frustration and desperation stems from his lack of control and being beneath something that he cannot make sense of. V. EPISTEMOLOGY The number of studies attending to Qohelet’s epistemology reflect Ecclesiastes’ philosophical nature. Tilford notes that Ecclesiastes contains “one of the clearest epistemological reflections in the Hebrew Bible”39. 1,12–2,8 is a central text in this respect. In 1,13 (see 2,3) Qohelet describes the method of his search in traditional wisdom language as ‫בחכמה‬. This evokes the approach of Proverbs but, as is often the case with Qohelet, things are not as straightforward as they seem. The epistemology of HB/ OT wisdom is often thought to be empirical but as Fox rightly points out, 37. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 40. 38. Ibid. 39. N.L. TILFORD, Sensing World, Sensing Wisdom: The Cognitive Foundation of Biblical Metaphors (AIL, 31), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2017, p. 58.

338

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

this is not the case in Proverbs. There is a strong observational element in Proverbs’ epistemology (see Prov 7,6-23) but, as Fox notes, it is observation formed by a set of values. At the heart of this set of values is, in my view, the fear of the LORD, and elsewhere I have argued that Proverbs’ set of values closely resemble those of Sinai40. It is, by comparison, in Qohelet that we find an epistemology closer to empiricism. This is manifest in his continual use of the first person “I”, his privileging of the visual metaphor “to see”, and in his conclusions drawn from such data. The metaphorical mapping of vision onto the domain of knowledge is common: “virtually any term which conventionally refers to the domain of vision can be used to refer to the domain of intellection: see, blind, obscure, eyes, light, etc.”41. Seeing as a metaphor for gaining knowledge is not absent from Proverbs (see Prov 6,6; 24,32) but Proverbs privileges listening rather than seeing42, and in a passage that signals a turning point in Ecclesiastes, viz. 4,17[5,1] it is notable that the reader is exhorted to draw near “to listen”. Seeing is, however, dominant in Ecclesiastes (e.g., 1,14; 3,10; 4,4). His use of “I” so frequently relates to the fact that “No one has seen it for him; the Teacher has seen it for himself”43. “According to the Teacher, sight is a direct means of acquiring information about the world”44. As Tilford points out while some of this language refers to actual observation much of it refers to cognitive activities like understanding or thinking about (metaphors: CONSIDERING IS SEEING; UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING)45. For example, in 2,12 Qohelet cannot actually see wisdom; instead the visual is mapped onto the domain of knowledge to mean something like “considered”. Seeing leads to trustworthy knowledge and as Seow notes, seeing does not mean just to look at but “to recognize as reality”46. Qohelet leverages the directness of his sight, albeit metaphorically, to lend credence to his conclusions47. In 1,10 it is recognized that people can reach false conclusions, but sight secures the warrant for Qohelet’s conclusions. 2,10 “I did not withhold from my eyes anything they desired” evokes the satiation of sight in Qohelet’s epistemology. Sight, however, is a metaphor in Ecclesiastes 40. C.G. BARTHOLOMEW, Hearing the Old Testament Wisdom Literature: The Wit of Many and the Wisdom of One, in ID. – D.J.H. BELDMAN (eds.), Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2012, 302-331. 41. Grady, quoted in TILFORD, Sensing World (n. 39), p. 58. 42. On hearing and speaking, see ibid., pp. 69-90. 43. Ibid., p. 60. 44. Ibid., pp. 58-59. 45. Ibid., p. 59. 46. C.-L. SEOW, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 18C), New York, Doubleday, 1997, p. 240. 47. TILFORD, Sensing World (n. 39), p. 61.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

339

and generally involves more than observation; it includes logic flowing from his (“I”) observations/considerations. The extent to which Qohelet sees his particular epistemology as universal is evident in 3,18 “God has selected them [human beings] in order to show (‫ )ולראות‬that they are but animals”. ‫ ולראות‬has here the sense of “to cause to see”. Especially with the early chapters of Genesis in the background this is a telling verse. It has God and human beings in common with Gen 1, but testing – to show – that humans are but animals transforms what we find in Gen 1 in which humans are clearly distinguished from animals by being made in the image of God, being blessed as such by God, and in Gen 1,31 everything God has made being pronounced as very good. What could account for such a transformation? ‫ ולראות‬is the key, since through the lens of Qohelet’s epistemology the only route to true knowledge is that of his sight and his logic. Scholars are divided as to whether or not Qohelet ever finds resolution for his journey. The majority think he remains deeply pessimistic. I do not, and have long felt that the exquisite proverb in 11,7 – “Truly, light is sweet and it is good for the eyes to observe the sun” – stands like a sentinel in a very dark night indicating that dawn is coming. Here again metaphor is helpful. In contrast to life “under the sun”, here the taste of sweetness is mapped onto light to evoke joy and hope so that instead of the crushing burden of life under the sun it becomes “good for the eyes to observe the sun”. This proverb thus resonates with the dominance of sight in Qohelet’s epistemology but embodies and signifies a radical shift from despair to hope. Inter alia this is achieved through the metaphors HAPPINESS IS LIGHT and CHEERFUL IS LIGHT48. “Sweetness” is a metaphor of taste and thus also evokes the emphasis in the carpe diem passages on eating and drinking. The shift in Qohelet gathers momentum in 11,8–12,7 through the imperative to rejoice (11,9) and especially the imperative to “Remember your creator … before … before … before …”. With Seow49, I take the judgment in 11,9 to be judgment for not rejoicing. “Remember your creator” radically subverts Qohelet’s empiricism as memory trumps “sight”, and the “young man” is exhorted to reach beyond what can be seen to anchor his worldview in the one who lies beyond all that is “under the sun”. “Remember” is a “thick” word here with formative force50. 48. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), pp. 115, 153. 49. SEOW, Ecclesiastes (n. 46). 50. BARTHOLOMEW, Ecclesiastes (n. 33).

340

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

It has been noted that in 2,4-8 Qohelet depicts himself as YHWH Elohim in Genesis 2. Verheij notes the occurrence of a cluster of words in vv. 4-6 that are also found in Genesis 1 and 251. “To plant” (‫ )נטע‬in v. 4 also occurs in Gen 2,8. “Garden” in v. 5 (‫ )גנה‬also occurs in Gen 2,8.9.10.15.16. “All kinds of fruit trees” (‫ )עץ כל־פרי‬in v. 5 occurs in Gen 1,11.12.29; 2,9.16.17. “To irrigate” (‫ )להשקות‬in v. 6 also occurs in Gen 2,5.9. The Hebrew root ‫ צמח‬meaning “to sprout” is found in v. 6 (growing) and in Gen 1,7.16.25.26. Finally the verb ‫( עשה‬to make or do) is found in vv. 5, 6 and in Gen 1,7.16.25.26.31; 2,2.3.4.18. Verheij observes that taken separately these words would not be unusual, but “their combined occurrence here and in Genesis … establishes a firm link between the texts”52. The implication of this intertextual link is that Qohelet “not only poses as a king, but even – for a moment – as God”53. Qohelet endeavours, as it were, to recreate Eden! Especially if the author had the early chapters of Genesis open in front of him, we start to see the power of the exhortation to “Remember your creator”. Qohelet’s autonomous empiricism is revealed for what it is, namely, an attempt to be like God, whereas remembering one’s creator repositions Qohelet as a creature who needs to listen and learn from the narrative of creation. VI. CONTEXT Central elements in the origin of metaphors are both embodiment and context, or what we might call place. Embodiment is universal, place is always particular, and both shape the origin of metaphors. The metaphor KNOWLEDGE IS SIGHT, about which we have had much to say above, stems from our embodiment, but in Ecclesiastes it is shaped by the particularity of Israel and of Qohelet. Tilford identifies six conceptual metaphors for knowledge in Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes: vision, hearing/speech, touch, ingestion, breathing, and proprioception. She notes that “While the overarching metaphors that govern these metaphors are relatively universal […] these specific iterations reflect the distinct culturally nuanced properties 51. A.J.C. VERHEIJ, Paradise Retried: On Qohelet 2:4-6, in JSOT 50 (1991) 113115. 52. Ibid., p. 114. Verheij thinks that several parts of Ecclesiastes reflect the influence of Genesis 1–4. See also HERTZBERG, Prediger (n. 15), pp. 227-231. 53. VERHEIJ, Paradise Retried (n. 51), p. 113. See T.M. BOLIN, Rivalry and Resignation: Girard and Qoheleth on the Divine-Human Relationship, in Biblica 86 (2005) 245-259. Bolin refers to Qohelet’s “advice that humankind give up its illusory desire to be like God” (p. 258).

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

341

of the modalities from which they are drawn”54. The way in which these metaphors are distributed across Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes depends upon how their authors understand the acquisition of knowledge. In this regard she identifies three different views in HB/OT wisdom literature: the elders hold the repository of wisdom and this can only be handed on verbally; each individual can comprehend the world and thus experience is privileged; knowledge belongs to God and must be revealed by him. According to Tilford, the third was marginal in early wisdom literature. I do not hold the view that the centrality of YHWH was marginal in early wisdom literature, a view which depends upon dubious source critical analysis. Either way, a critical question is how these different epistemologies relate to one another in HB/OT wisdom and Ecclesiastes in particular. Metaphors shape and give expression to worldviews and the nature of a worldview is to provide for coherence of thought and, while Tilford does an invaluable job in teasing out the different metaphors in wisdom epistemology, it is inadequate to relate this diversity to “the biological predisposition of the human condition”55. Context or place is about far more than biology and includes the thought world and lived experience of ancient Israel. The three views Tilford identifies are contradictory, and the wise among Israel would have recognized this. It thus becomes crucial to explore the overarching perspective of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes in which these cognitive metaphors occur and their interrelationship. The relation to the rest of the HB/OT also becomes of importance. Of course, we cannot begin to explore such wide-ranging issues in this chapter. We have, however, noted above the importance of reading Ecclesiastes in relation to the early chapters of Genesis, and this intertextuality is illuminating in so many ways. In Gen 1,1–2,3, for example, we find throughout as an extended metaphor CONSIDERING IS SEEING. Of course, in Gen 1 it is God who sees, and it is a very different seeing to that in Ecclesiastes. This is, perhaps, an example of Kövecses’s point that “a single source concept can characterize many different target domains”56. Here it is entirely positive and connected with God’s declaration that it is good and then very good. In Genesis 3 consideration as sight functions differently: “and the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was desirable to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one insightful” (Gen 3,6). In this one verse we find a literal seeing, an aesthetic seeing and a cognitive seeing. The tree itself is metaphorically charged, being the tree of the 54. TILFORD, Sensing World (n. 39), p. 203. 55. Ibid., p. 207. 56. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 136.

342

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

knowledge of good and evil, a motif that is explored in Genesis 3. Of particular importance for Ecclesiastes is the serpent’s point that “on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3,5). In the narrative “transgression as eating” functions as a central moment in the plot. In the early chapters of Genesis alone, therefore, the metaphor of KNOWING IS SEEING functions in a whole variety of interconnected ways. Following Wenham and others57, I take the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to refer to the temptation to human autonomy, in which human seeing – “your eyes will be opened” – function on par with God’s seeing. Intertextual analysis of the relation between Ecclesiastes and the early chapters of Genesis help us to see the problem with Qohelet’s epistemology of seeing – it is an epistemology of autonomy – and also to understand why “Remember your creator” functions so powerfully to transform Qohelet’s epistemology. It is not that experience plays no role in the epistemology of wisdom, but that it should not be absolutized but recontextualized within a larger framework. Indeed, the denouement of the plot in Job comes when Job declares “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you” (Job 42,5). Here seeing is expanded to include the living God so that the experience of the autonomous individual is decentered before YHWH. In HB/OT wisdom Proverbs is foundational and an indispensable context for both Job and Ecclesiastes. Proverbs is enclosed within an inclusio, namely 1,7 and 31,30. This inclusio tells us what Proverbs is about, namely wisdom, and sets out the basic principle of wisdom: the fear of YHWH is the beginning of knowledge/ wisdom58. “Beginning” (‫ )ראשית‬is a metaphor mapped on to the domain of wisdom. ‫ ראשית‬means “beginning” or “the chief, the main thing”. Both meanings evoke what wisdom is about when mapped onto its domain. As von Rad pointed out, a unique insight of wisdom’s epistemology is that if one goes wrong at the start the entire quest for knowledge is skewed from the outset59. Acquisition of wisdom needs a starting point and the appropriate starting point is the fear of YHWH. The fear of YHWH represents the start of a journey of exploration which is as wide as creation. For Proverbs, faith is not a package delivered once and for all. Education and exploration of all of life follow on from this starting point. Indeed, human 57. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1–15 (WBC, 1), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987. 58. On the different vocabulary of wisdom, see M.V. FOX, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 18A), New York, Doubleday, 2000, pp. 28-43. 59. G. VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1972.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

343

wisdom is a correlate of the wisdom by which the world was made; Lady Wisdom, whom I take in Proverbs 8 to be a personification of YHWH’s wisdom, “dances” before YHWH at the creation of the world60. But wisdom is not just an attribute of YHWH, it is something we are to seek after and to embody in our lives. The fear of YHWH is also the chief or the main thing in wisdom. It is possible that here the metaphor COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE BUILDINGS is at work, with the fear of YHWH viewed as the indispensable foundation for wisdom; it is “the basis that supports the entire system”61. The fear of YHWH is the main thing, the chief element in true wisdom; apart from this foundation there is no wisdom. The extent to which Proverbs can and should be read as a literary whole is contested. In my view it can be and should be62. A fruit of holistic readings of Proverbs is that Proverbs 1–9 sets out the A, B, Cs of wisdom with this picture further nuanced in the following sections. Indeed, the rhetorical effect of 1–9 sets the context for Proverbs as a whole by constructing a worldview, in the light of which the remainder of Proverbs is to be interpreted. Proverbs 1–9 provide an interpretive key for the whole. How do they do this? Primarily through the repeated use of central metaphors. Perdue notes that “In their observations, which they deposited in sapiential teachings, then, the wise men and women of Israel used their imagination to create a world for human habitation […]. Imagination is the place where metaphors functioned to posit the nature and identity of reality – that is, to create a world view”63. Metaphor is the building block of such world construction, and in Proverbs 1–9 a worldview is evoked through the repetition of metaphors: the two types of love, the two paths or ways, the two women, Lady Folly and Lady Wisdom, and the climax of 1–9 in the two houses (Proverbs 9) with the two invitations and the two meals. Such world construction generally functions with a root or basic metaphor64. The root metaphor organises and facilitates the coherence of the “surface” metaphors. Wisdom scholars disagree as to what the root metaphor/s is for Proverbs. Camp65 proposes that Lady Wisdom is the root metaphor in 1–9, whereas for Habel it is the two ways, the way of 60. Proverbs 8 does not refer specifically to dancing, but 8,31 speaks of playful rejoicing. 61. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 139. 62. C.G. BARTHOLOMEW, Reading Proverbs with Integrity, Cambridge, Groves Books, 2001. 63. L.G. PERDUE, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of the Wisdom Literature, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1994, p. 59. 64. See S.C. PEPPER, World Hypotheses: Prolegomena to Systematic Philosophy and a Complete Survey of Metaphysics, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1942. 65. C.V. CAMP, Woman Wisdom as Root Metaphor: A Theological Consideration, in K.G. HOGLUND et al. (eds.), The Listening Heart (JSOT.S, 58), Sheffield, JSOT, 1987, 45-76.

344

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

wisdom/righteousness and the way of folly66. In my view Camp and Habel are confusing the surface with the root metaphors. Van Leeuwen is, I think, right that underlying the contrasting metaphors of wise and foolish youths, the call of wisdom and the call of folly, the two ways, the two women, and the two houses in Proverbs 1–9, is a yet more basic reality which these surface metaphors embody. The surface metaphors construct a world for the reader that is at root ordered by God. God’s world is the context of human life and manifests two characteristics. First, as creation it provides boundaries or limits. Second, human life in God’s world is either drawn towards Wisdom, who specifies life within God-given limits, or toward Folly, who proffers counterfeit delights in defiance of creaturely limits. “Love of Wisdom means staying within her prescribed cosmic-social boundaries. […] Thus, recognition of cosmic structure or limits is inseparable from proper eros or direction. […] The socio-ethical order of Proverbs 1–9 is grounded in the creation order revealed by Wisdom who accompanied God as he set the cosmic boundaries”67. Qohelet lacks this root metaphor of a creation ordered by God with two competing loves, and this lack accounts for the tensions within his empiricist epistemology. In the context of its worldview, Proverbs articulates a very different epistemology. As Fox argues, Proverbs’ epistemology is not, as is often assumed, a type of empiricism in which truths are simply read off the natural world68. Wisdom is about observation and seeing, but it is about seeing and considering through the lens of an Israelite view of life. Much of Proverbs’ teaching derives from the observations and reflections of generations of wise men, but they are shaped in accordance with a prior understanding of the world. For Fox, Proverbs does not present experience as the source of new knowledge. Fox refers to Prov 6,6-8; 7,6-27 and 24,30-34 as examples. These passages refer to what the teacher “saw”, in the one case in relation to what happened to a lazy man’s field, and in the other he “saw” a woman seducing a young man. As Fox points out, in Prov 24,30-34 a lesson follows the observation, but the observation calls the truth to mind rather than it being discovered from the observation. “The sage does not say that he saw a field gone wild, looked for the cause, and found that its owner was lazy, nor does he claim to have looked at lazy farmers and observed what happens to their fields. Rather he came across a field gone wild, and this sparked a meditation on its causes”69. Similarly, 66. N.C. HABEL, The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 19, in Interpretation 26 (1972) 131-157. 67. R.C. VAN LEEUWEN, Liminality and Worldview in Proverbs 1–9, in Semeia 50 (1990) 111-144, pp. 116-117. 68. M.V. FOX, Qoheleth and His Contradictions, Sheffield, Almond, 1989. 69. Ibid., p. 91.

QOHELET AS A MASTER OF AND MASTERED BY METAPHOR

345

in Prov 7,6-27 the teacher reports witnessing a seduction, but does not claim to have observed the consequences; he already knows these! So too with the exhortation “Go to the ant […] consider its ways, and be wise” in Prov 6,6-8, the ant is used as an illustration of diligence. The observation of the ant makes the wise man’s point emphatic, but does not prove it in the first place. The metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING certainly has a place in Proverbs, but its place is noticeably different to the way this metaphor functions in Ecclesiastes. Proverbs envisages the pursuit of knowledge as rooted in the fear of YHWH and directed towards the totality of creation. Qohelet’s epistemology is similarly directed towards all of life “under the sun” but based on a type of seeing and considering rooted in his own experience alone. If the cluster of metaphors in Ecclesiastes is that of an event structure, that of Proverbs fits with the Great Chain of Being which “becomes a metaphorical system when a particular level of the chain … is used to understand another level. […] The Great Chain metaphor explains why and how a number of seemingly unrelated conceptual metaphors fit together in a coherent fashion”70. The root metaphor of a carved creation is at the base of Proverbs’ cluster of metaphors and Qohelet’s return to creation – “Remember your creator” – signals his journey as ending where Proverbs begins, but now to understand that beginning more fully. VII. CONCLUSION My hope is that readers will now understand the title of this chapter more fully with its double entendres. As we read in 12,9-10 Qohelet was a master of language and metaphor, but he was also mastered by it, and this in two ways. He masterfully constructed a worldview from his metaphors of which ‫ הבל‬is the primary one, mapping it onto “the all”. He calls his epistemology “wisdom” but discovers that his worldview has mastered him in a very uncomfortable way so that wisdom is “far from me” (7,23). His mastery of metaphor is itself a metaphor for autonomy and his individualistic empiricism which leads him again and again to dead ends. Resolution comes only once his ego is decentered and he allows his worldview to be reconstructed through a recovery of the world as creation. This represents the type of “mastery” we find in Proverbs and finally in Job, and is the mastery that unblocks Qohelet’s dead ends and opens up paths of joy and sorrow, but now full of meaning. With metaphor front and central, Ecclesiastes is a masterful deconstruction of an autonomous epistemology. 70. KÖVECSES, Metaphor (n. 4), p. 154.

346

C.G. BARTHOLOMEW

I have long felt that books like Ecclesiastes require of the reader a literary sensitivity of the sort often lacking in logical analysis. This chapter has shown that metaphor enhances such sensitivity and deepens one’s reading of Ecclesiastes immeasurably. An adequate theory of metaphor is essential to the interpretation of Ecclesiastes, although analysis of metaphor and its clusters in Ecclesiastes must be done within the context of the book as a whole, as well as in the broader contexts of HB/OT wisdom literature and the entire HB/OT. There remains, of course, much work to be done in this area. KLICE – Tyndale House 36 Selwyn Gardens Cambridge CB3 9BA UK [email protected]

Craig G. BARTHOLOMEW

GOD AS A GLEANING COOK A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMENTATIONSLXX 2,20-21

It is well-known that Lamentations presents images, words, and metaphors about the loss and destruction of the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants1. The laments articulate the people’s desolate fate and attempt to understand why such destruction came over them; in so doing, the laments level accusations against various social groups and people, including God himself. This characterization is not only valid for the Hebrew laments, it also holds true for the Septuagint, which retains in this book the main impetus of the Hebrew laments. Yet the Septuagint is not merely a translation; it also presents its own interpretation via modifications to the supposed Hebrew Vorlage, the best evidence for which in the present case is the MT2. The modifications of the LamLXX were made from a later perspective, with its own view of past events and with an evaluation of its own time, as well as with an evaluation of the intervening period. This interpretation involves two conceptual metaphors3 – the motifs of exodus and 1. This statement holds true regardless of whether the origin of Lamentations is linked with the exile (for the traditional classification, see H.-J. KRAUS, Klagelieder Threni [BKAT, 20], Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 21960, pp. 13-14; similarly, H.J. BOECKER, Klagelieder [Zürcher Bibelkommentar, 21], Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1985, pp. 14-17; T. LONGMAN III, Jeremiah, Lamentations [NIBCOT, 14], Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2008, p. 329) or whether the laments are regarded as a “commemoration” of “the moment of trauma and interminable suffering” (A. BERLIN, Lamentations [OTL], Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2004, pp. 1, 18; cf. E.S. GERSTENBERGER, Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations [FOTL, 15], Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans 2001, p. 473); in the latter case, the material is from a later perspective, with a recollection of previous events. See also E. BOASE, Fragmented Voices: Collective Identity and Traumatization in Lamentations, in EAD. – C.G. FRECHETTE (eds.), Bible through the Lens of Trauma (Semeia Studies, 86), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2016, 49-66. 2. Hebrew fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the passage Lam 2,20-21 which will be analyzed here; 4Q111 includes only verse 5 of Lam 2; cf. E. ULRICH – F.M. CROSS – J.A. FITZMYER – P.W. FLINT – S. METSO – C.M. MURPHY – C. NICCUM – P.W. SKEHAN – E. TOV (eds.), Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD, 16), Oxford reprint, Clarendon, 2003, 229-237. 3. On conceptual metaphors, cf. e.g., C. BALDAUF, Sprachliche Evidenz metaphorischer Konzeptualisierung: Probleme und Perspektiven der kognitivistischen Metapherntheorie im Anschluss an George Lakoff und Mark Johnson, in R. ZIMMERMANN (ed.), Bildersprache verstehen: Zur Hermeneutik der Metapher und anderer bildlicher Sprachformen. Mit einem Geleitwort von H.-G. GADAMER (Übergänge, 38), München, Fink, 2000, 117-132,

348

A. LABAHN

captivity – that at the same time function as networks since they reoccur throughout the writing. Exodus and captivity characterize the interpretation of past and present time as periods of ongoing misfortune, in which the addressees are still far from their homeland. In this article, I demonstrate how these two conceptual metaphors shape the interpretation of God when the reception of his actions presents a mode of acting against his people in a hostile way. These metaphors help interpret history, understood here according to the paradigm of the “conceptual metaphor”, which links metaphors to social constructions of reality that interpret the past in the light of the writer’s own time. The unique metaphor of God as a gleaning cook squeezes these notions into focus when that metaphor is linked to the idea of exodus as a conceptual model for interpreting reality. In the first section, I analyse the two Greek verses and elaborate the meaning of the metaphors before turning to the conceptual network.

I. LAMENTATIONSLXX 2,20-21 A special mode of interpretation is found in LamLXX 2,20-21. The two verses are an excellent example of LamLXX’s conception because, on the one hand, they present characteristic terms and dominant ideas such as exodus and captivity, which function as a network throughout LamLXX; on the other hand, these verses depict extremely interesting and unique variations in comparison with the MT. In these two verses, LamLXX presents its own interpretation of history and of the translators’ time, thereby rendering its Hebrew Vorlage according to its own conception4. pp. 120-125; these works show metaphor research on its way from the model of Lakoff and Johnson to an integration of ideas from cognitive sociology. See also the monograph of C. BALDAUF, Metapher und Kognition: Grundlagen einer neuen Theorie der Alltagsmetapher (Sprache in der Gesellschaft: Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 24), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1997; and furthermore, G. FRIELING, Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Metapher: Das Metaphern-Verstehen als sprachlich-kognitiver Verarbeitungsprozess, Bramsche, Rasch, 1996; Y. REMIAS, Comparative Theology and Cognitive Metaphor Theory: An Analogous Reasoning, in Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 28 (2018) 1-28. See also A. LABAHN, Heart as a Conceptual Metaphor in Chronicles: Metaphors as Representations of Concepts of Reality. Conceptual Metaphors – a New Paradigm in Metaphor Research, in EAD. (ed.), Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts: Proceedings of the Metaphor Research Group of the European Association of Biblical Studies in Lincoln 2009 (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts, 18), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2013, 3-27, here pp. 9-12. 4. On conception as an interpretation of history see, e.g., G. HÄFNER, Konstruktion und Referenz: Impulse aus der neueren geschichtstheoretischen Diskussion, in K. BACKHAUS –

A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMLXX 2,20-21

349

LamLXX 2,20–21 reads5, according to the unique version of codex Vaticanus6: 20 ἰδέ, κύριε, καὶ ἐπίβλεψον τίνι ἐπεφύλλισας οὕτως· εἰ φάγονται γυναῖκες καρπὸν κοιλίας αὐτῶν; ἐπιφυλλίδα ἐποίησεν μάγειρος· φονευϑήσονται νήπια ϑηλάζοντα μαστούς ἀποκτενεῖς ἐν ἁγιάσματι κυρίου ἱερέα καὶ προφήτην; 21 ἐκοιμήϑησαν εἰς τὴν ἔξοδον παιδάριον καὶ πρεσβύτης· παρϑένοι (μου)7 καὶ νεανίσκοι μου ἐπορεύϑησαν ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ· καὶ ἐν λιμῷ ἀπέκτεινας ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς σου, ἐμαγείρευσας οὐκ ἐφείσω.

G. HÄFNER (eds.), Historiographie und fiktionales Erzählen: Zur Konstruktion in Geschichtstheorie und Exegese (Biblisch-Theologische Studien, 86), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2006, 67-96; J. RÜSEN, Kann gestern besser werden? Zum Bedenken von Geschichte, Berlin, Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2003. 5. Translation and edition are my own. 6. I follow codex Vaticanus, because it presents special readings that will also be the basis of my commentary on the Septuagint text of Lamentations. Among the sometimes divergent Greek traditions of translation, Codex B incorporates particular variants here and there that make it the most remarkable recension. Furthermore, according to E. TOV, Der Text der Hebräischen Bibel: Handbuch der Textkritik, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1997, p. 116, the recension of codex Vaticanus presents the oldest Greek textual tradition that did not undergo later revisions – unlike the Hexapla version or the Lucianic recension of the Greek text, which include many assimilations to the Hebrew text. I follow the assumption of Tov, although his evaluation concerning the possible original Greek translation is a matter of debate. The reading of codex Vaticanus and the dependent Greek tradition in Lam 2,20-21 differs from the Septuagint by including two additional phrases: φονευϑήσονται νήπια ϑηλάζοντα μαστούς in v. 20c and ἐπορεύϑησαν ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ in v. 21b (see below). On the generally shorter text of the current Septuagint editions, cf. the Göttinger Septuagint (J. ZIEGLER [ed.], Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, vol. 15, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) and Rahlfs’s edition (A. RAHLFS [ed.], Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Editio altera quam recognovit et emendavit R. HANHART, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), which also represent the textual basis for translations such as the classical English translation done by Brenton (Sir L.C.L. BRENTON [ed.], Septuagint, London, reprint by Hendrickson [originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd.], 1851), as well as the current English translation by NETS (B. WRIGHT – A. PIETERSMA [eds.], A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title, 22009, electronic edition: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets, here: P.J. GENTRY [ed.], Lamentations) and the current German translation Septuaginta Deutsch / LXX.D (M. KARRER – W. KRAUS [eds.], Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 22010, here: C.M. MAIER – R. HIRSCH-LUIPOLD [eds.], Threnoi. Die Klagelieder, pp. 1349-1358). Also, K.J. YOUNGBLOOD, The Character and Significance of LXX Lamentations, in R.A. PARRY – H.A. THOMAS (eds.), Great Is Thy Faithfulness? Reading Lamentations as Sacred Scripture, Eugene, OR, Pickwick, 2011, 64-69, p. 67, omits the passages in his translation of LamLXX 2,20. 7. Since the word μου is written in the margin, it has been added secondarily in codex Vaticanus.

350

A. LABAHN 20

Look, Lord, and be aware for whom you gleaned like that. What if women eat the fruit of their womb? A cook prepared gleans (of small grapes). Shall infants sucking the breast get killed? Shall you kill priest and prophet in the sanctuary of the Lord? 21 A little boy and an old man passed away in the exodus; (my) virgins and my young men went away in captivity through sword. By famine, too, you were killing in the day of your anger, you were cooking and you did not spare.

LamLXX 2,20-21 presents its own interpretation of history through additions and variations to the supposed Hebrew Vorlage as reflected in the MT. The modifications in 2,20-21 are characteristic of the conception of LamLXX and illumine its interpretation of past and present reality. These modifications identify the text not simply as a translation from the Hebrew – whatever the exact textual basis might have been – but rather demonstrate that LamLXX presents its own idea of the past and furthermore interprets its own time. Within this conception, LamLXX 2,20-21 introduces metaphors that depict the devastation as cooking until all is consumed and introduces God as the one responsible for execution, which is done through exodus and captivity. II. GOD

AS A

COOK

WITH A

SPECIAL DISH

LamLXX 2,20-21 presents God as a cook with a special dish by creating two metaphors: (1) God as a cook and (2) gleaning as process of cooking until everything is used up. Both images are quite unique compared to descriptions of judgement elsewhere in Lamentations or in the biblical records as a whole. Both metaphors enhance the interpretation of history given by the conception of LamLXX. Therefore, we need to take a sophisticated look at the meaning of each metaphor before we come back to the interpretation of history that the metaphors embody. 1. God as a Cook In LamLXX 2,20-21, God is twice pictured as a cook, introduced by the same term each time. Verse 20b points to the task of a cook (μάγειρος) and v. 21c mentions the activity of cooking (ἐμαγείρευσας). Both instances are remarkably short because v. 21 lacks an object, while v. 20 lacks any identification of the cook, who is simply introduced by the mention of the dish of small grapes that he is preparing. In any case, the two instances interpret one another. Verse 21c addresses a person in the second singular

A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMLXX 2,20-21

351

(“you”), who is earlier identified as God (v. 20a: “look, Lord”, ἰδέ κύριε). Further on, both verses share the same, somewhat special process of cooking, which is characterized as gleaning in v. 20a.c and which is done without compromise according to v. 21c (“you did not spare”, οὐκ ἐφείσω; on gleaning see below II.2). When God is pictured as a cook, LamLXX is introducing a new metaphor for God and his deeds, explicitly so in v. 21. “Cooking” (μαγειρεύω) is a hapax legomenon in the LXX8 and to some extent alters the MT’s “slaughtering” (‫)טבח‬9. The mode of cooking corresponds to the unkind context. This context does not present God as a friendly cook whose interest is in presenting delicious food to partakers, an act that would accord with the maxim, “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach”10. On the contrary, this cook is guided by his anger (v. 21b). LamLXX 2,21 recalls various references to God’s anger from the previous context (cf. 1,12; 2,1-4.6.22). The same idea is also present later on (4,11; cf. 3,1.43.66). Since the motif of God’s anger is used frequently11, it complements the conceptual motifs within the network of interpretation. The motif of God’s anger, or the wrath of his anger, appears prominently in chapter 212. Via the motif of God’s anger, the historical interpretation of LamLXX identifies God’s reaction as effecting historical consequences for the behaviour of his people. The motif of God’s anger, and the way it is used to interpret historical circumstances, recalls the Deuteronomistic interpretation of history, though in an abbreviated manner13. According 8. While “cooking” is only present here, outside of Lam 2,20 a male cook appears in 1 Kgs 9,24 and Ezek 46,24 and a female cook in 1 Kgs 8,13. 9. The Hebrew verb belongs to the concept of the “day of YHWH” with its imagery of judgement; cf. Isa 30,25; 34,6; Jer 12,3; 25,34-35. Maybe due to this background, T. MURAOKA, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, Peeters, 2009, p. 438, proposes to render μαγειρεύω with the common translation “to butcher”. J. RENKEMA, Lamentations (HCOT), Leuven, Peeters 1998, p. 326, agrees, in that both processes are closely related to each other in ancient times. 10. On ordinary dishes in ancient Israel, cf. C. SHAFER-ELLIOTT, Food in Ancient Judah: Domestic Cooking in the Time of the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield, Equinox, 2013. 11. LamLXX translates a wide variety of Hebrew terms by either ὀργή or ϑυμός; cf. G.R. KOTZE, The Greek Translation of Lamentations: Towards a More Nuanced View of Its “Literal” Character, in J. COOK (ed.), Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (VT.S, 127), Leiden, Brill, 2009, 77-95, pp. 86-88. 12. Cf. U. BERGES, Klagelieder (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, p. 129: pointing to “die grausamen Folgen des göttlichen Zorns. In der gesamten biblischen Literatur gibt es keinen zweiten Text, der sich so unerbitterlich mit diesem Thema beschäftigt”. The statement not only applies to the Hebrew text; it is also valid for LamLXX. 13. Cf. B. ALBREKTSON, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations: With a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text (Studia Theologica Lundensia, 21), Lund,

352

A. LABAHN

to the prominent Deuteronomistic interpretation of history14, God’s anger is a reaction against constant misbehaviour and the ignorance of his will as made known through the Mosaic law. The disbelief of the people thus provokes God’s angry reaction, which operates as punishment for disobedience to the Mosaic law. In LamLXX, God’s anger is hence regarded as leading to exilic destruction and devastation. Such an interpretation of history is linked with the earlier prophetic idea of the “day of YHWH” as a horrible day of judgement15 when in v. 21c divine anger is assigned to a particular day16. LamLXX integrates impressions of that day from prophetic tradition, even though such impressions are rarely explicitly mentioned here. When it takes up the motif of the “day of YHWH”, LamLXX simultaneously adopts and modifies that motif according to its own conception. Whereas the “day of YHWH” in Joel 4,16b recalls shelter for Zion and Israel, LamLXX 2,1ff. disregard such reliability of grace and install the day of judgement as the relinquishment of Zion instead. Re-using the motif of the “day of God” in this way fits the context in LamLXX, where the withdrawal of Zion’s former status of security and resistance is frequently described with various images and pictures17. Such relinquishment contrasts with the notion of God’s sheltering of Zion as that notion had been put forward in the conception of Zion theology18. The previous guarantees of salvation and God’s protection of Zion as mount, city, and people (in LamLXX such guarantees are alluded to by the frequently used phrase “daughter of Gleerup, 1963, pp. 215-219, 231-239; O. KAISER, Klagelieder, in H.-P. MÜLLER – O. KAISER – J.A. LOADER, Das Hohelied / Klagelieder / Das Buch Ester (ATD, 16/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 41992, pp. 103, 105, 109; R. BRANDSCHEIT, Gotteszorn und Menschenleid: Die Gerichtsklage des leidenden Gerechten in Klgl 3 (Trierer Theologische Studien, 41), Trier, Paulinus-Verlag, 1983, pp. 210-211, 222-225, 231; E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Wrath at God in the Book of Lamentations, in H. Graf REVENTLOW – Y. HOFFMAN (eds.), The Problem of Evil and Its Symbols in Jewish and Christian Tradition, New York, T&T Clark, 2004, 29-42. 14. Cf. O.H. STECK, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1967; see also T. VEIJOLA, Verheißung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms (Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ. Series B, 220), Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982, p. 81, pointing to strong similarities between Lamentations 2 and Psalm 89 with its Deuteronomistic theology. 15. Cf. Am 5,18.20; Joel 1,15; 2,1-2.11; 3,4; 4,14-16a; Zeph 1,7.14-16; 2,2; 3,8. 16. See also BERLIN, Lamentations (n. 1), p. 77. 17. Cf. LamLXX 1,5.6.16; 2,1.2.6.7.9.11.13.15; 4,11; 5,22. 18. Cf. the statements that Zion once was and rested upon God’s foundation which also included protection for Zion’s inhabitants (cf. Isa 14,32; 28,16; Ps 78,69; 87,1) as expressions within the concept of Zion theology; see also Isa 2,1-4; Psalms 45–48; 72; 84; 132.

A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMLXX 2,20-21

353

Zion”19) are disregarded now in LamLXX because the destruction of Zion was so immense that life there had been abandoned. When life was no longer possible in and around Zion, people lacked any prospects for their lives. The missing prospects in life even called ancient statements of the reliability of salvation into question. In the above context of LamLXX 1,12 and 2,2.22, judgement day has already been called “the day of the wrath of God’s anger”. According to the Greek interpretation, such a horrible day has become real in the fatal destruction of Jerusalem and Judah as well as in the removal of their former inhabitants from their homeland. When the motif of the day of judgement is linked with the motif of God’s anger, both interpretations of history regard God’s anger as the trigger for exilic devastation. Although military troops of foreign nations in fact caused the devastation, as reflected in the laments20, LamLXX’s conception sees a theological cause behind the scenes of the historical events and calls it “God’s anger”. The immensity of the destruction corresponds to the eruptive, negative emotion that theological interpretation ascribes to God’s reaction when identifying it with the wrath of his anger. LamLXX regards the consequences of devastation as so long-lasting that life in the homeland had been impossible for generations, since the beginning of the exile. We will come back to this aspect below (cf. III.1). The image of God as cook corresponds to the negative evaluation of historical circumstances. The tone of the context prepares the reader for the perception that the dish is not delicious but bitter21 and difficult to digest. While no particular dish is mentioned, the idea of God as a cook leaves numerous gaps to be filled in the minds of the hearers and readers if they are to picture to themselves God’s cooking. Due to the multiple potential identifications, the image of God as a cook presents a metaphor that interprets history in a very special and unique manner. The brutal image characterizes God as a consuming deity whose food, as it were, is humans. Such a reading is inspired by the question posed in v. 20b: “What if women eat the fruit of their womb?”. The metaphor of God as a cook with a dish of humans creates an image of God as a furious judge 19. Cf. A. LABAHN, Metaphor and Intertextuality: “Daughter of Zion” as a Test Case, in Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17 (2003) 49-67. See also D.A. BOSWORTH, Daughter Zion and Weeping in Lamentations 1–2, in JSOT 38 (2013) 217-237, and the articles in the recent collection M.J. BODA – C.J. DEMPSEY – L SNOW FLESHER (eds.), Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response, Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2012. On its diverse use in LamLXX, see below n. 35. 20. Cf. LamLXX 1,3-5.7-10; 2,16. 21. “Bitter” is a favorite term in LamLXX (1,4; 3,15.20; see also 1,20) and contributes to the conceptual network.

354

A. LABAHN

operating by himself in a brutal and uncompromising way. The outcome of God’s cooking is “killing” (v. 21), since he “did not spare” (v. 21; cf. 2,17). The result is clear and expresses the main idea of LamLXX: according to both v. 20 to v. 21, nothing is left behind after cooking. 2. Gleaning as Process The curious image of such a cook receives support from the notion of gleaning (v. 21; cf. v. 20) and the way that notion is used in LamLXX. Gleaning in LamLXX 2 occurs out of divine disfavour for Judah and Jerusalem, including their inhabitants. The verb ἐπιφυλλίζω (“gleaning”) is a very rare term22 and appears to be a neologism23. In v. 20a, ἐπιφυλλίζω renders ‫( עלל‬MT). It is a matter of debate whether the MT reads ‫ עלל‬I (“to act against”)24 or if it resembles ‫ עלל‬II (“child”)25. Regardless of the particular Hebrew meaning, LamLXX translates all forms of ‫ עלל‬coherently by ἐπιφυλλίζω (cf. 1,12.22; 3,51), creating a further, albeit small contribution to the network of destruction terminology. In that network, LamLXX largely uses the term ἐπιφυλλίζω as an expression of destruction and devastation. God, the subject of 2,20, is the one who gleans. Although the sentence lacks an object, it is clear from the context that the process of gleaning involves God bringing misfortune upon Judah and its inhabitants. Beside the verb ἐπιφυλλίζω, the noun ἐπιφυλλίς appears in 2,20. The noun ἐπιφυλλίς refers to “small grapes”, such as the late ones left for gleaning. The word ἐπιφυλλίς works here as a model of total devastation since even a potential remnant is eliminated. LamLXX borrows the noun from prophetic judgement stories (cf., e.g., Mic 7,1 and Zeph 3,7). Yet characteristically, LamLXX creates its own image by adding words in a 22. Next to 2,20.21, it appears in 1,12.22; 3,51. Among these references, 1,22 is close to the use of the term in 2,20. LamLXX 1,22 contains a wish of evil for Zion’s enemies, expressed as an optative aorist (“may come”) translating a Hebrew imperfect. The “evil” (κακία) resumes Zion’s “harm” (κακά) from v. 21, transferring it to her enemies. In this way, God is asked for a juridical reply to Zion’s enemies. What they did to Zion shall be executed on them. LamLXX also contains a play on words: the gathering of the people (ἐπιφυλλίζω) shall fit the gleaning (ἐπιφυλλίς) they committed against Zion. 23. Cf. J. LUST – E. EYNIKEL – K. HAUSPIE (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003, p. 238. 24. Cf. W. GESENIUS, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, in Zusammenarbeit mit H. ZIMMER, ed. F. BUHL, Berlin, De Gruyter, 171962, p. 593, interpreting the meaning here alongside its use in 1,20 and 3,51 (“im üblen S[inn]: einem etw. antun”). 25. Cf. K. KOENEN, Die Klagelieder Jeremias: Eine Rezeptionsgeschichte (BiblischTheologische Studien, 143), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2013, p. 35: “Kleinkind”; such a rendering corresponds to the rare use in Isa 3,12.

A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMLXX 2,20-21

355

way that remodels that part of the verse. LamLXX uses ἐπιφυλλίς here as an object (ἐπιφυλλίδα) denoting cooked food; yet LamLXX also provides its own interpretation alongside the conceptual idea. After ἐπιφυλλίδα, LamLXX adds the words ἐποίησεν μάγειρος (“a cook prepared gleans [of small grapes]”), which do not correspond to anything in the MT. These words introduce a new aspect in the way they link the process of cooking with total consumption. Once even the remaining grapes are used for a dish, no more food is left. LamLXX employs the imagery of a gleaning cook in a metaphorical sense, as is clear from the next line, which asks the reason for the killing of infants, priests, and prophets (taking the grammatical singular as a collective term). The combination of these three social groups may come as a surprise. Priests and prophets represent the religious elite, who elsewhere in LamLXX are accused of the wrongdoing that provoked judgement (cf. 1,4.19; 2,6.9.14; 4,13). Here, however, no accusation is mentioned. Instead a question is asked. Will the lives of these groups indeed be ended in the sanctuary by God? Even more questionable is the killing of “infants sucking the breast” (νήπια ϑηλάζοντα μαστούς) alongside priest and prophet. The addition of infants originates with LamLXX, since the words φονευϑήσονται νήπια ϑηλάζοντα μαστούς (“Shall the infants sucking the breast get killed?”) replace a simple ‫ אם־‬in the presumed Hebrew Vorlage, as far as it is known from the MT26. The infants may represent the whole of society alongside the virgins, young men, and old men mentioned subsequently in 2,21. Though the groups mentioned in vv. 20-21 do not constitute the full spectrum of the population, they nevertheless form a picture of society from one end to the other and implicitly include the remaining populace27. To take things one step further, the gleaning metaphor may recall the notion of Judah as a vineyard and the conceptual idea of the process of gleaning as a model for exilic devastation in prophetic literature (cf. Isa 17,5-6; 24,13; Jer 5,10-11; 6,9; 49,9; Obad 1,5; Mic 7,1)28. LamLXX thus creates a new image that works as a conceptual metaphor. By using that metaphor alongside other terms and ideas, LamLXX establishes a network of images that interprets history throughout the book. The process of cooking and gleaning is a picture of the immense destruction and 26. This reading is present not only in Vaticanus and its subsequent transmission, but also in the Lucianic version and its subsequent transmission. Because these additional words clearly belong to the Greek text tradition, it is surprising that the Göttingen Septuagint deletes them as a “lectio duplex” (ZIEGLER, Ieremias [n. 6], p. 479). 27. According to BERGES, Klagelieder (n. 12), p. 164, the social groups mentioned here work as a merism designating the entire populace. 28. YOUNGBLOOD, The Character and Significance (n. 6), p. 68.

356

A. LABAHN

devastation that happened in Judah. This unique conceptual metaphor contributes to the overall interpretation of history and adds a special impetus to the entire network29. III. EXODUS AND CAPTIVITY AS NETWORKS AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS FOR PERMANENTLY BAD CONDITIONS IN LIFE Alongside the metaphor of a gleaning cook, LamLXX presents other conceptual metaphors. LamLXX uses the exodus motif as a conceptual metaphor in its interpretation of the captivity. Both terms, exodus and captivity, are used throughout LamLXX to articulate a characteristic model of potential in life, or rather, the absence of potential in life. In this way, both conceptual metaphors play their part in the network that LamLXX constructs for its interpretation of history. 1. Exodus LamLXX 2,21 interprets the total loss of inhabitants, from young to old, by means of the term “exodus”. The image of “exodus” is used in an abbreviated way here, depicting the realm in which the populace “is passed” perceived as “laid down”. The term “exodus” appears several times in LamLXX, usually in the plural (ἐξόδων), such as in 2,19, and as a favourite term in LamLXX 4 (cf. 4,1.5.8.14). In all these cases, the term “exodus” renders the same Hebrew expression ‫חוצות‬, which in the MT simply points to people “being outside” or “being on the streets” (‫חוצות‬, i.e., outside on the streets). By translating these whereabouts with the term “exodus”, LamLXX adopts a somewhat rare rendering and at the same time presents an interpretation30. “Exodus” is a substantial image for identifying the conditions of life in LamLXX. The term is characteristic for depicting the conditions of life of past as well as of present time, in which the translators of LamLXX found themselves. To look closely at 2,21, the phrase εἰς τὴν ἔξοδον (here in the singular) interprets the Hebrew ‫ לארץ חוצות‬but omits any reference to the 29. Cf. the interpretation of gleaning, inasmuch as these images “betray the translator’s assumptions and theological biases” and make “a unique hermeneutical … contribution”, ibid., p. 67. 30. Outside of Lam, such a translation of ‫ חוץ‬is infrequent but present in 2 Sam 1,20; 22,43; 1 Kgs 21,34; Ps 143,13; Prov 1,20; 24,42; Isa 51,20; and Jer 11,13. The word ἔξοδος usually renders forms of ‫יצא‬.

A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMLXX 2,20-21

357

“ground”. The recurrence of the exodus motif stands in a statement whose meaning is hard to capture, because verb, preposition, and object do not fit together in terms of grammar and internal logic. The entire male populace from young to old is described as being in the exodus. The term ἐκοιμήϑησαν “passed away” points to a situation of missing people due to death. Though lacking an explicit reference to it in Greek, the scene recalls the myth of the empty land31 (cf. LamLXX 1,3.4; 5,17) since the inhabitants are entirely missing, as presents the impression of LamLXX’s interpretation of the past. When the MT is interpreted in a specific way, there must be an interest on the part of LamLXX in adopting such an interpretation. In my view, the notion of the exodus not only functions as a description of past events, but also sheds light on the translators’ situation, which is considered a result of an exodus. In exilic times, the conditions of life in Judah were so bad that people were forced to abandon their homeland and settle elsewhere in a kind of exodus. In the time of LamLXX’s translation, the conditions were still judged too hostile to permit people returning home. Thus, the past exilic exodus produced a permanent, new settlement, which was still be called an exodus as a way to depict the conditions in which the translators lived. Hence, the ongoing permanent situation of exodus is characterized by a lack of prospects in life. In LamLXX, this exodus is even interpreted as a perversion of life (cf. esp. 4,8), a life in which no potential remains. At the time of LamLXX, the people had been stuck in the conditions of exodus for generations or centuries, and they were becoming more and more aware that the possibility of changing their situation was fading away. The plural of “exodus” may be understood either in a temporal way, as stressing the several generations of exodus victims, or in a local way, as stressing various places of life outside the homeland, after the exilic catastrophe. The conceptual motif of exodus means a complete loss of prospects in life, fading almost until a complete loss of life. LamLXX defines its exodus situation by various motifs, images, and impressions that depict conditions in life and create a network by establishing various terms. In this way, the conception of exodus transforms the mode of living from guaranteed shelter for Zion to imminent danger due to God’s withdrawal of salvation.

31. Cf. the classic monograph by H.M. BARSTAD, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period (Symbolae Osloenses. Supplement, 28), Oslo, Scandinavian University Press, 1996.

358

A. LABAHN

2. Captivity In addition to exodus, LamLXX 2,21 invokes captivity, associating it with young people of both genders. Verses 21a and 21b thus correlate with one another, forming parallel structures for exodus and captivity. “Captivity” is a favourite term in LamLXX, especially in chapters 1 and 2, with their explicit uses of the noun in 1,5.18 and 2,14.20, all of which recall the verb that occurs in the Greek prologue. Hence, captivity is another term in the interpretive network. Right at the beginning of LamLXX, in the prologue, the exilic catastrophe of losing one’s home is expressed by the phrase “Israel was made captive” (αἰχμαλωτίζω, used in passive), pointing to the loss of inhabitants after the desolation of Jerusalem. Further instances in LamLXX of the noun “captivity” (αἰχμαλωσία) refer to the way in which people were forced to resettle in a place far from home. The characteristic term “captivity” may have been adopted from prophetic literature, such as Jer 1,332. The term “captivity” is another image in the network by which LamLXX interprets history. Links to the context situate 2,21 in a network of references. In 2,21b, the phrase “my virgins and my young men went away in captivity” (παρϑένοι μου καὶ νεανίσκοι μου ἐπορεύϑησαν ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ) is reprised from 1,18b33; in both verses, the statement alters the MT. In 2,21, over against the MT, LamLXX adds the phrase ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ (“in captivity”) and changes the verb from “fallen” to “went away” (ἐπορεύϑησαν)34. Similar motifs and terms from 2,21 are also present in 1,5. The sword mentioned in 2,21, already present in Hebrew, was taken over by LamLXX, though grammatically speaking it does not fit perfectly in the Greek construction. The addition and modification show LamLXX’s interest in a particular depiction of life. The continuation of LamLXX 2,21 agrees with this evaluation. V. 21c, turns back to the motif of killing characterized as cooking, which is due to God’s anger (see above II.1). In quite harsh and direct terminology, God is accused of killing his people. His action is described as remorseless through the term and idea that God “did not spare”. Furthermore, LamLXX adds “by famine” over against its 32. See also references to “captivity” in prophetic writings such as JerLXX 25,19; 38,23; Ezek 3,11.15; 11,24.25; Amos 1,15; 9,4.14; Hos 6,11; Joel 4,1.8; Zeph 2,7; 3,20; Zech 6,10; 14,2. 33. Cf. also αἰχμαλωσία in 1,5; 2,14 (see above). 34. Because these additional words clearly belong to the Greek textual tradition, it is surprising that the Göttingen Septuagint does not include them.

A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMLXX 2,20-21

359

presumed Hebrew Vorlage. That term serves as a further part within the network linking it with LamLXX 1,11.19; 2,12.19 and including it in the conception of lacking prospects in life. In sum, LamLXX gives its own interpretation of exile as an exodus; this motif involves going into captivity and it presents this migration as a deeply unpleasant way of living. The references to captivity and the sword characterize the departure to and arrival at the new home as happening under compulsion. Young men and virgins are mentioned explicitly, representing the younger generation in both genders. Although it is only the younger generation that is mentioned explicitly, the migration includes the entire population. One may also ask if the term “virgins” has a deeper significance when read in the context of LamLXX 2. The term “virgins” in 2,21 recalls “virgin” in 2,13, where the word is a vocative, immediately followed by its equivalent, i.e., by the appellation “daughter of Zion”, which is a figurative name for God’s people resident in Zion, that is frequently used in LamLXX35. If it is possible to transfer the meaning of the term “virgin” in 2,13 to 2,21, then we may have good reason to identify “my virgins and my young men”, two parts of the younger generation, as a stand-in for the entire society, which has now lost its home due to captivity. As we have seen, “captivity” is a terminus technicus that characterizes exile as being compelled to live in a place far from home36. LamLXX regards “captivity” as an adequate expression for characterizing the resettling of the people in a new home. Since all the prospects for life in Jerusalem had been abandoned and all kinds of structures had been broken down37, the life of the people could only continue elsewhere. In any case, LamLXX characterizes these places of new settlement in a hostile way. Within the conceptual network, LamLXX uses a variety of images to express, again and again, loss and destruction. The new places of residence are not regarded as a chance for a new beginning, but rather as a 35. Cf. the references to “daughter of Zion” (ϑυγάτηρ Σείων) in LamLXX 1,6; 2,1.4.8.10.13.18; 4,22; see also the allusions to Zion in 1,4.17; 4,2.7.11; 5,11.18. Similarly, the metaphors “daughter of Judah” (1,15; 2,2.5), “daughter of Jerusalem” (2,13.15), and “daughter of my people” (2,10.11; 3,48; 4,6.10) are used. Such terms contribute to the network in LamLXX that characterizes the people as a group still related to God, and thus still related to their former and still longed-for hometown or homeland. 36. On various interpretations of exile, cf. the collections by L.L. GRABBE (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: ‘The Exile’ as History and Ideology (JSOT.S, 278), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, as well as D.L. SMITH-CHRISTOPHER (ed.), A Biblical Theology of Exile (Overtures to Biblical Theology), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2002. 37. Cf. the references to the breaking down of city and temple walls and structures in LamLXX 1,4; 2,2.5.7-9.18; 4,1.11.12; see also 1,13; 3,5.7.9.

360

A. LABAHN

place of punishment. Loss and destruction are remembered in a lively way (cf. 3,19.20)38 and even in the days when the Greek translation was completed, they still dominate the reception of past events.

IV. THE CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF GOD AS A GLEANING COOK IN THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EXODUS As we have seen, LamLXX 2,20-21 creates a particular metaphor to interpret both its past and its present state of life. The notion of God as a gleaning cook conceptualizes the past and present as a process of gleaning and cooking. In effect, these modes of expression use exodus and captivity to represent the past and the present state of life. In the homeland and in the hometown, life had been abandoned due to immense destruction. The desolation was so great that in the time of LamLXX’s translation it was still impossible for life in the homeland to be resumed. People who once were forced to resettle elsewhere still maintained that way of life, experiencing it as exodus and captivity. LamLXX illumines its history by establishing a network of various images that conceptualizes the conditions of this life. Such an understanding of past and present was responsible for generating the characterization of missing prospects in life by lament and grieving39, and by expressing physical and mental suffering40. In LamLXX, no group of inhabitants is left out, and no architectural structure is omitted; 38. On memory and the interpretation of the past in the conception of LamLXX, see A. LABAHN, From Anonymity to Biography: Jeremiah as a Character Memorizing Fate in the LamLXX, in H.A. THOMAS – B. MELTON (eds.), Reading Lamentations Intertextually, 2020 (forthcoming). See also further “memory” images in LamLXX 1,7.9; 2,1. 39. Cf. λυπέω (grieving) in LamLXX 1,4.22; 2,10; 5,15 and κλαίω (crying) in LamLXX 1,2; see also 1,20. On the process of grieving, see my previous study: A. LABAHN, Trauern als Bewältigung der Vergangenheit zur Gestaltung der Zukunft: Bemerkungen zur anthropologischen Theologie der Klagelieder, in VT 52 (2002) 513-527, as well as V. KAST, Trauern: Phasen und Chancen des psychologischen Prozesses, Stuttgart, Kreuz, 8 1987; P.M. JOYCE, Lamentations and the Grief Process: A Psychological Reading, in BibInt 1 (1993) 304-320. 40. Cf. στενάζω in 1,11; ταπείνωσις in 1,3.5.7-9.12; 2,5; 3,32-34; 5,11; ϑλίψις in 1,5.7.10.20; 2,17; as well as pain in 1,12.14.15.18; 2,11; 5,17. On suffering and pain as multiple voices in Lam (for the MT, at least) see also: M.J. BIER, “Perhaps There Is Hope”: Reading Lamentations as a Polyphony of Pain, Penitence, and Protest (LHB/OTS, 603), New York, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015; Y. GITTAY, The Poetics of Exile and Suffering: Memory and Perceptions. A Cognitive-Linguistics Study of Lamentations, in B. BECKING – D. HUMAN (eds.), Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA Pretoria August 2007 (OTS, 50), Leiden, Brill, 2008, 203-212; similar ideas apply, of course, to LamLXX.

A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF EXODUS IN LAMLXX 2,20-21

361

rather the entire population is included because the loss and the destruction are presented as so great that no prospects in life remained. LamLXX creates networks of ideas, metaphors, terms, and images that give expression to its conception of the conditions of life. In such a conception, past and present melt. Linked in memory, past and present are described as a process of loss and destruction that still results in an utter lack of prospects for life. LamLXX resembles, includes, and creates numerous motifs, pictures, ideas, and metaphors to delineate a horrible situation. LamLXX even interprets the situation as a withdrawal of salvation. The former relationship between God and the people is no longer recognizable, due to the permanent loss of Zion. The people that were called by the figurative name “daughter of Zion” find themselves in distress because they have lost their basis in architecture as well as in faith. God was thought to have taken away the reliable guarantees, which he had made for life, and he was seen as still angry towards his people. Theological interpretation of God’s approachableness unites past and present time in a way that resembles the idea of God as absent. Because God had drawn salvation away, life could not be resumed in a vital way from the beginning of the exilic exodus until the time of the translation of LamLXX. God is still recognized as a gleaning cook who brought his people into a sphere of life that is depicted as permanent captivity. LamLXX interprets history in a retrospective manner that is still relevant in its own time. To characterize the entire period from exile to its own time as “exodus” creates in memory links to analogous interpretations of life circumstances. By calling that period “exodus”, LamLXX parallels the loss of home during exilic times with the former exodus from Egypt, providing a name for a period that belonged to historical memory. One may, at least, ask: Do the paralleling of the two exodus events and the comparison of the exilic exodus to the former ancient exodus suggest that the later exodus represents a repetition of history? Such an analogy would imply that both exodus events went in opposite directions, i.e., in ancient Mosaic times away from Egypt and in exilic times towards Egypt. This interpretation may imply that the translators of LamLXX settled in Egypt, if the parallel may be interpreted in such a strong manner. On the other hand, since “exodus” is found in the plural in most occurrences, this usage may point to an awareness of the dispersion of the Jewish people around the known world in ancient times. Such widespread settlements, however, remained a fact of life in the time of the translators of LamLXX, regardless of their own particular perspective.

362

A. LABAHN

The terrible images that interpret past and present time reveal a yearning for a glorified homeland to be repopulated and a longing for a better future in all aspects of life. But in the time of LamLXX’s translation, that seems to have been simply wishful thinking. This conclusion is reflected in the translators’ recognition of their circumstances and in their interpretation of those circumstances as resulting from a process of gleaning and cooking in which nothing is left. Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel and North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus) South Africa

Antje LABAHN

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD AIL AnBib ATD BASOR BDB BETL BHK BibInt BibOr BIS BKAT BWANT BZAW CBQ CC DCH ETL FAT FOTL FRLANT FzB HALAT HALOT HBS HCOT HSM HTKAT HUCA ICC JBL JSOT JSOT.S KAT LD LHB/OTS NCBC NIBCOT

The Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary Ancient Israel and Its Literature Analecta Biblica Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research F. BROWN – S.R. DRIVER – C.A. BRIGGS (eds.), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica, ed. R. KITTEL Biblical Interpretation Biblica et Orientalia Biblical Interpretation Series Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Continental Commentaries D.J.A. CLINES (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschung zur Bibel W. BAUMGARTNER – L. KÖHLER – J.J. STAMM (eds.), Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament W. BAUMGARTNER – L. KÖHLER – J.J. STAMM (eds.), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Herders Biblische Studien Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series Kommentar zum Alten Testament Lectio Divina The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies The New Century Bible Commentary New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary. Old Testament

364 NICOT NIDOTTE OBO OTE OTL OTS PEQ RB SBB SSN TDOT THAT TWAT VT VT.S WBC WMANT ZAW

ABBREVIATIONS

New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Old Testament Essays The Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge Studia Semitica Neerlandica Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

INDEX OF AUTHORS

AARON, D. 33 ABART, C. 198 AHITUV S. 237 AHN, J.J. 100, 136 AITKEN, J.K. 291 AITKEN, K.T. 61 AKHUTINA, T.V. 316 ALBENDA, P. 107 ALBERTZ, R. 129, 136 ALBREKTSON, B. 351-352 ALLEN, L.C. 131, 239 ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L. 181 ALTER, R. 16, 162, 181, 189, 324, 327, 335 AMES, F.R. 136 ANDERSEN, F.I. 112, 114, 119, 129, 293 ANSBERRY, C.B. 9-10 AQUINAS, T. 1 ARDUINI, S. 1 ARISTOTLE 1, 2 ARNOLD, M. 50 ATTARD, S.M. 8-9, 191 AUFFRET, P. 197 AUGUSTINE 1 AUSTIN, J.L. 34 AUWERS, J.-M. 313 BACKHAUS, K. 348-349 BALDAUF, B. 69 BALDAUF, C. 347, 348 BALLENTINE, S.E. 290-291 BALLY, C. 2 BALOGH, C. 55, 56, 57, 58 BARBIERO, G. 174, 187, 189, 315-316 BARCELONA SÁNCHEZ, A. 5 BARKER, J.W. 285 BARR, J. 206 BARSTAD, H.M. 357 BARTELMUS, R. 130 BARTH, C. 22 BARTH, H. 52, 53 BARTHÉLMY, D. 69, 180, 182 BARTHOLOMEW, C.G. 10-11, 31, 336, 338, 339, 343

BARTON, J. 129, 260 BARUCH-UNNA, A. 255 BAUER, A. 80 BAUKS, M. 230 BAUMANN, A. 133 BAUTCH, R. 93, 139 BEAUCAMP, E. 68 BEAUCHAMP, P. 320 BECKING, B. 103, 136, 289-290, 360 BEENTJES, P.C. 103, 105, 106 BEGG, G.T. 31, 105 BEILLEUL-LESUER, R. 242 BELDMAN, D.J.H. 338 BEN ZVI, E. 53, 56, 113, 117, 118, 129 BERGES, U. 56, 57, 64, 69, 74, 351, 355 BERGMANN, C.D. 134, 135, 136 BERLEJUNG, A. 206 BERLIN, A. 161, 347, 352 BERNSTEIN, T.M. 158 BERQUIST, J.L. 216 BEUKEN, W.A.M. 52, 53, 55, 58, 59, 64 BIER, M.J. 360 BISSCHOPS, R. 95, 157 BLACK, C.C. 34 BLACK, F.C. 48 BLACK, M. 1, 19, 47, 95, 123 BLANK, S.H. 248 BLENKINSOPP, J. 54, 55, 56, 57 BLOCK, D.I. 95, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106 BLUMENBERG, H. 1 BOAD, L. 105 BOASE, E. 347 BODA, M.J. 139, 353 BODENHEIMER, F.S. 241 BOECKER, H.J. 347 BÖRKER-KLÄHN, J. 108 BOLIN, T.M. 340 BONFIGLIO, R.P. 2, 8, 25, 151, 152, 154, 160 BONS, E. 117

366

INDEX OF AUTHORS

BOSWORTH, D.A. 130, 353 BOTTERWECK, G.J. 134 BOURGUET, D. 86 BOYS-STONES, G.R. 1, 157 BOZAK, B.A. 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86 BRANDSCHEIT, R. 230, 352 BRAULIK, G. 31, 35, 42 BRENNER, M.L. 24 BRENTON, SIR L.C.L. 349 BRETTLER, M.Z. 26, 95, 157, 159160, 202, 223 BRICHTO, H.C. 248 BRIGGS, C.A. 182, 187-188, 237 BRIGGS, E.G. 182, 187-188, 237 BRITT, B. 32 BROWN, K. 27, 285 BROWN, W.P. 32, 33, 34, 38, 223, 242, 253, 263, 269, 276 BROYLES, C.C. 50, 61, 236 BRUEGGEMANN, W. 22 BÜHLMANN, W. 276 BUHL, F. 354 BUTLER, 27 CALDUCH-BENAGES, N. 254-255 CAMERON, L. 3, 159 CAMP, C.V. 53, 216, 343 CAPUTO, J. 51 CARNITI, C. 181 CARROLL, R.P. 50, 56, 61 CARTER, R. 48 CARVALHO, C. 100, 105, 106, 107 CAVALCANTI, M. 3 CHARLES, R.H. 260 CHEN, Y. 282 CHRISTENSEN, D.L. 39 CLAASSENS, L.J. 32 CLEMENTS, R.E. 53, 61 CLIFFORD, R.J. 230, 234, 254, 259, 268, 271 CHILDS, B.S. 57 CLINES, D.J.A. 61, 161, 248, 258, 284, 289, 291, 292, 299, 301, 303, 304, 305, 307, 309, 310, 311 COGGINS, R. 57 COHEN, A. 240 COLLINS, J.J. 260 CONRAD, E.W. 59 COOK, J. 351 COOK, S.L. 100, 139

CORNELIUS, I. 176 COTTIN, J. 219-220 COUEY, J.B. 296 COUTO-FERREIRA, M.E. 326 CRAFFERT, P.F. 50 CRENSHAW, J.L. 250 CROFT, W. 62 CROSS, F.M. 13, 15, 23, 27, 347 CRUSE, D.A. 62 CRUZ, J. 7-8 CSABI, S. 48 CULLER, J.D. 30 CUROYER, B. 246 DAHMEN, U. 20 DAHOOD, M. 177 DALMAN, G. 118 DANCYGIER, B. 16 DA RIVA, R. 108 DAVIDSON, D. 47 DAVIES, G.I. 117, 118 DAVIES, J.A. 284 DAVIES, P.R. 61 DAY, J. 13, 50 DEARMAN, J.A. 111, 115, 117, 118, 119 DE HULSTER, I.J. 152, 160 DEIGNAN, A. 158 DE JOODE, J. 248, 257, 282, 285, 286, 299, 311 DELITZSCH, F. 235, 242, 320, 325 DELL, K.J. 9, 247, 248-249, 252, 257 DEL OLMO LETE, G. 289 DE MAN, P. 50 DE MOOR, J.C. 25, 87, 140 DEMPSEY, C.J. 353 DE SAUSSURE, F. 2 DESCARTES, 50 DE SCHUTTER, D. 317 DHORME, E. 287, 292, 293, 294, 303, 307, 309 DICK, M.B. 288 DICKINSON, E. 4 DIETRICH, J. 206, 207 DI FRANSICO, L. 211 DIJKSTRA, M. 103 DILLE, S.J. 23, 32, 134-135, 160 DILLER, C. 55 DI ROCCO, E. 15 DI VITO, R.A. 204

INDEX OF AUTHORS

DOBBS-ALLSOPP, F.W. 130, 326 DONOGHUE, D. 1 DOUGLAS, M. 203, 208 DOZEMAN Ţ.B. 13, 24, 27 DREYTZA, M. 204, 205 DRIVER, G.R. 238, 253 DRIVER, S.R. 39, 41, 146, 284 EATON, J. 179 ECO, U. 1, 329-330 EDER, S. 13 EHRLICH, A.B. 249, 291 EICHRODT, W. 97, 98, 100, 102, 105 EIDEVALL, G. 7, 111, 115, 122, 160, 173 ENGELKEN, K. 83 ERBELE-KÜSTER, D. 13 EVANS, C.A. 50, 61 EVANS, D. 327 EVANS, L. 242 EWALD, G.H.A. VON 124 EXUM, J.C. 11 EYNIKEL, E. 354 FABRY, H.-J. 205 FAUCONNIER, G. 47, 49, 282 FELDMAN, D. 30 FELIX, Y. 253 FELSKI, R. 329 FERRY, J. 61 FEWELL, D.N. 32 FINE, S. 223 FIRMAGE, E.B. 20, 240, 255 FISCH, H. 314-315 FISCHER, G. 7, 13, 14, 79-80, 83, 87, 89, 90 FITZMYER, J.A. 347 FLINT, P.W. 230, 347 FLOYD, M.H. 139 FLYNN, S.W. 13 FOHRER, G. 303, 304 FOKKELMAN, J.P. 14, 198 FOREMAN, B.A. 129, 236 FORSTER, C. 230 FORTI, T.L. 9, 129, 234, 235, 236, 240, 248, 251, 253, 254, 255, 259, 263 FOSTER, B.R. 237 FOSTER, R.L. 139 FOX, M.V. 251, 263, 265, 266, 268, 271, 272, 273, 277, 282, 342, 344

367

FOX, N.S. 217 FRANCIS, J. 95, 157 FRANKFORT, H. 333 FRECHETTE, C.G. 347 FREEDMAN, D.N. 112, 114, 119, 129 FREEHOF, S.B. 314-315 FREEMAN, D. 5, 14, 23, 27 FREEMAN, M.H. 50 FREUD, S. 10, 316-317, 320 FRIELING, G. 348 FRYMER-KENSKY, T. 203 FÜGLISTER, N. 174 GADAMER, H.-G. 347 GARCÍA MARTINEZ, F. 197 GARRISON, M.B. 154 GAVINS, J. 193, 196 GELLER, S.A. 35, 36, 41, 43, 217 GEMSER, B. 236 GENTRY, P.J. 349 GERLEMAN, G. 315 GERSTENBERGER, E.S. 240, 347 GESENIUS, W. 354 GIBBS, R.W. 1, 2, 3, 47, 48, 158, 159, 282, 329, 331 GILLMAYR-BUCHER S. 9, 13 GITTAY, Y. 360 GLATT-GILAD, D.A. 217, 255 GOERING, G.S. 263 GOETS, S. 329 GOLDINGAY, J. 166 GOOD, E.M. 289 GOODMAN, N. 331 GORDIS, R. 284, 293 GORDON, R.P. 25, 140 GRABBE, L.L. 50, 54, 56, 359 GRÄB, W. 219-220 GRAY, A. 6, 34, 37, 38, 173, 174, 178 GRAY, G.B. 284 GREENBERG, M. 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105 GREENE, C. 31 GREENSTEIN, E.L. 10, 203, 208, 254, 281, 282, 283, 285, 287-288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294-295, 296, 352 GROHMANN, M. 79, 225, 226 GROSS, W. 226 GROSSMAN, M.L. 161, 283 GRUBER, M.I. 113, 114, 118, 119 GUNKEL, H. 59, 226, 237, 240

368

INDEX OF AUTHORS

GUNN, D.M. 53 HAAG, E. 211 HAAG, R.D. 54, 56 HABEL, N.C. 263, 289, 291, 295, 305, 343-344 HÄFNER, G. 348-349 HÄUSL, M. 86 HAGEDORN, A.C. 206 HAKHAM, A. 284 HALDAR, A. 72 HALIDAY, M.A.K. 27 HAMILTON, M.W. 52, 54 HANHART, R. 349 HARRISON, R.P. 321 HARSHAV, B. 5, 7-8, 79, 123, 127, 137, 264, 270, 278, 324 HART, K. 51 HARTENSTEIN, F. 216 HARTLEY, J.E. 284, 289, 293 HASAN, R. 27 HAUSMANN, J. 211 HAUSPIE, K. 354 HAWLEY, L.R. 281, 285, 286, 290-291, 292, 299 HEIM, K.M. 267, 277 HELD, M. 293 HERTZBERG, H.W. 332 HILLERS, D.R. 132 HILLS, D. 47 HIRSCH-LUIPOLD, R. 349 HITZIG, F. 74-75 HOFFMAN, Y. 294, 352 HOFFMEIER, J.K. 14 HOFTIJZER, J. 237 HOGLUND, K.G. 343 HOLLANDER, J. 30 HOLMYARD, H.R. 58 HOLT, E.K. 295-296 HOLTZ, B.W. 203 HOLTZ, S.E. 223 HOPF, M. 96 HORBURY, W. 260 HORRELL, D.G. 257 HORST, F. 124, 309 HOSSFELD, F.-L. 74, 197, 211, 225, 239, 240 HOSTADTER, D. 49 HOUTMAN, C. 22 HOWELL, M. 14, 27

293,

125-

287,

220,

HRUSHOVSKI, B. 5 HUG, J.L. 314 HUGHES, A.W. 53 HUMAN, D.J. 136, 211, 226, 360 HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, R. 84, 153, 219-220 HURVITZ, A. 288 INNES, D. 157 IRSIGLER, H. 226 IRWIN, W.A. 333 IRWIN, W.H. 57, 268 ISHIDA, T. 57 JAKOBSON, R. 10, 48, 68, 316, 318, 320-321 JAMES, E.T. 296 JANOWSKI, B. 175, 205 JANZEN, J.G. 285 JEAL, R.R. 34-35 JEREMIAS, J. 27, 112, 118, 240 JINDO, J.Y. 79, 263, 274, 275, 277, 281 JOHNSON, M. 1, 2, 5, 16, 17, 38, 48, 62, 123, 158-159, 160, 193, 216, 246, 267, 270, 274, 281, 285, 329, 336 JOHNSON, T.H. 4 JONES, S.C. 282 JOOSTEN, J. 204 JOÜON, P. 241 JOWETT, J. 313 JOYCE, P.M. 93, 96, 102, 103, 360 KAISER, O. 352 KALIN, E.R. 57 KALTNER, J. 295 KAPELRUD, A.S. 22 KARRER, M. 349 KARTJE, J. 229 KAST, V. 360 KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, B. 20 KEEFER, A. 252 KEEL, O. 119, 176, 177, 183, 187, 220, 223, 239, 315 KEIL, C.F. 242 KELLE, B.E. 136 KELLERMANN, D. 132 KIMMEL, M. 3, 169-170 KING, P.J. 284 KIRKPATRICK, A.F. 242 KITCHEN, K.A. 242

INDEX OF AUTHORS

KITTAY, E.F. 123, 126 KLAUS, N. 287 KLINE, A.S. 50 KNIBB, M. 57 KNOPPERS, G.N. 93, 139 KNOWLES, M.P. 32, 62 KOCH, K. 72, 239, 240, 246 KOENEN, K. 354 KÖVECSES, Z. 1, 48, 62, 74, 114, 123, 228, 278, 281, 282, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 341, 343, 345 KOOLE, J.L. 69 KOOSED, J.L. 48 KOTTSIEPER, I. 104 KOTZE, G.R. 351 KRAUS, H.-J. 226, 240, 347, 349 KRAVITZ, K.F. 289 KRISTEVA, J. 48 KROEZE, J.H. 306 KRÜGER, A. 204 KRÜGER, T. 205, 225 KUGEL, J. 162, 170 KWAKKEL, G. 176 KYNES, W. 247 LABAHN, A. 2, 11, 123, 175, 176, 181, 222, 224, 225, 233, 281, 282, 296, 299, 348, 353, 360 LACAN, J. 10, 316-317, 318-319, 320-321, 323, 326-327, 328 LACK, R. 75 LAKOFF, G. 1, 2, 5, 16, 17, 19, 38, 47, 48, 49, 62, 63, 113-114, 123, 158159, 160, 193, 216, 246, 247, 263, 267, 270, 274, 281, 285, 331, 336 LAM, J. 199 LAMBERT, D. 197, 200, 206-207 LANDSMAN, K. 213 LANDY, F. 6, 13, 49, 50, 56, 57, 62, 111, 113, 114, 119, 120, 325-326, 327 LAUHA, R. 205 LAUTERBACH, J.Z. 51 LAZZARO, B. 6-7, 63 LEDONNE, A. 285 LEENE, H. 87 LEFEBVRE, H. 215 LEUENBERGER, M. 218 LEVENSON, J. 57

369

LEVIN, C. 56 LEVINAS, E. 60 LIEB, M. 50 LIESS, K. 230 LINVILLE, J. 52, 53 LITTLEMORE, J. 1 LOADER, J.A. 352 LÖW, M. 216 LOHR, J.N. 285 LOLAND, H. 161 LONERGAN, J.E. 3 LONGMAN, T. III. 13, 36, 290, 315, 347 LORENZEN, T. 174 LORUSSO, A.M. 1 LUND, O. 64, 67, 76 LUNDBOM, J.R. 36, 39, 164, 165 LURIA, A.R. 316 LUST, J. 354 LYS, D. 315-316 LYU, S.M. 266 MACDONALD, N. 31, 35, 43, 44 MACINTOSH, A.A. 113, 114 MAIER, C.M. 291, 349 MANDOLFO, C.R. 130 MARCUS, R. 265 MARTI, K. 124 MASON, R.L. 139 MATZNER, S. 318 MAYES, A.D.H. 31 MAYES, J.L. 117, 124 MAZOR, L. 295 MAZZINGHI, L. 259 MCCONVILLE, J.G. 31, 32, 33, 36 MCKANE, W. 133, 134, 248, 267 MCLAUGHLIN, J.M. 61 MEINHOLD, A. 268 MELION, W.S. 34 MELTON, B. 360 MELUGIN, R.F. 67 MEREDITH, C. 315 METSO, S. 347 METTINGER, T.N.D. 25 MILGROM, J. 20, 203, 208 MILLAR, J.G. 31, 33, 36 MILLAR, S.R. 266, 267, 268 MILLER, J.-A. 317, 319 MILLER, P.D. 36, 55 MITCHELL, H.G. 140

370

INDEX OF AUTHORS

MÖLLER, K. 31 MONTGOMERY, W. 313 MOON, R. 62 MOSIS, R. 211 MUDDIMAN, J. 260 MÜLLER, C. 19, 159, 282 MÜLLER, H.-P. 352 MÜNNICH, M.M. 289 MUILENBURG, J. 27 MUNRO, D.J.M. 320 MURAOKA, T. 241, 351 MURPHY, C.M. 347 MURPHY, R.E. 250, 267, 331 MURRAY, R. 57, 59 NAUDÉ, J. 204 NEWSOM, C.A. 291, 293 NICCUM, C. 347 NICHOLAS, J.G. 4 NIELSEN, K. 34, 54, 263 NIETZSCHE, F. 1 NISKANEN, P. 22-23 NOORT, E. 197 NORIN, 27 NORTH, C.R. 23 NOVICK, T. 291 NOWAK, W. 124 NWAORU, E.O. 111, 117, 118 ODASHIMA, T. 80 OESTREICH, B. 111 OGDEN, G.S. 335 OLASON, K. 5 OLSON, D.T. 31-32 ORTONY, A. 19 ORWELL, G. 2-3 OSBORNE, W.R. 263, 265, 276 OSWALT, J.N. 58 OTTO, R. 44 OVERLAND, P. 40 OWEN, S. 52 PAJUNEN, M.S. 223 PANDER, H. 27 PARPOLA, S. 104-105 PARRY, R.A. 349 PAUL, S.M. 117, 119, 163, 292 PENNER, J. 223 PEPPER, S.C. 343 PERDUE, L.G. 292, 343 PERI, N. 10, 282, 283, 285, 289, 290, 293, 294

PERLES, F. 249 PETERSEN, D.L. 61 PETTERSON, A.R. 139, 140, 144 PFEIFFER, H. 198, 211 PHAM, X.H.T. 284 PHILIPS, A. 57 PIETERSMA, A. 349, POPE, M.H. 292, 315, 319, 321 POUND, E. 35 PROPP, W.H.C. 22, 23, 24 QUACK, J.F. 206 RAD, G. VON 247, 342 RAVASI, G. 181 REDDITT, P.L. 129, 139 REID, D. 13 REINHART, T. 283 REITERER, F.V. 69, 313 REMINGER, A.A. 245 RENAN, E. 325 RENGER, J. 57 RENDTORFF, R. 61 RENKEMA, J. 351 REVENTLOW, H. GRAF 294, 352 REYMOND, P. 308 RICHARDS, I.A. 1, 19, 47, 123 RICHARDS, K.H. 161 RICŒUR, P. 1, 2, 5, 7, 19, 29, 51, 66, 93-94, 97, 106, 123, 137, 178, 233, 245, 246, 252, 255, 258, 278, 313, 321 RIEDE, P. 120, 177, 181, 183, 224, 238 RINGGREN, H. 22, 72, 134 RIVLIN, A.A. 98 ROBBINS, V.K. 6, 34 ROBERTS, J.J.M. 57, 59 ROBINSON, T.H. 124 ROM-SHILONI, D. 72, 93, 107 ROTH, W.M.W. 253 ROUDINESCO, E. 318 ROWLEY, H.H. 289, 292 RUDOLF, W. 133, 237 RÜSEN, J. 349 RÜTTGERS, N.K. 84 RYAN, S. 180 RYKEN, L. 36 SÆBØ, M. 268 SANDERS, T. 27 SAUTERMEISTER, J. 308

INDEX OF AUTHORS

SAWYER, J.F.A. 57 SCHAEFER, K. 238 SCHART, A. 129 SCHENKER, A. 180 SCHLÜNGEL-STRAUTMANN, H. 204 SCHMIDT, W.H. 205 SCHNOCKS, J. 225 SCHREINER, J. 134, 174 SCHROER, S. 205 SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, L. 74 SCHWÖBEL, C. 205 SCURLOCK, J. 57, 58 SEACHRIS, J.W. 329 SEARLE, J.R. 34 SEBEOK, T.A. 48, 68 SEIFERT, B. 111, 120 SEMINO, E. 158, 170, 171, 331 SEOW, C.-L. 249, 251, 288, 289, 338, 339 SETHE, K. 242 SEYBOLD, K. 228 SHAFER-ELLIOTT, C. 351 SHAKESPEARE, W. 5, 313 SHAPIRO, M. 245 SHARON, D.M. 284, 289 SHEMESH, Y. 284 SHERWOOD, Y. 51 SHIBLES, W.A. 1 SHONKWILER, R. 242 SINCLAIR J. 66-67 SKEHAN, P.W. 347 SMITH, J.M.P. 124 SMITH, M.S. 13 SMITH-CHRISTOPHER, D.L. 359 SMOLI, E. 241 SNEED, M.R. 247 SNIJDERS, L.A. 308 SNOW FLESHER, L. 353 SOJA, E. 215 SONNET, J.-P. 10, 13, 15, 61, 313, 323 SOVRAN, T. 282 SPIECKERMANN, H. 197 STADE, B. 124 STAGER, L.E. 284 STAUBLI, T. 205 STECK, O.H. 352 STEEN, G. 1, 9, 193, 194, 195, 196, 331 STEFANOV, P. 176

371

STEINGRIMSSON, S.Ø. 55 STELMA, J. 3 STEWART, A.W. 263, 268 STICHER, C. 222 STOCKWELL, P. 48 STOLZ, F. 205 STORDALEN, T. 266 STRAWN, B.A. 103, 104, 152, 153, 160, 162, 176, 179, 183, 285-286, 287, 290-291, 292 STRUNK, W. 152 STUART, D. 114 STUBBS, M. 67 STULMAN, L. 295 SÜSSENBACH, C. 198 SULLIVAN, K. 13, 158 SWEENEY, M.A. 53, 54, 58, 113, 132133 SWEETSER, E. 16 SZOLD, B. 284 SZLOS, M.B. 263 TALSHIR, D. 237, 238, 253 TATE, M.E. 220, 222, 223 TAYLOR, G. 313 TAYLOR, J.R. 1 TERRIEN, S. 291, 293 TESAURO, E. 1 THOMAS, H.A. 349, 360 THOMAS, R. 23 TILFORD, N.L. 263, 268, 276, 278, 337, 338, 340-341 TOBOUL, B. 317 TOV, E. 347, 349 TOY, C.H. 254, 267, 275 TRAN, Q.D. 139 TRISTRAM, H.B. 238, 241, 253, 256 TSENG, M.-Y. 34 TUCKER, D. 215 TUCKER, G.M. 61 TULL, P.K. 53 TURNER, M. 19, 38, 47, 63, 263, 282, 331 TUR-SINAI, N.H. 294-295 UHLIG, T. 61 ULRICH, E. 347 VAN DER HORST, P.W. 289-290 VAN DER KOOIJ, G. 237 VAN DER LUGT, P. 198 VAN DER TOORN, K. 289-290

372 VAN EK, G. VAN HECKE,

INDEX OF AUTHORS

222 P. 2, 10, 25, 123, 140, 173, 175, 176, 177, 181, 193, 222, 224, 225, 233, 263, 281, 282, 285, 295-296, 297, 299, 301, 303, 307 VAN LEEUWEN, R.C. 263, 344 VAN LOON, H. 193, 281, 283-284, 285, 291, 299, 302 VAN ROOY, H.F. 87 VAN WOLDE, E.J. 9, 27, 204, 208, 213, 281, 283, 292 VARGON, S. 285 VEENKER, R.A. 321 VEIJOLA, T. 352 VENDLER, H.H. 4 VERDE, D. 6, 143, 193, 323 VERHEIJ, A.J.C. 340 VERMEYLEN, J.E. 61, 254-255 VICO, G. 1, 50 VOGEL, D. 98 VOLOŠINOV, V. 207 WADE, G.W. 132, 133 WÄLCHLI, S. 281 WAGENAAR, J.A. 124-125 WAGNER, A. 205, 206 WALTKE, B.K. 132, 135, 246 WATANABE, C.E. 104, 108 WATSON, D.F. 34 WATSON, W. 221 WATTS, J.D.W. 53, 57 WEE, J.Z. 318, 326 WEEKS, S. 37, 41, 264 WEHLING, E. 49 WEINFELD, M. 32, 36, 39, 40-41, 43, 44 WEISER, A. 225-226 WEISS, A.L. 8, 161, 197 WEISS, E. 96 WEISS, M. 131, 267, 272

WEISSERT, E. 57, 104-105, 108 WELLHAUSEN, J. 133, 134 WELLS, S. 313 WENHAM, G.J. 342 WERTH, P. 5 WESTERMANN, C. 64, 284 WETZSTEIN, J.G. 325 WHITE, E.B. 152 WHITING, R.M. 104-105 WILDBERGER, H. 53, 55 WILHOT, J.C. 36 WILLIAMS, M.J. 217 WILLIAMSON, H.G.M. 51, 61 WILSON, G.H. 284, 290 WILSON, I.D. 44, 49 WILSON, R.R. 61 WOLFF, H.W. 82, 113, 115, 117, 118, 124, 130, 205, 240 WRIGHT, B. 349 WRIGHT, J.L. 136, 161 XELLA, P. 289-290 YEATS, W.B. 3-4 YODER, C.R. 266, 269, 276, 282 YOUNGBLOOD, K.J. 349, 355, 356 ZANOTTO, M.S. 3 ZARKOVITCH, Y. 315 ZEIDEL, M. 237 ZENGER, E. 27, 57, 198, 211, 220, 225, 239, 240 ZENONI, A. 317, 318 ZERKOWITZ, J. 48 ZIEGLER, J. 349, 355 ZIMMER, H. 354 ZIMMERLI, W. 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 105 ZIMMERMANN, R. 347 ZOBEL, H.J. 211 ZOHARY, D. 96

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

Genesis 1–4 1 1,1–2,3 1,7 1,11 1,12 1,16 1,20–21,24 1,25 1,26 1,29 1,31 2–3 2 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,8 2,9 2,10 2,15 2,16 2,17 2,18 2,24 3 3,3 3,5 3,6 3,14 3,15 3,16 3,22-24 3,22-23 3,22 3,24 4,1-16 4,1 4,18 5 7,14

33215, 34052 333, 339, 340, 341 341 340 340 340 340 43 340 340 340 332, 339, 340 264, 266 340 340 340 340 340 25, 340 265, 340 340 340 340 340 340 29, 39 254, 341, 342 266 342 341 254 254 3146 266 267 265 265 333 2334 13453 22855 25026

8 8,7 8,13 10,8 10,15 10,23 10,24 10,26 11,7 11,9 13,16 15,5 15,11 15,17 16,2 18,6 18,33 19,19 22,23 27,44 30,3 30,14-16 30,25 30,31 31,23 35,15-16 40,10 41,49 41,50-52 44,5 48,5 48,8-20 49,8-12 49,9 49,11-12 49,17 49,23-24

119 30830 30830 13453 13453 13453 13453 13453 117 117 22960 22960 25542 114 83 118 23611 3941 13453 115 83, 134 319 23611 142 3941 134 22229 22960 85 26 85 85 105 103, 10448, 186 95 254 2540

Exodus 1–18 1,19 3,1 3,8

14 134 142 158

374 3,9 3,13 3,15 3,16 3,20 4,17 4,22 6,1 6,3 6,6 7 7,5 8,6 9,9 9,16 9,25 12,39 14,25 15 15,1-18 15,1-10 15,1 15,2 15,3 15,4 15,5 15,6 15,7-8 15,7 15,8-10 15,8-9 15,8 15,9 15,10 15,11 15,12-18 15,12 15,13-18 15,13-14 15,13 15,14-15 15,14 15,15 15,16 15,17-18

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

158 158 158 144 158 158 84 158 158 158 254 158 6, 15 22229 158 306 118 129 154 6, 13, 2438 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 14, 19, 20, 21 14, 15, 17, 55 14, 17, 18, 129 16, 17, 18, 28 14, 17, 28 17, 18, 20 16, 17, 18 18 19, 29 16, 17, 20 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28 14, 16, 17, 18 6, 13, 14, 15, 30 14, 15, 21, 24, 27 14, 18, 22, 25, 28 23 1437 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 55 25 29 2424, 28, 29 14, 23, 2424, 28 21

15,17 15,18 17,14 18,9 19–40 19,4 21,2 21,5 21,17 22,1 22,28 22,30[31] 23,21 23,23 24,24 29,2 31,1-6 32,34 33,19 34,5 34,13

14, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28 14, 21, 23, 26, 26 3134 158 14 25332 23 26 248 142 24817 135 3134 146 23 117 255 144 158 158 30620

Leviticus 1,14-17 2,4-10 2,4 2,5 10,10 11,13-19 11,14 11,16 12,2 13,12 13,20 13,25 13,42 14,45 15,13 15,28 19,4 19,14 20,9 21,19 23,16 24,20 25,3-4 25,8 25,23

122 122 117 117 204 254, 25542 25542 25643 134 22229 22229 22229 22229 30620 229 229 148 77 248 269 229 269 97 229 22

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

25,25 26,1 26,33 27,32

8429 148 20 145

Numbers 1,3 1,19 3,10 3,15 3,39 3,40 11,19-20 13,23 16,30 16,32 17,20 17,23 18,12 20,17 23,19 23,22 24,5-7 24,6 24,8 24,24 25,1-5 33,9 35,25

145 145 145 145 145 145 184 97 22 22 22229 22229 9512 38 29580 22441 26 25 22441 5735 38 22231 26

Deuteronomy 1–4 1–3 2,7-12 2,13 2,18-19 2,20 2,27 2,31-32 3,6 3,17 3,23 4 4,1-40 4,1 4,2-4 4,2 4,3

3522 6, 32, 33, 36 40 40 40 40 38 40 40 40 40 6, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 44, 45 31, 35, 36 35, 37, 41 40 38 38

4,4 4,5-6 4,5 4,7-18 4,9-10 4,9 4,11-12 4,11 4,12 4,15 4,16-18 4,17 4,18 4,19 4,23-28 4,23 4,24 4,25 4,26-28 4,26 4,27 4,29-30 4,29 4,30 4,31 4,32-40 4,33 4,34 4,35 4,36-37 4,36 4,39 4,40 5 5,1 5,5-8 5,32 6,3 6,5 6,12 6,25 7,5 7,11 7,27 8,1 8,4 8,6 8,8 8,11

375 38, 4140, 45 40 35 42 32, 41, 43 41, 44 40, 45 43, 44 43, 44 43, 44 43 25026 40 40, 41 43 41 44 41, 44 41 43 42 40 42 42 44 43 43, 44 44 43 42 43, 44 43 37, 41 6, 32 3732 40 37, 38, 39, 4048 3732 207 41 3732 148 3732 40 3732 30416 37 9512 41

376 8,15 9,3 9,19 10,20 11,14 11,16 11,22 11,32 12,1 12,3 12,11 12,13 12,19 12,30 13,1[12,32] 13,5 14,11 14,12-18 14,15 14,23 14,30 15,5 15,9 16,2 16,6 16,9 16,11 17,10 17,19 19,6 19,9 19,12 21,1 22,6-7 22,6 22,25 24,8 25,19 26,2 26,15 26,17 27,28 28,1 28,13-14 28,14 28,15 28,22 28,28-29 28,29 28,36

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

71 44 115 40 9512 41 3732, 40 3732 3732 148 3134 41 41 41 3732 37, 40 25026 254, 25542 25643 3134 142 3732 41 3134 3134 229 3134 3732 3732 22 3732 22 135 25026 23610 135 3732 3134 3134 21915 37 77 3732 37 37, 38, 39, 4048, 41 3732 8012 7018 71 71

28,45 28,49 28,58 28,63 29,4 29,24 30,3 30,16 30,20 31,12 32 32,4 32,6 32,10 32,11 32,13 32,18 32,23-24 32,24 32,46 33,22 33,27 34,3

248 25332, 25747 3732 274 7121, 30416 71 8219, 9153 37 40 3732 169, 329 169 2334, 169 169 169, 242, 25332 169 169, 22544 289 115 3732 103, 10448 219 22231

Joshua 2,9 2,24 3,13 3,16 9,4 9,5 22,5 23,8 23,12

2948 2948 1615 1615 30416 30416 4047 4047 4047

Judges 1,16 3,13 7,19 9,13 9,15 11,19 18,22 20,33 20,42 20,45

22231 22231 22851 96 22019 23611 3941 134 3941 3941

1 Samuel 2,1 2,10

22440 22440

377

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

2,20 2,29 2,32 4,17 4,19-20 4,19 11,11 13,15 14,16 14,17 14,22 15,4 17,21 17,34-36 17,34 17,35 17,40 19,5 19,11-12 24,11 25,5 25,9 25,31 28,13 31,2

23611 21915 21915 145 135 134 22851 145 2948 145 3941 145 290 154 142 149, 154 147 2357 290 26721 3134 3134 2357 22 3941

2 Samuel 1,6 1,20 1,23 2,18 5,11-12 7,2 7,10-12 7,10 11,11 12,6 12,28 14,4 15,25 17,10 20,2 22,5-6 22,43

3941 35630 103, 25332 25852 9925 9925 26 25 26 147 3134 142 2436, 55 103 3941 166 35630

1 Kings 1,31 1,50-51 2,28 2,31

26 16740 16740 2357

3,8 3,9 3,12 3,17-18 5,5 5,15-32 6,14-18 7,2-5 7,2 7,7 7,9-12 8,5 8,13 9,24 10,15 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,5 17,7 19,6 19,10 19,14 21,1 21,34

22960 207 23063 134 9512 9925 9925 9925 5427 9925 9925 22960 2436, 3518 3518 9926 40 40, 322 40 40 308 118 26721 26721 9612 35630

2 Kings 3,3 6,9 18,6 23,31-35 24,15 25,20

4047 77 39, 4047 105 71 71

Isaiah 1–39 1,8 1,24 2,1-4 2,7 2,8 2,10-14 2,12 2,16 3,1 3,12 4,5-6 5,1-7 5,2 5,24

6, 47, 61 59 26 35218 129 148 56 54 58 26 35425 55 96 25 18

378 5,26 5,29 5,30 6,9-10 6,9 6,10 6,13 7,3 7,23 8,14-15 8,14 9,1 9,3 10,10 10,16 10,18-19 10,24 10,27 10,31 11,1 11,10 11,11-16 11,12 11,15 13,2 13,8 14,31 14,32 15,3 16,2 16,3 16,8-9 17,5-6 17,10 17,12-13 18,1-2 18,6 19,1 19,24-25 21,15 22,8 23,4-5 23,8 24,7 24,13 25,1 25,12 26,17-18 27,1 27,13

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

59 28633 74 61, 62, 65 62 62, 63 54 5427 9612 16126 16228 74, 75 75 148 26 54 1438 8114, 9153 5427 54, 276 59 5633 59 7121 59 133, 134 2948 35218 238 236 23064 9614 355 9926 197 25853 25542 148 56 236 5427 133 9926 96 355 20 22125 134 25333 56

28,2 28,16 29,4 29,9-10 29,9 29,11-12 29,15 29,18 30,12 30,13 30,14 30,17 30,25 30,27 30,30-31 30,30 30,33 31,1 31,4-5 31,4 31,7 32 32,1-2 32,1 32,2 32,3-4 32,12 32,13-14 32,14-15 32,14 32,15 32,16-17 32,18 32,19 32,20 33 33,2 33,5 33,11 33,14 33,16 33,17 33,18-19 33,18 33,20-21 33,20 33,21 33,22 33,23 34,4

5426 35218 22 62, 63 63 62 7426 62, 67 8116 269 134, 269 59 3519 44 5326 44 44 129 16126 103, 16227, 18637 148 5219, 55, 59 48 51 51, 52, 56 62 96 54 6, 52 59 53 55 55 53 5734 55, 59 59 59, 67 18, 53 59 22125 59 58 132 54 2436, 56, 58, 60 6, 56, 57, 58, 59 59 54, 58 96

379

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

34,6 34,11-15 34,11 35,5 35,9 37,22 40–55 40,3-5 40,3 40,6-8 40,10-11 40,11 40,20 40,24 40,25 40,27 40,31 41,2 41,17-20 42–43 42,4 42,6 42,7 42,13-14 42,13 42,14-16 42,14 42,15 42,16 42,17 42,18-25 42,18-20 42,18 42,19 42,20 42,21 42,22 42,23 42,24 42,25 43,5 43,6 43,8 43,10-13 43,10 43,12 43,14-21 43,16

3519 237 23718, 238 62, 66 1769 133 61, 791 7427 25332 7427 2540, 159 71 272 302 23820 28531 25332, 25747 302 7427 67 6714 6714, 68 62, 67, 71, 7428 159, 16126 16228 64, 6411, 159 134 64, 65 6, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 6411 69 62 67, 68, 69, 71 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 69 6714 6714, 69, 70 69 6714 6714, 69, 70, 28636 71 6714, 71 62, 67, 68, 71 68 68 68 7427 7224

44,1-5 44,6 44,18 44,27 44,28 45,1 45,9-10 45,10 45,20 46,5 47,14 48,13 48,15 48,16-19 48,16 48,17 48,18 48,20-21 48,21 49,2 49,7-12 49,8-13 49,10 49,22 50,38 51,3 51,6 51,9-11 51,11 51,13 51,16 51,17 51,20 52,11-12 55,12-13 55,12 56–66 56,7 56,10 57,8-10 57,13 58 58,11 59,7 59,8 59,9 59,10 60,9 63,6 63,10-11

7427 26 62, 7225 30830 150 150 16126 133 7225 23820 18 2189 7120 72 72 72 72 7427 71 22019 7427 143 71 71 30830 2128, 74, 7427 22749 7427 74 2189 2189, 22019 287 35630 7427 7427 74 61 7120 67, 7325 32028 332, 333 84 84 234 7224, 76 73 67, 71 7120 179 203

380

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

63,12 63,13 63,14 64,5 64,7 65,22LXX 66 66,20

71 71 7122 302 8, 16126, 163 264 791 7120

Jeremiah 1,3 1,10 2,5 2,6 2,20 2,21 2,23-24 2,31-32 2,32 3,2-3 3,5 3,6 3,19-20 3,21 4,4 4,7 4,13 4,30 5,6 5,10-11 5,17 6,9 6,15 6,16 6,24 6,25 7,1 7,11 8,6 8,7 8,13 8,22 9,9 9,10 10,17-22 10,22 11,1 11,13 12,3 12,9

358 8741 39 66, 71 83 25, 96 16334 8, 16126, 165 90 83 292 83 16126 90 44 103 25332, 25747 83 18637, 238 355 96 96, 355 144 7224 134 135 79 180 247 245, 256 96 90 236 219 139 219 79 35630 3519 25542

13,24 13,25 14,8-9 14,8 14,18 14,21 16,7 17,1 17,11 18,1 18,2 18,3 18,7 18,9 18,13 18,15 20,14 21,17 22,6-7 22,10–23,8 22,15 22,20-23 22,20 22,22 23,1-6 23,2 23,4 24,6 25,19LXX 25,30 25,34-38 25,34-35 26–52 29 29,5-7 29,10-14 29,10 29,14 30–31 30 30,1 30,2 30,5–31,22 30,5-11 30,5-6 30,6 30,7 30,8-11 30,8

302 90 8, 164, 165 16334, 164, 25956, 260 135 90 8950 8844 30831 79 86 8322 8741 8741 8322 7224 134 144 9925 10555 9925 9925 82 82 139 144 145 8741 35832 16126, 21915 103 3519 79 7, 79, 90 9051 9051 144 80, 8219 7, 79, 90, 97 82 79, 85 791 7, 79, 80, 88, 89 81 80, 85, 86, 88 80, 86, 8712, 134 89 8948 81

381

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

30,9 30,10-11 30,10 30,12-17 30,12-13 30,13 30,14 30,15 30,16-17 30,16 30,17 30,18–31,1 30,18 30,21 30,22 30,23 30,24 31 31,1-18 31,2-7 31,2 31,4 31,7-14 31,7 31,8-14 31,8 31,9 31,10 31,11 31,12 31,13 31,14 31,15-22 31,15-17 31,15 31,16-22 31,18-20 31,18 31,20 31,21-22 31,21 31,22 31,23-40 31,23-26 31,23 31,25 31,26 31,27-30 31,27 31,28

81, 89 81, 87 89 81 82 81, 88 82, 90 82 8948 82 82, 90 82 82, 90 82, 85 86 82 82 84, 85 85 83 83 83, 86, 9612 83 83, 89 143 67, 83, 85, 143 71, 83, 84, 89, 90 84 8429 84, 9512 8950 84, 86 85 85, 8950 85, 89 8948 85 89 85, 89, 90 85 8322 80, 81, 88 7, 86, 90 86 2436, 86 86 87, 8949 87 87, 90 87, 90

31,29 31,31-34 31,32 31,33 31,35-37 31,35 31,38-40 32 32,1 32,37-44 38,23LXX 39,8 40,12 42,10 42,16 42,18 45,4 48,1 48,28 48,32 48,38 48,40 48,44 49,9 49,15 49,16 49,22 49,23 49,24 49,33 50,7 50,38 50,39 50,43 51,31 51,33 51,37 51,38 52,26

87, 90 86, 87, 90 87, 90 88 86, 88, 91 89 86 7, 79, 90 79 9051 35832 30620 96 8741 3941 286 8741 22125 239 9614 238 25332, 25747 233 355 25332 25332, 25747 25332, 25747 2948 134 219, 237 8639 30830 237 134 25852 7121 219 10448 71

Ezekiel 1–24 3,11 3,15 3,26 5 7,10 7,16 7,27 11,1-13

7, 93, 98 35832 35832 3941 98 22229 239 104 98

382 11,24 11,25 12,10 12,12 12,13 15–23 15–21 15 15,1-5 15,2 15,3 15,4-5 15,4 15,5 15,6-8 15,6 15,7 15,22-24 16 16,29 17 17,1-10 17,3 17,5-10 17,5 17,6-10 17,6 17,7 17,8 17,9-10 17,9 17,10 17,11-21 17,12 17,14 17,15-19 17,15 17,16-18 17,19-21 17,22 17,24 19 19,1-9 19,2-4 19,2 19,3-4 19,3

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

35832 35832 104 104 16333 7, 93 95, 101, 102 96, 98, 100, 107, 108 96, 97 9719 96, 97, 100 98, 101, 102 96, 100 96, 97 96, 101 97, 98, 101 98 10031 93, 108 9926 96, 10137, 105, 107 98 99, 25332, 25747 98 99 99 97, 99 99, 25332, 25747 99 101 99, 101 99 99, 101 99 99 99 99 99 99 306 22229 105 94, 100, 102, 10344, 104, 105, 106 105 104 10555 104

19,4 19,5-9 19,5 19,6 19,7 19,8 19,9 19,10-14 19,10-11 19,10 19,11-12 19,11 19,12-14 19,12 19,13-14 19,13 19,14 20,1-38 20,37 20,45-49 21 21,1-10 21,1-5 21,2 21,3 21,6-12 21,6-10 21,7 21,8-9 21,9 22,23-31 22,25 23 23,1-2 23,31 24,15-24 24,18 26,9 26,10 27,7 27,8 27,11-24 27,15 27,25-26 28,7 30,11 31,12 32,2 33,30-33

104 105 104 104 10448 104, 16333 104 96, 100, 101, 107 101 10033, 101 10555 100 101 100, 101, 102 101, 10555 101 100, 101, 102 93 145 10238 102 10239 96, 102, 107 102 102 10238 102 102 102 102 10345 103, 286 93, 108 149 105 108 105 30620 22 5839 255 10447 9926 255 20 20 269 103 93

383

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

34 34,1-16 34,2-10 34,2 34,5 34,6 34,7 34,10 34,11-22 34,11-12 34,13 34,14 34,17-22 34,23-24 36,12 38,13 39,4 44,26 46,24 Hosea 2,10 2,14 2,16-17 3,5 4,16 5,1 5,12-14 5,12 5,13 5,14 6,1 6,3 6,4 6,11 7 7,3-12 7,3-9 7,3-7 7,3 7,4-9 7,4-7 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,7

139, 150, 300 149 300 300 149 149 149 149 300 149 149 149 300 300 66, 71 10344, 10447 25542 229 3518 9512 96 55 8115, 9153 16125 163, 16125 16125 16334 16228 8, 162, 292 16125 16125, 16228 16125, 162, 167 35832 7, 111, 112 7, 111, 112, 121, 122 121, 122 111, 112, 113, 116, 11717, 118, 121, 122 113 49 111 113, 114, 115, 118, 121 114, 115, 121 113, 115, 121 113, 115, 118, 121, 122

7,8-12

13,3 13,5-8 13,7-8 14,6 14,7 14,8-9 14,8

111, 112, 116, 117, 120-121 117, 119 111, 117, 118, 119, 121 118, 119, 121, 122 119, 122 119, 122 111, 119, 120, 122 111, 120, 122 1114 1114 12033 16331 38, 16125, 162 96 22229 85 119, 16125, 162, 25026 8, 16125, 167 150 8, 16125, 17919 16125, 16230 306 22019 96

Joel 1,12 1,15 1,20 2,1-2 2,5 2,11 3,4 4,1 4,8 4,14-16 4,16

96 35215 30830 35215 18 35215 35215 35832 35832 35215 352

Amos 1 1,4 1,11 1,15 2,10 2,15 3,4

293 44 292 35832 71 25852 18637, 21914, 28633

7,8-9 7,8 7,9 7,10 7,11-12 7,11 7,12 7,13-16 7,13 7,16 9,8 9,10 10,1 10,4 10,11 11,11

384

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

3,5 3,24 5,18 5,20 5,23 9,3 9,4 9,14

16332, 25026 293 74, 35215 74, 35215 2128 25333 35832 35832

Obadiah 1,5 4

355 25332, 25747

Jonah 2,17

260

Micah 1–5 1–3 1 1,1 1,2–5,14 1,2-16 1,2 1,5 1,6-7 1,6 1,7 1,9 1,12 1,13-16 1,13 1,16 2–5 2,8 2,9 2,10 2,12-13 2,12 3,9-12 4–7 4–5 4 4,1-5 4,4 4,6-7 4,8-13 4,8 4,9-10 4,9

124 8, 124, 137 128, 137 12511 12511 129 129 128 129 128 129 128, 129 128 127-128, 129 125, 128 130 12511 12511 12511 12511 26, 124 132 124 8, 124, 137 124 125 124 96 132 131-132 125, 132, 133 135 133, 134

4,10 4,11-13 4,11-12 4,13 5,7 6–7 6,1–7,20 7,1 7,5-6

125, 133, 134, 135, 136 136 136 125, 136 18637 124 12511 354, 355 249

Nahum 1,4 1,6 2,12-13 2,12 2,13 3,19 12,13

30830 28636 10448 21914 10448, 18637 8116 10448

Habakkuk 1,8 2,18 3,13 3,16 3,17 3,19

25332, 25747 148 142 304 96 7121

Zephaniah 1,7 1,14-16 1,17 2,2 2,7 2,14 3,7 3,8 3,14 3,20 7,17

35215 35215 70 35215 35832 237, 238 354 35215 133 35832 67

Haggai 2,19

96

Zechariah 2,17 3,10 3,18 6,10 8,12

21915 96 149 35832 96

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

9–14 9 9,9-17 9,9 9,10 9,13 9,14 9,15 9,16 9,17 10,2-3 10,3 10,4 10,5 11,3 11,4-17 11,4-11 11,4-5 11,4 11,5 11,6 11,7 11,8 11,9 11,10 11,14 11,15 11,16 11,17 12,10 13 13,7-9 13,7 13,9 14,2 23,1-2

8, 139 143, 152 2540, 151, 153, 154, 155 133, 152 143, 152 143, 152 152 143 8, 139, 140, 141, 142, 150, 152 22229 139 8, 2540, 140, 144, 145, 150 145 145 139 139, 141, 14610, 14815 146 150 146 146, 147 147, 150 147 140, 146 147 147, 148 147, 148 148 148 148 149 149 139, 141, 148 149, 150 149 35832 149

Malachi 1,8 3,11 3,19

67 96 18, 114

Psalms 1,3 1,4 2

222, 306 260 5737

3–14 5,4 5,12 6 7,3 8,4 9–10 9,10 10,9 10,16 15–24 15 16 16,11VUL 17

17,1-15 17,1-8 17,1 17,2 17,3-4 17,3 17,4 17,5 17,6 17,7 17,8 17,9-14 17,9-12 17,10 17,11 17,12 17,13-14 17,13 17,14

17,15 18 18,2

385 174 187 3134 175 10343, 174 2189 174 8 174 26 8, 174 174 174 187 8, 9, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 17919, 183, 186, 18738, 190, 191 175 186 175, 178, 187, 189 178, 187, 188 180 176, 178, 17920, 186, 187, 189 9, 174, 176, 178, 179, 180, 18231, 18435, 185, 189 174, 178 178, 189 178, 188, 189 9, 176, 177, 178, 181, 186, 187, 188 186 180, 190 177, 178, 185, 186 176, 177, 178, 187, 188 9, 16227, 174, 176, 186, 187, 188 177, 188 177, 186, 188, 189 9, 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 178, 179, 182, 186, 187, 189 16126, 173, 174 152, 153, 155

386 18,3 18,5-6 18,9 19 19,6 20,8 21 21,5 22 22,10 22,14 22,15 22,22 23 23,1-4 23,2 23,4 23,5 24 25,5 25,9 26,8 26,12 27,11 29,5 29,7 30,2 30,6 31,13 32 33,7 33,16-17 34,11 35,7 35,17 36,9 37,2 37,28 38 40,5 42,2 42,3 44,3 45–48 45 45,7 45,15

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

8, 167 166 44 174 16334 129 174 26 174 134 10343, 174, 186, 28633 3941 10343, 174, 22441 169, 17053, 174, 181, 300 169, 300 142 1438 169, 300 174 72 72 21915 76 76 269 44 20 187 26721 175 1615 129 174 234 174 8432 30417 188 175 22961 310 25335 25 5737, 35218 190, 191 26 26

45,18 46 46,5 46,6 46,7 48 48,7 48,8 48,13 49,15[14] 50,3 50,16 51 51,1-11 51,1-2 51,3-11 51,3-9 51,3 51,4 51,5-8 51,5 51,6 51,7 51,8 51,9 51,10 51,11 51,12-21 51,12-19 51,12-14 51,12-13 51,12 51,13 51,14 51,15-21 51,15 51,16-17 51,17-21 51,18-21 51,18-19 51,19-20 51,19 51,20-21 51,20 52,7[5]

26 57, 5736 57 187 2948 57, 5736 134 57 132 14916, 187 44 180 9, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 211, 212, 213 199 197, 201 197, 200 197 199 199 198 199 199, 20115 199 20114 199 20114, 210 199 211 197 197, 198, 202, 210 208, 209 198, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209, 211 198, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208 202, 203 200 200, 20114 20114 202 210 198 210 198, 210 197 210 274

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

52,10 55,7 55,22 55,23 56,7 57 57,5 57,7 58,5 58,7 60,5 61,3 61,6 62,11 63,8 65,10 66,6 68,6 69 69,37 71,3 72 72,4 72,6 73–89 73 73,12 73,18 74,1 74,2 74,11 74,13-14 74,15 74,20 75,5 75,6 75,8 76,4 77,20 78,13 78,52-54 78,52 78,69 79,13 80 80,1-3 80,2 80,9 80,12

2634 239 180 180 18125 17714, 16 174 234 115 174 179 132 3134 22229 239 310 30830 21915 183 3134 219 35218 142 16228 215 184 22229 184 221 2436, 25 183 25333 30830 7426 22440 22440 183 289 142, 143 1615 143 7122 26, 35218 142, 221 9613 2540 7122 25 306

80,14 80,16 81,3 83,4 83,14 84 84,2-3 84,2 84,3 84,4-5 84,4 84,8 84,10 84,11-12 84,12 86,11 87 87,1 88,7 88,19 89 89,18 89,25 89,27 89,37 90–106 90–104 90 90,1 90,2 90,3 90,4 90,5-6 90,6 90,10 90,12 90,14-15 90,14 90,16-17 90,17 91 91,1-4 91,1-2 91,1 91,2 91,3-4 91,3

387 144 25, 9926 2128 18125 302 233, 24027, 35218 239, 240 240 239, 240 240 236, 239, 25026, 251 24030 240 240 240 207, 3134 5633, 5633, 5737 35218 7426 7426 9, 215 22440 22440 163 26 9, 215, 216 219 219, 221, 225, 226, 229 219, 22646 225, 226 226, 227 228, 22959 22336 30417 228 229, 22961, 230 232 190 23169 21811 219, 220, 221 242 220 219 220 242 16331, 220

388 91,4 91,9 91,13 92 92,7 92,9 92,11 92,12-14 92,12-13 92,13-15 92,13 92,14 92,15 92,16 93 93,1 93,2 93,4 93,5 94 94,22 95–99 95 95,1 95,7 96,10 97,2-4 97,7 98,5 99,4 99,5 99,9 100 100,5 101 101,6 101,7 102 102,1-2 102,2-12 102,3-8 102,5-6 102,6 102,7-9 102,7-8 102,8 102,11 102,13-23

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

220 220 174, 254 222 22335 216, 217, 22230, 22336 224 23169 2634 222 16230, 222 223 22229, 223 220, 221 57, 217, 218 218 2178, 21811, 22647 58, 216, 217 22957 221 22023, 221 218 221 22023 221 218 44 148 2128 21811 20 20 232 22646, 22956, 57 22338 22338 21811, 22338 217, 23613, 23923 236 23714 237 22336, 283 23715 239 236, 237 238 23613 236

102,13 102,14 102,15-17 102,17 102,20-23 102,20 102,22-23 102,24-25 102,25 102,26-29 102,26 102,27 102,28 102,29 103,3 103,5 103,15-16 103,17 103,19 104 104,3 104,5 104,16 104,21 104,22 104,24-26 104,29-30 105,33 106,1 106,9 107,7 107,10 107,23-27 107,26 107,32 109,17 109,23 112,9 114,7 118,28 119,35 119,105 119,132 119,135 121,5 124,7 125,2 125,5 127,1

22646 23611, 23714 237 218, 23714 23714 216, 217 237 236 22646 236 218, 227 22646, 227 23169 21811 221 25332 22336, 304 22647, 22956 21811 22022 216 218 25 18230, 286 21914 255 227 269, 306 22956 71, 22021, 30830 66 7019 255 2948 20 25127 8, 163 22440 26 20 72 7224 3134 72 163 2343 30831 7223 23820

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

132 132,13 136,16 139,6-10 139,6 139,11 139,13 139,18 140,6 142,8 143,3 143,8 143,10 143,13 144,4 146,8 147,3 147,10-11 148,14 Job 2,4 2,13 3 3,20 3,23 3,24 4,10-11 4,12-21 5,2 5,6-7 5,7 5,10 6,1-4 6,2-3 6,2 6,4 6,15-20 6,28 7,6 7,13 7,17-20 7,20 8 8,7 8,11-12 8,11 8,16-19

35218 24030 66, 71 25335 25335 74 2334 22961 2343 7019 7426 187 76 35630 25958 67 28423 129 22440 5324 295 248, 283, 285 285 285, 301 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 294, 297 287, 290 28529 289, 293 289 289, 30831 294 288 289 284, 288 28528, 288, 289, 290 294-295 295 25852 28423 303 288, 290 311 22229 296 22229, 307 296

9,25-26 9,25 9,28 10,16-17 12–14 12,1–13,17 12,2 12,7-8 12,7 12,11 12,15 12,19 12,22 12,24-25 12,25 13,12 13,18–14,22 13,25 13,27 13,28 14 14,2 14,7-10 14,7-9 14,7-8 14,7 14,9 14,10 14,11-12 14,11 14,12 14,13 14,18-19 15 15,24-27 16 16,6 16,12-14 16,12-13 16,9 16,12 16,13 17,25 18,3 18,4 18,8-10 18,16-17

389 247, 25540, 258, 260 25852 284 290, 291 10, 299, 300, 301, 311, 312 301 302 247, 257 7121, 293 30831, 30932 310 7121 301 301 73, 301 302 301, 302 302, 305 303 304 311, 311 25958, 304, 305 305, 30933 30933 306 277, 306 307 30933 307, 309, 310 30724, 309, 311 308, 309 311-312 310, 311 306 292 293 284 291-292 290 291-292, 293 291 293 74 293 293 2343 273

390 18,16 18,18 19,7-12 19,10 19,20 20,8 20,14 20,15 20,21 20,23 21,19 24 24,13 24,18-24 24,18 24,19 24,20 24,24 27,1-7 28 28,6 28,7 28,8 28,21 29,3 29,15 29,19 30–31 33,11 34,3 35,15 37,8 38,8-11 38,37 38,39-40 39,2 39,9-12 39,26-30 39,26 39,27 40,23 40,30 42,5 Proverbs 1–9 1,1–9,18 1,4

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

304, 305 74 270 274, 305, 306 3941 188 18434 184 188 184 18231 311 7224 311 25853 311 306 304, 305 288 256, 257 247 255 188 188 74 67, 77 307 288 303 30831 144 21914 310 22961 18230 22961 224 256 245, 247, 25332 25332 134 9926 342 3733, 41, 254, 256, 343, 344 270, 275, 278 234

1,7 1,10-19 1,11-14 1,15 1,15LXX 1,16 1,17-18 1,17 1,18 1,19 1,20 2,4-5 2,7 2,8 2,11 2,14 2,14LXX 2,15 2,20 2,21-22 2,21 2,22 3,13-18 3,13 3,14-15 3,16-17 3,17 3,18 3,19 4,11 4,27 6,6-8 6,6 7,6-27 7,6-23 7,25 8 8,2 8,20 8,22 8,27-29 8,34 9 10,1–22,16 10,7 10,8 10,9 10,25 10,30

342 234 234 7224 35833 234, 235 234 16333, 234, 235 235 234, 26721 35630 40 18125 24610 41 24610 35833 76 41 274 274 274 265 266 265 265 7224, 265 265, 266, 268, 269 256 72 40 344, 345 338 344, 345 338 7224 343 7224 7224 2334 256 238 343 270, 275, 278 272, 273 25230 76 273 273, 274, 275

391

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

10,31 11,20 11,22 11,28 11,30 12,3 12,4 12,11 12,12 12,14 12,28 13,2 13,3 13,12 14,3 14,30 14,35 15,2 15,4 15,25 16,1 16,2 16,8 16,9 16,14-15 16,17 16,23 17,3 17,7 18,6-7 18,10 18,20 19,12 19,21 20,2 20,24 21,6 22,5 23,22 23,33 24,30-34 24,32 24,42 25,3 25,20 25,25 26,2

22229, 276-277 76 250 275 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 275 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275 272, 304 271 271, 272, 275 277 7224 277 4150 268, 270 25230, 276, 304 272, 304 248 25230 269, 270 274 24711 247 335 24711 248 4152 230 30831 25230 25230 132 277 24818 24711 24818 24711 332, 333 76 13453 20730 344 338 35630 30831 30831 30831 241, 247, 250

26,3 26,7 26,9 26,10 26,14 26,20 27,8 27,10 27,21 28,6 28,15 28,18 30 30,10 30,11 30,18-19 30,18 30,19 30,30 31,24 31,30

250, 30831 30831 30831 30831 30831 30831 236, 251 335 30831 76, 247 103, 24818 76 260 26, 248 248 247, 252, 254 253 260 103 9926 342

Ruth 1,14 1,16 2,2 2,8 2,21 2,23

39 144 24922 3946 3946 3946

Song of Songs 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,11 1,13 1,14 1,15 1,16 2,3 2,4-5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 2,10 2,12 2,14 2,15

314 313, 318 314 32541 314 314 322, 323, 328 314 314, 324 324 32541 31510 314 314 314 97 239, 322, 328 319

392 2,16 3,1-5 3,5 3,10 4,1-7 4,1 4,4 4,7 4,8 4,10-11 4,10 4,12 4,13-14 4,13 5 5,2-8 5,2-3 5,2 5,4-5 5,5 5,10-16 5,12 5,13 5,16 6 6,2 6,3 6,4-9 6,4-7 6,8 6,9 6,10 6,11 6,12 7,2-8 7,3 7,8 7,9-10 7,10 7,11 7,12 7,13-14 7,13 8 8,3 8,4

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

323 3157, 8 31510 32541 325 23924, 32233, 323, 326 325 326 21914 32541 314, 32541 321, 325 325 31927 321 3157, 8 321 23924, 314, 322, 323 319-320 320 325 32535 326 326 321 321 323 322 325 322, 32334 23924, 322, 323, 323, 328 32541, 328 22229, 328 321 325 325 327 327 315 314, 323 22229 319 314 325 32541 31510

8,6 8,9 8,10 8,13 8,14

289 325 325 328 323

Qohelet 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4-11 1,10 1,12–2,8 1,12-18 1,12 1,13 1,14 1,15 1,16 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4-8 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,9 2,10 2,11 2,12 2,13 2,15 2,17 2,18-19 2,19 2,24-26 2,22 2,25 2,26 3,1-8 3,9 3,10-15 3,10 3,12 3,16-22 3,18 3,19 3,21

11 329, 336 11, 332 3318, 335 331 338 337 330 334, 336 337 261, 334, 336, 338 22961 336 333, 336 3318 337 336, 339 340 340 340 336 336, 338 334, 336 338 74 3318, 333 334 333 3318 335 333 3318 334 256 3318 335 338 335 335 339 333 3318

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

3,22 4,1 4,4 4,8 4,11 4,16 4,17[5,1] 5,2 5,6[5] 5,10 5,11[10] 5,16[15] 6,8 6,9 6,11 6,12 7,1 7,4 7,13 7,16 7,18 7,23-29 7,23 8,1 8,2 8,4 8,5 8,7 8,10-15 8,10 8,14 8,15 9,5 9,7-10 9,11 10,2 10,4 10,12 10,14 10,20 11,7–12,7 11,7 11,9 12,8 12,9-14 12,9-10 12,9 12,11 12,13

3318, 335 336 334, 338 3318 3318 334 336, 338 30831 3318 333, 334 3318 3318 3318 334 3318, 334 25958 30831 230, 25026 3318 3318 3318 335, 336 345 3318 248 248, 3318 230 3318 335 334 334 335 230 335 25852 230 248 251 3318 247, 249 335, 336, 339 339 339 11, 332 329 345 329 334 334

Lamentations 1,2LXX 1,3LXX 1,4LXX 1,5LXX 1,6LXX 1,7-9LXX 1,7LXX 1,10LXX 1,11LXX 1,12LXX 1,13LXX 1,14LXX 1,15LXX 1,16LXX 1,17LXX 1,18LXX 1,19LXX 1,20LXX 1,22LXX 2,1-4LXX 2,1LXX 2,2 2,2LXX 2,4 2,4LXX 2,5 2,5LXX 2,6LXX 2,7-9LXX 2,7LXX 2,8LXX 2,9LXX 2,10LXX 2,11LXX 2,12LXX 2,13 2,13LXX 2,14LXX 2,15LXX 2,16 2,17 2,17LXX 2,18LXX 2,19 2,19LXX 2,20-21LXX

393 36039 357, 36040 35321, 355, 357, 35935, 37, 36039 35217, 358, 36040 35217, 35935 36040 36040 36040 359, 36040 351, 353, 354, 36040 35937 36040 35935, 36040 35217 35935 358, 36040 355, 359 35321, 36039, 40 354, 36039 351 352, 35935 294 35217, 353, 35935, 37 290 35935 3472 35935, 37, 36040 351, 35217, 355 35937 35217 35935 35217, 355 35935, 36039 35217, 35935, 36040 359 23820 35217, 359 355, 358 35217, 35935 292 22440, 294 354, 36040 35935, 37 22851 356, 259 347-362

394 2,20LXX 2,21 2,21LXX 2,22LXX 3,1-20 3,1LXX 3,2 3,5-9 3,5LXX 3,6 3,7 3,7LXX 3,9 3,9LXX 3,15LXX 3,19LXX 3,20LXX 3,32-34LXX 3,42 3,43 3,43LXX 3,48LXX 3,51LXX 3,52 3,66LXX 4LXX 4,1-5 4,1LXX 4,2LXX 4,3 4,5LXX 4,6LXX 4,7LXX 4,8LXX 4,10LXX 4,11LXX 4,12LXX 4,13 4,14 4,14LXX 4,16 4,19 4,20 4,21 4,22 5,11LXX 5,15LXX

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

3496, 350, 351, 353, 354, 358 294 3496, 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359 351, 353 76 351 7122, 73, 75, 25026 270 35937 7426, 76 76 35937 76 35935 35321 360 35321, 360 36040 294 294 351 35935 354 234, 25026 351 356 130 356, 35937 35935 10448 356 35935 35935 356, 357 35935 351, 35217, 35935, 37 35937 355 67, 71 356 130 25332, 25747 22019 287 35935 35935, 36040 36039

5,17LXX 5,18LXX 5,22LXX

357, 36040 35935 35217

Daniel 1,4 1,17 2,4 3,9 5,26 7,4 8,3

24919 24919 26 26 229 176 16740

Ezra 6,11

275

Nehemiah 2,3 5,8

26 23

1 Chronicles 10,2 25,5 29,10

3941 22440 22647

2 Chronicles 1,10 1,11 1,12 5,6 6,2 14,3 30,27 32,21 33,11 36,6 36,15

24919 24919 24919 22960 2436 148 21915 146 71 71 219

Deuterocanonical books Judith 8,5

238

Wisdom 4,20–5,23 5 5,6 5,7

259 254 259 259

395

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE PASSAGES

5,9–12,14 5,9-14 5,9-12 5,9 5,10 5,11 5,13-14 5,14

260 247, 254, 258-259 260 259 259 259 260 260

Ben Sira 1,20 3,13 13,8 24,12-22 29,24 39,5

264, 266 24919 24919 264 2368 2368

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

SERIES III 131. C.M. TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, 1997. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149.

XXIV-721

p. 60 € J. VAN RUITEN & M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. 75 € Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken, 1997. XX-540 p. M. VERVENNE & J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. 75 € Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans, 1997. XI-637 p. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis ETL / BETL 1982-1997, 1999. IX337 p. 40 € G. DE SCHRIJVER, Liberation Theologies on Shifting Grounds. A Clash of 53 € Socio-Economic and Cultural Paradigms, 1998. XI-453 p. A. SCHOORS (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 1998. XI-528 p. 60 € W.A. BIENERT & U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in 95 € den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, 1999. XXV-848 p. É. GAZIAUX, L’autonomie en morale: au croisement de la philosophie et 75 € de la théologie, 1998. XVI-760 p. 75 € J. GROOTAERS, Actes et acteurs à Vatican II, 1998. XXIV-602 p. F. NEIRYNCK, J. VERHEYDEN & R. CORSTJENS, The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995, 1998. 2 vols., VII-1000-420* p. 95 € 90 € E. BRITO, Heidegger et l’hymne du sacré, 1999. XV-800 p. 60 € J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts, 1999. XXV-828 p. N. CALDUCH-BENAGES & J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert, 1999. XXVII-463 p. 75 € J.-M. AUWERS & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, 1999. XLII-482 p. 75 € C. BEGG, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185), 2000. X-650 p. 75 € J.M. ASGEIRSSON, K. DE TROYER & M.W. MEYER (eds.), From Quest to Q. Festschrift James M. Robinson, 2000. XLIV-346 p. 60 € T. ROMER (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 2000. XII265 p. 75 € F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur: Bibliographie primaire et secondaire - Primary 75 € and Secondary Bibliography 1935-2000, 2000. XXVI-544 p. G.J. BROOKE & J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related 75 € Texts, 2000. XXI-307 p.

[2]

BETL

150. F. NEIRYNCK, Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays, 2001. XVII666 p. 60 € 151. B. DOYLE, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking. A Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27, 2000. XII-453 p. 75 € 152. T. MERRIGAN & J. HAERS (eds.), The Myriad Christ. Plurality and the Quest 75 € for Unity in Contemporary Christology, 2000. XIV-593 p. 153. M. SIMON, Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Genèse et évaluation de son 75 € commentaire du Symbole des apôtres, 2000. XVI-688 p. 154. J. VERMEYLEN, La loi du plus fort. Histoire de la rédaction des récits 80 € davidiques de 1 Samuel 8 à 1 Rois 2, 2000. XIII-746 p. 155. A. WÉNIN (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and 60 € History, 2001. XXX-643 p. 156. F. LEDEGANG, Mysterium Ecclesiae. Images of the Church and its Members 84 € in Origen, 2001. XVII-848 p. 157. J.S. BOSWELL, F.P. MCHUGH & J. VERSTRAETEN (eds.), Catholic Social 60 € Thought: Twilight of Renaissance, 2000. XXII-307 p. 158. A. LINDEMANN (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 2001. XXII-776 p. 60 € 159. C. HEMPEL, A. LANGE & H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 2002. XII-502 p. 80 € 160. L. BOEVE & L. LEIJSSEN (eds.), Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern 60 € Context, 2001. XVI-382 p. 161. A. DENAUX (ed.), New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis. Festschrift 60 € J. Delobel, 2002. XVIII-391 p. 162. U. BUSSE, Das Johannesevangelium. Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Mit einer Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986-1998, 2002. XIII-572 p. 70 € 163. J.-M. AUWERS & H.J. DE JONGE (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 2003. LXXXVIII-718 p. 60 € 164. L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, 180 € 2003. XXV-X-1406 p. 165. R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE (eds.), Resurrection in the New 70 € Testament. Festschrift J. Lambrecht, 2002. XXXI-551 p. 166. M. LAMBERIGTS & L. KENIS (eds.), Vatican II and Its Legacy, 2002. XII-512 p. 65 € 167. P. DIEUDONNÉ, La Paix clémentine. Défaite et victoire du premier jansénisme français sous le pontificat de Clément IX (1667-1669), 2003. XXXIX302 p. 70 € 168. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls 60 € and in the Biblical Tradition, 2003. XXXIV-491 p. 169. D. OGLIARI, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the So-Called Semipelagians, 75 € 2003. LVII-468 p. 170. G. COOMAN, M. VAN STIPHOUT & B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-Bernard Van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church80 € State Relations, 2003. XX-530 p. 171. B. BOURGINE, L’herméneutique théologique de Karl Barth. Exégèse et dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, 2003. XXII-548 p. 75 €

BETL

[3]

172. J. HAERS & P. DE MEY (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a 90 € Relational Theology, 2003. XIII-923 p. 173. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, 60 € 2004. XII-336 p. 174. J.-P. DELVILLE, L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interprétations de la parabole des ouvriers à la vigne (Matthieu 20,1-16), 2004. XLII-775 p. 70 € 175. E. BRITO, J.G. Fichte et la transformation du christianisme, 2004. XVI808 p. 90 € 176. J. SCHLOSSER (ed.), The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, 2004. XXIV569 p. 60 € 177. R. FAESEN (ed.), Albert Deblaere, S.J. (1916-1994): Essays on Mystical Literature – Essais sur la littérature mystique – Saggi sulla letteratura 70 € mistica, 2004. XX-473 p. 178. J. LUST, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays. Edited by 60 € K. HAUSPIE, 2004. XIV-247 p. 179. H. GIESEN, Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche. Studien zur Eschatologie und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptikern und im ersten Petrusbrief, 2004. XX578 p. 70 € 180. H. LOMBAERTS & D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Hermeneutics and Religious 70 € Education, 2004. XIII-427 p. 181. D. DONNELLY, A. DENAUX & J. FAMERÉE (eds.), The Holy Spirit, the Church, and Christian Unity. Proceedings of the Consultation Held at the Monastery 70 € of Bose, Italy (14-20 October 2002), 2005. XII-417 p. 182. R. BIERINGER, G. VAN BELLE & J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Luke and His Readers. 65 € Festschrift A. Denaux, 2005. XXVIII-470 p. 183. D.F. PILARIO, Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis: Exploring Theological 80 € Method with Pierre Bourdieu, 2005. XXXII-584 p. 184. G. VAN BELLE, J.G. VAN DER WATT & P. MARITZ (eds.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS 70 € Johannine Writings Seminar, 2005. XII-561 p. 185. D. LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique. 120 € Vol. 2: Guide technique, 2005. XIV-VII-656 p. 186. R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic 80 € Problem, 2005. XXVIII-290 p. 187. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, 2005. X-308 p. 65 € 188. L. BOEVE, Y. DEMAESENEER & S. VAN DEN BOSSCHE (eds.), Religious Experience and Contemporary Theological Epistemology, 2005. X-335 p. 50 € 189. J.M. ROBINSON, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, 2005. XVIII888 p. 90 € 190. C.W. STRUDER, Paulus und die Gesinnung Christi. Identität und Entschei80 € dungsfindung aus der Mitte von 1Kor 1-4, 2005. LII-522 p. 191. C. FOCANT & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, 2005. XVI-593 p. 75 € 192. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ & M. VERVENNE (eds.), in collaboration with B. DOYLE, Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of 70 € Johan Lust, 2005. XVI-464 p. 87 € 193. F. MIES, L’espérance de Job, 2006. XXIV-653 p.

[4]

BETL

194. C. FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 2006. XV-402 p. 60 € 195. M.A. KNIBB (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 2006. XXXI-560 p. 60 € 196. M. SIMON, La célébration du mystère chrétien dans le catéchisme de Jean85 € Paul II, 2006. XIV-638 p. 197. A.Y. THOMASSET, L’ecclésiologie de J.H. Newman Anglican, 2006. XXX748 p. 80 € 198. M. LAMBERIGTS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), Lay Bibles in Europe 145079 € 1800, 2006. XI-360 p. 199. J.Z. SKIRA – M.S. ATTRIDGE, In God’s Hands. Essays on the Church and 90 € Ecumenism in Honour of Michael A. Fahey S.J., 2006. XXX-314 p. 200. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, 2007. XXXI1003 p. 70 € 80 € 201. D. POLLEFEYT (ed.), Interreligious Learning, 2007. XXV-340 p. 202. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with D. CLAES (eds.), Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and Systematic55 € Theological Studies, 2007. X-305 p. 203. T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, 65 € de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, 2007. X-276 p. 204. J.-M. VAN CANGH, Les sources judaïques du Nouveau Testament, 2008. XIV718 p. 84 € 205. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Polycarpiana: Studies on Martyrdom and Persecution in Early Christianity. Collected Essays. Edited by J. LEEMANS, 2007. XVI286 p. 74 € 206. É. GAZIAUX, Philosophie et Théologie. Festschrift Emilio Brito, 2007. LVIII-588 p. 84 € 207. G.J. BROOKE – T. RÖMER (eds.), Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography. L’historiographie biblique, ancienne et moderne, 2007. XXXVIII372 p. 75 € 208. J. VERSTRAETEN, Scrutinizing the Signs of the Times in the Light of the 74 € Gospel, 2007. X-334 p. 209. H. GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei experimentalis. A Theological Genealogy of 80 € Christian Religious Experience, 2007. LII-457 p. 210. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Virtuelle Vergangenheit: Die Textrekonstruktion einer verlorenen mittelniederländischen Evangelienharmonie. Die Hand58 € schrift Utrecht Universitätsbibliothek 1009, 2007. XII-168 p. 211. R. GRYSON, Scientiam Salutis: Quarante années de recherches sur l’Antiquité 88 € Chrétienne. Recueil d’essais, 2008. XLVI-879 p. 212. T. VAN DEN DRIESSCHE, L’altérité, fondement de la personne humaine dans 85 € l’œuvre d’Edith Stein, 2008. XXII-626 p. 213. H. AUSLOOS – J. COOK – F. GARCIA MARTINEZ – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in 80 € the Context of Early Judaism, 2008. X-317 p. 214. A.C. OSUJI, Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of 76 € True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT), 2010. XX-465 p. 215. T. RÖMER, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 2008. XXVII-742 p. 85 € 216. D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council: International Research Conference at Mechelen, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve 85 € (September 12-16, 2005), 2008. XII-716 p.

BETL

[5]

217. J. DE TAVERNIER – J.A. SELLING – J. VERSTRAETEN – P. SCHOTSMANS (eds.), Responsibility, God and Society. Theological Ethics in Dialogue. 75 € Festschrift Roger Burggraeve, 2008. XLVI-413 p. 218. G. VAN BELLE – J.G. VAN DER WATT – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John. Festschrift Ulrich Busse, 2008. XVIII-287 p. 78 € 219. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – M. WISSE (eds.), Augustine and Postmodern 80 € Thought: A New Alliance against Modernity?, 2009. XVIII-277 p. 220. T. VICTORIA, Un livre de feu dans un siècle de fer: Les lectures de l’Apocalypse 85 € dans la littérature française de la Renaissance, 2009. XXX-609 p. 221. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early Modern 80 € Period, 2009. XVIII-488 p. 222. F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur. Bibliographie primaire et secondaire. Primary and Secundary Bibliography 1935-2008, Compiled and updated in colla80 € boration with P. VANDECASTEELE, 2008. XXX-621 p. 223. G. VAN BELLE – M. LABAHN – P. MARITZ (eds.), Repetitions and Variations 85 € in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, 2009. XII-712 p. 224. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García 80 € Martínez, 2008. XVI-564 p. 225. E. BRITO, Philosophie moderne et christianisme, 2010. 2 vol., VIII-1514 p. 130 € 85 € 226. U. SCHNELLE (ed.), The Letter to the Romans, 2009. XVIII-894 p. 227. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN in collaboration with D. CLAES – 74 € M. WISSE (eds.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product, 2009. X-416 p. 228. G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious 95 € Practice of His Time, 2009. XIV-752 p. 229. D. MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts – Réception du 74 € paulinisme dans les Actes des Apôtres, 2009. VIII-340 p. 230. A. DILLEN – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Children’s Voices: Children’s Perspectives in Ethics, Theology and Religious Education, 2010. x-450 p. 72 € 231. P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms, 2010. XXXIV363 p. 76 € 232. G. AULD – E. EYNIKEL (eds.), For and Against David: Story and History in the Books of Samuel, 2010. x-397 p. 76 € 233. C. VIALLE, Une analyse comparée d’Esther TM et LXX: Regard sur deux 76 € récits d’une même histoire, 2010. LVIII-406 p. 234. T. MERRIGAN – F. GLORIEUX (eds.), “Godhead Here in Hiding”: Incarnation and the History of Human Suffering, 2012. x-327 p. 76 € 235. M. SIMON, La vie dans le Christ dans le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II, 2010. xx-651 p. 84 € 236. G. DE SCHRIJVER, The Political Ethics of Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Derrida, 2010. xxx-422 p. 80 € 237. A. PASQUIER – D. MARGUERAT – A. WÉNIN (eds.), L’intrigue dans le récit biblique. Quatrième colloque international du RRENAB, Université Laval, 68 € Québec, 29 mai – 1er juin 2008, 2010. xxx-479 p. 238. E. ZENGER (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms, 2010. XII-826 p. 90 €

[6]

BETL

239. P. FOSTER – A. GREGORY – J.S. KLOPPENBORG – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, 2011. XXIV-828 p. 85 € 240. J. VERHEYDEN – T.L. HETTEMA – P. VANDECASTEELE (eds.), Paul Ricœur: 79 € Poetics and Religion, 2011. XX-534 p. 241. J. LEEMANS (ed.), Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Ancient Christianity. 78 € Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter, 2010. XXXIV-430 p. 242. C. CLIVAZ – J. ZUMSTEIN (eds.), Reading New Testament Papyri in Context – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, 2011. XIV-446 p. 80 € 243. D. SENIOR (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early 88 € Christianity, 2011. XXVIII-781 p. 244. H. PIETRAS – S. KACZMAREK (eds.), Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer, 105 € 2011. XVIII-1039 p. 245. M. SIMON, La prière chrétienne dans le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II, 2012. XVI-290 p. 70 € 246. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – J. TREBOLLE-BARRERA (eds.), After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts – The Historical Books, 84 € 2012. XIV-319 p. 247. G. VAN OYEN – A. WÉNIN (eds.), La surprise dans la Bible. Festschrift 80 € Camille Focant, 2012. XLII-474 p. 248. C. CLIVAZ – C. COMBET-GALLAND – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: la reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010, 2012. XXIV-648 p. 90 € 249. G. VAN OYEN – T. SHEPHERD (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical 85 € Traditions in Dialogue, 2012. XVI-632 p. 90 € 250. E. NOORT (ed.), The Book of Joshua, 2012. XIV-698 p. 251. R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity and Impact (1540-1773). Proceedings of the International Congress at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven (3-5 December 2009), 65 € 2012. X-295 p. 252. A. DAMM, Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan 85 € Priority, 2013. XXXVIII-396 p. 253. A. DENAUX – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Ecumenical Legacy of Johannes 79 € Cardinal Willebrands (1909-2006), 2012. XIV-376 p. 254. T. KNIEPS-PORT LE ROI – G. MANNION – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Household of God and Local Households: Revisiting the Domestic Church, 2013. XI-407 p. 82 € 255. L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), Religious Modernism of the Low Coun75 € tries, 2013. X-271 p. 256. P. IDE, Une Théo-logique du Don: Le Don dans la Trilogie de Hans Urs von 98 € Balthasar, 2013. XXX-759 p. 257. W. FRANÇOIS – A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), “Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants”: The Bible for the Laity and Theologians in the Late Medieval 84 € and Early Modern Era, 2012. XVI-406 p. 258. A. LIÉGOIS – R. BURGGRAEVE – M. RIEMSLAGH – J. CORVELEYN (eds.), “After You!”: Dialogical Ethics and the Pastoral Counselling Process, 79 € 2013. XXII-279 p.

BETL

[7]

259. C. KALONJI NKOKESHA, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper: Pertinence d’une catholicité historiquement et culturellement ouverte, 2013. XXIV320 p. 79 € 260. J. SCHRÖTER (ed.), The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early 90 € Christian Theology, 2013. XII-804 p. 261. P. DE MEY – P. DE WITTE – G. MANNION (eds.), Believing in Community: 90 € Ecumenical Reflections on the Church, 2013. XIV-608 p. 262. F. DEPOORTERE – J. HAERS (eds.), To Discern Creation in a Scattering 90 € World, 2013. XII-597 p. 263. L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with C. DICKINSON (eds.), Tradi55 € tion and the Normativity of History, 2013. X-215 p. 264. M. GILBERT, Ben Sira. Recueil d’études – Collected Essays, 2014. XIV-402 p. 87 € 265. J. VERHEYDEN – G. VAN OYEN – M. LABAHN – R. BIERINGER (eds.), Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology. Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle, 94 € 2014. XXXVI-656 p. 266. W. DE PRIL, Theological Renewal and the Resurgence of Integrism: The 85 € René Draguet Case (1942) in Its Context, 2016. XLIV-333 p. 267. L.O. JIMÉNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, The Articulation between Natural Sciences and Systematic Theology: A Philosophical Mediation Based on Contributions 94 € of Jean Ladrière and Xavier Zubiri, 2015. XXIV-541 p. 268. E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar 80 € des Hieronymus, 2014. XVIII-333 p. 269. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN (eds.), A Pillar of Cloud to Guide: Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour 90 € of Marc Vervenne, 2014. XXVIII-636 p. 270. E. TIGCHELAAR (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, 95 € 2014. XXVI-526 p. 271. E. BRITO, Sur l’homme: Une traversée de la question anthropologique, 2015. XVI-2045 p. (2 vol.) 215 € 272. P. WATINE CHRISTORY, Dialogue et Communion: L’itinéraire œcuménique 98 € de Jean-Marie R. Tillard, 2015. XXIV-773 p. 273. R. BURNET – D. LUCIANI – G. VAN OYEN (eds.), Le lecteur: Sixième Colloque International du RRENAB, Université Catholique de Louvain, 85 € 24-26 mai 2012, 2015. XIV-530 p. 274. G.B. BAZZANA, Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village 85 € Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q, 2015. XII-383 p. 275. J.-P. GALLEZ, La théologie comme science herméneutique de la tradition de foi: Une lecture de «Dieu qui vient à l’homme» de Joseph Moingt, 2015. XIX-476 p. 94 € 276. J. VERMEYLEN, Métamorphoses: Les rédactions successives du livre de Job, 84 € 2015. XVI-410 p. 277. C. BREYTENBACH (ed.), Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, 2015. XXII-751 p. 94 € 278. J. GELDHOF (ed.), Mediating Mysteries, Understanding Liturgies: On Bridging the Gap between Liturgy and Systematic Theology, 2015. X-256 p. 78 € 279. A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), Origeniana Undecima: Origen and Origenism in the 125 € History of Western Thought, 2016. XVI-978 p.

[8]

BETL

280. F. WILK – P. GEMEINHARDT (eds.), Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates, 2016. XII-490 p. 95 € 281. J.-M. SEVRIN, Le quatrième évangile. Recueil d’études. Édité par G. VAN 86 € BELLE, 2016. XIV-281 p. 282. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), The Normativity of History: Theological Truth and Tradition in the Tension between Church 78 € History and Systematic Theology, 2016. XII-273 p. 283. R. BIERINGER – B. BAERT – K. DEMASURE (eds.), Noli me tangere in Interdisciplinary Perspective: Textual, Iconographic and Contemporary Inter89 € pretations, 2016. XXII-508 p. 284. W. DIETRICH (ed.), The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception 96 € History, 2016. XXIV-650 p. 285. W.E. ARNAL – R.S. ASCOUGH – R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR. – P.A. HARLAND (eds.), Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus Adherents: 115 € Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg, 2016. XXIV-630 p. 286. C.E. WOLFTEICH – A. DILLEN (eds.), Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2016. X-290 p. 85 € 287. W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), Vernacular Bible and Religious Reform in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, 2017. VIII-305 p. 94 € 288. P. RODRIGUES, C’est ta face que je cherche … La rationalité de la théologie 92 € selon Jean Ladrière, 2017. XIV-453 p. 289. J. FAMERÉE, Ecclésiologie et œcuménisme. Recueil d’études, 2017. XVIII668 p. 94 € 290. P. COOPER – S. KIKUCHI (eds.), Commitments to Medieval Mysticism within 79 € Contemporary Contexts, 2017. XVI-382 p. 291. A. YARBRO COLLINS (ed.), New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, 98 € 2017. X-644 p. 292. J. FAMERÉE – P. RODRIGUES (eds.), The Genesis of Concepts and the 78 € Confrontation of Rationalities, 2018. XIV-245 p. 293. E. DI PEDE – O. FLICHY – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Le Récit: Thèmes bibliques et 95 € variations, 2018. XIV-412 p. 294. J. ARBLASTER – R. FAESEN (eds.), Theosis/Deification: Christian Doctrines 84 € of Divinization East and West, 2018. VII-262 p. 295. H.-J. FABRY (ed.), The Books of the Twelve Prophets: Minor Prophets – 105 € Major Theologies, 2018. XXIV-557 p. 296. H. AUSLOOS – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Temporalité et intrigue. Hommage à 95 € André Wénin, 2018. XL-362 p. 297. A.C. MAYER (ed.), The Letter and the Spirit: On the Forgotten Documents 85 € of Vatican II, 2018. X-296 p. 298. A. BEGASSE DE DHAEM – E. GALLI – M. MALAGUTI – C. SALTO SOLÁ (eds.), Deus summe cognoscibilis: The Current Theological Relevance of Saint Bonaventure International Congress, Rome, November 15-17, 2017, 2018. XII-716 p. 85 € 299. M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL (eds.), Louvain, Belgium and Beyond: Studies in Religious History in Honour of Leo Kenis, 2018. XVIII-517 p. 95 € 300. E. BRITO, De Dieu. Connaissance et inconnaissance, 2018. LVIII-634 + 635-1255 p. 155 €

BETL

[9]

301. G. VAN OYEN (ed.), Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-first Century: Method and Meaning, 2019. XXIV-933 p. 105 € 302. B. BITTON-ASHKELONY – O. IRSHAI – A. KOFSKY – H. NEWMAN – L. PERRONE (eds.), Origeniana Duodecima: Origen’s Legacy in the Holy Land – A Tale of Three Cities: Jerusalem, Caesarea and Bethlehem, 2019. XIV-893 p. 125 € 303. D. BOSSCHAERT, The Anthropological Turn, Christian Humanism, and Vatican II: Louvain Theologians Preparing the Path for Gaudium et Spes 89 € (1942-1965), 2019. LXVIII-432 p. 304. I. KOCH – T. RÖMER – O. SERGI (eds.), Writing, Rewriting, and Overwriting in the Books of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets. Essays in Honour 85 € of Cynthia Edenburg, 2019. XVI-401 p. 305. W.A.M. BEUKEN, From Servant of YHWH to Being Considerate of the Wretched: The Figure David in the Reading Perspective of Psalms 35–41 69 € MT, 2020. XIV-173 p. 306. P. DE MEY – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Ecclesia semper reformanda: Renewal 94 € and Reform beyond Polemics, 2020. X-477 p. 307. D. HÉTIER, Éléments d’une théologie fondamentale de la création artistique: Les écrits théologiques sur l’art chez Karl Rahner (1954-1983) forthcoming 308. P.-M. BOGAERT, Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions conservées et l’addition du supplément sous le nom de Baruch. Recueil de forthcoming ses travaux réunis par J.-C. HAELEWYCK – S. KINDT

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706