Praying the Tradition: The Origin and the Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 [1 ed.] 3110164337, 9783110164336

Table of contents :
Preface
Style Guide
Abbreviations
Summary
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Orientation
II. Traditio-historical research
III. Past Research
A. Research on Neh 9
B. Past research: How are they using tradition?
C. Past research: Who is responsible?
IV. Overview
CHAPTER ONE. The Form-critical Background of Nehemiah 9
I. Characteristics of Neh 9
A. Genre: Prose or Poetry
B. History
C. Praise
D. Lament
II. Nehemiah 9 among Penitential Prayers
A. Definition and Common Characteristics
B. Diversity within Unity
C. Common Setting
III. Conclusion
CHAPTER TWO. The Traditio-historical Background of Penitential Prayer
I. Shared elements and vocabulary of Penitential Prayer
A. Dtr
B. Covenant and Penitential Prayer
C. Confession of Sin and Penitential Prayer
D. Gerichtsdoxologie and Penitential Prayer
E. Ezekiel and Penitential Prayer
II. Unique elements and vocabulary of Penitential Prayers
A. Ps 106
B. Ezra 9
C. Neh 1
D. Dan 9
III. Conclusion
CHAPTER THREE. The Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Overall)
I. Tradition Boundaries
A. Hymnic Introduction, Creation, Abraham, Exodus, Request
B. Wilderness-Sinai Tradition
C. Conquest-Life in the Land (9:24-31)
D. Conclusion
II. Tradition Sequencing Models
CHAPTER FOUR. Traditio-Historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)
I. Hymnic Introduction (Neh 9:5c-d)
II. Creation Tradition (Neh 9:6)
III. Abraham Tradition (Neh 9:7-8)
IV. Exodus Tradition (Neh 9:9-11)
V. Wilderness Tradition (Neh 9:12-23)
VI. Life in the Und Tradition (Neh 9:24-31)
VII. Request (Neh 9:32-37)
VIII. Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE. Conclusions
I. Who is responsible for this composition?
II. How is tradition used in this context?
III. Summary
Appendices
Appendix A: Designations for Penitential Prayer
Appendix B: Common Vocabulary among Penitential Prayer
Appendix C: Lists of Leaders in the Hebrew Bible
Appendix D: Connections Between Penitential Prayer and Solomon’s Prayer
Appendix E: Haggai, Zech 1-8 and Late Biblical Hebrew
Works Cited
INDICES

Citation preview

Mark J. Boda Praying the Tradition

m 1749

I

1999

I

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Herausgegeben von Otto Kaiser

Band 277

W G DE

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1999

Mark J. Boda

Praying the Tradition The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9

w DE

G

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1999

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme [Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft / Beihefte] Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter. Früher Schriftenreihe Reihe Beihefte zu: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Bd. 277. Boda, Mark J.: Praying the tradition. - 1999 Boda, Mark J.: Praying the tradition : the origin and use of tradition in Nehemiah 9 / Mark J. Boda. - Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1999 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ; Bd. 277) ISBN 3-11-016433-7

ISSN 0934-2575 © Copyright 1999 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin

To Beth ad majorem Dei gloriam

Preface This book is a revised edition of my doctoral dissertation submitted for the Ph.D. degree at the University of Cambridge, England. It was defended in 1996 under the careful eyes of Dr. W. Horbury (Cambridge) and Dr. R. A. Mason (Oxford) who were the first to encourage me to submit it for publication. I was honoured to receive an invitation from Prof. O. Kaiser to contribute to the BZAW series and thankful for several suggestions which have improved this work. Many have had a major part in my development over the past years. I must begin with thanks to several institutions which contributed to the financing of my doctoral studies: the Overseas Research Scheme, Cambridge Overseas Trust, Tyndale House, Trinity Hall, Divinity School at the University of Cambridge, Westminster Theological Seminary, and the Rotary Club of Philadelphia. Besides these institutions there were two friends who gave of their financial resources to assist me: Ben and Karen Heppner and Ruth Cairns. My family, especially my father and mother (Rex and Jean Boda) and my father-in-law and mother-in-law (David and Ruth Rambo) provided for our needs at crucial times throughout these years. These good friends and family offered me more than just finances by believing in me and encouraging me to attain my dreams. I am thankful for several fellow students who shared the journey of Ph.D. studies with me: Rob and Marilyn Clifton (Cambridge) who helped a family of four settle into life in Cambridge; Dan Falk (Cambridge) who offered a listening ear, peeks at Qumran prayer materials, and the services of Queens' College squash courts; and Tyler Williams (Toronto) who obtained several obscure publications for me at crucial moments along the way. Finally, I am thankful to my colleague, Paul Spilsbury, who encouraged me along the way to publication and helped me with the translation of an important recent article. I am grateful for conscientious supervisors who patiently pored over many drafts of this work. My first supervisor, Professor H. G. M. Williamson, introduced me to the world of Cambridge and its high standard. He offered not only a trained eye for Persian period issues but also expressed interest in my personal welfare. I am indebted to Dr. G. I. Davies who was my supervisor for the majority of my work. He encouraged me immensely while offering helpful criticism, stretching me to excel. It has been a great honour to have sat under the tutelage of these two men. Finally, I want to honour my family whose sacrificial spirit was evident throughout the journey towards completion of this work. My children David, Stephen and Matthew made the years in Cambridge both a challenge and a joy. My wife, Beth, was the main constant in my life. From the beginning she believed in the dream of this work and gave so much of herself to see its accomplishment. She contributed the most in terms of financial, emotional, and physical resources and I honour her above all and dedicate this, my first book, to her. Regina, Saskatchewan

15 June 1999

Style Guide Commentators on Ezr-Neh will be referred to on a consistent basis, and so if the name of the commentator is placed in CAPS (e.g. RUDOLPH), the reader is directed to the place in that commentary where the scholar speaks about the verse under discussion. These commentaries are marked in the Works Cited section by an asterisk (*). For Pentateuchal source criticism the reader is directed usually to two scholars' evaluation of the Pentateuchal book under discussion, signified by the name of the scholar in small caps (e.g. NOTH) with the assumption that reference is to the place in that scholar's book where the passage under consideration is discussed. Noth's conclusions are used for the entire Tetrateuch and reference is made to the useful compilation by CampbellO'Brien (1993). Noth is supplemented in Genesis by Westermann (1974; 1981a; 1982 [1984a; 1985; 1986]); in Exodus by Childs (1974) and in Numbers by Budd (1984). When both scholars are in agreement no footnote is provided and the source which they note is placed in superscript after the passage. When several passages cited in a row are all attributed to the same source each one is not footnoted, only the final member. In certain instances the analysis moves beyond these foundational works, but on those occasions detailed bibliographical information will be cited. For reference purposes in many cases when non-English works are cited, reference is also made for English readers to the location in the English translation of this work. The English translation will appear immediately following in the square brackets [ ]: e.g., von Rad (1934:248 [1966:267]). Biblical references follow Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In sections dealing with the Septuagint, if there is a difference in numbering the Septuagint number is given following the BHS number in square brackets [ ]. Finally, the formulae / x x x w means: the yy stem of the tri-consonantal root (/) xxx. For example: /rn , H l , > =the Hitpa'el stem of the root ΠΤ. If no stem is indicated it is the Qal.

Abbreviations Abbreviations for journals, series or any other publications will follow the standard established by the Society of Biblical Literature (JBL 107 [1988]:579-96). Exceptions or additions to this standard are listed below. CBH Chr ChrH D Deut/DtrH Deut Dtr DtrH E Ezr-Neh FS H H if Htp J LBH mss Ni Ρ Pi Pip Q

Classical Biblical Hebrew Chronistic (adjective) or the Chronicler (noun) the Chronistic History (1 and 2 Chronicles) the Deuteronomistic Pentateuchal layer Deuteronomy/the Deuteronomistic History Deuteronomy Deuteronomistic the Deuteronomistic History the Elohist (Pentateuchal layer) Ezra-Nehemiah (as a combined book) Festschrift the Holiness Code Hif'il stem Hitpa 'el stem the Yahwist (Pentateuchal layer) Late Biblical Hebrew manuscripts Nif al stem the Priestly writer/redaction (Pentateuchal layer) Pi'el stem Pilpel stem Qal stem

Summary The goal of this work was to identify those who were responsible for the prayer in Neh 9 and how they used the traditions for their own purposes. An investigation of the Gattung to which Neh 9 belonged laid the groundwork for a traditio-historical evaluation of the composition. Neh 9 was identified with a series of compositions which represent a transformation of the classical Hebrew Gattung of lament: Penitential Prayer (Ezra 9, Neh 1, Dan 9, Ps 106). A traditio-historical evaluation of this Gattung revealed that Priestly/Ezekielian circles supplemented and superseded a Deuteronomistic foundation. The various representatives of the Gattung also revealed a consistent approach to the Pentateuch: a desire to synthesize either legal or historical traditions. A subsequent evaluation of Neh 9 resulted in similar conclusions, confirming its membership in this Gattung. One element unique to Neh 9 provided an initial clue to the precise historical provenance of Neh 9: clear connections to Zech 1 and 7-8. This isolated the early Persian period as the most likely candidate. Within this era the period immediately preceding the ministry of Haggai and Zechariah was favoured, but the period after the disappearance of Zerubbabel but before Ezra could not be discounted. The investigation also isolated how tradition was being used in Neh 9. Although tradition is used for the purposes of praise and confession, ultimately it is shaped by the agenda of request. The tradition is related in such a way as to strengthen the request of the suppliant.

Table of Contents Preface

vii

Style Guide

viii

Abbreviations

ix

Summary

χ

Table of Contents

xi Introduction

1

I. Orientation II. Traditio-historical research III. Past Research A. Research on Neh 9 Β. Past research: How are they using tradition? C. Past research: Who is responsible? 1. Proposals a. Nehemiah 9 in its Literary setting b. Origin of the prayer c. Summary 2. Possibilities a. Tradent Groups b. Deuteronomistic Tradent Groups

1 1 4 4 5 6 6 6 11 16 17 17 17

IV. Overview

18 CHAPTER ONE

The Form-critical Background of Nehemiah 9 I. Characteristics of Neh 9 A. Genre: Prose or Poetry B. History 1. History and Credo 2. History and Wisdom 3. History and Psalms 4. Conclusion C. Praise D. Lament

21 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 25

xii

Table of Contents

II. Nehemiah 9 among Penitential Prayers A. Definition and Common Characteristics B. Diversity within Unity C. Common Setting 1. Covenant ceremony and Penitential Prayer a. Covenant and njQH in Neh 10:1 b. Covenant Ceremony in Ezr-Neh c. Prayer in Covenant Ceremony in Ezr-Neh 2. Non-ceremony Penitential Prayer a. Common Activities b. Common Perspectives 3. Summary

26 26 30 32 32 32 35 36 38 38 39 40

III. Conclusion

41 CHAPTER TWO

The Traditio-historical Background of Penitential Prayer . . I. Shared elements and vocabulary of Penitential Prayer A. Dtr B. Covenant and Penitential Prayer C. Confession of Sin and Penitential Prayer 1. Penitential Prayer and Lev 26, 1 Kgs 8 2. The Setting of Lev 26 and 1 Kgs 8 D. Gerichtsdoxologie and Penitential Prayer 1. Penitential Prayer as Gerichtsdoxologie 2. Josh 7 and Penitential Prayer 3. Setting of Josh 7 4. Conclusion E. Ezekiel and Penitential Prayer II. Unique elements and vocabulary of Penitential Prayers A. Ps 106 B. Ezra 9 C. Neh 1 D. Dan 9 III. Conclusion

43 43 43 46 47 47 51 55 55 57 59 61 62 66 66 68 70 71 72

Table of Contents

xiii

CHAPTER THREE The Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Overall) .

75

I. Tradition Boundaries A. Hymnic Introduction, Creation, Abraham, Exodus, Request . B. Wilderness-Sinai Tradition 1. Wilderness tradition and rhetorical design 2. Evaluation and Modification C. Conquest-Life in the U n d (9:24-31) D. Conclusion

75 75 76 77 78 80 80

II. Tradition Sequencing Models

81

CHAPTER FOUR Traditio-Historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail) I. Hymnic Introduction (Neh 9:5c-d) II. Creation Tradition (Neh 9:6) III. Abraham Tradition (Neh 9:7-8) IV. Exodus Tradition (Neh 9:9-11) V. Wilderness Tradition (Neh 9:12-23) VI. Life in the U n d Tradition (Neh 9:24-31) VII. Request (Neh 9:32-37) VIII. Conclusion

. .

89 89 93 101 115 124 167 180 186

CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions I. Who for in thisthis composition? II. How isisresponsible tradition used context? III. Summary Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Prayer Appendix E:

189 189 195 196

198 Designations for Penitential Prayer 198 Common Vocabulary among Penitential Prayer . . 203 Lists of Leaders in the Hebrew Bible 205 Connections Between Penitential Prayer and Solomon's 209 Haggai, Zech 1-8 and U t e Biblical Hebrew . . . . 214

Works Cited

219

INDICES

259

Introduction I. Orientation If there is a supra-language which transcends linguistic barriers it must be the language of suffering, the discourse of disorientation. Pain is part of the human journey and no one is insulated from its icy touch. When humans discover a piece of literature which succinctly unveils the reality of pain they resonate immediately with that text because they identify with the content as well as the emotion. Neh 9 represents such a text. It is a composition born in a world of adversity, revealing the struggle of a community on the human plane as well as the strategy of that same community for transcending this struggle by influencing their God. The text ends with the humbled cry of a community breaking under the weight of an oppressive overlord. This is hardly the grand finale expected as the prayer begins with glorious praise of Yahweh's role in creation. There is a subtle, yet purposeful shift in this prayer from the exuberance of praise to the expression of petition. What lies between these two extremes is an intricate rehearsal of Yahweh's relationship with this people as seen in the traditions which formed the basis of life in Israel. This rehearsal of tradition ushers the supplicant from the past scene of a transcendent Creator to the present need of an immanent Saviour. These traditions show the continuous and intimate involvement of this God in the life of a nation, an involvement which forms the only basis for their encouragement in the present predicament. The prayer in Neh 9 is set in the context of a day of fasting and prayer in which the people were led through a quarter of a day of Scripture reading and a quarter of a day of worship and confession. The prayer in Neh 9:5-37 reveals a people committed to these Scriptures (v. 14) as well as consumed by worship and confession of sin. This prayer is the focus of this work and contains a rehearsal of the main traditions of Israel from Creation to the Exile. These traditions are not rehearsed for their aesthetic value, but transcend this purpose to found the community's cry to Yahweh.

II. Traditio-historical research The goal of this work is to discern who was responsible for this composition and how tradition was being used by those responsible for it. The method best suited to answering these questions is traditio-historical criticism. The ultimate goal, therefore, coincides with what Morgan-Barton (1988:97) identify as the aim of this discipline: "not, it should be noted, to discover 'what really happened'. . . but to learn about the religious faith

2

Introduction

which expressed itself in and through such stories". This goal will be reached by examining how the content of the traditions in Neh 9 relates to the history of those traditions in Israel. Thus it is concerned to compare the form of the traditions in Neh 9 with other forms which appear in the Hebrew Bible. Research on the transmission of tradition in the Hebrew Bible can be traced back to the earliest attempts at critical research in the enlightened seventeenth century.1 Admittedly, these initial undertakings are clearly distinguished from twentieth-century traditio-historical research, but there is much continuity between the two eras. From these earliest attempts until the turn of this century the focus of attention was on the written stage of this transmission of tradition. With the dawn of the present century, scholars began to look to the oral stage that was assumed to lie behind the final written stages and to link the present text with its origins. It was Gunkel who challenged the reigning approaches to the text by highlighting the process by which traditions could be transmitted via oral means. Gunkel provided for scholarship insight into the means by which traditions could be transmitted, i.e., the oral forms in which the traditions were cast to ensure transmission (form criticism). Later scholars, in particular von Rad and Noth, focused more attention on the message of these traditions and set to the task of identifying the various elements within the message of a tradition that would provide clues to its origin. Although Gunkel provided the necessary foundation for the rise of traditio-historical research, in the modern sense of the discipline, his preoccupation with the means (form criticism) rather than the message (traditio-historical criticism) led to a distancing between the two disciplines. Knight (1975; 1992) has highlighted the concern of the traditio-historical critic for both the traditio and the traditum. The traditio is the "process . . . whereby traditional material is passed from one generation to the next" while the traditum is the "traditional material itself".2 An examination of any passage to determine its relationship to the history of the tradition will always be asking questions about the content and the process of the tradition. It is essential to note that the traditio is only accessible through the traditum. One can only discern the history of the tradition by first properly evaluating the content of the tradition. Unfortunately, this is a difficult task because of the subjective nature of delineating such features as the plot, motif, theme, concept, problem and notion. Nasuti (1988:195-196) attacked this subjectivity and sought to limit his evaluation to "specific language".3

1 2 3

For a detailed history of the roots of traditio-historical research, see Rast (1972) and, especially, Knight (1975; 1992). Knight (1975:5). Nasuti limited himself to language because it was "reasonably objective" (a word or phrase is obviously either present or absent from a certain text) and "sufficiently distinctive" (because certain words or phrases do link together some literary works

Traditio-historical Research

3

However, evaluation limited in this way will not always yield results and there remains a legitimate place for comparison of traditions on a notional level, although great care must be taken and the priority must lie with lexical data. There is always the danger of subjectivity in this critical method, but one should not abandon correlative elements which go beyond lexical data. Much traditio-historical research has been concerned with the oral stage of tradition transmission, which may imply to many that this critical method is of little help after texts have been combined into a canonical form. 4 Fishbane (1985), however, has challenged this implication by showing how the same processes evident in the oral stage continue into the written era, even within the Hebrew Bible itself. His case is affirmed by Sanders (1987), 5 although questioned by Childs (1987). 6 It is wisest to tread a path between these two extremes. Although, one cannot make a direct equation between the two stages (oral and written), the same terminology and concepts still apply in both cases. The difference is merely one of degree. There remains a traditum and a traditio in both stages, however, in the oral phase there is more room for fluidity, while in the written phase, the distinction between traditum and traditio is much smaller. When written materials enter into the picture, greater restraints are placed upon the author of the composition. This can be seen in the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in which inscripturated traditions continue to be used and reused and combined with different perspectives and in a variety of contexts. Reflection continues as the many parts are related to a unified picture: an interpretation of the canonical unity. In a way the admission that the traditio-historical process operates during the written phase represents a return to earlier critical approaches to the text. However, this admission is not an assertion that this process operates exclusively on the written level, only that the process is able to function on both the oral and written planes. This in no way assumes from the outset that Neh 9 is relying on written materials. This could only be asserted after careful evaluation of the text.

4

5

6

to the exclusion of others). See how Knight (1975:9-10; 1992:635) does not eliminate the written phase from the scope of his attention, although he does claim that with the written stage the tradition is heading towards becoming "absolute and unchangeable". Sanders (1987) pointed back to his interpretative "triangle" consisting of ancient texts, contemporary contexts, and hermeneutics (the way text and context are related). Cf. Sanders (1977). Baltzer (1991:130n24) expressed the need "to firm up our appreciation of the process involved". Childs (1987:512) asks whether Fishbane "has blurred the sharpness of the break which occurred in Israel when the traditions were transmitted in written form" and especially questioned Fishbane's use of Knight's terms: "traditio" and "traditum".

4

Introduction

The preceding discussion supports the use of traditio-historical methods no matter what the conclusion on the Vorlage(n) of Neh 9.

III. Past Research A. Research on Neh 9 The first extensive treatment of Neh 9 appeared a century ago in Germany. Johannes Geißler (1899), writing in the wake of Wellhausen's sourcecritical endeavour and in the infant years of form-critical research, sought to identify the influence of the various strata of the Pentateuch upon the Ezra Memoir. His inclusion of Neh 9 in the Ezra Memoir provided the opportunity for the first serious reflection on the Pentateuchal influence upon the prayer under discussion. Clearly the motive of Geißler is to be linked to the hypothesis that it was Ezra who was responsible for the introduction of the Priestly law into the Jewish community. Geißler identified several instances in Neh 9 where the prayer shows reliance on the Priestly stratum besides the other strata of his "Hexateuch". Geißler was limited by his concentration on the source-critical agenda of his times, but provided an excellent resource for research on Neh 9. It would be nearly nine decades before a second extensive treatment on Neh 9 would be undertaken. Although Anderson (1987) sought to delineate the source of the prayer of Neh 9, in the end form-critical concerns take precedence in his work. His questions are conditioned by his concern to see the relationship between Neh 9 and the other members of its Gattung. He uses a line-by-line evaluation of the prayer as the basis for understanding the development of this Gattung. Because the other members of the Gattung make little use of the traditions and because the extended rehearsal of tradition is not essential to this Gattung, he made little comment about the form of the traditions in Neh 9. Anderson did offer one conclusion of a traditio-historical nature when he determined that the prayer exhibits a great amount of Dtr idiom. He attributed this to the basic type of religious speech in the period in which it was written and to the Gattung of which it is a part. Anderson, however, makes little mention of the Priestly influence identified by Geißler nearly ninety years prior. Two recent works have turned their attention to Neh 9 following the trajectories set by Geiß 1er and Anderson. Pröbstl (1997) focuses attention on three prayers in the Hebrew Bible: Neh 9, Pss 106 and 135, investigating the relationship between the Pentateuch and these compositions. His extensive section on Neh 9 follows similar lines to the present work beginning with an investigation of Gattung before proceeding to a traditio-historical investigation of the prayer. His conclusions bear close similarity to those of the present work, although the two works were written in isolation. There are, however, several differences in conclusions which will be drawn in as this work proceeds. Pröbstl does not pursue the

Past Research

5

question of the tradition origin of the prayer in Nehemiah 9, due to the amount of tradition mixture, offering only a date for the prayer. He is satisfied with looking at how the prayer treats and interprets the various earlier inscripturated traditions. Despite these differences, Pröbstl's work is an important voice in the present research on Nehemiah 9. The publication of Werline's (1998) monograph on Penitential Prayer marks a return to the form critical agenda witnessed in Anderson (1987). Werline has presented an excellent review of the growth of this Gattung throughout the Second Temple period. Although this is not the main focus of the present study, Werline's work confirms many of the directions pursued in this work. At several points there are important differences which will be highlighted in the section below on the form-critical background to Nehemiah 9. Werline provides the best overall review of the entire tradition of Penitential Prayer, even if that means, at times, some compromise of depth for the sake of breadth. Besides these four major works which focus considerable attention on Neh 9 and/or its Gattung there have been many other works. Because Old Testament research is "primarily traditio-historical in orientation" (MorganBarton 1988:101), most considerations of Neh 9 have offered some reflection on the relationship of Neh 9 to other renditions of the various traditions. Although its present literary context may link it to the time of Ezra, Nehemiah or the Chronicler, the ultimate origin of this composition preceded these times, allowing for it to become a part of Israel's liturgical repertoire. This approach focuses attention on the historical and traditiohistorical evidence in the text itself. Most treatments have, however, been too atomistic in nature without a reflection on the tenor of the passage as a whole. Because of this atomistic approach these traditio-historical reflections have not been seen as evidence of the origin of the prayer but only of the pre-history of the traditions present in the prayer. In contrast to the "atomistic" approach, Fensham (1981) is too general in his approach, comparing the use of multiple traditions in various late prayers and psalms, including Neh 9. His evaluation is a helpful introduction to the traditio-historical evaluation of Neh 9 but does not go beyond the more general level of the basic traditions used, being content to speak of the tradition complexes merely on the form-critical level. He does not deal with the specific notions and vocabulary evident in each prayer, nor does he attempt to identify the tradents responsible for these renditions.

B. Past research: How are they using tradition? Scholars have broached the subject of how the tradition is being used in Neh 9. Rehm (1957) argued that the historical traditions were being used in the prayer to serve the greater purposes of praise to Yah weh. Against such a dark backdrop of rebellion Yahweh's righteousness is seen ever more clearly. Others have concluded that the traditions represent the

6

Introduction

confession of the sins of the people (BATTEN; MCCONVILLE; THRONTVEIT). These traditions form the foundation for the confession of sins in solidarity with former generations in the final part of the prayer. Finally, still others have claimed that the way the tradition is recited in the final section of the historical overview increases the effectiveness of the final petition for Yahweh to act (Williamson 1988; Pröbstl 1997; Werline 1998:58).7 One goal of this work will be to evaluate the validity of this past research and to offer new insights into how tradition is being used in this prayer.

C. Past research: Who is responsible? 1. Proposals More research has been focused upon who is responsible for this prayer and the inseparable issue of when they lived. For some this prayer is merely a literary product and should not be linked to a specific cultic setting. For others it reflects a Sitz im Leben which can be discerned from the text itself. a. Nehemiah 9 in its Literary setting i. The Levitical Prayer and the Chronicler a) Form Von Rad (1934 [1966]) argued for the presence of a Gattung in ChrH called "die levitische Predigt". The Chr, following in the mainstream of the Deuteronomistic-Levitical tradition, inserted sermons into his narrative at key places,8 which constituted a response to the question of the Dtr school: "Wie kann den folgenden Generationen die Bindung an Jahwe und seine Taten in der Geschichte erhalten bleiben?"9 Noth and Plöger drew on von Rad's research, applying it to the DtrH as well as ChrH. In both renditions of the history of Israel they saw a tendency to exploit speeches for rhetorical purposes.10 However, while DtrH used speeches only at key historical turning points, Chr used "any available opportunity" (Noth) and cast them in the style of the Levitical

7

8 9 10

This is expressed poignantly in Pröbstl's (1997) work when he notes how the review of these traditions serves the need of the prayer request of the present generation: "Das Gebet Neh 9,5-37 zielt auf Jahwes Aufmerksamkeit für die Not der Beter und erhofft sein notwendendes Eingreifen" (1997:217). Von Rad (1934:248-249 [1966:267-268]): 1 Chr 28:2-10; 2 Chr 15:2-7; 16:7-9; 19:6ff; 20:15-17, 20; 25:7ff; 26:7-9; 29:5-11; 30:6-9; 32:7-8a. Von Rad (1934:248 [1966:267]): Deut 4:9ff; 6:7, 20ff; 11:19; 32:46. Noth (1943:5-6, 202-203 [1981:5-6, 80-81]); Plöger (1957).

Past Research

7

sermons of his day. 11 This great "Auflockerung" of speeches (Plöger) included not only addresses, 12 but also prayers, 13 prophetic sermons, 14 letters,15 and historical lectures.16 The designation Levitische Predigt has continued to exert influence on the study of speeches and prayers in ChrH and Ezr-Neh as scholars have seen in these sermons either the hand of the Chr or actual sermons from his era. 17 In recent years, however, the designation has come under increasing fire. 18 The term Levitische has been entirely discounted because of the absence of evidence for this preaching activity. While Mathias discounted any reliance by Chr on contemporary sermons, Braun and Mason have argued reservedly for a connection to forms contemporary with the Chr. This is demonstrated most vividly by Mason whose comparison of the speeches in ChrH and those in other Second Temple books (Ezr-Neh; Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi) revealed that the stylistic features, themes, and vocabulary did not arise from the creative genius of the Chr but rather are strikingly similar to compositions found in other books of the Second Temple likely that, as the speeches reflect characteristic religious idiom and style, so also do the prayers. This is confirmed by the discovery of similar characteristics in prayers from distinct corpora (Isa 63-64; Dan 9).19 b) Content Although a few scholars have argued for Chr authorship or substantial redaction of the prayer in Neh 9 on grounds other than the supposed

11

12 13

14 15 16 17

18

19

This has been challenged by Throntveit (1987:109-25). For a comparison of the use of prophetic speeches in DtrH and ChrH and the significance of Jeremiah for this question, see Seeligmann (1978). 1 Chr 22:7-13, 16; 28:2-10; 29:1-5; 2 Chr 13:4-12; 29:6-12. 1 Chr 16:8-36; 29:10-19; 2 Chr 20:5-12; Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 9:6-37. Plöger (1957); Butler (1978:147) and Watts (1992:160) argued that 1 Chr 16:8-36 and Neh 9:5-37 provide structure for the Chr narrative, binding together preparation for the first temple with the completion of the second. 2 Chr 12:5-8; 15:1-7; 16:7-10; 19:2,3; 20:37; 28:9-11. 2 Chr 21:12-15; 30:6-9. Plöger added 2 Kgs 17 to Noth's list. Cf. Myers (1965a: 166; 1965b:II:88, 176-177); Ackroyd (1973:137-138, 140, 192193); Coggins (\976b:passim); Williamson (1982-.passim); Dillard (1987-.passim). Cf. other works on the speeches and prayers in Chr: Newsome (1975); Saebo (1982); Amit (1983); Throntveit (1987). Mathias (1984); Braun (1986:xxiv-xv); Mason (1990:133-137, 257). Cf. Williamson (1988b:34-35) whose view on Levitical Sermons seems to be a combination of Mathias, Braun and Mason. For Isa 63-64 see Watts (1987:330-331); for Dan 9 see Plöger (1957:65-66).

Introduction

8

Levitische Predigt,20 this has been rejected by the vast majority. Many of this majority do accept, however, that it has been chosen by Chr or the post-Chr redactor and incorporated into a narrative constructed by him. 21 Others do not recognise Chr or the post-Chr redactor in the narrative section. 2 2 The main reasons for the rejection of Chr influence on the prayer in Neh 9 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The absence of reference to problems found elsewhere in Ezr-Neh23 The absence of distinctive Chr terminology24 The break in the final cycle ( w . 31-32) showing that the author is located prior to restoration25 The reference to Assyrian rule26 The absence of mention of the exile or restoration which is so important for Chi27 The presence of traditions not found elsewhere in Chr: creation, the patriarchs, Moses, exodus, the wilderness journeys28

One should not underestimate the significance of this last point. 29 Conspicuously absent from Neh 9 is any reference to the election of the Davidic line or Jerusalem. Instead, the focus of election is entirely on Abraham and Exodus/Sinai. In ChrH there is a general avoidance of the earlier traditions of election in favour of David w h o is seen as superseding

20

21

Torrey (1896:26, 50; 1910:241, 246n49); Geißler (1899:12); Siegfried (1901:9); Noth (1943:203, 218-219 [1987:81, 102]); Ackroyd (1973:299); Gunneweg (1981:157-158; 1985:170; 1987:117-129). To avoid contradictions between the prayer and Chr, Gunneweg (1987:129) had to ignore them. To explain the lack of Chr vocabulary, Torrey, for example, spoke of the prayer as "a tissue of quotations". Those that reject Chr authorship but recognise Chr or post-Chr redactor at work in the context: SIEGFRIED; DAVŒS; BATTEN; HÖLSCHER; RUDOLPH; GALLING; R e h m

(1957:59-69); SCHNEIDER; MYERS; Kelleimann (1967:36nl72); CLINES; Reventlow (1986:281); BLENKINSOPP. 22

D r i v e r ( 1 9 1 3 : 5 5 1 ) ; W e l c h ( 1 9 2 9 ; 1930; 1935); FENSHAM; WILLIAMSON.

23

GALLING; MYERS; WILLIAMSON.

24

CLINES; BLENKINSOPP.

25 26 27

Williamson (1988a; 1990a; 1990b). Welch (1929); Rehm (1957). In der Smitten (1973:50).

28

GALLING; CLINES.

29

Cf. Noth (1943:214-215 [1987:99]); North (1963:377-378); Williamson (1977:6166); Throntveit (1987:60); Japhet (1989:85-124, 363-386); Mason (1990:131).

Past Research

9

all earlier history. 3 0 There is also a f o c u s in ChrH o n the Patriarch Jacob/Israel. 3 1 T h e prayer in N e h 9 also contrasts with ChrH in its approach to prayer. N e h 9 : 3 2 - 3 7 binds the suppliant together in solidarity with his forefathers' guilt ( s o also Ezra 9 : 6 - 7 ; N e h 1:6-7). This is in direct contrast to the speeches in C h r H . 3 2 Additionally, although o n the o n e hand, the prayers in ChrH are similar to those in E z r - N e h in their sense o f p o w e r l e s s n e s s and guilt, o n the other, they are radically different in their use o f m o t i f s from classic lament, especially the protestation o f innocence and complaint. 3 3 In N e h 9 , in particular, and the prayers o f E z r - N e h , in general, complaint is muted and protestation o f innocence is replaced by c o n f e s s i o n o f culpability. Finally, the prayer in N e h 9 v i e w s the Exile differently f r o m Chr. Rather than "die spezifisch chronistisch-theologische Bedeutung eines wesentlichen Einschnittes" 3 4 there is a stress o n continuity. 3 5

30

For the speeches in Chr, cf. Mason (1990:123). He compares the end of Solomon's prayer in 1 Kgs 8//2 Chr 6 and concluded: "It is the election of David and the Davidic dynasty which is central. There is none of the attention paid to the election of all Israel in the Sinaitic covenant that is found in the Deuteronomistic History, for all that the Sinaitic covenant has there been fused with the Davidic tradition, notably in three crucial passages (IKi. 2:1-4, 8:15-21, 9:1-9)." This is demonstrated most vividly in the Chr version of the Dtr dedication prayer of Solomon in 2 Chr 6. In Dtr version, the prayer ends with a special plea for mercy on the basis of the election at the Exodus (1 Kgs 8:51-53). In Chr version the reference to the Exodus is removed and replaced by a citation from Ps 132 which founds the plea on the election of David (2 Chr 6:40-42).

31 32

Cf. Williamson (1977:62-64). Mason (1990:128); cf. Koch (1974:178n3); Williamson (1977:67-68); Japhet (1989:165-176). Mason stated this under the thematic heading: "God is sovereign in his mercy and judgment" (2 Chr 30:9; 21:12-15; 12:6-8; 16:7-10, 12; 19:2-3; 19:6-11). This same theme of personal responsibility is seen in Chr's inclusion of the prayer of David from 2 Sam 24 in which he cries to God that his own sin would not bring consequences upon the people (1 Chr 21:17). How different from what one finds in the prayers of Ezr-Neh in which the people display their solidarity with their sinful kings (Ezra 9:7; Neh 9:32, 34)!

33 34

See Throntveit (1987). Gunneweg (1987:129). He recognised this important point, but did not see the implications for his view of Chr authorship. Williamson (1977:131) described the Chr's view of the restoration as "a completely fresh start". See especially Williamson (1988a). Here he convincingly argued that the suppliant of Neh 9 sees w . 32-37 as the act which would complete the unfinished cycle broken off in v. 31.

35

Introduction

10

These divergences between ChrH and Neh 9 undercut the theory that Neh 9 came from the pen of the Chr.36 ii. Neh 9 and Ezra-Nehemiah Since this prayer was not composed by the Chr, is it possible that it originated in the time of either Ezra or Nehemiah? Scholars have fallen into two main camps in relation to the redaction history of Neh 8-10. 37 For many, Neh 9 is related to the period of Ezra, either as the continuation of Neh 838 or from another point in the history of Ezra. 39 For others, Neh 9 is more closely related to the period of Nehemiah, either as the introduction to Neh 10 which in turn is linked to Nehemiah's reforms in Neh 13, 40 or distinct from Neh 10 but related to the separation from foreigners in Neh 13:1-3. 41 The question at this point is not which of these arguments is correct, but rather whether the prayer in Neh 9 fits into either of these time periods. The prayer in Neh 9 does not reflect the emphases of the renewal enacted under Ezra. This is demonstrated vividly by a comparison of the prayer in Neh 9 with that of Ezra in Ezra 9. While the prayer in Ezra 9 mentions exile and restoration, speaking well of the foreign overlords, Neh 9 makes no mention of restoration and condemns the overlords as oppressive. 42

36

37

38

So Pröbstl (1997:100) confirms this conclusion, although he does see one point of contact between this prayer and ChrH in the portrayal of the murder of the prophets. Although Pavolvsky (1957) linked all three chapters together because he regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries (cf. Keil 1873; Kuenen 1890:168, 179-180; Wellhausen 1905:406-407 [1885:408^09]). See the recent contribution from Tollefson-Williamson (1992) in which they search for an explanation of the redaction of the book of Nehemiah through socio-cultural theory (cf. also Venter 1995). E . g . Schaeder ( 1 9 3 0 : 9 ) ; BÜCKERS; MICHAELI; CLINES. BLENKINSOPP s a w the

connection to Neh 8 but only to one stratum of that chapter. Sellin (1932:11:140) regarded the prayer as related to Neh 8, while the narrative to Neh 10. Myers (1965a:LI) and In der Smitten (1973:437-451) linked the narrative to Neh 8, while attributing the prayer to a later redactor. 39

There are two locations in the Ezra history usually cited: 1) after Ezra 10:44 ( T o r r e y 1 9 1 0 : 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 ; RUDOLPH; BOWMAN; GELIN; BROCKINGTON); 2) earlier in

Ezra 10: a) between Ezra 10:15 and 10:16 (Ahlemann 1942-43:78, 85, 88-90; WILLIAMSON); b) b e t w e e n 1 0 : 1 4 and 10:15 ( M o r g e n s t e r n 1 9 4 7 : 2 2 ) . 40

HÖLSCHER; GALLING.

41 42

Rehm (1957). RUDOLPH; Rehm (1957:69); MYERS; MICHAELI; contra Cornili (1905:154 [1907:248]) who called Neh 9: "ein Zwillingsbruder" of Ezra 9. Rehm thought there was no mention of captivity but this is at least suggested in v. 31 (cf. MICHAELI, RUDOLPH).

Past Research

11

The view of the promise of the land is different from that found in the rest of the Ezra material. In Neh 9 the promise is tied to an autonomous existence in the land while in the Ezra material this ideal is set aside in the reality of the Persian context.43 The prayer's view on the contemporary situation differs from the rest of Ezr-Neh. The prayer looks for a dramatic rescue while Ezr-Neh describes a gradual process of rebuilding within the confines of the Persian Empire. 44 The prayer makes no mention of the main focus of Ezra's ministry: the sin of mixed marriages. 45 The prayer exhibits closer contact with the period of Nehemiah's reform in Neh 13, as it would have provided an excellent backdrop for the introduction of legislation for the Sabbath (Neh 10:30-31; 13:15-22). Nevertheless, the focus in Neh 10 and 13 on provision for the temple seems to speak differently from this prayer. The prayer says nothing of the temple nor its destruction. Additionally, as for Ezra, so also for Nehemiah, blatant criticism of the overlords is unlikely, and yet the suppliant is longing for autonomy. 46 iii. Conclusion The arguments presented show that no matter what theory is used to explain the redaction history of Neh 8-10 the prayer in Neh 9 must have existed prior to its incorporation into either the literary context of Neh 8-10 or the historical context described in Neh 9. b. Origin of the prayer This conclusion on the relationship of the prayer to its immediate context still leaves unanswered the question of the origin of the prayer. Now that the times of Ezra and Nehemiah are disqualified, there are two general options: before Ezra/Nehemiah or after Ezra/Nehemiah. Scholars have posited a date as early as the seventh century (Welch), and as late as the late fourth/early third century BCE (Batten, Schneider, Pröbstl).

43 44 45

Williamson (1988a). Williamson (1988a). Morgenstern (1947:20n33).

46

GALLING.

12

Introduction

i. After Ezra/Nehemiah The later option has enjoyed limited acceptance among scholars. 47 It is based primarily on the presupposition that the Persian period was generally a period of favour for the Jews and that distressful conditions did not exist until the late Persian and early Greek period. Batten also pointed to the prophetic rather than priestly tone of the prayer. These arguments do not restrict the prayer to the later period and may even suggest the opposite. First of all, those who lived in the period before Ezra and Nehemiah also experienced the kind of distress described in the prayer 48 and during the early period there seems to be evidence of a desire for independence. 49 Secondly, if Neh 9 does indeed favour the prophet over the priest, this probably points to the earlier rather than the later period when the priests became dominant. 50 ii. Before Ezra/Nehemiah Most major works devoted solely to an evaluation of the origin of Neh 9 have argued for the early option, but there remains much diversity as to how much before Ezra/Nehemiah the prayer originated. a) Seventh century: Welch Welch (1929; 1930; 1935) located the prayer in Neh 9 in the period of the Josianic renewal following the fall of Samaria. The entire chapter, including the narrative introduction, "preserved a litany written for the worship of Northern Israel on the occasion of a day of fasting, confession and prayer" (Welch 1929:136). This conclusion was based on several points. 1. The emphasis on the prophet over the priest points to a period prior to the priestly domination of the post-exilic period, seen vividly in comparison of Ezra 9 and Neh 9.

47

BATTEN; HÖLSCHER; Schneider (1959:39,218); Mowinckel (1964a:56); Kellermann (1967:35-36); GUNNEWEG. Pröbstl (1997:103-105) has recently argued for this later date, identifying at the earliest the late fourth century BCE, although not Hellenistic. His reasons include: the presence of LBH, the finished state of the Pentateuch, the silence on the exile, and the similarity to Chr prayers. Of course the first and third reasons could reflect either date theory. The second reason is based on a presupposition of the redactional history of the Pentateuch. And the final reason he does undermine in his work by identifying differences between Chr prayers and this prayer.

48 49 50

Bowman (1954:746, 756); Chrostowski (1990). See especially Zech 7:9-11. Bowman (1954:746, 756) who mentioned Hag 2:6-8; Zech 3:8-10; 6:10-12. Welch (1929:134). MYERS also identified this prophetic v. priestly tone but did not see this as an indication of later provenance.

Past Research

13

2. There is no mention of captivity or return in this prayer, both of which are mentioned in Ezra 9. 3. The catastrophe is dated from the time of the Assyrians which was only significant for the northern kingdom. The southern kingdom did not see the Assyrian crisis as a defeat but a great success. 4. Reference in Neh 9:6 to the hosts of heaven must have arisen in the context of Assyrian astral cults imported into northern Palestine after the fall of Samaria (2 Kgs 17:24-41). 5. The people are in their own land but are at the mercy of any enemy. 6. Neh 9 became part of the literature of Judaism, Therefore it must date from an era when Judah and Israel were united, most likely the Josianic era. 7. There is an organic connection between the practice of fasting and prayer in Neh 9, Jer 41 and Zech 7. Jer 41 points to the influence of the Josianic reform and shows that during this period a practice of fasting was instituted. Zech 7 represents a later continuation of this practice during the Judean exile. 8. The prayer relies on layers of the Pentateuch often associated with the Northern Kingdom (E, D). 9. A public ceremony of this magnitude must have come from a pre-Persian and even pre-Babylonian period, at a time when north and south were under different administrations but that in the north was weakening.

These arguments can be shown to be either inaccurate or unable to support the temporal limitations argued by Welch. 1. This may suggest a pre-Ezra period but does not preclude the early Persian period when prophets were extremely active among the priests in Jerusalem and are given high profile (cf. Ezra 5; Zech 7; Hag 2; Malachi). 2. This is only partially correct: there is mention of captivity (Neh 9:30), but not of restoration. 3. The dating of 9:32 according to the Assyrian hegemony does not point to Northern or earlier provenance. Although the term "Assyria" may be only a general term for Mesopotamian overlords, 3 ' it probably means Assyria in this context, an allusion to the decisive era when Israel lost control of the land.52 This, however, not only does not preclude the Southern and later provenance, but may disqualify the Northern and earlier provenance. In the evaluation of Neh 9:32 (pl81) it will be shown how this verse relies on 2 Kgs 17 which is clearly writing from the perspective of Judah at a time after its exile (cf. w . 18-20). Additionally, the construction used in Neh 9:32 to periodize history (ΠίΠ Π1'ΓΙ "lg. . . TO) is one which is used in the Hebrew Bible to contrast two different eras or days, not coexistent eras or days. 53 The era in which this suppliant is praying is one removed from the Assyrian period. It is possible that people living during the Josianic era in the waning years of the Assyrian hegemony

51

C f . BLENKINSOPP.

52 53

I am indebted to Pröbstl (1997:85-86) for this insight. Cf. Exod 10:6; 12:15; Lev 23:15-16; Judg 19:30; 1 Sam 8:8; 29:6; 30:25; 2 Sam 7:6; 8:6; Neh 5:14; 8:3; Jer 36:2.

14

Introduction would have considered the Assyrian age in the past, but it is not likely, especially as Welch viewed this prayer as a reaction to the fall of Samaria. 4. The link between reference to the hosts of heaven and Assyrian astral cults is far from certain. The use of this term may suggest a connection to the astral cults denounced regularly by Deut/DtrH (see ρ 100), but there is reason to believe that these astral cults were not merely imported from Mesopotamia but were indigenous to Palestine as well.54 Furthermore, if this could be linked to the Assyrian invasion it only indicates that the prayer was composed sometime after the Assyrian defeat. 5. This again is only partly correct. The people are clearly in their own land, but they are at the mercy of a particular enemy, one which Yah weh has appointed over them. The prayer does not reflect a period of anarchy but of a strong overlord. 6. This is hardly worth mentioning. It is based upon Welch's speculative reconstruction of the canonical process. 7. There may well be a connection between Jer 41, Zech 7 and Neh 9 but this does not limit the prayer in Neh 9 to the Josianic period. The fact that the Josianic renewal instituted a centralisation of worship is clear from the biblical account and Jer 41 seems to reflect this reform. However, the connection to Neh 9 is not only speculative, but as will be discussed immediately below, is unlikely when one compares the prayer in Neh 9 with the Josianic reforl4wthat this reveals the roots of the tension in the Persian period between those who remained and those who returned.

W i l l i a m s o n , h o w e v e r , placed the prayer in the post-Fall Babylonian period and identified the tradents as those w h o remained in the land after the fall o f Jerusalem. This c o n c l u s i o n w a s based o n a comparison o f vocabulary and notions found in Ezekiel's quotation o f those w h o remained in the land (Ezek 11:15; 3 3 : 2 4 ) with the prayer in N e h 9. 5 5 H e reasoned that this also w o u l d explain the absence o f references to the monarchy and the temple, b e c a u s e those left behind w e r e the l o w e r classes w h o had little connection to p o w e r and were later excluded from worship, revealing a possible alienation f r o m the temple context. This w o u l d a l s o take into account the regular fasts o f Z e c h 7 and 8. Chrostowski ( 1 9 9 0 ) has also approached the prayer in N e h 9 f r o m the traditio-historical perspective. In his evaluation o f the prayer he argued for its affinity with literature connected with Ezekielian circles, especially as reflected in its reliance o n Ezek 20: "We may fairly a s s u m e that the prayer o f Ezra w a s c o m p o s e d in the circles directly connected with the prophet Ezekiel, perhaps with his disciples and f o l l o w e r s . T h e affinities are s o striking that it is probable that N e h 9 , 6 - 3 7 is a careful interpretation o f the prophetic oracle preserved in Ez 20" (Chrostowski 1990:259).56

54 55 56

Cf. McKay (1973:45-59). o r n r m , v j r a , vt£h\ p « . Zimmerli (1969:1:439 [1979:I:405n3]) linked Ezek 20 together with Penitential Prayer; Greenberg (1983a:383) linked Ezek 20 with Ps 106. Greenberg (1983a: 376-388) and Sedlmeier (1990) dated Ezek 20 pre-587, Krüger (1989) saw it as post-587, while Allen (1992) identified a two-stage redactional process one

Past Research

15

Chrostowski offers little specific evidence for this conclusion in the article itself. However, Chrostowski did not end with this conclusion, but observed that there are strong affinities with the book of Zechariah in terms of the historical context (high taxation of the late sixth century), the longing for independence among the Jews, and the awareness of the responsibility of the former generations. Again he offers no evidence in terms of actual vocabulary. Rendsburg (1991) has offered a different kind of analysis. He applied linguistic methods to Neh 9 in order to delineate the time period and geographical arena of the composition of this prayer. He concluded that due to the presence of eight "northern Hebrew" features in the prayer Welch was correct to locate the original geographical context of the prayer in northern Palestine.57 However, Rendsburg proceeded to contradict Welch's conclusions about the time of composition because he discovered five traits of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) in the prayer. Thus, Rendsburg set the prayer in northern Palestine during the Persian period. Recently the identification of "northern Hebrew" or "Israeli Hebrew" (IH) as opposed to "southern Hebrew" or "Judean Hebrew" (JH) has experienced a revival in Hebrew studies, as claims have been made for the survival of a substantial corpus of IH in the Hebrew Bible.59 It is not the purpose at present to conduct an evaluation of the validity of geographical dialectology. It is only important to note that, assuming two distinct dialects ever existed in Palestine, after the fall of Jerusalem this distinction becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.60 This point is granted by

57

before and one after 587. Rendsburg (1991:350-62) identified these instances: (1) Infinitive absolute used as a finite verb (9:8,13); (2) non-elision of the definite article following a uniconsonantal prefixed preposition ( 3 3) (9:19-"!|"ΗΓΩ); (3) reduplicatory plurals of a noun based on a geminate stem (9:22-D*pOÍ?; 9:24-,DDB); (4) double plural, both nomen regens and nomen rectum in plural (9:30-Γί2ΓΙΝΠ 'ÖS); (5) the phrase ÌDB ΓΠ5 (9:7); (6) the second masculine singular personal pronoun as ΠΧ (9:6); (7) the expression Π50Β?ΓΠ ΓΟΙΤΙΠ JHICI with unique word pair DITV/jntf (9:35); (8) the word nV?K(9:17)*

58

Drawing on the work of Hurvitz (1972; 1982) and Polzin (1976), Rendsburg (1991:363) identified these LBH traits in Neh 9: (1) !ΤΠ for "live" instead of 'Π (9:29); (2) the order DÌPP11 }

D' Promise of Land fulfilled (22-25)

For these scholars, the first section (12-15) relates the basic provisions of Yahweh on the wilderness journey. This is followed by the middle section (16-18) which details the rebellion of the people. Notice here that the chronological order of rebellions as presented in the Pentateuch is reversed,

8

Cf. SCHNEIDER; Malina (1968:38-39); WILLIAMSON.

9

C f . SCHNEIDER.

10

Contra Lee (1980:26, 305-306) who argued that Ps 106 follows the same order as Num 11-36, an argument not supported by the evidence. See the evaluation of Ps 106 above (p66f) and Kraus (1978:11:896-907 [1988:11:316-322]).

11

12

Several works have recently investigated the rhetorical design of the entire prayer, in particular forcing chiastic structures onto this text. For a critique of these works see Boda (1996). Cf. Williamson (1988a: 122-123).

13

C f . BOWMAN; CLINES; BLENKINSOPP; THRONTVEIT.

78

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Overall)

Kadesh Barnea is mentioned first, followed by the Golden Calf incident. These two events need not be the only incidents intended in their respective sections but are singled out as exemplary of each level of rebellion. The order here is again not chronological but rather thematic. Kadesh Barnea is exemplary of the basic kinds of rebellion in the wilderness which plagued Moses and Yah weh along the journey. The Golden Calf incident, however, is representative (in the mind of the composer) of the most severe examples of rebellion during this period. 14 The final section ( w . 19b-21) depicts Yahweh's continued provision in the wilderness. In this section, one can readily see the repetition of the provision of guidance and sustenance. However, the allusion to the giving of a ΓΠΊ and the relationship of this gift to the Law is not so obvious and will be taken up in detail below.

2. Evaluation and Modification Have these scholars understood the rendition of this tradition in Neh 9 correctly? The core of the argument is not to be denied but this does not answer one important question: if the pillar of cloud and fire is repeated in both sections without addition and the giving of the Spirit corresponds directly with the giving of the law, why has the composer repeated the giving of manna and water and then appended to it the additional gifts of durable clothing and feet? This question prompts a réévaluation of the limits of the wilderness tradition in the prayer of Neh 9. The upper limit of v. 12 has been suggested in the consideration of the Exodus tradition above and has been confirmed by its repetition in v. 19. The lower limit of v. 21, however, is questionable and a closer look at the final words of v. 23 and the object of Yahweh's grace in w . 22-23a shows that the wilderness tradition extends to v. 23. At the close of v. 23 the composer repeats the phrase originally used in 9:15 in reference to the Exodus generation. The Exodus generation, at the boundary of the Promised Land, are commanded to enter and take possession of it.15 The repetition of this command in v. 23 to the second generation signifies that in spite of the rebellion of the Exodus generation Yahweh has shown himself faithful by bringing the children of the rebellious back to the same opportunity to fulfil the commission failed by their fathers. 16 The commandment signals the end of the wilderness

14

15 16

Notice how the Golden Calf incident is introduced by a construction used in the Hebrew Bible to denote emphasis, a dramatic increasing or decreasing of the significance. Cf. GKC §154a'(c); Williams (1976:64-65); Muraoka (1985:141-143); Waltke-O'Connor (1990:§39.3.4d). See pl44n288. See ρ 166 below for the significance of the fact that the Promised Land is restricted to Cis-Jordan.

Tradition Boundaries

79

experience and the beginning of conquest. A consideration of the object of Yahweh's grace confirms this conclusion. 9:22-23a continues to speak of the Exodus generation as the recipients of Yahweh's grace ("they7"their") and it is only with the repetition of the command that the narrative moves on to the next generation as the focus of attention. This evidence shows that in the mind of the composer, 9:22-23 are part of the wilderness tradition and join with v. 21 to stress not only Yahweh's continued provision in the wilderness after the rebellion ( w . 19-20), but also his gracious care which sustains them through the consequences of that rebellion: a "forty year tradition". This tradition, presented in Neh 9 as a subtradition in the wilderness complex, begins in 9:21 with HJtff and extends to 9:23, ending with Πίή 1 ? HID "ρ D/Vn'aS1? ΓΠηκ. ' t h e conquest proper does not begin then until 9:24 when the sons (D'ISH) enter and take possession of the land. In the meantime, Yahweh is extending his grace through the forty year period by sustaining them physically, securing the boundary territory of the Promised Land and raising up a purified generation who will enter the land. Interestingly when 9:22-23 are seen as part of the wilderness tradition as argued, the two sections describing Yahweh's grace are balanced in terms of lines: both sections contain eleven lines.17 Another slight modification of Williamson's outline above is that after the second account of rebellion there is a short allusion in 9:19 to the description of Yahweh's character in 9:17 (Q'üjOn γ Π Γ Π ? ΠΓιΗ) followed by the same phrase: DPOÎ? VÒ. The following chart represents the structure of the wilderness tradition as presented in Neh 9:

God's gracious provision

People's Rebellion

A Pillar and Cloud (12)

H Description of Rebellion (16-17a) A' Pillar and Cloud (19b)

Β Good laws (13-14)

I Rehearsal of God's grace (17b)

B' Spirit to instruct (20a)

C Manna and Water (15a)

({'Description of Rebellion (18)

C ' Manna and Water (20b)

I'Rehearsal of God's grace (19a)

God's continued provision

D' Clothes and Feet (21) E' Borders (22) F' New Generation (23a)

G Command to Conquer (15b)

G' Command to Conquer (23b)

Why would the composer of Neh 9 in particular and of poetic renditions of history in general not feel constrained by the chronological sequence of the Pentateuch, if such a book existed? It is possible that this can be explained with reference to the character of the wilderness tradition in the finished Pentateuch. There we find an elongated wilderness tradition covering forty years of experience in which many events of rebellion and provision have

17

Although RUDOLPH evaluated the structure of the prayer in a different way, he saw how 9:22-23 cannot be separated from the earlier material.

80

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Overall)

been interspersed. A composer concerned with painting the broad picture of this period cannot get lost in the details of multiple miracles of provision of water, meat and manna, repeated experiences of rebellion at various locations by diverse individuals and groups. The tendency in poetic material has been to take the detail and condense it into a manageable kernel. 18 In summary, the Wilderness Tradition in Neh 9 extends from w . 12-23. Both the Sinai tradition as well as the Forty Year tradition have been neatly subsumed within it, as one finds in the present Pentateuch.

C. Conquest-Life in the Land (9:24-31) The Wilderness tradition has confirmed on the one side that the Exodus tradition does not extend beyond 9:11 and has suggested on the other that 9:24 forms the introduction to a new tradition complex. No one would dispute the fact that 9:24-25 are intimately linked and must belong to the same tradition complex, but do these verses form an independent tradition19 or are they to be considered part of a larger complex? The second of these two options is suggested by the final words of 9:25. As will be shown in detail in the traditio-historical evaluation of this verse (pi70), statements similar to i r n t f f ^ ì^DK»] are used within Deuteronomy as a "hinge" between a presentation of Yahweh's blessing and the rebellion of the people. This final phrase forges a strong bond between the Conquest tradition and the pattern of rebellion found in 9:26-31. It constitutes the initial blessing against which the people rebel in 9:26 (see further below on Tradition Sequencing Models: pp81-87).

D. Conclusion Between an introductory call to worship (9:5) and concluding request for help with confession (9:32-37), the prayer in Neh 9:5-37 presents successive traditions guiding the reader from the creation of the world until the fall of the state. Although it is intended to be read as a single account, clear boundaries can be discerned between the traditions. These boundaries have been accepted universally for the traditions of Creation, Abraham, and Exodus. The investigation above has concluded that the Wilderness tradition includes 9:12-23 with the Sinai and Forty Year traditions integrated into this larger tradition complex. The Conquest tradition is considered the introduction to the larger tradition complex: Life in the Land. These results will be confirmed as the focus of investigation turns

18 19

Lauha (1945:91); Talmon (1966); Coats (1968:229) have noted the freedom of composition evidenced in non-Pentateuchal handling of the wilderness material. Cf. p76n7.

81

Tradition Boundaries

to the various ways in which these traditions are related in Neh 9 and the Hebrew Bible as a whole.

II. Tradition Sequencing Models There is general agreement among commentators that Neh 9:26-31 is structured according to a specific historiographical model. This model consists of a patterning of events in monotonous repetition with the following sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Yahweh's blessing Israel's disobedience Yahweh's judgment Israel's cry for mercy Yahweh's deliverance

Williamson (1988a) has shown the importance of this technique for the prayer in Neh 9. The final cycle, beginning in Neh 9:29, is curtailed prematurely, ending at Yahweh's judgment (#3 in the list above). Neh 9:32-37 (which depicts the present of the suppliant) is an attempt to reactivate the cyclical pattern and thus represents Israel's cry for mercy (#4) with the hope of experiencing Yahweh's deliverance (#5). Commentators have consistently traced this tradition sequencing technique to the Dtr school20 and this has been supported by the work of two scholars who have focused their attention more closely on this tradition sequencing model. Blenkinsopp and Kühlewein followed Westermann in tracing this Dtr historiographical model to prophecy. 21 They argued that this model

20

Some scholars call it Deuteronomistic: Haller (1925:185); RUDOLPH; BOWMAN; Kellermann (1967:35, 35nl67); Gilbert (1981:312); Fensham (1981:40n48); CLINES; Williamson(1985:316; 1988a: 124); BLENKINSOPP. Others simply refer to Deuteronomistic passages (predominantly the book of Judges, esp. Judg 2): BERTHEAU-RYSSEL;

BERTHOLET;

BATTEN;

MÉDEBIELLE;

COGGINS;

KIDNER;

GÜNNEWEG; BECKER. Weinfeld (1972:12-13) discussed the Dtr editor's use of "anticipatory and retrospective summaries'', and claimed they are "found only in deuteronomic literature, and have no parallel in any of the other literary strands of the Bible". See the Traditio-Historical evaluation of Neh 9:24-31 (pl74) for the link to Judges in terms of pattern and vocabulary. 21

Westermann (1964:127-136 [1967:176-189]); Blenkinsopp (1971); Kühlewein (1973:84-98, 117-124). Kühlewein also pointed to the suggestion of Gunkel (1926:340). Westermann did not take the argumentation past the DtrH, but encouraged a study of the relationship between the prophetic reproaches and the laments of the psalter (cf. Westermann 1964:132nl0 [1967:183nl0]). Blenkinsopp

82

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Overall)

originated in the contrast statement found in prophetic reproaches ("I did . . . but you"). 22 For Blenkinsopp, Hosea was the key figure who developed the contrast statement further by casting it into the third person and expanding it into a "history of moral and religious failure". 23 Hosea then influenced Deuteronomy and also the historiography of the Deuteronomists, for in Deut/DtrH, contrast clauses are used in series, forming the sequence described above (Deut 1:6-45; 32; Judg 2:11-23). Diverging from Blenkinsopp, Kühlewein (1973:97) identified the Dtr redaction of the book of Jeremiah as the key link between prophetic reproaches and the later material. According to both scholars, this trend continued into Ezekiel (Ezek 5, 16, 17, 20) and later the Dtr structure entered into prophetic material of the Persian period (Zech 1:2-6; 7:1-14; Mai 3:6-12) 25 and certain cultic hymns and confessions (Isa 63:7-14; Jer 32:17-25; Pss 78; 81:6-12; 105; 106; 135; 136; Neh 8:18-10:1). While other commentators have restricted the comparison between Neh 9 and the Dtr historical sequence to w . 26-31, Kühlewein (1973:124) expanded it to encompass the entire prayer:

I. Yahweh's saving work

II. Sins of fathers

a

b

c

d

e

f

7-15

17b, 20-25

27bß

28bc, 29aa

30aa

31

16-17a, 18

26

28a

29apb

30aß

--

III. Yahweh's punishment

-

27a

28ba

-

IV. Repentance of fathers

-

27ba

28bß

-

30b -

-

-

In summary, Blenkinsopp and Kühlewein have shown the influence of prophetic forms on the historiographical pattern well known from Dtr materials and the historical recitals. That Neh 9:26-31 fits this pattern, a

22 23 24

25

and Kühlewein take the argumentation the next step. See also Lee (1980:222-236) who devoted a section of his study to the relationship between Pss 78, 105 and 106 and these prophetic and Dtr historiographie models. Am 2:9-16; 4:6-12; Isa l:2ff; 5:1-6; Mie 6:1-8; Jer 2:4-13; 34:12-22; 35:14b-17. Hos 7:15-16; 9:10-12a; 11:1-4; 13:5-8. According to Kühlewein, Ezek 20 contains the following structure in three cycles: 1) Account of Yahweh's redemptive work (5-7, 10-12, 18-20); 2) Account of apostasy (8a, 13a/16,21a/24); 3) Account of Yahweh's anger (8b, 13b, 21b/25-26); 4) Account of Yahweh's grace (9, 14/17, 22); 5) Account of the announcement of justice (--, 15, 23). However, in this later period the prophetic announcement of judgement is absent, showing how the original function of this form has been transformed.

Tradition Sequencing Models

83

fact consistently affirmed by the commentators, is also not in doubt. 26 However, Kiihlewein's attempt to force this model onto the entire prayer in Neh 9 and Blenkinsopp's similar endeavour to apply it to Ezek 20 need to be questioned. Close observation of the divine-human interplay in historical summaries similar to Neh 9 and Ezek 20 reveals a more complicated picture than that depicted by Blenkinsopp and Kühlewein. Both these scholars gloss over important differences between these texts. The historical summaries in the Hebrew Bible reveal two basic formats employed for relating the history of the interplay between divine and human players, where the human players are depicted as rebellious. We do not include Deut 29, Josh 24, Pss 105, 135, 136 because they exclude the human factor and Num 20, Deut 6 and 26 because they do not depict the human involvement as rebellious.27 Thus, the focus of attention is Deut 32, Isa 63, Jer 32, Ezek 16, 20, Pss 78, 106 and Neh 9. Kiihlewein's claim that Ezek 20 is an example of the Dtr rendition of history (Discipline model) does not sustain criticism. 28 In contrast, it is an example of the opposite of the classic Dtr formulation in the book of Judges. Punishment is not guaranteed after rebellion and consistently mercy breaks through to turn away divine anger. In this model, the "Patience model", human response is set aside for divine action, while in the Discipline model, human response stands side-by-side in partnership with divine action. Among these passages two basic models emerge: 1. The Discipline Model (cf. Judg 2) a. Divine mercy b. Human rebellion c. Divine punishment d. Human cry e. Divine mercy

2. The a. b1. c. d. e. b2.

Patience Model (cf. Ezek 20) Divine Mercy Divine command Human rebellion Divine threat Divine relenting Divine command

Most of the compositions fall neatly into one or the other category:

26 27

28

Although w . 24-25 has been shown to form the first stage of the sequence (see pp80,170). Römer (1990:326-328) makes too much of the similarity between Josh 24 and Neh 9 ("Das genaue Gegenstück"), even though he later admits some distance betwee the two compositions in some of their dealing with Abraham (539-541). Cf. Krüger (1989) who noted the fundamental difference between historical recitals in Ezek 5, 16, 23 and Ezek 20. The first set he identified as a pre-587 conception while the second arose after the fall of Jerusalem. Both renditions in Ezekiel show the influence of priestly circles but while that found in Ezek 5, 16, 23 embraces Dtr perspectives, that in Ezek 20 takes a more critical stance.

84

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Overall) Deut 32: Isa 63: Jer 32: Ezek 16: Ezek 20:

Patience model Discipline model Discipline model Discipline model (cf. Ezek 23) Patience model

In three passages there is a combination of these models. This combination is not only represented in the use of one or the other model in different parts of the composition (mixture), but also in the formation of new models which combine elements of both (blend). Ps 78 provides the first example of combination. The Discipline model is evident in the second half of the psalm starting with v. 32. This is apparent from the pattern established in w . 32-39. The people sinned (32), Yahweh punished (33-34aa), the people repented (34aß-35) although Yahweh knew this repentance was not sincere (36-37), and Yahweh was merciful (38-39). In the first half of the psalm, however, there is a blend of models. 78:12-31 recounts Yahweh's grace (12-16) which is met with rebellion by the people (17-20). This rebellion is countered by Yahweh's discipline (21-22, 30-31) and yet also with his mercy (23-29). This blend will be tagged: "Blessing with Discipline". Ps 106 is another example of combination. The Psalm is bracketed by mixture as the historical recital begins with a pure Patience model for the Exodus redemption (6-12) and ends with a pure Discipline model for life in the land (34-46). 29 Between these two models can be discerned two pattern blends. The "Blessing with Discipline" blend already observed in Ps 78 appears in w . 13-15. However, alongside this is placed a new pattern blend which appears twice in Ps 106: "Patience by Intercession" ( w . 19-23, 28-31). In this pattern blend, the people sin ( w . 19-22, 28), Yahweh is provoked and either threatens or begins to exact discipline ( w . 23a, 29), but his patience is secured by an intercessor who arises to turn away this threat ( w . 23b, 30-31). The trend of combination extends into Neh 9 which is of utmost importance for the present study. As already noted, much has been said among scholars about the Dtr sequence of w . 26-31 and the crucial role it plays in the purpose of the prayer. However, this has deflected attention away from the bulk of the prayer which does not follow the Dtr schema and in some ways moves in a completely different direction. The element of human sin does not enter the historical recital until the Wilderness tradition. This tradition, however, is dominated by the Patience model: 30 Yahweh

29 30

Cf. Lee (1980:206); Kreuzer (1989:239); and the traditio-historical evaluation of Ps 106 above (p66). Lee (1980:206) noticed this for Neh 9:18-19. Pröbstl (1997:95) echoes our argument: "Die Wüstenzeit wird ausschließlich unter dem Akzent der wunderbaren Bewahrung Israels gelesen. Der Aspekt von Erziehung oder Bestrafung wird nicht ausdrücklich genannt. "

Tradition Sequencing Models

85

pours his blessings upon the people and although they rebel against him he not only displays his grace by withholding his wrath and continuing to sustain and guide them but does so for an additional forty years. In the Conquest-Land tradition, the Discipline model predominates and extends from w . 24-28 in its pure form. 31 The pure form of this pattern comes to a conclusion with the words D'RD Πί3Ί at the end of v. 28 (cf. Pss 78:38; 106:43). Neh 9:29-31 represents a blend of the two basic models. In broad terms the Discipline model characteristic of the Conquest-Land tradition is retained (9:29:1«ΒΠ; 9 : 3 0 : T 3 DJnril), but into this are inserted allusions to the Patience model typical of the Wilderness tradition (9:30: m a n a>iti dît 1 ?» ail of 9:3i). What is then the function of these models, mixtures and blends in Neh 9? One may wonder what place the Patience model has in penitential prayer. Does it not undermine the very concept of penitential prayer for in the Patience model mercy does not rely on human initiative in the face of need, but on divine patience in the face of rebellion? The answer to this question is found in the crucial role that the Abrahamic covenant plays in the prayer. 32 The first two tradition complexes (Creation, Abraham) are set off from the rest of the rehearsal of history through the employment of the declarative statement ("You are the Lord"). 33 By doing this the composer is introducing these two actions of God (Creation and the choosing of Abraham) as foundational for all that follows. This is bolstered by the fact that the only covenant mentioned in Neh 9 is that which God made with Abraham in regard to the land of Palestine; there is no mention of covenant making at Sinai.34 It is not accidental, therefore, that the Patience model is abandoned once the people enter the land. At this point the promise given to Abraham through covenant has been fulfilled (cf. Neh 9:8b). 35 The land has been possessed by Abraham's seed which has grown too numerous to number (cf. Neh 9:23). The Patience model is used to describe Yahweh's dealings with Israel up until the time the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled. At that point it is abandoned and the Discipline model explains why the people have lost this land. However, Neh 9:29-31, which represents the final broken cycle of the Discipline model (and thus crucial to their hope of renewal) contains clear allusions to the Patience model. For the composer of this prayer both models were crucial for his understanding of restoration. The Patience model allowed him the opportunity to point back to Abraham as the reason for their hope. The covenant made with this forefather was

31 32 33 34 35

Neh 9:24-25 forms the element of the initial blessing of Yahweh in the Judgment Model. See p80 above for justification of this. Cf. especially Holmgren (1987:131-132; 1992). This insightful point was emphasised by Pröbstl (1997). Cf. Rendtorff (1997:116). Pröbstl (1997:87) notices this transition as well, linking it to the Abrahamic promise.

86

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Overall)

confirmed and had continuing validity. Since the Divine judgment was a continuing reality for this suppliant, the Patience model (where human penitential response is irrelevant) had to be abandoned in favour of the Discipline model (where human penitential response is essential). Both models were useful for his purpose and thus were employed. If the Discipline model can be traced back to Dtr/Prophetic sources, what can be said of the origins of the Patience model? The crucial role that threat plays in it, suggests that this model probably also originated in prophetic circles. A look at the prophetic reproach model, identified by Westermann, Blenkinsopp and Kühlewein, reveals that it also could be the source of the Patience model. The same pattern is evident, the only difference is that the prophetic warning is followed by judgment in the Discipline model and by patience in the Patience model. This is confirmed by the prophetic reproach found in Hos 11. Here one finds the summary of history focused on the faithful love of Yahweh in spite of their idolatry. After the prophetic warning is given, 36 the mood shifts and Yahweh says that his heart has changed and he will not carry out his judgment ( w . 8-9). 37 There is no hint of any repentance on the part of the people as the basis of this change as found elsewhere in the prophets (Joel 2:13; Am 7:3, 6; Jonah 4:2) and the Dtr strand of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 26:3, 13, 19; 31.Ί9-20). 38 A similar progression can be found in Hos 2:417. Judgment is pronounced but is followed by words of love which then lead to a response (v. 17; cf. 18, 20, 25).

36

37 38

Wolff (1965:246-247, 249 [1974:192-193,200-201]) and Mays (1969:155) claimed that here, rather than a threat, an actual exile has already occurred. This was based primarily on the statement in v. 11 that Israel is in Egypt and Assyria. This interpretation was not followed by Harper (1936:365-367); McKeating (1971:137); Andersen-Freedman (1989:588); Stuart (1987:179), and Davies (1992:253-254; 1993:29) who envision here a threat followed by a change of heart. This interpretative school tries to do justice to the imperfect in v. 5 followed by a string of waw-consecutive perfects. Wolff (1965:249-253 [1974:196-203]), himself, argued for unity up to v. 9. However, the relationship of w . 10-11 to w . 1-9 was left in doubt. Cf. Wolff (1965:249-250 [1974:194]); Andersen-Freedman (1989:575-576, 587); Stuart (1987:176) who found no reason to separate Hos 11:8-9 from Hos 11:1-7. Cf. also Exod 32:7-14, the Golden Calf incident, in which God relents upon appeal to the promise to the Patriarchs. This is often seen as Dtr (Childs 1974:558-59). Although it does not base this relenting on the repentance of the people, it is occasioned by the prayer of Moses, similar to Ps 106.

Tradition Sequencing Models

87

In Deut/DtrH the Patience model is set aside for the Discipline model.39 After Hosea, it is only Ezekiel who embraces both models. The Discipline model dominates in the two metaphorical historical recitals (Ezek 16, 23) and the Patience model in the literal historical recital of Ezek 20. Therefore, the Patience model, as the Discipline model, has most likely arisen among prophetic circles. Hosea is the earliest prophet to use both models. The Dtr movement may have taken up the Discipline model from Hosea but was influenced little by the Patience model. In Ezekiel, however, there is a renaissance of this Patience model, where it exists alongside the Discipline model. This renaissance may provide the source of the influence behind Neh 9 and Ps 106. As will be discussed more fully below (pi89), Ezek 20 has exerted much influence on the vocabulary and concept of the traditions in Neh 9 and Ps 106. This influence may extend to the historiographie model employed.

III. Summary The overall shape of the prayer in Neh 9 has revealed the basic boundaries of the tradition complexes employed. In the process we have begun to see how the composer is using these various tradition complexes for his own purposes. This was revealed particularly in the delineation of the tradition sequencing models for the Exodus-Wilderness and Conquest-Land tradition complexes. Both complexes reveal a God who consistently showed mercy to his people. They provide a pattern for renewal for the present generation, enacted through the present prayer. Foundational to these models and to the prayer as a whole is the introductory traditions concerning Creation and Abraham. They provide the reason for hope for a return to the land, created and sustained by Yah weh and granted to them due to the faithfulness of Abraham. Little has been said as to the relationship between the form of these traditions in Neh 9 and those in the Pentateuchal and DtrH works. Before a more detailed study of the tradition complexes is undertaken, one preliminary insight can be offered. The presentation of the life of Israel in the wilderness already has revealed some divergences from the presentation in the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch the demarcation line between the Patience model and the Discipline model is the Sinai experience. In Neh 9 that line appears after the conquest in the land.

39

Deut 32 does conform to the Patience model, but with Weinfeld (1972:10) is to be regarded as a pre-Deut composition. For links between Hosea and Deuteronomy, see Nicholson (1967:58-82, 122); Weinfeld (1972:366-20, esp. 364 for Deut 32). Although in Deut/DtrH the discipline model predominates, Pröbstl (1998:82-83) notes that Deut 8:2-6; 29:1-8 reflect a positive aspect to the wilderness experience.

CHAPTER FOUR

Traditio-Historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail) The focus now moves from analysis of the overall flow of the prayer to that of each tradition in particular. The starting point and priority will always be the vocabulary and idioms employed by the composer but reflections on notions are not excluded, only approached with greater caution because of inherent dangers. Each section of the prayer will be considered in turn and will be concluded by a summary of the findings and consideration of the overall presentation of the tradition. 1

I. Hymnic Introduction (Neh 9:5c-d)

•STibN mrrnK id-q inip 5b ν

··

η

r

·.

ν

-ι τ

f

The initial call to praise Yahweh sets the tone of worship for the people. / " p 3 P i appears often in the Psalter, but seldom in narrative books. Of the eight occurrences, four are in Chr. 2 /Dip is used in the context of worship in 2 Chr 20:19 where one finds a similar progression to that found in Neh 9:1-5: the king and people bow down with faces to the ground and then Levites arise (/Dip) and praise (/bbn P i ) Yahweh. The combination / D i p + / " p a * does appear in one other passage in the Hebrew Bible: 2 Chr 30:27, but there, although the action is performed by Levites (along with priests), it refers to the blessing of the people (cf. 2 Chr 31:10). The initial imperatives calling the people to worship are indicative of praise in the later period (as seen in Chr) but are not restricted to this corpus.

1 2

Or elements of prayer as in the cases of "Hymnic Introduction" and "Request" which are not tradition complexes. Gen 24:28; Deut 8:10; Judg 5:2, 9; 1 Chr 29:10, 20; 2 Chr 20:26; 31:8.

90

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

3

[irn'?« η ρ

1

πηκ

ηη?]

b^orrnio obii)rr|à 5c ηηώφ DB7 'iD-Q·-! 5da Neh 9:5c-5da reveals affinity with several texts in the Hebrew Bible: Pss 41:14; 72:18-19; 89:53; 106:48; 1 Chr 29:10. 4 The four passages from the Psalms are often discussed in introductions to the Psalter because they occur at the seams between the "books" of the Psalter. Seldom, however, are 1 Chr 29:10 and Neh 9:5 drawn into the discussion. Common features include: 1. 2. 3. 4.

ηΐ-Q 3 and / f D ™ T t o V ' 'ribni rnrr 7 ctiv* 1?«®

For the majority of this century, scholars generally have agreed that these four passages are doxologies placed at the end of each book of the Psalter,10 claiming either that the doxologies were later redactional insertions,11 or that because there was a doxology in each of these psalms they were candidates for the final position in each book.12 The absence of a doxology at the end of the final book of the Psalter has been explained

3

This phrase has been added with Torrey (1910:280); RUDOLPH; WILLIAMSON; GUNNEWEG. W i t h BERTHEAU-RYSSEL; RUDOLPH; BOWMAN; WILLIAMSON, í O t »

"ÍDN®! suggested by LXX καί εΐπεν Εσδρας is rejected. 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

T o r r e y ( 1 9 1 0 : 2 8 0 - 2 8 1 ) ; WILLIAMSON. BERTHOLET; BOWMAN; BLENKINSOPP also

cited Pss 41, 72, 106. Even without the textual emendation suggested above (p90n3), there are clear correspondences. Pss 41:14; 72:18, 19; 89:53; 106:48; 1 Chr 29:10; Neh 9:5. Ps 72:19; 1 Chr 29:10; Neh 9:5. Pss 41:14; 106:48; 1 Chr 29:10. Ps 72:18 adds OTÓN. Ps 89:53 only includes ΓΠΓΡ. Neh 9:5 has it in the call to worship and thus renders: DD'H^K ΓΠΪΤ. Pss 41:14; 72:19; 89:53; 106:48; 1 Chr 29:10; Neh 9:5. Pss 41:14; 72:19; 89:53 have double Ps 106:48 only one, while 1 Chr 29:10 and Neh 9:5 have none. For the earliest testimony to the fivefold division of the Psalter in both Jewish and Christian writings see especially Gese (1972) and Jacquet (1975:72-73). Riedel (1899); Rissane (1954:I:ix, II: 173); Dahood (1965:xxx-xxxii,253; 1968:185, 320; 1970:77); Anderson (1972:27); Kidner (1973:4); Rogerson-McKay (1977:1:3); Kraus (1978:1:8-14 [1988:1:16-21]). Weiser (1955:12, 66-68, 233, 343, 468-469 [1962:21, 99-101, 345, 504, 683]); Mowinckel (1962:11:193-194, 197, 199); Westermann (1977:195-202 [1981b:250258]).

Hymnic Introduction

91

by the fact that Ps 150 is the concluding doxology13 or that the conclusion to the Psalter is to be fixed at an earlier point. 14 This prevailing consensus has been seriously questioned in recent years because of the lack of correspondence between the doxologies and because of the divergent lengths of the books. 15 No matter what one's conclusion on the function of these doxologies in the redactional history of the Psalter, it is quite clear that they arose in the setting of the communal worship of Israel. Evidence for this lies in the word |Qtt In Pss 41, 72, and 89 it is repeated twice without introduction. In Ps 106:48, where it only appears once, it is clearly designated as a liturgical response of the worshipping assembly, something which is confirmed by the Chr rendition in 1 Chr 16:36. This parallels the use of JQljl elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Although it can be used to mean "let it be so" (1 Kgs 1:36; Jer 11:5; 28:6), it is often used in a religious context as the liturgical response of the people (Num 5:23; Deut 27:15-26; Neh 5:13; 8:6). JON then identifies these doxologies in the Psalter as common liturgical expressions which arose and were fostered in the context of the communal worship of the people. This point is strengthened by the appearance of similar renditions in 1 Chr 29:10 and Neh 9:5 and explains why the Chronicler incorporated Ps 106:48 into his narrative (1 Chr 16:36).16 Although Blenkinsopp recognised a relationship between Neh 9:5 and the doxologies in the Psalter,17 he argued that because the doxology is found at the beginning of the prayer in Neh 9 it either relies on 1 Chr 29:10 (and thus is a mark of the Chronicler) or it shows that Neh 9:5b formed the

13 14

Nearly all cited above (p90nl2) see this point, e.g. Mowinckel (1962:11:196). Riedel (1899): 135:19-21; cf. 145:21 and Wilson (1985).

15

Four scholars stand at the forefront of opposition: Eerdmans (1947:14-27, esp. 2327); Mowinckel (1962:11:193-199); Gese (1972); Wilson (1983; 1984; 1985; 1986; 1993). Kraus mentioned Niemeyer (1950).

16

Scholars who argued that 1 Chr 16 relies on Ps 106 include: Riedel (1899); CurtisMadsen (1910:221); Myers (1965a:1:121); Michaeli (1967:93n7); Dahood (1970:77); Jacquet (1975:1:72-73); Butler (1978); Kraus (1978:11:907 [1988:11:322); DeVries (1989:148-150). Those who argued that Ps 106 relies on 1 Chr 16 include: Hitzig (1865:II:IX-X); Jacob (1897); Keil (1872:210-218); Rudolph(1955:127-128). Those that argued that both rely on a third source or a liturgical tradition: Gese (1972); Ackroyd (1973:64-65). Note especially how "ION is a perfect consecutive in Ps 106:48, continuing the imperatival mood, while 1 Chr 16:36 renders this as an imperfect consecutive to follow the narrative progression of the chapter (cf. vv. 2, 36b, 43). This suggests that the Chr has accommodated Ps 106:48 into his narrative flow. This is also seen in the difference between ΓΓΊ^ΓΙ in Ps 106:48 and ΠΊΓΛ in 1 Chr 16:36.

17

BLENKINSOPP

cited Pss 4 1 : 1 4 , 4 5 : 1 8 , 1 0 6 : 4 8 and 1 1 5 : 1 8 . Pss 4 5 : 1 8 and 1 1 5 : 1 8 do not contain the same correspondences noted above and are clearly linked to their respective psalms.

92

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

conclusion to a liturgical psalm which is unconnected to the prayer (inserted later) in Neh 9:6-37. This latter view is based on the assumption that these doxologies were restricted to the conclusion of psalms. This does not have to be the case as 1 Chr 29:10 shows. Most likely this doxological formula was a "stock" expression which was used on occasions of worship to elicit the response of the people. In some cases, the doxology of the leader and the response of the people are recorded, 18 in others only the one or the other. In summary, the beginning of the prayer in Neh 9 represents a "stock" doxological expression associated with communal worship in the Persian period (if not earlier). ntoiro r cτn»a:- b sτ- S u- oni-ini 5dpr τ · « " The meaning of this final phrase in Neh 9:5 is disputed, which makes it difficult to achieve firm conclusions on its source. First of all, DDilQ (/D"nPol''d) is only attested three times in the Hebrew Bible (Neh 9:5; Pss 75:11; 66:17). The last instance does appear in the context of praise but is an extremely difficult construction. In Neh 9:5, it either continues the sense of the implicitly passive construction W i y i , thus rendering "May your name be praised and exalted"20 or introduces a clause modifying the name of Yahweh, rendering "which is exalted"21 or "although it is exalted". 22 The question then is, what does the phrase Π^ΠΓΙΊ Γ Ο Ί Ϊ Τ ' Ί Φ - 1 ? » mean? The majority of commentators understand as spatial: "above all blessing and praise", 23 interpreted by Bowman (1954:746) to mean: "God is so transcendent that any blessing and praise would be inadequate". This understanding reveals a striking affinity with Ps 106 (v. 2), a psalm closely related to Neh 9, where there occurs not only the sense of futility in fully expressing the praise of Yahweh, but also the similar construction, V s + rfenn, as in Neh 9:5. 24 τ · : '

18 19

Both elements appear in the doxologies of the Psalter in every case except the possible Ps 145. 1 Chr 29:10; Neh 9:5 record that of the leader; Neh 8:5-6, that of the people. The fact that the people respond with weeping in Neh 8 may show that we have the elements of a Penitential Liturgy here. Cf. Ahlström (1971:128n2) and literature cited there.

20

COGGINS.

21

BOWMAN; MYERS; MCCONVILLE; GUNNEWEG; BLENKINSOPP; THRONTVEIT.

22

GALLING; WILLIAMSON.

23

GALLING; BOWMAN; MYERS; GUNNEWEG; BLENKINSOPP.

24

Cf. Pss 9:15; 71:14.

Hymnic Introduction

93

Conclusion: Hymnic Introduction Striking similarities between services of worship in ChrH, the doxologies of the Psalter and the hymnic introduction in Neh 9 have shown that Neh 9:5 incorporates a "stock" expression of praise common in the liturgy of the Persian period (if not earlier). The last part of the hymnic introduction shows links both conceptually and verbally with Ps 106, a member of Penitential Prayer. The links identified here most likely have arisen due to not literary dependence but rather a common Sitz im Leben.

II. Creation Tradition (Neh 9:6) η}? 1 ? ΠΙ/Τ ΝΊΠΓΠΓΙΗ 6a Neh 9:6 begins with a declaration of the exclusive nature of Yahweh. This might suggest a connection with one of the doxologies of the Psalter highlighted above (Ps 72:18, 19), but the term "D"? is not a regular component in these doxologies and, more importantly, in Ps 72 it refers to the activity of Yahweh rather than to his person. 25 Rather than looking back to the Hymnic Introduction for the clue to the source of Neh 9:6a, it is productive to look forward to the Creation tradition, a tradition with which the theme of the uniqueness of Yahweh is often linked. Three bodies of literature, in particular, make this connection: Historical recitals, Deutero-Isaiah, and Deut/DtrH. 26 Among historical recitals only Jer 32 and Ps 136 mention creation, and only the latter links it with the exclusivity of Yahweh.27 Here again Yahweh's exclusivity is connected to his activity rather than his character. In Deutero-Isaiah there is a clear connection between creation and exclusivity yet little correspondence in vocabulary. 28 In the one instance where there is correspondence (Isa 44:24), uniqueness is related to Yahweh's activity

25

26

27 28

The Psalter offers several examples of praise of God's exclusivity. Apart from 72:18, 19 see 4:9; 83:19; 86:10; 148; 13. But none offer a connecting point beyond the general tradition of praise. For the theme of exclusivity see also the famous Shema in Deut 6:4 and the opening of the Decalogue in Exod 20:2, 3//Deut 5:6, 7 which reflect the same theme but contain no verbal correspondence. Boström (1990:148-155) outlined the link of creation and the supremacy of Yahweh in wisdom literature, but there is no verbal correspondence between wisdom literature and Neh 9:6a. Ps 135 contains no links in vocabulary and does not concern Yahweh's creative activity, but rather his continuing control over it (135:6-7). Cf. Muilenburg (1956:403-404) ; Anderson ( 1984:18-21 ) ; Boström (1990:154) ; Oden (1992:1165-166). In the three passages usually linked by commentators to Neh 9 (Isa 44:6; 45:5, 21), the phrase f N is used with ni», TÒ1T and/or H » 1 » ? ·

94

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

rather than his character. Deut/DtrH again forges a relationship between creation and exclusivity, even if this is a later development, but only provides one contact in terms of vocabulary. 29 This point of contact, however, is significant and shows that the phrase in Neh 9:6a is drawn from Dtr idiom. 2 Kgs 19:15, 19 (=Isa 37:16, 20) is a record of Hezekiah's prayer in the face of the Assyrian threat. The same wording as Neh 9:6 is used, the only difference being the name of God, which even within the parallel tradition of Hezekiah's prayer displays some variation (cp. 2 Kgs 19:19 and Isa 37:20). It is used in the context of a prayer to God for deliverance from a foreign power and forms an inclusio around the prayer. In the use of the phrase near the beginning of the prayer it appears in the immediate context of praise of God as creator, using the word VntPîî. However, the structure of the description of the universe is different from Neh 9 (see p96). The word ΊΊΏ 1 ? is attributed to God directly and not to his work. These points show that Neh 9:6a has either borrowed directly from this prayer or there was a "stock" phrase associated with prayers for deliverance, especially the rendition embraced in the Dtr tradition. 30 It shows that the phrase is closely connected with the creation tradition which is used as evidence of God's exclusivity in the world. 31

D«3s _l 7Di D^atpn -Ό® 32 ο··α0Π-ηκ svfeç m 6b 'dna

D ^ ' n rrbw' n w ^ - b b i j n â n 6 c

1. Creation a. Creation story type Westermann has provided two different categorizations of creation traditions in the ANE. 33 The first schema contrasts those stories which depict the

29 30 31

32

33

See Weinfeld (1972:32-45) for his typology of the incorporation of these themes into Dtr orations. This prayer is identified as Dtr by Childs (1967b:99-100); Gray (1970:666-667); Weinfeld (1972:39, 52); Clements (1980:56-57, 90-108); Balentine (1993:91). l x x a b N translate BjDST 1 » with και πασαν τήν στάσιν αύτων. Greek στάσιν usually translates a form of /1DÜ, so BATTEN suggests 0 Ί 0 0 (cf. Job 26:11 for pillars of heaven). JAHN suggests DSXOon the basis of Judg 9:6. K22C is translated many ways in LXX and when it is used in relationship to the heavens it often views ICS as a term for an army (cp. Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3; Jer 8:2). The Greek word σχάσις can be used for a party, company, band. The MT should be retained. With MT and LXX . The absence of the first τον ούρανόν in LXXAB may be due to parablepsis or to translation licerle (may have been seen as unduly repetitive or inelegant Greek). The και in LXX linking "heaven" and "heaven of heavens" is probably only due to the influence of Deut 10:13. Westermann (1974:31-56 [1984a:23-40]); cf. Anderson (1988:62).

Creation Tradition

95

origin of the whole (world) with those which describe the origin of the one (humankind). One can readily see that this describes the contrast between Gen 1 and 2 respectively. Westermann's second schema contrasts creation traditions which depict creation by birth, through struggle, through fashioning/making/forming, and through utterance. He concluded that Gen 1 took over the third type and blended it with a rendition of creation through utterance. 34 Gen 2 would fall into the third category alone. The second type (primeval struggle) is not adopted in either Gen 1 or 2, but can be discerned in Deutero-Isaiah and some psalms. 35 In terms of the first schema, Neh 9 clearly falls into the category of the origin of the whole, displaying affinity with Gen 1. However, in terms of the second schema, there is no mention of creation through utterance as is characteristic of Gen 1. Additionally, mythical elements of creation by struggle as typical of Deutero-Isaiah and some psalms are absent. In Neh 9, creation by fashioning stands alone.

b. Creation and Redemption in Neh 9 In Neh 9 the Creation tradition is used immediately prior to the recitation of the history of redemption, beginning with the election of Abraham. The use of creation as prologue to the divine saving work for Israel has been identified in both the Yahwist and Priestly accounts of creation in Genesis36 and in Deutero-Isaiah, 37 and stands in contrast to the wisdom tradition where creation is distanced from salvation appearing as an independent element. 38 Nevertheless, the connection between creation and redemption in Neh 9 is not as strong as that of Deutero-Isaiah, 39 and

34 35 36 37

38

39

Cf. von Rad (1957:146-147 [1962:142]). For the debate over tension in Gen 1:12:4a between Tatbericht and Wortbericht, see Anderson (1977). Von Rad (1953a:50-51 [1972:64]); Stuhlmueller (1959:432); McKenzie (1968.LIXLX) S tadelmann (1970:26-27); Whybray (1975:36-37); Clifford (1992:500-501). Von Rad (1936:143 [1966:139]; 1957:142-144 [1962:138-140]); Eichrodt (1967:101); Anderson (1967:33-42); Anderson (1977:161). Von Rad (1957:142-143 [1962:138]); Stuhlmueller (1959:467); McKenzie (1968:83); Stadelmann (1970:27); Anderson (1977:161); Barth (1991:10); Clifford (1992:500-501). Cf. von Rad (1936:143-146 [1966:139-142]; 1957:143-144, 447-449 [1962:139, 449-450]); Hermisson (1978); Anderson (1984:11-14); Boström (1990:73-89, esp. 87-88). See von Rad (1957) who shows how ΓίΙκ'τΜ in wisdom texts refers to the miracle of creation, rather than redemption (Job 5:9ff; 9:8ff; 37:14; Ps 139:14). Cf. von Rad (1936:138-141 [1966:134-137]); Anderson (1967:120; 1984:6); Barth (1991:10); Clifford (1992:500-501). One must be careful here. Anderson (1967:20) probably overstates the case when he writes "not once does Second Isaiah deal with creation by itself apart from history. " However, it is a good corrective to those who have often identified salvation and creation in Deutero-Isaiah. Errors have

96

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

displays more affinity with Gen 1 and 2 which are placed prior to accounts which lead to the election and redemption of Israel, but on their own do not focus on redemption. 40 Neh 9 forges this subtle link through the repetition of the phrase ΓΠ/Τ ΝΊΓΓΠΓ18 at the beginning of 9:6 and 9:7 and thus reveals affinity with the Genesis accounts of creation as viewed in their present location in the Pentateuch.

2. Structure of the Universe a. The structure of the universe in Neh 9 Neh 9:6 portrays a tripartite conception of the universe: heaven, earth and sea. This is shown by the fact that after each of these divisions are named, a reference to the objects which filled the respective region is provided. That which fills the Region

Region

kost1»} ¡τ ?» •iittor1»} 1

oris ntfir 1 »}

own

b. O'Orcn nstf in Neh 9 This observation of a tripartite division introduces the question of the meaning of D'Dtön Ή φ . It may be a way to emphasize the entire heavenly realm and thus may not constitute a separate region at all. It may be a way of distinguishing between the lower heavens (where birds would live) and the higher heavens (where the heavenly bodies were placed). It may be the first sign of the tendency in later Jewish thought to divide the heavens into

been made on two points. First of all, assuming that every use of vocabulary and notions characteristic of primeval struggle means a reference to creation (cf. especially McCarthy 1984; contra McKenzie 1968:126). Secondly, asserting that the creation of the world is considered by Deutero-Isaiah as an event of Heilsgeschickte (contra Muilenburg 1956; Stuhlmueller 1959; Anderson 1967). God's creative powers are applied to the creation of the new Israel after the Exile but this does not then change creation of the world into a salvation event. 40

The focal point of Gen 1 is the institution of the Sabbath (cf. Brueggemann 1982:35; Coats 1983:45,47) and that of Gen 2 the institution of marriage. Pss 33, 136, 148 also place creation and redemption side-by-side but do not forge a strong link between them.

Creation Tradition

97

many regions, a trend which may have been initiated by contact with Babylonian mythology. 41 No matter what this phrase means, it does not eliminate the tripartite conception of the cosmos in Neh 9:6. It does, however, draw attention to other passages in the Hebrew Bible which use it. Most commentators point to Deut 10:14 and 1 Kgs 8:27//2 Chr 6:18 as the source of this phrase. In Deut 10:14 it is incorporated into Moses' address and tied directly to historical recital about the love of Yahweh for the forefathers and the election of Israel. In 1 Kgs 8:27//2 Chr 6:18 it appears in a passage which was formative for Penitential Prayer in general. Therefore, the use of this phrase is associated with Dtr circles and becomes another example of Dtr phraseology in this prayer. Nevertheless, it is important to note that in neither of these passages is the basic structure of Neh 9:6 evident (heaven/earth/sea), an observation which prompts a look at other schemata for describing the universe.

c. The source of the structure of the cosmos in Neh 9:6 In the Hebrew Bible there are three fundamental schemata used to describe the universe: 42 1) heaven and earth; 43 2) earth and sea;44 3) heaven and earth and sea. 45 Neh 9 fits into the third schema46 and two passages from this category are striking. Ps 135:6 uses the Hebrew phraseology: n i a i n r i - ^ D ) Délira f n i o i D'Dtë?. T h e absence of the preposition 3 b e f o r e

n i O i n r r S s most likely indicates that the last two members refer to the same region. 47 Ps 136 is not as similar, assuming the pre-existence of water and speaking directly only of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Nevertheless, all three categories are present.

41 42

43

44 45 46

47

Cf. Vriezen (1960:185); Eichrodt (1967:94); Stadelmann (1970:42); CLINES. Contra Stadelmann (1970:126, 177). Two other schemata are: Heaven and the heaven of heavens and the earth and all that is in it (Deut 10:14; 1 Kgs 8:27//2 Chr 6:18; cf. 2 Chr 2:5) and Circle of the earth, heaven, earth (Isa 40:22-23). Gen 1:1; 2:4a; 14:18-22; Exod 31:17; Deut 28:23; Josh 2:11; 2 Sam 18:9; 1 Kgs 8:23, 24; 2 Kgs 19:15//Isa 37:16; 1 Chr 21:16; 29:11; 2 Chr 2:11; Pss 89:11; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 148:1, 7; Isa 42:5; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 66:22; Jer 10:13; 32:17; 51:15; Ezek 8:3; Zech 5:9. Pss 95:5; 104:24; Jonah 1:9. Gen 2:4-6; Exod 20:4//Deut 5:8; 20:11; Pss 69:34; 96:11; 135:6; 136:5-6; 146:6; Isa 40:12; Am 9:6; Hag 2:6. The only other passages that could be cited here with four elements which might be related to Neh 9:6 are Prov 3:19-20; 8:22-31; 30:4. It is difficult to identify any of the elements in Proverbs with "highest heaven". llQPsand some Medieval mss containa 3 (Dahood 1970:260). However, the MT should be retained as the more difficult reading.

98

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

What diminishes the significance of these two psalms and directs attention to other passages within the third category is the absence of reference to that which fills each level of the cosmos, a feature which is most common in the tripartite division (Exod 20:11; Pss 33:6-8; 69:35; 96:11 ; 146:6) and confirms Neh 9's membership in this category. Of these five references, Exod 20:11 and Ps 146:6 are the closest to Neh 9 because they refer to that which fills every level, while the others restrict such reference to only one of the three levels.48 In Exod 20:11 reference to creation is made in relation to the Sabbath commandment, an emphasis not found in the account of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy. This connection between creation and Sabbath is also forged in Gen l:l-2:4a. 4 9 However, does not this account in Genesis focus on /N"Ü and the scheme "heavens and earth" (Gen 1:1; 2: l), 50 distancing it from Neh 9?51 A closer look at Gen 1 dispels this contrast. First of all, the words ViOS and STWS are both used in Gen 1 and no distinction can be discerned between them. Secondly, although the combination of / Ν Ώ + ^"ΙΜΠΊ D'QtPn forms an inclusio around this account of creation, 52 two other Hebrew words, /1QK and VTltPJJ, are employed more frequently for describing the actual creative activity of God. In Gen 2:2 when the creation story is connected to the Sabbath commandment, /ntoJJ is used twice to refer to God's work of creation. It is striking that from the first time Gen l:l-2:4a uses /Πί&ΰ (v. 7), the cosmos is successively divided into three compartments, signified by the verb /N"lj?: heaven (v. 8), earth (v. 10), and sea (v. 10). This is followed by the description of the filling of each of these compartments: land with vegetation, heavens with lights, sea with creatures, heavens with birds, land with living creatures. 53

48 49 50 51 52 53

Only Neh 9 refers to filling after the enumeration of each level. See Childs (1974:415-417) for the relationship between Exod 20:11 and Gen 1:12:4a and the differences between Exod 20:11 and Deut 5:12-15. Wenham (1987:7) argued that Gen l:l-2:4a vacillates between the two poles of heaven and earth. Both RYLE and D AVIES argued against any connection between Neh 9 and Gen 1 because of the absence of /Ν"Ω. See Anderson (1977:159); Coats (1983:43); Wenham (1987:5). Numerous rhetorical analyses of Gen l:l-2:4a have been conducted. On the level of the individual units, most agree that there is a repeating pattern of WordFulfilment throughout (Declarative Formula, Command, Execution, Divine Approbation; Anderson 1977:152; cf. McEvenue 1970:104-105;Coats 1983:42-48). On the level of the passage as a whole, the majority of scholars limit themselves to the seven day structure (Skinner 1930:9; Cassuto 1961:17; Doukhan 1978:50, 78; Coats 1983:42-48; Wenham 1987:7). This has been criticized because it does not take into account the fact that eight acts of creation are distributed over six days, a fact which for many points to a prehistory of the text (cf. Skinner 1930:7-8; Westermann 1974:123-125 [1984a:88-89]). Anderson (1977:157) freed himself from the day structure and argued for two movements in Gen 1 which were not

Creation Tradition

99

This closer look at Gen 1:1-2:4a has revealed that S7\iBV introduces the reader to the tripartite division of the universe and that subsequently these three divisions are filled with objects and beings created by God. 54 When one considers additionally the focus on the Sabbath commandment, the relationship of Gen l:l-2:4a to Exod 20:11 is obvious. These same emphases are discernible in Neh 9 (for the Sabbath see pl32f) and provide further evidence of a connection between Gen l:l-2:4a and Neh 9. ο ·» »\ - η Ην π»πη πηκι 6da ν - s » - s / n , n P i is normally used in the context of Yahweh's preservation of his creatures (often humans) threatened with death.55 On one occasion, Deuteronomy (Deut 6:24) speaks about the preservation of those in the land obedient to the commands of God (cf. Ezek 3:18; 18:27). However, it is only used once in the context of creation: Job 33:4, where another word found in Neh 9:6 is also used: 'ΓΠΠ "Ht? nntMl ^ntPV ^TBVl. Not only is there similarity in terms of vocabulary but also in the concept of the sequence of creation. Both describe a two-step process: Yahweh makes and then imparts life. This same emphasis is shared by the account in Gen 2, where Yahweh first forms man and then breathes life into him (2:7). It is not surprising to find the closest parallel in a wisdom book. As already noted, creation was an important emphasis among wisdom circles, and because of the high importance attached to "order" within this creation, the sages highlight Yahweh's continuing providential care of the created order. Job 33:4 is one of several passages in Job which betray the composer's knowledge of the Genesis Urgeschichte.57 It reveals wisdom influence, while independently sharing common ground with the account in Gen 2.

determined by the days of the week (6-8//14-19; 8-10//20-23; 11-13//24-25). Although we do not agree with the borders of his units, it is important to avoid fixation on the day structure at the expense of other observations. 54

55 56 57

WILLIAMSON; BLENKINSOPP have compared M O S T 1 » in Neh 9:6 to the identical

phrase in Gen 2:1. However, in Neh 9:6 it is restricted to that which fills the heavenly sphere, while in Gen 2:1 it refers to the components of the entire universe. Gen 7:3; Pss 22:30; 30:4; 33:19; 41:3; 119passim; 138:7. Cf. Hermisson (1978:119); Murphy (1985:6-7; 1992:922); Boström (1990:47-89, esp. 47, 74-75). Boström (1990:72-73); Mettinger (1992:48^9,236n44): cp. Gen l:3/Job 3:4; Gen l:21/Job 40:15; Gen 2:7, 3:19/Job 1:21, 4:19, 10:9; Gen 2:7/Job 27:3, 32:7-8, 33:4; Gen 2:21-24/Job 18:12; Gen 3/Job 31:33. Although see Whybray (1965; 1974:105).

100

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

D'irjntöa η1? ο ή ε π « a s i 6dß Determinative for identifying the source of this phrase is the meaning of the word N2X. Does it refer to the created heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars) or to the heavenly beings surrounding the throne of God? In the Hebrew Bible both groups are identified by the same term and express praise to Yahweh. There are three reasons why this should be understood as a reference to the created heavenly bodies. First of all, the earlier occurrence of tOX in this verse most likely refers to the heavenly bodies and it would be unusual to understand the word differently only two lines later. Secondly, 9:6b-c describes the creation of the entire universe: heaven, earth and sea and that which fills those three levels, while 9:6da then depicts the impartation of life to the creatures created in 9:6b-c. One may then expect some mention of that which fills the level of the "heavens and highest heavens". This mention comes in 9:6dß. Thirdly, ΓΠΙΊΓΙΒΠ is not associated with when it means a heavenly being, 58 while it is the usual word in conjunction with K22f when it means a heavenly body. 59 The instances in which this connection is made are associated with the Dtr movement. It is possible that Neh 9:6dß is a deliberate attempt to emulate the Dtr attack against false worship by noting that the heavenly bodies worshipped by unfaithful Israel actually worship Yahweh. The phrase used here in Neh 9:6 may have arisen as a result of Dtr influence and refers to the heavenly bodies.

Conclusion: Creation Tradition On several occasions in the evaluation of the Creation tradition in Neh 9:6 note has been made of Dtr terminology: f ! ^ Ν1ΪΊΓΠΓΙ8 as in 2 Kgs 19, c m n "»13» as in Deut 10/1 Kgs 8 and' ninVllffn/iOa'as throughout Deut/DtrH. Nevertheless, in every case other characteristics revealed that Dtr idiom is being used in a different sense or context. On several occasions similarities were noted between Neh 9:6 and other historical recitals (Jer 32, Pss 135 and 136), and yet in each case there were enough differences to only allow for a general trend in historical recital during the period. It could not account for the actual wording of the composer.

58

59

Josh 5:14, 15 depicts Joshua falling in worship/homage to the captain of the host; 1 Sam 1:3 and Zech 14:16, 17 refer to the worship of the Lord of hosts (thus not the hosts themselves); when the host worship another word is always used: 1 Kgs 22:19//2 Chr 18:18; Pss 89:6-8; 103:21; 148:2. Usually it appears in reference to the worship of the host of heaven (i.e. heavenly bodies) in Deut/DtrH (Weinfeld 1972:321): Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3 [ = 2 Chr 33:3], 5 [ = 2 Chr 33:5]; Jer 8:2. Cf. Zeph 1:5.

101

Abraham Tradition

Consistently attention was drawn to the account of creation in Gen 1. The type of creation story related, the loose connection to redemption, and the tripartite structure determined by the use of /¡"IK?J? all pointed to Gen l:l-2:4a as a key text for the composer of Neh 9:6. But there was also evidence of contact with the creation account in Gen 2:4b-25 in terms of the two stage approach to the creation of life and the close association with a wisdom creation text which betrays links to Gen 2. Therefore, in terms of the Creation tradition, one finds a composer wellacquainted with the Dtr tradition and idiom but who demonstrates freedom to transform Dtr expressions into new forms. The composer is also free to incorporate elements from other depictions of creation, especially those presented in Gen 1: l-2:4a and 2:4b-25. This final point constitutes the first evidence that the composer may be relying on the completed Pentateuch.

III. Abraham Tradition (Neh 9:7-8) o n a « ? n i n a 7aß /1P1S is never used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to describe the relationship between Yahweh and Abraham. 60 However, it is a favourite word in Dtr thought, used to denote Yahweh's election of Israel at the Exodus as his people, of the temple and Jerusalem as his sanctuary and of David as his representative. 61 In Dtr passages (plOlnól), the descendants ( j n p of the fathers (JTQ«) are chosen ( / T D ) , while the fathers (ΠΏΧ) themselves have been loved (/SHK) or have had Yahweh's affection set upon them (/ρ!0Π). Therefore, for Deut/DtrH, the focus of election is on the Exodus rather than the "patriarchal" generation. 62 / Ί Γ Π is also an important term in Deutero-Isaiah (41:8-9; 42:1; 43:10, 20; 44:1; 48:14; 49:7) and Trito-Isaiah (65:9, 15, 22)63 where election is focused on Israel, Jacob and Yahweh's Servant, but never Abraham. Thus, here a word favoured in Dtr or Deutero-Isaianic circles is used in a unique way. Especially in comparison to Dtr usage, it seems to reveal an attempt to focus attention on the Patriarchal period as the period of

60

Cf.

WILLIAMSON;

BLENKINSOPP.

Patrick

(1992:436-437);

Rendtorff

(1997:112)

contra

Nevertheless, see Gen 18:19 where / J ? T is possibly used in the

s e n s e o f "choose" ( V o n Rad 1 9 5 6 : 1 7 8 [ 1 9 7 2 : 2 0 9 ] ; Patrick 1 9 9 2 : 4 3 7 ) .

61

Weinfeld (1972:324, 327, 354). It is also used of the King (Deut 17:15); Levi (Deut 18:5; 21:5); Aaron (1 Sam 2:28); King Saul (1 Sam 10:24); People (1 Kgs 3:8). Cf. Patrick (1992:435-436).

62

So also Lee (1980:137) concluded that in Deut/DtrH, election (e.g. Deut 7:6ff) is unmerited and based on the promise to the Patriarchs linked with the Exodus. This is quite apart from the arguments of Van Seters (1972; 1975 passim) that the references in Deuteronomy to "forefathers" are later insertions.

63

Cf. Patrick (1992:439).

102

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

origins, by using a term usually associated with the Exodus period in connection with Abraham. 64 en»?

65

-ηκο i n a s i n ì 7b6). 299 Neh 9:29 uses a similar construction SVOBf + b + /»O® + b nearly always appears in the Hebrew Bible in combination with a pronoun (26/44 times) or with the word ^ p (12/44 times).300 Although Neh 9:29 is the only occurrence linked directly to niSQ, /lìQtP + i ò + 5 is favoured in Lev 26 ( w . 14, 18, 21, 27) and in v. 14 it is placed parallel to n i s n . In the case of Neh 9:29, the composer may only be showing creativity in variation, or may be showing influence from Lev 26. The two other uses of /DD® in relation to human activity and the use of /JfN™ in Neh 9 do not possess an object. /JJDtt? without an object is common in the Hebrew Bible, but usually occurs in the sense of hearing (about) something or calling the attention of the audience. The meaning in Neh 9 is listening in the sense of obeying. In some of the other cases in the Hebrew Bible this sense is used of obeying or heeding a verbal

297

Deut 9:6, 13 (Golden Calf); 9:27 (other rebellions); 10:16 (Golden Calf); 31:27 (an overview of his leadership); 2 Kgs 17:14 (Kadesh Barnea); Jer 7:26; 17:23 (Exodus generation after law-giving).

298

The question of whether these passages are true Jeremiah or not is irrelevant. These prose sections portray Dtr idiom. nì^n is linked to /SD® + K1? in Lev 26:14, but only in a parallelism (cf. 26:18, 21, 27).

299 300

Notice how in Ps 18:12, 14 these two constructions are equated.

148

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

command (Gen 42:?2; Exod 7:16; Num 27:20; Deut 1:43; Judg 11:17; 1 Kgs 20:8; 2 Kgs 14:11; Job 36:11, 12; Isa 1:19; 48:8). In Isa 65:12; 66:4; Jer 7:13; Zech 7:13 it is used of the response of the people to God's calling to them (/J?DBnÔ). In Ezekiel, VBDB? without an object in the sense of obeying is found six times, but each time except one it is accompanied by / b i n " and each time except two by "HQTVa. Jeremiah, however, not only uses VffOtV without an object in the sense of obeying the most times (by far) of any book in the Hebrew Bible, but nearly always in connection with í ó and often accompanied by similar idioms and vocabulary to those found in Neh 9. 301 The only other passage similar to this is 2 Kgs 17:14. Of these passages, Jer 7:26 and 2 Kgs 17:14, 40 use this phrase in connection with the wilderness generation and with the purpose to link the wilderness generation to the present generation. In both cases the prophets are instrumental in bringing the law to the remembrance of the people. It is not surprising, then, that Neh 9:17 and 9:29 use /DDtP without an object in the sense of obeying in connection with both the wilderness generation and the generations who were warned by the prophets. Again this highlights Dtr influence on Neh 9. 302 The influence of the Dtr/Jer idiom is confirmed by a look at the use of /|NQ Pi in the Hebrew Bible. /^HO" is only used forty-one times in the Hebrew Bible and of these, ten are in Jeremiah. Two related words, the adjectives and must also be considered and of the five occurrences of these words two are in Jeremiah. When /|HQ Pi is used to refer to disobeying Yahweh's commands, Dtr/Jer usage is overwhelming. Seven out of the seventeen instances occur in Jeremiah and if one includes the two nominal forms, 9/22. It is then not surprising to learn that the combination / ^ t f 1 + the infinitive of VJJntí is found only in Jer 11:10 and 1 Sam 8:19 and if one includes the nominal form: |ND + JJiDtP1?, then Jer 13:10 is the only other passage. Only Jer 11:10 links this combination with the wilderness generation and furthermore with their disobedience. Jer 11:1-13 also contains other similar vocabulary to that which is found in Neh 9: 1»ακ? Hb (Jer 11:8, cp. Neh 9:16, 2921, 30), Οί»Π~Ι» (11:7, cp. 9:10), /*TfflHlf (11:7, cp. 9:26, 29, 30, 34); Π Ί Τ Ι ψ (11:8, cp. 9:29). This

301

302

Cf. esp. Jer 7:24; 11:8; 13:11; 17:23; 25:4; 26:3; 29:19; 32:33; 44:5. All of these occur in Jeremianic prose and 7:24; 11:8; 17:23; 25:4 in the C-level (Rudolph 1968:XVII). The close connection to 2 Kgs 17 confirms Dtr influence. Similarly, Geißler (1899:18) linked this terminology to Jeremiah and Deut/DtrH. VJJ00 + Ntb is used in the Pentateuchal wilderness narratives, but always in connection with Vp3. See especially Num 14:22 and Deut 9:23 where the Israelites refuse to enter the Promised Land and in Exod 23:21 where the people are called to obey the angel which would guide them into the land. It is significant that the composer has not used this idiomatic expression (VBDItf + 3 + Vp).

Wilderness Tradition

149

evidence points again to the influence of the Dtr/Jer depiction of the wilderness generation. 303 Dna» η» Φ· »t -iato t Ii ïν i ô t bi 'j f τ · τ —.

r os τ n ò i

The notion that the root of Israel's rebellion lay in their inability to remember the great deeds Yahweh had performed in their midst is highlighted in many parts of the Hebrew Bible. It is a major theme in the presentation of the rebellion at Kadesh Barnea in Num 14:11, 22. In Num 14, however, there is little contact in terms of vocabulary with Neh 9. /"IDT and the related VTDtt? appear consistently throughout Deuteronomy and in many cases in reference to the remembrance of the events in Egypt, at the Red Sea and in the wilderness. 304 Nevertheless, in Deuteronomy the only verbal link with Neh 9 is restricted to /IDT and two passages in which one finds + /Hit?» (Deut 7:18; 29:2). In poetic renditions of the history of Israel verbal correspondence is much closer: Pss 78:4, 11, 32, 35, 40-51; 105:5 ( = 1 Chr 16:12); 106:7, 13, 21-22. 305 In each of these compositions (Pss 78; 105; 106) we find all the elements in Neh 9:17: v o r , ntöt«, /nfoo, nìtÒBj. In summary, it is certain that the emphasis on remembrance (/13T, /rOtt?) is an element which is very much at home in Dtr circles, but this has been taken up into phrases drawn from poetic renditions of the history of Israel. 306 [ o n s a a ] o r n a » 1 ? ait»1? t o t r r a r n Here is a clear reference to the rebellion at Kadesh Barnea as recorded in Num 14. In Num 14:4 we find /|Π3 with and /antf. The word rVTQJ? is not found in Num 14 and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible is restricted to Ezra 9:8, 9. Because it is used in the latter passage in an entirely different sense to refer to the present generation its use here most likely reflects later usage rather than any connection based on Gattung.

303 304

305 306

In Jeremiah, the two dominant constructions using /SDttf are: SVQti + ^K and VB0© alone, exactly as in Neh 9. Deut 4:9; 5:15; 7:18; 8:2, 14,18; 15:15; 16:3, 12; 24:18, 22. Cf. also Deut 4:23, 31; 6:12; 8:11, 18, 19; 9:7; 24:9, 17; 25:9; 26:13; 32:7, 18; Josh 1:13; Judg 3:7; 8:34; 1 Sam 1:11, 19; 12:9; 2 Kgs 17:38. Cf. Ps 111:4; Isa 63:11. Anderson (1987:165) noted that flìiÒBJ are often mentioned in the Psalms (2/3 of its occurrences). The most common verb with nìiÒBJ i s / n f e » (followed by /ΠΒΟρ'). He attributed its incorporation in Neh 9 to its status as a "standard feature of religious language". Cf. Geißler (1899:13). DAVIES' comment that nitÒB? is not found in Ρ cannot be used to argue against Priestly influence because of the widespread influence of liturgical material.

150

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

Conclusion: Neh 9:16-17b This initial depiction of the rebellion of Israel in the wilderness reveals influence from Deut/Dtr/Jeremianic circles.307 On one occasion this influence seems to be mediated through the tradition of historical recital in Israel (/"DÎ). o v n i Τ13Π n i r v b o ni 1 ?« nnnn 17c : n r n r ç ιΑΐ ^ [ - l o n r r n · ) o ? W P p $ I7d n ç o r a n i ο ^ ι τ η η κ ninni pan ^ n i 1 ? « πηκι This string of divine attributes found consistently throughout the Hebrew Bible seems to be an amalgamation of two word pairs: "Ι0ΙΤ2Ί1 D'BiT^pijt and ΠΙΠΊ) ]13Π.310 This is apparent, first of all, because on three occasions when they appear as a foursome, a word is placed between these two pairs (Pss 103:8; 145:8;311 Joel 2:13); secondly, because when they occur outside the foursome they are often paired with the same term (Exod 33:19; 312 Num 14:18; Pss 111:4; 112:4; 2 Chr 30:9). This observation is significant for the evaluation of Neh 9:31 where only ΠΊΠΠ |Ί3Π appears (pl79). In every case except three (Pss 111:4; 112:4; 145:8)313 this list or one of the two word pairs, appear in contexts concerned with forgiveness of sins (Exod 33:19; 34:6; Num 14:18; Pss 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; 2 Chr 30:6-9). Of particular importance is the crucial role that such lists play in the wilderness rebellions which are accentuated in Neh 9: the rebellion at Kadesh Barnea as related in Num 14 and the Golden Calf incident as

307 308 309

310

311 312 313

Geißler (1899:17) also saw this Jeremianic/Dtr influence but admitted that the total picture is nearer to Ezekiel (16, 20). See further below. The Kethib is *10m, but the Qere is to be preferred along with LXX and Vulgate (with most commentators). PlV?NI is either an example of poetic archaizing (cf. BDB 43) or later Aramaizing (KB 52). Contra Rendsburg (1991) who argued this was an instance of Northern vocabulary (see ρ 15). Dentan (1963) correctly refuted the Dtr provenance of this declaration of attributes, but incorrectly linked it to wisdom circles because of his atomized approach. The phrase cannot be removed from its form-critical setting of confession of sin. Cf. criticism by Sakenfeld (1978:116); Durham (1987:454). Note the use of instead of ST in this verse. /nrn,/]3n. These three psalms all contain several wisdom elements and two of them are concerned with relating Yahweh's great deeds to others.

Wilderness Tradition

151

related in Exod 32.314 Among these passages related to the wilderness, Exod 34:6 stands out as the source for the four regular elements of the list. Noteworthy is the fact that the second part of the statement in Exod 34:6 (cf. Num 14:18) is not used in Neh 9. Scharbert (1959) attributed the absence of this section to the influence of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (cf. Jer 31:29; Ezek 18:2). Thus a liturgical piece, often associated with confession of sin, has undergone a significant change under the influence of either Jeremiah or Ezekiel and has thus been incorporated into Neh 9.313 nìrròo nirvbo may have been incorporated into Neh 9:17 because of the appearance of / Γ 0 0 in both Exod 34:9 (immediately following the list of attributes and in relationship to the Golden Calf incident) and Num 14:1920 (immediately following a partial list of attributes and in relationship to the Kadesh Barnea incident). However, in the evaluation of connections between 1 Kgs 8//2 Chr 6 and Penitential Prayers (p210), it has been argued that the only other occurrence of this word (in the plural) is in Dan 9:19. An evaluation of the use of this word in Neh 9 and Dan 9 and its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible reveals that it is an element in Penitential Prayer which has arisen due to the influence of 1 Kgs 8//2 Chr 6. It may also be the case that the use of this new word in Neh 9:17 has resulted from the influence of both the wilderness tradition of forgiveness and the prayer in 1 Kgs 8//2 Chr 6. Conclusion: Neh 9:17c-d This central affirmation of Yahweh's character sets the tone for the remainder of the prayer. The basic form of this declaration does not reflect any particular tradition influence except for the general tradition of liturgy focused on attaining forgiveness from Yahweh. The precise form found in Neh 9 reflects, first of all, the influence of Jeremiah or Ezekiel through the elimination of the second half of the liturgical affirmation, and secondly that of Penitential Prayer by the addition of nirvbo, an addition which most likely reflects the emphasis in the prayer of 1 Kgs 8//2 Chr 6.

314

Although Deut 9 also plays a role in the rendition of the Golden Calf incident in Neh 9:18. It is true that Neh 9 uses a different order for the first word pair from those found in the wilderness traditions. This variation is most likely a trend of the later period (cf. BDB 337).

315

Cf. Scharbert (1959); Beyerlin (1961:158-159 [1965:137-138]); Sakenfeld (1975; 1978:111-139; 1985:147-152); Durham (1987:454) who all argued for the liturgical provenance of this confession in Neh 9:17c-d.

152

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

on»»

316

ΓΟΘΟ on1? Itpy-O ψ 18a ^ ö n nrça ^ n V « nf nbN»i i8b ' " 317:niiVn3 niitiu i f otj ñ I8c Ύ V

There is no dispute among scholars that Neh 9:18a-b refers to the Golden Calf incident. A comparison of the accounts of this tradition in Exod 32 and Deut 9 shows that the composer has created a composite of both renditions. Deut 9 contains the phrases Γ 0 0 0 and /ΠΒ7Ϊ? + 03*7 (reflexive) with the people as the subject,318 but does not recount the declaration (/1DN) of the people which is limited to Exod 32:4: 319 a n s a ρ « α η ι ^ η -ι»« banfcr η ' π 1 ^

The composer has made slight revisions to Exod 32:4 by employing the singular ΠΤ instead of plural Π?« 320 and omitting JHN. Neh 9:18c (Tfb'li DiSHJIfegîî), however, is unparalleled in the Golden Calf tradition. The word KiSlO is only found here in Neh 9 ( w . 18, 26) and in Ezek 35:12. In Ezekiel it refers to the contemptuous words spoken by Edom against the mountains of Israel as Edom gloated over the fall of Judah. The vocabulary seems to show the influence of Ezekiel. A look at other passages may reveal connection with the wilderness tradition. is used in Deut 32:19 in the context of idolatrous acts (cf. Deut 32:15-18). However, the subject of / f i t t Q in Deut 32:19 is Yahweh, rather than the people, and the setting is the land rather than the wilderness. In Deut 31:20, where the subject of / ρ ί Ο " is the people and the activity is that of idolatry, the tradition again is that of life in the land. Therefore, there is no place where S^XÌ with the people as the subject is linked with the Golden Calf incident or even idolatry in the wilderness.

316

317

318 319 320

Many mss have ^jlbiJH instead of ^bSJH. The former appears to be supported by the LXX reading: Ούτοι ot Oeoi οί έξαγαγόντες (cf. Peshitta). While JAHN favours the LXX, it is wiser to see here either the influence of Exod 32:4 (RUDOLPH; BOWMAN; GUNNEWEG; see also the addition of "O Israel" and "from the land of Egypt" in the Peshitta) or the regular practice in the LXX of using the plural to distinguish idols from Yahweh (MYERS). The LXX also has ot έξαγαγόντες ήμάς rather than the expected ot έξαγαγόνιες ύμάς Cf???)· This is a scribal error in the Greek tradition (Torrey 1910:281). GALLING identified Dnsan Κ γη1?!} ΠΤ Π Ο ί ή as a gloss for Γϊ0'Τ3 nÍ2H«, while RUDOLPH identified nìV'13 ΓΉ2»0 as an addition on the basis of the Vulgate. Both are based on the presupposition that Neh 9 is a strict poetic composition. Textual evidence for both is weak. Exod 32 depicts Aaron as the subject. A similar rendition is recorded in the DtrH (1 Kgs 12:28), but not in connection with the wilderness tradition. Fishbane (1985:70) attributed this first difference to the composer's desire to recast the Exodus text in a "normative theological way" (cf. JAHN).

Wilderness Tradition

153

The only other use of / y t t t within the wilderness tradition is that of s y x f in Num 14:11, 23 and 16:30.J If Neh 9:18 is referring to these uses of it may not be specifically referring to Num 14 or 16 but rather using a word related to this root to refer to the many other examples of rebellion in the wilderness. When / f t t t is used in Num 14 and 16, the verdict from Yahweh is severe. In Num 14 none of those who showed contempt against his leadership (/|*K3Pi) will enter the land; all will die. In Num 16, the people of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who likewise showed contempt for Yahweh's leadership through Moses, were destroyed in judgment. This root is used in connection with severe judgment and may have been employed by the composer of Neh 9 to refer to all other rebellions in the wilderness on the same level as the Golden Calf incident.321 The probability of this suggestion is lessened upon consideration of Neh 9:26 where the same terminology is repeated. There, as will be argued below (pl74), the phrase is clearly linked to idolatry. The composer's use of the phrase in both 9:18c and 9:26 forges a strong bond between the generations in the wilderness and the land, showing continuity in their rebellion. This suggests, therefore, that Neh 9 applies a root that is used in Numbers in connection with the wilderness tradition for more general rebellion to the specific sin of idolatry.322 It is also significant that the actual form used is unique to Ezekiel.

321

Commentators are divided on whether Neh 9:18c is connected to the Golden Calf incident (e.g. KEIL; GALLING; COGGINS; BLENKINSOPP) or whether it refers to other

events, particularly the rebellion against Yahweh's leadership (e.g. CLINES; BATTEN; WILLIAMSON; YAMAUCHI; BECKER).

322

See also Deut 31:20, often considered a late non-Dtr passage (cf. Nicholson 1967:36).

154

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail) nana? ororç

o ^ n n ^ a t p a n n « i 19a

η Τ ! » c n ' r a n 1 ? 3 2 3 DaV¿ o n ^ ö n ΊΟ - « 1 ? j j ç n n i ä f f - 3 2 4 h « ι % η{?«" 325 ηη'"!ΐη-η«ι on 1 ? τ η π 1 ? r t ^ a 0 « η - i i r â i r n « i I9c - o n a ? n r a r p κ'1?

ronn

γηοη

In Neh 9:19, 27, 28, 31, the word γΟΓΠ occurs, and in all but v. 28 this is accompanied by Ο'ΟΊΠ. Similar to the recitation of Yahweh's attributes in Neh 9:17, this combination seems to have become fixed in the general practice of confession of sin in Israel and the final form has become fixed in Penitential Prayer (Dan 9:18). The individual confessions of sin, Pss 51 and 69, use the combination γ α Γ Π m (51:3; 69:17). 2 Sam 24:14 (1 Chr 21:13), in a context in which David has admitted his guilt and offers confession to Yahweh, employs 3 2 6 i a r n D'SH (cf. w . 10, 17). In other confessional material there is some variation in which is associated with "ΙΟΠ and linked to / D m or the related noun: Lam 3:32; Isa 63:7. Ps 119:156 contains nearly the same combination as Neh 9:17: γΟΓΠ· This psalm is usually seen as an exaltation of the law of God. However, it is important to note that it lays great stress on the need for a walk of blamelessness which avoids sin, an emphasis introduced from the outset (cf. w . 1-16 and especially w . 10-11). That the psalmist approaches the law as a sinner is made clear when v. 10 is recast in the final verse (v. 176) as a confession of his own sinfulness. 327

323

This construction is unique in the Hebrew Bible and odd because it contains two adverbial markers: the initial 3 and the suffix D-. The usual word pair with r W a is D V 3 ( G e n 1:18; 3 1 : 4 0 ; P s 136:8-9; Q o h 8 : 1 6 ; Isa 2 8 : 1 9 ; Jer 3 6 : 3 0 ) , a l t h o u g h in

Ps 88:2 N ^ S s is linked with DI' and in Pss 42:9 and 121:6, DOL\

324

(cf. GKC §117.m).

325

326 327

RUDOLPH

deletes the 3 with three Hebrew mss, while SIEGFRIED; BERTHOLET; GUNNEWEG strike the final mem. The versions are unhelpful because in both cases the meaning is the same. This is usually seen as an example of ΓΜ as marker of the subject in later Hebrew JAHN, Muraoka (1985:158) and GUNNEWEG reject this.

However, to do so means that /"HO0 must be changed to /"T)DHlf. Muraoka's argument that the use of ΠΚ is to be explained by the influence of the more or less immediately preceding transitive constructions, does not work in the case of Neh 9:33-34, because even if the list of leaders in v. 34 are linked to v. 33, they are still part of the subject. The 1 is missing in a few Hebrew mss and is not represented in the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate. Most commentators delete it because of the syntactical difficulty it presents (cf. WILLIAMSON) and attribute its insertion to the influence of the preceding Γ1Ν1 which is preceded by ^ ρ Τ Ώ , which may have attracted the scribe's eye. Qere: VDPn. This "penitential tone" is rarely noted. However, see Levenson (1987:564).

Wilderness Tradition

155

The link to penitential compositions needs to be supplemented by an examination of the phrase immediately following: 131Ö? ErQTJ) t ò . The refusal of Yahweh to abandon (/STD) his people is found three times in Neh 9: w . 17, 19 and 31. /3ÎD is used on one other occasion in the prayer (Neh 9:28) where Yahweh abandons his people into the hand (power) of their enemies (T3). 3 2 8 God's promise not to abandon his people is found in connection with the commissioning of Joshua in Deut 31:6, 8; Josh 1:5.329 Here the focus is not on the wilderness generation, although there is an allusion in Josh 1:5 to Yahweh's presence with Moses. The only time /3TJJ + N1? is used in connection with the wilderness tradition is in 1 Kgs 8:57, in which Solomon prays that Yahweh would not abandon his generation but would be with them as he was with the forefathers (the Exodus-Wilderness generation, cf. 1 Kgs 8:53, 58). On the basis of this evidence it may be assumed that again the terminology has arisen from the influence of 1 Kgs 8. Nevertheless, it is important to note that in Neh 9, Yahweh does abandon (/2TD) the people, if only for a short period of time and not completely. With this in mind, it is striking that Isa 54:7 admits that Yahweh has abandoned (S2ÌV) the people for a brief moment, but that now with his great mercy D ' p r n a ) he intends to gather his people from exile. On the one occasion in Neh 9 when Yahweh abandons (/2ÎI?) his people, the composer breaks this short-term abandonment with an appeal to Yahweh's mercy (Ί'ΟΓΠ?)· On two occasions where the composer uses /3TJJ + N1? (9:19, 31), an appeal to Yahweh's "great" mercy is given as the reason ( Ο ^ Ί Π γ Ώ Γ η ? ) · The other instance o f / 3 T Ö + K1? (9:17) is preceded by the great list of attributes, one of which is ΟΊΓΠ. An appeal to 0'3ΊΠ Ί'ΟΓΠ would thus be unnecessary and it is precisely out of this initial list of attributes that appeal to his great mercy in Neh 9 has arisen. Is it not possible that there is a connection between Isa 54:7 and Neh 9? One cannot easily dismiss this link to Deutero-Isaiah, especially considering the influence of this prophetic material during the exilic period. However, it must be admitted that the vocabulary is not identical, that greater accent is placed in Neh 9 on the reluctance of Yahweh to abandon his people than in Isa 54, that Ο'ΠΓΠ is not always linked with iTSTD in Neh 9 (v. 27), that no link to V3ÎJJ is found in any other confession prayer (cf. especially Dan 9:18), and that all the elements can be explained on the basis of Penitential Prayer.

328 329

In 9:27, 30, /]Π3 is used instead. Cf. 1 Chr 28:20 where the commissioning of Joshua is paralleled with the commissioning of Solomon. See other parallels between David-Solomon and Moses-Joshua in 1 Chr 22:11-12 and 28:10 (cf. Coggins 1976b: 115, 138; Williamson 1982:155-156, 183 and works cited there).

156

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

1 - 1 DÎT ~ .. »» -I .. -IO « ? T

m o + b s n is used in many different ways in the Hebrew Bible, but one sense of this combination comes closest to the use in Neh 9:19. In Num 12:10; 14:9; Judg 16:19, 20; 1 Sam 16:23; 28:15, 16; 2 Kgs 17:18, 23; 23:27; 24:3; Jer 32:31, / Π 0 + ^»Q describes a spiritual being (usually Yahweh) departing from a person or people. The references in 2 Kings and Jeremiah stand apart from the others because they use /"HO™ and are part of a Dtr idiom: VÎB D"lO,l.331 Of the remaining references 332 Num 12:10 stands out because it refers to the action of the pillar of cloud when it left the Tent of Meeting. Num 14:9ap does not refer to Yahweh leaving the "people of the land" but rather to the loss of "their protection" (D^S). However, in the parallel phrase in Num 14:9b, the loss of protection by these people is contrasted to the presence of Yahweh with Israel. This slight difference, however, weights the evidence in favour of Num 12:10 as the most likely source of the composer's rendition here. η-nra nn'ron1? oni^a . . . pan -nairn« η^ητικι οπντκπ 1 ? ròfpa tían *ni3çriH? There is little difference between the remainder of Neh 9:19 and the earlier rendition of the pillar of cloud and fire in v. 12. The addition of 3 on both • Ώ Ϊ Έ and r ò ' b s is evidence of the creativity of the composer or a textual error (see pl54n323). The incorporation of '^ρ'ΙΓΰ in 9:19 only bolsters the argument presented in v. 12 that the composer has relied heavily on Exod 13:21-22.

Conclusion: Neh 9:19 Neh 9:19 originated most likely from the influence of Penitential Prayer and the penitential tradition in general, from reliance on Num 12:10 and on the earlier rendition of the pillar tradition in Neh 9.

330

Of taking off an object of clothing (or jewellery, bandage, yoke, etc): Gen 38:14, 19; 41:42; 1 Kgs 20:41; Esth 3:10; 4:4Hif; Isa 14:25; 1 Sam 17:39; Deut 21:13Htf; of separating one object from another: 2 Kgs 16:17; Lev 4:31Hir; of a human leaving another's presence: Gen 42:24; of taking away a disaster from a person/people (all Hif'il): Num 21:7; Exod 10:17; Job 9:34; of spiritual being leaving a person: see above; of humans abandoning or refraining from an activity: 2 Kgs 10:31; 15:18; Am 5:23H,f; of humans ignoring or turning away from others: 2 Chr 20:10; Ezek 6:9; of taking insult away from someone (all Hif'il): 1 Sam 17:26; 1 Kgs 2:31; Isa 25:8; of taking a people from a place (Hif'il): 2 Chr 33:8; of putting away wine (Hif'il): 1 Sam 1:14; of moving an object to another spot (Hif'il): Gen 48:17.

331 332

Cf. Weinfeld (1972:347). NOTO: J; BUDD: P.

157

Wilderness Tradition

edafon1? nro roten ηπηι 20a τ

t

• f

τ

-

I •*:

nni nnian ηοηι In Neh 9:20a, the word ΠΠ is modified by Π3ίί3ΓΙ. This combination is only found one other time in the Hebrew Bible, Ps 143, where the composer casts himself on Yahweh for deliverance from his enemy. In v. 10 n a i a η π η is the subject of the verb /ΠΠ3. Parallel to it, however, is the request of the psalmist to be granted teaching from Yahweh ( / 1 0 T 1 ) . This parallelism makes it difficult to discern whether this good Spirit is a Spirit who leads or one who teaches, a distinction crucial for the proper understanding of Neh 9:20a. If 9:20a refers to a teaching Spirit, then one could see here a connection to the giving of the Law in Neh 9:13-14. 3 3 3 If the Spirit is a guiding Spirit, then 9:20a is most likely not connected to the Law but rather to the guidance of the Spirit in the wilderness, a continuation of the thought of 9:19. 3 3 4 Help may be gained from outside the passage. Isa 6 3 : 1 0 , 11, 14 uses an analogous combination: Itftj? ΠΠ. Similar to Neh 9:20, the historical context is the Exodus-Wilderness-Conquest events. The composer relates a tradition that Yahweh's Holy Spirit was placed (/D'fe) in the midst of Israel. This Spirit, as in Ps 143:10, leads (/ηπΐ)335 the people to the plain (Ps 143:10: litt?"·)? Isa 63:11: ny¡?3?). In Isa 6 3 : 1 0 - 1 4 , there is no indication of teaching activity by this Spirit. 336

333

As WILLIAMSON and others.

334

Allen ( 1 9 8 3 : 2 8 5 ) interpreted Ps 1 4 3 : 1 0 as a reference to the guidance in the wilderness, uniting the thought o f Neh 9 : 1 9 and 20. Dahood ( 1 9 7 0 : 3 2 6 ) argued for guidance into one's eternal destiny.

Weiser ( 1 9 5 5 : 5 6 8 [ 1 9 6 2 : 8 2 1 ] ) saw it as

guidance in terms o f teaching. Anderson ( 1 9 7 2 : 9 3 0 ) made no definitive statement. 335

M T Isa 6 3 : 1 4 reads /Π13, but should be read VTITO because: 1) the versions indicate this reading; 2) cattle "going down" to the plain need guidance not rest; 3) leadership is the main emphasis both in v. 13 (V"]L?NHIF) and v. 14 (/5Π3). Even i f /ΠΠ3 is not the original reading, the context makes clear that this Spirit led the people.

336

Kline ( 1 9 8 0 : 1 5 , 1 5 n 5 ) argued for the equation o f Spirit and Cloud in the wilderness, besides Isa 6 3 : 1 0 - 1 4 and Neh 9 : 1 9 - 2 0 , on the basis o f Hag 2 : 5 and Deut 3 2 : 1 1 . Verhoef ( 1 9 8 7 : 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ) ; Stuhlmueller ( 1 9 8 8 : 2 6 ) affirmed the connection between Hag 2 : 5 and the cloud in the wilderness.

Smith ( 1 9 8 4 : 1 5 7 ) , however, noted a

closer connection to Josh 1:5-9 and Moses' commission o f Joshua.

Kline is not

justified in citing Deut 3 2 : 1 1 . This is based on the use o f / Τ )ΓΠ Ρ ' in both Deut 3 2 : 1 1 and Gen 1:2. In Deut 3 2 : 1 1 it refers to God as an eagle carrying for its young and thus / * ) M P I is consistent with that image. The word ITH is never mentioned in Deut 32.

For other work on the Spirit as the Cloud see: Kline (1972); Luzarraga

( 1 9 7 3 : 2 3 4 - 2 4 5 ) ; Sabourin ( 1 9 7 4 b : 3 1 0 - 3 1 1 ) ; Sklba (1984).

158

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

The book of Ezekiel also uses the word ΠΉ on a consistent basis. 337 In this book a ΠΠ is given (/|Π3) into the midst of Israel to guide them into the obedience of the Law (Ezek 11:19-20; 18:31; 36:26-27; 37:14). In Ezekiel this spirit, which at times seems to refer to a personality, 338 and at other times to the inner life of a man, 339 is mentioned in the context of allusions to a Second Exodus and Conquest (cf. Ezek 11:17-20; 36:24-30; 37:12-14). In contrast to Neh 9:20, however, this ΠΠ is "new" (ΠΚΠΟ)· These three passages, therefore, do little to resolve the question of the referent of Neh 9:20. There is a need to take into account the Pentateuchal narratives as well. The word ΠΠ is rarely used in the Pentateuch in reference to a spiritual being. One may point to Exod 28:3; 31:3; and 35:31 as the source of this reference where the combination ΠΏ3Π ΠΠ is used to describe the equipping of artisans for the construction of the worship objects. However, most students of Neh 9:20 have been drawn to the passage in Num 11 in which the ΠΠ which resided in Moses was distributed among the seventy elders of Israel (cf. /|Π3 in Num 11:25; 29; in Num 11:17). In the immediate context, the purpose of this dissemination of the ΠΠ was to alleviate the extreme burden of the people on Moses. This would seem to indicate that the Spirit here was a Spirit for leadership of the people rather than teaching.340 Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, however, the teaching aspect also emerges. In Num 27:18 and Deut 34:9 the Spirit which resided in Moses and was passed on to Joshua is linked to the enabling of Israel to listen to Joshua and to obey what Moses had commanded. Furthermore, the Num 11 tradition is connected to the teaching of the Law in Deut 1:9-18, wherein after the Horeb event a story about shared leadership (similar to Exod 18) which speaks of "carrying a burden" (similar to Num 11) is related. Therefore, there remains a possibility that Neh 9:20 has also made this connection between the seventy elders of Num 11 and the judges appointed in Exod 18 to assist Moses, a connection which would then present the Spirit as assisting in applying the Law to specific cases. Therefore, the Pentateuchal narratives provide no more certainty than Ps 143, Isa 63 and Ezekiel. In order to identify the role of this ΠΠ in Neh 9:20 and subsequently shed light on the source of this notion, it will be necessary to draw another word from Neh 9:20 into the discussion: oVofon?.

337 338 339 340

Sklba (1984:14) called Ezekiel: "the exilic prophet of the spirit par excellence". Especially Ezek 37:14. See the regular association with sb. Cf. Num 11:10-15 where Moses complains about leading the people through the desert alone by carrying them in his arms to the promised land.

Wilderness Tradition

159

a fτ f · e¡ r" ò: The proponents of the theory that Neh 9:20a refers to the activity of the Spirit in relation to the Law make much of /l7DtPHif.341 In general, this root has been translated in two ways: to have/gain insight/wisdom or to prosper. This latter sense probably arose on the basis of Josh 1:7-8 where / n b s m f is paralleled342 and coupled with /bDiP™ 343 This then became the obvious choice of meaning for Prov 17:8 where "to gain insight/wisdom" is inappropriate. The meaning "to prosper" so identified in Josh 1:7-8 would then have been extended to similar expressions in Deut 29:8; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 18:6-7. In most cases, however, V^Dfe™ is closely linked with verbs for knowing or understanding and in several cases it is difficult to make certain whether the reference is to prosperity or wisdom (cf. 1 Sam 18:5, 14-15; Isa 52:13). Important for our purposes is the fact that in both these senses /bstP™ is found related to the Law as a fixed entity. The Dtr idiom which uses /^DtP™ to refer to prosperity is always related to the following of the Law. The other sense, to have/gain insight, is used on several occasions in reference to the Law344 as well as in reference to justice345 and to pious behaviour in general. 346 If Neh 9:20a is to be associated with the activity of the Spirit in relationship to the Law it is important that this link not be established on the basis of the sense of /^DtP™ as found in the Dtr idiom.347 There /^DtP™ is intransitive, while in Neh 9:20a it is transitive. This, however, does not disqualify the connection to the Law because, as noted, when i/^OtP™ means "to have/gain insight", the focus of this activity is often the Law. In those instances where it is related to the Law it can carry the sense of either insight as understanding of the Law (Ps 119:99; 1 Chr 28:19) or insight as application of the Law (Neh 8:13; Dan 9:13; 2 Chr 30:22).

Conclusion: Neh 9:20a A close consideration of /^SB?"* has shown that the ΠΠ in Neh 9:20a is most likely a Spirit given for teaching rather than for guidance. Although /l!?3t!?Hif is not always used to refer to gaining insight, it is never used of guidance on a journey. This is confirmed in Neh 9:30 where the Spirit is

341

Cf. especially WILLIAMSON.

342 343 344 345 346

Cp. b ^ n fin 1 ? (v. 7) with ^ D l T n « IT^STl TIC»? (v. 8). S'Sferi TK1 ΐ ρ η τ ή χ PIASTI TNT? (v. 8). 1 Chr 28:19;'2 Chr"30:22; Neh 8:13; Ps 119:99; Dan 9:13. Pss 41:2; 101:2; 94:8; Prov 1:3; 21:16; Jer 9:23; 23:5; 34:27; Am 5:13. Job 22:2-3; Pss 14:2=53:3; 32:8; Prov 21:12.

347

Contra WILLIAMSON.

160

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

once again mentioned, this time in connection with the prophets who warned the people to return to the Law. Ps 143:10 and Neh 9:20 may reflect a later period when the Spirit of God, as teacher of the Law, was referred to as the good Spirit. The association with the wilderness period in Neh 9:20 along with the use of /|Π3, may point to Ezekiel's view of the "new spirit" which is "my Spirit" who is closely linked to the Second Exodus, Conquest, and is given to lead the people into obedience to the Law (cf. Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27). Ezekiel, in turn may be reflecting exegesis of Num 11, where Moses wishes that all Israel would be given (/|ΓΊ3) the Spirit (Num 11:29), along with the connection to the teaching of the Law made in Deut 1:9-18. :οηο20 o rT Tò n nτ n- Τj c · m- e rΤ r a· n• Τronarifc ηίοι 20b T T ! · J - τ I s " In Neh 9:20b-21, the composer relates the continued material provision for Israel in the wilderness in spite of their rebellion against Yahweh. This time, instead of D'QtPQ 0117, the composer uses the actual name of the substance, ]Q. While 0Γ0 is favoured in the account in Exod 16, and is not introduced until the conclusion of the passage in an etiology, Num 11 uses the term |D from the outset and never calls it Dil1? and Deut 8 calls it |Q and then contrasts it with OnS, a term which is used to refer to normal (non-heavenly) bread (cf. Deut 29:5). The use o f / 8 3 0 reveals little, since it is never found elsewhere in reference to the supply of manna.348 The second half of Neh 9:20b cannot be tied to any one passage and most likely relies on Neh 9:15, casting the tradition in slightly different vocabulary, repeating OSOS1? to make the link to Neh 9:15 transparent. n o n t ò n a n a ? o r ò ? 1 » na» o s a n n i 2la tipsa i 6 n n ^ ñ ) ^ ' D i r n b b r ç 21b In the Hebrew Bible the tradition of forty years in the wilderness is restricted to the following passages: Exod 16:35;p Num 14:33, 34; p 32:13;349 Deut 2:7; 8:2, 4; 29:5; Josh 5:6; Neh 9:21; Ps 95:10; Am 2:10; 5:25. One may propose that the proximity of manna and forty year traditions here (9:20-21a) and in Exod 16:35, as well as the use o f / n o t f 1 * in Exod 16:18, suggests Exod 16 as the source of Neh 9:21a. However, a closer consideration reveals that Deuteronomy provides the best

348

Geißler (1899:13) found this verb in E (Gen 30:2; Num 22:16; 24:11) and then in the historical literature, Jeremiah, Job, Proverbs and Joel.

NOTH assigned

Num

22:16; 24:11 to J. It is striking that of the 24 occurrences of VOTOQ, 5 of them are in Jeremiah (Jer 2:25; 5:25; 31:16; 42:4; 48:10) and five in Proverbs (Prov 1:15; 3:27; 11:26; 23:13; 30:7). 349

N o t h : late addition to Pentateuch; Budd: based on J, but with some affinity with Dtr style and concerns and some priestly editing.

Wilderness Tradition

161

candidates.350 Between Deut 2:7; 8:4, 9; 29:5 (cf. Josh 9:5, 13), every element of Neh 9:21 can be accounted for except / t ?'D plp , a root which, in any case, cannot be assigned to one particular source in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Geißler 1899:13). 351

π«β·? o p b n m o ' n n g ] n t o ^ p n anb j n m 22a 3S2 pawn p i r n w f i r r o p N - n « ì b t ' Ì 22b rjqftïnfrp'A» 22c π«? 1 ? Although the meaning of this word is highly debated, the delineation of its provenance is much easier. It never appears in Deut/DtrH and is confined mostly to Priestly related passages, especially in connection with the boundaries of a territory, city or building.353 Most of these instances occur in Ezek 41-48 and the latter half of the book of Exodus (cf. BDB). On eleven occasions ΠΗΕ) is linked with b to refer to a boundary of one side of the territory, city or building: Exod 27:9, 11, 12, 13; 36:23, 25; 38:9, 11, 12, 13; Ezek 47:15. In Deut/DtrH the word for a boundary is *?»!, a word which is also found in Priestly passages. It is very likely, then, that v. 22a refers to the taking of the Amorite kingdoms and peoples because this territory would serve as a boundary from the peoples to the east. This is the way one finds this construction used in Ρ and Ezekiel. The ΠΝΒ denotes the outer limits of the structure or area. It may be an attempt by the composer to justify the conquest of non-Canaanite land and yet not admit it was part of the Utopian land.354

350 351

352

353

354

Cf. RYLE; BERTHOLET; Welch (1929:21); Weinfeld (1972:172, 358). The MT has come under much attack from scholars because ΠΚΒ1? is ignored in LXX and Arabic, translated variously in LXX L , Vulgate and Targums and used differently elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. This has led scholars to omit ΠΝΒ1? as a dittograph of the preceding words (DAVIES) or double it to connect it with other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible (Guthe-Batten 1901). The evidence of the versions appears to reflect the confusion of meaning present in the MT text and thus it is best not to emend the text. This is to be deleted as a dittograph on the basis of one Hebrew manuscript, LXX and Vulgate (with most commentators), although it is possible to retain the phrase, identifying the waw as explicative. ΠΝΒ is used in Josh 15:5; 18:12, 14, 15, 20 but these passages exhibit Priestly elements (see pl37n238). Elsewhere it is used to refer to furniture (Am 3:12) and body parts (Jer 25:23; 48:45; 49:32). This conclusion is similar to RUDOLPH'S, who translated ΓΙΚΒ1? as "Randgebiet" and argued that the composer identified the kingdoms of Og and Sihon as border territories which lay outside Palestine proper. Most scholars opt for a translation w i t h the sense of " b o r d e r " (cf. BERTHEAU-RYSSEL; WILLIAMSON; BLENKINSOPP).

Contra BROCKINGTON who opted for "spoils".

162

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

jfhn The Qal of /ρ*5Π is used in Joshua twice for the allotment of the land (Josh 14:5; 18:2; cf. 2 Sam 19:30). In Num 26:53, 55, 56, the Nif'al is favoured. 3 5 5 /ρ*?Π ρ ' is used for the distribution of the land in Josh 13:7; 18:10; 1 Kgs 18:6; Ezek 47:21, but the construction used ( / ρ ^ Π * + land + b with the recipient) is not found in Neh 9:22. Likewise the construction in Josh 19:51 (/p"?n Pi with land and no with recipient) is slightly different f r o m Neh 9:22. Only Josh 14:5; 18:2; 2 Sam 19:30 speak of dividing ( / p ' n 0 ) the land with no indirect object as in Neh 9:22. The first two references belong to passages in which Priestly elements have been found, while the third does not. 356 t r a• aΤ »-si- n t o ' jT aS a" r o ^ a a is used in both Num 32:33 3 5 7 and Deuteronomy (3:4, 10, 13) with Og, but only with Sihon in Num 32:33. Josh 13 uses a different word (rvoSiaa) for both Og (13:12, 30, 33) and Sihon (13:21, 27). T h e plural niD'paa is used in Deut 3:21 in connection with both Sihon and Og, but not to refer to them but to all the kingdoms of the earth (probably in reference to Canaan) whose fate will parallel Sihon and Og. Num 32:33 is also significant because it appears in a chapter describing the allotment of the Trans-Jordan region to the Reubenites and Gadites. Here we find, as in Neh 9:22a, / | Π 3 + to refer to the allotment of this region to the Israelites. 358 The use of D ' a a ö is due to the fact that it is a late form of C a ? which forms a natural word pair with n t o ' p a a in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 13:14; Pss 102:23; 105:13 = 1 Chr 16:20).* D ' a g is connected with Sihon and Og only in Deut 2:25 where Yahweh says fear will grip the peoples f r o m that day on, which seems to explain Sihon's refusal to allow the Israelites through his land. /WT This word is very popular in the Dtr tradition of the conquest of the land (cf. Weinfeld 1972:341-343). In Deut 2:24, 31 it is used in connection with the conquest of Sihon and in Num 21:35 359 with the conquest of Og. Noth attributed the combining of the Og conquest with Sihon to Deut. 3 6 0

355 356 357

358 359

360

This could also be a Qal passive, cf. Waltke-O'Connor (1990:§22.6). Cf. pl61n353. NOTH: later addition in the Dtr-priestly style; BUDD: late Priestly redaction. However, notice also Deut 20:16 where the cities of the peoples are given (/|Γ13) to (*?) Israel as an inheritance. NOTH; BUDD: Dtr addition. Cf. Campbell-O'Brien (1993:191).

Wilderness Tradition

163

] * r o and Sihon and Og are mentioned many times in the Hebrew Bible because they represent the first major victory of Israel as they prepared to conquer the Land.361 The designation of Og remains relatively constant throughout the Hebrew Bible; he is either rhrwps |03Π T?n or |ψ3ΓΙ η'ρο. He is never called when separated from Sihon. In contrast, Sihon is more often called '"l DNiH "^O than anything else and this occurs regularly in connection with Og as On seven of the twelve occurrences of "ΗΟ^Π "^Q frVO, the phrase ]ί3®Π3 SB7V "Ití^ is added. 364 In Neh 9:22, however, there is no mention at all of On the basis of this verse alone one would not even know that Sihon was an Amorite. Passages which call Sihon |ί3φΠ~,?|ι?Ι2 are restricted to Deut/DtrH, 365 and of these only Deut 2, 29 and Josh 13 make no reference to the Amorites. Noteworthy is that in Pss 135 and 136 Sihon is called king of the Amorites. Thus the appearance of these two kings in Neh 9 cannot be attributed to their status as favoured in poetic renditions. Neh 9 is drawing on Deut/DtrH for its phraseology. 366

Conclusion: Neh 9:22 In this second element in the "forty year theme" of the wilderness tradition of Neh 9, Dtr influence on phraseology has been evident. However, at the same time evidence of a combined Pentateuch is offered by the use of terminology from Num 32 and, additionally, testimony to the infusion of priestly (P/Ezekiel) terminology (ΓΙΝΒ and possibly / P Ò R I ) .

361

362 363 364 365 366

Num 21:21-35; 32:33; Deut 1:4; 2:24-37; 3:1-13; 4:46-47; 29:7-8; 31:4; Josh 2:10; 9:10; 12:2-5; 13:10-12, 21-31; Judg 11:19-21; 1 Kgs4:19; Pss 135:10-12; 136:1722. Cf. Noth (1948:77-79 [1972:71-74]) for the history of this tradition. In die designation: fTITI " D M "itfX n'DKH o S n 'Jtf (Deut 3:8; 4:47; 31:4; Josh 2:10; 9:10). Num 21:21-35; 32:33; Deut 1:4; 3:1-13; 4:46-47; Josh 12:2-5; 13:10-12; 1 Kgs 4:19; Pss 135:10-12; 136:17-22. Num 21:21-35; Deut 1:4; 3:1-13; 4:46-47; Josh 12:2-5; 13:10-12; Judg 11:19-21. Deut 2:24, 26, 30; Deut 3:6; 29:7; Josh 9:10; 13:27. Contra FENSHAM; Anderson (1987:172).

164

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

1 ¡ηκη ? «is 1Τ? o rΤ r· ·n ' a ®Jt ò· v i r

c a a m o d d s ram ο π ^ η ι 23a p a i r 1 ? «* ο ν .' ό. .γ .π. 23b » 8 ~ Τ ? ~ I 7 τ τ

ΟΌΦη o d m iva-in · τ τ · r ' The combination •/TQ1Hif + D'OtPH ODDS is found five times in the Hebrew Bible: Gen 22:17; 26:4*;' Exod 32:13; Deut 1:10-11.387 Deut 10:22; 28:62 have D'QWn "ODÍ33. The reference to stars of heaven in Gen 15:5 lacks /TOT™'. Gen 1:28^ and Exod 1:7P place great priority on the increase of people (/Γΰ"1), but no reference is made to stars (cf. Deut 7:12-13). The tradition of the increase of Abraham's descendants appears also in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 51:2) and that of David's descendants in Jer 33:22. Another related passage, although on the conceptual rather than verbal level, is the census in Num 26 which, in its final form, had a three-fold purpose: to reveal the size of the fighting force for war in Canaan (v. 2); to give accurate records for the allotment of land to the tribes ( w . 52-56); and to show that the great multitude did not include the rebellious ( w . 63-65). 368 An essential question is the role of the "stars" tradition in Neh 9. As argued above (p79), it is not part of the conquest tradition but rather set within the wilderness tradition as an example of Yahweh's continued grace through the forty year period. This statement affirms that the rebellious generation has been replaced by another uncountable group of Israelites who will enter the land of Canaan. While traditionally, most of the passages which use the formula appearing in Neh 9:23 are attributed to Dtr circles, 369 it has been argued already in connection with the Abraham tradition that some of these passages, notably Gen 22:16-18 and Gen 26:4-5 use Dtr vocabulary in non-Dtr ways. It must be noted, however, that the only time the "stars" tradition is used in reference to the second wilderness generation (post-rebellion) is in Deut 10:22 and 28:62. Therefore, this may be another example of Dtr influence on the prayer, but may also indicate further evidence of contact with Gen 26:4-5 (cf. Gen 22:16-18). oivai It is important, however, not to miss the point of view of the composer of Neh 9. In the composer's mind the second generation in the wilderness

367

Jer 33:22 has VTQT™ + D'lM?Π IOS. Cf. Rendtorff (1977:46 [1990:63]) for the

368

N o r a : redactional links bringing the Tetrateuch in line with Deuteronomy; BUDD:

variations on the promise of increase in the patriarchal narratives.

P. 369

Gen 22:17 (NOTH); 26:4 (Nora; WESTERMANN claimed it presupposed D); Exod

32:13 (NOTH; CHILDS); Deut 1:10-11. In the case of Gen 26:4 we have already noted that Van Seters has argued that this passage is not in line with major Dtr themes. JAHN pointed out that the analogy of the stars is not in P.

165

Wilderness Tradition

does not even come into view until the very last moment before they enter the land. Their existence is acknowledged by the allusion to the "stars" tradition, revealing that they have replaced the Exodus generation, and they are brought to the land whose conquest their fathers had rejected. Up until this point, there is no explicit break, the generation who rebelled in the wilderness seems to be the same one who received the sustenance during the forty years in the wilderness and defeated Sihon and Og. Numbers and Deuteronomy stress the punishment on the generation who refused to enter the land (Num 14; Deut 1:35; cf. Josh 5) and make it clear that the innocent children would be the ones who would receive the land. However, their presentations of the disappearance of the rebellious generation and the emergence of the innocent generation are different. In Deuteronomy much stress is placed on the fact that those who rebelled in the wilderness had perished from Israel by the time of the conquest of Sihon and Og (Deut 2:14-16). In contrast, Numbers makes no clear distinction between the two wilderness generations and no indication is given of the carrying out of the judgment until the redactional links in the census of Num 26. The incorporation of the two censuses in Num 1 and 26 with the declaration of judgment placed in between them in Num 14 gives the general yet subtle impression that the rebellious generation has been replaced by a new generation. Of these two presentations of the generations in the wilderness, the one presented in Numbers is much closer to Neh 9. Most likely the composer has been influenced by the presentation in Numbers but in many places uses vocabulary associated with the account in Deuteronomy. ntp-ib KinbΨ o r? r n·' ' a ò~ Γηηκ~ι»κ p a r r b «? o t...r n r nm t Τ Ψ τ ι - τ ? -ι | ? » τ t

Hif

1

The combination /N"Û + object suffix + fHijüT ?^ is found many times in the Pentateuch. 370 It cannot be linked to any one layer or passage. The rest of the sentence is an allusion back to the composer's rendition of the first time the Israelites stood about to enter the land in Neh 9:15.371 The constructions noted there are exactly the same as here: /1QK + of the person commanded and b of the action to be fulfilled by the recipients.372 The same two infinitives are used as well.

Conclusion: Wilderness Tradition This evaluation of the wilderness tradition in Neh 9 has revealed several main trends. First, the form and vocabulary of the tradition has pointed to

370 371 372

E.g. Exod 13:5, 11; Num 14:24; 16:14; Deut 6:10; 7:1; 9:28; 11:29; 30:5. Contra Anderson (1987:173-174) who did not notice the connection to Neh 9:15 and instead merely noted that it diverged from the general Dtr practice. See pl44n288.

166

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

a combined Pentateuch (cf. 9:12, 13a, 15a-b, 19). Secondly, several elements can be traced to the influence of Penitential Prayer and the tradition of penitence in Israel in general (9:14b, 19, 15c-d, 17c-d). Dtr influence is clear in several places (9:13b, 14b, 15cd, 16c-17b, 21a-b, 22) but in three of these instances Dtr idiom has been transformed by Priestly/Ezekielian vocabulary (9:13b, 373 15cd, 22). On a few occasions where Dtr influence is not particularly transformed, Priestly/Ezekielian vocabulary and notions were discerned: 9:13a,374 18c, 20a.375 In the evaluation of the literary boundaries of the wilderness tradition above, it was noted that Neh 9 depicts the Promised Land as the Cis-Jordan territory. Coats (1976; 1985) argued that in the present form of the Hexateuch, the conquest tradition does not begin until the crossing of the Jordan. In his view, the traditions of Sihon and Og may have at one time been connected to conquest traditions, but are now part of the wilderness tradition complex. 376 This view, however, has been modified by Weinfeld (1983a) who has argued convincingly that the Tetrateuch (for him, "pre-Deuteronomy") does view the Promised Land as Cis-Jordan alone, but that Deuteronomy expands the territory to include the Trans-Jordan as well. When confronted with this tension between Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy, Neh 9 interestingly chooses the rendition in the Tetrateuch. This affinity with the Tetrateuchal approach is the first indication of Priestly affinity. This is made clear by reference to the boundaries of the Promised Land reflected in Ezek 47:13-48:29. Ezek 47:18 explicitly designates the Jordan as the western boundary of the Promised Land. Ezekiel is the clearest exposition of the view of the Promised Land presented in Neh 9.377 Throughout this consideration of the wilderness tradition influence has been noted from the historical summary in Ezek 20. This passage has been the object of much debate over the origins of the tradition of rebellion in the Hebrew Bible and has often been contrasted with the view presented in earlier prophets such as Hosea and Jeremiah. 378

373 374 375

376

377 378

Both in the use of ΠίΊίΠ and in the association of the attributes with law terms. Sinai tradition. Possibly also in the favouring of Numbers over Deuteronomy for the relationship between generations in the wilderness and the transformation of the liturgical piece in 9:17cd, which Scharbert has attributed to the influence of either Jeremiah or Ezekiel. Cf. Kaufmann (1953:72-90, esp. 75) who argued that the Utopian land in the Hexateuch does not include the Trans-Jordan. The desire to possess it was regarded as rebellious (Num 32) and the land itself considered unclean (Josh 22). On Ezekiel's boundaries and affinity with Priestly tradition see Eichrodt (1966:419421 [1970:590-594]). Cf. Harrelson (1959:24-25); DeVries (1963); Van Seters (1990); Barth (1991:8692); but see Talmon (1966).

167

Wilderness Tradition

In many ways Ezek 20 or those responsible for it have influenced the rendition of the wilderness tradition in Neh 9 more than any other. 379 Besides the emphasis on rebellion in the wilderness, one also finds the close relationship between wilderness and law giving as in Neh 9 and Ps 106,380 emphasis on the Sabbath command381 in association with law terms, references to two generations in the wilderness, and linkage of adjectives with terms for laws. The general model for the historical recital in Ezek 20 is that of the "Grace Model" which is determinative for the wilderness tradition in Neh 9 (see pp81-87). These indications together with evidence of other Priestly/Ezekielian vocabulary, concepts, and transformation of Dtr idioms, and especially the conception of the extent of the Promised Land, highlight the Ezekielian background to this prayer. This is confirmation of the traditio-historical background of Penitential Prayer in general.

VI. Life in the Land Tradition (Neh 9:24-31) 382

r»-i«rrn« ν τ τ ν

I

: · -

o ^· a• n- i s n ' τi- 24a

This sentence describes the fulfilment of the command originally given to the disobedient generation in Neh 9:15 and repeated in Neh 9:23b. It does not reveal any dependence beyond that already noted in Neh 9:15. t r o j a n f - i s n - o p t i « o r n a 1 ? » » r n 24b •rna1? » p p i /ÖJ3Hif in relation to the initial conquest only occurs in Deut 9:3, where it appears with f J S 1 ? · This same combination appears in Judg 4:23 along

379

380 381 382

Coats (1968:248) saw the similarity between Ps 106; Ezek 20 and Neh 9 but separated out Neh 9 because of differences he saw in the rebellion tradition. This was due to his insensitivity to the structure of the passage which concentrates references to rebellion into two sections. As was indicated in the Introduction (pl4), Chrostowski (1990) has noted the influence of Ezek 20. Cf. Van Seters (1990:584-585). Cf. Coats (1968:235); Van Seters (1990:585). Van Seters has shown how P/Ezekiel use the Sabbath injunction in the wilderness tradition and in relationship to rebellion. The LXX has simplified v. 24 by eliminating repetition so often utilized in Hebrew idiom: command/promise resulting in narrative fulfilment (cf. RUDOLPH; contra many earlier scholars who wanted to see a conflated MT at this point: GUTHEBATTEN; BERTHOLET; DAVŒS; JAHN). JAHN'S reasoning that a scribe reckoned that

another generation had arisen and inserted the extra text is unfounded because another generation is already introduced at the beginning of v. 23.

168

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

with a reference to a Canaanite king, but refers to later conquests under the Judges.383 B^JöJSn •-s-: - Ρ| τΝτ Π τ Ot&'TlH ··! ν The phrase flNH in reference to the nations in Canaan, is used throughout the Tetrateuchal account,384 and although it never appears in Deuteronomy, it does so several times in DtrH.385 On three occasions, the writer uses fTltjtn with 'JMSO: in Josh 7:9 these two elements are linked by a waw (Josh 7:9) and in the other two, as in Neh 9:24b, they are juxtaposed (Judg 1:32, 33).386 :03ün? o r o nitor1? p i a n ' o n r n N n

o r a ninni 24c

DJisns ona ni»»"I1 ?» τ I · VT This final phrase is an expression found regularly in later texts (Esth 1:8; 9:5; Dan 8:4; 11:3, 16, 36; Neh 9:24, 37). It may be an allusion to a statement in Josh 9:25 in connection with the Israelite conquest of the Land (new 13*7 nife»1? ^Γϋϊ -|t2?»?l a t e ? ΊΪ3Π), the one instance where the Israelites do not practice D'Ili on a people. This, however, does not seem appropriate for a statement summarizing the conquest tradition387 and it may simply be an expression which highlights the loss of autonomy by the kings and peoples. This does not then exclude the possibility that the "good pleasure" of the Israelites was to practice ΟΊΠ as Yahweh instructed. Focus on the absence of correspondence with Joshua has diverted attention away from what probably is the composer's main goal in using 03Ϊ2Π3. It seems to function as a subtle foreshadowing of Neh 9:37 where this same phrase is used for the present state of the people. By this, the composer highlighted the irony and despair of the reversal of fortunes of the present generation. This may then account for the use of DTP?1?? in Neh

383

384

385 386

387

BECKER claimed that the use of /J>35Hif indicates that the writer did not share the view that the Canaanites were exterminated. This cannot be substantiated because /jjjjHtf js a g e n e r a ¡ term f o r defeating an enemy. Exod 23:31 (Nora: Book of the Covenant); Lev 18:25; Num 32:17 (NOTH: possible continuation of Num 32:1 [E] or late; BUDD: J); 33:52, 55 (NOTH: late addition, strongly Dtr; BUDD: Dtr but built on Holiness Code which has affinity with Dtr style). Josh 2:9, 24; 7:9; 9:11, 24; Judg 1:32, 33; 1 Sam 27:8; cf. Josh 17:16; Judg 1:27. It must not be overlooked that the waw in Josh 7:9 may be explicative and identical in meaning to the references in Judg 1: "the Canaanites, that is, all the inhabitants of the land". BATTEN highlighted this as a major difference between Neh 9 and the picture of the conquest in Joshua.

169

Life in the Land Tradition

9:24c, for in Neh 9:37 it is also D,3I7Q whose pleasure affects the people's daily existence. OT » τOι

m·· n t ·m-

Although the combination /)Π3 + T 3 is found in connection with the conquest of Canaan in Exod 23:31 388 and Num 21:2, 1 it is especially favoured in Deut/DtrH.389 In view of the allusion made in the previous verse to the later predicament of the Israelites in 9:37, it is very possible that the construction here is an ironical play on Neh 9:30, which like the book of Judges uses this expression for both the conquest and the discipline of Israel. This may account for fltjin 'QQD, because a similar combination is found in Neh 9:30. 390

Γΰη» ηαη«τ r m s a o n ç n a 1 ? » ! 25a

'

QTD

a ' - òτ ' »» k·»o· vI m ο,η,η ο ι Ώ· -το« ' ο , 2 ' ώ ι n i ï a ·· « ·· t

25b 25c

All of the description of the Promised Land in Neh 9:25b-c, except the phrase S I 1 ? f û ) constitutes a direct quotation of Deut 6 : I I . 3 9 1 f i s h in reference to the conquest of the land west of the Jordan is only found in DtrH, but the Pentateuch does not relate any of this conquest and does use / Ί 3 1 ? on several occasions (Num 21:32; 32:39, 41, 42; Deut 2:34, 35; 3:4). ΓΠ"1Ϊ3 D'IÇ is used regularly throughout the Hebrew Bible, especially for the fortified cities of the later Israelite kingdoms. It appears in both die Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy in reference to the cities of the Canaanites which were to be conquered (Num 13:28; Deut 1:28; 3:5; 9:1; cf. Josh 14:12). However, on two occasions in Deuteronomy (1:28; 9:1), ΓΠΊΪ3 is closely linked with D'OtëS, something missing from Neh 9. The phrase Γΰρψ ΠΕΠ8 is only connected once with the Promised Land to be conquered: Num 13:19-20, 392 where the spies are commissioned to look for certain qualities of the land to ascertain its worth: what kind of cities ( D n ç n ) they live in to see if they are D n s n p s (cf. Num 13:28); what kind

388

NOTH: Book of the Covenant; CHILDS: secondary parenetic addition to Book of the Covenant.

389

Deut 2:24, 30; 3:2-3; 7:24; 20:13; 21:10; Josh 6:2; 7:7; 8:1, 7, 18; 10:8, 19; 11:12, 17; Judg 1:2, 4; cf. Deut 1:27; Judg 2:14; 6:13; 13:1 where the Israelites are given into the hand of their enemies for punishment. Num 21:34 is considered a Dtr addition by NOTH; BUDD.

390

The words Π3Ο0 ΓΙζΠΝΙ are left untranslated in L X X . In this parablepsis in the Greek text the scribe skipped from -ας καί to -ας καί: πόλεις ύψηλάς καί [γην πίονας καν] ¿κληρονόμησαν.

391

Anderson (1987:175-176) claimed this represents Dtr phraseology, but RUDOLPH was more accurate when he suggested it partially agrees with Dtr formulae.

392

NOTH; BUDD: a passage attributed to J but which underwent secondary expansion.

170

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

of land ( p N H ) to see if it is Π3Ι2®Π; and whether or not they have trees (pjj). This tripartite commission given to the spies constitutes the three items found in Neh 9:25a-c which are not found in Deut 6:10-11. This is even more striking since Deut 6:10 provides a description of the cities in the land. Instead, the composer has opted for a different rendition and Num 13 seems to have provided the material. The final phrase, is used both in priestly material (Lev 19:23; Ezek 47:12 2x ; cf. Gen 2:9; 3:6) and once in Deuteronomy (Deut 20:20). It therefore is not a particularly Dtr expression and may indicate priestly influence. 3 Ί1? is used in the sense it has in Neh 9:25 many times in the Hebrew Bible and especially in the later period (Zech 14:14; ChrH 25x). 393 òi-ian ηηΐΰζι ìro»?l

irat^n u n e n

25d

ì1»«':!

The combination V^ON + /B3B? is not limited to any one corpus of the Hebrew Bible (Weinfeld 1972:2), but nevertheless its appearance in Neh 9:25d points to the influence of Deuteronomy. First, it appears regularly in Deuteronomy following descriptions of the goodness of the Promised Land (Deut 6:11; 8:10, 12; 31:20; 32:15), and particularly following Deut 6:11a which has already been noted as the source of most of the first part of Neh 9:25. Secondly, in all of these instances the pattern moves from a description of the goodness of the land, to the satiety of the people + to a warning or description of disobedience, the same progression as in Neh 9:25-26. Thirdly, the addition of to this regular word pair points to Deuteronomy as the source, although not Dtr circles in particular. Deut 31:20 uses, along with SbDX + V17DÉ, / J t t n , a root closely related to in terms of meaning (cf. Isa 30:23). Deut 32:15 in LXX has καί έφαγεν Ιακώβ καί ένεπλήσθη και άπελάκτισεν ό ήγαπημένος έλιπάνθη έπαχύνθη έπλατύνθη as opposed to the following reading in MT: ITfoS IT3Ö T)im ÎDÇ2»! p i n . 3 9 4 The first two verbs in LXX are those regularly used by the translators for f b i X + / M t 0 (cf. Deut 6:11; 8:10, 12; 31:20 in LXX). Whether there has been damage to the MT in Deut 32:15 or whether the text has been expanded in LXX Vorlage is not of prime concern. Neh 9 appears to reflect one textual tradition of Deut 32:15. 395 Even if the one textual tradition could be

393 394

395

Cf. BDB 914; Geißler (1899:11); Driver (1913:535); Japhet (1968). MT is supported by the Vulgate, the LXX reading by the Samaritan Pentateuch and a phylactery from Qumran (cf. DeVaux-Milik 1977:72-74; Braulik 1992:230). See also Skehan (1954) who revealed another instance where scrolls at Qumran follow LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch over MT in Deut 32. Driver (1902:360-361) disregarded Dillmann's (1886:401) acceptance of this argument on the grounds that Deut 31:20 and Neh 9:25 do not necessarily presuppose this reading and that it makes verse 15 too long. Braulik (1992:230)

171

Life in the Land Tradition

explained as relying on Neh 9, 9:25d is clearly influenced by Deuteronomy because Deut 32:15 uses /|Qtt? in a similar way to how it is used in 9:25d and Deut 31:20 shows that the addition of this concept is something unique to Deuteronomy. This, however, is not an example of Deut/Dtr terminology because neither of these passages are Dtr, and reflect the latest stage in the development of the Pentateuch. This shows reliance on a finished Pentateuch. •?i-ian

Ό'ίφη'ΐ

The second half of this line is not stereotypical Dtr. /]"lö Hlp is used only here. The word 31tD is normally used in connection with the material bounty of the land, sometimes as an example of God's goodness (Gen 45:18, 20, 23; Ezra 9:12; Isa 1:19; Jer 2:7; 31:12, 14; Ps 65:5; Zech 9:17), a meaning which is extended to gifts offered out of this bounty (Gen 24:10; 2 Kgs 8:9). On several occasions, however, it refers to the character of God (Exod 33:19; Ps 145:7; Hos 3:5) or man (Deut 28:47; Ps 119:66; Isa 65:14). Because of the proximity of this statement to the rehearsal of the goodness of the land and because the word is used twice more in Neh 9 to refer to the goodness of the land (Neh 9:35, 36) ,396 it is certainly a reference to the land and another foreshadowing of the reversal of fortunes in the latter half of Neh 9. DJS ' i n « ηηηίΓτη« is1?®!] η η n i n ' i

397

ηα»5 26a

The combination + 13 ΉΠΝ is only found three other times in the Hebrew Bible: 1 Kgs 14:9; Isa 38:17; and Ezek 23:35. In Isa 38:17 it is used in the written confession of Hezekiah and refers to Yahweh casting all of Hezekiah's sins behind his back. In the other two instances Yahweh himself is thrown behind the back of the people and in both cases as a

affirmed the reading of LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran phylactery (cf. Anderson 1987:177). The expanded nature of the LXX/Samaritan Pentateuch textual tradition may indicate secondary status, however the expanded material would improve the metre, at least if Deut 32:15aß were put with 32:14, as the pronouns suggest. This may be another example of evidence of scribal expansions in Pentateuchal texts which reflect the later period of which Neh 9 is an early example (see p l l 0 n l 0 4 ) . 396 397

Neh 9:35 has a similar construction, using a synonym of 3ΊΠ f31BVI. LXX renders καί ήλλαξαν for ΠΕΡΙ, clearly reading here the verb /HID rather than MT /ΠΙΟ. Although the wavv-consecutive with the imperfect is not found in Biblical Hebrew the Hif'il would most likely be rendered: Π*??!, and if written defectively Ì1QJ1 would explain the error in translation. The use of /"11I2 in this context is not impossible but highly unlikely because it is never used in the sense required here.

172

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

result of idolatry. These two latter instances are very similar to Neh 9:26 where the Law is thrown behind the back. This slight change is probably due to the heavy emphasis on the Law in the prayer as a whole. 3 8 /¡"ΠΩ is used in Deut 9:17, 23, 24 to describe the rebellion typical of the wilderness period. 399 It often appears in historical recitals in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the rebellion of Israel, both in the Hif'il stem (Neh 9:26; Pss 78:17, 40, 56; 106:7, 33, 43; Ezek 20:8, 13, 21) and in the Qal (Pss 78:8; 105:28; Isa 63:10) without distinction. Its use in Neh 9:26, therefore, may be due only to the general tradition of historical recital in the Hebrew Bible. / n o + 3 , however, is limited in the Hebrew Bible to passages traditionally associated with Priestly circles (Num 14:9; p Josh 22:16, 18, 19, 20; cf. 22:24; Ezek 2:3 2x ; 20:38) and to Penitential Prayer (Neh 9:26; Dan 9:5, 9). Taken in isolation these three elements of Neh 9:26a may reveal no firm connection to a specific corpus. However, it must be noted that the only other passage where one finds both /ΓΠΟ and / T 1 D is Ezek 20. In Ezek 20 both of these roots are used with ά. If the 2 in Neh 9:26a is connected to /THD as well as /"ΠΠ the link to Ezek 20 is strengthened because / m t f " 1 is only followed by 3 in Exod 23:21 and Ezek 20:8, 13, 21. Furthermore, in conjunction with the use of /ΓΠΏ in Ezek 20:8, /~|'?tt?IIif is also used in connection with idolatry. 400 Ezek 23:35 shows that the actual usage of V^ttf"* in Neh 9:26 could have come from Ezekielian circles and that this idiom was linked to idolatry. The use of this idiom may have been prompted by the command in Ezeic 20:7, 8 to throw away (/~|'?tffHif) the idols.

τρ1?« oa^nb ω rryrnt^ inn Y*t"orní¡n 26b Neh 9:26 contains the first of four uses of / T l l ^ in the prayer of Neh 9 ( w . 26, 29, 30, 34). When this root is used in the Hebrew Bible it can carry one of four basic meanings. First, it is used to describe the act of witness in a legal proceeding (Isa 8:2; Jer 32:10, 25, 44; Mai 2:14). Secondly, and probably related to the preceding meaning, it is used at the institution of national covenant as a reminder of the legal implications of the ceremony (Deut 4:26; 8:19; 30:19; 31:28; 32:46; Jer 11:7). Thirdly, it is used in a general sense of warning with no legal or prophetic overtones (Gen 43:3; Exod 19:21, 23; 1 Kgs 2:42; Neh 13:15, 21). Finally, it is

398

399 400

C f . BOWMAN; Gilbert ( 1 9 8 1 : 3 1 3 ) ; WILLIAMSON w h o argued that i n N e h 9 the L a w

is portrayed as a surrogate for God himself. Cf. DAVIES. Notice how /ΓΠ0 forms an inclusio around the account of the wilderness rebellion in Deut 9. /"l^ttf™ is rarely used in connection with idolatry. Besides those passages already noted (1 Kgs 14:9; Ezek 20:7-8; 23:35; Neh 9:26) it is used in this way only in: Isa 2:20; 2 Kgs 17:20; 2 Chr 7:20; 33:15.

Life in the Land Tradition

173

used to describe the prophetic warning (1 Sam 8:9; 2 Kgs 17:13, 15; 2 Chr 24:19; Jer 6:10; 42:19; Am 3:13; Zech 3:6; cf. Pss 50:7; 81:9). 401 The four occurrences of this root in Neh 9 all exemplify this final sense as they are either explicitly or implicitly linked to the prophets. Among the passages cited 2 Kgs 17:13, 15 and 2 Chr 24:19 exhibit close links to Neh 9. Neh 9:34 contains 0Π3 Π'Τ»Π "WH ^ n i l ö ' p ' l , strikingly similar to the only other combination of / n t f 1 * + 3 with ΓΤΠϋ in the Hebrew Bible, 2 Kgs 17:15: D3 Τ 0 Π VnÍ"1Ü Π«!.402 Neh 9:29 uses the phrase 1 1 ηηηίΓΓ ?« Μ ^ Π ? Dna ΙϋΓΠ to describe Yahweh's warning to the people. This corresponds" to thé phrase « 0 TD«1? ΓΠΊΤΤΟΊ ΓΠΓΡ " t i n in 2 Kgs 17:13, where additionally, ΓΠίΓΊΠ is used as an all-embracing term. The third passage mentioned above, 2 Chr 24:19, also exhibits links with the prayer in Neh 9, in particular with v. 26. Here at the beginning of the section on the rebellion of Israel in the promised land, the composer speaks of the slaying of the prophets who had admonished them in order to turn them back to Yahweh.403 In similar language, 2 Chr 24:19 introduces the death of Zechariah son of Jehoiada with the following statement: 404 o n» I T m mτ rι r 1 ? «τ a c» u· -i :r -ò ο·»«33 o rv Ta rÒBm. The use of / m ü " i f in · τ~ - ι · Neh 9:30 may also be linked to 2 Chr 24, where in v. 20 the Spirit of God clothes Zechariah to speak prior to his death. In the case of 2 Chr 24, however, the dependence is most likely not that of Neh 9 on ChrH but the opposite.405 Both in Jeremiah (2:30, 34; 26:15, 20-24; cf. 14:15) and DtrH (1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 19:20, 14) emphasis is placed on the death of prophets. The passages in Jeremiah reveal little similarity in vocabulary while DtrH does use the same verb (/JTl). 406 Since Penitential Prayer incorporates the prophetic emphasis from the DtrH (2 Kgs 17) it is possible that the composer of Neh 9 has traced this back to the stress on the death of the prophets in 1 Kgs 18-19.

401

Many commentators have rightfully claimed that V"V)i?H'f is a favourite expression of the Dtr school and Jeremiah (Geißler 1899:18; BERTHOLET; DAVIES; BOWMAN;

402

403 404 405 406

CLINES; GUNNEWEG) which is missing in Priestly materials. It is important not to confuse the use of ΠίΤΪΑΠΠ» in Neh 9:34 with its use outside the Priestly material as a general term for laws (synonymous with D'pn etc.: Pss 19:8; 78:5; 81:6; U9:passim; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 23:31/2 Chr 34:31; Jer 44:23; 1 Chr 29:19). Even though it may appear to be in a list of legal terms in Neh 9:34 (cf. ^¡ΓΠίη and ^TfiJW), when it is combined with /"IIB"* it means "warning" and is not a legal term. I' 1 ?« Da'tfrfe CD ΊΓΐη η ^ ^ Γ Π Χ Ί . Other similarities with Neh 9:26-31:7]^™ + >Ò (2 Chr 24:19); ITH (2 Chr 24:20); / Π Π (2 Chr 24:22). Cf. Steck (1967) who identified Neh 9:26 as the oldest reference to the slaying of the prophets. Contra Geißler (1899:18) who claimed Neh 9:26bß was probably only a generalization of Jer 2:30.

174

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail) ¡ròi-ia n i s « 3 w i n

26c

The word niStO is used only here in Neh 9:18, 26 and in Ezek 35:12 and is a general reference to a mindset of contempt which takes a low view of someone or something else. In Neh 9:26, as in Neh 9:18, it is used in connection with the idolatry of the people,407 but, as Ezek 35 shows, it is a general term for contempt which may reveal connection with Ezekielian circles. nnb ns»5 a n n s t s oînrn 27a Dawn η·Ό®η πηκτ γ 1 ?» ^ g r ' a r n x rijhì 27b : ο π η χ τ η m i r ¿h-n o ^ j r a h o ' D n 1 ? f n h c a h r i ^ τ α π η ρ ι

27c

fpe 1 ? v j niîffa1? ό ί » ? D n V n t o i 28a *ρρ$τ·] O w n Dna r m ο γ ρ ^ ν τ η Εητρηι 28b rena ^nirn ^ n ^ s ' o ^ k ò ) m v n D ^ p

nrixi 28c

As is well documented, Neh 9:27-28 shares much in common with the book of Judges. This is true both in the basic pattern which is repeated and in the vocabulary used by the composer.410

407

In 9:18 the connection to the Golden Calf incident is explicit. Here in 9:26 the connection to idolatry has already been noted in relationship to the idiom + T? '"IOS- Notice also how in 2 Kgs 17, so influential on Neh 9:26b, the warning of the prophets is connected to idolatry and how, in the passages most closely related to Neh 9:26bß, when prophets are killed it is due to the idolatry of the people (1 Kgs 18-19; 2 Chr 24:17-22).

408

Many Hebrew mss contain Ί'ΠΓΓύΊ both here and in the following verse instead of I^DrriDi. The LXX uses έν οίκτιρμοΐς σου. Although 2 and 2 are easily confused, the MT is likely authentic because of its divergence from the similar reference in v. 19. If anything the other mss have been attracted to the first reference in the prayer and the LXX may only be using the same Greek expression each time for consistency. LXX renders OTIS Π13Ί with πολλοίς identical to that found following two of the three occurrences of ^ΏΓΠ ( w . 19, 31; v. 27 uses the synonym μεγάλοις). This textual evidence, along with the unusual position of ΓΠ3Τ before the noun it

409

m o d i f i e s , has led s o m e scholars to e m e n d OTIS IVQT to Ο ' Ώ Ί Π (BATTEN; SIEGFRIED;

BERTHOLET; BROCKINGTON). This, however, would mean the loss of the initial Π and the insertion of the letters ΓΊΒΓΙ1, which is highly unlikely. The unusual position of Π13Ί is due to an analogy with numerals (RUDOLPH; GKC §132.b; Jer 16:16), resulting in a phrase which is rare in Hebrew. The LXX may have been influenced by w . 19 and 31 or this may be an instance of homoioarkton in which the translator (or the scribe of the underlying Hebrew text) overlooked Ο'ΠΒΠΙ because of the similarity between Π0Π1 and "1ΒΠΊ at the beginning of v. 29. 410

C f . esp. KEIL; v o n Rad ( 1 9 3 0 : 7 8 ) ; RUDOLPH; COGGINS; CLINES; WILLIAMSON;

GUNNEWEG; BLENKINSOPP. For the pattern in Judges and its relationship to the Dtr movement see Mullen (1985) and Greenspahn (1986).

Life in the Land Tradition

175

The combination + T S appears regularly in the book of Judges to describe both the defeat of Israel by their enemies (as in Neh 9:27)411 and also the defeat of Israel's enemies by Israel.412 Although / Π ϊ ™ + b is not found in Judges,413 -f~\l}tQ + b does appear in Judg 2:15. The sense of /TIS 11 * in Neh 9:27 is different from most of the references in the Hebrew Bible because elsewhere it refers to the besieging of a people or city rather than the oppression of a defeated people.414 The Hebrew phrase 0ΓΠ3 ΓΙΪΠΊ can be traced to Judg 10:14. Although similar phrases can be found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, only here is a possessive object suffix used.415 The combination /pJtt/ZpBS416 + is found regularly throughout Judges417 and on two of these occasions, JTtPÏD follows. 418 Both /Dt27,Hif and /bâî™ are used in Judges to refer to the deliverance of Israel,419 a trend reflected also in Neh 9:27-28. Furthermore, on two of these occasions, the combination /UK?*™ + TO occurs.420 The combination ΠΪ3? at the start of Neh 9:28 is not found in Judges. In Judges VtaptP is used to describe the period following deliverance.421 This, however, does not disqualify Deut/DtrH as the source because VTIIJ422 is

411 412

413 414 415 416

417

418 419 420 421 422

Judg 2:14; 6:1; 13:1; cf. 6:13; 15:13; 16:23. Judg 2:23; 3:10, 28; 4:7, 14; 7:7, 9, 14, 15; 8:3, 6, 7; 11:21, 30, 32; 12:3. The expression /"13D + T 3 ("sold into the hand of") is also used in Judges: 3:8; 4:2; 10:7. It appears in Deut 28:522x; 1 Kgs 8:37//2 Chr 6:28; 2 Chr 28:20, 22; 33:12; Jer 10:18; Zeph 1:17. But 2 Chr 33:12 is certainly a reference to a defeated person under the oppression of his captors. Elsewhere it appears either with a possessive lamed (2 Chr 28:22) or as an absolute (Ps 37:39; Isa 33:2; Jer 14:8; 15:11). Cf. Greenspahn (1986) for the favouring of /pJJT in Judges over /pSJS which he claims is favoured in the wilderness accounts. This distinction is no longer valid by the time of Neh 9 (cp. Neh 9:27 and 28). Judg 3:9,15; 4:3; 6:6, 7; 10:10, 12, 14. In Neh 9:27 the combination / p » X + b« is used, but in 9:28 the object suffix is used. This is the only time that the recipient of a cry is designated by an object suffix. The only similar instance (apart from the regular reference to summoning troops) is Zech 6:8 where the object marker nx ΟΓΙΝ) is used. This may then be evidence of later usage. Judg 3:9, 15. However, on both occasions /D1pHif is used instead of /]Γΰ. fVti**: Judg 3:9; 6:14, 15, 36, 37; 7:2; 8:22; 10:1, 13, 14; 12:2; 13:5. / ^ J " * : Judg 6:9; 8:34; 9:17; 10:15; 11:26; 18:28. Judg 8:22; 12:2. Cf. 6:14 where the synonymous *]?l? is used and 8:34; 9:17 where ^ j H i f + -,,ç o c c u r s Judg 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:24; cf. 18:7, 27. Both Qal and Hif'il.

176

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

often used in Deut/DtrH with reference to the political rest o f the land. 423 There are two ways that the book of Judges depicts the Israelites' rebellion after being rescued by Yahweh's deliverers. The most popular method is to use (as here) the phrase JH Γ)ίΐ0ΐΛ. 424 The fact that in Judges this is followed by while in Neh 9:27 with is most likely testimony to the later origination of the prayer in Neh 9. 4 2 5 The second method is through the use of /3H0. 4 2 6 These two approaches are never found combined in Judges as they are in Neh 9:27. Several elements o f these verses, however, cannot be found in the book of Judges and with so much influence noted between Judges and these verses these additions and differences are important to examine. 427 The combination/»a® + t r i ? » + ΠΠΗ (ÎJQtçn D^tffû ΠΠΧ), used twice in Neh 9:27-28, is found elsewhere only in V Kgs 8//2 Chr 6. 4 2 8 As already noted in the evaluation of 9 : 1 9 ( p l 5 4 ) , the phrase γ Π Γ Π ρ in Neh 9:27 and ΐρΟΓΠ? ' n 9 : 2 8 can be traced to the general tradition of confessions in Israel. However, as noted in 9 : 1 9 , T 3 DDTJJn here in Neh 9:28 is strikingly close to Isa 5 4 : 9 where it occurs with D ,l ?'13 C Q f n S · It is surprising to find Dn , "lS used to unify the work of Yahweh in the first cycle of rebellion. At the beginning of Neh 9 : 2 7 , Yahweh gives the Israelites into the hand of DH'IS and at the end of the verse he sends saviours who deliver them from the hand o f ΟΠ,")2ί. This word is never used in Judges to refer to the opponents of Israel. Interestingly it appears in the same phrase as in Neh 9:27a in Ezek 3 9 : 2 3 : DTP-IS T 3 03ΓΙΝ, in a passage describing Yahweh's actions at the time o f the fall o f Jerusalem. The phrase ΟΓΟ Π T I DìT^'N is strikingly close to Lev 2 6 : 1 7 : • 3 2 ΠΎΙ is used many times in Lev 26, 4 2 9 but this seems

423

Deut 12:10; Josh 2 1 : 4 4 ; 2 2 : 4 ; 2 3 : 1 ; 2 Sam 7 : 1 , 11. This feature is picked up from Deut/DtrH by Chr (1 Chr 2 2 : 1 8 ; 2 Chr 14:5, 6;

15:15; 2 0 : 3 0 ; cf. Geißler

1899:18). Additionally, /ITO and /tsptf are used in parallel in Job 3 : 1 3 , 2 6 and Isa 14:7 and therefore are most likely synonyms. 424

Judg 2 : 1 1 ; 3 : 7 ; 6 : 1 ; 13:1.

Geißler ( 1 8 9 9 : 1 8 ) called it the Dtr expression for

idolatry (Deut 17:2). 425

Note how in the later period 'OD1? replaces T B S with / S 1 B / S Ì B (Neh 2 : 5 , 6; Esth

426

Judg 2 : 1 9 ; 8 : 3 3 .

5 : 1 4 ; Qoh 2 : 2 6 ; 7 : 2 6 ; cf. BDB 817). 427

Anderson ( 1 9 8 7 : 1 8 6 ) wisely noticed that Neh 9 : 2 8 is a poetic restatement of 9 : 2 7 : /3TJJ for /|Γ0,

for OTTS, / Π Π for / Π Χ

and / b i t " for / » t f * 1 *

Nevertheless, this does not mean that the vocabulary used in this restatement is irrelevant to traditio-historical analysis.

The composer's choice of words in a

second line (restatement) can be as much a matter of the will as in the composer's first line. 428

1 Kgs 8 : 3 0 , 32, 34, 36, 39, 4 3 , 45, 4 9 / / 2 Chr 6 : 2 1 , 23, 25, 2 7 , 30, 33, 3 5 , 39. Cf. Gen 2 1 : 1 7 ; Deut 4 : 3 6 ; Ps 7 6 : 9 ; 2 Chr 7 : 1 4 without ΠΓί8.

429

Lev 2 6 : 7 , 8, 16, 17, 25, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 4 4 .

177

Life in the Land Tradition

to be typical of covenant curse texts.430 More revealing, however, is VTm which is never used in Judges and appears regularly in Priestly passages.431 The only time it is used of Yahweh's punishment of Israel for disobedience is Lev 26:17. The phrase D'HÌ? ΣΤΕΠ is not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible but is strikingly close to Ps 106:43 where is used with nïST D^QÇB in the midst of a description of the repeated rebellion of Israel and rescue by Yahweh.432 fpnisn 1 ? wdbj-iòi 4 3 3 ι τ τ η nam η η η ϊ η - 1 ^

oyuirh Dna -i»rn

29a

As already noted in the evaluation of Neh 9:26, v. 29a begins with a phrase clearly linked to 2 Kgs 17 ( ^ r n i r r b x Μ^Γ} 1 ? ΟΓΏ 1»Γ)1). This is followed by a phrase very similar to Deut 17:12 (ΊΤΤΠ ΠΏΓΠ, see p i 19). Finally, as concluded in the evaluation of Neh 9:16-17b (pl47), the phrase ïprnsp 1 ? UJOtjTlÓ may only reflect the creativity of the composer, but possibly demonstrates affinity with Lev 26. c nr aτ mτ m o nτ «τ n fτ e"»r -- i t pt « μ -τ ί ν β· πτ τ | β* βτ ^ι μ· sί 29b τ ι The possible priestly influence at the end of v. 29a becomes explicit in 29b. In that context the composer uses a Hebrew phrase drawn from priestly circles: ΟΓΟ ΓΡΠΙ Ο Ι « nfo»? - ")»«. Although the concept of "life through the Law" can be found in Deuteronomy (4:1; 5:16, 33; 8:3), the idiom in Neh 9:29b is identical to that found in Lev 18:5 and Ezek 20:11. The somewhat awkward appearance of ^pBBtPpa is most likely due to the fact that it appears in both Lev 18:5 and Ezek 20:11 in connection with this idiom. The use of /ΝΒΠ is most likely due to the influence of Penitential Prayer (Ps 106:6; Dan 9:5, 15; cf. 1 Kgs 8:47; Josh 7:20; see pp49,203).

t ò i itffpn DEnyi r m i o ηΓΟ un»! 29c Neh 9:29c reverts to Dtr idioms, especially in v. 29cß in the phrase: UJati t ò l nippn D B m In the evaluation of Neh 9:16-17b (pl46) these were linked to circles associated with the themes of 2 Kgs 17 and Jeremiah. The first phrase, ΠΊΊΪ0 ^¡"D 13IW, is the first of two explicit links to Zech

430 431

432 433

Cf. Deut 28:7, 25, 31, 48, 53, 55, 57, 68; 30:7. Gen 1:26, 28; Lev 25:43, 46, 53; 26:17; Ezek 29:15; 34:4. Elsewhere: Num 24:19; 1 Kgs 5:4, 30; 9:23; Isa 14:2, 6; Pss 49:15; 68:28; 72:8; 110:2; Lam 1:13; 2 Chr 8:10. n i a i DT3ÖB also appears in Qoh 7:22. LXX does not appear to translate 1ΤΤΠ ΠΒΓΠ, but this may only be due to parablepsis.

178

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

7:11-12. The combination /|Π3 + ΓΠΊίΟ *]ΓΟ is restricted elsewhere to Zech 7.434 The significance of this link will be discussed further below. nìan

ctó arrbv η ρ η η ι

30a ' i n v i a i h i ¿ n i 30b :n'2nt$n 'Qjj ' T a ' M n r n 'irrori i 6 j 30c Most of the elements of Neh 9:30 have already been dealt with in earlier sections or reveal no contact with other passages. Neh 9:30a is a general statement of Yahweh's patience in spite of the disobedience of the people. •rpSi? η'ΦΟΓΐ most likely reflects the combination + ΊΟΠ used only a few other times in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 31:3; Pss 36:10; 109:12; cf. Ps 85:6). ΠΊ3"Ι D^ttf is used elsewhere only in Qoh 6:3, but there is no reason to conclude anything special from this. The use of ΓΪΧ1ΗΓΙ is typical of the later period (cf. BDB 76). Jeremiah and Ezekiel both consistently use Π2ίΊ>|Π to refer to the lands into which the Israelites were sent for exile.4*5 The other corpus in which regularly appears in reference to the lands of exile is Penitential Prayers: Ps 106:27; Ezra 9:7; Neh 9:30; Dan 9:7; cf. Lev 26:36, 39. This designation may have become a technical term for the nations of exile within Penitential Prayer. The phrase ^ p i r a r T ? "ΊΠΠ3 appears here at the climax to the prayer and unifies this final section with the wilderness tradition of the giving of the law. As noted already in that section the law which is given through ( T 3 ) Moses (v. 14) is later taught by the Spirit (v. 20). In this final section warnings to return to the law (cp. Neh 9:29) are given through ( T 3 ) the prophets and by the Spirit (9:30). The phrase í p í r a r T 3 has already been traced to the influence of 2 Kgs 17 on Penitential Prayer in general. However, it is interesting to note that the combination found here in Neh 9:30 ( τ ρ Κ ' Ο Γ Τ ? Ι Π Π ? ) is only found elsewhere in Zech 7:12 (α , « , 23Π T S i n f o ) .

434

435

Cf. Pröbstl (1997:85). Weinfeld (1972:339) traced the use of TIO and TIO through the Hebrew Bible and noted close connections between Jeremiah (5:23; 6:28); Deuteronomy (21:18); and Hosea. Although this may have been a theme assumed by Deut/Dtr/Jeremianic circles from Hosea, the idiom which appears in Zech 7 and Neh 9 is never used elsewhere. Cf. Jer 16:15; 23:3, 8; 32:37; 40:11; Ezek 6:8; 11:16^, 17; 12:15; 20:23, 34,41; 22:15; 34:13; 36:19, 24; 39:27; cf. 29:122"; 30:23, 26 where reference is made to the exile of Egypt.

Life in the Land Tradition

179

r ò s o i r t & i n ò c a n n 4 3 6 η , αηηηι 3ia :ηηκ έηπτι pir 4371 ?« "o D r a r » " ^ ) 3 ib All of the elements in this verse but one have been encountered elsewhere in Neh 9. This unique element in 31aß (Γ03 ΟΓΡίΡΙΓίό) has already been traced to the influence of priestly circles as seen in Ezek 20 and Lev 26 (p65).

Conclusion: Life in the Land Tradition The same trends noted in earlier sections of the prayer have continued through the Life in the Land tradition. On two occasions there is evidence of a combined Pentateuch as the composer incorporates elements from both Deut 6 and Num 13 (9:25a-c) and also from Deut 31 and 32. Additionally there are three indications that the book of Judges, or at least Judg 2-16, existed in its present form: 1) liberal use of the Dtr introduction of Judg 23; 2) direct quotation of Judg 10:14; 3) the combining of the two idioms for recounting Israel's rebellion which always appear in Judges separately (to do evil and to turn); 4) the use of the two idioms for recounting God's salvation of Israel (to rescue and to deliver).438 Dtr influence on this section is not restricted to these verses which rely on Judges. Nearly every verse reveals Dtr idiom or notions (9:24ba, 24bß, 24c, 25d, 26b, 27-28, 29a, 29c, 30b). However, as has been noted in previous traditions, here Dtr idiom and notions are occasionally transformed. In two cases this transformation points in the direction of the circle responsible for Zech 1-8 (9:29c, 30b), as Dtr terminology is

436

The addition in the LXX of καί σό at the beginning of this verse does not reflect textual variance but rather stylistic variation or assimilation to v. 19 (contra GUTHE-

437

The LXX translates btjl in this verse and in the next verse as Ισχυρός (strong, i.e. "the Strong One"). In this case the translators are revealing the easy confusion between btjt used for might/strength and the divine name. Although can refer to "might, strength" as in Ezek 31:11 where it refers to the ruler of Assyria, in reference to the divinity it would be hard to imagine that any Israelite would be thinking anything but "God".

438

Pröbstl (1997:86-88) offers an important insight on the distinction between the way in which the prayer in Neh 9 handles the Pentateuchal material and the way in which it uses the DtrH. The former is handled with much more care to retain the original with actual citations, while the latter is used with more liberality, feeling freer to transform material. Although this is an important insight, it may have more to do with the focus of the writer's attention, a focus seen consistently in the Persian period which looks to the period of Moses in order to establish patterns for renewal (this is seen in both the book of Ezra as well as in the Chronicler's work).

BATTEN; SIEGFRIED; BERTHOLET w h o add: ΠΠΚ1).

180

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

combined with terminology restricted to this corpus. On three occasions this transformation points to Priestly/Ezekielian circles: 1) 26b (Dtr) is surrounded by 26a and 26c (Ezekielian);439 2) 9:27-28 (Dtr) reveals the influence of Ezekielian and Priestly terminology; 3) between 9:29a (Dtr) and 9:29c (Dtr/Zechariah) is inserted a Priestly/Ezekielian phrase (9:29b). There are links in several places to the Penitential Prayer Gattung (9:27bß, 28cy, 29ba, 30cy) and once to the general tradition of confession in Israel (9:3 lbß). One can discern allusions to earlier material in the prayer itself (9:31a-c) as well as a foreshadowing of the reversal of fortunes requested in 9:32-37 (9:24c, 25d). The allusions in 9:31a-c remind the hearer/reader of the Grace Model of the wilderness tradition, a particularly poignant reminder after several verses focusing on the Discipline Model and immediately preceding the request for help (see p84).

VII. Request (Neh 9:32-37) i n t i m ni23n Sinan Sun i j t ò h n n ç i 32a nonni n n a n n n f ä ' 3 2 b a This verse, which serves as a transition between the author's review of the history of Israel and his explicit confession with muted lament and implicit request, is introduced with a declaration of the God who is addressed. In the discussion of the vocabulary of Penitential Prayer, this liturgical formula, which also appears in Neh 1:5 and Dan 9:4 was shown to be an example of Dtr influence (p43f)·

439

This is striking because in the first account of rebellion in Neh 9:16-17b, Dtr terminology was dominant.

181

Request

n i ò n r r b s ^ n « η^Β1? taon*-1?« 32bß inn'sbi ιτο^α 1 ? ù n t a i r - i t » « 32ca η Ώ Γ ^ ι " ^ γ ϊ μ ο ι ù i r n i f à 32cß •Πΐη 0ί»Π "Iö *V>©8 -D^i? «B»ñ 32d The initial phrase in this section CfJB1? has been linked syntactically to Josh 22:17,443 often considered as Priestly.444 The second phrase n x b n r r b s ntjt) is identical to that found on two occasions in the Tetrateuch: Exod 18:8; Num 20:14.445 It is used in these passages to refer to the difficulties encountered by the Israelites in the initial wilderness period (Exod 18:8) and to the hardships they endured in Egyptian servitude (Num 20:14). The composer is most likely using this phrase as a subtle allusion to Yahweh's gracious notice of their need in the past in both Egypt and in the wilderness in hope of similar displays of Divine grace in the present predicament.446 Neh 9:32c presents a list of the different categories of people who endured hardship. In 9:33-34 this list is repeated with the absence of Dl? and placing a greater burden for disobedience on the leadership of the community while refusing to implicate the prophets whose warnings were disregarded. Lists such as these are a regular feature of Penitential Prayers and have already been traced to Dtr/Jeremianic influence (see p45f). The final phrase of this section (ΠΪΠ Di'Π Ί ΰ TI®« "OpQ 'Ό"'!?) is clearly linked to 2 Kgs 17.447 On the conceptual level, 2 kgs 17 dates the downfall of all Israel (Northern and Southern Kingdoms) from the period of the Assyrians. The initial impression of the passage (2 Kgs 17:7-23) is that the composer restricts the scope of vision to the Northern Kingdom.

440 441

442

443

444 445

446 447

As in v. 19, ΠΚ marks the nominative phrase. One Hebrew manuscript begins this word with 1 which may be supported by LXX. LXX, however, may only be rendering the verse in proper Greek and one Hebrew manuscript is not strong evidence. RUDOLPH; BOWMAN suggested the deletion of this word, explaining it either as arising from a dittography of ΗΝ'?}1?} which has been corrupted or as an insertion from v. 34. GALLING saw the entire list as a gloss based on v. 34. There is no textual evidence for these conjectures. GKC (§117k, aa) and Geißler (1899:21). The construction and meaning are different in Lev 26:22 and Num 33:54. Anderson (1987:191-192) saw Neh 9:32bßa as unique. See pl37n238. 1

Num 20:14 (NoTH:E; BUDD: J): Un»»? "I0N ΠΐόηΓΓ » ΠΗ; Exod 18:8 (NOTH; CHILDS: JE): On«SÖ -itfK n i ò n r r 1 » fi«.' InExod 1*8:8 this phrase is followed by the statement ΓΠίΤ obx»! Cf. CLINES. Geißler (1899:19) noted the popularity of ΠΤΠ Βί>Π "IB in Deut/DtrH: Deut 2:22; 3:14; 10:8; 11:4; Josh 13:13; 14:14; 22:3; 23:8, 9.

182

Traditio-hìstorical Background of Nebemiah 9 (Detail)

However, it becomes clear in 2 Kgs 17:18-20 that this was only a foreshadowing of the complete rejection of Israel because the Southern Kingdom persisted in the same behaviour as the Northern. This conceptual similarity to Neh 9:32 is confirmed by the striking similarity of the final words of 2 Kgs 17:23: ΠΤΠ Πί'Π ΓΠΉ&Ν ί Π Ο Ί « b v n bri. IR1?»

by P N S

ΠΠΗΊ 3 3 a

^ ¿ » n n ü n j i j i η 1 »»» γ η μ ρ ? 33b Each item used in Neh 9:33 is linked to Penitential Prayer and has already been dealt with in detail. There it was shown that 3 3 a a - 3 4 b a is linked to Ezekielian circles (pp61-66). ^ m i n ifeç tib i r n ' n g j m n ' s ir-ife 34a :Dnà'nTön ynln» 1 ?') ^ n i s i r 1 ? « i n ^ p n ι 6 ι 34b As already noted above ( p l 7 2 ) , the final phrase of Neh 9:34 is clearly influenced by 2 Kgs 17 and as concluded in the investigation of Neh 9:32 ( p l 8 1 ) , the initial phrase is a feature of the Penitential Prayer which shows the influence of Dtr/Jeremianic circles. /StPp H i f is often used to gain the attention of those addressed (e.g. Isa 51:4; Mie 1:2). Here in Neh 9:34b it is linked both to Yahweh's ΠΪ2ΕΏ and his ΓΓΠ0 through the prophets. In the Hebrew Bible, the link to ΓΠΐίΟ is limited to Isa 48:18. This passage considers both the reasons for Israel's demise and offers the hope of redemption. Allusions to earlier traditions highlighted in Neh 9 are apparent in this passage: Yahweh's covenant with Abraham (Isa 48:19) and his providential care in the wilderness (Isa 48:21). 4 4 9 However, this is not the only connection made by the composer of Neh 9 as / a t P p " * is also linked to the tTPIÖ of the prophets. This fascination with reflecting on the warnings of the earlier prophets has already been linked to the Dtr movement (2 Kgs 17). However, /Stt?p Hif is only used once in DtrH and not in connection with the former prophets. In contrast, it is the book of Zechariah which on two occasions reflects back on the D'J'lPNin and both times uses VSt&p"1' to describe the reaction of the Israelites (Zech 1:4; 7:11). Geißler (1899:19) correctly argued that / Π & 8 + ΓΠίΠ is not found alone in the Tetrateuch and that it is reminiscent of Dtr expression: /"lOtP + nitPJJ1?.450 However, he failed to notice Deut 29:28 where V7IB7Ö is used

448

449 450

A s i n w . 19, 31, Π» here introduces the nominative. Muraoka (1985:153-154,158) is unjustified in placing this list with the preceding phrase in v. 33, because in that case it remains a part of the subject of a sentence. RUDOLPH; GUNNEWEG have no textual evidence for emending ΠΧ1 to Notice also the allusive phrase: " ^ " Q (cp. Neh 9:12). In Num 5:30 /¡"l!9B is used in a different sense for the execution of the provisions of a law by a priest and in Num 6:21 V7I0S? is used with

183

Request

apart from /"intf and combined with ΠΗΪΠ ΓΤΊίηπ n S T 1 ? ? . 4 5 1 This passage is significant because it provides a rehearsal of the history of Israel and a justification of why the demise and exile of Israel had to take place. The Dtr provenance of this phrase is further strengthened by the way ΓΤΊίΠ is used. As noted in the evaluation of Neh 9:13, 14, Deut/DtrH use ΓΠίΠ for the law as a fixed totality, the sense found here in 9:34. on 1 ? n n p t t f « s i n p i t ä s i ' οπ-όέ 1 ? n n H ® « ruaœni n a n i n •τ»

·}

τ

ι

o m 35a 35b τ

It has already been noted in the investigation of the Life in the Land tradition that vocabulary is repeated in the latter part of Neh 9 to emphasize the reversal of fortunes of the Israelites. Two elements in Neh 9 : 3 5 are also found in 9:25: 3ΊΠ and Π3Ι?»Π. In 9 : 3 5 ΓύΠηη is used alongside ΠΪΟψΠ to refer to the size of the land. The adjective ΓΟΠ") is used on four occasions in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the Promised Land. On three of these occasions it is found in the idiom: D ' T ΓΟΓΠ. 453 Only in Exod 3 : 8 , in the initial promise to Moses while in Egypt is the land referred to simply as nail"). Little else in Neh 9:35a-b is of significance. The word ΟΠΌ1?!? is indicative of the later period (cf. BDB 574-575). In contrast, Neh 9 : 3 5 c does provide two important links. / " D Ö is used in Neh 9 : 3 5 - 3 6 to illustrate the reversal of fortunes of the Israelites. This is done by using / " D B in Neh 9:35 to describe the action required of the Israelites by their God and then using O n ? » in 9 : 3 6 to describe the present status of the Israelites in relationship to their foreign oppressors. 454 This technique is evidenced in the covenant curse vocabulary of Deut 2 8 : 4 7 - 4 8 : η - ο ν ν . . · ^ / ! ^ n i r r n « r n a i n ò -it¡?8 nnn. This emphasis on slavery is also found in Ezra 9 : 9 where the same declaration used twice in Neh 9 : 3 6 is found: D n• aτ »"i ΌΠ3Η. : - —. The second important link in Neh 9 : 3 5 c is found in the final phrase: D , » i n D¡V^,?»Í3Q O t t n Ò V A similar combination appears in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Hosea and Isaiah: DD 1 ^ 1 ?»? » I . 4 5 5 The closest parallel, however, is found in a passage already seen as important in

451

Elsewhere in Deut/DtrH /TIÍPJJ is used with terms for law, but always with S (Deut

452

Two Hebrew mss write

17:19; 27:26; 2 Kgs 17:34; cf. Ezra 10:3). which receives support from L X X , Peshitta, and

Arabic. Graphic confusion between 0 and 3 may have occurred in the Old Hebrew script, but more likely this is a case of attraction to the immediately following construction "spìOSì and the focus on Yahweh's gift of land and goodness. 453

Gen 34:21; Judg 18:10; 1 Chr 4 : 4 0 .

454

Cf. WILLIAMSON; Anderson (1987:199).

455

Deut 28:20; Hos 9:15; Jer 4:4; 21:12; 23:2, 22; 25:5; 26:3; 31:12; 35:15; 44:22; cf. Judg 2 : 1 9 ; Ps 28:4; Isa 1:16.

184

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

previous verses: Zech 1:4-6. Here /D1C is used together with the phrase D ^ n n " " D D ^ ^ g Q , identical to what is found in Neh 9:35c. 4 5 7 That Zech 1:4-6 has in mind the message of Jeremiah is clear from Jer 23:22 in which the same elements are found. 458 Therefore, Neh 9:35 shares another element with Zech 1-8 which shows clear links with Jeremianic literature.

459

nnitrnm n n a - n « V d i ò

"

D n a » D r n Ί3Π3Κ Π3Π 36a Y i n n p t í K p « r n 36b

:¡vVv o ñ i » 'urne' fian 36c

Neh 9:36 represents the flip-side of the contrast, begun in Neh 9:35, between service of Yahweh and service of the foreign kings. Most of the verse consists of an inclusio which repeats this theme. Between these two declarations of servitude the composer has included once again reference to the land which was given to the fathers. This reference speaks of the bounty of the land in terms identical to the recitation of history in the prophetic lawsuit of Jer 2: rQIBI ¡ T I B 'TDK1? b m S H ρ « - 1 ? « 03Γ)Η ΚΌΚ1 (2:7a). 460 '

456 457

458

459

460

Qere: DD'^pBD. Geißler (1899:19) and Anderson (1987:199-200) highlighted the similarity to Zech 1:4-6, but did not see any significance. Anderson concluded that Neh 9:35c originated from the author's "general religious vocabulary" based on Jeremiah. Contra Petersen (1984:132-133) who listed several passages (Jer 18:11 ; 25:5; 35:15) but because he did not consider 23:22, concluded: "Zechariah 1:4b comprises not so much a single quotation but the sort of thing people in 520 would have expected such prophets to say". LXX does not translate the final phrase in this verse and the first part of the next, omitting: ΓΟΊΠ ΠΠ^ΏΠΊ '-Tvbû DH3g UTONl Π3Π ¡TOOTm This appears to be an example of homoioteleuton parablepsis because of the length of the omission. The letter Π lay at the end of two lines in succession: the one ending with ΓΡΊΕΓΠΝ and the other with ¡"DID ΠΓΙΝΏΓΠ. The close similarity between these two phrases (1/1, Β/Ο, ηκ/ηκ) most likely gave rise to its omission of the intervening text in LXX tradition. This has been traced to Jeremiah's early career (Holladay 1986:73). Carroll (1986:123) maintained that it was part of a "Deuteronomistic-type sermon" even though he admitted that there was a "paucity of specific Deuteronomistic phrases". The Gattung may be Dtr but the vocabulary is not. Deut 28:33 is similar but not identical. In Deut usually n a is linked to ΓΜΊ« (Deut 7:13; 26:2, 10; 28:4, 11, 18, 33, 42, 51; 30:9). See Deut 1:25 for the exception (cf. Geißler 1899:19).

Request

irmH'öDS : w |qΤ "n> nSi-ia n nT sT 1n i Τ J

185

n n n p t f K OO'pa1? n a n o π η κ Ό η ι 37a bvr¡ 37b • t · ·· I ? t · · t · · · « - t

As Neh 9:35 foreshadowed 9:36 by introducing the theme of servitude, so 9:36 foreshadows 9:37 by speaking of the bounty of the land.461 Neh 9:37 is reminiscent of the Dtr evaluation of kingship in 1 Sam 8:11-17 where Samuel warns that the king will make the people his slaves462 and take the best of their produce and livestock. There is very little contact, however, in terms of vocabulary. Strikingly similar is Gen 47:18-19 1 where the people sell not only their livestock but also themselves to Pharaoh in return for food. There we find: Π12Π3ΓΙ, WIJ13, and •"•"Dì? as in Neh 9:36-37. It is possible that the composer found in Gen 47 a situation similar to his own: a people in great need and hunger who become enslaved to a foreign lord, a comparison which might explain the use of CIOÎ? instead of which appears in Deut 28:47-48. The final words of this prayer are probably nothing more than allusions to previous material in the prayer, further examples of the composer's desire to highlight the reversal of fortunes of the Israelites. The first allusion is in the phrase D3Ì2fp which is found in exactly the same form in Neh 9:24 in reference to the Israelites' conquest of the land. The second allusion is found in the final phrase, 13Π3« PlSinJ ¡"nasi. The word ΓΠΧ also occurs in Neh 9:27 where it describes the period of distress in which the Israelites cried out to Yahweh for help. It is strategically placed here at the end of the prayer to remind Yahweh of the need to complete the cycle interrupted in Neh 9:30 by delivering his people. 463

Conclusion: Request Anderson (1987:201) noted that after Neh 9:32 the "anthological style" which has typified the prayer is not particularly evident. This, however, does not eliminate the significance of this final section which focuses attention on the present predicament of the people and their need for Yahweh's intervention. Most of this section can be linked to Penitential Prayer tradition in general (32a-ba, 32cß, 32da+y, 33a, 33b, 34aa, 36a, 36c), to allusions to earlier material in Neh 9 (35aß, 35bß, 37bß, 37by), or to Dtr terminology (32d, 34aß, 35c«). In addition, there emerges here further evidence of

461

462 463

The term ΠΓΙΝΏΡ, seldomly used in J (Gen 47:24) and E (Exod 23:10), appears many times in Deut/DtrH and Priestly literature (Deut 14:22, 28; 16:15; 22:9; 2 Kgs 8:6; Josh 5:12; Lev 19:25; 25:3, 7, 20, 22; 23:39; 25:12, 15, 16; Num 18:30ff). Cf. Geißler (1899:20). Compare Neh 9:35-36 with 1 Sam 8:17-18. Notice how in 1 Sam 8:18 the people cry out for relief. BOWMAN noted that this shows an understanding of the themes of the Dtr writers.

186

Traditio-historical Background of Nehemiah 9 (Detail)

connection to Zech 1-8 (34ba, 34by, 35cß) and one instance where a description of the land from Jeremianic prophecy is used (36b). Ezekielian influence continues but only as mediated through the Penitential Prayer tradition in general.

VIII.

Conclusion

The prayer in Nehemiah 9 has presented a remarkably consistent picture throughout. Several of these consistent elements have been recognised by earlier scholars. Most scholars have agreed that the prayer presupposes the Pentateuch in a very similar form to that possessed today. 464 This has been confirmed in the preceding analysis of the prayer. Rudolph (1949:162-163) and Gunneweg (1987:129) argued that it also presupposes the completion of the historical books (i.e. DtrH). This cannot be affirmed with certainty although evidence from Judges suggests that it was in its present form and the many allusions to 2 Kgs 17 also point in the direction of a substantial collection of the DtrH. The most universally accepted conclusion about the traditio-historical background of the prayer, and one seen in the preceding analysis, is that it is dominated by Dtr idiom. 465 Nevertheless, it is the universality of this conclusion that has very likely blinded many of these scholars to the most illuminating evidence for the traditio-historical background o f Neh 9 : 5 - 3 7 . Most scholars have not seen the widespread presence of Priestly and Ezekielian vocabulary in this prayer, nor have they noticed numerous examples of Dtr idioms which have been subtly transformed by Priestly or Ezekielian notions and vocabulary. A few scholars have noted Priestly influence, 466 most have ignored it and some have even gone so far as to claim that there is no evidence of it in the prayer at all.

464

Noth (1948:51nl64 [1972:48nl64]); RUDOLPH; MÉDEBIELLE; PELAIA; Williamson (1985:312); GUNNEWEG; Pröbstl (1997:92-93). Contra Segert (1991:265).

465

Geißler (1899:34, 45-46); DAVIES; Kösters (1895:82; cf. 1894); Kegel (1921:142, 144-145, 192); HALLER; Welch (1929:132-133; 1935:27-30); RUDOLPH; MÉDEBIELLE; BOWMAN; LEFÈVRE; Steck (1967); Kellermann (1967:36nl72); North ( 1 9 6 8 : 4 3 7 ; 1 9 9 0 : 3 9 6 ) ; COGGINS; CLINES; WILLIAMSON; GUNNEWEG; BLENKINSOPP;

Chrostowski (1990:258-259). 466

Geißler (1899:21, 34, 45-46) argued that of all the material in Ezra 7-10, Neh 8-10, Neh 9 shared the most with P. Haller (1925:144n3); Médebielle (1949:356); North (1990:396) cited the influence of Priestly circles. Kösters (1895:82, cf. 1894); Kegel (1921:142) restricted this influence to a secondary role ( w . 11-12, 15).

467

Davies (1909:231); Malina (1968:37); cf. Welch (1929:134) who argued that Neh 9 was pro-prophetic and anti-priestly while Bowman (1954:746) suggested that if one deleted w . 7-8 as a late gloss then one is left with "a distinctly Deuteronomic flavour", devoid of Priestly influence.

Conclusion

187

The preceding traditio-historical evaluation has argued that Priestly and Ezekielian vocabulary and notions are evident throughout. This has been seen from the outset in the presentation of the tradition sequencing models and has continued through the identification of vocabulary unique to Ezekiel and Priestly writings, to the way in which the traditions are closely allied with Priestly and Ezekielian presentations of the various traditions. The Ezekielian/Priestly elements are expected because of their influence on the Gattung as a whole, but it is very strong in Neh 9 and reveals how deeply rooted it is in this prayer. 468 Finally, in several places contact was established between the prayer in Neh 9 and Zech 1-8, in particular Zech 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23. This was seen in the crucial Rebellion cycles which set up the request (29c, 30) and then in the request itself (34ba, 34by, 35cß). This discovery should not be underestimated, for in the section freed from the constraints of anthology (request), Zecharian idiom shines through. This Zecharian idiom is clearly influenced by Dtr and especially Jeremianic elements. In one place a Jeremianic quotation is given.

468

So also Pröbstl (1997:98-99) who links this influence to that of the completed Pentateuch.

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusions Having completed the traditio-historical analysis of the prayer it is not enough to merely acknowledge the shape of the tradition and the sources of influence. It is essential to apply these results to the goal of this work: to answer the questions~who is responsible for this composition and how are they using the tradition?

I. Who is responsible for this composition? In the presentation of the history of research in the introduction to this work, it was shown that the prayer in Neh 9 did not arise in the period of Ezra or Nehemiah nor from the pen of Chr and that there is no reason to attribute it to the later Persian or early Greek periods. The most likely date of origination was placed in the period which preceded Ezra and Nehemiah. Welch's arguments for a seventh-century date have been undermined and this investigation showed that the prayer was from the period following the fall of Jerusalem. Williamson linked the prayer to the theology expressed in Ezekiel's quotation of those left behind in Palestine during the Babylonian period. Emphasis on the Abrahamic covenant was a trend of the Babylonian period among both the Mesopotamian and the Palestinian Jews (Deutero-Isaiah; Ezekiel) and this is an expression of the wider struggle between Palestinian and Mesopotamian communities for legitimacy (Jeremiah; Ezekiel). 1 Nevertheless the link highlighted by Williamson between the quotation of those who remained in the land and the prayer in Neh 9 is significant. At the same time, the work of Chrostowski agreed with the traditio-historical research presented earlier in this work that Ezekielian influence is undeniable, being seen in significant links to Ezek 20. He also noted many similarities between Neh 9 and Zech 1-8, a link already noted in the traditio-historical section above in terms of actual vocabulary which can be tied to this corpus. 2 To this was added the research of Rendsburg which revealed a significant number of LBH traits in the prayer thus favouring the Persian over the Babylonian period.

1 2

Cf. Japhet (1983:106-109) for the struggle in the exilic period on who was legitimate Israel and the exiles' response to it. Williamson (1988a: 130n40) cited the similarity between Zech 1:2-6 and Neh 9 and asked whether Zech 1:2-6 is another example of the "preaching" of his exilic group. However, Zech 1:2-6 appears too late for this.

190

Conclusions

This leads to the conclusion that this prayer has probably arisen in the context of the early Persian period. This conclusion is drawn from affinity between Neh 9 and Haggai and Zech 1-8 in general: 3 a. There is a sense of need for dramatic rescue rather than a gradual process of rebuilding, an emphasis reflected in Zech 1:7-20 and Hag 2:2023. b. There is a longing for autonomy with criticism of the overlord, an emphasis reflected in Zech 1:7-20 and Hag 2:20-23. c. There is evidence of economic pressure on the population which would suit this early period (Hag 1:5-6; Zech 8:9-13). 4 d. Zech 1:2-6 reveals a formal link to Neh 9. Here lies a prophetic accusation which places emphasis on the "fathers" as sinners whom the "earlier" prophets (Yahweh's servants) confronted, followed by a response

3

These arguments assume that Haggai and Zechariah are a genuine witness to the activity and theology of the early Persian period. The combination of prophetic oracle and "apologetic history" in Haggai has been aptly described by Rudolph (1976:39); Petersen (1984:33). Rather than undermining the historical validity of the narrative sections, this actually affirms their genuine character as argued by Verhoef (1987:10n5); Meyers-Meyers (1987:xlv); Tollington (1993); contra Ackroyd (1951; 1952) and Beuken (1967). Because of the visionary nature of Zech 1-8 it is more difficult to link the scenes to exact events. The view of MeyersMeyers (1987:xliv-liv; 1992a; 1992b) that Haggai and Zech 1-8 comprise a unified work is unconvincing mainly because of the speculative manipulation of numbers. The fact that the two works share similar themes and phrases is not surprising if they were contemporaries. The integrity of Zech 1:7-6:15 has been convincingly argued by Halpern (1978:189-190) who linked it with the founding of the Second Temple. The appearance of the seventy year theme in the core vision section (1:76:15) and the final narrative (7:1-8:23) links these two pieces together. It should not be assumed that differences in Gattung automatically invalidate certain sections historically. The view of Beuken (1967) that the material in this editorial framework is akin to Chronicles is based on the faulty notion that a particular Gattung (Levitische Predigt) and certain themes were exclusive to Chr, but the former has been challenged already in the present work and the presence of similar themes is hardly proof of common authorship. It is agreed that Zech 1-8 may have contributed to the circles responsible for ChrH but this does not mean it has arisen in a much later time period. Cf. Tollington (1993) for the view that the entire book may have been derived from the prophet and been compiled during his time. Especially, note her argument that Zech 7 does not presuppose the completion of the temple and could easily have been prompted by the beginning of building.

4

Cf. Olmstead (1948:77); Petersen (1984:306); Williamson (1985:38); Oates (1986:133); Blenkinsopp (1988:95); Wolff (1988:44); Chrostowski (1990:259) for evidence of financial hardship in this early Persian period.

Who is responsible?

191

o n the part o f the people w h i c h c o n f e s s e s their culpability and Y a h w e h ' s justice. e. Z e c h 1:7-17 relates h o w Zechariah pleads with Y a h w e h to s h o w mercy after "these seventy years". T h e only other time in Zechariah where there is mention o f "seventy years" is in reference to fasting activity. This suggests that the s c e n e in Z e c h 1:7-17 m a y have b e e n influenced b y prayers o n a fasting day, a setting which is a l s o shared b y N e h 9 as a m e m b e r o f Penitential Prayer in general. 6 f. In the early restoration period there is e v i d e n c e o f the c o m b i n i n g o f diverse groups, probably forged together by the difficult circumstances. This w o u l d explain the diversity within the prayer in N e h 9. In this period there is e v i d e n c e o f a group which included both prophets and priests. This is seen in the reference to the "priests o f the h o u s e o f the Lord A l m i g h t y and prophets" (Zech 7 - 8 ) , 7 in H a g g a i ' s use o f priestly f o r m s ( H a g 2 : 1 0 14), in Zechariah's priestly background, 9 in the prophetic title g i v e n to priests in this early period (cp. Mai 2 : 7 with H a g 1:13), 1 0 and in the positive attitude portrayed towards Jeshua the high priest. 1 1 There is a similar combination o f tradition influences in these early b o o k s . 1 2 The

5

Tollington (1993:203-209) described the difference between Haggai and Zechariah in terms of sin and judgment. Haggai focuses on traditional concepts of agricultural blessings and curses, but Zechariah (1:2-6) on an appeal to history and exile as evidence of Yahweh's righteous justice.

6

The date of this visionary experience is in the eleventh month and possibly represents a reflection on the fast of the tenth month (see Zech 7-8). Petersen (1984:146-147) recognised the similarity between this passage and Zech 7-8 in this regard and also observed that Zech 1:11 begins with 'ΠΗΠϋ, which "regularly occurs near the beginning of an individual or communal lament"; cf. Tollington (1993:184-185) who compared Zech 1:12 to Ps 79 and days of fasting. Blenkinsopp (1984:232, 234); cf. Johnson (1962:64-65). Ackroyd (1968:167); Blenkinsopp (1984:232, 234); Coggins (1987:36-37); contra Verhoef (1987:8). Koch (1980:170 [1983:167]); Tollington (1993:61, 82-83); although contra Blenkinsopp (1984:234). Japhet (1988:103). Cf. Blenkinsopp (1984:253) who highlighted P's depiction of Aaron as Moses' K'iJ in Exod 7:1 showing, in his opinion, that the prophetic task of confronting the king was passed to the priesthood. Tollington (1993:82-83). Coggins (1987:41, 48-49) noted a link between Zech 1-8 and Ezekiel in terms of form while Peckham (1991:757, 781); Hanson (1979:240-262; 1987:496-498); Tollington (1993:67) pointed to common concepts and vocabulary. Tollington (1993:121-124, 163-164) noted the relationship between Zech 6:10-11, 14 and Priestly Pentateuchal passages. Blenkinsopp (1984:235) forged a relationship between Zech 1-8 and the Dtr movement. Hanson (1979:240-262); Koch (1980:165-166 [1983:162]); Peckham (1991:741); Tollington (1993:67) saw the affinity between priestly/Ezekielian circles and Haggai. Cf. Barton (1992:490-492)

7 8 9 10

11 12

192

Conclusions

influence o f this earlier relationship b e t w e e n priests and prophets is reflected in later Persian writings as w e l l . 1 3 Thus in the early Persian period, b e f o r e the c o m p l e t i o n o f the temple, there is e v i d e n c e o f a m o v e m e n t w h i c h c o m b i n e d prophetic and priestly elements and w a s based in the locale o f Jerusalem. 1 4 In this period there is e v i d e n c e o f the c o m b i n i n g o f e x i l e s with those w h o remained in Palestine during the e x i l e . Because o f the paucity o f firm e v i d e n c e from the early Persian period, scholars have tended to force either tensions f r o m pre-exilic Israel or tensions f r o m the period o f E z r a / N e h e m i a h into the early Persian period. 1 5 W h i l e several scholars have criticized these attempts, 1 6 Japhet and W i l l i a m s o n have sought to contribute a more accurate picture o f this early period. 1 7 Their presentation depicts a c o m m u n i t y w h i c h w a s not intensely fractured but rather c o m b i n e d M e s o p o t a m i a n and Palestinian e l e m e n t s . 1 8 g. In the early Persian period, there is e v i d e n c e o f a group continuing the practice o f fasting as late as the period o f Haggai/Zechariah ( Z e c h 7 8). 1 9 T h e goal o f this fasting w a s to bring an end to the e x i l e . There is

13

14 15

16 17

18

19

for the general association of prophets and cult in the Persian period and the assertion that the close association of prophet and cult seen in Haggai and Zechariah is seen already in the exilic period in Ezekiel. Blenkinsopp (1984:253-254) noted how the prophet Joel saw fasting as the way to avert disaster by a cultic act of the community and how in ChrH Levites are closely related to cult prophecy (2 Chr 20:13-23, cp. 2 Chr 34:30 and 2 Kgs 23:2). This does not presume that all prophets were included in this group nor that prophecy was subsumed under priesthood (cf. Petersen 1991:142). Smith (1971) is typical of the former, Hanson (1979; 1987) and Talmon (1987) of the latter. Plöger (1959 [1968]) did not force tensions into the early Persian period. DeVaux (1960:253-277 [1961:387-405]) argued for tension among priestly factions in this period, but his conjectures are based on little evidence. Cf. Carroll (1979a); Knibb (1982); Mason (1982); Tollington (1993:53). Japhet(1983:114); Williamson(1988a: 130n40; 1989:152);cf. Verhoef(1987:3)and Weinberg (1992:131-132). See especially Ezra 6:21 where those who returned from exile join with those who separated themselves from their Gentile neighbours to celebrate the festival. This is a surprising piece of information in a section of EzrNeh that elsewhere portrays no other Jewish community than that which returned from Mesopotamia (cf. Japhet 1983:113). Some scholars have suggested that Haggai was a prophet from the Palestinian community, while Zechariah was from Mesopotamia, but this is far from certain. Cf. Petersen (1984:18-19,109-110) and Verhoef (1987:7) and literature cited there. Contra Koch (1980:165 [1983:161]) who claimed Zechariah treats fasting as superfluous. Zechariah assumes that the fasting will continue and one day be transformed into feasts (Zech 7-8). Cf. Veijola (1985:306) on lament feasts in the exilic period and also Peckham (1991:657, 781) who linked the fasts of Zech 7 to Joel's fasts. Fasting during the exile need not be restricted to the Palestinian community and may have also been the regular practice in the Mesopotamian context as well (cf. Ferris 1992:81-83). This may have provided a point of contact

Who is responsible?

193

evidence that this fasting activity was carried on in Palestine during the exilic period but had come under the authority of the Priestly-Prophetic circle at Jerusalem. h. The sense of "restoration" or "end of exile" in this early Persian period does not match the historical interpretation of Ezr-Neh and is similar to the ethos of Neh 9. Haggai reflects no sense of exile or restoration and even Zechariah who is conscious of these concepts does not see that the restoration has begun. 20 j. The leading role played by prophets in this early period21 is in contrast to their later subjugation. 22 The innocence of prophets in Neh 9 is highlighted at the expense of others, including priests (cp. Neh 9:32, 34). Many links have been established between the prayer in Neh 9 and the situation described in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. It must be admitted that many of these arguments do not exclude the Babylonian period, but once one identifies the influence of Ezekiel and that of the book of Zechariah (1:1-6; 7:1-8:23) in a prayer spoken in Palestine, the early Persian period is more likely. The question now is determining when in the early Persian period. This is partly affected by one's view of the redactional history of Haggai and Zechariah. The closest affinity between the prayer and Haggai/Zechariah is with Zech 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23. These sections of Zechariah are attributed by Ackroyd and Mason to the work of later tradents reflecting on the visions of Zechariah while Mason's student, Tollington, diverged from this opinion and argued that the entire book is a unified whole from Zechariah (see pl90n3). If Zech 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23 reflect the period around 520 BCE then Neh 9 may have arisen in this period, but if Zech 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23 are later reflections, then Neh 9 probably would not have arisen before 500 BCE. But is it necessary that the prayer rely on the written form of Zech 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23? Could it not be reflecting the idiom of the Zecharian tradent group and thus even reflect the period before 520? This is suggested by contrasts between Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and the prayer in Neh 9. Williamson (1988a) noted the stark contrast between Neh 9 and the outlook of Haggai, Zech 1:7-8:23, and Malachi, where aspirations are focused on the temple, Jerusalem and Davidic king. This may suggest, therefore, that Neh 9 was composed in the earliest part of the restoration period before the appearance of Zerubbabel and Jeshua from the Mesopotamian communities. This would also account for the uncertainty over the end of the "exile", for the completion of the temple may have been a clear sign to the Persian

20

21 22

between the two communities. See especially Ackroyd (1968:153); Japhet (1983); Coggins (1987:9-10, 30), contra Carroll (1979b: 160) who claimed that the oracle of Haggai is an "example of a prophet trying to explain to his people why they should be suffering great deprivation in a time hailed by some prophets as one of abundant salvation". Cf. Zech 7:2-4; Ezra 5:1, 14. Cf. Carroll (1992).

194

Conclusions

period community that the "restoration" had come. The absence of concern for the temple in this early Persian period community is seen in Haggai's description in Hag 1:2-11. While it is true that the earliest returnees came to Palestine with the intention of restoring the temple and its services (Ezra 1), the difficult circumstances they encountered appears to have soon stripped them of this desire. 23 This, however, is not entirely secure. First of all, Coggins (1987:14-15) has argued that although Ezr-Neh presents the main role of Haggai/Zechariah as that of building of temple, they themselves view it only as a means to an end. They looked for a turn of events in history that would accompany the building of the temple and the installation of Zerubbabel which seems to have been postponed until a later age. Secondly, there are a significant number of LBH features in Neh 9, while Haggai and Zech 1-8 reveal only a few such characteristics (see Appendix E: p214). Thirdly, in the period after Haggai and Zechariah the importance of the Davidic dynasty waned with no indication of what happened to Zerubbabel. Therefore, although it is more likely that the prayer originated in the earliest part of the Persian period because of the absence of reference to the temple and monarchy, this is not certain. This, however, does not deny the links to the Palestinian community during the Babylonian period claimed by Williamson. It is possible that the practice of fasting was carried on in Palestine during the exile and that Abraham was a major focus of this fasting. This influence on Neh 9 appears to play down theories of great fissures within Israelite society in the early Persian period. Neh 9 reveals a mixing of exilic elements from Ezekiel and Palestinian elements from those left behind. 24 Does this not suggest that when groups began to return in the early Persian period they were not immediately hostile to the Palestinian Jewish community, but joined with them? This new mixture of tradition may be displayed in the group pictured around Zechariah in Zech 7. Here is a group of priests and prophets speaking with a unified voice. The presence of priests with the prophets may explain the presence of so many priestly/Ezekielian elements in Neh 9, while the prophets may explain Dtr/Jeremianic elements. It was noted in the traditio-historical analysis that the elements in common between Zechariah and Neh 9 are always connected to Dtr or Jeremianic elements. This may indicate that Zechariah has communicated the Dtr/Jeremianic elements into this group, the priests communicated the Ezekielian/Priestly elements and these "people of the land" who remained behind and brought

23 24

Smith (1995:187-203) places his two Trito-Isaiahs into this same period, although the tradition circles are different. This would explain the many correspondences between Isa 63:7-64:11 and Neh 9 identified by Williamson (1990a). See Smith (1995:187-203) for a similar representation of the relationship between communities in Palestine in the early Persian period.

Who is responsible?

195

themselves under the authority of this Priestly/Prophetic band in Jerusalem brought elements from their fasting liturgy. Neh 9 in particular and Penitential Prayer in general are indebted to Dtr and Ezekielian/Priestly theology. Here is evidence of the on-going legacy of these tradition circles even to the point of producing a new Gattung. Each tradition group contributed important building blocks for this Gattung which would become a dominant expression for many of those facing the pain of the exilic crisis. This Gattung, forged in the aftermath of the Babylonian destruction, would carry the Jewish people through the ensuing centuries of continuing "exile", offering them a means for expressing simultaneously their sorrow and hope.

II. How is tradition used in this context? The composer of Neh 9 has relied on a Pentateuch which is very similar in form to that possessed today. This resource represents inscripturated tradition and yet the composer of Neh 9 is able to reuse these traditions for his own context. 25 This reshaping of tradition for the purpose of his generation is especially noticeable in the recitation of the wilderness tradition where one finds a tradition sequencing model different from that used in Exodus-Numbers. 26 Therefore, Neh 9 stands as a brilliant example of Fishbane's claim that traditum and traditio are still relevant categories once traditions are committed to writing. 27 This reshaping of even written tradition has been shown to be relevant to the composer's setting. This relevance is shown initially in w . 32-37, as the composer moves from anthology to appeal, in the number of allusions to earlier phrases in the prayer. These allusions uncover the desire to bring the tradition to bear on the present situation. The answers of earlier scholars to the question of how the tradition is used for the purpose of the composer are not to be rejected, only supplemented. The tradition does subtly bring praise to Yahweh for his

25

Pröbstl (1997:93-94) identifies a stronger sense of duty in the composer of Neh 9 to the Pentateuchal text than to the DtrH. Although transformations are made to the Pentateuchal text, there is far more attention to the preservation of its text word for word, than is found in the reworking of the material from the DtrH. Although I do agree with this trend identified by Pröbstl I would caution reading too much into this distinction. There appears to be a trend in the Persian period to focus attention on the period of Moses and viewing the monarchy through that lens.

26

See how in Exodus-Numbers the Sinai event changes Yahweh's stance towards the community from one of patience to that of discipline. In Neh 9 the change from patience to discipline does not appear until they enter the land. This distinction is highlighted by Pröbstl (1997:82-83) as well. Cf. Baltzer (1991:130n24).

27

196

Conclusions

faithfulness (REHM). This is seen in the focus of Neh 9:8b which brings praise to Yahweh for fulfilling his promise to Abraham. So also does the tradition contribute to the confession of sins dominant in the prayer (BATTEN; MCCONVILLE; THRONTVEIT).

T h e s e t w o initial

suggestions

isolate the important dialectic of the prayer, a dialectic which swings between the divine and the human. It is in the interplay between these two important poles (divine, human) that one is able to see the dominant intention behind the use of tradition. It is Williamson who identified this true intention by taking into account the importance of both poles: divine and human. His identification of the design of the latter part of the historical overview revealed the intention of the composer to reinstitute the Dtr cycle through recitation of the rebellion model of tradition sequencing. Nonetheless, Williamson did not see another equally important sequencing model in Neh 9 which is used by the composer to accentuate the on-going validity of the Abrahamic promise and to take into account the need for the grace of Yahweh for his own rebellious generation. The composer of Neh 9 is sensitive to the needs of his generation and recites their traditions with a view to engendering hope for his own people while extracting grace from his God. Here we see the crucial role that tradition played in the life of the people not to merely inform them didactically but to bring hope, elicit repentance, and voice their needs to their God in a time of disaster. It shows the great resource of inscripturated traditions for the present needs of successive generations and the openness to on-going interpretation of these fixed traditions.

III. Summary The goal of this work was to identify those who were responsible for the prayer in Neh 9 and how they used the traditions for their own purposes. By setting Neh 9 in its form-critical context we discovered that it was one of several compositions which represent a transformation of the classical Hebrew Gattung of lament. These Penitential Prayers offered the initial clues to the traditio-historical background of Neh 9. They showed the undeniable influence of Deuteronomism but at the same time demonstrated clear Priestly and Ezekielian transformations. This led to the conclusion that Priestly/Ezekielian circles supplemented and superseded a Deuteronomistic foundation. The various representatives of the Gattung also revealed a consistent approach to the Pentateuch. Each prayer revealed an attempt to synthesize a Pentateuch closely related to our present collection, whether that involved a synthesis of legal stipulations (Ezra 9, Neh 1, Dan 9) or of historical traditions (Ps 106). A subsequent evaluation of Neh 9 resulted in similar conclusions. Neh 9 was first evaluated on the "macro" level, scrutinising the manner in which the tradition complexes were fused to create a coherent whole. The boundaries of the tradition complexes as well as the sequence models used

Summary

197

to relate the traditions revealed close affinity with Priestly and Ezekielian materials. This was only strengthened by the investigation of Neh 9 on the "micro" level. In this analysis clear Priestly and Ezekielian influence could be discerned, especially in several instances where Dtr idioms were found. Additionally, as in the rest of the Penitential Prayers, a synthesis of a finished Pentateuch was evident, in this case similar to Ps 106 where synthesis of historical traditions was discovered. One element unique to Neh 9 provided an initial clue to the precise historical provenance of Neh 9: clear connections to Zech 1 and 7-8. By examining Neh 9 in its literary context it was demonstrated that the prayer originated prior to the work of Ezra and Nehemiah. Pursuing this more closely, the early Persian period was identified as the most likely candidate. Within this era the period immediately preceding the ministry of Haggai and Zechariah was favoured, but the period after the disappearance of Zerubbabel but before Ezra could not be discounted. Thus Neh 9 is a prayer which arose within the early restoration community in the Persian province of Yehud. It is representative of a type of prayer which reveals close affinities with Priestly-Ezekielian emphases drawing on a base of Dtr orthodoxy. It reveals the composite nature of a community struggling for its existence on the frontiers of the Persian empire, confirming the presence of divergent groups forced together through adversity. Additionally, it reveals a community which was embracing its documents as Scripture, treating at least the Pentateuch as an authoritative whole and synthesizing its parts through careful exegesis. In this way we see a community praying the tradition and in so doing revealing their commitment to that tradition as Scripture. This commitment to the tradition does not mean the tradition has become static. The Persian Jewish community continued to reshape the tradition into an effective tool for gaining the ear of their God. Inscripturated tradition is creatively related to ever new situations of need among the people of Yahweh. Certainly this demonstrates Knight's evaluation of the theological implication of traditiohistorical research: "the text is thus viewed not so much as a repository of static truths revealed in a unilateral manner without human involvement, but rather as a dynamic collection of material that points to the ongoing human struggle for survival and meaning in real-life situations" (1992:638).

Appendices Appendix A: Designations for Penitential Prayer1 Authority Driver

Montgomery

Tag

References

National Confession and

Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9; Dan 9; Bar 1:15-

Supplication

3:18

Liturgical Prose Prayers

1 Kgs 8:12-53; Jer 32:17-25; Dan 9:419; Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; Isa 63:15-64:11

Charles

Gunkel-Begrich

Baumgärtel

Hornig

Hebrew Liturgies

Dan 9; Neh 1; 9; Bar 1:15-2:15

Die Schuldbekenntnisse

Ps 106; 1 Kgs 8:47; Dan 9:5ff; Ezra 9:6ff; Neh 1:7; 9:16ff; Bar l:15ff; Dan 3:6-7"°; 4Ezra 3:4ff (cf. Isa 59:12f; 64:4-8; Jer 14:7, 20; Mie 7:9)

und Generalbeichten

Die Liturgie des jährlichen

1QS 1:18-3:12; Deut 32; Neh 9; Ps

Bundesfestes

106; Ezra 9; Dan 9; Ps 105

Das Bußgebet der

Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9; Dan 9

nachexilischen Gebetsprosa

1

Key to the chart: Driver (1905:127-128); Montgomery (1927:362); Charles (1929:222); Gunkel-Begrich (1933:130-132); Baumgärtel (1953); Hornig (1957; 1958); Westermann (1958a; 1958b); Schneider (1959:211); Harvey (1962:194-195; 1967:158); Baltzer (1960:48-70 [1971:39-62]); Wijnaards (1963:50-52); Mowinckel (1964a:58); Steck (1967:110-137); Buis (1967:203-204); Kellennami (1967:37, 9092); Hillers (1969:148-149); Lipinski (1969:35-39); Vogels (1970:116, 156-61; 1979:1-7); Von Rad (1971:252); Towner (1971:209-212; 1984:139); Bach (1972:193-194); Koch (1972:234-239; 1985:29); Gonzales (1972:574,578); Gilbert (1972; 1974a; 1974b; 1981); Crenshaw (1975:114); Lacocque (1976:121-124); Collins (1977:185; 1984:92); Hartman-Di Iella(1978:248); Giraudo (1981:110-123; 1987); McCarthy (1982; 1983); Greenberg (1983b:63nl); Schreiner (1983a); Davies (1985:60-62); Veijola (1985:304-305); Reventlow (1986:275-285); Anderson (1987:109-138); Blenkinsopp(1988:181-182,209,302); Goldingay (1987:233-235); Balentine (1993:103-117); Venter (1995); Rendtorff (1997); Pröbstl (1997:47); Werline (1998).

199

Designations for Penitential Prayer Authority

Tag

Westermann

Die nachexilischen ProsaGebeten

1 Kgs 8; 2 Chr 20:6-12; Neh 1:4-11; 9; Ezra 9; Dan 9; 3Macc 2; 6; Jdt 9; Tob 3:1-6; 9:9-12; 13; Sir 23:1-6

Büß- und Bittgebet

Neh 9:6-37; Ezra 9:6-15; Dan 9:4-19; Dan 3:26-45"™; Bar 1:15-2:10; Sir 36:1-22

Schneider

Harvey

Tôdâ

Covenant Renewals Baltzer Laments of Covenant Renewal

References

Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-37; Dan 3:26-45"™; 9:4-19; Bar 1:15-3:8 (cf. Hos 14:2-3; Mie 7:7-10; Lam 1:5, 8, 18; Isa 59:9-15; 63:7-64:11; Esth 13:8-17; 14:3-19; Sir 36:1-19) Neh 9-10; Ezra 9-10; Dan 9:4b-19; 1QS 1:18-2:18 Pss 79; 90:13-16; 106; Isa 59:9-15b; 63:11-64:11; Jer 14:2-6, 7-9, 19-22; Hos 14:2-3; Mie 7:7-10, 14-17; Lam 1:5, 8, 18; 4:6; 5:7; cf. Josh 7:7-9; Exod 32:11-13; Deut 9:25-29; 32:1725; Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-37; Dan 9:4-19

Wijnaards

Prayers confessing guilt and asking for renewal of the pact

Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-38; Mie 7:7-20; Exod 32:llb-13; Deut 9:26-29

Mowinckel

Eine jerusalemische nachexilische Bußfeierliturgie

Neh 9

Sündenbekenntnissen and Bußgebeten des Volkes in the Gebetstradition des dir Geschichtsbildes

Ps 79; Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; Ps 106; Neh 9:5-37; Tob 3:1-6; 4QDibHam 1:8-7:2; Dan 9:4b-19; Bar 1:15-3:8; Dan 3"™; 1QS I:24b-II:l; Dam XX:28-30; additionally also LXX Prayer of Esther; 3Macc 2:2-20 (cf. Isa 63:7-64:11)

Les Confessions Nationales

Ezra 9:6-14; Neh 9; Dan 9:4-19; Bar 1:15-2:10; Deut 29:21-27; Jer 32:1725

Confession of covenant breaking in a Bundesformular

Ezra 9-10; Neh 8-10; 2 Chr 15:1-18; 29-31; 34:29-35:19

Steck

Buis

Kellermann

200

Appendices Authority Hillers

Lipinski

Tag Part of a Josianic-type Covenant Renewal

Les Confessions Nationales

References Ezra 9-10; Neh 9-10

Ezra 9:6b-15; Neh 9:5b-37; Ps 106; Dan 9:4b-10; Dan 3:26-45"™; 4QDibHam; 1QS 1:24-11:1; CD XX:28-30; Bar 1:15-3:8 (earlier intermediate forms: Pss 79; 89; Jer 14; Isa 59:9-15a; 63:7-64:11)

Vogels

Tôdâ

Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-37; Dan 3:26-45"™; 9:4-19; Bar 1:15-3:8 (cf. Jer 32:16-25)

von Rad

Gerichtsdoxologie einer Gemeinde

Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 9; Dan 9; Neh 1:511; Bar 1:15-3:8

Towner

Prose Prayers of Penitence

Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9; Dan 9; cf. 1 Kgs 8:46-53

Bach

Tôdâh

Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-37; Dan 3:26-45"™; 9:4-19; Bar 1:15-3:8

Koch

Liturgie pénilenlielle de la communauté poslexilienne

Ezra 9; Neh 9; Dan 9:4b-19; Dan 3:26-45"™; Bar 1:15-3:8; 1 Kgs 8:4151; Ps 106; 1QS 1:18-11:1; 4QDibHam; CD XX:28-30

Nachexilische Bußfeiern

Ezra 9; Neh 9; Dan 3"™; Dan 9; Bar 1:15-3:8; Ps 106

La Confession Nationale

Lam 3:40ff; Ezra 9:6ff; Neh l:5ff; Dan 3:28-33 mt ; Bar l:15ff

Les Grandes Confessions Nationales

1 Kgs 8:47; Isa 59:12ff; Bar l:15ff; Ps 106; Ezra 9; Neh 1; Dan 9:4ff

Gilbert

Tôdâ or Aveu Prière

Ezra 9; Neh 1; Neh 9; Dan 3"™; Dan 9; Bar 1:15-3:8; 4QDibHam; Pr Man (excludes Isa 59; 63-64; Ps 106)

Crenshaw

Exilic and Post-Exilic Cultic Prayers

Deut 10; 1 Kgs 8; Ezra 9; Neh 9; Isa 37; Jer 32; Dan 9

Lacocque

Prose Prayers of Penitence

Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9; Dan 9; Bar 1:153:8; 4QDibHam

Gonzales

201

Designations for Penitential Prayer Authority

Tag

Prayers of Confession Collins

References 1 Kgs 8; Pss 79; 106; Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9; Tob 3:1-6; 4QDibHam 1:8-7:2; ÌQS l:24b-2:l; CD 20:28-30; Bar 1:15-3:8; Dan 3"™; Prayer of Esther; 3Macc 2:1-20

Communal Confessions of Sin

Dan 9; Dan 3"°*; Ps 106; Ezra 9; Neh 9; 4QDibHam; Bar 1:15-3:8

No name

Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-37; cf. 1 Kgs 8:15-53; Jer 32:17-25; 1 Chr 17:16-27; 29:10-19; 2 Chr 20:6-12

Tôdâ

Neh 9; Ps 106; Neh 1:5-11; Ezra 9:615; Dan 9:4-19; Dan Bar 1:15-3:8

McCarthy

Part of a Covenant Renewal

Ezra 9-10; Neh 5:8-13; 8-10

Greenberg

Late Prose Prayers

Ezra 9; Neh 9; 1 Kgs 8

Schreiner

Dtr Bußgebete

Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9

Davies

Exilic Liturgies

Dan 9; 1 Kgs 8:15-53; Ezra 9; Neh 9; 4QDibHam; 2Bar; Jewish Liturgy for Yom Kippur

Veijola

Nachexilische Bußgebete

Reventlow

Nachexilische Volksklage

Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:5-37; Dan 9:4-19; Bar 1:15-3:8

Anderson

Post-exilic Penitential Prose-Prayer

Neh 9:5b-37; Ezra 9:5-15; Dan 9:419; (Neh 1:5-11); Dan S ^ ô ^ 1 * * ; Bar 1:15-3:8; 4QDibHam

Postexilic Communal Confession Prayers

Pss 78; 106; Isa 63:7-64:12; Dan 9:419; 4QDibHam; Bar 1:15-3:8; Pr Man; 1QS 1:24-11:1 (cf. in Sermon form in homiletic framework of Zech 1-8 [Zech 1:7-8; 7-8])

Hartman-Di Leila

Giraudo

Blenkinsopp

Ps 106; Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9; Dan 9; (cf. Isa 59:12-13; Bar 1:15-3:8; 3Ezra 8:73-89; OrMan; PsSol 9; speaks also of Add Esther 3:18; Ps Sol 2:18; 8:78, 25-26; Ps 79:9; Lam 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; Isa 64:4-6; Mie 7:9)

202

Appendices Authority

Tag

References

Goldingay

Communal Prose Prayers of Confession

Dan 9; Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:538; Bar 1:15-3:8; 1QS 1:22-2:1; 4QDibHam (and less so to Isa 59:1215; 64:4-11; Jer 14:7-9, 19-22; Pss 51; 106; Pr Man)

Balentine

Prose Prayers of Penitence

Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:6-37; Dan 9:4-19

Skuldbelydenis

Neh 9, Ps 106

Penitential Liturgy

Neh 9; Ezr 9; Dan 9 (Lam 1:18; Jer 12:1; 2 Chr 12:6)

Pröbstl

Weiterentwicklung der Volksklage

Neh 9; Ps 106; Isa 63:7-64:11

Werline

Penitential Prayer

Ezr 9; Neh 1; Neh 9; Dan 9; Bar 1:15-3:8; Jubilees 1; 23; 1 Enoch; The Testament of Moses; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; Tobit 3:1-6; Prayer of Azariah; 3 Macc 2:1-20; PsSol; Additions to Esther; Various Qumran materials.

Venter Rendtorff

Common Vocabulary of Penitential Prayer

203

Appendix B: Common Vocabulary among Penitential Prayer 1. Historical patterning a. ΠΓΙ OftPI 1» . . . m a (Ezra 9:7; Neh 9:32) b. Idiom to denote the repetition of a pattern (Neh 9:28: ΟΤΙ» n i s i ; Ps 106:43: Πί3Ί ΟΏΰβ) c. ΠΤΓΙ 0Ì»TD (Ezra 9:7, 15; Neh 9:10; Dan 9:7, 15) 2. Law a. Revelation by Yahweh through ( T ? ) his servant(s) (Moses/Prophets: Ezra 9:11; Neh 1:7, 8; 9:14, 30; Dan 9:6, 10, 11) b. Lists of words for commandments (Neh 1:7; 9:13, 14, 29; Dan 9:5) c. ninin (Neh 9:13; Dan 9:10) 3. Human rebellion a. /«tan, / p » , / » i h ( E z r a 9:6, 7, 13; Neh Irò2"; 9:2, 29, 33, 37; Ps 106:6, 43; Dan 9:5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20) b. /·?»Β (Neh 1:8; Dan 9:7) c. /ΓΓIO (Neh 9:26; Ps 106:7, 43) d. /TU3 (Neh 9:26; Dan 9:5, 9) e. Hb + / » a t í (Neh 9:16, 17, 29211; Dan 9:6) f. Forgetting Yahweh's wonders (flilÒK) (Neh 9:17; Ps 106:7) 4. People a. nía« (Ezra 9:7; Neh 1:6; 9:2, 9, 34, 36; Ps 106:6, 7; Dan 9:16) b. Lists of leadership (Ezra 9:7; Neh 9:32, 33-34; Dan 9:6, 8) c. niriiCI >13» (Ezra 9:11 ; Neh 9:30) 5. Judgment a. /]Π3 + T 3 (Ezra 9:7; Neh 9:24, 27, 30) b. / Π Ι * (Neh 9:27, 37; Ps 106:44) c. /TO» (Ezra 9:8, 92x; Neh 9:17, 35-36) d. /K"0Hif + U'1?» (Ezra 9:13; Neh 9:33; Dan 9:12, 13, 14) e. / n t e (Ezra 9:14; Neh 9:31) f. D^EKrt) ntfâ (Ezra 9:7; Dan 9:7, 8) 6. Deliverance a. f u t i * * (Neh 9:27; Ps 106:8, 10, 47) b. / » J ™ (Neh 9:28; Ps 106:43) c. / p p ^ N e h 1:9; Ps 106:47) d. «S + / 3 Í » (Ezra 9:9; Neh 9:17, 19, 31)

204

Appendices

7. Character of Yahweh a.

(Ezra 9:15; Neh 9:8, 33; Dan 9:14; cf. Dan 9:7, 16, 18)

b. /n'ro (Neh 9:17; Dan 9:9, 19) c. ( v n l s n n n ' e t o vari« 1 ?) Dan 9:4)

nom nnan nn ts «nìarn o i a ? n ) binan ·?«π (Neh ι : 5 ; 9:32;

d. / D m , /]3Π, /10Π with ST (Neh 9:17, 19, 27, 28, 31; Ps 106:7, 45, 46; Dan 9:9, 18) e. /|Π3 + D'OTTI1? + '3B1? (Neh 1:11; Ps 106:46) 8. Name of Yahweh a. /Π®» + Oà (Neh 9:10; Dan 9:15) b. Ί»» 1 ? + 0>¿ (Ps 106:8; Dan 9:19) 9. Attention of Yahweh a. VTim + SVütí (Neh 9:9; Ps 106:44) b. Hearing of prayer (Neh 1:6, 11; 9:27, 28; Dan 9:17, 19) 10. Remembering of Yahweh (/"DT: Neh 1:8; Ps 106:45) 11. Swearing of Yahweh (/KfeJ + T : Neh 9:15; Ps 106:26) 12. Prayer: f b b ü , ζ η τ " « ' (Ezra 10:1; Neh 1:6; 9:2, 3; Dan 9:4, 20) 13. Spirit (ITTI: Neh 9:20, 30; Ps 106:26) 14. Enter and possess (VWD + / t f T : Ezra 9:11; Neh 9:15, 23, 24)

205

Lists of Leaders in the Hebrew Bible

f-

X>

I

+ o

a υ

•9

η

Β·

•S •9 1 a

Ì •SP» r: •α •O S Ό

0 ^

Il-fi: •3 3 Sr 1

1) « fí siΡ S

206

Other

Appendices

Other

Ρ g fi

C *

I

r-í

a·

I

*fc

h· ρ

ft

f

i

s

Ti-

ri

ci

+

Cl m

fi+ m+ •+