Praying to the Temple: Divine Presence in Solomon's Prayer [1 ed.] 9042946253, 9789042946255, 9789042946262

Table of contents :
Cover
PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE:
DIVINE PRESENCE IN SOLOMON’S
PRAYER
Copyright
CONTENTS

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

105

Ian Wilson

Praying to the Temple: Divine Presence in Solomon’s Prayer

PEETERS

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE: DIVINE PRESENCE IN SOLOMON’S PRAYER

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (Salzburg) G. Van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

Ian Wilson

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE: DIVINE PRESENCE IN SOLOMON’S PRAYER

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2022

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-4625-5 eISBN 978-90-429-4626-2 D/2022/0602/10 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Why 1 Kings 8? . . . . . . . . . Differing notions within 1 Kings The purpose of the temple . . The location of the Deity. . . Mitigation of the differences . The focus of the present work. . Outline of the study . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

2 5 5 6 10 11 14

2. CURRENT EXPLANATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

The temple as intermediary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫ אל‬understood as “towards” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-occurrence of prayer ‫ אל‬YHWH ‫ אל‬the temple. . . . . Lack of precedents for “praying ‫ ”אל‬understood as “towards” Putative precedents for the use of ‫ אל‬in a directional sense . . An obvious way of expressing a directional sense . . . . . . . The temple understood as a “channel” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inconsistency within the prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equating prayer ‫ אל‬with prayer “at”/“in” . . . . . . . . . . . . . The use of ‫ בבית‬in v. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The possibility of ‫ אל‬meaning “at”/”in” . . . . . . . . . . . . The relative triviality of the distinction? . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A more specific argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 19 19 20 23 26 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 33 35

3. SOLOMON’S PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Prolegomenon . . . . . . . . . Metonymy . . . . . . . . . Recent developments . . The approach taken here

37 37 38 39

. . . .

. 8 . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

VI

CONTENTS

Characteristics of referential metonymy . . . . . . . . . . . Non-literal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicle and target must be related . . . . . . . . . . . . The relationship must exist in the external world. . . . . The connection has to be well known . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicle and target are interchangeable . . . . . . . . . . The vehicle is an ellipsis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The vehicle undergoes a change in reference not in sense Procedure for understanding metonymies . . . . . . . . . . Solomon’s Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Praying to this place/house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Praying to” as metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “This place/house” as metonym . . . . . . . . . . . . . Architect or builder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proviso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preposition ‫ ל‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nouns expressing the nature of YHWH’s relationship to the temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nouns expressing the nature of the temple’s relationship to YHWH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suffixes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Precedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫“( מקום‬place”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gen. 20:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sam. 30:31b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫“( בבית‬house”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sam. 31:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 40 41 42 42 43 43 44 45 45 45 46 46 46 47 48 50 50 51

4. THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

The target of the praying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicle and target must be related . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67 67 69

51 52 54 54 55 56 57 58 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

VII

CONTENTS

The relationship must exist in the external world . . . . . . The connection must be well known . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compliance with the relevant selection restrictions . . . . . Progress so far. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The improbability of inconsistency within the prayer . . . . The likely recipient of the prayers addressed to “this place/ house” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The nature of the prayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The usual addressee of such prayers . . . . . . . . . . . The absence of requests to a localized ‫ שׁם‬. . . . . . . . Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The nature of the target/vehicle relationship . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using a metonym. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What it conveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why a metonym is used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The two main options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Praying towards the temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Praying to the occupant of the temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78 78 79 81 83 83 88 88 88 90 91 91 92 93

5. REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

The prayer locates YHWH in two places at once The interpretation of 1 Kings 8:27 . . . . . . . . A possible resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The use of ‫ ישׁב‬to qualify ‫ שׁמים‬. . . . . . . . . . The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The example of Og . . . . . . . . . . . . . YHWH as subject of ‫ ישׁב‬elsewhere . . . . Humans as subject of ‫ישׁב‬. . . . . . . . . . Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verdict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

72 73 76 76 77

98 101 103 106 106 107 107 108 109 109 111 112 113

6. REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFFIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Impact on Divine Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Impact of Metonymy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

VIII

CONTENTS

Impact on Interpretation of the Divine Name. . . . . . . . . . . . The two different uses of the divine ‫ שׁם‬encountered in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The ‫ שׁם‬as a (semi-)independent entity . . . . . . . . . . . . The ‫ שׁם‬as equivalent to YHWH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The need for criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on the deuteronom(ist)ic view of the temple . . . . . . . . Its conception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Its function/purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A house of prayer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A denigration of the cult? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The nature of the prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The nature of the Israelites’ anticipated predicaments . . Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on the name formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variations in the interpretation of the divine ‫ שׁם‬. . . . . . . . Deficiencies in the understanding of the divine ‫ שׁם‬. . . . . . . A possible way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on the Books of Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YHWH’s presence within the temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Kings 19:14–19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Kings 12:26–33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The focus of prayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The operation of the cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The relevance of the “high places” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other texts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The divine ‫ שׁם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Reflections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 117 117 119 121 124 125 125 126 127 130 131 132 133 133 134 137 140 140 141 142 144 145 146 148 149 150 150 151

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 INDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study owes its genesis to Tryggve Mettinger and the late Timo Veijola, both of whom considered that I should have dealt with 1 Kings 8 in an earlier monograph on divine presence. Regarding its actual substance, two people deserve special mention. Elizabeth Magba graciously allowed me to draw on her expertise in linguistics during countless conversations centred around the crux of the argument. This proved to be an invaluable safeguard while I ventured into a field somewhat outside my own comfort zone. Graham Davies not only pointed out a significant hole in my thinking, but also kindly agreed to glance over the several thousand words eventually generated to address the omission. Thanks are also due to a number of folk whose greater translation skills saved this enterprise from taking even longer than it actually did. Jenny Smith, Elizabeth and Gwen Montgomery saved me precious time by rendering much German into English, while Hans Meissner did the same for Dutch. Once the research and writing had been completed, I was grateful for a number of anonymous readers whose comments and suggestions about an earlier draft served radically to improve the present volume, not least by significantly shortening its length. Elizabeth and my wife Margaret ploughed through and helpfully commented on that earlier, much longer draft, while Philip Johnston and Tom Lundskaer-Nielson read and effectively copy-edited the final version. All four agreed that complex sentences, of which there were many, but which I considered not only to be well written, but also perfectly understandable, would not go down well with any readers who were unaccustomed to a plethora of subordinate clauses. Towards the end I particularly appreciated Sandra Richter’s enthusiasm for the project, as well as her concern that I represent her views accurately. I am especially grateful to Tyndale House for providing me with a study desk throughout the long duration of this project, and also to its librarians, Simon Sykes, Elizabeth and Kate Arhel, for their friendship and willingness to order obscure volumes at a moment’s notice. A number of friends have supported us financially over the years. Without their generous sponsorship this study would have remained on the drawing board. Thanks are also due to Walter Moberly for drawing my attention

X

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

to CBET, and to Elisabeth Hernitscheck of Peeters’ Editorial Department and Kristin De Troyer and Geert Van Oyen, the series’ editorial board, for accepting the manuscript for publication. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Margaret, who believed in this enterprise from the start, and has supported me throughout its long gestation, development and completion. Without her backing and encouragement this study would never have been possible.

ABBREVIATIONS AARSR AB ABD AbrNSup AOTC ATANT ATD AUU BA BAT BBB BDB BEATAJ BiB BibInt BKAT BLS BOT BWANT BZ BZAW CAT CBC CBET CBQ CBSC CC CeB col. ConBOT DCH DSBS EBC ECC ed. EdF EHAT

American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion Series Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Abr-Nahrain Supplements Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Biblical Archaeologist Botschaft des Alten Testaments Bonner biblische Beiträge Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Bible and Literature Series Boeken van het Oude Testament Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Cambridge Bible Commentary Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Continental Commentaries Century Bible column Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D.J.A. Clines. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2016 Daily Study Bible Series Expositor’s Bible Commentary Eerdmans Critical Commentary edition, editor Erträge der Forschung Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament

XII EJL esp. EstBib EtB ETS ExpB EzAT fasc. FAT FOTL FRLANT GTA GTS HALOT HAT HBK HCOT HK HSAT HSM HThKAT IBC ICC IDBSup IECOT Int. ITC JBS JBTh JNSL JR JSBL JSOT JSS Kairόs.St KAT KEH KHC KK LHBOTS LSB MVAG n. NAC

ABBREVIATIONS

Early Judaism and Its Literature especially Estudios bíblicos Études bibliques Erfurter theologische Studien Expositor’s Bible Erläuterungen zum Alten Testament fascicule Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Göttinger theologische Arbeiten Gettysburg Theological Studies The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders Bibelkommentar Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of The Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by K. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament Interpretation International Theological Commentary Jerusalem Biblical Studies Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of Religion Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Kairόs-Religionswissenschaftliche Studien Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefaßter Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies La Sacra Bibbia Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft note New American Commentary

ABBREVIATIONS

NCB n.d. NEchtB NIBCOT NICOT nn. NSK.AT OBO OBT OED OTG OTL OTS OtSt PLO POuT RIMA RPS SANT SB SBBS SB(J) SBLDS SB(PC) SBT ser. SStLL SUPa.KT TBC TDNT TDOT ThR TLOT TOTC TVZ TWOT UBS UF v.

XIII

New Century Bible not dated Neue Echter Bibel New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament notes Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology The Oxford English Dictionary. Edited by J.A.H. Murray, H. Bradley, W.A. Craigie and C.T. Onions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933 Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Oudtestamentische Studiën Porta Linguarum Orientalium De Prediking van het Oude Testament The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods Religious Perspectives Series Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Sources bibliques Soncino Books of the Bible Series Sainte bible traduite en français sous la direction de l’École Biblique de Jérusalem Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Sainte bible. Publ. sous la direction générale de Louis Pirot et continuée par Albert Clamer Studies in Biblical Theology series Studies in Semitic Language and Linguistics Schriften der Universität Passau—Reihe Katholische Theologie Torch Bible Commentaries Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964—1976 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. 17 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974— 2021 Theologische Rundschau Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. 3 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997 Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologischer Verlag Zürich Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer and B.K. Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980 United Bible Societies Ugarit-Forschungen verse

XIV vol. VT VTSup vv. WAWSup WBC WeBC WStB ZAR ZAW ZBK.AT ZKTh

ABBREVIATIONS

volume Vetus Testamentum VT Supplements verses Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Bible Companion Wuppertaler Studienbibel Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

1

INTRODUCTION This study1 is about divine presence. Or rather, it is about a particular instance of divine presence, one which is both found in a text from which received wisdom has declared it to be absent, and also expressed there in an atypical manner. What do we mean by divine presence? In a helpful discussion of the phrase2 Terence Fretheim draws a distinction between “God’s presence in the created order”, which he terms “‘structural’ or general presence”3 and “[m]ore specific modes of God’s presence”.4 The latter include God’s accompanying presence, his theophanic presence (appearance) and his tabernacling presence, all of which involve what Fretheim describes as an “intensification” of presence. Thus: God is believed to be continuously present, yet … [he] will also be especially present in certain places.5

To take two familiar examples: in Exod. 3 God is portrayed as being located (in some sense) within the burning bush, but not at the spot where Moses is standing, though it is referred to as “holy ground”.6 Similarly, in the tabernacle narratives he is often characterized as somehow occupying the Holy of Holies, but not the holy place or its outer court. This localized and intensified form of divine presence is represented throughout the Hebrew Bible in a number of ways.7 Sometimes an action or activity is attributed to the Deity (or a human), and this of itself is sufficient to suggest the earthly proximity of the divine presence: YHWH “came down” to see the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:5), he “appeared” to Abram (Gen. 12:7) and the chief men of the people of Israel “beheld” God, and ate and drank (Exod. 24:11). Alternatively, the activity per se 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

The gist of the argument was presented at scholarly seminars in Cambridge University and Kings College, London in 2016–2017. Fretheim (1984) 60–65. I.e. what Christian theologians would describe as “omnipresence”. P. 61. Pp. 61–62. Unless otherwise stated, English quotations are taken from the NRSV. The examples given here are all from the Tetrateuch.

2

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

may give no indication of the divine whereabouts, but his localized presence is conveyed by the use of an adverb or prepositional phrase qualifying an earthbound entity: YHWH calls to Moses “out of the cloud” (Exod. 24:16) or stands before him “on the rock at Horeb” (Exod. 17:6), the two prepositional phrases suggesting his proximity to Moses. The above are examples of typical ways in which the “intensified” presence of YHWH is portrayed in the Hebrew Bible in general and in the Tetrateuch in particular.

WHY 1 KINGS 8? Until the late 1980s the prevailing scholarly view of the theology of Deuteronomy and related material was that, in contrast to the instances of divine presence in Genesis–Numbers illustrated above, YHWH is represented as not being present on the earth but rather being in heaven, while his “name” is on the earth or at the sanctuary. This view has traditionally appealed to two sets of texts within Deuteronomy: those locating the Deity himself in heaven (Deut. 4:36; 26:15) and those thought to locate his “name” at the (earthly) “chosen place” (Deut. 12:5, 11, 21; 14:23, 24; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2). These observations, together with the perceived “‘demythologization’ of the temple and the ark as found in Nathan’s oracle (2 Sam. 7:1–17) and Solomon’s dedicatory address (1Kgs 8:1–9:9)”8 gave rise to what has become known as Name Theology. This scholarly construct is deeply entrenched and regarded as both portraying a concept of divine presence somewhat different from that found in the Tetrateuch, and promoting a significant emphasis on divine transcendence.9 Many of its features have been recognized since 8

9

Richter (2002) 8. Cf. Wilson (1995) 8: “[T]he presence of the Name at the cult-place is not regarded as an isolated phenomenon, but is linked to a whole complex of new ideas involving changes in the conception of the ark (from being YHWH’s footstool or throne to being a mere container for the law) and of the temple (from being YHWH’s dwelling-place and therefore a place of sacrifice to being a place of prayer)”. Re the latter, see below, pp. 124–133. In addition to the citations listed in Wilson (1995) 7 n. 29, see also: Cook (2013) 121: “The divine self, in [the view of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic literature], always remains fully transcendent”; Sommer (2009) 66: “For the deuteronomists, there can be no incarnations of the exclusively transcendent God”; Geller (1996) 32–33: “Scholars have long detected behind the dynamic militancy [of Deuteronomic faith] an abstract doctrine of divine transcendence, of God’s absolute separation from the observable world”; Nelson (1987) 52: “[I]n orthodox Deuteronomistic terms … God is transcendent and does not actually reside in this building”; Mettinger (1982) 50: “Name

INTRODUCTION

3

the turn of the nineteenth century, though it owes its modern expression to the work of Oscar Grether in 1934. 10 Having said that, a more detailed analysis of its origins and development would not be particularly relevant to the present study. 11 The latter is primarily concerned with divine presence and not with Name Theology as such, though it both uses that construct as a springboard and has implications for its future. Despite the dominance of Name Theology, there were those who did not subscribe to the majority view, and who based their rejection of Name Theology on an appeal to biblical data (usually in Deuteronomy) which they considered to represent an indication of the earthly presence of YHWH. Since that evidence was in direct contrast to texts which located him in heaven, it undermined the simple dichotomy which Name Theology proposed. At that time nothing substantial had been written, and such rebuttals tended to be expressed in throw-away lines and footnotes. Myers’ comment is typical: [V]on Rad thinks Deut. sublimated the old idea of the physical presence by the name theology. But Deut. still insists on the presence of the Lord as is indicated by the frequent use of the expression “before the Lord” (more than 25 times).12

Further references to such dissent can be found in our earlier monograph, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy.13 Since 1990, however, there has been a steady trickle of publications detailing evidence for YHWH’s presence on the earth within Deuteronomy,14 and thus, by implication, calling into question one of the very foundations on which Name Theology has traditionally been erected.

10 11

12 13 14

theology presents us with a transcendent God who is invulnerable to any catastrophe which might conceivably affect his Temple”. Richter (2002) 26. By contrast, Richter’s (2002) monograph, which was concerned with Name Theology itself and concentrated on the key texts on which it is based, does deal with such matters in her section Whence the Name Theology (pp. 11–36). Myers (1961) 27 n. 19. Wilson (1995) 10 nn. 40–43. E.g. Knafl (2014). While her monograph is not primarily about divine presence, the latter features prominently within it, since she “use[s] ‘anthropomorphism’ as a broad category that encompasses divine form … emotion … activity … and location [our emphasis]” (p. 35). The Deity’s presence in D is dealt with on pp. 99–109, 130–134, 184–187, 207–214, 245–255 and 271–272. See also Cook (2013) 121–150; Hundley (2009) 537–540; MacDonald (2006) 214–218; Vogt (2006) 113–159; MacDonald (2003) 192–201, 203–207; Wilson (1995); McConville (1994) 113–116; Curtis (1993) 23–29.

4

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

In this connection, our own contribution to the subject was generally well received by reviewers, though the late Timo Veijola thought that 1 Kings 8 should also have been considered, since it is a chapter which contains the same notions of divine presence as those found in Deuteronomy: A glance beyond Deuteronomy to the deuteronomistic Name Theology of the historical books would have been helpful, where, for example, the deuteronomistic revision of 1 Kings 8 is of the view that God has his dwelling in heaven … and is only present in the temple through his name.15

While the historical books (Josh.–2 Kings) do contain a number of passages expressing the deuteronomistic Name Theology,16 many scholars consider that the specific chapter to which Veijola referred in his article embodies its quintessential statement. For instance, Weinfeld and Geller comment respectively: The most definitive expression of this [name] theology is to be found in the deuteronomic litany of Solomon in 1 Kgs. 8. According to this prayer … the temple is not God’s place of habitation, but serves only as a house of worship in which Israelites and pagans alike may deliver their prayers and their oaths to the Lord who dwells in heaven.17 That God shuns the earth to remain forever enthroned in His heavenly abode is the universal belief of Deuteronomic thinkers. The most detailed exposition of this conviction is 1 Kings 8, the speech written by Deuteronomists for Solomon to deliver at the dedication of his temple.18 15

16 17 18

Veijola (2002) 303: “Hilfreich wäre … ein Blick über das Dtn hinaus auf die dtr Namenstheologie in den Geschichtsbüchern gewesen, wo z.B. die dtr Bearbeitung von 1 Kön 8 konsequent die Auffassung vertritt, dass Gott seine Wohnung im Himmel habe … und nur durch seinen Namen im Tempel gegenwärtig sei”. Cf. Mettinger (1998) 9 n. 11, who notes that “Wilson (1995) focussed [sic] his work on Deuteronomy. He does not deal with the question of a Name Theology in the Deuteronomistic History at large … it is very hard to escape the conclusion that the D-work, especially in texts such as 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Kings 8, does its best to soften up the theology of presence contained in the pre-exilic temple theology … Wilson never deals with these texts”. See Mettinger (1982) 39–40 for his complete list of the relevant biblical material. Weinfeld (1972) 195. Geller (1996) 39. See also: Cook (2013) 142: “1 Kgs 8.12–62, a Deuteronomistic text brimming with a name theology comparable to that in Deut. 12”; Richter (2002) 78: “It is from Solomon’s dedicatory prayer more than any other single text that the Name Theologians have identified the ‘demythologization’ of the Presence … Accordingly, the assumption is that the Name Theology, first articulated in Deuteronomy … was brought to its fullest expression in 1 Kings 8”; Maly (1981) 27: “[N]o other tradition presents the divine transcendence as forcefully as D … The passage in the whole of the D corpus that must take pride of place in this respect is one found in Solomon’s prayer,

5

INTRODUCTION

Consequently, the combination of Veijola’s observation that 1 Kings 8 should have been considered and the widely held scholarly view that this chapter contains the definitive expression of Name Theology provided the incentive for examining that passage to see whether it contains evidence of any hitherto unnoticed signs of divine presence.

DIFFERING NOTIONS WITHIN

1 KINGS 8

Commentators have noted a variety of views within the chapter. Fretheim refers to “theological … tensions within [it]”19 and Hens-Piazza to the “juxtaposition of opposing theological traditions”.20 And in fact, a cursory reading of the chapter does reveal some strange things about the purpose of the temple and the whereabouts of the Deity – both features which have been noted by other scholars. The purpose of the temple First, and with regard to the temple’s function, the departure of the priests from the holy place is accompanied by YHWH’s glory filling the building,21 after which Solomon describes it as “a place for [the Deity] to dwell in for ever”.22 However, a few verses later23 and several times in the prayer24 he informs the Israelites that that same house has been built not for YHWH himself, but for his “name”, and so raises the question as to the identity of the temple’s occupant. This dilemma has also been noted by commentators. Brueggemann, for example, observes that “[t]his chapter … give[s] voice to quite different and competing notions

19 20 21 22 23 24

made on the occasion of the dedication of the newly built temple”; McCurley (1974) 317 n. 69: “[T]he clearest and most comprehensive statement of [the name theology] … occurs in the Deuteronomistic history at 1 Kings 8:27–30”; Braulik (1971) 33: “1 Kön 8, de[r] Zentraltext dtr Tempeltheologie”; Metzger (1970) 150: “Das deuteronomistische Verständnis vom Heiligtum kommt am deutlichsten zum Ausdruck im Tempelweihgebet (1 Kön 8,14–53)”; Nicholson (1967) 71: “The Deuteronomistic passage which perhaps best illustrates [name-theology] is 1 Kings viii. 27f.”; Clements (1965) 90: “[T]he Deuteronomic theology of Yahweh’s transcendence … is most apparent in the prayer of dedication for the temple which is put into the mouth of Solomon [i.e. in 1 Kings 8:23–53]”. Fretheim (1999) 53. Hens-Piazza (2006) 75. V. 11. V. 13. Vv. 16–20. Vv. 29, 44 and 48.

6

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

of the theological significance of the temple”,25 while Brettler, in his discussion of vv. 12–13, which he calls section A, and vv. 14–21, section B, comments that each of the sections … presumes a different notion of … what the function of the newly completed Temple is. In unit A, YHWH himself resides in the Temple – it is (v. 13) … “an established place for your enthronement in perpetuity”. In unit B, YHWH’s name resides in the Temple, as in v. 17 … “a house for the name of YHWH, God of Israel”.26

Similarly, in his explanatory remarks on 7:51b–9:9, DeVries notes: Rising to the surface here is a tension that always exists between a realistic and a symbolic representation of God’s presence. We see the first especially in the “glory ‫ ”כבוד‬that fills the temple in the hieros logos, and the second in [the] insistence that … only [Yahweh’s] name … abides in the temple.27

The location of the Deity Secondly, and with regard to the whereabouts of the Deity, Solomon informs him that he has built the temple as “a place for [him] to dwell in for ever”,28 and this contrasts with the eight references within the prayer which locate YHWH in heaven,29 four of which specify that as his “dwelling place”30. This clearly raises the question as to whether YHWH dwells in the temple or in heaven. This also has been noted by interpreters. In commenting on 1 Kings 8, Hens-Piazza refers generally to “evidence of unresolved tensions surrounding topics such as divine presence”.31 Rice regards the account of the dedication of the temple as “in effect, a treatise on the theology of God’s presence – or perhaps one should say, theologies, for more than one voice is discernible here”,32 while Terrien considers that the chapter bears witness to “a profound tension between two opposite views of [divine] presence”.33 Other scholars are more specific. Brueggemann comments that 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Brueggemann (2000) 105. Brettler (1993) 18. DeVries (1985) 128. V. 13. Vv. 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49. Vv. 30, 39, 43, 49. Hens-Piazza (2006) 75. Rice (1990) 58–59. Terrien (1978) 197–198.

INTRODUCTION

7

[t]he statement of [Yahweh’s] accessibility is expressed in the early poem of 8:12–13 which situates Yahweh securely in the “house” … But subtle protest is expressed in vs. 9 (the ark is empty), and formal protest in vs. 27 which denies that Yahweh is contained in the cult place …34

while Westphal notes that [i]n 1 Kings 8:14ff. it was generally accepted that here we had two conflicting schools of thought within D; according to one of these Yahweh dwelt in the temple, according to the other he dwelt in heaven.35

In this study of 1 Kings 8, however, our concern is primarily with the location of the Deity vis-à-vis Solomon’s temple, rather than with the function of the latter. The usual view is that vv. 1–13 with their references to YHWH’s glory (v. 11) and Solomon’s description of the building as “a place for [YHWH] to dwell in for ever” (v. 13) position the Deity firmly in the temple,36 while, by contrast, vv. 14–53 exclude him from the building. In the latter section he neither inhabits the temple, nor is present within it.37 Rather he himself dwells in heaven, though his “name” occupies the sanctuary. Hence, the chapter is seen as expressing two rather different views of the divine dwelling place. Verses 1–13 locate it in the temple, vv. 14–53 in heaven.

34 35

36

37

Brueggemann (1976) 680. Westphal (1908) 186–187: “In 1 Kö 8, 14ff. glaubte man meist zwei sich bekämpfende Richtungen innerhalb Ds zu erkennen, von denen die eine Jahwes Wohnung im Tempel, die andere im Himmel suchte”. As do the several instances of the phrase “before YHWH” in vv. 54–66, at the end of the chapter, though far fewer scholars make that point. Hurowitz (1992) 267: “The Deuteronomist … saw the Temple as a place where God’s name resided but not where God himself could be found”; Mettinger (1982) 49–50: “[T]he D-Work hammers in the insight that it is only the Name which ‘is’ in the Temple, and that the Temple was constructed … not as a dwelling place for the enthroned God himself”; Weippert (1980) 85: “[D]as Tempelweihgebet [schließt] … Jahwes Anwesenheit im Tempel selbst aus; die Präsenz seines Namens impliziert nicht die Jahwes”; Gese (1975) p. 87: “[E]s ist der Name, den Gott hier [auf dem Zion] wohnen läßt … eigentlich aber ist Gott im Transzendenzbereich des Himmels (vgl. I Kön 8, 29.30) … Das hier eingeführte Namenstheologumenon drückt … ein nicht eigentliches Präsentsein Gottes aus”; Metzger (1970) 154: “Das Heiligtum ist … nicht mehr Wohnstätte Jahwes … Jahwe thront nicht im Heiligtum, sondern im Himmel”; Westphal (1908) 194: “Durch die geflissentliche Betonung, daß nur der Name Jahwes im Tempel wohne, wurde der Gedanke ausgeschlossen, daß Jahwe selber leibhaftig im Tempel zu finden sei”; Giesebrecht (1901) 40: “Die Deuteronomisten … die Vorstellung vermeiden wollen, als sei Jahve selbst im Tempel”. Cf. Sommer (2009) 63.

8

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Two points can be made about these differences. First, and broadly speaking, the longer section is largely attributed to one or more deuteronom(ist)ic authors.38 Secondly, those verses are also seen (in one way or another) as having been introduced into the narrative as a protest39 against the kind of strongly immanent notion of divine presence expressed in the shorter section. Scholars convey this view not only by general statements to that effect,40 but also by drawing attention to various specific features of the longer section. These include the references to the divine “name” which is considered to be present in the temple (vv. 16–20, 29, 44, 48),41 38

39

40

41

E.g. Rofé (2009) 48 refers to “the Dtr. prayer attributed to Solomon in 1 Kgs. 8:22–53 … where the Dtr. writer put into Solomon’s mouth an extended prayer”; Fritz (2003) 96: “Solomon’s prayer … [vv. 14–53] is characterized in its entirety by Deuteronomistic language and viewpoint and was probably composed by the Deuteronomistic Historian”; Nentel (2000) 201 notes “daß die gegenwärtige Forschung 1 Kön 8, 14–61 (62–66) auf die Deuteronomistik zurückführt”; Noth (1991) 138 refers to “[Dtr.’s] conception of the significance of the temple … as described in Solomon’s prayer of dedication (1 Kgs 8.14–53)”; Würthwein (1985) 96: “Wenn auch … so tragen doch alle Texte ([in 8,14–66] außer den Versen 62–66) dtr Gepräge und vertreten jeweils spezifisch dtr Themen”; Jones (1984) 197: “[8:14–66] has come from the hands of the deuteronomic school”; Hentschel (1984) 58: “Das Weihgebet Salomos ist ein Werk der dtr Schule”; Rehm (1979) 91 refers to vv. 14–61 “als Werk des Dtr, der seine eigenen Gedanken in die literarische Form einer Rede kleidete”; Robinson (1972) 98: “The whole prayer [vv. 14–61] is a production of the deuteronomist editors”; Gray (1970) 203: “[Various features in] the prayer of Solomon (vv. 14–61) stamp it as an elaboration of the Deuteronomistic compiler with later expansion by a reviser of the same school”; Brongers (1967) 94: “Het tempelwijdingsgebed (vs. 14–53) wordt Salomo door de Deuteronomist in de mond gelegd”; Schreiner (1963) 146: “Vers 15–61 mit Ausnahme von Vers 41–51 … gehen auf das Konto des dtn Verfassers”; Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 193: “The whole composition [vv. 14–61] is Deuteronomistic”; Burney (1903) 112: “This long section [vv. 14–66] … owes its present form to the hand of RD”; Kittel (1900) 70: “[D]as ganze Stück 14–66 [ist] deuteronomischer Herkunft”; Skinner (n.d.) 139 refers to “the speeches put by the Deuteronomic writers into the mouth of Solomon, verses 14–61”; contra Kaufmann (1961) 268 n. 1. Referred to by Richter (2002) 53 as a “deuteronomistic correction”, a concept deriving from Wellhausen, but in its final form “hold[ing] that whereas the theology of JE envisioned an anthropomorphic deity physically present at the cult site, D announced a deity only hypostatically present, his new theologumenon being subtly communicated by means of his use of ‘name’”. See also her pp. 8, 23, 24, 26, 28 n. 100, 39, 64, 77, 215, 216, 217. Fritz (2003) 92: “In the … prayer of Solomon in 1 Kgs 8:14–53 the concept of the dwelling put forth by the consecration proverb [i.e. vv. 12–13] is corrected by the Deuteronomistic Historian”; Mettinger (1982) 47: “The rejection by the D-Work of this earlier theology [i.e. in vv. 12–13] finds expression in the lengthy description of the consecration of the Temple (1 Kgs 8:14–66)”; Levenson (1981) 159: “This theology of the Temple as a place of prayer is implicitly a polemic against the idea that God is literally, even physically present therein”. Cogan (2001) 99 n. 21: “1 Kgs 8:12–13 declares the House of YHWH to be the deity’s earthly residence, a view that is immediately corrected by expressions of Deuteronomic theology whereby the Temple is spoken of as the home of YHWH’s name (vv. 16, 19,

INTRODUCTION

9

Solomon’s rhetorical querying of whether “God [will] indeed dwell on the earth” (v. 27) based on the inability of heaven and the highest heaven to contain him42 and the many references to “heaven” as YHWH’s dwelling place (vv. 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49).43

42

43

20)”; Rice (1990) 64: “God’s name is present in the temple … to guard against understanding God’s dwelling in the temple (1 Kgs. 8:13) to mean that he was confined to it”; Würthwein (1985) 96: “Die Anwesenheit Gottes, wenn auch nur im ‘Namen’ als einer ‘Ausweitung’ Jahwes … wird damit eingeschränkt und korrigiert”. Brueggemann (2000) 110: “Whereas the liturgic utterance of vv. 10–13 had placed Yahweh visibly and physically in the temple, vv. 27–30 issue a protest against such a claim … The opening question of v. 27 requires a decisive ‘no’ in response. No, Yahweh will not dwell on earth”; Mulder (1998) 415: “[I]n the background of this verse [27] there is the … frequently hidden polemic against the temple as the place where YHWH would and could dwell”; Buis (1997) 83: “[V. 27 c]orrige explicitement ce que 10–13 pouvait faire penser: YHWH n’est pas contenu, enfermé dans le temple”; Knoppers (1993) 116: “[T]he Deuteronomist distances himself from the immanentization of divine presence proclaimed by his source (1Kgs 8:27)”; Hurowitz (1992) 290: “The Temple will not be and cannot be a place on earth where God will dwell (v. 27)”; Auld (1986) 62: “The next few verses (27–30) are transitional … Talk of Yahweh dwelling in any place on earth … was open to misinterpretation … Not even heaven can contain God … how much less a house on earth!”; Šanda (1911) 226: “V. 27 wendet sich tendenziös gegen eine etwaige schiefe Auffassung von v. 12. 13. Die Gegenwart Gottes im Tempel wird nicht direct geleugnet, aber herabgemindert durch den Hinweis auf den Himmel als den besonderen Sitz Jahwes”. Werlitz (2002) 96: “Die Vorstellung eines Wohnens Gottes im Tempel ist hier [i.e. vv. 22–53] also gegen V. 13 zumindest deutlich transzendiert, wenn nicht gar aufgegeben zugunsten der Vorstellung eines Wohnens Gottes in den Himmeln (V. 30; vgl. VV. 31–53)”; Görg (1990) 433: “The Deuteronomistic redaction shifts Yahweh’s yšb from the temple to heaven (1 K. 8:30, 39, 43, 49 …) … Thus the idea expressed in 1 K. 8:12f. is revised and corrected”; Janowski (1987) 176–177: “In deutlicher Korrektur des alten Tempelweihspruchs 1Kön 8,12f MT, der vom Jerusalemer Heiligtum als einer ‘Stätte für dein (sc. Jahwes) Thronen/Wohnen für alle Zeiten …’ (V.13b) spricht, bezeichnet der deuteronomistische Tempelweihbericht 1Kön 8,14–66 … ausdrücklich den Himmel als [‘]Stätte deines (sc. Jahwes) Thronens/Wohnens …’ (V.39.43.49, vgl. … V.30)”; Jones (1984) 202: “31–32 … [God’s] ability to hear in heaven … shows that the idea of God dwelling in the Temple had … been replaced by the concept of heaven as God’s abode”; Levenson (1981) 159: “This theology of the Temple … is implicitly a polemic against the idea that God is … present therein … Thus, we hear in 1 Kgs 8:23–53 a continual emphasis upon God’s true dwelling, the heavens … (vv 27, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49)”;Weinfeld (1972) 195: “Whenever the expression ‘Your dwelling place’ (‫ )מכון שבתך‬is employed we find that it is invariably accompanied by the word ‘in heaven’ (vv. 30, 39, 43, 49). The deuteronomic editor is clearly disputing the older view … designat[ing] the temple as God’s ‘exalted house and a dwelling place … for ever’”; Metzger (1970) 150: “Während im Tempelweihspruch das Salomonische Heiligtum … als Stätte für das Thronen Jahwes, charakterisiert wird (v. 13), bezeichnet der Deuteronomist ausdrücklich und mit Nachdruck den Himmel … als ‘Stätte deines Thronens’ (V. 30. 39. 43. 49) … um die dort zum Ausdruck gebrachte Wohn- und Thronvorstellung zu korrigieren”; Clements (1965) 91: “The repetition of the assertion that Yahweh dwells in heaven is so marked that we can hardly fail to suspect that such statements were composed as a refutation of …

10

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Mitigation of the differences In the minds of some, however, this contrast is not so sharp, since it is often mitigated in varying degrees depending on how such scholars regard the role of the divine “name” situated in the temple. A few appear to affirm some kind of equivalence between it and the Deity, and so conclude that he is located where his “name” is. The latter is in the building, hence YHWH himself must be there.44 In this interpretation both vv. 1–13 and 14–53 locate him in the temple, though the latter verses also portray him as dwelling in heaven. By contrast, the majority of such scholars who blur the distinction between the Deity and his “name” consider that, although YHWH’s “full self”45 may be in heaven, his “name” in the building also conveys that presence to the temple, but in an attenuated form.46 McBride, for example, claims that “the šēm theologumenon … assured the reality of God’s dynamic immanence at the chosen shrine without localizing him there”.47 Others refer to the “name”, for example, as an “extension”48 of YHWH himself, a “form”49 or “mode”50 of his

44

45

46

47 48

all who believed that Yahweh dwelt on Mount Zion in his temple”; Garofalo (1960) 84–85: “[A]d eliminare il sospetto che la presenza di Dio fosse circoscritta al tempio, Salomone ripete spesso (vv. 34. 36. 39. 43. 45) che Dio esaudisce le richieste rivoltegli, ‘dal cielo’ o ‘nel cielo’”; Westphal (1908) 187: “Man hat daher aus dieser nachdrücklichen Hervorhebung der Himmelswohnung mit Recht auf eine Polemik geschlossen gegen Anschauungen, die Jahwe innerhalb des Tempels räumlich wohnend dachten”. Van der Woude (1997) 1362: “[P]assages in Dtr … literature that speak of … building a house for [Yahweh’s] šēm (… 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17, 19; 8:17–20; 44, 48 …), and of the presence of his šēm in the temple (1 Kgs 8:16 … 1 Kgs 8:29 …) need not be interpreted in terms of a Dtn-stamped name theology … but rather in terms of a personal presence of Yahweh manifest in the cultic realm … As a result, esp. in cultic language, šēm yhwh becomes an alternative term for Yahweh”; Talstra (1993) 140: “[T]he terms with ‫שׁם‬ [in Deuteronomy] do not signify a limitation of the divine presence but, on the contrary, God’s personal presence which manifests itself in the cult. These arguments are also valid for the text of 1 Kgs. 8”; Wiseman (1993) 119: “My Name denotes the LORD himself”; Rice (1990) 64: “God’s name … denotes his real presence, but preserves the mystery of his transcendence”; Rehm (1979) 95: “Diese Ausdrucksformen bedeuten nicht, daß man den Namen Jahwes als selbständige Hypostase neben Jahwe … verstanden hätte, sondern ist nur stilistische Umschreibung für Jahwe”; Šanda (1911) 222: “‫ ֵשׁם‬steht metonymisch für Wesen … Jahve ist also mit seinem Wesen im Tempel gegenwärtig (cf. v. 12.13)”. Brueggemann (1997) 672: “[T]he Deuteronomic tradition … assert[s] that Yahweh’s ‘name’ … is there [in the temple], but Yahweh’s full self is elsewhere, in heaven”. Cf. Preuß (1982) 17: “Danach waren die Göttin Astarte oder der Gott Aṯtart ‘Name Baals’, d.h. seine kultische Erscheinung oder Präsenz, diese aber eben doch auch in gegenüber der eigenen Anwesenheit Baals abgeschwächter (!) Form”. McBride (1969) 209. DeVries (1985) 125: “[T]he Name [dwelling in the temple is], in deuteronomistic ideology, a hypostasis or extension of Yahweh’s true being, but not the Deity in the

INTRODUCTION

11

presence or as the means “by”, “in” or “through”51 which he is present in the temple. Hence, according to both groups of scholars, the presence of the “name” in the building is somehow instrumental in conveying the divine presence to the temple to a greater or lesser extent. Be that as it may, this study is not concerned with ideas of YHWH’s presence which are in some way attributable to that of the divine “name” in the temple. Rather, its focus is on possible evidence for that presence occurring within the large central section of the chapter and totally independent of the identity or role of the divine “name”, however conceived. THE FOCUS OF THE PRESENT WORK 1 Kings 8 and Deuteronomy are key sources for the notion of Name Theology, which views the Deity as having been “relocated”52 to heaven while his “name” occupies the sanctuary. There is, however, an increasing

49

50

51

52

fullness of his being”; Würthwein (1985) 103: “[Der Name Jahwes] stellt … eine bedeutsame ‘Ausweitung’ (extension) der Persönlichkeit Jahwes, dar, ein Äquivalent für Jahwe”; Gray (1970) 221: “God’s ‘name’ is the extension of his personality from the remote sphere which is the proper dwelling-place of the Lord transcendent (‘heaven’)”; McBride (1969) 3: “[T]he divine ‘name’ acted as an extension of God, establishing a link between his transcendent being and those who sought him in worship”. Cf. Rofé (2002) 10, commenting on the use of the divine name in Deuteronomy: “[It] expresses an emanation of YHWH’s being”. Mulder (1998) 134: “[T]he ‘name of YHWH’ … becomes … an independent revelatory form of YHWH”; Dumermuth (1958) 73: “Jahwe [hat] sich … ihm [Israel] in einer neuen Offenbarungsform erschlossen, eben seinem Namen”; Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 195: “The Name is a manifestation form of Deity”; Grether (1934) 35: “Der an der Zentralkultstätte lokalisierte schem … als Offenbarungsform einer höheren Gottheit”. Leithart (2006) 69: “Yahweh promises … that his ‘name’ would dwell in the house, less a way of distancing Yahweh from the temple … than an indication of the mode of his presence”; McBride (1969) 3: “[Š]ēm in the various formulations of Name Theology connoted a mode of divine immanence at least in part distinct from God himself”; Ketter (1953) 71: “Dort [im Tempel] weilt sein ‘Name’, das heißt seine Person … Den Tempel aber hat er selber als den eigentlichen Ort dieser Art seiner Gegenwart im voraus erwählt”. Japhet (1989) 66: “This [deuteronomistically-formulated] approach sees God’s name as the means by which His presence in the Temple is expressed”; Fossum (1985) 87: “YHWH certainly inhabits the earthly temple, but not in person; he is present through the agency of his Name”; McBride (1969) 209: “[T]he šēm formula … embod[ied] … a … notion of God’s cultic presence through his name”; De Vaux (1967) 226: “[L’]intention [des deutéronomistes] … [est] d’affirmer … une présence efficace de Yahvé dans son temple; il y est présent par son nom”; Clements (1965) 94: “Yahweh’s name … was his alter ego, by means of which he made himself present to men, without ever leaving his heavenly dwelling-place”. Mettinger (1982) 47.

12

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

scholarly awareness of evidence in Deuteronomy for YHWH’s earthly presence.53 The latter is found, not only in the chapters recounting earlier historical events, but also in the cultic section in which the Deity is portrayed as being present in the very sanctuary where the divine “name” is located. In the light of such a perception, the aim of this study is to examine Solomon’s prayer of dedication in 1 Kings 8 for possible indications of the divine presence being represented as localized within the Jerusalem temple.54 Such evidence55 would be in addition to and independent of the various texts which place his “name” in the building, and in contrast to those which locate the Deity himself in heaven. The major focus will therefore be on the whereabouts of YHWH in relation to the temple. In particular, the study makes a case for the acceptance within Solomon’s prayer of hitherto unrecognized textual evidence for the actual presence of the Deity within the building, i.e. in addition to that of his “name”. Thus, although the latter was mentioned earlier in this Introduction and does indeed figure in the prayer, the study is not a reappraisal of Name Theology, though such a re-evaluation would be necessary, or rather inevitable, were our conclusions to be generally accepted. In fact it is not primarily concerned with the divine “name” at all, though it does come into the discussion at a late stage in the argument.56 Hence, we are neither offering a new interpretation of the name formulae in 1 Kings 8 (or anywhere else in the historical books), nor evaluating any of the already existing proposals. Neither shall we be engaging with the detailed treatments of Name Theology by Martin Keller57 or Sandra Richter,58 since their concerns are primarily with understanding the various name formulae and not with divine presence as such. Rather, our intention is to bring a fresh perspective to bear on the prayer, directing attention to one particular collocation, whose significance so far appears to have been overlooked, but whose use strongly implies the presence of YHWH himself within the temple. Note, however, that our evidence for divine presence is based on an expression 53 54

55

56 57

58

See above, n. 14. It will be observed that the stated focus of the present work is very similar to that of Wilson (1995), which involved an examination of evidence for YHWH’s earthly presence in Deuteronomy (pp. 11–12). Suffice it to say that, had no evidence been forthcoming, we would have abandoned the investigation of 1 Kings 8 and cast around for a more profitable project. Chapter 4. Keller, Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie (1996). Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology (2002).

INTRODUCTION

13

which we argue is intended to be understood figuratively, rather than, as is customary, literally. Moreover, given that Name Theology is so deeply entrenched, any serious attempt to undermine the prevailing consensus must, of necessity, first deal successfully with any contemporary counter arguments, and secondly present a cogently reasoned case for a different hypothesis. Consequently, our focus, especially in Chapters 2–4, will inevitably be somewhat circumscribed. Our primary concern is to establish the meaning of a collocation which has been widely misunderstood, and, in consequence, has led not only to an incorrect interpretation of Solomon’s prayer, but also to a distortion of the portrayal of divine presence within the chapter. The study is therefore primarily a linguistic exercise focusing on an unexpected figure of speech found within the king’s intercession. Hence, and because locating the prayer in a particular historical context could distract from the main argument, we shall not be adopting a position on questions such as its date, provenance or circumstances under which it was composed, though, having said that, our conclusions may well have implications for such matters. Be that as it may, the approach taken raises the possibility of other, similar tropes, when recognized and properly understood, leading to fresh insights into the meaning of the biblical text, while the results themselves have significant repercussions, mainly in areas connected with questions of divine immanence and/or transcendence. These include the Israelite representation of divine presence, the deuteronomistic conception of the temple, the various uses of the divine “name” throughout the Hebrew Bible and particularly Name Theology itself.59 The latter’s claim that the Deity is in heaven while only his “name” is in the sanctuary is regarded by some scholars as having introduced a radical change in the understanding of divine presence within the Hebrew Bible. Richter, for example, notes that this use of God’s “name” in a localized sense: has long been understood by biblical scholarship as evidence of a paradigm shift within the Israelite theology of divine presence. This paradigm shift involves a supposed evolution in Israelite religion away from the anthropomorphic and immanent images of the deity in the JE sources, toward the more abstract, demythologized, and transcendent image of the deity in the P source. In this schematized assessment, Deuteronomy, and hence the [Deuteronomistic History], are identified as the transition point in the progression of perception 59

Its conclusions may also have implications for scholarly reconstructions of both the history of the Israelites and the development of their theology. These, however, will be left for others to pursue.

14

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

in that they replace the “older and more popular idea” that God lives in the temple with the idea that he is actually only hypostatically present in the temple.60

This construct is usually predicated on the triple basis of references to the Deity in heaven, those to his “name” in the sanctuary and a perceived absence of evidence for the divine presence on the earth. Richter’s monograph casts doubt on the second by addressing the name formulae as idioms. By investigating the meaning of such “closed syntactic unit[s]”61 she argues against62 the idea of the “name” as YHWH’s hypostasis,63 and thus implies that, viewed as a (semi-)independent entity, it is not, in fact, in the sanctuary.64 By contrast this study approaches the issue from a different angle and argues against the third of the three bases by focusing on divine presence. It concludes that the Deity is, in fact, in the temple. If these findings were to gain general acceptance, the claim that Name Theology has produced a significant shift in the Israelite view of divine presence would begin to look increasingly untenable.

OUTLINE OF THE STUDY The main argument of the study appears in the next three chapters (2–4) and focuses on particular instances of the collocation “to pray ‫אל‬ this place (‫ )מקום‬/ house (‫ ”)בית‬used within Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8. Its significance and impact are then outlined in the final two (Chapters 5 and 6). Chapter 2 considers various current understandings of the phrase, along with two relevant but atypical interpretations of the preposition ‫אל‬ occurring within the prayer. Chapter 3 deals with our own understanding 60

61 62

63

64

Richter (2002) 7–8. Cf. Mettinger (1982) 50: “Deuteronomistic Name Theology … express[es] a thorough-going transformation of the understanding of God”; Clements (1965) 100: “The Deuteronomic writers provided in their name-theology a major contribution towards a new understanding of the divine presence in Israel”. Richter (2002) 207. Idem 25 n. 93 in which she notes the close similarity between her concerns and those of Benno Jacob, who “strongly contested the magical/hypostatic interpretation of the šēm YHWH”. And also against the understanding of Name Theology “as a critical step in Israel’s move toward a transcendent understanding of their deity” (idem 29). Richter (2002) 216: “Contrary to the tenets of Name Theology … this study has demonstrated that the reflexes of the deuteronomic idiom used in Deuteronomy and the DH, outside of 1 Kings 8 and 2 Kgs 23:27 … have nothing to do with a reinterpretation of the mode of divine presence at the cult site”.

INTRODUCTION

15

of the collocation, and, after a brief introduction to metonymy, argues that the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” are best understood figuratively. Examples of ‫ מקום‬and ‫ בית‬employed in the same way are noted, and so afford precedents for the particular interpretation offered. The chapter concludes that this feature of the prayer establishes the occupancy of the temple. It is supplemented by a brief appendix explaining why use has not been made of the recently developed cognitive linguistic treatment of the trope. Chapter 4 considers the two main contenders for the identity of that occupant, with recourse to the features of the trope outlined in the previous chapter. After deciding between the two candidates, there are some brief reflections on the use of metonymy as a literary device within Solomon’s prayer. The chapter closes by outlining the evidence for and against the two principal and competing understandings of “praying to (‫ )אל‬the temple”. It concludes that the balance of probability favours the metonymic one, that the Deity is likely to be the intended occupant of the building and thus that the prayer represents YHWH as being located not only in heaven but also in the temple. Chapter 5 summarizes the argument and explores the impact of its conclusions on several other features of 1 Kings 8. Finally, while at the same time incorporating some suggestions for further investigation, Chapter 6 extends discussion of the results into the Hebrew Bible as a whole by examining their relevance to the Deity’s presence and “name”, the deuteronomistic view of the temple and the name formulae themselves. After considering the impact of these findings on the two Books of Kings, the chapter comes full circle by returning to the construct with which it began, i.e. Name Theology, and concludes with some reflections on its future.

2

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS Within 1 Kings 8 Solomon makes four references to praying ‫אל‬1 the temple.2 These will constitute the focus of this study: Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea, O LORD my God … that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you said, “My name shall be there”, that you may heed the prayer that your servant prays ‫ אל‬this place. (vv. 28–29) Hear the plea of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray ‫ אל‬this place; O hear in heaven your dwelling place; heed and forgive. (v. 30) When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against you, and then they pray ‫ אל‬this place, confess your name, and turn from their sin, because you punish them … (v. 35) Likewise when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a distant land because of your name – for they shall hear of your great name, your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm – when a foreigner comes and prays ‫ אל‬this house … (vv. 41–42)

However, before presenting our own understanding of such appeals “‫ אל‬this place/house”, it will be necessary to examine the two main alternatives to our interpretation of the expression. The first relies upon the view that, within the collocation, the preposition has the directional sense suggested by “toward(s)”, as in a number of English translations of the four verses in question.3 In this reading Solomon envisages the Israelites as directing their petitions towards4 the temple – in the same 1

2

3 4

To avoid prejudicing the outcome of our discussions on the best way to understand the preposition ‫ אל‬in these verses, it has generally been left untranslated in English renderings of the four texts. I.e. assuming that the expressions “this place” (vv. 29, 30, 35) and “this house” (v. 42) both refer to the Solomonic temple. ESV, NRSV, REB, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, RSV, JPSA, ASV, RV, KJV. Sweeney (2007) 134; Leithart (2006) 68–69; Linville (1998) 288; Buis (1997) 83, 85; Miller (1994) 7, 372 n. 88; Hurowitz (1992) 290; Hubbard (1991) 55; Eslinger (1989) 165; Savran (1987) 156; Auld (1986) 62–63; DeVries (1985) 125. Cf. Noth (1968) 185, who refers to “dem irdischen Tempelhaus als dem Ort des Empfangs der Gebete des Königs und des Volkes”.

18

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

way that Muslims pray towards Mecca5 – and that, as a result of doing so, their prayers are able to be accessed by YHWH in heaven. It is no doubt that this understanding of the preposition has given rise not only to the idea of the temple as a/the “focal point”6 for prayer, but also to a number of suggestions with regard to the nature of its role as an apparent intermediary between the Israelite who prays on earth and the Deity who hears in heaven. These include descriptions of the temple as a “channel” or “conduit”,7 “communications satellite”,8 “hearing-tube”9 or “switchboard”10 and “listening-post / sounding board”.11 The other main view is that there is no difference between praying “towards” a place and praying “in” one.12 We shall therefore first examine each of these two views, both of which can apply to all four examples of “prayer ‫ אל‬this place/house”, and then consider a particular instance of such praying, i.e. in v. 42, one which has elicited arguments in defence of an unexpected interpretation of the preposition in question.

THE TEMPLE AS INTERMEDIARY In the interpretation which understands the collocation “‫ אל‬this place/ house” as “towards the temple”, the Deity is generally regarded as not being present within the building, since he is in heaven, though he is able to hear those prayers which are offered in its direction. In this reading the indirect nature of the praying to YHWH suggests that the temple is being viewed as an intermediary13 between the petitioner on earth and 5

6

7

8 9 10 11 12 13

Hubbard (1991) 55: “Evidently as modern Muslims pray toward Mecca, so ancient Israelites customarily prayed toward Jerusalem”; Noth (1991) 139: “[T]he temple is little more than a place towards which one turns in prayer … the Kibla”; Mettinger (1982) 48: “[T]he Temple has ceased to function, but the site continues to serve as qibla”; Hammond (1906) 153: “[T]he Jew, wherever he might be, would … pray towards [the temple] … just as the Mohammedan has his Kibleh in Mecca”. Cf. Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 196. Cogan (2001) 292; Linville (1998) 283; Provan (1995) 79; Hurovitz (1992) 290; Eslinger (1989) 173; Savran (1987) 156. Wray Beal (2014) 137; Knoppers (1995) 249; Balentine (1993) 82; Brettler (1993) 24; Friedman (1981) 21. Cf. Brueggemann (2000) 110; McKenzie (1991) 139. Rice (1990) 65. Japhet (2006) 224. Leithart (2006) 69; Hurowitz (2005) 98. DeVries (1985) 125. See below, pp. 30–33. Cf. Leithart (2006) 69: “[T]he temple itself functions as mediator”.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

19

the Deity in heaven. However, several features of the prayer would seem to militate against this recurrent understanding of the temple’s function/ role. Initially, we shall highlight the most important of such features by examining the interpretation “towards” commonly proposed for the preposition ‫ אל‬in this context.14 We shall then suggest an obvious way in which this pervasive understanding of the particle could have been conveyed unambiguously, had that been the writer’s intention. And finally, we shall reflect briefly both on the characterization of the temple as a “channel” (or similar) and on the question of a consistent focus for the petitions anticipated within the prayer. ‫ אל‬understood as “towards” Certainly the idea of prayer being directed towards a particular locality is present within the chapter. Verses 44b and 48 both anticipate it being offered “‫ )…( דרך‬the city … and the house that I have built for your name”.15 The question is, however, whether prayer “‫ אל‬this place/ house” should be understood in the same directional sense. Three points can be made. Non-occurrence of prayer ‫ אל‬YHWH ‫ אל‬the temple Were the preposition in the collocation “praying ‫ אל‬the temple” intended to be understood in the sense of “towards”, one might have expected to find a reference to it being offered “‫ אל‬YHWH” and “‫ אל‬this place/house” in the same breath, and in this way to specify both the addressee (YHWH) and the direction (templewards) in which the prayer was being aimed. However, while in vv. 44b and 48, where the directional phrase involving the temple (“toward [‫ … ]דרך‬the city … and the house”) is preceded by a reference to the suppliants’ addressee (“to [‫]אל‬ the LORD / you”), no such pairing is found earlier on in 1 Kings 8 when prayer is anticipated as being offered “‫ אל‬this place/house”. Admittedly the sample is small, but it is curious that, given the claim that ‫ אל‬in vv. 29, 30, 35 and 42 has the same sense as ‫ דרך‬in vv. 44 and 48, i.e. “towards”, there are no instances of prayer “‫ אל‬YHWH ‫ אל‬the temple” in those verses. Such a construction would have been possible, since the 14 15

See above, n. 3. See below, pp. 26–28 for a fuller discussion.

20

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

double occurrence of ‫ אל‬qualifying the same verb, but with each preposition bearing a different meaning is not particularly uncommon in the Hebrew Bible.16 Within 1 Kings 8 the verses referring to “praying ‫אל‬ this place/house” (vv. 29, 30, 35 and 42) make no separate mention of an addressee, though one verse advocating praying “‫ אל‬YHWH” (v. 33) indicates that such an entreaty should be ‫ ב‬rather than ‫ אל‬the temple. While the non-occurrence of such a pairing could well be problematic for the directional interpretation of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”, it is entirely consistent with our own (alternative) understanding of the phrase.17 Lack of precedents for “praying ‫ ”אל‬understood as “towards” Secondly, while “towards” is one of the main meanings of the preposition ‫אל‬, there are no precedents for it being understood in that way within the verbal collocation ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.). Outside 1 Kings 8 // 2 Chron. 6 it is almost always18 used to designate the addressee19 of the one praying. Furthermore, within the Hebrew Bible there are no clear examples of ‫ אל‬following any verb of communication (‫אמר‬, ‫[ דבר‬pi.], ‫זעק‬, ‫[ נבא‬niph.], ‫[ צוה‬pi.], etc.20) being understood in a directional sense.21

16

17 18

19

20

21

While there are no exact parallels to what might have been expected in 1 Kings 8, i.e. a verb of speech followed first by ‫ אל‬introducing the addressee and then by it used in the sense of “towards”, there are instances involving a similar twofold occurrence of the particle. The most common type consists mainly of verbs of motion (e.g. ‫בוא‬, ‫שׁוב‬, ‫ )שׁלך‬followed by two prepositional phrases, the first ‫ אל‬a person, the second ‫ אל‬a locality and frequently rendered by “at” or “in”, e.g. “They went to (‫ )אל‬Joshua in (‫ )אל‬the camp” (Josh. 9:6). An example involving verbal communication occurs in 2 Kings 8:3: “[S]he set out to appeal to (‫ )אל‬the king for (‫ )אל‬her house and [for] (‫ )אל‬her land”. See below, p. 38 n. 88. The three exceptions all entail a human complement and specify that for/about which the petitioner prays. In 1 Sam. 1:27 Hannah tells Eli: “For (‫ )אל‬this child I prayed”, while in 2 Kings 19:20 // Is. 37:21 the prophet Isaiah informs Hezekiah that YHWH has heard his prayer “about/concerning (‫ )אל‬Sennacherib”. While this usage of the preposition in collocation with ‫( פלל‬hithp.) is the main one identified by Mitchell (1888), he classifies the instances in 1 Kings 8:29, 30, 35 and 42 as “to or toward” (pp. 76–77, 45). All eight volumes of The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew were consulted to identify any verb which might conceivably entail oral communication. Each verb’s entry was then examined to see whether it occurred in collocation with the preposition ‫אל‬, and if so, to determine how the latter had been understood by the editors. In particular we were looking for any instances where the preposition was rendered “towards”, i.e. as a possible precedent for the usual understanding of the same preposition in 1 Kings 8:29, 30, 35 and 42. This is also the case when there is some manuscript evidence for ‫ אל‬or πρός when such verbs are coupled with the preposition ‫על‬.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

21

The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew22 has identified a number of senses for ‫ אל‬when coupled with verbs involving oral communication. While in the majority of cases the preposition signals the addressee of the verb, it does have additional functions. Examples of other, less frequent uses would be “concerning” or “of” – employed by the narrator to identify the subject of direct speech in which the speaker does not specify who he is talking about, but refers to her/him in the third person.23 It can also designate the recipient of an oracle of judgment. In such cases the preposition could be translated “to”, but in view of the negative nature of the prophecy, “against” would seem to be a more appropriate rendering.24 A third sense, particularly with the verb ‫קרא‬, would be where the complement of the preposition identifies the place or person to which the one called is being summoned.25 Finally, in addition to sometimes introducing the direct object, other meanings suggested by DCH include “for” and “with”. However, as regards the directional sense, apart from those currently being contested, i.e. the four in 1 Kings 8 (and their parallels in 2 Chron. 6), there are only two instances of the preposition considered to mean “towards” in collocation with a possible verb of speech. That verb is ‫אשׁתחוה‬, which is classified by DCH as the hithpalel of ‫שׁחה‬26 and generally thought to mean “bow down”.27 It can also be rendered “worship”,28 particularly when applied to the Deity (or gods/idols). It is relevant here because, while Miller in his monograph They Cried to the Lord does 22 23

24

25

26

27

28

1993–2016. E.g. “And Abraham said (‫ )ויאמר‬of (‫ )אל‬Sarah his wife, ‘She is my sister’” (Gen. 20:2); “Therefore thus says (‫ )אמר‬the LORD concerning (‫ )אל‬the king of Assyria: ‘He shall not come into this city’” (2 Kings 19:32 // Is. 37:33). Neither “she” nor “he” is specified by the speaker. Cf. BDB 40: “Where the motion or direction implied appears from the context to be of a hostile character, ‫ = ֶאל‬against”. E.g. “The prophets … prophesied (‫ )וינבאו‬war, famine, and pestilence against (‫ )אל‬many countries” (Jer. 28:8); “[G]reat is the anger and wrath that the LORD has pronounced (‫ )דבר‬against (‫ )אל‬this people” (Jer. 36:7). E.g. “[T]he LORD summoned (‫ )ויקרא‬Moses to (‫ )אל‬the top of the mountain” (Exod. 19:20); “[Ziba] was summoned (‫ )ויקראו‬to (‫ )אל‬David” (2 Sam. 9:2). DCH 8, 316. However, according to Nelson (2009) 924: “[M]ost scholars now consider the root to be khawah [‫”]חוַ ה‬. ָ Cf. Koehler and Baumgartner (1994) 295–296. As in Ps. 5:8 (EVV 7): ESV, NRSV, REB, NJB, NIV, NASB, NEB, JB, Moffatt, JPSA; Ps. 138:2: ESV, NRSV, REB, NJB, NIV, NASB, NEB, JB, TEV, RSV, Moffatt, JPSA. Cf., for example, Heiler (1918) 172: “In Israel … der Beter wirft sich zu Boden, so daß Gesicht und Hände die Erde berühren. Diese Prosternation wird häufig mit ‫ִה ְשׁ ַ ֽתּ ַחוָ ה‬ bezeichnet”. As in Ps. 5:8 (EVV 7): NKJV, NAB, RSV, ASV, RV, KJV; Ps. 138:2: NKJV, NAB, ASV, RV, KJV.

22

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

not include it in his survey of terms for prayer,29 there are scholars who view it as sometimes signifying “to pray”.30 The two instances where it is followed by ‫ אל‬are found in Pss. 5 and 138, both of which contain the clause ‫אשׁתחוה אל־היכל)־(קדשׁך‬: But I, through the abundance of your steadfast love, will enter your house, I will bow down toward your holy temple (‫ )אשׁתחוה אל־היכל־קדשׁך‬in awe of you. Lead me, O LORD, in your righteousness because of my enemies; make your way straight before me. (Ps. 5:8–9 [EVV 7–8]) I bow down toward your holy temple (‫ )אשׁתחוה אל־היכל קדשׁך‬and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness; for you have exalted your name and your word above everything. (Ps. 138:2)

Were ‫ אשׁתחוה‬to mean “pray” here, and assuming the DCH rendering of the preposition in these two clauses (“towards”) to be correct,31 the collocation would then constitute an example of praying understood in a directional sense (albeit with a verb different from that in 1 Kings 8), and thus provide a precedent for the usual interpretation of the four verses in 1 Kings 8. As it happens, however, there appears to be no way of deciding whether the verb (‫ )אשׁתחוה‬in these psalms denotes the physical act of bowing down – and so has no relevance to the current investigation – or is intended to refer to praying, and thus represents an example of oral communication understood in a directional sense. In Ps. 5 the reference to praying (‫ )אתפלל‬in v. 3 (EVV 2) could be taken to imply that the ‫ אשׁתחוה‬in v. 8 (EVV 7) is also an allusion to praying, albeit in this case directed towards the temple.32 Possible support for such a proposal could come from the following verse, which does in fact involve the psalmist addressing (praying to?) the Deity (v. 9 [EVV 8]). However, it would be difficult to demonstrate that its opening words, “Lead me, O LORD …”, were in fact an elaboration of the ‫ אשׁתחוה‬in 29 30

31 32

Miller (1994) 32–48, 178–228. Stähli (1997) 399: “[It] does not merely describe the external gesture of ‘bowing down,’ but ‘very quickly came to be used for the inward religious attitude’ … and can itself, therefore, often be rendered by ‘to pray, plead’”; Preuß (1980) 252: “Not rarely … especially in the Psalms … the verb can … stand for ‘pray’”. DCH 8, 317. “Toward(s)” tends to be favoured in English versions. As seems to be implied by Vesco (2006) 119: “Après une supplication (vv. 2–3a [EVV 1–2a]), vient la description de la prière (vv. 3b–4 [EVV 2b–3]). Un hymne suit (vv. 5–7 [EVV 4–6]), avec une nouvelle description de la prière (v. 8 [EVV 7]) [our emphasis]”, though his own translation of v. 8b [EVV 7b] interprets ‫ אשׁתחוה‬in the sense of “bowing down”: “Je me prosternerai vers ton temple saint”.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

23

v. 8b (EVV 7b) rather than being an unrelated supplication distinct from the activity mentioned in the previous verse. In addition, vv. 8–9 (EVV 7–8), with their focus on the psalmist’s evident piety, read less as a reference to the praying in v. 3 (EVV 2) than as a contrast to those whom YHWH hates in vv. 6–7 (EVV 5–6). In any case, there seems to be no obvious reason why ‫ אתפלל‬in v. 3 (EVV 2) and ‫ אשׁתחוה‬in v. 8 (EVV 7) should not be regarded as two different activities carried out by the psalmist in relation to the Deity. Similarly in Ps. 138:2, the conjunction (‫ )ו‬introducing the second clause (“and give thanks to …”) could be an example of waw explicativum and so specify the activity (“giving thanks”) which is intended by the verb (‫ )אשׁתחוה‬in the opening clause (“I bow down / pray”?). The gratitude expressed towards YHWH’s “name” would thus give content to the ‫אשׁתחוה‬, and so the verse would constitute a precedent for communication “towards”. On the other hand, the conjunction might just be a waw copulativum and so merely join together the two initial clauses. In this case the “giving thanks” would represent an activity different from that of ‫אשׁתחוה‬. The verse would therefore not contain the idea of communication in a directional sense. Since it does not seem possible to distinguish between the two alternative interpretations of the verb, within the Hebrew Bible there are therefore no unequivocal instances of oral communication ‫ אל‬understood in a directional sense. Hence, with regard to Solomon’s prayer, although interpreting the preposition in verses 29, 30, 35 and 42 in the sense of “towards” would be possible, i.e. on the grounds that that is one of its common meanings in other contexts, there are no precedents for reading it that way following either the verb “to pray” or indeed any verb involving oral communication. Putative precedents for the use of ‫ אל‬in a directional sense Thirdly, in their observations on the praying ‫ אל‬the temple in 1 Kings 8:27–53, several commentators mention verses which they presumably consider to be either examples of, or precedents for, it being understood in a directional sense:33 Jon. 2:5 (EVV 4); Ps. 5:7 (EVV 8); 28:2; 138:2; Dan. 6:11 (EVV 10). All five of the latter refer to some form of cultic 33

Hubbard (1991) 55: “[A]ncient Israelites customarily prayed toward Jerusalem (Ps. 138:2)”; Hammond (1906) 153: “[T]he Jew, wherever he might be, would … pray towards [the temple] (Dan. vi. 10; Psa. v. 7; Jonah ii. 4)”; Rawlinson (1872) 529: “Wherever they were, the Jews always worshipped towards the temple, (See Ps. v. 7; xxviii. 2; cxxxviii. 2; Jonah ii. 4; and more especially Dan. vi. 10)”.

24

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

activity, and in all except Dan. 6:11 (EVV 10) that activity is followed by the preposition ‫אל‬: Then I said, “I am driven away from your sight; how shall I look again upon (‫ )אל‬your holy temple?” (Jon. 2:5 [EVV 4]) But I, through the abundance of your steadfast love, will enter your house, I will bow down toward (‫ )אל‬your holy temple in awe of you. (Ps. 5:8 [EVV 7]) Hear the voice of my supplication, as I cry to you for help, as I lift up my hands toward (‫ )אל‬your most holy sanctuary. (Ps. 28:2) I bow down toward (‫ )אל‬your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness; for you have exalted your name and your word above everything. (Ps. 138:2) Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward (‫ )נגד‬Jerusalem; and … to pray to his God, just as he had done previously. (Dan. 6:11 [EVV 10])

While it has already been observed that 1 Kings 8 itself bears witness to the idea of directional prayer, i.e. in vv. 44b and 48, the point at issue here is whether any of the above texts provide evidence for understanding the “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” in that same directional sense. In response it is worth noting that the instances of that Solomonic collocation appear to involve verbal communication, since in all four cases the king invites YHWH to “hear” (‫ )שׁמע‬such prayers (vv. 29, 30, 36, 43). By contrast, the actions of “looking” (‫[ נבט‬hiph.]) in Jon. 2:5 (EVV 4) and “lifting up hands” (‫ )נשׂא ידים‬in Ps. 28:2 do not of themselves involve speech, though no doubt could be accompanied by it, while, as argued above,34 “bowing down” (‫[ שׁחה‬hithp.]) in Pss. 5:8 (EVV 7) and 138:2 might involve oral communication but cannot be confirmed to do so. Consequently, while the above texts provide further precedents for the idea of certain cultic actions having a directional aspect, they throw no necessary light on the interpretation of the praying ‫ אל‬within Solomon’s prayer. This leaves Dan. 6:11 (EVV 10), which, though not involving the required preposition, does entail prayer. While some commentators link the verse to later Jewish practice of praying towards Jerusalem, many consider the custom to be derived in some way from Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8. While a significant proportion of the latter associate Daniel’s 34

Pp. 21–23.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

25

action only with vv. 44 and/or 48,35 others also (?) relate it to vv. 29, 30, 35 or 42, and so imply a directional understanding of the preposition ‫אל‬ in the collocation. Vogel, for instance, comments: Daniel takes up a tradition that apparently goes back to the dedicatory prayer of Solomon in 1 Kgs 8 where the king asks God to hear from his heavenly dwelling place whenever his people, or an individual, even a foreigner, would pray toward this temple (see vss. 29, 30, 35, 38, 42, 44, 48).36

Regarding Dan. 6:11 (EVV 10), two points can be made. First, the verse occurs within the Aramaic section of the book, with the directional reference to the city (i.e. the phrase “toward Jerusalem”) involving the preposition ‫נגד‬. The one under consideration in 1 Kings 8, however, is ‫אל‬, which is not found in Biblical Aramaic.37 Hence, that the two prepositions are different means that Dan. 6:11 (EVV 10) is unable to shed any clear light on the meaning of the four instances of ‫ אל‬within Solomon’s prayer. Secondly, it was Daniel’s open windows which were aligned “toward Jerusalem”, not his praying. The verse does not actually say how he prayed in relation to the city, though it is obviously possible that 35

36

37

Gowan (2001) 98: “First Kings 8:48 already speaks of prayers of exiles facing Jerusalem”; Bauer (1996) 134: “[D]ie Praxis, in Richtung des Tempels in Jerusalem zu beten … ist aus dem Weihegebet Salomos für den Jerusalemer Tempel bekannt (1 Kön 8,44)”; Anderson (1984) 69: “The habit of facing towards Jerusalem in prayer is attested in 1 Kgs 8:44”; Lebram (1984) 82: “Daniels Vertrauen auf seinen Gott als einzigen Retter zeigt sich darin … das regelmäßige Gebet mit der Wendung zum Jerusalemer Tempel, die in 1. Kön. 8,44 … festgesetzt ist”; Lacocque (1979) 114 n. 13: “The first mention of this practice [i.e of prayer being directed towards Jerusalem] is in I Kings 8.44”; Hartman (1978) 199: “The Jewish custom of facing, while at prayer, toward the Temple of Jerusalem or its ruined site began during the Babylonian exile (cf. I Kings 8:44, 48 …)”; Rinaldi (1962) 97: “È probabile che proprio nell’esilio nascesse l’usanza di fare la preghiera verso Gerusalemme, ove era il tempio, sede di Dio (I Re 8, 48. 49 …)”; Heaton (1956) 166: “It was from Israel that Mohammed borrowed the practice of praying towards the Holy City (cf. 1 Kings 8.44, 48 …)”. Vogel (2010) 139. See also, for example: Redditt (1999) 108: “Daniel faced Jerusalem to pray … [the] scriptural basis [of this practice] is the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kgs 8.30”; Hammer (1976) 69: “There are scriptural references to the custom of praying towards Jerusalem (cp. I Kings 8:35 …)”; Delcor (1971) 136–137: “La coutume de se tourner vers Jérusalem pour prier … avait sans doute comme point de départ 1 R 8, 35, 38, 44, 48”; Slotki (1951) 49: “The custom … of praying towards the holy city, probably originated in Solomon’s prayer (I Kings viii. 30, etc.)”; Montgomery (1927) 274: “Toward Jerusalem: This practice is assumed in the (Deuteronomic) prayer of Solomon, I Ki. 835ff.”; Driver (1905) 74: “To pray, turning towards Jerusalem … was based doubtless upon I Ki. viii, 35, 38, 44, 48”. Despite this, ‫ אל‬could have been used in Dan. 6:11 (EVV 10) as “a Hebrew gloss”, since the latter has been put forward as a possible explanation for the presence there of the preposition ‫נגד‬: Rosenthal (2006) 41.

26

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

he did direct his prayer towards it (i.e. rather than merely pray while facing in its direction). Nonetheless, even if he did pray towards the city, the most that could be said is that that action could only be securely linked to those parts of 1 Kings 8 where prayer is definitely envisaged as also being directed towards Jerusalem (albeit expressed using ‫)דרך‬, i.e. vv. 44b and 48.38 His praying with his windows open ‫ נגד‬the city tells us nothing about the interpretation of the prayer “‫ אל‬this place/house” in the earlier part of Solomon’s prayer. It thus appears that, of the texts to which appeal might be made by way of precedence for interpreting the above four instances of praying ‫ אל‬in a directional sense, none is relevant. An obvious way of expressing a directional sense Had the writer(s) really wanted the praying to be directed towards the temple, the clearest way of doing so would have been to use the word ‫דרך‬, since praying ‫ דרך … הבית‬is found within Solomon’s prayer itself (1 Kings 8:44b // 2 Chron. 6:34 and 1 Kings 8:48): If your people go out to battle against their enemy … and they pray to the LORD ‫ דרך‬the city which you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name … (v. 44) [I]f they repent with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies … and pray to you ‫ דרך‬their land, which you gave to their ancestors, the city that you have chosen, and the house that I have built for your name … (v. 48)

While the word usually functions as a noun, the standard dictionaries indicate that it can sometimes behave like a preposition with the sense of “towards” or “in the direction of”.39 This point has been elaborated by Dorsey in his appendix to The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, in which he comments that it is “beyond dispute” “[t]hat [derek] ] does at times function as a preposition meaning ‘toward, in the direction of’”.40 38 39

40

P. 19. Sauer (1997) 344: “the use of derek to indicate the direction of a movement”; DCH 2, 465: “specif. of way to(wards), direction of … 1 K 8:44, 48 // 2 C 6:34, 38”; BDB 203: “3. of direction, almost or quite = toward, I K 8:44, 48 = 2 Ch 6:34, 38 pray toward the city, etc.”; Fuerst (1871) 338: “to denote direction to a thing, in via ad; or lastly with genit. of the place whither a way leads, and so almost a preposition: towards, the way to”, Gesenius (n.d.) CCVIII: “In the acc. it commonly has the force of a prep., in the way to, towards”. Cf. Koehler and Baumgartner (1994) 232: “‫ דּ׳ ָה ִעיר‬in the direction of, toward the city 1 K 8:44”. Dorsey (1991) 216, followed by Aitken (1998) 29. The former cites as an example Ezek. 8:5, in which “Ezekiel is told … ‘Lift up your eyes toward [derek] the north’”.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

27

He notes that, in such cases, derek is in the construct state. Aitken points out that, while [c]onstruct expressions using ‫ ֶדּ ֶרְך‬as the nomen regens41 are common, [they] present problems of interpretation … [since they] could be understood either as a preposition or as the designation of the name of a road.

He gives as an example “the expression at Dt 1.40, ‘and journey … derekh the Suph Sea’ (‫[ )וּסעוּ … ֶד ֶרְך יַ ם־סוּף‬which] could mean either ‘towards the Suph Sea’ … or ‘on the Suph Sea Road’”.42 In the case of 1 Kings 8:48, however, praying on the road to their land (and thereby viewing ‫ דרך‬as a noun) would seem unlikely, since the people are envisaged as being in captivity. Dorsey notes that “[t]here are about eighty instances where derek [in the construct state] has been or could possibly be taken as a preposition” and that when the verb governing it is one of “motion, looking, facing, or praying”, the “nomen rectum43 is either a point of the compass, or a noun designating a geographical or architectural feature”.44 Accordingly, the two examples of praying ‫ דרך‬in 1 Kings 8:44b and 48 should therefore function as prepositions, since both are in the construct state and both occur immediately before one of the nouns “city” (v. 44b) or “land” (v. 48). This is the conclusion to which Dorsey himself is drawn: In these instances derek clearly seems to be functioning as a preposition and should be rendered “toward” or “in the direction of”.45

Hence, in 1 Kings 8:44b and 48 it appears that ‫ דרך‬functions not as a noun but as a preposition with the sense of “towards”. This directional sense is adopted both by English versions, which tend to render it “toward(s)”46 and by most commentators,47 many of whom cite Dan. 6:11 41 42 43 44 45 46

47

I.e. the noun in the construct state. Aitken (1998) 29. I.e. the complement of derek. Ibid. Dorsey (1991) 217. ESV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, NASB, RSV, ASV, RV, KJV. Other translations include “turn[ing] towards/in the direction of” (REB, NJB, JB, Moffatt), “facing” (TEV) and “in the direction of” (JPSA). Fritz (2003) 100, re vv. 46–53: “The direction of the prayer is determined by mentioning the land, city (Jerusalem), and temple”; House (1995) 146, re vv. 44–45: “God’s people praying toward God’s city and God’s temple”; Slotki (1950) 65, re v. 44: “Not being able to come to the city, they would pray toward it from wherever they may be”; Burney (1903) 123, re v. 44: “… ‫‘ ]דרך העיר‬In the direction of the city.’ So v. 48; // 2 Chr. 6. 34, 38”; Keil (n.d.) 131: “[I]n vers. 44–50 Solomon … asks, that when

28

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

(EVV 10) as providing an Israelite example of such practice.48 This means that, had Solomon (as portrayed) really intended to advocate prayer “towards this place/house” in 1 Kings 8:29, 30, 35 and 42, he could have done so by employing ‫דרך‬49 instead of the more ambiguous ‫אל‬. That he did not avail himself of that possibility strongly implies that his references to “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” meant something other than doing so in the direction of the temple. The temple understood as a “channel” We have already surmised that, regarding the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”, the current widespread understanding of the preposition as “towards” has given rise to the concept of the temple as a “channel” (or similar).50 Prayers on earth are offered in its direction, but received by YHWH in heaven. While no scholar has been found to argue that the prepositional phrase should be understood in the sense of “through the temple”,51 the directional interpretation seems to require that that is how the prayers are somehow transmitted to the Deity. And in fact, a number of commentators have actually stated that the petitions are envisaged by Solomon as passing “through” the building.52

48

49

50 51

52

prayers are directed towards the temple …”. See also those who relate the idea to the Muslim custom of praying towards Mecca: Ketter (1953) 73; Landersdorfer (1927) 62; Šanda (1911) 23; Westphal (1908) 190; Hammond (1906) 153; Skinner (n.d.) 150. Buis (1997) 85: “v. 48. donne une triple orientation pour la prière: le pays d’Israël, la ville, le temple … C’est ainsi que Daniel prie simplement en direction de Jérusalem (Dn 6, 11)”; Gray (1970) 228, re v. 48: “Prayer in the direction of Jerusalem, or at least of Palestine, is found as a distinctive element of worship after the Exile, e.g. Dan. 6.10[11]”; de Vaux (1958) 64 n. a), re vv. 44, 48: “La coutume de prier dans le direction de Jérusalem s’est établie dans les communautés de la Diaspora après l’Exil; elle est attestée par … Dn 6 11”, Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 198, re vv. 46–53: “The prayer toward Jerusalem from abroad is witnessed to in story in Dan. 6:11”; Slotki (1950) 65, re v. 48: “pray unto Thee toward their land. As Daniel did in captivity (cf. Dan. vi. 11)”. See also Šanda (1911) 234 and Skinner (n.d.) 150. There is a divergence of opinion as to whether the earlier part of the prayer came from the same hands as vv. 44–53, i.e. the section containing the word ‫ דרך‬used in the prepositional sense. However, even if it did not, it seems unlikely that such a use of ‫ דרך‬by the author(s) of petitions six and seven would not also have been known to the one writing presumably only a short time before. P. 18. In fact, within the Hebrew Bible there are no examples of the preposition in the collocation ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) being used in the sense of “through”. Its complement is almost always the addressee. Cf. Hurowitz (2005) 98: “[T]he Temple … became a sort of gigantic ‘switchboard’ through which all prayers and requests were redirected toward him who dwells on high”; Brueggemann (2000) 110: “[T]he temple becomes a primary meditation through

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

29

However, we have found no precedents for any kind of go-between role in which the temple enables contact between the one who prays on earth and the Deity who hears in heaven. True, there are instances within the Hebrew Bible of an intermediary between Israelites and YHWH, but neither as an impersonal entity such as a temple nor as the channel for the suppliants’ prayers. Rather, they involve an intermediary who is human and who himself prays (and directly) to the Deity on their behalf.53 Inconsistency within the prayer Within Solomon’s prayer the “intermediary” view entails his advocating two alternative “modes” of prayer, each of which is employed under different circumstances. Sometimes petitions are to be directed towards the temple but heard by YHWH in heaven (i.e. when they are offered “‫ אל‬this place/house”54 – understood as “towards” the building). Other times the temple is not referred to, but the prayers are to be directed to YHWH himself (i.e. when they are offered “‫ אל‬YHWH”55 – the preposition introducing the addressee). No reason, however, has yet been advanced to account for Solomon’s anticipation that there would be these two ways of communicating with the Deity – a circuitous one involving the temple, and the more direct approach similar to that found in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.56 Or, more to the point, why such prayers would be offered via an intermediary at all, when it was clearly possible to pray to YHWH without one.

53

54

55

56

which Israel’s prayers are channeled to the attentive God of heaven”; Cogan (2001) 292: “[S]even hypothetical occasions that may prompt persons’ turning to YHWH through the Temple are outlined”; Balentine (1993) 82 refers to the temple as “the conduit through which the prayers of the needy are channeled heavenward”; McKenzie (1991) 139: “The hope expressed through Solomon [is] that Yahweh will hear the people’s prayers directed to him through the Temple”. Cf. Reventlow (1986) 275, who refers to prayer being directed to YHWH in heaven but “by way of (auf dem Weg über)” the temple [our emphases]. Examples of such requests are found in Num. 21:7 (to Moses), 1 Kings 13:6 (to a “man of God”) and Jer. 42:2, 20 (to Jeremiah). I.e. in general (v. 30), when the Israelites’ sin has resulted in drought (vv. 35–36) or famine, pestilence, blight, etc. (vv. 37–39?), or when a foreigner makes a journey to the temple (vv. 41–43). I.e. when the Israelites pray for help in battle (vv. 44–45) or when, because of their sin, such conflict results in either defeat (vv. 33–34) or exile (vv. 48–49). Note also that Solomon himself is represented as addressing YHWH directly in vv. 28 and 53. Note that this “intermediary” view cannot be accommodated by an appeal to two different authors, one recommending prayer towards temple, the other advocating it direct to YHWH himself. Both “modes” occur before v. 44, i.e. in the first part of the prayer, a section generally considered to come from one hand. See p. 80.

30

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

EQUATING PRAYER ‫ אל‬WITH PRAYER “AT”/”IN” While the majority of scholars who comment on the four instances of prayer “‫ אל‬this place/house” understand the preposition in the directional sense of “towards”,57 there are those who state outright that, presumably in this context, there is no difference between praying “towards” the building and praying “in” it.58 Others make no such generalization, but seem to espouse the same view since they interpret individual instances of praying “to” (‫ )אל‬as praying “in” the temple.59 In this case, however, we shall concentrate on the general arguments put forward by Eep Talstra as outlined in his monograph, Solomon’s Prayer,60 since he is both representative of this interpretation and offers its most detailed defence found to date. In response to the question as to whether one should distinguish between “‘praying in this house’ ‫( בבית‬v. 33, cf. v. 31) and ‘praying toward this place’ ‫”אל המקום‬, Talstra comments: The use of ‫ בבית‬in v. 33 indicates that the text does not aim at consistently emphasizing praying “toward” the temple. Nor does the preposition ‫ אל‬necessarily indicate a direction. This depends mainly on the context, the meaning of the verb, and that of the noun after ‫אל‬. Compare ‫ פרשׂ‬+ ‫ אל‬in I Kgs. 8:7 with e.g. II Kgs. 6:8 and Ps. 104:8, where it is better to translate ‫“ אל‬in/at”.

57

58

59

60

This includes those who anticipate the praying as taking place within the temple forecourt, but directed towards the temple: Fichtner (1964) 140: “[D]as Gebet wird in Jerusalem verrichtet, im Tempel, d.h. im Vorhof des Tempels ‘auf den Tempel hin’”; Keil (n.d.) 128: “‫( ֶאל ַה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬toward this place): because Solomon also was praying in the court towards the temple”. Cf. Mulder (1998) 417. Walsh (1996) 114: “The common thread that runs through all seven cases is that the petitioner’s prayer is directed toward Yahweh in the Temple (‘this house’ or ‘this place’ occurs in each example)”; Knoppers (1995) 246: “In the disparate circumstances which Solomon portrays, Israelites are to journey to Jerusalem and to pray ‘at this house’”; Rehm (1979) 96, re vv. 31–51: “[f]älle … die in der Zukunft Anlaß zu einem Gebet im Tempel werden können”; Skinner (n.d.) 147: “In the examples which follow (verses 31 ff.), the prayer is conceived sometimes as offered in the temple, sometimes as directed towards it; in either case the underlying idea is the same”. Linville (1998) 288: “Yahweh will attend to the prayers made in the place he himself had chosen (v. 29)”; Garofalo (1960) 84: “Iddio ascolterà dal cielo le richieste elevate nel suo tempio (v. 30)”; Landersdorfer (1927) 60, re v. 30: “Gott möge es im Himmel erhören, wenn der Mensch auf Erden im Tempel betet”; Benzinger (1899) 60: “27–30 Bitte um Erhörung der Gebete, die im Tempel an Jahwe gerichtet werden” [our emphases]. Talstra (1993) 133–134.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

31

On account of the fundamental contrast which v. 30 draws between the place of the prayer and the place where God hears this prayer, a further differentiation between ‫ ב‬+ ‫ התפלל‬and ‫ אל‬+ ‫ התפלל‬+ place has little significance.61

This quotation seems to entail three main points, each of which will be examined in turn. The use of ‫ בבית‬in v. 33 Talstra’s observation that “[t]he use of ‫ בבית‬in v. 33 indicates that the text does not aim at consistently emphasizing praying ‘toward’ the temple”, together with his subsequent comments, seems to imply that he envisages only one mode of praying, namely “in” the temple, and therefore that the four instances of praying “to” it should be understood in the same sense of “in”. In response to this two points can be made. First, and a priori there seems to be no reason why Solomon’s prayer could not envisage praying both “to” (at some distance from?) and “in” (on its premises?) the temple, without the necessity of regarding them as identical. Secondly, the implied comparison on which he bases his argument is itself problematic. Whereas in vv. 29, 30, 35 and 42 each instance of “to” this place/house occurs immediately after the reference to praying,62 in v. 33 “in” this house is separated from the verb by “and plead with you [YHWH] (‫”)והתחננו אליך‬. Thus, if a comparison in praying is to be drawn, it should be between the “to” this place/house in vv. 29, 30, 35, 42 and the unqualified praying (i.e. without prepositional phrase) in v. 33. Alternatively, if the two prepositional phrases following “and plead” are deemed to qualify both verbs, then it is a moot point whether the praying “to” this place/house should be contrasted with the praying “in” this house or that “to” YHWH, the more usual63 addressee. Either way, the comparison hardly provides adequate grounds on which to base the equivalence of praying “to” and “in” the temple.

61 62

63

Talstra (1993) 133–134. Apart from v. 29, where the subject (“your servant”: ‫ )עבדך‬intervenes between the verb and indirect object. This does not, however, affect the argument. See below, p. 45.

32

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

The possibility of ‫ אל‬meaning “at”/“in” In support of his claim that “the preposition ‫[ אל‬does not] necessarily indicate a direction”, Talstra refers to three texts, each of which uses the preposition in a different sense: 1 Kings 8:7 (“over”), 2 Kings 6:8 (“at”) and Ps. 104:8 (“to”).64 Clearly it may be useful to be able to show that ‫ אל‬can sometimes be understood in a different sense. However, such an appeal implies that he considers it possible to determine the meaning of the preposition independently of its attachment to the particular verb in question, namely ‫( פלל‬hithp.). In fact, such instances are no more than precedents, and cannot be cited to determine the meaning of ‫ אל‬in other contexts and especially in combination with a verb different from those in his three texts. And as Talstra himself points out,65 the meaning of the verb is one of the main factors determining that of the preposition.66 The relative triviality of the distinction? Finally, Talstra concludes that “further differentiation between ‫התפלל‬ ‫ ב‬+ and ‫ אל‬+ ‫ התפלל‬+ place has little significance” in view of the “fundamental contrast which v. 30 draws between the place of the prayer and the place where God hears this prayer”. In emphasizing that particular contrast he has omitted to take into account one which would have been of some importance to the Israelite at the time. While understanding the preposition in the collocation ‫ אל‬+ ‫ התפלל‬+ “this place/house” directionally in the sense of “towards” is similar (though not identical) to its normal usage in ‫ אל‬+ ‫ התפלל‬+ a person, where it is understood as introducing the indirect object – the addressee of the prayer – understanding the preposition in the sense of “in” is somewhat different and entails a significant change in sense. Praying “towards” or “to” the temple as addressee does not necessarily imply the location of the petitioner. By contrast, praying “in” the temple requires the one who prays to be within its immediate environs. Thus, for the Israelite at the time it would presumably have been important for him to know whether in the anticipated times of need such prayers were required to be made “in” the temple 64 65

66

Using the NRSV renderings. Talstra (1993) 133: “Nor does the preposition ‫ אל‬necessarily indicate a direction. This depends mainly on the context, the meaning of the verb, and that of the noun after ‫אל‬ [our emphasis]”. For an (English) example of the role of the verb in influencing the sense of a preposition, see Taylor’s (1993) discussion of the difference between putting and throwing one’s coat over a chair (p. 168).

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

33

(and thus for many necessitating a journey) or whether he could remain where he was and pray “to” the temple instead. For him such differentiation would hardly have been of “little significance”. Summary Talstra has offered no convincing reason as to why there should be only one mode of prayer envisaged within 1 Kings 8:28–53. His case for equating praying “in” the temple and praying “to” it is based on both a questionable comparison and an inconclusive appeal to the use of ‫ אל‬in combination with verbs other than the one in question (‫[ פלל‬hithp.]). Consequently, there would appear to be no objection to accepting the two prepositions as retaining their usual but differing senses. If this be granted, Solomon’s prayer thus anticipates two different responses to the situations envisaged by him, with the choice of preposition helpfully indicating whether or not the petitioner was expected to travel to the temple so he could pray “in” it or stay where he was and pray “to” it.

A MORE

SPECIFIC ARGUMENT

Of the seven petitions within Solomon’s prayer, v. 42 has attracted the suggestion that prayer “‫ ”אל‬the temple should be understood as prayer “in” it: Likewise when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a distant land because of your name … when a foreigner comes and prays ‫ אל‬this house … (vv. 41–42)

While there are scholars who consider that the foreigners’ praying was intended to be “towards” the temple,67 the majority consider it to have taken place within its confines. Some refer rather generally to non-Israelites coming to68 the temple or praying in69 or at70 it, while others are more specific and locate the petitioners in its forecourt.71 Most do not spell out why they consider the temple to be the place where the prayer is offered, 67 68 69 70 71

Leithart (2006) 68–69; Buis (1997) 85 (“vers”); Provan (1995) 79–80; Auld (1986) 63. Levenson (1981) 158; Robinson (1972) 108. Fritz (2003) 99; Mulder (1998) 436; Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 198. Knoppers (1995) 246; Rice (1990) 67; Šanda (1911) 233 (“am”). Hentschel (1984) 61 (“in dem … Vorhof des Tempels”); Rehm (1979) 97 (“zum Hof des Tempels”); Fichtner (1964) 140 (“im Vorhof des Tempels”); Ketter (1953) 72 (“im Vorhof der Heiden”).

34

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

though Šanda does – on the basis of the use of the verb “to come” (‫)בוא‬.72 And in fact many scholars do refer to the foreigners coming (or similar) to the temple to pray or worship, though without giving this as the reason for their interpretation. There is thus a substantial body of opinion which effectively understands the v. 42 preposition ‫ אל‬as “in” or “at” rather than the more usual “to”. However, with regard to the majority view, two points can be made. First, while both vv. 41 and 42 refer to the foreigners’ “coming” (‫)ובא‬, neither specifies where they are headed.73 It is not their travelling which is “to this house”, but their praying. This is in contrast to the situation envisaged in v. 31, where (as in vv. 41 and 42) the destination of the man’s coming (‫ )ובא‬is initially unspecified, but is then made clear from the fact that the swearing of the oath “before your altar” is to take place “in this house (‫”)בבית הזה‬. Thus, in v. 31 the man’s “coming” clearly entails his entering the temple. Secondly, however, even if the foreigners’ coming was to the temple, it would not prove conclusively that they were within its walls. While “to enter” is one of the main meanings of ‫בוא‬,74 there are examples of people coming (‫)בוא‬ to a dwelling, but not actually entering it. In Judg. 4:20 Sisera envisages someone coming (‫ )יבוא‬to Jael’s tent, enquiring after him (“Is anyone here?”), but (presumably) not in fact setting foot inside, since he has instructed her to stand in its doorway. Similarly, in Judg. 11:34 Jephthah’s coming (‫ )ויבא‬to his home did not entail his crossing its threshold either, since his daughter “[came] out to meet him (‫( ”)יצאת לקראתו‬cf. v. 31). Such precedents thus allow 1 Kings 8:41–43 to be read as envisaging non-Israelites travelling towards and even arriving at the temple, but not actually going inside the building.75 And this in turn allows the preposition ‫ אל‬to retain its more usual sense as indicating the focus of the foreigners’ praying (“to”) rather than its location (“in” or “at”), since there is no guarantee that they are in fact on its premises.76 72

73

74 75

76

Šanda (1911) 233: “‫ ובא‬zeigt, daß der Verfasser in 31–43 nicht an eine Ḳibla denkt, sondern ans Gebet am Tempelplatz”. Buis (1997) 85: “On en dit pas où se trouvera l’étranger pour adresser sa prière vers le temple”. See, for example, Jenni (1997a) 202. Contra Thenius (1873) 136, who claims that the ‫ ובא‬of v. 42 does not mean the same (“Wiederaufnahme”) as that in v. 41, but rather should be understood in the sense of entering (“und eingeht”). Cf. those scholars who consider that such foreigners did not enter the temple: Rehm (1979) 97: “Gleich den Israeliten betet auch der Fremde ‘zu diesem Hause hin’, das heißt vor dem Tempel, den Blick dem Heiligtum zugewandt”; Noth (1968) 188: “Nach 42b wird ein solcher Ausländer zwar nicht in ‘dieses Haus’ hineingehen, aber doch aus

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS

35

CONCLUSION The standard way of understanding the “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” in 1 Kings 8 is to view it in the directional sense of “towards” the temple or, occasionally, “through” it. We have argued, however, first, that in the four instances in question the preposition ‫ אל‬does not bear such a meaning commonly attributed to it. There are no clear instances of ‫אל‬ preceded by the verb “to pray” (‫[ פלל‬hithp.]) or, indeed, by any verb involving speech, being used in that way. Spatially oriented requests are mentioned in the prayer, but do not involve the particle ‫אל‬. Rather than pinpointing the object “towards” which the utterance is directed in a physically aligned sense, the preposition invariably introduces the addressee of the verb. Such an observation is not undermined by those texts which have been adduced in possible support of the directional rendering, since they either entail actions rather than speech or, in the case of Dan. 6:11 (EVV 10), lack the requisite preposition. In any case, prayers are normally addressed directly to the Deity, and any requiring an impersonal intermediary “towards” or “through” which they had to pass would be most unusual in the Hebrew Bible and certainly without precedent. Secondly, had the writer intended the prayers to be towards the temple, he could have expressed this much more clearly by using ‫ דרך‬instead of ‫אל‬. The noun already occurs within the prayer functioning as a preposition, is used to signal direction rather than the addressee (which, in fact, is mentioned separately) and so would have been the obvious choice in vv. 29, 30, 35 and 42. However, the fact that it was not employed in these verses suggests that the writer had some meaning in mind other than that of prayer “towards” the temple. Thirdly, and somewhat strangely, the interpretations under consideration envisage significantly different petitionary responses to different circumstances. While the Israelite’s prayer is always heard by the Deity in heaven, there is a disparity in its focus. Sometimes he is to pray “towards” the building, other times to YHWH himself. Not only has the variation never been addressed, but, more importantly, neither has it been explained why the Israelite should pray “towards” the temple at all, when it is clearly possible for individuals to pray directly to God without any kind of intermediary. der Nähe in Richtung auf dieses Haus hin beten”; Ketter (1953) 72: “Zu [dem Tempel] hin betet zwar der Fremdling im Vorhof der Heiden”.

36

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Fourthly, we have argued against the view, epitomized by Talstra, that, within the prayer as a whole and in combination with “this place/house”, there is no difference between the prepositions ‫ אל‬and ‫ב‬. Talstra’s appeal to instances of ‫ אל‬denoting “over”, “at” or “to” does not take into account his own observation that the meaning of the verb is one of the main factors determining that of the preposition. His comment that differentiating between praying “in” and praying “to” has little significance overlooks the need for the Israelite petitioner to know whether he could pray “to” the temple where he was, or was required to make a journey so that he could pray “in” it. In fact, there would appear to be no reason why Solomon’s prayer might not have envisaged praying both to and in the temple depending on the proximity of the suppliant to the building. Finally, in the case of the proposed reinterpretation of the preposition in v. 42, we have argued against “‫ אל‬this house” being understood as “in” the temple. The view that the preposition in the expression ‫פלל אל‬ (hithp.) in 1 Kings 8: 29, 30, 35 and 42 should be read as “towards”, or that there is no distinction between praying “to” and praying “in”, is thus without foundation. Consequently, the way is now clear for an interpretation of the collocation “praying (‫[ פלל אל‬hithp.]) this place/ house” in which this particular occurrence of ‫ אל‬is accorded its usual meaning.

3

SOLOMON’S PRAYER So far we have established that the two main understandings of Solomon’s references to “praying to the temple” (i.e. to “this place/house”) are problematic. Understanding the particle within the verbal collocation ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) in the sense of “towards” is without precedent in the Hebrew Bible, and in any case a less equivocal alternative would have been available, particularly for expressing the directional notion of “towards” in an unambiguous way. Neither can it be maintained that within this context praying “to” the temple is no different from praying “in” the building. By contrast, we intend to argue that “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” should be understood figuratively, and that it is an example of metonymy, a figure of speech widely employed within the Hebrew Bible. PROLEGOMENON Before proceeding, however, we will include a brief introduction to the trope. Metonymic expressions are generally understood by biblical scholars intuitively and without difficulty, and therefore rarely labelled as such in the secondary literature. In this particular case, though, to our knowledge, the collocation has never previously been perceived this way. Hence, and especially in view of the unexpected consequences of doing so, it is vital to establish the criteria for identifying the phrase in Solomon’s prayer as metonymy. This may seem unnecessary to some, but the usual interpretation of the phrase commands almost universal acceptance, and is allied to a cluster of ideas involving a purely transcendent Deity, a (semi-)independent divine “name” inhabiting the sanctuary and an effectively desacralized temple. Since, therefore, all of these ideas are called into question by the proposed reading, the intention is to show that our claim is well founded. Metonymy In a late nineteenth century publication Bullinger defines metonymy as “a figure by which one name or noun is used instead of another,

38

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

to which it stands in a certain relation”,1 while more recently Caird offers the following definition: Metonymy is calling a thing by the name of something typically associated with it: e.g. the Bench, the stage, the turf, the bottle may stand for magistrates, the theatrical profession, horse-racing and alcoholic liquor.2

It is thus a form of indirect reference,3 whereby the thing intended (the “target”) is replaced by something else with which it is associated/ connected/related (the “vehicle”4). This is the traditional view of the trope, and is now known as “referential”. It is to be distinguished from other, more recently identified kinds of metonymy by the fact that the vehicle is almost always a noun or noun phrase: [R]eferential metonymy has quite a distinct character. It is a nominal construction normally consisting of two elements … Only one of the elements [the vehicle] is explicit. This element is normally a noun [our emphasis].5

This type of metonymy, of which many patterns6 have been recognized,7 is the one with which most people are familiar.8 Recent developments In recent years there has been much discussion among linguists working in the field of semantics as to the exact nature of metonymy, its relation 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

Bullinger (1898) 538. Caird (1980) 136. Fass (1997) 70. Cf. Panther and Thornburg (1999) 333. “Trigger” and “target” were introduced by Fauconnier (1994) 4 to replace the more traditional “vehicle” and “tenor” used in discussions of classical rhetoric and coined by Richards (1936) 96–97. Fass (1997) 48 gives a useful summary of nomenclature used by other scholars to distinguish the term used from the term intended. Warren (2006) 60. Cf. Stallard (1993) 87, who proposes that in referential metonymy “the referent of an NP [noun phrase] is shifted”. The term used by Warren (2006) 15. Cf. Littlemore (2015) 19, who refers to “metonymy types”. E.g. CONTAINER FOR CONTENTS: “The kettle is boiling”; PART FOR WHOLE: “Two heads are better than one”; PLACE FOR EVENT: “Chernobyl changed attitudes to nuclear power”; PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT: “My wife’s friend keeps a Matisse in her bedroom”. Extensive lists of such patterns can be found in Panther and Thornburg (2003) 271–273; Barcelona (2000) 352–353; Panther and Radden (1999) 419–423; Fass (1997) 471–480. For biblical examples, see Bullinger (1898) 538–656, who draws extensively on the earlier work by Keach (1779) 2–29, 184–188. Cf. Warren (2002) 115: “The great majority of examples of metonymy given in the literature up to 2000 represent referential metonymy”.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

39

to metaphor, and whether a definition can be found which encompasses all examples of the trope. In particular, it has become a focus of interest for cognitive linguists,9 who have articulated definitions10 somewhat different from the kind of traditional ones quoted above. While this new way of looking at the figure is not necessarily incompatible with the earlier one,11 since expressions identified as metonymy according to traditional rhetoric are still regarded as such by cognitive linguists, some of its emphases are distinct. Notably, the more recent approach focuses on the conceptual nature of the trope and the processes involved in its understanding. Moreover, in the case of referential metonymies, rather than the vehicle and target being viewed as somehow related (as in the Bullinger and Caird definitions), they are seen as co-occurring within a knowledge structure frequently referred to as a “domain”, “frame” or “idealized cognitive model” (ICM).12 At the same time the figure’s scope is broadened from its original conception (involving only nouns or noun phrases) to include whole sentences (so-called illocutionary and predicational13 metonymies), which represent “entire statements in which one predication may be used to ‘stand for’ another”.14 The approach taken here Any study investigating the general phenomenon of metonymy in the Hebrew Bible would certainly have to take into account the insights of both traditional and cognitive linguists. Our rather more modest concern, however, is solely with the interpretation of certain expressions found in Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8. Since these entail noun phrases rather than entire predications, our focus will inevitably be restricted to referential metonymy. We intend to argue that, within the prayer, the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” are best viewed as examples of the familiar and well-understood PLACE FOR INHABITANTS/OCCUPANTS pattern. Our primary interest will thus be in knowing how to recognize 9

10 11

12 13 14

In addition to numerous journal articles, see, for example, the following collections of essays: Panther and Thornburg (2003), Dirven and Pörings (2002), Barcelona (2000), Panther and Radden (1999). E.g. Langacker (2008) 69; Radden and Kövecses (1999) 21; Lakoff (1987) 84–85. Panther and Thornburg (1999) 334. Cf. Littlemore (2015) 9, who notes that the “two broad approaches to the study of metonymy: the cognitive approach … and the linguistic approach … generally complement one another”. See the Appendix, p. 162 for an explanation of these terms. The term used by Panther and Thornburg (2007) 246. Ziegeler (2003) 177.

40

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

this one example of the trope, understand its characteristics, identify its intended target and draw conclusions from its use. Consequently, in view of this somewhat limited aim, many of the recent developments in linguists’ understanding of metonymy are likely to have little bearing on the subject of this monograph.15 Hence, in view of the straightforward nature of the particular pattern under consideration, the ensuing discussion will rely mainly on findings from a more traditional approach to the trope. Characteristics of referential metonymy A number of its characteristics are important for our study. Non-literal Warren notes that “utterances containing referential metonyms will be non-literal”,16 while Sadock comments that [m]etonymy, synecdoche … are the most important nonliteral figures of speech, besides, of course, metaphor. They all rest their success upon an apparent clash between what is … said … and what is intended.17

Given such a discrepancy, the question arises as to how one determines that what is said is not what is meant. And secondly, once such a mismatch has been detected, how one extracts the particular message intended from the words which have been employed. In this connection, Fass has drawn a useful distinction between the “recognition” and the “interpretation” of figurative/non-literal language. By “recognition” he means the classification of some language as being figurative/non-literal, whereas by “interpretation” he means the actual understanding of that language.18 First, “recognition”. Non-literal language has generally been identified on the basis of the violation either of truth conditions or of selection restrictions . Apropos of the former, Gibbs points out that 15

16 17

18

See the Appendix, in which we interact with Kövecses and Radden (1998). There we provide a more detailed explanation of our reasons for not employing some of these more recent insights. Warren (1999) 129. Sadock (1993) 42–43. Cf. White (1996) 228: “Someone using metonymy cannot be taken to be asserting the claim that they would be making if you took their words literally”; Gibbs (1994) 343: “[U]nderstanding contextual expressions involving metonymy requires … creat[ing] novel interpretations for these nonliteral utterances”. Fass (1997) 25.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

41

listeners recognize the need for a figurative interpretation of such utterances as The ham sandwich is getting impatient for his check after they are seen to be violations of the maxims of Truthfulness. After all, it is untruthful to claim that inanimate objects, such as ham sandwiches, exhibit human traits, such as impatience.19

Alternatively, and in connection with the French statement “[l]a soupe aux poissons n’a pas donné de pourboire”,20 Waltereit notes: [T]he subject noun phrase does not actually refer to the fish soup, but of course to the [non-tipping] guest who ordered it. We grasp this immediately because the predicate n’a pas donné de pourboire normally requires a human subject … The selection restrictions of the predicate are therefore violated in [the original statement].21

Secondly, “interpretation”. Once an expression has been recognized as non-literal, it is then necessary to identify the particular figure of speech which is being employed. In this connection, François Recanati, in his book Literal Meaning, provides a useful discussion of the statement “[t]he city is asleep”.22 He first of all notes that “[a] city is not the sort of thing that sleeps (in the normal sense of the term)” and thus that the overall decoding of the sentence “is likely to involve some process of non-literal interpretation”. He then outlines two main possibilities for understanding the sentence, depending upon which of its constituents receives a non-literal interpretation. If it is “the city”, then its inhabitants are sleeping, whereas if “asleep” is understood non-literally, it means that the city is “quiet and showing little activity”. The former involves a metonym, the latter a metaphor. Vehicle and target must be related The nature of the relationship between vehicle and target is crucial for the understanding of a metonym. There has to be some context in which they occur together. Panther and Thornburg refer to the metonymic vehicle

19

20 21

22

Gibbs (1994) 337. Cf. Warren’s (2006) 9 observations on the statements “I will put you on the governor’s report” and “I have been reading the man for ages, but had never seen him [i.e. Chomsky] in the flesh”. “The fish soup didn’t leave a tip”. Waltereit (1999) 235. Cf. Littlemore (2015) 138 on the verb “to read” and Fass (1997) 114 on the verb “to drink”. Recanati (2004) 34–35.

42

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

being associated with or contiguous to23 the intended target.24 Ullmann comments: [W]hen we say the cloth for the clergy, silk for a Q.C., or “town and gown” for “town and university”, there is semantic motivation due to the fact that the garments in question are closely associated with the persons they designate. [These] types of expression … are metonymic [our emphasis].25

The relationship must exist in the external world The connection between vehicle and target has to be one which exists in the external world. It has nothing to do with the properties of language. Koch observes that [t]he metonymy Eng. bar “counter; public house” is possible thanks to our knowledge of public houses and counters and not thanks to our knowledge of the word bar.26

He then goes on to generalize: It is not our knowledge of words (and their semantic features), but our knowledge of the world that determines contiguities. So metonymy is not a problem of linguistic structure, but a problem that concerns the relation between language and the extralinguistic world. Contiguity has to be considered as constituting a conceptual, extralinguistic and not an intralinguistic relationship …27

The connection has to be well known For a metonymic expression to be understood, the connection between vehicle and target has to be one which is well known. Warren comments that retrieval of the target depends on inference, and that [this] is made possible because there is some connection between the mentioned referent (the trigger) and the implied referent (the target) deemed so well known that in the context in question the former will automatically suggest the latter [our emphasis].28 23

24

25 26

27 28

Panther and Thornburg (2007) 237. “Contiguity” occurs frequently in discussions of metonymy, e.g. Waltereit (1999) 234; Gibbs (1993) 258; Caird (1980) 137. Contrast metaphor, where the connection is one of similarity, in that they have something in common. Ullmann (1962) 91–92. Cf. the quotations from Bullinger and Caird (pp. 37-38). Koch (1999) 145. Cf. Le Guern (1973) 25. For another example, see Eco (1985) 262 on “nam[ing] the king by the crown”. Idem. Warren (1999) 123.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

43

Successful communication thus presupposes the existence of knowledge of the world shared by both speaker and addressee.29 Vehicle and target are interchangeable Within a referential metonymy vehicle and target are interchangeable, though the resulting statements are not identical in terms of the information which they convey. Commenting on the traditional view of metonymy as a “stand for relation30 in which the name of one thing [the vehicle] is used to refer to another [the target]”, Panther and Thornburg describe this as “the substitution theory of metonymy”, and proceed to point out: A corollary of the substitution theory is that the [vehicle] and the target are, at some level of analysis, considered to be equivalent ways of picking out the same referent. For example, in the sentence Buckingham Palace issued a statement this morning, the place name Buckingham Palace [vehicle] may be said to stand for the British queen or one of her spokespersons (target). Under this view, the [vehicle] expression indirectly achieves the same referential purpose as the more direct referring expression the Queen.31

In other words, “Buckingham Palace issued a statement” and “the Queen issued a statement” are regarded as equivalent (though not identical) ways of saying the same thing. The vehicle is an ellipsis Several scholars have suggested that referential metonymy involves the ellipsis of part of a lengthier expression recoverable by rephrasing the figure as a noun phrase which not only includes both the vehicle and the target but also makes explicit the basis of the relationship between them. Le Guern notes:

29

30

31

Bredin (1984a) 57: “[Metonymy] relies wholly upon those relations between objects that are habitually and conventionally known [our emphasis] and accepted. We must already know that the objects are related, if the metonymy is to be devised or understood.… [it] presupposes that relation”. Cf. Littlemore (2015) 7; Gibbs (1994) 324; Turner (1987) 21. Grice (1975) 50, who, while not dealing with metonymy as such, comments: “To work out that a particular conversational implicature is present, the hearer will rely on … items of background knowledge … [being] available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be the case”. E.g. Panther and Thornburg (1999) 333; Kövecses and Radden (1998) 37; Lakoff and Johnson (1980) 36. Panther and Thornburg (2007) 237–238.

44

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

In so far as it is possible to translate the metonymy by an equivalent form that suppresses the figure of speech while adding only the explicit formulation of the relation underlying the referential shift, there is nothing to prevent the metonymy from being interpreted as an ellipsis.32

He illustrates this with reference to the CONTAINER FOR CONTENT metonymy “to drink a glass”, which entails an ellipsis of “the content of”, so that the expression could be rephrased as “to drink the content of a glass”. Because of this Warren has described them as “abbreviated noun phrases”.33 The vehicle undergoes a change in reference not in sense “[W]hat occurs … is not a change in the meaning of [the vehicle], but a change in the object to which it normally refers … it is an alteration in reference, not in sense”.34 Beekman notes that [metonymy] is the substitution of one lexical item for another as though they were synonyms even though each word retains its distinct areas of meaning [our emphasis],35

while Le Guern points out that [i]f I invite the reader to reread Jakobson, that does not entail on my part an internal modification of the meaning of the word “Jakobson”. The metonymy by which I use the name of the author to designate a piece of work operates on a shift in reference; the semic organization is not altered, but the reference is transferred from the author to the book.36

32

33 34

35

36

Le Guern (1973) 27: “Dans la mesure où il est possible de traduire la métonymie par un équivalent qui supprime la figure en n’ajoutant à l’énoncé que la formulation explicite du rapport qui fonde le glissement de référence, rien ne s’oppose plus à ce qu’elle soit interprétée comme une ellipse”. Cf. Ricoeur (1978) 346 n. 48: “[M]etonymy … is explained by the restitution of the entire reference that undergoes only an ellipsis in the figurative statement”. Warren (2002) 120. Bredin (1984a) 46. Here he is referring to tropes in general. However, in context the comment clearly applies to metonymy in particular. Beekman (1967) 14. Cf. Warren (2006) 13: ‘[I]n metonymy the conventional meaning [i.e. of the vehicle] is intact but its referential force is lost’. Le Guern (1973) 14: “[S]i j’invite le lecteur à relire Jakobson, cela n’entraîne pas de ma part une modification interne du sens du mot ‘Jakobson’. La métonymie qui me fait employer le nom de l’auteur pour désigner un ouvrage opère sur un glissement de référence; l’organisation sémique n’est pas modifiée, mais la référence est déplacée de l’auteur sur le livre”.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

45

Procedure for understanding metonymies Finally, it will be useful to conclude this survey by generalizing from Waltereit’s explanation of the process by which one attempts to make sense of the statement “the fish soup didn’t leave a tip”. Having established that the vehicle (“the fish soup”) violates the selection restrictions of the predicate (“didn’t leave a tip”), the infraction has to be accommodated by contiguity-based reference. The selection restrictions of the predicate indicate what kind of linguistic expressions would normally be expected in the given syntactic slot (in this case, a human), and the contiguity relation (between the soup and the customer who ordered it) ensures that the expression will be correctly understood.37

SOLOMON’S PRAYER Having outlined some of the defining characteristics of referential metonymy, we now present our own understanding of the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” [presumably the temple]”,38 which, as we have seen, are not well served by being read in a directional sense. Recognition Within the four verses in question no violation of truth conditions occurs, since it would be possible to address prayer to a building, albeit not particularly meaningfully. However, leaving aside for the moment the above four instances of ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) in 1 Kings 8 (and their parallels in 2 Chron. 6), in the rest of the Hebrew Bible the verbal collocation is followed by YHWH (32×),39 God (3×),40 an idol (1×),41 a god (1×)42 and a human being (4×).43 Of these, three instances of ‫ אל‬introduce that for which the petitioner prays44 and so can be excluded from the study. 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44

Waltereit (1999) 235. Illustrated on p. 17. Num. 11:2; 21:7; Deut. 9:26; 1 Sam. 1:26; 7:5; 8:6; 12:19; 2 Sam. 7:27; 1 Kings 8:44, 48, 54; 2 Kings 4:33; 6:18; 19:20; 20:2; Is. 37:15, 21; 38:2; Jer. 29:7, 12; 32:16; 37:3; 42:2, 4, 20; Jon. 2:2 (EVV 1); 4:2; Ps. 5:3 (EVV 2); 32:6; 2 Chron. 6:34; 32:24; 33:13. Gen. 20:17; Neh. 2:4; 4:3 (EVV 9). Is. 44:17. Is. 45:20. 1 Sam. 1:27; 2 Kings 19:20; Is. 37:21; 45:14. 1 Sam. 1:27; 2 Kings 19:20; Is. 37:21. See p. 20 n. 18.

46

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

In the remaining 38 examples the complement of the preposition ‫אל‬ almost always refers to a deity (‫יהוה‬, ‫אלהים‬, ‫אל‬45), though there is one case where the referent is human.46 In all these instances the complement of the preposition ‫ אל‬is assumed to be capable of both hearing and responding to verbal requests. So, provided the sample is sufficiently representative, the complement of ‫ אל‬is required to be personal.47 Since, therefore, neither hearing nor responding is usually predicated of a building, it is clear that, provided ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) is used in its customary sense, the four instances of praying preceding “this place/house” in 1 Kings 8 represent violations of its selection restrictions and so indicate the presence of a non-literal use of language.48 Interpretation Praying to this place/house This being the case, there are two possibilities, depending on whether it is the verbal collocation (‫[ פלל אל‬hithp.]) or the noun phrase that complements it which is viewed as being figurative. “Praying to” as metaphor If the “praying to” were interpreted metaphorically, “this place/house” would need to be understood literally, i.e. as referring to the temple itself. However, in 1 Kings 8 it is difficult to conceive of a figurative reading of the “praying to” which would make sense when addressed to a building. A metaphorical interpretation of this verbal construction, for example, 45

46

47

48

In the case of Is. 44:17 the worshipper makes “a god, his idol” and prays to that (‫)ושׁאריתו לאל עשׂה לפסלו … ויתפלל אליו‬. Cf. Talstra (1993) 133: “Verses 29 and 30 (and … verses 35 and 42) have a construction which occurs only in the text of Solomon’s prayer: ‫ התפלל‬+ ‫ אל‬+ noun of place. ‫ התפלל‬+ ‫ אל‬is usually linked to the divine name ‫ יהוה‬or to ‫”אלהים‬. Is. 45:14: “[T]he Sabeans … will make supplication to you (‫)אליך יתפללו‬, saying, ‘God is with you alone’”. Here the addressee is human, and so the phrase should presumably be understood in the sense of “entreat”. Cf. the reference to Israelites “stretch[ing] out their hands ‫ אל‬this house”, an action sometimes included as an accompaniment to prayer (1 Kings 8:38 // 2 Chron. 6:29). This collocation (‫ידים‬/‫ )פרשׂ כפים‬is less common than ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.), but also occurs elsewhere with a personal indirect object, usually the Deity: YHWH (Exod. 9:29, 33; Ps. 143:6; Ezra 9:5); “a strange god” (Ps. 44:21 [EVV 20]); God (Job 11:13); “the poor” (Prov. 31:20). An observation obscured by the widespread understanding of the preposition in the sense of “towards”.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

47

would need to designate an activity which in some respect was like49 praying or could be thought of as if 50 it were praying, but was not actually praying. Moreover, whatever it might mean, its contexts in Solomon’s prayer require that it entails both directing a prayer (‫ )תפלה‬and a plea (‫“ )תחנה‬to this place” (vv. 29, 30), and being accompanied not only by implicit appeals for forgiveness (vv. 30, 35–36) and rain (vv. 35–36) but also by unspecified request(s) from any foreigners who have made the journey to “this house” (vv. 41–43). In addition, there is the expectation that YHWH will both hear and respond to whatever the verb’s agents (Solomon [vv. 29, 30], Israel [vv. 30, 35–36] or the foreigner [vv. 42–43]) have “prayed”. Given all the above, it seems much more likely that the verbal construction is intended to be interpreted in the usual sense of “entreating” (or similar). “This place/house” as metonym If, therefore, ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) is understood as “praying to”, it follows that the noun phrase which complements it, i.e. “this place/house”, violates the selection restrictions of that verbal collocation. Consequently,51 and in order to make sense of such noncompliance, the noun phrase (the vehicle) must involve a change in reference52 from that of the temple to an entity (the target) which both satisfies the selection restrictions of the verbal collocation and is in some way related53 to that particular building. Since ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) is normally followed by a personal addressee, the most likely candidate for the change in referent is YHWH,54 since “this place/house” is the addressee of prayers.55

49

50

51 52 53 54

55

Gibbs (1994) 322: “A convenient way of distinguishing [metaphor and metonymy] is to apply the ‘is like’ test … If a nonliteral comparison between two things is meaningful when seen in an X is like Y statement, then it is metaphorical, otherwise it is metonymic”. Warren (2002) 116: “[M]etaphor is hypothetical in nature. Life is thought of as if it were a journey”. For Waltereit’s approach to understanding metonymies in general, see p. 45. P. 44. Pp. 41–42. It could also be the divine “name” (‫)שׁם‬, since, as we discuss in Chapter 4, there is some evidence that it also is personal. Note that, although Solomon “spread out his hands ‫ אל‬heaven” (1 Kings 8:22 // 2 Chron. 6:13), his action could be seen as being directed to the God who is located there.

48

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

The question then arises as to what known divine relationship to the temple the metonymy is relying on, in order for it to be understood. A number of possibilities spring to mind: architect, builder, owner, occupant. The first three of these are particularly important to consider, since should one of them turn out to be the intended target, its use would not say anything about the location of the Deity. As the temple’s architect, builder or owner, there would be no obvious requirement that YHWH be present within the temple. Any one of these interpretations would allow him to be elsewhere, and, should that elsewhere be heaven – in line with the several references to his being there in vv. 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45 and 49 – it would cast no new light on current understandings of the divine location within the prayer. We shall consider these possibilities in turn: Architect or builder In 2 Sam. 7 David is informed by YHWH that, despite his wishing to build the temple himself, he would not be allowed to do so, though his son (i.e. Solomon) would (vv. 5, 12–13). However, there appears to be no clear statement either in that passage or anywhere in the Books of Kings with regard to who was to design the building.56 By contrast, the account in Chronicles credits David with providing Solomon with a plan not only of the temple, but also for its functionaries and contents.57 Some features of that blueprint are outlined in 1 Chron. 28:11–18, after which the narrator explains: All this, in writing at the LORD’S direction, he made clear (‫)השׂכיל‬ to me [David] – the plan of all the works. (v. 19)

There are a number of problems associated with the interpretation of this verse, particularly with regard to the identity of the subject of the verb ‫ השׂכיל‬and the understanding of the prepositional phrase ‫עלי‬.58 However, while opinions differ as to the origin of the writing (‫)כתב‬, with most 56

57

58

Note that some scholars focus on the part played by Hiram and his craftsmen and hence opt for a certain amount of Phoenician influence, e.g. McKenzie’s (2004) 215 reference to “1 Kgs 5–7, where there is no mention of a divine plan, and the temple is apparently designed by Solomon and, at least in part, by the craftsman Hiram of Tyre”. It also refers to his having amassed materials for its construction (1 Chron. 29:2–5), an undertaking which may also imply that he had some hand in its design. For a discussion of the syntactical difficulties involved in understanding this verse see, for example: Knoppers (2004) 923–924; Japhet (1993) 497–498; Rothstein and Hänel (1927) 504–506.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

49

scholars considering that the plan was written by David (albeit under divine inspiration),59 rather than by the Deity himself,60 it is generally thought that YHWH was responsible to a greater or lesser extent for the temple’s design and hence that he was essentially its architect.61 As to the building of the temple, while there are a few texts attributing it to the Deity, with YHWH in Is. 66:2 including it in a short list of “things [his] hand has made” and Ps. 78:69 referring to God as the one who “built his sanctuary like the high heavens”, the majority of references in the Hebrew Bible are to Solomon as the one responsible.62 This is especially so in 1 Kings 8, where the king’s building the temple is mentioned so often63 that any thought of viewing the noun phrase in the prayer (i.e. in the collocation “‫[ פלל אל‬hithp.] this place/house”) as the vehicle targeting a divine builder (YHWH) would seem to be highly unlikely. Nonetheless, if one were to assume that 1 Chron. 28:19, Is. 66:2 and Ps. 78:69 do portray the Deity as either the architect or the builder of the Solomonic temple, there are two reasons why it is improbable that either occupation represented the divine function enabling comprehension of the metonym. First, the effectiveness of a metonym relies on the relationship between the vehicle and target being so well known that mention of the former automatically brings to mind the latter.64 In this case, however, there appears to be little evidence that YHWH’s role in designing or building the temple was so well known that mention of “this place/ 59

60

61

62

63 64

E.g. Williamson (1982) 183: “[T]he most reasonable interpretation seems to be that the plans were made clear to David and that he wrote them down under conscious inspiration (and not that God himself wrote them down …)”. Rather like Moses’ reception of the two stone tablets which are described in the Pentateuch as being “written with the finger of God”. See, for example DeVries (1988) 624: “1 Chr 28:19’s actualization phrase, miyyad YHWH, intends to assure that the ‘writing’ that David received was by, or through, ‘the hand’ (= instrumentality) of Yahweh himself”. Cf. Lynch (2014) 118 n. 164, who alludes to “a long ancient Near Eastern precedent for the divine design of temples”; Haran (1978) 200–201: “Mesopotamian legends … were apt to relate that their temples had been erected in accordance with instructions imparted by the gods themselves”. E.g. 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:1; 5:19 (EVV 5); 6:1, 2, 9, 14, 38; 8:13, 19, 20, 27, 43, 44, 48 et passim. Presumably, however, he did not carry out all the work himself. A number of references in 1 Kings imply the significant involvement of Hiram and his craftsmen (5:32 [EVV 18]; 7:13–14, 40, 45). Rather the references to Solomon’s building the temple are intended to be understood as examples of the CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED metonymy. No doubt the Ps. 78 reference to God as its builder is an example of the same metonymic pattern. Vv. 13, 19, 20, 27, 43, 44, 48. Pp. 42–43.

50

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

house” would immediately call to mind either its divine architect or its divine builder. And secondly, we know of no instances in the Hebrew Bible where a building/dwelling is used as a metonym for either its designer or for the one who erected it. Owner A third possibility is that the noun phrase in the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” is being used as a metonym for YHWH as the owner of the building.65 Proviso Within the Hebrew Bible there are a number of texts implying the Deity’s ownership of the whole world, for example: “The earth is the LORD’s” (Ps. 24:1) and the affirmation that he is the “lord66 of all the earth” (Josh. 3:11).67 That this includes the earth’s contents, and thus, by implication, the Solomonic temple, is made explicit by the psalmist’s quotation of the Deity: If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all that is in it is mine.68

However, the biblical authors do seem to attribute different kinds of ownership to YHWH. On the one hand, everything is his, and so he owns everything. On the other hand, some parts of his creation are represented as being his in a special sense. There are, for example, a number of references to “the LORD’S land”,69 a collocation which suggests that other territories are not his in the same way. In Josh. 22:19 his land is clearly distinguished from that belonging to the Reubenites, Gadites and halftribe of Manasseh: 65

66 67 68

69

This would then be an example of the metonym POSSESSED FOR POSSESSOR. Littlemore (2015) 33 illustrates this with “[t]hen he married money and became an MP”. In other words he married a woman who was wealthy, i.e. someone who had money. See also Radden and Kövecses (1999) 40–41. See below, the section on Nouns, pp. 51–52. See also Josh. 3:13; Mic. 4:13; Zech. 4:14; 6:5; Ps. 97:5. Ps. 50:12, illustrated by v. 10: “For every wild animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills”. See also Is. 66:2: “All these things [heaven, the earth and the temple] are mine”. Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Is. 14:2; Hos. 9:3. Cf. Thompson (1980) 412: “The former land of Canaan was the heritage of Yahweh in a particular way … although he was the God of the whole earth”.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

51

But now, if your land is unclean, cross over into the LORD’s land where the LORD’s tabernacle now stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us [our emphasis].

Similar distinctions are drawn between first-born men or animals (“mine”)70 and any born subsequently, and between Levites (“mine”)71 and members of other tribes. In this study we are concerned with whether the YHWH who owns the entire earth and its contents is also represented as the owner of the Solomonic temple in this special, more restricted sense. We now consider a number of ways in which such divine ownership of the building could be expressed. Preposition ‫ל‬ While in the Hebrew Bible possession is often expressed via the preposition ‫ ל‬in combination with the owner of the item concerned, there are no instances of this construction being used of the Deity in connection with the Solomonic temple, or, indeed, with any sanctuary,72 and so no evidence for its use to express his ownership of the building. It is true that both the material for its construction73 and the silver and gold for its renovation74 are YHWH’s. These observations, however, are presumably particular illustrations of the general claim that everything in the earth is his. Neither text goes on to affirm that he owns the temple in some special sense. Nouns expressing the nature of YHWH’s relationship to the temple The ones most obviously capable of implying possession are ‫ אדון‬and ‫( בעל‬both understood as “lord” and/or “owner” [or similar] by the standard dictionaries). However, neither term is used of YHWH in relation 70 71 72

73 74

Exod. 13:2; 34:19; Num. 3:13; 8:17. See also Lev. 27:26. Num. 3:12, 45; 8:14. In Jenni’s (2000) 77 “Rubrik 225: Zugehörigkeit von Dingen zu Gott” (things belonging to God) he mentions only one example of ‫ ל‬being used of the Deity in connection with a building. 1 Chron. 29:1 refers to the ‫ בירה‬being “not … for mortals but for the LORD (‫ )ליהוה‬God”. While in context this is a clear reference to the temple, it is the only such instance, and so is hardly evidence for a general awareness of YHWH’s ownership of the sanctuary. In addition, it is not clear why Jenni regards it as an example of Lamed ascriptionis (Rubrik 2) in view of his allocation of other references to the temple as a house for (‫ )ל‬the Deity (or his “name”) to Lamed dativum (Rubrik 3, see 3231). 1 Chron. 29:16: “all [YHWH’s] own” (‫)ולך הכל‬. Hag. 2:8: “mine” (‫)לי‬.

52

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

to the temple,75 and so neither is able to provide evidence for divine ownership of the sanctuary.76 Nouns expressing the nature of the temple’s relationship to YHWH DCH identifies a number of nouns implying acquisition or possession77, If any of these nouns were described as YHWH’s, and the resulting phrase used predicatively of the temple, this could indicate his ownership of the building. If it was his possession, then he would be its owner. There are, however, no such instances of the temple being referred to in this way. ‫“( נחלה‬inheritance”) also appears to entail ownership.78 Three texts involving this noun could be taken to support the idea that YHWH was the owner of the temple: Exod. 15:17, Jer. 12:7a and Ps. 79:1. First, Exod. 15:17: You brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession (‫)בהר נחלתך‬, the place, O LORD, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O LORD, that your hands have established.

Many scholars have concluded, partly on the basis of the vocabulary employed here (and also in v. 13), where the “mountain of your own possession”, “your abode” and the “sanctuary” appear to be equated, that the reference to the mountain is really an allusion to the Solomonic temple built on Mount Zion. Were this inference to be correct, it would be an example of the Deity as owner of the temple. The main problem with this, however, is that no one identification of ‫ בהר נחלתך‬currently commands general acceptance. Dozeman indicates that “[t]here is debate whether the reference is to the temple, the land, or both”,79 some wonder whether the expression points to Mount Sinai rather than Mount Zion,80 75

76

77

78

79

80

Likewise with others gleaned from DCH: ‫( גביר‬lord), ‫( סגן‬ruler), ‫( פחה‬governor), ‫( רד‬ruler), ‫( רזון‬ruler), ‫( שׂר‬commander, ruler), ‫( שׁיל‬ruler). ‫ בעל‬is used to express ownership of a house (e.g. in Exod. 22:7 [EVV 8] and Judg. 19:22–23), but, understandably, is not applied to YHWH with reference to the sanctuary. ‫“( אחזה‬possession”), ‫“( חלק‬portion”), ‫“( ירשׁה‬possession”), ‫“( מורשׁה‬possession”), ‫“( סגלה‬possession”), ‫“( קנין‬acquisition”), ‫“( רכושׁ‬possessions”). Cf. DCH 5, 659: “inheritance, possession”; Gesenius (2007) 803: “Erblehensbesitz, Erbbesitz”; Wanke (1997) 731: “possession”; Koehler and Baumgartner (1995) 687: “inalienable, hereditary property”; BDB 635: “possession, property, inheritance”; Siegfried and Stade (1893) 414: “Besitz, Eigentum, Erbbesitz”; Fuerst (1871) 921: “a possession, property”. Dozeman (2009) 326. Cf. Alexander (2017) 304–305 for a useful overview of the issues involved. E.g. Hyatt (1971) 166–167.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

53

while others see the ambiguity as deliberate.81 However, even if the mountain were to be correctly equated with Zion, one would still have to ask whether such an identification was sufficiently well known to cause a reader immediately to recognize that praying ‫ אל‬the temple was intended to be understood as praying to its owner. Secondly, Jer. 12:7a: I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage (‫)נחלתי‬.

The two clauses could represent an example of synonymous parallelism, with “my [YHWH’s] heritage” being equivalent to “my house” (presumably the temple). However, the ‫ נחלתי‬reoccurring in v.8 (“My [YHWH’s] heritage … has lifted up her voice against me”) clearly implies a personal referent, which, assuming that the word means the same in each verse, is more likely to refer to Israel than to the building itself. Thirdly, Ps. 79:1 O God, the nations have come into your inheritance (‫;)בנחלתך‬ they have defiled your holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins.

Mention of the nations entering (‫ )בוא ב‬YHWH’s inheritance eliminates the people as a possible referent of ‫נחלה‬,82 since the verbal collocation strongly implies that its complement is a place. Of the proposed contenders for the latter, i.e. land, temple or city, the land is the most popular,83 though there are those who opt for the temple as a84 referent of the divine inheritance. The latter view would clearly suggest that the psalmist viewed the Deity as its owner. Goldingay, however, has pointed out the lack of any precedent for such an interpretation.85 81 82

83 84

85

E.g. Hamilton (2011) 231–232. Cf. Goldingay (2007) 520 n. 14: “[H]ere the immediate context in v. 1 suggests reference to the place rather than the people, and the verb also points in that direction”; Hupfeld and Nowack (1888) 282: “Denn in diesem Sinn steht ‫ ]נחלתך‬dein Eigentum … hier bei ‫ ָבאוּ‬heil. Land … einschl. der heil. Stadt u. des Tempels”. An interpretation for which there are precedents, e.g. Jer. 2:7; Ps. 68:10 (EVV 9). “A” rather than “the”, because some scholars consider that “your inheritance” has more than one referent. See, for example: Declaissé-Walford, Jacobson and Tanner (2014) 628: “[T]he temple and … Jerusalem … are [both] God’s inheritance”; Vesco (2006) 722: “[L’héritage de YHWH] désigne ici le pays d’Israël (Ps 105,11) et son temple”; Gunkel (1926) 350 n. 1: “Jahves ‫ נחלה‬ist sein Volk, Land, Heiligtum”; Hupfeld and Nowack (1888) 282; see above, n. 82. By contrast, Brueggemann (1984) 71, for example, opts for the building alone, referring to “Yahweh’s special inheritance, the temple”. On this view the first two clauses would display a kind of synonymous parallelism, “your inheritance” being equated with “your holy temple”. Goldingay (2007) 520 n. 14: “BDB takes the word to denote the temple, but this is hard to parallel”.

54

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Verbs DCH identifies several verbal equivalents of “lord”/”master”86 or “acquisition”/”possession”,87 any of which could imply ownership of the verb’s object by its subject. However, of the few that have the Deity as their subject, none refers to the temple as its object. There is thus no evidence from this quarter for YHWH as the owner of the building. Suffixes The occurrence of pronominal suffixes whose antecedent is the Deity and that are attached to the noun ‫ בית‬could be taken to imply YHWH’s ownership of the temple. This would be the case, for example, when humans describe it as “your house”,88 or the Deity refers to it as “my house”. The numerous instances of the collocation ‫“( בית יהוה‬YHWH’s house” or “house of YHWH”) may also be relevant, since “of YHWH” is the same kind of determiner as the pronominal suffix. A house is primarily a dwelling place, and so in any construction involving a literal89 ‫בית‬, whether with a suffix or in the construct, that idea is likely to be prominent. Even so, there are instances where the notion of ownership appears to be uppermost,90 though it is often difficult to determine whether the house is being referred to as a dwelling or as a possession or indeed whether any such distinction is being made at all. In the case of the Deity’s ‫בית‬, the majority of references to YHWH’s house, however expressed, also appear to provide no clues as to whether they are to be understood as his residence or as a building that he owns. However, of the two possibilities, the residence idea is discernible, though only in a few cases. It is achieved by the use of the verb ‫“( ישׁב‬to dwell”) – principally in connection with YHWH’s querying of David’s desire to build him a temple:

86

87

88 89 90

‫“( בעל‬be lord”), ‫“( רדה‬have dominion”), ‫“( רוד‬rule”), ‫“( רזה‬master, dominate”), ‫“( שׁוה‬rule”). ‫“( ירשׁ‬take possession”), ‫“( מהר‬acquire”),‫“( מיר‬procure”), ‫“( נחל‬inherit”), ‫נכר‬ (“acquire, sell”), ‫“( קנה‬acquire”). Mainly in the Psalter. I.e. provided it is not intended as a metonym. As implied, in the case of pronominal suffixes, by references to building one’s house (Deut. 20:5; 22:8; 1 Kings 3:1; 7:1; 9:15; Jer. 22:13; Prov. 24:27 [cf. 2 Chron. 33:20.], giving it away (Num. 22:18; 24:13; 1 Kings 13:8.), dedicating it to YHWH (Lev. 27:14.) and in the case of the construct, by that to not coveting one’s neighbour’s house (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21.).

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

55

Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: Are you the one to build me a house to live in (‫ ?)לשׁבתי‬I have not lived (‫ )ישׁבתי‬in a house since … (2 Sam. 7:5–6 // 1 Chron. 17:4–5)91

By contrast, there are no clear examples of divine temple possession anywhere. None the less, given that the dwelling aspect is made plain, even if only occasionally, it would seem reasonable to suppose that that is the connotation which would most readily come to mind. And in fact, the general scholarly approach seems to be to read the collocation “house of YHWH” in the light of similar expressions common throughout the ancient Near East, and to regard it in the sense of a house for him to inhabit, i.e. a house for YHWH, rather than one that he owns. Deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae There are scholars who view some, at least, of these expressions as having the idiomatic92 sense of conveying YHWH’s ownership of the building: The formulae of Deuteronomy are therefore, above all, an assertion that YHWH is the owner of the temple, they are not the expression of a “theology of the Name”.93 [T]he Temple is “a house for the name” of Yahweh ([1 Kings 8] vv. 16, 17, 18, 20) … not because it contains him but because it is his possession.94 91

92

93

94

Note also Solomon’s address to the Deity on completion of the temple: “I have built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in (‫ )לשׁבתך‬forever” (1 Kings 8:13 // 2 Chron. 6:2). Cf. Ezek. 43:6–7: “I heard someone speaking to me out of the temple (‫)מהבית‬. He said to me: Mortal, this is the place … where I will reside (‫ )אשׁכן‬among the people of Israel forever”. Cf. Richter’s (2002) 37 criticism that “past scholarship has failed to address the deuteronomic idiom as an idiom”. De Vaux (1967) 225: “Les formules du Deutéronome sont donc, avant tout, une affirmation que Yahvé est possesseur du temple, elles ne sont pas l’expression d’une ‘théologie du Nom’”. Walsh (1996) 113. Cf. Schniedewind (2003) 231, re the Josianic reforms: “The concept of the name in both Near Eastern and biblical literature indicates that to put one’s name somewhere meant to claim exclusive ownership”; Richter (2002) 209–211: “Both lešakkēn šemô šām and lāśûm šemô šām are [Biblical Hebrew] equivalents of Akk šuma šakānu … [whose] most fundamental meaning … is to claim something as one’s own by placing one’s name upon it”. Note, however, that in her analysis of the occurrences of “name” in 1 Kings 8 (pp. 76–90) she considers that only the reference to YHWH’s “name [being] invoked on this house” (v. 43) entails a claim of ownership (pp. 83–84); Auld (1986) 62, re 1 Kings 8:29: “The biblical idea of ‘name’ has two main components … The first is ownership: if it has my name on it, it is mine … the Jerusalem shrine belongs to Yahweh”; Laberge (1985) 235, re the name formulae in

56

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Nowadays, however, this is very much a minority view, with most of the scholars who comment on the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae taking a more literal approach and considering instead that the divine ‫שׁם‬ was an entity at least partially distinct from YHWH himself, and thus in some sense present in the cult place / Jerusalem temple. It could be, of course, that the ownership interpretation is correct and represents how the “name” would have been understood after the concept had been introduced – in the same way that, given an appropriate context, today’s native speakers instinctively understand the English idiom “to spill the beans”. However, in view of the current lack of consensus with regard to the interpretation of such formulae, there would seem to be little point in querying whether these references to the divine ‫ שׁם‬were sufficiently well known and understood at the time to establish YHWH’s possession of the building and thus ensure that praying to the temple would automatically have been viewed as praying to YHWH as its owner. It would therefore seem premature to cite the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae as secure evidence for the Deity’s possession of the temple. Summary Of the various ways in which YHWH’s ownership of the temple could be expressed there are no references to his being its ‫ אדון‬or its ‫בעל‬. While there is some scholarly support for the idea that Ps. 79:1 represents the temple as YHWH’s ‫נחלה‬, there are no other examples of the building being described as his “possession” – regardless of which Hebrew noun is considered. Neither are there any verbs indicating that he owns the temple. Further, although suffixes attached to ‫ בית‬or the latter in the construct are able to indicate ownership, we have found no instances of such usage denoting the temple as the Deity’s possession. Finally, the lack of scholarly agreement as to the meaning of the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae undermines any appeal to them as evidence for YHWH’s ownership of the building.

Deuteronomy: “De ces deux types de formule, il semble que lśwm permet de comprendre l’origine de la formule: metre son nom sur quelque chose ou sur quelqu’un pour en prendre possession”. Stade (1888) 247: “Wenn … die Deuteronomisten … die Redensart setzen, daß er seinen ‘Namen’ dort wohnen läßt oder dorthin setzt, so wollen sie sagen, daß er ihn als sein Eigenthum sich erwählt”. For further examples, see Wilson (1995) 5 n. 22.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

57

Hence, as in the case of YHWH as its architect or builder, there appears to be so little evidence for his possessing the temple that the likelihood of “this place/house” being understood as a metonym for God as its owner would appear to be negligible. Occupant Of the four possible relationships linking YHWH to the temple, we are left with “occupant”. This is more promising, since there is evidence within the Hebrew Bible that does link him to the temple in this way. David’s initial conception of the building was as a structure for the Deity to inhabit (2 Sam. 7:1–5 // 1 Chron. 17:1–4), and this is subsequently confirmed in 1 Kings 8:13 // 2 Chron. 6:2. Within the temple’s holy place the bread on the golden table is referred to as the “bread of the Presence (‫”)הפנים‬.95 Moreover, on the assumption that activities within the Solomonic temple conducted “before the LORD (‫”)לפני יהוה‬96 indicate proximity to the Deity, the prepositional phrase also indicates his location within the building. In addition there are a number of references linking the temple to the divine glory,97 a phenomenon generally associated with the divine presence. Given therefore, that within the Hebrew Bible there is evidence for YHWH being located in some way within the temple, it may be that YHWH as its occupant is the relationship on which the metonymy is relying in order for “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” to be understood. If this is the case, the overall collocation therefore conforms to the wellknown98 PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymic pattern. The verb is to be 95 96

97

98

1 Kings 7:48 // 2 Chron. 4:19. 1 Kings 8:28 // 2 Chron. 6:19 (“prays”), 1 Kings 8:59 (“pleaded”), 62 // 2 Chron. 7:4 (“offered sacrifice”); 9:3 (“made [a prayer and a plea]”), 25 (“offering incense”); 2 Kings 19:14 // Is. 37:14 (“spread [a letter]”); Jer. 7:10; 2 Chron. 20:9 (“stand”). Cf. the references to the bronze altar being “before the LORD” (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16:14). See also the discussion on pp. 71–72, reflecting on the significance of the atypical use of ‫ לפני יהוה‬in 1 Kings 8:28, 59, 62 and 65. 1 Kings 8:10–11 // 2 Chron. 5:13–14; Ezek. 9:3; 10:3–4, 18–19; Ps. 26:8; 2 Chron. 7:1–3. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 58: “Places at large may be conceptualized as containers for people, so that we have as a containment metonymy PLACE FOR INHABITANTS, as in the whole town for ‘the people living in the town’”. E.g. “The whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. Every one of them brought a present” (1 Kings 10:24–25); “[H]alf the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off” (Zech. 14:2); “They offered great sacrifices that day and rejoiced … The joy of Jerusalem was heard far away” (Neh. 12:43) [our emphases]. For further examples, see Bullinger (1898) and Keach (1779).

58

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

understood literally, while the noun phrase is a metonymic vehicle targeting the (personal) occupant of the building. We shall explore this possibility in more detail in the next chapter. However, before doing so, and to some extent anticipating the result of that discussion, we now turn to a consideration of possible precedents for the above interpretation of the noun phrase “this place/house”. Precedents If our interpretation is correct, Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8 entails several examples of the metonymy PLACE FOR OCCUPANT(S). Since, therefore, our focus is on the references to praying to “this ‫( מקום‬place) / ‫( בית‬house)” it will be useful, before investigating the identity of their target, to see if there are any precedents within the Hebrew Bible for such words employed in this way. Clearly our case will be stronger if it can be shown that 1 Kings 8 is not the only text in which they exhibit this particular metonymic pattern. ‫“( מקום‬place”) The noun ‫ מקום‬often appears to be used as a blanket term for denoting a location whose exact nature the writers feel no need to specify.99 However, it is also employed as the vehicle in at least two metonymic patterns. In a few texts it clearly stands for a much larger area than the one implied by the literal meaning of the words involved (i.e. PART FOR WHOLE),100 while in two others (see below) ‫ מקום‬can be shown to refer to the people living within its compass (i.e. PLACE FOR INHABITANTS/OCCUPANTS). We shall consider each of the latter in turn.

99

100

E.g. “Send me away, that I may go to ‫( מקומי‬my own home?) and country” (Gen. 30:25), “‫( המקום‬the city/sanctuary?) that the LORD your God will choose” (Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, etc.), “Abner sat by Saul’s side; but David’s ‫( מקום‬seat?) was empty” (1 Sam. 20:25). In Josh. 1:3, when YHWH tells Joshua that “[e]very place (‫ )מקום‬that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you”, he is unlikely to be referring only to the exact spots on which Joshua has trodden. Rather, each place on which he has walked stands for the very much larger tract of land of which it is part. See also Deut. 11:24 and the similar use of “land” (‫ )ארץ‬in Gen. 28:13, Deut. 1:36 and Josh. 14:9.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

59

Gen. 20:13 God has just revealed to Abimelech in a dream the truth about Abraham’s claim that his wife is his sister. Consequently, in response to the king’s “[w]hat were you thinking of, that you did this thing?”, Abraham replies: And when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, I said to her, “This is the kindness you must do me: at every place (‫ )אל כל־המקום‬to which we come, say of me, He is my brother”.

In the NRSV the ‫ אל‬is understood in a locative sense (“at”), and this would be a fairly typical rendering101 of the preposition. However, three things can be said about this. First, the phrase rendered “to which we come” (‫ )אשׁר נבוא שׁמה‬is a subordinate clause qualifying “every place”. The main clause is thus “‫ אל‬every place … say … (‫אל כל־המקום … אמרי‬ …)”.102 Secondly, the usual function of the preposition in the collocation ‫ אמר אל‬is to designate the indirect object of the verb, i.e. its addressee. Within the Hebrew Bible there are no precedents for it being understood in the sense of “at” or “in”.103 If the writer had in fact intended Sarah’s claim to be made “at” every such place, the preposition ‫ ב‬would have been the more obvious choice.104 Thirdly, the more usual rendering of the preposition would be “to”: [T]o every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother,

101

102

103

104

“[A]t every place” (RSV, ASV, RV, KJV), “in every place” (NKJV), “everywhere” (NJB, NIV, NASB, JB), “whatever place” (NAB, JPSA), “wherever” (REB, NEB, Moffatt). A similar construction – though using ‫ ל‬instead of ‫ – אל‬occurs in Josh. 6:22: “Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land …”. “[W]ho had spied out the land” qualifies “the two men”, and the main clause is therefore: … ‫ולשׁנים האנשׁים … אמר יהושׁע‬. Within the Hebrew Bible there is only one other instance of ‫ אמר אל‬involving a place as the complement of the preposition. Nevertheless, here also the preposition is used in its customary sense of “to”. In Jer. 26:4a the prophet is instructed “say to them (‫”… )ואמרת אליהם‬. In this case the 3rd pers. masc. pl. suffix refers back to “all the cities of Judah” (v. 2), but the preposition cannot designate the location of the prophet’s speaking (i.e. “say in all the cities of Judah”) since that has already been stipulated: he is to “[s]tand in (‫ )ב‬the court of the LORD’s house” (v. 2). Rather, it introduces the indirect object of the verb ‫אמר‬, thus indicating that he is to address “all the cities of Judah”: “say to them” (the usual rendering). For examples of ‫ אמר‬taking place at locations specified by the use of ‫ב‬, see: Exod. 4:19 (“in Midian”); 12:1 (“in the land of Egypt”); Num. 20:23 (“at Mount Hor”); Jer. 28:1 (“in the house of the LORD”); 31:23 (“in the land of Judah and in its towns”); 40:15 (“at Mizpah”); Ezek. 20:18 (“in the wilderness”); Amos 5:16 (“in all the streets”); Jon. 3:7 (“in Nineveh”); Ps. 29:9 (“in his temple”); Prov. 1:21 (“at the entrance of the city gates”).

60

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

thus entailing (in this case) Sarah being requested to address every place which they visited. Since elsewhere the addressee is always personal, the most likely interpretation is that ‫ כל־המקום‬is intended to be understood metonymically. Thus, although the vehicle itself (‫ )כל־המקום‬is impersonal, its target is personal (i.e. the inhabitants105 of such places), and therefore the usage of ‫ אמר אל‬in Gen. 20:13 is consistent with that in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Such a literary phenomenon, in which speech is directed to a location, i.e. rather than to its inhabitants, though with the latter as the intended target, is fairly common within the Hebrew Bible.106 1 Sam. 30:31b In 1 Sam. 30:26–31, after his victory over the Ammonites, David sends part of the spoil to the elders in Judah for the benefit of (‫ )ל‬the inhabitants of the cities listed in vv. 27–31: [I]t was for those (‫ )לאשׁר‬in Bethel, (‫ )ולאשׁר‬in Ramoth of the Negeb … (‫ )ולאשׁר‬in Hebron, (‫ול‬107) all the places where David and his men had roamed.

With most of the cities mentioned, their inhabitants are specified using the relative pronoun and the preposition ‫ב‬: … ‫“( לאשׁר ב‬for those in” Bethel, Ramoth of the Negeb, etc.). However, the final item – a generalization – does not read … ‫“( ולאשׁר בכל־המקמות‬and for those in all 105

106

107

Cf. TEV: “You can show how loyal you are to me by telling everyone that I am your brother [our emphasis]”. E.g. “When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer (‫ )וקראת‬it terms of peace” (Deut. 20:10); “[I]s it not he [YHWH] whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying (‫ )ויאמר‬to Judah and Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?’” (2 Kings 18:22); “[S]ay (‫ )אמרי‬to the cities of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’” (Is. 40:9); “You, mortal … will you judge the bloody city? Then declare (‫ )והודעתה‬to it all its abominable deeds” (Ezek. 22:2); “What are you (‫ )אתם‬to me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the regions of Philistia? … you have taken (‫ )לקחתם‬my silver and my gold, and have carried (‫ )הבאתם‬my rich treasures into your temples” (Joel 4:4–5 [EVV 3:4–5]); “Go … to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out (‫)וקרא‬ against it; for their wickedness has come up before me” (Jon. 1:2; cf. 3:2); “Sing (‫ )שׁירו‬to God, O kingdoms of the earth; sing praises (‫ )זמרו‬to the Lord” (Ps. 68:33 [EVV 32]). Note that NRSV’s omission of the initial conjuction of v. 31b (‫ )ול‬implies that the half verse stands in apposition to vv. 27–31a, and is thus explanatory of the latter: “namely, all the places …”. Cf. Omanson and Ellington (2001) 611–612. This, however, does not affect the argument, since the complement of the 31b ‫ ל‬will be closely related to those of the ‫ל‬s in vv. 27–31a, namely the recipients of the spoil. Since the latter are specified as the inhabitants of the listed cities (‫)לאשׁר ב־‬, v. 31b must also refer to them.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

61

the places …”) but omits both the relative pronoun and the preposition: … ‫“( ולכל־המקמות‬and for all the places …”). Here, ‫ המקמות‬clearly refers to the inhabitants108 of those places, and is thus another example of ‫ מקום‬being used metonymically. ‫“( בית‬house”) In attempting to find examples of the word ‫ בית‬understood as a building/dwelling, but used as a vehicle to refer to those living within it, there is a problem which does not occur with the majority of nouns employed in a PLACE FOR INHABITANTS/OCCUPANTS metonymy. In addition to other usages,109 ‫ בית‬occurs in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning not only of “building/dwelling” but also of “household/family”. The obvious connection between the two is that the latter is a collective term for the occupants of the former. Moreover, that the same word can designate both of these entities can be explained on the assumption that at some stage ‫( בית‬in the sense of a building/dwelling) began to be used as the vehicle in a PLACE FOR INHABITANTS/OCCUPANTS metonymy, the intended target being those living within it.110 In time such usage no doubt became so commonplace that a semantic development occurred,111 with the result that ‫ בית‬came to designate not only the building/dwelling, but also its occupants – hence the frequent rendering “household” or “family” – as 108 109 110

111

Cf. NIV: “and to those in all the other places [our emphasis]”. Such as “tribe” or “dynasty”. Cf. Jenni (1997b) 235: “In Hebr. as in the related languages, the meaning of ‘house’ shifts frequently to the contents of the house … and particularly to the household living in the house … A more specifically constituted metonymy ‘house > inhabitant’ occurs in …”; Goldberg (1980) 105: “By metonymy the word can denote what is in the house”. Cf. Reddy (1993) 179: “[M]etonymy [is] a process of meaning extension … That is, when two entities are always found together in our experience, the name of one of them … will develop a new sense which refers to the other”. E.g. Stéphane (2008) 69: “Metonymical shifts can happen repeatedly in the history of a word. Thus the French term bureau initially designated a piece of rough cloth (bure) placed on a table where one worked. Then, through metonymy, it designated the table itself (‘desk’), before, through a second metonymy, coming to designate the room where the table is found (‘office’)”; Waldron (1979) 188: “[T]he word tea, adopted in English in the early seventeenth century … at first refers only to the tea-plant or the drink made from its leaves; in the next century, however, it is used to denote the afternoon meal at which tea is drunk”; Ullmann (1962) 163–164: “Metaphor is not the only figure which can give rise to polysemy. Metonymy … may work in the same way … board can mean, among other things, a table as well as the persons sitting round the council-table. Surgery can refer to the art of a surgeon, and also to the room where patients are seen and medicine is dispensed”.

62

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

witnessed by the standard dictionaries112 and regularly employed in various translations. One obvious result of this extension in meaning is that it is now difficult to find in the Hebrew Bible examples where, according to the context, it is clear that ‫ בית‬designates a building/dwelling rather than a “household”, but at the same time is being used as a metonym to refer to its occupants. Nevertheless, and despite this, it would seem reasonable to suppose that, in view of the nature of the semantic development which appears to have occurred, the metonymical use of ‫ בית‬as the vehicle for a reference to its occupants was a phenomenon with which the readers of 1 Kings 8 could well have been familiar. There is, however, one instance of ‫ בית‬in the Hebrew Bible in which it is employed in the sense of the building (here usually understood as “temple”), but where it is almost certainly intended to be understood as referring to its occupants. It is found at the end of 1 Samuel: 1 Sam. 31:9 Following the death of Saul and three of his sons at the hands of the Philistines, the latter discover their bodies on Mount Gilboa: They cut off [Saul’s] head, stripped off his armor, and sent messengers113 throughout the land of the Philistines to carry the good news to the houses of their idols (‫בית עצביהם‬114) and to the people.

In the Hebrew the verb rendered “carry the good news” (‫[ בשׂר‬Pi.]) is not followed by a preposition, and so it is necessary to determine its relationship to the noun phrase (“house115 of their idols”) which follows it. Is the information conveyed “to” their house or “in” it?

112

113

114

115

E.g. DCH 2, 151: “Household, family (although distinction between household and house oft. unclear)”; Koehler and Baumgartner (1994) 125: “inmates of a house, family”; “‫;”בּיִ ת‬ ַ Goldberg (1980) 105: “‫( ַבּיִ ת‬bayît) house, household”; Gesenius (1987) 144: “übertr[agen] Familie … Hausstand”; BDB 109: “household, family”. The direct object of the verb ‫ שׁלח‬is not specified, and so it is not clear whether that which is sent is Saul’s head and weapons (as implied by v. 9a) or messengers (as suggested by the proclamation mentioned later in the verse). Resolution of the dilemma tends to depend on whether the verb is vocalized as a piel (as in the MT) or a qal. See, for example, Hunziker-Rodewald (2004) 282–283 and Driver (1913) 229. The outcome, however, does not affect the question at issue. The ‫ בית‬of the MT is supported by the Peshitta, Targum and Vulgate, but the LXX does not include the word “house”. The Hebrew is singular.

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

63

A number of English translations and commentators understand the relationship as indicating where the good news is to be announced, i.e. in or at the Philistines’ temple.116 However, while there are not that many occurrences of the verb (‫[ בשׂר‬Pi.]) in the Hebrew Bible from which to generalize, such evidence as there is militates against this interpretation. Were such a locative sense intended, it seems likely that the preposition ‫ ב‬would have been used – as in 2 Sam. 1:20 (“proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon [‫ )”]אל־תבשׂרו בחוצת אשׁקלון‬and Ps. 40:10 (EVV 9) (“I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation [‫)”]בשׂרתי צדק בקהל רב‬. By contrast, there are three instances of the verb being followed by a direct object representing (with and without the object marker) the addressee of the verb: 2 Sam. 18:19 (Ahimaaz volunteers to “carry tidings to the king [‫)”]ואבשׂרה את־המלך‬, Is. 61:1 (“the LORD … has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed [‫ )”]לבשׂר ענוים‬and Jer. 20:15 (Jeremiah curses “the man who brought the news to my father [‫)”]בשׂר את־אבי‬. Thus, the most likely understanding of the syntax of 1 Sam. 31:9 is that “house of their idols” represents the addressee of the verb ‫בשׂר‬. Hence, the proclamation of Saul’s death is to the Philistines’ temple rather than in it. The verse therefore constitutes a clear instance of verbal address to a temple, and would also appear to be an example of the PLACE FOR INHABITANTS/OCCUPANTS metonymy. As such it denotes a proclamation to those present within the building. The writer distinguishes them from “the people” (‫)העם‬, and so the implied addressees could be either the idols themselves117 or the priests who serve them. Either way, the figure is closely similar to that found in Solomon’s prayer. Summary Within the Hebrew Bible as a whole there are numerous examples of the PLACE FOR INHABITANTS/OCCUPANTS metonymy, generally involving vehicles such as earth, kingdoms, cities or toponyms.118 In this connection 116

117

118

NKJV, JPSA, NIV, KJV: “in the house/temple(s) of their idols”. See also Miscall (1986) 182; Stolz (1981) 182; Hertzberg (1965) 188; Ketter (1940) 183; Schulz (1919) 411, 415. NB. If these are the intended addressees, there is no difference in meaning between the MT (which includes house) and the LXX (which does not). In both cases the proclamation is addressed to the Philistines’ idols, and only the literary means by which this is conveyed distinguishes the two: direct (LXX) or via the metonymy (MT). For examples of speech being directed to a location, see above, n. 106.

64

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

we have located a number of clear precedents for the specific instances of ‫ מקום‬and ‫ בית‬in Solomon’s prayer being used in the same way.119 The former occurs in Gen. 20:13 and 1 Sam. 30:31, while evidence for the latter (in the sense of a building/dwelling) is found not only in 1 Sam. 31:9 but also in its extension in meaning to include that of “household” or similar. The latter development witnesses to its widespread use at an earlier period as a metonym for its occupants. It is important to note that two of these texts entail speech addressed to a location, and so provide parallels to the specific phenomenon of prayer to the temple within 1 Kings 8. In Gen. 20:13 every “place” is to be informed that Abraham is Sarah’s brother, while in 1 Sam. 31:9 the “house” of the Philistines’ idols is to be told the good news of the death of Saul and his three sons. These are most readily understood as addresses to the occupants of every “place” and of the Philistines’ temple respectively. Conclusion Given the problems attendant on interpreting “praying to” (‫פלל אל‬ [hithp.]) the temple in a directional sense, we have argued that its four occurrences in 1 Kings 8 should be understood figuratively, since the verbal collocation is normally required to take a personal noun complement. Of the two main tropes which might make sense of this, metaphor or metonymy, it is difficult to see how praying to a building could be understood in terms of the former. By contrast, the need for a personal addressee as implied by violation of the verb’s selection restrictions and reinforced by additional evidence from its immediate literary contexts, suggests the operation of the latter. Hence, in the references to “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”, i.e. to the building, the noun phrase is a metonymic vehicle pointing to a personal target who, in order for the figure to be understood, has to have a well-known connection to the temple. The most likely addressee is the Deity, or perhaps, as will be argued in Chapter 4, his ‫שׁם‬. Four possible relationships to the temple have been considered. However, the scant evidence for any divine role in designing, erecting or possessing the building effectively excludes the possibility that references to “this place/house” will inexorably call to mind its divine archi119

Since within the prayer both nouns are employed to denote the temple (a possible dwelling-place), such examples could easily be extended by including similar usages of the word “tent” (‫)אהל‬. See, for example, Zech. 12:7 and Ps. 83:7 (EVV 6).

SOLOMON’S PRAYER

65

tect, builder or owner. By contrast, there is, throughout the Hebrew Bible, much evidence for YHWH’s sometime presence within the Solomonic temple, and so the metonym is likely to be an example of the PLACE FOR INHABITANTS/OCCUPANTS pattern. The vehicles in this interpretation are the nouns ‫ מקום‬and ‫בית‬, and in both cases there is evidence outside Solomon’s prayer for their not only displaying the same metonymic behaviour, but also being addressed in such a way as to target those who live within their compass. It is clear that understanding the “praying ‫אל‬ this place/house” in 1 Kings 8 in terms of the inhabitant(s)/occupant(s) of the building is consistent with the normal usage of the verbal collocation ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) and is also not without precedent in the Hebrew Bible in its interpretation of the two nouns concerned.

4

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE So far we have argued that, within Solomon’s prayer, the most likely interpretation of the four references to praying ‫ אל‬the temple is that they are examples of a metonymy conforming to the well-established1 PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS pattern. In this case the noun phrase (“this place/house”) is the vehicle and so raises the question as to the identity of the intended target.

THE TARGET OF THE

PRAYING

Given the familiar nature of the above pattern, we saw in Chapter 3 that the implied referent must exhibit a number of characteristics. As befits any referential metonymy, the vehicle and target must be connected in an appropriate way,2 with their relationship being both extra-linguistic3 and so familiar that mention of the former in the given context automatically calls to mind the latter.4 In addition, and in this particular case, the target needs to comply with the selection restrictions of the verb “to pray” (‫[ פלל אל‬hithp.]) of which it is the indirect object.5 Identification With these provisos in mind there would appear to be two possible candidates for the intended target: YHWH or his “name”. Note that, either way, the referent is singular, since only one entity is involved. This contrasts with the majority of instances of the PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymy, in which the target tends to be plural, as it designates the inhabitants6 of the earth, kingdom, cities, toponyms, etc. There is, 1 2 3 4 5 6

For three more examples see below, n. 6. Pp. 41–42. P. 42. Pp. 42–43. Pp. 45–46. E.g. of the world (Gen. 41:57), a city (1 Sam. 4:13) and Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:14).

68

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

however, at least one clear7 precedent for this unusual feature of our interpretation of the four expressions in Solomon’s prayer. It occurs in Dan. 4, which deals with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a gigantic tree and the heavenly “watcher”, who requires it to be cut down. The king’s experts are unable to provide him with an interpretation, but Daniel explains that the command to leave the stumps of its roots means that your kingdom shall be re-established for you from the time that you learn that Heaven (‫ )שׁמיא‬is sovereign. (v. 23 [EVV 26])

The surrounding context contains several references to the necessity of the king knowing/learning that it is “the Most High” who has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals.8 Consequently, it would appear that in the above verse “Heaven” is being employed as a vehicle for the One who is located there.9 Admittedly, the chapter is written in Aramaic, but it does provide an example of a PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymy in which, like the collocation in 1 Kings 8, the target is singular. This use of the word “Heaven” as a metonym targeting the Deity has been noted by Houtman,10 who likens it to the frequent adoption of the phrase “The White House” to refer to the President of the United States.11 While only a few other scholars characterize it as metonymy,12 the majority who comment on the significance of “heaven” in v. 23 (EVV 26) generally accept that it is the Deity to whom reference is being made.13 7

8 9

10

11

12

13

In Is. 7 one man, king Ahaz, is twice referred to as “house of David” (vv. 2, 13), though here “house” no longer denotes the dwelling, but has itself undergone a number of metonymic shifts and now alludes to the royal dynasty. Vv. 14, 22, 29 (EVV. 17, 25, 32). Dan. 4:23 (EVV. 26) is widely considered to be the only instance in the Hebrew Bible of “heaven” being employed in this way. Houtman (1993) 107–110, esp. 108: “Immer wieder wird der Gebrauch von ‘Himmel’ für Gott als eine verkürzte Form der Bezeichnung ‘Gott des Himmels’ verstanden … Diese metonymische Verwendung von ‘Himmel’ …”. In addition he raises the possibility that 1 Sam. 5:12 and 2 Chron. 32:20 might also display the same phenomenon. P. 108: “Unserer Meinung nach stoßen wir hier auf ein gleichartiges Phänomen wie z.B. … die Bezeichung ‘das Weiße Haus’ für den Präsidenten der U.S.A.”. Note that he also surmises that ‫ שׁלטן שׁמיא‬in Dan. 4:23 (EVV 26) may conjure up a picture of the Most High “umringt von seinen Dienern, die als seine Deligierten auftreten” (p. 109). Leupold (1949) 193: “By an obvious metonymy ‘the heavens’ are mentioned for the King of the heavens”. Cf. Driver (1905) 53–54: “[t]he use of ‘heaven,’ either as a metonym, or as an expression of reverence, for God …”. Terminology used to describe the function of ‫ שׁמיא‬in v. 23 (EVV 26) includes “periphrasis” (Lucas [2002] 112; Russell [1981] 78; Farrar [1895] 194), “surrogate” (Goldingay [1989] 89; Hartman [1978] 173; Young [1949] 107; Montgomery [1927] 242), “synonym” (Lederach [1994] 98; Baldwin [1978] 113; Charles [1929] 97) and “Umschreibung” (Maier [1982] 188; Plöger [1965] 71; Marti [1901] 31).

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

69

Returning to the four instances of “prayer to the temple”, we will now consider together the two candidates for the identity of their target. Vehicle and target must be related For an entity to qualify as a possible target of the noun phrase “this place/house”, its relationship to the temple must conform to the metonymic pattern PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS. We therefore require independent evidence for each of the Deity and his ‫ שׁם‬being at some time present within the building.14 With regard to YHWH himself there are a number of indications. First, while there are no non-figurative expressions of divine presence included in the prayer itself, its immediate literary context does contain several features which not only associate the Deity with the temple but also locate him within it. The more obvious ones are in the earlier part of the chapter: And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. (vv. 10–11) Then Solomon said, “The LORD has said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever”. (vv. 12–13)

The mention of the cloud and/or glory of the LORD (vv. 10–11) are generally taken to indicate the presence of YHWH within the building,15 14

15

This is not to prejudge the identity of the target of the noun phrase “this place/house”. Rather, it is to consider whether there is or ever has been a connection between the temple and either candidate, one which involves the latter occupying the former. E.g. Fritz (2003) 89: “The cloud accompanies God … the priests are unable to serve in the temple when it was filled with God’s presence and glory”; Werlitz (2002) 93–94: “Gott [nimmt] vom Tempel als Wohn- bzw. Erscheinungsstätte Besitz. … Als Zeichen der unsichtbaren Anwesenheit Gottes ist die Wolke ein verbreitetes Motiv in der Hebräischen Bibel”; Cogan (2001) 291: “Through the image of the divine presence in the cloud, YHWH is depicted as taking up residence in His house (vv. 10–11)”; Brueggemann (2000) 106: “[T]he coming of the cloud of glory is a priestly way to voice the concrete and overwhelming presence of Yahweh in the sanctuary (8:10–11)”; Linville (1998) 280: “[T]he cloud, ‫ענן‬, signif[ies] Yahweh’s presence … [T]he god who led Israel from Egypt has … moved into the house built for his name”; Nelson (1987) 51: “A voice in the priestly tradition … describes God’s presence in the temple in terms of God’s ‘glory’ and the cloud that filled the tabernacle (vv. 10–11 …)”; DeVries (1985) 128: “[A] realistic … representation of God’s presence … [is seen] in the ‘glory ‫ ’כבוד‬that fills the temple in the hieros logos”; Jones (1984) 195–196: “[A] cloud filled

70

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

while use of the verb to “dwell”, whether ‫( שׁכן‬v. 12) or ‫( ישׁב‬v. 13), is invariably viewed as situating its subject at the stated dwelling-place. Hence the references to “dwell[ing] in thick darkness (‫”)בערפל‬16 – frequently identified with the ‫ – דביר‬and “the place for [YHWH] to dwell in for ever”17 are both viewed as locating him in the temple. Secondly, within 1 Kings 8 the temple is referred to as “the house of YHWH” in vv. 10, 11, 63 and 64.18 This collocation and others in the Hebrew Bible which also involve the construct of the noun followed by the name of a god are usually considered to designate the place where that particular deity resides. Haran’s explanation would be typical: [I]n biblical Hebrew … the basic term [i.e. for “temple”], which defines and specifies the building erected by Solomon in Jerusalem, as well as other buildings of the same category found in Israel in other places, is bêt Yahweh, “house of Yahweh”, or bêt ʼelōhîm, “house of God”. This name arises from the concept of divine residence and expresses the intrinsic nature of the institution, which was primarily conceived as the god’s dwelling place.19

16

17

18 19

the temple … the glory of the LORD filled it. The clear message is that … God was present there”; Brongers (1967) 92: “De wolk is beeld van de kābōd van YHWH en als zodanig het teken van zijn tegenwoordigheid”; Fichtner (1964) 135: “ein jüngerer Ergänzer … der die Gegenwart Gottes auf Erden mit dem ‘kebôd Jahwe’ umschreibt”; Weiser (1950) 523: “1 Kön 8 10f. … (Darstellung der Rauchwolke, die die Gegenwart Jahwes in der Wolke symbolisiert)”; Hammond (1906) 151: “The cloud and the glory … assured [Solomon] that … the incomprehensible Godhead had entered the earthly shrine … and would dwell there”; Skinner (n.d.) 142: “the appearing of the glory of Yahweh in the form of a cloud … the visible token that Yahweh has taken up His abode in the new temple”. Fretheim (1999) 53: “The reference to thick darkness (v. 12) also makes clear that the God who is present remains a mystery and cannot be domesticated”; Buis (1997) 79–80: “[L]e mot arâfèl … [est] un phénomène surnaturel montrant et cachant à la fois le Dieu invisible”; Nelson (1987) 51–52: “God has promised to dwell mysteriously in the thick darkness … the earthly focus of God’s presence is the temple”; Mettinger (1982) 28: “[W]e encounter šākan in the classical passage expressing the theology of the Presence, when the Lord says that he ‘would dwell [liškōn] in thick darkness’”; Terrien (1978) 194: “[T]he term [ʽaraphel] … conveyed the symbol of the hiddenness of God at the exact moment of his proximity”. Cf. Cross (1973) 299, who refers to “the verb škn, used in archaic contexts of the immanence of the deity in his shrine”. Hens-Piazza (2006) 79: “Israel’s God is permanently housed in the temple … where according to Solomon, ‘you [will] dwell in forever’ (v. 13)”; Fritz (2003) 92: “[Yahweh’s] dwelling in the temple … determines a strong theology of presence”; Brueggemann (2000) 117: “[I]n vv. 12–13 … use of the term ‘dwell’ (yashav) means to sit or abide permanently, suggesting that Yahweh is there and will never leave”; Mulder (1998) 398: “In [vv. 12 and 13] both verbs [‫ שׁכן‬and ‫ ]ישׁב‬are connected with and applied to the divine presence of YHWH in the temple”; Rehm (1979) 99: “Nach dem Weihespruch v. 13 ist Jahwe selbst … im Tempel zugegen”. LXX lacks “of YHWH” in vv. 10 and 11. Haran (1978) 13. See also Keel, Knauf and Staubli (2004) 7: “Was wir mit dem lateinischen Wort Tempel (templum) bezeichnen, heißt auf Hebräisch ‘Haus Gottes’

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

71

This idea is evidenced in both 1 Sam. 5:1–5, where the house of Dagon contains Dagon himself (vv. 2, 3 and 4), and 2 Sam. 7 where the initial conception of the first temple is as a dwelling for YHWH (v. 5). Thirdly, these indications of God’s presence within the building are supported by four atypical instances of the preposition ‫“( לפני‬before”) employed in the chapter in conjunction with YHWH.20 They are found in vv. 28, 59, 62 and 65 and are used instead of the one most commonly associated with the particular verb concerned. Thus, “praying” (v. 28) and “pleading” (v. 59) normally occur ‫“( אל‬to”) the Deity, while “offering” (v. 62) and “holding a festival” (v. 65) are generally carried out ‫“( ל‬to”) him. This uncharacteristic usage is particularly significant in vv. 28 and 59, since both activities are presented as taking place within the temple. Hence, rather than employing prepositions (i.e. ‫ אל‬or ‫ )ל‬which would merely indicate Solomon’s addressee, the writer(s) appear(s) to have shown a distinct bias21 in favour of one which has the ability to denote a spatial22 relationship between the subject of the verb and the Deity ‫ לפני‬whom the activity is performed. This could be taken to indicate the subject’s proximity to YHWH and thus the location of the latter within the building. If the preposition is understood in this locative sense,

20

21

22

(bet-elohim), ‘Haus JHWHs bzw. Haus des Herrn’ (bet-jhwh bzw. bet-adonai) … Wie der irdische König … eine prachtvolle Wohnanlage besaß, so sollte auch die göttliche Macht ihr Haus haben”; Meyers (2011) 1025: “The essential nature of such a building … is revealed in the two Hebrew terms translated ‘temple’: bayit, ‘house [of God],’ and hekal, ‘[the LORD’s] palace’ … Both … conceptualize such a structure as a residence or dwelling for the deity”. Cf. Wilson (1995) 147–153 for similarly abnormal uses of the preposition in Deut. 12–26. It is difficult to know whether the writer(s) employing ‫ לפני יהוה‬in these verses knew about the more accustomed usage (found in earlier parts of the Deuteronomistic History), and thus whether they had chosen such an atypical preposition deliberately. While it is the case that the more usual prepositions do occur within the chapter (‫ אל‬is used with “praying” [vv. 29, 30, 33, 35, 42, 44, 48 and 54] and “pleading” [vv. 33 and 47], while ‫ ל‬occurs with “offering” [v. 63]), most of them do so within the prayer. Unfortunately, the latter is generally regarded as coming from one or more deuteronomistic hands and, in consequence, is thought to be much later than the majority of the verses in which ‫ לפני‬is combined with ‫יהוה‬. Hence, the prayer cannot be appealed to as evidence that the writer(s) were aware of the conventional usage. E.g. Gesenius (2007) 1062: “lok[al] vor einer P[e]rs[on] od. S[ache]”; Simian-Yofre (2001) 608: “In the static spatial sense, lipnê means ‘before’”; Reindl (1970) 19: “‫לפני‬ ist eine Präposition zur Ortsangabe … ‫ לפני‬bezeichnet häufig den Ort, an dem sich etwas befindet (Ruhelage)”; Nötscher (1969) 6: “‫ … לפני‬bezeichnet bei Personen sowohl die räumliche Nähe als …”; Rabban (1952) 6: “[t]he word ‘‫ ’לפני‬as a preposition of place [‫ ”]תבת ’לפני‘ בתור מלת־יחס‬BDB 816: “the most general word for in the presence of, before”.

72

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

then it provides further confirmation that, in the literary context surrounding the prayer, YHWH is represented as being present in the temple.23 As far as the divine “name” is concerned, evidence for its presence within the building is thought to be found in both Deuteronomy and Kings. In the former the ‫ שׁם‬is referred to a number of times as either “dwelling (‫[ שׁכן‬piel])” (12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2) or being “put/ set (‫( ”)שׂים‬12:5, 21; 14:24) at “the place that the LORD your God will choose”. And since the latter designation is frequently identified as the Jerusalem temple, both verbs have been viewed as implying the localization of the divine “name” within the building.24 Similarly, 1 Kings 8:16 and 29 both refer to it being “there” (‫)שׁם‬: Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there (‫)להיות שׁמי שׁם‬. (1 Kings 8:16) Regard your servant’s prayer … O LORD … that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you said, “My name shall be there (‫”)יהיה שׁמי שׁם‬. (1 Kings 8:28–29)

Hence, there does seem to be evidence for the presence of both YHWH and his ‫ שׁם‬within the building and thus conformity with the requirement that the desired target be its occupant. The relationship must exist in the external world The connection between YHWH and the temple is no mere linguistic one, but is intended to refer to an objective phenomenon occurring in the real world. This is implied by the fact that the above texts linking the two are all found in a chapter (1 Kings 8) which is presented as historical narrative. While most commentators appear to take this for granted, Buis notes that vv. 1–13 express the idea that God is materially present in the

23

24

Cf. Hundley (2009) 541 n. 34: “The expression before the Lord (‫ )לפני יהוה‬crops up in the closing verses [of 1 Kings 8] … the most basic sense is locative, suggesting that the people are in fact in God’s proximate presence”; Talstra (1993) 139: “I Kgs. 8 … mentions the prayer in the temple ‘before God’ (v. 28), that is to say, ‘in the presence of God’”; Haran (1978) 26: “In general … the formula ‘before the LORD’ … stems from the basic conception of the temple as a divine dwelling-place”; Šanda (1911) 227: “Nach diesem Vers [28] ist Jahve als im Debir thronend gedacht (cf. ‫”)לפניך‬. There are numerous references to the temple being built ‫( ל‬for/to?) YHWH’s name: 2 Samuel 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2; 5:17, 19, 19 (EVV 3, 5, 5); 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44 and 48. However, it is not entirely clear whether they imply the presence of the ‫ שׁם‬within the building or describe some other kind of relationship between the two.

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

73

sanctuary,25 and Levenson observes that the theology of the Temple as a place of prayer was introduced as an implicit polemic against the belief that “God is literally, even physically present therein [our emphasis]”.26 Similarly, scholars’ references to the divine ‫ שׁם‬residing, being present, localized, etc.27 within the Solomonic temple would seem to imply a general acceptance of the existence of some sort of objective relationship. There are, however, a few scholars whose remarks seem to spell out the “real world” connection more clearly. Mulder refers to YHWH’s “name” being “almost literally present and palpable, and capable of dwelling in a house”,28 McBride to it being “present at the cult place in a more or less physical and enduring way”29 and von Rad to an “almost material presence of the name at the shrine [our emphases]”.30 The connection must be well known We have already noted31 that within the Hebrew Bible there is evidence for the collocation “house of YHWH” being understood as a divine dwelling place. More generally, however, the idea of temples as residences for deities is thought to have been commonly held throughout the ancient Near East.32 The following two examples would be reasonably 25

26

27

28 29 30

31 32

Buis (1997) 80: “Tout ce morceau exprime l’idée que Dieu est matériellement présent dans le sanctuaire”. Levenson (1981) 159. See also Brueggemann (2000) 106, who refers to the “high temple theology with its claim to the palpable presence of Yahweh … [t]hat is … Yahweh is really here” (cf. idem, pp. 110, 117); Nelson (1987) 59: “God is ‘really present’ in the temple in cloud, glory, and ark (vv. 3–13)”. E.g. Mulder (1998) 417, re v. 29: “[T]he ‘name’ of YHWH dwells in the sanctuary”; Buis (1997) 81: “Les vv. 16–20 exposent la conception deutéronomiste du temple … le nom de YHWH … y sera présent”; Knoppers (1994) 236: “[T]he temple is the permanent domicile for YHWH’s name”; Hurowitz (1992) 267: “The Deuteronomist … saw the temple as a place where God’s name resided but not where God himself could be found”; Nelson (1987) 52: “God … does not actually reside in [the temple] … but God’s ‘name’ … is present there”; Auld (1986) 62: “[T]he Jerusalem shrine belongs to Yahweh, and the presence of his ‘name’ there makes …”; Metzger (1970) 150: “Der Tempel ist die Stätte, an der der Name Jahwes ‘anwesend ist’”; Fichtner (1964) 138–139: “dem Haus, in dem sein Name … Wohnung genommen habe”; Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 194: “[W]ith the building of the temple … it was … [YHWH’s] Name … that was in residence”. Mulder (1998) 134. McBride (1969) 3. Von Rad (1953) 38. Cf. Dumermuth (1958) 70, who describes it as “fast dinglich lokalisierbar”. Pp. 54–55 and 70–71. Cf. Hundley (2013) 11: “The ancient Near Eastern temple … was a physical, terrestrial abode … the home of a god”; Stevens (2006) 5: “Throughout the ANE, the most

74

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

representative. In the first (Sumerian from the late third millennium BCE) Gudea prays to the deity and his consort: Ningirsu, I built you your House [i.e. the temple Eninnu], may you enter it with joy. (And he added) My Bau, I erected your women’s quarters for you, move in in comfort.33

while in the second (Assyrian from the early first millennium BCE) Tiglath–pileser I appeals to his gods to look favourably upon him and his prayers: Because I made plans without ceasing and was not slack in the work (but) quickly completed the pure temple, the exalted shrine, for the abode of the gods Anu and Adad.34

Hence, if this notion was one with which the readers of the prayer in 1 Kings 8 were familiar, they would easily have been able to deduce in the particular case of the Solomonic temple that its most common epithet, “house of YHWH (‫”)בית יהוה‬,35, meant that YHWH was its resident. Moreover, that such a relationship may actually have been widely understood in this instance is implied by those scholars who propose that the notion of YHWH dwelling there represented a popular view of its function.36 It is also suggested by those who consider that both the

33 34 35

36

common term for a temple was the ‘house’ of the deity, the place of divine residence”; Keel, Knauf and Staubli (2004) 7: “Ein altorientalischer Tempel … ist … primär … Residenz einer Gottheit”; Hurowitz (1992) 267: “[A] temple … is primarily conceived of as a divine dwelling place”; Barnett (1981) 10: “[T]o build a dwelling-place [i.e. temple] for the city’s or nation’s god is no doubt a common, indeed almost ubiquitous idea from earliest times”; Ottosson (1980) 115: “A temple is defined as the residence of the god(s)”; Haran (1978) 221: “[I]n all the religions of the ancient Near East, the temple was held to be essentially the dwelling-place of the divinity”; Busink (1970) 637: “Im Alten Orient war mit dem Tempel … durchweg die Vorstellung ‘Wohnung der Gottheit’ verbunden”; Wright (1944a) 42: “[T]emples were originally constructed as homes for the deities in whom the people believed”; Möhlenbrink (1932) 134: “[I]m ganzen Alten Orient … [d]ie vorherrschende Auffassung vom Tempel ist und war überall die als Wohnhaus der Gottheit”; Benzinger (1899) 58: “Der semitische Tempel ist Wohnsitz der Gottheit”. Edzard (1997) 90. Grayson (1991) 29. 1 Kings 3:1; 6:1, 37; 7:12, 40, 45, 51 (2×); 8:10, 11, 63, 64. Cf. Dever (1992) 376: “There is no technical word in the Hebrew Bible for temple … Hebrew bêt, ‘house,’ is regularly used in connection with the name of a particular deity, such as the ‘House of Yahweh’ for the Solomonic temple, the ‘House of Dagon’ at Ashdod, etc.”. Weinfeld (1972) 193: “the ancient popular belief that the Deity actually dwelled within the sanctuary”; Grether (1934) 33: “die Volksmeinung vom Wohnen Jahwes im Tempel”; Westphal (1908) 187: “Anschauungen, die Jahwe innerhalb des Tempels räumlich wohnend dachten … [man] muß sie im Volke annehmen”; Giesebrecht (1901) 37: “der älteren Volksauffassung [d.h. Jahve thront im Tempel]”.

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

75

references linking the divine “name” to the temple37 and those which locate YHWH in heaven38 were introduced into the text as theological correctives to the very notion that the Deity inhabited the building. While some scholars consider such correctives to be aimed at indications of divine presence found within the chapter (particularly in vv. 10–11 and 12–13), it would seem reasonable to assume that the latter were not the first expressions of such a belief, but rather represented a view which was more widely held at the time. In the case of the divine ‫שׁם‬, however, compliance with the criterion that its presence within the temple be well known is more problematic. Given that its introduction into the biblical literature is attributable to the Deuteronomists, it could well be a relationship with which only readers familar with this latest theological development39 were conversant. Be that as it may, the question as to whether readers of the prayer were aware of a connection between the divine ‫ שׁם‬and the temple, and indeed between YHWH and the temple, may be somewhat academic, since, as we have seen, the links are made clear within the chapter as a whole. The Deity’s presence within the building is indicated in vv. 10–11 and 12–13 and implied by the atypical use of ‫ לפני יהוה‬in vv. 28, 59, 62 and 65, while the presence of his ‫ שׁם‬is affirmed in vv. 16 and 29. Hence, even if such relationships were not familiar to a reader of the prayer, awareness of the immediate literary context of the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” could well have encouraged the need for a change of reference from temple to either YHWH or the divine ‫שׁם‬.

37

38 39

E.g. Hurowitz (1992) 301: “[T]he Temple as a place where [God] will cause his Name to reside … serv[es] as a necessary replacement for the entrance of God, his kāḇôḏ and symbols of his presence found in 1 Kgs 8.10–11”; Nelson (1987) 52: “God’s ‘name’ … is present [in this building] … This functions as a theological corrective to the more immanent view of God’s presence expressed in verses 10–13”; Mettinger (1982) 48: “[T]he Name theology of the D-Work … [represents] a grandiose attempt … to expel the pre-exilic doctrine of the Presence”; McBride (1969) 186: “According to … most commentators … Name Theology was promulgated as a substitute for the view that Yahweh himself dwelt in an earthly abode … a corrective intent is decisive”; von Rad (1953) 38–39: “The Deuteronomic theologumenon of the name of Jahweh clearly holds a polemic element, or … theological corrective. It is not Jahweh himself who is present at the shrine, but only his name”. P. 9 n. 43. See also the account of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:13) and subsequent references to the temple’s construction (1 Kings 3:2; 5:17, 19, 19 [EVV 3, 5, 5]).

76

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Compliance with the relevant selection restrictions As already noted above,40 the majority of instances of the verbal collocation ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) occur in conjunction with YHWH. Moreover, it was this usage which suggested the selection restriction of the phrase in the first place, i.e. that it requires a personal41 complement. Hence, YHWH is ideally suited to be the target implied by the “praying ‫ אל‬this place/ house”. Similarly, although within the Hebrew Bible there are no instances of ‫( פלל אל‬hithp.) being used in collocation with the divine ‫שׁם‬, a case can be made for asserting that the noun is personal and so does satisfy the proposed criterion. Men are frequently depicted as invoking / calling on (‫ )קרא ב‬the “name” of YHWH. Though most of such instances merely record their doing so,42 while giving no indication of what it might entail, there are two whose additional contextual information may throw some light on the nature of the divine “name”. In 1 Kings 18:26 during the contest on Mount Carmel the prophets of Baal “called on the name of Baal … crying (‫‘ )לאמר‬O Baal, answer us!’” and in Ps. 116:4 the psalmist “called on the name of the LORD: ‘O LORD, I pray, save my life!’” In each case, the calling on the divine “name” entails the use of language requesting either an answer or rescue. And despite the one designated in the direct speech (“O Baal”, “O LORD”) not being the “name” but its bearer,43 the apparent equivalence of the two could be taken to imply that the “name” itself is in some sense personal.44 Progress so far A case has been made for the proposal that, when Solomon mentions “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”, the target of the prayer could be either 40 41

42 43 44

Pp. 45–46. When the verb ‫( פלל‬hithp.) is linked with the preposition ‫אל‬, the corresponding collocation in the LXX is usually προσεύχεσθαι πρὸς. However, in the case of the four instances of praying ‫ אל‬the temple in both 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chron. 6, a different preposition (εἰς) is used to introduce the complement of the collocation. Such a departure from normal would appear to indicate the translator’s recognition of the unexpected nature of the complement. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the more obviously directional ὁδὸν employed later in the chapter (vv. 44 and 48) was not used in these verses. Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25, etc. See below, p. 80, esp. n. 54. An attribute rarely spelled out by commentators. However, as we have already noted in Chapter 1 (nn. 48–50), some scholars claim that the ‫ שׁם‬is an extension of the Deity or a form or mode of his presence. Such descriptions imply a close connection between YHWH and his ‫שׁם‬, and, since the former is personal, that the ‫ שׁם‬is as well.

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

77

YHWH himself or the divine ‫שׁם‬. Each conforms to the metonymic pattern PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS, being related to the vehicle (the temple) in that each is, or has been, portrayed as being in some sense present within the building. That relationship is considered to exist in the real world, and is well known in the case of the Deity, though probably less so in that of his ‫שׁם‬. With the latter, however, its presence within the temple is referred to in the immediate literary context of the prayer, so mention of “this place/house” could easily trigger a change of reference from building to divine ‫שׁם‬. In addition, both possible targets appear to be personal and so comply with the selection restrictions of the verb “to pray” (‫[ פלל אל‬hithp.]). There are, however, three main reasons why YHWH himself, i.e. rather than his ‫שׁם‬, is likely to be the metonymic target when Solomon refers to praying to the temple. The improbability of inconsistency within the prayer This observation is similar to the one made in Chapter 2 under the heading INCONSISTENCY WITHIN THE PRAYER.45 If YHWH is the intended target of the “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”, there will be a uniformity to Solomon’s prayer as a whole. Petitions will always be directed to the Deity, regardless of whether he is specified as their addressee or inferred from the metonym “this place/house”. When the Israelites are defeated in battle (vv. 33–34), preparing for combat (vv. 44–45) or in exile (vv. 46–51), it is stated that they should pray to YHWH (vv. 33, 44, 48).46 Likewise, when they are subjected to drought (vv. 35–36) or foreigners travel to the temple (vv. 41–43), they should still pray to him – though in these situations that is expressed by employing “this place” (v. 35) or “this house” (v. 42) as metonyms for YHWH himself. This is in marked contrast to the situation pertaining if the divine ‫ שׁם‬was the intended referent of “this place/house”, since that would mean that Solomon would be advocating some prayers to the Deity, but others to his “name”. Such a suggestion of two distinct ways of approaching YHWH, one direct and one via an intermediary, would seem unlikely, especially since the prayer itself indicates that direct access to him is possible. 45

46

P. 29. There it was pointed out that understanding the praying ‫ אל‬in a directional sense (“towards”) would, somewhat strangely, lead to two modes of prayer, one to YHWH directly and the other to him via the medium of the temple. LXX has “to you” (πρὸς σὲ) in v. 48, but lacks it in v. 33 and has “in the name of the Lord (ἐν ὀνόματι κυρíου)” in v. 44.

78

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

The likely recipient of the prayers addressed to “this place/house” Within Solomon’s prayer, praying is variously directed to the temple (“this place/house”), the Deity and the Deity in heaven. Here, however, we are concerned with whether praying directed to the temple could reasonably be expected to be addressed to either YHWH or his “name” – the two possible targets of the proposed metonymy. To this end we need to consider first the nature of the prayers offered to “this place/house” (vv. 29, 30, 35, 42) and then whether either YHWH or his ‫ שׁם‬is involved when similar prayers are uttered elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The nature of the prayers Although none of the four instances in 1 Kings 8 specifies the subject matter of these prayers, nevertheless some insight can still be gained into what each of them probably entailed. The petition of v. 29 refers to “the prayer that [Solomon] prays ‫ אל‬this place”, and may well include everything from v. 27 to v. 53.47 If it does, then it concerns a series of situations (mainly crises) which the king envisages as arising in the future. It is striking that in each of these seven scenarios he asks YHWH to intervene on behalf of others. The latter include foreigners (vv. 41–43), but are mainly the people of Israel, with Solomon frequently asking the Deity to forgive their sin and deal with the adverse circumstances in which they find themselves. The prayer thus represents an extended intercession.48 47

48

Cf. Hurowitz (1992) 294: “The prayers to be said in seven different situations … are actually elaborations, itemizing and explaining the basic, single request that prayers towards the Temple be accepted”. Defined by Greenberg (1983) 9 as “a petition one person makes on behalf of and for the good of another”. While the majority of commentators refer to Solomon’s prayer in a rather less specific way as consisting of seven “petitions”, “prayers” or similar, there are those who have clearly recognized the intercessory nature of the king’s oration: Wray Beal (2014) 137: “Solomon … now prays on behalf of the people”; Ryken (2011) 223 entitles his chapter on 1 Kings 8:31–53: “Solomon’s Intercession”; Sweeney (2007) 134: “Verses 31–53 relate Solomon’s seven petitions on behalf of his people”; Fritz (2003) 96: In his analysis of vv. 14–61 he describes vv. 30–53 as a “grand intercession” [Großes Fürbittengebet]; Werlitz (2002) 96: “den folgenden Gebetsanliegen, die der König stellvertretend für das Volk … vorträgt”; Newman (1999) 19–20: “The purpose of [Solomon’s prayer] is … to ask God to hear the prayers of Israel should they find themselves in various straits”; House (1995) 135: “[T]he king offers a prayer that contains seven petitions for himself and the people (8:22–53)”; Knoppers (1995) 239: “[I]n [Solomon’s] seven petitions he intercedes for the people (8:31–51)”; Braulik (1994) 16: “Solomon is seen as separate from his people only in so far as he intercedes for them”; Hurowitz (1992) 293: “Solomon’s prayer contained … requests concerning the people (vv. 30b–53)” Scharbert (1984) 97: “Zweimal

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

79

By contrast, the other three49 (in vv. 30, 35 and 42) have more clues in their immediate literary environment. Consequently, their content can plausibly be deduced from both the scenario anticipated in v. 35 (“[w]hen heaven is shut up and there is no rain”) and the nature of the ensuing responses articulated by Solomon. At the very least it would appear to involve appeals by the people for forgiveness and rain (vv. 30, 35–36) and by the foreigner for unspecified action50 (vv. 42–43). These prayers to “this place/house” clearly involve differences in both intended beneficiary and content. However, they have in common that they are all varieties of entreaty or petition, as opposed to other kinds of speech addressed to the Deity, such as confession or praise. The usual addressee of such prayers Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, regardless of whether either target is localized, the only recipient of the particular kinds of requests noted above as being made to “this place/house” is YHWH. Any other instances of intercession or appeals for forgiveness or rain are made to him and not to his ‫שׁם‬. Abraham prays for healing for Abimelech, his wife and female slaves (Gen. 20:17), the people in the wilderness ask Moses to intercede for the serpents to be taken from them (Num. 21:7) and later appeal to Samuel to pray that they may not die as a result of wanting a king (1 Sam. 12:19). All these (and other intercessions) are addressed to YHWH. Likewise, requests for forgiveness are directed to him. They are not necessarily introduced using the verb “to pray”, but are made to the Deity nonetheless, e.g. by Moses (Exod. 34:9; Num. 14:19), Naaman (2 Kings 5:18 [2×]), Amos (Am. 7:2), the psalmist (25:11) and Daniel (Dan. 9:19). Moreover, since YHWH is seen as the giver of rain,51 the few appeals for it are made to him as well. Samuel calls upon him to

49

50

51

übernimmt [der Deuteronomist] solche ausformulierten Fürbitten … aus seinen Quellen, nämlich das Tempelweihgebet Salomos und …”; Rehm (1979) 96, re vv. 8:31–51: “Auf das Gebet für das Herrscherhaus folgen Bitten für das Volk”; Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 193: “the litany of vv. 31–40, with intercessions for divine justice, in case of defeat in battle, and as against natural plagues”; Boer, de (1943) 140–142: “Het hier volgende overzicht van den gebedsinhoud der voorbeden … 1 Kon. VIII 23sq. …”; Skinner (n.d.) 20: “Solomon’s great intercessory prayer (I K. viii. 14–53 …)”. Here it is important to distinguish between implied requests which Solomon anticipates will be made to “this place/house” by others (“your people Israel” [vv. 30, 35] or a “foreigner” [v. 42]) and the actual ones which he himself makes to the Deity in heaven. Solomon asks YHWH to “do (‫ )עשׂית‬according to all that the foreigner calls to you” (v. 43). E.g. Deut. 11:14; 28:12; 1 Sam. 12:18; 1 Kings 18:1; Zech. 10:1; Ps. 147:8; Job 5:10.

80

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

“send thunder and rain” (1 Sam. 12:17, cf. v.18), while Zechariah refers to “ask[ing] rain from the LORD” (Zech. 10:1). Finally, prayers for action are also addressed to the Deity. In addition to the two just mentioned,52 examples include requests by Elisha that the Syrian army be struck with blindness (2 Kings 6:18), by Hezekiah that Jerusalem be saved from Sennacherib (Is. 37:15–20) and by Jonah that he might die (Jon. 4:2–3). All these petitions are offered to YHWH himself. By contrast, there are no instances of the divine ‫ שׁם‬being the target either of intercessions or of pleas for forgiveness or rain. In addition, the two53 possible precedents for appeals to it for action are themselves problematic. In both the texts already mentioned (1 Kings 18 and Ps. 116) the deity’s “name” is called on, and the ensuing direct speech intended to elicit some kind of action in response – production of fire in the former and salvation in the latter. However, in neither case is it certain that it is the deity’s “name” which is being asked to intervene, rather than the deity himself, since, as has already been noted, these petitions are directed not to the “name” but to its bearer.54 It thus appears that within the Hebrew Bible there are no precedents for the divine ‫ שׁם‬being the recipient of the particular types of request envisaged as being offered to “this place/house” in 1 Kings 8. Rather, they are invariably addressed to the Deity.55 52

53

54

55

I.e. the three instances of intercession just cited, all of which involve a request for action. In 2 Kings 5:11 Naaman is reported as anticipating that Elisha would “call on the name of the LORD his God … and cure [his] leprosy”. However, since the text implies that the prophet did not do so, we are unable to say exactly how he would have formulated such a request. In 1 Kings 18:26 the prophets of Baal “called on the name of Baal” but then addressed the deity directly: “O Baal [not ‘O name of Baal’], answer us!”. In like manner, Elijah’s challenge entails his “call[ing] on the name of the LORD” (v. 24), but in the event involves his appealing to YHWH himself rather than to his “name” (vv. 36, 37). Similarly in Ps. 116:4 the psalmist “called on the name of the LORD”, but then addresses the Deity instead: “O LORD [not ‘O name of the LORD’], I pray, save my life!”. In all three cases the “name” is called on, but not then addressed. Cf. Zech. 13:9 in which YHWH predicts that people will “call on my name” but “I will answer them”. This curious phenomenon raises the possibility that “calling on the name of YHWH” means uttering the appellation “YHWH”, rather than the word “name”. Cf. Richter’s (2002) 11 suggestion that “many of [the] ‘name’ occurrences in the Psalms can be explained as references to … the actual act of speaking his name (i.e., ‘YHWH’)”. Note that this pattern is replicated within the prayer itself. The various requests – for forgiveness (vv. 30, 34, 36, 39, 49–50), for rain (v. 36) and for action (vv. 32, 34, 39, 43, 45, 49–50) are all made to the “you” who is in heaven. Since it is the Deity who is thought to be there, and not the divine ‫ שׁם‬located in the temple, the implied addressee is YHWH.

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

81

The absence of requests to a localized ‫שׁם‬ This is consistent with what is found in the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Elsewhere there is no evidence for petitions of any kind being directed to the divine ‫ שׁם‬when it occurs in literary contexts considered to portray it as being localized on the earth. There are nearly sixty such instances, including those already mentioned in 1 Kings 8. They refer to it as being “put/set there (‫”)שׂום … שׁם‬,56 “put in (‫”)שׂום … ב‬,57 “dwelling there (‫[ שׁכן … שׁם‬piel])”,58 “being there (‫”)היה … שׁם‬,59 “being in (‫”)היה … ב‬60 and in a number of other ways.61 In addition, references to the temple being built62 or consecrated63 “for/to” (‫ )ל‬the divine “name” could also be taken to suggest its presence within the building.64 Two points can be made: First, within the immediate literary context of the above instances, i.e. in passages which may imply the presence of the ‫ שׁם‬on earth, there are a few examples of requests for help. They are found in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chron. 20: If your people go out to battle against their enemy … and they pray to the LORD toward the city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name … (1 Kings 8:44 // 2 Chron. 6:34) [I]f they repent … in the land of their enemies, who took them captive, and pray to you toward their land … the city that you have chosen, and the house that I have built for your name … (1 Kings 8:48 // 2 Chron. 6:38) If disaster comes upon us, the sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we will stand before this house, and before you, for your name is in this house, and cry to you in our distress. (2 Chron. 20:9)

56 57 58

59 60 61

62

63 64

Deut. 12:5, 21; 14:24; 1 Kings 9:3; 11:36; 14:21 // 2 Chron. 12:13; 2 Chron. 6:20. 2 Kings 21:4, 7 // 2 Chron. 33:7. Deut. 12:5(?), 11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; Jer. 7:12; Ezra 6:12; Neh. 1:9. See also Ps. 74:7 (“the dwelling place [‫ ]משׁכן‬of your name”). 1 Kings 8:16 // 2 Chron. 6:5; 1 Kings 8:29; 2 Kings 23:27; 2 Chron. 6:6; 7:16. 2 Chron. 33:4. Cf. 20:9. Is. 18:7 (“the place [‫ ]מקום‬of the name of the LORD of hosts”); Jer. 3:17 (“[A]ll nations shall gather … to the presence [‫ ]לשׁם‬of the LORD in Jerusalem”). 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2; 5:17, 19, 19 (EVV 3, 5, 5); 8:17 // 2 Chron. 6:7; 1 Kings 8:18 // 2 Chron. 6:8; 1 Kings 8:19 // 2 Chron. 6:9; 1 Kings 8:20 // 2 Chron. 6:10; 1 Kings 8:44 // 2 Chron. 6:34; 1 Kings 8:48 // 2 Chron. 6:38; 1 Chron. 22:7, 8, 10, 19; 28:3; 29:16; 2 Chron. 1:18 (EVV 2:1); 2:3 (EVV 2:4); 20:8. 1 Kings 9:7 // 2 Chron. 7:20. See Mettinger (1982) 39–40 for a list of all the references to God’s ‫ שׁם‬occurring “in conjunction with the sanctuary”.

82

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Note, however, that in all three cases the petitions are directed to YHWH himself, not to his ‫שׁם‬.65 Secondly, of the sixty odd instances, a substantial number66 contain additional occurrences of the divine ‫ שׁם‬within their immediate literary context. They are displayed in the following table together with the accompanying extra references: Localized instances of the ‫שׁם‬ 2 Sam. 1 Kings Jer. Ps. Neh. 1 Chron. 2 Chron.

7:13 8:16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 44, 48 7:12 74:7 1:9 29:16 6:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 34, 38 7:16, 20 33:4, 7

Nearby instances 7:23, 26 8:33, 35, 41, 42, 43 7:10, 11, 14, 30 74:10, 18, 21 1:11 29:13 6:24, 26, 32, 33 (2×) 7:14 33:18

While some of the texts in the right-hand column contain references to the divine ‫ שׁם‬which may entail it being addressed,67 none displays evidence of any kind of request. Thus, outside 1 Kings 8 there are no precedents for YHWH’s localized ‫ שׁם‬being the target of petitions in the same way that “this place/house” is within Solomon’s prayer. As far as the Deity is concerned, however, he is occasionally represented as being localized in the vicinity of a human being, who then makes a request to him, either explicitly or by implication. In Num. 14:1–19, Israel’s rebellion prompts the appearance of YHWH’s glory (a phenomenon usually associated with the divine presence). The Deity declares his intention of “strik[ing] them with pestilence and 65

66 67

Of the above ca. sixty references (nn. 56–64) only a quarter mention activities of any kind taking place where the ‫ שׁם‬is located. They occur mainly in Deuteronomy and include the offering of various sacrifices together with associated activities such as eating and rejoicing. However, if they are carried out in relation to anyone/thing it is always YHWH himself, never his ‫שׁם‬: eating, rejoicing and making response are to take place “before/in the presence of him” (Deut. 12:7, 12; 14:23, 26; 16:11; 26:5), while offering the passover sacrifice, keeping the festival of weeks and declaring that “[one] has come into the land” are to take place “for/to him” (Deut. 16:2, 10; 26:3). Though less than half. The most obvious ones being references to YHWH’s ‫ שׁם‬being reviled (Ps. 74:10, 18) or praised (Ps. 74:21; 1 Chron. 29:13).

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

83

disinherit[ing] them” (v. 12), whereupon Moses appeals to his forbearance and asks him to forgive the people’s iniquity (v. 19). Similarly, in Deut. 9, following his discovery of the golden calf (v. 16), Moses lies prostrate “before the LORD” (v. 25), a phrase which we have argued elsewhere68 implies his proximity to the divine presence on the mountain. Then, in response to the latter’s stated intention of destroying Israel (vv. 14, 19, 25), Moses prays that he will not to do so (vv. 26–29). Moreover, in 2 Chron. 1:7–13 God appears69 to Solomon, an action again implying proximity to the Deity, and invites him to specify the divine gift he would like to receive (v. 7). The king responds by requesting the wisdom and knowledge needed to rule over the multitude of people entrusted to him (vv. 8–10). All three instances entail someone making supplications to the Deity in situations where the latter is represented as localized in the vicinity of the former. Verdict It thus appears that there are no precedents for the divine ‫ שׁם‬being the recipient either of the particular types of prayer envisaged as being offered to “this place/house” in 1 Kings 8 or, indeed, of any requests made when the ‫ שׁם‬is portrayed as being present on the earth. Rather, throughout the Hebrew Bible they are always addressed to the Deity. The nature of the target/vehicle relationship Here we are concerned with the paradigmatic nature of the relationship between a target and its metonymic vehicle. This term is explained by Lyons in the following way: Sets of elements which can be substituted for one another in a given context are said to be in a paradigmatic relationship.70

68 69

70

Wilson (1995) 110–114. In the parallel account in 1 Kings 3:5–15 YHWH’s “appear[ing] to Solomon” occurs “in a dream” (vv. 5, 15). The Chronicler, however, makes no mention of the latter, and so implies that the incident involves a theophany – with YHWH being in some sense present to the king. Lyons (1970) 16. Cf. Richards, Platt and Platt (1992) 369: “[A] word may be said to have … paradigmatic relations with words that could be substituted for it in the sentence”; Culler (1986) 60: “[P]aradigmatic relationships are to be found in the contrast between a given morpheme and those that could replace it in a given environment”.

84

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Happ notes that in linguistic units like a sentence one can replace certain elements by others. He points out that in the sentence “[a] book lies on the table” something else can be inserted instead of “a book”, for example “a magazine”, “a fountain pen”, “a map”, etc. The whole set of individual units which could be inserted into that slot (“an einer Stelle”) is a “paradigm”, and the relationship between them is “paradigmatic”.71 That this characterizes referential metonymy is specified by some linguists72 and borne out by the many who, in one way or another, refer to it as involving a substitution,73 even if they do not use the qualifier “paradigmatic”74 or spell out its nature. For our purposes it is important 71

72

73

74

Happ (1985) 95: “In größeren Spracheinheiten wie z.B. einem Satz kann man bestimmte Elemente durch andere ersetzen. So läßt sich etwa in dem Satz Auf dem Tisch liegt ein Buch statt ein Buch etwas anderes einsetzen: ein Heft, ein Füller, eine Karte usw. Die Gesamtheit der an einer Stelle einsetzbaren (substituierbaren) Einheiten nennt man ein ‘Paradigma’, die Beziehung zwischen den Elementen eines solchen Paradigmas ‘paradigmatisch’. Hier bedeutet ‘Paradigma’ soviel wie ‘Substitutionsklasse’”. E.g. Glynn (2004) 197 refers to “paradigmatic structures such as … metonymy”; Warren (1995) 138 considers metonymy to represent a type of “paradigmatic substitution”; Langacker (1993) 29 categorizes it as having a “paradigmatic manifestation” and Le Guern (1973) 23 describes it as defining itself “par un écart paradigmatique”. E.g. Panther and Thornburg (1999) 333: “Metonymy … involves a process of substituting one linguistic expression for another”; Kövecses and Radden (1998) 37: “Metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one thing is used in place of that of another associated with or suggested by it”; Waldron (1979) 186: “It is defined in rhetoric as ‘a figure in which the name of an attribute or adjunct is substituted for that of the thing meant’”; Le Guern (1973) 23: “[L]a métonymie … est le remplacement du terme propre par un mot différent, sans que pour autant l’interprétation du texte soit nettement différente” [our emphases]. And this despite the confusing, but widely cited linking of metonymy to the so-called syntagmatic axis of language (a connection usually derived from Jakobson [1956] 76–82, despite his making no mention of either syntagmatic or paradigmatic). Paradigmatic relationships occur between entities which, because of perceived similarities between them, are capable of substitution. Thus, since Jakobson observes that “[s]imilarity connects a metaphorical term with [that] for which it is substituted” (p. 81), he is able to identify it with the paradigmatic axis of language. By contrast, syntagmatic relationships occur between entities which are linked together syntactically within an utterance. Hence, since “metonymy [is] based on contiguity” (p. 69), i.e. the transfer of the name for one thing to another rests on some kind of real world connection between the two things, he is able to identify metonymy with the syntagmatic axis of language. Note, however, that in each case his identification is derived from the nature of the relationship between the vehicle and the target – independent of their relationship to the utterance in which they might be found. In metaphor vehicle and target are similar in some respect, therefore paradigmatic, whereas in metonymy they are linked by contiguity, therefore syntagmatic. However, if we focus on the utterance, it is clear that, with each of the two tropes, either vehicle or target can occupy the same slot within it, and so in that respect are both paradigmatic. Cf. Holenstein (1974) 101: “To avoid misunderstandings it is important to note that [Jakobson’s] concepts of metaphor and metonymy are here used

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

85

to note that this qualifier is highly specific. Berg refers to a “paradigmatic relationship hold[ing] among units that compete for the same position in an utterance”75 and Lyons to a “set of paradigmatically related, or intersubstitutable, units that can occur in one position [our emphases]”.76 Hence, what is being claimed for referential metonymy is that both the vehicle and the target are able to occupy the same place in the sentence, with the latter remaining both grammatical77 and meaningful.78 However, before applying this to the four verses in 1 Kings 8 we need to heed the caution expressed by Brdar and Brdar-Szabó, who note that “[a]lthough metonymy is a universally attested cognitive process, it does not follow, however, that various languages must make use of it in the same way, and in the same contexts”.79 Thus, while we have established the existence of metonymy within the Hebrew Bible, we now need to see whether there are any precedents for it also being paradigmatic. One general feature of the literature which might provide evidence for such a phenomenon is the existence of parallel passages, and in particular any in which one passage contains a vehicle and its parallel a possible target. A number of examples involving nouns or noun phrases have been located, and several are listed below. Within each pair the first contains the metonym:80

75 76 77

78

79

80

in a metaphorical, i.e., limited, sense, namely in terms of their respective relations to the rules of association of similarity and contiguity, but not in terms of the substitutive character which they both share as figures of speech. Instead of the sentence (1) My car is fast … I can also say … (4) My engine is fast … thus replacing car with [a] metonymical expression. In the case of engine, a complete part, a piece, represents the whole … Although Jakobson uses metonymy to characterize the syntagmatic axis, we must not forget that it also operates along the paradigmatic axis when it functions as a figure of speech”. Berg (2004) 1053. Lyons (1977) 241. Seiler (1967) 53: “In this conception of the sentence as containing places for substitutable items, one requirement for substitution … is that [it] should yield a new utterance which is grammatical in the language under consideration”. Holenstein (1974) 98, re the sentence “My car is fast” he refers to “choos[ing] the noun car from a series of nouns, which could all take its place without preventing the syntagmatic combination from forming a meaningful sentence: vehicle, automobile, etc.”. Brdar and Brdar-Szabó (2003) 246. See also Lakoff (1987) 78: “[G]eneral principles are not the same in all languages, one cannot simply say that anything can stand for anything else in the right context. One needs to distinguish which principles work for which languages”. Translations are highlighted in bold.

86

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE WHOLE FOR PART

‫ וכל־הארץ  מבקשׁים את־פני שׁלמה לשׁמע את־חכמתו‬ [The whole earth81 sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom. (1 Kings 10:24)] ‫ וכל מלכי הארץ  מבקשׁים את־פני שׁלמה לשׁמע את־חכמתו‬ [All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom. (2 Chron. 9:23)] WORDS FOR THE CONCEPTS THEY EXPRESS ‫בני לדברי  הקשׁיבה‬ [My child, be attentive to my words.82 (Prov. 4:20)] ‫בני לחכמתי  הקשׁיבה‬ [My child, be attentive to my wisdom. (Prov. 5:1)] POSSESSOR FOR POSSESSED

… ‫אלה בני ישׂראל  ראובן שׁמעון לוי ויהודה‬ [These are the sons83 of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah … (1 Chron. 2:1)] … ‫ואלה שׁמות בני ישׂראל  הבאים מצרימה … ראובן שׁמעון לוי ויהודה‬ [These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt … Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah … (Exod. 1:1–2)] NAME FOR DESCENDANTS

‫ויקהל את־בית יהודה ובנימן  מאה ושׁמונים אלף בחור‬ [(Rehoboam) assembled one hundred eighty thousand chosen troops of the house of Judah and Benjamin.84 (2 Chron. 11:1)] ‫ויקהל את־כל־בית יהודה ואת־שׁבט בנימן  מאה ושׁמנים אלף בחור‬ [(Rehoboam) assembled all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, one hundred eighty thousand chosen troops. (1 Kings 12:21]

81

82

83

84

See also 2 Kings 14:7 (“Edomites”) // 2 Chron. 25:11 (“men of Seir”): Edom was a country which encompassed the mountainous region of Seir. Cf. Radden and Kövecses (1999) 31: “People often speak of America but mean one of its geographical parts, the United States”. Cf. Lakoff and Turner (1989) 108: “[I]n a sentence like ‘Those are foolish words,’ the words are taken as referring, via metonymy, to the concept expressed by the words, which are being called foolish”. With regard to “sons” for “names of sons” Radden and Kövecses (1999) 40–41 comment: “[This] metonymy is well-entrenched and hardly noticeable. Compare expressions such as I am parked over there (for ‘my car’) … or Bill is in the Guinness Book of Records (for ‘his name’)”. Cf. Langacker (1993) 32. See also 2 Sam. 5:2bβ (“Israel”) // 1 Chron. 11:2bβ (“my people Israel”), 2 Chron. 8:7 (“Israel”) // 1 Kings 9:20 (“the people of Israel”).

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

87

CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED

… ‫וישׁלח את־שׂרי החילים אשׁר־לו על־ערי ישׂראל ויך את־עיון ואת־דן‬ [(Ben-hadad) sent the commanders of his armies against the cities of Israel. He85 conquered Ijon, Dan … (1 Kings 15:20)] … ‫וישׁלח את־שׂרי החילים אשׁר־לו אל־ערי ישׂראל ויכו את־עיון ואת־דן‬ [(Ben-hadad) sent the commanders of his armies against the cities of Israel. They conquered Ijon, Dan … (2 Chron. 16:4)]

Apart from the fact that the variation in subject from 1 Kings 15:20 (“he”) to 2 Chron. 16:4 (“they”) requires a change in the number of the verb, the only difference in the core86 part of each sentence between the members of each pair is in the switch in the second passage from metonym to possible target. Since, therefore, the substitutions take place within the same slot, they are paradigmatic, and so indicate that the phenomenon can occur in the Hebrew Bible. If, therefore, the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” in 1 Kings 8 (i.e. in vv. 29, 30, 35 and 42) were to conform to this pattern, the intended target of such prayers would have to be able to fit comfortably in the slot occupied by the vehicle ‫הבית הזח‬/‫ המקום‬in those verses. Of the two candidates for the implied referent it is clear that YHWH would be an ideal substitute for either noun phrase, since the resulting collocation, i.e. ‫( פלל אל־יהוה‬hithp.), is customary within the Hebrew Bible. By contrast, the divine ‫ שׁם‬would not be suitable, since replacing “this place/house” by, for example, “your name” (‫ )שׁמך‬would result in an unknown construction, that of “praying to (‫ ”)אל‬the divine ‫שׁם‬. The latter is more commonly “called upon (‫”)קרא ב‬, while, as we have already noted, the verbal collocation (‫[ פלל אל‬hithp.]) is generally followed by the Deity as its complement.87 Since substitution of the divine ‫ שׁם‬in the slot occupied by the vehicle “this place/house” would result in an unprecedented collocation, it would therefore seem unlikely that it could be the intended target.

85

86

87

See also 2 Kings 25:1 (“[Nebuchadnezzar] laid siege to [Jerusalem]”) // Jer. 52:4 (“[his army] laid siege to it”). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) 38–39 comment that “[President] Nixon himself may not have dropped the bombs on Hanoi, but via the CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED metonymy we not only say ‘Nixon bombed Hanoi’ but also think of him as doing the bombing and hold him responsible for it”. Within 1 Chron. 2:1 // Exod. 1:1–2 the presence in the latter of the relative clause “who came to Egypt …” does not negate the paradigmatic nature of the substitution, since its omission would still leave a statement equivalent to that in 1 Chron. 2:1. Pp. 45–46.

88

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Summary Within Solomon’s prayer it would appear that both YHWH and his ‫שׁם‬ are plausible candidates for the metonymic target in the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”. None the less, choice of the Deity as the intended referent ensures that, regardless of the circumstances, all the individual requests within the prayer are addressed directly to YHWH.88 By contrast, choice of the ‫ שׁם‬would mean that under some circumstances one would petition the “name”, but under others one would appeal to the Deity. Secondly, while there are clear precedents for the specific requests addressed to the temple being made to YHWH himself, there are none for their being directed to the divine ‫שׁם‬. Thirdly, inserting the Deity as the target in the slot occupied by the vehicle “this place/house” produces the familiar collocation of “praying to YHWH”, whereas substituting the divine ‫ שׁם‬would produce an expression unknown within the Hebrew Bible. It therefore seems likely that it is the Deity himself, rather than his ‫שׁם‬, that is the intended target. Using a metonym What it conveys We have already pointed out that referential metonymy is traditionally regarded as involving a substitution, and thus that there is a sense in which vehicle and target are interchangeable.89 Consequently, it might be asked why the writer(s) did not replace “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” with praying to YHWH, especially since that more straightforward form of address is also found within the prayer (in vv. 33, 44, 48). However, we did note en passant that the expression involving the vehicle and the one in which it is replaced by the target are not identical in terms of what they convey.90 The metonym communicates more information, since its use involves both target and vehicle being present to the mind of the reader.91

88

89 90 91

This would explain why the prayer contains no requests directed ‫ אל‬both YHWH and “this place/house”, since each would be targeting the same addressee. Pp. 43 and 83–88. P. 43. Bredin (1984b) 101: “[Metonymy is] the application of the name of a thing to something else … in such a way that the name refers to both simultaneously”.

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

89

Metonymy can probably be described most succinctly as an efficient mental shortcut, since metonymies have the advantage of communicating additional information: one concept stands for another, but both concepts are actually activated, to at least some degree. Informally speaking, metonymy is an efficient means of saying two things for the price of one, i.e. two concepts are activated while only one is explicitly mentioned.92 Metonymy does not simply substitute one entity for another entity, but interrelates them to form a new, complex meaning … Metonymic relationships should therefore more adequately be represented by using an additive notation such as X PLUS Y [i.e. vehicle plus target].93

To return briefly to two of the English metonyms used as illustrations in Chapter 3, n. 7. When we state that “the kettle is boiling” or that “there is a Matisse in the bedroom”, we are signalling more than if we had said that the water was boiling or that there was an etching in that room. The metonyms also convey the whereabouts of the water and the author of the print. As we noted in the section on ellipsis, referential metonyms can be restated as noun phrases which include both the vehicle and the target. It is the water in the kettle which is boiling, and an etching by Matisse which is in the bedroom. The metonym conveys the whole of the expanded noun phrase (target plus vehicle), despite its mentioning only the vehicle. Thus in 1 Kings 8, whereas “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” (viewed as a metonym) and “praying to YHWH” both entail addressing the Deity, they are not identical in terms of what they communicate, since the metonym makes use of the phrase “this place/house”. The latter conveys more than the two explicit instances of praying “to YHWH” in vv. 44 and 48. It not only indicates that the Deity is the target, but also specifies his whereabouts, i.e. in the temple, a piece of information which would not have been imparted, had the more direct praying “to YHWH” been adopted. The “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” is effectively an ellipsis, a “praying to YHWH who is in the temple”.94

92

93 94

Brdar-Szabó and Brdar (2011) 236. Cf. Littlemore (2015) 94: “[I]n metonymy, both the vehicle and its referent remain available, allowing the speaker to say two things at once”; Warren (2002) 121: “[In metonymy] the speaker is focussing [sic] on the [vehicle] rather than on the [target]. Both are, however, mentally present for the speaker and retrieved by the interpreter”; Panther and Thornburg (1999) 334: “[B]oth the vehicle and the target are conceptually present when a metonymy is used”. Radden and Kövecses (1999) 19. Pp. 43-44.

90

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Why a metonym is used This therefore raises the question as to why the writer has elected to use an expression which, by referring to the temple, says more than merely praying “to YHWH”. Two points can be made. First, Littlemore points out that one of the most common uses of metonymy is to “foreground the information that is most important to the speaker”.95 She illustrates the point from Charles Dickens’s novel The Pickwick Papers in which, in response to a query about guests at an inn, Sam Weller, the boot-cleaner, replies: There is a vooden [sic] leg in number six, there’s a pair of Hessians in thirteen, there’s two pairs of halves in the commercial … there’s a pair of Vellingtons a good deal vorn, and a pair o’ lady’s shoes, in number five.

Littlemore notes that, “[i]n this passage, Sam’s primary interest is with the footwear that the various guests wear and he uses this to categorise the guests themselves”. In the same way, Solomon uses a metonymic phrase referring to the building, because, although the target of the “praying ‫ אל‬this place/ house” is the Deity, the king also wishes to draw attention to the temple itself – a concern clearly consistent with his extensive references to it elsewhere in the chapter. Leaving aside the four instances under consideration (i.e. those to “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”), he initially informs YHWH that he has built him an exalted house (v. 13), refers to it six times within vv. 15–21, twice in vv. 27–30 and then in all but one of the seven future scenarios that he envisages for the Israelites. Secondly, Langacker has noted that [m]etonymy allows an efficient reconciliation of two conflicting factors: the need to be accurate, i.e. of being sure that the addressee’s attention is directed to the intended target; and our natural inclination to think and talk explicitly about those entities that have the greatest cognitive salience for us.96

With regard to the second factor, he proposes a number of principles that can make an entity sufficiently salient to serve as a metonymic vehicle unless overridden by other considerations. Among such principles he 95 96

Littlemore (2015) 73. Langacker (1993) 30. This point has been taken up and considerably expanded by Radden and Kövecses (1999) 44–52 in a section entitled “Principles governing the selection of the preferred vehicle”.

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

91

suggests that visible entities are more salient than non-visible ones. He does not illustrate the point, but Radden and Kövecses view it as an example of concrete entities being more salient than abstract ones. They note that [s]ince concrete objects are visible and abstract things invisible, the principle also entails VISIBLE OVER INVISIBLE, which is reflected in metonymies such as to save one’s skin for “to save one’s life”.97

While YHWH is not viewed as abstract, the concrete nature of the temple could well have been the key factor in the choice of “this place/ house” as a metonym for the (invisible) Deity.

THE TWO MAIN OPTIONS Having put forward the case for an alternative reading of the four references in 1 Kings 8 to “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”, we are now in a position to compare the two interpretations: the widely used directional sense popularized in the translation “toward(s) the temple” of many English versions versus our own proposal that praying to the building is a metonym for praying to its divine occupant, YHWH. Praying towards the temple This appears to be the most commonly accepted understanding of Solomon’s words. On the positive side, the interpretation of the preposition ‫ אל‬in a directional sense is plausible, in that “towards” is one of its main meanings. Against this, however, three points can be made (as argued in Chapter 2 above). First, within the Hebrew Bible the preposition ‫ אל‬never means “towards” in the context of verbal communication. Not only are there no instances of that particular usage in collocation with the verb “to pray” (‫[ פלל‬hithp.]), but neither is it found with any verb of speech. Outside 1 Kings 8 (and its parallels in 2 Chron. 6) it is almost always used to introduce the addressee of the praying (‫פלל אל‬ [hithp.]), while with other verbs of speech this is its most common function. Secondly, had the intention been to refer to praying in the direction of the temple, there was a much clearer way of expressing that than with 97

Radden and Kövecses (1999) 46. They link this to the CONTAINER FOR CONTENTS metonymy “since things in a container are typically hidden inside the container and, thus, invisible”.

92

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

the preposition ‫אל‬, i.e. using the term ‫( דרך‬found elsewhere within the prayer). While it would have incontestably indicated that the praying was to be aimed towards the temple, it was not employed in the four verses under consideration. That the writer preferred to use the much more ambiguous ‫ אל‬suggests that such a directional sense was not what he had in mind. Finally, adopting this particular interpretation would introduce a strange inconsistency into Solomon’s prayer. The individual requests would always be heard by YHWH in heaven, but would sometimes be offered “towards” the temple (implying at the very least a somewhat unusual role for the building), at other times straight to the Deity. It is difficult to see why the temple should be involved at all when the Israelite could clearly pray direct to YHWH himself. Praying to the occupant of the temple The PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymy is well attested throughout the Hebrew Bible, there being numerous examples of places (earth, kingdoms, cities, toponyms, etc.) being addressed98 and standing for their occupants. Admittedly, outside 1 Kings 8 (and its parallels in 2 Chron. 6) there are no precedents for prayers being directed to a building or dwelling, however understood. None the less, in favour of the target of such prayers being the occupant of the temple (i.e. of “this place/house”), we have made three points. First, in addition to the above range of places addressed, with their inhabitants or occupants as the target of the communication, there are examples of both ‫ מקום‬and ‫ בית‬employed in this sense. Gen. 20:13 and 1 Sam. 31:9 each exhibit this trait: in the former “every place” is to be informed that Abraham is Sarah’s brother, while in the latter the “house” of the Philistines’ idols is to be told the good news of the death of Saul and his three sons. The communication is obviously addressed to the occupants of “every place” and of the Philistines’ temple respectively. Secondly, and in contrast to the prevailing directional view, there does not seem to have been a viable alternative to the proposed figurative interpretation, i.e. one which would have conveyed more clearly the same information as the proposed metonym. Two possibilities come to mind, but neither is satisfactory. Replacing “this place/ house” by an explicit reference to the target, i.e. “YHWH”, would not have produced an adequate equivalent to “this place/house”, since, although it would stipulate the identity of the addressee, it would lack 98

P. 60 n. 106.

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

93

any mention of the temple. Alternatively, the indirect object of the praying could have been expanded to “YHWH who is in (‫ )אשׁר ב‬this place/ house”. However, while there are examples of such a relative clause being used to identify YHWH (or pagan deities) as present among (‫)אשׁר ב‬ people,99 there are none to any placing him in a physical location such as “the bush”, “the holy of holies” or the temple.100 In any case, Littlemore has described metonymy as “a kind of communicative shorthand, allowing people to use their shared knowledge of the world to communicate with fewer words than they would otherwise need [our emphasis]”.101 If this is correct, such an amplification could have been seen as excessively wordy. Moreover, one would also have to ask why it would have been necessary, especially in view of the numerous instances elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible where a metonym has been employed, but without any need for expansion. Finally, and in contrast to the directional interpretation, the metonymic one entails a consistency in the focus of the praying within the prayer as a whole. Regardless of the circumstances in which Solomon, the Israelite or the foreigner finds himself, the praying is always addressed to YHWH, whether this is expressed explicitly (vv. 33, 44, 48) or metonymically (vv. 29, 30, 35, 42).

CONCLUSION Given that the most likely interpretation of the four references to “praying to this place/house” is that they are examples of a metonymy conforming to the well-known PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS pattern, we suggested that there would appear to be two credible candidates for the intended target: YHWH or his “name”. Each is portrayed as being present within the actual temple, a state of affairs either well known or evident from the literary context, and each appears to be personal and so complies with the selection restrictions of the verb “to pray”.

99

100

101

Num. 11:20: “[Y]ou have rejected the LORD who is among you (‫”)אשׁר בקרבכם‬. Cf. Gen. 35:2; Josh. 24:23. The collocation does occur in Lev. 4:7 and 18, but in both cases it is likely that the ‫ אשׁר‬refers to the altar which is “in the tent of meeting” and not to YHWH himself. Cf. the NRSV rendering. Littlemore (2015) 5. Cf. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Pérez Hernández (2003) 34, who describe a similarly expanded phrase as “an uneconomical description”, and Warren (1992) 72, who suggests that neglecting to mention the target “may be due to a wish to economize with words”.

94

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Of the two, however, the Deity himself would appear to be the most likely target. Selecting him as the intended referent ensures that all the prayers are addressed to him (i.e. and not some to his ‫)שׁם‬, whether offered explicitly or implicitly, i.e. as the metonymic target of “this place/house”. YHWH fits most comfortably as the recipient of prayers addressed to the temple, since there are clear precedents elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for similar requests being made to him, though none to his divine ‫שׁם‬. Finally, and given the possible paradigmatic nature of the relationship between a metonymic vehicle and its target, replacing “this place/house” by the Deity produces the usual and widespread collocation of “praying to YHWH”, while exchanging it for the divine ‫ שׁם‬leads to a construction unknown within the Hebrew Bible. It therefore seems likely that it is the Deity himself, rather than his ‫שׁם‬, that is the intended target. Once the latter had been identified, it was then possible to compare the two main contenders for the interpretation of the collocation – praying “towards this place/house” or praying “to its occupant” – even though there are no precise precedents for either proposal. Despite the fact that both the PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymy and ‫ אל‬understood as “towards” are well attested in the Hebrew Bible, prayers addressed to a building understood as referring to its occupant (the Deity) or towards such a structure in a directional sense would both be unusual phenomena, and so a choice has had to be made on the basis of probabilities. The evidence presented suggests that of the two readings, the generally accepted translation is the most problematic, and so the metonymic interpretation is the more likely. A way of expressing prayer “towards” the temple was available. It would have made clear that the directional sense was the one intended, but was not taken. Rather, the writer chose to retain the more ambiguous preposition ‫ אל‬commonly associated with the verb ‫( פלל‬hithp.). Since, therefore, there are no examples of that preposition employed in a directional sense following that particular verb (or any verb of communication), it seems likely that that specific meaning was not what the author had in mind. In addition, this interpretation of the collocation would, rather implausibly, have promoted two different modes of praying – sometimes direct to YHWH and sometimes towards the temple. By contrast, although confirmation of the idea of occupancy of the temple by expanding “this place/house” to “YHWH who is in this place/ house” would have been possible, it seems not to have been necessary. This is not because that was not what was intended, but because, even

THE OCCUPANT OF THE TEMPLE

95

though the prayer mentions only the temple (“this place/house”), both it and its occupant are communicated by the collocation. Consequently, any such clarification would have been redundant, especially in view of the many instances of the PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymy which occur within the Hebrew Bible without such elaboration, including the two instances of both ‫ מקום‬and ‫ בית‬being addressed so as to target their occupants. Finally, understanding “this place/house” as a metonym for the Deity allows for a consistent portrayal of the intercessions in Solomon’s prayer, since, rather than sometimes proceeding via the temple, they will always go direct to YHWH himself. Hence, if the above be allowed, it appears that, within Solomon’s prayer of dedication in 1 Kings 8, YHWH is represented as being present not only in heaven but also in the temple.102

102

Contra Sommer (2009) 66, who, with reference to the deuteronomic tradition, asserts that “God cannot reside both in the skies and in the temple”.

5

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8 This monograph has sought to initiate a scholarly discussion about the whereabouts of the divine presence portrayed in Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the temple. The prevailing consensus has it that the intercession situates YHWH’s “name” in the building, but the Deity himself is absent, having been “relocated” to heaven. While examination of the prayer confirmed the lack of conventional ways of denoting the divine presence, it unexpectedly revealed several instances of the unusual activity of “praying ‫ אל‬the temple”, i.e. rather than ‫ אל‬a person. It was this observation which resulted in the current study focusing on the meaning and significance of that particular expression. Initially, various alternative interpretations of the phrase were considered (Chapter 2), in particular those involving the preposition ‫ אל‬read in the sense of “towards” or “in”/“at”. It was discovered that, when following the verb “to pray”, or, indeed, any verb of communication, the commonly accepted import of “towards” was without precedent, and, in any case, could have been expressed unambiguously, had that been what its author(s) meant. Given that translating the ‫ אל‬in the collocation “praying ‫ אל‬the temple” as “towards” had been found wanting, Chapter 3 briefly introduced the non-literal figure of referential metonymy, outlining how both to recognize it and determine its intended meaning. Its characteristic features were described, and, on returning to Solomon’s prayer, it was shown that the collocation is indeed non-literal. As such, it is best understood as an example of the PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymy, in which the temple, the addressee of the “praying ‫”אל‬, stands for its occupant. Support for this interpretation was then obtained by noting similar usages involving ‫ מקום‬and ‫בית‬. Finally, recourse was made to the characteristics of referential metonymy outlined earlier, in order to determine the identity of that occupant (Chapter 4). The two main contenders, YHWH and his “name”, were both found to satisfy the required conditions, but further evidence indicated that, of the two, it is likely to be the Deity that is the target. Following some reflections on the use of the metonym within the prayer, the arguments for and against the two main understandings of “praying ‫ ”אל‬the temple were summarized. It was concluded that, while

98

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

praying towards the building is a possible interpretation, it is more likely that a PLACE FOR OCCUPANT metonymy is involved, with the intended referent being YHWH himself, rather than his “name”, and thus that the prayer locates the Deity in the temple as well as in heaven. If this is in fact the case, a number of issues are raised, particularly in 1 Kings 8.

THE PRAYER

LOCATES

YHWH

IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE

We have argued that within the prayer the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” locate the Deity in the temple. This is particularly significant, not just because it unexpectedly represents YHWH as being present there, when received wisdom has protested strongly that he is not, but because that presence is indicated in the same literary context as three references to his being or dwelling in heaven. Verses 30, 35 and 42 portray Solomon as envisaging a number of future circumstances when petitioners, whether they be Israelite or foreign, will pray “‫ אל‬this place/ house” and thus to YHWH who is located within the temple. He then requests YHWH, whom he refers to either as dwelling (v. 30, 43) or as being (v. 36) in heaven, to hear such prayers and respond to them in an appropriate manner. The prayers are therefore anticipated as being addressed to the Deity who is present in the building, but heard and acted upon by that same Deity in heaven. However, since there is no hint of any delay between the requests and the expectation of being heard, it would appear that in these cases YHWH is being viewed as simultaneously present both in the temple and in heaven. A similar claim can be made for the instruction in Deut. 26:12–15 with regard to disposal of the triennial tithe. After distributing most1 of the produce to the Levites, aliens, orphans and widows, the Israelite is expected to make “before YHWH” a declaration, the substance of which is found in vv. 13–15. We have argued elsewhere, first for the view held by most commentators, 2 that this was intended to take place at the central sanctuary, i.e. rather than in the settlements, 3 and secondly, that in that context the preposition (‫ )לפני‬should be understood as “in close spatial proximity to”, and thus that the phrase indicates the presence of the Deity 1 2 3

Wilson (2008) 334–336. Wilson (2008) 323–339, with 323 n. 2 listing scholars holding the majority view. Contra Veijola (2002) 303.

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

99

at that sanctuary.4 Hence, seeing that the declaring is made in YHWH’s presence in the sanctuary and includes a request assuming that he is present in heaven – “Look down from your holy habitation, from heaven” (v. 15) – it is clear that this also is locating him in the same two places at once. These two cases are examples of a feature which has been observed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Mettinger writes of “passages which … unconcernedly locate God simultaneously on earth and in heaven”,5 while Cohn notes that “the biblical authors can express the paradox of Yahweh dwelling simultaneously in heaven and on earth”.6 This phenomenon is frequently detected in connection with the Jerusalem temple and usually illustrated from the psalms: [T]he Hebrew Bible is capable of affirming God’s heavenly and his earthly presence without the slightest hint of tension between the two: YHWH is in his sacred Temple, YHWH’s throne is in the heavens. (Ps 11:4)7 Quite frequently we discover that Yahweh’s dwelling in heaven, and his presence on Mount Zion are mentioned in the same psalm, without any consciousness of contradiction between the two. There is in fact little attempt throughout the Psalter to rationalize, or “theologize”, the inherent tension between the earthly and the heavenly, the immanent deity on earth and the transcendent in heaven.8

4 5 6

7

8

Wilson (1995) 185–187. Mettinger (1982) 30. Cohn (1981) 39. See also Metzger (1970) 145: “Jahwe thront im Tempel und zugleich im Himmel”. Levenson (1985) 140. While some scholars consider the temple in this verse to be the heavenly one (in which case we merely have an example of synonymous parallelism), he and others regard it as the earthly temple, while at the same time ascribing the apparent contradiction to a single author. See also Mettinger (1982) 29–32. Other psalms exhibiting the same phenomenon are: 14:2, 7; 76:3, 9 (EVV 2, 8). Clements (1965) 68, who also illustrates the phenomenon from Ps. 14. He goes on to note that “[i]t is impossible to maintain that this uniting of Yahweh’s dwelling in heaven and his abode on Zion is merely a consequence of a conflation of two [opposing] traditions”. See also Sommer (2009) 98: “[A]t least some of the Zion-Sabaoth texts acknowledge that God can be literally present in more than one place. Some of them openly assert that God is located both in a heavenly palace and in the Jerusalem temple”. He then illustrates this from Pss. 76, 14 and 20; Keller (1996) 149 n. 255, which refers to “Stellen … in denen … Jahwe selber zugleich im Tempel wie im Himmel anwesend vorgestellt wird: Pss 11,4?; 14,2.7; 20,3.7; 76,3.9; 80,2.15”; Weinfeld (1972) 197 n. 3: “The belief of the divine presence in the sanctuary did not … preclude the belief in the Deity’s heavenly abode. Israel appears to have shared this dialectical conception of the divine abode … with other peoples of the Ancient East”. Cf. Fichtner (1964) 139, who also cites Ps. 20; 3, 7 (EVV 2, 6).

100

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

When this occurs, the distinction between the earthly and the heavenly is regarded as having been done away with,9 and some scholars have attributed the phenomenon to a “mythical understanding of space”.10 The crucial point here is not that, under some circumstances YHWH is represented as being on the earth / in a sanctuary, while under others he is depicted as being in heaven. Rather, that in such texts he is portrayed as being in both places at one and the same time. In deuteronomic or deuteronomistic texts, however, it is generally thought that YHWH has been “relocated” to heaven and thus effectively excluded from the earthly sphere. It is not surprising then, that scholars who espouse Name Theology frequently assert that this notion of the simultaneous presence of the Deity in both heaven and earth is totally foreign to deuteronom(ist)ic texts: This dialectical belief … is a non-deuteronomic conception and is completely rejected by the deuteronomic school … which regarded heaven as the exclusive place of God’s abode.11 In contrast to the idea of the divine mountain, according to which YHWH’s throne extends from Zion into heaven, and the boundary between the heavenly and the earthly is abolished in the sanctuary, the Deuteronomist draws a line between the temple built by human hand and heaven as YHWH’s dwelling place and throne … according to the Deuteronomist heaven [is] the place where YHWH sits enthroned or dwells.12 9

10

11 12

Levenson (1985) 142: “[T]he two tiers [of reality], the earthly and the heavenly, are not closed to each other, but open, and interpenetrating on Zion”; Mettinger (1982) 37, re the temple in the Zion-Sabaoth theology: “[W]e here encounter a unificatory conception: the Temple is the place where the category of space is transcended and the borderline between heaven and earth is erased”; Cohn (1981) 69: “[I]n the temple the boundary between heaven and earth is erased”; Metzger (1970) 145: “Diese Vorstellungsweise läßt schließlich deutlich werden, daß im Heiligtum die Grenzen zwischen der irdischen und der himmlischen Welt relativiert sind”. See Mettinger (1982) 30: “[A] mythical concept of space … seems to imply unity or identity, the Temple is the site at which the category of space is transcended. Here the distinction is obliterated between the heavenly and the earthly, in that both are subsumed under a higher mystical identity”; Childs (1960) 86, who, commenting on this view of reality, notes that “[w]hen two spaces possess the same content, then distance is transcended. These are not two different spaces, but one”; Maier (1964) 105: “[das] mythische Raumverständnis, nach welchem an der Stätte des Gottessitzes die Kategorien ‘Himmlisch’ und ‘Irdisch’ aufgehoben sind”. See also Wilson (1995) 69–70, esp. n. 102. Weinfeld (1972) 197 n. 3. Metzger (1970) 150: “Im Unterschied zur Gottesbergvorstellung, derzufolge der Jahwethron vom Zion bis in den Himmel hineinragt und derzufolge im Heiligtum die Grenze zwischen Himmlisch und Irdisch aufgehoben ist, zieht der Deuteronomist eine Grenze zwischen dem von Menschenhand erbauten Tempelgebäude und dem Himmel

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

101

Solomon’s prayer, however, not only locates YHWH both in heaven and in the sanctuary, but does so simultaneously.13 Since, therefore, it is generally considered to be a major deuteronomistic14 text, it must, on that account, be considered a significant counterexample to the argument denying its possibility.

THE INTERPRETATION

OF

1 KINGS 8:27

But will God indeed dwell15 on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you (‫)יכלכלוך‬, much less this house that I have built!

This verse is frequently appealed to in support of an assertion of YHWH’s absence from the temple. The usual view is that the implied answer to the rhetorical question is in the negative:16 No, God cannot dwell on the earth. Hence he cannot be present in the building. The line of reasoning is well summarized by Levenson: At first glance, this disclaimer [i.e. v. 27] looks like a renunciation of the notion that God is to be found in his Temple … It is. But the proof that the Temple cannot contain God is that even the uttermost reaches of the heavens cannot contain him. The disclaimer distinguishes Temple from cosmos only by placing the same limitation on both. The

13

14 15 16

als Wohnstatt und Thronsitz Jahwes … nach dem Deuteronomisten der Himmel [ist] der Ort, an dem Jahwe thront oder wohnt”. See also Mettinger (1982) 46–47: “Deuteronomistic theology shattered this unitary conception [i.e. whereby ‘heaven and earth were conjoined in the Temple’] by emphasizing the transcendence of God … [who] became ‘relocated’ to the heavens above”; Clements (1965) 137: “[T]he Deuteronomists abandoned the notion of a symbolic unity between the earthly and heavenly abodes of Yahweh, and substituted the doctrine that Yahweh sent forth his name … to dwell in the temple”. While not spelling out the simultaneity of the divine presence in both heaven and earth, Fretheim (1999) 54 appears to hold this view, as implied by the psalm reference that he gives: “[T]his text claims that God dwells in both temple and heaven … (Ps. 11:4)”. P. 8 n. 38 for references. LXX adds “with people” (μετὰ ἀνθρώπων). Cf. Sweeney (2007) 134: “Verses 27–30 … employ … a rhetorical question to assert that YHWH does not dwell on earth”; Brueggemann (2000) 110: “Whereas … vv. 10–13 had placed Yahweh visibly and physically in the temple, vv. 27–30 issue a protest against such a claim and offer an alternative. The opening question of v. 27 requires a decisive ‘no’ in response. No, Yahweh will not dwell on earth”; Bietenhard (1967) 256: “[T]he Deuteronomic continuation [of the older version of Solomon’s prayer] in 8:14ff. … gives a negative answer to the question whether Yahweh might dwell on earth, 8:27”; Grether (1934) 32: “Es wird … die aufgeworfene Frage, ob Jahwe auf Erden wohnen könne, negativ beantwortet”.

102

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Temple is less infinite, so to speak, than the world. Since the latter cannot contain God, a fortiori, the former cannot.17

This conclusion is often reinforced by an appeal to the main body of the prayer with its eight references locating the Deity in heaven.18 There is, however, a problem with this particular deduction from the verse. Given the implied analogy between “heaven and the highest heaven” and the temple, neither of which can apparently contain the Deity, it would seem reasonable to assume that if the verse were actually denying that “God is to be found in his Temple”, then by the same token, it would also be excluding his presence from heaven.19 This, however, would lead to the curious outcome in which v. 27 states that “heaven and the highest heaven” cannot contain God, while eight of the subsequent verses imply that in fact they can (vv. 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49).20 The latter apparent contradiction is obviously predicated on the assumption that v. 27 and at least some of the following references to YHWH’s being in heaven come from the same hand. Some scholars regard v. 27 as an insertion into the text – for a variety of reasons, but most frequently on the grounds that it seems out of place in its present context and in any case interrupts the connection between v. 26 and v. 28.21 Others, however, 17

18

19

20 21

Levenson (1984) 289. Cf. Geller (1996) 40: “Solomon is presented as admitting quite openly that the grandiose structure will serve no such function [i.e. as ‘a house for God on earth’] … The sense could not be more certain: God dwells not in the holiest place of the shrine … but remains always in His heavenly palace”; Knoppers (1995) 236: “Solomon … qualifies his earlier claim that he built a residence for Yhwh, ‘a place for your dwelling forever’ (8:13), by asserting that the deity does not reside in the temple: ‘the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain you, much less this house which I have built’ (8:27)”; Weippert (1980) 84–85: “[E]in Haus Gott unmöglich fassen könne (1 Kön 8, 27). Jahwe thront im Himmel … schließt das Tempelweihgebet … Jahwes Anwesenheit im Tempel selbst aus”; Weinfeld (1972) 209: “Isaiah … expressly repudiates the notion of the sanctuary as the place of God’s habitation … This view is also met with in the deuteronomic prayer of Solomon … (1 Kgs. 8:27)”. See p. 9 n. 43 for quotations by Werlitz (2002), Janowski (1987), Weinfeld (1972), Metzger (1970), Clements (1965), Garofalo (1960) and Westphal (1908). Cf. Linville (1998) 298: “Yahweh could not actually dwell in that [ideal heavenly] temple either, at least by Solomon’s admission, since the whole heavens and earth could not contain him (1Kgs 8.27)”; Provan (1995) 79: “[Heaven] is (if anywhere is) the dwelling place of God. Even then, however, God cannot, strictly speaking, dwell in even the highest heaven (v. 27)”; Talstra (1993) 207: “Strictly speaking, heaven is just as incapable of containing God as the temple is”; Terrien (1978) 198: “Solomon’s long prayer … even demythicizes ‘heaven’ as the spatial container of divinity”. Note also Japhet’s (1989) 61 n. 157 comment that “[e]ven if intended as a polemic against 1 Kings 8:13, this verse does not negate or deny God’s presence in the Temple”. A point which has been frequently emphasized. E.g. Nentel (2000) 208; Fritz (2003) 98; Mulder (1998) 415; Hentschel (1984) 59; Jones (1984) 201; Nelson (1981) 70; Gray (1970) 221; Hölscher (1923) 167; Ehrlich

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

103

appear to have no problem with its position between the two verses, and consider that it comes from the same hand as all22 or many23 of the following heaven verses. If the latter view of the composition of the text is correct, then the contradiction clearly still stands, and a more satisfactory understanding of v. 27 is required, one from which, apart from the obvious difference in scale, the same deduction can be applied both to the temple and to heaven. A possible resolution Within 1 Kings 8:27 the Hebrew verb ‫( כול‬pilp.) is generally rendered “contain”. Thus, when “heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you” is understood as asserting that the Deity is unable to occupy them, the verb rendered “contain” is being interpreted in the sense of “encompass”, i.e. as stating that the celestial dimensions are insufficiently large to accommodate him.24 With this reading, therefore, as Levenson has indicated, the verse is denying the divine presence within the temple.25 The same word, however, occurs in Jer. 20:9, but in this case additional information provides a clue as to how the verb should be understood:

22

23

24

25

(1968) 232; Šanda (1911) 227; Benzinger (1899) 61. Note, however, that, even if v. 27 were a later insertion, it would still be necessary to try and understand how it related to the conception of divine presence in the prayer as a whole. McKenzie (1991) 151: DtrH; Levenson (1981) 162: Dtr 2; Burney (1903) 114: “later insertions … assigned to the same hand”. Knoppers (1993) 105–106: vv. 27–45: “one preexilic writer”; Talstra (1993) 278–279: vv. 27, 30abα: dtr.1-‫ ;מקום‬DeVries (1985) 123: vv. 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43: Dtr; Dietrich (1972) 74 n. 39: vv. 27, 30b, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43: “erste Erweiterung”; Jepsen (1956) Übersicht über Quellen und Redaktionen: vv. 27, 32, 34, 36aα, 39a, 43a: RI; Montgomery and Gehman (1951) 193–194: vv. 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39: “early origin”; Hölscher (1923) 167: vv. 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43: “Ein Interpolator B”; Eißfeldt (1922) 514–515: vv. 27, 32, 34, 36, 39: Dt; Skinner (n.d.) 146–150: vv. 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43: D. Cf. Hens-Piazza (2006) 81: “The words of [Solomon’s] supplication [vv. 27–30] suggest that God’s presence eclipses the limits of heaven and earth”; Rofé (2002) 10: “YHWH’s actual place of residence is in the heavens ([Deut.] 26.15), but they are not sufficient to accommodate him (1 Kgs 8.27)”; Brueggemann (2000) 110: “Yahweh will not dwell on earth … because [he] is too big … even heaven … is not adequate to hold Yahweh”; Baumann (1995) 88: “God is so great that neither ‘heaven’ nor the whole heavenly realm constitutes a vessel large enough to contain him”. However, this leaves us with the aforementioned inconsistency with the eight verses in the prayer. Cf. Eslinger (1989) 165: “Solomon does not for one moment think that [God] could possibly live or even fit into the temple”.

104

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

If I say, “I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,” then within me there is something like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I am weary with holding it in (‫)כלכל‬, and I cannot.

Of the various meanings attributed to ‫( כול‬pilp.),26 two are usually favoured here. Some commentators appear to see Jeremiah as being tired of passively putting up with the internal pressure to resume preaching (symbolized by the fire in his bones), and so render v. 9b as “I am weary of bearing/enduring it”.27 By contrast, other scholars seem to view him as being tired of actively resisting that pressure, and so render the clause as “I am weary of holding it in” (or similar).28 While, in the context of Jer. 20:7–13, both readings appear to make sense in terms of the prophet’s internal turmoil, no scholar consulted justifies their own interpretation of the verb. However, of the two readings, the second is close to the way that 1 Kings 8:27 is usually understood,29 though, as indicated above, with one significant difference: features in the immediate literary context of Jer. 20:9b help to focus the particular meaning intended for ‫כלכל‬, and so provide an alternative interpretation to the one generally accepted in 1 Kings 8. This slightly different reading may then be able to cast light on the inability of heaven and the highest heaven to “contain” the Deity in v. 27 of that chapter. In Jer. 20:9 Jeremiah’s inability (‫ )ולא אוכל‬to “hold in” or “contain” (‫ )כלכל‬cannot mean that his heart or bones are insufficiently large to enable the burning fire to occupy them, since the fire is already present within (‫)ב‬ them. Rather, the verb appears to have the sense of “preventing the ‘burning fire’ from spreading”, like “containing” a conflagration. And in fact, this is the sense which is adopted both by most English translations30 and by those commentators who eschew the “bear/endure” translation. The latter group even includes McKane, who notes that the sense of the verb as indicated by the versions and many scholars is “endure”, but continues: 26 27

28

29

30

See the standard dictionaries. Curiously, this appears to be the favoured German understanding: “(es) auszuhalten” (Fischer [2005] 606; Volz [1983] 208; Weiser [1981] 167; Rudolph [1968] 130; Lamparter [1964] 182), “(es) zu ertragen” (Nötscher [1934] 159; Breuer [1914] 161; Giesebrecht [1894] 113). See also: “enduring this” (Welch [n.d.] 52). “[H]olding (it) in” (Lundbom [1999] 851; Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard [1991] 269; Holladay [1986] 548; Bright [1965] 129; Leslie [1954] 152), “containing it” (McKane [1986] 467), “contenerlo” (Penna [1954] 168), “le contenir” (Condamin [1936] 160), “suppressing it” (Allen [2008] 222). Both texts involve entities considered to be greater than a specified space. The “burning fire” is in danger of engulfing the prophet’s heart and/or bones, while God is generally thought to be too large for “heaven and the highest heaven”, and thus for “this house”. NKJV (“hold back”), ESV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, NAB, TEV, RSV (“hold in”), REB, NEB (“hold under”), NJB, JB (“restrain”).

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

105

[I]t is the thought of containment rather than the more general one of endurance which has to be identified … It is not simply that the prophet is worn out and can endure no longer, but rather that the struggle to contain the word of God within him, to deny it expression and to suppress the utterance which wells up within him, drains him of all strength and energy.31

Hence, if this applies in 1 Kings 8:27, a more appropriate translation would be “heaven and the highest heaven cannot constrain him”. So, although they are not able to confine him there, they are large enough to accommodate him, and thus the Deity will fit in to the highest heaven. With this reading there is no conflict with vv. 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49, and it therefore becomes possible to regard heaven as his dwelling place. At the same time, since he is not restricted to being there, he is free to be present elsewhere.32 Hence, although the temple is immeasurably smaller than “heaven and the highest heaven”, and so even less able to confine him, he is still able to dwell there. This has been ably summarized by Hundley: The qualification of God’s presence in v. 27 … states that both earthly and heavenly dwellings are ultimately unfit for YHWH. Nonetheless, the text still calls heaven God’s dwelling place. Thus, it seems to be affirming that, although heaven cannot contain his greatness, it is his dwelling nonetheless. This opens up the possibility that earth may indeed be a divine dwelling place even if it is unfit for him and unable to encapsulate him. The stress on heavenly presence would then seem to be a corrective33 against unnecessarily limiting God to a terrestrial, anthropomorphic abode.34 31 32

33

34

McKane (1986) 473. Cf. Japhet (1989) 61–62: “God’s presence in a particular place, whether it be heaven or the Temple, does not confine Him to that place … [he] may dwell in many places: heaven, the Temple, Sinai … but none of them completely contains Him”; Maly (1981) 27: “It could be asked whether the word ‘contain’ in v. 27 means to enclose as in a box or merely to possess in some way without suggesting a denial of the divine presence elsewhere”. This suggestion of a correction against limiting God has been noted by other scholars: Fretheim (1999) 49–53: “The opening question in verse 27 regarding the divine dwelling does not contradict verse 13; the point is that, in the strictest terms, no place (even heaven) can be considered the place where God dwells. God dwells both in heaven and in the temple … [his] presence could not be confined or localized in the temple (8:27–30 …) as might be encouraged by the common ‘house of God’ language throughout this section of Kings”; Robinson (1972) 102–103: “God was not to be thought of as being present in the temple in any sense which implied that he was absent from the rest of the world. God cannot be circumscribed”; Keil (n.d.) 127: “With [v. 27] … Solomon does not intend to guard against the delusion that God really dwells in temples … but simply to meet the erroneous idea that He dwells in the temple as men dwell in a house, namely, shut up within it, and not also outside and above it”. Hundley (2009) 551 n. 75.

106

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

This meaning of the verb therefore allows an interpretation of v. 27 which is both consistent with our claim that the prayer locates YHWH in the temple and with its several statements that also locate him in heaven. THE USE

OF

‫ ישׁב‬TO QUALIFY ‫שׁמים‬

Within the prayer there are three instances of the collocation ‫השׁמים‬ ‫“( מכון שׁבתך‬heaven your dwelling place”): in vv. 39, 43 and 49, cf. v. 30. The problem With regard to what is implied by this use of ‫ישׁב‬, scholars tend simply to observe that the statements affirming YHWH’s heavenly dwelling are intended as a corrective to that made by Solomon in v. 13, when he informs YHWH that the temple is his residence.35 Weinfeld’s comments on 1 Kings 8 would be typical: The idea that God’s habitation is in heaven is here articulated most emphatically in order to eradicate the belief that the Deity sat enthroned between the cherubim in the temple. Whenever the expression “Your dwelling place” (‫ )מכון שבתך‬is employed we find that it is invariably accompanied by the word “in heaven” (vv. 30, 39, 43, 49). The deuteronomic editor is clearly disputing the older view implied by … vv. 12–13 … [which] designates the temple as God’s “exalted house and a dwelling place … for ever”.36

Here the emphasis on the Deity’s dwelling (‫ )ישׁב‬in heaven is being contrasted with his dwelling (‫ )ישׁב‬in the temple, on the assumption that it must be one or the other. It cannot be both. However, in addition to those scholars who understand the prayer as denying YHWH’s dwelling in the temple, there are those who view it as ruling out altogether the idea of his even being in the building: This theology of the Temple … is implicitly a polemic against the idea that God is literally, even physically present therein … Thus, we hear in 1 Kgs 8: 23–53 a continual emphasis upon God’s true dwelling, the heavens.37 In the Name Theology … God himself is no longer present in the Temple, but only in heaven.38 35 36 37 38

Pp. 74–75, esp. n. 38. Weinfeld (1972) 195. See also p. 9 n. 43. Levenson (1981) 159. Mettinger (1982) 123–124. Cf. Brueggemann (2000) 110: “Yahweh in heaven is present to the temple but is not present in the temple”. See also the quotations on p. 7 n. 37

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

107

If the Deity dwells at a particular location (in this case, heaven), he cannot be present at a different one (in this case, the temple). Such comments seem to be based on an underlying assumption that, intrinsic to the meaning of the verb ‫ישׁב‬, is a curtailment of the freedom of its divine subject to be elsewhere. According to these scholars YHWH is ensconced solely in heaven, whereas we have argued that YHWH is present in the temple, albeit in an unspecified way. This therefore raises the question as to whether such a perceived restriction is inherent in the meaning of the verb ‫ישׁב‬, and thus whether the emphasis on YHWH’s “dwelling” in heaven really does preclude him from being present on the earth as well. Certainly within the Hebrew Bible “dwelling” (‫ )ישׁב‬is not the only mode of YHWH’s localized presence. In addition to the other main verb (‫ )שׁכן‬which is used to represent the Deity as in some sense “residing” on the earth,39 his presence is indicated, for example, in Gen. 11:5 when he “came down” to see the tower of Babel, and in Gen. 12:7 when he “appeared” to Abram. However, in neither case is his action referred to as a divine “dwelling”. It is thus possible for the Deity to be present on the earth without his being described as “living” (‫ )ישׁב‬there.40 In view, therefore, of the difference between our conclusion that YHWH is located in the temple at the same time as he dwells in heaven, and the above view of ‫ ישׁב‬that denies that possibility, it would be useful to see if there is any way of understanding the Deity’s dwelling in heaven which allows him the freedom also to be present in the temple. Possible approaches The example of Og With regard to the indication in 1 Kings 8 of two separate dwellings for YHWH, i.e. the temple (v. 13) and heaven (vv. 30, 39, 43, 49), an intriguing possibility is suggested by Josh. 12:4 (cf. Deut. 1:4), in which Og, the erstwhile king of Bashan, is referred to as “‫ היושׁב‬at Ashtaroth and Edrei”. While most commentators do not indicate how they understand the verb, choosing rather to focus on identifying the two cities with

39 40

by Hurowitz (1992), Weippert (1980), Gese (1975), Westphal (1908) and Giesebrecht (1901). Exod. 25:8; 29:45, 46; Num. 5:3; 35:34 et passim. It is true that, in connection with (presumably) YHWH’s appearance to Moses recounted in Exod. 3, Deut. 33:16 refers to “the one who dwells in the bush”. However, the verb used there is ‫שׁכן‬, not ‫ישׁב‬.

108

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

modern archaeological sites, the occasional scholar41 and translation42 render the verb in the sense of “reigned”, presumably on the basis of 13:12. This interpretation, however, would seem to be unlikely, since the text goes on (in v. 5) to use a verb with that very sense (‫ )משׁל‬to delineate the geographical extent of Og’s reach. Fritz considers that Edrei, the place where he was defeated, was inserted from Num. 21:33; Deut. 3:1, and that Og actually resided only at Ashtaroth43 (cf. Josh. 9:10). By contrast, there are those who, in their own renderings of the verb44 or comments on the text,45 together with the majority of English translations,46 opt for “lived” (or similar). If this reading is correct, it indicates that Og had two dwellings, and so raises the possibility that YHWH himself might also be able to have two – one in the temple and the other in heaven – without any sense of incongruity, even if differently from Og.47 YHWH as subject of ‫ ישׁב‬elsewhere A second approach would be to investigate other references to the Deity dwelling/sitting (‫ )ישׁב‬in heaven to see whether they restrict him to that location or allow him the freedom to be elsewhere. Within the Hebrew Bible, however, and apart from the four instances under investigation (1 Kings 8:30, 39, 43, 49 // 2 Chron. 6:21, 30, 33, 39), there are very few examples of heaven being described as the place where YHWH dwells or sits (‫)ישׁב‬. These are found in 1 Kings 22:19 // 2 Chron. 18:18; Pss. 2:4; 33:13–14 and 123:1. The only ones which involve a request for the Deity to act (‫ )עשׂה‬are found in Solomon’s prayer,48 but none gives any indication as to where YHWH should be in order to deal with such appeals.

41 42 43 44

45

46

47

48

Boling (1982) 319. NIV, TEV. Fritz (1994) 130–131. Cf. Maclear (1878) 108. “[R]esided” (Butler [2014] 522; Rösel [2011] 193), “lived” (Pitkänen [2010] 237), “saß” (Hertzberg [1985] 81; Schulz [1924] 48), “risiedeva” (Baldi [1956] 100), “demeurait” (Roussel [n.d.] 121). Nelson (1997) 160: “For Sihon and Og, their traditional cities of residence are given first”. ESV, NRSV, REB, NJB, NKJV, NASB, NAB, NEB, JB, RSV, Moffatt, JPSA, ASV, RV, KJV. Cf. Haran’s (1978) 257 reference to heaven as “Yahweh’s chief dwelling place [our emphasis]”. 1 Kings 8:39, 43, 49; 2 Chron. 6:33, 39.

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

109

Humans as subject of ‫ישׁב‬ Alternatively, since the verb occurs in the Hebrew Bible with both the Deity and humans as its subject, it may be that examining its use in connection with the latter will provide some clue as to the amount of freedom (or otherwise) which its (‫ )ישׁב‬employment allows. Rationale That this is a reasonable approach can be seen from the fact that when language is employed in discourse about God, the reader assumes that the words chosen have a semantic range which overlaps with, though is not necessarily identical to, that involved when they are employed in discourse about humans. For example, in 1 Kings 22 the narrator records the prophet Micaiah as having seen YHWH “‫ ”ישׁב על־כסאו‬in heaven (v. 19), after earlier reporting that the kings of Israel and Judah were “‫ ”ישׁבים אישׁ על־כסאו‬at the entrance of the gate of Samaria (v. 10). The two verses employ the same collocation, and the fact that the earlier phrase is translated as “sitting49 on their thrones” enables us to understand the Deity as sitting upon his throne, i.e. rather than “dwelling” or “remaining” there. The author could be drawing a deliberate parallel between the two scenes, because in each a decision needs to be made, subordinate beings are involved, and the decision-makers are portrayed as “sitting” on their thrones. Of course, while the two kings are doing so literally, it may be that the vision of YHWH is to be understood figuratively. However, even if it is, and its content is merely the vehicle targeting what he actually “saw” (‫ראיתי‬, v. 19), the writer still intends us to understand ‫ ישׁב על־כסאו‬in the literal sense of “sitting on his throne”. A similar approach has been taken by Anne Knafl in her recent Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch.50 She explains: [M]y approach compares the description of the deity with descriptions of humans within the same composition. I will rely on the assumption that, if an author uses the same language and syntax to describe a human as to describe the deity then the author allows for a direct human-divine analogy.51 49

50 51

In all other instances of this collocation in the Hebrew Bible the verb is understood as “sit”. Knafl (2014). Ibid., 31.

110

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

She goes on to illustrate this with two examples from the P source, in order to throw light on its common instruction to bring sacrifices “before YHWH” (‫)לפני יהוה‬. She notes that the phrase is used elsewhere with reference both to human interaction with the Deity and to that with another human being. In Exod. 6:12 Moses approaches52 God (‫)לפני יהוה‬ in the wilderness, and in Exod. 7:10 Aaron throws down his rod before Pharaoh (‫)לפני פרעה‬. While acknowledging that there are differences between deities and humans,53 she notes that there is no evidence to suggest that the Priestly author conceived of Moses’ approach to YHWH as fundamentally different from his [sic] approach to Pharaoh, the implication being that one can approach and interact with the deity, in at least some degree, as one would with another human being … in this case at least, the Priestly author understands approach to YHWH as analogous to approach to a human … We must then take seriously the command to bring sacrifices “before YHWH” as reflective of the reality of divine presence in the sanctuary.54

In our case we are interested in whether the use of ‫ ישׁב‬with reference to humans is able to cast additional light on its use with reference to YHWH in Solomon’s prayer. To do this we note that verbs frequently involve both constraints and possibilities. For example, when the English verb “to sit” is used, certain activities are prohibited as being inconsistent with the notion of “sitting”. On the other hand, others are permitted since they can be carried out at the same time without negating the action of the verb. If one is seated, one cannot simultaneously lie down, run or stand, though one is able to eat, speak or write. Hence, following Knafl’s approach we need to find instances of human dwelling (‫ )ישׁב‬referred to within material attributable to the author(s) responsible for the references to divine dwelling (‫ )ישׁב‬in heaven in 1 Kings 8. Since the literary contexts of such instances could contain some indication of the extent or otherwise of the freedom of movement enjoyed by such human dwellers (‫)ישׁב‬, this could throw some light on how the author(s) of the references to YHWH dwelling in heaven (‫ )השׁמים מכון שׁבתך‬understood them.

52 53

54

More accurately: “speaks” (‫)וידבר‬. Knafl (2014) 31: “[C]ertainly humans are not deities nor deities humans and any comparison between the two will be necessarily incomplete … there will be certain differences, for example, prolonged exposure to YHWH causes Moses’ face to glow, Exod 34:29–35”. Ibid.

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

111

Application Returning now to the instances in Solomon’s prayer of YHWH dwelling in heaven (vv. 30, 39, 43 and 49), there is significant scholarly attribution of all four to deuteronomistic authorship of one kind or another,55 though vv. 44–53 are sometimes considered to come from a later hand,56 which may or may not also be deuteronomistic. None the less, verses 30, 39 and 43 are generally viewed as deuteronomistic. Contained within the Deuteronomistic History are numerous instances of the verb being used with a human subject. It will therefore be instructive to see whether the kind of scholarly restriction implied as applying to YHWH’s dwelling in heaven also applies when the verb is used with a human subject. There are in fact a number which not only specify the location of the subject’s dwelling, but also indicate that he was able to go elsewhere. For example: in Judg. 4:2 we read that Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army “lived (‫ )יושׁב‬in Harosheth-ha-goiim”, while in v. 7 Deborah, a prophetess, offers to “draw [him] out” so that he would encounter Barak “by the Wadi Kishon with his chariots and his troops”. Although the precise location of Sisera’s dwelling place has never been established,57 the river is clearly some distance away, since Barak later “pursued [Sisera’s] chariots and the army to Harosheth-ha-goiim” (v. 16). Similarly, in 1 Kings 2, following Solomon’s instruction to Shimei to “build [himself] a house in Jerusalem” (v. 36), Shimei then “lived (‫ )וישׁב‬in Jerusalem many days” (v. 38). Three years later, however, on discovering that two of his slaves had absconded, he “arose and saddled a donkey, and went (‫ )וילך‬to Achish in Gath, to search for [them]” (v. 40). Although Gath 55

56

57

In addition to the quotations on p. 8 n. 38, see also: Sweeney (2007) 134: “The petitions [vv. 31–53] present a standard Dtr theological portrayal of YHWH”; Cogan (2001) 293: “Solomon’s prayer might well be viewed as the composition of the preexilic Dtr1”; Knoppers (1995) 247, re Solomon’s prayer (vv. 31–51): “this deuteronomistic composition”; Brettler (1993) 32: “[M]ore than three Deuteronomistic hands are responsible for the authorship of Solomon’s prayer [vv. 31–51]”; DeVries (1985) xliv: “Solomon’s extensive address and prayer in vv 14–66 is [Dtr’s] long expansion”; McKenzie (1985) 204: “I regard 1 K 8:23–50a … as the work of Dtr 1”; Long (1984) 94: “The latter section [vv. 15–61] reflects almost exclusively Dtr language and style”; Levenson (1981) 162: “The verbal research tends to support the hypothesis that Dtr 2 composed 1 Kgs 8:23–53”; Fichtner (1964) 140: “Die fünf ersten (31f. 33f. 37–40. 41–43) mögen auf älterer Überlieferung beruhen und sind von dem ersten Deuteronomisten formuliert”. Cf. Rehm (1979) 97: “Die meisten Erklärer nehmen an, daß mit der Bitte für die Fremden [i.e. vv. 41–43] das Gebet zu Ende war und die beiden folgenden Bitten erst später hinzugefügt wurden”. Hunt (1992) 62.

112

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

was a city in Philistine territory and some distance from Jerusalem, confirmation that Shimei had left the latter is seen from the fact that Solomon is told that he “had gone from Jerusalem (‫ )הלך … מירושׁלם‬to Gath” (v. 41). In neither case is the person confined to the locality in which they live (‫)ישׁב‬. Sisera dwelt at Harosheth-ha-goiim, but assembles his army at the river Kishon, while Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem, but rides to Achish to recover his slaves. It is thus clear that living (‫ )ישׁב‬in a particular locality did not preclude a human resident from venturing beyond its confines.58 He was not restricted to the place where he lived, but was able to leave his dwelling and go elsewhere. Verdict We have noted that when language is employed to write about human beings, its semantic range will overlap, but is unlikely to be identical with that pertaining when the same language is used to write about God. Moreover, in that connection, we have established that when a human is the subject of the verb ‫ישׁב‬, he is able to leave the place where he dwells. The same may or may not be true of the Deity. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and in view of our finding that YHWH is represented as being present both in heaven and in the temple, we will assume that he also has the freedom to be elsewhere. Consequently, for those who consider that use of ‫ ישׁב‬confines him to his heavenly dwelling place, it would now appear that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate otherwise.

58

Other examples in the Deuteronomistic History are found in Judg. 9: “Abimelech resided (‫ )וישׁב‬at Arumah” (v. 41) but “took his troops … and lay in wait in the fields [outside Shechem]” (v. 43); 2 Sam. 5: “David occupied (‫ )וישׁב‬the stronghold [of Zion]” (v. 9), but later “came to Baal-perazim” (v. 20); 2 Sam. 7: “[T]he king [David] was settled (‫ )ישׁב‬in his house” (v. 1), but after hearing from the prophet Nathan “went in and sat before LORD” (v. 18); 1 Kings 3: two prostitutes who “live (‫ )ישׁבת‬in the same house” (v. 17) come to Solomon and stand before him – presumably in the royal dwelling (v. 16); 1 Kings 12: “Jeroboam built Shechem … and resided (‫ )וישׁב‬there” (v. 25a), but “went out from there and built Penuel” (v. 25b); 1 Kings 15: Baasha “lived (‫ )וישׁב‬in Tirzah” (v. 21), but “struck [Nadab] down at Gibbethon” (v. 27); 1 Kings 17: after Elijah obeys a divine instruction to go to Zarephath “and live (‫)וישׁבת‬ there” (vv. 9–10), he subsequently responds to a further word and “present[s] himself to Ahab” (18:2).

REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN 1 KINGS 8

113

CONCLUSION Though questions doubtless remain, we have addressed a number of issues arising in 1 Kings 8 as a result of the findings of this study. Despite claims that the prayer excludes YHWH from the earthly sphere, we have produced evidence that, on the contrary, it portrays him as present in the temple as well as in heaven, that both realms are, in fact, able to accommodate him, and that, far from the Deity being confined to heaven, his dwelling there does allow him to be in the temple as well.

6

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD We have considered the impact of our interpretation of the four instances of praying ‫ אל‬the temple on some features of their immediate literary environment, i.e. 1 Kings 8. We now turn to its relevance to a number of issues beyond the confines of that chapter.

IMPACT ON

DIVINE PRESENCE

In contrast to the more familiar ways of conveying the divine presence (illustrated in the Introduction), this study has identified an additional, less direct method of doing so. In Chapter 1 we noted that, elsewhere and particularly in the Pentateuch, the earthly presence of the Deity is indicated either by his being the subject of appropriate verbs or by his actions being qualified by suitable prepositional phrases or adverbs. 1 In Solomon’s prayer, however, it is expressed – unexpectedly – not in that straightforward way, but more allusively, via the metonymic relationship between a building and its occupant, specifying prayer to the temple so as to direct attention to the Divine presence within. Moreover, since the vehicle (“this place/house”) is situated on the earth, then so also is the intended target (its occupant, YHWH). In like manner, “heaven” is also occasionally employed as a metonym targeting the Deity, conceived of as associated with that particular realm. We have already mentioned its use in Dan. 4:23 (EVV 26),2 and earlier noted Houtman’s suggestion3 that the cry addressed to heaven by a city4 (Ekron) in 1 Sam. 5:12 and by Hezekiah in 2 Chron. 32:20 might also be examples of the same phenomenon.

1 2 3 4

Pp. 1–2. Pp. 67–68. P. 68, esp. n. 10. Itself a metonym for its inhabitants.

116

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

The fundamental feature of the literary device employed here relies on the existence of an established connection between the vehicle and its target, in this case, the temple and the Deity, in order to demonstrate that the latter is present within the building. This raises the possibility that other nouns which are closely connected with YHWH in the Hebrew Bible, might also be used to designate his presence. God’s “name” (‫)שׁם‬ is an obvious and familiar example,5 but there may be others.

IMPACT

OF METONYMY

While the existence of the trope within the Hebrew Bible has been recognized for well over a century,6 a metonymical reading of the four examples in 1 Kings 8:29, 30, 35 and 427 seems never to have been contemplated, since no scholar has yet been found to consider such an interpretation of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house”. We, however, have argued that such a reading is appropriate, and that in those four instances the temple should be understood figuratively as the vehicle designating its occupant, YHWH, the intended target of the prayers. Note, however, that, although these verses conform to a pattern that is well established8 throughout the Hebrew Bible, identification of the Deity as their target is noteworthy in two respects. First, we have already observed that the figure has been used to highlight an additional way of indicating God’s earthly presence. Secondly, and more significantly, recognition of the figurative nature of the expression has resulted in a radical change in interpretation. As with other metonyms, realization that the collocation is in fact figurative rather than literal gives rise to a different meaning. Understanding it as praying to the Deity within the temple rather than as praying in its direction, is not, in one sense, exceptional. For the exegete, however, this alteration in sense significantly changes his/her conception of the prayer. It does not just introduce a new dimension to the divine whereabouts. Rather, it transforms the theology of the prayer as a whole. As mentioned in the Introduction, in the light of a particular reading of v. 27, scholarship has focused on the eight references to YHWH’s presence in heaven, and so concluded that he is absent from the earthly sphere. Our findings, however, have complicated 5 6 7 8

Particularly in the Psalter. See below, pp. 119–120. Pp. 37–38. Together with those in the parallel verses in 2 Chron. 6. Pp. 57 n. 98 and 60 n. 106.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

117

the situation considerably by arguing for his presence within the temple as well. This has lessened the contrast between the prayer, which is generally viewed as having “relocated” the Deity to heaven, and the chapter’s bookends, which situate him within the sanctuary. At the same time it has obliterated the distinction between the “mythical” conception of the temple as a place in which the Deity is present in two places at once9 and that of the prayer, which now also locates him in both heaven and earth. This revised interpretation is a direct consequence of our recognition of the metonymical nature of the collocation. It is therefore hoped that, as a result of this investigation, further study might identify other, previously unrecognized examples of the figure, whose interpretation could lead to similarly significant theological consequences.

IMPACT ON INTERPRETATION

OF THE DIVINE NAME

This study has revealed the need for a fresh investigation of the various uses of the divine ‫ שׁם‬within the Hebrew Bible. It has been sparked off by our encounter with two distinct ideas of the relationship between the divine ‫ שׁם‬and the Deity: The two different uses of the divine ‫ שׁם‬encountered in this study The ‫ שׁם‬as a (semi-)independent entity Within 1 Kings 8 there are eight references to the divine ‫ שׁם‬considered to be employed in a localized sense and thus to epitomize its use in the sense of Name Theology: in vv. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 44 and 48.10 In their comments on these verses (as well as on many other deuteronom[ist]ic texts), the majority of scholars imply a distinction between the divine ‫ שׁם‬and the Deity, since they affirm that the former is in the temple while the latter is in heaven.11 Some are more specific and refer to the 9 10

11

Pp. 99–101 and below, p. 125. The references to the divine ‫ שׁם‬in vv. 33, 35, 41, 42 and 43 (2x) lack the sense of being localized. E.g. Nelson (1987) 56: “[Deuteronomistic theologians’] more sophisticated approach was to explain that God’s name was present [in the temple] (v. 29), while God’s actual dwelling place was in heaven (v. 30)”; Weippert (1980) 84–85: “Jahwe thront im Himmel, der Tempel kann nicht mehr sein als der Ort für seinen Namen”; McCurley (1974) 308: “[O]nly Yahweh’s name dwells in the chosen place. Yahweh himself lives in heaven”; Metzger (1970) 154: “Das Heiligtum ist für [den Deuteronomist] die

118

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

‫ שׁם‬as an entity separate from, though connected with, the Deity, and possibly enjoying an independent existence. Mettinger, for example, notes: [T]he Deuteronomistic Name theology emphasized the idea that God himself dwells in heaven, while his Name is present in the Temple. The Name repeatedly appears as a quantity distinct from God yet intimately attached to him.12

Similarly, Giesebrecht describes it as “a being apart from God”.13 This identification of an aspect of the Deity as an entity independent of the Deity himself has been categorized by Richter14 as an example of “nominal realism”, which she defines as the supposed perception on the part of the ancient Semite that the name of an item or person, as a symbol of the thing or person named, was in fact real, having consubstantial existence with the name-bearer.15

Moreover, since in deuteronom[ist]ic texts the name-bearer is a deity, this understanding of the “name” as an entity separate from YHWH himself appears to fit in with Mowinckel’s definition of a hypostasis: [A] divine entity partly independent, partly a manifestation of a superior divinity; it represents the personification of a quality or an activity or of a component part of the superior deity. The personification of abstract concepts is often spoken of, but even if for us the name [our emphasis], the power, or the qualities of a person are abstractions it is not so to the primitive mind, for which qualities and actions are entities relatively independent of the subject.16

In this connection a number of scholars have identified the ‫ שׁם‬in typical Name Theology contexts as a hypostasis. DeVries, for example, comments: the Name being, in deuteronomistic ideology, a hypostasis or extension of Yahweh’s true being, but not the Deity in the fullness of his being.17

12 13

14 15 16 17

Stätte, an der Jahwes Name anwesend ist, während Jahwe selbst im Himmel thront oder wohnt”; von Rad (1962) 184: “Jahweh himself is in heaven (Deut. xxvi. 15), but his name ‘lives’ at the place of worship”; Dumermuth (1958) 69: “Nicht mehr ist wie früher Jahwe selbst am Kultort gegenwärtig gedacht, sondern nur sein Name … Jahwe selber wohnt im Himmel”. Mettinger (1982) 129. Giesebrecht (1901) 37: “ein Wesen neben Gott”. Cf. Keller (1996) 144: “eine bewusst gewollte, theologisch relevante Differenzierung zwischen Jahwe und seinem schem”; McBride (1969) 3: “Šēm in the various formulations of Name Theology connoted a mode of divine immanence at least in part distinct from God himself”; Dumermuth (1958) 74: “[d]ie scharfe Unterscheidung zwischen Jahwe und seinem ‘šem’”. Following McBride (1969) 67. Richter (2002) 15. See her pp. 14–22 for an explanation and critique of the term. Cited by Jacob (1958) 84. DeVries (1985) 125. Cf. Keller (1996) 141: “[Es] ist … wohl möglich, den schem in den dtn/dtr Namensformeln in der Weise einer Hypostase oder (Semi-)Hypostase zu

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

119

The ‫ שׁם‬as an equivalent to YHWH This feature was briefly noticed earlier. In Chapter 4 we noted several instances where humans call upon the “name” of a deity (YHWH in 1 Kings 18:24; Ps. 116:4 and Zech. 13:9, Baal in 1 Kings 18:26), but where it is the deity who replies, i.e. rather than his “name”.18 This raised the possibility that in these verses the deity’s ‫ שׁם‬and the deity himself were in some sense equivalent. Many of the scholars who espouse Name Theology recognize that, within the Hebrew Bible, there are instances of the divine ‫ שׁם‬which they regard not as an independent being, but as equivalent to the Deity himself, and thus as another way of referring to him. 19 Typical descriptions of how the divine ‫ שׁם‬relates to the Deity include “alternative for/to”,20 “interchangeable for”,21 “representing”,22 “substitute for”,23 “synonymous with”24 and “Wechselbegriff für”.25 Sommer, for example, notes that

18 19

20

21

22 23

24

25

verstehen”; Mettinger (1982) 132: “[T]he choice of šēm … in Deuteronomistic theology must be seen … in part as a result of the tendency towards personification or hypostatization of the divine Name”; Dumermuth (1958) 69: “Die Vorstellung vom ‘šem’ streift im Deuteronomium die einer Hypostase”; Jacob (1958) 83–84: “The shem, in Deuteronomic theology… becomes … a veritable hypostasis within the meaning of the definition given by Mowinckel”; von Rad (1953) 38: “As we see it in Deuteronomy … [the name] verges closely upon a hypostasis”; Grether (1934) 35: “Der an der Zentralkultstätte lokalisierte schem wird … zu einer Hypostase”; Giesebrecht (1901) 38: “Jahve … sei [im Tempel] durch ein ihm verwandtes Wesen vertreten, das sein Name heisse … solchen Hypostasirung”. Cf. Wray Beal (2014) 137: “YHWH’s dwelling is in heaven … his presence in the temple might be conceived as a hypostatic presence, a real extension of his power but not the full essence of his being”. Pp. 76 and 80, esp. n. 54. Usually in those psalms where the Deity and his ‫ שׁם‬are found in synonymous parallelism. See below, nn. 93 and 94. Van der Woude (1997) 1362: “Just as šēm can appear as an alternative term for a human being in profane usage … (Num 1:2, 18, 20, 22, etc. …), šēm yhwh also occurs in the OT as an alternative term for Yahweh”; Fossum (1985) 85 refers to “[t]he use of ‫שמ‬ ‫ יהוה‬as an alternative for YHWH”; Mettinger (1982) 130: “Here the use of šēm as an alternative to YHWH in a few texts should be mentioned”; Bietenhard (1967) 255: “There is also found … a use of ‫ ֵשׁם יהוה‬which … so plainly denotes the personal rule and work of Yahweh, that it may be used as an alternative term for Yahweh Himself”. Koehler and Baumgartner (1999) 1550 refers to “‫ ֵשׁם יהוה‬as an interchangeable expression for Yahweh” and Jacob (1958) 82 n. 2 to “passages where the name of Yahweh and Yahweh are interchangeable”. DCH 8, 426: “oft. as representing Y. himself”. Reiterer (2006) 134: “[Š]ēm functions as a substitute for the person in question”; Richter (2002) 11: “[I]n a number of biblical contexts, the ‘name’ of YHWH is used in a substitutionary or near-substitutionary fashion for YHWH himself”. Jacob (1958) 82 refers to “the numerous passages in which the name is synonymous with Yahweh”. Gese (1975) 88 refers to “die in poetischen Texten auftretende Erscheinung, daß der Name Gottes Wechselbegriff für Gott selbst wird”, while Grether (1934) includes two sections entitled “Der Name Jahwes als Wechselbegriff für Jahwe” (pp. 26–28, 35–43).

120

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

[t]he term “name” in ancient Near Eastern cultures can refer to the essence of any thing [sic] and hence can be a cipher for the thing itself. Examples of the identity of God and God’s name in biblical literature abound.26

These scholars are claiming, in one way or another, that the noun ‫ שׁם‬is interchangeable for YHWH, and in so doing are effectively designating this usage as metonymy, with the ‫ שׁם‬as the vehicle drawing attention to the Deity as its target. Few scholars have been found to categorize it in this way, though Wink correctly identifies it as such: The “name” … is once more a case of metonymy, the part representing the whole. In the older sections of the Old Testament the “name of Yahweh” (shem Yahweh) stands for Yahweh as such. This gives way later to its being hypostatized as a distinguishable though not separate agent of God’s will and work.27

Thus, in this usage the ‫ שׁם‬is a metonym for YHWH, and is an example of THE WORD “NAME” FOR THE PERSON. An English example would be the following headline from the 01.07.13 edition of the online publication Business Insider: Here Are All Of The Big Names Who Failed To Reach The Quarterfinals At Wimbledon.28

Note, however, that this use of the word “name” differs in one significant way from more familiar referential metonyms. Many of the latter entail both vehicle and target enjoying real existence. “The White House”, when used as a vehicle to represent the President of the United States, exists, as does the President himself. So do both “her feet” and their metonymic referent, the woman who approaches the “young man without sense” in Prov. 7.29 Similarly, if our understanding of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” is correct, then both the temple and its divine occupant also exist. 26

27 28

29

Sommer (2009) 59. Cf. Mettinger (1982) 130 n. 43, who lists a number of examples, largely from the Psalter, and Dumermuth (1958) 74, who refers to “die alte Anschauung der Identität von Name und Sache”. Wink (1984) 21. http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-of-the-big-names-who-are-out-at-wimbledon-2013-7?IR=T. Note, however, that the parallel is not precise, since in English, the noun is usually modified by an adjective such as “big”, “famous”, “important” or “leading”. An unusual example, in which “Names” is used without qualification, can be found at https://www.theguardian.com/money/2000/nov/04/business.personalfinancenews1. Vv. 6–12.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

121

However, in the case of the ‫ שׁם‬being used as a metonym for YHWH, it has no separate existence. It is just a noun used to direct attention to the name-bearer.30 This feature is similar to the way that in the above Business Insider headline there are no “Big Names” enjoying a separate existence from Serena Williams, Rafael Nadal, et al.31 We have thus encountered two very different understandings of the divine ‫שׁם‬, one found in the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae and considered to have a (semi-)independent existence, the other a metonym for YHWH but merely a word. Despite this somewhat limited exposure to texts referring to the divine ‫שׁם‬, our investigations have illuminated a number of interpretive issues, ones with possible consequences for the several other uses of the divine ‫ שׁם‬as it occurs throughout the Hebrew Bible. The need for criteria These variations in interpretation may be partly due to an apparently common feature of much scholarly discussion of texts containing the divine ‫שׁם‬, namely the paucity of explanations as to why one interpretation of the noun is chosen in preference to another. Such a lack is well illustrated in Oscar Grether’s important monograph, Name und Wort Gottes im Alten Testament,32 in which he lists a number of distinct uses of the term within the Hebrew Bible. From our perspective, the most relevant parts of his study are those where the ‫ שׁם‬is either independent from YHWH (sections A/IV, B, C/II33),

30

31

32 33

Cf. Sommer (2009) 65: “The shem is merely a name in the sense that Western thinkers regard names: a symbol, a verbal indicator that points toward something outside itself”; Japhet (1989) 70: “’name’ … in its basic sense – that by which an object is designated”. Cf. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/22/uk-publishes-more-books-percapita-million-report: “UK publishers released more than 20 new titles every hour over the course of 2014 [our emphasis]”. In this context the literal referent of the noun “title” is the word or words printed on the outside spine of a book, and as such has no independent existence. Its metonymic target, however, is the book itself, a thing which can be bought, opened and read. Grether (1934). “Der Name Jahwes als selbständige Offenbarungsform” (pp. 28–30), “Das Deuteronomium und der schem-Begriff” (pp. 31–35), “Der Name Jahwes als Hypostase” (pp. 44–52). Other sections deal with “Der Name als Benennung des bekannten Gottes, als Machtmittel und als Garant für Gottes Gegenwart” (pp. 18–25) and “Der Name im Sinn von Jahwes Ehre und Ruhm” (pp. 25–26, 52–58). These, however, do not appear to be relevant to the current work.

122

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

or an alternative term for him (sections A/III, C/I34). Of these two views of the divine “name”, the first is the one most frequently encountered in discussions of the deuteronomic name formulae. We, however, suggest that the second may be a more appropriate way of viewing some of these name formulae, an interpretation more in line with the findings of our own study. Obviously, if any certainty is to be reached as to which interpretation is correct in any given instance, clear criteria need to be established in order to distinguish between them. In Grether’s case, while he does not spell out his criteria explicitly, in the case of deuteronom(ist)ic texts he appears to rely on a putative distinction between the divine “name” and its bearer, as indicated by his perception that the ‫ שׁם‬is on the earth and YHWH himself is in heaven. By contrast, in the case of poetic ones he tends to rely on synonymous parallelism as his justification for equating the ‫ שׁם‬with the Deity.35 There are, however, a number of problems with his approach. Regarding the deuteronomic name formulae, certainly those texts which refer to YHWH acting on the divine “name” (“making [it] dwell” [RSV], “putting it” at the “chosen place”) do seem to imply a distinction, since, if in these texts he and his ‫ שׁם‬were equated, they would entail the Deity carrying out such actions on himself. Others, however, do not imply any such distinction between the divine “name” and its bearer, for example references to Solomon building a house for the “name”, or to YHWH stating that “My name shall be there”.36 In addition, there are also queries with regard to some of the verses in which Grether identifies the divine “name” with YHWH himself. While in both his pre- and post-deuteronomic sections he cites parallelism (in some prophetic verses, but mainly in the Psalms) in connection with the “name” and bearer coming to the same thing, he also equates them in 34 35

36

“Der Name Jahwes als Wechselbegriff für Jahwe” (pp. 26–28, 35–43). Grether (1934) 39: “Dort [in the deuteronomic view of the divine ‫ ]שׁם‬ist eine deutliche Differenzierung vorgenommen zwischen Jahwe im Himmel und seinem schem am Kultusmittelpunkt. Hier [in poetic texts] ist von einer so scharfen Unterscheidung keine Rede. Überhaupt ist der Unterschied zwischen Jahwe und seinem schem in den meisten Fällen aufgehoben. Jahwe und der schem werden promiscue gebraucht”. Cf. Bietenhard (1967) 257, who seems to be making the same point when referring to the use of ‫ שׁם יהוה‬in the Psalms and Prophets: “There is no longer any distinction between Yahweh in heaven and His shem at the cultic site”. Note that many of the texts quoted in his pre-deuteronomic Section A/III also have YHWH referring to his “name”, but these are regarded as examples of the “name” as an alternative term (Wechselbegriff) for YHWH.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

123

texts from the Holiness Code37 and a number of largely poetic verses,38 none of which contains parallel references to the Deity either within the verse or even nearby. In neither section does he indicate why in these cases he has opted to equate the ‫ שׁם‬with YHWH rather than to regard it as some kind of (semi-)independent entity. Many of the texts which he classifies would benefit from more detailed exegesis than he has provided, in order to justify why he assigns them to one group rather than another.39 Interestingly, he is sometimes aware of the difficulty of deciding between his various options. He does allow that there are circumstances in which distinctions between some of the various readings are not so clear-cut. When referring to three uses of the divine ‫ שׁם‬assigned to the post-exilic period, namely as a means of summoning the Deity, as YHWH’s representative at the cult-centre and as an alternative term for him, he notes: No wonder that in some places the exegete scarcely knows how to decide which aspect of the shem-concept the author particularly wished to be emphasized.40

He also hints at the way decisions are made in such cases. While considering examples from his post-deuteronomic section, in which he distinguishes the use of the shem as an alternative term for YHWH from that in which it appears as a hypostasis, he notes that there are instances where one has to rely on intuition (das “subjektive Empfinden”) in order to choose between the two possible interpretations.41

37 38

39

40

41

Grether (1934) 27: Lev. 18:21; 19:12; 20:3; 21:6; 22:2, 31f. Grether (1934) 37–38: Ps. 119:32; Mal. 1:6; Ps. 83:17 (EVV 16); Job 1:21; Joel 2:26; Ps. 74:21; 119:55; Is. 26:13; Ps. 61:9 (EVV 8); Jer. 34:16; Ezek. 20:39; 36:20, 21, 22, 23; 20:9, 14, 22; 39:7; 43:7, 8. Cf. Japhet (1989) 71 n. 194, commenting on Grether’s classification of some instances of the divine ‫ שׁם‬in Chronicles as examples of hypostasis: “The list of passages cited by [him] (including texts outside Chronicles) should, in my opinion, be re-evaluated”. Grether (1934) 42: “Kein Wunder, daß der Exeget an manchen Stellen kaum zu entscheiden weiß, welche Seite des schem-Begriffs der Schriftsteller besonders hervorgekehrt wissen wollte”. Cf. Bietenhard (1967) 257, who distinguishes the ‫ שׁם‬as a hypostasis from its use in deuteronom(ist)ic texts (in contrast to those scholars who view its use in the latter as having hypostatic qualities), but admits that “it is often hard to draw a line between the use of shem interchangeably for Yahweh and its use as a hypostasis standing over against Yahweh in greater independence”. Grether (1934) 44: “Die Grenzziehung ist deshalb weithin dem subjektiven Empfinden überlassen”.

124

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

It appears, therefore, that investigations of the divine ‫ שׁם‬are characterized by a frequent lack of explanation, the paucity of clear criteria and the existence of instances where (particularly in Grether’s case) it is not apparent why one use has been chosen in preference to another. This, coupled with the above scholar’s admission that in some cases it is not easy to identify which particular usage is intended, affords strong grounds for carrying out a more rigorous analysis than has hitherto been the case. It would have the aim, where possible, of identifying those features which typify each of the various functions of the divine ‫שׁם‬. Such an enterprise would have the advantage of being more objective than an ad hoc reliance on intuition, and would be particularly helpful with regard to the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae, which are generally assumed without question to be in a class of their own. While our particular interest has been in the two senses referred to above, the more general aim of attempting to identify the criteria characterizing the several different uses of an expression found in over threequarters of the books of the Hebrew Bible would no doubt be beneficial to other scholars.

IMPACT ON

THE DEUTERONOMISTIC VIEW OF THE TEMPLE

It is generally thought that the Deuteronomists introduced a radical change in the conception of the temple. Clements, for example, considers that a profound and thoroughgoing attempt at … re-interpretation [of the temple] took place … with the finding of the Deuteronomic law-book in the Jerusalem temple.42

This development concerned both how the temple was conceived and the use to which it would be put.

42

Clements (1965) 88. See also Brueggemann (2000) 119: “The move from presence to forgiveness is perhaps … a maneuver whereby the temple is drastically redefined and its function is redescribed”; Mettinger (1982) 48: “With the earlier unitary conception shattered, the Temple assumes a different character in the D-Work … This radical theological re-orientation”; Metzger (1970) 149: “Im Deuteronomium und im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk erfolgt … eine Neukonzeption des Verständnisses vom Heiligtum”; Wright (1960) 70: “The Deuteronomic school … rejected the whole notion [i.e. of the temple ‘conceived as a House of God’] almost outright in a bold and sweeping restatement of temple theology”.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

125

Its conception We have already noted43 that the Deuteronomists are generally thought to have reacted against the idea of the Deity being present in two places at once, a notion in which the two realms of heaven and earth somehow coalesce in the temple. Their response was to replace this so-called “mythical” view with one in which the building was some kind of intermediary,44 enabling communication to take place between humans on earth and the Deity in heaven, i.e. between two realms which were thus regarded as fundamentally distinct.45 Our study, however, has argued that YHWH not only dwells in heaven, as the prayer emphasizes, but is also present in the sanctuary. One obvious consequence of the latter is that the proposed intermediary role for the temple becomes redundant, since prayers can now be addressed to the Deity directly without the assistance of the building (or, indeed, of the divine ‫)שׁם‬. This means that the conception of the temple in Solomon’s prayer (and also of the “chosen place” in Deuteronomy) is actually indistinguishable from the one against which the Deuteronomists were supposedly reacting. Within the king’s intercession the temple can now also be conceived as the “meeting place of heaven and earth”,46 one where the distinction between the two realms is removed.47 Its function/purpose When first encountered in the Hebrew Bible the Solomonic temple is clearly associated with the performance of sacrifice. Initially this is implied by the mention of an altar in sections dealing with the construction of the building, i.e. in 1 Kings 6:20, 22 and 7:48, and subsequently confirmed by references to sacrifice itself in 1 Kings 8:5 and 62–64. However, it is usually considered that the prayer of dedication of the temple introduced a radically new interpretation of its function. It was no

43 44

45

46 47

Pp. 99–100. Variously described as a “channel”, “conduit”, “communications satellite”, “hearingtube”, “switchboard”, “listening-post” or “sounding board”. See p. 18 nn. 7–11. Metzger (1970) 150: “Im Unterschied zur Gottesbergvorstellung … derzufolge im Heiligtum die Grenze zwischen Himmlisch und Irdisch aufgehoben ist, zieht der Deuteronomist eine Grenze zwischen dem von Menschenhand erbauten Tempelgebäude und dem Himmel als Wohnstatt und Thronsitz Jahwes”. Levenson (1985) 123. P. 100, esp. nn. 9 and 10.

126

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

longer to be used for sacrifice, but had become a house of prayer. This supposedly deuteronomistic view of the temple appears to rely on two features of Solomon’s intercession, both in connection with the building: first, a number of references to praying, and secondly, the absence of any mention of the cult / sacrifice. They will be considered separately. A house of prayer? This particular emphasis is understandable given the number of references to praying within the intercession and the usual rendering of the preposition ‫ אל‬with which several of them are collocated. All involve the temple in one way or another. Solomon himself refers to the prayer/ plea which he and/or people “pray ‫ אל‬this place” (vv. 29, 30). The various suppliants are to “pray and plead with you in this house” (v. 33), “pray ‫ אל‬this place” (v. 35), stretch out their hands “‫ אל‬this house”48 (v. 38) “pray ‫ אל‬this house” (v. 42) and “pray to the LORD / you toward (‫ … )דרך‬the house that I have built” (vv. 44, 48). As noted in Chapter 2, with the instances involving ‫ אל‬the preposition has traditionally been understood in the directional sense of “towards”. This means that in all these cases the temple is generally regarded as playing a significant role in connection with the praying: it is either the place where the prayer occurs (v. 33), or it is viewed as the means by which the prayer is relayed to heaven (vv. 29, 30, 35, 38, 42, 44, 48). Little wonder it has been labelled a “house of prayer”. However, two points can be made about this. First, the failure to understand the figurative nature of the collocation “praying ‫ אל‬this place/ house”49 has led to the misunderstanding of the temple as a “channel”, “conduit”, etc., enabling transmission of the request from the one who prays on earth to the Deity who hears in heaven. However, if the collocation is viewed as indicating YHWH’s presence within the temple, i.e. in addition to his being in heaven, then the building’s role in facilitating earth to heaven communication (i.e. in vv. 29, 30, 35, 42) becomes redundant, since YHWH is there within the temple anyway. Secondly, and as a direct consequence of the above, the role of the temple in connection with the praying is significantly diminished. If the “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” is really a praying to the occupant of the temple, then all of the prayers are presented as being addressed 48 49

P. 46 n. 47. Pp. 46–47.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

127

directly to YHWH himself, whether this is expressed explicitly (vv. 33, 44, 48) or metonymically (vv. 29, 30, 35, 42). None occurs via the physical agency of the building. The latter is mentioned (“this place/house”), but only as a linguistic vehicle directing attention to the intended target of the collocation, i.e. the Deity. It is God to whom prayer is offered, not the building. It would therefore appear that, if YHWH is present within the temple, the latter can be described as “a house of prayer” only in a much more limited/qualified sense. A denigration of the cult? Several scholars have noted the absence from the prayer of any reference to the sacrificial cult which would normally have been expected to take place within the confines of a temple. For example, Noth comments: Solomon’s prayer of dedication says nothing whatsoever on the role of the temple as a place of sacrifice, even though Dtr. must surely have known that this was originally its main practical function.50

This absence has resulted in many scholars deducing that the writer(s) had a distinctly negative attitude to sacrifice. Some scholars refer to the prayer as disparaging the cult. For example, Noth goes on to say: Dtr. surpassed the Deuteronomic law in devaluing cultic sacrifice and completely disregarding sacrifice altogether, and so formulated his own conception of the significance of the temple. For him the temple is little more than a place towards which one turns in prayer … In [vv. 31f.] allusions to sacrifice are conspicuous by their absence, the more so because the formal religious occasions mentioned in Solomon’s prayer … were normally accompanied by supplicatory sacrifices.51 50

51

Noth (1991) 139. Cf. Cogan (2001) 293, re vv. 22–53: “Absent … is reference to the sacrificial cult that was practiced in this central sanctuary”; Fretheim (1999) 50: “[I]t is notable that sacrifice is never mentioned as necessary”; Balentine (1993) 85: “In contrast to the view that the temple is the center for sacrifice, here it is described as the center for prayer”; Hurowitz (1992) 289–290: “[In] Solomon’s prayer … no special role for sacrifice in the Temple is stipulated”; Haran (1988) 22: “In Solomon’s prayer … sacrifices are not even mentioned”; Auld (1986) 63: “Note that sacrifice is not called for; simply supplication towards the shrine”; Kaufmann (1961) 268–269: “[T]he prayer ascribed to Solomon … inaugurating a house of sacrifice and uttered before an altar, contains not a word concerning cultic functions”; Finkelstein (1946) 565: “[I]n the prayer attributed to King Solomon … there is not a word said of the use of the building for the sacrificial system … the main purpose of the structure”. Noth (1991) 139. Cf. Leithart (2006) 69–70: “In I Kgs. 8, Solomon … prays instead of instructing Israel in sacrificial procedures … Prayer does not replace sacrifice … but it begins to displace it from the center of Israel’s worship”; Cogan (2001) 293:

128

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Others either specify that the prayer removed the need for any kind of sacrifice altogether, e.g. [T]he canonical positioning of this text claims that sacrifices were not necessary for forgiveness, even when the temple was fully functioning.52

or imply the same by affirming the temple to be merely (or similar) a house of prayer and thus, by implication, no longer a place of sacrifice: [Solomon’s] extended prayer … was a perfect opportunity for [the Dtr. writer] to pronounce that from henceforth all worship, whole-offerings, peace offerings, grain offerings, libations, incense, etc., were to be offered [in the temple] … But he says nothing of the sort. Rather, the temple is to serve only for the offering of prayer and song.53

This interpretation clearly gives expression to a somewhat unusual (possibly unique) understanding of an ancient Near Eastern temple, especially if one accepts Hundley’s suggestion as to the two features which characterize such a building, i.e. the presence of the deity and the operation of a cult: The temple was secondary to both divine presence and ritual action, serving as the setting for both. Without them, it was merely an empty building, a stage bereft of actors and action.54

Whereas the portrayal of the temple in the bookends of 1 Kings 8 does seem to satisfy these criteria, the view attributed to the Deuteronomists in the central section fails the test on both counts, since the Deity is in

52

53

54

“Solomon’s prayer might well be viewed as … the prescription for a reconstituted cult in which prayer replaced the ubiquitous sacrifices”; Weinfeld (1972) 209: “[I]n the deuteronomic prayer of Solomon … [t]he sanctuary is here conceived as a house of prayer and not as a cultic centre. This tendency to minimize the cult …”. Fretheim (1999) 50. Cf. Jones (1984) 206, who refers to “deuteronomistic aversion to sacrifice”. Rofé (2009) 48. See also Werlitz (2002) 96: “Der Tempel ist dann nichts weiter als … der Ort, an dem [Gott] Gebete und Bitten erhört”; Braulik (1994) 15: “[T]he temple appears primarily as a place of prayer”; Levenson (1981) 158: “[I]n 1 Kgs 8:23–53 … the Temple is principally a place of prayer”; Clements (1978) 68–69: “Deuteronomic theology … re-interpret[ed] the temple as essentially a house of prayer”; Weinfeld (1972) 37: “[T]he Deuteronomist [in Solomon’s prayer] conceives of [the temple] solely as a house of prayer”; Metzger (1970) 154: “Das Heiligtum ist … in erster Linie Gebetsstätte für den Menschen”; Kaufmann (1961) 269: “This temple [in 1 Kings 8:12–53] is solely a house of prayer” [our emphases]. Cf. the frequent description of it as a “house of prayer” (or similar), i.e. without the adverbial qualification: Fretheim (1999) 52; Hurowitz (1992) 290; Rice (1990) 65; Jones (1984) 201; Mettinger (1982) 48; Rehm (1979) 100; Wright (1960) 71; Finkelstein (1946) 565. Hundley (2013) 3.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

129

heaven rather than in the building, and the latter is no longer used for sacrifice. Admittedly, YHWH has been replaced by his ‫שׁם‬, but in this interpretation the structure does appear to have been divested of its essential character. Various reasons have been proposed to account for this perceived development: one is that the sacrificial system is predicated on the Deity’s proximity to the worshipper. Weinfeld, for example, claims that “all sacral activity performed in the tabernacle … is … based on the assumption of God’s actual immanence in the sanctuary”55 – a requirement which would no longer be satisfied if YHWH himself had been “relocated” to the heavens. Another possibility is that the change was introduced because the cult engendered the belief that a sacrificing worshipper was able in some way to coerce or control the Deity: [T]he Deuteronomists wished to break with an attitude to the cult which suggested, even by a misunderstanding, that Yahweh could be subjected to the control of his worshippers … [so] that no room would be left for Israel to think that by its rites and offerings it exerted any coercion upon Yahweh.56

Alternatively, it has been proposed that, at the time of composition of the prayer, sacrifices were no longer possible, since the building had been razed to the ground: This perspective on the temple would be important for an audience living in exile, whose temple has been destroyed, but whose prayers would still be heard by God.57

Hence the change from its being regarded as a place of sacrifice to being one of prayer, in the sense that prayers are offered ‫ אל‬it.58 Noth and others are certainly correct in noting the absence of any reference to sacrifice within the intercessory part of Solomon’s prayer. However, whether that absence signifies a change in the function of the temple is open to question. Rather than deducing that sacrifice is no 55

56 57

58

Weinfeld (1972) 197. Cf. Knohl (2003) 84: “[C]ultic worship … is, after all, connected with the constant presence of God in the shrine”. Clements (1965) 89. Fretheim (1999) 53. Cf. Rofé (2009) 48–49: “[The Dtr. writer’s] emphasis on prayer alone tells us something of his circumstances. He is writing many years after the destruction of the First Temple, when prayer … is the sole mode of worship for Jews residing in the diaspora”; Noth (1991) 139: “Dtr. has in mind the situation in his own time, when the temple had been destroyed and a sacrificial cult … was therefore no longer practicable in Jerusalem”. Cf. Mettinger (1982) 48: “[T]he Temple becomes a ‘house of prayer’, in the sense that God hears the prayers offered by men ‘toward this place’”.

130

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

longer to be carried out within its confines, 59 there may be an alternative explanation for its not being mentioned. Two observations come to mind. The nature of the prayer The first arises from the character of Solomon’s petition. We noted earlier in Chapter 4 that it is an intercession. Within the Hebrew Bible this type of prayer commonly involves a human being asking the Deity to act in some way on behalf of someone else. Often there is just the statement that it was requested, offered or merely took place, without any indication of what was actually said. However, there are many instances where either the general gist of the supplication is indicated60 or some of the actual wording of the intercession has been preserved.61 Frequently, these cases are found in the context of divine judgment having already fallen, with the intercessor asking (or being asked) to reverse its effects. They would be similar to the prayer in 1 Kings 8 in which Solomon, anticipating that the Israelites will at some stage be the unwilling recipients of YHWH’s judgment, asks that, when that happens and they come to their senses and appeal to God to help them, he will actually do so. What is noticeable, however, is that, while intercessions frequently call for the judgment to be removed, there are no examples of any request in which the intercessor specifies the need for sacrifices to be carried out.62 If therefore, this lack of precedents shows that it was not considered appropriate to mention such cultic activities within an intercession, then the absence of sacrifice from Solomon’s prayer is hardly exceptional. 59

60

61

62

Cf. Rowley (1956) 192, commenting on the different portrayals of the Day of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible: “Not all of [its] features … are found in every one of these pictures. This no more indicates that the unmentioned features would be repudiated by the authors than an artist’s painting of a man’s head and shoulders implies an intention to suggest that he had no hands and feet”. E.g. we are not told what Moses actually said in his intercessions on Pharaoh’s behalf, but we do have an indication of their general content: “‘Pray to the LORD to take away the frogs from me and my people’ … and Moses cried out to the LORD concerning the frogs … And the LORD did as Moses requested: the frogs died in the houses, the courtyards, and the fields” (Exod. 8:8, 12); “So Pharaoh said, ‘… Pray for me’ … So Moses …prayed to the LORD. And the LORD did as Moses asked: he removed the swarms of flies from Pharaoh, from his officials, and from his people” (Exod. 8:28, 30–31). E.g. following YHWH’s threat to destroy the people as a result of their making a golden calf, Moses prayed “Lord GOD, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession …” (Deut. 9:26–29). NB: In Job 42 there is no indication that Job’s prayer for Eliphaz and his two friends (v. 8aβ) contained any reference to their offering up of seven bulls and seven rams, since they had already been told to do so by YHWH himself (v. 8aα).

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

131

The nature of the Israelites’ anticipated predicaments The second observation with regard to the absence of any reference to the cult concerns the specific nature of the situations in which the Israelites are expected to find themselves. While there are those who regard Solomon’s intercession (vv. 31–53) as providing a model covering a range of different scenarios that the Israelites might conceivably encounter,63 others are convinced that the ones requiring forgiveness64 are much more specific. They note the similarities between these four situations and some of the curses envisaged in Deut. 28, and consider the predicaments anticipated by Solomon to be the result of divine judgment as a consequence of infringements of the covenant. Such scholars regard the prayer as specifically alluding to that chapter, e.g. Nelson: Five of the seven [paradigmatic crises] relate to the curses threatened by Deuteronomy 28 … The second, defeat (vv. 33–34), reflects the curse of Deuteronomy 28:25 … The third, drought (vv. 35–36), reflects Deuteronomy 28:23–24 … The fourth is a general catalogue of crises (vv. 37–40), resting in part on Deuteronomy 28:21–22, 38 … the seventh petition, exile (vv. 46–51), based on Deuteronomy 28:36–37.65

Others merely cite various verses from it by way of comparison.

63

64

65

E.g. Fretheim (1999) 49–50: “Seven petitions … anticipate virtually every possible future prayer situation that could be faced by the people”; Rice (1990) 66: “seven typical circumstances of need where the people in the future may seek God’s help”. Those involving defeat in battle (vv. 33–34), drought (vv. 35–36), various hardships (vv. 37–40) and exile (vv. 46–53). Nelson (1987) 53–54. Cf. Boda (2009) 167, re vv. 27–53: “Its categories of calamity are closely related to the curse materials found in Deut. 28–30 and Lev. 26, suggesting that the prayer is being conceptualized within the framework of the covenant”; Sweeney (2007) 133, re vv. 22–53: “the seven petitions that reflect the language of blessing and curse in Deut 28–30”; Hens-Piazza (2006) 81: “Here, Israel’s persistent waywardness to the covenant is presumed … each petition rehearses familiar disasters as the consequences of disobedience to the covenantal relationship”; Cogan (2001) 292: “A large number of the situations envisioned are reminiscent of the covenant curses spelled out in Deut 28”; Walsh (1996) 114: “Several of the examples allude to traditional punishments that Yahweh will inflict on the people if they are not faithful to the covenant (compare the curses in Deuteronomy 28)”; Provan (1995) 81: “[T]he woes in Solomon’s seven petitions have been chosen because they appear in the list of covenant curses for disobedience in Deut. 28:15–68 (cf. esp. 28:21–25, 36–37)”; Levenson (1981) 156: “the marked tendency … for [vv. 23–53] to reflect Lev 26:14–45 and especially Deut 28:15–68, two collections of covenant curses upon an apostate Israel”; Burney (1903) 112: “The choice of subjects in the successive divisions of the prayer seems for the most part to have been suggested by the catalogue of curses contained in Deut. 28.15–68”; Benzinger (1899) 59, re vv. 14–61: “die Abhängigkeit von Dtn 28”.

132

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

In this connection, the Hebrew Bible records a number of occasions when the covenant had in fact been broken. There YHWH expresses his displeasure with the people’s continued practice of the cult: [T]he house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant that I made with their ancestors … What right has my beloved in my house, when she has done vile deeds? Can vows and sacrificial flesh avert your doom? (Jer. 11:10, 15) For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. But at Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. (Hos. 6:6–7) [Israel] ha[s] broken my covenant, and transgressed my law … Though they offer choice sacrifices, though they eat flesh, the LORD does not accept them. (Hos. 8:1, 13) You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is … your wife by covenant. (Mal. 2:13–14)

Hence, if the same reservation applies in 1 Kings 8, one reason for the absence of any reference to sacrifice could be that the nature of the offences, which seem likely to involve a violation of the covenant, renders sacrifice ineffectual in terms of restoring the people’s relationship with YHWH in general and dealing with their predicaments in particular.66 Conclusion The absence of any reference to the cult is not because the author(s) opposed such practice, but because the nature of the offence, i.e. breaking the covenant, rendered it irrelevant. Thus, if the four instances in Solomon’s prayer do represent situations resulting from the Israelites’ flouting the covenant, it is actually to be expected that there would be no mention of sacrifice as a/the method by which the Israelites could restore their relationship with YHWH. Hence, the failure to do so reveals nothing one way or the other about the author’s view of the cult in the Solomonic temple. Clearly, and contrary to received wisdom, such absence does not preclude the carrying out of sacrifice within the building. 66

I.e. by bringing about their return home after defeat, the end of the drought and relief from the various misfortunes in v. 37. Sacrifice in the temple would clearly not have been an option for Israelites in exile.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

133

Moreover, we have argued that the Deity is actually present within it. Therefore, assuming that his proximate presence is required for the cult, it would be reasonable to infer that, although the prayer does not speak of sacrifice, its author(s) still view(s) the temple as a place where it could be carried out, i.e. in line with the references to such activity in the bookends of the chapter (vv. 5, 62–64).

IMPACT ON THE NAME FORMULAE Our conclusion re the significance of the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” has potential consequences, not only for the nature of the divine ‫ שׁם‬within the name formulae, but also for its supposed role both in 1 Kings 8 and in other deuteronom(ist)ic passages. Variations in the interpretation of the divine ‫שׁם‬ Within the Name Theology texts, it is telling that there are significant differences of opinion as to the meaning of the noun. While the majority of scholars consider the ‫ שׁם‬to be independent from the Deity to a greater or lesser extent,67 there are those who understand it in other ways. Often it is not clear exactly what they are saying, but three of the more common minority views are as follows. Some appear to regard the ‫ שׁם‬as in some sense equivalent to YHWH himself,68 others view it as a means of summoning his presence,69 while still others see the references to the ‫ שׁם‬as expressing YHWH’s ownership of the temple,70 though the last interpretation applies to the name formula as a whole, i.e. rather than to the noun ‫ שׁם‬itself. Such differences of opinion follow from scholars not justifying their assessments. Many introduce their main discussion of the ‫שׁם‬71 without 67 68 69

70 71

Pp. 10–11 and Richter’s (2002) 14–22 discussion of “Nominal Realism”. P. 10 n. 44. I.e. what Grether (1934) 23 terms “ein Rufmittel”. Cf. Gray (1970) 221, who refers to “the divine presence, which has been realized upon the invocation of [God’s] ‘name’”; Skinner (n.d.) 147: “[T]o say that the name of Yahweh is in the sanctuary means … that in that place Yahweh will answer to His name – will reveal His gracious presence in response to the worship of His servants”. Pp. 55–56 and the references in Wilson (1995) 5 n. 22. E.g. Clements (1965) 94: “[T]he Deuteronomists offered a theological concept which expressed the manner of Yahweh’s dwelling upon earth. This was that of Yahweh’s name, which was set in the place which he had chosen … It was his alter ego by means of which he made himself present to men, without ever leaving his heavenly dwelling-

134

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

explanation, seemingly assuming their particular reading to be self-evident. The basic concept has been around at least since the beginning of the twentieth century;72 and since its popularization by von Rad in his Deuteronomium-Studien,73 it may be that few have felt the need to justify their interpretation, regarding it as undisputed, and in no need of defence. Alternatively, it may be that scholars react intuitively to texts in which references to YHWH located in heaven are juxtaposed with those referring to his ‫ שׁם‬being “made to dwell” (RSV), “put/set” or “there” at the sanctuary. These appear to imply that, in some sense, the “name” is present in that place, and is somehow distinct from the Deity who is in heaven. Commenting on the frequent rendering of lešakkēn šemô šām in Deut. 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2 by “to cause his name to dwell”, Richter notes: As translated, this phrase is seemingly communicating that YHWH intends to “cause” some new aspect of himself “to dwell” at the chosen place, a new aspect indicated by “name.” It is not difficult to discern how the above translation of this idiomatic expression has corroborated the identification of name in the DH as a hypostatized personality.74

Deficiencies in the understanding of the divine ‫שׁם‬ The ‫ שׁם‬is regarded as contributing to the resolution of a number of separate, yet interconnected polarities in connection with those divine attributes which affect YHWH’s relationship with his people. For example, it is taken for granted that the Deuteronomists wished to affirm both the transcendence and immanence of the Deity. Scholars consider that Name Theology satisfies this aspiration by having YHWH dwell in the

72

73 74

place”; von Rad (1953) 38: “The idea of the name [i.e. in Deuteronomy] as the characteristic form in which Jahweh reveals himself is not in itself anything new … But what is decidedly new is the assumption of a constant and almost material presence of the name at the shrine”; Grether (1934) 32: “Was will das Deuteronomium mit seinem Theologumenon von dem im Tempel wohnenden schem jahwe? Offenbar will es … beantworten, daß nicht Jahwe selbst an dem von ihm erwählten Ort wohnt, sondern daß er durch seinen schem dort vertreten ist”. E.g. Westphal (1908) 194: “Durch die geflissentliche Betonung, daß nur der Name Jahwes im Tempel wohne, wurde der Gedanke ausgeschlossen, daß Jahwe selber leibhaftig im Tempel zu finden sei, andrerseits aber … durch das Wohnen eines Repräsentanten der Gottheit im Tempel …”; Giesebrecht (1901) 124–125, who refers to “die Hypostasierung des Namens in der religiösen Sprache als eines Repräsentanten der Gottheit”. Von Rad (1947), English translation: 1953. Richter (2002) 9.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

135

transcendent realm of heaven, while at the same time locating his ‫ שׁם‬in the temple.75 The “name” conveys to the latter an attenuated76 form of divine presence, and in that way gives expression to a kind of divine immanence.77 Secondly, it is also presumed that the writers wanted to attest both to YHWH’s freedom, since his dwelling in a temple is thought to be somehow restrictive,78 and to his availability79 to the Israelites. Again, Name Theology is reckoned to provide the necessary wherewithal. It does this by liberating YHWH from the confines of the building, and at the same time places the ‫שׁם‬80 in the sanctuary as “a sort of proxy”81 which facilitates the people’s access82 to the transcendent Deity in heaven. 75

76

77

78

79

80

81 82

Wright (1944b) 75–76, for example, regards Name Theology as “the most important solution of the problem of immanence and transcendence with regard to the Temple which the Old Testament contains. It bridges the gap most satisfactorily between the distant heavenly God and the desire for and knowledge of his nearness”. Chapter 1, nn. 46, 48–50 and Wilson (1995) 5 n. 22, which list the various terms used to describe the relationship between YHWH and his ‫שׁם‬. These also imply the transmission, to a greater or lesser extent, of the divine presence to the temple: the ‫שׁם‬, for example, “representing” that presence, being the “form” of his manifestation, an “extension” of the Deity or his “cultic presence”. McBride (1969) 209: The “šēm theologumenon … assured the reality of God’s dynamic immanence at the chosen shrine without localizing him there”. Janowski (1987) 177: “Jahwe selbst … ist nicht an den Tempel gebunden, sondern er ‘thront/wohnt’ … im Himmel”; Maly (1981) 27: “Almost all … scholars see in D’s use of [God’s name dwelling in the temple] a reaction to a gross conception of God’s presence being limited, or at least bound, to the material temple”; Clements (1978) 44: “[T]he traditional language about God’s presence at his chosen sanctuary was an inadequate formulation of the reality since God was too great and exalted for his being to be locally restricted in this way (cf. 1 Kgs. 8.27)”. Gray (1970) 215: “Vv. 27–53 … particularly expresses the Deuteronomic theology of the accessible presence (‘the name …’) of God transcendent”; Eichrodt (1961) 106: “[T]he Deuteronomic school preserved the reality of divine presence at the holy place by … the dwelling of his Name. In this way they … [accomplished] the satisfaction of man’s deep desire for a God who is in very deed close to him”. Brueggemann (2000) 75: “The ‘name’ is a way of speaking about the presence … without compromising Yahweh’s freedom”. Cook (2013) 121. While most scholars seem reticent about spelling out how that access is provided, there are those who have made the attempt: Sommer (2009) 63: “[T]he shem connects heaven and earth, allowing the prayer of human beings to reach the God who does not deign to become present among them”; Fretheim (1999) 54: “The use of name language is important … because it shows forth genuine relationship; the name bespeaks availability, being able to be in touch with the one who can be called on by name”; Buis (1997) 87: “[L]e temple est le lieu où on peut invoquer ce nom avec la certitude d’être entendu”; Keller (1996) 141 n. 200: “Der Name Jahwes ist ein ‘Kommunikationsmittel’, das in besonderer Weise den Kontakt zwischen redendem Menschen und hörendem Gott ermöglicht”; Walsh (1996) 115: “[A] profound theological concept, the divine ‘name’ … explains how the Temple can function as the

136

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

It is important to note, however, that the above role is based on two assumptions. First, it is claimed that the ‫ שׁם‬and YHWH must be to some extent distinct, since the former is in the sanctuary, while the latter is in heaven. And secondly, as we have just observed, that same ‫ שׁם‬is generally regarded as conveying some form of the Deity’s presence from the heavenly realm to the earthly sanctuary. We, however, have argued that, in addition to the various references in Solomon’s prayer to YHWH’s being in heaven, he is also portrayed as located in the temple along with his ‫שׁם‬. If this is indeed the case, both the above assumptions about the ‫ שׁם‬are thrown into question. First, its supposed (semi)-independent status is clearly problematic, since the apparent reliance of that conjecture on both it and the Deity being present in different locations is undermined if they are in fact to be found in the same place, i.e. the temple. And secondly, in this revised situation there is no need for any form of the Deity, whether “attenuated” or not, to be transmitted to the temple, either as a purveyor of divine immanence or as a provider of access to the transcendent Deity, since YHWH himself is already there. His presence in the temple is entirely independent of the identity or role of the divine ‫שׁם‬, however understood, and means that neither of the above polarities requires resolution. Hence, given these problems with the usual way of viewing the divine ‫ שׁם‬in 1 Kings 8, it is clear that it has generally been misunderstood in this and similar deuteronom(ist)ic texts. In this connection, our previous monograph, which focused on the Book of Deuteronomy, also argued that YHWH is present at the very site where the divine ‫ שׁם‬is located, i.e. “the place that the LORD your God will choose”.83 This means that, contrary to the usual understanding, 1 Kings 8 and the cultic section of Deuteronomy (chs. 12–26) – arguably the two most important texts for the demonstration of Name Theology – both locate YHWH and his ‫ שׁם‬in the sanctuary. Clearly, as was indicated at the end of the earlier study, the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae need to be interpreted in some other way.

83

place where communication with the transcendent One takes place: when one invokes Yahweh’s name in prayer at or toward the Temple, Yahweh, in his heavenly abode, will hear and heed”; Provan (1995) 77: “[P]eople will get God’s attention by calling the name”; Auld (1986) 62: “[T]he presence of his ‘name’ … makes prayerful access to [Yahweh] more easy”. It is interesting to note, however, that within Solomon’s prayer, his petitions are nowhere addressed to the ‫שׁם‬, only to YHWH himself. Wilson (1995) 217.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

137

A possible way forward For most of the twentieth century, scholars have investigated the name formulae in the belief that for the ancient Semite an aspect of YHWH (in this case his “name”) could be an entity independent (or semiindependent) of the Deity himself.84 More recently, however, Richter has challenged this view. On the basis of her discussion of its origins, development and recent reconstructions, and aided by Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of the various stages through which a reigning paradigm has to go before those within the “community of practitioners” are forced to relinquish it in favour of a replacement,85 she has concluded that the interpretive paradigm known as the Name Theology has reached a stage in which anomalies have accumulated, and that … our discipline … is, perhaps, ready for … the suggestion of a new paradigm.86

Richter’s alternative approach entails each name formula being viewed as an idiom, a closed syntactical unit whose meaning cannot be determined from that of its individual components,87 and which, in consequence, cannot be invoked for information about those components, since none of the latter (including the ‫ )שׁם‬contribute to the meaning of the unit as a whole.88 We also consider that the time is ripe for a new approach, even more so than when this was suggested in our earlier monograph challenging Name Theology in Deuteronomy.89 However, whereas the methodology employed in that book gave no indication as to how such a revised understanding of the formulae might be obtained, the present study has identified a third way of evaluating the divine ‫ שׁם‬as it occurs within those curious expressions. As a result of the current work, we are recommending that the formulae be investigated to see whether any of them involve the ‫ שׁם‬being used as a metonym. 84 85 86 87

88

89

An example of “nominal realism”. See p. 118. Kuhn (1970). Richter (2002) 36. Richter (2002) 38–39, using the Webster’s New World Dictionary definition: “[a]n expression established in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning that cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements”. See her section D. A New Paradigm, pp. 36–39. Cf. Fernando (1996) 4: “[T]he constituents of an idiom are empty of their usual senses when the expression is interpreted idiomatically”; Fraser (1970) 33: “[N]o part of the idiom actually contributes to the semantic interpretation of the expression … there is no semantic information associated with any component part of the idiom”. See above, n. 83.

138

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

We have argued that the noun phrase in the collocation “praying ‫אל‬ this place/house” is a metonymic vehicle targeting the Deity who, accordingly, must therefore be present within the temple. We have also noted that the juxtaposition of the divine ‫ שׁם‬and its bearer within the building undermines the rationale for the proposed distinction between them. This raises the possibility that some of the instances of the ‫ שׁם‬in 1 Kings 8 might themselves be metonyms targeting the Deity and that, as a consequence, YHWH’s presence within the building could be deduced not only from the references to prayer ‫“ אל‬this place/house”, but also from those to the ‫שׁם‬, which is itself connected with the temple. To our knowledge this approach has not been tried before. Rather, previous investigations of the significance of the divine ‫ שׁם‬in deuteronom(ist) ic texts have tended to assume without question that they conform to Name Theology.90 On that basis scholars have then looked outside the Hebrew Bible in the hope that similar expressions occurring in other ancient Near Eastern literature would be more readily understood and could thus cast light on the deuteronom(ist)ic usage.91 We, however, in company with Richter, are recommending taking a step back to query whether such instances are in fact expressions of Name Theology. Note that this is not to suggest that all instances of the divine ‫ שׁם‬hitherto claimed by Name Theologians are likely to have been misinterpreted and should really be classified as alternative ways of denoting the divine presence. Rather, it is to reinvestigate the ones in 1 Kings 8 and Deuteronomy, as well as others in the Hebrew Bible, to see if any of them are more readily understood as metonyms for YHWH,92 and thus as providing

90 91 92

With the notable recent exception of Richter (2002). In addition to the references in Wilson (1995) 9 nn. 38, 39, see Richter (2002). Such an investigation could well be profitable in terms of our present enterprise, since at least one of the uses of the divine ‫ שׁם‬in 1 Kings 8 appears to be a likely candidate. The six references to Solomon building a house for YHWH’s ‫( שׁם‬vv. 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48) fulfil at least one of the requirements for detecting a metonym, as they appear to violate the selection restrictions of the collocation ‫“( בנה ל‬to build for”). The indirect object of the latter is almost always personal, and refers to humans or the Deity, presumably as the occupant(s) of whatever is built. The few exceptions involve physical artefacts (in Zech 5:10–11 a house is built for a basket [Heb. ‫]איפה‬, in 1 Chron. 28:2 for the ark of the covenant and in 28:10 for? the sanctuary), an abstraction (in 2 Chron. 11:5 cities are built for defence) or the preposition introducing an infinitive (in 1 Kings 8:16; 9:3; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 35:9; Ezek. 17:17; Ezra 3:2; 2 Chron. 6:5). Cf. Keller (1996) 143–144: “Überlegen könnte man allenfalls, ob nicht zumindest schem in den Namensformeln mit ‫היה‬/‫ בנה‬als Wechselbegriff aufgefasst werden könnte”. Note, however, that with this particular collocation Richter (2002) 79–81 has come to a rather different conclusion. In common with her approach to the deuteronom(ist)ic

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

139

further allusive evidence for the presence of the Deity in the temple / “chosen place” within those two key texts. We have already noted that where such equivalence is acknowledged elsewhere within the Hebrew Bible, it usually occurs in poetic texts,93 and scholars have tended to appeal to Hebrew parallelism94 by way of justification. Unfortunately, however, references to the ‫ שׁם‬in 1 Kings 8 are embedded in prose, so no such appeal is possible. Nevertheless, it would still be useful to explore whether the characteristics of any of its occurrences within the putative deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae conform to those of a metonym,95 and thus are better understood as statements about the divine presence rather than as witnessing to the existence of a (semi-)independent entity.96

93

94

95

96

name formulae in general, she considers it important to view the phrase as a whole, and regards it as an idiom “express[ing] memorial and reputation”. Many such texts have been appealed to in order to illustrate this phenomenon. The following two are reasonably representative: “I will give to the LORD the thanks due to his righteousness, and sing praise to the name of the LORD, the Most High” (Ps. 7:18 [EVV 17]). “Therefore in the east give glory to the LORD; in the coastlands of the sea glorify the name of the LORD, the God of Israel” (Is. 24:15). Eg. Sommer (2009) 59: “The synonymous parallelism of God and God’s name in many poetic texts attests to [their] identity”; van der Woude (1997) 1362: “The ‘name of Yahweh’ … is a hymnic theme used consequently in parallelism as a synonym for Yahweh”; Fossum (1985) 84–85: “[T]he Old Testament contains many passages where (‫ שם )יהוה‬stands in parallelism to the Tetragrammaton … [this] usage is found especially throughout the Book of Psalms”; Bietenhard (1967) 257: “‫ ֵשׁם יהוה‬is used after the Exile, especially in parallelism in the Ps. and prophets, as an alternative for Yahweh”; Grether (1934) 36: “Am deutlichsten läßt sich der schem jahwe als Korrelat für Jahwe an parallel gebauten Versen erkennen, in welchen im einen Glied Jahwe, im andern der schem gesetzt ist”. Note that, in addition to describing the characteristics of a metonym, we have also indicated how it can be distinguished from its literal counterpart (Chapter 3). This is in contrast to Richter (2002), who clearly appreciates the nature of an idiom as a “closed syntactical unit” (her p. 39), but does not justify her assumption that the name formulae should be characterized that way. For a list of features frequently associated with idioms and whose presence may enable a distinction to be made between the idiomatic and literal interpretations of such a collocation, see Wilson (2005) 223–227. That such an approach would not be unreasonable is shown by the observation, accepted even by Name Theologians, that within the Hebrew Bible there are precedents for the divine ‫ שׁם‬being used as an equivalent to YHWH himself. See above, pp. 119–120. Moreover, it may or may not be significant that the grammatical use of the divine ‫שׁם‬ in such texts is generally similar to that within the deuteronom(ist)ic Name Formulae: it is usually the object of a verb, whether direct or indirect, but rarely its subject.

140

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

IMPACT ON THE BOOKS OF KINGS This study has focused on the question as to whether there is any evidence for divine presence within Solomon’s prayer as recorded in 1 Kings 8. It has concluded that the four instances of praying ‫אל‬ the temple are not to be read literally, i.e. in a directional sense, but figuratively, as being addressed to YHWH himself. Hence, and contrary to received wisdom, the prayer represents him as being located within the temple, a conclusion consistent with the portrayal of his whereabouts in the bookends of the chapter. Consequently, when considering any impact that this conclusion might have on the Books of Kings as a whole, the obvious place to look would be in passages dealing with or referring to the Solomonic temple. This would not entail investigating all forty-eight chapters, since much of the Books’ content concerns events taking place in the northern kingdom of Israel, where the writer(s) show(s) no interest in either the temple or its affairs, apart from in 1 Kings 12.97 By contrast, those chapters which deal with the southern kingdom do occasionally mention the building. However, once one discounts the four lengthy sections which are primarily concerned with its construction,98 repair99 or cleansing,100 there is not much material left where the question of the presence (or otherwise) of the Deity in the temple appears to be of interest to the author(s). YHWH’s presence within the temple We have argued that the four instances of “praying ‫ אל‬this place/ house” are best understood as praying to the occupant of the temple, that the occupant is YHWH and thus that the Solomonic prayer locates him inside the building. Within the Books of Kings there are two pieces of evidence which are consistent with our findings: 97 98

99

100

See below, pp. 142–144. 1 Kings 5:15–32 (EVV 1–18): Solomon and Hiram agree terms and carry out the initial preparation of its timber and stone; 1 Kings 6 outlines its size and design both inside and out, along with details of its interior décor and length of time involved in its completion; 1 Kings 7:13–51 refers to the design, decoration and placing of its two pillars, together with various items of furniture and utensils. 2 Kings 12:4–16: Various monies contributed by the people are collected and distributed to the workmen repairing the temple to pay for their labour and materials; 2 Kings 22:3–7: Josiah gives similar instructions re those currently working on the building. 2 Kings 23:1–14: Josiah is in the temple when he reads the book of the law to all the people, prior to disposing of the idolatrous utensils, Asherah and horses dedicated to the sun.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

141

2 Kings 19:14–19 This is the account of Hezekiah’s response to Sennacherib’s written warning of the futility of relying on YHWH for the protection of Jerusalem. He goes up to the temple, spreads the letter before the LORD (‫ )לפני יהוה‬and prays before the LORD (‫)לפני יהוה‬, addressing him as the one who is “enthroned (‫ )ישׁב‬above the cherubim” (vv. 14–15aα). Our assertion that Solomon’s prayer points to YHWH as being in the temple, coupled with our other claim that his use of ‫ ישׁב‬does not confine the Deity to heaven, but allows him to be present elsewhere, clearly enables Hezekiah’s salutation to refer to YHWH’s localized presence within the building.101 Not many scholars comment on the cherubim in this verse, no doubt having done so earlier in their commentaries when dealing with the cherubim over the ark (1 Kings 6:23–28, 8:6–7102 or even 12:28–30 [see below]), and supposing that previous observations would apply in this case as well.103 The few who do, however, see the reference to them as implying/referring to the actual presence of the Deity within the temple itself. For example, Würthwein notes: Hezekiah spreads out this letter in the temple, since YHWH is thought to be present there … YHWH, who sits enthroned on the cherubim in the Debir of the temple, is therefore present in the Jerusalem sanctuary.104

Rehm comments similarly: The statement that God sits enthroned on the cherubim refers to the ark of the covenant, which, with its cherubim-forms is regarded as the 101

102

103

104

Note also the atypical use of ‫ לפני‬in connection with the king’s prayer. As mentioned on pp. 71–72, and in contrast to the more usual ‫אל‬, this preposition can denote a spatial relationship between the one who prays and the Deity to whom the prayer is offered. This would clearly be a curious choice if 2 Kings 19:15 involved YHWH’s absence from the temple, but an appropriate one if he was indeed thought to be present within its confines. I.e. as opposed to those in 1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35; 7:29, and 36, which are merely carvings. Comments which incidentally frequently link the cherubim with the localized presence of YHWH within the sanctuary. Würthwein (1984) 428: “Diesen Brief breitet Hiskija im Tempel, da Jahwe gegenwärtig gedacht ist …. Jahwe, der auf den Keruben im Debir des Tempels thront, also im Jerusalemer Heiligtum anwesend ist”. Cf. Šanda (1912) 275: “Hizkia denkt an die Bundeslade. Diese konnte in alter Zeit nur insofern ein Unterpfand der Hilfe Jahves sein, als Gott über den darauf befindlichen Keruben gegenwärtig gedacht wurde”; Lumby (1887) 200: “the cherubim and their position above the ark, as the place where the divine presence was manifested and dwelt”.

142

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

symbol of the invisibly present God … By it God dwells in the midst of his people. (1 Sam. 4:4; 1 Kings 8:13; Ezek. 43:7).105

This, however, is somewhat unexpected on two counts. First, their acceptance of God’s presence in the temple runs counter, not only to their own statements that YHWH is in heaven,106 but also to the generally accepted view that the prayer in 1 Kings 8 has eliminated YHWH from the earthly sphere. And secondly, like Solomon’s, Hezekiah’s prayer is generally thought to come from the hands of the Deuteronomists.107 Given these two observations, it is therefore curious that this description of YHWH as the one who is “enthroned above the cherubim” does not seem to have merited the kind of attention that one would have expected from those who consider that Solomon’s words have “relocated” the Deity to heaven. At the very least one would have expected some caveat about how the phrase should now be understood, since both at face value and in the view of some scholars it would appear to affirm the presence of the Deity within the temple. No such qualification, however, has so far been found. 1 Kings 12:26–33 This passage also refers to the temple. It deals with Jeroboam’s establishing of sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan in the north to rival the Jerusalem temple in the south. Unusually, it gives us an insight into his motivation for doing so:

105

106

107

Rehm (1982) 192: “Die Aussage, daß Gott auf den Kerubim thront, bezieht sich auf die Bundeslade, die mit ihren Kerubsgestalten als Sinnbild des unsichtbar gegenwärtigen Gottes galt … Durch sie wohnt Gott inmitten seines Volkes”. Note that, like the praying ‫“ אל‬this place/house” in 1 Kings 8, this is an example of prayer to the YHWH who is present in the temple. Cf. Weinfeld (1972) 192: “The presence of the Deity in the sanctuary … derives from early sacral conceptions. The notion of God sitting enthroned upon the cherubim was prevalent in ancient Israel (… 2 Kings 19:15 = Is. 37:16)”. Würthwein (1985) 95–96: “Die alte massive Vorstellung von Jahwes Wohnen am Kultort … wird hier [in 1 Kings 8:29–53] überwunden. Man ruft zum Tempel hin, denn da empfängt Gott die Gebete. Er selbst verbleibt jedoch im Himmel, sieht und hört dort”; Rehm (1979) 96: “[D]er Verfasser [of 1 Kings 8:27] … spricht … von Gott, als würde er dem Tempel ferne sein und nur vom Himmel aus die Gebete wahrnehmen”. Cf. Weinfeld (1972) 195 (quoted above, p. 106). Fritz (2003) 375; Knoppers (1994) 167 n. 99; Balentine (1993) 91–92, 94; McKenzie (1991) 106; Cogan and Tadmor (1988) 236, 243; Hentschel (1985) 93; Jones (1984) 577; Würthwein (1984) 425; Mettinger (1982) 52; Rehm (1982) 185; Weinfeld (1972) 39, 42.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

143

Then Jeroboam said to himself, “Now the kingdom may well revert to the house of David. If this people continues to go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, the heart of this people will turn again to … King Rehoboam of Judah; they will kill me …”. So the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold. (vv. 26–28)

Interestingly, while these verses do not mention cherubim at all, some scholars allude to them in their reflections on the calves, and in so doing affirm the presence of YHWH in the Solomonic temple. They do this by suggesting that Jeroboam may have anticipated that the Deity would manifest his presence above the calves, and so provide a northern equivalent to that of YHWH above the ark’s cherubim in the Judean sanctuary: [T]hese bulls were most probably pedestals that, like the cherubim in the temple of Jerusalem, manifested the presence of the invisible Godhead.108

In addition, and as with 2 Kings 19:15, this passage is also seen by many scholars as coming from the hands of the Deuteronomist(s).109 One 108

109

Fritz (2003) 147. Cf. Hens-Piazza (2006) 127: “Even in the Jerusalem temple, the cherubim served as the Lord’s throne in the Holy of Holies”; Fretheim (1999) 75: “[The golden calves] were likely pedestals on which the invisible Yahweh was thought to stand … parallel to the cherubim throne … in the Jerusalem temple”; Walsh (1996) 172: “Even Yahweh in the Jerusalem Temple was thought of as invisibly enthroned on the cherubim atop the ark of the covenant”; Rice (1990) 106: “It is probable that Jeroboam meant the bull to serve the same function as the ark and the cherubim [in Judah], that is, as the throne or footstool of the invisibly present God”; Auld (1986) 87: “It was easy enough to build or rebuild shrines. But the ark … was in Jerusalem, with Yahweh invisibly over the winged cherubim above it”; Würthwein (1985) 165: “Vielmehr wird in Analogie zu zahlreichen altorientalischen Parallelen der Jungstier als Postament des unsichtbar gegenwärtigen Gottes Jahwe (also ähnlich wie bei den Keruben bzw. der Lade) gedacht gewesen sein”; Hentschel (1984) 85: “Das … Stierbild sollte ähnlich wie die Lade und die Kerubim (6, 23–28) die Gegenwart des darüber thronenden Jahwe anzeigen”; Jones (1984) 258: “Jeroboam probably installed the calves to fulfil the same function … as the ark or cherubim did in the Jerusalem Temple … These animal figures … may have been pedestals connected with the place of God’s presence, with God visibly [sic] standing above them”; Robinson (1972) 156: “The calves were thrones upon which Yahweh, the invisible God, could sit. This was parallel to Solomon’s setting the Ark and the cherubim in his temple as a similar throne”. Fritz (2003) 147, re vv. 26–30: “The Deuteronomistic Historian emphasizes [the condemnation of the new sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan] when he mentions the[ir] foundation … by Jeroboam”; Knoppers (1994) 41:“Jeroboam’s (re)investiture of Bethel and Dan occupies a prominent position in the Deuteronomist’s coverage of the northern kingdom”; McKenzie (1991) 52: “Dtr’s diatribe against Jeroboam … preserved in 12:25–32 and …” (similarly on pp. 124, 137 and 142); Würthwein (1985) 161–162: his printed text of vv. 26–30a is categorized as deuteronomistic; see p. X;

144

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

might therefore have expected commentators to draw a distinction between Israel’s sanctuaries in the north and the Judean temple in the south – Jeroboam’s cult places allowed for the presence of the Deity above the calves, whereas the temple in Solomon’s prayer was unable to do so, since YHWH had been “relocated” (by the Deuteronomists) to heaven. Here also, it is curious that the Jerusalem temple is held up as a model for the presence of the Deity over the calves, when the usual view is that the Deuteronomists evacuated the temple of the divine presence. As in the previous passage, no scholar has been found to produce any kind of caveat re the comparison. There are therefore two relevant passages, both of which, like the Solomonic prayer, are generally regarded as being of deuteronomistic origin. In 2 Kings 19:14–19 YHWH is ostensibly located in the temple itself, while in 1 Kings 12:26–33 scholars appeal to the divine presence in the Judean sanctuary as a way of understanding Jeroboam’s action in making the golden calves at Bethel and Dan. While the deuteronomistic view of the temple as deduced from 1 Kings 8 has traditionally been that it has “relocated” YHWH to the heavens, our claim that he is also present within the building has found additional support from 2 Kings 19:15 and from scholarly treatment of 1 Kings 12:28–30.110 The focus of prayers We have argued that “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” is intended to be understood as praying to YHWH who is the occupant of the temple.

110

Hentschel (1984) 84: “Der erste dtr Redaktor (DtrH) spricht in 26–29. 30b von der ‘Sünde Jerobeams’”; Van Seters (1983) 314: “The story about Jeroboam and the golden calves … is the literary creation of Dtr”; Nelson (1981) 112: “[T]he [Deuteronomistic] historian’s own opinions about [Jeroboam] were violently antipathetic (1 Kings 12:26–33 …)”; Hoffmann (1980) 73: “So stellt 1 K 12, 26–32 als Ganzes eine dtr Fiktion dar”; Cross (1973) 279: “In 1 Kings 12:26–33, we read a strongly Deuteronomistic description of Jeroboam’s archcrime”; Robinson (1972) 155, re vv. 25–31: “This passage reflects very strongly the point of view of the deuteronomists who were totally opposed to any shrine other than Jerusalem”; Cf. Burney (1903) 176. Cf. the use of ‫“( לפני יהוה‬before the LORD”) elsewhere in Kings. We suggested above (pp. 71–72) that its occurrences in 1 Kings 8:28, 59, 62 and 65 refer to the divine presence localized within the temple. It is therefore clearly possible that other instances of that same prepositional phrase could also be understood as denoting the earthly presence of the Deity. YHWH acknowledges hearing the prayer that Solomon has made ‫ לפני‬him (1 Kings 9:3), Solomon burn[s] incense ‫( לפני יהוה‬1 Kings 9:25), Ahaz removes the bronze altar that was ‫( לפני יהוה‬2 Kings 16:14) and Josiah makes a covenant ‫( לפני יהוה‬2 Kings 23:3). All these take place either within or in close proximity to the temple, and all could refer to the divine presence.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

145

However, despite all the references to praying in Solomon’s intercession, there are surprisingly few recorded instances of anybody in Judah praying to YHWH himself and none to praying ‫ אל‬the temple. Solomon’s prayer is referred to by YHWH in 1 Kings 9:3, the unnamed man of God entreats YHWH to restore Jeroboam’s withered hand (1Kings 13:6),111 Hezekiah prays twice, in response to Sennacherib’s letter and then to Isaiah’s prophecy of his imminent demise (2 Kings 19:15–19; 20:2–3); and finally, Isaiah cries to YHWH to request the shadow on Ahaz’ dial to retreat (2 Kings 20:11).112 No-one else is represented as addressing YHWH in any way, unless the references to Sennacherib’s “raging” against YHWH in 2 Kings 19:27–28 involved his speaking to the Deity verbally. Apart from Solomon himself, the only example of a prayer involving the temple in any way is that of Hezekiah, who prays within its precincts. The widely canvassed claim that Solomon’s prayer heralded a new conception of the temple as “a house of prayer” is not borne out in the Books of Kings. The operation of the cult We have argued that the absence of any reference to sacrifice in Solomon’s prayer is perfectly understandable. Indeed, it is to be expected in the type of prayer made by him and given the possible cause of the situations envisaged by it.113 In terms of whether the temple is intended to be used primarily for prayer or for sacrifice, there is not much evidence either way. We have already suggested that there is none for the former – apart from 1 Kings 8 no scholar has been found to come up with any data in the Books of Kings in support of the reinterpretation of the building as a house of prayer. Neither, in fact, is there much for the offering of sacrifice. None the less, what there is does appear to strengthen our claim that in the rest of Kings the temple was still considered to be a place for the operation of the cult.

111 112

113

This takes place in the north, in Bethel, but the man of God is from Judah. In addition there are two instances of kings requesting that someone else contact the Deity on their behalf. In 2 Kings 3:11 Jehoshaphat asks “Is there no prophet of the LORD here, through whom we may inquire of the LORD?”, and in 2 Kings 22:13 Josiah asks a group of people to “Go, inquire of the LORD for me … concerning the words of this book that has been found”. However, in neither case are we informed as to how this took place. Pp. 127–133.

146

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

The relevance of the “high places” The continuation of cultic activity in the Solomonic temple is implied by two features of the way many commentators view the characterization of the “high places” (‫ )במות‬in the Books of Kings. These venues are first mentioned in 1 Kings 3, where they occur in conjunction with the temple (the house “built for the name of the LORD”). The juxtaposition implies that at that time they were a temporarily acceptable location for the offering of sacrifices. After the erection of the temple, however, such actions were expected to be conducted there instead: The people were sacrificing at the high places … because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD. (v. 2)

Certainly after the temple’s completion the “high places” are condemned by the biblical narrator(s). This can be seen in the case of a number of “good” Judean kings. Even though their hearts were “true to the LORD”114 or they did “what was right in [his] sight”,115 these characteristics are qualified116 by the fact that during the kings’ reigns the “high places” were not taken away / removed. Two points can be made about the narrative’s negative evaluation of the various kings (north and south) based on their practical response to the ongoing persistence of the “high places”. First, with some of these sites a significant aspect of that judgment resulted from their association with pagan deities or rites. However, and despite Provan’s caveat as to the lack of a scholarly consensus with regard to the reason for that condemnation,117 many scholars consider that it arises from the use of such locations violating the deuteronomic demand for cultic activities to be restricted to the one central sanctuary. Nelson, for example, comments:

114 115

116

117

Asa (1 Kings 15:14). Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:42–43), Jehoash (2 Kings 12:3 [EVV 2]), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1–3), Azariah (2 Kings 15:1–3), Jotham (2 Kings 15:32–34). Indicated by the use of appropriate adverbs: “[Jehoshaphat] walked in all the way of his father Asa … doing what was right in the sight of the LORD; yet (‫ )אך‬the high places were not taken away” (1 Kings 22:43–44 [EVV 43]); “Jehoash did what was right in the sight of the LORD … Nevertheless (‫ )רק‬the high places were not taken away” (2 Kings 12:4 [EVV 3]). See also 14:4; 15:4, 35. Provan (1988) 57: “A wide divergence of opinion exists as to whether it was because the Temple was regarded as the only legitimate place of worship; because the ‫במות‬ were syncretistic; because they were devoted to the worship of other gods; or for a combination of these reasons”.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

147

[A] point of censure is sacrifice outside the Jerusalem Temple. Deuteronomy 12 forbids any noncentral sacrifice … [e.g.] at local “high places” in Judah. Several otherwise conscientious kings of Judah receive only qualified approval because “the high places were not taken away” (e.g., 1Kgs 15:14; 22:43).118

If these scholars are correct, such a requirement would most likely apply to those instances (involving “good” kings) where no pagan deities or rites are mentioned as taking place at all (either by king or by his subjects) during their reigns. The divine beneficiary/ies of the cultic activities carried out on those “high places” is/are not specified, but no hint is given that such rituals were wrong in themselves. Rather the focus seems to be on the “high places” per se. If this is so, and the criticism is aimed at the site of the activities rather than the activities themselves,119 then the strong implication is that whatever was happening on them was being done at the wrong place. Hence, if it is the case that a violation of the deuteronomic demand for one central sanctuary is at stake here, then the narrator(s) is/are requiring such cultic actions to be carried out not at the “high places”, but at that central sanctuary, i.e. the Solomonic temple. For commentators who attribute some at least of the condemnation of the “high places” to the above infringement, the clear implication is that they consider that the temple was still regarded as the place for the operation of the cult.

118

119

Nelson (1998) 147. See also: Sweeney (2007) 381 refers to Ahaz who “sacrifices and burns incense at the illicit high places … in opposition to the Dtr requirement for worship at only one central sanctuary (Deut 12:2–7)”; Mulder (1998) 133, re the references to high places in 1 Kings 3:2, 3b: “On the basis, for example, of Deut. 12:13f., the offering of sacrifices at places other than the central sanctuary was described as highly suspect”; Walsh (1996) 72: “Later on [i.e. after construction of the temple] worship on the high places was synonymous with idolatry, since approved sacrificial worship of Yahweh could be carried on only at the Temple”; Hentschel (1984) 7: “[D]ie deuteronomische Forderung, dem Herrn nur an einem Ort Opfer darzubringen (Dtn 12, 5–7 u.ö.), mindestens seit dem Bau des Tempels für alle Könige Israels und Judas galt”; Eißfeldt (1965) 283: “the judgement of the individual kings on the basis of whether they permitted the cultus [i.e. on the high places] practised outside the Temple of Jerusalem”; Burney (1903) 27, re 1 Kings 3:2, 3: “The disapprobation of ‫ במה‬worship is based upon the law of Deuteronomy, which restricts sacrifice to the central sanctuary”; Keil (n.d.) 40: “[S]acrificing upon these high places was opposed to the law, according to which the place which the Lord Himself had chosen for the revelation of His name was the only place where sacrifices were to be offered”. Unless this is a PLACE FOR ACTIVITY metonymy, a possibility suggested by Philip Johnston.

148

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Secondly, many scholars view the “high place” criticisms as coming from the hand(s) of the Deuteronomists.120 They are the ones who are using the kings’ attitudes to the “high places” as the criterion by which to judge the success or failure of their reigns. If this implied requirement of a change of location is to be attributed to them, it means that they would have preferred both the sacrificing and the burning of incense tolerated on the “high places” during the reigns of the “good” kings121 to have been carried out at the temple. Such an observation is clearly at variance with the claim that the deuteronomistic view of the temple denied that it was a place of sacrifice. Other texts We have already noted the references to sacrifice within the temple as part of the dedication of the building in 1 Kings 8. There are also the references to Solomon’s thrice-yearly offering of sacrifices and burning of incense recorded in 1 Kings 9:25 and 10:5. To those we could add the actions of Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 in connection with the model of the Damascan altar that he had installed in the temple, actions showing that, regardless of how he was judged by the narrator(s), he still viewed the temple as a place for sacrifice. However, probably the most significant example, ironically, is that of Jeroboam, who set up his two golden calves at Bethel and Dan in case his people were tempted to “go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem” (1 Kings 12:27). Jeroboam is clearly represented as regarding the Solomonic temple as

120

121

Provan (1988) 57, on the basis of his “review of the commentaries on Kings and of the standard introductions to the OT” comments: “All are agreed that the Dtr material on the ‫ במות‬in Kings rejects them as illegitimate”. See, for example: Fritz (2003) 356: “[T]he Deuteronomistic Historian uses [cult practice on the ‘high places’] as a synonym for unlawful worship, as its site is outside Jerusalem; the DeuteronomicDeuteronomistic attitude considers each form of worship of Yahweh outside the temple of Jerusalem incorrect and detestable”; Mulder (1998) 133, re the references to high places in 1 Kings 3:2, 3b: “In the books of Kings we … frequently find such dtr touchups (e.g. 15:14; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4, etc.)”; Buis (1997) 21: “On fait … de la condamnation des bamot un critère de rédaction deutéronomiste”; Noth (1991) 142: “It is only with Solomon that [Dtr] begins to make sacrifices on ‘high places’ outside Jerusalem the main transgression against the law”; DeVries (1985) xxviii: “[I]t is the deuteronomist who is their [the ‫ ]במות‬chief critic … no doubt [he] objected to them from the ideological viewpoint of the entire Deuteronomic movement … insisting on the sole and exclusive legitimacy of the Jerusalem temple over against every sort of local temple (Deut 12:10–14 …)”. See above, nn. 114 and 115.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

149

a centre for the carrying out of sacrifices. Since, therefore, this passage (vv. 25–33) is generally thought to come from the Deuteronomists,122 it also is at variance with the claim that they were dispensing with its function as a place for the operation of the cult. Summary The claim that the Solomonic prayer indicates that the Deuteronomists changed the purpose of the temple from sacrifice to prayer is significantly flawed. First, praying is mentioned a number of times in connection with the building (i.e. prayer ‫“ אל‬this place/house”), but these and all the prayers in the intercession are really being addressed to YHWH, the occupant of the temple. The building itself plays a far lesser role than is generally thought. Secondly, much has been made of the absence of any reference to the cult within the prayer. This, however, is to be expected, regardless of how the writer(s) viewed the purpose of the temple. Solomon’s prayer is an intercession, and in the Hebrew Bible there are no precedents for such petitions even mentioning sacrifices, let alone requiring their beneficiaries to offer them. Neither, if the predicaments envisaged by Solomon arise as a result of violations of the covenant (as argued by some), does sacrifice appear to have been an accepted way for the Israelites to obtain a reversal of such punishments. Finally, however, and in support of our rebuttal that the Solomonic prayer heralded a sea change in the original purpose of the temple, some scholarly interpretations of the deuteronomistic narrator’s criticism of the “high places” strongly imply that the sacrifices offered on them should really have been carried out at the Jerusalem temple. Further backing comes from the deuteronomistic explanation that Jeroboam’s motivation for setting up the two northern sanctuaries was to prevent his people from sacrificing in the Solomonic temple in the south. Both of these factors imply that the latter was still intended to be used for the operation of the cult. The “profound and thoroughgoing attempt at … re-interpretation [of the temple]” envisaged by Clements123 appears not to have taken place.

122 123

P. 143. P. 124.

150

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

The divine ‫שׁם‬ The divine ‫ שׁם‬occurs around thirty times in the Books of Kings. Of the occurrences which are generally regarded as illustrating Name Theology, those referring to a house being built “for/to” (‫ )ל‬the divine “name” – largely in 1 Kings 8, but also in 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2 and 5:17, 19, 19 (EVV 3, 5, 5) – have already been mentioned as possible candidates for an understanding of the ‫ שׁם‬as a metonym for YHWH himself.124 Those to the divine ‫ שׁם‬being “there” (‫)שׁם‬, i.e. in the temple (1 Kings 8:16, 29 and 2 Kings 23:27), could also be metonymic for YHWH. However, in the case of the instances of the divine ‫ שׁם‬being “put” (‫ )שׂום‬in either the temple or Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:3; 11:36; 14:21 and 2 Kings 21:4, 7), a metonymic interpretation would seem to be unlikely, since the noun is always the direct object of a verb whose subject is the Deity. Conclusion It should now be clear that our interpretation of the collocation “praying ‫ אל‬this place/house” within the deuteronomistically worded Solomonic prayer is not isolated, but finds support within the Books of Kings as a whole. Interestingly, such corroboration comes from a number of passages also thought to be deuteronomistic. That Solomon’s prayer locates YHWH in the temple is borne out both by Hezekiah’s salutation in 2 Kings 19:15 and by scholarly comments on the significance of the calves in 1 Kings 12. In contrast to the repudiation of any cultic role for the building, the condemnation of the “high places” and the editorial insight into Jeroboam’s thinking both imply the continuation of sacrifice within its compass. Regarding the claim that the temple has now become a house of prayer, few Judeans are recorded as praying at all, with only Hezekiah doing so in connection with the temple. Evidence for such a reinterpretation is thus conspicuously lacking. Finally, as far as the divine ‫ שׁם‬within the name formulae is concerned, further research will be necessary to determine whether any of its occurrences within Kings have been misunderstood, and should instead be read as metonyms for the Deity himself.

124

See above, n. 92.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

151

FINAL REFLECTIONS In our earlier monograph, the following claim was made on the basis of the book’s conclusions: [T]he existence in Deuteronomy of a thoroughgoing Name Theology as traditionally defined begins to look unlikely, and the significance of the divine Name in relation to the “chosen place” calls for further investigation.125

Since its appearance, and in addition to the trickle of additional publications detailing evidence within Deuteronomy for YHWH’s presence on the earth,126 two monographs127 and several articles128 revisiting the subject of Name Theology have appeared, as well as a number of commentaries on both Deuteronomy129 and Kings.130 As far as Deuteronomy is concerned, there are still scholars who espouse Name Theology, either by affirming YHWH’s absence from the earthly sphere131 or by considering that his presence in heaven is, to a greater or lesser extent, conveyed to the sanctuary via the agency of the divine ‫שׁם‬.132 None the less, there are an increasing number of scholars who reject Name Theology as traditionally understood. Some affirm his earthly presence by citing evidence entirely independent of the nature or role of the divine ‫שׁם‬, i.e. by appealing to the kind of literary expressions detailed in our earlier work:133

125 126 127 128 129

130

131

132

133

Wilson (1995) 217. P. 3 n. 14. Richter (2002), Keller (1996). See also Sommer (2009). Hundley (2009), Otto (2007), Van Seters (2004), Schniedewind (2003). Otto (2016), Lundbom (2013), Rüterswörden (2011), Rüterswörden (2006), Veijola (2004), Biddle (2003), Nelson (2002), Christensen (2001). Wray Beal (2014), Sweeney (2007), Hens-Piazza (2006), Leithart (2006), Werlitz (2002), Cogan (2001), Brueggemann (2000). Sommer (2009) 65, re Deut. 26:15: “Here God’s habitation is pointedly not in an earthly temple. As Deuteronomy 26.2 reminds us, it is the shem that is located there”; Rofé (2002) 10, re Deut. 26:15 and 1Kings 8:27: “[YHWH] is beyond the world of physical substance and, consequently, cannot be found in this material world”; Christensen (2001) 244: “Deuteronomic theology rejected every suggestion that God was in any way physically present in an earthly sanctuary. The use of the divine name here was a polemic reaction against all attempts to localize God’s being in some specific place or in some physical structure”. See Rüterswörden (2011) 14 and Veijola (2004) 270, both of whom cite Keller’s (1996) 152 claim that the presence of YHWH “durch den schem als Extension und Stellvertreter Jahwes vermittelt und verbürgt wird”. Wilson (1995).

152

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

[O]ne should not read into those expressions [i.e. the formulae emphasizing Yahweh’s name] any notion of an abstract “name theology” that insists that only Yahweh’s name, and not [his] actual presence resides in the temple … any concept of Yahweh’s “real absence” seems to be excluded by Deuteronomy’s repeated references to the performance of sacral acts “before Yahweh,” that is, in [his] presence.134

Others affirm his presence by equating the ‫ שׁם‬at the chosen place with the Deity himself: Interpretations of the Name Theology which sought to express the transcendence of the concept of God … are therefore without foundation, as in ancient oriental and Hebrew thought names and name-bearers are identical, so that the final determination/purpose of the centralization formula is to be interpreted as the promise of a more permanent presence of YHWH at the chosen place.135

Yet others eschew the whole notion of the ‫ שׁם‬as a (semi-)independent entity distinct from YHWH himself, and regard the name formulae as idiomatic expressions denoting divine ownership of the chosen place and so having no bearing on the question of divine presence: Both lešakkēn šemô šām and lāśûm šemô šām are [Biblical Hebrew] equivalents of Akk šuma šakānu136 [which means “to place the name” and] emerges from the royal monumental literary typology of 134

135

136

Nelson (2002) 152–153. Cf. McConville (2002) 221: “The repeated ‘before the LORD’ in the present [ch. 12] and related passages in Deuteronomy … makes the theory [of a ‘react(ion) against an unduly immanentist theology’] impossible”; Richter (2002) 34: “Wilson convincingly demonstrates … [that] (1) in comparison with its Exodus/Numbers parallels, Deuteronomy does not diminish or remove references to the earthly presence of YHWH; (2) the ‘affirmation of divine Presence is a clear feature of some at least of the historical sections of Deuteronomy’; and (3) in the ‘old legal core’ of Deuteronomy (chapters 12–26), not only is the localized presence of YHWH at the central sanctuary regularly articulated as the Israelites are commanded to perform their worship lipnê YHWH”. Cf. Biddle (2003) 214: “The Deuteronomic Code frequently describes sacrifice and worship as an act of rejoicing in YHWH’s presence”. Otto (2007) 244: “Interpretationen der dtn Namenstheologie, die darin den Ausdruck einer Transzendierung des Gottesbegriffs und eine Tendenz der Säkularisierung sehen wollten, sind insofern ohne Grundlage, als im altorientalischen wie im hebräischen Denken Name und Namensträger identisch sind, so dass die Finalbestimmung der Zentralisationsformel als Zusage dauerhafter Präsenz JHWHs am erwählten Ort zu interpretieren ist”. Richter (2002) 209; Nelson (2002) 153: “The concept of ‘putting one’s name on’ or ‘making one’s name dwell’ reflects the practice of kings immortalizing their names on memorials and monuments in order to demonstrate possession and sovereignty”. Cf. Römer (2004) 173: “YHWH will choose the place where to make his name dwell. This is a probable recurrence of the Akkadian šakanu šumšu which designates the taking over and juridical claim of a place”.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

153

Mesopotamia. Its most basic meaning within this genre is to claim something as one’s own by inscribing one’s name upon it137

In the case of 1 Kings 8, however, the Name Theologians are still carrying the day. Such scholars imply YHWH’s absence from the temple by focusing on the type of presence denoted by the verb “dwell” and denying that he inhabits the building, since he is ensconced firmly in heaven: [T]he prayer of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:22–53) … rejects the fact that the “name” and therefore the deity actually “dwells” (‫ )ישׁב‬in the temple … The presence of the name in the temple is interpreted as the means by which the deity, who resides in heaven, is invoked in prayer … This … eliminates any suggestion that the deity resides in the temple.138

Some go even further and say that he himself is not there in any sense: This speech [in 1 Kings 8:14–66] … emphasizes that God dwells in heaven, in contrast to God’s shem, which is in the temple. Here the shem seems not to be an extension of God, because it is located precisely where God is not.139

It is always possible, of course, that scholars’ focusing on YHWH’s “dwelling” in heaven rather than in the temple allows for him to be present in the building (despite his not inhabiting it). This, however, would seem to be unlikely, since the general view that the implied answer to the rhetorical question in v. 27 involves the temple being too small to accommodate the Deity would seem to exclude that possibility altogether. In fact, the only expression of YHWH’s presence in the temple occurs via the agency of his ‫שׁם‬: Solomon had nuanced his original claim of building a dwelling place for YHWH with the repeated reference to the house as a place for the “name of YHWH” … He now further clarifies the distinction here. 137 138

139

Richter (2002) 208. Van Seters (2004) 13–14. See also Wray Beal (2014) 137: “[Solomon] exposes the impossibility of an incomparably powerful God’s dwelling in any tangible way on earth, much less any temple built by human hands … YHWH’s dwelling is in heaven”; Cogan (2001) 292: “[T]he Temple is not the residence of YHWH … Solomon avers the incompatibility of the two conceptions of YHWH’s absolute transcendence and His dwelling on earth”. See also p. 101 n. 16. Sommer (2009) 63. See also Schniedewind (2003) 234: “The second part [1 Kings 8:22–53] … turns to distancing the temple from Yahweh’s presence”; Brueggemann (2000) 110: “The alternative rationale for temple is organized around the ‘name theology’ of Deuteronomy … That is, Yahweh is not there, but Yahweh’s name is there. Yahweh’s ‘dwelling place’ is in heaven … Yahweh in heaven is present to the temple but is not present in the temple”.

154

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

YHWH’s dwelling is in heaven … his presence in the temple might be conceived as a hypostatic presence … but not the full essence of his being.140

It is thus clear that, while scholars have moved some way towards denying the existence in Deuteronomy of Name Theology as traditionally understood, there has been no such movement vis-à-vis the same construct in 1 Kings. One might have expected that fresh insights identified in one text where Name Theology is detected (Deuteronomy) would have had some impact on another (1 Kings 8) where it is also perceived.141 That it hasn’t had any such impact could well be explained by the following observation. As we noted earlier,142 Name Theology is usually predicated on the triple basis of references to the Deity in heaven, those to his ‫ שׁם‬in the sanctuary and a perceived absence of evidence for the divine presence on the earth. In the case of Deuteronomy, we have already noted the increasing recognition that, for example, the prepositional phrase ‫“( לפני יהוה‬before YHWH”) used to qualify references to cultic activities taking place at the “chosen place” are not “a sort of linguistic fossil, bearing no semantic cargo of importance”,143 but, rather, express the worshipper’s proximity to the Deity and thus the latter’s presence within the “chosen place”. Such evidence for the localization of YHWH on the earth clearly runs counter to the assumption of his absence, and thus serves to undermine the tripartite structure on which the theory has been erected. By contrast, although scholars acknowledge references to divine presence in 1 Kings 8 as a whole, i.e. in its bookends, the discussion of Name Theology has focused on the large central section (vv. 14–53) containing references to the divine ‫ שׁם‬in the temple and the Deity in heaven, and generally concluded that YHWH himself is absent from the building. 140

141

142 143

Wray Beal (2014) 137. See also Hundley (2009) 552–554: “[T]he Deuteronomist … with the multivocal yet ambiguous name, ensures some form of presence yet shrouds that presence in mystery … the name in D and Dtr is a metonym of sorts that captures some of the divine essence yet does not encapsulate the whole”; Leithart (2006) 69: “Yahweh promises … that his ‘name’ would dwell in the house, less a way of distancing Yahweh from the temple … than an indication of the mode of his presence”; Brueggemann (2000) 75: “[The temple] is a house for Yahweh’s ‘name,’ not for Yahweh’s full, personal presence. The ‘name’ is a way of speaking about the presence without overcommitting Yahweh”. Wilson (1995) 9 n. 36 lists some scholars who have drawn a distinction between the two sources, denying it to Deuteronomy, while at the same time affirming it to be present in the Deuteronomistic History. P. 14. Mettinger (1982) 53.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

155

Hence, within Solomon’s prayer, the entire scaffolding supporting Name Theology is still thought to be in place, and it is presumably for this reason that there has been little questioning of its validity within the chapter. In contrast to the prevailing view, however, we have argued in this study that the four references in the prayer to “praying ‫ אל‬this place/ house” are to be understood as being directed to its occupant, and thus as portraying the Deity as being present within the temple. Not only is YHWH in heaven and his ‫ שׁם‬in the temple, but YHWH himself is also in the building. Consequently, we now have a situation in which both this monograph and our earlier one have come to similar conclusions vis-à-vis divine occupation of the cult-place in what are, arguably, the two most important sources for the establishment of Name Theology. In Deuteronomy YHWH is present at the “chosen place”, generally thought to be the Jerusalem sanctuary, the very place where the divine ‫ שׁם‬is “made to dwell” (RSV) / “put”. And now, in 1 Kings 8 the Deity is located in the temple, again, the actual building which has been earmarked for the divine ‫שׁם‬. It should be clear that, if the arguments presented for YHWH’s presence within the sanctuary are accepted, they serve to remove one of the three pillars that Name Theology requires for the stability of its construction, i.e. the perceived absence of any expression of divine presence within the two texts. If this is the case, then Name Theology as traditionally conceived is now without adequate foundation, and the usual understanding of the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae will require significant modification. Clearly, whatever changes are made to how such expressions are viewed, any new interpretation will have to take account of the presence of the Deity in the sanctuary. Consequently, it will no longer be necessary to suppose the role of the ‫ שׁם‬to be the means by which, to a greater or lesser extent, the presence of the Deity is conveyed to the sanctuary, since YHWH is now represented as being there independently of the function of the divine “name”. Two ways of understanding the meaning of the deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae that are consistent with the divine presence in the sanctuary have surfaced during the course of this study. There may, of course, be others.144 144

Curiously, at first sight Martin Keller’s 1996 interpretation of the name formulae also seems capable of accommodating our conclusions. While accepting that Deuteronomy

156

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

The claim by Sandra Richter et al. that many of the name formulae are in fact idioms145 is clearly in keeping with God being in the temple. According to her interpretation, and certainly as applied to the two name formulae in Deuteronomy, neither the ‫ שׁם‬nor the verbs of which it is the object possess their customary meanings.146 Hence, neither expression can be cited as locating the divine “name” in the sanctuary. Instead, both collocations in Deuteronomy are viewed as expressing YHWH’s ownership of the temple,147 rather than a mode of his presence. Consequently, their use could certainly accommodate unrelated evidence for the presence of the Deity within the building. Similarly consistent with our findings would be any deuteronom(ist)ic name formulae found to be metonymic. In most of these the divine ‫שׁם‬ would almost certainly be associated with the “chosen place” / sanctuary. Hence, understanding it as the vehicle targeting its bearer, the Deity himself, would clearly be consistent with the claim, argued above, that YHWH is in fact present there. In 2007 at the Winter Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and during his own fiftieth year of membership, Ronald Clements presented a paper entitled The Enduring Value of the Old Testament – An Interesting Quest, in which he “look[ed] back to recall what were the major contemporary issues when [he] first joined and … reflect on some of the ways in which these ha[d] given way to others”. He comments:

145 146

147

portrays YHWH as being present at the “chosen place”, he concludes that it is justifiable to speak of a deuteronom(ist)ic Name Theology (“Sachlich ist es deshalb gerechtfertigt, von einer dtn/dtr schem-Theologie zu sprechen” [p. 152]). He notes that in Deuteronomy the divine schem and the presence of YHWH (indicated by the use of references to eating and/or rejoicing before YHWH [“die sogenannte Kultformel essen und/oder fröhlich sein ‫אלהיכם‬/‫ )]”לפני יהוה אלהיך‬occur together in literary contexts referring to the “chosen place”. Then, by appealing to aspectual thinking (“aspektivisches Denken” [p. 148]) he comes to the traditional conclusion that the presence of Yahweh at the “chosen place” is mediated and guaranteed through the divine ‫שׁם‬ (“[D]ie Präsenz Jahwes am erwählten māqôm … durch den schem als Extension und Stellvertreter Jahwes vermittelt und verbürgt wird” [p. 152]). However, since none of the deuteronom(ist)ic texts implying the earthly localization of the ‫ שׁם‬gives any indication of its function there, it is not clear why Keller considers that it was needed to mediate, guarantee, or represent YHWH’s presence in the sanctuary – especially in view of his admission that the book portrays YHWH himself as being present at the “chosen place” anyway, i.e. independently of the role or nature of the divine ‫שׁם‬. Pp. 14, 55, 134, 137. By contrast, Richter (2007) 343–344 claims that each name formula taken as a whole (i.e. as a “closed syntactic unit”) does retain its usual sense. She notes that “the writers of both Deuteronomy and the DH … were well aware of the semantic cargo of their [centuries-old] borrowed idiom”. Pp. 55–56.

REPERCUSSIONS FURTHER AFIELD

157

Views and conclusions which were heralded as “assured results” of critical insight in the 1950’s look much less so now; not a few have been abandoned altogether and others should have been! I have even toyed with the idea that we could do with a book called Up the Garden Path which would cover some of the theories which were once canvassed so confidently but which now seem highly improbable, or even impossible.148

While Name Theology has been around since the beginning of the twentieth century, it was in 1953 that it was popularized by Gerhard von Rad in his Studies in Deuteronomy, and until now has generally been regarded as one of such “assured results”. However, its foundations are beginning to crumble. Evidence is mounting for the presence of the Deity himself in the sanctuary in both Deuteronomy and 1 Kings 8, the two key texts for the establishment of Name Theology. This, together with the claim by Richter and others that many of these texts are not even about the location of the divine “name”, suggests that the threefold structure on which Name Theology has traditionally been erected is becoming increasingly unstable. The time has surely come for those scholars who still espouse that particular construct to consider venturing down the path149 less travelled, in order to engage in a radical reappraisal of its foundations and superstructure.

148

149

Clements (2008) 26. Cf. Heller (1959) 266: “The history of human kind is a repository of scuttled objective truths, and a museum of irrefutable facts”. With apologies to Robert Frost.

APPENDIX

COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO METONYMY Here we reflect on an article which outlines the differences between cognitive linguistic approaches to metonymy and more traditional treatments of the figure. We do so with a view to explaining why, within this study, little use has been made of these recent developments in the understanding of the trope. In the Introduction to their paper “Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view” Kövecses and Radden begin by wondering what prerequisite would suffice for “an at least relatively comprehensive cognitivist theory of metonymy”.1 As the first step towards answering this question they start from the basic ideas associated with the received view of the trope, for which they provide a “prototypical” or “archetypal” definition taken from Webster’s New World Dictionary: Metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one thing is used in place of that of another associated with or suggested by it.2 Noting that this type of definition makes a number of assumptions which they consider to characterize the traditional concept, they then comment on five of them with the intention of indicating ways in which, during the past decade or so, cognitive linguistics “has gone beyond this view”. The five assumptions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Metonymy is a matter of words (language) (cf. “a figure of speech”). The metonymic process involves a transfer of the meaning of words which have reference (“the name of one thing is used in place of the name of another thing”). Metonymy is a “stand-for” relationship between names (“in place of”). Metonymy is a relationship between two entities, where the nature of the relationship is generally assumed to be one of “contiguity” or “proximity” (“that is associated with or suggested by it”). Metonymy is parasitic on literal language (“a figure of speech”).

Given this analysis of what metonymy has generally been thought to entail, we first summarize Kövecses and Radden’s explanation of how the cognitive linguistic understanding has moved on from that epitomized by the above assumptions. We then respond to each of their explanations in order to show why most of the new developments are not really relevant to the specific concerns of the present monograph. 1 2

Kövecses and Radden (1998) 37–77. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 37.

160

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

1. With regard to the traditional assumption that metonymy is a matter of words, Kövecses and Radden refer to Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By,3 which describes metonymy as “conceptual in nature. That is to say, it is a relationship between concepts and not merely words”.4 However, they then point out that despite the widespread acceptance of definitions such as the one given above, even linguists working within the traditional view have operated with concepts in their actual practice of describing metonymy. Their descriptions of classes of metonymic expressions have relied on such conceptual relationships as THE PART FOR THE WHOLE, PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT, OBJECT USED FOR USER, THE PLACE FOR THE INSTITUTION, etc., that is, exactly the same conceptual relationships that Lakoff and Johnson (1980: chapter 8) offer.5 Comment. In this case it is clear that Kövecses and Radden themselves accept that the suggested contrast between the traditional view involving “merely” words and the cognitive one focusing on concepts is not so marked as would at first appear, since traditional linguists sometimes avail themselves of cognitive linguistic categories. In this study our primary concern has been with the interpretation of a noun phrase referring to a building. While we ourselves have been operating mainly within the traditional paradigm, we also have made much use of the conceptual relationship PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS in order to identify the occupant of the temple. None the less, a decision as to the nature of the trope – whether words are of its essence or merely the medium expressing something which is essentially conceptual – does not affect the more pressing questions as to whether a particular noun or noun phrase can be described as metonymical and, if it can, the identity of its target. 2. Regarding the second assumption, Kövecses and Radden specify two ways in which the trope has been broadened to include additional literary phenomena which traditionally would not have been regarded as such. First, they point to Lakoff’s extension of the idea of metonymy from shifts in word meaning6 to the structure of categories. He … [refers to] a metonymic process in which certain members of a category (such as the ideal member, typical member, or stereotypical member) become representative of the category as a whole.7 An example of this would be the first reference to “Mother” in the bumpersticker “Every Mother is a Working Mother”. This slogan is intended to counter the stereotypical view of work, according to which it has to be done away from 3 4 5 6

7

Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Kövecses and Radden (1998) 38. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 38. Some linguists would take issue with their identification of this second traditional assumption, claiming instead that metonymy entails a shift in reference rather than of meaning. See p. 44. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 38.

161

APPENDIX

the home and does not include housework or child-rearing. Here the first “Mother” is metonymical, since it really refers to housewife-mothers, i.e. rather than to any woman who could be classified as a mother.8 This metonymy is therefore an example of CATEGORY FOR A MEMBER OF THE CATEGORY. Secondly, Kövecses and Radden refer to the proposals by Gibbs9 and others that metonymy “involves not only the referential use of language but is also pervasive in predications and speech acts”.10 In contrast to referential metonyms, which tend to comprise only noun phrases, “predicational”11 metonymies “represent entire statements in which one predication may be used to ‘stand for’ another”.12 As an example, Panther and Thornburg refer to the utterance The saxophone player had to leave early, pointing out that, in many contexts, it would be interpreted metonymically as “The saxophone player left early”. They explain that [i]n this case, a past obligation to leave early, predicated of … the saxophone player, is interpreted as an actually occurring past action predicated of the saxophone player. [In this interpretation] a potential event stands for an actual event.13 This could be classified as an OBLIGATION TO ACT

FOR ACTION

metonymy.

Comment. The above examples illustrate ways in which cognitive linguistics increasingly seeks to incorporate a wide variety of literary phenomena under the general label of “metonymy”. While such a comprehensive approach could well be relevant to, for example, a general treatise on the figure of speech within the Hebrew Bible, the aims of the present monograph are narrower, being solely concerned with arguing that a particular set of expressions be understood in a traditional way as representing the common referential metonymy PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS. 3. Concerning the assumption that metonymy is a “stand for” relationship, Kövecses and Radden refer to Langacker’s observations that a metonymic expression serves as a reference point affording mental access to the desired target and that metonymy is not a matter of linguistic substitution but a cognitive process through which we gain access to a mental entity via another mental entity … We do not simply use one name for another, but we perform an elaborate mental operation to access certain mental entities through certain others.14

8 9 10 11 12

13 14

Lakoff (1987) 80. Gibbs (1994). Kövecses and Radden (1998) 38. The term used by Panther and Thornburg (2007) 246. Ziegeler (2003) 177. Note, however, that (somewhat confusingly) she uses the adjective “propositional” to describe this type of metonymy, as does Warren (2002) 114–116. Panther and Thornburg (2007) 246. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 38–39.

162

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

Comment. One suspects that they should have represented this view of metonymy as entailing “not merely a matter of linguistic substitution”. Langacker himself refers to metonymy as a “paradigmatic manifestation” and defines it as occurring when “an expression that normally designates one entity is used instead to designate [i.e. stand for] another”,15 and so is actually affirming its substitutionary nature. Be that as it may, the references to “cognitive process” and “mental operation” imply that the new approach focuses not so much on the literary characteristics of the trope itself as on the mental processes undertaken in order to comprehend it. Our concern, however, is not with the mechanisms involved in understanding the figure, but with discovering those features of the wellestablished PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS metonymy which will facilitate its identification as such and will enable us to draw conclusions from its use. 4. Regarding the traditional view that the nature of the relationship between the vehicle and the target is one of “contiguity” or “proximity”, Kövecses and Radden appeal to a number of scholars who argue that traditional notions of “contiguity” or “proximity” can be accounted for by knowledge structures defined by “domains” or “idealized cognitive models (ICMs)”. Thus, if we have a theory of knowledge structure as defined by “domains” or “ICMs”, we can naturally account for one of the basic assumptions in the traditional view of metonymy, namely, that metonymy is a relation between two contiguously related conceptual entities.16 An ICM consists of all that we associate with a particular object, situation or event. For example, a White House ICM could well include the following. It is an important North American building located in Washington D.C. on Pennsylvania Ave. NW. It was designed by James Hoban, built between 1792 and 1800 and stands in just over 18 acres of grounds. It is the official residence of the President of the United States as well as his official workplace and that of his administration and advisors. Originally open to the public, it is now closed to them following the September 11 attacks. Within this knowledge structure the whole thing (the White House) is so associated with one of its parts, i.e. the President (or the Executive branch of his government), that it is often used metonymically to “stand for” him. Comment. We can explain the White House metonymically targeting the President as its occupant in a traditional way by noting the contiguous relationship between them which arises from the fact that the building is his official residence. Alternatively, we can point to the fact that both vehicle and target are part of the White House ICM, since his living there is part of that whole knowledge structure. This recourse to an idealized cognitive model thus enables us to rationalize the connection between the White House and the President. And in fact, such a cognitive linguistic approach does go beyond the traditional one, since the appeal 15 16

Langacker (1993) 29. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 39.

APPENDIX

163

to an ICM can provide an overall perspective capable of accounting for many of the individual contiguous relationships which would previously have been cited to explain the connection between vehicle and target in a variety of metonymies. However, in the case of PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS, it is not clear how the explanation involving an ICM, which incorporates peripheral information as well as vehicle and target, is any improvement on the more traditional one with its focus only on building and occupant.17 Nevertheless, even with the traditional approach there is still a cognitive angle, in that the connection between vehicle and target has to be one which is well known18 to the speaker and his/her audience, i.e. within each of their knowledge structures. 5. Regarding their claim that metonymy is “parasitic on literal language”, Kövecses and Radden make two points. First they appeal to Gibbs’19 evidence that “the figurative meanings of tropes are often recovered without resorting to defective literal meanings”.20 Secondly, they suggest that [t]he use of metonymy may be more appropriate and “natural” than the use of literal language. To use an example which Ogden and Richards (1923: 9) give, “we say that the gardener mows the lawn when we know it is the lawn mower which actually does the cutting”. The metonymy involved here is CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED, and this wording appears to be a natural way of expression because it highlights the human participant. If this is so, metonymy is not parasitic on literal language, but is often a more natural use of language. In other words, metonymy is not simply the use of a nonliteral word for a literal one.21 Comment. First, it is unclear what is meant by the paradoxical claim that the traditional view of metonymy is “parasitic on literal language”. Paradoxical, since expressions which in the past have been regarded as metonymical rely for their effect on not using words in their literal sense. Of course this claim may reflect the view that an expression’s metonymical interpretation can be accessed only after the literal one has been found wanting. In this case, Gibbs’ investigations do tend to negate that kind of sequential link between attempted literal and actual metonymical meaning, since, as he points out: The results of many psycholinguistic experiments have shown … [that l]isteners and readers can often understand the figurative interpretations of … metonymy … without having first to analyze and reject their literal meanings …22

17

18 19 20 21 22

Cf. Warren (2006) 16: “[C]laiming that metonymy involves mapping within the same domain does seem synonymous with the claim that metonymy is based on contiguity”. Pp. 42–43. Gibbs (1993) 252–276. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 39. Kövecses and Radden (1998) 39. Gibbs (1993) 254–255.

164

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

However, such research is primarily concerned with how we recover the figurative meanings of tropes, i.e. with the mental processes necessary to access the actual referent of a vehicle. By contrast, our concern (as with point 3 above) is with understanding the literary characteristics of the phenomenon in such a way as to enable us both to identify any expression as metonymical and to determine the referent of its vehicle. Alternatively, given that referential metonymies require a vehicle capable of a literal interpretation – which is then employed to denote a different target – such metonymies could be said to be parasitic on literal language. This, however, would apply to most of the common tropes. Secondly, while the use of metonymical expressions may be more “natural” in some cases,23 the description does not seem to apply to instances of PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS. There may be good reasons why one says that “The White House (rather than the President) was not available for comment”, but being more “natural” does not appear to be one of them. Conclusion. This monograph is concerned with only one type of metonymy, one recognized by both traditional and cognitive treatments of the subject, namely the prototypical referential metonymy, PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS. While cognitive linguistics has undoubtedly advanced the study of this particular trope in many respects, none of the five developments noted by Kövecses and Radden is relevant to the concerns of this study. The emphases on the conceptual nature of metonymy and the processes involved in understanding it have no bearing on our narrower aim of knowing how to recognize the trope, comprehend its characteristics and identify its intended target. Nor does the cognitive extension to include a broad range of literary phenomena under the general heading of metonymy, since only one metonymic pattern is being considered. While traditional and extended approaches affirm the need for a connection between vehicle and target, in the case of the single metonymy with which this monograph is concerned, PLACE FOR OCCUPANTS, it is difficult to see how invoking an ICM is any improvement on the traditional appeal to contiguity between vehicle and referent. In short, the fact that such a well-established type of metonymy is under consideration obviates the need for any of the developments which Kövecses and Radden have outlined.

23

Kövecses and Radden are here focusing on one particular reason why metonymy might be used. Presumably they are not denying that sometimes “naturalness” may not be applicable and that other factors might come into play.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AITKEN, J.K., “‫”ד ֶרְך‬. ֶ In Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, edited by T. Muraoka, 11–37. AbrNSup 6. Leuven: Peeters, 1998 ALEXANDER, T.D., Exodus. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 2. London: Apollos, 2017 ALLEN, L.C., Jeremiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008 ANDERSON, R.A., Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984 AULD, A.G., I & II Kings, DSBS. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1986 BALDI, P.D., Giosuè. LSB. Turin: Marietti, 1956 BALDWIN, J.G., Daniel. TOTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978 BALENTINE, S.E., Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 BARCELONA, A., ed., Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Topics in English Linguistics 30. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000 BARNETT, R.D., “Bringing the God into the Temple”. In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, edited by A. Biran, 10–20. Jerusalem: The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1981 BAUER, D., Das Buch Daniel. NSK.AT 22. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996 BAUMANN, A., “‫ כול‬kwl”. TDOT 7 (1995): 85–89 BEEKMAN, J., “Metonymy and Synecdoche”. Notes on Translation 23 (1967): 12–25 BENZINGER, I., Die Bücher der Könige. KHC 9. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1899 BERG, T., “Similarity and Contrast in Segmental Phonology”. Linguistics 42 (2004): 1049–1103 BIDDLE, M.E., Deuteronomy. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2003 BIETENHARD, H., “ὄνομα, ὀνομάζω, ἐποονμάζω, φευδώνυμος”. TDNT 5 (1967): 242–283 BODA, M.J., A Severe Mercy: Sin and its Remedy in the Old Testament. Siphrut 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009 BOER, P.A.H. DE, De voorbede in het Oude Testament. OtSt 3. Leiden: Brill, 1943 BOLING, R.G., Joshua. AB 6. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982 BRAULIK, G., “Spuren einer Neubearbeitung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes in 1 Kön 8,52–53.59–60”. Bib 52 (1971): 20–33 —. “Wisdom, Divine Presence and Law”. In The Theology of Deuteronomy: Collected Essays of Georg Braulik, O.S.B., 1–25. BIBAL Collected Essays 2. N. Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1994 BRDAR, M. and BRDAR-SZABÓ, R., “Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian”. In Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, edited by K.-U. Panther and L.L. Thornburg, 241–266. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2003

166

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

BRDAR-SZABÓ R. and BRDAR, M., “What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy?”. In Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View, edited by R. Benczes, A. Barcelona and F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 217–248. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2011 BREDIN, H., “Metonymy”. Poetics Today 5 (1984a): 45–58 —. “Roman Jakobson on Metaphor and Metonymy”. Philosophy and Literature 8 (1984b): 89–103 BRETTLER, M., “Interpretation and Prayer: Notes on the Composition of 1 Kings 8.15–53”. In Minḥah le-Naḥum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday, edited by M. Brettler and M. Fishbane, 17–35. JSOTSup 154. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993 BREUER, J., Das Buch Jirmejah. Frankfurt a. M.: Sänger & Friedberg, 1914 BRIGHT, J., Jeremiah. AB 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965 BRONGERS, H.A., I Koningen. POuT. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1967 BRUEGGEMANN, W., “Presence of God, Cultic”. IDBSup, 680–683. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976 —. The Message of the Psalms. Augsburg Old Testament Studies. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984 —. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997 —. 1 & 2 Kings. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000 BUIS, P., Le Livre des Rois. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1997 BULLINGER, E.W., Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898 BURNEY, C.F., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903 BUSINK, Th.A., Der Tempel Salomos. Vol. 1 of Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes. Leiden: Brill, 1970 BUTLER, T.C., Joshua 1–12. 2nd ed. WBC 7A. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014 CAIRD, G.B., The Language and Imagery of the Bible. London: Duckworth, 1980 CHARLES, R.H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929 CHILDS, B.S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. SBT 27. London: SCM, 1960 CHRISTENSEN, D.L., Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9. 2nd ed. WBC 6A. Nashville: Nelson, 2001 CLEMENTS, R.E., God and Temple. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965 —. Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978 —. “The Enduring Value of the Old Testament – An Interesting Quest”. BibInt 16 (2008): 25–42 COGAN, M., 1 Kings. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001 COGAN, M. and TADMOR, H., II Kings. AB 11. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988 COHN, R.L., The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies. AARSR 23. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

CONDAMIN, A., Le Livre de Jérémie. 3rd ed. EtB. Paris: Gabalda, 1936 COOK, S.L., “God’s Real Absence and Real Presence in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomism”. In Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, edited by N. MacDonald and I.J. de Hulster, 121–150. FAT 61, 2nd ser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013 CRAIGIE, P.C., KELLEY, P.H. and DRINKARD, J.F., Jeremiah 1–25. WBC 26. Dallas: Word, 1991 CROSS, F.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973 CULLER, J., Ferdinand de Saussure. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986 CURTIS, J.B., “Some Observations on D’s ‘Name Theology”’. Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Society 13 (1993): 23–29 DECLAISSÉ-WALFORD, N., JACOBSON, R.A. and TANNER, B.L., The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014 DELCOR, M., Le Livre de Daniel. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1971 DEVER, W.G., “Temples and Sanctuaries: Syria-Palestine”. In ABD 6, 376–380. New York: Doubleday, 1992 DEVRIES, S.J., 1 Kings. WBC 12. Waco, TX: Word, 1985 DIETRICH, W., Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972 DIRVEN, R. and PÖRINGS, R., eds., Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Cognitive Linguistics Research 20. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002 DORSEY, D.A., The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991 DOZEMAN, T.B., Commentary on Exodus. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009 DRIVER, S.R., The Book of Daniel. CBSC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905 —. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913 DUMERMUTH, F., “Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen”. ZAW 70 (1958): 59–98 ECO, U., “The Semantics of Metaphor”. In Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology, edited by R.E. Innis, 250–271. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985 EDZARD, D.O., Gudea and His Dynasty. RIMA 3.1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997 EHRLICH, A.B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Vol. 7. Hildesheim: Olms, 1968 EICHRODT, W., Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. London: SCM, 1961 EISSFELDT, O., “Die Bücher der Könige”. In 1 Mose bis Ezechiel. Vol. 1 of Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, edited by A. Bertholet, 492–585. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1922 —. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965 ESLINGER, L., Into the Hands of the Living God. BLS 24. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989 FARRAR, F.W., The Book of Daniel. ExpB. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895

168

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

FASS, D., Processing Metonymy and Metaphor. Contemporary Studies in Cognitive Science and Technology 1. Greenwich, CT: Ablex, 1997 FAUCONNIER, G., Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 FERNANDO, C., Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996 FICHTNER, J., Das erste Buch von den Königen. BAT 12.1. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1964 FINKELSTEIN, L., The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of their Faith. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1946 FISCHER, G., Jeremia 1–25. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005 FOSSUM, J.E., The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. WUNT 36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985 FRASER, B., “Idioms within a Transformational Grammar”. Foundations of Language 6 (1970) 22–42 FRETHEIM, T.E., The Suffering of God. OBT 14. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984 —. First and Second Kings. WeBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999 FRIEDMAN, R.E., The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981 FRITZ, V., Das Buch Josua. HAT 1.7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994 —. 1 & 2 Kings. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003 FUERST, J., “‫”ד ֶרְך‬. ֶ In A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, 338–339. London: Williams & Norgate, 1871 GAROFALO, S., Il Libro dei Re. LSB. Turin: Marietti, 1960 GELLER, S.A., Sacred Enigmas: Literary Religion in the Hebrew Bible. London: Routledge, 1996 GESE, H., “Der Name Gottes im Alten Testament”. In Der Name Gottes, edited by H. von Stietencron, 75–89. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1975 GESENIUS, W., Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. London: Bagster, n.d. —. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Vol. 1. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1987 —. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Vol. 4. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 2007 GIBBS, R.W., “Process and products in making sense of tropes”. In Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed., edited by A. Ortony, 252–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 —. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 GIESEBRECHT, F., Das Buch Jeremia. HK 3.2.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894 —. Die Alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre Religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage. Königsberg i. Pr.: Thomas & Oppermann, 1901 GLYNN, D., “Constructions at the crossroads: The place of construction grammar between field and frame”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2 (2004): 197–233 GOLDBERG. L., “‫( ַבּיִת‬bayît) house, household …”. TWOT 1 (1980): 105–107 GOLDINGAY, J.E., Daniel. WBC 30. Dallas: Word, 1989 —. Psalms 42–89. Vol. 2 of Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007 GÖRG, M., “‫ יָ ַשׁב‬yāšaḇ; ‫מוֹשׁב‬ ָ môšāḇ”. TDOT 6 (1990): 420–438

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

GOWAN, D.E., Daniel. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001 GRAY, J., I & II Kings. 2nd ed. OTL. London: SCM, 1970 GRAYSON, A.K., Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millenium BC I (1114–859 BC). RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991 GREENBERG, M., Biblical Prose Prayer. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983 GRETHER, O., Name und Wort Gottes im Alten Testament. BZAW 64. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1934 GRICE, H.P., “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3, edited by P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press, 1975 GUNKEL, H., Die Psalmen. 4th ed. HK 2.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926 HAMILTON, V.P., Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011 HAMMER, R., The Book of Daniel. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976 HAMMOND, J., I Kings. Pulpit Commentary. London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906 HAPP, H., ‘paradigmatisch’ – ’syntagmatisch’: Zur Bestimmung und Klärung zweier Grundbegriffe der Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Winter, 1985 HARAN, M., Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978 —. “Temple and Community in Ancient Israel”. In Temple in Society, edited by M.V. Fox, 17–25. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1988 HARTMAN, L.F., The Book of Daniel. AB 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978 HEATON, E.W., The Book of Daniel. TBC. London: SCM, 1956 HEILER, F., “Die Körperhaltung beim Gebet”. Fritz Hommel zum sechzigsten Geburtstag am 31. Juli 1912. MVAG 22 (1918): 168–177 HELLER, E., The Disinherited Mind. London: Bowes & Bowes, 1959 HENS-PIAZZA, G., 1–2 Kings. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006 HENTSCHEL, G., 1 Könige. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1984 —. 2 Könige. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1985 HERTZBERG, H.W., Die Samuelbücher. 3rd ed. ATD 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965 —. Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth. 6th ed. ATD 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985 HOFFMANN, H.-D., Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. ATANT 66. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980 HOLENSTEIN, E., “A New Essay Concerning the Basic Relations of Language”. Semiotica 12 (1974): 97–128 HOLLADAY, W.L., Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986 HÖLSCHER, G., “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion”. In Zur Religion und Literatur des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1 of ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstage, dem 23. Mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden, edited by H. Schmidt, 158–213. FRLANT 36.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923

170

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

HOUSE, P.R., 1, 2 Kings. NAC 8. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995 HOUTMAN, C., Der Himmel im Alten Testament: Israels Weltbild und Weltanschauung. OtSt 30. Leiden: Brill, 1993 HUBBARD, R.L., First and Second Kings. Everyman’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991 HUNDLEY, M.B., “To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History”. VT 59 (2009): 533–555 —. Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East. WAWSup 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013 HUNT, M., “Harosheth-hagoiim”. ABD 3 (1992): 62–63 HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, R., “Wo nur ist Sauls Kopf geblieben?”. In David und Saul im Widerstreit – Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit: Beiträge zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches, edited by W. Dietrich, 280–300. OBO 206. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004 HUPFELD, H. and NOWACK, W., Die Psalmen. Vol. 2. 3rd ed. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1888 HUROWITZ, V.(A.), I Have Built You an Exalted House. JSOTSup 115. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992 —. “YHWH’s Exalted House – Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple”. In Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by J. Day. LHBOTS 422, 63–110. London: T & T Clark, 2005 HYATT, J.P., Exodus. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1971 JACOB, E., Theology of the Old Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1958 JAKOBSON, R., “The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles”. In Fundamentals of Language, edited by R. Jakobson and M. Halle, 76–82. Janua Linguarum 1. ‘S-Gravenhage: Mouton, 1956 JANOWSKI, B., “Ich will in eurer Mitte wohnen”. JBTh 2 (1987): 165–193 JAPHET, S., The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. BEATAJ 9. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989 —. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993 —. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006 JENNI, E., “‫ בוא‬bôʼ to come”. TLOT 1 (1997a): 201–204 —. “‫ ַביִת‬bayit house”. TLOT 1 (1997b): 232–236 —. Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3. Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000 JEPSEN, A., Die Quellen des Königsbuches. Halle: Niemeyer, 1956 JONES, G.H., 1 and 2 Kings. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984 KAUFMANN, Y., The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. London: Allen & Unwin, 1961 KEACH, B., ΤΡΟΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors, in Four Books. To Which are Prefixed Arguments to Prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures. London: Otridge & Mathews, 1779 KEEL, O., KNAUF, E.A. and STAUBLI, T., Salomons Tempel. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004 KEIL, C.F., The Books of the Kings. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, n.d.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

KELLER, M., Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie. BBB 105. Weinheim: Belz Athenäum, 1996 KETTER, P., Die Samuelbücher. HBK 3.1. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1940 —. Die Königsbücher. HBK 3.2. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1953 KITTEL, R., Die Bücher der Könige. HK 1.5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900 KNAFL, A.K., Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch. Siphrut 12. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014 KNOHL, I., The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 2003 KNOPPERS, G.N., The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. Vol. 1 of Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. HSM 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993 —. The Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah. Vol. 2 of Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. HSM 53. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994 —. “Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deuteronomist’s Program”. CBQ 57 (1995): 229–254 —. I Chronicles 10–29. AB 12A. New York: Doubleday, 2004 KOCH, P., “Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation”. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 139–167. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999 KOEHLER, L. and BAUMGARTNER, W., eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 Vols. Brill: Leiden, 1994–2000 KÖVECSES, Z. and RADDEN, G., “Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view”. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1998): 37–77 KUHN, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 2.2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970 LABERGE, L., “Le lieu que YHWH a choisi pour y mettre son Nom”. EstBib 43 (1985): 209–236 LACOCQUE, A., The Book of Daniel. London: SPCK, 1979 LAKOFF, G., Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987 LAKOFF, G. and JOHNSON, M., Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980 LAKOFF, G. and TURNER, M., More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989 LAMPARTER, H., Prophet wider Willen: Der Prophet Jeremia. BAT 20. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1964 LANDERSDORFER, S., Die Bücher der Könige. HSAT 3.2. Bonn: Hanstein, 1927 LANGACKER, R.W., “Reference-point constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1993): 1–38 —. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 LEBRAM, J.-C., Das Buch Daniel. ZBK.AT 23. Zürich: TVZ, 1984

172

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

LEDERACH, P., Daniel. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale: Herald, 1994 LE GUERN, M., Sémantique de la Métaphore et de la Métonymie. Paris: Larousse, 1973 LEITHART, P.J., 1 & 2 Kings. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006 LESLIE, E.A., Jeremiah. New York: Abingdon, 1954 LEUPOLD, H.C., Exposition of Daniel. Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1949. Repr. Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1978 LEVENSON, J.D., “From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8”. In Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. To Frank Moore Cross on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday July 13, 1981, edited by B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson, 143–166. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981 —. “The Temple and the World”. JR 64 (1984): 275–298 —. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985 LINVILLE, J.R., Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity. JSOTSup 272. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998 LITTLEMORE, J., Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015 LONG, B.O., 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature. FOTL 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984 LUCAS, E., Daniel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 20. Leicester: Apollos, 2002 LUMBY, J.R., The Second Book of the Kings. CBSC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887 LUNDBOM, J.R., Jeremiah 1–20. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999 —. Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013 LYNCH, M., Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles: Temple, Priesthood, and Kingship in Post-Exilic Perspective. Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism. Vol. 1. FAT 64, 2nd ser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014 LYONS, J., “Introduction”. In New Horizons in Linguistics, edited by J. Lyons, 7–28. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970 —. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977 MACDONALD, N., Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism”. FAT 1, 2nd ser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003 —. “The literary criticism and rhetorical logic of Deuteronomy i–iv”. VT 56 (2006): 203–224 MACLEAR, G.F., The Book of Joshua. Cambridge Bible for Schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1878 MAIER, G., Der Prophet Daniel. WStB. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1982 MAIER, J., Vom Kultus zur Gnosis. Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte der “jüdischen Gnosis”: Bundeslade, Gottesthron und Märkābāh. Kairós.St 1. Salzburg: Müller, 1964 MALY, E.H., “‘… The Highest Heavens Cannot Contain You …’ (2[sic]Kgs 8,27): Immanence and Transcendence in the Deuteronomist”. In Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays. In Honor of John M. Oesterreicher, edited by A. Finkel and L. Frizzell, 23–30. New York: Ktav, 1981

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

MARTI, K., Das Buch Daniel. KHC 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901 MCBRIDE, S.D., “The Deuteronomic Name Theology”. PhD diss., Harvard University, 1969 MCCONVILLE, J.G., “Time, Place and the Deuteronomic Altar-Law”. In Time and Place in Deuteronomy, edited by J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, 89–139. JSOTSup 179. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994 —. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5. Leicester: Apollos, 2002 MCCURLEY, F.R., “The Home of Deuteronomy Revisited: A Methodological Analysis of the Northern Theory”. In A Light unto My Path. Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, edited by H.N. Bream, R.D. Heim and C.A. Moore, 295–317. GTS 4. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974 MCKANE, W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986 MCKENZIE, S.L., The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985 —. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Books of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. VTSup 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991 —. 1–2 Chronicles. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004 METTINGER, T.N.D., The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. ConBOT 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982 —. “The Name and the Glory: the Zion-Sabaoth theology and its exilic successors”. JNSL 24.1 (1998): 1–24 METZGER, M., “Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Jahwes”. UF 2 (1970): 139–158 MEYERS, C.L., “temples”. In The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, edited by M.A. Powell, 1025–1027. New York: HarperCollins, 2011 MILLER, P.D., They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994 MISCALL, P.D., 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986 MITCHELL, H.G., “The Preposition ‫”אל‬. ֶ JSBL 8 (1888): 43–120 MÖHLENBRINK, K., Der Tempel Salomos: eine Untersuchung seiner Stellung in der Sakralarchitektur des alten Orients. BWANT 59. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932 MONTGOMERY, J.A., The Book of Daniel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1927 MONTGOMERY, J.A. and GEHMAN, H.S., The Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951 MULDER, M.J., 1 Kings 1–11. Vol. 1 of 1 Kings. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 1998 MYERS, J.M., “The Requisites for Response: On the Theology of Deuteronomy”, Int 15 (1961): 14–31 NELSON, R.D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981 —. First and Second Kings. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1987 —. Joshua, OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997 —. The Historical Books. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998 —. Deuteronomy. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002

174

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

—. “WORSHIP, OT”. In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: S–Z. Vol. 5, edited by K.D. Sakenfeld, 923–932. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009 NENTEL, J., Trägerschaft und Intentionen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks: Untersuchungen zu den Reflexionsreden Jos 1; 23; 24; 1 Sam 12 und 1 Kön 8. BZAW 297. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000 NEWMAN, J.H., Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. EJIL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999 NICHOLSON, E.W., Deuteronomy and Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967 NOTH, M., Könige. BKAT 9.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968 —. The Deuteronomistic History. 2nd ed. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991 NÖTSCHER, F., Das Buch Jeremias. HSAT 7.2. Bonn: Hanstein, 1934 —. “Das Angesicht Gottes schauen” nach biblischer und babylonischer Auffassung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969 OMANSON, R.L. and ELLINGTON, J.E., 1 Samuel 1.1 to 2 Samuel 1.27. Vol. 1 of The First and Second Books of Samuel. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 2001 OTTO, E., “Altorientalische Kontexte der deuteronomischen Namenstheologie”. ZAR 13 (2007): 237–248 —. Deuteronomium 12,1–23,15. Vol. 1 of Deuteronomium 12–34. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016 OTTOSSON, M., Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. AUU. Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 12. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1980 PANTHER, K.-U. and RADDEN, G., eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999 PANTHER, K.-U. and THORNBURG, L.L., “The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian”. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 333–357. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999 —. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2003 —. “Metonymy”. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens, 236–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 PENNA, A., Geremia. LSB. Turin: Marietti, 1954 PITKÄNEN, P.M.A., Joshua. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 6. Nottingham: Apollos, 2010 PLÖGER, O., Das Buch Daniel. KAT 18. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965 PREUß, H.D., “‫ חוה‬ḥwh, ‫ ִה ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחוָ ה‬hishtachᵃvāh”. TDOT 4 (1980): 248–256 —. Deuteronomium. EdF 164. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982 PROVAN, I.W., Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. BZAW 172. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988 —. 1 and 2 Kings. NIBCOT 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995 RABBAN, N., “′‫”לפני ה‬. Tarbiẓ 23 (1952): 1–8 RAD, G. VON, Deuteronomium-Studien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

—. Studies in Deuteronomy. SBT 9. London: SCM, 1953 —. The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Vol. 1 of Old Testament Theology. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962 RADDEN, G. and KÖVECSES, Z., “Towards a Theory of Metonymy”. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 17–59. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999 RAWLINSON, G., “The First Book of the Kings”. In The Holy Bible with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary. Vol. 2 of Joshua–1 Kings, edited by F.C. Cook, 465–624. London: Murray, 1872 RECANATI, F., Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004 REDDITT, P.L., Daniel. NCB. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999 REDDY, M.J., “The conduit metaphor”. In Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed., edited by A. Ortony, 164–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 REHM, M., Das erste Buch der Könige. Würzburg: Echter, 1979 —. Das zweite Buch der Könige. Würzburg: Echter, 1982 REINDL, J., Das Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments. ETS 25. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1970 REITERER, F.V., “‫ ֵשׁם‬šēm”. TDOT 15 (2006): 128–174 REVENTLOW, H.G. VON, Gebet im Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986 RICE, G., Nations Under God: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Kings. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990 RICHARDS, I.A., The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936 RICHARDS, J.C, PLATT, J. and PLATT, H., Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Harlow: Longman, 1992 RICHTER, S.L., The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. BZAW 318. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002 —. “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy”. VT 57 (2007): 342–366 RICOEUR, P., The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978 RINALDI, P.G., Daniele. LSB. Turin: Marietti, 1962 ROBINSON, J., The First Book of Kings. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 ROFÉ, A., Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. OTS. London: T & T Clark, 2002 —. Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. JBS 9. Jerusalem: Simor, 2009 RÖMER, T.C., “Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12: Between Deuteronomistic History and Pentateuch”. In Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, edited by E. Otto and R. Achenbach, 168–180. FRLANT 206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004 RÖSEL, H.N., Joshua. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2011 ROSENTHAL, F., A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 7th ed. PLO 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006 ROTHSTEIN, J.W. and Hänel, J., Das erste Buch der Chronik. KAT 18.2. Leipzig: Deichert, 1927

176

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

ROUSSEL, L., Le Livre de Josué. Nimes: Barnier, n.d. ROWLEY, H.H., The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London: SCM, 1956 RUDOLPH, W., Jeremia. 3rd ed. HAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968 RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁÑEZ, F.J. and PÉREZ HERNÁNDEZ, L., “Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication”. In Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, edited by K.-U. Panther and L.L. Thornburg, 23–49. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2003 RUSSELL, D.S., Daniel. DSBS. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1981 RÜTERSWÖRDEN, U., Das Buch Deuteronomium. NSK.AT 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006 —. Der Kult an dem einen Ort (Dtn 12,1–13,1). Fasc. 3.1 of Deuteronomium. BKAT 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011 RYKEN, P.G., 1 Kings. Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2011 SADOCK, J.M., “Figurative speech and linguistics”. In Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed., edited by A. Ortony, 42–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 ŠANDA, A., Das erste Buch der Könige. Vol. 1 of Die Bücher der Könige. EHAT 9.1. Münster: Aschendorff, 1911 —. Das zweite Buch der Könige. Vol. 2 of Die Bücher der Könige. EHAT 9.2. Münster: Aschendorff, 1912 SAUER, G., “‫ ֶדּ ֶרך‬derek way”. TLOT 1 (1997) 343–34 SAVRAN, G., “1 and 2 Kings”. In The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by R. Alter and F. Kermode, 146–164. London: Collins, 1987 SCHARBERT, J., “Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament”. In “Diener in Eurer Mitte”. Festschrift für Dr. Antonius Hofmann Bischof von Passau, zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by R. Beer, A. Leidl, K. Mühlek and F. Schröger, 91–109. SUPa. KT 5. Passau: Passavia Universitätsverlag, 1984 SCHNIEDEWIND, W.M., “The Evolution of Name Theology”, The Chronicler as Theologian, edited by M. P. Graham, S.L. McKenzie and G.N. Knoppers, 228–239. JSOTSup 371. London: T & T Clark, 2003 SCHREINER, J., Sion-Jerusalem: Jahwes Königssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament. SANT 7. München: Kösel, 1963 SCHULZ, A., Das erste Buch Samuel. Vol. 1 of Die Bücher Samuel. EHAT 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1919 —. Das Buch Josue. HSAT 2.3. Bonn: Hanstein, 1924 SEILER, H., “On paradigmatic and syntagmatic similarity”, Lingua 18 (1967): 35–79 SIEGFRIED, C. and STADE, B., Hebräisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testaments: Mit zwei Anhängen: I. Lexidion zu den aramäischen Stücken des Alten Testamentes. II. Deutsch-Hebräisches Wörterverzeichnis. Leipzig: Veit, 1893 SIMIAN-YOFRE, H., “‫ ָפּנִ ים‬pānîm”. TDOT 11 (2001): 589–615 SKINNER, J., Kings. CeB. Edinburgh: Jack, n.d. SLOTKI, I.W., Kings. SBBS. London: Soncino, 1950 SLOTKI, J.J., Daniel Ezra and Nehemiah. SBBS. London: Soncino, 1951 SOMMER, B.D., The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

STADE, B., Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vol. 2. Berlin: Grote, 1888 STÄHLI, H.-P., “‫ חוה‬ḥwh hišt. to bow down”. TLOT 1 (1997): 398–400 STALLARD, D., “Two kinds of metonymy”. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 87–94. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1993 STÉPHANE, R., “Words and their meanings: Principles of variation and stabilization”. In From Polysemy to Semantic Change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations, edited by M. Vanhove, 55–92. Studies in Language Companion Series 106. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2008 STEVENS, M.E., Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006 STOLZ, F., Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel. ZBK.AT 9. Zürich: TVZ, 1981 SWEENEY, M.A., I & II Kings. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007 TALSTRA, E., Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14–61. CBET 3. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993 TAYLOR, J.R., “Prepositions: patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation”. In The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, edited by C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 151–175. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993 TERRIEN, S., The Elusive Presence: Towards a New Biblical Theology. RPS. New York: Harper & Row, 1978 THENIUS, O., Die Bücher der Könige. 2nd ed. KEH. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1873 THOMPSON, J.A., The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 TURNER, M., Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987 ULLMANN, S., Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962 VAN SETERS, J., In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983 —. “The Formula lɘšakkēn šɘmô šām and the Centralisation of Worship in Deuteronomy and DH”. JNSL 30/2 (2004): 1–18 VAUX, R. DE, Les Livres des Rois. SB(J). Paris: Cerf, 1958 —. “Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom”. In Das Ferne und Nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 30. November 1966 gewidmet, edited by F. Maass, 219–228. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967 VEIJOLA, T., “Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation (I)”. ThR 67 (2002): 273–327 —. Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. ATD 8,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004 VESCO, J.-L., Le Psautier de David. Vol. 1. Paris: Cerf, 2006 VOGEL, W., The Cultic Motif in the Book of Daniel. New York: Lang, 2010 VOGT, P.T., Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006 VOLZ, P., Der Prophet Jeremia. 2nd ed. KAT 10. Leipzig: Deichert, 1928. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1983 WALDRON, R.A., Sense and Sense Development. 2nd ed. London: Deutsch, 1979

178

PRAYING TO THE TEMPLE

WALSH, J.T., 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996 WALTEREIT, R., “Grammatical Constraints on Metonymy: On the Role of the Direct Object”. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 233–253. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999 WANKE, G., “‫ נַ ֲח ָלה‬naḥalâ possession”. TLOT 2 (1997): 731–734 WARREN, B., Sense Developments: A Contrastive Study of the Development of Slang Senses and Novel Standard Senses in English. Stockholm Studies in English 80. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992 —. “Distinguishing between Metaphor and Metonymy”. In Studies in Anglistics, edited by G. Melchers and B. Warren, 137–150. Stockholm Studies in English 85. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995 —. “Aspects of Referential Metonymy”. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, edited by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden, 121–135. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999 —. “An alternative account of the interpretation of referential metonymy and metaphor”. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, edited by R. Dirven and R. Pörings, 113–130. Cognitive Linguistics Research 20. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002 —. “Referential Metonymy”. Scripta Minora, 2003–4, Royal Society of Letters at Lund, 2006 WEINFELD, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972 WEIPPERT, H., “‘Der Ort, den Jahwe erwählen wird, um dort seinen Namen wohnen zu lassen’. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Formel”. BZ 24 (1980): 76–94 WEISER, A., “Zur Frage nach den Beziehungen der Psalmen zum Kult: Die Darstellung der Theophanie in den Psalmen und im Festkult”. In Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden, edited by W. Baumgartner, O. Eißfeldt, K. Elliger and L. Rost, 513–531. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950 —. Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1–25,14. 8th ed. ATD 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981 WELCH, A.C., The Book of Jeremiah. London: National Adult School Union, n.d. WERLITZ, J., Die Bücher der Könige. NSK.AT 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002 WESTPHAL, G., Jahwes Wohnstätten nach den Anschauungen der alten Hebräer: Eine alttestamentliche Untersuchung. BZAW 15. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1908 WHITE, R.M., The Structure of Metaphor: The Way the Language of Metaphor Works. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996 WILLIAMSON, H.G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 WILSON, I., Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy. SBLDS 151. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995 —. “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy”. In Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. LHBOTS 422, edited by J. Day, 212–249. London: T & T Clark, 2005 —. “Central Sanctuary or Local Settlement? The Location of the Triennial Tithe Declaration (Dtn 26, 13–15)”. ZAW 120 (2008): 323–340

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

WINK, W., Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Vol. 1 of The Powers. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984 WISEMAN, D.J., 1 and 2 Kings. TOTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993 WOUDE, A.S. VAN DER, “‫ ֵשׁם‬šēm name”. TLOT 3 (1997): 1348–1367 WRAY BEAL, L.M., 1 & 2 Kings. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 9. Nottingham: Apollos, 2014 WRIGHT, G.E., “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East”. BA 7 (1944a): 41–44 —. “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East: Part III. The Temple in Palestine-Syria”. BA 7 (1944b): 65–77 —. “God Amidst His People: The Story of the Temple”. In The Rule of God: Essays in Biblical Theology, 57–76. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960 WÜRTHWEIN, E., Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. ATD 11,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 —. Das erste Buch der Könige: Kapitel 1–16. 2nd ed. ATD 11,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985 YOUNG, E.J., The Prophecy of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949 ZIEGELER, D., “The development of counterfactual implicatures in English”. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, edited by K.-U. Panther and L.L. Thornburg, 169–203. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2003

INDICES BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 4:26 11:5 12:7 12:8 13:4 20:2 20:13 20:17 21:33 26:25 28:13 30:25 35:2 41:57

76 1, 107 1, 107 76 76 21 59, 60, 64, 92 45, 79 76 76 58 58 93 67

Exodus 1:1–2 3 4:19 6:12 7:10 8:8 8:12 8:28 8:30–31 9:29 9:33 12:1 13:2 15:13 15:17 17:6 19:20 20:17 22:7 24:11 24:16 25:8

86, 87 1, 107 59 110 110 130 130 130 130 46 46 59 51 52 52 2 21 54 52 1 2 107

29:45 29:46 34:9 34:19 34:29–35

107 107 79 51 110

Leviticus 4:7 4:18 18:21 19:12 20:3 21:6 22:2 22:31f. 25:23 26 26:14–45 27:14 27:26

93 93 123 123 123 123 123 123 50 131 131 54 51

Numbers 1:2 1:18 1:20 1:22 3:12 3:13 3:45 5:3 8:14 8:17 11:2 11:20 14:1–19 14:12 14:19 20:23 21:7

119 119 119 119 51 51 51 107 51 51 45 93 82 83 79, 83 59 29, 45, 79

182

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

21:33 22:18 24:13 35:34

108 54 54 107

Deuteronomy 1:4 1:36 1:40 3:1 4:36 5:21 9 9:14 9:16 9:19 9:25 9:26 9:26–29 11:14 11:24 12 12–26 12:2–7 12:5 12:5–7 12:7 12:10–14 12:11 12:12 12:13f. 12:14 12:21 14:23 14:24 14:26 16:2 16:6 16:10 16:11 20:5 20:10 22:8 26:2 26:3 26:5 26:12–15 26:13–15

107 58 27 108 2 54 83 83 83 83 83 45 83, 130 79 58 4, 147, 152 136, 152 147 2, 58, 72, 81 147 82 148 2, 58, 72, 81, 134 82 147 58 2, 72, 81 2, 72, 81, 82, 134 2, 72, 81 82 2, 72, 81, 82, 134 2, 72, 81, 134 82 2, 72, 81, 82, 134 54 60 54 2, 72, 81, 134, 151 82 82 98 98

26:15 28 28–30 28:12 28:15–68 28:21–22 28:21–25 28:23–24 28:25 28:36–37 28:38 33:16

2, 99, 103, 118, 151 131 131 79 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 107

Joshua 1:3 3:11 3:13 6:22 9:6 9:10 12:4 12:5 13:12 14:9 22:19 24:23

58 50 50 59 20 108 107 108 108 58 50 93

Judges 4:2 4:7 4:16 4:20 9 9:41 9:43 11:31 11:34 19:22–23

111 111 111 34 112 112 112 34 34 52

1 Samuel 1:26 1:27 4:4 4:13 5:1–5 5:2 5:3 5:4

45 20, 45 142 67 71 71 71 71

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

183 83 83 83 112 112 48 140 10, 72, 75, 81, 150 10, 49, 72, 75, 81, 150 49 140 49, 74 49 49 49 125 125 141, 143 141 141 141 74 49 54 74 49 140 141 141 49, 74 49, 74 57, 125 74 6 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 35, 39, 45, 46, 49, 55, 58, 62, 64, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 95, 98, 104, 106, 107, 110, 113, 115, 117, 128, 130, 132, 133, 136, 138, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 150, 153, 154, 155, 157 7, 10, 72 2 125, 133

5:12 7:5 8:6 12:17 12:18 12:19 20:25 30:26–31 30:27–31 30:27–31a 30:31 30:31b 31:9 31:9a

68, 115 45 45 80 79, 80 45, 79 58 60 60 60 64 60 62, 63, 64, 92 62

2 Samuel 1:20 5 5:2bβ 5:9 5:20 7 7:1 7:1–5 7:1–17 7:5 7:5–6 7:12–13 7:13 7:18 7:23 7:26 7:27 9:2 18:19

63 112 86 112 112 4, 48, 71, 112 112 57 2 48, 71 55 48 49, 72, 75, 81, 82, 150 112 82 82 45 21 63

3:5 3:5–15 3:15 3:16 3:17 5–7 5:15–32 5:17 5:19 5:32 6 6:1 6:2 6:9 6:14 6:20 6:22 6:23–28 6:29 6:32 6:35 6:37 6:38 7:1 7:12 7:13–14 7:13–51 7:29 7:36 7:40 7:45 7:48 7:51 7:51b–9:9 8

111 111 111 111 112 112, 146 49, 54, 74 10, 72, 75, 81, 146, 147, 148, 150 147 147, 148

8:1–13 8:1–9:9 8:5

1 Kings 2 2:36 2:38 2:40 2:41 3 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:3b

184 8:6–7 8:7 8:9 8:10 8:10f. 8:10–11 8:10–13 8:11 8:12 8:12f. 8:12–13 8:12–53 8:12–62 8:13

8:13b 8:14ff. 8:14–21 8:14–53 8:14–61 8:14–66 8:15–21 8:15–61 8:16 8:16–20 8:17 8:17–20 8:18 8:19 8:20 8:22 8:22–53 8:23f. 8:23–50a 8:23–53 8:26 8:27

8:27ff. 8:27–30 8:27–45 8:27–53 8:28 8:28–29

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

141 30, 32 7 70, 74 70 57, 69, 75 9, 75, 101 5, 7, 70, 74 9, 10, 70 9 6, 7, 8, 69, 70, 75, 106 128 4 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 49, 55, 57, 70, 90, 102, 105, 106, 107, 142 9 7, 101 6 5, 7, 8, 10, 79, 154 8, 78, 131 8, 9, 111, 153 90 8, 111 8, 10, 55, 72, 75, 81, 82, 117, 138, 150 5, 8, 73 6, 55, 72, 81, 82, 117, 138 10 55, 72, 81, 82, 117, 138 8, 49, 72, 81, 82, 117, 138 49, 55, 72, 81, 82, 117, 138 47 8, 9, 78, 127, 131, 153 79 111 5, 9, 106, 111, 128, 131 102 7, 9, 49, 78, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 116, 135, 142, 151, 153 5 5, 9, 30, 90, 101, 103, 105 103 23, 131, 134 29, 57, 71, 72, 75, 102, 144 17, 72

8:28–53 8:29

8:29–53 8:30

8:30abα 8:30b 8:30–53 8:30b–53 8:31 8:31ff. 8:31–32 8:31–40 8:31–43 8:31–51 8:31–53 8:32 8:33 8:33f. 8:33–34 8:34 8:35

8:35ff. 8:35–36 8:36 8:36aα 8:37 8:37–39 8:37–40 8:38 8:39 8:39a 8:41

33 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 46, 47, 55, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81, 82, 87, 93, 116, 117, 126, 127, 150 142 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 46, 47, 48, 71, 78, 79, 80, 87, 93, 98, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 116, 117, 126, 127 103 103 78 78 30, 34 30, 111, 127 9 79 34 30, 78, 79, 111 9, 78, 111, 131 6, 9, 48, 80, 102, 103, 105 20, 30, 31, 71, 77, 82, 88, 93, 117, 126, 127 111 29, 77, 131 6, 9, 10, 48, 80, 102, 103, 105 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28, 31, 35, 36, 46, 71, 77, 78, 79, 82, 87, 93, 98, 116, 117, 126, 127 25 29, 47, 77, 79, 131 6, 9, 10, 24, 48, 80, 98, 102, 103, 105 103 132 29 111, 131 25, 46, 126 6, 9, 10, 48, 80, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111 103 34, 82, 117

185

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

8:41–42 8:41–43 8:41–51 8:42

8:42b 8:42–43 8:43

8:43a 8:44

8:44b 8:44–45 8:44–50 8:44–53 8:45 8:46–51 8:46–53 8:47 8:48

8:48–49 8:49 8:49–50 8:53 8:54 8:54–66 8:59 8:62 8:62–64 8:62–66 8:63 8:64 8:65 9:3 9:7 9:15 9:20 9:25

17, 33 29, 34, 47, 77, 78, 111 8 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 46, 71, 77, 78, 79, 82, 87, 93, 98, 116, 117, 126, 127 34 47, 79 6, 9, 10, 24, 48, 49, 55, 79, 80, 82, 98, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 117 103 5, 8, 10, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 45, 49, 71, 72, 76, 77, 81, 82, 88, 89, 93, 117, 126, 127, 138 19, 24, 26, 27 27, 29, 77 27 28, 111 6, 9, 10, 48, 80, 102, 105 77, 131 27, 28, 131 71 5, 8, 10, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 45, 49, 71, 72, 76, 77, 81, 82, 88, 89, 93, 117, 126, 127, 138 29 6, 9, 25, 48, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111 80 29, 78 45, 71 7 57, 71, 75, 144 57, 71, 75, 144 125, 133 8 70, 71, 74 57, 70, 74 57, 71, 75, 144 57, 81, 138, 144, 145, 150 81 54 86 57, 144, 148

10:5 10:24 10:24–25 11:36 12 12:21 12:25a 12:25b 12:25–31 12:25–32 12:25–33 12:26–28 12:26–29 12:26–30 12:26–30a 12:26–32 12:26–33 12:27 12:28–30 12:30b 13:6 13:8 14:21 15 15:14 15:20 15:21 15:27 17 17:9–10 18 18:1 18:2 18:24 18:26 18:36 18:37 22 22:10 22:19 22:42–43 22:43 22:43–44 22:44

148 86 57 81, 150 112, 140, 150 86 112 112 144 143 149 143 144 143 143 144 142, 144 148 141, 144 144 29, 145 54 81, 150 112 146, 147, 148 87 112 112 112 112 80 79 112 80, 119 76, 80, 119 80 80 109 109 108, 109 146 147 146 148

2 Kings 3:11 4:33

145 45

186

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

5:11 5:18 6:8 6:18 8:3 12:3 12:4 12:4–16 14:1–3 14:4 14:7 15:1–3 15:4 15:32–34 15:35 16 16:14 18:22 19:14 19:14–15aα 19:14–19 19:15 19:15–19 19:20 19:27–28 19:32 20:2 20:2–3 20:11 21:4 21:7 22:3–7 22:13 23:1–14 23:3 23:27 24:14 25:1

80 79 30, 32 45, 80 20 146 146, 148 140 146 146 86 146 146 146 146 148 57, 144 60 57 141 141, 144 141, 142, 143, 144, 150 145 20, 45 145 21 45 145 145 81, 150 81, 150 140 145 140 144 14, 81, 150 67 87

Isaiah 7 7:2 7:13 14:2 18:7 24:15 26:13 37:14

68 68 68 50 81 139 123 57

37:15 37:15–20 37:16 37:21 37:33 38:2 40:9 44:17 45:14 45:20 61:1 66:2

45 80 142 20, 45 21 45 60 45, 46 45, 46 45 63 49, 50

Jeremiah 2:7 3:17 7:10 7:11 7:12 7:14 7:30 7:31 11:10 11:15 12:7a 12:8 19:5 20:7–13 20:9 20:9b 20:15 22:13 26:2 26:4a 28:1 28:8 29:7 29:12 31:23 32:16 32:35 34:16 35:9 36:7 37:3 40:15 42:2 42:4

53 81 57, 82 82 81, 82 82 82 138 132 132 52, 53 53 138 104 103, 104 104 63 54 59 59 59 21 45 45 59 45 138 123 138 21 45 59 29, 45 45

187

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

42:20 52:4

29, 45 87

Ezekiel 8:5 9:3 10:3–4 10:18–19 17:17 20:9 20:14 20:18 20:22 20:39 22:2 36:20 36:21 36:22 36:23 39:7 43:6–7 43:7 43:8

26 57 57 57 138 123 123 59 123 123 60 123 123 123 123 123 55 123, 142 123

Hosea 6:6–7 8:1 8:13 9:3

132 132 132 50

Joel 2:26 4:4–5

123 60

Amos 5:16 7:2

59 79

Jonah 1:2 2:2 2:5 3:2 3:7 4:2 4:2–3

60 45 23, 24 60 59 45 80

Micah 4:13

50

Haggai 2:8

51

Zechariah 4:14 5:10–11 6:5 10:1 12:7 13:9 14:2

50 138 50 79, 80 64 80, 119 57

Malachi 1:6 2:13–14

123 132

Psalms 2:4 5 5:2–3a 5:3 5:3b–4 5:5–7 5:6–7 5:7 5:8 5:8b 5:8–9 5:9 7:18 11:4 14 14:2 14:7 20 20:3 20:7 24:1 25:11 26:8 28:2 29:9 32:6 33:13–14 40:10 44:21 50:10 50:12

108 22 22 22, 23, 45 22 22 23 23 21, 22, 23, 24 22, 23 22, 23 22 139 99, 101 99 99 99 99 99 99 50 79 57 23, 24 59 45 108 63 46 50 50

188

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

61:9 68:10 68:33 74:7 74:10 74:18 74:21 76 76:3 76:9 78 78:69 79:1 80:2 80:15 83:7 83:17 97:5 104:8 105:11 116 116:4 119:32 119:55 123:1 138 138:2 143:6 147:8

123 50 60 81, 82 82 82 82, 123 99 99 99 49 49 52, 53, 56 99 99 64 123 50 30, 32 53 80 76, 80, 119 123 123 108 22 21, 22, 23, 24 46 79

Proverbs 1:21 4:20 5:1 7 7:6–12 24:27 31:20

59 86 86 120 120 54 46

Job 1:21 5:10 11:13 42 42:8aα 42:8aβ

123 79 46 130 130 130

Daniel 4 4:14

68 68

4:22 4:23 4:29 6:11 9:19

68 68, 115 68 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35 79

Ezra 3:2 6:12 9:5

138 81 46

Nehemiah 1:9 1:11 2:4 4:3 12:43

81, 82 82 45 45 57

1 Chronicles 2:1 11:2bβ 17:1–4 17:4–5 22:7 22:8 22:10 22:19 28:2 28:3 28:10 28:11–18 28:19 29:1 29:2–5 29:13 29:16

86, 87 86 57 55 81 81 81 81 138 81 138 48 48, 49 51 48 82 51, 81, 82

2 Chronicles 1:7 1:7–13 1:8–10 1:18 2:3 4:19 5:13–14 6 6:2 6:5 6:6

83 83 83 81 81 57 57 20, 21, 45, 76, 91, 92, 116 55, 57 81, 82, 138 81, 82

189

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:13 6:19 6:20 6:21 6:24 6:26 6:29 6:30 6:32 6:33 6:34 6:38 6:39 7:1–3 7:4 7:14

81, 82 81, 82 81, 82 81, 82 47 57 81, 82 108 82 82 46 108 82 82, 108 26, 27, 45, 81, 82 26, 27, 81, 82 108 57 57 82

7:16 7:20 8:7 9:23 11:1 11:5 12:13 16:4 18:18 20 20:8 20:9 25:11 32:20 32:24 33:4 33:7 33:13 33:18 33:20

81, 82 81, 82, 86 86 86 86 138 81 86 108 81 81 57, 81 86 68, 115 45, 82 81 81, 82 45 82 54

AUTHORS Aitken, J.K. 26, 27 Alexander, T.D. 52 Allen, L.C. 104 Anderson, R.A. 25 Auld, A.G. 9, 17, 33, 55, 73, 127, 136, 143 Baldi, P.D. 108 Baldwin, J.G. 68 Balentine, S.E. 18, 29, 127, 142 Barcelona, A. 38, 39 Barnett, R.D. 74 Bauer, D. 25 Baumann, A. 103 Beekman, J. 44 Benzinger, I. 30, 74, 103, 131 Berg, T. 85 Biddle, M.E. 151, 152 Bietenhard, H. 101, 119, 122, 123, 139 Boda, M.J. 131 Boer, P.A.H. de 79 Boling, R.G. 108 Braulik, G. 5, 78, 128 Brdar, M. and Brdar-Szabό, R. 85 Brdar-Szabό, R. and Brdar, M. 89 Bredin, H. 43, 44, 88 Brettler, M. 6, 18, 111 Breuer, J. 104 Bright, J. 104 Brongers, H.A. 8, 70 Brueggemann, W. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 18, 28, 53, 69, 70, 73, 101, 103, 106, 124, 135, 151, 153, 154 Buis, P. 9, 17, 28, 33, 34, 70, 72, 73, 135, 148 Bullinger, E.W. 37, 38, 39, 42, 57 Burney, C.F. 8, 27, 103, 131, 144, 147 Busink, Th.A. 74 Butler, T.C. 108 Caird, G.B. 38, 39, 42 Charles, R.H. 68 Childs, B.S. 100

Christensen, D.L. 151 Clements, R.E. 5, 9, 11, 14, 99, 101, 102, 124, 128, 129, 133, 135, 149, 156, 157 Cogan, M. 8, 18, 29, 69, 111, 127, 131, 151, 153 Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 142 Cohn, R.L. 99, 100 Condamin, A, 104 Cook, S.L. 2, 3, 4, 135 Craigie, P.C., Kelley, P.H. and Drinkard, J.F. 104 Cross, F.M. 70, 144 Culler, J. 83 Curtis, J.B. 3 Declaissé-Walford, N., Jacobson, R.A and Tanner, B.L. 53 Delcor, M. 25 Dever, W.G. 74 DeVries, S.J. 6, 10, 17, 18, 49, 69, 103, 111, 118, 148 Dietrich, W. 103 Dirven, R. and Pörings, R. 39 Dorsey, D.A. 26, 27 Dozeman, T.B. 52 Driver, S.R. 25, 62, 68 Dumermuth, F. 11, 73, 118, 119, 120 Eco, U. 42 Edzard, D.O. Ehrlich, A.B. Eichrodt, W. Eißfeldt, O. Eslinger, L.

74 102 135 103, 147 17, 18, 103

Farrar, F.W. 68 Fass, D. 38, 40, 41 Fauconnier, G. 38 Fernando, C. 137 Fichtner, J. 30, 33, 70, 73, 99, 111 Finkelstein, L. 127, 128 Fischer, G. 104 Fossum, J.E. 11, 119, 139

192

AUTHORS

Fraser, B. 137 Fretheim, T.E. 1, 5, 70, 101, 105, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135, 143 Friedman, R.E. 18 Fritz, V. 8, 27, 33, 69, 70, 78, 102, 108, 142, 143, 148 Frost, R.L. 157 Fuerst, J. 26, 52 Garofalo, S. 10, 30, 102 Geller, S.A. 2, 4, 102 Gese, H. 7, 107, 119 Gesenius, W. 26, 52, 62, 71 Gibbs, R.W. 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 161, 163 Giesebrecht, F. 7, 74, 104, 107, 118, 119, 134 Glynn, D. 84 Goldberg, L. 61, 62 Goldingay, J.E. 53, 68 Görg, M. 9 Gowan, D.E. 25 Gray, J. 8, 11, 28, 102, 133, 135 Grayson, A.K. 74 Greenberg, M. 78 Grether, O. 3, 11, 74, 101, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 133, 134, 139 Grice, H.P. 43 Gunkel, H. 53 Hamilton, V.P. 53 Hammer, R. 25 Hammond, J. 18, 23, 28, 70 Happ, H. 84 Haran, M. 49, 70, 72, 74, 108, 127 Hartman, L.F. 25, 68 Heaton, E.W. 25 Heiler, F. 21 Heller, E. 157 Hens-Piazza, G. 5, 6, 70, 103, 131, 143, 151 Hentschel, G. 8, 33, 102, 142, 143, 144, 147 Hertzberg, H.W. 63, 108 Hoffmann, H.-D. 144 Holenstein, E. 84, 85 Holladay, W.L. 104 Hölscher, G. 102, 103 House, P.R. 27, 78

Houtman, C. 68, 115 Hubbard, R.L. 17, 18, 23 Hundley, M.B. 3, 72, 73, 105, 128, 151, 154 Hunt, M. 111 Hunziker-Rodewald, R. 62 Hupfeld, H. and Nowack, W. 53 Hurowitz, V.(A.) 7, 9, 17, 18, 28, 73, 74, 75, 78, 107, 127, 128 Hyatt, J.P. 52 Jacob, E. 118, 119 Jakobson, R. 84 Janowski, B. 9, 102, 135 Japhet, S. 11, 18, 48, 102, 105, 121, 123 Jenni, E. 34, 51, 61 Jepsen, A. 103 Jones, G.H. 8, 9, 69, 102, 128, 142, 143 Kaufmann, Y. 8, 127, 128 Keach, B. 38, 57 Keel, O., Knauf, E.A. and Staubli, T. 70, 74 Keil, C.F. 27, 30, 105, 147 Keller, M. 12, 99, 118, 135, 138, 151, 155, 156 Ketter, P. 11, 28, 33, 35, 63 Kittel, R. 8 Knafl, A.K. 3, 109, 110 Knohl, I. 129 Knoppers, G.N. 9, 18, 30, 33, 48, 73, 78, 102, 103, 111, 142, 143 Koch, P. 42 Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. 21, 26, 52, 62, 119 Kövecses, Z. and Radden, G. 40, 43, 57, 84, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 Kuhn, T.S. 137 Laberge, L. 55 Lacocque, A. 25 Lakoff, G. 39, 85, 160, 161 Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 43, 87, 160 Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. 86 Lamparter, H. 104 Landersdorfer, S. 28, 30 Langacker, R.W. 39, 84, 86, 90, 161, 162 Lebram, J.-C. 25

AUTHORS

Lederach, P. 68 Le Guern, M. 42, 43, 44, 84 Leithart, P.J. 11, 17, 18, 33, 127, 151, 154 Leslie, E.A. 104 Leupold, H.C. 68 Levenson, J.D. 8, 9, 33, 73, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 111, 125, 128, 131 Linville, J.R. 17, 18, 30, 69, 102 Littlemore, J. 38, 39, 41, 43, 50, 89, 90, 93 Long, B.O. 111 Lucas, E. 68 Lumby, J.R. 141 Lundbom, J.R. 104, 151 Lynch, M. 49 Lyons, J. 83, 85 MacDonald, N. 3 Maclear, G.F. 108 Maier, G. 68 Maier, J. 100 Maly, E.H. 4, 105, 135 Marti, K. 68 McBride, S.D. 10, 11, 73, 75, 118, 135 McConville, J.G. 3, 152 McCurley, F.R. 5, 117 McKane, W. 104, 105 McKenzie, S.L. 18, 29, 48, 103, 111, 142, 143 Mettinger, T.N.D. 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 70, 75, 81, 99, 100, 101, 106, 118, 119, 120, 124, 128, 129, 142, 154 Metzger, M. 5, 7, 9, 73, 99, 100, 102, 117, 124, 125, 128 Meyers, C.L. 71 Miller, P.D. 17, 21, 22 Miscall, P.D. 63 Mitchell, H.G. 20 Möhlenbrink, K. 74 Montgomery, J.A. 25, 68 Montgomery, J.A. and Gehman, H.S. 8, 11, 18, 28, 33, 73, 79, 103 Mowinckel, S. 118, 119 Mulder, M.J. 9, 11, 30, 33, 70, 73, 102, 147, 148 Myers, J.M. 3 Nelson, R.D. 2, 21, 69, 70, 73, 75, 102, 108, 117, 131, 144, 146, 147, 151, 152

193

Nentel, J. 8, 102 Newman, J.H. 78 Nicholson, E.W. 5 Noth, M. 8, 17, 18, 34, 127, 129, 148 Nötscher, F. 71, 104 Omanson, R.L. and Ellington, J.E. Otto, E. 151, 152 Ottosson, M. 74

60

Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G. 38, 39 Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L.L. 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 84, 89, 161 Penna, A. 104 Pitkänen, P.M.A. 108 Plöger, O. 68 Preuß, H.D. 10, 22 Provan, I.W. 18, 33, 102, 131, 136, 146, 148 Rabban, N. 71 Rad, G. von 73, 75, 118, 119, 134, 157 Radden, G. and Kövecses, Z. 39, 50, 86, 89, 90, 91 Rawlinson, G. 23 Recanati, F. 41 Redditt, P.L. 25 Reddy, M.J. 61 Rehm, M. 8, 10, 30, 33, 34, 70, 79, 111, 128, 141, 142 Reindl, J. 71 Reiterer, F.V. 119 Reventlow, H.G. von 29 Rice, G. 6, 9, 10, 18, 33, 128, 131, 143 Richards, I.A. 38 Richards, J.C., Platt, J. and Platt, H. 83 Richter, S.L. 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 55, 80, 118, 119, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157 Ricoeur, P. 44 Rinaldi, P.G. 25 Robinson, J. 8, 33, 105, 143, 144 Rofé, A. 8, 11, 103, 128, 129, 151 Römer, T.C. 152 Rösel, H.N. 108 Rosenthal, F. 25 Rothstein, J.W. and Hänel, J. 48 Roussel, L. 108 Rowley, H.H. 130

194

AUTHORS

Rudolph, W. 104 Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. and Pérez Hernández, L. 93 Russell, D.S. 68 Rüterswörden, U. 151 Ryken, P.G. 78 Sadock, J.M. 40 Šanda, A. 9, 10, 28, 33, 34, 72, 103, 141 Sauer, G. 26 Savran, G. 17, 18 Scharbert, J. 78 Schniedewind, W.M. 55, 151, 153 Schreiner, J. 8 Schulz, A. 63, 108 Seiler, H. 85 Siegfried, C. and Stade, B. 52 Simian-Yofre, H. 71 Skinner, J. 8, 28, 30, 70, 79, 103, 133 Slotki, I.W. 27, 28 Slotki, J.J. 25 Sommer, B.D. 2, 7, 95, 99, 120, 121, 135, 139, 151, 153 Stade, B. 56 Stähli, H.-P. 22 Stallard, D. 38 Stéphane, R. 61 Stevens, M.E. 73 Stolz, F. 63 Sweeney, M.A. 17, 78, 101, 111, 131, 147, 151 Talstra, E. 10, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 72, 102, 103 Taylor, J.R. 32 Terrien, S. 6, 70, 102 Thenius, O. 34 Thompson, J.A. 50 Turner, M. 43

Ullmann, S.

42, 61

Van Seters, J. 144, 151, 153 Vaux, R. de, 11, 28,55 Veijola, T. 4, 5, 98, 151 Vesco, J.-L. 22, 53 Vogel, W. 25 Vogt, P.T. 3 Volz, P. 104 Waldron, R.A. 61, 84 Walsh, J.T. 30, 55, 131, 135, 143, 147 Waltereit, R. 41, 42, 45, 47 Wanke, G. 52 Warren, B. 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 84, 89, 93, 161, 163 Weinfeld, M. 4, 9, 74, 99, 100, 102, 106, 128, 129, 142 Weippert, H. 7, 102, 107, 117 Weiser, A. 70, 104 Welch, A.C. 104 Werlitz, J. 9, 69, 78, 102, 128, 151 Westphal, G. 7, 10, 28, 74, 102, 107, 134 White, R.M. 40 Williamson, H.G.M. 49 Wilson, I. 2, 3, 12, 56, 71, 83, 98, 99, 100, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 151, 152, 154 Wink, W. 120 Wiseman, D.J. 10 Woude, A.S. van der 10, 119, 139 Wray Beal, L.M. 18, 78, 119, 151, 153, 154 Wright, G.E. 74, 124, 128, 135 Würthwein, E. 8, 9, 11, 141, 142, 143 Young, E.J.

68

Ziegeler, D.

39, 161

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, early Jewish and early Christian Traditions, Kampen, 1990 2. P.W. Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCB-700 CE), Kampen, 1991 3. E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8, 14-61, Kampen, 1993 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung: Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch, Kampen, 1994 5. J.N. Bremmer, Sacred History and Sacred Texts in early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude, Kampen, 1992 6. K. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, Kampen, 1994 7. B. Aland, New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods, Kampen, 1994 8. P.W. Van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen, Second Enlarged Edition, 1998 9. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen, 1994 10. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen, 1994 11. Tj. Baarda, Essays on the Diatessaron, Kampen, 1994 12. Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, Kampen, 1995 13. D.V. Edelman, The Triumph of Elohim, From Yahwisms to Judaisms, Kampen, 1995 14. J.E. Revell, The Designation of the Individual. Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative, Kampen, 1996 15. M. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, Kampen, 1996 16. V. Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The High Christology of Philippians 3:7-11, Kampen, 1996 17. M.C. De Boer, Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus, Kampen, 1996 18. R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, Revised edition, Leuven, 1998 19. L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, Perspectives on Multi-dimensional Exegesis, Kampen, 1996 20. L.V. Rutgers, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism, Leuven, 1998 21. K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book, Leuven, 1998 22. L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven, 1998 23. E.R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint. An Exegetical and Theological Study, Leuven, 1999 24. R.D. Anderson Jr., Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms, Leuven, 2000 25. T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, Leuven, 2000 26. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition, Leuven, 2000 27. J.F.M. Smit, About the Idol Offerings. Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’s Discourse in First Corinthians 8:1-11:1, Leuven, 2000 28. T.J. Horner, Listening to Trypho. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue Reconsidered, Leuven, 2001 29. D.G. Powers, Salvation through Participation. An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology, Leuven, 2001 30. J.S. Kloppenborg, P. Hoffmann, J.M. Robinson, M.C. Moreland (eds.), The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas, Leuven, 2001 31. M.K. Birge, The Language of Belonging. A Rhetorical Analysis of Kinship Language in First Corinthians, Leuven, 2004

32. P.W. van der Horst, Japheth in the Tents of Shem. Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity, Leuven, 2002 33. P.W. van der Horst, M.J.J. Menken, J.F.M. Smit, G. van Oyen (eds.), Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism, Leuven, 2003 34. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary, Leuven, 2003 35. L.M. Teugels, Bible and midrash. The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen. 24), Leuven, 2004 36. H.W. Shin, Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research. The Search for Valid Criteria, Leuven, 2004 37. A. Volgers, C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-andAnswer Literature in Context, Leuven, 2004 38. L.E. Galloway, Freedom in the Gospel. Paul’s Exemplum in 1 Cor 9 in Conversation with the Discourses of Epictetus and Philo, Leuven, 2004 39. C. Houtman, K. Spronk, Ein Held des Glaubens? Rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu den Simson-Erzählungen, Leuven, 2004 40. H. Kahana, Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Leuven, 2005 41. V.A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith. An Authorial, Structural, and Theological Investigation of the Cosmic Christology in Col 1:15-20, Leuven, 2005 42. B.J. Koet, Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts. Collected Essays, Leuven, 2006 43. P.C Beentjes. “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (SIR. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira, Leuven, 2006 44. R. Roukema, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, K. Spronk, J.W. Wesselius (eds.), The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven, 2006 45. G. van Oyen, T. Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus. Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark, Leuven, 2006 46. B. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth. An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven, 2007 47. T.A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint. Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, Leuven, 2007 48. W. Hilbrands, Heilige oder Hure? Die Rezeptionsgeschichte von Juda und Tamar (Genesis 38) von der Antike bis zur Reformationszeit, Leuven, 2007 49. J. Joosten, P.J. Tomson (eds.), Voces Biblicae. Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament, Leuven, 2007 50. A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays, Leuven, 2007 51. S. Janse, “You are My Son”. The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism and the Early Church, Leuven, 2009 52. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, L.L. Schulte (eds.), Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy, Leuven, 2009 53. C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Feasts and Festivals, Leuven, 2009 54. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context, Leuven, 2010 55. A. van der Kooij, M. van der Meer (eds.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, Leuven, 2010 56. J. Smith, Translated Hallelujehs. A Linguistic and Exegetical Commentary on Select Septuagint Psalms, Leuven, 2011 57. N. Dávid, A. Lange (eds.), Qumran and the Bible. Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leuven, 2010 58. J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus, the Eschatological Temple. An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13-22 in the Light of the Pre 70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action, Leuven, 2011

59. H. Wenzel, Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1:1–6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book, Leuven, 2011 60. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), Imagery in the Booky of Revelation, Leuven, 2011 61. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, J.S. Adcock (eds.), The Qumran Legal Texts between the Hebrew Bible and Its Interpretation, Leuven, 2011 62. B. Lang, Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie, Leuven, 2011 63. H.-J. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom. The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4 Rooted in Scripture, Leuven, 2011 64. K.-J. Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persion Period, Leuven, 2011 65. K.M. Rochester, Prophetic Ministry in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Leuven, 2012 66. T. Law, A. Salvesen (eds.), Greek Scripture and the Rabbis, Leuven, 2012 67. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), What is Bible?, Leuven, 2012 68. J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, Leuven, 2012 69. P.N. De Andrado, The Akedah Servant Complex. The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis 22 and Isaiah 53 in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Writings, Leuven, 2013 70. F. Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω, Leuven, 2014 71. E. Blachman, The Transformation of Tamar (Genesis 38) in the History of Jewish Interpretation, Leuven, 2013 72. K. De Troyer, T. Law, M. Liljeström (eds.), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes. Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus, Leuven, 2014 73. T. Do, Re-thinking the Death of Jesus. An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hilasmos and Agape in 1 John 2:1-2 and 4:7-10, Leuven, 2014 74. T. Miller, Three Versions of Esther. Their Relationship to Anti-Semitic and Feminist Critique of the Story, Leuven, 2014 75. E.B. Tracy, See Me! Hear Me! Divine/Human Relational Dialogue in Genesis, Leuven, 2014 76. J.D. Findlay, From Prophet to Priest. The Characterization of Aaron in the Pentateuch, Leuven, forthcoming 77. M.J.J. Menken, Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles. Collected Essays, Leuven, 2015 78. L.L. Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me. The Persian Royal Propaganda Model in the Nehemiah Memoir, Leuven, 2016 79. S.E. Humble, A Divine Round Trip. The Literary and Christological Function of the Descent/Ascent Leitmotif in the Gospel of John, Leuven, 2016 80. R.D. Miller, Between Israelite Religion and Old Testament Theology. Essays on Archaeology, History, and Hermeneutics, Leuven, 2016 81. L. Dequeker, Studia Hierosolymitana, Leuven, 2016 82. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah. The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History, Leuven, 2016 83. J.S. Adcock, “Oh God of Battles! Steal My Soldiers’ Hearts!” A Study of the Hebrew and Greek Text Forms of Jeremiah 10:1-18, Leuven, 2017 84. R. Müller, J. Pakkala (eds.), Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts?, Leuven, 2017 85. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, G. van Oyen (eds.), The Epistle to the Hebrews. Writing at the Borders, Leuven, 2016 86. M.K. Korada, The Rationale for Aniconism in the Old Testament. A Study of Select Texts, Leuven, 2017 87. P.C. Beentjes, “With All Your Soul Fear the Lord” (Sir. 7:27). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira II, Leuven, 2017 88. B.J. Koet, A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, Leuven, 2017

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-Herodian Periods, Leuven, 2018 D.C. Smith, The Role of Mothers in he Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons, Leuven, 2018 V.P. Chiraparamban, The Manifestation of God’s Merciful Justice. A Theocentric Reading of Romans 3-21-26, Leuven, 2018 P. Paul, Beyond the Breach. An Exegetical Study of John 4:1-42 as a Text of JewishSamaritan Reconciliation, Leuven, 2021 I. Fröhlich, David in Cultural Memory, Leuven, 2019 M. Langlois, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leuven, 2019 A. Livneh, Studies on Jewish and Christian Historical Summaries from the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods, Leuven, 2019 M. Rotman, The Call of the Wilderness. The Narrative Significance of John the Baptist’s Whereabouts, Leuven, 2020 O. Lukács, Sabbath in the Making. A Study of the Inner-Biblical Interpretation of the Sabbath Commandment, Leuven, 2020 J.J. Spoelstra, Life Preservation in Genesis and Exodus. An Exegetical Study of the Tebâ of Noah and Moses, Leuven, 2020 T. Havukainen, The Quest for the Memory of Jesus: a Viable Path or a Dead End?, Leuven, 2020 K. De Troyer, The Ultimate and the Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua, Leuven, 2018

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706