Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

169

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick

Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, Tamara C. Eskenazi, J. Cheryl Exum, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

JSOT Press Sheffield

This page intentionally left blank

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story

Bert Dicou

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 169

Copyright © 1994 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield S10 3BP England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Midsomer Norton, Somerset

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-458-6

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction

9 10 13

Part I OBADIAH AND OTHER PROPHETIC TEXTS ON EDOM Chapter 1

OBADIAH AND EDOM 1. Introduction 2. Translation 3. Structure and Theme; Edom's Role

20 20 20 25

Chapter 2

OBADIAH AS A PART OF THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE 1. Introduction 2. Joel 3. Amos 4. Joel, Amos and Obadiah 5. Conclusion

32 32 33 36 40 42

Chapter 3 EDOM AND THE NATIONS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE,

EZEKIEL35.1-36.15 1. Introduction 2. Synchronic Analysis 3. Diachronic Analysis

43 43 43 49

6

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Chapter 4

PARALLELS: 1. OBADIAH AND THE ORACLES AGAINST EDOM IN JEREMIAH 49.7-22 AND EZEKIEL 35-36 1. Introduction 2. Obadiah 1-6 and Jeremiah 49.14-16, 9-10a 3. Obadiah 7-8 and Jeremiah 49.7 4. Obadiah 16 and Jeremiah 49.12 5. Obadiah and Ezekiel 6. Conclusion

58 58 59 67 69 70 73

Chapter 5

PARALLELS: 2. OBADIAH AND JOEL/AMOS

74

1. Introduction 2. Joel 3. Amos 4. Joel 4, Amos 1 and Obadiah 5. Summary 6. Conclusion

74 74 82 85 86 87

Chapter 6

LITERARY HISTORY 1. Introduction 2. The Oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49.7-22 3. Obadiah 4. Conclusion

88 88 88 98 104

Chapter 7

THE FOUR LONG ORACLES AGAINST EDOM (ISAIAH 34, JEREMIAH 49.7-22, EZEKIEL 35, OBADIAH) 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Isaiah 34 and the Other Long Oracles against Edom The Four Long Oracles Obadiah's Function within the Book of the Twelve

105 105 105 109 111

Contents

7

Part II GENESIS Chapter 8

EDOM AS ISRAEL' s BROTHER AND OPPONENT IN GENESIS 25-36 116 1. Introduction 2. Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom 3. Conclusion

116 117 125

Chapter 9

EDOM's ROLE IN GENESIS 1. Introduction 2. Genesis 25.19-37.1 and the Structure and Theme of the Book of Genesis 3. The Middle of Genesis 25.19-37.1: Jacob's Stay with Laban, Genesis 29-311 4. Brothers and Nations 5. Edom's Specific Role

126 126 126 129 131 134

Chapter 10

DIACHRONIC OBSERVATIONS

137

1. Introduction 2. Genesis 25-36: The Edom/Seir Element 3. Edom as Representative of the Nations 4. Conclusion EXCURSUS Hosea 12.4-5 and the Date of the Genesis Stories

137 137 150 153 154

Part III THE ORIGIN OF EDOM's ROLE AS A TYPE Chapter 11

EDOM's ROLE IN GENESIS AND THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

158

1. Introduction 2. Edom's Role in Genesis Compared to that in the Prophetic Books

158 158

8

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist 3. The Origin Histories Compared 4. Genesis and the Prophetic Books 5. Conclusion

160 163 166

Chapter 12

EDOM AND ISRAEL TWIN BROTHERS 1. Introduction 2. The Prophets 3. Other Old Testament Books 4. Evaluation. Consequences for the Date of the Genesis Stories 5. History 6. Religion 7. Conclusion

167 167 168 170 171 173 176 180

Chapter 13

EDOM' s HOSTILITY 1. Introduction 2. Conflicts between Israel and Edom 3. Edom and the Lamentation Cult 4. Conclusion

182 182 182 188 196

Chapter 14

CONCLUSIONS. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ORACLES AGAINST EDOM AND THE JACOB-ESAU STORIES 1. Introduction 2. Origin and Development of Edom's Role as a Type 3. The Difference between the Jacob-Esau Stories and the Oracles against Edom

198 198 198 202

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

205 216 225

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to Professors Karel A. Deurloo and Klaas A.D. Smelik for their support and skilful advice during my Edomite years. Their critical comments on the early stages of this book have been very helpful. The investigations were supported by the Foundation for Research in the field of Theology and the science of Religions in the Netherlands, which is subsidized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

ABBREVIATIONS ÄAT AB ACEBT ADPV ATD ATSAT BOB BEATAJ BETL BHS Bib BibOr BKAT BLS BN BWANT BZAW ConBOT COT CTJ DBAT EF EvT FRLANT FZB HALAT HAT HKAT HSM HUCA ICC ITC

Ägypten und Altes Testament Anchor Bible Amsterdamse Cahiers voor exegese en bijbelse theologie Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palaslinavereins Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alien Testament F. Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Beilrage zur Erforschung des Alien Testamenl und des anliken Judentums Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblica et Orientalia Biblischer Kommentar: Alles Teslament Bible and Literature Series Biblische Notizen Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alien und Neuen Teslamenl Beihefle zur Zeitschrifl fiir die altteslamentliche Wissenschafl Conieclanea Biblica, Old Teslament Series Commeniaar op hel Oude Teslamenl Calvin Theological Journal Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament Ertrage der Forschung Evangelische Theologie Forschung zur Religion und Lileratur des Allen und Neuen Tesiaments Forschung zur Bibel W. Baumgartner et al., Hebraisches undaramdisches Lexikon zum Alien Testament Handbuch zum Alten Testamenl Handkommenlar zum Alten Teslamenl Harvard Semitic Monographs Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary International Theological Commentary

Abbreviations ITS JBL JEA JEOL JESHO JJS JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT KHAT NCBC NTT OBO OIL OTS PEF PEQ PJ POT RB REB RHJE RHPR SBLDS SEL SOTSMS SS S SN TBii THAT TZ TSAJ UF VT WMANT WZLeipzig ZA W

11

Indian Theological Studies Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archeology Jaarbericht... ex oriente lux Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Jewish Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alien Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alien Testament New Century Bible Commentary Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift Orbis Biblicus et Orienlalis Old Teslament Library Oudteslamentische Studien Palestine Exploration Fund Palestine Exploration Quarterly Preussische Jahrbiicher Prediking van het Oude Testament Revue Biblique Revised English Bible Revue de I'histoire juive en Egypte Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico Society for Old Testamenl Studies, Monograph Series Semeia Supplements Sludia Semitica Neerlandica Theologische Biicherei E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament Theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Teslameni Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx- Universitdt Leipzig. Gesellschafliche und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION For a long time, Edom's extraordinary position in the prophetic literature (compared to the other nations) has attracted scholarly attention. M. Mailer's article 'Edom im Urteil der Propheten' is the first systematic study on this issue.1 Haller observes that Edom is, more than other nations, the object of hate. Two sets of texts can be distinguished. In the first set, the condemnation of Edom is related to its behaviour at the time of Judah's ruin and the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g. Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 25.12-14, 35; Obadiah). The second set consists of eschatological texts, in which Edom's guilt is of no importance: the name Edom has a symbolical function (e.g. Isa. 34; 63.1-6). In both sets, the various texts are literarily interrelated. In A. Mailland's dissertation, devoted to Isaiah 34 and 35, we find a separate section on the oracles against Edom in general.2 In several oracles, he concludes, Edom is Tennemi principal', the type of the adversary nation. He discusses particularly the way this notion functions in the antithetical diptychs Isaiah 34-35 and Ezek. 35.1-36.15. In the first panel Edom is annihilated, in the second Israel restored. In Isaiah 34 and 63.1-6 and in Obadiah, Edom and the nations are treated as equivalents. The second part of B.C. Cresson's dissertation 'Israel and Edom' considers the 'theology' of the oracles against Edom.3 Cresson posits 1. M. Haller, 'Edom im Urteil der propheten', in K. Budde (ed.), Vom Alten Testament (FS K. Marti; BZAW, 41; Giessen, 1925), pp. 109-17. 2. A. Mailland, 'La 'petite apocalypse' d'lsai'e. Etude sur les chapitres XXXIV et XXXV du livre d'lsaie' (dissertation, Lyons, 1956), pp. 75-90. 3. B.C. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom: A Study of the Anti-Edom Bias in Old Testament Religion' (PhD dissertation, Duke University, 1963; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms), pp. 49-99. Cf. Cresson, The Condemnation of Edom in Post-Exilic Judaism', in J.M. Efird (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays (FS W.F. Stinespring; Durham, NC, 1972), pp. 125-48, in which some important results of his dissertation are summarized.

14

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

the existence of a 'Damn-Edom Theology'. In his view, two opposing directions in the thinking on the relation Israel-nations can be detected in post-exilic Judaism: the philosophy that the nations must be destroyed when Israel is to be restored, and the philosophy that allows for the conversion of the nations. Within the first philosophy, 'Edom' acts as the representative of the nations; initially as Israel's inimical neighbour, later as a symbol.1 M.H. Woudstra, in his article 'Edom and Israel in Ezekiel', considers Edom's representative role in the book of Ezekiel.2 Furthermore, he compares the oracle against Edom in Ezekiel 35 with the collection of oracles against the nations in Ezekiel 25-32. Both serve as a prelude to texts that promise salvation to Israel, respectively Ezek. 36.1-15 and the last part of the book in general. The subject of I. Miiller's dissertation is the estimation of Israel's neighbouring peoples in the prophetic oracles against the nations.3 One of her conclusions is that some of these peoples come by a role that surpasses their historical existence.4 They come to function as 'Typ einer gottfeindlichen Macht'. The nation that most frequently plays this role is Edom. One section in H. Simian's study on Ezekiel 6, 35 and 36 is devoted to the oracles against Edom in general.5 Simian concludes that none of these texts can be looked upon as a straight oracle against Israel's neighbour. Often, the oracle is connected with a message of salvation for Israel. 'Edom' is a symbolic name for Israel's enemies, whose defeat is the triumph of Israel. 'Edom miisste also in der prophetischen Literatur vor allem als ein theologischer Begriff betrachtet werden.' 6 An indication of Edom's typical role is the existence of

1. For a more comprehensive discussion of the views of Haller, Mailland, and Cresson, see Kellermann, Israel und Edom. Studien zum Edomhass Israels in 6.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Habil.Schr.; Minister i. Westf, 1975), pp. 2-9. 2. M.H. Woudstra, 'Edom and Israel in Ezekiel', C77 3 (1968), pp. 21-35. 3. I. Miiller, 'Die Wertung der Nachbarvolker Israels Edom, Moab, Ammon, Philistaa und Tyrus/Sidon nach den gegen sie gerichteten Drohspriichen der Propheten' (dissertation, Miinster i. Westf, 1970). 4. Miiller, Die Wertung der Nachbarvolker Israels, pp. 148-50. 5. H. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels. Formund traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36 (FZB, 14; Wiirzburg, 1974), pp. 290-324. 6. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels, p. 323.

Introduction

15

many idiomatic similarities between the various oracles.1 The subject of U. Kellermann's 'Habilitationsschrift' is the Sitz im Leben of the extraordinary hatred against the Edomites in the prophetic books.2 Long after Edom had disappeared from the historical scene, the Edomites remained the object of fiery oracles against them, in which they were associated with the enemy nations in general and with Babylon in particular. Kellermann contends that this phenomenon has its root in the liturgical use of the name 'Edom' in the cultic laments held after 587 BCE.3 B. Hartberger's study on Psalm 137 contains an extensive chapter on the oracles against Edom.4 Hartberger notices that the texts in which Edom occurs are often related to one another, either idiomatically or as regards their contents. She provides a synopsis of the relevant texts.5 J.R. Bartlett's book on Edom, which is primarily a historical study, gives a short discussion of 'Post-exilic Views of Edom'.6 He too stresses the 'symbolic status' that Edom acquires in the prophetic writings of that time. Three recent articles by B. Gosse discuss Isaiah 34—35, Isa. 63.1-6 and Ezekiel 35-36.7 Gosse demonstrates that these oracles all transfer the doom earlier prophesied against Israel to Edom and the nations. The second and largest part of the present writer's dissertation discusses, using synchronic literary methods, the themes of the four major oracles against Edom (Isa. 34; Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 35; Obadiah) 1. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetic Ezechiels, pp. 31921. 2. Kellermann, Israel und Edom. 3. B. Kellermann's theory will be discussed in Chapter 13, section 3. 4. B. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon... '. Psalm 137 auf den Hintergrund von Jeremia 51, der biblischen Edom-Traditionen und babylonischen Originalquellen (BBB, 63; Frankfurt am Main, 1986), pp. 134-204. 5. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon...', pp. 168-80. 6. J.R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup, 77; JSOT/PEF Monograph Series, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press), pp. 184-86. 7. B. Gosse, 'Isai'e 34-35. Le chatiment d'Edom et des nations, salut pour Sion. Contribution a 1'dtude de la redaction du livre d'Isaie', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 396404; 'Detournement de la vengeance du Seigneur centre Edom et les nations en Isa 63, 1-6', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 105-10; and 'Ezechiel 35-36, 1-15 etEz^chiel 6: La desolation de la montagne de Sdir et le renouveau des montagnes d'Israel', RB 96 (1989), pp. 511-17 respectively.

16

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

and (in the first three cases) the function of these texts in their respective prophetic books.1 Edom also appears in the book of Genesis (Gen. 25-36). Jacob's brother Esau is the patriarch of the Edomites and Esau himself is called Edom as well. At first sight, these texts on Edom are quite different from those in the prophetic books. Here, there is no such negative estimation of Edom as in the prophecies. Esau is Jacob's twin brother. Not he, but Jacob is guilty of doing his brother wrong. In the prophetic books, doom is called down on Edom; it is Edom's annihilation that guarantees Israel's restoration. In Genesis, the serious conflict between the two (caused by Jacob's behaviour!) is resolved by Esau's forgiveness. The thesis of my dissertation is that the two sets of texts are related to each other, despite the appearance of the opposite. It is argued that they have the same theological background: in Genesis Edom, just as in the prophetic books, represents the nations, and serves as Israel's opponent. The present book, completed in 1991, may be regarded as a sequel to my dissertation.2 Once again, the subject is the theme of Edom in the Old Testament. However, whereas in my dissertation exclusively synchronic literary questions were asked, and only synchronic literary methods were employed, the central interest of the present study is diachronic: it is about the origin and the development of Edom's exceptional role. Each time, a synchronic discussion of the texts and the connections between them is followed by diachronic investigations.3 The first of the three parts of this study concentrates on Obadiah, the only one of the four major oracles against Edom in which Edom is called Israel's brother. In connection with Obadiah, the other long oracles against Edom will be considered: Jer. 49.7-22, which is partly parallel with Obadiah, Ezekiel 35, which shares its themes with 1. A. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom. Israel tegenover de volken in de verhalen over Jakob en Esau in Genesis en in de grote profetieen over Edom (Voorburg, 1990), p. 61-175. 2. For the sake of convenience, some main results have been recapitulated in the present study. The Chapters 1, 8 and 9 and the sections 2 in Chapter 3 and 2.1 in Chapter 6 consist of summarized and adapted material from the dissertation. 3. The English translation used for quotations is the Revised Standard Version. Deviations are indicated.

Introduction

17

Obadiah, and finally Isaiah 34, which is another striking example of Edom's role as the representative of the nations and Israel's antagonist. Special attention will be paid to the context of Obadiah in the Book of the Twelve. The second part of the book concentrates on Genesis. Edom's role will be analysed both from a literary and a literary-historical point of view. In the third and last part, the conceptions shared by Obadiah and Genesis (Edom as Israel's brother, Edom as Israel's antagonist, and Edom as the representative of the nations) will be analysed as regards their possible historical background and their role in Old Testament literature. Finally, the results of the study will be used for an attempt to assess the connections between Genesis and the prophetic literature. Can the similarities in Edom's role be explained by assuming the same historical background for the two sets of texts? If so, why do the major oracles against Edom and the Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis differ completely in their appreciation of Edom?

This page intentionally left blank

Part I

OBADIAH AND OTHER PROPHETIC TEXTS ON EDOM

Chapter 1 OBADIAH AND EDOM 1. Introduction Part I of the present study examines the development of Edom's role in the prophetic literature. The book of Obadiah appears to be a central text in this development. In it, we find both the theme of Edom's brotherhood and Edom's role as the representative of the nations. What is more, the entire book (although it consists of only one chapter) is devoted to the relation between Israel and Edom. The present chapter contains an annotated translation of Obadiah, based upon the RSV translation (section 2), and some general remarks on the structure and theme of the book and on Edom's role (section 3). 2. Translation 1

2 3

4

5

The vision of Obadiah. Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom: We have heard tidings from the LORD, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: 'Rise up! let us rise against her for battle!' Behold, I will make you small among the nations, you shall be utterly despised. The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rock, whose dwelling is high, who say in your heart, 'Who will bring me down to the ground?' Though you soar aloft like the eagle, though your nest is set among the stars, thence I will bring you down, says the LORD. If thieves came to you, if plunderers by night -

1. Obadiah and Edom

6 7

21

how you have been destroyed! would they not steal only enough for themselves? If grape gatherers came to you, would they not leave gleanings? How Esau has been pillaged, his treasures sought out! All your allies have driven you to the border; your confederates have deceived you and prevailed against you;1 your trusted friends have set a trap under you there is no understanding in it.2

8

Will I not on that day, says the LORD, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of Mount Esau? 9 And your mighty men shall be dismayed, O Teman, so that every man from Mount Esau will be cut off by slaughter. 10 For the violence done to your brother Jacob, shame shall cover you, and you shall be cut off for ever. 11 On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth,

1. This translation follows the Masoretic punctuation (like NEB and REB; see also the typography in BHS). The RSV reads: 'All your allies have deceived you; they have driven you to the border; your confederates have prevailed against you'; cf. J.D.W. Watts, Obadiah. A Critical Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1969), p. 34; H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3. Obadja und Jona (BKAT 14, 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977), pp. 14-15, 17 (note a to v. 7); P. Weimar, 'Obadja. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse', BN 27 (1985), p. 48 n. 40, who argue that the alternative punctuation yields a better structure. However, the Masoretic division provides an equally elegant structure. When v. 7a is taken together with the following v. 7ba, there are six cola (in three bicola), which all end with "J-. In every bicolon, one colon contains the verb or verbs, the other the subject of the verb (each time: Edom's unfaithful friends or allies). Cf. J. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse. Die Komposition Obadja 1-21, interpretiert auf der Basis textlinguistischer und semiotischer Konzeptionen (ATSAT, 28; St Ottilien, 1987), pp. 245-50, 313-14, who also points to the 'kunstvolle Aufbau' of the Masoretic version. Therefore, there seems to be no need to deviate from the Masoretic punctuation. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that v. 7a|3 ('your confederates have deceived you and prevailed against you') also appears in another text (Jer. 38.22) and there clearly constitutes a bicolon. 2. Namely in Edom. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 33. RSV: 'there is no understanding of it'.

22

12

13

14

15

16

17

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist and foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them. Do not gloat over the day of your brother1 in the day of his misfortune; do not rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their ruin; do not boast in the day of distress. Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of his calamity; do not gloat over his disaster in the day of his calamity; do not loot his goods in the day of his calamity. Do not stand at the parting of ways to cut off his fugitives; do not deliver up his survivors in the day of distress. For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deed2 shall return on your own head. For as you have drunk upon my holy mountain, all the nations shall drink continually;3 thay shall drink, and stagger, and shall be as though they had not been. But in Mount Zion there shall be those that escape, and it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions.4

1. Instead of the RSV translation 'you should not have gloated' (and the other cases of 'y°u should have' in vv. 12-14), a translation with a negative imperative was chosen (which seems to be the more natural rendering of the prohibitive imperative, Hin-'TKi etc.), as in the NEB and REB. Cf. below, Chapter 13, section 2. 2. -pen; RSV: 'deeds'. 3. 'Continually': following the BHS Masoretic Text (Ton); cf. NEB. RSV: 'round about', n'30, following other manuscripts. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 40-41. 4. The RSV translation 'their own possessions' is based upon the Masoretic text (QTBhiD). NEB and REB ('those that dispossessed them') follow other versions, which read Drrtfmo (0v hif. pt.); cf. e.g. L X X ; the Vulgate; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp.40, 41; R.J. Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers. A Commentary on the Book of Obadiah', in R.J. Coggins, S.P. Re'emi, Israel among the Nations. A Commentary on the Books ofNahum and Obadiah, and Esther (ITC; Grand Rapids & Edinburgh), p. 93; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 287;

1. Obadiah and Edom

23

18

The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble; they shall burn them and consume them, and there shall be no survivor to the house of Esau; for the LORD has spoken. 19 They shall possess the Negeb, Mount Esau, and the Shephelah, the land of the Philistines; they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria and Benjamin, Gilead.1

HAL s.v. BHS. Since the text itself provides no reason for this emendation, others have defended the MT reading; cf. e.g. Watts, Obadiah, p. 60; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 64 n. 91; Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 194 with n. 300. Although the word BJTO is not common (it occurs twice), the feminine variant nehin is well known. Significant is the occurrence of ntf-iin in Ezek. 26.2, 3, 5; there, it is used in the same context as here; land taken from the Israelites by the neighbouring nations will be returned (cf. Ezek. 36.8-12). For connections between Ezek. 35-36 and the book of Obadiah cf. below, Chapter 4, section 5. 1. At first sight, it is unclear in this verse whether 'the Negeb' and 'the Shephelah' are the subjects or the objects of the verb. They are not preceded by n« (nota ace.). The RSV reads them as subjects: Those of the Negeb shall possess Mount Esau, and those of the Shephelah the land of the Philistines'; cf. e.g. LXX, the Vulgate; G.C. Aalders, Obadja en Jona (COT; Kampen, 1958), p. 50; Watts, Obadiah, p. 62; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 21. NEB and REB read them as objects; cf. e.g. K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (KHAT, 13; Tubingen, 1904), p. 239; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 40-41; G. Fohrer, 'Die Spriiche Obadjas', in Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (1966-1972) (BZAW, 153; Berlin & New York, 1981), p. 78; Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 67 n. 99, 74, 90. A difficulty with the latter translation (the one chosen here) is that 'Mount Esau' and 'the Philistines' are preceded by DN (nota ace.), so there seems to be a difference with the other terms. However, this problem disappears when 'Mount Esau' and 'the Philistines' are read as appositions to 'the Negeb' and 'the Shephela' respectively; cf. J.A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh, 3rd edn, 1948), p. 44; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 67; Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 97. Wehrle (Prophetie und Textanalyse) states that constructions in which there is no complete concord between a word and its apposition, are 'keine singularen Erscheinungen im Hebraischen'. The context seems to support the chosen rendering. For example, when the phrase 'they shall possess' ("Ofi) is used for the second time in this verse (v. 19ap), there is also no explicit subject. Verse 19 can be read as the continuation of v. 17, 'and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions'. We find there the same 10-n as in v. 19; probably, 'the house of Jacob' together with 'the house of Joseph' (v. 18) is the implicit subject of v. 19; cf. e.g. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 239; Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, p. 44; Wolff,

24

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

20 The exiles of this army1 of the people of Israel shall possess Phoenicia ('the Canaanites')2 as far as Zarephath;

Dodekapropheton 3, p. 41. Further, in v. 20 'the Negeb' is clearly the object of the verb 0T: 'and the exiles of Jerusalem... shall possess (uzh') the cities of the Negeb'. Another argument for the proposed rendering is provided by Wehrle's semantic analysis of v. 19. 'Es ist bemerkenswert, dass die Lexeme 333 und rr?BBJ in keinem Text die Stelle von Subjekten einnehemen, sondern sie sind durchweg als Objekte mil oder ohne Proposition konstruiert'—Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 294; cf. p. 97 n. 153. The last part of v. 19 (19b; in our translation: 'and Benjamin, Gilead') has the same construction and the same difficulty as v. 19a. 'Gilead' is preceded by by the particle nn (nota ace.), 'Benjamin' is not. The RSV translates: 'and Benjamin shall possess Gilead'. In view of the analogy with v. 19a, we may conclude that 'Benjamin' is the object (note that the verb is not repeated in v. 19b) and 'Gilead' is an apposition; cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 67; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 297-98. According to Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 239; Wolff (1977a), p. 41; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 67, the three appositions in v. 19 are secondary. As regards content, there is a difficulty with the RSV translation: the subjects (the Negeb, the Shephelah and Benjamin) all belong to the Southern Kingdom, but the territories they will possess belong (apart from 'Mount Esau' and 'the land of the Philistines') to the land of the bygone Northern Kingdom: 'the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria', and 'Gilead'. Why would the returning southern exiles take possession of these regions? In my view, it is more likely that both the three southern regions (Negeb, Shephelah, Benjamin) and the three northern ones (Ephraim, Samaria, Gilead) are taken possession of: presumably, the former by the southern exiles, 'the house of Jacob', and the latter by the northern exiles, 'the house of Joseph' (cf. v. 20); cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 41. The two lands, both symbolized in three names, will both be possessed again by their former inhabitatns. The appositions 'Mount Esau' and 'the land of the Philistines' show that in the days of the author of Obad. 19 Edom and the Philistines had become associated with former Judaean regions. Edom's interest in southern Judaean land is well known from both scriptural and archaeological evidence; cf. below, Chapter 12, section 5, and Chapter 13, section 2. 2 Chron. 28.18 records a successful Philistine attempt to conquer parts of the Shephelah (and the Negeb!). (I am grateful to Drs Hanna Blok for discussing these matters with me). 1. Following the MT (taking 'jnn to derive from "rn); RSV: 'in Halah'. Several translations and emendations have been proposed; cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 41-42; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 302 ('Die Schwierigkeiten des Ausdrucks... sind unbestritten, die angebotenen Losungsmoglichkeiten dementsprechend vielfaltig'). 2. There is little doubt that with the 'Canaanites' (D'3M3) the land of Phoenicia is meant; this is supported by the use of the Phoenician city name 'Zarephath' (cf. 1 Kgs 17.9-10); cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 48.

1. Obadiah and Edom

25

and the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the Negeb. 21 Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion1 to judge2 Mount Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.

3. Structure and Theme; Edom's Role The 21 verses of the book of Obadiah can be divided into three parts which are different as regards content.3 The first part of the book 1. BHS and several commentators have proposed emending the MTbjbhjbh ('saviors', as in the RSV) to D'tfeJu (nif. pt.; 'those who are saved'; cf. LXX oeowuevov), or to read it as the hof. pt.—cf. W. Rudolph, 'Obadja', ZAW 49 (1931), pp. 223, 226; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 21-22; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 40, 42; Fohrer, 'Die Spriiche Obadjas', p. 79; Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 307 with n. 634; in their view, this term is to be connected with the following )VX ~ra; cf. NEB: Those who find safety on Mount Zion'. However, the context seems to support the MT. The verb BB0, 'to judge', used in v. 2lap, designates a typical activity of a 'savior'; cf. e.g. Judg. 3.9-10 (conversely, a 'judge', oatf, 'saves', sfr hif.; cf. Judg. 2.16-18); cf. Watts, Obadiah, p. 65 (The two ideas are very close'). A ireiia we find in Judg. 3.9, 15; Isa. 19.20; 2 Kgs 13.5 (cf. Judg. 12.3; 1 Sam. 11.3); in plural in Neh. 9.27. God is 'savior' in Isa. 43.11; 45.15, 21; 63.8; Hos. 13.4. The two places where sti* nif. pt. is used (Ps. 33.16 and Zech. 9.9) are of little relevance, whereas s& hof. pt. (and the hof. at large) is unknown in the Old Testament. If |V3* TQ is not read with the verb (as in the RSV), it is unclear whereto the saviors or the save 'go up' (n"7J>). Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 48-49 states that this verb refers to the summons to war in v. 1, with the argument that rfos 'das Wort (ist), das fur das Anriicken der Truppen in den Aufforderungen zum Kampf am haufigsten verwendet wird'. This does not convince, firstly because v. 21, unlike v. 1, does not speak of war, secondly because v. 1 does not use the word r6u! Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 307 n. 636 asserts that Tibs is not followed by 3 when it relates to ascending the Zion. This is not correct: cf. Ps. 24.3. The idea that Mount Zion is the place where Mount Esau will be judged is not strange—contra Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, pp. 239-40; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 71. In this way, the opposition of the two 'Mounts' is emphasized for the last time in the book of Obadiah; cf. on this opposition below, section 3. Cf. for the Zion as a place of judgment Isa. 2.4; Mic.4.3. 2. RSV: 'to rule'. In the context of the book of Obadiah, 'to rule' may be too positive a translation of Daeft; cf. below in section 3 on the interpretation of v. 21. Cf. previous note on the connection between 'saviors' and 'to judge'. 3. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 74 (discussion of other proposed divisions: Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 74 n. 224).

26

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

(vv. 1-7) is about Edom's relation with YHWH. Edom exhibits an intolerable arrogance towards YHWH, for which it will be punished. The second part (vv. 8-15) is about the reproachable attitude of Edom on the day of Israel's destruction. The third part (vv. 16-21) describes Israel's subsequent restoration, on the occasion of which Edom will be annihilated. In the first part of the book (to a large extent consisting of parallels with Jer. 49.7-22), Israel is not mentioned. In the second part, Edom is Israel's enemy, or rather an ally to Israel's enemy. When 'foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them' (v. 11). At the end of part II, Edom's role as the representative of the nations becomes apparent (v. 15). The retribution for the inimical behaviour of the Edomites towards Israel takes place on 'the day of YHWH upon all the nations' (v. 15a). Together with Edom, all nations will be judged. Likewise, the first verse of part III stresses that all nations will have to 'drink', as had Israel before (v. 16). In part HI Edom serves as the representative of the nations, Israel's particular opponent among the nations. While starting with the defeat of the nations in general at the time of Israel's restoration (vv. 16-17), the oracle continues with the opposition Israel-Edom: 'the house of Jacob' (together with 'the house of Joseph') will exterminate 'the house of Esau', as completely as fire burns stubble (v. 18). According to vv. 19-21, the Israelites will recover their former territories in every direction, but the first territory named is 'the Negeb, Mount Esau' (v. 19). Moreover, these verses end with the opposition 'Mount Esau'—'Mount Zion' (v. 21). When the day of YHWH upon all the nations arrives, 'Mount Zion' 'shall be holy' (v. 17), and 'Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion to judge Mount Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S' (v. 21). In the opposition between the two 'houses' (v. 18) and the two 'mounts' (vv. 19, 21; see also vv. 16-17) we find not just the two brother peoples (v. 10) Israel and Edom acting over against each other, but Israel and (the representative of) the nations. Part II concentrates on Edom's behaviour towards Israel; part III describes Israel's revenge. As is expressed in v. 15, the Edomites will be hit in the same way as they hit Israel ('As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head'). Edom's crimes are related in vv. 11-14. This section is introduced by vv. 810, which state that Edom 'shall be cut off for ever' as retribution for

1. Obadiah and Edom

27

its 'violence' against its brother (v. 10; cf. v. 9). The vv. 16-18 take up and reverse the introduction in vv. 8-10. To 'Mount Esau' (vv. 8, 9), which will be destroyed, 'Mount Zion' is opposed: it will be a safe place (v. 17). The both 'mounts' are mentioned together in v. 21. The names Jacob and Esau were introduced in vv. 8-10; in vv. 17, 18 they recur. Esau's violence against Jacob (v. 10) is returned by Jacob and Joseph (v. 18). These correspondences between II and III make it clear that the parts of the book should not be read as three completely freestanding sections. This is corroborated by a comparison of the bordering verses, which appear to connect just as much as divide the three parts. Part I ends with a sentence on the absence of 'understanding' in Edom; the Edomites do not even realize that their end is near (v. 7). The first verse of II states that Edom's 'wise men' and its 'understanding' will be destroyed by YHWH (v. 8). Whereas the reference to Edom's wisdom in v. 7 relates to the preceding verses,1 the reference in v. 8 points to the following part. The 'day' on which YHWH destroys Edom's wisdom (v. 8)—the same as 'the day of YHWH upon all the nations' (v. 15)—is the retaliation for the 'day' of Israel's doom (ten times in vv. 11-14), on which Edom betrayed its brother (cf. v. 10: 'For the violence done to your brother Jacob...') As for vv. 15 (II) and 16 (III): both verses use the principle of retaliation, as the repetitions of 'do' (ntotf) in v. 15b and of 'drink' (nntf) in v. 16 show. Both vv. 15b and 16 begin with an explanatory conjunctive particle 'for' ('3) and both contain a comparison with 'as' (•itfio).2 Whereas 'As you have done, it shall be done to you...' (v. 15) concludes the reflection on Edom's behaviour in part II, v. 16 'For as you have drunk upon my holy mountain, all the nations shall drink continually' starts the description of the future fate of Israel and the nations in part III. The element 'my holy mountain' returns as 'Mount Zion' in vv. 17, 21.3 The present order in vv. 15-16 is rather awkward; it indicates that this part of the book of Obadiah was written by more than one author. Verse 15b concludes the list of Edom's crimes in vv. 11-14 1. It can be read as an utterance of the treacherous alies. Furthermore, it is in accordance (as regards content) with v. 3: 'The pride of your heart has deceived you'. 2. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 86, 185, 350. 3. 'Mount Zion' does not occur in Obadiah outside part III.

28

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

and therefore constitutes a link to the preceding verses, but v. 15a, with its mention of 'the nations', seems to be connected with v. 16. However, there seems to be no reason to emend this text and to change the order of vv. 15a and 15b (as has often been proposed).1 The present order may well be intentional.2 Some scholars have observed that v. 15 as it stands serves as a bridge between parts n and III.3 At the end of part II, the prophecy includes the nations in general in the judgment upon Edom. The 'day' of Edom's destruction (v. 8) appears to be the same as 'the day of YHWH upon all the nations' (v. 15). Part III continues this theme: both the nations and Edom are punished. Israel's land will be restored; this will be at the expense of several nations, one of which is Edom. A remarkable feature of the book of Obadiah is the repetition of particles and other elements, which gives the text a distinctive look. In part I (vv. 4-6), there are five sentences beginning with the particle DR (rendered 'though' or 'if'), around which other particles have been grouped. 4 The particle Ki^n ('not...?'), introducing a rhetorical question, which is used twice in v. 5, returns as the first word of part II (v. 8). The next words in part II are Kinn m»3, 'on that day' (v. 8). The word nv, 'day', is used ten times in vv. 11-14, always in the form DV3, 'on the day that...' (status constructus). The last verse of II (v. 15) speaks of 'the day of the LORD'. All the eight sentences in vv. 12-14 are prohibitive sentences, beginning with bto or *?K ('do not...') plus imperfectum. The most characteristic structural feature of part III is a series of 1. Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', p. 89: 'Regarding v. 15, there is wide agreement that the two parts of this text are now in the wrong order'. 2. Contra Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 5, 19 (p. 19: 'Die Umstellung erklart sich nur im Rahmen fehlerhafter schriftlicher Uberlieferung'); Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', pp. 89-90 ('purely accidental', 'a copyist's error'). 3. Cf. e.g. D. A. Schneider, The Unity of the Book of the Twelve' (dissertation, Yale University, 1979), p. 96; B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London, 2nd edn, 1983), pp. 414-15; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 350 (cf. n. 16 contra Wolff); R.B. Robinson, 'Levels of Naturalization in Obadiah', JSOT 40 (1988), pp. 93-94 (p. 94: 'Placing the announcement of the eschatological day of the Lord before the last word in the particular accusation against Esau draws the events described in the bill of particulars against Edom into the eschatological period, yet without destroying their concreteness'; v. 15 'draws what critics would characterize as the two distinct sections of the vision together'). 4. Cf. below, Chapter 4, section 2.4.

1. Obadiah and Edom

29

eleven perfecta consecutiva in vv. 17-21. Other striking repetitions are rrn, 'the house of...', in vv. 17-18 (five times), and the particle (nota accusativi) in v. 19 (five times). The book of Obadiah contains several references to Edom's 'brotherhood'. The prophecy accuses Edom of crimes against 'your brother Jacob' (v. 10) or simply 'your brother' (v. 12). Israel is 'Jacob' (v. 10) or 'the house of Jacob'(vv. 17, 18). Accordingly, Edom is 'Esau' (v. 6) and 'the house of Esau' (v. 18). The most common designation of Edom in Obadiah is 'Mount Esau' (vv. 8, 9, 19, 21). 'Mount Zion' occurs in vv. 17, 21 (cf. v. 16 'my holy mountain'). Only a few times, the book uses names for Edom that do not refer to the brotherhood: 'Edom' (vv. 1, 8) and Teman' (v. 9). Edom is the 'brother' of the Southern Kingdom; at least, 'the violence done to your brother Jacob' (v. 10) seems only to concern crimes against 'Judah' (v. 12) and 'Jerusalem' (v. 11). In v. 18, however, 'the house of Jacob' is in the company of 'the house of Joseph', which phrase clearly signifies the former Northern Kingdom.1 Probably, 'the exiles...of the people of Israel' and 'the exiles of Jerusalem' (v. 20) represent the same two groups (in reversed order).2 Obadiah 19-21 Positive for Edom? U. Kellermann has argued that the last verses of Obadiah (vv. 19-21) display a relatively positive attitude towards Edom (compared to the rest of the book).3 He contends that the phrase 'to judge Mount Esau' (v. 21) is a moderate one: the verb D32J (in our translation: 'to judge'), 4 rendered by Kellermann 'beherrschen', only implies that Edom (as a nation) will become part of the restored Israel. Therefore, this verse can even be regarded as a promise! In his opinion, the verb eh', 'to possess' (the returning exiles shall 'possess' 'Mount Esau') in v. 19 has the same sense. Both here and in Amos 9.12, which is similar to Obad. 19-21, CJT, 'to possess', indicates not the annihilation of the nations concerned, but 'die Angliederung von Bevolkeringsteilen'.5 1. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 45. Northern Israel is among the territories to be recaptured: 'they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria' (v. 19). Cf. above, section 2, the note to the translation of v. 19. 2. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 47-48. 3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 24-28. 4. RSV: 'to rule'. 5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 26, 27, 52. Cf. idem, 'Der Amosschluss

30

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

The Edomites will be allowed to take part in Israel's restoration. H.W. Wolff quotes Kellermann in agreement.1 On the term he says: 'Es meint keinenfalls Unterdruckung oder gar restloser Vernichtung, wie es V. 18b ansagt, sondern allenfalls eine Beherrschung, die auch Unrecht suhnt, wenn nicht ein Einbeziehen in rettender Ordnung'. 2 In my view, however, Kellermann's (and Wolff's) interpretation should be rejected. Admittedly, words from the root oatf have different meanings in the prophetic literature, both favourable and unfavourable for the ones who are its object (although the unfavourable meaning is by far the most frequent).3 But there are no indications in the text that the favourable one is to be chosen here. On the contrary, the context is unequivocally negative for Edom. Kellermann regards vv. 19-21 as a modifying 'Nachtrag', but a more simple explanation seems to be an interpretation of the verb OB0 in its most usual meaning. As for Kellermann's argument that v. 21 and v. 19 must have a similar meaning:4 that is correct, but his interpretation of the verb eh', 'to possess', as positive for the ones 'possessed', does not convince. Certainly, 'Mount Esau' and the land of other neighbouring nations will be integrated in the new kingdom, but there is no reason to suppose that the nations concerned will live to tell it (cf. vv. 16-18). Kellermann speaks of the 'eigenartige Gebrauch von Eh' in Zusammenhang mit Volkerbezeichnungen statt Territorien' in Amos 9.12 and Obad. 19-21 (which would justify his uncommon interpretation),5 but this combination is less unusual than he considers it to be; moreover, in such cases Eh' has a meaning which is absolutely not positive for the objects.6 als Stimme deuteronomistischer Heilschoffnung', EvT29 (1969), p. 181 on Amos 9.12 as 'ein besonnenes, positives Wort fur Edom'. 1. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 49. 2. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 49; cf. his translation, p. 40. H. Niehr, Herrschen und Richten. Die Wurzel spt im Alien Orient und im Alten Testament (FZB, 54; Wurzburg, 1986), p. 113 follows Wolff (see his nn. 149, 150). 3. G. Liedke, 'oatf', THAT, p. 1008: as Terminus der eschatologischen Heilsund Gerichtsankiindigung' it is found both as 'Inhalt der Ankiindigung rettender Ordnung' and as 'Inhalt der Ankiindigung ausschliessenden und vernichtenden Gerichts'. Occurrences of the latter outnumber occurrences of the former. 4. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 25 n. 47. 5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 52. 6. E.g. in H.H. Schmid, 'tf-r', THAT, pp. 779-80, instances of this combination have been collected; eh' then means: 'vertreiben, aus dem Besitz verdrangen'.

1. Obadiah and Edom

31

It can be concluded that Kellermann's view is not accurate, and that the closing section of the book of Obadiah (like Amos 9.12) does not contain a positive word for Edom. It expects Judah's restoration, but not the Edomites' 'Integration in das neuentstehende Reich auf dem Zion'.1

1.

Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 25.

Chapter 2 OBADIAH AS A PART OF THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE 1. Introduction Recently, some studies have appeared in which it is emphasized that the Book of the Twelve is not a more or less coincidental collection of smaller prophetic books without much coherence. In his dissertation, D.A. Schneider1 examines the origin history of the Book of the Twelve. At first, he concludes, the book contained only three prophetic books (Hosea, Amos, Micah). In several times, other prophetic books (or collections of them) were added, not at random but each time with a deliberate purpose and at a well-considered place in the collection.2 Although the motives for expanding the collection differed each time, and therefore no 'overarching systematic principle'3 can be found for the Book of the Twelve as a whole, the way the book originated guarantees a certain unity. Schneider infers from this result 'that Biblical interpreters need to pay more attention to the larger context, not just to the individual book of each prophet'.4 P. Weimar has studied the redaction history of Amos 9 and Obadiah.5 Like Schneider, he too contends that the collectors of the Minor Prophets intended to make a coherent book out of their collection. In 1. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve'. 2. In Schneider's view, Obadiah belongs to the third phase in the origin history of the Book of the Twelve. In the first phase, Hosea, Amos and Micah were assembled. The next phase added Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah to the collection. In the third period, Joel, Obadiah and Jonah were subsequently added. Afterwards, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi completed the Book of the Twelve. 3. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 242. 4. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 243. 5. Weimar, 'Der Schluss des Amos-Buches. Bin Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Amos-Buches', BN 16 (1981), pp. 60-100, on Amos 9; 'Obadja. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse', BN 27 (1985), pp. 35-99, on Obadiah.

2. Obadiah as a Part of the Book of the Twelve

33

his view, an early version of Obadiah was added to a collection of five Minor Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum). The last stages in the redaction history of Obadiah (and Amos) were the work of the redactors of the Book of the Twelve (or of some previous version). They added new texts to, among others, the books of Amos and Obadiah, in order to connect these books.1 A common redaction was responsible for the final form of the last chapter of Amos (i.e. ch. 9) and of the text following it, the book of Obadiah. Whereas Schneider's and Weimar's studies are essentially diachronically directed, P.R. House's book The Unity of the Twelve2 takes a synchronic approach. It illustrates that the Twelve can very well be read as one book, one literary work. It is possible to indicate in the Twelve, as House shows, the book's genre, structure, plot, characters, and point of view. In this, it does not differ from other literary works. In the present chapter, a (synchronic) survey will be given of the connections Obadiah appears to have with Joel (section 2) and Amos (section 3), and with both of them (section 4). The diachronic implications of these links will be considered in Chapters 5 and 6. 2. Joel There is a great similarity in subject matter between Obadiah and Joel, particularly between Obad. 10-21 and Joel 4. As with Obad. 16, Joel speaks of 'a day of YHWH', which is 'near' (Joel 4.14). On this day, as in Obadiah, 'the nations' in general are judged (Joel 4.2, 9; cf. 4.11, 12, the nations 'round about'). Nevertheless, just as in Obadiah, one group in particular is called to account: 'Tyre and Sidon, and all the regions of Philistia' (Joel 4.4-8). Both Obadiah and Joel 4 contain a complaint against the neighbouring nations because of their behaviour at the time of Judah's defeat (Obad. 10-14; Joel 4.2b-8);3 both 1. Weimar 'Obadja', pp. 88-89, 94-95, 95-99; cf. 'Der Schluss des AmosBuches', p. 94. 2. P.R. House, The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup, 97, BLS 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). 3. One of the accusations within Joel 4.4-8 against the incriminated nations is that they 'have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried my rich treasures into your temples' (v. 5). Likewise, in Obad. 13 the Edomites are accused of looting the defeated nation.

34

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

proclaim the execution of retribution for this (Obad. 10, 15b; Joel 4.1-2a, 4, 7). The idea that the nations profiting from Israel's misery will suffer what they have made Israel suffer, occurs in both Joel and Obadiah.1 In addition to the similarity in subject matter, there are many textual affinities between the two books.2 Most of them are found in Obad. 15-18. A detailed comparison of this text with its parallels in Joel will be given below, in Chapter 5. One striking example outside w. 15-18 is Obad. 11: on the day of the fall of Jerusalem, the enemies 'cast lots' Crm TT) for the city. The same expression is found in Joel 4.3, where it occurs in a similar context as in Obadiah. It is used in only one other text (Nah. 3.10), where it does not relate to Israel's fate but to Assur's.3 One verse in Joel in particular requires our attention: 4.19, in which Edom is mentioned. Egypt shall become a desolation (rotf) and Edom a desolate wilderness (noDtf ino), for the violence done to the people of Judah because they have shed innocent blood in their land (4.19). As in many of the other oracles against Edom, it is announced that Edom's land will become 'desolate'. In contrast to these oracles, Edom

1. Joel 4.6 accuses the Philistines and Phoenicians of selling Judaeans to the Greeks (cf. Obad. 14). According to 4.8, the same fate will befall themselves. Obadiah explicitly states: 'As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deed shall return on your own head' (v. 15; cf. v. 16 and Joel 4.4, 7). 2. See S. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ, 16; Frankfurt am Main, 1988), pp. 295-333 for an elaborate description of the parallels. 3. In my view, the similarity Bergler (Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 313-15) observes between Obad. 1 // Jer. 49.14 and Joel 4.9, 11-12 is not significant. The 'summons to war' found in these verses occurs in many other places (cf. R. Bach, Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch [WMANT, 9; Neukirchen, 1962], pp. 51-61), some of which show more similarity with Joel 4.9, 11-12; see e.g. Jer. 6.4-5; 51.27. As will be argued in Chapter 4, Jeremiah seems to have been a source for Obadiah, and it may have been so for Joel too. Bergler's view (p. 314) that the summons to war in Obad. 1 originally was directed against Jerusalem (cf. Joel) does not convince; the striking 'against her' (rr^iO can be explained as derived from Jer. 6.4-5—cf. below, Chapter 4, on Obad. 1 // Jer. 49.14. Furthermore, his view depends on an unnecessary and unlikely emendation in Obad. 16.

2. Obadiah as a Part of the Book of the Twelve

35

is accompanied by another nation, Egypt.1 Note that Edom's future fate is twice as bad as Egypt's! The two nations are punished for their behaviour towards Judah. It is unclear to which event Egypt's 'violence' refers. As for Edom, similar accusations as in Joel 4.19 are found in other oracles against this nation. In Ezek. 35.6 Edom is accused of shedding Israelite 'blood' (cf. Obad. 14). The phrase 'for the violence' (onnn) is also used in Obad. 10. There too it refers to Edomite actions against Judah.2 Joel 4.19, the only verse in the book of Joel in which Edom is mentioned, is part of the section concluding the book, Joel 4.18-21. This section announces what will happen in the future, 'in that day' (»inn DV3, v. 18). Egypt and Edom become a 'desolation', i.e. an uninhabited land, one which is also unfit to be inhabited: a completely dry land, where no human life is possible. Judah's future is the opposite: 'the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the streambed of Judah shall flow with water' (v. 18). Moreover, 'Judah shall be inhabited for ever, and Jerusalem to all generations' (v. 20). The vital water supply will be assured forever by the presence of a 'fountain' in the temple (v. 18). The meaning of the first part of v. 21 is obscure.3 Literally, it reads: 'I will hold innocent their blood—I have not held innocent' (cf. note in RSV)—TPpMi1? Dm »n»p3i. The verb is related to the 'innocent' (K'p]) in v. 19, so the 'blood' held innocent in v. 21 may be thought to refer to the 'innocent blood' shed in v. 19. In that case, v. 21 must be a statement on Judah: no longer will Judah be punished, no more innocent blood will be shed. 'Blood' in v. 21 must then be taken to mean 'blood guilt'. The translation would be 'I will not let go unpunished their blood guilt, which I [, up till now,] have not let go unpunished'. Others regard v. 21 a as another denunciation of the nations Egypt and Edom. 'Their blood guilt' does not refer to Judah and Jerusalem in the preceding verse, but to v. 19. The sentence can be interpreted as a question plus an answer: 'Will I let their blood guilt go unpunished? I will not let it go unpunished'.4 At first sight 1. Cf. Chapter 5, section 2, for a discussion of the joint occurrence of Edom and Egypt in Joel 4.19. 2. Cf. discussion in Chapter 5, section 2. 3. Cf. the short review of proposed solutions in W.S. Prinsloo, The Theology of the Book of Joel (BZAW, 163; Berlin and New York, 1985), pp. 113-14. 4. Cf. e.g. W. Van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw. De opbouw van

36

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

this is quite an attractive solution, the more so because the same question plus answer are found in Jer. 49.12, there also referring to Edom.1 However, in my opinion it should be rejected. The verb in the 'answer' part of the sentence is a perfectum, so most probably we find here a statement about the past.2 In Joel 4.18-21, Judah's future is highlighted, a future that is the positive counterpart of the future of its enemies, 'Egypt' and 'Edom'.3 The same topic was the subject of 4.1-17. There, YHWH will gather and judge the enemy nations 'in those days and at that time (cf. v. 18), when I restore Judah and Jerusalem' (v. 1; cf. v. 20). The two sections 4.1-17 and 4.18-21 end in the same way: with the declaration that YHWH 'dwells in Zion' (vv. 18 and 21).4 In a certain sense, vv. 18-21 repeat vv. 1-17. The difference is that the latter section is directed against the nations in general, while the former deals with two typical enemy nations. 3. Amos The book preceding Obadiah in the Twelve is Amos. There are some striking similarities between the two. The book of Amos opens with a series of oracles against the nations. One of them is directed against Edom (Amos 1.11-12). As in Obadiah, Edom is condemned because of its violence against its 'brother' Israel. The last chapter of Amos— the one directly preceding the book of Obadiah—shows a great deal of correspondence with Obadiah. In this section we shall have a closer look at Amos 1.11-12 and Amos 9. Amos 1.11-12 Thus says the LORD: Tor three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;

het boek Joel' (dissertation, Kampen, 1989), pp. 244-48. 1. Cf. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 312-13. 2. But cf. the LXX interpretation, which seems to point to a Hebrew imperfection; cf. note in BHS. 3. Cf. H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), p. 101. 4. Cf. e.g. Prinsloo, Book of Joel, p. 117; Van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', p. 248.

2. Obadiah as a Part of the Book of the Twelve

37

because he pursued his brother with the sword, and cast off all pity, and his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever. So I will send a fire upon Teman, and it shall devour the strongholds of Bozrah' (1.11-12).

YHWH punishes Edom with fire for its persistent enmity against its 'brother'. 'Perpetually' and 'for ever' this brother could be victimized by Edom's 'anger' and 'wrath'. This non-specified brother can be no other than Israel.1 This prophecy is part of a series of seven short oracles against Israel's neighbouring nations (1.3-2.5), among which we find, at the end, Judah (2.4-5). The others are directed against Damascus (1.3-5), the Philistines (1.6-8), Tyre (1.9-10), Ammon (1.13-15), and Moab (2.1-3). The series is followed by one longer oracle, which is directed against Israel itself. This is in agreement with the first verse of the book: Amos prophesies against Israel (1.1). The construction 'I will send a fire upon...and it shall devour...' also occurs in the other short oracles. Instead of 'Teman' and 'the strongholds of Bozrah', respectively, the other oracles read: 'the house of Hazael' and 'the strongholds of Ben-hadad' (1.4), 'the wall of Gaza' and 'her strongholds' (1.7), 'the wall of Tyre' and 'her strongholds' (1.10), 'the wall of Rabbah' and 'her strongholds' (1.14), 'Moab' and 'the strongholds of Kerioth' (2.1), and 'Judah' and 'the strongholds of Jerusalem' (2.5). It is only absent in the last oracle, the longer oracle against Israel. The construction with the two sentences 'For three transgressions... and for four' is present in all of the oracles (1.3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2.1, 4, 6). In all oracles, subsequently, the nature of the 'transgression' is disclosed in a third sentence (cf. the same verses). These sentences begin with *?i>, 'because'. The oracles are connected with each other, as S.M. Paul has shown, in 'a concatenous literary pattern': each oracle uses one element from the preceding one.2 R. Gordis has demonstrated that 'a regular

1. Cf. J. Barton, Amos's Oracles against the Nations. A Study of Amos 1.3-2.5 (SOTSMS, 6; Cambridge, 1980), p. 21. 2. S.M. Paul, 'Amos 1:3—2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern', JBL 90, 1971), pp. 397-403.

38

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

pattern' can also be detected in the presence or absence of a closing formula ('says [1DK] YHWH').1 Edom occurs in some of the other oracles as well; strikingly, both as victim and as co-offender. Edom is the victim in the oracle against Moab. Moab 'burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom' (2.1). Edom is implicated in the Philistines' and Tyre's crimes: those nations 'carried into exile a whole people to deliver them up to Edom' (1.6; cf. 1.9). It should be noted that the oracles against the Philistines and Tyre directly precede the oracle against Edom. This suggests that we should read these three oracles, in all of which Edom plays a role, together. Then, the exiles in 1.6, 9 (like the 'pursued brother' in 1.11) can be identified as Israelites. In 1.6, 9 too Edom is guilty of crimes against its brother nation.2 In this connection, Tyre is blamed for not remembering the 'covenant of brotherhood' (1.9). It is a moot point whether this refers to the brotherhood of Israel and Edom3 or to a covenant between Israel and Tyre.4 1. R. Gordis, 'Edom, Israel and Amos—An Unrecognized Source for Edomite History', in A.I. Katsh and L. Nemoy (eds.), Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (1909-1979) (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 122. 2. Gordis, 'Edom, Israel and Amos', pp. 123-32 proposes another interpretation. In his view, in all three texts Edom is the victim; the *? in DllR1? is a lamed accusativus. He rejects the usual interpretation for two reasons: 1. the facts are not in accordance with the historical situation at the time of the prophet Amos; 2. it is strange that the identity of the exiles is not named, while the ('relatively unimportant') identity of the slave traders is named. In his opinion, the texts refer to the situation after Edom's crushing defeat against Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 14.7). The neighbouring nations seized the opportunity to profit from Edom's defeat. Consequently, Amos 1.11-12 requires another interpreation; Gordis believes that here domestic troubles in Edom are described, which, as he argues, must have been caused by the defeat against Judah. In my view, however, this reasoning lacks conviction. His first objection against the usual interpretation is not compelling, since Amos 1.11-12 need not necessarily be dated to the time of the prophet Amos. As for his second objection, it may be considered that, apparently, the identity of the cooffender in these texts was more important for the author, and, besides, that in a prophetic text non-specified exiles most probably are Israelite exiles. The rest of his thesis, notably the supposition of Amos 1.11-12 referring to a civil war in Edom after the defeat related in 2 Kgs 14.7, is too speculative to be plausible. 3. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, p. 194. 4. Cf. e.g. J. Priest, The Covenant of Brothers', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 402-405; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 42.

2. Obadiah as a Part of the Book of the Twelve

39

Amos 9 After all the doom announced to Israel in Amos, the book ends with words of hope and promise (9.11-15). In the introduction of this section, Edom is named. In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name. . . (9.11-12).

There is no more left of Edom than a 'remnant'. Apparently Edom too has experienced ruin. The phrase 'who are called by my [YHWH's] name' expresses that these nations are the possession of YHWH.1 The Israelites will possess the nations that are the possession of YHWH. What is meant is probably that Palestine, the land owned by YHWH, is at the moment the possession of Edom and other nations, but will 'in that day' once again be Israel's possession.2 The same idea was found in Obad. 17, 19-20; there, the nations to be conquered were Edom ('Mount Esau'), the Philistines and the Phoenicians ('the Canaanites'). In v. 11, the restoration of the old Davidic empire is implied. In vv. 13-15 some more details are given on the restoration. 'Days are coming' in which agriculture will flourish once again (v. 13). The ruined cities will be rebuilt and inhabited. The Israelites will never again be 'plucked up out of the land which I have given them' (v. 15). Not only the end of Amos 9, but also its beginning reminds one of Obadiah. Obad. 4-6 contains a series of five sentences with n». The same form is found in Amos 9.2-4 (and nowhere else in the Old Testament). Besides, the two passages have the same theme'. nothing/no one can be hidden from YHWH. 3 Therefore, it can be assumed that there is some literary connection between the two texts.

1. Cf. BOB, s.v. mp, nif. 2.d.4. 2. Cf. Ezek. 35-36, especially 35.10; 36.5 on Edom and 36.3, 4, 5 on 'the remnant of the nations'. 3. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 31; Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 89 n. 157, 94-95.

40

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist 4. Joel, Amos and Obadiah

The observed correspondence between Obadiah and the concluding sections of Joel and Amos, the two books preceding Obadiah, suggests a certain literary coherence in this part of the Twelve. We shall now highlight two issues: firstly, the resemblance between the accusations against the neighbouring nations in the three books; secondly, the similarities in the depiction of the future. Accusations The collection of oracles against the nations in Amos 1-2 is an exceptional one. In most of these collections, the accusation against the neighbouring nations is 'mythological' rather than 'cultural' (i.e. historical), as J.B. Geyer says. Unlike these collections, in which historical elements play only a very secondary role, Amos 1-2 exclusively mentions detailed historical accusations.1 In that context, it is striking that in Joel A—which is not a collection of oracles against the nations—we do find indictments against Israel's neighbours, and also historical allusions. Likewise, the central part of Obadiah is a full-scale depiction of Edom's crimes against Judah. While in Joel 4 the Phoenician cities Tyre and Sidon and the Philistines are addressed, and in Obadiah Edom, in Amos 1 all three groups are mentioned: vv. 6-8 are directed against the Philistines, vv. 9-10 against Tyre, and vv. 11-12 against Edom. Above, it was observed that Edom played a role in Amos's oracles against the Philistines and Tyre. The latter nations 'carried into exile a whole people to deliver them up to Edom', respectively 'delivered up a whole people to Edom'. It is interesting to see that they are accused of the same crime, and, moreover, that this crime does not differ very much from the one in the indictment against them in Joel 4. There, it is said that they 'have sold the people of Jerusalem to the Greeks, removing them far from from their own border' (v. 6). In short, both Joel 4 and Amos 1 associate the Philistines and the Phoenicians, and in 1. J.B. Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture in the Oracles against the Nations', VT 36 (1986), pp. 129-45. Only in Ezek. 25.1-26.6, a part of Ezekiel's collection of oracles against the nations, the same type as in Amos 1-2 is found. The composition of Ezek. 25-26 and Amos 1-2 may be connected in some way; cf. Chapter 4, section 5 (in the same section, the links between Ezek. 25-26, 35 and Obadiah will be examined).

2. Obadiah as a Part of the Book of the Twelve

41

both texts they are accused of the same crimes. A further relevant correspondence is that the verb 'to deliver up' ("UO hif.) is used in Obadiah as well, there with Edom as its subject: 'you should not have delivered up his survivors in the day of distress' (v. 14). In the prophetic books, the verb "00 hif. only occurs in the discussed verses (Amos 1.6, 9; Obad. 14) and in another verse in Amos (6.8). In Obad. 19-20 Philistines, Phoenicians and Edomites appear together as nations whose land the returning Israelites will possess.1 As for the indictment against Edom, it was observed that both Joel 4.19 and Obad. 10 use the phrase 'for the violence' (onriD) to designate Edom's crime, and that in Amos, like in Obadiah, Edom is regarded as Israel's 'brother' (riR). The latter fact is significant, because in the prophetic books Edom is only called a 'brother' in these two places and in one other text in the Book of the Twelve (Mai. 1.2-5).2 The Future The books of Joel, Amos and Obadiah conclude in the same way (Joel 4.9-21; Amos 9.11-15; Obad. 15a, 16-21). Their closing sections all expect Israel's restoration (Joel 4.16-21; Amos 9.11-15; Obad. 17-21), which will take place at the same time as the annihilation of the other nations (Joel 4.9-15, 19; Amos 9.12; Obad. 15a, 16, 18, 19-21). Among the nations, whose destruction is apparently necessary for Israel's salvation, particularly Israel's neigbours are important (Joel 4.11, 12, 19; Amos 9.12; Obad. 15a, 16, 18, 19-20).3 All three texts expressly mention Edom (Joel 4.19; Amos 9.12; Obad. 18, 19-21).4 In Obadiah the opposition Edom-Israel is the most central feature of the text, and in Joel the desolation Edom's and Egypt's lands will turn into (4.19) mirrors the prosperous situation of Israel's land (4.18, 20). Israel's glory and the other nations' ruin will be realized on a 1. Philistines and Edom are also associated in Ezek. 25 (in contrast to the collections of oracles against the nations in Isaiah and Jeremiah). This chapter consists of two sets of two mutually reflecting oracles; the oracles against the Edomites and the Philistines constitute the second set. Cf. previous notes on links between Ezek. 25-26 and Amos 1-2. 2. On Mai. 1.2-5 cf. below, Chapter 7, section 4. 3. Cf. previous section on the nations occurring in Obad. 19-20. 4. According to U. Kellermann, Amos 9.12 and Obad. 19-21 give a positive view on the relation between Israel and Edom ('Der Amosschluss', p. 181; Israel und Edom, pp. 24-28, 52, 53, 54). This hypothesis was discussed (and rejected) in Chapter 1, section 3.

42

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

certain future 'day': according to Joel (4.14) and Obadiah (15a) on the 'day of the LORD' (nvr DV), according to Amos 'in that day' 9.11; cf. 9.13: 'the days are coming...'). Whereas the closing section of Amos concentrates on Judah's fate, Joel and Obadiah devote quite a large part to the fate of the nations, at least, as far as that is related to Israel's future. Both Joel and Obadiah add that on the 'day' of judgment on the nations, Israel will be safe (Joel 4.16-17; Obad. 17), due to the presence of YHWH in Zion (Joel 4.17, 21; Obad. 17, cf. v. 21); the Zion will be a 'holy' place (Joel 4.17; Obad. 16, 17).1 Amos (9.12) and Obadiah (v. 17; cf. vv. 19-20) agree on the view that Israel will regain its possessions—land that is now the possession of other nations. Both in Joel 4.18a and in Amos 9.13, the future fertility of the land is described with the lines: 'the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow'2 (Joel: 'with milk'; Amos: 'all the hills').3 In addition to this verse at the end of Amos, the last part of Joel has a parallel with the first prophetic word in Amos: 'The LORD roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem' is found in both Amos 1.2 and Joel 4.16. 5. Conclusion We have found that Obadiah shares its special treatment of Edom with the preceding books in the Book of the Twelve. It is striking that while Edom is the representative of the nations in the last chapter of Amos, it is Israel's brother in Amos 1. Besides, we have detected several thematic and idiomatic links between Joel, Amos and Obadiah. These will be discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. We shall return to Obadiah's position in the Book of the Twelve in Chapter 7.

1. On textual affinities between Joel 4 and Obad. 15-21, cf. Chapter 5. 2. Joel: ~pn-, Amos: fln hitpal. 3. The idea of fertilizing water coming forth from the temple in the second half of Joel 4.18 is also found in Ezek. 47.1-12. Cf. Van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 239-41.

Chapter 3 EDOM AND THE NATIONS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE, EZEKIEL35.1-36.15

1. Introduction In Obadiah Edom appears as Israel's enemy, taking advantage of its downfall. At the same time, Edom represents the other nations, and particularly Israel's neighbours. All of them are destroyed by God, which event is considered to be the beginning of a new future for Israel. In this chapter, Ezek. 35.1-36.15 will be discussed. These chapters present Edom (called 'Mount Seir') in much the same way as Obadiah does. Besides, Ezekiel 35-36 has some striking idiomatic similarities with Obadiah. The links with Obadiah will be discussed in our next chapter.1 The present chapter concentrates on the Ezekiel texts. First, a synchronic analysis will be given (section 2). Next, the texts will be examined from a diachronic point of view (section 3). 2. Synchronic Analysis 1. Ezekiel 35 and Ezekiel 36.1-15 In the book of Ezekiel, the oracles against the nations are found together in chs. 25-32, the central part of the book. Edom is one of the nations that YHWH threatens to destroy (25.12-14). Once more in chs. 25-32, Edom is mentioned: in 32.29, Edom is in company with the great nations of the earth—in the underworld. In ch. 35, outside the collection of the oracles against the nations, we meet Edom as 'Mount Seir'. This chapter consists of four oracles (vv. 1-4, 5-9, 10-13, 14-15), all of which announce the devastation of Mount Seir. This land is turned into 'a desolation and a waste' (vv. 3, 1.

Chapter 4, section 5. 5.

44

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

1 [v.l.]; cf. vv. 4, 9, 14, 15). The fact that after chs. 25-32 the Edomites are once more the subject of oracles of doom is, just like their surprising reappearance in 32.29, an indication of their special role. The function of ch. 35 becomes more clear when it is read in its context: not the oracles against the nations (chs. 25-32), the second part of the book of Ezekiel, but the last part of the book (chs. 33-48). Compared to the first part (chs. 1-24), here the emphasis has shifted from Israel's doom to Israel's restoration. The destruction of Mount Seir is linked in some way with Israel's new future. There is a special connection between ch. 35 and 36.1-15. Taken together, they make up one prophetic 'word', introduced by 35.1: 'The word of the LORD came to me'. The unit ends in 36.15; the introductory formula from 35.1 appears again in 36.16. Both halves of 35.1-36.15 begin with YHWH's order to the 'son of man' to 'prophesy' (35.2; 36.1). Now, the subject of the second half of this unit is the restoration of life to Israel's 'mountains'. In the same way as ch. 35 is a prophecy of doom on 'Mount Seir' (35.2; cf. vv. 3, 7, 15), 36.1-15 is a prophecy of hope for the 'mountains of Israel' (36.1; cf. vv. 4, 8). The two halves are related to each other as regards contents and language. Both texts are prophecies about the relation between a nation (ch. 35) or the nations (ch. 36) and Israel after the destruction of the 'mountains of Israel' (cf. 35.12). 'Mount Seir' as well as the surrounding nations in general (among which only Edom is mentioned separately, 36.5) have declared their happiness about Israel's ruin and their wish to take possession of its country (35.10, 12, 14-15; 36.2-5). In ch. 35 YHWH puts an end to life on Mount Seir; it will be a desolation (vv. 3, 4, 7-9, 14-15). In ch. 36 the opposite happens to the mountains of Israel: YHWH will restore life unto them (vv. 8-12). As for the language, it is interesting to see that several words occur in both chapters.1 The most remarkable common feature is the recurrence of the 'mountains, hills, valleys, ravines' of 35.8 in 36.4, 6 (as 'mountains, hills, ravines, valleys'). In 35.8 the phrase is used for Mount Seir, which will be deprived of life, whilst in 36.4, 6 it is used for the mountains of Israel, which, having become a desolation, will once more be inhabited. The prophecy of the destruction of Seir is the prelude to the prophecy of Israel's return to its country. Edom and the other surrounding nations have laid claim to the deserted land, which, 1.

Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 144-47.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example

45

however, still belongs to YHWH (35.10). He will make his own people return to it, and put the nations to shame. In ch. 35 Mount Seir plays the same role as the nations in general do in ch. 36. There is one difference: in ch. 35 not only is the attitude after Israel's fall a subject of reproach, but also the attitude 'at the time of their [= Israel's] calamity' (see 35.5-6). For an accurate appreciation of Edom's role in 35.1-36.15, it is necessary to have a closer look at the background of this text in the book. We shall consider three topics: (1) the connection this text has with the prophecy against the 'mountains of Israel' in ch. 6; (2) the connection with the oracles against the nations in chs. 25-32; (3) the opposition between 'Israel' and 'the nations' in the book of Ezekiel and the position of 35.1-36.15 in the book. 2. Ezekiel 35-36 and Ezekiel 6 Ezekiel 6 has the same introduction as 35.1-36.15. The word of the LORD came to me: 'Son of man, set your face toward the mountains of Israel, and prophesy against them...' (6.1-2).

The word of the LORD came to me: 'Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir, and prophesy against it...' (35.1-2).

Both Ezekiel 6 and Ezekiel 35 prophesy doom on the 'mountains' of the nation concerned: and say, You mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! Behold I, even I, will bring a sword upon you... (6.3).

and say to it, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out my hands against you (35.3).

Besides, there is a connection between Ezekiel 6 and 36.1-15. Ezekiel 36.1-15 continues the message of ch. 6 about 'the mountains of Israel'. The former chapter forecasts their devastation, in the latter they are devastated. Son of man, set your face toward the mountains of Israel, and prophesy against them, and say, You mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! (6.2,3).

And you, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD (36.1).

But these chapters are each other's opposites. In ch. 6 there is only

46

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

doom for 'the mountains of Israel'; in 36.1-15 their restoration is announced.1 3. Ezekiel 35-36 and Ezekiel 25-32 Ezek. 25.12-14 announces doom for Edom, because this nation 'acted revengefully against the house of Judah' (v. 12). An inimical attitude towards Judah is also reported from Israel's other neighbours—see 25.3, 6, 8, 15; 26.2. The enmity of these nations constitutes the reason for their annihilation. The oracles against the nations in 25.1-26.6 have exactly the same form as the second and the third oracles of ch. 35 (vv. 5-9/10-13). The reason for the judgment is given in a sentence with ]ir, 'because'. The judgment itself is in a sentence with p1?, 'therefore'. The oracle is concluded with the line: 'Then you (etc.) will know that I am the LORD' ('Erweiswort').2 The three elements occur in the book of Ezekiel—in the same order—in: 13.8, 8, 9; 13.22, 23, 23; 25.3, 4, 5; 25.6, 7, 7; 25.8, 9, 11; 25.12, 13, 14; 25.15, 16, 17; 26.2, 3, 6; 35.5, 6, 9; 35.10, 11, 12.3 Eight out of ten occurrences appear in chs. 25-26 and 35.4 So, both in reason for judgment and in form, ch. 35 shows affinity with 25.1-26.6. It turns out that the various charges that in chs. 25-26 are brought against the nations around Israel appear together in 35.1-36.15. Compare 25.3, 8, 26.2 with 35.10, 12, 36.2, (3,) 13 ('saying' hateful things) (cf. 36.6, 7, 15, 'reproach'); 25.3, 12, 15, 26.2 with 35.10-13, 36.2, 4, 5 (taking advantage of Israel's ruin); 25.6 with 35.15, 36.5 ('gladness'—being satisfied with Israel's ruin); 25.15 with 35.5 1. See further on the connections between Ezek. 6 and 35.1-36.15 and their function in the book of Ezekiel: L. Boadt, 'Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel's Oracles of Judgment', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL, 74; Leuven, 1986), pp. 190-93; Gosse, 'Ezechiel 3536,1-15 et Ezechiel 6'; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 148-51, 157-58, 160. 2. Cf. W. Zimmerli, 'Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel', in idem, Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Alten Testament, I (TBii, 19; Miinchen, 1963), pp. 41-119; and idem, 'Das Wort des gottlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung', in Gottes Offenbarung, pp. 120-32. 3. In 35.10-13 the 'concluding line', v. 12 is followed by a commentary remark; cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 70. 4. A variant form, in which the JJP and the p1? change places, we find in 5.11, 11, 13; 22.19, 19, 22; 34.20, 21, 27; an irregular version in 29.8-10.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example

47

('perpetual enmity'). As for ch. 36, it is not surprising that here several of the separate charges of chs. 25-26 occur together, because in it all the surrounding nations (at least, their 'rest', 36.3, 4, 5) are accused. In the case of ch. 35—the prophecy against 'Mount Seir'—it is quite remarkable. In one passage in the oracles against the nations in chs. 25-32, Israel's future (in relation to the nations) is discussed: 28.20-26. This oracle starts off as an oracle against Sidon, but it soon becomes clear that all the neighbouring nations are in view (v. 24). Verses 24-26 have the same theme as ch. 36: the former inhabitants of Israel will regain possession of the land, the contemptuous neighbours will be judged. The first half of this text, 28.20-23, has the same style as 35.1-4: it is a very general oracle which does not give full particulars and is stated in formulaic language.1 It gives the impression of primarily being a theological statement. Just like 35.1-36.15, 28.20-26 combines an oracle against one of Israel's neighbours with a condemnation of the neighbouring nations in general and with a message of hope and restoration for Israel. The oracle against Edom in 25.12-14 opposes Israel and the nation concerned in yet another way: it is the only oracle in chs. 25-32 in which Israel is the agent of God's wrath (25.14). 4. 'Israel' and 'the Nations' in the Book ofEzekiel The main concern of 36.1-15 is not, as it was in ch. 6, the relationship between YHWH and Israel, but the relationship between Israel and YHWH on the one hand and the nations on the other. YHWH restores his land, 'the mountains of Israel', to put an end to the contemptuous behaviour of the nations. See the beginning and the end of the prophecy: Because the enemy said of you, 'Aha!' and, 'The ancient heights have become our possession' (36.2). and I will not let you hear any more the reproach of the nations, and you shall no longer bear the disgrace of the peoples (36.15).

As a result of YHWH's acts, 'the nations that are around you shall themselves suffer reproach' (v. 7). The oracle 36.33-36 stresses the effect that YHWH's rebuilding of Israel has on 'the nations that are left 1.

Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 185-89.

48

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

round about you' (v. 36): they will come to acknowledge the power of YHWH. The first part of the book of Ezekiel (chs. 1-24) sees Israel's annihilation drawing near. One recurring theme is that YHWH will destroy Israel 'in the sight of the nations' (D»ian va1?: 5.8 [cf. vv. 14-15]; 22.16). Israel will have to endure reproach from the surrounding nations, 16.44-58 (vv. 52, 54, 58; cf. 36.6, 7, 15). Time after time, YHWH had refrained from punishing Israel lest his name be profaned 'in the sight of the nations' (20.9, 14, 22). At last, he did destroy Israel but for the sake of his name he decides to restore it (cf. 36.2227). He promises to bring back the people, and 'I will manifest my holiness among you in the sight of the nations' (20.41; cf. 28.24-26; 36.22-23). In the third part of the book (chs. 33-48), YHWH sides against the nations and with the Israelites. He had delivered Israel to the scorn of the nations but he now puts an end to that shameful situation (34.29; 36.15). As for the opposition 'mountains of Israel'—'Mount Seir', the position of 35.1-36.15 in the book is noteworthy.1 The discussed ch. 6 is the first chapter in which a threat is uttered against 'the mountains of Israel'. It prophesies doom upon them. The threat is repeated in 33.28, in the first chapter of the third part of the book. The message of Jerusalem's fall has been delivered (33.21-22). Those who have survived, claim the country to be theirs (cf. 35.10!) but YHWH will again destroy their land—the already desolated 'mountains of Israel'—because of their sins (33.23-29). He will make the land 'a desolation and a waste' (33.28)—the same expression as used in 6.14 and 35.3, 7 (and nowhere else in Ezekiel). This is the last time that doom is called down upon the mountains of Israel. In ch. 34 YHWH leads his people back to the 'mountains of Israel' (vv. 13, 14), as a shepherd would his sheep. The themes of 35.1-36.15 have a distinct function in this context: the shepherd cannot 'feed' his sheep 'with good pasture' as long as others are in possession (35.10-12; 36.2-5) of 'the mountains of Israel' (35.12) nor as long as these mountains are a desolation. So, YHWH 1. Cf. Gosse, 'Le recueil d'oracles centre les nations d'Ez£chiel XXV-XXXII dans la redaction du livre d'Ezechiel', RB 93 (1986), pp. 544-47; 'Ezechiel 35-36,115 et Ezechiel 6', and 'Oracles centre les nations et structures comparers des livres d'Isaie et d'Eze"chiel', BN 54 (1990), pp. 19-21; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 155-58.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example

49

condemns the nations in question, represented in 'Mount Seir' (ch. 35), and furthermore promises to bring back life to the 'mountains of Israel' (36.8-11). The returning to life of the utterly dead is also the subject of the next chapter (37): dry bones come together and live again. This event is expressly connected with the return of the exiles (37.11-14). In chs. 38-39 the 'mountains of Israel' are the places where the ultimate enemy, Gog from Magog, will be defeated (38.8; 39.2, 4, 17). 5. Conclusion In 35.1-36.15—a text on the attitude of Israel's surrounding nations both in the past and in the future—Edom is the only nation mentioned by name. In ch. 36, only Edom's name is mentioned (v. 5), and ch. 35 is in its totality a chapter on 'Mount Seir'. Mount Seir represents the inimical neighbouring nations. In ch. 35, as observed, the accusations against the nations from 25.1-26.6 are assembled and repeated with Seir as their object. The opposition between 'the mountains of Israel' and 'Mount Seir' is in reality the opposition between Israel and its neighbours. 'Mount Seir' is a symbolic name for the nation or group of nations that welcomed and took profit of Israel annihilation and that now obstruct YHWH's plans for Israel's restoration. When YHWH has executed his judgment on Israel (ch. 33) and has begun his new future with his people (ch. 34), the time for the nations has come. It should be noted that the other 'enemy' in the third part of the book is also a symbolic one: 'Gog' from 'Magog' represents the nations from the North, the nations that threaten Israel after its restoration. 3. Diachronic Analysis 1. Theories Ezek. 35.1-36.15 provides us with an oracle against 'Mount Seir' (ch. 35) alongside an oracle on the 'mountains' of Israel (36.1-15). In the latter, Israel's neighbours—including Edom—are denounced for their attitude towards the destroyed Israel; Israel will be restored. In the former, Edom is annihilated because of its attitude towards the destroyed Israel. In this way, 'Mount Seir', representing the nations, and 'the mountains of Israel' are opposed. It is in the framework of the two oracles joined together that the conception of Edom ('Mount Seir') as representative of the nations

50

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

and at the same time Israel's antagonist is visible. Our aim in the present study is to search for the origin and development of this conception. Therefore, we shall now discuss the literary history of the composition 35.1-36.15. When did it achieve its present form? The conception is clearly present in the text as it stands, but was it also in an earlier form? We find important observations on these matters in two studies which were published at nearly the same time (their authors had no knowledge of each other's work). One is H. Simian's study Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetic Ezechiels. Form- und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36 (1974), the other U. Kellermann's Israel und Edom (1975).1 Simian concludes that the chs. 6, 35 and 36 in their present form are the result of a long process of growing. In the course of time, many writers contributed to these chapters.2 As regards the origin of Edom's role as a type, Simian argues that already in the oldest part of Ezek. 35, in his view vv. 1-4, 'Seir' is a theological term. In this oldest part, Mount Seir, Edom, is the personification of Israel's enemies. The subject of 35.1-4 is the annihilation of these enemies, which simultaneously opens the possibility of Israel's restoration.3 Simian argues that this oracle is not directed against the actual people of the Edomites.4 As for the interdependence between chs. (6), 35 and 36, Simian concludes that 36.1-11 is the oldest part. 'Sowohl Ez 36,16-32 wie auch 35,1-4, mil weniger Sicherheit Ez 6, selbstverstandlich aber die erganzenden Einheiten Ez 36,33-36.37-38 setzen Ez 36,1-11 voraus'.5 The expansions in 35.5-6, 10-11 came into being under the influence of 36.1-11, especially the additions in vv. 3, 4, 5.6 The name of Edom was added to 36.1-15 (v. 5) under the influence of ch. 35. According to Simian,7 the theme of 36.1-11 shows affinity with that of 2 Chronicles 20, so the oracle probably stems from the same period as 2 Chronicles (fourth-third century BCE). The use of the name 'Seir'

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte; Kellermann, Israel und Edom. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 356-57. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 324-25. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 188-89. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 355. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 351-52. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 355; cf. pp. 330-37.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example

51

in 35.1-4 seems also to point to the time of the Chronicler.1 If Simian's analysis is accurate, the conception of Edom as Israel's opponent is already present in the first stage of Ezekiel 35. The literary-critical analysis given in Kellermann's book2 is at first sight rather different from Simian's. Kellermann argues that vv. 5-6, 9 constitute the oldest part of Ezekiel 35. But at other points, their results are more in agreement. Like Simian, Kellermann concludes that a separate ch. 35 never existed3 and holds on to an 'urspriinglichen Verbundenheit von Ez. 35 und 36 (im Grundbestand) bei der ersten Zusammenstellung dieser Kapitel'.4 In his opinion, the oldest part of the oracle was written by Ezekiel; vv. 7-8 and 10-12 are additions to Ezekiel's words, which originated in the exilic community.5 Subsequently, the exilic material (vv. 5-12) was brought to Palestine, where it was further edited. There, vv. 5-9 and 10-12 were brought into a composition which opposed 'Mount Seir' and 'the mountains of Israel': Ezek. 35.1-36.15 in its original form (35.1-12, 14-15; 36.1-2, [6], 7-9, 11). This redaction has to be dated to the beginning of the second half of the sixth century BCE. A relevant mutual conclusion of the two studies is that no texts from the time of the prophet Ezekiel show any signs of the conception of Edom as the representative of the nations. In Simian's view, there are no texts from Ezekiel in ch. 35. The oldest part according to Kellermann (vv. 5-6, 9) does not present Edom as a type. Both Simian and Kellermann assume that this conception only appears in some later edition of the book of Ezekiel. They differ, however, greatly in their dating of this edition. 2. Evaluation Simian gives a detailed literary-critical analysis of Ezekiel 35.6 He concludes, as said, that 35.1-4 is (with the disordered vv. 14-15) the only 'kleine Einheit' in the oracle and, therefore, must be the oldest part. The other verses are fragments, which have accumulated upon

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 327-28. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 65-92. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 67. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 68. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 104-106. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 104-16.

52

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

this old core. Simian does, however, not observe1 that vv. 5-9 and vv. 10-13 (at least, their cores) must be 'kleine Einheite' as well: these parts are in their basic form 'Erweisworte' exactly like those in Ezek. 25.1-26.6.2 We will now have a closer look at these texts. 25.12 Because Edom acted revengefully against the house of Judah and has grievously offended in taking vengeance upon them, 13 therefore thus says the Lord GOD, I will stretch out my hand against Edom, and cut off from it man and beast; and I will make it desolate; from Teman even to Dedan they shall fall by the sword.

35.5 Because you cherished perpetual enmity, and gave over the people of Israel to the power of the sword... 6 therefore, as I live, says the Lord GOD, I will prepare you for blood... 7 I will make Mount Seir a waste and a desolation; and I will cut off from it all who come and go. 8 And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall.

14 And I will lay my vengeance 91 will make you a perpetual upon Edom by the hand of my desolation... people Israel... and they shall know Then you will know that I am the my vengeance, says the Lord GOD. LORD.

Both oracles reflect inimical Edomite actions against Israel. In both cases, this is answered by YHWH's turning the Edomite land into a desolation. He pays the Edomites back in the same coin: they 'acted revengefully' against Israel, YHWH shall let Israel 'take vengeance' on Edom (ch. 25); the Edomites killed Israelites with the 'sword', with the 'sword' they will be slain themselves (ch. 35). In both oracles, the effect is that the Edomites will 'know' YHWH.3 Some of the other oracles in chs. 25-26 refer quite explicitly to the event of Judah's annihilation mentioned in 35.5 ('the time of their calamity', 'the time of their final punishment'). See 25.3: YHWH's 'sanctuary' was 'profaned' and 'the land of Israel. . . made desolate', 1. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 258-59. 2. Cf. above, section 2.3. 3. The reading of 35.6 in the RSV 'because you are guilty of blood' follows an emendation of the Hebrew text inspired by the version of the LXX (MT nwef, 'you have hated' > nneto). However, the superiority of the LXX reading is disputed; see e.g. H. Reventlow, Wdchter fiber Israel. Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW, 82; Berlin, 1962), p. 144; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 73; Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 149.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example

53

'the house of Judah...went into exile'; 26.2: 'the gate of the peoples (= Jerusalem) is broken'. The element 'perpetual enmity' from 35.5 does not occur in 25.12-14, but does so in 25.15. Like 35.5-9, the unit 35.10-12 (13) shares not only its structure, but also its style and content with ch. 25 and 26.1-6. Whereas 35.5-9 focuses upon reproachable deeds (killing Judaeans), 35.10-13 concentrates itself on Seir's attitude, its 'saying' (in») hateful things. Because you said, 'These two nations and these two countries shall be mine, and we will take possession of them' (35.10). (I) have heard all the revilings which you uttered ("OR) against the mountains of Israel, saying, 'They are laid desolate, they are given us to devour' (35.12).

The theme of 'saying' hateful things as a reaction to Israel's ruin is very common in the oracles against the nations in chs. 25-26: see 25.3 on Ammon, 25.8 on Moab, and 26.2 on Tyre. It is absent in the oracle against Edom. The surrounding nations had thought, like Seir in 35.10, 12, that they would be able to profit from Israel's downfall; see 25.3, 12, 15; 26.2. Some elements from 25.12-14 that do not appear in 35.5-9 or 10-13 do so in 35.1-4. 'I will stretch out my hand against Edom', 25.13, is also found in 35.3. YHWH's making the land rain, 'desolate'/'waste', occurs in 25.13 as well as 35.4. The last part of ch. 35 too has a parallel within chs. 25-26. Like Seir (35.15; cf. 36.5), the Ammonites 'rejoiced' (nnto) over the devastation of Israel (25.6). In view of the many links between 25.1-26.6 and ch. 35, both structural and idiomatical, we can conclude that these chapters are not independent of each other. The second and third oracles in ch. 35 seem to be modelled after the oracles in chs. 25-26. The second oracle (35.5-9) shares its theme with the oracle against Edom in 25.12-14 and may have been inspired by it. As for Kellermann's view: Kellermann sees 35.5-6, 9 as the oldest part of Ezekiel 35-36. He attributes these verses to the prophet Ezekiel. The vv. 35.7-8 he regards as an accretion to the older verses.1 The resulting text (together with still other texts) served as 1. Section 3.1; see also Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 74. Cf. further e.g. J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCBC; London, repr. 1982 [1969]), p. 186; J.R. Bartlett, 'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C.', PEQ 114 (1982), pp. 19-20; idem,

54

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

the basis for the composition Ezekiel 35-36. Now, a closer look at the text seems to substantiate the idea that in these chapters older material was used as the basis of a new composition. The supposed secondary vv. 35.7-8 show a considerable similarity to ch. 6: the 'mountains, hills, valleys, ravines' of 35.8 appear also in 6.3 ('mountains, hills, ravines, valleys'; also in 36.4, 6); there 'those slain with the sword shall fall', according to 35.8—cf. 6.7 and 6.13; both in 35.7 and 6.14 we find the expression 'I will make (Mount Seir/the land) a waste and a desolation' (in 35.7 varia lectio nneta for the second nnntf; cf. also 35.3). This is particularly interesting since there is another striking correspondence with ch. 6. As discussed,1 the introduction of the oracles against 'Mount' Seir in Ezekiel 35 is the same as the introduction of the oracles against the 'mountains' of Israel in Ezekiel 6. Since ch. 35 constitutes a coherent composition together with the other oracle in the book of Ezekiel on the 'mountains' of Israel, namely 36.1-15, it can be suspected that vv. 7-8 (regarded as secondary by Kellermann and others on literary-critical grounds) were added to vv. 5-9, together with vv. 1-4, in order to link it up with ch. 6. The place and function in the book of Ezek. 35.1-36.15 strongly suggest that these chapters are a redactional composition: it looks as if they were written with a view to the composition of the whole book.2 The term 'Mount Seir' for Edom in Ezekiel 35 must have been chosen because of the composition, as counterpart to the 'mountains of Israel' in chs. 6 and 36. The story of the 'mountains of Israel' has reached a turning-point just before ch. 35. At this point (as expounded above),3 a prophecy on 'Mount Seir', representing the nations, has a clear function.4

Edom and the Edomites, p. 153. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 113 regards vv. 7-8a as a later addition. 1. Section 2.2. 2. Cf. above, section 2.4, and Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 67-68. 3. Section 2.4. 4. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 357-58 on the possibility that the various texts on the 'mountains of Israel' belong to a 'theologische Bearbeitung' of the book of Ezekiel.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example

55

3. Date We have concluded that Ezekiel 35 is a redactional chapter, inspired by Ezek. 25.1-26.6. The view that chs. 35-36 were written with an eye to the composition of the book has consequences for the date of the first appearance of the conception under discussion. The introduction of the conception has to date from the time of the composition of the book, that is from some time after the prophet Ezekiel. Unfortunately, the date of the composition of the book as it stands is a moot point. Although the majority of the scholars agree that the book was composed during the exilic period,1 there is still a possibility, as in Simian's view, that in later periods new editions of the book appeared, which added to the earlier versions. As far as ch. 35 is concerned, we have the clue that the terminus post quern for the composition of this chapter, if it indeed depends on chs. 25-26, is the composition date of the latter text.2 But the date of chs. 25-26 is also a moot point. Possibly, this text is itself a redactional composition as well.3 It may have been written in order to make up a collection of oracles on seven nations.4 On the other hand, Kellermann defends the authenticity of 25.12-14 in its original form (25.12-13).5 In any case, 25.12-14 cannot be dated earlier than the fall of Jerusalem, 587 BCE. Singular in chs. 25-32 (and also in the entire book of Ezekiel) is Israel's acting as a revenger, in 25.14. According to Kellermann, v. 14 is a later addition.6 The remarkable appearance of Edom in 32.29 is also thought to be a late feature.7 1. See Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 29; R.E. Clements, 'The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1-24', in Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, pp. 284, 294; cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 104-106 on chs. 35-36. 2. Another observation which indicates that Ezek. 35 is more recent than Ezek. 25-26 is that Ezek. 25.12-14 does not seem to present Edom as the representative of the nations, while ch. 35 does. 3. Cf. e.g. Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 144. 4. Cf. L. Boadt, Ezekiel's Oracles against Egypt. A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29-32 (BibOr, 37; Rome, 1980), p. 9; Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture', p. 141. 5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 56-62. 6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 57. 7. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 62-65; M. Nobile, 'Beziehung zwischen Ez 32,17-32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ez 38-39) im Lichte der Endredaktion', in Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, pp. 255-59.

56

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

The conception of Edom as representative of the nations only enters the book of Ezekiel after 587 BCE. But has its date actually to be postponed to the time of the Chronicler, as is argued by Simian? We will have a closer look at his arguments. Simian says about the oldest part of 35.1-36.15 (in his view 36.111): 'Wenn unsere Gattungsbestimmung und Traditionskritik von Ez 36.1-11 zutrifft, dann muss akzeptiert werden, dass diese Kleine Einheit nicht friiher als in der Zeit des 2.Chr angesetzt werden kann'.1 The result of his 'Gattungsbestimmung', however, is that he concludes that the oracle must have originated in the last years of the exile: it points to 'eine Situation, in der die Riickkehr schon als gesichert oder vielleicht sogar als geschehene betrachtet wird'.2 Therefore, it must be the Traditionskritik' which provides the late dating.3 Simian discusses a text in 2 Chronicles (ch. 20) that indeed shares its theme (the surrounding nations that try to take possession of the land that YHWH has given to Israel) with Ezek. 36.1-11. However, he also shows that this theme is already present in Judg. 11.12ff, a text considered to be quite old. Concerning Ezekiel 35, Simian contends that the name 'Seir' for the Edomites provides a relevant fact for its dating. Within the oracles against Edom (not counting Isa. 21.11-12),4 only here is the name 'Seir' used. Conversely, in Chronicles Seir is the usual name for Edom. Simian suggests the choice of the name Seir in Ezek. 35.1-4 may have been inspired by Chronicles.5 However, he discusses also some other possible grounds for this choice, one of which seems at least equally convincing. It is the possibility that 'Mount Seir' was chosen in order to create an opposition to the 'mountains of Israel' in ch. 36 and in the rest of the book (cf. above). As Simian notices, the name Seir (including 'Mount Seir') is often used in the Hexateuch, mainly in texts he considers to be deuteronomistic.6 This means that in the sixth century the name Seir was known and in use. The writer of Ezek. 35.1-4 need not have known the book of Chronicles. In conclusion: Simian's evidence for dating (the oldest version of) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 355. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 154-55. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 330-37. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 281-82. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 328. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 277-79.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example

57

Ezek. 35.1-36.15 in the time of the Chronicler is not very convincing and in any case does not prove to be decisive. So far, I do not see any grounds for a date after the sixth century BCE. It seems to me that the theme of the conflict with the neighbouring nations is also relevant during the sixth century and particularly at the end of the exilic period.1 Ezekiel 35 reflects the hostile attitude of Israel's neighbours, both at the time of Judah's fall and afterwards. The exiles, hoping for and later planning for the return to their land, had to face the hostility of these nations, especially of those that had claimed a part of Israel's former land. The land the exiles were to return to had partly been claimed by other nations. The most likely date for the composition of Ezekiel 35-36, therefore, seems to be the period shortly before or after the end of the exile (539 BCE).

1.

Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 154-55.

Chapter 4

PARALLELS: 1. OBADIAH AND THE ORACLES AGAINST EDOM IN JEREMIAH 49.7-22 AND EZEKIEL 35-36 1. Introduction The book of Obadiah has many parallels with other prophetic books. The most striking are the ones with the oracle against Edom in Jer. 49.7-22. Sections 2-4 are devoted to a detailed examination of the parallel verses. There has been much discussion on the question whether the writer of Obad. 1 -8 used Jeremiah or whether it was the other way round.1 A third possibility is that both in Jeremiah and Obadiah an existing oracle against Edom was used. It is at the same time quite generally agreed that the collection of oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 46-51 originally must have contained an oracle against Edom, which may have been composed by the prophet Jeremiah. Therefore, some verses of Jer. 49.7-22 must have been part of the original collection. The analysis in the present chapter will enable us to assess these issues. Reading Obadiah, one notes not only the parallels with Jer. 49.7-22, but also a certain resemblance to the prophecy on 'Mount Seir' and 'the mountains of Israel' in Ezek. 35.1-36.15. While the correspondence with Jeremiah is mainly confined to the first eight verses of Obadiah, the similarities with Ezekiel are found in the other parts of the text, vv. 9-21. In section 5, these similarities will be assessed.

1. See Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 12-13 for a survey of the research history on this issue.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom

59

2. Obadiah 1-6 and Jeremiah 49.14-16, 9-10a 1. The Texts The first four verses of Obadiah are parallel with Jer. 49.14-16. Obadiah 1... We have heard tidings from the

Jeremiah 49 141 have heard tidings from the LORD,

LORD, and a messenger has been sent among the nations:

and a messenger has been sent among the nations: 'Gather yourself together and come against her, 'Rise up! let us rise against her for and rise up for battle!' battle!' 2 Behold, I will make you small among 15 For behold, I will make you small the nations, among the nations, despised among men. you shall be utterly despised. 3 The pride of your heart has deceived 16 The horror you inspire has deceived you, you, and the pride of your heart, you who live in the clefts of the rock, you who live in the clefts of the rock, whose dwelling is high, who hold the height of the hill. who say in your heart, 'Who will bring me down to the ground?' 4 Though you soar aloft like the eagle, Though you make your nest as high as the eagle's, though your nest is set among the stars, I will bring you down from there, thence I will bring you down, says the LORD. says the LORD.

The next verses in Obadiah (5-6) are parallel with Jer. 49.9-lOa. Obadiah 5 If thieves came to you, if plunderers by night how you have been destroyed! would they not steal only enough for themselves? If grape gatherers came to you, would they not leave gleanings? 6 How Esau has been pillaged, his treasures sought out!

Jeremiah 49 9 If grape-gatherers came to you, would they not leave gleanings? If thieves came by night, would they not destroy only enough for themselves?

lOa But I have stripped Esau bare, I have uncovered his hiding places, and he is not able to conceal himself.

60

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

2. Vocabulary Several words and phrases the two texts have in common are typical for the book of Jeremiah. Moreover, even some of the words which are only used in the Obadiah version of the parallels belong to the Jeremianic idiom. Obadiah 1 andJer. 49.14 a. uaotf mnD0 On- in Jer. 49.14): cf. for the expression 'to hear tidings' in Jeremiah: 49.23; with Jtotf: 6.24; with aati: 37.5 and 50.43. In all cases, it refers to the tidings of an army preparing for war. Verses 49.23-24 and 50.43 are based on 6.24. Verse 6.24 reads, just like Obadiah 1, 'we have heard tidings'. With the other (writing) prophets 1 the expression is found only in Isa. 37.7 with the same meaning (the tidings of an army).2 This verse, however, is probably based on Jer. 37.5.3 In Jeremiah, there are three more occurrences of the word rwiDEJ: 10.22 and 51.46 (2 x). In 10.22, as in 6.24, it refers to an approaching army from 'the north country' (6.22; cf. 51.48). In this context, the observation of J. Wehrle on Obad. 1 is important: 'Das Lexem ninotf gehort keineswegs ausschliesslich in den Bereich der Kriegsterminologie. Das diirfte im Gegenteil sogar der Ausnahmefall sein'.4 In Jeremiah it is used exclusively in this sphere. b. The form ('Gattung') 'summons to war' ('Aufforderung zum Kampf, R. Bach)5 occurs frequently in the book of Jeremiah (15 times, 13 of which in the oracles against the nations, chs. 46-51) and only occasionally in other prophetic books (8 times, in 5 books). c. The phrase 0*133, 'among the nations', occurs in two other places in connection with a summons to war, one of which in Jeremiah (Jer. 51.27; Joel 4.9). Cf. 50.2, in which, as in 49.14, a message is sent 'among the nations'. d.'inip: Dip imp. m. pi. occurs 9 times within the prophets, 6 times in the book of Jeremiah—5 of which occur within a summons to war (6.4, 5; 49.14, 28, 31). Outside Jeremiah (and Obad. 1) it does not occur in a summons to war. 1. Here and afterwards the term 'prophets' or 'prophetic books' is used for the 'Later Prophets', Isaiah-Malachi. 2. To hear tidings' not referring to an army is found in Nah. 3.19 and Hab. 3.2. 3. Cf. S. de Jong, 'Hizkia en Zedekia. Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18.1719.37/ Jes. 36-37 tot Jer. 37.1-10', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 135-46. 4. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 214. 5. Bach, Aufforderungen, pp. 51 -91.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom

61

e. non^o1?: This phrase ('for battle') occurs 10 times within the prophetic books, 5 in the book of Jeremiah. In a summons to war: 46.3 and 49.14; differently: 6.23; 48.14; 50.24. Outside Jeremiah and Obad. 1 it does not occur in a summons to war. Obad. 2andJer. 49.15 7nru: |ru 1 impf. with suff. 2 m. sg. (22 times in the Old Testament) is specific both for Jeremiah (7 times) and for Ezekiel (8 times). Obad. 3-4 andJer. 49.16 a. pit: This word ('pride') is infrequent within the prophetic books: outside these verses, it occurs 3 times, Jer. 50.31, 32; Ezek. 7.10. In the prophetic books, the verb TIT is only used in Jer. 50.29. b. R'tfn: The hif. of Rtfa, 'deceive', occurs 15 times in the Old Testament, 5 in Jeremiah, 2 in Obadiah, and 4 in verses that may be dependent on Jeremiah (Jer. 4.10[2 x]; 29.8; 37.9; 49.16; Obad. 3, 7; Isa. 36.14 = 2 Kgs 18.29 and Isa. 37.10 = 2 Kgs 19.10—probably dependent on Jer. 37.9 and its context).1 Apart from these places, it only occurs outside the prophetic books. c. *]3tf: 'You who live': ptf part. cs. sg. ending on * is infrequent in the Old Testament (5 times), but is used once more in Jeremiah: 51.13. In this verse it is used to characterize the nation concerned, just like in 49.16 and Obad. 3. d. D#D: The phrase 'thence', 'from there', is characteristic of Jeremiah. It occurs 9 times in the book of Jeremiah. Cf. the other prophetic books: Isaiah 1, Hosea 1, Amos 6 (5 in one text, Amos 9.24, which is a parallel to Obad. 4-6),2 Obadiah 1, Micah 1. The combination of this phrase with 1 impf. (or 1 pf.) only occurs in one place outside our two verses (and Amos 9.2-4): in Jeremiah (22.24). Obad. 5 and Jer. 49.9 a. DK: These verses share two sentences with 'if (Obad. 5 has a third sentence with 'if). This combination of two conditional sentences constitutes a double simile; in the next verse follows the 'real' situation (Obad. 6; Jer. 49.10). In Jeremiah, the actual situation is introduced by a sentence with 'D. The same form (o. . .DR . . .D«) is found in 1. 2.

De Jong, 'Hizkia en Zedekia'; cf. above on Obad. 1 and Jer. 49.14. See Chapter 2, section 3; cf. below, section 2.4 and Chapter 5, section 3.

62

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Jer. 14.18.1 The combination of two sentences with DM in one verse is quite common in the book of Jeremiah: see 4.1; 5.1; 7.5; 15.19; 27.18; 38.16; cf. two times M1? DM: 15.11; 49.20; 50.45. b. D'-raa: In the Old Testament, the participle of "1X3 occurs outside our two verses only once: in the book of Jeremiah (6.9); there, like in our verses, used in a simile, meaning 'to search out thoroughly'. c. D»3M: The word 'thief is also used in a simile in two other places in the book of Jeremiah: 2.26; 48.27 (not with the same meaning). Obad. 6 and Jer. 49.10a V3BSD (Obad. 6) // innoa (Jer. 49.10a): the word used in Obad. 6 ('treasures') is a hapax. The verb ]3S, which it is connected with, occurs 28 times in the Old Testament, but only two times in the prophetic books: Jer. 16.17; Hos. 13.12. Jer. 16.17 is important, because it has the same theme as Jer. 49.9-10a and Obad. 5-6: nothing/no one can be hidden from YHWH ('For my eyes are upon all their ways; they are not hid for me, nor is their iniquity concealed from my eyes'). In parallellism with the verb ]a^ ('concealed'), Jer. 16.17 uses the verb "ino ('hid')—this verb is connected with the 'hiding places' (vinon) of Jer. 49.10a. Comparable with the similes with thieves and grape gatherers in Obad. 4-5 // Jer. 49.9 is the metaphoric use of fishers and hunters in the verse preceding Jer. 16.17. Cf. for the 'hiding places': Jer. 13.17; 23.24 (in the entire Old Testament: 10 times). Like 16.17, 23.24 shows that the theme of Obad. 6 // Jer. 49.10a is a Jeremianic theme: 'Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD'. The evidence up till now strongly suggests that the parallel verses were originally part of the book of Jeremiah; they may have been written by the prophet Jeremiah. The vocabulary of the text, both in the Obadiah version and in the Jeremiah version, betrays a Jeremianic background.2

1. Cf. De Jong, 'Hizkia en Zedekia', p. 148. 2. Cf. my analysis of the background of the semantic fields and individual phrases of Jer. 49.7-22 in the collection of oracles against the nations in Jer. 46-51 in Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 125-32, 254-70.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom

63

3. Differences Often, the answer to the question which oracle is dependent on the other is sought for in an analysis of the differences between the two texts. An important example of this approach are the sections devoted to Obadiah and Jer. 49.7-22 in B. Hartberger's study 'An den Wassern von Babylon...'. Psalm 137 aufden Hintergrund von Jeremia 51, der biblischen Edom-Traditionen und babylonischen Originalquellen.1 In Hartberger's opinion, the differences indicate the priority of the Obadiah text. In my view, this is not necessarily so. We shall here discuss the most significant variants in parallel verses. Obad. 1 and Jer. 49.14 We have heard tidings from the LORD' (Obad.) // 'I have heard tidings from the LORD' (Jer.). 'Rise up! let us rise' (Obad.) // 'rise up! (Jer.).

Obad. 1 contains two forms with 1 pi., while Jer. 49.14 lacks both of them. Above, we noted that the same 'we have heard tidings' as in Obad. 1 appears in Jer. 6.24. Here, we can add that in the same chapter in Jeremiah we find two occasions of the extra 'let us...', after the imp. 'rise up!' (Jer. 6.4, 5), both in a 'summons to war', as in Obad. 1. Cf. also Jer. 31.6, in another context. The writer of Obadiah seems to have known other material in the book of Jeremiah (which is also indicated by other data, cf. below). Furthermore the difference in position of the phrase 'We/I have heard tidings from the LORD' is striking. In Jer. 49.14 there is no difficulty. In Obadiah, however, this phrase follows the line 'Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom'—after which an utterance of the audience ('we have heard...') comes unexpectedly. The association of the two lines is illogical. Besides, the content is duplicated (the things 'said' by God—his 'tidings'). The difficulty can be explained if it is accepted that Obad. 1 is later than Jer. 49.14: the present form of Obad. 1 results from the combination of a necessary opening line for the book of Obadiah with an already existing oracle.2

1. 2.

Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 181-84 and 201-202. Cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 82-83.

64

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Obad.2andJer.49.15 You shall be utterly ("mo anK) despised (Obadiah) // 'despised among men (m«3)' (Jeremiah).

Hartberger contends that the Obadiah version must be the original one, but therefore has to assume a defective text, an accidental change of consonants, and a later correction.1 In my view, the difference can more easily be explained as literary variation (as e.g. in v. 1; cf. also the inversion in the order of the two similes in Obad. 5 and Jer. 49.9).2 This point of dissimilarity does not allow a conclusion on the direction of the dependence. Obad. 3 and Jer. 49.1 6a 'The horror you inspire' ("jrix^sn)' is lacking in Obadiah. n^Dn is a hapax, the meaning of which is unclear. The fact that it is not used in Obad. 3 might indicate that the writer of Obadiah consciously left it out. '(You) who say in your heart, "Who will bring me down to the ground?'" (Obad. 3) is lacking in\Jer. 49.16. This part of the verse shows, however, a remarkable resemblance with one of the other oracles in Jer. 49: 49.4, against Ammon. It reads: '...saying: "Who will come against me?'". Both are rhetorical questions, expressing the (false) feeling of confidence of the threatened nation. This specific form of a 'Hoffartsmonologe',3 the rhetorical question using 'who?', is unique among the oracles against the nations from the Old Testament for these two verses. This coincidence can be explained when it is assumed that the writer of Obadiah used the oracle against Edom in Jeremiah: then he is likely to have known the immediate context of that oracle as well.

1. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 181. 2. On inversion as a stylistic device when using other texts see, for example, P.C. Beentjes, 'Jesus Sirach en Tenach' (dissertation, Nieuwegein, 1981), pp. 6087 and idem, 'Inverted Quotations in the Bible. A Neglected Stylistic Pattern', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 506-23; R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (HSM, 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 73. 3. P. Hoffken, 'Untersuchungen zu den Begriindungselementen der Volkerorakel des Alien Testaments' (dissertation, Bonn, 1977), pp. 206-43.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom

65

Obad. 4 and Jer. 49.16b Though you soar aloft like the eagle, though your nest is set among the stars (Obadiah) // Though you make your nest as high as the eagle's (Jeremiah).

The RSV translation does not betray that the verse in Obadiah has a contrived construction. A more literal translation, however, does show that: 'Though you make high like the eagle, though among the stars is set—your nest'. 'Your nest' seems to belong both to the former and to the latter half, first as object and then as subject.1 Several authors consider the second part to be an accretion.2 A simple explanation of this 'accretion' is that here, as in v. 3, Obadiah adds to the Jeremiah version. Hartberger sees an 'aberratio oculi' as the possible cause of the missing line in Jeremiah, or even 'eine gezielte Bearbeitung' in Jeremiah.3 There is, however, no evidence to support this view. Obad. 5 and Jer. 49.9 The order of the two similes (grape gatherers and thieves) is different in both texts. Nothing can be deduced from this for the question of the priority. 'If thieves came to you, if plunderers by night—how you have been destroyed!—would they not steal only enough for themselves?' (Obadiah) // 'If thieves came by night, would they not destroy only enough for themselves?' (Jeremiah). The Obadiah version of this verse is longer than that of Jeremiah. In Obadiah, to the element 'by night' a sentence on its own is attached, and the same is the case with the element 'destroy' (note, however, that in Jer. 49.9 'destroy' is the translation of the verb nntf, hif., and in Obad. 5 of the verb noi, nif.). Parallel to the 'thieves', 'plunderers' (better, 'destroyers': Gmtf) appear. The Obadiah version has one more line with D», 'if, and an extra sentence with "p», 'how'. P. Weimar (a.o.) regards these two lines as 'redaktionelle Bildung', because the preceding line and the following line together seem to constitute a logical unity.4 In Obad. 5 in its present state, this unity is broken. 1. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 224-28. 2. See, for example, Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 11; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 16; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 46. 3. Hartberger, 'An den Wassem von Babylon', p. 182. 4. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 47.

66

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

When it is seen on the one hand that Obad. 5(a) probably once existed in a shorter form, and that on the other hand that shorter form is also represented in Jer. 49.9, the most natural conclusion, in my opinion, is that the writer of Obad. 5 revised Jer. 49.9. We see here the same type of extension as in Obad. 4: between two words of one sentence an addition has been put, creating a new sentence. 'If thieves (came) (/) by night' (Jer.) became: 'If thieves came/ if plunderers by night' (Obad.). In Obad. 4 is 'Though you make high like the eagle,/ though among the stars is set—your nest' an extension from 'Though you make high like the eagle (/) your nest' (Jer.) (literal translations).

Once again, the vocabulary indicates that the writer of Obad. 1-6 worked within the Jeremianic tradition. The 'plunderers' (Dmtf) are typical for the book of Jeremiah: see 12.12; 51.48, 53. In all cases their 'coming' (»u) is foretold. Outside Jeremiah and Obadiah 'plunderers' (pi.) only occur in Job 12.6. The 'coming' of one 'plunderer' (pt. sg.) is the subject of Jer. 6.26; 48.8; 51.56 (outside Jeremiah: only in Job 15.21). Cf. in Jeremiah 15.8; 48.18, 32 for one 'plunderer' without the 'coming' element. The exclamation with "p», 'how', in Obad. 5 is paired with another exclamation with -pR in Obad. 6. The double exclamation with (two times) -p», 'how', is a form that only occurs in the book of Jeremiah, in the oracles against the nations: 48.39; 50.23; 51.41. Obad. 6 and Jer. 49.10a How Esau has been pillaged, his treasures sought out! (Obadiah) // But I have stripped Esau bare, I have uncovered his hiding places (Jeremiah).

The same idea—Edom ransacked—is expressed with other words. Above, we discussed the Jeremianic background of these lines. The verbs 'to pillage', toan, and 'to strip bare', ^ton, are evidence of literary variation: they differ only in the order of their consonants. There is an obvious difference in meaning. It is interesting to see that in both cases the second colon of the bicolon ties in with the meaning of the first colon. 'To uncover' (rfa) 'hiding places' (vinon) combines with 'to strip bare'; in Jeremiah, Esau himself is found out. 'To seek out' (nm) 'treasures' (vjssn) fits in better with 'to pillage'; in Obadiah, the emphasis is on Esau's possessions.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom

67

Here, we reach the end of the common part. The last part of Jer. 49.10a 'and he is not able to conceal himself is lacking in Obadiah, as well as the rest of v. 10. Against Hartberger, I do not think that the differences between Obad. 1-6 and Jer. 49.14-16, 9-10 are to be explained as accidental, the result of an imperfect copying of the oracle. The evidence strongly suggests a free and creative use of the original text for composing a new text. Indeed we can find examples of 'Varianz einzelner Worter unter Verwendung qualitativ ahnlicher Radikale',1 but these can also—and easier—be explained as conscious literary variation. 4. Formal Aspects Obad. 5-6 consists of three sentences with DM ('if'), two with Ml^n ('not...?'), and two with "p» ('how...?'), arranged in this pattern: 1. DM + DM + -pM + Mi^n / 2. DM + Mibn + ~pK. The Mi^n returns in v. 8. Compare the Jeremiah parallel (49.9-10a): 1. DM + »6 / 2. DM / 3. »3. In Obad. 1-6 the verses 4-5 contain a series of five sentences with DM ('though' or 'if'). The parallel verses in Jer. 49.16, nine contain only two sentences with DM (49.9; cf. the conditional o in 49.16). Jeremiah 49 has a far less structured text. Now it seems to me that giving an existing text a more rigid structure is quite an understandable procedure. Less understandable is the reverse procedure: why would a writer remove most of the structural elements? It is equally improbable that these would have been left out accidentally. A series of five sentences with DM is also found in Amos 9 (vv. 24).2 This is particularly relevant since in the Masoretic version of the Book of the Twelve, Amos 9 precedes Obadiah. In Chapter 5, section 3, it will be argued that the author of Obadiah depended here on Amos. 3. Obadiah 7-8 and Jeremiah 49.7 While with Obad. 1-6 it is very clear that there must be some connection with Jer. 49.7-22, this is much less so with Obad. 7-8, which verses only vaguely resemble Jer. 49.7.

1. 2.

Hartberger, 'An den Wassem von Babylon', p. 201. Cf. Chapter 2, section 3.

68

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist Obadiah 7d... there is no understanding in it. 8 Will I not on that day, says the LORD, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of Mount Esau?

Jeremiah 49 7 Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'Is wisdom no more in Teman? Has counsel perished from the sons [RSV: prudent]? Has their wisdom vanished?'

At a closer inspection, it is seen that both texts follow the same pattern. Jer. 49.7 consists of three cola describing the end of Edom's wisdom. Taken together, the last colon of Obad. 7 and Obad. 8 show also three sentences, with the same theme. Even the prepositions used are the same. In both texts, the second sentence uses another word for wisdom/wise than the first sentence, while the third sentence repeats the word used the first. Jer. 49.7

Obad. 7

Obad. 8

1. 2.

3.

The saying in Jer. 49.7 seems to be the original context of the shared elements. The combination of the three rhetorical questions in a unity must be original. The three questions in Jer. 49.7 open the oracle against Edom. In the same way the preceding oracle in ch. 49 opens (see 49.1). In 48.2, the same theme as in 49.7 is found at the beginning of the oracle against Moab (the end of the nation's positive attributes: 'the renown of Moab is no more [TID ]>»]' —cf. 49.7). In Obadiah, the elements are divided over two separate verses. The first question of the three serves (as an affirmative sentence) as the conclusion of v. 7 and indeed of vv. 1-7, the other two are the introduction of vv. 8-10(8-15). In an article on Jer. 49.7 // Obad. 7-8 I examined the idiom, connection with the immediate context, and theme of both texts, and evaluated the differences between them.1 The results confirm the conclusion reached here, viz. that Jer. 49.7 must be the original version, 1. A. Dicou, 'Geen wijsheid meer in Edom. Jeremia 49,7 en Obadja 7-8', ACEBT9(19W, pp. 90-96.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom

69

and that this verse was used by the writer of Obadiah. The first part of Obad. 7 (a-c) resembles Jer. 38.22 and also in this case the most likely explanation is that the writer of Obadiah knew and used Jeremiah texts.1 4. Obadiah 16 and Jeremiah 49.12 Both Obad. 16 and Jer. 49.12 use the topic: the forced drinking of (the cup of) God's wrath. Obadiah Jeremiah 49 16 For as you have drunk upon my 12 If those who did not deserve to holy mountain, drink the cup must drink it, will you all the nations shall drink continually go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink.

Although the wording in both verses is different, the correspondence is of relevance, because this general prophetic topic is only in these two verses connected with an oracle against Edom (but cf. Lam. 4.21, also concerning Edom). Can we assume that one of the verses is dependent on the other? First, it can be observed that Jer. 49.12 was modelled after Jer. 25.2829. The two passages are highly parallel.2 In 49.12, the remarks in ch. 25 on 'the nation that refuses to drink' have been applied to Edom.3 Then, there is a similarity between Obad. 16 and Jer. 25.15-29: in both texts, all nations will have to drink—like Judah before them (see especially Jer. 25.29). This too is a conception that is not found outside Obadiah and Jeremiah. It is likely that the author of Obadiah borrowed it from Jeremiah 25. How is the evidence to be interpreted? One possibility is that the writer of Obadiah knew both Jer. 25.15-29 and 49.12, the other, that the application of Jer. 25.28-29 to Edom, in Jer. 49.12, was inspired by Obad. 16—a verse in which Jer. 25.28-29 had been made to serve in a prophecy on Edom. Since in this chapter the author of Obadiah has been proven to have used Jer. 49.7-22 as well as other Jeremiah 1. Cf., for example, Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, p. 24; differently, Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 249 n. 277. 2. Cf. below, Chapter 6, section 2.1. 3. Cf. e.g. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 127-30; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 138-39.

70

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

texts, it seems most natural to choose the first possibility, and to accept that Obad. 16 is later that Jer. 49.12. 5. Obadiah andEzekiel A general correspondence between the two oracles is that both give a detailed description of Edom's reprovable behaviour at the time of Israel's annihilation by the hands of its enemies (Ezek. 35.5, 10-15; Obad. 10-14). Both in Ezekiel and Obadiah, the main reasons for the judgment are Edom's joy over Israel's downfall (Ezek. 35.15; Obad. 12) and its taking sides with the enemy in order to profit from the situation. This in contrast to the other two major oracles against Edom (Isa. 34; Jer. 49.7-22), which do not mention Edomite hostilities against Israel. Besides, both Ezekiel (36.1-15) and Obadiah (vv. 17-21) discuss Israel's restoration, which comes after YHWH has administered his punishment to Edom. Both elaborate on the issue of the restoration of Israel's land (which was in danger of being appropriated by other nations) as the dwelling place of the returning Israelites. In Obadiah the verb 'to possess' (eh') is used in vv. 17, 18, 19 and 20: the exiles (southern as well as northern) will regain possession of their land; other nations will be taken possession of themselves (see vv. 19, 20; cf. v. 17: 'possession', ehin). In Ezek. 35.10 we find Israel's opponents ('Mount Seir') as the subjects of the verb: they have taken possession of the land (both parts; cf. Obad. 18, 19).1 In the same context the noun nehin is used in 36.2, 3, 5, there not only with respect to Edom but also to the other nations 'round about'. In Ezek. 36.12 it is promised that the Israelites will return to their land and possess it. There are also some striking idiomatic links between Obadiah and Ezekiel 35 (and 36.1-15). 1.

The expression 'magnify (oneself with) one's mouth' ("ru hif. + ns) is shared by Obad. 12 (RSV: 'boast') and Ezek. 35.13. In the Old Testament, 'magnify' C?ia hif.) is linked with 'mouth' (ns) only in these two verses. It would be quite remarkable if two oracles against Edom both contained this uncommon expression without there being a literary relation.

1. On the Northern and the Southern Kingdom in Obad. 18, 19-20 cf. above, Chapter 1, section 3.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom 2.

3.

71

'In the day of their/his calamity' (ITK/DTK nva) occurs three times in Obad. 13; cf. Ezek. 35.5: 'at the time of their calamity' (DTK run). Both are referring to the time of Israel's ruin. In the prophetic books, the word 'calamity' (TK) is used, besides Obad. 13 and Ezek. 35.5, only in the book of Jeremiah (five times). Once again, it is rather improbable that two writers of an oracle against Edom independently used the same infrequent expression. Four times, Obadiah uses, instead of the name 'Edom', 'Mount Esau' (itoi> "in; vv. 8, 9, 19, 21). In Ezek. 35 Edom is almost exclusively called 'Mount Seir' CVJ>(D in; vv. 2, 3, 7, 15). In both oracles, these phrases function in an opposition: with 'Mount Zion' and 'the mountains of Israel' respectively (Obad. [16], 17, 21 and Ezek. 35.12; 36.1, 4, 6, 8). In the prophetic books, the land of Edom is only here indicated as a 'Mount', while 'Mount Esau' does not occur outside the prophetic books either. Here too we can suspect that one text influenced the writer of the other.

The correspondence between the two texts and especially the idiomatic links prove that one of them must have been used by the other. The direction of the dependence is more difficult to assess. Both Obadiah and Ezekiel speak of 'the time/day of their calamity' while referring to Israel's catastrophe. Jer. 17.18 reads, exactly like Obad. 13, 'in the day of their calamity' (DTK Dm), referring to the same event. In view of the fact that the writer of Obadiah also in other parts of his book proves to know his way around Jeremiah texts (or the Jeremiah tradition), it is possible that the phrase concerned was originally found in Obadiah, and later copied to Ezekiel. The writer of Ezekiel 35 is known to have used other oracles as well.1 In v. 5 the phrase 'perpetual enmity' goes back to Ezek. 25.15; 'the time of their final punishment' also occurs in Ezek. 21.30, 34. He may have chosen 'the time of their calamity' (instead of Obadiah's 'day'), because he had already decided to use 'the time of their final punishment' from Ezekiel 21. On the other hand, the affinity of language and themes of Ezekiel's book with the book of Jeremiah has often been noticed,2 so it 1. 2.

Cf. above, Chapter 3, section 3.2. M. Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (New Haven, 1925), pp. 3-

72

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

is not at all surprising to find a Jeremianic expression in an Ezekiel text. Other evidence seems to point to Obadiah's dependence on Ezekiel 35. As regards the 'Mount/mountains' correspondence, one of the texts must have provided the writer of the other with the idea of opposing the two nations as two 'mountains'. In Chapter 3, it was suggested that the choice for 'Mount Seir' was inspired by the use of 'mountains of Israel' in other parts of the book of Ezekiel. This would explain the use of an expression for Edom's land which only occurs outside the prophetic books. Moreover, if it were accepted that Ezekiel influenced Obadiah, the otherwise singular use of 'Mount Esau' in Obadiah could be explained. The author of Obadiah may have wanted to use both the 'mountain' phrase (for his opposition of Edom's land and 'Mount Zion') and the name 'Esau'. (From other parts of his book it can be seen that the author wanted to present Edom as 'Esau', Israel's 'brother'; see e.g. v. 10.) The way the judgment is motivated is another indication that the direction of influence was from Ezekiel to Obadiah. In the oracles against the nations, judgment is usually not based on specific actions. Most of them mention only such general sins as pride or confidence in own force as the reason for YHWH to destroy the nation concerned. Such a motivation as in Obad. 10-14 and Ezekiel 35 is exceptional. It occurs, however, also in Ezek. 25.1-26.6.' A surprising part of the oracle against Edom in Ezek. 25.12-14 is that YHWH is going to allow Israel to take revenge on Edom. This procedure is very unusual in the oracles against the nations, but it is also implied in Obad. 18. There, the Israelites will be the 'fire' and 'flame' that set the 'stubble' of the house of Esau afire. The thesis of Obadiah's dependence on Ezekiel would explain the connection. A last observation, but not an unimportant one, is that the links 15 and 44-47; J.W. Miller, Das Verhdltnis Jeremias und Hesekiels, sprachlich und theologisch untersucht (Assen, 1955); S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alien Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT, 85; Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 284-85 and idem, 'Die Bewaltigung der Krise Israels. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation des Buches Jeremiah', in H. Conner et al. (eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Fs W. Zimmerli; Gottingen, 1977), pp. 164-65; T.M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile. Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia, 1977). 1. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4. See also Chapter 5, section 4. Cf. Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture'; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 90-92.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom

73

between Ezekiel 35 and Obadiah were found both in the supposed older parts of Ezekiel 35 (e.g. v. 5) and the supposed secondary parts (e.g. v. 13).1 Obadiah appears to depend on the composition Ezekiel 35-36, not on some earlier version of the text. 6. Conclusion The findings of this chapter can be summarized as follows: the writer of Obadiah copied and refashioned the oracle against Edom that he had found in (some version of) the book of Jeremiah; he used Jer. 49.9-lOa, 14-16 without changing much of the text; he gave a free interpretation of Jer. 49.7; he was probably inspired by v. 12; the oracle against Mount Seir in Ezek. 35 too served as a source, especially for the second part of the book (Obad. 8-15). The discussion on the relationship between Obadiah and Jer. 49.722 will be continued in Chapter 6, there within the scope of the literary history of the book of Obadiah.

1.

Cf. Chapter 3, section 2.3.

Chapter 5 PARALLELS: 2. OBADIAH AND JOEL/AMOS

1. Introduction In Chapter 2, correspondences with other books in the Book of the Twelve were discussed. This chapter attempts to arrive at some diachronic conclusions. 2. Joel Most of the parallels with the book of Joel are found in Obad. 15a, 16-18. The formula 'For the day of the LORD is near' (Obad. 15a) appears several times in Joel, and once, as in Obadiah, with reference to the nations (Joel 4.14). The coming of the 'day of the LORD' is also mentioned in Joel 1.15 (in the same words as in 4.14 and Obad. 15); 2.1 ('for the day of the LORD is coming, it is near'); 2.II. 1 Obadiah is more specific than Joel: Joel has a general 'day of the LORD', whereas Obadiah speaks of the 'day of the LORD upon all the nations'. Obad. 16-18 has parallels with Joel 4.17; 3.5; 2.3, 5; 4.8. An elaborate description of the parallels is given in S. Bergler's dissertation on Joel.2 The majority of the scholars commenting on the relationship between Obadiah and Joel hold that the Obadiah version is the original one.3 In my opinion, however, the evidence seems to support the priority of Joel.4 1. On the use and the background of the formula 'the day of the LORD is near', cf. H. Irsigler, Gottesgericht und Jahwetag. Die Komposition Zef 1,1-2,31, untersucht aufder Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches (ATSAT, 3; St Ottilien, 1977), pp. 319-47. 2. Bergler, Joel als Schrlftinterpret, pp. 295-333. 3. See, for example, the survey in Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 14; cf. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 295-96. 4. Cf. W. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona (KAT, XIII.2; Gutersloh, 1971), p. 297.

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and Joel/Amos

75

We shall first have a closer look at the parallel texts. Obad. 16-17 16 For as you have drunk upon my holy mountain... 17 But in Mount Zion there shall be those that escape (no''?*) rrnn |vs inm), and it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions.

Joel 4.17 (cf. 2.1)... in Zion/ (on) my holy mountain... 3.5... for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be those who escape (nD'ba rrnn...iv*-Tm '3), 4.17 And Jerusalem shall be holy...

The contents of the two distinct verses Joel 4.17 and 3.5 appear together in Obad. 16-17. As for Joel 4.17, the use of 'my holy mountain' ('tfnp "in) would not be enough to infer that a literary relationship exists, although it is a phrase of limited occurrence.1 But the expression: Mount Zion/Jerusalem 'shall be holy' (Bhp rpm/ nrrm)—which is found in the same verse—is unique for Obad. 17 and Joel 4.17. These verses must be related.2 Obad. 17a and Joel 3.5b are very similar; Joel only contains an extra 'in Jerusalem'. Since Joel continues with 'as the LORD has said', many scholars think that the author here explicitly quotes Obad. 17. However, this view has not gone undisputed. Below, we shall discuss why. Obadiah 18 18 The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble; they shall burn them and consume (•»*) them, and there shall be no survivor

Joel 2.3 Fire devours (*»K) before them, and behind them a flame burns, 2.5... like the crackling of a flame of fire devouring the stubble...

for the LORD has spoken.

4.8... for the LORD has spoken.

2.3... and nothing escapes

(Tito rrir-RVi) to the house of Esau; (nrrn-K1? no^-DJi) them,

In Joel 2.3 and 2.5 the image of a fire is used to describe the onrushing troops of the enemy nation which appear on 'the day of the LORD' (2.1). In 1.19-20 it occurs in another sense. In Obadiah this image is used for 'the house of Jacob' taking its possessions (see the 1. Outside Joel and Obadiah: Isa. 11.9 // 65.25; 56.7; 57.13; 65.11; 66.20; Ezek. 20.40; Zeph. 3.11; Ps. 2.6. 2. See for the conception of Jerusalem as a 'holy city' e.g. Isa. 48.2; 52.1; cf. Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', pp. 92-93.

76

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

last sentence of v. 17, and cf. vv. 19-20). The words for 'fire', 'flame', 'stubble', 'consume/devour' are the same in both books "PDR).1 The detail that no one will escape the fire is also shared; cf. the similar sentence structures.2 The sentence Obad. 18 concludes with (which is also found in Joel) is not very common. In the prophetic books, ITI nirr »3 only occurs in four other places (Isa. 1.2; 22.25; 25.8; Jer. 13.15). Interesting is the use of 'survivor' (into) instead of the 'escape' (ner^a) from Joel. Joel 3.5, the parallel of Obad. 17, mentions both 'survivors' and 'escape'; it may have inspired the variation. In Obadiah the remark on the absence of any survivors of the fire (v. 18 // Joel 2.3) has been made to reflect directly the possibility of escape on Mount Zion (v. 17 // Joel 3.5). While the house of Jacob will be restored after the day of judgment, the house of Esau expressly will not. The two separate verses Joel 2.3 and 3.5 are here, in Obad. 17-18, connected, and, what is more, placed in the service of the opposition that determines Obad. 8-21. Together, they reflect v. 14, in which it is said that 'those who escaped' (D'D>l?a RSV: 'fugitives') and the 'survivors' (nnnto) in the 'day' of Israel's 'distress' become the victims of the Edomites. On the 'day of the LORD' Israelite fugitives, once in fear of being killed or delivered up by Edomites, will be safe on Mount Zion, while no one of the Edomites, now when they are the threatened ones, will escape.3 As stated above, the use of 'as the LORD has said' in Joel 3.5b, in a verse that is quite similar to Obad. 17a, has often led to the supposition that in the former verse, the latter is being quoted.4 It is, how1. Although the image of burning stubble is quite frequent, the four words used in Obad. 18 and Joel 2.3, five occur together only in one other text (Isa. 5.24), which proves that we find here a real parallel. This is confirmed by the fact that only in Obadiah and Joel is the image used for the confrontation between nations. In Exod. 15.7; Isa. 5.24; 47.14; Nah. 1.10; Mai. 3.19; Ps. 83.14-15, the confrontation is between YHWH and the nation (or persons) concerned. 2. This detail with the image of burning stubble (cf. previous note) is specific for Obadiah and Joel. 3. Cf. Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', p. 94. 4. See, for example, U. Masing, Der Prophet Obadja. I: Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten Obadja (Tartu, 1937), pp. 128-30 (with review preceding literature); Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, p. 81; J. Day, 'Prophecy', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written. Scripture Citing Scripture (Fs B. Lindars; Cambridge, 1988), p. 49.

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and Joel/Amos

77

ever, rather unusual in the prophetic literature—although it is very common to use other prophets' words—that quotations are marked. This would be the only instance.1 Why would the fact that the author quoted another text have been stated explicitly exactly here? 'As the LORD has said' can also be taken to mean that the preceding sentence belongs to a well-known general prophetic tradition, which the early readers must have recognized.2 Another possibility is that this sentence does not serve to indicate a quotation, but to link up with the concluding verses of the preceding chapter (2.26-27), which also proclaimed that YHWH's nation ('my nation', 2.26, 27; 'all who call upon the name of the LORD', 3.5) will further be safe.3 The same idea is expressed in 4.16b-17. Above, the correspondence between 3.5, 4.17, and Obad. 17 was observed. Joel 3.5 and 4.16b-17 share, in addition to the idea of YHWH's protection of Israel at the time of doom (cf. 3.4 and 4.15), the significant combination of 'Zion' and 'Jerusalem'. 4 Joel 3.5 might, therefore, even be regarded as a 'quotation' of 4.16b-17 (at least, it may have been regarded as such by the one who wrote 'as the LORD has said'5). Apart from this intriguing little sentence, a comparison suggests the priority of Joel. 1. Obad. 16-17 is a logical unity. 'Mount Zion' (v. 17), designated before as 'my holy mountain' (v. 16), is going to be a safe place when YHWH will make the nations drink his cup; as such, it will be 'holy'. If the author of Joel had been the one who used the other prophet's book, he would have had to deconstruct Obad. 16-17 in a rather radical way. The most important part, the 'drinking' of the nations, was not used, and what was left, he divided over two places. It is more likely that the author of Obadiah took the two verses from Joel in order to combine them. The more so because the idea of the nations drinking the cup after Israel has drunk it, was probably borrowed 1. Not counting the prophetic narrative in Jer. 26, in which 'certain of the elders of the land' (v. 17) quote an oracle of 'Micah of Moresheth' (v. 18). 2. Cf. van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 201-202. See e.g. Isa. 37.22 // 2 Kgs 19.31; cf. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 77. 3. Cf. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, pp. 73-74, whose view is followed by Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', pp. 96-97; Prinsloo, Book of Joel, p. 90 (and cf. p. 89 n. 48). 4. Cf. van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 201-202. 5. According to Prinsloo, Book of Joel, p. 89 n. 48, this sentence is possibly a 'redactional addition'.

78

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

from the book of Jeremiah.1 It seems that here the author of Obadiah assembled several texts from other prophetic books, creatively stringing them together into a new unity. 2. In Obad. 18 the fire/flame/stubble simile is woven into a text which connects it with Obadiah's main theme, the retribution for Esau's mistreating his brother. This seems to point to the priority of the Joel version. Otherwise, the author of Joel would have had to loosen the image out of all the references to the Jacob-Esau opposition. However, if the direction of influence is as we presume, the author of Obadiah did not need to change texts in this way. In Joel there are no details connected with the image which had to be removed. The author of Obadiah had only to apply the image to his theme. The most striking feature of Obad. 18 is the fourfold use of 'house of...': 'house of Jacob' (also used in the preceding verse), 'house of Joseph', and twice 'house of Esau'. It is more likely that the author of Obadiah added these names and phrases to texts from Joel than that the author of Joel made a general text out of this specific one. And once again, the author of Obadiah seems to have been inspired by other prophetic texts as well. While 'house of Esau' is his own invention (cf. 'Mount Esau', vv. 8, 9, 19, 21), the other two 'houses' may derive from Amos. As discussed in Chapter 22 (and cf. below), there appears to exist a relationship between Amos 9 and Obadiah. Now, 'house of Jacob', which is further not at all frequent in the prophetic literature, also occurs in Amos 9.8 (and in 3.13).3 The first time this phrase occurs in Obadiah is in v. 17: 'and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions'. Edom is the first victim (v. 18; cf. vv. 19-20). Compare with this Amos 9.12: 'that they [the restored Israel, BD] may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name'.4 'House of Joseph' too is an infrequent phrase, which is found, though, in the book of Amos (5.6; cf. 5.15; 6.6 'Joseph').5 The evidence 1. As was argued above, Chapter 4, section 4. 2. Sections 3 and 4. 3. Further: Isa. 2.5, 6; 8.17; 10.20; 14.1; 29.22; 46.3; 48.1; 58.1; Jer. 2.4.; 5.20; Ezek. 20.5; Mic. 2.7; 3.9. 4. Cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 94. 5. In prophetic literature it occurs in one other place only (Zech. 10.6); elsewhere 10 times. Cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 95; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse,

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and JoeUAmos

79

strongly suggests that the author of Obadiah knew the book of Amos, just as he appears to have known the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It can be concluded that the sentence 'and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions' at the end of Obad. 17 was inspired by Amos, and that the expressions 'house of Jacob' and 'house of Joseph' in Obad. 18 too derive from the book that precedes Obadiah in the Twelve. In itself, this dependence on Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Amos does not necessarily mean that Obadiah is dependent on Joel as well. What pleads in favour of this, however, is that the parts Obad. 15-18 has in common with Jeremiah and Amos, are all absent in Joel. It is not easy to explain, if one accepts that Joel is the dependent one, why everything in Obad. 15-18 is used, except for the parts that are related to Jeremiah and Amos. It is far more likely that the parts in common derive from Joel. They were used in Obadiah along the material taken from the other prophets. This general argument appears to confirm the conclusion reached on the basis of the detailed comparison of the individual verses. The evidence considered so far suggests the priority of Joel. There is, however, a complicating factor. In Chapter 2, we discussed the theories of P. Weimar and D.A. Schneider on the origin of the Book of the Twelve.1 In Weimar's view, Obadiah was written by several subsequent authors and editors. If he is right, one could assume that during that history the direction of influence alternated. Schneider's theory too would account for mutual dependence; if the prophetic books now in the Book of the Twelve were all added to the growing collection shortly after their composition, mutual borrowings could have occurred. Weimar accepts that Obadiah had become a part of the Book of the Twelve before it attained its present form; he points to signs of mutual dependence and redactional links between the various books within the Twelve (e.g. between Joel and Obadiah, and Amos and Obadiah).2 Therefore, we must investigate whether there is evidence of Joel borrowing from Obadiah. At least in one instance, Joel appears to pp. 287-89. Although it occurs elsewhere as well (e.g. Jer. 31), the idea that northern Israel will be restored together with Judah may be another example of Ezekiel's influence on Obadiah—see Ezek. 37.15-28; cf. 35.10. 1. Weimar, 'Obadja'; Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve'; Chapter 2, section 1. 2. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 88-89, 94-95, 95-99.

80

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

depend on Obadiah. In Joel 4.19 Edom is told that it will turn into a desolation 'for the violence (onnn) done to the people of Judah'. oonn with genitivus obiectivus occurs also in Obad. 10, and, what is more: only there.1 As in Joel, the violence was directed against Israel ('For the violence done to your brother Jacob. . . '; Joel's phrase 'people of Judah' appears in Obad. 12). It is evident that the verses are related. Probably, the Obadiah version is the original one. In Obadiah, the following verses make it clear what kind of violence is thought of: Edom's hostility in the day of the fall of Jerusalem. In Joel, the reader is supposed to know what the remark refers to, for no details are given. Now, Joel 4.19 belongs to the parts in ch. 4 which are often thought of as a later addition to the book of Joel, vv. 4-8 and 18-21.2 If our observation on Obad. 10 // Joel 4.19 is correct, the author of the later parts in Joel must have known the book of Obadiah. The description in Joel 4.4-8 of the crimes of Judah's neighbours and the retribution was probably inspired by a similar section in Obadiah (with respect to Edom; vv. 10-14, 15b).3 One element from Obad. 10-14, 15b is found twice in the secondary parts of Joel 4: Obadiah 15bp... your deed shall return (2TE) qal) on your own head.

Joel 4.4, 7 I will requite (meJ hif.) your deed upon your own head.

The correspondence in terminology is significant: the combination 'return/requite' (310) + 'deed' CPIDJ) + 'head' (tfri) only occurs in these three texts.4 This indicates that we find here a quotation from the book of Obadiah. The parallel of Joel 4.8 with Obad. 18 we discussed above ('for the LORD has spoken') can also be regarded as a quotation from Obadiah. As for the older parts of the book of Joel, if we are right in posing that the author of Obadiah knew and used these, their composition 1. Cf. Bergler, Joel ah Schriftinterpret, pp. 310-11. . 2. Cf. for a recent defence of this view: van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 210-12, 234-37, 262, 266-67. Van der Meer arrives at his conclusion on the basis of an extensive formal analysis of the entire book of Joel (pp. 40-129). Even Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, who argues for unity of the book of Joel, considers the possibility of these parts being secondary (p. 323). 3. Joel 4.4-8 is quite similar to Obad. 10-14, 15b: cf. above, Chapter 4, section 2. 4. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 281.

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and Joel/Amos

81

date provides us with a terminus a quo for the date of Obadiah. Unfortunately, even the century in which Joel's work has to be situated is a moot point. Proposals vary from the ninth to the second century BCE.1 However, the 'later parts' in Joel suggest that both Joel and Obadiah in their present forms were probably not written very long after the exilic period, since both Joel 4.4-8, 18-21 and its source in Obad. 1014, 15b concentrate on the fall of Jerusalem and the ensuing confrontation with the nations around Judah.2 The joint occurrence of Egypt and Edom in Joel 4.19 has been variously explained. Some maintain that these nations are the typical enemies in texts on the 'day of YHWH'.3 Others argue that the mention of Egypt together with Edom has historical roots: both nations abandoned Judah unexpectedly when Nebuchadnezzar came to destroy it. Before, they had posed as allies (cf. Jer. 27; Ezek. 29).4 In Chapter 2 (section 4), we compared the last verses of Joel (4.1821) and those of Obadiah (vv. 19-21). Here, we can add that Obadiah's ending, like Joel's, is generally regarded as a later appendage. It is noteworthy that in Obad. 19-20 the Edomites, the Philistines and the Phoenicians appear together—all of these nations are present in the later parts in Joel, 4.4-8, 19-21. In both cases the action against Israel's neighbours takes place in the context of Israel's return to its land (Obad. 19-20; Joel 4.7, 20).5 1. Cf. overview in Prinsloo, Book of Joel, pp. 5-8. Two recent studies: Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 363-65: fourth century BCE; van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 265-66: end seventh/beginning sixth century BCE. 2. Cf. on Joel: van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 214-16, 236-37; on Obadiah: Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 362 (with most of the present-day scholars; cf. survey pp. 9-12). 3. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, p. 101, who mentions Ezek. 30.3ff; Jer. 46.2ff, 10; Isa. 34.6-7, 8; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 208-209. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 327-333 advocates a typological reading, derived from his interpretation of the book of Joel (exodus-typology). 4. Cf. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 161-62 (in n. 259 she discusses and rejects Wolffs view [cf. my previous note]), pp. 200-201; van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 241-42. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-ObadjaJona, pp. 74-79 and Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', pp. 75-76 assert that the combination of Edom and Egypt makes sense in late pre-exilic times. 5. Cf. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 316-18.

82

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

We may infer from the correspondence that both texts stem from about the same time.1 If our considerations on the date of Joel 4.4-8, 18-21 are accurate, this means that the Obadiah appendage too must have been written in the sixth century BCE, or at least, not long afterwards. The Amos appendage (9.13-15), in which one verse (9.13) is parallel to a verse in the Joel appendage (4.18), may stem from the same time as the other two. Possibly the three appendages were composed together, in the context of a common edition of the three prophetic books. 3. Amos Above, in the section on Joel, data were discussed which pointed to dependence of Obad. 15-18 on texts in Amos 9 and other parts of the book of Amos. Here, the diachronic implications of the correspondence (discussed in Chapter 2) between Obad. 4-6 and Amos 9.2-4 will be considered. Like Obad. 4-5, Amos 9.2-4 uses a series of five sentences with DM, which form is found nowhere else. Furthermore, the two texts have a similar theme (and use partly the same words): if YHWH is after his enemies, it will be impossible for them to hide and be safe. 'If'/'though' (DK) one tries to flee or to hide himself somewhere, YHWH will get him 'from there' (Dtfa, also five times; cf. Obad. 4 // Jer. 49.16). Amos 9.2b, 3 in particular are similar to Obad. 4-5 and its parallels in Jer. 49.9-lOa, 16. Amos 9.2b: 'though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down' (cf. Obad. 4 // Jer. 49.16). Amos 9.3: 'Though they hide themselves (Rnn, cf. Jer. 49.10)...and though they hide ("ino, cf. Jer. 49.10) from my sight...' The use of the verb toan, 'to search out', in Amos 9.3 is significant too. It is found in Obad. 6 (RSV: 'to pillage') and further in only one other place in the prophetic books. It is clear that between the two texts some connection exists. Did the author of Obadiah use Amos, or was it the other way round? Weimar contends that the last phases in the origin history of Obadiah took place within the Book of the Twelve, and asserts that its last redactors linked it with Amos 9. In his view, one of the ways in which they 1. Cf. Bergler, Joel ah Schriftinterpret, pp. 316-17.

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and Joel/Amos

83

pursued this goal was adapting the form and content of Amos 9.2-4 to Obadiah.1 In my view, however, the opposite is more likely. As for the parallels of Obad. 4-6 with Jeremiah, we have concluded that Jeremiah contains the original version, which was used by the writer of Obadiah. Now, the Obadiah version is the longer one. It contains two extra conditional clauses compared to Jeremiah: 'though your nest is set among the stars' (v. 4), and 'if plunderers by night' (v. 5), both beginning with DR. These clauses do not add new information, but more or less repeat the preceding lines—the one parallelled in Jeremiah ('Though you soar aloft like the eagle', and 'If thieves came to you' respectively). The thesis of Obadiah's dependence on Amos provides an answer to the question why the Jeremiah version was extended in this way: the author of Obadiah wanted to build a series of five sentences with DM like in Amos 9.2-4. (The Jeremiah version contained only three conditional sentences.) This would also explain the change of the conditional '3 of Jer. 49.16 in DK in Obad. 4. Secondly, the choice for the infrequent verb tosn, 'to pillage', in Obad. 6 can be explained as induced by the use of the same word in Amos 9.3 (RSV: 'to search out'). The author of Obadiah used this verb instead of the similar-looking verb ^fon—which, however, has a quite different meaning ('to lay bare')—in Jer. 49.10a.2 We have just mentioned the similarity in vocabulary between Jer. 49.10a and Amos 9.3. The words for 'hide'/'hiding place' correspond (Jer. 49.10: "inon, nan; Amos 9.3: nan, nno). Strikingly, these words are not used in Obad. 6. But their occurrence in Amos 9.3, within a passage with a similar theme as Obad. 4-6 // Jer. 49.16, 9-10, may have been the motivation for the author of Obadiah to adapt the oracle to Amos 9.2-4. To sum up: the differences in form, length and vocabulary between Obadiah and Jeremiah in these verses can be explained as ensuing from the effort of the author of Obadiah to conform his text—or rather Jeremiah's text—to Amos 9.2-4. Consequently, it can be inferred that the prophecy of Obadiah was written with an eye to its inclusion within the Book of the Twelve (or some earlier version of that). If we are right in assuming that Obadiah is secondary compared to 1. 2.

Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 89 with n. 157; pp. 94-95. Cf. above, Chapter 4, section 2.3.

84

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Amos 9, the composition date of the latter will provide the terminus a quo for the former. But when was Amos 9 composed? It has often been recognized that Amos's language bears great resemblance to Jeremiah's language. The meaning of this fact, however, has been variously interpreted. Most scholars think that Amos preceded Jeremiah. On the other hand, at least the last part of Amos 9 (vv. 11-15) is generally considered to be late. Besides, one of the results of Weimar's detailed literary- and redaction-critical analysis of Amos 9 is that vv. 2 and 3-4a belong to the last, post-exilic, stages of the origin history of this chapter.1 In my opinion, our finding that both the theme of Amos 9.2-4 and the repeated phrase 'from there' (Dtfn) are characteristic for the book of Jeremiah,2 indicates that this passage depends on Jeremiah. The more so because the phrasing of the theme in Amos 9.3 is quite similar to that in Jer. 16.17 and 23.24.3 Amos 9.2-4 betrays a writer who is at home in the Jeremiah material and in the Jeremianic language— just like the writer of Obadiah.4 Unfortunately, this does not help us much further. What it boils down to is that, because Amos 9 in its present form originated under the influence of Jeremiah, Obadiah must also be later than Jeremiah.

1. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 63-67, 77-78, 92-93; cf. I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alien Testaments. Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zuriickgehenden Biicher im hebrdischen Zwolfprophetenbuch (BZAW, 123; Berlin & New York, 1971), pp. 52-54. 2. Cf. Chapter 4, section 2, ad Obad. 3-4 // Jer. 49.16, and ad Obad. 6 // Jer. 49.10a. 3. Amos 9.3: 'though they hide from my eyes (RSV: sight)' / Jer. 16.17: 'they are not hid (rincM) from me, nor is their iniquity concealed from my eyes ('r» nan)'. Jer. 23.24: 'If (DK) a man hides himself (ino') in hiding places, would I not see him?' (RSV: 'Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him?'). 4. Cf. J.M. Berridge, 'Jeremia und die Prophetic des Amos', TZ 35 (1979), pp. 327-28 on Amos 9.1-4; W.L. Holladay, 'Prototype and Copies. A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah', JBL 79 (1960), p. 364 and W. Beyerlin, Reflexe der Amosvisionen im Jeremiabuch (OBO, 93; Freiburg [Schweiz] & Gottingen, 1989), p. 89 on Amos 9.4b. They, however, presume that Amos 9.(l-)4 was Jeremiah's source, and not the other way round.

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and Joel/Amos

85

4. Joel 4, Amos 1 and Obadiah Our next topic is the connection that appears to exist between the accusations against Israel's neighbours in Joel 4.4-8, Amos 1 and Obad. 10-15. In our discussion of these texts in Chapter 2, it was remarked that in an oracle against a foreign nation realistic indictments are unusual, and it was shown that the use of these realistic historical details is one of the issues connecting Joel 4, Amos 1-2 and Obadiah.1 Not only the genre, but also the contents appeared to be partly parallel. In Chapter 4, it was argued that the use of realistic indictments in Obadiah is probably due to influence from the book of Ezekiel.2 Combining this conclusion with our findings on the connections between Amos 1-2 and Obadiah, the most obvious inference seems to be that the form of Amos 1-2 too was inspired by Ezekiel. A similar view is advocated by J.B. Geyer, who underscores the links between Ezekiel 25-26 and Amos 1-2, and suggests that the composition of the two texts has the same background. That background may be that an editor wanted to complement the book with oracles against the nations (or, with more oracles); in both cases, a collection of seven oracles against the nations was formed.3 Outside Ezekiel 25-26 and Amos 12, this type of oracle is not found in the various prophetic collections of oracles against the nations. As Geyer argues, we find here specimens of a new direction in the genre. Apparently, Ezekiel functioned as a source book. The book of Ezekiel or the tradents of the Ezekiel material appear to have advanced the composition of new texts, and also the interpretation of existing prophetic books. Ezekiel served as a source for Obadiah, and it may also have influenced the composition of Amos 1 and Joel 4. All these texts accuse the nation concerned in the same way. They ma have been composed in each other's vicinity, possibly at about the same time. Besides the type of accusation, we observed a similarity in subject matter in Joel 4.4-8, Amos 1 and Obad. 10-15, as well as some

1. Chapter 2, section 4. 2. Cf. Chapter 4, section 5. 3. Cf. Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture', particularly pp. 138-41.

86

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

striking details all three passages share.1 As to Joel 4.4-8, it was established that this passage is dependent on Obad. 10-15.2 An important difference between Joel and Obadiah is that Joel accuses not Edom but the Phoenicians and the Philistines (nations also occurring in the Obadiah appendage, vv. 19-20). As to Amos 1, it was shown that in this text the Phoenicians and the Philistines are accused of the same crime, which is, moreover, none other than the one mentioned in Joel 4.4-8.3 In Amos 1.6, 9 Edom is the accomplice of these nations. The choice in Joel 4.4-8 for exactly these two nations may have been inspired by Amos 1 (it should be noted that Amos 1 and Joel 4 have another striking parallel: Amos 1.2a recurs literally in Joel 4.16). This is the more likely if Joel had already acquired its place in the canon, that is, before Amos. The correspondences suggest that at some time the books of Joel, Amos and Obadiah were combined, and geared to each other with the aid of existing and new texts.4 5. Summary In addition to the links between Obadiah and Amos 9, the chapter preceding it in the canon, Obadiah appeared to be related to Amos's first chapter as well, and also to the chapter preceding Amos 1, that is to say, Joel 4. Amos 1 and Joel 4 were seen to be related as well. Connections appeared to exist between the accusations against Israel's neighbours in Joel, Amos and Obadiah, and also between their depictions of the 'future day', on which YHWH will restore Israel and judge the nations. Moreover, both in Amos's oracle against Edom (1.11-12) and in Obadiah, Edom is called Israel's brother. In Joel 4, Edom (together with Egypt) is thought of as worthy of special attention as Israel's typical enemy, just as in Obadiah. Amos 9.2-4 and other details in Amos 9 were used by the author of Obadiah. It seems probable that at least parts of Joel, Amos and Obadiah did not originate independently. As we have seen, the similarities between these books can partly be explained as quotations, but there are also signs of 1. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4. 2. Above, section 2. Joel 4.19, like Joel 4.4-8 belonging to the secondary parts of the book, appeared to betray knowledge of Obad. 10. 3. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4. 4. Cf. the conclusion of section 2.

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and Joel/Amos

87

mutual dependence, and data which indicate that editors linked the books. Probably, Joel 4, Amos 1 and 9, and Obadiah in their present forms were composed in about the same period, not long after the composition of Ezekiel 25-26 and 35, that is at the end of the exile (cf. Chapter 3).1 6. Conclusion The findings of this chapter can be summarized as follows: (a) in the third part of the book of Obadiah (vv. 15a, 16-21), Joel served as a source; (b) to a lesser degree, there is evidence of influence in the opposite direction (viz. Obad. 10-15 > Joel 4.4-8, 18-21) and of redactional links between Joel 4 and Obadiah (Joel 4.4-8, 18-21; Obad. 19-20); these connections are found in the supposed secondary parts of Joel; (c) ideas and forms from Amos 9 were used in Obad. 46 and 17, 18, 19-20 (cf. Amos 9.2-4, 8, 12); (d) the correspondence in type and theme between the indictments against Israel's neighbours in Joel 4, Amos 1 and Obadiah are partly due to the influence of the book of Ezekiel, partly to Joel's dependence on Amos and Obadiah; and (e) the examples of mutual dependence mentioned thus far indicate that Joel, Amos and Obadiah were joined together before their composition had been completed. The closing sections of the three books may have been written at the same time, in the context of a redaction of the Book of the Twelve.

1.

The discussion on the date of Amos 1 will be resumed in Chapter 12.

Chapter 6 LITERARY HISTORY 1. Introduction Important for an assessment of the literary history of the book of Obadiah is its relation with the oracle against Edom in Jer. 49.7-22. Though the author of Obadiah appears to have known and used other prophetic texts as well, none of the parallels are as close as those with Jeremiah. Precisely because Obadiah and Jeremiah have several parallel verses, it is striking that entire parts of their oracles against Edom are not parallel. One possible explanation for this situation is, that at one time the Jeremianic oracle contained no more than the verses now parallelled in Obadiah. An original, small, Jeremianic oracle against Edom may have been worked out both by the author of Obadiah and the editors of the Jeremiah material. In this chapter, we shall discuss the evidence for such an explanation. After the examination of Jer. 49.7-22 and its connections with Obadiah (section 2), an attempt can be made to establish the origin history and development of the book of Obadiah (section 3). 2. The Oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49.7-22 1. Edom's Role in Jeremiah 49.7-22 In Chapter 1, we considered Edom's role as a type in the book of Obadiah. It was found that in the last part of the book, vv. 16-21, Edom acts as Israel's typical enemy, the nation that represents the other enemy nations. As will be seen, in Jer. 49.7-22 too Edom's role is that of a type. Unlike the oracles against Edom in Isaiah 34, Ezekiel 35 and Obadiah, which are all situated outside existing collections oracles

6. Literary History

89

against the nations, Jer. 49.7-22 does not have an unusual position. It is one of the oracles against the nations in chs. 46-51. Nevertheless, there are some indications that the estimation for Edom is not the same as that for the other nations.1 The chs. 46-51 discuss the downfall of the nations in the vicinity of Israel. The reason for their downfall can be found in 25.1-11: YHWH has decided to condemn his people for their sins. The Babylonians serve as executors of his judgment. They will devastate the land of Israel—and, strikingly, the countries 'round about' (25.9). When YHWH judges and condemns even his own people, the other nations cannot keep out of harm's way (cf. 25.28-29). They will be annihilated as well. The following passage lists the nations concerned (25.15-29). Even Babylon itself will suffer this fate (25.12-14, 26; cf. chs. 50-51). All nations will have to drink YHWH's 'cup of the wine of wrath' (25.15, cf. vv. 27-28). The theme of the cup appears in chs. 46-51 in two of the oracles against the nations: those against Babylon (chs. 50-51) and Edom. In 51.7-8 the situation is contemplated that the 'golden cup in the LORD'S hand, making all the earth drunken', which Babylon once was, now has been broken. In 49.12 Edom is shown as a nation that is told to drink this cup just like the other nations: If those who did not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, will you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink.

It is unclear who are 'those who did not deserve to drink the cup', but it is evident that here Edom plays the role of the nation that refuses to drink the cup from ch. 25. See 25.28-29: And if they refuse to accept the cup from your hand to drink, then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts: You must drink! For behold, I begin to work evil at the city which is called by my name, and shall you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished'.

Not only v. 12, but also v. 13 points to ch. 25. For Israel, the effect of drinking the cup will be that it turns into 'a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse' (25.18); Edom will become 'a horror, a taunt, a waste, and a curse' (49.13). Such series of curse terms are quite frequent outside chs. 46-51, but within them they only occur here and

1.

Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 123-43.

90

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

in the oracles against Babylon (51.37; cf. v. 43).1 It should be noted that vv. 12-13 stand apart in their context: they are in prose, whereas the verses in the sections vv. 7-11 and 14-16 have a poetic structure. An analysis of the vocabulary of Jer. 49.7-22 and its context (as I have carried out elsewhere) shows that 49.7-22 treats Edom on the one hand as just one of the nations, and on the other hand as rather an exceptional one.2 Some parts make the oracle fit very well in its context (namely, ch. 49).3 Other parts link it with oracles against Israel and, at the same time, the oracles against Babylon. An illustrative example is the above-mentioned v. 13. The various curse terms on their own as well as the expressions 'For I have sworn by myself and 'be perpetual wastes' are all known from the oracles against Israel; within chs. 46-51 they only occur in the oracles against Babylon in chs. 50-51.4 The vv. 49.17, 18, 19-21 have doublets in ch. 50: 49.17 // 50.1 49.18 // 50.40; 49.19-21 // 50.44-46. As for the language of these common verses, it is remarkable that their words, phrases and images occur within the oracles against the nations almost exclusively in chs. 50-51, whereas in the rest of the book they quite frequently appear in oracles against Israel.5 This leads to the conclusion that Edom, Babylon and Israel have a particular relation. As regards Babylon and Israel, this is hardly surprising, given Babylon's role in the rest of the book. In chs. 50-51 Babylon's doom is explicitly linked with its actions against Israel and with Israel's restoration. Because Edom's oracle is connected, by parallels and idiomatic correspondence, with the oracles against Babylon, Edom's fate too becomes related to that of Israel. Babylon is YHWH's destroyer of both Israel and the nations. After the sentence on Israel has been 1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 139-40. 2. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 125-29, 262-70. 3. Cf. Dicou, 'De Structuur van de verzameling profetieen over de volken in Jeremia 46-51', ACEBT 10 (1989), pp. 84-87, and Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 122-25, 128-29. 4. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 140. 5. Cf. A. Marx, 'A propos des doublets du livre de Je're'mie. Reflexions sur la formation d'un livre prophe'tique', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy (Fs G. Fohrer; BZAW, 150; Berlin, 1980), pp. 117-18; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 126-27.

6. Literary History

91

executed YHWH and Israel can start anew, but not before Babylon— and Edom as well—have been annihilated. Only when the last nation has been destroyed, the nation that refuses to 'drink the cup', Israel's new future can begin. On the one hand, Edom represents the nations in general, which must be annihilated before Israel's restoration; on the other hand it is connected with the nation that serves as YHWH's instrument for the annihilation of Israel and the nations. In Obadiah, parts II (vv. 8-15) and III (vv. 16-21) stress the antagonism between Edom and Israel ('Mount Esau' and 'Mount Zion'). Moreover, in part III Edom's fate is explicitly linked with the fate of the nations in general. The opposition between Israel and Edom is the opposition between Israel and the representative of the nations. In Jeremiah, the opposition between Israel and Edom is only very indirectly visible. Accordingly, Edom's role as a type is much more implicit than in Obadiah. It is present only in parts of the oracle in 49.7-22: viz. in the vv. 12-13, 17-21. Apart from Obad. 16, which shares its topic 'drinking the cup' with Jer. 49.12, there is no trace of these verses in the book of Obadiah. 2. Literary History of Jeremiah 49.7-22 The verses which provide Edom with its special status are either doublets or contain expressions that are highly parallel with other oracles (viz. oracles against Israel and Babylon). One can presume that they are a later feature in this text. The secondarily of Jer. 49.12, 13, 17, 18-22 is quite generally acknowledged.1 The doublets in 49.17-21 were borrowed from the oracles against Babylon. A simple explanation for their absence in Obadiah would be that the incorporation of the Jeremiah material in the book of Obadiah took place before the oracle in Jeremiah had been extended with the Babylon texts and had attained its present form. Indeed, this is quite probable, since the oracles against Babylon themselves must be a later part of the book of 1. Cf. e.g. L.C. Hay, 'The Oracles against the Foreign Nations in Jeremiah 4651' (dissertation, Nashville, 1960), pp. 153-55; W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 1,12; Tubingen, 3rd edn, 1968), pp. 291-93; R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL; London, 1986), p. 805; W. Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes (BZAW, 173; Berlin & New York, 1988), pp. 161-63 (on vv. 19-21).

92

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Jeremiah. Their quotation in the oracle against Edom must be relatively late. As for Jer. 49.12-13, it was established that the author of Obadiah may have known the use of the topic 'drinking the cup' in v. 12.1 Now, it looks as if vv. 12 and 13 belong together. As discussed in the previous section, both relate to Jer. 25.15-29. The destruction of Edom's land, which will turn into a desolation after Edom's drinking the cup, is the same fate as will befall Israel and the other nations after drinking the cup of God's wrath (see 25.17-18). The author of Obadiah may be assumed, if it is right that he knew Jer. 49.12, to have known Jer. 49.13 too. On the grounds of the above observations, it can be argued that the original Jeremianic oracle against Edom underwent (at least) two expansions. The last expansion, with which the author of Obadiah was not acquainted, was based on quotations from the oracles against Babylon. The first expansion, with which this author was acquainted, connected the oracle with Jeremiah 25. It contained at least Jer. 49.1213. Jer. 49.17, the first verse of the second expansion, links up with the first one by taking up theme (the land turning into a desolation) and vocabulary ('horror', nntf) of v. 13. In this context, the observed difference between the quotations in Obad. 1-6 (from Jer. 49.14-16 and 9-10) and the one in Obad. 7-8 may be of relevance. It was noticed that in the former verses Jeremiah is quoted rather literally, whereas the latter give a free interpretation. Jer. 49.12 is given a similar free interpretation in Obad. 16. This may indicate that Jer. 49.7, like Jer. 49.12, is secondary in the oracle. Another indication of this is that Jer. 49.7 shows a striking resemblance to 49.1, the first verse of the preceding oracle (against Ammon): both verses consist of three rhetorical questions, the first with n and p*. Furthermore, both verses speak about 'sons', Dm.2 And while the introductory verse of the oracle against Ammon actually introduces its subject, the first verse of the oracle against Edom does not do so. Its content is not related to the following verse (8), nor to vv. 9-10. To sum up: Jer. 49.7 looks like a secondary introduction verse, borrowed, as far as its form is concerned, from the preceding oracle. 1. Cf. Chapter 4, section 4. 2. In 49.7, RSV ('the prudent') and many translations interpret D'n as a form of the verb ]'3. This interpretation, however, has to be rejected; cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 238 (note 9).

6. Literary History

93

In addition to the prose section vv. 12-13 and the doublets with chs. 50-51 in vv. 17-21, which are clearly secondary, some other verses from Jer. 49.7-22 too are missing in Obadiah. While most of the (poetic) sections vv. 7-11, 14-16 was quoted, the vv. 8, lOb and 11 were not. Possibly, this can be explained by supposing that these verses, with vv. 7, 12-13, belong to the first expansion of the oracle, the verses of which they are adjacent to. The first expansion would then consist of the two blocks vv. 7-8 and 10b-13. Is there any evidence for vv. 8, lOb and 11 being secondary as well? In fact, there is. As for Jer. 49.8, the first half of this verse (8a) is found also in 49.30 (with small differences), while its second half (8b) corresponds with 46.21c. In the sentence preceding 46.21c, that is to say 46.21b, the same combination of the verbs 013 ('flee') and ma hif./hof. ('turn, turn back') occurs. Finally, 'For I will bring the calamity of Esau upon him' (49.8b) corresponds with 'and I will bring their calamity' in 49.32. 'Calamity' (TR) is not very frequent in Jeremiah: besides 46.21, 49.8, 32 it only occurs two times in the book (18.17; 48.16). Jer. 49.8 gives the impression of being assembled from sentences and phrases of 46.21, 49.30 and 49.32. When looking at Jer. 49.10b, 11, one notices the similarity in content and form of these verses with 49.8. These verses may well have been composed together. Consequently, 49.1 Ob, 11 must be secondary too. In 49.8 Edom's neighbouring people the Dedanites are warned to flee because Edom will be destroyed ('Flee, turn back, dwell in the depths...'). Jer. 49.10b confirms that 'neighbours' are in danger too. Like 49.8, 49.11 contains a sentence in the imperative relating to the saving of life from the complete destruction which befalls Edom: 'Leave your fatherless children, I will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me'. Although at first sight 49.11 seems to be a positive note, this verse only stresses the completeness of Edom's termination. The implication is that no men are left to care for the children and the women: all fathers and husbands have been killed (cf. v. lOb: 'His seed1 is destroyed, and his brothers, and his neighbours, and he is no more.'). As for the combination of v. 7 and vv. 8, 10b-ll, there is an interesting parallel with Jer. 10.20-21.2 In 10.20 we find, as in 49.10b, a sentence with "ntf ('destroy') pu. pf., ending in ]'«i with suffix. 1. 2.

1

uni;RSV:'children'. Cf. Dicou, 'Geen wijsheid meer in Edom', p. 93.

94

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Besides that, 10.20 contains a sentence with ]»K and TII> ('no one... again'), just like 49.7 ('no more...'). Moreover, the theme of 49.7 is found in 10.21. The subject of both verses is: 'the wise men have not been wise'. On the basis of the considerations above, it can be concluded that the original oracle contained 49.9-lOa and 14-16—the verses paralleled in Obad. 1-6. In a first expansion, the poetic verses 7-8, 10b-ll and the prose verses 12-13 were added. The former were partly taken from other oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 46-51, the latter refer to Jeremiah 25. A second expansion added vv. 17-21, which verses were inspired by and partly borrowed from the oracles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50-51. One verse still has to be discussed: Jer. 49.22, the last verse of the oracle against Edom. This verse is found divided in two parts in the oracle against Moab: 48.40, 41b. In ch. 48, it is probably secondary.1 In a sense, Jer. 49.22 repeats 49.19, the first verse of the preceding section (49.19-21 // 50.44-46). Both verses open with 'Behold, like a...he comes up' (n*7i>\..D ran): like an animal (v. 19: a lion; v. 22: an eagle) the enemy approaches.2 This suggests that v. 22 was composed as a continuation of (or a comment on) the preceding verses. The verses which have a parallel in Obad. 1-6 we have concluded to constitute the original Jeremianic oracle against Edom, so this oracle consisted of Jer. 49.9-lOa and 49.14-16. The order of the two parts is different in Jeremiah and Obadiah: the former is quoted in Obad. 5-6, and the latter in Obad. 1-4. Did Jeremiah or did Obadiah preserve the original order? In my view, Obadiah. First, a verse like Jer. 49.14 // Obad. 1 opens other oracles against the nations in the book of Jeremiah as well. A 'summons to war' as in 49.14 is also found at the beginning of the oracle against Egypt (46.3) and the oracle against Kedar and Hazor (49.28; there, as in 49.14, with Dip imp., 'rise up!').3 To 'hear' 'tidings' (nmoti untf) occurs at the beginning of the oracle against Damascus (49.23). As in 49.14, the 1. Cf. J.G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM, 6; Cambridge, MA, 1973), pp. 94-95, who arrives at this conclusion after a comparison with the LXX version, in which the two parts are absent. 2. Unfortunately, RSV translates n^ir differently in vv. 19 and 22: 'coming up' and 'he mounts up' respectively. 3. Cf. Bach, Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht, pp. 51-61. Outside Jer. 46-51 at the beginning of an oracle: Isa. 13.2.

6. Literary History

95

'tidings' are of approaching doom. Compare also the beginning of the oracles against Babylon, 'Declare among the nations and proclaim (j>Dtf hif.)' (50.2).l Conversely, Jer. 49.9 // Obad. 5 'can hardly have stood at the head of the poem', as T.H. Robinson contends.2 (Robinson continues: 'it is necessary to assume a deliberate dislocation in Jeremiah, where the poem has been woven in with other matter'.) Then, the ending of Jer. 49.14-16 seems to be linked in a way with Jer. 49.9-10, which points to the originality of the order: vv. 14-16— 9-10a. The last sentence in Jer. 49.14-16 is 'Though you make your nest as high as the eagle's, I will bring you down from there, says the LORD' (49.16c). Like 49.9, it is a conditional sentence (in Obad. 4, 56, these verses have been made to correspond to each other formally as well, in sentences with D»).3 Moreover, there is a certain thematic correspondence between 49.16 and 49.9-10—both express the impossibility of escaping YHWH. This is confirmed by the fact that in Amos 9.2-4, a passage highly related to Obad. 4-6, the same combination is found of 'go up/bring down' and 'impossible hiding' as in Obad. 3-4 and 5-6 // Jer. 49.16 and 9-10a (in Amos 9.2 and 3). Apparently, these motifs belong together. This proves that 49.9 should follow 49.16. We may, therefore, conclude that the original verse order is the one in Obadiah. The original Jeremianic oracle against Edom was Jer. 49.14-16, 9lOa. The coherent unity these verses constituted was later broken up. The text became divided in two fragments, which were complemented with other texts. These other texts provided a sort of comment on the original oracle. Jer. 49.8, 10b-ll emphasized that the calamity will completely ruin Edom (even its neighbours are in danger), as had already been expressed in vv. 9-10. The prose part vv. 12-13 made Edom the typical nation (of ch. 25) and at the same time Israel's counterpart among the nations. The original opening verse (49.14) being moved to the middle part of the oracle, a new introductory verse had to be composed: Jer. 49.7. It was inspired by the opening verse of the preceding oracle (49.1; cf. also 48.2: 'the renown of Moab is no more', Titf j'K, like in 49.7). 1. The same sentence is used at the beginning of the second oracle against Egypt, in 46.14. Cf. Dicou, 'De Structuur', p. 85. 2. T.H. Robinson, 'The Structure of the Book of Obadiah', JTS 17 (1916), p. 404. 3. Cf. Chapter 4, section 2.4.

96

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

The second expansion (vv. 17-22) too was an exegetical one: it equated Edom and Israel's other typical adversary, Babylon. Its first verse serves to connect the extra parts with the preceding oracle by taking up theme and vocabulary of the last verse of the first prose expansion (v. 13). The last verse of the text that obtains (v. 22) gives an elaboration of the quotations from the oracles against Babylon. Elsewhere, I have maintained that within the oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 46-51, 49.1-33 is to be seen as a smaller unity.1 This compositional unit is a quartet of prophecies which are complementary with regard to the places of residence they refer to. The oracle against Ammon (49.1-6) is about a low country, with 'valleys' (49.4). In contrast, the oracle against Edom (49.7-22) is about a nation that 'lives in the clefts of the rock' and 'holds the height of the hill' (49.16). The oracle against Damascus (49.23-27) concentrates on the 'city' (49.25; cf. vv. 23, 26, 27), whereas the oracle against Kedar and Razor (49.28-33) names 'tents' and 'camels' (49.29), a nation which 'has no gates or bars' (49.31). The quartet of relatively short oracles concludes the first of the two sections within chs. 46-51 (46.1-49.33). The last oracle in ch. 49, the one against Elam (49.34-39), is the first of the second section (49.3451.64).2 If the secondary parts are left out, the four oracles are of about the same length. In 49.7-22, five verses were established to be original (49.14-16, 9-10a). In the other oracles too there are secondary parts: 49.6 in the oracle against Ammon, 49.33 in the oracle against the Arab peoples.3 The result is that all of the four oracles count five verses. In my view, this confirms our analysis at least as far as the size of the original oracle against Edom is concerned. Although there are no clear references to historical events, it seems possible to say something on the composition dates of the three stages in the origin history of Jer. 49.7-22. The original oracle may have been composed together with the other oracles in 49.1-33 by the prophet Jeremiah himself (if it is accepted that he composed any oracles against the nations), presumably some time before the end of the state Judah. The references to 1. Dicou, 'De Structuur', pp. 85-86 and Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 124-25, 128-29. 2. Dicou, 'De Structuur', pp. 84-85; Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 12324. 3. Cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 799 and 810 respectively.

6. Literary History

97

'Nebuchadrezzar' in 49.28, 30 may be secondary.1 The first expansion probably supposes Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns against Israel and its neighbours. From 49.12 ('others' have drunk the cup—Edom has not yet) it can be inferred that these nations have already fallen victim to the Babylonians. In 582 BCE Moab and Ammon had to share Judah's fate.2 If the nation that 'did not deserve to drink the cup' (but still has drunk it) is Judah, as some commentators think,3 Jer. 49.12 and the rest of the first expansion will have to be dated after 587 BCE. The other element in Jer. 49.12 is that Edom has not yet drunk the cup, but certainly will have to. Now, the end of the kingdom of Edom probably took place in 552 BCE, during the campaign of the Babylonian king Nabonidus against northern Arabia.4 The destruction of Edom may well have been the reason for composing a second version of the oracle. At last, Edom too had to 'drink the cup'. Evidence for the connection of the expanded version with Nabonidus's campaign may be found in the remarkable combination of 'Teman' and 'Dedan' in the secondary verses 49.7 and 8 respectively. Teman is a region in Edom. Dedan is a northern Arabian city quite far to the southeast of Edom. In the oracle against Edom, Ezek. 25.12-14, it is said that the Edomites 'shall fall by the sword', 'from Teman even to Dedan' (v. 13).5 Nabonidus's campaign was initially directed against Teima (not to be confused with Teman); Dedan was one the cities conquered afterwards.6 The addition of the Babylon material must of course date from some time after the composition of the oracles against Babylon. These were probably written before 539 BCE (the fall of Babylon), even 1. Cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 810-11. 2. M. Vogelstein, 'Nebuchadnezzar's Reconquest of Phoenicia and Palestine and the Oracles of Ezekiel', HUCA 23 (1950-51), pp. 207-208; cf. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 157. 3. Cf. e.g. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 758, 806. 4. J. Lindsay, The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605-550 B.C.', PEQ 108 (1976), pp. 32-39; cf. I. Eph'al, The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th-5th Centuries B.C. (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 185-88; E.A. Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13. Edom und Arabien', BN 45 (1988), p. 75; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 157-61. Critical notes: Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 139. 5. Cf. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 160. 6. E.A. Knauf, Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1985), pp. 74-75.

98

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

before 550 (the year in which the Medes—see 51.11—were defeated decisively).1 Consequently, the year 550 BCE can be established as the terminus a quo for the second expansion of the oracle against Edom.2 It is harder to decide when this expansion actually took place. 3. Obadiah Much of the literary history of the book of Obadiah has been established in the preceding chapters (4 and 5). The examination of verses, parts of verses and phrases that Obadiah has in common with other prophetic books has made it clear that its author composed his text mainly by compiling and combining elements from other texts. He appeared to have known and used not only the oracle against Edom in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 49.7-22), but also the oracle against Mount Seir in Ezek. 35 and the last chapter of Joel (Joel 4). These three texts appeared to have served as the basis of the first, the second and the last part of the book respectively (Obad. 1-7, 8-15, 16-21). Besides, there is evidence of other texts from the book of Jeremiah being used, as well as texts from the book of Amos. The analysis of the parallels provided another element of the literary history of Obadiah: after the book of Obadiah had been included in (an early version of) the Book of the Twelve, it was worked out by the editors of the Twelve. They added texts to Joel, Amos and Obadiah in order to gear these books to each other. Quite another picture of Obadiah's literary history is painted by Weimar,3 although he too assumes a common redaction of various prophetic books within the Twelve. Weimar gives a detailed literaryand redaction-critical analysis of the book of Obadiah. He discerns six stages. One can ask, however, if Weimar's model of several successive stages is necessary in order to explain the sometimes awkward connections between and within verses. If it is accepted that the text consists mainly of quotations, images and phrases from other prophetic books, this fact seems to explain the not too smooth internal 1. Cf. J. Bright, Jeremiah. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21; Garden City, NY, 1965), p. 360; K.A.D. Smelik, 'De functie van Jeremia 50 en 51 binnen het boek Jeremia', NTT41 (1987), p. 277. 2. Which does not help us much further, since above 552 BCE was suggested as terminus a quo for the first expansion of the oracle. 3. Weimar, 'Obadja'. Cf. above, Chapter 2, section 1.

6. Literary History

99

organization equally well, and one does not have to surmise various subsequent redactions. Weimar insists that only after the literary-critical analysis has been completed can questions about the direction of dependence among parallel texts be answered.1 In my view, the opposite is true.2 First, the character of the text must be established. If a text is a compilation of other texts, literary-critical arguments will be of little value. In that case, a smaller or bigger break in the text need not indicate redactional work within the prophecy concerned. For instance: we have seen that the author of Obadiah in vv. 1-8 used the Jeremianic oracle against Edom and extended it at some places (viz. in Obad. 3, 4, 5 and 7). It is, then, quite natural that the join is visible where the quoted verse ends and the extension begins, the more so since other texts were used for these extensions as well. Weimar, however, is able to discover four different layers in this part of the text.3 Admittedly, at some places in the text there are signs which indicate that more than one writer was engaged in the composition of the book of Obadiah in its present form. A first indication of this is the combination of a 'nations' oracle (vv. 15a, 16-18) with the Edom material. Many scholars have held that the original book of Obadiah only contained vv. 1-14, 15b, possibly with v. 21 as the original conclusion. The last part of the oracle (vv. 16-20 [21], together with v. 15a) is considered to have been added later, in two or more stages.4 Obad. 15b ('As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deed shall return on your own head')5 is indeed a kind of verse that can conclude an oracle or a part of an oracle: cf. Ezek. 35.14 (note Ezekiel's influence on Obadiah), Joel 4.V-8.6 It should be noticed, however, that Obad. 15a, 16-18 has a very clear compository function: 1. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 76-77 n. 124: 'Methodisch 1st jedoch der unmittelbare Vergleich des Obadja- und Jeremia-Textes, wie er allgemein praktiziert wird, nicht unproblematisch. Erst dan, wenn beide Textfassungen jeweils in sich (literar-) kritisch analysiert sind, kann eine vergleichende Analyse einsetzen.' 2. Cf. the critique on Weimar's theory in Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 263 (note 277). 3. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 42-53, 72-73. 4. Cf. e.g. Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, pp. 3-5; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 5-6; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 362-64. 5. Cf. Chapter 5, section 2 for the similarity in vocabulary with Joel 4.4, 7. 6. Cf. also Lam. 4.21; 4.22 opposes, like Obad. 21, Zion and Edom.

100

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

with vv. 8-10, it frames vv. 11-14, 15b, the section on Israel's ruin.1 It opposes 'Mount Zion' (v. 17; cf. vv. 16, 21) to the earlier mentioned 'Mount Esau' (vv. 8, 9), and the 'day' on which Edom/the nations will be destroyed (v. 15a; cf. v. 8) to the 'day' of Israel's calamity (vv. 11-14). From vv. 8-10, the names Jacob and Esau return (vv. 17, 18), now not with Jacob as Esau's victim (cf. v. 10), but with Jacob and Joseph as the agents of Esau's annihilation (v. 18). In view of the compository function of vv. 15a, 16-18, we probably could best follow Weimar, who argues that these verses were written with an eye to the preceding text.2 This is supported by the similarity in structure between vv. 15b and 16 we have observed.3 With Weimar, many authors have noted the different character (as to content) of vv. 15a, 16-18 compared to the preceding verses. For instance, H.W. Wolff states that if it was the same author who composed vv. 1-14, 15a and vv. 15a, 16-18, he must have done it at different times.4 Our analysis of Obadiah's relationships with other prophetic books5 can be adduced to illustrate the differing character of vv. 15a, 16ff. Verses 15a, 16-18 are mainly a compilation of Joel and Amos phrases. Obad. 1-14, 15b may be characterized as an Ezekiel-based interpretation of the Jeremianic oracle against Edom. The last part of the book of Obadiah links it up more closely with the books preceding it in the canon, Joel and Amos. It has often been remarked that the order of the various parts in vv. 15-16 is rather awkward.6 Equally often it has been maintained that the present order within vv. 15-16 must be the result of an accident.7 On the other hand, in Chapter 1 the functional value of the text as it stands was stressed.8 Therefore, Weimar's model is more satisfactory. If he is right in supposing that vv. 15a, 16ff are an editorial addition, 1. Cf. above, Chapter 1, section 3. 2. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 60-63, 65-66. 3. Chapter 1, section 3; cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 62-63. 4. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 43; cf. p. 19. 5. Chapters 4 and 5. 6. Cf. Chapter 1, section 3. 7. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 5, 19, 43; Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', pp. 89-90. 8. Cf. Robinson, 'Levels of Naturalization', pp. 93-94.

6. Literary History

101

the present order may well be intentional. The same view is advocated by U. Kellermann, who, however, asserts that one author (in his opinion, the prophet Obadiah) composed both vv. 1-14, 15b and vv. 15a, 16-18.1 There is general agreement on the secondary nature of the prose section vv. 19-20, which gives some interesting details on the territory the Israelites will regain possession of.2 Its composition and insertion in the book may have been triggered by the phrase 'and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions' (v. 17). It is probable that vv. 19-20 themselves did not originate in one go; after their introduction in the book, they appear to have been edited and expanded.3 The status of v. 21 is uncertain: it may belong to the secondary part vv. 19-20, but some have argued, as stated above, that it once was the conclusion of an earlier version of the book of Obadiah. It may have come after v. 15b.4 Summing up, we can follow Weimar's analysis at two points: first, the redactional extension of Obad. 1-14, 15b, (21) with vv. 15a, 1618; second, the still later addition to the resulting text of vv. 19-20 (or 19ff). Contrary to Weimar, I have argued that the other irregularities can best be understood as resulting from the use of existing prophetic texts. Verses 1-14, 15b, (21) seem to constitute the original oracle. It cannot be excluded that at some places in this text verses or parts of verses have been added or existing verses have been edited later on, although I doubt if Weimar's confidence in finding 'mb'gliche Hinweise auf die literarische Schichtung des Textes'5 is appropriate. The author of the first version of Obadiah (1-14, 15b) used, as discussed above, the original oracle against Edom of the book of Jeremiah for an oracle in the spirit of the book of Ezekiel. He also used vocabulary and ideas from Ezekiel 25-26 and 35-36. He appears to have known the first expansion of Jeremiah's oracle against Edom 1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 19. 2. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 22-23; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 6; Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', pp. 94-95; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 74; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 363. 3. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 42; on Obad. 19, cf. above, Chapter 1, section 2, the note to the translation of this verse. 4. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 6; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 73; Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, pp. 363-64. 5. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 56-57 on Obad. 12-14.

102

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

as well (Jer. 49.7-8, 10b-ll, 12-13), but at the same time he was shown to be well aware of the difference. The verses of the original oracle were quoted quite literally, the secondary Jer. 49.7 was employed more freely. Jeremiah's oracle appeared to have been adapted to Amos 9.2-4, which seems to indicate that the author of Obadiah wanted his prophecy to follow the book of Amos.1 There are also connections with Joel (e.g. between Obad. 11 and Joel 4.3).2 The second version of Obadiah (the one including vv. 15a, 16-18) links up the book more closely with Amos and the book preceding Amos in the canon, Joel. Whereas the theme of the first version was a combination of Jeremiah's idea of Edom's excessive pride which will be ashamed and Ezekiel's emphasis on Edom's crimes on the day of Israel's ruin, in vv. 15a, 16-18 Edom is the representative of the nations.3 The last additions to the book of Obadiah (vv. 19-20) were probably the work of redactors who also composed the secondary endings of Joel (4.18-21) and Amos (9.13-15). In this way, they connected the three books still more strongly. Regarding the date of the original version of the book of Obadiah and of the assumed additions, a terminus a quo is provided by the comparison of Obadiah with Jeremiah and Ezekiel.4 It has been inferred that the secondary verse Jer. 49.7 is quoted in Obad. 7-8:5 the author of the first version of Obadiah appears to have known both the original oracle and the first expansion of Jer. 49.7-22. If we are right in supposing that the first extended version of Jer. 49 was composed in reaction to the end of the kingdom of Edom, 552 BCE,6 Obadiah's first version must have been written after this date. Such a date is in accordance with the present day communis opinio that Obad. 11-14 refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.7 The argument that these verses must have been written shortly after 587

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Cf. Chapter 5, section 3. Cf. above, Chapter 2, section 2. Cf. Chapter 1, section 3. Cf. Chapter 4. Chapter 4, section 3. Cf. above, section 2.2. Cf. overview in Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 9-10.

6. Literary History

103

BCE, because of the vividness of the description,1 is not compelling. As J.R. Bartlett rightly states, this part of the oracle may only reveal the vivid imagination of its author.2 Since we have also argued that Obadiah is dependent on Ezekiel 3536, a date near the end of the exilic period will be more accurate.3 The comparison with Jer. 49.7-22 supplies not only a terminus a quo but also a terminus ante quern for Obadiah, though a rather uncertain one. It was argued that the writer of Obadiah probably did not know the parts of the oracle that link it up with the oracles against Babylon chs. 50-51. Therefore, the first version of Obadiah must have been completed before the addition of the extra verses (Jer. 49.17-21).4 As to the first expansion, I think that there was only very little time—maybe only a few years—between the completion of vv. 1-14, 15b and the addition of vv. 15a, 16-18: these texts are partly based on the same material. Above, it was asserted that Obad. 1-14, 15b was an Ezekiel-inspired prophecy based on Jeremiah material. The expansion too appeared to have been inspired by Ezekiel.5 It is in this part of the book that Edom appears as the representative of the nations, just as in Ezekiel 35-36. In both texts, the end of Edom (representing the other neighbouring nations) goes along with the restoration of Israel; Israel will take back the land it lost to the other nations. As for Jeremiah: Jeremiah texts formed the starting point of the expansion (Jer. 25.2729; 49.12, used in Obad. 16), as they did for the first version of Obadiah. The date of the second expansion (vv. 19-20) is a moot point. Proposals vary from the early post-exilic period to Maccabean times.6 1. Cf. e.g. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 17, and see the overview in Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 10. 2. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 154-55. Bartlett suggests (Edom and the Edomites, p. 159) that the book of Obadiah may reflect Nabonidus's 552 BCE campaign against Edom and northern Arabia (especially v. 7: 'All your allies have driven you to the border; your confederates have deceived you and prevailed against you', etc.). 3. Cf. Chapter 3, section 3.3. 4. In the previous section, the year 550 BCE was mentioned as a terminus a quo for this addition. But there was no indication whether or not it took place shortly after 550. 5. Cf. Chapter 4, section 5. 6. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 11.

104

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

In my opinion, the former alternative is the better one, since (as was argued in the previous chapter) the appendages of Joel, Amos and Obadiah were probably composed together, possibly still in the sixth century BCE.1 4. Conclusion In both Jer. 49.7-22 and Obadiah the original Jeremianic oracle against Edom became the starting point for a prophecy on Edom as the typical enemy of Israel. Important for our subject (the origin and development of the conception of Edom as a type) is that this role was concluded to be secondary in both texts. In Jeremiah's original oracle, Edom stood at the same level as the other neighbouring nations in 49.1-33. Edom's role as Israel's opponent and 'typical nation' only comes up in the first expansion. The second expansion makes Edom's role still bigger by connecting Edom's fate with Babylon's. In the first version of Obadiah Edom is Israel's enemy, but only in the expansions does it become Israel's typical enemy, the representative of the nations. This probably has to be attributed to influence from the book of Ezekiel.

1.

Chapter 5, section 2.

Chapter 7

THE FOUR LONG ORACLES AGAINST EDOM (ISAIAH 34, JEREMIAH 49.7-22, EZEKIEL 35, OBADIAH) 1. Introduction In the chapters up to this one, various aspects were studied of Edom's role as a type in the prophetic books. Edom's special role shows up most clearly in Obadiah, a little book completely devoted to this nation. The oracles in Jer. 49.7-22 and Ezekiel 35-36 too have been demonstrated to present Edom as a typical figure. In this chapter attention shall be paid to Isaiah 34, the fourth of the long oracles against Edom (section 2). This text appears to be related to the other three oracles at several points. Next, a survey can be given of the development of Edom's role within the four long oracles against this nation (section 3). When was Edom depicted as Israel's typical opponent and the representative of the nations for the first time? How did this role develop? Finally, Obadiah's place in the Book of the Twelve will be discussed (section 4). The position of this prophecy in its book appears to be similar to the position of Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35 in their books. 2. Isaiah 34 and the Other Long Oracles against Edom Isaiah 34 integrates several aspects of the other three long oracles against Edom. Like Jer. 49.7-22, it appears to be linked with an oracle against Babylon. Additionally, there is some kind of similarity in theme, position in the book and literary function of Isaiah 34 with Ezekiel 35. Finally, both in Obadiah and Isaiah the end of Edom is connected with the condemnation of the nations on a 'day of YHWH'. In this section the various links will be examined.

106

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Isaiah 34 and Jeremiah 49.7-22 The oracles Isaiah 34 and Jer. 49.7-22 are indirectly connected: they are both linked with the oracles against Babylon in their books, which, in their turn, are interrelated themselves. One motif connects the four texts: the change of the nation's land into a desolation like Sodom and Gomorrah, a land where there is no place for human population. Jer. 49.18: As when Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighbor cities were overthrown, says the LORD, no man shall dwell there, no son of man1 shall sojourn in her. Jer. 50.39-40:... she shall be peopled no more for ever, nor inhabited for all generations. As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighbor cities, says the LORD, no2 man shall dwell there, no son of man shall sojourn in her. Isa. 13.19-20: And Babylon... will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them. It will never be inhabited or dwelt in for all generations... Isa. 34.9-10:... shall be turned into pitch... brimstone...; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up for ever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Isa. 34.9-10 has a deviating version: it does not mention Sodom and Gomorrah, but instead gives the details of the overthrow of these cities (cf. Gen. 19.24, 25, 28; Deut. 29.22; Amos 4.11).3 In Isaiah 13 and 34 and in Jeremiah 50, the motif that in this land no human being will live is connected with the motif that it will be the dwelling place of desert animals and demons (Isa. 13.21-22; 34.11-17; Jer. 50.39). The 'wild beasts', 'hyenas' and 'ostriches' of Jer. 50.39 recur in Isa. 13.21-22 and Isa. 34.13-14. As the expansions in the Edom oracle Jer. 49.18-21 are dependent on Jer. 50.40, 44-46,4 and those in the Edom oracle in Isa. 34.9-17 on Isa. 13.19-21,5 there is no direct connection between Isaiah 34 and 1. RSV: 'no man'. 2. RSV: 'so no'. 3. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 187-88; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 64, 103-104, 174. 4. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2. 5. Cf. B. Dicou, 'Literary Function and Literary History of Isaiah 34', BN 58 (1991), pp. 37-38.

7. The Four Long Oracles against Edom

107

Jer. 49.7-22. It is, nevertheless, remarkable that twice, in two prophetic books, the same motif was taken from an oracle against Babylon to be used in an oracle against Edom. This may point to a coordinated edition of Isaiah and Jeremiah. In this context, it is interesting that J. Vermeylen has found evidence of an earlier common redaction of Isaiah and Jeremiah: one that provided the oracles against the nations in both books with an eschatological frame (Isa. 13-14 and 24, Jer. 25.13b-38 and 50-51).1 B. Gosse has argued that in both Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 Jeremianic material has been worked out. 2 Here, it can be added that the writer of Isaiah 34 too was acquainted with texts from the book of Jeremiah: compare Isa. 34.6, 8 with Jer. 46.10.3 Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel In Isaiah, as in the book of Ezekiel,4 a long oracle against Edom is found outside the collection oracles against the nations (Isa. 13-23). In both books, the oracle against Edom is followed by an oracle on Israel's salvation, which mirrors language and imagery of the preceding oracle. In both, Edom's doom is linked up with Israel's happier fate: the one mirrors the other. Isaiah 35 makes Israel's desert blossom, after Edom's land has turned into a desolation. Vocabulary and imagery of Isaiah 34 are repeated in Isaiah 35.5 The oracle against Edom in Ezekiel 35 appeared to have been written with an eye to the composition of the prophetic book as a whole. In a chapter on the confrontation between Israel and the nations—which are symbolized by Edom—the transition is made from

1. J. Vermeylen, 'L'Unite" du livre d'Isaie', in J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isaie. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unite et complexite de I'ouvrage (BETL, 81; Leuven, 1989), pp. 28-34. 2. B. Gosse, 'La malediction contre Babylone de Je're'mie 51, 59-64 et les redactions du livre de Je're'mie', ZAW 98 (1986), pp. 396-99; Isdie 13,1—14,23. Dans la tradition litteraire du livre d'Isaie et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations (OBO, 78; Freiburg [Schweiz] and Gottingen, 1988), pp. 158-63. 3. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 168; see pp. 171-72 on thematic correspondences between Isa. 34.2-8 and the oracles against Babylon in Jer. 50-51. 4. Cf. Chapter 3. 5. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 96-98; 'Literary Function', pp. 31, 36.

108

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Israel's doom (the main subject of the first part of the book) to Israel's salvation (the main subject of the third part).1 Isaiah 34 has the same function. It is one of the last chapters of Proto-Isaiah, which concentrates on Israel's failure and ruin. The second part of the book, Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, continues with Israel's restoration. Even more explicitly than in Ezek. 35.1-36.15, Isaiah 34 shows Edom's fate to be an exemplification of the fate of 'the nations': vv. 24 relate the 'slaughter' (coo) of the nations, vv. 5-7 the 'slaughter' of Edom. Although Isaiah 34 itself is not very specific about the reason for the annihilation of the nations, it can be gathered from phrases like 'a day of vengeance' and 'a year of recompense for the cause of Zion' (v. 8) that this oracle is about the nations which had participated in bringing about Israel's doom.2 In Ezekiel 35, Edom represents the nations that had taken advantage of Israel's ruin. In sum: it comes out that the literary function of the oracles against Edom in Isaiah and Ezekiel is much the same.3 Edom's role is that of the representative of the nations, Israel's antagonist among, and on behalf of, the nations. Since there are also other links between the oracles against the nations of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the similarity between Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35 is not very surprising.4 Likewise as other oracles, these two texts share some motifs and vocabulary; U. Kellermann supposes that the writer of Isaiah 34 was acquainted with Ezek. 35.6-9.5 Isaiah 34 not only appears to be similar to or dependent on Ezekiel 35, but also to be related to Ezekiel 38-39 (the oracles against Gog from Magog).6

1. Cf. above, Chapter 3, section 2.1. 2. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 114-20; 'Literary Function', pp. 32-35, 37. 3. Cf. Gosse, 'Oracles contre les nations', pp. 19-20. 4. Cf. Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, pp. 39-44; Boadt, Ezekiel's Oracles against Egypt, pp. 174-75; Gosse, 'Un texte pre"-apocalyptique', pp. 208-10 and Isaie 13,1—14,23, p. 199. 5. Kellermann, Israel undEdom, pp. 188-89. 6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 181; H.-M. Lutz, Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Volker. Zur Vorgeschichte von Sack 12,1-8 und 14,1-5 (WMANT, 27; Neukirchen, 1968), pp. 88-90.

7. The Four Long Oracles against Edom

109

Isaiah 34 and Obadiah In Obad. 15, the judgment on Edom takes place on a 'day' which YHWH holds to judge and condemn 'all the nations' (cf. v. 16). Isa. 34.8 sees the destruction of Edom, which is an example of the destruction of '(all) the nations' (vv. 1, 2), as the result of a 'day of vengeance' 'for the LORD'. Both use the idea of retribution for the wrong done to Israel. Isa. 34.8: 'a year of recompense for the cause of Zion'; Obad. 15: 'As you have done [viz. Edom, acting with hostility against Israel], it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head' (cf. v. 16). In Jer. 49.7-22 nor in Ezek. 35 is Edom's condemnation linked with a 'day of judgment'. Moreover, only in Obadiah and Isaiah 34 is the judgment on Edom an example of the judgment on 'the nations' in general (although in Ezek. 36.1-15, the neighbouring nations in general appear). 3. The Four Long Oracles The oracles against Edom in Jer. 49.7-22, Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah appeared to be based on older texts. As regards the partly parallel oracles in Jer. 49.7-22 and Obadiah, the oldest part is exactly the material that Jer. 49.7-22 and the book of Obadiah have in common. The oracles that constitute the old core of Ezekiel 35, oracles against Edom in the style of Ezekiel 25, are probably also relatively old. These old parts do not depict Edom as a type. In Jeremiah, this role is present only in the later parts of the oracle, in 49.12-13, 17-21. Most of the remaining verses are parallel with verses in the first part of the book of Obadiah (vv. 1-8). We concluded that both in Jer. 49.722 and in Obadiah a short Jeremianic oracle against Edom, which did not depict this nation as a type, was extended with texts that transformed the oracle into prophecies against Edom as the typical opponent of Israel and the representative of the nations. In Ezekiel, Edom's special role appeared when chs. 35-36 were composed. In Obadiah, a first version consisting of vv. 1-14, 15b, which depicted Edom as Israel's enemy, became extended with verses that linked Edom's doom with the fate of the nations in general. It is, therefore, only in the augmented versions of the old oracles that Edom appeared as a type. In the later versions of the oracles, the judgment upon Edom became related to the judgment upon the other

110

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

nations. In general, but especially the nations that threatened Israel (meaning Judah), the nations that acted against it when God destroyed it through Babylon. In Ezekiel 35-36 the name 'Edom'/'Mount Seir' is a symbolic name for Israel's opponents. In Obadiah the condemnation of Edom illustrates the judgment on all the nations (particularly vv. 15a, 16-21). In Jer. 49.7-22 Edom and Babylon become associated. Two roles can be distinguished. First, Edom is the nation that turned itself against Israel at the time of its ruin (and the representative of the other nations which did so). Secondly, it is the symbol of the adverse nations in general, especially associated with Babylon. The former role is played in Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah, the latter in Isaiah 34 and Jer. 49.7-22. The original Jeremiah oracle was part of a composition with three other oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 49. Obadiah transformed it into a prophecy in the style of Ezekiel (i.e. a judgment based on specific deeds). The same Jeremiah oracle got into quite a different context of interpretation through its expansions within the book of Jeremiah. These helped to bring it into the line of thought represented in Isaiah 34 (and cf. Ps. 137.7-9): the equivalence of Edom and Babylon. In all four oracles, Edom is the representative of the nations, and, as such, Israel's antagonist. It serves to illustrate the relation between Israel and the nations. Only in Obadiah is the positive side of their relationship mentioned: the 'brotherhood' of Israel and Edom. Isaiah 34 not only resembles Jer. 49.7-22 but also Ezekiel 35-36. Like Jer. 49.7-22 (and unlike Ezek. 35-36 and Obadiah), it does not mention any crime Edom is guilty of. Both texts indirectly associate Edom with Babylon. With Ezekiel 35-36, on the other hand, it shares its place and function in its prophetic book. Isaiah 34 gives us the impression of being a late example of the genre, combining several of its features.1 In Chapters 3-6 we tried to date the oracles against Edom and their parts. Here, the results will be summarized. The oldest parts of the four texts can be dated in late pre-exilic or early exilic times (Jer. 49.9-10a, 14-16 and Ezek. 35.5-6, 9 respectively). Not only the extended version of Obadiah but its oldest parts (vv. 1-14, 15b) appeared to depend on the later versions of Jer. 49.7-22 (viz. Jer. 1. Cf. Kellermann, Israel and Edom, pp. 197-99, 213-14; Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon...', p. 201.

7. The Four Long Oracles against Edom

111

49.7-16) and Ezekiel 35-36. The latter, therefore, are the first clear examples of oracles against Edom as the representative of the nations and Israel's special opponent. Jeremiah's first expansion was composed after the destruction of Edom by Nabonidus (552 BCE). The present version of Ezekiel 35-36 we have dated to the end of the exilic period. Both the first version of Obadiah and its first expansion (vv. 15a, 16-18) may have been composed shortly after the composition of Ezekiel 35-36. For the second addition to the book of Obadiah, the 'Obadiah appendage' (vv. 19-21), a date at or shortly after the end of the sixth century was considered as plausible. The use of Babylon material in Jeremiah's second expansion (Jer. 49.17-22) has as its terminus a quo 550 BCE (the supposed composition date of the oracles against Babylon). Above, in section 2, it was stated that the use of Babylon material in Isaiah 34 is related to that in Jeremiah. Elsewhere, I have maintained that Isaiah 34, which I regard as a literary unity,1 probably depends on Isa. 63.1-6.2 If both suppositions are correct, the second Jeremiah expansion and Isa. 34 have as terminus a quo the—uncertain—composition date of TritoIsaiah. 4. Obadiah's Function within the Book of the Twelve A similarity between the oracles against Edom in Ezekiel and Isaiah and the one in Obadiah is their position in their context.3 Like Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35, Obadiah is a freestanding prophecy, found outside any collection of oracles against the nations. The Book of the Twelve contains two such collections: Amos 1-2 and Zephaniah 2. Another similarity is that in Obadiah, like in Isaiah 34-35 and Ezekiel 35-36, the message of doom for Edom is linked with the promise of salvation and restoration for Israel. This is another feature that distinguishes Obadiah from the oracles in the collections of oracles against the nations.4 Neither do most of these explicitly connect the condemnation 1. Dicou, 'Literary Function', pp. 39-40. 2. Dicou, 'Literary Function', pp. 42-44; cf. Gosse, 'Isai'e 34-35', p. 397. Cf. on Isa. 63.1-6 below, Chapter 13, section 3; further e.g. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 109-13; Gosse, 'Detournement de la vengeance du Seigneur'. 3. I am grateful to Drs Hanna Blok for pointing out to me the importance of reading Obadiah in its context, the Book of the Twelve. 4. With the exception of the oracles against 'the enemy from the north' (Babylon

112

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

of the nation concerned with the condemnation of the nations at large, as Isaiah 34-35, Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah do. It should be noted that we have concluded the authors of Obadiah (versions 1 and 2) to have been influenced by Ezekiel 35-36. Furthermore, we have found influence from the book of Ezekiel in other books of the Twelve as well (Joel 4 and Amos 1-2). In view of the evidence, the correspondence in position between Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah can be considered intentional. The comparison of the two texts suggests that Obadiah was given its place in the Book of the Twelve in order to imitate the book of Ezekiel. The editors of the Book of the Twelve included Obadiah as their version of a freestanding oracle against Edom and the nations. As several scholars have demonstrated, the Book of the Twelve is more than just a collection of twelve independent books.1 Our own investigations of the lines between Obadiah and Joel and Amos have confirmed this. It seems not unreasonable to suppose that the editors of the Book of the Twelve (or of some earlier version) wanted to compose a book resembling the (other) major prophetic books. Like these, the Book of the Twelve contains oracles in which Israel is condemned for having been unfaithful to God and God announces his punishment, oracles against the nations (put together in a collection), oracles proclaiming Israel's restoration after the punishment, and narratives about the prophet.2 Once again, Ezekiel especially appears to have been influential. As in Ezekiel, in the Twelve a collection of oracles against the nations (Amos 1-2), in which also an oracle against Edom is found (Amos 1.11-12), precedes the long oracle against Edom. In both books, the long oracle portrays Edom as the representative of the nations, whereas in the earlier short one, Edom's role does not differ from in Isa. 13-14 and Jer. 50-51, and Gog and Magog in Ezek. 38-39), whose destruction warrants the possibility of a new future for Israel. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 91-92, 107-108, 157. 1. Cf. Chapter 2, section 1. 2. Cf. House, The Unity of the Twelve, p. 56: 'Clearly the content of the minor prophets presents a unified portrait of prophecy that closely parallels the subject matter of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. All the main elements of the prophetic message are present in the Twelve'. According to House (pp. 56-57), 'the tendency of some of the books to exhibit only one or a few traits of the prophetic genre points to the possibility that the books may be in their present configuration in order to offer a complete literary treatment of the meaning of prophecy'.

7. The Four Long Oracles against Edom

113

that of the other nations. Moreover, like Ezekiel 25-26, Amos 1-2 is a composition of highly interconnected short oracles. Just as in Ezekiel, in the Book of the Twelve the long oracle against Edom and the nations in its turn precedes prophecies against the enemy from the north (viz. Assyria in Nahum and the Chaldaeans in Habakkuk; cf. Ezek. 38-39). I have argued that Obadiah may have been written to be placed behind Amos 9.1 If this view is correct, the remarkable phenomenon of a book consisting of only one chapter would find a simple explanation: this chapter was intended to be the long oracle against Edom of the Book of the Twelve.2 In any case, the second version of Obadiah, which was composed shortly after the first version (maybe even by the same author), clearly links up with Joel and Amos.3 Its author saw Obadiah as a part of the Book of the Twelve. He either found or placed Obadiah there. Although Obadiah was either composed or adapted to serve a clear function within the Book of the Twelve, it should be emphasized that it can stand by itself as well, just like the other books in the Twelve.4 Like most of the other books, it addresses all the main issues of the prophetic literature: Israel's sin and punishment,5 the nations' sin and punishment, Israel's restoration. A closer inspection of Edom's role in the various prophetic books of the Twelve corroborates our impression of coherence between these books and of intentionality in the position of Obadiah. In Joel, Amos and Obadiah, three books standing together, Edom represents Israel's neighbours who have taken advantage of its ruin, and who in an expected future 'day' will be punished by God.6 In all three books, the punishment marks a new era in Israel's history and God's relation with Israel. It is striking and undoubtedly not accidental, that in three 1. Cf. Chapter 6, section 3. 2. Another theory that would explain why Obadiah is a separate unity (to be discussed in Chapter 13) is that originally Obadiah was a cultic text (as such, it may have existed separately). 3. Cf. above, Chapters 2 and 5. 4. Cf. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 249. 5. Israel's sin is not the principal issue of Obadiah, but it is referred to in Obad. 16 ('as you have drunk upon my holy mountain...'). Obad. 11-14 is a reflection upon Edom's reaction to Israel's punishment. 6. Cf. above, Chapter 2, section 4.

114

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

books of the Twelve Edom is called Israel's brother (Amos 1.11; Obad. 10; Mai. 1.2-5), whereas the Major Prophets do not mention Edom's brotherhood. When the Book of the Twelve is read as a continuing story, the book of Malachi should contain the conclusion of the story. As regards Israel and Edom, Mai. 1.2-5 indeed provides such a conclusion. At the end of the Twelve, the old antagonism between the two nations is considered for one more time. The passage discusses the difference when God does and when he does not love a nation. Is not Esau Jacob's brother?' says the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert (vv. 2-3).

The destruction of Edom, announced in Joel, Amos and Obadiah, has indeed taken place. Edom's ruin is definitive: If Edom says, 'We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,' the LORD of hosts says, 'They may build, but I will tear down, till they are called the wicked country, the people with whom the LORD is angry for ever.' (v. 4).

Part II GENESIS

Chapter 8 EDOM AS ISRAEL'S BROTHER AND OPPONENT IN GENESIS 25-36 1. Introduction The narratives about Jacob and Esau are part of the section in Genesis headed 'These are the descendants (nnbn nb«) of Isaac, Abraham's son' (25.19). In this section, Jacob is the principal character. It ends in 35.29 with the death and burial of Isaac. The next section is Gen. 36.1-37.1, titled These are the descendants of Esau (that is, Edom)' (36.1; cf. 36.9). It is about Esau's descendants in Canaan and Seir respectively (see 36.5 and 36.9), and about chiefs and kings in Seir and Edom. In Gen. 37.2 the last section of the book of Genesis begins 'These are the descendants of Jacob'.1 The development of the narratives of Jacob and Esau is determined by the fact that the brothers are twins, of whom, against the normal pattern, 'the elder shall serve the younger' (25.23), as YHWH tells Rebekah. The conflict that this situation will bring is forecasted by the 'struggling' of the two brothers in Rebekah's womb (25.22). The narratives are divided into two parts: those before and those after Jacob's stay with Laban. Part 1 describes the birth of the two brothers and the sale of the right of primogeniture (25.19-34) and subsequently Jacob's attempt to let his father bless him and not Esau, the older brother (ch. 27), the result of which is that he has to leave his family and his land (ch. 28). Part 2 describes Jacob's return and the reconciliation with Esau (chs. 32-33). Genesis 35 has some more stories about Jacob after his return. Both parts contain a story about the supporting actors: Jacob's parents in ch. 26, Jacob's children in ch. 34. The structure of Gen. 25.19-35.29 is chiastic.2 1. RS V: 'This is the story of the family of Jacob'. 2. Cf. M. Fishbane, 'Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25.19-35.22)', JJS 6 (1975), pp. 20-32; and idem, Text and Texture. Close

8. Edom as Israel's Brother and Opponent

117

The present chapter discusses various aspects of the opposition of Israel and Edom in the Jacob-Esau stories. 2. Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom Although Jacob and Esau act as persons and not as nations, there are several indications that the stories were looked upon as paradigmatic for the relation between Israel and Edom. First, there are YHWH's words to the worried Rebekah: 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided' (25.23). This sufficiently explains the unrest in Rebekah's womb. A little later (25.30), the reader is told what nation Esau is: Esau is famished and is even willing to sell his right of primogeniture for some 'red pottage' (mRn ntn DiKn); he is therefore called 'Edom' (arm). Only much further in the story do we hear what nation Jacob is: Israel (32.29).1 Jacob receives this name after the fight at the Jabbok. At that moment, the birth of Jacob's eleven sons, who bear the names of the Israelite tribes, has already been recounted (chs. 29-30). Although Israel's name appears rather late in the story, before that we find several allusions to Jacob's role as a nation. Particularly the blessings reveal this role. In Isaac's first blessing of Jacob (whom he mistakes for Esau), he says: 'Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you' (27.29). In 28.3, 14, Jacob, when leaving Canaan, is promised that he will become a great nation in the land he is leaving. In 35.9-12 (God blessing Jacob in Bethel after his return to Canaan), we find the first connection of the promise of the land with the name 'Israel'. This confirms explicitly what 32.29 already indicates: that the Jacob narratives are about the people of Israel and the land of this people. Genesis 36 links Esau with Edom more than once.2 Esau 'is' Edom Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York, 1979), pp. 40-62; J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis. Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (SSN, 17; Assen & Amsterdam, 1975), pp. 237, 239-41; J.G. Gammie, 'Theological Interpretation by Way of Literary and Tradition Analysis: Genesis 25-36', in M.J. Buss (ed.), Encounter with the Text. Form and History in the Hebrew Bible (SS, 8; Philadelphia, PA and Missoula, MT, 1979), pp. 120-24; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 10-11, 19-22. 1. In the present study, the Masoretic verse numbering of Gen. 32 is followed, not the RSV one (MT 32.2 = RSV 32.1). 2. On Gen. 36 cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 32-37.

118

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

(36.1, 8, 19) or is the father of the Edomites (36.9, 43). This chapter describes the history of Esau's descendants as a nation. Gen. 36.15-19 lists 'the chiefs of the sons of Esau' (36.15) 'in the land of Edom' (36.16, 17). Gen. 36.31-39 enumerates 'the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites' (36.31). When Jacob returns from Laban, Esau appears to live in 'Seir, the country of Edom' (32.4; cf. 33.14, 16). According to another version (36.6-8), Esau initially still lived together with Jacob in the land of Canaan, and moved later, when 'their possessions were too great for them to dwell together' (36.7), to Seir. Jacob is the one to live 'in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan' (37.1). Genesis 27 tells the story of the theft of Isaac's deathbed blessing. Isaac wanted to give this blessing to his first-born son, Esau. Jacob had 'bought' the right of primogeniture from Esau, and in this chapters he moves to acquire the blessing meant for the first-born as well. He succeeds by presenting himself to Isaac as Esau, in Esau's cloths, and with kid skins on his hands and neck to suggest Esau's hairy skin. Inadvertently, Isaac now repeats to his youngest son what YHWH predicted about that youngest son, when he was still unborn: nations will serve him, he will be lord over his brothers (27.29). Compare the two texts: 27.29 Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you.

25.23 Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the eldest shall serve the younger.

The blessing organizes the relationship between the brother nations. Besides, something is said about Jacob's land (27.28): Jacob will be able to profit from the gifts of the land. After Jacob has been blessed, it is impossible for Esau to obtain the same blessing. 'Behold, I have made him your lord, and all his brothers I have give to him for servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?' (27.36). But Esau begs Isaac for another blessing, and he gets one. Isaac cannot undo the fact that Jacob has been given the first position, but he adds some softening words: '...you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck'

8. Edom as Israel's Brother and Opponent

119

(27.40). The relation between Jacob and Esau (and between the nations they represent) is less fixed than it seemed. Esau's blessing is partly the mirror image of Jacob's blessing. 27.28 (Jacob) 27.39-40 (Esau) May God give you of the dew of the 39 Behold, away from the fatness heaven, of the earth shall your dwelling be, and of the fatness of the earth, and away from the dew of heaven on high, and plenty of grain and wine. 40 By your sword you shall live...

There is very little difference between the two formulations. The 'of in 'of the dew' and 'of the fatness' (27.28) is the rendering of the preposition |n, which in 27.39 is translated 'away from'. The second time, the preposition is used to express the opposite meaning.1 Like the two twin brothers,2 the twinned blessings are each other's opposites. It appears that Isaac, using the same words, does not say more than that Esau does not obtain what Jacob has obtained. Esau's blessing rather seems to be a curse. However, for Esau, the hunter, dew and fat of the land are perhaps less important than for Jacob. The next part of the blessing, 'By your sword you shall live' also need not necessarily be interpreted as a curse. While Jacob will be able to live of 'plenty of grain and wine', Esau, whose land will not be very 1. According to I. Willi-Plein ('Genesis 27 als Rebekkageschichte. Zu einem historiographischen Kunstgriff der biblischen Vatergeschichten', TZ 45 [1989], pp. 320-22) there is no difference between the two blessings at this point. In her opinion, the second blessing says that Esau too will receive 'fatness of the earth' and 'dew of heaven': 'vom fetten der Erde her wird dein Wohsitz sein und vom Tau des Himmels von oben' (p. 320). She denies that here )n can mean 'without' (as it does in a few other cases), and argues that a translation should be given that is in accordance with the 'direktionale Grundbedeutung' of p (p. 321). In my view, the RSV rendering 'away from' is in accordance with this 'Grundbedeutung'. Moreover, the RSV sounds quite logical, in contrast to Willi-Plein's suggestion, which sounds rather contrived. Finally, the difference between 27.28 and 27.39-40 seems to suggest spatial distance between Esau and the fat land. Isaac says to Jacob: 'May God give you of the dew of the heaven (etc.)'; the ]n is clearly partitive. In Esau's blessing, there is no mention of either 'giving' or 'receiving'; instead, Isaac talks about Esau's 'dwelling' (attfin; a word not used in Jacob's blessing), which will be pRn 'Dntfn—in another place than the fat land that Isaac has asked God to give to Jacob. The next part of Esau's blessing, 'By your sword you shall live' (27.40), corroborates this interpretation: not being able to live from the products of the land, Esau will have to live by his sword (cf. below). 2. Cf. 25.27-28; 27.11.

120

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

fertile, can make his living in another way.1 In the end, Esau indeed leaves the promised country (36.6-8; cf. 32.4; 33.14, 16). Whereas in Isaac's first blessing of Jacob in 27.28-29 it was not explicitly stated what land Jacob was going to inherit, his second blessing of Jacob (28.3-4) is quite specific in this respect: 'May (God) give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your descendants with you, that you may take possession of the land of your sojournings which God gave to Abraham!' (28.4; cf. God's promise in 28.13). Upon closer examination, the Jacob-Esau narratives appear to be full of word-plays on ethnic names and toponyms. Puns on the names Jacob, Israel, Edom, Seir are important elements in several of the narratives. Twice, Jacob's name is interpreted as indicating his determination to be the first. First, it is suggested that Jacob (3pjr) got his name because he held his brother's heel (3pJ>) when they were born (25.26). Then, when Esau discovers that his brother has stolen his blessing, he says: 'Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me ('33pm) these two times. He took away my birthright; and behold, now he has taken away my blessing' (27.36).2 There is no pun on the name Esau in the story of his birth, but there is one on the names Edom (DTIR) and Seir (T^to): 'The first came forth red 031DTK), all his body like a hairy (IDto) mantle' (25.25). Later, Esau sells his birthright for the 'red' (Dl«) stuff Jacob has cooked (25.30). In ch. 27, Jacob, who himself is 'a smooth man' (27.11), uses kid skins to resemble his 'hairy' brother, in order to mislead his father. We find here not only an allusion to Esau's country, but also to Jacob's. Esau's being 'hairy' (isto; 27.11, 23) is a pun on Seir (Tito). Jacob's being 'smooth' (p"?n) is a pun on Mount Halak (pbn), 'that rises towards Seir' (Josh. 11.17; 12.7); Mount Halak denotes Israel's southernmost part.3 1. Cf. Willi-Plein, 'Genesis 27', pp. 323-24. 2. Note the very similar sound of Trori, 'my birthright', and TD"a, 'my blessing'. 3. E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte (WMANT, 57; NeukirchenVluyn, 1984), pp. 71 (n. 19) and 191; cf. F.M.Th. de Liagre Bohl, 'Wortspiele im Alten Testament', in Opera Minor a. Studies en bijdragen op Assyriologisch en oudtestamentisch terrein (Groningen, 1953), pp. 18-19; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, pp. 199-200 n. 6; S. Gervitz, 'Of Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at the Fountain, Jacob at the Ford', HUCA 46 (1975), p. 48; Z. Kallai, 'The Southern Border of the Land of Israel—Pattern and Application', VT 37 (1987), p. 445 (and

8. Edom as Israel's Brother and Opponent

121

Jacob's name is also employed in word-play in ch. 32. At the Jabbok (j?T), there is someone who wrestles (p3»') with Jacob (npi^); there, Jacob loses his old name and receives the name Israel, the name of the nation that is to live in the land of Canaan which Jacob is about to enter. Whereas the name Jacob denoted his rather unfair struggle with Esau, the name Israel has a more positive connotation. 'Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel (bfcofer), for you have striven with God (Dvfrn-DD rnto) and men, and have prevailed' (32.29; cf. 35.10). The descendants of Jacob/Israel are directly made a party to the story: 'to this day the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh, because he [= the 'man'] touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh on the sinew of the hip' (32.33; cf. 32.26).! The stories of Jacob's voyage to Mesopotamia and his return to Canaan gave the author the opportunity to pun on a lot of Israelite place-names. In Bethel ('God's house'), where Jacob spends the night before he leaves the promised land, he meets God for the first time (28.10-22; later, he will return there, 35.1-15). Bethel is the name Jacob gives the place (28.10; cf. 35.7, 15). Mahanaim and Pniel are place-names invented by Jacob to denote what happened to him there. In Mahanaim (D'3nn)he found 'God's army (D»rf?K rnnn)' (32.3), in Pniel (bins) he saw 'God face to face (D'ja-^K DMB DTibK)' (32.31). Words sounding like these place-names are constitutive elements of chs. 32-33.2 Moreover, they connect the narrative of Jacob's fight at the Jabbok (32.23-33) with the narrative of his encounter with Esau, which it interrupts.3 Succot (nso) is the place where Jacob built 'booths' (TOO) for his cattle (33.17). 443); K. Luke, 'Esau's Marriage', ITS 25 (1988), p. 182. 1. Cf. K.A. Deurloo, 'De naam en de namen (Genesis 32.23-33)', ACEBT 2 (1981), p. 38. 2. Mahanaim (anna): Jacob's two 'companies' (nunD, 32.8, 9, 11), his 'present' (nrao) for Esau (32.14, 19, 21, 22; 33.10), the 'favour' (|n) Jacob hopes to find in his brother's sight (32.6; 33.8, 10, 15; cf. pn 33.5, 11). Pniel CMTJD): Jacob's fear to see his brother's 'face' (n^a) (32.21; 33.10) and his face to face encounter with God (32.31). Cf. Bohl, 'Wortspiele im Alten Testament', pp. 14-15, 19-22; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, pp. 197-231 (passim)', Gervitz, 'Of Patriarchs and Puns', pp. 50-51; Gammie, 'Theological Interpretation', pp. 124-25; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 18-19, 27-28. 3. Cf. G. von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose. Genesis Kapitel 25,19-50,26 (ATD, 4; Gottingen, 5th edn, 1967), pp. 283-84; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, p. 220; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 28.

122

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

The difference between the nation that is destined to inherit the promised land and the nation that is not is worked out in an interesting way in the story of Esau's marriages (26.34-35; cf. 27.46; 28.6-9). One reason for Jacob's voyage to Mesopotamia is Esau's threat to kill him; Esau wants revenge for his stolen blessing and Rebekah tells Jacob to stay temporarily with Laban (27.41-45). Another reason is the one that Rebekah tells her husband: she does not want Jacob to marry 'Hittite' (Canaanite) women (27.46).1 In Isaac's subsequent speech to Jacob the blessing (the gift of the land of Canaan) is connected with the assignment to marry 'one of the daughters of Laban': 2 exactly because he will inherit the land of Canaan, Jacob should not marry a Canaanite woman (28.1-4).3 The inheritance of the land of Canaan cannot be the result of mixing with the inhabitants, but is God's free gift to his chosen people. Not only by selling his birthright to his brother but also by his marriages, Esau shows that he does not care to be the chosen one. The inheritor of God's promise cannot marry women from the people still living in the promised land, as Esau does. Already before ch. 27, Esau's marriages with two Hittite women have been recounted (26.34-35). The women 'made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah' (26.35; cf. 27.46). After Jacob had been sent to Laban (28.5), Esau understood 'that the Canaanite women did not please Isaac his father' (28.8). He tried to correct his mistake by marrying yet another woman: Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael (28.9).4 As stated above, chs. 25-35 have a chiastic structure. This implies that there are two movements in the development of the narratives: progress, since the story goes on, and repetition, since in chiastically related chapters situations match each other. Sometimes, there is a reversal in the repeated situation. Progress is found in the Jacob-Esau stories in that Jacob eventually succeeds in realizing his blessing. As a wealthy man, he returns to the 1. In Genesis, 'Hittites' are regarded as Canaanites; cf. e.g. Gen. 36.1. 2. After the motif that the youngest prevails, this is the second moving spirit behind the Jacob narratives. It determines the stories of Jacob's stay with Laban and his return. 3. Cf. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, p. 112 n. 38. 4. According to 36.2-3, Esau married, besides one Hittite and one Hivite woman, Ishmael's daughter Basemath. In 26.34, Basemath is one of Esau's two Hittite wives.

8. Edom as Israel's Brother and Opponent

123

promised land, where he can stay. Esau has left the country. Repetition is found, for example, in 28.10-22 and ch. 32, the Bethel and the Mahanaim/Peniel episodes, which respectively take place just before leaving the land and returning to the land.1 In both instances, Jacob meets 'angels of God' (28.12; 32.2). In both, Jacob has a nightly encounter with God. When Jacob leaves, the sun sets (28.11); when he returns, the sun rises upon him (32.32). The chiastic structure links ch. 33 with 27.1-28.9. In the latter, Jacob's relationship with Esau is broken; in the former, it is restored. Reversed is Jacob's attitude towards the blessing. He has striven to be the first and to be master over his brother and has indeed acquired his brother's blessing, which included the promise of supremacy: 'Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you' (27.29). But this is reversed in ch. 33. It is Jacob who bows down to Esau (seven times, 33.3; after him, all his women and children too bow down, 33.6-7). Jacob presents himself as 'your servant' (33.5, 14; cf. 32.5, 19, 21) and calls Esau 'my lord' (33.8, 13, 14, 15; cf. 32.5, 6, 19). In a sense, he even returns his blessing to his brother.2 He offers Esau a vast present, saying to him: 'Accept, I pray you, my gift that is brought to you' (33.11). Now, the word rendered 'gift' is rD"Q, the usual word for 'blessing'.3 Esau has wanted to kill Jacob (27.41) and Jacob fears that the confrontation with his brother will bring his death (32.8-9, 12). The 'four hundred men' (32.7; 33.1) Esau is reported to have brought with him seem to promise little good. But when they meet, Esau appears to be very conciliatory; he is full of joy to see his brother again (33.4). This is the end of their conflict, and they part in peace (33.12-17).4 1. Cf. e.g. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 10-11, 21, 251. 2. Cf. M. Buber, 'Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung', in Werke 2. Schriften zur Bibel (Miinchen and Heidelberg, 1964), p. 1141; Fishbane, 'Composition and Structure', p. 28; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, pp. 227-28; Gammie, Theological Interpretation', pp. 123-24. 3. Cf. Gen. 27. In a few other cases, it has the meaning 'gift', as in Gen. 33.11. Cf. HAL s.v., no. 4: 'mit Segenwunsch verbundenes Geschenk'. 4. Contra G.W. Coats, 'Strife without Reconciliation—A Narrative Theme in the Jacob Traditions', in R. Albertz et al. (eds.), Werden und Wirken des Alien Testaments (Fs C. Westermann; Gottingen and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980), p. 103, who finds here another instance of the 'strife without reconciliation' motif in 'the Jacob traditions'. Although Jacob does not go to Seir as he has told Esau (33.14-15),

124

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

From a literary point of view, the narratives could not have ended in Mesopotamia. The story of Jacob's exile with Laban expects his return. The blessed son, whom the land has been promised to, has to return to Canaan. However, he can only return to the land after having met his brother; it was the conflict with Esau that caused him to leave. His attempts to be lord over his brother resulted in his forced departure to Laban. He can only realize his blessed position through a reconciliation with Esau. In this context, another reversal is significant. At their birth, Jacob was holding his brother's 'heel' (3ptf; 25.26). S.H. Smith1 has argued that this is an euphemism for Jacob's gripping Esau's genitals: Jacob tries to get hold of the first-born's procreative power. It is a (symbolic) attempt to become the true inheritor to the Abrahamic promise. Now, this is reversed in the story of the fight at the Jabbok. There, the 'man' strikes Jacob upon 'the hollow of the thigh' (32.26), on 'the sinew of the hip' (32.33). These too appear to be euphemistic terms for the genitals.2 Jacob's procreative power has been hit.3 By striking Jacob, symbolically, upon his genitals God demonstrates that only he has the power to bring Jacob's aspirations to fruition: what he has bestowed he can just as readily take away... (Jacob) can neither escape

there is no suggestion that Jacob did not want to go there. Moreover, the following narratives do not relate any more conflicts between the brothers (cf. 35.29; 36.6-8). Cf. T.L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23 (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 111. 1. S.H. Smith, ' "Heel" and 'Thigh": The Concept of Sexuality in the JacobEsau Narratives', VT40 (1990), pp. 464-66, 471-72. 2. Smith, '"Heel" and "Thigh"', pp. 466-69, 472-73. Cf. P.A.H. de Boer, 'Genesis XXXII 23-32. Some Remarks on Composition and Character of the Story', NTT 1 (1946^7), p. 159; Gervitz, 'Of Patriarchs and Puns', pp. 51-53; Deurloo, 'De naam en de namen', p. 38. 3. It should be noted that when Jacob returns to Canaan, eleven of his sons and his daughter have already been born; moreover, Rachel may already have been pregnant with Jacob's last child, Benjamin, whose birth is reported in 35.16-18. Rachel's words 'the way of women is upon me' (31.35) can be interpreted in this sense; cf. S.K. Sherwood, 'Had God Not Been on My Side.' An Examination of the Narrative Technique of the Story of Jacob and Laban—Gen. 29,1-32,2 (European University Studies 23/400; Frankfurt am Main, 1990), pp. 328-39.

8. Edom as Israel's Brother and Opponent

125

the feeling of guilt by which he is plagued, nor overcome his sense of trepidation as he contemplates the re-encounter with his brother unless he first acknowledges God's power over his life.

3. Conclusion In Jacob and Esau we meet the ancestors and the representatives of two nations, Israel and Edom. Although they are twins, they are quite different. Essential is that Esau is the first-born, but does not show much understanding of the meaning of this fact. He is easily allured into giving away his birthright and does not hesitate to marry women from the inhabitants of the promised land. Jacob, on the other hand, seizes every opportunity to become the first-born. He succeeds in cheating his brother out of his blessing and birthright. With respect to his marriages, he does what his brother should have done. Only one of them can receive God's special blessing. Esau is depicted as one who at important moments makes the wrong decision, and, therefore, is not suited for the position of the first-born. However, our judgment of Esau is moderated by the fact that already before his birth YHWH had made it clear that Esau would not be the chosen one. Besides, the narrative is critical towards Jacob rather than towards Esau. Jacob's low-down manipulations to receive blessing are only ostensibly successful: they result in years of exile far away from the land of the blessing. Esau, on the other hand, is not lacking in good intentions. Without protest he adapts himself to his parents' wishes as regards his marriages. He plans to kill Jacob for the theft of his blessing, but when the opportunity for revenge arises, he makes up with his brother right away. Jacob, who wanted to be lord over his brother, now calls himself Esau's servant; instead of accepting this, Esau then calls Jacob his 'brother' (33.9). In the end, Esau takes up his residence in Seir. There, his descendants become the nation of Edom. Edom is the nation that is not chosen by YHWH as his own people, the people that he is going to give Canaan to, Jacob, renamed Israel, returns to Canaan. With him, the story goes on.

1.

Smith, ' "Heel" and "Thigh"', pp. 472-73.

Chapter 9 EDOM'S ROLE IN GENESIS 1. Introduction The present chapter discusses Edom's role in Genesis, notably by an examination of the place and function of chs. 25-36 in the book of Genesis. It will be argued that in Genesis (as in the Major Prophets and Obadiah) Edom serves as the representative of the nations and as Israel's particular opponent. Section 2 is devoted to the structure and theme of the book of Genesis. Section 3 examines the chapters in the middle of the concentric Jacob cycle. In section 4, there is a discussion of the other narratives in Genesis about 'brothers' who represent nations. Finally, in section 5, conclusions are drawn as to Edom's role in Genesis. 2. Genesis 25.19-37.1 and the Structure and Theme of the Book of Genesis In Genesis, the story is told of the origin of Israel and the nations. That is its main theme. This is evident from the structure of the book. Genesis is divided into parts headed These are the Toledoth (rvnbn n*?»), "generations",1 of...' 2 The Toledoth are recounted of 1. Regrettably, the RSV gives different renderings of the term in the various places: 'generations' in Gen. 2.4; 5.1; 6.9; 10.1; 'descendants' in Gen. 11.10, 27; 25.12, 19; 36.1, 9; 'the history of the family' in Gen. 37.2. 2. Cf. F.H. Breukelman, Bijbelse Theologie 1,1. Schrift-lezing (Kampen, 1980), pp. 18, 105, 126-28; S. Tengstrom, Die Toledot-Formel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (ConBOT, 17; Uppsala, 1981), pp. 17-59; Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, pp. 145-50; R. Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament. Eine Einfuhrung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2nd edn, 1985), pp. 142, 147; Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 170-72 (and 68-131 passim).

9. Edom's Role in Genesis

127

respectively: 'the heavens and the earth' (2.4); Adam (5.1); Noah (6.9); 'the sons of Noah': Shem, Ham, and Japhet (10.1); Shem (11.10); Terah (11.27); Ishmael (25.12); Isaac (25.19); Esau (36.1, 9); Jacob (37.2). The title of the section Gen. 5.1-6.8 is also the title of the book of Genesis as a whole; see 5.1: 'This is the book of the generations of Adam'.1 The history of humankind on earth is introduced by the narrative of the creation of heaven and earth in 1.1-2.3 and by the narrative of 'the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created' (2.4-4.26; quotation from 2.4).2 Humankind is not 'generated' by the earth, it is God who 'formed man from dust of the ground' (2.7). The creation of heaven and earth ends in the creation of man in 1.26-28 and in the 'generation' of man in 2.4-7. At the beginning of the 'book of the generations of Adam' the creation of man is referred to (5.2).3 The 'generations of Adam' result in the generation of the nations on the one hand (ch. 10), and the generation of Abraham, Israel's ancestor, on the other. Two series of 'generations' connect Adam and Abraham: ch. 5 (until Noah and his sons) and 11.10-26 (from Noah's son Shem to Abraham's father Terah). Each Toledoth section tells a part of the continuing history of the origin of mankind and of Israel. In ch. 10, the nations of the world are presented as the 'generations' of Noah's three sons. Gen. 10.111.9 concludes the first part of Genesis. All the seventy nations of the world are present—except for Israel and its neighbours. The second and largest part of Genesis is about the origin of these nations. The section 'Toledoth of Shem' (11.10-26; the genealogy from Shem till Terah) constitutes the bridge between the two parts of the book.4 The line of Israel is a special one. From ch. 12 onward, all attention is directed to the origin of Israel. God promises Abraham that he will 1. Cf. Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, p. 73 (cf. pp. 68-73, 170); cf. Tengstrom, Die Toledot-Formel, pp. 58, 68; K.A. Deurloo, 'Narrative Geography in the Abraham Cycle', in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), In Quest of the Past. Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism. Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988 (OTS, 26; Leiden, 1990), p. 49. 2. Cf. Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, pp. 146, 150. 3. Cf. the allusions to the creation story in 5.3 (Adam becomes the father of a son 'in his own likeness, after his image'; cf. 1.26-28). 4. Cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), pp. 77-78.

128

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

make his offspring a great nation, and that he will give this people the land where he will lead them (12.1-3). Time and again, God's promise is repeated, to Abraham as well as to Isaac and Jacob.1 The special character of Israel's line is illustrated in chs. 12-36 by depicting the origin of some other peoples as well, peoples closely related to Israel. While the family history of Abraham continues in the direction of Israel, 'brothers' (real or considered as such) appear, which represent the non-chosen line. They act as counterparts to the forefathers of Israel. Abraham's 'brother' is Lot. Lot becomes the father of Ammon and Moab. Isaac's brother Ishmael is the father of the Arabian peoples. Jacob's brother is Esau, the ancestor of the Edomites. After the narratives about Abraham (11.27-25.11), Toledoth on the main line and on the collateral lines alternate. First, the (literal) 'generations' are given of the son who is not Israel's ancestor (a genealogy). Then follow the narrative Toledoth of the other son. The narrative 'Toledoth of X' always have the history of X's sons as their subject. Abraham's sons are Ishmael and Isaac. Only one of them—Isaac— can stand in the line of God's promise. The section 'Toledoth of Ishmael' (25.12-18) is a short list of Ishmael's descendants; with the 'Toledoth of Isaac' (25.19-35.29) the history of Israel's origin continues. Likewise, the section 'Toledoth of Esau' (36.1-37.1), consisting of genealogies, concludes Esau's part of the history. The story goes on with Jacob's sons, in the 'Toledoth of Jacob' (37.2-50.26). The principal characters among the patriarchs are Abraham and Jacob, in the 'Toledoth of Terah' (11.27-25.11) and the 'Toledoth of Isaac' (25.19-35.29) respectively. The two sections have a similar subject: the birth of two sons, and their relationship. In the first section, it is approached from the side of the father, in the second, from the side of the sons. Isaac is the 'son' of the first section, and the 'father' of the second. Genesis is about the origin of one special nation among the nations of the world: Israel, the blessed nation. God undertook to bless all mankind (1.28; 5.2; 9.1-7), but his particular blessing is for that one nation. 1. Cf. Clines, Theme of the Pentateuch, pp. 29, 32-43, 45-46; J. Goldingay, "The Patriarchs in Scripture and History', in A.R. Millard and DJ. Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester, 1980), pp. 11-23.

9. Edotn's Role in Genesis

129

Important for our subject is that this theme is brought to a conclusion in the stories of Jacob and Esau. The name of Israel is mentioned for the first time in Genesis in the Jacob-Esau stories. It is the name Jacob receives as a blessing at the fight at the Jabbok, when he is about to re-enter the land of Canaan (32.29). Jacob enters Canaan, the promised land, as Israel. In 35.9-15, Jacob is back in Bethel. In 35.1012 the promise is repeated that the offspring of the patriarch shall become a great nation, a promise well known to the reader of the earlier parts of Genesis. Here, it is for the first time in Genesis connected with the name this nation will bear: Israel (35.10). Directly afterwards, on his way from Bethel to Ephrath, Jacob becomes the father of the last of his twelve sons (35.16-18); these sons bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. the list in 35.22-26). It is in the 'Toledoth of Isaac' that Israel originates; in Jacob and his sons, the line of Israel's ancestors reaches its end. The other part of the Genesis theme, the origin of the nations, is also concluded in the Jacob-Esau stories. Esau is the last in the line of ancestors of foreign nations. The line of the other nations ends here, with Edom. 'Israel' and 'the last nation' originate together, as twin brothers. In the light of the theme of Genesis, the most relevant distinction between Jacob and Esau is their attitude towards the right of primogeniture. The first-born will be the one called to stand in the line of God's promise, the line of Israel. Esau's careless attitude makes him a typical example of the non-chosen line. 3. The Middle of Genesis 25.19-37.1: Jacob's Stay with Laban, Genesis 29-31 The narratives in Genesis 29-31, the Jacob-Laban stories, mirror the surrounding stories on Jacob and Esau in many ways: several situations, themes, motifs, words and even phrases occur in both parts.1 Laban deceives Jacob in the same way as Jacob has deceived Esau: by presenting to Jacob another daughter than Jacob wants: not the youngest one, but the first-born. Moreover, Laban acts as Jacob's 1. Cf. e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, pp. 140-41; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 45-47; Sherwood, 'Had God Not Been on My Side', pp. 105-107 (p. 107: 'it seems clear that the author wants the reader to see in 29 the requital of Jacob's action in 27').

130

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

'brother' but makes Jacob 'serve' him (cf. e.g. 29.12, 15). This is a reversal of Jacob's blessing: 'Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you' (27.29). (The same reversal we have found in the narrative of Jacob's and Esau's reunion, ch. 33.)1 Genesis 29-31 relates a decisive part of the origin history of Israel. Central to these chapters (literally as well as figuratively) is the birth of Jacob's children. There, the foundation is laid for the origin of Israel. Together with the Jacob-Esau stories, the Jacob-Laban stories constitute the history of the beginning of the people of Israel and their (first) voyage to the promised land. The peoples of Ammon, Moab, Ishmael and Edom are born within the part of the family of Terah that went to Canaan (11.27-12.5). Their birth has been told before chs. 29-31. The peoples surrounding Israel are now present. In chs. 29-31, Jacob meets the other part of Terah's family, the one that has stayed behind in Mesopotamia (cf. 11.31). Laban and his sister Rebekah are children of Bethuel, the son of Abraham's brother Nahor. Bethuel and Laban are Aramaeans:2 they live in Paddan-Aram (25.20; 24.10: 'Aram-Naharaim', i.e. northern Mesopotamia), in the vicinity of the city of Haran (27.43; 28.10; 29.4).3 The separation from this part of the family, as depicted in chs. 2931,4 is the last phase in the history of Israel's origin among the nations. Exactly in this phase, and partly parallel with it, Israel's separation from its twin brother Edom takes place. When Jacob and his family return from Mesopotamia, Esau and his family have to leave the land of Canaan. Gen. 31.17-18 and 36.6 illustrate that these are parallel movements:

1. Cf. Chapter 8, section 2. 2. One of the descendants of Nahor and Milka, listed in 22.20-24, is called Aram (22.21). 3. Haran is the city where Terah and Abraham, moving from Ur of the Chaldaeans towards Canaan, arrived and stayed (11.31-32). 4. At the end of these narratives, Jacob and Laban, the representatives of Israel and Aram, establish a border line between their nations (31.44-54). Their separation is permanent. In 31.47 it is emphasized that Jacob and Laban speak different languages: Laban gives the heap of stones at the border an Aramaic name, Jacob a Hebrew one.

9. Edam's Role in Genesis 31.17-18 (Jacob) set his sons and his wives on camels; and he drove away all his cattle, all his livestock which he had acquired (RSV: 'gained'), the cattle in his possession (T3'3p) which he had acquired in Paddan-Aram, to go to the land of Canaan to his father Isaac.

131

36.6 Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters... his cattle, all his beasts, and all his property (trap) which he had acquired in the land of Canaan; and he went into a land away from his brother Jacob.

This is quite a significant parallel. A similar verse is found in two other places: 12.5, where Abraham moves to Canaan, taking with him all he possesses, and 46.6, where Jacob and his family, taking all their possessions, leave the land for ever.1 Gen. 36.6 is the only place where this verse is applied to a nation other than Israel. However, as will be discussed in the following section, the fate of the nation chosen to conclude the line of the nations in Genesis is illustrative of the fate of all the other nations. 4. Brothers and Nations In the patriarchal narratives, there is always a member of the family who acts as counterpart to the heir of God's promise to Abraham. At first sight, they seem to be the most natural candidates for this heritage, but in the end they appear not to be the elected ones. Lot is the son of Abram's brother Haran (11.27; cf. 12.5; 14.12), and Abram calls Lot his 'brother' (13.8; cf. 14.14, 16). After Haran has died, they travel together to Canaan. When they arrive there, Abram—whose wife is barren (11.30)—is promised that his descendants will inherit this land (12.7). When it appears that Lot and Abram have too many cattle to live together, they separate. Abram may have hoped that Lot chose a part of the promised land (cf. 13.89), but Lot chooses a region outside Canaan (13.10-12).2 In this way, 1. Gen. 12.5, in its turn, parallels 11.31 (Terah moves in the direction of Canaan); cf. Deurloo, 'Narrative Geography', p. 52. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 332 for a scheme with the five texts (11.31; 12.5; 31.17-18; 36.6; 46.6). 2. As L.R. Helyer, The Separation of Abraham and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narrative', JSOT 26 (1983), pp. 79-80, demonstrates, Gen. 13.12 suggests a distinction between Canaan and the region Lot chose: 'Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, while Lot dwelt among the cities of the valley...' In any case, the

132

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Lot disqualifies himself as heir to the promise.1 Lot's land, the Jordan valley, is a very fertile region (13.10), but will soon afterwards be turned into a dead country, because of the wickedness of its inhabitants (19.24-28; cf. 13.10, 13). Then, Lot becomes the father of Ammon (Ben-Ammi) and Moab in a most disgraceful manner: he begets children by his two daughters— unknowingly, since he has been made drunk (19.31-38). Lot became a father through incest, which stands in sharp contrast with the way Abram and Sarai beget their son, namely through God's promise. Isaac is the ancestor of Israel, Lot is the father of Israel's eastern neighbours. But before Isaac is born, his half-brother Ishmael is born. Despairing of becoming parents, Abram and Sarai use Sarai's Egyptian servant Hagar as surrogate mother (ch. 16). However, the son begotten in this way, Ishmael, cannot be the heir of the promise, as God assures Abram (17.18-19). In the end, Hagar and Ishmael depart to the desert (ch. 21). Ishmael becomes the father of the desert people; his genealogy lists several Arabian peoples (25.12-18). Gen. 25.1-6 presents another collateral genealogy: the sons of Abraham's concubine Keturah. These too are Arabian peoples. While Ishmael's sons are located to the south of Israel (25.18), Keturah's sons dwell in the east (25.6). 'Separation' is an important motif in the patriarchal narratives. Through separation, the various nations around Israel appear. Rebekah is told: 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided' (25.23). The verb translated 'be divided', Tia nif., is also used in ch. 10, to indicate the origin of the various nations (10.5, 32).2 It is used with some emphasis in the narrative of the separation of Abram and Lot (it is repeated three times: 13.9, 11, 14). Abram's and Lot's descendants will be separate nations living in separate lands.

region that Lot chose is not part of the promised land. Soon afterwards, it is to be destroyed (cf. already 13.10). 1. Cf. Helyer, 'Separation of Abraham and Lot', pp.80, 82-83, 85-86. According to Helyer (p. 82), the 'leading theme of the Abraham Cycle' is 'the problem of an heir'. The reader of Genesis has been told before that Lot was not a serious candidate for the heritage: it is to Abraham's 'seed' (inr; 12.7), his descendants, that the land is promised. 2. The RSV rendering in 10.5, 32 is 'spread'.

9. Edam's Role in Genesis

133

The same reason is given as in the story of the separation of Jacob and Esau: 13.5-6

36.7

And Lot, who went with Abram, For their possessions were too also had flocks and herds and tents, great for them to dwell together; the so that the land could not support land of their sojournings could not both of them dwelling together; for support them because of their cattle, their possessions were so great that thay could not dwell together...

Eventually, Lot, Ishmael and Esau all leave the land of Canaan. Likewise, the sons of Keturah (25.6). We have seen that within the structure of Genesis 12-50, the sections 'Toledoth of Ishmael' (25.12-18) and 'Toledoth of Esau' (36.137.1) serve the same function. They give the genealogies of the two main collateral branches within the origin history of Israel. Ishmael and Esau are the structural counterparts to Isaac and Jacob. Their Toledoth introduce the Toledoth of Isaac and Jacob. There are sundry other correspondences between Ishmael and Esau. Both are born first, but neither can be the first-born, the heir of the promise. In both cases, their fathers love them and want them to be their heir (17.18; 25.28; 27.1-4); both times, they are opposed in this matter both by God (17.19; 25.23) and their wives (21.10-12; 25.28; 27.5-17). Neither Ishmael nor Esau can stay in the promised land, and both of them come to live in less fertile regions. For both of them, this destiny is indicated in a saying: 27.39-40 (Esau) 39 Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on high. 40 By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother

16.12 (Ishmael) He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brothers (RSV: kinsmen).

Corresponding elements are the reference to the dwelling-place and the remark on the relation with the brother(s). With Ishmael, the two elements are connected. Living 'over against' his brothers means that he cannot live with them. The dwelling-place of the wild ass is the desert, the place where no other human beings are found.1 Ishmael 1.

Isa. 32.14; Jer. 2.24; Job 24.5; 39.5-8; cf. Jer. 14.6; Hos. 8.9.

134

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

cannot live in peace with his brothers, as is expressly stated in the first half of 16.12. For Esau too, the arid constitution of his land is consequential for his way of living, which will be violent. On the other hand, the histories of both Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau end peacefully: together with their brothers, they bury their fathers (25.9; 35.29). Likewise as with Esau, the fact that Ishmael is to live outside the promised land in rather desolate areas need not be interpreted negatively.1 Both Ishmael and Esau become fathers of prospering nations, as their genealogies illustrate. Edom even develops faster than its brother; it has kings before Israel, 36.31. As for Ishmael, God himself promises to make him a great nation too (21.13, 18). Besides the similarities between their roles, there is another connection between Ishmael and Esau: Esau marries a daughter of Ishmael, in order to please his parents and to follow Jacob's example of marrying within the family (28.6-9). The connection is significant: while he does marry within the family, Esau links himself with the collateral branch and thus is confirmed in his role as the non-chosen son. 5. Edom's Specific Role Our question is whether we can describe Edom's role in Genesis as that of the representative of the nations and as Israel's particular opponent, as in the prophetic books. In the preceding sections we saw that Edom is the last of the nations that originate together with Israel's ancestors, and besides, the nation that is there when Israel itself appears, as its brother. But we have found as well that Genesis also elsewhere illustrates the difference between Israel and the other nations by giving the patriarchs a 'brother'. Therefore, it could be asked whether Edom really more than the other neighbours serves as Israel's opponent on behalf of the nations. In my view, it does. A closer comparison demonstrates that Esau's (Edom's) role differs from that of the other patriarchs of Israel's neighbours. First, it appears that in none of the stories about Lot and Ishmael is the opposition Israel-nation(s) as clearly portrayed as in the stories about Jacob and Esau. More than in the other narratives, in the Jacob1. It may even reflect the author's admiration that some peoples are able to live in an area where others could not survive.

9. Edom's Role in Genesis

135

Esau stories it is stressed that the two brothers represent nations. With Lot, it is only at the very end of his story that it becomes clear that he is the father of Ammon and Moab. Isaac and Ishmael, although both of them are promised to become a nation,1 are never themselves identified with nations. Only in the Jacob-Esau stories is there an explicit and direct connection between the patriarch and his nation: Jacob is Israel, Esau is Edom.2 There is a second point of difference which proves relevant. Unlike in the other narratives, in the Jacob-Esau stories the two brothers are opposed for themselves. Lot and Abraham are opposed as fathers— Abraham as the father by God's promise in contrast with Lot as coincidental and moreover incestuous father.3 Isaac and Ishmael are opposed as children—the son according to God's promise and the other son.4 Jacob and Esau are opposed as brothers; their behaviour toward each other is the constitutive element of their narratives. In consequence, it is only in the Jacob-Esau narratives that the relation between the two brothers is an important subject.5 In the other stories, the brotherhood of the two opponents has little thematic significance. Only in the Jacob-Esau stories the relation between Israel and the other nation(s) has been made a major theme. It is only in these stories that the theme of Genesis—the origin of Israel among the nations and the relation between Israel and the nations—is fully worked out. In Genesis 25-36, the two lines in the book of Genesis—Israel and the nations—become as close as possible: Israel and Edom are twin

1. Cf. 17.1-8, 15-22; 21.12-13, 18. 2. Cf. 25.23, 30; 27.29; 32.29; 35.10; 36.1, 8 and the discussion of these verses in Chapter 8, section 2. 3. Cf. Breukelman, Bijbelse Theologie 1,1, p. 127. 4. The fact that Isaac and Ishmael are only opposed as children is connected with the structure of the book of Genesis (cf. above, section 2). The 'Toledoth of Terah' concentrate on Abraham and the birth of his sons, and there are no 'Toledoth of Abraham' in which Abraham's son, Isaac, would have been the principal character. Accordingly, despite the similarities in the roles of Ishmael and Esau (as discussed in the previous section), Ishmael cannot play the same role as Esau, that of Israel's opponent. 5. K.A. Deurloo, De mens als raadsel en geheim. Verhalende antropologie in Genesis 2-~4 (Baarn, 1988), pp. 101-102, 106, 149-50 points to similarities between the Jacob-Esau stories and Gen. 4, the narrative of the first two human brothers. Cf. Willi-Plein, 'Genesis 27', p. 325 n. 38.

136

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

brothers.1 On the other hand, they are completely different. They are each other's opposites in many ways: they differ in appearance, in character and in deeds. Their future fates are twinned in the sense that they mirror each other: the blessings they receive are each other's opposites. Neither Abram and Lot, nor Isaac and Ishmael are placed opposite each other in a similar way. Edom is not just Israel's southeastern neighbour; it also serves as the representative of the nations. From the various nations, Edom was taken by the writers of Genesis to illustrate the closeness but also the complete difference between Israel and the nations. There is only one chosen nation, and even Israel's older twin brother among the nations cannot receive God's special blessing: the exceptional relation that he has entered into with Abraham and his descendants.

1.

Lot is Abraham's nephew; Ishmael is the son of an Egyptian female servant

Chapter 10 DIACHRONIC OBSERVATIONS 1. Introduction It is often held that the fact that Edom plays a role in the Jacob-Esau stories is due to a reinterpretation of the original stories. Only in a recent version, it is argued, did they become stories on the brotherhood of Israel and Edom. In this chapter (section 2), I will discuss whether the Edom/Seir element is a late feature of these stories, and when this element could have been introduced. In Chapter 9 it was inferred that Edom served in Genesis as the representative of the nations. Section 3 discusses diachronic aspects of Edom's role as representative. The chapter is followed by an excursus on Hos. 12.4-5: the allusions to the Jacob—Esau stories in these verses may be of relevance for the diachronic interpretation of Genesis 25-35. 2. Genesis 25-36: The Edom/Seir Element There are three theories concerning the presence of Edom in the Genesis stories: 1. 2. 3.

The Edom/Seir element is a later addition (e.g. E. Otto) The Edom/Seir element is not a later addition (e.g. E. Blum) Only the Edom element is a later addition (J.R. Bartlett).

I shall discuss the three theories by means of an examination of the views of the three scholars mentioned above. They have all tried to find out why exactly Edom was chosen to be Israel's older twin brother and what date must be assigned to this choice. First, the arguments for and against an original identification of Esau and Edom are considered. Next, the historical background of this identification will be discussed.

138

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

The theory with the most support thus far is the one in which it is assumed that the original stories about Jacob and Esau contained no references to the nations Israel and Edom. These references are to be explained as nationalizing additions. E. Otto discerns an 'Edomschicht' in Gen. 25-35, which consists of 25.22, 23, 25*, 30; 27.29aa, b, 39, 40; 32.4b; the last words of 33.14, 161 When these verses are left out, the original story appears, which is a socio-cultural myth on the struggle between the shepherd and the hunter. E. Blum2 disputes the quite generally accepted opinion3 that Otto advocates. He points out that the texts themselves do not supply evidence for the secondarily of the references to Edom's land and nation. He argues, moreover, that Jacob's and Esau's roles as representatives of Israel and Edom are essential to the stories in Genesis. The pun on Edom's name in 25.29-34 (v. 30), the story of the sale of Esau's birthright for Jacob's 'red' pottage, is an integral part of the narrative, as is the pun on Seir in ch. 27 (Esau's being 'hairy', ~U)fo; vv. 11, 23). Both puns are introduced in 25.25: 'The first came forth red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name Esau'.4 At the end of his study Blum concludes that all the stories in Genesis 12-50 are primarily and originally stories about Israel's relation with the surrounding nations.5 Blum's study is an important one for our subject, because he does not suppose that the Genesis stories were written at one time by one author; in fact, he gives a very detailed analysis of the complicated (literary) tradition history ('Uberlieferungsgeschichte') of these stories. It is obvious that one who regards them as a composition written by one author, cannot but accept the 'nations' element as original.6 J.R. Bartlett, while granting that in the present text of Genesis Esau and Edom are connected, assumes that in some phase in the tradition 1. E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche, archdologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels (BWANT, 110 = VI, 10; Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 25-27. 2. Blum, Die Komposition der Votergeschichte, pp. 69-79. 3. Blum speaks of 'weitgehende Einigkeit' (Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 69). 4. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 71 nn. 18, 19, 21; p. 73 nn. 31, 34; p. 75 n. 45 contra Otto. 5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 479-91. 6. See for instance G.A. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN, 1986), esp. the discussion of the 'nations' element on pp. 107-14.

10. Diachronic Observations

139

process only Esau and Seir were connected.1 The Seir element is much more firmly integrated in the Jacob-Esau stories than the Edom element. Like Blum, Bartlett underscores that the puns on Seir are constitutive for chs. 25 and 27, and that Esau's connection with Seir in chs. 32-33 and 36 must be original. Following G. von Rad,2 Bartlett argues that the connection with Edom in Gen. 25-36 is rather loose. Only in 25.29-34 does the allusion to Edom belong to the story itself ('the red stuff); in other places (25.25; 32.4; 36.1, 8, 9, 21) references to Edom appear to be (possibly later) asides, not indispensable elements of the story.3 The sentences in which Esau is identified with Edom, or Esau is referred to as Edom's 'father', may well be secondary. Evaluating the theories discussed above, we must conclude with Blum that no 'Edomschicht'—the portions referring to nations—can be left out without destroying the stories themselves. Blum has convincingly pointed this out. On the other hand, Bartlett's observation is certainly correct, that Seir has a much more prominent and essential place in Genesis 25-36 than Edom. This may be indicative of a stage in the tradition history in which Esau and Edom were not yet connected. Date and Historical Background What date can be assigned to the presentation of Edom as Esau, Jacob's (Israel's) brother, in the book of Genesis, and what was its historical background? Remarkably, the three authors we have discussed arrive at the same date: the period of the United Kingdom (David and Solomon). This does not mean, however, that we can regard the problem as solved. Other proposed datings appear to vary from early monarchic to Maccabean times. In the evaluation of the views of Otto, Blum and Bartlett, some of these proposals will come up. It is not my purpose to arrive here at one definite conclusion; I 1. J.R. Bartlett, The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom', JTS 20 (1969), pp. 1-20; and Edom and the Edomites, pp. 41-44, 175-80. 2. Von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose, p. 240: 'Nun zeigt sich aber schnell, dass keineswegs alle Jakob-Esau-Geschichte von der Gleichung Esau-Edom ausgehen, sondern dass diese Gleichung nur in Kap. 25 verwurzelt ist'. 3. In Gen. 36, vv. 31-39 mention Edom, but not Esau or Seir; vv. 15-19 and 40-43 ('Edom': vv. 17, 19, 43) merely repeat other portions of this chapter (Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 9-10).

140

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

think the questions concerned can only be answered after an examination of the connections with the prophetic oracles against Edom. Here, only a critical survey of the various proposals is given, concentrating on some recent ones. In Otto's view, the Yahwist was the one who composed the 'Edomschicht'.1 He did so in order to reinterpret the Jacob-Esau stories, which, in his opinion, were originally a sociocultural myth. Since the subjection of Edom which is mentioned in the added material (25.23; 27.39, 40) does not refer to any part of the story itself, it has to refer to the historical situation at the time of the Yahwist: Edom's dependence on Judah/Israel after David's conquest of Edom (2 Sam. 8.13-14).2 Blum's theory is that Genesis 25/27 represent the old core of the Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis 25-35.3 In its present form, ch. 27 presupposes 25.29-34, but originally both texts may have been unconnected, and have existed independently. They can be regarded as parallels. In both stories Jacob/Israel takes possession of Esau's/ Edom's rights. Further on in the tradition history, both stories were combined and provided with an introduction (25.21-28).4 Then, they were given a sequel: Jacob's flight to and stay with Laban (27.41-31), and Jacob's return to Canaan (chs. 32-33). The present text of ch. 27 continues the story in the direction of Jacob's flight to Paddan-Aram. However, it does so only in its last part, vv. 41-45. Because the story in ch. 27 could also have ended in v. 40, vv. 41-45 might be a later addition, written to build a transition to the Jacob-Laban stories.5 Although the precise history of the chronologically preceding text-complexes remains in the dark,6 in the end a clearly distinct composition appears, to which the Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis 25/27 constitute the opening chapters. This composition (the 'Kompositionsschicht' or 'KSchicht') comprises most of the material now in Genesis 25/27-33.7 1. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, pp. 27-28. 2. In 2 Sam. 8.13 the MT reads 'Aram' (DIK) instead of 'Edom'( (QITK). There is little doubt that the original text read 'Edom' (on*). 3. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 86-88; cf. pp. 85-86. 4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp.171-72. 5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 87 and 171, 173-74. 6. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 174. 7. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 168-71. Otto, Jakob in

10. Diachronic Observations

141

So, Blum has two possible historical backgrounds to detect: one for the stories in Genesis 25/27 and another for the composition as a whole. As for the 'K-Schicht', Blum argues that the place-names in Genesis 32-33 betray a northern origin: Mahanaim, Peniel, and Succoth were important cities for the Northern Kingdom, especially in the time of Jeroboam I.1 That time too is the most natural date for this composition. The Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis 25/27 are dated by Blum to the time of the Davidic-Solomonic empire,2 for the same reason as Otto. They have as terminus ante quern the time of Jeroboam (the date of the composition as a whole), and as terminus a quo David's conquest of Edom. In a way, the 'K-Schicht' reverses the message of Genesis 25/27. While the latter reflect on Israel's supremacy over Edom, the former seems to side with Edom—in chs. 32-33, there is nothing left of Jacob's supremacy. That would fit in well with the spirit of Jeroboam's kingdom, which had liberated itself from the imperialism of Jerusalem.3 The addition in 27.40b: '(---you shall serve your brother;) but when you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck', may have the same background.4 Some minor additions within chs. 25/27, 32-33 date from later times; they serve as ties with the other parts of Genesis (28.13b-14a: late pre-exilic;5 28.14b: exilic;6 28.15 and 32.10-13: T>'7). T' is responsible for 27.46-2S.9.8 Although in his article 'The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom'9 Bartlett took a different point of view (as will be discussed below), in later studies he contends that David's conquest of Edom was

Sichem, pp. 28-40, develops a comparable theory on the origin of Gen. 25-33. In his view, however, the development of the complex took place in the pre-literary stage (before the literary fixation in the documents J and E). 1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 175-86. 2. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 190-94. 3. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 185. 4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 193-94. 5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 290-91. 6. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 354, 355-59. 7. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 152-64. 8. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 263-70. 9. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir'.

142

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

the cause of the identification Esau=Edom.1 The subjected kingdom of Edom—believed to be older than Israel's kingdom (Gen. 36.31)— became Israel's subdued older brother. Bartlett retains from his earlier article that the identification was facilitated because Esau was situated in Seir, which, like Edom's land, is a region to the south of Judah. He argues that Gen. 27.40b probably refers to the Edomite revolt against Judah under Jehoram of Judah (2 Kgs 8.20-22). Therefore, the story as it stands must have been composed after the mid-ninth century BCE. If this verse is a later addition, the rest of the chapter may be a little older. Evaluation Having already concluded (with Blum) that Otto's view cannot be correct, we do not need to review his theory once more. A theory comparable with Otto's is the one advocated by S.H. Blank.2 Like Otto, Blank believes that the original stories were not about nations; later, 'nationalizing additions' turned them into stories about Israel and Edom. However, he dates these additions not to the time of the Davidic-Solomonic empire, but to the early post-exilic period. In that time, Blank argues, Judah hoped to be restored to its former mighty position, and to be able, once again, to control the neighbouring nations. As for Blum, we shall discuss three elements of this theory: (1) chs. 32-33 as a later sequel to chs. 25/27; (2) the dating of chs. 25/27; and (3) the dating of chs. 32-33 (the use of place-names). 1. In Blum's view, Genesis 32-33 presents a modification of the message of Genesis 25/27: the brotherhood is restored, the stolen blessing is shared, and there is a more positive attitude to Esau. This is in accordance with the results of our synchronic analysis: several elements of chs. 25/27 are reversed in chs. 32-33. Although it is promised Jacob that he will be 'served' by his brother, he now 'serves' Esau; Jacob has 'taken' his brother's blessing, and now 'gives' him the

1. See e.g. J.R. Bartlett, 'The Brotherhood of Edom', JSOT4 (1977), pp. 1621; Edom and the Edomites, pp. 175-80; following V. Maag, 'Jakob-Esau-Edom', TZ 13 (1957), pp. 418-29; and G. Wallis, 'Die Tradition von den drei Ahnvatern', ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 18-40. 2. S.H. Blank, 'Studies in Post-Exilic Universalism', HUCA 11 (1936), pp. 174-84.

10. Diachronic Observations

143

blessing, etc.1 In diachronic perspective, this modification could indeed indicate a reinterpretation of the earlier stories (which may have existed independently). Like Blum, B. Diebner and H. Schult assume that Genesis 33 is adjusting an earlier, negative, estimation of Edom (in the Old Testament texts on Edom in general).2 They, however, place this chapter in Maccabaean times, when Idumaea was made part of the Hasmonaean empire. G.A. Rendsburg maintains that the unity which the stories now constitute must be original.3 He argues that the way in which the various text-complexes in Genesis are structured precludes the procedure supposed by the Documentary Hypothesis.4 Rendsburg shows that the main structural characteristic is the use of theme-words and catchwords in chiastically corresponding parts. The supposedly independent 'documents' appear to be linked with one another by these words. However, although these arguments may indeed preclude the possibility of a combination of several independent documents as supposed in the Documentary Hypothesis, they do not seem to refute Blum's theory, according to which existing stories were combined, made to relate to each other, and worked out. 2. Blum's argument for dating chs. 25/27 to the time of the United Kingdom is the Israelite supremacy over Edom which these chapters express. Further, he states that one part of Jacob's blessing, that he will 'be lord over his brothers' (27.29, 37), is in keeping with the situation during David's and Solomon's reigns, when Edom and the other 'brother nations' were subordinate to Israel.5 As far as the former argument is concerned, it should be observed that the Israelite supremacy over Edom, or at least the strife for such supremacy, continued until Jehoram of Judah (2 Kgs 8.20-22). Furthermore, it is not at all clear whether the short note on David's 1. Cf. above, Chapter 8. Cf. Maag, 'Jakob-Esau-Edom', pp. 418-20, who stresses the incongruity between the beginning of the story in 25.23, where 'the younger' brother is promised to be served by 'the older' one, and the story itself, where no such 'serving' takes place. 2. B. Diebner and H. Schult, 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten der Makkabaerzeit', DBAT 8 (1975), p. 11. 3. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis. 4. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis, pp. 99-106. 5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 193.

144

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

conquest of Edom in 2 Sam. 8.13-14 is historically reliable. There is no archaeological evidence for any Israelite influence on Edom in David's (or Solomon's) time1. As for the latter argument, the reference to other nations in Gen. 27.29, 37 seems to me too unspecific to draw any historical conclusions from.2 While as terminus a quo David's conquest of Edom can be accepted, there is insufficient evidence to posit the end of the United Kingdom as terminus ante quern. Moreover, in my opinion, the stories could well refer to the situation at the time of the United Kingdom without belonging to that period. For example the books of Samuel and Kings might have been used as a source. If Gen. 27.40b ('but when you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck') were indeed to be looked upon as an addition, it could have been added in any period, by a writer who wanted to include another part of the Israelite-Edomite history.3 However, Blum's contention that it must be later because it is in prose, while 27.39-40a is poetic,4 does not convince. It can be explained as an 'addition' within the story: Isaac firstly gives Esau, in poetry, the 1. Knauf, 'Suppleraenta Ismaelitica', p. 69. 2. K. Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer Vdtertexte (BZAW, 186; Berlin and New York, 1990), pp. 119-46 dates the blessing of Jacob in Gen. 27.27b-29 to the time of the United Kingdom (see pp. 143-46). The grounds for this proposal, however, are rather speculative. He argues that the part 'Be lord over your brothers and may your mother's sons bow down to you' (27.29) is a pre-monarchic blessing, referring to the predominancy of one tribe over the others. It was reinterpreted by the Yahwist and made to refer to the other nations. That must have happened not too long after the tribal system had been abolished, i.e. at the beginning of the monarchic period. In my view, this reconstruction is too hypothetical to be accepted. 3. Contra Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte, p. 191 n. 5, where he rejects Blank's thesis (cf. above). Like Blank, K.H. Keukens ('Der irregulare Sterbesegen Isaaks. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation von Genesis 27,1-45', BN 19 [1982], pp. 43-56) assigns a post-exilic date to Gen. 27. He shows that in this story every rule about giving a death bed blessing is disregarded, so that the blessing itself becomes invalid. This is confirmed by the other stories in Genesis: in these, none of the issues Jacob was blessed with is obtained. Keukens suggests that this story was told in order to invalidate the false hope of Israel to prevail over Edom, and that it can be looked upon as a reaction to the prophetic oracles against Edom, e.g. Mai. 1.2-5. In my view, a serious difficulty for this theory is the explicit promise of YHWH in 25.23 that 'the elder shall serve the younger'. 4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte, pp. 193-94.

10. Diachronic Observations

145

blessing that only reflects Jacob's poetic blessing; after that, he (unexpectedly) adds a new element which is more favourable for Esau. The argument that the time of Jeroboam was the date of the composition as a whole (so that the stories in chs. 25/27 must be earlier), will be discussed below. 3. Blum uses the place-names in the Jacob-Esau stories to establish their date.1 In my view, this procedure is not without risk. A major composition principle in the Jacob-Esau stories is the use of a selected set of personal, geographical and national names in puns and allusions, which moreover do not stand on their own, but have been made to relate to each other.2 This system of meanings given to names has been complemented with the repetition of and allusions to 'catchwords', which indicate the theme(s) of the stories.3 All together they constitute a story on the relation of the two chief characters of this part of Genesis: Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom. The question is: why were exactly these names chosen for these stories? Was that necessarily because they were the names of important cities and regions in the time of the writer, as Blum supposes? Other, at least equally probable, reasons suggest themselves. As regards the names Esau, Edom, Seir, Jacob, and Israel it is clear: the writer wanted to tell a story about precisely these figures. The Jabbok may well have been chosen because of the possible word-play with Jacob, and his wrestling (combined with Israel, and his striving).4 Gen. 28.10-22 and 32.23-33 are structurally interrelated: they are each other's counterparts in the chiastic pattern of chs. 2535.5 Therefore, the choices for Bethel and Peniel are likely to be interrelated as well. The form of the two names speaks in favour of 1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 175-84. 2. Cf. above, Chapter 8, section 2; see further H. Gunkel, Genesis. Ubersetzt und erklart (HKAT, 1; Gottingen, 2nd edn, 1902), p. 315 and 'Jakob', PJ 176 (1919), p. 353 (on Gen. 32-33); cf. Deurloo, 'Narrative Geography' on the Abraham cycle. 3. Cf. e.g. Fishbane, 'Composition and Structure', p. 21; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Esau, pp. 12-22; in general: Buber, 'Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung', pp.1131-1149. 4. Cf. above, Chapter 8, section 2. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte, p. 145, regards the aetiology of Israel's name as 'den iiberlieferungsoder traditionsgeschichtlichen Nukleus' of the Jabbok episode. 5. Cf. above, Chapter 8, section 2.

146

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

this: both contain the element 'El' (God). Further, there may have been geographical reasons for the choice of Bethel and Peniel. In ch. 28, the writer wanted to compose a story on God's promise to Jacob—who is leaving the (southern) land in the direction of Haran— that he will return. Therefore, the story had to be situated somewhere north of Jacob's native region and also somewhere before the symbolical border, the Jordan river (cf. 32.11). In ch. 32, the author wanted to compose a story on God's encounter with Jacob, who is about to return from Haran, via Gilead, to the (southern) land. So, he chose a location at the Gilead side of the symbolical border— moreover, in the neighbourhood of the Jabbok.1 In this way, he could make Jacob leave the promised land as Jacob, the deceiver, and return to it as Israel. The fact that he chose two place-names that contain 'El', God, enabled the writer to tell the parts of the story in which God acts. Other place-names in the neighbourhood of Peniel, east of the Jordan, he could use as well: Mahanaim, Succoth. In short: in ch. 28, the writer of the Jacob-Esau stories wanted to compose a part of the story in which Jacob and God interrelate, and Jacob has not yet left the country, but is already on his way to PaddanAram. Therefore, he chose a city that lay well north of Beersheba, contained an El-element, was known as a religious centre, and that he could use for a pun (or that had a tradition in which the pun functioned). The same applies, mutatis mutandis (Jacob has not yet entered the country by crossing the Jordan),2 to ch. 32.3 Whether all these puns are inventions of the writer or well-known traditions cannot be established any more. It seems not improbable that in some cases the writer used existing traditions. The interpretation of Bethel as 'God's house', for instance, may have originated in 1. The Jabbok itself can be regarded as a symbolical border as well; cf. N.H. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 403-404: This river is otherwise mentioned in the Bible exclusively as a frontier of Israel, the limit of Israel's first victory against the kingdoms east of the Jordan after it emerged from the desert wanderings'. 2. Cf. Gen. 33.18: 'And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan'. 3. Contra Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 176; 'Die raumliche Na'he zu dem in den Tradition vorgegebenen Gebirge Gilead (Gen 31) allein geniigt nicht als Erklarung, hatte doch Jakobs Weg auch ins Westjordanland weitergefiihrt werden konnen'. It is important that Jacob had not yet crossed the symbolical border, the Jordan River.

10. Diachronic Observations

147

Bethel itself, since this city was an important religious centre. However, the choice of all of the place-names, including Bethel, fits in with the framework of the story: Jacob's voyage from Beersheba to Haran and back. In view of the aim of the writer—to let Jacob return to the promised land as Israel—he could not have made a better choice than the Jabbok river (word-play on Jacob's name) and places near this river (Peniel episode as counterpart to the Bethel episode). So, there is no need to conclude from the place-names used that the stories originated in the neighbourhood of these places (i.e. the Northern Kingdom) or in the period when these places were especially important. Blum's interpretation is certainly possible, but the considerations above show that it is not the only possible one. The evidence for his theory is not conclusive. The remark made above on the date of Genesis 25/27 can be repeated here: stories can refer to a certain historical situation, without themselves stemming from that period. Also for the writer of chs. 32-33, the books of Samuel and Kings—or other historical works, or the historical tradition—might have served as a source. For Blum, Josiah's destruction of the Bethel sanctuary provides a terminus ad quern for the 'K-Schicht'.1 The story of Gen. 28.10-22 (the last verses of which are part of the 'K-Schicht') cannot have been composed after this date. 28.22 is a legitimation of the cult in Bethel (the giving of 'tenths'), which after the destruction of the sanctuary would have been pointless. An alternative view is that Gen. 28.10-22 looks like a legitimation, and indeed uses Bethel's cultic aetiology,2 but is in fact only alluding to the cult in Bethel. Such allusions can have been used in any time after the origin of the Bethel cult. Even long after the Josianic reformation we find allusions, most of them not at all unfavourable, to other cults than the one in Jerusalem.3 It must be emphasized that, strictly speaking, Gen. 28.10-22 is a story about Jacob promising to give tenths at a sanctuary in Bethel, not about the Israelites doing so. It can be concluded that the evidence for the date proposed by Blum for Genesis 32-33 is not decisive. Especially for his terminus ad quern there is insufficient proof; the stories may also have been composed in 1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 88-98 and 175-76. 2. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 25-29. 3. Cf. H. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Europaische Hochschulschriften 23/109; Frankfurt am Main, 1978), pp. 288-90.

148

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

later times. In this context, it is of relevance to note that among scholars who adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis (as Blum does not) the date of the Yahwist, to which much of the Jacob-Esau stories is attributed, is a moot point. Traditionally, the Yahwist is dated to the period of the United Kingdom. A recent theory is that the Yahwist's work belongs to the last period of the kingdom of Judah, or to the exilic or post-exilic period.1 In my opinion, Blum's observation that already the first version of the Jacob-Esau stories was a story about nations does not preclude Bartlett's theory. The original nations concerned are then not Israel and Edom, but Israel and Seir. Then, however, the entire story in Gen. 25.29-34, with the aetiology of Edom's name, is to be regarded as a later addition.2 Combining the observations of Blum and Bartlett, we can make the following reconstruction. The writer of Genesis may have used the existing Jacob-Esau/Seir-blessing story (now in ch. 27), and composed a Jacob-Esau/Edom-birthright story, while adapting the ch. 27 material (and writing or revising 25.21-28 as an introduction for both stories). Blum too assumes that the material of ch. 27 was edited with an eye to the composition of chs. 25/27, but he regards both chapters as originally independent parallels.3 However, in view of both the parallelism (in both stories Esau is deprived of his rights) and the difference (the use of 'birthright' instead of 'blessing'), it seems more likely that an author wanted to compose a variant to ch. 27. His reason for doing so may have been the intention to use Edom's name as well. Thus, he identified Esau (the Seirite) and Edom. A similar development as supposed by Bartlett can be observed in the Jacob-Laban stories. As Blum, following many other scholars, maintains, these stories were originally situated in the land of the 'sons of the east' (Gen. 29.1), the land of the eastern nomads, apparently in the neighbourhood of Gilead (Gen. 31.21-54).4 A reinterpretation of the stories moved Laban's home to Haran (Gen. 27.43; 28.10; 29.4) in northern Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim or Paddan-Aram). Both the introduction of

1. See for a recent survey of the discussion: Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, pp. 1-7. Berge himself defends the traditional dating. 2. The element of the lentils—which are red—probably being original, the element 'Edom', 'the red country' will also be original. 3. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 85-86, 87-88. 4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 164-67, 343-44 n. 11.

10. Diachronic Observations

149

Haran and the supposed introduction of Edom placed the stories on a higher international level: from the eastern nomads to Aram (northern Mesopotamia) and from the Esau-clans to the state of Edom. The similarity between the two movements (which may have occurred simultaneously) seems to support Bartlett's interpretation.

The next question that suggests itself is: when was Edom introduced into the Jacob-Esau stories? Before or after they were continued in chs. 32-33, or at the same time? It is difficult to answer this question with any certainty. The name 'Edom' is used once in chs. 32-33, and there it may or may not be a later addition (32.4: 'And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, the country of Edom'). Blum has demonstrated, quite convincingly in my opinion, that the Peniel scene (32.23-33) is an integral part of chs. 32-33, not (as often assumed) an old story more or less accidentally placed at the end of ch. 32.l In this scene, Jacob is renamed 'Israel' (32.29). Here, the name of Israel is used for the first time in the Jacob-Esau stories. It seems likely that the reinterpretation supposed by Bartlett (Esau from Seir is linked with Edom) and the reinterpretation supposed by Blum (a sequel in which Jacob is explicitly linked with Israel) were in some way interconnected. It is interesting to see that Bartlett and Blum (and also Otto!), in spite of their differing interpretations, agree on a main point: the connection Esau-Edom is well established in the early monarchic period, and the stories as they stand (except for P parts) were then composed. Blum saw the reign of Jeroboam as the background, Bartlett goes down to the time of Jehoram of Judah. Above, I mentioned that Bartlett in his 1969 article took a different view to the date of the Esau-Edom identification. We shall examine it here briefly. Bartlett2 assumes that there were two independent 'brotherhood'traditions. (1) The northern one, as expressed in Amos 1; Deut. 23.8; Num. 20.14 (= E). This brotherhood of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and Edom had a political background. These two nations were natural allies over against Judah. Only Edom is used as a name, 1. E. Blum, 'Die Komplexitat der Uberlieferung. Zur diachronen und synchronen Auslegung von Gen. 32, 23-33', DBAT 15 (1980), pp. 2-55, and Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 143-45. 2. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir'.

150

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

not Seir or Esau. (2) The Judaean one (based on the situation after the Edomites had moved to Seir in southern Judah): Gen. 25/27; Obadiah; Jer. 49.10; Malachi 1. Edom came to be identified with Esau from Seir, 'because the Edomites gradually took over the land which had once belonged to the Esau clans'.1 Bartlett concludes: the identifications are not made until the later editing of the Pentateuch and the writings of Jeremiah, Obadiah, and Malachi. The possibility of an agreement between Israel and Edom explains the otherwise surprising fact that it is the northern tradition which first calls Edom 'brother', for the north could know nothing of the relationship between Edom and Esau, which only came into being in the south during the later centuries of the pre-exilic period.2

Concerning the first brotherhood-tradition assumed by Bartlett, I have my doubts. Neither the northern provenance nor the dating to the period of the Northern Kingdom of these texts is undisputed.3 As for the second brotherhood-tradition, the thesis need perhaps not be discarded as quickly as Bartlett himself does.4 The conclusion of this section is that the narratives can also have been written after the early monarchic period. 3. Edom as Representative of the Nations So far, the subject of our reflections has been when and how Edom came to be regarded, in the Jacob-Esau stories, as Israel's brother. To be distinguished from Edom's 'brotherhood' is Edom's role as the representative of the nations, which is detected when the Jacob-Esau stories are read in the whole of the book of Genesis. It is in the context of the book that the Jacob-Esau stories appear as the climax of the development of the relation between the nations in general and Israel. While the separation of two 'nations' belongs to the oldest part of the stories (Isaac's blessings of Jacob and Esau), their interpretation as the last in a series of separations producing Israel and its neighbours 1. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', p. 17. 2. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', p. 18. 3. Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 5-16; Edom and the Edomites, pp. 180-84. 4. J.R. Bartlett, The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom', PEQ 104 (1972), p. 26 n. 4; 'Brotherhood of Edom', p. 18 n. 68.

10. Diachronic Observations

151

presupposes at least their combination with the stories about the other counterparts to Israel's ancestors, especially Ishmael. (The stories about Ishmael present the opposition Israel-nations in the same way as the Jacob-Esau stories.) Now, Blum has argued that the stories on Ishmael are rather late in Genesis; presumably they were composed during the exile.1 It can be added that the striking similarities between the stories of Isaac and Ishmael and those of Jacob and Esau which we discussed in the preceding chapter2 indicate some relation of interdependence: the former may have been modelled after the latter, or, if the Jacob-Esau stories are younger than Blum has proposed, these may have been composed together with the Isaac-Ishmael stories. We have observed that the structure of the book of Genesis—the Toledoth structure—highlights Edom's role as the representative of the nations.3 Within the context of the Toledoth structure the theme of the book of Genesis as we now have it—the origin of Israel among the nations—comes about fully. From Gen. 11.27 onward, the Toledoth of the main line (consisting of stories) alternate with the Toledoth of the collateral line (consisting of genealogies). The former line heads towards the origin of Israel, the latter line shows the origin of the other nations in the region—both within the framework of the history of man, the 'Toledoth of Adam', Gen. 5.1. Edom, as the last in the line of the nations in general, has been placed opposite Israel, the goal of the other line. It is almost unanimously agreed that the Toledoth structure only later has been put over the stories.4 The Toledoth structure is generally thought of as belonging to P, the priestly tradition. There seems to be a growing consensus that the P elements are not the result of the 1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 339-49: both Gen. 16 and 21.8-21 are part of 'Vatergeschichte 2', the exilic edition of the stories on the patriarchs. Cf. Knauf, Ismael, p. 36: Gen. 16 'gehort einer alten Erganzungsschicht zur Grundschicht des Pentateuch an'; he situates it in the early seventh century BCE. In his view (p. 25), Gen. 21.8-21 is a younger text, since it is literarily dependent on Gen. 16. 2. Section 4. 3. Chapter 9, section 2. 4. Only authors who hold that Genesis was composed by one single author believe otherwise: cf. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis; R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).

152

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

combination of an independent source of priestly materials with the other documents, but were composed or included in order to edit an earlier version of Genesis.1 The Toledoth structure seems to elaborate the idea of the patriarchs and their families representing the origin history of Israel and its neighbours. Already in the older version, Edom was the last in the series of nations originating and separating from Israel, and it had, as the nation chosen as the antagonist of the patriarch named Israel, a special role among the nations. The conception of Edom as the representative of the nations, implicitly present in an older version of Genesis, was made explicit in the P version. What date can be assigned to P/the Toledoth structure is a matter of debate. In general, the period around the exile is thought of.2 Two other P portions within the Jacob-Esau stories prove relevant for the dating of P: Gen. 26.34-35 and 27.46-28.9, the stories on Esau's (and Jacob's) wives. Esau married women 'of the land' (Canaanite women), an act that utterly displeased his parents; accordingly, Jacob is sent away to find women from within his family. The background of these stories may be similar problems with marriages outside the own circle in the post-exilic era.3 Parts of the P material may be older, for example, Esau's genealogies in Genesis 36. Probably, Edom's role in these genealogies is 1. See e.g. A. Jepsen, 'Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Vatergestalten', WZLeipzig 2/3 (1953-54), p. 279; P.M. Cross, 'The Priestly Work', in P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA, 1973), pp. 293-325; Tengstrom, Die Toledot-Formel; Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 424-27, 438-40 and Komposition des Pentateuch, pp. 229-85; Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 6465; cf. Whybray, Making of the Pentateuch, pp. 125-26. Cf. K. Koch, T—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung', VT 37 (1987), pp. 446-67 for a recent defence of the opposite view, and J.A. Emerton, 'The Priestly Writer in Genesis', JTS 39 (1988), pp. 381-400 for an intermediary view. 2. Cross, 'Priestly Work', pp. 323-25: late exilic; Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 452-58: post-exilic (cf. Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, p. 357); Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 191-94: early exilic or late pre-exilic; cf. the different evaluation by Blum (Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 453, n. 35 and Komposition des Pentateuch, p. 357 n. 87) and by Thompson (Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 191, 194) of the linguistic evidence gathered by scholars like R. Polzin and A. Hurvitz. 3. Cf. Diebner and Schult, 'Die Ehen der Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975), pp. 2-10: time of Ezra; Blank, 'Post-Exilic Universalism', pp. 170-71; Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 453; Luke, 'Esau's Marriage', pp. 185-89.

10. Diachronic Observations

153

relatively late (cf. above), but the lists may contain quite old ideas on the 'Esau clans' in the land of Seir. Similarities between Genesis 36 and e.g. inner-Israelite genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2 and 4 (viz. the same persons occurring in both sets of genealogies) show that there were close links between the clans in south Judah and the Esau clans.1 In view of this, it is not at all surprising that in the Genesis stories Esau came to perform as Jacob's brother. The Edomite king list in Gen. 36.31-39 has been variously dated. Proposals vary from the eleventh to the fifth centuries BCE.2 4. Conclusion In this chapter, we have reached the following conclusions. The identification of Edom and 'Esau from Seir' is probably secondary. Originally, there may have existed stories about Esau (not relating to Edom), and probably some genealogical material as well. At the basis of the present Jacob-Esau stories was the narrative of the struggle between the two brothers Jacob and Esau now contained in Genesis 27. Later on, this story became part of a series of narratives in which Esau represented Edom and Jacob represented Israel (Gen. 25; 27-33). The exact date of this composition cannot here be determined. In any case, the evidence for the quite common dating of Genesis 32-33 to the early monarchic period is not conclusive. This period does, however, provide the terminus post quern for the origin of the stories: they must have been composed after Israel and Edom had come into 1. Cf. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 2-5; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 88, 143; L.E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose up from Seir. Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah (ConBOT, 25; Lund, 1987), pp. 70-72; Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica', pp. 69-70. According to Knauf, the genealogies in Gen. 36.10-14, 20-28 go back to material from the seventh century BCE. 2. Eleventh century: J.R. Bartlett, 'The Edomite Kinglist of Genesis XXXVI.31-39 and 1 Chron. 1.43-50', JTS 16 (1965), pp. 311-12; C. Westermann, Genesis II. Genesis 12-36 (BKAT, 1,2; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp. 683-84; M. Weippert, 'Remarks on the History of Settlement in Southern Jordan during the Early Iron Age', in A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, I (Amman, 1982), p. 155; W. Zwickel, 'Rehobot-Nahar', BN 29 (1985), pp. 31-32; eighth century: Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 100-101; cf. A. Lemaire, 'Hadad 1'Edomite ou Hadad I'Arame'en', BAT 43 (1988), p. 15; end of sixth/beginning of fifth century: E.A. Knauf, 'Alter und Herkunft der edomitischen Konigsliste Gen 36,31-39', ZAW 97 (1985), pp. 245-53.

154

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

existence as states. Also in view of the present lack of consensus about the dating of most of the narrative material (or the Yahwist) in Genesis, it seems expedient to leave several possibilities open. It seems likely that the historical development of Edom's association with 'Esau's land', Seir, stimulated the identification of Esau and Edom and the narrative opposition of Israel and Edom as brothers.1 In a later version, Edom's role as the representative of the nations (apparent when the narratives in Genesis 25-33 are read in the context of the other patriarchal narratives) was developed, particularly by putting the existing material in the Toledoth structure. The terminus ante quern for the origin of Edom's brotherhood in Genesis is the date of the P version. The Toledoth structure stems from the period around the exile—during the exile, or shortly before or after it. The stories about Esau's marriages point to the post-exilic period.

EXCURSUS Hosea 12.4-5 and the Date of the Genesis Stories Hos. 12.4-5 contains some intriguing references to elements of the Jacob-Esau stories. However, their relation to the Genesis version of the stories is rather difficult to assess. It is not immediately clear whether or not these verses are evidence for the existence of some version of the book of Genesis in the eighth century BCE, the time of the prophet Hosea. The more so because even the meaning of the references is a matter of debate. Hos. 12.4-5 alludes to Jacob's struggle with his brother and with God.2 4. In the womb he 'took his brother by the heel' (ape), and in his manhood he strove with God. 5. He strove (?) with the angel and prevailed, he wept and sought his favor.

Hosea 12.4 clearly corresponds with Genesis: with Gen. 25.24-26 (the birth story, with the pun on Jacob's name) and Gen. 32.23-33 (the fight at the Jabbok) respectively. Unclear, however, is the meaning of 'he wept and sought his favor' (v. 5aB): in the Genesis version, Jacob does not 'weep' in his fight with the 'man' (Hos.: 'angel'). And why does he weep and seek favour when he has prevailed over his adversary?

1. Cf. further discussion of this issue in Chapter 12, section 5. 2. Cf. Hos. 12.6, corresponding with the Bethel-stories in Gen. 28 and 35, and 12.13, a reference to Jacob's stay with Laban.

10. Diachronic Observations

155

W.L. Holladay has argued, therefore, that Jacob's weeping and seeking favour does not refer to the fight at the Jabbok, but to the next story in Genesis, Jacob meeting Esau (ch. 33).! The brothers 'wept' (Gen. 33.4), Jacob desired to find 'favor' in the eyes of his brother (Gen. 33.8,10, 15; cf. 32.6). Holladay's thesis has met both acceptance2 and (more often) rejection.3 If his proposal is not followed, and Jacob must be understood to have wept after or even because of the fight, it becomes almost necessary to change the text and make Jacob the loser of the fight. It has often been suggested that the 'angel' CIH'PD) is a gloss and that originally the subject of Hos. 12.5aa was *?R, 'God' (in the MT "PR is understood to be the preposition, 'with').4 Although the Hosea verses do refer to the Jacob-Esau stories, it is a moot point whether they refer to the Genesis version of them. Some authors assert that the writer of Hos. 12 must have been acquainted with the Genesis version.5 According to them, the differences may be explained as the result of a reinterpretation (e.g. making Jacob the loser of the fight; note, however, that the supposed gloss ['angel'] returned to Jacob his victory). Others argue that the writer appears to have based his text on Jacob traditions which do not coincide completely with the ones contained in Genesis; at least, he cannot be proved to have known the written version of the Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis (or JE).6 Recently, W.D. Whitt has argued that Hosea 1. Holladay, 'Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XII 3-6', VT16 (1966), pp. 56-58. 2. L.M. Eslinger, 'Hosea 12.5a and Genesis 32.29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis', JSOT 18 (1980), p. 92; S.L. McKenzie, 'The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XII 4-5', VT 36 (1986), pp. 315-16; J. Lust, 'Freud, Hosea and the murder of Moses: Hosea 12', ETL 65 (1989), p. 86 with n. 19; Smith, '"Heel" and "Thigh"', p. 470. Apparently unaware of Holladay's article, F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24; Garden City, NY, 1980), p. 609, 613 mention the same idea as one of the possible solutions without mentioning Holladay. 3. L. Ruppert, 'Herkunft und Bedeutung der Jakob-Tradition bei Hosea', Bib 52 (1971), p. 496 n. 3; J. Vollmer, Geschichtliche Rtickblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaja (BZAW, 119; Berlin, 1971), p. I l l n. 302; H. Gese, 'Jakob und Mose: Hosea 12:3-14 als einheitlicher Text', in J.W. van Henten et al. (eds.), Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Fs J.C.H. Lebram, Studia Postbiblica, 36; Leiden, 1986), p. 42 n. 10; D.R. Daniels, 'Hosea and Salvation History. The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea' (dissertation, Hamburg, 1987), p. 69; W.D. Whitt, 'The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and their Relation to Genesis', ZAW 103 (1991), pp. 24-25 n. 31. 4. Cf. e.g. M. Gertner, The Massorah and the Levites', VT 10 (1960), pp. 277, 280-81; H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (BKAT 14.1; Neukirchen, 1961), pp. 266, 267-68; W.L. Holladay, 'Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XII 3-6', VT 16 (1966), p. 46; F. Diedrich, Die Anspielungen aufdie Jakob-Tradition in Hosea 12,1-13,3. Ein literaturwissenschafilicher Beitrag zur Exegese frtther Prophetentexte (FZB, 27; Wurzburg, 1977), pp. 36-37; Eslinger, 'Hosea 12.5a', p. 93; Whitt, 'Jacob Traditions', p. 32. 5. Cf. e.g. R.E. Wolfe, The Editing of the Book of the Twelve', ZAW 53 (1935), p. 115; Gertner, 'Massorah and the Levites', p. 284; Holladay, 'Chiasmus'; Ruppert, 'Herkunft und Bedeutung', pp. 503-504; R. Vuilleumier, 'Les Traditions d'Israel et la liberty du prophete: Os6e', RHPR 59 (1979), p. 492; H.-D. Neef, Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verktindigung des Propheten Hosea (BZAW, 169; Berlin and New York, 1987), pp. 45-47. 6. Cf. e.g. P.R. Ackroyd, 'Hosea and Jacob', VT 13 (1963), p. 259; E.M. Good, 'Hosea and

156

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

12 and Genesis are based on a common tradition; in his view, Hosea 12 reflects an earlier stage of that tradition, while Genesis gives a reinterpretation of it1 In the context of this excursus, we cannot try to solve these difficulties. We may, however, conclude that Hosea 12 does not provide a firm basis for dating the JacobEsau stories as a compositional unity in the book of Genesis. The more so because there is yet another problem. Even if agreement could be reached as regards the question which version presupposes the other one (indeed, if it could be proved that one version presupposes the other), it would be difficult to decide on the terminus ad quern or the terminus post quern of the Genesis stories. Several data seem to indicate a post-exilic date for the chapter as it stands, while it has been argued that at least vv. 5-7 may be secondary.2 Since, apparently, there is no unanimous agreement whether or not Hos. 12.4-5 presupposes the Genesis version of the Jacob-Esau stories, and, besides, whether or not these verses are original in their context and belong to the age of the prophet Hosea, it is impossible to adduce Hosea 12 as evidence for the eighth century BCE existence of the first extended version of the Jacob-Esau stories. As regards the Esau-Edom identification, the situation is even more uncertain. The author uses both the names Jacob and Israel, but it cannot be established whether the connection of Esau with Edom was known to him. 3 The same pun on Jacob's name as in Gen. 27.36 (and 25.26) is found in Jer. 9.3: Let everyone beware of his neighbor, and put no trust in any brother, for every brother is a supplanter (spy aipa), and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer.

As this reference is to one of the oldest parts of the Jacob-Esau stories, we do not learn anything on the date of the extended version.

the Jacob Tradition', VT 16 (1966), p. 150; Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 70-71; Daniels, 'Hosea and Salvation History', pp. 74-75, 85-87, 214, 221; Day, 'Prophecy', pp. 43-44. 1. Whitt, 'Jacob Traditions'; cf. his p. 18 n. 2. Cf. H.A. McKay, 'Jacob Makes it Across the Jabbok. An Attempt to Solve the Success/Failure Ambivalence in Israel's Self-consciousness', JSOT 38 (1987), pp. 5-6. 2. Verses 5-7 secondary: Vollmer, Geschichtliche Rttckblicke, pp. 106-107; G.A. Yee Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS, 102; Atlanta, GA, 1987), pp. 231-37, 298. Verses 4-7 secondary: Wolfe, 'Editing of the Book of Twelve', p. 115; Ackroyd, 'Hosea and Jacob', p. 253; Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes, p. 71 (cf. other literature in p. 71 n. 5). 3. Hos. 12 does not mention Esau's name. As Whitt, 'Jacob Traditions', pp. 29-30, rightly remarks, this even leaves open the possibility that 'Jacob's brother' had another name than 'Esau', or no name at all.

Part III THE ORIGIN OF EDOM'S ROLE AS A TYPE

Chapter 11

EDOM'S ROLE IN GENESIS AND THE PROPHETIC BOOKS 1. Introduction In Part I of this book, Edom's role in Obadiah and other prophetic texts was examined. Part II concentrated on Edom's role in the book of Genesis. Part III deals with the origin of Edom's role as a type. As a first step, the present chapter will compare the two sets of texts discussed in Parts I and II. Section 2 compares Genesis and the examined prophetic texts as regards the way in which the image of Edom as the representative of the nations and Israel's opponent is used.1 Several aspects of Edom's role in Genesis appear to correspond to Edom's role in the three major prophetic books and in Obadiah. Section 3 examines these correspondences from a diachronic point of view. It gives a comparison of the origin histories of the oracles and the Genesis stories. Section 4, finally, briefly considers the general correspondence between Genesis and the prophetic books. 2. Edom's Role in Genesis Compared to that in the Prophetic Books Some striking similarities can be found in the way the conception of Edom as Israel's particular antagonist functions in the context of the respective books. Of course, there are some important differences as well. Not only in Genesis but also in the prophecy of Obadiah, Edom is Israel's 'brother' (Obad. 10, 12). In Isaiah 34 and 35, and in Ezekiel 35 and 36, the fates of Edom and Israel are 'twinned' as complete opposites, just as in Genesis. In Genesis, Israel's blessing is Edom's 1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 177-89 for a more extensive comparison.

11. Edam's Role in Genesis and the Prophetic Books

159

'curse': in accordance with Jacob's blessing (Gen. 27.27-29) and Esau's anti-blessing (Gen. 27.39-40), Edom has at last to leave the land of their father. Isaac's blessing of Jacob, repeated in Gen. 28.3-4, promises him the land of Canaan, the land which Israel will possess. In the prophetic books, Edom's curse is Israel's blessing, once again concentrating on the land: Edom's land—the symbolic land of the adversary nations—is doomed and destroyed (just as and in the same way as Israel's land before); only then can Israel return to its land and possess it again (cf. Isa. 34 and 35, Ezek. 35 and 36, Obad. 16-21). In Genesis, Israel and the representative of the nations originate together and start their common history. In the examined prophetic books, the (temporary) end of this common history is reached. When Israel, the special nation, elected by God, is destroyed by God, the other nations cannot survive. Once again, Israel and Edom meet each other. Edom, representing the nations, is destroyed just like Israel. When that has happened, Israel can start anew. Genesis is about the beginning of God's history with Israel and the nations, and the prophetic books are about its temporary end, with the destruction of Jerusalem. In both, Edom is the representative of the nations and Israel's opponent. This conception is the basis of both the stories on Jacob and Esau and the four major oracles against Edom. The essential difference between Genesis and the prophetic books lies with their estimation of Edom. In Genesis, the land of Edom (or Seir) is estimated as a good land for Esau, a land in which Edom can develop as a prospering nation, while with the prophets Edom's land is no more than the place of doom. In the prophetic books, Edom is associated with the nations that threatened (or threaten) Israel. It is especially associated with Babylon. The destruction of Edom is the end of that threat and the beginning of the new Israel. In Genesis too, Esau is a danger for Jacob. Both when he leaves Canaan and when he returns, Jacob fears to be killed by his brother. The conflict, however, is resolved in a reconciliation. Esau shows his forgiveness. Of the four oracles, Ezekiel 35-36 is the nearest to Genesis. In Ezekiel 35-36, unlike Isaiah 34 and Jer. 49.7-22, Edom especially represents the neighbouring nations. In Genesis, Edom is the last of the nations around Israel to originate within Abraham's family. Isaiah 34 and Jer. 49.7-22 associate Edom and Babylon; this association is found neither in Genesis nor in Ezekiel 35-36. (As regards Obadiah:

160

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

v. 16 speaks of 'the nations' in general, vv. 19-20 are about Israel's neighbours.) Both in Genesis and Ezekiel, the opposition Edom-Israel, with Edom representing the nations, plays an essential role in the composition of the book. Ezekiel 35-36 constitutes a turning point in the book of Ezekiel (cf. Isa. 34-35). After all the doom called down on the mountains of Israel, the destruction of Mount Seir, representing the other hostile nations around Israel, introduces the message of hope and restoration for Israel. Genesis 25-36 constitute the part of the Toledoth in which both Israel (the purpose of the Toledoth) and the last of the other nations emerge. Strikingly, Ezekiel 35 is the only one of the four long oracles that uses the designation of Seir as Edom's land, like Genesis. The possession of the land is an issue occurring in both Genesis and Ezekiel 35-36. In Genesis, Jacob is promised that he will possess the land of Canaan (Gen. 28.4, 13). When returning to the land, Jacob fears that Esau may make his return impossible and might even kill him; he then reminds YHWH of his promise (Gen. 32.10-13). In Ezekiel, Israel's land is in danger of being taken in possession by 'Mount Seir' (Ezek. 35.10-12) and the other neighbouring nations (Ezek. 36.2, 3, 5). YHWH promises his nation that they are the ones who will possess (again) the 'mountains of Israel' (Ezek. 36.12; cf. Obad. 16-21). Although, therefore, Genesis appears to be especially related to Ezekiel 35-36, the brotherhood of Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom only appears in Obadiah. The name Esau only occurs in Jer. 49.7-22 and Obadiah (cf. below). 3. The Origin Histories Compared Edom's image and function in the two sets of texts are quite similar. Although there are differences, in both Genesis and the prophetic books Edom is Israel's special opponent among the nations. Since this conception is the basis of both the stories on Jacob and Esau and the major oracles against Edom, it seems unlikely that these texts are independent of each other. The question that has to be answered subsequently is how the detected relations can be explained. As a first step, the origin histories of the two sets of texts will be

11. Edom's Role in Genesis and the Prophetic Books

161

compared. We have found that the development of the Genesis stories knew several stages (cf. Chapter 10). 1.

2.

3.

4.

Probably the oldest part was a story about Jacob and his twin brother Esau, and their struggle for the blessing of their father (Gen. 27). There was a geographical element in this narrative: Jacob was the one from the 'smooth' mountain, Mount Halak, Esau the one from the 'hairy' mountain, Mount Seir. The next stage connected Esau-Seir with Edom and Jacob with Israel (either in one time or in more). Genesis 27, for example, was extended with a sequel in Genesis 28-33. The story of Esau selling his right of primogeniture (Gen. 25.2934) was composed as a variant to Genesis 27. Here, it can be added that the promise that Israel will become a great nation in the land of Canaan (Gen. 28.13-15; cf. 32.10-13) has often been regarded as a still later element.1 Finally, the 'P' elements are generally considered to be the most recent parts of the story. These are for example: Gen. 26.34-35; 27.46-28.9 (Esau's marriages, Jacob sent away to marry) and 25.19-20; 36.1, 9 (formulas that frame the stories and make them a part of the Toledoth structure laid over the book of Genesis).

As regards the four long oracles against Edom, we have found that there were several stages as well (cf. Chapter 7). 1. 2.

3.

The oldest parts did not treat Edom differently from the other nations. Ezekiel 35-36 and, less explicitly, the first extended version of Jeremiah 49 made Edom Israel's special opponent. Edom got this role too in the first version of Obadiah, which was based on these two texts. The same texts in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, particularly the one in Ezekiel, presented Edom as the representative of the

1. According to some, belonging to the exilic period. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 158-61, 290-97, 354-55; survey of other literature on pp. 293-96. On 32.10-13: Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 154-58. Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, discusses and partly rejects Blum's thesis (pp. 15759, 175-77, 181, 258-59 n. 63); he only considers 28.15b and 32.11, 13 to be secondary.

162

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

4.

nations. This was worked out in the second version of Obadiah. Both in Ezekiel and the second version of Obadiah (later on worked out in the final version of the book) the end of Edom and 'the nations' was a necessary condition for Israel's restoration, the returning to life of Israel's mountains (Ezekiel), the return of the exiles (Obadiah). The latter aspect was adopted in Isaiah 34 (cf. ch. 35): the annihilation of Edom precedes the blossoming of the desert that Israel has become. This text, however, added a new element: it linked up Edom with Babylon. The same happened in the second expansion of Jeremiah 49.

The following scheme gives an overview of the corresponding elements. (Gen-2/3/4: versions 2, 3, 4; cf. numbers used above. Jer. 49-1 [etc.]: the first version of Jer. 49.7-22 [etc.]).1 Genesis: Esau unconnected with Edom Edom as Esau: Edom in Seir: Israel as Jacob: Edom as brother: /antagonist:

Gen-1 Gen-2 Gen-2 Gen-2 Gen-2 Gen-2

Edom in the way of Israel's possession of its land: Gen-2/3 Opposition Israel-Edom/nations as structuring element in the book: Gen-(2/3/)4 Edom as representative: Gen-2/4 Edom//Babylon

(not)

Prophetic books: (not) Jer49-l Ezek35-36 Obad-1/2 Obad-1 Isa34, Jer49-2, Ezek35-36, Obad-1/2 Ezek35-36, Obad-2/3 Isa34, Ezek35-36 Isa34, Jer49-2, Ezek35-36, Obad-2 Isa34, Jer49-3

An interesting difference between Genesis and the oracles is that in the oracles Edom and Esau were already associated in the oldest parts (viz. in Jer. 49.10a, in the first version of the Jeremianic oracle against Edom), whereas in Genesis the association of Esau and Edom is secondary. However, the connection with Seir made in Genesis is first found in (the present version of) Ezekiel 35-36.2 The brother-

1. Jer49-l: Jer. 49.9-10a, 14-16; Jer49-2: Jer. 49.7-16; Jer49-3: Jer. 49.7-22. Obad-1: Obad. 1-14, 15b; Obad-2: Obad. 1-18; Obad-3: Obad. 1-21. 2. 'Mount Seir' does not occur in the oldest part of Ezek. 35-36 (35.5-6, 9);

11. Edom's Role in Genesis and the Prophetic Books

163

hood of Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom appears still later, namely in Obadiah. In both Genesis and the oracles in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Edom's role as the representative of the nations appears to be a later element. In Genesis, it came about in the narrative opposition of Israel and Edom, seen in the perspective of the other patriarchal narratives. It became more explicit in the context of the Toledoth structure. The first prophetic evidence of Edom's role as representative is probably Jer. 49.12-13, in the first expanded version of the oracle. I have suggested that the end of the kingdom of Edom (552 BCE) occasioned the edition and expansion of the original oracle. In the extended version, Edom's role remained rather implicit. It is more explicit in Ezekiel 35-36, which I have dated a little further in the sixth century (near the end of the exile). The use of texts to link up the oracles against Edom with oracles against Babylon, evidenced in Isaiah 34 and the third version of Jer. 49.7-22, has been seen to be a relatively late development (cf. Chapter 7). In Genesis, there is no trace of any linkage of Edom with Babylon. As for the older versions of the Genesis stories, we have seen that their identification of Esau from Seir and Edom also played a role in the composition of the oracles against Edom. On the other hand, it is striking how little use has been made of the theme of Edom's brotherhood. Even Ezekiel 35-36, though it does connect (as the only one of the oracles) Edom with Seir, does not have a single reference to Edom's 'brotherhood'. Edom is called Esau in Jer. 49.8, 10 and Obad. 6 (cf. Obad. 8, 9, 18, 19, 21). Besides, as stated above, it is only in Obadiah that Edom is addressed as Israel's brother. The name Esau does not occur in the other major oracles against Edom, Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35. Apparently, the identification of Esau and Edom was not very widespread at this time. This suggests that the Genesis stories are younger or at the least not much older than the oracles against Edom. 4. Genesis and the Prophetic Books The idea that the Genesis stories and the oracles against Edom belong to about the same age might be confirmed by the following observa35.7 is part of the verses that are generally regarded as an accretion to this oldest part (cf. Chapter 3, section 3.2).

164

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

tion. There is a remarkable similarity between the pattern of the Jacob stories and the pattern of the Major Prophets.1 Jacob's life mirrors Israel's fate in the exilic period as depicted in the prophetic books. Jacob's/Israel's having to leave the country that YHWH has destined for him, to stay for many years in Mesopotamia, and his subsequent return under God's promise, are elements that occur not only in Genesis, but also in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.2 In all three prophetic books, Israel's Babylonian exile is an important theme, including the theme of the expected and hoped for return from exile and restoration of Israel in its own land. A look at the wider context, that is to say the book of Genesis, reinforces the impression of similarity. Abraham too comes from Mesopotamia to Canaan, being promised that his offspring will inherit the land. Egypt, in the prophetic books Babylon's main opponent and Israel's 'staff of reed' (Ezek. 29.6), is equally important in Genesis. Almost immediately after his arrival in Canaan, Abraham's voyage to the promised land is in danger of ending up in Egypt (Gen. 12). In fact, Jacob and his offspring, at last becoming a nation, do end up there. In general, the patriarchs' moving between Mesopotamia and Egypt seems paradigmatic for the situation in the exilic period.3 Like the 1. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 177-79; cf. Clines, Theme of the Pentateuch, pp. 98-99; McKay, 'Jacob Makes it Across the Jabbok', pp. 10-11. 2. With respect to the book of Jeremiah, L.T. Brodie ('Jacob's Travail [Jer. 30.1-13] and Jacob's Struggle [Gen. 32.22-32]: A Test Case for Measuring the Influence of the Book of Jeremiah on the Present Text of Genesis', JSOT 19 [1981], pp. 31-60) holds a similar position. He asserts (p. 31) that 'the present patriarchal narrative is largely a post-exilic literary retrojection which reinterprets the ancient world in the light of prophetic theology'. Unfortunately, he fails to make a reasonable case for this. He sets out to prove that Gen. 27.30-33.20 is a verse to verse 'rewriting' of Jer. 21.1-31.12, but his attempt is greatly unconvincing. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 178 n. 596. 3. Cf. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 363-64; Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 344-46; K. Deurloo and B. Hemelsoet, Op her gen en in dalen. Bijbelse geografie: de plaats waar geschreven staat (Baarn, 1988), pp. 65-68; K.A.D. Smelik, 'Afdalen naar Egypt', in M.G.B. Harbers et al (eds.), Tussen Nijl en Herengracht (FS M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss; Amsterdam, 1988); Deurloo, 'Narrative Geography'; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 179. Cf. R.H. Moye, 'In the Beginning. Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 594-95 on the 'exile and return' pattern in Genesis.

11. Edom's Role in Genesis and the Prophetic Books

165

patriarchs, the Israelites sought help from Egypt, and, finally, some of them went there to stay. Their living in the promised land was never certain. Like Jacob/Israel, they were forced to leave it and to go to Mesopotamia. Later, they heard the call to leave Mesopotamia for the promised land, just like Jacob and Abram. The use of the patriarchal narratives by exilic/post-exilic prophets shows that these narratives were read as having relevance for the exilic and post-exilic community. In general, the purpose of the references seems to be the assurance that YHWH will support the exiles, just as he had supported Abraham and Jacob.1 It has been argued that the pattern of the stories about Jacob 'serving' his uncle in Mesopotamia and leaving his uncle to return to Canaan is the same as that of the stories about Israel 'serving' in Egypt and being freed in the book of Exodus.2 On their turn, as has long been recognized, Exodus-themes and images illustrate the 'new exodus' in the prophetic books, the return from Babylon. One should note that Mesopotamia as the place of the Jacob-Laban stories is probably a later feature. The stories themselves may be older, but in their present state they reflect the exilic pattern.3 1. Cf. C. Jeremias, 'Die Erzvater in der Verkiindigung der Propheten', in H. Donner et al. (eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Fs W. Zimmerli; GSttingen, 1977), pp. 206-22; Goldingay, 'Patriarchs in Scripture', pp. 33-35: 'The promise of blessing, of land, of increase, of God's own presence, of the acknowledgement of the nations, sealed by the covenant relationship, were not based on the patriarchs' achievements but on the gracious initiative of Yahweh, and they are not brought to an end by Israel's sins, because the divine commitment still stands. This is the basis for hope when the covenant is broken and the blessing gone, the people is decimated and the land lost, and when Yahweh has left them and they are the laughing-stock of the nations'; cf. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 354-58; Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 290-96 and 356-59. 2. D. Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London, 1963), pp. 62-72; cf. Diedrich, Die Anspielungen aufdie Jakob-Tradition, p. 153 n. 176. 3. Cf. Chapter 10, section 2. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 343-44 n. 11, shows that the use of the name Haran points to either the time of the neo-Assyrian empire or the time of Nabonidus (when both Ur and Haran were important). In his opinion, the former is the only possible one, 'da eine neue Traditionsbildung wahrend der Exilszeit die Vater sehr viel eher mit Babylonien als dem nordlichen Mesopotamien in Beziehung gesetzt haben diirfte'. I do not consider this argument to be compelling: the exilic editors may have chosen Haran for other, narrative reasons, e.g. the distance between Canaan and Ur. Of course, the memory

166

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

The theme of the conflict between Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom, which is essentially a conflict on the possession of the land, is of specifically exilic relevance, as is demonstrated by the comparison, above (section 2), of Genesis 25-36 and Ezekiel 35-36. Ezekiel 35-36 may be interpreted as a reflection on the situation that Israel's neighbours, and especially Edom, with their claim to the land, endangered the possibility of Israel's return and restoration. In Genesis, the satisfactory solution of Edom receiving its own land is found. There can be no doubt about who will possess the promised land: according to Genesis, that can only be Israel. The same theme is prominent in the stories on Hagar and Ishmael: just like Esau, Ishmael has to leave the land.1 5. Conclusion We have seen that both in Genesis and the prophetic books Edom's role grew larger and larger. Israel's small neighbour came to play the role of its special opponent and the representative of the nations, and later even came to be associated with the pre-eminent enemy nation Babylon. In the following chapters, I shall discuss possible causes of this remarkable development. First, I shall investigate the literary history of the conception of Edom's brotherhood in the Old Testament, and ask if the connection of Israel and Edom in this way can have had historical roots (Chapter 12). The existence of a special relation between the two nations might help to explain Edom's role as Israel's special opponent. In Chapter 13, it will be asked if the prophetic treatment of Edom as the outstanding enemy among the neighbouring nations or even the nations at large can have been caused, as some have argued, by Edomite hostilities against Israel, or the cultic interpretation of these hostilities.

of Haran's importance in earlier times may have played a role. 1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 347 argues that the inclusion of the Ishmael stories in the patriarchal narrative may be due to the sixth century BCE migration of southern Arabs ('Ishmaelites') into former Judaean land.

Chapter 12 EDOM AND ISRAEL: TWIN BROTHERS 1. Introduction In this chapter, I shall discuss the theme of Edom's brotherhood. It was suggested in the previous chapter that in the sixth century BCE the connection Esau-Edom may not have been very old. The four major oracles against Edom do not make the impression of being very well acquainted with Edom's role in Genesis. This conveys the idea that Edom's 'brotherhood' is a literary and theological construction. On the other hand, some elements of the common history of Israel and Edom indicate that it is not strange that Edom was chosen to perform as Israel's older twin brother. The choice of Edom may have had historical roots. Further, it has been argued that in a way Edom and Israel were actually 'brother nations', namely with respect to their religion. In this chapter, we shall try to find out if, in view of other Old Testament texts, it is plausible to suppose (1) that the literary identification of Esau and Edom was not yet very old in the sixth century BCE; and (2) that Edom's brotherhood is not only the result of a literary choice but can also be related to historical facts. We shall inquire if there is any pre-exilic evidence of either the identification Esau-Edom or Edom's brotherhood (section 2: in the prophetic books; section 3: in other Old Testament texts), and contemplate the consequences for the date of the Genesis stories (section 4). Next, the historical grounds for the linking of Edom with Esau/Seir will be discussed (section 5). Finally, the supposed religious background of Edom's brotherhood will be considered (section 6).

168

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist 2. The Prophets

In a few prophetic texts, allusions to the Jacob-Esau stories are found. The name 'Esau' is not very common in the prophetic books: apart from Jer. 49.8, 10 and several verses in Obadiah,1 it only occurs in Mai. 1.2, 3. The name Esau does not occur in the other long oracles against Edom, Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35. The connection of Edom and Seir is equally uncommon: the only prophetic evidence is Ezekiel 35. The references in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Obadiah show acquaintance with the identification of Edom and Esau or the connection of Edom and Seir, but do not mention any other details found in the Genesis stories. Just one of the verses mentioning Esau in the oracles is possibly pre-exilic: Jer. 49.10.2 The book of Malachi is clearly postexilic. Amos and Obadiah are the only prophetic books in which Edom is explicitly called 'brother'. Therefore, the only possible preexilic prophetic evidence of Edom's brotherhood is Amos 1.11-12. Amos 1.11-12, the oracle against Edom in the collection of oracles against the nations in Amos 1-2, condemns Edom 'because he pursued his brother with the sword, and cast off all pity'. This seems to be an allusion to Edom's brotherhood with Israel. We discussed this oracle in Chapter 2. In another place it was suggested, however, that Amos 1.11-12 is not pre-exilic: it was posed that Amos 1-2, like Obadiah, was inspired by the book of Ezekiel.3 The use of a detailed and concrete motivation in Ezekiel 25-26 and Amos 1-2 is rather exceptional and probably has to be regarded as an innovation in the genre of oracles against the nations. We concluded, also in view of the connections Amos 1-2 has with Joel 4 and Obadiah, that Amos 1-2 must have been composed little later than Ezekiel 25-26 and 35, and therefore has to be dated shortly after the end of the exilic period.4 Now, it has often been argued that several parts of Amos 1-2 must be younger than the time of the prophet Amos. Amos 1.11-12, for instance, is considered by many authors to be an exilic or post-exilic text.5 On the 1. Obad. 6, 8,9, 18 (2x), 19,21. 2. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2; Chapter 7, section 3; Chapter 11, section 3. 3. Chapter 5, section 4. 4. Cf. Chapter 5, section 5. 5. Cf. already J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten. Vbersetzt und erkldrt (Berlin, 4th edn, 1963), p. 70; Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 162; later authors such as Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 40-43; G. Pfeifer, 'Denkformenanalyse

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers

169

other hand, Amos 1-2 gives also the impression of being a literary unity.1 A natural solution for this problem would be that Amos 1-2 as a whole is later than the time of the prophet.2 However that may be, our dating of Amos 1.11-12 is in accordance with the general view on these verses.3 If, consequently, Amos 1.11-12 is not pre-exilic and not the first prophetic evidence for Edom's brotherhood, it is the book of als exegetische methode, erlautert an Amos 1,1-2,16', ZAW 88 (1976), pp. 56-71; Barton, Amos's Oracles against the Nations, pp. 22-24; P. Weimar, 'Der Schluss des Amos-Buches. Bin Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Amos-Buches', BN 16 (1981), p. 98; Gosse, Isaie 13,1-14,23, p. 39 and idem, 'Le Recueil d'oracles contre les nations du livre d'Amos et Thistoire deuteronomique"', VT 38 (1988), pp. 33-34, 37. 1. Cf. Paul, 'Amos 1.3-2.3'; discussion in Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 11-12. 2. Cf. Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture', pp. 138-41. V. Fritz ('Die Fremdvolkerspriiche des Amos', VT37 [1987], pp. 26-38) also disputes the authenticity of all of the oracles in Amos 1-2. We cannot discuss here the dating of the book of Amos. In general, it might be considered that the connection of the oracles with a prophet Amos could be a purely literary one, moreover, that the biographical parts of the book (1.1; 7.10-17) need not necessarily be historically reliable. These parts situate Amos in the eighth century BCE, but they do not look very credible. A shepherd who is at the same time a poet and a prophet is at the least quite remarkable—cf. Gordis, 'Edom, Israel and Amos', p. 119: 'Displaying a remarkable knowledge of international affairs, the shepherd of Tekoa passes judgment on the actions of Aram, the Philistines, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab and Judah'. H.F. Fuhs ('Amos 1,1. Erwagungen zur Tradition und Redaktion des Amosbuches', in H.J. Fabry [ed.], Bausteine biblischer Theologie [Fs G.J. Botterweck; Koln and Bonn, 1977], pp. 271-89) shows that several parts of 1.1 are late, e.g. 'who was among the shepherds of Tekoa': 'Berufsangaben treten in Uberschriften zu Prophetenbiicher erst seit Jeremia auf (pp. 273-74; cf. note 6: YHWH taking Amos 'from following the flock', Amos 7.15, is 'ein gepragtes literarisches Motiv'; cf. 2 Sam. 7.8). B.J. Diebner, 'Berufe und Berufung des Amos (Am 1,1 und 7.14f)', DBAT 23-24 (1986-87), p. 120: 'Die geschilderte Situation von Am 7,10-17 ist "historisch" vollig undenkbar'. 3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 14-15, 42, argues that 'brother' in Amos 1.11-12 and Obad. 10 may have a political undertone; he takes these verses to refer to Edom's betrayal, in 587 BCE, of a treaty with Israel against Babylon (cf. Jer. 27.3). For the political use of the term 'brother' cf. Priest, 'Covenant of Brothers'; M. Fishbane, The Treaty Background of Amos 1.11 and Related Matters', JBL 89 (1970), pp. 313-18. Fishbane's assertion that 'brother' in Amos 1.11 means 'vassal' and must refer to David's or Solomon's 'subjugation of Edom to vassaldom' (p. 315), was convincingly refuted in Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 13-16.

170

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Jeremiah in which the concept of Edom as Esau, Jacob's/Israel's brother, was introduced in the prophetic literature (Jer. 49.10). 3. Other Old Testament Books The evidence from the other Old Testament books confirms the picture we get from the prophetic books. Edom's brotherhood as a literary theme can hardly be much older than late pre-exilic times. In other than prophetic texts Edom only appears as Israel's brother in Num. 20.14-21 and Deut. 23.8-9. Neither text mentions Esau or Seir. Deut. 2.1-8, which is a parallel of Num. 20.14-21, speaks of 'your brethren the sons of Esau, who live in Seir' (v. 4; cf. v. 8), but does not use the name Edom. The Numbers version is probably younger than the Deuteronomy one.1 If so, we find here another example of the transition 'Esau from Seir' to 'Edom' (as in Genesis). The Deuteronomy version, in which the Israelites in the wilderness have no difficulties travelling through the land of Esau, may be dated to the end of the seventh century BCE, when no enmity between Edom and Judah had yet occurred. The Numbers version, in which the Edomites meet the Israelites with hostility, probably follows the Edomite actions near the end of the state of Judah.2 Consequently, there is only one possibly pre-exilic text calling Edom Israel's brother:3 Deut. 23.8-9. This is quite an interesting text, since it is one of the very few that has a relatively positive view on Edom: 23.8 You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother... 23.9 The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.

The date of Deuteronomy 23 is a moot point. Some scholars think that it contains very old traditions.4 Others recognize post-exilic elements.5 1. Cf. K.A.D. Smelik, ' "Een vuur gaat uit van Chesbon". Een onderzoek naar Numeri 20.14-21; 21.10-35 en parallelplaatsen', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 61-109, especially pp. 82-83, 96; Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, pp. 120-121. The opposite opinion has also been defended; cf. survey of discussion in Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 90-93, 180-81. 2. Cf. Smelik'"Een vuur gaat uit van Chesbon"', p. 96. 3. Not counting the Genesis stories. 4. E.g. K. Galling, 'Das Gemeindegesetz in Deuteronomium 23', in W. Baumgartner et al. (eds.), Festschrift fur A. Bertholet zur 80. Geburtstag (Tubingen, 1950), p. 185: eleventh century BCE; cf. discussion in Bartlett,

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers

111

The evidence for the connection of Edom and Seir does not change the picture. There are only two possibly pre-exilic texts in which the names Edom and Seir occur together: Num. 24.18 and Judg. 5.4.1 Both are poetic texts, which use the two names in the two halves of a parallelism. This does not preclude that Edom and Seir are thought of as identical, but it neither does necessarily imply it, as Bartlett rightly remarks (cf. e.g. Deut. 33.2 with Judg. 5.4).2 Perhaps an important observation is that the name Seir is absent from 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, but is commonly employed in 1 and 2 Chronicles.3 The older historiography uses the name Edom, the younger both Edom4 and Seir. For the Chronicler, the two names are clearly synonymous: in 2 Chron. 25.11-20 (the parallel of 2 Kgs 14.7-14), they are used indiscriminately. 4. Evaluation: Consequences for the Date of the Genesis Stories In sum, an examination of the occurrence of the names Esau and Seir in connection with Edom and of texts on Edom's brotherhood confirms our impression that the theme of the Edomite-Israelite brotherhood had not yet become very common at the beginning of the sixth century BCE. The oldest evidence of the name Esau used for Edom is the late preexilic verse Jer. 49.10. The oldest reference to Edom as 'brother' is either Deut. 23.8-9 (of uncertain date) or the early post-exilic accusations against Edom in the books of Amos and Obadiah. The use of the name Seir to denote Edom is first attested in Ezekiel 35 (late exilic or 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 5-6. U. Kellermann, 'Erwagungen zum deuteronomischen Gemeindegesetz Dt 23,2-9', BN 2 (1977), pp. 33-47 follows Galling (see pp. 37-38). 5. Diebner and Schult, 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten', p. 11; Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 70; C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, deel II (POT; Nijkerk, 1990), pp. 220-21. Labuschagne rejects Calling's view (cf. previous note) and asserts that in Deut. 23 an answer is given to 'een typisch exilisch/na-exilisch probleem'. 1. Some think that Num. 24.18-19 is not an early text; cf. e.g. A. Marx, 'A propos de Nombres XXIV: 19b', VT 37 (1987), pp. 100-103 (following H. Rouillard): exilic or early post-exilic. 2. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 8-9 and Edom and the Edomites, pp. 42-43. 3. 1 Chron. 1.38; 4.42; 2 Chron. 20.10, 22, 23; 25.11, 14. 4. 1 Chron. 1.43, 51, 54; 18.11, 12, 13; 2 Chron. 8.17; 21.8, 9, 10; 25.19, 20; cf. 'Edomites': 2 Chron. 25.14; 28.17.

172

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

early post-exilic). On the other hand, when Jer. 49.7-22 and Ezekiel 35 can call Edom 'Esau' or 'Mount Seir' without any explanation, this implies that the readers were at that time acquainted with the identification. Since (1) it was in the time of the prophet Jeremiah that the name Esau was first used for Edom, (2) the identification then does not seem to have been very old, and (3) it was near the end of the exile (Ezek. 35) and after the composition of the deuteronomistic history that Seir and Edom became associated in literature, it can be inferred that Edom came to be regarded as identical with 'Esau from Seir' shortly before the time of the prophet Jeremiah. It must be stressed that the authors of the Old Testament literature need not necessarily have been aware of the logical consequence, that is, that Edom was Israel's brother. The first prophetic reference to Edom's brotherhood, through Esau, with Jacob/Israel, is post-exilic. Is the identification of Esau and Edom a purely literary one? If so, then we must conclude that Jer. 49.10 and Ezekiel 35 presuppose the Genesis version which includes Edom. However, as remarked in the introduction to this chapter (and as will be worked out in our next section), the connection of Edom with Esau and Seir may have been the result of a non-literary, historical development. In other words, not literary creativity but popular conception, interpreting history, may have provided the grounds for the connection. In that case, the first prophetic use of the name Esau to designate Edom does not provide the ante quern date for the Genesis stories. One of the outcomes of the comparison of the Jacob-Esau stories with the oracles against Edom in Chapter 11 was that similarities in the field of both theme and details are especially found between the Genesis stories and Ezekiel 35-36. The most natural explanation for this fact seems to be that they were composed (or edited) in about the same period. In view of the considerations above, there are no objections against this supposition. Whether the two texts were composed at the same time or the Genesis stories are older or younger than Ezekiel 35-36 cannot be decided, although the absence of Edom's brotherhood as a theme in Ezekiel 35-36 seems to suggest that the Genesis stories are younger. Later on, one may suspect after the Jacob-Esau stories had become Israel-Edom stories and the brotherhood of the two nations had become a theme (Gen. 32-33), Edom's brotherhood came to play a role in oracles against Edom (first Amos and Obadiah, later Malachi).

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers

173

5. History Our survey of Old Testament texts in which Seir and Edom occur confirmed Bartlett's view that the identification of Edom's land with Seir is a relatively late development in the tradition. In the Jacob-Esau stories the Israelites had initially described their relationship with the Seirites, 'the descendants of Esau'. Later, these stories were interpreted as describing the relation of Israel and Edom. A first point to be considered when discussing this development is the geographical position of Mount Seir. Here we meet with difficulties: the location of Seir is uncertain.1 Some scholars believe that it must be situated in Edom's land, on the eastern side of the Wadi Arabah.2 Others, however, think that Mount Seir is located on the western side of the Arabah, to the south of Judah.3 To complete the picture: it has also been brought forward4 that there may be more than one Seir, one eastern and one western, and it has been suggested5 that the land of Seir covers two sides of the Arabah. We cannot here discuss the arguments for the different locations of Seir; the important thing for us to note is that the evidence seems to allow several possibilities. Our findings speak against the first view (the one that locates Seir exclusively on the eastern side of the Arabah): there is no old evidence of the identification of Edom's land and Seir. Moreover, whereas most of the texts are not very clear in this respect, some of them unmistakably situate Seir in the west.6 Our conclusion that 1. Cf. e.g. J. Negenman, Een geografie van Palestina (Palaestina Antiqua, 2; Kampen, 1982), p. 120. 2. E.g. M. Weippert, 'Edom. Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Edomiter auf Grand schriftlicher und archaeologischer Quellen' (dissertation, Tiibingen, 1971), pp. 388-94 (but cf. idem, 'Edom und Israel', in G. Kraus and G. Miiller [eds.], Theologische Realenzyklopddie, IX [Berlin and New York, 1982], p. 291); E.A. Knauf, Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1988), p. 51 and 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 63. 3. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', and Edom and the Edomites, pp. 41-44 (following F.-M. Abel); Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, p. 70; cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 398-400 (p. 70 n. 56). 4. Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', pp. 63-64. Critique: M. Gorg, 'Zur Identitatder"Seir-Lander'", BN 46 (1989), pp. 7-9. 5. Weippert, 'Edom und Israel', p. 291. 6. Deut. 1.2, 44; 2.1; Josh. 11.17; 12.7; 1 Chron. 4.42: cf. Kellermann, Israel

174

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Esau's land, Seir, and Edom's land were initially not identical goes along with the other theories: it implies that at least one Seir, Esau's, was regarded as situated outside Edom proper, on the western side of the Arabah. Bartlett, while stressing that the evidence is limited and unsatisfactory, suggests: Seir perhaps denoted the wilder, scrubby land south of Judah and Mount Halak and between Kadesh and the Gulf of 'Aqaba. This region was never claimed by Judah as its own, and its borders were never clearly defined. It belonged to the south, with Sinai and Paran (Deut. 33.2), lying between them and Judah to the north, and Edom to the east1

The kingdom of Edom was situated in the mountainous region south of the Wadi el-Hesa (the Zered Brook) and east of the Arabah; for instance the Edomite capital Bozrah lies there.2 It is possible that Edom and Esau's land were identified for geographical reasons only— Edom and 'Esau' lived in neighbouring countries.3 But there is evidence that Edomites actually established themselves on the other side of the Arabah as well, in other words, that Edom not only in Israel's literature but also in fact became associated with Esau's land, Mount Seir. In this way, Esau could become the father of the Edomites, and Edom Israel's brother.4 A well-known event in the common history of Edom and Israel is that in the course of time many Edomites migrated to the land west of the Arabah and even came to live in former Judaean territories.5 This und Edom, pp. 399-400 (p. 70 n. 56); Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 43-44. 1. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 44. 2. Cf. e.g. Weippert, 'Edom', pp. 393-436; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 33-54. 3. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 179: 'According to the tradition, Esau, the brother of Jacob, was a fierce and hostile figure, whose clans belonged to the wilderness regions on the southern borders of Judah... It was an easy step to make such a figure, from the borders of Judah and Edom, the ancestor of the Edomites; and in this way, Edom became "brother" to the people of Judah'. Cf. Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 69: 'In der Filiation Esaus/Edoms und Jakobs von Isaak, und damit in der Bruderschaft von Edom mit Jakob/Israel, liegt weiter nichts als tin fait de geographie vor: Juda ist "Vater" des nordlichen anschliessenden Israel wie des sudlich anschliessenden Edom'. 4. Cf. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 17-18. 5. Two recent surveys: A. Kasher, Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs. Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers

175

westward move seems to have started already in the eighth century BCE, and 'recent archeological discoveries have suggested that in the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE there was growing Edomite influence and presence in the Negev of Judah' (Bartlett).1 The migration of Edomites must have been facilitated and quickened by the ruin of the state of Judah.2 From the sixth century onwards, southern Judah gradually turned into an Edomite centre (in Hellenistic times, the name of the area was Idumaea3). In the same period, the ancient Edomite kingdom declined, and the exclusively Edomite character of the region east of the Arabah gradually disappeared. Some verses in the oracles against Edom attest to Edom's interest in Judaean land. Ezek. 35.10 speaks of 'Mount Seir's' intention to take possession of the land 'of YHWH'. Obadiah 19 promises that the during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE-70CE) (TSAJ, 18; Tubingen, 1988), pp. 1-6; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 140-43. Cf. C.C. Torrey, 'The Edomites in Southern Judah', JBL 17 (1898), pp. 16-20; H.L. Ginsberg, 'Judah and the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 B.C.E.', in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1950), pp. 363-64; Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 15-17; idem, 'Rise and Fall', pp. 34-35; idem; 'From Edomites to Nabateans: A Study in Continuity', PEQ 111 (1979), pp. 53-66; J.M. Myers, 'Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C.', in H. Goedicke (ed), Near Eastern Studies (Fs W.F. Albright; Baltimore, MD and London, 1971), pp. 377-92; Lindsay, 'Babylonian Kings and Edom', pp. 25-31; E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C. (Warminster, 1982), pp. 250-52; Weippert, 'Edom und Israel', pp. 295-96. 1. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 141; cf. p. 143: 'by the end of the Assyrian period a number of Edomites, or people with Edomite affinities, were settled among the population of the region roughly south of a line drawn from Arad to Beersheba'. 2. Cf. Kasher, Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs, p. 3. Kasher emphasizes, however, that the end of the kingdom of Judah 'did not serve as a marker indicative of a new demographic phenomenon'; he speaks of 'a continuous and gradual process that gained considerable impetus in the years 587-582 BCE'; 'It simply appears that the invaders succeeded at that time in gaining control of the regions which they had entered long before and gave them a new political character, Edomite (or Idumaean)Arabic, thereby filling the vacuum created in the wake of the national disasters which had befallen the Kingdom of Judah'. Cf. Bartlett, 'From Edomites to Nabateans' on the similar development in the land of Edom (note the title of the article: 'From Edomites to Nabateans: A Study in Continuity'). 3. C.H.J. de Geus, 'Idumaea', JEOL 26 (1979-80), pp. 53-74 (see particularly p. 73): the name Idumaea may have been chosen for political reasons and does not indicate that the region was inhabited by Edomites only.

176

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Israelites will once possess 'the Negeb, Mount Esau' again, clearly implying that the Negeb is now occupied by Edom.1 We concluded above (section 4) on the basis of the Old Testament evidence that Edom probably came to be regarded as identical with Esau/Seir shortly before the time of the prophet Jeremiah; the identification became more common in the sixth century. Now, since these are exactly the times that witnessed an increase in the westward move of Edomites, it can be assumed that there is a connection between the identification and the increasing migration.2 6. Religion There is another theory that would substantiate the idea that the brotherhood of Edom and Israel is not solely a literary construction. In this theory it is held that Israel and Edom were once coreligionists, which must have resulted in a feeling of 'brotherhood' between the two nations. A problem within the religion history of Israel and its neighbours is the puzzling absence of the most important Edomite god, Qos, in the Old Testament.3 Whereas the gods of the other neighbours are rejected as well as mentioned by their names, neither happens to the Edomite god or gods.4 There is just one, late, general reference to the worshipping (by Amaziah) of the 'gods of the Seirites', the 'gods of Edom', after the defeat of the Edomites (2 Chron. 25.14, 20; in the parallel version of the story, 2 Kgs 14.7ff, no such worshipping is mentioned; 1. Cf. Obad. 20: returning exiles from Jerusalem 'shall possess the cities of the Negeb'. 2. As Bartlett in his article 'Land of Seir' still holds (p. 17). In his most recent work, Edom and the Edomites, this view does not recur. Cf. Blank, 'Post-Exilic Universalism', pp. 182-83. 3. Cf. on Qos e.g. T.C. Vriezen, The Edomite Deity Qaus', OTS 14 (1965), pp. 330-53; Weippert, 'Edom', pp. 461-69; E.A. Knauf, 'Qaus', UF 16 (1984), pp. 93-95; J.R. Bartlett, 'The Moabites and Edomites', in D.J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford, 1973), p. 246; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 200-207. 4. Cf. e.g. 1 Kgs 11.1-8, the story of Solomon's idolatry (discussed for example in M. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel—Qaus in Edom?', JSOT 4 [1977], p. 5): Solomon serves, following his 'foreign women', Ashtoret of Sidon, Milcom of Ammon (11.5), Chemosh of Moab, and Molech of Ammon (11.7); cf. 11.33. His Edomite women (11.1) do not seem to have tempted him into serving other gods.

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers

177

the more extended version in 2 Chronicles is probably secondary).1 This can possibly be explained by assuming that Edom's Qos did not differ very much from Israel's YHWH—which must have made it difficult to reject him. It has been asserted that there are important correspondences between YHWH and Edom's god Qos. The names of both gods are probably Arabic. Qos is an Arabic name with the meaning 'bow'.2 E.A. Knauf has argued that YHWH is a northwest Arabic name, meaning 'he blows'.3 According to Knauf (and others), YHWH and Qos are gods of the same type; both are 'Gestalten der syrisch-arabischen Wettergottes, zu dessen Attributen der Bogen genauso gehort wie der Sturm'.4 Bartlett, in his article 'The Brotherhood of Edom', speaks of 'the essential similarity and close connection between the Edomite Qos and the Israelite Yahweh'; he even uses the term 'co-religionists'.5 According to him, a feeling of religious affinity between the two nations may have been 'one contributory factor' in the identification of Edom with Esau, Jacob's/Israel's brother.6 1. Cf. however Vriezen, 'Edomite Deity Qaus', pp. 345-52, who supposes that the incomprehensible Dlp"7R in Prov. 30.31 is a conscious corruption of oip'bK, 'the god Qos'; in his view, Prov. 30-31.9 is an originally Edomite collection. Further, Vriezen ('Edomite Deity Qaus', pp. 332-33) asserts that the personal name Barkos in Ezra 2.53 // Neh. 7.55 contains the name of the Edomite god. 2. Cf. Vriezen, 'Edomite Deity Qaus', pp. 334-35; Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel', pp. 29-30; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 201-202. 3. E.A. Knauf, 'Yahwe', VT 34 (1984), pp. 467-72 and Midian, pp. 43-46. Cf. A.J. Wensinck, 'De oorsprongen van het Jahwisme', in Semietische studien uit de nalatenschap van Prof. Dr A.J. Wensinck (Leiden, 1941), pp. 33-36. 4. Knauf, Midian, p. 77. Cf. Wensinck, 'De oorsprongen van het Jahwisme', pp. 33-36; Vriezen, 'Edomite Deity Qaus', p. 353 n. 1; Knauf, 'Qaus'; idem, 'Yahwe', p. 469. Bartlett (Edom and the Edomites, p. 204) emphasizes, however, on the grounds of an examination of Edomite personal names, that Qos may not exclusively have been 'a war god or a storm god'; 'like the worshippers of Yahweh and of other gods', Qos's devotees 'might hope for his help and support in various situations, personal and domestic as well as national'. 5. Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 6-7. Cf. J. Gray, 'The Desert Sojourn of the Hebrews and the Sinai-Horeb Tradition', VT 4 (1954), pp. 151-53; J.R. Bartlett, The Moabites and Edomites', in DJ. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of the Old Testament Times (Oxford, 1973), p. 246; idem, 'Yahweh and Qaus: A Response to Martin Rose (JSOT 4: 28-34)', JSOT 5 (1978), p. 33; Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel', p. 30. 6. Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', p. 21.

178

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

There is not only the evidence from the absence of critiques of Edom's religion; one can also point to the positive, exceptional treatment of Edom as a 'brother' as regards religious affairs in Deut. 23.89 (although only 'the children of the third generation that are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD').1 Further, in the biblical theophany tradition YHWH was connected with southern and southeastern places, among which are numbered Seir and Edom.2 YHWH is said to come or have come from these places to the Israelites. A second explanation has been brought forward by M. Rose.3 Rose maintains that only in later times, namely the eighth or seventh centuries BCE, did the god Qos, of Arabian origin, come to be known in Edom. Nothing is known about the god who was worshipped before Qos, but it is not unlikely that it was the same god as the one of the Israelites, namely, 'YHW. Rose's article was written in reaction to Bartlett's article mentioned above. Rose contends that 'much more positively than J.R. Bartlett in his essay, the old common YHW-cw/f should be taken as the origin and as the starting point of the "brotherhood" of Israel and Edom'.4 Bartlett, reacting to Rose's article, rejects the late introduction of Qos,5 but accepts as a possibility that the god YHWH of the Israelites may have been worshipped by the Edomites too.6 He stresses, however, in view of the lack of unequivocal evidence, that 'our speculation must be cautious'.7 1. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel', p. 31; Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 5-7; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 184, 199. 2. Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, pp. 48-55 discusses Deut. 33.2 (Seir); Judg. 5.4-5 (a.o. Seir, the region of Edom); Hab. 3.3 (Teman); Ps. 68.8-9, 18. Isa. 63.1 must be added to the list (YHWH 'comes from Edom'); cf. Bartlett, 'Yahweh and Qaus', p. 33; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 197-98; A. Dicou, 'JHWH en Edom in Amara en in Jesaja 63 vers 1', in M.G.B. Harbers et al. (eds.), Tussen Nijl en Herengracht (Fs M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss; Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 17-26. 3. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel'. 4. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel', p. 31. Cf. S. Kreuzer, Die Friihgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkiindigung des Alien Testaments (BZAW, 178; Berlin and New York, 1989), pp. 130-31. 5. Bartlett, 'Yahweh and Qaus', pp. 29-32. Cf. Knauf, Midian, pp. 55-56. 6. Bartlett, 'Yahweh and Qaus' (see especially pp. 32-34). Cf. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 194-200. 7. Bartlett, 'Yahweh and Qaus', p. 34 (cf. his opinion on the evidence, p. 32: 'the evidence, however, it must be admitted, is suggestive rather than conclusive');

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers

179

Evidence for an old connection of YHWH with Edom can also be found in extra-biblical sources. Some inscriptions found in Kuntillet 'Ajrud, mentioning the 'YHWH of Teman'1 besides a 'YHWH of Samaria',2 may even be interpreted as suggesting that in Edom (at least, in Teman) around 800 BCE (the time of the inscriptions) YHWH was worshipped, since the expression 'YHWH of Samaria' clearly refers to YHWH as present in his cultic centre in Samaria. This is not to imply that YHWH is the most important or even one of the most important Edomite gods, but nevertheless YHWH may have been worshipped in 'Teman'. In any case, the existence of a southern form of the deity YHWH is manifest.3 Egyptian material seems to provide another link between YHWH and Edom. The toponym t3 s3sw yhw, 'YWH in the land of Shasu', found in Egyptian lists has often been interpreted as containing the name of the god of Israel.4 This is important, for more than cf. Edom and the Edomites, pp. 184, 198-200. 1. Teman is also mentioned in the theophany text Hab. 3.3; cf. above. 2. Cf. e.g. J.M. Hadley, 'Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud', VT37 (1987), pp. 180-211; see further her extensive bibliography on Kuntillet 'Ajrud and its inscriptions (pp. 208-11). 3. Cf. e.g. M. Weinfeld, 'Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions and Their Significance', SEL 1 (1984), p. 126; Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, pp. 30, 62-63, 181; discussion in Hadley, 'Some Drawings and Inscriptions', p. 186. 4. Rameses II, temple Amarah-West, Sudan; R. Giveon, Les Bedouins Shosou des documents egyptiens (Leiden, 1971), pp. 74-77 (Doc. 16a). Cf. B. Grdseloff, 'Edom, d'apres les sources e"gyptiennes', RHJE 1 (1947), pp. 79-83; M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss, 'Een nieuwe Phoenix: Amara-West (Soedan)', JEOL 4.11 (194950), pp. 22-24; S. Herrmann, 'Der alttestamentliche Gottesname', EvT26 (1966), pp. 282-83, 288-90; M. Gorg, 'Jahwe—ein Toponym?', BN 1 (1976), pp. 9-13; K.A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical, II: 4 (Oxford, 1979), p. 217 (inscription no. 56, places no. 92-97); E. Edel, 'Die Ortsnahmenlisten in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan', BN 11 (1980), pp. 68, 78; Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, pp. 59-60; Knauf, Midian, pp. 46-51. Another version of the list: Amenophis III, temple of Soleb, Sudan; Giveon, Bedouins, pp. 26-28 (Doc. 6a); cf. Herrmann, 'Alttestamentliche Gottesname', pp. 282-84. Cf. for a comparison of the Soleb and Amarah-West lists: Edel, 'Ortsnahmenlisten'. Outside this list the name 'Shasu YHW' is found once more in Soleb;Giveon, Bedouins, pp. 27-28;cf. Herrmann, 'Alttestamentlichen Gottesname', pp. 284-85. Giveon also mentions some other texts in which the toponym YHW would occur; Giveon, Bedouins, p. 27 with nn. 1-3. These toponyms are: Yhwyw (tomb of Akhtoy, end eleventh Dynasty; cf. A.H. Gardiner, 'The Tomb of a Much-

180

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

once the Shasu are connected with Edom or Seir.1 7. Conclusion In sections 2-4,1 suggested that there is no pre-exilic literary evidence for Edom's brotherhood (with the possible exception of Deut. 23.8-9). Edom's supposed religio-historical 'brotherhood', discussed in our previous section, did not play any role in pre-exilic Old Testament literature. Therefore, Bartlett's caution on Rose's confident statement that 'the old common YHW-cw/f should be taken as the origin and as the starting point of the "brotherhood" of Israel and Edom' seems Travelled Theban Official', JEA 4 [1917], pp. 28-38, especially p. 36 and pi. IX) and Yh (lists of Rameses III; cf. J. Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia [Leiden, 1937], p. 165 [list XXVII, Nr. 115] and 174 [list XXIX, no. 13], cf. Gorg, 'Jahwe', pp. 13-14). The value of the first toponym, however, is doubtful; cf. W.A. Ward, 'The Shasu "Bedouine"', JESHO 15 (1972), p. 50 n. 3 (a connection is 'phonetically unlikely'); Gorg, 'Jahwe', pp. 7-9. YHW is a shorter form of YHWH, also known from other extrabiblical texts; possibly it is older than YHWH. See M. Rose, Jahwe. Zum Streit um den alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen (TS, 122; Zurich, 1978); cf. Herrmann, 'Alttestamentliche Gottesname', pp. 286-88. 1. Cf. Grdseloff, 'Edom'; K.A. Kitchen, 'Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars of Ramesses IF, JEA 50 (1964), pp. 66-67; Giveon, Bedouins, passim (e.g. p. 236); H.W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Agyptische Abhandlungen 5; Wiesbaden, 2nd edn, 1971), p. 336; M. Weippert, 'Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Uber die S3sw der agyptischen Quellen', Bib 55 (1974), pp. 270-71, 277-78; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 77-81. In one list, 'YHW in the land of Shasu' and 'Seir in the land of Shasu' occur together: Giveon, Bedouins, pp. 74-77 (Doc. 16a, Rameses II, temple Amarah-West, Sudan). M.C. Astour ('Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists', in M. Gorg and E. Pusch [eds.], Fs E. Edel [AAT, 1; Bamberg, 1979], pp. 17-34), however, argues that the places in this list must be situated in Lebanon and western Syria. Bartlett (Edom and the Edomites, p. 79) subsequently asserts that the 'speculation' on the connection of the biblical Seir and a toponym YHWH thus 'has been ended'. However, this is not quite correct. Astour's proposal has not been generally accepted. Cf. e.g. Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, p. 60 with n. 81; Knauf, Midian, p. 50 with n. 251; Gorg, '"Seir-Lander"', pp. 10-11. Moreover, in Amarah-West another toponym in 'the land of Shasu' occurs which points to southern regions: 'P3-wnw' or 'Pwnw' (Amarah-West nr. 45; cf. Edel, 'Ortsnahmenlisten', pp. 73-74), which M. Gorg ('Punon—ein weiteres Distrikt der S3$w-Beduinen?', BN 19 [1982], pp. 15-21) argues to be 'Punon' at the eastern side of the Arabah.

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers

181

justified. However, it may be gathered that because Edom and Israel had a special relation (religio-political), it was not a very surprising move to make Edom Israel's 'brother'. More important than the religious background of the 'brotherhood' are probably the historical developments in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. The historical movement that connected Edom with Seir, the westward migration of Edomites, may have been the impetus for turning the Jacob-Esau stories into stories about Israel and Edom and, later, into stories about Israel and the representative of the nations. In this way, the JacobEsau stories received a meaning relevant for the sixth century BCE situation.1 Like Edom's introduction in the Jacob-Esau stories, Esau's/Seir's introduction in the oracles against Edom can be interpreted as the result of an identification that was becoming more common.

1. Cf. Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 39-40 (on 'the origin tradition of ancient Israel'): 'the biblical tradition is not a history at all. It asks, on the basis of its ahistorical folk tradition, who Israel is and what Israel means among the nations of the world. Its questions are not the historical questions of how Israel came to be. It is historiographical only in the aetiological sense of defining the Israel of its own day in terms of traditions past'; the meaning of the Toledoth lies in 'the political, social, and religious ramifications of the world of its referent'. (Though he acknowledges the significance of the 'pentateuchal historiography' for the exilic period, Thompson holds on to an earlier date: the late seventh/early sixth centuries BCE; Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 193-94.)

Chapter 13

EDOM'S HOSTILITY 1. Introduction We are discussing the possible reasons of the Old Testament authors for making Edom Israel's special opponent and the representative of the nations. The fact that Edom eventually (in Isaiah and Jeremiah) was placed on one line with the exemplary enemy nation Babylon seems indicative of an intense animosity. Some suggest that Edom's exceptional position in the prophetic books might be the result of an age-old excessive hostility between Edom and Israel. Others think that Edom contributed to the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah, or afterwards took advantage of it. These views will be considered in section 2. Another type of solution is given in U. Kellermann's study 'Israel und Edom'.1 In his view, the exilic cult in Jerusalem, by including the condemnation of some minor Edomite transgressions in the communal lament liturgy, served as a motor for 'Edomhass'. His proposal (and a similar one from G.S. Ogden) will be discussed in section 3. 2. Conflicts between Israel and Edom Various events from the common history of Israel and Edom are considered to have contributed to Edom's exceptional role in the prophetic books. There is, however, no unanimous agreement on which of this events was decisive. The oracles against Edom themselves seem to indicate that Edom sided with the Babylonians when the latter came to destroy Judah and Jerusalem (589-587 BCE). In the book of Obadiah the Edomites are held responsible for Israel's ruin (vv. 8-15) and Ezekiel 35 can be interpreted in the same way (see vv. 5-6). Other relevant texts are: Ezek. 25.12 in its context (see 25.3); Joel 4.19; 1.

Kellermann, Israel und Edom.

13. Edom's Hostility

183

Amos 1.11-12; Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.21 in its context (see e.g. 1.21). In all these cases, the texts are generally taken to refer to the disaster that put an end to the kingdom of Judah. The other event likely to have been a contributory factor is the Edomite incursion into southern Judaean regions, which we discussed in our previous chapter (section 5). This event is reflected upon in Ezek. 35.10 and Obad. 19-20. The problem is that the sources may be unreliable, since the Old Testament stories and oracles are not historical but theological texts.1 As regards the fall of Judah and Jerusalem, opinions vary as to what actually happened. Some scholars maintain that the writer of the detailed list of crimes ascribed to the Edomites in Obad. 8-15 gives or uses an eye-witness report and must have written shortly after 587 BCE.2 However, apart from the vividness with which the Edomite crimes are described (which is not a compelling argument),3 there is no evidence to support this view. Moreover, the results of our analysis of Obadiah's literary history disprove this possibility: the first version of the book of Obadiah was probably composed at the end of the exilic period. Others argue that Obad. 8-15 is primarily a literary text and does not give information on what actually happened.4 Verses 12-14 are poetic in form: they consist of a series of prohibitive imperfects ('do 1. Having examined the oracles against Edom, Mailland, 'Petite apocalypse', p. 86, remarks: 'Les textes Studies nous renseignent-ils sur 1'histoire d'Edom a partir de la chute de Jerusalem? On reconnaitra des 1'abord que nos textes sont des t^moins historiques tres indirects. Leur but n'est pas de nous donner des renseignements precis sur 1'histoire. II faut plutot les comprendre comme des reflexions sur 1'histoire d'Israel, reflexions qui interpretent le present et suscitent 1'avenir en s'appuyant sur le fait constant de I'Election et de 1'Alliance: d'ou les griefs formules contre Edom et 1'annonce de son chatiment defmitif dans 1'avenir'. 2. Cf. e.g. Hattberger, 'An den Wassem von Babylon', p. 199: 'Moglicherweise liegen beiden Texten (= Lamentations and Obadiah, BD) originate Zeugnisse zugrunde, so dass Spatdatierungen fraglich bleiben. Obadja wirkt daher wie eine sehr friihe, unmittelbarere schriftliche Reaktion auf die Zerstorung Jerusalems'. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 10, even states that a date shortly after 587 BCE is the present day 'opinio communis'. 3. Cf. Chapter 6, section 3. 4. Cf. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 313-14, 316-17; Bartlett, 'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem', pp. 20-21; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 154-55; Robinson, 'Naturalization in Obadiah', pp. 83, 90-91.

184

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

not gloat' etc.).1 The historical interpretation of such a text requires a very cautious approach. It is not wise to regard it right away as a description of Edom's behaviour in 587 BCE. Also in view of other evidence (notably Jer. 40.11: Judaean refugees finding shelter in Edom), it can be argued that Edom did not behave as extraordinarily badly in 587 as might be gathered from Obadiah and other oracles against Edom.2 The standpoint that Obadiah and the other oracles are primarily literary texts is supported by our own investigation. Our analysis of the links between the various oracles against Edom has demonstrated that the authors of these oracles borrowed from other oracles on a large scale; this appeared to include the accusations against Edom.3 On the other hand, the various texts make it clear that Edom's conduct was at least regarded as being very serious, even if, from a historical point of view, it was not. Because the Israelites regarded the behaviour of Edomites as matching that of the Babylonians, they could come to envisage Edom as the typical enemy, the representative of the inimical nations. Later, Edom could even be accused of burning the temple (1 Esd. 4.45). Edom's fault may have consisted in not supporting Judah when the Babylonians came, and in welcoming or even helping them.4 Edom survived Nebuchadnezzar's campaign—probably because it did not oppose the Babylonians. Also in 582 BCE, when Judah's neighbours Ammon and Moab were destroyed, as had been prophesied, Edom survived; it was probably Nabonidus who put an end to the kingdom of Edom.5 The fact that Edom was the only nation to survive Nebuchad1. The RSV rendering: 'you should not have gloated' etc., which suggests that Edom actually did behave in this way, is inaccurate; cf. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 154, and above (Chapter 1, section 2), the note to the translation of Obad. 12. 2. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 316-17; Bartlett, 'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem', pp. 18-23; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 151-57. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 228 speaks of 'das historisch unbedeutende Phanomen des Verhaltens der Edomiter anlasslich der Katastrophe von 587 v. Chr.' (which was later blown up out of all proportion). Cf. below, section 3. 3. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4; Chapter 4, section 5; Chapter 5, section 4 (also section 2). 4. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 219. 5. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2.

13. Edam's Hostility

185

nezzar's campaigns may have been important and perhaps even decisive for the origin of Edom's role as a type.1 Merely by still being there, Edom provoked extra oracles. There was less need to write oracles against nations that had already been destroyed. A verse such as Jer. 49.12 speaks in favour of this theory: Edom does not want to 'drink the cup' like the other nations, but will have to.2 Lam. 4.21-22 reveals the same sentiment and, moreover, uses the same image. Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom... but to you also the cup shall pass... The punishment of your iniquity, O daughter of Zion, is accomplished... but your iniquity, O daughter of Edom, he will punish...

According to I. Miiller, this is the earliest text in which Edom appears as a type, as Israel's typical enemy.3 If it has to be dated to the beginning of the exilic period, as most commentators believe,4 this assertion may well be right. The earliest part of the oracles against Edom in which this nation has gained typical features is the first expanded version of Jer. 49.7-22, to be dated, roughly, half way through the sixth century.5 Strikingly, the only offence Edom is found guilty of in these earliest proofs of Edom's role as a type (if 'remaining unpunished' is not regarded as an offence) is its being glad of Israel's disaster (Lam. 4.21). An interesting possibility sometimes suggested is that Edom was expected to behave like a 'brother', and did not. That may have been the reason for taking Edom's conduct in 587 so seriously.6 The literary evidence, however, seems to disprove this explanation. It is only in the relatively late book of Obadiah that the theme of Edom's brotherhood comes up. 7 In neither Jer. 49.7-22 nor Ezekiel 35-36 1. Cf. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 157. 2. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2. 3. Miiller, 'Wertung der Nachbarvolker', pp. 150-51. 4. Cf. e.g. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 166 (with discussion in n. 296). Cf. J. Renkema, ' "Misschien is er hoop". De theologische vooronderstellingen van het boek Klaagliederen' (dissertation, Franeker, 1983), pp. 43-59, for an overview of the discussion of the book of Lamentations in general. 5. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2. 6. H. Wildberger, Jesaja. II. Jesaja 13-27 (BKAT, 10.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978), p. 1339; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 343. 7. Cf. Chapter 12, section 2.

186

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

there is a suggestion that Edom is condemned because of its having acted in an 'unbrotherly' fashion. The second proposed contribution to the origin of Edom's special role, the settlement of Edomites in the Negeb, has not remained undisputed either. Some see it as the main cause. In fact, however, only very few texts mention it (Ezek. 35.10; Obad. 19-20; cf. Amos 9.12). Others, therefore, have argued that it cannot have been a very important factor and certainly is not the main cause.1 But, upon closer consideration, the relevant verses in Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah must be concluded to be more significant than appears at first sight. In Ezekiel, the issue 'who will live in the land of Israel?' is the central problem of the composition Ezekiel 35-36. Obad. 19-20 and Amos 9.11-15 (and Joel 4.18-21) are reinterpreting, later appendages to their books, and were probably composed together. The theme of both Ezekiel 35-36 and the appendages, all to be dated to the second half of the sixth century BCE, is the return of the Israelites and their regaining possession of their land.2 The hope of the returning exiles of a restoration of their land and state in its former size was frustrated by neighbouring nations that had taken advantage of Judah's ruin by taking parts of its land.3 Contrary to the theories discussed so far, some hold the position that the roots for the vehemence of the oracles against Edom must not be sought for in the confrontations between Israel and Edom in the sixth century BCE, but in pre-exilic times. They insist that the relationship between the two nations had been extraordinarily inimical from earliest times onwards.4 In their view, this old enmity explains Edom's role as a type. We cannot here go into any detail as regards the pre-exilic common history of Israel and Edom, but in my opinion this view is not 1. Mailland, 'Petite apocalypse', p. 86; Weippert, 'Edom und Israel', pp. 29596; Kasher, Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs, p. 3. 2. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 6-7, 8; Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 138. 3. Cf. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', pp. 143, 145-46; idem, 'Condemnation of Edom', p. 147; Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, pp. 344-45, 363 (on Obad. 19: 'Die Angabe des wieder in Besitz genommenen Gebietes deckt sich [umgekehrt] mit den Tatsachlichen Verhaltnissen der Exilszeit'). 4. Miiller, 'Wertung der Nachbarvolker', p. 150; Bartlett, 'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem', pp. 14-15, 23; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 156-57.

13. Edom's Hostility

187

warranted. When examining the references to Edom in Samuel and Kings (and their parallels in Chronicles), one gets the impression that there is insufficient literary evidence to support the theory of Edom's 'unentwegte und beharrlich durchgehaltene Feindseligkeit gegeniiber Juda', supposed to have taken place 'in alien Phasen der Geschichte' (Miiller).1 Bartlett states: 'Judah's conquest of Edom...and the subsequent rebellion had left a legacy in the Israelite tradition of Edomite bloodthirstiness and vindictiveness, a memory of Edom's readiness with the sword',2 but this is not supported by the passages concerned. For instance, 2 Sam. 8.13-14 and 1 Kgs 11.15-16 are short notes on David's conquest of Edom which rather emphasize David's bloodthirstiness.3 Edom's rebellion against Joram, in which it threw off the yoke of Judah, is related in a very laconic and matter-of-fact story, in which there is no mention of Edom's 'vindictiveness' etc. (2 Kgs 8.20-22). With the exception of the old core of Jer. 49.7-22, there are no pre-exilic oracles against Edom. The original Jeremianic oracle is unspecific and does not picture Edom as a type or accuse it of any crimes. Although according to 2 Kgs 16.6 Edomite aggression plays a role in the international political affairs in the time of Ahaz, Isaiah 7, reflecting upon those affairs, does not even mention Edom. Prophetic words against Edomite aggression are not found until the second half of the sixth century BCE. As noticed above, Lam. 4.21-22, the first text in which Edom is Israel's typical opponent, does not indict Edom for any concrete hostilities but condemns it for its rejoicing in Israel's devastation (cf. Ps. 137.7).4 Some authors have concluded that the phenomenon of the radical condemnation of Edom cannot be explained by historical developments alone. They have argued that the particular position of Edom among the nations is a theological construction rather than the result 1. Miiller, 'Wertung der Nachbarvolker', p. 150. 2. Bartlett, 'Edom.and the Fall of Jerusalem', p. 15; cf. Edom and the Edomites, p. 156. 3. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes, p. 300, and Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 69 have doubts about the historical value of these notes. Bartlett, 'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem', pp. 104-107 is more confident. 4. Cf. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 223-24; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 153-54. According to Hartberger, Ps. 137 is also an early exilic text ('An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 200, 218, 222, 226-27). Cf. below, section 3, for a further discussion of this psalm.

188

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

of a direct reflection on historical conflicts. B.C. Cresson states: 'The existence and expression of "Damn-Edom Theology" is more than simply a problem of historical antecedents'.1 He argues that the oracles against Edom are theological texts, belonging to the particularistic line of thought in post-exilic Judaism (in his view, particularistic and universalistic ideologies existed concurrently in post-exilic times).2 'Damn-Edom Theology' began as a natural historical reaction—the hatred of a people for a cruel and ruthless enemy—and became a concept of eschatological significance expressing hope for and confidence in the destruction of the enemies of the Chosen People.3

H. Simian too thinks that the oracles contain more theology than history. An examination of the oracles against Edom leads him to the observation that in these texts Edom serves a theological function.4 Die prophetischen Worte iiber/gegen Edom beziehen sich nicht ausschliesslich und nicht hauptsachlich auf eine historische Auseinandersetzung... Die prophetischen Worte iiber/gegen Edom sind richtiger als ein Element innerhalb einer Heilszusage an Jerusalem/Juda/Israel oder innerhalb einer Gerichtsankiindigung gegen alle Volker zu bezeichnen.5

3. Edom and the Lamentation Cult In view of the apparent difficulty of reaching agreement on the historical origin of Edom's role in the prophetic books, U. Kellermann has argued that another kind of explanation is needed.6 Moreover, the undiminishing intensity of the oracles against Edom long after the kingdom of Edom had ceased to exist requires another than an exclusively politico-historical explanation. The phenomenon can neither be explained, in his opinion, solely as a literary development. 7 He claims that it is the cult and not the historical 1. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', p. 147. 2. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', pp. 147-51 and passim in pp. 49-99; cf. 'Condemnation of Edom', pp. 144-45. 3. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', p. 151. 4. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 315-24, particularly p. 323. 5. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 321. 6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 5-9. 7. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 2-5, 214-18; against Haller, 'Edom im Urteil'—cf. above, the Introduction to the book.

13. Edom's Hostility

189

development that is behind the vehemence Edom is attacked with. Kellermann maintains that the liturgical use of the name 'Edom' is the reason that long after the events of 587 BCE this nation is regarded as Israel's arch foe and serves as a symbol for the enemy nations in general.1 The combination of three motifs: Israel restored, the nations punished, Edom annihilated, is found in several oracles against Edom (Isa. 63.1-5, Mic. 7.7-10,2 Ezek. 35-36, Obad. 1-18, Lam. 4.21-22). Other oracles vary this standard pattern (Isa. 34-35, Amos 9.11-12, Obad. 19-21, Mai. 1.2-5). According to Kellermann, this 'Motivtrias' has as its background (Sitz im Leberi) the cultic meetings that were held to remember the fall of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem. At these meetings 'Heilspropheten' answered the (cultic) lament of the people with an oracle of hope. Der Motor des 'Edomhasses' liegt in der Institution der gottesdienstliche Klage zum Zerstorung Jerusalems...Das historisch unbedeutende Phanomen des Verhaltens der Edomiter anlasslich der Katastrophe von 587 v. Chr. wurde durch 'gottesdienstliche' Erinnerung zu einem Grundelement der Untergangs- und Hoffnungsgeschichte des Gottesvolkes nach 587 v. Chr. 'hochgespielt'.3

The existence of an 'Institution der gottesdienstliche Klage zum Zerstorung Jerusalems' has been postulated before. In several studies on the book of Lamentations, and on some psalms of lament, it is asserted that these texts have as setting the cultic meetings at the destroyed temple, held to remember Judah's fall.4 The scriptural evidence, however, is not abundant. Only a few texts in Zechariah (7.3, 5; 8.19) mention, without any further details, fasts held to mourn Judah's downfall; 'prophets' seem to play some role (7.3). But 1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 20-21, 30-35, 117-20, 161-62, 225-28 and passim. 2. Interpreting 'my enemy', Mic. 7.8, 10 as Edom—Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 118, following H. Gunkel; cf. T. Lescow, 'Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6-7', TAW 84 (1972), p. 204. 3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 228. 4. Cf. E. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums (FRLANT, 69; Gottingen, 1956), pp. 95, 101-102 and in general pp. 94-103; P.R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia (Oxford, 1970), pp. 17-18; E. Gerstenberger, 'Der klagende Mensch. Anmerkungen zu den Klagegattungen in Israel', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (Fs G. von Rad; Miinchen, 1971), pp. 66-67; Renkema, '"Misschien is er hoop"', pp. 84-89, 152-54, 259-60; Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament, pp. 106-107.

190

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

it can be suspected that the Jewish 9th Ab commemoration of the destruction of the temple, at which the book of Lamentations is read, has originated in cultic events like those mentioned in Zechariah.1 Besides, the keeping of fasts in cases of national disaster must have been quite common.2 Jer. 41.5 may be indicative of such a cultic lament in Jerusalem in the very beginning of the exilic period.3 What data does Kellermann adduce to prove that the oracles against Edom were linked with the cultic lamentation of exilic and post-exilic times? His main argument is that some of the texts in which the observed combination of motifs is present, have been recognized as being connected with the presumed cultic background, the communal lament (viz. Mic. 7.7-10; Lam. 4.21-22).4 Kellermann insists that the similarities between the various oracles against Edom have to be explained by common tradition and not by literary interdependence; the texts differ too much for the latter, the similarity in motifs speaks in favour of the former. The combination of the three motifs is present in several of the oracles against Edom. He emphasizes that he is not proposing the cultic lament as the Sitz im Leben of the oracles themselves, but of the 'Motivtrias'.5 The cult serves as the general source of inspiration for the writers of the oracles against Edom. Some of the oracles Kellermann supposes to be connected with the cult, but most are free interpretations of the traditional theme. 'Free interpretation' does not exclude that the writers of

1. Cf. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia, p. 18; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 30; idem, 'Psalm 137', ZAW 90 (1978), p. 54. 2. Cf. H. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen. Die Gattungen der religiosen Lyrik Israels (Gottingen, 1933), pp. 117-21; J. Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkiindigung in der spaten Konigszeit Israels (WMANT, 35; Neukirchen, 1970), p. 149. 3. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit, p. 102; W.C. Gwaltney, The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature', in W.W. Hallo et al. (eds.), Scripture in Context II, More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, 1983), pp. 209-210; Renkema, '"Misschien is er hoop'", p. 153. 4. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 30-35 on Lam. 4.21-22; pp. 117-20 on Mic. 7.7-10. Cf. above on Lamentations; see on Mic. 7.7-10 e.g. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen, pp. 117, 137-38; Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit, p. 96; Lescow, 'Micha 6-7', pp. 196-204. 5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 226.

13. Edom's Hostility

191

these oracles may have been using older prophetic material or may sometimes be alluding to it.1 One of the oracles that in his opinion does have a direct connection with the cult is (the main part of) the book of Obadiah (vv. 1-18). H.W. Wolff, in his BKAT commentary on Obadiah, follows Kellermann on this point.2 According to Kellermann, Obad. 15a, 1618 contains 'verschiedene typische Traditionselemente der nationalen kultischen Heilsprophetie', like 'salvation on the Zion' and 'the cup of wrath/of judgment'.3 It is particularly the similarity of this passage to Isa. 51.17-23 (an oracle of salvation following a communal lament) and Lam. 4.21-22 that provides the arguments for the proposed positioning of Obadiah. Both passages use the motif of the 'cup' given to the nations after Israel. Both texts, Kellermann argues, have the supposed cultic background.4 This line of reasoning seems quite cogent. However, the picture is not as clear as Kellermann presents it. The cultic background of Isaiah 51 (and comparable texts in Deutero-Isaiah) is not undisputed.5 Lam. 4.21-22 is indeed considered to have a cultic function, but contains only two of the three motifs; the doom for the nations in general may only be found 'im Gesamtzusammenhang des Threnibuches'.6 Kellermann regards Isa. 63.1-5 (in his view v. 6, which now belongs to the poem, is a later addition) as another example of a cultic oracle against Edom.7 In my opinion, however, one of the three 1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 215-17. E.g. in Isa. 34 and Jer. 49.7-22 Kellermann finds 'einer freien, jedoch literarisch neukonzipierenden Anlehnung an altere Edomtexte' (p. 216). 2. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 3, 24-25, 27-28. Cf. idem, 'Obadja—ein Kultprophet als Interpret', EvT 37 (1977), pp. 279-80 (note the title of this article). Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', pp. 93-94 expresses his agreement with Wolffs view and gives some more details. 3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 19. 4. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 19-20. 5. Cf., for example, the discussion in H. Leene, De vroegere en de nieuwe dingen bij Deuterojesaja (Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 126-27. Leene's point of view: 'Zinspelingen op stereotiepe klaagliedformuleringen zijn in de genoemde groep teksten wel vaak aan te wijzen, maar een gemeenschappelijke "Sitz im Leben" voor de teksten zelf is daar niet zomaar uit af te leiden' (p. 127); cf. Jeremias, Kultprophetie, pp. 149-50 on Deutero-Isaiah's 'Heilsorakel'. 6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 35. 7. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 161-62.

192

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

motifs (and indeed the most important one) is missing in this text, namely the annihilation of Edom. Strictly speaking, this is not an oracle against Edom; it is an oracle against 'the nations', which are annihilated in Edom (v. 1). Kellermann can only interpret it as an oracle against Edom by making Edom the object of v. 3, which does not seem the most natural reading, and by removing v. 6, in which the nations are mentioned explicitly.1 Although, therefore, the proposed direct connection of oracles with the cult fails to convince, Kellermann may well be right in appointing the Jerusalem lamentation cult as the 'motor' for the production of oracles against Edom. What seems to speak in favour of his theory is that exactly in Lamentations we find an early example of Edom's role as a type. According to our own analysis, Lam. 4.21-22 must be older than the earliest oracles in which Edom plays its role as Israel's antagonist.2 The theory of the cult as the motor of the production of oracles against Edom would explain the links between Jer. 49.12 and Lam. 4.21-22. The two passages share their motif (drinking the cup) and theme (Edom has to drink too). As a typically cultic text, Lamentations 4 is, may have been the source of inspiration for the composition of the first extended version of Jer. 49.7-22, that we concluded to be the first oracle in which Edom performed as a type. The author of Lamentations 4 was the first to come up with the idea of applying the motif of the cup the nations have to drink (found in Jer. 25) to Edom. The cultic lament in Lamentations 4 may have provided the editors of the Jeremianic material with the idea of editing the old-style oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49 accordingly. Besides the discussed extensive study, Kellermann wrote two articles, on the cultic setting of Psalms 60 and 137.3 These psalms combine a lamentation on the fall of Judah with a message of doom for Edom. Kellermann considers Psalm 60 to be the first example of a 'Volksklage' which portrays Edom as Israel's special opponent. In his 1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 154,157-59; cf. (on v. 3) C. Westermann, Das Buck Jesaja. Kapitel 40-66. Ubersetzt und erkldrt (ATD, 19; Gottingen, 1966), p. 304. Cf. discussion in Dicou, 'JHWH in Edom', pp. 21-22. 2. Cf. above, section 2. 3. U. Kellermann, 'Erwagungen zum historischen Ort von Psalm LX', VT28 (1978), pp. 56-65; 'Psalm 137', pp. 43-58; cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 232-27.

13. Edom's Hostility

193

view, the psalm was written in the years 589-587 BCE, when the Babylonians had laid siege to Jerusalem. Shortly afterwards, after the fall of Jerusalem, this psalm became employed in the institutionalized national communal lament on the ruin of Judah and Jerusalem.1 The psalm was directed against Edom for historical reasons: Edom defected from Judah when its help was most needed; it did not support Judah against the Babylonian armies. Although other nations are mentioned (v. 10), Edom receives special attention in the psalm (v. 11). Moreover, the superscription (v. 2) unequivocally pictures Edom as the main enemy, by connecting God's victory (vv. 8-11) with David's victory over Edom. If Kellermann is right in appointing the early exilic lamentation cult as the Sitz im Leben of Psalm 60,2 we have here another indication that the earliest examples of Edom's exceptional role are found in cultic texts, in other words, that the conception of Edom as Israel's foremost adversary and the representative of the nations, as present in the Major Prophets, originated within the lamentation cult. Psalm 137, too, Kellermann regards as connected with the cult. In his view, the author of this psalm 'responds to the cult prophets' condemnation of Edom in the post-exilic laments for the destruction of Zion'.3 He dates it to the period between 521 and 445 BCE.4 Apparently unconscious of Kellermann's work, G.S. Ogden has proposed a similar cultic background for two of the oracles against Edom, Jer. 49.7-22 and Obadiah.5 In his opinion, these texts (as a whole) constitute prophetic answers to the cultic lamentation in Ps. 137. He founds his thesis on remarks of J.H. Hayes in his article 1. Cf. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen, pp. 117, 138, 410-11: this psalm is a combination of a 'Volksklagelied' and an 'Orakel', which together constitute a 'Liturgie'; cf. Jeremias, Kuhprophetie, p. 149. 2. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon", p. 200 (cf. pp. 164-65, 19293) thinks that the psalm was composed after the fall of Jerusalem, between 587 and 583 BCE; arguments: p. 165 n. 386, p. 200). 3. Kellermann, 'Psalm 137', p. 58. 4. Renkema, ' "Misschien is er hoop'", p.254 follows Kellermann. G.S. Ogden ('Prophetic Oracles against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communcal Lament: The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49.7-22 and Obadiah', JSOT [1982], p. 89) supposes that the author was a returned exile. Hartberger ('An den Wassern von Babylon', e.g. pp. 200, 218, 222) thinks that the psalm was composed by the exiles in Babylon not long after the fall of Jerusalem. 5. Ogden,'Prophetic Oracles'.

194

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

'The Usage of the Oracles against the Nations in Ancient Israel' about the cultic lamentation as one of the possible original settings for the oracles against the nations. According to Hayes, 2 Kgs 19.21-28, Ps. 60.6-8 and Lam. 4.21-22 (cf. Kellermann) are examples of a pronouncement of judgment upon the nations within the context of a lamentation ritual.1 Now, in Ogden's view, similarities in thought and vocabulary between Jer. 49.7-22, Obadiah and Psalm 137 reveal that the two oracles were composed within the lamentation cult as answers to the petition of doom for Edom in the psalm. Regrettably, the similarities he adduces to prove this supposition are not very convincing. He analyses six examples.2 1.

2.

3. 4.

The phrase 'the day of Jerusalem' corresponds to the extensive use of the word 'day' in Obadiah to denote the time of Jerusalem's destruction. In both, the theme is Edomite behaviour on that day. This is indeed an example of correspondence, but only in Obadiah, not in Jeremiah 49. In Jeremiah, neither the 'day' of Jerusalem's end nor Jerusalem's end itself is mentioned. The root "ntf appears in all three texts. This 'must also have some significance because of its otherwise very limited use'. However, it is not, as Ogden states, 'a little used term'. Even his statement 'This particular root is little used outside Isaiah and Jeremiah, so with one or two isolated occurences in some of the minor prophets also, we cover almost all examples' is only true for the Qal-form—which Ogden does not confine himself to. The verb *?a3 (v. 8) is also used in Obad. 15. It is, however, absent in Jeremiah 49. 'Gleanings' (mVys) in Obad. 5 and Jer. 49.9 and 'your little children' C^1?1^) in Ps. 137.9 could, according to Ogden, 'in fact all represent the one root concept': the root ^J), which

1. J.H. Hayes, 'The Usage of the Oracles against the Nations in Ancient Israel', JBL 87 (1968), pp. 87-89. Cf. Hayes, 'Oracles against the Nations', p. 92: 'The organization of the prophetical materials into a scheme of judgment upon the Israelites—judgment upon the nations; salvation for Israel—is perhaps dependent upon the structure of the lamentation ritual in which the scheme of lamentation— judgment upon the enemy; salvation for Israel—predominated'. 2. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', pp. 92-95.

13. Edom's Hostility

5.

6.

195

is 'problematic, and thus its precise meaning must remain dubious'. This is of course a misconception, the root ^a being of no relevance for "p"?1?!), from the root *7ii>. Besides, neither of the roots is 'problematic'. In Ps. 137.9, any other meaning than 'your little children' must be excluded (cf. also Isa. 13.16; Hos. 10.14; Nah. 3.10). 'Rock' (abo) in Ps. 137.9 is, Ogden asserts, 'synonymous with Edom itself'.1 Unfortunately, he provides no arguments for this assertion. The same word 'rock' occurs also in Obad. 3 // Jer. 49.16. But does this point to 'a more than chance association'2? Both in Psalm 137 (v. 4) and in Obadiah (vv. 11, 12) the root "D] ('be strange' etc.) is used in connection with Babylon. Once again, this does not seem to be more than a chance association; it is quite natural to describe the Babylonians as strangers.

Only the first of these six examples comes from Ps. 137.7, the verse about Edom. Ogden also discusses vv. 8-9, because he interprets 'daughter of Babylon' in v. 8 as meaning 'Edom', 'the ally or confederate of Babylon'.3 This interpretation, however, is very questionable; the usual interpetation (daughter of Babylon = Babylon) is far more likely.4 Therefore, it is impossible for us to conclude with Ogden 'that the oracles are both responses to the psalm's petition'.5 We can go no further than assert that one of the oracles, the book of Obadiah, and the psalm both belong to the tradition which combines the theme of the 'day' of Jerusalem's ruin with a condemnation of Edom's behaviour on that day. There is no evidence for an association of Psalm 137 with Jer. 49.7-22. Kellermann's explanation of the relationship between these texts appears to be preferable to Ogden's. Kellermann's thesis accounts for a more indirect relation: all oracles against Edom (and some psalms as well) have the communal lament over Judah's destruction as source of 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 91. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 95. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 91. Cf. e.g. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 210. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 95.

196

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

inspiration. Rightly, I believe, Kellermann differentiates between the (common) ' Verkiindigungsgeschichte' of the oracles against Edom and their (different) 'Sitze im Leben'.1 Many 'forms' exist in the various oracles, so there are many 'settings'. Although Ogden's demonstration of parallels between Psalm 137 and Jer. 49.7-22/Obadiah is not very convincing, there does seem to be a relationship between these texts. However, it is another one than that thought of by Ogden. The connection is Edom's association with Babylon: both in Jeremiah and in Psalm 137, Edom and Babylon are linked. Jer. 49.18, 19-21 is also found in Jer. 50.40, 44-46 in the oracles against Babylon (a similar link exists between Isa. 13 and 34). Ps. 137.7-9 mentions first the Edomites and then Babylon. In Chapter 11, it was seen that the connection with oracles against Babylon is a relatively late development in the oracles against Edom. It cannot be established whether Psalm 137 is older or younger than the last versions of the oracles. In any case, these texts belong to the same tradition. If Psalm 137 is older, this would be another example of cultic influence on the oracles against Edom. Why was Edom connected with Babylon? One explanation is that Edom unexpectedly took the side of the Babylonians when the latter laid siege to Jerusalem (cf. above). Obad. 10, saying: 'you were like one of them', explicitly ranks the Edomites with the Babylonians. Early texts like Lamentations 4 and Psalm 60, which concentrate on the doom brought about by the Babylonians but only mention Edom, may be the precursors of the tradition that connected the two nations. 4. Conclusion Having examined several proposals that offer an explanation for Edom's role as Israel's foremost adversary among the nations, I shall now summarize the conclusions. The origin of this role was the impression made by Edom's behaviour around the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE on the one hand, and in the time thereafter on the other hand, when it appears to have consolidated its settlement in former Judaean land. Edom's transgressions in 587 seem to have received a place in the lamentation cult, and this cult, subsequently, served as a motor for the production of oracles against Edom. In my 1.

Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 220-26.

13. Edam's Hostility

197

view, the Edomite settlement in the Negeb must have served the same function; it was more important than Kellermann, for example, allows for. Ezekiel 35-36 and the Obadiah appendage attest to the importance of this factor: their main theme is the repossession of the land. In any case, it is clear that Edom received its extraordinary position among the nations after 587 BCE. The thesis that the relationship between Israel and Edom had always been exceptionally bad has been found unconvincing. The sixth century BCE has been concluded to be the decisive era. This is in agreement with the development we observed in the Chapters 7 and 10: in the sixth century BCE, the prophecies against Edom changed from unspecific oracles to oracles against the representative of the nations, and the Genesis stories about Jacob and Esau became stories on the relation of Israel and the nations.

Chapter 14

CONCLUSIONS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ORACLES AGAINST EDOM AND THE JACOB-ESAU STORIES 1. Introduction Bringing together the results of the Chapters 11, 12 and 13 (and earlier chapters), we shall now be able to determine the origin of the conception of Edom as the representative of the nations and Israel's special antagonist, and to describe its further development (section 2). Finally, we shall discuss reasons for the different appreciation of Edom in Genesis and the prophetic books (section 3). 2. Origin and Development of Edom's Role as a Type The Jacob-Esau stories and the oracles against Edom originated mostly in the second half of the sixth century BCE, in a mutually influencing development. The oldest part of the Jacob-Esau story we have concluded to be Genesis 27, a story about the two brothers Jacob and 'Esau from Seir' (not relating to Edom). Later, an introduction (in Gen. 25) and an extensive sequel (Gen. 28-33) were written, in which Edom was connected with Esau. The moving spirit behind the identification must have been the migration of Edomites to 'Esau's land', Seir (seventhsixth centuries BCE). This movement may have caused a general feeling that Edom and Esau belonged together. When the writer(s) of Genesis wanted to compose the story of Israel's origin among its neighbours, he (they) could not but take Edom as Israel's counterpart. There is very little pre-exilic evidence for either Edom's identification with Esau or its role as Israel's twin brother. The first text which uses Esau as a name for Edom is Jer. 49.10 (late pre-exilic). The most likely date for the Jacob-Esau stories in their Israel-Edom version seems to be the exilic period. Also from a thematic point of view (Jacob's 'exile' and return), this date seems to be correct.

14. Conclusions

199

The historical association of Edom with Seir caused both Edom's introduction into the Jacob-Esau stories and Esau's/Seir's introduction in the oracles against Edom. After Jer. 49.10, later in the sixth century, we find more occurrences of the names Esau and Seir in oracles against Edom, as well as the motif of Edom as Israel's brother. At the beginning of the exilic period, another significant development in the relation between the two nations took place. Edom abandoned Judah when the Babylonians came to punish Judah for its rebellion. Judah's disappointment in Edom around 587 BCE resulted in the insertion of a condemnation of Edom in the lamentation cult in Jerusalem. In this way, 'Edom' became a cultic theme, and later a prophetic-literary theme. Edom served as Israel's special opponent and the representative of the nations. The migration of Edomites to the regions south of Judah and even to former Judaean land became serious when the state of Judah ceased to exist. This too must have stimulated the production of prophetic texts against Edom. There are only very few pre-exilic or early exilic oracles against Edom (the old cores of Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 25.12-14; 35); they were short oracles which did not differ from the other oracles against the nations. Later, they were worked out into oracles in which Edom served as a type. We have seen that the Genesis stories are, with regard to contents and theme, the most near to Ezekiel 35-36.l This suggests (as concluded) that from the oracles against Edom the one in Ezekiel is the most near in time to the Israel-Edom version of the Jacob-Esau stories. The Genesis theme of Edom's brotherhood being absent in Ezekiel 35-36, but present in later texts (Amos 1.11-12; Obadiah; Mai. 1.2-5), Ezekiel 35-36 seems to precede Genesis. Obadiah and Amos, presenting Edom without comment as Israel's brother, presuppose Genesis.2 Ezekiel 35-36 too is the first oracle in which the conception of Edom as the representative of the nations is worked out. In the first expanded version of Jer. 49.7-22 (which is older than Ezek. 35-36) it was also present, but rather implicitly. Later oracles (Isa. 34-35, Obad. 15-21) follow Ezekiel in the way the fates of Israel, Edom and the nations are combined. 1. Cf. Chapter 11, sections 2 and 4; Chapter 12, section 4. 2. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 34; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 341, 343.

200

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

In Genesis, Edom's role as the representative of the nations was implicitly present in the Israel-Edom version of the Jacob-Esau stories. Assuming that these stories were combined with the Abraham and Isaac stories already, before the P edition of Genesis, it can be argued that Edom here too had a special role among the nations: Edom was the last of Israel's neighbours to be born in Abraham's family and it served as the antagonist of the patriarch who was renamed Israel and became the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. The notion of Edom as the the representative of the nations became more explicit in the P version of Genesis, notably within the context of the Toledoth structure. In the Toledoth structure, Edom, Israel's brother, became Israel's counterpart, 'the last of the nations'. The Genesis stories and the long oracles against Edom were both composed (both with the use of older material) upon the basic conception of Edom as Israel's antagonist and as the representative of the nations. Could this mean that the editors of the Israelite narratives and those of the prophetic traditions did not work independently? It seems not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of coordination. In general, there is evidence that the same groups worked on the edition of the prophetic books and Genesis.1 Both sets of texts appear to have known a deuteronomistic edition.2 As for the 'priestly school', it has often been observed3 that there are significant correspondences between the book of Ezekiel and P.4 1. Cf. D.W. Thomas, 'The Sixth Century B.C.: A Creative Epoch in the History of Israel', JSS 6 (1961), pp. 33-46; H.-C. Schmitt, 'Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetic. Beobachtungen zur Bedeutung der "Glaubens"Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch', VT 32 (1982), pp. 170-89, particularly pp. 170-71. 2. Cf. e.g. Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, pp. 339-41, with survey of literature. 3. Cf. e.g. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (2 vols.; BKAT, 8; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), p. 79*. 4. One detail in Ezek. 35-36 may attest to the supposed link between the P version of Genesis and the book of Ezekiel. (Moreover, it corroborates the impression of the special connection between Ezek. 35-36 and the Jacob-Esau stories; cf. above.) The detail is the use of the term Tito in, 'Mount Seir' (RSV in Genesis: 'the hill country of Seir'), in the two texts. It occurs in Gen. 36.8, 9 and in Ezek. 35.2, 3, 7, 15. Since this term occurs nowhere else in the prophetic books, one may suspect that there is a connection. The older parts of the Genesis stories do not use it either (they use 'the land of Seir', 32.4, or just 'Seir', 33.14, 16). (Elsewhere: DeuL

14. Conclusions 201

201

In spite of the similarities, Genesis and the prophetic books sketch two entirely different pictures as regards Edom's future. The first long oracles (Jer. 49, second version; Ezek. 35-36) already proclaimed as God's wish Edom's total destruction. Meanwhile, the pre-P version of Genesis describes a peaceful meeting of the brothers, resulting in Esau's going back to Seir and Jacob's return to the promised land. In later development, the gap deepened still further. While Genesis developed itself towards a book on the peaceful organization of the various nations (P/Toledoth structure), Edom's role in the prophetic books became even more negative: Edom was regarded as a nation of the same category as Babylon, and had to suffer the same fate (Isa. 34; Jer. 49.17-21). It could be asked whether it is possible to date the pre-P Genesis narratives, which paint a relatively mild picture of Edom, to the second half of the sixth century BCE, the age of the fierce prophetic doom speeches against Edom. Yet, I do not think that the composition date that we have proposed is unlikely. Genesis provides a solution (albeit a peaceful one) for the same problem Ezekiel 35-36 broaches, namely the claim of Israel's neighbours to parts of the now ruined country. Although the solution is different (every neighbouring nation receives its own land), the result is the same: the claim is not honoured. The other nations have to leave the land promised to Israel. This solution is found both in the older version of the Jacob-Esau stories (cf. Gen. 33.16) and the P version (cf. Gen. 36.6-8).* Another argument against the view that the Genesis stories are too positive on Edom to have been composed in the exilic period is that in 1.2; 2.1, 5; Josh. 24.4; 1 Chron. 4.42; 2 Chron. 20, 10, 22, 23.) In Chapter 3, it was argued that the author of Ezek. 35 had good reasons for using this (apparently, rather uncommon) term. He appears to have employed it to create an opposition with the 'mountains of Israel', with an eye to the composition of the book Ezekiel. Therefore, the use of 'Mount Seir' in Gen. 36.8-9 to indicate Edom's land may go back to Ezek. 35. (I am grateful to Prof. Dr P.C. Beentjes, Katholieke Theologische Universiteit Utrecht, for suggesting me the possible relevance of the parallel.) 1. The solution is not reached without any difficulty. McKay, 'Jacob Makes it across the Jabbok', p. 10, states that the exiles'/Jacob's journey home in Gen. 32 'is presented as being difficult, awkward and dangerous, with an eleventh hour hazard of the most tremendous kind which almost stops the Patriarch from getting home. And the anxiety about the need to make Israel acceptable to the present inhabitants of the land is expressed in the careful and detailed planning of the gifts sent ahead to win Esau's favour'.

202

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

a later period, when the conception of Edom as Israel's typical enemy had become quite developed, the P version of Genesis appeared, in which Esau played an even less violent role. See e.g. Gen. 26.34-35, 27.46-28.9: Esau hurts his parents by marrying Canaanite women, but when he understands that marrying a woman from the family is important for his parents, he does so, and follows his brother Jacob. 3. The Difference between the Jacob-Esau Stones and the Oracles against Edom If the Israel-Edom version of the Jacob-Esau stories has to be dated to the same era as the reinterpretation of the prophetic oracles against Edom, some other questions suggest themselves. The most important one is: what could be the reason for the completely different appreciation of Edom? How can the basic difference between Genesis and the prophetic books, the relatively positive attitude towards Edom in Genesis over against the antagonistic position in the oracles, be explained? First, it should be observed that from a literary point of view, it would have been very difficult to sketch in Genesis an equally black picture as in the prophetic books. The Genesis theme is the origin of Israel among the nations, not the destruction of either Israel or the nations. In Genesis, there is no room for the prophetic theme of the ruin of the world, symbolized in the destruction of Edom. Israel's neighbours, though excluded from YHWH's special promise to Abraham, all belong to Abraham's family; they all receive their own land, where they may live and prosper. Genesis is not a book in which to expect narratives about insoluble conflicts which can only end with the annihilation of the enemy.1 But this literary argument does not explain everything. Esau's part in Genesis 25-36 is not nearly as bad as it could have been. He is dangerous and threatens to kill his brother, but instead of a 'perpetual enmity' (Ezek. 35.5), here we find that Esau is willing to become reconciled with his brother. Another possibility is that the author of the (pre-P) Jacob-Esau stories had his own opinion on the relation between Israel and Edom, which differed from the prophetic theology. K.H. Keukens maintains that Genesis 27 should be understood as a 1. Of course, with the exception of the story of the extermination of mankind by the flood, which, however, takes place before the origin of the nations and Israel.

14. Conclusions

203

modification of the prophetic view: it demonstrates that Israel's claims to superiority over Edom rest on the weak basis of a badly performed deathbed ritual.1 It is difficult to decide whether the Genesis stories are really meant to take the edge off the prophetic point of view, as Keukens argues. However, it is clear that they do provide an alternative way of looking at Edom, which in early post-exilic times must have been regarded as very radical. Comparing Ezekiel 35-36 and Genesis 32-33, we have seen that Genesis 32-33 provides an alternative to Ezekiel 35-36. There are indeed conflicts about the possession of the land, but they are resolved peacefully. Even with the exemplary enemy nation, guilty of complicity in Babylon's actions against Judah and of occupying Judaean land, reconciliation is possible. U. Kellermann asserts that two differing attitudes can be found in Old Testament literature, one negative and one positive.2 The deuteronomistic history is either neutral or positive on Edom.3 In Kellermann's opinion, this attitude goes back to 'das Bewusstsein einer gemeinsamen Friihgeschichte und stammesmassigen Verbundenheit' as expressed in the J and E versions of the Jacob-Esau stories.4 Although we cannot follow the traditional dating of these stories to the early monarchic period, we can accept that a more positive understanding of the relation between the two nations goes back to an old sense of congeniality. The positive view on Edom may be a remnant from a period when the Edomites were regarded as not too different from the Israelites, especially with respect to religion.5 More generally, it should be noted that there were both 'universalistic' and 'particularistic' tendencies in Israel's hope for a new future after the Exile. B.C. Cresson has maintained (as discussed in Chapter 13, section 2) that the oracles against Edom belong to the particularistic line of thought. The Genesis stories could be regarded 1. K.H. Keukens, 'Der irregulare Sterbesegen Isaaks', p. 55. Cf. above, p. 144 n. 3. 2. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 213, 368-70. 3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 314-17. According to Kellermann, some prophetic texts too are positive towards Edom; he mentions Isa. 21.11-12; Amos 9.11-12; Obad. 19-21. However, Isa. 21.11-12 does not seem to be about Edom (Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 108 with note 363) and Kellermann's interpretation of the other two texts does not hold, as was argued in Chapter 1. 4. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 338 (quotation), pp. 362-67; 'Erwagungen zum deuteronomischen Gemeindegesetz', pp. 43-44. 5. Cf. Chapter 12, section 6.

204

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

as belonging to the opposite tendency. They show that it is possible for Israel and its neighbours to live as brothers, each nation in its own country. They express the hope of living in peace with the nations. Meanwhile, it is implicitly stated that Israel cannot realize this future as 'Jacob', the deceiver of his brother. The stories are as critical of Israel's attitude towards its 'brothers' as the prophetic books (cf. Jer. 9.3). The prophetic books describe the annihilation of Edom—the representative and the symbol of the enemy nations—as the necessary condition for Israel's restoration. In this context, it is impossible to think of a reconciliation between Israel and 'Edom'. However, this does not mean that the universalistic perspective—Israel and the nations living in peace—is absent in the prophetic books.1 Sometimes, the expectations are just as radical as in Genesis. Isa. 19.23-25 portrays a future in which even Assur, Israel's terrible enemy, together with Egypt will take part in the salvation promised to Israel. The prophetic books and Genesis sketch two alternative pictures of the relationship Israel-Edom. In later ages, the differences disappear from sight. In the rabbinic literature, 'Edom' was used as a symbol for 'the enemy', designating the Roman empire or, later, the church.2 The Jacob-Esau stories too came to be regarded as illustrative of 'Edom's' particular enmity.3 1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 93, 119-20. 2. Cf. e.g. G.D. Cohen, 'Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought', in A. Altmann (ed.), Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, MA, 1967), pp. 19-48;Kellerm&nn, Israel und Edom, pp. 371-72; J. Maier, '"Siehe, ich mach(t)e dich klein unter den VOlkern..." Zum rabbinischen Assoziationshorizont von Obadja 2', in L. Ruppert et al. (eds.), Kiinder des Wortes. Beitr&ge zur Theologie der Propheten (Fs J. Schreiner; Wurzburg, 1982), pp. 203-15; G. Stemberger, Die romische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (EF, 195; Darmstadt, 1983), passim (index s.v. Esau and s.v. Edom). 3. Cf. Fishbane, 'Composition and Structure', pp. 16-17; A. Butterweck, Jakobs Ringkampf am Jabbok. Gen. 32,4ff in der jiidischen Tradition bis zum Friihmittelalter (Judentum und Umwelt, 3; Frankfurt am Main and Bern, 1981), pp. 75-90; W. Reedijk, 'Jakob en Esau als spiegel voor joden en christenen. Enkele middeleeuwse joodse exegeten over Genesis 32', in S. Bellemakers et al. (eds.), Van horen en verstaan. Verklaring en gebruik van de Schrift (Fs P. Drijvers; Hilversum, 1987), pp. 37-47; L.A. Snijders, 'Genesis 27, Het bedrog van Jakob', NTT 45 (1991), p. 184; cf. R. Aharoni, 'Why Did Esau Spurn the Birthright? A Study in Biblical Interpretation', Judaism 29 (1980), pp. 323-31 about an unfavourable (as regards Esau) rabbinic interpretation of Gen. 25.29-34.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aalders, G.C., Obadja en Jona (COT; Kampen, 1958). Ackroyd, P.R., 'Hosea and Jacob', VT 13 (1963), pp. 245-49. —Israel under Babylon and Persia (Oxford, 1970). Aharoni, R., 'Why Did Esau Spurn the Birthright? A Study in Biblical Interpretation', Judaism 29 (1980), pp. 323-31. Andersen, F.I., and D.N. Freedman, Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24; Garden City, NY, 1980). Astour, M.C., 'Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists', in M. Gdrg and E. Pusch (eds.), Fs E. Edel (AAT, 1; Bamberg, 1979), pp. 17-34. Axelsson, L.E., The Lord Rose up from Seir. Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah (ConBOT, 25; Lund, 1987). Bach, R., Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch (WMANT, 9; Neukirchen, 1962). Bartlett, J.R., 'The Edomite Kinglist of Genesis XXXVI.31-39 and 1 Chron. 1.43-50', JTS 16 (1965), pp. 301-14. —'The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom', JTS 20 (1969), pp. 1-20. —"The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom', PEQ 104 (1972), pp. 26-37. —"The Moabites and Edomites', in D.J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford, 1973), pp. 229-58. —'The Brotherhood of Edom', JSOT 4 (1977), pp. 2-27. —'Yahweh and Qaus: A Response to Martin Rose (JSOT 4: 28-34)', JSOT 5 (1978), pp. 29-38. —'From Edomites to Nabateans: A Study in Continuity', PEQ 111 (1979), pp. 53-66. —'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C.', PEQ 114 (1982), pp. 13-24. —Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup, 77; JSOT/PEF Monograph Series, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). Barton, J., Amos's Oracles against the Nations. A Study of Amos 1.3-2.5 (SOTSMS, 6; Cambridge, 1980). Beentjes, P.C., 'Jesus Sirach en Tenach' (dissertation, Nieuwegein, 1981). —'Inverted Quotations in the Bible. A Neglected Stylistic Pattern', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 506-23. Berge, K., Die Zeit des Jahwisten. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer Vatertexte (BZAW, 186; Berlin & New York, 1990). Bergler, S., Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ, 16; Frankfurt am Main, 1988). Berridge, J.M., 'Jeremia und die Prophetic des Amos', TZ 35 (1979), pp. 321-41. Bewer, J.A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh, 3rd edn, 1948).

206

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Beyerlin, W., Reflexe der Atnosvisionen im Jeremiabuch (OBO, 93; Freiburg [Schweiz] & GOttingen, 1989). Blank, S.H., 'Studies in Post-Exilic Universalism', HUCA 11 (1936), pp. 159-91. Blum, E., 'Die Komplexita't der Uberlieferung. Zur diachronen und synchronen Auslegung von Gen. 32,23-33', DBAT 15 (1980), pp. 2-55. —Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980). —Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin & New York, 1990). Boadt, L., Ezekiel's Oracles against Egypt. A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29-32 (BibOr, 37; Rome, 1980). —'Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel's Oracles of Judgment', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL, 74; Leuven, 1986), pp. 182-200. Boer, P.A.H. de, 'Genesis XXXII 23-32. Some Remarks on Composition and Character of the Story', NTT 1 (1946^*7), pp. 149-63. Bold, F.M.T. de Liagre, 'Wortspiele im Alien Testament', in Opera Minora. Studies en bijdragen op Assyriologisch en ondtestamentisch terrein (Groningen & Djakarta, 1953), pp. 11-25. Breukelman, F.H., Bijbelse Theologie 1,1. Schrift-lezing (Kampen, 1980). Bright, J., Jeremiah. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21; Garden City, NY, 1965). Brodie, L.T., 'Jacob's Travail (Jer 30.1-13) and Jacob's Struggle (Gen 32.22-32): A Test Case for Measuring the Influence of the Book of Jeremiah on the Present Text of Genesis', JSOT 19 (1981), pp. 31-60. Buber, M., 'Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung', in Werke 2. Schriften zur Bibel (Miinchen & Heidelberg, 1964), pp. 1183-1186. Burrows, M., The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (New Haven, 1925). Butterweck, A., Jakobs Ringkampf am Jabbok. Gen. 32,4ff in der jiidischen Tradition bis zum Friihmittelalter (Judentum und Umwelt 3; Frankfurt am Main & Bern, 1981). Carroll, R.P., Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL; London, 1986). Childs, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London, 2nd edn, 1983). Clements, R.E., 'The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1-24', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL, 74; Leuven, 1986), pp. 283-94. Clines, D.J.A., The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978). Coats, G.W., 'Strife without Reconciliation—A Narrative Theme in the Jacob Traditions', in R. Albertz et al. (eds.), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments (Fs C. Westermann; Gottingen & Neukirchen-Vluyn), pp. 82-106. Coggins, R.J., 'Judgment between Brothers. A Commentary on the Book of Obadiah', in R.J. Coggins and S.P. Re'emi, Israel among the Nations. A Commentary on the Books of Nahum and Obadiah, and Esther (ITC; Grand Rapids & Edinburgh, 1985), pp. 65-100. Cohen, G.D., 'Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought', in A. Altmann (ed.), Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, MA, 1967), pp. 19-48. Cresson, B.C., 'Israel and Edom: A Study of the Anti-Edom Bias in Old Testament Religion' (dissertation, Duke University, 1963; microfilm, Ann Arbor, MI and London).

Bibliography

207

—'The Condemnation of Edom in Post-Exilic Judaism', in J.M. Efird (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays (Fs W.F. Stinespring; Durham, NC, 1972), pp. 125-48. Cross, P.M., 'The Priestly Work', in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA, 1973), pp. 293-325. Daniels, D.R., 'Hosea and Salvation History. The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea' (dissertation, Hamburg, 1987). Daube, D., The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London, 1963). Day, J., 'Prophecy', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written. Scripture Citing Scripture (Fs B. Lindars; Cambridge, 1988), pp. 39-55. Deurloo, K.A., 'De naam en de namen (Genesis 32.23-33)', ACEBT 2 (1981), pp. 3539. —De mens als raadsel en geheim. Verhalende antropologie in Genesis 2-4 (Baarn, 1988). —'Narrative Geography in the Abraham Cycle', in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), In Quest of the Past. Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism. Papers read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988 (OTS 26; Leiden, 1990), pp. 48-62. Deurloo, K., and B. Hemelsoet, Op bergen en in dalen. Bijbelse geografie: de plaats waar geschreven stoat (Baarn, 1988). Dicou, A. (B.), 'Geen wijsheid meer in Edom. Jeremia 49,7 en Obadja 7-8', ACEBT 9 (1988), pp. 90-96. —'JHWH en Edom in Amara en in Jesaja 63 vers 1', in M.G.B. Harbers et al. (eds.), Tussen Nijl en Herengracht (Fs M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss; Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 17-26. —'De structuur van de verzameling profetieen over de volken in Jeremia 46—51', ACEBT 10 (1989), pp. 84-87. —Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom. Israel tegenover de volken in de verhalen over Jakob en Esau in Genesis en in de grote profetieen over Edom (Voorburg, 1990). —'Literary Function and Literary History of Isaiah 34', BN 58 (1991), pp. 30-45. Diebner, B.J., 'Berufe und Berufung des Amos (Am 1,1 und 7,14f)', DBAT 23-24 (1986-87), pp. 97-120. Diebner, B., and H. Schult, 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten der Makkabaerzeit', DBA78 (1975), pp. 11-17. —'Die Ehen der Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975), pp. 2-10. Diedrich, F., Die Anspielungen auf die Jakob-Tradition in Hosea 12,1—13,3. Ein literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur Exegese friiher Prophetentexte (FZB 27; Wurzburg, 1977). Edel, E., 'Die Ortsnahmenlisten in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan', BN 11 (1980), pp. 63-79. Emerton, J.A., 'The Priestly Writer in Genesis', JTS 39 (1988), pp. 381-400. Eph'al, I., The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th-5th Centuries B.C. (Jerusalem, 1982). Eslinger, L.M., 'Hosea 12.5a and Genesis 32.29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis', JSOT 18 (1980), pp. 91-99. Fishbane, M., 'The Treaty Background of Amos 1.11 and Related Matters', JBL 89 (1970), pp. 313-18.

208

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

—'Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19-35:22)', 7/5 6 (1975), pp. 15-38. —Text and Texture. Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York, 1979). Fohrer, G., 'Die Spriiche Obadjas', in Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (1966-1972) (BZAW, 153; Berlin & New York, 1981), pp. 69-80. Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative An in Genesis. Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (SSN, 17; Assen & Amsterdam, 1975). Friedman, R.E., The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (HSM, 22; Chico, CA, 1981). Fritz, V., 'Die Fremdvolkerspriiche des Amos', VT 37 (1987), pp. 26-38. Funs, H.F., 'Amos 1,1. Erwa'gungen zur Tradition und Redaktion des Amosbuches', in H.J. Fabry (ed.), Bausteine biblischer Theologie (Fs G.J. Botterweck; KOln and Bonn, 1977), pp. 271-89. Galling, K., 'Das Gemeindegesetz in Deuteronomium 23', in W. Baumgartner et al. (eds.), Festschrift fur A. Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag (Tubingen, 1950), pp. 17691. Gammie, J.G., 'Theological Interpretation by Way of Literary and Tradition Analysis: Genesis 25-36', in M.J. Buss (ed.), Encounter with the Text. Form and History in the Hebrew Bible (SS, 8; Philadelphia, PA and Missoula, MT, 1979), pp. 117-34. Gardiner, A.H., 'The Tomb of a Much-Travelled Theban Official', JEA 4 (1917), pp. 28-38. Gerstenberger, E., 'Der klagende Mensch. Anmerkungen zu den Klagegattungen in Israel', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (Fs G. von Rad; Munchen, 1971), pp. 64-72. Gertner, M., 'The Massorah and the Levites', VT 10 (1960), pp. 241-84. Gervitz, S., 'Of Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at the Fountain, Jacob at the Ford", HUCA 46 (1975), pp. 33-54. Gese, H., 'Jakob und Mose: Hosea 12:3-14 als einheitlicher Text', in J.W. van Henten et al. (eds.), Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Fs J.C.H. Lebram, Studia Postbiblica 36; Leiden, 1986), pp. 38-47. Geus, C.H.J. de, 'Idumaea', JEOL 26 (1979-80), pp. 53-74. Geyer, J.B., 'Mythology and Culture in the Oracles against the Nations', VT 36 (1986), pp. 129-45. Ginsberg, H.L., 'Judah and the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 B.C.E.', in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, English Section (New York, 1950), pp. 347-68. Giveon, R., Les Bedouins Shosou des documents egyptiens (Leiden, 1971). Goldingay, J., 'The Patriarchs in Scripture and History', in A.R. Millard, D.J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester, 1980), pp. 11-42. Good, E.M., 'Hosea and the Jacob Tradition', VT 16 (1966), pp. 137-51. Gordis, R., 'Edom, Israel and Amos—An Unrecognized Source for Edomite History', in A.I. Katsh and L. Nemoy (eds.), Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (1909-1979) (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 10932. Gorg, M., 'Jahwe—ein Toponym?', BN 1 (1976), pp. 7-14. = Beitrdge zur Zeitgeschichte der Anfange Israels (AAT, 2; Wiesbaden, 1989), pp. 180-87. —'Punon—ein weiteres Distrikt der S3s"w-Beduinen?', BN 19 (1982), pp. 15-21. = Beitrage, pp. 188-94. —'Zur Identitat der "Seir-Lander"', BN 46 (1989), pp. 7-12 = Beitrdge, pp. 135-40.

Bibliography

209

Gosse, B., 'Un texte pr£-apocalyptique du regne de Darius: Isai'e XIII, 1—XIV,23', RB 92 (1985), pp. 200-22. —'La malediction centre Babylone de Jdrdmie 51,59-64 et les redactions du livre de jeremie', ZAW 98 (1986), pp. 383-99. —'Le Recueil d'oracles centre les nations d'Eze'chiel XXV-XXXII dans la redaction du livre d'Eze'chiel', RB 93 (1986), pp. 535-562. —Isai'e 13,1—14,23. Dans la tradition litttraire du livre d'lsal'e et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations (OBO, 78; Freiburg [Schweiz] and Gottingen, 1988). —'Le Recueil d'oracles contre les nations du livre d'Amos et 1' "histoire deuteronomique" ', VT 38 (1988), pp. 22-40. —'Ezechiel 35-36,1-15 et Ezechiel 6: La desolation de la montagne de S6ir et le renouveau des montagnes d'Israel', RB 96 (1989), pp. 511-17. —'Detournement de la vengeance du Seigneur contre Edom et les nations en Isa 63,16', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 105-10. —'Isai'e 34-35. Le cbltiment d'Edom et des nations, salut pour Sion. Contribution a 1'etude de la redaction du livre d'Isai'e', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 396-404. —'Oracles contre les nations et structures compares des livres d'Isaie et d'Ezechiel', BN 54 (1990), pp. 19-21. Gray, J., 'The Desert Sojourn of the Hebrews and the Sinai-Horeb tradition', VT 4 (1954), pp. 148-54. Grdseloff, B., 'Ed6m, d'apres les sources egyptiennes', RHJE 1 (1947), pp. 69-99. Gunkel, H., Genesis. Ubersetzt und erklart (HKAT, 1; Gottingen, 2nd edn, 1902). —'Jakob', PJ 176 (1919), pp. 339-62. —Einleitung in die Psalmen. Die Gattungen der religiosen Lyrik Israels (Gottingen, 1933). Gwaltney, W.C., 'The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature', in W.W. Hallo et al. (eds.), Scripture in Context II, More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, IN, 1983), pp. 191-211. Hadley, J.M., 'Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud', VT 37 (1987), pp. 180-211. Haller, M., 'Edom im Urteil der Propheten', in K. Budde (ed.), Vom Alien Testament (Fs K. Marti; BZAW, 41; Giessen, 1925), pp. 109-17. Hartberger, B., 'An den Wassern von Babylon...'. Psalm 137 auf den Hintergrund von Jeremia 51, der biblischen Edom-Traditionen und babylonischen Originalquellen (BBB, 63; Frankfurt am Main, 1986). Hay, L.C., 'The Oracles against the Foreign Nations in Jeremiah 46-51' (dissertation, Nashville, TN, 1960). Hayes, J.H., "The Usage of the Oracles against the Nations in Ancient Israel', JBL 87 (1968), pp. 81-92. Heerma van Voss, M.S.H.G., 'Een nieuwe Phoenix: Amara-West (Soedan)', JEOL IV/11 (1949-50), pp. 22-24. Helck, H.W., Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Agyptische Abhandlungen, 5; Wiesbaden, 2nd edn, 1971). Helyer, L.R., 'The Separation of Abraham and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narrative', JSOT 26 (1983), pp. 77-88. Herrmann, S., Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alien Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT, 85; Stuttgart, 1965). —'Der alttestamentliche Gottesname', EvT 26 (1966), pp. 281-93.

210

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

—'Die Bewaltigung der Krise Israels. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation des Buches Jeremia', in H. Donner et al. (eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Fs W. Zimmerli; Gdttingen, 1977), pp. 164-78. HOffken, P., 'Untersuchungen zu den Begriindungselementen der Vdlkerorakel des Alten Testaments' (dissertation, Bonn, 1977). Holladay, W.L., 'Prototype and Copies. A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah', JBL 79 (1960), pp. 351-67. —'Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XII 3-6', VT 16 (1966), pp. 53-64. House, P.R., The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup, 97, BLS 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Irsigler, H., Gottesgericht and Jahwetag. Die Komposition Zef 1,1-2,31, untersucht auf der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches (ATSAT, 3; St Ottilien, 1977). Janssen, E., Juda in der Exilszeit. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums (FRLANT, 69; Gottingen, 1956). Janzen, J.G., Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM, 6; Cambridge, MA, 1973). Jepsen, A., 'Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Vatergestalten', WZLeipzig 2/3 (195354), pp. 265-81. Jeremias, C., 'Die Erzvater in der Verkiindigung der Propheten', in H. Donner et al. (eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Fs W. Zimmerli; Gdttingen, 1977), pp. 206-22. Jeremias, J., Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkiindigung in der spaten Konigszeit Israels (WMANT, 35; Neukirchen, 1970). Jong, S. de, 'Hizkia en Zedekia. Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18.17-19.37/ Jes. 3637 tot Jer. 37.1-10', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 135-46. Kallai, Z., 'The Southern Border of the Land of Israel—Pattern and Application', VT 37 (1987), pp. 438-45. Kasher, A., Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs. Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE—70 CE) (TSAJ, 18; Tubingen, 1988). Kellermann, U., 'Der Amosschluss als Stimme deuteronomistischer Heilshoffnung', EvT 29 (1969), pp. 169-83. —Israel und Edom. Studien zum Edomhass Israels im 6.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Habil.Schr.; Miinster i. Westf, 1975). —'Erwagungen zum deuteronomischen Gemeindegesetz Dt 23,2-9', BN 1 (1977), pp. 33-47. —'Erwagungen zum historischen Ort von Psalm LX', VT 28 (1978), pp. 56-65. —'Psalm 137', ZAW 90 (1978), pp. 43-58. Keukens, K.H., 'Der irregulare Sterbesegen Isaaks. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation von Genesis 27,1-45', BN 19 (1982), pp. 43-56. Kitchen, K.A., 'Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars of Ramesses II', JEA 50 (1964), pp. 47-70. —Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical, 11:4 (Oxford, 1979). Knauf, E.A., 'Qaus', UF 16 (1984), pp. 93-95. —'Yahwe', VT 34 (1984), pp. 467-72. —'Alter und Herkunft der edomitischen Konigsliste Gen 36,31-39', ZAW 97 (1985), pp. 245-53. —Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1985).

Bibliography

211

—Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1988). —'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13. Edom und Arabien', BN 45 (1988), pp. 62-81. Koch, K., 'P—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung', VT 37 (1987), pp. 446-67. Kreuzer, S., Die Fruhgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkiindigung des Alien Testaments (BZAW, 178; Berlin and New York, 1989). Labuschagne, C.J., Deuteronomium, deel II (POT; Nijkerk, 1990). Leene, H., De vroegere en de nieuwe dingen bij Deuterojesaja (Amsterdam, 1987). Lemaire, A., 'Hadad 1'Edomite ou Hadad 1'Arameen?', BN 43 (1988), pp. 14-18. Lescow, T., 'Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6-7', ZAW 84 (1972), pp. 182-12. Lindsay, J., 'The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605-550 B.C.', PEQ 108 (1976), pp. 23-39. Luke, K., 'Esau's Marriage', ITS 25 (1988), pp. 171-90. Lust, J., 'Freud, Hosea and the Murder of Moses: Hosea 12', ETL 65 (1989), pp. 8193. Lutz, H.-M., Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Volker. Zur Vorgeschichte von Sach 12,1-8 und 14,1-5 (WMANT, 27; Neukirchen, 1968). Maag, V., 'Jakob—Esau—Edom', TZ 13 (1957), pp. 418-29. Maier, J., '"Siehe, ich mach(t)e dich klein unter den Volkern..." Zum rabbinischen Assoziationshorizont von Obadja 2', in L. Ruppert et al. (eds.), Kiinder des Wortes. Beitrage zur Theologie der Propheten (Fs J. Schreiner; Wiirzburg, 1982), pp. 203-15. Mailland, A., 'La "petite apocalypse" d'Isai'e. Etude sur les chapitres XXXIV et XXXV du livre d'Isai'e' (dissertation, Lyon, 1956). Marti, K., Das Dodekapropheton (KHAT, 13; Tubingen, 1904). Marx, A., 'A propos des doublets du livre de J£r£mie. Reflexions sur la formation d'un livre proph6tique', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy (Fs G. Fohrer; BZAWaa, 150; Berlin, 1980), pp. 106-20. —'A propos de Nombres XXIV: 19b', VT 37 (1987), pp. 100-103. Masing, U., Der Prophet Obadja. I: Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten Obadja (Tartu, 1937). McKay, H.A., 'Jacob Makes it across the Jabbok. An Attempt to Solve the Success/Failure Ambivalence in Israel's Self-consciousness', JSOT 38 (1987), pp. 3-13. McKenzie, S.L., 'The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XII 4-5', VT 36 (1986), pp. 311-22. Meer, W. van der, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw. De opbouw van het boek Joel" (dissertation, Kampen, 1989). Miller, J.W., Das Verhaltnis Jeremias und Hesekiels, sprachlich und theologisch untersucht (Assen, 1955). Moye, R.H., 'In the Beginning. Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 577-98. Miiller, I., 'Die Wertung der Nachbarvolker Israels Edom, Moab, Ammon, PhilistSa und Tyrus/Sidon nach den gegen sie gerichteten Drohspriichen der Propheten' (dissertation, Miinster i. Westf, 1970).

212

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Myers, J.M., 'Edom and Judah in the Sixth-fifth Centuries B.C.', in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies (Fs W.F. Albright; Baltimore, MD and London, 1971), pp. 377-92. Neef, H.-D., Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkiindigung des Propheten Hosea (BZAW, 169; Berlin and New York, 1987). Negenman, J., Een geografie van Palestina (Palaestina Antiqua, 2; Kampen, 1982). Niehr, H., Herrschen und Richten. Die Wurzel &pt im Alien Orient und im Alien Testament (FZB 54; Wiirzburg, 1986). Nobile, M., 'Beziehung zwischen Ez 32,17-32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ez 38-39) im Lichte der Endredaktion', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL, 74; Leuven, 1986), pp. 255-59. Ogden, G.S., 'Prophetic Oracles Against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communal Lament: The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7-22 and Obadiah', JSOT 24 (1982), pp. 89-97. Otto, E., Jakob in Sichem. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche, archdologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels (BWANT, 110 = VI, 10; Stuttgart, 1979). Paul, S.M., 'Amos 1:3—2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern', JBL 90 (1971), pp. 397403. Pfeifer, G., 'Denkformenanalyse als exegetische Methode, eriautert an Amos 1,2-2,16", ZAW88 (1976), pp. 56-71. Priest, J., 'The Covenant of Brothers', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 400-406. Prinsloo, W.S., The Theology of the Book of Joel (BZAW, 163; Berlin and New York, 1985). Rad, G. von, Das erste Buch Mose. Genesis Kapitel 25,19-50,26 (ATD, 4; Gdttingen, 5th edn, 1967). Raitt, T.M., A Theology of Exile. Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia, 1977). Reedijk, W., 'Jakob en Esau als spiegel voor joden en christenen. Enkele middeleeuwse joodse exegeten over Genesis 32', in S. Bellemakers et al. (eds.), Van horen en verstaan. Verklaring en gebruik van de Schrift (Fs P. Drijvers; Hilversum, 1987), pp. 37-47. Rendsburg, G.A., The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN, 1986). Rendtorff, R., Das Alte Testament. Eine Einfuhrung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2nd edn,1985). Renkema, J., ' "Misschien is er hoop". De theologische vooronderstellingen van het boek Klaagliederen' (dissertation, Franeker, 1983). Reventlow, H., Wachter uber Israel. Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW, 82; Berlin, 1962). Robinson, R.B., 'Levels of Naturalization in Obadiah', JSOT 40 (1988), pp. 83-97. Robinson, T.H., 'The Structure of the Book of Obadiah', JTS 17 (1916), pp. 402-408. Rose, M., 'Yahweh in Israel—Qaus in Edom?', JSOT 4 (1977), pp. 28-34. —Jahwe. Turn Streit um den alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen (TS, 122; Zurich, 1978). Rudolph, W., 'Obadja', ZAW 49 (1931), pp. 222-31. —Jeremia (HAT, 1,12; Tubingen, 3rd edn, 1968). —Joel—Amos—Obadja—Jona (KAT, 8.2; Gutersloh, 1971). Ruppert, L., 'Herkunft und Bedeutung der Jakob-Tradition bei Hosea', Bib 52 (1971), pp. 488-504.

Bibliography 213

213

Sarna, N.H., Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, 1989). Schmitt, H.-C., 'Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetic. Beobachtungen zur Bedeutung der "Glaubens"-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch', VT 32 (1982), pp. 170-89. Schneider, D.A., 'The Unity of the Book of the Twelve' (dissertation, Yale University, 1979). Sherwood, S.K., 'Had God Not Been on My Side.' An Examination of the Narrative Technique of the Story of Jacob and Laban—Gen 29,1-32,2 (European University Studies 23/400; Frankfurt am Main, 1990). Simian, H., Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetic Ezechiels. Form- und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36 (FZB, 14; Wiirzburg, 1974). Simons, J., Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia (Leiden, 1937). Smelik, K.A.D., '"Een vuur gaat uit van Chesbon". Een onderzoek naar Numeri 20.14-21; 21.10-35 en parallelplaatsen', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 61-109. —'De functie van Jeremia 50 en 51 binnen het boek Jeremia', NTT 41 (1987), pp. 265-78. —'Afdalen naar Egypte', in M.G.B. Harbers et al. (eds.), Tussen Nijl en Herengracht (Fs M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss; Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 9-16. Smith, S.H., '"Heel" and "Thigh": The Concept of Sexuality in the Jacob-Esau Narratives', VT 40 (1990), pp. 464-73. Snijders, L.A., 'Genesis 27, Het bedrog van Jakob', NTT 45 (1991), pp. 183-92. Stemberger, G., Die romische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (EF 195; Darmstadt, 1983). Stern, E., Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C. (Warminster, 1982). TengstrOm, S., Die Toledot-Formel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (CBOTS, 17; Uppsala, 1981). Thomas, D.W., 'The Sixth Century B.C.: A Creative Epoch in the History of Israel', JSS 6 (1961), pp. 33-46. Thompson, T.L., The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I: The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1—23 (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Torrey, C.C., 'The Edomites in Southern Judah', JBL 17 (1898), pp. 16-20. Vermeylen, J., 'L'Unite' du livre d'Isai'e', in J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isai'e. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unite et complexite de I'ouvrage (BETL, 81; Leuven, 1989), pp. 11-53. Vogelstein, M., 'Nebuchadnezzar's Reconquest of Phoenicia and Palestine and the Oracles of Ezekiel', HUCA 23 (1950-51), pp. 197-220. Vollmer, J., Geschichtliche Ruckblicke und Motive in der Prophetic des Amos, Hosea undJesaja (BZAW, 119; Berlin, 1971). VorlSnder, H., Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Europaische Hochschulschriften, 23/109; Frankfurt am Main, 1978). Vriezen, T.C., "The Edomite Deity Qaus', OTS 14 (1965), pp. 330-53. Vuilleumier, R., 'Les Traditions d'Israel et la libertd du prophete: Os6e', RHPR 59 (1979), pp. 491-98. Wallis, G., 'Die Tradition von den drei Ahnvatern', ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 18-40. Ward, W.A., 'The Shasu "Bedouine"', JESHO 15 (1972), pp. 35-60. Watts, J.D.W., Obadiah. A Critical Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI, 1969).

214

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Wehrle, J., Prophetic und Textanalyse. Die Komposition Obadja 1-21, interpretiert auf der Basis textlinguistischer und semiotischer Konzeptionen (ATSAT, 28; St. Ottilien, 1987). Weimar, P., 'Der Schluss des Amos-Buches. Ein Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Amos-Buches', BN 16 (1981), pp. 60-100. —'Obadja. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse', BN 27 (1985), pp. 35-99. Weinfeld, M., 'Kuntillet 'Ajrud Inscriptions and their Significance', SEL 1 (1984), pp. 121-30. Weippert, M., 'Edom. Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Edomiter auf Grund schriftlicher und archeologischer Quellen" (dissertation, Tubingen, 1971). —'Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Uber die S3s"w der a'gyptischen Quellen', Bib 55 (1974), pp. 265-80, 427-33. —'Edom und Israel', in G. Kraus and G. Miiller (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopadie IX (Berlin & New York, 1982), pp. 291-99. —'Remarks on the History of Settlement in Southern Jordan during the Early Iron Age', in A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archeology of Jordan, I (Amman, 1982), pp. 153-62. Wellhausen, J., Die kleinen Propheten. Ubersetzt und erkldrt (Berlin, 4th edn, 1963).. Wensinck, A.J., 'De oorsprongen van het Jahwisme', in Semietische studien uit de nalatenschap van Prof. Dr A.J. Wensinck (Leiden, 1941), pp. 23-50. Werner, W., Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes (BZAW, 173; Berlin and New York, 1988). Westermann, C., Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 40-66. Ubersetzt und erklart (ATD, 19; Gottingen, 1966). —Genesis II. Genesis 12-36 (BKAT, 1.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981). Wevers, J.W., Ezekiel (NCBC; London, 1969, repr. 1982). Whitt, W.D., "The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and their Relation to Genesis', ZAW 103 (1991), pp. 18-43. Whybray, R.N., The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Wildberger, H., Jesaja. 2. Teilband. Jesaja 13-27 (BKAT, 10.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978). Willi-Plein, I., Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alien Testaments. Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zuruckgehenden Biicher im hebraischen Zwolfprophetenbuch (BZAW, 123; Berlin and New York, 1971). —'Genesis 27 als Rebekkageschichte. Zu einem historiographischen Kunstgriff der biblischen Vatergeschichten', TZ 45 (1988), pp. 315-34. Wolfe, R.E., 'The Editing of the Book of the Twelve', ZAW 53 (1935), pp. 90-129. Wolff, H.W., Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (BKAT, 14.1; Neukirchen, 1961). —Dodekapropheton 2. Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14.2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969). —Dodekapropheton 3. Obadja und Jona (BKAT, 14.3; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977). —'Obadja—ein Kultprophet als Interpret', EvT 37 (1977), pp. 272-84. Woudstra, M.H., 'Edom and Israel in Ezekiel', CTJ 3 (1968), pp. 21-35. Yee, G.A., Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS, 102; Atlanta, GA, 1987). Zimmerli, W., 'Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel', in Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsaize zum Alien Testament, I (TBii, 19; Miinchen), pp. 41-119.

Bibliography 215

215

—'Das Wort des gottlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung', in Gottes Offenbarung, pp. 120-132. —Ezechiel (2 vols.; BKAT, 8; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969). Zwickel, W., 'Rehobot-Nahar', BN 29 (1985), pp. 28-34.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES

NEW TESTAMENT Genesis 1 1.1-2.3 1.26-28 1.28 2.4-4.26 2.4-7 2.4 2.7 3 4 5 5.1-6.8 5.1

162 127 127 128 127 127 126, 127 127 162 135, 162 127 127 126, 127, 151 5.2 127, 128 5.3 127 6.9 126, 127 7 161 9 137 128 9.1-7 127, 132, 10 161 127 10.1-11.9 10.1 126, 127 132 10.5 10.32 132 11.10-26 127 11.10 126, 127 11.27-25.11 128 11.27-12.5 130 11.27 126, 127, 131, 151 11.30 131

11.31-32 11.31 12-50 12-36 12 12.1-3 12.5 12.7 12.13 13.5-6 13.8-9 13.8 13.9 13.10-12 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.13 13.14 14.12 14.14 14.16 16 16.12 17.1-8 17.15-22 17.18-19 17.18 17.19 19.24-28 19.24 19.25 19.28 19.31-38

130 130, 131 133, 138 128 127, 164 128 131 131, 132 154 133 131 131 132 131 132 132 131 132 132 131 131 131 132, 151 133, 134 135 135 132 133 133 132 106 106 106 132

132 123 151 133 135 134 134, 135 130 130 130 16, 126, 135, 13739, 160, 202 122, 137, 25-35 140, 145 141, 154 25-33 25 139, 14043, 145, 147, 150, 153, 198 132 25.1-6 25.6 132, 133 134 25.9 128, 132, 25.12-18 133 25.12 126, 127 132 25.18 25.19-37.1 126, 129 25.19-35.29 116, 128 25.19-34 116 161 25.19-20 116, 126, 25.19 127 130 25.20

21 21.7 21.8-21 21.10-12 21.12-13 21.13 21.18 22.20-24 22.21 24.10 25-36

217

Index of References 25.21-28 25.22 25.23

140, 148 116, 138 116-18, 132, 133, 135, 138, 140, 143, 144 154 25.24-26 25.25 120, 138, 139 25.26 120, 124, 156 25.27-28 119 25.28 133 25.29-34 138-40, 148, 161, 204 25.30 117, 120, 135, 138 26 116 122, 152, 26.34-35 161, 202 26.34 122 26.35 122 27-33 140, 153 27 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 13840, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 161, 198, 202 27.1-4 133 27.5-17 133 119, 120, 27.11 138 120, 138 27.23 27.27-29 144, 159 27.28-29 120 27.28 118, 119 117, 118, 27.29 123, 130, 135, 138, 143, 144 27.30-33.20 164 118, 120, 27.36 156

27.37 27.39-40 27.39 27.40 27.41-45 27.41 27.43 27.46-28.9 27.46 28-33 28 28.1-4 28.3-4 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6-9 28.8 28.9 28.10-22

28.10 28.11 28.12 28.13-15 28.13-14 28.13 28.14 28.15 28.22 29-31 29-30 29.1 29.4 29.12 29.15 31.17-18 31.21-54 31.35 31.44-54 31.47 32-33

143, 144 119, 133, 144, 159 119, 138, 140 119, 138, 140-42, 144 122, 140 123 130, 148 141, 152, 161, 202 122 161, 198 116, 146, 154 122 120, 159 117 120, 160 122 122, 134 122 122 121, 123, 145, 147 121, 130, 148 123 123 161 141 120, 160 117, 141 141, 161 147 129, 130 117 148 130, 148 130 130 130, 131 148 124 130 130 116, 121,

32

32.2 32.3 32.4

32.5 32.6 32.8 32.8-9 32.9 32.10-13 32.11 32.12 32.13 32.14 32.19 32.21 32.22 32.23-33 32.26 32.29

32.31 32.32 32.33 33 33.1 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6-7 33.8 33.9 33.10 33.11 33.12-17

139-42, 149, 153, 172, 203 121, 123, 146, 201 123 121 118, 120, 138, 139, 149, 200 123 121, 123, 155 121 123 121 141, 160, 161 121, 146, 161 123 161 121 121, 123 121, 123 121 121, 145, 149, 154 121, 124 117, 121, 129, 135, 149 121 123 121, 124 123, 130, 155 123 123 123, 155 121, 123 123 121, 123, 155 125 121, 155 121, 123 123

218 33.13 33.14-15 33.14

33.15 33.16

33.17 33.18 34 35 35.1-15 35.7 35.9-15 35.9-12 35.10-12 35.10 35.15 35.16-18 35.22-26 35.29 36 36.1-37.1 36.1-37 36.1

36.2-3 36.5 36.6-8

36.6 36.7 36.8-9 36.8 36.9

36.10-14

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist 123 123 118, 120, 123, 138, 200 121, 123, 155 118, 120, 138, 200, 201 121 146 116 116, 154 121 121 129 117 129 121, 129, 135 121 124, 129 129 116, 124, 134 117, 139, 152, 153 128, 133 116 116, 118, 122, 126, 127, 135, 139, 161 122 116 120, 124, 201 130, 131 118, 133 201 118, 135, 139, 200 116, 118, 126, 127, 139, 161, 200 153

36.15-19 36.16 36.17 36.19 36.20-28 36.21 36.31-39

36.31 36.43 37.1 37.2 46.6 Exodus 15.7 Numbers 20.4 20.8 20.14-21 20.14 21.10-35 24.18-19 24.18 Deuteronomy 1.2 1.44 2.1-8 2.1 23 23.8-9

23.8 23.9 29.22 33.2

118, 139 118 118, 139 118, 139 153 139 118, 139, 153 118, 134, 142 118, 139 118 116, 127 131

76

170 170 170 149 170 171 171

173, 201 173 170 173, 201 170 170, 171, 178, 180 149, 170 170 106 171, 174, 178

Joshua 11.17 12.7 24.4

120, 173 120, 173 201

Judges 2.16-18

25

3.9-10 3.9 3.15 5.4-5 5.4 11.12 12.3

25 25 25 178 171 56 25

1 Samuel

11.3 2 Samuel 8.13-14

25

8.13

140, 144, 187 140

1 Kings 11.1-8 11.1 11.5 11.7 11.15-16 11.33 17.9-10

176 176 176 176 187 176 24

2 Kings 8.20-22 14.7-14 14.7 16.6 19.10 19.21-28 19.31 1 Chronicles 1.38 1.43 1.51 1.54 2 4 4.42

18.11 18.12 18.13

142, 143, 187 171 38, 176 187 61 194 77

171 171 171 171 153 153 171, 173, 201 171 171 171

Index of References 2 Chronicles 8.17 10 20 20.10 20.22 20.23 21.8 21.9 21.10 22 23 25.11-20 25.11 25.14 25.19 25.20 28.17

171 201 50, 56, 201 171 171 171 171 171 171 201 201 171 171 171, 176 171 171, 176 171

Ezra 2.53

111

Nehemiah 7.55 9.27

111 25

Job 12.6 15.21 24.5 39.5-8

66 66 133 133

Psalms 2.6 24.3 33.16 60

60.2 60.6-8 60.8-11 60.10 60.11 68.8-9 68.18 83.14-15 137

75 25 25 192, 193, 196 193 194 193 193 193 178 178 76 15,63, 187, 192-96

137.4 137.7-9 137.7 137.8-9 137.8 137.9

195 110, 196 183, 187, 195 195 195 194, 195

Proverbs 30-31.9 30.31

177 177

Isaiah 1 1.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 5.24 7 8.17 10.20 11.9 13-23 13-14 13 13.2 13.16 13.19-20 13.21-22 14.1 19.20 19.23-25 21.11-12 22.25 24 25.8 29.22 34-35

34

61 76 25 78 78 76 187 78 78 75 107 107 106, 196 94 195 106 106 78 25 204 56, 203 76 107 76 78 13, 15, 111, 112, 160, 189, 199 13, 15, 17, 70, 88, 105107, 10911, 158, 159, 162, 163, 191, 196, 201

219 34.1 34.2-4 34.2 34.5-7 34.6-7 34.6 34.8 34.9-17 34.9-10 34.11-17 34.13-14 34.19-21 35

36.1-6 36.14 37.7 37.22 43.11 45.15 45.21 46.3 47.14 48.1 48.2 51 51.17-23 52.1 56.7 57.13 58.1 63.1-6 63.1-5 63.1 63.3 63.6 63.8 65.11 65.25 66.20

109 108 109 108 81 107 81, 107-109 106 106 106 106 106 13, 107, 158, 159, 162 15 61 60 77 25 25 25 78 76 78 75 191 191 75 75 75 78 13, 111 189, 191 178, 192 192 191, 192 25 75 75 75

Jeremiah 2.4 2.24 2.26 4 4.1

78 133 62 58 62

220 4.10 5.1

5.20 6.4-5 6.4 6.5 6.9

6.22 6.23 6.24 6.26 7.5 9.3

10.20-21 10.20 10.21 10.22 12.12 13.15 13.17 14.6 14.18 15.8 15.11 15.19 16.17 17.18 21.1-31.12 22.24 23.24 25

25.1-11 25.9 25.12-14 25.13-38 25.15-29 25.15 25.17-18 25.18 25.26 25.27-29 25.27-28 25.28-29 25.29 26

26.17 26.18

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist 61 62 78 34

27

60,63 60,63

31.6 32.14 37.5 37.9 38.16 38.22 40.11 41.5 46-51

62 60 61

60,63 66 62

156, 204

27.18 29.8 31

93

93,94 94 60 66 76 62 133 62 66 62 62

62, 84 71 164 61

62, 84 69, 89, 92, 94, 95, 192

46.1-49.33 46.2 46.3 46.10 46.14 46.21 48

48.2 48.8 48.14 48.18 48.2 48.27 48.32 48.39 48.40 48.41 49

89 8'9 89 107

69,92 89 92 89 89 103 89

69, 89 69 77 77 77

81 62 61 79 63 133 60 61 62

49.7-11 49.7-8 49.7

184 190

49.8-15 49.8-10 49.8

58, 60, 62, 89, 90, 94,

49.9-10

21,69

96 81

61,94 81, 107

49.9

95 93 94 95 66 61 66 68 62 66 66 94 94

49.10-13 49.10-11 49.10

67, 68, 90, 96, 102, 110, 161, 162, 194,

49.12-13

93, 95, 97, 163, 168 59, 67, 73, 82, 83, 92, 94,95, 110 61, 62, 6466, 95, 194 93

94, 95, 102 61,62,66, 67, 82-84, 93, 162, 163, 168, 170-72, 198, 199 90-95, 102, 163

36, 69, 70, 73, 89, 91, 92,97, 185,

49.13

89, 90, 91, 92,96 59, 67, 73, 90, 92-95,

192

49.14-16

96, 104

110

68 96

49.14

92,95 64,96

49.15 49.16

96

13, 15, 16, 26, 58, 63, 67, 69, 73, 88-91, 93, 96, 98, 103107, 109,

68 68

49.12

201

49.1-33 49.1-7 49.1-6 49.1 49.4 49.6 49.7-22

159, 160, 162, 163, 172, 185, 191-96, 199 90,93 93, 94, 102 67, 68, 73, 92, 93, 94, 95,97

49.17-22 49.17-21

34, 60, 61, 63, 94, 95 61, 64 61,64,65, 67, 82-84, 95, 96, 195 111

91,93,94, 103, 109, 201

49.17

91,92

Index of References 49.18-22 49.18-21 49.18 49.19-21 49.19 49.20 49.22 49.23-27 49.23-24 49.23 49.25 49.26 49.27 49.28-33 49.28 49.29 49.30 49.31 49.32 49.33 49.34-51.64 49.34-39 50-51

50 50.2 50.23 50.24 50.29 50.31 50.32 50.39-40 50.39 50.40 50.43 50.44-46 50.45 51 51.11 51.13 51.27 51.37 51.41 51.43 51.46 51.48 51.56 53

91 106 106, 196 94, 196 94 62 94,96 96 60 60, 94, 96 96 96 96 96 60, 94, 97 96 93,97 60,96 93 96 96 96 89, 90, 93, 94, 103, 107 106 60,95 66 61 61 61 61 106 106 106, 196 60 94, 106, 196 62 63 98 61 34,60 90 66 90 60 60,66 66 66

Lamentations 25.1-26.6 1.21 183 192, 196 4 4.21-22 25.3 185, 187, 189-92, 194 25.4 4.21 183, 185 25.5 25.6 Ezekiel 1-24 25.7 44,48 72 25.8 3 48 25.9 5.8 46 25.11 5.11 25.12-14 5.13 46 48 5.14-15 14, 45, 46, 6 25.12 48, 50, 54 54 25.13 6.7 25.14 54 6.13 6.14 54 25.15 25.16 7.10 61 25.17 46 13.8 26.1-6 13.9 46 26.2 13.22 46 46 26.3 13.23 26.5 48 16.44-58 26.6 16.52 48 16.54 28.20-26 48 28.20-23 48 16.58 28.24-26 20.5 78 28.24 20.9 48 20.14 48 29 29.6 20.22 48 29.8-10 20.40 75 20.41 48 30.3 32.29 21 71 33-48 71 21.30 21.34 33-36 71 22.16 48 33 33.21-22 22.19 46 33.23-29 22.22 46 33.28 25 41,52,53, 34 109 14, 43, 44, 34.13 25-32 34.14 45, 47, 55 34.20 40, 41, 46, 25-26 34.21 47, 52, 53, 55, 85, 101, 34.27 34.29 113, 168

221 40, 46, 49, 52, 53, 55, 72 46, 52, 53, 182 46 46 46,53 46 46,53 46 46 13, 43, 46, 47, 53, 55, 97, 199 46, 53, 182 46, 53, 97 46, 47, 55 46, 53, 71 46 46 53 23, 46, 53 23,46 23 46 47 47 47 47 81 164 46 81 43,55 44,48 50 49 48 48 48 48,49 48 48 46 46 46 48

222 35-36

35

35.1-36.15

35.1-4

35.1 35.2 35.3

35.4 35.5-12 35.5-9 35.5-6

35.5

35.6-9 35.6 35.7-9 35.7-8 35.7

35.8

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist 15,23,43, 53-55, 57, 73, 103, 105, 10912, 160-63, 166, 172, 189, 197, 199-201, 203 13-16, 40, 43, 45-47, 50-57, 70, 72, 73, 87, 88, 98, 105, 107, 108, 111, 15860, 163, 168, 171, 182, 199, 201 43-48, 50, 51,54,5658, 108 43, 47, 50, 51,53,54, 56 44 44, 71, 200 43, 44, 48, 53, 54, 71, 200 44,53 51 43, 46, 5154 45,50,51, 53, 110, 182 46, 52, 53, 70, 71, 73, 202 108 35, 46, 52 44 51,53,54 44, 48, 54, 71, 163, 200 44, 54

35.9 35.1-36.15 35.10-15 35.10-13 35.10-12 35.10-11 35.10

35.11 35.12 35.13 35.14-15 35.14 35.15 36

36.1-15 36.1-11 36.1-2 36.1 36.2-5 36.2 36.3

36.4 36.5

36.6 36.7-9 36.7 36.8-12 36.8-11 36.8 36.1-15 36.11 36.12

44,46,51, 53, 110 13 70 43, 46, 52, 53 48,51,53, 160 50 44-46, 48, 53, 70, 79, 175, 185 46 44, 46, 48, 53, 71 53, 70, 73 43, 44, 51 44,99 44, 46, 53, 70, 71, 200 14, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 54, 56, 158, 159 44-46, 49, 50, 70, 109 50, 56 51 44, 71 44,48 46, 70, 160 46, 47, 50, 70, 160 44, 46, 47, 50, 54, 71 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 70, 160 44, 46, 48, 54, 71 51 46, 47, 48 23,44 49 44, 71 47 51 70, 160

36.13 36.15 36.16-32 36.16 36.22-27 36.22-23 36.33-36 36.36 37-38 37 37.11-14 37.15-28 38-39 38.2 38.8 39.4 39.17 47.1-12

Hosea 1 8.9 10.14 12 12.4-5

12.4 12.5-7 12.5 12.6 13.4 13.10 Joel 1.15 1.19-20 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.11 2.26-27 2.26 2.27 3.4 3.5 4

46

46, 48, 54 50 44 48 48 47 48 50 49 49 79

49, 108, 113 49 49 49 49 42

61 133 195

155, 156 137, 154, 156 154 156 155 154 25 62

74 75 74,75 74-76

74, 75 74 77 77 77 77 74-77

33, 40, 42, 85-87, 98, 112

223

Index of References 4.1-17 4.1-2 4.1 4.2-8 4.2 4.3 4.4-8

36 34 36 33 33

4.4 4.6

34, 102 33, 80-82, 85-87 34, 80 34,40

4.7-8

99

4.7 4.8 4.9-21 4.9-15 4.9 4.11-12

34, 80, 81 34, 74, 80

4.11 4.12 4.14 4.15 4.16-21 4.16-17 4.16 4.17

41 41

33, 34, 60 34

33,41 33,41 33, 42, 74 77 41

42, 77 42, 86 42, 74, 75, 77

4.18-21

80, 81, 86,

1.1 1.2 1.3-2.5 1.3-2.3

1.3-5

182 35,36,41. 81 35, 36, 42

40,41,85, 111-13, 168 40, 85-87, 149, 169 37, 169 42, 86 37 169 37

37 37 37,40 37,38,41, 86 37 37,40 37,38,41, 86 37

36, 38, 40, 86, 112, 168, 169, 199

1.11 1.13-15 1.13 1.14 2.1-3

37, 38, 114

2.1

37, 38

2.4-5

37 37 37 37 78 106 78 78 61 78 41 169

2.4 2.5 2.6

3.13 4.11

6 6.6 6.8 7.10-17 9

4.19

1

1.10 1.11-12

185 82 34,35,41,

Amos 1-2

1.7 1.9-10 1.9

5.6

36, 41, 42,

4.21

1.6-8 1.6

35, 36, 8082, 87, 102,

4.18

4.20

1.3 1.4

5.15

37 37 37 37

32, 33, 36, 67, 78, 82, 84, 86, 87,

9.12

9.13-15 9.13 9.15 Obadiah 1-18 1-14

1-8 1-7 1-6

9.2

9.3-4 9.3 9.4 9.8 9.11-15

9.11-12 9.11

39, 61, 67, 82-84, 86, 87, 102 82, 84, 95 84 82-84, 95 84

94

2 3-4 3

61, 64, 162 84,95 61, 64, 65, 99, 162, 195 28, 39, 61, 82, 83, 87, 62, 67, 82 65, 82, 83, 95, 98, 99 62, 67, 94,

29, 34, 60, 61,63,94, 162

4-6 4-5 4 5-6

95 5

6

28, 61, 6466, 83, 95, 98, 99, 194 61,62,66, 82-84, 163, 168

7-8

67, 68, 92,

7

27, 61, 68, 69, 99, 103

8-21 8-15

76 26,73,91, 98, 182, 183 26, 27, 100 27-29, 68, 71,78, 100, 163, 168

102

78, 87 39,41,84,

8-10

185

8

189, 203 39,42

189, 191 99, 100, 101, 103, 109, 110 58, 99, 109 26,98 59, 66, 67, 92,94

1-4 1

113

9.2-4

29-31, 41, 42, 78, 87, 185 39, 82, 102 39, 42, 82 39

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

224 9

10-21 10-15 10-14 10

27, 29, 71, 78, 100, 163, 168 33

85, 86, 87 33,70,72, 80, 81 26,27,29, 34,35,41, 72, 80, 86, 114, 158,

17-21 17-18 17-18 17

196

11-14 11

26-28, 100, 102, 113 26, 34, 102,

18

195

12-14 12 13 14

15-21 15-18 15-16 15

22, 28, 183 29, 70, 80, 158, 195 33,71 41, 76 42, 199 34, 79, 82 27, 100 26-28, 34, 41,42,74, 80, 81, 99103, 109, 110, 191,

16-18

41,87,88, 91,98,110, 159, 160 27, 30, 74, 99, 100102, 111,

19-21

19-20

19

20 21

191

16-17 16-21 16

26, 75, 77 26 26-29, 33,

2.7 3.9 4.3

41 78 78 25

Micah 1

1.2-5

160

7.7-10

189, 190

29,41,70

7.8

29 76

7.10

189 189

23, 26, 27, 29, 39, 42, 70, 71, 75, 77-79, 87, 100, 101 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 41, 70, 72, 75, 78-80, 87, 100, 163,

Nahum 1.10 3.10 3.19

168

194

16-21

34, 41, 42, 69, 71, 77, 92, 100, 103, 109,

26, 29, 30, 41,81, 111, 189, 203 41,42,70, 76, 78, 81, 86, 87, 102, 103, 160, 183, 185 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 70, 71,78, 163, 175, 185 24, 29, 70,

76

34, 195 60

Habakkuk 3.2 3.3

Zephaniah 2 3.11

60

178, 179

111 75

Zechariah 7.3 7.5

8.19 9.9

10.6 Malachi 1.2-5

189 189 189 25 78

41, 114, 144, 189,

176

1.2-3

25-27, 29, 30, 71, 78, 99, 100, 163, 168

1.2 1.3 1.4

3.19

199 114 168 168 114 76

61

1 Esdras 4.45

184

INDEX OF AUTHORS Aalders, G.C. 23 Ackroyd, P.R. 155, 156, 189, 190 Aharoni, R. 204 Andersen, F.I. 155 Astour, M.C. 180 Axelsson, L.E. 153, 178-80 Bach, R. 60,94 Bartlett, J.R. 15, 53, 97, 103, 138, 139, 141, 142, 148-50, 153, 169-78, 180, 184, 186, 187 Barton, J. 37, 169 Beentjes, P.C. 64, 201 Berge, K. 144, 148, 161 Bergler, S. 34, 36, 74, 80, 81, 82 Berridge, J.M. 84 Bewer, J.A. 23,69,99 Beyerlin, W. 84 Blank, S.H. 142, 144, 152, 176 Blum, E. 120, 131, 138-49, 151, 152, 161, 164-66, 170, 200 Boadt, L. 46, 55, 108 Boer, P.A.H. de 124 Breukelman, F.H. 126, 135 Bright, J. 98 Brodie, L.T. 164 Buber, M. 123, 145 Burrows, M. 71, 108 Butterweck, A. 204 Bohl, F.M.Th. de Liagre 121 Carroll, R.P. 91, 96, 97 Cnilds, B.S. 28, 126, 127 Clements, R.E. 55 Clines, D.J.A. 127, 128, 164 Coats, G.W. 123 Coggins, R.J. 22, 28, 75, 76, 100, 101

Cohen, G.D. 204 Cresson, B.C. 13, 14, 186, 188 Cross, P.M. 152 Daniels, D.R. 155, 156 Daube, D. 165 Day, J. 76 Deurloo, K.A. 121, 124, 127, 131, 135, 145, 164 Dicou, A. 16, 25, 44, 46, 48, 68, 69, 72, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 106-108, 111, 112, 117, 121, 123, 129, 145, 158, 164, 178, 192, 204 Diebner, B.J. 143, 152, 169, 171 Diedrich, F. 155, 165 Edel, E. 179, 180 Emerton, J.A. 90, 152 Eslinger, L.M. 155 Fishbane, M. 116, 123, 145, 169, 204 Fohrer, G. 23 Fokkelman, J.P. 117, 120-23, 129 Freedman, D.N. 155 Friedman, R.E. 64 Fritz, V. 169 Funs, H.F. 169 Galling, K. 170, 171 Gammie, J.G. 117, 121, 123 Gardiner, A.H. 179 Gerstenberger, E. 189 Gertner, M. 155 Gervitz, S. 120, 121, 124 Gese, H. 155 Geus, C.H.J. de 175 Geyer, J.B. 40, 55, 72, 85, 169

226

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Ginsberg, H.L. 175 Giveon, R. 179, 180 Goldingay, J. 128, 165 Good, E.M. 155 Gordis, R. 38, 169 Gosse, B. 15, 46, 48, 107, 108, 111, 169 Gray, J. 177 Grdseloff, B. 179, 180 Gunkel, H. 145, 190, 193 Gwaltney, W.C. 190 G6rg, M. 179, 180 Hadley, J.M. 179 Haller, M. 13, 14, 188 Hartberger, B. 15, 23, 52, 63-65, 67, 81,97, 110, 183, 185-87, 193, 195 Hay, L.C. 91 Hayes, J.H. 194 Heerma van Voss, M.S.H.G. 164, 178, 179 Helck, H.W. 180 Helyer, L.R. 131, 132 Hemelsoet, B. 164 Herrmann, S. 72, 179, 180 Holladay, W.L. 84, 155 House, P.R. 112 Hdffken, P. 64 Irsigler, H. 74 Janssen, E. 189, 190 Janzen, J.G. 94 Jepsen, A. 152 Jeremias, C. 165, 190, 191, 193 Jong, S. de 60, 61, 62 Kallai, Z. 120 Kasher, A. 174, 175, 186 Kellermann, U. 14, 15, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31,39,41,51-55,65,69,81, 101, 103, 106, 108, 110, 168, 169, 171, 173, 182, 184, 186, 188-97, 203, 204 Keukens, K.H. 144, 202, 203 Kitchen, K.A. 179, 180 Knauf, E.A. 97, 144, 151, 153, 171, 173, 174, 176-80

Koch, K. 152 Kreuzer, S. 178 Labuschagne, C.J. 171 Leene, H. 191 Lemaire, A. 153 Liedke, G. 30 Lindsay, J. 97, 175 Luke, K. 121, 152 Lust, J. 46, 55, 155 Maag, V. 142, 143 Maier, J. 204 Mailland, A. 13, 14, 183, 186 Marti, K. 23-25, 168 Marx, A. 90, 171 Masing, U. 76 McKay, H.A. 156, 164, 201 McKenzie, S.L. 155 Meer, W. van der 35, 36, 42, 77, 80, 81 Miller, J.W. 72 Moye, R.H. 164 Myers, J.M. 175 Miiller, I. 14, 185-87 Neef, H.-D. 155 Negenman, J. 173 Niehr, H. 30 Nobile, M. 55 Ogden, G.S. 182, 193-96 Otto, E. 138-40, 142, 149 Paul, S.M. 37, 169 Pfeifer, G. 168 Priest, J. 38 Prinsloo, W.S. 35,36,77,81

Rad, G. von 121, 139, 189 Raitt, T.M. 72 Reedijk, W. 204 Rendsburg, G.A. 138, 143 Rendtorff, R. 126, 189 Renkema, J. 185, 189, 190, 193 Reventlow, H. 52 Robinson, R.B. 28, 95, 100, 183 Rose, M. 177, 178, 180 Rudolph, W. 25, 74, 77, 81, 91

Index of Authors Ruppert, L. 155, 204 Schmid, H.H. 30 Schmitt, H.C. 200 Schneider, D.A. 28, 32, 33, 77, 79, 81, 113 Schult, H. 143, 152, 171 Sherwood, S.K. 124, 129 Simian, H. 14, 15, 47, 50-52, 54-57, 183, 184, 188 Smelik, K.A.D. 98, 164, 170 Smith, S.H. 124, 125, 155 Snijders, L.A. 204 Stemberger, G. 204 Stern, E. 175 Tengstro'm, S. 126, 127, 152 Thomas, D.W. 200 Thompson, T.L. 124, 126, 127, 152, 181 Torrey, C.C. 175 Vermeylen, J. 107 Vogelstein, M. 97 Vollmer, J. 155, 156 Vorlander, H. 147, 156, 164, 165, 187 Vriezen, Th.C. 176, 177 Vuilleumier, R. 155

227

Wallis, G. 142 Ward, W. A. 180 Watts, J.D.W. 21,23,25 Wehrle, J. 21-25, 27, 28, 58, 60, 65, 69, 78, 80,81,99, 101-103, 183, 185, 186, 199 Weimar, P. 21, 23-25, 32, 33, 63, 65, 78, 79, 83, 84, 98-101, 169 Weinfeld, M. 179 Weippert, M. 153, 173-76, 180, 186 Wellhausen, J. 168 Wensinck, A.J. 177 Werner, W. 91 Westermann, C. 153, 192 Wevers.J.W. 53,55 Whitt, W.D. 155, 156 Whybray, R.N. 151, 152 Wildberger, H. 185 Willi-Plein, I. 119, 120, 135 Wolfe, R.E. 21, 155, 156 Wolff, H.W. 23-25, 28-30, 36, 38, 39, 65, 76, 81, 99-101, 155, 189, 191, 199

Yee, G.A. 156 Zimmerli, W. 46, 200 Zwickel,W. 153

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Supplement Series 90 BIBLICAL HEBREW IN TRANSITION: THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL Mark F. Rooker 91 THE IDEOLOGY OF RITUAL: SPACE, TIME AND STATUS IN THE PRIESTLY THEOLOGY Frank H. Gorman, Jr 92 ON HUMOUR AND THE COMIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Edited by Yehuda T. Radday & Athalya Brenner 93

JOSHUA 24 AS POETIC NARRATIVE William T. Koopmans

94 WHAT DOES EVE Do TO HELP? AND OTHER READERLY QUESTIONS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT David J.A. Clines

95 GOD SAVES: LESSONS FROM THE ELISHA STORIES Rick Dale Moore 96 ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PLOT IN GENESIS Laurence A. Turner 97 THE UNITY OF THE TWELVE Paul R. House 98 ANCIENT CONQUEST ACCOUNTS: A STUDY IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN AND BIBLICAL HISTORY WRITING K. Lawson Younger, Jr 99 WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS R.N. Whybray

100 A TRIBUTE TO GEZAVERMES: ESSAYS ON JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND HISTORY Edited by Philip R. Davies & Richard T. White

101

THE CHRONICLER IN HIS AGE Peter R. Ackroyd

102 THE PRAYERS OF DAVID (PSALMS 51-72): STUDIES IN THE PSALTER, II Michael Goulder

103 THE SOCIOLOGY OF POTTERY IN ANCIENT PALESTINE: THE CERAMIC INDUSTRY AND THE DIFFUSION OF CERAMIC STYLE IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES Bryant G. Wood 104 PSALM STRUCTURES : A STUDY OF PSALMS WITH REFRAINS Paul R. Raabe

105 RE-ESTABLISHING JUSTICE Pietro Bovati

106

GRADED HOLINESS: A KEY TO THE PRIESTLY CONCEPTION OF THE WORLD Philip Jenson

107

THE ALIEN IN ISRAELITE LAW Christiana van Houten

108

THE FORGING OF ISRAEL: IRON TECHNOLOGY, SYMBOLISM AND TRADITION IN ANCIENT SOCIETY Paula M. McNutt

109 SCRIBES AND SCHOOLS IN MONARCHIC JUDAH:

A socio-ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH David Jamieson-Drake

110 THE CANAANTTES AND THEIR LAND: THE TRADITION OF THE CANAANITES Niels Peter Lerache 111 YAHWEHANDTHESUN: THE BIBLICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE J. Glen Taylor 112 WISDOM IN REVOLT: METAPHORICAL THEOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF JOB Leo G. Perdue 113 PROPERTY AND THE FAMILY IN BIBLICAL LAW Raymond Westbrook 114 A TRADITIONAL QUEST: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF Louis JACOBS Edited by Dan Cohn-Sherbok

115

116

117 118

I HAVE BUILT YOU AN EXALTED HOUSE: TEMPLE BUILDING IN THE BIBLE IN LIGHT OF MESOPOTAMIAN AND NORTHWEST SEMITIC WRITINGS Victor Hurowitz NARRATIVE AND NOVELLA IN SAMUEL: STUDIES BY HUGO GRESSMANN AND OTHER SCHOLARS 1906-1923 Translated by David E. Orton Edited by David M. Gunn SECOND TEMPLE STUDIES: I.PERSIAN PERIOD Edited by Philip R. Davies SEEING AND HEARING GOD WITH THE PSALMS : THE PROPHETIC LITURGY FROM THE SECOND TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM Raymond Jacques Tournay Translated by J. Edward Crowley

119

TELLING QUEEN MICHAL'S STORY: AN EXPERIMENT IN COMPARATIVE INTERPRETATION Edited by David J.A. Clines & Tamara C. Eskenazi

120 THE REFORMING KINGS :

121 122 123 124 125 126

CULT AND SOCIETY IN FIRST TEMPLE JUDAH Richard H. Lowery KING SAUL IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF JUDAH Diana Vikander Edelman IMAGES OF EMPIRE Edited by Loveday Alexander JUDAHITE BURIAL PRACTICES AND BELIEFS ABOUT THE DEAD Elizabeth Bloch-Smith LAW AND IDEOLOGY IN MONARCHIC ISRAEL Edited by Baruch Halpem and Deborah W. Hobson PRIESTHOOD AND CULT IN ANCIENT ISRAEL Edited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan W.M.L.DE WETTE, FOUNDER OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM: AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY John W. Rogerson

127

THE FABRIC OF HISTORY: TEXT, ARTIFACT AND ISRAEL'S PAST Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman

128 BIBLICAL SOUND AND SENSE: POETIC SOUND PATTERNS IN PROVERBS 10-29 Thomas P. McCreesh

129 130 131

132 133

THE ARAMAIC OF DANIEL IN THE LIGHT OF OLD ARAMAIC Zdravko Stefanovic STRUCTURE AND THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH Michael Butterworth FORMS OF DEFORMITY:

A MOTIF-INDEX OF ABNORMALITIES, DEFORMITIES AND DISABILITIES IN TRADITIONAL JEWISH LITERATURE Lynn Holden CONTEXTS FOR AMOS: PROPHETIC POETICS IN LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE Mark Daniel Carroll R. THE FORSAKEN FIRSTBORN: A STUDY OF A RECURRENT MOTIF IN THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES

Roger Syre"n 135 ISRAEL IN EGYPT:

136 137

A READING OF EXODUS 1-2 G.F. Davies A WALK THROUGH THE GARDEN: BIBLICAL, ICONOGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY IMAGES OF EDEN Edited by P. Morris and D. Sawyer JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS : BIBLICAL THEMES AND THEIR INFLUENCE Edited by H. Graf Reventlow & Y. Hoffman

138 TEXT AS PRETEXT:

139 140

141

ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT DAVIDSON Edited by R.P. Carroll PSALM AND STORY: INSET HYMNS IN HEBREW NARRATIVE J.W. Watts PURITY AND MONOTHEISM: CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS IN BIBLICAL LAW Walter Houston

DEBT SLAVERY IN ISRAEL AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Gregory C. Chirichigno

142

DIVINATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND ITS NEAR EASTERN ENVIRONMENT: A SOCIO-HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION Frederick H. Cryer

143 THE NEW LITERARY CRITICISM AND THE HEBREW BIBLE David J.A. Clines and J. Cheryl Exum 144 LANGUAGE, IMAGERY AND STRUCTURE IN THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines

145 146

THE SPEECHES OF MICAH: A RHETORICAL-HISTORICAL ANALYSIS Charles S. Shaw THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE FROM THE PALAEOLITHIC PERIOD TO ALEXANDER'S CONQUEST

Gosta W. Ahlstrom 147 VOWS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Tony W. Cartledge 148 IN SEARCH OF 'ANCIENT ISRAEL' Philip R. Davies

149

PRIESTS, PROPHETS AND SCRIBES: ESSAYS ON THE FORMATION AND HERITAGE OF SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM IN HONOUR OF JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll and Philip R. Davies (eds)

150 151

152 153

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 1-8 Janet A. Tollington THE CITIZEN-TEMPLE COMMUNITY J.P. Weinberg

UNDERSTANDING POETS AND PROPHETS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF GEORGE WISHART ANDERSON A.G. Auld THE PSALMS AND THEIR READERS: INTERPRETIVE STRATEGIES FOR PSALM 18 D.K. Berry

154

155

156

MlNHAH LE-NAHUM:

BIBLICAL AND OTHER STUDIES PRESENTED TO NAHUM M SARNA IN HONOUR OF HIS ?OTH BIRTHDAY Edited by M. Brettler and M. Fishbone LAND TENURE AND THE BIBLICAL JUBILEE: DISCOVERING A MORAL WORLD-VIEW THROUGH THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE Jeffrey A. Fager THE LORD' s SONG: THE BASIS, FUNCTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHORAL MUSIC IN CHRONICLES J.E. Kleinig

157 THE WORD HESED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE G.R. Clark 158 IN THE WILDERNESS Mary Douglas 159 THE SHAPE AND SHAPING OF THE PSALTER J.C. McCann 160 KING AND CULTUS IN CHRONICLES: WORSHIP AND THE REINTERPRETATION OF HISTORY William Riley 161 THE MOSES TRADITION George W. Coats

162 OF PROPHET'S VISIONS AND THE WISDOM OF SAGES: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF R. NORMAN WHYBRAY ON HIS SEVENTIETH BIRTHDAY Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines

163 164

FRAGMENTED WOMEN: FEMINIST (SUB)VERSIONS OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVES J. Cheryl Exura HOUSE OF GOD OR HOUSE OF DAVID: THE RHETORIC OF 2 SAMUEL 7 Lyle Eslinger

166

THE ARAMAIC BIBLE Edited by M. McNamara and D.R.G. Beattie

167

SECOND ZECH ARI AH AND THE DEUTERONOMIC SCHOOL Raymond F. Person

168 THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBS R.N. Whybray 169 EDOM, ISRAEL'S BROTHER AND ANTAGONIST: THE ROLE OF EDOM IN BIBLICAL PROPHECY AND STORY Bert Dicou