No title

DociRoaL forz the stxJOy o p t h e OLD testament

issue 2 1976

ISSN 0309-0892 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Editors

Address

David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies David M. Gunn

Dept. of Biblical Studies The University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN England

© JSOT, 1978 Copyright is waived where reproduction of material from this journal is required for classroom use or course work by students. SUBSCRIPTION The Journal will appear at least four times per subscription Unit (October - September), with 76 pages in each issue. The price, postage included, for Unit 3 (1978-1979: Issues 9-12) is, per unit: Individuals

UK £4.25 Germany DM20.00 Elsewhere

USA/Canada $8.50 (US or Canadian) Netherlands f1. 21.00 £5.00 (sterling)

Institutions

UK £5.25 Germany DM24.00 Elsewhere

USA/Canada $12.00 (US or Canadian) Netherlands f1. 26.OO £6.00 (sterling)

Students may subscribe at the above rates less 25%, submitting with their subscription the name and address of their institution. Cheques in the subscriber's own currency, from the countries named above, are acceptable. Subscribers in other countries should send a bank draft payable in sterling (£ U.K.). Please make cheques payable to JSOT and send payment with order to the Journal at the above address. Our Giro account number is 63 535 0009. U.K. subscribers may pay directly into this account, and European subscribers may pay into it through International Giro. If an invoice is required, a charge of £0.25 (or equivalent) will be made for this service. Units 1 and 2 ( = Issues 1-3 and 5-8 respectively), for 1976-7 and 1977-8, are available at the prices given above.

uouvuial foRttae stao¿y op t h e oto testament Issue 2

April 1977 CONTENTS

Peter R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler as Exegete

2-32

Peter C. Craigie, Three Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah

33-49

Sean M. Warner, The Patriarchs and Extra-Biblical Sources

50-61

J. Maxwell Miller, The Patriarchs and Extra-Biblical Sources: A Response

62-66

John H. Eaton, A New Gattung in O.T. Literature? A Hebrew Teachers1 Dream (A presentation of Readings in Biblical Hebrew, ed. J.H. Eaton)

67-74

J. Weingreen, The Concepts of Retaliation and Compensation in Biblical Law (abstract)

75

Notice;

76

forthcoming articles

2

JSOT 2 (1977) 2-32

THE CHRONICLER AS EXEGETE Peter R. Ackroyd, University of London, King's College, Strand, London WC2R 2LS. ÍA study of three passages in the writings of the Chronicler - 1 Chron. IO on the death of Saul, 2 Chron. 32:24-33 on aspects of the significance of Hezekiah, and the Ezra passages in Ezra 7-10 and Neh.8 (-IO) - traces some aspects of the exegetical method of this biblical theologian. The study involves a measure of critical appraisal of two recent works, those of T. Willi and R. Mosis (see nn.4 and 5 for bibliographical details), in which this topic has been very fully examined. The paper here presented was originally read to the Oxford Biblical Congress of 1973 and was to have been published in the proceedings of that Congress. The long delay in publication has prompted its presentation here in a slightly revised form, though the author is aware that he has not at every point taken sufficiently full account of some of the work done on the Chronicler since that date. That newer work has not, however, suggested any radical modification of the thesis here presented.! The theme of this paper arose from repeated study of the writings of the Chronicler during the past few years, both in preparation for lectures on The Age of the Chronicler / l / and for a short commentary on I and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah / 2 / . The rehandling of earlier material by the Chronicler, the relationship between him and his sources, the purpose or purposes for which this work was written, the nature of the readership or of the hearers, the strongly homiletical features of the work / 3 / - all these features raise the question of exegesis, of the Chronicler as exegete. The intention to read the paper was underlined by the appearance, in the latter part of 1972, of an important study which contributes much to the whole area of discussion. This is the monograph by Thomas Willi, whose title Die Chronik als Auslegung / 4 / indicates its relevance to the present study. It was only after the acceptance of the paper for the Congress that a further substantial study appeared which had also to be taken into account. This is Rudolf Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes / 5 / , a discussion with which I find myself closely in sympathy since it presents a view of the Chronicler as theologian akin to that which I have sought to maintain in various articles as well as in my commentary, and it also appreciates what

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

3

had become very apparent to me, namely that there is a marked degree of patterning and stylising in the Chronicler's writings which needs to be carefully appreciated /6/. In view of the two major studies already mentioned, in which some themes which must properly be the concern of this paper are very fully developed in sharply divergent fashion, it may well seem an impertinence for me to offer such a brief contribution to so important and controversial a subject. It has therefore seemed proper to attempt no wide-ranging discussion and to make only very brief and tentative concluding comments. The subject, for all the space now devoted to it in these recent studies, is by no means fully covered, and some parts of the works concerned with it are in reality concerned with much wider and important problems of interpretation of biblical literature in the post-exilic period. What I propose to do here is to offer some comments on three passages in the Chronicler's work, by way of inviting attention to some aspects of his method and from this, not to generalise about either method or purpose, but simply to note a few pointers which will need fuller investigation /7/. I.

Saul (1 Chron. 10)

It has for long been felt to be a curiosity in the Chronicler's presentation that one chapter is devoted to Saul, since it is so evident that his primary interest lies in David and the true royal dynasty which stems from him. It is not therefore surprising that it has sometimes been suggested that the passage is an insertion, though, quite apart from other difficulties, this suggestion faces the virtually insuperable one that it is not possible to see why, granted the overall outlook of the work, any later editor should have added something so apparently out of step /8/. More appropriate are the endeavours to see a relationship between the placing of the Saul narrative and what follows, and these have generally been in terms of the contrast between the dark and the light /9/. In The Age of the Chronicler, I suggested that we may trace in the writings of the Chronicler a recurrence of what I described as the 'exile and restoration* theme. This is to be seen first in 1 Chron. 9:1, where the conclusion of the genealogies is set out in terms of the exiling of Judah for unfaithfulness (mafal) /10/, and this is followed by the list of returned exiles, closely related to that of Neh. 11. This theme is then picked up in ch. 10:

JSOT 2 (1977)

4

1

the theme of restoration, of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple, of the establishment in security of the people of God, is presented...in terms of contrast. It is out of the moment of disaster, the consequence of the unfaithfulness of Saul, that David is brought to the throne. It is, of course, the first true kingship; yet it was by transfer from the failed Saul. It is only at this moment that Jerusalem is occupied; but it is the occupation of the city which now shows that a new age has begun. Only now can the true and full life begin for the people, but it can nevertheless be pictured as restoration, since it is in a sense the rehabilitation of the true people1 /ll/. This interpretation, which goes beyond the understanding of the Saul narrative as merely a foil to the David material, is related to the recognition of this same pattern throughout the chapters which follow, right up to the end of the narrative in the story of Ezra (and the Nehemiah narrative - rehabilitation out of disaster may be seen to be related in style). What I suggested in rather generalised terms is more fully developed by Mosis in his substantial chapter on the Saul narrative /12/. The full argument is worth examination, but I shall here simply select the main lines and incorporate one or two additional points and critical comments. There are, I believe, a number of points where an attempt at explaining every detail of 1 Chron. IO in comparison with 1 Sam. 31 breaks down, and it is better in these to recognize either that the modifications are of no immediate significance or that they derive from other considerations. The very full and sometimes overelaborate analysis by Willi in his consideration of the types of modification serves to point to the very wide range of possibilities which exist, though his discussion all too often tends to bypass the question of what exactly was the text before the Chronicler /13/. Mosis rightly emphasises /14/, as others have done, that the story of the battle leads up to the total destruction of the house of Saul (v. 6 ) . The occurrence of personages from Saul's family elsewhere (the genealogy 8:33-40 largely = 9:39-44, and the reference in 12:2) does not fundamentally affect this total judgement. It is ratified in the entire absence in the Chronicler of any material relevant to the succession to Saul and the long struggle of 2 Sam. 2-4, and similarly the absence of the Mephibosheth narratives of 2 Sam. 9; 16:1-4; 19:24-30; as well as in the exclusion from 1 Chron. 15 of any reference to the barrenness of Michal which in 2 Sam. 6 is quite evidently tied in with the

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

5

problem of the succession to David that forms so important an element in the succeeding chapters. We may observe too that the Chronicler, who does not use the narrative of 2 Sam. 21:1-14, may nevertheless be seen to take over its motif of total obliteration of the house of Saul (2 Sam. 21:5). 10:7 describes the flight of all Israel who are in the Valley and the occupation of their cities by the Philistines. This represents a modification of the geographical description given in 1 Sam. 31:7 which speaks of those in the Valley (of Jezreel) and in the Jordan valley /15/. Mosis argues /16/ that the changes here, and the avoidance of other geographical identifications in the chapter /17/ mean that the Chronicler saw here the flight of the whole people - i.e. a denudation of the land and its taking over entire by the enemy. It may be doubted if so much should be read into the verse. The Chronicler appears rather to preserve here some of the elements of the older story without modifying them essentially. The point which Mosis wishes to make comes out subsequently and he is straining the evidence to get what he believes to be a consistent witness to the Chronicler's intention. It is more probable that uncertainty as to the precise meaning of the geographical terms underlies the textual difference. It is in fact in w . 8-10 that some hints of this total disaster may be detected, and these are further elaborated in vv. 13-14. Caution must again be exercised, since it is by no means impossible that more than one version of the death of Saul and the fate of his corpse had been preserved, so that the differences between Samuel and Chronicles must not be overpressed. ' We may recall that there is an alternative version of the death of Saul preserved in 2 Sam. 1 which does not entirely accord with that in 1 Sam. 31. Mosis rightly observes that some of the changes in the Chron. text remove any reference to Beth-Shean and locate the head of Saul and his weapons in Philistia itself. The reference to the temple of Ashtoreth which, from its sequel, points probably, though not certainly, to Beth-Shean, is replaced by a general reference to 'the temple of their god(s)1. I had myself supposed /18/ that this was because the mention of the name of the goddess was unacceptable, but this leaves the puzzling reference to Dagon. Mosis provides a better explanation. By substituting the general term 'god(s)', the Chronicler invites the reader simply to think of the normal Philistine deity, and in parallel with this, he places a reference to the 'temple of Dagon'. It is there that the head of Saul is hung up. Mosis suggests /19/ that the Chronicler is here making use of the ark narrative of 1 Sam. 5: 1-6 and

6

JSOT 2 (1977)

suggesting a parallel between the taking of the ark and the overthrow of Dagon in his shrine (his head and hands broken off) and the defeat of Israel, powerless to resist the Philistines, symbolised by the presence of the head of Saul which is within the power of the alien. This might be termed a reversal of the ark theme. In 1 Sam. 5-6, Yahweh, symbolised by his ark, is the real power in the land of the enemy. By contrast here, Israel, symbolised by Saul's head, is impotent. It is certainly noteworthy that the 'head1 motif does not appear in 1 Sam. 31. Suggestions that the phrase which appears in 1 Chron. was to be found in the original 1 Sam. text - and now lost - are without firm foundation, though they are not so unlikely as Mosis supposes /20/. The decision on this point is not in fact important. It is more important to acknowledge that Mosis is right in seeing a possible allusion to the ark theme. I would add the further suggestion that the narrative in the form in which the Chronicler found it or which he created may also have been influenced by that of 1 Sam. 17 in which (verse 54) the head of the Philistine giant is said to have been taken to Jerusalem and, by implication, exposed in the shrine there. There is a neat contrasting parallel between David's killing and beheading of the giant, with its sequel in the flight of the Philistines and the 'dedication* of the head, and the death and beheading of Saul, the flight of Israel and the 'dedication' of his head. And there is here a link with a further point underlined by Mosis /21/, namely that the narrative of Israel and the Philistines has already in 1 Sam. 4-6 moved from being historical to being typical. He quotes H.W. Hertzberg /22/ as commenting that the Philistines appear 'not so much as political opponents, but as heathen Israel always regarded her differences with the Philistines, the 'uncircumcised', as being in the realm of sacral theology rather than politics the compiler (is) governed not by political and military, but by theological interests'. This point is stressed in the late narrative of 1 Sam. 7, but it is not new there; it has been developed from the already stylised presentation of the Philistine-Israelite conflict in 1 Sam. 4-6 and in the other narratives of 1 Sam.,not least that of ch. 17. The Chronicler may thus be seen rather as the developer of an already existing theological tradition than as an innovator in this respect. But the allusion to the ark which Mosis finds here fits well with the further use of it in 1 Chron. 13:3, which stresses that the ark was not sought (drji) in the time of Saul /23/, and the modification of 1 Chron. 15 where Michai becomes a despiser of the ark /24/ rather than a despiser of David's dancing and self-exposure. Thus even with the discounting of Mosis' less than satisfactory interpretation of verse 7, we may see the propriety of his understanding of w . 8-10 as pointing to

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

7

a total overthrow of Israel, a placing of them within the power of the alien, an apparent defeat of God. The degree of parallel to the exilic situation becomes clear /25/. The detailed comment of the Chronicler on the reign of Saul and its significance comes in vv. 13-14 /26/. The recognition that this points up the total rejection of Saul and his house is readily made. Here again Mosis, by a detailed analysis of the phrases used, makes the meaning of the passage clearer. (1) He points to the wide use of the word ma c al /27/, reveals its use especially of religious unfaithfulness, and its particular links to conquest and exile themes /28/. This usage, common in the Chronicler's own writing, is also to be found particularly in Ezekiel, in Deuteronomy (cf. esp. Deut. 32:51f.), and in Neh. 1:8. Its use in the Ezra narrative (Ezra 9 and 10) in relation to the apostasy involved in foreign marriages is of particular interest in that it virtually equates unfitness for being in the land (so Deut. 32:51f. of Moses and Aaron) with unfitness to be the true people of God. (2) Saul fails to keep the word of Yahweh; this has been thought to refer to either 1 Sam. 13 or 1 Sam. 15, the two disobedience and condemnation narratives concerning Saul. Mosis considers it to be unlikely that the Chronicler left the matter thus open, and observes that the Targum here makes a reference both to the Amalekite war of 1 Sam. 15 and to the massacre of the priests of Nob in 1 Sam. 22. Mosis himself shows the close connections of the phrase afamar d e bar Yahweh with Deuteronomy and with Ps. 119; he shows how it is linked with the possession of the land and the theme of 'rest' (m e nuhah); he observes how such failure is linked to conquest by aliens, as in the case of Rehoboam and Shishak. He refers to 2 Chron . 34:21 which speaks of there being only a remnant of Judah because of their not keeping the word of Yahweh. Thus a similar range of ideas comes into play at this point, suggestive of the themes of the land and its occupation, of exile and judgement. Mosis1 criticism of the endeavour to find allusion to a particular Saul narrative in the wording used is reasonable. We may allow that the Chronicler's allusions are not necessarily to be narrowly limited. What these last verses of 1 Chron. IO in fact do is invite the reader to contemplate the whole Saul tradition familiar in its already strongly negative form in 1 Sam. - and see it in the light of the comments. The result - and here the Targum may be said to be not merely an endeavour to make precise what seems indefinite, but an aligning of narratives with the comment in a homiletic fashion - is that for the reader now familiar with the

8

JSOT 2 (1977)

Chronicler's judgement, it becomes even more difficult than with only 1 Samuel available to see the more positive side of Saul's achievement. Saul becomes even more clearly the symbol of the disobedient /29/. I would myself wish to draw attention to the poetic fragment in 1 Sam. 15:22f. which so neatly equates improper religious practice and apostasy /30/, and hence suggest a closer link than Mosis allows between this second expression and the third. (3) Saul is guilty of not seeking (drìj) Yahweh. The wider use of this expression again points to the theme of apostasy and so to inevitable rejection. The denial that Saul ever sought Yahweh /31/ represents in effect a repudiation of the account in 1 Sam. 28 to which the last phrase of verse 13 alludes; Saul is in fact there described as having sought Yahweh in vain by every known legitimate mechanism (so v.6), and only then turning to forbidden necromantic practice. In his exposition, Mosis repudiates the alternative suggested by Willi /32/ that v. 131D is the kernel around which the condemnatory phrases have been exegetically grouped. I think he is right in this critical remark, but it would seem more probable that we should go further and suggest that this last clause of v.13 is a gloss - the exegetical comment of a later scribe, who identifies the particular moment and thereby sustains the Chronicler's negative judgement and at the same time clarifies the relationship between alien religious practise and apostasy to which I have referred above. In fact we may observe that in doing this he makes explicit an explanation of Saul's name which is negative. This is brought out by Willi when he observes the use in this phrase of the key-words of 1 Sam. 28: s'alai b e Yahweh, v. 6; dar as, v. 7; s*â*al v. 16 /33/. The phrase w e gam lis e> 6l bä*6b may be seen to contain both allusion and pun. Saul (sä*ul) does not sa*al of Yahweh, but of a medium. If we may see a relic in the Samuel birth story of a Saul tradition - not an equating, but a motif /34/ - then we may see the possibility that a positive appraisal of Saul - was he not the one asked £5*ΰΐ of Yahweh? - has been lost to him; there remains only a negative tradition /35/, utilised in some measure in 1 Sam. 28 and taken further in the addition to 1 Chron. 10:13. The occur­ e> rence of lidros as an alternative to lis ol may be seen as a link­ ing of this theme with what follows, so that we might paraphrase 'he even inquired of a medium, inquired in the sense in which he did not inquire of Yahweh'. Mosis' analysis of this passage and the final summary /36/ in which he notes how many of the allusions are to be found paralleled more fully in narratives concerning post-Solomonic rulers, suggests to him, and very properly, that the Saul narrative is used skil­ fully to present a pattern which is to be seen more fully

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

9

exemplified in subsequent parts of the Chronicler's work. But there is one further aspect of the discussion which needs consideration. In a comment on the final clause of 10:14 'and he (Yahweh) turned over the kingdom to David, the son of Jesse', in the context of his discussing the inadequacy of regarding the Saul narrative as merely a dark foil to the brightness of the account of David, he writes '(This expression) does not prove, any more than do the other transition formulae at the end of the accounts of later kings, that what precedes is merely introduction to what follows and has no signficance of its own' /37/. It must be clear that the use - and modification - of the transition formulae is part of the mechanism the Chronicler inherited from his predecessors. He utilises them to show judgement or approval on what has been related. Equally it is clear that the use of such a formula cannot be said (as Mosis rightly argues) to reduce the significance of what precedes. But what he does not take into account is the particular nature of the transition formula here. At a later point /38/, commenting on vv. 11-12, he notes that the only element of the tradition of the affection of the men of Jabesh-Gilead for Saul which the Chronicler uses is the one of his burial in Jabesh. David's approving comment in 2 Sam. 2:4-7 and the reburial of Saul and his sons in the grave of Kish in 2 Sam. 21:11-14 are not used. Thus the only burial comment for Saul places him in a remote grave, not in a proper (royal) grave. Here is a negative counterpart to a common element of the transition formulae, namely the reference to proper burial or otherwise, according to the quality of the king in question. Thus Saul's burial is itself negatively stated. But the phrase in verse 14 wayyasseb'et-melûkâh is not found in any other transition formula. The significant parallel to it is to be found in 2 Chron. 10:15 which describes as a nesibbäh from God the refusal of Rehoboam to respond to the people's demand; this is taken over from the corresponding passage in 1 Kings 12:15 which is identical except that it employs the alternative word sibbáh from the same root sbb. This suggests that the Chronicler, familiar with and approving the description of the disruption as a 'turning about' by God then applies this same concept to the loss of the monarchy to the house of Saul /39/. In other words, for him the change from Saul to David is to be seen as being as momentous for Israel's history as the change from the age of David and Solomon, the age of the united kingdom, to that of the kings of the south alone. It is a moment of judgement of a kind which may be regarded as typical /40/ rather than merely historical /41/. This point provides yet further support for the contention that the Chronicler's presentation of Saul is significantly related to the whole pattern of his work.

JSOT 2 (1977)

10 II.

Hezekiah

The whole range of the Hezekiah material, integrated as it is with the Ahaz section which precedes and the Manasseh section which follows, cannot be handled here /42/. I propose to examine only the limited group of verses at the end of the account in 2 Chron. 32:2433 and some related points. The note of the illness of Hezekiah in verse 24 follows abruptly on the glory of Hezekiah1s triumph in faith over the Assyrian enemy; this itself, much modified by comparison with the long account in 2 Kings 18-19, stands in the context of the reform which marks out Hezekiah as the king of loyalty (cf.32:1: 'after this display of loyalty1 would be a possible paraphrase). Now at the moment of his greatest triumph, held in honour by all the nations (32:23), Hezekiah falls mortally ill. The allusive brevity of 32:24 can only be understood by a reader who already knows the full account of 2 Kings 20:1-11; Isa. 38 /43/. Central to the allusion is the mention of the sign (mopët) which God gives, an allusion to the second element in the 2 Kings narrative which has in fact become the sole motif in the Isaiah version where a scribal addition alone has provided a reference to the healing by means of a cake of figs /44/. The Chronicler preserves the 'sign1 motif, but makes no further immediate use of it; it is in fact held in suspense until verse 31. Meantime, in comment upon the illness and recovery of Hezekiah, the Chronicler introduces in w . 25-26 a quite different theme, one which is in fact derived not from the illness narrative but from the ambassador narrative which follows in 2 Kings 20:12-19; Isa. 39 /45/. Whereas in 2 Kings, the two are simply placed side by side, linked only by a general chronological note and the indication that the ambassadors came because Hezekiah had been ill and had recovered (so Isa. 39:1), the Chronicler takes from the second narrative the theme of judgement, repentance and deferment of judgement, and utilises it in comment upon the recovery from illness. He thus invites his readers, who must be assumed to know the earlier narratives, to consider the effect upon the faithful king Hezekiah of so signal a mark of divine favour. Just as in the case of Josiah he depicts a good king, a reformer, who fails at the end (2 Chron. 35:20-25), so too here he shows how Hezekiah in this instance does not respond as he ought to God's favour, but with pride; the result is divine wrath against Judah and Jerusalem. This is followed by an act of self-abasement on his own part and on that of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as a result of which the divine wrath does not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah. The Chronicler

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

11

has evidently understood Hezekiah's response to the divine wrath of judgement as an acceptance of its rightness and as requiring penitence from him (cf. 2 Kings 20:19); so judgement is deferred to the period of his descendants, that of the Babylonian exile. The Chronicler does not in fact specify when the judgement will take place, and we shall see that he offers a modified interpretation of this point in due course. It is appropriate to observe /46/ that in the Chronicler's writings and elsewhere the expression 'Judah and Jerusalem' or 'Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem1 (verse 25 - cf. also verse 33) consistently refers to the post-exilic community. Thus in describing the miraculous act of God and Hezekiah's and the people's wrong reception to it, the Chronicler invites the attention of his contemporaries to their own failure to apprehend the nature of divine favour to them - in their miraculous restoration to life from the death of exile - and the need for a response in humility which will at the very least defer judgement. In verses 27-29 a detailed description is offered of Hezekiah's wealth and prosperity; such a description /47/ belongs properly to the Solomon tradition (cf. 1 Kings 3:13); it is utilised by the Chronicler in regard to David (1 Chron. 29:12,28, but cf. also the preceding chapters) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17:5; 18:1) /48/. The description may thus be seen as an aspect of the patterning of the accounts of the rulers of Judah. Verse 30a_ contains a reference to the making of the waterconduit by which the water of the spring of Gihon was brought within the city. This represents a re-statement of the corresponding archival note of 2 Kings 20:20, but we must note that the Chronicler has in fact already utilised this theme in a different manner in his striking account of the defeat of the Assyrians. In 32:3f. we read: 'He consulted with his officers and warriors about shutting off the waters of the springs which were outside the city. So they helped him by gathering together a great company who shut off all the springs and the stream flowing through the land, commenting: "Why should the kings of Assyria come in here and find great waters?" There are three points to note here. First, the containing of one spring becomes a total action directed against all springs outside the city; the archival record has been universalised. Second, universalising again - it is directed not against the particular ruler of Assyria, but against 'kings' in the plural /49/; the Hezekiah-Sonnacherib event becomes a type of the frustrating of the rulers of the nation who set themselves against Jerusalem /50/. Third, the reference to great waters (maim rabbîm) may be seen as an

12

JSOT 2 (1977)

interpretative extension of the claim of the Assyrian alluded to in the Isaianic taunt-song of 2 Kings 19:21ff., where verse 24 refers to the drinking of strange waters and the drying up of the rivers of Egypt. The Chronicler has extended this to suggest the impotence of the alien powers in the face of Hezekiah and his people who, acting in relation to the divine favour, can stop up all the waters. The 'great waters' belong in the mythological context, and it is in the light of this that we may also understand the curious expression 'the stream flowing through the land'. This is not a mistake for 'through the city', as the LXX suggests; the LXX rendering in fact merely takes it to be a literal reference to the underground conduit; nor is it, as some have supposed, to be understood as 'through the earth, i.e. ground', an underground tunnel. It should be taken to mean that stream of waters which flows out from Jerusalem, known to Ps. 46:5 and particularly to Ezek. 47, waters which are not natural but cosmic. The contest between Hezekiah and Sennacherib has become a great confrontation between the people of God and the alien world. The last phrase of verse 30 belongs with verse 31: 'So Hezekiah prospered in all that he did, including the instance of the Babylonian ambassadors who were sent to him /52/ to inquire about the sign which had occurred in the land; God left him on his own, to test him so as to find out his true nature'. The implication of this remarkable use of the narrative of 2 Kings 20:12-19 is that on this occasion Hezekiah shows himself entirely able to deal with the test and to find success even in this. The judgement element of the story has been used already; the Chronicler prefers here to draw out the interpretation that Hezekiah was able to respond rightly to what occurred - though we should be totally at a loss to understand the matter if we did not have the earlier narrative /52/. Verse 32 summarises the reign of Hezekiah, with the inclusion of the prophetic witness to that reign which is characteristic of a number of the Chronicler's archival statements /53/. We may follow Willi in seeing the significance of such prophetic references as pointing to the Chronicler's understanding of the authority of the records he claims to use. Later tradition was to understand the books from Joshua to Kings as 'former prophets'; the Chronicler provides a pointer to this view. But we must add that the Chronicler in fact introduces his prophetic references only in relation to 'good' kings, 'good* not in the sense that they are without fault, but in the sense that they are found faithful even though they fail at certain points. We may detect here also a further development of what is already observable in the earlier forms of

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

13

the material. Whereas Hezekiah the good has a narrative in which the activity of Isaiah is largely integrated with the separate elements, his predecessor Ahaz, for whom a similar Isaianic tradition is known /54/, is described in 2 Kings 16 without any such reference; and similarly, whereas a full and integrated account of Jeremiah and the last king of Judah is to be found in Jer. 37-44 /55/, it is not this form which has survived in the narrative material of 2 Kings 24-25. The move towards particularising of prophetic comment is already to be found developing within the earlier forms of the material /56/. The final element of the Chronicler's Hezekiah tradition in verse 33 adds to the normal pattern the statement that 'all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (again the post-exilic community is being alluded to) made a 'glory' for him at his death'. The precise meaning of this is not known. Most naturally it may be related to the 'burning' undertaken for Asa (2 Chron. 16:14), said to have been deliberately omitted for Joram ( 2 Chron. 1:19), and described as normal for a king's death (Jer. 34:5). But whatever the precise meaning, the stress is here clearly laid upon the community's acknowledgement of the significance of Hezekiah's reign; by this final expression, the Chronicler underlines its significance for his contemporaries too /57/. To these points concerning the Chronicler's treatment of Hezekiah there must be added two of wider import. First /58/, the persentation of Hezekiah is to be seen in the light of the preceding picture of Ahaz in which the theme of exile is underlined; it appears repeatedly through ch. 28 /59/. In contrast to this theme of exile, the story of Hezekiah represents the overthrow of the alien powers and the establishment of new life for the people of God. Second, the deferment of judgement which the Chronicler has used in 32:26 is not simply, as in 2 Kings, picked up in the exilic situation. In the following chapter, the narrative of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, includes his exiling to Babylon, his humble repentance, and his restoration; where 2 Kings 20, Isa. 39 point to the fate of the later descendants of Hezekiah's line, the Chronicler, while eventually using the theme of exile, makes use of this particular motif by presenting Manasseh as a type of the exile /60/. Here is yet another example of the subtle way in which the Chronicler, while apparently not making use of a particular narrative, in fact picks up a variety of themes from it and presents them in a new pattern. This passage - with its rich allusions and subtle cross-references - invites the reader both to see the true meaning of

JSOT 2 (1977)

14

earlier narratives already known to him, and also to recognize the typical, the universal, in the particular account. It is a history even more dehistoricized than that of the Chronicler's predecessors. III. Ezra On the assumption that the work of the Chronicler is to be understood solely in terms of exegesis and that this is to be conceived within certain terms of limited description /61/, it is inevitable that Willi has excluded the books of Ezra and Nehemiah from his consideration, treating them as an independent, probably earlier work, by the same compiler /62/. In fact the exclusion is based on a variety of other points which need not be discussed here, though clearly they must be examined fully if the argument for treating Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah as essentially a single work is to be properly maintained. An examination of those chapters (Ezra 7-10; Neh. 8-9(10)) which deal with the figure of Ezra himself may indicate in some degree whether or not the proceedures adopted are similar to those found elsewhere in the Chronicler's work, and whether the same themes are taken up and handled as there /63/. In fact, even if exegesis is conceived in precise and relatively narrow terms, it may still be argued that the exegetical procedure is to be observed here as also in Ezra 1-6. It is only if we supposed that the Chronicler were here composing quite freely, writing his own account of Ezra and his work without reference to any previous material, that we could largely exclude the use of the term 'exegesis'. Largely, not entirely. For we must ask ourselves whether it is legitimate so to narrow the term as to suppose that it is only appropriate when it involves the handling, the exposition and elucidation, of an already written and recognized text; or whether we may not at this relatively early stage in the evolution of the procedures, consider exegesis to be a not entirely inappropriate term for that selecting and arranging and interpretation of information, whether written or oral, which we may detect not only in the case of the Chronicler's work but also at an earlier stage in the books of Samuel and Kings. For the reader or hearer to whom the story is already familiar - and must not this be so in the case of earlier narratives as also in the case of the Ezra story? the writer invites attention to a particular line of interpretation. By his selection and arrangement of what is at least in some measure already familiar, he tells us how he believes it is to be read. The fact that the interpretation of the person and work of Ezra has in more recent times been so very variably presented makes it clear both that the Chronicler has preserved some inform-

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

15

ation which is open to more than one understanding and also that, for various reasons, some better than others, his particular presentation has been doubted. Of course, if it were right to believe that Ezra is a figment of the Chronicler's own imagination, then our appreciation of what he has done inevitably shifts somewhat. But even then we should - in our more sophisticated manner be prompted to ask: how far does this flight of the imagination present through a fictional character, an intelligible and acceptable view of that stage in the evolution of the post-exilic community? A historical novel may not make use of historical characters alone; we are not necessarily thereby offered a totally misleading picture of a historical situation. The traditional concept of the 'Great Synagogue' as the succession to Ezra cannot be regarded as historical /64/, yet our understanding of the period into which it is projected is not entirely misled by such a construction. As an attempt to clarify the nature of religious continuity in that period, it may well preserve elements of a proper appreciation of the problems which the men of the period actually faced. The precise detection of the materials available to the Chronicler in the Ezra section is very difficult. We may observe what we may describe as a 'commissioning and journey narrative' in Ezra 7-8, which incorporates the Aramaic 'document', the decree issued to Ezra in 7:12-26, introduced by a Hebrew sentence in 7:11. Within this section we already observe a change between third and first person forms which appears again in other parts of the Ezra material. In the light of comparable material elsewhere in such variant styles, it appears more satisfactory to view this change as a stylistic device rather than as an indication of separate sources, though the latter cannot necessarily be entirely ruled out. In this section we observe that 7:1-10 is third person; after the Aramaic passage, 7:27 is neutral, as a doxological expression, but 7:28 is in the first person and so too is the major part of ch.8 and ch.9. But in fact in the last verses of ch.8, it appears likely that we should see a change to third person forms; the last actual first person form here is in verse 32, and w.33-34 are of such a nature that it is not surprising to find none in them. With verse 35, however, we get a transition to the third person with its reference to 'those who had come from the captivity' where it would be more natural to have a plural 'we' if the first person narrative continued. 9:1 resumes the first person. This change-over may be of some importance in clarifying the relationship between the journey narrative and its sequels in the foreign marriage narratives of Ezra 9-10 and the law reading in Neh.8 /65/.

16

JSOT 2 (1977)

Ezra 9-10 contains the 'foreign marriage narrative*. Here, again without overstressing the change of person but simply observing it as a feature, we may note that there is a measure of parallel between 9:1-15 and 10:1-6. This is indicated by the part played in 10:2-4 not by Ezra but by a completely different character, Shecaniah. Has an Ezra reform narrative, perhaps existing in more than one form (cf.9:1-4 and 10:6), incorporated elements from a non-Ezra narrative, since Shecaniah's address to the assembly in 10:2-4 overlaps substantially the kind of appeal which is elsewhere attributed to Ezra? There are numerous Old Testament parallels to the attributing to a known and named hero elements of narratives which belong to less significant or anonymous personages. This possibility is strengthened by the recognition of a comparable pattern in Neh.8-9, which contain the highly stylised reading of the law in Neh.8 together with the further reading of the law and the long prayer in Neh.9. It is noteworthy here again that the figure of Ezra does not appear in the Hebrew text of ch.9, though the prayer is - understandably enough - attributed to Ezra in the Greek text. Have we here an alternative version of the reading and acceptance of the law, one in which Ezra was not named, which has been identified and so dovetailed with the Ezra narrative by the Chronicler? We must further observe that the 'foreign marriage1 theme,so fully set out in Ezra 9-10, is also a part of the law-reading section as this is now presented, for Neh.9:2 makes it an element of the acceptance of the law, and it also appears as a feature of the covenant document of Neh.10 (cf. vv.28, 30), though there remains uncertainty as to whether or not this latter passage should be regarded as associated with the Ezra material - as appears to me most likely - or whether it belongs with Nehemiah, as the appearance of his name at 10:1 and certain overlaps with Neh.13 have been held to demonstrate /66/. This very short survey of the Ezra material already indicates some of the very considerable problems of the literary analysis, and also suggests that it can be no easy task to describe the work of the Chronicler in bringing the material together. Certain points emerge, however, which suggest the way in which he has worked in this context, and these provide a basis for comparison with his methods elsewhere /67/. First, we may observe that, as other Old Testament compilers have done, the Chronicler has integrated into what now appears as

Ackroyd:

Chronicler as Exegete

17

a continuous narrative, elements which do not originally belong together. The fact that we may detect non-Ezra traditions of the receiving and acceptance of the law and of the action on foreign marriages suggests that, viewing the moment of Ezra's action as the most significant, he has incorporated into this (and has thereby re-interpreted) other traditions which were similar in general purport. Second, we may note that the theme of the law as it is presented in Neh.8 and Neh.9 is markedly stylised. It has long been observed that the procedures described point to an established practice which is being adapted by the narrator for the purpose of what he presents as a single historic moment. But the existence of the alternative in Neh.9:1-5 and in the Nehemiah tradition in Neh.13:1-3, as well as earlier comparable material such as is indicated in Deut. 31:10-13, make it seem proper to consider that a practice of periodic reading of the law is here being drawn upon. This suggests that we should be cautious of offering too literal an interpretation of certain features. The response of the people weeping as they listened to the words of the law (Neh.8:9) - is not to be held to suggest that the law was unfamiliar to them, any more than Josiah's response in 2 Kings 22:11 necessarily suggests this? the weeping is a ritual response, an acknowledgement - here related to the mourning procedures described in Neh.9:l - of the rightness of the law and the need for acceptance. The point is made even clearer by the description of the making of booths in Neh. 8:17, where it is claimed that this had not been done since the days of Joshua. It is clear that what is significant here is not some historical claim for innovation or revival, but the parallel drawn between the action in the time of Ezra and that in the time of Joshua (cf. the passover celebration in Joshua 5). The people at this moment are, like those of the past, at the beginning of a new and this time a spiritual entry into the land. Such an entry, as the Deuteronomic laws particularly underline, cannot be undertaken without obedience to the law /68/. The suggestion that the Chronicler in Neh. 8-9 presents the reading and acceptance of the law in a stylised form invites the question whether there are other parts of the material which are similarly handled. Here I would like to take up a point made by Koch /69/. He suggested that the march from Babylonia to Jerusalem was a cuitic procession, which Ezra himself understood as a second Exodus. And in relation to this he stressed the position of Ezra as 'the real high priest of Aaron's family'. I would myself wish to qualify the first of these points by asking whether it was Ezra

18

JSOT 2 (1977)

who so saw the journey, or whether it was not rather the Chronicler. In the discussion which followed Koch's paper, the question was raised about the 'second Exodus' features of the first return narra­ tive in Ezra 1: these features are clear, both in actual content the theme of the «spoiling of the Egyptians' (Exod. 11:2; 12:33 f.) finds its counterpart in Ezra 1:4 and 6 - and in cross-reference, for underlying the passage is the theme of the fulfilment of proph­ ecy, particularly that of the Second Isaiah with his concern in the 'second Exodus' (so the Cyrus prophecy of Isa. 41:25; 44:28-45:7) and the return of the temple vessels (cf. Isa. 52:11) /ΊΟ/. Thus, while it seems proper to see Ezra's return in such terms, noting parallels with the first Exodus and observing, for example, the theme of divine protection in Ezra 8, the description of the journey in Ezra 7:9 as ma ca leh (the date given here is stated to be that of the yesud hamma*aieh - »the initiation of the procession'), it is better to regard this presentation of Ezra's work as being due to the Chronicler who thus, in a clear pattern, portrays the two stages of the return, that of Shesbazzar-Zerubbabel and Jeshua and that of Ezra, as being equally expressions of the same theme of second Exodus, leading to climaxes in religious celebration, the templededication and passover of Ezra 6 and the law reading and acceptance and tabernacles of Neh. 8-9 (10). In regard to the status of Ezra, Koch has drawn attention to the remarkable genealogy of Ezra 7:1-5. This is remarkable both for what it contains and for what it omits. It draws clear attention to the legitimacy of Ezra's priestly descent by tracing it back in a few names to Aaron who is here significantly designated 'the chief priest'; it gives as immediate predecessor in the genealogical line the name of Seraiah which is that of the high priest taken into exile by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. (2 Kings 25:18). It is a proper inference that the Chronicler is here, as is often the case in genealogical information, not concerned with giving a complete line but with a significant line which establishes a contention /71/. For him, Ezra is in a real sense the immediate successor of the high priest taken into exile in 587. This is not a denial of the status of Jeshua of Ezra 3-4 /72/, but an affirmation of the status of Ezra as successor. The Chronicler appears to be claiming a status and authority for Ezra (perhaps Ezra claimed this too) which other traditions do not admit. That there were problems regarding the high priesthood in the post-exilic period we know well from the later Maccabaean times and the struggles for power in the succeed­ ing years. Josephus' account of this period (Ant.XI, 7,1) has a story of murder and intrigue. If his chronology is right, and this must be open to question, Ezra could be seen as claiming, and the Chronicler as continuing his claim, that he was the true high

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

19

priest. We may observe the non-mention of Ezra by ben Sira, which presents a problem, and speculate whether to some these claims were regarded as improper. The apparent leaping of time in the abbreviated genealogy of Ezra 7:1-5 presents no real problem, since the list is not to be regarded as complete. It does, however, link with two further points. First, we may observe how, in 2 Esdras, Ezra actually appears to belong to the exilic age (so 3:1 dated to the thirtieth year after the fall of Jerusalem), just as we find Nehemiah in 2 Macc.l:18ff. presented as sent by the Persian ruler to build the temple and altar - the intervening years are simply by-passed. Second, we may note that, without necessarily actually thinking that there was no chronological gap, the Chronicler invites the supposition of continuity between Ezra 6 and 7 by his placing of events of a sixth year (that of Darius) in ch.6 and those of a seventh year (that of Artaxerxes) in ch.7 /73/. Significance is for the Chronicler greater than mere chronology. It is similarly observable that the question of foreign marriages in Ezra 9-10 is presented in a stylised manner /74/. The list of nations in 9:1 is highly artificial /75/. The occasion is utilised for the incorporation of a homiletic prayer in 9:6-15 which /76/ has links back with 2 Chron. 29:6-9; 30:6f.; 36:20, and provides also a summary of the accounts of Ezra 1-6. It is thus both integrated with other Chronicler material amd designed to clarify the pattern of events. Or again, we may observe in the relationship between the commissioning of Ezra as this is set out in the Aramaic of Ezra 7:12-26 and the actual description of his activity, discrepancies which suggest that the Chronicler, making use of existing material and traditions, has shifted the emphasis of Ezra's work from a more political to a more theological angle /77/. A full and detailed discussion of the Chronicler's handling of the Ezra material is beyond the scope of this paper /IS/. But sufficient has been said to show that these chapters reveal a rehandling and reshaping of material similar to that which may be discovered in other parts of the work. Mosis, whose treatment of the Ezra section is very brief /79/, nevertheless underlines this, seeing in these passages the same concern with the patterning of events, and seeing also, and rightly, that the Chronicler's concern is not simply, as has been argued by Rudolph /80/, in finding in his own age the embodiment of the promises of the past, important though

20

JSOT 2 (1977)

this element in fact is, but also in pointing forward to a future in which the Davidic/Solomonic age will indeed come again. Mosis somewhat overstresses what he considers to be the provisional nature of the post-exilic temple /81/ - arguing from the brevity of the descriptions and, rather too literally, from the weeping provoked at the rebuilding by those who remembered the earlier temple; such weeping is not necessarily to be understood as expressing the feelings of disappointment which may be detected in Hag. 2:3 and Zech. 4:lO, but, like that in Neh.8, as part of a ritual in which, in fact, weeping and rejoicing are combined /82/. But that the second temple is not to be regarded as final appears fully intelligible in the light of the sense of distress at being a subject people which comes out so fully in the prayers of both Ezra 9 and Neh.9. Without any precision as to what kind of future there ought to be, both these passages point forward; there is a measure of hope in the Chronicler which is rooted in his appeal to his contemporaries to understand both their own tradition and their position aright. IV. Some Conclusions The three passages which we have examined represent three very different modes of handling already existing material. It is perhaps therefore not surprising to find that Willi sets out nine categories for the discussion of the differences between Chronicles and its predecessors /83/. Of these, the first two are purely textcritical and are therefore held to fall outside the realm of exegesis; one may, however, observe that the decision as to what differences are due to textual dislocation and the like is often very uncertain and the dividing lines between textual modification and exegesis are unclear. Willie next two categories are at the level of orthographic and grammatical alterations, and of small alterations and shortenings of the text; here the precise form of the text available to the Chronicler remains inevitably not fully ascertainable and it may be doubted whether sufficient account is taken of the more general problems of the evolution of ancient texts /84/. Furthermore, as may be seen in one or two of the examples already cited, the distinction between larger and smaller changes is itself somewhat arbitrary; it is always possible that by the change of a single word the whole tenor of a passage is altered. This fourth category therefore overlaps the fifth which comprises explanatory additions and alterations, often of a minimal kind; and this in its turn the remaining four - adaptation, theological modification, recension (particularly involving harmonisation) , and typology. While I would very happily concur in the use of such terminology in general, I find myself less certain whether

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

21

it is possible to draw the clear lines which Willi does, though it may be observed that in the detailed discussion, the same passages may in fact appear under more than one heading. It is evident that the Chronicler was not aware of the categories, but was writing with a much more integrated belief in the significance of what he was handling. The analysis may be convenient, but it may do less than justice to the richness and fluidity of the Chronicler's style and method. To judge the issues solely on the basis of the three passages discussed - and in none of these have anything like all the questions been raised which could assist a full study - must inevitably be less than adequate. Yet even the limited discussion of these passages shows quite widely diverging procedures. It is possible so the Saul passage - for the material of the earlier work to be quoted very nearly exactly, though some of the differences, small as they are, may point to particular motives; and for a radical change in understanding to be brought about by the introduction of a very significant comment and link passage as in 1 Chron. 10:13-14. It is possible - so the Hezekiah passage - for there to be allusion to material not appearing in the Chronicler's work but assumed to be known to the readers or hearers, and for such allusion to be so made that a radical difference in the understanding of the earlier material is enjoined. What these two methods have in common is clear. They invite the reader to consider the already known narratives, whether these are set out or not, in the light of some particular comment or pointer, and so, inevitably, to read them in a manner quite different from that enjoined by the earlier compilers /85/. There is here an extension of procedures which can already be observed in the earlier works, for editorial comment, whether of the brief introductory and concluding form as in Judges or more substantial as in such punctuating speeches as 1 Sam. 12 and 2 Kings 17, obliges the reader to consider the material, already in some measure familiar, in a new light. The degree to which subsequent readers - including ourselves - have been inescapably influenced by such editorial procedures may be detected in much of what is written about the Old Testament; and indeed not without the justice of observing that the compiler or editor nearer to the events may have a better understanding than we who stand further away. The observation of the radical changes brought about by the Chronicler's presentation is in itself a confirmation of this, though it does not remove the problems presented by the already very evident shifts of emphasis provided in the earlier presentations available to us. Even our original sources are nevertheless edited presentations.

22

JSOT 2 (1977)

The Ezra section - our third example - offers yet another style of presentation in which our verifying of the Chronicler1s method must inevitably be more difficult since we do not have an alternative coherent account. But a consideration of the Chronicler's procedures elsewhere and an examination of the alternative presentations of I Esdras and Josephus provide us with some clues to the degree of shift which we may expect the Chronicler to have introduced here. If for him Ezra marks the climax of his presentation and this part of the work must have therefore a very special significance, we may see that in his portrayal of this his last hero there are indications of his own viewpoint and outlook which are of major importance. It is at this point that we may usefully contrast the understanding of exegesis which is to be found in the two major studies which have been much referred to in this discussion, those of Willi and Mosis. Part of the problem here inevitably rests in the definition of terms. The categories set out by Willi point to relationships to the subsequent development of rabbinic exegetical method. The same kind of question arises here as is often asked in relation to the use of the technical term midrash. Its later, very precisely defined, use inevitably means that if it is used in relation to earlier stages, which may provide pointers to that full development, there is the danger of confusing those earlier stages with the more elaborate and precise form. Much the same may be said in regard to the particular categories of exegesis as these are developed by Willi. On the other hand, we must not forget that the term midrash is itself to be found in the Chronicler's writings (2 Chron. 13:22; 24:27), though its precise meaning is not altogether clear in these two passages /86/. Some terms are necessary for the description of earlier stages in the evolution of what eventually becomes more precisely defined. Probably it will be necessary always to qualify any use in reference to earlier material, and to avoid such terms as 'proto-midrash' since they may be held to prejudge the nature of the development. We may expect to find exegetical procedures which did not evolve towards the later fixed form; later exegesis is in any case not limited to formal midrash. In so far as Willi points to earlier stages in a long process, he performs a useful service; further aspects of such an investigation may be seen in R.A. Mason's study of: 'Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. 9-14' /87/. It is, however, important also to recognize the limitation of Willi's own understanding of the Chronicler's exegesis, as this is stated, for example, in the following:

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

23

'...it follows that Chronicles cannot be understood apart from the books of Samuel and Kings (and to a lesser extent but in the same manner, the Pentateuch and a few other older biblical writings) and in particular in relation to those parts which were not included; indeed one may go further and say that it was not intended to be understood without them. Its style of historywriting, exegesis in the best sense of the word, aims at clarifying the understanding of the source, at illuminating this primary underlying work in relation to a precise historical theological point, a heilsgeschichtliche, at bringing the text of the original to concentrate upon this theme and at clarifying its interconnections.* /88/ With the first part of this statement, we may certainly agree, not least in that the material not handled in the Chronicler is seen to be of great significance for the reader's understanding and for our own. All is to be read now in the light of this style of exposition. The latter part of the statement is repeated at a number of points in different wordings /89/ with an even greater emphasis on the backward look. The books of Chronicles are seen as explanatory, and it is felt to be dangerous or illusory to attempt to discover the writer's own period in his work /90/. This is surely to miss an important aspect of exegesis and its understanding. The exegete, even if he consciously aims simply at clarifying an older writing, cannot detach himself from his own position in the history of exegesis. It is here that Mosis makes a much more distinctive contribution, with his recognition that the Chronicler's interpretation of the past not only illuminates the earlier texts - in the sense that they are now to be differently read - but that he also sheds light on the needs of his own situation and furthermore points to the future in his hope of a resolution of contemporary problems. The pattern which is to be discerned in the Chronicler's writings has not come to its final fruition, however much the ideals are concentrated in the presentation of Ezra. The situation remains politically and economically unsatisfactory /91/. The second temple has a temporary quality; it is not yet a full re-establishment of the temple in its Solomonic glory /92/. But it is in continuity with that temple and is not to be despised because it does embody the essentials that belong to the original temple /93/.

JSOT 2 (197?)

24

The Chronicler may also be considered as a conciliator, and I would here wish to suggest two aspects of this which are important for our understanding of his exegesis. He is a conciliator between different groups and interests in that he appeals for a true adherence to the one right line. He portrays Ezra as the conciliator, the one who is to establish the true community, 'the holy seed1, by the exclusion of alien influence but also by the drawing together of all who should belong to the people of the law. He is also a conciliator between different lines of thought, for we may see drawn together and in some degree harmonised within his writings what appear in other works as separate and even as diverse /94/. Willi, in the last section of his work, concentrates on the Chronicler's appreciation of the prophetic way of thought, and sees him presenting his history in prophetic terms. Along with this we may observe also the presence of strong Deuteronomic and strong Priestly elements in his thinking, even if some of the latter may belong to later amplifications of the work. He may be seen - and this is a point I have endeavoured to present more fully in my paper on 'The Theology of the Chronicler* /95/ - as the first Old Testament theologian, offering a unifying of strands and trends which may otherwise appear separate; his exegesis of the earlier material provides a harmonisation, but it is one that is also an appreciation of the richness and diversity of the Old Testament religious tradition. Footnotes 1. The Selwyn Lectures, 1970. Supplement to Colloquium - The Australian and New Zealand Theological Review (1970). 2. Torch Bible Commentary (London: SCM 1973). 3. Reference may be made here to the study by M.D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974). The author kindly discussed with me an earlier form of some of his material on the Chronicler, as this was given in his Speaker's Lectures in Oxford (cf. The Age of the Chronicler, p.45). I saw and briefly discussed with him a chapter originally entitled 'The Development of the Histories Cycle', the essential of which now appears as ch.10, 'The Chronicler and the Jewish New Year1. Here he argues for a liturgical origin of the structures to be found in the Pentateuch and the books of the so-called 'Deuteronomic History'. He views the writings of the Chronicler as representing a further extension of this liturgical process, and raises points which are of great interest both for the consideration of the nature and arrangement of these various works, and also for the possibility that lectionary cross-references may help in the explanation of

Ackroyd:

Chronicler as Exegete

25

modifications and allusions to be found in the Chronicler's writings. The questions raised are important, and must in due course be adequately discussed. They suggest alternative lines of approach to a number of points which are considered in this present discussion. 4. Subtitled Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Oberlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972). The monograph was originally a dissertation submitted at Tübingen in 1969 (cf. TLZ 97 (1972), 236f). 5. Freiburger theologische Studien, 92 (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1973). 6. Mosis could not have made use of my commentary since this appeared only shortly before his own book. He makes no reference to my earlier studies, e.g. The Age of the Chronicler noted above, or my 'History and Theology in the Writings of the Chronicler' CTM 38 (1967, 501-515), or the relevant section of Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 294-305; nor does he know R.L. Braun, 'The Message of Chronicles: Rally Round the Temple' CTM 42 (1971), pp. 502-513, based on his dissertation The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28 and 29 for the Structure and Theology of the Work of the Chronicler (Concordia, St. Louis, 1971) in which much attention is given to the place of Solomon in the Chronicler's presentation. Cp. also his 'Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles', JBL 92 (1973), 503-16. Some further points to which some reference is made in the conclusion to this paper, are to be found in my 'The Theology of the Chronicler', Lexington Theological Quarterly, 8 (1973), 101-16. 7. Much has inevitably to be assumed for such a short discussion. I would still hold, in spite of the arguments of Willi and others, that the work - Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah - is to be treated as a whole, as Mosis does. I regard the Nehemiah narrative as essentially separate, as has now become a much more generally held view (cf. Mosis, 215ff. in his comments on K.-F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra (FRLANT 104, 1970) , a work curiously not mentioned by Willi) . Furthermore, while it is clear that the original work - if indeed such a term is entirely appropriate - has been added to, I am both doubtful of the degree to which certainty can be established in regard to additions, and also doubtful of the supposition that the additions have radically altered the trend of the work (cf. Willi p.203 and n.58). The one exception which I would tentatively make in this is the degree to which the Nehemiah material has caused a shift in emphasis to a more exclusive way of thought, though here it is less the case that the work has in itself been altered and more that it has been

JSOT 2 (1977)

26

interpreted in the light of this more exclusive line. 8.

For references cf. Willi, 9ff.; Mosis, 17ff.

9. Cf. H.J. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums in den deuteronomistisehen Abschnitten des I. Samuelbuches (WMANT, 31. Neukirchen, 1969), p.62 for references and citations; and Mosis, p.20. 10.

On this word, cf. below.

11.

P.48; Cf. also my Commentary (note 2 above), pp. 49-51.

12.

Pp. 17-43.

13. An example from Mosis, 18f. may suffice: he considers that the replacement in verse 1 of the participle niph.nilframim by the perfect niph.nilfoamû is a deliberate change designed to suggest that whereas I Sam. points to a long drawn-out struggle, the Chronicler sees the battle as a single moment. But this overlooks the possibility of a very simple textual variant, since the word is followed by the preposition b ^ and beth and mem in the old script may be readily confused; it is quite reasonable to think that the two text forms are simple variants due to one scribe reading a mem at the end of the verbal form while another did not. The point is a minor one, but suggests the danger of trying to prove too much. 14.

Cf. esp. p.22.

15. On the problems of the text, cf. e.g. H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis (ΚΑΤ, Vili, I. Gütersloh, 1973), 521, 527ff. 16.

P.23.

17. The omission of Beth-Shean in w . 10 and 12; the survival of the title •Mount Gilboa1 he thinks may be set aside, suggesting that 'the name of the mountain is not intended to specify a geographical interest on the part of the Chronicler in the historically precise location of the battle1 though he does not explain why this should be so. 18.

Commentary (n. 2 above), p.50.

19.

Pp. 24f.

20. If we suppose a text which has the suspending of Saul's head ( ρ Π fl*3 lypri irVlVl Π Κ Ο side by side with the suspending of his body ( ]Ό n*n n m n iypn in*1} ΠΚΐ) the order appears immat­ erial - we may observe two points: (1) the phrases are so alike that they may readily be understood as variants; (2) the Sam. and Chron. MT forms have each only one of these phrases. In this case, we could not argue that the Chronicler introduced the reference to

Ackroyd: Chronicler as Exegete

27

the temple of Dagon; but we may still appropriately argue that his understanding of the reference is, as Mosis suggests, related to his knowledge of and understanding of the story of the ark in 1 Sam. 5. On the textual problems, cf. Stoebe, op. cit. p. 522, Mosis, p. 24, n. 22. 21. P.25. 22. Die Samuelbücher (ATD 10. Gottingen, 1960), 39f; Ε.T. I and II Samuel (OTL, London: SCM, 1964), 52f. 23.

On the use of drs, cf. below.

24.

Cf. my Commentary (n.2 above), p. 63.

25. It also becomes evident that I Sam. 4-6 is an 'exile-restora­ tion1 passage. Cf. my comments in The First Book of Samuel (CBC. Cambridge, 1971), p.63 and 'An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A study of 2 Kings 20, Isaiah 38-39', SJT 27 (1974), 329-52. 26. On these w . cf. Willi, 9-12, and esp. 169f.; Boecker, 61-63; Mosis, 28-41; my Commentary (n. 2 above), 50f. 27. Cf. also refs. on pp. 29f and in his notes. 28.

E.g. I Chron. 9:1; cf. above.

29. Cf. my comment (Commentary, (n. 2 above), p. 63) on the Michal material in I Chron. 15:29: ' the members of the house of Saul show themselves unable to recognize the true meaning of events; they are typical of unfaith'. Cf. also my comment on Saul (I Samuel (n. 25 above), p. 230): 'He is both the divinely chosen leader, picked at the moment of crisis to bring deliverance and hope, and one in whom the demand for absolute obedience to the divine will is express­ ed, his doom being sealed in his failure ... an example of that pattern of obedience and blessing, disobedience and doom which is written also into the book of Judges and the books of Kings'. 30. Cf. also my Commentary (n. 2 above), p.51. 31.

So Mosis p.41.

32.

P. 170.

33.

P. 170.

34. Cf. my Commentary (n. 25 above), 25f. on other aspects of word­ play in I Sam. 1. The problem of the naming of Samuel is widely discussed in the Commentaries, but without there being any clear consensus of opinion (cf. e.g. Stoebe, op. cit. 92, 97f.) 35. Cf. Stoebe's comment, p. 98; 'At the most we may consider whether there is expressed here a criticism of Saul's kingship.

JSOT 2 (1977)

28

entirely possible at the time at which we may suppose this narrative (i.e. I Sam.1:1-20) to have come into being'. 36.

Pp. 41-47.

37.

P. 20.

38.

P. 28.

39. Cf. also 2 Chron. 22:7 where Π Ο ί η η 'down-treading1 may be an error for Π11 Ort, a divine directing of events to bring judgement upon Ahaziah of Judah. 40. We may see the same point in the absence of Saul's name from the Chronicler's version of the royal promise in I Chron. 17:13 (2 Sam. 7:15 refers to Saul). The theme of withdrawal of divine favour is generalised so that Saul becomes merely a type; at the same time the re-application of the promise to later generations can be the more readily made. (Cf. on this Boecker, op. cit. p. 63). 41. It is of note that what appears to be another stage in the development of this kind of thinking - probably earlier than the Chronicler, perhaps even known to him - is to be found in Isa. 7:17: 'Yahweh will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your ancestral house days such as have not come since the day when Ephraim turned away from Judah' (omitting the last words as a gloss). Whether this is taken in a positive sense - a restoration of the time of the united kingdom - or, as seems more probable, in a neg­ ative sense - a judgement like that of the loss of the north - the momentous nature of that particular event and its typical character are brought out. 42.

Cf. my Commentary (n. 2 above), 173f. and Mosis, 186-194.

43. For a fuller discussion of 2 Kings 20, cf. my article in SJT (n. 25 above). The text of 2 Chron. 32:24 is in fact in all probab­ ility somewhat corrupted, but whether we should read (cf. LXX) 'and he implored him' for MT 'and he said to him', or, comparing 2 Kings 20:5, add Ί will heal you', does not affect the real point. 44.

For a note on this point, cf. the article mentioned in n. 25.

45. So W.Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT, 21. Tubingen, 1955), 313; Willi, 173f. 46. So Mosis, 109, n. 85; cf. also D.R. Jones, 'The Traditio of the Oracles of Isaiah of Jerusalem1 ZAW 67 (1955), 226-246, see 239, n. 61. 47.

So Willi, 141.

Ackroyd:

Chronicler as Exegete

29

48. The use of miskeno*t, (v. 28) in particular provides a clear link: the word is used for Solomon (2 Chron. 8:4, 6: cf. I Kings 9:19), and Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17:2). Otherwise it appears only in Exod. 1:11 and in 2 Chron. 16:4 in a reference to Naphtali. 49. Cf. Willi, 164, n. 214, and also his comments on typological interpretation (160ff.). 50.

Cf. e.g. Pss. 2;

46;

Zech. 14.

51. On the text, cf. Rudolph, op. cit, 312; but we may suppose more probably that MT contains a duplicate reading: sârê bâbel is an alternative to m e lise babel. 52. This verse provides an example of the problems we should face if we only possessed Chronicles; it also serves to demonstrate how, by inference, we may assume that narratives have similarly been omitted in Samuel and Kings and elsewhere, but the readers are expected to be familiar with them. A good example is in fact found in 2 Sam. 21:2. 53. Such prophetic references appear also for David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijan, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah and Manasseh (anonymous); cf. Willi, 234, n. 69. 54. Isa. 7 - 8 , and my 'Historians and Prophets' SE& 33 (1968), 1854. see 22 - 33. 55.

Cf. art, cit. η. 54, esp. 43 - 50.

56. This is a point which needs fuller investigation, especially in relation to the David, Jeroboam/Rehoboam, and Elijah/Elisha traditions. But the particular examples of Ahaz, Hezekiah and Zedekiah are striking. Cp. also my forthcoming article; Ά Judgment Narrative between Kings and Chronicles? An Approach to Amos 7:917' in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, ed. G.W. Coats and B.O. Long (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 57. On the progressive development of the Hezekiah theme, cf. art. cit. η. 25 above. The death of Hezekiah merits closer examination. 58.

Cf. refs. in n. 42.

59. Cf. Mosis, 186 - 188 - cf. verses 5, 8, 17 and more generally 23; the theme of restoration at the hands of the northern kingdom in 28: 8-15 may be understood in various ways, but we may perhaps properly see here too an exemplification of that element in the prayer of Solomon, found in I Kings 8:50 but not in the Chroniclers form of the text, which asks that God should 'put pity for them (i.e. the exiles) in their captors' hearts'.

JSOT 2 (1977)

30

60. Cf. my Commentary (η. 2 above), 198; Mosis, 38 and 193; Willi, 160ff. on typology. The relationship of this to 2 Kings is more fully set out in the article noted in n. 25 above. 61. Cf. Willi, e.g., 55, 66, 193; Mosis comments on the narrow­ ness of this view, e.g. 12f. and n. 10. 62.

Cf. p. 181.

63. Willi is, in fact, trying very hard to have his cake and eat it: By assuming the likelihood of the same author for the two works. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, he can account for the similarities; by assuming that they were produced for quite different purposes, he can account for differences and keep them separate. 64. For references, cf. e.g. H.E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Test­ ament. (London: Macmillan, 1909), 261 ff.; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: an Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 564 and references in n. 9; G.F. Moore, Judaism I (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.P., 1927), 29-36; III (1930), 7ff. 65. The original, that is to say, historical order of the Ezra narratives has been much discussed, and the issue is of importance in that rearrangement by the Chronicler would serve as a pointer to his interpretation. The point has been fully discussed by Pohlmann, op. cit. 127 - 132; he rejects the rearrangement Ezra 7 - 8 ; Neh. 8; Ezra 9 - IO; Neh. 9 - IO. But it is by no means certain that the issue is thereby resolved. Cf. also Mosis, 218. 66. This point cannot be discussed here, but cf. my brief obser­ vations in my Commentary (n. 2 above), 305f. 67. I am indebted for a number of points in the discussion of Ezra to the paper by Professor Klaus Koch, entitled 'Ezra and the origins of Judaism1 delivered to the Society for Old Testament Study in July, 1973, and published in JS£ 19 (1974), 173 - 97. 68. For this general view, cf. Mosis, 218; Pohlmann, op. cit. 128135 and esp. 136; U. Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102. Berlin, 1967), p. 29. Koch (cf. η. 67, p. 182) argues - I believe wrongly - that the distress of the people points to a new and unknown law; the pointer to Joshua is rightly underlined by him. 69.

Pp. 184 - 9.

70. On this theme, cf. my "The Temple Vessels - a continuity theme1 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTS 23, Leiden, 1972), 166 - 181; and also, for the much wider range of questions raised by this theme, M.F. Collins, 'The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan

Ackroyd:

Chronicler as Exegete

31

1

Traditions JSJ 3 (1972), 97 - 116. For the more general points here, cf. my Commentary (n. 2 above), 212 - 217. 71. Cf. R.R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Old Testament. Form and Function of Old Testament genealogies in their Near Eastern Context (Diss. Yale, 1972); now published in a revised form as Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1976). 72. Jeshua is also mentioned in Ezra 5:2, but it seems possible to me that the mention of Zerubbabel and Jeshua here is part of the harmonising tendency of the Chronicler in the handling of the two disparate accounts of the rebuilding which he has utilised in Ezra 3-6. 73.

Cf. my Commentary (n. 2 above), 240.

74.

Cf. above on ma*al.

75. Cf. my Commentary (n. 2 above), 252f.; icler, 39; Mosis, 229. 76.

The Age of the Chron­

Cf. Mosis 227f.

77. Cf. The Age of the Chronicler, 35 - 38; above), 242 - 247.

my Commentary (n. 2

78. A fuller study may now be found in my 'God and People in the Chronicler's Presentation of Ezra' in La Notion Biblique de Dieu, ed. J. Coppens (BETL, 41. Gembloux, Louvain, 1976), 145 - 62. 79.

Pp. 227 - 231.

8

°· Qp« cit. (η. 45 above), χχιιι - χχιν 'Problems of the Books of Chronicles' VT 4 (1954), 401 - 409, esp. 408f. This view is strong­ ly approved by 0. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (Ε.T. Oxford, 1968), e.g. 39ff. 81.

Pp.

226 - 229.

82. Mosis 221 and n. 32. The danger here is in conflating inform­ ation from two entirely different types of source, without suffic­ iently examining the nature of their contributions. 83. Pp. 66 - 68, and his full discussion of the categories (68 175) . 84. On this, cf. particularly the rather extreme position of Lemke 'The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History' HTR 58 (1965), 349 - 363, and my comments in CTM 38, 507 n. 25. 85. On the effect of reading diverse passages together, cf. also my paper on 'The Theology of the Chronicler' (n. 6 above).

32

JSOT 2 (1977)

86. "Story, commentary, book' are all possible renderings; lit­ erally a midrash is something 'sought out', but that piece of etymology does little to help our understanding. Cf. Willi, 66, n. 81 with references, arguing for a relatively neutral meaning. 87. A paper also delivered at the Oxford Biblical Congress in 1973 and to be published in the proceedings. Cf. also his dissertation: The use of earlier biblical material in Zechariah IX-XIV: a study in inner biblical exegesis (Ph.D., London, 1973 - unpublished). 88.

P. 66 .

89.

Cf. 55, 193 and Mosis' comment on 39, n. 65.

90. Willi very usefully relates his understanding of the work to the problem of the development of the canon and to his belief, sure­ ly right but over-simplified, that the Chronicler regarded the earlier works as 'canonical'. The question which remains here is how far he is right to use another later category and one which is very precisely defined, to describe its earlier but certainly important stages. 91. Cf. The Age of the Chronicler, 13ff.; my Commentary (n. 2 above), 256, 303ff. 92.

Cf. above and n. 80.

93.

Cf. above and n. 70.

94. So Koch (cf. η. 67 above); also my Commentary (n. 2 above), 298; and the article in 'The Theology of the Chronicler' (n. 6 above). So too R.L. Braun, CTM 42 (1971), 511ff., JBL 92 (1973), 503ff. Other aspects of such an exegetical development are brought out in H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles' VT_ 26 (1976), 351 - 61. Cf. too his Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge, 1977). 95.

Cf. η. 6 above.

JSOT 2 (1977) 33-49

33

THREE UGARITIC NOTES ON THE SONG OF DEBORAH

(P.C. Craigie - University of Calgary)

The primary purpose of the three short studies which follow is simply an attempt to elucidate a number of difficulties relating to the translation and interpretation of Judges 5. A secondary purpose, however, is to assess on a very limited basis the value of Ugaritic for Hebrew Studies in the light of renewed warnings about the dangers of "pan-Ugaritism" /l/. Some observations on this broader issue will be offered in the concluding paragraph. However, it should be noted that the three topics which are examined in the following notes were selected deliberately in order to demonstrate both the values and the difficulties relating to comparative Ugaritic-Hebrew studies.

I.

Ugaritic Light on the "Stars" in Judges 5;20

The turning point in the battle described in the Song of Deborah was marked by a flash-flood following a rain storm; the waters of the Kishon rose and the surrounding plain quickly became a swamp, unsuitable terrain for Sisera's chariot force. These basic facts are implied in Judges 5:21, describing the waters of the Kishon, and they may also be anticipated in Judges 5:4-5 /2/, in which the Sinai theophany is recalled in language associating God with storm and rain. The particular problem to be examined in this first note is whether Judges 5:20 (describing the participation of stars in the conflict) is to be understood as a general description of the battle, or whether it contributes to our understanding of the rain and subsequent flood. A number of Ugaritic sources will be examined in an attempt to clarify the issues and solve the problem. First, two ways of interpreting Judges 5:20 in the light of Ugaritic will be critically assessed (1 and 2, below); second, two further suggestions will be made which may help to illuminate the meaning of the Hebrew verse (3 and A, below).

34

(1) It is claimed that the source of rain /3/. On interpreters of Judges 5:20 verse are the source of the of the Kishon /4/.

JSOT 2 (1977)

the stars, in Ugaritic thought, are the basis of the Ugaritic evidence, have argued that the stars in that rain which resulted in the flooding

Stars are certainly associated with rain in the Ugaritic texts, but whether they are actually the source of rain is a more difficult question. The basic textual evidence in support of the hypothesis is to be found in CTA 3 QJT *nt).II.41: [rb]b.nskh. kbkbm: though there are some difficulties, the clause can be rendered "rain (which) the stars pour forth" /5/. It is possible to interpret the clause as meaning that the stars are the source of rain, in light of expressions such as "dew of heaven" (tl.Smm) and "rain of the Rider on the Clouds" (rbb.rkb.crpt) in thePpreceding lines. But it is also possible that the stars were a part of Anat's retinue and that here they are simply her servitors, pouring rain over her in the course of her ablutions /6/ (see section 3, below). In this case, the stars would not be strictly the source of rain. Another text which has been adduced in arguing that the stars are the source of rain is Baal IV.i«.4-5 111 (= CTA 10.1.4-5). Once again, there is some kind of association between "stars" and "rain" in this text; however, the left hand side of the tablet is broken, making the reading of the beginning of the lines uncertain (cf. CTA, Plate XV). If Driver1s reconstruction of column I were to be accepted (see footnote 7), then indeed this text might establish that the stars were the source of rain (though see the comments on this text in section 2, below). To summarize the evidence for the first hypothesis, it is possible, but by no means certain, that the stars are believed to be the source of rain in Ugaritic texts. The evidence of CTA 3.II.41 is ambivalent, and the evidence of CTA 10.1.4-5 is uncertain because of the condition of the tablet. Given these difficulties, it is dangerous to argue that the stars are the source of rain in Judges 5:20, at least insofar as the argument depends upon Ugaritic evidence. (2) The second possibility is that the reference to stars in Judges 5:20 develops further the cosmic scope of the battle; the stars, the heavenly host of Yahweh, fight for Israel in her holy

Craigie:

Song of Deborah

35

war /8/. There are various Ugaritic texts which may be adduced in support of this interpretation. First, CTA 10 (¿T 76).I.3-4, already referred to in section 1, uses the expression phr kkbm, in parallelism with bn "il; the stars, in other words,1re related to the gods of the divine assembly /9/. Second, reference may be made to CTA 23 (UT 52).54: lSpy.rbt.wlkbkbm. The words themselves are clear, though translations of the whole line and its context differ somewhat /10/. However the line is to be translated, it seems clear enough that the stars here are associated with Sp& and the divine pantheon /ll/. To summarize the Ugaritic evidence /12/, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the stars are associated with the divine pantheon in Ugaritic texts, and hence this material provides a possible background for the interpretation of the stars, in Judges 5:20, as a part of Yahweh's heavenly host. However, whether such a meaning was intended by the poet will depend upon the view that is taken of the hypothesis in section 1 above, and of the two hypotheses to follow. (3) The third possible way of interpreting the stars in Judges 5:20 has not been suggested previously (so far as I am aware), though it arises from a suggestion concerning an Ugaritic text made some years ago by H. Cazelles /13/. In this case, the Ugaritic evidence will be examined first and then its possible application to Judges 5:20 will be considered. The text CTA 13 QJT_ 6).13 reads (following Cazelles): k)bkbm._tm.tpl.k lbnt: "... les étoiles tomberont là comme une vieilleir~(Cazelles). In his commentary on the text, Cazelles suggests that Anat is, in effect, mistress of the stars, and that there is an allusion in this line to a myth according to which Anat attained that mastery by means of victory /14/. Cazelles1 suggestion is not without difficulty, partly because of the condition of the text; the tablet is broken and is incomplete /15/. However, accepting tentatively Cazelles1 hypothesis, let us return to CTA 3.II.41 (see section 1, above). It was suggested earlier in the discussion of this text, that the stars might be understood as Anat1s servitors, and in that role they aided Anat in her ablutions. In the light of Cazelles1 hypothesis concerning CTA 13:13, the stars' help to Anat in CTA 3 might be significant, for her ablutions (CTA 3:11.41) follow Anat's bloodbath of slaughter described earlier in the column. That is, given the

36

JSOT 2 (1977)

warlike character of Anat in CTA 3, it would not be surprising to see the stars, as her heavenly army, participating in her activity. With this Ugaritic background, let us return to the Song of Deborah and begin with a well-known observation. The Song is said to be sung by the woman Deborah (along with Barak, Judges 5:1), and whether or not the introduction is to be taken literally, it is true that the Song as a whole has a strongly feminine flavour to it: (a) in the warlike role given to Deborah herself (5:12); (b) in the role given to Jael (5:24-27); (c) in the reference to Sisera1s mother and female companions (5:28-30). Given this feminine flavour, the possibility must be considered, concerning whether the poet/singer intended to dramatize Deborahfs warlike role by adapting (in 5:20) the mythological imagery associated with the warlike Anat /16/. As Anat had a host of stars at her command, so too did Deborah (it might be implied), though of course the mythological associations have been translated into poetic imagery. This interpretation is clearly tentative in view of the nature of the Ugaritic evidence, but it is at least a possibility. (4) In the final hypothesis, the Ugaritic evidence will again be considered first, and then the implications for Judges 5:20 will be considered. It has been suggested that the stars served as the "army of the sun" (sbu.jTpjí) /17/. Although the textual evidence for this view is not strong /18/, nevertheless in general terms, the sun and stars together seem to have some military role. In CTA 23:54 (see section 2, above), it was noted that either sacrifices were offered to sun and stars after the birth of Sljr and ?lm, or that the twin gods joined Spg and the stars after their birth (see the discussion in footnote 10). Now although the twin gods *hr and £>lm are the subject of some ambiguity, they appear to represent the "morning-" and "evening-star", the hypostases of the god Athtar. As such, they have both astral anc m * ilitary characteristics /19/. Thus, although we are in danger of going beyond the evidence, there may be a good case for arguing for the latter alternative (above), namely that £hr and §lm join Sp§ and the stars after their birth; it may be noted that in two of the recently discovered texts from Ugarit, £hr and Sim are mentioned in a context which indicates that Sp£ was their leader /20/. The linking of §ljr and &lm with Sps7, it is argued,

Craigie:

Song of Deborah

37

rests not only on the heavenly character of all of them, but also on the warlike character of all,, of them. To summarize, then, Spj? (Sun), the stars, and Shr and Sim (Athtar), may perhaps all be members of the Ugaritic pantheon having warlike characteristics. In Judges 5:20, as was argued in section 2, the stars might be interpreted as a part of the heavenly army, participating in the battle alongside the Hebrews. But in the hypothesis now to be considered, there is an additional element to be examined. The stars participated in the battle according to Judges 5:20, but in 5:31, the victors ("those that love Yahweh") are likened to "the sun as he rises in his might" /21/. Once again, it may be that the poet/singer has translated mythological imagery to achieve his/her dramatic purpose in the Song of Deborah. "Sun" (SpsQ and her army of stars, in the Ugaritic material, have been translated into Yahweh (// |>pj[, 5:31) and his army (// "stars", 5:20). The word "stars" is thus a form of poetic imagery for the "army of Yahweh" (gm.yhwh), and Judges 5:20 describes the participation of the Hebrews themselves in the battle. Summary. It is clear from this first study that the Ugaritic texts provide an abundance of material which is potentially valuable for the interpretation of Judges 5:20. On the other hand, a number of difficulties have emerged in this study which are attendant upon all comparative studies of Ugaritic and Hebrew texts. First, almost all the Ugaritic evidence employed in this study has been subject to some ambiguity, either because of the condition of the Ugaritic tablets, or because of difficulties relating to the grammar (and hence meaning) of the Ugaritic texts. Second, the potential interpretative wealth of the Ugaritic sources has raised a difficulty for the interpreter of Judges. Granting the possibility of some (if not all) of the above hypotheses, by what criteria does the interpreter determine which particular hypothesis underlies the poet's use of language in Judges 5:20? This writer's preference is for the hypothesis presented in section 3. That preference is not based primarily on the inherent merits of the hypothesis in contrast to the other hypotheses, however, but on the view that at a number of other points in the Song of Deborah, the poet has adapted imagery associated with Anat to dramatize the role of Deborah /22/. Simply on the basis

JSOT 2 (1977)

38

of the evidence presented above, it is hard to determine whether one or any of the possibilities provided by the Ugaritic sources has been utilized by the Hebrew poet.

II.

"Ships" in Judges 5:17?

The meaning of the text of Judges 5:17b has been a source of difficulty for a long time; the consonantal text reads: wdn lmh ygwr *nywt. There are two difficulties. First, the interrogative lmh is omitted by certain Hebrew manuscripts and certain versions. The principal difficulty, however, lies with the word 'nywt; although the word seems to mean "ships" (and the versions are unanimous in agreement), it is grammatically awkward (a preposition is expected before the noun) and it raises historical difficulties concerning the relationship between Dan and "ships", whether a northern or southern location for Dan is assumed. In view of these problems, John Gray has suggested the following /23/: (a) that the interrogative lmh be omitted; (b) that 'nywt be understood as an adverbial accusative, "at ease". In support of the latter point, Gray cites the Ugaritic usage of 'an, "to be at ease"; the meaning of the Ugaritic verb is in turn based on the Arabic verb *ana. Thus he translates the line: "And Dan abode at ease". The only changes involved in this rendering, then, are the omission of lmh (with support of manuscripts and versions) /24/ and the re-parsing of 'nywt; if it is argued that all the versions are against the latter point, it can be responded that many misunderstandings had become associated with the text of the Song of Deborah, long before it came into the hands of later translators. Gray's translation makes good sense, both of the line and of the context, and for that reason, it is worth examining the Ugaritic evidence in a little more detail before coming to firm agreement. Gray cites only one Ugaritic text in support of his argument: CTA 14 (UT Krt).III.110(= 212). The summary of his argument in the Judges commentary (footnote 23) can be amplified by reference to his critical discussion of the Keret text /25/. The evidence and argument will only be given in summary form here. Herdner offers the following readings of the relevant lines: line 110: wgr.nn.
Craigie:

Song of Deborah

39

noting the difficulties of previous arguments, gives excellent grounds for the following emendations: line 110: wgr.'aC?)n.*rm; line 212: £ £ ^(7)n.
40

JSOT 2 (1977)

in parallelism to a verb in the previous line; parallelism is normally helpful in a case of this kind, but in this instance the reading of the verb in the previous line is also difficult, as the following selected readings show: (?) shn

CTA 5.1.22: Herdner:

(cf. col. 11.21 ys!hn)

Driver:

sh'a

(note: "error for shq" [DussaudJ)

Ginsberg:33

sh'a

Gordon (UT):

sh (a/q!)

The difficulty in determining the correct third radical lies in the general similarity, but the closest similarity is between the letters /'a/ and /q/. Herdner's preference, once again, is determined primarily by column 11.21: ys!hn, for in her transcription (CTA, fig. 18), only sh'a is legible. But the error in ys!hn (text: ylhn), if such it be, weakens the case for reading shn in column I.22. Hence our preference is for sfr'a, understanding it to be an obvious error for s^q, in light of the similarities between /'a/ and /q/. To summarize the argument so far, we appear to have two verbs used in parallelism: shq//'an /34/. The couplet may be rendered: shq.b*l. «m. 'a|iy

"Laugh, Baal, with my brethren,

w'an.hd.<m.'aryy

Relax, (or Be at ease) Haddu, with my kinsmen."

Thus CTA 5.1.22-23 gives further tentative support to the presence of a verb 'an in Ugaritic with the sense "be at ease, relax" /35/. There is one further Ugaritic text which might possibly be adduced in support of the verb 'an, "be at ease, relax" in Ugaritic. The text is CTA 3(
Craigie:

Song of Deborah

41

frontation of him, but after she assumes a somewhat more respectful form of address (column V.37-42) > El "relaxes/takes his ease", and answers accordingly. The difficulty of the translation, however, lies in the form of the word, 'any. On the basis of the Arabic cognate, Ugaritic 'an would be a verb mediae-w/y, and this fact in turn makes it difficult to explain the form with suffixed - y. I assume a suffixed - y here indicating an adverbial function /38/, but I can produce no good Ugaritic analogues Cthough it might be noted that Heb. 'nyt also has a suffix to indicate adverbial function, according to the hypothesis). In summary, this example gives only very tentative evidence concerning the existence of an Ugaritic verb 'an, "relax, be at ease", and several of the suggestions noted in footnote 37 are equally good possibilities. Finally, let us return to some further reflections on Judges 5:17 in the light of the Ugaritic evidence. The examination of additional Ugaritic evidence has lent further, cautious support to John Gray's translation: "and Dan abode at ease". In the history of the transmission of the Hebrew text, two reasons can be suggested to account for the shift from "at ease" to "ships". (1) In Hebrew, as in Ugaritic /39/, there is potential orthographic homonymity in words derived from V^wn/ V*nh. (2) The reference to the "sea" in Judges 5:17c contributed to the misunderstanding of 'nywt in the sense of "ships".

III.

The Meaning of ms*ptym in Judges 5:16

The word m£ptym is clearly archaic in Biblical Hebrew, occurring only in Genesis 49:14 and Judges 5:16; sptym in Psalm 68:14 appears to be a variant form of the same word. The difficulties relating to the meaning of the word are also ancient, as becomes clear, for example, from an examination of the Versions at Judges 5:16. And, in modern times, the debate over the meaning of the word continues /40/. A possible solution to the meaning of mSptym on the basis of Ugaritic was advanced by W.F. Albright; /41/ since this solution has also been incorporated in a recent commentary on Judges without critical comment /42/, it is worth subjecting it to critical reassessment. Albright argued that ms'ptym meant "hearths" or

42

JSOT 2 (1977)

"fireplaces", basing his argument on the meaning of mtpdm in the Ugaritic texts. Let us first examine the Ugaritic evidence. Ugaritic mtpdm is used three times (in parallel passages) and in each case the textual reading is clear /43/. The meaning of the word, however, is by no means clear, as an examination of the variety of translations will show /44/. Whatever the precise meaning of mtpdm is, one might expect it to be illuminated by the use of the verb _tpd, occurring in three different contexts (but in a formulaic style) in the Ugaritic texts /45/. In each case, the verb (in the form ytjpd) indicates some kind of action relating to feet and a footstool. The precise meaning of the verb and its derivative (mtpdm) must probably remain uncertain in the light of current evidence, but the most reasonable solution advanced so far is that of Caquot, Sznycer and Herdner /46/· They suggest the meaning "taper du pied" for _tpd, and "bonds" for mtpdm; the value of their suggestion lies in the serious attempt to relate the meaning of the two forms /47/. To summarize the Ugaritic evidence, the meaning of mtpdm is uncertain, but the translation "hearths" is particularly difficult, partly because it gives a somewhat forced meaning to the Ugaritic passage in which it is used, and partly because it is hard to relate that meaning to the use of yjtpd in its various contexts /48/. To compound the difficulty, there are linguistic problems in the equation mSptym (Hebrew) = mtpdm (Ugaritic). Therefore, cautiously, the Ugaritic argument for the translation of Hebrew ms'ptym must be rejected. This rejection does not mean that the meaning of msptym is unclear, however, for at approximately the same time that Albright was formulating his argument from Ugaritic evidence, Eissfeldt was clarifying the meaning of the term from archaeological evidence /49/. Eissfeldt's solution has been followed up by John Gray in his recent commentary /50/, and it is a thoroughly satisfactory solution to the meaning of msptym. Gray, taking account of the dual form of msptym, translates: "(between) the converging fold-walls". The reference is to converging walls, part of the structure of a sheepfold, which facilitated the coralling of flocks /51/. Eissfeldt had commented: "Was Etymologie und Exegese hier nicht leisten können, vermag die Archäologie" /52/. It is

Craigie:

Song of Deborah

43

possible, however, that the solution provided by archaeology may find further support from comparative etymology, though in this instance from Egyptian sources and not from Ugaritic sources. What follows is an hypothesis only. On an Egyptian scarab of Amenophis III, recording a hunt for wild cattle /53/, the word sbty is used with the meaning "enclosure". The same word is also used in a number of other 18th Dynasty texts with the sense "surrounding walls" or "ramparts" /54/. The general similarity of Egyptian sbty to Hebrew (m)s'ptym is clear, though the equation is not without linguistic difficulties. The equivalence of the first radical of each word is not too difficult, for Egyptian /s/ = Hebrew /£/ is evidenced elsewhere /55/. The principal difficulty lies with the second radical in each case, Egyptian /hI = Hebrew /p/; while this would be an unusual consonantal equivalence, the two letters are very close phonetically, being respectively voiced bilabial plosive and unvoiced bilabial plosive /56/. This is no more than a suggestion concerning the background of Hebrew ms*ptym, but it blends more happily with the archaeological evidence noted by Eissfeldt and Gray, than does the argument from Ugaritic evidence.

Concluding Remarks These three studies have demonstrated again the potential wealth of the Ugaritic sources for the interpretation of Hebrew texts. But they have also served as a reminder, that after 46 years of study, the Ugaritic texts themselves still contain a very large number of difficulties, and that these difficulties in turn exacerbate the attempt to utilize Ugaritic texts for the clarification of Hebrew. To this difficulty, it must be added that the Song of Deborah is unusual in Hebrew literature, in that its antiquity and subject matter make it potentially a more viable subject for comparison than is the case with most other Hebrew literature /57/. In other words, one would expect the difficulties encountered with the present study to be increased with most other comparative studies.

JSOT 2 (1977)

44

Footnotes 1. See G.R. Driver, JSS[ 10 0.965) , p. 117; J.C. de Moor and P. van der Lugt, "The Spectre of Pan-Ugaritism", Bibliotheca Orientalis 31 (1974), pp. 3-26; the latter is a review article of L.R. Fisher (ed.), Ras Shamra Parallels, I. 2. A. Globe, "The Text and Literary Structure of Judges 5, 4-5", Biblica 55 (1974), p. 175. 3. See T.H. Gaster, Thespis (New York: Harper and Row, 1966: first published in 1950), p. 237; A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques I. Mythes et légendes (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1974), p. 161 (note e). Gaster notes a similar conviction in classical writings and both writers refer to preIslamic Arab beliefs on the same topic. 4. J. Blenkinsopp, "Ballad Style and Psalm Style in the Song of Deborah: A Discussion", Biblica 42 (1961), p. 73; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (London: Nelson, 1967), p. 289; R.G. Boling, Judges. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible, Vol. 6A, 1975), p. 113. 5. The principal variations in the translation of the clause depend on whether the reading nskh or tskh is accepted, the latter having been suggested by Virolleaud in his editio princeps; but cf. CTA 3:IV:88. The translation above is based on the reading nskh. 6. Note that we are dealing with a clause here, as distinct from the construct- or bound-expressions in the preceding lines. 7. A. Globe, "The Literary Structure and Unity of the Song of Deborah", JBL 93 (1974), p. 501. The text numbering employed indicates the reading of G.R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends » pp. 116-117. 8. See R. Smend, Yahweh War and Tribal Confederation (trans. M. Rogers. Nashville; Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 82. The hypothesis is developed in the context of the Ugaritic evidence by P.D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Semitic Monographs, 5, 1973), pp. 21-23, 98.

Craigie:

Song of Deborah

45

9. Miller, ibid., p. 22. As already noted, the left hand side of the tablet is broken, but in this section that fact is less significant than in section 1 above, since both expressions which are relevant to the argument can be read clearly. 10. The majority of translators take the passage to mean that after the birth of Sfrx and Sim, offerings were to be brought "to Lady §pg and to the stars". See A. Caquot e* aJL , Textes ougaritiques I, p. 376; G.R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, p. 123; D. Tsumura, The Ugaritic Drama of the Good Gods: A Philo­ logical Study (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1973), p. 16 Cthough see p. 77, where the interpretation suggests that Tsumura's view is closer to that of Trujillo, below); P. Xella, * Il Mito di Sfor e ?lm. Saggio sulla mitologia ugaritica (Rome, 1973), p. 38. Alternatively, the passage may mean that after the birth of §hr and Sim, the twin gods were to be set "by the lady §ρ£ and by"the stars"; cf. I. Trujillo, The Ugaritic Ritual for a Sacrificial Meal Honoring the Good Gods, (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1973), p. 182. Certain other translations are ambig­ uous as to the meaning of the line. 11. P.D. Miller, o£. cit., pp. 22-23, notes also that Philo Biblius included the stars in the divine pantheon. 12. Further Ugaritic evidence may perhaps be found in CTA 13 (UT 6 ) , 13; this text is discussed in section 3 below. 13.

"L'hymne ugaritique à Anat", Syria 33 (1956), pp. 49-57.

14.

Ibid., p. 53.

15. Hence even the reading "stars" is slightly uncertain. Herdner, CTA, p. 57 reads: [k]b{.}kbm. Gordon, UT, p. 161 reads: [ ]bm. 16. On the warlike character of Anat, see further P.C. Craigie, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 239-240. 17. See H. Gese et^ al., Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens, und der Mandäer (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970), p. 168, citing Aistleitner, Wörterbuch, no. 2299. 18.

While sbu certainly may have the meaning "army" in Ugaritic,

46

JSOT 2 (1977)

all the passages in which. sbu.Sp? occurs should probably be translated "sunset": CTA 33757 (parallel to App, 11.51 = CTA, p. 137), and 35:53. See also CTA 19.IV.209, and compare CTA 15.V. 19. 19. On the military character of Athtar, see RS.20.24.17 and the association with the Hurrian god AStabi; cf. J. Nougayrol, Ugaritica 5 (1968), p. 52; P.C. Craigie, ZAW 85 (1973), p. 224. 20. See RS.24:244.51-52 (Ugaritica 5, p. 566). The twin gods are associated with ^ps^ and their residence is "heaven" (cf. M. Astour, "Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms", JNES 27 (1968), p. 21). Compare also RS.24.251.18 (Ugaritica 5, p. 576). 21. The Heb. is bgbrtw, an expression with strong military overtones. 22. The evidence is gathered together in a study entitled "Anat and Deborah: A Study of Poetic Imagery", which has not yet been published. 23. J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (London: Nelson, 1967), pp. 287-288. 24. Alternatively, lmh could be understood as an emphatic HI with the addition of -ml, on the basis of Ugaritic usage: see F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 235, note 74. 25. J. Gray, The KRT Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra. A Social Myth of Ancient Canaan (Leiden: Brill, 1964), pp. 13, 4546. 26. Gray's emendation is thoroughly plausible, being based on the confusion of the word divider and the first element of the following letter: hence, in line 212, /.'a/ accidentally becomes

In/. 11. For a clear summary of these two alternatives, see A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques I. Mythes et légendes, pp. 520-521 (note k ) . 28.

To counter this negative point, however, it must be recalled

Craigie:

Song of Deborah

that there are a number of variant readings in the parallel passages in Keret, and also a number of clear errors Cthough of a minor nature, as in the case under discussion). For discussion, and tabulation of variant readings in Keret, see M.E.J. Richardson, "Ugaritic Spelling Errors", Tyndale Bulletin 24 (1973), pp. 3-20 (*6-14). 29.

G.R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, pp. 104-105.

30. Some support for Driver's translation may be found in T.H. Gaster, Thespis, p. 205. 31.

Canaanite Myths and Legends, p. 135 (note 21).

32. Both follow the reading in Virolleaud's editio princeps, Syria 15 (1934), pp. 305-356. 33.

H.L. Ginsberg, Orientalia 5 (1936), p. 187.

34. For further discussion of the problem, and of attempts to solve it, see P.J. van Zijl, Baal. A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10, 1972), pp. 160-161. 35. In terms of results, we have not advanced beyond Driver, but the absence of detailed argument in Driver's edition of the text made his position somewhat tentative. 36. Parallel texts (though in a bad state of preservation) may be found in CTA 4.1.4-5; 4.IV.47. 37. The following are selected examples only: Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, p. 97: "At that very moment" (from 'any, "be opportune"); Gordon, Ugaritic Literature, p. 23: "loudly"; A. Caquot ej^ ad., Textes ougaritiques I, p. 176: "il gémit" (literally: "en gémissant"); U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1971), pp. 103, 140; "Pray"; Svi Rin, a lîlot ha'elim (Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1968), pp. 107, 112: 'noh, qro», yll. 38. Note that several of the translations listed in footnote 37 indicate the word has an adverbial function. 39.

See the comments of C.H. Gordon, VT_ (Glossary), p. 361,

47

JSOT 2 (1977)

48

section 19.247. 40. In addition to the studies cited below, see J.E. Hogg, "The meaning of hmgptym in Gen. 49.14 and Judg. 5.16", AJSL 43 0-92627), pp. 299-301; A.D. Crown, "Judges 5.15b-16", VT 17 (1967), pp. 240-241. 41. W.F. Albright, "A Catalogue of Hebrew Lyric Verse", HUCA 23 (1950-51), p. 22; idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London: Athlone Press, 1968), p. 237 (note). 42.

R.G. Boling, Judges, p. 112.

43. 79.

CTA 1 (UT
44. Albright translated Ui.mtpdm by "two fireplaces" (i.e. "hot springs"), though this translation does not easily clarify the meaning of the passage. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature, p. 21, suggests tentatively "stages". The translation "layer" makes reasonable sense of the text and has been suggested by both U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, pp. 96-97, 138 and G.R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, pp. 88-89, 161; the difficulties with this translation lie in the doubtful Arabic derivation (from the root jtfd) and in the problem of a consistent relationship be­ tween the form mtpd and the verbal y_tpd. R.J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Harvard Semitic Monographs 4, 1972), pp. 87-88 (note), simply renders "mithpads", making the reasonable suggestion that the word is a measure of distance of some kind. 45. CTA 4 (UT 51).4.29; CTA 6 (UT 49).3.15; CTA 17 (UT 2 Aqht).2. 11. The only other occurrence of words related to the root form ^pd are in the personal name bn tpdn; see F. Grondahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1967), p. 417. 46.

Textes Ougaritiques I, pp. 171 (note y), 204 (note g ) .

47. Thus for ytpd alone, the translations "he sets, places" are viable, but at the same time, they make a sensible translation of mtpdm more difficult.

Craigie:

Song of Deborah

48. Even if tpd means "set, place" in Ugaritic, it is always used in relation to "feet", whereas the implication of Albright's argument is that the basic meaning of the verb is "to set (upon a hearth, fire)". 49. 0. Eissfeldt, "Gabelhürden im Ostjordanland", (FF 25 [1949], pp. 9-11) and "Noch einmal: Gabelhürden im Ostjordanland", (FF 28 [1954], pp. 54-56), both articles being reprinted in Kleine Schriften III (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), pp. 61-70. 50.

J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, p. 287.

51.

For illustrations, see Kleine Schriften III, pp. 62-63.

52.

Ibid., p. 63.

53. For the Egyptian text, see A. de Buck, Egyptian Reading Book (Leiden: 2nd edition, 1963),^p. 66 (line 5 ) ; cf. Annales du Service des Antiquités de 1*Egypte 44 (1945), p. 34. 54. See A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar (London: 3rd edition, 1957), p. 496; the "wall" determinative is used. 55. Compare (Hebrew) hsb =(Egyptian) hsb; cf. P.C. Craigie, VT 20 (1970), p. 85. ' ~— 56. Viz. if msptym or s'ptym was a Hebrew loan-word, and if it were assimilated aurally, then phonetic similarity would be more significant than consonantal equivalence. 57. I have examined the principles of such comparative studies, and the associated difficulties in: "The Poetry of Ugarit and Israel", Tyndale Bulletin 22 (1971), pp. 3-31.

49

50

JSOT 2 (1977) 50-61

THE PATRIARCHS AND EXTRA-BIBLICAL SOURCES S.M. Warner 1027 Victoria Centre Nottingham HG1 3PQ

The purpose of this paper / l / is to examine the role which the extra-biblical sources can play in the dating of the patriarchal period. The first part of the paper will be a general methodological discussion of the problem. The second part will attempt to formulate specific guidelines which the historian should use. The immediate impetus to discuss this problem comes from the recent work of T. Thompson and J. Van Seters / 2 / who have both questioned the way in which the extra-biblical sources have been used to date the period to an early. Middle Bronze, period /3/. So compelling are their arguments that it is doubtful whether the theory for an early dating of the patriarchal period can ever again be decently resurrected. Certainly it can never be revived in its present form. But yet so inconclusive are the proposals put forward by the theory's two antagonists that the problem of its date is still very much with us. Especially relevant to this problem is the role which the extra-biblical sources can play in solving it. A second impetus for discussing this problem is that issues of methodology are seldom raised when trying to date the patriarchal period. Amid the hundreds of articles written about the patriarchs, it is almost possible to count on the fingers of one hand those specifically concerned with methodology /4/. And this is in spite of the fact that method is so obviously at the bottom of the controversy. Until the crucial methodological issues have been worked through, the problems will not yield coherent solutions.

Warner:

Patriarchs

51

Thus it is hoped that what follows will serve as a starting point for a very necessary discussion on the methodological issues involved in dating the patriarchal period. Some of the proposals made below are not new, and I am much in debt to the work of Noth and de Vaux /5/. However, what no historian has done so far is to generalise about his or her methodology. The task of formulating such a basic theoretical structure, and of laying down specific guidelines for the use of the extra-biblical data, is therefore at present an absolute necessity. 1 This section of the paper will develop a general theoretical framework within which the extra-biblical sources can be used when dating the patriarchal period. 1. It is essential to begin by stressing the methodological necessity for such a theoretical framework, since a prevalent unspoken belief must be firmly countered. This belief is that the more extra-biblical data we possess, the more straightforward will become the task of dating, not only the patriarchs, but all the premonarchical periods /6/. This attitude is totally invalid. Accumulation of data does not overcome methodological stricture, nor does it cause historical problems to evaporate. Rather a plethora of historial data makes the task of reconstructing a historical period more difficult. The need for some type of selection process in this type of situation becomes even more important and necessary. Historical data does not structure itself of its own accord, but depends upon the conceptualisation of the nistorian for its final shape and structure. What is thus of ultimate importance is the method used to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential, and between the relevant and the irrelevant. The modern biblical historian can not therefore use the extrabiblical sources as a means of dating the patriarchal period without at the same time setting out the methodology he intends to use. And it certainly is not enough for any historian of early Israel to believe that as more extra-biblical sources appear, the easier it will become for him or her to date the patriarchal period. In fact, now more than ever, the historian must take the opposite view. As more data pours in on Near Eastern semi-nomadism, social customs, ethnic names, and religious beliefs, the more important it is to develop methodologies capable of relating the biblical data to them.

52

JSOT 2 (1977)

2. Because the biblical sources are the only ones which mention the patriarchs by name, the historian must therefore base his profile of the patriarchal period upon them / 7 / . Such features of the period as how long it lasted, where the patriarchs lived, how they lived, with whom they communicated, the type of social structure they evolved, and the type of religion they had, can only be understood (if they can be understood at all) by turning to the biblical narratives. This control, however naive it might appear to be at first sight, is nonetheless the most fundamentally important control to bear in mind when dating the patriarchal period. Its importance stems from the simple fact that without the biblical sources there would be no patriarchs. Among all the extra-biblical sources so far excavated, there have yet to be found any which mention the patriarchs by name. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob do not exist as far as the extra-biblical sources are concerned. Thus the biblical record, with all its faults, problems, and discrepancies, is the only one by which we can determine the profile of the patriarchal period. To determine any major part of the period's profile from sources which do not mention the patriarchs is nonsense. One can not determine the known (i.e. the profile of the patriarchal period obtained from the biblical sources) from the unknown (i.e. extra-biblical data which make no mention of the patriarchs at all). To do so would be to commit an obvious methodological error. 3. Conversely, it must follow that the role of the extra-biblical sources can only be secondary when reconstructing the profile and date of the patriarchal period. Up till now, the extra-biblical sources have been used to serve two main functions: first, as a means of confirming a profile of the patriarchal period based upon the biblical narrative, and second, as a means of falsifying such a picture. Thus historians, having deduced from the biblical narratives that a period of Israel's history with characteristics A, B, and C should be placed into period Y, have considered themselves methodologically obliged to verify or falsify their profile by testing it out against the relevant extra-biblical data. If the extra-biblical data for period Y indicate that conditions A, Β and C do in fact exist in period Y, they would accept that the proposed profile would thereby be verified to a greater or lesser extent. The degree of verifica­ tion would depend upon such factors as the exactitude of the conditions involved, and whether or not conditions A, B, and C existed in other periods. But if, on the other hand, it is shown from the extra-biblical data that period Y does not contain

Warner:

Patriarchs

53

conditions A, Β, and C, but reveals conditions M, N, and O which are antithetical to A, B f and C, then the proposed reconstruction is obviously falsified and should be immediately abandoned. But unfortunately, even though the above remarks are correct in theory, in practice they are very difficult to put into effect. Particularly is this true when attempting to define the earliest periods of Israel's history. The situation in these cases is nearly always not as clear-cut as one would like, and it is difficult to either completely confirm or falsify a proposed profile of a biblical period. The reason for this is generally that both the biblical data and the extra-biblical data are either too sparse or problematical for such tests to be adequately carried out· Thus the historian's reconstruction is caught in what might be called a M limbo" situation in which it can neither be completely verified or falsified. It may be correct or it may be incorrect. The relevant extra-biblical sources are incapable of giving a completely satisfactory answer. In this type of situation there are basically two options open to the historian. First, while admitting that the relevant extrabiblical sources do not confirm his proposed reconstruction as adequately as he would like, he can argue that since they do not directly falsify it either, the reconstruction should stand until direct falsification, in the form of new extra-biblical sources, forces him to abandon it. Second, the historian can modify the reconstruction immediately, and propose a new date for it which would enable him to place it against extra-biblical sources capable of directly confirming it. It is difficult to blame the historian for taking the second of these options and modifying his proposed reconstruction immediately. It is certainly psychologically more satisfying to propose a reconstruction capable of verification rather than one which is not. But yet, in spite of this obvious benefit, this step is not only unnecessary, it is methodologically unsound. In these circumstances, the correct and only possible procedure to be adopted is to ensure that one's proposed reconstruction is "nonfalsified" by the extra-biblical sources. By the term "nonfalsification" I mean that there should be nothing in the relevant extra-biblical sources which contradicts the profile of any given period indicated by the biblical sources. In other words, the biblical historian should no longer view the primary role of the extra-biblical sources as being a positive, verifying, one, but rather as being a negative, falsifying one. The first task of the historian when checking out a reconstruction of early Israel

54

JSOT 2 (1977)

against the pertinent extra-biblical data should therefore not be to seek out positive synchronisms or specific similarities between the two sets of data. Rather his first task is to ensure that there is nothing in the extra-biblical sources which directly contradicts the proposed reconstruction. To illustrate this point, let us examine a situation which would develop if a historian has elected to locate the patriarchal period against the extra-biblical data of the Late Bronze period, his analysis of the biblical sources having first indicated that this would be the most likely period in which to place it. And let us further assume that the historian has elected to use the same correlations between extra-biblical and biblical sources with which to locate the period as are used by those scholars who argue for an earlier. Middle Bronze date /8/. Unlike these latter scholars, our historian does not have the luxury of knowing that literally hundreds of Mari texts confirm the existence of seminomadic tribal groups living on the fringes of Syrian and Palestinian society. Nor has he the luxury of knowing that in the Middle Bronze period there exists perhaps more evidence of people bearing so-called Amorite names than in any other period. Nor is he able to point to surface archaeological reports confirming the existence of numerous TransJordanian sites in the areas where the patriarchs are said to have lived. In fact, the historian wishing to place the patriarchs into the Late Bronze period has precious little extra-biblical data at all to help him locate his reconstruction. He has a very much smaller number of Amorite names at his disposal, virtually no data about the social organisation of any tribal groups living in Syria or Palestine, and he knows next to nothing about the population of TransJordan /9/. In spite of this, however, the historian should not be deterred from locating his proposed profile of the patriarchal period within the Late Bronze age, however enviously he might gaze upon the mountains of material provided by the earlier period. For if in fact he does move the proposed profile over to the earlier period, he is committing two very important methodological errors. First, he is allowing the extra-biblical data to determine a fundamental feature of the patriarchal period, i.e. its relationship with the biblical period following it, a relationship which should be established only from the biblical sources. Second, since a historian need only "non-falsify" a reconstruction in "limbo" cases like this, it is immaterial whether there is a large or a small amount of extra-biblical data available. The important consideration is not the amount of available data, but whether

Warner:

Patriarchs

55

there is any aspect of the data which makes it impossible to place his reconstruction within the period. And even if no relevant extra-biblical sources were available, there would still be no methodological necessity for a historian to move a proposed profile to greener pastures. The idea of "non-falsification" does not necessitate positive verification, and thus positive links between biblical and extra-biblical data need not be established. /10/. 2 In the previous section a methodological framework was suggested within which the historian could work when using extra-biblical sources to help establish a date for the patriarchal period. I argued that the role of the extra-biblical sources was very secondary, and that they should be used primarily as a means of "falsifying" or "non-falsifying" a profile of the period suggested by the biblical sources. But obviously, if a historian has carried through these two procedures, and has established that the extra-biblical sources "non-falsify" his proposed profile, he may find that the extra-biblical sources can help him in a less negative fashion. I would suggest that a further role the extrabiblical sources can play is that they can "elaborate" a profile of the biblical period. If a very high degree of correlation is found between certain features of a period's profile and those of a Near Eastern period determined on the basis of biblical evidence to be the one against which the biblical period should be located, a historian is allowed to use such correlations to place the biblical period more concretely into a Near Eastern context. But clearly great caution must be taken in doing this, and such elaboration must be carried out with the utmost rigour. In what follows, some controls will be outlined which the historian should bear in mind when using the extra-biblical sources to "elaborate" his proposed biblical profile. These controls are very obvious. But, as Thompson and Van Seters have shown, they have not been followed when extra-biblical data has been used in a different methodological context to actually date the patriarchal period. 1. There must be a very high degree of correlation between the biblical and the extra-biblical sources. As Noth has already pointed out /ll/, there has been a tendency in the past to seize upon any piece of extra-biblical data, however remotely connected with the biblical record of the patriarchs such evidence may be, and use it to support a particular theory about them. Some form

56

JSOT 2 (1977)

of discrimination, therefore, is highly desirable. There is little use, for example, in collecting evidence about the activities of donkey-caravaneers during the second millenium and using it to elaborate the society of the patriarchs, unless it can first be shown from the biblical sources that the patriarchs were involved in some type of donkey-caravaneering activity. Without this correlation, the collection of extra-biblical data about second millenium donkey-caravaneers, however interesting it may be in its own right, becomes thoroughly meaningless and irrelevant for the task at hand. /12/. Likewise, there is little point in using evidence of a gap in the sedentary life of TransJordan for the same purpose unless it can first be shown from the biblical narratives that the patriarchs, when they lived in TransJordan, had a sedentary lifestyle. These two illustrations show how important it is, not only that a high degree of correlation should exist between the biblical and extra-biblical data, but also that, when making such correlations, the starting point should always be the biblical evidence. 2. The extra-biblical sources used to elaborate a profile of the patriarchal period should not conflict with one another. If, for example, by using one control, it were possible to associate the patriarchs with events or customs in period Y, it would be dangerous to use another control which would associate the patriarchs with period Z. Clearly the two controls, if used simultaneously, would be in conflict with one another. Likewise, if another control makes it possible to correlate the patriarchs with region M during period Y, it would be equally dangerous to use another control which would correlate them with region Ν during that time /13/. It is impossible for the patriarchs to have lived in two different places at the same time, or for them to have lived in two different periods of time which are many centuries apart.- The patriarchs must have lived in one period or the other, and in one place or the other. To use controls which would force us to conclude otherwise, that the patriarchs lived in two different places simultaneously, or in two different periods of time simultaneously, would obviously lower the resulting historical reconstruction to the realm of fairy-tale and fiction. 3. Any type of extra-biblical data can be used to "elaborate" a profile of the patriarchal period. The data need not be of the same type as the biblical data. Thus if one classifies the biblical sources as being Sage or Marchen, one need not only use extra-biblical Sage or Marchen to elaborate a proposed

Warner:

Patriarchs

57

profile /14/. Because all historical sources are biased by virtue of such factors as their type, authorship, and state of preservation, they are therefore limited, and should not necessarily be accepted as conveying historical truth. Where possible, historical sources should thus be checked out against other sources which do not share their biases and limitations. For example, information found in historical sources biased towards particular institutions or their authors' self-interests, e.g. official histories of political parties, political memoirs etc., can best be checked out against data contained in sources of different types, e.g. official voting statistics, newspaper reports etc. Similarly, information contained in the patriarchal narratives, whether they be classified as folk-tale, cult-legend, or some other form, can Dest be evaluated and elaborated by data contained in sources of another type, e.g. political records, administrative archives, non-epigrapnic material, or economic documents. 3 In conclusion, I stress that the main purpose of this paper has been to present a viable methodological framework within which the problems of patriarchs and extra-biblical sources can be discussed. The specific guidelines described in the previous section are, however obvious, very important. The list of guidelines is of course most incomplete. My aim was only to initiate a "methodological check-list" for the historian of tne patriarchal penoct. The list should therefore be added to by others. By emphasising the idea of "non-falsification", I have tried to re-open the debate on the method by which the extra-biblical sources can be used when reconstructing the patriarchal period. If the idea has any meaningfulness at all, it will be because it recognises not only tne limitations of the role of the extraDiblical data, jjut also the methodological priorities which the historian must £>ear in mind. The idea might relegate the importance of the extra-biblical sources, but at least it puts their use onto what is hoped will be a firmer methodological footing. 4 Addendum There are two presuppositions made about the biblical data in this paper wnich are not generally shared by biblical historians: that

58

JSOT 2 (1977)

it is possible (a) to assume that the patriarchal period was a unity, and (b) to link the patriarchal period with succeeding biblical periods. The first presupposition I would argue for five reasons. First, no later biblical or extra-biblical source challenges such a hypothesis. It is true that later writers, e.g. the Priestly writer, retrojected their ideas and beliefs into the patriarchal period, but in doing so they never argued that the patriarchs were not semi-nomadic, that they did not live in tents, that they did not herd cattle, etc. Second, no matter how many literary units we divide Genesis into, we still end up with the patriarchal period being described in essentially the same way. Third, there is no reason to a priori doubt from the extra-biblical sources that such a phase of history was impossible. In fact, we know of no time during the second millenium when such a mode of existence could not have taken place on the fringes of Syria and Palestine. Fourth, it seems more logical to seek the beginnings of Israel in a semi-nomadic life-style than in a sedentary one. If the sources at our disposal indicate that Israel's beginnings were in fact semi-nomadic, it therefore seems rather pointless to deny the sources their witness. The above four arguments are not compelling. But yet I accept them precisely because there are known to the historian today no methodologies which can claim to destroy the unity of the period as presented by the sources. Until such methodologies are established, the historian has little option but to accept the picture presented by the sources. This is the fifth reason why I accept the unity of the period. Until recently, the statements made above would have been dismissed out of hand. A large percentage of historians would have accepted the claims of form criticism and traditio-historical research to have destroyed the unity of the sources completely. These two methodologies attempt to demonstrate that the unity of the period is artificial, the result of oral, preliterary forces which only later shaped originally very separate traditions into their present form and groupings /15/. But now it seems unlikely that the methodologies used by form critics and others can be applied with the certainty once accorded them. New work on oral transmission and tradition have rendered many of their presuppositions either suspect or incorrect, a situation which is recognised by both form critics and non-form critics alike /16/. More importantly, the more fundamental question has been raised as to exactly how many

Warner:

Patriarchs

59

of the patriarchal narratives were in fact originally orally transmitted /17/. I have argued elsewhere /18/ that there is at present no known means of answering this problem. But until it is answered, it is nonsensical to base any speculation on the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, or lack of it, on what little is known about the way in which oral traditions can preserve the memory of historical events /19/. The second presupposition about the biblical data made in this paper, that it is possible to link the patriarchal period to succeeding biblical periods, is based upon essentially the same type of arguments as those above. First, data does exist which links the patriarchal period to another biblical period, namely the Exodus. This data is of three types: genealogies, direct chronological data, and historical narrative accounts /20/. However suspect, inaccurate, or contradictory this information might be, it should still nonetheless be used. There is no other information at our disposal, and at present there is no satisfactory methodology to enable us to circumvent it. The fact that this information is not as ideal (to put it mildly) as we would like should not force us to abandon it unless we have sound methodological alternatives at our disposal. Reconstructing ancient history is largely a question of recognising the limits of the available sources, of accepting these limits, and of appreciating that we can not go beyond them. The resulting reconstructions might lack the precision, the detail, and the clarity which we crave. But at least they will have the highly desirable merit of not going beyond the bounds of reasonable methodology. If the available information is, in our minds, second rate, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. The second point about this material is that, as we have already said, there exists no sound methodology to circumvent it. Form criticism and its affiliated disciplines are no longer as viable as was once thought, and the only other means of circumventing it would be to use the extra-biblical sources as the ultimate means of dating the period. But this would violate the procedure spelt out in the main section of this paper, and therefore should not be used. Thus we have no other option but to use this biblical data unless we can devise a more satisfactory methodology to solve the problems before us.

60

JSOT 2 (1977)

1.

I would like to thank Dr. H. McKeating of Nottingham University, and Mr. D. CIines for reading and commenting upon earlier drafts of this paper.

2.

T. Thompson, The historicity of the patriarchs (New York, 1974) , and J. Van Seters, Abraham in history and tradition (New Haven, 1975).

3.

This theory has most importantly been proposed by W.F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity (New York, 1957) , pp. 236-249; J. Bright, A history of Israel (London, 1959), pp. 39-93; and R. de Vaux, Histoire Ancienne d'Israel (Paris, 1971), pp. 157-273.

4.

Among this handful, we should especially include J. Bright, Early Israel in recent history writing. Studies in biblical theology, first series, 19 (London, 1956); M. Noth, "Der Beitrag der Archäologie zur Geschichte Israel", VTS VII (1960), pp.262-282, and R. de Vaux's essay on the patriarchs in his The Bible and the Ancient Near East (London, 1972), pp.111-121.

5.

Especially is this true of Noth's essay cited in n.4.

6.

This is not a "straw man" argument. Many scholars, e.g. Albright and Bright as cited in note 3, have begun their discussions on the patriarchs by drawing attention to the mass of recently discovered archaeological data which has "illuminated" our understanding of the period. What these scholars do not do, however, is lay down guidelines to enable the historian to decide which of this data will illuminate the period, and which will darken it.

7.

This point has also been stressed by Noth, op. cit. p. 264 seq.

8.

These scholars have been cited above in footnote 3.

9.

All three of these groups of evidence, e.g. the Amorite names from Mari and elsewhere, the evidence of tribal society from Mari, and the history of the sedentary occupation of TransJordan, have been used by Albright and others to substantiate a M.B. date for the patriarchs. Thompson and Van Seters are at their best in demolishing the correlations drawn between this evidence and the biblical evidence.

10.

This procedure does, however, raise important problems

Warner:

Patriarchs

61

regarding the status of the resulting historical reconstruction as historical "fact". Historians in general, and ancient historians in particular, have not established any generally accepted methodological procedures to be used in this type of situation. For discussions of the verification procedures used by contemporary historians, see J. Barzun and H.F. Graff, The modern researcher (New York, 1970), pp. 99-128, and G. Kitson Clark, The critical historian (London, 1967), pp. 13-128. lle

op»cit. p.265 seq.

12.

As against Albright, "Abram the Hebrew. A new archaeological interpretation". BASOR 163 (1961), pp. 36-54.

13.

Noth again has emphasised this point, op. cit. p. 264, against Albright in his use of the TransJordanian and Nuzu evidence, de Vaux, on the other hand, is aware of the problem, and seeks to avoid it. See "Les patriarches Hébreux et l'histoire," RB LXXII (1965), pp. 23-26.

14.

As against Thompson, op. cit. p. 321, who seems to argue that only data of the same type can be used to elaborate the biblical narratives.

15.

As classically argued by H. Gunkel, Genesis (Tubingen, 1901), and M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart, 1948).

16.

An excellent discussion of these problems, as they relate to tne Pentateuch, is given by J.A. Wilcoxen, "Narrative", in J. Hayes ed. Old Testament form criticism (San Antonio, 1974), pp. 57-98.

17.

Especially by Van Seters, op. cit. p.132 seq., and p. 158 seq.

18.

In an as yet unpublished paper "Primitive Saga Men".

19.

On this problem, see R.C. Culley, "Oral tradition and historicity", in Studies on the ancient Palestinian world, ed. J.W. Weavers and D.B. Redford (Toronto, 1972), pp. 102-116.

20.

The best summary of this material is to be found in H.H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (London, 1948) pp.57-108.

62

JSOT 2 (1977) 62-66

THE PATRIARCHS AND EXTRA-BIBLICAL SOURCES; A RESPONSE J. Maxwell Miller - Candler School of Theology Emory University One can point to problems in Thompson's and Van Seters' own methods and conclusions. But Warner's assessment of the overall impact of their studies of the patriarchal materials is, in my opinion, well on the mark. So devastating are their arguments against the theory for an early dating of the patriarchal period, the so-called "Amorite hypothesis," "that it is doubtful whether this theory can ever again be decently resurrected." Certainly more will be required than minor adjustments in the details. It is the very methodology with which Albright and his followers set about to date the patriarchs and reconstruct a profile of their age which has been called into account. Warner recognizes this and properly insists that the matter of methodology be given conscious consideration at this stage of the discussion. Warner may have a hidden agenda — i.e., one suspects that he is laying the groundwork for an attempt to associate the patriarchs with the Late Bronze Age. Nevertheless, the central contention of this paper is that the extra-biblical sources are of much more limited usefulness for historical treatment of the patriarchs than has been widely supposed. I can only agree with him on this matter and affirm the methodological principles which he sets forth in sections 1-3 of the paper. They boil down to the following (perhaps I state them a bit stronger than he does): (1) The impressive accumulation of archaeological data from the Bronze Age and the number of parallels (and supposed parallels) between the patriarchal narratives and extra-biblical documents from that period do not, simply by the fact of their existence, prove anything about the historicity and/or date of the patriarchs, and certainly do not overcome the necessity for methodological controls. In fact this accumulation of data, which is of various sorts and unevenly distributed over a broad

Miller:

Response to Warner

63

geographical area and long period of time, calls for stronger methodological controls as a guard against "parallelomania" and the sort of speculative hypotheses which this malady tends to produce. (2) Even if the historicity of the patriarchs were not open to question and it could be shown that the patriarchal narratives fit nicely against the historical and cultural backdrop of a particular Near Eastern period, this would not constitute determinative evidence for identifying that particular period as "the Patriarchal Age" unless all other periods which reasonably come into consideration as the chronological context of the patriarchs had been ruled out. Yet the fact is, given the limitations and uneven distribution of the currently available extra-biblical evidence, it would be virtually impossible to rule out absolutely any period of the Bronze Age or even Iron I as an at least conceivable setting for the patriarchs. (3) Since the Hebrew patriarchs are known to us only from the biblical sources, it stands to reason that any historical treatment of them must begin with and depend primarily upon the biblical account. Only if their historicity and approximate chronological context can be determined first from the biblical account, and only if the historian can recognize a high degree of correlation between the profile of the patriarchal age as derived from the Bible and the profile of the apparently corresponding Near Eastern period, is it methodologically acceptable to propose "elaborations" of the former profile on the basis of the latter and in effect to place "the Patriarchal Age" more concretely in its Near Eastern context. This brings us back to the real heart of the issue, therefore, which Albright and others sought to circumvent with arguments grounded in extra-biblical data: Do the biblical sources themselves provide adequate basis for the historian who is sensitive to methodological controls to reach any confident conclusions regarding the historicity and date of the patriarchs? If so, by what procedures and in accordance with what controls is he to utilize these sources for historical reconstruction, since in their present form they obviously include folk elements of doubtful historicity and reflect throughout the influence of non-historiographic concerns. Methodological controls for dealing with the biblical materials is not the announced topic of Warner's paper. But his observations regarding the proper use of extra-biblical data involve certain presuppositions in this regard, as he concedes

64

JSOT 2 (1977)

in the Addendum, and it is clear that he wishes to operate with much looser controls and is prepared to accept more gratuitous arguments when it comes to the biblical materials than he is for the extra-biblical sources. Consider the five arguments advanced in support of his presupposition that there was a unified patriarchal period. Warner himself admits that the first four are not very compelling. But neither is the fifth. Actually, the most one can say of all five arguments, taken individually or collectively, is that they "non-falsify" the presupposition — i.e., if one is predisposed to accept the biblical claim that there was a unified patriarchal age, then, in Warner's judgment, these five factors will not stand in the way. None of the five arguments is particularly supportive of the presupposition, and not all of them will bear close scrutiny. The fifth is especially misleading in two regards: In the first place, the various analytical tools such as form criticism and tráditio-historical criticism have not been discredited to the extent which Warner suggests. Moreover, while the application of these tools to the biblical books may have produced few absolutely incontrovertible conclusions, an overall impact of their application which cannot be dismissed is that the historicity of the Genesis account of the patriarchs has been called into serious question. Regardless of what has or has not been proved or disproved as a result of the application of these tools, critical historians now have unavoidable grounds for suspicion that the very idea of a patriarchal age originated as a literary construct. In the second place, Warner's insistence that, until methodologies are established which can destroy the unity of the period, "the historian has little option but to accept the picture presented in the (biblical) sources" is a blatant non sequitur. Certainly the historian has other options! He can, and is obliged to, either reject the biblical picture of the patriarchal age, or at least withhold judgment on the matter, if his analysis of the pertinent biblical materials leads him to a strong suspicion that this picture is historically untrustworthy. Warner appeals to the same sort of argument as justification for accepting the genealogies, chronological notations and narrative accounts which provide links between the patriarchal age and succeeding biblical periods — i.e., he accepts as essentially valid for historical reconstruction not only the contents of these individual units but also their present arrangement in the Pentateuch. "However suspect, inaccurate, or contradictory this information might be, it should still

Miller:

Response to Warner

65

nonetheless be used. There is no other information at our disposal, and at present there is no satisfactory methodology to enable us to circumvent it." This again is an obvious methodological fallacy. An historian is never obliged to draw conclusions from suspicious, inaccurate, or contradictory information simply because it is all he has at hand. Warner is closer to the mark when he observes further on that "Reconstructing ancient history is largely a question of recognizing the limits of the available sources, of accepting these limits and of appreciating that we cannot go beyond them." This applies, of course, to the biblical as well as the extra-biblical sources. In spite of the fact that the Pentateuch is the only ancient document which concerns itself specifically with the Hebrew patriarchs, it has severe limitations as far as the historian's purposes are concerned, and these limitations cannot be overcome by disparaging the results of form and traditio-historical criticism any more than they could be circumvented by enumerating interesting biblical parallels in the accumulated mass of extra-biblical data from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. This does not mean that historians should disregard the biblical account of the patriarchs, however, which Warner seems to imply is the only option to accepting it as essentially accurate in its present form. In evaluating written sources, ancient or modern, it is rarely a matter of deciding whether a particular document is trustworthy for historical reconstruction, but of determining its degree of credibility and the kind of historical information which legitimately can be derived from it. Warner's paper and my response to this point have focused on two limiting factors in historiography: (1) Every historian must work within the boundaries imposed by his sources of information, and (2) there must be logic and coherence in the way he evaluates these sources and reaches historical conclusions from them. That is, the historian must take into account certain publicly accessible and acceptable canons of evidence and argumentation. In short, he must submit to methodological controls. But historical research is not simply a matter of remaining within the furtherest limits of one's sources and of avoiding methodological fallacies. A third factor operative in any historical research is the historian's judgment. Constantly he is called upon to weigh data of different sorts which often are more suggestive than conclusive and open to more than one legitimate interpretation. When the data relevant to a particular historical issue or period is especially limited and/or problematic, the historian is forced

66

JSOT 2 (1977)

to assume an agnostic stance or to rely heavily on his rather subjective judgment. This is precisely our situation, it seems to me, with regard to the Hebrew patriarchs. The available data is limited, problematic and obviously open to more than one interpretation. In any case it is not a matter of deciding whether the relevant biblical sources are historically trustworthy, but of deciding wherein their authentic historical value lies. I am inclined to believe that there is embedded in at least some of the patriarchal narratives authentic historical elements which hark back to Israelite forefathers and/or tribal movements of the Late Bronze and Early Iron I Ages. However, while some mildly supportive arguments can be advanced in favor of this view, it cannot be demonstrated in my opinion (any more than it can be disproved) in terms of irrefutable methodological principles from the sort of evidence we have at hand. Form and traditio-historical analyses should, at least in theory, provide some leads in discerning the older elements embedded in the patriarchal materials. But the leads provided thus far are mostly negative — i.e., it is the folk, cultic and redactional elements which are more easily recognizable — and, as Warner hastens to emphasize, the application of these tools have produced few absolutely certain results.

JSOT 2 (1977) 67-74

A NEW GATTUNG IN O.T. LITERATURE?

67

A HEBREW TEACHER'S DREAM

A presentation of Readings in Biblical Hebrew (ed. J.H. Eaton), Birmingham, 1976.

J.H. Eaton, Department of Theology, The University, Birmingham B15 2TT, England.

Yes, dream - not nightmare, for the Gattung which swam before his nocturnal ken was not an addition to those already discovered by Gunkel and more recent sleuths, but a new type of commentary. Gesenius Kidman, senior lecturer, was glad of his unusual forename, which reflected the fact that his parents commenced their courtship while studying for a B.A. in Biblical Studies and having occasion to share a copy of Gesenius1 Grammar; it had probably helped him to rise to his present position with responsibility for teaching elementary Hebrew and Hebrew texts. On the night in question GK (as he was known in the Department) had gone to bed pleasantly bemused after a departmental dinner to mark the retirement of one of their professors which might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Hardly had GK laid his head on his pillow, when he fell asleep and began to dream with unusual vividness. He dreamt that he was seated under a spreading oak on a sunny afternoon; birds sang, bees hummed, and around him his second-year Hebraists were spread out on the grass reading Hebrew bibles. With pleasant surprise he could see that one was enjoying 1 Sam. 5, another Deut. 8, another Ps. 110, another Job 19, another Eccles. 12; further away he could see bibles open at Hosea, Isaiah and Ezekiel. Most surprising of all, Christine Thoroughgood, probably his favourite pupil, seemed to be whispering through her dark tresses words of Ugaritic. The happy ease with which these studies were progressing contrasted with his recollection of his earlier efforts with this class, begun with the long trek through the

JSOT 2 (1977)

68

Joseph saga, when it had been difficult to remember from one lesson to the next who was currently going down into or coming up from Egypt. Pondering the cause of this transformation, GK noticed that beside each pupil nestled amid the buttercups and daisies a neat red volume. Christine seemed to divine the question in his heart and extended her copy to nim with a smile. Turning the pages eagerly, he found commentary on a rich anthology from the Hebrew bible, including the passages he had observed the students reading and many more. The greatest novelty was that all was written directly for the needs of the second-year student - not mostly for the general public with a few scraps of technicality thrown in, nor for advanced scholars with the basics taken as read. Nor was it a bleak list of parsings. Remarks on content and language were blended into a commentary that would enable the student to enter readily into a rounded experience of the text's verbal and spiritual quality. The selection showed the varied resources of the Hebrew bible, and books could be sampled which would be too formidable as a whole. Towards the end some inscriptions and a piece of Ugaritic poetry were reproduced and simply explained, bringing home how biblical scholarship must lie open at its frontiers. So dear Christine had been murmuring Ugaritic after alii His admiration grew. But now GK realized that the birdsong was the dawn chorus rousing him from a dream. For an hour or so he lay awake reflecting on the happy scene under the oak and on the marvellous book. Was he being called to produce such a book? The realities of day-time bore upon him. Publishers would demur; some would suggest aiming at a wider readership; some would mention the needs of the American market; it might eventually be published on the Continent by the ancient house of Grill and sold at £30 a copy. No. The dream had faded, and at 9 a.m. they would be back to the next verse of the Joseph saga, scooping together the various scraps of information from ponderous volumes, wondering whither had fled the thrill of story and language. GK sighed and rose slowly. * * * * * * * * * * But now let us leave our hero - perhaps we shall follow his promising career on another occasion. The fact is that the book of his dreams is not beyond realization, thanks to the development

Eaton:

Readings in Biblical Hebrew

69

of our own printing resources in universities and colleges (of which this new journal is happy evidence). I would like now to describe a first attempt at such a book, falling short of the dream no doubt r but a beginning. It was produced at Birmingham in the University's Offset Litho Section. Like a first-year course which preceded it, it was not intended for wide sale, but for use in our own Department and in several others which had links with us; so only a few hundred copies were produced and these could be sold to students in 1976 at £1.50 (pp. 146, A4 size). I was fortunate to have the initial outlay covered by a grant from the Nuffield foundation, so that receipts will finance future production; the Foundation's interest in the project of course was a tremendous stimulation. The sample pages reproduced below show the contents, contributors and general character. However, a few observations may here be helpful. It seemed good to make it a work of co-operation between several teachers and centres. Quite a few Hebrew teachers follow a lonely trail, with most of their departmental or faculty colleagues concerned with other subjects. In the present case the cooperation brought the work into existence in a matter of months, and contributors usually dealt with an area where they had special interest or experience. They allowed me freedom to redact their work into a general unity as I produced the 'camera-ready' pages with a portable electric typewriter and a pen. As soon as I started to write my own contribution, I realized the difference between improvising remarks on a text to a class on the basis of a few notes and having to fix one's comments precisely and durably on paper. A salutary discipline! The question arose as to how much knowledge of Hebrew could be assumed and how many forms needed explanation. Strict gradation through the book might not be the answer, as it would require the user to take all the passages in order and not selectively. In the end it seemed natural to treat some passages as suitable for an early stage, and so to be generously furnished with vocabulary and clues to parsing, while other material (e.g. Ecclesiastes, inscriptions) could be treated as likely to be tackled by students growing in familiarity with the basics. But there was no rigid demarcation, and if in doubt I tended to give the essential help, mindful of the large proportion of students who are not gifted linguists or blessed with ample time for the subject. All the same, I tried to avoid getting lost in a forest of parsing notes; here, and in all other respects, conciseness seemed essential.

JSOT 2 (1977)

70

References to valuable authorities, such as BDB and Gesenius, are given fairly frequently, so that some students at least will get to know what they have to offer. Occasionally a reference may be given rather for the teacher's convenience, as to the German grammar of R. Meyer and 3rd edn. of Koehler's lexicon. With the sign @ reference is made to the survey of grammar in our first-year course book. After the commentary on each passage I have put a few questions to encourage the student to think and research on the basis of the data just observed in the text. Thus, though we have lightened his work in one direction, we have made ample provision, in optional form, for the development of the student's initiative and judgement in more fruitful directions. And for all students it will be possible to come to a class well prepared and with accurate notes, and free to enter into discussion and reflection. Above all, by reducing the difficulties to reasonable proportions and bringing conveniently together the essentials of language and exegesis, we hope to have opened the way for the student actually to enjoy what the text has to offer. How then does one proceed in class? Having established the selection and sequence of texts to be studied in that particular year, I encourage the students to prepare the relevant portion before each lesson. If the class consists of more than two or three members, I do not ask each to translate a portion, but read, translate and comment on the passage myself, aiming to provoke responses and contributions from the class where appropriate. For many details reference can be made to the Readings which all have to hand, and time is left for discussion of weighty matters. At the conclusion of each extract students can undertake to write on one of the appended questions, choosing in accordance with their own strength or interest. If such work cannot be brought directly into the assessment of the course, at least the examination questions can take account of it. In publishing this account, I hope it may suggest possibilities to some who have not yet considered them; but also I hope to learn of the endeavours of others with similar aims. Meanwhile a further group of contributors is beavering away for our next volume. Readings in Biblical Hebrew II. GK, help is coming! (The following pages are reproduced in an reduced format.)

Eaton:

Readings in Biblical Hebrew

(sample pages)

71

βρ&ιψ 'm#iHkalJí(foew C O N T E N T S Preface

iv

Abbreviations

vi

Sources and History of our Text The Forms of Hebrew Poetry

(by Sebastian Erock)

(by Anthony Gelston)

1 Samuel 4,1b -7.1: The Capture and Return of the Ark of God (by Peter Jerrome) Exodus 20: Yahweh's Commandments

xiii

1

(by Baroness Eileen

de Ward)

9

Deuteronomy 8:

Kot by Bread Alone

A Path through the Psalms:

(by Prances Young)

(by John Eaton)

(by Grace Emmerson)

(by Peter Jerrome)

The Look of Zephaniah

(by John Eaton)

Ezekiel 37.1-14: Dry Bones and the Word of God (by John Eaton) Job 19. 23-29: I Know that my Redeemer Liveth (by Herbert Adams) Ecclesiastes 1 : All is Vanity and Vexation of Spirit (by Peter Jerrome) Ecclesiastes 11.7 - 12.8:

15

Pss.100, 150, 105; 29; 8; 93;

48; 24; 81; 82; 2; 110; 6; 22; 23 Kosea 1, 2, 3, 11 Isaiah 1-2

vii

21 53 75 83 97 100 10¿

Youth and Age (by John Kealey)

107

Four Famous Inscriptions (by John Kealey) A. A Minister's Seal (Jaazaniah) 114 B. The Gezer Calendar 115 C. The Siloam Tunnel Inscription 117 D. The Yavneh-Yam Letter 120 A Passage in ugaritic: The Dream of El (by John Kealey) 124 ILLUSTRATICI^ by Linda Gotsell Laps (pp.1, 114, 124); i>aal (5); ¿laves in Egypt (14) Copper Serpent (13); ,/arship (33); Rod and Staff ^52) El on Throne (127); Loaves and Fishes (Tabgha Kosaic,128) TITLE PAGE written by Kenry St.John Eart (See Pirke Aboth 2.5)

JSOT 2

Zephaniah malee to be 1 ^30c). · nhnT\

3-19-20

97

»praise, splendeur* (r. b S n ) . -

bosta™ »whose shame ( m ü / a O was in all the earth1. 3,20 τι9 as 1.12. f .te can translate: 'In that time when I bring you, yes in the time when I gather you, surely I will appoint you... 1 -v -*3.«o>D.see on 2.7. w O O ·* 0 "" s> "? -hose ad­ dressed v/ill themselves see and share in the restoration. QUESTIONS 1. Does ^ephaniah blame the rich as such and exonerate the poor as such? 2. Discuss the unity of the Book of Zep. (if the world and all its species are coins U P i n flanes, what interest ax-caches to owls nesting in the ruins of Kineveh or to Gcd l s search­ ing with a lamp for certain sinners? Do units of various speech-types imply separate occasions of origin? Could doom and restoration f o m part of one address without weakening a radical prophet's impact?) 3. v/hat evidence is there in the book for and against associating ¿ep. with the cult? 4. ./hat kinds of CT linguistic problem and means of solution are illustrated by Zep.? 5. V*hat light does Zep. throw on the character and purpose of poetic art in prophecy? 6. how would you interpret for our time the message of the near and hastening Day of the Lord?

E Z E K I E L

37.1-14

DRY BOÎTES AND THE WORD OP GOD Ilotes by

John Eaton

In spite of his normally rather leaden language, affected by the Idiom of Israel's sacred bureaucracy, Ecekiel has lefz us images of extraordinary force. Kone more so than this vision, where the promise of God is spoken over the cost hcrelecs of all situations. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile of 5S6, the gatherings for worship were esp. occasions to raise lamen-s. To move God to pity, these portrayed the plight of cLty and people, who sang of themselves as men already dead, dried up in heart and bone, cut off from the sphere of ligh« and life. To such laments the deity traditionally would answer through his prophets, if he were minded to answer. Pros an experience of trance or possession, a seer might then turn to the congregation with the divine message. In the present case the people have lamented as ouoted in V.11: they are deep in death, their bonee dried white.

(1977)

Eaton:

Readings in Biblical Hebrew

9c

Ezekiel

(sample pages)

37.1-6

Eco!" el,after F vision iry trance, is able to give them Godfs answer. The form of the passage is thus: (a) vv.1-10 -account of the vision, (b) w.11-14 -account of Cod's commission to ^-ekiel wit:* explanation of the vision and command to announce the reconstitution of the devastated people in their homeland, xhere is a large and important commentary in German by .<.¿imperii; ¿nglish commentaries include those of G.A.Cooke; D. ¿talker; J./, .\evers. 1. rw3 »to rest1 has Hi. C1",?I7 a n d C1"1?·? ; here 'set down». Thuc (otherwise than in 3.22) the Spirit of Yahweh has carried him through the air (cf.8.3; 1 Lgs.18.12; 2 Kgs.2.16; Bel L· the Dragon v.36). - n ^ p — 'valley-plain1; the article need not mean that the valley is known (GK 126g,q). here armies might meet in battle, hence 'it was full of bones' ( zz X V usually f., also appears as m. in this passage, influenced by the idea of the men they represent). ·· £. ^I^Ì^Z^QTÌ \ ( by 'over'a^zekiel is air-borne again by the Spirit.) here and in w.7,10 the perf.-r ) occurs instead of the expected imperf.-r l consec. Some suggest an Aramaic influence (GK '¡12 pp), while Zimmerli suggests the clause expresses the precondition before the main clause with π 37? -'and as he made me pass.. .behold1. * cj'rL"* •dry' -the life-force all ebbed away (cf.pp.48,50f). ·\5. Ή ?'chilo, of man1 -used 93 times in oracles to Ezekiel; God never addresses him by his name (ct.ALIOS 7.6; 3.2; Jer.1.11; 24.3). ¿immerli suggests it arises from priestly use of ΖΏ.~*>* as in Lev.1*2; 13.2; I.u.19.14, and that it emphasizes the divine majesty over his creatures. * r o ^ n m 3.f.pi.Wal of Π Τ ) + - interrog. "< n n s i for -IYON^I . * '"* ^:J~TN pointed to be n read as Z2^rihs ]'"TS . Ezekiel's answer reflects the lack of a general belief in the Resurrection, while acknowledging Yahwen's power to bring back life. * £. ^ i ] n î.'i.imv. »act-asa-nabi'in deed or word. ^ i:v -v/hile still floating round over the bones. -«· t^^o'-an introduction with enabling force, and likewise perhaps wherever the prophets use it (ÌJ.1.2,10 etc). Λ 2· ^ r T J ~ 1 She construction makes the scene present to the alerted imagination. i 6. -τ·'a 'sinew'. -- "Tibvni Hi. of Γι-?s; (= ^ n ^ S v n j ) . -·. Ώ"^ρ 'to spread, lay over». * 'brvT^i -a formula occurring 72x in Ez., and 3 χ in this passage alone. Thus it characterises his conception of the aim

of God's work.

Φ cf. ατ>& ».iss.s

73

JSOT 2

74

(1977)

33

Ps. 48.4-10

¿. [,7:)*?N< ,a-r"ârL '(high) fortified palace'. V T J J The Ni. (r.SJT*') as reflexive rather than passive: 'has made himself known'. * H 3 <X> O »high place of safety» (3-3 (¿> 'be inaccessibly high'). ·' ¿. An act of deliverance is now narrated. The divine destruction of the mysterious kings and ships, again suggesting a locality on the Lebanese coast, could be more easily related to Zion if it had become a ritual enactment. + Ì T < O Ì 3 Ni. of "TV"* »gather by appointment». */e» H I V »they swept on together». « ¿. Subject first to express concomitance: 1 'The instant they saw, (30) they were dumbfounded (r. Γ Π ^ Π ) · Presumably it wa3 the divine glory over Zion that they saw. * b n n Ni. »be terrified». •+ Ï D H Ni. »be panic-stricken». * 2· r i " T S ^ 'quaking'. ·* D D T Π Ν illustrates the regular formation for 3 f.sg. perf.Qal + 3 m.pl.sfx. Τ Π Η »to seise». * Ί?^Π »writhing, birth-pangs'. -* 8. »V/ith a wind of the east thou didst shatter the ships ( ^ N ) of Tarshish. » T2ie burning wind from the desert can also be violent. Passing over the Lebanese mountains, it would po^jr down steeply on to ships in the har­ bours. K.D.Eamett ~ (Eretz Israel 9,1969Γ suggests that 'ships of Z.' were the war­ ships used to escort transport vessels.

rkc

•sÇvCij

l\k

9. It seems that as The narration was ^neard», so corresponding symbolic actions were »seen». The ¿-yptiass symbolically destroyed enemies, netting or spearing models of animals, destroying pots or papyrus bearing name3 of enemies. Israelite prophets mânioulated objects to represent Yah;,eh»s destruction of cities etc.(Jer.13; 19; 2z.4; 5 ) . In the present case the rite would express Yahweh»s protection of hi3 city: »he has established ( p ò Pólel @30g) her for ever'.* Π S Ό

This rubric is found 71 x, and is taken in PIW II p.211

as a signal for an obeisance by the congregation (?r. 'tend»); other views are listed in KB. * 1C>. Π Ο Τ

s/s-i-u

«to be

JSOT 2 (1977)

75

Abstract from Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 76, Section C, No. (1976), 11 pp. (Obtainable from Royal Irish Academy, 19 Dawson Street, Dublin 2; price £0.38.)

THE CONCEPTS OF RETALIATION AND COMPENSATION IN BIBLICAL LAW By J. WEINGREEN, M.R.I.A.

Trinity College, Dublin

ABSTRACT

Biblical law makes a clear differentiation between a premeditated act of violence against an individual resulting in the death or maiming of the victim and unintentional homicide or maiming. For proven premeditated assault the punishment laid down is retaliation in kind, while unpremeditated or accidental homicide or maiming makes the perpetrator liable to compensation. Bearing this legal concept in mind we examined the hypothetical case presented in Exodus xxi 22ff which is as follows. If a pregnant woman becomes involved in a physical fight between two men and she is struck by one of them then, if there is no mishap (i.e. death), the man who struck her must pay a fine. If, however, a mishap occurs, then what the law demands is expressed in an ancient and enigmatic formula ' life in place o/life ', ' eye in place of eye ', and not the familiar ' a life for a life ', ' an eye for an eye '. The Hebrew text makes it clear that the law is not concerned with the fate of the pregnant woman but with that of her unborn child. Secondly, since the assault on the woman was not premeditated, the law demands compensation and not retaliation. In this latter respect the Rabbis were correct in interpreting the sense of the above legal formula as compensation, but they were mistaken, as are modern biblical scholars, in assuming that the law referred to the death of the woman. This case law was examined, not only to correct the accepted mistaken interpretation of this law as presented in modern scholarship, but to make it clear that, in biblical law, a premeditated act of violence was punishable as a criminal offence, while unintentional assault, with its effect on the victim, comes under civil law.

76

JSOT 2 (1977)

OLD TESTAMENT ABSTRACTS

The Catholic Biblical Association of America has announced that it will soon begin publication of a new periodical, Old Testament Abstracts, which will survey current literature in the Old Testament field and provide brief summaries of articles and books. The Editor will be Bruce Vawter, C M . , and Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Leila, O.F.M., will be among the Associate Editors. It will appear three times a year, with the first issue scheduled for the spring of 1978. For subscriptions (which will be $11.00 a year) or further information, write to: OLD TESTAMENT ABSTRACTS, The Catholic Biblical Association, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064 (USA). FORTHCOMING In addition to articles previously announced, the following will appear in future issues of the Journal: J.R. Bartlett, 'The Brotherhood of Edom1 D.R.G. Beattie, 'Ruth III· J. Tracy Luke, 'Abraham and the Iron Age: the New Patriarchal Studies1 Niels Peter Lemche, 'The Greek Amphictyony: for Israel in the Period of the Judges?'

Reflections on A Possible Prototype

Notes for Contributors We welcome contributions for the Journal, and do not specify any particular "house style". It increases rapidity of publication, however, and keeps costs down if authors are willing either to submit their contributions according to our format, or to have them re-typed in accord with our format if and when their articles have been accepted for publication by the editors. Details of our format are these: 1. MSS should be typed single spaced, with double spacing between paragraphs. (We recommend the use of an electric typewriter with a carbon ribbon, where this is possible.) 2. The actual typing area (exclusive of page numbers) should be 142 mm {bh ins.) wide by 195 mm {lh ins.) deep. It is important that no type should be outside this area. If desired, typing sheets with the correct-sized frame imprinted on them may be obtained from the editors. 3. The title should be typed against the left hand margin, about 2 cm {h in.) below the top of the typing area. The author's name and address (preferably institutional address) should appear on separate lines below the title, against the left hand margin. 4. A duplicate (carbon or photocopy) should accompany the original, so that the top copy can be kept in good condition for photographic reproduction. 5.

Handwritten script or diagrams must be in black ink. In addition we would make the following recommendations:

1. Footnote numbers in the text should be typed, on the line, thus: /3/. Notes may be gathered at the end of the article or at the foot of the page, as the author desires. 2. The author's name should appear on each page. Name and page number should be typed well above the typing area. 3. Authors of longer articles may care to begin their paper with an abstract (as brief as possible and not more than 150 words) , placed at the beginning of the article and indented five spaces from the left hand margin (i.e. the edge of the typing area) .