Sacred Dan: Religious Tradition and Cultic Practice in Judges 17-18 (Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

449 Formerly Journal for (he Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

This page intentionally left blank

SACRED DAN

Religious Tradition and Cultic Practice in Judges 17-18

Jason S. Bray

t&t clark NEW

Y O R K

•

L O N D O N

Copyright © 2006 by Jason S. Bray All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International. T & T Clark International, 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 T & T Clark International, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bray, Jason S. (Jason Stephen) Sacred Dan : religious tradition and cultic practice in Judges 17-18 / Jason S. Bray. p. cm. -- (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; 449) Based on the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Cambridge, originally presented under the title: The Danite cultic legend in its ancient Near Eastern context. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-567-02712-0 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Judges XVII-XVIII--Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BS1305.52.B73 2006 222'.3206--dc22

2006007652 Printed in the United States of America

0607080910

1098765432 1

CONTENTS Acknowledgments• Abbreviations

ix xi

INTRODUCTION 1. The Case of Dan: Judges 17-18 2. History of Research 3. Historical and Textual Issues a. Judges 17-18 and the History of the Danites b. Judges 17:7 c. Judges 18:30-31 d. Redactional History

1 3 4 16 16 19 21 23

Part I SACRED TRADITION IN JUDGES 17-18 Chapter 1 INTERPRETING JUDGES 17-18 1. Rhetorical-Critical Study a. Judges 17:1-6 b. Judges 17:7-18:la c. Judges 18: lb-6 d. Judges 18:7-10 e. Judges 18:11-26 f. Judges 18:27-31 g. Summary 2. Form-Critical Analysis of the Danite Story 3. Cultic Aetiologies in the Hebrew Bible a. Genesis 12:6-8 b. Genesis 16:7-14 c. Genesis 22 d. Genesis 28:10-22 e. Genesis 32:23-33 f. Genesis 33:18-20 g. Genesis 35:1-7 h. Genesis 35:9-15 4. The Cultic Foundation Story in the Hebrew Bible

31 31 32 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 46

vi

Sacred Dan

5. The Danite Story and the Jerusalem Stories 6. The Cultic Foundation Story in Judges a. Judges 6:11-24 b. Judges 13:2-23 7. Summary 8. Cultic Foundation Stories in the Ancient Near East 9. Cultic Foundation Stories from Other Cultures 10. Conclusions

47 50 51 51 52 52 54 58

Part II CULTIC PRACTICE IN JUDGES 17-18 Chapter 2

IMAGE WORSHIP IN THE DANITE STORY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

63

The Image in the Danite Story The Term rDDQI ^DS The bDS in the Hebrew Bible The ^DS of Micah and the Bull Image of Royal Dan The Image of Royal Dan The Origins of Bull Iconography

63 64 66 68 71 73

Excursus: Bull Imagery in Ugaritic and Hebrew Texts

74

7. Image Worship in the Ancient Near East 8. The Cultic Image among the Hebrews and in the Ancient Near East 9. Image Worship and the Archaeology of Tel Dan 10. Conclusions Chapter 3 PRIESTS IN THE DANITE STORY 1. Priests in the Danite Legend 2. The Initiation Rites of the Priests in the Danite Story 3. The Priestly Functions in the Hebrew Bible 4. The Danite Priesthood and the Ancient Near East a. Aramean and Phoenician Priests b. Priests from Northern Syria c. Assyrian and Babylonian Priests d. Egyptian Priests e. Hittite Priests f. Pre-Islamic Arabian Priests 5. The Priests of Dan in their Near Eastern Context: Conclusions

80 84 86 88 89 89 90 94 99 99 101 103 106 108 108 109

Contents

vii

Chapter 4 DIVINATION IN THE DANITE STORY 1. Divination in the Danite Story 2. Ephods as Divinatory Devices a. The High-Priestly Ephod b. The Linen Ephod c. The Oracular Priestly Ephod d. Gideon's Ephod e. The Ephod in the Ancient Near East 3. TheTeraphim a. Genesis 31 b. 1 Samuel 15:23 c. 1 Samuel 19 d. 2 Kings 23:24 e. Ezekiel21:36 f. Hosea3:4 g. Zechariah 10:2 4. The Shrine of Dan as an Oracular Centre 5. The Oracle to the Danites in Judges 18:5-6 6. The btW Oracle as Extispicy 7. The Danite Oracle in its Ancient Near Eastern Context 8. The Danite Oracle as a Private Oracle 9. Conclusions

111 111 112 112 113 114 115 117 118 119 121 121 122 122 122 122 123 125 129 131 133 137

CONCLUSION: CULTIC LIFE AT DAN

138

Appendix THE DANITE STORY AND THE HISTORY OF THE LEVITES 1. What Does "Levite" Mean? 2. Was There a Secular Tribe of Levi? 3. Were Levites Necessarily Priests? 4. The Question of the Secular Tribe of Levi 5. Proposed Reconstruction of the History of Levi in the Light of Judges 17-18 6. The Levitical Priesthood of Dan 7. Conclusions

147 149 149

Bibliography

151

Index of References Index of Authors

161 167

142 142 143 144 145

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study has its origins in a Ph.D. dissertation accepted by the University of Cambridge under the title "The Danite Cultic Legend in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: A Study of Judges 17-18." I am immensely grateful to Professor Graham Davies who supervised my work, and to the Reverend Professor John Emerton who acted as my supervisor for a term. The Reverend Dr Tony Gelston of Durham has given me much encouragement and friendship during this project. I am also grateful to my examiners for their useful advice, among them in particular to Professor Robert Gordon of Cambridge for his guidance. Much of the original work was done at the excellent research library of Tyndale House in Cambridge. The revisions have been completed while I have been trying to juggle family commitments, parochial ministry, training responsibilities in the Diocese of Monmouth and a large amount of teaching mainly at St Michael's College in Cardiff. I therefore owe a huge amount to so many people: to the folk of the Parish of Blaenavon with Capel Newydd who have ensured that I have not needed to use much imagination to envisage the life of an incense-burning cultic priest (truly, the house is often filled with smoke!); to colleagues and students for their support and interest (my students have over the years enjoyed playing "spot the reference to Dan"); to my former bishop, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams for his encouragement and advice, and to my present bishop the Right Reverend Dominic Walker OGS for his interest; to Dr Andrew Mein the current series coeditor for answering all sorts of silly questions, and helping me see the wood from the trees; to Dr Duncan Burns for his care with my manuscript; to my parents Pamela and Frederick Bray for their support and love; to my sons Thomas and Benedict for their constant interruptions and ebullient love; and most of all to my wife, Laura, whose love is the great constant in my life. To her, I dedicate this book.

This page intentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD ABRL AfO AHI AHw AJBA AJSL AnBib ANEP ANET AOAT ARM ASTI ATD BAR BASOR BDB BUS BKAT BZAW CAD CBQ CML ConB DBI DBSup EncJud EvQ

Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. Garden City,N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Archivfiir Orientforschung G. I. Davies. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991 W. von Soden. Akkadishes Handworterbuch. 3 vols: Wiesdaben: Harrassowitz, 1958-81 A ustralian Journal of Biblical Archaeology American Journal of the Semitic Languages Analecta Biblica The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1954 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969 Alter Orient und Altes Testament A. Parrot and G. Dossin. Archives Royales de Mart. Paris: Guethner, 1950Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Alt Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Beihefte zur ZA W The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956Catholic Biblical Quarterly J. C. L. Gibson. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978 Coniectania Biblica A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden. London: SCM Press, 1990 Supplement au dictionnaire de la bible. Edited by L. Pirot et al. Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1928Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by C. Roth et al. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972 Evangelical Quarterly

xii ExpTim FRLANT GK HKAT HSM HUCA ICC IEJ JBL JNES JQR NS JSOT JSOTSup JTS NS KAI KAT KTU

LCL NCB OTL OTS PEQ PRU

RB SBLDS SBLMS SBT SJOT SOTSMS ST SVT TDOT

TSSI ThWAT VT WMANT ZA W ZDPV

Sacred Dan Expository Times Forschung zur Religion and Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar Edited and Enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies, New Series H. Donner and W. Rollig. Kanaandische und Aramdische Inscriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962-64 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Die keilalphatbetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Vol. 1. Transkription. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Lorenz, and J. Samartin. AOAT 24.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976 Loeb Classical Library New Century Bible Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Palestinian Exploration Quarterly C. Virolleaud et al. Palais Royal d'Ugarit. Vol. 2. Textes alphabetiques des archives est, ouest et centrals. Mission de Ras Shamra 8. Paris: Mission archeologique de Ras Shamra, 1957 Revue Biblique Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Studio theologica Supplements to VT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974 J. C. L. Gibson. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 3. Phoenician Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982 Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftlische Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina- Vereins

INTRODUCTION

Reading the Bible can warp your sense of perspective, at least, that is, in terms of history. For example, because of the New Testament, the history of a couple of small provinces in the backyard of the great Roman Empire has taken on much more significance than most of its inhabitants at the time could ever have imagined possible. The time from the beginning of the common era to a date around thirty years later is seen under a historical magnifying glass: what was happening in the "Kingdom" of Galilee and the Roman Province of Judea at that time becomes more significant than any event happening in Imperial Rome, or the "far-flung" corners of the world, the Chinese Empire, the Indian Sub-Continent, pre-Columbian America—for those thirty years or so all these histories seem to stop, as if nothing much happened in the rest of the world. All becomes focused on one single lifetime. The Christian sees these things with the perspective of faith, and the Western historical perspective, skewed by its Christian inheritance, plays along with it. For non-Western historians things are surely different. For Muslim historians the time around 570-632 CE surely takes on the same significance, and Arabia too is viewed under the same magnifying glass. But Western history, caught up with the history of the Barbarian migrations and the "Dark Ages"—and for a few benighted isles in the Atlantic, the last gasp of the "Age of the Saints"—has barely noticed the events of Arabia. For Westerners, the Bible as no other book warps their sense of perspective. But the time of Jesus is not the only example of a case where this happens to readers of the Bible. In the history of the ancient Near East, the history of what we have traditionally called "Israel" stands out in stark relief from other less interesting histories. Who wants to know about the great civilisation of Egypt with its four thousand years of history, or the possibly even longer traditions of the people who inhabited what we now call Iraq—the Sumerians, the Babylonians and the Assyrians? Who wants to know about these people, when you have "Israel"? This attitude has had a great effect on academic biblical studies, where the vast majority of scholars have treated ancient "Israel" as if it existed in a vacuum, rather than at the centre (geographically, if not culturally) of the ancient Near East, a much larger entity in every sense. Furthermore, in this history of what the majority of people still refer to as "Israel," it is the history and traditions of one city which dominate the collective historical perspective: Jerusalem more than any other factor dominates the history of "Israel." But this is hardly unexpected. What we now know as the Hebrew Bible was compiled and redacted in Jerusalem, and naturally tells the

2

Sacred Dan

story from the point of view of Jerusalem. However, there is more than simply the natural bias of civic pride: the story itself has been skewed deliberately so that we are led to assume that the Jerusalemite traditions are the only traditions that matter. All other traditions are recorded in the Hebrew Bible to enhance the pre-eminence of Jerusalem in some form or other; any Hebrew tradition that did not have Jerusalem as its focus was simply not recorded at all. And if this is true of secular history, it is even more true of religious history, for the Hebrew Bible is not a book of secular history, it is a book of religious history written by and for the religious functionaries of the Temple in Jerusalem. If the secular traditions of the surrounding areas are subsumed by Jerusalem, their religious traditions are all but obliterated. We know, for example, that there were many shrines and temples in the territory Jerusalem claims to have governed, to the extent that Lev 17:1-9 (part of the Holiness Code, a Jerusalemite text) assumes that each settlement will have its own temple where all animals for food would be slaughtered (otherwise those who lived away from Jerusalem would never have eaten meat). Despite the large number of shrines which must have existed, virtually nothing of their traditions and history is recorded in the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of those Southern shrines mentioned in Genesis which we will discuss later. If this general picture of bias towards Jerusalem is true of the South, then when we turn to the North, the picture is even more biased, especially with regard to the so-called monarchical period from ca. 1000 BCE. The Northern Kingdom (the Kingdom of Israel, and incidentally, the only real political entity ever to have been called by that name in the ancient world) is always portrayed in the texts of the Hebrew Bible as a lesser entity than the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The North's history is only really recorded when it impacts on that of Judah and Jerusalem, or can be used to illustrate it (as in the case of the Elijah and Elisha cycles). Classically this is the case with the books of Chronicles, which barely allude to the existence of the Northern Kingdom, but it is true of all of the Jerusalem texts to some extent or other. And, of course, if it is true of the secular texts, it is much more the case with the religious texts. Largely, the religious traditions of the Northern Kingdom are mentioned only to be condemned. The reason for this is that the religion of the Northern Kingdom was given as the reason for the fall of the Kingdom to the Assyrians in 721 BCE in 2 Kgs 17. Here in a Southern text, the religion of the North is characterised as wholesale apostasy. The people turned away from Yahweh their God, and worshipped idols. In particular the official state religion of the North, with its worship of the "golden calves," is singled out for condemnation (v. 16), and indeed the whole of the Hebrew Bible's history of the Northern Kingdom is marred by this continuation of the "sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat" as described in 1 Kgs 12:25-33. However, the texts are transparently partisan. We know, for example, that the Northern Kingdom, far from being the provincial backwater depicted in the Hebrew Bible, was in fact one of the richest and most powerful states in the Levant of its time. It was certainly more prosperous and politically significant than its Southern neighbour whose continued political independence was due to

Introduction

3

its lack of importance in any significant sphere rather than to any other factor. We also know that Yahweh was as much the God of the North as he was of the South, and that, for example, the Moses tradition was stronger there than in Jerusalem. Despite the fact that all this is well known, the Southern bias is pervasive even in modern scholarly literature, where the religion of the North which is still seen basically as the Deuteronomistic Historians described it—at best heterodox, at worst idolatrous. 1. The Case of Dan: Judges 17-18 This general state of affairs is no more the case than for Judg 17-18, one of the few authentic Northern religious texts. It tells the story of the foundation of the shrine of Dan, a shrine which would become of the official cultic centres for the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam I, and appears to shed more light on the nature of Northern religion than any other Hebrew text. Despite this, presumably because it is Northern, it has been quite startlingly overlooked by biblical scholars. Therefore, in this study I propose to examine Judg 17-18 in detail to determine exactly what it has to say about the religion of Dan, following which I shall then compare that information with similar information from the Hebrew Bible itself, and then with the ancient Near Eastern sources. In so doing, I hope to elucidate the nature of the religion of the North as it was perceived in one of the major Northern cultic centres, and, at the same time, to clarify some issues with regard to the Hebrew religion in general with regard to its broader context. After an introductory section which deals with the history of research and a few other issues, such as the composition and redactional history of the text, the bulk of the work falls into two parts. Part I is an in-depth study of the text of Judg 17—18 itself from several angles. In the first instance, the text is examined as it stands from a literary-critical point of view. Although this has been attempted several times in recent years, in my view, all these attempts have been unsatisfactory, and the conclusions reached in the present study are radically different from other literary critics. The text is then examined using more traditional form-critical methods. Part II then deals with the three issues relating to the cult mentioned in the text: image worship, priesthood and divination. There are, of course, many other aspects of the religion of Dan that could have be covered. However, since virtually the only information we have about the shrine of Dan comes from the text of Judg 17-18 we have limited ourselves to the issues mentioned in it. So, for example, while it is almost certainly the case that there would have been a sacrificial cult at Dan, these is no actual evidence for it, and therefore, important though it might be, it falls outside the scope of this book. After the general Conclusion, an Appendix deals with what the story may tell us about the history of the Levites. Although, again, this is not strictly within the parameters of the work, I have covered this aspect of the text since it is one which has occupied many scholars in the past, and it is also a question to which I feel I can make a contribution.

4

Sacred Dan

Perhaps a word should be said at this stage about the critical stance of this study. Essentially, I, as author, see myself as a historian of religion who stands, quite naturally, in the historical-critical tradition. Yet I am more than happy to use the insights of more recent scholarship such as literary-critical studies where they prove useful. None of the results of this scholarship, however, will be accepted unquestioningly. 2. History of Research In scholarly terms, Judg 17-18 is one of the most unusual pericopes in the Hebrew Bible: first, it is one of the most neglected for reasons the present writer has never fully understood, and secondly, there is in fact no overall scholarly agreement as to what the story is "about." It has to be said that there is often a grudging aspect to the scholarly study of these chapters, as if those scholars who have engaged with the text have done so because they have had to, but not because they want to. So, for example, most writers on Judges seem to have lost steam after the excitement of Samson pulling the temple of Dagon down on the Philistines in Judg 16—a hard act to follow from any perspective. On the other hand, writers on the history of Hebrew religion, as I have suggested, seem to have been much more interested in Jerusalem, and only mention Dan in passing, if at all. Perhaps it is not surprising that this has led to apparently slipshod interpretation, as if the chapters' very unfamiliarity and the scholarly writers' lack of interest has given them permission to subject the story to ill-thought-out theories. Furthermore, for most interpreters, once they have imposed their theory on the text, they have apparently felt that there is nothing else to say. It is, perhaps, symptomatic that even the sort of critical theory being imposed on them has changed according to scholarly fashion. In other words, few scholars have started with the text itself, and their interpretations have been affected by a host of factors which have little in fact to do with it. So, in the early period of critical research into the chapters, most scholars were convinced that source criticism was the key to understanding the book of Judges, and so although they often noted in passing that these chapters were significant in terms of what they recorded about the history of the cult, and that this aspect of them needed in-depth studying, they left this to subsequent scholarship. But such a study has not been forthcoming, at least until now. For the majority of later scholars, it became fashionable to see the story as having been wholly fabricated by the enemies of one or other of the successive cultic regimes at Dan, and thus as containing no accurate historical information. Thus, scholars of this generation felt no particular need .to examine what Judg 17-18 can tell us about the Hebrew cult. An added complication in the scholarly literature was the question whether or not the chapters formed part of the Deuteronomistic History, and this also attracted much attention away from a discussion of the cult. A further factor has come into play more recently. This has been the increase in interest in the literary aspects of the text, a development which has enabled

Introduction

5

scholars seemingly legitimately (and probably thankfully) to ignore any of the historical questions. To my mind, however, there is simply no question that the story is one of the most significant in terms of what it can tell us about the history of Hebrew religion, because, more than anything else, the story appears to be "about" the cult, and so it is all the more surprising that, as far as it has been possible to ascertain, no full-length study and very few briefer studies have been made of this central aspect of the story. That the cultic aspects of Judg 17-18 have been virtually ignored in the history of research can be seen quite clearly from the overview that follows. Whereas it may have been thought desirable to treat the material topic by topic, given the fact that those works which do mention the cultic issues at stake in the story tend do so in general terms, for our purposes it is easier at least initially to cover the material chronologically, so as, in effect, to demonstrate that we begin our investigation with what is effectively a tabula rasa. Where previous scholarship has had something significant to say about the various topics covered in later chapters, its insights will be brought into play there. a. 1835-1957 This period, as I have noted, was dominated by source-critical studies to the detriment of other aspects of the text. Scholars were therefore not by and large interested in cultic issues, and, as is also the case with the subsequent eras, no one was concerned to place the text in its ancient Near Eastern context, even in this age which saw such great advances in the field of Oriental studies. There was, however, in contrast with some more modern studies during this period, a general acceptance that the story contained at least some reliable historical information. The modern study of these chapters can be said to begin—following initial forays by Studer (1835,1842) and Vatke (1835)—with the work of Julius Wellhausen. He regarded Micah's shrine and the status of the Levite as a normal state of affairs, at least more normal than the position of Eli at Shiloh.1 He noted that the Danites' actions are "natural to the verge of absolute shamelessness,"2 and that the chapters contain many cultic acts forbidden by the law. He suggested, however, that the storyteller relates them as if they were inoffensive since his concern is to show the origins of the cult of one of the great shrines of the Hebrews.3 Wellhausen thus presumably saw the narrative as describing practices that were later condemned by the Torah, but that were perfectly acceptable at the time of writing. Although originally Wellhausen regarded the text as a unit, he later changed his mind in the face of the arguments of Moore and others.4 1. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), 129. 2. Ibid., 235. 3. Ibid., 236. 4. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (2d ed.; Berlin, 1889), 232-33. Cf., however, J. Bewer, "The Composition of Judges, Chaps. 17,18," AJSL 29 (1912-13): 261-83 (216), who argues that Judg 17-18 has only one source.

6

Sacred Dan

Typical of the commentaries of Wellhausen's contemporaries is perhaps the second edition of Bertheau's careful and detailed work. Like Wellhausen, he detected no great amount of polemic in the story5 which he saw as tribal history, and as being of paramount importance for the history of the cult.6 Like the majority of earlier commentators, he regarded the text as having two ancient parallel sources, fixed into a much later editorial framework.7 On the other hand, his contemporary Kuenen tended towards the view that the text was a unity with negative redactional interpolations at 17:2-4; 18:14, 17-18, 20.8 Surprisingly, Robertson Smith's only reference to Judg 17-18 came as part of a discussion on the swearing of oaths.9 He did, however, discuss Semitic sanctuaries in general, suggesting that sanctuaries were set up in places that a god was known to frequent, and that "the greatest and holiest sanctuaries were those which according to undisputed tradition, he [a deity] had been known to frequent from time immemorial."10 He went on to say that "we find that new sanctuaries can be formed and new altars or temples erected, only where the godhead has given unmistakable evidence of his presence."11 Smith did note that sanctuaries were usually in places like Laish where there was an abundance of fertile land, or where there was a spring. To the desert nomads these places would have seemed to be places where the divine and the human could meet.12 Of Mount Hermon, Smith commented that the name itself implies holiness,13 but he had nothing to say about Dan. In his magisterial commentary, Moore viewed the narrative as being composed of (at least) two different sources,14 both of which were ancient and of great historical value.15 The first he thought of as being a Danite narrative whose author's sympathies "are on the side of the spoilers,"16 and the second as concerned with the cultic image, explaining that "It was a ex voto for the recovery of the money."17 Although much of Moore's study of these chapters consists of a detailed exposition of the sources he had isolated, I will refer to this commentary in my later discussion, since it is in many ways the most satisfactory of the older works.

5. E. Bertheau, Das Buck der Richter undRuth (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1883), xi. 6. Ibid., 239-40. 7. Ibid., xxv-xxvii; cf. also pp. 238^0. 8. A. Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bticher des alten Testaments, Part 2, vol. 2 (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1890), 28-29. 9. W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (3d ed.; London: A. & C. Black, 1927), 164. 10. Ibid., 115. 11. Ibid., 115. 12. Ibid., 136. 13. Ibid., 155. 14. G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC, Edinburgh, 1895), 167. Cf. idem, Judges ((Polychrome Bible; London, 1898), 33-35. 15. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 370. 16. Ibid., 370. 17. Ibid., 370.

Introduction

1

Budde's commentary is in many ways similar to Moore's. He stated that the aim of Judg 17-18 was to describe the foundation of the shrine of Dan.18 However, unlike Moore, he did regard one of the two sources as having some negative material.19 A very similar approach was taken by Nowack, writing some five years later.20 Von Gall also discussed the shrine of Dan and its foundation story. His most significant comment is that Jeroboam I replaced a very primitive image with his golden calf.21 Arnold, in his monograph on the Ark, dealt briefly with the redaction and interpretation of Judg 17-18. Unlike most of his contemporaries he saw the story as being derived from a single ancient source composed by the same writer as the books of Samuel,22 but containing a series of glosses.23 Burney's stance, by contrast, was closer to Moore's, except that, by this stage, he did not even feel the need to argue for the composite nature of the narrative since he thought it to be so obvious.24 For Burney, there were two narrative strands, both ancient and very similar, which can together be seen as "one of the most ancient and valuable historical sources which we possess.. ,"25 For Burney, as for other earlier commentators, nothing pejorative is said of either Micah or his sanctuary, other than 17:2-4.26 Eissfeldt, in his monograph on the composition of Judges, also upheld the then current source-critical approach. He divided the chapters into two independent, but very similar stories one of which he attributed to L (= Laienschrift, an ancient narrative strand from the Pentateuch consisting of passages which could not be attributed to one of the other sources), and the other to the traditional Pentateuchal source J (= Yah wist).27 In the face of the consensus which viewed the chapters as composite, Fernandez was concerned to argue the literary unity of Judg 17-18. He also explained the reasons for Micah's possession of a shrine, the fact that the Levite came from Bethlehem, and various other issues. Like his contemporaries, he saw Judg 17-18 as a text without polemical intent: "The author recounts the facts as if they were the most natural thing in the world, and without the least criticism of Micah or the Levite."28 18. K. Budde, Das Buck der Richter (Freiburg, 1897), 111. 19. Ibid., 112. Cf., also idem, Die Bucher der Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau (Giessen, 1890), 138ff. 20. W. Nowack, Richter, Ruth und Bucher Samuelis (HKAT; Gottingen, 1902), x and 140. 21. A. F. von Gall, A Itisraelitische Kultstatten (BZAW 3: Giessen, 1898), 137. 22. W. R. Arnold, EphodandArk (Harvard Theological Studies 3; Cambridge, Mass., 1917), 99. 23. Ibid., 105. 24. C. F. Burney, The Book Of Judges (2d ed.; London, 1920), 408. 25. Ibid., The Book of Judges, 416. 26. Ibid., The Book of Judges, 416. 27. O. Eissfeldt, Die Quellen des Richterbuches (Leipzig, 1925), ad he. 28. A. Fernandez, '"El santuario de Dan. Estudio critico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18," Biblica 15 (1934): 237-64 (261): "El autor narra los hechos como la cosa mas natural, y sin la menor censura contra Mica o el levita" (my translation above).

8

Sacred Dan

Pedersen, in a work on the history of Hebrew religion, also sees Judg 17-18 as Danite material.29 He discusses the cultic objects, noting that no altar is mentioned, and thus, "It is the images which make the house a sacred house."30 ^DS, he suggests, is the general term for idol, but it also implies that the object was a work of art in its own right.31 Finally he suggests that Micah's shrine differed from others in that it was not an open-air Canaanite sanctuary with a sacred rock or spring, but a house which was sacred because of its oracular devices.32 As far as the later cult of Dan is concerned, Pedersen links it with Canaanite practice, but says little else.33 Eerdmans regards the graven and molten image as being one object which later stood in the temple at Dan. This was the calf image which was institutionalized by Jeroboam.34 Later, Eerdmans suggests inconsistently that it was made by Jeroboam.35 He sees the image of Judg 17-18 as an image of the thunder-god Jahu who was worshipped by Micah.36 He does not discuss the royal shrine of Jeroboam in any detail. In his Introduction to the Old Testament, Pfeiffer, following Arnold,37 sees Judg 17-18 as "an ancient narrative, a late commentary incorporated into the text, and scattered glosses" deriving from the same author as the books of Samuel.38 For him, the story is primarily concerned with "the origin of the sanctuary and clergy at Dan, and incidentally the migration of the Danites."39 He says that it was probably preserved by the priests of Dan, and is thus of "inestimable value historically, and presents the earliest information on the priesthood in ancient Israel."40 Hauret also sees Judg 17-18 as a piece of reliable ancient tradition,41 and has no difficulties interpreting it positively, noting that, although the events are not for Christian sensibilities, in the context of the ancient world the actions of the Levite and the Danites were perfectly acceptable, even heroic.42 Hauret thus emphasizes the beneficial influence of the Levite on the Danites.43 Hauret argues that there is no "overt blame" directed at the events, only "discreet blame," and

29. J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London, 1940), 150-51. 30. Ibid., 222. 31. Ibid., 224. 32. Ibid., 225-26. 33. Ibid., 173-74. 34. B. D. Eerdmans, The Religion of Israel (Leiden, 1947), 47. 35. Ibid., 75. 36. Ibid., 47. 37. Arnold, EphodandArk, 95-117. 38. R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (rev. ed.; London, 1948), 321. 39. Ibid., 321. 40. Ibid., 322. 41. C. Hauret, "Aux origines du sacerdoce danite," in Melanges bibliques rediges en I 'honneur de Andre Robert (Travaux de 1' Institute Catholique de Paris 4; Paris 1957), 103-13 (113, cf. also 108). 42. Ibid., 111. 43. Ibid., 109.

Introduction

9

that this is due exclusively to the redactional comments.44 He sees no evidence of apostasy, noting that it is Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, who is the God of these chapters. Further, rather than being influenced by the Canaanites, the Yahwistic shrine of Dan actually replaces a Canaanite shrine. Hauret goes on to say, "This foundation presents an act of recognition of the God who 'has given the land into the hands' of his faithful servants."45 Source criticism was taken to its extreme towards the end of this period by Simpson46 and Murtonen:47 the latter of whom found as many as three sources in the narrative. b. 1957-1987 In the 1950s a change occurred in the way in which scholars thought of the chapters. This was due to the increasing influence of Noth's theory that Judges formed part of the Deuteronomistic History, and thus was not composed of the Pentateuchal sources. Despite this, Noth excluded Judg 17-18 from the History.48 The chapters were now frequently seen as a whole which had been redacted at a subsequent date. However, there was no agreement as to the provenance of the single source which was increasingly being seen as having polemical intent. For Vincent, on one hand, while the story is incontestably ancient, it is not original Danite material, but gives a good idea of the anarchy which was prevalent at the time. He argues, like Robertson Smith, that the Semites needed a theophany to found a sanctuary. Since one is not mentioned, the narrative must be a polemic against Micah's shrine, and thus, indirectly, against Jeroboam's royal sanctuary. Taking the appendix as a whole, he notes that it is discreetly hostile to the Northern monarchy, and in favour of the Davidic kings.49 Vincent offers no justification for his views. Taubler, on the other hand, sees Judg 17-18 as having been written not long after the event by either the Levite of the story or one of his successors at the shrine of Dan.50 Polemic could only have arisen later, in the form of the redactional comments of 17:6 etc.51 Much of his work is concerned with an elaborate exoneration of Micah, a explanation as to why the silver had not technically been stolen, and a detailed discussion of the "curse" uttered by Micah's mother and its implications.52 Most of this consists all too clearly in illegitimate special pleading. Hertzberg, like Vincent, regards the narrative as having been written with polemic intent, and without any Danite material.53 44. Ibid., 110. 45. Ibid., I l l : "Cette fondation equivaut aun acte de reconnaissence 1'egard de Dieuqui 'a livre le pays entre les mains' (18:10) de ses devots serviteurs" (my translation above). 46. C. A. Simpson, The Composition of the Book of Judges (Oxford, 1957). 47. A. Murtonen, "Some Thoughts on Judges xvii sq," VT 1 (1951): 223-24. 48. M.Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (2AsA.\ JSOTSup 15; Sheffield, 1991), 77.Cf. A.D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile (London, 1983), 79-80. 49. A. Vincent, Le livre des Juges. Le livre de Ruth (Paris, 1958), 116. 50. E. Taubler, Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter (Tubingen, 1958), 52. 51. Ibid., 53-54. 52. Ibid., Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter, pp. 47-52. 53. H. W. Hertzberg, Die BucherJosua, Richter, Ruth (2d ed.; ATD; Gottingen, 1959), 239ff.

10

Sacred Dan

Like his work on the Deuteronomistic History, Noth's study of Judg 17-1854 has been very influential. He saw that the narrative had a pejorative tone at odds with an original Danite story,55 and went on to look at the "pejorative" elements in detail.56 Noth then pointed out that the—for him—accurate 1 Kgs 12 had preserved details which disagree with Judg 17-18.57 He, therefore, assumed that Judg 17-18 could not be a polemic against the royal sanctuary of Jeroboam.58 He argued that the comments of 17:6 and 18:la were original to the text, because redactors tended to add things at the beginnings and ends of sections, but not in the middle, and also because whoever inserted them knew the work so well that he must have been its author.59 Furthermore, the comments must come from the monarchical period, because this was the only time when a king's influence in the cult was evaluated so positively.60 This points to a date at the time of Jeroboam I.61 So, Noth concluded that Judg 17-18 came "from the circle of the royal Israelite sanctuary of Dan which was established by Jeroboam I."62 This explained why the Danite shrine is almost the opposite of that in the 1 Kgs 12 account: the silver image over against the golden calf, tribal sanctuary and royal sanctuary, "the 'vagabond' Levite" priesthood and the royally commissioned one.63 The narrative is, therefore, a polemic against the still extant Danite tribal shrine which Jeroboam sought to suppress.64 Noth ended his study with a discussion of the final verses of ch. 18, where, in contrast to his caution about the excision of 17:6 and 18:la, he saw a series of redactional additions in 18:30 and 18:31b.65 Penna's view, on the other hand, is that the chapters represent a tradition which was preserved at Dan,66 but later redacted by a devotee of the temple at Jerusalem who was convinced of the truth of Jerusalem's claim to be the sole Yahwistic sanctuary.67 Nevertheless, owing to the state of the text he refuses to be drawn further on the question of its redactional history.68 Penna links the ^DS of Micah with the golden bull of Jeroboam.69 In the 1960s there was remarkably little discussion of the cultic aspects of the narrative. Ringgren, for example, simply notes that Judg 17-18 contains the 54. M. Noth, "The Background of Judges 17-18," in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; London, 1962), 68-85. Cf. A. D. H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges (SBT 2d Series 29; London, 1974), 45-46, and H. M. Niemann, Die Daniten (FRLANT 135; GQttingen, 1985), 131-33. 55. Noth, "The Background of Judges 17-18," 71. 56. Ibid., 72-76. 57. Ibid., 77-78. 58. Ibid., 78. 59. Ibid., 79. 60. Ibid., 80. 61. Ibid., 81. 62. Ibid., 81-82. 63. Ibid., 82. 64. Ibid., 82. 65. Ibid., 83-85. 66. A. Penna, Giudici e Rut (La sacra bibbia; Rome, 1963), 24. 67. Ibid., 215. 68. Ibid., 215. 69. Ibid., 217, 226.

Introduction

11

earliest mention of priests, and regards the chapters as evidence for the view that early in the history of the Hebrews Levites were being viewed as cultic specialists, and thus for the idea that the priesthood developed gradually.70 He deals later with the question of whether they were a tribe or merely a priestly caste. Of the pre-monarchical priesthood as pictured in Judg 17, he says: "The priest appears as the attendant of a sanctuary and a giver of oracles. Micah builds a shrine in Ephraim, installing as priest first his son and then a Levite, to care for the shrine and its image."71 Royal Dan is dismissed in an almost cursory fashion.72 Vriezen's view is that the story is the foundation legend of the shrine of the tribe of Dan which has been marred by later hands.73 He suggests that the picture we are given may be typical for the period of the Judges, where it seems likely that there would have been one Yahwistic shrine in each tribal territory. He says that the reason Levites were obviously in demand was because they were seen as being Moses' descendants.74 In dealing with the bull at Dan, he notes that it was a potent symbol, and was associated with Yahweh as a fertility God, but also a powerful link with the patriarchal period.75 In their works on the priesthood, Gunneweg and Cody both discuss the narrative. Both seem to regard it as authentic ancient tradition, but their interpretations are different. Interest naturally centres for both on the question of the origin of the priest, and the exact meaning of 17:7. Gunneweg takes it to suggest that the Levite was a member of the tribe of Judah, seeing no problems with the fact that his position was that of a resident alien.76 Cody, however, states that he did not belong to the tribe of Judah.77 Anderson's discussion is very brief. His only insight is that it suggests that while priesthood was not confined to Levites, it was conferred on them in preference.78 As far as royal Dan is concerned, he suggests that the bull was a pedestal, and little else.79 Fohrer, like Ringgren, focuses on the question of priests and Levites. He points out that only in Dan is there evidence of Levites as permanent priests in a Hebrew shrine.80 But his remark that "Dan" may have been the title of a Canaanite deity is unfounded,81 and his treatment of later Dan is exceptionally brief.82 Of the making of images he comments that it is an example of Canaanite influence on Yahwistic religion.83 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (London, 1966), 51-52. Ibid., 205. Ibid., 164. T. C. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London, 1967), 174. Ibid., 175. Ibid., 43, 186-88. A. H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester (FRLANT 89; Gottingen, 1965), 23. A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35; Rome, 1969), 54. G. W. Anderson, The History and Religion of Israel (Oxford, 1966), 78. Ibid., 88. G. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion (London, 1973), 115. Ibid., 64-65 (probably following Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 21). Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 132-133. Ibid., 82.

12

Sacred Dan

In his commentary, as is also the case with many of the more recent commentaries, Boling's treatment of the cultic aspects of the story is disappointing. For the cultic objects he does little more than offer a list of parallel references.84 He regards the narrative itself as a conflation of two Micah stories which were subsequently redacted by the Deuteronomistic Historian.85 The origins of the narrative he dates to "a very early (premonarchical) period."86 Martin in his commentary suggests that the story was a polemic against the sanctuary of Jeroboam,87 but he is limited by the scope of his work. Goulder's work on the Psalms of the sons of Korah to some extent redresses the balance in that he focuses firmly on the pre-exilic cult of Dan. These Psalms (42-49; 84-88, to which Goulder attaches 8988) are a unit and must be read as such.89 He regards them as Northern: they refer to Mount Hermon, and seem to envisage a different climate from that of Jerusalem, among other reasons.90 The fact that many of them refer to water in abundance leads him to think of Dan as their place of origin, for it is close to Hermon and at one of the sources of the Jordan.91 On this basis Goulder reconstructs the festival of Tabernacles as it would have been celebrated at Dan, assuming that the Psalms are to be read in order and were used at that festival. The later group would have formed a sort of supplement, the earlier the actual liturgy itself.92 Goulder argues that Dan was the only royal sanctuary in Northern Israel, and that Bethel was its substitute when Dan was occupied by a foreign power. He quotes Deut 12 to support this argument, on the basis that it is both ancient and Northern, and suggests that the archaeology lends support to his argument.93 As to the central cultic icon of Dan, Goulder argues that this would have been the (one and only) ephod and teraphim, since for him the calves were restricted to Bethel. The ephod was taken south during the supposed Philistine crisis, but returned to Dan when David favoured the ark, or when Jeroboam rebelled. Later the teraphim—also called Urim and Thummim—found their way to Jerusalem with the Korahites, where they were placed in the high priest's ephod. This is not the same ephod, because the Danite one would have been destroyed on arrival at Jerusalem since it would have been regarded as too suspect.94 At Jerusalem the Korahites redacted their Psalms into their present form, replacing references to Dan with Jerusalem.95 Later they became involved in a tit-for-tat textual battle 84. R. G. Boling, Judges (AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 256. 85. Ibid., 258-59. 86. Ibid., 259. 87. J. D. Martin, The Book of Judges -(Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge, 1975), 182-83. 88. M. D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOTSup 20; Sheffield, 1982), 2. 89. Ibid., 2-7. 90. Ibid., 13-14. 91. Ibid., 14. 92. Ibid., 17-18. 93. Ibid., 61-62. 94. Ibid., 64. 95. Ibid., 64.

Introduction

13

with the Zadokites,96 and then went on to become the Chroniclers,97 and the final redactors of the Pentateuch.98 Of Judg 17-18 Goulder says very little. He regards it as the "tatters of the original sanctuary legend at Dan, heavily overlaid with pejorative embellishment of its blackest enemies, the D-historians."99 He argues that all that remains of the original is the fact that the priest who founded the shrine was Jonathan of the line of Moses, that he came from Bethlehem and that "the ephod" was associated with the shrine.100 There is little evidence for any of Goulder's views, and some of that which he offers is not acceptable. For example, Deuteronomy is now regarded neither as Northern nor as particularly ancient, probably coming from the Judah of Josiah,101 and in any case, making it allude to Dan seems forced. Another difficulty is that Goulder seems to place Dan actually on Mount Hermon.102 This is not the case: it in fact stands at the foot of Hermon on the rift valley floor. It is even impossible to see its peak from Dan, since the view is obscured by a mountain ridge. The emphasis of the Psalms of Korah is on the fact that the city of God is actually on a high mountain. Of course Mount Zion is not as high as the Mount of Olives, but it is at the very top of the Judean hills, and to get there from anywhere other than Bethany one has to climb. Jerusalem is thus a more suitable candidate for the "city of God." The Psalms—especially 46 and 48—are also full of the theology of the City's inviolability.103 Since Dan spent so much of its history in the hands of the Arameans,104 surely not even its most partisan citizen would invent a theology of its inviolability! Day points to several features which also indicate a composition in Jerusalem: among others, he includes the reference to Elyon (46:4), a deity not usually associated with Dan,105 although Goulder does try to argue that his residence is in the North, i.e. Hermon.106 The more recent commentaries follow more traditional lines. Gray asserts that Judg 17—18 was compiled by the Levitical priesthood of Dan, possibly in Bethel after 734.l07 He suggests that the variants arose from the divergent traditions of the Levitical priests of Dan and the non-Levitical priesthood of Jeroboam's royal sanctuary, which, following Noth, he sees as existing side by side.108 It is, 96. Ibid., 69-77. 97. Ibid., 82. 98. Ibid., 83. 99. Ibid., 53. 100. Ibid., 55-56. 101. Cf. R. E. Clements, Deuteronomy (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield, 1989), 69-83. 102. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, 27: "Dan stands...on the slopes of Mount Hermon." 103. J. Day, Psalms (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield, 1990), 115-16. 104. Cf. the inscription published in A. Biran and J. Naveh, "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan," IEJ 43 (1993): 81-98. 105. Day, Psalms, 116-17. 106. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, 142. 107. J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (2d ed.; NCB; Basingstoke, 1986), 338. 108. Ibid.,223.

14

Sacred Dan

however, unlikely that the Levitical priests would have combined their sacred tradition with the version of the royal priests which set out to mock their shrine. Soggin, in one of the best of the recent commentaries, views the text as a polemical re-fashioning of Danite tradition, which attempts to explain why this sanctuary, which boasted a Mosaic priesthood, was destroyed by the Assyrians. It thus dates to a little before Josiah's reform.109 For Soggin, therefore, it has become "a kind of hieros logos of the overthrow."110 Once more there is no attempt to interact with the ancient Near Eastern material or the cultic issues raised by the chapters. An exception to the general lack of interest in the cult during this period is Haran, who in his Temples and Temple Service111 discusses many aspects of the Hebrew cult in great detail. We shall return to look at some of his ideas later in this work, but for our purposes here, it is worth noting that he does discuss Judg 17-18 albeit somewhat briefly, and evidently does regard it as preserving valuable ancient material.'l2 Elsewhere, however, he states that the "ironical attitude" of the story was due not to a redactor, but to the original (southern) author.113 c. 1987 to the Present Day Recent interpretation of Judges has been dominated by the literary-critical school. Such works do not normally deal with historical issues, and those that have dealt with Judg 17-18 have been no exception.114 As is normally the case, they also take the text as it stands, and thus, in so far as they deal with the religious practices described, agree with the negative assessment of the Deuteronomistic school on the religion of the North. Amit's view115 that the narrative is a "hidden polemic" against, not Dan, but Bethel is unsatisfactory, suffering from an over-subtlety of interpretation. The fact that she can regard a story about Dan as being "really" about Bethel typifies the lack of scholarly interest in Dan, which has for too long been overshadowed by interest in Bethel and other shrines. Albertz, in his History of Religion, adds little to the arguments put forward by Ringgren and Fohrer. Like them, he focuses on the history of the Levites, regard109. J. A. Soggin, Judges (2d ed.; OTL: London, 1987), 269. 110. Ibid., 278. 111. M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1978). 112. Haran discusses Bethel and Dan together in Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 28-31. The bulk of his discussion is taken up by a footnote on the images at Dan (p. 29 n. 28). 113. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 38 n. 46. 114. B.C. Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46; Sheffield, 1987); L. R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (JSOTSup 68; Sheffield, 1988); D. I. Block, "The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule," in Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids, 1988), 39-57; P. E. Satterthwaite, " 'No King in Israel': Narrative Criticism and Judges 17-21," Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 75-88; cf. idem, "Narrative Artistry and the Composition of Judges 17-21" (Ph.D. diss.; Manchester, 1989); R. H. O'Connell, "The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges" (Ph.D. diss.; Cambridge, 1992). 115. Y. Amit, "Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan," VT40 (1990): 4-20.

Introduction

15

ing them as itinerant cultic officials,116 in agreement with those scholars who regard Levites as a non-tribal group of religious functionaries.117 Despite the obvious fact that the Levite was not already a priest, Albertz does not exactly say what the role of a non-priestly cultic official might have been. His discussion of the royal cult at Dan is also brief,118 and concentrates on a discussion of the origins of the bull. All in all, for our purposes, this work is disappointing. Albertz has little discussion of the Northern cult, or for that matter of the Southern cult, but focuses mainly on the sociological aspects of religion. Toews, in a historical-critical study of the religious institutions of Jeroboam I, sees Judg 17-18 as a unit.119 He dates it to the late monarchical period, linking it with the Deuteronomists.120 In this he appears to be following Ahlstrom who suggested that it was included as a preparation for the rejection of Jeroboam's cult in 1 Kgs 12.121 Toews, however, thinks that it was written after Dan fell to the Assyrians to explain the reasons for this event. It did, nevertheless, incorporate traditional Danite material.122 Toews is one of the few scholars to have studied the religion of the North in any detail. A new generation of "Histories of Israelite Religion" is represented by Millers's The Religion of Ancient Israel. Here at last was a general textbook on Hebrew religion which showed an interest in cultic matters (unlike, e.g., Ringgren he cites Leviticus more frequently than Amos).123 He is, nevertheless, less interested in Dan. He comments that the priesthood may have been established by Jeroboam I, although he does not discount an ancient Mosaic priesthood. Like many others, he implies that Jeroboam made the cultic image (in the form of a bull), but seems to see the cult as Yahwistic from its inception.124 The most recent work to discuss Judg 17-18 in detail is Bartusch's Understanding Dan, which I will discuss in detail below. In conclusion, an overview of the literature has shown that a study such as the present one is long overdue. Judges 17—18 feels like a text that has been left behind. The golden ages of historical-critical study have seemingly come and gone without the production of a full-length study of the text. And although there have been more recent studies which have dealt with some of the religious issues raised by the text, these have proved unsatisfactory, in the main because they appear to have started with a theory, and then fitted the text to suit it. Not one of these studies has started with the text, and allowed it to speak for itself, as the present work hopes to do. 116. R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; London, 1994), 1:58-59. 117. Ibid. 1:58. 118. Ibid. 1:140-46. 119. W. I. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel Under Jeroboam (Lund, 1963). 120. Ibid., 121. 121. G. W. Ahlstrom, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (Lund, 1963), 26-27. 122. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 123. 123. See J. S. Bray, review of P.O. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, JTS NS 53 (2002): 126-29. 124. P. D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel (Louisville, 2000), 251-52 n. 190; cf. also 93-94.

16

Sacred Dan 3. Historical and Textual Issues

Before we begin to examine the text itself, there are a few issues arising from the literature that we need to deal with here. The first of these is a brief discussion of the place of Judg 17-18 in the more general history of the tribe of Dan, and of the material remains that have been found on the site. We then turn to look at the two most important textual issues from the text: the translation of 17:7 and the interpretation of 18:30-31. Both of these will have a bearing on our more general interpretation. Finally, we turn to the broader question of the redactional history of the text. a. Judges 17-18 and the History of the Danites Several scholars have been interested in the issue of Judg 17-18 and its place in the more general history of the Danites. Gordon, in a paper about the perceived connections between the Classical world and the world of the Hebrew Bible, suggested a comparison between the Homeric heroes and the Hebrew Judges.125 He asserted that both cultures were deeply rooted in a common Western Semitic world which was dominated in most spheres by the Semitic Phoenicians. He noted that the Phoenician Danaos conquered the Argolid and became one of the forefathers of the Greek people who afterwards proudly called themselves "Danaoi."126 Moving on from this, Gordon stated, "Judges 5:17 informs us that Dan was a sea people, dwelling in ships."127 For him, Dan, Danuna and Danaoi were all coterminous: "It is quite possible that the tribe of Dan was a segment of that great sea people which got a foot-hold in Palestine and was later accepted into the tribal system."128 This process is apparently reflected in Gen 49:16 where Dan is accepted as one of the full members of the tribal unity. Gordon's arguments were reiterated, seemingly independently, by Yadin, who discusses the saying about Dan in the Song of Deborah. Yadin agrees with Gordon's assessment of Gen 49:16,129 viewing Josh 19:47 as a later reconstruction. The tribe was nomadic since there are two references to a Mahaneh Dan, one between Zorah and Eshtaol (Judg 13:25), and the other west of Qiryath Yearim (Judg 18:12). Yadin suggests that pressure was brought to bear on them mainly from the Amorites, and not the Philistines (cf. Judg 1:34-35).130 He argues that Judg 17-18 may hint at a change in the religion of the tribe,131 although its present context is wholly Yahwistic. The passage in Judg 5 is, nevertheless, a problem, since neither the Southern nor the Northern holding is actually on the 125. C. H. Gordon, The Mediterranean Factor in the Old Testament: Congress Volume, Bonn 1962 (SVT 9: Leiden, 1963), 19. 126. Ibid., 20. 127. Ibid., 21. 128. Ibid., 21. 129. Y. Yadin, "'And Dan, Why Did He Remain with His Ships?, '"AJBA 1 (1968): 9-23(10). 130. Ibid., 11. 131. Ibid., 12.

Introduction

17

coast.132 For Yadin, despite this, it must refer to a time when the tribe was on the coast.133 He analyzes the Samson material, concluding that "all the contacts preceding his acts of vengeance against the Philistines indicate that there were normal and family relations between the Danites and the Philistines."134 Yadin notes that the Sea Peoples were divided into three groups, the Philistines, the Tjeker (who settled in Northern Sharon) and the Dene or Danuna.135 Yadin says that there is a degree of identity between the Danuna, the Greek Danaoi and also the Anatolian Danunites. Yadin reviews much of the legendary material, noting many points of comparison with the Hebrew texts.136 Yadin speculates that the Danuna lived between the Philistines and the Tjeker, that is, between Dor and Joppa. He studies the archaeology of the nearby Tel Qasila, coming to the conclusion that it was a city of the Sea Peoples, founded unusually in the mid-twelfth century, changing hands at the destruction of Stratum XII.137 This was at about the time when Sidon was particularly weak.138 There may be some link here with the history of the Danites, who may have been pushed out of their territory by the Philistines, from whence they moved to Laish where the weak state of Sidon meant that they could not come to the rescue of that city.139 Like those of Gordon, Yadin's views are plausible, although still speculative. These theories have been countered by Niemann, who suggests that the evidence of the Hebrew texts argues against both these views140 and that Yadin's reconstruction is historically implausible.141 Niemann makes very substantial criticisms of Yadin and Gordon, noting, among other things, that the traditions which link Dan with the Mediterranean seaboard are probably to be dated to the time of Solomon.142 Niemann offers his own reconstruction which is, however, supported by very little evidence. The Danites originated in southern Transjordan, and then moved in around 1200 BCE into territory controlled by the Amorites, as described in Judg 1:34-3 5 a.143 At around this time they settled in the region southwest of Jerusalem. It was there that they got to know the Levite later employed by Micah,144 and from there that the migration of a small part of the tribe to the North started —not from Zorah and Eshtaol as Judg 18 states. By the time of the Song of 132. See N. Na'aman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4; Jerusalem, 1986), 112-13 for the borders of the southern holding. 133. Yadin, '"And Dan, why did he remain with his ships?,'" 14. 134. Ibid., 15 (italics in original). 135. Ibid., 17. 136. Ibid., 18-19. 137. Ibid., 20. 138. Ibid., 21. 139. Ibid., 22. 140. Niemann, Die Daniten, 290-91. 141. Ibid., 281-90. 142. Ibid., 281, cf. also 28 and 55. 143. Ibid., 35. 144. Ibid., 293.

18

Sacred Dan

Deborah, which describes events Niemann dates to between 1160 and 1130,145 they are already in Laish.146 As far as Judg 17-18 are concerned, Niemann is more concerned to prove the point of his theory than to give a detailed interpretation of the text. However, he notes that the story's basic point is to show how the Danites came upon the ^DS, and the Levitical priest.147 For Niemann, the historical situation is as follows: in the hills northwest of Jerusalem, after their failure at Aijalon some time after 1210 BCE, the Amorites took up arms against the Danites, and this pressure forced them to move out. As far as he is concerned, they were settled in Mahaneh Dan for a long time during this period since this would explain the continued use of that place-name.148 It is to this "camp of Dan" that the spies return with the news about Laish, and from where a more adventurous part of the tribe moves off with them.149 Niemann's thesis, however, seems to be based on a selective reading of the texts (cf. his treatment of Judg 17-18 below), and an over-confidence in their dating. Despite Niemann's reservations over alternative views of the origin of the tribe of Dan, there is still something to be said for the idea that the Danites were in some way connected with the Sea Peoples, especially given the ancient traditions that at some time they were based on the coastal plain (pace Niemann). This linking of Dan with the Sea Peoples has become accepted in recent years, as the work of, among others, Spina150 and Sandars151 testifies. Recently both Dothan and Mazar have denied any connection between the Danuna and Tell Qasila.152 Dothan does, however, accept the general link between the Danites and the Danuna, noting that this finds support from the find of "Philistine" pottery found at Tel Dan.153 She notes that this find "points to the common cultural background of the Sea Peoples."154 Nevertheless, in view of the highly speculative nature of the arguments, the question of any link between Danites and Danuna must remain open. Bartusch, in his recent work Under standing Dan, has also discussed the issue of Dan and the Sea Peoples, coming to the conclusion that the connection is not at all proven.155 Since his work is concerned with the redactional history of 145. Ibid., 48. 146. Ibid., 59. 147. Ibid., 143. 148. Ibid., 144. 149. Ibid., 145. 150. F. A. Spina, "The Danite Story Historically Reconsidered," JSOT4 (1977): 60-71 (62). 151. N. K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples (London, 1978), 163-64. 152. T. Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Jerusalem, 1982), 57. A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (2d ed.; ABRL; Garden City, 1992), 311. Mazar associates it with the Philistines themselves. 153. Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture, 84. M. Dothan and T. Dothan, "An Archaeological Romance," BAR (September/October 1993): 40-53 (45-46). 154. Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture, 84; A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem, 1994), 141-42. Biran himself refused to comment on any links between the Danites and other groups. 155. M. W. Bartusch, Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and Ancestor (JSOTSup 379; London, 2003), 36.

Introduction

19

Judg 17-18, we shall discuss it in the next section. But with regard to the question of our text and the history of the tribe of Dan, he regards it as problematic since it is the only significant tradition which places the Danites (as opposed to the city of Dan) in the North.156 Of greater importance for this study are the extensive excavations of Biran at Tel Dan (Tell el Qadi).157 This is without doubt the site of the shrine with which we are concerned.158 It is situated, as we have noted, at the foot of Mount Hermon, at one of the sources of the Jordan. The site was first inhabited in the Pottery Neolithic in the fifth millenium, but continuously only from the Early Bronze II (thirtieth century BCE) down to Roman times (fourth century CE). Owing to its perpetual water-source and its abundant vegetation, which contrast greatly with the rest of Canaan, it was probably a sacred site from very early times. The tell is surrounded by a massive Middle Bronze Age rampart, to which has been added an enormous Iron Age gate complex. Items of Mycenaean pottery have been found as grave goods in a tomb found dug into the ramparts which contains the remains of several "non-Canaanite" people, although the excavators see no link with the Sea Peoples.159 From the Early Iron Age there are storage silos suggesting a population which was not fully settled, and this fits in with the picture given in Judg 17-18. For much of its early history, Dan was a centre for metalworking. This is true of both the "Canaanite" and "Israelite" periods, although the industry appears to have declined in the monarchical period. A site which Biran interpreted as the sacred precinct is near the spring at the farthest end of the mound from the gateway, with a paved road which led from the gate to it. Biran unearthed what he claimed was the "bamah" of Jeroboam I, although others have disputed this identification.160 The site appears to have been regarded as sacred down to Roman times, when Dan entered its terminal decline. b. Judges 17:7 A standard translation of this verse reads: "Now there was a young man from Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite residing there" (NRSV). The next verse goes on to make it clear that "there" refers to Bethlehem. There are two questions at issue: How could a Levite be a member of the "clan of Judah?" And if he was a member of that clan, what does it mean that he was a resident alien (~U) in his own tribe? There have been various solutions over the years. In regard to v. 7, Moore notes that Theodoret came up with two answers: either "from the clan of Judah" refers to Bethlehem, or the Levite's mother was a Judahite, and he was a member 156. Ibid., 178. 157. Biran, Biblical Dan. 158. Cf. A Biran, "To the God Who is in Dan," in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (ed. A. Biran; Jerusalem, 1981), 142-51. 159. Biran, Biblical Dan, 114-16. 160. G. Barkay, "The Iron Age II-III," in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (ed. A. Ben-Tor; Yale, 1992), 302-73 (312). He argues that the structure was in fact the foundation podium for a palace rather than a cultic installation per se.

20

Sacred Dan

of the clan of Judah through her.161 Moore rejects both, and suggests that "Levite" implies a trade, and is not a tribal term. Thus, there is no difficulty with his coming from a Judahite family.162 He resolves the second difficulty with recourse to source criticism, arguing that v. 8 comes from another source, so that "there" means in the hill country of Ephraim.163 Burney, however, suggests that the Levites were associated with the Judahites, but were not consanguineous with them.164 This is possible, although there is little evidence. Fernandez, like Theodoret, suggests that the problematic phrase refers to Bethlehem, and not the Levite.165 Cody takes a similar line to Burney: since the man was a resident alien, he could not have been a Judahite, though lived among them.166 Gunneweg takes it to mean that he was a member of the tribe of Judah,167 arguing that being a "resident alien" does not rule out consanguinity with the tribe in which one lived.168 More recently, Soggin would like to delete "of a Judahite family"169 (cf. fi//Snotel7:7a). This seems to be the full range of possibilities if we use a traditional translation. That nns&Q does means "clan" or "family" is asseverated by Zobel: "Mispahah does not refer to a regional or political entity, rather to an ethnic or a close-knit human society."170 However, there is evidence which may suggest that this is not the whole story, and that nnS2D can sometimes mean "clansland" as well as "clan." In Judg 13:2 we find a usage at odds with the normal translation of the term. Here it describes not a "clan," but a whole tribe. It is possible that this is an example of the general confusion between people and the territory they occupied. This is not, however, our clearest example. The strongest evidence comes from Judg 17-18. In Judg 17.7, the Levite, as we noted, comes "from Bethlehem of Judah, from the clan of Judah" where he is a resident alien. There are several points to be made about this. First, in the Hebrew Bible the Levites always form a distinct tribal grouping, divided into their own clans like any other tribe, and to describe a Levite as being from another clan is unheard of. This tension was felt by the Peshitta and a Hebrew manuscript which excise the reference (cf. BHS). Secondly, to say that this Levite is a member of the tribe of Judah is ludicrous since he is a resident alien. The simple fact of the matter is that one could not be a resident alien in a tribe of 161. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 383. 162. Ibid., 383. 163. Ibid., 384. 164. Bumey, The Book of Judges, 436-41. 165. Fernandez, "El santuatio de Dan. Estudio crtico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18," 252. 166. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 54. 167. Gunneweg, Leviten undPriester, 14-23. 168. Ibid., 23. 169. Soggin, Judges, 266. Cf., however, his An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah (London, 1993), 182, where he appears to agree with our rendering: "Terms like Bethlehem in Judah.. .thus indicate the region rather than the tribe." 170. H. J. Zobel, 'nnstBD', in ThWA75:86-93 (87): "Mispahah meint keine regionale oder politische GroBe, sondern eine ethnische oder engere menschliche Gemeinschaft" (my translation above).

Introduction

21

which one was a member; the terms are mutually exclusive (pace Gunneweg). Further, Judah is always described as a full tribe, not as a clan or part of a tribe, so again there is a degree of tension in the text, which many of the commentators have ignored. However, if the translation "clansland" is introduced, all the difficulties are resolved. Further on in the narrative, we find more evidence for nnS2JQ as a territorial unit. The Danite spies come "from their clan" (18:2). It is significant that the MT has a singular, but one would expect the tribe of Dan to be made up of more than one "clan," a difficulty felt by the LXX and the Targum. The men are also described as coming "from their edges." This description has puzzled many commentators, but the tension can be relieved if this again is taken as a geographical term and not as a demographic term: it is difficult to come from the edge of a family, but not from the edge of a territory. Again, at 18:11, we find that such an understanding also helps in the interpretation, where we would then have four geographical references each qualifying the others: "from there, from the clansland of the Danites, from Zorah and from Eshtaol." The traditional rendering is made doubly difficult since we are told at v. 21 that it was in fact the whole of the tribe which migrated, and not just a small part of it, whether this was actually historically the case or not. There is some external evidence for this use of PiriSOD. Johnstone suggests that its Ugaritic cognate is a technical term used in hereditary land tenure. He notes that the Ugaritic word spt is found in PRU 5.62 (KTU 2.47) in association with the term for "realm," and in Keret 2.24-25 (KTU 1.14.1.24-25) where it is found in parallel ioyrt, "heir."171 Further evidence may come from the Samaria Ostraca as tabulated by Aharoni. Here, along with a number of usual geographical terms, Aharoni has noted seven names known from elsewhere to be the names of clans belonging to the tribe of Manasseh which refer here to districts: Abiezer, Shemida, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hoglah and Noah.172 This is also noted by Wright, who says that this shows that such terms were still current in later monarchical periods,173 and thus it is possible that the tradents of the MT were still aware of such a meaning. Thus, it seems more than possible that nriSCD could, at times, have a wider meaning. It is possible that the Danite dialect preserved this meaning, since all the examples we have looked at come from Danite narratives, or alternatively that the meaning has only been preserved clearly in this ancient material. If we posit a meaning "clansland," many of the difficulties of, in particular, Judg 17-18 are resolved in a way which is more satisfactory than any other yet suggested. c. Judges 18:30-31 In these verses, the historical problems are somewhat different from those of 17:7. A standard translation again will suffice to highlight the issues: "And the 171. Johnstone, "Old Testament Technical Expressions in Property Holding: Contributions from Ugarit," in Ugaritica 6 (Mission de Ras Shamra 17; Paris 1969), 313-14. 172. Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (2d ed.; Philadelphia, 1979), 363. 173. C. J. H. Wright, God's People in God's Land (Exeter, 1990), 51.

22

Sacred Dan

Danites set up the idol for themselves; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Moses [margin reads 'Manasseh'], and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land. So they set up Micah's graven image which he made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh" (RSV). One of the difficulties is easily resolved. The suspended nun is to be removed from the name of the priest's grandfather, thus transforming it from Manasseh into Moses (cf. also Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 109b). It was evidently changed at a late date in the transmission of the canon, and it may be part of a continued polemic against Dan. The other difficulty is that if the two verses are parallel to one another, they must refer to the same time. However, the Exile happened much later than the destruction of Shiloh, and so either "the exile of the land" does not mean the Assyrian Exile, or else Shiloh was destroyed much later. Satterthwaite sees the two verses as parallel, noting their parallel structure, and suggests they refer to a destruction of Dan after the battle of Aphek.174 He notes that "the exile of the land" is an anomalous expression. Usually il^J refers to people or names of countries.175 He does admit, however, that the phrase would have been intelligible when used in connection with the Northern Kingdom.176 He suggests, albeit very tentatively, that it may be used figuratively to describe the situation envisaged by the first half of 1 Samuel.177 There is, however, no good reason to assume that the phrase does not refer to Assyrian Exile. O'Connell also argues that the verses are parallel to one another, and like Satterthwaite sees this as implying the earlier of the possible dates rather than the later.178 However, he alleviates the perceived difficulty of the phrase "exile of the land" by reading "exile of the ark" in its place.179 His reasons for this are, once more, that "exile of the land" is not attested elsewhere.180 He notes that ]1 of pHNn, may have been altered mistakenly to f" of j*"INn,181 but he has not noticed that in the Palaeo-Hebrew script the letterforms are different, and are less likely to be confused in this case. Another of his arguments is that the phrase in the MT is ambiguous, since it could refer to the Assyrian Exile, the Babylonian Exile, or the capture of Dan by Tiglath-pileser III in ca. 732.182 This is true, but cannot be used to justify a textual emendation, not even as part of a cumulative argument. O'Connell also points to some rhetorical reasons why the text should read "ark" and not "land"; for example, ark is a better parallel to ^DS, and it is also found in the parallel passage of ch. 20 where the grandson of Aaron is mentioned.183 None 174. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 117. 175. Ibid., 120 n. 153. 176. Ibid., 120. 177. Ibid., 120. Bertheau, Das Buck der Richter und Ruth, 253-54, notes that David Kimchi made a similar suggestion. 178. O'Connell, The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges, 284-85. 179. Ibid., 350-51. 180. Ibid., 350. 181. Ibid., 350. 182. Ibid., 350. 183. Ibid., 351.

Introduction

23

of these arguments is convincing, and I see no reason to change a perfectly clear MT, especially when what would have to be a late corruption is not supported by any of the Versions. O'Connell's real reason for this change, one suspects, is because it does not fit his attempt to date Judges "ostensibly"—as he is always careful to say—to the time of David's reign in Hebron.184 Of the commentators, Moore does not see any tension in these verses.185 Burney notes the difficulty, but resolves it by suggesting that v. 31 means that "the establishment of the sanctuary of Dan was of the same antiquity as the establishment of the house of God at Shiloh."186 Soggin too sees no problem with the text as it stands. He argues that it is not clear that Shiloh was in fact destroyed after the time of the battle of Aphek, and it may well have survived to a later date.187 Day, on the other hand, takes the view that Shiloh was destroyed at the time of the battle of Aphek, but notes that Judg 18:31 "does not necessarily imply that the sanctuary at Dan existed only as long as the house of God was at Shiloh and no /owger."188 It appears that the best solution is to regard the final verses of the story as not being in strict parallelism. If one takes the two verses as coming from different periods, then v. 30 may be seen coming possibly from the hand of a Northern refugee at the time of the Assyrian invasions. In fact, it may be the original ending to the story. Judges 18:31, on the other hand, is probably best regarded as part of a later, hostile redaction made when the narrative was incorporated into Judges, as we shall see below. It may well, in fact, have been modeled on v. 30. It contrasts the (illegitimate) sanctuary of Dan with the (legitimate) sanctuary of Shiloh. This cannot be dated earlier than the centralization of the cult at the time of Josiah, since the assumption behind this verse would only have force if Shiloh is seen as a precursor to Jerusalem qua central shrine. Furthermore, since this assumption may only have become second nature after the Exile, we may probably best date this verse to the post-exilic period. This fact, taken in conjunction with the simple literary observation that if both verses were meant to be taken as the conclusion by their respective authors, the one that is now in the concluding position must be have been added subsequently. This indicates that v. 31 mustbz later, and therefore that v. 30 has to be the original conclusion. d. Redactional History That Judg 17-18 shows traces of having been redacted is admitted by the majority of scholars who have worked with the text. However, the amount of redactional activity they see in it differs significantly from scholar to scholar. Very few scholars today would accept the view that there are two or more independent strands running through the chapters. Nevertheless, many scholars 184. Cf., e.g., ibid., 284-85. 185. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 400-401. 186. Burney, The Book of Judges, 436 (italics in original). 187. Soggin, Judges, 276-77. 188. J. Day, "The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah vii 12,14," in Studies in the Historical Books of the OldTestament (ed. J. A. Emerton; SVT 30; Leiden, 1979), 87-94 (93, italics in original).

24

Sacred Dan

have discerned what may not be independent sources, but large sections which have been added by various redactors to the original material. This, for example, is the case with Veijola who sees Judg 17-18 as an integral part of the Deuteronomistic History. He suggests that the pattern found in Judg 1-16 in which the people sin, are punished and are delivered is also found on a larger scale across Judg 17-21 and into 1 Samuel, where in ch. 4 the people are punished for the misdeeds of the final chapters of Judges.189 He argues that the chapters show signs of redaction by what he calls DtrG, a pro-monarchist redactor. Thus, in chs. 17-18 the pro-monarchical comments are DtrG because they show similarities with Deut 12:8,190 and because they are similar to Deuteronomistic usage in the books of Kings.191 Other DtrG redactional elements are the emphasis on Levites as Dna (17:7b; 18:30b!),192 18:lb, which glosses nnSK2 with the more characteristically Deuteronomistic ED^,193 and 17:5 and 18:31b, because they have parallel occurrences of DTI^N 5T3.194 None of these, nor the general theme of disobedience—not in itself peculiar to the Deuteronomist—is convincing. Niemann, on the other hand, finds evidence for three redactions of the original Danite material. The first he dates to the time of Jeroboam I—following Noth's thesis.195 This comprised 17:2-4 (without the references to ilDDD), the promonarchical comments of 17:6 and 18: la, 17 (again without ilDDQ), and finally 18:30a and 31b. This redaction was undertaken to make the cultic changes of Jeroboam I more acceptable,196 and 18:17 was added to exonerate the priest.197 A second redaction some time after 733 may be characterized as "pre-Deuteronomistic."198 This was the negative redaction which added all references to i"DDft, and also made some other additions: 18: Ib, the list of cultic objects which follows the ^DS in 18:18a, and in 18:19, the words "to a tribe and...in Israel." This redactor also added 18:30b-31a, an addition which included the suspended nun in the name of the priest's ancestor.199 There then followed the Deuteronomistic redaction200 which added references to Zorah and Eshtaol in 18:2, 8, 11, the whole of 18:12 and Dm in 18:13, all of 18:27 fromDIT1?!; toTUrTTIN inclusive, and possibly 18:29a. Judges 17:8 (only min s Dn^rpno), lOb; 18:2b|3,10aa,b, 14 (only ET^), 15 (only "house of Micah"), 20 (only ^DSHTIN) and 29b are all from another unknown source.201 Niemann's division into sources often rests on the 189. T. Veijola, Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der Deuteronomistischen Historiographie (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 198; Helsinki, 1997), 27-29. Cf. also G. E. Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta, 1986), 137-38. 190. Veijola, Das Konigtum, 15-16. Veijola regards Deut 12:8 as a Deuteronomistic addition. 191. Ibid., 16 n. 8. 192. Ibid., 18-20. 193. Ibid., 24-25. 194. Ibid., 25-26 195. Niemann, Die Daniten, 131-33. 196. Ibid., 145. 197. Ibid., 146. 198. Ibid., 133-34. 199. Ibid., 122, cf. 146-47. 200. Ibid., 134-37. 201. Ibid., 137.

Introduction

25

flimsiest of criteria. Thus, for example, he assigns the references to Zorah and Eshtaol to the Deuteronomist because they are cumbersome, were not held by the Danites and have come in because of the Samson stories.202 However, this assumes a higher than likely degree of interest on the part of the Deuteronomist in the early history of the Danites, and probably has more to do with Niemann's theory of the origin of the Danites than any real concern for the Deuteronomistic redaction. Becker uses a similar approach to Niemann, even though they do not always agree on the details. Becker, who is mainly concerned with the redaction of the book of Judges, is content to regard a good many of the features of the chapters as redactional.203 Often, again, the reasons given are arbitrary. He sees the chapters as having had a Deuteronomistic (DtrH) formulation, but he looks mainly to DtrN for the hostile redaction, having discerned a "nomistischen Tendenz" in them.204 This redactor has transformed the text into "a negative aetiology of the Danite cult,"205 which also has polemic against the Danites.206 The monarchical comments he views as coming from the post-exilic period, and as being a corrective to the idealistic Deuteronomistic conception of the Judges period—a time of near theocracy, when divinely appointed saviours ruled the people, as opposed to the later view which idealized the monarchy.207 O'Connell has also proposed a reconstruction of the redactional history of the chapters. He writes that "the Book has been compiled with the purpose of demonstrating how Israel's leadership had fallen short of tribal-political and deuteronomic ideals exemplified by a king in Israel."208 One of the central ideas of his thesis is that chs. 17-21 are crucial to the understanding of Judges in that they point to the idealized monarchy of David.209 The sections added by the "compiler" were 17:6, 7ap-b(3,8afc 18:1,12 (except 1^1)-13a, 28a£, 29b, 30a£ to the end.210 O'Connell offers little defence of his views on the "compiler's" additions. To my mind, furthermore, it is improbable that Judges was composed as a whole. It is possible, however, that O'Connell is correct in his assessment of the chapters' present function between Judges and Samuel, in that they do appear to be supporting an idealized monarch. Most recently, Bartusch offers two hypotheses for the origin of the text. The first is that (other than 17:6 and 18:la) we have an original Danite text which described the migration of part of the tribe to the North.21' This was then used by Jeroboam I to further his political interests. If this is the case, the text is ancient and "reads as a neutral reflection of life in general, and of domestic life in par202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211.

Ibid., 81-82. Cf. U. Becker, Richterzeit undKonigtum (BZAW 192; Berlin, 1990), 253. Ibid., 255. Ibid., 253: "eine negative Atiologie des danitischen Kultes" (my translation above). Ibid., 253-54. Ibid., 295-96. O'Connell, The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges, 218. Ibid., 261. Ibid., Appendix 1, 347-51. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 181-85. In this Bartusch is following Moore and Burney.

26

Sacred Dan

ticular, in the period before the monarchy in Israel."212 Bartusch's second hypothesis213 is that the text was originally an aetiology which explained why there was a tribe of Dan in the South and a city of Dan in the North. This original text consisted mainly of ch. 18 and was composed at the time of the United Monarchy when Dan came into Hebrew hands.214 The second layer of text was formulated by the circle of Jeroboam I to defend his choice of Dan, and many of the cultic details were added at this time. Because Biran has not found any trace of a sanctuary older than Jeroboam, Bartusch argues that it did not exist, and that the cultic traditions contained in Judg 17-18 including the tradition of a Mosaic priesthood were invented by Jeroboam.215 The third level was directed at Jeroboam's sanctuary by a writer in the late tenth or early ninth century and includes the ironic full name of Micayahu, the tradition that the cultic objects were "an image and a molten image" and the fact that the cultic object were stolen twice.216 Also Bartusch argues that the venal Levite was introduced into the story at this stage. One of the major difficulties with the second hypothesis proposed by Bartusch is that works on the assumption that because Biran has failed to find any trace of it, there could not have been a shrine before that of Jeroboam I. The fact is that the whole of the site has not been excavated, and since some of it is very close to one of the sources of the Jordan, and therefore has a very high water table, it is unlikely that the site will ever reveal all its secrets. Indeed, it is entirely possible, given the fact that there is a natural spring adjacent to the site, that the original shrine was close to it, and so will never be found. Whatever the case, Bartusch's second hypothesis rests very heavily on an argumentumesilentio. His first hypothesis, however, is to my mind at least much more promising, although I would dispute the date of the original text. Therefore, despite Bartusch's first hypothesis, I find none of these views on the redaction of the chapters wholly satisfactory. There is little evidence from which to date the composition of the original text, although we may not be far wrong if we assume that it came from the pre-exilic period, although a post-exilic date cannot be ruled out entirely. Veijola has pointed to the fact that the final redaction of these chapters and their incorporation into the book of Judges must have been either at the time of the Deuteronomistic activity or afterwards. I would also accept his argument that the pro-monarchical comments are redactional, since they stand out so clearly from the text, and to these I would add the occurrences of !"DDQ, and 18:31. Becker, as we noted above, has argued for a post-exilic date for this final redaction, and Fernandez suggested the same.217 There are several indicators pointing to this:

212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217.

Ibid., 182. Ibid., 186-201. Ibid., 190. Ibid., 195-96. Ibid., 198. Fernandez, "El santuario de Dan. Estudio crttico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18," 261.

Introduction 1.

2.

3.

4.

27

The pro-monarchical comments treat the king idealistically, giving him responsibility over cultic affairs. That this is the case is clear from the fact that they are used exclusively to underline cultic aberrations which would not have happened had there been a king. This assessment of monarchy seems to fit in most closely with the period in which the Chronicler was writing, in whose work David and Solomon were depicted as being extremely interested in the cult. This idealization is at odds with the monarchical period where all too often the shortcomings of the kings were visible. It is possible that this might date from the time of Josiah, but even in his time monarchy in general was not evaluated quite as positively. The tradition that the priests of Dan were descended from Moses would have been a stumbling-block to the Deuteronomists and those who followed them (cf. the wholly negative Deuteronomistic 1 Kgs 12), and would have continued to be so until the question of priesthood had been resolved. This would point to a time when the Aaronide priesthood was in the ascendancy at Jerusalem. Again, this would have been in the postexilic period. For most of the time that the Deuteronomists were active, Dan would have been in foreign hands, having been captured by Tiglath-pileser III in 733-732. It is not mentioned in the account of Josiah's reform (2 Kgs 23). Thus, it is probable that at the time of the Deuteronomists Dan was not considered a threat, and so attacking the shrine would have served no purpose. It is more likely that such polemic would have been directed against the shrine in the post-exilic period when the continuing cult at Dan may have shocked those who returned. It is clear that there was continued polemic against Dan in the Hebrew Bible, and many of these polemical elements are late. The chapters are chronologically out of place in the book of Judges: their natural place would in fact have been at the beginning of the book, and not at the end, since they deal with a time two generations after the Exodus. Thus, they appear to have been added a good deal later, certainly after the final Deuteronomistic redaction which gave us chs. 1-16 in their current form.

These arguments, coupled with those of Becker, point to the post-exilic period as the most likely time for the final redaction of the text which consisted of the addition of the pro-monarchical comments at 17:6; 18:1 (as well as 19:1 and 21:25) and a new conclusion at 18:31. This would have formed part of a drive on the part of the biblical writers to polemicize against the sanctuary of Dan which, despite all the odds, enjoyed a revival in the Hellenistic period, having survived the Babylonian and Persian periods.218 As we have noted, little can be said with any certainty about the authorship of the original text, other than that it almost certainly derived from the priesthood of 218.

Biran, Biblical Dan, 214-15.

28

Sacred Dan

Dan—no one else, after all, would have been much interested in such an obscure piece of tradition about a remote and now defunct tribal sanctuary. As far as its date is concerned, there are very few indications in the text. However, as I have suggested, the balance of probability would suggest that it derives from the preexilic period. The narrative may have reached its final form after the Exile, but it is highly probable, as we have seen, that this process involved the redaction of an earlier—pre-exilic—material.219 Indeed, what the story tells us about the cult is wholly consistent with a pre-exilic date. So, for example, the ephod oracle had fallen into complete disuse by the end of the exilic period, and was later misunderstood, but Judg 17-18 appears to show accurate knowledge of its correct use (although it is possible—but unlikely—that since the shrine continued in use down to the Roman period, such traditions survived in some form). On the other hand, the comments of Judg 18:30-31 (whatever their provenance) seem to suggest that there was a complete disruption in cultic life at Dan, presumably at the time of the Assyrian invasion. From this, we can surmise that the story was originally written down in the aftermath of that event in an attempt to preserve some at least of the sacred traditions of Yahwistic Dan. It is significant that it does not mention Jeroboam I and the existence of the royal shrine. This is surely deliberate: the story tells us that the shrine was older than Jeroboam's royal refoundation, and could rely on its original traditions and its Mosaic priesthood for its prestige, not on a king who had failed to establish a lasting dynasty. We have seen above that Judg 18:30 almost certainly forms the original conclusion to the story, and have argued that in all probability the original story dates from the time immediately after the fall of Dan. This text was then subjected to a redaction at some stage in the post-exilic period. This redaction consisted simply of the addition of the pro-monarchical comments, the occurrences of the word rODQ and a new and final conclusion in Judg 18:31. Given the ways in which Hebrew religion had developed in the exilic period, no other addition was necessary to turn an ancient historical source into a polemic account. Nevertheless, it follows that the narrative can still be read as reflecting in some way the religious concerns of the pre-exilic shrine of Dan, and it is, therefore, our most valuable window onto the cult of the Northern Kingdom in this period.

219. Cf. also Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 53 n. 53, for a similar view. In general, most scholars agree that the original story is pre-exilic.

Parti

SACRED TRADITION IN JUDGES 17-18

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1 INTERPRETING JUDGES 17-18

Judges 17-18 is, as we have seen, a text that is open to radically different interpretations. Some scholars would regard it as a piece of accurate ancient tradition which has been redacted to serve other purposes, whereas others would see it as a newly written piece of polemic which contains no authentically ancient material. There is also no overall agreement even over what the story is about: some, especially older scholars, have regarded it as a story about the foundation of the cult at Dan, whereas for others, the main emphasis of the narrative appears to fall elsewhere, for example, as a description of social disintegration. Some, as we shall see, would regard it as an aetiological legend; others would deny that it ever could have been. Therefore before we move on to consider the exact nature of Judg 17-18 in form-critical terms, it is necessary to subject the chapters to a rhetorical-critical study, allowing the somewhat complex text to speak for itself. 1. Rhetorical-Critical Study The Judg 17-18 narrative has recently been subjected several times to a literarycritical analysis.1 However, all these analyses have been concerned with the final form of the text, and none has taken into account the fact that the text has probably been subjected to a later redaction. We will now, therefore, look at the text afresh, attempting to take account of its literary history, while at the same time noting the abundant literary features which go to make the narrative such a good story. A final post-exilic redactor was responsible for adding the negative comments (17:6; 18:la), and these continue into the following narrative, being found also at 19:1 and 21:25.1 have dealt already with the provenance of these comments elsewhere, but it should be asseverated that since chs. 17-18 and 1921 are patently not by the same author, even though they are framed by the same redactional comments, it is clear that these comments are alien to both texts. This redactor also, as we have seen, added a second conclusion in 18:31.

1. Webb, The Book of Judges; Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges; Block, "The Period of the Judges"; Satterthwaite," 'No King in Israel" '; cf. idem, Narrative Artistry; O'Connell, The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges. For this section, see also Hauret, "Aux origines du sacerdoce danite."

32

Sacred Dan

It is necessary to take the story a few verses at a time to analyze them in their own right, and to follow the development of the themes which link them. I therefore propose to deal with the narrative in the following sections: a. 17:1-6 b. 17:7-18:la c. 18:lb-6 d. 18:7-10 e. 18:11-26 f. 18:27-31. a. Judges 17:1-6 The first section deals with Micah and his mother. 17:1 is one of three character introductions in the piece (the others being 17:7-8 where the Levite is introduced, and 18:1 where the Danites enter onto the scene). The style is very economical: we are told in one verse what we need to know, and no more—the man is called Micah, and he comes from the hill country of Ephraim. Then we are launched immediately into the dialogue, and, once more, we are told no more than we need to know. It seems almost as if the theft is not described because it would have taken up too much room. We are told the amount of silver, the fact that it was stolen, that the mother had sworn a vow2 which Micah had heard and that Micah himself had stolen it—all this in 16 words: a more concise way of giving this information can scarcely be imagined. The mother then blesses Micah. He returns the silver, and his mother dedicates it to Yahweh. Part of it is then taken to the silversmith, and part, one supposes, went to make the ephod and the teraphim and to set up the shrine.3 This enterprise must have been rather costly. In such a terse narrative as this, anything that is repeated is significant. A few things are highlighted in this way: the fact that there were 1100 pieces of silver, that they were dedicated to Yahweh and also that Micah returned them to his mother. The final set of repetitions may have arisen because of possible error in transmission,4 or because there were two versions of the same narrative current at the time they were written down.5 It is unlikely that the returning of the silver was described twice in the original story.6 The underlying theme of the chapters is adumbrated in this section, where there are several threads already present which will become more apparent later in the piece. Micah starts the narrative on the wrong foot. He is a thief, and is, therefore, unworthy of the possession of the cultic objects. He only returns the stolen money when his mother makes an oath about it.7 This appears to mean that she dedicates it to Yahweh. What is of the utmost significance here is that the 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Micah

Cf. Burney, The Book of Judges, 418. With Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry and the Composition of Judges 17-21, 86. Cf. Soggin, Judges, 265, and Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 85. Cf. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 372. Cf. Boling, Judges, 256. Webb, The Book of Judges, 183, suggests that the mother is a foil to show us just how bad is.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

33

silver has been transferred from the secular realm to that of the sacred: in effect, the silver has been given to Yahweh, and it is now his to use however he pleases. As the story continues, it becomes evident that Yahweh chooses to give it to the Danites. Also noteworthy is the fact that the deity has not been consulted in all this. The mother and son presume that they are carrying out the divine will in what they do, whereas the relationship the narrative appears to be condoning is one where Yahweh is consulted. It is only when the deity is brought into a situation that people can be sure that he will act for them. This is manifestly what Micah and his mother fail to do. The narrator is evidently not interested in either Micah or his mother in themselves. It is only their actions and their fundamental unworthiness that he bothers describing. Later in the story Micah will be used as a foil for the Danites.8 In this section, the way is being prepared for the Danites. The ^DS's only function in the story is as the centrepiece of the later shrine at Dan. Similarly, the oracular devices function in the story only to give a favourable answer when the Danites come to question Yahweh concerning his will. By mentioning them, the narrator fills us with anticipation for the advent of the Danites. All that the Danites need for their cult has been made for them, and has been transferred into the sacred sphere. The reference to Micah's son appears to be incidental, since, as the Levite comes from Bethlehem after the foundation of the private shrine, the shrine must have had a cultic attendant before his arrival,9 although it also serves to highlight the fact that Levites were considered to be better priests. At the end of this first section we have the first of the redactional comments, "In those days there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in their own eyes." This jars somewhat—designedly so. It makes the reader look back and reflect on what they have just read. From a later point of view the events narrated are quite shocking. A private individual has his own shrine, and then furnishes it with stolen silver, and finally, to add insult to injury, he ordains a non-Levite to be his priest. The redactor adds the comment here to highlight what he sees as the cultic abuses. The cult is the central concern of the original writer as it is also the major concern of the final redactor. Both are interested in the cult, but come at it from diametrically opposed angles: one simply relates what happens, the other simply condemns. b. Judges 17:7-18: la Whereas the first section dealt with the establishment of the shrine, the second is concerned with the cultic personnel. The Levite is introduced in many more words than is Micah. However, whereas one of the only things we know about Micah is his name, in complete contrast we are not yet told the name of the Levite.10 We know his place of origin, Bethlehem in Judah, a fact which the writer has sought to emphasize. We are also told his position in life: he is a

8. Boling, Judges, 255, suggests that he is contrasted with the Levite. This too is possible. 9. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 370. 10. Contrast Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 88, who regards him as an "opaque" character.

34

Sacred Dan

young noble (~lU]).n Also in contrast to the previous section, the writer allows himself a good deal of repetition. The speech of the Levite in v. 9 is in effect a summary of all that we already know about him. It is evident, therefore, that the writer is interested in the Levite, and finds what is said about him important. The fact that we are not yet told his name is an exceptionally good example of narrative technique. Even though presumably the hearers of the original story would have known exactly who this character was, the narrator keeps us in suspense until the very end of the story.12 The narrative emphasizes the fact that the Levite is in the vicinity of Micah's house almost completely by chance, and that he is a landless ~U, a person to whom society has special responsibilities.13 There is an element of contrast to be found in the titles of "father" and "son." The Levite is obviously much younger than Micah, but the fact that he is of noble stock and that Micah treats him with a degree of respect, calling him "father," is probably meant to have us wondering once again exactly who this priest of Micah's really is. The reference to "father" could also be taken as a sign of respect for the priest. Thus, this section contains several pointers to the final revelation of the Levite's name in 18:30. It is of enormous significance to our understanding of the cultic aspects of the story that the same words are used both of Micah's son and of the Levite in their ordination,14 and that the Levite does not appear to have been a priest before whatever cultic action is envisaged as taking place (v. 12). The way in which the central theme is worked out in this section is similar to that of the previous. Once more, Yahweh is seen to be working through both chance and Micah. The situation in which the characters find themselves is unusual: this is one of the only times in the Hebrew Bible that we hear of a private individual having his own sanctuary, although Moore compares Gideon and Ophrah.15 More than this, the fact that a Levite of noble stock is installed as a priest in this private shrine is exceptionally lucky for the Danites. The point of the story would seem to be that this is not simply chance, this is an example of Yahweh using circumstances to his own ends. The same words ma TH nTQ/liTD"^ are indeed used to describe both cultic image and priest in vv. 4 and 12.16 Like the image, the Levite is both in the realm of the sacred, and in the house of Micah: both facts are later to help the Danites.

11. For this meaning, see J. Macdonald, "The Status and Role of the Na'ar in Israelite Society," JNES 35 (1976): 147-70. 12. Cf. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 121, although he regards this a polemical element. 13. Cf. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (2d ed.; London, 1965), 74-76. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 152-53, suggests that the emphasis here is on the fact that he is away from his allotted territory. 14. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 92 suggests that this means that the Levite was about as legitimate as the Ephraimite—in other words, not at all. We would, however, agree at least in part: both priests were equally legitimate! 15. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 379. 16. Cf. Satterthwaite, Narrative, 92.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

35

The chapter ends with the ironic account of the words of Micah who is certain that Yahweh will bless him, since he now has a Levite as a priest.17 This highlights the theme that Yahweh has to be brought into a situation before he is prepared to act. Micah is presuming upon the divine will, and is seeking to secure a blessing without consulting the deity. It seems that the purpose of ch. 17 is to prepare and to provide a foil for ch. 18.18 In this former chapter, the Levite and the cultic objects are introduced. Their part in the story will be revealed in the next section as the Danites are brought onto the scene, where they can be contrasted implicitly with Micah. Between the chapters, the redactor has added another condemnatory comment. This serves to underline what has happened. Micah is convinced that Yahweh will now bless him, but the redactor, like the original author, is not convinced. The difference in their approach is again highlighted. The narrator is very subtle: he uses irony to press home his point. On the other hand, the redactor is anything but subtle, hammering home the very same point. The redactor also prepares the way for the Danites to arrive on the scene. One may assume that his attitude to them was hostile, but he does not condemn them during the course of the narrative: he appears to have been solely concerned with cultic matters. c. Judges 18:lb-6 The author announces the Danite heroes, and our sympathies for them are immediately engaged.19 In contrast to the complacent and settled life that Micah leads, the Danites' life is hard. They have no permanent holding in the land, despite being settled in a few towns. This fits in with the picture we are given of them in Judg 1:34, where they are described as being pressed hard by the Amorites. Once more, in contrast to the brief introduction that Micah receives, the spies are described in some detail. We are even told the area they came from. These are strong men, heroes even. The writer also lingers over the mission, in v. 2, allowing himself the rare luxury in this characteristically terse narrative of a pair of synonyms, ~lpn and ^"l. The way the Danites are introduced is an excellent example of the narrative technique of the author of the text. Chapter 17 is virtually self-contained, and ch. 18 starts as a total contrast, seemingly unrelated; it is only as the story progresses that we are able to see the connections between the two, as the fates of Micah and the Danites become inextricably linked. The jarring effect created is superb as it highlights the differences between the comfortable and complacent Micah, and the hard-done-by Danites. The spies come by chance to the house of Micah, in exactly the same way as the Levite in 17:8. Once again, by chance, they recognize his voice. It is not clear what this means. One possible explanation is that they had met him at some time in the past, and were surprised to meet him here.20 Another is that they might 17. 18. 19. 20. Book of

Cf., e.g., Webb, The Book of Judges, 184. Cf. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth, 242. Cf. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 370. Bumey, The Book of Judges, 425; Soggin, Judges, 212; Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Judges, 154.

36

Sacred Dan

have recognized his accent as being that of a highborn Levite, or possibly of a Southerner.21 Given the sorts of questions that they ask him, the first is more likely. It is, nevertheless, odd that the writer has chosen not to narrate a previous meeting between the Danites and their future priest. In his answer to the questions of the Danites, the Levite gives the salient details, that he is now a priest in the service of Micah who has hired him to fill that position. The scene is now set for the crucial oracle and the favourable answer which the Danites receive. All events so far have been leading up to this event, and it proves to be the turning point in the Danites' fortunes. An underlying theme comes fully to the fore in this section. The Danites alone of the people of Yahweh are in need of divine assistance. They had been given a promise of land, a part of the fertile land in Canaan, and up until this point they have not received it, despite the idealized Josh 19:40. The care that Yahweh has for all his people has not yet been manifested to them. Yahweh is here seen at work through chance encounters, in the same way that he worked in ch. 17. He brings the five Danite spies to the place where he has chosen to reveal his will for them, and there they recognize the Levite, the appointed agent of his divine will. In ch. 17, we were told that oracular devices were made, but it is the Danites who ask the first question of the oracle in the narrative. In this way, they invite Yahweh into their situation. The question is of the alternative-type, which expects either the answer "yes" or "no." As we will see, it is the nature of the priestly oracle that the answer has to be either positive or negative. The only other option is that no answer may be given at all. The answer the Danites receive is positive, in other words, the "yes" lot came out of the ephod. For this reason, in contrast to the suggestions of some scholars,22 there can be no ambiguity at all about the answer. However, the answer goes a lot further than the Danites expect. They are told that their way is "before Yahweh." The implication of this is that, as we have suggested, the writer sees all the events he has narrated up to this point as revealing the hand of Yahweh at work. Yahweh intervenes in the events to help his Danite people in their time of need. At this stage, the theme of Yahweh's providential care for Israel becomes explicit, and he intervenes in all subsequent events. In this way, the story reaches its turning point—from now on Yahweh will be with them, will protect them, and will bring them to prosperity. After this point, the foundation of the shrine where they settle is simply a matter of course. d. Judges 18:7-10 It is in this section that the efforts of modern literary criticism seem to be least helpful. Verse 7 must be interpreted in context. It is a description of the city of Laish, which the Danite spies view as an easy target.23 The people are compla21. E.g. Boling, Judges, 263; E. Nielsen, "The Levites in Ancient Israel," in Law, History and Tradition (Copenhagen, 1983), 71-81 (76). 22. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York, 1980), 168; Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 99; Exum, 'The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges," CBQ 52 (1990): 410-31 (427). 23. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 389.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

37

cent, but the land is good. These two facts are emphasized several times during the course of the narrative. The original context suggests that it is so because of God's special care for the Danites.24 To fulfil his promise, he has made things easy for them. In context, there can be no other interpretation. There is significantly no redactional comment here, although it is possible that the redactor was letting his readers make up their own minds. There is, of course, also the possibility that the redactor in some sense condoned the actions of the Danites in destroying the enemy. Once again, in this section the secondary theme of presuming trust is found. The people of Laish are described as being complacent (nCD3). In this way they can be grouped with Micah of whom the same is also true. Yahweh uses these people, in the narrator's eyes, as his pawns. He, in a sense, sacrifices them to his will, which is that the Danites should have a territory of their own. This sacrifice may seem harsh to modern minds, but the Hebrew Bible is a piece of ancient literature: enemies are always enemies, and the Hebrews' enemies are Yahweh's enemies.25 The writers' sympathies are almost always on the side of the Hebrew heroes.26 The most horrendous atrocities are reported, and little condemnation is ever levelled at those responsible, unless, of course, they are non-Hebrews. What is interesting is that much modern literary criticism has singled out this story for condemnation. Because the verb nC33 often (but certainly not always) has positive connotations of faith and trust, many literary critics assume that the Danites must be thoroughly evil, and repugnant to Yahweh because they attack the FIED DU. 27 In condemning the Danites here for this act, they are unwittingly condemning the entire Hebrew people. There are many acts of violence in the Hebrew Bible directed at non-Hebrews that are never regarded as problematic (cf. Josh 6), and so we must be careful not to say that this story intends to show that the Danites were evil and violent simply because they put the inhabitants of Laish to the sword. This is especially true given the context (cf. 18:6 above). In our narrative, the Danites are simply not condemned for what they did to Laish, even by the later hostile redactor as we noted above. That action would have been considered quite normal in the Hebrew Bible and part of the divine scheme. It is solely the cultic practices and the attitude of Micah to the deity that are condemned by the redactional comments. We must, therefore, always be on our guard against the anachronistic assumption that the Bible reflects the same values that we hold. (This is particularly true of the modern "reader response" approach of many literary critics.) The action in this section now moves swiftly. The Danites view their Godgiven new home at Laish, and then return at once to their kinsfolk. It is there that 24. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 183, "The Danite tradition.. .indicates explicitly that Laish was delivered into the Danites's [sic] hands by God." 25. For an ancient Near Eastern example, cf. the heroic action of Si-nuhe in ANET, 20. 26. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 157, misses the point completely: she fails to recognize that in the Hebrew Bible Yahweh is nearly always partisan. 27. Webb, The Book of Judges, 186; Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 156; Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 100.

38

Sacred Dan

their haste becomes apparent. The narrator is not interested in charting their journey at present, but relates what they say when they return. There are two expressions for "to hurry" found in conjunction with descriptions of the city. The effect achieved is quite brilliant in the way it conveys the initial excitement of the spies, and then their enthusiasm for what they have seen slowing them down into the more lyrical final phrases, until, at last, in v. 1 Ob, we have the longest single unit of their report. Perhaps we are to imagine them initially all speaking at the same time, with each disjointed phrase said by a different man. e. Judges 18:11-26 Whereas the writer has not previously been concerned to give the itinerary of the journey of the spies, now he begins to give more of the details. A possible explanation for this is that these are in fact historical memories of the time when the Danites were on the move. This is not quite as unlikely as it might at first seem. For example, some of the Bedouin tribes that still live in Palestine have preserved memories dating back to at least the sixteenth century. They can still remember where they first settled in the land, and, to a certain extent, the route taken, after having been forced to leave their original territory by drought.28 The Danites in their migration are described as being 600 men of war.29 This surely means that there were 600 families. Counting the men only was quite common in the ancient world (cf. Exod 12:37 or Mark 6:44). The narrator in Judges finds time to mention the place Mahaneh Dan, which is only mentioned in Danite material (Judg 13:25). The assertion that it was still known by that name may probably best be seen as a narrative flourish on the part of the Danite narrator, and no historical accuracy need be attached to it.30 It appears that it is, once again, by chance that the Danites happen to be in the vicinity of Micah's house.31 The spies draw attention to the fact that there are cultic objects in the place, otherwise the opportunity would have been missed. There was no reference to the shrine in the report given by the spies,32 and only very obliquely was the oracle itself mentioned. The spies, presumably chosen originally for their initiative,33 now formulate a plan for the obtaining of the cultic objects. Unfortunately, the next few verses are confused. Either there has been a good deal of textual corruption, or we have an example of two versions of an original Danite legend preserved side by side.34 Such composite narratives are common in 28. B. Couroyer, "Histoired'unetribusemi-nomadede Palestine,"/?# 58 (1951): 75-91 (77); W. Lancaster, The Rwala Bedouin Today (Cambridge, 1981), 119-31 (127-29). 29. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 179, notes that 600 is often a stock number in biblical narratives. 30. Against Boling, Judges, 264, who suggests that it was a late addition. Cf. also Niemann, Die Daniten, 145. 31. Cf. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 158, but this is not clear. 32. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 105. 33. Ibid., 105. 34. See ibid., 107 for an attempt to read these verses as a coherent whole.

\.InterpretingJndgesl7-18

39

the Hebrew Bible, the best example being the account of the Flood in Gen 6-8. For an example in Judges, one might mention the Gideon stories (chs. 6-8), where we seem to have narratives originally concerned with two separate characters. Here, in one possible version, it is the five men who take the cultic objects, with the priest standing helpless at the door. In another, it appears that it was the priest who actually removed the objects at the suggestion of the spies, but of his own free will. Owing to the confusion, it is almost impossible to comment on the literary features. It is clear, nevertheless, that the narrative slows down considerably at this juncture.35 This emphasizes the point where the Danites gain possession of the cultic objects. Whatever the explanation, the element of the composite in the chapters appears to go back to an early date.36 When the narrative becomes clear again at v. 19,37 we find an echo of 17:10. The Danites ask the priest to be their "priest and father" in almost exactly the same words as Micah. The extraordinary nature of Micah's shrine is highlighted by the rhetorical question of the Danites. The answer is that it is surely better for the Levite to be a priest of a tribe and its territory than to be the priest of only one man.38 It is worth noting that Jonathan is no longer called "the noble young Levite," but is consistently called "the priest." It thus appears that it is now his priestly status that was uppermost in the narrator's mind. The episode where Micah runs after the Danites might be seen as providing a little light relief. Micah's breathlessness is caught superbly in v. 24, as phrase stumbles over phrase, none more than three words long. The Danite warriors indulge in some rather heavy wordplay in the next verse, where sibilants abound. The episode ends rather sadly with Micah forced to go home. This does, nevertheless, have a serious side. It shows that Micah's attitude to Yahweh is still entirely wrong. He thought that he could possess the deity, having his shrine and his cultic object, and having a Levite as a priest. Now his confidence is shown to have been unfounded. Once again, we are shown what happens to those who do not respond to Yahweh in the correct way. f. Judges 18:27-31 After the episode with Micah, the cultic objects are not enumerated as they have been before. They are simply described as "that which Micah made." Similarly the priest is described as having been Micah's. This serves to highlight the success of the Danites over and against Micah, and, of course, in the context of the story, this success is due to the fact that Yahweh has blessed them. The conquest of the city is not dwelt upon in any great detail. The phrases used to describe the fall of Laish are highly formulaic. This may well be a sign that the writer here is using a standard way of depicting the taking of a city39 35. Ibid., 107. 36. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 397. See also the discussion in H. Schmoldt, "Der Uberfall auf Michas Haus (Jdc 18,13-18)," ZAW105 (1993): 92-98. 37. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 396—97. 38. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 110, disagrees. 39. Ibid., 115.

40

Sacred Dan

whether the depiction is accurate or not. The most famous example of this type of formula is in Judg 1:8: "And the Judahites made war on Jerusalem, and they took it and smote it with the edge of the sword, and they set the city on fire." Of course, later on in the same chapter (1:21), the Jebusites are alive and well, and remain so until the city was taken by David. Thus, it would appear that what is said here need not be taken entirely at face value.40 Further, since one of the tenets of literary criticism is that what is regarded as important is given a lot of space, the conquest obviously is not considered by the writer to be so—although for some reason many modern critics who claim to use the rhetorical-critical method seem to give it undue weight. What is important to him is the complacency of the people, and also the fact that they were so removed from anyone else that no one came to rescue them. The Danites are portrayed as having been given a very easy victory. This, once again, is the hand of Yahweh at work. There then follows what is probably to be taken as a historical note that the city that is now called Dan was originally Laish.41 The use of the name Israel for the patriarchal father of Dan rather than Jacob may be a northern feature. The story ends with a final rhetorical flourish as the writer at last reveals the name of the priest and his lineage, commenting that he and his sons served the shrine for as long as it was possible in Northern Israel. Effectively this is the climax of the narrative. Throughout the story the priest has been called by a generic term, as if he were anonymous, although this may well be seen as a literary conceit: the author in the best traditions is keeping his audience guessing.42 But right at the end the narrator reveals his hand, the priest, far from being anonymous, is none other than Jonathan the son of Gershom the son of Moses. The construction of the sentence at this point emphasizes this fact: Jonathan's name is placed first in the sentence with his lineage almost as a separate clause. There is then a third person singular personal pronoun referring to him, and then his sons are mentioned, and then and only then do we have the verb. Jonathan and his sons were the priests of Dan down to the "exile of the land." There is a sense of finality to the phraseology here. The story does not work without this verse, the narrative has been building up to this point. It is therefore intrinsic to the story, and is in fact the natural conclusion to the original narrative. It is then followed by a second and historically later concluding sentence which in rhetorical terms is a doublet in the last verse, which tells us that Micah's image was in Dan for all the time that there was a shrine at Shiloh.43 The very next verse (19:1) is another redactional comment. It is possible that this was originally intended as a final comment at the end of the Danite narrative. If this is the case, again we can see the redactor's interest in the cult, as he draws 40. Biran, Biblical Dan, 125-26, notes that there is a conflagration layer at the end of the Late Bronze II, but that the evidence is ambiguous. 41. There is surely no element of irony here (pace Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 159). 42. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 77 n. 26, on the other hand, states that "the mention of the priest by name and genealogy.. .seems sudden and entirely unexpected." 43. See the Introduction for a discussion of the historical problems of this verse.

1. In terpreting Judges 17-18

41

a line beneath the reference to the, for him, heterodox shrine of Dan, and moves on to the next story.44 g. Summary The Danite narrative as a whole is marked out by its literary features as an excellent example of Hebrew narrative art. It uses language in a superb way, especially in the dialogue, characterizing the people and their situation accurately and with great skill. The subtle way in which information is withheld until the last minute as well as the build-up to the oracle scene also marks the narrator as a great storyteller. It is characteristically terse and restrained in the same way as the famous Gen 22,45 and this story may be accounted worthy to stand in that tradition. One thing that strikes the reader is that the text has a much stronger theological motivation than might at first be assumed. Judges 17-18 has been viewed as a parody,46 but it shares with much of the earlier narrative material of the Hebrew Bible a common theological purpose. One of the themes of the original story is that of God's providential care for his people, in this case the Danites. This theme in general informs much of the earlier parts of the Hebrew Bible taken in canonical order. It is important in the Patriarchal sagas, where God brings the forebears of Israel out of Mesopotamia and reveals himself as active in their history, especially in the sanctuary legends (cf. Gen 12). Then he brings them to prosperity in Egypt, rescuing them from famine in Canaan. When this scheme seems to falter, he delivers them miraculously from Egypt. The same theme is found in Judg 1-16: when the people turn to him, he listens to them and rescues them, but first they have to be responsive to him and seek his help, and then, and only then, will he rescue them. Yahweh is not to be presumed upon. This theme was clearly the most important in our narrative in its original form. The events were viewed exclusively and appropriately from the point of view of the Danites. But if the major theological concern of the original narrative is to show that Yahweh cares for the Danites who are in distress, the working out of this care is the establishment of a tribal home which includes a shrine with an hereditary priesthood in a near ideal geographical position. The enemies of Yahweh and his Danite people, insofar as they come into the story, are—characteristically for a Hebrew narrative—never given any consideration. The redactional comments seem to be concerned mainly with cultic affairs— which would fit in with the Chronicles-type redaction I have suggested.47 The redactional framework is suspended over the story, as if the redactor wanted us to make our own minds up when we read it. His comments certainly put a negative

44. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 185, also argues that 19.1 a should be read with chs. 17-18 as a highlighting of cultic abominations. 45. Cf. E. Auerbach, Mimesis (Princeton, 1953), 7-23 (11-12). 46. Cf. Soggin, Judges, 278. 47. See Introduction, pp. 27-28.

42

Sacred Dan

slant on the whole account, and after they have been made, we can never be sure of the value of any of the judgments made by the original narrator. Fortunately, the redactional elements are easy to pick out, leaving us with a pristine account. In the remainder of this study, I will refer to this repristinated account by terms such as "the Danite story," to be distinguished from "Judg 17-18," which I will use for the redacted account of the Hebrew Bible. 2. Form-Critical Analysis of the Danite Story We must now turn to examine the nature of the narrative from the point of view of form criticism. As it stands today, Judg 17-18 is a polemic against the ancient shrine of Dan in Northern Israel which was still in operation down into Roman times. However, if we discount the evidently redactional comments, the nature of the story changes. The story is complex, and can appear to head in different directions at different stages. The Micah elements give it the appearance of a didactic story. Micah is guilty of theft, and no amount of cultic activity will make up for this. God punishes Micah through the Danites. But while this is certainly a theme of the story, it is rarely prominent. In the foregoing discussion, I found pointers towards this understanding, but many of these are very subtle, too subtle for this reading to do full justice to the text. This is further suggested by the fact that Micah drops out of the narrative at the end of ch. 17, and only reappears briefly to have his property stolen. Some scholars, including Malamat,48 view the narrative as a conquest story, parallel to the conquest stories in Joshua. Again, while this is an element in the story, it does not seem to be the whole picture, for ch. 17 is not concerned with the Danites at all, and even in ch. 18 the conquest element is not to the fore. The taking of the city is recounted in very few words, suggesting that the narrator was not interested in these details. It is one of the central tenets of narratology that the most important elements in any story are those which take up the most space. In our story the narrator lingers over such things as the making of the image in ch. 17, and the hiring of the priest, the oracle-taking session and its outworking, and then the taking of the cultic paraphernalia from Micah. These cultic elements are found throughout both chapters, and are in fact the only reason that the chapters are linked together. This fact points very strongly to the conclusion that the redactor's reading of the text, though opposed in its evaluation, was true to the concerns of the original writer. Hence the narrative which we have before us is in fact a legend whose purpose is to explain how the shrine of Dan came to be where it was, and to clarify the exact provenance of its furniture and cultic personnel. If this is a piece of Danite tradition, it is told from the perspective of the temple of Dan, rather than that of the tribe of Dan. This is also the view of Gressmann who states that, in his 48. A. Malamat, "The Danite Migration and the Pan Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern," Biblica 51 (1970): 1-16.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

43

opinion, while the story is both Stammessage ("tribal legend") and Kultsage ("cultic legend"), it is the latter, cultic element that is predominant.49 The later redactor has, therefore, not altered the original thrust of the narrative, simply redirected it slightly. The story is still about the shrine of Dan, and it still reaches its climax when the image and its priest are installed. All the redactor has done is to cast doubts on the propriety of the shrine and its image which he evidently regarded as heterodox. Differences between the cultic practices described and those of contemporary Judah and Jerusalem would have made his job very easy. With a few deft touches he has transformed the story completely. Despite this evidence, there is still a strong strand of critical opinion that would deny that such a story can in fact be seen as an authentic cultic aetiology, mainly because it lacks what some scholars feel is the necessary theophany.50 This is true even of Long who notes that 18:12 contains an aetiological element, but states that it "appears at best as a minor element in the wider context."51 In other words, Long fails to notice that the whole of the "wider context" is in fact an aetiological legend, of which 18:12 is only a tiny part. It is therefore necessary to examine the cultic aetiological stories afresh in the light of what we now know about Judg 17-18 in order to ascertain whether the Danite story can indeed be seen as a suitable cultic aetiology despite its lack of a theophany. 3. Cultic Aetiologies in the Hebrew Bible The most famous group of stories which tell of the foundations of shrines in the Hebrew Bible are the cultic stories of Genesis. These "legends" (in German Sagen) explain the sanctity of many shrines for later generations of Israelites, and as such are obvious place to start when looking at Hebrew cultic aetiologies. There are numerous examples of such stories in Genesis. The following list probably contains the most important: 12:6-8; 16:7-14; 22; 28:10-22; 32:2,2333; 33:18-20; 35:1-7,9-15 (cf. also 13:4). They are all stories of patriarchs visiting sites in Canaan and worshipping at them. In many cases we know that these shrines pre-dated the patriarchs, although in the cultic aetiologies as they stand this is rarely explicit. a. Genesis 12:6—8 This is the cultic aetiological legend of Shechem. Abraham is in Shechem where there is an important tree. Yahweh appears to him, and promises his descendants 49. H. Gressmann, Die Anfange Israels (Gottingen, 1964). Cf. also the form critical discussions in K.Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method (London, 1969), 196;B. O. Long, The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108; Berlin, 1968); J. A. Wilcoxen, "Narrative," in Old Testament Form Criticism (ed. J. H. Hayes; Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion 2; San Antonio, 1974), 57-98 (94-95). 50. A. H. W. Curtis, "Aetiology," DBI, 8: "Cultic aetiologies account for some ritual or ceremony; it is perhaps appropriate to include within such category stories (often involving a theophany) which explain why a particular place was a holy place and why a sanctuary was located there (sometimes called sanctuary aetiologies)." 51. Long, The Problem of the Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament, 16.

44

Sacred Dan

the land. In response to the theophany, Abraham builds an altar to him. The tree is probably also mentioned in Gen 35:3; Deut 11:30; Josh 24:26 and Judg 9:6, 37. Gunkel compares it to the oak of Zeus at Dodona.52 He comments that the "place" (DlpQ) may be a holy place, and compares Gen 22:3-4; 28:11,19; 2 Kgs 5:1!(?); Jer 7:12, and the Greek of 3 Mace 1:9.53 It is, therefore, probable that the shrine was an already extant Canaanite shrine. b. Genesis 16:7-14 This is the cultic aetiology of an otherwise unknown shrine near the Egyptian border. Hagar has fled from Sarah, and is met by the Angel of Yahweh at a spring. He tells her to return and submit to Sarah, that she will have many descendants, and that she is pregnant. However, her son, whom she will call Ishmael, will be stubborn and an outcast. Hagar invokes Yahweh by the name of El Roi. The well is then named Beer-Lahai-Roi in memory of Hagar's theophany. The title of the deity/messenger of Yahweh in v. 13 is almost impossible to understand. The name of the spring (v. 14) is equally difficult. That the cultic aetiology of such a shrine should be found in the Hebrew Bible need not surprise us, especially if we consider the diverse groups which made up Israel. c. Genesis 22 The Aqedah may once have been a cultic aetiology. Nevertheless, in its present form the narrative is concerned with the theological dynamics of Yahweh's relationship with Abraham. The cultic features, the arrival at a holy "place," the building of the altar, the subsequent theophany and re-naming of the place are, nevertheless, typical of cultic aetiologies. d. Genesis 28:10-22 This is the famous cultic aetiology of Bethel. Jacob stops at a "place" (presumably meaning "sanctuary') and stays the night there, using a stone as a pillow.54 Yahweh appears to him and promises him this land. Yahweh seems to be on a "ladder" on which his angels ascend and descend. For Westermann, the importance of the ladder is that it is firmly positioned on the earth at Bethel, thus emphasizing the holiness of the ground.55 This is asseverated by the text itself in vv. 16-17. Verses 18-22 describe the setting up of the standing stone (in some sense the foundation of the temple), its unction and what almost amounts to a gentleman's agreement that if Yahweh brings Jacob back, then Jacob will worship him, and will give him a tenth of all he has. e. Genesis 32:23-33 This is surely one of the strangest narratives in Genesis, or indeed the whole of the Hebrew Bible, and may originally have been the cultic aetiology of the shrine at Peniel/Penuel, but is not so any longer. 52. 53. 54. 55.

H. Gunkel, Genesis (2d ed.; HKAT; Gottingen, 1902), 147. Ibid., 147. For another view, see C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (London, 1985), 454. Ibid., 454, and cf. also 242-44.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

45

f. Genesis 33:18-20 In contrast, this is a true cult aetiology which is again associated with Shechem. At no other time in his career to date has Jacob been linked to Shechem. The reasons for the building of the altar are obscure. It is possible that this is the counterpart of Gen 28, but that here the narrative adopts a Shechemite setting, in contrast to the concern of the other narrative with Bethel. Here the returning Jacob worships God at Shechem in the guise of El the God of Israel. g. Genesis 35:1—7 This is evidently the original continuation of the Gen 28 story. Jacob, having returned from Haran, is commanded by God to return to Bethel, and to build an altar there to the El (v. 1) who had appeared to him there. The narrative is evidently part of the cultic aetiology of Bethel. h. Genesis 35:9-15 This would appear to be a doublet to the previous narrative. It seems to be alien to its context, but may possibly be ascribed to P. It has been inserted into the text at an appropriate point, without regard for the fact that it is at variance with the narrative with which it is juxtaposed. It does not assume any knowledge of the tradition that Jacob had seen Yahweh at Bethel when he was escaping from Esau, neither is any knowledge of Gen 32 presupposed, for here Jacob is renamed Israel for a second time. It, therefore, seems that there were two independent traditions of the origin of both the sanctuary of Bethel, as well as for the fact that Jacob had two names. It is worth noting that in Gen 35:9-15 few of the mythological features of the previous narratives are to be found. Here, by contrast, a theophany is introduced almost as if Jacob casually met God on the road. Another possibly significant feature of this narrative is the emphasis on the El aspect of Yahweh: he is introduced as El Shaddai (cf. 17:1 and 28:3, both P), but the place is later called Beth El, and its God El of Beth El. In our survey of the aetiological legends of Genesis, we have found little to help us in our search for a parallel to the Danite story. Indeed there are several points of contrast between the Genesis aetiologies on one hand, and the Danite narrative on the other: a. Whereas the Genesis stories may originally have had a similar purpose to the Judges story, the fact that they are patently stories dealing with the heroic pre-history of the people of Israel contrasts with the more obviously historically based Danite story. Furthermore, the Genesis stories relate the shrines to an individual hero or ancestor, whereas the Danite story has as its heroes the warriors of the whole tribe. b. The majority of the Genesis stories are concerned to uphold the claims of the Hebrews to the sanctuaries and the land. In the Danite story all this is taken for granted. c. The Genesis stories are concerned to describe why the Hebrews worshipped in a particular place, usually because of a theophany. The Danite narrative, by contrast, explains how the shrine came to be

46

Sacred Dan founded, where its image and its priest came from, and why it is where it is. The Genesis stories show the Patriarchs worshipping at already extant shrines, presumably in an attempt to enhance the antiquity of the shrines. The Danite narrative does not give any indication that there was already a shrine at Dan (even though it is often assumed that there was one). Dan relies on its image, oracular devices and priesthood for its prestige.

From this it would appear that the Danite narrative is a different kind of story from the cultic aetiology of Genesis, and perhaps it is worthy of a new Gattung label. I will call this a "cultic foundation story," as opposed to the cultic aetiology found in Genesis. The former is an historical account describing the foundation of a shrine in realistic terms, the latter accounts for the sanctity of a shrine in terms of a legendary past, but does not describe its actual foundation. This distinction, I believe, is crucial to our understanding of the Danite story. 4. The Cultic Foundation Story in the Hebrew Bible We must now turn to the wider Hebrew Bible to see if we can find any other examples of cultic foundation stories parallel to the Danite story where the actual foundation of a shrine is described. Perhaps contrary to expectation in a book which is so concerned with cultic matters, there are few stories that describe the foundation of a shrine in historical terms in the Hebrew Bible. There are at least two discernible reasons for this. First, as we have seen, many of the shrines in the Bible are regarded as predating the action of the story. So Gen 28 merely explains the reasons for the sanctity of the shrine of Bethel for later generations of Hebrews because Jacob received a theophany there, but it does not describe the setting-up of the cult at that place. To take another example: Gen 14 can be described as a story that explains the significance of the sanctuary of El Elyon at Jerusalem because of its connection with Abraham. Nevertheless, it probably envisages a previously established cult since it refers to Melchizedek as priest. Second, another possible reason for the lack of foundation stories is that the Hebrew Bible as a whole is primarily concerned with the cult at Jerusalem, to the extent that all other shrines came to be regarded as heterodox. While it is true that in Genesis there are narratives which describe the patriarchs frequenting other shrines, their time was probably regarded as an exception to a rule which only came into force with Moses and the book of Deuteronomy which he is supposed to have written.56 Given this editorial theology after the establishing of Jerusalem, we should, therefore, not expect any other shrine to be treated positively in any way. It would appear that many of the Hebrew cultic foundation stories other than that of Jerusalem, and the re-shaped Judg 17-18, have been suppressed. First 56. In general terms, cf. R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament (Overtures to Biblical Theology: Minneapolis, 1992), 79-104.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

47

Kings 12:28-33 may also possibly be described as a foundation story, but since it is either an ancient account which has been very heavily re-worked by the Deuteronomistic school, or a free composition of the Deuteronomist, we may discount it as being of very little use for our purposes. 5. The Danite Story and the Jerusalem Stories In contrast to the Danite legend, there is no unified cultic foundation story associated with Jerusalem. Instead, we have a series of different accounts all of which, taken together, can be seen in some ways as the story of the foundation of its cult. The first of these accounts, what one might call the cultic aetiological legend of Jerusalem, is Gen 14. In vv. 18-20, the shrine and its priest Melchizedek are treated with great respect by Abraham. The narrative has caused much scholarly debate. It does, nevertheless, seem clear that the verses which deal with the shrine at Salem are alien to their context.57 There is, after all, no reason for Melchizedek to be involved, and the story makes better sense without the insertion. If this is correct, the reference to "El Elyon maker of heaven and earth" in v. 22 is also an insertion made to fit the context. The reasons for the additions are obvious: they provide the much needed legitimation for the shrine at Jerusalem,58 for, if it were not for this story, any other of the sanctuaries in use at the time of David would have had a much stronger claim to supremacy than Jerusalem. Significantly, while no other story in Genesis refers explicitly to any cultic activity other than that of the patriarchs, in Gen 14, Abraham is seen as providing legitimation to an already extant cult at Jerusalem, not just to the site where the later sanctuary will be founded, as is often the case with the other patriarchal narratives. Another significant feature is that there is no divine intervention in the situation: there is neither a theophany nor a divine oracle, but simply the blessing of a priest. It is possible that, at the time of writing, given the presence in Jerusalem of the ark, the vehicle of Yahweh's presence, no such divine input would be considered necessary. The lack of divine action is even more apparent in the account of the taking of Jerusalem by David. At the various stages in his career, he has consulted the deity through the ephod oracle, especially before the start of a military campaign. In complete contrast, here in 2 Sam 5:6-8, there is no oracle-taking: the men of David take the city without any reference being made in the text to Yahweh. This is surprising. Surely the capture of Jerusalem, which was to become the central sanctuary, was such a major event in the life of David that the account of an oracle-taking might have been thought a prerequisite. This was not, apparently, the case. Such is also the case with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem. The initiative appears to have come directly from the king. He gathers the people together, and 57. Cf. J. A. Emerton, "Some Problems in Genesis xiv," in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; SVT 41; Leiden, 1990), 73-102. 58. Cf. Soggin, Judges, 101, who thinks in terms of the legitimation of titles.

48

Sacred Dan

they do his will (2 Sam 6:1-2). It is probable that it was David's shrewdness in realizing the political precariousness of the position of his royal city of Jerusalem that caused him to make this move.59 The writer surprisingly relates the events as they happened, without making any reference to a divine sign.60 (Although Campbell assumes that the blessing of the house of Obed-Edom is a divine sign, there is little evidence for this.61) It is interesting that the Ark Narrative as a whole, while it is concerned with a cultic object, is not really explicit about theological concerns. In fact, its theology may almost be regarded as rather primitive, especially in its portrayal of Yahweh's actions towards the enemies of Israel.62 Even the ark itself is a pawn in a political power struggle. The temple-cult at Jerusalem is also founded without any apparent theological rationale. David in 2 Sam 7:1-2 tells Nathan the prophet that he wishes to build a temple to house the ark. Nathan, as well as being a prophet, is also a member of David's court, and thus was probably the most natural person to ask.63 After his initial affirmative answer (v. 3), Yahweh tells the prophet in a dream that David is not to do as he had wished, but that, instead, Yahweh will build him a house. The text of Nathan's oracle is complex, but it is clear that it is chiefly concerned, not with the temple-cult of Jerusalem, but with the dynasty of David. It is in the context of David's continuing line that the Temple is mentioned. At v. 13, we are told that the son of David will build a house for the name of Yahweh. The words "house for my name" suggest that this passage is an insertion of the Deuteronomistic Historian, as a direct fulfilment of Deut 12:10-12:64 Jerusalem is the place Yahweh has chosen. We might also suggest that there is an element of the pious fraud about this verse: it provides the only theological rationale for the Temple in Jerusalem. It is worth noting that there was, in fact, a sanctuary of sorts in Jerusalem at the time of David (cf. 2 Sam 6:17; 7:2). This is also suggested by the presence of the ark, and further by the fact that priests formed a part of David's court. The shrine motif only reappears in 2 Sam 24:15-25. Here, through the prophet Gad, Yahweh commands David to build an altar to avert the plague caused by his census. There is here what appears at first glance to be a theophany, with the mention of an angel in v. 16. However, despite the fact that it is referred to as "the angel of Yahweh," it appears to be conceived of as a being other than Yahweh,65 in contrast to other places in the Hebrew Bible where the term is a periphrasis for the deity himself. This is made clear by the fact that Yahweh addresses the angel, ordering him to stop the plague in v. 16. Once more, this is

59. Cf. L. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1; Sheffield, 1982), 28. 60. S. Japhet, /andII Chronicles (OIL: London, 1993), 273. 61. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, 28; A. F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (SBLDS 16; Missoula, Mont., 1975), 202. 62. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, 31-32. 63. P. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City 1984), 195-96. 64. Ibid., 230. 65. Ibid., 511.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

49

scarcely a "cultic foundation legend" as I have defined it above, but it does record the first permanent Hebrew cultic place we know of in Jerusalem. McCarter notes that the fact that Yahweh was associated with plague makes it unlikely that we have here the vestiges of an ancient Jebusite cultic legend.66 The foundation of the shrine is described in 1 Kgs 5-8. First Kings 5:18-19 refers to 2 Sam 7, which, as we have seen, provides the only theological motivation for the building of the Temple. If it were not for this Deuteronomistic addition, and the equally dubious 6:11-12 (which reflects the unmistakable phrasing of Deuteronomy), Solomon's Temple would seem to have been built for his own glory. The account of the dedication (ch. 8), too, is heavily overlaid by the Deuteronomist, if not composed by him.67 If we compare the accounts in Chronicles, however, we find a good deal more theological input. In 1 Chr 13 (parallel to 2 Sam 6), we are told that David gathered the whole assembly of Israel, and, before he moves the ark from Qiryath Yearim, he tells them that he will do this thing only if it is pleasing to them and to Yahweh (v. 2). In the next verse he gathers the priests and the Levites together. The Chronicler has evidently noticed the lack of religious motivation behind David's actions in 2 Samuel, and has provided what he considers necessary in his portrayal of David as the ideal king. The first section of this chapter (vv. 1-5) was composed by the Chronicler.68 There is no mention of how Yahweh's will was determined, except by means of the people.69 More substantial theological additions are found in the account of the purchase of the threshing floor of Oman, as he is called in 1 Chr 21. Here, Satan puts David to the test, whereas in 2 Sam 24 this is done by Yahweh himself. When the plague is to be averted by the building of an altar, in Samuel it is Gad who orders David to do this (vv. 18-19), but in Chronicles the impetus comes from the angel, and is then imparted to David by Gad (vv. 18-19). The change is subtle, but effective in emphasizing the divine motivation. Even the amount David pays is different. In Samuel, he gets the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver, in Chronicles, he pays 600 gold shekels for the site alone (w. 24 and 25 respectively). Whereas in the Deuteronomistic History that is the last we hear of the threshing floor of Araunah, in Chronicles it becomes the site of the Temple,70 as Yahweh has commanded (22:1). This is picked up again in 2 Chr 3:1. Indeed, 1 Chr 21 reads like the account of a dedication prior to the formal festival held by Solomon. This is especially noticeable in the reference to Yahweh answering with fire from heaven in v. 26.71 It is evident that the Chronicler knows what a "cultic foundation story" should be like. There is a good deal of divine involvement here, and at no time do we feel that kings are acting on their own initiative. However, considering the nature 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Ibid., 511. Cf. the discussion of Mayes, The Story of Israel, 109-13. Japhet, / and H Chronicles, 273. Ibid., 274. Ibid., 387. Ibid., 388.

50

Sacred Dan

of the Chronicler's account, we may be justified in regarding this as a pious fraud. The equally theologically minded Deuteronomist has not noticed the problem to the same extent, and adds what he feels to be a suitable theological justification with regard solely to the Temple of Solomon, which he relates back to the book of Deuteronomy. Psalm 132 also provides a sustained theological rationale for the foundation of the Temple, and indeed the fact that vv. 2-6 are in narrative form suggests that this Psalm may be comparable in genre to the cultic foundation story. Verses 810 are also found in 2 Chr 6:41—42 as the conclusion to the dedication prayer offered by Solomon. It appears in some ways to be a meditation on 2 Sam 7:1214, unless—as is equally likely—2 Sam 7 contains a verbal allusion to this famous pilgrimage psalm. The Psalm is an expression of the "Zion Theology," where Yahweh was seen to have chosen Jerusalem, which, for that reason, was impregnable (v. 18). Because of this, it is evidently later than Solomon,72 for such a theology would have needed a lengthy period of political and military stability to become established. The emphasis placed on the descendants of Solomon (v. 12) also precludes an earlier date. All this, taken with the reference to the ark and to the "anointed one," would, nevertheless, suggest that it is pre-exilic. In effect, it makes up for the same theological lack which was noted by the later biblical writers, but, like the Deuteronomistic Historian, the psalmist concentrates on the building of the Temple and the assurance of an eternal dynasty that went with it. This promise is pictured mainly as a reward for the hardship endured by David (v. 1), and, as such, is part of a movement towards a hagiographical portrayal of David which is, at times, very much at odds with the stark figure we find in 2 Samuel, a figure who is so often presented acting on his own initiative in cultic matters, and who rarely, if ever, consults the deity. When we turn to the Danite legend after this, it seems rather different. Whereas, in the Jerusalem stories, any theological justification seems to have been added much later, in the Danite account, as we have seen, it occupies a central place. We see this in the way the whole story hinges upon the giving of the oracle in Judg 18:6. As we have .seen, the narrative has been leading up to this single event, and all subsequent actions of the Danites refer back to it. Here, unlike the ark at Jerusalem, the cultic objects themselves are not of ancient origin, their only value lies in the fact that they are dedicated to Yahweh; in this story it is the priest who has a high ancestry, and it is this which comes to the fore in the narrative. 6. The Cultic Foundation Story in Judges As well as the Jerusalem accounts, there are also two cultic stories in the book of Judges which may shed some light on the Danite story. These are 6:11-24, part of the Gideon cycle, and 13:2-23, the beginning of the Samson cycle.

72.

Cf. A. A. Anderson, Psalms (2 vols.; New Century Bible; London, 1972), 2:880.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

51

a. Judges 6:11-24 This would appear to be the true cultic foundation story of the shrine of Yahweh Shalom at Ophrah. Gideon encounters the angel of Yahweh who is sitting under a tree. The angel commissions him to fight the Midianites. Gideon is sceptical, and asks for a sign—like in the days of old (cf. v. 13). The angel tells him to fetch an offering (nriDft), and when he has done so, Gideon places it upon a stone. The angel touches the offering with his staff, and it is consumed. Gideon is awestruck, and fears for his life, having seen God face to face, but Yahweh says, "Peace be with you. Do not fear, you shall not die." So Gideon calls the altar Yahweh Shalom. The story ends with a note that the altar is there "to this day." This is in effect both the aetiology and the foundation story of an otherwise unknown shrine. Its major focus is, however, on Gideon, and so many of the details which the story may have contained of the cult's foundation have been lost, although Soggin suggests the offering is a memory of the sacrifice made at the institution of the sanctuary.73 If this is indeed the case, presumably the same would also be true of Dan, although its legend does not mention sacrifice at all. The Judg 6 story is very much like the Genesis stories in that it deals with a country shrine, and not with a civic shrine such as the one founded at Dan. It does, nevertheless, provide the closest parallel we have yet found to the Danite legend. In both we are in the semi-legendary past where the Israelites are in possession of the land. In both the theme is of God's saving help for his people; and in both this culminates in the provision of a holy place, although in the case of Gideon, his need is not as desperate as that of the Danites. Furthermore, other than the altar, in the Gideon account there is no mention of any of the apparatus or personnel connected with the cult. The Dan account, on the other hand, centres around the cultic objects and the priest who will be associated with the shrine when it is founded. The Gideon story may once have been a true cultic foundation story as we have defined it, but it now lacks the wealth of detail which marks out the Danite legend. b. Judges 13:2-23 This is the story of the appearance of Yahweh to Manoah and his wife, the parents of Samson. It is rather similar to the Gideon story. Yahweh again manifests himself as "the angel of Yahweh," and again the humans are not certain whether or not they are in fact dealing with the deity himself. Manoah wants to give the angel a meal, but the angel suggests a whole burnt offering to Yahweh. Manoah asks the angel's name, but the angel answers that it is (too) wonderful. Manoah places the offering on a rock altar (cf. v. 20), and offers it to "Yahweh the Wonder-worker." While it is burning, the angel of Yahweh rises up in the flame. Manoah's reaction is very similar to that of Gideon, but his wife soon brings him down to earth. This is less helpful as a parallel to the Dan story, even though Manoah is in fact a Danite. It is not clear whether this is, in fact, a cultic foundation story at all. 73.

Soggin, Judges, 121.

52

Sacred Dan

There is a certain amount of wordplay on the words of the angel, and the name of the deity to whom the sacrifice was offered, even if the Hebrew is confused. The emphasis here falls on the sacrifice, not on the inauguration of a new altar. If the story had, at some stage, been a cultic foundation story, it is one no longer, having been wholly adapted into the Samson cycle. 7. Summary It is, therefore, apparent that the Hebrew Bible can provide us with some help in our search for literary parallels which will elucidate the nature of the Danite legend. Jerusalem and possibly the shrine of Yahweh Shalom are further examples of Israelite sanctuaries which have, like Dan, an ancient historical account explaining exactly how and why Yahweh came to be worshipped in that particular place. And significantly, like the Jerusalem accounts, the Danite story describes the foundation of a shrine without an explicit theophany. With the Genesis accounts, the Gideon story and the Chronicler's version of the Jerusalem story, however, the Danite story shares a central theme: that Yahweh responds to human needs, and that worship is, therefore, due to him. But we may also conclude that for the Hebrews it was possible to describe the foundation of an ancient and venerable shrine solely because it contained a significant sacred object (as at Jerusalem and Dan). The lack of a theophany did not affect the prestige of either shrine. 8. Cultic Foundation Stories in the Ancient Near East We have found two similar stories from the Hebrew Bible both of which describe the foundation of a shrine, but neither of which contains an explicit theophany. This might appear to be an unusual state of affairs. The Danite story is obviously a self-contained unit, but the Jerusalem stories are more disparate in nature. For this reason it may be argued by those scholars who are convinced that a theophany is necessary for the foundation of a shrine to be legitimate that the account of the theophany has simply dropped out from the Jerusalem complex, whereas, by contrast, it is clear that this element was always absent from the Dan story. We must therefore turn to the literature of the neighbours of the Hebrews to see whether there are any parallels to such cultic foundation stories which lack an explicit theophany. However, where cultic foundation stories are concerned, we encounter a problem: there does not appear, at first glance, to be any comparable story from any of the parallel cultures. There are two major reasons for this: a. Most of the material we have in the Phoenician, Aramaic and Canaanite languages is epigraphical. We have a vast number of victory stelae, epitaphs, building inscriptions and other such items, but few texts of a literary nature. b. As far as Egypt and Mesopotamia are concerned, sanctuaries were generally regarded as having been in existence from time immemorial,74 and 74. The Memphite Cosmogony (ANET, 5) describes the foundation of the Egyptian shrines by Ptah in mythological time.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

53

thus, the preservation of a foundation story describing in historical terms the commencement of the worship of the gods in any one place would be surprising in the extreme. Even in ancient Near Eastern cultures whose literatures are not affected by either of these problems, for example Ugarit, the material which has been discovered is strictly non-comparable with the Judges account on the literary level. It is, nevertheless, possible that this scheme is a little too facile, and that there may be—if not cultic foundation stories, as we have defined them—at least cultic aetiologies to be found in the ancient Near Eastern material. An example of a text that can be read in this way is the Babylonian Epic of Creation, Enuma Elish. It can, in some senses, be viewed as an extended cult aetiology for Babylon, and for the shrine of Marduk there.75 This level of interpretation becomes apparent only late in the text, from Tablet 5 onwards. Marduk has defeated the chaos monster Tiamat in his role as champion of the gods, and has created the earth out of her carcass. He then declares his intention to build a glorious residence for himself, and, by implication, for the other gods, which will be called Babylon, "the homes of the great gods" (line 129). In Tablet 6, the building process is described, and the gods then feast in this "gate of the gods" (bab-ili, line 72). The Epic of Creation has as its goal the ordering of the world, the acceptance of Marduk (or Asshur in the Assyrian version) as king and his subsequent glorification. As a part of this goal, the establishment of the sanctuary as a home for the gods is paramount. The story, used as part of the ritual at the New Year Festival, can be seen as a cult aetiology in that it purports to tell of the origin of this shrine. The major point of contrast between this story and the Hebrew stories is that here we are very firmly in the realm of myth: the gods build their own sanctuary, and they require no human agency. In the Hebrew stories, the shrine is established as a human response to a divine action, often a theophany, or in the case of the Judges account, a divine reaction to the need of a faithful people. To this extent, the Mesopotamian material is of little use, other than to show that the Mesopotamians, too, sometimes felt a need to explain the origins of their sanctuaries in terms of something other than pure human volition. Furthermore, it is improbable that the Danite legend would have served any liturgical purpose in the cult, since it bears none of the features usually associated with liturgical composition. Well written it may be, poetry it is not. Enuma Elish is, therefore, probably better compared with psalmic material which contains similar mythological resonances than with the Danite prose account. It is possible that a poetic account existed at Dan, but there is no evidence for it. A similar story of the divine origin of a palace for a deity was told in Ugarit. Here, however, the mythical elements are even stronger, since the palace of Baal is built on Mount Zaphon, the sacred mountain of Ugarit, and there is scarcely mention of humanity at all (cf. KTU 1.4). In the Epic of Creation, at least humanity had access to the shrine. 75.

Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition, \ 96.

54

Sacred Dan

9. Cultic Foundation Stories from Other Cultures It would seem from this survey of the ancient Near Eastern evidence that to find ancient stories which are concerned with the foundation of sanctuaries we must look further afield. The most obvious place to which to turn is probably Classical Europe, especially Greece. This procedure might need some defence, since both the time and the place are far removed from the setting of the Danite narrative. It should, however, be remembered that we are looking, in the main, for literary parallels, and that these may, in some ways, be obtained from the literature of any country: if a foundation story is effective in, for example, Japan, such a legend might also probably have been equally effective in pre-Columbian Mexico. (An example from the former culture76 tells of the goddess Amaterasu's instructions about her enthronement at Kawakami, where she first descended from heaven.) There is, however, the problem that what may be obvious to one people might not necessarily be obvious to another. Greece would, nevertheless, appear to be a reasonable candidate, given the failure of the ancient Near Eastern material, because it was a civilisation which appears to have had contacts with the ancient Near East, both in trade and in culture.77 The ancient Greeks were often interested in the origins of their shrines. An ancient example of a cultic aetiology is in Hesiod's Theogony where in lines 176206 we have the story of the castration of Ouranos. We are told that his severed genitals eventually reached Cyprus, and from them rose the goddess Aphrodite. This is evidently an aetiology for the fact that the worship of Aphrodite was prevalent in Cyprus. In lines 485-93, we find the story of the origin of the holy stone at Delphi: it was given to Kronos to eat in place of the baby Zeus, but he subsequently vomited it. Zeus later placed it in the sanctuary. Both these stories are somewhat gruesome aetiologies, but the ancient Greeks evidently felt that this did not detract from the cults in question. Herodotus also relates some cultic stories which are in fact true cultic foundation stories. When discussing Egypt, he mentions the oracle of Ammon (Amun)—whom he identifies with Zeus—in Libya, and relates a story which the priests of (Egyptian) Thebes tell about its origins as well as those of the famous oracle of Zeus at Dodona in Greece which is mentioned in Homer. Two Theban women were captured by the Phoenicians, one was taken to Libya, the other to Dodona where they founded oracles. Herodotus mentions that the version told at Dodona is different, in that two birds flew from Thebes, one to Libya and one to Dodona where it alighted on an oak. The bird at Dodona spoke with a human voice, and told them to build an oracle there (11.54). Herodotus says the Egyptian version of the story is probably more accurate. Another story in IV. 15 relates how the people of Metapontum in Italy received a supernatural visit from Aristeas of Marmora who told them to build an altar to Apollo, and place a statue of himself next to it, since they alone of the cities of 76. Nihongi 1.175-76, in M. Eliade, Essential Sacred Writings from around the World (New York, 1992), text 107. 77. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1-2.

1. In terpreting Judges 17-18

55

Italy had been visited by Apollo accompanied by Aristeas in the form of a raven. Aristeas then vanished. The people of Metapontum then sent to Delphi for advice, and were told that they had better do as the vision suggested. This is, of course, more obviously "legendary" than many foundation stories. Herodotus in V.82 tells how the people of Epidauros asked the Delphic oracle for advice when their crops failed. They were told to make statues of Damia and Auxesia out of olive wood. The best olive wood was in Attica, so they asked the Athenians, who granted their request, but only on condition that the people of Epidauros made sacrifices to Erechtheus and Athene Polias. Like the Danite story, the Herodotus legends are not always what one might at first expect of a cultic foundation story. The account of the founding of the great oracle of Zeus at Dodona is surprising: it is mundane and admits that the oracle was a foreign import, but this once again did not detract from its importance. The Metapontum story is similar in some ways to the Genesis stories with its theophany, whereas the Epidauros story, with its emphasis on the cult having been founded by oracular command, is strikingly similar to the legend of Dan. In both the people are in a difficult position, and in both they ask an oracle for help. The net result in both cases is the foundation of a new cult. In neither case is there a theophany: divine input comes solely from the oracle. Our best source for the ancient Greek cultic foundation stories is not, however, Herodotus, but Pausanias. In his Guide to Greece, Pausanias's major interest is in the shrines of his country, in their customs, rituals and temple furniture, and, most importantly for us, their histories. Herodotus, on the other hand, includes cultic stories only as incidentals. There is one major caveat: Pausanias was writing in the second century CE, that is, over a thousand years after the Danite story was probably formulated. Nevertheless, while we should be aware of this, we should remember that we are mainly looking for literary parallels. Furthermore, comparison with Herodotus shows that similar stories had been told in the Greek shrines for many centuries before Pausanias, so there is little doubt that many of the stories he relates are very ancient indeed. Another aspect which makes a study of his work worthwhile is that Pausanias evidently believes many of the stories he relates, for, while, like Herodotus, he is sceptical about some of them, he seems to be a Classical pagan of the old school. However, while some of his cultic legends are, like the Danite story, reasonably realistic descriptions of what might have happened, others are all too evidently legendary (in the negative sense), or mythological, relating that such and such a sanctuary was founded by a god or a demi-god (usually Heracles). A good example is the account of the foundation of the shrine of Delphi (X.6). Pausanias relates that it may have been built by Parnassus, the son of a nymph, whose divine ancestry he doubts. At this place, Parnassus is said to have discovered divination by means of the flight of birds. During the time of Deucalion's flood, the people, led to safety by the howling of wolves, called their city Lycoreia. Another explanation of the name is that Lycorus was Apollo's son. After several other irrelevant complications, Pausanias relates the better known account of Apollo shooting a beast which died of gangrene (mjeaSai meaning "to rot"), the beast (known from other sources as the Pytho) having been appointed

56

Sacred Dan

by Earth to guard the oracle. Alternatively, Apollo may have been called to rescue the sanctuary from the son of Crius, lord of Euboia, who was about to pillage the shrine for the second time. This story is confused, but it does show some features which we also find in the Danite narrative. It explains, albeit in various ways, how the city got its present name, and what it was called before, and is also concerned to explain the arrival of its Classical patron deity. Interestingly, it admits that the sanctuary had not always been dedicated to Apollo, and that apparently his cult had arrived by force. This is also borne out by Euripides inlphigenia in Tauris (lines 1244-50), and in the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo (the latter having overtones of Enuma Elish), thus demonstrating the antiquity of Pausanias's traditions. This aspect is also found in the Danite story, where it is evident that the Danites took the worship of Yahweh with them when they conquered Laish. It is possible, although unproven, that there was a Canaanite shrine at Laish. But if so, the Danite story ignores it. To return to Greece, Pausanias recounts various stories told about the transfer of cult statues around Greece, or to Greece from other places. An example of the latter type is the (semi-mythological) story of Iphigenia's introduction of the cult of Artemis to Greece from Tauris. Pausanias refers to this in 1.33.1 with reference to the city of Brauron whose foundation story suggested that this was the place where Iphigenia had landed and left the statue. In his description of Laconia, Pausanias, on the other hand, suggests that it is more likely that the Spartans have the statue, and that Orestes had brought it to the city when he was king there (III. 16). These two foundation stories show that the Greeks were sometimes concerned to demonstrate that the image found in their city was an image of high antiquity. The variants show that they were not above inventing such stories when it suited their purposes. Another statue of Artemis with a dubious origin is found in Patrae (VII. 18.6). At Latrinoi, there was another statue of Artemis with an unedifying cultic aetiology (VI.22.8-11): Alpheius had tried to rape the goddess, but she avoided him by means of a ruse. Because of this story, the people of the city call Artemis by the title Alpheiaea. However, the people of Elis, who were on friendly terms with those of Latrinoi, introduced the cult of Artemis Elaphiaea (Artemis of the Deer) to Latrinoi, and this cult took over from the original one. Once again we see that the Greeks were happy to have foreign cults introduced, and that they were also unconcerned with the propriety of their cultic stories. Another unusual true cultic foundation story is found for the shrine at Celeae near Corinth, where mysteries were held for the goddess Demeter, which the locals freely admitted were copied from the more famous ones at Eleusis (II.14.1). In Sparta they told another unusual cultic foundation story. There was a statue of Cnagian Artemis who was reputedly so called because of the Spartan Cnageus who was captured in battle, and taken to Crete. In Crete there was a shrine of Artemis. Cnageus eloped with its virgin priestess who took the statue which was then taken to Sparta. Pausanias does not believe the story, mainly because of historical difficulties with the battle, but he does not comment on the origin of the

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

57

statue (III. 18.4-5). At Thespiae, they told another unedifying cultic aetiology. Heracles slept with all fifty virgin daughters of Thestius except one, who refused him. He, therefore, made her his priestess in the temple he had built for himself there, which was then served by a single virgin priestess from that time on. Pausanias, suggesting that this was not in character for the son of Amphitryon, argues that this was probably another person called Heracles (IX.27.6-8). At this stage, we need simply note that a shrine which had an immoral cultic legend was in no way less of a shrine than one which was founded in high antiquity by a god. The ancient Greeks had few qualms about stealing other people's cultic objects, and using them in their own sanctuaries. Pausanias records many such stories, he even says that they had a saying for it: Sujjiayaoi v dAXorpiois TO 0Eiov aEfJeaSai ("to worship the gods with other people's incense"). He gives various examples, including III. 14.4, where a statue of Thetis is taken from a captured priestess. A clearer example is in VII.20.4 where a statue of Artemis of the Lake is reported to have been stolen from Sparta, and has found its way to Mesoa where it was kept, the festival being held at Patrae. At Amphissa there was a statue of Athene which is reported to have come from Troy, although Pausanias doubts this (X.38.3). Pausanias gives some further examples in VTfl.46.2—4. As a result of this survey, we can conclude several things about the Greek cultic foundation stories in relation to the Danite story: First, a theophany was not considered necessary to enhance the credibility of the shrine. A divine oracle, or pure human motivation would suffice for the foundation of a cultic place. The reputation of the shrine was in no way affected. As we have seen this is the case with both Epidauros and Dan. Second, a cult did not have to be indigenous to any given place. Foreign cults or the cults of neighbours were perfectly acceptable. This is the case in numerous Greek stories, and does not appear to have bothered the Danites who took the cult of Yahweh with them to their new home. Third, the foundation story does not necessarily have to be edifying. The Greeks appear to have been quite happy to report that a famous image was one that was stolen, either in battle or because of romance, or for some other reason. The Danite cultic legend also fits into this mould. The warriors are never censured for their actions. It should be remembered that the Danite legend is not the only story we have in the Hebrew Bible of the forcible transfer of a cultic object between different Yahwistic groups, for this is exactly what happens in the Ark Narrative in 2 Samuel. This was written from an entirely Davidic point of view, but it is interesting to speculate on what the people of Qiryath Yearim felt about the removal of the Ark by the stronger power of the monarch. It is possible that, had the author chosen to record it, the inhabitants' reaction would not have been wholly favourable78—not to speak of the reaction of the people of Shiloh. Fourth, many of the Greek stories are not exclusively about figures from the heroic era, and the origins of a cult may be attributed to historical as well as 78. J. Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and Israel (SOTSMS 3; Cambridge, 1972), 65-83 (81-83), hypothesizes that it was Gibeon and not Qiryath Yearim where the ark was held, and goes on to look at these issues from a Gibeonite point of view.

58

Sacred Dan

mythological people. Whereas many of the Genesis stories are about people who are "legendary" (in the negative sense), the Danite story is about the warriors of the tribe, the ancestors of those who would have heard the story. Fifth and finally, if a Greek cultic image is taken, it is usually taken expressly to be worshipped in the city which receives it. This is in direct contrast to Mesopotamian practice, where if a cultic object was taken into captivity it was worshipped no more. For the Danite story, there is no doubt that the image was treated with reverence since it formed the centrepiece of the Danites' new tribal sanctuary. For both Greeks and Danites it was simply a re-allocation of cultic resources from those who did not really "need" them to those who did. The fact that strikingly similar stories were told about the origins of other ancient shrines does not actually prove that what commentators have regarded as unsavoury elements were part of the original cultic foundation story, as we have argued. It would, however, seem that since we do have very clear parallels to the Danite story from the ancient world, there would have been nothing inappropriate in our story having served exactly the same purpose as the more elevated stories of Bethel and other cultic centres. That the cultic image was stolen and taken to Dan with its priest and temple furnishings for the express purpose of setting up a new and more prestigious sanctuary, seems to have been the kind of thing that was perfectly acceptable to the ancient mind, and would not have detracted in any way from the prestige of the new shrine. Furthermore, the Greek stories prove that, for the Greeks at least (as apparently for the Hebrews in both Dan and Jerusalem), a theophany was not a prerequisite to the foundation of a shrine, and the fact that a sanctuary had been established without one certainly did not affect its standing. 10. Conclusions In conclusion, a good case can be made for seeing Judg 17-18 as a cultic foundation story. We saw from the literary-critical study that the story is manifestly about how the Danites came by their new home but, more importantly, their new shrine since the majority of the text as we have it deals with the manufacture and acquisition of the central cultic objects, as with the hiring of the priest. This is the case both with the text as it stands, where a later redactor has attempted to discredit the shrine, and with the repristinated text which, we have argued, lies just beneath the surface. There can be no doubt that the story's purpose is to explain how the shrine came to be founded whether this is seen in a positive or negative light. We have seen that if the (reconstructed) ancient text is read sympathetically, and if the ancient historical and literary context is taken seriously, many of the difficulties which modern literary critics have noted simply vanish, and the story is seen as a not inappropriate cultic foundation story despite its lack of a theophany. This is significant, for this means that the Danite story is one of the few surviving such stories in the Hebrew Bible. It is a representative of a class of story

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18

59

which may have been told at all the ancient Israelite shrines, stories which told of the establishment of the cult of Yahweh at each individual place. As we have seen, there are other narratives which have a similar purpose, especially in Genesis, but as we have noted, these are not directly comparable, and can best be described as cultic aetiological legends, rather than historically based cultic foundation stories like this one. The Jerusalemite narratives, to a certain extent, go to the other extreme. They tell of the establishment of the shrine, but give no real theological reason for this. Only the legend of Yahweh Shalom in Judg 6 was once also a true cultic foundation story, but its association with the Gideon story has obscured this element. The Danite legend, however, provides a theological motivation for the foundation of the shrine, describing in historical terms how the cultic objects came to be made, and how they came into the hands of the Danites, and, by the motif of the providential care of Yahweh for his people, it also explains why they came by it. As we have seen in our look at the ancient Greek world, a cultic object did not necessarily have to have had an illustrious past; rather, the fact that the image, or whatever it is, finds its way into the hands of people other than those that made it, could be regarded, even there, as part of a divine plan. This is especially so if, as in this story, the transfer of the object fulfils a definite need among worshippers of the same god or goddess as those who originally possessed the object. Thus, while some may regard the legend as being inappropriate from a modern standpoint, we should remember that the ancients would not necessarily have seen it in the same way. Further, looked at sensitively, the narrative may well be regarded as a minor masterpiece of the story-teller's art.

This page intentionally left blank

Part II

CULTIC PRACTICE IN JUDGES 17-18

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2 IMAGE WORSHIP IN THE DANITE STORY

Having elucidated the nature of the Danite story, we now turn to look at the cultic issues raised by it. One of the most important of these is the question of the use and nature of cultic images among the Hebrews and, in particular, the image which formed the central focus of the cult at Dan. Fortunately, whereas most stories which mention cultic images do so to condemn them, the Danite legend can be seen to speak of images in a neutral, almost positive way. As practices had changed a good deal between the formulation of the story and its final redaction, the redactor only had to make very small additions to the narrative to convert it into a polemic account. The Danite story appears to be, however, an accurate account of pre-exilic cultic practices which, at a later date, became totally unacceptable. 1. The Image in the Danite Story The first thing that strikes the reader is the centrality of the ^DS to the story. It is clear that this object it is to be distinguished from at least the ephod and teraphim, if not the HDDQ. Von Rad, following an unpublished suggestion of Alt, regarded all four words as referring to the same image: "^DS" is the wooden figure, riDDE the outer overlay of metal: in addition there was also the ~PSK, the cuirass-like case, and finally the D^STl, possibly a cultic mask."1 But this is unlikely, especially since the ephod and possibly also the teraphim were divinatory devices, and not part of the cultic image.2 We will look at the place of the !"QDQ below. The importance of the ^03 is asserted immediately. The story of its origins as told in the first few verses of ch. 17 probably, as Moore suggests, explains "how so costly and splendid an idol came to be in the possession of a private person; it was an ex voto for the recovery of the money."3 Apart from the evident importance of Micah's image, we are told very little else about it, except that: a. It is made out of consecrated silver. b. It stood in the shrine that was attached to Micah's house. 1. 2. 3.

G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; OTL; London, 1975), 1:216 n. 61. See Chapter 4, pp. 112-23. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 370.

64

Sacred Dan c. d. e.

It was probably the reason for the foundation of the shrine which seems to have come into being only after the image has been made. It could be referred to as a god/God (18:24) It became the central image of the shrine of Dan (18:30-31).

We may probably infer from the Danite story that the majority of ancient Israelite shrines had some sort of cultic image, in common with shrines in the rest of the ancient Near East. We may also say that such images were of considerable value, but that their value lies in something other than their origins, for this image in particular had dubious origins. Their value rested in what they represented. As we have seen, this is true also of the Greek world where they told stories of images of lowly origins, but of enormous value for, as is probably true also in this case, the deity represented was regarded as being in some way present in or through the image. In Greece the image was regarded as the vehicle of divine presence, and it was that fact, not the origin of the image, that was of the greatest importance. 2. The Term nDDDI ^DS In three places the word ^DS is followed by rQDQl (17:3,4; 18:14). The singular verb Cm) in 17:4 indicates that only a single image was originally envisaged. It has been argued that both HDDD and ^DS appeared in the original text, referring to a single image by hendiadys.4 This is possible if these verses are taken alone. However, in 18:17-18 the two terms are separated by 113N and D^STin, so that here the hendiadys explanation is impossible, and rQDQn HN1 must be a gloss. It is then surely simplest to suppose that i~QDQl is also a gloss in 17:3-4 and 18:14. It is possible that the glosses were originally marginal, and were added inconsistently to the text we have today by later scribes. But why were those glosses added? Moore suggests that the glossator added nDDQ, since he noticed that the ^DS was made of silver, and thus the term "molten image" would have been more appropriate.5 This explanation is unlikely since in Isa 40:19; 44:10 and Jer 10:14; 51:17 it is clear that a ^D2 could be made out of metal, the word implying that the image was hand-crafted rather than moulded, and also because it relies on the assumption that a i~QDQ was an image made by pouring molten metal into a mould.6 Faur, on the other hand, suggests that it was an image consecrated by means of a libation.7 It seems more likely that the significance of this gloss is that it was a deliberate element of polemic. riDDQ is used most often in the Hebrew Bible to describe the calf that Aaron made for the Israelites at Sinai, and the seemingly related calves of Bethel and Dan associated with the royal cult of Jeroboam I: the connection between the stories of Exod 32 and 1 Kgs 12—the account of Jeroboam's cult—is well established. There are, nevertheless, difficulties in these narratives. When Aaron 4. 5. 6. 7.

Soggin, Judges, 265. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 376. Cf. BOB, 650-51. J. Faur, "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry," JQR NS 69 (1978): 1-15 (12).

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

65

makes a calf out of the earrings of the people8 in Exod 32:4, he makes one object and presents it to the people with the words "JTI^K n^N, "These are your gods," followed by a plural verb. This is paralleled in 1 Kgs 12:28 where PIDH is used instead of n^N. The most natural solution is that a common Deuteronomistic redactor of both passages sought to make this parallel more explicit by using the plural in both Exodus and Kings, the plural form being more natural in Kings. Moberly, however, objects, and argues that it is more likely that the 1 Kings passage refers back to the earlier Exodus narrative.9 The rODQ is also condemned in the "ritual decalogue" of Exod 34 (v. 17). Finally, it should be noted that the word rOQQ is not used in 1 Kgs 12; there the objects are referred to as "calves." riDDO is, however, used in 1 Kgs 14:9. Here in the oracle of Ahijah of Shiloh, he mentions the DIDDID as the reason for Jeroboam's fall from grace. The calves of Bethel and Dan are here regarded as (unspecified) foreign gods. This accusation of idolatry is also present in 2 Kgs 17:16 where the Deuteronomist muses over the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and where the calves—here called HDDQ—are one of the reasons for Yahweh's displeasure. It is interesting in the light of the Deuteronomist's condemnation of the calves that the prophets and holy men of the Northern Kingdom were quite happy to accept the existence of these images in the sanctuaries. So Elijah and Elisha frequent the shrine of Bethel without condemning its cult object. They must, therefore, have regarded the calf as legitimately Yahwistic (cf. 2 Kgs 2:1-2), and untainted by the cult of "Baal" or any other god. Later Amos preached at Bethel, and whereas he attacked false notions of religion, he did not attack the cult of the calves (cf. Amos 7:10-13). Amos does, nevertheless, mention Dan in a polemical fashion at 8:14. Toews suggests that this is an attack on those who swear by deities of well known cultic places,10 and thus it is not an explicit attack on the Dan sanctuary. The first and only northern condemnation of the m3DG comes from Hosea. The most explicit condemnation (13:2) will be discussed later. It also seems that he is referring in part to the calves when he uses the word D^HiJU in 4:17, in 8:4 where we find the word "calf in the next verse, again in 13:2, and in 14:9. It is improbable that Hos 13:1-2 suggests that the calves were associated with Baal since the two sins are distinguished." In Ps 106:19 the word is again used to refer to Horeb and the calf which Aaron made there. It would thus seem that the word PODO is very firmly associated with the calf images of both Aaron and Jeroboam, and in view of this, it seems possible that the redactor of Judg 17-18 wanted to connect the shrine of Dan from its origins with the calves, and thus added the word to make the link more explicit.12 8. For the significance of DTD, "earring," see pp. 115-16. 9. R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield, 1983), 164. 10. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 73. 11. G.I. Davies, Hosea (NCB; London, 1992), 286-87. 12. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, notes on p. 376 that this was "possibly" a factor in the glossator's mind.

66

Sacred Dan

The redactor may also have been aware that he was making a literary allusion to Deut 27:15. This is the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where we find the phrase HDDQ1 ^DS. Here whoever makes either object is accursed, because what he has made is an abomination to Yahweh. 3. The ^D2 in the Hebrew Bible To obtain a clearer picture of the meaning and use of the *?DS of Dan, the only cultic image of the original text, it is necessary to examine the evidence of the Hebrew Bible as a whole on this subject. In the vast majority of cases in the Hebrew Bible the word ^DS is the classic word for "idol." It is used in this sense by the Prophets, most notably in DeuteroIsaiah's great attacks on idols, idolaters and idol makers. However, in two instances from probably earlier material a neutral sense of the word may be discerned. (1) Surprisingly, one of these is in the Decalogue. Exodus 20:4 (paralleled partially by Deut 5:6) reads ...D'OED "I0K n]lQn"b31 ^DS f "rntofln »"?, which may be rendered: "You shall not make for yourself an image or any likeness [of anything] which is in heaven..."13 The problem for us is whether ^DS means "idol" in the classic sense of just "carving." Verse 5 continues, "You shall not worship them and not serve them" (the hophal may be translated "be made to serve").14 Since the word ^DS is parallel to H31QP, and as the latter word is not necessarily negative, might it not follow that the former word is also not of itself negative? It appears that the same qualifications apply to both the "likeness" and the "carving." From this, it seems that what is being prohibited by the commandment is an image which has been made specifically to be worshipped, not necessarily images in general. It seems possible that *?DS only acquired its negative connotations because of this clause in the Decalogue, and subsequent interpretation of it: interestingly, HDinn did not (cf. Num 12:8; Ps 17:15 where the translation "a statue of you" may not be ruled out!). The only difference in the Deuteronomy Decalogue is that ^DS here is in a construct relationship with n^Dir^S, and not parallel to it, at least this is so in Codex L (the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete Hebrew Bible). Almost all the other witnesses read the same as Exodus, which one might regard as a case of assimilation. The Massorah Magna of Codex L has sought to preserve the distinctive reading (BHS note 1082 records six differences between the two 13. Cf. P. Joiion and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; Subsidia Biblica 14; Rome, 1991), 2:216, §113m 14. It is not entirely clear what is the antecedent of "them" in v. 5.1 have taken it to be the image itself, that is, the immediate antecedent in v. 4, although it is possible that "them" refers back to "other gods" in v. 3. To some extent, the view taken of the antecedent probably depends on the reader's interpretative tradition. In Christian tradition at least, vv. 3-6 are regarded in their entirety as the first commandment by Roman Catholics and Lutherans, whereas in Orthodox, Anglican and Reformed thought, the first commandment is v. 3, and the second consists of vv. 4-6. The latter appears to be closer to the Jewish tradition of interpretation, and so is the one that I have followed here. (The writer is, perhaps significantly, an Anglican priest!)

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

67

versions15). It seems that in Deuteronomy, L's reading is preferable. The sense, however, is not greatly affected, although the Exodus wording may be regarded as being more comprehensive, but it is also possible that the Deuteronomy version dates from a time when the word ^DS normally had negative associations. (2) The other instance of the term being used in at least a neutral sense is Judg 3 where its irregular plural D^DS is used in vv. 19 and 26. Here it refers to a feature of the landscape near Gilgal where Ehud encounters Eglon king of Moab. The stones are first mentioned in Josh 4:20-24, where they are taken out of the Jordan and set up as a reminder of the saving acts of Yahweh. That they were carved, and thus called D' "TDS is significant, especially since the heavily redacted Joshua story does not mention this. There is a strong possibility that the stones were carved into the likenesses of witnessing deities, or, as seems a good deal less probable considering their role in Joshua, they may have been border markers.16 (3) Another fact that supports an original neutral meaning of ^DS is that its cognate verb is not used in a negative sense at all. In fact it is even used of the stone tablets on which the Decalogue itself was written (Exod 34:1,4). Does this make them a "?DS of some description?17 Thus, despite the heavy preponderance of negative uses of the word it appears, nevertheless, that it is possible to trace a development in the semantic range of the word ^DS. The primary meaning appears to have been "carving," a neutral word for an object made in a particular way. It later became pejorative, probably through its use in the Decalogue, and came to be used to refer to images found in other religions. It is possible that it was first used in this way in the North, where external influences were stronger. We might even tentatively suggest that the prohibition of images in general came into force only during the period of the Divided Monarchy in the North, possibly at the time of Hosea (hence his attack on the bull image of Samaria in Hos 8:4-5). At this stage the South appears not to have been unduly worried by the problem of images. It is possible that it was only at the time of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah that Southerners became concerned about the significance of their cultic images. It is interesting to note that neither bDS nor D1 "TDB is ever used of any of the Southern cultic images such as the cherubim or Nehushtan, which almost certainly could have been referred to in this way. Possibly the writers took care to avoid using the word. We might compare the development of the word HQD, originally a neutral word as in 1 Sam 9:12, which later became the standard Deuteronomistic term for a heterodox sanctuary, as in 1 Kgs 12:31.18

15. G. E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah: I (Catalogi) (Rome, 1971), 132. 16. Soggin, Judges, 51. B. Lindars, Judges 1-5 (Edinburgh, 1995), 143, favours the view that D11 *TDB is a well-known place-name, which would explain why there is no explanation offered for the nature of the objects. 17. Cf. R. P. Carroll, "The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images," 5T31 (1977): 51-64. 18. P. H. Vaughan, The Meaning of "Bama " in the Old Testament (SOTSMS 3; Cambridge, 1974).

68

Sacred Dan

From this study we can see that the ^DS of Dan may have been regarded as legitimate when the Danite story was written (i.e. some time in the later Divided Monarchy period), and only gained negative connotations later. However, it is difficult to know anything further about the nature of the Hebrew cultic image, since most of the texts are polemical and cannot be used as accurate sources of information. To gain a better understanding of the nature and function of the image of Dan, we must look for other evidence relating to it among the Hebrews and analogies from further afield. 4. The "?DS ofMicah and the Bull Image of Royal Dan A first step is to note that the text was originally written at least in part to explain the antiquity of the image of Dan which, according to the writer, came from the period of the Judges. However, 1 Kgs 12:28 states that Jeroboam I himself made the calves for both the shrines of Bethel and Dan. This discrepancy has been resolved in various ways. (1) Satterthwaite suggests that Judg 18:30-31 were written originally to be parallel to one another—in other words, Dan and Shiloh were both destroyed after the battle of Aphek. The writer of the story supposedly refers to this destruction figuratively as an "exile."19 This is unconvincing, for surely "exile of the land" must refer to the Assyrian Exile, when massive deportations occurred, and would not be a suitable metaphor for a Philistine raid, however severe. Satterthwaite cites 1 Sam 4, Jer 7:12; 26:6,9 and Ps 78:61-64 as evidence for the destruction of Shiloh after the battle of Aphek, and says, "These passages describe a devastation more widespread than 1 Sam 4-6 at first sight suggests..."20 This is not convincing. Jeremiah's point is that Shiloh is deserted in his lifetime. He does not say that it was destroyed by an enemy, and he also speaks only of Shiloh. Neither does Ps 78 say that Shiloh was destroyed, it simply refers to the ark's removal and capture by the Philistines. Further, vv. 62-64 probably refer solely to the actual battle of Aphek itself: here it is only the men who are killed. Had it been making an allusion to the destruction of a city, surely the text would not have contrasted the fate of males and females in such a way. If a city is destroyed, all suffer and die.21 As to the destruction of Dan, Satterthwaite admits that he is on less secure ground.22 He notes that Tel Dan was destroyed in the second half of the eleventh century, at the same time as Shiloh, but his major reasons for denying that the original shrine lasted until the time of the Exile are historical. It is not clear whether there was a continuous priesthood at the shrine, and 1 Kgs 12:25-26 does not mention a pre-existent shrine: "The account would lead us, in the absence of

19. 20. 21. 22.

Satterthwaite, Narrative A rtistry, 117-18. Ibid., 118. Cf. Day, "The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary." Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 118.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

69

other evidence, to suppose that the original Danite sanctuary had vanished some time previously."23 Other evidence does, however, exist. The Septuagint (including, significantly, Origen) reads KOU ev Aav in 2 Sam 20:18 after the reference to Abel beth Maacah.24 There is no reason why any scribe would add this to the text, but there is a good reason for its omission at a relatively late date. Satterthwaite's idea that the Philistines reached as far north as Dan is also unlikely. It is true that Dan was destroyed at this period,25 but it is more likely that it was by the Arameans as they frequently did in later periods.26 However, the fact that the city was soon rebuilt to exactly the same plan, right down to the position of the houses,27 taken with the continuing oracular tradition would strongly suggest that cultic life took up again largely unchanged. Whereas, as we have noted, it was usual for cultic objects to be seized, owing to the fact that life in Dan remained the same after the destruction, it is likely that either the original image was restored to the shrine, or else presumably surreptitiously replaced by a copy. Since polemic was still directed against the shrine and its (original) image at a much later date, the possibility that the image was restored seems stronger. (2) Toews suggests that Judg 18:30 is secondary: it names the priest too abruptly.28 However, he does not deal with the text of Judg 17-18 in sufficient detail, and seems to ignore its implication that Micah's image was also the calf of the royal sanctuary at Dan (18:30). Furthermore, a secondary antiquarian insertion by the Deuteronomistic redactor noting that the priestly house of Dan traced its lineage to Moses, which is what Toews is seeming to suggest, appears highly unlikely. (3) Haran too discusses this issue. He suggests that there were two images at Dan. First, Micah's image of Yahweh which resided in the inner part of the temple, and which was effectively reserved for the priests, and then the golden calf (also an image of Yahweh), which Jeroboam I placed in the open air as an image for public veneration,29 citing 1 Kgs 12:28 ("Behold, you gods...") to show that it was on public display.30 To my mind, however, it seems inexplicable 23. Ibid., 120. 24. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 203, argues that the MT is preferable to the LXX at this point on that basis that a favourable reference to Dan would not have been included in the DtrH. This is possible, but Bartusch has no satisfactory explanation for its presence in the LXX. Also, given the state of the MT in the books of Samuel in general, adopting an LXX reading is not as tendentious a business as he seems to imply. In addition, the fact that Origen reads with the LXX may be taken as an indication that the Hebrew text to which he had access contained the reference to Dan (cf. F. Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt [2 vols.; Oxford, 1875], 1:578). 25. Biran, Biblical Dan, 135-36. 26. Cf. Biran and Naveh, "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan"; Biran, Biblical Dan, 274-78. 27. Biran, Biblical Dan, 138-41. 28. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 118. 29. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 29-30. 30. Ibid., 30 n. 28. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 183, also suggests that the two images may have co-existed, although Bartusch, as we have seen, also believes that there were in fact two shrines, a royal one and a local one.

70

Sacred Dan

that there should have been two different cult images of Yahweh (with presumably different iconography) in the same temple, both of which, according to Haran, would have been worshipped. (4) It is much more plausible to resolve the difficulty by regarding 1 Kgs 12 as either a total fabrication created by the Deuteronomistic Historian, or a very thorough reworking of earlier material. It describes the making of two "calves" and the consecration of two sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan, with a new priesthood at least in Bethel (12:32), if not in Dan too. There are several suspicious features in this account: (a) The images are described as "calves" presumably to belittle them. (b) We know that both Bethel and Dan were established ancient sanctuaries, served by ancient priestly houses, and that it was in the interests of the Deuteronomist to discredit both the shrines and their priests. (c) The major emphasis of the cult of Jeroboam was, as far as we can tell, a return to the older values of pre-monarchical Israel; thus his rallying cry is "To your tents, O Israel" (1 Kgs 12:16). Since according to the Danite story Dan already had a cultic image associated with Jonathan grandson of Moses, it would have been counterproductive for Jeroboam to have replaced it. Moreover, why else would Jeroboam have picked Dan as a direct rival to Jerusalem if not for its ancient traditions. It was surely not for its strategic importance close to the border with the barbarous Arameans!31 The discrepancy between Micah's silver bull mentioned in the Dan legend and the gold bull of Jeroboam seems best resolved by the view that the statue was gilded because a gilded statue would have been felt more suitable for a royal shrine. We know from Mesopotamia that statues were periodically re-gilded, and that at times the precious covering itself could be taken away as spoil.32 Whether Jeroboam in historical reality made an image for Bethel is not clear, although the use of "bull of Jacob" pplT TUN) as a cult-title for Yahweh may suggest that the bull image was not an innovation there either, since there is a link between Jacob and Bethel. What is certain, nevertheless, is that the Deuteronomistic Historian could not afford to present either Bethel or Dan as places of ancient cultic heritage. As far as he was concerned, any shrine apart from the ark shrine at Jerusalem was de facto illegitimate, and thus it would probably have suited his purpose to portray them as innovations of an heretical king, especially since Jerusalem came into Hebrew hands late on, and was thus itself in danger of being branded an innovation. Furthermore, in the context of the Deuteronomistic History as a whole, it is the very cult of Jeroboam I that was blamed for the collapse of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kgs 17. For this reason, it would be 31. Pace, for example, J. Bright, A History of Israel (3d ed.; London, 1981), 237; Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 194: "It is not surprising that a location of such strategic and political importance should be associated with a religious center, and that Jeroboam would want to undergird the integrity of the site in whatever way possible." A risky strategy indeed. 32. For the re-gilding of a statue, see the Myth ofErra 1.18-20 (S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia [Oxford, 1989], 292-93); and for the removal of gilding, see T. Jacobsen, "The Graven Image," in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia, 1987), 15-33 (16).

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

71

surprising if the story of the foundation of that sinful cult had not been at best redacted to suit the purposes of the whole History. The likelihood is therefore that the less heavily redacted Danite story is closer to historical reality, that there was or had been an ancient silver image at Dan down to the Assyrian invasion. 5. The Image of Royal Dan But what did this image represent? Once again, we must turn to parallel sources for help. The overwhelming evidence of the Hebrew Bible points to the fact that the bull image of Dan was considered to be an image of Yahweh. This is even suggested by Judg 18:24, where Micah refers to one of the stolen cultic objects as Tt^fc, "my gods/God" (there is never any question at all that the man called Micahayu is not a Yahwist). In the account of the setting up of Jeroboam's royal cult in 1 Kgs 12:28 the implication is once again that the bulls themselves were regarded as images of God.33 While we have noted above that this is a highly polemical account, it is possible that it may have preserved at least some accurate information. However, owing to its nature, while it may be used as part of a cumulative argument, its biased nature would suggest that it should be used with caution. The same applies to Exod 32:4. Further evidence is, nevertheless, available from Hosea. Here we find an invective against the bull of Samaria (i.e. that of Bethel, cf. 10:5) in 8:6. The implication of this is that the bull of Bethel (and thus presumably that of Dan) was regarded as a representation of God at least by some people. (Of course it is also evidence that others—including Hosea himself—were convinced that it was not!) However, since Hosea is condemning the general attitudes of the Northern Kingdom, it is safe to assume that the majority of the people regarded the bull as in some way an image of God. Hosea also attacks the bull in 10:5-6, and 13:2, where the fact that people are kissing it would further suggest that it was a representation of Yahweh. In the light of this it would be natural to take the cult title Up!)1 TDK (in the Joseph section of the Blessing of Jacob—Gen 49:24) as further evidence in favour of this view. If, as is likely, it does in fact mean "Bull of Jacob," this would imply that Yahweh could be pictured in taurine form.34 The textual evidence thus shows that the bulls were probably seen as representations of Yahweh, but until the time of Hosea they were not regarded as problematic. It would appear that an aniconic element was becoming stronger in Israel at this time. This was later to find full expression in the work of DeuteroIsaiah. 33. J. A. Emerton, "Abraham Kuenen and the Early Religion of Ancient Israel," in Abraham Kuenen (1828-1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament (ed. P. B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij; OTS 29; Leiden, 1993), 8-28 (21). 34. Cf. M. Weippert, "Gott und Stier," ZDPV 11 (1961): 93-117 (105), and more recently Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 183.

72

Sacred Dan

The evidence from Northern Israel's neighbours seems at first to point in a somewhat different direction. In Judah there appear to have been no direct images of Yahweh. In the temple he was represented by his mythical steeds, the cherubim. In the Hebrew Bible, these winged sphinxes are the normative bearers of Yahweh's presence. He is enthroned upon them in 1 Sam 4:4—part of the Ark Narrative—and also in its later stages in 2 Sam 6:2. In 2 Sam 22:8-16 (paralleled by Ps 18:7-15), Yahweh is depicted as a meteorological deity who rides on a cherub (22:11). In Ps 80:2, part of a Northern lament, DmnDn 2CT is a formal title of Yahweh, as it is in Isa 37:16. A similar title is found in the Southern Ps 99:1. The cherubim are also the vehicles of divine presence in Ezek 10. These creatures are also found as guardians in both the Paradise Myths of the Hebrew Bible (Gen 3:24, and Ezek 28:14, 16). It is interesting that Ps 80 contains the only Northern reference to the cherubim—the use of the tribal names Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh points to its Northern origin. This may be regarded as an example of Southern religious influence.35 Mettinger has gathered evidence from the cults of others of Israel's immediate neighbours.36 Unlike the Northern Kingdom, all of them apparently knew of what he calls "empty space aniconism" which may also be used to describe the function of the cherubim in the cult of Judah—they were in effect pedestals for Yahweh. Despite the evidence cited above from the Hebrew Bible, this term has also been applied to the bulls of the Northern cult. The idea that the bulls were pedestals for Yahweh was first suggested by Obbink.37 Comparing the iconography of Hadad Ramman, who was represented by a man standing on a bull, Obbink hypothesized that Jeroboam took over this iconography and transferred it to Yahweh, but since Yahweh apparently could not be represented, he made an empty throne for him. He went on to suggest that one might compare the problematic 1 Kgs 12:28 with 1 Sam 4:6-7 where the Philistines refer to the ark as a god.38 That Jeroboam borrowed the iconography of a foreign deity is unlikely, in view of my arguments above about the conservative nature of his religious policies. The arguments of Obbink were taken up by Albright. He stated: "in presumable reaction against the representation of Yahweh in the Temple of Solomon as an invisible deity enthroned above the two cherubim (winged sphinxes)... Jeroboam represented Yahweh as an invisible figure standing on a young bull."39 Albright drew much of his argument from figures found in northern Syria and Anatolia. Morton Smith objected that there is no evidence of any important political connection with northern Syria, still less with Anatolia.40 In my view, Smith's 35. Unless, of course Ps 80 is the lament of Northern exiles in the Temple of Jerusalem! 36. T. N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context (CBOTS 42; Lund, 1995). 37. H. T. Obbink, "Jahwebilder," ZAW'47 (1929): 264-74. 38. Ibid., 268. 39. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed.; New York, 1957), 299. 40. M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (2d ed.; London, 1987), 162n. 53.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

73

argument fails to prove anything, especially as a lack of political connections does not preclude cultural exchanges. There are traditions of Hittites having been resident in Canaan, so it is possible that there may have been some sort of crosscultural influence, if not specifically with the Hittites, with other northern peoples. It, therefore, seems not unreasonable that the image might have been a pedestal in the form of a bull whether it was "borrowed" from Anatolia or whether it was an indigenous idea: bulls after all represent strength, and thus the ultimate strength, i.e. deity, in many cultures. However, given the nature of the direct evidence from the Hebrew Bible it would appear that in this instance the cult of the Northern Kingdom differed from those of its immediate neighbours, and so the natural inclination of many scholars to see in the bull a pedestal for Yahweh on the analogy of neighbouring cults is misguided.41 It would, therefore, appear that here a closer analogy should be sought in the cults of ancient Near Eastern societies which were geographically further away from the Northern Kingdom (e.g. Mesopotamia). First, however, we will deal with possible origins for the bull iconography of Dan. 6. The Origins of Bull Iconography Over the years various different places of origin have been suggested for the bull iconography of ancient Israel. Some of these suggestions are fanciful, but others have found credence in the scholarly world. The most important are noted below. (1) Oswalt finds the origins of the bull iconography in Egypt. He points out that the closest parallel to the monotheism of Israel is the cult of Amun-Re, in the New Kingdom the dynastic god of the Pharaohs, and thus god of all Egypt. In time, the cult of this deity began to emphasize his exclusivity and his one-ness, all other gods being manifestations of the one.42 Oswalt points out that in many of the extant prayers to Amun-Re, he is addressed as both the "bull" and as the invisible god.43 Thus he argues that it seems likely that the people of Israel who had been brought up in New Kingdom Egypt would have adopted this bull iconography as their own. When they wanted to portray their God, this would have been the most natural tradition to build on. Oswalt also notes that Jeroboam the son of Nebat spent some time in exile in Egypt, and, therefore, would have become "steeped in Egyptian thought."44 Several problems arise in the consideration of this view. Oswalt bases his view on a study of the texts relating to Amun-Re, but not on Egyptian iconography. He 41. The same can also be said of Eissfeldt's theory that the bull images were effectively mace heads used by leaders; see O. Eissfeldt, '"Lade und Stierbild," in Kleine Schrifte //(Tubingen, 1963), 282-305, repr. fromZAW58 (1940-41): 190-215. 42. J. N. Oswalt, "The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity," EvQ 45 (1973): 1320(17). Cf. ^£7; 369, 371. 43. Oswalt, "The Golden Calves," 18. Cf. ANET, 365, 368. 44. Ibid., 19. Oswalt in a later article also incorrectly associated that most illusive of Mesopotamian deities Asshur with a bull ("Golden Calves and the 'Bull of Jacob,'" in Gileadi, ed., Israel's Apostasy and Restoration, 9-20 [12]). For the correct iconography of Asshur, see J. Black and A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London, 1992), 37-39.

74

Sacred Dan

is not comparing like with like. As anybody who has been to the temple complex of Amun-Re in present day Karnak-Luxor would know, the major iconographic emblem of the deity is not the bull, but the ram. Also, in a country such as Egypt, where different deities were the sole gods of their own cities (as Ptah was at Memphis), what was true of the educated priests of Amun-Re in Thebes may not necessarily have been true of illiterate peasants in the Delta 400 miles away, which is where the Bible places the ancient Hebrews. On the Israelite side, as we have noted above, it seems clear above all else that Jeroboam was attempting to return to the ancient traditions of the Hebrews which he felt to have been betrayed by the Davidic Dynasty. In view of this, it seems highly improbable that he would have introduced what was, after all, wholly foreign iconography into his new royal cult. It is much more probable that he used elements of the Hebrew folk religion to gain himself support. So it seems obvious that he would have avoided making large changes in the iconography used at such an old established shrine as the one at Dan. Also, that he was "steeped in Egyptian thought" is highly debatable. Furthermore, Hahn, in his discussion of possible Egyptian origins for the golden calves, further notes that the Hebrews would not have used an image of an Egyptian god as a representation of Yahweh, the God of the Exodus.45 (2) Bailey, on the other hand, suggested that the god of the calves was to be associated with the Mesopotamian moon-god Sin, who is often represented by a bull, and was not Yahweh at all. He stated that the cult of this ancestral god had been preserved in Northern Israel, until well after the time of Moses.46 This association of Sin with Israel he also used to explain the etymology of the name Sinai, as well as the names of various members of Abraham's family.47 Hahn dismisses Bailey's views as having been based on speculation. He correctly points out that we simply do not know enough about what Hahn calls the "the pre-Canaanite history of the people of Israel."48 The vast majority of scholars, in contrast to Oswalt and Bailey, have sought for the origins of bull iconography in the mythological texts of Ugarit. Therefore, before we turn to discuss some of their views, we will deal with the Ugaritic material afresh. Excursus: Bull Imagery in Ugaritic and Hebrew Texts There are three Ugaritic words which can be translated "bull," as well as a cognate to the Hebrew word which is usually rendered "calf." (1) Possibly the most important of the Ugaritic words for "bull" when one is dealing with the concept of deity istr, which is cognate to the Hebrew TIE), and is one of the usual Ugaritic words for the male of the cattle, used some 52 times in the corpus. Often, it means quite simply an animal which can be eaten (ATI/ 1.17.6.23, 1.12.1.31, 1.12.2.55 etc.), or one in a field (KTU 1.1.4.31, 45. Israels 46. 47. 48.

J. Hahn, Das "Goldene Kalb ": Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in der Geschichte (Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.154; Frankfurt, 1981), 324. L. R. Bailey, "The Golden Calf," HUCA 42 (1972): 97-115 (114). Ibid., 114-15. Hahn, Das "Goldene Kalb," 337: "vor-kanaanaischen Geschichte des Volkes Israel."

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

75

1.4.6.41, 1.22.2.12 etc.). However, in the majority of cases in the extant material, it is used as an epithet for the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, El, in 28 instances. On one single occasion (KTU 1.12.2.55), it is used in a simile to describe the god Baal, who is described as falling to the ground like atr, here parallel to 'ibr, a general word for "bull" or "ox." It should, however, be emphasized in the strongest terms, that tr here is not used as an epithet for Baal. The best, and probably only way of understanding the passage is to give it its literal meaning: the deity fell to the ground in the same way that an ox does when it is killed. The only Ugaritic god who is specifically associated with a bull is El. Also, it might be noted that of all the Ugaritic words for bull, tr is the only one which is ever used as a divine epithet. (2) The word 'ibr, as was just noted, seems to have been just an ordinary word for an "ox" (KTU 1.4.7.56, 1.10.3.36, 1.14.120 etc.). (3) Another word, which has aroused some scholarly interest, is r 'urn, since, when Baal and Mot fight in KTU 1.6.6.18, they are described as goring each other like wild oxen, and thus they are described as bulls, and thus we have evidence of bull iconography associated with Baal—at least according to some scholars. This is, however, a poetic simile, and is quite an effective one at that, having been used independently since then.49 In another place in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.10.3.37), Anat the consort of Baal gives birth to a wild ox, but the context is difficult to determine because of the fragmentary nature of the tablet, which may have a connection to another obscure text, where Baal is said to copulate with a heifer (KTU 1.5.5.18-22). (4) Finally, 'gl has the same meaning as the Hebrew cognate ("calf), used to describe the bulls of Bethel and Dan. The word is never used in any simile to describe a god, but at KTU 1.3.3.41 we are told about a calf of El, which may be some sort of pet or household animal. The same usage is also found in Ugaritica 5.2.1.11 (= KTU 1.113.1.11), and a similar one in KTU 1.22.2.13. Otherwise, the word is used to mean an animal that can be eaten, and is probably best translated "veal." Since in the extant Ugaritic material only one word for bull is used to refer to a deity, and only one deity is actually called a bull, a study of its Hebrew cognate might be of some use. The Hebrew word "125 is relatively common in the Bible, being used 78 times in all. Most of these refer to bulls as sacrificial animals, seven times thus in Leviticus, for example, and in only two instances (excepting the difficult Hos 12:12), is there any degree of interest for the study in hand. In Ps 106:20 it describes Aaron's calf image, and it is parallel to the word for "calf." The most important issue in this passage is: Did the writer know of any connection between the word he was using and the head of the Semitic pantheon, or was it just a word he utilized to emphasize the ridiculousness of the image, that of a bull which eats grass? It seems that the second of these options is more likely, taking into account the pattern of usage from the rest of the Hebrew Bible. The other passage of possible interest is Judg 6:25-26, where Gideon is commanded by Yahweh to offer "HEJmSTlN as an offering on the altar of Yahweh after he has torn down the altar of Baal. The point at issue seems to be whether a specific bull of Yahweh as the divine "IE? is intended. Again, this is unlikely since "12? probably does not refer to Yahweh at all here. From this brief survey of the evidence available, it seems that, at least in the later stages of the development of the Hebrew Bible, the word "IE? had no significance as a divine epithet. This does not mean, however, that the bull could not be used to represent Yahweh. This is especially so since there is a strong tradition linking Yahweh with El. Even though one would of course wish to repudiate any suggestion that the Ugaritic folk were identical with the Canaanites of later times, the link between the bull cult of Yahweh-El at Beth-El and the Ugaritic cult of Bull El is significant.

We now turn to discuss the views of three more recent scholars who have, in different ways, found the origin of bull imagery in the Ugaritic texts. 49. For example, Tasso in Canto 12.53 of his epic "Gerusalemme Liberata" describes the fight to the death of the warrior maiden Clorinda and the Crusader Tancredi in the following terms: "e vansi a ritrovar non altrimenti / che duo tori gelosi e d'ira ardenti." ("And they went forth to seek each other out not unlike / two jealous bulls and burning with anger.")

76

Sacred Dan

(1) Despite the lack of evidence, Curtis has attempted, at least in part, to make Baal the god who is particularly associated with the bull. Curtis suggests that it may simply be chance that the extant Ugaritic texts do not mention Baal in connection with the bull.50 He then goes through the material surveyed above, and picks out all the places where Baal is described as being like a bull, evidence which I discounted. Curtis accepts the basic conclusions of Oswalt (while questioning some of his judgments), as well as those of Habel who argues that the nature of Aaron's crime was not simply replacement of iconography, but fullscale polytheism.51 Curtis goes on to cite Dussaud52 who argued that KTU1.10.2.9 refers to a bull cult at the head-waters of the Jordan, and that it was this cult that Jeroboam was continuing when he established his royal shrine at Dan.53 It should, however, be pointed out that KTU 1.10 is an exceptionally fragmentary tablet, and that any arguments based exclusively on it must be treated with a good deal of caution. (Gibson, for example, feels unable to make sense of it, and, therefore, includes it in the appendix to his edition.54) Further, this suggestion also goes against the traditions of the Danite story, and if the Deuteronomistic school had been able to get its hands on such a scandalous piece of information as that offered by Dussaud, it would hardly have failed to mention it. Curtis also notes that the town of Beth Anat is in the tribal holding of Naphtali (cf. Josh 19:38), and thus that the consort of Baal must have been worshipped in the area.55 This does not, however, prove anything about worship at Dan. In the term Dpi?"1 TDK, "bull of Jacob," Curtis sees another bull-god connection, but this time it is El, and not Baal who is denoted: "The bull El became the bull-god of Jacob who was later identified with Yahweh."56 He also notes the various references to horns in the Hebrew Bible especially in Ps 132:17 and 1 Sam 2: la, suggesting that they represent fertility, comparing KTU 1.10.2.2035.57 He goes on to say that these can represent various aspects of deity—fertility, strength or dignity—but not necessarily all at the same time. Finally, he suggests that in Ugarit it was Baal who became the supreme god, whereas in Israel, Yahweh became supreme by taking over the attributes of the storm god.58 50. A. H. W. Curtis, "Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and the Old Testament," in In Quest of the Past (ed. A.S. van der Woude; OTS 26; Leiden, 1990), 17-31 (17-18). 51. N. C. Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures (New York, 1964), 21. 52. R. Dussaud, "Cultes canaaneens au sources du Jourdain d'apres les textes de Ras Shamra," Syria 18(1936): 283-95 (284-85). Dussaud identifies the place (smk) mentioned as being full of oxen in the legend (KTU 1.10.2.9) with Lake Huleh, which was calledfcODDTJW in the Talmud and was also apparently famous for its oxen. This identification was in fact accepted by T. H. Gaster, "Ba'al is Risen," Iraq 6 (1939): 109-43 (110), and may in fact be correct. However, this proves nothing about the existence of a shrine of Ugaritic Baal in Galilee. 53. Curtis, "Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology," 26. 54. CM,, 31-32. 55. Curtis, "Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology," 27. 56. Ibid., 28. 57. Ibid., 28-29. 58. Ibid., 32.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

77

Whatever the truth of this, it does not settle the issue of the bull iconography. On the other hand, Curtis's idea that Yahweh and El became associated among the Hebrews is quite likely—in contrast with his ideas about Baal. We know that there was no tension between such deities as El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Bethel and Yahweh the God of Israel. (2) Wyatt, on the other hand, is not even prepared to admit that the calves of Bethel and Dan are in any way connected with the cult of Yahweh. He uses the Deuteronomistic school as evidence, wondering why it was so concerned to discredit the alternative cult of Jeroboam, if his royal shrines were in fact Yahwistic.59 The answer that eludes Wyatt is, of course, that one of the central tenets of the faith of the Deuteronomists was that Yahweh had caused his name to dwell in only one place, and that all other sanctuaries were de facto apostate. Instead of regarding the Northern Israelites as (heterodox?) Yahwists, Wyatt, however, sees them as devotees of El who was not in this case associated with Yahweh.60 Wyatt builds up an impressive quantity of evidence, but not all of it impressive in quality. For example, when dealing with the announcement of Aaron in Exod 32:4, 8, that these are the gods of Israel, Wyatt argues that the mater lectionis in the word H^N is secondary, and thus produces the reading "El is your god, Israel." He suggests that this would have been acceptable to a Judahite scribe, because in the cult at Jerusalem El and Yahweh had become identical. The scribe seeing nothing wrong with the pronouncement, and thus feeling a certain tension in the text, added a he to make it into a plural demonstrative pronoun. As a direct consequence, Aaron became guilty of polytheism—at the scribe's time, the ultimate sin—rather than of trying to replace the cult of Yahweh with that of El.61 From the Ugaritic texts Wyatt draws the only sensible conclusion, that there El is the bull-god, and from this infers that "El is.. .the bull-god of the northern cult";62 he has already discounted Yahweh since "Jeroboam's policy was specifically to discontinue the cult of Yahweh in the North"(!).63 Further evidence is obtained by taking God's introduction of himself to Moses to mean "I am El your father," and all the other references to El as a personal name.64 There are several examples of El and bull imagery mentioned in conjunction, as at Num 23:22; 24:8, which Wyatt regards as Davidic and Southern. Psalm 106:19-22, is, on the other hand, as far as Wyatt is concerned, part of an El-exodus kerygma which has found its way into a much later composition.65 Hosea also provides Wyatt with a good deal of evidence: he states that "the entire book is a sustained attack on the cult of El."66 Thus in 8:4-6, he adopts an emendation favoured by Tur-Sinai and NEB, "who is the bull El?" (^N "12? 1Q), 59. N. Wyatt, "Of Calves and Kings: The Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel," SJOT 6 (1992): 68-91 (74). 60. Ibid., 82. 61. Ibid., 79. 62. Ibid., 82. 63. Ibid., 82. 64. Ibid., 83. 65. Ibid., 84. 66. Ibid., 85.

78

Sacred Dan

which he claims fits better into the context at that point.67 (The reading is significantly not found in the REB.) At 7:16 he reads "they have returned to El most high," basing this on the assumption that bl? is an abbreviation for Elyon. This turning away from Yahweh whom Hosea sees as their saviour, is, according to Wyatt, quite natural, as the people of the North naturally assumed that they were rescued from slavery by their old god, El.68 Wyatt excises the name Yahweh from Exod 18. He cites Noth as his only evidence. (Noth had excised the divine name because he thought that its presence was an indication of a Yahwistic expansion in the middle of an Elohistic passage.69) Once the divine name is removed, the sacrifice in the passage is described as having been offered to Elohim. This title, Wyatt suggests, may simply be another way of referring to the Northern god of the Exodus, El. So much so that when the Priestly editor came to compose his account of the revelation of the divine name, even he felt it necessary to refer to Yahweh as El Shaddai.70 Finally, Wyatt says that to call Israel one nation with one God is historically misleading. When David and his immediate successors attempted to impose on the Northern Israelites their ideas about the God of Jerusalem, Yahweh(I), they broke away and Jeroboam rehabilitated the cult of their original deity, El.71 There are various problems with Wyatt's thesis. Since many of them are obvious, we will not deal with most of them in any great detail. It must, nevertheless, be pointed out that it is untrue to say that only in Jerusalem were Yahweh and El identified. There is evidence from Northern writings that this also took place there. The best example of this is in the Decalogue, whose Yahwistic origins very few would deny, and which is usually regarded as having been formulated in the North. At Exod 20:5, Yahweh says he is a "jealous God," who will brook no equal. The Hebrew for this is NDp *?N, and surely no Yahwistic Hebrew writer who was aware of a continuing cult of El would have used this term as an epithet of Yahweh in this text of all texts. Other such examples are found in Deut 4:24,31; 5:9; 6:15; 7:9,21 and 10:17, and a much more ancient reference is in 32:21; there are also several references in Hosea itself 2:1; 11:9; 12:1, and it is one of the regular names of God in Job, used no less than 56 times. The two terms are even found together in the name of the greatest Israelite holy man, Elijah, whose devotion to Yahweh is not in question. Wyatt's whole thesis may be rejected as fanciful and without foundation, and appears at times to be nothing more than an exercise in seeing how far the texts can be made to fit an untenable theory. Despite this, he does take seriously the link between the bull cult and El, even though he fails to recognize that the god represented by the bulls was Yahweh identified at an early stage with El.

67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Ibid., 85. Davies, Hosea, 202, finds this unconvincing. Wyatt, "Of Calves and Kings," 87. M. Noth, Exodus (OTL; London, 1962), 146. Wyatt, "Of Calves and Kings," 90. Ibid., 91.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

79

(3) Toews's thesis, by way of contrast, is much more careful. He rejects the idea that the bull was a direct representation of Yahweh, as several authorities have argued: "They support their claim using the dubious argument that such a cry [1 Kgs 12:28] would not have been appropriate in reference to a mere pedestal. If one argues in this way with regard to the calf images, one should argue similarly that when the Philistines referred to the ark of the covenant... [1 Sam 4:8] they saw in it a representation of Yahweh in the shape of a box!"72 Toews prefers to see the bull images as vehicles of the presence of the deity which had not been fully identified with him.73 He equates (Ugaritic) El with Yahweh, and regards this composite deity as the god of the bull images.74 Whereas it is true that El is the only Ugaritic deity who is associated with the bull, and, to my mind, Toews's identification of Yahweh of the bull images and El is correct, there are problems with this view. In dealing with the Ugaritic material,75 Toews assumes that what is true of Ugaritic El is also true of Canaanite El = Yahweh, based on the facile equation of Ugarit with the Canaanites. For, while it is true that much can be learnt of the "Canaanites" from the Ugaritic material, a direct equation is not possible. Toews notes that it is Baal who is the Ugaritic storm-god, and not El. From this he assumes that Yahweh the God of Israel, since he is to be equated with "Canaanite" (i.e. Ugaritic) El, was not a storm-god.76 The Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, suggests otherwise. Various ancient poems treat Yahweh as a meteorological deity: Exod 15; Judg 5; Pss 18 (parallel with 2 Sam 22); 29 (whatever its origins); 65; 68; 77; 93; 97; 104; 105; 107; 135; 144; 147, and so on. Therefore, it would appear that Yahweh in the guise of a bull cannot be equated directly either with Ugaritic El or with Ugaritic Baal since he has features in common with both. From this it can be seen that, in this case at least, a study of the Ugaritic texts is liable to be misleading. The most likely origin for the bull iconography associated with Yahweh is that it was part of the general environment, and was not "borrowed" from any one culture. It was appropriate for Yahweh in his guise as storm-God to be associated with a bull, just like some other storm-gods, for example, Adad in Mesopotamia or Tessup the Hurrian storm-god.77 The same is also true of the Hittite weathergod.78 At Hazor a bull and a rider were found, dated to ca. 1250, as well as a very similar bull without a rider.79 Yadin states that "it must be Hadad the storm-god," because of the bull and the emblem of a circle with rays,80 even though Hadad 72. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 54. 73. Ibid., 54-55. 74. Ibid., 52. 75. Ibid., 55-68. 76. Ibid., 54. 77. G. Wilhelm, The Hurrians (Warminster, 1989), 50. The iconography of Tessub may have been borrowed from earlier Anatolian cultures (according to Professor G. Wilhelm, oral communication) 78. Weippert, "Gott und Stier," 99. 79. Y. Yadin, Hazor (Schweich Lectures 1970; Oxford, 1972), 94-95. 80. Ibid., 95.

80

Sacred Dan

was not usually represented by the emblem of a sun-god. So, although it is impossible to be more accurate about the origins of the bull iconography, in view of the general environment, it is fair to say that it is not inappropriate that Yahweh should be represented by a bull, the ultimate symbol of strength in many ancient Near Eastern cultures. Indeed Weippert lists six Mesopotamian deities who were actually called rimu, "wild bull": Ea, Enlil, Ninurta, Adad, Nergal and the goddess Irini.81 Furthermore, in view of the ancient tradition that Yahweh was a meteorological deity this is the iconography which one might in fact expect. Toews, as was noted above, is concerned to show that the bull was not actually regarded as Yahweh himself. Following Weippert,82 he states that the bull "did not become fully identified with the god it represented," but that it was rather the case that it "secured and attested to" the presence of Yahweh in the sanctuary, in very much the same way as the ark in Jerusalem,83 even though the latter was not a representation of the deity. Toews bases his views on a very brief and somewhat confused consideration of the theory of images in the ancient Near East. Since the bull image of Dan appears to be analogous to these images, it follows that to understand its function fully, we too must turn to the ancient Near East afresh, especially in view of the fact that the texts which deal with the closest Hebrew analogue—the cherubim in Jerusalem—appear to have been "demythologized" at a later date. 7. Image Worship in the Ancient Near East In the ancient Near East most civilisations took image worship for granted, and have left us ritual texts rather than texts which deal with the theology of image worship. Further, many of the remaining texts are mythological, and it appears that there was often little correspondence between what was said about the god in mythology, and the way the image of the god was worshipped. For various reasons we know more about image worship in ancient Mesopotamia than in most of the other civilisations at the time. Here, it would appear that the image was regarded as an embodiment in some sense of the god, a representation of divine presence and potency. Oppenheim notes: Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certain specific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in an appropriate manner, both established and sanctified by the tradition of the sanctuary. The god moved with the image when the latter was carried off—expressing thus his anger against his city or the entire country. Only on the mythological level were the deities thought to reside in cosmic localities; the poetic diction of hymns and prayers either cleverly uses (for artistic purposes) or disregards this differentiation, which only matters to us.84

81. Weippert, "Gott und Stier," 102. 82. Ibid., 107. 83. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 54—55. 84. A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (2d ed.; Chicago, 1977), 184. For the theology of Mesopotamian images, see also Jacobsen, "The Graven Image," 2223. For the pillaging of Human images, by the Hittites see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 22.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

81

It was expected that a deity should have such a vehicle for his power. As Schmidt puts it, "A deity who could not be represented was.. .inconceivable in the ancient Near East, as for the Classical world, or at least unusual, for God was thought to be present in the images which men served with holy rituals."85 Oppenheim provides a comprehensive picture of image worship, and the following is a summary of his views. Essentially, images were made and repaired in special workshops in the temple. To become receptacles of divine presence they were consecrated in secret nocturnal rituals. Their mouths and eyes were "opened" so that they could see and eat, and their mouths were washed to impart sanctity.86 The position of the image in the temple was analogous to that of the king in his palace. In the cella the image received visits from other deities and also heard the prayers of the faithful. It is not, however, clear to what extent if any the normal worshippers could have access to it.87 The image could, however, be viewed when it was carried in procession.88 During the day, the image was given two meals, morning and evening. The meal was the same as would be given to the king and in proportions that would satisfy a human. It was brought to the image with some water for washing. After the meal, incense would be burnt to dispel the smell of the food while musicians played.89 The food that had been presented to the god was then given to the king who alone was allowed to receive the blessing transferred by it. Other regular rituals included a meeting of the deity and his or her spouse at night.90 Bernhardt points out that even though an image was in a certain form, it was not regarded as a portrait of the deity, but was distinguished by certain iconographical features.91 Nevertheless, the statue was regarded as the body of the god, in Bernhardt's words: "On the contrary, it is a body which the divine essence animates."92 Thus to have the idol implied having control over the deity, although if the statue were destroyed, then the "gottische Fluidum" ("divine essence") would return to heaven,93 and the mythological understanding of the nature of deity would take over. On the other hand, in Egypt each morning at the tending ritual (ANET, 32526) it was thought that the god consented to vivify his image. This central cultic act was carried out in the darkest part of the Egyptian temple, completely

85. W. H. Schmidt, The Faith of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1983), 77. 86. The Mesopotamian image dedication ritual ("the opening of the mouth") continually denies that the image was made by human hands (Jacobsen, "The Graven Image," 23-28). A ritual of the same name (wpt r) was also found in Egypt, and was used for the inauguration of a statue or mummy (A. Erman and H. Grapow, Worterbuch der Agyptischen Sprache [7 vols.; Berlin, 1926-63], 1:300). For the Hurrian dedication rites, see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 73—74. 87. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 186. 88. Ibid., 187. 89. Ibid., 188-189. 90. Ibid., 193. 91. K. H. Bernhardt, Gott und Bild (Theologische Arbeiten 2; Berlin, 1956), 67, cf. also 31. 92. Ibid., 67: "Es ist vielmehr ein Korper, den das gottische Fluidum beseelt." 93. Ibid., 68.

82

Sacred Dan

different from the Israelite temple. As Sauneron says, "This is not the place where the faithful go to pray for their god, it is not the building where people meet to discuss spiritual questions.. .it is not even the place where a sacred ritual is performed by a practitioner before a congregation... the Egyptian temple is the place on earth where the god, whose being is spread throughout the world, possesses a statue in which, every morning, a little of his immaterial body ag es to be 'incarnated.'"94 The contrast between Mesopotamia and Egypt is striking. In Egypt the gods were in total control, and would have to consent to be embodied every day. In Mesopotamia, gods were embodied in the image for good or ill after the initial opening of the mouth, and thus they could, for example, be exiled against their will. The Hittite shrines were similar to those of the other ancient Near Eastern civilisations. The temples at Hattusas had costly statues often made of precious metal or of plated wood. The statues themselves were stylized representations of the deities who held or were associated with various symbols. Interestingly, at some local shrines of the weather-god, he is represented by a bull,95 like his Semitic counterpart. The Hittite gods in general were also fed and entertained. The temple was, as often in the ancient Near East, regarded as the home of the god, the priests as his domestic staff (cf. ANET, 207). As well as the regular offerings, almost anything could be sacrificed to the local god (cf. ANET, 209). As is often the case with ancient Near Eastern cultures, the theology of the image was taken for granted, and not described in the Hittite texts,96 although the ritual texts contain nothing like the Egyptian daily rites of invocation, so Hittite theology appears to have been closer to the Mesopotamian than the Egyptian. As far as the Ugaritic texts are concerned, there is little of direct relevance. Many of the texts are mythological, and thus not concerned with the practice of image worship. The ritual texts deal mainly with the offerings given to each of the gods, not with their images. A good example would be KTU 1.105: "In the month of hyr, on the day of the new moon,/ a bull and a ram for Baalat of the temples,/ on the fourteenth, Baal/ of the buildings,/ on the eighteenth, the king washes/ [and is] purified/ then a tzg offering in the sacrificial spring of Zaphon/ an ingot of silver and [one] of gold as an offering, two rams for btbtl a bull and a ram as a srp offering, a bull as a slmm offering/ for Baal, a bird for Zaphon/ nps

94. S. Sauneron, Lespretres de I'ancienneEgypte (Paris, 1957), 33: "Ce n'est pas le lieu ou le fidele va prier son dieu, ce n'est pas un edifice ou les hommes se reunissent pour trailer de questions spirituelles.. .ce n'est pas non plus 1'endroit ou s'accomplit un rite sacre execute par un specialiste devant une foule recueillie.. ..le temple egyptien est le lieu de la terre ou le dieu, repandu de par le monde, possede une statue en laquelle, chaque matin, un peu de son corps immateriel consent a Vincarner" (my translation above). Cf. also ANET, 5 n. 5. 95. O.K. Gurney, The Hittites (rev. ed.; Harmondsworth, 1990), 123-24; idem, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (The Schweich Lectures 1976; Oxford, 1977), 4,25-26, Plate III. Cf. the discussion of the Hurrian weather-god Tessub in Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 50. 96. Gurney, The Hittites, 124-25.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

83

and a ram for Rashap of Bibit/ two birds for ins ilm...."91 It is interesting that among the identifiable sacrificial victims the bull and the ram, both symbols of divine strength, are offered. It is also worth noting that the bull is not reserved for Baal. There is also an interesting ritual of divine clothing (KTU1.43). Lines 22-23 read:...ylbs/mlk.ylk.lqh.ilm. Xellatranslates"...indossa/vesteilre vaaprendere [le statue dejgli dei..." ("dressed, the king goes to collect [the statues o]f the gods.. .").98 On this de Tarragon comments, "The 'gods' ilm are the divine statuettes. The being approaches them, and carries them. One can deduce from this that they were not very big."99 A little later he further remarks, "On the subject of clothing, it was probable that the rite was performed with a statue that was sufficiently anthropomorphic to permit it to be clothed. A divine symbol would lend itself less well to such an action."100 Ugarit probably had the same sort of cultic images as Mesopotamia and the Hittites. As far as the Hittites and the Ugaritic folk are concerned, it is possible that they borrowed their concepts from the Akkadian-speaking peoples in the same way that they borrowed the cuneiform writing system. However, at least in the case of the Hittites, it appears that their local shrines were sufficiently free of Mesopotamian influence, being at base Haitian sanctuaries which had been allowed to survive by the relatively liberal Hittite overlords.101 It is also possible that the cult at Ugarit, although no doubt affected by Mesopotamia, was indigenous to the Western Semitic-speaking inhabitants. The ancient inscriptions of the Phoenicians provide us with little material of any substance. Of all the words for image in Semitic languages, the only one which occurs is HDDQ, which appear twice in the Karatepe inscription (KAI26— dated around 720 BCE). Here in line A III 1 we are told that king TinTK on founding a city with a shrine to the local Baal deity offered sacrifices to all the "molten images." This is parallelled in the C version of the text line IV 3. Other than the fact that ilDDQ was not an invention of the Hebrew writers to describe the image made by Aaron, this tells us little about the use of the word in the Hebrew Bible, and less about the theology of image worship. There is nothing of interest in the Aramaic epigraphic material, since all references to the words D^U and HQ^iJ, which are also used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to cultic images, refer solely to effigies on tombs or statues of individuals, not to divine images.

97. P. Xd\a, I Testi Ritualidi Ugarit. Vo\. 1, Testi (Studi Semitici 54; Rome, 1981), 36. There is a rather similar list from Uruk in ANET, 343-45. For sacrifice at Ugarit, see Miller, "Aspects of Ugaritic Religion," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 53-66 (60-62). 98. Xella, I Testi Rituali di Ugarit, 1:88. 99. J.M.de Tarragon, LeCulte a Ugarit (Cahiersde la Revue Biblique; Paris, 1980), 103:"Les 'divinites', ilm, sont les statuettes divines. Le roi s'approche d'elles et les porte. On peut en deduire qu'elles n'etaientpas de taille considerable" (my translation above). 100. Ibid., 105: "Comme il s'agit d'une veture, il est probable que le rite se faisait avec une statue suffisamment anthropomorphe pour qu'on puisse la vetir. Un embleme divin sepreterait moins bien a un tel geste" (my translation above). 101. Gurney, The Hittites, 109-11.

84

Sacred Dan 8. The Cultic Image among the Hebrews and in the Ancient Near East

Despite the paucity of ancient Near Eastern material, there are several points of contact between the Hebrews and their neighbours, as well as some differences. Since we have very little direct information about the cult of Dan, we can only assume that its cult was similar to those Yahwistic centres we do know about— mainly Jerusalem. Points of similarity include the following: (1) In Mesopotamia the deity was embodied in his or her statue; in Israel Yahweh was probably embodied in the bull image. Thus, when the statue of a god was removed from a city in the ancient Near East, the god was angry and had taken his/her presence away (cf. the "Sumerian Lamentation over the destruction of Ur" [ANET, 455-63])—this is also the case in Israel. The conqueror of a Mesopotamian city had power over its god, and this was also probably thought to be the case in Israel. The Ark Narrative appears to have been written partly as a corrective to this view, where in 1 Sam 5 humour is used to show that Yahweh was still totally in control, even if the ordinary Israelite evidently thought otherwise (cf. 1 Sam 4:21). Perhaps it is as well to note that Dagon in v. 3 is on his face before the ark where Yahweh was evidently seen to be present. It would appear that Yahweh dwelt in his ark very much in the same way as Marduk dwelt in his image. For while it is true that on the mythological level deities generally resided in heaven, for all practical purposes the house of a god was exactly that, and the priests were his domestic staff. In this context it is interesting to note that ekallum is always "palace" and never "temple" in Akkadian.102 When the Israelites borrowed the word they used it to mean the same thing. Since the king lived in his palace, it was appropriate for them to use the same word for Yahweh's palace, the Temple. (2) The extent to which the shrines of Dan and Bethel were analogous to those of Mesopotamia is uncertain. Hosea 13:2 would suggest that the calves were out in the open, for how else could they be kissed? However, given the evidence of the rest of the ancient Near East, including Jerusalem, and also Shiloh in 1 Sam 3:3, this would appear unlikely. It is possible that Hosea is referring to smaller statues like that found in the hills of northern Samaria in a twelfth-century possibly cultic setting.103 Little more can be said with any certainty. Biran in his excavations at Dan found a great many cultic remains, but admitted, "Whether a temple was also built or whether these are the remains of an open-air sanctuary is difficult to say."104 However, from a study of other sanctuaries, a covered sanctuary area seems to have been most likely, as was also the case with Arad. 102. AHw, 1:191-92. 103. A. Mazar, "The 'Bull Site': An Iron Age I Open Cultic Place,"BASOR 247 (1982): 27-42 (27-32). M. D. Coogan, in "Of Cults and Cultures: Reflections on the Interpretation of Archaeological Evidence," PEQ 119 (1987): 1-8 (1), contested that the site was sacred, but A. Mazar convincingly defended his position in "On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael Coogan," BAR 14, no. 4 (1988): 45. 104. Biran, Biblical Dan, 181.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

85

(3) Most of the deities of the ancient Near East seem to have been taken out in procession around their cities at one time or other. This is true of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Hittites,105 and is probably true of Jerusalem. Many of the psalms depict processions, Ps 24 being one of the more obvious examples. We have no reason to assume that its language is totally figurative, despite the fact that the historical sources never refer to the occurrence of such processions. This may be because the pre-exilic writers did not often record things which happened regularly. Alternatively, after the Exile the loss of the ark may have been felt so keenly that accounts of this nature were suppressed: we simply do not know. The ark was, however, taken into battle, so it is possible that the procession of the ark around the city would have been seen as a ritualized battle, possibly against the forces of chaos (cf. possibly Ps 48:13). If this was true of the rest of the ancient Near East, it was probably also true of Dan. Once again, there is little direct evidence for this. The excavations have, however, discovered a series of cultic sites from different dates at the gate of the city,106 from which there was a processional way107 which went towards the sanctuary. It is possible that the bull image may have been taken outside the walls where the cosmic battle would have taken place, and then brought back inside in triumph, in a ritual like that of Ps 24 whose final verse uses the title Yahweh Sebaoth, often associated with Yahweh riding to battle on the cherubim. (4) As with the feeding rituals of ancient Near Eastern gods, there is a vestige of this rite in the "bread of the presence" mentioned for example in Lev 24:5-9.108 (5) In both Israel and the ancient Near East, oracles played an important part in the ritual of the sanctuary.109 (6) Although we do not know of anything in Israel akin to the "opening of the mouth" rituals by which an ancient Near Eastern deity took possession of his or her image, since the bulls were representations of Yahweh, it is entirely possible that such rituals did in fact take place. Schmidt, for example, suggests that incense was used in the inauguration rites.110 The closest we have is the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem by Solomon in 1 Kgs 8. But here the Deuteronomistic editor has overlaid the story, and any ritual which may have been described has vanished. It would seem that the deity was called down to his temple by the king acting as a high priest, offering sacrifices, and in this case, a cloud symbolized the presence of Yahweh. A similar event is narrated in 1 Kgs 12, but here the 105. For Mesopotamia, see ANET, 342-43, and for the Hittites, see Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 40. 106. Biran, Biblical Dan, 245. The fact that one of them at least comes from the Assyrian period suggests that the cult was continued virtually unchanged. J. A. Emerton, "'The High Places at the Gates' in 2 Kings xxviii 8," FF44 (1994): 455-67, argues that there was a similar cultic place in Jerusalem. 107. Biran, Biblical Dan, 249-50. 108. See the discussion of J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (AB 3B; Garden City, N.Y., 2000), 2091-93. 109. See Chapter 4. 110. B. B. Schmidt, "The Aniconic Tradition," in The Triumph ofElohim (ed. D. V. Edelman; Kampen, 1995), 75-105 (94-95).

86

Sacred Dan

Deuteronomistic redaction is of a different order. However, in view of the similarities with 1 Kgs 8, the fact that the king was responsible and that he offered sacrifice may well be authentic. Sadly, Judg 17-18 does not mention how the image was consecrated, nor does it describe the rituals of its transfer to Dan. As well as these similarities between the ancient Near East and the shrine of Dan, the latter was in some respects different especially from Mesopotamia. Perhaps the most obvious point of contrast is that as far as we know Israelite cultic images were not anthropomorphic. Of course, in Egypt images were often theriomorphic, but they were equally often at least partially anthropomorphic. A second point of contrast is that, to the best of our knowledge, the Israelites did not worship a plethora of gods at the same shrine. It would appear that shrines like Dan were exclusively Yahwistic. In Egypt and in Mesopotamia there was a whole host of gods worshipped at the shrine of a dominant god. This does not appear to have been the case with Israel (cf. however, the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions111). In conclusion, a study of the cults of ancient Near Eastern societies shows that there were numerous similarities between the Hebrews and their neighbours. In fact, it seems that Mesopotamia and other places provide closer analogies for the Northern bull cult than Israel's more immediate neighbours. 9. Image Worship and the Archaeology of Tel Dan When we turn to examine the evidence from Tel Dan, there at first appears to be little of use to our study. However, Uehlinger claims that he has found evidence for an anthropomorphic divine image at Dan. He examines fragments of figures/ figurines which have been found in Area CD/T—the area where the cultic installations were found. He notes that one of them, a terracotta fragment found in Room 2311, could be either from the image of a king or a divinity, but owing to parallels from other Palestinian sites, especially Khirbet el-Mudeyyine, is probably a deity.112 Three of the others probably came to Dan at the time of the offensive of Pharaoh Shishak.113 One of them appears to be a royal statue.114 The remaining two may be part of the same statue,115 which must have been much bigger than any other statue found at Dan. The fact that it was found in association with cultic implements suggests to Uehlinger that it may have been the recipient of sacrifice.

111. K. A. D. Smelik, Writings from Ancient Israel (Edinburgh, 1991), 155-60, and bibliography there. L. K. Handy, "The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah," 27-43, and Neihr, "The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion," 45-72, both in Edelman, ed., The Triumph ofElohim, argue from the texts that a pantheon may have existed in Israel, but provide no information about cultic practice. 112. C. Uehlinger, "Eine anthropomorphic Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?," Biblische Notizen 72 (1994): 85-100 (91). 113. Ibid., 95. 114. Ibid., 95-96. 115. Ibid., 92.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story

87

Following on from this, it may be possible to see this image as the god of Dan in his original tenth- to ninth-century guise. He suggests that it was then destroyed, and its pieces scattered in the destruction of Stratum IV. Of the god himself, Uehlinger suggests that he was a "Quellgott," the god of the spring, who may be associated with the weather-god of Hermon, Hadad, in which he follows the idea of Puech.116 Uehlinger says it is currently unproductive to speculate on the connection between this god and Yahweh or the ^DS of Micah, or the bull image, but that the chances are that the god represented by the terracotta image was not the only god worshipped at Dan.117 Many of Uehlinger's views are by his own admission conjectural. The idea that the terracotta image is the original god of the shrine at Dan is possible, although it is improbable that such an important shrine would have had merely a terracotta image. Despite Uehlinger's reservations about speculating on its connections with the image of Micah, we know that Dan probably had a silver image, and I have argued that it was taurine. Also, according to the written sources at our disposal, the shrine appears to have been dedicated to Yahweh as the God who helped the Danites (Judg 17-18). That another god may have shared the shrine is just possible, and the most likely candidate would have been the city god of Laish. An altogether more probable suggestion, however, is that the image of the god of Laish was kept, but as if it were booty, the image of the vanquished deity. So, just in the same way that the image of the tutelary god of a conquered Mesopotamian city would have been taken away to be placed in the temple of the victorious god, the god of Laish may have been kept in the temple of Yahweh at Dan. Similarly, the ark is found in the temple of Dagon in 1 Sam 5, and in 2 Sam 5:21 David and his men make a point of removing the Philistines' images. We are not told what they did with them, although that they were dedicated to Yahweh may be likely. Indeed, it may be argued in the case of Dan that one would have expected the image of the former god to be in the sanctuary. In other words, just because the image was in the cultic area does not necessarily mean that it was accorded any worship. The identification with Hadad of Hermon is possible. Hadad was the god of rain. Nevertheless, at least in Mesopotamia (and possibly also in Canaan) the god Ea (= Enki) of the sweet waters under the earth which rose as springs (in Hebrew Dinn [cf. Deut 8:7], the Akkadian apsu) was distinct from Adad the god of the waters above the heaven which included rain. Genesis 1 shows that the later Hebrews knew this distinction between waters above and below. Despite this, Puech notes that there is evidence that Hadad of Sikan and of Gozan at Ras el ' Ain, Tell Fekheriyeh, was associated with both rain and spring water as a general god of fertility.118 Whether this was a localized exaltation of the local weathergod, or held true of the cult of Hadad in more general terms, is not certain.

116. E. Puech, "La stele arameenne de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides et de la maison de David," RB 101 (1994): 215-41 (240). 117. Uehlinger, "Eine anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?," 96. 118. Puech, "Le stele arameenne de Dan," 240.

88

Sacred Dan

Furthermore, as was noted above,'19 Yahweh too could be regarded as a meteorological deity. So Puech's all too easy identification of the god of Dan as Hadad (whom he refers to as "le Ba'al par excellence tete du pantheon," confusing Ugarit and Canaan120), may not be as simple as it appears—especially since he makes it solely because Jeroboam worshipped a bull, associated with Hadad as a weather-god. This is despite the Hebrew Bible's insistence that the sin of Jeroboam, whatever else it may have involved, did not consist of the worship of Baal. Furthermore, since, after Jehu had totally eradicated the cult of Baal, he is still condemned by the Deuteronomist (2 Kgs 10:28-29) for continuing in the sin of Jeroboam, any link between the bulls and "Baal" is unlikely in the extreme. Thus the suggestion of Puech has little to be said for it. 10. Conclusions As we have seen, a very strong case can be made for the view that the ^DS of Micah mentioned in Judg 17-18 remained as the central icon of the royal cult of Jeroboam at Dan. We have noted that Jeroboam's religious policy represented a return to the values of an older Israel; he thus chose shrines such as Dan which were in fact older and more venerable than Jerusalem. These traditions would have been preserved by the Dan priesthood. We have argued that the bull was an image of Yahweh. In common with much of the rest of the ancient Near East, the bull appears to have been an actual physical embodiment of the deity or part of him. Thus, to capture the bull was to capture the deity as it was in Mesopotamia. Ironically, this is probably exactly what the Assyrians did, taking the bull of Yahweh to enhance the temple of Asshur. It is unlikely that the ancient Israelites actually thought Yahweh looked like the bull of Dan. I have also suggested that the word "XDS used to describe the bull did not necessarily have negative connotations until late in the pre-exilic period, and that it was only later that the word itself became anathema. In fact, it is probably only coincidence that the cherubim of Jerusalem are not called D^DS. As to the worship accorded the image, we know very little for certain. That the image was highly venerated is shown by the fact that stories were told about it, and were considered worthy of preservation. However, a little about the cult can be deduced from a comparison with the ancient Near Eastern and Jerusalem cults, the latter being—leaving aside the bull image—probably in many ways similar to that of Dan.

119. 120.

See above, p. 72. Puech, "Le stele arameenne de Dan," 240.

Chapter 3 PRIESTS IN THE DANITE STORY 1. Priests in the Danite Legend An initial reading of Judg 17-18 gives us the following information about priests: a. The priest was appointed to serve at a particular sanctuary (17:5). Micah's son is made the priest of the shrine after the cultic apparatus has been made. It appears that the need was felt to have a priest at the sanctuary. The same is true of the Danites who take the priest with them (18:19), and install him in their sanctuary (18:30-31). b. The priest does not have to be a member of the tribe of Levi. Micah and his son appear to have been Ephraimites (17:1,5). c. The priest is appointed by the "filling of the hand." This was a rite performed, not by a priest, but by the father of the family (17:5, 12). d. Suitable priests do not have to be aged, but could be young (17:7). e. Levites were preferred to members of other tribes (17:7). f. The priest was venerable because of his cultic function (17:10; 18:19). g. The priest's major function (at least in this story) is to be responsible for the ephod oracle (18:5-6). h. The priest acted as the guardian of the shrine (18:18). i. Priesthood could be hereditary (18:30). The relationship of the priesthood to the tribe of Levi will be dealt with in the Appendix, but further analysis needs to be made of the information relating to the function of priests from the Danite story. The priest is basically a cult functionary. He is the guardian of a shrine, and the manipulator of the ephod oracle. The priest probably performs this function first for Micah, although presumably not exclusively (cf. 18:5), and later for the Danites when he becomes their priest. As oracular attendant, he is the normative channel for approach to the divine which, at this stage, may have been limited to the ephod oracle.1 The text does not say that the priest offered any sacrifices. However, there are no sacrifices in the text at all, so little can be made of this.2 1. Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 71-73, regards the "mantic" character of Hebrew priests as being a feature of "early, pre-monarchical priesthood," although he also admits that the later high priest would have had a mantic role (p. 213), even though he does not clarify how this worked. 2. In all likelihood the worship of the shrine of Dan was in common with most Hebrew shrines mainly sacrificial in nature. However, we know of no sacrifices being offered at the shrine of Dan in the extant sources. It is likely that the priests of Dan would have been involved in the sacrificial cult

90

Sacred Dan

Another of the functions of the priest that may be hinted at in this story is a teaching/counselling role. This is suggested by the reference to the priest as "father." It is not clear what this function may have involved. Budd sees it as a role that may have developed out of priestly words of encouragement like those given in 18:5.3 The oracle of salvation apparently given to a worshipper in the temple and enshrined in some psalms may have then developed out of this.4 It is more probable, however, that the teaching function was of a more general nature, a passing on of the sacred traditions for which Auneau compares some "primitive" cultures.5 Another explanation for the word "father" is that the priest was regarded as wise beyond his years, and recourse may have been made to him at times of crisis. This would provide a link with the ephod oracle which would have been consulted at such times.6 Other instances of "father" being used in the sense of counsellor include Gen 45:8, where Joseph refers to himself as Pharaoh's "father," although the age gap between them in the context of the story is hardly wide. It is possible that this is part of the Egyptian background to the story, since "father" was apparently used in some contexts to denote an official or king or even giver of charity,7 in contrast to Hebrew where this meaning is rare (pace Ringgren and Redford8). In the Elijah-Elisha complex in Kings (e.g. 2 Kgs 2:12; 8:9; 13:14), it may be a technical term for the leader of a group ("sons") of prophets. Later the term is found with reverential connotations in Greek Esther 3:13 (= Vulgate 13:6), where the phrase SeuTepou rrarpos would mean something like "honoured counsellor." In 1 Mace 2:65 Simeon is commended to his brothers as father in place of Matthias, and in 11:32 Demetrius writes to an honoured kinsman as "father." It thus appears that UN in Judg 17 is more likely to mean "counsellor" than "teacher," although, of course, there would have been a good deal of overlap between the two. Phillips suggests that "father" refers to anyone "who possessed special powers of wisdom in being able to reveal information which was hidden to ordinary men,"9 and links it possibly correctly with divinatory practices.10 2. The Initiation Rites of the Priests in the Danite Story Another question which is raised by the text is the meaning of the phrase, "filling the hand." The issue at stake is whether it is an "ordination" rite or an in the same way as other Hebrew priests, offering daily sacrifices, while at times of pilgrimage, sacrifices would have been offered by the worshippers. For details of the Hebrew sacrificial cult in general and the role of priests in it, see Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 205-29, 289-316. 3. P. J. Budd, "Priestly Instruction in Pre-Exilic Israel," VT23 (1973): 1-14 (2-4). 4. Ibid., 2-4. 5. J. Auneau, "Sacerdoce," DBSup 10, cols. 1170-54 (1173). 6. A. Phillips, "The Ecstatics' Father," in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas (ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars; Cambridge, 1968), 183-94 (185-86). 7. H. Ringgren, "3K," TDOT 1:2-3; cf., however, Erman and Grapow, Worterbuch der dgyptischen Sprache, 1:14 I^t2, where such a meaning is not noted. 8. D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (SVT 20; Leiden, 1970), 191. 9. Phillips, "The Ecstatics' Father," 194. 10. Ibid., 194.

3. Priests in the Danite Stoty

91

"induction" rite: Did the "filling of the hand" make a priest, or was the candidate a priest already? Scholars have compared the Hebrew T K^Q to an Akkadian expression, ana qdti PNmullii. This is translated by CAD as "to hand over," by Von Soden as "to hand over or deliver over to someone."11 Snijders suggests also "to empower a priest" as one of its meanings, apparently quoting Von Soden.12 Von Soden, however, does not use these words.13 Snijders notes that Judg 17:5, 12 is the oldest usage of the expression, but goes on to say that here it refers to the wages of the Levite whom Micah is hiring to be priest.14 This may be true of v. 12, but it certainly is not true of v. 5, which quite clearly refers to Micah's son. This error colours much of Snijders' discussion, rendering it almost useless for our purposes. Subsequently he also misrepresents de Vaux's arguments. Malamat compares the Hebrew phrase with an Akkadian expression from Mari.15 It occurs in ARM 11.13 line 17. The original transcription reads from the end of line 16: GAL-KUD (mes)/ a-na mi-el qdti(ti)-su-nu su-mu-di-im..., which Malamat translates, "The 'majors'/ filled their hands full (of the booty).. ,"16 He suggests that this may have had a ritual significance since the booty in question may have been banned or consecrated.17 De Vaux also notes the Mari reference, and suggests that this may mean that the Hebrew priests had a right to revenues accruing to the sanctuary and a share in the sacrifices made there.18 This may well fit in with the general evidence for Semitic priests receiving a small amount of the offerings. We must, however, sound a note of caution, for the Mari texts date from the late eighteenth century BCE. They are, thus, around 700 years older than our earliest Hebrew example, and they do not deal with initiation to the priesthood. We must, therefore, turn briefly to the Hebrew Bible in an attempt to try to establish a meaning from it. In canonical order, the first occurrence is Exod 28:41, part of the Priestly Code: "And you [Moses] will dress with them [the priestly robes] Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, and you will anoint them, and fill their hand(s), and you will consecrate them, and they will be priests to me." It is not certain what makes Aaron and his sons priests, but it may be a combination of the unction, the filling of the hands, and the formal "hallowing." The Versions provide little help, but Targums use their characteristic paraphrase JT T~)pm ]inmip, "and you will offer their offerings" for "fill their hands," which appears to imply that they were already priests, although they may be harmonizing this text with Lev 8:22-36. 11. CAD, M, 2:187; von Soden, AHw, 598: "in die Hand jemand iibergeben, ausliefern." 12. L. A. Snijders, "N*?0," ThWAT 4:881: "einen zum Priestertum bevollmachtigen." 13. Von Soden, AHw, 598. 14. Snijders, ThWAT4:88\. 15. A. Malamat, "The Ban in Mari and the Bible," in Mari and the Bible (2d ed.; Jerusalem, 1990), 52-61; cf. also idem, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (The Schweich Lectures 1984; Oxford, 1989), 76. 16. Malamat, "The Ban in Mari and the Bible," 44 (56). 17. Ibid., 48 n. 20 (p. 60) 18. R. de Vaux," 'Levites' mineens et levites Israelites," in Lex tua veritas (ed. H. Gross and F. Mussner; Trier, 1961), 347.

92

Sacred Dan

Exodus 29 is concerned with the installation of priests. The phrase is again found in conjunction with the priestly vestments (v. 9): "And you will gird them with a girdle—Aaron and his sons—and you will wrap them in turbans, and there will be to them the priesthood of an eternal order; and you will fill the hand of Aaron, and the hand of his sons." Here, the filling of the hand appears to be more of a rite of induction than one of ordination which comes after the ritual(?) washing (v. 4), and the anointing (v. 7), although there is perhaps an artificial distinction between the two parts of the ceremony. Noth comments that it was only the high priest who was anointed according to the original custom, and only later were all priests anointed.19 It would thus appear that the filling of the hand was a rite that applied to all the priests; anointing came only when the high priest had assumed quasi-royal status in the post-exilic period. Noth regards "filling the hand" as an institution rite.20 Despite Snijders' asseverations to the contrary,21 there is little of interest in the LXX rendering. In Exod 29:33, we are told that in order to "fill their hands," the priests eat the atonement offering. From this we can establish that the phrase "to fill the hand" is not meant literally by the Priestly writer, neither does he understand its meaning, just that it refers in some way to the consecration or induction of priests. As de Vaux rightly comments, "Unfortunately, these are late texts which are trying to give an explanation of a phrase whose original meaning has been forgotten."22 It is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the sentence containing the phrase in Exod 32:29: HD13 DTTT DD^U HH^l TTKC1 im ETN '3 miT*? DTTI D3T IN^Q. One rendering might be, "Fill your hand today for Yahweh, for each man is against his son and his brother, and to give a blessing upon you today." The Versions shed some light on the matter. The LXX translates, "Fill your hands today to the Lord, each one in his son or his brother, to give a blessing upon you," a reading that omits the MT'S T3, and also omits the conjunction before the infinitive. Targum Onkelos attempts to make sense of the Hebrew, "Let your hands offer an offering today to the Lord, for each is against his son or his brother, and to bring a blessing upon you this day." Neophyti, however makes better sense: "for each one has struck his son and his brother." Pseudo-Jonathan is one step further removed from the Hebrew reading, "Offer the offering for the shedding of blood which is on your hands, and offer atonement for yourselves [this day] before the Lord, for each has struck his son and his brother..." All the Targums use their characteristic rendering of the idiom in question. The Peshitta and Vulgate appear to reflect the LXX reading. It may be that in this verse we have some grim allusion to the fact that the Levites have filled their hands with swords. However, this appears to be an attempt to explain a phrase whose significance had been forgotten. The Hebrew 19. Noth, Exodus, 230. 20. Ibid., 231. 21. Snijders, ThWAT4:S82. 22. De Vaux," 'Levites' mineens et levites israelites," 346. For a radically different view, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; Garden City, N. Y., 1991), 545-49 where he argues that the for him very ancient Lev 8 is dependant on Exod 29.

3. Priests in the Danite Story

93

is difficult, and the Versions merely try to convey its lost meaning in their own languages. Perhaps it is significant that the Levites do not become priests in this story, but are regarded simply as people who are zealous for Yahweh. It has been argued that this narrative proves that there was never a tribe of Levi, since the Levites here attack their sons and their brothers. The story, however, makes it clear that all the sons of Levi (v. 26) are involved. The reference to sons and brothers must, therefore, be figurative, and refer to fellow Israelites who are the same age or younger than the Levites. The ordination rites of Hebrew priests are in fact described in some detail in Lev 8. Here in vv. 27-29 we see a quite literal filling of the hand with the "elevation offering." Despite Milgrom's assertions to the contrary,23 it is difficult to know whether these texts are very ancient indeed, or whether they derive in their entirety from the post-exilic Jerusalem Temple as most scholars have usually assumed. Even if Milgrom is correct that these texts are pre-exilic (indeed premonarchical), from this text, for all its detail, it is still not entirely clear whether the rite described is one of ordination or induction for one who is already basically a priest. Turning to the Former Prophets, ignoring the Danite story for the present, we find an occurrence of the phrase "to fill the hand" in 1 Kgs 13:33. This is in the context of the establishment of the shrines of Bethel and Dan by Jeroboam I: "And he made from the whole[?] of the people priests of the high places, he filled the hand of any who wanted, and he became priests of the high places." There are difficulties with the text, some of which are resolved by the Versions. LXX reads, "He made from the edges of the people priests of high places; he who wanted, he would fill his hand (eTrXripou), and he became a priest of the high places." The Targum translates in a similar fashion: "And he made from the end of the people priests ("HOD) of the high place any who wanted, offering his offering, and they became priests of the high places." The Peshitta is similar to the Targum. Thus it appears that the Vorlage of the Versions was a text closely akin to the MT, since the Versions themselves are not decided on the number of priests in the final clause. What is clear, nevertheless, is that the rite was one of ordination rather than induction. Before the ceremony of the filling of the hands, the people are not priests; afterwards, they are priests of the high places. For the Deuteronomist, they were certainly not priests by right. One further passage needs to be discussed, namely Ezek 43:26. This reads, "For seven days they will make atonement for the altar, and they will purify it, and fill its hand(s)" (cf. BHS note 26c). This would appear to be a consecration rite, for the altar is a new altar that has never been used before. Thus it seems that if the same phrase were used of a priest at the time of Ezekiel, this would mean that a non-priest became a priest by this rite, whatever it entailed. So, if we return to our text, we find that it fits in with the conclusions we have reached. It is clear in 17:5 that the rite of the filling of the hand was one of ordination, since there is no reason why Micah's Ephraimite son should already 23.

Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 3-35.

94

Sacred Dan

be a priest. If this is true here, then the same must also be true of the Levite in 17:12: he is made a priest by Micah in the same way. It may be significant that later in the story, when the Danites invite him to be their priest, we are not told that they filled his hand. The most probable explanation for this is that once one's hand had been filled, one was a priest for life. Once again, this points to ordination rather than to induction. 3. The Priestly Functions in the Hebrew Bible As was noted in the discussion of the Danite legend, once the priest is ordained his major functions as described are as guardian of the shrine and manipulator of the oracular devices. To ascertain whether this is an accurate picture of the preexilic Hebrew priest, and also, therefore, the priesthood of Dan, it is necessary to examine the evidence from the other Hebrew texts.24 However, much of this material adds very little to our general understanding. Priests crop up frequently in the Hebrew Bible, but most of the texts tell us little about them other than the fact that they were in some way connected with the cult, so it is perhaps better to focus on some of the more significant texts.25 Most scholars base their theories of the functions of the priest on Deut 33:811, the passage in the Blessing of Moses that deals with the priestly tribe of Levi. The text is difficult, and I shall return to it when I deal with the tribe of Levi in the Appendix. As a description of the priestly functions, the most important sections are v. 8a(3, "Your Thummim and your Urim to your faithful one" (Ml), and v. 10, "They teach your statutes to Jacob and your law to Israel, they place smoke in your nose and whole burnt offerings upon your altar" (MT).26 In both places there are some textual problems, but the general sense seems to be unaffected, at least for our present purposes. It is apparent from here that the priestly tribe of Levi was responsible for: a. The manipulation of the sacred lots, b. The teaching of God's law to the people, c. The offering of sacrifices and (?) incense. 24. References to Hebrew priests (outside the main cultic legislation) can be found in Exod 19:6, 22,24; 32; Deut 33:8-11; Josh 3-4; 20:6; 22:13,30-34; Judg20:28; 1 Sam 1-2; 4; 14:3;21:2; 2 Sam 8:17-18; 15:24; 20:25-26; 1 Kgs 1-2; 4:2-5; 8; 13;2Kgs 10:11,19; 11-12; 16; 17:27-28; 19:2; 22; 23:5, 8; 25:18; Isa 8:2; 24:2; 28:7; Hos 4:4-10; 5:1; 6:9; Amos 7:10; Mic 3:11. There are also some references to non-Hebrew priests in Gen 14:18-20; 41:45; Exod 2:16; 18:1; 1 Sam5:5;6:2. 25. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, is still probably the best guide to the texts themselves from a historical angle. Like Cody and the majority of scholars, I have assumed that the Priestly texts are from the post-exilic period, but Milgrom has argued that the entirety of Leviticus and much of the rest of the Torah derives from the pre-exilic period. If he is correct, then something like Lev 1-16 would have been in the possession of the priests of Dan, and indeed they would have needed something akin to it as a handbook for the intricacies of the sacrificial cult. Despite this, the main function of the priest in Judg 17-18 itself is as the giver of oracles, and this role is barely mentioned in the Torah. 26. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 115, regards v. 8 as the older part of the section since, he notes, the taking of ^NEJ oracles by a priest is not mentioned in the texts he regards as dating from monarchical times. For these oracles, see pp. 125-29.

3. Priests in the Danite Story

95

As far as the casting of the sacred lots is concerned, there is no dispute among scholars. This is a feature of priests in the pre-monarchical period and (at least in theory, if not actually in practice) in the monarchical period too, and it is a function that only priests could perform. Zimmerli points to Ezra 2:63 as evidence for this.27 In the Danite legend it is the sole priestly action. The priests seem to have abandoned this function at some time. Indeed, Ezra 2:63 hints that this was so at that time, for the priests of dubious ancestry are told that they may not eat the holy things D^nbl Dm**1? pD IDE IS. The difficulty here is that the parallel passage in Neh 7:65 has a definite article before ]I"O, which would suggest they were waiting for a particular priest. It is certain, however, that by the time of the Maccabean campaigns priests had lost the ability to manipulate the oracle, for 1 Mace 4:46 says that they put the altar stones aside until a prophet could tell them what to do with them. The second function in Deut 33 is that of priestly instruction with which we have already dealt. The next function is sacrifice. This does not appear to have been a duty peculiar to priests in all the texts,28 even though this text can be read as implying that it was. It is, nevertheless, possible that the oracle of Levi is a good deal later than some of the other parts of the poem, and may have been composed by the compiler of Deuteronomy as a summary of what he thought a priest ought to be at his time, to be placed on the authoritative lips of Moses.29 There are interesting parallels between the story about Shiloh in 1 Sam 1-2 and the Danite story in that both purport to be set at in the same general period of Hebrew history, and both are about a local shrine which will rise to national importance. Both also tell us a good deal about the priests who served at the shrines, even though the priests in both cases are not the protagonists. The first thing of note in 1 Sam 1 is that it is Elkanah the Ephraimite father who offers sacrifice in v. 3. The priests, the sons of Eli, are also mentioned in this verse, but only in an historical note linking them with the shrine. In the next verse, once he has sacrificed, Elkanah himself apportions the sacrificial victim to the worshippers. From this it appears that it is the place where the sacrifice was offered that was important, not the fact that there were priests in attendance at the sanctuary. The shrine is important because it is the place where God and humanity meet. In this case God is represented as being present through the ark. In v. 9, Eli, the cultic attendant, is sitting on a chair at the door of the temple. It is possible that this is the place where the priest would normally sit. In the conversation between Hannah and Eli, there are several noteworthy features. In v. 15 Hannah addresses Eli by the reverential title "'HN. He is obviously a man of high standing. This is 27. W. Zimmerli, £zefa'e//(Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1979), 96. Cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 130; L. Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study (Leiden, 1973), 104-5. 28. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 12. 29. So Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, dates the present form of the texts to the first half of the eighth century.

96

Sacred Dan

even clearer at the end of the chapter, where she says ^Ttik ~[EJS] TT "'HN ^ (1:26). Finally, in their conversation he acts as an oracular priest, "Go in peace, and the God of Israel will give [you] your desire which you ask (^Nttf) of him" (1:17). The verb ^N2J here appears to have its non-technical meaning.30 In the next chapter, we learn (2:13) that the priests would get a portion of the meat from the sacrifice, even if they did not perform the sacrifice themselves. It seems that there were certain parts of the victim to which they were entitled,31 but first it had to be offered to God, and the fat burnt off. Also here we have some evidence that priests lived off the bounty of others, since in 2:36 the descendants of Eli are depicted as begging for silver and bread, and the right to one of the miro, the "priestly offices." Nevertheless, McCarter argues that this passage refers to the replacement of the house of Eli and its final scion Abiathar by the high priest Zadok and his line, so that the begging imagery refers to the Elides after their loss of priestly status at the time of Josiah.32 This is also picked up in 1 Kgs 2:27 where the Elides, while retaining their priesthood, are banished from the court of Solomon. Gordon33 also compares 2 Kgs 23:8-9 in the account of the Josianic reforms. There are several features of the narrative which help us to obtain a clearer idea of the functions of the Hebrew priests: a. Priests were attendants attached to a specific sanctuary. Here it was the shrine of the ark. At a countryside altar which was not part of an established sanctuary, priests would not have been necessary. b. Priests could give oracles and speak in the name of Yahweh. Here the ephod is not mentioned, but we may assume that there was one at the shrine. c. Even in the larger sanctuaries, priests did not perform all the sacrifices; for example, in this case, this was left to the pilgrims who would also divide up the sacrificial portions. d. Priests had a right to be fed their appointed portions by the pilgrims.34 This is consistent with the Danite story, where the priest lives off what he is given by the (private) worshipper, and where his sole function is to act as an attendant for the shrine, which includes the manipulation of the ephod. This of course reflects the self-understanding of the pre-exilic royal shrine of Dan, but also reflects the fact that pilgrims, like Elkanah, would have gone there to sacrifice from time immemorial.

30. See above (pp. 125-29) for the technical meaning used in contexts which refer to divination. 31. Cf. the discussion of KAI69 below. 32. P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, N.Y., 1980), 91-93. 33. R. P. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter, 1986), 88. 34. For these conclusions, cf. also Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 69-72. Cody, however goes further, concluding on p. 72, "Thus, the priesthood at Shiloh was a priesthood of sanctuary attendants, whose oracular consultation was perhaps developed into judicial lord, or beginning to develop into that kind oftord. They had no monopoly on sacrifice, for we know that Samuel's father Elkanah sacrificed as a pilgrim to the sanctuary they frequented (1 Sam. 1:3)."

3. Priests in the Danite Story

97

First Samuel 2:28 contains a brief description of the priest's functions: attendance at the altar, the burning of incense, the wearing of the ephod and sacrifice. This passage is Deuteronomistic in tone. In 1 Sam 4 we see another of the functions of the priests of Shiloh: they were attendants (like the boy Samuel who may have been a priest) who looked after the ark of Yahweh. The ark was a mobile sanctuary in its own right, since as Yahweh is present with the ark, the place where it is to be found is the place where God and humanity meet. The Israelites are afraid of the Philistines, and send off to Shiloh for the ark which is brought with the two sons of Eli in attendance. We are not told that they, the priests, carried the ark; in fact, the narrative suggests that they did not: it was the men of Israel who brought it (4:4a). The second half of the verse depicts Hophni and Phinehas in attendance on the ark. We do not know whether the priests of Dan would have taken the bull image into battle as a sign of Yahweh's presence, but we have to remain open to the possibility that they did. The next reference of significance for us is in 1 Sam 14:3 where we find Ahijah alongside the Hebrew army at Migron near Gibeah. We are not told which shrine he was from, but, by virtue of the fact that he was carrying an ephod, one of the normal pieces of sacred furniture, we may assume that he came from one, since ephods were housed in a sanctuary. It is possible that he and his family lived in Nob, which is where the next priests in the narrative are based.35 Later on in the chapter he takes an oracle, putting his hand into the ephod (if we follow the LXX), but is asked to remove it when the Philistines threaten to attack (14:18-19). Davies, however, argues for the MT over the LXX, suggesting that the word ~n2N was substituted for ]1~1N throughout 1 Samuel, and a similar view was advanced by Arnold.36 These views are unlikely, as we shall see later.37 Ahijah's sole function in the narrative is to take the oracle. There is no sacrifice involved (pace Cryer38). Later on in the chapter (vv. 36-37), the priest is again referred to, and, again, he is seen only as an oracular attendant, suggesting to the king that an oracle should be taken. As far as analogies with Dan are concerned, we have no historical information as to whether its priests carried the ephod into battle, and consulted it there, although since the evidence of the books of Samuel is that this was one of the major functions of the priest, it is possible that this too would have been characteristic of the Danite priests. In 21:2 we encounter Ahimelech, the priest of Nob. In v. 10 we are told that Goliath's sword is kept behind the ephod. This again is evidence that each shrine had a priest and an ephod. It appears from 22:13,15 that Ahimelech had taken an oracle for David, although this is not mentioned in ch. 21. Therefore, it seems likely that whoever wrote the accounts assumed that the only reason for David's 35. For Elides at Nob, see D. G. Schley, Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History (JSOTSup 63; Sheffield, 1989), 148-50. 36. P. R. Davies, "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?," J7SNS 26 (1975): 81-87 (86); cf. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, 16. 37. See below, p. 114. 38. F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment (JSOTSup 142; Sheffield, 1994), 283.

98

Sacred Dan

having visited the shrine was to obtain an oracle, and that this is the priest's major function, as is also the case in 1 Sam 23. As for the remainder of the Hebrew Bible, priests are mentioned mainly as civil servants. And while it is true that they continued to have a very important cultic role, this is barely mentioned in the texts as we have them,39 and this material provides next to nothing in our quest for parallels to what we have seen in the Danite story. The development of priests as effectively royal administrators, however, appears to have affected both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. So in Amos 7:10-13 we see Amaziah the priest of Bethel as senior civil servant sending messages directly to the king. Similarly Hosea's blistering attacks on priests as civic leaders in 4:4-10; 5:1; and 6:9 shows that they were heavily involved in the politics of the Northern Kingdom as its history drew to a close. If this was true in 721, then it was almost certainly true of 732 when Dan itself fell to the Assyrians: its priests were surely also very senior royal administrators at one of the great national shrines. Before we reach a conclusion, perhaps a word should be said about the epigraphic evidence. Davies lists only four occurrences of the word fro in the Hebrew inscriptions.40 These are a late eighth-century ivory pomegranate of unknown provenance bearing the words D3!"D ETTp n[irr fl]^^, presumably as a mark of ownership (99.001); two seals, again of unknown provenance (100.323 and 100.734), the first of which is from the second half of the eighth century, and the other from a few decades later; and a mid-fourth-century coin from Judah with the inscription "Jonatha[n] the priest" (106.049). The pomegranate is thought to be a mace head, but we do not know its precise function. 100.323 reads ]HD "INT, which may provide us with further evidence for a priest being attached to a specific place. In general, however, this evidence is disappointing and, short of more inscriptions from Tel Dan, must remain very much an indirect source of information for cultic life at Dan through the ages. In conclusion, we can say that there is strong evidence from the Hebrew texts to support the picture we have in the Danite legend. As for the Danite priesthood, we have found further evidence that can be used to help us understand their functions. As well as the points listed above, it is possible that there was a development in their functions from the time in which the Danite legend (in the premonarchical period) is set to the time that it was written down (in the aftermath of the Assyrian invasions). With this in mind, we can conjecturally put forward the following points: a. Whereas in the early period the priests of Dan were probably analogous with the priesthood of Shiloh, where the priests were simply cultic attendants, at later times they would have become royal functionaries, responsible directly to the king for the sanctuary, and members of the upper classes in the same way as those of Bethel or Jerusalem.

39. For details of the subsequent development of Hebrew priests, see Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 87-97. 40. AHI, 383.

3. Priests in the Danite Story b.

c. d.

99

Like the priests of Shiloh who carried the ark, it is possible that at all periods they may have carried the sacred bull image into battle as a symbol of the presence of Yahweh. In common with other priests, they may well have been responsible for taking oracles on the battlefield, or at least before a battle. In early times they would probably not have been exclusively responsible for sacrifice, but it seems likely that later this would have become one of their most important functions, and would eventually become peculiar to them. This process probably began with the influx of cultic officials which would almost certainly have accompanied the beginning of royal patronage of the shrine, and the gradual change in the tribal and social structures of Israel. This may also have been the case with Jerusalem.41 4. The Danite Priesthood and the Ancient Near East

We must now examine the material relating to non-Israelite priests to see whether it can provide any evidence to show how typical the priests of Dan were when compared with ancient Near Eastern priests in general. a. Aramean and Phoenician Priests The Aramaic evidence is unhelpful. It is comprised solely of epitaphs (KAI225, 226,228,239,246) that date from the seventh century BCE into the first centuries of the Common Era. It thus contains little material which may be analogous to the situation at royal Dan other than the fact that priests were of sufficiently high status to warrant expensive epitaphs. The majority of the Punic and Phoenician references to priests are, like the Aramaic references, found in the context of epitaphs. All we can ascertain from these is that kings were called "priests." We are, unfortunately, not told in what way they were priests, whether they fulfilled specifically religious functions analogous to the kings of Israel, or whether this was simply a title which implied that the king was in a special relationship with his patron deity. There is, however, evidence in the Phoenician and Punic material that the priest was specifically responsible for his shrine. KAI 32, for example, from 341 BCE Kition, is the dedication plaque of an altar endowed by a priest. Other examples include KA165, an undated Sardinian building inscription where two priests, one of whom is a DDH3 D~l, and the other a priest from Sidon, are mentioned. KAI72B, of uncertain date from Ibiza, refers to a building constructed as a vow by a priest. This shows that in Phoenician and Punic culture there existed the same sort of close link between priest and sanctuary for which we found evidence for the Hebrew Bible. Cody points out that the D]i"Q 3~l mentioned in both KAI 65 and KAI 59—a third-century BCE epitaph—suggests that there was a structured priesthood with a high priest at the top.42 In the undated KAI 95 from 41. 42.

Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 12-13. Ibid., 21.

100

Sacred Dan

Carthage we even have a female high priest (DDHD D~l). Donner and Rollig comment that the title is masculine to avoid the form ro~l, the title of a goddess.43 Once again we can have an idea of the economic circumstances of the priest in the West Semitic world, and presumably the priesthood of royal Dan would also have been sufficiently wealthy to support their sanctuary properly, as was also the case with Jerusalem. There is, however, little evidence for female priests in Israel, at least in Yahwistic shrines like Dan, although this cannot be ruled out completely. One of the most interesting inscriptions is the Punic tariff of fees for various sacrifices, KAI69, from late third-century BCE Marseilles. This may provide a good analogy for the later royal shrine of Dan which, like Marseilles, would have been an important economic and religious centre. We are here told of a system where the priests were paid a certain amount per offering. Thus line 3 reads in»3 10mtD0'«pD DDmb bbD DbtDDN HU1H D« bbD *fx&, which one might render "In the case of an ox, for a whole burnt offering or a sin offering [?] or an offering of substitution [?] to the priests ten pieces of silver for each one." The next line goes on to tell us what the priests receive for each of the offerings in detail, and then has the words 1«en nrwi DQUSm cnbtOTl mun pi FQTn bmb, "But the skin and the ribs [?] and the feet and the rest of the flesh belong to the offerer." It is uncertain what the PQTn bin did during the course of the sacrifice. Was he the one who did the actual sacrifice like Elkanah in 1 Sam 1:3—4, or was he simply the one on whose behalf the sacrifice was made? This problem can be partially resolved by line 15, which contains instructions on the offering of the poor, and includes the words bl mr 2?N mi bin. This implies that it was in fact the poor man who sacrificed for himself at the shrine, and the line goes on to say that the attendant priests were not entitled to any part of the sacrificed animal. Hoftijzer and Jongeling translate nmn bin as "person offering the sacrifice," as opposed to KAI 120.2 where niznn Dbty bin is probably the title of a religious functionary.44 There is another reference to a sacrifice not performed by a priest in line 16. The cultic instructions from Marseilles are paralleled by a find of similar date found in the ruins of Carthage (KAI 74). In line 8 of this inscription, some people have found a reference to a priest carrying the offering to the deity, thus Rosenthai: "[For any substitute offering whjich he shall have to carry to the God, the priest shall have necks and shoulder joints" (ANET, 657). Despite this, however, the text is not really clear enough to be certain, p nb« HDD DQIT E?[K niriJt bin] [...nblTJl n~l!ip frnb could just as easily have an impersonal subject, where frnb is merely a dative, and not the subject, thus: "For any substitute offering which is offered [cf. KAI3.19] before the God, the priest receives...." Carthage also would have been a royal cultic centre. 43. KAI 2:105. 44. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (2 vols.; Leiden, 1995), 1:183. An expression with the same meaning (EN.SISKUR = "lord of the offering") referring to the person on whose behalf the offering was made has been found as a Sumerogram in the Hittite portion of Hittite-Hurrian bilingual texts from Boghazkoy (according to Professor G. Wilhelm, oral communication).

3. Priests in the Danite Story

101

In the Phoenician and Punic material there is also a set of references to a group of "sacrificers." In KAI37, dated to the fourth to third century, there is mention of two DFQT (A9) who are paid for their services, and there are some "young women" mentioned in connection with a sacrifice (B9). Of the latter, Gibson suggests they were cultic prostitutes paralleling the male cultic prostitutes found in the following line.45 Although Donner and Rollig fail to mention it when dealing with this inscription, there is some evidence that the idea of a sacrificer was borrowed from the Roman idea of a "flamen." This is made explicit in the later Punic and Latin bilingual inscriptions KAI 120,121,126. Donner and Rollig also compare KAI 62, which is Punic only.46 Finally, there is the Karatepe inscription (KAI 26), dated ca. 720, which mentions various sacrifices, but nowhere refers to a priest. Thus, from the Phoenician and Punic epigraphic material we have a picture which complements that which we have found in the Hebrew Bible:47 1. Priests are not primarily associated with the offering of sacrifices. 2. They were concerned for their shrines. 3. They appear to have been attached to them. 4. They had a right to parts of the sacrificial victims. 5. They were wealthy members of the upper classes. A word needs to be said about the use of Punic parallels to the ancient Hebrew texts. Unlike Israel, the Phoenicians seem to have had few cultic upheavals. This is reflected in their cultic texts where a consistent picture emerges down to the period of Roman influence in Carthage, and continues to a certain degree after that. Their culture was also relatively homogeneous. All this, combined with the conservative nature of religion in general, suggests that it is legitimate to use the Punic material as long as care is taken not to base arguments exclusively on the later texts where Roman influence, even in the cult, cannot be ruled out entirely. Silius Italicus (ca. 26-101 CE) refers in Book 3 of his epic poemPunica to an oath taken by Hannibal to Hercules (Melqart) of Gades (now Cadiz). In so doing, he gives a description of the temple and its priesthood. The priests are dressed in linen and are portrayed offering incense (lines 24-26). But it is not certain how accurate his description was, or whether he had any first-hand knowledge of Semitic sanctuaries. b. Priests from Northern Syria The Ugaritic material, in contrast to the Phoenician, is of less use for our present purposes. Cody's treatment of the Ugaritic material48 is based on the views of 45. 7557,3:131. 46. KAI2-.U1. 47. Cf. B. Peckham, "Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 79-99 (88): "The religious traditions incorporated in the inscriptions of the Phoenicians and their dominions are analogous to those preserved in the Old Testament." 48. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 19-20.

102

Sacred Dan

Gordon, which are at times conjectural in the extreme, and have not been borne out by subsequent research. In the ritual texts, priests, or at least khnm, are not mentioned at all. Most of the ritual texts consist of lists of offerings made to specific deities, but we are simply never told how they were offered or who offered them. There are, nevertheless, cultic officials mentioned in the texts, the most common among them being the ins Urn. De Tarragon comments that, "There is no exact translation for ins Urn. It simply refers to religious functionaries."49 It is not entirely clear what this class of religious functionary did. De Tarragon also goes on to mention the khnm. He says they are almost as common as the ins Urn, but they are never mentioned in ritual texts. "Priests [sic] are mentioned in administrative lists amongst other occupational categories which are far from being religious," and also, "Since the priests are not mentioned in any of the rituals, it is not possible to ascertain their role in the cult."50 Associated with the khnm were the qdsm. De Tarragon51 suggests that they were called this because they are associated with the sanctuary qds/mqds. In the literary texts the only priest mentioned is Elimelek who is described (KTU 1.6.6.54-55) as rb /khnm rb nqdm. Scholars have noted that the word nqdm may also appear in Amos 1:1,52 Tarragon suggests that this refers to a class of administrators.53 It is possible, however, that the Ugaritic texts give us information about the non-cultic functions of the Hebrew priests of a royal sanctuary like Dan. They would have been involved in the teaching and handing down of the religious tradition of the city. However, whether there was any great literary tradition at the sanctuary of Dan is uncertain, despite Goulder's protestations that most of the Hebrew Bible was redacted by its priests.54 Nevertheless, it is almost certain that if there was literary activity at Dan, the priests, like those of Ugarit or Jerusalem, would have had a hand in it. At the installation of the priestess of Baal at Emar there are some indications that sacrifices were made. It is not clear who sacrificed what, and even the details of the ritual are unclear: for example, we find the use of the rather nebulous verb sakanu ("to place") with an impersonal subject,55 although it is apparent that both meat and bread were offered.56 As in Ugarit, the writers were concerned to ensure that the ritual was carried out in an orderly fashion, but were not writing for 49. De Tarragon, Le Culte a Ugarit, 132: "Aucune traduction precise ne peut etre donnee a inS Urn. II s'agit seulement de personnel du culte..." (my translation above). 50. Ibid., 134: "Des pretres [sic] sont nommes dans les listes administratives parmi d'autres categories professionelles qui sont loin d'etre religieuses"; "Puisque les pretres ne sont mentionnes dans aucun rituel, il n'est pas possible de preciser leur role dans le culte" (my translation above). 51. Ibid., 141. 52. Cf., e.g., CML, 81. 53. De Tarragon, Le Culte a Ugarit, 135. 54. See, for example, Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons ofKorah, 82-83. 55. D. E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar (HSM; Atlanta, 1992), 10.4, 12.11, etc. 56. Ibid., 138. Interestingly, Lev 8:22-29 also mentions sacrifices of both meat and bread.

3. Priests in the Danite Story

\ 03

posterity. At Emar it should be noted that the priestess was, like the Hebrew priests, attached to her shrine. She was in fact head of the divine household.57 As well as the epigraphic evidence, we also have secondary evidence for the cult in Syria from Classical authors.58 Lucian of Samosata (ca. 115-ca. 200 CE), in his De Syria Dea, describes the temple personnel in Hierapolis in paragraph 42: "They appoint innumerable priests, some of whom slaughter the victims (TGOV oi UEV rot ipr)ia a<}>6c£ou5iv), and some bear the libations, and some are called firebearers and some altar priests. When I was there, more than three hundred would assemble for the sacrifice."59 Thus it does appear that priests would slay the victims (although this may be an indication of Roman influence), but whether the Syrians would have regarded them as priests (D3!"D) is another matter entirely, especially since these cultic officials were divided into various different groups, all headed by a high priest. c. Assyrian and Babylonian Priests In Mesopotamia the king was the most important cultic official. Since he was the "son" or "image" of the god, he was considered to be the mediator par excellence between humanity and the divine. For the entire duration of the Mesopotamian civilisation, he retained certain cultic functions, although these were mainly at important occasions.60 As we have seen, this may also have been the case at Dan. As well as the monarch there were other types of cultic official, some of whom may be referred to as priests. The classic Akkadian word for "priest" is s/sangu, but, as van Driel points out,61 it is not clear what such a priest did, although in the royal cult of Assyria he appears in attendance on the king while the latter was performing his sacred functions. It is possible that the sangu may also in normal circumstances have been in some senses a mediator between the deity and worshipper. It is also possible that the sangu may have been an administrative official, but once again this is not certain.62 (Von Soden, however, notes that "In Old Assyrian documents we find instead of sangu the kummm."63) There were other classes of cultic official, at least in Babylon, who performed various functions. As well as the scwgw-priests, there were officials responsible for the liturgy, purifiers, washers, anointers, singers, diviners, and so on.64 These posts were hereditary, and members of both sexes could be cultic officials.65 These texts are possibly analogous with royal Dan. When the king was in residence at his royal sanctuary, it is likely that the priests would have served merely as his attendants (cf. 1 Kgs 8, where Solomon is the celebrant and the 57. Fleming, The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar, 83, 192-93. 58. I am grateful to Dr John Day for the Classical references. 59. Cf. A. M. Harmon, ed., Lucian: "De Syria Dea," in Lucian: Works (8 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass., 1925), 4:396-97, §42. 60. J. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne (Mythes et Religions 30; Paris, 1952), 111. 61. G. Van Driel, The Cult ofAssur (Leiden, 1969), 175. 62. Ibid., 176. 63. W. von Soden, The Ancient Orient (Grand Rapids, 1994), 194. 64. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 12. 65. Ibid., 111.

104

Sacred Dan

priests have a very subsidiary role). As I noted above, the sangu's normal function may have been as the mediator between the human and the divine, and at all stages of the Israelite cult this appears to have been the major function of the Hebrew priests. As well as the royal priests of places like Dan and Bethel, at these larger shrines it is possible that there would have been extra cultic functionaries who would have acted like the "levites" of later Jerusalem. I have already commented that the priesthood of the greater shrines would have been hereditary, but of the lesser functionaries we know very little, although, if the analogy of later Jerusalem holds true, the Levites at least passed their cultic functions down the generations. Cody66 is interested in the bdru, a diviner. A man could be both a bdru and a sangu at the same time, but the functions were kept separate. The bdru appears to have been a clairvoyant whose messages are referred to as tertu (a formation from *taw'irtum, a verbal noun from the root wV), which Cody suggests (improbably) is cognate to the Hebrew i~mn. He suggests that the word may have entered Hebrew from Canaan (where some Mesopotamian forms of divination were known), and came to be used in a new sense required by the Hebrews, since Cody states that the primitive Hebrew priest did not practise this kind of divination. He concludes that the bdru was closer to the Hebrew nN~l or t^HD than the "priest," although in common with the ]rn, the Mesopotamian bdru was a member of the religious establishment. Of the two major priestly activities which Bottero67 notes—prayer and the tending of the god—only the latter need concern us here. We have already looked at the formal ritual tending of the god, and need not discuss it here. To the Babylonian mind the reason for human existence was to "Install the gods in a house which pleased their heart."68 A direct consequence of this was that sacrifices, in contrast to Israel, were seen as part of the act of tending the god (although cf. Ps 50). An example may be found in the Myth of Erra, where Erra, the god of war and plague, is criticized by the other gods: "You have put to death the en-priest who made the takllmu-offerings promptly."69 Von Soden in AHw translates taklimu as "show-sacrifice" ("Schauopfer").70 The idea of sacrifice as food is also found in Gilgamesh 11.156, where Utnapishtim (who is not a priest) offers sacrifice and the gods are so pleased that they crowd around his offering like flies.71 The concept of sacrifices as food of the gods was deeply rooted in the Mesopotamian mind; as von Soden says, "It is notable that animal sacrifices were brought on occasion as holocausts only in Assyria in the first millennium; otherwise, animal sacrifices were offered only for slaughter."72 Thus, as Bottero notes, when worshippers left some jewel or money or even food at the temples these 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 23-25. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 115. Quoted in Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 108. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 302. AHw, 1307. ANET, 95; Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 114 Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 188.

3. Priests in the Danite Story

105

"sacrifices" were seen as being left for the personal use of the gods, and were regarded as useful presents to them.73 On the other hand, while it is probable that the Hebrews did not appear to regard themselves as feeding Yahweh, one of the most important functions of their priests would have been to guard the sacred objects, like the bull image of Dan, and, as we have seen, there seems to have been little difference between this and the anthropomorphic Mesopotamian statue—both were vehicles of divine presence. There are, nevertheless, rare accounts of expiation sacrifices from ancient Mesopotamia.74 These appear to have been akin to substitution rites,75 where the animal was sent to death in the place of the man on whose behalf the priest was offering the sacrifice. Such a rite is described in the Akitu festival rites from Babylon written down in the Seleucid period.76 In this case, a lamb is used for the kuppuru ritual. At the climax of the ritual, the Akkadian reads: (amil)nas patri isassi-ma qaqqad immeri i-bat-taq-ma,11 "He [the masmasu priest] calls the carrier of the knife, and he strikes off the head of the lamb." Here, as my translation suggests, it is not the priest himself who sacrifices; rather, there is a special official who wields the knife. However, as the text goes on to explain, both priest and sacrificer remain in the open country (ina sen}. In another ritual (ANET, 339), this time from Uruk, and again written down, if not composed, in the Seleucid period, we are told of the rite of a propitiation offering: arki-su2riksua-naili-su u (d)istari-su tar-kas (immer)niqutanaq-ki™ "After this you will prepare two preparations for his god and his goddess, a (lamb) offering you shall offer." Once again, the text is not very clear, but appears to be addressed to a priest. If this is so, this is one of the few pieces of direct evidence that we have found so far for a Semitic priest sacrificing. The rite is, however, rare, and may be uncharacteristic of Mesopotamian religion. Indeed, Oppenheim suggests that one of the major differences that separates the concept of sacrifice of the Hebrew and Mesopotamian cultures is that what he describes as the "blood consciousness" is missing from Mesopotamian thought.79 It is, of course, possible that the Akkadian-speakers borrowed their idea of priesthood from the Sumerians. We know little about the Sumerian priests other than their official names. The Sumerian word for the administrative head of a

73. Bottero, La Religion Babyhnienne, 118. 74. Ibid., 118-19. 75. Cf. also von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 189. 76. Cf.ANET, 333. 77. Text in F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris, 1921), 140.353. 78. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 36.17. 79. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 192. For the similar ideas of the Hittites, see Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 28-30. W. W. Hallo, "The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and Israel," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 3-13 (10-11) suggests that in both Israel and Mesopotamia sacrifice was originally concerned with the sanctification of the eating process, but later diverged into the traditions we find in the extant texts.

106

Sacred Dan

temple was, however, sanga.*0 Von Soden even suggests the word was preSumerian.81 Bottero points out that many of the other priestly titles were either Sumerian or had been translated from Sumerian.82 Nevertheless, it appears that the Semitic Akkadian-speakers preserved some of their own cultic traditions, and indeed some of the functions of their priests were similar to those of Hebrew priests: 1. The sangu's major function was to be a mediator between god and humanity. In both Mesopotamia and Israel the king was probably the person who fulfilled this role par excellence (cf. Ps 45), but ordinary people would have gained access to the deity through priests. It is probable that at Dan the king was involved in cultic events of national importance (cf. 1 Kgs 13:1), but ordinary religious life would have been left to its priesthood. 2. Part of this function was the taking of oracles. As we have seen, this was the most characteristic function of the ancient Israelite priest, and, while extispicy in Mesopotamia was a highly specialized art, there was some connection between it and the priest. 3. In the extant texts, one of the most important functions of the sangu was that of an administrator. However, it should be noted that most of these texts are royal administrative documents, and so their importance as administrators may have been exaggerated. Nevertheless, this was also an important function of the Danite priest at the time of the monarchy. 4. On the rare occasions when sacrifice was offered in Mesopotamia, priests did not generally perform the ritual of slaughter. It is possibly significant that sacrifices are known mainly from Assyria which was less influenced by Sumer and which was, therefore, probably closer to ancient Semitic practices. d. Egyptian Priests In Egypt we find fewer analogies with the Danite priesthood. Egyptian society was at least in theory based totally around the Pharaoh who was the representative of the gods on earth, and as such he alone was responsible for the maintenance of their cults. Sauneron83 suggests that at a very early stage of the Egyptian culture when the Nile Valley was ruled by various different princes and clan leaders, it would have been possible for the ruler to participate fully in religious ceremonies. However, after the conquest of the whole of Egypt, it was no longer possible for the Pharaoh to perform all these religious duties himself. Morenz, commenting on this aspect of Egyptian religious life, says, "For this reason the Egyptian priesthood in theory only represented the deified king. In practice it 80. S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago, 1963), 141. 81. Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 16. 82. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 111. For this issue see also H. W. F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (The Jordan Lectures 1978, London, 1978), 26. 83. Sauneron, Les pretres de I 'ancienne Egypte, 31; cf. also R. David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt (London, 2002), 199.

3. Priests in the Danite Story

107

developed as a result of a delegation by the king of his rights and duties."84 This contrasts directly with the picture of religious life we have from both Mesopotamia and Israel where the king continued to exercise cultic functions.85 Sauneron comments that the ritual texts from the Egyptian temples fail to mention priests.86 As far as sacrifices were concerned, the major reason for these was to provide food for the tables of the gods. Sauneron87 suggests that there was some religious symbolism in this, if only because the animals destined to be the food of the gods had to be chosen and killed in accordance with some religious norms. As we have seen in the previous chapter, given the nature of the Egyptian cult which involved the care of the image of the god, there was little reason for priests to be involved in a sacrificial cult like that of the Hebrews.88 It appears that there was not in most cases a permanent professional priesthood in Egypt, but that priests even at the largest shrines served either in rotation, or on an ad hoc basis, and that most priests had another profession.89 But whatever the case, all priests were in theory civil servants, performing the king's sacral duties for him, just as others in society fulfilled other aspects of the king's duties. This meant that despite the fact that priesthood was often hereditary, in most cases there was no great conflict between palace and temple.90 This was, however, not the case in the Third Intermediate Period—the time which corresponds with the monarchical period of the Hebrews.91 At this time, owing to weakness on the part of the kings, and growing ambition on the part of the priests of Amun at Thebes, the priests were effectively able to claim kingship in all but name in Upper Egypt, although they still acknowledged the formal overlordship of the pharaoh. The situation was compounded by the fact that at the same period, the high priesthood of Amun became a hereditary office. This tension between the priesthood of Amun and the royal house was only resolved when Pharaoh Smendes agreed that a daughter of the king would always marry the high priest at Thebes, so that all subsequent high priests were descended from the royal house. Eventually a high priest became heir apparent, and ascended the throne as Pharaoh Psusennes II (959-945), and so the theocracy of Thebes came to an end. 84. S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion (London, 1973), 100. 85. For the sacral duties of Hebrew kings, see Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 105-7. 86. Sauneron, Les pretres de I 'ancienne Egypte, 31. 87. Ibid., 70. 88. There is some evidence that in earlier times sacrifice was known. In the archaic period there is some evidence for human sacrifice, see David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 75. And in the Old Kingdom period blood sacrifices were apparently offered in cult of the sun-god, but in later periods there is no evidence for the practice, see David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 113. It is not clear whether or in what way priests were involved in this sacrificial cult, but given the fact that at every stage in Egypt's history priesthood went hand-in-hand with "secular" power, it is reasonable to assume that there was a "priestly" involvement in this cult. 89. David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 199-200. 90. Ibid., 200. 91. For details see David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 292-94.

108

Sacred Dan

Among the more significant parallels between the Egyptian and the Hebrew cult are the ways in which priests were regarded as servants of the king, to some extent responsible to him for the cult. It is likely, as we have seen, that, at least during the monarchical period, this would have been the case at Dan. But even in an earlier period, it is possible that the priest was seen as being responsible to the tribal leaders for the cult. However, there was among the Hebrews a dividing line between sacral and political leadership even if (as in Mediaeval Europe) the differences were not as clear-cut as they are today. By contrast with the situation in Egypt, it would appear that the Hebrews always had professional priests—if the Danite story is to be seen as having an ancient basis in fact, Jonathan ben Gershom is one such professional priest. Furthermore, the tendency for such priesthoods to become hereditary (or to be seen as hereditary) was more firmly fixed in the Hebrew psyche than in the Egyptian. Egyptian and Hebrew priests were of course both responsible for the general up-keep of the shrine, and in both cases there was a form of divination associated with the temple in which the priests would have participated. Although, whereas for Hebrew priests this was apparently practised in the temple itself, in Egypt the practice was associated with the regular ritual processions that were a part of Egyptian religious life. e. Hittite Priests Hittite religious life was an amalgam of different features: indigenous local cults flourished, but there was also a centralized cult based near Hattusas. The king of the Hittites assumed the title of high priest of the whole realm, and, in an annual progress around his kingdom, he himself celebrated the major festivals at the most important cultic centres.92 The priests were regarded as the servants of the gods and served them in their houses, the temples (ANET, 207). To this extent, they were similar to the priests of Mesopotamia,93 and were involved in sacrifice in as much as they had access to the temple.94 As in Israel, there was an expected level of ritual purity which a priest would have to attain (ANET, 207). As well as the sacrifices for the food of the gods (cf. ANET, 358, where, unfortunately, the details are obscure), in contrast to the general picture of the cult in Mesopotamia, there were also propitiatory offerings, offerings of firstfruits and of yearling animals. Gurney comments, however, that it is difficult to distinguish these from the feeding sacrifices.95 f. Pre-hlamic Arabian Priests Outside the time of ancient Israel, Cody compares two pre-Islamic Arabian cultic officials, the kdhin and the sddin96 (though he mentions neither date nor primary sources). He comments that, despite the linguistic similarity between the Arabic 92. Gurney, The Hittites, 109. Cf. also ANET, 394, where, in a negative confession, the Hittite king denies that he favoured one sanctuary over another. 93. Ibid., 124. 94. R. A. Labat et al., Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatiques (Le tresor spirituel de 1'humanite; Paris, 1970), 511. 95. Gumey, The Hittites, 125. 96. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 14-18.

3. Priests in the Danite Story

109

kdhin and the Hebrew ]I~Q, kdhin proves to be something of a false friend for understanding the Hebrew. It refers to a soothsayer who was also a clan leader and a wise man.97 It was rather the sddin who was the sanctuary attendant. Both groups, however, did accompany both the portable sanctuary and military expeditions.98 Neither was ordinarily responsible for sacrifice, which was normally performed by the head of the family, except at large gatherings where the sddin was responsible for it. The sddin was even responsible for the arrow oracle, the Arabic equivalent of the lot oracle.99 Cody sees no functional connection between the Arabic kdhin and the Hebrew ]1"O, but he suggests that the Arabs may have borrowed the word, but not all the ideas behind it, and applied it to a different cultic official.100 The sddin does provide a parallel for the Israelite priests, even if the connections between the two remain obscure. However, in Dan we are looking at a royal sanctuary, rather than the shrine of a permanently nomadic group. So, for this reason, there is no close analogy between the pre-Islamic Arabs and the Danites. 5. The Priests of Dan in their Near Eastern Context: Conclusions The priests of Dan no doubt were different in some respects from their contemporaries in other cultures, but in general, we can make come comparisons between them: 1. Sacrifice was not a function peculiar to most ancient Near Eastern priests, although they would in some way have been involved in those offered at sanctuaries. In many cases, especially in the Western Semitic environment, it appears that the clan leader would sacrifice at major festivals. Routine "feeding" sacrifices, where offered, would probably have been the responsibility of the priest as sanctuary guardian. There is no reason to suppose that the same was not true of the priests of Dan. 2. Like their neighbours, the priests of Dan were firmly attached to their home shrine. Here one of their tasks would have been the guarding of the sacred image. 3. Divination was a feature of many ancient Near Eastern priests. 4. In many cultures the priest seems to have been an intermediary between the deity and humanity. 5. In larger royal shrines like Dan, the priests were rich members of the upper classes, administrators of their sanctuaries, responsible to the king, and probably valued members of the royal council. 97. For a detailed discussion of the role of the kdhin which firmly equates it with the Hebrew nabi', see J. Pedersen, "The Role Played by Inspired Persons Among the Israelites and the Arabs," in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to T. H. Robinson (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh, 1950), 127-42(133-36). 98. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 15. 99. Ibid., 16. 100. Ibid., 18.

110 6.

Sacred Dan In many cultures the priests had a significant role in teaching both sacred tradition and local knowledge, and again, there is not reason why this would not have been the case with Dan. Indeed, the one piece of literature to have almost certainly come out of the royal shrine of Dan is in fact Judg 17-18, which at least purports to preserve ancient Danite traditions.

Chapter 4 DIVINATION IN THE DANITE STORY

We now have a clearer idea of the position of the priests of the shrine of Dan, and must next turn our attention to the sole function of the priest in our text: divination. For the purposes of this discussion, "divination" means any mechanical form of obtaining an oracle. In such cases the initiative is on the part of the worshipper—this is in opposition to techniques such as prophecy where the divine input is clearer. This is not to say that the worshipper may not have asked for some prophetic oracles, simply that the means of obtaining the answer differed. Methods of divination thus include the taking of lots, throwing of dice, the examination of animal entrails, and so on. Dream oracles and oracles of the summa alu type where natural phenomena or paranormal occurrences are interpreted as omens,1 fall outside the parameters of this chapter. The Hebrew words for "divination" are most often used in passages where its practice is condemned, and are rarely found in unambiguously positive or neutral passages. They are often rather obscure in meaning. Whereas Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic editors regard such practices as "foreign," Cryer cites the fact that the terms are not used in the ancient inscriptional material of "neighbouring" languages, and comes to the conclusion that the practices were indigenous to the Hebrews.2 However, the likelihood of finding a word like "necromancy" on an inscription is remote since such technical words are normally to be found in later phases of the languages. This evidence Cryer disregards since he wishes to concentrate on the earlier period.3 Perhaps it should be noted that the Danite legend, like other Hebrew accounts, does not contain any term for "divination"—it simply describes what happened. 1. Divination in the Danite Story The Danite Story itself is not overtly clear about the method used by the priest to obtain the oracle for the Danites. The account in 18:5-6 simply says, "And they said to him, 'Enquire of God please, so that we might know, will the course we 1. For the summa alu oracles, see Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 161-67; Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 219-21; Saggs, Encounter with theDivine, 132—35. 2. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 256-62. 3. Ibid., 256.

112

Sacred Dan

are pursuing be successful?" And the priest said to them, 'Go in peace: the course you are pursuing is pleasing to Yahweh.'"4 It is evidently assumed that the audience will be familiar with the technique used to take the oracle, so that in this tersest of narratives only the words used need be recorded. The narrator has, nevertheless, told us in advance what the oracular devices were. In 17:5 he has been at pains to list the various cultic objects which were necessary for the shrine: the bull image, the ephod and the teraphim. As this is the case, it is only natural to assume that the ephod at least was used to take this oracle, if not the teraphim as well.5 2. Ephods as Divinatory Devices Much has been written about the ephod, but I shall begin here with a clear summary of the evidence from the Hebrew Bible itself. There are several different types of ephod, all of them associated in some way with the sanctuary, some specifically with divination. a. The High-Priestly Ephod This type is found exclusively in the Torah, and all references there are to this type. It formed part of the high-priestly regalia. However, despite the detail given in, for example, Exod 28, no very clear picture emerges of its appearance, or of its significance. This may best be explained by the fact that everybody knew what the high priest's ephod was, so there was no need to describe it accurately. Exodus 28:30 mentions that the oracular Urim and Thummim were placed in a pocket of the ephod. But by the time of the Priestly writer, responsible for this part of Exodus, all priestly oracular functions had disappeared (cf. Ezra 2:63). The Tractate Sotah 48b of the Babylonian Talmud also has a reference to the Urim and Thummim, saying that their use stopped "when the first prophets died," namely, David, Samuel and Solomon. Josephus describes the ephod at length in Ant. 3.162-230, but attributes the oracular function, not to the Urim and Thummim, but to the precious stones which covered the breast-plate (Ant. 3.21530). He does not say how he thought they might have been used. A great deal of the discussion of the ephod has centred on the function and significance of the robe of the high priest. Meyers points out that the type of material from which the ephod was made was associated in the ancient Near East with either divinities or high officials.6 Oppenheim sees a parallel with Assyrian culture where the ritual clothing of the gods, which had been an important part in earlier Mesopotamian religion, was taken over and used as part of the regalia of the human sovereign at the same time. These ritual robes were often made of gold, but even if, as is the case with the Israelite high priest, they were not made

4. For this meaning of I"Q3, see BOB, 647, "under his eye and favourable regard." In this context it must mean something favourable, even though it sometimes has a more sinister meaning. 5. Cf. also Soggin, Judges, 272. 6. C. Meyers, "Ephod," ABD 2:550.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

113

entirely of gold, some was woven into the fabric.7 This, however, must remain solely an analogy, since the Akkadian epattu* is not found to describe the robes in these Assyrian texts, which prefer the more general nalbasu. Cryer suggests that these ritual robes which would have remained empty might have represented the deity at consultations (in this case extispicy).9 He goes on to suggest that the gold rosettes found at Megiddo, mentioned by Oppenheim,10 may have been sewn on to such an ephod." But in general, as far as the high-priestly ephod is concerned, divination was linked with it only in the most formal of ways. b. The Linen Ephod Some of the texts of the Former Prophets mention another type of ephod. This is also a priestly vestment, but, unlike the high-priestly robe, it is simple and made solely of linen. The boy Samuel is depicted wearing one when he serves at the shrine of Shiloh in 1 Sam 2:18. It seems to have been something which was worn around the waist, probably a loin-cloth. The term is contained in what appears to be a technical phrase: 13 115N "lian 1U3, "young noble girded with a linen ephod." This phrase has a deeper significance than at first appears. McCarter comments that the word 13 is used only of angelic or priestly vestments.12 Tidwell describes the ephod as the sole vestment of a priest of any age who was serving at the altar.13 Linen was the traditional fabric for priestly robes in various ancient Near Eastern cultures. In the Sumerian Lamentation over the Destruction ofUr from the Third Dynasty of Ur, the cultic officials are upbraided for not wearing linen.14 In Enki and the World Order, the incantation priests are called "linen wearers."15 Second Samuel 6:14 describes the use of a linen ephod by the non-priest David (unless, that is, one regards David as priest-king like Melchizedek; cf. Ps 110:4). Cryer tentatively connects the ephod David is depicted as wearing here with his ideas about the similarity between the ephod and the Assyrian nalbasu, saying that this might be an example of the wearing of such a royal robe by an Israelite.16 He ignores the word 13, "linen," and misses the point of the story. This suggestion can thus be safely discounted. In v. 20, we are given an indication of how much of the priest the linen ephod was expected to cover. Presumably, as a vestment, the more dignified movements of the priest would not make this a problem; David's whirling dance is, however, another matter. 7. Cf. A. L. Oppenheim, "The Golden Garments of the Gods," JNES 8 (1949): 172-93 (172, 176). 8. See below, pp. 117-18. 9. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 280. Cf. also J. S. Bray, Review of Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment, FT 46 (1996): 566-67. 10. Oppenheim, "The Golden Garments of the Gods," 188. 11. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 281. 12. McCarter, / Samuel, 237. 13. N. L. Tidwell, "The Linen Ephod," FT24 (1974): 505-7 (507). 14. Kramer, The Sumerians, 143. 15. Ibid., 177. 16. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 281.

114

Sacred Dan

c. The Oracular Priestly Ephod Second Samuel 2:28 is the first clear example of another type of ephod. In this oracle directed against the house of Eli the word refers to something other than a linen loin-cloth like that of Samuel. We are told that one of the priest's functions was to carry an ephod before Yahweh. The NRSV obscures this point by incorrectly translating "to wear an ephod." NEQ is never used to mean "to wear." It means rather "to lift," "to carry," or even "to take": its semantic range is not the same as the French porter or the German tragen.17 Whereas the linen ephod was not the exclusive property of the most important priest, this seems to be the case here. Here "PSN probably means a portable oracle small enough to be carried by one person. It should be noted that the Versions recognize that N2JD means "to bear." LXX here translating with cupeii/, "to lift," and transliterating the word T1SN as it does also in 1 Sam 14. The ephod as a portable oracle can be seen in 1 Sam 14:3. Here it is carried into battle by Ahijah, and that is the last we hear of it in the MT. However, in the LXX it re-appears twice at v. 18, where the MT mentions the ark. The first occurrence is common to all manuscripts. In the second it is replaced by the ark in Hebrew Manuscripts A dp q t and 74. McCarter18 and others accept the LXX here, and it is certainly the most obvious reading. The ephod has been carried into the field by Ahijah, but in the MT he is asked to bring the ark which has not been mentioned at all and, in the context of the book, is in Qiryath Yearim (7:1). Admittedly, the MT has the lectio difficilior, but the sense of the LXX is much better, and is, therefore, preferable, especially since this would be the sole reference in the Hebrew Bible to the ark as an oracular device. If this emendation is accepted, we have a hint at the use of the ephod: it is a receptacle for the sacred lots into which the priest puts his hand to draw out whichever his hand was directed to first. This is seen in practice in v. 41, where a choice between the leaders and the people is indicated by either Urim or Thummim. Arnold disputes this. For him, there was more than one ark, not just the one mentioned in the Ark Narrative.19 He sees this text as evidence for its use: it was a box that was used for divination. He states that T1SN in fact refers exclusively to a garment, and is thus not appropriate in this context.20 In the majority of cases the embarrassing "ark" was, according to this view, replaced by the word "ephod" since it was a central tenet of Deuteronomistic theology that there was only one ark. Arnold carefully goes through all the texts which mention the ark to prove that there were many of them. Unfortunately, he was too quick to regard anything inconvenient as a later gloss. For example, in his treatment of 2 Sam 6, which he regards as a test case, all verses which mention miT jTlK are excised for no good reason,21 and thus the case is not proven. Even the reference to the 17. Oxford, 18. 19. 20. 21.

S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2d ed.; 1913), 37: " 'to bear,—not, to wear,—the ephod before me.' So always." McCarter, / Samuel, 237. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, 23. Ibid., 16. Ibid., 41-42.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

115

ephod in the Danite story is interpreted as referring to an ark;22 but surely the redactors would not have altered a text which contained a reference to a heterodox ark(!), and replaced it with a reference to a relatively harmless ephod. Davies also disagrees with this emendation of 1 Sam 14:3, arguing that it is the MT which is more likely and the LXX which is difficult to explain(!).23 He suggests rather that the ark has been replaced by the ephod, since the latter appears as soon as the ark leaves the story, and the two are only found in conjunction in this story. The similarities between the two which make him suspicious are that they are both in the possession of the priesthood of Shiloh, that they are both carried and that they are both used in battle: "There is nothing about the ephod which would be out of place applied to the ark."24 The ark, nevertheless, is never used as a divinatory device, neither was it carried in the hand like the ephod (1 Sam 23:6). Further references to "ephod" in 1 Samuel may be to this portable oracle. 21:10 mentions an ephod (thus 4QSamb and possibly LXX) or the ephod (MT) behind which Goliath's sword had been placed at the shrine of Nob. Here a solid object would be more appropriate to the context than a garment. In 22:18 we have an occurrence of 1311SK NKE which appears to contradict what I have said above. The Versions, however, help to clarify the picture, "Q is missing in LXX (except Origen, A c x), and Old Latin manuscripts 93 and 94. It appears that the phrase in the MT has been assimilated to the usage in other places, and the best solution seems to be a deletion of ~Q from the MT. S. R. Driver is one of the few commentators who also makes this emendation.25 The difficulty is most noticeable with Origen whose insertion of "linen" forces him to translate the MT literally as "those who lifted linen ephods"! My emendation is strongly supported by the fact that in 23:6 Abiathar escapes from the carnage carrying an ephod in his hand. This is promptly used to give an oracle (v. 9), as is also the case in 30:7. Of the ephods we have discussed, it is this oracular ephod which seems to be the one we find in the Danite story. However, Gideon's ephod in Judg 8 must also be taken into account before a final decision can be made. d. Gideon's Ephod In Judg 8:27, Gideon, having defeated the Midianites, makes an ephod from their golden earrings. This he sets up in Ophrah. The narrative of Judg 8:24-35 is, nevertheless, not as straightforward as a preliminary reading might suggest. Earrings (D^QT]) are also mentioned in the story of Jacob's burying of cultic objects in Gen 35:4: "And they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which were in their hand, and the earrings which were in their ears, and Jacob buried them under the terebinth which is near Shechem." This already implies that the earrings were cultic objects in their own right. Furthermore, Hallo has pointed out that earrings were typical of cultic statues from neo-Sumerian times, and that an 22. 23. 24. 25.

Ibid., 105. Davies, "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?," 82. Ibid., 86. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 182.

116

Sacred Dan

earring has been found with an inscription dedicating it to a goddess from the same period.26 Whether the narrator of this story knew about the cultic significance of the earrings is uncertain, but it is possible that the editor's negative redaction is directed not against the ephod per se, but at what it was made of. Such pagan cultic objects were regarded as inappropriate even when melted down and incorporated into Hebrew cultic paraphernalia. This also appears to be the implication behind Exod 32:2,3, where earrings go to make the golden calf—thus the image is even more execrable. Genesis 35:4 and Exod 32:2, 3 are all traditionally regarded as coming from the Northern Elohistic source, and Gideon too is a Northerner. Possibly the culturally more cosmopolitan Northerners knew that earrings could be regarded as cultic objects, whereas no negative implication is ever attached to them in Southern writings. If we return to Judg 8, the narrative is not clear about exactly what the Israelites were worshipping: Was it the ephod (v. 27), or was it "the Baals" (v. 33)? Certain features of the ephod of Gideon, however, become clear from this narrative. It was made from gold and was quite heavy, Moore suggests about seventy pounds.27 It was a cultic object, and may have been an object of worship, although this is not clear from the text: the Deuteronomistic editor would not have felt kindly disposed to this shrine, and an attack on its central cultic object would almost certainly be in order. Haran lists the ephod among the standard fixtures of a temple, making the distinction between the ephod and the ephod robe.28 Soggin is exceptionally non-committal.29 Davies hypothesizes yet another type of ephod, of which he says, "It was not a garment, as its constituent materials show."30 He suggests that this was the type mentioned in the Danite legend.31 This is possible, although it would seem much more logical to link both these objects with the priestly oracular ephod of Samuel, even if, given its weight, it might not seem quite as portable as other examples. From this discussion, it would appear that we have three basic types of ephod—the linen ephod and the priestly oracular ephod in the pre-exilic texts, and the high-priestly ephod in the later texts. It is possible that there may have been a development from one to another. This may account for the different types, at least in part. De Vaux suggests that the high priest's ephod was a later and more elaborate form of the linen ephod.32 If this is correct, it might be the case that the breast-plate of his ephod was a stylized survival of the older divinatory ephod. If Ezra 2:63 is taken into account, we may infer that the later high priests had forgotten how to obtain oracles using the sacred lots, or at least had 26. W. W. Hallo, "Cult Statue and Divine Image," in Scripture in Context II(ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind., 1983), 1-17 (16-17). 27. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 232. 28. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 371. 29. Soggin, Judges, 159-60. 30. Davies, "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?," 84. 31. Ibid., 84. 32. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 350.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

117

ceased to use them. From there it is an easy step to the jewel-encrusted breastplate, which instead of being carried in the hand in front of the priest, had become fixed to the robe worn underneath. It is possible that the word T1SN originally meant "covering," since in Isa 30:22 the feminine form mSN* is used in parallel to "IDiJ, which means "metal plating."33 This word might easily refer to both a simple covering for the priest— the "linen ephod"—and a covering or case for the oracular devices, which is always (if my emendation of 1 Sam 22:18 is correct) called simply "the ephod." In the pre-exilic period there was, therefore, no confusion between them since different terminology was used for each. Confusion probably arose only after the reforms of Josiah and the Exile when simple country priests had ceased to exist, and the only ones who were left were the priests of the royal sanctuary. There may therefore have been an assimilation between the linen ephod and the oracular ephod, both of which went into making the robes of the quasi-royal, postexilic high priest. e. The Ephod in the Ancient Near East There is a little evidence for the ephod in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, but it is not certain how much can be validly deduced from this. Albright claimed to have found the word in the Ugaritic mythological texts at KTU1.5.1.5, where he thought there was a reference to the ephod of the goddess Anat: ttkh ttrp smm krs 'ipdk, which he translated, "The heavens will tear away and will sag like the fastening of your ephod."34 Most modern scholars, however, prefer to take 'ipdk as a verb with a pronominal suffix, thus, "I will crush you in pieces," or, "I will tear thee into pieces."35 In another work, Albright finds further evidence in the Ugaritic material for his translation, where he renders, "a woman's robe of hy[r]ax skin, an ephod," which he explains as an outer garment somewhat like a sari wound around the body leaving one arm free.36 Examination of the text (KTU4.215 = PRUll. 152), however, shows that little can deduced from it. It is described by Virolleaud as, "fragment of the inventory of a house or a residence: furniture and various objects" ("Fragment d'inventoire d'une maison ou d'un domaine: meubles et objets divers..."). The word which precedes the object in question is the unknown mdtbn, the word after is destroyed, and the next clear word is mskbt, "bed." Thus, while the word may have been known in Ugarit, it sheds no light on the Hebrew usage, unless, of course, it refers to a cover for a bed. In Akkadian a word epattu is attested, and, since this means a costly garment, this may well be cognate with the Hebrew. Classical Syriac has a word pdyt', 33. BOB, 65-66; cf. also Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 281. 34. W. F. Albright, "Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?," BASOR 83 (1941): 38-42 (40). 35. For example, CML, 68; J. A. Emerton, "A Difficult Part of Mot's Message to Baal in the Ugaritic Texts (CTA 5.1.4-6)," AJBA 1 (1972): 50-71. 36. W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Jordan Lectures 1965; (London, 1968), 175.

118

Sacred Dan

which may be related, but we can make little of it, since it is mainly used to translate the Hebrew T1SN, or the vestment of the Christian priest, akin to the chasuble of the Western Church. (There is very little Syriac material from before the conversion of Edessa to Christianity.) None of these has any discernible connection with divination, and may be safely ignored. From this discussion, it is probable that the ephod mentioned in our text is the oracular priestly ephod which is also found in the books of Samuel. They were apparently common in sanctuaries in the earlier pre-exilic period, and were used for giving oracles, possibly even as containers for the sacred lots especially if its true etymology is as a word for "cover." Their official use, in the Southern Kingdom at least, appears to have died out at an early stage, and even in the North, where they were used as late as the time of Hosea (3:4), they may have been replaced in most cases by the prophetic oracle (cf. 1 Kgs 22). As with many ancient cultic objects, the use of oracular ephods may have declined as a result of the forces which shaped the Deuteronomistic reforms, forces which regarded almost all cultic objects with a high degree of suspicion. 3. The Teraphim Whereas it is almost certain that the ephod was used as a divinatory device in the Danite story, the role of the teraphim with which they are always mentioned in the narrative is not nearly as clear. Scholars have suggested a parallel between them and a custom from Nuzi, where the possession of the gods constituted "the title to the chief inheritance portion and leadership of the family."37 This parallels the story of Rachel in Gen 31, where she steals her father's teraphim, thus apparently securing the rights of leadership for Jacob: at Nuzi, an adopted son could only inherit if the father had no other sons. If he had sons, as in the case of Laban, the adopted son (Jacob) had to relinquish his rights to the chief-hood of the family. Greenberg, has, however, suggested that the use of the Nuzi evidence may not be quite so straightforward: it is not so much the possess ion of the teraphim which gave the son the right to be leader, but the fact that they had been given to him, and this is clearly not the case with Jacob.38 Spanier has used the Nuzi parallels to show that the story relates a symbolic beginning of the supremacy of the Rachel tribes over the Leah tribes.39 This fits in with Schunck who sees them as being mainly connected with the tribe of Benjamin: Rachel is the mother of Benjamin, Michal the daughter of the Benjaminite Saul and Micah lives in the hill country of Ephraim 37. C. H. Gordon, "The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets," BASOR 66 (1937): 25-27 (26); E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, N.Y., 1964), 250. See K. Deller, "Die Hausgb'tter der Familie Sukrija S. Huja," in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman (ed. M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen; Winona Lake, Ind., 1981), 47-76, for the Akkadian texts from Nuzi. 38. M. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim," JBL 81 (1962): 237^8 (244). 39. K. Spanier, "Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim: Her Struggle for Family Supremacy," F742 (1992): 404-12 (410).

4. Divination in the Danite Story

119

near the border with Benjamin. Schunck says that even Hosea may have been a Benjaminite, and that he was at least connected with the Rachel tribes.40 Schunck has, of course, very little evidence for this. Several suggestions have been made about the etymology of the word D"H5n. There may be a link with the 82"! root and its cognate D^S~l, "shades or ghosts," and a connection with NS~l, "to heal," is accepted by Smith41 and Ackroyd.42 Other options include a link with "IflS, "to interpret," suggested by Labuschagne, who thought they were interpreters of dreams, becoming DHSH by deliberate metathesis, since they were considered dangerous if mentioned by name.43 This seems unlikely. Hoffner has suggested a connection with the Hittite tarpis, meaning a spirit which is, on occasion, either protective or malevolent.44 This word became DHSn, by losing its case ending (*tarpi), becoming a Semitic nominative (*tarpu) and thus the Hebrew *terep, whose regular plural is the form with which we are familiar. This etymology is certainly plausible, and may well be correct. Even if, for once, a correct etymology for an unusual word has been found, ironically, it adds little to our understanding of the Hebrew word in the Bible, and tells us nothing about their use in divination. Two ancient explanations are worth mentioning. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezar describes the making of teraphim: "They slay a man, a first-born, and he is red (in colour)... And they pinch off his head, and salt it with salt, and they write upon a golden plate the name of an unclean (spirit), and place it under his tongue, and they put it in the wall, and they kindle lamps before it, and bow down to it, and it speaks unto them."45 This somewhat fanciful view at least takes the connection with divination seriously. Greenberg, on the other hand, compares with Gen 31 a story in Josephus (Ant. 18.9.5), where a Parthian woman took the ancestral images of her gods into exile with her. Greenberg goes on to say that they were Laban's most treasured possessions which he might well have reproduced for her, had she and her family not left in flight. He regards them as hearth gods which were associated with child-birth.46 The evidence of the Hebrew Bible is too disparate to be categorized, so we will deal with it in canonical order. a. Genesis 31 The first occurrence of the teraphim is in Gen 31. Several things emerge from this narrative. Firstly, they are valued highly. Laban thinks it is worth pursuing Jacob and his family for a week, from Haran to Gilead, to recover them. When he 40. K. D. Schunck, Benjamin (BZAW 86; Berlin, 1963), 11. 41. S. Smith, "What Were the Teraphim?," JTS 33 (1932): 33-36 (36). 42. P. R. Ackroyd, "The Teraphim," ExpTim 62 (1950-51): 378-80 (378). 43. C. J. Labuschagne, "Teraphim: A Proposal for Its Etymology," VT 16 (1966): 115-17 (116-17). 44. H. A. Hoffner, "Hittite Tarpis and Hebrew Teraphim," JNES 28 (1968): 61-68 (66-67). 45. G. Friedlander, Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezar (London, 1916), 273-74. There is a possible parallel between this account and the creation of man mAtrahasis where a god is slain, but his heart(?) is still heard to beat (1.208-15, etc.). 46. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim," 246-47.

120

Sacred Dan

arrives, Jacob knows their great significance: he pronounces the death penalty on anyone found with them. Laban and Jacob both refer to them as gods (vv. 30, 32). Further, they are not exclusively Hebrew objects, as they are brought from Northern Mesopotamia. The passage is difficult, and there is no reason given for the theft. Westermann suggests that Laban has been unjust to Rachel, and she retaliates by stealing the objects which she knows he values most. He compares the teraphim to the Penates which Aeneas takes with him from Troy in the Iliad (he probably means Aeneid), noting that, "the household gods confer protection and blessing."47 Van der Toorn, however, puts a different slant on the text, and on the word in general. He says that, when Laban calls them his "gods," he is using DTT^N in the same way that it is used in 1 Sam 28:13, where it appears to mean "spirit."48 He suggests they were figures of ancestors used in soothsaying to convey messages, and compares the role of saints in modern Catholicism.49 They were found in Micah's sanctuary, and thus, according to this view, were not deities, but were used for obtaining oracles. They may have been kept in a receptacle, possibly the ephod.50 Another interpretation is that of Ackroyd, who sees them as figures of a mother goddess who was imported by Rachel.51 This may, indeed, be borne out by archaeological finds in Palestine, where mainly female figurines have been discovered. It should, however, be noted that the form of the noun is masculine. It is perhaps worth noting, in view of Westermann's comments, that nowhere in the Vulgate is the word D'HSH translated by the Latinpenates. This is interesting, since many scholars have attempted to draw a parallel between the Roman and the Hebrew phenomena. Presumably, had this occurred to the Latin translators, one would have expected this connection to have been made in the text, unless, of course, there are specific reasons for avoiding such a translation. Thus, Jerome may have been aware that to translate a Hebrew term by a Latin one that was redolent of a pagan past may not have been entirely acceptable. Alternatively, the Latin translators may have been aware of some parallel, but the similarity was not precise enough; or, most likely, the Latin translators were in the dark concerning the nature of the teraphim. In contrast with Gen 31, in the Danite story they are not inherited, but made (17:5). Does this imply that anyone could make teraphim at any time, or were they "made" in the same way as the Mesopotamian image? Because of the Danite story, and the fact that Rachel, as a woman, could not be admitted into ancestor worship(?), Smith argues that they are not to be understood as ancestral figures, since the men of Dan would not have needed them if they were.52 Nevertheless, if they were used for divination, the Danites may not have cared about their 47. 48. dence," 49. 50. 51. 52.

Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 493. K. van der Toorn, "The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of Cuneiform EviCBQ 52 (1990): 203-22 (210-11). Ibid., 215-16. Ibid., 213. Ackroyd, "The Teraphim," 379. Smith, "What Were the Teraphim?," 34.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

121

provenance, simply about their function. Also, the fact that they were of value is hinted at in 18:14, where the Danites think it is worth stealing them in the first place. Comparison with Gen 31 suggests that when, in 18:24, Micah refers to his "gods," he is referring to the teraphim. However, the context is too ambiguous to say for certain, and also the sheer importance attached to the ^DS would suggest that that is the object of which Micah speaks. b. 1 Samuel 15:23 This passage is reminiscent of the eighth-century Judahite prophets, and is also out of context. Sacrifice (v. 22) is not an issue in this time, only becoming central in the work of Isaiah (cf. Isa 1:12 for the rejection of sacrifice, and Mic 6:8). Divination is not an important issue even in the time of Micah, where in 3:7, 11 the diviners are attacked solely for being venal. The mention of the teraphim here does not clarify their function, although one might not like to go quite as far as McCarter who says that the word is "here used as a generalized term for idols as in 2 Kgs 23:24."53 Here, the Peshitta translates with qsm', which means "divination." It is possible that the Syriac translators here had some idea of the use and function of the teraphim. c. / Samuel 19 First Samuel 19 contains the famous story about the teraphim in the bed of David (vv. 12-16). Surprisingly, this tells us very little that is concrete about them, except that Michal had them in her house. We cannot deduce anything about the teraphim's size: it(?) may have been large, or it may have been small, in which case a large amount of goat's hair matting may have been placed in the bed to form the shape of the body. It may have been anthropomorphic, or perhaps not. The point of the story is not to tell us what the teraphim was, but that there was something in the bed which made it look occupied by the sick David, thus giving him enough time to escape out of the window, and that whatever that "something" was, it was the first thing that came to hand. That the teraphim was next to the bed so that the man in it came under their healing protection (and thus the connection with the KS~1 root54), seems excessively subtle, and does not take account of any of the other evidence we have. Neither would the idea that they were gods (masculine!) of child-birth, among other things, explain why they were found in temples. In this story, the LXX translates DHSH as TCC Kevora^ia 55 which means "empty tomb." This seems to presuppose some sort of cult of the dead, common at times in Israel's history,56 but unusual at this date. Are we to envisage a portable shrine for the ancestral spirits? This translation, unfortunately, seems to raise more questions than it solves. 53. McCarter, I Samuel, 268. 54. Ackroyd, "The Teraphim," 378. 55. Aquila reads Mop<j>co|jo
122

Sacred Dan

d. 2 Kings 23:24 The next reference tells us that the teraphim were put away as abominations during Josiah's reforms. Nevertheless, there is no specific legislation against them in the Torah. e. Ezekiel 21:36 This reference is more promising, since here the divination aspect is to the fore, as the teraphim are mentioned with lot-oracles and arrows, as well as extispicy, as means used by the king of Babylon for making a decision about his future course. Zimmerli suggests that the teraphim may have been of Aramean origin, and were used in secular Israel as a method of divination.57 In the light of the Danite legend, we might like to question Zimmerli's emphasis on the secular aspect. Ezekiel does not tell us how they were used. The sole connection which links all the objects is that they are methods of divination. f. Hosea 3:4 Hosea mentions the teraphim in 3:4 in connection with the ephod as if they normally went together. This is also the case in the Danite story. The gist of what Hosea says is clear—these are things the Ephraimites are going to have to do without—but his attitude to all the things mentioned is disputed. All we can glean from this passage is that these objects were used frequently. Wolff seems to find a theological explanation, "Thus Yahweh will withdraw himself from Israel, together with every means of approaching him that had become an idol." He suggests that the teraphim were "divine images or face masks."58 The Versional evidence for this verse is interesting. The LXX translator appears to re-interpret the original, with his use of the word SrjAcov, the word also used to translate "Urim," or the sacred lots in general in Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 14:41; 28:6, and Sir 45:10. It is possible that the translator was guessing, or he may have known of some connection between the teraphim and the Urim and Thummim of which we are not now aware. Such a connection may well be presupposed by Hosea, and by the Danite writer in Judges. The Targum makes no such link, but has preserved the idea that these were divinatory devices in its use of'inQ, "(idolatrous) oracles." The Peshitta, which does not translate Cnsn here, has misunderstood the passage, translating dl' Ibs 'p\vd\ "which is not clothed with an ephod." The Vulgate resorts to transliteration.

g. Zechariah 10:2 Finally, the word DHSPl is found in Zech 10:2 in a passage that is evidently from a late period. The writer seems to be contrasting the lying teraphim with the gracious God of Israel. Here again there is a link with divination, but this time the term is not found in tandem with the ephod, which by this time had become one of the high priest's sacred vestments. Another possibility is that the prophet 57. 58.

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 444. H. W. Wolff, Hosea (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1974), 62.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

123

is seeing Yahweh using the teraphim to his own ends, rather like he does with the false prophets in 1 Kgs 22:6, 12, 22-23. These have indeed been inspired by the deity, but they do not speak the truth. Of the passage in Zechariah, Rudolph lamely comments that the people are turning to foreign gods, and not to the liturgically correct Urim and Thummim which Yahweh has sanctioned,59 and which, one might add, were not used any more after the Exile (cf. Ezra 2:63). The LXX translates aTTo<J)0EyY6|jevoi, which means something akin to "soothsayer," and which, once more, highlights the background of divination. The Peshitta has a similar translation to the Greek: ydw", "soothsayers." This might be explained by reference to the fact that the Peshitta is, to some extent, dependent on the LXX.60 It seems difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the nature and function of teraphim from the evidence of the Hebrew Bible. Parallels with other ancient Near Eastern cultures, such as they are, are, at best, vaguely interesting rather than enlightening. Perhaps the only things we can say about them are that they may possibly have been of Aramean origin, although this is very uncertain; they were probably relatively small; they were of considerable value, whether in themselves or in what they represented; they were referred to as "gods," or possibly "spirits"; and they were used in divination, mainly, it appears, in a domestic setting, but sometimes in the sanctuary. Historically, they disappear gradually in pre-exilic times, but were still known, to a certain extent, in the South after the Exile. Like many of the older features of Yahwism, they became outlawed at the time of Josiah's reforms along with sacred pillars, high-places and sanctuaries other than Jerusalem. The fact that they were not condemned by the Torah would suggest that they were either not considered worth mentioning, or were regarded as semi-legitimate, or they had become wholly legitimate in a different guise. It is possible that their association with the ephod caused them to be associated with the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots, if they were ever properly distinct. This must, however, remain hypothetical. As to the questions raised by the Danite story, the answers must remain open. The balance of opinion does, however, favour the idea that the teraphim were used in divination, and that, from that point of view, they were an integral part of the sanctuary furniture, and thus worthy of attention from the Danites. 4. The Shrine of Dan as an Oracular Centre The reason the Danites approach the shrine of Micah is because they recognize the voice of the priest. It is possible that for this reason they assumed that the shrine was an oracular centre, and that they went there because they wanted a divine oracle concerning their mission. It appears that Israelite shrines in general could be regarded as oracular centres in ancient times. This is also the case with the sanctuaries of many other ancient 59. 60.

W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi (KAT; Giitersloh, 1976), 191. A. Gelston, The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford, 1987), 162-66.

124

Sacred Dan

Near Eastern cultures, although in the vast majority of cases this is assumed by the texts rather than stated explicitly. As far as the shrine of Dan is concerned there is evidence for the assumption that this was, at least in part, a major oracular centre: (1) The Dan legend itself presupposes this. While it is true that in the narrative the most important cultic object is the ^DS, over whose making the tradents spent much time, the oracular ephod and teraphim are mentioned no less than five times directly, once obliquely with the *7D5J as HITO TOU ~\&* PN (18:27), and are presumably used in the oracle-taking. Thus one of the major concerns of the cultic legend is to account for the origins of the oracular devices as well as the cultic image and the Mosaic priesthood of Dan. (2) Dan is mentioned in the LXX text of 2 Sam 20:18 with Abel beth Maacah as a celebrated oracular centre, "true to its hereditary character and nationality."61 Significantly, Field notes that Origen too read KOU EV Aav, preferring the traditional LXX reading to the MT which does not mention Dan at all.62 The LXX reading is accepted by Driver albeit cautiously,63 and wholeheartedly by McCarter.64 A characteristic defence of the MT has been made by Barthelemy, arguing from the lectio difficilior principle.65 Of the mention of Dan, he remarks, "In v. 18 it is useless to introduce Dan which is not an issue in this episode."66 He thinks it is a mistake for the pi of the MT.67 While it is true that both places are mentioned together in 1 Kgs 15:20, this is not sufficient reason for the mistake here. On the other hand, McCarter points out various problems with the MT which make the likelihood of the LXX having preserved the original reading a good deal stronger.68 This, combined with the fact that Origen, usually so careful to follow the MT, supports the LXX, suggests that the emendation is correct. Unfortunately, there is no extant reading from Qumran for this passage. Thus we have evidence that Dan was regarded with some degree of esteem. It is highly possible that in the seemingly irrelevant reference to Dan, the woman of Abel beth Maacah may have been attempting to put her town on the same footing as the nearby great shrine, making the case for the preservation of her own city stronger: to destroy Abel would be like destroying Dan. Even if this is not the explanation, we may discern from this story that Dan had a high reputation for preserving old Israelite traditions. In this we may see the origins of the MT reading of this verse. We know that there was a shrine at Dan down to Roman times. Because of this there appears to have been continuing polemic against the shrine and also against its traditions. For example, the suspended nun in the name 61. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 347. 62. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1:578. 63. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 347. 64. McCarter, IISamuel, 428-29. 65. D. Barthelemy, "La qualite du Texte Massoretique de Samuel," in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel (ed.E.Tov; Jerusalem, 1980), 1^44 (3). Cf. also Bartusch, Understanding Dan,2Q3. 66. Barthelemy, "La qualite du Texte Massoretique de Samuel," 32: "Au vs 18, en effet, inutile de faire intervenir Dan qui n'est pas en jeu dans cet episode" (my translation above). 67. Ibid., 31. 68. McCarter, II Samuel, 429.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

125

Moses in Judg 18:30 most probably comes from a time after the text had started to become inviolate, otherwise it would just have been inserted. Thus it is possible that the Hebrew was tampered with some time after the translation of the LXX and that, on the evidence of Origen, some manuscripts of the MT may have preserved what we would regard as the original version. This appears to be sufficient explanation for the text of both the MT and the LXX as we have them. Thus the words in question may have disappeared from the Hebrew for polemic reasons. (3) The excavations of Biran at Tel Dan provide us with little information about the cultic life of Dan. The only find in the sanctuary area from the Hebrew period which may have something to do with divination is a die whose numbering and appearance is surprisingly modern.69 Equally possibly, it was used for gambling. Dramatic evidence of the use of the shrine comes from a plaque from the first half of the second century BCE whose inscription reads: "To the god who is in Dan, vowed Zoilos a vow. Vowed Zilos to the god," where the first part is Greek, the second Aramaic.70 This, however, tells us nothing about divination, although it does prove the continuation of the name Dan and its name-less god, possibly Yahweh, whose name was not spoken at this time. The shrine continued in use down to the end of the fourth century CE,71 but it is impossible to tell whether divination was still practised there at this time. The evidence we have reviewed seems to point to the fact that the Danite tribal sanctuary was an important oracular centre for much of its history. This fits in with what we know of other shrines especially from 1 Samuel. At Shiloh, the priesthood was known to carry the ephod (1 Sam 2:28). The anonymous seer of ch. 9, later identified with Samuel himself, is associated with a shrine. At the shrine of Nob there is an ephod 21:10, and it is there that David consults the oracle 22:9-10. We have seen above that the shrine of Ophrah (Judg 8) also had what was probably an oracular ephod. At a later date, the cultic prophets gathered at shrines, where they would in all likelihood have been asked for oracles.72 It appears in general from the ancient world that the sanctuary was a place associated with divination in all its forms, and since the importance of the shrine at Dan cannot be denied, it seems likely that it was a great centre for the practice of divination. 5. The Oracle to the Danites in Judges 18:5-6 The description of the oracle in Judg 18:5-6 does not give us very much detail with which to understand the theory and practice of divination. We have seen that it is almost certain that the method used was the ephod oracle common in the books of Samuel, but a close study of the text of the Danite account and a 69. Biran, Biblical Dan, \ 99. 70. Ibid., 221-24; also Biran, "To the God Who is in Dan." 71. Biran, Biblical Dan, 231. 72. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (2d ed.; Cardiff, 1962), 60-61, and references there.

126

Sacred Dan

comparison with other accounts of divination may shed clearer light on the theory behind oracles. The word that the Danites use to refer to the action of the priest is ^NKJ. This appears to have a technical meaning in the accounts in the books of Samuel. A second important feature is the fact that the question is phrased in the "alternative" manner—that is, the response is either "yes" or "no," which Cody associates rightly or wrongly with the Urim and Thummim.73 This pattern is found many times in the Former Prophets, and is standard in accounts of divination where priests are involved. Several points can be made about this type of oracle. (1) The *7NEJ oracle was normally consulted before a battle or other such important event. Evidence for this is found in Judg 1:1, the first battle against the Canaanites; Judg 18, where the Danites are about to embark on a reconnaissance mission; Judg 20:18,23, the campaign against Benjamin; 1 Sam 10, where a king is chosen; 1 Sam 14, before a battle with the Philistines; 1 Sam 22, where Abiathar has been helping David with the oracle; 1 Sam 23, the campaign against Keilah; 1 Sam 28:6, before Saul's final battle; 1 Sam 30:8, again in a military context; 2 Sam 2:1, where Hebron is chosen as David's first capital; 5:19, another battle against the Philistines. This is also regarded as standard by the late Num 27:21, where Eleazar the priest is to enquire (by means of the Urim contained in the ephod) for Joshua in the context of the military campaign. Given the fact that it was used most often in a military context, this might well explain why Saul is so concerned over David's consultation of the priestly oracle in 1 Sam 22. It is possible that Saul assumes that any campaign David fights is likely to be against him. This story also suggests that this oracle was only used at important times, otherwise, if it had been available to most Israelites most of the time, Saul's anger would not be comprehensible. (2) The oracle was a way of making a decision with the benefit of the knowledge of the divine will, but was not necessary in any circumstance. The best example of this is the Danite story itself, where it is by chance that the Danites come across the shrine. There is nothing to suggest that they would otherwise have been at all concerned about consulting an oracle. First Samuel 14:18-23 shows that in dire necessity the formality of divination could be dispensed with, in this case because the Philistines were thought to be attacking. (3) The oracle was always taken by a priest. This was one of their most important functions. Clear examples of priests taking oracles are found in Judg 18; 20; 1 Sam 14; 22; 23;74 30. 73. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 14. 74. There are textual problems in the 1 Sam 23 passage. According to the MT of v. 4, the oracles are taken before David goes to Keilah, but the priest only arrives with the oracular ephod after the battle at v. 6. The text may be restored by using the LXX of Vaticanus (McCarter [I Samuel, 369] suggests that the MT suffered a haplography between two occurrences of name David), which may be read as a note by the original writer to the effect that Abiathar had gone down to Keilah with David, in this case, reading the Hebrew perfect as a pluperfect. At vv. 11-12, the text may be further restored by 4QSamb, which reads, "And now will Saul come down as your servant has heard? Yahweh God of Israel tell your servant. And Yahweh said, He will come down. And David said, Will the lords of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And Yahweh said, They will deliver [you]." Cf. McCarter, I Samuel, 370.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

127

(4) The question asked was formulated in the "alternative " manner. There is evidence of this in the majority of cases. As is often the case in languages which lack words for "yes" and "no," the affirmative answer is given simply by repeating the verb. So, in the case above from 1 Sam 23, David asks "TlTI, and Yahweh responds IT, and, in the second instance TrOTI is met by ''Dm. In a few instances the questions are not formulated in an "alternative" manner. In Judg 1:1 the question is not "Shall Judah go up first?," but "Who will go up for us...?" There are several possible explanations for this. Barucq, discussing a similar passage in Josh 7 where we are not told about the method used, suggests that here the people might have been divided up into groups, finally coming down to Judah, but, as he admits, we are not told exactly how this was done.75 More probable is that a later writer76 who did not understand the ^NEJ oracle has confused it with prophetic divination, where the answer to such a question might reasonably be expected. This is paralleled by the account in Judg 20:18 which Soggin regards as being even later than Judg 1:1.77 It is likely that both these texts come from a time after the hey-day of the ephod oracle, whose use, in the South at least, died out at a relatively early date. Other examples of the lot oracle are 1 Sam 10 and 14. Once more in the first case, it is not clear how the decision was reached, and it is possible that the material here may be from a late date.78 In the latter case, the choice of Jonathan is made by a series of alternative-type questions, thus fitting in with established usage from other passages. (5) It was almost always the military leader who asked the questions, the priest was simply the channel for the divine answer. See Josh 7; 1 Sam 10; 14; 23; 30; 2 Sam 2; 5 for evidence of this. (6) Some amount of priestly interpretation was permitted, but this does not seem to have been the norm. Whence this came, whether from the imagination of the priest, or by means of a vision, our texts do not tell us. An example of priestly interpretation may be found in Judg 18, where, after the asking of the "alternative" question, the priest does more than give an affirmative answer, he virtually blesses the Danites as well by telling them that their course has found favour with Yahweh. That the answer had to be a clear "yes" or "no" demonstrates that there can be no question of ambiguity in the answer. Second Samuel 2:1, where David asks which city is to be his capital, and the answer comes back that it will be Hebron, is seen by Porter as another example of the priest speaking on behalf of Yahweh in an almost prophetic manner.79 This idea may also be behind 5:19. where Yahweh tells David when to attack. (7) In certain cases, it was possible for an answer not to be given. This was then seen as a sign of divine wrath. This is the case in 1 Sam 28:6 where Saul has been cast off by Yahweh who refuses to respond at a divination session before a 75. Barucq, "Oracle et divination," DBSup 6:778-79. 76. Soggin, Judges, 20. 77. Ibid., 293. 78. Cf. McCarter, / Samuel, 194-96. 79. J. R. Porter, "Ancient Israel," in Divination and Oracles (ed. M. Loewe and C. Blacker; London, 1981), 191-214 (205-6).

128

Sacred Dan

military campaign. How this might have happened we do not know. It is possible that the priest was using his initiative and refused to do it, although no answer was obtained from other orthodox means. (8) When an answer is given, the recipient is assumed to be in a right relationship with Yahweh. The oracles are accurate. It is interesting that in 2 Sam 16:23, the counsel of Ahitophel is described as being "as if a man enquired ('?N27') of the word of God" (reading with the qere). This is an indication of the proverbial accuracy of the oracle and also its currency. (9) In the Southern Kingdom, at least, the ^NKJ oracle appears to have died out sometime after the division of the monarchy, to the extent that it does not seem to have been understood by some later Southern redactors, for example those of Joshua 9:14 and Judges 1 and 20. The evidence from the North, on the other hand, is less clear-cut. In 1 Kgs 22 we have an account of a battle oracle where the ephod was not used, and the same is true of 2 Kgs 3 where Elisha is consulted. However, the ephod is later mentioned by Hosea who condemns it in 3:4 along with other cultic and social institutions. This would suggest that it was still an integral part of the cultic apparatus of the sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom, presumably including Dan. De Vaux's suggestion that here its use in conjunction with teraphim and rTOUQ may indicate that the ephod had become illegitimate80 has little so be said for it, as the list also includes leaders and sacrifices. The fact that it is not mentioned in the two military contexts mentioned above may be explained by the fact that in both cases prophets are the central figures in the narratives, and so we would not expect the mention of an oracletaking priest. The evidence of Hosea indicates that it was still in use at his time, so there is no good reason for suggesting that its use was discontinued in the Northern Kingdom. The reasons for its decline in the South may be due to several factors. The rise of Jerusalem as a royal shrine seems to have changed the status of priests from mainly oracular officials in charge of local sanctuaries to royal functionaries whose task was increasingly the upkeep of the sacrificial cult. The start of the prophetic movement on a major scale may also have aided the decline of the less flexible ephod oracle. Cryer points out81 that there may have been little distinction between priest and prophet, and it is not difficult to see that there may have been some connection between the priestly interpretation of the ephod oracle and the oracle which was given by the prophet. Thus it is possible that the ephod oracle had become a mere formality which could eventually be dispensed with in its entirety.82 From this survey it is apparent that the Danite legend contains an accurate account of the use of the priestly ephod oracle. The context is typical of the military use, the question asked is phrased in the traditional manner and the verb used

80. 81. 82.

De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 353. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 249. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 353.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

129

(^NEJ) is th orrect technical term for this type of oracle. The use of this type of oracle seems to be wholly consistent with Northern Israelite practice in the monarchical period. 6. The bttE? Oracle as Extispicy The evidence reviewed above has, however, been given a different interpretation by Cryer. He suggests that the accounts of divination are concerned to give several pieces of information—the location, the time, the cultic equipment, the procedure, the personnel, the enquirers—and also include the same technical language, that is, the use of the word ^KGi83 (It should, however, be noted that in both Hebrew and Akkadian this verb also had a common non-technical usage.) Cryer notes the formal similarities between each of the narratives as well as "a few oblique and almost shy references to sacrifice."84 These are the references to whole burnt offerings and D^Q^E) in Judg 20:26, "stretching out the hand" in 1 Sam 14:19 and possible references to sacrifice in 1 Sam 14:35-37.85 Of these, the first, Judg 20:26, may possibly be a reference to the killing of an animal for extispicy, although the proximity of the "whole burnt offering" makes this doubtful, for it appears that the two offerings were envisaged as being for the same purpose (offerings to Yahweh), and a whole burnt offered lamb's exta would be difficult to examine! Further, if 1 Sam 9:22-24 is Cryer's only other evidence of the D^Q^C as a divinatory sacrifice,86 we may safely ignore his suggestions here. Cryer's treatment of "stretching out the hand" (cf. 1 Sam 14:19) as evidence of extispicy is interesting. This phrase, he suggests, is the hypothetical converse of the expression "withdraw your hand," which is what is actually found in the passage in question. "Stretching out the hand" was the standard Sumerian expression for omen sacrifice (su.gid.gid), translated by the Akkadian lipit qati, "the touch of the hand." Cryer claims this phrase has "many well-attested parallels" in the Hebrew Bible; however, all of those he cites are occurrences of T ~[QD, where the priest touches the sacrificial victim (Exod 29:10, 15,19; Lev 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13).87 To move from this to assume that 1 Sam 14:19 may be an example of the omen sacrifice88 is tenuous in the extreme, especially since he is thereby assuming direct influence of Sumerian on Hebrew. Cryer's evidence from 1 Sam 14:35-37 is simply a juxtaposition of sacrifice (or simply slaughter) and oracle. In this case, the sacrifice has been made before the priest suggests the oracle should be taken. This is surely the reverse of the normal procedure for extispicy as cited by Cryer.89 83. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 299-300. For the phenomenon of extispicy, see also Saggs, Encounter with the Divine, 128-32. 84. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 300. 85. Ibid., 299-300. 86. Ibid., 298-99. 87. Ibid., 283. 88. Ibid., 283. 89. Ibid., 174,

130

Sacred Dan

Despite these weaknesses in his argument, Cryer assumes that there is a single Gattung which underlies the "rigidity" of the accounts of the Hebrew Bible.90 However, that the narrators were not wholly rigid in their accounts can be seen from the fact that only three of the accounts (Judg 20; 1 Sam 14; 30) have all the characteristics which he outlines, although he does admit that they have been adapted for narrative purposes.91 He suggests that the source of this literary genre is to be found in the ancient Near Eastern diviners' protocols.92 However, Cryer thinks that for some reason the writers of the, for him, post-Deuteronomistic texts we are studying93 were unwilling to admit that the phenomenon of the ephod oracle was in fact extispicy.94 One of the major weaknesses of Cryer's work is that he fails to tell us exactly why he thinks they were avoiding any mention of extispicy, although he does give a reason to explain why, if it were ever practised in Israel, extispicy disappeared: it was apparently too expensive to keep up in a non-monarchical environment.95 Extispicy was, nevertheless, practised in Bronze Age Palestine. Model "practice" livers have been found in Hazor in a cultic setting.96 These appear to have come from the Old Babylonian period, although Landsberger and Tadmor admit that they may have come from as late as the Amarna period.97 Their importance for the biblical period must not be overstated since the phenomenon was probably limited in time and place—Landsberger and Tadmor suggest that the art of extispicy came to the kingdom of Hazor from Mari.98 They go on to say that there is no evidence of a second wave of Babylonian influence after that time.99 The practice livers from Hazor are paralleled by the discovery of uninscribed livers from thirteenth- to twelfth-century Megiddo.100 To date, despite the abundance of excavations and research, no further evidence of extispicy has been found in Palestine. Thus we may safely conclude that, while extispicy had been known at some stage in Palestine, by the biblical period it had almost certainly died out. It may have existed once more as an isolated phenomenon in 2 Kgs 16,101 but this is uncertain, and even if it were the case, there it was due to direct personal influence of Mesopotamia on the king of Judah. 90. Ibid., 300-301. 91. Ibid., 301. 92. Ibid., 301. 93. Ibid., 252. 94. Ibid., 303. 95. Ibid., 329. 96. B. Landsberger and H. Tadmor, "Fragments of Clay Liver Models from Hazor," IEJ 14 (1964): 201-18 (217) (note by Yadin). 97. Ibid., 216. 98. Ibid., 216. 99. Ibid., 216. 100. Ibid., 216; cf. also G. I. Davies, Megiddo (Cities of the Biblical World; Cambridge, 1987), 63. 101. Cf. especially the discussion in J. Gray, / and2 Kings (2d ed.; OIL; London, 1970), 636. Not all scholars agree with him, however; cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, 2 Kings (AB 11; Garden City, N.Y., 1988), 189.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

131

7. The Danite Oracle in its Ancient Near Eastern Context While we may rule out extispicy as the method of divination in the Danite story, there are several points of contact between the narrative and its broader context. (1) In almost all ancient Near Eastern cultures the "alternative" type question is standard in divination. In the Assyrian queries to the sun-god—the traditional god of divination—the questions are almost always phrased in this manner. Thus in the Sargonid period all queries invariably started samas belu rabu sa asalluka anna kina apalanni, which we may translate "Shamash great lord, to what I ask you, answer me with firm 'yes'.. ."102 In contrast to the Hebrew texts, a time limit was often set for the fulfilment of the oracle, and the answers would be obtained by extispicy.103 (Cryer points to the use of salu[m] as further evidence for a connection between Israel and Mesopotamia.104 Once again this seems tenuous.) Whereas in ordinary extispicy all of the entrails had to be examined, each providing a partial "yes" or a partial "no" to propositions specified in the diviner's prayer to Shamash,105 in the tamitu oracles a straight "yes" or "no" was all that was required, but it was not certain how it was obtained.106 This type of question was also found in the Egyptian divination rituals. These were often posed to the god as he was carried in procession through the streets at regular festival times.107 Cerny provides the most useful discussion of Egyptian oracles, giving several examples of the type of question posed to the gods: "Is it he who has stolen this mat?," "Shall one appoint Sety as priest?," "Shall I sail north, go and carry out the investiture?," "Will they mention me to the Vizier?"108 Most of the examples he quotes come from Deir-el-Medina on the western bank of the Nile opposite Thebes where workmen responsible for the royal tombs consulted the oracles of local gods, the great temples of Thebes being closed to them.109 The method used was often that of providing the god with two pieces of sherd or stone on which were inscribed questions, one presumably phrased positively like those above, the other negatively. The god would then "take" one of them, that is, the barque on which he was being carried probably moved towards 102. I. Starr, Queries to the Sungod (State Archives of Assyria 4; Helsinki, 1990), xvi. For Shamash as the patron god of extispicy, see also Saggs, Encounter with the Divine, 130-31. For the Human sun-god Shimige as god of omens, see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 53. By contrast, the Egyptian sun-god Re did not seem to be particularly associated with oracles, although, like Shamash, he was the god of justice (nb w't). 103. Starr, Queries to the Sungod, xvi. 104. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 302. 105. Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 154. 106. W. G. Lambert, "The Tamitu Texts," in La Divination en Mesopotamie Ancienne et dans les Regions Voisines (ed. J. Nougayrol; Paris, 1966), 119-23 (123). 107. Sauneron, Lespretres de I'ancienne Egypte, 63; cf. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 217-18. 108. J. Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles," in A Saite Oracle Papyrus (ed. R. A. Parker; Brown Egyptological Studies 4; Providence, R.I., 1962), 46. 109. Ibid., 40.

132

Sacred Dan

one of them.1lo At other times is appears that questions were simply asked of the god on his barque, and an answer would be given there and then. Cerny suggests that this was done by moving backwards for a negative answer, and moving forwards for a positive one.111 This method is also described by Lucian of Samosata in De Syria dea 36.'12 The Egyptian oracular practices continued down into the Christian era, where questions in Coptic have been found on papyrus.113 (2) The Israelite military type of oracle is also paralleled in the ancient Near East. In Assyria, for example, the haruspex (barit) was always on duty in the king's camp during campaigns.114 This is borne out by the fact that a large number of the Assyrian extispicy queries from the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal come from the field of battle. The use of campaign oracles dates back at least to the Old Babylonian period,115 and was also found among the Hittites.116 The Egyptians also employed military oracles, but, unlike the Mesopotamians, they did not make collections of this type.117 An example of an Aramaic military oracle can be found in KAI202 (also ANET, 655-56), where seers (pin) and prophets (]~ni?) tell the king the outcome of the battle without his having posed a direct question.118 (3) Properly qualified personnel were used in most cases. In Mesopotamia, the barti was one of the best educated of all cultic officials,119 to the extent that many scholars have written of divination as a science rather than as a form of "magic."120 That the priests of the Danite story were not highly educated but qualified to conduct oracular consultations solely by virtue of being priests, is also further evidence that the highly complex practice of extispicy was not used in Israel. Priests appear to have been in charge of some Egyptian oracles, but, by way of contrast, according to Cerny, when the god was paraded through the streets, it was a group of purified lay men (we 'eb) who carried the barque on which the statue of the god was placed.121 A more usual translation of the Egyptian would, however, be "priest."122 There are, nevertheless, several points of contrast between Israel and other cultures in the ancient Near East. 110. Ibid., 46. 111. Ibid., 44. 112. Quoted in Cemy, "Egyptian Oracles," 45. 113. Ibid., 47. 114. Starr, Queries to the Sungod, xxx-xxxi. 115. Cf. von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 154-55, and references there. 116. Gurney, The Hittites, 132. 117. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 220. 118. JCing Zakkur does, however, pray for deliverance, and the oracles are given in response to this prayer. Cf. J. C. Greenfield, "Aspects of Aramean Religion," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 67-78 (73). 119. Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 154. 120. Cf, however (for example), Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 223-24. 121. Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles," 36. 122. See Erman and Grapow, Worterbuch der agyptischen Sprache, 1:282-83; A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar (3d ed.; Oxford, 1957), 57,560; R. O. Faulkner, A Consise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford, 1962), 57, who all state that the meaning of w'b is "priest."

4. Divination in the Danite Story

133

(1) The methods used were different in Israel. In Mesopotamia they used the examining of entrails, the oil oracle,123 the incense oracle124 and various types of omen. There is no evidence in Israel for any of the first three types. The Hittites used extispicy and watched the flight of birds.125 The Egyptian barque oracle also is not strictly paralleled in Israel, although one of the other forms is. Cerny quotes the account of an Ethiopian(l) king who comes to Thebes to be chosen by the god Amun-Re: "Then they laid down the royal brothers before the god, but he did not select any of them... They laid down again the royal brother... Aspelta and this god Amon-re',, lord of the Throne of the Two Lands, said, 'It is he who shall be your king...'"126 The parallel with some of the accounts in the Hebrew Bible which describe the choice of one man out of many is striking. Another similar Egyptian account, however, highlights another of the differences between Israel and the rest of the ancient Near East. (2) In Israel, Yahweh's word is final. In Egypt, and apparently elsewhere, if an unsatisfactory answer was received, another god might be asked. Cerny notes an extreme case where a felon is identified from a list of villagers which is read out before the god Amun of Pakheny. The accused then bribes Amun of Tashenyt, but is still accused of theft, and finally, after a third opinion, he confesses to Amun of Pakheny.127 Such appeal to a different oracle is unknown in Israel, although King Saul tried different methods of obtaining an answer in 1 Sam 28:6—dreams, Urim (probably the ephod oracle) and prophets—before finally settling on necromancy as a last resort. The three methods Saul tries first are all legitimate ways of obtaining an oracle: the God of the oracle is in all cases Yahweh. 8. The Danite Oracle as a Private Oracle The present study of the ^Ntd oracle, which was used almost exclusively in a military context, has led to the conclusion that in the Danite story we have an example of this phenomenon. However, we should not rule out the possibility that the oracle could equally well be regarded as a private oracle granted to the five Danite spies as individuals rather than as military envoys. If this is how the story is to be regarded, it is the sole example of a bN2? oracle being used by private individuals. The conclusions reached here suggest that divination was used only at times of crisis. Nevertheless, most of the accounts recorded in the Hebrew Bible are about Yahweh's dealings with the people as a whole, and are rarely concerned with ordinary individuals. Thus it is possible that the Danite story provides us with evidence for the use of the priestly oracle for private ends. The fact that Micah has a private shrine may point in this direction. 123. For further details, see Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 145—47; G. Pettinato, Die Olwahrsagung bei der Babyloniern (2 vols.; Rome, 1966). 124. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 130. 125. Gurney, The Hittites, 132. Extispicy may have been conveyed to the Hittites by the Hurrians (Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 68). For the Human divination rituals, see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 68-70. 126. Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles," 38. 127. Ibid., 40-41.

134

Sacred Dan

There are other stories which may also point in this direction. First Samuel 22:10 may be interpreted thus since David is not yet a true military leader. However, in this case, since David's actual position in relation to Saul remains obscure, the evidence is ambiguous. With this may be set the evidence of the previous chapter where David is alone with Ahimelech, and where the ephod is not apparently used for divination, but is mentioned at 21:10 since Goliath's sword is behind it. At v. 8 we are told that Doeg the Edomite is there "restrained" ("1U173) before Yahweh, and it is he who reports Ahimelech to Saul (22:10). Driver comments that ~ll£iJ3 probably means "detained in the precincts of the sanctuary, and precluded from entering it, by some ceremonial impurity."128 It is not, however, clear what Doeg is doing there, nor is it clear from the participle whether he wanted to be there or not. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that Doeg was pursuing his own ends when he reports David's consultation with the priest of Nob to Saul, and that this report was not true. Much here rests on the interpretation of the type of oracle: if it was a military type, then what Doeg is accusing David of is tantamount to armed revolt, and Saul's anger would be comprehensible; on the other hand, one would not expect the report of a private oracle to worry Saul unduly. A clearer picture of the nature of private oracles may help alleviate the difficulties. (1) The standard way of obtaining a private oracle in the Hebrew Bible is to consult a prophet. In contrast to the verb ^WD of the priestly oracle, here the most common verb is ETn. Like ^NEJ, it too can be used in a non-technical sense, and can also mean "to worship" as in Deut 12:5 or Amos 5:4-6.129 In the vast majority of the technical uses of the word, a prophetic mediator is envisaged.130 The first instance of its use in connection with an oracle is in Gen 25:22, but there no intermediary is mentioned at all,131 and, in the context of the narrative, none is needed: Rebekah speaks to God directly. An example of the approaching of a prophet for an oracle is found in 1 Sam 9. Here Saul is looking for his father's donkeys, and is just about to turn back when his squire (1173) says that there is a "man of God" (DTI^N 2TN) in the town who might be able to tell them where to find them (v. 6). There is a discussion about what they are to pay him, and then an explanatory note: "Formerly in Israel, a man who was going to consult (CTIIlb) God would say, 'Come, let us go to the seer (rwin),' for what is called a prophet (»'I33) today was formerly called a seer."132 "Man of God" is a phrase most often used of Elijah and Elisha, of whom McCarter remarks, "[They] also prophesy, for the ability to know unseen things, whether past, present, or future, is also within the province of the man of God. But the designation 'man of God'...carries none of the special force of 'prophet'."133 It seems that for McCarter the man of God was also found in 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. Sheffield,

Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 175. S. Wagner, "Daras," TDOT3:293-307 (298). Ibid., 302. Cf. ibid., 302. Reading with BHS. McCarter, I Samuel, 175; cf. D. L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets (JSOTSup 17; 1981), 43-50.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

135

neighbouring cultures regardless of his god or gods, and would have been consulted on any matters of concern.134 It would thus appear that the seer or prophet135 was ordinarily consulted, both at the time of the narrative and at the time of its redaction. Other examples of private consultation include 1 Kgs 14:5, where the wife of Jeroboam consults Ahijah of Shiloh, a story whose authenticity is not to be denied, despite the Deuteronomistic flavour of the oracle.136 When Ahaziah sends to consult Baal-Zebub about his injuries in 2 Kgs 1:3, again 2TI1 is used. This seems to imply a contrast with the ^Ntf) of the ephod oracle, but what form the oracle took is uncertain from our present text, although the question to be asked is phrased in the "alternative" manner. Second Kings 8:7-10 shows the problems that may be encountered when a prophet is consulted. The question asked is in the "alternative" form, but Elisha responds in a way that no priest manipulating the ephod ever could. At this stage it becomes uncertain where the prophetic oracle is private and where it has replaced the ephod oracle. In 2 Kgs 3, Elijah takes the place of the ephod-carrying priest, and by 2 Kgs 22 a priest is sent to consult a prophetess, having lost all vestiges of divinatory power.137 The same is true of Jeremiah (ch. 21; and cf. also ch. 37) and Ezekiel (ch. 20). Micah 3:5-11 (especially v. 11) highlights the divergence between the prophets, who give oracles, and the priests, who by this stage, at least in the South, are involved mainly in teaching. He does not mention the priestly oracle. (2) It was also possible to consult God through dreams (1 Sam 28:6), but this may be an example of prophets' having dreams (cf. Num 12:6; Deut 13:1). Cryer suggests that Mesopotamian dream interpretation was also found in Israel.138 For this he cites the evidence of Gen 37 and 40.139 While one might be sceptical of Cryer's brand of pan-Babylonianism, the evidence does point to the fact that dreams could be interpreted for divinatory purposes, although the Genesis stories may suggest that the interpretation of dreams was not usual and was considered miraculous. In the case of Saul, it is unlikely that he had professional dream interpreters at court, and there is no evidence for the inducement of dreams with narcotics that was found in Mesopotamia.140 It should also be noted that, according to Lambert, in Mesopotamia the mysterious tamitu oracles could be used for relatively unimportant matters such as the control of horses, the inability to have male offspring or even the correct etiquette for marriage arrangements.141

134. McCarter, I Samuel, 175. 135. The terms are synonymous; cf. e.g. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, 241. 136. Cf. J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, The Books of Kings (ICC: Edinburgh, 1951), 266. 137. Cf. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 47. 138. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 267-72. For Mesopotamian dream oracles, see also Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel, 132-35. For an Egyptian text which deals with the interpretation of dreams, see ANET, 495. 139. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 268-71. 140. According to Professor J. N. Postgate, oral communication. 141. Lambert, "The Tamitu Texts," 122-23.

136

Sacred Dan

It is prophecy, therefore, which would probably have been the most common means of obtaining a private oracle in the pre-exilic period. There are some parallels in other Near Eastern cultures. Prophecy was of course known at Mari, but it appears that there the prophets were not consulted. The initiative came almost exclusively from the deity.142 Malamat, however, notes one example where Queen Sibtu asked a man and a woman concerning the outcome of a military campaign.143 Here in ARMXA it is not clear whether they are diviners, prophets or simply lay people. They are asked about matters concerning the two sides, Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, and Isme-Dagan, king of Assyria. For the first, the outcome would be exceptionally favourable (ma-di-is da-mi-iq}, for the latter, unfavourable (u-ul da-mi-iq). This is, nevertheless, apparently quite a rare report of a consultation. However, the casual way in which Sibtu describes the oracle for the king might make one suspect that it was a more frequent occurrence than the other textual evidence suggests: "On the subject of the fate of the expedition that my lord is going to send, I have consulted the male and female diviners about the signs: the augury for the lord is very favourable" (lines 2-6: "Au sujet du sort de 1'expedition que mon seigneur va entreprendre, j'ai consulte [ds-taal-ma] sur les 'signes' les devins(?)...homme et femme: 1'augure pour mon seigneur est extremement favorable"). Malamat interprets this as a type of egerrum [s/c]-oracle, where the people were chosen at random, and, having been plied with wine, speak at random. This is then taken as an oracle.144 It does not appear, however, that this sort of oracle was induced. Rather, it was prayed for, and then received by (divinely inspired) chance,145 so this may be a case of the consultation of professional diviners. By contrast with the Israelite situation, the prophets of Mari seem to be more concerned with placating the king than with accuracy. Malamat notes two oracles which he claims are "reminiscent of the biblical oracles 'against the nations,' "146 but may also be used as examples of gross inaccuracy on the part of the prophets. ARMXlll.23 reads that at a sacrifice to the god Dagan of Tuttul, the "repondant" ([awil] a-ap-lu-u-urri) spoke of Babylon that it would be destroyed (?—text damaged), and that its goods would come to the hands of Zimri-Lim. Some time later Mari fell to Hammurabi, king of Babylon. Another text (ARMXlll. 114) also reassures Zimri-Lim about Babylon, given by the wife of a free man (assat awilim), an example of lay prophecy. Oppenheim sees two examples of the egirru oracle in the Hebrew Bible. The first is 1 Sam 14:8-13, where the decision whether to attack the Philistines is 142. For prophecy in Mari, see also the discussion in A. Malamat, "The Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 33-52. 143. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, 90-91 144. Ibid., 91. 145. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 160; A. L. Oppenheim, "Sumerian: inim.gar, Akkadian: egirru = Greek: kledon" AfO 17 (1954-56): 49-55 (53). 146. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, 89—90.

4. Divination in the Danite Story

137

made on the basis of this sort of oracle. Jonathan and his squire wait for the Philistines to speak. Then, when the latter say, "Come up to us, and we will let you know something," Jonathan takes it as a sign, and he and his squire fall on the Philistines.147 The other is less clear. In 1 Kgs 20:30-34, when Ben-Hadad is defeated, his men go to the king of Israel who asks after his "brother." The men have been waiting for this oracle, recognize it (l&n]1), and say that Ben-Hadad is the king's brother, whereupon he is well treated, as the king realizes his words were put into his mouth by Yahweh.148 How often this was used as a means of determining God's will in Israel is not certain. Neither is it clear whether this came from Mesopotamia or whether it was also indigenous to Israel, since it was also found in Classical Greece.149 From the evidence surveyed above, it is clear that the oracle of Judg 18 is most likely to be interpreted as a military oracle rather than a private oracle, since it has none of the features of either Israelite or ancient Near Eastern private oracles, but much in common with the Hebrew military oracles which are also paralleled in other cultures. 9. Conclusions The present examination has left us with quite a clear idea of the nature of the oracle in the Danite story. It is a good example of the characteristically Hebrew ephod oracle, an oracle associated exclusively with the priesthood and which appears to have died out in the Southern Kingdom, but was retained in the North. There is little evidence from the ancient Near East for such an oracle. In Mesopotamia the dominant form of divination was extispicy, which was also found among the Hittites who probably borrowed it from their southern neighbours. This method was also used in Mari (part of Mesopotamia), and at Ugarit, which was influenced by the dominant Akkadian culture.150 There is evidence that it was used in the Bronze Age in Palestine, but no evidence has been found of its use in Israel, or any of its direct neighbours. Neither has evidence of its use been found in Egypt, where the divine oracle dominated. From this it would appear that Israel was not influenced by its more powerful neighbours. The ephod oracle, therefore, may well have been indigenous to Israel, although it had much in common with the more widely spread lot oracle. However, whereas the ancient Near Eastern lot oracle was a relatively informal, almost homespun form of divination, in Israel, the ephod oracle was one of the most formal and important. This is seen in the fact that it is manipulated only by priests and is evidenced mainly on the field of battle, although it may have been manipulated for other reasons. 147. Oppenheim, "Sumerian: inim.gar, Akkadian: egirru = Greek: kledon," 52. 148. Ibid., 52-53. See Gen 24:12-14 for another possible example. 149. Ibid., 51-55. 150. P. Xella, "L'influence baylonienne a Ougarit d'apres les textes alphabetiques rituels et divinatoires," in Mesopotamien undseine Nachbarn (ed. H. J. Nissen and J. Renger; Berlin, 1985), 321-38(323).

CONCLUSION: CULTIC LIFE AT DAN

I have argued that the Danite story was probably formulated in the immediate aftermath of the Assyrian invasions of the Northern Kingdom as an attempt to preserve what were in all certainty ancient memories of the foundation of the shrine. As such, it almost certainly contains reliable information about cultic life in the late pre-exilic period, that is, in the period prior to the fall of Dan. We have also seen that the picture the text gives us is of a cult which is in many ways typical of the ancient Near East at that time, so by using other parallel texts to supplement it, we can obtain a relatively clear picture of Hebrew cultic life at Dan before its final fall to the Assyrians. The following tentative reconstruction is based on the conclusions reached in other chapters, but must remain hypothetical since it is possible, although not altogether likely, that there were aspects of cultic life at Dan which differed significantly from the rest of the ancient Near East. According to tradition, the shrine was staffed by a priesthood which not only claimed to be genuinely Levitical, but was descended from none other than Jonathan, Moses' grandson (17:30). As we have seen, Judg 17-18 can be read to suggest that all Levites were once secular figures like the members of any other tribe, but, like Jonathan, many of them naturally became priests. The major functions of the Levitical priesthood at Dan would have been to look after the temple and its sacred image (18:20), and the priests would have been responsible for the manipulation of the ephod oracle. A very clear example of this means of divination is given in Judg 18:5-6 which conforms wholly to the normal pattern in the pre-monarchical Hebrew texts, and much of the ancient Near East in general. Because of the date and nature of this text, we know that the priests of Dan must have maintained this function down to the Exile. In other Hebrew settings, however, this function may well have been taken over by the prophet. The important shrine of Dan would have been a natural place for such prophets to frequent, as was also the case with Bethel in 2 Kgs 2:3. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that the priestly oracle was used only in cases of severe emergency, or on the battlefield (the evidence of Judg 17-18 is ambiguous here), and that cultic prophets were always responsible for the day-to-day giving of oracles (cf. the old woman of Abel beth Maacah who may have had a cultic function—2 Sam 20). Whoever was responsible for the taking of oracles, Dan was an important oracular centre for Israel in general (LXX 2 Sam 20:18), and for most of the year, the taking of oracles, the offering of incense and routine sacrifices would probably have been the major cultic activities at Dan.

Conclusion

139

However, things would have been very different at the time of the pilgrimage festivals. In the earliest days the pilgrims who would have teemed in the streets of the city would probably have been almost exclusively Danite since the shrine probably started life as a local shrine, even though folk from neighbouring tribes may have used Dan as their sanctuary too. We know that there was a network of such local shrines throughout the territory of the Hebrews. In later times, when Dan was a royal shrine, more people would have attended from further afield. This may well have included the king. As at Jerusalem, it is probable that the kings of the Northern Kingdom would have had a sacral function in their two royal sanctuaries. We do not know what this was, whether the king was the high priest par excellence, or whether he was a distinguished but non-sacral participant at the festival (if the Hebrews in fact drew such distinctions). Neither do we have any knowledge of how the system of having two royal sanctuaries worked in practice since our major source for these matters is the polemical account of 1 Kgs 12. They may possibly have been used in rotation, or some festivals may always have been held at Dan, others at Bethel. It is unlikely that Dan was the sole royal sanctuary at any time. Bethel remained a royal sanctuary until the final fall of the Northern Kingdom, and there is no reason why Dan should not have enjoyed the same privileges while it was in Israelite hands. At times of pilgrimage, as at Shiloh and other Semitic sanctuaries, it would probably have been primarily the pilgrims themselves and not the priests who sacrificed. The type of sacrifice offered would almost certainly have been the "communion sacrifice" in which worshippers shared in a meal with their God. The priests at Dan, as in other sanctuaries, would have been entitled to a share in this. It is also probable that the pilgrims provided gifts which would be spent on the general upkeep of the shrine, as well as providing for the needs of the priests. At a later stage, when Dan was patronised by the king, the priests would have been royal officials, and would thus have been paid by him. As at Jerusalem and Bethel, they therefore formed an ex officio part of the ruling elite of the kingdom, quite apart from their noble lineage. As to the God who was worshipped at Dan, there can be no doubt that it was Yahweh. The Judg 17-18 account makes this plain (17:2; 18:6, 10). The cult of Dan was criticized for many things, but syncretism was not one of them. The bull image was the central icon, the embodiment of Yahweh. At pilgrimage festivals it may well have been paraded through the city, and may even have been taken outside the walls. The bull may then have been placed in a temporary shrine near the gate, and finally brought back into the city in triumph. There is evidence for some sort of canopied structure in the main gateway at Dan,1 and it is conceivable, as Biran notes, that this may have had a cultic function. Leading from this to the supposed sacred precinct is a road along which the bull may have been carried in procession. At other times, on the other hand, it would probably have remained in the covered holy of holies. At times of battle, like the ark, it is possible that it may have been carried before the army as a sort of ensign, a visible symbol of Yahweh's presence with his people. 1.

Biran, Biblical Dan, 238-41.

140

Sacred Dan

Judges 18:30 notes that the Hebrew cult at Dan ceased at the time of the Assyrian invasions. The bull would either have been melted down or carried off to Nimrud where it could adorn the temple of the victorious Asshur. The priests of the shrine, like the rest of the population, were probably carried off into exile (cf. ANET, 283-84), and may possibly have been used as an example to the people because of their elevated status. Whether any remained behind to staff that shrine in the bitter years of Assyrian rule is not known. The continuing cult at Dan would suggest that this is possible, although it is not clear whether this had anything in common with earlier Israelite Dan. Whatever the case, it is likely that some of the priests escaped, enough at least to ensure that the traditions of Dan were kept alive in what we know have as Judg 17-18. In nearly every respect the cult of Dan probably did not differ significantly from Jerusalem and other Hebrew cultic centres. That the Hebrew Bible portrays Dan as different from Jerusalem in both cultic practice and theology need not be taken entirely at face value: this is very much the thrust of the pro-Jerusalem Deuteronomists who would stop at nothing to bolster the position of Jerusalem as the one and only legitimate Hebrew sanctuary. Furthermore, we have found evidence to suggest that neither the cult of Dan nor that of Jerusalem was significantly different from that of any other ancient Semitic sanctuary. This study has sought to provide a clearer understanding of the nature of the cult practised at the sanctuary of Dan—in many ways a much more authentically Hebrew shrine than Jerusalem—and to shed some much needed light on a significant, although sorely neglected part of the history of Hebrew religion. The time is now ripe for a positive reassessment of the cult of the Northern Kingdom, which for too long has been regarded as a poor relation of the Jerusalem!te cult both in material and theological terms. That this should not be the case is indicated by the fact that, for much of its history, the Northern Kingdom played a much more significant part in the events of its time and was much wealthier and more influential than its Southern neighbour, and that in some respects it was theologically even more advanced than Judah. This was, after all, the homeland of Hosea, and many scholars would argue that the Moses traditions were formulated and preserved in a Northern context. Surely its cult must be investigated as part of the Hebrew cultural inheritance alongside that of Jerusalem. However, all too often scholarship has been prepared to follow blindly the lead provided by the pro-Jerusalemite redactors which would have us believe that it was the Southern Kingdom which was politically prominent and theologically advanced, and that the Northern Kingdom was a primitive, provincial backwater, whereas the historical reality was somewhat different. Since Judg 17-18 as we have interpreted it is one of the few texts that deal sympathetically with the Northern cult, it is of paramount importance in this regard. At the same time, there is also a need for a far-reaching reassessment of the position of the Hebrew cult in the context of the ancient Near East. For too long Israel and especially Judah have been dealt with in a cultural vacuum especially in cultic and theological terms. This is again partly due to the emphasis of the purist Deuteronomists who abhorred anything that they regarded as "foreign,"

Conclusion

141

whether it was or not (for example, the teraphim may even have been indigenous to the Hebrews). For this reason scholars have attempted to drive a wedge between the cult of Jerusalem and that of its neighbours. However, it is also partly due to a feeling among the heirs of Jerusalem's cultural heritage that the Hebrews really ought to have been special and different from their cultural milieu, whether this reflects historical reality or not. Therefore, scholars have been too busy emphasizing the relatively small differences in cultic practice between the Hebrews and their ancient Near Eastern neighbours to see the very striking similarities. Now, however, it is time to redress the balance, and for Israel and Judah to take their proper place in the ancient Near East. Finally, it must be said that in matters pertaining to the Hebrew cult one cannot overestimate the importance of the shrine of Dan which for so long has been so consistently ignored, for while Dan has its feet firmly planted in the ancient Near East, it is also wholly and authentically Israelite.

Appendix

THE DANITE STORY AND THE HISTORY OF THE LEVITES

One important aspect of the Danite narrative which remains to be dealt with is the question whether there was ever a secular tribe of Levi, or whether the "tribe of Levi" was simply an artificial construction which had no historical foundation. The legend of Dan has been used as evidence to support both views. I do not propose to discuss this issue in depth, as the arguments seem quite clear cut. I will, however, offer my own interpretation of some of the material. 1. What Does "Levite" Mean? One of the classic approaches to the question is to devise an etymology for the name "Levi"; however, whereas etymologies can be interesting, they do not always help to define words.1 To take an English example: The word "hearse" means "vehicle for carrying a coffin at a funeral"—this is its definition. Its etymology is Middle English from Old French herse, "a harrow," from Classical Latin (h)irpex (via Mediaeval Latin and Romance), where it meant "large rake," which came ultimately from the Samnite (h)irpus which meant "wolf."2 This may be an extreme example, but it illustrates the point with some force. Thus, for example, Albright's suggestion that "Levi" comes from a supposed *lawiyu, meaning "person pledged for a debt or vow,"3 may be safely ignored even if it is possibly correct. Another approach is that of comparative religion. This too tells us very little about the idea of Levite, unlike the concept of a priest. Kraus, for example, has compared the ancient Minean 81 ^, and suggested from this that "Levi" was an old word for priest,4 even though it is not used in the oldest strata of the Hebrew Bible to mean this. This view has been refuted by de Vaux, who can find no parallel to Levites in any other non-Hebrew culture and goes as far as to suggest "'Levitism' remains an institution original to Israel."5 Previously in his article he 1. Cf. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), 105-6; idem, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1968), 90. 2. Cf. Oxford English Dictionary, ad loc. 3. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (3d ed.; Baltimore, 1953), 109. 4. H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (Oxford, 1966), 96. 5. De Vaux, "'Levites' mineens at levites israelites," 273: "le levitisme reste une institution originale d'Israel."

Appendix

143

suggested that "Levi" is a personal name found in Egypt and Mari, a view shared by Cody.6 The evidence of the Hebrew Bible suggests that in the early texts "Levite" means a member of the tribe of Levi, whether sacred or secular. 2. Was There a Secular Tribe of Levi? The majority of scholarly debate on Levites has been focused on this issue. Gunneweg, who denies that there was a tribe of Levi, proposes that the Levites were amphictyonic officials who were resident aliens among the clans, and as such were on the same level as those others who were in need of the support of the tribe, the widows and the orphans.7 He finds evidence for this in Deuteronomy where he sees a polemic developing in favour of the Levites over against other unacceptable cultic officials.8 That Levi as a caste and not a tribe is included in the tribal lists, Gunneweg explains by suggesting that this emphasized their links with the Amphictyony, which is also aided by their use of their caste name as an eponym.9 However, he ignores the two earliest texts concerning Levi, Gen 34 and 49, which offer us a picture of Levi as a secular tribe. Another major stumbling-block is that nowadays very few scholars would accept his idea that there was ever an Amphictyony let alone amphictyonic officials.10 In view of this, Gunneweg's views are untenable. Nielsen also denies that there was a secular tribe of Levi. He regards chs. 29, 34 and 49 of Genesis—the main texts which support the idea that Levi was a secular tribe—as being unreliable because they contradict Exod 32 and Deut 33, both of which he believes to be early.11 Because Nielsen can prove that some of the oracles in the Blessing of Moses can be dated quite early—an opinion with which I do not disagree—then all of them must come from the same early date.12 In this, Nielsen is naively ignoring the composite nature of the text. He furthers his belief by noting that in the Levi section, "Jacob" and "Israel" are used, but not "Judah" or "Zion," a feature he regards as pointing to an early date.13 Nielsen does not, however, point out that if we used this argument, we could date the whole of Deuteronomy to an early date, for—outside Deut 33-34—"Judah" occurs only once in the book at 27:12, and Zion not at all! Nielsen goes on to compare Deut 33 with Gen 49. The only point of agreement he notes is that in both the Levites are scattered.14 "But the oracle of Deut. 33 considers this to fit well to the proper function of the Levites and therefore wishes God's help to the Levites against their enemies. Whereas the oracle of 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Ibid., 268; Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 33. Gunneweg, Leviten undPriester, 78. Ibid., 81. Ibid., 79. See R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (2 vols.; London, 1978), 2:695-715. Nielsen, "The Levites in Ancient Israel," 71. Ibid., 73. Ibid., 73. Ibid., 75.

144

Sacred Dan

Gen 49 spoken in the name of a deity regards dispersion of the Levites as the effects of a curse."15 It appears to Nielsen that the Levites have their enemies because of their zeal for Yahweh, and Exod 32:25-29 suggests that disputes arose over worship, which were resolved sometimes violently by the Levites. As far as Nielsen is concerned, the anti-levitical Gen 49 which places Simeon and Levi together is the only piece of evidence for a secular tribe of Levi, and this may be discounted because of its bias.16 However, Nielsen does not feel it necessary to note that Deuteronomy is notoriously biased towards the Levites, whereas Genesis has no discernible bias. Nielsen does not say why he believes Genesis to have been anti-levitical; references to nebulous "enemies of the Levites" will simply not suffice. Of the Danite story Nielsen remarks that the Levite was a Judean, and was from Bethlehem, so that when the Danites recognized him it was really his southern accent that they recognised. Nielsen appears to regard this as a significant point, but the exclamation mark at the end of this sentence only serves to highlight the weakness of his argument.17 Later, he dismisses these chapters with Judg 19-21 as a popular short story;18 the only reliable thing about them being the tradition that Micah appointed a Levite to be his priest.19 Nielsen's treatment of Judg 19-21, however, remains interesting. Since he thinks the most important thing about a Levite is his zeal for Yahweh,20 Nielsen remarks that the Levite brings condemnation down on himself: "The narrator may have intended to say that the cruel event which later happened was a punishment on the Levite for his lack of remorseless zeal for the Lord."21 It is interesting, if this is indeed the case, that the Levite passes through the situation physically unharmed—it is his concubine and the Benjaminites who are the objects of the "cruel event." All in all, Nielsen's thesis fails on all counts to do justice to the evidence, ultimately because he does not admit that it is the sources that he regards as reliable that are in fact blatantly biased, whereas those that he regards as partisan, do in fact, in my view, hold the key to the problem. 3. Were Levites Necessarily Priests? We shall return to the "secular tribe of Levi" below. First, however, we must deal with the issue of the extent to which Levites can be equated with priests. While Haran has examined the evidence carefully, his approach relies very heavily on source-critical methods, fragmenting the texts to an extent no longer acceptable. There is also a certain inevitability about his conclusions. For example, he finds a "J" fragment in Exod 32:25-29. This turns out, conveniently, to be the only place the "J" Editor states that he regarded Levites as the sole legitimate cultic 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Ibid., 75-76. Ibid., 76. Ibid., 76. Ibid., 77. Ibid., 78. Ibid., 77. Ibid., 78.

Appendix

145

officials.22 Haran believes that there was a difference between what was acceptable at the local shrine, where anyone could sacrifice, and the Temple, where only established priestly (i.e. Levitical) families could sacrifice, for "all the [Pentateuchal] sources.. .admit that no priesthood exists outside the tribe of Levi.. .the priesthood is carried out only by certain families of that tribe—by that of Aaron, or of Zadok, or by families who have attained the priesthood at the temple."23 (He regards the "J" narrative of Exod 19:6 as anachronistic.24) Haran goes on to deal with 2 Sam 8:18 and 20:26. For him the passages dealing with David's sons and Ira the Jairite as priests must mean that they were priests of the high places, because only Levites could be priests of the central sanctuary. Furthermore, Eleazar's son in 1 Sam 7:1 was not a priest since he was only guarding the ark, and not carrying it. Zadok must also be a Levite: in 2 Sam 15:24, we are told, "and behold also Zadok and all the Levites with him were carrying the ark," of which Haran says, "This gives the impression that Zadok is considered to be one of them."25 For this, we might compare a hypothetical sentence from Genesis: "And behold Noah and all the animals with him were entering the ark." Haran's views are unlikely in the extreme. He assumes that, since Levites were priests and priests were Levites in a later period, they must have been priests at an earlier period. It is significant that in the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible, nevertheless, there is no obvious correlation between priest and Levite, with the exception of th Danite legend itself. 4. The Question of the Secular Tribe of Levi To return to the question of the secular Levite: Wellhausen suggested that there was a secular tribe of Levi which, after the Shechem event related in Gen 34,26 was looking for a place in society, and as Moses had come from the tribe, its members naturally assumed sacrificial duties (Wellhausen regarded priests primarily as sacrificers). Possibly, according to Wellhausen, the name Levite was at first only given to people descended from Moses, and was only later transferred to priests as a whole.27 Gray too has some valuable insights on the history of the tribe of Levi and its relation to the priesthood. With respect to the latter question, Gray said that the Levites had once been a secular tribe, as the sagas and the Blessing of Jacob in Genesis imply.28 Their "conversion" to a priestly tribe appears to have been an event which was started, if not entirely completed, by Moses some time between the Exodus and the Conquest.29 This process is hinted at in Exod 32:25-29, which 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 66. Ibid., 71. Haran, "Priests and Priesthood," EncJud 13:1069-86 (1073). Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 77. Cf. also Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 384. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 145. G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford, 1925), 245. Ibid., 248.

146

Sacred Dan

shows the zeal of the Levites for Yahweh. Gray notes that this shows the same characteristics as the Genesis narratives in that Levi here is portrayed as a priestly tribe in waiting, but is still at least partly secular. The ruthlessness which characterized the tribe in Gen 49 is still apparent here, except that here the Levites were using their violence in righteousness.30 Gray suggests that Levi became a sacred tribe over the course of the years, but that, as the Danite story shows, they were not the only people to be able to fulfil priestly functions. After that time the exclusive claims of the Levites were gradually recognized.31 Gray does, nevertheless, admit that it was possible that some priests who were not strictly Levitical became Levites in the sense of cultic functionaries.32 Gray's views are quite plausible, although he tends to date the prose sections of the Pentateuch much earlier than the poetical sections. Thus he dates the blessing of Moses to ca. 550.33 In the legend of Dan he sees the Levite as already being a cultic functionary who found it difficult to find work at a shrine in the south, since there was a higher proportion of Levites there.34 The implication of the argument is that he assumes the Levite was in fact already a priest, since according to his theory, the Levites had been set apart for the priesthood at some time during the lifetime of Moses. Cody's hypothesis is that the Levites might have been late arriving in the land, and thus had no territory, or were not numerous enough to have been given one. Since they had no land, they were searching for a landless trade, and so they returned to professional priesthood which had been their traditional role in society. They were, nevertheless, not born priests, but became priests like the Levite of Judg 18:3-4 who had to be asked by the Danites exactly what he was doing, to which he responds that he is a priest.35 All these views have much to commend them, but none seems to do complete justice to the evidence that we have at our disposal. One avenue of approach is to ask: When we argue about whether there was a secular tribe of Levi or not, what exactly do we mean by the term "tribe"? Does it imply consanguinity, or is it something looser, or indeed a is it a territorial term? To take the example of the tribe about which, for various reasons, we know most: Judah. In Judah there were certainly diverse racial groups, for example, Calebites, possibly Kenites, Simeonites, at a later date Jebusites, as well as Judahites proper. While it is certain that they were not descended from a common ancestor—the patriarch Judah—they are seen to act together as one unit, a tribe. Thus, when David is asked to be king over all Judah (2 Sam 2:1-4), it is not surprising that he becomes king in Hebron, the centre of the sub-tribe of Caleb. Soggin suggests that "Judah" was a territorial term, and not a demographic term.36 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

Ibid., 249. Ibid., 254. Ibid., 255. Ibid., 246. Ibid., 216-17. Cody, A History oj Old Testament Priesthood, 56-59. Soggin, Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah, 182.

Appendix

147

The idea of "tribe" as a geographical term is one which is becoming common in the scholarly literature, and indeed makes a degree of sense. Just as Judah may be a geographical term, so might Gad or Gilead—usually Gad is taken to be the name of the population, and Gilead the place where they lived, but it is obviously not as simple as that. There is, however, a problem with this in the Hebrew Bible, because whether or not in historical fact "tribe" was a geographical term, in the Bible the term is used to refer to a population descended from a common ancestor.37 Thus in the accounts of the portioning out of land to the population, it is the tribes that occupy the territory. This is even more apparent when one takes the tribe of Levi into account: whatever the historical truth of the matter, Levi is regarded as a tribe without a territory; it is, then, the exception that can be taken as proving the rule. Indeed, Gunneweg has pointed out that the Hebrew Bible goes out of its way to asseverate that Levi is a part of the tribal system,38 in the same way that, say, Judah is even though it did not have its own territory. Thus, whatever Levi's origins, we can equate membership of the tribal system with full tribal status. This is regardless of whether the Levites felt they were descended from the patriarch Levi, or indeed regardless of whether or not they ever had any territory. The status of the tribe of Levi is further enhanced by the fact that, like the Davidic tribe of Judah, it is one of the Leah tribes. These are always mentioned first in the tribal order, and to a certain extent are regarded as pre-eminent. Furthermore, the very fact that they were regarded as resident aliens in the other tribes suggests that they were felt to have an allegiance to another group, evidently to their own tribe of Levi. We may now return to the question whether this tribe was a secular tribe. This does not have to be answered on the basis of the important traditions of Gen 34 and 49 alone. If we turn to the appendix of the book of Judges (chs. 17-21), we do in fact find secular Levites. Jonathan ben Gershom was not a priest until Micah and, subsequently, the Danites appointed him—indeed Micah even has to suggest to him that he become a priest. There is also, as far as we know, nothing religious about the Levite of chs. 19-21! It seems that if we find any religious function inherent in either of these men, it is because we are presupposing that Levites were inherently religious and not secular, and that we then reflect these presuppositions back on to a text which will not support them (pace Gunneweg). 5. Proposed Reconstruction of the History of Levi in the Light of Judges 17-18 It is now possible to offer our own historical reconstruction of the tribe of Levi. In Gen 49:5-7, Simeon and Levi (in that order!) are brothers. This appears to mean that they share a similar fate—dispersal. We are not entirely sure how this came about, although, like Wellhausen and Moore, we might like to speak of a 37. Whybray, for example, defines a tribe as "a territorial group of settled agricultural or even urban people who claim a common ancestry"; see R. N. Whybray, "Tribe," in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed. B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan; New York: 1993), 778-79 (779). 38. Gunneweg, Leviten undPriester, 79.

148

Sacred Dan

Shechem event on the basis of Gen 34. This may have involved a similar intertribal action to that depicted in Judg 21, or a battle may have taken place where the tribes may have been severely weakened; the Genesis traditions are infuriatingly obscure on the point. After this "Shechem event," Simeon, at least, seems to have been absorbed into Judah, losing its full tribal identity. Levi, sharing the same fate, was also dispersed among the other tribes, and some at least of its members were attached to Judah. This is where the similarity between the two tribes ends. Levi did not suffer the same fate as its brother tribe Simeon: it was dispersed, but not wholly absorbed. Whereas Simeon became a clan of Judah, the Levites were always regarded as resident aliens, not wholly part of the host tribe. Why was this? The most simple explanation is that, whereas it was not worth remembering that a family was Simeonite, possibly it was, on the other hand, worth remembering that it was Levitical. The only reason that we know of that Levi would have had to be proud of itself is that Moses was always regarded as a Levite. In view of the close association between them and the founder of the Yahwistic faith, it seems highly probable that Mosaic traditions were guarded and cherished by the Levites—in the first place as tribal memories, and then as traditions important to all the tribes. Possibly, because of these traditions, people would have regarded them as being closer to God in some way, in the same way that Moses was closer to God. Thus, rather than the Levites choosing to associate themselves with sanctuaries, it seems more likely that they would have been asked to become associated with the sanctuaries. This is exactly what happens in Judg 17: Micah asks Jonathan to be his priest, and is then very pleased to have a Levite in his private shrine. This is a more likely scenario because of the highly conservative nature of religion in general: Levites who were asked to serve in sanctuaries would be infinitely more acceptable than Levites who chose of their own accord to do so. Cody's idea that the Levites did not have anything to do39 is unlikely since the tribe of Simeon did not seem to have difficulties of this sort, and one would naturally expect the same to be true of the Levites. Let us return to Deut 33:8-11. Cody points out that vv. 8-9a and 11 are in the singular, using "Levi" to refer to the whole tribe, while vv. 9b-10 are in the plural. He suggests that the passages must date from different times.40 The passage in the singular he regards as older because it mentions the Urim and the Thummim. However, since these were part of the high priest's regalia at a very late date, even after they had ceased to be used for normal oracular consultation, it is not possible to suggest an early date for the passage simply from a reference to them. So, whereas Cody sees the singular part as particularly ancient, and the plural part of a much more recent date, we do not necessarily take this view. The whole blessing fits in exceptionally well with the general thrust of Deuteronomy, which is particularly concerned with the needs of the tribe of Levi as a 39. 40.

Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 59. Ibid., 115-16.

Appendix

149

whole. A form-critical analysis of the opening verse is very revealing. If we follow the LXX (cf. BHS n. 8a), what we have is not a blessing, nor a statement, but a prayer, an intercession, put significantly onto the validating lips of Moses. The request is that God might allow the whole of the tribe of Levi to serve as priests because of their zeal for him, and that God might restore the group to its full tribal status. In view of this, it seems that the whole of this section may possibly be regarded as having been composed as a unit by the compilers of Deuteronomy. The alternation from singular to plural and back again is not unknown in Hebrew, especially in poetry, and, therefore, no objection to this view. Even if this is not the case, it is still clear that the passage is an accurate reflection of the views of the compilers. Thus I would suggest that, on balance, the majority—if not all—of the ancient texts point to the idea that the tribe of Levi was not originally an exclusively priestly tribe, and, although they were preferred as priests, as at Dan, they did not always function in this way. It is highly possible, however, that only those Levites who were priests at a later date retained the name "Levite," and that the others, like the "twin" tribe of Simeon, were eventually absorbed into the tribes among whom they lived. Thus, Levi, I would suggest, went from being a secular tribe like any other in the earlier texts to the priestly caste of the later strata of the Hebrew Bible. Other priests who were not strictly of Levitical descent may also have been adopted into the tribe, in a similar fashion to the clans of the tribe of Judah. 6. The Levitical Priesthood of Dan The priesthood at Dan seems to have had particularly strong claims to Levitical descent—indeed, descent from Moses himself. This is despite the fact that 1 Kgs 12:31 appears to discredit the priesthoods of both Bethel and Dan by claiming they were non-Levitical. That the tradition of the Mosaic ancestry of the priests of Dan was well known in Israel is shown by the fact that even when Judg 17-18 were used as a polemic against the shrine, the redactors did not feel able legitimately to excise the name of Moses as the traditional ancestor of the priests there. Surely no one in later Israel would have invented such a tradition. Much more than this we do not know. That the shrine survived into Roman times would suggest that Dan still had a priesthood at that stage, but whether it had a direct connection with the ancient Israelite priesthood or not, cannot at this remove be ascertained. 7. Conclusions The importance of Judg 17-18 for the study of the history of the tribe of Levi is inestimable. These chapters contain one of the only references to a Levite who is a priest. We noted earlier that the Levite has to be made a priest at the instigation of the patron of the shrine, but that he is preferable in this role to the Ephraimite son of Micah. We have seen that the Hebrews also had non-Levitical priests, but

150

Sacred Dan

what may be unexpected in the chapters is that Levites were preferred as priests at a relatively early date. This is in contrast to other sources which indicate that the tribal origin of priests was not an issue in pre-Josianic times, and that it was only with Josiah's reform that it became an important concern. The Danite story may be seen as a crystallization of the historical processes by which Levites became priests. According to the legend they were invited to do so because of their tribal links with the founder of the Yahwistic faith, Moses. It, therefore, seems appropriate that the Levitical priest should be, not the grandson of Moses' brother Aaron, but, according to tradition, the direct descendant of Moses himself. This tradition—one of the most important for the shrine of Dan— was almost certainly treasured, so that by the time our present text was formulated in the period immediately following the fall of Dan to the Assyrians, it would probably have been inconceivable to have omitted it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources and Reference Works Borger, R. Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste. AOAT 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Cagni, L. L 'Epopea di Erra. Studi Semitici 34. Rome: Institute di studi del vincio oriente, 1969. Cerboni Baiardi, G., ed. Tasso: Gerusalemme Liberata. Modena: Institute di studi rinascimentali, 1991. Cohen, A. The Babylonian Talmud: Sotah. London: Soncino Press, 1985. Dalley, S. Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. De Selincourt, A., and A. R. Burn (trans.). Herodotus: The Histories. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972. Diez Macho, A. Neophyti 7. 6 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificos, 1968-79. Dirksen, P. B. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Part 2 fascicle 2. Judges-Samuel. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Duff, J. D., ed. Silias Italicus: Punica. 1 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1934. Eliade, M. Essential Sacred Writings from around the World. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. Previously published as From Primitives to Zen. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Erman, A., and H. Grapow. Worterbuch der Agyptischen Sprache. 1 vols. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1926-63. Evelyn-White, H. G., ed. Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns andHomerica. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1914. Field, F., ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Friedlander, G. Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. London: Kegan Paul, 1916. Ginsburger, M. Pseudo-Jonathan. Berlin: Calvary, 1903. Harmon A. M., ed. Lucian: Works. 8 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1925. Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Jones, W. H. S., ed. Pausanias: Description of Greece. 4 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1918. Joiion, P., and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. SubsidiaBiblica 14. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Labat, R., A. Cacquot, M. Sznycer and M. Vieyra. Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatique. Le tresor spirituel de 1'humanite. Paris: Fayard-Denoel, 1970. Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard. Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Lambert, W. G., and S. B. Parker. Enuma Elis: The Babylonian Epic of Creation: The Cuneiform Text. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. Neusner, J. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Simon, M., and I. W. Slotki. The Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra. 1 vols. London: Soncino, 1976. Smelik, K. A. D. Writings from Ancient Israel. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. ET Behouden Schrift. Baarn: Ten Have, 1984.

152

Sacred Dan

Starr, I. Queries to the Sungod. State Archives of Assyria 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990. Thackeray, H. St. J., ed. Josephus: Works. 9 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1930. Thureau-Dangin, F. Rituels accadiens. Paris: Leroux, 1921. Way, A. S., ed. Euripides: Works. Vols. 1-4. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1912. Xella, P. / Testi Rituali di Ugarit. Vol. 1, Testi. Studi Semitici 54. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, 1981.

Secondary Sources Ackroyd, P. R. "The Teraphim." ExpTim 62 (1950-51): 378-80. Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Ahlstro'm, G. W. Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion. Lund: Gleerup, 1963. Albertz, R. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1994. ET of Religionsgeschichte Israels. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Albright, W. F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. 3d ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1953. —"Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?" BASOR 83 (1941): 38^2. —From the Stone Age to Christianity. 2d ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957. —Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Jordan Lectures 1965. London: Athlone, 1968. Alt, A. "Joshua." Pages 176-92 in Kleine Schriften I. Munich: Beck, 1953. Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Amit, Y. "Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan." JT40 (1990): 4-20. Anderson, A. A. Psalms. 2 vols. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972. Anderson, G. W. The History and Religion of Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. Arnold, W. R. Ephod and Ark. Harvard Theological Studies 3. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917. Auerbach, E. Mimesis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953. ET of Mimesis. Berne: Francke, 1946. Auneau, J. "Sacerdoce." DBSup 10, cols. 1170-54. Bailey, L. R. "The Golden Calf." HUCA 42 (1972): 97-115. Barkay, G. "The Iron Age II-III." Pages 302-73 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Edited by A. Ben-Tor. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Barr, J. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. —The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Barthelemy, D. "La qualite du Texte Massoretique de Samuel." Pages 1-44 in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel. Edited by E. Tov. Jerusalem: Academon, 1980. Bartusch, M. W. Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and Ancestor. JSOTSup 379. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Barucq, A. "Oracle et divination." DBSup 6:752-88. Becker, U. Richterzeit und Konigtum. BZAW 192. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Bernhardt, K. H. Gott undBild. Theologische Arbeiten 2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1956. Bertheau, E. Das Buch der Richter und Ruth. 2nd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1883. Bewer, J. "The Composition of Judges, Chaps. 17,18." AJSL 29 (1912-13): 261-83. Biran, A. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1994.

Bibliography

153

—"To the God Who is in Dan." Pages 142-51 in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Edited by A. Biran. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1981. Biran, A., and J. Naveh. "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan." 7E743 (1993): 81-98. Black, J., and A. Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. London: British Museum Press, 1992. Blenkinsopp, J. Gibeon and Israel. SOTSMS 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Block, D. I. "The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule." Pages 39-57 in Gileadi, ed., Israel's Apostasy and Restoration. Boling, R. G. Judges. AB 6A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975. Bottero, J. La Religion Babylonienne. Mythes et Religions 30. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1952. Bray, J. S. "Genesis 23: A Priestly Paradigm for Burial." JSOT60 (1993): 69-73. —Review of F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel. VT46 (1996): 566-67. —Review of P. D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel. J7SNS 53 (2002): 126-29. Bright, J. Early Israel in Recent Historical Writing. SBT 19. London: SCM Press, 1956. —A History of Israel. 3d ed. London: SCM Press, 1981. Budd, P. J. "Priestly Instruction in Pre-Exilic Israel." VT23 (1973): 1-14. Budde, K. Das Buck der Richter. Freiburg: Mohr, 1897. —Die Bucher der Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau. Giessen: J. Ricker, 1890. Burney, C. F. The Book of Judges. 2d edn. London: Rivingtons, 1920. Campbell, A. F. The Ark Narrative. SBLDS 16. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Carroll, R. P. "The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images." 5731 (1977): 51-64. Cerny, J. "Egyptian Oracles." Pages 35-48 in A Saite Oracle Papyrus. Edited by R. A. Parker. Brown Egyptological Studies 4. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1962. Childs, B. S. Exodus. OTL: London: SCM Press, 1974. —Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London: SCM Press, 1985. Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1-39. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980. —Deuteronomy. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Cody, A. A History of Old Testament Priesthood. AnBib 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 2 Kings. AB 11. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988. Coogan, M. D. "Of Cults and Cultures: Reflections on the Interpretation of Archaeological Evidence." PEQ 119 (1987): 1-8. Couroyer, B. "Histoire d'une tribu semi-nomade de Palestine." RB 58 (1951): 75-91. Criisemann, F. Der Widerstand gegen das Konigtum. WMANT 49. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Cryer, F. H. Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment. JSOTSup 142. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Curtis, A. H. W. "Aetiology." DBI, 8. —"Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and the Old Testament." Pages 17-31 in In Quest of the Past. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. OTS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1990. David, R. Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: Penguin, 2002. Davies, G. I. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. —Hosea. NCB. London: Marshall Pickering, 1992. —Megiddo. Cities of the Biblical World. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1987. Davies, P. R. "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?" JTS NS 26 (1975): 81-87. Day, J. "The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah vii 12,14." Pages 87-94 in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Edited by J. A. Emerton. SVT 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

154

Sacred Dan

—Psalms. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. De Vaux, R. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2d ed. London, 1965. ET of Les Institutions de I'Ancien Testament. 1 vols. Paris, 1958-60. —The Early History of Israel. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978. ET ofHistoire ancienne d'Israel. 2 vols. Paris: Lecoffre, 1971. —" 'Levites' mineens et levites Israelites." Pages 265-73 in Lex tua veritas. Edited by H. Gross and F. Mussner. Trier: Paulinus, 1961. —"Sur 1'origine Kenite ou Madianite du Yahvisme." Eretz Israel 9 (W. F. Albright Volume) (1969): 28-32. Deller, K. "Die Hausgotter der Familie Sukrija S. Huja." Pages 47-76 in Studies on the Civilization and Culture ofNuzi and the Hurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman. Edited by M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Dothan, T. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Dothan, M., and T. Dothan. "An Archaeological Romance." BAR (September/October 1993): 40-53. Dozeman, T. B. God on the Mountain. SBLMS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Driver, S. R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Dussaud, R. "Cultes canaaneens au sources du Jourdain d'apres les textes de Ras Shamra." Syria 18 (1936): 283-95. Edelman D. V., ed., The Triumph ofElohim. Kampen: Kok, 1995. Eerdmans, B. D. The Religion of Israel. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden, 1947. Eissfeldt, O. Die Quellen des Richterbuches. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1925. —"Lade und Stierbild." Pages 282-305 in Kleine Schriften H. Tubingen: Mohr, 1963 (repr. fromZW58 [1940-41]: 190-215). Emerton, J. A. "Abraham Kuenen and the Early Religion of Ancient Israel," Pages 8-28 in Abraham Kuenen (1828-1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament. Edited by P. B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij. OTS 29. Leiden: Brill 1993. —"A Difficult Part of Mot's Message to Baal in the Ugaritic Texts (CTA 5 i 4-6)." AJBA 2 (1972): 50-71. —" 'The High Places at the Gates' in 2 Kings xxviii 8." VT44 (1994): 455-67. —"Some Problems in Genesis xiv." Pages 73-102 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. SVT 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Exum, J. C. "The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges." CBQ 52 (1990): 410-31. Faulkner, R. O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962. Faur, J. "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry." JQR NS 69 (1978): 1-15. Fernandez, A. "El santuario de Dan. Estudio critico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18." Biblica 15 (1934): 23 7-64. Fleming, D. E. The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar. HSM. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Fohrer, G. History of Israelite Religion. London, 1973. ET of Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968. Gall, A. F. von. Altisraelitische Kultstatten. BZAW 3. Giessen: Ricker'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1898. Gardiner, A. Egyptian Grammar. 3d ed. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957. Caster, T. H. "Ba'al is Risen." Iraq 6 (1939): 109-43. Gelston, A. The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Gerbrandt, G. E. Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History. SBLDS 87. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

Bibliography

155

Gileadi, A., ed. Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gordon, C. H. The Mediterranean Factor in the Old Testament: Congress Volume; Bonn, 1962. SVT 9. Leiden: Brill 1963. —"The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets." BASOR 66 (1937): 25-27. Gordon, R. P. 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster, 1986. Goulder, M. D. The Psalms of the Sons ofKorah. JSOTSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982. Grabbe, L. L. "Prophets, Priests, Diviners and Sages in Ancient Israel." Pages 43-62 in Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour ofR. Norman Whybray on His 70th Birthday. Edited by H. A. McKay and D. J. A. Clines. JSOTSup 16. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Gray, G. B. Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925. Gray, J. 1 and 2 Kings. 2d ed. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1970. —Joshua, Judges and Ruth. 2d ed. NCB. Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1986. Greenberg, M. "Another Look at Rachel's theft of the Teraphim." JBL 81 (1962): 237^8. Greenfield, J. C. "Aspects of Aramean Religion." Pages 67-78 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion. Gressmann, H. Die Anfdnge Israels. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Gunneweg, A. H. J. Leviten undPriester. FRLANT 89. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Gunkel, H. Genesis. 2d ed. HKAT. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902. Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990. —Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. The Schweich Lectures 1976. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Gutmann, J. "The 'Second Commandment' and the Image in Judaism." HUCA 32 (1961): 161-74. Habel, N. C. Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures. New York: Bookman, 1964. Hahn, J. Das "Goldene Kalb": Die Jahwe-Verehning bei Stierbildern in der Geschichte Israels. Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.154. Frankfurt: Lang, 1981. Hallo, W. W. "Cult Statue and Divine Image." Pages 1-17 in Scripture in Context II. Edited by W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. —"The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and Israel." Pages 3-13 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion. Handy, L. K. "The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah." Pages 27^43 in Edelman, ed., The Triumph ofElohim. Haran, M. "Priests and Priesthood." EncJud 13:1069-86. —Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Hauret, C. "Aux origines du sacerdoce danite." Pages 103-13 in Melanges bibliques rediges en I 'honneur de Andre Robert. Travaux de 1' Institute Catholique de Paris 4. Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957. Hertzberg, H. W. Die BucherJosua, Richter, Ruth. 2d ed. ATD. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Hoffner, H. A. "Hittite Tarpis and Hebrew Teraphim." JNES 28 (1968): 61-68. Jacobsen, T. "The Graven Image." Pages 15-33 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion. Japhet, S. I and II Chronicles. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1993. Johnson, A. R. The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. 2d ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1962.

156

Sacred Dan

Johnstone, W. "Old Testament Technical Expressions in Property Holding: Contributions from Ugarit." Page 313 in Ugaritica 6. Mission de Ras Shamra 17. Paris: Mission Archeologique de Ras Shamra, 1969. Kaiser, O. Isaiah 13-39. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1974. ET of Der Prophet Jesaja Kap. 13-39. ATD 18. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. Gottinnen, Cotter und Gottessymbole. Freiburg: Herder, 1992. Klein, L. R. The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges. JSOTSup 68. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Koch, K. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method. London: Black, 1969. ET of Was ist Formgeschichte? Neue Wege der Bibelexegese. 2d ed. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Kramer, S. N. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Kraus, H.-J. Worship in Israel. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. ET of Gottesdienst in Israel. 2d ed. Munich: Kaiser, 1962. Kuenen, A. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bucher des alien Testaments. Part 1, vol. 2. 2d ed. Leipzig: Reisland, 1890. Labuschagne, C. J. "Teraphim: A Proposal for Its Etymology." VT 16 (1966): 115-17. Lambert, W. G. "The Tamitu Texts." Pages 119-23 in La Divination en Mesopotamie Ancienne et dans les Regions Voisines. Edited by J. Nougayrol. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1966. Lancaster, W. The Rwala Bedouin Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Landsberger, B., and H. Tadmor. "Fragments of Clay Liver Models from Hazor." IEJ 14 (1964): 201-18. Lindars, B. Judges 1-5. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. Long, B. O. The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament. BZAW 108. Berlin: Topelmann, 1968. Macdonald, J. "The Status and Role of the Na'ar in Israelite Society." JNES 35 (1976): 147-70. Macintosh, A. A. "The Meaning of mklym in Judges xviii 7." VT35 (1985): 68-77. Malamat, A. "The Ban in Mari and the Bible." Pages 52-61 in Mari and the Bible. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1990. —"The Danite Migration and the Pan Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern." Biblica 51 (1970): 1-16. —"The Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents." Pages 33-52 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion. —Mari and the Early Israelite Experience. The Schweich Lectures 1984. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Martin, J. D. The Book of Judges. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Mayes, A. D. H. Israel in the Period of the Judges. SBT 2d Series 29. London: SCM Press, 1974. —Judges. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985. —The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile. London: SCM Press, 1983. Mazar, A. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. 2d ed. ABRL. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992. —"The 'Bull Site': An Iron Age I Open Cultic Place." BASOR 247 (1982): 27-42. —"On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael Coogan." BAR 14/4 (1988): 45. McCarter, P. K. I Samuel. AB 8. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980. —II Samuel. AB 9. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984. McEvenue, S. "A Return to the Sources in Genesis 28,10-22?." ZAW 106 (1994): 375-89.

Bibliography

157

Mettinger, T. N. D. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context. CBOTS 42. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. —"The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God." Pages 15-29 in Religious Symbols and Their Functions. Edited by H. Biezais. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979. Meyers, C. "Ephod." ABD 2:550. Milgrom, J. Leviticus 1-16. AB 3. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1991. —Leviticus 23-27. AB 3B. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2000. Miller, P. D. "Aspects of Ugaritic Religion." Pages 53-66 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion. —The Religion of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Miller, P. D., P. D. Hanson and S. D. McBride, eds. Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain of God. JSOTSup 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983. —The Old Testament of the Old Testament. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Montgomery, J. A., and H. S. Gehman. The Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951. Moore, G. F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. —Judges. Polychrome Bible. London: David Nutt, 1898. Morenz, S. Egyptian Religion. London: Methuen, 1973. ET of Agyptische Religion. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960. Murtonen, A. "Some Thoughts on Judges xvii sq." VT 1 (1951): 223-24. Na'aman, N. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986. Neihr, H. "The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion." Pages 45-72 in Edelman, ed., The Triumph ofElohim. Nielsen, E. "The Levites in Ancient Israel." Pages 71-81 in Law, History and Tradition. Copenhagen: Gads Forlag, 1983. Repr. from ASTI3 (1964): 16-27. Niemann, H. M. Die Daniten. FRLANT 135. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Noth, M. "The Background of Judges 17-18." Pages 68-85 in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. London: SCM Press, 1962. —TheDeuteronomistic History. 2d ed. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. ETof UberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien. 2d ed. Tubingen: Mohr, 1957. —Exodus. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1962. ET of Das Zweite Buck Mose: Exodus. ATD 5. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. Nowack, W. Richter, Ruth undBucherSamuelis. HKAT. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902. Obbink, H. T. "Jahwebilder." ZAW41 (1929): 264-74. O'Connell, R. H. "The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges." Ph.D. diss. Cambridge University, 1992. Oppenheim, A. L. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. —"The Golden Garments of the Gods." JNES 8 (1949): 172-93. —"Sumerian: inim.gar, Akkadian: egirru = Greek: kledon." AfO 17 (1954-56): 49-55. Oswalt, J. N. "Golden Calves and the 'Bull of Jacob.'" Pages 9-20 in Gileadi, ed., Israel's Apostasy and Restoration. —"The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity." EvQ 45 (1973): 13-20.

158

Sacred Dan

Peckham, B. "Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence." Pages 79-99 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion. Pedersen, J. Israel: Its Life and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 1940. —"The Role Played by Inspired Persons Among the Israelites and the Arabs." Pages 127-42 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to T. H. Robinson. Edited by H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. Penna, A. Giudici e Rut. La sacra bibbia. Rome: Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1963. Petersen, D. L. The Roles of Israel's Prophets. JSOTSup 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. Pettinato, G. Die Olwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern. 2 vols. Rome: Institute di studi del vicino oriente, 1966. Pfeiffer, R. H. Introduction to the Old Testament. Rev. ed. London: A. & C. Black, 1948. Phillips, A. "The Ecstatics' Father." Pages 183-94 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Polzin, R. Moses and the Deuteronomist. New York: Seabury, 1980. Porter, J. R. "Ancient Israel." Pages 191-214 in Divination and Oracles. Edited by M. Loewe and C. Blacker. London: Allen & Unwin, 1981. Puech, E. "La stele arameenne de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides et de la maison de David." RB 101 (1994): 215-41. Rad, G. von. Deuteronomy. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1966. ET of Das Funfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. ATD 8. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. —Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1975. ETof Theologie des Alten Testaments. Munich: Kaiser, 1957-60. Redford, D. B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. SVT 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Ringgren, H. Israelite Religion. London: SPCK, 1966. ET of Israelitische Religion. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963. Rost, L. The Succession to the Throne of David. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982. ETof Die Uberlieferung des Thronnachfolge Davids in Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965, 119-253. Rudolph, W. Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi. KAT. Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1976. Sabourin, L. Priesthood: A Comparative Study. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Saggs, H. W. F. The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel. The Jordan Lectures 1978. London: Athlone, 1978. Sandars, N. K. The Sea Peoples. London: Thames & Hudson, 1978. Satterthwaite, P. E. "Narrative Artistry and the Composition of Judges 17-21." Ph.D. diss. Manchester University, 1989. —"'No King in Israel': Narrative Criticism and Judges 17-21." Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 75-88. Sauneron, S. Lespretres de I'ancienne Egypte. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1957. Schley, D. G. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. JSOTSup 63. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Schmidt, B. B. "The Aniconic Tradition." Pages 75-105 in Edelman, ed., The Triumph of Elohim. Schmidt, W. H. The Faith of the Old Testament. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. ET ofAlttestamentlicher Glaube in seiner Geschichte. 4th ed. Studienbiicher 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Schmoldt, H. "Der Uberfall auf Michas Haus (Jdc 18,13-18)." ZAW 105 (1993): 92-98.

Bibliography

159

Schunck, K. D. Benjamin. BZAW 86. Berlin: Topelmann, 1963. Simpson, C. A. The Composition of the Book of Judges. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957. Smith, M. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. 2d ed. London: SCM Press, 1987. Smith, S. "What Were the Teraphim?" JTS 33 (1932): 33-36. Smith, W. Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3d ed. London: A. & C. Black, 1927. Soden, W. von. The Ancient Orient. Leominster: Gracewing, 1994. ET of Einfuhrung in die Altorientalistik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985. Soggin, J. A. An Introduction to the History of Israel andJudah. London: SCM Press, 1993. ET of Introduzione allaStoria d'Israele e di Giuda. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1993. —Joshua. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1972. ET of Le livre dejosue. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1970. —Judges. 2d ed. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1987. ET of Giudici. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1979. —Introduction to the Old Testament. 3d ed. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1989. ET of Introduzione all'Antico Testamento. 4th ed. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1987. —The Prophet Amos. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1987. ETofllprofetaAmos. Brescia Paideia Editrice, 1982. Spanier, K. "Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim: Her Struggle for Family Primacy." VT42 (1992): 404-12. Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Spina, F. A. "The Danite Story Historically Reconsidered." JSOT4 (1977): 60-71. Starr, I. Queries to the Sungod. State Archives of Assyria 4; Helsinki, 1990. Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Studer, G. L. Das Buch der Richter. 2d ed. Leipzig: Darp, 1842. Talmon, S. "In Those Days There was No "[ba." Pages 39-52 in King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Tarragon, J. M. de. Le Culte a Ugarit. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique. Paris: Gabalda, 1980. Taubler, E. Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter. Tubingen: Mohr, 1958. Tidwell, N. L. "The Linen Ephod." VT24 (1974): 505-7. Toews, W. I. Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel Under Jeroboam I. SBLMS 47. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Uehlinger, C. "Eine anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?" Biblische Notizen 72 (1994): 85-100. Van der Toorn, K. "The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of Cuneiform Evidence." CBQ 52 (1990): 203-22. Van Driel, G. The Cult ofAssur. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969. Vatke, J. K. W. Der Religion des Alien Testaments. Berlin: G. Bethge, 1835. Vaughan, P. H. The Meaning of "Bamd " in the Old Testament. SOTSMS 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Veijola, T. Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der Deuteronomistischen Historiographie. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 198. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1997. Vincent, A. Le livre des Juges. Le livre de Ruth. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1958. Vriezen, T. C. The Religion of Ancient Israel. London: Lutterworth, 1967. ET ofDe gods-dienst van Israel. Amsterdam: Zeis, 1963. Webb, B. G. The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading. JSOTSup 46. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

160

Sacred Dan

Weil, G. E. Massorah Gedolah. Vol. 1. Catalogi. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1971. Weippert, M. "Gott und Stier." ZDPV11 (1961): 93-117. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alien Testaments. 2d ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1889. —Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh: Black, 1885. ET of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Reimer 1883. 1st ed. = Die Geschichte Israels I. Berlin: Reimer, 1878. Westermann, C. "Types of Narrative in Genesis." Pages 1-94 in The Promises to the Fathers. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. ET of Verheissungen an die Voter. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Repr. from Forschung am Alien Testament. Theologische Biicherei 24. Munich: Kaiser. —Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. London: SPCK, 1985. ET of Genesis 12-36. BKAT 1/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. —Genesis 37-50: A Commentary. London: SPCK, 1986. ET of Genesis 37-50. BKAT 1/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Whybray, R. N. "Tribe." Pages 778-89 in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press: 1993. Wilcoxen, J. A. "Narrative." Pages 57-98 in Old Testament Form Criticism. Edited by J. H. Hayes. Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion 2. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974. Wilhelm, G. The Hurrians. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989. ET of Grundziige der Geschichte und Kultur der Hurriter. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982. Wolff, H. W. Hosea. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. ET ofDodekapropheton. Vol. 1. Hosea. BKAT 14/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Wright, C. J. H. God's People in God's Land. Exeter: Paternoster, 1990. Wyatt, N. "Of Calves and Kings: The Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel." SJOT6 (1992): 68-91. Xella, P. "L'influence babylonienne a Ougarit d'apres les textes alphabetiques rituels et divinatoires." Pages 321-38 in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Edited by H. J. Nissen and J. Renger. Berlin: Reimer, 1985. Yadin, Y. " 'And Dan, Why Did He Remain with His Ships?'" AJBA 1 (1968): 9-23. —Hazor. Schweich Lectures 1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Zimmerli, W. Ezekiel I. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. ET of Ezechiel. BKAT 13/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 3:24 6-8 12 12:6-8 128:13 13:4 14 14:18-20 14:22 16:7-14 16:13 16:14 17:1 22 22:3^t 24:12-14 25:22 28 28:3 28:10-22 28:11 28:16-17 28:18-22 28:19 29 31 31:30 31:32 32 32:2 32:23-33 33:18-20 34

87 72 39 41 43 120 43 46,47 47,94 47 43,44 44 44 45 41,43,44 44 137 134 45,46 45 43,44 44 44 44 44 143 118-21 120 120 45 43 43,44 43,45 143, 147, 148

35:1-7

43,45

35:1 35:3 35:4

45

35:9-15

37 40

41:45 49 49:5-7 49:16 49:24

44 115,116 43,45 135 135 94

143, 144, 146, 147 147 16

71

Exodus

2:16 12:37 15 18:1 19:6 19:22 19:24 20:3-6

20:3 20:4-6

20:4 20:5 28 28:30

28:41 29 29:4 29:7 29:9 29:10 29:15 29:19

94 38 79 94 94, 145 94 94 66 66 66 66 66,78

112 112 91 92 92 92 92 129 129 129

29:33 32 32:2 32:3 32:4 32:8 32:25-29 32:26 32:29 34 34:1 34:4 34:17

92 64, 94, 143 116 116 65,71,77 77 144, 145 93 92 65 67 67 65

Leviticus 1-16 1:4 3:2 3:8 3:13 8 8:22-36 8:22-29 8:27-29 17:1-9 24:5-9

94 129 129 129 129 93 91 102 93 2 85

Numbers 12:5 12:8 23:22 24:8 27:21

135 66 77 77 122, 126

Deuteronomy 4:24 78 78 4:31

162

Sacred Dan

Deuteronomy (cont.) 66 5:6 78 5:9 78 6:15 78 7:9 78 7:21 87 8:7 148 9b-10 78 10:17 44 11:30 12 12 134 12:5 24 12:8 48 12:10-12 135 13:1 66 27:15 33-34 143 95, 143 33 94, 148 33:8-1 1 148 33:8-9a 122 33:8 94 33:8a 94 33:10 148 33:11

3 3:19 3:26 5 5:17 6 6:11-24 6:13 6:25-26 8 8:24-35 8:27 8:33 9:6 9:37 13:2-23 13:2 13:20 13:25 16 17-21 17-18

Joshua

3-4 4:20-24 6 7 9:14 19:38 19:40 20:6 22:13 22:30-34 24:26 Judges -16

1 1:1 1:8 :21 :34-35a 1:34-35 1:34

94 67 37 127 128 76 36 94 94 94 44

24,27,41 128 126, 127 40 40 17 16 35

17

17:1-6 17:1 17:2-4 17:2 17:3-4 17:3 17:4 17:5

17:6

67 67 67 16,79 16 51 50,51 51 75 115,116, 125 115 115,116 116 44 44 50,51 20 51 16,38 3 24, 25, 147 3, 7-10, 13, 15,16,18, 19,21,23, 24, 26, 28, 31,41-43, 46, 58, 65, 69, 86-89, 94, 110, 138, 140, 147, 149 11,35,36, 42, 63, 90, 148 32 32,89 6, 7, 24 138 64 64 34,64 24,89,91, 93, 112, 120 10, 24, 25, 27,31

17:7-18:la 17:7-8 17:7 17:7a 17:7a-b 17:7b 17:8

17:8a 17:9 17:10 17:10b 17:12 17:16 17:18 17:30 18

18:1 18:la 18:lb 18:lb-6 18:2 18:2b 18:3-4 18:5-6

18:5 18:6 18:7-10 18:7 18:8 18:10 18:10a 18:10b 18:11-26 18:11 18:12-13a 18:12 18:13 18:14 18:15 18:17-18

32,33 32 11,16, 19, 89 20 25 24 20, 24, 35 25 34 39,89 24 34,89,91, 94 9 89 138 10,17,26, 35, 42, 126, 127 25,27 10, 24, 25, 31 24 32,35 21,24,35 24 146 89,111, 125, 138 89 37, 50, 138 32,36 36 24 138 24 24 32,38 21,24 25 16,24,43

24 6, 24, 64, 121 24 6

Index of References 18:17 18:18 18:18a 18:19 18:20 18:24

20:18 20:23 20:26 20:28 21 21:25

24 89 24 24,39,89 6,24,138 39,64,71, 121 32,39 24,124 25 24 24,25 16,21,28, 64,68,89 10,23,28, 34,69,89, 125, 140 24,25 24 24 23,26-28, 31 10,24 31, 144, 147 27,31,40 41 22,126, 128,130 126,127 126 129 94 148 27,31

1 Samuel 1-2 1 1:3-4 1:3 1:9 1:15 1:17 1:26 2:la 2:13

94,95 95 100 95,96 95 95 96 96 76 96

18:27-31 18:27 18:28a 18:29a 18:29b 18:30-31 18:30

18:30a 18:30b 18:30b-31a 18:31 18:31b 19-21 19:1 19:la 20

2:18 2:28 2:36 3:3 4-6 4

4:4 4:4a 4:6-7 4:8 4:21 5 5:3 5:5 6:2 7:1 9 9:6 9:12 9:22-24 10 14 14:3 14:8-13 14:18-19 14:18 14:19 14:35-37 14:36-37 14:41 15:22 15:23 19 19:12-16 19:13 19:16 21 21:2 21:8 21:10

22 22:9-10 22:10

113 97,125 96 84 68 24,68,94, 97 72 97 72 79 84 84,87 84 94 94 145 125,134 134 67 129 126,127 114,126, 127, 130 94,97,114, 115 136 97 114 129 129 97 114,122 121 121 121 121 121 121 97 94,97 134 97,115, 125 126 125 134

163 22:13 22:15 22:18 23

30:7 30:8

97 97 115,117 98,126, 127 126 115,126 115 126 122,126, 127, 133, 135 126,127, 130 115 126

2 Samuel 2 2:1-4 2:1 2:28 5 5:6-8 5:19 5:21 6 6:1-2 6:2 6:11-12 6:14 6:17 6:20 7 7:1-2 7:1 7:2 7:3 7:12-14 7:12 7:13 7:18 8 8:17-18 8:18 15:24 16:23

127 146 126,127 114 127 47 126,127 87 49,114 48 72 49 113 48 113 49,50 48 50 48 48 50 50 48 50 49 94 145 94,145 128

23:4 23:6 23:9 23:11-12 28:6

30

164

Sacred Dan

2 Samuel (cont.) 20 138 20:18 69,124, 138 20:25-26 94 20:26 145 22 79 22:8-16 72 22:11 72 24 49 24:15-25 48 24:16 48 24:18-19 49 24:24 49 1 Kings 1-2 2:27 4:2-5 5-8 5:18-19 8 12

12:16 12:25-33 12:25-26 12:28-33 12:28

94 96 94 49 49 85,86,94, 103 10,15,27, 64,65,70, 85,138 70 2 68 47 65,69,71, 72,79

12:31 12:32 13 13:1 13:33 14:5 14:9

67, 149 70 94 106 93 135 65

15:20 20:30-34 22 22:6 22:12 22:22-23

124 137 118,128 123 123 123

2 Kings 1:3 2:1-2 2:3 2:12 3 5:11 8:7-10 8:9 10:11 10:19 10:28-29 11-12 13:14 16 17 17:16 17:27-28 19:2 22 23 23:5 23:8-9 23:24 25:18

2,65 94 94 94, 135 27 94 96 121,122 94

Isaiah 1:12 8:2 24:2 28:7 30:22 37:16 40:19 44:10

121 94 94 94 117 72 64 64

Jeremiah 7:12 10:14 21 26:6 26:9 37 51:17

44,68 64 135 68 68 135 64

135 65 138 90 128, 135 44 135 90 94 94 88 94 90 94,130 2,70

Ezekiel 10 20 21:36 28:14 28:16 43:26 Hosea 2:1 3:4

72 135 122 72 72 93

78 118,122, 128 94,98 65 94,98 94,98

4:4-10 4:17 5:1 6:9 7:16 8:4-6 8:4-5 8:4 8:6 10:5-6 10:5 11:9 12:1 12:12 13:1-2 13:2 14:9

78 77 67 65 71 71 71 78 78 75 65 65,71,84 65

Amos 1:1 5:4-6 7:10-13 7:10 8:14

102 134 65,98 94 65

Micah 3:5-11 3:7 3:11

6:8

135 121 94,121, 135 121

Zechariah 10:2

122

165

Index of References Psalms 17:15

18 18:7-15

24 29 42^19

45 46 46:4

48 48:13

50 65 68 77 78 78:61-64 78:62-64

80 80:2 84-88

93 97 99:1

104 105 106:19-22 106:19 106:20

107 110:4

132 132:2-6 132:8-10 132:17

135 144 147 Ezra 2:63

Nehemiah 7:65

66 79 72 85 79 12 106 13 13 13 85 104 79 79 79 68 68 68 72 72 12 79 79 72 79 79 77 65 75 79 113 50 50 50 76 79 79 79

95, 112, 116, 123

95

/ Chronicles 13 13:1-5 21 21:18-19 21:25 21:26 22: 1

49 49 49 49 49 49 49

2 Chronicles 3:1 49 6:41-42 50 Apocrypha or DeuteroCanonical Books Greek Esther 3:13 90 Ecclesiasticus 45:10 122 1 Maccabees 2:65 90 4:46 95 11:32 90 New Testament Mark 6:44 38 Pseudepigrapha 3 Maccabees 1:9 44 Talmuds b. B. Bathra 109b

22

b. Sotah 48b

112

Josephus Antiquities 18.9.5 3.162-230 3.215-230

119 112 112

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Enuma Elish

129 72

53 53

KTU 74 75 1.4 53 1.4.6.41 75 1.4.7.56 75 1.5.1.5 117 1.5.5.18-22 75 1.6.6.18 75 1.6.6.54-55 102 1.10 76 1.10.2.20-35 76 76 1.10.2.9 75 1.10.3.36 75 1.10.3.37 74 1.12.1.31 1.1.4.31 1.3.3.41

1.12.2.55 1.14.1.24-25 1.14.120 1.17.6.23 1.22.2.12 1.22.2.13 1.43 1.43.22-23 1.105 1.113.1.11 2.47 4.275

74,75

21 75 74 75 75 83 83 82 75 21 117

Classical Euripides Iphigenia in Tauris 56 1244-50 Herodotus Histories 11.54 IV. 15 V.82

54 54 55

166 Hesiod Theogony 176-206 485-93

Sacred Dan

54 54

Lucian of Samosata De Syria Dea 36 132 42 103 Pausanias Guide to Greece 1.33.1 56 II.14.1 56 III. 14.4 57 III. 16 56 III.18.4-5 57 VI.22.8-11 56 VII. 18.6 56 VII.20.4 57

VIII.46.2^ IX.27.6-8 X.6 X.38.3

57 57 55 57

Silius Italicus Punica 3.24-26 101 Inscriptions KAI 3.19 26 26 A I I I 1 26 CIV 3 32 37 37 A9 37 B9 59

100 83 83 83 99 101 101 101 99

65 69 69.3 69.15 72B 74 74.8 95 120 120.2 120.16 121 126 202 225 226 228 239 246

99 96, 100 100 100 99 100 100 99 101 100 100 101 101 132 99 99 99 99 99

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackroyd, P. R. 119-21 Aharoni, Y. 21 Ahlstrom, G. W. 15 Albertz, R. 15 Albright, W. F. 72, 117, 142 Amit, Y. 14 Anderson, A. A. 50 Anderson, G. W. 11 Arnold, W. R. 7,8,97,114, 115 Auerbach, E. 41 Auneau, J. 90

Cerny, J. 131-33 Clements, R. E. 13 Cody, A. 11,28,94-96,98,99,101, 104, 107-9, 126, 135, 143, 146, 148 Cogan, M. 130 Coogan, M. D. 84 Couroyer, B. 38 Cryer, F. H. 97,111,113,117,12833, 135, 136 Curtis, A. H. W. 43, 76

Bailey, L. R. 74 Barkay, G. 19 Barr, J. 142 Barthelemy, D. 124 Bartusch, M. W. 18, 19, 25, 26, 37, 38,41,69,70, 124 Barucq, A. 127 Becker, U. 25 Bernhardt, K. H. 81 Bertheau, E. 6, 22 Bewer, J. 5 Biran, A. 13,18,19,27,40,69,84, 85, 125, 139 Black,!. 73 Blenkinsopp, J. 57 Block, D.I. 14 Boling, R. G. 12, 32, 33, 36, 38 Bottero, J. 103-106 Bray, J. S. 15, 113, 121 Bright, J. S. 70 Budd, P. J. 90 Budde, K. 7 Burney, C. F. 7, 20, 23, 32, 35

Dalley, S. 70, 104 David, R. 106, 107, 115 Davies, G. I. 65,78,98, 130 Davies, P. R. 97, 116 Day, J. 13,23,68 De Vaux, R. 34, 91, 92, 116, 128, 142,143 Deller, K. 118 Dothan, M. 18 Dothan, T. 18 Driver, S. R. 114, 115, 124, 134 Dussaud, R. 76

Cacquot, A. 108 Campbell, A. F. 48 Carroll, R. P. 67

Eerdmans, O. 8 Eissfeldt, O. 7,73 Eliade, M. 54 Emerton, J. A. 47, 71,85, 117 Erman, A. 81,90,132 Exum, J. C. 36 Faulkner, R. O. 132 Faur, J. 64 Fernandez, A. 7, 20, 26 Field, F. 69, 124 Fleming, D. E. 102, 103 Fohrer, G. 11 Friedlander, G. 119

168

Sacred Dan

Gall, A. F. von 7 Gardiner, A. 132 Gaster, T. H. 76 Gehman, H. S. 135 Gelston, A. 123 Gerbrandt, G. E. 24 Gordon, C. H. 16, 118 Gordon, R. P. 96 Goulder, M. D. 12, 13, 102 Grapow, H. 81,90, 132 Gray, G. B. 145, 146 Gray,J. 13, 130 Green, A. 73 Greenberg, M. 118, 119 Greenfield, J. C. 132 Gressman, H. 43 Gunkel, H. 44 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 11, 20, 143, 147 Gurney, O. R. 82, 83, 108, 132, 133 Habel,N. C. 76 Hahn,J. 74 Hallo, W. W. 105, 116 Handy, L. K. 86 Haran, M. 14, 40, 69, 89, 90, 116, 145 Harmon, A.M. 103 Hauret, C. 8,9,31 Hertzberg, H. W. 9,35 Hoffner, H. A. 119 Hoftijzer, J. 100 Jacobsen, T. 70,80,81 Japhet, S. 48, 49 Johnson, A. R. 125 Johnstone, W. 21 Jongeling,K. 100 Joiion, P. 66 Klein, L. R. 14,31,35,37,38,40 Koch, K. 43,53 Kramer, S. N. 106, 113 Kraus, H.-J. 142 Kuenen, A. 6 Labat, R. 108 Labuschagne, C. J. 119

Lambert, W. G. 131, 135 Lancaster, W. 38 Landsberger, B. 130 Lindars, B. 67 Long, B. O. 43 Macdonald, J. 34 Malamat, A. 42, 91, 136 Martin, J. D. 12 Mayes, A. D. H. 9,10,49 Mazar, A. 18,54,84 McCarter, P. K. 48, 49, 96, 113, 114, 121, 124, 126, 127, 134, 135 Mettinger, T. N. D. 72 Meyers, C. 112 Milgrom, J. 85,92,93 Miller, P.O. 15,83 Moberly, R. W. L. 46, 65 Montgomery, J. A. 135 Moore, G. F. 6, 20, 23, 32-36, 39, 63-65,116, 145 Morenz, S. 107 Muraoka, T. 66 Murtonen, A. 9 Na'aman, N. 17 Naveh, J. 13,69 Neihr, H. 86 Nielsen, E. 36, 143, 144 Niemann, H. M. 10, 17, 18, 24, 25 Noth, M. 9, 10,78,92 Nowack, W. 7 O'Connell, R. H. 14,22,23,25,31 Obbink, H. T. 72 Oppenheim, A. L. 80, 81, 105, 111, 113, 136, 137 Oswalt,!. N. 73 Peckham, B. 101 Pedersen, J. 8, 109 Penna, A. 10 Petersen, D. L. 134 Pettinato, G. 133 Pfeiffer, R. H. 8 Phillips, A. 90

Index of Authors Polzin, R. 36 Porter, J. R. 127 Puech, E. 87,88

Rad, G. von 63 Redford,D. B. 90 Ringgren, H. 11,90 Rost, L. 48 Rudolph, W. 123 Sabourin, L. 95 Saggs, H. W. F. 106, 129, 131 Sandars, N. K. 18 Satterthwaite, P. E. 14,22,31-34, 36-39, 68, 69 Sauneron, S. 82,106, 107,131 Schley, D. G. 97 Schmidt, B. B. 85 Schmidt, W. H. 81 Schmoldt,H. 39 Schunck, K. D. 119 Simpson, C. A. 9 Smelik, K. A. D. 86 Smith, M. 72 Smith, S. 119, 120 Smith, W. R. 6 Snijders, L. A. 91,92 Soden, W. von 91, 103-6, 131, 132 Soggin, J. A. 14,20,23,32,35,41, 47,51,64,67, 112, 116,127, 135,146 Spanier, K. 118 Speiser, E. A. 118 Spina, F. A. 18 Starr, I. 131, 132 Sznycer, M. 108

Taubler, E. 9 Tadmor, H. 130 Tarragon, J. M. de 83, 102 Thureau-Dangin, F. 105 Tidwell,N. L. 113 Toews, W. I. 15,65,69,79,80 Uehlinger, C. 86,87 VanDriel, G. 103 Van der Toorn, K. 120 Vaughan, P. H. 67 Veijola, T. 24 Vieyra, M. 108 Vincent, A. 9 Vriezen, T. C. 11 Wagner, S. 134 Webb, B. G. 14,31,32,35,37 Weil, G. E. 67 Weippert, M. 71,79,80 Wellhausen, J. 5,95, 145 Westermann, C. 44, 120 Whybray, R. N. 147 Wilcoxen, J. A. 43 Wilhelm,G. 79-82,131, 133 Wolff, H. W. 122 Wright, C. J. H. 21 Wyatt, N. 77,78 Xella,P. 83, 137 Yadin, Y. 16, 17,79 Zimmerli, W. 95, 122 Zobel, H. J. 20

169