Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second edition

DICTIONARY OF DEITIES AND DEMONS IN THE BIBLE DICTIONARY OF DEITIES AND DEMONS IN THE BIBLE DDD Edited by Karel van...

Author: Karel Van Der Toorn | Bob Becking | Pieter W. Van Der Horst (eds)

336 downloads 2443 Views 64MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

DICTIONARY OF DEITIES AND DEMONS IN THE BIBLE

DICTIONARY OF DEITIES AND DEMONS IN THE BIBLE

DDD Edited by

Karel van der Toom Bob Becking Pieter W. van der Horst SECOND EXTENSIVELY REVISED EDITION

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON • KOLN WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

1999

o 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV. Leiden. The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced. translated. stored in a retrieval system. or transmiued in any form or by any means. electronic. mechanical. ph()(ocopying. recording or otherwise. without prior written permission from the publisher.

Second

First edition 1995 revised edition 1999

e~tensively

Published jointly 1999 by Brill Academic Publishers P.O. Box 9000. 2300 PA Leiden. The Netherlands. and by Wm. D. &rdmans Publishing Company 255 Jefferson Ave.. S.E.. Grand Rapids. Michigan 49503 I P.O. Box 163. Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K. Published under the auspices of the Faculty of Theology of Utrecht Uni"crsity This book is printed on acid·free p3~r Printed in the United States of America 05 04 03 02 01 00 99

5 4 3 2 I

Ubrary or Congress Cataloglng-In-Publlcatlon Data Dictionary of deitiell and demon~ in the Dible (DOD) I Karel van der Toorn. Bob &eking. Pieter W. van der Horst. editors. - 2nd extensh'ely rev. ed. p. em. Includes bibliographical references and index. Brill ISBN 90-04-1 I 119-0 (cloth: alk. paper). &rdmans ISBN 0-8028·2491·9 (cloth: alk. p3~r). I. Gods in the Bible - Dictionaries. 2. Demonology in the Bible - Dictionaries. I. Toom. K. van du. II. Becking. Bob. 111. Horst. Pieter Willem van der. BS680.G57053 1999 98-42505 220.3 - de21 CIP Ole Deutsche Bibllothek -

CIP·Elnheltsaurnahme

Dictionary or deities and demons In the BIble: (DOD) I Karel van dcr Toorn ... ed. 2nd extensively rev. ed. - Leiden: Boston: Klnn : Brill. 1998 Brill ISBN 90-04-11119-0 Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2491·9

Brill ISBN 90 ~ 11119 0 &rdmans ISBN 0-8028·2491·9 Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center. 222 Rosewood Drive. Suite 910. Danvers. MA 01923 USA. Fees are subject to change.

CONTENTS Consultants 40 List of Contributors

4040

40............................................

VI VII

XV Introduction.......... ... Preface to the Revised Edition......................................... XIX XXI Abbreviations............................... General.... XXI Biblical Books (including the Apocrypha) XXI Pseudepigraphical and Early Patristic Works...... XXII Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts ~.............. XXIII Targumic Material XXIII Periodicals, Reference Works, and Series XXIV List of Entries................................................................... XXXIII Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Index

a&

1 flo...............

943

CONSULTANTS

HANS DIETER BETZ

Chicago ANDRE CAQUOT

Paris JONAS C. GREENFIELD

Jerusalem ERIK HORNUNG

Basel MICHAEL STONE

Jerusalem MANFRED WEIPPERT

Heidelberg

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Tzvi ABUSCH, Waltham (Etemmu, Ishtar, Marduk) Larry J. ALDERINK, Moorhead

(Demeter, Nike, Stoicheia) Bendti\LSTER,<Jopenhagen (Tammuz, Tiamat, Tigris) Jan ASSMANN, Heidelberg (Amun, Isis, Neith, Re) David E. AUNE, Chicago (Archai, Archon, Hera, Heracles) Tjitze BAARDA, Amsterdam (Sabbath) Michael L. BARRf, Baltimore (Lightning, Night, Rabi~u) Hans M. BARSTAD, Oslo (Dod, Sheol, Way) Bernard F. BATTO, Greencastle (Behemoth, Curse, Zedeq) Bob BECKING, Utrecht (Abel, Amalek, Ancient of Days, Arm, Blood, Breasts-and-womb, Cain, Day, Eagle. El-rophe, Ends of the earth. Exalted ones, Girl, Hubal, Ishbara, Jaghut, Jalam,

Japheth, Jordan, Kenan, Lagamar, Protectors, Qatar, Rapha, Raven. Sarah, Sasam, Sha, Shalman, Shelah, Shem, Shining One(s), Shunama, Sisera, Thillakhuha, Thukamuna, Vanities, Varona,Virgin, YaCuq, Yehud, Zarnzummim) Hans Dieter BETz, Chicago (Authorities, Dynamis, Legion)

VIII

LIST

OF CONTRIBUTORS

Jan DEN BOEFT. Utrecht (Saviour) Jan N. BREMMER. Groningen (Ares. Hades. Hymenaios. Linos. Narcissus. Nereus. Nymph) Cilliers BREITENBACH, Berlin (Hypsistos. Nomos. Satan) Roelof VAN DEN BROEK, Utrecht (Apollo. Phoenix) Mordechai CoGAN, Jerusalem (Ashima, Shulman, Shulmanitu. Sukkoth-benoth, Tartak) John J. CoLUNS, Chicago (Daniel, Gabriel, Liers-in-wait, Prince. Saints of the Most High, Watcher) Peter W. COXON, St. Andrews (Gibborim, Nephilim. Noah) Peggy L. DAY, Winnipeg (Anat. Jephtah's daughter. Satan) Meindert DIJKSTRA. Utrecht (Abraham. Adat, Aliyan, Clay, Esau. Ishmael, Jacob. Joseph. Leah, Mother. Rachel) Ken DOWDEN. Birmingham (Aeneas. Daphne, Dioskouroi. Jason. Makedon. Menelaos. Patroklos. Pcrseus.Quirinus, Silvanus, Skythes, Thessalos) Han J. W. DRIJVERS, Groningen (Aion, Atargatis, Mithras) Eric E. ELNES, Princeton (Elyon, Olden Gods) Reinhard FELDMEIER, Bayreuth (Almighty, Mediator II, World rulers) Jarl E. FOSSUM, Ann Arbor (Dove, Glory, Simon Magus, Son of God) Hannes D. GAUER, Graz (Aya, Bashtu, Hubur)

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

IX

Richard L. GORDON, Ilmmiinster (Anthropos, Helios, Poseidon, Pronoia) Fritz GRAF, Basel (Aphrodite. Athena, Bacchus, Dionysus, Heros, Zeus) Jonas C. GREENFIELD, Jerusalem (Apkallu, Hadad) Mayer I. GRUBER. Beer-Sheva (Abomination, Azabbim, Gillulim, Lies, One) John F. HEALEY, Manchester (Dagon. Dew, Ilib. Mot. Tirash) Matthieu S. H. G. HEERMA VAN (Hathor, Horus, Osiris, Ptah)

VOSS,

Amsterdam

George C. HEIDER. River Forest (Lahmu, Molech, Tannin) Ronald S. HENDEL. Dallas (Nehushtan, Serpent, Vampire) Jan Willem VAN HENTEN, Amsterdam (Angel II. Archangel, Dragon. Mastemah, Python, Roma. Ruler cult. Typhon) Wolfgang HERRMANN. Stuttgart (Baal, Baal-zebub, EI, Rider-upon-the-c1ouds) Pieter W. VAN DER HORST, Utrecht (Adam, Amazons, Ananke, Chaos, Dike, Dominion. Eros, Evil Inclination, Father of the lights, God II, Hosios kai dikaios, Hyle, Hypnos, Lamb, Mammon, Thanatos. Themis, Unknown God) Comelis HOUTMAN, Kampen (Elijah, Moses, Queen of Heaven) Herbert B. HUFFMON, Madison (Brother, Father, Name, Shalem) Manfred HUTTER, Graz (Abaddon. Asmodeus, Earth, Heaven, Heaven-and-earth, Lilith, Shaushka)

x

UST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Bernd JANOWSKI, TUbingen (Azazel, Jackals, Satyrs, Wild Beasts) Albert DE JONG, Leiden (Khvarenah, Mithras, Vohu Manah, Wrath) Marinus DE JONGE, Leiden (Christ, Emmanuel, Heaven, Sin, Thrones) Jean KELLENS, Liege (Arta, Baga, Haoma) Ernst Axel KNAUF, Bern (Edom, Qos, Shadday) Matthias KOCKERT, Berlin (Fear of Isaac, Mighty One of Jacob, Shield of Abraham) Frans VAN KOPPEN, Leiden (Agreement, Altar, Holy One, Humban,

Kiriri~a,

Marjo C. A. KORPEL, Utrecht (Creator of AJI, Rock, Stone, Thombush) Bernhard LANG, Paderborn (Wisdom) Fabrizio LELu, Florence (Stars) Theodore 1. LEWIS, Athens (USA) (Dead, First-born of death, Teraphim) Bert Jan LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, Leiden (Antichrist) Edouard LIPINSKI, Louvain (Lamp, Light, Shemesh) Alasdair LIVINGSTONE, Binningham (Assur, Image, Nergal) Johan LUST, Louvain (Gog, Magog)

Sanctuary, Soil, Vashti)


Xl

Michael MACH, Tel Aviv (Jeremiel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel)

P. Kyle McCARTER, Baltimore (Evil spirit of God, Id. Zion) Meir MALUL, Haifa (Strong Drink, Taboo, Terror of the Night) Luther H. MARTIN, Burlington (Fortuna, Hennes, Tyche) Samuel A. MEIER, Columbus (Angel I, Angel of Yahweh, Destroyer, Mediator I) Tryggve N. D. METTINGER, Lund (Cherubim, Seraphim, Yahweh zebaoth) A. R. MILLARD, Liverpool (Adrammelech, Anammelech. Nabu, Nibhaz) Patrick D. MILLER, Princeton (Elyon, Olden Gods) Hans-Peter MOLLER, MUnster (Chemosh, Falsehood. Malik) S. MONGER, Fribourg (Ariel) Martin 1. MULDER, Leiden (Baal-berith, Cannel, God of fortresses)

E. Theodore MULLEN, Indianapolis (Baalat, Go'el, Witness) Gerard MUSSIES. Utrecht (Amaltheia, Artemis, Giants, Hyacinthus, Jezebel, Olympus, Tabor, Titans, WindGods) Nadav NA'AMAN, Tel Aviv (Baal toponyms, Baal-gad, Baal-hamon, Baal-hazor, Baal-hennon, Baal-judah, Baalmeon, Baal-perazim, Baal-shalisha, Baal-tamar)

XII

LIST

OF CONTRIBUTORS

George W. E. NICKELSBURG, Iowa City (Son of Man) Herbert NIEHR, Tilbingen (Baal-zaphon, God of heaven, He-of-the-Sinai, Host of heaven, Zaphon) Kirsten NIELSEN, Arhus (Oak, Sycomore, Terebinth) Gregorio DEL OUtO LETE. Barcelona (Bashan, Deher, Og) Dennis PARDEE, Chicago (Asham, Eloah, Gepen. Gether, Koshar, Kosharoth) Simon B. PARKER, Boston (Council, Saints, Shahar, Sons of (the) God(s» Martin F. G. PARMENTIER, Utrecht (Mary)

Emile PUECH, Jerusalem (LeI. Lioness. Milcom)

Albert DE PURY, Geneva (El-olam, El-roi, Lahai-roi) Jannes REILING, Utrecht (Elders, Holy Spirit, Melchizedek, Paraclete, Unclean Spirits) Sergio RIBICHINI, Rome (Adonis, Baetyl, Eshmun, Gad, Melqart) Greg 1. RILEY. Fairfax (Demon, Devil, Midday demon) Wolfgang ROLLlG, Tilbingen (Baal-shamem, Bethel, EI-creator-of-the-earth, Hermon, Lebanon, Sirion) Hedwige ROUILLARD-BoNRAISIN, Paris (Rephaim)


XllI

Christopher ROWLAND, Oxford (Enoch) David T. RUN lA, Leiden (Logos) Udo ROTERSW{}RDEN, Kiel (Horeph, Horon, King of terrors) Brian SCHMIDT, Ann Arbor (AI, Moon) Choon-Leong SEOW, Princeton (Am, Face, Lim, Torah) Klaas A. D. SMELIK, Brussels (Ma'at) S. David SPERLING, New York (Belial, Meni, Sheben) Klaas SPRONK, Amsterdam (Baal of Peor, Dedan, Lord, Noble ones, Rahab, Travellers) Marten STOL, Amsterdam (Kaiwan, Mulissu, Nanea, Sakkuth, Sin) Fritz STOLZ, ZUrich (River, Sea, Source) Marvin A. SWEENEY, (Ten Sephirot) Karel VAN DER TOORN, Amsterdam (Agreement, Altar, Amurru, Arvad, Avenger, Beltu, Boaz, Cybele, Eternity, Euphrates, Gabnunnim, God I, Gush. Ham, Haran. Hayin, Hebat, Holy One, Humbaba, Humban, Jael, Kelti, Kese), Kiriri~a, Laban, Meriri, Min, Mouth, Nahor, Qatar, Rakib-El, Ram, Sanctuary, Serug, Seth, Shahan, Sheger, Shepherd, Shimige, Sidon, Soil, Terah, Vashti, Viper, Vohu Manah, Yahweh) Joseph TROPPER, Berlin (Spirit of the dead, Wizard)

XIV


Christoph UEHLlNGER, Fribourg (Leviathan, Nimrod. Nisroch, Riding Horseman) Hcnnan TE VELDE, Groningen (Bastet. Bes, Khonsu, Nile) Richard L. Vos, Capelle aan de IJssel (Apis, Atum, Ibis, Thoth) Jan A. WAGENAAR, Utrecht (King) Wilfred G. E. WATSON, Newcastle upon Tyne (Fire, Flame, Helel, Lah, Misharu) Nicholas WYATT, Edinburgh (Asherah, Astarte, Calf, Eve, Kinnaru, Oil, Qeteb) Paolo XELLA, Rome (Barad, Haby, Mountains-and-valleys, Resheph) Larry ZALCMAN, Tel Aviv (Orion, Pleiades) Ida ZATELU, Florence (Aldebaran, Constellations, Libra) Dieter ZELLER, Mainz (Jesus, Kyrios)

INTRODUCIlON The Dictiona1)' of Deities and Demons in the Bible (henceforth DDD) is in some ways unlike any other dictionary in the field of biblical studies. This is the first catalogue of its kind, one which discusses all the gods and demons whose names are found in the Bible. Complementing the usual surveys and histories of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Syro-Palestinian, Persian, Greek, and Roman religion, DDD assesses the impact of contemporary religions on Israel and the Early Church by focusing on those gods that actually left traces in the Bible. The deities and demons dealt with in this dictionary are not all of one kind. Even though the distinction between major and minor gods is a delicate one, some of the gods here discussed are more representative of their culture than others; Marduk's place in Babylonian religion is more central than that of the god Euphrates. If both have nevertheless found their way into DDD, it is because the two of them are mentioned in the Bible. Other gods, however, despite their importance, have no separate entry in DDD because there is not a single mention of them in the biblical books: Enlil is an example of this. The imbalance produced by a selection based on the occurrence of a god's name in the Bible is redressed, to some degree, by a system of cross-references throughout DDD and an index at the end. Thus Anu, the Mesopotamian god of heaven, does not have a separate entry, but is discussed under 'Heaven', and in various other articles indicated in the index. The inevitable disproportion caused by the criterion on which DDD has been conceived is often more optical than real. The criterion by which DDD has selected its gods has just been summarized as mention of the god's name in the Bible. Yet things are not as straightforward as this rule of thumb measurement might suggest. The boundaries of the Bible, to begin with, change from the one religious community to the other. In order to make the selection of deities as representative as possible, the editors have chosen to base it on the most comprehensive canon currently used, viz. that of the Orthodox Churches, which consists of the complete canon of the Septuagint version (including 3 and 4 Maccabees) plus the Greek New Testament. The term Bible as used in the title of DDD covers in fact the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible; the complete Septuagint (including the so-called Apocrypha); and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Though many articles pay attention to the subsequent development of notions and concepts in the Pseudepigrapha, the latter have not been used as an independent quarry of theonyms. Many gods discussed in DDD are mentioned by name in the Bible. They constitute what one might call the first group. Obvious examples are Asherah, Baal, EI, Hermes, Zeus and others. These gods were still recognized or recognizable as such by the author of the relevant passage and by the audience. In some instances the names are found only in the Septuagint and not in the corresponding section of the Masoretic text. An interesting example is Apis: at Jer 46:15 the Greek Old Testament has E¢UYEV 6 "Amc;,

XVI

INTRODUcnON

"(Why) has Apis fled?", where the Masoretic text reads ~iiOj, "(Why) was it swept away?" Should the Greek be a misunderstanding of the Hebrew text (which is not certain), it is valuable as a reflection of the religious milieu surrounding the-Jewishcommunity in which the translator was at home. A second group of deities listed in DDD are mentioned in the Bible. not independently, but as an element in personal names or place names. Such theophoric anthroponyms and toponyms are a rich source of information on the religious milieu of the Israelites and the Early Christians. It need hardly be said that the occurrence of a deity in a place name. such as Anat in Anathoth. or Shemesh in Beth-shemesh, does not automatically imply that the deity in question was in fact worshipped by the people who lived there; nor need someone called Artemas or Tychicus (TIt 3: 12) have been a devotee of Artemis or Tyche. Yet such names reflect a certain familiarity with the deities in question. if not of the inhabitants of the town or the bearer of the name. then at least of their ancestors or their surroundings. The deities in question may therefore be said to have been part of the religious milieu of the Bible. A third group of deities consists of gods mentioned in the Bible. but not in their capacity as gods. They are the so-called demythologized deities. Examples abound. One of the Hebrew words for moon used in the Bible is )'iirea~l; this is the etymological equivalent of Yarikh, the moon-god known from the Ugaritic texts. Although the moon may have retained faint traces of divinity in the Bible. it has basically been divested of its divine status. The same holds true of the sun (femeS): the Hebrew word corresponds with the god Shamash in Akkadian, and the goddess Shapshu in Ugaritic. There are many other. more trivial instances, such as tiros, the Hebrew word for new wine, etymologically the equivalent of the Mesopotamian deity Sirish and the Canaanite god Tirash. Although the Hebrew words (and there arc also Greek examples) no longer stand for deities, the very fact that the corresponding terms in other Semitic languages do, is revealing. We have included many examples of such dethroned deities, not only to draw attention to the mythological overtones still occasionally perceptible, but also to demonstrnte how Israelites, Jews, and Early Christians were part of a religious culture from which they are to be distinguished at the same time. The fourth group of deities discussed in DDD consists of gods whose presence and/or divinity is often questionable. In the course of biblical scholarship. a wealth of alleged deities has been discovered whose very presence in the texts it not immediately evident. A famous example is that of Belti and Osiris. By slightly revocalizing Isa 10:4, and altering the division of the words, Paul de Lagarde obtained a reference to Belti and Osiris where generations of scholars before him had read a negation (bilri) and the collective designation of prisoners ('ass;r). Such emendations sometimes conjure up gods hitherto unknown: in many cases they are phantom deities. in the sense that they are unattested elsewhere in the Bible or in ancient Near Eastern texts, or that the textual proposal is simply unwarranted. In the category of speculated deities fall also the suggestions concerning the appellative use of certain epithets, such as Shepherd or Stone. The reinterpretation of good Hebrew words (such as rae. 'evil') as theonyms (such as Re, the Egyptian sun-god) is another case in point. In a limited number of cases, the supposed deity is established as the hidden reality behind a human figure;

INTRODUcnO~

XVII

thus Jephthah's daughter has allegedly been modelled after a goddess. The inclusion of such deities often is more a tribute to the scholarly ingenuity of colleagues, present and past, than an accurate picture of the religious situation in biblical times. Also, it has proved impossible to be exhaustive in this domain. Some suggestions have no doubt escaped our notice, or simply been judged too far-fetched to qualify for inclusion in DDD.

The fifth and final category of gods is constituted by human figures who rose to attain divine or semi-divine status in a later tradition. Jesus and Mary belong to this group, but also Enoch, Moses and Elijah. At times the process of glorification, or more precisely divinization, started during the biblical period: before the closing of the first century CE divinity was ascribed to Jesus. In most cases. however. the development leading to divine status has been postbiblical. It tells more about the WirkuIIgsgescllichIe than about the perception of such exceptional humans by their contemporaries. Yet the borderlines between human and divine are not always crystal clear; neither is the precise point at which the divinization began. \Vhat is found in its full-blown form in postbiblical writings is often contained ill 1IliCe in the Bible. The aims of DDD, in short, cannot be reduced to a single object. It is meant primarily as an up-to-date source-book on the deities and demons found in the Bible. Its various attendant aims are hardly less important. though. It is meant as a scholarly introduction to the religious universe which the Israelites and the Early Christians were part of; it is meant as a tool to enable readers to assess the distinctiveness of Israelite, Jewish and Early Christian religions: it is meant as a survey of biblical scholarship with respect to the mythological background of various biblical notions and concepts: and it is meant. finally, as a means to discover that the Bible has not only dethroned many deities, but hy Boghazk6i-Studien

BR

Biblical Research

Beitriige zur Religionsgeschichte des Allertums Biblisches Rea/Jexikon. ed. K. Galling Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan

der babylonisehen Religion

BBVO

Berliner Beitrlige zum vorderen Orient

BeH

BII/Jerin de corresp<Jndance he/Jtnique

BRA

BD BDB

Book of the Dead F. BROWN. S. R. DRIVER & C. A. BRIGGS. Ht"brew and English

BRL'1

BRM

Lexicon ofthe Old Testamelll

BdE

Bibliotheque d'~tude. Institut fran~ais d'arch~ologie orientale

BSFE

BII/Jt"till de la Sociert fran(aise d'!gyptologie

XXVI

ABBREVIATIONS

BIlII~tin

of th~ School of Oriental and African Studies BIlII~tin Ipigraphiqlle

CJH

E. LAROCHE, Cataloglle des textt's

CTM

Calwer Theologische Monographien

DAGR

BWL

Beilrage zur Wisscnschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament W. G. LAMBERT, Babylonian

DBAT

BZ

Wisdom literature Bibli.rche Zeitschrift

Dictionnaire des antiquitfs gruqlles et romailles, cd. C. V. Darembcrg & E. Saglio Dielheimu Blilller :Ilm Alten

BZAW BZNW BZRGG

Bcihefte zur ZA W Beihefte zur ZN\V Beihefte zur ZRGG

DBATBeih Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament, Beiheft

CAD

11,e A.rs)'rian Dictionary of th~ Ori~ntallnstitut~ ofthe Uni\'usity of Chicago Cambridge Ancient History CMliwtions ofthe Ancient Near Etlst, ed. J. M. Sasson

BSOAS BullEpigr

BWANT

CAH CANE

CBET

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ Monograph Series

CBQMS CCDS CCSL

hillites

T~stament

DBSllp D~ndara

DISO

DJD DLU

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert G. DEL OLMO LETE & J. SANMARTIN, Diccionaria de la

DMVSI

J. HornJZER & K. JOSGElING.

I~ngua

ccr

Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Cuncifonn Texts from Cappadocian Tablets

CdE CIG CIJ CIL

Chroniqlle d'Eg>pte Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicclrum Corpus Inscriptionum LAtinomm

EA

CIMRM

Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae

EdF

CIS CJ CM CML

Corpus bucriptionum Semiticarum Classical JOllrnal

Cuneifonn Monographs J. C. L. GmsoN, Canaanite MytJu

DOTT

Edfoll

Coniectanea Biblica

CP CPJ CPSI

Classical Philology Corpus Papyrorum JudaiC'Orum Corpus of ProlO-Sinaitic Inscriptions, ed. J. Biggs & Classical Quartuly

CRB CRINT

Cahiers de la Revue biblique Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Compte rendu, Rencontre assyriologiquc intemationaJe Cuneifonn Text.; from Babylonian Tablets

CRRA

cr er erA

Compt~s rendu~s d~

/'Acadbnie des illscriptions ~t bell~s lellres

alpJwberiqu~s

359-379 (= AOAT 8) Enrage der Forschung M. DE ROCHEMOl'-'TEIX & E. CIIASSINAT, U temple d'Edfou Enllma Elish

Emar

Evangelisch-Kalholischer Kommentar D. ARNAUD, Recherches au pays

EncBibl Ene/sl EncJlld EncMiqr

d'Astata. Emar Vl./-4 Encyclopt'dia Biblica, London Encyclopedia of Islam Encyclopedia Judaica Entsiqlopidia Miqra'it, Jerusalem

EPRO

Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans I'empire romain

ER ERE Erlsr ErJb

Encyclopedia of Religion Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Eretz Israel Eranos Jahrbuch

ESE

Ephemeris fUr Semitische Epigraphik S. SAUr-:ERON, U temple d'Esna

Esna ETL

ExpTim

Ephemerides Theologicae Lo\'Onienses Exegetisches Wiirterbllch zum Neuen T~stament Expository Times

FAOS

Freiburger Altorientalische Studien

ElVNT

Coffin Texts

A. HERDNER, Corpus des tablettes

Dictionaf)' of the North- West Semitic Inscriptions Docllm~ntsfrom Old Testament Times, cd. D. W. Thomas J. A. KNUDTZON, Di~ EI-AmamaTafelll (= VAB 2); EA 359-379: A. RAINEY, EI Amama Tablets

EKK

M. Dijkstra CQ CRAIBL

Ugarltica

&

andugends

ConB

Dictionaire d~ la Bib/~, Sllpplement E. CHASSINAT & F. DAUMAS, U temple de Dendara C.-F. JEAN & J. HOrnJZER, Dictionnaire des inscriptions simitiqlles de /'OIl~St

XXVII

ABBREVIATIONS

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

IBHS

FF FGH

Forscll/lngen lind Fonschritre Fragmente du griuhischen Historiker. ed. F. Jacoby

IBS

WAlTKE & M. O·CONNOR. An Introdllction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax Irish Biblical Studies

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Allen und Neuen Testaments Festschrift Forschungen zur Bibcl W. VON SODEN. Gntm/riss der

ICC

International Critical Commentnry

IDB

n,l' 11Iterpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible n,l' Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible. SlIpplementary Voillme

FS FzB GAG Ges. t7 Ges. IS

akkadischen Grammatik W. GESE:--;IUS. Hebriiisc:hes lind aramiiisches Handwonerbllch.

(17th. cd.) W. GESEI"IUS. Hebriiisches lind

IDBS

(18th. cd.) Giittingische Gelelme Anzt'igen

Gilg. GK

Gilgamesh epic

Inscriptions de

Israel Exploration JOllmal

IFAO

Institut fran,¥ais d'arch~ologie orientale Inscriptiones Graccae

IG IGLS

Inscriptions grecqlles er latines de la Syrie

IGR

Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes

IJT IKyme

Indian JOllmal ofn,eology Inschriften )'On Kyme

1M

tablets in the collections of the Iraq Museum. Baghdad

Int lOS IPN

Interpretation Israel Oriental Society M. Nom. Die israelitischen Personennamen lranica Antiqua Intemational Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 2nd cd.• edt G. W.

GM

Gesenills' lIebraische Grammatik. 28th ed.• edt E. Kaut7_c;ch M. STERN. Greek and Latin Allthors on Jews and Judaism Gorringer Miszellen

GNT GOF

Grundrisse lum Neuen Teslament Gt:\ttinger Orientforschungen

GRBS

Greek. Roman aJld By:alltine Studies

GTA HAB HALAT

Gottinger Theologische Arbeitcn Hamburger Agyptologische Beitrage W. BAUMGARTNER et al..

JAC

HAR

lIehriiisches lind Aramiiisches l..exikon ZIlITI Alten Testamellt Hebrew Annllell Rel'iew

GUlJ

~Ios

IDelos IEJ

aramiiisches Handwonerbllch. GGA

B. K.

IrAnt ISBE

Bromiley JA JAAR

HAT

Handbuch zum Allen Testament

JANES

HAW

Handbllch der Aitenlllns-wissenschaften

JAOS

HdO

Handbuch der Orientnlislik

Hey HIROTP

Hisl

Heythrop JOllrnal R. ALBERTZ. A llisrory of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.) lIandworterbllch der Islam (Leiden

HNT

1941) Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

JARCE JAS 18 JBL JCS

JOllrnal asiatiqlle JOllrnal of the American Academy of Religion Jahrbllch fUr Antike und Christentum Joumal of the Ancient Near Enstem Society of Columbia Uni\'ersity JOllmal ofthe American Oriental Sociery JOllmal ofthe American Research Center in Egypt Joumal ofAsian Studies

Jerusalem Bible Journal ofBiblical Literalllre Journal of Cuneifonn StIldies

JOS

Judaean Desert Studies

HR HSCP

History of Religion Harmrd Stlldies in Classical Philology

JEA

JOllrnal of Egyptian Archeleology

JEN

Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at NUli

HSM HSS HTKNT

Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semilic Studies Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Tesl.lment

JEOL JESHO

HTR

Harmrd Theological Re\'iew

Jaarbericht ... Ex Oriente LlLl: Journal ofthe Economic and Social History ofthe Orient Journal ofthe El'Ongelical nleological Society

JETS

HTS

Harvard Theological Studies

JHNES

Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Anllual

JHS

Journal ofHellenic Studies

XXVIII JJS JNES JNSL JPOS JPSV JQR JR JRAS JRelS JRH JRS

ABBREVIATIONS

JOl/rnal ofJeK'ish Studies Journal ofNear Eastern Studies Journal ofNorthwest Semitic Langl/ages Journal ofthe Palestine Oriental Society Jewish PI/blication Societ)' Translation ofthe Bible Jewish Quarterl)' Re\.'iew JOllrnal of Religioll Journal ofthe Royal Asiatic Society JOllrnal ofReligious Studies Journal of Religious History Journal of Ranum Stlldies

KIF

Kleinasiatische Forschungcn

KP KS KTU

Kleine Paul)' Kleine Schriftell

KTU2

M. DIETRICII, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTIN, Die keil-alphahetische Tate aus Ugarit (AOAT 24) M. DIETRICH, O. LoRETZ &. J. SANMARTIN. Die keil-alphabetische Texte ails Ugarit; second enlarged edition: Tile Czmeifonn Alphabetic Textsfrom Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani alld Other Places.

KUB LAS LAPO

Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazki Leipziger Agyptologische Studien Lill~ratures anciennes du ProcheOrient S. PARPOLA, Ullu:r ofAssyrian Scholars (AOAT 5)

JSHRZ

JUdische Schriften aus Hellenistisch-Romischer Zeit

JSJ

Journal for the Stud)' ofJlldaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods

LAS

JSJS

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LdA

LSAM

Lexikon der AgyplOlogie L. GINZBERG, The Legends ofthe Jews Leionenll Lexikon des friihgriecllischen Epos Lexicon Iconographicllm M)'thologiae Classicae E. EItELlNG. Utaarisc"e Kei/schrifneJ.1e ails Assur A. FALKENSTEIN, Uterarische KeilscJmfttrxte t1lIS Untk Lois sacrees de /'Asie Minellrc, ed.

LSCG

Lois sacrfes des cites grecqllt's, ed.

LSJ

F. Sokolowski LIDDELL-SCOTT-JONES, Greek-

LSS

Leipziger semitische Studien

LAW

Legends

JSNT

Journal for the Study ofthe New Testamellt

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series

Lei l/grE UMC

JSOT

JOllrnalfor the Study ofthe Old Testament

LKA

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series

LKU

JSP

Journalfor the Stud)' ofthe Pseudepigrapha JOImwl ofSemitic Studies JOl/rnal ofthe Societyfor the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Journal for the Scientific Stud)' of Religion JOllrnal of 17leological Studies

JSS JSSEA JSSR JTS

K. KAI

KAR

tablets in the Kouyunjik collections of the British Museum H. DONNER & W. ROLLlG, Kallaanliische und aramliische Inschriften E. EBELING. Keilschrifttexte ails Assllr religilJsen Inhalts

KAV

Kommentar zum Alten Testament E. EBELING, KeilschrijiteXle ails

KB

L. KOEHLER & W. BAUMGARTNER.

KAT

Assur l'erschiedellen Inhalts Lexicoll in Veteris Testamellli libros

KBo KEK KHAT KJV

Keilschrifllextc aus Boghazki Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten Testament King James Version

Lexikon du Altm Welt

F. Sokolowski

English Lexicon LTK

Lexikonfiir Theologie und Kirche

LuA MAD

Lunds Uni\'crsitets Arsskrift Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary Milnchener Agyptologische Studien

MAS MAIS

Missione arche%gica italialla ill Siria

MAMA

Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua G. MEIER. Maqlll (= AfO Beiheft 2)

Maqlu MARl MDAIK

MDOG

MOP MEE

MARl AlIlIales de recherches illlerdisciplinaires Milleilllngen des Delltschell Archiiologischell Illstituts, Abteilllllg Kairo Mitteilllngen der Delllschell OrielllGesellschaft M~moires dc la d~l~gation en Persc Matcriali cpigrafici di Ebla

XXIX

ABBREVIATIONS

MEFR(A)

Mnem

Melanges d'arcMologie et d'histoire de rEcolefranfaise (antiquite) Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissensclwft des Judentums Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir Orientforschwlg J.H. MOULTON & G. MILLIGAN, The Vocabulary ofthe Greek Testament Mnemos)'ne

MRS MSL

Mission de Ras Shamra Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon

Mus MusHelv MUSJ

LeMuseon Museum Helveticum Melanges de rUniversite SaintJoseph

MVAAG

MGWJ MIO

MM

OLP

Orientalia Lovnmensia Periodica

Ou. OMRO

Or OrAnt OrChr OrSu OrSyr

Orientalistische UteratuT4eitung Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijbmuseum \'an Oudheden te Leidell Orientalia Oriens Antiquus Oriens Christianus Orientalia Suecalla rOrient syrien

OTL

Old Testament Library

OTP

77,e Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,

OTS

edt J. H. Charleswonh Oudtestamentische Studien

PAAJR

Proceedings ofthe American Academy ofJewish Research

Mitteilungen der Vorder-AsiatischAgyptischen Gesellschaft

PAPS

NABU

Nouvelles assyriologiques breves et urilitaires

PBS

NAWG

NCB NEB

Nachrichtcn von der Akademie der Wissenschaftcn zu G~ttingen Neues Bibel-Lexikon, edt M. Gorg & B. Lang New Century Bible New English Bible

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Publications of the Babylonian Section. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania

Ned77's Neot

Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrijr Neotestamentica

NESE

Neue Ephemeris fUr Semitische Epigraphik

NeK'Docs

New Documents II/ustrating Early Christianity, edt G. H. R. Horsley Nag Hammadi Codex

PJ

Paltistina-Jahrbuch

PL

Patrologia Latina, edt J. Migne

PLRE

Prosopography ofthe Later Roman Empire Poetae Melici Graeci

NBL

NHC

PEFQS PEQ PG PGM Philol PhilQuart

PIFAO

Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly

Patrologia Graeca, cd. J. Migne Papyri Graecae Magical', edt K. Preisendanz Philologus Philosophical Quarterly

Publications de I'Institut fran~ais d'arch60logie orientale du Caire

NHS

Nag Hammadi Studies

NorTT NovT

Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift NovlI1n Testamentum

NovTSup NRSV NTOA

Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus

NTS NTStud

New Testament Studies Nieuwe Theologische Studien

NITS

New Testament Tools and Studies

Numen

Numl!1l: lntemational Review for the History of Religions

OBO

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis S. DALLEY, C. B. F. WALKER & J. D. HAWKINS, Old Babylonian

Pyr.

Supplement to PW K. SETHE., Die alttigyptischen

Textsfrom Tell Rimah Oxford Classical Dictionary

Qad

Pyramidentexte Qadmoniot

OBTR

OCD

PMG P~S

POxy

Pretoria Oriental Series Oxyrhynchus Papyri

PRU PSBA

Palais royal d'Ugarit Proceedings ofthe Society of Biblical Archaeology

PVTG

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graeca PAULV-WISSOWA. Realenc)'c1oplidie

PW

der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft

PWSup

OECT

Oxford Editions of Cuneifonn Texts

QD

Questiones Disputatac

OG1S

Orientis Graeci lnscripriones Selectae, edt W. Dittenberger

QDAP

OIP OLA

Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

R

OLD

Oxford Latin Dictionary

RA

Quarterly ofthe Department of Antiquities in Palestine H. C. RAWLlNSO:'oJ, The Cll1leifoml Inscriptions oflVestern Asia Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archeologie orientale

XXX RAAM

ABBREVIATIONS

H. Gr.sE, M. HOrNER &

K. RUDOLPH, Di~ R~ligiolll'1l Alrsyriens. Alrarabims und der Mand(Ja Realle.tikon fiir Anrike IIl/d RAC CIIrisrenllll1l RAcc F. TIlUREAU-DANGtN. Rilllels accadiel/s RARG H. BO:-.lNET, Reallexikol/ da agyprisch~n Rdigionsgeschichre RANE Records of the Ancient Near East RArch Revu~ Archlologiqlle Revile Biblique RB Die ReIigionen der Menschheit RdM Realencyclopadie fiir prort'srallriRE sche Theologie lind Kirche REA Re\'llt' d~s illldes anciennt's REB Re\ised English Bible Regiollal Epigraphic Coralogue of RECAM Asia Minor REg R~vue d'igYP1010g;e REG Rt'\'lIe dt's itlld~s grecques Reme des irlld~s jll;ves REi Reme des etudes lal;l/es REL Reperto;rt' d'epigraph;~ semiriqut' RES ReVile de Qllmran Re\'Q Re\'ScRel Revue dt's sciences religi~uses Rem~ sllll;r;qlle RevSem Die R~ligiol/ ;11 Gesch;chre IIl/d RGG Gegenwart (31957-1965) RGRW Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Rc!penoire gc!ographique des textes RGTC cunl!iformes RGVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Revue hillile er asianique RHA Rheinisches Mlluumfiir Philologie RhMIIs RHPR Rt'\'lIe d'hisroirt' el de philosophie religiellSl's Revue de l'hisroire des religiol/s RIIR RIH field numbers of tablets excavated at Ras Ibn-Hani RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods Ril'isra Biblka Iralialla Ri\'Bib Ri\'SrorAnr Ri"'isra di sroria antica Reallexikoll du Assyriologie RLA RQ Rom;sches Quarralschrift fiir chrisrliche AlrerrunukllluJe und Kirchengeschichre Redew of Religion RR RS field numbers of tablets excavated at Ras Shamra RMsra di stud; fen;ci RSF RMsra degli srudi orimrali RSO Ras ShamrJ - Ougarit RSOu

RSP

Ras Shamra Parallds, ed. S. Rummel (AnOr 51: Rome 1981) RSR Recherches de sciel/ce religieuse RSV Revised Standard Version RT Reclleil de rra\'QILt relarifs a la philologie er a l'arcMologie eg)'pri~llnes er a.uyriennes Reme rhfologiqlle de Lollmil/ RTL SAA State Archives of Assyria SAAB Srale Archi\'es ofAssyria Blillerill SAK Studien zur Ahagyptischen Kultur SANE Sources from the Ancient Near East S8 SammdbuclJ griechischer Urkunden ails Aegyprell SBAW Sit7.ungsberichte der ba)'erischen Akademic der Wissenschaften SBB Stuttgarter Biblische Beitrage SBH G. A. REISNER, Sumerisch-babylolI;scht'1I Hymnel/ I/acll 17lOnrafeln griechiJcher ZLil SBLDS Society of Biblical Litemture Dissenation Series SBL, Early Judaism and Its SBLEJL Literature SBL\tS SBL Monograph Series SBLSBS SBL Sources for Biblical Studies SBL Texts and Tr,mslations SBLTI SBLWAW SBL Writings of the Ancient World Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SBS SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SBTU Sp(irbabylol/ische Te.tre aus Uruk SCHNT Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Sllulies in COInparari\'t! Religion SCR ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana SDAW Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akadcmie der Wissenschaften SEA S\'emk Exegerisk Arsbok Sef Sefarad Supplemenrll1n Epigraphicum SEG Graeculll SllIdi epigrafici e lillguisrici SEL Sem;rica Sem H. COLLITZ er tIl., SammlulIg der SGDI griechischell Dialekr-Inschriften, 4 vols. (1884-1915) A. FALKENSTEIN & J. VAN DIJK, SGL SU11lerische GOllerliedu SH(C)ANE Studies in the History (and Culture) of the Ancient Near East Studies in Historical Theology SHT SJllog~ Inscripriolll111l Graecanwl, SIG ed. W. Diuenberger SJllog~ illscriprionum religionis SIRIS !siacoe el Sarap;acae, ed. L. Vidman Studies in Judaism in ulte Anliquity SJLA

XXXI

ABBREVIATIONS

SJOT 5L SMS SMSR

SNTSMS SO SOTS~'IS

SPAW SPhA SR SRT SSEAJ

Scandinal'ian Journal ofthe Old Testament A. Dm.tEl, 5umerisches uxikon S)'ro-Mesopotamian Studit's SlIIdi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sources orientales Society for Old Testament Studies Monogrnph Series Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. KI., Berlin SlIIt!ill Philollica Annual Studies in Religion E. eBlERA. Sumerian Religious Texts Society for t"e Srudy of Egyptian AlI1iquitics Journal

SSS

Semitic Studies Series

ST

SlIIdia Theologica

StAeg STBoT STDJ

Studia Aegyptiaca Studien zu den Bogazkoy-Te'lten Studies in the Texts of the Dcsen of Judah

StEb

Studi Eblaiti

StOr StPsm

Studia Orientalia Studia Pohl Series Maior O. R. GURNEY, J. J. FINKELSTEIN & P. HULIN. The Sulrall1epe Tablets [H. STRACK &] P. BILLERBECK.

SIT

Str-B

Kommentar ;:lIm Neue" Testament aus Talmud und Midrasc"

StSem StudNeot SUNT 5urpu

Studi Semitici Studia Neotestamentica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments E. REINER. 5urpu (= AfO Beihcft

G. Friedrich TOOT TOP

TGF

Tragicorum Grnecorum Fragmenta

THAT

Theologisc"es Handl\'onerbuch zum AltcII Testament, cd. E. Jenni &

ThStud

Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha

T"Z

Theologische Zeitschrift

Texts in the Iraq !'.luseum

TLZ

Theologische Literarur Zeilllllg

TM

Tell Mardikh, tablets from Ebla

TRE

Theologische Realenzyklopllclie T"eolol:ische Reme Theologisc"e Rundsc"au

TRe~'

TRu

TSAJ TSK TSSI TUAT n\'AT

nVNT

UBL UCOP UET

Ugaritisch-Biblischc Literatur University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Ur Excavation Texts

UF UFBG

W. MAYER, UllIers/lchungcII:.ur

5) Ug UM

UNT

Urk. II

Texte und Arbeiten lum Neutest.lmentlichen Zeitalter B. M. METZGER, A Textual

Urk.IV

Commentary on the Gruk New Testament

TCL TCS

Textes cuneifonnes du Louvre Texts from Cuneifonn Sources

TDNT

Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament. cd. R. Kittel &

Ul:arit·Forsch,llll:rn Fonn('1/sprache der babylonischen "Gebetsbeschwlinmge" " (= StPsm

R. FRANKENA. Tiikultu. Dc sacraIe maaltijd ill "et assyrische rirueel Tituli Asiat' Minoris

TCGNT

Semitic Inscriptions Te:ete aus der Umwelt des Alten Testamell1s, edt O. Kaiser T"eologisc"es Wonerbuc" zum Alu" Testamell1, edt G. J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren T"eologisches Wonerb/lch :'11111 Neuell Testamell1, cd. R. Kittel &

G. Friedrich

Tcik/llru

TANZ

Theologisc"e Srudiell und Kritikell

J. C. L. GIBSO:-l, Textbook ofSyritlll

T"eologisc"es Zeitsc"rift

Syllogc Inscriptionum Graecamm.

TAM

Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum

TZ

S)'II.

edt W. Dittenberger

C. W. Westennann Theologische Studien

TIM

11)

SVF SVTP

Theological Dictionary ofthe Old Testamell1 R. LAnAT. Traitl akkadien de diagllostics et pronostics mtdicalLt"

UPZ

Urk. V USQR UT

UVB

Ugaritica

C.H. GORDON. Ugaritic Manual Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Urkunden der Prolemiier:.eit, ed. U. Wilcken K. SETIIE, flierogl>1J"isc"e Urkundl'll der griechisch.romischell Zeit K. SETIIE. UrkuntJen der 18. Oynastie H. GRAPOW. Religiose Urk/lnden Union Seminary Quarterly Re\'iew C. H. GORDON, Ugaritic Textbook

Vorlaufiger Bencht tiber die ... Ausgmbungen in Uruk-Warka (Berlin. 1930)

XXXII VAB VAS VAT VC VO VP

IT VTSup W. Wb. WBC WbMyth WHJP WMANT WO WS l'ITJ WUNT WUS

ABBREVIATIONS

Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmaler tablets in the collections of the Staatlichc Musccn. Berlin Vigiliae C"ristiClna~ Vicino Orieme Vi\'re ~t Pmser(= RB 1941-1944) Vetus Testamentllm Vetus Testamentum. Supplements field numbers of tablets excavated at Warka Wortubuch du Aeg)ptischm Sprachc Word Biblical Commentary Wortubllch du MytllOlogie. ed. H. W. Haussig World History of the Jewish People Wissenschaftliche Monographien lum Alten und Neuen Testament Welt des Ori~nt Wiener Swdien Wcsrminstu nU'ological JOllrnal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament J. AtSTLEITNER. Worterbuch der IIgaritischen Sprache

WVDOG

WZ WZKM YBC y~S

ZA lAS ZAH ZAW

ZDMG ZDPV

Wissenschaftl iche Veroffentlichungen der Deutc;chen OrientgescIIschaft Wis.wl.{c"aftlic"~ ZeitscJm}r Wi~ller ZLitschrift fUr die KlIlld~ des Morgelllandes tablets in the Babylonian Collection. Yale Univcrsity Library Yale Oriental Series. Babylonian Texts Zeitschrift fUr Ass)'riologie ZRitschrift fiir iigyptische Sprach~ Zeiuchrift fUr Althebraistik ZcitscJm}r fiir di~ Altt~stammtlich~ Wissenscllllft Zdtschrift der Delltschm Morgenliilldischen Geullschaft Zcitschrift des Delltschcn Paliistinm'er~ins

ZNW ZPE ZRGG ITK

Zcitschrift fUr die N~lltesta1l/entliche Wissenschaft Zeirschriftfiir Papyrologie IIl1d Epigraphik Zcitschrift fiir Religions- lind Geistesgeschichte Zcitschrift fUr n,eologie lind Kirche

ENTRIES Ab --Father Abaddon Abba - Father Abel Abomination Abraham Adam Adat Addirim -Noble Ones Adon -Lord Adonay -Lord: Ynhweh Adonis Adrammelech Aeneas Agreement Ah -Brother Aion AI Alay -AI Aldebaran Aliyan Allon -Oak Almnh -.Virgin Almighty Altar Ala -AI Aluqqah -Vampire Am Amalck Amaltheia Amazons Amun Amurru Anakim -Rephaim Anammelech Ananke Anat Ancient of days Angel (I) Angcl (II) Angel of death -·Angel Angel of Yahweh Anthropos Antichrist Anu -Heaven Aphrodite Apis Apkallu Apollo

Apollyon -Abaddon; Apollo Apsu --Ends of the earth Aqan --Ya(Oq Archai Archangel Archon Ares Ariel Ann

Arta Artcmis Arvad Asham Asherah Ashbur --Ishbara Ashima Ashtoreth --Astarte Asmodeus Assur Astarte Atargatis Athena Atum Augustus --Ruler cult Authorities Avenger Aya Ayish -Aldebaran Azabbim Al.azel Baal Baalat Baal toponyms Baal-bcrith Baal-gad Baal-hamon Baal-hazor Baal-hermon Baal-judah Baal-meon BaalofPeor Baal-perazim Baal-shalisha Baal-shamem Baal-tamar Baal-zaphon Baal-zebub Bacchus

XXXIV

ENTRIES

Baetyl Baga Barad Baraq - Lightning Bashan Bashtu Bastet Beelzebul -·Baal-zebub Behemoth Bel -Marduk Belial Beliar -Belial Beltu Bes Bethel Blood Boaz Boshet - Bashtu Breasts-and-womb Brother Bull -Calf Cain Calf Cannel Castor - Dioskouroi Chaos Chcmosh Cherubim Christ Claudius -Ruler cult Clay Constellations Council Creator of All Curse Cyhele Dagon Daniel Daphne Datan - Dedan Day Day Star -·Helel Dead Death -Mot: Thanatos Deher Dedan Demeter Demon Derek -Way Destroyer Destruction -Qeteb Devil

Dew Diabolos

- Devil

Dike Dionysus Dioskouroi Divine beings

-Sons of (the) God(s)

Dod Dominion Dove Doxa -·Glory Dragon Dynamis

Ea -Aya Eagle Earth Eben -Stone Ed -Witness Edom Ehad -One El EI-berith -Baal-herith EI-creator-of-the-earth Elders Elemental spirits of the universe Elijah Eloah Elohim -God (I) EI-olam EI-roi EI-rophe Elyon Emim -Rephaim Emmanuel Ends of the eanh Enoch

Equity

-Misharu

Eros E.~u

Esh -Fire Eshmun Efemmu Eternity Euphrates Eve Everlasting God -El-olam Evil Inclination Evil spirit of God Exalted ones Exousiai -Authorities Face Falsehood Familiar spirit - WiZ4lJ'd Father Father of the lights Fear of Isaac Fire

-·Stoicheia

ENTRIES

First-born of death Flame Flood -Id Fortuna Gabnunnim Gabriel Gad Gaius -Ruler cult Gepen Gether Ghost -Spirit of the dead Giants Gibborim Gillulim Girl Glory God (I) God (II) God of fortresses God of heaven God of seeing -EI-roi Goddess -Terebinth Go'el Gog Gush Haby Hadad Hades Hail - Barnd Ham Hamartia -Sin Haoma Haran Hathor Hayin He-of-the-Sinai Healing God -EI-rophe Heaven Heaven-and-Earth Heavenly beings -Sons of (the) God(s) Hebat Hebel -·Abel Helel Helios Hera Heracles Herem -Taboo Hennes Hennon Heros Hobab -Humbaba Hokmah -Wisdom Holy and Righteous -·Hosios kai dikaios Holy One

Holy Spirit Horeph Horon Horus Hosios kai dikaios Host of heaven Hubal Hubur Humbaba Humban Hunger -Meriri Hyacinthus Hyle Hymenaios Hypnos Hypsistos Ibis Id Idols -.Azabbim; Gillulim I1ib Image Inanna -+ Ishtar Ishbara Ishmael Ishtar Isis Jackals Jacob Jael Jaghut Jalam Japheth Jason Jephthah's daughter Jeremiel Jesus Jeush - Jaghut Jezebel Jordan Joseph Judah - Yehud Kabod -Glory Kaiwan Kelti Kenan Kese' Kesil -Orion Khonsu Khvarenah Kimah -Pleiades King King of terrors King ofTyre -Melqan

xxxv

XXXVI Kinnaru Kiriri~a

Kokabim -Stars Koshar Kosharoth Kubaba -Cybele Kyrios Laban Lady -Adal: Bellu Lagamal -. Lagamar Lagamar Lab Lahab - Flame Lahai-roi Lahmu Lamb Lamia -Lilith Lamp Law -Nomos: Torah

Leah Lebanon Legion

leI Levialhan Libra Liers-in-wail Lies Lighl Lighlning Lililh Lim Linos Lioness Logos Lord Lordship -Dominion Lyre -Kinnaru Ma -Cybele MaCat Magog Makedon Mal 1 ak meli~ -Medialor (I) Mal'ak Yahweh -·Angel of Yahweh Malik Mammon Man - Anlhropos Marduk Mary MashIJit -·Destroyer Mastemah Matter -Hyle Mazzaloth -Constellations Mediator (I) Medialor (II)

ENTRIES

Melchizedek Melqart Menelaos Meni Meriri Mesiles -.Medialor (II) Messenger -Angel (I) Messiah -·Chrisl Michael Midday demon Mighly One of Jacob Mighly ones -·Gibborim Milcom Min Mire -Clay Misharu Mistress -Ad'll: Bellu Milhras Molech Moon Moses Mosl High -Elyon: Hypsislos MOl

Mother Mountains-nnd-valleys Moulh Mulissu NabQ Nahar -River Nahash -Serpent Nahhunte -Lagarnar Nahor Name Nanea Narcissus Naru -River Necessity - Ananke Nehushtan Neith Nephilim Nereus Nergal Nibhaz Night Nike Nile Nimrod Ninurta -Nimrod: Nisroch Nisroch Noah Noble ones Nomos Nymph

ENTRIES

Oak Ob -Spirit of the dead Oberim -Travellers Og Oil Olden Gods Olympus One Ophannim -angels Orion Osiris Ouranos -Heaven; Varnna Pahad uylah -Terror of the Night Pantokrntor -Almighty Paraclete Patroklos People -Am Perseus Phoebus -Apollo Phoenix Pleiades Pollux -'Oioskouroi Poseidon Power -'Oynamis Presbyteroi -Elders Prince Prince (NT) - Archon Prince of the army of Yahweh -Prince Principalities - Archai Pronoia Protectors Ptah Python Qatar Qedar -Qatar Qcdoshim -'Saints Qeteb

QOs Queen of Heaven Quirinus Rahi~u

Rachel Rahab Rakib-EI Ram Rapha Raphael Raven Re Rephaim Rephan - Kaiwan Resheph Rider-upon-the-clouds

Riding Horseman Righteousness -'Zedeq River Rock Roma Ruler cult Sabbath Saints Saints of the Most High Sakkuth Samson -- Heracles Sanctuary Sar -'Prince Sarah Sa..am Satan Saturn - Kaiwan Satyrs Saviour Sea Seirim -SalYrs Sela --Rock ~elem -Image Scneh -Thornbush Semphim Serpent Serng Seth Seven -. Apkallu Sha Shadday Shahan Shahar Shalem Shalman Shaushka Shean --Shahan Shebcn Shechcm --Thukamuna Sheger Shelah Shem Shcmcsh Shool Shepherd Sheqer -Falsehood Shield of Abrdham Shimige Shining one(s) Shiqmah -Sycomore Shiqqu~ --Abomination Shulman Shulmanitu Shunama Shunem -'Shunama

XXXVII

XXXVIII Sid -Sidon Sidon Silvanus Simon Magus Sin Sin Sirion Sisera Skythes Soil Son of God Sons of (the) God(s} Son of Man Soothsaying spirit --Spirit of the dead Sophia -'Wisdom Soter -·Saviour Source Spirit -.Holy Spirit Spirit of the dead Stars Stoicheia Stone Strong Drink Sukkoth-bcnoth Sun -'Helios; Re Shemcsh S)'comore Taboo Tabor Tal -·Ocw Tammuz Tannin Tanak Tehom -.Tiamat Ten Sephirot Terah Ternphim Terebinth Terror of the Night Thanatos Themis Theos --God (II) Thessalos ThiUakhuha Thombush Thoth Thrones Thukarnuna Tiamat Tibcrius --Ruler cult Tigris

ENTRIES

Timsh Titans Torah Travellers Trees -Oak. Sycomore. Terebinth. Thombush Tyche Typhon Unclean spirits Unknown God Uriel Vampire Vanities Varuna Vashti Vine -Gepen Viper Virgin Vohu Manah Watcher Way Wild Beasts Wind-Gods Wine -Tirash Wisdom Witne~s

Wi7.aro World rulers Wrath Yaaqan -Ya'uq Yahweh Yahweh zebaoth Yam -Sea Ya'Oq Yarikh -Moon Yehud Yidde'oni -.Wil.•1rd Yizhar -.Oil Yom -Day Zamzummim Zaphon Zcdcq Zeh-Sinai --He-of-the-Sinai Zeus Zion Zur -Rock

A AB--FATHER

background of the use of 'A!3aoorov in Rev 9: II as a proper name. After the fifth angel has blown his trumpet, the depth of the underworld is opened and smoke and huge locusts come up from it; their king is called "in Hebrew Abaddon, and in Greek he is called -"Apollyon". This Greek expression is not onlv derived from the verb ci7t6MUllt, but there' is also an allusion to the Greek god -..Apollo who is a god of pestilence and destruction; Aeschylus already (Agam. 1028. 1081; cf. Plato. Krat. 404e.405e) connects the god's name with this verb. Thus 'A!3aOOrov or 'A1tOMurov can be seen as a demon who brings destruction and whose realm is the underworld. The explicit use of 'abaddon for a demonic being is rare, as it is used mainly 3.il at 23: I, that is 'EI' or -'God' for 'iii (4QSam 3 ) "the oracle of the man (whom) EIIGod exalted" which is in essential agreement with the ancient Greek manuscripts "... the man whom God (ho Iheos) raised up". The identification of (/)','Most High', in

=

]6

ALAY - ALDEBARAN

1956:2: HORST 1974 3: 146). II. It is difficult to identify the star named 'a)'iS. Valid reasons have been given for refuting the suggestion, abovc all based on an unsound etymology, of identifying it as the constellation of Leo. Indeed it is not easy to explain the entire expression in Job 38:32 'avis 'al-bimeJui, 'above' or 'with her children:. It has been supposed (KB, 702) that it may be the large constellation of Leo according to the ancient Arabic conception that does not recognize Cancer and includes the stars of the latter in Leo: furthennore thc 'children' are the stars ~, "t, 0, 11 of Virgo, that the Arabs call 'the dogs barking after the Lion'. The most widely accepted opinion goes back to Ibn Ezra (SCIIJAPARELLJ 1903: 70-71; MOWINCII:EL 1928:55) according to whom it is the constellation of the Great Bear (Ursa Major): db, 'gUI, sb'h J..·wkhym. Most of the dictionaries preceding KB, and translations of the book of Job offer this interpretation. Some ancient authors (W. GESENIUS. Tit e.mllnLGod is the prototype of Man (all1lJropos), because man is made, directly or indirectly, in his image. The ReJigiollsgeschichtJiche Scllllle and others claimed that an oriental Umlensch-myth lay behind the gnostic doctrine. This account has been invoked to explain the Pauline passages (I Cor 15:21-2,45-49; Rom 5: 12-21) in which ->Christ is compared and contrasted with the first man, ->Adam. Neither of these views has worn well. II. There are two related types of gnostic anthropological myth, both of which draw upon a motif. an image reflected in

,\NTHROPOS

water, that goes back to Satomil and thus 'Samaritan' gnosis (lrenaeus, Ad". haer. 1.24.1) (SCHENKE 1962:64-68). They share the basic premise that (human) man is at least potentially a higher being than the demiurge of the world, who enviously withheld this knowledge (the forbidden fruit of Gen 2: 16-17) from Adam. The simpler is best exemplified by the long recension of the ApocrypllOlI of John (NHC IU, 14:1321:16). This envisages Adam's 'choic' or material body as modelled by the Archons of the demiurge directly upon a glimpsed reflection of the image of the Perfect Man (the highest god) (14:24-15: 12). His psyclre is likewise created by the Archons: but his divine pneuma derives from Sophia. Coming directly from the world of light, it in fact pre-exists choic and psychic bodies. The second type, exemplified by the Naassene exegesis (in the distorted and lacunate account of Hippolytus Ref. haer. 5.7.3-9.9), protects the transcendence of the highest divinity by interpolating a hypostasis between Anthropos and Man: the hypostasis or -·image (eikoll) supplies both the model for physical man and the divine particle of light. The Perfect Man, the Father of All, Adam, produces a son 'of the same substance'. The physical body of human Adam made by the Archons of the demiurge Esaldaios is (indirectly) modelled upon this son. When the son, probably in the fonn of divine light, descends to vivify the creature, he is trapped: over the generations descending from Adam, the light is split up into innumerable fragments, each of which may return to the Light World (FRICKEL 1984: 263). This principle could be indefinitely extended: any emanation from the Perfect Man may be named Anthropos. even the female Barbelo in ApocrypllOlI of Jolm, because she is 'the image of the Father' (14: 23: cf. 5:7: 6:4). In £Ugllostos, a series of emanations from the First-Father, also called Anthropos (NHC III.3, 77:14), is named in turn First Man, Immortal Man, -·Son of Man, -Saviour (78:3: 85:10-14). As a key gnostic motif, Anthropos has figured in all accounts of the genesis or

proto-history of gnosticism. Older accounts may be briefly summarized. W. BOUSSET claimed that an ancient oriental myth, the creation of the world from the parts of a sacrificial victim, the prototypical man, must underlie the narrati ves of Poima1ldres 12-15 and several Christian accounts of gnostic systems (Hauptprobleme der Gliosis [Gl>ttingen 1907, repro 1973] 160-223). The bestknown of these myths, that of the Iranian Gtlyomart, stimulated R. REITZENSTEIN in turn to propose the existence of an Iranian popular cult of a redeemed redeemer, which ultimately inspired the gnostic myth as a whole (e.g. Das ircmisclre £rloslI1Igsmysteri11m, Bonn 1921). C. H. KRAELING attempted to link Bousset's view to Jewish Messianism (Allthropos and tire SOli of Man, New York 1927), G. WIDENGREN to find the redeemed redeemer in early Iranian texts (771e great Volru Mallalr. Uppsala 1945). None of these views survived the criticisms of COLPE (1961:140-70: cf. 1969:411) and SCHENKE (1962:69-114), though it was still possible for RUDOLPH in 1964 to stress the supposed Iranian antecedents of gnosticism. The decisive considerations, as SCHENKE showed, were the new texts from Nag Hammadi. which provided far more reliable accounts of gnostic Anthropos than had been available, and an appreciation of the character of post-Biblical Jewish techniques of exegesis (ef. TROGER 1980:155-168). There is simply no evidence for the redeemed redeemer in gnosis until Manicheism. The key texts that inspire all gnostic anthropology are Gen 1:26-27: 2:7 & 2:21-24, together with the post-Biblical Jewish exegeses of these passages (cf. QUISPEL 1953:215-217. 226; PEARSON 1973:51-81; 1990). Certainly, gnostic 'systems' are syncretic, but no precise antecedent of the basic macro-/microcosmic scheme is required; and syncretism is only one of the processes involved in the elaboration of the complex gnostic scenarios. TARDIEU (1974) has provided a convincing account of the varied sources of inspiration. and the narrative logic, of one such anthropology, in the Origill of the World (NHC 11.5). Iran, to say nothing of

60

ANTHROPOS

brought about by Adam. The origin of the typology in Alexandrian wisdom speculation was pointed out by SANDElIN (1976:91113), thus undermining Reitzenstein's view of Philo Leg. AI/eg. 1.31; the same scheme lies behind Phil 2:6-9. BARREn (1985) likewise analysed the role of exegesis of Gen 12 in 1 Cor 15, but stressed the probable allusion to the representative Man of Dan 7: 13 and the implied rejection of Philo's Platonism in Leg AI/eg. 1:31 (cf. LIETZMANN ad I Cor 15:45-49). FISCHER has urged that I Cor 15:45-49 is a unique melding of strands of belief derived both from Jewish Apocalyptic (4 Ezra, 2 Apoc. Bar.) and from gnostic myth (1980:294-298), but that no coherent gnostic doctrine inspired Paul negatively or positively. The most recent discussions of I Cor 15 draw on both COlPE and BARRET (WmJERINGTON 1992: 184-193; 1994:308f.) - the analogies Paul uses are merely partial ones and not to be pressed. Attention has switched to the construction of the rhetorical argument as a whole in favour of the resurrection of the dead.

ancient oriental myths, has disappeared totally from RUDOLPH'S most recent summary (1990:99-130). III. Within NT studies, the authority of R. BUlTMANN, who tended to accept the 'oriental' origins of gnosis as a fact (e.g. 1964; 1984), caused it to be widely canvassed, and not only among his pupils (see e.g. J. JEREMIAS, s.v. Adam, nVNT I [1933] 142-143; H. SCHlIER, RAC 3 [1956] 43753), that the Christology of Pauline Christianity was significantly influenced by "Urmensch und Erl6ser", however they came to be combined into an eschatological Adam (cf. SINN 1991). But the objections to any direct relation between gnostic myth and Pauline Christology are decisive (SCHENKE 1973). Thus COlPE argued that 'Son of Man' has no genetic link with Gnostic ideas (1969:414-418). The basic premises of W. SCIIMITHALS' Die Gnosis ill Korinth 3 (1969) were undennined by SCHENKE & FISCHER. Einleitung ill die Schriften des NT (Berlin 1978-1979) I: 1035. The contrast between pneumatikos and ps)'chikos in I Cor 14:44-46 derives from Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom speculation, and was thus freely available both to Gnostics and to early Christians (PEARSON 1973). The differences in the structure and meaning of gnostic anthropology by contrast with the Pauline scheme have been noted by FISCHER 1980:289-294. Although the inverse assumption viz., that the Pauline Adam-Christ inverted parallelism has Judaic sources, can also not be conclusively demonstrated, there have been adequate treatments of the Pauline Adam-Christ typology which do not concede even the limited gnostic influence allowed by BRANDENBURGER (1962) or SCHOTIROFF (1970). COlPE (1969:475-477) showed that I Cor 15:45-49 is an elaboration through reduplicated antithesis of 15:21, and that no prior schema underlies the passage. In Rom 5: 12-21, which is derivative from the Cor passage, an apocalyptic notion, -Jesus as the -Son of Man, has been recast into the prototype Man of the resurrection, contrasted with the death

IV. Bibliography F. AlTERMATH, Du corps psychiqlle au corps spirituel (Beitr. Gesch. bibl. Excg. 18; TUbingcn 1977); C. K. BARRETT, The Significance of the Adam-Christ Typology for the Resurrection of the Dead, Risurrcction du Christ et des chreriens (ed. L. de Lorenzi; S~r. monogr. B~n~dict., sect. bibl.oec. 8; Rome 1985) 99-122; E. BRANDENnURGER, Adam und Christus (WMANT 7; Neukirchen 1962); R. BUlTMANN, Adam und Christus nach R6mer 5, Der alte und der neue Mensch in der Theologie des Paillus (Darmstadt 1964) 41-66, repro from ZNW 50 (1959) 145-65; BUlTMANN, Theologie des NT (TObingen 19849 ) 166-186; C. COlPE, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule (G6ttingen 1961); COlPE, 0 vioq rou av8proJrov, nVNT 8 (1969) 403-481; K. M. FISCHER, Adam und Christus, Altes Testament - FrlJhjudentum - Gllosis (ed. K. Tr6ger; Berlin 1980) 283-98; 1. FRICKEl, Hellenistische Erlosung in christlicher Deutung: der gnostische Naassenerschrift (NHS 19; Leiden 1984) 259-269; B. A. PEARSON,

61

ANTICHRIST In the Epistles of John alllie/rristos is used as a designation for the ultimate eschatological opponent of -Jesus Christ. The appearance of the antic/rristos is expected to precede the parousia of Christ. The author of I and 2 John refers to this expectation as an existing tradition (I John 2: 18: 'as you have heard ,.. '), although the tradition of Antichrist is not attested in its full form before lrenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5:25-30). After having referred to the tradition the author uses the word alllichristos to characterize his opponents who as alllichristoi deny Christ (l John 2:18-plural; I John 2:22; 2 John 7-singular). Their teaching is inspired by the spirit of Antichrist, and presented by the author as proof that Antichrist has already come (I John 4:3). By interpreting the conflict with those who deny Christ (I John 2:22) by means of the expectation of Antichrist, the author of the Epistles of John argues the nearness of the end (l John 2: 18!). II. Neither the word alllichn'stos nor a Hebrew or other equivalent is used in any of the versions of the OT or in extra-biblical literature of the period. But although the worn is not used before the Epistles of John, the concept of eschatological opposition reaching its climax in the appearance and activity of a single person is already found in some OT paPython, the son of ->'Eanh' and the Lord of that place (Hom. Hymn 3: 182-387: see FONTENROSE 1950: 1327 for five different versions of this myth) and had to leave Delphi again in search of purification (i1l1. al. Pausanias 2:7.7). The attempts to locate his origin in a specific region, especial1y the North-East of Europe or Asia Minor (GUTHRIE 1950:73-87), proved unsuccessful because of the lack of conclusive evidence: (the once promising al1eged Hittite god Apulunas disappeared thanks to a better decipherment of the Hittite hieroglyphs (BURKERT 1975:2-4]). Of the many etymological explanations which have been proposed for the name Apol1o (WERNICKE 1896:2-3: NILSSON 1955:555559; FAUTH 1975:441-442) none has found general acceptance. However, following a suggestion by HARRISO:-; (1927), BURKERT has again pointed out that there is a close connection with the name of the month Apel/llios and the institution of the llpel/lli (BURKERT 1975). In epic literature and at Delos and Delphi the god's name is always spel1ed Apol/{m. In the Doric dialect we find Ap£,I/{m and on Cyprus ApeHon, in Thessaly ApIOlIll. At the beginning of the present era the form Apol/{m had almost completely superseded the Doric form ApeI/o", but the latter was certainly the older one: the spelling with 0 has to be taken as a secondary vocal assimilation to the ending -0". The month Apel/aios and the apeI/ai are also found in the whole Doric region. In Delphi Apel/aios was the first month of the year, in which the apel/ai were held. The apel/ai were annual meetings in which tribal associations or communities purified themselves from ritual and spiritual contaminations, and in which the new members of the community, the Ephebi. were initiated. The god Apel/lm/Apol/o" may have derived his name from the llpel/ai. He was 'the areh-cphebos' (HARRISO:-': 1927:441), the tme kouros. Apollo was considered the author of evil and ito; averter as wel1 (a), the god of purification, law and order (b) and the god

of prophecy (c). These three aspects deserve a brief discussion. (a) The beginning of the Iliad introduces Apol1o as the frightening god who sends a deadly pestilence into the cattle and the army of the Achaeans. One of the oldest etymologies of Apol1o's name is its derivation from apol/ymilapol/yo (Aeschylus, Agam. 1081; Euripides, frg. 781. II: sec WERNICKE 1896:2). But the author of the disease is also the one who can stop it; to that end one has to propitiate Apol1o by means of sacrifices, hymns and prayers (NIl.5so:-,: 1955:538-544), as was in fact done by the Achaeans (Iliad 1:48-52. 450456). In the second and third centuries CE, this way of propitiating the god to avert a plague was still advised by Apol1o himself in scveral oracles given at Clarus and Didyrna (R. LANE Fox, Paga"s a"d CilristiallS [New York 1987] 231-235). Similarly ambivalent gods, said to be both the cause of evil and of its disappearance, arc found all over the world; in India, it is the god Rudra who shows a remarkable similarity to Apol1o (loRENZ 1988:4,8). (b) Apol1o was general1y held to be the giver and interpreter of laws and city constitutions (GlHHRIE 1950: 182-204: NILSSON 1955:625-653). In cities like Athens and Sparta there were official interpreters of civil and religious law who were closely related to the Delphic oracle. which enabled Apollo (and Delphi) to exercise a considerable influence on the internal affairs of the Greek city states. A special duty of the exegera i concerned advise on the rules of purification in cases of homicide (e.g. Plato, Laws II. 916c; (Demosthenes], Oral. 47, 68). Murder inevitably brings pollution (miasma) on the killer, even if the latter has acted in self-defence, and therefore he is in need of purification (knrllllrsis). Apollo, who according to the myth had to be purified himself after the killing of Python, remained the Greek god of purification (R. PARKER, Miasma [Oxford 1983] 275-276, 378, 393), although in the course of the centuries he changed his views from prescribing a vendetta to regulating legal jurisdiction over

75

APOLLO

homicide (Orestes on the Areopagus underwent '"the first trial for bloodshed," according to Aeschylus, Eumen. 683). It was probably his character as god of law and order which caused Apollo's identification with the sun. that "sees and hears all things" (Homer. Iliad:3. 277). His name Pho;bos. from which the name Phoebe derives (Rom 16:3), has often been interpreted as 'Shining': its precise meaning. however, is unknown (FAUTH 1975:442; BURKERT 1975: 14 n. 56). The legal aspect of Helios Apollo is clearly brought out in a number of inscriptions concerning 'manumissions' of children and confessions of guilt from the temple of Apollo at Lotirbenos in Phrygia. near Heliopolis, dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE (MAMA IV, 275-278: MILLER 1985). (c) Apollo was an oracle-speaking god from the beginning. His sanctuary at Delphi became the most influential political and religious centre of the Greek world (NILSSON 1955:1. 544-547, 625-653: for il.. history PARKE & WORMElL 1956:1). Apollo responded to questions on regulations of communal life, of which religion was an integral part. on wars and their outcome, the founding of colonies, etc. Also individuals came to Delphi with personal and sometimes rather trivial questions, though the evidence for this kind of oracle is quite scarce (614 responses in PARKE & \VORMELL 1956:11; a critical classification in FONTENROSE 1978:240-416). The oracles were given by a woman. the Pythia, who was seated on the tripod. What exactly happened during the mantic sessions is almost completely unknown. The traditional picture holds that the tripod was placed above a chasm from which vapours ascended which brought the Pythia into a state of frenzy or trance, in which she uttered wild shouts which had to be interpreted by the prophetes. But the evidence to suppon this view is too scanty (FO:-rrENROSE 1978: 196232). After a shon period of revived oracular activity in the second century CE Apollo almost completely relapsed into silence (see, however, the response to Arnelius' question as to where Plotinus' soul had gone [ca.

260). Porphyry. Vita Plot;n; 22; PARKE & \VORMELL 1956:11 92-193 [nr. 473]; FONTENROSE 1978:264-265 [H. 69). who conjectures that Amelius only sought Apollo's approval of his own poem on his beloved master). In Asia Minor, there were two other great oracular sanctuaries of Apollo. at Didyma and Clarus (see R. LANE Fox. Pagans and Christians [New York 1987] 168-261,711727). The method of consultation at both sanctuaries is for the greater pan unknown (Iamblichus' repon on the mantic procedures at both sites, De mysl. 3.11, reflects the final stage of Apollo's oracular practice, and possibly also the author's own interests). C1arus had a prophet and Didyma a prophetess who uttered Apollo's responses after drinking from an underground spring (C1arus) or inhaling the vapors which came from a surface spring in the sanctuary (Didyma) The oracles were put into neat metrical verse by the thespode, the 'singer of oracles' (C1arus) or a prophet (Didyma). The consultations of Apollo, by cities and individuals alike, did not substantially differ from those at Delphi or those of -Zeus at Dodona (VAN DEN BROEK 1981:4-7). Of the known oracular responses, 39 have been ascribed to Clarus and 93 to Didyma (ROBINSON 1981: see also FONTENROSE 1978:417-429 [50 responses from Didyma», but in many cases the place of origin remains uncenain. An interesting group of the oracles from Clarus and Didyma in the 2nd and 3rd centuries is formed by the socalled 'theological oracles'. which express the view that there is only one highest god whose servants or manifestations arc the gods of the traditional religions. Of these oracles the one found at Oenoanda has received most attention (ROBERT 1971; VAN DEN BROEK 1981:9-17; LANE Fox 1987: 168-171), but a thorough study of the theology of all of them remains a desideratum. In the 3rd century Apollo fell silent. Julian the Apostate (359-361) tried to revive the Delphic oracle but the attempt failed (PARKE & \VORMELL 1956:1 289-290: II 194-195, no. 476).

76

APOLLYON - ARCHAI

111. The popularity of Apollo is reflected in the frequency of theophoric personal names and toponyms: Apollodorus, Apollonia, Apollonius, Apollonides, Apollophanes, Apollos, etc. Apart from the NT passages mentioned above (sub I), we find such names also in the books of the Maccabees and in early Christian literature (see e.g. the Christian presbyter Apollonius in Ignatius, Magn. 2: I). Christian polemic against Apollo directed itself especially at his oracular sites (D. DETSCHEW, RAC 1 [1950] 528529), but nonetheless in some places his cult survived as late as the sixth century CEo IV. Bibliography J. BREMMER. Greek Religion (Oxford 1994) 15-17: R. VAN DEN BROEK, Apollo in Asia. De Orakels \'an Clarus en Did)'lIIa in de tweede en derde eellw na Chr. (Leiden 1981): W. BURKERT, Griechische Religion der archaischen Illld klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977) 225-233: BURKERT, Apellai und Apollon, RhMlls 118 (1975) 1-21; \V. FAUTH, Apollon, KP I (MUnchen 1975) 441-448; J. FO:-"'TENROSE, Python. A Stlldy of Delphic Myth and its origins (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1950); FONTENROSE. 17,e Delphic Oracle: Its Responses alld Operations, with a Cataloglle of Responses (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1978); W. K. C. GlJI'HRIE, TI,e Greeks and their Gods (London 1950: reprinted, with corrections, Boston 1954); J. E. HARRISON, Them is. A Stlldy of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (Cambridge 1927, 2nd ed.) 439-444; G. LORENZ, Apollon-Asklepios-Hygieia. Drei Typen von Heilgottern in der Sicht der Vergleichende Religionsgeschichte, Saeclllum 39 (1988) 1- I I; K. M. MILLER, Apollo Lairbenos, Numen 32 (1985) 47-70; M. P. NILSSON, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I (Munchen 1955); H. W. PARKE & D. E. W. WORMELL, The Delphic Oracle, I: The History, II: The Oraclllar Responses (Oxford 1956); L. ROBERT, Un oracle grav~ ~ Oinoanda, CRAIBL 197 I (Paris 1972) 597-619; T. L. ROBINSON, Theological Oracles and the Sallctuaries of Claros alld DidYllla (Thesis Harvard University 1981); J. SOLm.fON (cd.), Apollo: Origins and In-

flilences (Tucson 1994); K. WERNICKE. Apollon, PW 2 (1896) I-Ill.

R. VAN DEN BROEK

APOLLYON -. ABADDON; APOLLO APSU -. ENDS OF THE EARTH

AQAN -. YAcOQ AReHAI 'APXai I. The Gk tenn arche, and its equivalent Lal translation principiutn, carries the basic meaning of primacy in time or rank. It is an abstract tenn for power often used with the meaning 'sphere of authority', Le. power which is wielded by someone in a position of political, social or economic authority, such as a public official (Luke 20:20; Sib. Or. 5,20, 153). In the singular or plural arche is sometimes paired with exollsia with the meaning 'office and authority' (Plato Alcibiades 135a; Philo Leg. 71; Luke 12: 11; Titus 3: I; Mart. Pol. 10:2). It is also paired with basi/eis, 'kings' (Pss. Sol. 2:30; Philo Somn. 1.290), and also linked with 'kings and rulers', hegollmenoi (l Clem 32:2). It also is used in a more concrete sense referring to those who rule or govern, Le. 'magistrate', 'ruler', 'governor' (Luke 12: 11). When used with the latter meaning, arche belongs to the same semantic subdomain as archon; in the Greek version of I Enoch 6:7-8, e.g. arehe and archon are used interchangeably. By extension, arche can be used as a title for a supernatural force or power, whether good or evil, which has some control over the activities and destiny of human beings (Eph 6: 12). Since the phrase archai kai exousiai is a stock expression used of 'magistrates and -·authorities' (Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1; Marr. Pol. 10:2), it is likely that this political tenninology was simply applied by figurative extension to supernatural beings who were thought to occupy vague positions of authority over other supernatural beings or over human beings. II, The tenn arehai (and its Lat equiv-

77

ARCHAI

alent principia), when used of supernatural beings, appears to have been used exclusively in early Christianity, and perhaps antecedently in early Judaism and early Christianity until it was eventually adopted by Christian Gnostics and appropriated by Neoplatonic philosophers. Though it is generally presumed that early Christianity borrowed the language for various classes of angelic beings (-·Angels) including arc/rai from Judaism. the evidence is problematic. One supposed Jewish apocalyptic antecedent to Paul's use of the tenn 'principalities' (archat) in Rom 8:38-39 (where it is linked with 'angels' in one of the earliest occurrences of the tenn as an angelic category) is found in 1 Enoch 61:10: "And he will call all the host of the heavens. and all the holy ones above, and the host of the LORD, and the -Cherubim, and the -Seraphim and the Ophannim, and all the angels of power, and all the angels of the principalities (presumably archaz)." Yet the dating of 1 Enoch 3771 (the so-called Similitudes of Enoch in which this statement is found), is problematic; there is no persuasive evidence requiring a date prior to the middle of the first century CEo Further, it is possible that the Ethiopic phrase for 'angels of principalities' may be translating the Greek phrase angeloi kllrioteton (-Dominions) rather than angeloi archon (BLACK 1982). Similarly, the Theodotianic version of Dan 10:20 speaks of the 'prince of Persia' and the 'prince of Greece', certainly angelic beings in charge of particular nations (- Prince). In 1 Enoch 6:8 (preserved in Gk and Aram in addition to Eth), archai is used of twenty named angels or -·watchers, each of whom commands ten angels of lesser status. This angelic organization appears to have a military origin. for the Israelite arnlY was arranged under leaders of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens (Exod 18:21, 25; Deut 1:15; I Macc 3:55; IQM 3.16-17; 4.1-5, 15-17). Josephus refers to the organization of the Maccabean anny in I Macc 3:55 as "the old traditional manner" (Ant. 12.301). In the LXX Exod 18:21. 25 and I Macc 3:55 the tenn dekadarc/wi is used for commanders of the lowest

level of military organization, which was also common in the Hellenistic world (Xenophon Cyr. 8.1.14; Polybius 6.25.2; Josephus War 2.578; ATrian Anab. 7.23.3). There arc several other places in 1 Enoch, where the tenn arc/lUi or archontes very probably lies behind the Ethiopic. J Enoch 71:5 speaks of "the leaders of the heads of thousands who are in charge of the whole creation" and 1 Enoch 80:6 mentions that "many heads of the -'stars in command will go astray" (sec also J Enoch 82: 11-20). In JlIb. 10:8, -Mastemah is called "the chief of the spirits". In 4Q Shir Shab the tenn nes;';m, 'princes', is used of angels several times (4Q403 I i I, 10, 21; 40400 3 ii 2; 40405 13 2-3, 7; NEWSOM 1985:26-27), as is the tenn rii's;m, 'chiefs' (40403 I ii II; 40405 23 ii 10; NEWSOM 1985:27), and these arc combined in the title 'chief princes' (40403 I ii 20, 21; 4Q405 8-9 5-6). In the LXX, the tenn ro's, is occasionally translated with arc/lon (Deut 33:5; Job 29:25; Ezek 38:2-3) or arche, meaning 'chief, 'master', 'sovereign', 'prince', Le. a tenn for leadership in the military, political and priestly ranks. Another use of the tenn arehai for a category of angelic beings in Judaism occurs in the Theod. Dan 7:27 (Theodotion, the reviser of an earlier 'UrTheodotianic' version of the Gk OT, was active toward the end of the second century CE): "Then kingship and authority and the greatness of the kingdoms under the entire heaven were given to the holy ones (hagiOl) of the Most High, and his kingship is an eternal kingship and all rulers (hai arehat) shall serve and obey him," Here archai, 'rulers' (the LXX has exollsiai, 'authorities') is parallel to hagioi ('the holy ones'), a Gk translation of the Heb tenn qedos;m, a designation often used of angels (-saints, Ps 89:6; Job 5:1; 15:15; Zech 14:5; Dan 4: 14; 8:13; see also Tob 12:15; T. Levi 12:15; Pss. Sol. 17:49). The Aram phrase underlying hagioi in Theod. Dan 7:27 is actually (am qadd;s;m, 'the people of the saints', Le. Israel is the people of the holy ones [angels] (COLLINS 1977). III. There are several problems in inter-

78

ARCHAI

preting the term arc/wi in the NT. One problem is that of detennining whether or not the arc/wi refer to human rulers or supernatural rulers. Another is that of determining whether, when supernatural beings arc in view, they are good or evil. A third problem is that of detennining whether supernatural categories of beings such as archai are distinct from other categories, such as exolls;ai and dyllameis, or whether such designations are largely interchangeable. Paul includes angels, principalities (archa;) and powers in in a list of obstacles which might separate the believer from the love of God in Rom 8:38. Clement of Alexandria interprets these as evil supernatural powers (Strom. 4.14). He may be correct, for since angels and arc/wi appear to be antithetical in Rom 8:38, it is possible that the fonner are good while the latter are evil. In I Cor 15:24 it is clear that the arc/wi, along with every authority and power, arc considered hostile, since they are subject to destruction and are parallel to the term 'enemies' in I Cor 15:25, though here these categories may (but probably do not) refer to human rulers. There can be little doubt that the powers mentioned in Eph I :21 and 6: 12, and specifically the arc/wi must be understood as evil supernatural powers. In general it must be concluded that the lists of supernatural beings including the arc/wi in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline literature are hostile supernatural beings. Further. it appears that the various categories are largely interchangeable, though it is possible that both authors and readers shared cenain understandings about such beings which they did not find necessary to make more explicit. Lists of Angelic Beings. The tenns arc/wi and exo/lsiai, or their Lut equivalents principia and potcstcltes. were frequently paired in a fonnulaic way to refer to supernatural beings (Eph 3: 10; CoIl: 16: 2: 10. 15; Justin J Apo/. 41.1: Irenaeus Ad,'. /zaer. 1.21.5; Act. Phil. 132. 144; Methodius Symp. 6; Epiphanius Pan. 31.5.2 [a Valentinian source)). When the three tenns arc/wi,

exollsiai and dynameis are used together (almost always in that order). supernatural beings are usually in view (I Cor 15:24: Justin Dial. 120.6; T. Sol. 20.15: Act. John 98 [here the order is dyllameis, exollsiai, and arc/wi, the reverse of the nonnal order. and the list goes on to include 'demons', activities {energeiai} , threatcnings {apeilai}. passions {thymoi} , calumnies, -·Satan and the inferior root». Short lists of angelic beings occur in early Christian magical procedures such as PGM 13.15: arc/wi kai exo/ls;ai kai kosmokratores, 'rulers and authorities and cosmic rulers' (the same brief list found in Origen De principiis 1.6.3), and PGM 21.2-3: pases arches kai exo/lsias I;oi kllriotetos, 'every ruler and authority and ruling power'. These lists seem to imply that arc/wi arc one among several classes of angelic beings, though the hierarchization of such beings appears to be a later step. Angelic Classes and Hierarchies. In Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism, there were numerous attempts to classify or systematize the various traditional tenns for angelic beings. Despite frequent claims to the contrary. these speculations are not attested earlier than the first century CEo In T. Le"i 3: 1-8 (part of a more extensive Jewish interpolation in 2:3-6:2). a variety of angelic beings are correlated with some of the seven heavens. though arc/wi are not mentioned. The third heaven (3:3) contains the 'powers of the hosts' (hai dYllameis tOil paremb%n). in the fourth heaven (3:8) are '->thrones and authorities' (throlloi. exo/lsiai), in the fifth heaven (3:7) arc angels, and in the sixth heaven (3:5) are the 'angels of the presence of the Lord'. While the Grundschrift of the T. J2 Patr may be a'i carly as 200 BCE. this Jewish interpolation is probably much later. Le. the first century CEo Arc/wi are apparently mentioned in a classification of ten angelic orders in Slavonic 2 Enoch 20: 1 found in the longer recension which cannot with any assurance be dated earlier than the second century CE: (1) archangels, (2) incorporeal forces (dyllameis?). (3) dominions (kuriotetl's). (4) origins

79

ARCHANGEL (archan), (5) authorities (exollsiai?), (6) cherubim, (7) seraphim, (8) many-eyed thrones (thronoi?), (9) regiments and (10) shining 'otanim'(?) stations. In one of the eight Syriac manuscripts of the T. Adam, there is a list of heavenly powers placing them in a hierarchical arrangement beginning from the lowest and proceeding to the highest order: angels, archangels, archons (archQl1, authorities, powers, dominions, and finally at the highest level, thrones, seraphim and cherubim arc grouped together (4:1-8). In De cadesti hierarchia, Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, strongly influenced by Neoplatonic angelology, presents a hierarchy of angelic beings in three orders consisting of three types of angels in each order: (I) the highest order consists of seraphim, cherubim and thrones, 7.1 -4, (2) the middle order consists of Dominions (kuriotites), Authorities, (aol/sial), and Powers, (dynameis), 8.1, and (3) the lowest order consists of principalities (arc/rai), archangels (archangeloi), and angels, (angeloO, 9.1-2. This author also uses the tenns angels and heavenly powers, dynameis ouranias, as generic terms for heavenly beings (4.1: 11.1-2). Iamblichus lists supernatural beings which reveal a god, such as an angel, archangel, demon, archon or a soul (De myst. 2.3). In an inscription written over the heads of angels in a Mosaic in the Koimesis Church, the terms archili, dynameis, kuriotetes, and exousiai appear (SAHlN, 1:497). IV. Bibliography C. E. ARNOLD, Ephesians: Power and Magic (Cambridge 1989): H. BIETENHARD,

paulinische Allgelologie lind Diimonologie (Gl>ttingen 1888); W. GRUNDMANN, Der Begrijf der Kraft in der neUlestamentlichen Gedankenwelt (Stuttgart 1932) 39-55: J. Y.

LEE, Interpreting the Demonic Powers in Pauline Thought, NovT 12 (1970) 54-69; G. H. C. MACGREGOR, Principalities and Powers: The Cosmic Background of Paul's Thought, NTS I (1954-55) 17-28; C. MORRISON, The Pmvers That Be: Eanlrl)' Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:/-7 (London 1960); C. NEWSOM, Songs of tire Sabbath Sacrifice (HSS 27; Atlanta 1985); M. PESCE, Paolo e gli Arclronti a CorilltO (Brescia 1977) 261-336; S. E. ROBINSON, The Testament of Adam (Chico 1982) 14244, 146-48; S. SAHJN, Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia) (Bonn 1979-82); H. SCHLlER, Principalities and Powers in the New Testament (Freiburg 1961); W. WINK, Naming the Powers (Philadelphia 1984) 13-15, 151-156.

D. E. AUNE ARCHANGEL apxayycl.o~ I. The figure of the archangel already appears in the Hebrew Bible, but the Greek term archangelos (Latin archangelus) docs not occur in the Greek versions of the OT. The word appears in (early) Greek passages in the OT Pseudepigrapha (e.g. Greek text of 1 Enoch) and there are two occurrences in the NT (I Thess 4:16; Jude 9). II. In Jewish literature from the Second Temple period a tendency can be observed to differentiate between groups and categories of angels (cr. 1 Enoch 61:10; 2 Enoch 19: 1-5; -+ Angel) and to bring a hierarchy in the angelic world. Some scholars assume influence here from pagan conceptions. FmmNOY (1989: 124). for instance, thinks of Persian influence and notes the similarity between the seven angels of the face (cr. Tob. 12: 15) with Persian angelology. BOUSSET & GRESSMANN 1926:325326 assume Babylonian influence. In any case, several angels act in Jewish and Early Christian texts as individuals with n specific function and were assigned the status of the

Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentllln rmd Splltjudentum (Tilbingen 1951) 104-108; M.

BLACK, Pasai exousiai autOi hypotagesontai, Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett (London 1982) 73-82; G. B. CAIRO, Principalities and Powers (Oxford 1956); F. CUMONT, Les anges du paganisme, RHR 72 (1915) 159-182; W. CARR, Angels and Principalities (Cambridge 1983); J. J. CoLLINS, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (Missoula 1977) 141-144; M. DIBEUUS, Geistem'elt im Glauben des Paulus (Gl>ttingen 1909); O. EVERLING, Die

80

ARCHANGEL

highest angels in the hierarchy (especially -·Michael and -·Gabriel). In magical texts. which are often influenced by Jewish and Christian ideas, archangels also appear (e.g. PGM IV 3051; MICHL 1962:56). III. A forerunner of the archangel appears already in Josh 5: I3- I5. Joshua sees a man who reve'lls himself as the captain of the heavenly amlY (-·Angel). LXX reads arch;strategos, which word is sometimes used as a synonym for archangelos (e.g. 7: Abr. rec. long. 1:4 and 14: 10; 3 Apoc. Bar. I 1:8; cf. Dan 8: I I; ROWLAND 1985: 10 I). In Daniel and the Qumran writings the -·Prince of the heavenly host might still be an independant figure. who came to be identified with Michael or another archangel only from the first century C.E. onwards (G. BAMPFYLDE. The Prince of the Host in the Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls, iSi 14 [1983] 129-134). In Daniel there are already two exalted angels: Michael as one of the chief princes and protector of Israel in the context of the battle of the angels of the nations (10: 13. 21; 12: I) and Gabriel. the angelus ;IIterpres for the seer (8:15-26). Also in Jude 9 and Rev 12:7 Michael acts as contestant (-toDragon; -·Satan) and in Jude arc/lUnge/os is used in this connection. Gabriel too is superior to other angels. According to J Enoch 40:9 he is set over all the powers and given the function of divine annunciator (cf. Luke I). According to I Thess 4: 16 an anonymous archangel heralds the descent of the Lord and the resurrection of the -·dead. In Apoc. Mos. 22 Michael appears in a similar role before God's punishment of Adam and -·Eve. Besides the elevation of individual angels appear groups of (usually four or seven) special angels. to which Michael, -toRaphael nnd Gabriel usually belong if the angels are given names. Seven angels appear as executers of divine punishment in Ezek 9. The same number is mentioned in Tob 12: 15. where Raphael presents himself as one of the seven angels who transmit the prayers of the holy ones (see mss B and A; ms S: "who stand in attendance [on the Lord r)

and enter the glorious presence of the Lord (see also T. Le,'; 8:2: J Enoch 20). J Enoch 20 gives a list of seven angels. In the Gizeh Papyrus only six names are mentioned, but in both of the extant Greek papyri the list ends with a reference to the names of seven arcllll1lgeloi (20:7). The nanles of these angels "who keep watch" (so Eth; Greek: "angels of the powers") arc: -Uriel, Raphael, RagueJ. Michael, Sariel, Gabriel and Remiel. J Enoch 9 has a list of four archangels: Michael, Sariel (uncertain; Greek: Uriel: many Eth mss Suryal), Raphael and Gabriel. Usually Uriel (in the Book of Parahles in J Enoch 37-7 I Phanuel) figures in the lists of four archangels instead of Sariel (e.g. Sib. Or. 2:2 I 5: Apoc. Mos. 40:2; Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 4). but Sariel belongs to the oldest tradition of the four archangels according to BLACK 1985:129. 162-163, referring to the Aramaic fragments and to IQM 9:14-16 (cf. DAVIDSON 1992:50, 325-326). The name of Uriel is replaced by that of Phanuel in J Enoch 40:9: 54:6 and 71 :8-9. The group of four archangels probably developed from the four living creatures from Ezek I. They are standing on the four sides of the divine throne (cf. the 'Angels of Presence', e.g. IQH 6: 12-13; IQSb 4:25-26; 4Q400 col. I lines 4 and 8) and say praises beforc the Lord of Glory (I Enoch 40). prJy on behalf of the righteous on earth (I Enoch 40:6; Tob 12: 15) and act as intercessors for the souls of righteous ones who havc died (I Enoch 9: T. Abr. 14). They play an important part at the final judgement. Thus they lead among other things the souls of men to the tribunal of the Lord (Sib. Or. 2:214-219) and will cast kings and potentates in the burning furnace on the great day of judgement (I Enoch 54:6; on the groups of archangels and their functions see further MICHL 1962:77-78. 89-91, 169-174, 182186). Sometimes. archangels arc mentioned who do not belong to one of the lists of four or seven of the principal angels (e.g. -.Jeremiel, 4 Ezra 4:36; Dokiel, T. Abr. 13: 10 rec. long.). Phanael acts as angelic

81

ARCHON

messenger during Baruch's heavenly journey and is described as archangel and interpretor of revelations (3 Apoc. Bar. 10: I; II :7). In 1 Enoch 87-88 three archangels put -Enoch in positions to observe carcfuIly what is being revealed to him. Philo identifies the archangelos with the divine -·Logos (DECHARNEUX 1989). IV. Bibliography M. BLACK. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. A New English Edition with Commentary and TexllIal Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden 1985); W. BOUSSET & H. GRESSMANN. Die Religion des Judell111mS im spathe//enistischen Zeitalter (HNT 27: Tiibingen 1926) 325329; I. BROER. iiyy£Ao~. EWJVf I (Stuttgart 1980) 36-37; *M. J. DAVIDSON, Angels at Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36. 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from QlImran (JSP Supplement Series 11; Sheffield 1992) 49-53, 75-78, 97-98, 104105, 157, 194-196, 228, 301, 325-326 [& lit]; B. DECHARNEUX, Anges, demons et Logos dans )'ocuvre de Philon d'Alexandrie, Anges et demons. Actes dll Co//oqlle de Liege et de Lollmin-La-Nem'e 25-26 novembre 1987 (ed. J. Ries; Louvain-LaNeuvc 1989) 147-175; C. FONTINOY, Lcs anges et Ies Mmons de )' Ancien Testament, Anges et demons (see above) 117-134; W. LUEKEN, Michael. Eine Darste//ung und Vergleic/lIl11g der jiidischen lind der morgen/lilldiscir-c/lristlic/lell Tradition vom El7.engel Michael (Gt>ttingen 1898); *M. MACH, Ell1wicklllllg.'isradien des jiJdischen Ellgeigiaubells in vorrabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34; TUbingen 1992) [& lit]; J. MICHL, Engel (I-IX), RAC 5 (Stuttgart 1962) 53-258.

Iy used for a variety of high public officials. OriginaIly it was primarily limited as a designation for the highest officials (Thucydides 1.126; Aristotle Ath. Pol. 13, 1012). A typical Greek polis had two or more magistrates (archontes), a council (boule) and an assembly of the people (demos); see Josephus Ant. 14.190; 16.172. Public and private leadership terols formulated with the prefix arch- were extremely common in the HeIlenistic period. During the late Hellenistic and early Roman period the terol archon, in both singular and plural fo rolS, began to be used in early Judaism and early Christianity and then in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism as designation for supernatural beings such as -angels, -·demons and -Satan and planetary deities who were thought to occupy a particular rank in a hierarchy of supernatural beings analogous to a political or military structure. II. There was a widespread notion in the ancient world that the planets either were deities or were presided over by deities, a view which probably originated in Babylonia and involved astral fatalism. Philo refers to the popular conception that the -sun, -moon and -·stars were gods, but he argues that -Moses regarded the heavenly bodies as archontes, governing those beings which exist below the moon. in the air or on the -earth (De spec. leg. 1.13-14). The terol kosmokratores was also used of the planets. personified as rulers of the heavenly spheres (a terol used with some frequency later in the Greek magical papyri). While these supernatural beings were not unambiguously regarded as either good or evil, there was a strong tendency to regard them as hostile if not evil. The Ncoplatonist lamblichus (ca. 250-325 CE), dependent on Babylonian-Chaldaean astrology, perhaps as mediated by a lost work called Hyphegetica by Julian the Theurgist, posited a hierarchy of supernatural beings between God and the soul: -archangels, angels, demons, two kinds of archons. heroes and souls. The two types of archons, which function only in the sublunar region, included cosmic archons, kosmo-

J. W. VAN HENTEN ARCHON "APXO>v I. The teml archoll, a participial forol of the verb arc/lein used as a substantive, carries the root meaning of primacy in time or rank. After the overthrow of the monarchies in the Greek city-states (ca. 650 BCE), the terol archon, meaning 'high official' or 'chief magistrate', became wide-

82

ARCHON

kralores, and hylic archons, les hyles pareslekoles (Iamblichus, De mysl. 2.3.71). It is significant that the archontes of lamblichus are much lower on the hierarchy of being than archangels and angels. III. In the LXX, the tenn archon is used to translate thirty-six different Hebrew tenns with such meanings as 'chief, 'head', 'lender' or 'ruler'. Two of the more significant of these Hebrew words include ro'J, which is occasionally translated with archon (Deut 33:5; Job 29:25; Ezek 38:2.3), and nasi', meaning 'chief, 'master', 'sovereign', 'prince', i.e. a tenn for leadership in the military, political and priestly ranks. Judaism used the tenn archon of synagogue leaders, and archon was sometimes interchangeable with archisynogogos (both are used of Jairus in Luke 8:41.49), but at other times they were apparently distinguished (Acts 14:2 var.Iect.). In early Judaism and early Christianity, archon was one of the designations used to refer to the evil spiritual ruler of human beings and the cosmos, known by a variety of aliases including Satan, -Devil, -Belial, and -Mastemah. The synoptic gospels occasionally refer to Satan as the archon Ion daimonion, 'prince of demons' (Matt 9:34: 12:24: Mark 3:22: Luke 11: 15), because demons (like angels), were thought to be organized like an anny or a political hierarchy. The notion that a large host of celestial beings was commanded by -Yahweh is an ancient conception in Israel (1 Sam 1:3.11; 1 Kgs 22:19: 2 Chr 18: 18). This is reflected in the divine name yh~"'h #ba'OI, -'Yahweh Zebaoth', a title which occurs some 267 times in the OT (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4: 2 Sam 6:2; Isa 31:4). However, the mirror conception of Satan leading a host of evil angels or demons does not appear to be older than the second century BeE. Similarly. in Jilb., Mastemah (a designation of Satan) is called the "chief of spirits" (10:8). Porphyry claimed that Sarapis and Hekate were the archonles of evil demons (Eusebius Praep. emng. 4.22.174a), but this use of the term in a pagan context is so rare that it ~r haps can be explained as a borrowing from

83

carly Judaism or early Christianity. Somewhat surprisingly, the tenn archon is not applied to supernatural beings, whether good or evil, in the non-Christian Greek magical papyri, though the related tenn kos11Iokralor is. Another use of the tenn archon for Satan focuses on his domination of the present world or age (the Heb word cMom can mean either). In John 12:31, for example, he is called ho archon 1011 kOS11IOll 10111011, 'the prince of this world', but (in accordance with Johannine theology) his imminent expulsion is emphasized. In John 14:30, the Johannine - Jesus says that though the prince of this world is coming. he has no power over Jesus, and in John 16: II Jesus is made to say that the prince of this world has been judged. The same title occurs in a number of other texts where there is no indication that Satan's sovereignty is in imminent jeopardy (T. Sol. 2:9: 3:5-6: 6: I: Ase. Isa. 1:3: 2:4: 10:29). In Bam. 18:2 (part of the Two-Ways tradition also found in Did. 1-6 and lQS 3.13-4.26), he is called "the prince of the prescnt time of iniquity" who controls the way of darkness. a title which has a clear precedent in Judaism in the title sr mmill dCh, 'prince of the -·dominion of ungodliness' (1 QM 17.5-6). The context for the conception of Satan as ruler of this world or age is the apocalyptic world view which consisted in a temporal or eschatological dualism in which the present age (hiicolam haz;:eh, 'this world or age') is dominated by wickedness through the influence of Satan, while the imminent future age (hfloliim habba', literaIly 'the coming world or age') will be inaugurated by the victory of -God over all evil (Malt 12:32; Luke 16:8: Gal 1:4). The introduction of the future era will be accomplished by the climactic intervention of God (either dircctly or through a human agent. Le. a Messiah), and will be preceded by the destruction of the wicked and the final deliverance of the righteous. In Eph 2:2, Satan is called "the prince of the power of the air", Le. the prince whose domain is the air. This title is clearly a designation for Satan, for he is also described as "the -·spirit

ARCHON

(plleuma) now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2). The air was regarded as the dwelling place of -·evil spirits in the ancient world (Philo. De gig. 6: 2 Elloch 29:4; Asc. Isa. 7:9). Ignatius. who uses the name •Satan' once (Eph. 13: I), and the term 'Devil' four times (Eph. 10:3; Trail. 8: I; Rom. 5:3; Smym. 9: I), tends to prefer the more descriptive designation 'prince of this age', archon lou aiOllos 10urou. emphasizing the temporal rule of Satan (Eph. 17: I; 19: I: Magll. I:2; Trail. 4:2; Rom. 7: I; Phi/ad. 6:2). Satan is called "the wicked prince" in Bani. 4: 13, a title which corresponds to "the prince of error" in T. Simcoll 2:7 and T. Judah 19:4. The term arc/willes used as a designation for angelic beings first occurs in the LXX Dan 10: 13, and seven times in Theod. Dan 10: 13. 20-21; 12: J. where the LXX has stratcgos, 'commander', ·magistrate·. a1l translations of the Aram sar. 'prince'. Dan 10: 10-21 contains the first references to the conception of angelic beings who are the patrons of specific nations on eanh. The late merkavah work entitled 3 Enoch refers to the seventy or seventy-two Jare malku)'yot. 'princes of kingdoms' continuing the similar conception found in Dan 10:20-21 (3 Enoch 17:8; 18:2; 30:2): the angelic princes of Rome and Persia are mentioned specifically in 3 Enoch 26: 12, an allusion to Dan 10:33. In the Greek version of I Elloch 6 by Syncellus. the term archoll is used of Semyaza, the leader of the fallen angels or -·watchers. but also for various angelic leaders subordinate to Semyaza, reflecting traditional Near Eastern military models. After Daniel, the earliest reference to archolltes as angelic beings is found in Ignatius of Antioch. In Sm)'nI. 6: I, Ignatius mentions "the glory of angels and princes (arc/willes) visible and invisible". referring to two categories of angels, as the parallel in Trail. 5: I suggests. where he refers to ..the places of angels and the gatherings of rulers (Clrchontikas)". Since these lists arc so short. it is unclear whether the angels are superior to archons or the reverse. Similarly in the Epistle to Diogllelus 7:2. the author argues that God

did not send an angel or a prince [arc/lOll] into the world, but Christ the agent of all creation. In rabbinic and merkavah texts, the Jar hilolam, 'prince of the world' is mentioned, but (unlike John 12:31 and parallels) is never an evil figure (b. Yeb. 16b; b.ffu//. 60a; b.San". 94a: bod. Rabbah 17:4: 3 Elloch 30:2: 38:3). In I Cor 2:6.8. a much disputed passage (see PESCE 1977), Paul speaks of 'the rulers (arc/WlI1es) of this world'. Here the archontes can refer to political authorities (SCHNlEWIND 1952), but more probably to demons (Origen. De prillc. 3.2; Tertullian, Ad". Marc. 5.6; SCHLIER 1961 :45-46). Justin (Dial. 36.6) spenks of the 'princes in heaven' (hoi ell Olml1loi arc/wntes) who did not recognize -·Christ when he descended into the world (though he docs not specify whether these were good or evil), and it was these same princes who were commanded to open the gates of heaven when Christ ascended (36.5; here Justin is interpreting the term hoi arc/Willes found in the LXX version of Ps 23:7.9, a possible but unlikely translation of the Hebrew). A similar view is reflected in Asc. Isa. II :23-29, and it is specifically claimed in Asc. Iso. 11:6 that the birth of Jesus was hidden from all the heavens, all the princes nnd every god of this world. Ignatius similarly claims that the virginity of Mary as well as the binh and death of Jesus were hidden from the "prince of this world" (Eph. 19: I). IV. The archOllles play an important mythological role in some Gnostic cosmologies. The seven spheres (the sun, moon. and the five planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. bounded by the region of the fixed stars) are controlled by supernatural beings designated by various terms including arc/Willes. Seven arc/willes are usually presided over by a chief archon, who is also the demiurge who created the world, and resides in the Ogdoad, the eighth region above the seven planetary spheres. Since the attainment of salvation is linked with attaining to the sphere of the -·unknown God. passage through the concentric ranks of hostile archons is necessary. One

84

ARES

specific form of this myth is presented in the Coptic Gnostic treatise The Hypostasis of the Archons, where the archontes arc said to guard the gates of the seven planetary spheres, impeding the upward movement of souls. Irenaeus is the earliest author to mention the names of the seven archons, which are so strikingly Hebraic that their Jewish origin appears highly likely (Adv. haer. 1.30): laldabaoth (the chief archon), lao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus, Oreus and Astanphaeus. Origen later provided a list of the seven archons in Ophite mythology (Contra Celsum 6.31): laldabaoth, lao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Eloaios and Horaios, together with the specific fonnulas which must be used in order to get past each archon. A Gnostic sect named the Archontici took its name from the archons of the seven planetary spheres (the Gk teoo archontikoi, transliterated as archontici or archomiaci in Lat, is an adjective used as a substantive fonned from archon: see Epiphanius Pan. 40.2). In the Apocryphon of John 48.10-17, the words of Gen 1:26, "Let us make man in our image and likeness" are attributed to the seven archons who created -Adam. This reflects the Jewish tradition that man was made by the angels (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.24.1-2). V. Bibliography W. CARR. Angels and Principalities (Cambridge 1981); CARR, The Rulers of This Age-l Corinthians 2.6-8, NTS 23 (197677) 20-35; F. W. CREMER, Die chaldliischen Orakel lind Jamblich de mysteriis (Meisenheim am Glan 1969) 86-91; G. DELLING, archon, TDNT I, 488-489; M. DIBELlUS, Die Geistenrelt im Glauben des Paulus (Gottingen 1909), 88-99; S. EITREM, Some Notes on the Demonology in the New Testament, (Oslo 19662 ); W. GRUNDMANN, Der Begriff der Kraft in der Neutestamentlichen Gedanken welt (Stuttgart 1932) 39-55; G. MILLER, ARCHONTON TOU AIONOS TOUTOU-A New Look at 1 Corinthians 2: 6-8, JBL 91 (1972) 522-528; M. PESCE, Paolo e gli Arconti a Corinto: SlOria della ricerca (/888-/975) ed esegesi di 1 Cor. 2,6.8 (Brescia 1977); H. SCIILlER, Principalities

85

alld Powers in the New Testament (New York 1961); J. SCHNIEWIND, Die Archonten dieses Aons, 1. Kor. 2,6-8; Nachgelassene Reden lmd Alifsiit:.e (Berlin 1952) 104-109.

D. E. AUNE ARES "ApT)~

I. Ares is the god of war of the Greek pantheon, who also represents the warrior side of other gods, such as -·Zeus Areios, -. Athena Areia, -Aphrodite Areia and, apparently already in Mycenean times, -Hennaas Areias (BURKERT 1985:169). In the Bible he perhaps appears as a theophoric element in the name Areopagus in Acts 17. The name already occurs in Linear-B as Are (KN Fp 14), but itc; etymology is debated. Perhaps it was an ancient abstract noun meaning 'throng of battle, war' (BURKERT 1985:169, but see also PETERS 1986: 371-375). Ares' name in Greek literature often indiscriminately alternates with that of Enyalios, another old war god, but in cult both gods are clearly separated, as was already the case in Mycenean times (GRAF 1985:266-267). Ares was identified in Scythia (Herodotus 4.59-62), Asia Minor (ROBERT, Hellenica VI1.69-70; X.72-78, 214 note 5; XIII.44: 1966, 91-1(0), Arabia and Syria (SEYRIG 1970; AUGE 1984) with indigenous war gods and the Romans identified him with Mars. II. Ares is the warrior par excellence. especially in his more fierce and destructive shape and the only god to fight like a human on the Trojan battlefield. Homer depicts him as young, strong, big and fast; in short, he possesses all the desirable qualities of the archaic warriors, who arc characterised as 'members of his retinue' (theraponteJ. ow;: MAADER 1979:1254-1255). But he is also 'ruinous to men' (//. 5.31) and the embodiment of the 'Unvcrnunft des Nur-Kriegcrs' (MAADER 1979: 1251). As Zeus puts it: "You are the most hateful to me of all the gods who hold -Olympus. since forever strife is dear to you and wars and battles" (II. 5.890-1). Typically, when Sisyphus has managed to fetter -·Thanatos and thus stopped people dying. it is Ares who Iibcr-

ARES

ates the god of death. as Aeschylus narrated in his Sisyphus Draperes (see S. RADT. Tragieorllm Graeeorum jragmell/a [vol. 3 Aeschylus: Gottingen 1985] 337). It is this role as raging. ravaging warrior which may explain why magic-healers ascribed possession to Ares (Hippocrates. Sacred Disease 4) and Sophocles (Oedipus Rex 190) could identify Ares with the plague. Ares is an indispensable god but at the same time his murderous character makes him undesirable. It is especialIy the latter quality which comes to the fore in myth and ritual. Myth located the birth of Ares in Thrace (1/. 13.301: Od. 8.361), the country which was considered. if wrongly. as wild and barbarous; here was also his grave (PsClement, Reeogn. 10.24). The parallel with - Dionysos, who was also born in Thrace. shows that the Greeks liked to situate negative figures outside their own culture. not that these gods were originalIy aliens. His father was Zeus and his mother -Hera (//. 5.892-893), who in various Greek cities was worshipped with a martial aspect (M. L. WESf, Hesiod: Theogony [Oxford 1966] ad 922). His sister and companion was Eris, or 'Strife' (11.4.440-1) and his daughters were the fierce -Amazons (Pherecydes, FGH 3 F 15a): in the Cyclic Aethiopis (fr. I) he is already the father of Penthesileia. Among his sons he counted Phobos 'Rout' and Deimos, 'Terror' (WESf. Hesiod: Theogo1ly. comm. ad 934; add Artemidorus 2.34), the brutal Lapith Phlegyas (R. JANKO, The Iliad: A commemary IV [Cambridge 1992], comm. on //. 13.301-303), Askalaphos, or the nightly, predatory 'owl' (JANKO, comm. on I/. 13.478-480). and the great hunter Meleagros (Hesiod fro 25)-genealogy being a typical Greek way of connecting related figures. As the god of war. who represents the brutal aspects of war not matters of defence. Ares is indispensable but he is often coupled with -Athena. the embodiment of responsibility and cleverness in battle. Thus on the shield of Achilles Homer (//. 18.516) represents Ares and Athena as leading the warriors: Odysseus pretends that Ares and Athena had given him courage (Od. 14.216),

and on the vases the two gods often battle together. in archaic imagery Ares is even sometimes represented as helping with the birth of Athena (BRUNEAU 1984: 491). In the mad we can observe various strategies of dealing with the negative sides of Ares. First. when Ares confronts Athena in battle, he is ah"'ays the loser, as when the goddess helped Diomedes against Ares (5.824). disarmed him in order to prevent him avenging his son Askalaphos (15.121141) and knocked him down with a stone (21.391-415). Similarly, when in PsHesiods's Shield -~Heracles battles against Ares' son Cycnus. who wanted to build a temple from human skulls, he wins due to the help of Athena despite Ares' support of his son: it is always the goddess of cleverness and responsibility who wins. It fil~ in with Ares being a 'loser' that on the frieze of the treasure house of Siphnos and on archaic vases he is mostly positioned at the very margin of the representation (BRUNEAU 1984:491). The complicated relationship between Ares and Athena is also well brought out in the foundation myth of Thebes as related by 'Apollodorus' (3.4.1-2). When Cadmus had reached Thebes. he killed a dragon, an offspring of Arcs. who guarded a fountain. On the advice of Athena he sowed the teeth of the monster which grew into armed men. the Spartoi. These. in tum. started to fight with one another and only five survived this fratricidal strife. Subsequently. Cadmus had to serve Ares for a whole year in order to atone for his share in their death. After his servitude he became king of Thebes through Athena and married the daughter of Ares and -Aphrodite. Harmonia: 'murderous war ends in harmonious order' (BURKERT 1985: 170). Here as well. it is in the end Athena who helps Cadmus to defeat the influence of Ares. A more drastic approach is mentioned in Iliad 5:385-391 (see also Nonnus. DiOlI. 302-3(4), one of the very few real Arcs myths. Here Homer tells how the sons of Aloeus. Otos and Ephialtes. tied the god down and locked him up in a bronze barrel

86

ARES

was erected in the Tegean agora. Apparently, our source, Pausanias (8.48.4-5), no longer found a ritual, but the myth strongly suggests that at one time the Tegean women performed sacrifices in the Tegean agora from which the men were excluded. This uncommon female cult of the masculine god points to a ritual in which the nonnal social order was temporarily subverted (GRAF 1984). Ares was regularly connected with Aphrodite in literature, as witnessed by the delightful story of their liaison (Od. 8.266369); in art, where he seems to be represented as even assisting with the birth of the goddess, as he did with Athena (BRUNEAU 1984:491), and in cult, as their communal temples and altars show (GRAF 1985:264). The connection rests on a twofold association. On the one hand, there is the warrior aspect of Aphrodite. On the other, there is the strong contrast between the two gods as expressed in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, which says of Athena that she took no pleasure 'in the works of the golden Aphrodite but liked wars and the work of Ares' (9-10). The contrast also appears clearly in Thebes where the polemarchs celebrated the Aphrodisia at the end of their tenn of office. Here the cult of Aphrodite eases the transition from warlike activities to peaceful private life by a festival of dissolution (GRAF 1984:253-254), just as on Aegina an uncanny festival to masculine -Poseidon was terminated with the Aphrodisia (Plutarch, JHor. 301). Despite the opposition, the gods do belong together: as the foundation myth of Thebes shows, it is only the pairing of Ares and Aphrodite which produces Harmonia (BREMMER 1994:45-46). At the end of the fifth century the importance of Ares seems to diminish. Admittedly, comedy could still nick-name the tough Athenian general Phormio (d. cn. 429/8) 'Ares' (Eupolis fro 268.15) and a bold man a 'young of Ares' (Plato fro 112), but on the Athenian vases the god is becoming only rarely recogniznble. In the Hellenistic period Ares is only little mentioned (ROBERT, Hellenica X 77), but in the second century CE

for thirteen months. He only survived because the stepmother of his captors passed word to -Hermes, who managed to liberate him; variants of the story are also recorded in much later sources (FARAONE 1992:8687). The myth seems to be the reflection of a cult in which the statue of Ares was normally fettered but untied only once a year (so already FARNELL 1909:407). Similar cults all point to gods which are perceived as dangerous for the social order (GRAF 1985:81-96). The dangerous nature of these gods is sometimes stressed by the small size and uncanny appearance of their statues and the tradition that the statue of Ares which Pausanias (3.19.7) saw on the road from Sparta to Therapnai was fetched from faraway Colchi by the Dioscures (-Dioskouroi) points in the same direction. Cults of Ares were few and far between; not even Thebes seems to have known a temple dedicated to Ares, unlike Athens and various cities on the Peloponnesus and Crete (GRAF 1985:265). The marginality of Ares is underscored by the fact that he received a dog for sacrifice, just like spooky Hecate and messy Eileithyia: Ares' cult did not lead to eating peacefully together as would have been the case with edible sacrifice (GRAF 1985:422). It fits in with this asocial character of Ares' cult that some, untrustworthy, traditions mention a human sacrifice to Ares among the Spanans (Apollodorus FGH 244 F 125) and on Lemnos (Fulgentius, Ant. semI. 5, cf. Jacoby on Sosicrates FGR 461

F I). In some cities the macho nature of Ares was stressed by excluding women from his worship (Pausanias 2.22.4-5, 3.22.6), just as women were forbidden entry into the temples of Enyalios (Teles 24.11). This is the more natural ritual, yet the reverse also took place. It was told in Tegea that the women had once rescued the town by attacking the Spartans. After their victory the women perfonned the victory rites for Ares and the males did not even receive part of the sacrificial meat. In memory to this feat a stele to Ares Gynaikothoinas, 'Feaster of Woman' or 'One whom the women feast',

87

ARIEL

one could still dream of being sexually taken by Ares (Artemidorus 5.87). III. In the Bible the name of Arcs is commonly taken as occurring in the names of the Areopagus and Dionysius Areopagites (Acts 17). And indeed, folk etymology connected the 'hill of Ares' with the god by way of various myths. Yet there was no cult of the god on the hill and the most recent explanations tend to connect the first element of the name with a homonym areios, 'solid', and explain the name as 'solid rock' (WALLACE 1989:213-214). IV. Bibliography C. AUG~, Ares (in peripheria orientali), UMC IIJ (1984) 493-495; I. BECK, Ares in Vasenmalerei, Relief und RWldplastik (Mainz 1983); J. N. BREMMER, Greek Religions (Oxford 1994); P. BRUNEAU, Ares, UMC 11.1 (1984) 478-492; W. BURKERT, Greek Religion (Oxford 1985); C. A. FARAONE. Talismans and Trojan Horses. Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual (New York & Oxford 1992); L. R. FARNELL, The Cults of the Greek States V (Oxford 1909) 396-414; F. GRAF, Women, War, and Warlike Divinities, ZPE 55 (1984) 245-254; GRAF, Nordionische Kulte (Rome 1985); A. HEUBECK, Amphiaraos, Die Sprache 17 (1971) 8-22; F. JOUAN, Le dieu Ares: figure rituelle et image Ii tteraire. Le point thlologique 52 (1989) 125-140; B. MAADER, Ares, qgrE I (GBttingen 1979) 1246-1265; M. PETERS, Probleme mit anlautenden Laryngalen, Die Sprache 32 (1986) 365-383; L. ROBERT, Hellenica 1XIII (paris 1940-1965); ROBERT, Documents de l'Asie Mineure meridionale (Paris & Geneva 1966); H. SEYRIG, Les dieux annes et les Arabes en Syrie, Syria 47 (1970) 77112; R. \V. \VALLACE. The Areopagos Council to 307 B.e. (Baltimore & London 1989); P. WATIlELET, Ares Ie mal aime, Les Etudes Classiques 60 (1992) 113-128.

Moabite Mesha-inscription (KAI 181: 12, the suggested second occurrence in line 17 is doubtful). The meaning of the word is disputed among scholars. Regarding its etymology, several propositions have been made (cf. HALAT 84-85; Ges.18 98-99; NBL 167; ABD I 377-378 & lit). but only two of the suggested derivations seem to be applicable: 1. < ~r)'h 'lion' with the theophoric clement ~l 'God'. 2. < Ar ~ir)'llt with affonnativc lamed 'fire-pit' or more freely 'altar-hearth' (for the Moabite occurrence scc J. HOFTIJZER & K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North- West Semitic Inscriptions, I [Lcidcn 1995] 100-101 & lit: K. P. JACKSON 1989:112-113). II. In Gen 46: 16 and Num 26: 17 (spel-

led ~r~ly) Ariel serves as an eponym of the tribe of Gad. In Ezra 8: 16 (with the spelling ~ry~/; par I Esdr loo\JT)M>s) it is the PN of a leader of the exiled community. It is generally accepted that in the visionary text Ezek 43: 15.16 Ariel (~r~)'1 paralleled by Jzr~l, 'mountain of God') stands for the uppermost part of the -·altar in the future temple (\V. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel [BKAT XJJU2: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969] 1089-1096, esp. 10931094). The reference in Isa 29: 1.2.7 is more difficult to explain. Hcre Ariel (spelled ~ry~/, IQIsa8 29: I ~m'~1) refers definitely to the city of Jerusalem (J. WERLITZ [BZAW 204: BerlinlNew York 1992] 310), but again, without any clear meaning. One should therefore leave it untranslated in this passage. Little easier is the translation of Ariel in 2 Sam 23:20 (par. I Chr I I :22 ~T)'~/). In the description of Benayah's heroic deeds, the reader is told that Benayah stroke (lIkh) two ~r~1 mw~b (MT; the passage is grammatically difficult, cf. the commentaries). LXX reads that Benayah killed 'to~ 000 \JioU; Apl"'" 'tou Mcoo~. 'the two sons of Ariel the Moabite'. Although the LXX interferes seriously in the text, presupposing a double haplogrnphy in the Hebrew text. this reading points into the right direction. As a matter of fact NKH HiphciI in the historical books never means to strike upon an object (cf. also E. JENNI, Erls 24 [1993] 114-118), but

J. N. BREMMER

ARIEL ?~''"'1~~~~ I. The term Ariel occurs 16 times in different spellings in the OT and once in the

88

ARM

text (cf. R. D. WEIS in Tradition of the Text [FS Barthelemy: cd. G. J. Norton & S. Pisano: OBO 109; GottingenlFribourg 1991] 285-292) are paralleled by 'the messengers of peace' (cf. also Isa 52:7). Probably on the basis of this parallelism and the angelophanic context, the later tradition understood the :Jr:J/m , to be pronounced :Jer:Jellim, as a class of --angels, an evolution which may well have been stimulated by the difficult etymology of Ariel (OlYA~ 1993: 53-54.1 01 with references). In the 3rd/4th century text 'On the Origins of the World' from Nag Hamadi (NHC II, 5: 100, 25) Ariel, spelled Ariael, is the epithet of the lion-faced Yaldabaoth. In other gnostic writings Ariel becomes the ruler over the wind and over the furnaces of hell (1. MICHL, 1962:204).

to strike down, i.e. to kill somebody, so the translation with 'altar-hearth' is not applicable. Consequently, Ariel here designates some kind of person, best translated a. fOpe{) would occur. If this is so. we should look for dialectal variantc; of the name. Judg 10:6, I Sam 7:4 and 12:10 all refer to 'the Baals and the Ashtaroth'. In the second instance, LXX has the curious reading tas Baalim wi ta alse Astaroth. "and the (f.!) Baals and the (n. pI.!) groves-Ashtaroth", an impossible combination of Ashlart and Asherah elements, while in the third, LXX reads lOis lJaalim kai tois alsesin. In 1 Sam 7:3 the allusion looks like a secondary addition at the end of the sentence (luisini Jet_ Je/olz Izallllckiir mirrokekem weJ,iiCastiirvt). LXX, however. reads . .. kai ta alse. thus presupposing hiiJiiserim. In 1 Sam 31: 10, thc annour of Saul is hung on the walls of 'the temple of Ashtart ('astiirot)' (LXX 10 ASlarteion, /I 1 Chr 10: 10: bet JiWlzelzem). Commentators usually change the pointing to 'astoret (thus SMITII. The books of Samuel [ICC; Edinburgh 1899] 253) or regard the temple as dedicated to 'the Ashtaroth' (pI.: thus HERZBERG, I and 1/ Samuel [London 1964 J 233). On the basis of the argument that the fonn is singular, no change to MT is required. The other three occurrences all point the name 'astoret and do not use the article. These passages overtly refer, however, not to an Israelite or Judahite goddess, but to 'Ashtoreth, goddess eNollt?!) of the Sidonians' in 1 Kgs 11 :5.33 as importations by Solomon to please his wives; while in 2 Kgs 23: 13, in the account of JosiAphrodite; their aetiological myth, the story of Erichthonios and the daughters of Cecrops. focuses rather on the themes of sexuality and its dangers (BURKERT 1966). Similar rituals lie behind. e.g. the ritual of the Locrian Maidens who were annually sent to Athena llias (GRAF 1978). Compared to -.Artemis, who is more prominent as a protectress of young women but whose main concern is with their biol-

ogical function, Athena's domain is the correct social behaviour of women; from this stems her function as Ergane. in which she presides over the female work. But the role of Athena Ergane was more global: together with Hephaestos, she protected also the artisans over whose skills she watched; she had found out how to harness a horse. had taught how to build ships (her first construction was Jason's Argo) and had cultivated the olive tree. The common denominator of these functions, as DE11ENNE & VERNANT (1974) pointed out, is Athena's role as purveyor of practical intelligence and cleverness as a fundamental ingredient of civili7.ation; the myth of her contest with -> Poseidon over the possession of Athens which was decided by the respective gifts. a salty spring from Poseidon, the cultivated olive tree from Athena. confront and evaluate miraculous nature which is socially useless as opposed to socially \'ery useful nature. which has been trnnsfonned and civilized. Athena's main Athenian festivals give ritual expression to these themes; they cluster around the beginning of Athenian year in the month Hekatombaion (July-August) (DEUBNER 1932:9-39; BURKERT 1977:347354). The cycle begins towards the end of the last month but one, Thargelion (MayJune): on its 25th day, the Plynteria ("Cleansing Festival"), the old ,,,'ooden image of Athena on the acropolis was ritually cleansed: itc; ganllents and ornaments were taken off, the image was carried to the sea. bathed, and brought back towards night onto the acropolis. where it was clad with a new peplos. The ritual depiclc;. in an easily understandable and widely diffused symbolism. the periodical renewal of the city's religious centre. Early in the following month (MIKALSON 1975: 167), during the Arrhephoria, the Arrhephoroi ended lhcir year of service on the acropolis by a secret ritual which brought them from the realm of Athena to the one of Aphrodite (Pausanias 1,27,3). thus designating the passage to female adulthood; city and demes celebrated the day with sacrifices, i.e. to the polis protectors Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus. and

117

ATHENA

to Kourotrophos, the protectress of human offspring. The first month of the year saw two state festivals of Athena which both dramatized the polis itself. On Hecatombaion 16. the Synoikia recalled the (mythical) constitution of the polis from independent villages by Theseus; the goddess received a sacrifice on the acropolis. After the ritual refounding of Athens, the Panathenaia of Hecatombaion 28 presented the polis in all its splendour. Its main event was an impressive procession, idealized in Pheidias' frieze of the Panhenon; it moved from the margin of the city to its heart, the acropolis. and exhibited all constituent pans of the polis. from its officials at the head to its young warriors at the end; in the centre, it carried the new p~plos for the goddess, which had been begun by the Arrhephoroi and was finished by representatives of all Athenian women. The presentation of this new garment links this final festival to the beginning of the cycle, the Plynteria It also connects the Panathenaia with a funher Athenian festival outside the New Year cycle, the Chalkeia of Pyanopsion 30 (October-November), in which the artisans, especially the metalworkers, led a sacrificial procession to Athena Etganc and Hephaistos. Though her main festivals seem to express an understandable and easy symbolism, her mythology is not without paradoxes-she is not only a virgin and a female wnrrior, but also the mother of Erichthonios, sprung from the head of her father, fully armed; she is closely connected with the snake' and the owl, animals of eanh and night Evolutionary models dissolved the tensions into a historical fusion of heterogeneous elements (synthesis NILSSON 1963: 433-444); KERrtNYI (1952) tried to dissolve some·-()f the paradoxes with the help of nnalyticai psychology; contemporary scholarship seems reluctant to follow and prefers functional analyses. Athena's powers are ambivalent. Her • warlike qualities protect the town but also make use of the horrors of war. her main symbol, often used as a deadly weapon, is

the aegis; it contains the Gorgon's head surrounded by snakes whose looks turned all on-lookers to stone. Besides, she shares this ambivalence with the young warriors themselves who are positioned outside polis society. Her practical intelligence also is ambivalent because it is open to abuse; her mother Metis. "Crafty Intelligence", could have offspring which threatened Zeus' powers, therefore, the god swallowed the pregnant goddess and gave binh to Athena from his head (Hesiod. Tlreo}:.886-900. 924926). The myth is comparable to the one of the ambivalent -·Dionysos; similar to possible Near Eastern narrative models (KIRK 1970:215-217), the story evaluates civilizing intelligence as having a Zeus-like power, but lying out"ide the norms of nature; Hephaestos, the divine blacksmith and anisan, shares some of these ambivalences. III. The Bible never mentions Athena, although Athens and the Athenians occur several times in NT (Acts 17:15-16; 17:2122; 18: I; I Thess 3: I). Paul's discourse on the Areopagus (Acts 17:22) stresses the religious zeal of the Athenians without giving any details except the altar of the -Unknown God. IV. Bibliography J. BREMMER, Heroes, Rituals and the Trojan War, Smdi srorico-religiosi 2 (1978) 5-38; W. BURKERT, KckropidenSRG, Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel-Ritus. BN 33 (1986) 10-16: Gl>RG. Asasel. NBL 1 (1991) 181-182: Gl>RG. "Asaselologen" unter sich - eine enge Runde? BN 80 (1995) 25-31: L. L. GRABBE. The Scapegoat: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation. JSJ 18 (1987) 152-167: P. D. HANSON. Rebellion in Heaven. Azazel. and Euhemeristic Heroes in I Enoch 6-11. JBL 96 (1977) 195-233: ·B. JANOWSKI & G.

WILHElM. Ocr Bock. der die Sunden hinaustragt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des Azazcl-Ritus Lev 16.10.21 f. Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien WId dem Alten Testamem (OBO 129: Fribourg & GtSttingen 1993) 109-169 [& lit.]: H. M. KOMMEL. ErsatzktS-

nig und SUndenbock. ZA W 80 (1968) 289318: ·0. LoRETZ. Leberschau, Siindel/bock, Asasel in Ugaril und Israel. Leberschau und Jahwestatue in Ps 27, Leberschau in Ps 74

(UBL 3: Altenberge 1985) 35-57; J. MILGROM. Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; New York etc. 1991) 1071-1079: G. W. E. NICKELSBURG. Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11, JBL 96 (1977) 383-405: S. M. OLYAN. A 17,ousand Thousands Served Him. £tegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism

(TSAJ 36; TUbingen 1993): A. STROBEL. Das jerusalemische Sundenbock-Ritual. Topographische und landeskundliche Erwagungen zur Oberlieferungsgeschichte von Lev 16.1O.21f.• ZDPV 103 (1987) 141-168: H. TAWIL. Azazel. The Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study. ZA W 92 (1980) 43-59: D. P. WRIGHT, The Disposal of the Impurity: Elimination Rites in Ihe Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101: Atlanta 1987) 1574: ·WRIGIIT. Azazel. ABD 1 (1992) 536-

537.

131

B. JANOWSKI

B '.!O

BAAL I. The name batal is a common Semitic noun meaning 'lord, owner'. Applied to a god it occurs about 90 times in the OT. The LXX transcribes BoW., Vulgate Baal, plural Bow.\~ and Baalim. Though nonnally an appellative, the name is used in Ugaritic religion as the proper name of a deity. Also in the Bible, the noun occurs as the name of a specific Canaanite god. II. According to Pettinato the noun batal was originally used as a divine name. It is attested as such already in third millennium texts. The mention of dba4-alx in the list of deities from Abu ~alabikh (R. D. BIGGS, Inscription from Abu SalabikJr [OIP 99: Chicago 1974] no. 83 v 11 no. 84 obv. iii 8') provides the oldest evidence of Baal's worship. Since the Abu ~alabikh god list mentions the god amidst a wealth of other deities, each of them referred to by its proper name. it is unlikely that batal should serve here as an adjective. The appellative 'lord', moreover, has a different spelling, viz. be-il, or ba-ah-Iu. In texts from Ebla (en. 2400 BCE) the name Baal occurs only as an element in personal names and toponyms. PE'rnNATO (1980) makes a case for Baal being an originally Canaanite deity (so also DAHOOD 1958:94: POPE & R6LLlG 1965: 253-254; VAN ZUL 1972:325), and argues that he should be distinguished from -+Hadad. Their identity is nevertheless often emphasi7.ed in modem studies. Many scholars hold that Hadad was the real name of the West Semitic weather god; later on he was simply referred to as 'Lord', just like Bel ('lord') carne to be used as a designation for -Marduk (so e. g. O. EISSFELDT, BaalIBaalat. RGG I [1957 3J 805-806; DAHOOD 1958:93; GESE 1970: 120: DE MOOR & MULDER 1973:710-712: A. CAQUOT &

=

M. SZNYCER, LAPO 7 [1974J 73). Yet the parallel occurrences of btl and hd (Haddu) in, e.g., KTV 1.4 vii:35-37: 1.5 i:22-23; 1.10 ii:4-5 do not necessarily support this assumption. It could also be argued, with KAPELRUD (1952:50-52), that the name of the Mesopotamian weather god Hadad! Adad, known in the West Semitic world through cultural contact. was applied secondarily to Baal. If Baal and Hadad refer back to the same deity, however, it must be admitted that, in the first millennium BCE, the two names came to stand for distinct deities: Hadad being a god of the Aramaeans, and Baal a god of the Phoenicians nnd the Canaanites (J. C. GREENFIELD, Aspects of Aramean Religion, Allcielll Israelite Religion [FS. F. M. Cross; ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., et aI.; Philadelphia 1987J 67-78, esp. 68). In the texts from Ugarit (Ras Shamra) Baal is frequently characterized as ali)'/I btl, 'victorious Baal' (sec e.g. KTV 1.4 v:59; 1.5 v:17; 1.6 v: 10: 1.101:17-18): ali)' qrdm, 'mightiest of the heroes' (KTV 1.3 iii: 14: iv:7-8; 1.4 viii:34-35: 1.5 ii:IQ-II, 18; for a closer analysis sec DIETRICH & LORETZ 1980: 392-393); dmnr. 'the powerful, excellent one' (KTV 1.4 vii:39: cf. KTV 1.92:30): or btl $pll (KTV 1.16 i:6-7; 1.39:10; 1.46:14: 1.47:5; 1.109:9, 29 -'aphon, -'Baal-aphon). The latter designation is also found, in syllabic writing and therefore vocalised. in the Treaty of Esarhaddon of Assyria with king Baal of Tyre (SAA 2 [1988J no. 5 iv 10': dBa-al-$Cl-pU-Il11). It also occurs in a Punic text from Marseilles (KAI 69: I) and a Phoenician text from Saqqara in Egypt (KAI 50:2-3). The Baal residing upon the divine mountain of ~apfu1U (the Jebel el-Aqra(, classical Mons Casius, cf. the name Hazi in texts from Anatolia) is sometimes .:-eferred to in Ugarit as if $Pll (KTV 1.3 iii:29; iv: 19; note, however, that the latter designation

132

BAAL may also be used to refer to the collectivity of gods residing on Mount Zaphon). Apparently. in the popular imagination. Baal's palace was situated on Mount Zaphon (KTV 1.4 v:55; vii:6; cf. ~rrr ~pn. 'summit of the ~apanu·. KTV 1.3 i:21-22; 1.6 vi:12-13. and mrym ~pn. 'heights of the Sapanu·. KTV 1.3 iv:l. 37-38; 1.4 v:23). In a cultic context Baal was invoked as the god of the citystate of Ugarit under the name bel ugrr (KTV 1.27:4; 1.46:16 [restored]; 1.65: lOll; 1.105:19; 1.109:11. 16.35-36). Such genitival attributions as bel ugrr may be compared with those that are known from Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions: bel kmtryJ (KAI 26 A II: 19); bellbnn ('Baal of the -Lebanon'. KAI 31:1-2); bel $dn ('Baal of -Sidon', KAI 14:18); bel $lIId (KAI 24:15); bel smyn ('Baal of the Heavens', KAI 202 A 3); bel smm (KAI 4:3, -Baal shamem); cf. also bel 'dr (KAI 9 B 5); bel I;mll (KAI24: 16; -Hennon); bel mgnm (KAI 78:3-4). For other special fonns of Baal see the survey by POPE & RljLLIG 1965:253264. It is also to be noted. finally. that the Ugaritic Baal in his capacity as lord over the fertile land is said to be bn dgll, 'the son of -Dagan' (KTV 1.5 vi:23-24; 1.10 iii: 12, 14; 1.14 ii:25; iv:7). Yet as a member of the pantheon, the other gods being his brothers and sisters. Baal is also the son of -EIsince all gods are 'sons of EI' (KTV 1.3 v:38-39; 1.4 iv:47-48; v:28-29; 1.17 vi:2829; once Baal addresses EI as 'my father', KTV 1.17 i:23). There is no particular tension between these two filiations; they should certainly not be taken as an indication to the effect that Baal was admitted into the Ugaritic pantheon at a later stage. On the contrary: the appellative bn expresses appurtenance to a certain sphere. Baal was judged to be a member of the Ugaritic pantheon. and as such he was n son of EI. Inasmuch as

his activity was concerned with the fertility of the fields he was a son of the grain god Dagan. The excavations at Ras Shamra have supplied us with various figurative representations of the god Baal (A. CAQUOT & M. SZNYCER, Vgaritic Religion [Leiden 1980]

pI. VIII c (1). IX a-d. X, XII). Such iconographic representations are known from other places in the Syro-Palestinian area too. though their interpretation is fraught with difficulties; an unambiguous identification with Baal is rarely possible (P. WELTEN. Gotterbild. mannliches, BRL [ 1977 2] 99Ill; cf. R. HACHMANN [ed.] Friihe Phoniker im Ubanon: 20 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabungen ill Kamid 'e/-Wl. [Mainz am Rhein 1983] 165). The worship of Baal demonstrably pervaded the entire area inhabited by the Canaanites. During the period of the Middle Kingdom. if not earlier. the cult was adopted by the Egyptians. along with the cult of other Canaanite gods (S. MORENZ. Agyptische Religion [RdM 8; Stuttgart 19772] 250-255). In the wake of the Phoenician colonization it eventually spread all over the Mediterranean region. The domain or property of the god conSisLAMAN

BAAL-ZAPHON ij~~ ~~::J I. Baal-zaphon IiteralIy means the 'lord of (mount) -Zaphon' and it is a designation of the Ugaritic god -+BaaI. Due to mount Zaphon's image as the cosmic mountain par excellence in Northwest-Semitic religions, the name 'Baal-zaphon' was transferred to further Baal-sanctuaries outside Ugarit. In the OT Baal-zaphon is a place name in nonhem Egypt where Israel rested during

the exodus (Exod 14:2,9; Num 33:7). II. In Ugarit the divine name Baalzaphon only occurs in ritual texts (KTU 1.39:10; 1.41:33 [rest.]; 1.46:12 [rest.].I4; 1.47:5; 1.65: 10; 1.87:36 [rest.]: 1.109:5 [rest.].9.29.32-33; 1.112:22-23: 1.118:4; 1.130:22; 1.148:2 [rest.].1O.27; RIH 78/4:5 [Syria 57 (1980) 353-354, 370]), in letters (e.g. KTU 2.23:19; 2.44:10) and in Akkadian texts from Ugarit (references in R6LUG 1972-75:242). On the other hand mythological texts never speak of Baal-zaphon. By using this divine name the lists of the gods and offering texts make a distinction between Baal-zaphon and several other gods called Baal who were also entitled to receive offerings (KTU 1.47:5-11; 1.118:4-10; 1.148: 2-4; cf. RS 20.24.4-10 [Ug 5 (1968) 44-45, 379]). In several ritual texts Baal-zaphon and Zaphon stand in parallelism to Baal of Ugarit (e.g. A7U 1.41 :33-35, 42; 1.65: lOII; 1.87:36-38; 1.109:9-11; 1.112:22-23; 1.130:22-25), thus indicating distinct manifestations of the god Baal. The Akkadian equivalent of Baal-l..aphon is diM be-el IjUR.SAG Ija-zi (RS 20.24:4 [e.g. Ug 5 (1968) 44-45, 379]), the Human equivalent is Isb blbg (e.g. KTU 1.42: 10; cf. E. LAROCHE, Ug 5 [1968] 520). The oldest representation of Baal-zaphon in smiting posture and standing on two mountains is preserved on an Syrian seal of the 18th cent. BCE from Tell el-Dabaca in Egypt (BIETAK 1990; DUKSTRA 1991). An illustration of Baal-zaphon is given by a votive steIa found in the Baal-temple of Ugarit (ANEP 485; Yo~ 1991 :328 fig. 8a). This stela is dedicated to Baal-zaphon by an Egyptian officer, Mami, and it shows the dedicator venerating Baal-zaphon. The god is represented standing before a cult stand, we..'Uing a crown and holding a sceptre in his left hand. An additional Egyptian inscription identifies the donator and the god. The stela was brought from Egypt to Ugarit, perhaps as the fulfillment of a vow made by an Egyptian officer. to the temple of Baal-zaphon in Ugarit; because Baalzaphon was regarded as the protector of navigation. Baal's protection of navigation

152

BAAL-ZAPHON

is also alluded to in Pap. Sallier IV vs 1,5-6 (ANET 249-250). This aspect of Baalzaphon is also indicated by some stone anchors found in the precinct of the Baaltemple as votive-offerings to Baal-zaphon. An Egyptian stela from the time of Ramses II and perhaps devoted to Baal-zaphon was found in the Hauran (RSO 40 [1965] 1972(0). In a 14th century letter (KTV 2.23) sent by the king of Ugarit to the Pharaoh, Baal-zaphon figures as the tutelary deity of the kingdom and king of Ugarit, whereas, according to this letter, -+Amun fulfills this role for Egypt. OUL~ide the Northwest-Semitic realm Baal-zaphon was venerated under the name -·Zeus Kao;ios. The second element of this Greek divine name is derived from Human Mount Hazzi. Sanctuaries of Zeus Kasios are attested in Egypt, Athens, Epidauros. Delos, Corfu, Sicily and Spain. The last mention of Zeus Kasios, on a Latin-Greek bilingual text of the 3nl cent. CE found in Gennany, was perhaps written by a Syrian soldier serving in the Roman anny (CIL XIII 2.1 no. 7330). In the first millenium BCE, Baal-zaphon is mentioned in three Assyrian texts. The annals of Tiglathpilesar III (ARAB 1:274275) and of Sargon II (ARAB 11:13) speak of a mountain BaaI-zaphon situated on the mediterranean coast. In the treaty of Asarhaddon with King Baal of Tyre, Baalzaphon ranks behind the gods -+ Baal shamem and Baal malage. These three gods have power over the stonn and the sea (SAA 2 no. 5 iv:IO'). The veneration of Baal-zaphon in Tyre is also demonstrated by a Phoenician amulet from the region of Tyre which invokes the blessing of Baal-hamon and Baal-zaphon, thus reflecting the Human parallelism of mount Amanus (?) and mount Zaphon (BORDREUIL 1986). The offering tariff of Marseille (KAI 69) mentions in its first line the "temple of Baal-zaphon". As the text stems from Carthage this is an indication that there was a temple of Baal-zaphon in Carthage. There is another reference to Baal-zaphon in a 6th cent. BCE papyrus of

Tahpanes (KAI 50:2-3). according to which Baal-zaphon is the supreme god of the Phoenician colony of Tahpanes. In papyrus Amherst 8:3 and 13: 15-16 Baal is mentioned together with mount Zaphon. III. The appearance of the place name Baal-zaphon in the context of the exodus narratives (Exod 14:2, 9: Num 33:7) caused EISSFElDT (1932) to argue that it was originally Baal-zaphon who had saved Israel from Egypt. Only secondarily wa.~ this victory ascribed to Yahweh. This argument however has nearly always been rejected because Baal-zaphon in Exod 14:2, 9 and Num 33:7 is only a topographical indication without religio-historical relevance. It is only found in the Priestly Code where it is to be judged as pan of a learned construction of the exodus itinerary. IV. Bibliography A. ADLER, Kasios 2, PW 10 (1919) 22652267; W. F. AlBRIGIiT. Baal-Zephon, FS A. Ben/wier (Tilbingcn 1950) 1-14; M. BIETAK. Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, /"igypren IIl1d Lemme I (1990) 9-16; ·C. BONNET. Typhon et Baal ~aphon. SllIdia Phoenicia 5 (OLA 22; Leuven 1987) 101-143: BONNET. Baal Saphon Dicri01l1laire de la Cidlisarion Pherlicielllle er Pllniq/le (Turnhout 1992) 6061; P. BORDREUtL, Attestations inedites de Melqart, Baal J:Iamon et Baal ~aphon il Tyr, SllIdia Phoenicia 4 (Namur 1986) 77-86: P. CHUVIN & J. YoronE, Documents relatifs au culte peillsien de Zeus Casios, RAreh (1986) 41-63; A. B. COOK, ails. A SllIdy ill Ancient Religion lU2 (Cambridge 1925) 981, 984-986: M. DUKSTRA. The Weather-God on Two Mountains. VF 23 (1991) 127-140: J. EBACH, Kasion, LdA 3 (1980) 354; O. EISSFElDT, Baal 'Zap/lOn, ails Kasios lind der DllrchZlIg der Israeliren dllrchs Men (BRA I: Halle 1932): EISSFELDT, Ba r al ~aphon von Ugarit und Amon von Agypten, FF 36 (1962) 338-340 KS 4 (Tiibingen 1968) 53-57; W. FAtITH, Das Kasion-Gebirge und Zeus Kasios, VF 22 (1990) 105I 18: H. GESE, Die Religionen AIts)'riens, RAAM (Stuttgart 1970) 119-133; M. GORG. Baal-Zefon, NBL I (1991) 225-226; *R. HILLMANN, Wasser lIllll Berg (diss. Halle

153

=

BAAL ZEBUB

1965) 22-35, 76-87: A. KAPELRUD, Baal ill the Ras Shamra TexIS (Copenhagen 1952) 57-58; T. KLAUSER, Baal-Kasios, RAC I

of the god was interpreted as 'Lord of the flies': it was assumed that he was a god who could cause or cure diseases. F. BAETIIGEN

(1950) 1076-1077; K. KOCH, tIazzi-~af6n Kasion. Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner Gottheiten, Rl'ligiollsgeschichtlichl'

(Beitriige Zllr semitisclzell Rl'ligionsgeschichte 1888] 25) expressed the view that

Be:.iellllngen zwischell Kleinasiell, Nord· syrien WId dem Altett Testament (ed. B. Janowski, K. Koch & G. Wilhelm; OBO

129; Fribourg-Gottingen 1993) 171-223; K. KOCH. Bacal Sapon, Bacal Samem and the Critique of Israels's Prophets. Ugarit and the Bible (cds. G. J. Brooke. A. H. W. Curtis & J. F. Healey; UBl II; MUnster 1994) 159-174; E. LIPINSKI, j~~~ ~ap6n nVAT 6 (1987-89) 1093-1102: L1PI~SKI, Dieux et Dcesses de I'univers phcnicien et puniquc, SlIIdia Phoenicia 14 (OlA 64; Lcuven 1995) 244-251; S. I. L. NORIN. Er spaltete das Mel'r (ConB 9; lund 1977) 21-40, 4651; M. H. POI'E, Baal ~apan, WbAt)'th 111 (1983 2) 257-258; W. R~I.L1G, Ijal.li. RLA 4 (1972-75) 241-242; A. SAI.AC, Kcicn~. BCH 46 (1922) 160-189: R. STADELMANN. Syrisch-paliistinensische GolIIzeiten in Agypten (Leiden 1967) 27-47; STADELMANN Baal. LdA 1 (1975) 590-591; P. VAN ZIJL, Baal (AOAT 10: KevelaerNcukirchen Vluyn 1972) 332-336; M. YON, S((~les en pierre. Arts et industries de la pierre (cd. M. Yon; RSOu 6: Paris 1991) 284-288.

au.;

H. NIEHR BAAL ZEBUB :l1Ji ,;J::J I. The name Baal Zcbub occurs only four times in the OT (2 Kgs I:2.3.6.16). In 2 Kgs I an accident of Ahaziah, the king of Israel, and his consulting the oracle of the god Baal Zcbub of Ekron is described. For etymological reasons, Baal Zebub must be considered a Semitic god; he is taken over by the Philistine Ekronites and incorporated into their local cult. Zcbub is the collective noun for 'flies', also attested in Ugaritic (W. H. VAN SOLDT, UF 21 (1989] 369-373: dbb). Akkadian (zIIbbll), post-biblical Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic (~:l:l'i), Syriac (debbaba) and in other Semitic languages. II. On the basis zebllb, . flies' , the name

r

the flies related to -·Baal were seen as a symbol of the solar heat; they were sacred animals. In early Israel, flies were considered a source of nuisance (lsa 7: 18; Qoh 10:1). TANGBERG (1992) interpreted the name Baal-zebub as "Baal (statue) with the flies (ornamented)" analogous to the Mesopotamian 'Nintu with the flies'. This can be compared with the fact that the Greeks called -Zeus as healer ci1toJlulo; (Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticlls 11.38,4; Pausani as, Graeciae Descriptio V 14,1) and that they knew a Tlpro.; ~lulaypo; (Pausanias, VIII 26.7: mainly concerning the driving away of thc flies with sacrifices). The LXX implies by its rendering BaaA. l1u1a (Baal the fly) the same wording as the MT (cf. Josephus, AlIIiq/litates IX,2, I: . 'A"Kciprov 9£0; MUla. Vg: Beelzebub). In contradistinction the translation of Symmachus as well a.. the NT manuscript.. have the [onns Bee~epouA. respectively BeeA.~elX>uA. (Matt 10:25: 12:24.27; Mark 3:22: Luke 11: 15.18-19). This rendering of the divine name might rely on a different textform or be ba..ed on oml tmdition. Besides. Matt 12:24: Mark 3:22; luke II: 15 use the apposition apxrov trov Oall10Vlrov 'head of the -·demons·. The epithet Zabulus (Ass. Mos. 10: I) has no connection with Bee).~elX>uA.. Greek Ola- is frequently replaced by Latin za-, therefore Z1.bulus can be interpreted as a rendition of ~lalX>A.O;. Where one meets in the NT versions the wording Beelzebub, undoubtedly a later correction according to the canonical text of the OT (lXX) exists (so already BAUDISSIN 1897: further L. GASTON. 77,Z 18 [1962] 251). Thc view that Bee).~epouA. is the original form of the name of the deity in 2 Kgs I is further suggested by the titles btl and more frequently zbl III 'ar$ appearing in Ugaritic texts. Even before the excavations at Ras Shamra, MOVERS (1841 :260) and GUYARD (1878) guessed Baal Zebul to be

154

wi

BAAL ZEBUn

the name's original fonn. They explained the notion ~lbtll, however, after its occurrence in the OT (Deut 26: 15; Isa 63: 15; Ps 68:6) or otherwise by referring to the Akk ·wbal, 'residence' or 'lofty house' (though, in fact, there is no such word in Akkadian). CHEYNE (1899) asserted that the name Baalzebub most likely was "... a contemptuous uneuphonic Jewish modification of the true name, which was probably Baal-zebul, 'lord of the high house' [cf. I Kgs 8:13]". Similarly GA~"ON (ThZ 18 [1962] 251) understood the notion as referring to [heavenly and earthly] residence. Reviving another explication, FE.:-':SHAM (1967:361-364) tried to interpret the Hebrew noun :::li:li as derived from Ugaritic gbb which he understood as 'flame' (cf. Heb Jiibib). He rendered :li:::li ?.t1:::l by 'Baal the -Flame' adducing the fire motif in the -·Elijah tales as corroborating evidence. Yet his explanation fails to convince; the Ugaritic noun gbb is not clearly explained. and it is questionable whether there are religio-historical parallels. The NT. moreover. shows that the root is zbl, not :J)b. Equally unconvincing is Mulder's proposal to explain "i:~i on the basis of Ug :.hI 'illness' (BaCal iI/ het Ollde Testamellt [19621 142-144); the Ugaritic word for illness is :.hll/. Above all it reckons. despite the statement in the NT. with the consonantal stock zbb. The same doubts are to be raised against MULDER'S explanation of bCI :.hI by referring to Ug :.hI. 'illness' particularly because this noun runs zbl".

Relatively soon after the findings at Ras Shamra, ALBRIGHT (1936) construed Ug wi as passive participle :.abtil. He derived the fonn from the verbal root ZBL-known in Akkadian and Arabic-and sunnised the nominal meaning 'prince' or 'the elevated one'. The meaning fits with the frequent occurrence of :.hI as a title for gods. This interpretation is widely accepted ('prince'. 'princely state' or 'princeship') and it was included in HALA T (250). . Modifications and new readings have been proposed since. J. C. DE MOOR (VF I [1969] 188) rejected ALBRIGHT'S explana-

tion (1936) of the verbal fonn as passive participle *zlIbulll and read ·ziblu, 'his Highness'. W. 'lOS SODEN (VF 4 [1972] 159) vocalized the noun zllbtil[1I111] referring to ZlIblllwm which is perhaps the title of the Ugaritic 'princess' as witnessed in two Akkadian documents from Mari. DIETRICH & LORclZ (1980) proved that the epithet :.hI bCI ar~ has the meaning 'prince. lord of the underworld'. They confinned bacal :.cbtib to be an intentional misspelling of bCl :.bl 'Baal the prince'. a chthonic god able to help in cases of illness. It may be added that this fact confinns Ugaritic incantations in which Baal is invoked to drive away the demon of disease (RIH 1.16. 1-3; cf. TVAT 2 [198689] 335 and ARTV 183; perhaps also KTV 1.82:38; cf. TVAT 2, 339 [DIETRICH & LaRETZ 1980]). The NT obviously preserved the correct fonn of the name (DIETRICH & loREn 1980:392). Likewise A. S. KAI'ELRUD (Baal iI/ ,he Ras Shamra Texts [1952] 60); E. JENNI (BHH I [1962] 175-178.) and H. GESE (RAAM 122) recognize in bCI zhb an intentional defonnation of the original bCI :.hI. L K. HANDY (VF 20 [1988] 59) finally proposes to translate the noun as 'ruler', because wi designates a person who is governing or ruling. Consequently Mac;oretic bCI zbwb of 2 Kgs I :2-3.6.16 is to be emended to bCI :.hwl which is to be rendered 'Baal the Prince'. Most probably. the meaning of this god in the Syrian-Palestine area did not essentially differ from what can be deduced from the Ras Sharnra texts though for a more accurate conception the data do not suffice. III. Bibliography W. F. ALBRIGHT, Z"bOl Yam and Thftpil Nahar in the Combat between Baal and the Sea, JPOS 16 (1936) 17-20; W. W. Grnf BAUDISSIN. Beelzebub (Beelzebul), RE 2 (1897) 514-516; T. K. CHEYNE, Baalzebub, El/cBibl I (1899) 407-408.; M. DIETRICH & O. LOREn, Die BaDcvil, the powerful opponent of God, who accuses people and causes them to sin. This dualism is rooted in Zoroastrianism. the religion of the succesive Iranian empires within whose borders vac;t numbers of Jews livcd for a millcnnium. in which Drug 'falsehood', 'wickcdness', (personified already in the inscriptions of Darius the Great [522-486 nCEl) is opposed to Afa 'righteousness', 'justice', likewise personified, one of the bounteous immonals (GASTER 1973:429; BOYCE 1982: 120). The regular fonn in the Pseudepigrapha, Beliar, and once, (Testamelll of Levi 18:4) Belior, may be a punning explanation of the Devirs name as 'lightness' (beli 'or) because, in opposition to God's way, Belial's is the way of darkness (T. Le,'i 19: I). It may be observed that, according the Zoroastrian creation account, the Bundahishn, Ohnnezd (Ahura Mazda) dwells in endless light (asar roJni") while Ahreman (Angra Mainyu) dwells in endless darkness (asar tarigih).

170

BELTU

Belial is very well attested in Hebrew texts from Qumran: espccially in the War Scroll (I QM) and the Thankgiving Scroll (I QH). They describe an ongoing struggle between good and evil. On the human plane. the Teacher of Righteousness represents the forces of --light and the good: while his opponent. the wicked priest. represenL~ the forces of darkness and evil. This same struggle is depicted mythically as n battle on high between the angel --Michael and Belial (SCIIIFHfAN 1989:50). The present age is the time of Belial's rule (mmslr b/yt/). He is the leader of 'people of the lot of Belial' 'nsy gwrl bill who are opposed to '115)' gwrl 'I 'the people of the lot of God' (I QS I: 16-2:8). In this literature too, Belial leads the forces of darkness and malevolence (LEWIS 1992:655). According to one Qumrnn text (CD 4: 12-15). the coming of Belial would not be pcnnanent. After a momentous struggle. God would eventually bring about the pemlanent annihilation (klr 'wlm)'m) of Belial and all of the forces of evil. both human and angelic (I QM 1:4-5. 13-16). The association of Belial with darkness is found in Belial's single attestation in the New Testament (2 Cor 6: 14-15): "What partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Can light associate with darkness? What hamlOny (s)'mpllOnesis) has -·Christ with BeHar or a believer with an unbelieverT In Sybilline Oracles 3:63-64. a text roughly comtempornry with 2 Corinthians. it is prophesied that Beliar will come ek Sc,basrell{JIl. Inasmuch as Latin 'Augustus' was rendered in Greek by 'Sebastos', the verse has been construed as reference to the diabolical character of Nero, descendent of Augustus (COI.LlNS 1983:360.363). IV. Bibliography M. BOYCE. A History' of Zoroastrian;.'i11l 1-2 (Leidcn 1975. 1982); J. J. COLLINS in J. H. Charlesworth (cd.), The Old Tesrame1l1 Pselldepigraphy I (Garden City 1983); F. M. CROSS & D. N. FREEmfAN, A Royal Psalm of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18. JBL 72 (1953) 15-34: G. R. DRIVER. Hebrew NOles, ZA\V 52 (1934) 51-

66: J. A. EMERTO="'. Sheol and the Sons of Belial. £ncJud 4 (Jerusalem 1973) 428-429: H. KOSMALA. The Three Nets of Belial. ASTI 4 (1965) 91-113: T. LEWIS. Belial, ABO I (1992) 654-656: S. LIEBERMAN & E. S. ROSENTIIAI., Yem. arising from herd-

180

CALF ing. has an ancient pedigree in the religions of the Ancient Near East. From at least the time of Neolithic cl ('Bull EI') has been discerned (TUR-SINAI 1950) in the impossible *ki miy)'isriiJel ('for from Israel') of MT in Hos 8:6: read rather ki mi sor >cl ('for who is Bull El?'), which fits well in the context. With this may be compared -Jacob's title in Deut 33: 17 as bikor sor (MT soro). 'the first-born of the Bull'. In Gen 49:24; Ps 132:2. 5; Isa 49:26; 60:16 Jabir ya?iqob

probably has the sense of 'Bull of Jacob' (cf. Ugaritic ibr). while the divine title >abir yisriiJel of (sa I :24 is comparable. The term re'bll (Akkadian rbnu) is generally thought to denote the aurochs (il'\ semantic range is established by Deut 33: 17 /I fClr, and Ps 29:6 /I ~egel). and appears as an epithet of El (sc. -Yahweh, though perhaps originally independent) in Num 23:22 = 24:8. This is important evidence for the tradition that El as a bull-god was the deliverer in the exodus tradition (see below). The episodes of the Golden Calf and the Calves of Jeroboam, respectively in Exod 32 and I Kgs 12:26-33, appear to be unconnected. But their literary relationship is close, as established by AOERnAcH & SMOLAR (1967). It may be argued that, historically speaking, the event under Jeroboam is the historical source of the Golden Calf episode as a midrash on the theme of apostasy and il'\ punishment by exile. It is scarcely credible that a historical episode as described in Exod 32 actually predated the settlement in Palestine. as it presupposes a monotheism which could hardly predate Josiah at the earliest. A comparison of the wording of 1 Kgs 12:28. Exod 32:4.8 and of Neh 9: 18 (WYATT 1992:78-79) allows us to conclude that the formula in 1 Kgs 12:28 is primary, and that the others have both developed from it. and transformed a soteriological statement (as surely intended by Jeroboam) into a declaration of apostasy. Contrary to the evident meaning of Exod 32:4. 8, which apparently attempts to construct two or more gods out of one calf(!), it is clear from the narrative in Kgs that one god was understood by the 'calf image. and that Jeroboam's 'calves' were different images of the same god. As to the identity of the god. suggestions have ranged from Yahweh (PATON 1894. 1929 el al.). through Baal (6STIlORN 1955. Dus 1968), 'polytheism' (MONTGOMERY, Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951] 255), -Hathor (OESTERLY. 77,e legacy of Egypt [1942 1) 239) -Moses (SASSON 1968), and -Sin (LEWY 1945-1946) to El (SCHAEFFER 1966, WYATT 1992). 008lNK

181

CARMEL

The present writer has proposed (WYATI 1992:79) that the MT at Exod 32:4.8 has

preserved an older strand of tradition. still fonnally dependant on Jeroboam's fonnula, but preserving the old notion (which was presumably the intention of Jeroboam's words) that one deity was to be identified by the fomlUla. which read originally 'N 'cliihekfl

yisra'cl

',Her

hetelkG

me'ere~

mi~rayim,

expressing the kerygma "EI is your god, Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" This has been deliberately pervened in transmission into "These are your gods ..... by the simple expedient of adding matres lectionis which require n plural interpretation of the demonstrative, 'IWhekli, and the verb. The old consonantal text is capable of singular or plural interpretation. A kerygma of EI as the saviour from Egypt has left traces elsewhere. notably at Num 23:22: 24:8 noted above, Ps 106: 1922. Hos 7: 16. where latgam (sic). 'their derision', is either to be corrected to taglam, 'their calf, or more probably recognised as a vicious lampoon on a reference which is already a parody, by ridiculing the bull-god as a mere calf. This is congruent with the attack on bull-worship in Hos 8: 1-6. The use of 'ell/Noh; 'obi in Exod 15:2 may also be significant in view of the Vorlage of the latter fonnula (WYATI, Z4 W 90 [1978) 1011(4). This has imponant implications for the exegesis of Exod 3 (WYATI, Z4 W 91 (1979) 437-442). IV. Bibliography M. ABERBACH & L. SMOLAR, Aaron, Jeroboam and the Golden Calves. JBL 86 (1967) 129-140: L. R. BAILEY, The Golden Calf, HUCA 42 (1971) 97-115: M. BIC. Beeel - Ie sanctuaire du roi. ArOr 17 (1949) 49-63: H.

Vluyn 1973) 45-50: T. B. DOZEMAN, Moses: Divine Servant and Israelite Hero, HAR 8 (1984) 45-61: J. DUs, Die Stierbilder von Bethel und Dan und das Problem der 'Moseschar'. AION 18 (1968) 105-137: O. EISSFELDT. Lade und Stierbild. Z4 W 58 (1940-1) 190-215: J. LEW)', The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and Its Culmination in the Time of Nabonidus. HUCA 19 (1945-46) 405-489: H. MOTZKI, Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Sticrkultes in der Religionsgeschichte Israels, vr 25 (1975) 470-485: W. OBBlNK, Jahwebilder. ZA W 47 (1929) 264-274: G. 6SBORN, Yahweh and Baal, LuA 51.6 (1955): L. B. PATON, Did Amos Approve the Calf-Worship at Bethel? JBL 13 (1894) 80-90: J. M. SASSON, The Bovine Symbolism in Exodus, VT 18 (1968) 380-387: J. M. SASSON, The Worship of the Golden Calf. Oriellt ami Occident (ed. H. A. Hoffner. AOAT 22: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971) 151-159: C-F. A. SCHAEFFER. Nouveaux tcmoignages du culte de EI et de Baal a Ra~ Shamra et ailleurs en Syrie-Palestine, Syria 43 (1966) 16: H. TURSINAI, j':~ j'~~. EncMiqr I (Jerusalem 1950) cols. 31-33: R. DE VAUX, Lc schisme religieux de Jeroboam. AI/8t'1icuIU 20 (1943) 77-91; J. VERMEYLEN, L'affaire du veau d'or (Ex. 32-34), ZA W 97 (1985) 1-23: M. WEIPPERT. Gott und Stier, ZDPV 77 (1961) 93-117: N. WYATI. Of Calves and Kings: the Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel. SJOT 6 (1992) 68-91. N.

C. BRICHTO. The Worship of the Golden Calf: a literary analysis of a fable on idolatry, flUCA 54 (1983) 1-44: E. DANIELUS, The sins of Jeroboam ben-Nebat, JQR 58 (1967) 95-114, 204-233: J. DEBUS. Die SUnde Jeroboams (FRLANT 93: Gottingen 1967): H. DONNER, 'Hier sind deine G6tter, Israel!'. Wort IIl1d GeschicJzte (ed. H. Gese & H. P. RUger. AOAT 18: Neukirchen-

WVA1T

CARMEL ?Oi~ I. Cannel (Jebel Kunnul) is a promontory on the Mediterrnnean Coast of Israel near Haifa which since ancient times was considered as 'holy'. A deity was worshipped there whose name occurs outside the Bible as "god of the Carmel". In the OT Mount Carmel is known especially as scene of a trial of strength between the prophets of -Baal and --Elijah. or rather, between Baal and -Yahweh (I Kgs 18). II. The 'holiness' of the Cannel may already have been mentioned in the listing

182

CARMEL of counuies and ClUes of the conquering Pharnoh Thutmoses III in the second millennium (about 1490-1436 BCE) by the name 'Rash-Qadesh' ('Holy Head'. ANET 243). although this identification is still uncertain. According to the Annals of Shalmaneser III, Mount Cannel appears as "the mountain of Bacli-m'si". where the Assyrian king received tribute from Jehu of Israel (ASTOUR 1962). Based on this evidence Astour is of the opinion that this "testifies to the sacral character of Mount Cannel". In the fifth or fourth century BCE Pseudo-Scylax described Mount Cannel as "the holy mountain of -Zeus" (opo~ lEPOV ~lO;; Peripilis 104). Tacitus (Hist. II. 78) mentions the deity and the mountain Cannelus on account of the favourable promises to Vespasian in 69 CE: "Between Iudea and Syria lies the Cannel. Thus they called the mountain and the divinity. The god has no image or templeaccording to the ancestral tradition-, but only an altar and a cult". Also Suetonius records about the same Vespasian (De ~'il" Vesp VIII,6): "When he (i.e. Vespasian) was consulting the oracle of the god of Cannel in ludaea. the lots were very encouraging. promising that whatever he planned or wished. however great it might be. would come to pass ...". In 1952 AVI-YO:'-lAH published a late second- or early third-century CE inscription on a big marble votive foot. found in the monastery of Elijah (on the north-west side of mount Carmel). with a dedication to the "Heliopolitan Zeus of the Cannel": ~II HAIOnOAEITH KAPMHAO. The statements of Tacitus and Suetonius. and also of this inscription. that Cannel(us) can be the name of the god may have been derived from the translation of the Northwest-Semitic ~':li= ~.IJ:l. Iamblichus infonns us at the beginning of the fourth century CE about the sojourn of a meditating Pythagoras on Mount Carmel (De ~'ita Pythagorica III. 15) after he was brought by Egyptian sailors to this mountain to be alone in this holy place. In this connection he spoke about "the highest peak of the Cannel, which they considered as the holiest and for many people not to be trodden mountain".

Iamblichus does not mention a deity. he speaks only about "a holy place". It is possible that this is the same place which Orosius calls an "oracle" (Historia ad~'. pagallos VII, 9). From these extra-biblical data one can infer (I) that the mountain was considered 'holy' since ancient times; ( 2) that there has probably never been a temple on Mount Cannel; (3) that the deity of the Carmel had a more than local meaning; and (4) that. especially in later times, there was a connection between Zeus Heliopolitanus and the deity of the Cannel. The Heliopolis here mentioned is a town in LibanonlSyria in the BeqaC ncar the source of the Orontes, now called Baalbek. Its Greek name since the Seleucid period was "city of the sun" (Helio-polis), possibly because Baal was identified with 'the god of the sun' . The most ancient temple of Baalbek was originally dedicated to the Semitic stonngod --Hadad, and since Hellenistic times to Jupiterl'Zeus. The sky-god -·Baalshamem also merged with Jupiter. By the beginning of the Christian Era, the cult of the god of Heliopolis had even found its way as far as the Italian coast. A Latin inscription has been found in Puteoli (near Naples) which mentions ClillOrt'S Jovis Heliopoliwlli (worshippers of the Heliopolitan Jupiter). In the time of Emperor Septimius Severus, Baalbek became an independent colony with an Italian legal system and games in honour of Heliopolitanus. Mount Cannel belonged to AccolPtolemais. where coins were found representing Jupiter Heliopolitanus flanked by bulls. A coin was also found with a picture of a -giant'S foot. Above this picture can be sccn the lightning of Zeus, beside it the caducells (i.e. herald's staff), and under it an axe. The similarity of the picture on this coin with the marble votive foot. mentioned above, is most striking. The great deity of HeliopolislBaalbek could only be compared with the centuries older 'god of the Cannel', if one could find in this god something of the nature of Zeus. Zeus Heliopolitanus is perhaps a fusion of a Semitic weather, sky and fertility-god like

183

CARMEL Hadad or Baalshamem, and the sun-god -Helios (EtSSFELDT 1953; DAY 1992). He is a comparnti\"ely young member in a long list of Semitic gods of this type. But who was the (Canaanite) god whose 'contest' with Yahweh on Mount Cannel in the time of Ahab is told in I Kgs 18? In the course of time many different answers have been given to this question. There are scholars who see in this Baal a local numen. others are of the opinion that he was the Baal par excellence or Baalsharnem. the sky-god. Most scholars, however, see in this deity the Tynan Baal who was identified with -Melqart (Greek -Heracles). A comparison of some data in I Kgs 18 with data known from the worship of the Tynan Melqart seems to suppon this conjecture. Yet no consensus has been reached. ALT asserted that Yahweh on Mount Cannel did not have a contest \\ith a Tynan god. but with the old deity of mount Cannel itself. EISSFELDT was of the opinion that the Baal of mount Carmel was the same as the universal Baalshamem. DUSSAUD took the name of this Baal to be Hadad. Indeed, there is no need whatsoe..'er to replace the name 'Melqart' for the Baal of this tale. Besides, it must be said that 'Mclqart' is not a proper name but rather a title (BRONNER 1968; BONNET 1986); moreover, the Tyrian god was equated with Heracles rather than with Zeus. One's view regarding the historicity of the tales of 1 Kgs 18 is essential for the solution of the problem of the 'real name' of the deity. Those who regard the stories on Mount Carmel as historically true are inclined to see in Baal the 'Tynan Melqan' (thus e.g. DE VAUX 1941); those who regard these stories as nO"'ellas of a later time, which function as haggadoth. are inclined to see in the Baal of Mount Cannel only an indicntion of the old Baal par excellence (thus e.g. MULDER 1979). It is very difficult to demonstrate that I Kgs 18:26-29. an old reproduction of a-Iocal?-Baal cult, could only fit a Tynan sacrificial ceremony. Many details could have been found in other Baal ceremonies too, judging by what we know

about the Ugaritic religion. Moreover, it is not until a second century BeE inscription from Malta that we find Melqan referred to as "Baal of Tyre" (KAI 47: I ; DAY 1992: 548). One should always realize that the author of I Kgs 18, just like the other authors of the OT, did not intend to give some valuable infonnation nbout a god who in his eyes was merely an idol (illlerpretatio israelitica). The identity, character and role of the deity of Mount C'lnnel-as described in I Kings IS-are those of a fenility and vegetation god. This fits precisely with the image of Baal obtained from the Ugaritic and other extra-biblical texl'i. Ill. The nature of the biblical Baal of the Cannel and his worship emerges in I Kgs 18:26-28, where it is told that the 'prophets' of Baal offered a bull and invoked Baal by name, crying: "Baal, answer us". Meanwhile the prophets danced wildly beside the altar they had set up. After Elijah mocked them with the words: "Call louder for he is a -·god, perhaps he is deep in thought. or otherwise engaged, or on a journey, or has gone to sleep and must be woken up". they cried louder still and gashed themselves. as was their custom. with swords and spears until blood ran. This characterization of Baal is not peculiar to Melqan. In the Ugaritic texts we find a cult-cry: "Where is mightiest Bani. where is the prince lord of earth" (KTU 1.6 iv:4-5.; CML 78). The ecstacy of these prophets is reminiscent of the prophetic ecstasy reponed in the tale of Wen-Amon (ANET 25-29); there are other extra-biblical parallels. too (GASTER 1969:504-510). Of the self-mutilation of the ecstatic Baal-worshippers, "as was their custom", we also have parallels in the Ugaritic texl'): "he harrowed his collarbone, he ploughed his chest like a garden, he harrowed his waist like a valley" (A.7U 1.5 vi:20-22; CML 73). The somewhat enigmatic words of the mocking Elijah: "he is deep in thought. or he is otherwise engaged". do not reveal anything specific about Baal. The absence, the journey. the sleeping and awakening of Baal arc all in line with the idea of Baal as god of vegeta-

184

CASTOR - CHAOS

tion and fertility. This god is precisely the D.....nQstie Omri. QueUen WId UlI1ersuehungen god who in later times was called "the god zur Gesehiehte Israels im 9. Jahrllll/lden of the Canner' or "the god Cannel". "or Christus (FRLANT 124; Gottingen 1982) 87-101: R. DE VAUX. Les proph~tes It should be noted that it is told that Elijah "repaired the altar of Yahweh which de Baal sur Ie Mont Cannel, Bul/etin du had been tom down" (18:30). This confinns Mllse£' de Bevroll1h 5 (1941) 7-20 =Bible et the older statement that there was already an Oriell1 (Paris 1967) 485-497; E. WORTHaltar on Mount Cannel before the time of WElN, Die Erzahlung vom Gottesurteil auf the 'contest' of the gods, but not a temple. dem Kannel, ZfK 59 (1962) 131-144. From 2 Kgs 2:25 and 4:23-25, we may infer M. J. MULDER that Mount Carmel was a place of pilgrimage for Israelite and Canaanite people, and a spiritual retreat for Elisha and other charis- CASTOR -. DIOSKOUROI matic prophets too (THOMPSON 1992). The special circumstances for these festivals CHAOS Xoo~ were new moon festivals and sabbaths. The I. The Greek word xoo; (related to authors of the biblical stories nevertheless XOcrKW or Xai voo. 'gape, yawn') literally deny any fonn of identification of Yahweh means 'chasm' or 'yawning space'. There and "the god of the Carmel". were various conceptions of it in GrecoIV. Bibliography Roman antiquity, because in various mythiA. ALT, Das Gottesurteil auf dem Kannel. cal cosmogonies Chaos played very differFS. G. Beer (1935) 1-18 = KS 2, 135-149; ent roles. The word occurs only twice in the M. C. ASTOUR, Carmel, Mount, IBDS Greek Bible, in Mic 1:6 and Zech 14:4, each (1962) 141; M. AVI-YONAII. Mount Cannel time as a trJnslation of the Hebrew Kl", 'valand the God of Baalbek, 1£.1 2 (1952) 118- ley': and 2 times in the Greek fragments of 124; C. BONNET, Lc culte de Melqan a I Enoch (10: 13) and Jubilees (2:2), where it Carthage. Un cas dc conscrvatisme reli- seems to be used for the abyss where the gieux, StudiQ Phoellicia IV (c. Bonnet, E. evil angels have been incarcerated forever. Lipinski & P. Marchetti cds.: Namur 1986); The modem sense of the word, i.e. 'disL. BRONNER, The stories of Elijah and order', devcloped only slowly and is not Elisha (Lciden 1968); J. DAY, Baal. ABD I attested before the later Imperial Pcriod. (1992) 545-549; R. DUSSAUD, Les deeouII. Hesiod was the first to assign Chaos "ertes de Ras Shamra et I 'Ancient Tesramell1 a position at the head of a cosmological (Paris 1941 2): O. EISSFELDT, Der Gorr genealogy. In Theog. 116-122 Chaos is Karolel (SDAW I: 1953); K. GALLtNG. Der either the personified murky and gloomy Gott Karmel und die Achtung der fremden space below the -·earth (thus \VEST 1966: Gotter, Gesehic:hte wId Altes Tesramefl1, FS 192-3) or the vast gap between earth and A. Alt (1953) 105-125: T. H. GASTER, Myth. -·sky (thus KIRK, RAVEN & SCHOFIELD Legelld. alld Ciwom in the Old Tesramell1 1983:34-41); its children are Erebos (the (New YorklEvanston 1969) 504-511: M. J. realm of darkness associated with -+Hades) MULDER, Baal ill het Oude Tesramell1 (The and Nyx (-+Night); cf. for this primary posiHague 1962) 30-44; MULDER, De IIQalll mil tion also Acusil:lOS ap. Philodemus, De de afwez.ige god op de Karmel. Ondenoek piewte 137,5 and Aristophanes, A "cs 693. In lIaar de Ilaam \,all de Baill \'a/l de Kannd ;/1 various post-Hesiodic cosmogonical sysJ Koningell n; (Leiden 1979); MULDER, tems, Chaos receives different positions: e.g. ';OiJ, nVAT 4 (1984) 340-351; H. D. in Orphic accounts it comes second, after PREUSS, Versportlmg fremder Relig;onen im Chronos (FAUTH 1975: 1129: KIRK, RAVEN Altell Tes((lmell1 (StuttgartlBerlin 1971) 80- & SCHOFIELD 1983:26-28; further det3ils in IDO; H. O. THO~IPSON, Carmel. Mount, SCHWABL 1962: 1467-84). In later authors ABD I (1992) 874-875; S. TIMM. Die Chaos develops the various notions of pri-

185

CHEMOSH

mordial matter (e.g. Ovid. Mer. I 5-20). primordial water (e.g. Pherecydes 7Bla; Zeno. SVF I 103 [etymological derivation altO tOV xEeo80l]). primordial time (e.g. PGM IV 2535f.). the air between heaven and eanh (e.g. Aristophanes. Aves 1218; Bacchylides 5.27). and the (whole or part of the) netherworld (e.g. Ps-Plato. AxiocJllIs 371e: CUMONT 1942:51 and TERN US 1954: 1032-1034 for funher references). In various Gnostic systems Chaos plays a negative role in connection with the bad Demiurge (Hippolytus. Reflllllrio V 10.2; 14.1) or as the place of 'outer darkness'. the 'abyss' (NHC 1 5, 89; II J. 30) or as designation of the cosmos (BG 8502. 118-121; sec funher The Nag Hammadi Library ill 'English [San Francisco-Lciden 1977J 480 s.v.; SIEGERT 1982:323). III. Chaos as a cosmogonic factor or principle does not occur in the Bible. although the statement in Gen 1:2 that the earth was lOhll "'abo/III (LXX: aopato; Kai aKatamceooCJtomanwlrll, 'abode' or 'station'. Perhaps they were originally the celestial abodes of the great gods represented by the -·stars (MOWINCKEL 1928:24). In the Babylonian Creation epic, -Marduk is represented as setting the heavenly bodies in order. He allotted their stations to the great gods, dividing the constellations of the zodiac and the months of the year among them (MAUNDER 19093:244). Intended in a technically astronomical sense, they indicate the stations on the sidereal orbit of the -moon and those on the ecliptic of the sun (the ecliptic being the apparent annual celestial path of the sun [-·Helios, -Shemesh] relative to the fixed stars). Thus they strictly indicated the constellations of the zodiac and, even more precisely, the tenn stood to indicate the zodiacal signs after the division of the ecliptic into twelve equal pans, each pan being called after the constellation to which it most closely corresponded at the time (about 700 BCE in Mesopotamia). Zodiacal constellations or signs is the meaning that the Heb mazzalOr has in the Bible. The tenn occurs in Phoen as 111:.1, 'fortune'; in MHeb as 11Izl, 'sign of the zodiac', 'planet' or 'luck'; in Jew Aram as mzl', 'star of fonune' or 'planet'; in Syr as mauwlra, 'zodiac'. There is also in Mandaean m'nz'l'r, 'signs of the zodiac' (borrowed directly from Akkadian) and nUll/dalra, Ar man:.i1, 'mansion of the moon'. II. Typical of astrology in ancient Mesopotamia was the omina system which

studied celestial phenomena as signs or indicators of future terrestrial events. However, the study of the influence of the heavenly bodies over the course of event\; on earth originated in the Hellenistic sphere (ROCHBERG-HALTON 1992:504). It is not clear just when the Greeks adopted the zodiac-and the notion of the ecliptic. These concepts are particularly imponant in the elaborntion of genethlialogical or horoscopic astrology. Babylonian precedents, in existence before the Greek horoscopes (from ca. 400 BCE), recorded computed positions of the moon, the sun and the five planets-Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Saturn and Mars-on the date of a binh (ROCIIBERG-HALTON 1992:1 506). The Babylonians considered the sun, the moon and the five planets as their seven great divinities. The zodiacal constellations were closely connected to them and they themselves became objects of a religious cult. III. A syncretistic cult of Assyrian influence is attributed to the biblical maz;;iilOr and they are mentioned in 2 Kgs 23:5 along with important astral divinities such as the sun. the moon and the -·host of heaven, as well as the Syro-Canaanite -·BaaI. The listing of Baal, the sun and the moon is typically Syrian. We have here, therefore, constellations of the ecliptic, even though, if we reflect on the meaning which the ternl 'planets' has taken on in Jewish Aramaic and Middle Hebrew, we cannot exclude that this semantic value was already present in the biblical term (what is more, the "abodes" are also dwelling places for the planets). One must also consider that the passage under perusal in 2 Kgs is a later addition to the account of Josiah's cultic refonn (GRAY 1977:732; MONTGOMERY & GEllMAN 1986:546). One could even compare it to parallel passages in Oeut 17:3 (where the mazza/or that became so popular in Israel in the late post-exilic and postbiblical periods are not even mentioned) or in Deut 4: 19 (where "stars" are cited in general tenns on the list of forbidden deities, perhaps meaning just special groupings of stars or else important planets as

202

CONSTELLATIONS

distinguished from the "host of heaven" in general). The moon's "abode" is mentioned in Hab 3: II under the tenn zb/. The interpretation of mazziiror in Job 38:32 is problematic, because the feminine plural of the noun does not agree with the singular pronominal suffix of /lrw: "Canst thou bring fonh maz::.iinir in its season?"". In this context the stars are not deified. Indeed, the LORD --God reigns supreme in the universe which is disposed by Him. Not all authors suppon the "constellation" interpretation (still connected with the zodiac). MOWI:"CKEL (1928:27-36) cautiously proposes to interpret the tenn as Booetus. SCHIAPARELLI (1903:95-111) perceives both II/llwlvr and ma:.::.aror as Venus in her twofold aspect of evening and morning star. Regarding other specific constellations, the Bible provides very few plain facts. We may consider the names which appear in Job 9:9; 26: 13: 37:9: 38:31-32 and Amos 5:8. There is a cenain amount of consensus in interpreting kima as the -·Pleiades and kesil as -Orion; 'ayH or 'iis could be -Aldebaran with the Hyades; meztirim is interpreted as the two winnowing-fans, i.e. the Great Bear and the Little Bear (SCHlAI'ARELLI 1903:8692) or Antares (MO\\!It'CKEL 1926: 16-23): badre remtin are mostly considered as the Southern Cross. Canopus and Centauri, stars of the southern hemisphere \vhich, in biblical times. were visible in the sky over Israel, though no longer so today because of the precession of the equinoxes-Canopus excepted. Also to be remembered is nii~las, usually understood to be Draco (--Dragon. -·Serpent). IV. The Targum translates mazzii16r as mz/r' and mazzaror as SIr)' mz/)" which should indicate the signs of the zodiac: the LXX transcribes mazounjrh without translating in either case; the Vg tmnslatcs these tenns as the twelve signs in 2 Kgs and Lucifer in Job. S1. John Chrysostom adopted zoidia. the signs of the zodiac, noting hO\\"ever that many of his contemporaries interpreted ma:ouroth as Sirius. M:l became of frequent use in the Talmud and in rabbinical literature. generally holding the meaning of

'planet' and 'zodiacal sign'. It also increasingly appeared with the meaning of 'luck'. It is not by coincidence that in a later period in the history of the Hebrew language this ternl was endowed with the meaning of 'luck'. through a semantic loan already present in another Semitic language. Phoenician. t\ bilingual Greek-Phoenician inscription from the 4th century BCE which was discovered at Cyprus (KAI 42:5) has the tenn m:/ corresponding to the Gk ryche, 'fonune' ( ·Tyche). Once the threat of idolatry had faded away, the constellations (particularly those of the zodiac) enjoyed widespread propagation within the Hebrew culture. Philo of Alexandria (De Vira Mosis II 122-126) and Josephus Flavius (Aur. III 181-187) had already establ ished, in the 1st cent. CE, allegorical links between some biblical concepts and the zodiacal signs. Abstracted from Hellenistic culture, the zodiac found itself perfectly set into the background of rabbinical literature. This was also due to the number twelve, which represented the number of tribes. that of the stones on the Ephod (Exod 28: 17-20). that of the oxen fonning the base of the copper basin in the counyard of the Temple (1 Kgs 7:23-26) and so on. In Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. chaps. 6-8 are dedicated to the sun. the planet.;, the signs of the zodiac and the seasons. The twelve signs have a position of great imponance in sacred poetry. In Eleazar ha-Kallir's famous Prayer for Rain (ca. 5th cent. CE) the signs of the zodiac appear in combination with those of the months (SARFATTI 1978: 180195). There is also a learned literary composition called Barayra de-Mazza/or of the 11 th century, which deals with the signs of the zodiac and the planets. Finally, it is worth mentioning the anistic beauty and refined symbolism of the zodiac symbols which are ponrayed on the mosaic floors of several synagogues in Israel of the Roman and Byzantine periods. The zodiac surrounding Hclios (and the symbols of the months and seasons which are represented therein) rises to become a cosmic value and states that the sun is just the image of the trium-

203

COUNCIL

phant -·glory of the LORD God. and that God governs the cosmos and by Himself firmly holds the reins of the stars which the changing of the times and seasons depends on. This latter reality is fundamental for the life of men on earth. V. Bibliography A. BEER. Astronomy. EncJud 3 (Jerusalem 1974) cols. 795-807; E. BISCHOFF. Babyloniscll-Astrales i11l Weltbi/de des Thalmud ulld "'fidrasell (Leipzig 1907); G. R. DRIVER. Two Astronomical Passages in the Old Testament. JTS 4 (1953) 208-2 I 2; JTS 7 (1956) I-II; S. R. DRIVER & G. B. GRAY. The Book of Job (Edinburgh ] 977) 308-309; G. FOERSTER. The Zodiac in Ancient Synagogues and its Place in Jewish Thought and Literature Erlsr 19 (1987) 225-234 (Heb); J. GRAY. I & /I Kings (London ]977) 730-733; E. W. MAUNDER. The Astrollomy of the Bible (London 19093) 243-257; J. A. MONTGOMERY & H. S. GEllMAN. The Book of Killgs (Edinburgh ]986) 529-539. 546548; S. MOWll"CKEL. Die Stemnomen im Altell Testamelll (Oslo 1928) 16-36; P. PRIGENT. Le Judarsme et ['image (TUbingen 1990) 157-173; F. ROCHBERG-HALTON. Astrology in the Ancient NC'lf East. ADD I

(1992) 504-507; G. SARFATTI. An introduction to "Barayta de-mazzalot". ShllalOlI BarIIml 3 (1965) 56-82 (Heb); SARFATTI, Note di semantica, Scrini suU'elJrais11I0 ;11 memoria eli Guido Bedarida (Fircnze 1966) 206209; SARFArn, I segni dello zodiaco nell'iconografia ebraica. Scrini ill onore di Umberto Nahon (ed. R. Bonfil et al.; Jerusalem 1978) 180- I 95; G. SCfIIAPARELLI. L 'astronomia lIell 'Amico Tesramelllo (Milano 1903) 67·111; B. SULER. Astronomie. In der Bibel. E"cJlld 3 (Berlin 1929) cols. 591595; I. ZATELLI, Astrology and the Worship of the Stars in the Bible. ZA W 103 (1991) 86-99.

I. ZATELLI COUNCIL i"tO I. The noun sOd is found 23 times in the Hebrew Bible: twice in personal names. otherwise in poetry (though Ezek 13:9 may

be tenned high prose). Its semantic range includes 'council. assembly; counsel, deliberation. plan(s). will; company. fellowship. friendship'-cach of which may be applied to both the human and divine spheres. It refers specifically to the divine court in four passages, implies its existence in two others. and could possibly refer to it in an additional two. Sod is probably a primary noun. In Qumran Literature it appears beside the variant yswd. meaning both 'council' and 'counsel'-as it does in Mishnaic Hebrew. A cognate may be attested in a broken passage in Ugaritic: )b(.)kqrb.sdll (KTlfl 1.20 i 4; for the reading see now W. PrrARD, BASOR 285 (1992) figs. 1-6 and pp. 44-45). In Old South Ar I1dwel is used of the 'assembly, council' of the heads of clans. Cognates in Aramaic and Arabic mean '(confidential) conversation. speech'. A root SWD has been proposed and seen in the idiom )'sd [Nit] )"a~lOd Cal "conspire together against" (Ps 2:2; 31:14). Others with more justification propose for these two passages a root YSD II. The first certain appearance of the verb swd is in Sir (Qal 7:14 'chatter'; Hitpa 8:17; 9:14 'consult with'; 9:4; 42:12 'consort with'). Cognates arc attested later in Syriac (Pa nnd Etpa) and Arabic (III). both meaning 'talk, converse'. Thus the verb has a narrower range of meaning than the noun, appears in only (but not all) those dialects in which the noun is attested and only in meanings derivable from the noun, It is therefore probably denominative. It is now clear from the Mari correspondence that piristllm there served as a near synonym of sod, meaning both 'secret' and 'council'-only a human council, however; see ARM 26 no. 101:26 and n. b; no. 307:3 and n. a. Thus the use of sod for the divine council (and counsel) seems to be original with the Israelites (the one possible instance of a Ugaritic cognate being of unknown referent). The contemporary and antecedent Semitic cultures all have the concept, but use a variety of other expressions: e.g. Akk pullur i/tini and Ug plzr (bn) i/m 'assembly

204

COUNCIL

of the gods'. pbr m'd 'assembly of the meeting'. mp[m 1m if 'assembly of the gods', and edt ;[,n 'meeting of the gods', Phoen (lOth cent. Byblos) 11Ip[m 'I gbl qds11I 'the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos'. The gods (sdyn) also come together in a m'd in the Salaam text from Deir (AlIa. Ug dr (bn) il 'circle of the gods' and Phoen (8th cent. Karatepe) kl dr bn '/m 'the whole circle of the gods' are references to the collectivity of the gods, but do not necessarily imply their assembly in a fonnal council (cf. the simpler kl 'I X 'all the gods of X'). The OT also uses other terms. including cognates of three of the preceding-m6'ed. erda and d6rbeside sOd and qehal qMMim (Ps 89:6; -'Saint.,). II. While there is no clear case of the teml sod being used of the divine council outside Israel. there is abundant evidence of such a council and its functioning in the neighbouring literatures (-·Angels, -·Sons of (the) Gods, --Host of Heaven. etc.). especially those of Mesopotamia and Ugarit. The essential business of the council is discussion leading to a decision. but the actual process is highly variable. The great narratives of the Mesopotamian literary tradition are especially revealing. Enkidu gives an account of deliberations in the divine council that he witnessed in a dream: the high god Anu sets the tcnns of the debate; Ellil makes a proposal: Shamash objects but is discredited by Ellil (Gilgamesh Epic VII i [from the Hittite version». In Atrahasis I Enlil calls a meeting of the great gods and informs them of a crisis (a rebellion of the lesser gods). Enlil and Anu make successive proposals which are carried out; but Anu' s final solution refers the matter to Nintu, who in tum requires that Enki cooperate with her. In such litemry texts the great gods appear free to make proposals, raise objections or state tcnns without any strict protocol, and the high god seems to exercise rather loose control over the proceedings. In An:u Anu calls for a god who can defeat Anzu. The gods summon various specific deities. all of whom decline. Finally. as the gods despair. EnkilEa addresses

Anu and offers to find one who will conquer Anzu. The gods agree. Here Anu is thoroughly passive after his initial appeal. It is the rest of the gods who make proposals or endorse those of others. A particular fonn of consultation emerges here that reappears at Ugarit and in the Bible: the high god calls for some god to volunteer to resolve a crisis; different members of the council may be proposed and prove inadequate; finally, when all appears lost, a winning proposal is made and accepted. and the saviour is commissioned. This is used in particular to depict the elevation of a deity to supremacy in the council. Thus in E",ima elis, after Anshar has unsuccessfully approached a couple of possible champions, the gods silently despair of finding one who will conquer -+Tiamat. Finally, prompted by Ea, -+Marduk volunteers. Anshar gives him his blessing. but Marduk bargains for supreme authority. Accordingly Anshar convenes a special meeting of the council-the narrative details the gods' gathering, greetings, banqueting and drinking (II 129-138)-and they transfer all authority to Marduk. In general it was in the supreme council that the destinies of individual god., (e.g. Marduk) and people (e.g. Enkidu), of cities (Lamellt over Ur 137-169) and indeed all of humanity (flood story) were decided. In Ugaritic literature -+El presides over the council. In the -·Baal cycle the gods seem to speak and act with great freedom, and El exercises minimal control. In }crlfl 1.2 I the gods are banqueting when they see messengers coming from Yam (-+Sea) and are cowed. Baal rebukes them and promises to come up with a response. On their arrival the messengers demand that Baal be handed over to Yam. EI immediately gives his assent, but Baal attacks them furiously and has to be restrained by two goddesses. In Kina. on the other hand, the traditional fonn of the appeal for a volunteer to resolve a crisis is used to show all the gods speechless and helpless in the face of Kirta's illness. Repeated appeals by EI yield no response, so that finally he must propose and execute the solution himself (KTlfl 1.16 v 9-28).

205

COUNCIL

The" mythology is actually more complicated. For example, in the course of the Baal cycle, El's council declares Baal their king (KTlfl 104. iv 43-44), and in the sacrificial text KTefl 1.39:7, there is reference to a pbr btl 'assembly of Baal'. Ill. While the OT passages using the word sUd to refer to the divine council give little information about its operation. other biblical passages confirm that the ancient Ne.1I' Eastern institution was well known in Israelite thought. Thus Micaiah's account of his vision (I Kgs 22:19b-22) has -Yahweh seated on his throne with his court around him. He asks who will undertake a certain task. Various suggestions are made by members of the assembly. Finally one individual makes a proposal which Yahweh accepts. Yahweh commissions the proposer accordingly. Despite the terms 'host of heaven' for the court and 'spirits' for the individual members, the functioning of the old divine council is obvious. The setting is more ambivalent, but the traditional function is clear again in the vision report of Isa 6: I-II, in which the prophet is present as the volunteer. (With the first person plural of v 8, Yahweh speaks for the divine court as a whole; so also in the divine resolutions of Gcn 1:26; 3:22: 11:7.) Other references follow a less standard course, but equally clearly involve a dialogue between the supreme deity and members of his council, leading to a decision and the authorizing or commissioning of one of those present. In Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7a, scenes in heaven modelled on the epic tradition, Yahweh addresses a certain member of the divine council and introduces a particular topic. The individual proposes a particular course of action, and Yahweh authorizes it. Zech 3: 1-7 is another vision report with a mal'dk 'envoy' representing Yahweh, and a priest present in the council as the object of interest. Yahweh rebukes one of the council who is maligning the priest, directs others to dress the latter in the regalia appropriate to a high priest, and then gives him a charge. Thus the divine council is not just an amorphous mass in Israelite literature: individual

members appear as actors in these scenes. However. there is never any doubt of Yahweh's effecti ve authority over the council. Ps 82: 1-7 recounts a unique procedure and judgement in the council, which is here called 'adal 'e! 'meeting of El' (v I MTor, probably reflecting the original text, (J\waywyu OErov, 'meeting of [the] gods' LXX): one deity (Yahweh) addresses all the other gods, announcing their demise as a consequence of their misrule of the world. His own assumption of world rule in their place is then acclaimed by the psalmist (Le. congregation? v 8). The opening verses of Second Isaiah (Isa 40: 1-8) imply the same setting. They presuppose that a decision has been made. God now orders the council (plural imperatives) to act upon it. In particular, the prophetauthor, conceived to be present in an audition (if not vision), is himself addressed by a member of the council ('a voice'): "Pr0claim (singular impemtive)!" and responds with a request for the message he is to deliver. (Cf. above on Isa 6.) These, as well as the larger ancient Near Eastern tradition, provide the background for references to the sod )'1Iw1l. As noted, sod may refer to a councilor assembly or other group, or to one of two more abstract concepts: the counselor plan that such a group might devise, and the company or friendship that it might imply. All three meanings are found on the divine as well as the human plane. In Ps 89:8 Yahweh' s fearsomeness is expressed by reference to the rest of the divine court: b~sod q~dOfim "in the council of the holy ones" parallel to "over all those around him". The same group is referred to in the same context as "(the children of) the gods" (v 7) and qe1lal q~doii11l "the convocation of the holy ones" (v 6). There is no place here for reference to any particular members of the council, which is mentioned solely to emphasize the absoluteness of Yahweh's supremacy in it (ef. the function of the divine assembly scene in KTefl 1.16 v).

206

Outside this psalm God's council is re-

COUNCIL

ferred to only as the setting in which special mortals may have access to divine intentions and knowledge. Thus it is invoked as the source of true prophccy and of wisdom. It is in his council that Yahweh gives the message to and commissions the prophet. Only those \,,'ho have stood in Yahweh's council ('md b(~.'iod-) and hcard his words can convey those words to his people (Jer 23: 18. 21-22: cf. Isa 6). Eliphaz questions whether Job has got some special wisdom by listening besod 'eloah "in the council of --Eloah" (Job 15:8). Since the prepositional phrase besod always refers to a group (besides the preceding examples see those concerning a human group: Gcn 49:6: Jer 15: 17: Ezek J3:9: Ps II J: I), the personal name BblJdY(1 (Neh 3:6: cr. the hypocoristicon Sodi in Num 13: 10) must mean "In the council of Yah" (contrast M. NOTII, IPN. 152-153). This might refer to the bearcr's access to the council (as above) or to the divine origins of the dccision to grant (to his parents) the conception of the bearer. It is in his divine council (sod) that God deliberates and decides on a plan (.wid). This is wh~lt lies behind the claim that Yahweh does nothing without first revcaling his plan (sod) to his servants. the prophets (Amos 3:7). This is probably the meaning also in Ps 25: 14 which states that "thosc who fear Yahweh have his Slid, his herit (covenant) to infornl them". In two other passages thc abstract 'companionship, friendship' is perhaps more likely: "Whcn God's sod was beside my tent. when Shadday was with mc" (Job 29:4-5: many emend to .'iok): "for the devious arc an abomination to Yahweh. but his Slid is with thc righteous" (Prov 3:32). (However. a reference to the divine council here remains a possibility: cr. A.7lfl 1.15 ii I-iii 19. where. for El's blessing of Kirta on the occasion of his marriage, the gods gather around Kirta in a "mecting of the gods" Cd, ibn). In the NT thc full portrayal of the divine council reappears elaborated in the dress of a Christian apocalypse (Rev 4-5): the writer

has a vision of God, seated on his throne holding a sealed scroll and surrounded by twenty-four -elders also seated on --thrones. An angel appeals for a volunteer to break the seals and open the scroll. The writer reports that there is none in the entire universe able to perfoon this act. Finally. his attention is dmwn to the -·Lamb. who, acclaimed by the elders and myriads of angels, proceeds to open the seals. In the setting, the course of action, and even some of the wording the pattern laid down in ancient Mesopotamia remains visible. a" does the purpose of the episode: the recognition of a new divine hero who will accomplish what none other can. IV. Bibliography G. COUTURIER. La vision du conseil divin: etude d'une fonne commune au prophctisme et a I' apocalyptique, Science et Esprit 36 (1984) 5-43, esp. 14-35: F. M. CROSS. The Council of Yahwe in Second Isaiah. iNES 12 (1952) 274-278: H. J. FABRY, 110. Der Himmlische Thronrat nls Ekklesiologisches Modell, BOllsteine Biblischer Thea/ogie (BBB 50: cd. H. J. Fabry: KOIn & Bonn. 1977) 99-126: FABRY, 'j~~ sod, nVAT 5 (1986) 775-782: A. R. HULST. Over de Betekenis van het Woord sod, Vnlchten \'an de Uithof: Studies opgedragen aan Dr. H. A. Brongers (Utrecht 1974) 37-48, esp. 4045: T. JACOBSEN. Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia, iNES 2 (1943) 159172, esp. 167-172: A. MALAMAT. The Secret Council and Prophetic Involvement in Mari and Israel, Prophetie lind geschich,liche \Virklichkeit im al,en Israel (cd. R. Liwak & S. Wagner: Stuttgart. Berlin & Koln 1991) 231-236; E. T. MULLEN. The Assembly of 'he Gods (HSM 24; Chico 1980); H.-P. MOLLER, Die himmlische Ratsversammlung, ZNW 54 (1963) 254-267; H. NIEHR. Der hOc/ISle Coli (BZAW 190; Berlin 1990) 7194: S. B. PARKER, The Beginning of the Reign of God - Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy. RB 102 (1995) 532-559; H. W. ROBINSON, The Council of Yahweh, iTS 45 (1944) 151-157: M. SAEBO, 'jiO s6d Geheimnis, THAT II (1976) 144-148; R. B. SALTERS. Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint.

207

CREATOR OF ALL

ZAlV 103 (1991) 225-239; R. N. WHYBRAY, The H~avtnly Counsel/or in Isaiah xl. 13-/4 (Cambridge 1971); I. WILLI-PLEIN, Das Geheimnis der Apokalyptik, \IT 27 (1977) 62-81. S. B. PARKER CREATOR OF ALL ~~ i1;D1', ta mivta , ICncro; I. The Hebrew epithet coming closest to the concept Crearor-ol-All is ~~ iiOl' in lsa 44:24. Yet this epithet in itself presupposes neither a crcario ex nihilo nor a rigid monotheism. In Jer 10:16 (= Jer 51:19) the God of Ismel is called ~:i1 j;:)~, literally 'Shaper-of-All' (REB: 'Creator of the universe'). In Eph 3:9 and Rev 4: 11 God is denoted as ta JtCrvra Kncros, 'Creator of all things'. Furthennore Col 1:16 refers to Christ as the one in whom £ICncrGrt ta JtCxvta, 'all things were created'. So we may conclude that scveral biblical tcxts convey the concept of God as the Creator-of-All. II. In Egypt the role of Creator of everything is attributed to several gods. The most imponant of them are - Re. - Amun, -Atum, -Ptah and Khnum. Although the ways creation was envisaged may differ, and various ways of describing the mode of creation may coexist in one and the same text, the concept of creation in Egyptian theology always implies that the universe, heaven and earth. and all life in heaven and on earth, originated from a single deity, an idea based on the concept of a multitude of deities emanating from this one god (Orro 1955: HORNUNG 1971; ASSMANN 1983, 1984; ALLEN 1988). So the creator god is at the 5al)le time the creator of all other gods. Echnaton viewed the god Aton as the sole Creator who created objects only, not the other gods. According to DE MOOR the Egyptian concept of the solc creator of all, as fonnuJated in the Amun-Re theology of the New Kingdom, exercised considerable influence on Canaan and early Israel towards the end of the 2nd millennium BCE (DE MOOR 1997). Several creation myths of the ancient

Near East imply that there existed already a large body of water before the work of creation began (LAMBERT 1986: 126). In the Babylonian creation myth Enuma E/ish for example, the primordial world came into existence by the mixing of thc sweet waters (ApsO) with the salt watcrs (-·Tiamat Sca, Flood). L3ter on, aftcr having vanquished Tiamat, the god -·Marduk starts his work of creation by splitting the watery body of Tiamat into two halves. One half of her he reshaped into heaven, the other half into earth. Furthcrmore he creates man. Marduk thus fonns the universe out of the existing primeval sea. Next to Enuma Elish there circulated many other creation myths in Mesopotamia (BOrrERO & KRAMER 1989) and therefore it seems ccnain that no standard cosmogony was devcloped. Both in Sumerian and Akkadian the epithct 'Builder (= Creator) of All' is attcsted for thc deities An/Anu. EnkilEa. Enlil and Marduk (AkkGE 69; CAD B [1965] 84a, 88). In the Canaanite world the highest god -·EI is called :>U qn :>ar$, -'EI-creator-ofthe-eanh' (see for Palmyrene attestations, some of them including the eanh, MILIK 1972: 183). There is sufficicnt reason, however, to suppose that in fact El was thought to be the creator of both the cosmos and man. In Ugarit EI is callcd bny bnwr, 'builder of builded things (= creator of created things)' (POPE 1987; see also, howcver, DE MOOR 1980:172, 182-183; KAPElRUD 1980:4-5), :>ab :>adm, 'father of man' and father of the gods (KORPEl 1990:235-236). A god list from Ugarit assumes him 10 bc the creator of heaven and eanh (DE MOOR 1980: 182-186). This is in accordance with a Canaanite myth preserved in Hiuite translation mentioning Elk"11ni~a, an obvious botching of :>U qny :>ar$. It is significant. howevcr. that in this myth -. Baal is already beginning to take over El's position (HOFFNER 1990:69-70). Also in Ugarit Baal seems to manifcst himself as a 'creator' (bny) in his own right. In thc work of thc chief priest I1imilku a gradual transfer of El's stalus as the highest god to Baal may be observed (KORPEl

208

=

CREATOR OF ALL

1998). Like the Myth of Baal (A.7U 1.3:V.7; 1.4:IV.22; 1.6:1.34). the Legend of Aqhatu (A.7U 1.17:VI.48) still describes I1u as dwelling at the confluence of the Upper and Lower Flood which he as the creator of everything presumably had separated in primordial times, as Marduk did in the Babylonian Creation Epic. HO\vcver, for the first time it appears that Baal too has some kind of control ovcr thc two Floods (KTU 1.19:1.45, confirnled by KTU 1.92:5 if gil D means 'to make it snow': cf. KTU 1.4:V.7: KORPEL 1990:561-562). Text A.7U 1.100 seems to refer to the Sun-goddess as creatress of all other gods and of all living creatures. It is possible that this concept was derived from Hittite sourccs. In Hittitc religion the Sun-goddess was also heading the pantheon. The main body of thc text mentions I1u as the head of the deitics, which suggests that when the text was written down the Sun-goddess had been replaced by I1u as head of the pantheon and creator of the universe (ARTU 146 n.3). In a tcxt from Emar Dagan (->Dagon) is called 'the Lord of Creation' (Emar Vl.3, No. 382:16: [dku]r en qll-n[m and in later times it is -> Baal-Shamem who is called qnll dy rCil 'Creator of the earth' (KAI 244:3; translation uncertain, cf. DNWSI III, 1016; cf. NIEIIR 1990: I22f.). According to Philo of Byblos' account of the Phoenician religion the beginning of creation was an autonomous process. The primordial Spirit mixed with it'i own origin and the result of this union was -. ~10t, a watery mud from which cventually everything came into being (BAUMGARTEN 1981:106-108). According to Ugaritic myth Mot, Death, was living in a muddy pit. Docs this mcan that the Phoenicians held Death responsiblc for the coming into existence of all life forols? III. In Isa 44:24 the epithet csh k1, 'Maker-of-AII', occurs as a designation of the God of Israel. The verb c.~11 literally mcans 'to make'. However, parallel verbs are br:>, 'to create', ysd, 'to lay foundations', )"$r, 'to fonn', kwn, 'to establish'; pCI 'to make' and qnll, 'to creatc' (BERNHARDT, nVAT 1:774: FOERSTER, TDNT 3:1(07). In

Isa 44:24 itsclf parallel tenns like 1I{1I Jmym and rq C II :>r$ suggest that Deutero-Isaiah viewed the creative process as working with existing materials and that for him there was hardly any difference with the age-old Canaanite concept of the Creator of Heaven and Earth. It is not unlikely that even the verb br:>, 'to crcatc', which in the Old Testament is reserved for God's creative work, originally was a rare verb meaning 'to construct. to build'. just as bnll, 'to build', which is used in a litcral sense in Gen 2:2 where God is building Adam's rib into a woman, nnd in Amos 9:6 where God builds his upper chambers in heaven. A verb br:>, 'to construct, to build', and 'to create', is attested in Sabaic (KORPEL 1990:383-389). So it is stretching the evidence if one would try to derive the doctrine of the crealio ex lIillilo from the epithet 'Crcator/Builder of All'. Like othcr ancient Near Eastern religious traditions, the Old Testament distinguishes three modes of creation: creation through the word alonc (Gcn I); crcation as making (expressed by the metaphors of the builder, the smith and the potter); and creatio comifIlla. The different modes could stand side by side. This enables Deutero-Isaiah to play with the epithet cslI kl in Isa 44:24, because it is obvious that this refers both to God's cre~llorship and to his mighty aclo;; in delivering his people (cf. Isa 44:23, 25). Deutero-Isaiah's designation of God as csII kl may be compared to Gcn I:31 where it is said, 'and God sawall that he had madc', :>I-kl-:>Jr c.(lI. It is clear that kl refers to the totality of created things and beings enumerated in the preceding verses. A similar cxpression is used in Isa 45:7, 'I fOroled the light, and created darkness, I made peace and created cvil, I the LORD have madc all these things' (csil kl-:>sll). The noun kl has a comprehensive meaning here too. The same can be said of Jer 14:22, VON RAn (1982: 166) compares the use of kl in Isa 44:24 with Ps 8:7 and Qoh 3: I, and takes it as a designation of the visible world, far less extensive in meaning than Greek k0511105, Deutero-Isaiah often refers to the creative

209

CREATOR OF ALL

work of God and his descriptions match the creation account of P (Gen ]). Deutero-Isaiah speaks of God who created (hr~ the stars (40:26). the -ends of the earth (40:28). heaven (42:5) and his people (43:1,7.15). On the other hand God also is the creator of darkness and evil (Isa 45:7; cf. Prov 16:4 "He makes. £pCI] all things for his purpose. even the wicked for the day of evil"). This concept is part of God's opus alienll11l (cf. Isa 28:21). It does not really belong to him, but it is part of the monotheistic discourse about God as the Creator. He is the Fonner (Ylr) and Maker (ill) of Israel and Jacob (lsa 43:1.7.21; 44:2.21.24 [contrast 44:9.10.12.13.15.17.19]; 45:] I; 54:5), the Fonner of the light (45:7), of man (45:9), and of the earth (45:] 8). He stretched out (nth) the heavens (40:22; 42:5; 44:24 (contrast 44:]3]; 45:]2; 5]:13) and planted (IIt c ) the heavens and fashioned (rq~ and founded (y.wl) the earth (lsa 42:5; 44:24 (contrast 40:19]; 48:13; 51:]3,]6). According to Deutero-Isaiah the God of Israel is a creator in the past. the present and the future. Also the change in history, the redemption of the exiles, can be described in tenus of creation (Isa 41 :20: 42: 16: 43: 19: 44:23). In aU other OT texts which use the verb csh, 'to create', together with kl, parts of creation are summed up (Gen 3:]; 7:4; Exod 20:] ]; cf. 2 Kgs ]9:]5; Jer ]4:22; Ps ]46:6; Neh 9:6). The prophet Jeremia twice calls YHWH "the Shaper-of-AU", Ylr hkl, Jer 10:] 6, par. 5]:] 9. HOLLADAY (l983:336) assumes that this phrase refers to YflWfI as the Creator of the whole universe, pointing to kl in Pss 103:] 9 and ]] 9:9 1. Jer 10:] 2-] 6 (par. 5]: 15-19). the broader context, deals with idolatry Gust as Isa 44), and therefore this way of describing God may serve as a deIibemte contrast to the worthless 'creative' acts of the makers of idols. IV. 2 Macc 7:23 explains the epithet 0 tOU KO<JJ.lOU KncrtTl 'dew' (faf), 'fatness of the eanh' and 'new wine' (tirM, -·Tirash). The fact that faf and firM may elsewhere have mythological ovenones docs not prove that dcigiin has such ovenones in Gen 27:28. The case of the Hosea passages is different, since it is clear that it is one of Hosea's themes that it was Yahweh, not the foreign gods, who gave Isrnel "the grain. the wine and the oil" (2: 10-11.24). In these cases there may be a faint echo of the divine name Dagan (though the fact that the definite anicle is used means that it is indeed faint). In Hos 7: 14 the specific context is that of turning to other gods and "for dugiin and firM (without definite anicles) they gash themselves" may plausibly be

218

DA(')MU - DANIEL

interpreted as an allusion to illicit cult, though the allusion could be simply to a cult of lamentation for the failure of vcgetation. Hos 9: I. "you have loved a prostitute's payment upon all the threshing-floors of dagei"", could again contain an allusion to the deity. IV. Bibliography \V. F. ALBRtGHT, Archaeology cmd rhe Religion of Israel (Baltimorc 19462 ); A. CAQUOT & M. SZr-.I'CER, Te.tres Ollgaririques. Tome I: Myrhes er Ugemles (Paris 1974): A. COOPER, Divine N~lmes and Epithets in thc Ugaritic Texl", RSP III (Rome 1981) 361-363: L. K. HANDY, Dagon. ABD 2 (1992) 1-2; J. F. HEALEY. The Undcrworld Chamcter of the God Dagan. JNSL 5 (1977) 43-51: HEALEY, The "Pantheon" of Ugarit: Further Notes. SEL 5 (1988) 103112: F. J. MONTALBANO. Canaanite D~lgon: Origin. Naturc, CBQ 13 (1951) 381-397; M. J. MULDER, Kanalinirische Goden in her Ollde Te.'iramenr (The Hague 1965) 71-75: G. PETflNATO & H. WAETZOLDT, Dagan in Ebla und Mesopotamien nach den Texten aus dem 3. Jahrtausend. Or 54 (1985) 234256: H. RINGGREN, Dagan. pi, nVAT 2, 148-151 (TDOT 3: 139-142); J. J. M. ROBERTS, The Earliesr Semiric Palllheon (BaltimorelLondon 1972): H. SCIIMOKEL. Der GOII Dagon, Urspnmg. Verbreillmg und We.'ien .'ieinc.'i Kulres (Leipzig 1928); S.

A. WIGGINS, Old Testament Dagan in the Light of Ugarit. VT 43 (1993) 268-274.

J. F. HEALEY DA(')MU

-0

BLOOD

DANIEL ";~'~i I. The name Daniel occurs in three contexts in the Hebrew Bible: (I) It occurs twice in the Book of Ezekiel. Ezek 14: 14 says that when a land sins. "cven if these three -+Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by thcir rightcousncss". Again in Ezek 28:3 thc prophet taunts the king of Tyre (-·Mclqart) by asking: "arc you wiser than Daniel?" (1n

both instances, the name is spelled ";Kn. without the plene )'od) It seems clear from these references that Daniel was already the name of a legendary figure, famed for righteousness and wisdom, in the time of Ezekiel. (2) Ezra 8:2 mentions a priest named Daniel. son of Ithamar, who went up from Babylon to Jerusalem with Ezm. This figure has no supra-human qualities. (3) The hero of the book of Daniel is ostensibly a Jcw in the Babylonian exile, who distinguishes himself by his ability to interpret dreams and mysterious writing, and by surviving a sojourn in the lions' den. He is then the recipient of apocalyptic visions in the second half of the book. It is the consensus of modem scholarship that this Daniel never existed. In any case, he is not presented as a deity or a demon. The name Daniel, however, is used for a heavenly figure in postbiblical traditions. The name Daniel means 'my judge is EI' (pace M. NOTlI IPN. who proposed 'God has judged'). The motif of judgment is prominent in the story of Susanna, but not in the other extant Daniel literature. II. Daniel occurs a" the name of a traditional. legendary, figure in the Aqhat story in the Ugaritic literature (KfU 1.17-19: ANET 149-55). There we find a king named Daniel (dnJil) who is initially childless. He supplicates the gods and is given a son Aqhat. The divine craflLLlG (1959:409). Finally, EI is attested in the inscription of Deir CAlia. dating from about 700 nCE. (second combination H:6; see J. HomJZER. TUAT H,I [1986J 145; on 'e/ used as a proper name among the southern Arabians. sec CROSS 1973:260-261). It is therefore not astonishing that EI wa,; still known as an independent deity to Philo Byblius who calls him ~Ao~ (Eusebius, Praep. evang. 1,10:16. 20. 29. 44). The Phoenician inscription of Karatepe dating from the late eighth century BCE quotes beside other gods '1 qn 'r~ 'El-creator-of-the-Earth' (KAI 26 A Ill: 18). The same epithet occurs in a second century CE Nco-Punic inscription (KAI 129: 1). It qualifies EI as creator of the earth. The name has ancient roots as witnessed by the divine name dE/-ku-ni-ir-sa in a myth discovered at Boghazkoy. It must be emphasized that nowhere in the Phoenician and

Punic inscriptions is EI mentioned as president of the other gods (RENDTORFF 1966). P. BORDREUIL (Les noms propres Transjordaniens de l'Ostrncon de Nimroud. RIIPR 59 [1979J 313-317) has pointed out that in Ammonite personal names the theophoric element '/ predominates. However, these names do not prove that EI was worshipped in Ammon, since the theophoric element under consideration should presumably be interpreted a" referring to the Ammonite national deity -.Milcom (SMITH 1990:24; see also U. HOB:'11ER. Die Ammoniter [ADPV 16; Wiesbaden 1992] 256. for a more cautious view). EI is not attested in the Ammonite inscriptions. According to P. M. M. DAVIAU & P. E. DIO:--;. EI, the God of the Ammonites?, ZDPV 110 [1994] 158167) an Atef-crowned head excavated at Tell Jawa, Jordan should be interpreted as the depiction of El as the chief god of the Ammonites; an identification with Milcom is more plausible, however. III. The population of Palestine in the first millennium BCE knew the deity El. Already F. C. MOVERS (Die Phonizier I [Bonn 1841] 389) held that the Isrnelites worshipped EI as a god distinct from Yahweh (but cf. SCHMIDT 1971: 146). As a result the OT contains texts where the Canaanite background of the name is still recogni71lble. In these few instances EI refers to a deity other than Yahweh. The evidence will pass in review. The expressions 'e! 'e!6he yiSra'C/, 'EI, the god of Isrnel' (Gen 33:20) and Irii'e! 'elOlre 'aMkii. 'EI, the god of your father', (Gen 46:3) should be discussed first. The present context of both phrases relates them to the patriarch Jacob and his God in whom none other than Yahweh could be seen (S~IITH 1990: II). Yet it is the Canaanite EI who is depicted here ali the God of Isrnel (contrast Josh 8:30). In all probability Gen 33:20 represents an old tradition. It shows that EI was worshipped at least by some of the proto-Isrnelites (but cf. the interpretation of the Greek translation: KOi. CltCKOACaOtO tov aEC)V lapollA). O. LoRETZ (Die Epitheta '1 '/hj jfr'/ (Gn 33.20) und '/ 'lIzj 'bjk (Gn

277

EL '~/61ze to be a later expansion of an original 'el 'tibtkti; the explanation by C. WESTERMANN (Gt1Iesis [BK 112; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981J 644-646; [1/3; Neukirchen Vluyn 1982J 171). DE MOOR (1990:245) construes an original reading 'n ylz'l '1Izy 'byk, 'I am YII-EI, the God of your father'. This seems to be highly speculative, however. The surmise that 'el in Gen 46:3 has been transformed from a proper noun into an appellative is supponed by the fact that there are numerous cases where the proper name Yahweh is supplemented by a genitive employed in apposition: e.g. yllwlz '~1611e 'libotekem (e.g. Exod 3:15-16: Deut 1:11. 21; 6:3; Josh 18:3). The same can be observed at Num 23:8. 19. 22-23: 24:4. 8. 16. 23; .2 Sam 23:5. The view that EI was worshipped among the Israelites is supponed by Isa 14:4b-20, a lamentation about the downfall of a universal ruler. The text relates that the tyrant intended to ascend to heaven in order to set his throne above the koklbe 'el, 'the stars of El'. and thus settle himself upon the divine mountain in the outmost nonh (v 13). This was an attempt to exercise dominion over the universe, something traditionally reserved for El, the divine lord. The text alludes to Canaanite trnditions. POPE interpreted a line in a Punic inscription from ltaly-KAI 277:IO-ll-a5 follows: km hkkhm 'I, 'like the stars of EI' (apud CROSS 1973:272). This interpretation has been challenged by SPRONK (Beatific Afterlife [AOAT 219; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986] 215n I) who apparently renders 'like these stars'. However, 'I can be interpreted as a genitivus qualitatis: 'these divine stars'. The divine mountain (-+Zaphon, -+Baal Zaphon )was an imponant element in this Canaanitel Ugaritic mythology. Another trace of EI-worship in ancient Israel is found in Ezek 28:2 (pace CROSS 1973:271). The king of Tyre regarded himself a god and thought that he possessed a divine residence in the midst of the sea (-+Melqart). Here, the allusions to Canaanite mythology are unmistakable. The residence

46.3), UF 7 [1975J 583) estimates

cr.

of EI (m!b if) is referred to in KTU 1.3 iv:48: v:39: 1.4 i:12: iv:52. El's mythic dwelling is situated at mbk "IIn,,1 apq tlzmtm, 'the fountainhead of the two rivers! bedding of the two floods' (e.g. KTU 1.2 iii:4; 1.6 i:33-34). Funher hints to the worship of EI arc given by the names 'el bcr;t (-+8aal Berith: Judg 9:46). 'e! coMm (--EI-olam; Gen 21:33). 'e! 'e/yo" (Most High --Elyon: Gen 14: 18-22; Ps 78:35), 'el roc; (God of seeing -+EI-roi: Gen 16:13), and 'el sadday (--Shadday: Gen 17:1: 28:3: 35:11: 43:14: 48:3: 49:25 [cj.]: Exod 6:3: Ezek 10:5) as well as by genitival constructions containing EI: bl"e 'C! (Deut 32:8. 43: LXX: uioi Seou: 4QDtnS bll)' '/[IIy",]: P. W. SKEHAN, A fragment of the "song of Moses" (Deut. 32) from Qumran. BASOR 136 [1954] 1215; O. LoRETZ. Die Vorgeschichte von Deuteronomium 32,8f.43, UF 9 [1977] 355357) respectively bClle 'eli", (Ps 29:1: 89:7). ",6?Jde 'el (Ps 74:8). and 'iidat 'e! (Ps 82: I: H. NlEtlR, Gotter oder Menschen - cine falsche Alternative: Bemcrkungen zu Ps 82, ZA \V 99 [1988] 94-98). Finally, Hebrew proper names \\lith the theophoric element 'el known from the OT as well as from ancient Hebrew inscriptions should be taken into account. lt is not clear whether the clement 'e! refers to a deity in general or to EI in particular (for Ugarit sec EISSFElDT 1951 :46-52: F. GR()NDAtll. Die Personen"amell der Texte ails Ugarit [StP I; Roma 1967] 94-97: for the other regions see M. NOTH, lPN 82-99: J. H. TIGAY, YOIl Shall HOl'e No Otller Gods [HSM 31: Atlanta 1986] 12. 83-85). In the main. the noun 'el is used in the OT in a way comparable to the Ugaritic and Canaanite inscriptions. i.e. as an appellative meaning 'god'. This use survived alongside the divine designation 'e16him (e.g. Exod 15:1 I: Isa 44:10. 15. 17: 46:6: Ezek 28:9: Ps 36:7: 80: 11: 104:21 [7]: Dan II :36). There are cases where 'N refers to Yahweh. Apparently there was no restraint in ancient Israel in using the substantive since Yahweh-in spite of his incomparability-was also perceived as a deity comparable to the gods of the Canaanite

278

EL world (e.g. Gen 35: 1. 3; Exod 15:2; Deut 3:24; Isa 5:16; 7:14; 8:8. 10: 31:3: Jer 51:56: Hos 11:9; 12:1; Mic 7:18: Ps 63:2: SMITH 1990:7-12; DE MOOR 1990). The identification of EI with Yahweh opened the possibility of adopting ideas and concepts connected with the EI religion. A problematic case is the designation Je/ qa1l1ui' (qml1lo'), 'a jealous god' for Yah\,.'eh (Exod 20:5; 34: 14; Deut 4:24: 5:9: 6: 15; Josh 24:19: Nah 1:2) since in the Ugaritic liternturc jealousy and violent behaviour is a charncteristic not of EI, but of the goddess -Anat (KTV 1.3 v:22-25: 1.17 vi:41-45: 1.18 i:9-12). It is easier to find the antecedent to the characterization of Yahweh as Jel ra~~Jlim we~Janmill Jaek Jappayim werab ~lesed, 'a merciful and grncious god, longsuffering and abundant in goodness' (Exod 34:6: Jonah 4:2; Joel 2: 13: Ps 86: 15: 103:8; 145:8: Neh 9: 17: many other passages contain separnte elements of this confession). This phrase is related to the epithet of EI of Ugarit I!pn iI dpid discussed above (SMITH 1990: 10). Most probably, this trait of EI was also known in the more southern Canaanite regions. The fact that it was taken over to charncterize Yahweh underlines the continuation between the Ugaritic/Canaanite EI religion and later Yahwism (DE MOOR 1990: 69-82. 234-260; KORPEL 1990: S!>IITH 1990: 7-12.21-26: LoRETZ 1990:73. 182: pace e.g. L. K6HLER, Theologie des Alte" Testaments [Tiibingen 1936 = 41966] 30). An important feature is the designation of Yahweh as 'king'. though this title is not applied to El in the Ugaritic inscriptions but to Baal. Nonetheless, this metaphor hints at a Canaanite heritage. The moment of attribution of the epithet 'king' to Yahweh is a question of debate. The concept of Baal as king might have been of influence (SCHMIDT 1966; KORPEL 1990:281-286). The Phoenician inscriptions from Karntepe reveal EI as a creator-god. Therefore it is plausible that the Canaanite population of Palestine has taken over the view of El as a creator, which was only late applied to Yahweh. It should be noted however that it is not clear from the Ugaritic texts that EI

was seen as creator. The view that mankind was the creation of Yahweh is known from sources which are not earlier than the seventh century BCE (Gen 2:7. 22; Exod 4: II: Deut 4:32: 32:6. 15; Isa 29: 16; Hos 8:14; Prov 14:31; 17:5; 22:2; 29:13 [ef. 20: 12: Ps 139: 13 D, and the view of Yahweh as the creator of mankind cannot certainly be traced back to the concept of creation of the earth by Yahweh (Gen 2; 14:19. 22). Ho\,.·ever, it should also be taken into account that the idea of Ynhweh as creator was borrowed by the Isrnelites from the Phoenician -·Baal-shamem religion (H. NIEIIR, Der hoch,r;re GOIt [BZA W 190; Berlin New York 1990] 119-140). The fact that Yahweh obtained, though relatively late, the title Jlib, '-·Fathcr' (Isa 63: 16: Jer 3:4: 31 :9: Mal I:6) probably also shows Canaanite influence though attestations that EI was seen as 'father' arc only known from Ugaritic sources (e.g. KTV 1.2 i:33: 1.3 v:35: 1.4 iv:47; 1.14 i:41; KORPEL 1990:235-239). S. E. LoEWENSTAMM (Comparati\'£' Studies ill Biblical and Anciem Oriental LiteratlIre,r; [AOAT 204; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980] 157-159) connects Num 12:13 to the Canaanite concept of EI as healer (-·EIrophe) and 2 Sam 14:20, as well as Job 12: 12, to El's wisdom. It should be remarked that the references applying the noun Jel to Yahweh increase from the Babylonian ern onward (Isa 40: 18; 42:5; 43: 10, 12; 45:14, 15. 20-22; 46:9; Num 16:22: I Sam 2:3: Josh 22:22: lsa 12:2; Lam 3:41). They prove that EI did not disappear from the religious sphere and should likewise be judged as an intentionally archaizing element. The narne EI is employed for Yahweh particularly often in the Psalter (e.g. 5:5; 7:12; 18 1= 2 Sam 22):3. 31. 33. 48: 102:25). IV, Bibliography F. M. CROSS, JCI, nVAT 1 (1973) 259-279: M. J. DAHooD, Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine,. Le antiche DivillitQ Semitiche (1. Bonero & S. Moscati eds.: Roma 1958) 65-94; O. EISSFELDT, El and KS III Yahweh, iSS 1 (1956) 25-37

279

=

EL-BERITH - EL-CREATOR-OF-THE-EARTH

(1966] 386-397; EISSFELDT, EI im "gar;tischen Pantheon (Berlin 1951); E. JACOB, EI, BHH 1 (1962) 386-389; M. C. A. KORPEL, A Rift in the Clouds (UBL 8; MUnster 1990); O. LoRETZ, Ugarit und die Bibel (Dannstadt 1990) 66-73; 1. C. DE MOOR, EI, the Cr~tor, The Bible World. Essays in Honor of CYnlS H. Gordon (ed. G. Rendsburg et al.; New York 1980) 171-187: DE MOOR, TIle Rise of Yalnvism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990); M. J. MULDER. Kanaanituche Goden in het Dude Testamem (Den Haag 1965) 13-24; U. OLDENBURG, The Conflict between EI and Baal in Canaanite Religion (Leiden 1969): M. H. POPE. EI in th~ Ugaritic Texts (VTSup 2; Leiden 1955): POPE. The Status of EI at Ugarit. UF 19 (1987) 219-230; R. RENDTORFF, EI, BaCal und Jahwe. Erwagungen zum Verhaltnis von kanaanilischer und israelitischer Religion. ZAW 78 (1966) 277-291; W. ROLLlG, EI als Gottesbezeichnung im Ph~nizischen, Festschrift J. Friedrich ,um 65. Geburtstag (R. von Kiele ct al.. eds.; Heidelberg 1959) 403416; W. H. SCHMIDT, 'el, THAT I (1971) 142-149; SCHMIDT, Koniglllm Golles in Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 80; Berlin 21966): J. STARCKY, Le nom divin EI. ArOr 17 (1949) 383-386. W. HERRMANN

EL-BERITH -. BAAL BERITH EL-CREATOR-OF-THE-EARTH

I. The second element of the name of the deity '1 qn 'r~ can etymologically be connected with the verbal-root QlIlY 'create, acquire (a property)', which is used for example, in Ps 139: 13 ('atta qanita kilyotai 'you created my kidneys'). The interpretation of the god as 'EI-Creator-of-the-Earth' therefore seems highly justified. Contrast E. LIPINSKI (nvAT 7 [1990-1992] 68) who preferred a derivation from QNY 'to keep, to possess' and translated: 'EI-the-Owner-of the Earth'. The God is mentioned in Gen 14:19.22. II. The name of the deity first occurs outside the Bible in Phoenician in the Kara-

=

tepe-Inscription ('I qn 'r$ KAI 26 A III 18 TSSI III 15 A III 18, end of the eighth century BCE). The hieroglyphic-Luwian version mentions the Mesopotamian god of wisdom and sweet-water Ea in the writing Da-a-i. EI-Creator-of-the-Earth is mentioned in the curse-fonnula between -+ BaCal Samcm, i.e. the Lord of Heaven, and Sam~ £1 gil 'lilam ('EI, the

one (Le.lord) of eternity') must underlie the name '£1 'oWm. CROSS (1973:49 n. 23) further points to the possibility of compound divine names, like /lib or (smkms, implying that EI and Olam could be two compounded divine names. But EI-olam could also be the combination of a divine name and an epithet. In the Ugaritic texts, gods appear to be identified as if malk ('EI, the king') or rip mlk ('Rcsheph, the king'); or, in a much rarer combination, 'if lid ('the god Haddu') (see CROSS 1973:50). Sincc Olam is not attested as an independent deity (sec below), it still remains very likely that, in Gen 21 :33, 'o!iim is used as an epithet: irrespective of whether 'il is construed an appellative or a divine name, In that case, EI-olam should be rendered as 'EVGod, the Eternall Everlasting/Ancient one'. This interpretation is corroborated by such texts as Isa 40:28 ("Yahweh is the God of Eternity" efOlle 'olam r/m'Jz) or Jcr 10:10 ("Yahweh is God is truth [i.e. is the true God), he is God is life [Le. is the living God) and the king of eternity [Le. the eternal king]"). The suggestion by VAN DEN BRANDEN (1990:52) to vocalize, in the light of Isa 45:15, '£1 '{,Iam and to understand that divine title as 'the God who hides himself lacks support in the texts. ALBRIGHT (1966:24: no. 358) and CROSS (1962:238-239) havc read the name EI-olam ('if fit; '6Iam; ) in a proto-sinaitic inscription, presumably dating to the 15th cent. BCE. CROSS has used this evidence as a decisive argument for the characterization of primitive Yahwism as a fonn of EI worship (in the same vein, see DE MOOR 1990:253). But DUKSTRA (1987:249-250) has reexamined the reading of CROSS and shown that EIolam is absent from the inscription. Even though the title EI-olam is not attested in Ugarit, a Ugaritic text gives us the first occurrence of '1m in co'!iunction with a divine name: the goddess Sapsu bears the epithet sps '1m ('Sun the everlasting') (KTU 2.42 [= UT 2008], 7). In the Aramaic insciption from Karatepe (8th cent. nCE), we find the god Samas (6Him (sms 'Im, 'Sun the everlasting') mentioned alongside -·Baal-

289

EL-OLAM

Shamen (btl Jmm, «the lord of heaven») and 'EI the Creator of Earth' CI qll t'1) (KA/ 26 111:19; cf, IV:2 Jm 'znvd ykn JClm km Jm JmJ w)'r~ 'may the name of CZTWD stand fast forever, like the name of the sun and the moon'; see also WEiPPERT 1969). The Phoenichm incantation of Arslan Tash (7th cent. BCE) mentions a goddess 'It tim 'the goddess, the everlasting' (KA/27: 9-10), though the expression could also be taken to mean 'everlasting oath'. It seems that the eptithet tolOm is felt to be especially fit for solar deities: the sun being the everlasting god par excellence (see STAHLI 1985:27). One could .therefore ask the question, whether the mention of a deity named EI-olam should be seen in the context of the 'solarization' of the system of religious symbols that KEEL & UElfLlNGER (1992:282-321) have detected for Israel (9th-8th cent.) and Judah (8th-7th cent.), without however establishing a link with toliim. There remains the fundamental question: Does the EI-olam of Gen 21 :33 go back to a deity effectively worshipped or at least so designated in a preliterary context, or is that name simply an ad hoc invention of the author of our Genesis passage? Obviously, Gen 21 :33 does not constitute sufficient evidence for postulating the existence of a cult dedicated to a specific EIolam, presumably located in Beersheba. But, if one bears in mind that belief in EI is attested for the 9th and 8th cent. BeE not only in Deir ABa (in a presumably nonIsrnelite context) but also in Kuntillet CAjn1d (see KEEL & UEHLINGER 1992:235-237. 211-218), it remains probable that the author of Gen 21:33-and perhaps the circles responsible for the Abraham trnditions as a whole~wanted to connect their patriarch with a form of pre-Yahwistic or paraYahwistic piety that, in his opinion-but perhaps rightly so-was prevalent in early times or in marginal lones. According to ALBERTZ (1978:77-91; 1992:47-53), that type of piety was rooted in private familylife (as opposed to the official state cult which was linked to the national and cosmic Yahweh). But another possibility should

m.

also be explored: perhaps 'patriarchal' religion is the form of national religion-another form of Yahwism-that wa." prevalent among the tribal elites of Israel down to the monarchic period: Le. before the prophetic movement propagated the ideal of a nontribal and non-genealogical Yahweh linked to the Exodus tradition? That seems to be the case at least in Northern Israel where the -Jacob legend functioned as a national legend of origin of its own (see DE PURY 1991 :88-96). In that case, EJ-olam, even if rooted in the south and embedded in a late narrative context, might not have been picked entirely out of the blue. IV. Bibliography R. ALnERTz, Persollliche Frommigkeit 11IId offizielle Religioll. Religiollsilltemer Pluralismus ill /.tirael lllld Babyloll (CfM 9: Stuttgan 1978); ALBERTZ, Religiollsgesclrichte /!irael.r ill aillestamemlicher Zt·;t (ATD Erganzungsreihe 8/1; Gottingen 1992): W. F. ALBRIGHT, 77,e Proto-Sillaitic InscriptiolJS alld their Deciplzenllellt (Cambridge, Mass. 1966); A. ALT, Der GOII der Vater (BWANT 11I,12: Stuttgan 1929) = KS I (1953) 1-78; E. BLUM, Die Komposition der Viitergesclriclrte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen 1984): A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Les Dieux des Patriarches, BeD 162 (1990) 27-53; F. M. CROSS, Yahweh and the Gods of the Patriarchs, HTR 55 (1962) 225-259: CROSS. Callaallite Myth alld Hebrew epic (Cambridge. Mass. 1973) 44-75; M. DAHOOD, Psalms I, II, III (AB 16, 17, 17A: New York 1966, 1968, 1970); M. DUKSTRA, EI cOlam in the Sinai?, ZA lV 99 (1987) 249-250; O. EISSFELDT, EI und Jahwe, iSS I (1956) 2537 = KS 3 (1966) 386-397; EISSFELDT, )Aheyah )asar )!iheyah und )EI coHim (l965), KS 4 (1968) 193-198; E. JENNI, Das Wort CoHim im Alten TeJtament (Berlin 1953); JENNI, ~7;~ coHim Ewigkeit, THAT 2 (1976) 228-243; O. KEEL & C. UEHl.INGER, GOllimrell. GOller lind GOllessymbole (Quaestiones Disputatae 134; FreiburgBasel-Wien 1992); M. KOCKERT, Vatergott lllld ViiteTwrheisslllrgen (FRLANT 142; Gottingen 1988): J. C. DE MOOR, 77re Rise of Yahwi.mr. 77,e Root.r of Israelite Afollo-

290

EL-ROI

Iheism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990); A. DE

PURY, Le cycle de Jacob comme legende autonome des origines d'isracl, Congress VO/lime Lellven (VTSup 43; Leiden 1991) 78-96; H.-P. STAHLI, So/are E/emenre im Jahweg/allben des A/lell Tesramellls (OBO 66; FribourglGottingen 1985); J. '1M" SETERS, Abraham in History alld Tradilioll (New Haven & London 1975); VAS SETERS, The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis, Bib 61 (1980) 220-233; R. DE VAUX, HislOire alldelllle d'/srae/. Des origines ii l'illStal/alio" ell Callaall (Etudes Bibliques; Paris 1971); M. WEIPPERT, Elemente phoni-

kischer und kilikischer Religion in den Inschriften von Karatepe, ZDMG Suppl. I (1969) 204-205; J. WELLIIAUSEN, Geschichle lsraels (Berlin 1878); C. WESTERMANN, Gellesis (BKAT 1,2; Neukirchcn 1981); U. WORSCIIECH, Abraham. Eille so:.ia/geschicllt/iclle Sllldie (Europliische Hochschulschriften XX1II1225. Bern, FrankfurtlM. etc. 1983). A. DE PURY EL-ROI '~"j ";~ I. The name 'll ro'; (EVgod of seeing/vision) is attested only once in the OT, in Gen 16: 13. It is best interpreted as a pseudo-archaic divine name inserted by a later redactor of Gen 16. II. The name EI-roi is given by Hagar, -'Sarah's runaway and pregnant maid. after her flight into the desert and her encounter with a divine messenger. The messenger foretold the birth of a son whom she is instructed to name -Ishmael (v 12), a theophoric name of a common type constructed with -EI and the imperfect of sm c ('may EI hear'). Vv 13-14 introduce a new sequence which is not really warranted by the preceding verses. These two verses possibly represent an addition to the original story (VAN SETERS 1975:193), since they pursue a different purpose: in opposition to v 12b, where Ishmael's God was identified as -Yahweh ('for Yahweh has heard of your misery'), \' 13 introduces the name EI Roi. The apparent aim of the addition is to

291

ensure that the non-Israelite Ishmaelites have no part in the worship of Yahweh. The ctiology ghrcn in v 13 poses a number of difficulties of grammatical and syntactical nature. Even if the famous conjecture of WELLHAUSEN (1878:329 n. I: 'I have secn God and have stayed ali ve') is still very spcculati ve (cf. BoolJ 1980; KOENEN 1988), the MT seems to suppose that EI Roi allowed himself to be secn by Hagar. After a very careful analysis, KOEl'''EN (1988:472) proposes the following translation of v 13: "And she called the name of (the) Yahweh who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees [i.e. saves] me.... [vocalizing ro'; - participle with suffix: 'seeing me', in accordance with LXX, Vg. Tg. O"q.- instead of MT ra'; infinitive construct with suffix: 'my seeing'], for she said: "Indeed, here I have seen the one [literally: the effects of the one] who sees [i.e. chooses/saves] me". The name EI-roi together with the other 'El deities mentioned in the Genesis narmtives, has often been interpreted as a distant reminder of one of the manifestations of the great god EI supposed to have been worshipped by the Patriarchs (CROSS 1973:4660; ALBERTZ 1992:55). In this context, Elroi was seen as the particular form of EI venerated by the clan of Abraham (WORSCIIECH 1983: 172). Independently of all the other problems raised by this theory, one must note that ro'; as an epithet of EI never appears in any document of the ancient Near East (KOCKERT 1988:75; KNAUF 1989:48). It is true that, in a Babylonian prayer of the Kassite period. we find an invocation of -. Marduk as "my father, Great Lord Marduk. the one who sees me" (ALBERTZ 1978: 124), but that last element is neither an epithet nor a name. An Egyptian document of the time of Memeptah (Papyrus Anastasi III). which records the border traffic. mentions a tmveller designated probably as 'the slave (of) Baal-Roy': "There went up the servant of Baal Roy (R'-y) , son of Zcper of Gaza" (ARE III, § 630; cf. ANET, 258). Although the numerous problems posed by the hieroglyphic transcription of Semitic names cannot be discussed fully here. this text does

EL ROPHE

not prove that 'Roy' was ever the name of a Semitic deity (against VAN DER BRANDEN 1990:35). In the translitemtion, the element -y derives more probably from a suffix pronoun of the 1st singular ('Baal sees me' or 'Baal is my shepherd'). One funher possibility to find an attestation of a divine epithet with the root R'II has been suggested by KNAUF (1989:48). Speaking of the (proto-) Arnbic imagery of Gen 16, he speculates about a possible divine epithet of Arabic origin: *ar-ra'iyll - 'the one who sees'. But, even here, we have no direct attestation of thnt name or epithet, except for the fact that pre-islamic Arabic tradition seems to use the word rei'i in speaking of demons (PARET 1980:25). In the present state of our knowledge, we must conclude that the word RoJi of Gen 16: 13 is not a common-or even a sporadic--epithet of the god EI. The EI-roi of Gen 16: 13 could therefore be nothing more than an invention of the redactor of vv 13-14 (VAN SETERS 1975:193, 288; KOCKERT 1988:76). His aim could have been to 'correct' both the identification of EI and Yahweh and the privileged relation between Hagar and Yahweh, and to this end he may have thought of a pseudo-archaic divine name in the style of -·EI Olam and -.EI Shadday whom he probably knew from written or oral traditions about the Patriarchs. Why the name 'Roi'? This name could derive from nn interpretation of 'Be'erla~lQi-roJr' in v 14, or, even more simply, from the fact that 'seeing' (which also implies 'fulfiIling' a prayer, or 'taking care of somebody) is an activity commonly attributed to gods in the Semitic world: 'EI who sees me (i.e. chooses/saves me)'. As we have seen, this is also the way the original text of Gen 16: 13 was meant to be understood. III. Bibliography R. ALBERTZ, PerslJnliche FrlJmmigkeit und ofjizielle Religion. Religionsinremer Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon (CfM 9; Stuttgan 1978); ALBERTZ, ReligiollSgeschichte Israels in aillestamenrlicher Zeit (ATO

Ergfulzungsreihe 8/1; GlSttingen 1992); E. BLUM, Die Komposition der VOterge-

schichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen 1984); T. Bool1, Hagar's Words in Genesis XVI 13b, vr 30 (1980) 1-7; A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Les dieux des patriarches, BeO 162 (1990) 27-53; F. M. CROSS, Canaallite Myth alld Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass. 1973) 44-75; E. A. KNAUF, Ismael. UllIersucJllIngell ZIIr Gesellichte Pallistillas Wid Nordarabiens im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ADPV, 2. Aun. 1989); M. KOCKERT, Vlitergoll lmd Vtiten'erhe;sslmgen (FRLANT 142, Gottin-

gen J988); K. KOENEN, Wer sieht wen? Zur Textgeschichte von Genesis xvi 13, vr 38 (1988) 468-474; R. PARET, Mohammed lmd der Islam (Stuttgan etc. I98()5); J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History a"d Tradition (New HavenlLondon 1975); VAN SETERS, The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis, Bib 61 (1980) 220-233; J. WELUIAUSEN, GescJlichte Israds (Berlin 1878); U. WORSCJII~CII,

Abraham. Eille so:.ialgeschichtliche

(Europai~che Hochschulschriften XX1II1225; Bern. FrankfunfM., etc. 1983).

SllIdie

A. DE PURY

EL ROPHE ·~~i l;~ I. The enigmatic line in Num 13: 19 ' el lUi' repa' na' /cih, traditionally rendered as ..a, God, do heal her", has been construed as containing originally the divine name 'eJ rope', 'EI Rophe; Healing God' (ROUILLARD 1987). This divine name has been compared with the Ug epithet rpll, 'Saviour', occurring in the expression rpll mlk'lm and mt rpi, and with the -Rephaim (ROUILLARD J987:35-42). II, The expression rpll mlk '1m is generally translated as 'the Saviour, the eternal King' (e.g. DE MOOR, ARTU 187) and interpreted as an epithet either of -·Baal seen as the head of the Rephaim (e.g. DE MOOR 1976:329) or of I1u (-EI; e.g. J. DAY, vr 30 [1980] 176). The expression occurs only four times in what might be called a liturgical address (KTU 1.108: 1.19'-20' .21' .22'). Without the extension mlk '1m, r[p]i occurs in the same text (23'-24') but as a clear reference to the Rephaim. B. MARGULIS (Bibl 51 [1970] 57; JBL 89 [1970] 293-294;

292

ELYON cf. VAN DER TOORN 1991:57) has pointed to the fact that in KTU 1.108 it is said that rpll mlk (1m is 'dwelling in Athtaroth' (1. 2) and 'judging in Edrei' (1. 3). This suggests that the deity rpll mlk (1m is identical with MilkulMaliku who is said to be in Athtarot (KTU 1.100:41; 1,107:17; RS 86.2235; cf. J. DAY, Molech. A God of Hllman Sacrifice [Oxford 1989] 46-50; VAN DER TOORN 1991 :57; sec also Deut 1:4; Josh 9: 10; 12:44; 13: 12.31 where -"Og the mlk of -Bashan, who dwells in Athtarot" is mentioned). This implies that the expression rpll mlk (1m is to be seen as a reference to a chthonic deity (VAN DER TOORN 1991:5760). It is possible, though not necessary, that this is EI. The expression mt rpi, 'man of Rpi' (e.g. KTU 1.20 ii:8), has been interpreted as a reference to Dan)el's personal god: from the legend of Aqhat it is not clear whether rpi (or rpll) should be identified with EI or with Baal (as DE MOOR 1976:326-327, does). In the Ugaritic texts various deities are depicted as healing gods. The Rephaim are known for their saving activities. KTU 1.82:6 relates that Baal has the force to drive out serpent-demons. In a para-mythological text, the goddesses Athtanu and - Anat are said to be healers of their father nu, who had become sick from drinking too much wine (KTU 1.114:27-28; DE MOOR, UF 16 [1986] 356). The deity -Horon is said to be able to neutralize the effects of poison from serpents (KTU 1.100:61-69). III. In the OT Yahweh is seen asamong other things-a healing God (NIEHR 1991). This becomes clear from several texts, e.g. Ex 15:26 where Yahweh is called a rp', 'healer; saviour', and from personal names like repilel, -'Raphael' (e.g. I Chron 26:7: Tob 3: 17); repoyQ, 'Rephajah' (e.g. Neh 3:9; I Chron 3:21; 4:42; 7:2); yrpyh, 'Yirpeyah; Yahweh heals' (M. LlDzBARSKI, Ephemeris fUr senr;tische Epigraphik 3 [Giessen 1915] 22) and the hypocoristic rp', 'Rapha' (Samaria Ostracon 24:2; 1 Chron 8:2; Num 13: 19; cf. M. NOTH,

IPN 179).

Rouillard's interpretation of the enigmatic

line in Num 12: 13, though ingenious, is not convincing. Her textual reconstruction is not supported by any of the ancient versions which all construe rp' as an imperative and not as a paniciple (see the outline in ROUILLARD 1987:20-21). Her reconstruction produces a sentence which contains only a vocative. That Moses' intercessory prayer on behalf of his sister would be limited to the words "0 healing God!", seems to be an oddity from a narmtive point of view. Besides, the divine epithet 'el rope' docs not occur elsewhere in the OT. IV. Bibliography J. C. DE MOOR, Rapi'uma - Rephaim, ZA \V 88 (1976) 323-345; H. NIEHR, JHWH als Arzt, BZ 25 (1991) 3-17; H. ROUILLARD, EI Rofe en Nombres 12,13, Sem 37 (1987) 1746: K. VAN DER TooRN, Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible, BiOr 48 (1991) 40-66. B. BEeKING

ELYON F?.t:' I. Derived from the Hebrew verb (ii/a, meaning 'to ascend', (elyon in the OT may be used either as an adjective, describing something that is spatially higher than something else ('upper', 'highest'), or as a substantive, used primarily in reference to the 'most high' deity. In Ps 89:27, however, it is used in reference to the king. As a divine name, 'Elyem appears either on its own (e.g. Ps 9:3: Isa 14: 14), in combination with other divine names (Yahweh, Elohim [--God], -EI e.g., Pss 7: 18: 57:3: 73: 11) or in association with lesser divine elements (bene (eJyon, Ps 82:6; ef. Aramaic references to qaddiJe (elyonin in Dan 7: 18, 22, 25, 27). An abbreviated fonn may also be attested in Hos 11:7 (?l') and 1 Sam 2: 10 ("fl?.t:'). In the LXX, 'Elyon is translated as H)1JS;Slos. In the present fonn of the biblical text. the tenn is understood to be an epithet for Yahweh, the God of Israel. It is possible, however, as some have argued, that the epithet may conceal a reference to a separate deity, possibly an older god with whom Yahweh came to be identified. This has

293

ELYON

been argued. for example, with reference to Gen 14:18, Num 24:16 and Deut 32:8. The matter cannot be resolved without considering occurrences of CElyon in other texts from the ancient Near East. CElyon is attested in a variety of extra-biblical literature such as Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic and Greek. As a theophoric element, CElyon may also be traced in South-Semitic personal names. These wide-spread Ancient Near Eastern attestations have led to numerous hypotheses regarding the nature of the more ambiguous references to CElyon in the OT, discussed below. In addition to its attestation in the OT, CElyon appears as -HypsislOS in the NT, as well as in the apocryphal and pseudepigrnphic books. CElyon is also attested in Qumran liternture (see esp. 1QapGen). II. In order to understand the character and role of CElyon, it must first be determined whether or not the word refers to an independent deity or functions always as an epithet for another god. The clearest example of CEly6n functioning autonomously is found in the frngments of Sanchuniathon's 'Phoenician Theology' preserved by Eusebius (Praep. emng. 1.10.15-29) using Philo of Byblos as his source. According to Sanchuniathon, a certain Elioun, called 'Most High' (Hypsistos) dwelt in the neighbourhood of Byblos, along with his wife, Berouth. To them was born a son, Epigeius, or Autochthon-who was later called Ouranos (Heaven)-and a daughter, Ge (Earth). Sometime later, Elioun died in an encounter with wild beasts and was thereupon deified. His children also became deities, and through the union of Ournnos and Ge, the god Kronos was born. Later, a union of Ouranos and his favourite mistress produced -Zeus (Demarous). With certain exceptions, this cosmology is closely related to others in the ancient Near East. Texts such as the Hurro-Hittite 'Song of Kumarbi' (also· known as 'Kingship in Heaven'), Hesiod's Theogony, and various Ugaritic myths about EI and -Baal all display striking similarities to the ordering and functioning of gods in Sanchuniathon. Notably

absent in the latter two sources, however, is any clear indication of a counterpart to Sanchuniathon's Elioun. Even the Hurro-Hittite Alalu, though sharing the same hiernrchical relationship to other gods as Elioun, does not display much similarity in character (see "Song of Kumarbi" in HOFFNER 1990:4043). Thus, although we find clear reference to CElyon as an autonomous deity in Philo's Elioun, similar cosmologies in the ancient Near East do not appear to have shared this view. In fact, closer inspection of Philo's account betrays a conflation of trnditions that may not be true to their carlier forms. For instance. the name Epigeius would suggest that the deity arose from Ge (cf. Hesiod). However, these gods arc brother and sister according to Philo. It appears that contempornry cosmological conceptions have been absorbed into Philo's account of more ancient trnditions. His understanding of Elioun a.1i an independent deity may reflect first century influences. A possible exception to this conclusion is found in the Sefire I inscriptions (KAI 222 A) of the eighth century BeE, written in Aramaic. As a treaty between Bir-Ga'yah, the king of KTK and Matiel, the king of Arpad, the inscription lists the major deities of each side as witnesses to the agreement. Listed between a series of divine names occurring in pairs and the great natural pairs of Heaven and Earth, Abyss and Streams, -·Day and -.Night, we find 'I w'Iyn. This has been thought by many to confinn the existence of CEly6n as an independent deity (e.g. DELLA VIDA 1944: RENDTORFF 1967). However. several considerations mitigate against such a conclusion. First. El and CEly6n arc not consorts, as are the preceding divine pairs. Secondly. the divine pairs are not followed immediately by El and <Ely6n, but are interrupted by other clauses where there are references to non-paired deities. Finally, EI and 'Elyon may not be part of the pantheon of Sir-Ga'yah, which lists the divine consorts, but that of Matiel (LACK 1962:57: cf. SEOW 1989:52 n. 146). On the other hand. CEly6n may be understood as an epithet of EI in this inscription. The con-

294

ELYON

junction may be a waw explicativum (DE VAUX 1961 :310; SEOW 1989:52n), rendering, "EI, that is, (Elyon". One notes this same phenomenon earlier in the list (line 9), where we find sms wllr (L'HEUREUX 1979:46); --Shemesh; -oUght. One notes as well the frequent occurrence of double divine names in the Ugaritic corpus where each is joined by a waw conjunction (e.g. Ktr-w-H.'iS, Mt-w-Sr. QdJ-w-'Amrr). It is p~ssibl~ that the Scfire inscription bears witness to this phenomenon. or that it betrays a separation of an early epithet of EI that has split into a separate cult and deity (CROSS 1973:51). Whatever the case may be. it must be admitted that the treaty gives us no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of (Elyon as an independent deity. In contrast to the mixed evidence to support the identification of 'Elyon as autonomous, there is a wide range of evidence to suggest that (Elyon was a common epithet in the West Semitic region. applied at different times and in different cultures to any god thought to be supreme. One example of the fluidity of this epithet is in its application to the Canaanite deities EI and Baal. Although EI is nowhere referred to as 'Elyon in the extant Ugaritic literature, numerous attestations, both biblical and extm-biblical, link the two closely. We have already seen. for instance, that, if nothing else, EI and (Elyon are closely linked in the Sefire I inscription. Similarly, in South Semitic inscriptions, one finds a shortened form of (Elyon. e,y (and sometimes 'I; -AI) applied to EI (RYCKMANS 1934:243). In the QT, 'Elyon appears several times with EI, either in collocation (Gcn 14: 18-22; Ps 78:35), or in parallelism (Num 24: 16: Pss 73:]]: 107:]]). Many scholars believe that the pre-Israelite cult at Jerusalem worshipped the god EI-'Elyon. There is also evidence to suggest that Yahweh was originally worshipped as ElCElyon at Shiloh before David's capture of Jerusalem (see below). These indicators all point to CElyon being an early epithet of EI. Yet. other texts link Baal with this same epithet in its abbreviated form. The clearest example is found in the Keret epic (A'TV

I.16 iii:5-8) where m!r be"~ 'the rain of Baal', is twice parallelled by m!r 'Iy. 'the rain of the Most High'. In the Bible. also, there exists a possible indication of Baal's designation as Most High. In the book of Hosea-a text weUknown for its unrelenting polemic against Baalism-we find such an indication (although some would amend the shortened fonn 'I to b'l, lectio facilior): "My people are bent on turning away from me. To the Most High ('l) they caB, but he does not raise them up at all" (Hos II :7). Further, in Isa 14:13-14, we find a satire of the King of Babylon that may reflect the myth of the rise of Baal. In Canaanite lore. Baal is the god who ascends the clouds and sits on 'the heights of Zaphon·. Eventually he came to replace EI as high god of the Canaanite pantheon. It is intriguing, then, to find in Isaiah: "You said in your heart. 'I will a.y prior to 1200 BCE, appears to be a reference to EI (OTTEN 1953; see HOFFNER 1965). (2) 'I qll'r,f in an eighth century BCE bilingual god list from Karatepe (KAI 26 A 111.18). (3) ['I] qn'r~ is the probable restoration of a Hebrew inscription of the eighth-seventh century BCE

from Jerusalem (AVIGAD 1972; see MILLER 1980). (4) 'lq,vlIr in a first century CE Aramaic inscription from Palmyra. which, with DELLA VIDA 1944, is to be read' Iqn (')r'(')). (5) 'lqllr' in four tesserae from Palmyra (INGHOLT 1955). (6) 'I qn 'r$ in a second century CE Neo-Punic inscription from Leptis Magna (KAI 129: 1). Note that the long fonn of this title has been read by J. T. MILIK in an inscription from Palmyra (Recherclres d'ipigraphie proche-orienTale [Paris 1955) 182): '[I g\\'lI' ')r(C)' W sm[y)'. Owing to the attestation of EI-CElyon in Gen 14: 18-22, along with the expanded EI title qllh smym w'r~, Melchizedek would appear to be a representative of the cult of EI-CElyon, whom the biblical tradition associated with the city of Salem (note that the reference to Yahweh in v 22 is absent in LXX, Syr, IQapGen: Sam attests 'I h'lhym). Most likely. Salem is a short fonn of Jerusalem. It only appears in one other place in the OT (Ps 76:3) where it stands in parallelism with --Zion. That Melchizedek's Salem was considered Jerusalem in Jewish tradition is evident in IQapGen 22: 13, which adds "that is, Jerusalem," to a reference to Salem, in Tg. Ollq., which renders it simply as 'Jerusalem'. and in Josephus (AliI. I: 180). It is attested in the Amarna Letters as Ii-rusa-lim (EA 290: 15). Owing to the likely connection between Salem and Jerusalem, a number of scholars have supposed Melchizedek to be the representative of a dominant Jebusite cult of EI-CElyon from which Israel drew much of its theological inspiration after the city's capture by David (e.g. SCHMID 1955: 168-197: CLEMENTS 1965:4348). Although this supposition is not without merit, Genesis 14 provides the only evidence to link the cult of EI-CElyl>n with Jerusalem. On the other hand, significant, though not decisive, evidence may be adduced that would render an easy association between EI- CElyon and the Jebusite cult open to question. One notes that the name Salem suggests links to the astral deity Salim (~Shalem). Funher, the names Melchizedek ('My king is $edeq') and

297

ELYON

Adonizedek ('My Lord is ~edeq·. Josh 10: 1)-both identified as kings of Jerusalem-suggest links to the West Semitic dei'ty ~edeq (-Righteousness). who may also. be an astral deity (note also David's high priest Zadok). These deities. Shalim and ~edeq, are at least as likely to have been central to the pre-Israelite Jerusalem cult. as it is that the cult of EI-CElyon was the dominant. religious institution (see fuller discussion in SEOW 1989:43-47). One notes that; even if the existence of a Jebusite cult of El-cEIy6n is granted, it is unlikely that the Israelite identification of Yahweh as EI'Ely6n derives itli origin from this tradition. The presence of CEly6n in Deut 32 and Num 24. which may in some fonn be pre-monarchical. gravitates against such a hypothesis. Further. as SEOW has convincingly argued, Yahweh is likely to have been venerated as EI-CElyon at the sanctuary of Shiloh well before David's capture of Jerusalem (SEOW 1989:11-54, esp. 41-54). As an epithet applied with a signitlcant degree of fluidity throughout the West Semitic region, it is easy to understand how CElyon may have made a relatively easy transition from EI-veneration to Yahwistic culLie tradition in early Israelite religion. Curiously. the OT traditions rarely attest CElyon standing alone, without modification. In the Aramaic sections of Daniel, however. references to Yahweh as CElyon ('/y>/l'h) often stand independently, without modification. although the intended referent is clearly Yahweh (Note that qdyly c/ywnyll is also attested). A similar phenomenon is evidenced in the frequent references to CElyon (hypsisros [a/tIIs in 2 Esdr]) in the apocryphal books (I and 2 Esdr, Tab. Jdt, Add Esth, Wis, Sir, Pr Man. 2 and 3 Macc). In Sir. it is the most common divine name after kyrios. The epithet also occurs in varous pseudepigrnphical works. particularly in T. 12 PaIr. In the NT, hyps;slos is a decidedly Lucan title for God (fREDlLCO 1989:58). Used five times in the Gospel of Luke (I :32, 35, 76: 6:35; 8:28) and twice in Acts (7:48: 16: 17), hypsislos is only attested in two non-Lucan

contexts-Qnce in Mark (5:7). and once in Hebrews (7: 1, which is a quotation of Gen 14:18). In Luke's Gospel, the tenn is employed in the angel's announcement to -Mary that her child will be called 'Son of the Most High' (I1ll;OS hyp.'iistoll: Luke 1:32) and that the 'power of the Most High' will come upon her (dyllamis "ypsistoll: Luke I :35). In I :76. Zechariah predicts that his son will be called 'prophet of the Most High' (prop"etes "ypsiSIOIl). Those who love their enemies are called 'children of the Most High' by -Jesus (hllioi hyps;sroll; Luke 6:35), and the Gerasene demoniac identifies Jesus as 'son of the Most High God' (lillie Iheoll 1011 "ypsiSIOIl: Luke 8:28 par. Mark 5:7: cf. Matt 8:29). In Acts, Stephan asserts that 'the Most High' (110 hypsistos: Acts 7:48) docs not dwell in houses made with human hands, and a slave girl from Philippi declares that Paul and his group are 'servants of the Most High God' (doll/oi toll theo" tOil "ypsistou: Acts 16: 17). Although there is not enough evidence to make a finn case, it would appear a~ if Luke employs the tenn hyps;stos or 110 "ypsistos in Jewish contexts. and ho t"eo... 110 hypsislos in Gentile ones. As TREBILCO (1989:58-59) suggests. this may be because Luke wa~ aware of the non-specific nature of the tenn "ypsistos in a Gentile setting and sought to avoid confusion by employing a superlative of more significance for Gentiles. [For a further discussion of the Greek data see -Hypsistos] IV. Bibliograp"Y N. A VIGAD. Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem (1971: lEJ 22; 1972) 193-200; R. E. Cl.EMENTS, God and Temple (Philadelphia 1965) 40-62, esp. 43-48: F. M. CROSS, Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs. HTR 55 (1962) 225259; CROSS, Callaallite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA 1973) 44-60; G. L. DELLA VIDA, EI CElyon in Genesis 14: 1820. JBL 63 (1944) 1-9; O. EISSFEl.DT, EI and Yahweh. JSS I (1956) 25-37: J. A. EMERTON, Some Problems in Genesis XIV, Studies ill the Pelllatelich (cd. J. A. Emerton: Lciden 1990) 73-102; L. R. FISHER,

298

EMIM - EMMANUEL

Abraham and His Priest-King. JBL 81 (1962) 264-270: J. A. Fitzmyer. 17,e Aramaic Inscriptiolls of Sejire (Rome 1967); J. HACKETT. The Balaam Text From Deir ; £axatov til; yii;, 'to the end of the earth' (Acts 1:8; 13:47) and 7t£tpata til; 'Y1i; (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31) occur. IV. Bibliography V. HAMP, 'epes, nVAT I (1971) 389-391; T. JACOBSEN, Tire Treasures of Darkness

de Rabbi Eliezer 9a). The discovery of the Enoch fragments from Qumran have added weight to the view that there was a wide range of speculation about Enoch of which the brief mention in Genesis is by no means the only or even the earliest example. Possibly the earliest evi-

B. BECKING

ENOCH lUi1 I. The enigmatic reference to Enoch in Genesis 5:24 has generated a welter of speculation about his person and a range of literature attributed to him which is found in a variety of fonns. Our knowledge of its early fonn has been transfonned by the discovery of the fragments from Cave 4 at Qumran, many of which correspond to what we know as J Enoch. This apocalypse is extant in its complete version in Ethiopic and includes a variety of material from different periods (the chapters 37-71, which speak of the -Son of Man and Enoch's identification with this heavenly figure, appear not to have been known at Qumran). II. The legend of Enoch's righteousness, his position in -heaven and his wisdom, provide opportunities for displaying a vast array of infonnation in the apocalyptic mode concerning astronomy, eschatology and paraenesis. The reference in chapter 5 of Genesis already suggests that at the time of the redaction of this chapter, probably during the Exilic period. speculation about Enoch was well established. The allusion to the 365 days of the year in the length of life accorded to him hints at the calendrical wisdom which was to be such an important component of the ideas about him in later

301

ENOCH

dence for speculation outside the Bible is to be found in I Enoch where, as a scribe, he is located in a privileged position (l Enoch 12). Such a position gives him access to God \\ith whom he intercedes on behalf of the -.Watchers (l Enoch 12), the fallen angels of Gen 6: 1-4. For this purpose Enoch ascends to heaven and, in a description reminiscent of the visions of Ezekiel and Isaiah and a prototype of later visions of God in apocalyptic literature and in the Jewish mystical (Hekaloth) tradition, he ascends through the palaces of heaven to receive a message of judgement from God on the Watchers (l Enoch 14). Following the heavenly ascent Enoch wanders the earth and visits many places including the Paradise of Righteousness. His position as scribe is echoed in Jub. 4:17-21 (cf. T.Abr., B 11), in which he is said to have been the first to have learnt writing nnd the signs of heaven. His final dwelling-place is in the Garden of Eden (sec also T. Benj. 10.6 and Christian testimony to Enoch's place in the heavenly paradise in Apoc. Paul 20. Clememine Recognitions 1.52. Acts of Pilate 25 and the Ascension of Isaiah 9.6). Here he writes down the judgement and condemnation of the world nnd acts as a priest Uburning the incense of the sanctuary, sweet spices. acceptable before the Lord on the mount" (lub. 4:23-24). This priestly role is one that is reflected in several later sources (e.g. Apostolic Constitutions 8.5; the Cave of Treasures and the Book of the Rolls). In' the Hebrew of Sirach, at 44: 16, Enoch's perfection is stressed and he is called a sign of knowledge Cot daCat) for every generation (cf. Jltb. 4: 17). In the same book, at 49:14. his ascent to God is referred to allusively (1IUqab pan;m. evidently a technical term meaning something like "taken into the divine presence"). In the Greek of Sirach, at 44:16, Enoch heads the list of famous men, the text claiming for him that he "pleased the Lord. and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations", a theme reflected in Philo's Questions on Genesis 1.82. At 49: 14 his translation is again noted, and the great

men named after him include -Joseph. -·Shem and -·Seth. He is said to have been unique (Unone was created like him"), which is proved by his translation from the earth (anelemphthe, cf. 2 Kgs 2: 11). In the Wisdom of Solomon Enoch is seen as the example of the righteous man whose death is mistaken as judgement but in whom in reality the wisdom and righteousness of age reached fruition in youth. Here he is said to have been snatched away (herpage). a verb used in the New Testament a.tl)!" The second one is Prov 30: 16 (LXX). a passage that does not have an exact parallel in the Hebrew Bible (cf. 24:51), where the translator enumerates examples of insatiability. among which Hades and passion for a woman (Ep~ Y\)\'0\1(09. It is clear that the author/translator views eros in a very negative light. So does the first century Graeco-Jewish wisdom poet Pseudo-Phocylides. a "'Titer who more than most of his Jewish contemporaries (apan

from Philo) devoted himself to drawing attention to the dangers of submitting to eros. He denies in a typically Jewish antiHellenistic way Eros' divinity: "Eros is not a god, but a passion that destroys all men! [or: a destructive passion of all men)" (193194: see the commenl appearance) may be semantically related to -'image' (representation> likeness). If so, one may also consider Akkadian personal names like dBE-$ClI-mll- ~ D1NGlR.ME~ '(the god) Ea is the image (representative) of the gods' (see CAD ~ 85). Greek lexicographers identify a certain goddess known as Sa/ambos (Etymologicum Magnum) or Salambo (Hesychius), names which are universally recognized by scholars mi coming from Semitic $/m btl 'Image of Baal'. This deity is identified in the sources as the goddess -. AphroditeAstarte. As is well attested in Akkadian literature, the $almll 'image' represents or substitutes for the presence of kings and deities. So, too, Aphrodite-Astarte was recognized as representing Baal in some way. The epithet $1m btl is in fact analogous to Phocn sml bel 'statue/image of Baal'. which ap-

322

FACE

pears in an inscnpuon from the Roman period dedicated "to our lord and to the the personal image of Bael" (KAI 12:3-4: name Pnsmlr 'presence of the image' in KAI 57). In sum, the expressions pn-DN, s/1I-DN. $ml-DN, and slm-DN in each case refer to a representation or a representative of the deity in question. III, As in many other languages, the Hebrew word for 'face' (pimim) may be used in the broader sense of 'presence'. The word may ; Eonv, with SPICQ 1982: 681-2). The only instance is in the Greek Life of Adam and Eve 36:3, where the sun and the -'moon are said to Jook like two black Ethiopians (35:4) who "are not able to shine because of the light of the universe, the Father of the lights, and therefore their light has been hidden from them". The words "the Father of the Iight~" are omitted here in a number of mss (see D. BERTRAND, La l'ie grecqlle d'Adllm et Eve [Paris 1987] 98. 139: in 38: I the words arc weakly attested as a variant). but they seem to belong to the original text (STROTMANN 1991 :294-296). Here, too. 'father' has the connotation of 'creator', upon whom the lumimlries are dependent. The same applies to Testament of Abralwm rec. B 7:6, where the expression 7tarTtP 'tou ¢rotO; is used of God in the sense of 'creator', allhough some take il to refer here to an angel or the archangel Michael (for this and the textcritical problem involved see STROTMANN 1991: 207-209: ibid, at 360-361 one finds a survey of various word-combinations in which 'father' means 'creator': in CD 5:18 and IQS 3:20 i{lf '0 rim. 'prince of lights', may refer to an -archangel or to God). ll1is Jewish terminology is used in Jas I: 17, where the train of thought seems to be that, although God is the Father of the lights. he is nevertheless fundamentally different from these heavenly bodies. because they are constantly moving but God is unwaveringly the

328

ta

FEAR OF ISAAC

same: "there is no variation or shadow due to change with him" (1: 17; cf. for a similar contrast Philo, De posteritate Caini 19). II.

Bibliography

M. DmELlus & H. GREEVEN, Der Brief des Jakoblls (KEK 15; GBttingen 1964); R. P. MARTIN, James (WBC 49; Waco 1988); G. SCHRENK, 1tanip, nVNT (1954) 1015-1016; *C. SPICQ. Notes de lexicographie lleotestamentaire Ill: SlIpplement (Fribourg-GBttingen 1982) 674-691; • A. STRaTMANN, Meill Vater bist Dll (Sir 51,10). 'Zllr Bedelltllllg der Vaterschaft Gottes in kanonischell IIlld llichtkanollischen friihjiidischen Schriften (Frankfurter Theologische Studien 39; Frankfurt 1991).

P.

'V. VAN

DER HORST

FEAR OF ISAAC pm;' ii1~ I. No definite interpretation can be given for the expression pa~lad yi~~ltjq. It only occurs in Gen 31 :42.53 (in the latter verse as pa~lad 'cibiw yi~~lciq). Pa~lad )'i$~lciq was interpreted as a divine name by ALT (1929) because of its archaic impression (cf. 'obir ya?lqob) and because of its apparent resemblance to divine names of the "God of X" type. This designation was used for the god of Isaac, which Alt thought belonged to the category of the God of the Fathers. II. The interpretation of the expression as a divine name. as well as the definition of the role and character of the deity in question, depend upon the interpretation of the genitive and of pa~lad. The expression may be translated in tenns of a genitivus sllbiectivlls or aIIctor;s , i.e. "Schrecken, der von Isaak ausgeht" (HOLZINGER 1898; STAERK 1899). The analogous phrase pa~ad yhwh points in this direction; it clearly characterises the terror worked by -·Yahweh in Isa 2:10.19.21; Ps 64:2 and 1 Sam 11:7; 2 Chr 14:13; 17:10 etc. In this case there would be no relation to the alleged God of the Fathers. LUTHER (1901) and MEYER (1906:255), however, thought Isaac (as the patriarchs in general) to have been an originally Canaanite local deity. This far-flung conclusion was dismissed for good by researchers starting with

~lt. Alternatively, the expression can be understood in tenns of a genitivlls obiectivus: One was to interpret pa~lad )'i$~/(jq "als archaische Bezeichnung des Numens (...), dessen Erscheinung Isaak in Schrecken gesetzt und eben dadurch fUr immer an sich gebunden hat" (ALT 1953:26, so again ALBERTZ 1992:54 [without further infonnation on how one is to conceive God in tenns of numinous terror». BECKER plays down the numinous, preferring to understand pa~ad in tenns of cultic "Ehrfurcht, Verehrung" (1965: 178). Yet, there is only scanty and late evidence for this (G. WANKE, nVNT IX, 200, only cites 2 Chr 19:7; Ps 36:2). MOLLER (1988:559-560) translates the phrase in tenns of a gellitivllS possesims, meaning Isaac to be "der Nutzniesser eines an Feinden wirksamen numinosen Schreckens". Since Alt's interpretation hardly fits in with the other characteristics of the ancestral deities described by him, ALBRIGIIT traced pa~lad back to the Palmyrene word pa~ldfi, Le. 'family, clan, tribe', to Ar fa{li4, 'a small branch of a tribe consisting of a man's nearest kin' and to Ug p{ld ('flock'). He suggested the rendering 'the kinsman of Isaac' (1946:327). This would square well with the personal names rooted in the same milieu, whose theophoric clements were fonned in using tenns of kinship (like (am, 'ab, 'a~l, Kinsman [-·Am), -Father, -Brother). Alt thought Albright's interpretation noteworthy; O. EISSfELDT (KS III [TUbingen 1966] 392), R. DE VAUX (Histoire ancienne d'lsrael [Paris 1971] 256261) and others agreed with it. Philologically speaking, however, this interpretation is not valid. Albright's explanation implies an irregular phonetic shift from Proto-Semitic cj to Hebrew d where one would expect z. Ug p{ld does not have anything to do with p~4 in the sense of 'thigh, clan'. Finally, "in no Semitic language is there a pabad, 'kinsman'. Only in Arabic, and in Palmyrene as a loan word, is there a pa~lad meaning 'clan, tribe'" (HILLERS 1972:92; cf. PUECtf 1984 and MOLLER 1980, with detailed analysis of the philological problems). Some exegetes work from an Aramaic root PI.lD II (cf. Ar fa{licj) in the sense of

329

FEAR OF ISAAC

'thigh' (BRASLAVI 1962; KOCKERT 1988; KOCH 1980 1988; MALUL 1985) which OCCUrs in Job 40:17 (HILLERS 1972:91, also with reference to the Tg of Lev 21 :20, which mentions paJ;.din, 'testicles'). Their reason for doing so is that paJ;.ad cannot be linked to n positive experience of God coming close (KOCH 1980:207) and that there is no evidence supporting the translation of paJ;.ad as 'kinsman'. Provided that it is correct to stan from the Aramaic root PIJD'II, one could read Gen 31 :53 to the effect that Jacob is swearing "bei del' Lcnde oder dem Zeugungsglied seines Vaters Isaak", whose procreative capacity "sich sogar in del' Fruchtbarkeit und Zcugungskraft del' zum Haus gehorenden Tiere auswirkt v. 42" (KOCH 1980:212). MALUL (1985:200), following BRASLAVI (1962) puts it slightly differently: '''The thigh of Isaac! ... symbolizes the family and ancestral spirits of Isaac". They were invoked for the "protection of their descendants". He explains the use of the Aramaic loan-word with a reference to the Aramaic context of the scene. In this interpretation paJ;.ad Y4J;.iiq has got nothing to do with a term characterising an ancestral god in the sense of Alt; the oath by the paJ;.ad 'libi",' may belong to the ancient fund of family religion, though. In Gen 31 the pabad of the father is not linked to his corporal presence. This is why UTZSCHNEIDER (1991:81) interprets it in terms of a 'numinoses alter ego' of the paterfamilias who plays an imponant part in the protection of family and property. His parallel is the ancient Roman Geniu.'i representing the procreative capacity and personality of the master of the house and to whom the members of the household take the oath (1991:84 with reference to G. WISSOWA, Religion lind Ku/rus der Romer [MUnchen 1902] 141-149). Objections have been raised on philological and technical grounds against derivation from Aram pJ;.d ('thigh, procreative capacity'). The shift from Heb z (from Proto-Semitic g) to Aram d is said to have occurred as late as the 7th century BCE (ALBERTZ 1992:54 n. 28, with reference to

=

I. KOTISIEPER, Die Sprache tier Abiqarspn'iche [Berlin & New York 1990», whereas the composition Gen 25-32· dates backaccording to E. BLUM (Die Komposirion der Viirergeschichre [Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984) 202-203)-to the late 10th century BCE. MOLLER (1988:561) says that one would rather expect -Laban to use an Aramaic loan-word, as is shown in v 47. The ceremonies of oath-taking that KOCH (1980=1988) and MALUL (1985; 1987) refer to for analogies (Gen 24:2.9 and 47:29) mention ylirek (not pa~lad), whereas conversely, neither ylirck nor the phrase "put the hand under the thigh" can be found in Gen 31 (MOLl.ER 1980). Obviously. they must be lacking because the father whose pa~lad Jacob swears by is not corporally present in Gen 31. lt is doubtful whether pa~rad itself can be understood in terms of a divine name. The personal and tribal name ~/pbd (Num 26:33; 27:1; 36:10; Josh 17:3) as vocalised by LXX provides too slim a basis. Besides, it is ambiguous (BECKER 1965: 173; LEMAIRE 1978:323-327; MOLLER 1980:120: "[schiltzender] Schatten des Pll~/{Uf'; cf. however PUECH 1984:360 n. 10: "L, cminte divine est un refuge"). This is why it is doubtful whether pa~/Qd might be justifiably compared to the god Phobos in Greek folkreligion. The latter is mentioned after -Zcus, though in advance of all other gods in a votive inscription at Selinunte dating back to the 5th century BCE. At Spana, a temple proper is said to have been dedicated to him (PW XXI:309-318). In Hellenistic days, PllObos is reduced to a mere bogy as shown in IG XIV:2413,8 (on an amulet stone) (cf. pa~/Qd /ll)'/ii in Ps 91:5 -.Terror of the Night and Cant 3:8). If. because of the philological problems, one does not want to interpret pa~wd as 'thigh', it is advisable to stan from pa~rad's original meaning 'terror' as attested in Hebrew and to interpret the phra.~ pabad 'db;\\' (which in terms of tradition history, is the more original one, KOCKERT 1988:62) in the context of Gen 31 (H. GUNKEL, Gent'sis [1910, 3rd ed.] 349). In the narrati ve, the introduction of pa~rad 'libiw is prepared for

330

FIRE

by the nocturnal appcarnnce of Jacob's family god in vv 24 and 29. In fact. this is about the fear with which the god threatens Laban to the advantage of (cf. IIJII Ii \' 42) Jacob and his kin. In confirming the tenns of contract with an oath to the pa~U1d 'iibiw (v 53), Jacob will draw the fear upon himself (in the context of the conditional curse uttered against oneself as implicd by an oath) if he breaks the contmct. We must leave it open. though, whethcr the fear worked by the deity watching over thc contmct. has "animatisiert" "zu einer eigenstandigen Gestalt, dem 'Schrecklichen'" (MOLLER 1988:560) or is "a principal attribute of the God of Isaac, whose protective power sows terror among all his enemies" (PUECH 1992:780). Ill. Bibliography R. ALBERTZ. Religiollsgeschichte Israels ill alrtestamentlicher Zeit I (ATO Erg. Bd. 8/1; Gottingen 1992) 53-54; W. F. ALBRIGHT, From the Stone Age to Christiallity (Baltimore 1946) 188-189; A. ALT, Der Gort der Wirer (BWANT 11I/12; Stuttgart 1929 = KS I [MOnchen 1953] 1-77) 24-29; J. BECKER, Gortesfllrcht i11l Altell Testament (AnBib 25; Rome 1965) 177-179; Y. BRASLAVI, P~ul y.Y~lq and the Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, Belh Mikra 14 (1962) 35-42; D. R. HILlERS, PAI:IAD YI~I:IAQ, JBL 91 (1972) 90-94; H. HOLZISGER, Genesis erk/lJrr (KHC I; Freiburg 1898) 206; M. KOCKERT, Viitergort lind Viiten'erheisslmge". Eine AlIsei"allderset:,wlg mit A. Alt lind seine" Erbell (FRLANT 142; Gottingen 1988); K. KOCH, pabad yi$l)aq - cine Gottesbezeichnung? Werden Imd lVirke" des Alten Testaments (ed. R. Albcrtz; FS C. Westennann; Gottingen 1980) 107-115 KOCH, Studien ZlIr alttestctmentlichell wul altorientllliscJlell Religiollsgeschicllte (Gottingen 1988) 206-214; A. LEMAIRE. Lcs Bene Jacob. RB 85 (1978) 323-327; LEMAIRE, A propos de paryad dans J'onomastique oucst-semitique, Vf 35 (1985) 500501; B. LUTHER, Die israelitischen Stamme. Z4lV 21 (1901) 1-76; M. r-.1ALUL. More on pa~zad yi$l)aq (Genesis xxxi 42. 53) and the Oath by the Thigh. IT 35 (1985) 192-200;

=

MALUL. Touching the Sexual Organs as an Oath Ceremony in an Akkadian Letter, IT 37 (1987) 491-492; E. MEYER, Die IsraeIite1l IIlId ihre Nachbllrstiimme (Halle 1906) 253-259; H. P. MOLLER, Gott und die Gotter in den Anf:ingen der biblischen Religion. Zur Vorgeschichte des Monotheismus, MOllotheis11IIIs i11l Altell Israel Will seiller Umwelt (cd. O. Keel: Fribourg 1980) 99142; MOLLER, pa~lacl, nVAT VI (1988) 552562; E. PuECH, "La crainte d'isaac" en Genese xxxi 42 et 53, IT 34 (1984) 356361; PUECII, Fear of Isaac, ABD 2 (1992) 779-780; H. P. STAHlI, p~ld beben, THAT II (Miinchcn 1976) 411-413; W. STAERK, Stlldiell :lIr Religiolls- lind Spracllgeschiclue des Altell Testaments I (Berlin 1899) 59-61; H. UrzscHsEIDER, Patrilinearit!it im alten Isracl-cine Studie zur Familic lind ihrer Religion, BN 56 (1991) 60-97.

M. KOCKERT FIRE

j~

The Hcbrew word for 'fire', 'e5, is common Semitic (with the exception of Arabic) but there is not a strong tradition of deified fire in the ancient Near East. Any echoes of this tradition in the Bible, therefore. arc harder than usual to detect. In spite of an apparent similarity with the Semitic word for 'fire' and even some association with fire (ROBERTS 1972), the Babylonian god gum was not a god of fire. However, al-~a-tlt docs occur as a divine name in Ebla (PETrrNATo, OrAm 18 [1979] 105) and ;st is a goddess in Ugaritic mythology. n. The Ugaritic goddess ;st, 'fire'. glossed klbt i1m, 'Divine Bitch' (KTU 1.3 iii:45), is listed among the deities defeated by -.Anat. Otherwise, she is unknown and has no role in Ugaritic religion. The Sumerian names for the fire-god are gihil or girra (Akk. girm). Ihe son of the sky-god Anu; his mother, possibly Sala, is probably of Human origin. Also associated with fire was the god Nus)....u (Old Aram IIsk). Philo lists the three Phoenician gods Phos, -·'Light', Pyr, 'Fire' and Phlox, -·'Flame' (Phoelliciall History in Eusebius. PE I 10.9) and the sc-

331

I.

FIRST BORN OF DEATH

cond can perhaps be identified with Ug ift. In Ps 104:4 fire and flame (if read IJ <w> Ihl for MT le.f fOhe!, where 'flaming' [m.] is in gender disagreement with 'fire' [f.J,) are -·Yahweh's ministers (mirt; here pl.), perhaps demythologized minor deities, but more probably metaphors for lightning. More vivid is the phrase "Fire Ceil walks ahead of him and sets ablaze his enemies round about" (Ps 97:3). Joel 2:3 is less clear. Yahweh uses fire as a means of punishment (Gen 19:24; Num 11: 1-3; Deut 32:22; Amos I :4 etc.) or to consume sacrifice (Lev 9:24; Judg 6:21). In addition, Yahweh is portrayed as a -+Humbaba-type figure, breathing smoke, flames and fire, in 2 Sam 22:9 (= Ps 18:9): Isa 30:27.33; 33:11; 65:5. He manifesl~ himself in fire: as the "smoking fire pot and flaming torch" in the covenant rite (Gen 15: 17), in the burning bush (Exod 3:2) and as the pillar of fire (e.g. Exod 13:21). In Deut 9:3, "Yahweh your god who crosses over [the Jordan] ahead of you is a consuming fire Ci 11..'111)". IV. Bibliography A. I. BAUMGARTEN, 71,e Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A Commentary (& lit] (Leiden 1981) 152-153; R. S. HENDEL, 'The Flame of the Whirling Sword': A Note on Genesis 3:24, JBL 104 (1985) 671-674; W. G. LAMBERT, Fire Incantations, AfO 23 (1970) 39-45; ·P. D. MILLER, JR., Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel, CBQ 27 (1965) 256-261; J. J. M. ROBERTS, 17,e Earliest Semitic Pantheoll. A Study of Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Vr III (BaltimorelLondon 1972) 40-41; M. S. S!llml, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol 1 (VTSup 55; Leiden 1994) 306-307 and 306 n.158.

m.

W.

G. E.

WATSON

FIRST·BORN OF DEATH mo ii~:J I. Though the deity -+Mot ('Death') occurs frequently in Canaanite and Israelite lore, the expression bikor mowet (translated either 'First Born of Death' or 'First Born Death') occurs only in Job 18:13 in a context having to do with death and disease.

The Hebrew term beMr (fern bekira) clearly refers to the first-born (human or animal) as does the majority of cognate terms (cr. Aram b{ikro" Ar bikr, Eth bakwr. OSA bkr, Ug bkr). In contrast, the Akk cognates bllknt ('son, child, offspring') and bllklln" ('daughter') refer primarily to deities (rarely to humans) and are not restricted to the firstborn which is usually designated with the addition of the modifier reJtu, 'eldest' (CAD B, 309-310). Akk baknt (fern bakanll) is used in MB personal names to refer to the first-born. II. In order to describe the ancient Near Eastern background for the expression 'First-born of Death' scholars have looked to the Ugaritic and Mesopotamian literature which mention various deities associated with death and disease. Three deities (Mot. -+Resheph, and Namtar) have been promoted as particularly relevant to understanding the connotation of bikor mowet in Job 18: 13. The Ugaritic texts are our single most important source for depicting the Canaanite deity Mot ('Death'). Yet even in these texts we are told little about Mot's immediate family or ancestry. He bears the epithets 'the son of -+EI' (bn ibn) and 'Beloved of EI' (yddlmdd if), yet no reference is made to whether he was the eldest child. We have no reference to any children of Mot first-born or otherwise (although we do have the curious Ugaritic personal name bn mt which P. WATSO:"J (Mot, 17,e God of Death at Vgarit and in the Old Testament [diss. Yale 1970] 155) translates 'son of Mot'. cf. the Hebrew personal name 'aMmot I Chron. 6: 10). These data are congruent with what we know to be an absence of a cult of Mot at Ugarit. There is no mention of Mot in any of the pantheon lists. His name is absent from all the sacrificial and offering lists as well. It is thus not surprising that we have not found any sanctuary dedicated to him. The cult of the Canaanite god Resheph is well attested throughout Syria-Palestine and far beyond (Egypt, Ugarit, Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia) usually in syncretism with other deities (see Y. Y ADlN, in

332

FIRST BORN OF DEATH

Biblical and Relat(>d S1IIdies Presented to Samuellwry led. A. Kort & S. Morschauser: Winona Lake 1985J 259-274 [& lit)). Here,

it is relevant to note that Resheph in Northwest Semitic mythology was a god of pestilence and, contrary to Mot, was thought to have children (to judge from Job 5:7). A pantheon list from Ugarit identifies Resheph with -·Nergal, the Mesopotamian deity of pestilence and the underworld. Resheph is also associated with 'arrows' at Ugarit (KTU 1.82:3) and in Cyprus (KAI 32:3-4) which some take to refer to his role in bringing plagues (although S. IVRY construed the arrows as a sign of luck because of the practice of belomancy: cf. \V. J. FULCO, The Canaanite God ReJep [New Haven 1976]49-51; J. C. DE MOOR, UF 16 (1984) 239). Resheph's connection with plagues and pestilence is also found in Hab 3:5 (cf. Dcut 32:24) where he forms pan of Yahweh's chthonian entourage along with -Dcber ('Pestilence'). ~Itost noteworthy for the present discussion is the reference to 'the sons of Resheph' in Job 5:7. Historians of Israelite religion use Job 5:7 (and similarly the hekor miiwet material [see below)) to fonn one of two conclusions. They argue that the expression 'the sons of Resheph' refers either to (a) the children of Resheph (= minor deities) who, like their father, bring disease or (b) a transfonned biblical idiom (emasculating Canaanite myth) for various forms of illness. But these are not mutually exclusive positions. A vivid mythology can still underlie figurative language. Namtar was a Mesopotamian deity associated with bringing plague and pestilence. He is best known as the sukkallu, vizier (minister or 'lieutenant') and mar sipri, messenger, of Ereshkigal, the queen of the underworld (cf. the Nergal and Ereshkigal myth). He also bore the titles s"kkal er$eti 'the vizier of the underworld' (CAD S, 359) and 'the offspring (ilit1ll) of Ereshkigal'. Namtar is not explicitly called the first-born of EreshkigaI. This has not prevented scholars from drawing such a conclusion (see below).

The Akk word namtam (Sum nam,tar) can also refer to 'fate, destiny' as well as a group of demons who were harbingers of death (CAD N I, 247-248). Thus illnesses may be referred to in a personified fonn as 'the sons of Namtar' who as messengers leave the underworld and overcome humans (S. MEIER, The Messenger in the Anciellt Semitic World [HSM 45; Atlanta 1988J 122). III. Biblical scholars, depending on the degree to which they think Canaanite myth has penetrated the Bible, treat the expression bekOr mawet in one of three ways. I) The phrase 'first-born of death' is an idiom for deadly disease. Even some scholars who recognize the Canaanite imagery of Mot behind this text conclude that the expression here is largely metaphorical. Thus M. H. POPE (Job [AB 15: Garden City 1973J 135) comments that "the view commonly held that the expression is a metaphor for a deadly disease, or for the specific malady that afflicts Job ... is probably correct". L. R. BAILEY (Biblical Perspecti~'es on Death [Philadelphia 1979J 41), who views the phrase 'the first born of death consuming one's limbs' as a formalized idiom for the deterioration of the body, recognizes a vestigial usage behind Bildad's speech, yet concludes that Bildad "likely would not mean thereby what a Canaanite might mean, that the god Mot ('Death'), a demonic, autonomous power, had seized the person". Further support for bekor mawet being an idiom may be found in the expression bekore dallim ('the first born of the poor') in Isa 14:30; but the meaning of this expression is equally difficult. bekOre dallim is taken by some scholars to designate the very poorest of society (parallel to 'ebyo1lim, 'destitute'). Similarly, bekiJr mawet could refer to the deadliest of diseases. IIuiwet is also used idiomatically on its own (without bekiJr) to represent superlatives with a negative sense (8. K. \VALTKE & M. O'CONAn Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Sytl1QX [Winona Lake 1990J 269; D. \V. THOMAS VT 3 [1953J 219-224; VT 18 [1968J 122-123). NOR,

333

FIRST BORN OF DEATH

The phrase bfkOr nuiwet may find an analogue in the expression ben mawet (lit. 'a son of death') which refers to someone deserving death (1 Sam 20:31; 26: 16; 2 Sam 12:5; cf. rVOT II 153). In these passages ben mawer certainly docs not refer literally to a son of Mot. If P. K. MCCARTER'S (lJ Samllel [AB 9; Garden City 1984] 299) translation of 'scoundrel, damnable fellow' would prove to be correct one could posit a deri\'ed meaning. 2) The phrase 'First-Born of Death' is a title referring to an offspring (representing a particular disease) of a deity representing or associated with death and/or diseases. This interpretation relies heavily on the cognate material from neighboring cultures mentioned nbove. Namtar was a popular choice prior to the discovery of the Ugnritic texts. E. DHORME (A Commentary on the Book of Job [Nashville 1984 from 1926 French original] 265), for example, argued that "as a general rule, the SllkalJU is the first born ... of the god who employs his services". Even after the Ugaritic discoveries, a few scholars have argued that a strong circumstantial case can be built that the nuthor of Job was referring to Namtar. Most recently BURNS (1987:363) notes that Namtar is Ereshkigal's offspring (i/i1111). He also argues that "in Mesopotamian mythology the first-born, if male, was generally the vizier of his parent". Reasoning in reverse direction, if we know that Namtar was Ereshkigal's vizier, then he may have been her first-born too. Thus BURNS concludes that Namtar is 'The First-Born of Death' in Mesopotamia and the likely deity behind Job 18: 13. The weakness of this view is the lack of attestation of Namtar bearing the explicit epithet 'first Born of Death'. If this epithet was so well known that the author of Job borrowed it, should not one expect to find at least n single example of the epithet in the extant Akkadian corpus? In addition, the data are hardly precise. First, Namtar is never called the 'first-born' of Ereshkigal and secondly, Ereshkigal, the queen of the netherworld, is not identical to a deity who personifies 'Death'. The majority of biblical scholars have

been influenced by the Ugaritic texts and their description of the activities of Mot, the god of Death. Such scholars reject Namtar as a likely candidate preferring to tum to cognate evidence from an adjacent Canaanite culture. U. CASSUTO (The Goddess Anat [Jerusalem 1971 from 1951 Hebrew original] 63) was one of the first scholars to bring in the Ugnritic data for Job 18: 13. He concluded that "11Iawet is a distinct personality that has a first-born son, and this son is, as it were, the embodiment of the diseases". Following CASSUTO, SARNA (1963:316) equated the -·King of Terrors in Job 18: 14 with Mot whose first-born son (bek6r mawet) would "occupy the same position in Canaan as did Namtar, the ... son of Ereshkigal in Babylonian mythology". The weakness of this view is the simple fact that Mot is nowhere described as having children. When the study of the Ugaritic texts was still in its infancy, some scholars (N. M. SARNA, JBL 76 [1957J 21 n. 54; but cf. SARNA 1963:316 n 13) thought that KTV 1.6 vi:7-9 may have described seven sons of Mot, yet further studies have shown that the seven lads (shit glm1l) mentioned in this text are most likely servants of Mot whom he consumes. Yet lack of any mention of Mot's offspring is not an insurmountable problem and may be due to our limited number of texts. POPE (Job [AB 15; Garden City 1973] 135) admitc; Mot's lack of children yet states that "it is understandable that any deathdealing foree like disease or pestilence might be regarded as his offspring". Other scholars would disagree, with some (BURNS 1987:363) suggesting that Resheph would be a more likely candidate for a Canaanite god of pestilence who has children. 3) Similar to the second view, the third views look.o; to the mythological cognate material (particularly the Ugnritic sources). Yet this alternative differs in treating bek6r mawet as an attributive genitive in which the two words stand in apposition to each other (cf. B. K. WALTKE & M. O'CONNOR, All Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Sylllax [Winona Lake 1990] 149-150). Thus they translate 'Firstborn Death' a~ a title of Mot who. they posit, wac; the first-born of -·EI. WYATT (1990:208) remarks that, by see-

334

FLAME

ing Mot behind the term beM, mtiWel, we are free from the 'wild goose chases' that have to look far afield to come up with a plausible offspring of a death deity. Furthermore he argues, death-like plagues are often personified by Resheph who is nowhere described as a child of Mot. Though a circumstantial case can be built for Mot being the first-born of El (WYAlT 1990:210-211), we have no explicil evidence that ~'lot \\las the first-born child of EI. Ugaritic knows the concept of the first-born (cr. KTV 1.13:28; 1.14 iii:40; 1.14 vi:25; 1.15 iii: 16) yet never uses the term bk, to refer to Mot, or for that matter, to any other deity. We are also not cenain about the meaning of Mot's title 'the Beloved of El'. Rather than a tenn of endeannent, some scholars (BURNS 1987:362) think this title is actually "a euphemism for a feared and repulsive divinity". WVAlT (1990:211-212; Bih 66 [1985] 112-125) counters that yddl mdd is not an expression of affection or a euphemism, but rJther a legitimation formula. which "lends weight to the idea that Mot (along with Yam) wa-; understood in Ugarit to be El's first-born, even if the tradition did not actually say so". Grammatical analysis may present an· other problem with this view. Attributive geniti\'es arc vcry common in biblical Hebrew, yet the noun which serves as the attributive genitive is usually an abstract noun of quality. Thus the use of the noun nuiwel as an abstmct genitive in the expression heM, mowel would correspond to the adjectivc 'dead'. In shon. if heM, mower is an example of an abstmct genitive, it would more likely mean 'a dead firstborn' rather than 'firstborn Mot'. Funhermore, heM, is a relational term which seems to call for its source to be expressed in the genitive. It is hard to read beM, l1u;wer without asking the question 'the first-born of whomT In conclusion, it is safe to say that scholars will continue to analyze bek6, III,;wer in one of these three ways depending on the amount of Canaanite mythology they find in the entire chapter of Job 18 which contains other allusions to Mot such as the King of Terrors. IV. /Jibliography

J. B.

BURNS, The Identity of Death's FirstBorn (Job xviii 13), VT 37 (1987) 362-364; N. M. SARNA, The Mythological Background of Job 18, JBL 82 (1963) 315-318: N. \VVAlT, The Expression BeM, Mtiwel in Job xviii 13 and iLIi Mythological Background, VT 40 (1990) 207-216.

T. J.

LEWIS

FLAME :Jil' I. Three terms for 'flame' in Hebrew, ldhcib, lehcibli and salheber are all derivations from the same root. LiID. Another root is LHT, 'to blaze up, flame'. 'Flame' has sometimes the trailS of a deity in the Bible. II. The only divine name for flame attested oULel, and 'A:.giid, it is very doubtful as well that gd is a theophoric element. Gaddi means 'My fortune' rather than 'My Gad'; Gaddi'el (compare thc extra-biblical gdyhw), probably means 'EV God is fortune', or 'Blest of God' (though the presence of two theophoric elements is not cxcluded), whilc 'Azgiid contains apparently the name of the deity, plus the divine appellative 'Strength, Protection' ('Strong is Gad'?). Compare also the extra-biblical Hebrew names gdyw, gdmlk ('Gad is king' or 'the King is fortune'), and >bgd ('Gad is father' or 'thc [divincJ Father is fortunc') (FOWLER 1988:67-68). IV. Gad is attested in later Jewish literature, in which he was idcntified with the planet Jupiter. The name also acquired the general meaning of nllmen 'spirit' (see F. DEUTZSCII, Isaiah [Grand Rapids 1980J 482-483). V. Bibliography G. W. AHLSTROM, Was Gad the God of Tell ed-Duwcir?, PEQ 115 (1983) 47-48; M. L. BARR~. The God-Ust in th~ Treat)' between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia (Baltimorc 1983) 64-67; F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the Phoenician and PlInic 111scriptions (Romc 1972) 294-295; H. J. W. DRIJVERS, The Religion of Palmyra (Leiden 1976) 13.19; T. FAHD, U panthlon de I'Arabie celltrafe

fa veille de I'Htgire (Paris 1968) 78-80; J. D. FOWLER, Theophoric Personal Nam~s ;n Ancient Hebrew. A Comparative Study (JSOTSup 49; c)

Shcfficld 1988) 67-68, 322, 340; G. GARBINI, Note di epigrafia punica-I, RSO 40 (1965) 212-213; F. GRONDAHL, Die Per-

OIlS Ugarit (Rome 1967) 126-127; C. GROTTANELLI, AstarteMatuta e Tinnit-Fortuna, VO 5 (1982) 103116; H. B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. A Stmcrural and Lexical Srudy (Baltimore 1965) 179; W. A. MAJER III, Gad (Deity), ABD 2 (1992) 863864; D. SOURDEL, Les mites du Hallran a I'epoqlle romaille (Paris 1952) 49-52; J. TEIXIDOR, The Palllheon of Palmyra (EPRO 79: Leiden 1979) 88-100.

sonennamen der Tate

S. RIBICHINI GAlUS -. RULER CULT GEPEN i~j I. Gapnu, 'the vine'. is well attested as a divine name in the Ugaritic mythological texts, always in the binomial gp" W IIgr, 'vine(yard) and ficld' (KTU 1.3 iii 37; 1.4 vii 54; 1.4 viii 47; 1.5 i 12). In spite of some disscnting opinions, this interpretation of the names is widely acccpted today (PARDEE 1989/1990). The Ugaritic namc is etymologically connected with Heb gepell, 'vine' . II. GINSBERG (1944) has established that, in spite of the lack of separatc attestations of 8pfJ and IIgr, various accompanying forms in the texts show that thc phrase gpn w IIgr does not designate a single deity, but two. The primary function of thcse two deities was to serve as -'Baal's messengers (see S. A. MEIER, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World [HSM 45; Atlanta 1988J 124-128). To date, neither of the deities is attested in the ritual tcxts, whilst no personal namc attests unambiguously to the use of gpn as a thcophoric clemcnt. III. Though a deified gepen has not becn identified in the Hebrew Bible, the word is on occasion used metaphorically. In Hos 10: 1 and Ps 80 the people of Israel are likened to a vinc. A similar usage of the term occurs in the New Testament in Jesus' claim (John 15:1) to be thc true vinc (ampelos) and his fathcr thc vincdresser (ge6rgos). Such metaphorical usc of the

341

GETHER

term does not indicate, however, that the vine was ever deified in ancient Israel. IV. Bibliography H. L. GINSBERG, Baal's Two Messengers. BASOR 95 (1944) 25-30; D. PARDEE. A/O 36/37 [1989/1990] 446.

D.

PARDEE

GETHER "irJ J. Gatharu (g!r) is attested as a divine name in several genres of Ugaritic texts (vocabulary texts. rituals. a letter) and in sacrificial lists from Emar. The name is also attested as a theophoric element at Mari. It is plausibly derived from a root GIR. It denotes 'to be strong', provided that the relationship with the Akkadian adjective gasnl be accepted. where the strength denoted is particularly fierce and war-like. The god Gatharu has been tentatively connected with the bibilical anthroponym Gether (Gen 10:23). The deity is most clearly at home in Syria in the sccond millennium BeE. though the veneration of the deity in first-millennium Phoenicia is attested by the personal name bdgsr (P. Bordreuil apud PARDEE 1988:92 n. 56). The divine determinative on the first element of the personal name dGa-as-mm-gamil (ARM 22: 13 ii 28) proves the existence of the deity by the eighteenth century. while multiple appearances in the Emar tcxts illustrate his relative popularity on the middle Euphrates in the fourteenth century (D. ARNAUD, EIIZar V1/3 [1986] 268, text Msk 74298a:7'; p. 354. text 373: 274:19' 119' = Msk 742913; p. 375. text 379:5 Msk 74264). DE MOOR has suggested the presence of this deity behind the Sumerian divine name Ninurta in EA 74:31 (1990:244; see N. NA'AMAN. UF 22 [1990] 252-254. for the history of the discussion and another hypothesi s). The vocalization in Ugaritic as ga-Ja-m (= IghtaruJ) is known from three entries in one of the polyglot vocabularies (J. NouGAYROL, Ug V [MRS 16; Paris 1968] 248249, text 137 IVa 15; IVb II, 13). In this vocabulary, Gatharu is given each time as

n.

=

=

the equivalent of the Hurrian diety mi·i!-k,,lm(-ni), apparently the Hurrianized form of the West Semitic deity Milku. On the other hand. the Sumero-Akkadian equivalent appears to vary. TiSpak being extant in the first entry (137 IVa 15). NingirsulSakkud in all probability to be reconstructed in the others (137 IV b II. 13: cf. NOUGAYROl, ibid.• p. 248 n. 7. and W. W. HALLO & W. L. MORAN. JCS 31 [1979] 72 n. 23: W. L. MORAN. LAPO 13 [1987] 252 n. 10). These equivalences show that Gatharu wa.~ considered at Ugarit to have both chthonic and belligerent characteristics. The divine name occurs as the theophoric element in the proper name (Mgtr (F. GRONDAHL. Di~ PersollClllram~n d~r Tc.ttc ails Vgarit [StP I: Rome 1967) 131). Gatharu plays an important role in the ritual text 1\7V 1.43:11.14. while the existence of a statuette of this divinity is proven by a letter according to which 'the gods' Baclu and Gatharu are entrusted to two individuals (KTV 2.4). It is in the form of such a statuette that Gatharu would have participated in the 'rite of entry' prescribed in KTV 1.43:9-16. The existence of distinct statuettes of Ba'lu and Gatharu proves that Gatharu was not identified with Baclu. as some scholars havc held (M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, VF 12 (1980] 175: DE MOOR 1990:72 n. 174: cf. PARDEE 1988:91-92 n. 56). This datum is congruent with the data provided by the polyglot texts. where Gatharu is never identified with a weather deily. The understanding of the divine name at Ugarit is complicated by the occurrence in the ritual texts of a form written 8!n11 (KTV 1.43:9. 17. 19: 1.109:26: 1.112:18. 19.20). interpreted by some as a dual. by others as a plural (for an overview of opinions, sec PARDEE. Tcxtes ril/lC/S. f.c.• chap. IV). Becausc one of the sets of occurrences (KTV 1.43) of 8!n1r is in immediate contiguity with g!r. Jpi (the Ugaritic solar deity). and yrb (the principal Ugaritic lunar deity). one plausible interpretation is to see g!nll as a plural, i.e. as a substantivized adjcclive referring to 8!r, ipJ and yrb (PARDEE 1993: idem. Textes ritue/s, f.c .. chap. IV). No evidence exists as yet for the

342

GHOST - GIANTS

identification of a royal figure in the Ugaritic dynastic lineage who would have borne the same name as the divinity (DIETRICH & LoRETZ 1992:69, 73). III. Though the name Gether in Gen 10:23 may indeed be derived from the same root as the deity Gat/lam (as a 'son of Aram', the correspondence IV : Itl poses no problem), it is impossible to say whether the biblical name directly reflects the deity (DE MOOR 1990:244). The theonym is not yet attested in Aramaic sources. IV. Bibliography G. DEL OLMO LITE. Ritual procesional de Ugarit (KTU 1.43), Sefarad 46 (1986) 363371; M. DIETRICH & O. LoRETZ. "la/m'e lmd seine Aschera". Anrhropomorphes KllltbUd in MesopOlamien. Ugarit lind Israel. Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9; MOnster 1992) 39-76; J. C. DE MOOR, 71,e Rise of Yahwism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990): D. PARDEE, Les textes para-mythologiqlles de la 24e Campagne (/96/) (RSO IV; Paris 1988) 83-94. 10 1-103; PARDEE, RS 1.005 and the Identification of the g!nn, Rilllal llml Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (OLA 55; ed. J. Quaegebeur; Lcuven 1993) 301-318; PARDEE. Les textes rillleis (RSO; Paris, f.c.); P. XELLA, I Test; Rilllali di Ugar;t. I. Test; (StSem 54; Rome 1981) 43-54. 86-90. D. PARDEE

GHOST -. SPIRIT OF THE DEAD GIANTS yiyavtE~ I. In the strict sense the Gigantes in Greek mythology were the serpent-footed giants who were born from the blood-drops of the castration of Uranus (-.Heaven) that had fal1en on -·Earth (Hesiod TheogollY 183-186), The term gigaflles occurs about 40 times in the LXX and refers there respcctively to: a) the giant offspring of 'the sons of God' and 'the daughters of mankind' (Gen 6:1-4; Bar 3:26-28; Sir 16:7); b) strong and mighty men, like -Nimrod (Gen 10:8-9): c) several pre-Israelite peoples of tal1 stature in Canaan and Transjordania. The etymology of the name, which may be pre-Greek, is unknown, but was in Antiquity

thought to be Y11YEvit~ or 'born from earth'. II. As Gaea-Earth was vexed with the sorry fate of the -·Titans after their battle with the Olympian gods, she now stirred up her other sons, the Giants, against the Olympians. They endeavoured to stoml heaven by building a tower (cf. Gen II :4), that is by piling up the mountains Pelion, Ossa and -'Olympus on top of one another (Homer. Od. 11,315-316). According to an oracle, the gods could not destroy the Giants unless they were helped by a mortal man. In the ensuing Gigantomachy it wa~ -·Heracles who assisted the gods. killing off the Giants with his arrows after they had already been wounded. mainly so by -·Zeus' thunderbolts (Apol1odorus. Ubrary 1,6,1-2). Out of their blood-drops that fel1 on Earth such a new race of savage and bloodthirsty men was born that Jupiter destroyed them by the Rood (Ovid Metam. 1,151-162; 262-312). Not all of them were killed. however, though some were punished in the Nether World or Tartarus and were supposed to lie as prisoners under islands and volcanoes. In Antiquity the story was sometimes believed Iiteral1y, skeletons of whales or dinosaurs being explained ali the bones of the Giants (Suetonius, AlIglIslIIs 72,3), but sometimes it was dismissed as fiction (Plato, Emh. 6b-c; Resp. 2.378c). Between these two extremes there were various other opinions: Ephorus of Cyme considered the Giants to have been a historical tribe of barbarians in Chalcidice which had been defeated by Herncles (FGH 70F34); Proclus saw the Gigantomnchy psychologically as the battle between reason and the lower passions (/n Plat. Pamlenidem 127c), Joannes Lydus as the victory of sunlight over winter (De mellsiblls 4,3), etc. As a literary motif it was often used in panegyrics in honour of rulers or generals who had defeated the tall Celts or Germans: Claudian makes the Visigoth Alaric ac; the 'Giant' the opponent of the god Eridanus, the river Po (On the 6tll Conslliship of Honorills 178186). III. In the LXX-translation the word yiyavtE~ correponds to four or five Hebrew words or expressions in the ~1T: (I)

343

GIANTS

=

-+nlpilim the offspring of the sons of God (Gen 6:1-4); rarely the same people as (2), in Num 13:33; (2) -repil'im, the tall, original inhabitants of the promised land; the word was also left untranslated as Rafacim or Rafaein e. g. Gen 15:20; (3) 'sons of Rtlpha(h)', the eponymous ancestor of the rlpll>im (2 Sam 21:22); (4) 'sons of tanaq;m' (Deut 1:28), tall people living near Hebron (Num 13:22.33) and in Philistia (Jos 11:22); the remaining instances of Hebrew tanoq;m are matched in the LXX by Enakim, only in Deut 9:2 by Enak; the Hebrew name has nothing to do etymologically with "AvaKE or ot "AvaKE~ (as the - Dioscuri, who were otherwise gigantic of stature, could also be called) because the latter derives from an older Greek FaVOlCE(Q: (5) gibbtJrim, strong, mighty men or heroes, such as Nimrod. In the MT a number of these Hebrew names occur side by side, as synonyms, (I) and (4) at Num 13:33, (I) and (5) at Gen 6:4, (2) and (3) at 1 Chr 20:4-8, and (2) and (4) at Deut 2:1011. It is therefore quite understandable and expectable that all could apparently be rendered by the one Greek term 'Yi'YavtE~, sometimes with the variant reading T\ tcivEC;. A god whose sons marry mortal women on earth, could, of course, by opponents of Judaism easily be taken to refer to no one else than Cronus, whose sons Zeus and -Poseidon had a reputation for having fathered many earthlings, especially ancestors of royal dynasties, such as Heracles the son of Zeus from whom the Macedonian kings claimed descent (Plutarch, Alexander 2,1). Probably in order to prevent such interpretations, the expression 'the sons of God' was replaced by 'the angels of God' in a Dumber of manuscripts of the LXX and also by Philo of Alexandria. He denies that Gen 6: 1-4 is a piece of mythology and likewise makes 'the giants' sons of 'the angels of God' and of canhly women, while he explains their name as 'the earthbom' or those who indulge in the pleasures of the body (On the Giants 6 and 58-60; Questions and Answers on Gen 92; cf. also Josephus Alit 1,73). These -angels were sinners be-

too

cause they mixed with mortal women, and their sinful giant children were named Nephilim, since they caused the downfall of the world (so Gen. Rabbah 26, 7, deriving the name from ';::lJ 'fal1'). In J Enoch 6,2 one finds the combination Ol anUOl ulol tOU eEOU to refer to the giants' fathers, while Syncellus' version of this passage has ot. t'YPtlY0POl or 'the -·watchers' (so also in T. Rub. 5,6; cf. tot'j',t) or jj'j',t) in 4QEn a, I, 1,5 etc.). It was they who taught people on earth all kinds of science and technology (l Enoch 7,1), and astrology in particular (ibid 8,3). According to Jub. 8,3 K5.infim, here the son of Arpachshad (contrary to Gen 5:9 and 10:24), even found rock inscriptions made by 'former' generations (Syncellus and Cedrenus: "of the giants"), which contained the very teaching of these Watchers, which is then further described as the observation of celestial omens (cf. Gen. Rabbah 26,5). Josephus, however, ascribed not only the inscriptions, but also the invention of astronomy itself to the sons of Seth (Am. 1,70-71). Apart from these passages there existed a special, more detailed apocryphon about the Giants, of which only fragments have been preserved from Qumran (4 QEnGiants, in Aramaic) and from the Manichaean tradition (in Soghdian and Uigur). Here the various giants have received names, and of two of them, the brothers Ohyah and Hahyah, it is related that they had prognostic dreams, which were then explained by -Enoch. The race of the giants was mostly supposed to have drowned in the Flood (3 Macc 2,4; Wis 14,5-6), numbering then 409.000 (3 Apoc. Bar. 4, I 0). Their souls lived on as evil spirits who caused harm to mankind (e. g. J Enoch 15.8-16,1; Jub. 10,1-3; Test. Sal. 17,1). The angels who had sinned were "thrown down", according to 2 Pet 2:4 by God himself into "the Tartams", to be kept there for the coming judgment. The author makes use here of the verb 'taptap600, which is the typical expression for the punishment of the Titans. cf KatEtaptap1 2, II Teilband (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969; English Translation Philadelphia 1983).

P. W.

COXO:-I

GILLULII\I C'?l'j £i&oAa I. Within Ihe context of OT anti-iconic polemics the designation of deities and/or their images as gi/lli/im occurs 48 times (39 in Ezek). The etymology. of the noun is a subject of discussion. Many scholars follow BAUDISSIN (1904) in deriving Biblical Heb gi//liJim from a hypothetical singular noun ·galal 'stela', whose vocalil;ltion has been deliberately modified by the Israelite prophets to correspond to the vowel pattern of the word siqqli~im -·'abominations'. This interpretation rests on an observation in the Aramaic-Greek

bilingual

Palmyrcne

in-

scription CIS 147, where Aramaic giJii/ii' corresponds to Greek On;ATl 'stela', both of which correspond semantically to Biblical Heb l1w$$ebii. Thus an originally neutral term for 'cult objects' became a dysphemism for deities other than thc LORD. as well as for the cult statues, that represented those deities (PREUSS, nVAT 2, 1-2: HALAT 185 sub a). Medieval Hebrew exegetes and others regard gi/lu/im as a dysphemism. They assume that the ternl is derived from g~Jii/im which means 'faeces' (e.g. Ezek 4:12, 15; 22:3: 30:13) and that the term gilili/im was meant to make people abhor the worship of deities other than the LoRD (HALAT75 sub b: SCHROER 1987:418-419). II. The majority of the biblical references to gil/l11im are found in the Book of Ezekiel. which, like the Book of Jeremiah, continually points to Judaeans' worshipping other gods during the last generation before

the destruction of the Temple. It has been suggested that Ezekiel was the author of the term gil/li/im (SCHROER 1987:418). He might, however, have adopted the designation from the deuteronomistic writers. Most likely, the background of this emphasis on gil/li/im 'idols' during the period between Josiah's reform (622 BCE) and the destruction of the Temple (586 BCE) is the failure of that reform to provide a religious institutional infrastructure for worship of the LoRD. As an outcome of the royal reading of the Torah Scroll found in the Temple (2 Kgs 22) all altars for worship of the LoRD other than the one on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem must havc been destroyed. WEINFELD writes in his commentary on Deuteronomy (1991 :80), "The destruclion of the high places and the provincial sanctuaries crealcd a vacuum, which was filled by the institution of thc synagogue. After the reform, the people who, until this point. had entered into their religious experience in a sanctuary close to where they lived or in a high place situated in their town, needed to find a substitute. The aboliton of the high places without any provision of a replacement for them would have been tantamount to the destruction of daily religious experience, a thing that, unlike in our own times, would have been impossible in the ancient world. This substitute was found, therefore in prayer and reading of the book of the Torah, which comprised the worship of God in the synagogue." Weinfeld is correct in his argument thnt for many Judaeans, at least, a substitute had to be found and was found. However, the oldest extra-biblical evidence for the institution of the synagogue is from 3ed century nCE Egypt. However, it is not the argument from silence which challenges Weinfeld's suggestion that the synagogue wa~ the substitute for the erstwhile "high places" but rather the clear voices of the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. These books tell us that when the Josianic reform had successfully dismantled Yahwistic high places all over the Land of Isnlel, many Judeans found a substitute in what Ezekiel calls the 'idols': "You shall know that I am

346

GIRL

the LORD when yuur slain lie among the 'idols' round about their altars, on every high hill, on all the mountain tops, under every green tree, and under every leafy oak-wherever they presented pleasing odours to all their gil//ilim 'idols'" (Ezek 6:13). The nine biblical references to gil//i1im, 'idols', outside the Book of Ezekiel consist of references to King Asa of Judah's attempt to eradicate the worship of gods other than the LORD (I Kgs 15: I); Ahab's embracing the worship of ->Baal (I Kgs 21 :26): the practice of idolatry in the Nonhern Kingdom (Samaria), which justified God's allowing the nonhero tribes to be exiled by Sargon II after 720 nCE (2 Kgs 17: 12); King Manasseh's and King Amon's royal patronage of idolatrous cults (2 Kgs 21: II, 21); King Josiah's attempt to remove idolatrous cults (2 Kgs 23:24); two references to the destruction of Israelites' iduls in Pentateuchal imprecations calling for the punishments of the Israelites should they be disloyal to the LORD (Lev 26:30: Deut 29:16): and Jeremiah's reference to Babylonian cult statues as ta~abbC//{i and gil/ii1e/ui, both meaning 'her idols, her cult statues' (Jer 50:2). The LXX translates gil/Mim with EiOWAa 'idols' (it occurs 91 times, but it should be noted that EiOWA.oV is often a translation of ta$ab, pesel, and other tenns). The derogatory sense is taken over in the l\TT, where EiowAov is used in a polemical context II times, of which 7 are by Paul (4 times in I Cor: 8:4.7: 10:19; 12:2). Paul regards eiOWAa not as divine, but as demonic powers. They do exist, but they do not exist 'for us' (cf. I Cor 8:6; see HOnNER 1980: 938-939). III. Bibliography W. W. BAUDISSIN, Die alttestamentliche Bezeichnung der Gatzen mit gilliilim, ZDMG 58 (1904) 395425; D. BOOl, Les gil/lilim che? Ezechiel et dans I' Ancien Testament, RB 100 (1993) 481-510: M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel (AB 22; Garden City 1983); C. R. NORru, The Essence of Idolatry, VOIl Ugarit "ad/ Qumrall (ed. W. F. Albright:

BZAW 77; Berlin 1958) 151-160; H. D. PREUSS, gil/tilim, nVAT 2 (1974) 1-5: H. H OONER, elowAov KtA., EWNT J (1980) 936-941: S, SCHROER, III Israel gab es BiIder (OBO 74; Freiburg & Gottingen 1987) 418419; M. WEINFELD, Deuterollomy /-11 (AB 5: New York 1991). M. J. GRUBER GIRL jjili~ I. The identity of 'the Girl' in the phrase "A man and his father go to the girl" (Amos 2:7) is most probably solved when interpreted as a depreciative designation of a female deity, perhaps ->Ashima (ANDERSEN & FREEDMAN 1989:318-319) or -> Ashera. II, The identity of the deity being unknown, it is impossible to provide information about her. In the ancient Near E.1St comparable words can be used when referring to the feminine deity: in Mesopotamian hymns related to marriage between -·Ishtar and Dumuzi (-+Tammuz) the goddess is presented as a young nubile woman (WILCKE 1976-80:84): in Ugaritic texts ->Anat receives the epithet bllt 'virgin' (for instance in the Baal-cycle KTU 1.3 ii:32); from Ugarit the designation of a member of a despised class of female deities as emit 'handmaid' is known (KTU 1.4 iv:61). III, Following the Old Greek translation ('A man and his father go to the same maid'), the phrase in Amos 2:7 has been interpreted as a designation of illicit sexual conduct (most recently REIMER 1992:39-42) or as a reference to a sacred marriage and/or prostitution (e.g. BIC 1969:57-58). The wording of Amos 2:7, however, docs not imply a kind of forbidden sexual behaviour (BARSTAD 1984: 17-21). The institution of cultic prostitution in the ancient Near East is unprovable (RENOER 1972-75). Relating Amos 2:7 to 2:8, Burstad surmises that in these verses there is a polemic against the institution of the manea~/ (a guild-like gathering of upper class people, with slightly religious ovenones; Amos 6:7; Jer 16:5; Ugarit: KTU 1.20-22: 1.114). He interprets the jjl,1;: 'maid' ac; a l1lanea~/·hostess

347

GLORY

(BARSTAD 1984:33-36). The paral/ellismlls membrorum with Amos 2:8 'in the house of their God' suggests the interpretation of as a divine being (ANDERSEN & FREEDMAN 1989:318-319). The designation of this goddess with jjjJ)J -the tenn refers to a subordinate person-suggests, that iijJ)J is a nick-name, indicating the religious evaluation of the deity by Amos. The use of the anicle in iiiJ)~' indicates that she was a deity well-known to the Samarians. Any identification with otherwise known deities remains hypothetical. IV. Bibliography F.!. ANDERSEN & D. N. FREEDMAN, Amos (AB 24A; New York 1989); *H. M. BARSTAD, The Religious Polemics of Amos (VfSup 34; Leiden 1984); M. Ble, Das Bllch Amos (Berlin 1969); H. REIMER, Richrer allf das Recht! Srudien zur Borschaft des Amos (SBS 149; Stuttgan 1992); J. RENGER, Heilige Hochzeit, A. Philologisch, RIA 4 (1972-75), 251-259; C. WILCKE, Inanna/Btar, RLA 5 (1976-80) 74-87.

in!1j

B. BECKING

GLORY

'i:l~

00;0

I. Kabod occurs 200 times in MT, but doxa 453 times in the LXX (since it is also

used as a translation of more than 20 other Hebrew tenns) and 166 times in the NT. The standard translation, 'glory', is inadequate, for it does not convey the specific connotations of these words. The LXX trartslntors chose in doxa a tenn which in classical Greek means 'opinion' or 'repuUtion', especially good reputation, hence also 'honour'. It is not quite clear how doxa could be found suitable to render kiib6d as the luminous phenomenon characteristic of theophanies or even as the name of the human-like fonn of God (NEWMAN 1992: 134-152). II. The basic idea of the Heb kiib6d is that of weightiness. People become 'weighty' through riches. "Abraham became very weighty in livestock, in silver, and in gold" (Gen 13:2). Through his cattlebreeding, Jacob became 'weighty'; long life and child-

ren have the same effect (Prov 3: 16: Hos 2: II). The word kiib6d was also used of the sentiments inspired by the concrete blessings. God gives Solomon "both riches and kiibOd" (I Kgs 3: 13). "He who possesses righteousness and love. finds life. prosperity and kiib6d" (Prov. 21: 12). The restored -Zion will be given the "kiib6d of -Lebanon" (lsa 35:2). The 'weighty' person is given more kiibud by giflC> (Num 22:17.37; 24:11; Judg 13:17; I Sam 9:6-9). God is given kiibOd by praises (Ps 22:24; 29: 1-2.9; 96:7; Isa 24: 15). God's 'glory' is to be perceived in his works, Le. the world, human beings, and historical events (Num 14:21-22; Ps 8:5; 57:6.12; Isa 6:3). In the age to come. it will be revealed so that all flesh will see it (Isa 40:5; Hab 2:14). This revelation of divine glory can be connected with the restoration of Israel (lsa 42:8; 43:6-7; 48:10-11; 58:8; 60: 1-3) and/or God's judgement (lsa 59: 19; Ezek 28:22; 39: 13.21). In some texts belonging to the Priestly Document (P), one of the sources of the Pentateuch, the Glory is associated with the Pillar of Cloud and fire, which according to older sources. encompassed -+ Yahweh leading the People through the desen and indicated God's presence at the Tabernacle: ..... the Glory of Yahweh appeared in the Cloud" (Exod 16: 10): "The Glory of Yahweh rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it ... the Glory of Yahweh looked ... like a devouring flame on the top of the mount" (Exod 24: 16-17: ef. 40:38: at night. there was fire in the Cloud); "The Cloud covered it [the Tabernacle), and the Glory of Yahweh appeared" (Num 17:7: cf. Exod 24:43-44). While the description of the Glory in Exod 24: 16-17 may reflect the memory that Mount Sinai was a volcano (NoTiI 1960: 131), other texts seem to suggest a cultic background for the concept of the Glory. When the Cloud covered the Tent, the Glory 'filled' it (Exod 40:34-35). The Glory 'filled' the Temple (I Kgs 8:10II ). Lev 9:23-24 appears to connect the Glory with the altar fire consuming the sacrifice. In the light of I Sam 3:3 and 4:21.

348

GLORY

the Glory would rather seem to be some sort of lamp associated with the Ark (cf. Exod 27:20-21). Some OT texts attribute a human-like form to God's Glory. In Exod 33:18-34:8. it is told that God arranged for Moses to see his Glory (~1T Exod 33: 19 actually reads 'Goodness'. but LXX has 'Glory': v 22 as well as v 18 reads 'Glory'). Due to a merger of different sources. however. it is related that Moses saw God himself. albeit only his back (33:23: 34:6). TIle picture emerging from this story is that of indistinguishability between the divine Glory and the anthropomorphous Deity. The relationship between God and his Glory is here thus comparable to that between God and the --Angel of Yahweh. the human-like Messenger of God. In Ezek I, the prophet recounts that he once had a vision of a throne-chariot in heaven. Seated upon the throne was a "Iikeness as the appearance of a man ('adam)" (v 26). Ezekiel describes the body of this figure: his torso was like gleaming metallic substance, and his lower body was like fire. The prophet concludes: "This was the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of Yahweh" (v 28). In 8:2, Ezckiel relatcs another vision of the Glory. again describt=d as a "likeness as the appcar,mce of a man" (cmending 'es, 'firc', to 'is. 'man': cf. LXX and the Old Latin, 'man'). The body of this figure is described similarly to that of the Glory in I :27. In 8:2, however, the Glory appears without the throne-chariot. In the second appearance of the throne-chariot, this time in the Temple, the Glory moves from above the chariot and takes up a position in another part of the sanctuary (10:4). The Glory is thus not bound to the throne. In Ezek. 9:3-4, Yahweh and the Glory even appear as interchangeable, as is the case with God and the Angel of Yahweh in Genesis, Exodus and Judgcs: "Now the Glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherubim on which He rested to the threshold of the house and called to the man in linen ... and Yahweh said to him ..." However, the Glory has a radiant body and is accompanied by phenomena similar to

those associated with the Glory in the P source and the texts influenced by it: When the Glory rose from the -cherubim, the Temple was "filled with the Cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Glory of Yahweh" (9:4). In Ezekiel, the Glory is also associated with the Temple. Because of the sins of Israel, the Glory leaves the Temple (11 :2223). When Israel is restored, the Glory will return (43:2). Seen as returning from the mountain cast of the city, the Glory is assimilated to the sun god entering the temple each morning (43:1-5; cf. 11:23; 44:1-2; 47: I; Zech 14:4: Slikkah 5:4, citing Ezek 8: 16: see MElTlNGER 1982). III. Ezek I :26-28 was the staning-point of a mystical tradition describing the vision of the divine Glory on the heavenly --throne. J Enoch 14: 18b-21 ponrays the 'Great Glory' enrobed in a splendid white garment and seated upon a crystal-like chariot-throne whose wheels are like the sun. None of the angels can look upon him, but --Enoch, after having been transponed to heavcn, was granted a vision. T. Levi 3:4 contains a shon reference to the vision of the 'Great Glory' dwelling in the Holy of Holies in the uppermost heaven (cf. 5: I). In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch chaps. 37-71). which may be somewhat younger than the rest of J Enoch, God is known as the 'Lord of Glory' (40:3). Another divine name which is used is 'Glory of the Lord of the Spirits' (41:7; cf. 40:4-7.10, where 'Lord of the Spirits' is parallel to 'Lord of Glory'). God's throne is called the 'Throne of Glory' (9:4: 47:3: 60:2; cf. Jub 31 :20). If 'Glory' docs not qualify the 'Throne', but refers to its occupant, special heed must be given to the idea that God places his vicegerent, the 'Elect One' or 'Son of Man', upon the 'Throne of Glory' (45:3; 55:4; 61 :8; 62:2 [reading, "has seated him", instead of, "has sat down"]: 69:29). The latter executes the eschatological judgement. When the -Son of Man is introduced in J Enoch, he is described as one "whose face was like the appearance of n man" (46:1). This is reminiscent of the representation of

349

GLORY

the Glory in Ezek 1:26 and the descriptions of an especially important angelic figure in Daniel. It is possible that the "one like a son of man" as well as the -'Ancient of Days in Dan 7 go back to the figure of the Glory in Ezekiel (PROCKSCH 1950:416-417: BALZ 1967:80-95). Moreover, the "one like a son of man" appears to be identical with the special angel who is described as having the "appearance of a man" (8:15; 10:18) or being in the "likeness of the son of men" ([variant, "son of man"] 10:16). The descriptions of this angel allude to the representation of the Glory as a "likeness as the appearance of a man" in Ezek 1:26 (FEUILLET 1953:183-202; BLACK 1975:97). Influence from Ezekiel and Daniel can be seen in various descriptions of the principal angel of God (ROWLAND 1982:94-109). In T. Abr.. both Adam and -+Abel arc enthroned "in heaven, the latter being the judge of the souls. With reference to Adam, who is sitting on a golden throne, it is said that "the appearance of the man was fearsome, like that of the Lord" (Rec. A, 11:4). In Rec. B, Adam's throne is said to be a 'Throne of Great Glory" (8:5). Sitting upon a crystal throne which blazes like fire. Abel is "a wondrous man shining like the sun, like unto a son of God" (Rec. A, 12:5). Joseph and Asenarh 14:3 describes the angel -+Michael as a 'man' or '(one) similar to a man'. One manuscript reads 'man of light', apparently identifying Michael with the "great and unutterable light" which appeared when the henven was tom apart (v 2; cf. T. Abr. Recension A, 7:3, where Michael, descending from the opened heaven, is a luminous man, shining more than seven suns). His heavenly enthronement is assumed, because he has a crown and a royal staff (v 9). Sib. Or. V:414 as well as Joseph and Asenarh 14:3 (and T. Abr. Recension A, 7:3) testifies to the idea of the man-like figure who "comes from heaven" (cf. 1 Cor 15:47). In Sib. Or. V:415, he has a "sceptre in his hand which God has given him". In Apoc. Abr. 11:3, the angel Yahoel, who is said to be "in the likeness of a man", possesses a 'golden sceptre'.

In the Exagoge of Ezekiel Tragicus, -·Moses has a vision of a noble 'man' seated upon an enonnous throne on the summit of Mount Sinai (Eusebius, Praep. E\'. IX 28:2). The 'man' hands Moses his diadem and sceptre, and then leaves the throne to the prophet. Here we can detect influence from exegetical occupations with the vision of Moses and his companions as related in Exod 24: 10, "And they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet a~ it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness." Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. take this to be a throne vision, the occupant of the throne being called the 'Glory (yfqara' [an Aram equivalent of kObOd]) of the God of Israel'. The Samaritan theologian Marqah takes the 'sapphire stone' to be the 'Throne of the Glory (kaboe/)' (COWLEY 1909:25 line 15). The name 'Glory' in Marqah's work docs not denote God, but is a designation of the Angel of Yahweh (FosSUM 1985:224-225 [ef. Tg. Ps.-J., which says that the 'yeqara' of the God of Israel' is the 'Lord of the world', a title which could refer to the principal angel as well as to God (b. Yeb. 17b: b. Hull. 60a: b. Sallh. 94a; Exod R. 12:23: 3 Enoch 30: 1-2; 38:3; Pirke de R. Eliezer chap. 27)]). In a rabbinic tradition ascribed to R. Mcir (2nd cent. CE), the 'sapphire stone' in Exod 24: lOis said to be the 'Throne of Glory', the proof-text being found in Ezek I :26, which says that the throne of n man-like figure of the Glory was "in appearance like sapphire" (b. Mell. 43b). In the mystical Merkabah texts ([mdauh] merkabah being a later technical term for the throne-chariot in Ezek 1 and even for the chapter itself), we find detailed descriptions of the Shi'lir Qomalt, the 'Measure of the [divine] Body', upon the heavenly throne. Now these accounts clearly do not refer to "the 'dimensions' of the divinity, but to those of its corporeal appearance. ... Already the 'Lesser Hekhaloth' interpret the anthropomorphosis of the Shi'lIr Komah a~ a represenl41tion of the 'hidden glory'" (SCHOLEM 1954:66: cf. FOSSUM 1989: 198).

350

GLORY IV. The NT continues the usage of the LXX; doxa in the NT should often be seen as a technical tcnn loadcd with the Jewish understanding of "glory". Doxa is a phenomenon of light characteristic of angelophanies, theophanies, and Christophanies (Luke 2:9: 9:31-32; Acts 7:55; 2 Pet 1: 17). The Son of Man will come in or with God's glory (Mark 8:38 [cf. 2 Thess 1:7]: 13:26; cf. 10:37: Malt 19:28). The Gospel of John speaks of "seeing" the glory of God (II :40) or the glory of the Son (1:14: 12:41; 17:24; cf. 2:11). In 1:14 ("we saw his glory"), the background may be the vision of the Glory described in Exod 33: 18-34:8 (HANSON 1977:90-1 (0); it is thus possible that John regards the Son not only as thc one who manifests the divine presence and power through his words and works, but as the personified Glory. It is notewonhy that the phrase "saw his glory" is repeated in 12:41: "he [Isaiah] saw his [Christ's] glory". Isa 6:1, however, reads "I saw the Lord seated upon a high and lofty throne... :. Tg. Isa. 6: 1 reads, "yeqdrd' of the Lord", but Tg. Isa. 6:5 says that the prophet saw "the glory (yfqdrd') of the Shekinah of the King of the Worlds". While sekina in the Targums is gcnerally regarded as a buffcr word meant to safeguard God from coming into too close contact with the world, the Merkabah mystics used it as an alternative tenn for the Kabod. Thus, Macaseh Merkabah contains the statement, "I gazed upon the Shekinah and saw everything that they do before his Throne of Glory (kiibod)" (SCHAFER 1981 :§592). Whcn it is said that Isaiah saw the glory of -~Christ, it is implied that the Son is the divine manifestation upon the heavenly throne, even the Glory. There are other NT texlc; where -·Jesus may be seen as the Glory. The conjunction kai ('and') in Acts 7:55 may be epexegetical: " ... he saw the Glory of God. namely (kai) Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (MARTIN 1967:312). The idea of Jesus being seated at the right hand of the "Power" (Mark 14:62 [Luke 22:69: "Power of God"]). however, may be taken to imply

that he was enthroned alongsidc the Glory, since the mystical tcxlC; use "Power" as a synonym of "Glory" (FOSSUM 1989: 191193). The christological hymn in Phil 2 says that Christ was "existing in the fonn (morphe) of God" (v 6). This dcscription corresponds to the subsequent incarnational phrases, "taking the fonn of a slave", "becoming in the likeness of men", and "being found in the fashion as a man" (vv 7-8). Given the OT evidencc that God's visible fonn is the man-like fonn of the Glory. Phil 2:6 would seem to say that Christ is the divine Glory. The same idca is expressed by the title, "image of the invisible God", in the beginning of the hymn on Christ in Col I: ]5-20 (FOSSUM 1989: 185-190). In Biblical tenninology, "image" (and "likeness"), "form", and "glory" are interchangeable (FOSSUM 1985:269-270.284). In Eph I: 17, we find the phrase, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. the Father of the Glory". The parallelism suggeslc; that "our Lord Jesus Christ" is "the Glory". Tit 2: 13 may be translated, "the Glory of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus". Here Christ Jesus may be the Glory of "our great God and Saviour". Jas 2: I, a notoriously difficult verse to translate, may in effect say, "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory". I Pet 4: 14 says, " ... the Spirit of the Glory and of God rests upon you." Here, too. the Glory may be the Son. Phil 3:21 speaks of Christ's "body of glory" to which the body of the believers will be conformed. The tenn may reflect that of glip hakk.{ib6d or glip haJJekina found in the Jewish mystical texts (SCHOLEM 1991 :278 n. 19). The idea that one who ascended to heaven was transfonned, often as a result of the vision of God (or his gannent) or the divine Glory, is found in several texts (MORRAY-JONES 1992:11.14.22-26). In 2 Cor 3:18, Paul says that the Christians, "gazing with unveiled face on the Glory of God, are being transfonned into the same image, from glory to glory." Here mystical tenninology has been adapted to describe what goes on when the

351

GOD (I)

Christians are reading the Scriptures. In contrast to the Jews (cf. vv 13-16; 4:4), the Christians see the Glory of God. Moreovcr. they are transformed into thc "samc imagc". obviously that which they behold. A few verses later, it is said that Christ is thc "image of God" (4:4). The Glory obviously is Christ. Rom 8:29-30 says that the clect will be "conformed to the image of His Son" and be "glorified" (cr. vv 17-18; Col 3:4; I John 3:2). The same eschatological adaptation of this thought is found in I Cor 15:49, ..... we shall bear the image of the heavenly man." Paul can even say that the Christian male is the' "image and glory of God" (I Cor 11:7). The statemcnt alludes to Gen I :26 and presupposes that Christ is the heavenly Adam, the Glory, after whose image and likeness man was creatcd (cf. 4Q504. frag. 8, "You have fashioned Adam, our Father, in thc image of [Your] Glory"). Thcre is some evidence from latcr times that also the Spirit of God could be seen as the Glory (FOSSUM 1983, 284 n. 94), but biblical foundations for this view are wcak. In Ezek 8:3, the glory, whose body is described in the preceding verse, is referred to as the "Spirit". A Jewish amulet, which appears to allude to Ezekiel's description of the retreat and return of thc Glory, calls the Glory pneuma hagi6s)'nes, the "Spirit of Holiness" (PETERSON 1959:351-352). T. Levi 18:6 says: "And the Glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him, and the Spirit of Understanding and Sanctification shall rest upon him". This rcfers to the possession of the Spirit by the Messiah in Isa II :2. The Glory might here be equated with the Spirit. In Rom I :4, it is said that Jcsus was designated as the Son of God "kata the Spirit of Holiness by resurrection from the dead". The rcsurrection of Jesus may here be undcrstood as being effectcd by the Spirit. In Rom 6: 1, it is stated plainly that Jesus was resurrected by the Glory of God. V. Bibliography H. R. BALZ, Methodische Probleme der nelllestament/ichen Christologie (WMANT 52; Neukirchcn 1967); M. BLACK, Die Apo-

theose Israels: Eine neue Interpretation des daniclischen "Menschensohns". Jesus und der Menschensohn. A. Vogtle Festschrift (cds. R. Pcsch & R. Schnackenburg; Freiburg 1975) 92-99; A. E. COWLEY, The Samaritan UlItrgy (Oxford 1909); A. FEUILLET, Le fils de l'hommc et In tradition bibliquc, RB 60 (1953) 107-202. 321-346; J. E. FOSSUM. Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism. VC 37 (1983) 260287: FOSSUM, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (WUNT 36; TUbingen 1985); FOSSUM. Colossians 1.15-18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism, NTS 35 (1989) 183-201; A. T. HANSON, John I, 14-18 and Exodus 34. NTS 23 (1977) 90-100; R. P. MARTIN, Cannen Christi (SNTSMS 4: Cambridge 1967); T. N. D. MEmNGER, 77,e Dethronemem of Sabaoth. SlItdies in the She", and Kabod 77leologies (ConB OT series 18; Lund 1982) 80-115; C. R. A. MORRAy-JONES. Transformational Mysticism in the ApocalypticMerkabah Tradition. JJS 43 (1992) 1-31; C. C. NEWMAN, Paul's Glory Christology (NovTSup 69; Lcidcn 1992); E. PETERSON, Friihkirche, Judentum und Gnosis (Rome 1959): O. PROCKSCH, Theologie des Alten Testaments (GUtersloh 1950); G. QUISPEL. Ezekiel I :26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis. VC 34 (1980) 1-13; C. ROWLAND, The Open Heal'en (London 1982 and reprints); P. SCHAFER, Synopse :.lIr HekhalotUteralltr (TSAJ 2; TUbingen 1981): G. SCIfOLEM, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd cd.; New York 1954); SCIIOLEM. On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead (New York 1991). J. E. FOSSUM GOD (I) O'i1?~ I. The usual word for 'god' in the Hebrew Bible is )eWhim. a plural formation of 'elOah, the latter being an expanded form of the Common Semitic noun 'if (-Eloah). Thc term )elolzim occurs somc 2570 times in

the Hebrew Bible. with a variety of meanings. In such exprcssions as "all thc gods of Egypt" (Exod 12: 12) it refers to a plurality

352

GOD (1)

of deities-without there being a clear distinction between these gods and their --images. Far more frequent is the use of the plural with reference to a single being: --Chemosh is the 'eMhim of Moab (I Kgs II :33); the plural here is a pluml of excellence or of majesty (Joaon/Muraoka § 136d). Though having the generic sense of 'god', the tenn is also used in an absolute sense ('the god'. e.g. Gen 5:22) whence it developed the function of a proper name ('God'): when an Israelite suppliant says his soul thirsts for 'elOhim he is not referring to just any god but to --Yahweh the god of Israel (Ps 42:3). Since the Israelite concept of divinity included all praeternatural beings, also lower deities (in modern usage referred to as 'spirits', 'angels', 'demons', 'semi-gods', and the like) may be called 'elOhi",. Thus the -+teraphim (Gen 31: 30.32), anonymous heavenly beings (Ps 8:6; LXX CiyyEA.Ol), and the -+spirits of the dead (I Sam 28: 13) arc referred to as 'gods'. A metaphorical use of the tenn-metaphorical from our point of view-occurs when it is applied to living human beings, such as --Moses (Exod 4: 16; 7: I) and the king (Ps 45:7). Other Hebrew words for 'god' are 'iif (--EI) and 'eMah. Though both arc used as proper names ("EI your father", Gen 49:25; "Can monal man be righteous before EloahT', Job 4: 17), they can also have generic meaning: in the latter case they arc more or less interchangeable with 'eMlzim (RINGGREN 1970-73:291). Gods can also be collectively referred to with the constructions belle 'elim (Ps 29: I; 89:7), belle 'e!611i1ll (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2: I; 38:7; cf. Oeut 32:8 4QOeut, see SKEHAN 1954), or bene t £1)'011 (Ps 82:6). The latter expression ('the sons of --Elyon') suggest'i the possibility that the second clement of the construction be understood as a proper name of a single deity, so that the expressions compare with Ug and Phocn bll il(lIl) 'the sons of EI' (MULLEN 1980:117-119: KAI no. 26A iii 19, and commentary in KAlIl, p. 43). In view of the Ugaritic fonnula. the plural 'eli", in Pss 29: 1 and 89:7 may have

to be interpreted as the proper name EI followed by enclitic memo The expression tadat 'e! ('the council of EI', Ps 82:1) might be taken in corroboration of that possibility (--Council). II. The main cultures surrounding ancient Ismel have each developed special vocables for the notion of deity. Though these \\lords are currently rendered as 'god' by modern translators, it should not be assumed that the ancient Near Eastern conceptions of 'god' are in perfect correspondence with those of modern people. It is therefore essential not to stop shon at the mere translation of the tenns, but to probe their significance and connotations by a careful study of the way and the context in which they have been used. In Egypt the customary word for god is lI!r. The word occurs as an element in the new name Pharaoh gave to -+ Joseph (Gen 41 :45): Zaphenath-paneah, m.ll::ii:~~, is interpreted by Egyptologists as cjd-pHI!riw.ftn[J, 'God has said: he will live' (H. RANKE, Die iig)'ptischen Personennamell, Vol. 2 [GlUckstadtlHamburg 1952] 334). N!r is conventionally pronounced as 'ne!er', though the Coptic noyte makes an original pronunciation 'na~ir' more likely (HORNUNG 1971 :30). The etymology of the tenn is uncenain: so is the original significance of the hieroglyph for 1I!r: speculation about the one or the other gives no assured indication as to the nature of the gods (contrast WESTENDORF 1985). It seems more relevant to note that the word is applied to gods, kings, and the dead. The same holds true of the adjective lI!r)', 'divine' (TRAUNECKER 1992: 34-35), which may also be used with reference to animals and inanimate object'i. All beings and object'i that panicipate in the sphere of the sacred (cjsr, for the distinction between profane and sacred, see ASSMANN 1984:9-10) are 'gods', and thus 'divine'. It has been suggested that in the Egyptian conception divinity is not an essential but an accidental quality: one becomes and remains 'god' or 'divine' only by means of cenain rites (MEEK 1988). While this is perhaps put too boldly, it is cenainly true that the di-

353

GOD (I)

viding line between gods and humans is not absolute. Also, some gods are more 'divinc' than others; thus -+ Isis is said to surpass thc other gods when it comes to divinity (HORNUNG 1971:53). Many of the charactcristics of gods are not ex.c1usively theirs: gods are said to be 'great't 'powerful', 'strong', 'beautiful' (nfr), 'compassionate', 'ex.alted·. and 'righteous'. A survey of this short list shows that the qualities of gods are basically those of humans; the fonner possess them merely in purer form than the latter. What actually raises the gods above ordinary mortals is primarily their power; a goddess can be more divine than her peers if she is more powerful. This power, however, was precarious; concentrated in the name of the god, it could be lost if the secret of the name were divulged (TRAUNECKER 1992:3638). Gods were believed to be recognizable by their scent and radiance: they had the penetrating smell of incense. stirring humans out of their sleep (HORNUNG 1971: 122-123); their radiance is that of polished gold. Both elements are based on the reality of the temple cult, in which the brilliant images of the gods stood erect in a cloud of incense. Between these images and the gods they represented there was believed to be a close correspondence. The appearance of gods was believed to be accompanied, moreovcr. by such phenomena as storm, thunder. and earthquake-the traditional elements in theophany descriptions. In exceptional cases the appearance of humans (e.g. the king) was thought to produce similar effects. In order to define the relation between divine essence and manifestation the Egyptian theologians have had recourse to a number of notions, the precise meaning of which is sometimes still obscure. An important aspect of the gods is their ba. The ba (bl). often translated 'soul'. is an hypostasis of the gods (or the dead) in their capacity to move from one realm (one reality. one plane of being) to another. Thus the dead arc present among the living as ba'll (the plural of ba), iconographically rendered as birds. The

ba of thc god is his visible face to humans. Thus the night is the ba of Kek. the deified obscurity; watcr is the ba of Nun. thc primaeval ocean. Though the ba is distinguished from the god. the god is really present in his ba. The example shows that the Egyptians had by no means crude notions of the gods; on the contrary. they developed a sophisticated theology rich with distinctions no less subtle than the Deuteronomistic distinction between God and his -·name or his -+glory. It should be stressed that the Egyptian gods are not eternal. not all-seeing and allknowing. and not all-pmverfuI. The gods are not eternal because they have a beginning and an end; gods are born and eventually die. The birth of -+ Horus is a well-known mythological thcme: yet birth is an experience all gods have gone through. Similarly, the death of -·Osiris is a constant theme in mythological material: yet decrepitude and death (which in the Egyptian conception is not the same as complete annihilation) await all gods. Gods arc entangled in the cyclc of life and death without which the world cannot subsist. Their death is also a form of regeneration and renewal. Likewise. gods possess neither unlimited faculties of perception nor absolute powers of action. Some arc credited with many ears and many cyes; yet omniscience is out of their reach. The power of the gods is exalted. yet circumscribed: it is limited to a topographical area or a specific field of action. In their abilities and qualities gods are superior to humans. yet not infinitely superior. Owing to the nature of the extant sources an outline of the development in the Egyptian notion of god is a hazardous endeavour. The once popular view that the anthropomorphic vision of the gods was preceded by a theriomorphic and a chrematomorphic stage (the thesis of the VenllclIschlichulIg der Mlichre championed by Kurt Sethe) is now eithcr abandoned or radically modified. In the historically recoverable phases of the Egyptian vision of the gods, an anthropomorphic element has always been present. Yet it would be misleading to picture the

354

GOD (I)

Egyptian theology as :l stagnant pool: there is change and movement, though often difficult to perceive because of the strongly conservative nature of the written sources. One development many researchers agree upon is the increasing transcendency ascribed to the gods. This aspect comes to the fore in statements about the invisibility and inscrutability of the gods, on the one hand, and the tendency towards an inclusive monotheism (all gods are aspecte; of the one god), on the other (ASSMANN 1979). The preceding observation is a reminder of the fundamentally polytheistic nature of the Egyptian lheology. Also in the laler monotheistic tendencies, evidenced for instance in the figure of -oBes pallllleos, the existence of a plurnlity of gods remains a postulated ~Iity. Such polytheism was not panicular to the Egyptians, of course. It was the rule in the ancient Near East. Except for the brief interlude of Echnaton (ca. 13651345), the king who preached that there was no god but Aton (cf. ASSMANN 1972), the Egyptian culture adhered lO the notion of polytheism. Yet the monotheism of Echnaton is indicative of another aspect of the Egyptian theology, perhaps an undercurrent, which emphasizes the existence of one god transcending all others. Whether this allembracing god is to be imagined as a person or an abstract (the one divine nature from which all gods draw their essence), remains often unclear. The tension between a lalent (and incidenlaIly patent) monothcism and the trnditionally plurnlistic view of the divine world might be considered a major force in the development of the Egyptian theology. A factor that was both formative and conservative for the vision of the gods ae; a plurality is the cosmological aspect of many Egyptian deities. As individuals and collectively. the Egyptians felt inferior to and dependent upon the powers of nature. Awed by the world around them, the Egyptians conceived of its elements as gods; gods in the plural because the cosmos was e;(perienced as a play in which many actors had a pan. The world of the gods mirrored the

phenomenal world. To reduce this richly variegated reality to a single divine being would have seemed an intolerable impoverishment Faced with the choice between the one and the many. the Egyptians-like the Mesopotamians and the Grceks-opted for the many. Yet at the same time some kind of unity among the gods is never absent: they all panake of the same divine essence. Individual gods could have many names and epithets: yet the same names and epithets were sometimes applied to other gods. Though the divine plurality was always retained. the distinctive trailS of the gods remained fluid: they frequently constituted syncretistic compounds (in addition to -oAmun and -oRe there is Amun-Re) and could eventuaIly be viewed as aspecte; or manifestations of the one deity behind all gods (HORNUNG 1971). Another factor that favoured the pluralist conception of deity wa.e; the phenomenon of the city gods. No counuy in the ancient Near East was as densely dotted with temples as Egypt The gods dwelling in these eanhly abodes were considered to be the lords and owners of the land. In lhis respect, they had a political and a topographical dimension. Human rulers owed their mandate to the gods: they exercised authority in lieu and by the grJce of the gods. As the totality of the gods stood for the notion of 'Egypt'. so the individual god stood a symbol for the city where he had his pied-a-terre. Each Egyptian city was the city of a god, a view that still trnnspires from some of the HeIlenic place-names: Hermapolis. Heliopolis, and Panopolis are illlerpretationes graecae of a lruly Egyptian concept The citizen was expecled to 10yaIly serve the god or goddess of the city: thus a citizen of Hermopolis would have -Hermes (-+Thoth) for a personal god (ASS~fANN 1984:26-35). Political frngmentation and plurality, then, are reflected in the pantheon. It is perhaps even permitted to say that the tension between the one and the many in the Egyptian conception of god mirrors a comparable tension between political unity and local autonomy.

355

GOD (I)

An arresting phenomenon in the religious literature is the occurrence of the word for god nIT in contexts that do not specify which particular god is meant. Translators usually render 'the god'-a distinct possibility since Egyptian dispenses, as a rule, with the article, whether definite or indefinite (cr. A. GARDINER, EK>ptiall GramflUlr [Oxford3 1957J § 21). This absolute use of the word 'god' is particularly at home in the wisdom literature, both in such collections of precepts and counsels as the Teachings of Amenemope, and in theodicy texts such as the Admonitions of Ipuwer and the Instructions of Merikarc. Though it has been suggested that the 'god' of the wisdom teachers is an anonymous mO/lOlheos (e.g. VERGOTE 1963), this can hardly be the case. The Counsels of Ani, for instance. advise the reader to observe the rites of 'the god', which shows that a definite god must be meant, since there was no cult of an anonymous high-god in Egypt (HORNUNG 1971: 41). The unspecified /lfT is rather to be understood as "the god with whom you have to reckon in the circumstances" (FRANKFORT 1948:67). In the study of the Mesopotamia/l conception of the gods, it is not unusual to make a distinction between the Sumerian and the Akkadian side of the matterSumerian being the language spoken by the third millennium BCE inhabitants of the country, Akkadian being the language of the Assyrians and the Babylonians in the second and first millennia BCE. Though necessary from Q linguistic point of view, the distinction is not self-evident in tenns of culture. The Baby]onians and Assyrians inherited the Sumerian culture; they adopted and deve]oped it, but this by iL'ie]f was nothing new: accretions and modifications did also occur before 2000 BCE. There is no clash between ethnic groups, and no revolutionary change of cultural or religious paradigm (cf. JACOBSEN 1970:]87-192). The Sumerian and Akkadian material will therefore jointly be dealt with. Though neither the Sumerian word dingir ('god') nor the Akkadian term ifu ('god')

can illuminme the nature of the Mesopotamian conception of god, the cuneifonn sign used for these words offers a first point of orientation. The oldest fonns show that it is a schematic representation of a -'star, which may be taken to mean that -·heaven was seen as the proper domain of the gods. Yet Mesopotamian gods arc not by definition celestial. Mythology knows in fact two locations of the gods: on high in heaven, and do\vn below beneath the -earth. Since the latter realm is included in the word for 'earth' (Sum ki, Akk eT~elU). the standard reference to the pantheon as 'the gods of heaven and earth' should be understood to mean 'the gods of the heaven and the nether world'. An elaborate theology of the dwelling-places of the gods is found in Enuma dish: as -·Marduk had defeated -'Tiamat, he built the heavenly Esharrn temple as a replica of the Apsu temple (-·Ends of the earth) located in the waters beneath the earth (Ee IV 135-145); the earthly abodes of the gods are temporary homes, visited by them when the gods of below and on high meet for their annual assembly in the 'Gate of the gods', as Babylon was theologically etymologized (Ee V 113-130). Many of the observations made about the Egyptian conception of the gods hold good as well for the Mesopotamian theology. The Mesopotamian gods, too, are closely associated with elemenL-; of the cosmos. In the earliest documents of Mesopotamian theology, the so-called god lists (cr. LMomr:.RT 1957-71; MANDER 1986), pride of place is given to such gods as An, Enlil, Inanna, Enki, Nanna, and Utu. They bear Sumerian names that can be translated as, respectively, 'Heaven', 'Lord Air', 'Mistress of Heaven' (i.e. the planet Venus, visible as the evening and the morning star), 'Lord Earth' , -·'Moon'. and 'Sun'. With the exception of Inanna (-·Ishtar), the compound names (Enlil and Enki) are not genitival constructions; the deities in question, therefore, are apparently identical with the cosmological phenomena with which they arc associated. In the course of time it becomes

356

GOD (I)

c1car, howcvcr, that the gods do not wholly coincidc with 'their' phenomena. By means of the sign for 'god' (dingir, illl) immediately preceding a tcrm to mark it as a divine namc, it was possible to distinguish betwcen the sun as a natural phemenon and the Sun as a god (T. JACOBSEN, The Graven Image, Allcielll Israelite Religion [ed. P. D. Millcr. Jr. et al.; Philadelphia 1987] 15-32, esp. 18 and n. 7). Most Mesopotamian gods, in addition to being associated with certain natural or cultural phenomena, were each linked with a city. Each community had its own templc, in which its particular god or goddess was worshipped. An (later Anu) was thc god of Uruk, EnIi I of Nippur, and Enki (-foEa) of Eridu. For reasons that arc still elusivc, nearly every city had a different patron deity; duplications are rare. This remarkable distribution of the gods over the various cities can hardly be accidental; it looks like the implemcntation of an early agreement and would thus seem to attest to the one time existence of a Sumerian league (for this 'Kengir League' see JACOBSEN 1970:139141). The association of gods with cities gave Mesopotamian theology a political dimension: since a god's glory reflects on his city, city theologians endeavoured to promote their god to a superior position in the divine hierarchy. The career of Marduk, consolidated in Enuma elish, iIlustmtes how gods could rise in rank as their cities rose in importance: listed as number 294 in a midthird millennium catalogue of gods (MANDER 1986:29), Marduk had become 'king of the gods of heaven and earth' by the end of the second millennium (LAMBERT 1964; 1984). In what has been described as thc 'city theology' of the Mesopotamians, the observablc monotheistic tendencies have a polilical flavour as well. As the one city-state extcnded its sphcre of influcnce, turning others into its satellites, ite; god reduced those of the others to subordinate deities. The redefinition of thcir mutual relations could lead to the absorption of the lesser deity by the greater god: the former might Iivc on as a

name or an aspect of thc latter. In this process. the god triumphant might add a number of new tmits to his 'biography': thus Marduk of Babylon became the son of Ea (Sumerian Enki) by the identification with Asalluhi of Kuar subsequent to the entry of the latter village into the orbit of Babylon. The merging of deities sometimes took remarkable forms. The most arresting examples are. once more, from the Marduk theology. Thus a small god list, conccived in the style of the classical ones, interprets a number of important gods as facets of Marduk: Ninurta (-foNimrod) is "Marduk of the pickaxc", -foNergal is "Marduk of battlc", Enlil is "Marduk of lordship and consultations". and Shamash is "Marduk of justice" (LAMBERT 1975). Is this monotheism? Considering the fact that similar statements were made about gods other than Marduk it was a local form of monotheism at best. Since, morcover. the existencc of othcr gods was not denied, but rather integrated into an overarching design, this monotheism should be qualified as inclusive. Because there is no Mesopotamian treatise on the nature of the gods, the characteristics that make gods stand apart from other beings. and mark them off as divinc, must be culled from a varicty of disparatc sources. Fundamcntal for the Mesopotamian conccption of the gods is their anthropomorphism: gods have human form, male or fcmale, and are moved by reasons and sentimente; similar to those of humans. Thcir divinity lies in the fact that they arc in a scnsc superhuman. They surpass humans in size, beauty, knowledge, happiness, longcvity-briefly: in all things that were positively valued. When a god appears in a dream, thc slccper typically sees "a young man of gigantic size, with splendid limbs, and clad in new gannenls" (Llldllll III 9-10). Size, beauty, power and vitality combine to constitute the melammll which the gods exude. This melammu is conceived of materially as an invisible raiment endowing the gods with a terrifying lustre. Every being endowed with melammu is a god or like a god (Ee I 138; II 24; III 28). Since humans

357

GOD (I)

might possess such splendour as well, though not with the same intensity, the melammll might be compared with the nimbus·from Christian iconography. In addition to their association with naturnl and cultural phenomena, as well as their link with cities, Mesopotamian gods were often thought to entertain a special relationship with certain family groups or clans. Though this 'personal religion' - 'family religion' would be a better term - is not restricted to Mesopotamia, the cuneiform evidence for this type of religiosity is unmatched in other ancient Near Eastern civilizations. On the basis of references to gods in cylinder seals, letters addressed to the family god, references and allusions to the fnmily god in ordinary letters and inheritance texts, it is possible to make a fairly accurate assessment of the physiognomy of Mesopotamian family religion. The family god was normally a god with a sanctuary in the neighbourhood of the family, or - in the case of migrants - in the family's place of origin. He (or she) was referred to as 'my/your' god', 'the god of my/your father', or as 'the god of my/your husband'. Veneration for the family deity was inherited patrilineally: a woman worshipped the god of her father or, after her marriage. the god of her husband. Such family gods were held to be the creators of the members of the family; they protected the family and intereeded on their behalf with the higher deities when necessary. Some family gods are reckoned among the minor deities by modem scholars; others belonged to the higher echelons of the Mesopotamian pantheon. A very similar type of religion existed in Syria. Egypt. and Israel as well, even though it must be reconstructed on the basis of fewer and Jess explicit data (see VORLANDER 1975; ALBERTZ 1978; HIROTP 1.25-39, 94103; VAN DER TOORN 1996). Insouciance and a life of ease are other characteristics of gods. Unlike humans. they do not have to work for their daily bread. It was precisely for that purpose that they had created humankind. as the myths explain (most notably Arrahasis). The temple cult,

performed by priests on behalf of the city. has been aptly characterized as "the care and feeding of the gods" (OPPENHEIM 1977: 183198). Since all humankind is ultimately in the service of the gods. the latter are able to spend their days in a condition of gentle slumber. Their sleep should not be mistaken for impotence. however. Enlil. for instance. is said to be sleeping a 'deceptive' (sarm) sleep: at any moment he may wake up and start to rage like a roaring lion. Besides the pleasures of a good meal and the attendant drowsiness. the gods also know the pleasures of the flesh. In cult and mythology, the gods engage in intercoursc-though often in mysterious ways. In the event of conception. the period of pregnancy lasts only nine days after which the child is painlessly born (B. ALSTER. Enki and Ninhursag. UF 10 [1978] 15-27. esp. 17). Of panicular interest for the Mesopotamian ideas about the nature of the gods is the Epic of Gilgamesh. The subject of the Epic has often been characterized as the unsuccessful quest for immonality. It is more correct to say that it is conceived as a meditation upon the human condition; as the originally independent Gilgamesh stories. some of which are known from the Sumerian tradition. were transformed into a grandiose tale. they were impressed with a vision about humankind as being halfway between the animals. on the one hand. and the gods. on the other. Indirectly. then. the epic is instructive for the Mesopotamian view on the realm of the divine. The hero of the epic. the legendary king Gilgamesh. is presented as being two-thirds divine and one-third human. His divinity is evident from his length: according to the Hittite version of the epic, Gilgamesh is II cubits (ca. 5 meter) tall (KUB VIII 57:8; see J. FRIEDRICH, Die hcthitischen Bruchstiicke des Gilgames-Epos, ZA 39 (1930) 1-82, esp. 4-5). His gigantic proponions are clear, moreover, from the fact that during the march to the cedar forest Gilgamesh walks fifty leagues (ca. 500 km) a day (Gilg. IV i 1'-5'). Gilgamesh' special friend Enkidu is of similar stature: he can drink seven whole

358

GOD (1)

jars of beer without detrimental effects (Gi/g. OB II 'Pennsylvania Tablet' iii 1719)-a feat normally performed by gods only. Enkidu too. then. is "like a god". as the prostitute observes (Gi/g. DB II 'Pennsylvania Tablet' ii 11). In the Old Babylonian version of the epic. Enkidu is likened to a god on account of his size and beauty. In the Standard Babylonian version. almost a thousand years younger. the divinity of Enkidu consists not in his size and stature. but in his wisdom and experience. Enkidu has been transfOffiled into a human being through the intercourse with a prostitute. The domestication of the savage is complete when the animals scatter at his sight: he is no longer one of them. Through the contact with the prostitute Enkidu has "extended his intellect" (lirappas lwsrsa. Gi/g. S8 1 iv 29). As Enkidu realizes he no longer belongs among animals. the prostitute explains: "You have become wise ([em]-qa-ta), Enkidu. you have become like a god; why should you roam open country with wild beastc;?" (Gilg. SB 1 iv 34-35). Wisdom obtained by experience is precisely what characterizes Gilgamesh, too. according to the SB prologue: "he experienced the whole and gained complete wisdom" (Gi/g. SB I i 4). This wisdom, though possessed by humans. renders its owners divine in a way. Deities excel in wisdom and knowledge: humans who acquire these things become like gods (cf. Gen 3:22 "the man has become like one of us. knowing good and evil"). Yet Enkidu and Gilgamesh are only divine in pan; they are not invulnerable: death they cannot escape. Human mortality ~'erslls divine immortality is indeed a major theme in the epic. When Enkidu is frightened by the prospect of the journey to the dangerous cedar forest. Gilgamesh reminds him of the human condition: "Who can go up to heaven, my friend? Only the gods are forever in the company of the Sun-god: as for humankind: its days are numbered" (Gilg. OB III 'Yale Tablet' iv 5-7). Human mortality is presented here as the distinctive difference: the lasting fame Gilgamesh hopes to

achieve is only a substitute of eternity (Gi/g. DB III 'Yale Tablet' iv 13). In contrast to humans and animals. then, gods have access to an abundance of vitality and life. "When the gods created humankind. they gave death to humankind: life they kept in their own hands" (Gi/g. OB X 'Meissner Tablet' iii 3-5). Unlimited life is pictured as a divine prerogative. Gods are eternal, not because they live in a zone of timelessness, but because they constantly renew themselves, like stars (CAD E s.V. edddu). It is no mere accident that the two-thirds divine Gilgamesh is a king. Deification after death, especially of kings, is nothing unusual in the Mesopotamian conception. Yet the claim of divinity by. or its attribution to, rulers during their lifetime is restricted to certain periods of Mesopotamian history, most notably the late third millennium BCE (Cf. W. W. HALLo. I:.arl)' Mesopotamian Royal Title... [New Haven 1957) 56-65). Thus, on his seal. Naram-Sin refers to himself as 'the god of Akkad·. It should be stressed. though. that the deification of the living king is exceptional. Kings. it is true. are in many ways like gods. In the third and second millennia ncE. people take an oath by the life of the king as they take one by the life of the gods: frequently. god and king are mentioned in one breath in the oath formula. Royal names are also found as thoophoric elements in personal names, such as Hammurabi-ili. 'Hammurabi-is-my-god', or I1uni-Sarrum, 'The king-is-our-god'. On Old Babylonian seals, moreover, kings are sometimes mentioned in lieu of the family god, and presumably served in that capacity. This fact might be explained in pan by reference to the role of these kings as inteffilediaries between their subjects and the gods, since intercession was an activity expected from family deities (VAN OER TOORN 1996:68.81 n. 88). A common characteristic of gods and kings is their privileged access to information and the possession of power to persuade and punish. Power and authority, whether real or perceived as such. are also responsible for the comparison of the royal command with the word spoken by a god. Allies

359

GOD (I)

of the king may call him god out of a sense of dependence: similar in this to a god. the king can extend protection. Appurtenance to n venerable lineage, too, bestows a kind of divinity upon the king: it makes him the incarnation of an everlasting dynastic identity. The fact that the analogy between god and king may earn the latter the title of 'god', used in both a literal and a figurative sense, is indicative of the relative nature of divinity. As in Egypt, there is no absolute chasm between human and divine. There has been a time when the gods were human. according to the famous opening line of the Old Babylonian Atrabasis Myth (imima illi awTlllm). When LAMBERT'S restoration of the relevant passage is correct. the myth looks upon death as a postdiluvial institution (1980:57-58). The same suggestion is contained in the 5B version of the Gilgamesh Epic: after the apotheosis of the flood hero (here Utanapishtim), the gods brought death into the world (LAMBERT 1980:54-57). The very point of difference between humans and gods. then. is accidental rather than essential; it was not there from the beginning. ·According to this view. the separation between the two realms has been a gradual process: there once was a Golden Age. before the Aood, when gods and humans moved in the same world. Under exceptional circumstances, humans may still cross the dividing line-especially after death. In Canaanite religion (this term is commonly used to refer to Ugaritic religion as well) the usual word for 'god' is Ug il, plural Um, corresponding with Phoen '1 and '1m. The form i1h seems to be used only as a proper name (-+Eloah), though there is a plural form i1hm usually translated as 'gods'; perhaps the term refers specifically to the gods of the netherworld (PARDEE 1988:111). A similar form may be attested at Emar, if wdbil i-Ia-; should be interpreted as wdbil ildhf, 'bearer of the gods [=statues]' (so J. HUEIINERGARD apud D. E. FLEMING, The Installation of the High Priestess at £mar [H5S 42: Atlanta 1992] 85 n. 56). Morphologically, this is the equiv-

alent of the Hebrew plural 't!ohim. Fonns occurring only in the plural are Ug ill1)'m (cf. DEL OUID LETE, Los nombres 'divinos' de los reyes de Ugarit. AulOr 5 [1987] 3969. esp. 63-64) and illlm: the latter is also attested in Phoenician. The Ugarilic word for goddess is ilt. plural ilht. dual iltm. Aramaic inscriptions have the form 'Ill and '1111. Typically West-Semitic. though not exclusively so, is the use of the divine plural where a single entity is concerned. In texts that use the alphabetic script such plurals of excellence are not readily recognizable. Where the Akkadian writing system is used. combining a syllabic script with various logograms, plural forms are less ambiguous. A good iIIustmtion of the plural of divinity is found in the Amarna letters. where lhe Pharaoh is repealedly addressed by his Canaanite vassals as D1SGlR.MES-ia. literally 'my gods', but plainly referring to one person only (JIRKU 1938: ef. N. NA)AMAN. DINGIRmes in the Amarna Letters. VF 22 [1990] 255). F. M. T. BlJHL defines this plural as a pluralis amplirudi1lis (Der Sprache der Amanwbriefe [LSS vn: Leipzig 1909] §23e). II also occurs as a designation of the personal god (EA 96:4: 97:3: 189 Rev. 13-14) in combination with a verb in the singular: this phenomenon parallels the Hebrew use of 'Nl)him (BlJI1L. Der Sprache, §23f). A balanced assessment of the significance of these data should take into account, though. that the sign MES is sometimes used as a logogram marker in peripheral Akkadian (W. H. VAN SOLDT, Studies ill tile Akkadia1l of Vgarit [AOAT 40: Keve1aerlNeukirchen-Vluyn 1991] 428429). Thcre are some rare examples of a pillralis di\'initatis in Akkadian texts: most of them betray Wcst-Semitic influence (cf. DALLEY 1989:164, 177 n. I I). Judging by the Babylonian The()(/icy (BWL 63-91), however. it was not uncommon in Standard Babylonian to refer to the personal god with the plural form 'gods' (LA~mERT. BWL. 67). Characteristically West-Semitic is the usc of the term 'gods' to designate the spirits of the dead. The short hymn to Shapshu that closes the Baal Cycle uses rpim (-+Re-

360

GOD (I)

phaim) in parallelism with ifllym, and ifm in parallelism with mlm (A.7UI.6 vi 45-49; M. S. SMITH. 77,e Early History of God [San Francisco 1990J 128). At Emar, the plural 'gods' occurs in a fixed hendiadys: the heirs are to invoke, to honour, and to care for 'the gods and the dead' of their forebears. The expression is best understood as a reference to the deified ancestors (K. VAN DF.R TOORN, Gods and Ancestors in Emar and Nuzi, ZA 84 [1994] 38-59). The Ugaritic figure of the ifib belongs to the same complex of idea,,: the term docs not stand for 'the god of the father', as hali sometimes been said, but designates the 'deified father'. Le. the ancestral spirit (K. VAN DER TOORlIi, I1ib and the 'God of the Father', UF 25 [1993] 379-387). The literary heritage of Canaanite religion is rarely explicit about the characteristics of divinity. A frequent epithet of the gods is qds, 'holy'; the pantheon of Byblos, for instance, is referred to as 'the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos' (11lp~m 'I gbl qdsm; KAI4:4-5, 7). The adjective is so intimately a"sociated with gods, that it is exceptionally used absolutively. Thus the Arslan Tash amulet mentions the dr kl qdSll, 'the Council of all the Holy Ones' (NESE 2 [1974] 2223). It is against this background, perhaps, that Ps 16:3 is to be understood (M. DAHOOD, Psalms I [AB 16; Garden City 1965] 87-88). The precise meaning of 'holiness' is not specified in the texts. From a compamtive study it would seem that the notion is the semantic equivalent of the Mesopotamian idea of the divine melamm,,: gods 'lfC holy in the sense that they exude radiance, splendour, and luminosity. Canaanite religion, like the Mesopotamian, distinguishes between gods of heavcn and gods of the underworld. The typical abode of the gods in mythology, however, is some place at the end of the horizon. Mount -·Znphon (modem Jebel elAqra. some 50 km North of Ugarit-Ras Shamra) is inhabited by -·Baal and his entourage. EI lives at 'the source of the two rivers'-presumably a reference to the mythical place from \\!hich both the ocean around and below the earth. and the ocean

cr.

above the heavens, take their water. Both locations may be viewed as an attempt to situate the gods at the outer limits of the inhabited world: they are half-way between immanence and transcendence. One characteristic which the Canaanite gods share with the Mesopotamian deities is the possession of life everlaliting. Though it is doubtful whether this concept should be translated in terms of absolute eternity, the longevity of the gods represenlli a distinct difference from humans. Not unlike the Gilgamesh Epic in this respect, the Epic of Aqhat deals with the impossibility of humans attaining the life of the gods. A crucial episode in the Epic is the meeting between -+ Anat and Aqhat. The goddess wishes to obtain the bow of Aqhat and tries to make the hero part with it by holding out the promise of life: "Ask for life a,ym), 0 hcro Aqhat, ask for life and I will give it to you, immortality (blmt) and I will send it to you. I will let you count the years with Baal, with the sons of El (bn if) you will count the months" (KTU I.I7.vL26-29). Aqhat rejects her proposal: "I shall die like all (humans) die; yea, I shall surely die" (A7U 1.17.vi. 38). Unlike humans, gods ('the sons of EI') possess 'life' and 'immortality' (blmr, literally 'non-death'). III. The Israelite concept of God shares many tmits with the beliefs of its neighbours. The most fundamental correspondence concerns the anthropomorphic nature ascribed to God. God's anthropomorphism is external (anthropomorphism in the strict scnse of the ternl) as well as internal (also known as anthropopathism). God possesses hands, ears, a mouth, eyes, fingers, feet, and other bodily parts. Largely lacking in the Hebrew Bible are references to sexual characteristics of God. Internal anthropomorphism is at Slake when God is said 10 be moved by desires, feelings, and passions closely resembling those of humans. Thus God is said to be capable of feelings of love, anger, jealousy, compassion, and the like. An anthropomorphic vision of God underlies many of Ismel's religious insti-

361

GOD (I)

tutions. The temple cult, for instance, can be considered the Isrnelite version of 'the care and feeding of the gods', to use Oppenheim's term. The temple in which God is thought to reside may be viewed as his earthly palace, conceived as a replica of his royal mansion on high. Here he wishes to I dwell protected from noise (Ps 65:2; Kgs 6:7) and sunlight (l Kgs 8: 12). The ~crifices that are brought were originally meant as God's food (lebem, e.g. Lev 21: 21); the morning and the evening sacrifice of God (Exod 29:41: Ps 141 :2) are modelled after the morning and the evening meal of humans. Meanwhile incense is burned: God is also anthropomorphic in this respect that he is sensitive to a pleasant smell (reab lli~16a~/, e.g. Exod 29:41). His servants have to be plea'\ing to the eye as ,..'ell: no priest 'who has a blemish' is to appear before God (Lev 21:17). Over against the anthropomorphism of God found in the Hebrew Bible, there are those texts that stress the difference between God's divinity and man's humanity. The opposition can assume different nuances. "God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent" (Num 23: 19). The expressions 'man' ('is) and 'son of man' (ben-'iJdam) arc used here adjectivally; they could be translated as 'human'. The noun 'God' occurs likewise as an adjective, and may be so rendered, in such texts as Isa 31:3 "The Egyptians are human ('adam), and not divine ('t/), and their horses arc flesh and not spirit." A closer look at these examples shows that the opposition does not invalidate the idea of divine anthropomorphism. God's qualities are human qualities, yet purified from imperfection and amplified to superhuman dimensions. Sincerity and reliability are human virtueseven if only God is wholly sincere and reliable. Strength, too, is not the exclusive prerogative of God; he is merely incomparably stronger than humans or animals. In view of the pa'\sages dwelling upon the contrast between God and man, the thesis of God's anthropomorphism should be modified in this sense that God is more

cr.

than human. Though man has been created in the image of God (a proposition the historian of religion might be tempted to reverse), there is a huge difference of degree-yet not of nature. In this respect the view found in the Hebrew Bible does not rndically differ from the conviction concerning the similarity between gods and humans in the Babylonian Atrabasis myth. God has human form, but not human size. In visions, God proves to be so high and exalted that the earthly temple can barely contain the fringes of his mantle (Isa 6: I). Gates have to lift their heads when God enters Jerusalem (Ps 24:7.9). In addition to his physical size (which transcends even the highest heaven, I Kgs 8:27). God surpa'ises humans in such aspects as wisdom (Job 32:13) and power (Ezek 28:9). His divine superiority also has a moral side: God excels in righteousness (Job 4: 17; 9:2; 25:4), faithfulness (e.g. Deut 32:4), and other mornl qualities. The notion that gods are celestial beings, wide-spread in the ancient Near East, is also found in the Bible. It is often connected with the idea of God's extraordinary powers of vision and intervention. "Our God is in the heavens; he docs whatever he pleases" (Ps 115:3). From his exalted abode he looks with an ever-watchful eye at the doings of humankind. When they revolt against the divinely appointed monarch, "He who sits in heaven laughs in derision" (Ps 2:4). Since heaven is a place to which humans have no access-at least not during their lifetime VAN DER TOORN 1988)-, the heavenly nature of God is another reason why he trnnscends humans. Especially in the later sections of the Hebrew Bible, God is typically 'the God of Heavens' ('etoile IIaJJiJmayim, e.g. Neh I:4). The expression may have been influenced by Mazdaism, or by the worship of Baal as -'Baal-shamem, but it is not at odds with earlier views. A concept connected with God's celestial nature is his invisibility; this concept is emphatically present in later texts. Deuteronomy stresses that the Isrnelites did not see God's form at the Mountain, but merely heard his voice (Deut 4:12.15). Also God

362

(cr.

GOD (I)

spoke from heaven, not from the mountain top (Dcut 4:36). These statements bespeak a sense of divine transcendence more acute th:m in some of the Exodus ilccounts. The same tendency is manifest in other passages. Man-mnde idols are there for all to see: yet God is divine in that he is a God "who hides himself' (lsa 45: 15). Humans cannot see God because he is in heaven and they are on earth (Ps 115:2-3.16). Under nonnal circumstances, humans cannot see God and remain alive (Exod 33:20). Even Moses, in one tradition, has his eyes covered by God's hand when God passes by: he catches a glimpse only of God's back (Exod 33:21-23). God's invisibility might be interpreted as a radicalization of his -'glory. The Mesopotamian concept of melamm" has a counterpan in the Hebrew Bible in the notion of kiilJod, 'glory'. This glory is a luminosity which both frightens and fascinates: it is, in tcnns of Rudolph Otto, truly numinous. Since radiance and splendour are part of the notion of God's glory, the association between God and ->light ('or) does not come as a surprise. God can be said to 'shine forth' (hopia(, Deut 33:2), to 'flash up' (ZRI;f, Isa 60:2), and to 'shine' (:-:GH, 2 Sam 22:29: Isa 4:5), verbs usually connected with the sun. Like the sun. God is all-seeing and all-knowing: his eyes bring 'hidden sins' to the light (Ps 19:13). This solar imagery may have favoured the development of the concept of God's invisibility: just as no-one can look at the midday sun for a sustained period of time, so no-one can see God and not lose his sight. The light ('or) with which God is covered like a garment (Ps 104:2) is increasingly conceived of as 'an unapproachable light' (¢; aJrpoo\tOV. I Tim 6: 16). The Hebrew Bible has no proper word for 'goddess': in I Kgs 11:5 Ashtorcth (a dysphcmic vocalisation for -> Astarte) is called the '86Mm of the Sidonians (cf. JoGonJ Muraoka § I34d) This lexicographical observiltion should not be interpreted to mean that the IsrJelites did not recognize :my goddess :J1ongside Yahweh. The inscriptions from Kuntillet CAjrud and Khirbet el-

Qom show otherwise (->Asherah). It is mainly due to the theologicul bias of the editors of the Hebrew Bible-those who selected the texts, and who corrected them if need be-that many goddesses have been condemned to oblivion (ef. O. KEEL & C. UElfLl:-:GER, COrt;III/(.'II, Gotler

/lilt!

Cortes-

symbole [Freiburg/BaseIlWien 1992]). The one great difference between the Israelite conception of God and the beliefs of its neighbours is usually considered to be the notion of monotheism. The belief that there is only one God, it is often suggested, overshadows all possible similarities and reduces them to superficial resemblances. This position is open to criticism. Whilst monotheism eventually became a distinctive trait of Israelite religion, it cannot be isolated from its historical milieu. It is no coincidence that the anonymous author of Isaiah 40-55, traditionally regarded as the champion of Israelite monotheism, is known as a vehement critic of Babylonian idol worship. His monotheism hac; an anti-Babylonian edge. Such monotheism-assuming it really is monotheism-should not be interpreted as the answer of a great mind to an intellectual problem. It is too closely tied up with political and cultural interests to be considered a dispassionate theological statement. There can be no question of true monotheism. in the philosophical sense of the word, a'i long as the belief in other heavenly beings (->'sons of God') is not eschewed. Only when the subordinate deities arc degmded to ->angels, created by the God they serve, can one speak of monotheism. Since the demarcation lines between human and divine arc not a" clearly dmwn in the ancient Ncar E.1!>t as they arc in many current religions, the word 'elOlzim can be used in the sensc of 'divine' or 'extraordinary'. It is doubtful, however, whether in these instances the word is used merely as a superlative. The rtia~l 'elOlzim of Gen 1:2 is perhaps nut 'the spirit of God', but it is hardly to be rendered as 'a terrible stunn' either. It is best translated as 'a divine wind': similarly, the ~lerdar 'il6lzim mentioned in I Sam 14: 15 is indeed a 'divinely

363

GOD (I)

inspired panic'. Such use of the pural 'gods' in the meaning 'divine' is also known in Akkndian: the salllrri DlNGJR.MES mentioned in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic is a 'divine womb' (W. G. LAMBERT, AIO 18 [19] 50 F col. Y 9). Related to the adjectival usc of 'ilOhim for something out of the ordinary is the occurrence of the tenn for the -spirit~ of the dead. The one indubitable instance of this usc is found in I Sam 28: 13 where the gho~t of Samuel is described as '1lOhim "coming up from the earth". Another text often adduced in example is Isa 8: 19; though probably correct, the interpretation of 'llOhim as 'spirits of the dead' in this case is not obligatory. Perhaps the tenn '1lOltim in Mic 3:7 should be understood as 'spirits'. too. since the passage deals with 'soothsayers' (qoslmim), usually a tenn for necromancers (cf. VAN DER TOORN 1990: 213-214). A text seldom quoted in this connection is Exod 21:6 which says that the slave who waives his right of manumission and enters his master's household for good is to be brought 'to the gods' (Exod 21 :6). A commentator has added that the man shall be brought 'to the door or to the doorpost', perhaps the place where the 'gods' were thought to reside. These 'gods' are probably to be identified with the family ancestors (H. NlEHR, Ein unerkannter Text zur Nekromantie in Israel. UF23 [1991] 301-306, esp. 304). Considering the fact that the expression 'inheritance of the gods' (na~llUat '1lOMm, 2 Sam 14:16) is a parallel to the 'inheritance of the fathers' (na~lalat 'abot), it may be that '1lOh;m in 2 Sam 14: 16, too, refers to the (deified) ancestors (T. J. LEWIS, The Ancestral Estate (naJ;lilat 'elOhim) in 2 Samuel 14:16. JBL 110 [1991] 597-612). IV. Bibliography R. ALBERTZ. PerslJnliche FrlJmmigkeit und ojJizjelle Religion (CTM 9; Stuttgart 1978); J. ASSMANN. Die 'Hmsic' des Echnaton , von Amama. Aspekte der Amama-Religion, Saeculum 22 (1972) 109-126; ASSMANN, Primat und Transzendenz. Struktur und Genese der Agyptischen Vorstellung cines "H6chsten Wesens", Aspekte der spiitligyp-

tischen Religion (ed. W. Westendorf; GOF 9; Wiesbaden 1979) 7-42; ASSMt\NN, Agypten. Theologie lmd Frommigkeit einer fn';hen Hochkllllllr (Stuttgart 1984); J. BLACK & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London 1992); E. CASStN, La splendellr di,'ine (Parislfhe Hague 1968); S. DALLEY. Myths from Mesopotamia (OxfordlNew York 1989); H. FRANKFORT, Ancient Egyptian Religion (Chicago 1948); E. HORNUNG. Der Eine und die Vie/en. Agyptische Gottesl'Orstelilingen (Darmstadt 1971) tr. by J. BAINES as Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca 1982; London 1983): T. JACOBSEN, Towards the Image of Tammu:. and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History lIml Cullllre (cd. W. L. Moran; Cambridge, Mass. 1970); JACOBSEN. Tire Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven! London 1976); A. JIRKU, Elohim als Bczeichnung einer Gottheit, RU 2 (1938) 358; W. G, LAMBERT, The Reign of

NebuchadneZ1.ar I: A Turning Point in thc History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion, The Seed of Wisdom (ed. W. S. McCullough; Toronto 1964) 3-13; LAMBERT, Gotterlistcn, RU 3 (1957-71) 473-479: LAMBERT, The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism, Unity and Diversity, Essays in the History, Literature, and R~ligio" of the Ancient Near Ellst (ed. H. Goedicke & 1. J. M. Roberts; BaltimorclLondon 1975) 191200; LAMBERT, The Theology of Death, Death in Mesopotamia (CRRA 26: edt B. Alster; Copenhagen 1980) 53-66; LAMBERT, Studies in Marduk, BSOAS 47 (1984) 1-9; P. MANDER, II pantheon di Abu-Siilabikh (Napoli 1986); D. MEEK, Notion de 'dieu' et

structure du panth~on dans l'Egypte ancienne, RHR 205 (1988) 425-446; E. T. MULLEN, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods. The Di"ine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico 1980); A. L. OPPENHEIM, Ancient Mesopotamia: Porra;t of u Dead Ci\'i/ization (Chicago! London 1977) 171-227; D. PARDEE, Le... te:ctes para-mytllOlogiqlles de la 24e campagne (1961) (Paris 1988); H, RINGGREN,

364

GOD (II)

Cl"il'~, nVAT I (1970-73) 285-305; D. P.

SILVERMAN. Divinities and Deities in Ancient Egypt, Religion ill Ancient Egypt (ed. B. E. Shafer; London 1991) 7-87; P. W. SKEHAN, A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses' (Deut. 32) from Qumran. BASOR 136 (1954), 12-15; K. VAN DER TOORN, "De mens kan niet ten hemel klimmen, noch afdalen nllar het dodenrijk" (Inaugural lec-

ture; Utrecht 1988); VAN DER TOORN, The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneifonn Sources, CBQ 52 (1990) 203-222; VAN DER TOORN, Theologies, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel. CANE 3 (1995) 2043-2058; VAN DER TOORN, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel (SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996); C. TRAUNECKER, us dieux d'Egypte (Paris 1992); J. VERGOTE. La notion de Dieu dans les Iivres de sagesse egyptiens, us sagesses dll Proche-Orient ancien (1. Leclant et al.; Paris 1963), 153-190; H. VORLANDER, Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom personlichen Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testa-

(AOAT 23; Kevelaer, NeukirchenVluyn 1975); W. WESTENDORF, Das Auf-

me1lt

komme1I der Gottesvorstellung im Alten Ag)pten (Gottingen 1985); F. A. M. WIG-

GERMANN, Theologies, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Mesopotamia, CANE 3 (1995) 1857-1870.

K. VAN DER TOORN GOD (II) E>e~ I. The word Oeo~ occurs 5302 times in the Greek Bible: 3984 occurrences in the LXX and 1318 in the NT. In almost all of these instances the word refers to the God of Israel. -. Yahweh (and of course in the plural to pagan gods); some exceptions will be discussed below. In Greek literature the tenns Oe6~. 0 Oe6C;. Oeoi. oi Oeoi, and later also 'to Oe\ov, are often used without much difference in meaning (GIGON 1965:194). The word is of uncertain etymology. The only aspect to be dealt with in this entry is the use of the word Oeoc; (and deus) in ancient literature and its difference from biblical usage (on the causes of the lack of a

comprehensive theology among pagan Greeks and Romans [except in Neoplatonism] see DORRIE 1983). II. In pagan Greek literature the use of the word Oeo~ is markedly different from what we find in the Bible. The difference is not only that Oeo~ is applied by the Greeks to a plurality of personal divine beings, but also that often the word is used for human beings and impersonal objects and even abstract concepts that would not readily be called Oeoc; (or Oeoi) in the monotheistic Judaeo-Christian tradition (cf. W. SCHOTTROFF, Gottmensch I, RAC 12 [1983] 210211). The same applies to the use of delis in pagan Latin literature. Both terms are predominantly used as a predicate (WIl.AMOWITZ 1931:1 17), unlike in biblical usage (KLEINKNECHT 1938:68 remarks that an ancient Greek would never have said, "God is love" [I John 4: 16], but "Love is god"; cf. VERDENIUS 1954:244: "Der griechische Gott ist nicht gottlich, weil er Gott ist. sondem er ist Gott. weil er etwas Gottliches ist"). From early times onwards the Greeks regarded certain individuals as more than human and could call them Oe6~, either unreservedly or with reference to themselves ('he is a god to me' [cf. here Exod 4:16 and 7:1, exceptional in the Bible!]). If one recognized in a person the essential characteristics of a particular god, one might call him by the name of that god, again either unreservedly or only with reference to oneself. '1"0 the ancients the line of demarcation between god and man was not as constant and sharp. or the interval as wide, as we naturally think" (NOCK 1972: 145). There were, however, no institutional controls and no uncontroversial criteria for the use of the word 'god' (PRICE 1984:81). Throughout Greek literature we find the use of OeoC; and 6EOi to denote the incalculable non-human

element in phenomena, and of Oe~ for anything out of the ordinary (cf. the statement in a 2nd cent. CE papyrus quoted by PRICE 1984:95: n Oeoc;; 'to lCpa'touv, 'What is a god? That which exercises power'). Also the abstract 'to Oe\ov becomes finally an expression for the irrational in human life, that

365

GOD (II)

which cannot be explained by natural causes, or for anything seemingly exempt from decay and other human limitations. For instance, exceptional physical beauty could be sufficient reason to bestow the predicate 9£~ upon a person (Charax, FGH 103F13; cf. Diogenes Laertius X 5). Cicero calls the consul Lentulus parens, deus, salus nostrae vitae (Post reditum ad populum II; cf. Pro Sexto 144), and he calls Plato deus ilIe noster (Ad Allicum IV 16,3; cf. De natura deon"n II 12, 32; Leges III I; and the remarks on this usage by Augustine, Contra J"lianum Pelag. IV 76). Terence, Adelphi 535, has one of his characters say: facio te apud ilium deum; \'inures narro. Aristotle, Po/itica III 13 (l284a7-12), remarks that, if a person has really superior qualities, injustice will be done to him if he is reckoned only as the equal of those who are far inferior to him in excellence and in capacity: "Such a man' may truly be deemed a god among men". It is for that rea.~on that in the writings of the Neoplatonists their great Plato is so frequently designated as geoc; or 9E"io~ (see the excellent note in PEASE 1968:6 I9-620). The Platonist Arcesilaos calls the philosophers Crates and Polcmon geoi nVELGER 1929:284-286). The transfer of the image of Mal 3:18-20 [4:2], the "sun of righteousness" (Jerome, In Amos 3, 6: 12/15, CCSL LXXVI p.312), to Christ depends upon the apocalyptic side of the same tradition, in the context of the suffering of the righteous ("righteousness shall be revealed like a sun governing the world": IQ27:1 tr. Vermes; cf. Wis 5:6; AALEN 1951: 178-179). Both themes are already present in the Christian adoption, from the

400

HERA

early 2nd century CEo of Sunday as the status dies (Justin. IApol 67:8; Tertullian, Apol. 16: II), which is figurati vely also the 'eighth day', the end of the world (Bam. 15: 8b-9 with PRIGENT ad loc.). Sun as doxa fuses with purging fire to produce the striking apocalyptic imagery of Thomas the COlitellder (NHC n.7. 144. probably from Edessa. 3rd century CE). The iconogrJphy of the three early cases (3rd century CE) of He]ios representing Christ, on the other hand, derives from the model of imperial Sol IIIl'ictus. signifying Christ's majesty (HUSKINSON ]974:78-80; MACCORMACK ]981: 172). IV. Bibliography S. AALEN. Die BegrijJe 'Licht' lind 'Fillster11 is • im AT. im Spatjudentllln IIIld im RabbilIismus (Oslo 1951) 96-236; C. AUFFAHRT. Der drohelUle Untergallg (RGVV 39; Berlin 1991) 370-385; P. BRUUN, The disappearnnce of Sol from the coins of Constantine. Arctos 2 (1958) 15-37; F. CUMONT. La theologic solaire du paganisme romain. Memoires pres. par dil'ers Samnts 12. 2 (Paris 1909) 448-480; CU!>1ONT, 11 sole vindice dei delilli ed iI simbolo delle mani alzate, Memorie della Pontijicia Accademia romalla di Arelleologia I (1923) 65-80. with Syria 14 (1933) 392-393: F. J. DOLGER, Die Sonlle der Gereeluigkeit lind der Selllmne (MUnster 31971; ed. 1, 1918): DllLGER • Sol sailltis: Gebet lind Gesang im christliellen Altertum (MUnster 31972; ed. I. 1920); DOLGER. Sonne und Sonnenstrahl als Gleichnis in der Logostheologie des christlichen Altcrtums, Antike lind Christentlllll I (1929) 271-290; J. FLAMANT. Macrobe et Ie lIeoplatonisme latin a la fin dll IVe siecle (EPRO 58; Leiden 1977) 652-680; M. GA wUKOWSKI. Helios (in pcripheria oriental i). LlMC 5 (1990) 1034-1038 (icon.); L. GOODISON.

Dearh.

WOIIICIl

Clnd

rhe

SUIl:

Symbolism of Regelleratioll in carl)' Aegean Religion (BICS Suppl 53; London 1989); E. HEITSCH. Drei Helioshymnen. Hermes 88 (1960) 139-158; S. E. HUMANS, Sol IlIdctus. eell icollografische stlldie (Diss. Groningen 1989); J. HUSKINSON. Some pagan mythological figures and their

significance in early Christian art, Papers of the British School at Rome 42 (1974) 68-97; O. JESSEN. Helios. PlY 8 (1912) 58-93; F.N. KLEIN. Die Lichttennillologie bei Philon \'011 Alexandrien und in dell Henlletischell Selzrijten (Leiden 1962); C. LEno, HelioslSol. LlMC 4 (1988) 592-625 (icon.); S. MACCORMACK, Art mId CeremollY ill Lnte Alltiquil)' (Berkeley 1981); M. P. Nn.sSON. Geschichte der griechischen Religion )] (MUnchen 1974 3) 507-519; L. PRELLER, Griechische M)'thologie 1.2 (rev. ed. C. Robert; Berlin 18944) 429-437; K. SCHAUENUURG, Helios: archiiologisch·mythologiselle Stlldiell aber dell alltikell SOllnengott (Berlin 1955); H. SEYRIG, Antiquih~s syriennes 95: Le culte du soleil en Syrie a l'cpeque romaine, Syria 48 (1971) 337-373; N. YALOURIS, Helios, LIMe 5 (1990) 10051034 (icon.). R. L. GORDON

HERA "Hpa I. The name Hera (the form of her name in Mycenaean Greek is Era), perhaps a feminine fonn of the Greek noun heros ('hero'. meaning 'master'), or horo ('season'. see Pausanias 2.13.3). was genealogically linked with other Greek deities as the daughter of Kronos and Rhea (Hesiod, Theog. 454), and sister of -Zeus. While the name Hera itself does not occur in either the Bible or the Apocrypha. nevenhele~s the theophoric name Herakles (-Heracles) docs occur in 2 Macc 2: 19-20. This name is composed of two clements, 'Hera' and ·-kles'. Though the -a- is problematic. since theephoric names ba..'\ed on 'Hera' normally use an -0-. as in Herodotus and Herodikos, neycnheless it is certain that the goddess Hera is part of the etymology of the name Hernkles. Somc have conjectured that the morpheme -kles was derived from the Gk term kleos. 'fame'. and proposed that Herakles means 'fame of Hera'. or 'one who became famous because of Hera'. Yet while Hera is prominent in the Hernkles cycles of myth, she is usually cast in the role of his antagonist. The name Herakles is simply a

401

HERACLES

common personal name fonned in a way analogous to names such as Diocles, Athenocles, and Hennocles. The names Herod (HpqX)~ and Herodias, however, arc connected to the Greek heros. II. One of the more important early centres of Hera's cult was a sanctuary between Argos and Mycenae in the Peloponnesus, while another was on Samos, an island off the west coast of Asia Minor. A number of the earliest and larger temples erected in the Greek world were dedicated to Hera, usually outside cities, including the Temple of Hera on Samos (ca. 800 BCE), and two large temples ·in Paestum (Italy) built in the sixth and fifth centuries respectively. In Olympia, a temple was dedicated to Hera earlier than the famous sanctuary dedicated to Zeus. In Greek myth and religion, Hera played two important roles, one as the queen of the gods, also called "the mother of the gods" (Pausanias 2.4.7), who sits on a golden throne (Pausanias 2.17.4: 5.17.1), the only legitimate wife of Zeus. Her other major role was as the goddess primarily responsible for overseeing the institution of marriage (Aristophanes, Thesm. 973: Pausanias 3.13.9) and many other imponant and risky aspects of the life of women (Pausanias 8.22.2), particularly childbirth (Homer, /liad 11.270-271; Hesiod, Theog. 921-922). However, Hera was never invoked as a -'mother, and is never depicted as a mother with a child. The marriage of Zeus and Hera was understood as a sacred marriage (hieros gamos or theogamia) in many city-states of the Greek world, serving as a prototype for human marriage. The ritual reenactment of the sacred marriage of Zeus and Hera was also Perfonned to ensure fertility. In Athens, the month Gamelion (meaning 'marriage month') was dedicated to Hera, and sacrifices were made. to her and Zeus Heraios. On the twenty-sixth of Gamelion the anni. versary of the sacred marriage of Zeus and Hera was celebrated. III. Bibliography W. BURKERT, Greek Religion (Cambridge MA 1985) 131-135: C. DOWNING, The Goddess: Mythological Images of the Femi-

"ine (New York 1981): \V. K. C. GUTHRIE, 17,e Greeks and their Gods (Boston 1950): K. KEIffiNYI, Zeus and Hera (Princeton 1975); C. R. loNG, The Twel~'e Gods of Greece and Rome (Leiden 1987): M. P. NILSSON, The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (Berkeley 1932) 189-192; H. \V. PARKE. Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977) 104-106; \V. POTSCHER, Der Name des Herakles, Emerita 39 (1971) 169-184; P. E. SLATER. The Glory of Hera: Greek Mythology alld the Greek Family (Boston 1968).

D. E.

AUNE

HERACLES ·HpQlcA.ii~ I. Heracles was undoubtedly the most popular mythical hero of ancient Greek mythology; he was also one of the most complex. EtymologicaIly the name derives from wHpa (Hera) and ICA£~ (fame). Though he is explicitly mentioned only in 2 Mace 2:19-20, there is evidence to suggest that Heracles traditions were incorporated into the cycle of Samson legends found in the Old Testament and in certain aspect.. of the depiction of -Jesus in the Christology of Hebrews. II. Ancient mythographers divided the exploits of Heracles into three groups: (I) The Twelve Labours (athloi or erga), or canonical adventures (perfonned for Eurystheus in order to purify himself for killing his wife Megara and his children). These included the almost impossible task of conquering a number of nearly invulnerable beasts including the Nemean Lion (which provided his characteristic Iionskin cloak), the Lemaean Hydra, the Erymanthian Boar, the Ceryneian Hind, the Stymphalian Birds, the Cretan Bull. the Thracian mares, the cattle of Geryon and Cerberus the hound of - Hades, ali well as such impossible tasks as cleaning the stables of Augeas, getting the Amazon Hippolyta's girdle. and retrieving the apples of Hespcrides: (2) the Subsidiary Activities (parerga) or noncanonical adventures, considered incidental to the Twelve Labours: and (3) the Deeds (praxeis) , a

402

HERACLES

variety of exploits including military-type expeditions during which Herncles conquered and civilized much of the world. These three categories of heroic adventures were frnmed by accounts of Heracles' miraculous binh and death and apotheosis. The birth of Herncles was extrnordinary. as one might expect of a demi-god. -+Zeus had sexual relations with the monal Alcmene. disguised as her husband Amphitryon (Hesiod. Shield of Heracles 35-56). Twins were born. though Iphicles was the real son of Amphitryon. but Herncles the son of Zeus. -+Hera (the patron of Eurystheus) tried to destroy Herncles by sending a serpent to kill him. but the infant strangled it (Pindar. Nem. 1.50-70). At the end of his life. mortally wounded by a poisoned garment, Heracles died on a funeral pyre on Mount Oem and was apotheosized joining the immonal gods on -·Olympus (Apollodoros 2.7.7). The cycle of Heracles myths reflected in these major categories (with the exception of his apotheosis) were already well known in Homer. and can be traced back to the Mycenaean period (1550-1150 BCE). for the two places most closely associated with Heracles were Thebes and Tiryns. imponant Mycenaean centres. Herac1es differed from other Greek heroes in several respects: (1) Though the worship of heroes characteristically centered at their tombs where their physical remains were thought to be buried. no specific tomb was associated with Heracles. (2) Heracles was worshipped at some locations as a deceased hero, i.e. a chthonic deity apotheosized through death, and at others as an Olympian god. While some ancients suggested that these two forms of worship indicated that there were originalIy two different figures named Heracles (Herodotus 2.43-44; Cleanthes in Sroiconmr Vcrcrum Fragme1l1a 1.115-16. frag. 514; Diodorus 1.24.1-8; 5.76. I-2). others were able to reconcile the apparent contradiction by supposing that while the phantom (eidolon) of Heracles resided in Hades, Herncles himself dwells with the immonal gods on Olympus (Odyssey I 1.602-4, a later interpolation; Hesiod.

Tlleog. 950-55; E/roeae or Caralogue of Women frag. 25. lines 20-28). Arrian took this speculation a step funher and proposed three different figures named Heracles: the son of Alcmene, the Tyrian Heracles and the Egyptian Herncles (Anabasis Alcxandri 2.16; see Diodorus 3.74.4-5). while Varro proposed that fony-three different figures bore the name Heracles (Augustine Civ. Dei 18.12). Archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia suggests that the figure of Heracles is found as early as the middle of the third millenni urn neE (SCHWEITZER 1922: 133141; BURKERT 1979:80-83). In the representations on Akkadian cylinder seals. a hero probably named Ninurta (the son of Enlil the storm god), is shown conquering lions. bulls, snakes. and even a seven-headed snake (-·Nimrod). In Sumerian representations a hero is fitted out. like the later Greek Heracles, with n club. bow and Iionskin. Heracles' quest for the apples of Hesperides is similar to the quest for immortality in the popular epic of Gilgamesh. The various traits of this superhuman helper which became pan of the folklore of the archaic Greeks centered around the Heracles figure (the name emerged long after the patterns were set). not as a warrior but as a master of animals (BURKERT 1979:94-98). In many of the exploits of Herncles. he transfers the mastery of animals (panicularly the dangerous one and the one difficult to obtain or conquer). to people. According to the lexicon of the inrerprerario Graectl which prevailed from the fifth century BCE on, Heracles was identified with -+Melqan. whose name means "king of the city", and who was called the 'Baal of Tyre' (CIS 1.122), a west Semitic god who was the primary deity of the Phoenician city of Tyre, and later of its major colony at Canhage (Herodotus 2.44; Arrian 2.24.5-6; 3.6.1; Cunius 4.2.10; Diodorus 5.20.2; Strnbo 16.2.23). The Carthaginian triad of deities consisting of -. Baal Shamen. -+Astane and Melqan became known through their Hellenistic counterparts of Zeus, Asteria and Herncles (Athenaeus. Deip". 392d). The

403

HERACLES

Samaritans worshipped Melqart as Zeus Xenios on Mount Gerizim (2 Macc 6:2). Both Greeks (as early as the sixth century BCE) and later the Romans identified Melqart with Heracles (2 Macc 4: 18-20; Josephus. Ant. 8.146; Contra Ap. 1.118-19; Eusebius. Pmep. evang. 1.10 [38a]). and depicted him wearing a lion skin. Menander of Ephesus. quoted in Josephus. Ant. 8.146 and Contra Ap. 1.118-19. mentions that Hirom king of Tyre built new temples in honour of Herocles and Astarte. These two figures are associated in a trndition perhaps of Samaritan origin in Epiphanius Haer. 55.2.1, to the effect that the father and mother of the Biblical -Melchizedek were Herodes and Astarte. In Palmyra, Heracles was identified with -Nergal. an underworld deity in Mesopotamian mythology. and is depicted with' both club and lion's skin along.with other items of a more explicitly chthonic nature (SEYRIG 1945; TElXIDOR 1977: 145-146). III. Several variations of the Heraclesfigure occur in Israelite and early Jewish sources. The legendary Old Testament figure Samson' belongs to the Levantine HeracIes trndition. and Samson continued to be connected to Herades by Christians in late antiquity (Augustine. Civ. Dei 18.19), and in the frescoes of the Via Latina catacomb Samson is depicted as Heracles (SIMON 1955; MAUIERBE 1988:581-583). The name Samson means 'man of the sun'. a legendary ancient Israelite hero endowed with supernatural strength and who perfonned many fantastic feats which have parallels in cycles associated with such mythical heroes in Greece and Mesopotamia as Heraeles. Ninurta and Gilgamesh. MARGA LITH (1987) has argued that the figure of Samson is . linked to a variety of heroic adventures from the late Bronze Age cyele of Heraeles stories. Such scenes as Samson having his hair cut in the rooms of Delilah resembles Herades at the court of Queen Omphale (the motif of magic hair is a Greek. not a Near Eastern mythical theme). Samson's slaying of a lion- bare-handed Oudg 14:6, as Heracles killed the Nemean lion) to win the

favour of a maiden is a common motif in Greek legend. Heraeles is explicitly mentioned in the lost writings of a Semitic (possibly Jewish) author named Kleodemus Malchos, possibly a resident of Carthage. A single fragment of his work is found in Josephus (Ant. 1.24041; see Eusebius, Praep. e\'ClIIg. 9.20; Jerome, Quaest. in Gen. 25.1-6), in a quotation of Alexander Polyhistor. In an expanded interpretation of Gen 25: 1-6, using an interpretatio ludaica, Kleodemos claims that Japhras and Apheras, sons of - Abraham and Keturah. joined Heracles in a campaign against Libya and the Libyan -·giant Antaios (an exploit narrated in Diodorus Siculus 4.17.4-5; Apollodorus 2.5.11), and that he later married Abraham's granddaughter. The enonnous popularity of Heracles was due to several factors. While the gulf between mortality and immortality was rarely bridged in Greek religious tradition, the fact that Heracles achieved immortality at the end of his life provided hope for ordinary people. Further, the life of Heraeles became a paradigm for Stoics and Cynics for the positive ,value which could be placed on suffering. The similarities between some of the important themes associated with the life of Heracles and the historical -Jesus in Hebrews suggests that the author of Hebrews modelled Jesus at least in part on Herncles as a Hellenistic saviour figure. According to Heb 12:3-4, Jesus is held up as one who endured despite abuse, hostility and suffering and received a heavenly reward. In the Hellenistic world, Heraeles was similarly held up as an example of endurance in suffering (Aristides, Or. 40.22; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.36: 9.8). One distinctive feature of Hebrews is that Jesus is presented as having undergone a process of education or paideia through which he learned obedience and ultimately attained perfection (Heb 2: 10; 5:8-9; see 12:7). This correlation between suffering and tmining was associated with Heracles (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.29-32; Epictetus 3.22.56-57). According to Heb 4: 14-16, Jesus is a great

404

HEREM - HERMES

high priest who has "passed through the heavens" and can therefore understand our weaknesses since he has experienced temptation as have Christians who can pray boldly for grace to help in times of need. One important function of Herac1es wac; as a helper and giver of strength in the difficulties of life. There are numerous examples of prayers and references to prayers to Heracles to help in the trials of life (Pindar. Nem. 7.94-97; Homeric Hymn to Heracles 9; Julian. Or. 7.220a; Dio Chrysostom. Or. 8.28). The obedience of Christ to the will of the Father is emphasized in Heb 5:8-9 and 10:5-10. The exemplary obedience of Herac1es to the will of Zeus is frequently mentioned in ancient sources (Diodorus 4.11.1; Epictetus 2.16.44; 3.22.57; Menander Rhetor 2.380). These are some of the more significant ways in which popular conceptions of Herac1es contributed toward the rather distinctive presentation of the image of Jesus found in Hebrews. IV. Bibliography D. E. AUNE. Herakles and Christ: Herakles Imagery in the Christology of Early Christianity. Greeks. Romans and Christians: Essays ill Honor of Abraham J. Mal/lerbe (Minneapolis 1990) 3-19; J. BOARD~fAN et al.• UMC IV.l (1988) 728-838 and V.I (1990) 1-262; C. BONNET, Me/qar!: cu/res et mythes de I'Herac/es I)'rien en Mediterranee (Studia Phoenicia VIII; Leuven 1988); W. BURKERT. Griechisc/le Religion der arc/wischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977) 319-324: BURKERT. StnlcllIre and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley 1979) 78-98; A. J. MALHERBE. Herakles. RAe 14 (1988) 559-583; O. MARGALITH. Samson's Riddle and Samson's Magic Locks. IT 36 (1986) 225-234; MARGALml. More Samson Legends. IT 36 (1986) 397-405; MARGA LITH. The Legends of SamsonlHerac1es, IT 37 (1987) 63-70: M. P. NILSSON, The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (Berkeley 1932) 187-220; F. PFISTER. Herakles und Christus, ARW 34 (1937) 42-60; H. J. ROSE. Herac1es and the Gospels, HTR 31 (1938) 113-142; B. SCHWEITZER. Herakles (TUbingen 1922): H.

SEYRIG. Herac1es-Nergal, Syria 24 (1945) 62-80: M. SIMON, Hercule et Ie Christianisme (Paris 1955); J. TElXIDOR. The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East (Princeton 1977): A. VERBANCKPIERARD, Le double culte d'Heracl~s: legende ou realite? EllIre IJOl1unes et dieux (cd. A.-F. Laurens; Paris 1989) 43-65. D. E. AUNE

HEREM -. TABOO HERMES . EpJ.1ft~ I. Hermes was one of the most popular and frequently represented. if most complex. of the Greek Olympian deities. Identified by the Romans with Mercury. he was associated from the archaic through the Hellenistic periods with cunning and theft. music and eloquence. travel and commerce, and (especially as the Hellenistic Hemles Trismegistus) magic. alchemy and astrology. In the Bible. Hermes occurs as a divine name in Acts 14: 12. and as the name of an otherwise unknown Roman Christian greeled by Paul in Rom 16:14. II. The name. Hennes. is attested from three palace archives of the Late Bronze Age: Knossos, Pylos. and Thebes (SIEBERT 1990:285-286). The nature of the Greek Hennes is neither Minoan nor Mycenaean. however. but is associated with the hennae. ithyphallic stone pillars capped with a head or bust of Hennes that were employed throughout Greece as topographic markers. The oldest fonn by which Hennes was represented (Herodotus 2.51: Dio Chrysostom 78.19; Pausanias 1.24.3. 4.33.3). these ubiquitous herms stood upon the thresholds of private homes and estates. at the gateways of towns and cities, before temples and gymnasia. along the side of roadways and at crossroads. at the frontiers of territories and upon tombs. the portal between this and the underworld. to mark the boundaries of inhabited space and to protect its productive areas against incursions. In Homeric myth. in which the character of Hennes is already fully developed. he is

405

HERMES

the son of -Zeus and the Arcadian nymph Maia (the daughter of Atlas), and the younger half-brother. therefore. of -..Apollo (Homer. Ode 14.435; Hesiod, Th. 938; H. Mere. 1-4; Pindar, 01. 6.80). Even as an infant, Hermes' kralos, 'strength' or 'might', is ·compared to that of his older brother (H. Mere. 406-407), and, emphasized by the Homeric tradition, becomes one of Hermes' epithets (1/. 16.181. 24.345; Ode 5.49; see also H. Mere. 101, 117; H. Cere 346, 377). On the evening of the day of his birth, Hermes stole fifty head of cattle from Apollo's sacred herd (H. Mere. 18-19, 6874) to ensure, as one of the younger of the Olympian deities. that he might be honoured in the same way as Apollo and the other Olympians (H. Mere. 173) by instituting the equitable practice of sacrifice (H. Mere. 115-137; see Ode 14. 418-436). As 'lord of the animals'. both domestic and wild (H. Mere. 564-571), Hermes is frequently represented in art as the Kriophoros. the 'rambearer' or 'good shepherd' (Pausanias 4.33.5, 5.27.5. 9.22.1). caring for and guarding his flocks against predators; because domesticated animals are not only required for all sacrifice, but are the basis of the 'riches and wealth' of the pastoral economy of ancient Greece over which Hermes, as 'keeper of the herd' (H. Mere. 488) and their increase, presided (Hesiod, Th. 444; Homer, 1/. 14. 490-491; H. Mere. 491-494, 529; Pausanias 2.3.4). It is not surprising that some considered the Arcadian shepherdgod, Pan. to be Hermes' son (H. Pan. l, 2741), and the two are often invoked together (Aristophanes, Th. 977). Wherever livestock represent the principal form of wealth. cattle-theft will be frequent (Homer. /1. 11.677-681; Hesiod. Ope 348; Th. 1.5.3). and Hermes is described as the very 'prince of thieves' (H. Mere. 175. 292), a 'thief at the gate' (H. Mere. 15), a cunning and crafty "watcher by night" (H. Mere. 15) and the ally of nocturnal activity (H. Mere. 97. 290). Throughout the night. the wily Hermes hastily drove his purloined cattle "through many shadowy mountains and echoing gorges and flowery plains" (H.

Mere. 94-97), having them walk backwards so that their hoofprints gave an appeamnce of their joining Apollo's main herd rather than being stolen away. Walking nomlally himself, he relied on newly fabricated sandals to disguise the tracks of his own 'swift feet' (H. Mere. 75-86; 225). Hermes' extmordinary mobility, even as an infant, is thus emphasized by Homer who elsewhere portrays the divine traveler as flying "over the waters of the sea and over the boundless land", borne by immortal, golden sandals (Od. 5.44-46; 1/. 24.340-342: see also H. Cere 407; H. Pan. 29; Horace, Can". 2.7.13; Orph. Hymn 28.4). an image that anticipates the common representation of Hermes (and his Roman counterpan Mercury) as having winged shoes or sandals (e.g.• Philo. QlI{)(! Omn. Probe 99; PGM 5.404, 7.672, 17b.5). As quick of mind as swift of foot, the clever and cunning -shepherd provided an image for success not only for a pastoral economy, but also for cultural and urban commerce. Apollo's anger at the theft of his cattle had been assuaged by Hermes' singing to the accompaniment of the lyre which Hermes had invented on the day of his birth even before the cattle-theft (H. Mere. 17, 39-61). and which Apollo accepted as a payment that he conceded was worth the fifty callIe (H. Mere. 437-438). The association of the lyrical competition between Hermes and Apollo (Pausanias 9.30.1) was celebrated at the Pythian games from their beginnings where contests of musical performance were honoured alongside athletic prowess (Pindar, Pyth. 12). Established later at the Nemean and Isthmian games, music became part of Greek classical education in which proper styles of music were held to contribute to courage (Plato. Resp. 398C-399D; Leg. 653D-673A; 795A-812E) and to ethics (Aristotle, Pol. 1339A-1342B). The heml or statue of this 'leader of men' (Pausanias 8.31.7) came to stand, therefore, before the entrance to stadiums (P:llIsanias 1.17.2; 5.14.9; 8.32.3; 8.39.6), where he was honoured as the god of gymna~). Such objections cannot be countered by the equation of Ijumbaba with the Anatolian goddess Kubaba (-Cybele) proposed by LEWY (1934). For the etymology of the Hebrew name, a derivation from unn (denoting cunning) or f:lBB (denoting kindness) is far more attractive (cf. HALAT 273).

IV. Bibliography J. BLACK & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London 1992) 106; N. FORSYTH, Huwawa and His Trees: A Narrative and Cultural Analysis, AS} 3 (1981) 13-27; C.-F. JEAN, La religio" sllmerien"e (Paris 1931) 124 n. 8; J. LEWY, Les textes pal~o-assyriens et I' Ancien Testament. RHR 110 (1934) 47-48 n. 44; J. H. TIGAY, 77,e Emlwion of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia 1982); F. A. M. WIGGERMANN, Babylonian Protecti\'e Spirits (Groningen 1992) 146, 150; C. WILCKE, IjuwawalHumbaba, RLA 4 (1972-75) 530-535. K. VAN DER TOORN HUNGER -. MERIRI HUMBAN I, The Elamite god Humban (tJumban, var. Umban) was the head of the pantheon of the Awan dynasty (ca. 2200 BCE). In the subsequent period his political importance diminished as a result of the rise of other deities, but he remained an important deity into the Achaemenid period. JENSEN 1892:58 urged that the name Haman (Est 3:1), the son of Hammedatha (-Haoma) and adversary of Esther and Mordechai (-Marduk). goes back to the theonym Ijumban. This theory is to be rejected on phonological grounds. II. Ijumban is an Elamite deity whose cult is documented for over two millennia. According to \V. HINZ. his name is related to the verb bllba- 'to order' (1972-75:491); this interpretation, however, has apparently been abandoned in W. HtNZ & H. KOCH 1987. The god's character is indicated by the ancient identification of tfumban with

432

HUM BAN Mesopotamian Enlil, the head of the Sumerian pantheon (E. REINER, Surpu: A Collecrion of Sumerian and AkJwdiall Incantations [AfD Beih II: Graz 1958] 51 Commentary C: 53). He is the conson of the mother goddess Pininkir. The earliest reference to Pininkir and tlumb41n is found in the treaty of Naram-Sin of Akkad with the King of Awan, where they head the enumerJtion of the deities of Awan (\V. HINZ, Elams Venrag mit Nariim-Sin von Akkadc, ZA 58 [1967] 91 i 2 and i 4). The theonym Ijumban does not occur frequently in Elamite royal inscriptions. According to HINZ his name was taboo and therefore the name Napiri~a (also written ideographically Dr:-!GIR.GAL), 'great god', was used as a substitute for tlumban in royal inscriptions (1965: 1972-75: 491). This theory has been refuted by DE MIROSCHEDJI 1980. who demonstrates that tlumban and Napiri~a are separate deities. In this he has been followed by GRILLOT 1986. tlumban and NapiriSa are described with identical epithets, but arc of a different geographical background: tlumban occupies a central position in the pantheon of the dynasty of Awan, whose location is probably to be found in the plains to the nonh of Susa (DE MIROSCIIEDJI 1980: 133). During the second millennium BCE Napiri~a, his conson -. Kiriri~a, the divine couple of Ansan, and Insu~inak, the god of the city of Susa, ousted tlumban and Pininkir as heads of the royal pantheon. Napiri~a and Kiriri~a origimlte from ancient Ansan, identified with modern Tall-i Malyan in the southern pan of the Zagros. With the rise of the dynasty of An~an. Napirisa and Kiriri~a became, together with Insusinak. the heads of the official pantheon of the Elamitc state. During the second and tirst millennia BCE tlumban conlinues to appear a.o; onomastic clement, also in royal names (M. W. STOLPER. Texrs from Tall-; Ala/yan [Philadelphia 1984] 19541: R. ZADOK. The E/amire 0110masricon [Napels 1984] 11-13 S.v. 48. Humpan: HINZ & KOCH 1987), and receives worship. but never attained polilical predominance. In the inscription of tlanni from

Malamir (--Vashti) tlumban is called the ri~a-ir dna-ap-pfr-ra, 'greatest of the gods', (F. W. K6NIG, Die e/amischen Konigsinsclzri} ren [AfD Bcih. 16: Graz 1965] no. 75 § 6), although he docs not belong to the major deities in the theology of this inscription (M. W. STOLPER, Malamir B. Philologisch, RUl 7 [1987-90] 277a). In the Achaemenid period the cult of Ijumban continued. Administrative tablets from Persepolis mention quantities of barley and wine destined as offerings for ijumban in different localities. They clearly demonstrate the vitality of the cult of tlumban during the reign of Darius (KOCH 1977). The rock relief of Kurangun, identified by HINZ as reprc~enting the deity tlumban (1972-75: 492), has been identified ao; a representation of In~u~inak (P. DE MIROSCIIEDJI, Le dieu elamite au serpent et aux eaux jaillissantes, IrAnt 16 [1981] 1-25 and pIs. I-XI). Ijumban also appears in texts from Mesopotamia. Together with other Elamite deities he appears in the incantation series Surpu (Surpu II 163). In a Late Assyrian literary work tlumban is mentioned, alongside other Elamite deities, as protecting the king and his anny (SAA 3 no. 32 rev. 25). tlumban is sometimes believed to be the origin of -~Humbaba, the mythological guardian of the- Cedar Forest in the Sumerian and Akkadian compositions about Gilgamesh, but it seems wise to follow C. WILCKE, (tluwawa. RU 4 [1972-75] 531b) who argues that the etymology of the name tlumbaba is unknown. III. In an early study of Elamite proper names, JENSEN suggested that Haman, the well-known villain from the Book of Esther, bears the name of the Elamite deity tlumban: "Ich glaube mit einiger Sicherheit sagen zu konnen. dass der Name jo.i des Buches Esther auf den elamitischen Humman (Hamman) zurOckgeht" (1892:58). STiEUL agrees with the identification proposed by Jensen (1956: II). ZADOK opposes the identification of Haman with Ijumban (1984: 19). but accepts a link with tlumpan > ijuman, arguing thal "the divine name

433

HYACINTHUS

.'

Humpan was also used as an anthroponym" (ZADOK 1984:21). ijumpan, however, is the same as ijumban, the Elamite language making no differentiation between voiced and voiceless labials (E. REINER, The Elamite lAnguage [HdO UII/I-2J2; Leiden 1969] 72-73). Moreover, the evolution of ijumban to ·(H)umman is not attested in Elamite texts. The proposed Persian etymology of the personal name Haman. connecting it with Hamana and Hamayun, seems preferable (L. B. PATON, A critical alld exegetical commentary on the Book of Esther [ICC; Edinburgh 1908] 69; G. GERLEMAN, Esther [BKAT 21; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973] 90-91). IV. Bibliography F. GRILLOT, KiririIa, Fragmenta Historiae AeJamicae (Met. M.-J. Steve; ed. L. De Meyer, H. Gasche & F. Vallat; Paris 1986) 175·180; \V. HINZ, The Elamite god d.GAL, JNES 24 (1965) 351-54; HINZ, Humban, RLA, 4 (1972·75) 491-92; W. HINZ & H. KOCH, Elamisches lVonerbllch (Berlin 1987) I 677 s.V. d.hu-ba-an, with funher references; P. JENSEN, Elamitische Eigennamen, WZKM 6 (1892) 47-70; H. KOCH, Die religioscn VerhlJ/tn;sse Jer Dare;oszeit (\Viesba4en 1977) 101-105; P. DE MIROSCHE~)JJ, Le dieu t!lamite Napirisha, RA 74 (1980) 129-43; R. STIEHL, Das Buch Esther, lVZKM 52 (1956) 4-22; R. ZADOK, On the Historical Background of the Book of Esther, BN 24 (1984) 18-23.

F. VAN KOPPEN

&

K. VAN DER TOORN

HYACINTHUS I. . rlixh:l\'e~ is the name of a preGreek and Greek masculine deity or hero and of a species of flower, by extension also of things having the colour of this flower. such as a specific gem-stone. and apparently in the LXX a fabric and a kind of leather. . The deity is not referred to in the Bible. the flower possibly but not necessarily in Sir 40:4 (no Hebrew text) "who wears stephanos (garland?) and hyacinth", the gemstone nt Rev 21 :20. the fabric and leather mainly in the descriptions or inventories of

Tabernacle and Temple (Exod 25-39; 2 Chr 2-3; Ezck 16: 10). The derived adjective UaKlvewo.;. whether indicating material or colour. occurs likcwise mainly in thcse descriptions (Exod 25-39; Num 4: 1-25), and in Rev 9: 17. The name has been attested since Euripides (Helena 1469), the flower since Homer (Iliad 14, 348). II. According to the most elaborate version of his myth Hyacinthus wao; a beautiful youth, loved by both -.Apollo and Zephyrus or Boreas (-.Wind-Gods). When he and Apollo were engaged in a match of discusthrowing, near the river Eurotas at Amyclae the jealous wind-god blew Apollo's discus against the youth's head which caused his instant death. From the blood that trickled into the earth there sprang a flower, on whose petals Apollo put the marks AI AI, as a token of mourning: aiai! In ancient mythography only Nonnus has Apollo resuscitate Hyacinthus (Dion. 19, 104). Various pairs are stated to have been his parents: a) king Amyclas (personifying Amyclae 5 km south of Sparta) and Diomede (Apollodorus 3, 10, 3-4, elder son Cynortas; Pausanias 3,1,3, elder son Argalos); b) Pieros (personifying Pieria north of Mt Olympus) and the Muse Clio (Apollodorus 1.3.1-2); c) Oebalus king of Spana (Lucian, Dialoglle of the Gods, 16 (14), 239; Hyginus 271). A sister Polyboca is mentioned by Pausanias (3, 19, 4). Curiously, there is also a story about daughters of Hyacinthus, the "Hyakinthides". In their war with Minos the Athenians, in order to relieve the famine and pestilence that plagued them. had to sacrifice according to an ancient oracle the four daughters of Hyacinthus "who had come from Lacedaemon", namely Anthe'is, Aegle'is, Lytaea and Orthaea. When this was of no avail, the Athenians had to give in to Minos and send seven boys and seven girls to Crete for the Minotaur (Apollodorus 3. 15, 8; Diodorus Sic. 17, 15. 2; Hyginus 238). In a parallel story, king Ercchtheus had to sacrifice his daughters during the war between Athens and Eleusis (Apollodorus 3, 15, 4). Phanodemus of Athens (c. 335 BCE) is reported to have stated in his Atth;s bk 8 that it was

434

HYACINTHUS

these daughters of Erechtheus that were called the "Hyakinthides". because the sacrifice took place on a mountain (1tCiy~) called "Hyakinthos. beyond the Sphendonia" (Sudas s.V. napBtvol FGH 325.4). The minstrel Thamyris is also said to have been in love with Hyacinthus. but further details arc unknown (Apollodorus 1.3.3). The epithet "Hyakinthotr6phos" of Artemis in Dorian Cnidus (SGDI nr 265; cf. the "Hyakinthotr6phia" at Ionian ~liIetus) probably meant "raising beautiful boys". The goddess was supposed to preside over baby-food and baby-care and had as such also the epithet of "Kourotr6phos" (Diod. Sic. 5.73. 5). Pausanias is the only ancient author to describe a sanctuary where Hyacinthus was venerated. "the Amyklaion" at Amyclae. He gives an exhaustive list of the various reliefs on the combined throne and altar in this temple (3,18.6 - 3.19.6). where both Hyacinthus and Apollo (3.19.3; cf Thuc. 5.23) were venerated. the latter appearing in Pausanias' account as "the Amyclaean" (3.18.9; 3.19. 6; cf. 3.16.2). The throne had several seats separated by empty spaces. The very middle one. however. carried an archaic statue of Apollo. an aniconic bronze pillar thirty cubits high with a helmeted head. hands holding spear and bow. and feet (3.19.1-2). Its pedestal was fashioned in the shape of an altar with a bronze door to the left. which was also the tomb of Hyacinthus. Through this door one devoted offerings (Evayi~o\l env) to the hero on the feast of the Hyacinthia, before the sacrifice (BOOla) to Apollo (3.19.3). On the altar beneath the throne several apparently unrelated scenes were depicted. such as -·Poseidon and Amphitrite. -+Zeus and -+Hermes. etc.. but also the company of -.Aphrodite. -.Athena and -Artemis carrying Hyacinthus and his deceased maiden sister Polyhoca 10 heaven (3.19.4). (Some translators include in this scene the previously mentioned -+Demeter. Kore. Pluto. and others. but this is grammatically not compelling. and -·Hades going to heaven sounds odd. unless "heaven" is here equivalent to -·"Olympus·'). As a specially striking detail it is stated that this

=

relief showed the hero "already bearded", in contnldistinction to a painting by Nicius c. 320 BeE. About the festival of the Hyacinthia it is mainly Athenaeus who offers details (4. 138e-140b). It lasted three days and started with a period of mourning for the death of Hyacinthus. during which one did not wear crowns or garlands. did not sing the paean and ate no wheat-bread or other cakes. On the second day there was a radical change: now ivy garlands were worn (M'lcrobius, Sor. 1,18.2). many sacrifices were offered to Apollo, and there were copious meals for the citizens. their slaves and their guests. called K01t\O£~. which did now indeed comprise wheat-bread and special cakes. Boys (1taloE~) in high-girt chitons sang in honour of the god and accompanied themselves on the lyre or the flute. Young men (vEaV\OKo1) pamded on adorned horses or sang in choirs mixed with dancers. Girls (1tapBEvo1) rode in wickercarts (Kav(v)aBpa) or contested in twohorse-chariots. Possibly all this continued during the following night (Euripides' HeleIla 1465-1475) and on the third day. It was certainly the most imponant festival of the Spartans: "No one misses the sacrifice. but it so happens that the town (Sparta) empties itself for the spectacle (at Amyclae)." There are some indications that the panicipants made their way in procession from Sparta to Amyclae along the road named "Hyakinthis" (Ath. 4.173f). The boys clothed in chiton probably carried with them the chiton which the women in Sparta wove each year for Apollo Amyclaeus (Paus. 3.16,2). Possibly these were the twelve year olds who wore their chitons for the very last time before becoming members of the next age class, that of the pCJ)~ioat. who were each assigned to an EpaOnl~ and no longer wore the chiton but the himation. As a rite of passage they dedicated then their former clothing to Apollo of Amyclae ,IS the patron of army organization. The "young men" on horse-back were probably the twenty year olds who went over to the status of EipE\'E~. who were no longer Ep!lEv01. as Hyacinthus had been. but now became Epaomi

435

HYACINTHUS

themselves, like Apollo. They received a red cloak and a bronze shield. The depiction on the altar of Hyacinthus as bearded may mark the transition as such, whereas the bronze breast-plate of Timomenos the Theban, which was put on display during the festival, may parallel the equipment with the shield. According to a fragment of Aristotle's Constitutioll of the wconicl1Is (frg. 532 Rose) this man had instructed the Spartans in the art of war-fare and had helped them at the head of his own clan, the Aigeidai, in the war against the Amyclaeans. Similarly, the girls, who came to Amyclae in the wicker-carts provided by the city, even the kings' daughters (Xenophon, Agesilaus 8.7), may have partaken in a parallel rite which marked their transition to the marriageable age. The scenes on the altar of Pluto, Demeter and Kore, and that of Polyboia. who was identified with Kore (so Hesychius s. v.) may point in this direction (her alternative idcntity with Artemis is at odds with this scene). Other Spartan festivals such as the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia may have comprised further initiatory elements. Whether they constituted together a cohcrent sequence is difficult to judge due to our almost total ignorance of the Spartan calendar (A. E. SAMUEL, Greek alld Romall Chronology [Munich 1972] 93). Amyclae was the only outside community which had been conquered (c. 750 BCE) and added to that of the four vil1ages forming the polis of Sparta. The reason may well have been the very presence of the Hyacinthus-cult in the Amyklaion, a sanctuary which had existed there since the end of the 13th century BCE (PElTERSSON 1992: l06a; cf 913; 93b; 98a), and had made Amyclae the most important site of L'\conia at the time (PElTERSSON 1992:IOOa-b). The Theban Aigeidai had come to help the Dorians in obedience to a Delphian oracle (Pindar, Isthm. 7.13-15), hence the new cult of Apollo at Amyclae and the statue of Apollo Pythaeus at Sparta (Pausanias 3,1 \'9), and one at Laconian Thornax, which latter was completely identical to that of Apollo Amyclaeus (Pausanias 3.10,8). The actual victory over the Amycla-

eans "and othcr Achaeans" was, however, attributed to the intervention of "Zeus Tropaeus" or "Turn-Battle", who had tipped the scales in favour of them and had a sanctuary in Sparta itc;elf (Pausanias 3,2.6: 3,12,9). That Apollo had complctely superscded Hyacinthus is clcar from thc position of his statuc on the tomb of the other, and may have comc close to identity of thc two. At Tarentum, a Laconian colony (Pausanias 10,10,6-8), thcrc was a tomb of "Apollo Hyacinthus" (Polybius 8.28, I), and much later Nonnus kncw of an "Apollo Hyacinthius" (Dion. II, 328-330). The figure of Hyacinthus was much older than the "Dorian invasion" and Amyclae's fall, and had been. to judge from the -illl"o- part of his name and the taboo of whcat-bread on the first day of the Hyacinthia, a pre-Greek vegetation-god, probably a com-god. Apollo's discus may havc becn thc sun(-disk) whose heat had ripened the corn. The "hyacinth" would have to be then a plant which blossomed after one of the two wheat-harvests and whose flowers were reddish in accordance with Hyacinthus' blood. Thus the myth and thc relief of Hyacinthus-Polyboea symbolized or commemorated in combination the dying wheat, the defeat of Amyclae, the supersession of the Hyacinthus-cult. and the end of Spartan boyhood and maidenhood. III. The identity of the flower has always been a problem. for already in Antiquity Theophrastus distinguished two species, the "wild" one (~ aypia) and the "cultivatcd" one (~mrapnl) (both in Hist. Plam. 6,8,2). These (or still others?) are described as similar to "woolly (curling) hair" (Od. 6,230-1), as "purple" (n:op¢up£'1) (Meleagcr, Am". Pal. 5.147), as "dark (J..t£Aav) and marked (ypan:t o. Its etymology is obscure (CHANTRAINE 1980). As a theophoric name, it occurs twice in the NT (I Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2: 17). II. Hymenaios is a relatively late creation. As a personification of the wedding song he occurs first in Pindar (fr. 128c Maehler) and Euripides (Troades 310, 314 etc.; sec also J. DIGGLE on Euripides, Phaeton 233-234): in the innovative fourthcentury choral lyric he seems 10 have been a favourite subject (HENRICHS 1984:56). However, in the available sources he is not invoked as Ihe god of the legitimate wedding before the Roman poets Catullus (61) and Seneca (Medea 67). In analogy with Muses. satyrs and other divine groups. a graffito in Dura-Europos even menlions Hymenaioi (SEG 17.772). The background of the wedding song is clear in the various genealogies proposed by various late sources. Mosl popularly,

437

IfYPNOS

Hymenaios is represented as the son of a Muse, but, alternatively, he can also be the son of the musicians -Apollo or Magnes (sources: LINANT DE BEllEFONDS 1988: 583; add HENRICHS 1984:55). Interestingly, he is sometimes said to be the son of -Dionysos (Seneca., Medea 110; Servius on Virgil, Aeneid 4.127), the god who also in the Anrhologia Palatina ( 9.524.21) receives the epithet Jrymeneios; indeed. in various late representations the god is pictured with Dionysiac colours (LINANT DE BEllEFONDS 1991). Apparently, the joyful sphere of the Dionysiac world provides the background to this genealogy. We nowhere hear about a cult for Hymenaios, and his mythology is limited to only a few details. Servius (Aeneid 4.99) mentions the following adventure. One day an Athenian, Hymenaios, and a group of girls, who were travelling to E1eusis, were captured by pirates and taken aboard. Hymenaios, whose beauty had made him hardly distinguishable from a girl, killed the pirates and married the girl with whom he had fallen in love. Since this adventure the Athenians invoke the name of Hymenaios during their weddings. The defeating of the pirates and the girlish appearance of the god strongly suggest an influence of the Homeric Hymn ro Dionysos: an additional testimony of the connection between Hymenaios and Dionysos in later antiquity. The first-century author Cornelius Balbus (quoted by Servius. Aeneid 4.127) relates that Hymenaios died during the wedding of Dionysos and Althaea. where he was singing: apparently, the god of the wedding should not be older himself than the bridal couple. The myth of the god's death goes back at least to Hellenistic times because Apollodorus (FGH 244 F 139) mentions that according to the Orphics Hymenaios was resulTCcted by Asclepius (0. KERN, Orphicontmfragmell1a [Berlin 1922] fragment 40). III. Hymenaios occurs twice in the NT (I Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2: 17) where he is mentioned by Paul (7) among those who claimed that the resurrection already had taken place. It fits in with the late appearance of

Hymenaios as a god that the theophoric name Hymenaios is also relatively late (SOLIN 1982:1.522-523. 111.1369). IV. Bibliography P. CHANTRAINE, Dictionnllire itymologiqut! de la lallgue greclfue (Paris 1968-80); A. HENRICHS, Ein neues Likymniosfragment bei Philodem, ZPE 57 (1984) 53-57; P. LINANT DE BELLEFONDS, Hymenaios. liMe IV.l (1988) 583-585; LINANT DE BEllEFONDS. Hymenaios: une iconographie contestee. Melanges de rEmle !rallraiJe li Rome 103 (1991) 197-212: H. SOLIN, Die griechisc/leIJ PerJ01lell1lamen ill Rom I-llI (Berlin & New York 1982).

J. N. BREMMER HYPNOS wr1tVo; 0 aOavato; (since Homer [Iliad 2:741] in connection with Zeus) I3acnAc\x;, but also 0 a6paro~ 7tanip, 0 aopato; OEO; (T. Abr. A 16:2-3). Greek Elloch uses the expression "the highest" mainly in contexts, where the Most High acts as judge (93-94; 99:3). Till the day of judgement every unjust deed is recorded in the presence of the Most High (98:7). Sib. Or. calls the great eternal God (3:698). the Creator, the OlKOlOKpitTl; tC J.lo\'apxo~, the aOa\'ato~, aylO; (iiylO~ is also an epithet for Zeus, (cf. COOK 1925: 879; SCHWABL 1972:225-226), the great eternal king, 0 \j\VlCJtO~ Oco; (cf. 3:704, 709. 717, 719). The law of the Most High is mentioned, stressing that he is most righteous of all throughout the world (cf. 3: 720,580. OllCOlO(J\JVO~ is also an epithet for Zcus-cf. COOK 1925:1092; 1940:951). Philo uses the expression 0 Oco; 0 U't/lCJtO; when citing LXX Gen 14:22 and 0 U't/lCJtO; when citing LXX Deut 32:8 or Num 24: 16. In the other instances, the expression is used in the set fonn 0 U\VlCJro; Oco; and refers specifically to the God of

441

HYPSISTOS

the sacred temple in Jerusalem (Leg. Gai. 278; Flacc. 46). to whom even Caesar has ordered offerings to be made (Leg. Gai. 157.317). Philo leaves no door open to interpret the expression in a polytheistic manner. After citing LXX Gen 14: 18 (where Melchizedek is called "priest of the Most High"). Philo excludes the possibility that there is any other Most High, 0 yap SEO; d~ rov (Leg. All. 3:82). An anonymous Samaritall author from the 2nd century nCE translated 'AP10Pl~iv with opo; U'I'lOtOU (Eusebius. Praep. Ev. IX 17,5). In dealing with non-literary evidence. it is extremely difficult to decide whether an inscription mentioning the most high God refers to the God of Israel. The mere occurrence of the expression U'IflOLO~ docs not guarantee its Jewish origin (Cos. ZP£ 21 [1976] 187 TREBILCO 1991:134; Acmonia. SEG 26 nos. 1355-1356: cf. NewDocs I no. 5). In a late imperial inscription from Diema in Dacia the plural SEol U'I'(iOtOl) is used (cf. NewDocs 2 no. 12). A Lydian inscription'is dedicated to SEQ U'I'iotU (cf. Com.: 1925:881). Sometimes the influence of the LXX on the expression or phrases in an inscription (Delos CIJ 12 no. 725a+b: Acmonia. CIJ 2 no. 769). or added epithel'i like 7tOV'tOlCpatwp and £UA.o"fTltO~ (CIJ 12 690a [ = SEG 32 no. 790]: similarly CIJ 12 no. 690: CIJ 1 no. 78·) or perhaps an cffon in Thessalonica to transliterate the Tetragrammaton (CIJ 12 no. 693d), might give some degree of cenainty. Inscriptions that refer to or were found near a building that might be identified as a 7tpoOEUXT1. might be Jewish (Alexandria, CIJ 2 no. 1433 [ CPJ 3. pp. 134-5]: Athribis, CIJ 2 no. 1443 [ CPJ 3. p. 142]; Leontopolis, SEG 33 no. 1326]. In a building: Delos. CIJ 12 nos. 727-730). Using this scant evidence some outlines of a picture might be drawn. For inhabitanl'i of Delos 0 SEC)~ 6 U'lfloro; is the Lord of the spirits and of all flesh. He oversees everything (CIJ 12 725a+b; cf. DElssMANN. Ucht vom Osten [TObingen 1908] 305-316). Using metaphoric language of LXX Zech 5: 1-5, Acmonian Jews attributed the func-

=

=

=

=

tion of judgement to the Most High (CIJ 2 no. 769). Along the Bosporus. the God most high is the blessed Almighty (SEcin U\ViOLWl 7tOvtOlCpatOpl EUAo"fTltcin: CIJ 12 69(}1 [Gorgippa = S£G 32 no. 790). similarly CIJ 12 no. 690. CIJ I no. 78·). Although mIylCPOnl~ is a common epithet for Zeus (cf. PW S.v.; SEG 18 no. 153: 22 no. 274). EUAoYTltO; most likely indicates that these inscriptions were erected by Jews (cf. LXX Gen 14:20-22: Jdt 13: 18) in the first century CE and that they used both epithets. U'IflOto~ and 7tOvrolCpatwp. together. In Sibidunda in Pisidia the God most high is called "holy Refuge" (ciyio lCOtaQUYT1 - SEG 19 no. 852 = TREBILCO 1991: 136). Although aylO; is a common epithet for Zeus in Syria and Palestine. this does not apply to lCOta~UyT1. In the LXX this tenn is often used for God. It is not an epithet for Zeus or another deity. In the 3n1 century CE he is called "the great God. the Most High. the Heavenly" by Jews near Ankara (RECAM 2 no. 209B). This last epithet (E7tOUpavlO~) is. like IlEytOto-:; and U'IflOtO;. often used for Zeus (cf. SCHWABL 1972:308, 335). Such names were used when dedicating a marble column to the Most High and his 7tPO'

I.

The Edomite personal name Jalaml fa'/lim (Gen 36:5.14.18; I Chr 1:35) has been considered a theophoric containing the presumed Arabic animal-deity Ja'Jam 'Ibex'. (ROBERTSON SMITH 1912). II. Unlike the other animal-deities proposed by Robertson Smith (~Jaghu!; -4Ya(uq), Jalam is not attested in pre-Islam;, ic Arabic sources.

III. In the light of the evidence available; it is impossible to decide whether the name Jalam is theophoric or not. The name can be interpreted alternatively as a hypocoristic sentence name: 'He is hidden' (from '1m I) or 'He is dark' (from '/in II; cf. HAUT 402). In the Old Testament, Jalam OCCurs only as a human being. The general theory behind the proposal-names of animals used in anthroponyms are reminiscent of animal worship or totemism-has encountered serious criticism. Jalam does not refer to an Edomite or Arabian deity (BARTLETT 1989: 196).

IV. Bibliography W. ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures and Essays (London 1912); *1. R. BARTLETf, Edom and the Edomites (JSOT Suppl 77; Sheffield 1989).

B.

BECKING

JAPHETH nEY' I. The personal name YepetlJapheth (Gen 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18-27; 10:1.2.21; 1 Chron 1:4.5; Jdt 2:25 refers to a place name Japheth), does not have a clear Semitic etymology, except for the popular interpretation found in Gen 9:27: yapt "elOhfm leyepet, "May God enlarge Japheth", suggesting a connection between the name and I PTH 'to enlarge' (HAZAT 405-406; LAYfON 1990: 90). A relation with II Pm 'to be youthful' or with YPH, 'to be beautiful', is also possible, though (ISAAC 1992:641). Japheth has been compared with the Greek Titan Japetos. II. In Greek literature 'IanE't6~ is known as the Titan (~Titans) father of Prometheus. and the progenitor of humanity (Homer, Was 8:479; Hesiod, Theogony 134. 507-52?; Apollodorus, Library, r 2:3; NEIMAN 1986: 126; HESS 1993). WEST (1966:202-203); lists four similarities between Japheth and' Japetos: (1) The name itself. In the LXX) Japheth is rendered as 'Ia1t£'t6~ [this i~~~t however, incorrect]; (2) Japetos' broth~~A castrates his father. West interprets Ge~:~ 9:21-22 as Japheth's brother Ham doing th~~ same to -4Noah. This text, however, on~,~ relates that Ham saw his father's nakednessi'

.:f . ~~.

462

JASON

(3) both characters are indirectly related to a deluge: Japheth through Noah, Japetos through his grandson Deucalion; (4) both are related genealogically to Asia Minor. There exist two different views to explain the relation between Japhet and Japetos. On the one hand, it has been suggested that Japetos is a Greek interpretation of a Hebrew Japheth (WEST 1966:203; HESS 1993). Alternatively, NEIMAN (1986) proposed that in the II th century BCE the Sea Peoples acted as intennediary between Hellenes and Israelites. Through them the Israelites knew the figure of Japetos, whom they construed to be the ancestor of Hellenic and Anatolian peoples. In view of historical probability, the first interpretation mentioned should be preferred. III. In the Bible Japheth is not cast in a heroic role. He is the youngest of the three sons of Noah (Gen 5:32; 6: 10). Together with his brothers -'Shem and Ham and their respective wives he entered the ark and was saved from the flood. In genealogical lists it is recorded that Japheth had seven sons: Gomer, -'Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tirash (Gen 10:2-5; I Chron 1:5-7). Japheth is thus depicted as the ancestor of peoples and tribes inhabiting lands north of Canaan (ISAAC 1992). This observation is underscored by the topographical remarks in Jdt 2:25 and Jllb 8:29; 9:7-13. In Jewish traditions, Japheth occurs only in genealogical contexts (e.g. 2 Enoch 73:5; Apoc Adam 4: I; T. Sim 6:5; PsPhilo, LAB 1:22; 4:1-5).

IV. Bibliography R. S. HESS, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis I-lJ (AOAT 234; NeukirchenVluyn 1993) 31-32; E. ISAAC, Japheth, ABD 3 (1992) 641-642; S. C. LAYTON, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in tile Hebrew Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta 1990); D. NEIMAN, The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of Canaan, Biblical Motifs. Origins and Trans!onnations (A. Altman ed.; Cambridge 1966) 113-134; M. L. \VEST, Hesiod. TlJeogon)' (Oxford 1966). B. BECKING

JASON 'l6:ooov I. The name of Jason. the hero who led the Argonauts in their quest for the Golden Fleece, is borne by several persons in 2 Macc and in the NT. II. The name 'Iason' appears to refer to 'healing' (iaOJ,1Ol), something for which one might naturally tum in cult to a hero. Correspondingly, Pindar referred to a myth that the centaur Cheiron taught Jason medicine (Pyth. 4: 119 and scholiast). Yet one cannot help suspecting that this is folk-etymology, given his father 'Aison' and a possible tribal name and eponym 'Iasos' (speculatively, DOWDEN 1989: 122). He receives cult at Abdera, Cyzicus, CoJchis and inland in Asia Minor, presumably in the wake of Argo (FARNELL 1921 :336). Jason comes from lolkos and presumably belongs to an lolkan tradition of epic poetry (WESr 1985:137). The story of Jason, and of the Argonauts, supports the view that lolkan poetry had been to our eyes the closest to folk-tale (WEST 1985: 138). In the 6th century BCE (WEST 1985: 164), Ps.Hesiod's Cataloglle of Women (fr. 40) presents Jason as the son of Aison and has him educated (like Achilles) by the centaur Cheiron on Mt Pelion. He comes in from the wild into the city of lolkos, but is signalled by his single sandal (in fact an aetiology of a custom found also amongst Aitolian warriors, Aristotle fro 74) as a threat to King Pelias. Pelias sends him, like -·Perseus or -. Herakles, on a dangerous mission-the voyage of Argo (often seen as the first ship) to recover the Golden Fleece. The story was well known at an early date, for instance by Homer, and in surviving literature is told by Pindar (elliptically, Pyt!Jian 4) and notably by Apollonios of Rhodes in Greek and Valerius F1accus in Latin. The sense of achievement is rather undennincd by the figure of Medea, daughter of Aietes King of CoJchis. A barbarian who helps Jason by betraying her home and family, who butchers her brother and causes the daughters of Pelias to mince their father, she is eventually abandoned by Jason at Corinth in preference for a Greek wife. This is the scene for Euripides' Medea, where she even

463

JASON

kills her (Jason's) children, though in local cult the Corinthians annually atoned for their own murder of the children. In any case, Jason has no offspring and exists for his achievements, not his genealogy. His tale "highlights the crises of transition from one stage of life to another" (SEGAL 1986: 56. based on insights of VIDAL-NAQUET), bringing together kingship, sexuality, family relationships, mastery of earth-born warriors and leadership of seafaring heroes, as well as religion and magic. In interpretation his story has rewarded those interested in folktale, shamanism, psychoanalysis, initiation (and other) rituals, and historical colonisation. III. Greeks chose names because of their associations. This resonance in turn might result from the meaning of the constituent elements of the name (e.g. Kleo-menes, 'Fame-might') or from previous bearers of the name. The name might echo one's father's. be the same as one's grandfather's, or even be that of a hero from the legendary past. Heroic names, unusual before the mid5th century BCE (FICK-BECHTEL 1894:314), became commoner in the Hellenistic age as the classical authors and culture became canonical in response to a world grown larger, more varied and more multi-cultural. This process reached a peak in the second century CE (BOWIE 1974: 199-2(0). For the Hellenising Jews at the time of the Maccabaean revolt, the adoption of resonant Greek names was a way of expressing adhesion to Hellenic culture-as much as building a gymnasium (l Macc I: 14) at the foot of a Temple Mount now perceived as an acropolis. Thus the Jason who had supplanted his brother Onias in the high priesthood in 175 BCE (2 Macc 4:7-10) had, according to Josephus (Am. 12:239), assumed this name in place of his own name Jesus (Joshua) (cr. HENGEL 1974: I 64). ll1is is the man who "made his fellow-Jews conform to the Greek way of life" (2 Mace 4: 10). Plainly the phonetic shape of the name Jason assisted its adoption in a Semitic culture and this may explain its special frequency. Elsewhere in the Bible we find:

(a) Jason of Cyrene, the author of the (presumably Greek) 5-book predecessor of 2 Macc (2:22) and maybe a contemporary of the events; (b) Jason son of Eleazar, emissary sent to Rome by Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc 8:17, also Jos., Alii. 12:415,419, 13: 169); (c) a 'kinsman' of Paul sending greetings through him at Rom 16:21, presumably the same as the Christian sympathiser at Thessalonica, the host of Paul and Silas (Acts 17:5-9). The name is extremely common in the Eastern Mediterranean and its associations may be correspondingly vague. FRASERMATTHEWS (1987) list 183 occurrences, a great many dating from the last centuries BCE and the first century cE-and many of these in Cyrenaica where there was a substantial Jewish population. IV, Bibliography E. BOWIE, Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic, Swdies in Ancient Society (ed. M. I. Finley; London 1974) 166-209; B. K. BRASWELL, A Commelllary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Berlin 1988) esp. 6-23 [& Lit]; K. DOWDEN, Death and the Maiden (London 1989); L. R. FARNEl.L, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford 1921); A. FrcK & F. BECHTEL, Die griechischen Personennamen nach ihrer Bildung erklart und s)'stematisch geordnet (2nd cd.; Gottingen 1894); E. FRAENKEL, Namenwesen, PW 16 (1935) 1611-70; P. M. FRASER & E. MATTHEWS (eds.), A Lexic01l of Greek Personal Names, vol. I: The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica (Oxford 1987); M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism: Swdies in their Encoulller in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic period, Eng. tr. (London 1974); K. MEULI, Odyssee wui Argonautika (Berlin 1921); C. SEGAL, Pindar's Mythmaking: The Fourth Pytlzian Ode (Princeton 1986); P. VIDAL-NAQUET, Le chasseur noir (Paris 1981); M. L. \VEST. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (Oxford 1985).

464

K. DOWDEN

JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER

JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER I. The story of the unnamed daughter of Jephthah is told in Judges 11. Jephthah vows that, if -+Yahweh will give him victory over the Ammonites, he will offer up to Yahweh the one who first comes out to meet him when he returns home (v 31). This turns out to be his unnamed daughter. Jephthah's daughter accepts the consequences of her father's vow, but asks that she and her female companions be permitted to go into the mountains so that they can lament. Her father grants this request and, at the end of twO months, she returns home and her father offers her up as a holocaust sacrifice (lola) to Yahweh. Thereafter, for four days every year, it became customary for "the daughters of Israel" to commemorate her (v 40). Because the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter explicitly functions as the foundation legend for the annual four-day rite, it can be argued that Jephthah's d;iughter has attained the more-than-meremortal status of a culture heroine. •. Because she is referred to in the biblical {ext simply as "Jephthah's daughter", it is not possible to discuss the etymology or the JIleaning of her name. It can be noted, how'¢ver, that in Christian and Jewish tradition she has been given various meaningful names (see. for instance. Pseudo-Philo's :UB 40).' .' ~~,'f'r II. The precise story of Jephthah' s iq~ughter does not appear outside the ~:gebrew Bible in the literature of any con#mporary culture. However, numerous ~~holars have observed similarities between i~ephthah's daughter and various Greek iwythological heroines, most frequently Iphiz~'r~eia and KorelPersephone. DAY (1989) ~~ffers the most sustained discussion in ~~your of seeing meaningful parallels among ~~e stories of Jephthah's daughter, Jphi~~$~eia and KOTe. The viability of the paral~~~~;she suggests is dependent on her inter$Pretation of the nature of the annual rite ~~ntioned in the biblical text (see below). ~RCUS (1986) presents the most sustained ... ~~gument against seeing meaningful paralamong the stories. A few scholars have ~'ere~ yarden in Ps 42:7 as 'the land of descent' interpreting it as an expression for the netherworld. He compares the expression with a linc from the --Baal-epic tspr byrclm ar~, 'You will be counted among those who went down inlo the earth' (A.7U 1.4 viii:89). In early Judaism. the Jordan has no specific significance. In life of Adam amI E"e 6-8 it is told that -·Adam, as penitence for his -·sin, spent 40 days fasting and praying in the Jordan while -·Eve did the same for 37 days in the --Tigris. In the NT the Jordan is the place where --Jesus and many others were baptized by John (Mark I: 1- I III). Hebr 3: 17-19 might be interpreled as implying a metaphorical Jordan. as a symbol of crossing from life to death (THOMPSON 1992:957) IV. On the architrave of the triumphal arch of Titus. the part facing the Colosseum. three Romans are depicted bearing the Jordan river. He is presented as a river deity in the form of an old man. The scene resembles the way in which elsewhere rivers as personifications of conquered provinces were represented in thc procession of the victor (RENGSTORFF 1968:613; PFANNER 1983). From the sixth century CE onward. in Christian mosaics depicting the baptism of Jesus, a figure is present which can be interpreted as a deified Jordan river. The iconography of the scene and the figure indicates that thc Jordan-character was modelled aflcr a pagan, Graeco-Roman river deity (JENsEN 1993: puce RENG~"ORFF 1968:613). In the light of the OT roots of a deification of the Jordan a revival of popular belief can be assumed too. V. Bibliography R. ALDEN. Jordan. Zollden'all Pictorial Ellcyclopedia of the Bible 3 (Grand Rapids

475

JOSEPH

1975) 684-692; M. J. DAHOOD. Psalms I (AB 16; Garden City 1966) 258; M. GORG, Jarde1l, nVAT 3 (1982) 901-909; E. HOMMEL. Oer Name und die Sagen des Jordan in altkanaananischer Zeit. Joumal of Ihe Sociel)' of Oriental Research 11 (1927) 169194; A. R. HUI..sT. Oer Jordan in den alttestamentlichen Oberlieferungen. ors 14 (1965) 162-188; R. JENSEN, What are Pagan River Gods doing in Scenes of Jesus's Baptism? Bible Rel'iel'.' 9 (1993) 34-41; L. KOHLER. Lexikologisch-geographisches. I. Oer Jordan. ZDPV 62 (1939) 115-120; M. PFANNER. Der Titusboge1l (Mainz 1983); K. H. RENGSTORFF. nOta~~. 1tota~0¢6Pl1to~, 10pociVll';. TDNT 6 (1968) 595-623; H. O. THOMPSON. Jordan River. ABD 2 (1992) 953-958.

B. BECKING JOSEPH ='j0i' I. In biblical genealogical tradition Joseph is the son of -·Jacob and -·Rachel (Gen 30:22-24). His name is a hypocoristicon. presumably of *yosip·JeIJDN like yosipyah (Ezra 8: 10). Tradition preserves two explanations of his name. the one linking it to the root 'SP (Gen 30:23 E?). the other to YSP (Gen 30:24 11); the latter interpretation is probably correct. The name expresses the classical wish for a quiver full of children (Ps 115:14; NOTH. lPN, 212; DE VAUX 1971; ANDRt, nVAT 3 [1977-82] 685). The fonn yehosep (Ps 81 :6), frequently found in later Hebrew, is perhaps a case of hypercorrection. In 19th century research the story of Joseph was often interpreted in tenns of a fertility myth, in particular the seasonal contest between rain and drought (WESTERMANN 1975:56-64). He is identified with the fertilizing rain, being a child of Rachel and Jacob, who are identified with respectively the clouds and the nightly sky (GOLDZIHER 1876:191-194). Others hold that Joseph, an ancient Canaanite numen of Joseph-EI, was turned into an Israelite eponym by the tribes of Ephraim (MEYER 1906). II. The story of Joseph (Gen 37:39-

47:50; Ps 105:16-22; Sir 49:15). does not tell us much about the origins of the tribe or 'house' of Joseph. The story supposes knowledge of the patriarchal sagas. in particular the ancient tradition that "Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt" (Josh 24:4; NOTH 1948; WESTERMANN 1982). Joseph's story in its present fonn, whether taken as a didactic narrative from the wisdom school, or as a specimen of a diaspora story (MEINHOLD 1975), is the talc of a young Hebrew far from his home-country rising to power under Yahweh's guidance. It gives interesting insights into the Hebrew soul and to a lesser extent into Egyptian society. but hardly preserves a reminiscence of a Middle Palestinian tribe by the name of Joseph. The story may share some episodes and motifs with the Egyptian 'Tale of the Two Brothers'. The fact that the latter tale is about the gods Anubis and Bata, Bata being a pastoral god. taking either the fonn of a ram or a bull, does not imply that Joseph was a mythological hero in Israelite tradition, even when, according to an alternative interpretation, he is compared to a young bull (b1l prt Gen 49:22; Oeut 33:17; SALO 1968). The background of Joseph's career may be found in the genres of the K01ligsllOl'elle, the success story of the wise Courtier (Gen 41) and similar stories of Asiatics who carved their way high up into a foreign administration (-+Moses, Biya. -·Oaniel. etc.; DE VAUX 1971). Attempts to find the precise historical setting of the story in the Hyksos period are highly questionable. III. Joseph is the eponym of a tribe Joseph (Num 13: II) or a group of tribes, known as the bene Yosep (Num 1:10; 34:23; Josh 16:1; 17:14) or the bel Yosep (Josh 17:14-18; Judg 1:22-23; 2 Sam 19:21; I Kgs 11 :29; Amos 5:6). The last expression is attested outside the Hexateuch as opposite to the house of Judah (Judg 1:22-23.35; 2 Sam 2:8-11; 19:20; I Kgs 11:28; Amos 5:6). This seems to be a rather ancient usage though the exact geographic and demographic ramifications remain unclear. In later tradition Joseph's ancestorship is limited to the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, but

476

JUDAH

whether they became Joseph's house together, or split up in separate tribes is still a disputed question. In a number of cases Joseph is a synonym for -·Jacob/lsrael (Ps 77:16; 81:6; Ezek 37:16.19; Amos 5:15; 6:6; Obad 18), either meaning the northern kingdom or the people of Isr.leI. Apan from the Joseph story itself, sources about the patriarch Joseph are rather poor. Except for traditions about Joseph's name and the tradition of his tomb near -Shechem: -TImkamuna (Josh 24:32), some obscure allusions are found in the tribal sayings (Gen 49:22-26; Deut 33: 13-16) and topographical texts (Josh 17: 14-18). Later Jewish tradition tells about Joseph's sarcophagus sunk into the Nile (Mek.Exod 13: 19; Str.-B. n 674), referring to the -Osiris-myth (JEREMIAS 1958: 131). but the story of Joseph is neither a myth, nor the usual kind of patriarchal saga. There is no reason to suppose that Joseph was originally a hero or a citygod. The alleged toponym Joseph-EI does not exist (pace MEYER 1906:292: cf. DE VAUX 1971 :297 n. 87). The name is characteristic of the Amorite onomasticon in the early second millennium nCE, so in this respect he might indeed have been one of the early Israelite ancestors, remembered and perhaps even venerated at a place somewhat east of Shechem on the border between the later tribes of Ephr.lim and Manasse (Gen 33:18-19; Josh 17:7; John 4:5; Acts 7: 16; JEREMIAS 1958:31-36). According to a fragmentary tradition in Gen 48:22 Shechem was given to Joseph by Jacob, but the relation to 33:18-19 remains

unclear (DE VAUX 1971 :584-587; WESTERMANN 1982:217-218; pace Non.. 1948:9091). According to later tradition Joseph, not Jacob, was the 'owner' of the plot of land at Shechem, and subsequently believed to be buried there amidst the clans that traced their origins back to him. In connection with the sons of Joseph, viz. Ephraim and Manasseh, similar wishes for progeny are expressed as with Rachel and -Leah (Gen 41 :52; 48: 13-20). Joseph was known not to be buried in Machpelah-which confinns the strong tradition of his own sepulchre and veneration, notwithstanding medieval Jewish and Muslim tradition. IV. Bibliography 1. JEREMIAS, Heiligengriiber in Jesu Umwelt (Gottingen 1958) 31-36.130-131; M. MEINHOLD, Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle II, ZA lV 88 (1976) 72-93; E. MEYER, Die Israeliten und illre Nachbarstlimme (Halle 1906); M. Nonl, Oberlie!erungsgeschicllle des Pelllateuchs (Stuttgart 1948) 90-91; V. SALO, Joseph. Sohn der Fme, BZ 12 (1968) 94-95; R. DE VAUX, Histoire Ancienne I (Paris 1971) 277-303; J. VERGOTE, Joseph en Egypte. Genese 37-50 a la lumiere des etudes egyptologiques recenres (Louvain 1959); C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-50 (EdF 48; Darmstadt 1975); WESTERMANN, Genesis 37-50 (BKAT U3; NeukirchenVluyn 1982).

M. JUDAH - YEHUD

477

DIJKSTRA

K KABOD - GLORY KAI\VAN l"=' I. Kaiwan occurs under the fonn Ki»)',ln in Amos 5:26. after SikJdit (-Sakkuth). The Masoretic vocalisation is that for idols -Abominations. The real pronunciation must have been Kaiwan, cf. Syr. Ke)'wan (and variants), the name of the planet Saturn. Both go back to the Babylonian name for Saturn, Kajjanzallu, 'The Steady One". The Hebrew text used by LXX was already corrupted in having an initial r instead of k resulting in Rayphan (and variants); in Acts 7:43 Rompha. CD VII 15 mistook the name as a word meaning "base". cf. Heb ken (BORGER 1988:78-9). II. In Assyrian I Babylonian religion. KajjamamJSatum was not of great importance. The name of the star mainly occurs in astronomical texts (e.g. in SAA 8). That KajjamamllSaturn was seen as a divine entity can be inferred from the fact that the name is preceded by the detenninative for deities. In Mesopotamia. Saturn is the only star not related to one of the major deities (BARSrAD 1984:123). III. In the OT. the name is attested only in Amos 5:26. together with the equally unique Sakkuth. Both are foreign idols made by the Israelites. Sakkuth is qualified as "your king", Kniwan as "your images" (plural); after a pause (atnaM follows: "the star, your god which you made for yourselves". One tends to reverse the order of these qualifications, as LXX already did: ..the star of your god Rayphan. their images which you made for yourselves"; see also BORGER (1988:79 n. 5). It should be noted that SaInzu, lit. "image", was a god in Assyria and in Arabian Taima; (-. Image; S. DALLEY. Iraq 48 [1986] 85-101. E. A. KNAUF, Ismael, 2. Auflage [Wiesbaden 1989] 78-79, 150-151; KNAUF. Trans-

ellphratene 2 [I990J 212). A. KUENEN (De godsdienst mn IsraiH [Haarlem 1869] 260) suggested that the Israelites worshipped Saturn. having adopted his cult from the Kenites. It is more probable. however. that the Israelites had borrowed the worship of this planet from the Assyrians. In this case there are two options. (I) The Israelites took over the worship before the fall of Samaria. Then Amos 5:26 can be interpreted as a prophetic accusation for not having served -Yahweh (e.g. BARSTAD 1984). (2) Amos 5:26 refers to one of the deities mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:28-30 who were brought to the Samaritan area by Assyrian settlers. This view implies that the text is a later insertion by a (deuteronomistic) redactor who confused the situation before and after the conquest. of the capital (H. W. \VOLFF. Dodekapropheton 2. Joel 'md Amos (BKAT XIVI2; NeukirchenVluyn 1969] 310-311). Recently. DE MOOR (1995: 10-11) has argued that the word kiyyOn in Am 5:26 should be construed as a noun derived from the root KWN. and interpreted as ·pedestal'. TIus elegant proposal implies that the expression • 'the pedestal of your statues' in Am 5:26 does not refer to a particular deity. IV. Bibliography H. M. BARSTAD. The Religious Polemics of Amos (VTSup 34; Leiden 1984) 118-126; P. R. BERGER. Imaginare Astrologie in spatbabylonischer Propaganda. Die Rolle der Astrollomie in den Kulturell Mesopotamie1ls (ed. H. D. Gaiter, Graz 1993) 275-289; esp. 277 n. 2; *R. BORGER. Amos 5.26. Apostclgcschichte 7,43 und Surpu II. 180, ZA \V 100 (1988) 70-81; O. LoREn. Die babylonischen Gottesnamen Sukkut und Kajjamanu in Amos 5. 26, ZA \V 10 I (1989) 286-289: J. C. DE MOOR. Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship. UF 27 (1995) 1-20.

478

M. STOL

KELTI - KENAN

KELTI I. In the Amama letters the name of the Judean town of Keila (Josh 15:44; I Sam 23; I Chr 4:29; Neh 3: 17-18) is written uroQi-il-teltu, probably to be pronounced IQiTychc) daimoll (->Demon) or doxa. indicate that under the Achaemenids the concept of Khvarenah clearly had both a religious and a political meaning. even though it is conspicuously absent from their inscriptions. The Achaemcnid kings professed their religious affiliation by endlessly invoking Ahura Mazda as the god who gave them their sovereignty. who made them king, who appointed them as his chosen ones. The external evidence for this special position was the appearance of the divine Glory. carefully fostered in art and in ceremony. The idea of a divine glory with special links with the sovereign continued to play an important part in the following Iranian dynasties. and can be found in Parthian, Sasanian and early Islamic literature and an. The divinity Glory. apart from being praised

in two hymns. is also worshipped in several prayers and rites of personal devotion. III. Bibliography H. W. BAtLEY, Zoroastriall Problems in the Nimh Cenlllry Books (Oxford 197 I, repr.); M. BOYCE, A History of Zoroasrrianism 1/: Under the Achaemellialls (HdO VIII. I.2. 2.2A: Leiden 1982): J. DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, Lc X\'arenah, AlaN, Sez.iolle Lillguistica, 5 (1963) 19-31; J. DUCHESNEGUILLEMt:-.; oEcrn:6t11~). If the names of Greek deities, e.g. -·Apollon, in Egyptian or Thrncian documents are adorncd with kyrios or /...)'ria, they often represent non-Greek gods or goddesses. Thus -·Hennes (12 cases in RONCHI III 1975:619-620.) may be -·Thoth. Phylacteries or tablets of imprecation appeal to anonymous /...)·rioi rheoi (R. WONSCIJ, Deisidaimoniaka. ARW 12 [1909] 1-45 esp. 3839: Bl/lI£pigr 1952.13: S£G 38. 1926: cf. PGM IV 687, VII 368-369. 707). In the magical papyri (3rd-4th cent. CE) the address /...)'rie or /...)'ria, sometimes composed with the name, is current for Egyptian as for Greek gods as well. In the predication "he is the lord of the gods, he is the lord of the ecumenc" (PGM V 135-136) the influence of Jewish prayer language is sensible.

A genitive connected with the term circumscribes the domain. Such an addition is traditional with hieroglyphic lIeb. In her aretalogies -~ Isis predic:ltes herself as mistress ruling over the elemenL'\ of the sea. over fertility. and warfare (TOTTI 1:31.4142, 49. 54; 20: 122-123, 194-195, 236-240; Apuleius, Mer. 11:5 elementomm omnillm domilla). She is not only the lady of all the land, but of the whole world (TOTTI 20:23. I21 anassa; 1:3 tyrannos; Apuleius, Mer. II :7; Plutarch. Mor. 367a; CIG II 3724 anassa), In the same manner territories arc assigned to Greek gods in more literary texts. too (Dio Chrys. 37: II; Plutarch, Mor. 365a.675f: -~Helios, Lord of the fire; -> Poseidon, Lord of the water, the latter element belonging to -Dionysos, too; 413c Apollon, Lord of the sun). Philo of Byblos intcrprets Baalshamen as monos OltrlmOIl kyrios (Eusebius, Praep, E,'. I: 10,7). The -'Sun is named 'Lord of heaven and earth' (PGM IV 640). The title 'Lord of all things' (see above Pindar on Zeus, allusions in Demosthenes 60:21 and Plutarch. Mor, 426a; cf. Diodorus Sic. 3:61,4 /...)'rion ... rOil holOn for the God of the Jews) is applied to the Stoic Zeus in Philodemus. Pier. II, to -+Osiris in Plutarch. Mor. 355e (cf. 353b.354f Lord and King), to the Sun in PGM I 212. to lao in PGM XIII 201-202 and to God in general in Iamblichus, Vita Pyrh. J37 (cf. Plutarch, Numa 9: plural). The appellative /...)'rios is also used for kings and the Roman emperor. In Egypt. the political sense is evident in the fonnulas kyrios basi/eio11 (Ptol. V) or /...)'rios basi/ellS. The combination rheos kai /...)'rios is customary with the last Lagides and twice attested for Augustus. Absolute ho /...)'riO:i dominates from Nero onwards. Even in the phrase "the Lord of all the world", applied to Nero Syll. 814, 30-31, the title in itself does not imply deification (cf. Epictetus, Diss. 4: I. J2 ho palllon /...)'rios kaisar), but probably the association of dominus er dellS introduced by Domitian docs so (dominl/s corresponding to Gk desporl's. which suggested oriental tyranny and therefore was refused by the first principes as primi imer

493

KYRIOS

pares). It is only in the context of emperor worship that Christian manyrs are confronted with the alternative: J..)'n·os Kaisar or acknowledgment of their own kJrios (cf. Mart. Pol. 8:2; Acta Mart. Scil/.; CERFAUX 1954:56-57). Ten.. Apol. 34: I would not refuse to call the emperor Lord, if he is not constrained to do this instead of thus honouring God. See -+Ruler cult. III. In the LXX J.:yrios replaces the divine name -'Yahweh (6156 times according to QUELL. nVNf 3 [1938] 1057; VON DOBsCIIOTZ 1931: 6742 times). In old mss. (cf. list in HOWARD 1977) the tetragram in Hebrew or Aramaic letters is left (this may in pan be due to arehaizing revisions: PIETERSMA 1984), but probably it wac; pronounced A)'rios (cf. Origen. In Ps. 2,2). Less often the title corresponds to Hebrew appellatives for 'God' (279 times [QUELL». Ca. 375 times (VON DOBSCHOTz [1931) it is translated from the Heb 'adon. 'lldonf. 'llc/tinay (-+Lord) though in many cases the Hebrew or the Greek text is not ascenained, The custom of reading 'lidona)' instead of the tetragram in Palestinian judaism, now attested in IQIsa3 • may have induced an analogous procedure in the Diaspora synagogue. Pagan influence, assumed by VON BAUDISSIN (1929) and others. can-especially in Egypt-not be excluded; but neither can it be proved. In biblical writings not contained in MT, J.:yrios as a designation for God occurs ca. 640 times. By comparison. the tern} despotes is relatively rare for God. Sometimes it renders 'iidon in the double expression 'adon(ay) Yhwh to avoid a kyrios J.:yrios otherwise current. Regarding the semantics of the tenn in LXX when used as predicate. the correlation between 'Lord' and 'servant' is still perceptible (e.g. Mal I:6). The fonnula kyn'os tOil /..:)'rion exalts God above all other heavenly Lords (Oeut 10: 17; Ps 135:3) and earthly rulers (Dan 4:37: cf. 2:47; I Tim 6: 15; J Elloch 9:4; 63:2). The universal dominion of the 'Lord of all the earth' (Josh 3:11, 13: Mic 4:13; Zech 4:14; 6:5: Ps 96:5: Exod 8:22 only LXX; Josh 4:7 only LXX), the 'Lord of heaven' (Dan 2:37) resp. the

'Lord of heaven and eanh' (Tob 7:17: Jdt 9:12 despotes: cf. Luke 10:21; Acts 17:24) or the 'Lord of al1 things' (Add Esth 4: 17c: 4Q542 I 1.2f 'Lord of al1 the created'; kyriew:Jn hapanton t/zeos, Ep. Arist. 18:45: frequently pantokrator is combined with kyrios: this also happens 7 times in Rev; cf. the addition in LXX Jer 39: 19) is founded in his acts as creator (cf. Jer 39: 17-19; I Esdr 6: 12: Add Esth 4: 17; Acts 17: 24); the claim is underlined against pagan concurrents (Dan 3: 17,45; I Esdr 8:25: 2 Esdr 19:6: Add Esth 4: 171: Josephus, Alit. 20:90), while arrogant kings consider themselves as 'Lord of al1 the eanh' or 'Lord of land and sea' (Pss. Sol. 2, 29). For Philo kyrios represents one of the main powers of God (in contradistinction to rheos, the creator and father) and signifies his ruling activity. Kyrios does not per se connote divine monarchy: as in daily life, it can be used in a religious context as respectful address. thus for example for angels (e.g. the angelus interpres in Zech and Dan; cf. BERGER [1970nl] 417 n. 3). As a name for angels it is late (ib. 418 n. I). In magic texts they are addressed as k)'rioi (theoi) agge/oi (PGM 36:44.246: BullEpigr 1952, 13). Kyrios for God occurs in the NT ca. 181 times (including 70 citations of the OT); more often it is used as a title for -+Jesus -+Christ (ca. 468 times, II OT quotations being related to him). In the Synoptics and in John people seeking miracles. but also disciples or potential followers, address Jesus as /..:yrie (cf. 'iidonf, for Elijah. Elisha in 1-2 Kgs). The usage goes back to Q. could even be authentic and corresponds to Aram mari, attested as a fonn of address of persons in a position of authority. Its significance does not differ much from rabbi. (Gk didaskale) that sometimes (Matt 9:28; 20:33; Luke 18:41) is the Markan base of Matthean or Lukan k)'rie (cf. the panl1lelism in the parabolic saying Matt 10:24 and in John 13:13). Matthew adds redactional /..:)'rie; so does Luke who, however, prefers epistata. In the context of a plea for salvation (Matt 8:25: 14:30: 17: 15)-often connected with a prosA)'nesis-it presup-

494

"0

KYRIOS

poses a divine faculty of the one addressed (cf. Epiktet. diss. II 7,12). In John 13 Jesus accepts the title 'master', but paradoxically behaves like a servant. As predicate /...)·rios in Mark 2:28 refers to the sovereignty of the -·50n of Man over the -Sabbath. In Mark it is employed absolutely only in a reference by the disciples to 'the master', who can require the property of other people like a king (II :3). !\10rc often Luke and John reflect the absolute usage of the Early Chureh, which probably spoke of 'Our Lord' in analogy to Aramaic-Semitic titling of kings (CERFAUX). The reason for this is not only the personal loyalty of the disciples to Jesus in his earthly ministry. but also his royal position on account of his resurrection. Otherwise, he could scarcely be invoked at all. So it is the risen one that the Jewish-Christian community addresses with Aram marana'-Ia' (I Cor 16:22, rendered Rev 22:20 'come. Lord Jesus', cf. Did. 10:6). Because he is now enthroned at the right hand of God, he is expected to realize his reign at his coming in glory (cf. the address of the king and judge Malt 25:37,44 /...)'rie). It seems that this heavenly exaltation is expressed relatively early with Ps 110: I, though the argumentation ACL, 2:34-36 (Jesus thus constituted by God /...)'rios) relies on the Greek text. Against BOUSSET (1921) the cuitic appeal to the Lord is to be ascribed not only to the Greek speaking community, It is improbable that it is modelled after Hellenistic-Oriental culL.;;. There is a certain continuity between the address kyrie directed to Jesus during his public life and to the risen one (so in Acts in the context of visions). But now He has a divine quality; therefore Thomas recognizes his Lord at the same time as his God (John 20:28) applying to him the language of the Psalms. The object of Easter visions is indicated by hrios (I Cor 9: I; Luke 24:34: John 20: 18. 20, 25; Acts 9:27). Yet this tr,msition to the absolute use can be grasped only in the Greek phase of tradition. Especially in the letters of Paul we find fixed fonnulae whose pre-Pauline origin can be demonstrated.

Thus, the stereotyped expression 'the brothers of the Lord' refers to the historical Jesus as does Paul when introducing authoritative sayings of the Lord. The Hellenistic communities took up the liturgical 'our Lord' affixing it to the double name 'Jesus Christ' with /...)·rios. In their worship they acclaimed Jesus, the risen one, as /...)·rios (I Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9). He is the Lord not only of his believers, but of all mankind (Rom 10: 12; 14:9; Acts 10:36), an affinnation that stimulated the mission to the gentiles. The exalted one dominates also the spiritual powers of the three zones of the world. God remains the cosmocrator, but in the pre-Pauline hymn Phil 2:6-11 he bestows an incompar-.tble dignity ('name') on Jesus whom all have to acknowledge by the /...)'rios-acclamation. Sometimes the suggestion is made that this 'name' is the divine name as in Jewish tradition angels can be named after Yahweh, their king (3 Enoch 10:20; 12:20-23; cf. FOSSUM 1985:292-301). Yet it is not certain that kyrios (v II) is meant at; a translation of Yahweh, because the whole action aims at the glorification of God the Father. But a, vv 10-11 allude to Jes 45:23 (a prophecy of the universal adoration offered to Yahweh) the way is open to apply to Jesus OT kyrios-passages in prePauline tradition as well as in the NT itself. Thus, already before Paul, the Christians called themselves 'those invoking the name of the Lord'. actualizing Joel 3:5 (I Cor 1:2; cf. Rom 10:12-13; Acts 2:21; 9:14, 21; 2 Tim 2:22). The 'day of the Lord' (cf. Joel 3:4) now was understood the parousia of Christ. In general, eschatological utterances are often connected with /...yrios. Paul in several places adduces OT texts where kyrios now must signify Jesus. Due to its use in the LXX, the title now points not only to Jesus' assuming divine functions, but also to his godlike status. If we except Rom 10:9. where the confession k)'rios lesous is the outward expression of the faith in his resurrection, and Acts 16:31, the title does not appear to have been part of the creed. Other titles like 'Christ' and 'Son of God' prevail. Kyrios

495

a,

KYRIOS

primarily defines the relation of Christ to the believer resp. his 'servant'. the apostle (cf. 2 Cor 4:5; dOlileuein Rom 12: II; Col 3:24; Acts 20: 19). In a polemical context the title cnn become exclusive. So in I Cor 8:4-6: some Corinthians participated in sacral dinners-possibly in one of the Egyptian tCJl)ples within reach. The trapez.a J,:)'riOiI {l 0:21 )-though attested in the OT for the altar of God-may even fonn a contrast to the kline of the kyrios Sarapis in the wellknown invitations. That some Christians did not refuse to eat meat sacrified to pagan deities. constituted a problem for the community. Paul answers with the Jewish monotheistic belief. but in view of so many k)'rioi. like the oriental gods. he adds a parallel' christological statement analogous to pagan acclamations like heis aus Sarapis: 'and there is only one Lord. Jesus Christ. through whom all things (came into existence) and we (will be saved) through him' (8:6). It is unlikely that Paul here deliberately split the fonnula from Deut 6:4. as it is sometimes assumed. The soteriological role of Christ is affinned against the competing oriental deities. whose importance for the individual had increased so much. It is anchored in the instrumental role of the preexistent one in God's creation. a function assigned in Judaism to -Wisdom (cf. Ps 101:26-28 in Heb 1:10-12. now addressed with kyrie to the Son). This is the unique passage where Jesus' being Lord is confronted explicitly with pagan competition. It scarcely gives a hint as to the origin of the concept (pace BOUSSET 1921), but rather develops his relevance in a world of different henotheistic movements. It is not certain whether human rulers-who could be in view v Sa ('Gods on earth')-are attacked. too. Only in Revelation the christological predications 'Lord of the lords and king of the kings' (17:14; 19:I6-in the OT these titles are attributed to God) are pointed against arrogant worldly potentates. Eph 4:5 repeats the heis kyrios as foundation for the unity of the Church. IV. Bibliography W. W. GRAF BAUDISSIN. Kyrios als Gorres-

name im Judentum lind seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte. 4 vols. (Giessen 1929); K. BERGER. Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel. NTS 17 (1971) 413-422; W. BOUSSET. Kyrios Chrisros (FRLANT 21; Gottingen 21921); F. F. BRUCE. 'Jesus is Lord'. Soli Deo Gloria (ed. J. M. Richards; Richmond 1968) 23-36; L. CERFAUX. Le titre Kyrios et la dignit~ royale de J~sus (1922123). Recueil Lliciell Cerfaux (BETL 617; Gembloux 1954) 3-63; CERFAUX, Lc nom divin 'Kyrios' dans la Bible grccque. ib. 113-136; CERFAUX. 'Adonai' et 'Kyrios' (1931). ib. 137-172; CERfAUX. 'Kyrios' dans les citations pauliniennes de I' Ancien Testament (1943). ib. 173-188; D. Cuss. Imperial Cult and Honorary Temzs in the New Testament (Parndosis 23; Fribourg 1974) 53-63; A. DEISSMANN. Licht \'Om Osten (Ttibingen 41923) 298-311; D. R. DEI.ACEY. 'One Lord' in Pauline Christology. Christ the Lord (ed. H. H. Rowdon; Leicester 1982) 191-203; E. VON DonSCHOTz. KYPIOr HU:on:. ZNW 30 (l931) 97-121; W. DREXLER. Kyria und Kyrios. LGRM 2. I (18901894) 1755-1769; W. FAUTH. Kyrios b7.w. Kyria. KP 3 (l975) 413-417; J. A. FrrzMYER. The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title (l975). A Wandering Aramean (SBL MS 25; Chico 1979) 115142; FrrzMYER, lCUp\O~. EWNT 2 (1981) 811-820; W. FOERSTER. lCUP\o~. nVNT 3 (l938) 1038-1056.1081-1094; 10.2. (1979) 1152; J. E. FOSSUM. The Name oj Goel and the Angel oj the Lord (WUl\T'f 36; TUbingen 1985); D. HAGENDORN & K. A. WaRP. Von KiPIor zu ~ELnOTHr. Eine Bemerkung zur Kaisertitulatur im 314. Jh.. ZPE 39 (1980) 165-177; F. HAHN. Christologische Hoheitstitel (FRLANT 83. Gtlttingen 1983) 67-125; A. HENRICHS, Despoina Kybcle: Ein Beitrng zur religiosen Namenkunde. HSCP 80 (1976) 253-286; O. HOFIUS. Einer ist Gott - Einer ist Herr. Escharologie WId Schopfimg (ed. M. Evang. H. Merklein & M. Wolter; BerlinlNew York 1997) 95-108; G. HOWARD. The Tetrngrnm and the New Testament. JBL 96 (1977) 63-83; D. L. JONES. The title kyrios in Luke-Acts. SBL

496

KYRIOS

Seminar Papers 110,2 (1974) 85-101; 1. D. KINGSBURY, The title 'Kyrios' in Matthew's Gospel, JBL 94 (l975) 246-255; W. KRAMER, Chr;slOS Kyrios Gouessohn (ATANT 44; Zurich! Stuttgart 1963) 61-103, 149-191, 215-222; P.-E. LANGEVIN, Jesus Seigneur et l'eschatologie (Studia 21; BrugeslParis 1967); P. MAIBERGER & K. WOSCHITZ, Herr, NBL 2 (1991) 126-129; A. D. NOCK, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford 1972) I 47.74-77; A. PIETERSMA, Kyrios or Tetragram, De Septuaginta (ed. A. Pietersma & C. Cox; Mississauga 1984) 85101; H. W. PLEKET, Religious History as the History of Mentality: the 'Believer' as Servant of the Deity in the Greek World, Faith, Hope and Worship (ed. H. S. VersneJ; Leiden 1981) 152-192, esp. 171-l78; J. R. ROYSE, Philo, K UPlO~, and the Tetragram~aton, SPhA 3 (1991) 167-183; G. RONCHI, Lexicon theonymon rerumque sacrarum et divinarum ad Aegyptum pertinentiurn quae Ul papyris ostracis titulis graecis latinisque in aegypto repertis laudantur III (Milan 1975); L. SCHENKE, Die Urgemeinde (Stuttgart 1990) 98-99, 342-347; G. SCHNEIDER,

Gott und Christus als KYRIOS. nach der Apostelgeschichte (1980), Lukas, Thealoge der Heilsgeschichte (BBB 59; Bonn 1985) 213-226; S. SCHULZ, Maranatha und Kyrios Jesus, ZNW 53 (1962) 125-144; C. SPICQ, Lexique theoiogique du Nouveau Testament (Fribourg 1991) 859-872; H. STEGEMANN, Religionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten, Qumr6n (BETL 46; ed. M. Delcor; Paris/GemblouxlLeuven 1978) 195-217, esp. 204.207; M. TA~EvA-HrrovA, Uber die Gotterepitheta in den griechischen Inschrif· ten aus Moesia inferior und Thracia, Bulgar~ ian Historical Review 6 (1978) 52-65; G. VERMES, Jesus the Jew (New York 1973) 103·128; P. VIELHAUER, Ein Weg zur neutestarnentlichen Christologie?, Aufsalze zum Neuen Testament (TB 31; Munchen 1965) 141-198, esp. 147.:167; D. ZELLER, Der eine Gott und der eine Herr Jesus Christus, Der lebendige Gott (ed. Th. Soding, NTA.NF 31; Munster 1996) 34-49.

,

"

'",:., ~,

H

...

:

"

497

D.

ZELLER

L LABAN p? I. On the assumption that he was originally a semi-divine hero or a god (MEYER 1906), Laban, the son of Bethuel (Qen 28:5) and father of ~Leah and -Rachel (Qen 29: 16) has been connected with the Old Assyrian god Laba(n) (E. SCHRADER, Die Keilinschriften und das Aile Testament [Berlin 1903; 3rd ed. by H. Winckler & H. Zimmem] 363). The name of the latter deity has been interpreted as a shortened form of Labnan, which would mean that Laban was "originally an ancient West-Semitic deity venerated in the Lebanon" (LEWY 1934:45). D. Laban occurs already in Old Assyrian personal names as the designation of a deity (HIRSCH 1972:33) and was still worshipped in Neo-Assyrian times (Takultu 100). The character of the god remains uncertain. Though there can be no doubt about the veneration of the Lebanon, not only as the dwelling-place of the gods but as a deity in its own right (WmpPERT 1980-83:648-649, esp. § 5.2; see also -Lebanon), it is not certain that Laban can be equated with Lebanon. Mt Lebanon is known in cuneiform sources as Labnan or Lablan (for these and other forms see WEIPPERT 1980-83:641642), and it is difficult to see how a variant Laban or Laba could originate. The two names are now generally distinguished as belonging each to a separate deity. III. The connection between the biblical figure Laban and the Assyrian god Laban (or Lebanon) rests on a number of unverified assumptions. Few modern scholars would be ready to accept that the majority of characters of the patriarchal narratives are demythologized deities, as was once widely believed. If there is no reason, a priori, for the assumption that Laban has a mythological background, however, there is no need to have recourse to a poorly known

deity in order to explain Laban's name. The root LBN (to be white) is unproblematic in Hebrew; there is nothing unusual, moreover, in naming babies by the colour of their skin (cf. NOTH, IPN 225). IV. Bibliography H. HIRSCH, Untersuchungen z,ur altassyrischen Religion (AfO Beiheft 13/14; Osnabriick 21972); J. LEWY, Les textes paleoassyriens et l'Ancien Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 29-65, esp. 44-45; E. MEYER, Die lsraeliten und ihre Nachbarstiimme (Halle 1906) 245 n. 2; M. WEIPPERT, Libanon, RIA 6 [1980-83] 641-650.

K. LADY

~

VAN DER TOORN

ADAT; BELTU

LAGAMAL - LAGAMAR LAGAMAR I. The name kedar-lilomer, 'Chedorlaomer' king of Elam (Gen 14:1.4.5.9.17; ] QGenAp 21 :23), is to be interpreted as a combination of the noun kudur (Akk) or kutirlkut.e.r (Elamite), 'protector' (see R. ZADOK, The Elamite Onomasticon [AION Sup 40; Napoli 1984J 25 for names containing this noun), with the name of the Elamite underworld deity LagamalJLagamar (BOHL 1916:67; ASTOUR 1966:78; WEIPPERT 19761980; ASTOUR 1992:893). The name Lagamal means "No mercy" (LAMBERT 1980~83:418).

II. The name of the deity is written lAga-ma-al/mal or La-ga-ma-ru. The Ir/occurs in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions only. The earliest attestation of the divine name is in an Old Akkadian seal inscription (PBS 14:138). By the Babylonians, Lagamal wasinterpreted as the son of Urash, the wife of An (An Anum V:43; cf. 1. A. CRAIG,~

498 .

=

LAH

Assyrian and Babylonian Religiolls Texts I [Leipzig 1895] No. 58:21). In a letter from

Mari, it is related that he, or his image. went from Mari to Terqa (ARM XIII 111:5-9). Lagamal is \\'orshipped throughout the NeoElamite period (1000-539 BCE). His name occurs a. lyl by metathesis, or wll by ~?-~fusion of waw/yod after a waw) (see llh ~r;, the Mesha stela, KAJ 181: 15). In any ~Me, there is no mention of a deity and the

I. Liwyiitiin is the Heb name of . a mythical monster associated with the ~Sea (or Yam). First attested in a Ugaritic text (KTU 1.5 i: 1 II 27) where it occurs as ltn (to be vocalized Uranu, as convincingly argued by EMERTON 1982), the name is related to a root LWY. Etymologically it might be interpreted either as 'the twisting one' (cf. Arab lawiya) or 'the wreath-like', 'the circular' (cf. Heb liwya), both possibilities pointing to an original concept of Leviathan as a snakelike being. The second alternative should not, however, lead to the opinion that Leviathan were always imagined as the primeval sea-serpent thought to surround the earth (1. C. DE MOOR, ARTU 69. n. 323; cf. BiOr 31 [1974] 5a; for a late Kassite kudurru-relief showing such a being, see U. SEIDL, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs [OBO 87; Fribourg & Goltingen 1989] no. 40). Both Ugaritic and Biblical texts use litiinulliwyatan as a proper name; consequently, the imagined physical appearance of Leviathan cannot be deduced from etymology alone, and as a matter of fact, the texts do not give a single, homogeneous portrait (see below).

~>";"

E.PUECH

~l, ~.:Adonay = Ok ~Kurios) as his proper name. II. Marduk's earliest beginnings seem to be as the local god and patron of Babylon. Already in the Old Babylonian period, he was incorporated into the Mesopotamian pantheon and considered to be the son of EnkiJEa and a member of the Eridu circle. It has been argued that Marduk became the son of ~Ea because both he and Asallube were gods of exorcism. Especially since Asallul}e seems originally to have been the messenger of Ea and not a god of exorcism as such, it is more reasonable to assume that the connection with Ea arose from the desire to link Babylon and Marduk with Eridu, its traditions, and its god Ea. Continuing the tradition of the kings of Isin-Larsa who also had a special relationship to Eridu, the priests of Babylon were thus able to link Marduk to a major god other than Enlil and

543

MARDUK a venerable tradition other than Nippur. The subsequent identification of Marduk with Asallube came about because both Marduk and Asalluoe were associated with rain clouds and water and, as sons of Ea, both functioned as his messengers, agents, and executors. Eventually, Asalluoe/Marduk indeed became an exorcist, perhaps because the human aJipu, who was the messenger of Ea and identified with Asallube, preferred to assume an identification with a divine exorcist rather than remaining only a messenger, thus enhancing his power. (This development was part of the expanding role and status of this class of exorcists.) As Babylon developed and grew in significance, Marduk's natural features were overlaid by characteristics and roles he assumed as the god of the city, and he himself incorporated features and identities of other gods (e.g. Tutu of Borsippa). Marduk is often treated as if he were a political construct lacking in natural features. This approach is understandable, given that, on the one hand, we have no early mythic materials which present him as a natural force or as a developed personality, and that, on the other hand, texts that provide a detailed picture seem to reflect a time when as the supreme god he had taken over many roles and identities. Still, itsecmspreferable to follow. JACOBSEN'S assessment and to treat Marduk as a god who was originally associated with thunderstonns and brought natural abundance by means of water. Accordingly. we should not explain all of Marduk's associations with water and vegetation as simply having been taken over from Ea and his circle. Note, especially, the identification of Marduk with Enbilulu in Enuma Elish VII and the emphasis in hymns and prayers upon Marduk's power to bring water and nourishment in abundance (sometimes in conjunction with the rendering of decisions and determination of destinies at the New Year). See, for example, A. LIVINGSTONE. SAA 3 (1989) 7~8; 21-23 and BMS, no. 12 (and dupls.):24-31. Also suited to (or derived from) his natural character are some of the storm-like (and hence war-like) features

and deeds attributed to him in his fight against ~Tiamat in Enuma Elish and the use there of -Ninurta traditions. In texts from the first millennium, Marduk's astral identification is especially with Jupiter. The history of the god is of importance for an understanding of Mesopotamian religion and thought. We turn now, therefore, to that topic. Marduk has a more textured personality than simply that of the god of the expanded Babylon, and his full character and deeds should not be seen only as a projection of political developments. Still, his ascension to the head of the pantheon and the expansion of his powers are surely related to the gradual elevation of Babylon to pre-eminence. Although mentioned as early as the Early Dynastic period (perhaps even ED II), it is only during the Old Babylonian period under Hammurapi-who for the first time made Babylon an important city and the capital of an extended state-that Marduk emerges as a significant god and a member of the Sumero·Akkadian pantheon. Thus the Code of Hammurapi begins: "When lofty -+ Anum, king of the Anunnaki, (and) Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, the determiner of the destinies of the land,· determined for Marduk, the first-born of Enki, the Enlil functions over all mankind, made him great among the Igigi, called Babylon by its exalted name, made it supreme in the world; established for him in its midst an enduring kingship, whose foundations are as firm as -heaven and earth-" (Codex Hamrnurapi I 1-21 [ANE:f.3]). Even here, Marduk's elec· tion is still the continuation of an older Mesopotamian tradition. In that tradition, the god of the politically dominant city ruled the land, but the central meeting place or assembly of the gods remains Nippur and ultimate power resides with the divine assembly and its leaders. One difference, however, from some earlier fonnulations seems to be the treatment of Marduk's kingship in Babylon as eternal. All the same, Marduk in the Old Babylonian period seems to be no more than a junior member of the pantheon; he is a local god but he is now a permanent mem· . "

544

MARDUK

ber of the pantheon and god of a city that has become a permanent part of the ideological landscape. As Babylon developed, so did the god. Beginning as the local god and patron of Babylon, Marduk became the god and master of the Babylonian national state and the supreme god and absolute ruler of the oniverse. However, during most of the second millennium, Marduk seems. neither to have replaced the high gods of Babylonia nor to have ascended to the head of the pantheon. Only late in the second millennium does he take on many of Enlil's roles and become not only lord of the land but also king of the gods. While there are indications that Marduk was emerging as supreme ruler already during the Kassite period (cf. e.g. the events ~sociated with Adad-shuma-u~ur in A. K. GRA YSON, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts [Toronto 1975] 56-77 [but note that this text contains anachronisms and was probably composed well after that reign)) (illd early in the second Isin period, his elev.ation seems to have been first publicly ar~iculated only during the reign of Nebuchad•nezzar I (1125-1104). This king defeated the ·~Iamites and restored the plundered statue pf Marduk to Babylon. Now, in addition to Narduk's rule over the city of Babylon. ::~erewas an open Marduk's do:ruinion over the gods and over the whole .l~nd. He takes on some of the roles of Enlil >~nd occasionally even replaces him. Gener',~Uy speaking, however, the other major ::gods are not replaced or made simply sub;'~~rvient to Marduk (especially in texts from ~F.ilies other than Babylon). Rather, Marduk, }~.o longer a junior, is now ranked with the j;~.~prerne gods of the pantheon. hi; By the end of the second millennium, a ~!}.abylon.ian nation-state seems to have been K~~ated with the city Babylon as its centre ~~,n.d Marduk as its god. As mentioned above, ~~arduk is now even referred to occasiona)]y ~e,~,king of the gods, but it is only during the (!)wst millennium, culminating in the Neo~~~abylonian empire, that we find this idea ~~~tematically carried through to its logical

claim for

~~;L,

conclusion. This is evident from first-millennium documents describing the Akitu-New Year festival; for at that season, the gods all assembled in Babylon, where Marduk was declared king and where destinies for the New Year were determined. Certainly, during the Neo-Babylonian empire, Marduk was the supreme god of a universal empire ruled from Babylon. The date of the elevation of Marduk has occasioned a variety of scholarly opinions. The problem is a knotty one and requires a nuanced approach. It is likely that the perception of Marduk as head of the pantheon was already developing even before the time of Nebuchadnezzar I. Already in the Kassite period, Babylonia became a national state with Babylon as its capital. But the conception of Marduk as king of the gods in the form known to us, for example, from Enuma EIish, could not be fully articulated until at least two conditions were met: 1) Babylon had to replace Nippur as the divine locus of power upon which the world, the nation, and the monarchy were based, and 2) a new model of world organization had to be available. 1) NippurlBabylon: Even though the Kassite kings ruled the country from Babylon, they followed the older Nippur-Anu-Enlil con~truction of government and, in addition to being kings of Babylon, were kings of Sumer and Akkad. The nation, in accordance with the traditional cosmology, was imagined as being governed by the divine assembly in Nippur under Enlil. The nation/country of Babylonia and the city of Babylon were kept conceptually separate, with the kingdom of 'Sumer and Akkad'not the royal capital-being perceived as the primary unit of government and source of power. Marduk was god of the city of Babylon, the capital, and god of the royal family, but Enlil remained lord of the land. NaturaBy, as the god of Babylon and of the royal family, Marduk's position continued to evolve. For residents of Babylon, for its priests and theologians, and even for the kings in their role of rulers of Babylon, Marduk might have been perceived as king

~:"

~f:

I

,~(

"~

~~!. ",i;;

545

MARDUK

of the gods even before Nebuchadnezzar I. However. as long as the Nippurian conception of governance of the Mesopotamian cosmos and territory remained operative. the concept of the nation and the role of Enlil would remain the same. and developments in Babylon would not initially have affected them. Thus. until the replacement of the political framework that had Nippur as its centre by a different framework centering on Babylon. Marduk's supremacy would not be expressed in political documents. Official recognition of Babylon as the pennanent capital and souree of legitimacy was a precondition to the public. official exaltation of Marduk as the supreme god. 2) World organization: But more was required than just the replacement of Nippur with Babylon to bring about such a change in the conception of Marduk. The recognition of Marduk as the supreme god was a new religious idea that depended upon a radical shift in thinking about the state. What wa~ required was not only a different centre. but also a new conception of the cosmic and political world as a world-empire revolving around one central city. In this divine empire. everything revolves around the god of the central city; at home in their own cities. the other gods pay homage to the supreme god and also journey to the centre to do obeisance: their relationship to the supreme god defines the character of the divine world and their role within it. Such a conception depends not only on the existence of absolute kingship. but even more upon an imperial fonn of government. It is for this reason that Marduk's elevation to full divine supremacy could only take place in the first millennium at a time of world empire. (Compare. perhaps, Marduk's replacement of the divine assembly with developments in Egypt under Akhnaton.) But regardless of how one assesses the evidence from/about the latter half of the second millennium and what one concludes regarding the date of Marduk's elevation, it is clear that in the first millennium the new image of Marduk as world ruler dominated Babylonian thinking. Marduk and Babylon have become the primordial god and city;

the Erra poem can present Marduk as the god who ruled before the Flood and whose temporary absence brought about the Flood. and in this new antediluvian tradition. Marduk replaces the older gods Enlil and Ea. Nevertheless. despite the new supremacy of Marduk and the apparent existence of henotheistic tendencies, Mesopotamia remained polytheistic. with its scveml cities maintaining the cults of their gods. Marduk's cult spread to Assyria before the Sargonids. but it was especially in the 87th centuries. when Assyria attempted to control Babylon. that interesting developments and conflicts surrounding Marduk and Babylon arose. The Assyrians had difficulty assimilating the Marduk cult or even defining an efficacious and stable relationship with Mnrduk and his city. An extreme fonn of the conflict is attested during the reign of Sennacherib when, alternatively. -~Ashshur was cast in the role of Marduk and assumed his deeds or Marduk was made to function at the behest of Ashshur/Anshar. During the late 7th and first half of the 6th century, under the Neo-Babylonian kings. Marduk was regarded as the principal god of the empire. Apparent threats to the prerogatives of the Marduk cult led the priests of Babylon to welcome and justify Cyrus's conquest. Apparently. the events of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I -especially the return of the statue of Marduk-occasioned the composition of literary works revolving around Marduk. his experiences and deeds, and his new exalted position of power and rank. In such texl~ as the Marduk suillo BMS 9 obv. (and dupls.). Marduk is shown outgrowing the role of son of Enki and young prince of Eridu (a role in which he was comparable to Ninuna as son of Enlil and young prince in Nippur) and assuming the role of master of Babylon and of the whole land. While recognizing that Babylon is the centre of the world. this text does not focus only on the city. Rather, it uses Babylon a~ a steppingoff point to the rest of the world. BMS 9 obv. is to be dated, I believe. to the aforementioned reign. A somewhat different situation obtains,

546

MARDUK however, in EI/limll EJish, for in addition to describing Marduk's ascendancy to the kingship of the gods, it focuses narrowly on Babylon, on its creation as the first city and designation as the centre of the world of the gods, and thus also displays an inward turning. For other reasons as well, EI/lima Elish should perhaps not be dated to the time of Nebuchadnelzar I. We should now, therefore, discuss this document. Emima Elish ("When On High'), a seven tablet work, is ccrt41inly the most important document defining Marduk's elevation. It describes his rise to permanent and absolute kingship over the gods. His ascendancy is expressed not only by the recognition of his kingship over the gods but also by the naming of his fifty names, for by this naming many gods arc identified with Marduk or arc made aspects of him. In this work, the idea of an assembly ruled by Marduk from the Esagila in Babylon is clearly envisaged and worked out, and the earlier structure of a national assembly of the gods in Nippur (led by Enlil and Anu) is, by implication, replaced. While various documents composed under Nebuchadnezzar I reflccted the ascendancy of Marduk. it may be a mistake to include EI/li1Ila EJish among them. The date of composition of £I/lima EJish is not without historical significance: moreover. the date has a bearing on the interpretation of the work and its relationship to other literntures. In the course of the last 60-70 years, various dates have been suggested for Emima EJish. In the first flush of rediscovery of the Old Babylonian period and the Code of Hammurnpi, the composition of Emima Elish was dated to that period. (Such passages a.'i the above-quoted passage from the prologue to Codex Hammurnpi were used to support this notion.) More recently. dates in the latter half of the second millennium have been proposed. While W. von Soden suggests a date of composition around 1400, LAMBERT (1964) argues for the composition of Enii11la Elis" during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I as a work celebrnling Marduk's official elevation to leadership of the pantheon. JACOBSEN

(1976). on the other hand. introduces a number of subtle distinctions and argues that the work dealt with issues surrounding Babylonia's re-conquest of the Sealand and national unification and should be dated subsequent to that event (after Ulamburiash) in the carly part of the second half of the second millennium. Previous attempts at dating and interpretation have a.'isumed that the work reflects a period of ascendancy of the city Babylon and the Babylonian kingdom. If this were the case, we would expect our text to evidence charncteristics of a work written either by temple circles or by palace circles and to support the interests of one or the other. Rather. it exhibits a mixed set of features with regard to temple and palace. This mixture can be explained if we assume that EI/lima EJish was written not at a time of ascendancy, but rnther at a time when the interests of temple and palace had coalesced because the scat of power had shifted elsewhere and it had become necessary to reassert the centrnl importance of the god, his temple. and his city. Thus, rather than viewing EI/lima £Jish as a work composed during a period of Babylonian political ascendancy and as a reflection of the city's attainment of increasing power, I would suggest that we instead view £/llima EJish as having been composed at a time when it was necessary to preserve the memory of Babylon's ascendancy and to assert its claim to be a world capital on the grounds that it had been so since the beginning of time. It was composed some time during the early first millennium in a period of weakness of the city Babylon and served to bolster the city's claim to culturnl prestige and privilege at a time when it was coping with the loss of political power and centrality. While supporting political aspirations. the work reflects even more the needs of a major temple organization to preserve its religious and cultural significance and may well have been composed in temple circles. Thus, while BAtS 9 obv. (and dupls.) is a more naturnl example of increasing strength, EI/li1Ila £lish is a conservative attempt to preserve somelhing that was threatened with

547

MARDUK

loss. The emphases and approach of Emima Elish would agree with composition in the first millennium at a point when Babylon's ascendancy was threatened either by the Aramaeans or the Assyrians. Certainly, Emil1la Elish exhibits a pronounced baroque style characteristic of late periods. Moreover, while the universalistic worldview implicit in £mima E/ish is not consonant with the second millennium when the concept of world-empire had not yet become part of the Mesopotamian political and religious imagination, it does fit with the thought and experiences of the first milIennium. Emima Elish is rooted in the notion of Marduk as king of the gods; while the earlier period may have already articulated this idea, the vision of Elllil1la E/ish reflects a radical extension of it, perhaps in reaction to the Assyrians and under the influence of the model provided by the Assyrian worldempire. It reflects the cultural needs of first millennium Babylon. For the time being, then, £lllil1la £lish should not be calIed upon to give testimony to the ascendancy of Marduk at the end of the second millennium. Marduk's main sanctuary was located in the centre of Babylon and comprised a group of buildings, most notably the low temple Esagila and the temple tower (ziggurat) Etemenanki. Between these two complexes ran the main processional street. Esagila contained the major shrines of Marduk and his wife Sarpanitu as \velI as a number of chapels dedicated to other gods. On the top of the ziggurat, which was located within an enclosure, stood the high temple of Marduk, with rooms of worship for other gods. Among the gods who had chapels in these complexes special mention should be made of Marduk's son -·Nabii, the scribe of the gods and god of Borsippa. Nabfi, too, eventualIy attains high eminence among the gods alongside his father Marduk. The New Year's festival in Babylon (usually referred to as the Akitu festival) was based in Marduk's temple complex and centered on his cult. Comprising several separate strands which were joined together

over time, the rites of the festival, which took place in the spring during the first twelve days of the first month (Nisannu), centre upon the god, city, and king of Babylon. But although the Akitu festival had several originalIy independent dimensions (natural, cosmological, and political), it nevertheless remains true that ElIlima Elish gives expression to some of the same ba·;jc issues and narrative themes ao; the late festival and corresponds to several of its major ritual enactments. Emima Elish (probably our text, but possibly some other version or re-telIing of the story) was recited before Marduk on the fourth day of the month (it may welI have been recited in other months as welI). Principal among the ritual events that should be mentioned here arc: prayers for Babylon; divesting and reinvesting the king before Marduk; ingathering of the gods from various cities to Babylon: gathering of the gods in immerJ. presumably as a substitute for a child, while mlPdm was a human sacrifice [cf. Hebrew 'adam}). Finally, "sacrificial precincts" (or "tophets", borrowing the Biblical term for the locus of the Molech cult) have been excavated at Punic colonial sites in Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa, all containing the remains of children, as· well as small animals. Each of these categories of evidence has generated a considerable body of scholarly literature. For now, we may note a couple of points at which the case advanced by Eissfeldt and his supporters may not be as strong as at first appears. Most significantly.

despite the classical and patristic citations, there is no sure archaeological evidence of the practice of a cult of child sacrifice in Phoenicia, leaving a crucial 'missing link' between Israel and the Punic colonies (and provoking the suspicion that the citations are polemical, directed chiefly at defaming the motherland of the Carthaginians). Secondly, compounding the problem of the 'missing link' is the relatively late date at which inscribed stelae begin to appear in the Punic cemeteries (7th-6th centuries BeE), as well as the discovery of stelae inscribed with mlk in places (such as Malta) where no cemetery has yet been found, raising the possibility that the sacrificial. sense of mlk is an intraPunic development. Thirdly, despite Eissfeldt's assertion that formulae such as mlPmr indicate an increase in the practice of animal substitution over time, the preliminary analysis of remains found. at Carthage suggests that child sacrifice increased in frequency (relative to animal substitution), at least through the 4th-3rd centuries BeE (STAGER 1982). Finally, it should be noted that an increasingly vocal body of European scholars is challenging the inter-:pretation of the Punic remains as indicating any cult of child sacrifice at all (D. PARDEE, Review of Heider, Cult of Molek, JNES 49 [1990] 372).. Recent research into comparative evidence has focused on deities named M-I-k (variously vocalized) in places closer to Israel, especially Mesopotamia and SyriaPalestine. A divine name ~Malik is wellattested as a theophoric element at Ebla (third millennium BeE), although little can be determined of his nature or cult there. Amorite personal names from second-millennium Marl include the element Malik, as well as. Milku/i, Malki and Muluk (each sometimes with the divine detenninative and sometimes without, so that the common noun, "king", may in some cases be present, rather than a divine name). Of equal or greater interest at Mari are references to beings called maliku as recipients of funera~ ry offerings, although it is not clear whether they are the shades of the dead or chthonic

582

MOLECH

deities. Nevertheless, the underworld context regularly recurs in the other comparative evidence. Akkadian god lists from the Old Babylonian period onwards include a deity named Malik equated with -+Nergal, and other Akkadian texts mention mal(i)k,ibeings with the Igigi and Anunnaki, all in connection with the cult of the dead ancestors. (We may also note a god Milkunni attested in Hurrian.) But most significant of all, so far as the study of OT Molech is concerned, is the presence of a deity Mlk at Ugarit. In addition to its inclusion in personal names (vocalized as Malik, Milku and Mulik in syllabic texts), Mlk appears in two divine directories (actually, snake charms), as resident at '!Irt (KTU 1.100:41; 1.107: 17), the same location which is elsewhere assigned to the netherworld deity Rpll (KTV 1.1 08:2-3; but see DAY 1989:49-50, for a contrary view). While this collocation does not necessarily imply the identity of the deities, it is suggestive of some close relationship, as is the attestation of beings called mlkm in connection with the royal cult of the dead, along with the better-known rpllm (OT -Rephaim), who appear to be the shades of dead royalty at Ugarit (or of all Ps 88:11). Finally, the dead in the OT; we may note the similar divine names -Melqart of Phoenicia and Milcom of Ammon. While the equation of either deity with Molech is unlikely, it is at least intriguing that Melqart (literally, "King of the City") may also have connections with the undenvorld (particularly if one follows W. F. Albright in understanding "the City" as the netherworld), and equally of interest that the Ugaritic 'address' for Mlk, '!Irt, is likely to be identified with the city Ashtaroth in -+ Bashan, just north of Ammon. In sum, the Semitic comparative evidence yields the portrait of an ancient god of the netherworld, involved in the cult of the dead ancestors (and perhaps their king, given the meaning of the root mlk, at least in West Semitic). III. We tum, then, to a consideration of the Biblical evidence, focusing on the seven instances (less I Kgs II :7) of molek in the

cr.

MT, together with related material (especially other references to cultic child sacrifice). The preponder.mce of occurrences are in the Holiness Code in Leviticus: once in 18:21; and four times in 20:2-5. The fonner verse speaks of "giving of your seed (mizza~lika) to cause to pass over to Molech". As noted especially by WEINFELD (1972) the context (forbidden sexual relations) led some of the rabbis to propose that the cult of Molech entailed not sacrifice, but intercourse with Gentile women. WEINFELD builds on this point and others to propose a non-sacrificial interpretation of the cult. such that "to cause to pass through the fire to Molech" meant dedication to the deity, but not sacrifice; most scholars. however, remain persuaded that actual sacrifice by fire was involved, especially given Num 31 :23, where he'ebir ba'es clearly entails burning. The four instances of Molek in Lev 20:25 move the discussion forward. First. the reference to the cult in v 5 as "playing the harlot after Molech" (li:.nol 'a~llire hammolek) presents a significant obstacle to the Eissfeldt hypothesis, that Molech is not a divine name in the OT. The presence of the article in hllmmolek is problematic for his assertion that, based on the LXX evidence, the article should be eliminated from lammolek elsewhere, thus preserving a parallel with phrases like It'ijM ("as a burnt offering"). More seriously, the object of the phrase "to play the harlot after" is uniformly a deity or supernatural object (such as Gideon's ephod in Judg 8:27). with the one possible exception of Num 15:39. Turning. then. to the constructive ta.'\k. we note that the following context in v 6 repeats the "play the harlot" phmseology. only now with reference to doing so after "ghosts and familiar spirits" (hii'6b61 wthay)'icldc'ollim). Again. we seem to be in the realm of the shades (-Spirit of the Dead; -.Wi7.ard). That this linkage is not limited to this one passage is shown by Deut 18:9-14 which. although it docs not contain the term Molech, includes at the head of a roster of "abominable practices of those nations" (Le.

583

MOLECH

the Canaanites} "one who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire" (matijbir bfn6-ubillo ba'tI). There follows then a list of (other) illicit practitioners of contact with the spirit world: diviners, soothsayers, augurs, sorcerers, charmers, mediums, wizards, necromancers. That the OT sees the cult of Molech as essentially a Canaanite prnctice (indeed, as the archetypical Canaanite abomination) is indicated both in Deuteronomy (12:31) and in the Deuteronomistic summary of the fall of· the Northern Kingdom (2 Kgs 17: 17). However, with the exception of the latter verse, its practice in Isrnel appears to have been restricted to the environs of Jerusalem. Both Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kgs 21 :6) are explicitly accused of participation, while Josiah is credited with having "defiled the Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might cause his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech" (2 Kgs 23: 10). In fact, while the evidence is all too scanty, it appears to be within the realm of possibility that the cult was practised by the Jerusalem establishment prior to Josiah, presumably subsumed within the cult of Yahweh (e.g. Isaiah uses the imagery of the cult in describing what Yahweh would do to the Assyrian king [30:33}-one can hardly imagine Isaiah approving of the cult, but his words were intended to communicate, using known imagery). Its fate after Josiah is even harder to describe with certainty. Both Jeremiah (7:31-32; 19:5-6.11; 32:35; cf. 2:23: 3:24) and Ezekiel (I6:2Q..21; 20:25-26.3Q.. 31: 23:36-39) condemn their contemporaries (presumably in Jerusalem, also for Ezekiel) for the practice. Even following the exile, Isa 57:5.9 suggests the continuation of the prnctice for at least a brief time (particularly if one reads m6/ek for MT me/ek in v 9), at least in isolated locales ("the clefts of the rocks", v 5). Among the many questions surrounding Molcch and the related cult, none is so perplexing as the god's relationship to other deities (as has been seen already in the examination of the comparative evidence). The Biblical evidence suggests a distinction

from Milcom of the Ammonites by specifying that Josiah destroyed distinct holy places for the two (2 Kgs 23: 10-13) and by stressing that Molech' s origins were Canaanite. On the other hand, many have read Jeremiah as indicating an equation with -Baal: 'They built the high places of the Baal which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass over to Molech, something which I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind ..... (32:35; cf. 19:5, "they built the high places of the Baal to bum their sons in the fire as offerings to the Baal"). At most. however, this may renect a popular confusion of the two (or their cults) since elsewhere they are spoken of distinctly (e.g. 2 Kgs 23:5.1 0). (Sec HEIDER 1985: 291293, and DAY 1989:29-71 for discussion of other proposed divine equations, especially WEINFELD'S proposal of Adad[milki] [1972].) Also much discussed, in view of the comparative evidence and of other OT references to human sacrifice, is whether the cult of Molech waahliba. Mot's

.

601

MOT

strength may be seen also in his fight with Baal: "Mot was strong. Baal was strong" (ml Cz bCI c:: !(TU 1.6 vi: 17). However. CASSUTO (1962) misinterpreted a phrase in a Ugaritic letter. A.7U 2.10: 11-13. as providing a parallel with Cant 8:6. Mot is there described as strong (C z) and may be personified, but there is no reference to love. since yd i/m is a disease (see PARDEE 1987). In many cases it is far from clear whether the Canaanite Mot is being alluded to in biblical passages (Pss 18:5-6: 33: 19: 68:21: 116:3: 118:18: Prov 13:14; 16:14). A much-vaunted, but doubtful case of an echo of Canaanite myth appearing in the Hebrew Bible is found in Jer 9:20, which alludes to Death entering by means of ' ....indows. CASSUTO (1962), MULDER (1965) and others have made comparison with the Ugaritic episode of Baal's reluctance to have windows incorporated into his palace because of fear of attack (KTU 1.4:vi-vii). It has been noted, however. that the attack on Baal was to come from Yam (1\7U 1.4:vi 12), not Mot (SMITH 1987). The windowattack theme may be of interest in tenns of Hebrew-Ugaritic parallels. but it has no direct bearing on Mot. In Jer 9:20 Death is an attacking demon. as in A7U 1.127:29 (and implicitly in ritual text 1\7U 1.119:2636). PAUL (1968) makes a comparison with the Mesopotamian lamaslll demon. COOPER (1981) notes extensi vely other possible biblical appearances of Mot. Some rely on conjectural emendation of texts. Thus in Hab 3: 13 ALBRIGHT read mWI for MT mbyl (after LXX Bavatov) a reading which gives the meaning "You stnJck the head of wicked Mot." This. if correct, would give very explicit evidence of a battle-like conflict between Yahweh and Mot. The emendation has not been accepted by all scholars. In Hab 1:12 TROMP (1969) emended I' nm"'l to I'll mWI, supposedly "the Victor over Death". NOle also Ps 55: 16. emended by some to give "Let Death come upon them." A text which is usually emended, Ps 48: 15, can in fact be read as referring to Yahweh's leading his people 'against Mot'. In fact this phra.'ie, cal-nuil, is usually corrected to c610mol and often read

as the title of Ps 49. All four of these 'Yahweh versus Mot' passages are. therefore, problematic. Finally mention must be made of the possible appearance of the divine name Mot in the much-discussed Hebrew word #mwl (e.g. Isa 9:1), as argued by TRO~P (1969), among others. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of this word. Suffice it to note that the -m\\'1 element may originally have been the word 'death' and perhaps even the name of the deity. In this context mower/mOl might have indicated the grammatical superlative ('shadow of death, extreme darkness'). inviting contrast with the use of 'ilJ'/Whlm in superlative expressions (\VII'noN THmfAS 1962). Note also Sdm(w)1 in e.g. Isa 16:8, in this context (LEH~fANN 1953). There arc a few Hebrew personal names (e.g. 'bymwl ('Death is my brother'?]: I Chron 6: 10: (:)11 \\'1 ['Death is strong'?] 2 Sam 23:31. etc.) and geographical names (~I$rm\\'/: Gen 10:26) which mighl contain the name Mot and suggest some continued interest in the Canaanite deity. but all are very uncertain (-·Thanatos). IV. Bibliography W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Psalm of Habakkuk, Studies ill Old TeSlamell1 Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley: Edinburgh 1950) 1-18: H. W. ATTRIDGE & R. A. ODEN, Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History (Washington 1981); U. CASSUTO, Ba')l and Mot in the Ugaritic Texts, JEJ 12 (1962) 77-86: A. COOPER, Divine Names and Epithets. in the Ugaritic Texts, RSP III 392-400 [& lit}; M. DIETRICH & O. LoRETZ, 1111 "Mot, Too" und 1111 "Krieger, Held" im Ugaritischen. UF 22 (1990) 57-65: J. C. L. GIBSON, lbe Last Enemy, Scollish Joumal of Theology 32 (1979) 151-169: J. F. HEALEY, Burning the Com: New Light on the Killing of Motu, Or 53 (1984) 245-254: M. R. LE}f~1ANN, A New Interpretation of the Ternl it"oOiO, vr 3 (1953) 361-371: T. J. LEWIS, Mot, ABD 4, 922-924; M. J. MUl.DER, Kallaanilische Godell in hel Oude TeSlamelll (The Hague 1965) 65-70: D. PARDEE, As Strong as Death, Lo,,'e and Dearh in Ille Ancient Near EaSI (cds. J. H. Marks & R. M. Good:

602

MOTHER

Guilford, CT 1987) 65-69: S. M. PAUL, Cuneifonn Light on Jer 9, 20, Bib 49 (1968) 373-376; M. H. POPE, MOl, WhAt)'th 1/1, 300-302: M. S. S~I1TH, Death in Jeremiah, ix, 20, UF 19 (1987) 289·293; S~lrnl, TI,e Early History of God (San Francisco 1990) 53, 72-73: N. J. TROMP, Primitj}'e COllcep-

tions of Dearh alld the Nether World in the Old Testamelll (Rome 1969): D. TSUMURA, A Ugaritic God, Mt-w-sr, and His Two Weapons (UT 52:8-11), UF 6 (1974) 407413: P. L. \VATSON, The Death of 'Death' in the Ugaritic Texts, JAOS 92 (1972) 6064: D. WINTON THOMAS, $all1uiwet in the Old Testament, JSS 7 (1962) 191-200.

J. F. HEAI.EY MOTHER C~ I. The mother-goddess is the most common and plurifonn deity of the religions of the ancient Near East. Because the Canaanite -+Asherah, worshipped also as the -+Queen of Heaven, is not unknown to aT tradition, scholars have found references to her mythical role and imagery, particularly in the person of -·Eve, the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). Many scholars suppose that the title 'em kol ~ra)' original1y referred either to Mother Earth (see also Sir 40:1) or the primeval mother-goddess (VRIEZEN 1937: 192-193; WESTERMANN 1974:365; KAPELRUD 1977:795). II. The Sumerian mother-goddess is simply called ama/amma, 'Mother', She has no specific name, but her many titles and epithets like Ningal, Ninma, Nintu 'the lady who gave birth', Nin~ursag 'mistress of the mountains' etc., testify to an immense spread and variety of her cults. In Akkadian context the mother-goddess is pre-eminently known by the name and title Bclit-ili ('Mistress of the gods', in Atra-Ijasis also called Mami, Mama, Nintu). Also other goddesses as Gula, -·Ishtar, Nikkal are called mnmll, 'mother', and assume nspccts of the mother-goddess (AkkG£ 21-23). As such they receive for instance the title IImmli Jiklliit Ilupifti, 'mother of the living creatures'. In Egypt besides a number of primeval mothers (Nut, Mut etc.), particularly

-·Hathor-in her bovine fonn representing the Cow of Heaven-is the outstanding magna mater and m5t ll[m', 'creatress of the gods' before she merged with -+Isis. mwt Il[r, 'the mother of god' (= -·Horus; ASSMANN 1982:267-268). Also outside the Mesopotamian sphere Semitic ·'immul 'limmu is attested from ancient times as the name and title of numerous mother-goddesses. In the context of Ugaritic myth 11171 refers to the divine mother (A7U 1.6 vi: II. 15), presumably Asherah because the texts call the gods exclusively "the (seventy) sons of Asherah/Qudshu" (KTU 1.4 vi:46), whereas she receives frequently the epithet qll)'t if1ll, 'creatress of the gods' (e.g. A7U 1.4 i:23). Less clear is 1I1n ifm·. 'divine mother', in the broken context of A7U 2.31 :45, though it is usually taken as a reference to Asherah (GESE. RAAM. 149; UT § 19.225). There exist many Assyrian, Canaanite and South Semitic names of the type of DN-1I1llmilllml'm and lImmil1l1ll1'1IION, e.g. in Mari: Ummi-/ja1lat, UmmidlJ{wra; Ummi-duD-fi; Ummi-iJi etc. (ARM 1611. 208-209); in Ugarit: lfJUm-mi-a-da-te (PRU VI. 107:7): enrum (KTU 4.410:31; 4.426: I: 4.504:2); fAMA-Na-1la (PRU III, 168: I); fAllati-IIl1Ulli (RS 14.16:7) etc.; Phoen 'meJtrt (IIUmm-Astarte KAI 14:14; 89:2 passim) and 'm(')fmll (IIUmm-Eshmun). The latter is comparable with ennWl and Neo-Punic berm)' (KAI 155) and South Semitic 'metrslIl (Umm-Atarsam). In Sabaean and Thamudic a goddess 'mme!t(r) CUmmigORTEN 1968:164-167, 157, 159). In the ;Warthi~n era the cult of NabO continued in :',pol1hem Mesopotamia as demonstrated by ;'pedications and personal names at Hatra and :~_ssur (see VAITIONI 1981 no. 340 and Ini:p~x of names; AGGOULA 1985 nos. 10, 14 {~nd Index of names). At Palmyra Nabii and lJ~~anay were worshipped beside Bel, :~7.Nergal and local gods, the temple of Nabfi ;~cupying a prime site near the temple of {J3.el. A marzeah-feast was held there in his l'(~~me, and m~ny men bore names com~R?unded with it. In other cities, notably ~~ra.Europos and Edessa, people honoured

the god, some writing his name in Greek as Napou, others equating him with --i>Apollo. Still the types of personal name do not hint at the particular role of Nabii. In Babylonia, magic bowls and Mandaean texts of the first millennium CE mark the final stage of the cult, the Mandaeans recalling his role as god of wisdom and writing but decrying him as a false --i>Mcssiah. TIl. Isa 46: 1 depicts Bel and NabO led in procession, no longer in the splendour of the New Year Festival on chariots or the shoulders of their devotees, but on animals stumbling along the path to captivity, the once revered statues reduced to objects of booty. In the Bible NabG. is of no importance, the powerless representative of "Babylon, fairest of kingdoms ... ovenhrown by God" (lsa 13: 19). Although a village named Kefar Nabu existed in Syria and Jebel Siman was once known as Jebel Nabu (PORTEN 1968:167, 172-173), there is no compe]]jng reason; apart from the identical spelling, to associate the places in Judah (Ezra 2;29; Neh 7:34) and Moab (Nnm 32:3 etc.; Moabite Stone 14, written nbh), or the mou,ntain in Moab where Moses died (N,um' 33:47; Deut 32:49; 34:1), with the Akkadian god (as do BDB and BALA1), for. NabO is not known to have had devotees, fn' those regions. In' Babylon, Daniel's companion Azaria.h was given name Abed-nego O)J~j::::ll>, Dan 1:7) when the other three youths received 'Babylonian names. That name is usually explained as a corruption 'of EbedNebo, 'servant of NabO', (BDB; HALAT). However, the second element may be better understood as 'the shining one', from the base NGH, found in Aramaic personal names from Assyrian times onwards (ZADOK 1977: par. 112111128), referring, perhaps, to NabO by reference to his planet, Mercury. IV. Bibliography B. AGGOULA, Inscriptions et graffites arameens d'Assour (AION Supp. 43; Naples 1985); W. G. LAMBERT, The Converse Tablet: A Litany with Musical Instructions, Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Balti-

~:: ~~i

~\

lWl~; ~. i!:

~:

;{5

609

the

NAHAR - NAME

more 1971) 335-353; E. MATSUSHIMA, Le rituel hierogamique de NabO, Acta SlImerologica 9 (1987) 131-175; ·F. POMPONIO. NabQ. II cHlro e la figura di lin dio del Pantheon babilonese ed assiro (StSem 51; Rome 1978); B. PORTEN. Archi"es from Elephantine. The life of an Ancient Jewish Milirary Cololly (Berkeley 1968); M.-J. SEUX, HJ17mes et prieres alL"( dieltx de Babylonie et d'Assyrie (LAPO 8; Paris 1976); F. VATIlONl, Le iscritioni di Hatra (AION Supp. 28; Naples 1981); R. ZADOK, On West Semitt's in Babylonia dllring the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods (Jerusalem 1977).

III. It is possible that the personal name Nahor comes from the cityname Nabur, known from the Marl archives. and situated in the vicinity of Haran (c. WESTERMANN. Genesis J-II [BKAT VI: Neukirchcn-Vluyn 1974] 748). Other suggestions have nlso been made. though (HESS 1992). None of the possible explanations of Nahor's name can be used as evidence of a god Nahor. IV. Bibliography R. S. HESS, Nahor, ABD 4 (1992) 996-997; J. LEW"', Les textes paleo-assyricns et I'Ancien Testament. RHR 110 (1934) 47-48.

A. R. MILLARD

NAl\IE cd I. Name (Heb se11l, representing a common Semitic noun) refers to a designation of a person. an animal, a plant or a thing. It also refers to reputation. progeny (as continuation, remembrance). and posthumous fame. The name of a person or deity is especially closely associated with th~lt person or deity, so that knowledge of the name is connected with access to and influence witheven magical control of-the named. In particular, God's name, which in some traditions is specifically revealed. can become a separate aspect of -·God. in such a way as to represent God as a virtual hypostasis. It is not as developed a hypostasis in the OT as is God's word or God's wisdom (-Wisdom) or even God's spirit (RINGGREN 1947), but it is more significant than the role of God's arm (e.g. Isa 51:9). II. Certain deities in the Ancient Near East are celebmted for the multiplicity of their names or titles. e.g. the 50 names of -+Marduk in EIIlI11IlJ Elish. the 74 names of -·Re in the tomb of Thutmosis III and the 100-142 names of -·Osiris in SpelI 142 of the Book of the Dead. The deities may also have hidden or secret names. so as to emphasize their otherness and to guard against improper invocation by devotees. (Note the story about how -·Isis persuaded Re to divulge his secret name. thereby lending great power to her magic; ANET 12-14.) In addition, we frequently find aspects or epithelli of particular deities becoming separate

NAHAR

-+

NAHASH

RIVER

-+

SERPENT

NAHHUNTE -+ LAGAl\1AR

'.

NAHOR I. It has been speculated that the city of Nnhor (Gen 24: 10) was named after a deity Nahor. Nahor the grandfather of -+ Abraham (Gen 1I :22-25; Josh 24:2) and Nahor the brother of Abraham (Gen 11 :26-29; 22:2024; 24:15.24.47; 29:5; 31:53) would have been named after the city of Nahor, and thus, indirectly, after the god of that name (LEWY 1934). II. There is no extra-biblical evidence whatsoever attesting to the cult of a god Nahor. Lewy's argument is based on circular reasoning. He writes: "In view of the evidence that the cities of Ijarran, NalJur, and sarOg bear the names of ancient deities ... it is pennitted to conclude that the parents of the patriarchs in Western Mesopotamia are, at least in part. ancient WestSemitic deities that have later been invested with a human nature" (LEW'" 1934 [tr. KvdT). The evidence he refers to is nonexistent. Also, the theory seems to be indebted more to the once popular view of Genesis as a euhemeristic account of ancient Semitic religion, than to a dispassionate study of the texts.

K. VAN DER TOORN

610

NAME divine entities with separate cults, as also happens in the case of deities who become differentiated by reference to different localities or cult centres (e.g. ->Baal-zaphon and -Ishtar of Nineveh as independent deities). The separability of aspects is illustrated by the Egyptian hymn to -> Amun in which "his ba is in the sky (for illumination), his body is (resting] in the West (underworld), (and) his image is in Hennonthis", serving as the sign of his presence among men (BARUCQ & DAUMAS 1980:224). More pertinently, as one text says of the deceased. "Your ba lives in the sky with Re: your ka has a place in the presence of the gods. your name endures on earth with Geb". Indeed. in the New Kingdom kings could be as portrayed offering their name to a deity (RiiRG 503). III. In Israel, God's name is not secret but public. with specific accounts of the revelation of the name (Exod 3: 13-14: 6:23). In spite of scholarly uncertainty as to the etymology of God's special name. -Yahweh, to the early Israelites presumably God's name was not obscure in meaning. But even with no secret name to be invoked by the initiate. the name is so closely related to God that misuse of the name is prohibited (Exod 20:7: note Lev 24:10-15). Eventually God's particular name could be uttered only by the priest in the temple (m. Sot 7:6. San" 10: I, Tam 3:8), even though it might still be written-ften in archaic script in the Qumran texts-and a substitute title, such as 'lidona)', ->'Lord', was otherwise pronounced. The separation out of God's name as an independent aspect of God occurs in several fomls. First, there is the occurrence of phrase- doublelower the Assyrian anny, but Sennacherib who attempted to challenge the one universal god (2 Kgs 19:15.19) ·is personally punished. Murdered by his own sons while praying to 'his god' who cannot help him, he meets a destiny which was decided and announced by Yahweh (2 Kgs 19:7). Sennacherib's forlorn trust in a powerless god marks a final counterpoint to Israel's trust in the one true god. Note that an alternative theological interpretation, attested by a stela of Nabonidus from Babylon (VAB 4, 272 i 35-41), gave Marduk the ultimate credit for the conspiracy against Sennacherib. Originally the result of a scribal accident, the name Nisroch, once fixed, allowed eloquent second thoughts. Since Aramaic S/SRK denotes 'appendage', 'burdock', 'catch' etc., it could be understood as a 15t pI. verbal form meaning 'we shall catch up', 'we shall trap'.

I

'J~to o~i

~{

I

l':~

:t.,

1:

:":.f

i;o· , ""'.

631

NOAH IV. Bibliography A. K. GRAYSON. Nisroch, ABD 4 (1992) 1122; E. G. KRAELlNG, The Death of Sennacherib, lAOS 53 (1933) 335-346; C. F. LEHMANN-HAUPT, Zur Ennordung Sanheribs, 012 21 (1918) 273-276; 1. P. LETTINGA, A note on 2 Kings xix 37, vr 7 (1957) 105-106; E. LIPINSKI, BetSarruk(in), Diclionnaire Enc)'c1opldique de la Bible (Maredsous 1987) 208-209; A. UNGNAD, Die Ennordung Sanheribs, 012 20 (1917) 358-359; G. W. VERA CHAMAZA. Sanheribs letzte RuhesUitte, BZ 36 (1992) YON SODEN, Gibt es Hinweise 241-249; auf die EnnQrdung Sanheribs im NinurtaTempel (wohl) in Kalab in Texten aus Assyrien?, NABU 1990, no. 22.

'V.

C. UEHLlNGER

NOAH m NcOe I. The etymology of the name Noah has never been satisfactorily explained. It is usually connected with the verb root NWI;I "rest, settle down' (of the ark Gen 8:4), 'repose, be quiet' (after labour Exod 20: II) and so Noah may mean 'rest' possibly in association with the resting of the ark on the mountains of Ararat after the flood. The root appears in Akk nab" to rest, as in iniib llimtll ... abiibu ikla 'the sea subsided ... the flood ceased' in the Babylonian account of the flood (Gilg. xi, 131) and Nom (1951: 254-257) has identified Nab as a theophoric clement in personal names as early as the 19th-18th centuries BeE. II. Noah appears as the tenth and last name in the great primordial genealogy of Gen 5 and is unique in the list in having a name explanation: "Out of the ground that the LoRD has cursed this one shall create relief ()'ena~amenli) from our work and from the toil of our hands" (Gen 5:29). The explanation closely resembles the reason given for the creation of mankind in Elluma Elish when Ea "imposes [on men] the services of the gods to set the gods free" (VI, 34). In the biblical story, Noah is cast as a pioneer figure in the cultivation of the hitherto stultified earth. The folk definition

from Nl,fM in the MT, however. is unsound etymologically: hence the LXX reading dianapausei !limas which makes beuer sense and presupposes the Hebrew )'eni~leml "he will give us rest'. Relief from the worst effects of divinely cursed earth (Gen 3: 1719) is held in abeyance until the flood has cleansed it of the progeny of the -Sons of God and the daughters of men. When this has been effected, Noah is blessed in the manner of the first man ('Be fruitful and multiply, and fiJI the earth' Gen 9: I) and as a man of the soil becomes the first to plant a Yineyard (Gen 9:20). WESTERMANN (1974: 487-488) supports the idea that the relief brought to Noah in Gcn 5 is the science of viticulture which would act as a refreshing antidote to the cursing of the earth and the punitive burden of physical labour imposed on mankind in 3: 19. Other contexts in the Hebrew Bible refer to wine as the symbol of comfort and joy (Judg 9:13, Ps 104:15, Prov 31 :6-7 and Jer 16:7). The beneficial evolution to viticulture is not negated by the incident of Noah's drunkenness in 9:21. The only culpability here attaches to --Ham's filial failure to cover his father when he saw him lying naked in his tcnt. In the Ugaritic legend of Aqhal it is the dutiful son who "takes him (Le. his father) by the hand when he is drunk, [and] carries him when he is satiated with wine' (e.g. KTV 1.17 i:3Q-32; ii:20-22; cf. 1.114:15-19). Noah in his role as flood survivor has illustrious counterparts in ancient Mesopotamian literature. In the Sumerian Flood myth, the main text of which dates from the OB period, Ziusudra. a humble and pious king, is secretly forewarned of the gods' decision to send a flood, is saved and granted eternal life. A fuJler account is given in the Akkadian Myth of AtralJasis which survives in several fragments from the Old and Neo-Babylonian period and also in Neo-Assyrian tablets. The "exceedingly wise' AtralJasis is infonned in a dream by the god Enki of the coming deluge and survives by building himself a boat. As with Ziusudra. eternal life is bestowed on him and he is granted a place "among the gods'.

632

NOBLE ONES

The best-known version of the Flood-myth which contains numerous analogies to the biblical acount is contained in the eleventh tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The hero Gilgamesh, in his quest for immortality, seeks out Utnapishtim. Noah's counterpart, who in the first person tells him the story of the universal flood and how he survived it. III. In contrast to the universal degeneracy of contemporary society, Noah is described in Gen 4 as 'a righteous man, blameless in his generation', who like -+Enoch before him, 'walked with God' (6:9: cpo 5:24). Early Jewish sources revelled in the exploits of these primordial -+heroes and though Enoch was the prime target of their speculation, his great grandson Noah, the father of -+Shem, Ham and -+Japheth whose offspring were to people the new world after the flood, was also of special interest. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls lQapGen (col. 1-V) used Gen 5:28-29 as the basis for haggadic expansions on the birth of Noah. The Aramaic text consists of a description of Lamech's uneasiness that Noah's conception was 'due to the -Watchers, or ... to the Holy Ones, or to the -+Nephilim' (II, i). Bitenosh his wife thereupon pleaded her innocence stating that no Watcher or 'any one of the sons of heaven' (II, 16) had implanted seed in her. At length Enoch, the great sage of primordial Jewish history, assuaged his fears. 1 Enoch contains a variant tradition of the commotion occasioned by Noah's birth which depicted his body as 'white like snow and red like the flower of a rose ... the hair of his head white like wool and his eyes like the rays of the sun' (106:2.5.10). Enoch reassured Lamech, Noah's father, that these amazing physical characteristics were not due to angelic interference but did mark Noah out as an extraordinary individual 'through whom the Lord will do new things on the earth' (106: 13). The allusion here is to the fresh start Noah and his three sons will inaugurate on the earth after the flood has swept away the old corrupt generations of humanity. In the NT the eschaton will recapture the sense of urgency of the days of Noah (Matt

24:36-39). As the Flood marked an end of the old order and the start of the new, so the eschatological appearance of the -Son of Man will be cataclysmic. Like Noah of old, the end will be swift and sudden and precipitate universal judgement on the wicked. In a puzzling passage in 1 Pet the apostle has -Christ go and make a proclamation to the spirits in prison who 'in fonner times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark' (3: 19-20). Here the Flood is made analogous to Christian baptism imaging salvation by means of water. Noah, who in Ezek 14: 14.20 is listed with --Daniel and Job as paragons of righteousness, is held up as a 'herald of righteousness' (dikaiosll1zes kentka) in 2 Pet 2:5. The latter expression has been compared with the "teacher of righteousness" known from the Qumran sources (VERMES 1950:73) IV. Bibliography J. A. FITZMYER, The Genesis Apoc1)pllOn of Qumran Cm'e 1. A Commentary (Rome 1966): W. G. LAMBERT & A. R. MILLARD, Atra-basis: The Babylonian SI01)' of the Flood (London 1969): G. LEICK, A Dictiona1)' of Ancienr Near Eastem Mythology (London 1991): M. NOTH, Noah, Daniel and I (1951) 251-260: Hiob in Ezechiel xiv, G. VERMES, La communaute de la Nouvelle Alliance d'apres ses ecrits recemment decouverts, ETL 21 (1950) 70-80; C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 1-11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974; English Translation: London 1984).

vr

P. W. COXON

NOBLE ONES

D'I'-;~

I. In the OT the adjective 'addir is used in describing - Yahweh (Exod 15: II; I Sam 4:8: Pss 8:2.10: 76:5) and also of persons or things of more than nonnal stature or strength, like the sea (Ps 93:4), the mighty cedars of the Libanon (Ezek 17:27), mighty people (Ezek 32:18), or kings (Ps 136:18). In Ps 16:3 it seems to denote pagan deities (TOURNAY 1988:335). II. In the ancient Ugaritic legend of Aqhat the 'adnll are mentioned together with the king fulfilling his usual duties

633

NOMOS

(KTlfl 1.17 v:7). They reside on the threshlaw in Jewish writings of the Second ing-floor. According to KTlfl 1.20-22 this is Temple Period see the overview of also the terminus of the invoked spirits of SANDERS ]992; the NT material is dealt the deified royal ancestors called rpum (cf. with by HUBNER 1981.) In the letters of -JoRepha'im). In a Phoenician inscription on Paul and in. the Jewish apocalypse 4 Ezra, a sarcophagus from the Persian period however, the word sometimes seems to (Byblos 13:2) the adjective >dr is used for designate a supernatural power or agent. II. The word nomos is not often used as -Og, who is known from Josh 12:4 as I. The Heb word "·0:>, vocalized kisfl, is the name of a -+constellation or individual -star mentioned three times in the OT (Amos 5:8; Job 9:9; 38:31), in each instance in connection with Hmo (-Pleiades), and once in a plural form at Isa 13: 10. It is usually identified with Orion, though the evidence of the ancient versions and later sources is ambiguous. The plural should be understood in a general sense as 'constellations'. As a common noun, kisfl has the sense 'fool', 'stupid fellow'. A widespread view holds that the mention of kesil at Job 38:31 contains a reference to some lost legend of a -giant or primeval -+hero who, having rebelled against God. was subdued. bound, and placed in the sky. TUR-SINAI (1967) goes even further and understands all appearances of kisfl and kfmli in the OT as mythological (rather than purely astronomical) references. Others have seen in the use of these words in Amos 5:8 Q veiled polemic against astral worship. II. The ancient versions are not consistent in their translations of klsfl. In Amos

5:8 the LXX does not recognizc the names of ao;tronomical bodies; Symmachus translates astra. 'stars'; Theodotion renders 'Hesperus' (the evening star); and Aquila and the Vg translate 'Orion'. In Job 9:9 the LXX translates 'Hesperus', whilc the Vg translates 'Orion'; in Job 38:31, on the other hand, the LXX translates ·Orion'. but the Vg translates ·Arcturus·. In (sa 13:10 the LXX translates 'Orion'; Aquila and Theodotion transliterate; and the Vg gives splendor earum, 'their brilliance'. The Targum translates Amos 5:8 by the cognate ksyl' and renders kesfl by /lpl' (II QTgJob 38:31 /lpyIJ), 'giant', in the passages in Job and kesflehem by IlpylyJnm in Isa 13: 10. The Peshitta translates Cywt' (a star or constellation of uncertain identity, either Aldebaran or Capella or, perhaps. Leo) in Amos 5:8; gbr. 'giant', 'hero'. in Job 9:9 and 38:31; and 'their hosts' in Isa 13: 10. Several medieval Jewish scholars (Saadya, Ibn Janfi~, Ibn Balcam. and Bar l;Iiyya) identify klsil with Canopus (alsllhayl), the second brightest star (after Sirius) in the sky; Ibn Ezra, on the other hand. takes it to be Antares ('the heart of Scorpio'). However. with the exception of DAL\fAN (who accepts the equation kesil al sllhaYI but takes the latter to be Sirius. DALMAN 1928), modern opinion is virtually unanimous in identifying klsil with Orion. Orion and the Pleiades are mentioned together in a number of Mesopotamian texlc; (SL IVn nos. 279 IV B12. 348 III B4: CAD Z, s.v. zappll), as well as in Homer (Iliad 18:486-489; Odyssey 5:272·274) and Hesiod (Works and Days 615. 619). In Mesopotamian religion, stars arc considercd either godc; or symbols of gods (-·constellations, -God, -·Stars). GASTER (1961) has claimed a connection between the Ugaritic story of Aqhat and the myth of Orion. arguing that both are seasonal myths of the 'disappearing god' type, tied to ac;tral phenomena. Despite the impressive amount of comparative material he adduccs from Mesopotamia. Egypt, Greece. and elsewhere. his attempt at a synthesis of the data rcmains, at best, highly conjectural.

648

=

OSIRIS

III. A plausible case can be made for the view that the Hebrews saw in kesfl a con~ stellation representing a giant or hero. The translation of kis'il in the Tg and Peshitta by words (nepfla~, gabbara) having these meanings (cf. Gen 6:4, where the nlpfllm are explicitly called 'primeval heroes') as well as the Akkadian name of the constellation, sitaddalu, 'the broad man, giant' (SL IV/2 nos. 348 I, 393), point in this direction. So, too, the Arabic name for Orion is al· ;abbar, 'the giant', though this apparently reflects Greek influence (HESS 1932:97). In Greek mythology, Orion was seen as a figure of gigantic stature (Odyssey )) :309310, 572). For traditions identifying Orion with ~Nimrod see K. PREISENDANZ, PW 17 [1936] 625. The claim that behind the reference to kesfl at Job 38:31 lurks some ancient myth of "a giant who, confiding foolishly in his strength, and defying the ~ Almighty, was, as a punishment for his arrogance, bound for ever in the sky" (DRIVER & GRAY 1921:86) is less secure. This claim is based in part on etymological considerations. Thus it is argued (DHORME 1967:132; GASTER 1961: 32, 328) that the Hebrew root KSL, 'to be thick, stout', develops the sense of 'to be coarse, clumsy', leading to such meanings forkes'il as 'impious rogue' on the.one hand and 'oaf, 'gawk' on the other; development of the same root in a different direction leads to kesel, kisLa, 'confidence', whence 'foolish confidence' . However, the only meaning for the common noun kesil actually attested in the OT is 'fool', 'stupid one', the sense of 'impious', 'rogue' being reserved for such partial synonyms as nabal and li~ (Prov 1:22; 17:21; 19:29). The notion of the 'binding' of kesfl is founded largely on the translation "Canst thou ... loose the bands pf Orion?" (KJV) of Job 38:31. Unfortunately; the word mMikot translated 'bands (or 'bonds'), is a hapax legomenon, whose c~.xact nuance remains elusive; and equally ~cc.eptable translations (JPSV: "Can you ... .undo the reins of Orion?" NEB: "Can you . .';. loose Orion's belt?") avoid any reference to bonds or fetters. On balance, the judgeI

ment (DRIVER & GRAY 1921:334) that "with the ambiguity of the nouns ... and our imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew mythology or stories of the constellations, it is impossible to get beyond very uncertain conjectures as to the exact meaning or the exact nature of any of the myths which may be alluded to" remains as valid today as when it was first stated. The Talmud (b. Ber. 58b) records a tradition that should a comet pass through kisla', the world would be destroyed. It also connects kisfl with heat (and kfma with cold): "Were it not for the heat of kesil, the world could not endure the cold of kfma; were it not for the cold of kfma, the world could not endure the heat of kesfl." IV. Bibliography G. DALMAN, Arbeit und Sitre in Palastina I (Giitersloh 1928) 39, 485-50); E. DHORME, A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville 1967)~ G. R. DRIVER, Two Astronomical Passages in the Old Testament, JTS N.S. 7 (1956) 1-11~ S. R. DRIVER & G. B. GRAY, The Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh 1921); T. H. GASTER, Thespis (New York 1961 2) 320-329~ J. J. HESS, Die Sternbilder in Hiob 99 und 38 31 f., Festschrift Georg Jacob (ed. T. Menzel; Leipzig 1932) 94-99; S. MOWINCKEL, Die Sternnamen im Alten Te.V I. Poseidon, the Greek god of the -·sea, occurs in the Bible only in the Apocrypha. as a theophoric name (Poseidonios: 2 Macc 14: 19). Numerous dialectal fonns occur in inscriptions, the main division being between the noO'- and not- (western dialects, Corinth, Crete, Rhodes) fonns. The dominant fonn occurs in a number of Linear B tablets from Pylos and once at Knossos (nom. po-se-da-o, also po-si-). But the 'original' fonn was probably *nOt(cr)Eloa!!.-wv. No etymology so far proposed (a selection in BURKERT 1985:402 n. 2) is without serious difficulties: the weakness of the assumptions that underlie the most commonly accepted, (FICK and) P. KRETSCHMER'S "Lordlhusband of earth.. (Glolla I [ 1909] 27-28), has been exposed by CHADWICK (1983) among others. The intervocalic aspirate of the 'original' fonn suggests a prehellenic (viz. 'Pelasgian') rnther than a Greek Indo-European source (RuIJGH 1967), so that it may well be pointless to look for a Greek etymology. II. Throughout the historical period, Poseidon was overwhelmingly considered a marine divinity, the god par excellence of the (eastern) Mediterranean Sea. This facet of his personality is dominant from the Archaic period. Homer describes how, in his passage across the sea in his chariot, the creatures of the deep come to the surface and gambol about him, "and did not ignore their lord" (Iliad 13:20-31). Though he appears on -Olympus, his own palace, golden, eternal, lies beneath the waters off the coast at Aegae. which in antiquity was

identified with the place of the same name in the Corinthian Gulf (//. 13.21; Odyssey 5:381). With his trident he whips up stonns by churning the open sea (Od. 5:291-292) and wrecks ships on reefs (4:506-507). It is this aspect which appears in the earliest iconogrnphy, the quantities of late-Corinthian pinakes from the grove of Poseidon found in 1879 at Pente Skouphia near Acrocorinth (A. FURTWANGlER, Beschreibllllg der Vasensammlllllg des Anriqllarium 1 (Berlin 1885) nos. 347-540, 787-846; cf. IG IV. l. 210-294) and the black-figure vase by Sophilos in the British Museum depicting the marriage of Peleus and Thetis (BM 1971.11 - 1.1, 580-570 nCE). Poseidon appears alone carrying the trident or with Amphitrite, the nurse of the creatures of the deep (Od. 5.421-422: 12.96-97). As the god of the sea, he is paired. and contmsted, with his brother -Zeus, god of Olympus, as on a black-figure frngment by Kleitias (ca.570 nCE) found at Cyrene (M. B. MOORE, The £rtramIIrl1I Sanclllary of Demeter llnd Persephone at Cyrene [cd. D. White: Philadelphia 1987] 389, no. 257). In Homer, Poseidon is represented as the younger brother obliged to reluctant deference by Zeus' superior wisdom (//. 13:351-357), but this is probably epic local colour: the painting by Cleanthes of Corinth (6th century nCE) of the birth of -+Athena in the sanctuary of -. Artemis Alpheionia in Elis showed him bringing a tunny to his brother during the pains of birth (Athenaeus. Deipll. 8.36:346bc). Although the Aegean and the Ionian seas were generally safe between April and October, the variable Etesian winds during high summer, and the great numbers of local micro-climates, made sea journeys at best unpredictable. This uncertainty is reflected in the very high rntes of interest payable on bottomry loans. Marine Poseidon is lord of this risk, associated particularly with the raising of sudden squalls, such as that which destroyed the Persian fleet off Cape Sepias in 480 BCE: this was caused by a dawn North-Eastern wind familiar enough to the local inhabitants to be given a name, 'a Hellespontian', but quite unpredictable to

659

POSEIDON

strangers (Herodotus, Hi.lit. 7.188.2). The wind was acknowledged as the ultimatc cause, but the Greeks offered libations to Poseidon soter as the power that destroyed the ships. Aside from the famous temples of Poseidon at Onchestus (cf. SEG 36:434, 436-437; possibly the origin of Poseidon Helikonios), Helice (cf. Pausanias. Gr. descr. 7.24.5-6), the Isthmus of Corinth (cf. Pausania. t£ Kal toW EV KOO).lCP (SVF 2: 1021). The traditional gods of the Greek pantheon are merely 'powers' or aspects of the one god. The cosmos is itself rational and vital (E~'l'UXO~) (loNG & SEDLEY 1987:§ 54F, G). In Cleanthes' (after 330-2321231 BCE) Hymn 10 Zeus. this view of providence is expressed in traditional terms: "Nothing supervenes. Lord. on earth, in the divine vault of heaven or in the sea, without you" (SVF 1:537. 15-16). For Chrysippus (say 28In77-208n04 BCE), who wrote a book On Providence in at least four volumes, god is not merely immortal and blessed but also beneficent, provident and succouring (SVF 2: 1126). The cosmos is rational and sentient (Cicero, Nat. Dear. 2: 38): the existence of providence is demonstrated by the ordering of its constituent parts (Cic., Nal. Dear. 2:75-76; cf. 90-153). Zeno's view of Pronoia is intimately linked to his reflections on Plato's and Aristotle's

cosmology (MANSFELD 1979: 161-169). Analogously, Chrysippus argued that Zeus and the ordered universe resemble the composite human being: Pronoia. equivalent of the World-Soul, is to the universe what the soul is to man (Plutarch. Comm. 110/. 36, 1077e with Chemiss, LCL). At ekpyrosis. Zeus "retires into Pronoia" and together they become Ailher, the ruling part of the cosmos (SVF 2:1064). The implications of this view of Providence were followed up rigorously by the early Stoa. The cosmos has a purpose. it exists for the sake of its reasonable beings, gods and mankind (Cic., Na/.Deor. 2: 133). 'Nature' is both a descriptive and a normative notion: man was formed by the gods to live a virtuous life (loNG 1996:137-141). Teleology was pushed to absurdity in Chrysippus' argument that bed-bugs have been created in order to make sure we wake up betimes. and that flies ensure that we do not lay things down carelessly (SVF 2: 1163); or that pigs exist in order to be sacrificed (LONG & SEDLEY 1987:§ 54P). And the further the arguments from design were pressed. the more tricky became the issue of evil. Chrysippus had two main theses here: moral failings, and their consequences in action, are the necessary corollary of moral virtues (there must be evil if there is good); and evil, esp. disease and infirmity, is an unintended but necessary consequence (Kata napaKOM>uOt,cnV) of the beneficial design of the world (SVF 2:1169-1170). Moreover, particular evils do not affect the economy of the cosmos as a whole, and can only function within that economy (SVF 2:937; 1181) (loNG 1968). It was in relation to this issue that Cleanthes alre~dy differentiated between Fate and Providence (SVF 2:933), and on which the sceptic Cameades (ca. 214-129 BCE) later roundly attacked the very notion of Providence (Cic., Nell. Deor. 3:79-85). [n the face of this, contemporary Stoics. notably Panaetius. preferred to muffle the cosmic role of Pronoia and save the freedom of the individual to live in keeping with his rational nature. Posidonius (ca. 135-51/50 nCE) succeeded in producing a

665

PRONOIA

theory that reaffinned Pronoia's identity history, another, the notion that history has a with god as 'artisan of destiny', while goal, the establishment of God's kingdom: making ~ach individual responsible for his Individual wisdom writers, such as Ben Sira own rational development. Later Stoics were (J. MARBOCK, Weisheit im Wandel [BolU'\ mostly content to resume this position 1971] 88-94, 143-145) and Aristobulus and (DRAGONA-MoNACHOU 1994:4436-52). the translator of the LXX version of Provo Stoic Pronoia thus tended to lose its distinc- 8:22-31, associate cos~ic ~wisdom (~ok1na), tive cast, and merge with the traditional as a regulati'{e principle in the world created view of the gods' beneficence (e.g. IKyme by -God, with the history of Israel both 13:90, 106 [after 130 BeE]; SEG 32: 1385.8- collective and individual (HENGEL 1973 2). 9 [after 62 BCE]). Philo's On Providence 2 The spread of Hellenistic rhetorical and (largely preserved in Greek in Eusebius, PE philosophical education within the Jewish 8.14: 386-399, cf. Colson in LCL 9:458- elite both in Palestine and the Diaspora 506) provides a good example of the tone of encouraged the emergence of a 'providential first century CE school debate (d. Confus. kaine' from the 2nd century BCE into the Ling 114-5). Mediated through Cicero as 2nd century CE: the congruence between Providentia deorum, this weak sense beca- Hellenistic Jewish wisdom and Stoic Prome a significant prop of imperial ideology noia is expressly marked by 'Menedemus' (MARTIN 1982). With Antiochus of Ascalon in Ep. Arist 201 (MARTIN'S redating to ca. (first century BCE), providence carne to ,play 210-190 BCE [1982:24 n.135] is quite un· a role in the cosmology and anthropology of founded). This blending is apparent in Wisthe Academy, embroiling Middle Platonists dom and 3-4 Maccabees, where Pranoia is a in a tricky tension between detenninism and natural force (4 Macc 13:19), a synonym for free will (cf. Plutarch, de facie 927a-e; cf. God's saving intervention at decisive juncDRAGONA~MoNACHOU 1994:4461-76). The tures (Wis 6:7; 14:3; 3 Macc 4:21; 5:30) but Neo-Platonism of Plotinus is the crucial also his long-term plan for his people (Wis intermediary between the Middle Platonists 17:2; 4 Macc 9:24; 17:22). In Philo, with his on the one hand, and Augustine and Pro- formal knowledge of Greek philosophy, we eIus' De decem dubitationibus circa provi· can observe a modulation between Poseidondentiam on the other (cf. GERSH 1978:117- ian themes, including the role of divination 121). On this view, which tends to identify (De los. 116,161; Vir. Mos. 2:16;Virt. 215), Fate with a lower Providence, moral evil is and wisdom theology. Several arguments man's responsibility entirely, the divine seem to allude to Poseidonian themes: those Logos operating as a melody which 'results who assert that the world is eternal and from conflicting sounds' (Ennead 3.2.16). uncreated 'occlude Providence'-the creator Cosmic evil is due to matter, but on the necessarily cares for his creation just as whole serves to temper humankind to virtue parents for their children (Opij. Mundi 9-10; (cf. PARMA 1971:157-159). The latest cf. Praem. 42; Ebr. 199; Spec. Leg. 2:310, significant deployment of the concept in a 318); our bodies have a physical existence political sense is Synesius' integration of over time thanks to God's Pranoia (Quis pronoia into the neoplatonic hierarchy of rer. div. 58); this same Fronoia makes the existence in De providentia 1 (July 400 CE) world eternal (Decal. 58; Aetem. 47) and is' . indeed its Soul (Aetem. 49-51). Others are (CAMERON & LONG 1993). III. The providential plan of God for his drawn from wisdom themes: -'Joseph's people is a fundamental theme of the OT, story is an exemplification of God's Pronoia expressed in devotional contexts in terms of (los. 236); the burning bush' represents the individual being in God's hands (BEHM God's care for his people (Vit. Mos. 1:67);' 1940: 1008). In wisdom and apocalyptic lite- the prophets take cognizance of God' 5 Pro~ rature one conventional expression of this noia (Mut. nom. 25). By contrast, the usage providence is the schematization of world in Josephus is flattened and banalized: he',

666

PROTECTORS draws much more upon the conventional invocation of divine beneficence ( BJ 4:219; 7:82, 318, 453; AJ 4: 157, 239: 5: 107; 6: 159 etc.); much the same applies to the usage in Sib. Or. 5: 227, 323. The occasional deployment of Prolloia in Gnostic cosmologies (e.g. Apocrypholl of John 5:16; 6:5, 22, 30, etc. [NGH 11.1]; Origill 108:11, 15; 111:18, 32 (11.5); Expos. Valellt. 37:21 [XI.2]) presumably draws upon the Hellenistic-Jewish 'koine'. Though the NT takes over and adapts much Hellenistic wisdom thinking, it ignores Prol1oia in this sense. employing only tmditional non-philosophical denotations of the term: the scrupulous execution of his supervisory duties by a middle-ranking official (Acts 24:2, ef. MARTIN 1982: 11-12): "care" or "thought for" (Rom 13: 14, in a standard phrase, e.g. Dan 6: 18 LXX; Philo, Ehr. 87). Providentialism is nevenheless diffused, in the notion of God's fatherhood, protection of creation, and working out of his purpose within individuals (Phil 2: 13). It is in this soteriological perspective that God's Pronoia is invoked in the apostolic writings, in the context of the argument for resurrection from the crop-cycle in J Clem. 24:5, and in a hendiadys with sophia at Hermas Vis. 1:3, 4. The apologists tend to revive the philosophical perspective; the most systematic patristic exploitation of divine Pronoia is by Clement of Alexandria, who develops its activity at three levels, the natural world, human communities (esp. the Jews), the individual (Str. 7:6, I), materially, spiritually and intellectually (FLOYD 1971 ). IV. Bihliography J. BEllM, npOVOEW K'tA., nVNT 4 (1940) 1004-1011; A. CAMERON & J. LO~G, Barbarians alld Politics at the COllrt of Arcadills (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1993) 253-

336; M. DRAGONA-MoNACHOU, Providence and Fale in Stoicism and Prae-neoplatonism: Calcidius as an authority on Cleanthes' theodicy. Phi/osophia 3 (Athens 1973) 262306: DRAGONA-Mo~ACHOU. The Stoic Argllmell1s for the Existence ami Providence of the Gods (Athens 1976); DRAGONA-

MONACHOU, Divine Providence in the Philosophy of the Empire. ANRW II 36.7 (1994) 4417-4490; W. E. G. FLOYD, Clement of Alexalldria's Treatment of the Prohlem of El'i/ (London 1971) 34-40, 9297; S. GERSH, From lamblichlls to Erillgenll (Lciden 1978); M. HENGEL, Jlldelltllm lind Hel/enismlls (Tilbingen 1973 2); A. A. Lo~G. The Problem of Evil in Stoicism, Phi/Qllart 18 (1968) 329-343; LoNG, Stoic SlIIdies (Cambridge 1996): A. A. LO~G & D. N. SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Philosophers 2

(Cambridge 1987) §54; J. MANSFELD, Providence and the Destruction of the Universe in early Stoic Thought, SlIIdies ill Hellellistic Religions (ed. M. J. Vermaseren; EPRO 78: Leiden 1979) 129-188; J.-P. MAR11N, Providell1ia Deorum: Aspects religielLr dll pOllvoir romaill (ColI. Ecole fro de Rome 61; Rome 1982); C. PARMA, Pronoia lind Providelllia. Der Vorselllll1gsbegriff Plotins lind AlIglIstins (Lciden 197 I); M. POIILENZ, Die Stoat GescJlicllle einer geistigen Bewegllng

2 (Gottingen 1959) 1: 98-101. 2: 55-58: W. THEILER, 211r GescllicJlle der teleologiscllell Nalllrhetrachllmg bis allf Aristoteles (Diss. ZOrich 1924) 6-36.

R. L. GORDON PROTECTORS I. The common semitic verb S~nuIII ZMR1~~tR 'to protect; to watch' can be used with a religious connotation, as becomes clear from personal names like Zimri-Lim, '-Lim is my Protection'. At Ugarit, the ancestral gods (-Ilib) are probably once depicted as gmr '{rh, 'Protector(s) of his place'. In the OT Yahweh is seen as the 'protector' of his people (e.g. Exod 15:2; Ps 121). At Nah 2:3 :cmorehcm Ji~let(; might be rendered as 'slaughtered their protectors'. II. In the epic of Aqhat a list of filial duties is given. One of these duties is lhat a son is supposed to be the "one who sets up the stelae of his ancestral gods, in the sanctuary the marjoram of his clan, one who makes his smoke come out from the eanh, from the dust gmr '!r"" (KTU 1.17 i:26-28). The final words of this unit have been inter-

667

PTAH

preted as 'the Protector(s) of his place' (0. LoR ETZ, BN 8 [1979] 14-17; DE MOOR 1986; MARGALIT 1989; DE MOOR 1990; J. C. DE MOOR, Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship, UF 27 [1995] 7-9). This interpretation implies that the ancestral deities were seen as protective spirits comparable to the -+Rephaim. This interpretation is, however, not unchallenged. Others have construed tlmr as a perfect tense and translate the phrase with " ... and from the dust protect his place" (e.g. A. CAQUOT, M. SZNYCER & A. HERDNER, Textes Ollgaritiqlles I [LAPO 7; Paris 1974] 422; K. VAN DER TOORN, Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible, BiOr 48 [1991] 45-46). The interpretation of Y. AVJSHUR (UF 17 [1985] 52-53) who translates tlmr 'Irh" by 'the perfumes of his place' is to be dismissed since it rests on an obsolete etymology. III. In Biblical Hebrew the Semitic root !.>MR is generally developed into the verb ~MR 'to protect'. Metaphorically, Yahweh is seen as the fomer, 'protector', of Israel (Num 6:24; Ps 121; 146:6; M. KORPEL, JSOT 45 [1989] 3-13). In some dialects of Hebrew the verb III ZMR. 'to watch, to protect' is attested. In Ex 15:2-a text quoted at Isa 12:2 and Ps 118:14--the formula 'ozzi wlzimrdti yhwh should be rendered 'my strength and my protection is Yahweh'. DE MOOR (1990) compares this formula with a line from an Ugaritic incantation-recited at the banquet on the New Year festival as de Moor surmises-in which the Ugaritic king prays to the founder-fathers of his dynasty, the ancestral gods Yaqaru and Gathro, for 'z. 'strength', and tlmr, 'protection', (KTU 1. 108:21-24; J. N. FORD, UF 24 [1992] 7680). DE MOOR interprets this comparison in the framework of an originally ancestral character of Yabweh (1990). The enigmatic text Nab 2: 1-3 has been clarified by VAN DER WOUDE (1977:115120). The traditional rendition of the word zbn6rehem, 'their shoots; vines', should be abandoned since it is a masculine plural to a female noun zemora. 'shoot'. Therefore, the noun can better be related to Ugar tlmr, 'to

protect; protection' and Heb zimra, 'protection', VAN DER WOUDE (1977:119) renders *zomerehem with 'their soldiers'. The word, however, can better be translated with 'their protectors', Nah 2:3b depicts the fate of Nineveh, the city that held captive the exiles from Israel. But now "plunderers shall plunder them and slaughter their protectors", Le. Nineveh will stand without defence in days of disaster to come. The protectors probably refer to military aid but might contain a reminiscence of ancestral deities. IV. Bibliography B. MARGALIT, The Ugaritie Poem of AQHT (BZAW 182; BerlinlNew York 1989) 118, 144, 273; J. C. DE MOOR, The Ancestral Cult in KTU 1.17:1.26-28, UF 17 (1986) 407-409; DE MOOR. The Rise of Yahwism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990) 247-248; A. S. VAN DER WOUDE, The Book of Nahum: a Letter written in Exile, Instmetion and Interpretation (OTS 20; Leiden 1977) 108126. B. BECKING PTAU ·n\-:5:l I ·nr,5:l

I. Josh 15:9 and 18: 15 mention the "(Spring of the) Water of Neptoab ". This is, however, a secondary interpretation of the "(Spring of) Merenptah". This Merenptah is Pharaoh Merenptah (ca. 1224-1214 BeE) whose name (Mr.n PtM means "Beloved by (the god) Ptah". Other occurrences of the Egyptian god Ptah have been found in the expression ba{{ub6t (Job 38:36; G5RG 1980) and in the Hebrew word Topheth (G5RG 1988). II. ?tah is anthropomorphic. His closefitting garment covers his feet and legs, which are not apart, and arms hardly showing. He usually has a slaff in his hands and wears a cap. Ptah was the main deity of Memphis, the Egyptian capital and royal residence until the end of the Old Kingdom, and a very influential centre ever since. This explains Ptah's high national position, independent and unweakened throughout Egyptian history. The link between him, "King of

668

PYTHON

the two lands (= Egypt)". and the Pharaohs remained very strong. They were enthroned in his local tcmplc. The god is creativc, a mastcr craftsman, identified as Hephaistos in the illterprerario graeca. His high-priest is the "greatest of those who direct crafl mippabad laylii 'You will not fear the ~Terror of the night,' me/:le~ yilup y6mam 'nor the arrow flying by day'; middeber b(j>6pel yahlliok 'nor Pestilence that stalks the gloom', miqqe!eb yasud $ohorayim 'nor Destruction that devastates at noon'. Qe!eb occurs in v 6 in parallel to Deber: in some sense, therefore, it complements it. But its diurnal danger, in contrast to Deber's nocturnal threat, also balances the diurnal arrow of v 5, which in turn contrasts with the 'Terror by night'. The arrow provides the clue, being a metaphor for the fevers sent by Resheph the plague-god. Since Deber seems here to be his double, the two gods oper~ ating by day and by night respectively, we arrive at the following equation: the Terror is Deber, while the arrow (of Resheph) is Qe!eb, the personification of the destruction the god wreaks. This seems to corroborate our findings in Deut 32:24 above. But there may also be a chiasmus over the whole

673

QOS

tetracolon, giving rise to the equations Terror = Destruction (a and d) and Arrow (of Resheph) Deber (b and c). The demonic powers are of protean fonn and character. At Hos 13:14, in the two bicola of the verse, -'Sheol and Death are found twice in parallel, indicating that Sheol is here another name for the god of death, by metonymy. In the second bicolon,' Deber and Qe!eb (or rather Qo~eb, see H. BAUER & P. LEANDER, Historische Grammatik der hebriiischen Sprache [Halle 1922] 582) are again parallel tenns, and are clearly the agents of Death's purposes: miyyad Si'ol 'epdem 'Shall I ransom them from the hand of Sheol', mimmawet 'eg'lliem 'shall I redeem them from Mot?', 'ehf dibiireka mawet 'Where are your Pestilences, Mot?'. Jehf qo!obka se'61 'Where is your Destruction, Sheo!?' The LXX of the second bicolon is paraphrased (as a hyronic excerpt?) at 1 Cor 15:55 (-'Thanatos). Isa 28:2 is part of a taunt against Ephraim, alluding to the agent of Yahweh's destructive visitation which is imminent: hinneh /Jiiziiq we'ammi~ la'donay 'Lo, the Lord has someone Bold and Powerful', kezerem blmid sa~ar qa!eb 'like a stonn of hail (-'Barad). a tempest of Destruction', kh.erem mayim kabbfrfm so!epfm 'like a storm of mighty flooding waters.' As in the first passage, many of the words used here are susceptible of a mythological interpretation, in particular Bcmid and Mayim. Qeteb appears to operate here through the tempest, and here too there is the possibility of deliberate ambiguity, where fa(ar suggests the arch-demonic fonn of a -'satyr, .Mtlr. The tempest metaphor, continuing that of Hail, is probably to be taken to combine the two figures of overwhelming flood-waters. and the dart-like effects of hail and heavy rain, evoking the arrows of the plague-god. Both are metaphors for Death and its powers. Our four passages are allusive rather than strictly informative, but suggest that Qe!eb is more than a literary figure, living as a spiritual, and highly dangerous, reality in the minds of poets and readers. We can see a slow process of reinterpretation taking place

=

in the treatment of the four passages in LXX, where in each instance it is translated by a different term. These are respectively opisthotonos 'vengeance' (lit. 'bending backwards' or 'drawn', as of a bow), symptoma, 'occurrence, accident', kentron, 'goad, sting' , and ouk ... skepe, 'no ... shelter'. It may be coincidence that in discussing 'the destruction that ravageth at noon' in Ps 91, GASTER (1969:770) explains Qe!eb as sunstroke, and notes that Theocritus identifies "'co-uiriae) and with the assembled Roman citizenry (Qui rites), making him very much the god of the Roman 'Mannerbund' (e.g. KRETSCHMER 1920:150; DUMEZIL 1966; but cf. RADKE 1981:144147). Whatever his origins, the deified Romulus came gradually to be identified with him during the last centuries BCE and this at least gave him an identity for Romans in the time of -Christ. III. Quirinus, with his awkward Latin Qui- (pronounced /(l"i-), is Kupi vos in Greek (e.g. Dion.Hal., Ant. Rom. 2, 63, 3) and Quirinius is KUPTtVlOS in Luke; in tum this is rendered back into Latin as Cyrinus in Vg. It seems, therefore, unlikely that Jerome (or even Luke) wa'\ particularly aware of the theophoric nature of this name. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was a man of relatively undistinguished origins whose military skills had won him a consulate in 12 BCE. He displayed consistent loyalty to the future emperor Tibcrius (Tac., Anllals 3:48) which won him influence and ultimately (21 CE) a public funeral. He was

680

cr.

QUIRINUS

governor of Syria in 6 CE (JOS'1 Ant. 18:26), which poses chronological difficulties for his mention at Luke 2:2 in connection with the contentious censuS. PW lists seven Quirini, mostly from the Greek eastern Mediterranean and also a Quirinius, but Luke's is the only Sulpicius Quirinius known to us. IV. Bibliography A. BRELICH, Quirinus. Una divinita romana alia luce della comparazione storica, SMSR 31 (1960) 63-119; G. DUMEZIL, La religion romaine archai'que (Paris 1966) ch. v; C. KOCH, Quirinus, PW 24 (1963) 1306-22; P. KRETSCHMER, Lat. Quirites und quiritare, GlOlta 10 (1920) 147-57; K. LATTE, Ro· mische Religionsgeschichte (Munchen 1960) 133-134; R. E. A. PALMER, The Archaic

Community of the Romans (Cambridge 1970) 160-172; G. RAnKE; Zur Entwick/ung der Gottesvor:stellung und der Gottesver· ehrung in Rom (Darmstadt 1987) 138-156; *RADKE, Quirinus. Eine kritische Uberpriifung der Uberlieferung und ein Versuch, ANRW 11.17.1 (1981) 276-299 [& lit]; U. W. SCHOLZ, Studien zum altitalischen und altromischen Marskult und Marsmythos (Heidelberg 1970); R. SYME The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford 1986) 55. 338-340;G. WISSOWA, Religion und Kultus der Romer (2nd ed., Munchen 1912) 153-156; G. WISSOWA, Quirinus,. ALGRM iv (1909-15)

681

I

10-18.

K.

DOWDEN

R RABI$U r~i 1 Riibi$u (Sum

*sokinu-cf.

ma~kim)

is formally an Akkadian participle from rabii$u, 'to crouch, lie in wait'. Evidence from Arabic suggests that Proto-Semitic contained two different roots: RBI? and RB$. In Arabic the former is used with reference to small cattle and denotes their 'crouching' or 'lying down' (cf. OSA mrbqn, 'sheepfold'), though it can also mean 'to lurk'. The latter has the second (negative) meaning only. The root is not used as a divine element in Semitic onomastica. In Akkadian texts, the title riibi$U is also applied to certain deities. In Gen 4:7. the Hebrew word r6be$ is often considered a loan of Akk riibi$u: sin is 'crouching' at Cain's door like a demon. II. The root meaning of Akk rabi$u seems to be 'one who lies in wait'. Yet the term was not always employed in a negative sense. Its usage may be divided into two categ()ries: (a) referring to human officials and (b) refemng to deities or demoTis: RiJbi$u was the name of a high official in Mesopotamia (the title is often translated 'commissary'. 'bailiff, Sachwalter, etc.). The office included a judicial aspect. It is well attested in the Ur III period, where the riibi$u was the most important official after the judge and was responsible for the preliminary examination at trials. A 'rabi$u of the judge' (rabi$ dayyanim) is attested at Sippar from the time of Sabium until that of Samsi-iluna of Babylon. No mention of the rabi$u is found in Mesopotamian legal and administrative texts after the Old Babylonian period (OPPENHEIM 1968: 178); yet the title continued in use in the West. In the Amarna correspondence riJbi~u designated a high Pharaonic official to whom the local ruler was answerable. In EA 256:9 (cf. 362:69) L1J.ME~.MA~KIM is glossed by su-ki-ni (probably Canaanite

Phoen skn, 'ruler, governor') and in 131 :21 by ma-lik.ME~, 'counsellors·. At Ugarit the riibi~u (U).MA~KIM) appears as a contracting party or a witness in documents. In RS 16.145:25-26 he is listed as the last witness, and is described as "he who brings forth the royal seal H • The title is applied to certain deities (chiefly male) in a positive sense, designating them as heavenly counterparts of the human riJbi$u. Underlying this conception may be his judicial role: in the event of certain transgressions such deities could be expected to bling guilty parties to judgment. Moreover, gods could be invoked in curses to act as a riibi$u against the offending party. The drafters of these curses may have had the demonic aspect of the riibi$U in mind. One also finds certain unnamed deities or -"demons bearing the title rabi$ X, usually with respect to a certain city (e.g. Mari: ARM 10 no. 9 rev 23'-26') or temple (Takullu III rev 66). Here belongs also rabi$ sulmim, 'rabi~u of wen-being' (YOS 10, 53: 30), whose opposite is the rabi$ lemuttim ('rabi$u of evil'). Late in the Old Babylonian period the riibi$u developed the character of a malevolent demon, often qualified as lemnu, 'evil'. This development may have arisen from the aspect of the human official as a powerful and fearsome figure (OPPENHEIM 1968:17879), someone not to be Uifled with (EDZARD & WIGGERMANN 1989:450). Such. demons are typically named in the context of other evil spirits and are considered responsible for various evils. In medical omen texts one finds the diagnosis, "a riibi$u has seized him" (TDP 158:12) and "he has walked in the path of a rabi$u" (TPD 34:23). Such texts also mention specific types of riibi$u, who were thought to ambush their victims in various places:

682

RACHEL

rabi~ liri, "the rabi$u of the roof' (TPD 214: II ): riibi~ 11I11Stiti, ..the riibi$u of the lavatory" (TPD 188: 13): riibi$ lIari, "the rabi$lI of the river/canal" (TPD 190:24-25): rilbi~ [wrbati, "the riibi~lI of the wasteland" (SIT 91 :84): rilbi$ lIr[li, "the rilbi$lI of the road" (TPD 182:40). III. It is commonly held among OT commentators that Akk rcibi~lI appears as a loanword in Gen 4:7 (Hebr robe$). Unfortunately this hypothesis is complicated by the extremely problematic nature of this passage: no satisfactory solution to its difficulties has yet been reached. The verse in question is situated in a context in which -'Yahweh is addressing --Cain, who was depressed and angry ("his face fell"-4:5) because an offering from his harvest was not pleasing to God. The reason for the divine disapproval is not stated. The import of God's words to Cain in v 7 is far from clear. Specifically. w(l'im 16' te{ib lappeta{J l]aUii't r6be$ is usually understood to mean, "But if you do not do welUdo your best, sin is a croucher-demon at the door". This interpretation has the advantage of providing the masculine antecedent presupposed in the subsequent clause (teSliqiito ... b6: the same idiom occurs in Gen 3: 16). But there are problems. For example, one would expect the antecedent to be the tenor of the metaphor UIOUii't, 'sin') rather than the vehicle (r6be$). Also, the position of lappeta~1 is odd if in fact it means 'at the door/opening [of a tentl'. On this interpretation it should most likely come after ~w{{ii't r6bc$. Nevertheless, if one accepts the MT reading, the hapax legomelloll r6be$ could refer to a rcibi$lI demon, instigating Cain to commit murder. The fact that this demon is said to lurk "at the (tent?)-opening" fits with the character of the rilbi$lI, namely to lurk in ordinary places to spring his ambush. On the other hand, the Akkadian sources portray the riibi$1I a.~ a being that attacks its victims, not a~ one that tempts them to commit sin.

IV. Bibliography

·D. O. EOZARD & F. A. M. WIGGERMANN, maSkim (rcibi~u) 'Kommissar, Anwalt, Sachwalter', RLA 7 (1989) 449-455 [&

lit]: A. L. OPPENHEIM, The Eyes of the Lord, JAOS 88 (1968) 173-180; ·C. WESTERMANN, Gellesis I-II (2d cd.; BKAT III; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976) 406-410 [& lit]. M. L.

RACHEL

BARR~

"iii

I. Rachel is in bihlical trndition --Jacoh's favourite wife and mother of --Joseph and Benjamin (Gen 30:23-24: 35: 16-20). Outside the Pentateuch she is mentioned in I Sam 10:2; Ruth 4: II .md Jer 31: 15. Rachel wa.~ originally an animal name. The noun reibel, 'ewc', is attested in Hebrew (Gen 31 :38; Isa 53:7), Ammaic (also the Deir Alia inscription I, II) and classical Arabic. STADE (1881), HAUPT (1909), O. PROCKSCH (Die Gellesis [KAT I: Leipzig 1913] 334-335), and M. NOTH

(Das System cler Zwolf Staml1le Israels [Stuttgart 1930] 83) believed her name, as well as --Leah's, was originally an cmblem of different tribal groups of cattle-breeders. In these animal names other scholars discovered evidence of animal worship and totemism in early Isrnel (SMITH 1894; GRAY 1896: MEYER 1906:274); some even saw in Rachel a mythological personification of the min-clouds rWolkenkuh', GOLOZlHER 1876). II. The Akkadian word la[lnl (ewe) is often quoted as a cognatc to ra~lel (CAD L 42-44: AHlV 528; HALAT 1134), but this linguistic connection is not certain. Labar ([UDU].Ug) is a Babylonian cattle-god, presumably of Sumerian origin, usually mentioned together with the gmin-god Ashnan (W. G. LAMBERT, LalJar, RLA 6 [1980-83] 431). Even if a connection exists, the Babylonian cattlc-god and biblical Rachel hardly share morc than a common etymology. Rachel was neither a totem nor a local numen, whose sanctuary was turned inro a sepulchre (MEYER 1906:274), let alonc a fcrtility-goddess, though she was ccrtainly venerated in Israel as an ancestrnl saint. III. The location of the tomb of Rachel on the border of Benjamin and Ephraim near Ramah (Gen 30:16,18; 48:7: I Sam 10:2: Jer 31: 15: cr. Jcr 40: I. presumably at pres-

683

RAHAB

ent er-Rcim at the head of W. Far-a, cf. HAlAT 908; 1. 1. SIMONS, The Geographical and Topographical Texts oj the OT [Leiden 1959] § 327.1.8), confirms Rachel's connection to the early Israelite tribes of Joseph and Benjamin. The location south of Ramal Rachel near Bethlehem-where a mediaeval qubbet Rii~il is still shown-may reflect a secondary Judaean location (JEREMIAS 1958:75-76. pace SIMONS, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the OT §§ 383, 666-668), which gained prominence in later Jewish and Christian tradition (Matt 2:16-18). Two explicit references from the monarchic period (1 Sam 10:2; Jer 31: 15) and the ancient blessing, preserved in Ruth 4: 11, present limited but clear evidence of a living ancestral cult around Rachel's tomb in OT times (TSEVAT 1962). It is not surprising to find evidence for more than one tomb. Also in modem times Muslim and Christian saints sometimes have more than one maqaam with a shrine or a cenotaph (E. W. LANE, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians [London 1836; repro 1978]). The existence of a younger rival tradition near Bethlehem cannot be excluded (examples in JEREMIAS 1958: 114-117). The bold personification of mother Rachel in Jer 31: 15~ 16 is more than prophetic imagination or figurative speech. Even if the historial reference is to the Exile of 587 BeE, the underlying tradition is that of the barren Rachel crying for children she cannot conceive (Oen 30:1-2; 1 Sam 1:7-8). It is only in the interpretation of the prophet and in the midrash of Matt 2: 18 that the barren Rachel also becomes the bereft mother of Israel (cf. the role of Ephraim in 1 Chr 7:22). Her cry may refer to a ritual penormed by women at her tomb, vener~ ating her as the ancestral mother. These women, having experienced barrenness and bereavement, may have honoured her as their patroness, and may have asked for her intercession (Gen 35:16-20; Ruth 4:11; Jer 31: 16). Part of the folklore was also the application of Mandragora as an aphrodiasic stimulating sexual desire and fertility (Gen 30:14-15; Cant 7:14; J. G. FRAZER, Folk-

lore in the Old Testament, Vol 2 [London 1918] 372-397; G. DALMAN, Arbeit und Sitte, Vol. I [Giitersloh 1928] 250·251), a phenomenon which is quite well attested in other ancient fertility and modem saint cults. IV. Bibliography 1. GOLDZIHER, Der Mythos be; den Hebriiem und seine geschichtliche Entwicklung (Leipzig 1876; repro 1987) 187·191; G. B. GRAY, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names (London 1896) 86; P. HAUPT. Lea und Rachel, Z4W 29 (1909) 281-286; 1. JEREMIAS, Heiligengriiber in Jesu Umwelt (Gottingen 1958); E. MEYER, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstiimme (Halle 1906); W. ROBERTSON SMITIi, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London 1927 3 ; repro 1969) 288-311; B. STADE, Lea und Rachel, ZA W 1 (1881) 112-116; M. TSEVAT, Saul at Rachel's Tomb, RUCA 33 (1962) 107-118.

M.

DIJKSTRA

RAHAB Jili l Rahab is one of the names in the OT of the chaos monster(s) (cf. also ~Levia than, -Tannin. Tehom [~Tiamat], and Yam). Although there are in the neighbouring cultures many parallels to this phenomenon of chaos monsters, the name Rahab seems to have no cognates. The only exception is in an Akkadian text about a chaos monster usually called Labbu. The first syllable in this name is written with the sign KAL which can be read as lab as well as reb; so the reading Rebbu «*reb-bu) is possible too (LAMBERT 1986:55 n.l). The Hebrew name is probably related to Heb RHB, 'assail', 'press', and Akk ra~abu(m), 'tremble (with fear or rage)' and especially with its derivate rubu, 'overflow'. because this is not only said of rage but also of water, whereas Rahab is usually related to the -sea. It occurs as a divine name in Isa 51:9; Ps 89:11; Job 9:13; 26:12; and Sir 43:25; and as a reference to Egypt in Isa 30:7 and Ps 87:4. The plural reJuibfm in Ps 40:5 can be interpreted as a reference to related ~demons.

684

II. The reference to Rahab in the

or

RAHAB

should be read against the background of ancient Near Eastern mythology describing creation as based on victory over the powers of chaos, viz. the primordial oceans. These powers are represented as monsters. The best known example is the Babylonian myth Enuma elis describing - Marduk' s creation of the kosmos by defeating the chaos monster Tiamat with her helpers. In the Ugaritic myth of -Baal there are references to a primordial battle between Baal or his consort Anat against the god of the Sea Yam and other chaos monsters (KTrJ2 1.2 iv; 1.3 iii; 1.5 i). The same myth tells us that this battle did not stop with the creation of the world: the powers of chaos remain a threat which has to be confronted again and again. A ritual text (KTlfl 1.82) describes how these forces can afflict human life and how they can be exorcized. A clear picture of such a watery chaos monster can be found on an Assyrian cyl· inder seal (KEEL 1977:43, p1.48) which shows a -dragon with a body of waves. The dragon is attacked by a warrior with two helpers. On a Hittite cylinder seal (ANEP 670 and KEEL 1977:44, pJ.50) we see two gods fighting a dragon pictured as waves curling over. III. In the OT texts relating Rahab to the sea its original character of chaos monster is preserved. They also point to conception of a battIe between -+ Yahweh and -chaos preceding the creation of - heaven and -+earth. Job 26 describes the steadfast order of the universe preserved by God after having struck down Rahab (cf. also Ps 89:713). Job 9: 13 mentions Rahab's helpers. This has a parallel in the army of monsters siding with Tiamat according to Enuma eliJ I 125ff and also in 'the Big Ones', monsters supporting the sea god Yam, the adversary of Baal and Anat in KTlfl 1.3 iii:38ff. And the ritual text KTrJ2 1.109:21 mentions helper-gods among a number of gods residing in the netherworld (TUAT IIJ3, 317). In Isa 51:9~10 the reference to Yahweh as victor in the battle 'in the days of old' against the monsters of chaos is used, just as in the Ugaritic myth of Baal, as a reason for

a

hope in the present situation: this victory can be repeated in new situations of distress. The prophet has associated the creation of heaven and earth out of the oceans of chaos with the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt through the waters of the Reed Sea. The god of Israel is called upon to repeat such an act of salvation on behalf of the people of Judah living in exile by the rivers of Babylon. The prophet appears to have been inspired by the prophecy in Isa 30:7 against Egypt. To the people looking for help against Assyria, Egypt is described as a worthless ally. This is expressed in what must have been intended to be a nickname: rahab hem sabet, 'You are Rahab? Inaction!' Because of its uncommon syntax this is usually emended to rahab hammosbilt. 'Rahab who is brought to a stand· still'. The problem of the best text can be left aside here, because the prophet's message is clear: Egypt is like one of the monsters of chaos. but lacks their power. When we take into account the etymology of the name of Rahab proposed above, the words of this text are in fact a contradictio in terminis. This can be compared to the mocking song on the king of Babylon in Isa 14, celebrating his downfall into the realm of death. lsa 14:4 also speaks of him being stopped (Heb sbt) and he seems to be denoted bya word derived from 'the stem rhb as well. Unfortunately, the Hebrew text is uncertain here too. Ps 87:4 shows that this nickname for Egypt became more or less common, because it is used here without further comment. This may have been favoured by the fact that travelling from Israel to Egypt has always been called t going down', using the same verb that denotes the journey from the land of the living to the world of the -+dead, which is surrounded by the watery powers of chaos. The plural rehabfm in Ps 40:5 can be interpreted as referring to demonic forces related to Rahab. In this psalm they are opposed to Yahweh: 'Blessed is the one who trusts in Yahweh, who turns not to rehtibim and becomes entangled in -false-

685

RAKIB-EL

hood'. This last word (Heb kiizilb) is used in Isa 28:15 to describe a 'covenant with death' and in Amos 2:4 it denotes the false gods. All this makes it likely that Ps 40:5 refers, as was earlier suggested by GUNKEL and others, to the forbidden attempt to obtain help from divine forces in the netherworld. The OT leaves us in no doubt that this was incompatible with the worship of Yahweh as the one god, just as in Ps 40:5 the rehilbfm are oppossed to Yahweh. The attestation of rehabfm next to Rahab can be compared to the relation between rpum (~Rephaim) and the god RapPu in the religion of Ugarit. There may also be a connection with the 'helpers of Rahab' mentioned in Job 9:13. From Ugaritic ritual texts we learn that not only benign powers from the netherworld were invoked; evil forces were also called upon. In an incantation recited 'to cast out the flying demons which possess a young man' it is said of ~Horon, master of black magic: 'let him be a friend' (KTlfl 1.169:9-10; ARTU 185; differently DLU, I, 172). Apparently one hoped to persuade this dreadful god to use his powers in a favourable way. In this way a 'covenant with death' (lsa 28: 15) could benefit the living. The same conception seems to be hinted at in Matt 12:25, "driving out the evil spirits by Beelzebul, the lord of the spirits". IV, Bibliography J. DAY, God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge 1985); J. DAY, Rahab, ABD 5 (New York 1992) 610-611; G. R. DRIVER, Mythical Monsters in the Old Testament, Studi orientalistici in onore di Georgio Levi della Vida, I (Roma 1956) 234-249; O. KEEL, Die Welt der altorientalistischen Bildsymbolik und das Aite Testament am Beispiel der Psalmen (NeukirchenVluyn 2. Auflage 1977); W. G. LAMBERT, Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation, Keilschrijtliche Literaturen: Ausgewahlte Vortriige der X. Rencontre Assyriologique lnternationale (ed. K. Hecker & W. Sommerfeld; Berlin 1986) 55·60; U. ROTERSWORDEN, Rahab, TWAT 7 (1990) 372-378 [& lit].

K. SPRONK

RAKm-EL I. Rakib-EI is known to have been the god of the kings of Sam'al, a Neo-Hittite dynasty in South-East Anatolia. It has been suggested that the Rechabites, a religious minority group in ancient Israel, were originally named after Rakib-El (RAMEY 1968), A variant proposal connects the name with the god Rkb, presumably short for Rakib-EI or the epithet rkb (rpt, 'Rider of the clouds' (BLENKINSOPP 1972) II. Rakib-El is a poorly known deity whose name occurs a number of times in Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions from Zinjirli (KAI 24:16; 25:4.6; 214:2.3.11.18; 215:22; 216:5). He was worshipped by King Kilarnuwa and his family as their divine patron (b(l bt, 'Lord of the Dynasty'). The character of Rakib-El has not been established beyond doubt. If LANDSBERGER is correct in his understanding of the name as 'Charioteer of -+El' (1948), it is quite possible that Rakib-El has to be associated with the storm-god ~Hadad. In Ugaritic texts Hadad (better known as -+Baal) bears the epithet -+'Rider of the clouds' (rkb (rpt); Rakib-EI could be another epithet of the same deity. Others have suggested that Rakib-El was a moon-god identical to the Ugariticgod Yarih, adducing in support of this identification the panillelism between Rakib-EI and Baal Haran ('the lord of Haran'), an epithet of the moon-god ~Sin, and because of the lunar symbolism on the Zinjirli stela (e.g. F. M. CRoss, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge 1973] 10 n. 32; more cautiously LANDSBERGER 1948; DONNER & ROLLIG 1964:237). The arguments in support of the lunar character of Rakib-El are not entirely convincing, however. The mere fact that 'the Lord of Haran' is also referred to as 'my lord' (mr'y) by Bar-Rakib (KAI 218) need not imply an identity for him and Rakib-El. since we cannot be sure that the title was used for one god exclusively. III. Irrespective of the specific nature .of Rakib-El, the hypothesis which links hIm with the Rechabites appears to be farfetched. In the biblical tradition the Rechab-

686

RAM - RAPHA

ites figure as staunch defenders of an austerely Yahwistic religion, in which there is no place for the recognition of other gods (VAN DER TOORN 1996). Moreover, it should be remembered that the title 'Rider' or 'Charioteer' is not attested independently as a divine epithet; should the name Rechab (from whom the Rechabites descended) be connected with Rakib-EI, the form of the anthroponym would have to be longer. An independent "Semitic storm-deity rkb" is simply a phantom (pace BLENKINSOPP 1972). IV, Bibliography R. D. BARNElT, The Gods of Zinjirli, Compte-relldu de J'ollzieme Rencontre Assyriologique Illlemariollall' (Leiden 1964) 59-87; J. BlENKINSOPP, Gibeon alld Israel (Cambridge 1972) 24; H. DONNER & W. ROlLIG, KAI 11 (1964) 34; B. LANDSHERGER, Sllm)al: Sllldien zur Ellldeckung der Ruillenstiiue Kararepe (Ankara 1948) 45-46; G. G. RAMEY, The Horse and the Chariot ;,Z Israelite Religion (unpub. Ph.D. diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 1968), see ZAW 81 (1969) 253; K. VAN DER TooRN, Family Religion ill Babylonia, Syria mId Israel (SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996) 344-352.

K. VAN DER TOORN RAM I. Ram has been speculated to be the name of a deity on the basis of the name Abram, interpreted theophorically as 'Ram is father' (LEWY 1934). II. The only extra-biblical evidence in support of an alleged deity Ram is the Assyrian anlhroponym Shu-Rama. 'He of Rama' (LEWY 1934:59 n. 72). There can be no doubt about the correctness of Lewis reading. In addition to the two references given by Lewy (ccr I PI. 46a:20; PI. 46b: 14). the name also occurs in AKT 1.72:2.3.6; KBo 9.6:2; KBo 28.159:2; 167:3. Though the element Ra·ma is never preceded by the divine determinative DINGIR, the form of the personal name does suggest that Rama is the name of a god (cf. e.g. Shu-Nunu, ShuLaban). Yet HIRSCH docs not mention Rama in his survey of theophoric elements in Old

Assyrian names ( 1972:31-34), and the theophoric interpretation is far from assured. It could be a geographical reference. III. As the traditional interpretation of the name Abram as 'the (divine) Father is Exalted' is perfectly satisfactory (Nonl. lPN, 52), there is no need to have recourse to an obscure divine name in order to explain the biblical name. Lewy's suggestion should therefore be regarded as mistaken. IV. Bibliography H. HIRSCH, Ulllersuchlillgen zur alulSsyriscJlen Reliq,ion (AfO Beiheft 13/14; OsnabrOck 1972-); J. LEWY, Les textes pal~o assyriens et I' Ancien Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 58-59. K. VAN DER TOORN RAPHA ii::li I. In 2 Sam 21: 16.18.20.22 (1/ I Chron 20:4.6.8) mention is made of riipii, 'Rapha', the ancestor of various warriors who battled with David. Rapha has been connected to the - Rephaim and interpreted as a deity whose cult centre was in Gath (L'HEUREUX 1974; MCCARTER 1983:449-450; HALAT 1191 ). II. 1 Sam 21: 15-22 relates quarrels between David and a group of Philistine warriors: Jisni-Benob; Saph and an anonymous -giant with six fingers on each hand. They are presented as yelide hiirapii, 'descendants of Rapha'. WILLESON (1958) interpreted hiiriipii as the rendition of a Greek word apmi, 'scimitar', supposing that the Philistines were via the Sea Peoples related to the Greek world. The expression then would refer to a distinguished guild of Philistine soldiers. With L'HEUREUX and McCARTER the word Iziiriipa can belter be seen as a variant to Heb Juiriipii), lit. 'the Healer', connecting the ancestor of this group of soldiers with the Rephaim. Rnpha would then refer to a Canaanite underworld deity. Recently, J. C. DE MOOR, Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship, UF 27 (1995) II, has suggested that the retroversion of LXX Amos 5:26 should be reconstructed as follows: ·w;)t kwkb rp:J ;)lhykm, 'and the star of your god Rapha', LXX Amos 5:26,

687

RAPHAEL - RAVEN

however, clearly reads PQ1¢aV and thus contains a reference to -+Rephan. III. Bibliography C. L'HEUREUX, The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim, HTR 67 (1974) 265-274; P. K. MCCARTER, /I Samuel (AB; Garden City 1983) 449-450; F. WILLESON, The Philistine Corps of the Scimitar from Gath, JSS 3 (1958) 327-335.

B. BECKING RAPHAEL ?~~., I, This name is based upon the Hebrew root RP>' to heal, hence rope', physician etc. Raphael, then, might be translated 'God healed'. The relation of this name to the -+Rephaim has not yet been studied. II. The angel Raphael occurs in biblical literature for the first time in the book Tobit. He is apparently one of the four highest -angels, known as the -+archangels in most of the old lists (four in most manuscripts of J Enoch 9. 10.40:9; 54:6; 71:8-9. 13; IQM 9, 15; Apoc. Mos. 40; seven J Enoch 20). Most revealing is his short speech, Tob 12: 11-15, which shows that Raphael is one of the seven angels who are allowed to enter before the -+glory of God. According to Tob 3: 16, 12: 12, Raphael listens to the prayers of the righteous ones. He accompanies Tobit's son, Tobias, and acts according to his secret knowledge as healer: i.e. as a physician as well as a binder of demons. He knows how to usc the power inherent in some parts of an extraordinary fish (6: 1-9), only a part of which is used to heal a disease of Tobit's eyes, the others help to expel the demon -+Asmodaeus who is bound by Raphael (8:3). It is in accordance with this that Raphael's task in J Enoch is described as healing the earth from all the deeds of Ihe fallen angels, including the binding of -.AZ3Zel (10: I-II; cf. 54:6). He is 'set over all disease and every wound of the children of the people' (1 Enoch 40:9). Raphael also knows other details which have been told in his absence (Tob 6:16). Only seldom is Raphael connected with the future fate of souls as in J Enoch 22:3; Gk Apoc. Ez.ra 6: 1-2 or with the divine judgment: Sib. Or.

2:215. Somelimes he functions as angelus interpres e.g. J Enoch 22:2; 32:6. He is called apXl<JTpatlTY0; in Gk Apoc. Ezra 1:4. III. His healing activity is mentioned later in rabbinic writings (e.g. b. Yoma 37a) as well as in numerous magical texts: In T. Sol. he stands over against Ihe sixth demon (5:9; 13:6; 18:8; 23P). Jewish magical texts as well as prayers address him (STOBE 1895: 28, line 55; PRADEL 1907:55-56; NAVEH & SIIAKED 1985:Amulet 3:9; 7:2), as do Christian ones: KROPP 1930/1 931 :XLVIII 38-40. 117; LXXVI 79-122; XLVII 2, 5; PGM XXXV 3; XXXVI 170 (cf. A. TRAVERSA, Dai papiri inediti delIa raccolta milanese: 25 Frammento di papiro magico, Aegyptus 33 [1953J, 57-62; ET: H.-D. BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including the Demotic Spells Vol. 1: Texts. Chicagol London 1986, 302 [text no. XC» and F. MALTOMINI, I Papiri Greci, Swdi Classici e Orientali 29 (1979), 55-124, here papyrus 1,

line 59, ET: BETZ ibid. no. CXXIIIa; cf. also MONTGOMERY, Text 15,9 and 96-97. IV. Bibliography A. M. KROPP, Ausgewiilzlte koptische Zaubertexte 1-3 (Bruxelles 1930/1931); *J. MICHL, Engel VIII (Raphael), RAC 5, 252254; J. A. MONTGOMERY, Aramaic blcanration Texrs from Nippur (Philadelphia 1913); J. NAVEH & S. SUAKED, Amulets and Magic Bowls. Aramaic Incantations of Lnte Antiquiry (JerusalemlLciden 1985); F. PRADEL, Griechisclze und silditalien;sche Gebete. Beschwonmgen u"d Rezepte des Mitrelalters (Giessen 1907); R. STOBE, Judisch-Babylonische 'hmbertexte (Halle

1895). M. MACII RAVEN ~.,.v I. The raven, known in the Old Testament as a messenger bird (Gen 8:7), has been associated with the divine in Mesopotamia (NASH 1990:75) and Ugarit. II. In the Neo-Assyrian 'God description text', the parts of the body of a deity are mysticalIy compared with clements, metals, animals, foods, trees, fruits etc. known from the physical world. The 'mole' of the deily

688

RE

is metaphorically seen as a 'raven': (LN'AGA. (iiribu) ki-pif.SII 'his mole is a mven' (LIVINGSTONE 1986:94 1:9 = SAA 3, 39:9). In the Neo-Assyrian incantation cycle Ut/lkkil lemmilll, a passage occurs in which the incantation pricst has two birds in his hands. Both the raven and the hawk function as animals in which antidemonic divine powers arc present (Utukkil lemmit/l I, 129135; NASH 1990:75). From Neo-Assyrian astrological reports a -·star (or -·constella· tion'?) MUL.UGA,i.ga 'Raven' is known (SAA 8, 74 Rev: I; 82:5: 414 Rev: I). Although stars are seen as divine in Mesopotamia, thc name of the Raven·star is never preceded by the determinative for a deity. In Ugarit, birds were seen as divine messengers of the deities (KaRPEL 1990:544549). In a passage from the Legend of Keret, it is stated that thc divinc beings IIisu (iff) and his wife were heralds of -·EI. The wording of this function (l1grlngrt: meaning 'raven' in the first place; KaRPEL 1990:292) indicatcs that they were seen as ravens (KTU 1.16 [Keret IIII iv:IO-16). III. In the ancient Near East the raven is only associated with the divine and not identifIed as such. In the Old Testament stories of -Noah and -·Elijah, the raven is only interpreted as instrumental, either to give orientation after the flood (Gen 8:7: KEEL 1977:79-91) or to feed an isolated prophet (I Kgs 17:2-6). IV. Bibliography O. KEEL. Vogel als Bore" (OBO 14: FreiburglGottingen 1977); M. C. A. KaRPEL, A Rift i" the Clo/lds. Ugaritic a"d Hebre"! Descriptio1lS of the Divine (UBL 8; MUnster 1990); A. LIVINGSTONE, Mystical a"d Mythological £rpla"atory Works of Assyrian and Babylonia" ScllOlars (Oxford 1986): T. NASH, Devils, Demons and Disease. Folklore in Ancient Near Eastern Rites of Atonement, 77,e Bible in the light of Cllnei· foml Litera III re. Scriplllre in Context III (cds. W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones & G. L. Mattingly; Lewiston 1990) 57-88. ~fU~EN

B. BECKING

RE .!Ii I. Re (R'w, Akk. Ri'a, Heb Ra') occurs as

element in Potiphera (.!Ii~'~~~ = PJdjpJR'w, name of the father of Asenath Gen 41 :45), a short form of Potiphar (l~'~~::l) the name of Joseph's Egyptian employer, Gen 37:36: 39: I) and Hophra (j)l::li1), Jer 44:30 a,"jbRew, Gk Aprics. name of Pharao WJ~ljbR'U'). Re is the Egyptian god of creation, the sun and the state, for he symbolizes the cos· mogonic energies and qualities that rule the universe and that find their terrestrial incarnation in Pharaoh. Re is the chief of the gods and the father of the king. -Amun achieves this same position only via syncretistic identification with Re. The traditional centre of Re-worship is Jwnw, Heb i~~ (Ezek 30: 17) i~ (Gen 41 :45). the Greek Heliopolis. II. The Egyptians divided the day into three periods which correspond to three phases of the solar journey, the apparent course of the sun around the earth, which the Egyptians depicted as a journey in two boats, one for the day (MellljO and one for the night (Msku). These periods are morning. midday and evening, or sunrise, crossing and sunset. The night usually belongs to the third phase. The three phases of the solar circuit arc expressed in a triad of gods: Chepre (morning), Re (midday) and -·Atum (evening and night). But these three gods can also be seen as mere aspects of one single god who is called either Re or Re-Harakhte. Later theological speculation develops a doctrine of 12 or 24 forms of Re, one for every hour. The 'litany of Re', a text belonging to the 'books of the netherworld'. praises Re in 75 different forms (HORNUNG 1975). Each of the three major forms of Re ha 'Pa41a; v 20 E'tEX&r1 'to ·Pa). The Lucianic recension of vv 15-16 has "Dadou, son of Ioas, who was of the descendants of the giants". Also the Targum ("of the Giant") and the Peshitta ("David, Joab, and Abishai were terrified by a giant") witness to the antiquity of the interpretation of itD, as ~D". The same is true of the LXX in 2 Sam 21:22, where there is a textual conflation: "These four descended as offspring from the Giants in Gath, the house of Rapha". This ancient notice situating the Rephaim in Philistia reflects a pre-Deuteronomistic tradition. The Rephaim are presented as a conglomerate consisting of various pseudo· ethnic groups, each with its own characteristics (Gen 14:5; Deut 2:10.11.20; Josh 17: 15). Thus, e.g. the Anakim ('descendants of Anak'), builders of fortified cities in south· em Judah (Num 13:22; Josh 11:21; 15:13; Judg 1:20), ar~ Rephaim bearing a nickname alluding to their size. The Rephaim were traditionally associated with giants, as the description of the yelfde hariipa still shows (Caquot 1985:346-347). The ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible have linked the repa'im designating the early inhabitants of Palestine and the repti'fm designating the spirits of the dead. The LXX sometimes offers a mere transcription (e.g. Deut 3: 11 Raphain), as does the Vulgate (Rafaim, Gen 14:5; 15:20; Josh

698

REPHAIM

12:4; 13:12; 17:5; 2 Sam 21:18.22; 1 Chr 11: 15; 14:9.13), yet usually renders as gigantes (-Giants). Also the other versions generally opt for 'giants', except Aquila (who usually gives a transcription in Greek characters). The basis for this interpretation has been elucidated by CAQUOT (1985:348); it is the fable reflected in Bereshit Rabbah 26:7; 31: 12 and Pirqe de R. Eliezer 34 according to which reptiJim was one of the names of the -Nephilim, creatures born from the union between the sons of EI with the daughters of mankind (Oen 6:1-4). The elaboration upon this episode in I Enoch 614 relates that their giant offspring had been cast into the netherworld, which explains why they could be called repa'im. The chthonic nature of these creatures, and the analogy with the -Titans, suggests the renderings titanes (LXX L 2 Sam 21: 13), 'theomachoi (Sym Prov 9:18) and gegeneis "(LXX Prov 2:18; 11:18). " The discovery of the rpum in the texts :#om Ugarit has put the question of the 'Qiblical repii'fm in a new perspective. What 'is the etymology? .Arguing that rpum/ ::Tepii'fm are collective designations, H. L. \'OINSBERG (The Legend of King Keret [New rHaven 1946] 41) proposes a connection wi th rajala, 'to sew'. J. AISTLEITNER prefers ia,derivation from *RBB/RBH, on the basis of 1~~ . aHegedcorrespondence with Akk tf;~bUJrubU, 'prince' (Untersuchungen zur ~X9.rammatik des Ugaritischen [Leipzig 1954] KIJ, 37). Most scholars, however, choose tbetween the alternative roots RPH, 'to bet..-: ~F9me weak, to relax', and RP', 'to heal'. Are ah~ Rephaim 'healers' (or 'hale ones', if the ~9rm is interpreted as intransitive) or 'impo~F~t ones'? A number of authors feel that ~~e term repi/im, due to its very ambiva[l~,nce, possesses both senses. According to 1. ~m: Michaelis (as quoted by Ges.I 7 1302), t,gt>th giants and deceased inhabit the under~l9rld. The explanation of Rephaim by the ~wt RPH assumes that the weakness of the ~~des of the dead is constitutive for their . ",~e (so b.Ket lllb; Bereshit Rabbah 26. 7 "....~ many modem authors). ~(Yarious authors have tried to account for

Au

~-,

i·~.:

the co-existence of two opposite meanings by assuming a development in the significance of the term. Thus F. SCHWALLY (Das Leben nach dem rode [Giessen 1892] 64 n. 1) suggests that the name Rephaim was applied first to the powerless but disquieting spirits of the dead, and secondarily to the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, the heroes of many a terrifying legend. A. CAQUOT constructs a development going from the ancient traditions about the Rephaim to the men whom God cast in the underworld, and who now haunt the living as revenants (DBSup X, 1985, 350). The connection between the Rephaim and the root RP), 'to heal', is already found in the LXX of Isa 26:14 and Ps 88:11: "The healers (iatroi) will not rise up". The same exegesis is found for Deut 2:20 and 3: 13 in the Samaritan Targum. Among modem authors, this ancient interpretation was adopted by M. J. LAGRANGE (Etudes sur les religions semitiques [Paris 1905 2l 318), who argued that the Rephaim were, by virtue of their connections with the netherworld, the healers par excellence. Today there is a nearly complete agreement that the Ug rpum were believed to watch over the dynastic continuity granting offspring when needed. These royal dead were thus in a sense 'healers' . . Well before the discovery of lhe Ug rpum led to a better understanding of the biblical Rephaim, the latter were linked with the -+teraphim. 'ancestor statuettes' (VAN DER TOORN 1990:220), on the basis of te root RP) (F. SCHWALLY, Das Leben nach dem rode nach der Vorstellungen des alten Israel und des ludentum [Oiessen 1892] 36 n. 1). The noun teriipim was analyzed as a nomen agentis, formed with a preformative ta- and having lost the aleph (TROPPER 1989:335 n. 64). Such an etymology, however, is invalidated by the inexplicable loss of the aleph, as well as by the absence of West Semitic parallels for a nominal form with prefixed 1-. According to O. LORETZ (Die Teraphim als "Ahnen-Gotter-Figur(in)nen" im Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit, UF 24 [1992] 133-178, esp. 149-152), neither the

699

I

REPHAN - RESHEPH

'Ugaritic nor the biblical data warrant the hypothesis that in Hebrew the Canaanite fonn rpu(m) could have developed in a form trp(')ym. Though Phoenician and Punic sources know a form rp~ym, there is no single attestation of a supposed form *trp'(ym). If the -loteraphim are to be understood in connection with the Rephaim, it is not for philological or etymological reasons. The theological circles that wished to interpret the Rephaim on the basis of the root RPH pejoratively vocalizing the word in analogy with re.M'fm, 'wicked' (LIWAK 1990:629; cf. DE MOOR 1976:341 n. 107), are also responsible for deforming the term Rephaim into teraphim. Inimical against a cult of ancestors with its attendant apparel of images and offerings, they invented the term Teraphim on the basis of the pejorative root TRP, the vocalisation being the same as for Rephaim (LORETZ 1992:149·152). According to 2 Chr 16: 12, King Asa, "even in his disease, did not seek Yahweh, but sought help from physicians (rope'fm)". The observation (absent in 1 Kgs 15:23) implies the healing powers of Yahweh; yet Asa preferred to seek help from the r{)pe~fm. The latter are not physicians in the usual sense of the term, however, but the Rephaim in their capacity as 'healers' (LIWAK 1990: 629).The text is at home in a polemic tradition criticizing the .use of necromancy (cf. Deut 18:11~ Isa 8:19; 19:3; 1 Chr 10:13). The vocalisation of O'~£)i in 2 ehr 16: 12 betrays the kind of systematic correction which led to the fifteen occumences of the word teraphim. In a number of places the teraphim occur in a parallelism with 'elOhlm, 'gods' (Gen 31:30; Judg 18:24), a tenn also used for the ancestors or their images (Exod 21:6; 1 Sam 28:13; 2 Sam 12:16; Isa 8:19). The equivalence between teraphim and Elohim, then, is based upon the equivalence between Rephaim and Elohim-which reflects the Ugaritic correspondences between rpum, ilnym, ilrn and mtm (KTU I

RS 24,252 et la question des Rephalm ougaritiques, Syria 53 (1976) 296-304~ CAQUOT. Rephaim, DBSup 10 (985) 344-357; T. 1. LEWIS, CUllS of the Dead in Ancient -Israel und Ugarit (HSM 39; Atlanta 1989); C. E. L'HEUREUX, The Ugaritic and the Biblical Rephaim, HTR 67 (1974) 265-274; R. LIWAK, D'~Oi, TWAT 7/3-5 (1990) 625636; O. LORETZ, Die Teraphim als 'AhnenGotter-Figur(in)en' im Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit, UF 24 (1992) 133178; J. C. DE MOOR, Rapi'uma • Rephaim, Z4 W 88 (1976) 323-345; G. DEL OLMO LETE, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan segun la tradicion de Ugarit (ValenciaIMadrid 1981); DEL OLMO LETE, La religion cananea segun la lituTgia de UgaTit. Estudio textual (AuOrSup 3; Barcelona 1992); D. PARDEE, Les textes para-mythologiques (RSOu 4; Paris 1988) 75-118, 179-192; S. B. PARKER, The Feast of Rapi'u, UF 2 (1970) 243-249; H. ROUILLARD, El Rofe en Nombres 12,13, Sem 37 (1987) 17-46; H. ROUILLARD & J. TROPPER, trpym, rituels de guerison et culte des ancetres d' apres 1 Samuel XIX 11-17 et les tex tes paralleles d' Assur et de Nuzi, VT 37 (1987) 340-361; K. SPRONK, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient NeaT East (AOAT 219; KevelaerlNeukirchen-Vluyn 1986); K. VAN DER TOORN, The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneifonn Evidence, CBQ 52 (1990) 203-222; VAN DER TOORN, Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible, BiOr 48 (1991) 40-66; J. TROPPER, Nekromantie und Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 223; KevelaerlNeukirchen-Vluyn 1989); A. TSUKIMOTO, Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) irn alten Mesopo~ tamien (AOAT 216; Neukirchen·Vluyn 1985).

H. ROUILLARD REPHAN

-+

KAIWAN •

1.6:46~48).

IV. Bibliography A. CAQUOT, Les Rephai'm ouganttques, Syria 37 (1960) 79~90~ CAQUOT, La tablelte

RESHEPH ~~-,

I

~.

."

_

.. ',;.:

I. Reseph occurs as rsp m Ugantl~~; Phoenician, and Aramaic, as yefep m:

700

'.~~~

--

RESHEPH

Hebrew (8 times), as ra-sa-ap at Ebla and in Akkadian, and as r-s-p(-w) in Egyptian. It is the name of one of the most popular WestSemitic gods, venerated in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The etymology of the name is still very uncertain. It is often assumed that it is related to a root *RSP (?) with the basic meaning "to light, to set on fire" or "to bum" (d. e.g. Jud.-Aram rispii J "flames, lightning"). Yet also a derivation from roots such as *SRP, "'SRB (metathesis?), or even *RSP can be considered, as well as a possible connection to Akk rasabu(m) I and raJbu(m). The name was probably pronounced Rasapu or Raspu (cf. the Amorite form Ruspan). Heb resep is a segolate form, a fact which confirms the original triliteral stlucture of the name. The meaning generalassumed is "He who is burning" (referring to -+fire, lightning or even to plague in a metaphorical sense). Though it fits the per:sonality of the god Resheph, the etymologiCal foundation of the interpretation is .problematic. In fact, all the proposed ety:mologies are based on what we actually [know about the character of this god; there~tore. there is a serious risk of circular argu"v,,

ly

~ment.

C,;: II.

Resheph is attested at Tell MardikhtEbla in the 3rd Millennium BCE, where he t'$eems to have been a very popular deity. He '~~ay have becn related 10 the royal necrotiWlis as a chthonic god. Priests of Resheph ~~e also attested to. The god had a consort Khamed Adamma. His name occurs as theo@poric element in personal names from Ur rnJ.. Mari, Terqa and t!ana, but it is especial~JY!~ at Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani during the ~~te Bronze Age, and later in the Phoen~i~,ian·Punic world, that we are given infor~t~tion about the god's personality. Ident~m~d with -+ Nergal and attested as a [~~~~gue.god in the Keret poem (KTU 1.14 j: ~~~)~; 1.15. ii:6), Resh~~h i~ very freq~ently ~m,~.IlUOned In the Uganhc ntual texts m the ~~'pacity of a chthonic deity, gatekeeper of ~,-~::~etherworld: He is the lord of battle a~d qkd,seases, whIch he spreads through hiS ~.~:'f and arrows. These aspects of Resheph's .. ~.?-' anality are confilmed by the Amarna

letters (see e.g. EA 35). His fierce nature apparently did not affect his popularity both in private devotion (as reflected by the theophoric personal names) and in the official cult. In fact, the epithets he receives show that he is an ambivalent god, dangerous as well as benevolent; he can hurt but also heal. In Egypt from the New Kingdom onwards the cult of Resheph gained promi· nence under the influence of immigrated Asiatic people. The god was officially adopted at the court of Amenophis II; the Pharaoh regarded this deity as his special protector during military enterprises. In the Ramesside period, Resheph's veneration also spread among the common people: textual and iconographical data testify both to his worship at the highest levels of the society and to the devotion of the general population. The iconography of Resheph is relatively well known. It confirms the double character of Resheph: benevolent, on the one hand, dangerous, on the other. In some stelae of the New Kingdom Resheph is also depicted in the attitude of the Pharaoh striking his enemies, an element which suggests that the so~called "Smiting God" of the Syrian iconographical tradition is a representation of our deity. Traces of the cult of Re-sheph are also found in Hittite Anatolia.At Zenjirli, in the 8th century nCE, the local king Panamuwa mentions the god (together with >rqrip) as his dynastic deity

(KAI214: 2.3.11). In the Phoenician-Punic world, the earliest evidence of the god is to be found at Byblos. If there is no proof in favour of a relation of Resheph with Herisheph the god of the "Obelisk Temple", it is nonetheless quite probable that our god was identified at a very early stage with said Egyptian deity, mentioned in the "Pyramid Texts" (§§ 242, 423, 518) and on the so-called "Cylindre Montet" (but note the cautionary remarks of FuLCO 1976:55). The first direct evidence of the cult of Resheph in Phoenician texts, however, is found in the Karatepe portal inscription (KAI 26, 8th century BCE); here Azitawada mentions -+Baal and Resheph-

it",

701

RESHEPH

~pnn as dynastic deities. The epithet $pnn can mean "(Resheph) of the goats" or "(Resheph) of the birds", if it is not a Cilician place-name. Later, in 5th century Sidon, the inscriptions of the local king Bodashtart reveal that there was a whole quarter in the town named "Land of the Reshephs" ('r~ rJpm: KAI 15). Yet the textual occurrences of this god are chiefly concentrated in Cyprus. Here we find traces of the ancient Ugaritic tradition of the Archer-God, which merged with the figure of an archaic local -+Apollo (see also the Homeric tradition of ApoIlo's arrows, Iliad I 43-67). Especially important among the various documents is the dedication to Resheph written on the base of a statue (Palaeo-kastro. 7th century BCE, see A. CAQUOT & Q. MASSON. Deux inscriptions pheniciennes de Chypre, Syria 45 [1968] 295-321. esp. 295-3(0). This text is perhaps to be related to a Kition inscription of the 4th century BCE mentioning the dedication of two lion-heads ('rnm) to the snme god by a priest of "Resheph of the arrow" (rip ~, KAI 32; M. G. AMADASI Guzzo & V. KARAGEORGHIS, FOllilles de Kition - 1/1. Inscriptions plzeniciennes [Nicosia 1977] III A 2). The epigraphic documentation from Cyprus attests moreover to some local manifestations of Resheph, always identified with Apollo: RJp(b)mkl, "Resheph-Amyklos" at Idalion (KAI 38-40 and CAQUOT & MASSON, Deux inscriptions pheniciennes de Chypre, Syria 45 [1968] 295-321, esp. 302-313; cf. a-mllko-Io-i. dative, in syllabic Cyprian). RJp'Ihyts. "Resheph-Alasiotas" at Tamassos (RES 1213; cf. a-Ia-si-o-ta-i, dative, in syllabic Cyprian), and Rfp-'I»·t, "ReshephEleitas" also in Tamassos (RES 1212; cf. ele-ta-i. dative, in syIlabic Cyprian). Finally, it must be added that the god bCI cz , 'The Lord of the power". attested in a recently published Phoenician royal inscription from Kition (M. YON & M. SZNYCER, Une inscription phenicienne royale de Kition (Chypre), CRAIBL 1991, 791-823), was probably a particular manifestation of Reshephmkl, a god especially venerated at Idalion. From an historical point of view, these

testimonies show that the personality of Resheph at Cyprus retained the general features which characterize the god in SyriaPalestina during the Bronze and the Iron Ages. Some changes in his cult are nevertheless perceptible. For example, it is notcworthy that we know very few personal names of this period which contain the name of Resheph. This could be explained as an indication of the god's loss of prominence in popular devotion. in contradistinction to his role and importance at a more official level. This process culminates perhaps at Carthage, where we have only one personal name with Resheph as theophoric element ('bdrJp: CIS I 2628,6). Yet in the Punic metropolis, too, it is certain that the god enjoyed a certain popularity. because he had at least one temple in the very centre of the town with cultic personnel devoted to him (CIS I 251). Some classical authors (Valerius Maximus I 1,18; Appian, Lyb. 127) inform us that there was a golden statue of the god, as weIl as an altar of gold. It is probable that the Phoenician Apollo-whom Pausanias (VII 23,7-8) identifies as the father of -.Eshmun-was none other than Reshcph-a tradition perhaps confirmed by Cicero (cf. Arsipplls in Cicero, Nat. dear. III 22,57). If the Apollo mentioned in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip of Macedonia (Polybius VII 9,2-3) is to be identified with Resheph, it would confirm the leading role of the god in the Carthaginian pantheon. as the text mentions him in the first divine triad together with -·Zeus and -Hera. In Phoenicia, a late trace of the god is finally found in the name of the ancient Apollonia, a town which is called ArsOf in Arabic. III. The original divine nature of Resheph is detectable in the QT. Like various other ancient Semitic deities. he is generally considered as a sort of decayed -demon at the service of -+Yahweh. I Chr 7:25 presents Resheph as one of the Ephraim's sons, but the text is corrupted and a different reading has been proposed for this passage. The tradition of Resheph as a god of pestilence is attested in Deut 32:24 and Ps 78:48. The first text, a passage of the Song of

702

RIDER UPON THE CLOUDS

Moses. deals with those who provoked God to anger and were unfaithful: they are punished with hunger and destroyed by Resheph and -·Qeteb ("[ will heap (?) evils upon them. my arrows [ will spend on them; wasted with hunger. devoured by Resheph and Qeteb the poisonous one". Oeut 32:2324a). There is no doubt that we have to do here with two ancient Canaanite gods (perhaps conceived as flying demons), personifications of the scourges that they spread. In Ps 78:48 we have an allusion to the seventh plague of Egypt: God has given up the cattle to -·Barad (Hail) and the herds to the Reshephs (pI.: wayyasger labbiiriid be'iriim timiqllchem IdrlJiipim). Here too, the poet deals with decayed deities, BaradllResheph(s), depicted as malevolent spirits which accompany God in his destructive action. In Hab 3:5 we have the description of a theophany and the attendant natural phenomena. God is described as a divine warrior. Lord of light; before Him goes -. Deber (master of epidemics. cf. Exod 9:3 and Jer 21 :6), while Resheph (Pestilence) follows on God's heels (lepiilliiyw yelek dliher weyc,~e) reJep leragliiyw). Oeber and Resheph must be seen, here too, as two personalized natural powers, submitted to Yahweh. Ps 76:4 mentions the dpy qst, an expression which could be interpreted as "the Reshephs of the bow" and be related to the imagery of the god armed with bow and arrows ("[In Zion, God] shattered the dpy qst, the shield. the sword, the weapons of war"). Job 5:7 is a very difficult text, inserted in a passage dealing with the need for man of absolute trust in God. Here 'the sons of Resheph' (bene reJep) are mentioned ("and the sons of Resheph fly high"); they seem to be winged demons. particularly if we think of Ps 91 :5, where the expression ~,e~ yiiCfip "lhe arrow lhal flies" could be an allusion to Resheph. The plurals, here and elsewhere, remind us of the rspm attested both in Ugaritic and in Phoenician texts. This passage is perhaps to be related to Sir 43: 17, where Resheph is a bird of prey flying in the sJ.,)' (reading kdp with the Masada scroll, see F. VATIIONI, Ecclesiastico.

Testo ebraico COli apparato critico [NapeIs 1968] 233). In Cant 8:6 we have another echo of the "fiery" character of Resheph. The 'flames' (reJep. plural) of love are characterized as a 'fire of Yahweh' in a context dealing with love. death. and the Netherworld. To sum up, in the OT Resheph is a demonized version of an ancient Canaanite god, now submitted to Yahweh. He appears as a cosmic force, whose powers are great and terrible: he is particularly conceived of as bringing epidemics and death. The Hebrew Bible shows different levels of demythologization: sometimes it describes Resheph as a personalized figure, more or less faded. sometimes the name is used as a pure metaphor. At any rate it is possible to pereeive aspects of the personality of an ancient chthonic god, whichs fits the image of Rcsheph found in the other Semitic cultures. IV. Bihliography. M. G. AMADASI Guzzo & V. KARAGEORGHIS, Fouilles de Kitioll - III. 111scriptiolls phelliciennes (Nicosia 1977); *A. CAQUOT. Sur quelques demons de I' Ancien Testament: Reshef, Qeteb. Oeher. Sem 6 (1956) 53-68; *W. J. FULCO. 77,e Callaanite God ReJep (New Haven 1976); G. GARIHNI. dp ~pnn. RSF 20 (1992) 93-94; *E. LIPINSKI. Resheph Amyklos. Studia Phoenicia 5 (Lcuven 1987) 87-99; F. POMPONIO. Adamma paredra di Ra~ap. SEL 10 (1993) 3-7; *P. XELLA. Le dieu Rashap a Ugarit. AAAS 29-30 (1979-80) 145-162; XELLA, D'Ugarit a la Phenicie: sur Ies traces de Rashap. Horon, Eshmun, wa 19 (1988) 4564; XELLA. Le dieu B(L ·Z dans une nouvelle inscription phenicienne de Kition (Chypre). SEL 10 (1993) 61-70. P. XELLA


:lJi

I. In Ps 68:5[4J Yahweh is referred to as the rokeb hii tc}riib6t. Though often translated as 'rider through the steppe' (based on the meaning 'steppe' of Hebr tiiriihli), the

703


expression is thought to reflect the Ugaritic epithet rkb crpt. 'Rider upon the clouds', traditionally given to -Baal. II. In the mythological texts of Ras Sharnra the god Baal repeatedly gets the epithet rkb crpt. It is rendered with slight nuances as 'Rider of the Clouds" 'Rider on the Clouds', "'Vho mounts the Clouds'. Epithets based on the root RKB. "to ride'. occur quite frequently in connection with gods. The name -Rakib-el is a good example, demonstrating that the epithet could eventually"turn into a proper name (cr. KAI, II 34, commentary at no. 24: 16). The epithet rkb crpt refers to Baal as driving his chariot of clouds (cf. LoRBTZ 197980; G. DEL OUtO LETE. 'auriga de las nubes' [Miros )' Le)'endas de Canaan (Barcelona 1981), see Glosario s. v. rkb]). This explanation agrees with the one advanced by J. C. DE MOOR: Baal rides upon the clouds as the driver in a chariot; he goes out to distribute rain (The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'iu [NeukirchenVluyn 1971] 98; cf. DIETRICH-LoRETZ, UF 21 [1989] 116). At the same time. it casts Baal in the role of warrior-god (Miller 1973). III. Normally, the Hebrew term 'arabli has the meaning 'steppe' or 'desert'. Consequently the expression in Ps 68:5[4] is usually understood as 'the one passing through the steppes'. Yet because Yahweh is celebrated in v 34[33] as the 'Rider in the heavens, the heavens of old' (rokib biJme Um2-qedem), it has been surmised that Clirabot in v 5[4] is in fact a word for "clouds' (cf. Aide urpalll. erpetu 'cloud', plural llrpatu, llrpetll. erpetu: CAD E [1958] 302-304; AHW 243, 1432). If'i'Jrabot stands indeed for clouds, a shift p - b may be assumed (so S. MOSCATI et aI., An Imroduction to the Compararh'e Grammar of rhe Semitic Languages, [Wiesbaden 19802] 2526; but contrast L. L. GRABBE, Hebrew pa'al I Ugaritic bel and the supposed blp Interchange in Semitic. UF 11 [1979] 307314). Alternatively the text might be emendated to read n'O.11::J, 'in/upon the clouds' (see already P. HAUPT, ExpTim 22 [1910-

II] 375). The correction finds some support in other passages where Yahweh is said to be a 'rider in the heavens' (Dcut 33:26), or even a 'rider upon a swift cloud' (Isa 19: I; cf. 2 Sam 22: II Ps 18: 11). Another reference still could be made to Isa 5:30, where the noun ·'i'Jripim could possibly signify 'clouds' . In order to explain the Hebrew collocation, ULLENDORFF (1956) drew a comparison with the epithet v£¢ld.11Y£pEtll~, 'Cloudgatherer', attributed to -Zeus, because the root RKB originally denotes 'to compose. put together, collect': the meaning 'to ride (on a horse)' is a late development based on RKB in the meaning 'to harness'. Though Ullendorff was followed by S. BROCK (IT 18 [1968] 395-397), his interpretation is hardly correct. K. J. CAllICART (TRKB QM/:I in the Arad Ostracon and Biblical Hebrew REKEB, "Upper Millstone", IT 19 [1969] 121-123, esp. 121122) has shown Ullendorff s interpretation of the verb RKB to be incorrect; as a matter of consequence, the comparison of \'£¢£AllY£PEtll; and rkb 'rpr is without factual basis (M. WEINFELD, 'Rider of the Clouds' and 'Gatherer of the Clouds', JANES 5 [1973] 421-426). GALLING has convincingly demonstrated that r6kib denotes 'rider' or 'charioteer' (1956: 132). A combination of this fact with the information of Hab 3:8, where Yahweh is said to drive a horse-drawn chariot (cf. M. HARAN, The Ark and the Cherubim, IEJ 9 [1959] 30-94), an image reminiscent of that of the storm-god setting out for battle (MILLER 1973:41). suggests that the clouds in Ps 68:5[4] are God's mythological chariot (MOWINCKEL 1962:298-299; cf. W. L. MORAN, Bib 43 [1962] 323-325). The particle be ('in, upon') shows that God is the driver of the nubilous vehicle (S. E. LoEWENSTAMM, Grenzgebiete ugaritischer Sprach- und Sti}vergleichung, UF 3 [1971] 93-100, esp. 99-100). Yet the rendering in the LXX (Ps 67:5) does not favour the explication of the Hebrew phrase in analogy with the Ugaritic epithet of Baal, since it has understood

704

=

RIDING HORSEMAN

Ciircibut as OOOI10i, ·sunsct'. Thc Hcbrew word ciiriJbut wa. I. Sakkuth occurs under the fonn Sikki1t in Amos 5:26, and is followed by Kiyyun. The Masoretic vocalisation of both names is that for idols (-.Abominations, --tgillulim). The real pronunciation must have been Sak· kur, if we may identify this name with the obscure Babylonian god Sakkud (or Sakkut). Already LXX and CD took the name to be a word with the basic meaning "hut" (sukkat): not "Sakkuth, your king", but "tent of the Moloch" (LXX; also Acts 7:43), or "tabernacle of your king" (CD VII 14). Some modem scholars are also of this opinion (BORGER 1988:77-80; W. W. HALLO, HUCA 48 [1977] 15). II. The parallelism between Saklcuth and -4 Kaiwan (Kiyyun) suggests that Sakkuth is a divine name since Kaiwan goes back to Babylonian Ka}jamanu.the planet Saturn, which was worshipped as a deity. The only god known to us having a similar sounding name is Babylonian Sakkut (Sag-kud). The alleged association of this god with Saturn in SUJpu II 180 ("~akkut and Saturn") has been invalidated by BORGER (1988:74-76): the originals do not offer SAG.US ("Saturn") but uS (= Nita). Both Sakkut and Nita were identified with Ninurta. Sakkut was a "cupbearer" of the gods and was.· associated with the city Der, bordering on Elam. The name could be Elamite rather than Sumerian (thus BORGER 1988:73); cf. the Elamite god Simut. This fits the final -t in the Hebrew text. Surpu II 180-181 now has the sequence AN.TI.BAL - Sakkut - Nita -Immerija (Wer). The first (also named "Tibal") seems to be an astral god as it is elsewhere identific?, with "the position of Venus, the -+star· (MSL 17 {l985] 86 ErimlJus VI, 178; ct. W.

722

SAMSON - SANCTUARY

G. LAMBERT, Studies F. R. Kraus [Leiden 1982] 215, to IV 3). Sakkut might -have been a planet, or a star. Ill. The problem of why the Israelites adopted an obscure god like Sakkut remains unsolved. The Israelites may have borrowed the worship of this planet from the Assyr~ ians. In this case there are two options. (1) The Israelites took over the worship before the fall of Samaria. Then Amos 5:26 can be interpreted as a prophetic accusation for not having served -Yahweh (e.g. BARSTAD 1984). (2) Amos 5:26 refers to one of the deities mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:28~30 who were brought to the Samaritan area by Assyrian settlers. This view implies that the text is a later insertion by a (deuteronomistic) redactor who confused situations before and after the conquest of the capital (H. W. WOLFF, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel und Amos [BKAT XIVI2; NeukirchenVluyn 1969] 310-31] ). Recently, DE MOOR (1995: 10-11) has argued that the word sikkut in Amos 5:26 should be construed as a derivation from a feminine form *sikkiintu, 'stele'. This elegant proposal implies that the expression * 'the stele of your king' in Amos 5:26 does not refer to a particular deity.

IV. Bibliography H. M. BARsTAn, The Religious Polemir..'i of Amos (VTSup 34; Leiden 1984) 118-]26; P.-R. BERGER, Imaginare Astrologie in spatbabylonischer Propaganda, Die Rolle der

Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens (ed. H. D. GaIter; Graz 1993) 275-289; esp. 277 n. 2.; *R. BORGER, Amos 5,26, Apostelgeschichte 7,43 und Surpu II, 180, Z4 W 100 (1988) 70-81; O. LORETZ, Die babyloa mschen Gottesnamen Sukkut und Kajjamfmu in Amos 5, 26, ZA W 101 (1989) 286-289; J. C. DE MOOR, Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship, UF 27 (1995) 1-20. M. STOL

:SAMSON - HERACLES .. ~.,

~$ANCTUARY ':;"il

:i>. I.

gn

The Heb word hekill occurs 78 times the Old Testament and designates a

palace or temple. The word is common in West-Semitic languages (HALAT 234-35 S.v. ?:J'i1; HOFTIJZER-JONGELING, DNWSJ 278 s. v. hykl) and derives from Sum eagal, literally 'big house', the residence of a divine or worldly ruler. It is well known from Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources that temples were ascribed numinous qualities. JALABERT & MOUTERDE 1939 suggested that in Syria during the Roman period the deified temple was known. A single reference from the New Testament testifies to the numinous character attaching to the Jerusalem temple. II. "The ancient Mesopotamian temple was profoundly awesome, sharing in the tremenum of the Numinous" (T. JACOBSEN, The Treasures of Darkness [New Haven 1976] 16). In early Mesopotamia temples were clearly considered as divine objects, appearing as theophoric element in personal names (EDZARD 1997:164) and addressed in a collection of hymns (SJOBERG & BERGMAN 1969). Ancient Egyptian temples were equally considered to participate in the nature of the divine (J. ASSMANN, Agypten;

Theologie und Frommigkeit einer fruhen Hochkultur [Stuttgart 1984] 48). Members of the Jewish settlement at Elephantine in Upper Egypt took the oath by the fJrm by()l, 'the sacred enclosure of (the god) Bethel' (-Bethel; see VANDER TOORN 1986). A Greek inscription from modem Doumeir, 40 Jon NE of Damascus, dated in 245 eE, mentions a vaoi~.

733

SAVIOUR

-Jesus -Christ (especially in the later epistles). II. In a general reflection about Xerxes' expedition against Greece Herodotus 7.139.5 states that the Athenians might well be called "saviours of Hellas". In Aristophanes' Equites 149 a slave exhorts the sausageseller to manifest himself to the city as its 'saviour'. Such a use of the term is, however, far less frequent than its occurrences in honour of gods, especially Zeus. The oldest extant case is Pindar, Olymp. 5.17: "0 saviour Zeus, in the clouds on high". It can refer to a specific saving act, e.g. when gratitude was expressed to Zeus for having saved Delphi from an attack of Gauls in 279/8 (SI(;3 408). In their capacity of gods of sailors the - Dioscuri also were often honoured by the title. Leda is said to have borne sons who were "saviours of men living on the earth and their quick-going ships" (Homeric hymn to the Diose. 6-7, see also S8 5795). The healing god Asklepios was very often called soter (e.g. IG IV2 1.127, OGIS 332.8) and it developed into his specific title, as can be witnessed in Aelius Aristides' Sacred Tales. "Die Bezeichnung ho s{uer ist rur Aristides so sehr ein Name des Asklepios geworden, daB er ihn gebraucht wie bei Herakles die Bezeichnung Kallinikos (und Alexikakos)" (D~L GER 1950:262). Among the gods whose cult spread in Hellenistic and Roman times especially -Isis and Sarapis held the title (OGIS 87: Sarapidi Isidi Sotersi); for Isis the feminine soteira was used (e.g. VIDMANN 1969: 247). Apuleius coined the neologism sospitatrix to render this into Latin (Met. 11.9.1, 11.15.4, 11.25.1). A list of all the gods who are called soter or soteira is provided by H~FER 1909-1915. The title is, however, also assigned to great politicians or generals for their achievements. The first reliable contemporary record of this is Thucydides 5.11.1 about the Spartan general Brasidas, who in defeating an Athenian army in 422 was himself mortally wounded. He received sacrifices as a heros, was honoured as a ktistes and regarded as a 'saviour'. Obviously soter

figures here within a religious context. The object of the honours has exceeded normal human bounds. Others were to follow and indeed to be honoured during their lifetime. In 302 BCE the Athenians greeted Demetrios Poliorketes and his son Antigonos as theo; soteres (Plutarch, Dem. 10.4. Diodorus Siculus 20.46.2, cf. IG 11 2.3424.12 and HABICHT 1970:44-48). When the Romans intervened powerfully in Hellenic affairs, such treatment also fell to their share. Titus Quinctius Aamininus (229-174) is the first example (Plutarch. Titus Flam. 10). A contemporary inscription found in the Laconian seaport Gytheum testifies to this: Titon Titou Koigktion, stratagon hypaton Romaion, ho damos ho Gytheatan ton autou sotera, '1'itus Quinctius, son of Titus, Roman consul, is honoured by the people of Gytheum as their saviour". (SI(;3 592 IGLS 8766). In the first century BCE such honours befell Caesar (SIG3 759, Athens) and Pompeius (SI(;3 749b, Samos). An Ephesian inscription in honour of Caesar emphasizes the religious context: ... ton apo Areos leai Aphrodeiles theon epiphane kai koinon tou anthropinou biou sotera, "the manifest god, who is descended from -Ares and -Aphrodite, and the common saviour of human life", (SI(;3 760). This is not to deny that the assignment of the title could assume a stereotyped character. Thus Verres, who as a proconsul of Sicily in 73-71 was guilty of all the typical abuses of the Roman aristocratic administration of provinces, had also been honoured in such a way: Itaque eum non solum palronum iIlius insulae, sed etiam sOlera inscriptum vidi Syracusis, "And thus at Syracuse I saw an inscription in which he was not only called protector of that island, but even its saviour", (Cicero Ver. 2.2.154). In explaining the importance of the title, Cicero adds that it cannot be rendered by one Latin word: Is est nim;rum soter qui sailltem dedit, "He no doubt is a saviour who has provided salvation". Later, in the introductory part of his State, Cicero stressed its weight in an indirect way: neque enim est ulla res in qua propius ad deorum numen virtus accedit humana quam civitates

734

=

SAVIOUR

aut condere novas aut conservare iam condUas, "Human virtue nowhere comes nearer to the majesty of the gods than in founding cities or saving those which were founded", (Resp. I 12). The title ktistes, 'founder', is indeed more than once assigned in combination with soter, e.g. to Pompeius at Mytilene (SIG3 751). More often, however, soter is combined with euergetes, 'benefactor'. Undoubtedly, such titles also occurred in a less exalted sphere, witness this Laconian inscription dating from the Augustan age: ha polis kat hoi Romaioi Gaion Ioulion Eurykle Lacharous hyion ton aUlas sotem kili euergetan, "the city and the (locally active) Romans honour Gaius lulius Eurycles, son of Lachares, as their saviour and benefactor", (SEG XXIX 383). A more curious case is the freedman Milichus, who, having been rewarded for his part in the dismantling of the Pisonian conspiracy against the emperor Nero, conservatoris sibi nomen Graeco.. eius rei vocabulo adsumpsit, "he assumed the title 'saviour' in its Greek version", (Tacitus Ann. 15.71.1). Of course, the purist Roman historian was precluded from ~sing the term soter. NOCK (1972:727-730) :mentions other cases in which "soter, while :most often used of Emperors, was at times Jgrmally applied to local dignitarie~ and to ·Itnperial functionaries, in a manner which rindicates that it was not felt to be excessive ~oi)jnvidious" (727). NocK is in general ~f~luctant to link the title prematurely to the !(I~vine sphere. Nevertheless, such a link is ~'bltPlicitly made in an edict of 19 CE by Gerimanicus, when he orders the Alexandrians [.!.9

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second edition

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second edition

Dictionary of Engineering (Second Edition)

Bible Dictionary Collection (Deluxe Study Edition) (KJV Bible, Smith's Bible Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary)

Dictionary of Materials and Testing, Second Edition

The Greenwood Dictionary of Education, Second edition

The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics, Second Edition

Oxford Dictionary of the Bible

The NKJV Study Bible: Second Edition

Dictionary of Gods Goddesses Devils and Demons

Bible second

Historical Dictionary of Mesopotamia, Second Edition

Illustrated Dictionary of Immunology, Second Edition

Dictionary of Geology & Mineralogy, Second Edition

Historical Dictionary of Albania, Second Edition

A Dictionary of Diplomacy, Second Edition

Dictionary of Earth Science, Second Edition

A DICTIONARY OF SYMBOLS, Second Edition

Historical Dictionary of Canada, Second edition

Dictionary of Plant Breeding, Second Edition

Historical Dictionary of International Organizations, Second Edition

Dictionary of Renewable Resources, Second Edition

Eastons Bible Dictionary: A Dictionary of Bible Terms

Deities of Desire

A Dictionary of Bible Plants

Nelson's NKJV Study Bible, Second Edition

Calendar Animals and Deities

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Named Processes in Chemical Technology, Second Edition

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Named Processes in Chemical Technology, Second Edition

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary

Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second edition