He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (The Biblical Resource Series)

General Editors ASTRID Β. BECK DAVID N O E L FREEDMAN

Editorial Board HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE, History and Literature of Early Christianity J O H N H U E H N E R G A R D , Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literatures PETER MACHINIST, Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literatures SHALOM M. PAUL, Hebrew Bible J O H N P. MEIER, New Testament STANLEY E. PORTER, New Testament Language and Literature J A M E S C. VANDERKAM, History and Literature of Early Judaism ADELA YARBRO COLLINS, New Testament

Published Volumes Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, Second Edition John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, Second Edition John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, Second Edition Frank Moore Cross Jr. and David Noel Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Semitic Background of the New Testament Volume I: Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament Volume II: A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays Joseph A. Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, Second Edition Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and. Manusaipt and Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, Second Edition Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society

Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, Second Edition Samuel Terrien, Till the Heart Sings: A Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood

HE THAT COMETH The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism

SIGMUND MOWINCKEL Translated, by G. W. A N D E R S O N

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.

This volume is dedicated to The Reverend G. W. Anderson In Friendship and Gratitude

First published 1956 by Abingdon Press This edition © 2005 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved Published jointly 2005 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 www.eerdmans.com and by Dove Booksellers 13904 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, Michigan 48126 www.dovebook.com Printed in the United States of America 10 09 08 07 06 05

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 0-8028-2850-7

Contents Author's Preface to the American Edition Translator's Preface Foreword, by J o h n J . Collins Select Bibliography on Kingship and Messianism

xi xiii xv xxix

I. T H E F U T U R E K I N G I N EARLY JEWISH ESCHATOLOGY I. T h e Term 'Messiah' and Its Content

3

1. The Messiah an Eschatological Figure 2. The Messiah Originally a Political Figure II. Survey of the Material

10

1. Supposed Messianic Prophecies of Early Date 2. The Authentic Messianic Prophecies III. T h e Ideal of Kingship in Ancient Israel

21

1. The Royal Ideology of the Ancient East 1. The Israelite Ideal of Kingship: Yahweh's Anointed IV. T h e Future H o p e 1. Realized and Unrealized Elements in the Ideal of Kingship 2. Specific The The The

Applications of the Kingly Ideal Birth of the Child. Isa. ix, 1-6 Immanuel Prophecy in Isa. vii Prophecies about Zerubbabel

3. The Source of the Messianic Conceptions

96

V. T h e Early Jewish Future Hope

125

1. No Pre-prophetic or Prophetic Eschatology 2. The Origin of the Jewish Hope of Restoration 3. The Religious Basis and. Transformation of the Future Hope. Its Connexion with the Experiences and Ideas Associated with the Cult 4. The Content of the Future Hope 5. From the Hope of Restoration to Eschatology VI. T h e Place of the King in the Future Hope: T h e Messiah

155

1. The Origin of the Messianic Faith 2. The Scion of David 3. The Name and Titles of the Future King 4. The Scion of David as a Sign of the Restoration of David's Line 5. The Kingly Rule of the Scion of David and the Kingly Rule of Yahweh 6. The Equipment, Call, and Work of the Future King 7. Mythical Elements in the Conception of the King VII. T h e Servant of the Lord 1. The Servant Songs First Song Second Song Third Song Fourth Song 2. The Work of the Servant 3. Prophet, not Messiah 4. The Historical Background of the Thought of the Servant's Resurrection and the Atoning Significance of His Suffering 5. The Historical and Religious Background of the Conception of the Servant 6. Is the Servant a Historical Person? 7. The Poet-Prophet and His Circle 8. Relationship of the Songs to the Messianic Idea

187

II. THE MESSIAH IN LATER J U D A I S M VIII. The Eschatology of Later J u d a i s m 1. The Future Hope and Eschatology 2. Dualism 3. The Influence of Theology 4. The Last Things: A. The Earlier Tendency 5. The Last Things: B. The Dualistic, Apocalyptic Tendency IX. T h e National Messiah

280

1. Two Conceptions of the Messiah - The National Messiah 2. The Messiah a Historical Person 3. The Messiah's Descent. The Scion of David. Other Conceptions 4. The Names and Titles of the Messiah 5. When Will the Messiah Come? 6 . The Forerunners of the Messiah 7. The Day of the Messiah and His Appearing 8. The Hidden Messiah 9. The Equipment of the Messiah for His Mission 10. The Work of the Messiah and His Kingdom 11. The Influence of Prophet and Scribe on the Idea of the Messiah 12. Was the Messiah an Eternal

Individual?

13. The Suffering and Death of the Messiah 14. The Varying Forms of the Conception of the Messiah 15. The Place of the Messiah in Later Judaism X. T h e Son of Man

346

1. The Meaning of the Phrase 2. The Son of Man in Daniel vii and the Older Sources of Daniel 3. The Sources 4. The Eschatological Character of the Son of Man 5. The Son of Man Regarded as the Messiah 6. The Name and Titles of the Son of Man 7. The Pre-existence of the Son of Man

8. The Divine Equipment of the Son of Man 9. The Heavenly Community: the King of Paradise 10. The Typical, Ideal Man 11. The Hidden Secret 12. The Epiphany of the Son of Man 13. The Judge of the World 14. The Son of Man and the Resurrection 15. The Deliverance of the Godly 16. The Kingdom of the Son of Man 17. Atoning Suffering and Death 18. The Spread of the Idea of the Son of Man in Judaism 19. The Origin of the Conception of the Son of Man 20. Is Enoch the Son of Man? 21. 'The Son of Man' as Used by Jesus Additional Notes

451

List of Abbreviations

469

Bibliography

473

Indexes I. Index of References (a) Old Testament (b) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (c) New Testament (d) Rabbinic Passages II. Index of Authors III. General Index

499 499 507 512 514 515 520

Author's Preface to the American Edition This book originated in a series of lectures delivered in the early years of the Second World War to theological students at the University of Oslo. After the War, when normal communications with other countries were restored, and the most recent literature on the subject became accessible, it seemed desirable to discuss various theories which had been advanced by other scholars. This explains the extensive notes, which are carried at the bottom of the page in order not to cumber the actual text of the book with the details of technical discussion. The translation has been made from a partly revised Norwegian text. I am very glad to know that arrangements have been made for an American edition. Before the Second World War, it was already evident that the English-speaking countries, and not least the United States of America, had gained a leading position in oriental and Biblical scholarship, especially in the philological and archaeological fields. In the post-war years, it has been still more evident. It is also a matter for satisfaction that these advances in scholarship have been made by fruitful interconfessional co-operation, and are thus a real element in the ecumenical enterprise. But scholarly co-operation between generations is also both rewarding and necessary. Here the European exegetical tradition, with its all-round continuity, has a value alongside the recent, fresh viewpoints and the advances which have been made in the new world. We know that we have much to learn from our collaborators across the sea. We also believe that we have something to give in return. If this book can help to promote further fruitful interchange of ideas and viewpoints, it will give me great satisfaction. I wish to repeat here the thanks expressed in the preface to the English edition to the translator, the Rev. G. W. Anderson, for his careful and devoted work, not least for his help in checking and often correcting the many hundreds of references. As an expression of my gratitude, I dedicate this American edition to him. Sigmund Mowinckel

Translator's Preface The present work is an examination of some of the central themes of biblical religion by one of the most influential of living Old Testament scholars. As such, it needs no commendation. It has a further interest, in that many of the theories advanced in recent years by the younger generation of Scandinavian scholars are here discussed by one who is himself a Scandinavian. In this edition, the Old Testament is cited according to the chapter and verse divisions of the Hebrew (BH). Quotations from the Old and New Testaments, and from most other ancient documents, are based on the author's own Norwegian renderings. The renderings in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament ITI, edited by R. H. Charles, have been followed (with minor exceptions, which are indicated in the notes) in all quotations from these books. For permission to use them, I am indebted to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press. It is hoped that the system of transliteration of Hebrew and other Semitic languages will be found to be both clear and consistent. But no attempt has been made to modify the familiar forms of names in the interest of consistency. I am deeply grateful to the author for the patience and care with which he has answered my many questions. He has also read the translation. The reader may therefore be assured of its general accuracy; but for all defects in expression, the responsibility is mine. Wherever practicable, references have been checked, and foreign works cited according to their English editions. Through the kindness of Canon E. W. Heaton, I have been able to include references to King and Messiah (the English edition of Bentzen's Messias - Moses redivivus Menschensohn), which was still in proof when the present translation went to the printer. I wish to thank the publisher for unfailing courtesy and patience, Professors G. R. Driver, C. R. North, and H. H. Rowley for information and advice readily given and for the loan of books, the Rev. A. W. Wainwright for undertaking a considerable part of the index-

ing, Mrs. M. Noble for typing a substantial part of the translation, and my wife for unstinted help in typing and checking. G. W. Anderson Advent, 1954 NOTE. The Norwegian edition of this work was published in 1951, under the title Han som kommer, by G. E. C. Gad of Copenhagen.

FOREWORD

Mowinckel's He That Cometh in Retrospect

S

I G M U N D Mowinckel was born in the Lutheran manse of Kjerringöy, Norway, in 1884, and died in Oslo in 1965 in his 81st year. 1 In between, he had an extraordinarily productive career. His first article, on early Israelite prophecy, was published in 1909,2 and his groundbreaking work on the composition of the book of Jeremiah in 1914,3 although he did not receive his doctorate until 1916, for a dissertation on Nehemiah. 4 In the latter year he also published a short work on the royal psalms. 5 Mowinckel was 33 when he was appointed to his first university position, in 1917. He did not become full professor until he was 49, in 1933, when the chair in Oslo became vacant. He continued to publish up to the time of his death, and a few items appeared posthumously. 6 Mowinckel made important contributions to many areas of Old Testament study, but his reputation rests above all on his work on the Psalms. In the years 1921-1924 his Psalmenstudien appeared in six volumes. 7 He returned to the Psalms 30 years later, with another major book, Offersang og Sangoffer (1951),8 which appeared in English as The

1. D. R. Ap-Thomas, "An Appreciation of Sigmund Mowinckel's Contribution to Biblical Studies," JBL 85 (1966): 315-25. See also Dagfinn Rian, "Mowinckel, Sigmund Olaf Plytt," in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. John H. Hayes (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 1:166-68; andjohan B. Hygen, "Sigmund Mowinckel: The Man and the Teacher," in The Life and Work of Sigmund Mowinckel, ed. Hans M. Barstad and Magnus Ottosson = Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1988): 8-22. 2. "Om nebiisme og profeti," Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift 10 (1909): 185-227, 330-60. 3. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Skrifter utg. Av Videnskabsselskabet I Kristiania. II. Hist.-Filos. Kl. 1913, no. 5 (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1914). 4. Statholderen Nehemia: Studier til den jediske menighets historié og litteratur (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1916). 5. Kongesalmerne i del Garnie Testamente (Kristiania: Aschehoug, 1916). 6. For full bibliography see Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testamentl (1988): 95-162. 7. Psalmenstudien I-VI (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1921-1924). 8. Offersang og Sangoffer (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1951).

Psalms in Israel's Worship, in two volumes, in 1962. 9 The Norwegian original of He That Cometh (Han Som Kommer) also appeared in 1951.10 T h e English translation by G. W. Anderson was published by Blackwell in England and Abingdon in the United States in 1956, and reprinted in 1959.

The Scholarly Context He That Cometh was described as "the third opus in his great trilogy" by D. R. Ap-Thomas, 11 and as "one of the great books of O T scholarship in our generation" by J a m e s Muilenburg. 1 2 In part, it grew out of Mowinckel's work on the royal psalms. It was, in part, a protest against what he regarded as the loose use of the term "messianic" by such scholars as Hugo Gressmann, who had written the most influential work on "The Messiah" in the first half of the 20th century. 13 ApThomas, in his appreciation, suggested a third motivating factor: "his deepening conviction of the relationship between the maturing message of the O T and the Christian gospel." 14 Mowinckel was primarily an historian of religion rather than a theologian, but he was also an ordained Lutheran minister, and his bibliography actually included more works that could be classified as theological in a broad sense than works on nonbiblical religion. 15 Like many Christian scholars of his generation, he wrote with an eye to the fulfillment of messianic expectations in the New Testament. But it would not be fair to say that he interpreted the Old Testament in the light of the New. More often than not, he was at pains to show how Jewish messianic expectations differed from those espoused by early Christianity. Mowinckel stood in a somewhat ambivalent relationship both to the older "history of religions" school of H e r m a n n Gunkel and Gressmann and to the "myth and ritual" school of S. H. Hooke and Ivan Engnell. He was certainly influenced by Gunkel's understanding of Form Criticism. It has been said that he "drew the consequences of Gunkel," especially in his work on the cultic setting of the Psalms. 16 9. The Psalms in Israel's Worship (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962). 10. Han som kommer (Copenhagen: Gad, 1951). 11. Ap-Thomas, 316. 12. James Muilenburg, review of He That Cometh, JBL 76 (1957): 243-46. 13. Hugo Gressmann, Der Messias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929). 14. Ap-Thomas, 316. 15. Nils Alstrup Dahl, "Sigmund Mowinckel, Historian of Religion and Theologian," Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1988): 8-22 (15). 16. Dahl, 11.

His most famous work, Psalmenstudien II (Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jahwäs und der Ursprung der Eschatologie, 1922), was dedicated to Gunkel and Gressmann, among others, 17 but most of his references to Gressmann were polemical. He especially objected to Gressmann's view that the royal psalms were already messianic. Mowinckel did not engage in the study of the nonbiblical ancient Near East to any significant degree, although he did publish a few articles on nonbiblical topics. 18 Mowinckel was critical of what he viewed as excesses in the myth and ritual school, especially the tendency to overlook the differences between different ancient Near Eastern cultures, and Engnell's idea that the king in ancient Israel was divine. 19 Hooke, a leading scholar of the myth and ritual school, accused Mowinckel of "like Saturn, devouring his own children." 20 But Mowinckel's insistence on the distinctiveness of Israel was closer to the mainstream, theological, scholarship of his time than were the more radical history of religions scholars such as Hooke and Engnell.

Messianism and Eschatology Mowinckel begins his study with a careful discussion of the term "messiah." Here he takes later Jewish and Christian usage as normative: In later Judaism the term "Messiah" denotes an eschatological figure. He belongs to "the last time"; his advent lies in the future. To use the word "Messiah" is to imply eschatology, the last things. It is, therefore, a misuse of the words "Messiah" and "Messianic" to apply them, for instance, to those ideas which were associated in

17. The others were two Danish scholars, Vilhelm Gronbech and Johannes Pedersen. 18. "Einige Bemerkungen zur Einreihung der Gi1gameš-Fragmente," Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 30 (1915-16): 243-76; "Die vorderasiatischen Königs- und Fürsteninschriften: Eine stilistische Studie," in Eucharisterion: Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstage. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments n f. 19/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923) 1:278-322. 19. Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1943). Cf. Helmer Ringgren, "Mowinckel and the Uppsala School," Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1988): 36-41. For a sampling of the myth and ritual school, see Robert A. Segal, ed., The Myth and Ritual Theory: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). 20. Hooke, review of He That Cometh, New Testament Studies I (1957-58): 227-30 (227). For Hooke's own views, see his essay, "The Myth and Ritual Pattern of the Ancient Near East," in Myth and Ritual (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 1-14. xvü

Israel or in the ancient east with kings who were actually reigning, even if, as we shall see, these ideas were expressed in exalted and mythical terms. (3) T h e polemical edge of this statement was directed at H u g o Gressmann's classic work, Der Messias. Gressmann had argued that a messianic ideal was implicit in the royal ideology, as found in the Psalms and classical prophets such as Isaiah, and that this ideology was common to the whole ancient Orient. Mowinckel insisted that there was no ancient oriental eschatology, and that consequently it was inappropriate to speak of messianism in the broader context. He also argued that the genuine messianic sayings in the Old Testament were late, most if not all dating to the time after the fall of the monarchy. Consequently, he argued, the messianic ideal was derived from the royal ideology, not vice versa. Helmer Ringgren objected, with some justice, that "in a way it may be said that Engnell uses the term in accordance with the Old Testament itself, for there 'the anointed one' always refers to the actual king of Israel." 21 But Mowinckel's usage was more in accordance with the common understanding of "messianism" in Jewish and Christian tradition. The term "eschatology" is scarcely less important for Mowinckel's study than "messiah." He defines eschatology as a doctrine or a complex of ideas about "the last things", which is more or less organically coherent and developed. Every eschatology includes in some form or other a dualistic conception of the course of history, and implies that the present state of things and the present world order will suddenly come to an end and be superseded by another of an essentially different kind. As a rule this new order has the character of a fresh beginning, a restitutio in integrum, a return to the origins, without the corruption which subsequently overtook and deformed the original creation. Eschatology also includes the thought that this drama has a universal, cosmic character. The universe itself, heaven and earth, is thrown into the melting pot. It follows that this is not brought about by human or historical forces, or by any immanent, evolutionary process. The transformation is definitely catastrophic in character, and is brought about by supernatural, divine, or demonic powers. (125-26)

21. Ringgren, 39.

Mowinckel then argued that there is no preprophetic or prophetic eschatology. Even the hope for restoration in Deutero-Isaiah is not yet eschatological: "We may say that the basis of an eschatology had actually been laid when the future hope was thus permeated and fashioned and motivated by religious faith, and in Deutero-Isaiah has received its mythical and other-worldly character. But this was only the stage of possibilities, not of fulfilment. . . We miss the conception of a definite end to the present order, and of a new world of an essentially different character from this one" (153-54). Mowinckel seems to regard postexilic prophecy, such as the books of Haggai and Zechariah and TritoIsaiah (Isaiah 56-66), as transitional. In Haggai and Zechariah, "the conception of how the future hope will be realized increasingly loses the connexion with concrete historical reality which it still had in Deutero-Isaiah" (150), while Trito-Isaiah speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. It is only in later Judaism, however, according to Mowinckel, that we may speak of an eschatology. This arose when Jewish future hope was linked to a dualistic view of the world that was at once temporal, spatial, and ethical. This age, and this world, was under the power of a cosmic, transcendent principle of evil that might be named as Satan, the Devil, Belial, Mastema, or other names. Eschatology in this sense is found only in the Hellenistic period, "no doubt under the influence of Persian religion" (264), although Mowinckel makes no attempt to document that influence. This eschatology was further characterized by a belief in resurrection and judgment of the dead and a tendency towards individualism and universalism. It is apparent that Mowinckel tried to restrict the term "eschatology" to what is more generally called "apocalyptic eschatology." 22 He was quite right that this phenomenon is attested only in Judaism in the Hellenistic period, appearing first in the books of Daniel and Enoch. His description of this apocalyptic eschatology is broadly satisfactory, although it has been refined considerably in subsequent study. 23 Mowinckel noted but did not give enough weight to the belief in the judgment of the dead as a decisive difference between the apocalypses and the biblical prophets. 2 4 But his restriction of the term "eschatology" to this phenomenon has not been accepted by subsequent schol22. So also Hooke, review, 228 23. See John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 2nd ed. Biblical Resource Series (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998). 24. John J. Collins, "Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death," in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 54 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 75-97.

arship. 25 The "end" envisioned by Amos or Ezekiel is very different from that predicted by Daniel, but it reflects an "eschatology" nonetheless. There is surely no reason to deny the label "eschatology" to the expectation of a new heaven and new earth in Trito-Isaiah. Eschatology, in short, is better defined as a broader phenomenon, of which apocalyptic eschatology is a subtype. Mowinckel passes very quickly over prophecy in the Persian period, and is less than clear as to whether he considers it eschatological. (Isaiah 24-27 rates only a passing mention on page 154.) This material remains a source of confusion for scholars. 26 Mowinckel notes an increase in cosmic imagery in this period, but his basic instinct that postexilic prophecy was closer to the future expectations of the prophets than to those of the apocalypses was sound. 27 He did not, however, deal with this material in any detail, probably because much of it (Trito-Isaiah, Isaiah 24-27) was not directly related to the subject of messianism. Mowinckel's insistence that we should not speak of messianism in the preexilic period is related to his restrictive definition of eschatology. It is readily granted that such passages as Psalms 2 and 110 speak of historical kings, not ideal future ones, but they nonetheless project an idealized view of the monarchy that goes far beyond historical reality. As Mowinckel himself put it, they provide "a foretaste of the universal dominion over the peoples, which as goal and as promise was implicit in the election of the king as Yahweh's Anointed and deputy on earth" (67). An interesting test case is provided by the oracle about the birth of a child in Isa. 9:1-6. Mowinckel takes this oracle as referring to a child who was already born, and attributes it to a disciple of Isaiah rather than to the prophet himself. (He had not noted the influential argument of Albrecht Alt, that the passage refers to the enthronement of a new king rather than an actual birth.) 28 But while the 25. See, e.g., David L. Petersen, "Eschatology (OT)," Anchor Bible Dictionary 2:575-79; Horst Dietrich Preuss, ed., Eschatologie im Alten Testament. Wege der Forschung 480 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978). 26. See, most recently, Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak, Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement 46 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003). 27. Contra Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic [ Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), who views this material as protoapocalyptic. 28. Albrecht Alt, "Jesaja 8,23-9,6: Befreiungsnacht und Krönungstag," Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israels (Munich: Kaiser, 1953) 2/2:206-25. This article had originally appeared in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950), 29-49, possibly too late to be noted in Mowinckel's 1951 book.

passage is rightly considered a document of the royal ideology, rather than messianism stricto sensu, Mowinckel recognizes that it reflects that unrealized element in the ideal of kingship, which in time produced the Messianic hope. We are dealing with an ideal of kingship and a hope which in the last resort are supramundane, and which, in accordance with the spirit of revealed religion, came at last to express the recognition that no human king can bring that ideal and hope to fulfilment.. . There was, therefore, every justification for the later Jewish interpretation of this passage as referring to the future Messiah . . . (109) There is no doubt a strong element of Christian teleology in this treatment of the passage, but it also shows that Mowinckel's view of the relationship between the royal ideology and messianism was not so far apart from that of Gressmann as his terminological discussion might suggest. In fact, the great strength of Mowinckel's book is its demonstration of continuity between the royal ideology of the ancient Near East and Jewish messianic expectation. Mowinckel rightly objected to the "patternism" of the myth and ritual school, which was influential in Scandinavian scholarship at the time, on the grounds that it did not pay enough attention to the specificity of particular cultural traditions. His account of the ideology of kingship in the ancient Near East was heavily dependent on the studies edited by Henri Frankfort under the title Kingship and. the Gods.29 Half a century later we can see that this account was still somewhat generalized. More recent studies of kingship in Mesopotamia and Canaan stay closer to the actual texts and are more reluctant to extrapolate ideal constructs. 30 Also, Babylonian predictive texts published after Mowinckel's death show that there was some expectation of an ideal future ruler in Mesopotamian tradition, and that there were some parallels to Jewish messianism after the demise of native Babylonian kingship. 31 (These parallels have not, as yet,

29. Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948). See Ringgren, 39. 30. See the essays in John Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), especially those of John Baines, "Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context" (16-53); W. G. Lambert, "Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia" (54-70); and Day, "The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy" (72-90). 31. A. Kirk Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975); Martti Nissinen, "Neither Prophecies nor Apocalypses: The Akkadian Literary Predictive Texts," in Grabbe and Haak, 134-48.

been explored in any detail.) Nonetheless, the broad lines of Mowinckel's account of ancient Near Eastern kingship remain satisfactory. He quite rightly insisted that these traditions were adapted in Israel and Judah. He provides an extensive discussion of the royal claims to divine status, both in Israel and elsewhere. His conclusion that "it is clear that the king is regarded as Yahweh's son by adoption" (78) is well grounded in the biblical texts. This conception was certainly different from the Egyptian one. Whether it constituted a difference between Israel and its Semitic neighbors is not so clear. Mowinckel was a child of his age in his insistence on the differences between Israel and its environment. We may also wonder whether everyone in ancient Israel observed the nice distinction between a metaphorical and a metaphysical understanding of mythical language, such as Mowinckel makes on page 78.

The Servant of the Lord Mowinckel's lengthy discussion of the Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah must also be read in the context of the debates surrounding the myth and ritual school. Engnell had argued that the servant is a royal figure, representing a dying and rising god. 32 Mowinckel argued that he was "a prophet from the same circle as the author of the Songs" (250) who, in turn, "must be one of the prophets from Deutero-Isaiah's circle, one of the first or second generation of his disciples" (253). Engnell's views are scarcely remembered today. Mowinckel's own views, which were first set forth in a monograph in 1921,33 have not won wide acceptance either, but they still merit serious consideration. Most scholars now regard the Servant Songs as integral parts of the prophecy of Deutero-Isaiah. 34 Scholars still debate whether the prophet is a collective symbol for Israel or an ideal Israel, or whether he should be identified with any of a long list of historical figures.35 The view that he was a prophet, more specifically that he was Deutero-Isaiah himself, a position close to that of Mowinckel, has recently been defended by Joseph

32. Ivan Engnell, The 'Ebed Yahweh Songs and the Suffering Servant in "Deutero-Isaiah" (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1948). See Ringgren, 41. 33. Sigmund Mowinckel, Der Knecht Jahwäs (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1921). 34. See Richard J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah (New York: Paulist, 1984). 35. See Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 189-93; Isaiah 40-55. Anchor Bible 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 76-84.

Blenkinsopp. 36 Blenkinsopp also assigns the fourth Servant Song (Isa. 52:13-53:12) to the disciples of Second Isaiah. Mowinckel recognized clearly that the figure of the Servant was not in accordance with Jewish messianic expectation: "The Servant's task is to do the very thing which was not expected of the future king . . . to bring Israel back to Yahweh. The Servant will do this, not as a victorious king, but by his suffering and death. From the Jewish point of view, a suffering Messiah is a contradiction in terms" (255). He concludes this chapter by affirming the claim of the Church that Jesus Christ is "the true fulfillment of these prophecies" (257). While his claim that 'Jesus was something much more than the Jewish Messiah" (257) is confessional and supersessionist, his conclusion, that it was not until the New Testament that the figure of the Servant influenced the thought of the Messiah and gave expression to an essentially new conception of the Messiah, is historically sound.

The National Messiah For Mowinckel, "the Messiah is the future, eschatological realization of the ideal of kingship" (156). H e locates this hope primarily in the postexilic period. He recognizes that in "the early Old Testament future hope [represented by such passages as Jer. 33:15ff. and Mic. 4:8], the king is in reality not a specific individual person, the unique one who will have no successor. What we find there is, in fact, not the coming of an individual Messiah, but a restoration of the Davidic kingdom under the sway of the house of David" (165). This remains true in the strand o f j e w i s h expectation that Mowinckel associates with "the national Messiah." Even in the Psalms of Solomon, in the mid-1st century B.C.E., the Messiah "is thought of as inaugurating the newly restored, eternal dynasty of David" (323). This was not the only strand o f j e w i s h eschatology in the Hellenistic period, however. Under the influence of dualism, the hope arose for "a miraculous divine intervention outside history." Thus, continues Mowinckel, "there persisted in eschatology an unresolved tension, a gulf between those elements which were political, national, and this-worldly, and those transcendental and universal elements which belonged to the world beyond" (267).37 Eventually, the hope for a national messiah was colored by the 36. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, 356: "the Servant eulogized in 52:13-53:12 is identical with the one who soliloquizes in 49:1-6 and 50:4-9 and is presented in deliberate contrast to Cyrus, the Servant of Yahveh in 42:1-4." 37. This understanding o f j e w i s h eschatology as twofold is indebted to the synthesis of Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischer Zeitalter, 3rd ed., ed. Hugo Gressmann (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1926).

transcendent strand of expectation. In late apocalypses, such as 4 Ezra from the end of the 1st century C.E., we find an attempt to reconcile the two strands of eschatological hope by the idea of an interim kingdom, where national expectations are fulfilled before the resurrection and transition to the world to come. In these texts, and throughout the rabbinic literature, it is assumed that the messiah is a unique, eternal individual, not one who will restore a dynasty.

The Son of Man The transcendent strand of eschatology had its own messianic conception in the figure of "the Son of Man." This concept is first attested in Daniel 7, which speaks of "one like a son of man" (or "one like a human being") coming with the clouds of heaven. Mowinckel understands this figure as "a pictorial symbol of the people of Israel, not an individual figure, and not a personal Messiah of any kind" (350). But he recognizes that the symbolism of the vision is not invented de novo by the author. So he infers that "about 200 B.c. or earlier there was in Judaism a conception of a heavenly being in human form ('one like a man'), who, at the turn of the age, the dawn of the eschatological era, would appear, and would receive from God delegated power and authority over all kingdoms and peoples"(352). Mowinckel further infers that he was called simply "the Man," although he was divine and heavenly. He then assumes that later references to this figure in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra also derive from this traditional conception, rather than from the book of Daniel. This conception of the Son of Man, we are told, "originated in common oriental ideas about a heavenly, Primordial Man" (368). This figure was "the divine Anthropos," allegedly attested in Iranian, Chaldean, and Indian religio-philosophical speculation, and also in many Gnostic systems, Mandaism, and Manicheism. In Gnosticism, the Primordial Man often appears as the Primordial Soul, but he is eschatological as well as primordial (425). Mowinckel cites no primary texts as evidence and appeals instead only to "recent research." The idea of a "Primordial Man" was in fact widely accepted in history of religions scholarship in the first half of the 20th century. As Mowinckel was aware (427), it was pieced together from fragments in different cultural traditions that alluded to an ideal Man in some form. But while the construction of composite figures of this type was much in vogue in history of religions research when Mowinckel wrote, it has been thoroughly discredited in the past half century. A figure extrapolated from late Gnostic or Manichean texts cannot be used to explain the book of Daniel in the 2nd century B.C.E.

The chapter on the Son of Man was meant to be the climax of Mowinckel's book. There is little doubt that he regarded the transcendent, universalist strand of eschatology as superior to the national one, although he recognized that each was modified by the other to some degree. The Son of Man was the model of messiah to which Jesus laid claim. (The Son of Man is in fact called messiah in the Similitudes of Enoch) But this is the chapter of Mowinckel's book that has least well stood the test of time. This is not only due to his reliance on the supposed myth of Primordial Man. His discussion of Daniel's vision, which should have been foundational for the chapter, is very inadequate. Pace Mowinckel, the "one like a son of man" is best explained not as a collective symbol but as a heavenly angelic figure, who represents Israel on the heavenly level but is not identical with it. (Compare the role of the archangel Michael in Daniel 10-12.) 38 The symbolism is traditional, but its roots lie not in Iranian conceptions of an Urmensch, but in the old Canaanite traditions that also informed the royal ideology in Israel. 39 It is not necessary to posit a preexisting conception of a Primordial Man. Later references to this figure take their point of departure from Daniel, while filling out the figure with other biblical motifs. The Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra adapt the imagery of Daniel to construct a heavenly messiah, who differs rather sharply from the traditional figure of national eschatology. 40 But he still draws on old traditions related to the royal ideology, not least in the echoes of Psalm 2 and Isaiah 11 in 4 Ezra 13.41 It is somewhat ironic that Mowinckel missed these connections, since his central thesis was that messianic expectations had their roots in the old royal ideology.

The Dead. Sea Scrolls The Norwegian original of He That Cometh appeared in 1951, a mere four years after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a year before the discovery of the trove of fragments in Qumran Cave 4. The original seven scrolls found in 1947 contained little messianic material in any case, although the reference in 1QS 9:11 to "messiahs of Aaron and Israel" should have cast doubt on Mowinckel's claim that the "Messiah of Aaron and Israel" in the Damascus Document referred to 38. See John J. Collins, Daniel. Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304-10. 39. Collins, Daniel, 280-94. 40. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Saolls and Other Ancient Literature. Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 173-94. 41. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 184-85.

one messiah, not two (289). The fragments from Cave 4, however, contain several items relevant to messianism, although many of these were not published until the 1990s. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide ample evidence that Mowinckel's "national Messiah," of the type represented by the Psalms of Solomon, was alive and well in the 1st century B.C.E 4 2 He is primarily a militant figure, although he acts by the power of God. The epithet "messiah" is not de rigeur43 The figure in question may also be known by such titles as "the Branch of David" or "the prince of the congregation," but he is recognized primarily by a tissue of references to biblical passages that were interpreted messianically, such as Isa. 11:1-5, Balaam's oracle in Numbers 24, Genesis 49, and 2 Samuel 7. So in the Scroll of Blessings (lQSb) we find a blessing for "the prince of the congregation," that God raise up for him the kingdom of his people ( l Q S b 5:21). The blessing that follows draws heavily on Isaiah 11 : to dispense justice with [equity to the oppressed] of the land (Isa. 11:4a). (May you smite the peoples) with the might of your hand and ravage the earth with your scepter; may you bring death to the ungodly with the breath of your lips! (Isa. 11:4b) . . . and everlasting might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of God (Isa. 11:2); may righteousness be the girdle (of your loins) and may your reins be girded (with faithfulness) (Isa. 11:5). Similarly, the Florilegium (4Q174) strings together commentaries on 2 Sam. 7:10-14; Pss. 1:1; and 2:1. 2 Sam. 7:14 ("I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me") is interpreted as referring to "the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law in Zion at the end of days." Other messianic references are found in commentaries on Genesis 49 (4Q252) and Isaiah (4QpIsa). The prince of the congregation is identified with the Branch of David in 4Q285, where he plays a role in the eschatological war. The prince is also identified with the scepter of Balaam's oracle in CD 7:19. The depiction of the Branch of David in the Dead Sea Scrolls fits under the rubric of Mowinckel's national messiah, but clarifies the nature of messianic expectation around the turn of the era in several respects. It is clear that the primary role of the messiah was supposed to

42. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 49-73. 43. Pa«Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Qumran Messianism," in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 73-110.

be the liberation of Israel by militant means. This expectation is grounded in Old Testament texts such as Balaam's Oracle and Isaiah 11. The fact that the Messiah is often said to slay the wicked with the breath of his lips (Isa. 11:4) does not make his role any less violent. It is also clear that messianic expectation was to a great degree based on the interpretation of Scripture, especially of oracles that reflected what Mowinckel called the unrealized element in the ideal of kingship, such as Isaiah 11. The exegetical basis of messianic expectation was already apparent before the discovery of the Scrolls in such texts as the Psalms of Solomon and 4 Ezra, and also in the Targums, but it has become much clearer from the finds at Qumran. 4 4 We have already noted that the Florilegium identifies the Branch of David as the one of whom it was said in 2 Sam. 7:14, "he shall be a son to me." The idea that the anointed king is the son of God is also found in Psalm 2. Oddly enough, Mowinckel argued that "it is, however, most improbable that the Jews ever called the Messiah the 'son of God', although a Messianic interpretation of Ps. ii might have suggested such a title" (293; He reasoned that "my son" in 4 Ezra was a translation of pais, "servant"). Conversely, he argued that "there are several indications that the Son of Man was also called the Son of God" (369). A fragmentary Aramaic text from Qumran, 4Q246, prophesies the advent of a figure of whom it is said, "'Son of God' he shall be called, and they will name him 'Son of the Most High.'" The Aramaic phrases correspond almost exactly to Greek phrases in the Gospel of Luke: "he will be called the Son of the Most High" (Luke 1:32) and "he will be called Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Luke 1:32 continues: "and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David . . . and of his kingdom there will be no end." 4Q246 also speaks of an everlasting kingdom. Some scholars have argued that the figure in the Aramaic text is a negative figure, to be identified with a Syrian king. 45 But the text gives no indication that the honorific titles are inappropriate. In view of the messianic associations of the language and the remark44. The role of exegesis in messianic tradition is also noted by William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:7-77 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). 45. So originally J. T. Milik in an oral presentation at Harvard in December 1972. See Emile Puech, "Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q251 and Qumran Messianism," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 545-65, esp. 545-51.

able parallel in Luke, it is far more plausible that the figure in question is a Jewish messiah. 46 He will judge the earth with truth, banish the sword, and impose peace. He will function, in short, as the Davidic messiah is consistently expected to function in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are many echoes of Daniel 7 in 4Q246, and it is possible, but ultimately uncertain, that this "Son of God" was an interpretation of the "one like a son of man." There can be little doubt, however, that the title "Son of God" pertained to the Davidic Messiah (on the basis of 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2), and was only secondarily associated with the "Son of Man" figure, insofar as the latter was identified with the messiah. The messianism of the Dead Sea Scrolls is more complicated than this. The Scrolls also speak of a priestly messiah, and arguably of a prophetic messiah in 4Q521. 47 These figures were not part of the trajectory traced by Mowinckel, but they complicate the lines of continuity between Jewish messianic expectations and the New Testament.

Conclusion More than half a century has passed since the original publication of Mowinckel's great book. The need for some updating is inevitable, especially in an area where new texts have come to light in the meantime. He That Cometh remains, however, the best comprehensive treatment available in English of the roots of messianic expectation in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East. 48 The reprinted edition by Wm. B. Eerdmans is very welcome indeed. J o h n J . Collins Yale University

46. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 154-72. 47. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 102-35. 48. Note, however, the excellent collections of essays edited by James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); and Day, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East.

Select Bibliography on Kingship and Messianism Becker, Joachim. Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Brief sketch of main Old Testament passages. Casey, Maurice. The Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 London: SPCK, 1979. Comprehensive treatment of the figure of the Son of Man, skewed by the author's failure to appreciate mythological language. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Wide-ranging collection of essays on all aspects of messianic expectation, in the Hebrew Bible, ancient Judaism, and early Christianity. , Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerben S. Oegema, ed. QumranMessianism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Essays primarily on the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also on the Pseudepigrapha and Second Temple Judaism in general. Collins, J o h n J . The Apocalyptic Imagination. 2nd ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998. Survey o f j e w i s h apocalyptic literature, with incidental discussions of messianism, especially in connection with the Dead Sea Scrolls. . Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Includes extensive discussion of the "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7, and also discussion of the interpretation of this figure in ancientjudaism and in the New Testament. (The section on Daniel in the New Testament is contributed by Adela Yarbro Collins.) . The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Comprehensive discussion of messianic expectation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also includes chapters on messianism in the Hebrew Bible and on the Son of Man figure. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Primarily a discussion of the

influence of Canaanite traditions on the Hebrew Bible. Includes important discussion of Israelite royal ideology. Day, John, ed. King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Wide-ranging collection of essays on royal ideology in the ancient Near East and ancient Israel, and on messianism in Second Temple Judaism. Engnell, Ivan. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1943. Important representative of the "Myth and Ritual" school, which emphasized common patterns in Israel and the ancient Near East. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "Qumran Messianism." In The Dead Sea Saolls and Christian Origins. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000, 73-110. Minimalist view of messianism in the scrolls, based on the occurrences of the word mashiach. Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Influential study of kingship and mythology in the ancient Near East. A corrective to the "patternism" of the Myth and Ritual school. Gressmann, Hugo. Der Messias. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 43. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929. Classic discussion that identified a messianic dimension in the royal ideology in the Psalms and Prophets. Gruenwald, Ithamar, Shaul Shaked, and G. G. Stroumsa, ed. Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Contains several important essays on Jewish messianism around the turn of the era. Hooke, S. H. "The Myth and Ritual Pattern of the Ancient Near East." In Myth and Ritual. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933, 1-14. Classic statement of the "Myth and Ritual" view of a common pattern in the ancient Near East, including Israel. Horbury, William. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998. Argues for unbroken tradition of messianism in the Second Temple period, attested also in the Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint. . Messianism among Jews and Christians. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. Twelve essays on Second Temple Judaism, the New Testament, and Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire. de Jonge, Marinus. "Messiah." Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:777-88. Con-

eise summary of the evidence for messianism in Second Temple Judaism. Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Conservative view of kingship in Israel, emphasizing the human rather than the divine or mythological dimension. Important for its review of the rabbinic evidence. Knibb, Michael Α., ed. The Septuagint and Messianism. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. Proceedings of a colloquium on this topic, including both maximal and minimal assessments of the importance of messianism in the Septuagint. Laato, Antti. A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. Universityof South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. Comprehensive treatment, distinctive for its emphasis on King Josiah as a pivotal figure in the development. Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974. Lucid exposition of the messianic passages in the Targums. Lust, Johan. Messianism and the Septuagint. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 178. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Essays reflecting a critical view of alleged messianic passages in the Septuagint. Mettinger, Τ. N. D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament 8. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Historical discussion of the authorization of kingship in ancient Israel. Neusner, Jacob. Messiah in Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Clear exposition of the (minimal) role of the messiah in the Mishnah. , William S. Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs, ed. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Collection of essays, emphasizing the sparsity and diversity of messianic expectation in Second Temple Judaism. Oegema, Gerben S. The Anointed and His People. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. An attempt to distinguish stages of development in messianic expectation in the Pseudepigrapha and the Scrolls. Depends on controversial dating of texts. Pomykala, Kenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism.

Early Judaism and Its Literature 7. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Discussion of expectations focused on the line of David. Distinctive in its argument that not all royal messianic figures expected in Second Temple Judaism were Davidic. Schniedewind, William M. Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7.7-17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Excellent discussion of the interpretation and re-use of Nathan's oracle in later texts. Seebass, Horst. Herrscherverheissungen im Alten Testament. Biblischtheologische Studien 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1992. Concise review of the oracles about a future king or ruler in the Hebrew Bible. VanderKam, J a m e s C. "Messianism and Apocalypticism." In The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. J o h n J . Collins. New York: Continuum, 1998, 193-228. Discussion of the (limited) role of messianism in the apocalyptic literature. Whitelam, Keith W. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 12. Sheffield: J SOT, 1979. Historical study of royal authority in ancient Israel. Not concerned with mythological aspects or messianic expectation. Wyatt, N. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 13. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. A discussion of Canaanite and Israelite myth as royal ideology. It does not extend to messianic expectation. Xeravits, Géza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Quman Library. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of J u d a h 47. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Attempt to avoid the terminology of "messianism" while discussing the phenomenon. Zimmermann, Johannes. Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Comprehensive treatment of the messianic texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

PART I

T h e Future King in Early Jewish Eschatology

CHAPTER I

T h e T e r m 'Messiah' and its Content ι. The Messiah an Eschatological Figure ' M E S S I A H ' (Greek, Messias) represents the A r a m a i c mtšîhâ\ I V X H e b r e w ham-māšîah, ' t h e Anointed O n e ' . T h e word expresses a n idea characteristic of later J u d a i s m a n d early Christianity. I n the time of Jesus the J e w s were awaiting a Messiah; a n d it was p a r t of the message of Jesus, a n d later the central point in the teaching of His disciples, t h a t H e was this Messiah, ' H e t h a t cometh'.1 'Jesus Messiah', or in Greek 'Jesus C h r i s t ' , were His n a m e a n d His title in the speech of the c o m m u n i t y , until the term ' C h r i s t ' also c a m e to be regarded as a personal n a m e . I n order, therefore, to u n d e r s t a n d the consciousness a n d the message of Jesus it is necessary to have as a b a c k g r o u n d some idea of the Messianic conceptions of His time. I n later J u d a i s m the term ' M e s s i a h ' denotes a n eschatological figure. H e belongs to ' t h e last t i m e ' ; his advent lies in the f u t u r e . T o use the w o r d ' M e s s i a h ' is to imply eschatology, the last things. It is, therefore, a misuse of the words ' M e s s i a h ' a n d ' M e s s i a n i c ' to apply them, for instance, to those ideas which were associated in Israel or in the ancient east with kings who were actually reigning, even if, as we shall see, these ideas were expressed in exalted a n d mythical terms. T h e w o r d ' M e s s i a h ' by itself, as a title a n d a n a m e , originated in later J u d a i s m as the designation of an eschatological figure; a n d it is therefore only to such a figure that it m a y be applied. 2 I n Christian eschatology, too, the Messiah (Christ) b e c a m e the central figure in the expectation of the last time. T h e expected d a y of j u d g e m e n t b e c a m e ' t h e day of o u r Lord Jesus C h r i s t ' . T h a t is w h y theologians have sometimes used the expressions ' Messianic prophecies ' or ' Messianic expectations ' as synonymous with 'eschatological expectations'. This is d o n e by F. Delitzsch 1

Matt, xi, 3; Luke vii, 20.

* See Additional Note 1. 3

a n d F. Buhl in their books which b e a r this title. 1 But the use of the term is incorrect. 2 T h e Messiah is not the central a n d d o m i n a ting figure in the f u t u r e hope of later J u d a i s m , a n d even less so in t h a t of the O l d T e s t a m e n t . T h e fact is t h a t the Messiah as a concrete eschatological figure, the king of the final age, the founder of the glorious kingdom, is far less p r o m i n e n t in the O l d T e s t a m e n t t h a n in the New. 3 T h e title ' M e s s i a h ' , ' t h e Anointed O n e ' , as a title or technical t e r m for the king of the final age, does not even occur in the O l d T e s t a m e n t . Nevertheless it was above all to the O l d T e s t a m e n t that the early C h u r c h t u r n e d for evidence in support of its belief that Jesus was the Messiah. I n the t h o u g h t a n d theology of the early C h u r c h (if it is legitimate to speak of a theology at t h a t period) the O l d T e s t a m e n t was the g r o u n d a n d source of the conception of the Messiah. A survey of Messianic conceptions in later J u d a i s m , in the teaching of Jesus, a n d in the early C h u r c h must therefore of necessity begin with the O l d T e s t a m e n t . 2. The Messiah Originally a Political Figure T h e expression ham-māšîah is really a shortened f o r m of mešîah YHWH, ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' , i.e., the reigning king of Israel. I n the ancient east b o t h persons a n d things were anointed by h a v i n g sweet-smelling oil p o u r e d or smeared over them. 4 For instance, the cultic stone (massēbâh) was a n o i n t e d ; a n d thereby worship was offered to the deity who i n h a b i t e d it or was represented by it. 6 T h e first a n o i n t i n g of the stone was regarded as the power-conferring act in virtue of which it was set a p a r t as a holy stone; to a n o i n t a stone m e a n t simply to m a k e it a holy stone. W h e n a temple was consecrated, the building, its several parts, a n d the holy vessels were anointed. T h e r e are accounts of the same practice in Babylonia. Anointing was also used in cultic purification f r o m sickness a n d defilement. T h u s the act h a d a sacral 1 Delitzsch, Messianische Weissagungen; Buhl, De messianske Forjaettelser i det garnie Testamente. 2 Cf. also Gressmann, Ursprung, p. η. In his Der Messias Gressmann does not seem to adhere so strictly to this manifestly correct terminology. 8 4 See below, pp. 138ff., 2ioff. See Gressmann, Der Messias, pp. 2ff. 6 The maffêbâh, or sacred stone pillar, formed part of the sanctuary in both the Canaanite and"early Israelite periods. Cf. Isa. xix, 9; see G.T.M.M.M. I l l , ad loc.; Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments I, pp. 114ff., and Index, s.v.; Cook, The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of Archaeology, pp. 80ff., 96, too, 140, i6o; Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 42, 78, 106, 144. It symbolized the presence of the deity at the cultic site; and it is perhaps connected with the ancient stone-cult; cf. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites3, pp. 203ff., 456f., 568ff.; Beer, Steinverehrung bei den Israeliten, pp. 8ff., i2Íf.

significance. T h e original idea was, no d o u b t , t h a t the oil possessed an a b n o r m a l , ' h o l y ' power, or ' m a n a ' , to use the familiar term from the phenomenology of religion. In the act of anointing, this power a n d holiness were transmitted to the person anointed, or the holiness a n d s u p e r n a t u r a l power with which he was already endowed were renewed a n d strengthened. Practical experience of the power a n d usefulness of oil, both as a food and as a medicine, readily explains this belief in its sacral, mana-like character. A m o n g all the persons a n d objects which m a y be anointed there is one who is ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' in a special sense, one w h o is 'the A n o i n t e d ' , namely the king. I n the O l d T e s t a m e n t the p r i m a r y a n d p r o p e r sense of the expression ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' is the king, the earthly king who at any given time is reigning over Y a h w e h ' s people. T h e expression implies his close relationship to Y a h w e h , the sacral c h a r a c t e r of his office a n d his person (as priest-king), and the a b n o r m a l e n d o w m e n t of holy power which is his because he has been anointed king. T h e essential characteristic of a king is that he has been anointed. T h e Israelite speaks not of crowning a m a n , b u t of anointing him in the sense of m a k i n g him king (himlîk). T h e custom of anointing the king in order to install him in his sacred office was taken over by the Israelites f r o m the i n h a b i t a n t s of C a n a a n . 1 It is presupposed in the A m a r n a Letters (the corresp o n d e n c e f r o m the vassal princes in C a n a a n to their overlord, the king of Egypt, d a t i n g f r o m the fifteenth a n d f o u r t e e n t h centuries B.c.); 2 a n d there is also some evidence t h a t it was practised in Egypt a n d Assyria. T h e references to anointing in connexion with Melchizedek, king of J e r u s a l e m , 3 a n d with Phoenician kings, show that it was primarily as a priest-king t h a t a king was anointed, t h a t is, as a sacral king w h o represented his people before the deity, a n d thus also took a leading a n d active p a r t in the cult. Anointing m a d e him a ' h o l y ' person, similar to the priest in c h a r a c t e r a n d function. I n practically every passage in the O l d T e s t a m e n t where the expressions ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' , or ' t h e Anointed O n e ' , occur, the reference is to the reigning king of David's line, the king in J e r u s a l e m , designated, installed, a n d anointed by Y a h w e h t h r o u g h His cultic representative the priest. For a p r o p h e t to perform the anointing seems to have been 1 2 3

References to sources and literature in Gressmann, Der Messias, pp. 5f. The best edition of the Amarna Letters is still the one by Knudtzon in V.A.B. Gen. xiv, 18; Ps. cx, 4.

irregular a n d exceptional; a n d , in the main, only usurpers were so anointed. Samuel is regarded as a priestly seer, not as a nābV (prophet).1 Yahweh's Anointed is, of course, king of Y a h w e h ' s people Israel, or of J u d a h , which is also called Israel in religious usage. 2 It is quite exceptional for a p r o p h e t like Deutero-Isaiah, in the exub e r a n t enthusiasm of his faith, to call a h e a t h e n king like Cyrus ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' , 3 because Y a h w e h has m a d e him king in order to fulfil His plan for Israel. T h i s use does not help to define the m e a n i n g of the term. In the post-exilic age the High-priests b e c a m e in m a n y respects the heirs of the kings. As early as the period of the m o n a r c h y there is evidence t h a t the a u t h e n t i c professional priesthood tried to exclude the king from the exercise of cultic functions. This was a stage in the struggle of the Levitical or Leviticized priesthood 4 to monopolize the cult. Both in the legend a b o u t K i n g Uzziah's leprosy 5 a n d in Ps. cx we have echoes of rivalry of this kind between the king a n d the priesthood. I n the post-exilic age it was established t h a t the cult was the exclusive privilege of the priesthood; a n d the High-priest claimed kingly status t h r o u g h his anointing a n d the wearing of the diadem.® I n time it b e c a m e customary to anoint all priests w h e n they were installed in their office. 7 T h u s the original sacral significance of the custom survived a n d prevailed, w h e n the political m o n a r c h y h a d disappeared, a n d the High-priest's claim to political power r e m a i n e d little more t h a n theory. ' T h e A n o i n t e d O n e ', or the indefinite form of the term, ' a n anointed o n e ' , could also be applied in the later period to the High-priest or to any priest. Usually, however, we find the explicit designation, ' t h e anointed priest', i.e., the High-priest. 8 I t appears t h a t on occasion prophets also were anointed when they were consecrated a n d a d m i t t e d to the prophetic guild. 9 It is 1

ι Sam. ix; see Ps.St. V, pp. 20f., 24f. See Rost, Israel bei den Propheten, p. 115; Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old 3 Isa. xlv, 1. Testament, p. 291 and passim. 4 On the spread of Levitical ideas and ideals among the Israelite priesthood see Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, pp. 85, 90f., 138, 167; Hölscher, Die Profeten, pp. 166ff. β Exod. xxviii, 36ff.; xxxix, 30flf.; Lev. viii, 9. • 2 Chron. xxvi, 16ff. 7 Exod. xxix, 21 ; Lev. viii, 30. We find among the Mandeans an interesting parallel to the transference to the priest or the High-priest of the ideology and ritual of priesthood; see Engnell, Divine Kingship, p. 17 n. 6, with references. 8 Dan. ix, 25ff.; Lev. iv, 3, 5, 16; xvi, 15. B ι Kings xix, 16. On the organization of 'temple prophets', see Mowinckel in N.T.T. χ, 1909, pp. 198ff.; Ps.St. I l l ; Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel; Haldar, Associations. 2

to this custom that the p r o p h e t alludes in Isa. lxi, ι : ' Y a h w e h has anointed me.' Consequently we find one incidental example in late linguistic usage, a n d in the idiom of religious poetry, of Y a h w e h ' s calling the patriarchs ' M i n e anointed o n e s ' : 1 in the later O l d T e s t a m e n t period a n d subsequently, all the great religious figures of the past, ' t h e p a t r i a r c h s ' , were regarded as prophets. At one time m a n y scholars m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the t e r m ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' could denote the Israelite people. 2 This view was based on erroneous exegesis, a n d in p a r t on erroneous assumptions a b o u t the d a t e of the sources, particularly of the Psalms. T h e expression ' t h e Anointed O n e ' does not occur in the O l d T e s t a m e n t as a technical term for the Messiah. O n the other h a n d , ' t h e Anointed O n e ' , or ' H i s ' , or ' M y Anointed O n e ' does occur as the ceremonial religious title of the reigning king in Israel, king ' b y the grace of G o d ' . T o the content of this title we shall r e t u r n below (pp. 56ff.). It is, however, obvious t h a t there must be a historical connexion between the two titles; a n d there can be no d o u b t which is the older. As title a n d n a m e for the eschatological king, Messiah does not occur in the O l d T e s t a m e n t , but a p p e a r s first in the literature of later J u d a i s m ; a n d as we have already seen, the word ' Messiah ' is an abbreviation of the fuller expression, ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' . This shows t h a t the eschatological Messiah derived his n a m e from the sacral title of the ancient kings of Israel. This historical association of ideas is f u r t h e r corroborated by the fact that the Messiah was not only a n eschatological figure, b u t always h a d a measure of political significance. T h e Messiah is he who shall restore Israel as a people, free her from her enemies, rule over her as king, a n d bring other nations u n d e r her political a n d religious sway. This conception of the future king as a thisworldly political figure is clearly a n d explicitly present in most if not all of the passages in the O l d T e s t a m e n t which refer to him. According to the express testimony of the evangelists it was against this political conception of the Messiah, present in the minds a n d thoughts of the disciples a n d of the multitude, that Jesus h a d to contend. J u s t as the word ' Messiah ' has a n eschatological character wherever it has become a clearly defined term, so too it has a political sense from the beginning. 1

Ps. cv, 15 = ι Chron. xvi, 22. See, e.g., Gesenius-Buhl 1 ·, s.v., 2; Buhl, Psalmerne1, on Ps. ii; similarly Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten VI, pp. 163ff.; Baethgen, Die Psalmen3; and other older commentaries on the Psalms. 2

Both the term and its content reveal a clear connexion between the idea of the Messiah a n d the O l d T e s t a m e n t conceptions of ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' , the earthly king of Y a h w e h ' s people. W h a t is the character of this connexion; and w h a t is the difference between the two ideas? In other words, in w h a t way did the concept of ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' develop, so that the earthly, political king b e c a m e the eschatological figure? Is this a n instance of development in religious t h o u g h t (the word ' d e v e l o p m e n t ' does not, of course, here imply a purely i m m a n e n t evolutionary process) ; or is it possible t h a t in the course of time, a n d as a result of certain factors in the history of religion, the term ' the Anointed O n e ' was transferred to a n eschatological figure, a n d that this figure existed independently of, or side by side with, the t h o u g h t of the earthly a n d political ' A n o i n t e d O n e ' ? I n either case a n e x a m i n a t i o n of the political concept of ' t h e Anointed O n e ' must precede any investigation a n d exposition of the idea of the Messiah in the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d in later J u d a i s m . This means t h a t at the outset we must take account of the ancient Israelite conceptions of the king a n d of kingship. But Israel took over the m o n a r c h y a n d m a n y of the ideas associated with it from the older civilized nations which were her neighbours. If, then, Israelite conceptions of kingship are to be rightly understood, it is essential to relate t h e m to the general oriental b a c k g r o u n d . But we must also try to ascertain to w h a t wider religious context the idea of the Messiah belongs. If t h a t idea is eschatological, then it must be seen against the b a c k g r o u n d of the general eschatological conceptions of the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d later J u d a i s m ; a n d its relation to t h e m must be more precisely defined. Is the connexion of the Messiah with eschatology original or n o t ? Does history show t h a t he is a n essential a n d indispensable element in these concepts? I n the chapters which follow, the content of the Messianic idea will be unfolded in such a w a y as to make it still more evident t h a t in its strict sense it is b o u n d u p with the f u t u r e hope a n d eschatology of Israel a n d J u d a i s m . A n eschatology without a Messiah is conceivable, b u t not a Messiah a p a r t f r o m a f u t u r e hope. All genuine Messianic prophecies in the O l d T e s t a m e n t point forward. But can it be taken for g r a n t e d t h a t Jesus simply took over the ideas a b o u t the Messiah (in the strict sense) which were to be found in the Old T e s t a m e n t ? Clearly H e did not. Between t h e m there lies the entire development of intertestamental J u d a i s m .

8

T h e Messianic concepts of later J u d a i s m are readily seen to have developed in m a n y ways beyond those of the O l d T e s t a m e n t , a n d indeed to be in a measure different in character. I t will become a p p a r e n t t h a t thoughts derived f r o m m a n y quarters a n d f r o m m a n y other religious figures were laid u n d e r tribute before the conceptions of the Messiah reached the stage at which we find t h e m in the time of Jesus. But it goes without saying t h a t the later Jewish Messianic ideas form the most n a t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d to those of Jesus Himself. It was to those current Jewish conceptions which His disciples held t h a t H e h a d to relate His own t h o u g h t of Messiahship, in p a r t positively by confirming them, in p a r t negatively by correcting t h e m . T h e New T e s t a m e n t documents themselves readily make this clear. But the very fact t h a t Jesus related His teaching b o t h positively a n d negatively to the Messianic ideas prevalent in later J u d a i s m shows t h a t H e did not a d o p t t h e m j u s t as they were. T h e Gospels depict H i m as constantly in conflict with certain aspects of the Jewish Messianic ideal which was in t h e minds of His disciples. This raises a new problem. W h a t was the historical origin of these unusual, a n d possibly new, elements in Jesus' t h o u g h t of the Messiah? Is it possible that, in His conflict with the Jewish Messianic ideal, Jesus adopted other biblical or late Jewish ideas which h a d , perhaps, originally no connexion with the figure of the Messiah, a n d combined t h e m with the J e w i s h Messianic ideal, t h a t H e might use it to express His own t h o u g h t of His person a n d vocation? W e shall see t h a t this was so. This is true not only of the t h o u g h t of ' t h e Son of M a n ' , which was already associated with the idea of the Messiah in some circles in later J u d a i s m , b u t above all of the presentation of the suffering a n d atoning ' Servant of the L o r d ' in Deutero-Isaiah.

C H A P T E R II

Survey of the Material

T

O u n d e r s t a n d the Messianic faith of the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d of later J u d a i s m we must a p p r o a c h it historically; a n d every historical inquiry must begin with a critical investigation of the sources: their dates, their relation to each other, a n d their reliability must first be established. O n l y in this way is it possible to reconstruct the true historical b a c k g r o u n d of an idea and of its origin, a n d the historical development t h r o u g h which it has passed. W e must therefore devote one c h a p t e r to this critical examination of the sources. T h e reader m a y skip it if he wishes, or leave it to the end. T h e great a n d decisive line of d e m a r c a t i o n in the religious history of Israel a n d in the d e v e l o p m e n t of its religion is the Exile, the destruction of the political life of the nation a n d the deportation of its spiritual leaders in 598 a n d 587. Accordingly we speak of the pre-exilic age, the age of the m o n a r c h y , the age of the national religion of Israel, a n d of the post-exilic age, when the m o n a r c h y h a d disappeared a n d the national state was replaced by the Jewish religious c o m m u n i t y , which f r o m 520 onwards was gradually consolidated in the province of J u d e a with J e r u s a l e m as its centre. Besides this J u d e a n , Jewish c o m m u n i t y in the homeland, a considerable p a r t of the Jewish people continued to live in the Dispersion or Diaspora, the Babylonian Diaspora being the most i m p o r t a n t a n d for long the leading one. T h e spiritual a n d religious life of J u d a i s m was sustained by the ' L a w ' and the f u t u r e hope, the belief t h a t Israel would again be established as a n i n d e p e n d e n t nation. T h e question, 'Pre-exilic or post-exilic?' is therefore a n i m p o r t a n t one if we are to d a t e the sources which have been transmitted to us, a n d it provides a useful f r a m e w o r k for a r r a n g i n g them. But not all the Old T e s t a m e n t passages which in the past have been regarded as ' Messianic ' deal in fact with the Messiah a n d the Messianic faith. It is therefore necessary first of all to d r a w 10

attention to a n u m b e r of passages which have nothing to do with the subject of this book. I. Supposed Messianic Prophecies of Early Date W i t h o u t more ado we begin with the passage which from early times has been regarded as the oldest Messianic prophecy, namely Gen. iii, 15, which refers to the offspring of the w o m a n , who will bruise the serpent's h e a d with his heel. It is now generally admitted by those w h o a d o p t the historical a p p r o a c h to theology t h a t there is no allusion here to the Devil or to Christ as ' born of w o m a n ' , b u t t h a t it is a quite general statement a b o u t m a n k i n d , a n d serpents, a n d the struggle between t h e m which continues as long as the earth exists. T h e poisonous serpent strikes at m a n ' s foot whenever he is u n f o r t u n a t e enough to come too near to it; a n d always a n d everywhere m a n tries to crush the serpent's h e a d when he has the c h a n c e . 1 W h a t needs to be said of the royal psalms in this connexion will be reserved for later discussion. 2 T h e y do not speak of a future, m u c h less an eschatological, Messiah, b u t of the c o n t e m p o r a r y , earthly king of David's line, who has j u s t been enthroned. T h e poet-prophet addresses him as ' m y l o r d ' (Ps. cx, 1), a n d proclaims to h i m Y a h w e h ' s oracle a b o u t his f u t u r e as king (Ps. ii). O r the king is present in the temple a n d takes p a r t in the cultic acts, presenting his offerings (Ps. xx), receiving the blessings and intercessory prayers of the people (Pss. xx; xxi; lxxii), or himself offering his psalms of lamentation a n d prayers for help (Pss. xxviii; lxiii), his thank-offerings a n d psalms of thanksgiving (Ps. xviii), or registering his promise or ' c h a r t e r ' before the face of Y a h w e h (Ps. ci). In connexion with the royal psalms we m a y also refer to those other psalms in which traditional theology, sometimes even since 1 See the interpretation in the commentaries on Genesis by Gunkel and Procksch, the former being what is commonly called 'liberal' and the latter 'positive'. Both in fact take the same view of Gen. iii, 15, although Procksch rejects Gunkel's treatment, and in spite of the Christian homiletical application (in itself justifiable) of the theme, which Procksch finally adopts. 2 See Gunkel, 'Die Königspsalmen' in Preussische Jahrbücher elviii, 1914; GunkelBegrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen, pp. 140ff.; Mowinckel, Offersang og sangoffer, ch. III, with further references. The term 'royal psalms' must be taken in a much wider sense than that adopted by Gunkel or by myself in Kongesalmerne; see Birkeland, Die Feinde des Individuums in der israelitischen Psalmenliteratur. Many of the individual psalms of lamentation and of thanksgiving are in fact royal psalms, even if the worshipper does not expressly refer to himself as king; cf. next note. Engnell, however, goes too far in regarding practically all psalms with the title I'ddwtd as royal psalms (Divine Kingship, p. 176).

the days of the primitive C h u r c h , has found prophecies of Christ, for instance Ps. xxii with its description of the suffering of the worshipper. O f this a n d other similar psalms it must be said t h a t if they m a y be applied to Christ at all, it is by typological interpretation a n d not because they are directly Christological or Messianic prophecies. T h a t is to say t h a t in the t h o u g h t of the poet, the worshipper, a n d his contemporaries they have an immediate, cont e m p o r a r y reference; they are in fact not prophecies b u t prayers, issuing f r o m a real, c o n t e m p o r a r y situation, t h a t of the poet or the worshipper himself; a n d they express w h a t he then felt, a n d t h o u g h t , a n d said. T h e fact t h a t the worshipper is in m a n y instances a historical king of Israel does not alter the f u n d a m e n t a l fact t h a t the psalms are not prophecies b u t prayers with cont e m p o r a r y reference. 1 But the words of these psalms have proved to be more e n d u r i n g a n d far-reaching. So powerful are they in faith a n d in realism that in the fullness of time they could give expression to the situation a n d the achievement of Jesus, His soul's conflict, His trust in God, His cry of distress, His fellowship with His b r e t h r e n . T h e early Christian c o m m u n i t y therefore regarded t h e m as a perfectly valid expression for w h a t they themselves h a d witnessed in their L o r d a n d Master. T h e worshippers of ancient times b e c a m e ' t y p e s ' prefiguring Christ. T h e words of the psalms found their true realization a n d fulfilment in Jesus Himself. In an account of the history of the Messianic concept all these psalms must be considered again in the a p p r o p r i a t e context as sources or d o c u m e n t s concerning the thoughts a b o u t the Messiah which were c u r r e n t in the Christian c o m m u n i t y . But of the origin a n d earliest history of the Messianic idea they can tell us nothing; for, in the t h o u g h t a n d feeling of the poet a n d those for w h o m he wrote, they referred not to the Messiah b u t to the conditions of their own time. N o r is a n y Messianic prophecy intended by the phrase in the lay of Balaam 2 a b o u t the ' s t a r ' a n d ' s c e p t r e ' , or r a t h e r ' c o m e t ' , 1 The fundamentally sound view of this psalm of lamentation dates back to the last century's historical interpretation of the Bible; but it is most clearly demonstrated and worked out by Gunkel in Die Psalmen (on Ps. xxii) and Einleitung in die Psalmen, pp. 173ff. Note further that the worshipper in Ps. xxii may in fact be a king. Hitherto the most consistent demonstration that many psalms of lamentation were put into the mouths of kings is that of Birkeland in Die Feinde des Individuums. See now also my Offersang og sangoffer, ch. III, and preceding note. 2 For the interpretation of the Balaam lays see Gressmann in S.A.T.A. I, a*, pp. 113ff., and Mowinckel in Z.A.W. xlviii, 1930, pp. 241 ff. I am unconvinced by Albright's attempt ( J . B . L . lxiii, 1944, pp. 207ff.) to date all four Balaam lays in the period between the middle of the thirteenth and the end of the twelfth century B.c. 12

which 'shall rise out of Israel, a n d shatter the temples of M o a b a n d the skulls of the children of S h e t h ' ( N u m . xxiv, 17). Both this a n d the other older B a l a a m lay are intended as poems in h o n o u r of Israel, a n d are p u t into the m o u t h of the ancient, legendary A r a m e a n seer a n d sage, Balaam. T h e y tell of Israel's greatness, good fortune, a n d power, a n d of her supremacy over the other C a n a a n i t e peoples, a m o n g w h o m are mentioned Amalek, M o a b , the children of A m m o n , a n d E d o m . I t is in keeping with the c h a r a c t e r and style of this type of poetry t h a t the poems are p u t into the m o u t h of a sage of former days, a n d t h a t they take the f o r m of a blessing (or, sometimes, of a curse) which accounts for the destiny of the people in question, w h e t h e r it be good fortune or ill. T h u s , because of their c h a r a c t e r , they take the form of prophecy f r o m ancient times; b u t in fact it is the poet's own t i m e or the i m m e d i a t e past t h a t they thus describe. I n this lay there is also an allusion (one might almost say inevitably) to David, w h o laid the f o u n d a t i o n of Israel's s u p r e m a c y in C a n a a n , a n d subjected E d o m , M o a b , a n d A m m o n to Israel. I t is to David t h a t the poet refers w h e n he speaks of the ' s t a r ' a n d ' c o m e t ' ( E . V V . ' s c e p t r e ' ) which the ancient seer 'sees, b u t not now; beholds, b u t not nigh'. It is in m u c h the same way t h a t we must interpret the expression in the Blessing of Jacob1 a b o u t ' S h i l o h ' or ' t h e r u l e r ' 2 of J u d a h (Gen. xlix, 10), w h o is to make J u d a h the ruling tribe a m o n g the children of Israel, a n d to w h o m the sceptre will always belong. T h e reference is to David, w h o m a d e J u d a h the ruling tribe, a n d whose house thus won a n e n d u r i n g right to the t h r o n e in Israel. 3 1

For a fundamentally sound interpretation of the Blessing of Jacob in Gen. xlix and a classification of its literary type, see Gunkel, Genesis*, ad loc. 2 The word Klôh does not call for emendation, nor has it anything to do with the name of the town Shiloh, as has often been supposed. It is a poetical word borrowed from Accadian, and means here simply 'his (i.e. Judah's) ruler'; Accadian šêlu or itlu — ruler. See Nötscher in Z.A. W. xlvii, 1929, pp. 323ff., and Sellin's observations, ibid., lix, 1944, pp. 57f. Independently of Nötscher, Driver gives the same explanation of the word; see J.T.S. xxiii, 1922, pp. 69f. Eisler, too, has hit upon this explanation; see M.G.W.J, lxix, pp. 444f. For the application to David see the article by Sellin referred to above. 3 When Wolff in liv, 1936, pp. 107f., though adopting the correct historical interpretation (vaticinium ex eventu), nevertheless would regard these passages as 'Messianic', he is assuming a definition of the idea of prophecy which actually leads to a typological interpretation. They are 'Messianic', because they presuppose a 'Messianic' conception of, e.g., the king (see Additional Note 1), and because they The allusions to David and the Israelite monarchy are too clear to be explained away. Albright also fails to notice the theological difference between the first two lays and the last two. That Sêbet, 'sceptre', in Num. xxiv, 17, must be interpreted as 'comct', has been shown by Gemser in £.A.W. xliii, 1925, p. 301.

All those scholars (such as Gressmann a n d Sellin) who have sought to m a i n t a i n t h a t eschatology a n d the idea of the Messiah were ancient in Israel a d m i t frankly t h a t the royal psalms a n d the other passages mentioned above must be interpreted in historical terms. But they m a i n t a i n t h a t these poems nevertheless presuppose the existence in Israel of a conception of the Messiah, since it is in accordance with the Messianic p a t t e r n t h a t they describe a n d extol David a n d the other historical kings, who are depicted more or less as the realization of the Messianic hope, or as kings who have attained or will a t t a i n to the heights of the Messianic ideal. I n the texts themselves there is simply no f o u n d a t i o n for this theory; a n d no measure of probability can be claimed for it on exegetical grounds. Gressmann argues as follows: 1 the descriptions of kings in the Psalter include not only c o n t e m p o r a r y historical references, but also m a n y s u p e r h u m a n , mythical traits which must be derived not f r o m the earthly ruler, b u t from a mythical, heavenly figure. I n reply to this it m a y first be observed t h a t even if the figure h a d traits which h a d to be explained as borrowings f r o m a mythical figure, from a deity of some sort, it would not necessarily follow t h a t this figure was a n eschatological Messiah, or t h a t the king in question was t h o u g h t of as a Messiah because of his borrowed divine plumes. I n the second place, the strongly mythical, s u p e r h u m a n colouring is no proof of the existence of any other figure f r o m which it might have been derived for the royal portraits in the psalms. T h e same extravagant a n d celestial language is applied by Babylonian a n d Egyptian poets to their kings; a n d their descriptions are not d r a w n from a n y Messiah, for these peoples h a d neither eschatology n o r a Messiah (see below, p. 127). A comparison with the more or less divine kings of other peoples o u g h t to make it immediately clear t h a t the mythical traits have not been borrowed f r o m any q u a r t e r . As we shall see below, they belong to the oriental conception of the king, simply because he was a ' d i v i n e k i n g ' , a s u p e r h u m a n being, 1

See Gressmann, Der Messias, pp. 7ff.; cf. Ursprung, pp. 251 ff. In his review of Der Messias in Deutsche Literaturzeitung 13, ix, 1930, cols. 1729ff, Hölscher gives a short, pointed, and factual criticism of Gressmann's exegetical and chronological treatment of the individual passages, such as Gen. xlix and Num. xxiv, in which Gressmann thinks that the Messianic idea is presupposed. were fulfilled or realized in Christ, though this was not in the mind of the writer. As elsewhere (see below, p. 172 n. 1), Wolff here treats the problem as one of Christian doctrine rather than of Old Testament criticism.

a s u p e r m a n endowed with a b n o r m a l gifts a n d power, precisely w h a t oriental peoples m e a n t by a ' g o d ' : a being with superh u m a n power or ' m a n a ' . 1 T h e mythical traits a n d colouring in the portrait of the king are derived f r o m the divine realm, because t h a t is where the king belongs: he has faculties, characteristics, a n d e n d o w m e n t s which ancient m a n could express only by mythical ideas a n d in mythical terms. T h e y belong to the king, not because he is a Messiah, but simply because he is an oriental king. 2 W e shall discuss this oriental conception of the king in greater detail in the following c h a p t e r . It is therefore b a d scientific m e t h o d to do as Gressmann, Sellin, a n d others have done, a n d to base o u r inquiry into the origin of the conception of the Messiah on a n assumed oriental Messianic theology of which we know nothing, b u t which is supposed to have influenced the Psalmists a n d other royal bards. O n the other h a n d , there are good grounds for the connexion (to which Gunkel a n d Gressmann drew attention) between the royal psalms a n d the oriental conceptions of kingship, a n d for the p r o m i n e n c e given to this idea in recent study. T h e r e is, in fact, a close connexion between the idea of the Messiah a n d the ancient Israelite conceptions of the king a n d kingship, which in t u r n are closely linked with the general oriental idea of the king. 2. The Authentic Messianic Prophecies T h e true sources for the O l d T e s t a m e n t conceptions of the Messiah are the prophetic books·, a n d it is by the traditio-historical a n d literary criticism of these books 3 t h a t we m a y discover w h e t h e r there was a n y conception of a Messiah in the pre-exilic age. At this stage we shall not discuss the origin a n d antiquity of the hope of restoration, of the belief in a Messiah, and of eschatology. I t will suffice to establish the d a t e of the actual Messianic prophecies in the prophetic books. It is of course impossible to u n d e r t a k e here any detailed exegetical a n d critical discussion of individual passages; we must be content to indicate the p r o b a b l e result of such a n inquiry. T h e passages which have to be considered are the following: 1 This is the primary sense of the general Semitic term 'ēl, ilu, etc., and of the Egyptian neter. See Beth in Z.A.W. xxxvi, 1916, pp. 129ff., xxxviii, 1919-20, pp. 87ff. 2 This was first maintained by the present writer in Ps.St. II, pp. 297ff., and proved in detail by Engnell in Divine Kingship. 3 On the prophetic books and their relation to the original sayings of the prophets, see Mowinckel in N.T.T. xliii, 1942, pp. 65ff.; Prophecy and Tradition, pp. 36ff.

Isa. iv, 2; vii, 10-17; viii, 8b, 10b; ix, 1 - 6 ; x, 21; xi, 1 - 9 ; xi, 10; xvi, 5; xxxii, 1 - 8 ; lv, 3f.; J e r . xvii, 25; xxiii, 5f. = xxxiii, 17f.; χχχ, g, 2 i ; Ezek. xvii, 2 2 - 4 ; xxxiv, 23f.; xxxvii, 2 2 - 5 ; Hos. iii, 4f.; Amos ix, 11; Mic. iv, 8; v, 1 - 3 ; Zech. ix, 9f. 1 T h e decision which of these passages belongs to the pre-exilic age is i m p o r t a n t , not only for a survey of the p r o b a b l e historical development of the Messianic faith, b u t also for the solution of a m a j o r p r o b l e m which has been discussed d u r i n g the past generation or more, namely the age a n d origin of the Messianic faith. Is it of pre-exilic or post-exilic origin? Yet ultimately the question has only a relative interest. For, as we shall see below, even if the Messianic faith belongs, in the main, to the age of J u d a i s m , its actual content goes back to conceptions which are m u c h older. As was indicated above in relation to the royal psalms, we have in the O l d T e s t a m e n t a series of sayings a n d conceptions which m a y be regarded as p r e l i m i n a r y stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the Messianic faith a n d as the ideological basis of t h a t faith. T h e question will t h e n be w h e t h e r those sayings w h i c h a p p e a r to be pre-exilic are to be regarded as genuine products of the Messianic faith, or as belonging to the p r e p a r a t o r y stage of its development. As we shall see, several of the passages m e n t i o n e d above have been h a n d e d d o w n in collections of prophetic sayings a t t r i b u t e d by tradition to prophets w h o lived before the collapse of the state a n d the m o n a r c h y in 587. T h e question t h e n arises, is this tradition correct in every instance? T h i s critical question c a n n o t be evaded. It is a fact t h a t the prophetic books consist of collections of prophetic sayings, which were h a n d e d d o w n over a long period by word of m o u t h within the circles of these prophets' disciples, until at last they were written d o w n a n d finally edited. D u r i n g this process of transmission there were a d d e d sayings which originated within the circle of disciples, a n d come f r o m later a n o n y m o u s prophets. 2 I t is therefore a n assured a n d inescapable result of criticism t h a t each of the extant prophetic books includes sayings which are later t h a n the p r o p h e t with whose n a m e the collection is associated. W e need only refer to the book of Isaiah, t h e latter p a r t of which (xl-lxvi) is u n d o u b t e d l y the work of a p r o p h e t w h o lived 200 years later t h a n Isaiah (the so-called Deutero-Isaiah), a n d of the circle of his disciples. 3 1 Bentzen, in A.f.O. vi, 1930, pp. 280ff., tries to find the Messianic expectation in Mai. iii, I, by a modification of the text. This is too precarious. * See above, p. 15 n. 3, and also the survey in G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 33ff. » See G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 185ff.

Of the passages mentioned above only two or three can be a t t r i b u t e d on good grounds to the pre-exilic period. T h e r e is no g r o u n d for d o u b t i n g t h a t Isa. vii, 10-14 goes back to Isaiah's own time, a n d contains reliable tradition. 1 Isa. ix, 1 - 6 also belongs to the period of the m o n a r c h y , as will be shown at greater length below (pp. 102ff.). We shall therefore r e t u r n to both these passages, a n d see t h a t they really express the old ideal of kingship, which is the ideological b a c k g r o u n d of the Messianic faith. T h e y are not Messianic in the strict sense. M a n y critics regard Isa. xi, 1 - 9 as Isaianic. If it is, then we are dealing again with the p r e p a r a t o r y ideological b a c k g r o u n d of the Messianic faith. But the fact cannot be ignored t h a t both here a n d in J o b xiv, 8 the word geza' means the s t u m p of a tree which has been felled, f r o m which a new shoot is to issue, a n d t h a t Jesse's family tree is here regarded as hewn down, with only a s t u m p remaining. This must mean t h a t the royal family is no longer a tree, but only a s t u m p ; i.e., it is no longer a ruling house, b u t it will be restored. T h u s the passage presupposes the fall of the monarchy. 2 Concerning the d a t e of Isa. xxxii, 1-8, n o t h i n g can be said with certainty. But the passage is not primarily a prophecy, still less a Messianic prophecy, b u t a wisdom p o e m which describes in general terms the blessing enjoyed in the reign of an u p r i g h t king, of any upright king. It is based on the current ideal of true kingship; a n d it was only in the later Isaianic tradition that the p o e m c a m e to be interpreted as a specific promise of the upright king of the future for w h o m they were then hoping. 3 All the other Messianic passages are post-exilic. This is certainly true of the passage in Deutero-Isaiah (lv, 3f.), of Zech. ix, 9fi, a n d of the passages in Ezekiel. These last come in all probability not from the exilic p r o p h e t Ezekiel, b u t f r o m the circle of disciples who were responsible for the transmission of the 1 As against Gressmann, Der Messias, pp. 136ff.; Kraeling in J.B.L. I, 1931, pp. 295ff. It does not, of course, follow that because Isaiah here expresses his belief in the miraculous power of Yahweh, the passage is legendary. 2 Pedersen, Israel I I I - I V , p. 678 and Hammershaimb in St.Th. I l l , 2, 1949/1951, p. 141, point out that geza' may also be used of the living stem of a plant, so that the word does not necessarily imply the fall of the dynasty. It is true that in Isa. xl, 24, the word is used of the stock or slip which might take root in the earth. But this does not alter the fact that in Isa. xi, 1 and Job xiv, 8, the word denotes the hewn stump from which new shoots sprout. Moreover, even the slip is a stem which has been cut before it takes root and sprouts. There ought to be no doubt about this, in view of the primary sense of the root gz' : to cut, cut off, clip. 3 See Mowinckel in Z.A.W. xiv, 1927, p. 49; G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 167f.

G

book, and who m a d e Ezekiel's sayings the basis of a prophetic appeal to the c o m m u n i t y , related to conditions in J u d e a after the consolidation of the c o m m u n i t y there. 1 Isa. iv, 2 is p a r t of a passage which is actually a secondary p a r a phrase of some words of Isaiah applied to a later age. It presupposes the existence of the Diaspora. T h e alien rule a n d dispersion of the post-exilic age are also presupposed by Isa. χ, 21 ; xi, 10; a n d xvi, 5. T h e r e , too, we have later paraphrases of Isaianic themes. 2 Isa. viii, 8 b - 1 ο is in all probability a later expansion of the original words of Isaiah in vv. 5 - 8 a , which it interprets in the light of the I m m a n u e l prophecy in vii. At all events the last word in vv. 8b, 10, 'immânû'êl, is not intended as the n a m e of the f u t u r e king or used as a vocative (so A.V. a n d R . V . in 8b). As the Massoretic vocalization a n d the context show, the word is used in its general sense, ' (but) with us is G o d ' , ' f o r with us is G o d ' . 3 W h e t h e r the end of the book of Amos (ix, 11—15) comes from Amos himself or from later tradition in the circles of prophetic disciples 4 has often been d e b a t e d . Most scholars a d o p t the latter opinion. Recently H a m m e r s h a i m b has a t t e m p t e d to infuse new life into the traditional view, b u t is obliged in the end to a d m i t t h a t there are good grounds for the later dating. 5 T h e m a t t e r is in fact quite clear. N o exegetical skill can explain away the prophet's assumption t h a t ' t h e tabernacle of David is (already) 1 All recent interpreters of Ezekiel are agreed that a number of the speeches in the book reflect conditions in Judea after the return. Cf., e.g., Hölscher, Hesekiel. Der Dichter und das Buch·, Bertholet, Hesekiel·, and in F.u.F. xiii, 1, Jan., 1936, pp. 4f.; Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy; Herntrich, Ezechielprobleme; Messel, Ezechielfragen. The nucleus of truth in Hölscher's penetrating but one-sided and artificial literary criticism of the book is that the sayings and name of Ezekiel were used as a rallying point for the prophetic activity carried on by his followers after the return to Judea. Possibly we owe the greater part of the book to the circle of his disciples (in Hölscher's terminology, 'the redactor'). But I attribute more of the tradition to Ezekiel than Hölscher does; and I also hold that the disciples often used as a starting point prophecies derived from the exilic prophet Ezekiel. I also attribute to him some of the sections which Messel refers to his post-exilic 'Ezekiel', and some of the peculiar oracles in xxv-xxxii, which Messel attributes to an unknown X , whose date and character he declines to establish. A review of Ezekiel criticism is given by Rowley in B.J.R.L. xxxvi, ι, 1953, pp. 146-90. 2 O n these passages see G.T.M.M.M. I l l , ad locc.; in greater detail, Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, ad locc.; Bentzen, Jesaja I, ad locc. 3 See Mowinckel i n N . T . T . xlii, i 9 4 i , p p . 131fif.;G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. ioiff. Much the same interpretation of the word is given by Bentzen ( Jesaja I, pp. 69f.) in viii, 10; but in 8b he takes it as a proper noun. * This is the real question, not whether ix, 1 iff. is a later literary insertion into a written book which was already in existence. See Mowinckel, Jesajadisiplene, pp. ioff.; G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 619-21, 651. 6 Hammershaimb, Amos fortolket, pp. 134ff·, 139.

18

fallen', a n d therefore t h a t the Davidic m o n a r c h y no longer exists. T h e passage is concerned with the restoration of the family a n d tabernacle of David. If Hos. iii, 4f. comes f r o m Hosea himself, the reference in it is n o t to the f u t u r e Messiah b u t to the reigning ' D a v i d ' , i.e., t h e king of J u d a h at the time at which the conversion of the n o r t h e r n Israelites (to which the p r o p h e t alludes) will take place. But it is most p r o b a b l e t h a t in the form in which Hos. iii has come d o w n to us it must be classed with those sayings of the p r o p h e t which have been modified in the light of the conditions a n d needs of later J u d a i s m . 1 T h e assumption t h e n is t h a t J u d a h is also dispersed a n d in exile; b u t the p r o p h e t expects t h a t one d a y the m o n a r c h y a n d the dynasty will be restored, a n d then Israel, too, will submit to the new David. 2 Mic. iv, 8 also presupposes the fall of the m o n a r c h y . T h e situation which is here prophesied to Zion is ' the former dominion, the m o n a r c h y over J e r u s a l e m ' . Consequently this d o m i n i o n was no longer in existence in the time of the p r o p h e t . 3 Mic. v, 1 - 3 must be interpreted in the same way. T h e context shows t h a t the c o m i n g king's brothers are the ' r e m n a n t ' w h i c h survives the great catastrophe which befell J u d a h in 598 a n d 587. T h e y have been carried off; a n d therefore this prophecy foretells t h a t they 'will r e t u r n ' . 4 I t is only in a very restricted sense t h a t J e r . xvii, 25 c a n b e called a Messianic oracle. I t prophesies t h a t if the people will observe the S a b b a t h , there will always be in the f u t u r e 'kings a n d princes sitting on the throne of D a v i d ' . Moreover, the oracle is considerably later t h a n J e r e m i a h . 5 J e r . xxiii, 5f. = xxxiii, 15f. (cf. Isa. xi, 1-9, ίο) uses the word ' s h o o t ' (semah) of the f u t u r e king. T h i s symbolic title also occurs in Z e c h a r i a h , w h e n in veiled prophetic style he uses Z e r u b b a b e l ' s n a m e ('shoot f r o m B a b y l o n ' ) in this w a y (iii, 8; vi, 12). T h e r e can be little d o u b t t h a t Z e c h a r i a h ' s references are the earlier. 9 H e h a d a real point of historical association for the symbolic n a m e ; a n d with Z e r u b b a b e l he linked those expectations of the restoration a n d realization of the ideal m o n a r c h y which are so character1

See G.T.M.M. I l l , p. 569. In N.K-Z- xli, ' 9 3 0 . ΡΡ· 812ff. Caspari expresses well-founded doubts concerning Gressmann's Messianic interpretation of Amos and Hosea. 3 See Lindblom, Micha literarisch untersucht, pp. 81 ff.; G.T.M.M.M., pp. 68if. 4 See Lindblom, op. cit., pp. 95(f.; G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 685fr. 6 See G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 357f.; Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, pp. 188ff. β Cf. below, pp. 119ff., i6off., and Additional Notes IV and VII. 2

istic o f j e w i s h Messianic theology. L a t e r this figure of Zechariah's b e c a m e a technical Messianic term, at once veiled a n d allusive, after the fashion of the later eschatology a n d apocalyptic. T h e above-mentioned passages in J e r e m i a h , a n d p r o b a b l y also Isa. xi, io, are thus d e p e n d e n t on Z e c h a r i a h a n d later t h a n his time. 1 As we shall see below (p. 161), it is possible t h a t Isa. xi, 1 - 9 also dates back to Z e c h a r i a h ' s time. T h e other passages in J e r e m i a h (xxx, 9 , 2 1 ) are also certainly post-exilic. T h e y imply a situation in which for the time being Israel is u n d e r foreign rulers; b u t a time will come w h e n ' D a v i d ' will be raised u p , i.e., the house of David will be restored as a royal house, which it therefore no longer was in the prophet's time. 2 W e shall r e t u r n to all these passages in the a p p r o p r i a t e contexts below. A preliminary survey of the sources thus shows t h a t all the genuinely Messianic passages in the Old T e s t a m e n t d a t e from the time after the fall of the m o n a r c h y a n d the destruction of the Israelite states. O f those passages which are c o m m o n l y held to be Messianic, only Isa. vii a n d ix, iff. can with certainty be referred to the pre-exilic age, 3 b u t they are not Messianic in the strict sense. T h i s m a y seem to the reader to be a petitio principii; b u t it is not. Anticipating the results of the inquiry in the following chapters, the a r g u m e n t m a y be stated as follows. 1. T h e conceptions of the king in the old royal ideology a n d in the doctrine of the Messiah are in all their m a i n features identical. 2. T h e overwhelming majority of the Messianic passages belong to the postexilic age, when the m o n a r c h y no longer existed. I t is therefore at least possible, a n d in fact very probable, t h a t the few r e m a i n i n g pre-exilic sayings a b o u t the ideal king are concerned with the a c t u a l historical kingship, a n d not with the Messiah. I n a later c h a p t e r it will be shown t h a t this view provides a full a n d satisfactory explanation of these passages. 1 See G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 371 f.; on ihe post-exilic origin of these two passages see Volz, op. cit., pp. 230, 310ÍT. 2 See G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 291íf., 391 f. ; Volz, op. cit., pp. 306fr., 310fl'. 8 It is impossible to present here in detail the arguments which lead me to maintain the late dating of all the passages referred to; that would lead too far. I have, however, discussed the matter briefly in G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 69ff., and in the notes ad locc. Berry in J.B.L. xiv, 1926, pp. 232fl"., regards Isa. ix, iff. and xi, iff. as later than all the other Messianic passages, but his arguments lack cogency.

C H A P T E R III

T h e Ideal of Kingship in Ancient Israel

I

T has been observed above t h a t there must u n d o u b t e d l y be a logical a n d historical connexion between the concept of the Messiah a n d the anciént Israelite idea of the king as ' Y a h w e h ' s A n o i n t e d ' . ' T h e M e s s i a h ' is simply ' t h e A n o i n t e d ' . This raises the question of the m e a n i n g of the expression ' Yahweh's A n o i n t e d ', which in t u r n involves a n inquiry into w h a t the ancient Israelite m e a n t by a true king, into his ideal of kingship. T h e present writer has already m a i n t a i n e d in his book on the origin of eschatology (Ps.St. I I ) t h a t the conception of the Messiah was derived f r o m the ideal of kingship, or 'king-ideology', to use the term now in vogue. A few p r e l i m i n a r y observations must now be m a d e to clear the g r o u n d . W e must distinguish between two problems: t h a t of the origin of the actual expectation of a f u t u r e saviour king or Messiah, a n d t h a t of the source f r o m which is derived the content of the Messianic figure with all its varied traits. I n the present c h a p t e r it is the latter p r o b l e m that we shall discuss, in order thereby to p r e p a r e the w a y for a n answer tô the f o r m e r . This m u c h c a n be said at once: the content of the Messianic figure was derived f r o m the kingly ideal of ancient Israel as we see it with p a r t i c u l a r clarity in the place a n d function of the king in the public ritual of the national festivals. T h e Israelite m o n a r c h y c a m e into existence long after t h e nation h a d invaded C a n a a n ; a n d O l d T e s t a m e n t tradition bears witness to the fact t h a t it was a copy of C a n a a n i t e kingship. W h e n the people ask S a m u e l to anoint a king to rule over them, they say, Ά king will we have over us, t h a t we also m a y be like all the n a t i o n s ' (i S a m . viii, 5, 19fi). T h i s is precisely w h a t historical considerations would lead us to expect. I n the time of Moses, Israel was a ' p r i m i t i v e ' people as c o m p a r e d with her neighbours. H e r social customs, her political institutions, and her material a n d spiritual culture were still at the level of simple, semin o m a d i c life. I n all these respects b o t h the Canaanites a n d the 21

neighbouring great powers, w h o represented the a d v a n c e d civilization of the ancient east, h a d progressed m u c h f u r t h e r . T h e settlem e n t in C a n a a n involved a n entirely new way of life; a n d its inevitable consequences were a new social structure, a n d new political institutions a n d agencies, which in t u r n called for new forms a n d fashions. I t was f r o m the C a n a a n i t e s t h a t the Hebrews learned w h a t a king was like, first in the clash of war, when they often h a d to w i t h d r a w before their chariots of iron a n d their superiority in arms a n d organization, a n d later on in peaceful intercourse, a n d in ' c o v e n a n t ' , w h e n chieftain, peasant, a n d herdsm a n h a d o p p o r t u n i t y in visiting t h e towns to a d m i r e the wealth, the splendour, a n d thfe power displayed in royal courts. I n legal a n d commercial transactions they often h a d to resort to the tribunals of these kings, a n d they h a d to use or, of necessity, to submit to regulations for t r a d e a n d agriculture which they h a d not h a d to develop w h e n they were n o m a d s . By observation a n d experience they learned t h a t the m o n a r c h i a l system lay behind every a t t e m p t to establish a great empire, a n d t h a t only a m o n a r c h y h a d the power to hold together scattered tribes a n d settlements, since only a king could have a n a r m y big enough for the purpose. I t was precisely in the struggle against the Philistines, who threatened to p u t a n end to Israel's independence, t h a t there arose the pressure towards a closer association between the scattered settlements, tribes, a n d clans, so t h a t the idea of the m o n a r c h y was practically forced u p o n men's minds. T o g e t h e r with the m o n a r c h y it was n a t u r a l (and, indeed, inevitable) t h a t Israel should take over f r o m the C a n a a n i t e s a great m a n y ideas a n d conceptions of kingship, the royal ideology, the ' m a n n e r (mišpāt) of the k i n g d o m ' , its etiquette a n d customs, the whole p a t t e r n of life which was b o u n d u p with it. T h e Old T e s t a m e n t does not conceal t h e fact that in m a n y ways it was a new a n d alien ' m a n n e r ' : indeed, S a m u e l a n n o u n c e s explicitly the c h a r a c t e r of the new despotism. 1 It has, however, become more a n d more a p p a r e n t t h a t Gunkel a n d Gressmann (see below) were right in pointing out t h a t the ideal of kingship which Israel took over from the C a n a a n i t e s was actually a special development of the c o m m o n oriental concept of kingship. By way of b a c k g r o u n d , therefore, we must first offer a n account of the royal ideology of the ancient east. 1

See the later of the two sources in the Samuel tradition, ι Sam. viii, 11-17; χ, 25fr.

ι. The Royal Ideology of the Ancient East T h e C a n a a n i t e m o n a r c h y was not a n indigenous creation, i n d e p e n d e n t offoreign influences. T h e entire culture of the country was in large measure composite, mainly Syrian, but, like Syrian culture itself, subject to strong influence f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a ( H u r r i a n - M i t a n n i a n ) , from Babylonia a n d Assyria, f r o m Asia M i n o r (Hittite), a n d f r o m the neighbouring country of E g y p t . 1 Closer examination reveals so i n t i m a t e a n interaction a m o n g all these cultures, that it is correct to speak of a c o m m o n oriental culture, j u s t as in the M i d d l e Ages we speak of a c o m m o n E u r o p e a n Christian culture, a n d in o u r own d a y of a western culture which in its m a i n features is uniform. A m o n g those elements in the culture of the ancient east which in all essentials are homogeneous, we must include kingship with its special c h a r a c t e r a n d status. O n these grounds, a n d partly also on the basis of older works on religion a n d ethnology which deal with kingship a n d the cult, 2 a n u m b e r of English a n d A m e r i c a n scholars have taken u p the question of the oriental concept of kingship. Reference must be m a d e to the two collective works edited by Hooke: Myth and Ritual a n d The Labyrinth, a n d to Hooke's own work, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual.3 T h i s last is a stimulating book, a n d contains a wealth of material, b u t shows a tendency to artificial schematization. T h e a u t h o r maintains t h a t the cult of all ancient n e a r eastern religions was d o m i n a t e d by a coherent complex of ritual a n d myth, which served as a ' p a t t e r n ' for all these religions, a n d which h a d its h o m e in Babylonia. Babylonian cultic practice in historical times, a n d also C a n a a n i t e , Israelite, a n d other cultic systems are variations of this original ' p a t t e r n ' . At its centre stands the king, himself divine, the offspring or the incarnation of the god, w h o in the cult is at the same time the god himself, so t h a t in d r a m a t i c f o r m he lives or endures the entire ' m y t h ' of the god, his deeds a n d his experiences. T h e god is t h o u g h t of particularly as the god of fertility a n d creation. T h e most i m p o r t a n t cult festival is that of the N e w Year, w h e n the world is created anew. I n it the king goes t h r o u g h the humiliation a n d d e a t h of 1 This is clearly shown in Albright's books: From the Stone Age to Christianity, and Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. See also Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones?, and Schofield, The Religious Background of the Bible. 2 Above all, Frazer's works on these subjects: Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship and The Magical Art and the Evolution of Kings. 3 Among other works on similar lines we may mention Hocart, Kingship, and Kings and Councillors; James, Christian Myth and Ritual, and The Old Testament in the Light of Anthropology, pp. 47ff,

the god (originally in actual fact, later in the person of a substitute king, who was really p u t to death, a n d finally only symbolically), his resurrection, combat, a n d victory, a n d his 'sacred m a r r i a g e ' with the fertility goddess, a n d thereby creates the world a n d makes its prosperity a n d blessing secure for the N e w Year. As we have seen, it is t h o u g h t t h a t this p a t t e r n left its s t a m p on the cultic practice of the entire N e a r East, including t h a t of Israel, but partly in such a way that the p a t t e r n was ' d i s i n t e g r a t e d ' . Individual practices, ideas, a n d phrases were taken over, more or less correctly interpreted or re-interpreted, so that, for instance, conceptions originally associated with the king c a m e to be used of the o r d i n a r y worshipper, as a result of the tendency towards ' democratization ' which is prevalent in all religion. 1 T h e views of the ' ritual p a t t e r n ' school as e x p o u n d e d in the works mentioned above have the c h a r a c t e r of a provisional thesis to be demonstrated by f u r t h e r research r a t h e r t h a n a n assured position based on detailed investigation. Against the background of these general theories, a n d along the same lines as the m y t h a n d ritual school, I. Engnell has u n d e r t a k e n , in his Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, a thorough investigation of the royal ideology of the ancient east. His t r e a t m e n t of the problem in relation to the Western Semites is based on a thorough a c q u a i n t a n c e with the texts a n d a n extensive knowledge of the history of religion. His book is valuable a n d i m p o r t a n t both because of the fullness with which the sources are presented a n d because it attempts a consistent interpretation of the royal ideology in terms of a clear principle. I t also has the merit of not mixing religions a n d peoples, for it treats each area separately. I n a series of treatises by W i d e n g r e n , Engnell's ideas have been developed a n d amplified on a n u m b e r of i m p o r t a n t points. 2 I t is obvious t h a t there is a core of t r u t h in this idea of a ritual p a t t e r n . T h e ancient N e a r East did in fact possess a c o m m o n culture; a n d within this Kulturkreis there was a constant interchange of ideas a n d of cultural factors. Phenomenological study reveals 1 Jastrow had already drawn attention to this process of democratization in Babylonian cultic rites and psalms in his Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens II, pp. 106ff., 117; and the same tendency in several different types of Israelite psalms was pointed out in Ps.St. V I , p. 74, and by Birkeland in Die Feinde des Individuums in der israelitischen Psalmenliteratur. Cf. also Engnell, Divine Kingship, Index, s.v. 'Democratization'; Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 197ff. 2 Psalm no och det sakrala kungadömet i Israel-, in R.o.B. ii, 1943, pp. 49ff.; in Horae Soederblomianae I, iii; in S.E.Ā. x, 1945, pp. 66ff.; and also Religionens värld, pp. 249fr., s 254ff. These theories of a ritual pattern and royal ideology are maintained almost to the point of caricature by Haldar, e.g., in Studies in the Book of Nahum. 24

a n extensive c o m m o n stock of ideas a n d forms in religion a n d the cult. H u g o Winckler a n d his so-called Pan-Babylonian school h a d already m a i n t a i n e d t h a t all the religions of the N e a r East were identical, a n d were ultimately Babylonian in origin. I n t h e m mythological a n d cultic expression was given to the scientific astronomy a n d astrology of ancient Babylonia, a n d to the conceptions of the world, life, religion, a n d history which were based on t h a t science. 1 T h e Y a h w e h of the O l d T e s t a m e n t was a god of the same type as M a r d u k , T a m m u z , or the like; a n d the religious texts of Israel were to be interpreted in accordance with their supposed Babylonian patterns. T h e theories a n d the p r o g r a m m e of the school f o u n d p e r h a p s their clearest expression in Winckler's Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Grundlage der Weltanschauung und Mythologie aller Völker, a n d in A. J e r e m i a s ' s Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur a n d his Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients. This grandiose hypothesis has long since been refuted by a n extensive series of exact studies of the sources. T h e Pan-Babylonists m a d e the mistake of forcing texts f r o m different countries into a r e a d y - m a d e scheme, without due allowance for the varied spiritual structures of the different religions, without m a k i n g the necessary study of them, or overlooking such as h a d been m a d e . Nevertheless the underlying idea of a c o m m o n oriental Kulturkreis was sound. H . Gunkel, H . Gressmann, a n d die religionsgeschichtliche Schule of biblical scholars saw a n d often proved t h a t a good m a n y of the religious ideas a n d literary forms in the O l d T e s t a m e n t were actually of non-Israelite a n d frequently of Babylonian origin, a n d could be adequately understood only when interpreted against this b a c k g r o u n d . T h e great discovery involved in Gunkel's interpretation of the Psalms was j u s t this, t h a t the different types of psalm presupposed definite cultic situations, which in p a r t were attested by the legal parts of the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d in p a r t could be reconstructed from allusions in the psalms themselves. T h i s reconstruction could often be supported a n d supplemented f r o m similar cultic acts in Babylonian religion, which h a d obviously been the 'cultic p a t t e r n ' for those in Israel. O n the basis of this discovery the present writer sought in his Psalmenstudien to present a more detailed picture of the cultic b a c k g r o u n d of the psalms in the O l d T e s t a m e n t , and, in particular, rediscovered the m a i n 1 See A. Jeremias, Handbuch, pp. 171 ff.; Das A.T. im Lichte des alten Orients, 'Motivregister', s.v. 'König'. Zimmern, Zum Streit um die 'Christusmythe', is more sober; cf. also Die Vergöttlichung des Königs Lipit-Htars, p. 2, with references to texts, note 2.

features of the ancient Israelite N e w Year festival, in which one of the chief ideas was the e n t h r o n e m e n t of Y a h w e h as king of the world, the symbolic representation of His victory over His enemies, b o t h the forces of chaos a n d the historical enemies of Israel. T h e result of this victory was the renewal of creation, election, a n d the covenant, ideas a n d rites f r o m the old fertility festivals which lay b e h i n d the historical festival. O n e of the most i m p o r t a n t elements in the symbolic ritual was the great procession, in which Y a h w e h , represented by His ark, ' w e n t u p ' to His palace, the temple. This festival ritual shows so m a n y striking similarities to the other New Y e a r festivals of the ancient east t h a t the present writer felt justified in concluding t h a t in this respect the Israelite festival h a d been developed u n d e r the influence of C a n a a n i t e ' patterns ', which, in their turn, d e p e n d e d on influences which were more or less c o m m o n to the entire N e a r East. It seemed also to be a sound procedure cautiously to s u p p l e m e n t the biblical evidence f r o m Babylonian a n d other oriental sources, where these were really in h a r m o n y with the spiritual structure of Israelite religion. I n Ps.St. I I the opinion was also expressed t h a t the real, living m y t h always has a connexion with the cult a n d the ritual, the m y t h being the expression a n d the epic elaboration of the existential realities which were experienced in the cult. I n the same connexion Gunkel, Gressmann, a n d the present writer dealt also with the Israelite ideal of kingship: Gunkel in ' D i e K ö n i g s p s a l m e n ' in Preussische Jahrbücher clviii, 1914, in his c o m m e n t a r y on the Psalms, a n d in his a n d Begrich's Einleitung·, Gressmann in his Ursprung, a n d in Der Messias·, the present writer in his Kongesalmerne i Dei garnie Testamente, a n d in Ps.St. I I , I I I . I n these works I have sought to show t h a t the ' m y t h o l o g i c a l ' conception of the king, which is f o u n d in Israel as well as elsewhere, is not to be regarded as the result of stylistic influence only (Gressm a n n ' s Hofstil), b u t was the expression of a real religious a n d sociological faith, a n d was closely connected with cultic life a n d experience. T h e ideal of kingship has to be seen as a n element in those religious ideas which found their expression in the cult. Pedersen, too, in his Israel I—II, I I I - I V , has recognized the validity of most of the views a n d conclusions mentioned above. 1 T h e r e is, then, in the writer's opinion, real g r o u n d for the theories of the ritual p a t t e r n school. W h a t they have a d d e d to earlier investigations a p p e a r s to be, in the first instance, the 1

Israel I I I - I V , pp. 384-425. 428-36; cf. pp. 737-45.

26

combination of t h e m with the views of F r a z e r a n d his school on primitive life a n d anthropology. T h e y also reveal a tendency to generalize, a n d to overemphasize the unity of the culture of the ancient east. It is not to be denied t h a t Engnell, Widengren, a n d other representatives of this school show a m a r k e d tendency to go beyond the evidence, and, it m a y be said, to push their theories r a t h e r dogmatically to extremes. T h e y reduce the various religions a n d texts to uniformity, a n d construct a ritual p a t t e r n which is found everywhere, though it existed nowhere; a n d they do not take sufficient account of the frequently varying a n d distinctive structures of the different religions. T h e same thing said or d o n e in different contexts takes on different meanings. This is true, above all, in religion. Yet in dealing with each individual religion, the advocates of the ritual p a t t e r n theory seem to presuppose a c o m m o n oriental p a t t e r n into which the texts must fit. For instance, because Egyptian religion consistently treats the king as a divine being, a n d S u m e r o - A c c a d i a n religion does so r a t h e r less consistently, the same tendency must needs be f o u n d in other eastern peoples as well. But to i n t e r p r e t the scanty a n d f r a g m e n t a r y sources in the light of a partly conjectural Babylonian p a t t e r n , a n d to supplement the material in accordance with this p a t t e r n , is naturally a d o u b t f u l undertaking, which can hardly be carried out without dogmatic regimentation of the evidence. 1 Closer examination, such as has been u n d e r t a k e n by H e n r i Frankfort in Kingship and the Gods, shows t h a t there are p r o f o u n d differences between the Egyptian a n d M e s o p o t a m i a n conceptions of kingship, a n d t h a t if we are to avoid the d a n g e r of Procrustean generalizations, we must pay far m o r e attention to the general structure of each of the various religions a n d cultures, a n d to the social conditions which lie b e h i n d t h e m , t h a n the ritual p a t t e r n school has d o n e . 2 Individual expressions a n d statements a b o u t the king in E g y p t a n d in M e s o p o t a m i a m a y resemble each other fairly closely; b u t the precise content of a n y given conception c a n be discerned only w h e n it is considered in the context of the p a r ticular system of t h o u g h t to which it belongs. If p r o p e r allowance is m a d e for this, the picture of the M e s o p o t a m i a n royal ideology a p p e a r s r a t h e r different f r o m t h a t p a i n t e d for example by Engnell. 1 For a criticism of the extreme ritual pattern theory, see Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 36, and now Frankfort's excellent Frazer Lecture, The Problem of Similarity in Ancient Near Eastern Religions. 5 Cf. Frankfort, Kingship, pp. iff., and the critical notes, pp. 355 n. 13, 382 n. 5, 405 η. ι, 408 nn. 66, 67, 69.

I n the static E g y p t i a n view of life, 1 kingship is a n essential factor in the eternal cosmic world order, a n d the basis of all ordered existence. 2 O n l y savages have no king. T h e order of the world a n d creation are expressions of a n eternal law, ma'at, ' r i g h t o r d e r ' , which is active in both kings a n d gods. Life is in itself imperisha b l e : d e a t h is b u t a transition. 3 Everywhere the object of the cult is to m a i n t a i n a n d renew life w h e n the powers of d e a t h threaten to prevail; 4 b u t in Egypt it appears r a t h e r as a n affirmation t h a t after a m o m e n t a r y disturbance the world order has again been stabilized t h r o u g h the activity of the divine power a n d law. This h a p p e n s because society always has at its centre the intense power of the g o d h e a d . P h a r a o h , the king, is himself a real god, in w h o m all divinity is i n c a r n a t e d . This is manifest even in art, where P h a r a o h is always represented in s u p e r h u m a n proportions as the only person who acts, makes war, storms fortresses, slays the enemy, offers sacrifice, a n d so on. H e is the equal of the gods, a n d himself a n object of worship. 5 Officially he is called ' t h e good g o d ' . His title, ' L o r d of the two l a n d s ' , implies that he rules over the entire dualistic universe.® I n himself he embodies a n d holds in h a r m o n i o u s equilibrium the two powers, Life a n d D e a t h , the gods H o r u s a n d Seth, who are in conflict, a n d yet, by the very tension between them, create a n d renew life. H e is H o r u s a n d Seth, ' t h e T w o L o r d s ' ; 7 he is ' L o r d of Y e a r s ' , 8 ' L o r d of a l l ' . H e is officially styled Horus,® a n d as such is the reborn god of d e a t h a n d life, Osiris. 1 0 As king, he m a y be said to span two generations, for he is at one a n d the same time f a t h e r a n d son. By d e a t h he becomes Osiris, a n d exercises his beneficial activity as creator of fertility in field, herd, a n d nation; a n d as the living one he is at the same time Horus, the son who avenges Osiris a n d brings him to life again. 1 1 T h e king is identified with all the gods. 1 2 As the expression of the eternal order of creation f r o m its very beginning, he is the son of the sun god Re, a n d so on. T h i s is all expressed in the titles which are applied to the king; 1 3 1 In addition to Frankfort's extensive researches into Egyptian kingship, we may refer to Erman-Ranke, Aegypten2, pp. 6off. ; Steindorff-Seele, When Egypt Ruled the East, pp. 82ff.; Engnell, Divine Kingship, pp. 4ff. 2 Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 3ff. 3 Cf. Brede Kristensen, Livet fra döden, pp. 7ff. 4 Cf. Mowinckel, Religion og kultus, pp. 55ff. ( = Religion und Kultus, pp. 60ff.). 6 8 7 Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 6ff. Op cit., pp. 15ff. Op. cit., p. 21. 8 9 11 Op. cit., p. 32. Op. cit., pp. 38ff. 1 0 Op. cit., pp. 18iff. Op. cit., pp. 38ff. 12 Engnell, Divine Kingship, pp. 6f., formulates the thought with undue theoretical precision when he speaks of Pharaoh as identical with the 'high god' and with the 13 Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 36ff. 'god of fertility*.

28

a n d it is also taken literally in a metaphysical sense. Re takes the f o r m of P h a r a o h , goes in to the queen, and of her begets the new king. 1 T h e king is divine f r o m birth. 2 H e is the sun god, who has ' s h o n e f o r t h ' on the e a r t h . 3 All goddesses m a y be regarded as his mothers. As Osiris-Horus, he is the son of Isis, who o u g h t p r o b ably to be t h o u g h t of as the personification of the royal throne, charged with divine power. 4 T h u s P h a r a o h is the absolute master of the whole country, or ' t h e two l a n d s ' . In theory all power a n d property belong to h i m . 5 It is he alone who acts in w a r a n d peace. 8 As Osiris he is worshipped after death, for f r o m h i m all blessing proceeds. 7 H e causes the Nile to rise a n d overflow its banks, m a k i n g the fields fruitful; a n d it is he w h o makes the corn grow. 8 H e upholds justice (ma'at); 'ma'at is in h i m ' . According to a h y m n to P h a r a o h M e r n e p t a h , he maintains the whole n a t u r a l order. 9 H e it is, too, who gives life to m e n . H e is the ' K a ' or life-force of all his subjects. 1 0 His own K a is personified a n d worshipped as a g o d . 1 1 T h e god R e can be represented as P h a r a o h ' s K a . 1 2 M a n y mythical forms m a y be used to express the king's a b u n d a n t resources of divine power. H e has been suckled with the milk of goddesses, a n d with it has i m b i b e d the life-force. 1 3 T h e Egyptians also reckoned with dangerous periods of transition in life, w h e n order a n d h a r m o n y with the divine powers h a d to be strengthened, a n d vigour renewed by means of the effective power of cult festivals. 1 4 T h e New Y e a r was a transition period of this kind, at which every year the king's accession was celebrated. 1 5 A n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t festival of renewal was the seJ-festival, which has been called a ' j u b i l e e ' , b u t which was celebrated at irregular intervals of years, 1 6 when the divine world order, the king's power, a n d his d o m i n i o n over the e a r t h h a d to be strengthened. 1 7 P h a r a o h is one with his transfigured, divine, life-giving ancestors, who live a n d work t h r o u g h him. T h i s is expressed above all in the festival of Min, the god of the life-force, a n d particularly of procreative power. He, too, is P h a r a o h . 1 8 T a k e n together, P h a r a o h ' s ancestors form a collective source of power, to which 1

2 Op. cit., pp. 42ff. Cf. Engnell, Divine Kingship, pp. 4f. 4 5 Frankfort, Kingship, p. 57. Op. cit., p. 43. Op. cit., pp. 51f. 7 • Op. cit., p. 55. Op. cit., pp. 55, 59. f Op. cit., p. 57. 9 Op. cit., p. 58; cf. Erman, The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, pp. 278f. 10 11 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 60, 68f. Op. cit., pp. 69ff. 12 13 14 Op. cit., pp. 77f. Op. cit., p. 74. Cf. van Gennep, Les rites de passage. 16 See Dürr in Theologie und Glaube xx, 1928, pp. 305ff. 16 17 18 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 79. Op. cit., pp. 86ff. Op. cit., pp. 89, 188f. 3

each king is a d d e d at d e a t h . 1 T h e living king is ' t h e elder s o n ' , a n d as such is identical with the god U p w a u t ; 2 a n d it is t h r o u g h him t h a t the ancestors bestow life a n d power. 3 Therefore the king's d e a t h a n d his entrance into the world beyond (where he shares in the eternal, living circuit of R e a n d the heavenly ones), together with the accession of the new king, form a ' transition' of vital significance. 4 It is c o n s u m m a t e d in the accession festival, which has been called ' the Mystery Play of the Succession'. 5 I n it there is re-enacted with complete realism, a n d with the same result, all t h a t took place at creation, when the world order was established, a n d at the historical institution of the m o n a r c h y . T h e god, who at one a n d the same time has joined his ancestors a n d been reborn in his son, stands there again in the fullness of divine power, holding the world o r d e r in his h a n d a n d securing life a n d blessing. W h a t takes place a n d is symbolically realized in the cult is this: Seth has killed Osiris; b u t as Horus, the new king avenges his father, t r i u m p h s over Seth, a n d unites in his own person the two essential powers of existence in settled h a r mony. W o r l d order a n d justice again repose securely in the divine king. This cult festival a n d its ' M y s t e r y P l a y ' are a creative d r a m a . 6 T h r o u g h the realistic symbolism of the ritual, w h a t it represents actually comes to pass. It is essential t h a t something should really h a p p e n 7 in order t h a t h a r m o n y between the cosmos a n d society m a y be restored a n d secured; a n d it does h a p p e n , in t h a t ' H o r u s ' once again t r i u m p h s a n d takes his place on the t h r o n e . 8 T o p r e p a r e the w a y for this change, the old king often takes as his co-regent the new king (usually the eldest son), who has been designated by the god. 'Osiris takes H o r u s in his a r m s ' ; a n d the heir a p p a r e n t is already Horus, a n d is filled with n e w divine power. 9 T h e n , at his d e a t h , ' Osiris ' transmits to ' H o r u s ' his entire divine power a n d sovereignty. I n this w a y the d a n g e r involved in even the shortest i n t e r r e g n u m is avoided. T h e accession takes place immediately after the old king's d e a t h ; a n d the coronation, which is also the o u t w a r d symbolic transference of the fullness of divine power, has to take place at some a p p r o p r i a t e new beginning in the n a t u r a l order, a ' N e w Y e a r ' of some kind. 1

2 3 Op. cit., pp. 90f., 95· Op. cit., pp. 92f. Op. cit., pp. 97f. * Op. cit., pp. i o i f f . ' Op. cit., pp. 123ff. 9 Cf. Ps.St. II, pp. 19ff.; Religion og kultus, pp. 68ff. ( = Religion und Kultus, pp. 73fT.); art. 'Drama, religionsgeschichtlich' in R.G.G.' II, cols. 2000ff. ' Cf. van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, pp. 339ff"., 447ff. 6 Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 124f. · Cf. Engnell, Divine Kingship, p. 5.

30

T h e d e a d king's crossing to the world beyond a n d his full identification with Osiris t h r o u g h the ritual of e m b a l m i n g a n d burial, a n d the new king's accession to the throne, are equally i m p o r t a n t elements in this new transition. 1 T h e entire world order has thereby been secured; the world has been created anew. As the order of n a t u r e is derived f r o m the creator god, so the order a n d welfare of the land are derived f r o m the king. 2 T h e new king is the A t u m , the creator god. 3 All these accession festivities conclude with the coronation with the two crowns. T h e r e b y the king receives all the fullness of Re's power a n d d o m i n i o n : he is R e . This means t h a t the creation of the world has again been accomplished. A new era of prosperity follows the menacing state of chaos which resulted from the king's d e a t h a n d the b r e a c h between n a t u r e a n d society. 4 All these interpretations of men's experience of reality find expression in the hymns sung in h o n o u r of P h a r a o h as of any other god. 5 It follows, then, t h a t the king, whether alive or d e a d , is a n object of worship;® a n d similarly it is he who (in theory) carries out the entire cult, a n d is the priest of all the gods. 7 I t is he w h o invokes a n d stimulates all the other gods to g r a n t blessing to himself a n d his people. Behind this conception of kingship lies a t h o u g h t which is f o u n d a m o n g m a n y primitive peoples, a n d particularly a m o n g the H a m i t i c tribes of Africa, with w h o m the Egyptians h a d close ethnological a n d cultural connexions. T h e t h o u g h t is t h a t of a mana-filled chief of the type called ' r a i n m a k e r - k i n g ' , w h o after d e a t h remains a source of power, a n d who, inter alia, is i n c a r n a t e d in his successor, though he himself also exists elsewhere, a n d acts in other ways. 8 This is shown, for instance, by the fact t h a t it is in his c h a r a c t e r as the d e a d king t h a t Osiris is the power of n a t u r e Frankfort, Kingship, pp. noff. 3 Cf. op. cit., p. 108. 4 Cf. op. cit., p. 150. Cf. op. cit., p. 105. 8 Op. cit., pp. 58, 60; for the hymn to the royal crown, which is also divine, and may be personified and regarded as identical with the various gods, see op. cit., pp. 43, 108; cf. also Erman-Ranke, Aegypten2, pp. 72, 76, 466, 469, 471, 473, 479; Erman, The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, pp. 10ff., 134ff., 254ff., 258 fr., 274ff., 278fr.; SteindorffSeele, When Egypt Ruled the East, p. 83. 7 Op. cit., p. 67. • Cf. Erman, Die ägyptische Religion2, pp. 92, 219, 229. 8 Cf. Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 18, 33f.; see also Index, s.w. 'Africa', 'Africans', 'Hamites', 'Rainmaker-king'. Cf. below, p. 33 n. 3. For 'primitive' ideas about the rule of mana-filled chiefs and kings, and on the chief as a 'sacral' bearer of divine, creative energies, and possibly as the incarnation of a deified ancestor, see, among others, Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris (The Golden Bough IV, that vast collection of material, which will always retain its worth, even if theories and interpretations change). See further Hocart, Kingship·, van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, pp. 214ff. ; Widengren, Religionens värld2, pp. 254ff. (generalizing a little too much); Briem, Pa irons tröskel, p. 56, referring to Junod, The Life of a South African Tribe. 1

2

a n d of life, a n d has become ' s a v i o u r ' a n d giver of life to b o t h great a n d small, to m a n a n d beast a n d country. 1 I t is p r o b a b l e t h a t Osiris really is a deified ancestral chief of this type, w h o lives on in his descendants, a n d who represents a n d possesses in himself the entire power of life a n d fertility in n a t u r e a n d society. I n Egypt these thoughts are carried f u r t h e r a n d developed theologically, so t h a t they are of central i m p o r t a n c e in the entire conception of the world a n d society. As early as the time of the ancient Sumerians, the idea of kingship in Mesopotamia 2 differed considerably f r o m t h a t of Egypt in m a n y ways. W e are dealing here not simply with two variants of a c o m m o n oriental ideology of kingship, b u t with a basic difference of principle, in spite of m a n y similarities in detail to Egyptian phenomena. ' T h e land of the two rivers' h a d no well-defined frontiers, a n d lay open to the n o m a d i c tribes of the desert a n d the m o u n t a i n tribes of the n o r t h a n d east. I t was d e p e n d e n t on rain and the w e a t h e r ; a n d the E u p h r a t e s a n d Tigris were not, like the Nile, regularly recurring sources of blessing, b u t often dangerous a n d destructive ' p o w e r s of c h a o s ' . T h e r e was, therefore, both in life itself a n d in m e n ' s view of it, m u c h more of d a n g e r , suspense, a n d fear t h a n in Egypt. At any time, the powers of evil, t h r o u g h the agency of d r o u g h t , devastating floods, or enemies, might threaten to lay ' t h e w o r l d ' waste again. T h e cult was not, as in Egypt, a n affirmation t h a t the powers of life h a d been strengthened a n d existence stabilized after a m o m e n t a r y disturbance d u r i n g the ' t r a n s i t i o n ' . It was a factor of vital i m p o r t a n c e in a life a n d d e a t h struggle. Every year the powers of chaos did get the u p p e r h a n d , n a t u r e a n d life were dead, a n d at the mercy of the powers of d e a t h ; a n d it was t h e n t h a t every resource must be employed in the cult, so t h a t the gods of life might again be victorious over the power of chaos, a n d really create the world a n e w . 3 I n M e s o p o t a m i a , too, it is life that is a stake in the cult. T h e object of the cult is to create a n d safeguard life a n d its continuance. Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 207fF., 212. For Mesopotamian kingship see Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien I, pp. 45ff.; Zimmern, Die Vergöttlichung des Königs Lipit-Jitars; Christliebe Jeremias, Die Vergöttlichung der babylonisch-assyrischen Könige·, Contenau, La civilisation d'Assur et de Babylone, p. 210; Labat, Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babyIonienne; Engnell, Divine Kingship, pp. 14ff.; Widengren in R.o.B. ii, pp. 49ff.; Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 215ff.; de Fraine, L'aspect religieux. 3 Cf. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 4f. 1

2

But the individual has no prospect of lasting life, as in E g y p t : ' when the gods created m a n , they gave h i m d e a t h for his portion, b u t life they withheld in their own h a n d s ' , says the Gilgamesh Epic. T h e a i m of the cult is to safeguard the continued life of the world, of n a t u r e , a n d of the race in ' t h e l a n d ' . But even the gods need to be strengthened a n d renewed by the ' service ' a n d ' food ' of which the sacrifices consist. T h e gods created m e n to p e r f o r m this service, a n d set a king over t h e m . H e is, indeed, ' t h e great m a n ' (Sumerian, LUGAL), b u t nevertheless a m a n like other m e n . His task is to serve the gods, a n d carry out their will on e a r t h . 1 M e s o p o t a m i a n art, in contrast with Egyptian, always depicts the king as leader of his men, a n d yet as one of t h e m : his a r m y a n d his servants are active comrades in arms, a n d co-operate with h i m . His relation to the gods is t h a t of a worshipper, not an equal: he represents his people before t h e m . 2 This theological conception is in h a r m o n y with the sociological a n d historical origin of the m o n a r c h y in Mesopotamia. H e r e too, of course, there is a b a c k g r o u n d of the c o m m o n primitive ideas of the mana-filled chief a n d leader of the cult, in w h o m the ' p o w e r ' of the c o m m u n i t y is concentrated, a n d who is the c h a n n e l of divine life a n d power to the c o m m u n i t y . 3 Kingship developed in the earliest S u m e r i a n cities from a primitive p a t r i a r c h a l democracy, u n d e r the leadership of the elders. 4 T h e real ' lord ' is the god of the city. H e is regarded as the actual owner of the c o m m o n land which belongs to the tribe a n d the city. T h e king (the great m a n ) seems originally to have been one of the elders who was designated as leader in a situation of p a r ticular d a n g e r or i m p o r t a n c e . His authority lasted only until this particular task was accomplished. 5 Behind h i m stood the temple congregation, the c o m m u n i t y of citizens. Even in the divine polity the kingship is conferred on M a r d u k , according to the Epic of Creation, as the result of a decision in the assembly of the gods.® But b e h i n d the congregation stands the god of the city. It is at his instance, a n d in defence of his land, a n d temple, a n d congregation that the king is to play his p a r t . 7 Accordingly, we find t h a t Cf. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East, pp. 3, 34; Frankfort, op. cit., ΡΡ· 239. 332. 2 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 8f., 224f. 3 Cf. van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, pp. 115ff., 191-241; Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of Kingship, and The Golden Bough, pp. 264fr.; Hocart, Kingship; and others. Cf. above, p. 31 n. 8. 4 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 215ff. 5 See Jacobsen in J.N.E.S. v, 1943, pp. 159ff· 4 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 236. 7 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 22if. 33 1

D

even after the emergence of p e r m a n e n t personal rule, the rulers d o not usually call themselves ' k i n g s ' , b u t the ' vice-gerents' (Sumerian, ENSI; Accadian, iššakku) a n d priests (šangá) of the god of the city. 1 T h e real king is the god of the city. 2 W h e n the city state expands a n d subdues other cities, each with its ENSI, a n d w h e n the position of the king acquires a more political a n d military character, based as it is on force, a distinction m a y arise in practice between the king a n d the vice-gerent priest; b u t it is still the king who is the link between the god a n d the c o m m u n i t y . H e has a sacral character, i n a s m u c h as he is a n i n t e r m e d i a r y between the god a n d the people. 3 I n M e s o p o t a m i a the king always retained this close a n d distinctive relation to the deity; a n d the conception of this relationship was m o u l d e d by theological ideas a b o u t kingship. Kingship in M e s o p o t a m i a was a sacral institution; a n d the king shared the holiness of the institution to such a n extent t h a t we are justified in speaking of his divinity. 4 T h i s accounts, too, for the fact that some of the kings of the larger city states p u t the sign for ' g o d ' (the divine ideogram) before their names. 5 M u c h less frequently the king is depicted in art with the attributes of a god, with horns, for instance, or as a figure of s u p e r n a t u r a l stature. As a rule he is presented as a m a n a m o n g m e n . 6 I n so far as the Babylonian king is endowed with divine powers a n d qualities, he m a y be regarded as a ' d i v i n e ' being; b u t he is not a ' g o d ' in the same sense as P h a r a o h . T h e express a t t r i b u t i o n of divinity by the use of the divine ideogram a n d other symbols is relatively so infrequent t h a t we m a y well suspect E g y p t i a n influence, which, however, has not altered the genuine Babylonian conception. As already m e n t i o n e d , the king is the vice-gerent a n d proxy of the gods, either of the city gods, or, in the larger states, of the s u p r e m e god. I n accordance with the will of the god he administers a n d governs the whole land, which is really the god's property, Cf. Labat, Royauté, pp. iff.; Frankfort, op. cit., p. 223. 3 Labat, op. cit., p. 8. 4 Labat, op. cit., pp. 361ff. ' Frankfort, op. cit., p. 221. 5 Labat, op. cit., p. 8; Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 224ff. The first is Naram-sin of the Accadian dynasty; later, the kings of the third dynasty in Ur, and several kings of Isin, Rim-sin of Larsa in his later years, Samsu-iluna of the Hammurabi dynasty, and a few Kassite kings. Assyrian and neo-Babylonian kings never use it. These tendencies towards deification have nothing to do with ' Semitic ' custom, as Labat seems to think. They disappear as the Semites prevail in Babylonia. Nor are they (as Frankfort has pointed out, op. cit., pp. 225f.) a consequence of basic Sumerian conceptions and the beginnings of monarchy. There must, therefore, be a special reason for them, to which we shall return below. 8 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 3ff, 224f.; cf. above, p. 33. 1

or the world and mankind, w h o m the gods created for their o w n service (see above, p. 33). T h e gods h a d kingship in m i n d f r o m the time of creation, even if it is not, as in Egypt, a f u n d a m e n t a l element in the cosmic order itself. 1 F r o m the very beginning the potent insignia of royalty lay 'before the throne of the god A n u ' . a Among the mythical kings of primeval times we also find gods like T a m m u z , Etana, and Gilgamesh. 3 T h e king is king 'of the l a n d ' (that is, of the whole world of men), of ' t h e four quarters of the w o r l d ' (šar kibrāt irbitti), of the universe (šar kiššatî): these latter two titles both belong originally to the gods. 4 I n theological terms this means that kingship came down from heaven as a supernatural power embodied in the royal insignia, the crown (tiara) a n d sceptre. 5 T h e d o m i n a n t thought is that the king has been designated a n d chosen by the gods,' called by name, equipped with power, ' t h o u g h t o f ' beforehand ' i n the heart of the g o d ' ; he is the m a n ' a f t e r the god's own h e a r t ' , and so on. 7 This idea can be expressed in different mythological forms. G u d e a of Lagash calls himself ' t h e shepherd envisaged by (the god) Ningirsu, steadfastly regarded by (the goddess) Nanshe, endowed with strength by (the god) N i n d a r , the m a n described (?) by (the goddess) Baba, child borne by (the goddess) G a t u m d u g , endowed with dignity a n d the sublime sceptre by (the god) Ig-alima, well provided with the breath of life by (the god) Dunshagar, he w h o m his (special) god Ningishzida has m a d e to a p p e a r in the assembly with (proudly) raised h e a d ' . 8 T h e king has been suckled by goddesses, taught by gods.® I n accordance with a c o m m o n religious tendency, this divine election of the king is often regarded as predestination. 1 0 Nabonidus says t h a t the gods Sin a n d Nergal have destined him for dominion from the time when he was in his mother's w o m b ; and Ashurbanipal says t h a t his n a m e was uttered for kingship from time immemorial. This predestination may even be dated back to creation itself. I n the introduction to the code of H a m m u r a b i it is stated t h a t when the great gods A n u and Enlil created the Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 231f. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East, p. 34. 3 See Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien II, pp. 439n. 4 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 228. 5 Op. cit., pp. 237ff. 7 Op. cit., p. 238. · Op. cit., p. 229. 8 Gudea Statue Β II, 8ff.; see Frankfort, op. cit., p. 238. • Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 300f.; Labat, Royauté, pp. 58, 63ff. 10 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 238f. 1

2

world, ' t h e y also uttered m y n a m e ' , t h a t is, as a f u t u r e king, j u s t as at t h a t time they also decided the destiny of the world, a n d ' p r o n o u n c e d the n a m e of B a b y l o n ' , t h a t is, decreed t h a t Babylon was to be the capital of the world. W e are not concerned here with the pre-existence of the king, or with the question whether, as has been said, ' the e n t h r o n e m e n t of a king is always a repetition of a primeval a c t ' , 1 b u t r a t h e r with a singular a n d unusually strong expression of the religious belief in predestination, a n d the high estimate of the m a t t e r which is implied in t h a t belief. 2 T h i s is clear f r o m the very fact t h a t the expression alternates with the idea of election f r o m b i r t h . 3 N o r is the idea t h a t the king is ' b o r n ' of such a n d such a goddess, or is the ' s o n ' of such a n d such a god, or is ' t h e m a n who is the son of his god ', a n d the like 4 a n y t h i n g more t h a n a ' mythopoeic ' expression of the idea of election a n d of the close relationship between the king a n d the god which election establishes. This is obvious, for instance, f r o m the m a n y different ideas in the passage q u o t e d f r o m G u d e a . 6 I t is obvious, too, in t h e statement m a d e by the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal of himself, t h a t he ' w a s b o r n a m o n g u n k n o w n m o u n t a i n s ' , a n d t h a t the goddess I s h t a r b r o u g h t h i m thence to be ' a s h e p h e r d of m e n ' . 6 H e was in fact the legitimate son of king S h a m s h i - a d a d , a n d b o r n in the royal palace. T h e m y t h of the b i r t h of the sun god is used h e r e to express divine election a n d predestination. N o r is a n y t h i n g m o r e implied w h e n , for instance, in invoking the god, the king sometimes says, Ί have no m o t h e r ; thou art m y m o t h e r . I have no f a t h e r ; t h o u a r t m y f a t h e r ' . 7 T h i s does not m e a n t h a t he has been supern a t u r a l l y begotten a n d b o r n of the deity in a literal, metaphysical sense. I t gives vivid expression to the fact t h a t he has none b u t See Additional Note II. It seems, on the whole, to be characteristic of the religious mode of expression and its relationship to the ' mythopoeic ' way of thinking that it prefers to use categories of time in order to express judgements of value. What is old is valuable and 'right'. Age and primeval origin are proof of high value. 8 Therefore, to use later theological terminology, we are here concerned with the 'ideal pre-existence' of the king in the divine decree. Surely this thought does not have its origin in the annual installation of the king which was associated with the yearly recreation of the world and the repeated experience of the primeval situation. We can deduce too much from cultic experience. The same religious estimate of vocation, expressed in terms of predestination, is present in the statement that Yahweh appointed Jeremiah a prophet 'before I formed you in the belly' (Jer. i, 5). 4 See Engnell, Divine Kingship, Index, s.v. 'Son of the God'; Labat, Royauté, pp. 5 iff. 6 Cf. Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 238ff. 6 Op. cit., p. 239; Mowinckel, Kongesalmerne, pp. 30f. 7 Gudea Cyl. A II, 6f.; Engnell, Divine Kingship, p. 16, reads too much into the language. 1

1

the god on w h o m to rely. 1 T h e king's sonship is not understood metaphysically, as in Egypt. H e is not the ' s o n ' of any p a r t i c u l a r god, b u t m a y be r e g a r d e d as the son of all gods a n d goddesses. T h e god is his ' c r e a t o r ' , a n d has ' b r o u g h t h i m into b e i n g ' ; b u t the god or goddess has not ' b e g o t t e n ' or ' c o n c e i v e d ' h i m ; but 'fashioned h i m with the h a n d s in his m o t h e r ' s w o m b ' . 2 T h e r e is a distinction between this m o d e of bringing into existence a n d the physical relationship of f a t h e r or m o t h e r . 3 Sonship signifies a n intimate relationship of trust a n d obedience. As a ' s o n ' , the king is the object of care, love, a n d protection f r o m the god or goddess (or f r o m all the gods) ; a n d he owes t h e m filial obedience in their service. H e is chosen to be a son; but, in accordance with Babylonian ideas, this means t h a t his relation to t h e m is regarded as t h a t of adoption. 4 I n d e e d , the formula of a d o p t i o n is, ' Y o u are my son, w h o m I have b e g o t t e n ' . 5 T h e t h o u g h t of the divine choice of the king appears in a purely mythical f o r m in statements a b o u t several ancient Babylonian kings (in p a r t mythical kings of primeval antiquity), or a b o u t legendary founders of dynasties, to the effect t h a t they grew u p in the g a r d e n of the gods as their favourites. This is doubtless a reflection of the cultic function of the king in tending the tree of life, or its cultic c o u n t e r p a r t , a n d m a k i n g it grow, t h a t is as ensuring life a n d security on e a r t h a n d for men.® T h e election of the king implies t h a t he has a definite vocation a n d a definite task, namely to represent the gods before m e n a n d vice versa. 7 This is w h a t is m e a n t by the statement t h a t he has been ' s e n t ' b y the gods. 8 Obviously this does not imply t h a t the king has come f r o m heaven, or f r o m the world of the gods. 9 1 Engnell's expression, 'divinization from nativity' (e.g., Divine Kingship, p. 17), like 'identity with the god', is therefore misleading. Labat also warns against making too much of the mythical forms (Royauté, pp. 55ff.). 2 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 300. 8 Labat, op. cit., p. 58; but see below, p. 43. 4 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 299ff.; Labat, op. cit., pp. 55f. Nor do the sources referred to by Christliebe Jeremias (Die Vergöttlichung der babylonisch-assyrischen Könige, pp. 5fr.) prove more than that the king was adopted and brought up by the gods. 6 See the references in Gunkel, Die Psalmen, p. 7 (on Ps. ii, 7). • Widengren, Religionens vārldl, p. 138; R.o.B. ii, 1943, pp. 58ff. It is possible that ideas drawn from the myth about the Urmensch are present here; see below, p. 55 n. 3. It may be that the mythical sometimes veils political reality, i.e. the king in question was originally a priest and the god's 'governor' (ENSI, iSIakku) at the main temple of the city state, or a feudatory prince who had attained royal status. 7 Cf. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 252, 258fr. 8 See Widengren in R.o.B. ii, 1943, pp. 69ff. 8 For the idea of 'being sent' among the Semites, see E. von Dobschütz in J.B.L. xli, 1922, pp. 212ff. Of course the expression is not used in so specific a way as to justify us in deducing from it ideas about the sending of the prophets, or of the Messiah as one sent, as Widengren seems to think. The word is obviously a natural term to apply to any one with a divine mission.

N o r m a l l y the vocation comes t h r o u g h a n oracle; a n d the gods restrict their choice for the most p a r t to the family of the ruling king, b u t are not inevitably c o m m i t t e d to it. I n actual fact the outcome of the struggle for power between the claimants to the t h r o n e would often decide w h o m the gods h a d chosen a n d sent. 1 H e is actually e q u i p p e d with divine power w h e n he is designated crown prince, a n d w h e n he is crowned. 2 T h e regalia, crown a n d sceptre, are ' d i v i n e ' . T h e y are charged with power a n d transmit power; a n d they can be regarded, in mythopoeic fashion, as gods. T h e Sumerians spoke of the goddesses N i n m e n n a a n d N i n p a , ' t h e L a d y of the C r o w n ' , a n d ' t h e L a d y of the S c e p t r e ' . 3 At the coronation the king acquires a new n a t u r e , which is expressed in a new n a m e . 4 H e assumes c o m m a n d , for instance, by a u t h o r i t y of K i n g Ashur, 5 as a m a n divinely endowed, b u t still a man.® T h e king is the i n t e r m e d i a r y between gods a n d m e n . By means of oracles (asked for or sent), he must discover the will of the gods a n d accomplish it on e a r t h . H e must represent m e n before the gods, a n d govern his r e a l m in accordance with the law of the gods. 7 I n principle, therefore, he is also priest (šangû),8 even if t h e r e are professional priests, 9 w h o in practice carry out the daily routine which forms p a r t of his duties. T h e king is their h e a d ; 1 0 a n d on all i m p o r t a n t occasions he takes the leading p a r t in the cult, in which he has i m p o r t a n t functions, b o t h at the a n n u a l festivals a n d a t those of penitence a n d expiation. H e also receives oracles directly, for instance, t h r o u g h dreams in the temple. 1 1 H e c o n d u c t s sacrifices a n d performs rites. I n relation to the gods, he is ' s e r v a n t ' , s u b o r d i n a t e to t h e m a n d d e p e n d e n t on t h e m . 1 2 T h e god is his ' k i n g ' a n d ' l o r d ' . But the title of servant also implies t h a t h e has a task to p e r f o r m by the god's authority. T h e gods a n d the king are united by powerful bonds. T h e gods visit h i m in his palace; a n d h e writes letters to t h e m a n d submits his concerns to t h e m . 1 8 But h e also represents t h e people before the gods, a n d is responsible for relations between t h e m . 1 4 H e must expiate a n d atone Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 243ff. 8 Op. cit., pp. 245ff. 4 Op. cit., p. 246. * Op. cit., p. 245. 4 Op. cit., loc. cit. Engnell's interpretation of the cry of homage during the coronation procession, 'Ashur is king* (Divine Kingship, p. 17), reverses the sense. 7 Op. cit., pp. 252, 258ff. ' Frankfort, op. cit., p. 248. 8 Op. cit., loc. cit.; Labat, Royaull, pp. 13iff., cf. pp. 300ff. • Labat, op. cit., pp. 134f. 10 Labat, op. cit., pp. 202ff.; Frankfort, op. cit., p. 252. I I Labat, op. cit., pp. 147f., 255ff.; Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 251ff. 1S Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 255ff. 18 Op. cit., p. 266. 14 Op. cit., pp. 258ff. I

38

for the people's sins, a n d must personally submit to the rites of a t o n e m e n t . 1 H e m a y even have to suffer d e a t h for the sins a n d i m p u r i t y of the people. T h a t is w h y the Assyrians h a d a ' substitute king ' (Šar pûhi) w h e n disaster t h r e a t e n e d the land. H e h a d , for instance, to take u p o n himself the dangers of evil omens, in order to avert the j u d g e m e n t s which were threatening the king, or h a d already befallen h i m . 2 This m a y be a survival f r o m the old primitive conception of the king as the mana-filled m a n w h o bears in his own person the power t h a t creates good fortune for the entire c o m m u n i t y , a n d who must die when experience shows t h a t power has left h i m . T h e same m o d e of t h o u g h t is also f o u n d a m o n g the old N o r t h m e n . 3 W e see then t h a t in M e s o p o t a m i a even the king's religious attitude to the gods differs f r o m w h a t we find in Egypt. 4 T h e conception of the king is most clearly seen in his position in the cult, 6 especially at the great N e w Year festivals, the ritual of which is known to us f r o m the Babylonian festival of M a r d u k at the spring equinox.® As we have seen, the basis of the life of society is the establishment a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of h a r m o n y between the powers of life; a n d society m u s t be sustained by the positive forces of existence, the gods with their vital power. 7 But this h a r m o n y was not r e g a r d e d as something stable, as inherent in the cosmic order itself. I t was d e p e n d e n t u p o n the often inscrutable will of the gods. T h e gods ' decided the f a t e ' of lands a n d peoples as they pleased. A d m i t t e d l y their will was ' right ' a n d 'justice ' ; b u t w h a t right was was often bey o n d h u m a n comprehension. 8 T h e cult was a system instituted by the gods themselves to enable m e n to learn their will, to serve them, a n d to ensure their help. But even in the gods' own world h a r m o n y has to be restored. I n the beginning, they defeated the powers of chaos a n d d e a t h ; b u t every year these powers escape again, a n d threaten life with Op. cit., pp. 260ff. Labat, op. cit., pp. l03ff., 353ff.; Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 262ff. * Cf. van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, pp. 115ff.; cf. p. 217. Hooke's presentation of this idea {The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, pp. ioff.) is marked by undue theoretical generalization, and gives it a wider application than it had in Mesopotamia. 4 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 267f. This more sober interpretation of the sacral king in Babylonia and Assyria is also maintained by Ravn in Illustreret Religionshistorie*, pp. 1

1

148ff.

s See the summary in Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, pp. 6ff. babylonischen Neujahrsfest I—II; Pallis, The Babylonian Akitu • See Zimmern, Festival·, Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 313ff. For more detailed references to literature, sec Engnell, Divine Kingship, pp. 20if. 7 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 103, 277. 8 Op. cit., pp. 278f,

d r o u g h t , a n d flood, a n d all such things as m a k e life hazardous. T h e changes in the life of n a t u r e show t h a t sometimes the god himself falls into the power of the forces of chaos. This concerns n o t only the gods of fertility a n d vegetation properly so called. Even the great gods like M a r d u k m a y for a season be ' i m p r i s o n e d ' in ' t h e m o u n t a i n ' , in the power of the forces of d e a t h . 1 ' T h e suffering g o d ' is a n essential aspect of M e s o p o t a m i a n gods, not only of T a m m u z , t h e god of fertility, b u t also of all the other gods of the power of life, w h o are in reality identical in character with him, a n d are sometimes simply T a m m u z u n d e r other names, or at least could easily be identified with him. 2 At the height of s u m m e r n a t u r e itself shows t h a t t h e god has d e p a r t e d , is ' d e a d ' , ' i m p r i s o n e d ' , ' o v e r p o w e r e d ' , has ' d e s c e n d e d ' , a n d the like. His c o u n t e r p a r t is the m o t h e r goddess a n d goddess of fertility, his ' m o t h e r ' , or 'sister', or ' b e l o v e d ' , who m o u r n s for him, searches for him, a n d finally finds h i m a n d sets him free a g a i n . 3 T h e dying or suffering a n d rising god represents t h a t side of the whole power of n a t u r e which creates a n d generates life in plants, animals, a n d men.4 I n Babylonia, as elsewhere in the East, the chief a n n u a l festival was regarded as a n actual re-creation of the world, a deliverance from the d o m i n a t i o n of the powers of chaos, which h a d again b r o u g h t a b o u t the withering of n a t u r e a n d the d e a t h of the god of fertility, which h a d held M a r d u k ' p r i s o n e r ' , a n d now threatened all life a n d order with destruction. T h e god's advent, victory, a n d resurrection or deliverance, which are b r o u g h t a b o u t t h r o u g h effectual rites, signify therefore t h a t the world is created anew. T h e m y t h of creation is the muthos of the festival. I n later times, the poetic epic of creation is its ' l e c t i o n ' , or ' l e g e n d ' ; 5 a n d the cultic ' d r a m a ' is a visible a n d more or less symbolic presentation of w h a t is taking place; a n d as it does ' t a k e p l a c e ' in the d r a m a , it becomes reality. 6 See Additional Note III. Frankfort, Kingship, p. 288. As a rule, a god is not originally limited to any particular natural process, but is from the beginning and always simply ' a god', i.e., one who represents all the life, and power, and holiness which society needs for its existence, the powers of nature, the institutions and ideals of society, and the sacred harmony which they express and maintain. Cf. op. cit., p. 279. 3 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 283. 4 Op. cit., pp. 285f. 6 For the myth of creation as a cultic legend in Egypt, see Kees in N.G.W.G., 1930, pp. 345ff.; in Babylonia, Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien II, pp. 63, 96, gg, 104; Frankfort, Kingship, p. 31g; in Israel, Ps.St. II, pp. 45ff.; Humbert in R.H.Ph.R. xv, 1935, pp. 1-27. 8 See Ps.St. II, pp. 19ff., and art. 'Drama, religionsgeschichtlich' in R.G.G.* 1

2

40

I n this d r a m a the king plays a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t . For the gods a n d for society he is ' instrumental in procuring for the c o m m u n i t y the boon of a harmonious integration with n a t u r e ' , 1 with the o r d e r a n d powers of existence. Particularly i m p o r t a n t is his role on the d a y of a t o n e m e n t , the fifth of the twelve days in the festival sequence. 2 H e r e the king must first relinquish his office into the h a n d s of the god, a n d then receive it back f r o m him a n d be reinstated as king. O n behalf of the people he must first do penance, be divested of his regalia, submit to humiliating t r e a t m e n t at the h a n d s of the high priest, m a k e a confession in which he protests that he has not sinned, t h a t he has not neglected the worship of the god, t h a t he ' h a s not i n j u r e d B a b y l o n ' , a n d so on. H e t h e n receives the promise of M a r d u k ' s favour, a n d is again arrayed in crown a n d sceptre a n d reinstated as king. T h e rite is a penitential ceremony, a n d at the same time symbolizes the lowest depths of the state of chaos a n d d e g r a d a t i o n . T h e whole established order of existence has been disintegrated, even kingship itself which was divinely instituted to help to m a i n t a i n the h a r m o n y of existence. But at the same time the rite signifies the ' a b s o l u t i o n ' , the beginn i n g of the restoration of society a n d its ' w o r l d ' t h r o u g h the restitution of its representative a n d link with the gods. T h e N e w Y e a r festival is also a repetition of the king's coronation, as is evident f r o m the fact t h a t the first year of his reign was officially reckoned f r o m the N e w Year festival following his predecessor's death. T h e rest of the preceding y e a r was ' the beginning of his reign' his rêš šarrûti.3 By m e a n s of the rites of p e n a n c e a n d lamentation, king a n d people share in the experience of M a r d u k ' s imprisonment a n d humiliation, which are the occasion of these rites. 4 T h e king heads the procession ' i n search of the imprisoned g o d ' . 5 I n Assyria the king thus ' r e p r e s e n t s ' the god N i n u r t a , w h o here takes the place which M a r d u k ' s son, N a b u , has in the liberation of the god. But this does not m e a n t h a t he ' i s ' N i n u r t a in a literal sense.® H e is his visible representative a n d c h a m p i o n in the cultic d r a m a , j u s t as he is normally the representative of the gods before men. Frankfort, op. cit., p. 318. Labat, Royauté, pp. 240ff., 323ff.; Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 319ff., 409 η. 14. 3 See Dürr in Theologie und Glaube xx, 1928, pp. 313ff. 4 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 32 if. 5 Op. cit., p. 324. 8 Cf. the commentary, K.A.R., 307; see Labat, op. cit., p. 245. Here we read, 'The king, who is carried out of Ekur with the gold crown on his head, and sitting on the throne so that they can carry him, and who walks (sic) to the castle, (that is) Ninurta 1

a

T h u s M a r d u k ' s ' l i b e r a t i o n ' a n d ' r e s u r r e c t i o n ' f r o m the underworld are celebrated, a n d in the great assembly of the gods the fate is fixed once again, when dominion has been restored to M a r d u k . T h e king here plays the p a r t o f ' m a s t e r of ceremonies' in the assembly of the gods. 1 This is the personal function of a royal priest, not of a divine being. T h e king also appears as leader in the c a m p a i g n of the gods against the forces of chaos. I n Assyria, he sometimes represents the chief god, Ashur himself, or his son N i n u r t a , in the w a r chariot. 2 This, too, is doubtless to be understood as representation, a n d not as an actual identification of the king with the god. I n fact, both the god a n d the king are t h o u g h t of as being present. 8 T h e king is, so to speak, the c o m m a n d e r of the god's a r m y in this c o m b a t of ragnarok (the j u d g e m e n t of the gods in the old Norse mythology). 4 T h e climax of the procession is a symbolic presentation of the victory over T i a m a t - C h a o s . 6 T h e king must take p a r t in it all as t h e god's indispensable instrument, t h r o u g h w h o m h u m a n society enjoys the benefit of the victory. 8 H e is the link between gods a n d men, a n d the representative of both. W h a t h a p p e n s to the king symbolizes w h a t has h a p p e n e d to the god. W h e n the king is borne in t r i u m p h on his throne from the temple to the palace, the m e a n i n g is t h a t ' N i n u r t a has avenged his f a t h e r ' . 7 A n o t h e r p a r t of this festival was the 'sacred m a r r i a g e ' , the effectual symbol of the renewal of life. 8 H e r e the king appears s Op. cit., p. 327. Frankfort, op. cit., p. 325. King Sennacherib had this ritual scene portrayed on the copper doors of the house (temple) of the New Year Festival in Ashur; and in an inscription he describes the picture; see Frankfort, op. cit., p. 327. It seems to me to be most natural to interpret the text as indicating that both the god and the king were represented, standing in Ashur's chariot. This is confirmed by the beginning of the list of gods who took part in the procession: ' Image of Ashur, going to war against Tiamat; image of Sennacherib, king of Assyria.' This seems to imply two images, one of the god, and the other of the king. 4 I cannot find that Labat's examination of the commentary on the festival ritual, Κ 3476 (Royauté, pp. 24iff.), provides any evidence that the king is Marduk incarnate. He carries out the symbolical rites, and plays his part as representative of the god; but nothing more. Even Labat (op. cit., pp. 244f.) has to admit the possibility of this interpretation. 6 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 327f. 6 Op. cit., p. 328. 7 See above, p. 41 n. 6. 8 Labat, op. cit., pp. 115ff., 247ff.; Frankfort, op. cit., p. 295. 1

3

who has avenged his father.' But this cannot mean that the king literally is Ninurta, but that this part of the festival ritual signifies or symbolizes that Ninurta is victorious. The commentary gives a theological and symbolical interpretation of all kinds of detail in the ritual. We read, for instance, that the 'horses which have been yoked' are 'the sceptres of Z u ' (i.e., the storm bird, here representing the power of chaos). Obviously the horses do not embody the sceptres.

sometimes (but not always, n o r even as a rule) as the consort of the goddess, chosen by her to be her b r i d e g r o o m ; a n d t h r o u g h his i n t i m a t e association with her h e obtains, on behalf of the c o m m u n i t y , a share in the divine fertilizing power, which h e transmits to the entire c o m m u n i t y . T h e king assumes this role, not because, t h r o u g h the entire cultic d r a m a , he is supposed already to have become one with the risen god, b u t because, on certain occasions, the goddess 'selects' him, presumably by means of a n oracle. 1 H e then, no d o u b t , represents T a m m u z 2 or M a r d u k , b u t as a proxy. I n a still higher degree he represents h u m a n society 3 which, t h r o u g h h i m a n d his divinization in the cult, shares in the renewed vital force w h i c h belongs to T a m m u z . 1 At this m o m e n t he ' i s ' also the ' s o n ' , the ' l o v e r ' , a n d the ' h u s b a n d ' of the goddess. I n the cultic hymns he is therefore called ' T a m m u z ', as is stated, for instance, of K i n g I d i n - D a g a n of Isin. 6 H e experiences w h a t T a m m u z has experienced, a n d is therefore filled w i t h the same vital force, the same faculty of creating a n d transmitting life, to which the resurrection of T a m m u z a n d his union with the goddess b e a r witness. But it is as the representative of m a n k i n d t h a t he has this experience. T h e initiative in this n u p t i a l act is taken by the goddess herself, the king being even then her ' s e r v a n t ' . 6 W e m a y take it t h a t this rite, too, goes back to the ' primitive ' conception of the mana-filled great chief whose m a n a is renewed by i m m e d i a t e sexual intercourse with the goddess. If this be so, it shows süll more clearly t h a t we c a n n o t speak here of a real ' i d e n t i t y ' of t h e king with T a m m u z . . So intimate a n association with the goddess naturally gives the king concerned a lasting s t a m p of divinity; and there are grounds for believing t h a t it was precisely those kings who were selected as bridegrooms of the goddess who continued to regard themselves as divine a n d p u t the divine ideogram before their names. 7 H e r e then we have the starting point for a f u r t h e r development of the idea. T h e r e appears to be one single instance of the idea t h a t the king was the physical offspring of the god a n d the goddess. 8 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 297. Cf. the hymn to King Shu-Sin of Ur, translated and discussed by Falkenstein in Die Welt des Orients ii, 1947, pp. 43ff. 3 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 297. 4 Op. cit., pp. 296, 299; Labat, op. cit., p. 280. 8 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 295f.; Labat, op. cit., pp. 249f. For Sumerian hymns of homage to the king see also Kramer in B.A.S.O.R. 88, Dec. 1942, pp. ioff. 6 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 297. 7 Op. cit., pp. 297ff.; see above, p. 34. 8 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 301 (Eannatum of Lagash). 1

8

I n particular, when one of the kings s u b d u e d other city states, it would, for political reasons, be n a t u r a l for h i m to emphasize this divine c h a r a c t e r in relation to his vassals. 1 I t might t h e n come a b o u t t h a t the vassal would erect a temple for his divine overlord, as did a vicegerent in U r for ' his god ' K i n g Shu-Sin of U r . So did Ituria, governor of E s h n u n n a , for K i n g Shu-Sin: after the liberation I t u r i a rebuilt it, m a k i n g it p a r t of his own palace. 2 D u n g i of U r is once called ' t h e god of his country. 3 T h e great K i n g H a m m u r a b i himself is once called ' t h e god of kings'. 4 W e hear, too, of the worship of the royal statues. 5 I n accordance with n o r m a l primitive thought, a person's likeness is regarded as the bearer of his being a n d soul power, the perfect representative of the person himself. W h e n the king's statue was erected in the temple of the god, it was in order t h a t it might constantly represent the king himself ' before the g o d ' , remind the god of the king, a n d intercede on his behalf. T h u s K i n g G u d e a instructs his statue in the inscription, ' S t a t u e , say to my k i n g ' (i.e., the god). T h e king's ' l i f e ' is in the statue; b u t ' l i f e ' must be nourished with sacrificial food a n d drink. Such a statue was not really regarded as a god.® But a statue which was e n d o w e d with power a n d life in this w a y might sometimes be invoked with gifts to intercede with the gods. 7 T o the ordinary m a n , the powerful ' d i v i n e ' king might easily seem to be in the same position as the gods, since it was t h r o u g h h i m t h a t all their blessing was conveyed to the people. T h e ordinary m a n enjoyed protection a n d life in the ' s h a d o w ' of the ' g o d l i k e ' king, as the king himself lived u n d e r the protection of the ' s h a d o w of the g o d ' . 8 Consequently in p r o p e r names the king fnay often take the place which usually belongs to the god: ' T h e king-is-my-life', 'Rim-sin-is-my-god', 'The-king-is-my-god', a n d Op. cit., pp. 30if. Op. cit., p. 302. Christliche Jeremias, Die Vergöttlichung der babylonisch-assyrischen Könige, p. 17. 3 Jeremias, op. cit., p. 16. 4 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 302. 6 Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 302ff.; Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 13, 15, 17, 18. 6 An offering to a god was described as ' (offering) to the god X ', whereas gifts to the royal statue were described as 'to the statue of King Y ' , without any divine ideogram; see Frankfort, op. cit., p. 303. 7 This is in accord with the well-known fact that cultic objects which arc charged with power, such as the door or the door-handle of the temple, may be personified and invoked as intercessors; see Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 305f. For the statue or the memorial as a living being of divine character with a 'soul', see also Euler in Z-A- W. Iv, 1937, p. 291. 8 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 304. Against the interpretation of this statement advanced by Engnell (and by Christliebe Jeremias in Die Vergöttlichung der babylonisch-assyrischen Könige), see Frankfort, op. cit., p. 406 n. 35. Cf. also Oppenheim's treatise on 'the Shadow of the King' in B.A.S.O.R. 107, Oct. 1947, pp. 7ff. 1

2

the like. 1 O r a m a n m a y take a n o a t h ' b y the god a n d by the king', 2 t h e r e b y filling himself with the sacred power 3 which resides in the gods a n d in their representative the king. I t is also u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h a t such deified royal statues might become objects of worship after the d e a t h of the king, a n d t h a t we h e a r of temples where the cult of great kings was practised after their d e a t h . 4 T h i s comes f r o m the same primitive idea of the d e a d ancestor or chief as a being filled with power a n d blessing, which also lies b e h i n d t h e worship of the d e a d P h a r a o h (see above, p. 31), b u t of which only occasional traces occur in Babylonia. As we h a v e already said, the intention of the gods in creating kingship a n d the king is t h a t he shall see to it t h a t m e n r e n d e r to the gods the ' service ' which they were created to render. But the king should also care for the material a n d m o r a l welfare of m e n . H a m m u r a b i , ' w h o fears the g o d s ' , has been called to the throne ' to m a k e justice prevail in the land, to destroy the evil a n d the wicked, t h a t the strong should not h a r m the weak, to rise like the sun god u p o n m a n k i n d (lit., the black-headed), to give light in the land, a n d increase the well-being of m e n ' . 5 T h r o u g h his good relationship with the gods, a relationship which is strengthened a n d m a d e effective by means of the cult, the king is able to convey to m e n the blessings of nature, good crops, a b u n d a n c e , peace, a n d so on. H e is the channel t h r o u g h w h o m the blessing flows d o w n . 6 H e is 'like a g o d ' . 7 I n poetic language he m a y be called ' t h e sun. 8 H e is 'like the tree of life', 9 a n d so on. H e does not himself create blessing, b u t he prays to the gods to give it; 1 0 a n d he i m p a r t s it by being the ' m a n after the gods' own h e a r t ' , who in the cult establishes the mystical union between gods a n d m e n . T h e M e s o p o t a m i a n royal texts are full of effusive descriptions of the material, social, a n d moral prosperity which abounds in the land when the rightful king has come to the throne, or when he has performed his cultic duties in the right a n d proper way, a n d complied with the will of the gods: t h e n they r e w a r d h i m with years of prosperity a n d with every conceivable blessing. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 306f. Op. cit., p. 306; Labat, Royauté, p. 226. This custom seems to have lasted only for short periods. 8 For this interpretation of the oath see Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, pp. 128ff.; 4 See Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 13, 16, 17, 18. Israel III-IV, p. 450. 6 Introduction to the Code of Hammurabi. 8 Cf. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 307fT. 7 See the quotation, op. cit., p. 309. 8 Op. cit., p. 308. 8 See Additional Note IV. 10 Frankfort, op. cit., p. 311. 1

2

W h e n T h o u , Ο faithful shepherd G u d e a , shalt have b e g u n work for me on E n i n n u , m y royal residence, I will call u p in heaven a moist wind. I t shall bring thee plenty f r o m on high a n d in thy days the country shall spread its h a n d s over wealth. W e a l t h shall a c c o m p a n y the laying of the foundations of m y house. All the b r o a d fields will b e a r crops for thee; dikes a n d canals will swell for thee. W h e r e the water has not been wont to rise, O n the high g r o u n d it will gush forth for thee. Oil will be poured a b u n d a n t l y in S u m e r in thy time, Good weight of wool will be given in thy days. says the god Ningirsu to K i n g G u d e a . 1 A n d w h e n Ashurbanipal, ' t h e h u s b a n d m a n ' of his land, h a d come to the throne, ' A d a d (the r a i n god) sent his rains, E a opened his fountains; the grain grew five cubits tall in the stalk, the ear was five-sixths of a cubit long; heavy crops a n d a rich yield m a d e the fields constantly a b o u n d , the orchards yielded a plentiful harvest; the cattle b r o u g h t forth their young successfully,—in m y reign there was fullness to overflowing, in m y years there was a b u n d a n t p l e n t y ' . 2 T h e r e are m a n y such expressions of the 'blessing' (to use the H e b r e w term) which men t h o u g h t themselves justified in expecting t h a t the gods would ' fix as the fate ' of the righteous king a n d his people when they m e t to ' fix the fate ' in the ' assembly of the gods ' in the c h a m b e r of fate. 3 W h e n we a p p l y to this the t e r m ' p a r a d i s a l ' fertility, the m e t a p h o r i c a l expression is ours a n d does not reflect the ancients' own ideas. T h e r e is no ' paradise m y t h ' behind these hyperbolical expressions of oriental imagination. T h e Babylonians h a d no conception of a primeval paradise, now lost, which the new king restored when he i n a u g u r a t e d a new epoch. 4 It is just 1 Gudea Cyl. A XI, 5ff.; cf. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 257f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin in V.A.B. I, pp. ι oof. 2 Rassam Cyl. I, 45; see Streck, Ashurbanipal II, pp. 6f.; cf. Frankfort, op. cit., p. 310. 3 Like several others, Labat here uses the term 'the Messianic King'; but see Additional Note I. 4 A.Jeremias, Handbuch, p. 207; Gressmann, Der Messias, p. 220, et al., has maintained that the Sumerian and Babylonian texts refer to the king as the one who is to 'restore* paradise to mankind. This is not correct; see Dürr, Ursprung und Ausbau, p. 103 η. 24, with references to the literature. Vriezen arrives at the same conclusion in his Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude semietische volken, 'paradise as a garden with the first man and the tree of life is typically prophetic'. This conception appears first among the Persians, who (unlike the Egyptians and Babylonians) had a definite eschatology.

conceivable t h a t a few features in the description of the h a p p y state u n d e r the righteous king m a y contain echoes of Babylonian ideas of the wondrous g a r d e n of the gods at ' the m o u t h of the rivers which is mentioned in the Gilgamesh epic a n d elsewhere. 1 But such stylistic influence f r o m one motif u p o n a n o t h e r is a very different thing from conscious identification of whole systems of ideas. 2 If we would s u m u p in one word w h a t the people expected of the king w h o h a d been chosen a n d endowed with power, we m a y use the Mesopotamians' own expression a n d call h i m ' t h e sheph e r d ' . H a m m u r a b i , for example, so describes himself. T h e king is to be ' t h e shepherd of the black-headed ones'. But we m a y also sum it u p in the H e b r e w expression ' t h e saviour of his p e o p l e ' . T h e king will ' w o r k salvation ',yêša', in the true sense of the word, ' w i d t h ' , 'spaciousness'. 3 I t m e a n s not only deliverance f r o m earthly, cosmic, a n d demonic enemies, a n d from distress a n d misfortune, b u t good conditions, well-being, o u t w a r d a n d i n w a r d prosperity, fertility in field, flock, a n d nation, quietness a n d order in the state, ' p e a c e ' , a n d the like. W h e n , in the course of the year, prosperity a n d vital energy have been exhausted, then the king, by performing a n d leading the a p p r o p r i a t e , re-creating, cultic acts, seeks to ensure t h a t the gods will again be victorious over the powers of chaos, create the world anew, a n d bless the land. By his vicarious a n d representative rites in the festival, he will atone for the i m p u r i t y which has a c c u m u l a t e d (see above, p. 41). Accordingly, every new king, a n d not least the founder of a dynasty, maintains t h a t t h r o u g h himself the gods have broiight prosperity, salvation, a n d a b u n d a n c e to land a n d people. W e often find the king presenting himself as ' t h e saving s h e p h e r d ' (rë'û mušallimu), or ' t h e shepherd who brings justice', ' t h e righteous or j u s t sheph e r d ' , as H a m m u r a b i calls himself; 4 j u s t as it is often said of t h e gods t h a t they ' s a v e ' , i.e., provide all the good things which are needed for life a n d well-being. T h e adjective ' s a v i n g ' is not a special t e r m regularly applied to a king-god, like ' S o t e r ' in the Flellenistic period. I t is the n a t u r a l linguistic expression to convey the function a n d work of the righteous king. The Gilgamesh Epic IX, 163ff. It is possible that the Sumerians, the Babylonians, and others had the idea that the blessed garden of the gods had its counterpart in the temple garden of which the king was the gardener; see Widengren, R.o.B. ii, 1943, pp. 58f. But that does not mean that the king is an incarnation of the king of paradise, much less that such an idea lies behind the royal ideology; see below, p. 81. 3 See Pedersen, Israel I—II, pp. 330ff. 4 Code of Hammurabi, Epilogue; cf. also Staerk, Soter II, p. 240. 1

2

W e m a y sum u p as follows. T h e king is not a god, as in Egypt; b u t he has been endowed with a divine vocation a n d with a superh u m a n power a n d quality, which in some respects puts him on the same plane as the gods. H e possesses a ' d i v i n i t y ' shared by no other mortals. 1 H e is 'like a g o d ' ; he is ' t h e image of the g o d s . ' 2 H e has been filled with divine power, a n d has authority on earth f r o m the gods, as long as he acts in accordance with their will, with ' j u s t i c e ' . H y m n s may, indeed, be sung in his h o n o u r on his festival d a y ; 3 But men do not p r a y to the king; on the contrary, they pray the gods to bless him. 4 I t follows from all that has been said, that in M e s o p o t a m i a the king was not a real god in the same way as in Egypt. 5 N o r is it the case, as some have m a i n t a i n e d , t h a t in the cultic d r a m a the king is identical with the god, a n d t h a t in the cult the god is i n c a r n a t e in the king, so t h a t it is the king who dies, a n d rises again, a n d is victorious over the powers of chaos, who creates the world anew, marries the goddess, provides fertility a n d life, a n d is worshipped as a god.® W e c a n n o t assert t h a t the king generally plays the p a r t of the god in the cultic d r a m a . But it is certain t h a t in Babylonia, too, the king has a supern a t u r a l divine quality, which distinguishes him f r o m other men. H e is divine, a god to his land a n d people, the image of the deity, s u r r o u n d e d by the divine glory, 7 the b r e a t h of the people's life, as the A m a r n a Letters often p u t it, using a n expression which reflects E g y p t i a n ideas. 8 His t h r o n e is a 'divine Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 31 if. See the sources referred to by Staerk, Soter II, pp. 502f. 3 For Sumerian royal hymns, see Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, p. 13; Zimmern, Die Vergöttlichung des Königs Lipit-Utars, pp. 3f.; Güterbock in Α.f.Ο. xiii, 1936, pp. 26ff. η. 11 ; Langdon in J.R.A.S. 1931, pp. 367ff., cf. ibid., pp. 421 ff. The style of these royal hymns is echoed in the royal inscriptions in the first person (the 'epiphany' style); see Mowinckel, Statholderen Nehemia, pp. 151ff.; Eucharisterion I, pp. 313f. 4 See Stummer in A.J.O. iv, 1927, pp. 19ff. 5 The above account of Mesopotamian kingship agrees in essentials with that given by de Fraine in L'aspect religieux. In Mesopotamia, the king qua king shared in the divine authority ('une participation fonctionelle de l'anûtu'); he was not considered a divine being per se. Real deification ('l'apothéose d'une divinisation') took place only with some kings of the first Accadian dynasty, the third dynasty of Ur, and some Kassite kings (cf. above, p. 34 n. 5). I have been unable to refer fully to de Fraine's valuable book. 8 This seems to sum up fairly the views of Engnell, Widengren, Haldar, and others. Engnell often speaks of the king as being identical with the god. Labat, whose thought is usually clearer, also speaks of the king in the festival as being ' the national god incarnate' (Royauté, p. 240). But on the cult of the king, Engnell expresses himself more cautiously: 'the direct cult of the divine king cannot have been of great significance' (op. cit., p. 46). Engnell's criticism of Labat's still more cautious statement (Royauté, p. 372; cf. p. 368) does not seem justified. ' C f . Christliebe Jeremias, Die Vergöttlichung der babylonisch-assyrischen Könige, pp. 9f. 8 Detailed references are given by Alt in P.J.B, xxxii, 1936, p. 20 n. 2. 1

2

48

throne ' , 1 I n h i m all power a n d justice dwell; a n d he is the earthly administrator of the divine government. F r o m the time of his election in the w o m b a n d his accession, he is filled with supernatural, divine powers a n d qualities, so t h a t he c a n always be the a p p r o p r i a t e link between gods a n d men, a n d represent b o t h in their m u t u a l relationship. H e becomes the p a l l a d i u m of the community, the bearer of its divine powers, t h e channel t h r o u g h which divine energy, vitality, blessing, a n d good fortune flow f r o m gods to m e n . I t is he who in his own person receives all this on men's behalf, a n d lets it stream out into the c o m m u n i t y . I n certain respects a union of divine a n d h u m a n 2 takes place in his representative person. 3 T h r o u g h h i m the powers of life come in visible a n d tangible form to h u m a n society. His person is i m b u e d not only with justice a n d righteousness, b u t with the creative, life-giving, life-preserving, fertilizing powers, which are thus available for the land a n d the people. T o t h a t extent we m a y say hyperbolically t h a t he creates life, fertility, a n d t h e like. 4 I t is t h r o u g h his participation in the cultic d r a m a a n d the usual Accad. kussï ilüti; see Christliche Jeremias, op. cit., p. 10. Frankfort, op. cit., p. 286; cf. also Labat's carefully considered summing up, Royauté, pp. 36iff.; notwithstanding his divine character, the king is a man subordinate to the gods; he 'is the link uniting gods and men, and to a certain degree shares in the divine character'. 3 In view of the general tendency of primitive thought to regard the representative and the symbol as identical with what they represent (cf. Lévy-Bruhl, Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures, pp. 68ff.), we might suppose that the Babylonians held that in the cult the god momentarily revealed himself in the king. But this identity would be only temporary, and could not be made the basis of an understanding of the entire royal ideology. We are not justified in simply identifying the Mesopotamian royal ideology with primitive ideas of a chief and medicine man, who is endued with mana and divine properties; cf. Nyberg's statement: 'Sacral kingship is not a primitive Semitic idea; it is a historical innovation, which was never native to the desert, but is an invention of agricultural and civilized countries' (Sakkunnigutldtandet angdende ledig förkl. professorsämbetet i exegetik (Expert's Report on the Vacant Chair of Exegesis), p. 13). Moreover, the thought of the ancient Babylonians had left the primitive, pre-logical stage behind, and had a far more 'rational' character, as may be seen from their attempts at science. Their approach to things was 'empiricological', to use Albright's expression (From the Stone Age to Christianity2, pp. 82ff.; cf. pp. 123, 134f., 147, 228.» 2 57ff·. 365; Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 26flf.). 4 In fact, Engnell's definition of the king's divinity (whenever he so much as attempts to give any clear definition; see Divine Kingship, p. 31) does not go much beyond this. Of course, Engnell is right in saying that the king is 'in no way just "another feeble creature," ' (Witzel's expression). But the question is not the legitimacy of this phrase, but rather the sense in which we must understand the 'identity' of the king with the god. If Engnell adheres to his definition, then the king and the god are simply not identical; but then Engnell's statements in many other parts of the book about the full identity of the god and the king become obscure or directly misleading. It may be that many differences of opinion to which Engnell alludes (Hocart, Langdon, Witzel, and others) are the result of the difficulty of expressing 'pre-logical' realities in terms of modern, rational ideas. 1

2

cultic acts t h a t this ' d i v i n i z a t i o n ' takes place a n d is constantly renewed. In the cult, the king is not the god, b u t represents him, in some instances more p a l p a b l y t h a n in others, b u t never in such a way t h a t the clear distinction between the god a n d the king is obscured. Here, as in other ways, he is the connecting link, representing both the god a n d the people. This is evident even f r o m his role in the d r a m a of the New Year festival, in which his ' d i v i n i t y ' is in general most p r o m i n e n t , a n d in which, in m a n y ways, he appears as one who shares in the power a n d n a t u r e of the gods. But he appears even more clearly a n d consistently as the representative of the world of men. As the connecting link between both worlds, however, he manifestly shares the experience of the fate of the gods, their impotence, their struggle, their victory a n d t r i u m p h , the experience of the d e a t h a n d resurgence of life in the reality of the cult, which determines a n d creates the reality of daily experience. 1 I n the sacred marriage he has the same experience as T a m m u z , and, to t h a t extent, is for the time being a ' T a m m u z ' ; but it is not as a god but as a m a n that he has the experience. I t is as the representative of the people that the experience comes to him; a n d t h r o u g h it he imparts to the whole c o m m u n i t y for which he stands a share in the renewal of the vital forces, the resurgence of life, the blessing a n d salvation of the new creation. T h a t is why he acts as priest in so m a n y i m p o r t a n t cultic situations (see above, p p . 33, 38). His supernormal equipm e n t enables him at one a n d the same time to transmit the divine energies, a n d to receive them on behalf of the people, as, for example, when he performs the effectual rites of fertility. 2 T h r o u g h one-sided exaggeration of the ' d i v i n i t y ' of the king in eastern religions, a n d of his position as representative of the god in the cultic d r a m a , several scholars have recently contended that it was* inherent in the king's character as identical with the god, a n d in the royal ideology, t h a t he should be the suffering, dying, a n d rising god; a n d they have spoken o f ' t h e aspect of suffering' as a constant element in the royal ideology. 3 This is, in fact, a misu n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h e presupposition of the theory (the king's absolute ' i d e n t i t y ' with the god) is incorrect; a n d the individual 1 Cf. my review of Engnell's Divine Kingship in N.T.T. xiv, 1944, pp. 70ff.; Bentzen, Det sakrale kongedemme, pp. 34f. ; King and Messiah, p. 2G. 2 Labat, Royauté, pp. 288ff.; Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East, pp. 49, 91f. 3 Engnell, Divine Kingship, see Index, s.v. ' "Passion", penitence, and " d e a t h " of the king'; and in S.E.Ā. x, 1945, pp. 3iff. ( = B.J.R.L. xxxi, 1948, pp. 3fF.); Widengren in S.E Ā. χ, •945. PP· 66ff.

a r g u m e n t s a d v a n c e d in support of the theory of the suffering a n d dyi-ng king are u n t e n a b l e . 1 I n other parts of the ancient east, too, we find the influence of the ideas a b o u t kings a n d kingship which were held in the ancient civilizations. W e find it, for instance, a m o n g the Hittites of Asia M i n o r . 2 Here, too, the starting point is the ancient tribal system, with the chosen chief as the leading m a n in the assembly of warrior nobles. W h e n the n a m e of L a b a r n a s h , the founder of the dynasty, is used as a royal title, this is doubtless a n echo of ancestor worship, a n d of the conception of the ancestor as filled with power a n d m a d e divine. T h e king is the ' h e r o ' , 3 e q u i p p e d by t h e deity with s u p e r h u m a n faculties. H e is hedged a b o u t by t a b u s of m a n y kinds, doubtless inherited from a n older ' m a n a - c h i e f t a i n c y ' . As the kingdom increased in political power, a n d began to take p a r t in international relations, it was also influenced by ideas f r o m the ancient civilizations: f r o m t h e east t h r o u g h the extensive intermingling of the Hittites with the H u r r i a n s of n o r t h e r n Mesopotamia, t h r o u g h ancient Assyrian influence in Asia M i n o r , a n d t h r o u g h strong Assyrian t r a d i n g colonies there, a n d so on; f r o m Egypt, inter alia, t h r o u g h direct political connexions in war a n d peace. T h e use of the winged sun's disk ( H o r u s - R e as the sunhawk) as a royal symbol is the result of E g y p t i a n influence. T h e king himself is the ' s u n - m a j e s t y ' . ' M y s u n ' is his way of referring to himself in the official formula. Like the M e s o p o t a m i a n kings, he m a y also be called ' t h e son of T e s h u b ' , the god of storm, rain, a n d war. T h e king's m o t h e r is called ' t h e m o t h e r of the g o d ' , i.e., of the divine king. 4 After d e a t h the king enters the world of t h e gods a n d 'becomes a g o d ' ; the expression simply means t h a t the king dies. This is p r o b a b l y a combination of ancient ancestor worship with the Egyptian royal ideology. Traces of Egyptian See Additional Note V. See Götze, Kleinasien, pp. 8off; Engnell, Divine Kingship, pp. 52ff. 3 See Götze, op. cit., p. 82: 'In der Bezeichnung " H e l d " kommt die Steigerung der menschlichen Eigenschaften zum Ausdruck, die den König an die Sphäre des Göttlichen heranführt'; cf. Engnell, Divine Kingship, p. 76. In the Ugaritic text SS, the new-born god is called mt = Heb. plur. m'tim, Accad. mutu = 'man', 'hero'. Of course this has nothing to do with the conception of the Urmensch, as Engnell thinks (op. cit., p. 169, n. 3); cf. Mowinckel in St.Th. II, i, 1948/9, p. 80. 4 See Engnell, op. cit., p. 58. It ought not to be concluded from this (as is done by Engnell) that the king was regarded as the issue of a (cultic) divine marriage. Nor does anything suggest that the king was regarded as divine from birth (op. cit., p. 57). On the whole, Engnell draws too sweeping conclusions from slender evidence, seeking, as far as possible, to find his common eastern pattern of royal ideology even among the Hittites; see, e.g., op. cit., pp. 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64. 1

2

influence seem to be f r e q u e n t ; b u t they are not integrated in a coherent theological system like the Egyptian royal ideology itself. As in Babylonia, offerings were m a d e to the king's statue, t h o u g h t of as charged with power. T h e king was the ' i m a g e ' of the god. It appears t h a t we are here dealing with individual borrowed elements, r a t h e r t h a n with any consistent ideology of a divine king. But it is clear that the Hittite king, too, was regarded as a s u p e r h u m a n , ' g o d l i k e ' being, endowed with divine faculties a n d qualities. Similar ideas to those of M e s o p o t a m i a are found in C a n a a n , Israel's i m m e d i a t e environment, whose culture the Israelite settlers h a d assimilated. Admittedly, we have little direct knowledge of the royal ideology, a n d of the p a r t played by the king as the god's representative in the cult a n d in the m i n d of the c o m m u n i t y . 1 T h e Ugaritic texts provide the most r e w a r d i n g sources. T h e first of these which call for consideration are the K a r i t Epic a n d the D a n ' i l - A q h a t legend. Some scholars have taken the K a r i t Epic as a purely ritual text for cultic use, relating to the sacred marriage, in which K a r i t is both god a n d king in one person. 2 This can hardly be correct. As the p o e m now stands it is not a ritual text, b u t a poetic epic a b o u t K a r i t , a legendary king a n d the founder of a dynasty, 3 who appears as a demigod, b u t is at the same time, in relation to the gods, a h u m a n being. 4 I t is possible, a n d even probable, t h a t behind the mythical, legendary K i n g K a r i t there stands a divine figure of the same type as Aleyan-Baal, the dying a n d rising god of life: Albright has d r a w n attention to the fact t h a t N u ' m a n , one of the epithets applied to K a r i t , is identical with one used of the fertility god Adonis. 5 If so, ' t h e god K a r i t ' has undergone the same development as the Babylonian Gilgamesh, w h o ' was two-thirds divine a n d one-third h u m a n ' a n d who went forth in order to escape d e a t h a n d yet h a d to die. Originally K i n g See Additional Note VI. See Engnell, op. cit., pp. 143ff., with the summary of earlier interpretations; see also his study 'The Text II Κ from Ras Shamra' in Horae Soederblouiiaruie I, i, pp. I ff. 3 With this interpretation, cf. the rather similar one by Pcdersen, in Berytus VI, 1941, pp. 63fÎ.; cf. also his 'Kana'anaeisk Religion' in Illustrent Religionshistorie2, pp. 207ff. 4 See my remarks in N.T.T. xlii, 1941, pp. 129ff.; xliii, 1942, pp. 24ff.; xiv, 1944, p. 73. Cf. de Langhe, Het Ugarietisch Keret-gedicht\ H. L. Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret. 6 See Albright in B.A.S.O.R. 65, Feb. 1937, p. 28 n. 20; cf. W. von Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, pp. 86ff. 1

2

Gilgamesh was the god of vegetation, ' t h e god T r e e ' . 1 I n the same way the god T h o r in Asgard has become in the folksong ' T h o r , K n i g h t of H a f s g â r d ' . T h e K a r i t epic 'is unmistakably a legend a b o u t m e n ' . 2 But K a r i t is no o r d i n a r y historical king. T h e t h e m e of the epic is the securing of posterity to p e r p e t u a t e the dynasty. Pedersen is surely right in taking K a r i t as a hero, claimed as ancestor by a dynasty which was still reigning at the time when the epic was composed. T h e p o e m treats of Karit, the ancestor of the royal house, who lives on in later kings, a n d of his military expedition to win the bride, ' t h e y o u n g w o m a n ' , who 'will b e a r a son to K a r i t ' a n d p e r p e t u a t e the life of the dynasty. T h e birth of a son means t h a t life a n d prosperity are assured for his land a n d people in the coming generation. ' T h e K e r e t text presents the life of the king as the bearer of society, by describing the w e d d i n g festival of the ancestor king, the b i r t h of the family, the fertilization of the fields t h r o u g h the cult.' T h e same t h o u g h t underlies the D a n ' i l - A q h a t legend. 3 ' B e h i n d the accounts of Daniel a n d K e r e t in these two royal texts lies the interplay between the souls of the god a n d the king.' 4 W h e t h e r K a r i t was originally a divine figure or a legendary king, the historical and legendary elements in the epic are in p a r t presented in the f o r m a n d the language of m y t h . T h e motif of the epic is derived from the 'sacred m a r r i a g e ' , which was one of the chief features in the C a n a a n i t e cultic d r a m a . T h e entire religion was d o m i n a t e d by the idea of the dying a n d rising fertility god, by the t h o u g h t of 'life out of d e a t h ' . 5 T h e m y t h a n d the cultic d r a m a describe how Baal dies in the conflict with Mot, the power of death, a n d how his beloved, ' t h e virgin A n a t h ' , searches for him, how she defeats M o t , how Baal rises again or is b o r n again in the son he begets by A n a t h , a n d , further, how he defeats the hostile powers of chaos, is e n t h r o n e d on the divine m o u n t a i n in the n o r t h as king of gods a n d men, how he is united with A n a t h , the m o t h e r goddess a n d goddess of fertility, how he recreates the universe, symbolized by the restoration of his temple.® Mowinckel in Act.Or xv, 1937 pp. 140ff. Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret, p. 7, foot. Both de Langhe and Ginsberg underestimate the mythical element in this epic. The correct view, that Karit and Dan'il are heroes, is also maintained by Eissfeldt in Beiträge zur Arabistik, Semitistik und Islamwissenschaft, pp. 267ff. 3 See Ginsberg in B.A.S.O.R. 97, Feb. 1945, pp. 3ff.; 98, April 1945, pp. 15ff. 4 The last two quotations are from Pedersen in Illustreret Religionshistorie2, p. 210. 6 Cf. Brede Kristensen's book with this title, demonstrating the existence of this idea in Egyptian and Greek religion. 6 We are indebted to Hvidberg (Graad og Latter i det Garnie Testamente) and Engnell 1

2

T h e m e s f r o m this cultic m y t h have been used as formative elements in the plot of the epic of K a r i t , 1 j u s t as the motif of the d e a t h of the god has been used in the description of the d e a t h of the son A q h a t in the D a n ' i l Epic. 2 K a r i t is the specially chosen a n d trusted ' s e r v a n t ' 3 a n d ' s o n ' 4 of the supreme god El. H e is one of ' t h e g o d s ' . 6 As in Babylonia, the royal child has been suckled by goddesses.® His bride, ' t h e noble V i r g i n ' , 7 has several features which belong to the fertility goddess; a n d the birth of the son guarantees life a n d prosperity to the royal dynasty a n d the people, like the birth of the son of the god in the m y t h . T h e life a n d health of the king m e a n blessing a n d righteous rule ( ' j u d g e m e n t ' ) in the land. This last element also occurs in the D a n ' i l legend. 8 T h e supreme god, ' t h e Bull Ε Γ , is his father. 9 T h e goddess promises immortality to the king's son, a n d as m a n y years a n d months ' a s Baal when he is alive'. 1 0 T h e r e are vestiges of the cult of the king's d e a d ancestors. 1 1 I n the literal sense these hero kings are not themselves i m m o r t a l , although they are sons of El, 1 2 a n d although for them, as for all eastern kings, men wish everlasting life (i.e., exceedingly long life). W e h e a r that both K a r i t a n d Dan'il must die. ' T h e king occupies a dual, or rather, a n intermediate, position between gods a n d m e n ' . 1 3 W h e t h e r the king of U g a r i t played a p a r t in the cultic d r a m a as the god's ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' , we do not know for certain, t h o u g h This is the kernel of truth in Engnell's cultic interpretation of the epic. There seems to me to be no ground for Engnell's statement (op. cit., p. 141) that Dan'il 'is here [i.e., in I D, col. I, 38f.] simply identified with Ra'lu'. The text speaks of Dan'il 'conjuring the clouds' (cf. Hos. ii, 23f.) in order to make Baal keep back the rain for seven years. 3 See Mowinckel in N.T.T. xliii, 1942, pp. 24ff., with references to the texts. 4 Krt A, 41, 59, 76f., i6g; Krt C cols. I—II, iof., 20-4, 105f., iiof. (according to Ginsberg's enumeration of the lines). 6 Krt C I-II, 22. 6 Krt Β II, 2 ff. 5 7 mtt hry; Ginsberg translates 'Lady Hurriya'. 8 Dan'il V, 4ff.; Engnell, op. cit., p. 137. 9 Dan'il I, 24; Engnell, op. cit., p. 136. 10 Dan'il VI, 26ff.; Engnell, op. cit., p. 138. 11 Dan'il I 24ff.; Engnell, op. cit., p. 136. 12 It is brought out clearly enough in the description of Karit's illness in Krt C I , iff. Cf. Ps. lxxxii, 6f. It is an inversion of the truth when Engnell states (op. cit., p. 138): 'the king—although he is "immortal"—has to " d i e " like everyone else, or, more exactly, for everyone else'. Being in himself mortal, the king has an unusually long life in virtue of his kingship, because he is full of divine power. 13 Pedersen in Illustrent Religionshistorie2, p. 207. 1

2

(Divine Kingship) for making clear these fundamental features in the Aleyan-Baal myth, and its cultic meaning. Cf. my critique of Hvidberg's Graad og Latter in N.T.T. xl, 1939, and Kapelrud in N.T.T. xii, 1940, pp. 38fT.; see also Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts.

there m a y be some grounds for thinking so. 1 If so, we have the same identification in experience of the king (as representative of the cultic assembly) with the deity, which was also characteristic of the position of the Babylonian kings in the cult (see above, p. 50). I t has sometimes been m a i n t a i n e d t h a t this oriental royal ideology must go back to a specific m y t h a b o u t a celestial, divine, 'saviour k i n g ' of the future, of w h o m individual kings were regarded as realizations or incarnations. But no such general, oriental, saviour myth (eschatological in greater or less degree) ever existed. 2 Equally u n t e n a b l e is the theory t h a t the royal ideology was originally associated with or derived from a n Urmensch. N o r is the m y t h of the Urmensch a concept c o m m o n to the ancient east. T h e fact t h a t descriptions of the Urmensch sometimes contain kingly traits is in no way connected with the royal ideology as such, or with its origin. 3 In spite of the great differences between, for instance, E g y p t i a n a n d Babylonian views of the king, there are certain c o m m o n basic features. As we have seen, both go back to the primitive conception of the ' mana-chief ' as a being endowed in a special way with power, a n d possessed of divine faculties a n d energies. In Egypt, the king has become an i n c a r n a t e god; in Babylonia, he appears with greater or less distinctness as a deified m a n , a s u p e r m a n , standing between the gods a n d ordinary mortals. It is chiefly in this Babylonian form t h a t the royal ideology occurs a m o n g other eastern peoples, t h o u g h certain traces of Egyptian ideas a n d etiquette occasionally a p p e a r , particularly a m o n g the Hittites. T h u s w h e n some m o d e r n scholars attribute ' i d e n t i t y ' with the 1 The features adduced by Hooke (Early Semitic Ritual, pp. 35, 42) as evidence that in the cult the king appeared in the role of the god, are only vague possibilities lacking positive proof. Nor does Engnell's rendering of the texts in Divine Kingship provide certain evidence of this; all the evidence is obtained with the help of the ritual pattern scheme; cf. op. cit., pp. 112, 127, 136 foot, 139 foot, 141, 150, 151, 152 foot, 155f., i6i, 167. Engnell's own summary of the evidence (op. cit., pp. 168ff.) is obviously only sufficient to show that Karit has the same 'divine' features as for instance all the other earthly kings of Babylonia, and that the epic is modified by conventional motifs from the divine myth; but from this no certain conclusions can be drawn as to whether at Ugarit the king was identical with the god and played the part of the god in the cult. Cf. also Pedersen's indefinite statement in Illustreret Religionshistorie2, p. 207: 'It is probable that at any rate in the early period the king played the part of the leading god in the festival.' 2 See Mowinckel in St. Th. II, i, 1948/9, pp. 76ff. 3 For further details see St.Th. II, i, 1948/9, pp. 71 ff. Against Engnell's assertion T.K., that ben 'ādām is a term denoting the Urmensch and a royal title, see Sjöberg in xxvi, 1950, pp. 35fr.

deity to eastern kings, a n d regard the ' p a t t e r n ' of royal ideology as both u n i f o r m a n d c o m m o n to the whole N e a r East, we must qualify their views in several ways. 1 Nevertheless the fact remains t h a t sacral kingship played an i m p o r t a n t p a r t in all these ancient civilizations. Even a m o n g the Babylonians, whose thought was more 'rationalistic' t h a n t h a t of any other eastern people, there was ascribed to the king a s u p e r h u m a n , we m a y even say a supernatural, divine quality. T h e king was a kind of god on earth. H e h a d divine faculties a n d qualities. H e was the representative of the gods before men, as he was the representative of m e n before the gods. H e was the channel t h r o u g h which the power a n d blessing of the deity a n d of n a t u r e flowed to society; a n d he h a d an i m p o r t a n t a n d active p a r t to play in the cult, whereby every year the gods created the world anew, and kept the universe a n d society in h a r m o n y with each other. Naturally, these thoughts often a p p e a r in mythical forms, in accordance with c o n t e m p o r a r y modes of t h o u g h t a n d expression. 2. The Israelite Ideal of Kingship: Yahweh's Anointed I t is against the b a c k g r o u n d of these eastern conceptions of kingship t h a t the Israelite conception has to be considered. 2 W h e n Israel c a m e f r o m the desert into C a n a a n , assimilated C a n a a n i t e culture, a n d finally, as the O l d T e s t a m e n t sources themselves state, a d o p t e d kingship after the C a n a a n i t e model, it goes without saying t h a t she also adopted a n d imitated C a n a a n i t e ideas of kingship, its forms a n d etiquette, a n d the like, just as the R o m a n e m p e r o r b e c a m e the prototype of the national kings of the Teutons, the kings of the Franks, the Saxons, a n d others, a n d just as C h a r l e m a g n e in his t u r n was to determine the character of the old Norse m o n a r c h y . T h e Hofstil in Israel would naturally be a more or less faithful imitation of t h a t of C a n a a n , which in t u r n was only a special form of t h a t f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t the N e a r East, 1 We are probably justified in saying that Widengren (Religionens vārld2, pp. 254ff.) ascribes too great general phenomenological importance to the developed ideology associated with sacral kingship. He rightly says that some fundamental ideas seem to be common to a particular level of culture. But the inquiry into sacral chieftainship ought to have been related more closely to the mana-filled chief and medicine man, and to the cult of ancestors, than Widengren has done. * This was first maintained by Gunkel in Preussische Jahrbücher clviii, 1914, pp. 42f., and by Gressmann in Ursprung, pp. 250ff. See also Mowinckel, Kongesalmeme, pp. 20ff.; Ps.St. II, pp. 298ff.; Gunkel-Begrich, Einleitung, pp. 155ff.; Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 33ff. The strong emphasis on this point of view by Hooke and his collaborators (Myth and Ritual, Index, s.w. 'King', 'Kingship'; The Labyrinth, Index, s.w. 'King, Divine') represents a one-sided exaggeration of the views of earlier scholars.

as it developed in the great states on the E u p h r a t e s a n d Tigris, a n d on the Nile. 1 This style a n d etiquette were a n expression of the conception of sacral kingship. But Israel did not take over either C a n a a n i t e religion, 2 or the sacral kingship which was connected with it, unaltered. I n Yahwism the royal ideology u n d e r w e n t p r o f o u n d changes. Even in the purified, Yahwistic form of the tradition in the O l d Testament, there are m a n y indications t h a t the forms a n d ideas associated with the monarchy, which were originally a d o p t e d in the court ceremonial of David a n d Solomon, were strongly influenced by c o m m o n oriental conceptions. But we must also be p r e p a r e d to find t h a t m a n y ideas were a d o p t e d in a sense different from t h a t which they originally carried in C a n a a n or Babylonia. M a n y a cultic rite m a y have been dissociated from its original context 3 when it was a p p r o p r i a t e d for Yahwism, so t h a t it now appears either as a survival or with a n e w m e a n i n g . This m e a n i n g is d e t e r m i n e d not by w h a t it m a y have signified in another context, b u t by its context in the structural unity of which it now forms a p a r t . As for expressions and phrases in the royal etiquette, m a n y of these m a y have been just rhetorical or poetical forms, adopted simply because they belonged to the traditional literary style. For we must not forget that the Israelite m o n a r c h y also inherited traditions f r o m the old chieftainship of the semi-nomadic period a n d the time of the settlement. 4 I n the traditions a b o u t Saul, the account of his simple household, court, a n d b o d y g u a r d are reminiscent of the establishment of a n ancient chieftain r a t h e r t h a n of a n oriental king's court. 5 T h e chieftainship was in a measure hereditary. But the position of a tribal chief or sheikh d e p e n d e d primarily on his personal qualities, his ability to lead, advise, a n d help, a n d to settle disputes within the tribe or between tribes a n d clans.® All the traditions a b o u t the J u d g e s show t h a t they attained their position because, in a given historical situation, they were able to rally the tribe, or several tribes, a r o u n d t h e m selves, to b e a t off the enemy, a n d thus ' s a v e ' their people. I n Cf. Gressmann, Der Messias, pp. 44ff. The view presupposed by Haldar (e.g., in The Notion of the Desert in Sumero-Accadian and West-Semitic Religions) is just as monstrous as was that of H. Winckler in his remarks on Israelite religion in his Geschichte Israels, or in K.A.T.3, pp. 204ff., passim. 3 See above p. 24. Cf. further Frankfort, The Problem of Similarity in Ancient Near Eastern Religions. 4 Cf. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 41 ff. 6 See Buhl, Det israelitiske Folks Historie'', pp. 185f.; cf. McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine, p. 209. ® Cf. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 213ff. 1

2

time of peace they retained the authority thus gained; a n d the e x a m p l e of Gideon shows t h a t it could also be transmitted to sons, provided they were able to u p h o l d their father's ' h o n o u r ' . But a p a r t from the influence which the chieftain's h o n o u r won for him (and in h o n o u r there were of course included wealth, a good a n d n u m e r o u s family, a n d personal moral qualities such as resourcefulness, courage, sagacity, knowledge of the traditions of justice, generosity, skill as a negotiator, a n d the like), his position was t h a t of a primus inter pares. T h e comprehensive expression for all these qualities a n d activities was that he ' j u d g e d ' . H e was ' j u d g e ' , i.e., ruler, a n d leader, a n d magistrate, by virtue of his ability to do mišpāt, a n d his inherent 'righteousness' (s e dākâh). This chieftainship has been called ' c h a r i s m a t i c ' , 1 as d e p e n d e n t on Y a h w e h ' s ' g r a c e - g i f t ' ; a n d the legends 2 often emphasize that the J u d g e s were called to the task of liberation by a revelation from Y a h w e h Himself. W e also hear t h a t they performed their heroic deeds because Yahweh's spirit c a m e u p o n t h e m a n d endowed t h e m with unusual power a n d insight. 3 W h e n the spirit seized t h e m in the h o u r of crisis, the effect was ecstasy, a high tension of all the powers a n d faculties of the soul. T h e n they ' w e n t in this their m i g h t ' , with Yahweh as their protector a n d helper (Judges vi, 14; cf. ι S a m . x, 1 - 7 ) . T h e r e is no mention of a p e r m a n e n t e n d o w m e n t with the spirit, b u t of a n a b n o r m a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n of power f r o m time to time. I n his activity the chief was d e p e n d e n t on the fact that he represented ancient use a n d wont a n d conceptions of justice, a n d on the a p p r o b a t i o n of the leading men of the tribe, ' t h e elders'. H e h a d no i n d e p e n d e n t power to enforce his c o m m a n d s . His authority was f o u n d e d on the trust he enjoyed, the spiritual influence he exercised, a n d the a p p r o b a t i o n of public opinion a n d the comm o n sense of justice. 4 If he h a d the tribe or a personal following b e h i n d him, he might also enforce his will on other tribes (see J u d g e s xii, iff.). 1 See Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina, pp. gf.; Michelet, Fra Mose til profeteme, pp. 122ff. 2 The term 'legend' is here used to translate the Norwegian sagn; and 'legendary' elsewhere usually represents sagnaktig. The use of such terms does not, of course, imply that the narratives so designated are wholly unhistorical. Cf. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament2 I, p. 233 n. 4 (Translator). 3 See Linder, Studier till Gamla testamentetsßjreställningar om Anden, pp. iff. Linder is scarcely right in holding that in Israel this conception is older than that of the spirit in the prophets. See below, pp. 78f. 4 Cf. Jos. xxiv, 15; Judges vi, 25-32; viii, 1-3; xi, 4-11.

58

Besides his activity as a j u d g e , the chief was also in charge of the public cult of his tribe. 1 T h e ancient unity of chief a n d seer-priest is reflected in the traditions a b o u t Moses; the chief E h u d a p p e a r s as the bearer of an oracle f r o m Y a h w e h ( J u d g e s iii, 19); Gideon receives oracles ( J u d g e s vi, 11 ff.); a n d S a m u e l is presented both as seer-priest a n d as j u d g e (1 Sam. ixf. a n d viif.). T h e m e m o r y of this twofold office a p p e a r s occasionally in the tradition when it gives to t h e individual j u d g e a m a n of oracles, or prophet, to advise a n d support him (Judges iv, 4ff.; ι Sam. ixff.). T h i s all shows, of course, t h a t the chief is closely associated with the god of the tribe; more so in practice t h a n his fellow-tribesmen. This is reflected, for instance, in such phrases as ' the god of soand-so (the chief or a n c e s t o r ) ' . 2 Alongside of it we also find the t h o u g h t a n d the expression, ' t h e god of m y house (i.e., of m y f a m i l y ) ' . 3 A n d a great m a n y personal names f r o m nearly all ' p r i m i t i v e ' Semitic national groups show t h a t the god of the tribe was looked u p o n as the father, or brother, or kinsman of the one who bore the n a m e . 4 But this does not m e a n t h a t the god was supposed to have physically begotten this particular individual. H e r e terms like ' f a t h e r ' have a sociological reference, not a n individual a n d physical one. T h e god is the father, and brother, a n d kinsman of the whole tribe. T h e expression points to the tribe's origin, inasmuch as the god is often looked u p o n as its ancestor; b u t he is not the f a t h e r of the chief in a sense different f r o m t h a t in which he is the f a t h e r of the whole tribe a n d of all its individual members. T h e Israelite m o n a r c h y is the result of the fusion of the traditions of the old chieftainship with the laws, customs, a n d ideas of C a n a a n i t e kingship. T h e n c e arose the early attempts at tribal kingship u n d e r Gideon a n d Abimelech; a n d Ishbaal's k i n g d o m east of J o r d a n was of the same c h a r a c t e r . 6 I n contrast with these, Saul represents a conscious a t t e m p t to create a comprehensive national kingship e m b r a c i n g all the tribes; a n d he p r o b a b l y h a d f u d g e s vi, 24, 25ff.; viii, 24-7; ix, 27; xvii, 1-5. * Cf. Alt, Der Gott der Väter. 3 See Euler in Z-A.W. lv, 1938, pp. 300fr. 4 See Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites3, pp. 45ff., 509ff.; von Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, pp. 43ff.; shorter survey, e.g., in Schofield, The Religious Background of the Bible, pp. 64ff.; M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. 5 2 Sam. ii, 8ff.; iv, iff.; cf. Eissfeldt in La Nouvelle Clio, 1951, pp. ι loff.

59

behind him the old Israelite a m p h i c t y o n y of ten tribes. 1 T h i s appears to be the kernel of the tradition a b o u t the solemn choice of a king at Gilgal a n d M i z p a h (i Sam. x, 17ffi; xi, 12ff.). O n the other h a n d , the kingship of David a n d Solomon represents a national a n d religious syncretism. T h e powerful position of David's dynasty was based on hereditary control of the C a n a a n i t e city state of J e r u s a l e m , which lay outside tribal territory; 2 and Solomon's administrative division of the realm h a d as its object a n d result the complete fusion of the Israelites with the native population. 3 T h e temple was a ' r o y a l t e m p l e ' , a n d gave expression, according to the C a n a a n i t e p a t t e r n , to the close connexion between the national god a n d the king. But in Israel the tension between the traditions of chieftainship a n d those of kingship, and, in general, the hostility of the ' desert ideals' to the m o n a r c h y were always present. 4 This is evident in the opposition between the old s t a n d a r d of justice a n d the despotic mišpāt of the n e w m o n a r c h y . I n the affair of N a b o t h they clash in the persons of Elijah a n d A h a b (1 Kings xxi). T h e opposition is still more plainly seen in the theory t h a t Y a h w e h alone should be king in Israel, a n d in the clear awareness t h a t kingship was a C a n a a n i t e innovation, thoughts which find expression in one of the collections of traditions a b o u t Saul a n d Samuel (1 Sam. viii; x; xii; xv). W h e n the cultic functions were transferred to the king, a n d the chiefs entered his service, it was left to the circles of old seers a n d prophets to conserve the traditions of n o m a d i c times, or r a t h e r , w h a t they believed these traditions to be. I n the traditions a b o u t Moses he is not, as has been m a i n t a i n e d , 5 a partial reflection of the figure of the king: on the contrary, he represents the ideals a n d traditions which were opposed to the m o n a r c h y . It was this prophetic opposition which constantly renewed the claim t h a t the king's task was to submit to a n d m a i n t a i n ' t h e justice of Y a h w e h ' , a n d not to claim to be more t h a n he was, or to exalt 1 On this amphictyony see Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. But Noth is wrong in maintaining that it was a federation of twelve tribes; according to Judges ν it consisted of only ten; see Mowinckel, Zur Frage nach dokumentarischen Quellen in Josua '3-19, PP· 21 f. 2 Cf. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina. 3 Cf. Alt, in the Kittelfestschrift, pp. ι ff. 4 Cf. Budde, ' Das nomadische Ideal im alten Israel ' in Preussische Jahrbücher lxxxv, 1896; Nyström, Jahwismus und Beduinentum, pp. 79ff. This point is also rightly emphasized by de Fraine in L'aspect religieux. 1 E.g., Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 662f.; Engnell, Gamla testamentet I, pp. 98, 134, with references to the literature.

himself over his ' b r e t h r e n ' . 1 I t is emphasized t h a t it was ' a warrior chosen f r o m a m o n g the p e o p l e ' t h a t Y a h w e h exalted w h e n he m a d e David king (Ps. lxxxix, 20). K i n g Ahaz is a m a n like other men, asserts the prophetic tradition; a n d in the m o m e n t of d a n g e r ' his heart a n d the h e a r t of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the w i n d ' (Isa. vii, 2, 13). T h a t the bodies of the kings have been interred beside Yahweh's temple is for Ezekiel the gross ' d e f i l e m e n t ' which has called d o w n Y a h w e h ' s p u n i s h m e n t u p o n the city (Ezek. xliii, 7ffi). I t is, therefore, only to be expected t h a t , if not at the outset, at least in the course of time, the c o m m o n oriental royal ideology would u n d e r g o in Israel quite f u n d a m e n t a l changes u n d e r t h e influence of Yahwism a n d the wilderness tradition, a n d t h a t m a n y of the forms which were borrowed would acquire a modified or new content. I n consequence, those c o m m o n features which d o exist must not be interpreted solely in terms of the m e a n i n g they h a d in Babylonia or Egypt, b u t in the light of the entire structure a n d the f u n d a m e n t a l ideas of Yahwism. Rites originally associated with the worship of the king m a y have been a d o p t e d in the Israelite cult without any t h o u g h t of their original meaning. 2 I n the ancient A r a m a i c inscriptions f r o m n o r t h Syria we have a n interesting analogy which corroborates the way in which the old n o m a d i c view of the relation between the king a n d the god prevailed over the oriental royal ideology. These inscriptions b e a r witness to the invasion of the semi-nomadic A r a m e a n tribes into the small states of n o r t h e r n Syria, a n d their usurpation of political power in the tenth a n d n i n t h centuries B.c. T h e y shed m u c h light on the relation of the king a n d the royal family to the gods. Euler sums u p the results of his thorough investigation in the following words: ' T h e king is not held to be of divine origin, a n d consequently is not the son of any god whatsoever. No text hints at a n y t h i n g of the kind.' 3 N o r does the king become divine after 1 ι Sam. viii, ioff.; x, 25; cf. xii, iff.; Deut. xvii, 14-21, 'his brethren'; Jer. xxii, 13, 'his neighbour' (compatriot). 2 In the search for such rites, scholars sometimes read into the evidence what they are looking for. So, e.g., when Hooke (J.M.E.O.S. xvi, 1931, pp. 23ff.) finds Yahwistic reaction against Canaanite rites of the deification of the king in Exod. xx, 26; xxiii, igb; Lev. ii, 11. It is correct to speak here of reaction against the ritual of the Canaanite cult; but to find any reference to the king is arbitrary. 3 See Euler in £.A.IV. 1vi, 1g38, p. 296. Engnell's polemic against Euler (Divine Kingship, p. 205) takes for granted what needs to be proved (viz., that the conception in these inscriptions is the same as that in the general oriental pattern), and does not take account of the essential point, that we are dealing here with a new, recently immigrated people with its own conceptions.

6l

d e a t h ; he is the agent of the divine will, entirely subordinate to the god, b u t not a more or less 'identical i n c a r n a t i o n ' of him. I n spite of all this, however, it is clear that, even in the official Israelite conception of the king, the idea which is central a n d f u n d a m e n t a l is t h a t he is a s u p e r h u m a n , divine b e i n g . 1 T h e king is also a n ' e lôhîm, a powerful, s u p e r h u m a n being. H e is a god; a n d is, at least once, directly addressed as such (Ps. xiv, 7). Like the deity, he is also called ' lord ' Çâdôn) ; 2 a n d he is called ' Yahweh's s o n ' . 3 Sometimes the prophetic poet m a y describe the king's filial relationship to Y a h w e h in purely mythological figures. ' O n t h e holy m o u n t a i n I have begotten you f r o m the w o m b of the morning,' says Y a h w e h to the king, according to one reading in t h e oracle in Ps. ex. T h e language used is p r o b a b l y derived from the m y t h of the birth of the new sun god on a n ' u n k n o w n m o u n t a i n ', as is recorded of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal. 4 T h e birth of the new king brings back to the earth the fertility of the g a r d e n of the gods, a n d the peace which originally reigned a m o n g animals. 5 I t is b u t n a t u r a l t h a t the birth of the king should be described in pictures taken f r o m the birth of the god. T h e n e w god belongs to the g a r d e n of the gods on the divine m o u n t a i n ( M o u n t Zion) in the far north ( ' o n the sides of the n o r t h ' ) , 6 a conception which is 1 Cf. Mowinckel, Kongesalmerne, pp. 25ff.; Ps.St. II, pp. 298ff.; Pedersen, Israel, III-IV, pp. 485, 498f.; Lods in R.H.Ph.R. x, 1930, pp. 209-21. Johnson (in The Labyrinth, pp. 7iff.), Engnell, Widengren, and others lay great stress on this fundamental idea; and in principle they are right. But their excessive emphasis on the correspondence of the Israelite ideal of kingship with ' the general oriental pattern ' (particularly concerning the identity of the king with the god) is exaggerated and unhistorical. On the other hand, North's attempt to minimize the religious aspect of the Israelite conception of the king (Z-A- W. 1, 1932, pp. 8ff.; cf. his paper in A.J.S.L.L. xlviii, 1931, pp. iff.) gives the impression of attempting to explain away the evidence, and does not seem to take sufficient account of the connexion with ancient oriental cult and religious vocabulary. The same is true, to some extent, of the sober paper by Lauha in S.E.Ā. xii, 1947, pp. 183ff.; and of that by Puukko in Teologisk Tidskrift (Abo), 1947. 2 Ps. cx, 1; Jer. xxii, 18; xxxiv, 5; Gen. xl, 1; Isa. xxii, 18, etc. 3 Ps. ii, 7; cf. cx, 3, in the text of the Hexapla (see B.H.3). 4 See Mowinckel, Kongesalmerne, pp. 20, 135ff; cf. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens II, pp. 112ff, and above, p. 36. 6 Isa. vii, 14-17 (sec below, p. 110); xi, 6-9 (see below, p. 182). ' Ps. xlviii, 3. On the garden and the mountain of the gods, see Gunkel, Genesis4, pp. 33ff. The idea of the mountain of the gods in the north, 'the northern mountain' (fdpSn) was taken over by Israel from the Canaanites. In Ugarit the idea and the name were connected with the mountain $apân or Ba'al $apân (Accad., Ba'lu fapûna) = Möns Casius (see Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer·, Lauha, ZaPhon. Der Norden und die Nordvölker, pp. ioff.; Morgenstern in H.U.C.A. xvi, 1941, pp. 47ff), where, after his resurrection, Baal takes his seat on the throne, and becomes king over gods and men (cf. Hvidberg, Graad og Latter i det Garnie Testamente, pp. 27, 30ff).

now also k n o w n f r o m C a n a a n i t e sources. T h e ' rise ' of the royal family is likened to the rise of the sun in the east. 1 It seems also to have been customary to swear by the n a m e of the king. 2 It is in the light of the f u n d a m e n t a l t h o u g h t of the king's divinity t h a t all the other features in the conception of the king have to be understood. Even if these features did not owe their historical origin to it, they were naturally associated with it in the m i n d of the Israelite. 3 T h e Israelites' attitude to their king is most characteristically expressed in the t e r m used of his relation to Y a h w e h , Yahweh's Anointed. Anointing was a n act which first a n d foremost ratified the king's status as the chosen of Y a h w e h , a n d as duly installed. 4 I t was a holy ceremony, a cultic act, which conveyed e x t r a o r d i n a r y ' h o l y ' or ' d i v i n e ' faculties a n d qualities. 6 I t was a n essential element in the cultic installation of the king. T h e anointing of the king 6 was p e r f o r m e d at the holy place, in J e r u s a l e m normally in the temple. T h a t one of the king's sons (usually the eldest) w h o m Y a h w e h h a d designated by a n oracle 7 was c o n d u c t e d in solemn procession to the holy place, where the ceremony took place ' b e f o r e Y a h w e h ' . T h e king's son was m o u n t e d , a n d surrounded by the b o d y g u a r d , on foot a n d in warchariots. 8 W e m a y assume t h a t the holy spring of Gihon (now the Virgin's Fount) d o w n in the K i d r o n valley was originally the site of the anointing a n d installation of the kings of J e r u s a l e m . 9 I t seems t h a t even in later times the ceremonial at the installation of the kings of J e r u s a l e m included a rite of purification at the spring a n d of drinking its holy w a t e r which was i m b u e d with 1 Bentzen (S.E.Ā. xii, 1947, p. 43) is right in finding this pun in Mic. v, 1: the mSfä'öt of the royal family mik-kedem. 2 Ps. Ixiii, 12; see Gunkel, Die Psalmen, ad loc. 3 For literature, see above, p. 56 n. 2, and further, Dürr, Ursprung und Ausbau, p. 74; Bentzen, Det sakrale kongedemme; Widengren in R.o.B. ii, 1943, pp. 49ff. In Divine Kingship Engnell only hints at the Israelite conception of the king. The same may be said of Frankfort's sketch (Kingship, pp. 337fF.), which, in contrast to the main parts of his book, is not based upon any critical study of the sources, but simply expresses a traditional, popular view. Although Frankfort is right in emphasizing the differences between the royal ideology in Israel and elsewhere, he completely overlooks the many far-reaching similarities. 4 Ps. ii, 6. Cf. de Boer, Het koningschap in Oud-Israel. 6 Cf. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East, pp. 49f. 8 The sources are the accounts in 2 Sam. xv, toff.; 1 Kings i, 32-53; 2 Kings xi, 9f. Cf. Ps.St. II, pp. 6ff.; von Rad in T.L.Z• lxxii, '947, cols. 21 i f f ; Widengren, Psalm no och det sakrala kungadömet i Israel. 7 ι Sam. χ, i f f ; x, 20ff.; 2 Kings ix, 6ff; Pss. ii, 7; cx, 1 ff. 8 ι Kings i, 33; Zech. ix, 9; 1 Kings i, 5, 38; 2 Kings xi, 8. • ι Kings i, 33; cf. Bentzen, Studier over det zadokidiske Praesteskabs Historie, p. 9.

power a n d able to bestow increase of strength. 1 This was probably in p r e p a r a t i o n for the main act in the temple. I n the temple court the ' r u n n e r s ' (the g u a r d ) lined the route between the altar a n d the temple (2 Kings xi, 11). T h e priest led forth the king's son a n d m a d e h i m ascend the dais 2 in view of all the people. At this point, presumably, the p r o p h e t uttered the oracle concerning Y a h w e h ' s choice a n d legitimation of the king, 3 a n d the priest placed the d i a d e m ( ' t h e c r o w n ' ) on his h e a d a n d h a n d e d ' t h e testimony' to him, 4 which contained his divine a p p o i n t m e n t and the g r o u n d of his royal prerogative. T h e priest t h e n anointed h i m a n d so m a d e him king. 5 As the king now stood there ' i n holy a r r a y ' , 6 the whole people p a i d h i m the solemn act of homage, t h e t r u m p e t s r a n g out, the people clapped their hands, uttering the t'rû'at melek, ' t h e shout of a k i n g ' : 7 ' S o l o m o n is k i n g ! ' ' G o d save the k i n g ! ' (lit. ' M a y the king live!') 8 Sacrifice was offered; a n d the sacrificial feast was celebrated with rejoicing, possibly b o t h before a n d after the anointing. 9 T h e n followed the other m a i n p a r t of the festival, the solemn procession f r o m the holy place to the royal palace, a n d the accession to the kingly office. W i t h d a n c i n g gait, 1 0 to the a c c o m p a n i m e n t of fanfares, 'so t h a t the e a r t h r e n t ' , the ascent was m a d e to the palace. T h e r e the king took his seat on the throne, which symbolized the m o u n t a i n of the world, 1 1 a n d thus assumed his place ' a t Y a h w e h ' s right h a n d ' (Ps. cx, 1). H e received the congratulations of his b o d y g u a r d a n d his people (1 Kings i, 47). W e m a y also conclude from Ps. ii t h a t at this point he issued a p r o c l a m a t i o n in which he c o m m u n i cated Y a h w e h ' s decision, referred to his legitimate, divine installation, a n d a d m o n i s h e d his vassal kings a n d chiefs to pay homage to h i m a n d to submit to his own a n d Y a h w e h ' s overlordship: ' f o r I have been established as His king u p o n Zion, His holy m o u n t a i n ' . 1 2 This may be inferred from Ps. cx, 7; see Widengren, Psalm n o och det sakrala kungadömet i Israel, pp. 22ff. 2 2 Kings xi, 14; 2 Chron. xxxiv, 31. Similarly in Assyria; see Frankfort, Kingship, p. 247. 3 This may be inferred from Ps. cx. 4 2 Kings xi, 12; see von Rad in T.L.Z· lxxii, 1947. 5 2 Kings xi, 12 (G). 8 Ps. cx, 3; see Widengren, Psalm no och det sakrala kungadömet i Israel, pp. 9, 12ff. 7 Cf. Num. xxiii, 21 ; Ps.St. II, p. 43; Humbert, La ' Terou'a ': analyse d'un rite Biblique, pp. 34f. 8 ι Sam. χ, 24; 2 Sam. xv, 10; ι Kings i, 39; 2 Kings ix, 13; xi, 12. • ι Sam. ix, 22ff., xi, 15; 2 Sam. xv, 12; I Kings i, 9, 19. 10 ι Kings i, 40 (G); 2 Sam. vi, 14f. 11 See Widengren, Psalm 110 och det sakrala kungadömet i Israel, pp. 5fr. 12 Ps. ii, 6. In the Ugaritic texts, Baal announces his enthronement in exactly the same words; see II AB, col. VII, 43 (cf. Hvidberg, Graad og Latter i det Garnie Testamente, Ρ· 34)· 1

T h e d a y was celebrated by the people as a festival. 1 W i t h it there was also associated the king's extirpation of his enemies (2 Kings ii, iff.), a n d , in some instances, the granting of a n amnesty: 2 the d a y of his e n t h r o n e m e n t was to be a day of joy. Anointing was the really sacramental act in this festival ritual. T h r o u g h it Y a h w e h ' s choice was confirmed a n d c o n s u m m a t e d , the king was ' m a d e k i n g ' , 3 a n d divine power a n d e q u i p m e n t were conferred u p o n him. 4 H e who has been anointed by Y a h w e h has thereby been established as chief a n d ruler over His people (1 Sam. χ, ι), a n d has received power t o ' d e l i v e r it from its enemies r o u n d a b o u t ' (1 Sam. ix, 16). T o him 'belongs all t h a t is best in Israel' (1 Sam. ix, 20). His sceptre of kingship is a 'righteous (i.e., legitimate) sceptre'. 5 Being anointed, h e is t a b u a n d sacrosanct. I t is sacrilege a n d a capital offence to lay h a n d s on him.® Even to cut off the skirt of his cloak is sacrilege (1 Sam. xxiv, 6). C o m p a r e d with the king the o r d i n a r y m a n is j u s t ' a d e a d dog, a flea' (1 S a m . xxiv, 15). Behind this, of course, lie the c o m m o n primitive ideas of the mana-filled chief a n d medicine m a n s u r r o u n d e d by tabus. But in Israel the tabus a n d sacred c h a r a c t e r of the king have a different basis. I n ancient Israel, w h e n a m a n was equipped with supern a t u r a l powers, it was t h o u g h t t h a t it was Y a h w e h ' s spirit t h a t h a d ' c o m e into h i m ' , h a d ' c l o t h e d itself with h i m ' , h a d been ' p o u r e d out into h i m ' , a n d the like. It is the charismatic, divine e q u i p m e n t with power, the ability to perform s u p e r h u m a n deeds, the quality of ' holiness ' as a miraculous power a n d as a faculty akin to t h a t of a divine being, which is expressed by this conception (probably Egyptian in origin) 7 of the life-giving, w o n d e r working, power-filled ' wind ' or ' b r e a t h ' of the deity, or, m o r e hypostatically conceived, His ' s p i r i t ' . J u s t as the sacred m a r t i a l ecstasy of the ancient heroes, a n d t h e sacred frenzy of the prophets were explained as the effects of Y a h w e h ' s spirit (as c a n be seen in the narratives a b o u t the heroes in the Book of J u d g e s a n d a b o u t Saul in ι S a m . xi), so anointing was related to e n d o w m e n t with ι Kings i, 45; 2 Kings xi, 20; 1 Sam. xi, 15. ι Sam. xi, 13; ι Kings i, 50ff.; cf. 2 Kings xxv, 27ff. s Cf. 2 Kings xi, 12: the chief priest 'made him king', wayyamlikS (for M.T.'s wayyamlïkû). 4 ι Sam. χ, 1-6; Isa. xi, 2fT. 6 Ps. xiv, 7. In the Baal myth, even the sceptre of the usurper Mot is described by the regular, traditional expression 'a righteous sceptre' (I AB, col. VI, 29). β ι Sam. xxvi, 9; 2 Sam. i, 14ff.; iv, gff. 7 See Hehn, in Z..A.W. xliii, 1925, pp. 210ff., and below, p. 78. 1

a

65 F

the spirit. T h e later tradition says explicitly t h a t when David was anointed, ' t h e spirit of Y a h w e h leaped u p o n h i m ' . W h e n the earlier tradition relates t h a t the first experience which Saul h a d after being anointed was t h a t Yahweh's spirit came u p o n him, so t h a t he ' r a v e d ' in ecstatic frenzy together with the n'bVîm (ι Sam. x), the writer certainly does not regard it as a mere coincidence, b u t as the a p p r o p r i a t e a n d n a t u r a l consequence of the anointing. I n Isa. lxi, i, too, the p r o p h e t presupposes as generally acknowledged the connexion between anointing a n d e n d o w m e n t with the divine spirit. I n virtue of his e n d o w m e n t with the divine spirit, the king is filled with s u p e r h u m a n power. H e receives ' a new h e a r t ' ; he is changed into a new m a n (i Sam. x, 6, 9). H e receives a soul filled with s u p e r n a t u r a l power instead of a n ordinary h u m a n soul. H e receives a new disposition expressed, according to oriental custom, in the giving to h i m of a new n a m e 1 which indicates his new, intimate relationship with the god who has chosen him, a n d w h o m he represents. T h r o u g h his anointing a n d e n d o w m e n t with the divine spirit, the king also receives s u p e r h u m a n wisdom. 'As a n envoy (angel) of Y a h w e h ' he discerns all things, a n d accomplishes w h a t he wills (2 S a m . xiv, 17ff.). H e knows the f u t u r e . 2 ' E t e r n a l ' (i.e., extremely long) life is attributed to h i m . 3 W o n d e r f u l experiences are his; a n d he can do w h a t others c a n n o t do. 4 H e rules ' b y the strength of Y a h w e h ' , 6 a n d performs mighty, s u p e r h u m a n deeds on earth. 6 T h e anointing expresses Y a h w e h ' s 'choice' of him ' t o be king over His p e o p l e ' . 7 H e is the ' m a n after Y a h w e h ' s own h e a r t ' . 8 In the legend a b o u t the birth of Saul ( ' t h e r e q u e s t e d ' ) , the founder of the m o n a r c h y , we h e a r a n echo not only of the t h o u g h t of election f r o m the w o m b , b u t also of the idea that the conception of the heir a p p a r e n t was the result of a wonderful divine intervention a n d of predestination. T h e ' requested ' saviour 1 On change of name among the Hebrews at the king's enthronement, see Honeyman in J.B.L. bevii, 1948, pp. 13ff. ; in Egypt, Frankfort, Kingship, p. 103; among the Sumerians, op. cit., p. 246; cf. above, pp. 35, 38. 2 Ps. ii, 7; 2 Sam. xxiii, iff. s ι Kings i, 31; Pss. xxi, 5; lxxii, 5; cf. Jenni, Das Wort 'öläm im Alten Testament, pp. 57fr. 4 ι Sam. x, iff.; cf. xi, 6f. 6 Cf. Mic. v, 3 (of the future king). * Ps. xc, 5f.; ι Sam. xi, 6ff. 7 Pss. xiv, 8; lxxxix, 21; 2 Sam. vii, 8. On the election of the king, see Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, pp. 95ff.; cf. Alt in V.T. i, 1951, pp. 2ff. β ι Sam. xiii, 14; xv, 28; xvi, i f f ; Ps. lxxxix, 20ff.

66

king was b o r n as a gift f r o m Y a h w e h to the childless m o t h e r . 1 At the anointing, as we have seen, there is proclaimed the oracle or ' d e c r e e ' , telling of his election by Y a h w e h (see above, p. 64). T h e king stands in a closer relation to Y a h w e h t h a n a n y o n e else. H e is His ' s o n ' (Ps. ii, 7). I n mythological language it is said t h a t Y a h w e h has ' begotten ' him, or t h a t he was born of the d a w n goddess on the holy m o u n t a i n (Ps. cx, 3; see also pp. 62, 75). T h e people say to the king, ' Y a h w e h y o u r G o d ' . 2 H e is the servant of Y a h w e h in a different sense f r o m anyone else. 3 As the son of Y a h w e h , the God of all the earth, he has a rightful claim to d o m i n i o n over the whole world. 4 I n David's supremacy over the other small states in a n d a r o u n d Palestine, nationalistic religious circles in Israel a n d J u d a h saw a foretaste of the universal d o m i n ion over the peoples, which as goal a n d as promise was implicit in the election of the king as Y a h w e h ' s Anointed and d e p u t y on earth. H e n c e the prophetic a u t h o r of Ps. ii can describe the situation at the accession of a new king in J e r u s a l e m as if in fact all the kings a n d peoples of the world were plotting to throw off the yoke of Y a h w e h a n d His Anointed, b u t were awed into submission by Y a h w e h ' s words promising the throne to the chosen king, a n d t h r e a t e n i n g His opponents with destruction, unless they submit in time a n d 'kiss his feet with fear a n d serve h i m with t r e m b l i n g ' . 5 T h e e n d o w m e n t which Y a h w e h has bestowed on the king m a y be expressed in two words, the 'righteousness' a n d 'blessing' of the king. ' Righteousness ', ' being right ', means living by Y a h w e h ' s 1 ι Sam. i. It was observed long ago that the legend of the birth of Samuel was originally associated with Saul, the first king. This is evident from the explanation of the child's name in i, 20-8: Ί have asked him (F'iltiw) from Yahweh', 'he is one who is asked (šā'ûl) of Yahweh', which is really an explanation not of the name S'mû'él, but of Šā'ûl. See Hylander, Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (ι Sam. I—15) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, pp. 12f. 1 2 Sam. xiv, 17; see Birkeland, Die Feinde des Individuums in der israelitischen Psalmenliteratur, pp. 124f. 3 Used of David: Pss. xviii, 1; xxxvi, 1; lxxxix, 4, 21; of Solomon: 1 Kings iii, 7fr.; of Zerubbabel: Hag. ii, 23; Zcch. iii, 8; of some other king or of the king or leader of the people in general: Pss. lxix, 18, 37; xxvii, g, and elsewhere; see Birkcland, Die Feinde des Individuums in der israelitischen Psalmenliteratur, pp. 124f. Of the king of Babylon: Jer. XXV, g; xxvii, 6; xliii, 10; cf. the corresponding expressions used of Cyrus, 'the friend of Yahweh', Isa. xliv, 28 (pointing rê'î for rô't); 'the beloved of Yahweh', xlviii, 14. See G.T.M.M.M. Ill, note on Hag. ii, 23a. 4 Pss. ii, 8; lxxii, 8-10; lxxxix, 20ff. 6 Ps. ii, ι if. As Bertholet has observed, the meaningless words w'naiS'hû bar must precede w'gîlû, and the whole read w'naH'k.û b'ragldw. Morgenstern's objection (J.Q.R. (N.S.) xxxii, 1942, pp. 371 ff.) that nâiak is nowhere else construed with b, and that therefore Bertholet's ingenious proposal is groundless, is scarccly valid. Morgenstern's own emendation is much farther from the consonants of the received text. On the kissing of the feet as a token of subjection and homage, see Gunkel, Die Psalmen, p. 8.

justice a n d according to Israelite custom. I n the widest sense it includes the will a n d the ability to m a i n t a i n the customs, rights, a n d prosperity of the c o m m u n i t y u n d e r the covenant, t h e ability to ' j u d g e ' , i.e., to rule rightly, to d o the right thing, a n d in general to m a i n t a i n d u e order in affairs. Y a h w e h Himself gives to the king His own j u d g e m e n t s a n d righteousness, i.e., His own ability t o rule justly (Ps. lxxii, 2). T h e royal sceptre is the 'sceptre of righteousness' (Ps. xiv, 7). T h e righteousness of the king includes first of all the ability to 'save his people f r o m their enemies r o u n d a b o u t ' (1 Sam. ix, 16; x, 1). T h e chosen king is the invincible warrior, filling the places with dead bodies. W i t h his mighty sceptre h e rules f r o m Zion in the midst of his enemies: Y a h w e h makes t h e m his footstool (Ps. cx, 2, 5fi). All his enemies will be clothed with s h a m e (Ps. cxxxii, 18). His h a n d finds out all his enemies. His right h a n d finds out those t h a t hate him. W h e n he b u t shows his face, he makes t h e m as a fiery oven. T h e i r offspring he destroys f r o m the earth, a n d their seed f r o m a m o n g the children of men. W h e n they plot evil against him a n d f r a m e a malicious scheme, they achieve nothing; for he makes t h e m t u r n their backs when he takes a i m at t h e m from his bowstring (Ps. xxi, 9ff.). At h o m e a n d a b r o a d he secures to his people justice, prosperity, a n d salvation. T h e true king judges Y a h w e h ' s people with justice, relieves the oppressed, the helpless, a n d the unprotected, gives justice to the widow a n d the fatherless, protects t h e m f r o m the oppression of the wicked, a n d avenges t h e m w h e n their rights have been violated a n d their blood shed (Ps. lxxii, 2-4, 12-14). Therefore the righteous (i.e., good people) will flourish in his days, a n d the land will enjoy great prosperity (Ps. lxxii, 7). T h e righteous king also conveys good fortune; he is a n 'If maslîah (Gen. xxxix, 2). This element is also included in the t e r m saddîk. H e possesses blessing a n d t h e powers which bestow good luck, a n d is therefore able to i m p a r t blessing to his surroundings. H e is r a d i a n t like a star, a n d like a comet in the firmament of nations determines their destiny ( N u m . xxiv, 17). H e will be as the light of the m o r n i n g w h e n the sun rises (2 S a m . xxiii, 3f.; Mic. ν, 1). H e will come d o w n like rain u p o n the m o w n grass, like showers that water the earth. I n his time there will be a b u n d ance of corn on every hill in the l a n d ; its fruit will shake like L e b a n o n ; a n d men will blossom forth f r o m the cities like the grass of the earth (Ps. lxxii, 6, 16). U n d e r his shadow the people will

68

live safely; he is the b r e a t h of their nostrils ( L a m . iv, 20). W i t h o u t h i m the people would be as w a t e r spilt on the ground, which c a n n o t be gathered u p again (2 S a m . xiv, 14). But u n d e r such a king, the land a n d the people, his ' h o u s e h o l d ' , r e a p all t h a t the Israelite wished for himself, all t h a t he m e a n t by peace or wholeness (šālâm) a n d blessing: fertility of m a n , beast a n d crop, health, a large family, rain a n d sunshine a n d a succession of good seasons, good living conditions, good relations between old a n d young, master a n d servant, victory over the enemy, spoils of war, h o n o u r a n d r e p u t a t i o n , d o m i n i o n over the neighbouring peoples, loyalty a n d c o n t e n t m e n t amongst the b r e t h r e n u n d e r the covenant, o n every h a n d the fear of God, decent living, good d e m e a n o u r , a n d sound morals, the m a i n t e n a n c e of justice for everyone a n d the protection of the weak, the extermination of all who play false, of all sorcerers a n d villains—in a word, all t h a t is m e a n t by the w o r d y ē h \ salvation, (literally, 'wideness', 'spaciousness', i.e., favourable conditions, both in external political relationships, a n d in internal social, moral, a n d religious conditions). T h u s the king is the saviour to w h o m the people look for salvation, both in the negative sense of deliverance f r o m enemies, danger, a n d need, a n d in the widest positive sense of good fortune a n d well-being. I t is his d u t y to provide t h i s j e / α ' . 1 This is the picture which the royal psalms give of the king a n d his 'righteousness'. Considered from one point of view, then, the king is more t h a n h u m a n . H e is a divine being, possessing this s u p e r h u m a n quality because Y a h w e h has ' c a l l e d ' a n d ' c h o s e n ' h i m to be the shepherd of His people, a n d has m a d e h i m His son, has anointed h i m a n d endowed h i m with His spirit. H e performs the will of Y a h w e h , a n d transmits His blessing to land a n d people. H e represents Y a h w e h before the people. But as a h u m a n being, a m a n f r o m a m o n g the people (i.e., a representative m a n from the chosen people of Yahweh) he also represents the people before Y a h w e h ; a n d gradually the m a i n stress comes to be p u t on this aspect of his vocation. According to the c o m m o n primitive m o d e of thought, which Israel naturally shared in the early period, the chief, the ancestor, a n d after t h e m the king, were each, so to speak, the visible embodim e n t of the supreme ego, society. T h e entire soul of the society is embodied in the king in a special w a y ; a n d , in particular, the 1

Cf. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 46, 81.

69

ancestor lives on t h r o u g h him. L a n d a n d people are his household a n d family, j u s t as the family is the household of the ancestor or the household-father Çabî-bêt-'âb). Bît-Humri, ' t h e household of " O m r i " is the oldest n a m e given to Israel by the Assyrians, who first encountered it d u r i n g the O m r i d dynasty. J u s t as the family lives in the ancestor or the head of the family in w h o m its ' s o u l ' is concentrated, so the soul, honour, a n d power of the people are concentrated in the king. H e is the b r e a t h of his people's life; a n d they live u n d e r his shadow ( L a m . iv, 20). T o have to live without such a source of power entails p r o f o u n d unhappiness, a n d is like being deprived of the cult a n d the other symbols of the divine presence (Hos. iii, 4). T h e concerns of the king, therefore, are the people's concerns. His h o n o u r is their h o n o u r , his defeats their shame. K i n g a n d people have c o m m o n interests, a n d are, in a sense, identical, since the entire people is embodied in the king. I t is for the king to make a n o r m a l existence real for t h e m — t h e i r 'wholeness' (šālâm), their peace a n d happiness, their desire for self-assertion (sedek, sedākâh), their i m m a n e n t blessing. Blessing, happiness, a n d righteousness are centred in the king. H e should be in accord with the ' s o u l ' of the people, with the c h a r a c t e r which is typical of t h e m as a whole a n d to which they lay claim. H e should in his own person realize the n a t u r e a n d essence of their being, w h a t is characteristic of them, their destiny a n d vocation, to use m o d e r n terms. Since Israel, t h r o u g h her faith in election a n d covenant, b e c a m e conscious of her special vocation, of being chosen by Y a h w e h for a glorious future, it would naturally be the king's task to make real to the people her peculiar character a n d destiny in the world. I n other words, the k i n g b e c a m e (or should have become) the visible bearer a n d expression of the religious a n d moral ideals of Israel. If the king fulfilled this r e q u i r e m e n t , it would again react on the people by virtue of t h a t m u t u a l participation in each other's soul which, in ancient thought, existed between the leader a n d t h e c o m m u n i t y . 1 T h e people would become w h a t their kings were. If the king was righteous, pious, a n d godly, the people would be the same. If the king t u r n e d from the c o m m a n d m e n t s of Y a h w e h a n d worshipped H i m wrongly, or worshipped other gods, then the people would also be ungodly a n d guilty. This is the f u n d a m e n t a l idea of the Deuteronomistic Book of Kings.® 1 Cf. Lévy-Bruhl, Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures. We might here borrow a term from traditional dogmatics and speak of a communicatio idiomatum. 2 Cf. ι Kings xi, 12f., 32; 2 Kings xx, 6; xxii, 18f.

70

This applied whatever might be the actual inner attitude of the individual to Y a h w e h a n d His law. T h e king, therefore, h a d great responsibility. H e held in his h a n d s the destiny of his people, according to the kind of m a n he was. T h e piety of the king was reckoned by God as the merit of the people. His sins infected the whole people a n d led to their destruction. 1 T h e true king knew t h a t he was pledged to Y a h w e h ' s law, a n d t h a t he o u g h t to represent the ideal of piety a n d righteousness which lived in the m i n d of Israel (Ps. ci). W h e n the psalmists praise him in the royal psalms, they do so because in h i m this ideal is embodied. T h e y do not in fact speak of any particular king, with the defects which, unfortunately, m a n y of t h e m h a d , b u t of the ideal of the king as he ought to be, ' a m a n after Y a h w e h ' s h e a r t ' . Both as representative of the people, a n d in virtue of Y a h w e h ' s choice of him, of his sonship, his divine e q u i p m e n t , a n d his sacred character, the king of Israel-Judah (like kings everywhere else in the ancient east) was clearly the mediator between his God a n d his people. Such a king might boldly d r a w n e a r to Y a h w e h as a representative mediator without forfeiting his life, which would have been the fate of anyone else who sought to 'see Y a h w e h ' (cf. J e r . XXX, 21). I n other words, the king is a priest-king, the true chief priest of his people. 2 Several traditions make it plain t h a t the king (or his sons) acted as priests a n d were theoretically the legitimate priests a n d responsible for carrying out the cultus. 3 I t is only to be expected t h a t the king should a p p e a r as leader of the cultus j u s t at the great national religious festivals. O n o r d i n a r y days he would leave his cultic functions to a professional priest, a ' L e v i t e ' . For practical reasons this would be necessary at the great state temples, because of the g r a d u a l development a n d extension of the cultus there. But, as has been suggested above, we also see that, as the cultus a n d the central sanctuary increased in importance, so the professional clergy b e c a m e more conscious of their vocation a n d increased their claims to power. Before long they consciously tried to force the legitimate holder of the office, the king, to content himself with the position of protector of the cultus a n d g u a r a n t o r of the expenses involved in it, while the professional priests claimed for themselves all the economic a d v a n tages, a share in the sacrificial gifts, in the first-fruits, the tithes, a n d so on, a n d the spiritual a u t h o r i t y over the people which was 1 2 3

Cf. 2 Kings xvii, 7ff; xxi, ioff.; xxii, i6f. Cf. Morgenstern in A.J.S.L.L. Iv, 1938, pp. iff., 183ff. ι Sam. xiii, 9f.; 2 Sam. vi, 17f.; vii, 18; 1 Kings viii, 54f.

the consequence of the power a n d right to p e r f o r m sacrifices, to proclaim the law a n d justice of Y a h w e h , a n d to bless or curse in t h e n a m e of Y a h w e h . 1 W e o u g h t p r o b a b l y to b e a r in m i n d these very real spiritual a n d material consequences w h e n the oracle of installation in Ps. cx promises to the king t h a t he is to be ' a priest for ever after the order of (or, more correctly, ' o n behalf o f ' , or ' f o r the sake o f ' ) M e l c h i z e d e k ' . T h e king m a d e a point of securing his divine right to the priesthood, based on his being the legitimate successor a n d heir of the ancient king of J e r u s a l e m , Melchizedek, w h o was also the priest of El Elyon, possessed the power of blessing, a n d was entitled to tithes. T h e central p a r t played by the king in the official cultus is seen quite clearly in the tradition a b o u t the removal of the ark of Y a h w e h to J e r u s a l e m , a n d also in the tradition a b o u t the consecration of the temple by Solomon, who personally offered b o t h sacrifices a n d prayers, a n d p r o n o u n c e d the blessing over the people, all of which were priestly functions. K i n g Ahaz himself a r r a n g e d the details of the temple a n d cultus; a n d K i n g Hezekiah, on his own authority, did a w a y with a cultic object which, according to t e m p l e tradition, d a t e d back to Moses himself. 2 Being a priest endowed with divine power, the king became the channel t h r o u g h which blessing flowed f r o m the deity to the people. H e was the point of union between G o d a n d the congregation. G r a d u a l l y the m a i n stress c a m e to be placed on this h u m a n side of the king's office. This was p a r t l y d u e to the fact t h a t his subordination to Y a h w e h was more strongly emphasized t h a n was usual in the oriental royal ideology. T h e king was in a Deut. xxxiii, 10; x, 8; Num. vi, 22ff. 2 Sam. vi; ι Kings viii; 2 Kings xvi, ioff.; xviii, 4. We have interesting evidence about the functions of the king at the feast of Succoth (the harvest and New Year festival), if Widengren is right in his opinion (in Horae Socderblomianae I, iii, pp. 12ff.) that the Samaritan Succoth ritual (see Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy I—II, pp. 782fr.), with its close parallels to Deut. xxvi, iff., really represents an ancient and pure tradition from the old festival at Bethel. In this Samaritan ritual it is 'the king of Israel' who places the basket with the tithes on the sacred spot before Yahweh and says a prayer which corresponds in all its main features with Deut. xxvi, 5ff. We cannot, however, exclude the possibility that this is an example of midrashic archaizing by Samaritan traditionalists (cf. the many 'archaeological' midrashim in the Talmud), and is based on Deut. xxvi itself. The strange circumstance that the king has to give the basket to 'the priest' arouses suspicion. If this really were an example of old Israelite ritual, we might expect the king himself to be the priest who had to place the basket beside the altar. On the other hand, it is beyond all doubt that the liturgy in Deut. xxvi reflects very ancient customs; and it seems quite possible that in earlier times the king said this prayer, and that it was originally framed to fit the king's part in the liturgy of the festival. We then have, as Widengren maintains, a clear instance in Deut. xxvi of the democratization of royal rituals, i.e., the use by the ordinary worshipper of ancient royal rites and phraseology. 1

2

72

special w a y Y a h w e h ' s servant or slave; a n d , as we have seen, analogies of this are to be f o u n d in royal texts f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a . T h e t e r m expresses the position of trust held by the king as the d e p u t y of Y a h w e h , a n d also his complete dependence on a n d subordination to Y a h w e h . T h a t is w h y the prophetic promises to the king, b o t h at the regularly r e p e a t e d festivals a n d on the special cultic occasions such as the days of humiliation a n d p r a y e r before w a r , 1 constantly emphasize the fact t h a t the good fortune a n d blessing of the king are d e p e n d e n t on his obedience to the will a n d law of Y a h w e h . 2 T h e conditions of good fortune are godliness a n d righteousness, in the sense of a right relationship with Y a h w e h . W h e n a j u s t m a n rules over m e n , ruling in the fear of God, t h e n shall the sun rise in the light of the morning, his splendour in a m o r n i n g without clouds. < A s the grass s p r o u t s > after rain, as the tender grass springing f r o m the earth, < s o a m I toward Y a h w e h , > so is my house with G o d . T h e poet puts this into the m o u t h of the royal ancestor David (2 Sam. xxiii, 3 - 5 ) . T h e king m a y expect to enjoy the everlasting favour of Y a h w e h , as long as he keeps His c o m m a n d m e n t s a n d does not neglect His statutes. A l t h o u g h the blessing was generally regarded as an i n h e r e n t power, it nevertheless c a m e to be looked u p o n more a n d more as a gift from Y a h w e h . T h e blessing was of Yahweh's own making. I t was the r e w a r d of obedience to the c o m m a n d m e n t s of Y a h w e h , of piety a n d godliness. ' Y a h w e h has r e m e m b e r e d (his) offerings a n d accepted (his) b u r n t sacrifice ', ' r e w a r d e d (him) according to (his) righteousness, according to the cleanness of (his) h a n d s ' , because ' a l l His j u d g e m e n t s were before (him), and (he) did not p u t a w a y His statutes from (him), b u t was blameless before H i m a n d kept (himself) f r o m (his) i n i q u i t y ' . 3 But if the king departs f r o m Y a h w e h , the power and good fort u n e of a king will fail h i m . Instead of the good spirit of a king with which Y a h w e h has endowed him, a n evil spirit f r o m Y a h w e h 1 See Mowinckel, Kongesalmerne, pp. 63ff.; Ps.St. I l l , pp. 78fiF.; Offersang og sangoffer, pp. 316ff.; Lods in Mémoires de l'Institut Francais du Caire lxvi, 1934, pp. 9iff. 2 Pss. xx, 7-9; xxi; xxviii,6-8; lxiii, 6-9; fxxxix, 20-38; cxxxii, 11-18. 3 Hos. ii, 10; Pss. lxxxix, 20f.; cxxxii, 12; xx, 4; xviii, 22-5.

73

will trouble him, a n d a destructive strife arise between king a n d people (Judges ix, 22ff.; ι Sam. xvi, 14). J u s t because king a n d people are truly one, the king e m b o d y i n g t h e supreme ego of the people, the destiny of king a n d people will be the same in good a n d evil. If the king is righteous a n d blessed, the whole people will be blessed, a n d righteous, a n d h a p p y . If the king is ungodly a n d does w h a t is evil in the sight of Y a h w e h , then the whole people will be infected with ungodliness a n d misfortune, a n d must suffer all the adversity which is the result of the king's sin. T h e whole record of the m o n a r c h y has been written f r o m this point of view. E x t r a v a g a n t descriptions of the good fortune of kings, with the same emphasis on its conditions, are also to be found in other oriental religions a n d in their royal ideology. W e must recognize t h a t practically every trait in the above picture of the king has obvious parallels in the other oriental peoples. N o d o u b t a certain divinity was ascribed to the king in Israel too, the feature having been derived f r o m s u r r o u n d i n g cultures a n d religions t h r o u g h C a n a a n i t e channels. Brief reference m a y be m a d e to a few details. Anointing itself, 1 the sacramental act which more t h a n a n y t h i n g else linked the king with Y a h w e h , seems originally to have been a d o p t e d from the C a n a a n i t e s , 2 a n d was p r o b a b l y also practised a m o n g the Egyptians a n d the Babylonians. 3 T h e lion throne of Solomon on a p o d i u m with seven steps was originally m e a n t to be the throne of the God of heaven on the top of the m o u n t a i n of the world with seven terraces, symbolized by the tower of the temple with seven stories. T h e king sits on the Deity's own throne (Ps. cx), or, in m o r e prosaic terms, on a t h r o n e of the same divine type as Y a h w e h ' s throne. 4 David's title dawidum (for the word was originally applied as a title) 6 was also a foreign borrowing, like the See Gressmann, Der Messias, pp. 2ff.; Hempel, art. 'Salbung' in R.G.GA See Knudtzon, Die El-Amama-Tafeln, No. 51, p. 319. 3 See Bertholet, A History of Hebrew Civilization, p. 113; Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien I, p. 63; Frankfort, Kingship, p. 247. 4 See Gunkel-Begrich, Einleitung, p. 151. Yahweh's throne is a cherub-throne (see Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 247ff., 43gff., 651fF.), as are the thrones of other oriental gods. The Israelite royal throne is also a cherub-throne (op. cit., pp. 77ff., 676^), and David's throne still is in the synagogue painting of Dura-Europos (see Rachel Wischnitzer, The Messianic Theme in the Paintings of the Dura Synagogue, Fig. 34). 5 In the Mari texts from the first half of the second millenium B.c. the word dawidum is an appellative with the meaning 'chief', 'prince'; see Dossin in Syria xix, 1938, pp. l09ff.; cf. Engnell, Divine Kingship, pp. 176ff.; Bentzen, Det sakrale kongedemme, pp. 54f· 1

2

word Kaiser f r o m Caesar. T h e t e r m m a y possibly be connected with Daud or Dod (cf. the personal n a m e Dodijah, i.e., Y a h w e h is D o d ) , 1 the n a m e of a god who was identified with Y a h w e h , a n d perhaps originally indicated the chief or king as a n incarnation of his deified ancestor. 2 T h e Davidic dynasty acted as the true heirs of the ancient king of J e r u s a l e m , Melchizedek, at once priest a n d king. 3 W h e n the Epistle to the H e b r e w s speaks of his having neither father nor mother, this is scarcely a n invention of the a u t h o r based on the fact t h a t the O l d T e s t a m e n t does not mention his family, but r a t h e r a n ancient tradition which survived in J u d a i s m a n d was really intended to express his close relation to the deity (cf. above, p. 35, on K i n g G u d e a of Lagash). According to one interpretation, Psalm cx says t h a t the king was born of S h a h a r , the goddess of the glow of morning, a n d appears as the fertilizing a n d lifegiving ' D e w ' : ' D e w ' , Tal, seems to have been the C a n a a n i t e n a m e for the god of fertility. 4 F r o m m a n y such details it can be shown t h a t the ceremonial of the Israelite kings a n d of their courts, a n d the public institutions of Israel were influenced by C a n a a n , Egypt, a n d other countries. 5 But, as we have said before, it is one thing to determine the ideas a n d terminology which Israel borrowed from alien sources, b u t quite a n o t h e r to determine w h a t she did with them. T h e very fact t h a t there is a change of emphasis in the presentation of the royal virtues is significant. I n the oriental conception of the king, p a r ticularly in Assyria a n d M e s o p o t a m i a , martial traits are domin a n t . E v e n in Israel we find the picture of the king w o u n d i n g the h e a d s of m a n y countries a n d filling the places with dead bodies (Ps. cx, 6), a n d breaking the peoples with a rod of iron (Ps. ii, 9). But the ethical d e m a n d s m a d e on the king are far more p r o m i n e n t . T h i s strong emphasis on the religious a n d moral factors in the king's good fortune is the result of a p r o f o u n d change in the royal ideology caused by the peculiar c h a r a c t e r of Yahwism. T h e 1 2 Chron. xx, 37; abbreviated Dodo, Judges x, 1; 2 Sam. xxiii, 24; 1 Chron. xi, 12, 26. 1 Dod is a term for a near kinsman, as are 'ab = 'father', 'āh — 'brother', 'am = 'kinsman', etc. Originally it meant 'beloved', 'darling' (in the inscription of Mesha, Albright translates 'chieftain'; see A.N.E.T., p. 320). On such deified ancestors, see Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 33ff. 3 Ps. cx, 3. On the interpretation, see Mowinckel, Kongesalmerne, pp. 171 fT. (cf. Index); Ps.St. I l l , pp. 88fF.; Widengren, Psalm no och det sakrala kungadömet i Israel. 4 See Widengren, op. cit., pp. gff.; Engnell, Divine Kingship, p. 82. 8 See Gunkel-Begrich, Einleitung, pp. 150-4; von Rad in T.L.Z· lxxii, 1947, cols. 211ff.

effect is seen primarily in the conception of the divinity of the king. If we c o m p a r e the c o m m o n oriental conception of kingship with t h a t found in Israel, we find t h a t it is characteristic of the latter that all naturalistic elements in the relation of God a n d the king have been discarded, a n d t h a t the concept of identity or physical incarnation (which might well be f o u n d in the C a n a a n i t e environment, so strongly influenced by Egypt) is absent. I n the cult the king was primarily the representative of the people before Y a h w e h , a n d only secondarily the representative of Y a h w e h . Yet the Israelites did not discard the idea t h a t the king really was the representative of Y a h w e h in the cult as well as in the political a n d social life of the nation, or the ancient idea of the king as a superm a n with s u p e r n a t u r a l e q u i p m e n t or divine powers, standing in a peculiarly close relationship of sonship to Y a h w e h . T h e y often continued to express this in terminology a n d ideas which originated in the oriental royal ideology a n d which reflected more mythological conceptions. O n l y occasionally do we find in such mythological pictures a n y indication of a n interpretation in physical a n d n a t u r a l terms of Y a h w e h ' s relation to His son. T h e Israelite view of the king is akin to the Babylonian r a t h e r t h a n the Egyptian view. T h e king is manifestly a m a n , ' o n e chosen f r o m the p e o p l e ' (Ps. lxxxix, 20), s u b o r d i n a t e to Y a h w e h , a n d d e p e n d e n t on H i m for everything. T h e growing tendency in Yahwism to give all h o n o u r to Y a h w e h a n d to subordinate to H i m all t h a t is h u m a n 1 has reduced the mythological element in the court etiquette. F r o m the very first (or, at least, f r o m a quite early date) it prevented the divine c h a r a c t e r of the king f r o m resulting in a n y idolatrous worship of m a n in rivalry with the worship of Y a h w e h . I n the O l d T e s t a m e n t we find no trace in the cult of a n y worship offered to the king, even t h o u g h l a u d a t o r y songs m a y have been sung in his h o n o u r . 2 T h i s will all become clearer if we consider w h a t the Israelites m e a n t by ' a g o d ' . T h e y could use the w o r d ' g o d ' (' e lāhîm) of m a n y kinds of subordinate s u p e r n a t u r a l beings, such as the d e a d soul, the ghost t h a t might be raised: Ί saw a god coming u p out of the earth,' says the w o m a n with a familiar spirit to Saul, when the ghost of Samuel appears. 3 T h e word m a y also be used of a 2 Ps. xiv; cf. Ps. xxi. See below, p. 87. Cf. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 615ff. ι Sam. xxviii, 13. In the Ugaritic texts, II D, I 27, 45, a ghost ('ii = Heb. 'ii, E . W . , 'familiar spirit') is called a 'god'; see Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 106, 123 n. 31. 1

3

d e m o n which causes disease. 1 I t is used to indicate the lower, heavenly beings (literally, ' t h e sons of G o d ' ) surrounding t h e t h r o n e of Y a h w e h , who are sent out by H i m as His messengers, 8 corresponding to the angels of later times (Judges xiii, 22). Even of m a n as such the poet m a y say t h a t Y a h w e h has ' m a d e h i m b u t little lower t h a n a g o d ' (A.V., ' t h a n the angels', Ps. viii, 6). But this saying in itself shows t h a t there is a n essential difference between such a ' g o d ' a n d Y a h w e h . W h a t is characteristic of a ' g o d ' is s u p e r h u m a n , s u p e r n a t u r a l power a n d insight (Gen. iii, 5, 22). A god is holy, 3 a n d partakes of all the attributes a n d qualities of holiness. M a n ' s likeness to ' g o d ' in Ps. viii consists primarily in his dominion and a u t h o r i t y over all other creatures, in the all b u t divine glory a n d h o n o u r expressed in d o m i n i o n over creation. T h e p r o p h e t is a n 'if 'elôhîm, ' a m a n of god (of divinity) ', i.e., ' a divine m a n ' , 4 because he is endowed with divine insight a n d power. W h a t t h e n distinguishes all these ' g o d s ' f r o m Y a h w e h ? First of all, the fact t h a t Y a h w e h is the only one who really is, ' H e w h o is w h a t H e is' (Exod. iii, 14), w h o is ' H e ' , as Deutero-Isaiah repeatedly says, 5 the only one who is really stirring, creating, acting, a n d working behind all t h a t is h a p p e n i n g , in n a t u r e as well as in history. 8 T h e r e is also the point which is so clearly seen in Ps. lxxxii, where Y a h w e h ' j u d g e s a m o n g the g o d s ' : ' Y o u are This is obviously the case in Job. xix, 22. b'nê 'êlím or b'nê ''lāhím, Pss. xxix, 1, lxxxii, 6; Gen. vi, 2, 4; Job i, 6, xxxviii, 7; Deut. xxxii, 8 (reading 'ēl with G, V, for yisrd'ël). The expression is also found in Phoenician (Karatepe inscriptions; see Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen Pantheon, p. 7) and Ugaritic texts (op. cit., pp. 63ff., cf. pp. 20f.). It means quite simply those who belong to the divine category, 'the divine beings'; cf. b'nê haf-f6r*p(m, 'the members of the goldsmiths' guild', 'the goldsmiths'; b'nê han-n'bi'im, 'the members of the prophetic community'. It does not mean, as Morgenstern thinks (H.U.C.A. xiv, 1939, pp. 29ff., 4off.), gods of a younger generation; cf. the Ugaritic dr bn 'lm, ' the family of the divine beings'. 3 Pss. xvi, 3; lxxxix, 6-8; Deut. xxxiii, 3; Zech. xiv, 5; Job v, 1; xv, 15; Dan. iv, 5f., ίο, 14f, 20; ν, i i ; viii, 13; Ecclus. xlii, 17. 4 ι Sam. ii, 27; ι Kings xiii, i; Judges xiii, 8; ι Sam. ix, 6ff.; ι Kings xii, 22; 2 Kings iv, 7; Jer. XXXV, 4. The genitive is attributive. 6 Isa. xli, 4; xliii, iof.; xlviii, 12; cf. xliii, 12f.; xliv, 6. Clearly it was precisely this meaning which Deutero-Isaiah found in the name 'Yahweh' when he represented Yahweh as saying, Ί am He'; it is ' Yahweh-He' who is 'the first and the last'; by all His mighty deeds and fulfilled prophecies Israel can realize 'that I am Yahweh', the One 'who performs this'. It is very probable that Deutero-Isaiah is here really in agreement with the original meaning of the name: yahweh < yahuwa = ya hu(wa), ' O He'; see my remark in Otto, Aufsätze das Numinose betreffend, pp. iiff.; similarly Morgenstern in J.B.L. lxii, 1943, pp. 269ff.; Montgomery in J.B.L. lxiii, 1944, pp. 161ff. • 'To be' (hdyâh) does not in Hebrew denote mere existence in the abstract sense, but the expression of oneself in creative activity. ' I am ' means ' I assert myself through deeds', Ί work', Ί make or create things'. Cf. Ratschow, Werden und Wirken, eine 1 2

gods; a n d all of you are sons of the Most High. But you shall die like men, a n d fall like one of the princes.' W h e n m a n in paradise h a d gained divine insight a n d wisdom, Y a h w e h prevented his attaining perfect likeness to G o d by refusing h i m immortality. Any other ' g o d ' may die, even if normally he is i m m o r t a l . Even the ' d i v i n e ' earthly king is m o r t a l ; but Y a h w e h is ' t h e living G o d ' , ' t h e holy G o d who does not d i e ' . 1 Therefore, in spite of all the mythological m e t a p h o r s a b o u t the birth of a king, we never find in Israel any expression of a ' metaphysical' conception of the king's divinity a n d his relation to Y a h w e h . It is clear t h a t the king is regarded as Y a h w e h ' s son by adoption. W h e n , in Ps. ii, 7, Y a h w e h says to the king on the d a y of his anointing a n d installation, ' Y o u are M y son; I have begotten you t o d a y ' , H e is using the o r d i n a r y formula of adoption, indicating that the sonship rests on Y a h w e h ' s adoption of the king. T h e act of adoption is identical with the anointing a n d installation. T h e king is chosen as the a d o p t e d son of Y a h w e h (Pss. xiv, 8; lxxxix, 21). Y a h w e h Himself has taken care of h i m like a m o t h e r a n d father, has e d u c a t e d him, teaching him, a m o n g other things, the art of war (Ps. xviii, 35). It is not only the idea of adoption t h a t bears witness to this, b u t also the fact t h a t the king's divine e q u i p m e n t is traced back to the spirit of Y a h w e h (see above, p. 65). T h e idea itself is old, as can be seen in the stories a b o u t the J u d g e s , the ancient heroes whose a b n o r m a l e q u i p m e n t a n d powers are explained in this way. 2 W e find the same conception a m o n g the Canaanites, the Babylonians, a n d the Egyptians. 3 Even in the pre-Israelite period, the ecstatic manifestations of the power with which prophets were endowed were explained by the idea of the life-giving a n d creative ' b r e a t h ' or ' s p i r i t ' of the deity. W h e n Israel believed t h a t the spirit of Y a h w e h was in the king, this was not merely a direct continuance of the idea of the e n d o w m e n t of heroes a n d judges with the spirit. I t was certainly already connected with the t h o u g h t of Yahweh's spirit as the source of the ecstatic inspiration of the nebî'îm or prophets. But as a n explanation of prophetic inspiration it has 1 Hab. i, 12, original text; see Β.ΗΛ M.T. is a 'correction of the scribes' (tikkûn sâp'rim), and, as usual, a false one, dictated by dogmatic prejudice. 2 Cf. Linder, Studier till Gamla testamentets föreställningar om Anden, pp. ι ff. 3 See Hehn inZ-A.W. xliii, 1925, pp. 210ff., and above, p. 65 n. 7.

Untersuchung des Wortes hajah als Beitrag zur Wirklichkeitserfassung des Alten Testaments. There is certainly a more than incidental connexion betweenhāyâh and hāyáh (to live). For the ancient Hebrews, life meant will and activity.

78

here clearly replaced an older, C a n a a n i t e conception, of which it must be regarded as a conscious Israelite transformation. T h e r e are m a n y indications t h a t the C a n a a n i t e s believed t h a t the god in question himself entered into the nābî ' a n d worked through h i m . 1 But such a view was incompatible with the Israelite faith in the sublime transcendence of Y a h w e h . It was therefore replaced by the t h o u g h t of His representative, the spirit, which H e ' s e n d s ' a n d ' p o u r s i n t o ' the n a i f . 2 ΓWhen the idea of the spirit is transferred to the king, this means t h a t the king is not one with Y a h w e h , or a n incarnation of H i m , b u t endowed by the spirit of Y a h w e h with s u p e r n a t u r a l powers.) An additional, t h o u g h indirect, a r g u m e n t against the theory t h a t the Israelite king was regarded as identical with Yahweh, or was e q u a t e d with H i m in the cult, is the prophetic polemic against kingship in its empirical manifestation (Jer. xxi, ι i-xxiii, 6; Ezek. xxii, 25 G ; xxxiv). In the book of Ezekiel, in which the historical kings ofJ u d a h are rebuked for their sins more vehemently t h a n in any other prophetic writing, the climax of the attack is the accusation of blasphemy, because they p u t the royal palace side by side with the temple; they have even p u t the royal tombs there, so t h a t they have defiled Y a h w e h ' s holy n a m e by their idolatry a n d by their carcases (Ezek. xliii, 7 - 9 ) . 3 W h a t would Ezekiel have said if the kings h a d m a d e themselves the equals of Y a h w e h , a n d h a d played the p a r t of God, a n d h a d h a d divine worship offered to t h e m in the cult? T h e records inspired by the prophets, a n d also the D e u t e r o n o m i c narratives, do not charge the kings with self-deification, b u t with tyrannizing over their subjects. 4 Even Ezek. viii, which gives a detailed description of all the abominations in the temple, says nothing a b o u t the deifica1 So, e.g., clearly in Wen-Amon's account of the prophet at Byblos; see Ranke in A.O.T.B., p. 226; Wilson in A.N.E.T., p. 26. Traces of the idea of ecstatic possession by the god himself are also found in the phraseology and the forms of the Old Testament; see Hölscher, Die Propheten, pp. 140ff., 147ff. a See Mowinckel in G.T.M.M.M. I l l , p. 13. 3 Neiman (J.B.L. lxvii, 1948, pp. 55ff.) has tried to demonstrate that in the Old Testament, as in Canaanite, peger often means not 'carcase', 'corpse', but a cultic 'stele', and finds this meaning in Ezek. xliii, 7, 9. It fits the context perfectly in Lev. xxvi, 30, but seems less certain in the Ezekiel passages. Even if Neiman were right, the passage would not refer to 'idolatrous stelae', as he renders it, but more probably to votive stelae with the king's image as representations of intercessory prayer; see above, p. 000. Even then we should have an instance, not of the deification of the king, but of an image in Yahweh's temple representing a human being, in the eyes of the prophet an unseemly thing. 4 Cf. ι Sam. viii; xii. Cf. Noth, Ueberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I, p. 57. The favourable attitude which Deuteronomy, in spite of everything, here adopts to the monarchy would have been impossible if kings had been guilty of direct self-deification.

tion of the king, a n d does not allege t h a t the king h a d usurped the prerogatives of Y a h w e h . T h o u g h the king is described as the channel of fertility and of the felicity of paradise, yet we find in Yahwism no trace of any mythological or cultic identification of the king with the fertility god. T h u s there is in the O l d T e s t a m e n t sources no evidence whatsoever t h a t the king was identified with the tree of life, which in its t u r n is supposed to be identical with the deity. 1 T h a t the king was the representative of Y a h w e h in the cult did not imply in Israel w h a t ' representing' m a y formerly have signified in primitive t h o u g h t : t h a t the representative was the person w h o m he represented. T h e great prophets would never have t h o u g h t of m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t they were Y a h w e h , although they did emphatically m a i n t a i n t h a t they h a d been authorized a n d sent by H i m as His envoys. Similarly, the religion of Israel could never tolerate the t h o u g h t t h a t the king was identical with Y a h w e h or acted as if he were. H e represents H i m in the sense t h a t he receives divine power a n d e q u i p m e n t f r o m H i m , a n d conveys His blessing. Y a h w e h has indeed m a d e m a n 'little lower t h a n a g o d ' , as Ps. viii puts it; and, in still higher measure t h a n ordinary men, the king is a god on earth. But the distance between Y a h w e h a n d a n ordinary god is as great as t h a t between o r d i n a r y men a n d the ' d i v i n e beings' (b e nê 'elôhîm). W e have already referred to the king's priestly office. This is, of course, expressed in the p a r t he plays in the cult, in which he is the leader. T h r o u g h the cultic acts, a n d especially t h r o u g h the e n t h r o n e m e n t ceremonies, the king is endowed with divine power a n d m a d e the i n s t r u m e n t of blessing a n d salvation. I t is therefore i m p o r t a n t t h a t the power with which the king is endowed should be constantly m a i n t a i n e d a n d renewed. T h e r e are several indications t h a t in Israel, as in Babylonia, 2 the e n t h r o n e m e n t of the king was repeated as an a n n u a l festival, p r o b a b l y in connexion with the chief festival of the year, the a u t u m n a n d New Y e a r festival, which was also the festival of the e n t h r o n e m e n t of Y a h w e h . 3 T h i s festival was celebrated as a ree n a c t m e n t of creation, a n d as the establishment of fertility of See Additional Note VII. See Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 746ff.; Dürr in Theologie und Glaube xx, 1928, pp. 305ff.; Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 318fF. Cf. above, pp. 4if. 3 Volz, Die biblischen Altertümer, p. 452; Pedersen, op. cit., p. 432; Böhl, Nieuwjaarsfest en koningdag in Babylonien en in Israel; Dürr, op. cit., pp. 319fF. In Judah, too, at least 1

1

80

every kind, of well-being a n d of blessing for land, flocks, a n d people; to this we shall return. T h e n earth, a n d nature, a n d all growing things were created anew as at the first. I t was therefore quite n a t u r a l t h a t the installation of the king a n d the N e w Y e a r festival should be regarded as the preservation a n d re-creation of the primeval splendour. T o the Israelite, all the glory of the earth was s u m m e d u p in the t h o u g h t o f ' Y a h w e h ' s g a r d e n ' , ' t h e g a r d e n of G o d ' , told of in the ancient creation myths. 1 At t h a t time e a r t h itself was ' p a r a d i s e ' . N o wonder, then, t h a t the e n t h r o n e m e n t or birth of a n e w king is taken as a n o m e n t h a t the conditions of paradise are a b o u t to r e t u r n : both the child a n d his people 'will eat curds a n d h o n e y ' (Isa. vii, 15, 22. See below, p p . u o f f . ) , the food of the gods, a n d wild a n d t a m e animals will live peaceably together (Isa. xi, 6 - 9 . See below, p. 182). But this does not m e a n , as some have held, t h a t the thought of the king as ' k i n g of p a r a d i s e ' forms a n essential p a r t of the concept of kingship, or t h a t the royal ideology has its roots there. T h e parallel with the g a r d e n of god is only one of the features associated with the concept of kingship both in Babylonia (see above, p. 47) a n d in Israel, because the king is divine a n d is described in terms of different myths a b o u t gods. T h e r e is a connexion between divinity a n d the g a r d e n of god; therefore the king a n d the blessings of his rule are described in terms of the latter. Still less m a y we conclude f r o m this t h a t the king was r e g a r d e d in Israel as a n incarnation of the Urmensch, even if it is true t h a t the Urmensch is sometimes associated with paradise. None of the passages in the O l d T e s t a m e n t which have been a d d u c e d as evidence of this idea proves t h a t the king is the Urmensch,7· or t h a t this conception was the source of the Israelite royal ideology. S o m e w h a t more i m p o r t a n t , however, t h a n the connexion between the N e w Year festival a n d its oriental p a t t e r n is the c h a r a c ter which the festival acquired in Israel. I n Yahwism it was, in fact, completely transformed. Its basis in the n a t u r a l order is, indeed, still clear, even in Israel: w h a t is created is, in the first instance, life on earth, fertility, crops, the cosmos. But the C a n a a n ite t h o u g h t t h a t the god himself is renewed has disappeared; a n d 1 2

Gen. xiii, 10; Isa. Ii, 3; Ezek. xxviii, 13; xxxi, 8f.; xxxvi, 35; Joel ii, 3. See Mowinckel in St. Th., II i, 1948/9, pp. 71ff.

towards the close of the monarchy, the interval between the death of the old king and the next New Year festival was reckoned as 'the beginning of the reign' (rēŠî( maml'kût, Jer. xxvi, 1) of the new king, the next New Year festival being the beginning of his first year. See Mowinckel in Act.Or. x, 1932, pp. 177ff.

8i G

w h a t the king obtains in the cultic festival is not primarily new life a n d strength, b u t the renewal a n d confirmation of the covenant, which is based on Y a h w e h ' s election a n d faithfulness, a n d depends u p o n the king's religious a n d moral virtues a n d constancy. T o the renewal of n a t u r e there has been a d d e d a n o t h e r element of increasing importance, the renewal of history. I t is the divine acts of election a n d deliverance in the actual history of Israel which are relived in the festival. Election a n d the covenant are ratified. I n the cultic d r a m a the historic events are experienced anew; a n d victory over the political foes of c o n t e m p o r a r y history is promised, g u a r a n t e e d , a n d experienced in anticipation. 1 I t is Israel's f u t u r e as a people t h a t Y a h w e h comes to g u a r a n t e e ; a n d the king is His instrument. This entailed an essential change in the cultic d r a m a a n d in the role of the king. I n C a n a a n the d r a m a enacted the god's own fortunes, his birth, conflict, death, resurrection, victory, a n d cultic m a r r i a g e with the goddess. It is possible t h a t in all this the king played the p a r t of the god (see p. 55, above). B u t it is more p r o b a b l e that, as in Babylonia, the cultic d r a m a was in large measure presented by means of symbolic rites, as, for example, Adonis gardens. 2 I n Egypt, too, the resurrection of Osiris was represented by the raising of the Osiris pillar. 3 In Israel we find no trace of the representation of the fortunes of Y a h w e h by the king. T h e J e r u s a l e m cult h a d its own d r a m a , which presented vividly a n d realistically Y a h w e h ' s epiphany, His conflict a n d victory, His e n t h r o n e m e n t , a n d His re-creation of the world, of Israel, a n d of life on the earth. T o this d r a m a of the New Y e a r festival we shall return in a n o t h e r context. But here Y a h w e h was not presented bodily, in flesh a n d blood. His advent, His epiphany, a n d His presence were m a d e perceptible to experience a n d faith by means of symbols, above all by the festal procession with the sacred box, the ark. I n a n earlier age, the ark m a y possibly have contained some pictorial representation of Y a h w e h Himself; b u t in later times, at least, symbols were substituted: the ark itself, a n e m p t y chair of state, some sacred object such as the lots for the holy oracle, or something of the kind. 4 T h e cultic d a n c e which 1 See Ps.St. II, pp. 54-74, 146ff.; Noth in Christentum und Wissenschaft iv, 1928, pp. 301 ff. 2 On the Adonis gardens see von Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, pp. 88f., cf. Register I; further, Baumgartner in Schweiz. Archiv für Völkerkunde xliii, 1946, pp. 122ff. (based on the material collected by E. Lewin). * See Erman, Die ägyptische Religion2, pp. 22, 64; Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 169ff. * See Mowinckel in R.H.Ph.R. ix, 1929, pp. 212ff.; Act.Or. viii, 1930, pp. 257ff.

82

David performed was, from the standpoint of ritual, an ancient means of creating power a n d victory, a n d in David's time m a y for Israelite t h o u g h t have expressed a n d g u a r a n t e e d the ecstatic divine power which flowed into David a n d the people t h r o u g h the presence of Y a h w e h . But David did not share in t h a t power because he was thought of as h a v i n g become one with Y a h w e h . T h e d a n c e was performed ' b e f o r e Y a h w e h ' , a n d in His h o n o u r . Probably Y a h w e h ' s victory over the enemy was presented dramatically by means of a s h a m fight, as was done a m o n g neighbouring peoples. 1 Some passages in the festival psalms seem to point to this. 2 But in virtue of the m a r k e d historical emphasis which is characteristic of Yahwism f r o m the beginning, it is not the conflict with chaos a n d the d r a g o n which is enacted (as, for instance, in Assyria; see above, p. 42), b u t Yahweh's victory over His own historical enemies a n d those of Israel. This can be deduced from the text of a similar d r a m a t i c episode f r o m the cult contained in Ps. cxxxii. T h e institution of the cult of Y a h w e h in J e r u s a l e m , a n d the first entry of Y a h w e h a n d the ark into the city are here enacted. T h e king assumes the role not of Y a h w e h b u t of David. H e appears at the h e a d of the Israelite army, seeking the ark which has been lost in the conflict with the Philistines, a n d brings it u p in t r i u m p h to J e r u s a l e m to its place in the temple. 3 Presumably something similar took place in the s h a m fight. W h e n the king led the hosts of Israel, the priests, and the temple staff, and with a greater or less measure of symbolism enacted the deeds of Y a h w e h , His emblematic a n d archetypal t r i u m p h over His enemies past and present (the actual a n d possible enemies of Israel), a n d when with realistic symbolism he shattered the b o w a n d cut the spear in sunder, a n d b u r n e d u p the shields with fire (Ps. xlvi, gf.), he did so in the power of Y a h w e h , b u t not t h r o u g h any cultic or mystical identity with H i m . T h a t the phrase ' t h e acts of Y a h w e h ' m a y be taken in this sense is shown by a n expression such as ' the wars of Y a h w e h ' as applied to Israel's victories over her enemies. 4 But b o t h in Ps. cxxxii and in other cultic contexts, Israel's k i n g generally a p p e a r s as the representative of the congregation before 1 O n the important role of such mock battles and sham fights and the king's part in them, see Engnell, Divine Kingship, Index, s.v. 'Sham fight'. A vivid description of an Egyptian cultic combat is given by Erman, Die ägyptische Religion2, pp. 64f. 2 Pss. xlvi, 9f.; xlviii, gf.; see Ps.St. II, pp. 112ff. 3 See Mowinckel, Kongesalmerne, pp. 75fT.; cf. Bentzen, in J.B.L. lxvii, 1948, pp. 37fF. 4 Num. xxi, 14. On ' the Book of the Wars of Yahweh', see Mowinckel in Z-A. W. !»»> >935. PP· »3 8 f f ·

Yahweh, not as the representative of Y a h w e h before the congregation. H e dances a n d sings a n d plays ' b e f o r e Y a h w e h ' , a n d leads the festal procession (2 Sam. vi, 5, 14ff.; cf. Ps. xiii, 5). I n the cultic d r a m a he represents D a v i d : Y a h w e h is represented by His holy ark, by the 'footstool' before the throne on which H e is invisibly seated. 1 T h e king intercedes with Y a h w e h for the people, standing before H i m as a servant. It is not he b u t the cultic p r o p h e t who in the festival ritual speaks Y a h w e h ' s words to the congregation (Ps.St. I I I ) . I n Ps. cxxxii we hear the temple prophet's intercession for the king a n d his oracle to him in Y a h w e h ' s name.2 It is the king who receives Y a h w e h ' s promises, His blessings, a n d His power; a n d he transmits t h e m to the c o m m u n i t y which he represents. 3 But in misfortune, too, he is the representative of his peopÍe and has to b e a r their fate. O n the days of humiliation a n d p r a y e r a n d in the a t o n e m e n t liturgies, it is the king who, as a corporate personality, vicariously bears a n d lays before Y a h w e h all the misfortune, suffering, a n d distress which have befallen the people. T h e y become his personal suffering a n d distress, m a k i n g h i m ill a n d weak. H e can describe the afflictions of J e r u s a l e m as if they were his own private afflictions, a n d entreat Y a h w e h to help a n d save h i m from distress. 4 I n order to grasp clearly the essential difference between the royal ideology in Israel a n d t h a t found elsewhere in the east, or, in other words, how the religion of Israel transformed the ideas which it acquired from its environment, we must consider a n essential difference between the Israelite conception of God a n d t h a t of other oriental religions. This raises the question mentioned 1 Ps. cxxxii, 1-10. On the throne within the temple see Isa. vi, iff.; Ezek. i; and cf. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 246ff; H. Schmidt in Eucharisterion I, pp. 120ff. a It is, therefore, misleading when Canney (in J.M.E.O.S. xvii, 1932, pp. 41fr.), in dealing with this ritual drama, speaks about a ' magical ' activity. s Pss. cxxxii, ι i f f ; lxxii; cf. xx, 8f.; xxi, 10; Isa. Iv, 3. 4 This may be inferred from Ps. cii. The Ί ' of this psalm (the worshipper), if not a king (the psalm may be post-exilic), is at all events the cultic representative of the congregation, its leading man, and as such has the same position as the king in former times, and uses the vocabulary of the royal ideology. The worshipper represents Zion, the congregation. The affliction and sufferings of Zion are also his suffering and 'sickness'. The climax of the psalm is the prayer about the restoration of Jerusalem and Israel. Since it is emphasized that the time of favour has now come (ν. 14), we may hold that the psalm belonged to the cultic prayers at the harvest and New Year festival, when men were on the threshold of the new era of grace and the year of favour (Isa xlix, 8; lxi, 2). Observe also the emphasis on Yahweh's 'sitting' on His throne, on His 'arising' to save Zion (vv. 13f.), and His 'appearing in glory' (». 17; the idea of epiphany); and note the allusion to the creation in v. 26. A gloss or a textual variant

84

above (pp. 41f.), how the 'experiences' of the deity in the cult were conceived. W e saw t h a t it was a c o m m o n feature in oriental religions a n d their cultic p a t t e r n t h a t the god fought, suffered, died, a n d rose again to new life, a n d t h a t all this was visibly expressed in the cultic d r a m a . 1 I n the Pan-Babylonian school half a century ago, 2 a n d also quite recently, scholars have sought to m a i n t a i n t h a t this took place in Israel too, a n d t h a t Y a h w e h was a dying a n d rising G o d , 3 a n d consequently t h a t the suffering, death, a n d resurrection of the king formed p a r t of the royal ideology as we see it reflected in the cult. 4 I t is, however, quite out of the question t h a t Y a h w e h was ever r e g a r d e d in Israelite religion as a dying a n d rising God. T h e invaders f r o m the desert always felt t h a t there was an essential difference between the gods of the C a n a a n i t e s a n d ' t h e God of t h e fathers', who revealed Himself to t h e m on M o u n t Sinai, a n d whose justice or ' m a n n e r ' was the traditions a n d morals of the wilderness period. T h e O l d T e s t a m e n t explicitly states wherein this difference consists. T h e 'gods of the peoples' may, as Ps. lxxxii puts it, ' d i e like men, a n d fall like one of the princes', a n d will do so w h e n Y a h w e h appears to j u d g e the earth. For the Canaanites, the expression ' the living god ' m e a n t ' the god who has come to life a g a i n ' : 6 f o r Israel it m e a n t ' t h e G o d w h o always lives, a n d creates life out of His own life'. 6 Y a h w e h is ' t h e holy G o d w h o 1 Cf. the systematic (and therefore too theoretical) summary in Hooke, Myth and Ritual, p. 8. 2 See above, pp. 24f. This view is frequently found in the works of Hugo Winckler, e.g., his Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen. 3 See Additional Note VIII. 4 This consequence of the supposed general oriental ritual pattern has been drawn both by Engnell (B.J.R.L. xxxi, 1948, pp. 3fr.) and by Widengren (S.E.J, x, 1945, pp. 65ff.). Although Engnell (Divine Kingship, p. 210 n. 2) rightly rejects the idea that the Israelites thought of Yahweh as a dying and rising god, he nevertheless maintains that their royal ritual was derived from a pattern which had this conception of the god. But even this modified form of the hypothesis is untenable in the general way in which Engnell expresses it. Riesenfeld, too, maintains (The Resurrection in Ezekiel XXXVII and the Dura-Europos Paintings) by a priori reasoning that in Israel the king died (symbolically) and rose again in the New Year festival; and he quite arbitrarily reads this idea into some passages where the text gives no indication of it. See further my Offersang og sangoffer, pp. 569f. 6 See von Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, pp. 466ff. 8 Op. cit., pp. 450ff.

in ». 14 explains the time of favour (v. 14a) as the 'time of the festival' (v. 14b). In 14b two textual variants have obviously been conflated: ki 'ē( bd' I'hen'ndh and kt bd' mô'êd I'hen'ndh. The psalm seems to belong to the early post-exilic age: the greater part of Jerusalem is still lying in ruins, the servants of Yahweh are represented as in bonds and appointed to death (vv. 21f.) 'the nations' triumph over them and refer in oaths and curses to the example of their misfortune (v. 9) : in brief, the Jews'are languishing under the oppressive and infamous domination of foreigners. But it is also possible to date the psalm in the period 598-587 B.c.

does n o t d i e ' ( H a b . i, 12; see p. 78 n. 1). I t is characteristic t h a t whereas in the Babylonian cult we h e a r of the king a n d his m e n going out to seek for the god who is imprisoned in the realm of the d e a d , 1 in the processional Ps. cxxxii it is the ever-powerful ark of Y a h w e h , the symbol of His active presence, t h a t ' D a v i d ' a n d his men are t h o u g h t to have been seeking a n d t h e n to have found. H o w e v e r m u c h Israel m a y have a d o p t e d the cultic p a t t e r n a n d myths of C a n a a n , she definitely rejected or radically transformed all those conceptions a n d rites which presupposed or expressed the d e a t h a n d resurrection of the deity. 2 I n keeping with this is the fact t h a t primitive ideas a b o u t the divinity of the d e a d (a f u n d a m e n t a l f e a t u r e in all ancient Semitic religion 8 ) were suppressed in Israel to such a n extent t h a t a great gulf was fixed between Y a h w e h a n d the d e a d . W i t h the d e a d a n d the realm of the d e a d , Y a h w e h a n d Yahwism have n o t h i n g to d o . 4 This t h o u g h t is emphasized so m u c h t h a t it almost conflicts with the idea of the s u p r e m e power of Y a h w e h over t h e whole universe. I n Israel, as in Babylonia, the sources afford no evidence for the idea (found in Egypt) t h a t the king is one with the dead god, a n d t h a t he was represented in the cult as suffering, dying, a n d rising again, or t h a t in enacting this role he ever represented Y a h w e h . 5 T h e r e is not even a n y proof of t h e disintegration of such a p a t t e r n in Israel: i.e., of the theory t h a t Israel a d o p t e d b u t r e i n t e r p r e t e d a cultic p a t t e r n which originally h a d this m e a n i n g . This view has a d m i t t e d l y been recently m a i n t a i n e d b y some scholars. 6 Some of the psalms of l a m e n t a t i o n are cited as evidence, a n d are i n t e r p r e t e d as referring to 'cultic suffering', as l a m e n t a tions uttered by the king, because as the substitute for the deity See Frankfort, Kingship, p. 317; cf. p. 323. This is very clearly maintained by Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 440ff.; cf. pp. 466ff., 484, 737ff. Cf. also Engnell, Divine Kingship, p. 210 n. 2; Baumgartner in T'Z· iii, 1947, pp. 98fr.; Birkeland in S.E.J. xiii, 1 9 Ά ΡΡ· 43^· 3 See Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites3, pp. 544fr.; Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums2, pp. 383ff.; Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 477ff.; Illustrent Religionshistorie*, pp. 154, 160, 203ff. The same idea lies behind the conception of the tribal deity as the original ancestor of the tribe; see Robertson Smith, op. cit., pp. 3gff. Among the Bedouin the ancestor of the tribe is its god, and his grave its cult-place; see Musil, Arabia Petraea III, Index. 4 Pss. vi, 6; XXX, 10; lxxxviii, 11-13; cxv, 17. Cf. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 485f. ' This seems to be Widengren's opinion in Religionens världl, pp. 31 if.; cf. ist ed., pp. 223 η. 2, 225· In R.o.B. ii, 1943, pp. 70, 72, Widengren says that Ps. lxxxviii ia not actually a cultic text giving direct expression to this thought, but that the content and the phraseology are determined by rituals of this type. 6 See, e.g., Johnson in The Labyrinth, p. 81; Widengren in S.E.J. x, 1945, p. 66; cf. also Engnell, Divine Kingship, p. 170 n. 4, p. 210 n. 2, and in B.J.R.L. xxxi, 1948, 1

8

he has been overpowered a n d p u t to d e a t h in the cult by the powers of chaos, to which life succumbs every year, b u t f r o m which it is again delivered t h r o u g h the cultic d r a m a . But this interpretation of the psalms is false. T h e worshipper, u n d o u b t e d l y often the king himself, does not here l a m e n t over suffering a n d d e a t h which he undergoes symbolically in the cult, b u t over actual present distress brought u p o n him by earthly enemies, foreign nations a n d traitors within the state, or over ordinary illness a n d the d a n g e r of death. W h e n the worshipper at times describes himself as already swallowed u p by Sheol a n d in the realm of the dead, his language is, f r o m our point of view, metaphorical; b u t the figure is realistic in t h a t it is based on the c o m m o n Israelite notion t h a t a person who is sick or t h r e a t e n e d by d e a t h has already given lodgement to death, a n d is at the mercy of the powers of death, unless at the last m o m e n t Y a h w e h snatches h i m away. This is so, even although the actual poetical expression of this idea p r o b a b l y goes back ultimately to the cultic representations of the descent of the vegetation deity to the u n d e r w o r l d ; 1 b u t this does not alter the fact t h a t these psalms speak of actual sufferings a n d earthly dangers, not the feigned sufferings of the cultic myths. T h u s there is no evidence t h a t in Israel the king was regarded as Y a h w e h , m u c h less the dying Y a h w e h , or t h a t there was a n y representation in the festival ritual of the cult of the suffering a n d d e a t h of the king. O n the whole we m a y regard it as symptomatic t h a t the only p o e m in h o n o u r of the king which the Psalter contains is the m a r r i a g e psalm (xiv), written in order to express 'good w o r d s ' , the wish for blessing on the bridal couple. I n Israel it was considered seemly to praise Yahweh in Zion (Ps. lxv, 2); a n d he who gloried (i.e., uttered the praises of t h a t in which h e found his h o n o u r a n d pride) must glory in Y a h w e h (Jer. ix, 22fi), not in a n y m a n or in a n y other god. 2 W e m a y therefore safely m a i n t a i n t h a t in the legitimate religion of Israel, the real Yahwism, any kind of identification of the king with Y a h w e h was r e p u d i a t e d . U n d o u b t e d l y the Israelite cult 1 On the 'death* of the worshipper in the psalms of lamentation see GunkelBegrich, Einleitung, pp. 187ff.; Bentzen in the Eissfeldtfestschrift, pp. 57ff.; and further, my Offersang og sangoffer, ch. VII, 6, where the theory of feigned suffering in the cult is refuted. a Ratschow (Z-A.ÌV. liii, 1935, pp. 171 ff.) tries to interpret Ps. xlvii as belonging to the cult of the king, but can do 50 only by means of radical and unjustified alteration of the text.

h a d very m a n y forms a n d expressions which originally implied a far more intimate relation between the king a n d the deity t h a n Yahwism could admit. But the utmost caution should be observed in arguing f r o m a c o m m u n i t y of o u t w a r d form to identity of m e a n i n g a n d thought. W e have a good instance of this in the imperial etiquette of Christian Byzantium. T h e most i m p o r t a n t of the o u t w a r d forms of imperial state (attire, m e t a p h o r , the throne a n d its surroundings, the ' a p p e a r a n c e ' at the great festivals a n d audiences, the decoration of the surroundings) were derived from the divine kingship of the ancient east. 1 But that the E m p e r o r was regarded either by himself or by the C h u r c h as Christ i n c a r n a t e or as a truly deified m a n is, of course, out of the question. So it was in Israel: the king was ' a god on e a r t h ' , a n d all the forms of the royal etiquette emphasized the fact; b u t in every way he was subordinate to Yahweh, a n d in relation to the only truly living O n e he was a m o r t a l m a n . A t times this m a y not have held good in some syncretistic circles, a n d perhaps even in the official cult of the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m . 2 I t is also conceivable t h a t in the time of David a n d Solomon the cult at J e r u s a l e m was considerably more C a n a a n i t e t h a n we can prove today. But at any rate we can see t h a t the representatives of Yahwism, who u p h e l d the old ' L e v i t i c a l ' traditions, reacted against this tendency at a very early period. T h e first a n t i - C a n a a n i t e purification of the temple a n d the cult is mentioned as early as the time of K i n g Asa (i Kings xv, 12f.). It is quite p r o b a b l e t h a t the extant texts have been expurgated of traces of earlier C a n a a n i t e tendencies. W h a t is more i m p o r t a n t is t h a t the rites themselves were e x p u r g a t e d : t h a t must have been a n a t u r a l consequence of the purification of the cult. As has already been observed, when similarities occur between individual expressions a n d m e t a p h o r s in o u r texts a n d corresponding features in Babylonian rituals, we must b e w a r e of concluding t h a t we are dealing with the same cultic p a t t e r n a n d the same religious ideas a n d cultic practices. Details in texts a n d rituals must be seen a n d interpreted in relation to the entire new structure of which they f o r m a p a r t — i n this instance, Israelite religion with its peculiar character. As has been said above, it rejected every a t t e m p t to make Y a h w e h a dying god a n d the king His ' i d e n t i c a l ' representative. 1 Cf. L'Orange, Fra antikk til middelalder, pp. 63-129; Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture, pp. 90ff.; Keiseren pd himmeltronen, pp. 132ff. * Cf. Hvidberg, Graad og Latter i det Garnie Testamente, pp. 8iff.; Den israelitiske Religions

Historie, pp. 70ff., m .

W e m a y in conclusion sum u p in the following terms the essential qualities which Israel required of a true king. T h e king is the n a t u r a l , official leader of the public cult of the nation, even if on o r d i n a r y occasions the priest officiates in his stead. H e is the channel t h r o u g h which Yahweh's blessings flow to the people, being conveyed primarily t h r o u g h his cultic functions. T h e presupposition a n d condition of this is t h a t he should be loyal to the laws a n d justice of Y a h w e h . A l t h o u g h in virtue of his e q u i p m e n t (anointing a n d Y a h w e h ' s spirit) he is ' d i v i n e ' a n d more t h a n a n ordinary h u m a n being, a n d a l t h o u g h as leader in the cult he is the representative of the Deity, yet in a still higher degree he is the representative of the people in the presence of the Deity: h e prays, intercedes, offers u p sacrifice, a n d receives power a n d blessing. T h e covenant is concentrated in h i m ; a n d t h r o u g h h i m a n d his line the promises are m e d i a t e d . T h r o u g h h i m the congregation stands before God a n d meets G o d . If the king is w h a t he o u g h t to be, he is also the g u a r a n t e e of the people's f u t u r e a n d good fortune, its 'righteousness' a n d ' p e a c e ' . H e is the leader in war, a n d in the power of Y a h w e h subdues all enemies. H e is the s u p r e m e j u d g e , the g u a r d i a n of justice a n d righteousness. H e is the g u a r a n t e e of fertility a n d prosperity. All the victory a n d blessing which Y a h w e h creates for His people by His advent at the festival are b r o u g h t to realization by the king, if he is a righteous king after Y a h w e h ' s heart. T h e n the association works as it ought, a n d Y a h w e h bestows power a n d good fortune for the m a i n t e n a n c e of peace, justice, a n d prosperity. Neither the king nor the cult creates these things; Y a h w e h Himself creates a n d bestows t h e m t h r o u g h the s a c r a m e n t a l cultic acts a n d t h r o u g h the king's right relation to Y a h w e h . I t is also characteristic of Israel t h a t the religious a n d m o r a l conditions of all this are very strongly emphasized in the royal psalms, the official ritual texts at the royal services. Almost every aspect of the d e m a n d s , promises, a n d requirements associated with the king appears in Ps. lxxii, a psalm of intercession a n d blessing: Inspire the king with thine own j u d g e m e n t s , Ο God, with T h i n e own righteousness the king's son, t h a t he m a y rule T h y people with righteousness, a n d see t h a t T h y poor has his right.

M a y he do justice to the poor of the people, a n d succour those who are needy; < m a y he smite the wicked with the rod of his m o u t h , > a n d break in pieces the oppressor. M a y he < p r o l o n g > (his days) while the sun endures, as the moon, t h r o u g h o u t all generations. M a y he come d o w n like rain u p o n the m o w n grass, like showers t h a t w a t e r the earth. I n his days < j u s t i c e > will flourish, a n d a b u n d a n c e of well-being without < b o u n d > ; the m o u n t a i n s will bring forth well-being; the hills < w i l l y i e l d > right order. H e will have d o m i n i o n f r o m sea to sea, a n d f r o m the River to the ends of the earth. T h e beasts of the wilderness will bow before h i m ; a n d his enemies will lick the dust. . . . All kings will fall d o w n before h i m ; all nations will serve h i m ; for he will deliver the needy when he cries, the poor, a n d h i m t h a t has no helper. H e will have pity on the needy a n d the poor; a n d will save the lives of the p o o r : from oppression a n d violence he will rescue t h e m ; a n d precious will their blood be in his sight. . . . M a y there b e a b u n d a n c e of grain in the l a n d ; m a y it wave on the tops of the hills; m a y its fruit < f l o u r i s h > like L e b a n o n , a n d its sheaves be as the grass of the e a r t h . 1 Instead of ' m a y h e ' , we m i g h t translate ' h e will', as is d o n e above in the latter p a r t of the psalm. T h e t h o u g h t oscillates between the word of blessing a n d the w o r d of prophecy, the blessing being in itself a p r o p h e c y which creates the f u t u r e . 1 Ps. lxxii, 1-9, II, 14, 16. In v. 4b a hemistich seems to have been lost; in the translation above it has been supplied from the parallel passage in Isa. xi, 4. V. 3 breaks the connexion between v. 2 and v. 4, and is logically connected with v. 7; it is a, c. transposed above: read yatulû jfbd'Sf. V. 5: see B.H.*, n.a. V. 7; see B,Hon. V. 12: see B.H.*, n.a. V. 16: see B.H.*, n.d-d.

90

T h e king's promise in the presence of Y a h w e h on the d a y of his e n t h r o n e m e n t (his ' c h a r t e r ' ) corresponds to these claims a n d expectations: I will sing of loyalty a n d j u s t rule; u n t o Thee, Y a h w e h , will I m a k e music. I will give heed to the way of integrity. Ο when wilt T h o u come u n t o m e ? I will walk with integrity of h e a r t within m y house; a n d I will set no h a r m f u l thing before m y eyes. I h a t e < h i m w h o > makes (his ways) crooked; he shall not cleave to m e (i.e., be my associate). A perverse h e a r t shall d e p a r t f r o m me; I will know no evil m a n . H i m who secretly slanders his neighbour I will destroy. T h e m a n of h a u g h t y eye a n d p r o u d heart, with h i m I will not < s h a r e m y m e a l > . M y eyes shall be u p o n the faithful in the land, t h a t they m a y dwell with me. H e w h o walks in the w a y of integrity shall (be allowed to) be m y servant. But he shall not dwell within m y house w h o practises deceit; a n d he who lies shall not be established before my eyes. M o r n i n g by m o r n i n g will I destroy all the wicked in the land, cut off all w h o commit godless crime ('āwen) f r o m the city of Y a h w e h . 1 Even if every individual feature in this picture, taken separately, represents ancient Israelite ideals, a n d also has parallels in the d e m a n d s m a d e by other eastern nations on their kings, yet the way in which precisely these d e m a n d s are combined a n d e m p h a 1 Ps. ci. V. 3: sec B.H.3, n.a. V. 5: see B.H.3, n. b-b (G,S); M.T., Ί will not endure' (the proud-hearted) depends on the mistaken idea that Yahweh is the speaker in the psalm.

sized, a n d the king regarded as protector a n d friend of the needy a n d the h u m b l e reveals the influence of the prophetic m o v e m e n t on the officiai religion. It is therefore also clear t h a t the prophets did not hesitate to direct their criticism even against sacral kingship, 1 a n d to assess individual historical kings in terms of the d e m a n d s of Yahwism a n d its ideal of kingship. T h e king did not receive his office in order to exalt himself, to act arrogantly, to emulate the g r a n d e u r of great despots, or to oppress his fellowc o u n t r y m e n (his ' n e i g h b o u r s ' ) , b u t in o r d e r to prove by his actions t h a t he ' k n e w Y a h w e h ' . This is clear, for instance, from the words addressed by J e r e m i a h to K i n g J e h o i a k i m : W o e to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, his chambers by injustice, who forces other m e n to work for nothing, holding back their wages, who says, ' I will build me a spacious palace, with roomy chambers a n d with windows wide, panelling it with cedar a n d painting it with vermilion.' Is it for you as king to vie < w i t h S o l o m o n > in panelling with c e d a r ? Did not your father eat a n d drink (i.e., enjoy himself like a normal man) a n d he ruled justly a n d lawfully? Did he not u p h o l d the rights of the poor a n d needy? T h e n it was well with h i m . Is not t h a t the true knowledge of M e ? says the inspired word of Y a h w e h . But you have neither eyes nor heart for a u g h t b u t selfish gain, a n d shedding innocent blood, a n d doing oppression a n d violence. 2 1 See, e.g., Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 142ff.; Graham, The Prophets and Israel's Culture, pp. 69ff. 'Jer. xxii, 13-17. For the text, see G.T.M.M.M. Ill, p. 799. V. 15a must originally have mentioned with whom Jehoiakim vies; and the line is metrically short: add 'et I'lämöh. The meaning of v. 16b is not quite clear. Either he lived a decent life like an ordinary man; or he enjoyed himself with all good things. In the old Aramaic Hadad inscription, 1. 9, 'eat and drink' means to enjoy a quiet and happy life; see Euler, Ç.A.W. lvi, 1938, p. 299.

These verses summarize briefly the negative and positive aspects of the authentic Israelite ideal of kingship, which culminates in 'the knowledge of Yahweh'. It would be a mistake to overlook the fact that these ethical features (the emphasis on the king's duty to uphold justice and righteousness and to protect the poor and needy) are also present, and sometimes even prominent, in other eastern royal ideologies. In Egypt, as we have seen, the king was the incarnation of the divine cosmic law (ma'at) itself and of Ma'at the goddess of justice. It was he who provided for order in the world and maintained law and 'justice'. The good fortune, peace, and welfare of'the two lands' were his concern. But this is much less prominent than the king's glorious divine power. The impression is given that the ethical side of the matter is subordinate. The king provides for justice, not because it is a religious and moral duty or charge, but because it belongs to his divine nature. As a god he possesses all power and creates all good fortune and blessing; and what he does is always in itself'just', because he, the incarnate god, does it. 'All that I commanded was as it should be,' says Amenemhet.1 The king is himself ma'at, he is the cosmic law,2 and there appears to be no moral law over him. If he maintains ma'at, the consequence to which most importance is attached is that he creates abundant crops in the land.3 The ethical aspect is considerably more prominent in the AssyroBabylonian royal inscriptions.4 The gods called Hammurabi to be king, 'in order that I should make justice shine in the land, destroy those who do violence and commit crimes, prevent the strong from harming the weak, rise like the sun-god over the black-headed ones, diffuse light in the land, and promote the welfare of the people' (Code of Hammurabi I, 32ff). The king's task is to be the 'shepherd' of his people, to care for it, and to uphold justice against injustice, violence, and disorder.5 Nevertheless, a study of the Assyro-Babylonian royal inscriptions6 reveals a striking lack of emphasis on this idea. The Babylonian kings lay the main stress on their cultic acts: the building and restoring of temples, gifts for temple and cult, 1 3 4 5 6

2 See Frankfort, Kingship, p. 57. Cf. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 5if., 277f. Frankfort, op. cit., p. 57. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 277ff.; Labat, Royauté, pp. 22ifT. See Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East, pp. 38, 42ff. Cf. Mowinckel, Statholderen Nehemia, pp. 124ff.; Eucharisterion I, pp. 278fF.

offerings and prayers, and so on. The Assyrian kings emphasize above all their warlike exploits and boast of having subjected foreign nations and countries to the dominion of the god Ashur. To this we may add that the very conception of the character of 'justice' and 'blessing' had a different basis in Babylonia and Assyria from what it had, for instance, in Israel.1 We may put it in this way: the gods stand above justice; 'justice' or 'blessing' is what the gods purpose; but that is often arbitrary and incomprehensible. It too often seems ás if 'what seems to man to be wise is contemptible in the eyes of the god, and what seems evil in the judgement of man is good in the eyes of his god'. In Israel, too, Yahweh is the source of justice and blessing, and in the thought of the pious He is supreme over these qualities. But the real belief of the v. eading minds is that Yahweh is not arbitrary. There is a norm in His relation to mankind. He may be 'known', even if He is 'the hidden god'. The standard is the goodness and righteousness of His covenant,2 in spite of everything. The tension remains; but faith in the morality of God's justice is maintained: that is the 'solution' in the poem about Job. 3 Thus the relation between religion and morality has a different basis in Israel from what it has in Babylonia and Egypt; and this, of course, affects the content of the religious ideal of kingship. Two points express what is distinctive of the Israelite ideal: the king is absolutely subordinate to Yahweh and in everything dependent upon Him and His covenant blessing; and the king's essential task is to be the instrument of Yahweh's justice and covenant blessing among men. He is a true king in so far as he 'knows Yahweh' and the law of His moral being.4 It is, therefore, entirely in accord with the Israelite conception that the king's humility is emphasized. Just as it is the king's duty to sustain the humble and the oppressed, so he must himself be humble and meek. His strength resides not in horses and chariots, but in the name of Yahweh his God. Not splendour, but justice to the lowly is the essence of kingship.5 And yet, when we consider the picture of the king which is 1

See Frankfort, Kingship, pp. 278f. See Mowinckel, Die Erkenntnis Gottes bei den alttestamenllichen Propheten, pp. 31ff. See Mowinckel, Diktet om Ijob og harts Ire venncr, pp. 19-4.2. * Cf. Mowinckel, Die Erkenntnis Gottes bei den alttestamentlichen Propheten, p. 8. 6 Cf. Zech, ix, gf.; Mic. v, 3, gf.; Pss. xx, 8; xviii, 28; and see Pedersen, Israel I I I - I V , pp. 9iff. 2

3

given in the royal psalms, and see how, for example, Ps. ii, the psalm of anointing, promises the king world dominion, and what abundant blessings Ps. lxxii expects from him, there can be no doubt that even in ancient Israel he was regarded as more than mere man. He was like 'an angel of Yahweh' (2 Sam. xiv, 20), like a god on earth. He was the pledge of a happy future. Yahweh has chosen this man as the instrument in the fulfilment of His plans for the world. Here we are dealing not merely with the language of the court (Hofstil),1 but with a genuine faith.2 The poets do not say these things simply to flatter the king: they mean them. They speak of the king as he ought to be, and of what would follow if he were like that. Then he would be the willing and fit instrument of Yahweh for the fulfilment of His gracious plan of salvation for His people, which is based on His gracious election and covenant. We may put it differently, and say that if the king in all his conduct is 'a king after Yahweh's own heart' (and this condition is often emphasized), then he is not only a frail man, but is in accord with the mind of Yahweh, with the divine archetype of kingship.3 Then, so long as he abides by the covenant, all the miraculous power of Yahweh is at his disposal. The Israelite conception of and belief in kingship are the expression of the desire for some visible human evidence and guarantee of Yahweh's covenant and of His active presence with His people. Yahweh deals with the nation through one of its own members. Israel's own interpretation of her ideal of kingship is given by the author of the Deuteronomic history in his view of history; if the king abides by Yahweh's law, the people will prosper; if the king breaks the law and fails Yahweh, the ruin of the people will follow. Thus Israel's conception of kingship really points forward to Him who was its true fulfilment. But this brings us to yet another important aspect of the conception of kingship with which the next chapter will deal. 1 As Gressmann puts it, Ursprung, pp. 250ff. ' See Mowinckel, Kongesalmerne, pp. 139ff.; von Rad in Z-A- W. lvii, 1939, p. 217. 8 See von Rad, op. cit., p. 219.

CHAPTER IV

T h e Future Hope I. Realized, and Unrealized Elements in the Ideal of Kingship

T is important to recognize that from the very beginning the Itheideal of kingship in ancient Israel had a certain relation to future; or, more precisely, it was never fully realized; but there always remained something to be desired. It is of the nature of an ideal that it can never become present reality, but always belongs to the future. At the very moment when you believe that it is already present, it ceases to be ideal; and the ideal itself escapes into the future and so asserts its own nature. It may be associated with something which is later seen not to correspond to it. Thus it lives in the borderland between present and future. Several of the royal oracles which have been handed down to us assert that they will be realized only if the king cleaves to Yahweh and walks according to His commandment and will.1 But the curse may light upon the king himself and make him ill-fated; he may fall into sin and become a wrongdoer (cf. Saul). Admittedly the court poets could sing of more than one king, praising them in effusive language as righteous and godfearing kings after Yahweh's own heart. But experience often showed that the king's good fortune did not always avail to protect the people from enemies, misfortunes, civil dissension, and injustice. But there must then be something wrong with the king himself and his righteousness. Thus, quite naturally, the thought of the fulfilment of the ideal came to be associated with the next king, the heir, the newborn prince, the new king on the day when he was enthroned and anointed. The descriptions of the kingly ideal which have been handed down are for the most part either idealized descriptions of the great kings of the past (which in effect means David), or wishes and promises for the new king. At the enthronement of the king, the temple prophets promise him all the royal fortune and blessing, power and honour which are proper to a son of Yahweh 1

Pss. xviii, 2 1 - 7 ; lxxxix, 3 1 - 5 ; cxxxii, 12.

96

(Pss. ii; cx).1 Year by year as the festival came round (coinciding with the annual enthronement festival of Yahweh, the New Year festival) these promises were repeated (Ps. cxxxii, uff.). The same thing took place on days of humiliation and prayer, before war, and in need and danger (Ps. xx). The congregation uttered on behalf of the new king its good wishes for blessing, describing how both at home and abroad he would make the ideal come true (Ps. lxxii); and the king himself offered to Yahweh a kind of charter, in which he promised to be a true king, to walk in Yahweh's way, and to make His justice a reality in the land (Ps. ci). But as a rule these hopes and promises would not be fulfilled. The author of the Book of Kings passes very unfavourable judgements on most of the kings of both Israel and Judah. And the real condition of both country and court is shown as clearly as one could wish by the fiery denunciations of the prophets of doom, even if they too have so great respect for the sacrosanct ideal of kingship that they seldom attack the king himself explicitly and by name. We may therefore maintain that precisely because the ideal of kingship was so lofty, and because the king was regarded as a divine being, of whom, accordingly, divine virtues and divine help were expected, the ideal of kingship became something which haunted everyday reality as the object of dreams, wishes, and longings, something for whose realization the people would hope in every new king and prince, or at least something which would at some time be fulfilled. For one day the true king must surely come and put everything right, as according to saga and poetry it had once been under the first king of Jerusalem, David, the founder of the dynasty. In this form (as a vague dream of the possible realization of an ideal at some time in the future) the conception of a coming 'Anointed of Yahweh' existed in Israel quite early in the monarchic period. Naturally it cannot be older than the monarchy itself. It comes from a time when the common oriental ideal of kingship had been naturalized in Israel, and when the tension between ideal and reality was making itself felt, so as to prompt the wish that in spite of the unpleasant facts the ideal of kingship would be realized. But we must mention here another factor which helped to give 1 This may also be deduced from Ps. lxxxix, 2iff. and 2 Sam. vii; see Mowinckel in S.E.A. xii, 1947, pp. 220ff.

H

the kingly ideal its future reference, namely, its connexion with the cult.1 The occasions in Israelite life at which the king was presented to sight and thought as the realization of the ideal were the great festivals, when, as mediator between Yahweh and the people, and as representative of the latter, arrayed in holy attire, he received Yahweh's renewed promise of divine equipment, of the renewal of the covenant, and of every conceivable kind of good fortune for himself and his people in coming days. In particular, on two important cultic occasions the king thus represented the future hopes and prospects of the dynasty and the people. These were the festival of anointing and the great annual festival, the harvest and New Year festival, the festival of Yahweh's epiphany. At the anointing, on the coronation day, he received the promise of a filial relationship to Yahweh, of victory over all his opponents, of world dominion, of 'everlasting priesthood', of the seat of honour at Yahweh's right hand. Promises of this kind have been preserved in the oracles of anointing, such as Psalms ii and ex.2 At the great annual festival, the foundation of the dynasty and the covenant with David (which also represented the covenant with the people) were experienced anew. Then the king received again the promise of his dynasty's everlasting reign, of Yahweh's favour, of victory, peace, and blessing for people and king, for priesthood and laity, for field and flock. The future was created and secured. Evidence of this is provided, for instance, by the festival liturgy in Ps. cxxxii.3 But at the annual festival it was also the future of the whole people which was created anew. Fate was reversed; all things became new; a 'year of favour' was at hand. The invisible pledge of all this was the chosen of Yahweh, the king, 'David', with whom Yahweh would never break His covenant.4 Thus the fact is that at certain culminating and turning points in Israel's life the prevailing ideal of kingship crystallized into a present expectation and a specific promise of a definite person, who had already come or would come soon, and who was supposed to be the full realization of the ideal. To this the terms ' Messianic hope ' or ' Messianic faith ' have been applied. But this 1

See Ps.St. I I , pp. 297ff. See Ps.St. I l l , pp. 7ÛfT. 3 See Ps.St. I l l , pp. 30ff. On the covenant with David as parallel to the covenant on Sinai, see below, pp. 165f. 4 Isa. Iv, 3. On the oracles at the annual festival, see Ps.St. I l l , pp. 30-64. 2

98

is misleading, because the word 'Messiah' then loses its most important element, the eschatological element (see above p. 3). It is more accurate to see in this crystallization of the kingly ideal a preliminary stage of the true Messianic faith. From the standpoint of historical fact they belong to the more general stage of development, that of the royal ideology, not to the more specific, that of belief in a Messiah, which was produced by particular historical conditions and experiences against the background of the more general conception of the kingly ideal with its future reference. But in order to understand the origin of the Messianic faith, it is important to see how the ancient Israelite ideal of kingship, being imperfectly realized, might take precise form at certain supreme moments and in times of emergency. It goes without saying that these decisive turning points in Israel had a cultic character. In the faith of ancient Israel as we know it (which, in this connexion, means the form given to this faith by the spiritual leaders in Jerusalem under the monarchy), the realization of the kingly ideal was associated with the house of David, to which belonged the covenant and the promises,1 since it was the chosen and anointed 'family of oil'.2 The re-establishment of the nation's prosperity and of its prospects at the great annual festivals was also the re-establishment of the prosperity and prospects of David's house, represented by the contemporary bearer of the royal dignity. For the existence of the covenant people, the existence of the royal house with its 'peace' and 'righteousness' was a vital necessity. To the mind of the Israelite, the continuance and 'everlasting' character of life was bound up with the family. The content of the cultic and prophetic promises to the king and the royal house is that the dynasty will endure 'for ever' and 'stand before Yahweh', that there will always be sons sitting on the throne of their ancestor.3 A man's aim (and not least the king's) was to secure the life of his family. This was true of the Canaanites. To find a suitable wife who 'will bear a son to Karit' is the main theme in the Ugaritic epic of Karit. Here we see that the motif is found even in the world of the gods, for, as we have said, Karit is at once the 1

Isa. Iv, 3. On the interpretation, see Mowinckel in G.T.M.M.M. I l l , and below, pp. 165f. 3 Cf. Zech, iv, 14; and see interpretation in G.T.M.M.M. III. 3 2 Sam. vii, 1 2 - 1 6 , 25-9; ι Kings viii, 25; Pss. lxxxix, 29-38; cxxxii, u f . , 17f.

deified ancestor and the god in the form of a hero. Both in Ugarit and in Egypt the myth of the deity plays upon this motif: the son is one with the father, and also the continuation of his life. It is therefore natural that in the east the birth of a prince who is heir to the throne is one of the great occasions in the life of the dynasty and the nation. There are many echoes of this in oriental royal inscriptions and in the Old Testament traditions. It is this motif which creates the tension in the story about David and Bathsheba, about David's despair over the death of the first son, and about the safe birth of the next, Jedidiah, 'the beloved of Yahweh'. The same motif occurs elsewhere. That the story of the birth and childhood of Samuel dealt originally with the birth of the later King Saul, is still apparent from the explanation of the name in ι Sam. i, 20, 'he who has been asked of Yahweh'. There is no doubt, as several scholars have recognized and maintained, that this explanation of the name really arose in order to explain the name Sâ'ûl, Saul.1 The promise of sons who will be worthy successors of their father is also a leading theme in the oracle for the royal wedding in Ps. xiv: Your sons will take the place of your fathers; you will make them princes over all the earth (or, land). We are explicitly told that the court and temple prophets hailed the birth of the prince with promises of good fortune from Yahweh. The birth ofJedidiah-Solomon was certainly not the only occasion when this happened.2 From the brief account which the narrator gives of this, we may conclude at least this much, that the content of these promises was Yahweh's goodwill to the child and thus to the dynasty which he was to continue. They confirmed and renewed such prophecies as were usually heard in the cult, at the enthronement of the king, and at the annual festival: prophecies of Yahweh's everlasting favour, of the everlasting dominion of the dynasty, and of the good fortune and blessing to be brought on the land and the people by the rule of the newborn child; cultic promises such as we find in Pss. cxxxii and lxxxix, of which Nathan's oracle in 2 Sam. vii is a narrative echo.3 1 See Hylander, Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (/ Sam. 1-15) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, pp. 12f.; Mowinckel in G.T.M.M.M. I I , p. 1 5 1 . 3 2 Sam. xii, 24f.; the interest of the narrators in princes is also apparent in passages like 2 Sam. iii, 2-5. 3 Ps.St. I l l , pp. 35f., 110. It is not the case, as earlier literary critics tended to hold, that Pss. Lxxxix, 20fT.; cxxxii, 1 iff., and other passages show literary dependence on

100

It is natural to suppose that, in such promises to the newborn prince, the kingly ideal would appear in its most glorious form. All kinds of expectations may be associated with the child while he is still new-born: as yet he has revealed nothing which can cast a shadow on these hopes. In the reigning king, both good and evil may be seen: everyday reality is always inferior to the splendour of the ideal and to soaring hopes and longings. But the ideal lives on, because its ultimate ground is religious reality and faith. The hope can never die. Without such an ideal of kingship, without the faith that in some measure it is always realized because Yahweh stands behind it, and that one day it will be fully realized, without that hope, ancient Israel could not live. That faith and that hope were the concentrated expression of her view of life and her religion. If Yahweh's promises and His covenant of ' righteousness', 'wholeness', 'prosperity', and 'salvation', are to be realized at all, it must be through kings who fulfil Yahweh's righteousness on earth and are the bearers of His blessing for land and people. The great kings of the past, who had fulfilled something of the people's hope and faith, were still surrounded by the lustre of the full ideal of kingship. And since it was the custom for the birth of a prince to be greeted by prophetic promises, it was a regular poetic device to describe these great kings through the medium of a prophecy of their birth and appearance by some seer of the past. Such literary descriptions in prophetic and poetic style are known to us both from Egypt1 and from Israel. In Israel it was natural 1

It is these Egyptian prophecies (vaticinia ex eventu) about kings of the past, that have given rise to the untenable theories about an Egyptian messianic hope and eschatology. See above, p. 14, and below, ch. V , 1, p. 127 n. 3, p. 128 n. 1. Both the historical facts of which they treat and also psychological factors give rise to the recurrent pattern found in them: the time of misfortune which the new king brings to an end, and the time of blessing which he inaugurates. Hence the existence of such literary oracles gives no ground for concluding that there existed what is called a mythical pattern derived from a 'soter-muthos', still less a myth with an eschatological Nathan's prophecy in 2 Sam. vii, but rather the reverse. The legend records in narrative form how Nathan conveyed to David a promise which in form and content corresponds to that which was addressed, in the ritual, to a new king at his anointing. See further Mowinckel in S.E.Ā. xii, 1947, pp. 220fT. Of course this does not rule out the possibility that Nathan actually did convey such promises to David, e.g., when he was solemnly installed as king in Jerusalem, which must have taken place after David had captured the city and entered into the heritage of the ancient King Melchizedek. A psalm like cxxxii shows that similar promises were made to the king at the annual festival, which was also the annual celebration of his accession. But it does mean that Nathan's prophecy cannot be taken as an independent historical tradition of what Nathan actually said to David on this occasion; still less does it mean that by the methods of literary criticism we can hope to recover a shorter ' original ' form of the prophecy. From the literary and traditio-historical point of view, 2 Sam. vii is a faithful cult-historical reflection of a common cultic situation.

that David should be celebrated in this way. Among these poetical descriptions in the manner of prophetic promises we must include the prophecy of the 'star' or the 'comet', which was to 'rise out of Israel', in the Balaam lays, and the 'ruler' from the tribe of Judah in the Blessing of Jacob.1 2. Specific Applications of the Kingly Ideal

Among the extant texts which have from ancient times been regarded as Messianic there are some which must be regarded not merely as descriptions of the future, but as contemporary applications of the current ideal of kingship and the current expectation attached to the royal house and its representative. These came into existence in quite specific historical and cultic situations. First and foremost there are those passages which are associated with the birth of a prince. The Birth of the Child (Isa. ix, 1-6). In form this passage is a blend of a prophetic message and a hymn. The glorious nature of the message makes the prophet cast it in the form of a song of praise, a hymn of thanksgiving to Yahweh for the work of salvation which He has already wrought through the birth of the child. But, as in the psalms of thanksgiving, he is actually speaking to the people. The prophet begins2 by giving a picture of the national situation as night and darkness; but at the same time he announces the dawning of the light. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep gloom upon them the light has shone. The metaphor is taken from the conception of Sheol, the realm of the dead. It is the 'land of shadow' or 'gloom', the deep night in which the people are now living. When salvation is described as a sunrise, as a light shining in the night at the moment when the deliverer is born, it is plain (as we see below) that this metaphor has been derived from the myth of the sun god, the god of life, and of his victorious invasion of the nether world, Sheol, to rouse 1

Num. xxiv, 7b, 17; Gen. xlix, 10; see above, pp. 12f. * On the text, see G.T.M.M.M. I l l , pp. 785, 832 ('Rettelser').

reference, as Staerk holds (Soter I I , pp. 234fr.). The 'pattern' is created by the nature of the facts: the ideal must have a dark background, that it may shine all the more brightly.

the dead. We find a variant of the same conception in Ps. cx, where behind the description of the king there lies the picture of the new god of fertility, 'the dew', Tal, born of the goddess of the 'glow of morning'. The Canaanite Baal, too, is both sun god and fertility god. He was dead, and in the realm of the dead; but he came to life, rose again, and brought back light to the world. Thus the background of the prophet's metaphor is ultimately the pre-Israelite conception of the king as the representative of the sun god and fertility god. In the comparison which follows, between the jubilation over the birth of the child and the rejoicing at the harvest festival, there is an echo of the conception of the association of the divine king with fertility. The Israelite prophet has forgotten the origin and the original meaning of these ideas; they have become merely metaphorical, depicting misfortune and the sudden, brilliant dawn of deliverance. The prophet does not need to mention the kind of misfortune he has in mind, for his audience knows it as well as he does himself; but the allusions which follow ríiake it plain. It is the oppression of foreign rule. Beside the metaphors of the yoke on the neck of draught cattle and the driver's stick, there is a quite plain reference to the noisy military boots and the bloodstained garments of the army of occupation. All this misery, says the prophet, is now ended in an instant. When the light is seen breaking into the darkness of Sheol, rejoicing already rises to heaven. Here hymn is joined with promise, as the prophet praises Yahweh for the salvation which He has already wrought through the birth of the child.1 Thou hast multiplied the rejoicing, and increased the gladness, in Thy presence they rejoice as at harvest, as men rejoice when they divide booty.2 The harvest and New Year festival when the crop has been safely gathered in, and the dividing of booty after a successful military expedition were from ancient times for the Israelite life's two supreme experiences, the former from the peasant's point of view, the latter from that of the warrior and the Bedouin. So now, rejoicing arises from the people who hitherto have been dwelling 1 von Rad thinks that the ' T h o u ' in vv. 3f. is strange; T.L.Z· But see above, p. 102, on the literary form of the oracle. " For the text of the first line see B.H.3 in loc. n.a-a.

IO3

lxxii, 1947, col. a 16.

in darkness. Presently we hear the reason. The coming of the light means that foreign domination is broken. For the yoke that weighed him down, the bar that lay on his shoulder, and his oppressor's rod Thou hast broken as in the day of Midian. This last expression probably refers to the old stories about Gideon slaying the Midianites and delivering Israel from their domination and their forays (Judges vii f.). The prophet already sees the enemy defeated and driven out of the country. All his unclean, accursed equipment, which he has had to leave behind or throw away in his flight, is collected and burnt up to deliver the land from uncleanness and the curse: For every tramping soldier's boot <shall be destroyed with fire.> And every garment stained with blood, shall be fuel for the flames.1 But what is the reason for this sudden change of fortune? What is the light which has dawned on the oppressed people? We are now told: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; the token of royalty shall be on his shoulder, and his name shall be called 'Wonderful Ruler', 'Divine Hero', 'Father for ever', and 'Prince of peace and well-being'. A son is born ! By the birth of the child, light has dawned upon them in the darkness. The certainty of deliverance and salvation has been created within them, so that they already rejoice in anticipation of the coming victory and prosperity. The association of the myth about the birth of the sun god with the idea of the birth of the royal child is not accidental. By the birth of the child, salvation and a glorious future are guaranteed. To this fact direct expression is given by the names which the prophet already gives to the child, names which he will assuredly win for himself when he sits on the throne of his fathers. In the east, as is clear particularly from Egyptian sources, the ceremony 1

On the text, see G.T.M.M.M.

104

I l l , p. 785.

of enthronement included the bestowal by the deity of names which expressed the king's nature, his relationship to the deity, and his destiny; and clearly this custom also formed part of the coronation ritual in Judah. 1 That is what the prophet is referring to here. Even now, by anticipation, he bestows upon the newborn prince the royal names which Yahweh has destined for him and which he will one day bear. They are 'Wonderful Ruler' (literally, 'Counsellor'),2'Divine Hero', 'Father for ever', 'Prince of Peace and Good Fortune' (both ideas are included in the Hebrew Mom, 'peace', 3 which really means, wholeness, fullness, perfect conditions). The first and last of these names are immediately intelligible to us: to rule over the land and the nation in war and peace, to have the right counsel in every situation, and to carry it into effect, to secure 'peace' and 'happiness' by victory in war and by prudent and just government were always the tasks of kings in ancient Israel. But even the first name, ' Wonderful Ruler', seems to hint that here these qualities are present in a wonderful, superhuman degree. The other two names show quite plainly that divine equipment is meant. The second name, '