The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings

T H E N A M E S of

GOD

This page intentionally left blank

THE

of

NAMES

GOD

‫־‬

Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings

HERBERT C H A N A N

New York

Oxford

·

Oxford

BRICHTO

University

Press

1gg8

Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bomh:!y IWnos Ai‫·״‬, Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florenee Hon‫׳‬: Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo 70ronr0 XVars.nv and associated companies in Berlin ibadan

Copyright © 1998 by Herschel D. Brichto Published by Oxford University Press, inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brichto, Herbert Chanan. The names of God : poetic readings in biblical beginnings p. cm. Companion vol, to the author's Toward a grammar of biblical poetics, 1992. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-510965-r j. Bible. O.T. C !enesis ( Criticism, interpretation, etc . ‫י‬. Bible. O.T. Cenesis Authorship. I. Title. BS r ·n ‫י־׳‬..!. By 1‫ך‬ ooS

12 2 106

‫ י‬.‫ו‬

‫ ז‬.3 5 7 9 8

J12 ο

6

4‫ג‬

Printed !11 the United States of America on acid-free paper

a0 s ο ^8 1

F O R

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

This book is a companion volume to Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Teiles of the Prophets, It is, in purpose and substance, by initial and continuing design, the goal and consummation of the first volume. T h e primary objective of both vol‫׳‬ urnes is not to contribute to the theoretical debate on the proper (or preferable) objectives and methodologies of literary criticism, but to enlist generally agreed‫״‬ upon poetic principles and foci of literary analysis in the interest of interpreting the text we call Scripture, or (as many would prefer) the texts that constitute Scripture. To put the matter differently: my interest is not in such differing schools as, for example, Aristotelian, the Old or New, Structuralist, Deconstructionist, or Postmodern criticism; it is, rather, to draw on the strengths of literary‫ ׳‬critical insights, whatever their derivation or provenance, to achieve such persuasive expositions of a text's meaning(s) as are designated in biblical circles by exegesis and in broader contexts by explication du texte. I suggested in Toward a Grammar that the literary analyses or explications of texts coming down to us from antiquity are of π different order in some respects than those practiced on more recent compositions. They differ, in the main, in the far greater role oi t wo factors in the criticism of ancient literature: assumptions as t o 1 he genre o i that literature (e.g., is it fiction or history, a h ;ml d i s j u n c t i o n ) or, a mcta-literary factor, judgments on the part of the criiic as to the differing capacities or inclinations oi the ancient as against the modern mind (e.g., in regard to naïveté and sophistication, literal or figurative intent). My concern with this J i b ference, which holds in respect to ancient literatures, be they the classics or those written, in cuneiform or hieroglyphic scripts, focuses primarily on Scripture. Here, as in the study of Homeric epic, inconsistencies and contradictions in a composition that has come down to us as a single work (e.g., the Iliad, the Book of Genesis) have led scholars to question long-held assumptions of single authorship; and, indeed, to raise such questions as to the existence in it of various strata owing to earlier writings or preliterate traditions, or as to whether the term author should not yield to editor or compiler for the individuals responsible for the literary corpus we have received. Further questions posed with respect to both Hebrew and Greek literary traditions are the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the ancient author or editor, and the extent to which the fetters of tradition are responsible for the literary hash that lies before us. If 1 may extend this culinary metaphor in a jocose observaHon: what is most remarkable about this hash is that for all the admitted incompatibilitv of its constituent ingredients, it continues to be trumpeted as a masterpiece by the very critics who can disentangle the egg noodles from the spaghetti in our

viii

PREFACE

pudding and even trace the motives of the chefs who introduced yoghurt into the marinara sauce, For all the similarity in the procedures of literary detectives, classicists, and bib‫־׳‬ licists in resorting to source analysis to ease if not solve the problems of repetition and inconsistency in the masterworks that afford them a living, it must be con•‫׳‬ (essed that the pretensions and accomplishments of the Homeric critics are modest, and slight in. comparison to those of their blood-brother sleuths, who ply the same or similar skills in the vineyard of the Lord called Scripture. For in this area hypotheses have become dogmas; the art of literary criticism has become a science, capable of fixing the parameters of the text's historic development; and the very notion of an overarching message or pattern of messages is undermined, if not logically precluded, in a text whose developmental history has become traceable only by virtue of the irreducible inconsistencies that are its constituents. T h e genetic or historic school of biblical criticism is, despite mounting dissatisfaction with its methods and conclusions, still the regnant one. My less than gener‫׳‬ ous characterization of this school will therefore be bitterly contested by many who began in this school as acolytes or, like myself, entered it as converts from dogmatic traditions that could not but view as subversive of faith its reading of Scripture as an evolutionary process: a process in which one may discern a march from the supers tit ions of animism and the crudities of pagan concepts, a decreasingly primitive groping via henotheism and monolatry toward a monotheism that emerges in clarity and purity only in the last stage of that process. It will be argued that the source-analytic schools do not preclude a consistent overarching view of Scripture's teaching; witness the many holistic studies of biblical ideas, values, and theology by scholars who belong to the historic-genetic school, many of whom also belong to mainstream confessions of biblical religion. While this last phenomenon is undeniable, it does not constitute a refutation oi my argument; that the logic of the developmental thrust of the genetic schools oi Scripture rules out an affirmation of Scriptures sovereign authority. T h e authority lies nor in Scripture itself, but in those critics who can separate out the true values and beliefs from the older outmoded ones that the latest Scriptural protagonists had outgrown. That iine minds and devout spirits can overlook this illogic, as well as the t m ‫ רן‬lie it substitut ion oi their own selective authority for Scriptures pervasive one, is understandable. Religionists who have themselves come to an understanding of their faiths as the ideational and theological precipitates of an evolutionary process are so conditioned as to be unperturbed by traces of such process in the texts, which they revere for being the vessels of these precipitates. A n d in abstracting these precious precipitates from the ore that they have processed, they have no problem with the slag that litters the excavated slope. N o t so, however, fundamentalist religionists. These, subscribing to any of several "literal" interpretations of the text (which is inerrant, revelation, word of God, etc.), often find it an insuperable difficulty to reject any part or element in a (or the) Scriptural text as a faithfault in the authoritative (if not authoritarian) monument built for us by the agents of G o d s revelatory will. While 1 belong to the hrst of the two religionist postures, my approach to Scriptu re is more akin to that ot the second, albeit for an altogether different, reason. My

PREFACEXill

difficulty stems from n o principle of faith, but rather from poetic considerations. I cannot conceive of any gifted author or competent editor so bound by slavishness to putative (sacred but outgrown) traditions such as would require him to remount pearls in the shells in which they were found. A n d even as I do not accept the no‫׳‬ tion that God addresses modern humans less often or less clearly t h a n in the days of my biblical forerunners, so do I not pride myself or my contemporaries on a logic or rationality, a humor or imagination, a wisdom or a talent for philosophy, that exceecls those capacities in Scriptures authors (or, for that matter, in any of antiquity's compositors). It was presumptions such as these that both contributed to and resulted from my disaffection with source-criticism as an explanation for the inconsistencies and contradictions so abundant in Scripture, and which ultimately impelled me to a poetical approach to the Bible. It was in the course of attempting to identify and classify those poetic elements c o m m o n to modern and ancient literary analysis that 1 became aware of the difference in address to which I allude at the beginning of this preface: the disproportionately greater role in respect to the interpretation of ancient literature of genre classification and assessment of conceptual capacities. As opposed to those legitimate elements of poetics that, in Toward a Grammar, I classified as foci, I found t h e purely literary element of genre and t h e meta-literary conventions as to ancient capacities or intentions to be factors in interpretation (misleading ones more often t h a n not), and of little use in textual explication. As concerns genre, the most frequent and perplexing question in regard to ancient narrative is whether it was intended to present a more or less faithful reconstruct ion of significant events, as these had occurred in real places and times past (hence, assignable to history), or a largely imaginative construction of events and personae for purposes primarily of delectation or edification (hence, assignable to /icnon). This problem, in a number of modalities, is treated in Toward a Grammar, in chapter 1 in respect to the historiographie constituents in the legendary Trojan War and the Histories of Herodotus; and in chapter 9 with regard to biblical "his‫־׳‬ tories," a discussion which, in sketchy form, anticipates the treatment in this present volume of the stories and structures in Genesis. It is of more than passing interest that b o t h dogmatic fundamentalists and genet istic scientific scholars share the presumpt ion that historiography is the intent and purpose of the biblical author(s) even in the earliest: chapters of Genesis; the former accept these accounts as revealed historic truths, while the latter find themselves in resonance with the theological truths (for example, in the parallel accounts of‫ ״‬creation) even while they are confident thai (as they come from two different authors and are highly inconsistent with one another) the texts cannot be accepted as history. A l t h o u g h the assumption of the ubiquitous historiographie intent of Scriptures authors is increasingly questioned in recent scholarship, it remains the assumption of the majority by far of scientific bihlicists, who e v e n — i n d e e d — e x t e n d this assumption to the editors who conflated the biblical text. In illustration of this 1 cite a passage that came before my eyes a few hours before I wrote these lines. It is from a review by John P. Meier, a biblicist specializing in New Testament, of Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (New York Times Book Review, June 7, 1992, page 13). It is presented

XÎi PREFACE

here for its testimony as to the mind-set of biblicists at large, even when they are— like Father M e i e r — b o t h scientific academicians and devout divines: O n e may w o n d e r w h e t h e r Mr. L a n e Fox sufiieiently appreciates t h e great gulf b e t w e e n the a n c i e n t biblical mentality and our own. Especially w h e n e m p l o y i n g narrative as a vehicle for theology, many biblical writers do not seem to h a v e operated with our W e s t e r n sense oi what const it uies an intolerable c o n t r a d i c t i o n . To take but one exam‫׳‬

pie: as Mr. Lane box points oui, rhe editor of ( îenesis juxtaposed two Creation acc o u n t s in ( îenesis 1 and 2, despite what strike us as b l a t a n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s .

While the reference to Genesis makes this quotation particularly apposite to my subject matter in this volume, the following extract from the next paragraph will provide a foil for my own poetical view and formulation, which is in opposition and contrast with the Rev. Meier's but not in adversarial rebuttal: Mr. L a n e Fox a p p a r e n t l y attributes to any o n e d e p i c t i o n of C r e a t i o n m o r e n o r m a t i v e ness and exclusivity t h a n did t h e biblical authors. I n d e e d in some cases t h e same aut h o r could compose c o n t r a d i c t o r y narratives of t h e same e v e n t back to back: Luke blithely juxtaposes a n A s c e n s i o n o n Easter e v e n i n g in Luke 24 w i t h a n A s c e n s i o n 4 0 days later in A c t s 1. In short, Mr. L a n e Fox, like some f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s , s o m e t i m e s e n gages in a n a n a c h r o n i s t i c imposition of a W e s t e r n n o t i o n of t r u t h o n a u t h o r s w h o s e t h o u g h t p a t t e r n s were markedly different f r o m ours.

Implicit in "a Western notion of truth" is that the biblical authors owned an Eastern and different notion of truth. Implicit in "anachronistic" is that the radically different notion of truth is not just a matter of East and West but of mentalities in the biblical past and our own present. This positing of a gap (apparently unbridgeable, for it is never bridged) between our mindset and that of antiquity's authors, ours in the West and theirs in the East, would—as I have argued elsewhere—preelude any attempt on our part to decipher the meanings and relate to the eommunications of the ancients. 1 If, on the other hand, we are not to ignore their writings, it is my contention that we must posit continuity rather than divergence in the mindsets of yesterday arid today and a sharing in a single notion of truth. It is just such η unity and continuity in the expressions of the human mind then and today that is affirmed and, 1 believe, convincingly demonstrated by the poetical approach. T h e poetical approach exposes the similarity in the imaginative patterns of narrative and structure deployed by artists in different times and places; it reveals how parallelism in narrative and parataxis in syntax, how narrative in the frame of the prescriptive and the prescriptive imbedded in narrative, enrich or deepen the author's message; so, also, how apparently pointless repetition, inconsistencies, and contradictions are actually significant elements in a single coherent design. Drawing on graphic and musical vocabulary we may adduce the juxtaposition of the symmetrical and the asymmetrical, the succession of assonance and dissonance, for serviceable analogies for the rhetorical craft that enlists the seemingly erratic in the interest of order, and inadvertency as a strategy to win ungrudging assent. It is a fact that the discernment of different documents or authorial hands or schools (and the subsequent chronological ordering of these strata) owes its rise to the perception ot the existence in Genesis of repetitious narratives that are in vari-

PREFACEXill

ous details inconsistent or contradictory. It is also a fact that one of the paramount inconsistencies, providing the chiet clue to the unraveling of these strands, was t h e assortment of terms or names for the Deity and his numen representatives. It is a matter oi autobiographical (and little other) interest that my dissatisfaction with the rationales offered for the alternation of Y H W H and Elohim antedates my quest for alternatives to the source-analytic explanations of the inconsistencies in the Genesis texts. Yet it was only subsequent‫ ״‬to the poetic analytic treatment of t h e narratives, and owing to that treatment, that I began to discern the literary and meta‫׳‬literary clues to the deployment of these two primary names for Deity. My original plan, therefore, was to present what is now the first, chapter, "The Names of God," at t h e end of the book. Colleagues urged me to change this plan, arguing that t h e change was almost dictated by the powerful grip of source-analytic methodology on the majority of todays biblicists, and particularly by the roots of that methodology in the names for Deity as deployed in the "documents" from Genesis 1 through Exodus 3 (or 6). Accepting this suggestion entailed a rearrangement of t h e material. Illustration of the poetic functions of one or another name had to be removed from the new introductory chapter and integrated with t h e exegetical discussions of t h e narratives in situ, and a separate recapitulation appended. W h a t I should like to impress upon my readers in regard to the argument for the "names," divided now over the introduction, the essays on the narrative, and the recapitulation, is this: By its very nature poetics is a deductive process, which is to say that it may be characterized as essentially post hoc. O n e may not (or cannot) therefore proceed from even a persuasively presented post hoc to a propter h o c conclusion; a conclusion such as would enable us to predict which of the divine name options are to be expected in a narrative featuring such-and-such a theme, or such-and-such nuances. T h e poetic argument for the names of Deity is just that, an attempt to account in a persuasive way for an authors having chosen certain options in given stories. (It does not dietäte t h e choice among options for anyone undertaking to rewrite these stories.) in short, it is not susceptible to proof any more than it constitutes a disproof of sourceanalytic explanations. Readers who find the poetic arguments for the deployment of YHWH('s angel) or Elohin1('s angel) overly subtle or simply unconvincing should feel free to reject this part of the poetic analysis, while remaining open to the general thrust of the poet ic explication. Returning now to the pervasive grip of source-analytic presumptions o n today's Bible scholarship, this p h e n o m e n o n can perhaps be best, exemplified in t h e work of a gifted young scholar whose research o n the literary structuring of Genesis leads h i m to conclude that the Documentary Hypothesis (in its sundry transmogrifications) is untenable. 'The title ot Gary A. Rendsburg^ slim but dense volu m e — f o r all t h a t not a single element in his argument is at all d e p e n d e n t on the assumption that Genesis is the final product of an editorial rather t h a n an authorial h a n d — is The Redaction of Genesis. W h a t t h e n prompts Rendsburg to follow up his verdict that "there is m u c h more uniformity and m u c h less fragmentation in t h e book of Genesis t h a n generally assumed" (page 105) with, "This does n o t mean that all of Genesis is the work ot o n e author" (page 106)? T h e answer is given in t h e continuation ot this last sentence:

XÎi

PREFACE

For there clearly remain different sources and variant traditions. The author ot 1:1-2:43 must clearly be someone different than the author of 2:413-3:24. The tradition which makes Cain a nomad in 4:12-16 is certainly at variance with the one which depicts him building a city in 4:17. In the case of the Shakespearean dramatic corpus, the recognition of the play‫׳‬ wright1? dependence on a variety of narrative, dramatic, and "historic" sources has not led critics to attribute that corpus in part or whole to the enterprise of a compiler rather than an author, (dearly the differing verdict in regard to the book of Genesis is due to the perception that the inconsistencies and contradictions within it are considerably less explicable than similar incongruities in such works as Ilarnlet, Julius Caesar, or Antorry and. Cicopa/ra. (The question as to why an editorial decision to compile inconsistent narratives should be more plausible to the critical mind than the attribution of such a vagary to an author may be more rhetorical than inquisitive.) It is therefore my expectation that Professor Rendsburg will be disposed to web c o m e — t o the extent he finds them persuasive—my poetic arguments that the larger couplet called the Creation Stories and such smaller ones as the seemingly opposed notices of Cain as nomad and city-builder are not only mutually compatible, but indeed are fit and fitted as mortise and tenon. A n d so too, I suspect, will many other researchers whose studies in Bible do not reveal too heavy an invest‫·׳‬ ment in source-critical methodology. T h e larger number of veteran biblicists, however, moored to the regnant consensus, will be less charitably disposed to a methodology that points to a judgment that the genetic approach to Scripture is a century-long detour, a detour ending in a cul-de-sac. To such colleagues and compan ion workers I would address a reminder that detours may offer finer scenic views than a direct route, that even the road that meanders into a blind alley may have contributed to a sharpening of the explorer's sight, t h a t — a s has certainly been the case in our enterprise—the search for a Northwest Passage has recruited doughty explorers who might otherwise have stayed closer to home and the safety of overgrazed pastures. I must confess for my own part that I should never have been drawn to the close study of biblical literature in its ancient literary ambience were it not for the excitement and romance of the pal‫־‬h-hlazing avenues opened for me by the historical source-critical school, h is highly unlikely that I should have committed myself to acquiring the philological tools requisite for the study of ancient Near Eastern cub lure and history but for the promise that these would provide the keys to a new and deeper understanding of the history of that ancient folk called Israel and Judah, the history that might help account for the production and preservation of that library called the Bible. I must also own my awareness of the irony that these very studies led to my dismissal of the source-critical method, and also to the conviction that "history" explains little in literature, that indeed there is hardly any other meaning to history than that which may be seen as encapsulated in literature. While I can afford to smile at myself, I may not permit the impression that I may be jeering at those colleagues whose position I have abandoned. A n d yet that impression may be almost ineluctable. The polemics of the humanistic enterprises (such as art and its criticism) arc remarkably similar to those of religion: yesterday s

PREFACE

X ill

radical, who has survived the charge of heresy to become the champion oi a new orthodoxy, will react to the new radical as a recrudescence of his old persecutor; while the new radical will be goaded into polemical formulations by the refusal of the establishment (as he sees it) to accord him a hearing. 11 is in part owing to my awareness of a polemical tone, which may be discerned in my own contesting of the source-critical approach, that wherever possible 1 cite E. A. Speiser for the standard position: my reverence for this beloved teacher and scholar of genius should preclude any imputation of disrespect. I had reference a few pages back to examples oi unbeauteous elements in three parallel fields of art: asymmetry in visual art, dissonance in music, and incongruity in literature. A n erroneous yet widely held assumption equates esthetics (the perception of beauty) with artistry (skillful achievement). O n e consequence of this equation is the attempt to distinguish between craft (rude or primitive art) on the one hand, and the fine arts on the other. T h e borrowed beauty of illuminations (as in medieval manuscripts) or printed illustrations will he separated out as excrescences to the proper poetic considerations of the literary craft. A n d it is likely that the diagrammed intricacies of a floor-plan in a detective story or the descriptions of high-technology engines in science fiction are in great measure responsible for the assignment of these genres to lower levels of literary art. Perhaps analogous to this last phenomenon is the habit of the modern mind to divide prose literature into separate and complementary sections, each section implicitly assignable to a higher or lower level of the artistic. Consider: fiction and history, the former almost nonexistent in the earliest centuries in prose form, the latter read generally for its informational content, and little attention given to such artistic considerations as the stylish elegance of Herodotus and the convoluted clumsiness of Thucydides, the flights of fancy in the former and the tediously umnsiructive details in the I at‫׳‬ ter. Consider: fiction and non-fiction, the former inclusive of short story and novel, drama and prose epic, the latter inclusive of essay, treatise, homily and tract, diaries, epistles, orations, legal opinions, chronicles and-—that most recent bestseller—the cookbook. In the case of Scripture generally, and particularly in regard to the Pentateuch, two factors have been the main contributors to its assignment to history rather than fiction and to the overlooking or slighting of its artistry. O n e is the modern and widespread notion that history has the property of truth, which fiction does not (a silly notion and one which, I believe, the authors of antiquity were too sophisticated to share). T h e other is the presence of concrete details, such as personal and geographic names, and the incorporation of such (along with notices of moral, legal, or cultic norms) into structures such as genealogies, hierarchies, and King Lists, tables of ethnic and national origins, chronologies detailing dates of birth and death for eponymous ancestors and family lines; ancestral figures being so unmemorable and for the most part so long dead as to suggest that their preservation can owe only to the historic element in that genre of mixed fiction and historiography that goes by the name legend. T h a t family trees and political rosters are not the stuff of esthetics is a proposition beyond question. A similar universal consent can probably be won for the proposition that while such lists may be de rigueur in the craft of historiography,

XÎi

PREFACE

they cannot but represent an artistic lapse on the part of a free-spirited author of fiction. A n d it is the confusion of the esthetics with the artistic that is responsible for this last, and mistaken, judgment. T h e artistry of the author of Genesis has to be judged in terms of how he deploys genealogical charts and chronologies, cultic and artifactual niceties, in the framework of narrative to achieve his overarching poetic ends. T h e problem lies not with the author of Genesis but with whoever under takes to interpret his work. If we assume that Adam and Eve were intended as historical personages, whose lives were continued in the begettings ot Seth and Cain (the line of Cain to die out before the tenth generation, the line of Seth to eventuate in every human alive today), and further, that the two lives are similarly significant as historical data, it is rather obvious that the assessment of artistic intent in the narrative will be nil. Even the finest writer on history cannot overcome the tediousness of history's dates or the sloppiness of its movements. If, on the other hand, the narratives in Genesis are essentially the product of an artistic imagination, how to account for the artistic lapse represented by these unedifying structures• My argument will be that the structures arc not artistic lapses at all, that for all their lack of beauty or grace they disclose the artistry of the author, an artistry that is easily discerned in his deployment of metaphor in narrative but which fails of appreciation when the kerygma of the narrative is supplemented, refined, or reinforced by the authors ingenious exploitation of .structures as metaphors. To treat every chapter in Genesis in the kind of detail that characterizes the exegetical essays in Toward a Grammar would require several volumes, an enterprise beyond my present ambition. T h e reader is entitled to some explanation as to the selection of some sections and the omission of others, as to why some narratives are examined with word-for-word attention and others are treated to overviews. In large part, the answer lies in an initial decision to begin at the beginning and end at a point where the biblical material itself comes to a logical rest. Thus the narratives given detailed treatment fall into two roughly even sections: chapters 1 - 1 1 , the Primeval History as it is termed by scholars; and chapters 12-22, the story of Israels early beginnings in its first ancestor Abraham, husband to Sarah and by her sire to Isaac. T h e brief compass of narrative chapters that I could thus afford to treat contains within it a correspondingly small amount of "structuring data" such as genealogies, eponyms, and chronologies. T h e interpretations that we offer for the poetical tunction of these data are more often than not quite novel, a novelty that might well be resisted the more for the lack oi mass ot the data interpreted. Hence it is that we have gone quite beyond these twenty-two chapters of Genesis, including even the hook of Exodus, to include structures w h i c h — i n their variety, ingenuity, and imaginative whimsy 1111 out the picture and strengthen our argument that these data are integral to the poetic design of the text, and are not, as geneticists would view them, historic data preserved over centuries and included by redactors to reinforce the historicity, authent icity, and literal truth of the narrative they had received. Cincinnati» Ohio ι go6

H.C.B.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ΟΝΚ /

Τ Η Η .Ν Λ Μ Κ S Ol·‫ ־‬G O D :

Till· PROBLEM:

A P R F I J M I N ARV R K V I K W

A Metaditerary Address to the Problem: Sourer-Analysis 6 An Essentially Literary Address

1 ‫ ל( ז‬he Problem: Cassuto 8

T h e Names of C o d in N o n n a r r a t i v e Texts and the "Evolution" of Biblical Monotheism

12

Excursus: O n the N a m e s ot G o d in t h e Psalter 12 O n the Evolution of Biblical M o n o t h e i s m 13 O n Terms for Divinity, C o m m o n and Proper 16 T h e names T l o h i m and Y H W H

17

Y H W H Introduces Himself by N a m e

19

T h e Patriarchs' Use of t h e N a m e Y H W H

25

T h e Solution to the Problem: A (Eiterary) Hypothesis 27

PART I S T O R I E S — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY" TWO

/

THE CREATION

STORY IN GENESIS,

CH.

1:1-2:4A

37

T h e Bearing of E7um1u elish on Genesis 1 37 T h e Genesis Creation Story: Translation

39

T h e Genesis Creation Story: C o m m e n t a r y on Days O n e to Six 41 Review of Diction in the Six Days of C r e a t i o n

47

Literalism and M e t a p h o r in Genesis 1 and Enuma elish 50 A Poetic Reading ot Enuma elish 53 Paganism and Biblical Religion Compared and Contrasted

57

Pagan and Biblical Anthropology: A Contrast 62 THREE

I

Η DK Ν A N D

E D E N Ν A ETE RM Α Τ Η

T h e Story oi Eden

72

Sexuality, Sapience, and Civilization Sexuality and Death: T h e i r Nexus W h y Musi Man D i e '

80

88

9!

T h e Eden M y t h o s Its Kerygma

94

A f t e r m a t h ot' Eden: Second G e n e r a t i o n , Second Banishment Poetical Review ot Eden vis-à-vis the C r e a t i o n Story Poetical Review el the N a m e s of G o d T h e Compound Name: YHWH‫׳‬Elohin1

103 105

100

97

3

xvi

CONTENTS

Excursus; T h e Ν on literary Approach to Cain and Abel 107 Poetical Review of Genesis 1 - 5 FOUR

/

109

T H E F L O O D S OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M : T H E O L O G Y A N D THEOLOGY SATIRIC

O n Floods and Birds; O n Literalness and Source Analysis T h e Babylonian Flood Story

STRAIGHT

III

112

117

T h e Babylonian Flood Story as a Critique of Paganism T h e Biblical Flood Story: Text

125

126

O n the Sources or Strands in the Flood Story: A Preliminary Discussion 133 Poetical Review of the Flood Story A N o t e on the Strands

135

160

Noah's Deluge and Utnapishtim's: A Comparison FIVE

/

FROM N O A H TO A B R A M

T h e Drunkenness of N o a h

161

167

167

T h e Tower of Babel: Text and Preface r76 Mesopotamia η Connections

178

Babel in Its Biblical Setting

180

u

SIX

/

T h e Primeval 11 i s t ο r y " : An ( ‫ י‬ve r ν i e w \ 8 5

E V E N T S IN T H E L I F E O F A B R A H A M

186

A bra m the Noble Warrior 186 T h e C o v e n a n t (Concluded) between the (Animal) Parts 203 Episode A: Revelation, Promise (and Trust) 205 Episode B: How the C o v e n a n t Was Made 206 A b r a m s O t h e r Wife 212 T h e Names of God in Genesis, Chapters 16 and 21 223 T h e A n n u n c i a t i o n of Isaac's Birth — Two Versions 223 A n n u n c i a t i o n s A f t e r m a t h 236 Y H W H and A b r a h a m in a Dialogue on God's Justice 237 T h e Story of Lot 241 T h e Names of God in Genesis, Chapters 18 and 19 257 Three Domestic Triangles 259 Poetical Review of the Names of God 279 T h e Madness of Father Abraham: Genesis 22 279 Comparing the Akeda with A n o t h e r Binding 290 Isaac and Iphigenia, A b r a h a m and Agamemnon: A Comparison

P A R T II SEVEN

/

296

STRUCTURES

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B L I C A L L I T E R A R Y P H E N O M E N O N

Genealogies and Chronologies of Cain and Seth

301

303

Genealogies Continued: T h e Line oi Shem •518 T h e Chronologies of the Lines of Seth and Shem

321

( Ίιη >n< )14 >gy as Clue to Narrative: T h e Missing Years in Jacob's bite

527

CONTENTS

xvii

I low Four H u n d r e d Years C a n Equal Four G e n e r a t i o n s Playing t h e Bibles N u m b e r G a m e : A n o t h e r S o l u t i o n A b ram's R o o t s and U p r o o t i n g s

345

Abraham's Revelations and Altars Digging Wells in Philistia

329 337

359

362

A d d e n d u m : Two M o r e G e n e a l o g i e s a n d A n o t h e r N u m b e r s G a m e

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, EIGHT

/

POETICAL ODDS A N D ADDENDS

373

ANTICIPATIONS

389

Apologia 3S9 I n re G e n e s i s 1: Scripture and t h e M y t h o p o e i e I m a g i n a t i o n

393

Paganism, A n c i e n t and M o d e r n : Metaphysics in M y t h a n d S c i e n c e T h e S a b b a t h : Its M e a n i n g

T h e S e p t e t s ot (Social) Morality

401

T h e S a b b a t h Day in t h e T w o Decalogues: A P o e t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Two M o r e A d d e n d s 41 2 NOTES

436

BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

460

438

395

397 408

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R

O N E

T H E N A M E S OF GOD The Problem: A Preliminary

Review

T h e problem of the names of God in the Hebrew Scriptures is so complex that movements toward the solution may be impeded, distorted, or even blocked by its formulation in the singular. It would seem advisable then to begin this review of the problem by breaking it down into the separate and sometimes separable con‫׳־‬ stituents of which the problem is compounded. (And as I attempt to list these component elements in a logical order, 1 must warn the reader not to assign relative weightiness to these elements in respect to the order in which they are listed.) ι. There is the lexical problem of the meaning and function of the English word name and the Hebrew word that it most often translates, sem. Both words are nouns (names), and both may stand for both common and proper nouns. As common nouns, the words name and sem may be governed by the definite article (or, in Hebrew, be determined by construction); as such, the noun name will be governed by the indefinite article in English and the noun sem will appear without determination in the Hebrew language, which has no indefinite article. T h e connotations of both common nouns, English and Hebrew, are (a/the) name, label, epithet, title, designation, and so on. 2. A s e c o n d p r o b l e m is t h a t t h e r e is in H e b r e w a d e c l i n a b l e n o u n , '7,0/11771 ‫ י‬w i n c h a p p e a r s b o t h as c o m m o n n o u n ( c o n n o t i n g god, deity, d i v i n i t y , n u m e n ,

divine

figurine, a n a n c e s t r a l spirit or ghost‫״‬, a n d so o n ) , a n d as a p r o p e r n o u n , a n a l i e r n a t e n a m e for t h e o n e - a n d - o n l y - d e i t y w h o s e most f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r i n g n a m e is t h e g r a p h e m e Y H W H . A s c o m m o n n o u n this n o u n is t r e a t e d like all o t h e r s u c h , a n d is

3

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

indefinite, or determined by article, possessive pronoun, or construction. As proper noun, without the definite article, it is rendered into English by God, which is to say that the common noun god is rendered in writing by capitalizing the first letter and in speech by the absence of any sign of determination. Thus the question of whether any occurrence of elöhlm refers to the common noun or the proper noun ("name") is determined in the Hebrew only by context, in English translation only by capitalization (or lack of it) in writing, ana in English speech only by the prèsence or absence of determination. In keeping with this is the usage in regard to (1 Kings 11:33) kemos Höhei mö'äb "Chemosh the god of M o a b " A n d by the same token yhwh Höhei yisrä'el should be rendered as "Yhwh the god of Israel." This is to say that whenever Höhim is definite or determined in the Hebrew, its rendering into English should feature lower-case g. Thus, for example, in Psalm 68:9, Höhim Höhei yisrä'el should be rendered "God, the god of Israel" and the psalmist's address in 43:4 to 'Höhim Höhäy by Ό God, my god." Yet universal usage is quite contrary. Whenever the common noun Hôhïm refers to the object of IsraePs worship, by whatever (proper) name, the g is capitalized. Hence: a D N , the god of A m m o n " but "DN, the God of Israel" or "DN, my God " 3. Closely related to this problem, the rendering of the common noun "god" by the proper noun "God," is the rendering of hcflohrm.—•the common noun with prefixed definite article — as a proper noun, as though this term, too, is indistinguishable in nuance from the proper name Elolum. Thus, for example, Deuteronomy 7:9, where YHWH blöhc(y)kd hühäceh)hlm "YHWH, your god, he [alone] is god" conveys an identificatory redundancy in the usual renderings, "(YHWH) the Lord your God is God." Here again it is a token of reverence for t he one and only true god of Israel that is expressed in the capitalization. Let us note that the deity in English usage applies to any of the gods in a pagan pantheon, while the Deity is another proper name for the only deity acknowledged as such in Scripture. While the capitalizing of a common noun governed by the definite article to form a proper noun in which the article is part of that proper noun is not in keeping with accepted grammatical usage, it is not, in English itself, critical for meaning. Thus, if we come across the words "It was an insult to the president," we immediately understand that the reference is to the chief magistrate of the United States and not to the executive presiding over any corporation. In the case of translation from biblical Hebrew, however, this practice may be misleading. T h e definite article in Elebrew functions in two quite different ways: to express abstraction (and distance) on the one hand, and individuation (and proximity) on the other. In respect to häHöhim, the former function might be rendered by Heaven, Providence, godhead, (The) Deity or Divinity; the latter, expressing some agent, representation, or vessel of the former, might refer to an angel, apparition, numen, or the like. 4. In contrast to elôhïm1 the common noun that also functions frequently as a or the proper name of the one and only god, is the proper name represented by the tour letters YHlVi Ï. This grapheme, bespeaking "The Divine Name" (hence the capiialuiat ion in (he Teîmgrammaton) was never, until recent times, pronounced by knowledgeable students of the Bible. Before the now widespread assumption that the etymology of the Tetragrammaton has hern retrieved and is correctly reflected

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

in Yahweh, this grapheme was generally rendered by the Lord, a c o n v e n t i o n owing to t h e vocable adönay "my lordship," w h i c h is t h e way the Tetragrammaton is usually rendered w h e n the text is read aloud according to t h e Masoretic tradition; t h e p h o n e t i c signal for this qerë being the vowels sewa (hatef patah), holem, and qam.es (lengthened patah), appearing under t h e first three letters of t h e Tetragrammaton to indicate t h e pointing of t h e vocable 'dny (*1dönäy). (To be noted is t h e lengthen‫׳׳‬ ing in the pointing of Y H W H of the final patah of adönäy to qames.)1 T h u s t h e tränscription of t h e pointed Tetragrammaton is YeHö\VäH. This textual p h e n o m e n o n is referred to as a qere perpetuum despite a well-known and regular exception: whenever the Tetragrammaton is immediately preceded by the vocable adönäy "my lord(s)" (plural of majesty), the preempting of the substitution by t h e appearance of t h e n o u n proper results in a secondary qerë perpetuum for the Tetragrammaton: the pointing is now that of Höhim, thus in transcription Y J H0W1H. Related to this conv e n t i o n of vocalization in respect to the lengthening of t h e patah to qames in Y H W H is t h e same lengthening in the consonantal labeled J. Two other sources existed whose authors were tied to a tradition thar the name Y H W H was not introduced to humankind until the time of Israels impending liberation from Egyptian bondage. These sources therefore never feature the name Y H W H until after the historic introduction of that name by Deity to Moses and, presumably, by Moses to Israel (Exodus 3 : 1 - 1 5 and Exodus 6:2—8). These sources are labeled Ε and P, respectively. Inasmuch as the source hypotheses (except perhaps for J) essentially foreclose a poetic approach to the names of God, and further, inasmuch as the source hypo theses still constitute the regnant position in modern biblical study, it is advisable to

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

clear the way for my poetical approach by first stating the principal difficulties that led me to turn away from source-criticism and to search for another approach. 1. Not infrequently, source-critics—who have developed many other criteria for distinguishing one document or source from another—will decide that the term Y H W H does not belong in a given place where it appears. It is a J contamination or an erroneously permitted editorial substitution for Elohun in a Ρ (or E) source/ 3 Once every exceptional occurrence is dismissed as error, or even seen as proof of the contradictory rule, the entire rule becomes suspect, if not indeed ludicrous. 6 Needless to say this is a literary objection. More important, however, it is one of logic, of rational methodology. 2. T h e assumption that a source—let us say Ρ believed and taught a tradition that the name Y H W H was not introduced until the time of Moses would not have excluded the use of the name Y H W H by the narrator of Ρ passages.7 This narrator, living and writing long after the time of Moses, does know the N a m e and is free to make use of it. He must only take care, however, that the name not appear in dialogue—be it on the part of human, God, or God's agent—before the time of Moses. This objection is, again, both literary and logical. Even if the literary aspect is overlooked, the failure of genetic theory to bridge the gap between Ρ s knowledge and a compulsion to enslave himself (pointlessly) to that knowledge disrupts its chain of reasoning. 3. If source-criticism would have us suppose that the preservation of the various names of God in various documents owes to the Redactors respect for the texts' sanctity, then the Redactor was not himself disturbed by the contradiction within the texts as to the time of the Tetragrammatons introduction to Israel (and to humanity). A n d strange though this may strike us in itself, as he was not disturbed by this, he would not have anticipated disturbance on the part of any reader. He would therefore have let the texts speak for themselves without either drawing attention to the contradiction or attempting to gloss or paper over it. In that case, however, how to explain the celebrated sentence that constitutes the second part of Genesis 4:26: "Then did they (mankind) first call upon the name oi YHWH." This sen‫״‬ tence, coming immediately after the notice of the birth of Eni is to Seth, has distracted scholarly attention from the real problem lav raising questions about the point of this Name's introduction in the lifetime of the otherwise unremarkable Enos. T h e factitiousness of these questions lies in limiting the connection between the Name by which Deity was invoked to the last mentioned human, Enos, a name t h a t — l i k e A d a m — h a s the sense of mankind/humankind. The point of the sentence is, however, that the Name came into use in the earliest generations of humankind, the generation of C a i n and Seth and, to be sure—see 4:1—their parents, Adam and Eve. But who penned this notice/ It could not have been J himself, for he never betrays any knowledge of a tradition that is in conflict with his own, and hence would have discerned no reason to make explicit what he assumed to be the universai fact (or tradition). But neither does it make sense to attribute the notice to the Redactor, who would thereby be underscoring, by making explicit, the contradiction between this J assumption and the conflicting assumptions implicit or explicit in chapters 3 and 6 of Exodus.

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

4. Perhaps the most telling objection to source criticism's use oi t h e names ot G o d will derive 1'roiu what we noted to be the implicit assumption of this ajv proach: that is, that t h e problem is properly defined as between the appearances of two terms, both assumed to he proper nouns or proper names: Y H W H and Elôhïm. This double assumption flies in the face of the following facts: a.

W h i l e Y H W H is, indeed, a proper n a m e , t h e same c a n n o t he said w i t h equal t r u t h for Höhim. S i n c e this last t e r m is n o r m a l l y r e n d e r e d in t r a n s l a t i o n s by God ( n o t e , w i t h a capitalized initial letter), such, renderings may i n d i c a t e t h e p r e s e n c e of a proper n o u n in places w h e r e n o proper n o u n is at all present in t h e H e b r e w ,

b. E v e n if we e l i m i n a t e f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n every usage of clôhïm w h e r e it m a y n o t be a proper n o u n , t h e r e is still a t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e to Y H W H a n d Elöhlm, a n d t h a t is t h e latter t e r m w i t h t h e prefixed definite article M ^ ö / w n . D e s p i t e t h e n o r m a l l y im‫״‬ proper use of t h e definite article w i t h a proper n o u n , t h e n o r m a l a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e definite article betöre a t e r m will be followed by a n u n c a p i t a l ized n o u n (i.e., the god a n d n o t the God) / t h e r e can be n o q u e s t i o n t h a t in such instances as G e n e s i s 5:24 hâHôhïm is a proper n a m e (as g u a r a n t e e d by t h e singular verb) and c a n only be r e n d e r e d by God. H e n c e in a d d i t i o n t o Y H W H always a n d Höhim ( E l ö h l m ) frequently, we h a v e a third " n a m e " for G o d . c. I n a d d i t i o n to t h e s e t h r e e terms tor G o d , t h e r e are o t h e r proper n a m e s for Deity,

such as 'El Shaddai, El 'Ely on, El Ohm,

Shaddai, Ely on, Pahad Yi§haq, and ahJr

a

Ya kob, as well as o t h e r rubrics for Deity's m a n i t e s t a t i o n , such as angel, messenger of Y H W H , or E l ô h ï m , a n d t h e c o m m o n n o u n 'el, b o t h w i t h a n d w i t h o u t t h e clefin i t e article. d. It is a b l a t a n t and capricious disregard for t h e d a t a in t h e texts before us to assign G e n e s i s 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 to a n a u t h o r w h o freely uses t h e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n as t h e n o r ‫׳‬ m a l t e r m for Deity. For in this p e r i c o p e n o t h i n g c a n be c l e a r e r t h a n t h a i t h e nar‫׳‬ralor is c o m m i t t e d , n o t tu Y H W H , b u t to t h e m r a n g e c o m p o u n d V I Ï W I I

Elöhlm

as t h e n a m e , t h e p r o p e r n a m e , of‫ ׳‬Deity, ί his regularity, in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e use ol E l ö h l m in the preceding pericope and of \ H W K in t h e following one, is clearly marked as I ho i n l e n l i o n of t h e a u t h o r / n a r r a t o r by his equally regular use of Elôhïm a l o n e in t h e dialogue b e t w e e n Eve and t h e S e r p e n t in 5:1

‫ל‬.

In conclusion, t h e n , any theory that would a t t e m p t a classification of p h e n o m ena o n t h e basis of two different exemplars when eight or n i n e are present would appear as arbitrarily based as it is bound to be deemed shaky. T h e wealth of t h e database as concerns t h e terms and names ;or Deity in the first twenty-two chapters of Genesis, as well as hints as to possible approaches to these data, are presented for t h e readers' consideration in table i-j.

A N ESSENTIALLY LITERARY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM:

TO

CASSUTO

T h e o n e notable and essentially poetical address to this problem is t h a t of U m b e r t o Cassuto, w h o systematically criticized the documentary hypotheses in La Questione della Genesi and in The Documentary Hypothesis (English translation of an essay in Hebrew). R a t h e r t h a n extrapolate his views from these works I will let h i m speak for himself, in citations from his sketchy remarks in the Introduction to his Commentary on Genesis. Referring to his earlier work< h e writes:

TABLE

Text 1:1

ι - 1 N a m e s o f Deity i n C o n t e x t i n Genesis 1 - 2 2 .

Y vXAR.) Y (DIAL) Ε (ΝAR.) Ε (DIAL.) Ε (W. ART) YE 2:4a

Y W. ANGEL

34

2:4)3-3:24 4:1-24

4:25-26 5:1-32 6:1-8 6:9-22 7:1-8:22 9:1-17 0:18-29 10:1-32 11:1 9 12:1 - 2 0

3 3 5 6

2 2 2

τγ.ι 18‫־‬ 4!M-2d Ï5M-2I ί (x 1 - 2 1 2‫ך‬ 18:1

33 !9:1 38 20:1-18 20:1 — 2 I 21:21-34 22:1-2^ KL: Y: Y: Tetragrammaton; E: iohlm; YE: YHWH- eIoh!m; w: with; art.; definite article; Ν AR: Narrator's voice; DIAL: voice in dialogue; Numerals: number of occurrences

Ε W. ANGEL

Y W. SEM Y W. BeSEM 'EL SADDAI EL ELYON EL O L A M

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

I have already shown . . . that the variation in the employment of the two names, YHWH and Elöhlm in the book of Genesis is subject to certain rules which ί have been able to determine and formulate with precision. These rules are based on the dif ‫׳‬ tercnce in the nature of the two names, for they are not of the same type; the name YHWH is a proper noun that denotes specifically the God of Israel, whereas Elöhlm was originally a generic term and became a proper noun among the Israelites through the realization that there is only One God and that YHWH alone is 'Elöhlm ["God"].0 A study of this citation (which I shall resume in a moment), as well as of his running commentary on the text of Genesis, will convince many, I believe, that both in his address to the names and in his criticism of source hypotheses, Gassuto deserves a better fate than the impression that his work has made (or rather, not made) upon biblical scholarship. T h e reasons for this are worthy of research, if for no other reason than to attempt to isolate the factors that render a regnant hypothesis in a disciplined area of study impervious to powerful and reasoned attack. In regard to the citation that follows and to the execution of his schema in his commentary, I suspect that Gassuto has undermined his own potential to persuade by leading his readers to anticipate (see above, his "certain rules . . . formulate with precision 1 ') that a poetical problem is readily soluble on the basis, so to speak, of a precise formula. Literary artists work with metaphors, and precise as a given meta‫׳‬ phor may be, it may express a completely different idea in a second context (though it may be formally identical), while exactly the same idea may be expressed in a second place by an altogether different metaphor. Let us continue now with the Cassuto citation (the italics are Cassuto s): Following are some of the rules governing the use of the two Names in the book of Genesis that emerged from my investigations: (a) The Tetragrammaton occurs when Scripture reflects the concept ot God, especially in His ethical aspect, t h a t belongs specifically to the people of Israel;

Elöhlm

appears when the Bible refers to the abstract conception of God that was current in the international circles of the Sages, the idea of God conceived in a general, sense as the Creator of the material world, as the Ruler of nature, and as Source ot life. (b) T h e n a m e Y11 W H is used w h e n S c r i p t u r e wishes to express that direct and i n t u i t i v e n o t i o n of G o d that is characteristic of t h e u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d f a i t h of t h e m u l t i t u d e ; but Elohmi is employed w h e n it is i n t e n d e d t o c o n v e y t h e c o n c e p t of tile philosophically m i n d e d w h o study t h e abstruse problems c o n n e c t e d with t h e world and h u m a n i t y .

(c) YHWH appears when the Bible presents the lVity to us in His personal character and in direct relationships to human beings or to nature; whereas Elnhrm occurs when Holy Writ speaks of God as a Transcendental Being, who stands entirely outside nature, and above it. I believe that I understand the poetical distinctions that Cassuto is getting at in these three paragraphs, and furthermore I am in essential agreement with them. But there are ambiguities in the above formulations that render them vulnerable to quibble or to rebuttal. For example, in (a) "the concept: of God, especially in His e t!u eat aspect" may indeed be what the biblical author has in mind in 111 an ν a place

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

where he uses the Tetragrammaton (in preference to another name), but it is b o t h gratuitous and a meta-literary assumption of debatable value to narrow this usage to a "concept of G o d . . . that belongs specifically to the people of Israel" For exam‫־׳‬ pie, t h e Tetragrammaton is featured regularly and pointedly in God's relations with t h e non-Israelite Balaam (Numbers 22:8, 13, 18, 3 4 - 3 5,31-32,24,22,9‫)נ‬,and indeed with his non-Israelite ass ( 2 2 : 2 3 - 2 8 — n o t e especially this last instance!). 1 0 Unambiguous, on t h e other hand, but equally gratuitous is "the abstract conception of G o d " expressed in Elôhïm being assigned to "the international circles of t h e Sages," entities whose very existence in the world of the biblical authors is comparable to the sometime existence of the unicorn. Similarly, in (b) the n a m e Y H W H may indeed be "used when Scripture wishes to express . . . |a] direct and intuitive notion of God," but why should that notion be "characteristic of the unsophistb cated faith of the multitude".‫ ׳׳‬A final example, vis-à-vis (c): the Y H W H to whom the sphere of h e a v e n is reserved while that of earth is allotted to humankind in Psalm 115:16 is both "a Transcendental Being, who stands entirely outside nature, and above it" (cf. also Psalm 24η )-—the denotation of Elöhlm for Cassuto- -and "the Deity . . . in His personal character, and in direct relationship to h u m a n beings or to n a t u r e " T h e weaknesses I have pointed out in Cassuto s lormulations lie t h e n in an overprecise formulation of the "rules governing the use of the two Names in t h e book of Genesis" and the reading of these two names as dichotomous categories w h e n they may in many or most cases overlap in nuance, intention, and extension. 11 If we keep in mind that a similar distinction and overlap as well exist in English terms for the same n o u m e n o n , we s h a l l — h a v i n g freed ourselves of the source-critical i n c u b u s — b e open to the subtle nuances of the biblical a u t h o r s shift from Y H W H to Elôhïm or vice versa, or from either of these two names to "angel of" one or the other, or to häHöhim "the divine agent' 1 or "Heaven," and t h e like. I will n o t e also how these various terms figure differently in various voices: that of the narrator; those of humans in dialogue with humans, with God, or those of nonIsraelites according to their association with the people of Israel and this people's ancestral figures, or such humans as outsiders ot the Israelitic or proto-Israelitic continuum. W e shall recognize the various nuances that Cassuto picked up (but not as invariables in equations and formulas) in the name Y H W H as essentially personal, relating in particular intimacy with Israelite forebears or pre-Abrahamitic exemplars of His beloved, though oft erring, h u m a n creations; this in contrast with Elöhlm as often less than personal, sometimes almost an abstraction, the Cause ot all phenomena — nature and the animate denizens of earth -‫׳‬-and in dialogue with humans outside the Abrahamitic continuum or within that continuum, but to wives or children in roles foreshadowing lines ancillary to the chosen branch. We shall also be able to discern how these various aspects or modalities of the Divine in relation to creation and creatures can appear in a single narrat ive in shifts from Y H W H to Elöhlm and vice versa. These promises we hope to fulfill in t h e poetical treatments of t h e narratives which constitute the bulk of the chapters that follow.

12

ΙΟ I N T R O D U C T I O N

T H E N A M E S OF G O D IN N O N N A R R A T I V E T E X T S T H E ‫ ״‬E V O L U T I O N ‫ ״‬OF B I B L I C A L

AND

MONOTHEISM

It is historical fact that source criticism begins with the discernment of a dichotomous distribution or deployment of the names Elohim and YHWH in the early chapters of Genesis; that the discernment oi authors labeled blohist and Jehovist, later of sources labeled H and Ρ and J and I), derived primarily from narrative texts in the books constituting the Pentateuch or I Iexateuch; that legal, prescriptive, and chronological texts not identifiable by the criteria of divine names were assigned to one or another source based on derived criteria, these being stylistic or thematic; that source identification was at an early stage followed by a chrono log ical ordering of the sources. It is furthermore true that very little of source critical research or thinking is in evidence in respect to the narrative (prose) and poetic texts in the Writing Prophets or in the Book of Psalms. I have earlier suggested as a criticism of the source-analytical address to the problem of the names of God within Genesis that it. restricts itself to the two most common names when many other alternatives exist alongside them. I would now supplement that suggestion with this further one: any address to a single problem that limits itself to a small percentage of the text under study (i.e., the Hebrew Scriptures) risks the question as to whether it is not methodologically flawed. Inasmuch as my own investigation in these chapters is largely confined to the narratives in less than half of Genesis and a few in Exodus, it behooves me to acknowledge that my own address is vulnerable to the very same strictures. In mitigation of my own vulnerability I would plead the following: my own address claims to be no more than a beginning, and offers only a literary or poetical hypothesis that stands to be further tested, refined, and (possibly) rebutted as it is pursued in the great mass of untreated texts. This, in contrast to the source-analytical address that has been content to make of its hypotheses the sure base for methodological approach to ail (if Scripture, even while it ignores the problem in the psalter or prophetic writings. In my own address to the deployment of other names of God in the Genesis rvarratives I will perforce have to have reference to such names in the psalter. I will also have to deal (in less than exhaustive measure) with the question, of the stage of monotheistic religion reflected in the Genesis narratives. Psalm 82 is an exemplary psalm in which both these concerns are prominent. Yet this psalm falls into an aggregate (Psalms 4 2 - 8 3 ) that in modern critical research is often referred to as the Elohistic Psalter, or to cite a colleague who does not subscribe to source-criticism, "the elohistic group, which as an entity is characterized by a rather late change of most occurrences of YHWH to Elohim!'12 Before I go on to address Psalm 82 I have deemed it advisable to present an excursus on the distribution of the two names in Psalms.

E X C U R S U S : O N T H E N A M E S OF G O D IN T H E

PSALTER

As is well known, the biblical psalter is divided into five books according to rabbinic tradition, a tradition whose antiquity is attested by the LXX "version." 13 In

THE NAMES OF GOD TABLE ι - 2 Book

1.3

Distribution of YHWH and Elohim in the Psalter

Psalm*

YHWH

Elohim 14 times

I

I--41

272 times

If

2

4 -72

30 times

164 times

Ilia

73 -83

13 times

36 times

b

84.-89

31 times

7 times

exclusively

0 times

exclusively ( 1 08)

j lime

IV V

90 - reo 107 -150

table j -2, a chart of the distrihuti o n of t h e t e r m s Y11W11 a n d Elohim, the division of Book Three into t w o s e c t i o n s h e l p s sh< nv why Psalms 4 2 --83 have been designated as elohistic. T h e contrast between this elohistic aggregation of psalms and those preceding and following it is sharpened when we consider the following: Of the fourteen occurrences ot Elohim in Rook 1, only five or six can be considered as instances of the proper name, tor in all the other instances the term is featured in an attributive mode. Further, of the seven instances of Elohim in Illb., only two or three appear to be the proper noun. Hence the occurrences of the proper noun Y H W H are in overwhelming preponderance in Psalms, except for Psalms 4 2 - 8 3 , where the proper name Elohim occurs in similar preponderance as against the Tetragrammaton. Xow while there is no way to demonstrate that most of the appearances of Elohim in 4 2 - 8 3 represent "a . . . change of YHWH to Elohim " the plausibility of such a change—or rather, substitution—is enhanced by the appearance of the two proper names in two psalmic deuterographs: Psalm r4:2, 4, 7 fea‫־־‬ tures Y H W H , while Psalm 53:3. 5, 7 features Elohim. Psalm 40:14 features Y H W H twice and verse 17 does so once, while verse 18 features consonantal adönäy> In the parallel verses in Psalm 70, verse 2 features Elohim once and Y H W H once; verses 5 and 6 feature Elohim (although the end of verse 6 features Y H W H where the corresponding verse 40:18 features Höhay "my god"). T h a t Elohim as a proper noun, a name of the one god of Scripture, is preceded in time by the name Y H W H is beyond question. But the very question of when and how biblical Israel began to worship her god as the only god, and by what name (or names), is a thorny one to which I will devote ;‫ ו‬brief- -and admittedly partisan — sketch.

ON THE EVOLUTION

OF B i B L I C A L

MONOTHEISM

While not a necessary concomitant oi the source critical approach in terms of logic or the history of scholarship, the chronological and evolutionary thrust of the Graf-Wei Ihausen Document ary Hypothesis has provided a congenial framework for various theses about the development of the God-concept in the writings that constitute the Hebrew Scriptures trorn the periods of patriarchs and Judges to those of kings and prophets, and priests presiding theocratically in a shrunken judean state, For the first, few decades of our century the fashion of savants was to find animistic

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

concepts in the earliest stages of biblical history, and t h e n in chronological progression unadorned polytheism, t h e n henotheism and/or monolatry, and finally— not until such late writings as Second Isaiah™-a monotheism closely resembling our own. Thus Yehezkel Kaufmann was the cause of some stir when word reached scholarly circles (this in t h e 1940s, when tew scholars could read modern Hebrew) that in his History of Israelite Religion he was making bold to find t h e origin of biblical monotheism in t h e period ot the exodus some seven centuries or more before the exilic prophets. As a matter of fact, Kaufmann actually dated that phenomenon much earlier, for by the time of the exodus he finds monotheism as the general religious heritage ot the Israelite tribes that had left Egypt. And in 1964 in the An-‫׳‬ chor Bible volume on (îenesis, H.A.Speiser argued that our knowledge of Mesopotamian culture in the middle of the second millennium pointed to Abraham as t h e earliest pioneer of that monotheistic surge that he calls "the biblical process." 14 It is likely t h e n that some biblicists w i 11 find it fitting, and others amusing, t h a t I, a student: of Speiser, find precursors of biblical, monot heism in revolutionary critiques of polytheism in pagan Mesopotamia and Egvpt.^ However that may be, and persuasive or not in the judgment of my readers, I would underscore that I arrived at this conclusion on the basis of a poetical reading of the literature of Egypt and Mesopotamia and not, as is c o m m o n to all my predecessors, on the basis of an ascription of either historiographie intent or authentic "historical memory" to the biblical authors. In this connection, it may be permissible to quote Speiser, keeping in mind that I do him less t h a n justice by removing this brief citation from its well-reasoned context: As a drastic departure from existing norms, the concept of monotheism had to break new ground. There had to be a first time, and place, and person or group of persons. . . . Furthermore, the author of the narra rive ab ο Lit Abraham's call did not get his information from a researcher's files. And he could not have obtained it from cuneiform texts since, even if his scholarship matched his literary genius, the documents from the pertinent period had by J's time been covered up tor centuries, and were to remain buried for nearly three thousand years more. J could have gotten his material only from earlier Israelite traditions, which in turn reached back all the way to patriarchal times.16 True, "the biblical narrator could have gotten his material only from earlier Israelite traditions"—but only if his narrative were intended as historiography, that is, a literally true revelation by a true Deity revealing I lis True and Unique Divine N a t u r e — w h i c h is never (at least, explicitly) the content of any of these 1cvelations — to a literally true ancestor named Abrain, ot a yet-to-be mult it udinous seed that will be known not as Abraham it es but as Jacobites or Israelites. And, let us n o t e that by t h e cuneiform "documents from the pertinent period" that were n o longer available to J, Speiser has in mind theoretical historic documents about Abraham, not such literary works as Gilgamesh and Enuma elish, which for centuries were read regularly between the two rivers in one form or another. 1 7 My skepticism about t h e historiographie reading of biblical narrative is but a mild stricture (deriving from my poetic methodology) compared to my quarrel with the suppositions of progressive movements, from crude forerunners of true biblical

THE NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

religion in chronologically early layers ot biblical tradition to realization of a noble monotheism in late layers of that tradition. For this kind of supposition asks us to believe the following: an editor who knew how1 true and sophisticated were the theological teachings of a Deuteronomist or a Deute rod sa iah, and who could not but know how fallacious and naïve were the concepts in earlier writings, which were hangovers from a pagan idolatrous past, yet so reverenced these fallacious traditions as holy that he preserved them out of a slavish filial piety, with the serendipitous result (not intent, of course) that scholars two and a half millennia later might retrace the evolution of Israelite monotheism from such beliefs as nuis! have been held by the hero-of-faith ancestor Israel who chased after numina, whom he worshiped after besting them in night-long struggle. 18 Perhaps it is not out of order to observe that the question of what const itutes pure or non-idolatrous monotheism has not been settled to universal satisfaction to this day: W h e n , within one biblical tradition, the adherents oi one denomination may regard the veneration of saints or trinitarian formulations of Godhead in a sister-denomination as essentially pagan; when within another biblical tradition the adherents of one denomination may regard the beliefs in angels and demons as pagan elements in the ritual-and-magic-obsessed practices of a mother-denomination, how can we come to a conclusion as to where on the polytheistic to monotheistic spectrum to place one or another layer of Scriptural text (assuming that such layers can be demonstrated to exist)? Since, therefore, all but the most abstract and philosophical of theologies include various instrumentalities of Deity as entities within the natural or supernatural realms or straddling the two, a meaningful definition of monotheism would be one that could serve for a system of belief that is roughly the same in Scripture at large as in the latest formulations of Scripture-derived religions. Such a definition would eschew the ontological question of Divinity's agencies and representations as human or superhuman, semi-divine or divine, natural, preternatural, or supernatural. It would recognize monotheism as a theology that admits of only one autonomous ultimate power and will upon whom all other powers and wills are dependent for their existence and exercise. Hardly a passage in Scripture can be read as necessarily contradictory to such a view, and the biblical expression of this view is essentially expressed in the metaphors of Psalm 82, which pointedly uses ci and ^ö/iän for the common noun gocl(s) and the proper noun God, despite the confusion that such ambiguity invites, and just as pointedly uses the name 'HlyCm ( u All High/Most High") rather than YHWH: (1 ) G o d ( 0 id/imi) stands forward in t h e Gouncil D i v i n e (ci), speaks i n d i c t m e n t (Îf)t) in

the body of the gods (feÎo/um): (2) " H o w long yet will you exercise nefarious j u d g m e n t is!)!), s h o w i n g favorable bias to malefactors? (3) [My c h a r g e t o you was,] Take u p t h e cause ( s p t ) of t h e weak and t h e o r p h a n e d , U p h o l d t h e right(s) of underprivileged and dispossessed! (4) E x o n e r a t e t h e weak a n d t h e needy, Deliver t h e m f r o m malefactors' c l u t c h ! " (5) [Turns His back o n t h e m ]

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

"They show no awareness, no understanding, They proceed ever in night-darkness— (So that) the very foundations of the world are disintegrating." (6) [Turns hack to them] "My decree it was, gods (clöhlm) you are, Verily, vassals of 'Elyon . . . (7) [Alack then] like mortal man shall you die, Yes, fall from grace like any official." (8) [The Psalmist:] "Proceed t h e n , Ü G o d Höfrnn), Yourself give j u d g m e n t tor the world. For You a l o n e a c k n o w l e d g e all n a t i o n s as your own." (Psalm 82)

O N T P RM S ΡΟΚ D I V I N I T Y , C O M M O N A N D

PROPER

Even it this psalm were not included in that body called the Elohist Psalter, lew‫׳‬ would argue my assumption that the first use of Höhim in verse 1 oi the psalm and then again in verse 8 represents a studied avoidance oi the name YHWH. And it is beyond the scope of our present study to take up here (as elsewhere in the Blohist Psalter) the poetic implications of deploying Elôhïm "God" in two instances where the name Y H W H would seem most in place (verses 1 and 8). But the implicit prèsence of the O n e Divine Creator persona identifiable by name is unarguable in verse 6 in the asseveration that the Höhim "gods" are the bcne Elyön "sons or vassals of Ely ön." Here we should not expect the Te tragram m at ο η, tor we never have "sons" in construct with Y H W H , as we do twice (Genesis 6:2, 4) with hâHôIiï7n "supernal beings," and so also twice in Job (1:6; 2:1), where they come to stand in attendance upon YHWH, and once in Job 38:7 with Höhim; and once with Elhay (Hosea 2:1), where the countless Israelites who had formerly been repudiated by Y H W H under the rubric "Not-My-People" will be spoken ot as "children of the Living God " T h e anomalous juxtaposition in Psalm 82 of Höhim in the senses ot both gods and God provides us, nevertheless, with a springboard into our discussion ot the terms c /ohrm and Y H W H ; for the linguistic phenomenon in English of god (and gods) and God is a function of its matrix phenomenon in biblical Hebrew7, T h a t is to say, god (in English) and elöhlm (in Hebrew) are both common nouns, that is, terms for a class of beings or for one or more members of' that class. Yet God (in English) is ah ways a proper noun and ^o/imi is also --more often than not - ••a proper noun, which is to say a designation for a particular divine person, one who is most often represented by a different proper noun or proper name, Y1 1WH. Now it is clear that there is only one Y H W H , although there may be (in human minds at least ), many gods. But it is equally clear that there is only one God (tor this name no more admits a plural than does YHWH), although there may be (in human minds, at least.) many gods. Y H W H , however, might be (in human minds, at least) one of many gods, whereas even in my English rendering of‫ ׳‬Psalm 82, we can speak oJ God speaking up in the midst of the assembly of gods but not in the assembly of (Jods. There is only one God, as there is only one YHWH. And this is because as Y I I W H in Scripture is the O n e and Only Transcendent member oi the logical class "god "

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

so is G o d another name, a proper name, for that same O n e and Only Transcendent member of the class of gods. T h e difference t h e n between God and god is that t h e former is a class that has but one member, while the latter is a class with many, T h e gods of the latter class are superhuman or supernatural in one sense or another, but n o n e of t h e m is in t h e class of (the Transcendent) God. As intricate or simple as the foregoing may be judged to be, it all adds up to something so obvious as to go unremarked and, because unremarked, lost to our consciousness. T h e proper noun God is ontologically (linguistically speaking) not so much a product as it is a witness of monotheistic thinking, as in Exodus 6:2- ^ Y H W H is declared by (that) God to be his (only, in some sense or other, proper) name. This brings me to reconsider and modify my earlier statement that a proper noun does not, properly speaking, admit ot qualification by the definite article, or---ior that matter- - b y an indefinite article. We do, as a matter of tact, apply grammatical articles to proper nouns; but let us note that in all such eases the proper noun is present not as an indication of the particular person, place, or thing, but. as a representation in time or thought or art of that proper noun. Thus, lor example, a Cleopatra who could bring a Caesar to his knees, an Earth that could become a lifeless waste, the Richard III of Shakespeare or of history. Analogous to this linguistic usage is the God of Scripture or the God of t h e Scholastics, where both proper nouns bespeak a Sole Deity, albeit differently represented, or the God of Aristotle, but never the God of paganism. A n d , similarly, we can imagine a modern hiblicist drawing distinctions between the YHWH of Noah's flood and Hoseas YHWH. T h e absence of capital letters in Hebrew makes it possible for Scripture to engage in fanciful and philosophical plays o n t h e term Höhim that must be lost in English renderings, where the translator has n o choice but to opt for upper or lower case g or for one or another of Höhim s many connotations. Thus, for example, in contrast to Höhim. (or 'Elôhïm, as 1 would transcribe it) as a proper name, God, is the use of Höhim with the affixed definite article. O n t h e one h a n d it may be a signal that t h e narrator, though speaking of the O n e and Only Deity, wants to deemphas1:e or distance himself from t h e personhood of that Deity, the definite article serving as the he of abstraction, and expressive of the nuance we achieve in English by such terms as Heaven, Providence, Deity, the Divinity. On the other hand, wirh the emphasis on "'löten as a c o m m o n noun, inclusive of non-mortal entities such as ghosts, numina, or angels, the article in haHohim can be the he of individuation and proximity -the (or this) entity representative of God (or Y1 1W11). Thus wherever we come across Iu1clölum we must realize that we are not faced with a stylistic variation on the name God as opposed to the n a m e YHWH, for all that the apparition truly represents the O n e and Only Deity.

THE NAMES

ELOHTM

AND

YHWH

As 1 suggested earlier, the explanation offered by t h e genetic or source approaches ot the deployment of Y H W H and Elohim is a met a-literary solution to a literary problem, and one that makes little sense in terms of simple logic or poetic operation. These approaches confuse literature and history, read all literature as if it is

I‫א‬

INTROnUCTlON

intended as historiography, and retroject into u n r e c o r d e d — h e n c e irretrievable— past traditions supposedly inherited by these separate sources, such as the m o m e n t in historic time when the n a m e Y H W H was introduced to Israel I will soon examine t h e pericopes in Exodus 3 and 6 that are cited as evidence for the supposition that two of three sources (E and P) had inherited these sacrosanct traditions, h e n c e themselves eschewed the use of the name Y H W H that was admittedly known to them, while the third source (J) had inherited a conflicting tradition that ascribed knowledge of t h e name Y H W H to the first generations of h u m a n k i n d . But if, for t h e sake of argument, we put aside our objections and ask why Scripture should have been concerned with the names of Deity at all, we shall realize a monstrous self-contradiction in source-hypothesis. Since Höh Im in Genesis 1:1 is not a comm o n noun, neither "a god" nor "(the) gods‫ ״‬but a proper name "God," which of the two n a m e s — E l o h i m or Y H W H — i s the older? If Ρ (the author of Genesis 1) avoids the name Y H W H until the time ot Moses, when it was first introduced, t h e n his non-avoidance of Elohim would indicate that for Ρ this name was already known before t h a t time. But this generic term as a proper name could only have come into being at t h e end of that evolving process of biblical monotheism that is posited by source hypothesis! H e n c e we have the ludicrous logic oi t h e youngest source, P, using the youngest name at the beginning of "the Primeval History" so that it may avoid the older name YHW1 h and this as if oblivious to the existence of an older source (J—older by quite a lew centuries) that has a conflicting tradition; an older source that must have been leading a subterranean existence until it emerged sometime after Ρ to be set alongside it by R (the redactor). And all this is utterly unnecessary, for the Ρ (note the definite article with a proper name! ) of Exodus 6 : 2 - 3 who has YHW11 declaring to Moses that he appeared to the patriarchs as ‫ י‬El Shaddai could have used (in place of E/ö/üm) that same proper n a m e for t h e Deity, or, for that matter, almost any of the other terms or names for h i m (e.g., El, hä'el, El Elyon, Elyon, Shaddai, Elöh 1 ) that were not first introduced to Moses. A poetical address to t h e names of Scripture s Deity, granting that t h e books of t h e Hebrew Bible are the result ot an editorial process that brought together t h e products of at least three centuries ( Amos-Malachi, c. 7 6 0 - 4 6 0 ) , would nevertheless assume an essentially stable and developed monotheism for that entire period. Hence, it would see in Y H W H and Elôhïm two proper names for Israels Deity; one, Israel s label for its national Deity, who is also the O n e Deity of Creation and History, nature and h u m a n k i n d (like Marduk and Assur in t h e creation theologies of Babylon and Assyria); the other, the transformation of a c o m m o n n o u n into a proper n a m e expressive of the idea that, the c o m m o n n o u n having but one member, that n o u n is more a particular t h a n a genus. But language is extremely conservative, and old usages would not be erased from speech or memory for all their having become otiose from a purely philosophical point of view. As such, the various names and combinations of names for Deity would be available to authors and editors, poets and historians, to express various aspects of the O n e Divinity. Even such a source critic ‫־‬as Speiser, who doe^ not look for an evolutionary process distinguishing the Yl 1WI 1 of J from the Elohim of Ε or Π can roach the iob lowing essentially poetical awareness: "the term [Eluhim| can also be used, by virtue oi its gênerai connola! ion, not only tor .!lien gods and idols but also in the

THE NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

broader sense of our 4 Providence, H e a v e n , Fate,' a n d is actually so attested in t h e j source a m o n g others," 1 9 A poetical distinction, too, is t h e a n c i e n t rabbinic suggest i o n t h a t Y H W H is more expressive of G o d s attribute of mercy, while Elohim is p r e p o n d e r a n t l y expressive of Elis attribute of justice. T h e rabbis, of course, knew their Scripture at least as well as we do, and such egregious a p p e a r a n c e of Y H W H in quid pro quo retribution contexts (such as Exodus 32:35, D e u t e r o n o m y 2 8 : 2 0 - 6 8 ) could n o t h a v e escaped their notice. T h e distinction, therefore, is in t h e terse style characteristic of t h e rabbis, a h i n t as to h o w we should look for different n u a n c e s in t h e varying expressions for C Jod. Let us now a t t e m p t a poetic t r e a t m e n t of two critical texts t h a t feature t h e n a m e Y H W H and its i n t r o d u c t i o n into ancient Israels tradition,

YHWH I N T ROD UCK S Η ί M S ELF BY NAME

Two passages in Exodus feature a revelation of Deity to Moses, at t h e center of which is a declaration, implicit in o n e case, explicit in t h e other, t h a t the Tetrag r a m m a t o n is being introduced to Israel for t h e first time, i n a s m u c h as source crittcisrn h a d early discerned three sources in Genesis, o n e deploying and two eschewing the Tetragrammaton, it would seem inevitable t h a t these two passages in Exodus be assigned to o n e or t h e o t h e r of t h e latter two. A s we will see, in t h e first of these two passages (in Exodus 3), t h e n a m e Y H W H appears in t h e voice of t h e narrator before this n a m e is disclosed. Fortunately for t h e source-critical enterprise, it h a d already determined t h a t t h e Y H W H - e s c h e w i n g source labeled Ε (for Höhim. or Elohist, let us recall) h a d b e c o m e so inextricably intertwined w i t h ] t h a t it was futile to a t t e m p t to u n t a n g l e all t h e elements in a narrative t h a t originally owed to t h e one or t h e other. Therefore, in t h e JE narrative in Exodus 3 t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e n a m e Y H W H is E's, c o m p o u n d e d by snippets from J (i.e., where Y H W H appears but should not), and t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e n a m e Y H W H in Exodus 6 is — by default — Ps. ( T h e r e are f u r t h e r claims as to different stylistic pointers to Ε versus Ρ t h a t altogether defy this readers critical eye and ear.) 2 0 Aside f r o m t h e critical function of these two Exodus passages in t h e genetic approach, these two passages are worthy of poetical study in t h e interest of discerning t h e variety of reasons a biblical a u t h o r would opt to deploy mal'ak YHWH and /uC'/o/iYui for representatives of Deity, and to use Y H W I 1 or Elohim as names of Deity, all in a single context. j. At the (Non) Burning Bush: Ejusodc Λ ( ι ) Moses, now, was shepherding (he flocks of his father-in hiw Jeihro, priest of VIidian. He drove rhe flocks deep into the steppe, and reached Horch, the Mount of God. (2) YHWI l's angel appeared to him as a fiery flame from the depth of a certain bush. He caught sight, y e s — t h e hush, there ablaze with fire, yet the hush intact, unconsu med. (3) Thought Moses, "I must turn aside and inspect this wondrous phenornenon! How is it the bush is not burned away?" (4) W h e n Y H W H noted that he was turning aside tor a closer look, Divinity [Höhim] called to him from the hush's core, ''Moses' 11 u Yes-s‫׳‬s-sh\" said he. (5) "Approach 110 closer‫ ״‬He said, "Remove your shoes irom vour feet, for the spot upon which you are standing is holy ground." (6)[And in this address] He said, "I am the God of your father, yes the God of Ahraham, the God

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

of Isaac a n d t h e G o d of Jacob." T h e r e u p o n Moses cloaked his face, fearful of gazing u p o n t h e g o d h e a d [haHôhïm]. (7) Y H W H t h e n said, 4 'Long h a v e I viewed t h e affliction of My p e o p l e t h e r e in Egypt, a n d h e a r d their cry against their taskmasters. W e l l d o I k n o w his p a i n . (8) A n d it is t o deliver h i m f r o m Egypt t h a t I h a v e c o m e d o w n , and t o lead h i m up f r o m t h a t land t o a land fertile a n d spacious, a land oozing milk a n d honey, e v e n t h e place of [or, e v e n to replace] C a n a a n i t e , and H i t t i t e , a n d A m o n t e , Perizzite, H i v v i t e a n d Jebusite. (9) N o w t h e n , h e r e is t h e p l a i n t ot t h e Israelites c o m e for M y a u d i e n c e , a n d I, h a v i n g n o t e d t h e oppression w h i c h Egyptians are imposing u p o n t h e m . — ( i o ) N o w t h e n , bestir yourself t h a t I m a y d i s p a t c h you to P h a r a o h ; tree now My people, t h e Israelites, iron! Egypt." ( 1 1 ) Moses said to t h e D i v i n i t y \ha1:inh‫(־‬m\f

u

W h o a m I to go to t h e Pha-

7

rauh, and to free the Israelites from Egypt. " (12) H e said, "Just so! ί A M | a m | with you. A n d here's t h e sign tor you t h a t it is I W h o h a v e sent you: w h e n you h a v e b r o u g h t t h e

people free from Egypt, you will all worship the godhead \'ct‫׳‬luV'lühlm\ at 11 ‫ ו‬is very m o u n t a i n . " (Exodus 3 : 1 - 1 2 )

Light and heat are qualities or attributes of h re, not metaphors for it. But fire standing for love or for power is a metaphor. T h e burning candle as a metaphor for self-sacrificial love, burning up its own substance to give light to others, is a deep metaphor as, in a sense, it is almost obvious. T h e metaphor of the flame within the burning bush has long been recognized as one ot the most‫ ־‬imaginative and profound of Scriptures metaphors. Recognized, but without elucidation of its unique poetic function in this specific context. Fire as the most powerful of God-given tools is the climactic summation in Exodus 35:3 of the prohibition of work on YHWH's Sabbath: "You shall kindle/feed no fire in any of your settlements on the Sabbath Day." Here, the fire within the bush—for whatever else it may symbolize—bespeaks the awesome transcendent Power of Deity made Immanent yet unscathing in the lowly fragile bush. But this flame here is Y H W H s maiak, a numen that, despite Moses' fear to view it, speaks reassurance that the h u m a n mal'ak too can harbor YHWH's flame, and can (as such) lead the oppressed Israelites to freedom. And these Israelites are the descendants of the patriarchs to whom promise was made by Heaven. T h e Deity who cites himself as the ancestral god calls himself by no name. He characterizes himself first as u your father's god," as though Moses had only one "father." A n d this singleness of identity of all the patriarchs may operate to affirm the single identity of their god, even as the enumeration "God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God ot Jacob" affirms that singleness for all the variety ot each of the patriarch's experience of this O n e God. 1 he grandeur oi the imagery here, the terse power of the formulation of monotheistic theology in lean and simple words, were best left to speak for themselves. Our preoccupation here, however, is with philology, with the critical discipline of poetics, and with the vindication oi a poetical approach to the names of God as opposed to the non-poetical approach ot source criticism. So let us note that: the narrator begins in verse 2 by declaring that it was YHWH's angel who appeareel to Moses in the guise of, or from within, the tongue of flame. In verse 4 this narrator has the intimate God of Israel, YHWH, noting Moses' approach, but His response to this movement of the mortal is Elohim's address to him from within the

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

bush. Thus we have Y H W H Y H W H s angel/agent = Höhim ‫ ^־‬the numen within the bush=the apparition (to Moses) of a self-sustaining flame. This graphic equation, like all semiotic representations, is neither an argument in itself nor a proof of an antecedent argument. It is a graphic or semi-graphic outline of a sequence (if thought(s) enlisted to clarify an argument. In terms of the elemental units for divinity and their sequence as present in the text, we should have to rewrite our equation to distinguish between what is implicit in the argument and explicit in the text, dims, placing the implicit in brackets: [YHWH] ‫•־־‬ Y H W H 's angel/agent (verse 2) = Y H W H (verse 4) "noting" and God/Elohim (verse 4) "calling'' - 1, the dialogic first person pronoun (verse 6) - häHöhim/the n u m e n perceived by Moses in the guise of, or present within, the flaming bush. In terms of the deployment of the various terms for Deity, the omniscient narrator s ignais the favored and intimate status of Moses by identifying that Power/persona by the name Y H W H : so in the implicit commissioning of the angel/agent, and in the explicit subject of the verb ‫״‬note" in verses 4 and 7. T h e representation of this persona is to Moses, so the narrator informs us, in the marvel of the unconsumed bush, w h i c h — a s the narrator knows, but Moses does n o t — i s the agent of Y H W H , the numen häHöhim. It is only after hearing the voice from the bush that Moses recognizes the phenomenon tor what it is, and so it is that he fears to gaze upon häHöhim in verse 6, and thereafter in his dialogue with Deity addresses himself to that numinal presence, the /tü'iö/ilm in verse 11 and, as we shall yet see, in verse 13. Mediate between the caring Y H W H and his numinal representation is Hohimy without the article, that is, Divinity/God, who speaks from within the bush in verse 4 (and again, as we shall note, in verses 14 and 15). It is clear that in verse 4 the Y H W H who "notes' 1 and the Elohim who "calls" are one and the same entity. But note the narrator's subtlety in identifying that speaker as Elohim when he warns Moses of the dangerous ground he is treading and, in verse 7, as Y H W H when his message is his concern for "my people,'1 "thai‫ ״‬is in Egypt"—suffering its tyranny- and his plan for his people's redemption and entrance into a land of felicity. Moses' response to the call, together with Deity's response to the mortals in verse 12, is a masterpiece of rhetorical density. Moses apparently has glitten the point of YHWH's puissant Presence's capability to inhabit a material vessel without doing it harm. But his response to the call, while appealing to our sympathy for such seemly humility, may also be interpreted as a kick of faith in the Deity summoning him t.o his service. Instead of fearing the role of being G o d s vessel, his mal'ak to Pharaoh, it: is the power of that Pharaoh that he now seems to fear. "What am I that I might go to Pharaoh, [who am I] that I ο light liberate the Israelites from Egypt?" A n d the answer to this fear (if it is that) or self-doubt is given in a two-part statement that concludes this synoptic episode. First, let us note that the answer, introduced by the third singular masculine verb wayyö'mer "He said," is provided with no explicit subject—not YHWH, not Elöhim, not häHöhim—and it features an instance of paranomasta so delightful as to excite any rhetorician's envy. T h e answer features the verb "to be" in its denotative sense "I am," in which sense it is totally superfluous, tor biblical Hebrew regularly omits the verb "to be" in the present tense: "I (am") with you" would normally appear as 'änöki 'immäk (ct. verse 6). T h e verbal form, then — Ε live immäk—is "I A M (am/is) with you" And this name

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

I AM, which equally means / WAS and I SHALL BE, is the n a m e of God, which will in the resumptive episode he expounded in terms of itself. But, as we shall see in a moment, at this point Moses is unaware that Î AM is a name of God (as against the awareness oi the narrator or of the reader who is reading this not for the first time); therefore, from his point of view the answer to his question is "1 [the Deityl am with you." W h a t kind of answer is "I am with you'' to the question " W h o [—of what standing - -1 am I Γ Implicitly it says, "Your point is well taken. You are indeed a nonentity, in yourself. But you are not going for yourself, alone, on your own. I, God, am with you. A n d that changes everything. For you are no longer you, you now are my vessel." A n d if Deity's answer stopped here, that would be the bottom line of the kerygma: when God calls to service, modesty is as silly as fear. But t h e answer of Deity does n o t stop there. It goes o n to answer a question that Moses has not asked. Explicitly. But the question is there in the elliptical density of the second part of the answer: Deity's offering of a token by which the mortal may be reassured "that it is I W h o have sent you" reveals a very basic problem of faith and revelation. Doubt about a revelation, even as it is being experienced, may bespeak n o lack of faith in God as such, nor in his ability to call upon mortals in such direct and specific communication, but rather self-doubt: C a n I really believe that this is happening to me, that the transcendent Lord has picked this unlikely frame for his spirit? A n d the answer to this doubt, this reassurance by Deity that he is indeed speaking and commissioning Moses as his prophet, is as ironic—yet existentially t r u e — a s t h e irony of the prophetic ear doubting its capacity to recognize its Caller. For a divinely provided sign that will set doubt to rest, that will reassure the agent of the future success of his mission (hence validation of the fact of the commissioning), must take place in the present. Yet the sign offered by Deity to Moses lies in. the future, indeed in the tut lire when the present‫ ־‬doubt will have been cancelled by a reality that is yet to transpire. Just so. That, is the kerygma: when the receiver of the prophetic call would doubt the reality of the call, would tremble to undertake an enterprise ot such dubious chance of success (if the call is an illusion), there can be no reassurance. If prophetic call is questioned by prophetic self-doubt, well then, t h e proof of the pudding can only be in t h e eating. " W h e n you will have brought t h e people free from Egypt, your sign that it was indeed I W h o sent you will be that all of you will worship Me at this very mountain." This last quote is faithful to the Hebrew text except in one particular. T h e Hebrew has no Me. A l t h o u g h Deity is speaking, he docs not refer to Himself in t h e third person as God ( Elöhlm), nor as Y H W H , but as häHöhim, in this context the most distant abstraction for Deity. Why? Because the introduction of the name Y H W H for Elöhlm, for Elôhïm that is b o t h genus and proper name, Godhead, is yet to come, in t h e resumptive episode. 2. Episode B: The Tetragrammaton ( 1 3 ) Moses said to t h e g o d h e a d (häHöhim),

"Well and good, here I am c o m e ro t h e Is-

raelit es, a n d I say to t h e m , ' t h e god of your fathers has sent m e to you.' and they t h e n say t o me, ' W h a t is his n a m e ? ' - w h a t do I say to t h e m ? " (14) G o d said 1:0 Moses, "'Ehye Her 'Ehye? [ T h a t is,] h e said, "Say so to rhe Israelites, "'Ehye has sent m e to you:'

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

(15) Jn full said G o d to Moses, '1Say so to t h e Israelites, ' Y H W H , god of your lathers, god of A b r a h a m , god of Isaac and god of Jacob has sent me to y o u / T h a t is my N a m e for all time, and that is my Mark lor ongoing générations'' (Exodus 3:1 3‫)ל! •־‬

As we noted earlier, häHöhim can have two different connotations, according to what the context will, allow or demand. In the one connotation the definite art icle is the he of abstraction: "Heaven," the Godhead, Divinity (both with capitals). Only this sense is possible, as we have just seen, in verse 12, where the self ‫׳‬reference by that Power excludes the possibility of a lesser, derivative, representative power. In the alternative connotation, the definite article is the he of concreteness, specificity; hence the connotation of a particular manifestation of Divinity/God ( Elohim, without the article) is the divinity, the god, the numen, etc. In this episode B, the subject of wayyö'mer is Elohim/God in verses 14 and 15 (as in verse 4, the subject of "called"). In all these cases Elohim is that Power or Principal who speaks through the intermediary angel/agent (mal'ak) appearing to Moses in or as the tongue of flame. Moses, however, here in verse 13, as in verse 11, addresses himself to the intermediary numen, häHöhim, upon whom, in verse 6, he was afraid to gaze. Finally, let us note that the appearance of the definite article in English with a proper n a m e — a s in "the God of the Hebrew Bible"—to express not an ontological Being but a particular delineation of that Being, is here expressed with God, but the particularity is conveyed by the construct Hôhëy aböteykem. So much for the terms for God in this episode. T h e separate kerygma about the prophet's self-doubt having been achieved in Episode A, this episode resumes with Moses' response to the bidding to return to Egypt. Before he appears before Pharaoh he must, of course, win Israelite concurrence to his making representations to the throne on their behalf. T h e first obstacle to be overcome in gaining their confidence is that oi convincing them that he has been commissioned by Heaven. Passing strange, however, is the metaphor for that difficulty. As though Moses and his brethren of the various tribes of Israel do not have common knowledge of the name of the ancestral Deity! if the name were known to the Israelites but kept secret from outsiders, how convincing a sign of Moses' bona fides if he too knows the name? If the name is to be introduced now by Moses to the Israelites, it would seem that to convince them that this name is to replace an older one would add to his difficulty rather t h a n ease it. Yet God has no problem with this question of Moses' and gives him a name, which in the context car! only be a single name, yet the giving of which is narrated in three steps, each of which seems to present a variation o f t h a t name that must be one. Whatever the metaphor for credibility in the name, there can be no question that the name suecessfully serves its purpose, to remove all doubts. N o r can there be any question as to which of the three variations is the precise and correct one. T h e precise and correct one is Y H W H , for a number of reasons. It is the only one of the three that will appear again, and ever thereafter, as the name of Israel's God. It is the third of the three variations, and the only one that is explicitly characterized as "the name of the God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob." And finally, it h the name that in verse 16 (which opens Episode C) is the name that God assumes will without question be accepted by the elders of Israel. Moses, too, assumes this, tor in 4:1

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

(which opens EpisodeD) Moses' question reveals that all doubt about the credibib ity of Y H W H as truly the G o d of t h e Ancestors will be dissipated, T h e only room for doubt will be in the question as to whether Moses has indeed experienced a commanding revelation from Y/ JWi Î: Moses then spoke up. 1 le said, "And suppose they put no trust in me, will pay no heed to my bidding, saying Ύ Ι I W H did not appear to you'Γ (q: 1 ) Eet us note a feature c o m m o n to the third variation, G od said to Moses y "Say so ω die Israelites, 1YHWI: I G o d o f . . . sent me to y o u / " and to the second variation, He said, "So say to the Israelites, Ehyë sent me to you.'" Both Y H W H and Eh‫׳‬ye are answers to the question of Moses, " W h a t [name] shall I say unto them Γ N o t so the first variation, biete t h e text; reads, God said to Moses, "‫׳‬ehyë aser 'ehyë" This Hebrew sentence t h e n is an exposition of the n a m e to come—Έ/vye—and its meaning is, as we have previously pointed out, all of the following: "I am what I am, I am what 1 was, I am what I shall be, I was what I am, 1 was what I was, I was what 1 shall be, I shall be what I was, I shall be what I am, I shall be what I shall be" 2 i In other words, t h e n a m e Ehyë—appearing first in Episode A but not there recognized by Moses as a name, and now about to appear as the n a m e — h a s the connotations in t h e one-word n a m e of eternity, timelessness, without beginning or end, and in the exposition of changelessness, enduring dependability. A n d the difference between Ehyë and Y H W H is that the first stands for God speaking ot this unchanging timeless Being-ness in the first person, and when Moses retells this experience to the elders h e will have to translate this first-person p r o n o u n c e m e n t by God to a thirdperson pronouncement: Y H W H , standing for Yihyë "He was, He is, He shall be." ( W h i l e it is true that we never have medial waw in the imperfect of the verb "to be" in biblical Hebrew, its attestation in the participial and imperative forms is grounds enough for seeing a clear play, if n o t h i n g else, on t h e third person singular imperfeet; and ii the waw in place of yodh is a relic of the older pronunciation, why all the more reason to attach the patah vowel to the afformative yod/1, as m the older pronunciation, to yield the widely accepted Ya/m/e/1.) j , !,Vom El Shaddai ω ΥI IWl I (2) ( ind spoke to Moses, I le said t o h i m , "I a m YI IWl I " (

1(‫לי‬appeared to A b r a h a m ,

to Isaac, and to Jacob as El S h a d d a i . But M y n a m e Y H W H I m a d e no! nivselt k n o w n

to them. (Exodus 6:2- 3) This brief pericope is problematic on a number of counts: for one its setting; for another its featuring of terms or names for Deity; and for yet another its rcdundancy or pointlessness in t h e context of similar narratives. In terms of setting it comes after Moses' complaint t h a t G o d has failed to help Israel and to support Moses in his mission; on the contrary, matters have gone from bad to worse. A n d it comes after God's response that H e would soon take action to force Pharaoh not just to release the Israelites but to expel them. W h a t need t h e n to begin anew with a statement of address by Deity to Moses, in which he may introduce himself as though for the first time? As concerns the expressions for Deity, verse 2 begins with Elohim as the sub;cc.1. This appears altogether natural to us in light of our own conditioning (by t h e

THE NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

Scriptural tradition) to relate to "god/God" as both common noun and proper noun. Let us note, however, that there is no capitalization in speech, and that in spoken context "god" as a common noun must always have some qualification in terms oi defmiteness or indefmiteness, while "God"—without such qualificationts itself a proper name. But this is, as we have noted, a peculiarity everywhere in Scripture, as in the languages into which Scripture has been translated. W h a t must be stressed here is that the use ot Hlöhlm in 1 he narrator's voice in verse 2 is not, as is often the case elsewhere, an indication of the Deity's lesser intimacy or friendliness. Inasmuch as the speaker is going to identify himself by the name Y H W H (i.e., in dialogue), the narrator must use a term for "Deity" that is not quite, ab though it is in a sense, a proper name. But again, in terms of setting, there is something bizarre about God's intn )ducing himself by the name Y H W H when such in·‫׳‬ traduction has taken place in chapter 3, and further, the name Y H W H has become the commonplace term for God in the intervening narrative (cf. e.g., 5:21, at a remove of only four verses). Problematic also is the stress on an alternative designation or proper name for Deity, in contrast to the name Y H W H , El Shaddai. N o t El Ely on (as in Genesis 14:18-20, 22) nor Elohmi, as though that is not a proper name at all, but as El Shaddai. This name of Deity (and its more frequent occurrence as simply Shaddai) deserves a poetical investigation in itself. As Shaddai it is Job s preferred name for God and as El Shaddai appears three times in dialogue, in the voice of Jacob (Genesis 28:3, 43:14, 48:3). Only twice does the self-identification "I am ΈΙ Shaddai" appear, once to Abraham (17:1) and once to Jacob (35:11). A n d these last two instances are clearly the back-references of Exodus 6:3, "I appeared to them as El Shaddai." And equally clear is the function of this usage, that is, as the counterpoise to the name YHWH, which was not disclosed to the patriarchs. A n d it is this additional element in this revelatory self-identification, making explicit what was only implicit in the analogous scene in Exodus 3, that poses the most challenging problent. W h a t point is there in fixing the appearance of the name YHWH to the time of Moses, what is the point ot such knowledge having been denied to the partiarehs/ This question would in itself pose a thorny question for exegesis. But there is a more daunting question for anyone who, like us, posits a poetical unity for Scripture in general and for Genesis and Exodus in particular. For the denial of knowledge of the name Y H W H to the patriarchs, a denial spoken by Y H W H Himself, is in explicit contradiction to the notice in Genesis 4 : 2 6 b — a notice the pointlessness of which we have previously discussed 2 2 —that in antediluvian days the name Y H W H was already invoked by humankind. And if we should try to resolve this contradiction by the supposition that somewhere between N o a h and Abraham the name Y H W H was lost, there would still be the poetic discrepancy of the single narrator permitting (not himself, for that is no problem, but) his characters to dispose in dialogue of the name Y H W H .

THE PATRIARCHS'

USE OF T H E N A M E

YHWH

T h e name Y H W H appears in dialogue in Genesis 4:1, where Eve's acknowledgment of God's role 111 her hearing a child is, "I have made a person with YI IWH-

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

|/s lie 1‫|רן‬.‫ יו‬In 5:29 Lamech expresses his knowledge that the soil's fertility was interdieted by Y1 IWl h In 9:26 Noah praises Y H W H , who in prophetic vision he reeogni ·es as Shem's god. T h e name YHWH appears in a patriarch's voice for the first time in Genesis 14:22, This chapter, regarded by source critics as unique in respect to plot, diction, and syntax, is assigned to an unnamed source other than J, E, or P. Our own analysis of this chapter concludes that it is an episode in the life of Abram that is wellintegrated into its narrative setting, and expressive of a kerygma in profound resonance with Scripture's theological doctrine. A sub-kerygma of this narrative is the affirmation that the Deity served by Melchizeclek, priest-king of Salem, named by him El Ely on and characterized as Greator of Heaven and Earth, is none other than the same Deity, identical with the YHW7H (Creator of Heaven and Earth) of the patriarch Abram and of both his immediate and far-off progeny. T h e appearance of the name Y H W H in the speech of patriarchal figures or personae in patriarchal times can be checked against the listings in table 1-1. For reasons of economy I will refer only briefly to the five narratives that I will later discuss in detail. In Genesis 15, the story of the covenant made between God and Abraham, featuring an apparition moving between the parts of several slaughtered animals, there are six explicit references to Deity, each one featuring the name Y H W H . Three times the name is used by the narrator and three times—in explicit contradiction of Exodus 6 : 2 - 3 — i n dialogue. Deity declares UI [am] Y H W H [he] that fetched you out of Ur Kasdim" or "I, YHW r H [am the one] that fetched you out of Ur Kasdim." A n d Abram twice addresses God as "my Lord ( a dönäy) YHWH." In Genesis 1.6, Sarai says that Y H W H has kept her from giving birth (verse 2) and later calls on Y H W H to judge Abrains responsibility in the matter of the disrespect shown to her by Hagar (verse 5). Four times, so the narrator tells us, the angel of YI I W H addresses 11 agar and tells her to name her son Yishma-el "El hears," in acknowledgement, he goes on to say, ' 1 that YHWH has heeded your suffering." (verse 11) In Chapter 18 Y H W H , speaking to Abraham, refers to himself in the third person: "Is anything beyond YHWI I's power to perform Γ T h e last instances I will cite are those in chapter 22. T h e perplexing call to Abraham to offer up his son features the term hcV'löhlm in the narrator's voice (three times) and ‫י‬Elöhlm (without the definite article) in Abraham's. But with verse 11, the turnabout from that command is introduced by YHWH's angel calling upon Abraham to stay his hand (verse 11). After sacrificing the providential ram, Abraham names the sacrificial site YHWH-yirë "YHWH-provides" A n d Y H W H s angel, in his second appearance, formulates God s promise to Abraham in a solemn oath taken by Deity,"'By mine own self have I sworn/ so the word of Y H W H , 'because you have done this thing.'" We thus have eleven instances in which the biblical narrator has various personae (God himself, God's angel, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Sarah), disposing of the name YHWH, T h e divine personae do this in dialogue with humans, and the humans themselves in all spontaneity, and all ot these instances, before the time of its first introduction to Moses, We could go on now to present our solution to this

T H E N A M E S OF GOD

‫•־‬j

glaring poetical difficulty. But in the interest oi preparing our readers for our suggestion, it will be helpful to make something of a detour: to examine the unique p h e n o m e n o n — u n i q u e to Scripture, unknown in (he world's literature or religious traditions—of a proper name that is never pronounced, indeed unpronounceable, because it is writ ten in. consonants with no vowels provided.

T H E S O L U T I O N TO T H E PROBLEM: A (LITERARY)

HYPOTHESIS

A recapitulation of my argument so far would include the following elements: ι* A rejection of the notion that the problem of the names of God may be confined to a primary dichotomy represented by the names Elohim (God) and YHWH (the Lord or Yahweh). This, because so many other names are featured in close association with these two names. 2. A rejection of the meta-literary solution offered by source-criticism to the Elohim/YHWH bifurcation, viz., a discernment of documents traceable to diiferent authorial hands or sources, this in large part according to whether the narrator employs or eschews the Tetragrammaton before the moment of its introduction to Israel in the person of Moses. This rejection is based on the poetic perception that a narrator's use of a name for Deity does not argue that his story's personae were privy to that name, nor does his own eschewing of that name imply that his personae were not privy to that name. 3. The conclusion that the proper noun Elohim (God) is not so much a product as it is a witness of monotheistic thinking. From this last conclusion the following may be inferred. T h e proper name Elohim must be a later development in the Israelit ish experience than the Tetragrammaton (however it was pronounced). A specific (proper) name for a peoples god (such as El, Shaddai, YHWIT), presupposing the (assumed) existence of many gods, must be chronologically prior 10 the common-noun-become-propcr-noun (Elohim/ Uod). If the foregoing is clear to us, it must have been equally clear to the authors and editors oi the texts from which we draw this conclusion. We must thereiore look for a literary explanation of the apparent contradictions, inconsistencies, superfluities, and non-sequiturs in the information provided by our texts as to these two names. In short, our argument has both sharpened and complicated the formulation of the questions centering on these two names. Let us recapitulate and elaborate these questions. W h y would a religious tradition possess and preserve several names for a single god? True, a single god might often be referred to by an epithet, an epithet that almost becomes an alternative "name" Such may be the case with such terms as Elyon ("Most High") and Shaddai ("Almighty"?), but except for such rare (and un‫־־‬ explained) exceptions as Jove/Jupiter, the head of a pantheon will have but one proper name (Zeus, Odin, Marduk, etc.). But why preserve such names other t h a n to indicate that a deity formerly, or in another tribe, known as El Elyon, is really the same entity known among us today as, say, YHWH? T h a t the specific proper name that became predominant among Israels tribes was Y H W H would seem to be unquestionable. W h y then should the Scriptural tradition inform us in one place that that name was already known to humankind tens of generations betöre Israel

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

emerged on history's stage, while in another place it should take pains to deny the knowledge of that name to the ancestors of Moses, and this last in close proximity to a chapter devoted to a perplexing midrashic exposition of that names etymology to the Moses, who has just asked hy what name he is to identify his ancestral god tc‫י‬ his tribal contemporaries? And why, further, docs this Scriptural tradition preserve this name in consonantal writing, defy it a pronunciation by withholding of vowel indicators, and provide substitute, terms such as adönäy? And why, finally, having denied knowledge of this name Y H W H to the patriarchs, does Scripture again and again feature this name in the direct discourse between these patriarchal figures and the Deity who identifies himself by this name? Our solution to this problem will involve a radical suggestion: that there never existed a pronunciation proper to the name transcribed by the letters Y-H-W-H. This suggestion would seem to fly in the face of two rabbinic texts that seem to be in simple attestation that the name represented by the Tetragrammaton was still uttered in public in Second Temple times. O n e ot these is, indeed, the one written statement on which one might base speculation that the Name was regarded as too sacred for evocation, except on rare occasion by the most sanctified of human lips. T h e following translation is from Danbys The Mishnah: And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Ex‫״‬ pressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their taces and say, 1Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!1 (Yoma 6:2) T h e specific context of the High Priest's pronouncing of "the Expressed Name" is his cit ation of Leviticus !6:10, which concludes, "ye shall be clean before the Lord (i.e., YIIWI I)." O n this last citation in Mishna Yoma 3:8, Danby—drawing on rabbinic commentaries, needless to say—has the following footnote: T h e final word , Lord* was p r o n o u n c e d hy t h e 1 ïigh Priest as it was written a n d n o t , as usually, by a reverential p s e u d o n y m or a l t e r n a t i v e d i v i n e n a m e sueh as A d o n a i .

O n e might quarrel with Danhy's formulation on a number of counts. For one thing, what does he have in mind by "a reverential pseudonym" other than "an alternative divine name," and is not: Adimai a substitute for rather than an alternative divine name ? But these are quibbles. W h a t is not a qui bble, however, is the objection to his having the High Priest pronounce the Name "as it was written." Inasmuch as the written name Y H W H is without vowels, it could not be pronounced as it was written. These last four words (in italics) are an interpretation of the Hebrew, which in Yoma 6:2 is translated by him as "the Expressed Name." T h e Hebrew thus rendered is hassem hammeföräs,23 a reference to the Tetragrammaton (known in later rabbinic Hebrew as sem haivwäyä, i.e., the name containing the Hebrew verb hwh "to be"). A n d while it is true that later rabbinic tradition understood this phrase as the consonantal Y H W H pronounced according to the original vocalization, it is equally true that this understanding is eisegetical, n o t exegetical. For Hebrew hassem hammeföräs means simply the Name Expounded or the Name Explicated and not the Name Expressed or the Name Pronounced or the Name Enunciated.2^ Elad the N a m e indeed been enunciated by the High Priest on every Day of

I'll H NAM I: S Ο Γ c o n

A t o n e m e n t in the hearing oi the throng in the temple courtyard, we should t h e n have to seek for the date of the forgetfulness of the vowels in the decades after the Temples destruction by Rome. And the M ish η a s intent, that the Name Explicated was indeed heard at large, admits of no question. For in our second citation, Mishna Tamid 3:8, a fanciful catalogue of sounds from the Temple that could be heard as far away as Jericho, we read "and there are those who say that even the voice of the High Priest [could be heard] when he uttered (fckir) the N a m e on the Day of A t o n e m e n t " And if that Name was the sem hammrföräs25 "the Explicated N a m e " the name expressive of G o d s eternality and enduring sovereignty as ex‫׳‬ pounded in the Ehye or Ehyê £iser Ehyë of Exodus 3 (or the attributes of Exodus 3 4 : 6 - 7 ) , we should have no difficulty understanding why the tannaitic rabbis would have wanted the Name to resound so far and wide. And we would be in a better position to understand the response of the people to the expounding of this name. For a more meaningful translation of the people's response to the expounding of this Name—bärük sem bvöd malkütö le 'öläm wä'ed— is "Praised be this name for His Sovereign Presence for all time" W h e r e does all this leave us? If the name were indeed enunciated in Second Temple times, if only once a year by the High Priest, what authoritative rabbinic body decreed its suppression, and how did it effectuate in Roman times, on the banks of the Ebro and the Rhine, the Tiber and the Euphrates, a draught of Lethelike waters, as potent in its universality as remarkable in its specificity? If the Name were not enunciated by the High Priest in Second Temple times, then its suppressum must have taken place some centuries or even a millennium earlier, without trace in Scripture of a struggle - this on the part of a people who could wrangle for centuries over whether their God wanted sacrifices brought to him in many shrines or in one alone. In either case, the fact of or the reason for such suppression is nowhere given, and the process itself so improbable as to be well-nigh inconceivable. But the process—for all its inconceivability—must have taken place. For we have the consonantal name, we have Scripture's witness to God's having pronounced it for Moses, Moses tor the elders, and into some later generation when the vocalization was somehow forgotten. N o t quite. Scripture—consider its literal meaning—is a literary witness, a witness in writing. As such it may express an eloquence unsurpassed. But as a literally (sic!) linguistic phenomenon, speech (loquens), it is mute. T h e vocalization for YHWH need never have been forgotten if, for example, it was never known; and never known for never having existed. 26 Let us consider this possibility But first let us review the general assumptions and conclusions about the Tetragrammaton in regard to its ontology and etymology. T h a t the name existed as a vocable in the sense of utterable sounds is, as we have just suggested, a meta-literary assumption; 27 the name as we have it is a purely literary datum, a datum in writing. T h e narrative 111 Exodus 3 on the revelation of this name clearly entails the verb "to be" hyh (possibly, in earlier times, hivh). T h e third radical of this form is not a consonant as such but a vocalic consonant, which is to say, a consonantal sign indicat ing a long vowel; in this case a vowel for the medial consonant y (or hj) in compensation for the loss of an original third radical that was either the semi‫׳‬ consonant y (reducible to vowel i) or the semi-consonant‫ ׳‬u: (reducible to vowel u).

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

Thus the first person imperfect ehyêh is constituted of three consonants: afformative aleph (')‫ י‬and two consonants of the stem (he and yodh, h and y); the last /1c is a vocalic indication of the length oi the second radical: ehyë. T h e third person imperfect in hihlical Hebrew is, analogously, yihye, afformativc yodh and stem consonants hë and yodh. T h e question before us is, supposing that the word-play in Exodus 3 proceeds from God in the first person speaking of Himself as Ehyë to the third person form for a speaker other than God, that third person form should be Yihyë. Why would the narrator opt for a Yilvive form, and why have scholars assumed further that the vowel of the afformativc yodh is patah and not hireql N o answer is offered in scholarship to the first question, because the question is never asked. T h e text has a waw as the third consonant of Tetragrammaton and that is a fact. Furthermore, this presents no great problem, for we have indications that the medial consonant of the verb "to be" may well have been waw at an earlier stage of the Hebrew language. A n d if that earlier stage is represented in yhwh, then so may we posit a patah vowel for the afformative yodh as attested in cognate languages representing and preserving a vocalization older than that registered by the Masoretes for biblical Hebrew. A n d oh yes, there is another support for Yahwë rather than Yihwë: the existence of two apparently shortened versions of Yahxvë, viz. Yähü and Yah. Now it is true that Y H W H is a biblical fact. But what kind of fact is it? W e have stipulated that it is a literary fact, a written datum, but not necessarily a linguis tic fact, a datum of speech. But ot whose speech is it not necessarily a datum? Source critics would say, among others, of the speakers labeled J or P. W h e t h e r J was correct or Ρ was on when the Te tr agram m ato η became the possession of the Israelitish stock as the name par excellence ot their ethnic or national Deity, by the time of the Exodus, YHWH—-·give it whatever vowels you will—was a staple of their speech. And they (the source critics) thus make this Name not only a literary fact, and a linguistic fact — a datum of an ancient: speech- - but a meta-literary fact as well: Y1 IWl I existed in the speech of ancient Israel, as an ontological or historic fact. Now let us consider the other possibility, which we raised before this review, that Y H W H never existed in speech, a conclusion we reached on the basis of the inconceivability of some version of its sound not having survived if it had existed. A conclusion strengthened by the logic ot proceeding in writing from ëhyë, through hypothetical yihyë, to Y H W H standing for hypothetical Yihwë; a logic making sense in writing but not in a synchronic pronunciation. This logic does not begin with Y H W H but ends with it. it begins with a name, no, the name for Israel's tutelary deity, as broadly attested in names of people. (Names are a conservative vessel in speech, preserving elements that have long ago become semantically meaningless, including theophoric elements that may never have had a semantic content.) T h a t name is Yähü, preserved at the end of such sentence names as HizqpYähü, Yisä-Yähü, Sema^Yähü. W h e n beginning sentence names, vowel reduction resulted in its being pronounced Yehö or even Yö, as in Yd!ö-nätan/Yö-nätan, Yehö~räm, Yöräm. (The first syllable in the name of Moses' mother, Yö-keved, may be the only instance of this theophoric element in a name antedating Moses.) And in the boundform of the call to praise (halMüyäh), as in a tew other poetic instances, the final vowel was dropped, resulting in Yäh.

T H E NAMES OF GOD

‫•־‬j

T h e narrarive in Exodus 3 reflects, therefore, an expansion oi a two-consonantal name into a three-consonantal name, the vocalic consonant tor the second const)‫־׳‬ nant being transformed into fully consonantal 1vcavy and the fourth letter, /1c, added as a vocalic consonant to indicate the length of the vowel attached to that newly emerged waw. All in a play on the verb a t o he," to give new meaning to an old name (which may have had no meaning at all), a name (the new one) un pronounceable and unpronounced. (Yä-hü-xvä would be a pointless lengthening of Yähü without the appearance at: all of the verb "to be.") This n a m e — o r rather spelling—henceforward appears everywhere where the name Yähü would have appeared. If the text were read aloud, how would the reader have rendered the spelling into speech: In all likelihood, either by a substitute vocable adönäy} or by the old Yähü. 28 T h e question that would remain is, why? W h y this artificial play on the verb "to be"? W h y the creation of a name spelled one way and pronounced another? W h a t would have been the point of the displacement of Yähül A n d the answer becomes obvious, once we rid ourselves of magical thinking and cease to ascribe such think•‫׳‬ ing to the Scriptural authors, on ce we rid ourselves of the notion that the formulators of monotheism were intellectually primitive, less capable than we are to work out the implications of a theology that replaces many gods with one. 29 Simply put, monotheism has no need, possibly no room, for a n a m e — a proper n a m e — f o r Deity. Proper names are labels by which individual or particular members of a class are differentiated one from another. If Deity is a class with but one member, then the common name or noun for that class is sufficient. Or perhaps we might say that in such case the common noun is also a — n o , the—proper noun. And that is a problem that has been plaguing me in writing this chapter, this very paragraph. For were we strict in our own monotheistic awareness we should never capitalize deity, we should never speak of the Deity, and never capitalize god. I ; or our case is the case of the biblical texts where in speaking of the one and only (true and) existing god, rat lier than the (false and) nonexisting gods of paganism, 1löflfm without an article is clearly a proper as well as a common noun. Our capitalization of God or Deity owes then to the respect for the concept of singleness of deity, and to an inherited convention for the differentiation of the O n e and Only God of Scripture from the many gods that exist (ed) only in the minds of pagans. T h e name Höhim (as in Genesis 1) is a singular (the plural form being the plural of majesty), a common noun doing service as a proper noun also, and its disposition as such is witness to the monotheistic faith of the writer or speaker who so disposes of it. A n d as such we render c7öhim in transcription as Elôhïm and in translation as God, in both cases a proper name. But the monotheistic biblical authors could no more ignore the polytheistic ambience of Israel's neighbors, nor the backslidings of faithful Israelites into polytheistic patterns of belief, t h a n we can deny t h a t the popular religion of monotheistic confessions today discloses a good many elements of the polytheism out of which and in opposition to which monotheism emerged. And, for those of us who profess to be the teachers and preachers of monotheism, let us not lay unction to our souls in this regard. In our passionate devotion to the narrower formulas of our denominational faith and praxis, do we not often in effect deny that our rival sister-

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

denominations arc worshiping the one and only god? If, as a wise pagan observed, when the gods are threatened it is the priests who tremble, is this any less true of the clergy who minister to the one and only god? In the case of ancient Israel, a people and a nation having emerged iron! polytheism, hailing their ancestral god Yähü as Creator and god o! all nature and nations, how did their conduct among themselves or their stance in regard to neighboring peoples and polities differ essentially from the conduct and stance of the Assyrians who hailed Assur, or of the Babylonians who hailed Marduk as Creator and god of all nature and nations? How did Joram ben Ahah, who declared that " Y H W H had called forth" himself and his allies to make war against Moab, 30 differ from Sennacherib, who declared that his campaigns were undertaken ina tukulti beliya Assur "trusting in (the help of) my lord Assur?" Surely there can be no argument that such was the problem of the prophets, from the Amos of 3 : 1 - 2 , 4 : 4 - 5 , 9 : 5 - 7 , to the Malachi who declares what is ontologically true (given monotheism) for all the failure of the surrounding peoples to realize to whom they are addressing their worship: Verily,

From the place of sun's rising to the place of its setting, Great is My name among the nations, Everywhere is incense presented to My name, and offerings pure — So great [the reverence for] My name among the nations! (Malachi 1:11)3i T h e basic insights of Scripture into a O n e and Only g o d — w h o is Person, who is Friend to humankind, who is by essence moral and would show his friendliness to humans if they would but make that possible by their own morality—these are often obscured from our view by the idolatry of logography, by the literal reading of breathtaking metaphor. A n d when one examines the range of metaphor expressed in the varied appearances of ' 1 name" (.sen!) in connection with God, it will come as no wonder that in instance after instance "the name" Y l i W I I means anything but "the name YHWH," and that Y H W H u the name" should appear just where one would expect cluhnn, that is, the O n e and Only god. Two instances of the latter phenomenon, their significance overlooked anil usually masked by mistranslation, are Genesis 12:7 and 16:13. T h e proper name Y H W H appears in both, modified by a participial phrase. In 12:7 we are told that Abraham (in the neighborhood of Shechem) "erected there an altar to Y H W H hannirê , eläw? Every translation I have checked renders the participle by a past, or past per‫•׳‬ feet verb, "who (had) appeared to him." T h e Hebrew for this would have been aser nir'ä 'êlâw. T h e torce of the participle is incompleted action, hence "to Y H W H who [was] appearing to him." But such a modification of a particular person, as rep resented by his proper name, makes little sense. For John (for example) is John whether he appears or not. T h e participial phrase then is elliptical, standing for "to Y H W H , [the god] who was appearing." In 16:13, which we shall examine in detail later, Hagar, addressing a god whom she does not know by name, gives him a name of her own invention. Literally wattiqrä‫ י‬sem YHWH haddöber Jëlëhâ is "she called the name o t \ H W H the [one/godl speaking to her." More correctly in terms of English idiom: 41 YHWH, the [god] addressing her, she named." This second instance brings up for examination the question of the appearance

T H E N A M E S OF G O D

‫•־‬j

of the name Y H W H in construct with scm (e.g., Genesis 4:26, 12:8, 13:4). T h e translation "to call upon/invoke the name of YHWH/the Lord" is unacceptable. For o n e does not invoke "the name of" a proper name. Speiser, sensitive to this linguistic aberration» therefore renders the Hebrew, "invoked YI1WI I by n a m e " I bis translation is acceptable as English but it is not faithful to the Hebrew (at least as vocalized by the‫ ־‬Masoretes). Speisers rendering would reflect the I lehr luv "(to invoke) hassem VI JWJ I," that is, "by the n a m e YHWH." W h a t then lies behind the construct sem YHWH! T h e cot!struct‫־‬, if rendered literally, reflects bad Elebrew and is bad English, and even in Speisers good English would appear to be a clear c o n ‫׳‬ tradiction of the statement in Exodus 6:3 that the patriarchal ancestors were not privy to this name. O n e answer is to treat t h e term sem not as "name" literally, but in a metaphoric sense, as for example in the psalmists plea: "Act, Ο God, hnaan smekä" is reduced to gibberish by t h e English "for t h e sake of T h y n a m e " T h e Hebrew !is/1mäh, literally "for its name," in rabbinic and modern Hebrew means "for its own sake"—not for ulterior motives. Thus the Psalmist asks God to act n o t for the sake of the supplicant, who has n o merit, n o claim on God's favor, but to act u because You are benevolent, out of Your attribute of grace." O n this line of metaphotic usage, the erection of an altar to Y H W H and calling (on God) fcsem YHWH need not involve knowledge of t h e n a m e o n the part of t h e mortal engaging in such activities. It is rather the narrator's way of indicating that t h e patriarch, by whatever name h e addressed God, truly understood him in his uniqueness, his sovereignty, his eternality, his consistency in justice and benevolence. Thus, for example, in Genesis 21:33 A b r a h a m at Beersheba calls besem YHWH 'el "öläm, W h i l e the Hebrew could be rendered "in the [other] n a m e of Y H W H , God Eternal," or "in Y H W H , that is, by the name Eternal God," it could also c o n n o t e in "the name [of god whom we know as| Y H W H , eternal deity." Similarly tot), we may understand that the narrator, when he has patriarchal personages address Yl IWl I in do red. discourse, does so as a matter of free direct discourse, in the full knowledge of the apparent contradiction of the statement in Exodus 6:3. But even this explanation is not one of last recourse. Especially if we reflect that even grim sobriety or halakhic rigidity may in Scripture mask the broad understanding and patient tolerance of authors emulating those very attributes of a long-suffering deity, who but for a sense of humor would long ago have given up on both His beloved humankind and His chosen Israel. We need not characterize as a failure the enterprise of Scriptures authors to convey to us the fundamental insight that in monotheism a proper n a m e for Deity is in a sense blasphemous, allowing as it may for t h e existence of other deities by other names. T h a t insight is conveyed by t h e very attempt to eliminate the name, even as the implicit use ofelöhim in a context that, admits of n o more t h a n one such is already a witness to t h e triumph of monotheism. But beyond this, the fact is that even in a narrow7 sense t h e biblical authors were successful. For they did virtually eliminate the n a m e of Israel's (parochial) god. Except for appearances in the proper names of people, the n a m e Yähü all but disappeared from Israelite consciousness; replaced by a never-pronounced Y H W H , a visual reminder of the one and only god's essence: el öläm, enduring god = vihyë aser yihyë. As for the patriarchs who are portrayed as invoking Y H W H , a name not made known to them, the statement

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

in Exodus 6:3 applies not only to them hut to all t h o s e — i n c l u d i n g ourselves— who came after Moses. For in the sense of a n a m e as a p h e n o m e n o n of speech, an oral or auditory p h e n o m e n o n , the name reflected in the written characters Y H W H was never made known to anyone. Hebrew sem means "name" and, as often i n d b cated by close association with qärä "to call out, to utter" is essentially a sonic or auricular p h e n o m e n o n . T h e Hebrew word zeker, which may indeed be a synonym for " n a m e " has a denotation which is essentially visual, "mark, sign, trace," Only a pedant, himself a stranger to a sense of humor, would with assurance deny t h e possibility of any humorous intent in the narration of Exodus 3. After going through t h e near rigmarole of the first episode in which Moses* question, " W h o am I that (ici) I (presume to) go to Pharaoh" receives the elliptical answer, "Verily (kï) Ehyë (I am)(is) with you;" this followed by the granting of an unasked for sign (St) that is no sign at all, we reach the second episode: Moses asks a rather bizarre question what n a m e shall he give as the name of the ancestral god — and receives t h e answer Ehyë aser Ehyë, which is immediately reduced to t h e Ehyë of episode A, and t h e n summarized or glossed as " Y H W H god of the ancestors . . . sent me to you." A n d this culminates in t h e final p r o n o u n c e m e n t , which can refer only to t h e (unpronounceable) n a m e Y H W H and not to the predicate "sent me," zë semï leoläm. 1vczë zikrï ledör dör "That is my n a m e for all time and that is my S I G N a t u r e for all generations."

P A R T .‫ן‬.™‫״‬,‫״‬,

I ‫י‬

‫ן‬--

STORIES — THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY

This page intentionally left blank

τ

w

ο

T H E C R E A T I O N STORY IN GENESIS, CH. 1:12:4‫־־‬A

T H E BEARING OF ENUMA ELI: ι $ - 2 2 ) / ) . Nnuh

Is Informed

(II)

(1) YJ I W l 1 said to N o a h , " G o i n t o t h e ark, you and all you]‫ ׳‬family. Yes, you a l o n e in this g e n e r a t i o n h a v e 1 in my j u d g m e n t f o u n d righteons. (2) Oi every clean a n i m a l a d m i t w i t h you seven pair, male a n d m a t e ; and of t h e animals w h i c h u n c l e a n are, o n e pair, male and m a t e . (3) O f t h e birds of t h e sky, s e v e n pair, male

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬ a n d f e m a l e ‫ י‬to p e r p e t u a t e live seed o n earth's surface. (4) For in h u t seven days f r o m n o w I shall m a k e rain fall u p o n e a r t h , for forty days a n d Lirty nights; and so will 1 blot out Iron! everywhere

on

earth

that

whieh

i

have

brought i n t o being. 1 ' (5) A n d N o a h did just as Y H W H had hidden him. (Genesis 7:1 ---‫)ל‬

jo b/nto‫׳‬/m> tin.‫ ׳‬Ark (6)

( N o a h , now, was six h u n d r e d y e a n old

when

t h e Deluge took

place,‫—־‬water-—-on

e a r t h . ) (7) Noah went into the ark, /us 50ns a n ‫״‬ his wife and his sons' wives with /um, for shelter from the water of the Deluge. (8) Of the animals clean and the animals unclean,

of the birds and

every species astir on the ground,

(g) pairs c a m e

to N o a h to t h e ark, male and female, as G o d h a d i n s t r u c t e d N o a h . (10) In seven days time the waters of the Deluge came upon earth.

(11)

In t h e year 6 0 0 of N o a h ' s litetime, in M o n t h 2, o n Day 17 of t h e m o n t h — ‫ ״‬o n this day p r e ‫׳‬ cisely—did

t h e wellsprings ot G r e a t

Deep

crack apart a n d t h e sluice gates of h e a v e n spring o p e n . ) (12) And

the rani continued on

earth forty clays and forty nights.)

(13) O n t h a t

very day did N o a h e n t e r — a n d

She m

and

H a m a n d J a p h e t h , a n d N o a h ' s wife and t h e t h r e e wives (if his sons wirb t h e m - - i n t o rhe ark; (14) drey and every life-form of every species, all t h e fowl oi every species, every bird, every winged tiling. ( 1 5 ) T h e y c a m e 10 N o a h , to t h e ark, pair by pair o! all llesh in w h i c h abides t h e breath of life. (1()) T h o s e arriving were male and female, of all flesh did t h e y arrive in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h G o d ' s instructions t o h i m . Ana

Yi iWH

battened him in. ( G e n e s i s 7:6--16) F. Deluge

and

Destruction

(17) T h e Deluge c o n t i n u e d on e a r t h for ‫ ן‬ort\ days. As the waters swelled they buoyed up the ark and it lifted free from

earth.

(ÏS) As the

water intensified, increasing in v o l u m e u p o n e a r t h , t h e ark floated a r o u n d o n t h e water's surface. (19) T h e waters ever increasing in intensity o n e a r t h , they b l a n k e t e d

even

the

130

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬ highest m o u n t a i n s e v e r y w h e r e u n d e r h e a v e n prevailed.) W i t h t h e b l a n k e t i n g 0( t h e m o untains, (21) all flesh, astir on e a r t h expired — fowl, cattle, beasts, all the s warms t h a t t e e m on earth, and all mankind, (22) Ever}‫ ׳‬last thing with nostrils

inhaling lifebreath

on

earth,

every last thing on shore died. (23) Thus did he blot out all existence

on earth's surface,

ranging

from man through animals, crawlers, and birds of the sky. With these blotted out from earth there remained only Noah,

and whatever was with him

in the ark, ( G e n e s i s 7 : 1 7 - 2 3 ) G. The Deluge

Is

(24) T h e waters prevailed

Checked in i n t e n s i t y

on

e a r t h for 150 days. (1) G o d was m i n d f u l of N o a h a n d all t h e beasts a n d c a t t l e t h a t were w i t h h i m in t h e ark. G o d t h e n swept a w i n d over e a r t h a n d t h e waves subsided. (2) T h e wel!springs of G r e a t D e e p a n d t h e sluice gates of h e a v e n b o l t e d closed, and the rain

from

heaven held in check, (3) the waters began to retreat from earth, a steady retreat; t h e waters beg i n n i n g to abate o n about Day 1 50. (4) So did t h e ark ‫ ״‬r o u n d in M o n t h 7, Day 17 of t h e m o n t h , o n t h e m o u n t a i n - r a n g e of Ararat.. G ) 1 he waters, now, c o n t i n u e d to abate steadily until M o n t h 10; i n M o n t h 10, o n t h e first of the

month,

the

mountain

through.) (Genesis 7:24-8:5) II. Ε J) is ode of rhe

Birds

(6) A f t e r forty days, N o a h o p e n e d t h e h a t c h w h i c h h e h a d m a d e m t h e ark. (7) H e released a r a v e n , w h i c h took off, living t h i t h e r a n d back u n t i l t h e water dried up trom t h e earth. (8) H e t h e n dispatched a dove, to ascertain w h e t h e r t h e waters h a d eased u p on earth's surface. (9) But t h e dove could find n o p e r c h for its f o o t — t h e water so tar-reaching over all earth's surface — and so r e t u r n e d t o h i m , t o t h e ark. H e reached out and 1 e t c h e d it hack into t h e ark. ( i c ) Ar ter a wait of yet a n o t h e r seven days, h e again released t h e d o v e trom t h e ark. (11) Towards e v e n i n g t h e dove re-

peaks

showed

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬ t u r n e d to h i m , in its bill a freshly p l u c k e d olive leaf! N o a h t h e n k n e w t h a t t h e water had eased f r o m e a r t h . (1:2) Yet a n o t h e r wait of s e v e n days more, and h e released t h e dove. It r e t u r n e d to h i m n o more. (Genesis 8:6

12)

I. The Disembarking (13) I n t h e year 601, in M o n t h 1, o n t h e first of t h e m o n t h , t h e waters had d r a i n e d oil f r o m e a r t h . When Noah raised the hatch-cover,

10 he

saw that the earth's surface

(14)

was drained

A n d in M o n t h 2, o n Day 17 of t h e m o n t h , t h e e a r t h h a d b e c o m e dry.) ( 1 5 ) G o d addressed N o a h ,

(16)

"Come

o u t of t h e ark, you, your wife, your sons, a n d your sons' wives w i t h you; (17) every living c r e a t u r e w h i c h is w i t h you, of all flesh — fowl, animals,

and

everything

that

era wis

on

e a r t h — b r i n g o u t w i t h you, t h a t they may teem

on

earth,

abundantly

reproduce

on

earth." ( 1 8 ) So N o a h c a m e out, his sons, his wife, a n d sons' wives w i t h h i m ; ( 1 9 ) every living creature, every crawler, every bird, e v e r y ‫׳‬ t h i n g w h i c h stirs o n e a r t h c a m e out of t h e ark, species by species. ( G e n e s i s 8 : 1 3 - 1 9 ) ]. Sacrifice

and

Promise

(20) N o a h t h e n built an altar to Y H W H . Taking f r o m a m o n g all t h e clean cattle and clean fowl, h e offered burnt Otterings on t h e altar. (2r)

YHWH

sniifed

Y H W H said to himself,

the 1

pleasing

odor.

'Never again will I

abuse t h e earth o n m a n ' s

account—[seeing

t h a t ] t h e b e n t of man's m i n d is evil f r o m his youth—nor

will I ever again strike

down

every living creature, as I h a v e d o n e . ( 2 2 ) S o long as e a r t h endures, seedtime a n d harvest, cold a n d h e a t , s u m m e r a n d winter, day and n i g h t will n o t cease. 1 ' ( G e n e s i s 8 : 2 0 - 2 2 ) K. Blessing

and Meat

for Man

s Table

(1) G o d blessed N o a h a n d his sons, saying to t h e m , "Increase a b u n d a n t l y a n d p o p u l a t e t h e e a r t h . (2) T h e dread fear of you shall d e s c e n d u p o n all living creatures of e a r t h and upon t h e fowl of t h e sky, u p o n every t h i n g with

132

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬ w h i c h t h e e a r t h is ast ir, and all tish of t h e sea: i n t o your p o w e r are t h e y delivered. ( 3 ) Every stirring t h i n g t h a t lives shall be yours tor t h e eating; like t h e grass greens do I give t h e m all to you. (4) O n l y flesh with its l i f e d d o o d in it you are n o t to eat. (5) A n d also — tor your o w n life-blood will 1 exact r e t r i b u t i o n :

of

every beast will 1 exact i: a n d of h u m a n k i n d ; of every m a n for his b r o t h e r will I exact r e t r i ‫׳‬ b u t i o n for a h u m a n life. (6) W h o e v e r sheds t h e blood of m a n , by m a n shall his blood be shed. T h i s is t h e m e a n i n g of: 4 In t h e image of G o d m a d e H e m a n / (7) You, t h e n , tor your part, increase a b u n d a n t l y , t e e m on e a r t h a n d be fertile u p o n it." ( G e n e s i s 9 : 1 - 7 ' ) L. The Promise

of the Rain how

(S) G o d t h e n said to N o a h and to his sons with him, ( g ) "i hereby m a k e this c o v e n a n t of m i n e with you and your offspring to c o m e , (10) and also with ( 1 very living creature that is with you

-oi birds, cattle, and beasts of

eart h along with you - all t h a t h a v e c o m e out of t h e ark, of every c r e a t u r e on earth,

(j!)

T h i s c o v e n a n t of m i n e 1 will f 1111111: n e v e r again shall all flesh be cut off by Deluge waters, n e v e r again shall t h e r e Deluge be t o waste t h e earth." ( 1 2 ) G o d said, ' T h i s , now, is t h e sign of t h e c o v e n a n t I grant as b e t w e e n me a n d you and every living c r e a t u r e t h a t is w i t h you, for all ages to c o m e : (13) My bow h a v e I set in t h e clouds, to serve as a sign of t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n m e and earth, (14) S o shall it be, w h e n I mass clouds over e a r t h — a n d t h e h o w appears in t h e c l o u d s — (15) I shall be m i n d ful of this c o v e n a n t of m i n e w h i c h exists h e ‫׳‬ t w e e n m e a n d you a n d every living c r e a t u r e a m o n g all flesh. (16) T h e bow will he in t h e clouds, by my p r o v i d e n c e , to m a r k a n en d u r ‫׳‬ ing c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d and every living creature of nil flesh t h a t is o n earth." ( 1 7) G o d p o i n t e d out to N o a h ,

11

There now Ν t h e si‫״‬n

of t h e c o v e n a n t that 1 h a v e established he-

rween niyseli and all ilesh that is ,:!!1 c;uth:" (C iencMs t):S

j7)

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

O N THE SOURCES OR S T R A N D S IN T H E F L O O D A PRELIMINARY

STORY:

DISCUSSION

Before we proceed to a synoptic review or the twelve pericopes (§$A b) thai make up the flood story, we shall first note and criticise the distinctive features of repeti‫׳‬ tion and contrast that source-criticism has found significant lor the identiiication and isolation of the j and Ρ documents. ι . Source-criticism: J regularly features YHWI I, win le Γ with equal regularity features G o d (Elohim) as the name for Deity. O n the basis of this feature alone we t h e n have a Ρ narrative of eight pericopes, complete from introduction through body to conclusion, and virtually if not altogether without gap. This complete narrative has been supplemented (from a presumably parallel narrative) with an alternative introduction (§A), conclusion (§J), a pericope (§D) without the addition of which the alternate conclusion (§J) is incongruous, and a fourth pericope (§H), the episode of t h e birds. Poetical comment: T h e regular appearance of Y H W H and God in t h e ] and Ρ strands is stipulated (with the exceptional contamination, so source-criticism, of Y H W H appearing in 7:16, [P] ). Noted, however, is the absence of Y H W H as an identifying mark in §H, an episode t h a t — b o r r o w e d from the U t n a p i s h t i m story— might just as well come from P's narrative. T h a t would leave only three pericopes from J. Of these the sacrifice theme in §j, and the seven pairs of clean animals required for §J in § D — l i k e the birds episode borrowed from the U t n a p i s h t i m story•— would have been available to Ρ as it clearly was to ]. W h y would Ρ have omitted it from his n a r r a t i v e I f , because it is discrepant with other elements in the Ρ narrative, why did the presumably perceptive editor restore what to Ρ had become excrescence? A n d , in respect now to the remaining interpolation from t h e original J narrative, is there any basis for viewing §A as a (repetitious) introduction alongside the original Ρ introduction in §B• T h e r e is not a single element in the two "introductions" that is repetitious, except for the notice of Noah's having earned Deity's favor in a world that had signally failed to do so. A n d finally, the atguments in this volumes chapter 1 for a poetical contextual reading of the names YHWH and Elohim, which — if borne out in our hin her discussion—renders all t h e previous poetic comments supererogatory. 2. Source-criticism: Additional hallmarks testifying to the authorial hands of Ρ or ] are to be discerned in proclivities in respect to numbers in general and chronology in particular: J is inordinately fond of round numbers, particularly seven and forty, and is otherwise totally uninterested in chronology. By contrast, Ρ evinces a preference for precision in numerical detail, and for exactitude in respect to chronology. Examples are the seven and forty days in §D and §H (both ]) and in t h e j contaminations of Ρ in §E and §F. Poetical comment: First of all, the numbers seven and forty in regard to days are totally unrelated to t h e numbers of 15c days or the day-of•‫ ׳‬the ‫־׳‬month in the calendrical tally. T h e two systems exist side by side, the first as matters of narrative detail, the second as independent calendrical markers whose poetical purposes must be searched for. But even the very contrast between J and Ρ as to round or precise numbers is one that will not bear up under scrutiny. W h i l e the 3:5:30 ratio of t h e

ι ]4

STOR1 HS — ‫ ״‬T Η Κ l'R1 M E VAL HISTORY"

a r k s height, width, and length compares favorably with t h e 1:1 :t ratio of Utnapishtim's cubic craft, t h e numbers m cubits (30, 50» 300) are suspiciously round, S o too N o a h s age, 600, m the year of the flood, and t h e 150 days of t h e rising w a ‫׳‬ ters to a level fifteen cubits above t h e highest m o u n t a i n top, 3. Source-criticism: T h e J source presupposes t h e legitimacy of a n i m a l sacrifice and of t h e eating of flesh in the offering brought by A b e l in Genesis 4:4. T h i s source could therefore borrow the post ‫׳‬deluge sacrifice t h e m e f r o m t h e U t n a p i s l v t i m story (§J) so long as it provided for more t h a n a single pair of these edible ani‫׳‬ mais e n t e r i n g t h e ark; otherw ise these sacrifices would h a v e spelled e x t i n c t i o n for t h e edible species. T h i s provision is supplied in §D, w h i c h — n e e d l e s s to s a y — i s discrepant w i t h t h e single pair ot all species in § Q P, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h i c h has G o d m a n d a t i n g a n exclusively vegetarian diet for all creatures in Genesis 1 : 2 9 - 3 0 , must therefore pass up on the sacrificial t h e m e . Ρ does, however, signal God's reconciliation w i t h h u m a n k i n d in §K, wherein t h e b a n o n h u m a n c o n s u m p t i o n of a n ‫׳‬ imal flesh (of Genesis 1 : 2 9 - 3 0 ) is formally withdrawn. Poetical comment: If pericopes SC and §E are n o t by definition assigned to o n e source while §D is assigned to another, t h e presence of seven pairs of clean animals as opposed to t h e single pairs of u n c l e a n ones in §D is merely a n expansion and clarification of t h e general heading of pairs in §C. T h u s , for example, in § E — a pericope assigned mostly to Ρ but with inexplicable intrusions from J -we are asked to believe that an intrusion from Ρ is present in t h e J intrusion. Let us duplicate this passage, V except for italicized J: (8) Of the animals clam and the animals unclean,

of the birds and every species astir on the

ground, (g) pairs c a m e to N o a h to t h e ark, male and female,

as G o d had instructed

Noah. (7:8-9)

It is clear t h a t t h e only reason for assigning this verse to j is t h e distinction bet w e e n clean a n d u n c l e a n supposedly k n o w n only to J. Ρ supposedly has a single pair of e a c h species, w h e t h e r clean or unclean. But t h e n t h e non‫׳‬italicized words at t h e beginning of verse 9, translated by Speiser (for example) as two of each is seen as expressive of this Ρ n o t i o n . My translation of senayJm senaylm "pairs of each" is equally in place in a supposed J, for t h e animals c a m e to N o a h in pairs of every species; single pairs in the case of the u n c l e a n , seven pairs in t h e case of t h e clean, Let us n o t e f u r t h e r t h a t the vocabulary of this supposedly J insertion is in every re‫׳‬ spect t h a t of t h e Ρ vocabulary in S e c t i o n C: b'hernä, cöf, römes, a n d male a n d fe‫־׳‬ male (zäkär uneqëbâ) rather t h a n male and m a t e (is we>istö). IN REGARD TO THIS preliminary discussion of t h e considerations t h a t might yet dis‫׳‬ pose us to distinguish b e t w e e n t h e text passages crowded against t h e left ‫־׳‬hand or r i g h t - h a n d margins, let us n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r singly n o r collectively d o these conskL erat ions compel a conclusion t h a t these columns represent separate sources, sources p a t c h e d together by a n i n c o m p e t e n t redactor, or o n e made to seem so by t h e imposition of a slavish compulsion to include discrepant details from two traditions, both ot which had (inexplicable) become .sacrosanct. Let us note that difiere11c.es are not necessarily discrepancies, t h a t inconsistencies arc not necessarily incon-

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

gruittes, a n d t h a t n e i t h e r differences n o r inconsistences n o r discrepancies are neeessarily c o n t r a d i c t i o n s .

And,

further, that

even

seemingly

clear

contradictions

( s u c h as t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r oi t h e c r e a t i o n o i m a n a n d a n i m a l s in G e n e s i s 1 a n d 3, o r t h e l i n e of h u m a n i t y i n t h e G a i n i t e a n d S e t h i t e g e n e a l o g i e s ) m a y r e p r e s e n t s t r a t e g i e s of m e t a p h o r in a s i n g l e w o r k hy a s i n g l e a u t h o r .

POETICAL REVIEW OF T H E

Episode A. Prelude (Introduction

FLOOD

STORY

I)

( τ ) W i t h m a n k i n d ' s first increase o n e a r t h ‫ ״‬a n d t h e b i r t h t o t h e m of g i r l s — ( 2 ) divinities remarked h o w b e a u t e o u s were these h u m a n m a i d e n s , a n d freely as they chose took themselves wives f r o m a m o n g t h e m . (3) Y H W H t h e n decided, "my spirit shall n o t enduringly abide in man—-fleshf-creature] t h a t he i s ‫ ״‬a h u n d r e d ν ears and t w e n t y shall [the limit of] his lifetime b e " — ( 4 ) t h e N e p h i l i m were in existence on earth in those days, ( a n d also t h e r e a f t e r ) following on the di vinities' mating with human w o m e n f o l k w h o gave b i r t h by t h e m : t h e s e [offspring] those ' 1 heroes" of cold, famed afar. (5) Y H W H took n o t e of m a n ' s wickedness o n e a r t h so great, that the very bent of his imaginings was ever contrarily wicked. (6) Y H W H c a m e to regret that H e had ever made m a n k i n d o n e a r t h , H e was p a i n e d to t h e quick. (7) Y H W H decided, L'I must blot out f r o m earth's surface this m a n k i n d I c r e a t e d — b e g i n n i n g with man, and inclusive of beasts, of crawlers, and of birds of t h e s k y — s u c h is my regret t h a t ever I made t h e m ! " (8) N o a h , however, h a d e a r n e d t h e favor of Y H W H . (Genesis 6:1 T h e i n t e g r a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e first v e r s e of o u r t e x t h e r e a n d t h e b e g e t t i n g s i n t h e l i n e of S e t h t h a t p r e c e d e it i n G h a p l e r 5 c o u l d b e lost o n l y o n a d e v o t e e of s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m , w h i c h a s s i g n s t h e p e r i c o p e h e r e t o J a n d t h e p r e c e d i n g gen e a l o g y t o P. T h a t g e n e a l o g y p r e s e n t s a s i n g l e f a m i l y l i n e , t r a c i n g a m a l e h e i r f r o m Adum/hä'ädäm

t o N o a h in t h e t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n , w i t h N o a h s s i r i n g of a n e l e v e n ! h

g e n e r a t i o n oi t h r e e s o n s . T h i s , w e k n o w , is t h e l i n e of h u m a n k i n d . B u t w h a t is c r u ‫׳‬ c i a l t o r o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h i s p e r i c o p e i n G h a p t e r 6 is t h e r e f r a i n - l i k e n o t i c e t h a t e a c h of N o a h ' s n i n e a n c e s t o r s s i r e d n o t o n l y t h e o n e s o n n a m e d b u t a d d i t i o n a l u n n a m e d s o n s a n d d a u g h t e r s . A n d , i n d e e d , w h y b o t h e r w i t h n a m e s , s i n c e all t h e s e l i n e s e n d e d w i t h t h e f l o o d ! B u t w h y t h e n t h e n o t i c e of d a u g h t e r s ( w h o s e d e s c e n d a n t s w o u l d also h a v e p e r i s h e d i n t h e flood), w h o s e lines are s u p e r e r o g a t o r y in a p a t r i l i n e a l t r a d i t i o n ( s u c h as S c r i p t u r e c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p r e s e n t s ) ? T h e a n s w e r t o t h i s l a s t q u e s t i o n is p r o v i d e d b y t h e first h a l f of cour p a s s a g e , v e r s e s 1 — 4, w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e a p e r i c o p e i n t h e m s e l v e s . T h e c o m e l y w o m e n oi h u m a n k i n d ' s first g e n e r a t i o n s a l s o m o t h e r e d a d e s c e n d e n t l i n e of h u m a n s , sireel u p o n t h e m b y a r a c e of d i v i n i t i e s . T h e s e d e s c e n d a n t s , t h e n a r r a t o r p e r m i t s us t o p r e s u m e , m i g h t w e l l h a v e s u c c e e d e d t o t h e i r p a t e r n a l h e r i t a g e of i m m o r t a l i t y ( o r a l o n g e v i t y of n e a r - e q u i v a l e n c e i n t h e e y e s o t m a y f l y m o r t a l s ) b u t f o r Y H W H s d e c r e e l i m i t i n g t h e m t o a m a x i m u m of 120 y e a r s . T h i s l i m i t a t i o n is s t r i k i n g o n a n u m b e r ot c o u n t s . If a p p l i e d t o t h e c e n t u r i e s b e f o r e t h e f l o o d , t h i s m i x e d b r e e d of s e m i - d i v i n e m o r t a l s lived e p h e m e r a l lives c o m p a r e d to t h e h u m a n s in t h e line ot A d a m t h r o u g h S e t h ,

154

S T O R I E S — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

Methuselah attaining the high water mark of 969 years, while his father Enoch is t h e shortest lived, fetched by God in michcareer at the age of 365. If applied to the centuries after the flood, the limitation could apply only to purebred mortals in t h e line of N o a h (the mixed breed having perished in the flood), but the shortest-lived in this register is Ν a hot at 148 years, and the first to w h o m this number 120 applies is Moses, O r is it possible that this limitation to a maximum of 120 years is to be understood as applying to a separate class of post-diluvian mortals, humans (bä'ädäm, verse 3) on their maternal side, and this despite their paternal genes (besaggäm hü' bäsär, "flesh creature nonetheless")? We should t h e n have to conclude that this line somehow managed to survive t h e flood! As unwarranted as such a conclusion would seem to be according to the biblical account, it is just such a presupposition that must he behind the midrashic story that t h e Og king of Β ash an, who was annihilated by the Israelites (Numbers 21), lived as a titanic hgure at the lime ol the flood, and managed to ride out (literallyÎ) that‫ ״‬cataclysm by hitching his mount to N o a h s ark. banciiul as is the free play of the rabbinic imagination, it is not without some basis in a close reading of a bihlk cal narrative that the rabbis will permit themselves an embroidery that seems starkly ίο contradict the hallowed text. And the pointer to the existence of a mottal breed existing both hctorc and after the flood is in verse 4, a hypotactic senlence, a concluding parenthetic notice that bridges the gap between verse 2 and verse 3; between the supernals* wiving of h u m a n women and YHWH's decree limit ing the lifetimes (‫" (כ‬the humanity which is also flesh," namely, the offspring of these unions. The hypotactic construction serves, among other effects, to highlight t h e temporal contrast between "in the days" and "as well as thereafter" A n d t h e hitherto u n m e n t to η ed -as ‫ ׳‬suc h offspring are associated w i t h — i f n o t explicitly identified w i t h — t h e Nephilim, with the progeny born by "the daughters of hä'ädam" as a conséquence ot their congress with "the sons of the elôhïm " These Nephilim, spawned (as we are now reminded) in antediluvian times, are present in their descendants—also known as titans (bcne anäq/häaanäq) or R e p h a i t e s — a s late as the time of David and as early as the time of Moses. Of all these populations, one individual alone is singled out for this mention: "Verily, only O g king ot Bash an, remained of the rest of the Rephaites" (Deuteronomy 3:11). But for these four verses in Genesis 6 we would have no idea of the provenience of these "mighty ones reputed of yore" O n the other hand, where but in t h e narrative immediately preceding the story of the flood should Scripture s authors have informed us of this miscegenate race, which somehow survived the flood and lived into the early centuries of Israelite history? Yes, these verses belong here in Genesis, and the rabbis correctly read t h e message of "in those d a y s — a n d also thereafter" T h e question we must ask, however, is what function do these titanic creatures serve in the ideational literature we call Scripture, and specifically for the introduction of the flood story? How much wiser arc we lor knowing that among the aborigines conquered by Moses and David were the titanic Og oi Bashan and Goliath oi O a t h : And h! >w does (his race figure in YHWH's motivation for bringing on the flood? T h e mating oi the male divinities with the h u m a n females does not in itself constitute mot i vat ion tor the flood. T h e h u m a n parties are victims of force majeure

ΤΗ H FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM

137

and thus absolved of any responsibility; the aggressor males are p u n i s h e d — n o t to perish in the flood — b u t by the truncated bio-span. T h e punishment of the truly and fully human race is the burden of the second part of our pericope, the death ot this race in the flood, except for the line ot Noah. And the crime is a wickedness oi such magnitude that no details or specifics need be provided; suflice it I ο say that it can be gauged, not by any act, but rather by the human mental condition: a per‫׳‬verse and stubbornly wicked imagination. Given the context, that of the preceding four verses, one can see what led Speiser to read the "facts" of those four verses as the figment of the imagination that produced them: the mythological world of paganism in which rapacious and miscegenating gods (of both sexes) bed human partners to produce such mighty heroes of renown as Gilgamesh and Achilles, I he sinfulness of such fancies lies, of course, in the misrepresentation of the nonhuman nature of God and the non-godly nature of man. T h e failure ot Speisers suggestion to command attention is due, we would suegest, to a lack of a poetic framework or underpinning. Consider Speisers own opening comment on verses 1 - 4 , in keeping with his own essentially source-critical presuppositions (the italics are mine): T h e undisguised mythology

of this

isolated fragment makes it n o t only atypical

of

the

Bible

as a it'ho/e b u t also puzzling a n d controversial in t h e e x t r e m e . Its p r o b l e m s are legion: Is w h a t we h a v e h e r e a n excerpt f r o m a fuller a c c o u n t ? W h y was s u c h a stark piece ineluded a l t o g e t h e r ‫ י‬Does its p r e s e n t place in t h e b o o k imply a specific c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e Flood? 1 ‫־‬

My own discussion of the miscegenate race is in rebuttal of such characterizations as isolated and atypicality. And the predisposition to be shocked by undisguised myrh0J0£\ in the Bible is, as we discussed in chapter 2, hased on. a misunderstanding and misrepresentation oi how Scriptures authors freely allude to or cite and exploit mythological e 1 e 111 e η t s. W h a t is it in Speisers suggestion as to the relationship of versos v8-‫ ־‬to verses 1 - 4 that will cause most s c h o l a r s to judge that he is making a huge leap, and an unwarranted one at that., in bridging the narrational gap between the two pericopes? For one, the failure to recognize that gapping is an intriguing poetic s trat egy, frequently most effective when it demands that the reader search, for the bridge. For another, how can verses 1--4 possibly be intended as the. product of a pathologteal imagination when the formulation of these verses is unquestionably one of narrational fact? Specifically: how could a pagan imagination picture Y H W H himself decreeing the punishment of this semi-divine race? (This last question is obliv10us to its obverse: How‫ ׳׳‬could a Scriptural imagination picture YHWH tolerating a class of divinities mating with humans and producing a hybrid species?) In general these questions raised by philologians fail to distinguish between the narrational tactic ity of the historian and the narrational facticity of the writer of fiction. And a vital strategy in the latter is unthinkable in the former: the unreliable or the lessthan- re 11 ah 1 e η an: at or. In respect to this strategy of the art of fiction, we should note that for all its late recognition, identification or categorization in literary criticism, it is present•—and must have been intuited by at least part of the a u d i e n c e ‫ ״‬i n the earliest of literary

156

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

productions. ( And, let us note in passing, the more subtle, the more verisimilitudinous, that is, the more artistic a caricature or a lampoon, the more likely that many will interpret it as a realistically intended portrait, faithfully or falsely representing its subject.) W h e n e v e r a writer refuses to signal to the least perceptive of his audience that h e is engaging in satire or parody, in fanciful figuration of praise or criticism, in parable or allegory—rather t h a n in straightforward n a r r a t i o n — t h a t writer is, for that part of his audience, playing t h e role of the unreliable narrator A n d in the ideological or ideational fiction of Scripture, that is how we must view t h e narrator of story/history. W h e t h e r in Eden in respect to t h e historicity of an A d a m mated to an Eve built up from his rib, of a N o a h punching the tickets of every pair of every species that is to travel with him, of a David conquering Goliath or seducing his loyal colonels wife, the narrator who permits his reader to read him as reliable (and omniscient) historiographer is indeed an unreliable narrator. Writing as they did for audiences whose members differed greatly in their levels or capacities for understanding, Scriptures authors must have reconciled themselves to the likelihood of being misunderstood more often t h a n not by the larger number of their readers. But in the case of a passage such as the one before us, seemingly so raw in the acceptance oi the mythological staple that the two races, h u m a n and divine, could not only mate but produce fertile offspring, the biblical author/narrator could signal his exploitation of the unreliable narrator strategy by means of a number of exceptional deployments of diction, syntax, and literary style. In terms of diction: T h e use of t h e adjective "good" for h u m a n women as perceived by the divine beings is ambiguous: good looking, well-mannered, eugenic, or morally correct? T h e singular appearance of the verb yädön in Y H W H ' s soliloquy, the stem suggesting "judgment," but that sense altogether inappropriate in t h e context and the meaning of the term not terribly relevant since t h e context itself forces us to read cndmancc into it. T h e apparent contraction of the c o n j u n c t i o n a ser to se (rare in early biblical Hebrew) and its joining with the adverb gam "also" and followed by iifr bäsär "he (is) flesh;" yielding the sense "for h e also is flesh" (as compared to the fully h u m a n breed of hä'ädäm) rather t h a n — a s in our own rendering—‫"״‬in that he is also flesh." T h e use of the term häädäm "humankind" for t h e purebred h u m a n race in verses 1, 2, and 4, and, in verse 3 — w i t h the preposition bd—for the ha If-hum an and half-divine breed; a breed of whose existence we do not become aware until verse 4. In terms of style and syntax: T h e formal paratactic construction of verses 1, 2, and 3, in contrast with the hypotactic construction of verse 4. T h e recognition that this requires verse 4 to be read as a parenthesis, a parenthesis that anomalously ends the pericope, and forces t h e reader to search lor the place where it semantl· cully beltings. Only t h e n does the reader realize that the parenthesis must be read between verses 2 and 3, that only so can sense be made of the divine decree in verse 3. All this syntactic complication is in the interest of the gapping and bridging strategy. But why the recourse to such a strategy at all? W h y not formulate verse 4 hypotactically and place it between verses 2 and Part of the answer 1> of course, that by introducing the Nephilim‫ ״‬- w h o by the logic of the larger narrative could not have survived the flood, yet somehow managed to do >0- - a t the end oi the pericope it ties their existence, or rati 1er their; re‫׳־‬

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

puted existence, into the judgment of Y H W H in the very next verse on the perse‫״‬ vering perversity of the human imagination. So, the deployment of anomalous die‫״‬ tion and tricky syntactical construction in verses 1 - 4 , which constitutes a pericope oi‫ ״‬sorts, presents the reader with a puzzle, a challenge η ‫ ו‬our poetic wit; a challenge we shall never meet unless we adduce the relevant allusions elsewhere in Scripture and then return to Genesis to icalize that the pericope of sorts, verses 1 - 4 , can only make sense when tied to the continuing pericope in verses 5••8‫״‬, the role 01‫׳‬ function ot a misguided sense of the world, natural and supernatural, in the disasters ensuing from the diseased imagination, or possibly from the kinds of conduct that will characterize a humanity which owns a distorted view of reality. These last two alternative understandings of Scripture's teaching (kerygma) in regard to the relationship between theory and practice, ideology and praxis are both present in verse 5. Questions of parataxis and hypotaxis in form and meaning leave moot the question of this verse's correct translation. Our translation, subordinating the conjunction waw to the preceding kl, renders the perverse human imagination as identical with "humankind's great wickedness." T h e sentence may be read, how‫•׳‬ ever, as pointing to two separate (though not necessarily unrelated) aspects of h u m a n deficiency: " Y H W H took note that great indeed was the wickedness of humankind on earth, and also that the shape of his deepest thoughts was ever and yet evil." TWO additional stylistic peculiarities must be noted in the second half of our pericope. O n e is the pleonastic appearance of hä'äres "the earth / the world" in verses 5 and 6, and of häadämä "the earth / the ground" in verse 7. Doubt that these are redundancies will be dispelled, even in the translation, by omitting of these words and asking if anything is lost thereby. T h e other peculiarity is in verse 7, where the mankind (häadäm) to be blotted out in Y H W H s soliloquy is glossed as an entity constituted of man (ädäm) plus the whole range of animals of land and sky. That this gloss is free direct discourse goes without saying. A definition of humankind is superfluous in itself, and particularly so in the mental processes of the Deity engaged in internal dialogue. But the perplexity of superfluity is compounded with that of incongruity. And together with the redundancies of the world, the earth, and the ground finds its solution in a metaphor rich with meaning. O n the one hand, the repetitions ot earth and world and soil emphasize the distance beUveen the !!!comparability of this realm of human beings and the realm of the ereator who‫ ׳‬observes them from on high. T h e image is reminiscent of an infinitely resou reef 111 scientist in his laboratory, creating and testing life forms in a microcosinic culture. O n e life form in particular he has provided with so rich an ecology and endo wed with such potentiality and freedom as to warrant from it the highest of expectations. Indeed, so central is this life form to its creator that all the other life forms were created only in conjunction with and subordination to it, even to such a degree that they can be viewed as constituents of, rather than entities separate from, that life form so replete with capacities and freedom. A n d such is the disappoint ment of the creator of this experiment that he cannot but choose to utterly destroy the disappointing creature and his so painstakingly fashioned environment. Utterly, except for one exceptional strain of that species, exceptional in a way yet to be made clear.

140

Episode B. Introduction

STORIKS-

"ΊΉΗ PRlMhVAL HISTORY"

(II)

(9) This, now, is the story ol Noah en 1 to the Deity was Noah ever

Noah alone wholly righteous in his age; obedh 10)‫)״‬

Noah sired three sons: Shem, Ham, and

Japheth. (11) T h e earth, in T h e Deity's judgment, was corrupt, earth being rife with lawlessness, (12) so that when God passed earth in review: lo, corrupt indeed it was — every species of flesh had perverted its course on earth. ( 6 : 9 - 1 2 )

The careful reader will have noted that the heading of § A of the pericope, 6 : 1 - 8 , has been changed from hrrroJuetion (I) to Prelude, a n d now section §B is headed Introduction. T h e change requires no justification. T h e intricately composed and many-faceted concatenation of metaphors that constitutes § A has but one item in c o m m o n with §B: Deity s recognition of the worlds evil. N o a h figures not at all in the Prelude until the last verse, and then only as the one exception to the ubiquitous malfeasance. T h e introduction proper to the story of N o a h ties in then with the mention of N o a h in verse S, and begins his ,story by stressing the reason for his having found favor. Keeping in mind that both Y H W H and Elohim are proper names for the Deity, it is readily apparent why the narrator would want to distance the Deity from the bene hcflohun who figure so importantly in §A. This he does by opting consistently for Y H W H in this pericope. Beginning now with Noah's righteousness and obedience, these qualities are defined not in relation to the Creator as person, hut as that impersonal abstraction of all-encompassing power and morality in both verses 9 and 1 1, hiClolüm. G o d as person, Elohim, appears first as the reviewing magistrate in verse 12, and will c o n t i n u e 10 be featured as such in pericope § C (verses 1 3 and 17). It affinity, rather t h a n discrepancy, is to he looked for in pericopes §A and what better evidence than the conspicuous predilection 111 §B for the term haärcs, which in its two appearances in §A seemed quite redundant. In §B now the term appears three times; t h e first occasion in the omniscient narrators voice featuring the corruption of the world by I leaven's standards, namely the breach of morality; the second confirming the narrator's statement by picturing God's personal confrontation of that corruption of the world and then underlining the extent of that corruption, h i t h e r t o expressed by the earth as subject of the passive (niphal) verb, by the same verb in the active (hiphil) conjunction with "all flesh" as its subject, and again 1 'on earth" Despite this repetitiveness, the nature of this perverse c o n d u c t , apposite apparently both to ratiocinative human and to dumb beast as well, remains unspecified. T h e possibility that this represents a gapping strategy will alert us to possible clues in episodes to come for the bridging of such a gap.

Episode C. Noah Is Informed (13) God then addressed Noah: "Finis to all tlesh —is the verdict I have reached. So rife is earth with lawlessness theirs. So must 1 lav them waste together with earth. (14) Make yourself, then, an ark of gopher-wood; oi compartments make the ark; caulk it with pitch, inside and out. (15) And here is how ‫ ץ‬ou are to construct it: 300 cubits, the length of the ark; 50 cubits, its width; and ‫ בך‬cuhii.s. its height. (16) Light ‫׳‬openings

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬ provide in rhe ark, bring rhe lintels to a cubit f r o m [the deck] above; a n e n t r a n c e f r o m t h e side of t h e ark provide; with a b o t t o m deck, a second deck, and a third deck m a k e it. ( ι 7) I, for my part, am about 1.0 bring o n t h e D e l u g e — w a t e r s u p o n t h e e a r t h — to waste f r o m u n d e r h e a v e n all flesh in w h i c h t h e r e is b r e a t h of life; e v e r y t h i n g o n e a r t h shall expire. ( 1 8 ) But 1 will establish my c o v e n a n t w i t h you, t h a t you may e n t e r t h e a r k — y o u , your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives w i t h you. (1:9) A n d of everyt h i n g alive, of all flesh, a pair ol each shall you bring i n t o t h e ark t o survive a l o n g w i t h y o u — m a l e a n d f e m a l e shall they be. (20) Of t h e birds of every species, of t h e beasts of every species, oi land crawlers of every species a pair of e a c h will c o m e 10 you for survival. (2 1 ) You, for your pari, i e t c h some of every permissible edible and store is away, to p r o v i d e yourself and t h e m w i t h food." (22) N o a h did so —-just as G o d had bidden h i m , just so did he do. ( G e n e s i s22-[1 :‫)א‬

The logic of our narrative requires, to be sure, that Noah be informed of the imp e n d i n g d e l u g e a n d a d v i s e d as t o G o d s p l a n f o r t h e s u r v i v a l of N o a h s l i n e . T w o e l e m e n t s i n G o d ' s a d d r e s s t o N o a h a r e w o r t h y of b r i e f n o t i c e h e r e f o r t h e i r c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e U t n a p i s h t i m s t o r y ( i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a m o r e d e t a i l e d c o m p a r i s o n t h a t w i l l f o b l o w ) . O n e is t h e d i f f e r i n g s h a p e a n d d i m e n s i o n s of t h e v e s s e l s t h a t w i l l r i d e o u t t h e s t o r m ; t h e o t h e r is t h e i m p a r t i n g t o t h e m o r t a l of D e i t y ' s m o t i v e i n b r i n g i n g o n t h e c a t a c l y s m . T h i s l a t t e r m a y s t r i k e t h e r e a d e r as r e p e t i t i v e , i n t h a t it is t h e t h i r d t i m e t h a t it is e x p r e s s e d . T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e r e p e t i t i o n , h o w e v e r , m u s t b e g a u g e d b y t h e t o t a l a b s e n c e of m o t i v a t i o n t o r t h e f l o o d u n l e a s h e d a g a i n s t m a n k i n d i n t h e U t n a p i s h t i m story. N o t e w o r t h y a l s o is t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n as t o t h e flood is g i v e n i n d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e of r e m a r k a b l e l e n g t h : a full n i n e v e r s e s . A n o t h e r f e a t u r e of t h e d i a l o g u e t h a t t h e n a r r a t o r p u t s i n t o t h e m o u t h of G o d d i s c l o s e s a n a r t i s t r y t h a t h a s e s c a p e d b o t h o b s e r v a t i o n a n d c o m m e n t . T h e d o o m i m p e n d i n g o v e r h u m a n i t y is n o t r e v e a l e d t o N o a h in a c o n t i n u o u s flow, b u t is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o p a r t s . First, t h e v e r d i c t of g u i l t a n d t h e s e n t e n c e of d o o m : "all f l e s h t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e e a r t h " w i l l b e l a i d w a s t e ; t h e m a n n e r ot t h e s e n t e n c e s e x e c u t i o n is n o t m e n t i o n e d . T h e n c o m e s t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o b u i l d t h e t h r e e - s t o r i e d w o o d e n v e s s e l . T h e c a s u a l r e a d e r — a n d m o s t of us a r e s u c h m o s t of t h e t i m e — k n o w i n g t h e p l o t i n a d v a n c e , f o r g e t s t h a t N o a h h a s n o i d e a of w h a t is c o m i n g , a n d so m i s s e s t h e a s t o n i s h m e n t w i t h w h i c h N o a h m u s t have attended

t h e d e t a i l s of t h e h u g e b u i l d i n g p r o j e c t , a n d

misses as w e l l

the

s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e l a b e l for t h e ( a b j e c t - t o - b e c o n s t r u c t e d ; it is n o t c a l l e d a s h i p ( f o r which Hebrew has a word) but a ubox/chest/ark" O n l y after this comes t h e disclosure t h a t t h e d e v a s t a t i o n is t o b e w r e a k e d by w a t e r . T h i s d e p l o y m e n t of G o d s m o n o l o g u e m a k e s possible a f o u r t h d e c l a r a t i o n ot creature d o o m , t o b e i m m e d i a t e l y followed by t h e g r a c i o u s p r o m i s e (b'rlt " c o v e n a n t , " by s y n e c d o c h e of w h o l e f o r t h e p a r t ) t h a t t h e v e s s e l t o h e b u i l t will spell s a l v a t i o n f o r h u m a n i t y a n d all l i v i n g s p e c i e s as w e l l . T w o a d d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of d i c t i o n r e q u i r e c o m m e n t ( b o t h of w e i g h t f o r - - o r rather, against-

source-division). T h e n a m e for t h e destructive p h e n o m e n o n to b e

a c t i v a t e d b y G o d is mabbûL

g l o s s e d by G o d h i m s e l f as " w a t e r u p o n t h e e a r t h . " T h i s

term, w h i c h appears only here and o n c e again in Scripture, m e a n s n e i t h e r flood, f o r w h i c h b i b l i c a l H e b r e w h a s a w o r d , n o r s t o r m , f o r w h i c h it h a s a p l e t h o r a of t e r m s . T h e s e c o n d f e a t u r e is t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e f o o d t h a t N o a h is t o s t o r e as — i n o u r t r a n s l a t i o n — p e r m i s s i b l e e d i b l e s . T h e H e b r e w mäaakäl

a

ser yë'âkel,

liter-

142

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

ally " e a t a b l e e d i b l e " p o i n t s to p e r m i s s i b l e r a t h e r t h a n t o p a l a t a b l e o r digestible. W h a t foods, t h e n , a r e n o t p e r m i s s i b l e : W h a t , f u r t h e r m o r e , i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n is t h e p o i n t of t h e s e e m i n g l y r e d u n d a n t a d d i t i o n t h a t t h e f o o d s t o r e is to provide

your-

self and them with food!

Episode D. Noah Is Informed (I!), or Noah Alerted: The Rain Is Imminent (τ) Y H W H said to Noah, u G o inro the ark, you and all your family. Yes, you alone in this generation have I in my judgment found righteous. (2) Of every clean animal admit with you seven pair, male and mate; and of the animals which unclean are, one pair, male and mate, ( 5) Of the birds of the sky, seven pair, male and female, to perpetuate live seed on e a r t h s surface. (4) For in but seven days from now i shall make rain fall upon earth, for forty days and forty nights; and so will I blot out from everywhere on earth that which I have hroughi into being." (5) A n d N o a h did just as Yi 1W1 I had bidden him. (Genesis 7 : 1 - 5 ) O n c e again w e h a v e c h a n g e d t h e h e a d i n g s of o u r p e r i c o p e s , § C a n d §13, so as n o t t o c o n c e d e t h e p o i n t l e s s r e d u n d a n c y of t h e t w o passages t h a t , i n t h e v i e w of s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m , u n d e r l i n e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e in s o u r c e - p r o v e n a n c e a l r e a d y b e t r a y e d by t h e use of G o d ( E l o h i m ) in §G a n d of Y H W H h e r e in § D . W e d o n o t c o n c e d e pointless

r e d u n d a n c y , b u t n e i t h e r d o we d e n y t h e appearance

of r e d u n d a n c y . O u r

( s e l f - i m p o s e d ) task ot p o e t i c analysis r e q u i r e s us t o c o m p a r e t h e t w o p e r i c o p e s in r e s p e c t t o similarities a n d d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h a v i e w t o d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e p u r p o s e f u l i n t e n t of a single a u t h o r of b o t h p e r i c o p e s . T h e t w o p e r i c o p e s are c e r t a i n l y p a r a l l e l in m a n y ways. B o t h b e g i n w i t h D e i t y a d d r e s s i n g N o a h , anei b o t h c o n s i s t e n t i r e l y of m o n o l o g u e , e x c e p t for t h e c o n c l u d ing n o t i c e in b o t h t h a t N o a h did e x a c t l y as D e i t y h a d b i d d e n h i m . O n e c l e a r diff e r e n c e is t h e a p p e a r a n c e of t h e t w o n a m e s for Deity. A s w e h a v e r e p e a t e d l y stressed, m o s t r e c e n t l y in o u r discussion of §B, t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of b o t h Y H W H a n d E l o h i m as p r o p e r n a m e s for t h e D e i t y d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e c h o i c e of o n e o r t h e o t h e r b e justifiable i n every case in t e r m s of t h e s u b t l e t i e s of a passage's c o n t e n t a n d c o n t e x t . I n t h e case of our t w o passages we w o u l d b e h a r d - p r e s s e d t o argue t h a t t h e n u a n c e of g r e a t e r i n t i m a c y or p e r s o n h o o d or b e n e v o l e n c e is s u c h as t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c h o i c e of Y H W H in § D as a g a i n s t t h a t of E l o h i m in § C . I n t e r e s t i n g , for t h e source-critical, c l a i m t h a t j a n d Ρ passages ( m a r k e d as such by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e hallm a r k s Y H W H a n d E l o h i m ) are also d i s t i n g u i s h e d by parallel d i s t i n c t i o n s in diet i o n , arc t h e o p e n i n g verses of §B a n d §1). T h e f o r m e r (6:0) h a s N o a h a r i g h t e o u s m a n (saddk/) in his g e n e r a t i o n s ( d o n ' M i r ) o b e d i e n t t o Deity (/1JL7ö/üm h e r e , a n d also in verse ϊ ϊ , but E l o h i m

11

God" in verse 1 2); t h e l a t t e r (7:1 ) has Yl 1W11 d e c l a r -

ing t h a t h e h a s f o u n d N o a h a l o n e r i g h t e o u s (saddle{) i n his g e n e r a t i o n (dar). S i m i l a r i t i e s in § G a n d § D , read as r e d u n d a n c i e s a n d p o i n t i n g t o d i f f e r e n t sources, are: 1) t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t s of t h e flood t o N o a h ; 2) t h e i n t e n t t o b l o t o u t all living t h i n g s ; a n d ‫ )ך‬t h e d e s t r u c t i o n t raced t o t h e lawlessness of t h e s e c r e a t u r e s . In respect

to t h e s e similarities we would

point

to t h e following differences.

W h e r e a s t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t in SG is m a d e l o n g b e f o r e t h e flood, calls for N o a h t o

T H F FLOODS OF NOAH A N D U T N A P I S H T I M

143

build the ark, and gives no indication how long it will (or actually did) take to build, the announcement in §D follows the completion of the ark, and calls for boarding it due to the imminence of the rain. As for the righteousness of N o a h and the wickedness of all other men and species, §C specifies the latter and implies the former, while §D makes the former explicit and implies the later. A n d , indeed, in regard to the similarity in diction pointed out above in 6:9 and 7:1, a famous ambiguity expounded by the rabbis in 6:9 finds its resolution in 7:1. N o a h s "righteous‫·׳‬ ness in his generations" (note the plural, which prompted our translation "age") can mean that he was righteous compared to the pervasive wickedness of his age, or that his righteousness was even more remarkable for the example of his contemporaries. N o a h in 7:1 is judged by Y H W H as "alone righteous in his generation" (note the singular). There is only one standard of righteousness—God's—for all generations, and N o a h met that standard: no one else did. T h e chief difference between the two pericopes, the specification of a single pair of each species in §G and ot a single pair of unclean species as against seven pair of the clean, as has been discussed above, need not be read as discrepant. T h e ins truetion as to the animals in §G is synoptic - - ;1 pair of each species-—minimally, and refined in the resumptive § 0 into two orders oi pairing: single pairs for the unclean, seven pairs for the clean. We have thus argued that neither discrepancies nor pointless redundancy can be upheld as evidence for a conflation here of those different sources, bor all that, our poetic analysis requires us to seek for the purpose of the tricky deployment here of the synoptic-resumptive and as well for the unquestionable redundancies that are a feature of the entire narrative. Thus, we cannot overlook that this last pericope constitutes the fifth time that the living créatures are mentioned as slated for destruction (this time by "erasure, blotting out," which as Speiser pointed out evokes the imagery of the inscription on a clay tablet destroyed by immersion in water). T h e difference between §D and §C lies in the order of destruction and refuge. T h e latter begins with the doom in 6:13, resumes that motif in 6:17, and t h e n proceeds to the ark as refuge for N o a h and his company; in §D the entry into the ark for the righteous N o a h comes first (7:1) and the doom of all others constitute the Deity's closing words (7:4). A n d , yet again, as in the three pericopes that precede it, the earth (/lä'äres), the habitat created by God for humans, beasts, and birds is mentioned three times.

Episode E. E71teri71g the Ark (6) N o a h n o w was 6 c ο years old when the Deluge t o o k p l a c e — w a t e r s o n e a r t h . (7) N o a h e n t e r e d — and his sons and his wife and his son s wives w i t h h i m — into t h e ark, [for shelter] t r o m the waters ut t h e Deluge. (8) O f all t h e c l e a n beasts n o w , a n d of t h e beasts w h i c h u n c l e a n are, and of t h e fowl and e v e r y t h i n g w h i c h scurries on t h e ground, (9) pairs of e a c h canu‫ ־‬tn N o a h t o t h e ark, male and female, even, as G u d had charged N o a h . { ί ο ) It was in t h e seven-days time (earlier m e n t i o n e d ( thai t h e waters of t h e l \ ‫ ־‬l u g e occurred on e a n h . (11) N o w

in t h e fSooth veai o! N o a h V lili-iime, in M o n t h

m o n t h — o n t h i s day p r e c i s e l y

2 un Pay

17 ol t h e

l:d all t h e w e l l s p r i n g s ! >1 ( a v a l I V e p c r a c k o p e n a n d

t h e s l u i c e g a t e s oi h e a v e n -praiLi ί ‫ ׳‬p e n . ( 1 2 ) Î h e r a i n s e< ‫ וווי‬i n u e d ! >n earl 11 lor !011 y days

!44 and forty nighis.) (

S T O R I I - S ‫ ־‬- " I HI· 1>U1MI‫־‬VA1

IIISTORY"

|Yes,) on this very day did N o a h e n t e r — a n d S h e m , H a m and

Japheth (Noah's sons), a n d Noah's wite, and d i e trio o( his son's wives w i t h t h e m — i n t o the ark. ( 14) [Yes] they and all wild beasts according to t h e i r species, and all grazing beasts according to their species, and all beasties w h i c h scurry o n e a r t h according to their species, a n d all fowl according to t h e i r species: every bird, every winged t h i n g . (15) T h u s t h e y c a m e to N o a h to t h e ark, pairs of all flesh creatures in w h i c h abides t h e b r e a t h of life, (τ 6a) A n d those arriving n o w — m a l e and f e m a l e of every creature c a m e , even as G o d had charged h i m . ( 7 : 6 - 1 6 a )

T h e above translation differs in minor respects from my earlier translation, which was designed primarily to highlight the separate source elements read into this pericope. In my preliminary discussion of these elements I disposed of the criteria by which scholarship has assigned the contents of this pericope to Ρ and J, and so have been been able to dispense here with the italics. In the interest of a poetical analysis I have used paragraph indentations, parentheses, and rubrics in boldface type, so that the reader ma ν review‫ ׳‬this pericope with an eye to the disposition of paratactic or hypotactic syntax in the original Hebrew. Thus, for example, the rubrics now and Yes in boldface, signaling hypotactic syntax (verses 6, 8 - 9 , 11, 13-14, and 16), and the absence of these (verses 7, 10, 12, and 15) indicating paratactic syntax. Let us recall that the normal usage in narrative is paratactic syntax (verbal clauses, introduced by waw-conversive construction), while hypotactic syntax (nominal clauses with following verbs in the normal sense-functions ot perfect and imperfect) expresses [‫ ן‬subordination, often a parenthetical or flashback aside. Consider, then, how anomalous is this pericope. Ot a total oi eleven verses, seven arc hypotactic in structure, only four arc paratactic; the narrative brunt is earned by the former. Not only that, however: Of the four verses in paratactic syntax, two— verses 10 and 12—arc parenthetic in 1 unction, hence subordinate in this respect to the hypotactic verses, which are normally subordinate in function. T h a t leaves us with only two paratactic verses out ot eleven, and of these two, verse 15 is a kind of resumptive coda, supererogatory in respect to information and semantically as gratuitous as the final verse that is attached to it (in hypotactic construction). W h a t can be the point of these so consistent departures from standard style? Another problem: W h a t significance did our narrator attach to numerical tidbits as to twice inform us that the Deluge took place in the 6 ooth year of N o a h s lifetime? A n d this without, telling us whether it was possibly the day after his 600th birthday or the day before his 601st, W hich, of course, raises the question as to why precision matters in regard to the onset of the deluge on Day 17 of M o n t h 2, a precision that is twice commended to our attention by the formulation "on this day" for the onset of the waters (verse 11 ) and a on that very day" for the entry into the ark (verse 13). In respect to this last notice which, tied in with verse 14, states baldly that all the humans and all the animals filed over the one gangplank and through the one door in the arks side in a single day, is it idle to ask whether this does not run counter to the logic of 7:1-5? There, the seven days notice of the flood's advent, following upon the bidding to begin the boarding of the ark, seems to be in recognition of the many days it would require to settle the multitudinous s p e c i e s i n t o t h e a r k . In :‫־‬v s u r e , t h e i n t e n t b e h i n d v e r s e i 3 m a y h e t h a t t h e a n i m a l s

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

t o o k s i x d a y s a n d p a r t of t h e s e v e n t h t o g o a b o a r d , a n d t h a t o n l y t h e l a s t of t h e s e , together w i t h t h e h u m a n s , boarded t h e ark m i n u t e s before t h e waters b e g a n

to

p o u r . B u t if t h i s w a s t h e i n t e n t , w h y so b l u r r e d , w h y i n s u c h c o n t r a s t t o t h e t i m e of t h e w a t e r s ' o n s e t , t h e t i m e of t h e b o a r d i n g , b o t h o f t h e s e o n t h a t f a t e f u l d a y i n t h e s e c o n d m o n t h of N o a h s 6 0 0 t h y e a r ? T h e p r o b l e m of n a r r a t i v e r e d u n d a n c y , n o t e d i n r e s p e c t t o p r e v i o u s p e r i c o p e s , is s o r e m a r k a b l e a f e a t u r e of t h i s p e r i c o p e t h a t it w a r r a n t s a r e p e t i t i o n oi t h e t e x t , a r r a n g e d s o as t o f a c i l i t a t e o u r g r a s p of it.s e x t e n t ; (6) N o a h n o w was 600 years ok! when

(11) N o w in t h e 6 0 0 t h year of N o a h ' s lilei tme, in M o n t h 2 o n Day 17 of t h e month.— o n this day precisely --

did all the wellsprings of Great t h e Deluge took place-

Deluge crack o p e n a n d t h e

waters o n e a r t h .

sluice gates of h e a v e n spring open. ( 1 2 ) T h e rains c o n t i n u e d o n e a r t h for forty days and forty nights.

(7) N o a h e n t e r e d — a n d his sons,

( 1 3 ) [Yes] o n this very day did N o a h e n t e r —

a n d his wife a n d his sons' wives

and Shem, H a m and Japheth

w i t h h i m — i n t o t h e ark,

N o a h s sons,

[for shelter] f r o m t h e water of

a n d N o a h ' s wife arid t h e trio of

t h e Deluge.

his sons wives w i t h t h e m ™ i n t o t h e ark. ( 1 4 ) [Yes] t h e y a n d all wild beasts a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r species,

(8) Of all t h e clean beasts n o w

a n d all [grazing] beasts a c c o r d ‫׳‬

and of t h e beasts w h i c h u n c l e a n

ing to t h e i r species, and all

are, a n d of t h e fowl a n d e v e r y

beasties w h i c h scurry o n e a r t h

t h i n g w h i c h scurries o n rhe

a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r species, a n d

ground

all fowl according t o t h e i r species: every bird, every winged thing.

(9) pairs of each c a m e t.o N o a h η t h e ark,

(15) T h u s they c a m e to N o a h to the ark, pairs oi all llesh creatures i n w h i c h abides t h e breath of life. A n d those arriving n o w

m a l e a n d female, e v e n as G o d had charged N o a h . (10) It was in t h e s e v e n days t i m e [earlier m e n t i o n e d ] t h a t t h e waters of t h e Deluge o c c u r r e d o n

male a n d f e m a l e of every flesh c r e a t u r e c a m e , e v e n as G o d h a d charged him.

earth.

It is a t e l l i n g c o m m e n t a r y o n s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m t h a t t h e a b o v e a r r a n g e m e n t of p e r i c o p e §E yields w h a t j- and-P‫׳‬ba>ed analysis h a s n e v e r p r o d u c e d : t w o s e l f - s t a n d i n g

164

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

complete versions of a narrative episode, virtually identical in content, and arranged in consecution such that either the first sequence (verses 6 - 1 ο) or the second (verses 1 1 -1 ()) could he omitted without any loss whatever to the narrative flow. This episode is a marvel of poind ess ly redundant repel it ion: (1) Twice (in verses 6 and 11) is the onset of the waters dated to Noah's 600th year; (2); Twice (in verses ‫ ך‬and .13) do Noah, sons, wife, and sons' wives—in that identical malechauvinist order enter the ark; (3) Twice (in verses 8 - 9 and 14-16) do all the animals come to the ark, in pairs, male and female; (4) Twice (in verses 9 and 16) the arrival of the animals is characterized by a strange formulation (in almost identical diction): they come, these multitudinous species—•not in keeping with God's prediction or promise to Noah, but—according to what he had charged or commanded him. I will defer conjecture as to the poetic design behind such redundancy, for it will continue to characterize this narrative. (That it is indeed by design must be the premise and conclusion of a poetic address to a literature that is everywhere else noted for its economy and density.) I will, however, focus on the last redundancy, a redundancy not only pointless in itself (else it would not be a redundancy) but contextually nonsensical. A n d , the poetical purpose of the ubiquitous redunclancies will be foreshadowed in our argument for the poetical purposefulness of this contrived absurdity. As in this pericope we have two tellings of the coming of the animals to the ark, so do we have earlier in our narrative two anticipations (in the words of the Deity) of that event. In §C, in 6:19 the verb used is tâbï\ the imperfect tense. In my first translation (so my manuscript bears witness) 1 rendered this verb "take (into the ark)" In my revised translation the word is "bring" This revision followed a prior revision of the rendering of Deity s word in §D, 7:2. I lere the verb (again in the imperfect tense hut. imperative modality) is lufLiaiyleka, which 1 had first rendered "letch yourself," but which now reads, "admit with you" I h e reason tor this revisum was the realization that "fetch (for) yourself' implied that Deity was charging Noah with responsibility for rounding up the pairs ol every species. Since such a charge would have constituted an existential absurdity, the newer (and alte )get her legitimate) rendering suggested itself. I then backtracked to 6:19 and changed the innocent enough "take (into the ark)" to "bring" so as to conform the verbal usage with that in the following verse 20. Here the qal of the verb is featured in a seemingly redundant addition that "a pair of each will come (yäböü) to you for survi val" T h e redundancy is thus resolved by the need to clarify God's declaration as constituting a prediction and not a command. This should not obscure from our consciousness that the ambiguity in the sense of the verse is a function of our overlooking that one of the two senses is, in context, absurd. In any case this prediction by Deity in §C and in §D is fulfilled in the two notices in §E (7:9 and 15) that the pairs did indeed come to Noah. In both notices, however, the incongruous addition as God had charged him is a hack-reference to the silly ambiguity in 6: t9 and 7:2, Let us see now how the author (or should we speak rather of the unreliable narrat or) expands this initial bit of silliness in pericope §E. T h e first notice of the animais' arrival in verses 8 - 9 is in hypotactic construction, here in. unjustifiable departurc from the normal paratactic construction, as indeed in the preceding verse

Tf I If FLOODS OF Ν ΟΛΗ Λ Ν Π UTNAIMSH ΠΜ

1 \‫ך‬

7· This anomaly, however, is only parr oi‫ ׳‬a masterpiece of hefuddling redundance, for verse 13 tells us in (formally and justifiable) hypotactic construction that the humans entered the ark. (Note the utter gratuitousness of the identification of Shem, Ham, and Japheth as " N o a h s sons") Verse 14 adds: They (the humans) as well as the animals, and the latter are, in an excess of pleonastic ontology and taxonomy, glossed by four terms for four categories, each specified by according to their species and the last reiterated as every bird, every winged thing, as if to remind us that such ratites as the ostrich are for all their flightlessness fowl nonetheless. T h e n verse 15 tells us in normal paratactic construction that they—all flesh endowed with animating spirit—came in pairs "to Noah, to the ark." This is followed by verse 16 in hypotactic construction, a parenthetic assurance to the reader, that "now as for those c o m m g , male and female of all flesh came." A n d this with the addition, "as God had charged h i m " Pity the poor translator! Or rather, pity the good translator! Pity the poor reader, victim alike, alas, of good translator and wily author. A n d pity the scientific Bible scholar. It is with no thought of avenging himself on Scripture's authors or editors that he labors with dissecting scalped to sunder into historically meaningful snippets what they created and joined in tautological wedlock.

Episode

F, Deluge

and

Destruction

(16b) Y H W H b a t t e n e d h i m in. ( 17a) T h e Deluge c o n t i n u e d forty days o n t h e e a r t h . ( 1 7 h ) A s t h e waters increased greatly on e a r t h , they buoyed up t h e ark and it lifted free f r o m t h e e a r t h . (18) A s t h e water intensified a n d increased greatly (‫ ווי‬t h e e a r t h t h e ark m o v e d on t h e water's suri ace. ( 1 y) Now 7 t h e waters intensilying very greatly on e a r t h , they blanketed e v e n the highest m o u n t a i n s that are u n d e r t h e sky everywhere: (20a) 15 cubits a b o v e [them] did t h e waters prevail [lit., "intensify"]. (20b) W i t h rhe b l a n k e t i n g of t h e m o u n t a i n s , (21) all flesh creatures t h a t scurry o n eart h expired — in d i e category of fowl, of cattle, of wild beasts, of every swarm-breed t h a t t e e m s o n e a r t h — a n d all h u m a n k i n d as well. ( 2 2 ) Yes, e v e r y t h i n g t h a t [has] t h e b r e a t h of life-spirit in its nostrils, of every [category] t h a t is o n dry land, died. (23) T h u s did h e blot out all existing t h i n g s t h a t are o n t h e surface of t h e ground, inclusive of h u m a n k i n d [and e x t e n d i n g ] t o herbivores, t o beasties a n d to sky-birds. W i t h t h e m erased f r o m e a r t h , t h e r e r e m a i n e d only N o a h a n d t h a t w i t h h i m in t h e ark. (24) T h e waters intensified o n e a r t h for 150 days. ( 7 : 1 0 b - 2 4 )

Except for the number forty (days), supposedly a round number, in verse 16, and the number 150 days, supposedly not a round number, in verse 24, there is no good reason, even by the dubious criteria of source-criticism, to assign any part of this pericope to one source rather than another. (Speiser for example, makes no attempt to justify the division—which he accepts — according to sources.) T h e only pressure for division at all is the presumption that the many redundancies are explainable only as the sewing together of pieces from two original and parallel narratives. Why an editor should choose to piece together such repetitious snippets is a question altogether ignored. Interestingly em ugh ne example of striking red 1111-

166

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

daricy in two verses universally recognized as assignable to j and Ρ respectively n e e d n o t be r e d u n d a n c y at alb As our translation reveals, t h e increase or swelling of t h e waters in verse 17 explicitly accounts tor t h e arks lift-off f r o m t h e ground, while in verse 18 t h e intensification of t h e waters' swell results in t h e ark's movem e n t , h e a d e d for t h e m o u n t a i n top in respect to w h i c h t h e b l a n k e t i n g waters of verse 19 are a proleptic h i n t . But r e d u n d a n c y t h e r e is in this passage of seven verses, e n o u g h perhaps to justify three or four hypothetical sources. T h e intensification of t h e water's rise is m e n t i o n e d five times, featuring the verb gbr ‫ ״‬t o be strong" a n d t h e verb rb' "to be numerous, much." T h e expression ' 1 the earth" haäre§, ever so supererogatory (as we n o t e d ) in preceding pericopes, appears eight times, and twice more in t h e synonymous adämä "ground" or horäbä "dry ground." In t h e space of three verses ( 2 1 - 2 3 ) three verbs appear b e t o k e n i n g t h e e x t i n c t i o n of animal life (gu>\ mût, mhh). In respect: to these last verses, t h e careful reader of t h e H e b r e w text will note at least three anomalies in t h e expressions for the animal life extinguished: 1. In verse 3, the generic term for animal life is bäsär "flesh." This term appears six times earlier !11 our narrative, but never modified as it is here by an adjective. T h e adjective is the active participle of t h e verb nn.s, normally rendered into English by "creep, c r a w l " or t h e like; this participial adjective appears w i t h a n o u n form of t h e same stem: r ernes. Since this n o u n oit en appears 111 a c o n t e x t w i t h o t h e r terms in series b e t o k e n i n g wild and domestic animals a n d birds, we h a v e rendered t h e n o u n by "beasties" that is, small or tiny creatures and t h e participle by "scurrying." T h i s participle appears twice in Genesis 1. i n 1:21 it appears as adjective w i t h hol nef es häyä "every living animal" and rendered by us "that stirs." I n a s m u c h as these creatures derive from the water along w i t h o t h e r teeming life such as great a m p h i b i a n s and crocodiles and the like, we assume t h a t this reference is to such small land-and-water creatures as frogs and snakes a n d otters. In 1:30 t h e participle as n o u n , appearing in series with wild beasts (hay y at hääres) and birds of t h e sky, c a n only be a catchall term, and so hol härömes cal hääres c a n only be rendered along t h e lines of "and everything astir o n earth." (Interestingly, this phrase is furt h e r modified by t h e clause c\ser bö nef es hay y a " w h i c h has w i t h i n it t h e lifeessence") O n l y here, in 7:21, does t h e participial adjective appear w i t h t h e n o u n bäsär, to wit, "all flesh t h a t stirs upon the earth (expired)." S i n c e flesh in itself ( w i t h o u t a n i m a t i n g spirit) is b o t h m e t o n y m y (part for t h e whole) and metaphor, t h e addition of t h e adjective "stirring" makes for an e x t e n d e d — a n d i n c o n g r u o u s — metaphor. T h i s incongruity, in a text replete w i t h repetitive figurations, might h a v e gone unobserved but for the series of particulars t h a t is in apposition to t h e generic "stirring flesh," a n d which is given an anomalous and incongruous formulation. T h e series of fowl, herbivores, wild beasts, and teeming things is unexceptionable in itsell (except for the order). But it is rendered incongruous by the preposition bc "in, among," which governs each oi t h e s e — n o t e the gap-bridging interpolation in our translation four categories. T h e narrators subtlety is also expressed by the absence of this governing proposition in respect to "all humankind." T h u s there are two subj e c t s f o r t h e v e r b expire, o n e at I h e b e g i n n i n g oi t h e v e r s e , "all s t i r r i n g f l e s h " —

glossed as four categories of c real utvs — and one at t h e end, "all humankind," which is thus excluded from the generic subject at the beginning!

THE FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

2. In the foregoing instance, the application of the preposition to the roar subcategories, instead of to the generic category to winch it belongs, is already a case of hypallage. This trope (like /micro)! /)micron, for example) appears always in (often, slyly) humorous contexts, a fact that, is neglecied in the teaching of classical rhetoric. Witness our dictionary's definition of hypallage; Ά figure consisting oi an interchange in the syntactic relationship between two terms; as, , to apply the wound to water' in place o f ' t o apply water to the w o u n d / " Our second instance also features hypallage, this time featuring t h e preposition 77r" "of, from, among." T h e subject of verse 22 is, literally, "everything that (has) the breath of the spirit ot lite in its nostrils" This is a triply redundant expression, inasmuch as breath (n e ‫׳‬ sämä) and spirit (rüah) are synonyms, and b o t h are metaphoric expressions for life (hayylm). This redundant redundancy is t h e n compounded in another redundancy "m its nostrils" This last, if not redundant, is at least superfluous in that Genesis 2:7 tells us that God, to animate the h u m a n earth-child, "blew into his nostrils t h e breath of life (nismat hayyim)." But even a non-biblicist, oblivious to the intertextual allusion, might ask, where but in t h e nostrils would the life-breath be: And the humorless r h e t o r i c i a n — o r rather, t h e rhetorician who c a n n o t cede a sense of humor to a biblical a u t h o r — w o u l d snort in response, "Why, in the mourh, of course—or in the throat or lungs!" T h e humor that we, then, see or read into t h e quadruple redundancy is reinforced by the humor in the hypallage: the compounded subject of t h e sentence is t h e n glossed "0/ everything [mikfcoi] that [was] on dry l a n d " Thus instead of: Of everything existing on dry land, every animal life-form died, we have: "Every[thing] that [has] the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils of everything that [was] on dry land died" W h a t else on dry land that could have died did not die?

3‫־‬. T h e third instance features two pr ril· . . . ‫׳‬ad "from . . . to." This verse (7:22) is anticipated by 6:4, almost identical in diction, with which it must be compared. GENESIS 6 : 7

UHNFSls 7 : 2 3

YHW11 said: I will blot o u t the humankind

H e blotted o u t e v e r y t h i n g exrant I created

[y'tjfwm, cf. 7:4]

from t he g r o u n d s surface,

w h i c h I is I o n t h e g r o u n d s surface,

f r o m m a n k i n d [adam, n o article]

f r o m m a n k i n d [ädäm, n o article|

to cattle

to c a t t l e

to beasties

to beasties

and to sky ‫׳‬fowl.

a n d to sky-fowl.

S o great fis] my regret at h a v i n g m a d e them.

A s we pointed out earlier, t h e formulation in 6:7, literally (i.e., with literary iiv t e n t ) identifies the h u m a n species with t h e totality of God's (created) creatures, by making the gamut of the humankind, that range of animals from human, through cattle large and small, to sky-fowl. But whereas the first underlines the dignity of the h u m a n race by rendering all other creatures as virt ual constituent s of human existence, having hardly any independent ontology, the second a c h i e v e s rhe oppo-‫׳‬ site effect. In specifying the gamut of everything extant in an apparently descending

150 rank

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

( c o g n a t e w i t h r u n g e ) f r o m h u m a n t o b i r d s , t h e c o n t e x t of ( J o d s m a l e f i c a r t e n -

t i o n m a k e s lor a b a t h o s ( f r o m t h e s u b l i m e t o t h e r i d i c u l o u s ) w h o s e h u m o r c a n o n l y b e at m a n k i n d ' s e x p e n s e : ( J o d e r a s e d all l i v i n g t h i n g s , f r o m h u m a n t o r o a c h ,

Oui‫ ־‬discussion of the humorous and human-deprecating effects of our narrators diction, in all its redundantly repetitious and perversely convoluted syntax, is not to assess the narrative as a joke, in glorification oi a divine monarch's capricious power to destroy a contemptibly sinful humanity together with its brutish and insect adjuncts. Even as our rhetorical analysis reveals the meanings of the subtext in the contrast between the power, morality, and dignity of Creator on the one hand, and his creatures on the other, so also is it not in denial of another kerygma. T h e repetitions of God's frustrated hopes, of his intent to erase what he cannot correct, of that teeming world of multifarious life, throbbing—from greatest to least and from least to greatest—with vitality, all these build to the emotional climax of death, death, death everywhere, except for those snug in the ark with Noah. T h e God of Creation, our narrator conveys to us, was fully aware of the atrociousness of the cataclysm he was about to perpetrate, and nevertheless he did what he had to do. From the standard translations of the last four words of 6:7, "for 1 regret that 1 made them," one would never guess the pain that YHWH's own confession expresses. A n d as there in the story's introduction, the final verse, 6:8, reads, "Noah, however, found favor in YHWH's eyes," so our pericope concludes that, for all the savage waste of a single generation, not a single one of the many species became extinct. Within the ark, every seed of every life-form was preserved to give the world another chance. Fjnsodes G and I. The Deluge Is Cheeked and The

Disembarking

(24) T h e waters intensified o n earth tor 150 days. ( 1) G o d b e t h o u g h t himself of N o a h and all rhe wild beasts and. all t h e c a t t l e that were with him in t h e ark. ( iod t h e n swept a wind over t h e earth and t h e waters were calmed. (2a) B o t h t h e wellsprings ol t h e 1 V e p and t h e du ice gares of h e a v e n were bolted closed. ( 2 b ) W i t h t h e rain from h e a v e n restrained, (3a) t h e waters began to recede f r o m e a r t h , a steady recession. (3h) 1 he waters began to a b a t e (‫| ומלת‬Le., b e g i n n i n g with] Day 150. (4) T h e ark thus grounded in M o n t h 7, Day 17 oi t h e m o n t h , o n t h e m o u n t a i n range of A r a r a t . (5) N o w t h e waters were [in a state of] c o n t i n u o u s recession u n t i l M o n t h 10, O n t h e t e n t h , o n t h e first day of t h e m o n t h , t h e m o u n t a i n peaks s h o w e d

through.

(7:24-8:5) [Here follows t h e Episode of t h e Birds, 0 : 6 - 1 2] (13) It c a m e to pass in t h e Year 601 [of N o a h ' s lifetime! o n t h e first [ m o n t h ] o n Day ι of t h e m o n t h — - d i d t h e waters dry up trom on t h e e a r t h — N o a h r e m o v e d t h e [hatch-] cover of t h e ark and b e h e l d , lo t h e ground's surface was dry. (14) [But n o w ] in M o n t h 2 o n Day 7 ot t h e m o n t h t h e e a r t h b e c a m e [bone] dry. (15) G o d addressed N o a h , (16) ‫ ״‬GOUK out ol the ark: you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives w i t h you; (17) every living t h i n g t h a t is w i t h you, of all flesh, in [the categories of] fowl, of cattle, and ol‫ ־‬all t h e beasties t h a t scurry o n t h e e a r t h bring f o r t h w i t h you, so that, they !nay t e e m on t h e e a r t h and a b u n d a n t l y repro-

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

duce on the earth. (18) So Noah came out, and his sons and his wife and Iris sons' wives with him. (19) All the beasts, now, all the beasties and all the fowl everything that stirs on the earth—according to their species [lit.; families) came forth fro:m the ark. (8:13—19)

A review of the passages in our first translation will reveal that both are assigned to P, with the exception of a few sentences (amounting to about three verses out of a total of thirteen). Aside from the matter of various numbers and dates, which 1 will discuss separately, the rationale for these source-assignments is redundancy. T h e extent ot the redundancy, however, is such that the source ‫׳‬division falls far short of accounting for it. How far short may be gauged from the following. As far as concerns the hare plot of the narrative, the content of these thirteen verses could be reduced to the length of a single average verse, to wit: After 150 days, the wellsprings of the Deep were closed and the water began a steady retreat. When earth dried up God called Noah to come forth from the ark. tie did so, with all that were with him. Such prolixity in a body of narrative noted lor its economy must he considered together with other anomalous stylistic features in the passages under consideration: features of plot, character, grammar, and syntax. God, we are (old in verse 1, remembered Noah. How the narrator came by this knowledge and why he chooses to pass it on to us are not frivolous poetic ques‫׳‬ tions. Gould this God, who is elsewhere characterized as a guardian who never sleeps or even dozes, have forgotten the one and only world (so our narrative per‫״‬ mits us to infer) that he created, the world that he is now engaged in destroying, except for the one vessel that he has ordained for the preservation of that world: And it the verb for memory zäkar has the connotation of care, concern, and cherish, rather than recovery from a mental lapse, is the dignity thus conferred on Noah—best representative of the human race—not compromised by the addition that that concern extended also to animals wild and tame? This notice, reeking of bathos (cf. the last verse of the Book of Jonah) is then followed not by his turning off of the destructive spates, by a calming of the waters. And this is expressed in another incongruous image. The wind, which normally whips the waves to lifethreatening heights, is used here to flatten—as a scythe the high and full-eared grains ta Iks—the crests of the presumptuous swells. Only then are we told that the waters rushing from below and above were suddenly dammed. Both sources, at the same time? Why, then, is the waters recession in verse 3a related only to the cessation of one of the flows, the rain, in 2h? (A question far more perplexing in view of the notice in 7:12 that the rain only endured forty days, hence ceasing n o days be-‫׳‬ fore the damming of the flow from Deep's fountains!) With the grounding of the ark and the recession of the waters, there follows §H, the episode of the birds, which we discussed earlier. In comparing that episode with its counterpart in the Utnapishtim story, we saw that Utnapishtim in his choice of birds is portrayed as something of an ass, while Noahs choice of the raven could be attributed to a momentary menial lapse. We also saw that Noahs raven did return to the arks vicinity, but not for food. Why then did he return at all? To be closer to his mate, still pent 111 the ark? The reason for our question is, oi course, that at the

152

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

m o m e n t t h e r a v e n w a s s e t f r e e t h e r e m u s t h a v e b e e n t h o u s a n d s of d r y a c r e s a r o u n d t h e ark. For N o a h w o u l d h a v e sent out n o a v i a n scouts unless h e c o u l d spy n o w a t e r f r o m t h e w i n d o w i n t h e s i d e of t h e a r k t h r o u g h w h i c h h e r e l e a s e d t h e b i r d s . W h a t t h e n c a n b e t h e m e a n i n g of t h e s e c o n d h a l f of 8 : 1 3 , t h a t N o a h , l i f t i n g t h e h a t c h c o v e r , s u d d e n l y b e h e l d t h e d r y s u r f a c e ot g r o u n d all a b o u t h i m ? T h e first h a l f of t h i s v e r s e , g i v i n g t h e d a t e f o r t h e w a t e r ' s d r a i n a g e , is u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a p a r e n t h e sis, i n t h e n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e , f o r all its a n o m a l o u s f o r m a l l y p a r a t a c t i c s y n t a x . N o a h s r e a l i z a t i o n f o l l o w s t h e n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e b i r d s e p i s o d e ; t h a t is, it c o m e s i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e f a i l u r e of t h e d o v e t o r e t u r n f r o m its t h i r d f l i g h t . T h i s s u g g e s t s s o m e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s . If t h e r a v e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e a r k s v i c i n i t y t o b e n e a r its m a t e ( t h e o n l y m o t i v e w e c o u l d c o m e u p w i t h ) , w h y w o u l d n o t

the

d o v e h a v e r e t u r n e d t o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n ? F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e is t h e p e r p l e x i n g mat‫׳־‬ 1er of t h e a v e n u e s of i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s t o a n d f r o m t h e a r k . I n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o t t h e ark, 6 : 1 4 - 1 6 , o n l y o n e s u c h a v e n u e is s p e c i f i e d , " t h e e n t r a n c e in t h e s i d e of t l i e ark?5 T h i s d e t a i l , w h i c h e v o k e s n o c o m m e n t h u m c r i t i c s , s h o w s w h a t c a r e f u l c o n s i d c r a t i o n h a s b e e n g i v e n to this m a t t e r . T h e largest ships in a n t i q u i t y w e r e o n boarded or off-boarded (note this d e n o m i n a t i v e verb from a term synonymous with plank)

v i a a g a n g p l a n k e x t e n d i n g f r o m l a n d t o t h e s h i p a t its l o w e s t d e c k .

The

t h i r t y - f o o t h e i g h t of t h e ark w o u l d h a v e r e q u i r e d a n u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y l o n g o r s t e e p r a m p t o its r o o f t o p , w h i c h w a s a l s o its o n l y e x t e r i o r d e c k . H e n c e t h e p r o v i s i o n of a s i d e e n t r a n c e ( p e r h a p s t h e first s u c h m a r i t i m e d e s i g n i n a n t i q u i t y ) i n t h e a r k . T h e s e c o n d m e n t i o n of a n o p e n i n g i n t h e a r k is t h e w i n d o w t h r o u g h w h i c h N o a h releases t h e birds; h e r e , too, t h e n a r r a t o r signals his a t t e n t i o n t o detail, for w i t h this first m e n t i o n h e c a s u a l l y a d d s , " t h a t h e h a d m a d e ; ' I n v i e w of t h i s , t h e t h i r d o p e n i n g ( i n o u r v e r s e 1 3 ) is b o t h u n n e c e s s a r y a n d c o m i c a l l y a b s u r d . N o a h r e m o v e s t h e miksë

" c o v e r , l i d " of t h e a r k . S i n c e h e c o u l d n o t h a v e r e m o v e d t h e e n t i r e r o o f w e

r e n d e r it " h a t c h - c o v e r , " p r e s u m i n g m e t o n y m y ot w h o l e t o r t h e p a r t . T h e c o m i c abs u r d i t y , h o w e v e r , lies i n t h i s . H a d N o a h s t u c k h i s h e a d o u t of t h e h a t c h h e w o u l d h a v e s e e n n o t h i n g b u t s k y i n all d i r e c t i o n s : h a d h e c l i m b e d o n t o t h e a r k s ( f l a t ) r o o f a n d w a l k e d t o its e d g e , h e s t i l l w o u l d h a v e s e e n n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n h e h a d w h e n h e h a d first l o o k e d o u t o f t h e w i n d o w b e f o r e r e l e a s i n g t h e r a v e n . N e e d l e s s t o say, t h e s e f e a t u r e s of n a r r a t i v e d e t a i l s b o t h r e a l i s t i c a n d i n c o n g r u o u s a t t h e s a m e t i m e are, a l o n g w i t h t h e r e m a r k a b l e r e d u n d a n c y , p o e t i c p r o b l e m s t h a t w e m u s t try to resolve. A third such riddle-element

is t h a t s e r i e s of n u m b e r s a n d d a t e s

that

c o n c l u d e s i n §1. Let us first d i s p o s e of t h o s e n u m b e r s t h a t , r e g a r d e d as c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , a r c a p p o r t i o n e d t o J o r P. T h e f o r t y d a y s a n d n i g h t s f o r t h e d u r a t i o n oi t h e r a i n a p p e a r s t h r e e t i m e s : i n 7 : 4 , in ( ïod's pi e d i c t i o n ; in 7:1 2, as a n a c c o m p l i s h e d f a c t ; a n d i n 7:1 7, w h e r e t h e f o r t y d a y s d u r a t i o n h a s as its s u b j e c t n o t t h e r a i n (^e.scm), but 1 h e w o r d w e r e n d e r e d d e l u g e , mabhul.

I b i s w o r d , first a p p e a r i n g i n 6:1 7 as t h e c a t a c l y s m t o

b e b r o u g h t o n b y G o d , is g l o s s e d t h e r e b y " w a t e r s u p o n e a r r h "

This n o t i c e c o n -

t r i b u t e s t o t h e s o u r c e - c r i t i c a l a s s u m p t i o n of c o n t r a d i c t i o n , f o r t h e g e n e r a l f a i l u r e t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h i s w o r d rnahbül

refers onlv to t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of flow f r o m t h e

s l u i c e g a t e s of h e a v e n a n d f r o m t h e well s p r i n g s ot t h e g r e a t d e e p . 1 3 T h e

mabbül

p r o p e r b e g i n s i n 7 : 1 1 , a n d e n d u r e s as l o n g as t h e f o r t y d a y s of r a i n i n 7 : 1 2 , b u t n o l o n g e r . T h e w a t e r s of t h e d e e p , h o w e v e r , c o n t i n u e t h e i r 11 ο w — t h o u g h u n p e r c e i v e d

THE FLOODS OF N O A H A N D U T N A P I S H T I M ! 9 ‫ף‬

by h u m a n e y e — a n d their volume on earth increases for another 110 days (thus equal to the 150 days explicitly in 7:24 and 8:3 and implicit in 7:20). O n the 150th day the water crests at fifteen cubits higher than the highest peak of Ararat (7:20); on this same day the waters begin to abate (8:3). Hence, the grounding of the ark—which, being thirty cubits high, floated half in and halt out of the water—by marvelous coincidence or providential whim on that peak occurred on that 1 50th clay. But the date of that grounding is given in 8:4 as the ! 7th day of Month 7 (8:4), and the onset of the waters is dated the 17th of Month 2 (7:11). T h e lunar month being 29 days plus a fraction, it must be clear that the 150 days corresponding to exactly five months must be a round number. The waters abate until Day 1 of M o n t h 10 (8:5)—seventy days l a t e r — o n which clay the mountain peaks(!) showed through (8:5), not, however, to the ken of Noah, who was sitting atop that peak in his shelter. Forty days later (8:6) the waters have re‫׳‬ ceded beyond Noah's sight, whereupon he sends out the dove, and twice more at seven-day intervals. This would bring us close to the beginning ot Month 12.14 Noah, however, remains in the ark another m o n t h until (probably on Month 1, Day 1), the waters having drained off from earth (8:13), h e receives G o d s call to come out. 15 In between the notice of the water-drainage and God's call to N o a h comes the parenthetic notice (8:14) in hypotactic construction that the water did not dry up until Day 27 of M o n t h 2, exactly one year and ten days from the flood's onset. There is no contradiction between the two notices. Our narrator has arranged the schedule so that Gochs call to N o a h and his animal company to come out and begin the rebirth of the world should fall appropriately on New Year's Day. ( According to an erroneous rendering of a rabbinic tradition, Rosh H a s h a n a — t h e first day of the seventh month, Tishri—is hailed as the birthday of the world. T h e tradition, however, hails it as yöm harat 'öläm "the day the world was conceived." Almost certainly, then, the tradition relates not to the creation of Genesis 1 but to Genesis 8:13, when the ancestor pairs of all species, issuing from the ark, could resume the cycle of gestation precluded by the confined quarters (if the ark.) The up‫־׳‬ propriateness of this symbolism is beyond debate. But our narrator does not stop there. He arranges for another coincidental date, one so bereft oi meaningful symholism as to be bathetic in comparison to this one. Day 1 ot M o n t h 1 marked the recession of the seas to the normal level ordained tor them by God. But everyone knows that after a flood of such proportion the recession of water to pre-flood level would still leave many low-lying areas awash in stagnant pool. It required, lie informs us, another two months for the last of these pools to dry up. This happens on Dav 27 of M o n t h 2, a full year and ten days after the mabbul had begun. Why not Day 1 7 of M o n t h 2, precisely a year from the onset of the waters? In connection with this last bit of intentional bathos, we must now confess that our translation of the verb härebü in 8:13 by "was drained," and ot the verb yäfa'sa in 8:14 by "had become dry," is wrong, and unforgivably so. It is typical of an ν number of instances where translator-critics who know better than the Scriptural author what he intended implicitly emend the Hebrew by departing trom literal meanings of the Hebrew in their translations. In our instance, the translation we present permits a logical progression from an earlier completion of drainage to a later complction of evaporation. T h e Hebrew diction, however, reverses the logic of meaning-

172

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

f u l s e q u e n c e , so as t o r e n d e r t h e t w o s t a t e m e n t s as n o t o n l y b a t h e t i c , b u t s e m a n t i ‫־ ׳‬ c a l l y a b s u r d . T h e v e r b ybs f o r t h e l a s t s t a g e m e a n s " t o b e ( r e l a t i v e l y ) d r y " w h i l e t h e t e r m hrb f o r t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a g e m e a n s " t o b e b o n e - d r y ! "

Episode J. Sacrifice and Promise (20) N o a h t h e n built an altar to Y H W H , Taking ot every clean c a t t l e [-species] a n d of every c l e a n fowlf-species] h e offered up holocausts at t h e altar. (2 1.) Y H W H sniffed t h e pleasing odor. Y H W H promised himself,

14

Never n e v e r again will I so abuse t h e

e a r t h o n a c c o u n t of m a n k i n d — [ s e e i n g that] t h e b e n t of man 1 ? m i n d is evil f r o m his y o u t h — n o r ever ever again will 1 strike d o w n every lite-form, as 1 h a v e d o n e . (22) S o long as e a r t h endures, seedtime and h a r v e s t a n d cold and h e a t a n d s u m m e r a n d w i n ter a n d day and n i g h t will n o t ever cease. (Genesis 8 : 2 0 - 2 2 ) O I t h e t h r e e p e r i c o p e s a s s i g n e d by s o u r c e - c r i t i c s t o J w e s a w t h a t

§H,

the

H p i s o d e ol t h e B i r d s , c o u l d h a v e as r e a d i l y a n d a r g u a b l y b e e t ) a s s i g n e d t o B. T h a t l e a v e s , h o w e v e r , § D a n d t h i s p e r i c o p e §] leir t o J. 1 h e a f f i n i t i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o p a s s a g e s a r e : first, t h e a p p e a r a n c e of Y H W H i n b o t h ; a n d s e c o n d , t h e s e v e n p a i r s of c l e a n a n i m a l s s p e c i f i e d in §1) as a g a i n s t a s i n g l e p a i r of t h e u n c l e a n a n i m a l s . T h e a r g u m e n t — a n d it is a p e r s u a s i v e o n e

is t h a t h u t t o r t h i s g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f p a i r s

of t h e e d i b l e s p e c i e s , the. s a c r i f i c e in t h i s p a s s a g e w o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n t h e i r e x t i n c t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p e r m i s s i b i l i t y of f l e s h - e a t i n g g r a n t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g Episode § K — a Ρ passage — i n d i c a t e s why the same source in §C, consistent w i t h t h e divine m a n d a t e for vegetarian diets in Genesis 1 : 2 9 - 3 0 , n e e d e d to m a k e n o d i s t i n c t i o n as b e t w e e n c l e a n a n d u n c l e a n a n i m a l s . W e a c c e p t t h i s a r g u m e n t

in

p r i n c i p l e , a n d w i l l a d d r e i n f o r c i n g e l e m e n t s f o r it w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , c o n c e d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of " s o u r c e s . " T h e r e a r e n a r r a t i v e s t r a n d s i n t h e s e e a r l y c h a p t e r s of G e n e sis a n d I w i l l d i s c u s s t h e m s h o r t l y i n t e r m s of t h e i r t h e m a t i c e l e m e n t s a n d t h e i r d i e t i o n as w e l l as t h e i r i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o a s i n g l e n a r r a t i v e b y a s i n g l e n a r r a t o r . F o r t h e p r e s e n t , l e t us n o t e t h a t a l t h o u g h i n S c r i p t u r e " c l e a n n e s s " i n a n i m a l s is c r i t e r i o n for edibility

and

sacrificeability

alike,

there

is n o

contradiction

between

our

e p i s o d e §J a n d t h e first g r a n t of l e g i t i m a c y t o a m e a t d i e t i n § K . F o r t h e s a c r i f i c e s o f f e r e d b y N o a h a r e all, a n d e x p l i c i t l y , h o l o c a u s t s ( öiöt), c o m p l e t e l y b u r n t o n t h e a l t a r ; t h i s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f zebah

01‫( ־‬zibhe^sdevmm,

of w h i c h t h e h u m a n s

may

partake. I t is c l e a r t h a t Y H W H ' s p r o m i s e in t h i s p e r i c o p e c o n s t i t u t e s a c l i m a x o f t h e N o a h n a r r a t i v e (a c l i m a x , f o r t h e r e a r e o t h e r s ) . T h e p o w e r of t h e f o u r - f o l d m e r i s m in v e r s e 22 t e s t i l i e s t o t h a t . S o a l s o d o e s t h e r o l e p l a y e d in Y H W H ' s s e l f - c o n f e s s e d m o t i v a t i o n lor h i s r e s o l v e . H c h o i n g t h e d i c t i o n in § A in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p r o clivity ot t h e h u m a n

imagination Y H W H

d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e yêser

"fashion(ing),

f o r m , s h a p e , t e n d e n c y " of t h e h u m a n m i n d is e v i l f r o m y o u t h , t h e last w o r d a m b i g u o u s as t o r e f e r e n c e ; is it t o e a c h i n d i v i d u a l o r t o t h e first g e n e r a t i o n s of t h e species? But this d e c l a r a t i o n , w h i c h might

a l m o s t b e t a k e n as a f o r m u l a t i o n

ot

" o r i g i n a l sin," is n o t t h e r e a s o n f o r Y I I W H s p r o m i s e ; it is d e s p i t e t h i s u n f o r t u n a t e trait, w h o s e eluctability h e seems

t o b e c o n c e d i n g , t h a t t h e p r o m i s e is m a d e .

1 I e n c e , a s t a t e m e n t as t o h u m a n , s i n f u l n e s s a n d V G d s g r a c e , b u t a l s o by i n f e r e n c e , a

T H E FLOODS OF NOAH A N D UTNAPISHTIM ! 9 ‫ף‬

judgment on the flood: given what God must have known before, the flood should never have taken place. There are further elements of rhetorical playfulness, of, if you will, tongue in cheek. Taken literally, verse 20 has N o a h offering at least one sacrificial victim of every clean species of beast and fowl. For all that cloven-hoofed ruminants and edible fowl are greatly outnumbered by unclean species, the number of those qualified for sacrifice would have required many days and many altars for cremation. T h e narrator may be signaling this awareness in the choice of preposition to govern the altar- Sacrificial meats are burned upon (', which can mean in, by, at, for, or agamst, but never upon, can only be intentional. So too the word describing how YHWH related to the aroma (or is it stench?) of the sizzling flesh. ï le does not show regard for it (s h as in respect to the offerings of Cain and Abel) nor is lus aceeptance expressed by the normal term r§h. He sniffs it. This expression for G o d s receipt of an offering appears only once again, and that one in a context of dénigration. in 1 Samuel 26:19, David remonstrates with the king, who is persecuting him. His argument to Saul is that he is being instigated by God (who, for one reason or another, must want David punished) or malevolent humans. He expresses his disdain at the likelihood of the first alternative in the words, "If it is Y H W H who is egging you on against me, let him sniff an offering," In a similar vein then, Y H W H s reaction to the holocausts of the victims he has ordained for preservation from extine tion may well be one more expression of the narrators awareness of the silliness of the story he is reshaping; it is silly in respect to plot and in respect to its h u m a n protagonists. In this particular episode, the amused tolerance of God evokes the image of a parent viewing the compensatory offering in the outstretched hand of a repentant child, a selection of candies from its treasured hoard.

Episode K. Blessing and Meat for M ans Table ( 1 ) G o d blessed N o a h a n d his sons, saying t o t h e m , "Increase a b u n d a n t l y and popu‫״‬ late t h e earth. (2) T h e dread fear of you shall d e s c e n d u p o n all living creatures of e a r t h a n d u p o n t h e fowl of t h e sky, u p o n every t h i n g w i t h w h i c h t h e e a r t h is astir, a n d all fish oi t h e sea: i n t o your power are they delivered. ( ‫ ) ן‬Every stirring t h i n ‫ ״‬t h a t lives shall he yours for t h e eating; like t h e grass greens d o 1 give t h e m all to you. (4) O n l y flesh with its life-blood in it you are not to eat. ( s ) A n d also— (or your o w n lifeblood will. I exact r e t r i b u t i o n : of every beast will I exact il and of h u m a n k i n d ; of every m a n for his b r o t h e r will 1 exact r e t r i b u t i o n for a human life. (6) W h o e v e r sheds t h e blood of m a n , by m a n shall his blood be shed. T h i s is the m e a n i n g of: "In !he image or G o d m a d e H e man." (7) You, t h e n , for your part, increase a b u n d a n t l y , t e e m on e a r t h and be fertile u p o n it. ( G e n e s i s 9 : 1 - 7 )

This pericope begins with G o d s blessing in terms of propagation. But. unlike that implied blessing in §1 and its explicit forerunner in 1:22, this one is confined to the human species alone, and with good reason. For the anticipation of m a n k i n d s increase in number is in contrast to a concomitant fear of man to befall

174

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

all living creatures of earth, sky, and water. W h y will they fear man? Because God has declared them fair game for mankind. This now is something; new. T h e word•‫׳‬ ing in Genesis 1:29-30, G o d s grant‫ ״‬to man and heast alike, a diet deriving from "all seed-hearing grasses, all trees hearing seed-hearing fruit . . . every green herbage,'" is evoked now by those same words, permitting animal ilesh to mankind "just like the green herbage‫ ״‬M eat-eat ing ρ res up ‫ ין‬oses taking the life of the animal to be eaten. Humans may now take animal life. H u m a n life, however, is sacred, in keeping with the explicit reierence to 1:26-28, m a n s dignity as symbolized in man's creation in God's image. Neither beast nor man may take human life with impunity. In the introduction to this J (or Ρ document) we noted that the offense was an indeterminate hämäs "lawlessness" perpetrated by both man and beast. In view of this strand s conclusion—permitting one vector of the previous prohibition ( m a n s taking animal life for food)—it. is a reasonable conjecture that the lawlessncss ot all the species, which precipitated the flood, was the taking of lite—for food — without the permission, contrary indeed to the prohibition, of the Creator of all life. 16

Episode L. The Promise of the Rainbow (8) G o d t h e n said t o N o a h a n d t o his sons w i t h h i m , (9) "I h e r e b y m a k e this c o v e n a n t of m i n e w i t h you a n d your offspring to c o m e , (10) and also w i t h every living creature t h a t is with y o u — o f birds, cattle, a n d all o t h e r beasts of e a r t h along w i t h y o u — a l l t h a t h a v e c o m e o u t of t h e ark, of every c r e a t u r e o n e a r t h . (11) T h i s c o v e n a n t ot m i n e with you I will fulfill: n e v e r again shall all flesh be c u t off by Deluge waters, never again shall t h e r e Deluge be to waste t h e e a r t h " (12) God said further, "This, now, is t h e sign of t h e c o v e n a n t 1 ‫ ״‬g r a n t as b e t w e e n m e and you a n d every living c r e a t u r e thai is w i t h you, for all ages to c o m e : (13) My how have I set in t h e clouds, t o serve as a sign oi the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n me a n d earth. (14) Sc! shall it he, w h e n 1 mass clouds over e a r t h

and the how appears in t h e

cloikh - •• ( ι ‫ )ך‬ί shall he m i n d f u l of this c o v e n a n t of m i n e w h i c h exists b e t w e e n !.ne and you and every living c r e a t u r e a m o n g all flesh that t h e waters will not f u n c t i o n as Deluge to waste all flesh. ( 1 6 ) Ί h e how will be in t h e clouds, by my p r o v i d e n c e , to mark an e n d u r i n g c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d and every living c r e a t u r e of all flesh t h a t is on earth." (17) G o d p o i n t e d out to N o a h , " ! h e r e n o w is t h e sign of t h e c o v e n a n t t h a t • h a v e established b e t w e e n myself and all flesh t h a t is o n e a r t h ! " ( G e n e s i s 9:8 — 17)

Thematic ally, this pericope is parallel to and a variation of pericope §J. T h e theme, promise, is somewhat clouded here by the Hebrew term standing for that concept, be rît. This Hebrew term has the denotation of pact, compact, cot'enant, words that in English betoken formal or serious agreement, which is to say, agreements on grave matters; as reflected in another synonym treaty, for agreements between peoples and polities. T h e very word bcrit, as Martin N o t h has suggested, probably derives from the Akkadian preposition beri "between," and has the connoration of "between-ness" An agreement, by definition, requires a minimum ot two parties, but pact and its synonyms also imply assent by ail parties to it; thus even in

T H E FLOODS OF N O A H A N D UTNAIMSHTIM

‫לך נ‬

a vassal treary where a victorious suzerain may he dictating the terms to a reluctant: foe, treaty or covenant may still be appropriate renderings of b-'fit if t tie deieated party's alternatives are less attractive than the terms dictated. In the case of a will, however, or any unqualified gift, such as in the instance before us where the grant of favor is unconditional, the term hefît is more faithfully rendered by f>ro‫׳‬mtsc: as we earlier suggested, by synecdoche of the whole for the part. This lengthy dwelling on a single detail, a single word, in our pericope is dietated by its importance for the comparing and contrasting of this pericope §L with §]. In this episode, the idea of promise is certainly central, although no verb or noun with that specific denotation is present. The word Umar "say, think," with an enormous range of connotations, is nevertheless correctly rendered here by promise. Source-criticism has identified a number of elements that support the assignment of these pericopes to J and P, with which we concur, except for our substitution of (narrative) strands for sources. In respect to the J strand, both §J and §A feature the name YHWH; both feature the evil or perversity of the human imagination; and in both the responsibility for YHWH's decision is humankinds, a shortcoming on the part of humans that the animals do not share, implicit in YHWH's promise not to destroy the world on humankinds account. In respect to the Ρ strand, §L shares these features with features in nine of the other twelve pericopes: rhe name Elohim "God;" the responsibility for the cataclysm is shared by both humans and animals; the promise not to repeat the deluge is made to both humans and animals; and the featuring of the noun h'ra in. God s promises to humankind (here in §L and in §G, 6:1 9). do these I would add the feature of redundant diction, particularly with regard to the terms for all animals, in 9:10 and 15-17. 1 here arc, nevertheless, some perceptions of redundancy within pericope §L that I would disallow. Thus, for example, the making of the "covenant" twice, in verses 9 and 1 1, features the verb hëqïm "establish" That sense is appropriate in verse 9, where God "is establishing" (Heb. active participle rneqirn), but in the luturc time 111 verse i t , the promise (/covenant) thus made in verse 9 will he fulfilled, a frequently attested meaning for the same verb. Similarly, the standard translation of verse 16—"When the bow appears in the clouds I will see it and remember"—is identical in meaning to verses 14-15, In addition to making tor a pointless tau toiο g y, this rendering construes God's memory as dependent upon the rainbow: only when he sees it will he recall his promise not to repeat the flood. While the author of the Utnapishtim story might poke fun at Enlil by having him. tie a string around his finger to remind himself not to reach for his war-bow, God is never the object of ridicule in the biblical story. Such a mnemonic function is absurd in any case, for the rainbow appears after the rain, not before it; thus the rainbow would function as a signal to lock the barn door after the horse has left! No, the sign is for man, not for God. And, like the promises in both §] and §L addressed to Noah, the assurance in the rainbow sign is for the comfort of later generations. T h e reversion of the world to chaos, the reemergence of Tiamat to dominance, mingling her waters once more with Apsu's; this cataclysm called mabbül in Scripture, which occurred in N o a h s time, will never again be unleashed by God. For (uni — the God of Script ure- is benevolent.

158

STORIES—

"THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫יי‬

O u r novel (yet n o t bold) translation of verse 16 is n o t e w o r t h y for its e n h a n c e m e n t of our appreciation of t h e author's artistry. A more transparent translation: " T h e how will appear in t h e clouds—yes [the deictic waw], I shall provide it to mark [the d e n o t a t i o n of zkr] an enduring promise as b e t w e e n G o d [on the one h a n d j and [on t h e other] every living essence [abiding] in any flesh t h a t is on earth." An‫׳־‬ other seeming redundancy is seen in the words of verse 12 repeated in verse 14, "This is the sign of the promise." In its first appearance, t h e demonstrative p r o n o u n this refers to the description of t h e sign t h a t follows. In its second appearance, t h e p r o n o u n this—as Rashi takes pains to e x p l a i n — i s a finger pointing to that breathtaking arc across t h e sky: " T h i s — t h e r e n o w — i s t h e sign of t h e promise 1" Perhaps worthy of n o t e is t h e similarity a n d variations of a m e t a p h o r in three cultures: that o! Babylon, oi Scripture, and our own. T h e bow as t h e archers weapon and its retirement as sign of a pledged peace is a natural symbolism, updated perhaps in our own metaphors "hanging up the g u n b e h " or "burying the hatchet." In the i:‫־‬mmki elish, after Marduk conquers Tiamat, creates the cosmos, and builds the gods' palaces, the war-bow of Hnlil is hung in the sky by A n u in the form oi an astral constellation. O u r biblical author, who, we have seen, must have availed himselt oi both Enuma elish and t h e Gilgamesh Epic, may well have borrowed t h e image from the former and adapted it to t h e flood c o n t e x t from t h e latter, but with how m u c h more power and m e a n i n g for its appearance in the day-sky and t h e sunny promise for a h u m a n k i n d so o f t e n menaced by nature's awesome violence. W e began our discussion of this pericope by n o t i n g t h a t it is parallel to and a variation of §b W e also n o t e d t h a t §] falls into strand J, while §L falls into strand Ρ It is therefore instructive as to t h e h o w and why of our n a r r a t o r s d e p l o y m e n t of parallel episodes and integration of t h e m in his narrative, w h i c h remains b o t h consistent and u n r e d u n d a n t in respect to plot, t h a t §J and §L are n e i t h e r inconsistent with o n e a n o t h e r nor r e d u n d a n t l y repetitive. In §J t h e promise of Y H W H seems, at first blush, t o be in pleased a c c e p t a n c e of a n d reward for Ν ο ah s generous offerings. 17 T h e promise, f u r t h e r m o r e , is presented as i n t e r n a l dialogue, is addressed to Deity by himself a n d — a s far as this pericope is c o n c e r n e d — w a s n e v e r c o m m u n i cated to h u m a n k i n d for its i n f o r m a t i o n or comfort. H a v i n g thus exploited in §J t h e t h e m e of I n t r o d u c t i o n § A , t h e narrator c o n t i n u e s in §L w i t h t h e promise c o m m u ‫׳‬ nicated to N o a h and his s o n s — b u t addressed as well to t h e animals, pointedly and repeatedly; to t h e animals w h o h a v e n o imagination, but w h o are capable ot t h e violence t h a t is a p r e c o n d i t i o n for carnivorousness. A n d , for all t h a t animals presurnably d o n o t h a v e t h e imagination to understand the symbolism of t h e rainbow in the clouds, t h e upbeat c onclusion of the c o n c l u d i n g verse 17‫ — ־‬like the preceding verses Jo, 13, 15, and 16 -emphasizes again that the promise extends to "all flesh upon the earth"

O n e concluding n o t e o n t h e narrator's care w i t h diction: In verse 10 the preposit ions governing various classes or aspects of animal kind (b\ mi(n), l·) are as preeise and fitting as t h e corresponding prepositions in §F are incorrect, even inconpriions. It is almost as if t h e narrator were reassuring us with a wink that he can, when he wants to, write Hebrew. But t h e anomaly in this verse, is in respect to a specification of the animals whose species are to be preserved that appears onlv this o n e time in t h e entire narrative. T h e promise is made to h u m a n k i n d in verse 0 and

THE FLOODS OF NOAH AND UTNAPISHTIM

! 9

‫ף‬

extended in verse 10, "and w i t h every living creature t h a t is with you, in t h e category of fowl, of cattle, and of any of earth's f a u n a w i t h you—meiusu'e of all those corning out oj the ark—whatever of earth's f a u n a they belong t o " T h e words in it a b ics are an intrusion, whose deliberateness is d r a w n to our a t t e n t i o n by t h e repetition after it of t h e words preceding it. W h a t is t h e purpose oi this pleonnsm (as of t h e same seemingly pleonastic participle in 9:18, hayyöflm "those coming out of the ark‫ ?)״‬W e r e there any species w h i c h failed to c o m e out ot t h e ark and were therefore excluded f r o m t h e promise? It is unlikely. T h e alternative: a species t h a t survived t h e flood, b u t w h i c h n e v e r c a m e out from t h e ark, because it never entered it: a cross-source or cross-strand reference to t h e semi-divine, s e m i - h u m a n breed of I n t r o d u c t i o n §A. Taking t h e word mabbül in its m i n i m a l m e a n i n g "cataclysm," t h e promise in respect to t h e watery cataclysm we call t h e Deluge is a m e t a p h o r for a species-extinguishing disaster, A n d G o d s promise did n o t include the species of titans (nephilïm) w h o "were o n earth in those days and also afterwards" but h a d by t h e time of t h e narrator b e c o m e e x t i n c t .

A NOTE ON THE

STRANDS

In our pursuit of t h a t literary critical approach to Scripture we call poetics, I h a v e found it necessary (and will c o n t i n u e to do so) to c o n f r o n t in an adversarial way t h a t literary critical approach to Scripture t h a t we call source-criticism. T h e reasons for this, given in t h e preface to this volume and its predecessor, Toward a Grammar, need not detain us. I do feel it incumbent upon me, our of respect to my hi hl ic ist colleagues (of this generation and past ones) and honesty to my own ruethod ο logy, to clarify as far as I a m able my position o n t h e twro strands I discern in Genesis 1 - 9. H a v i n g b e e n myself trained i n — a n d for a good may years won over t o — s o u r c e - c r i t i c i s m , I c a n n o t judge t h e e x t e n t (certainly considerable) to w h i c h my p e r c e p t i o n of t h e strands owes to it. But t h a t p e r c e p t i o n as a poetical-critical p h e n o m e n o n is i n d e p e n d e n t of any m e t h o d to w h i c h it may stand in debt. My a p p r o a c h is based o n t h e hypothesis t h a t t h e t e x t before us represents a harmonious whole, regardless of w h a t borrowing from préexistent traditions or literary corpora may h a v e contributed to t h e form in w h i c h we h a v e it now, Source-analysis got its start to begin w i t h in t h e perception, in t h e P e n t a t e u c h and particularly in Genesis, of clauses a n d sentences repetitious to t h e p o i n t of redundancy, or inconsistent with, e v e n in c o n t r a d i c t i o n of, o n e another. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t I can show‫׳‬ how these clauses and sentences are n o t at all r e d u n d a n t , inconsistent, or contradie tory, I bolster t h e a r g u m e n t for poetical harmony, b u t at t h e same time cut t h e ground out f r o m u n d e r source-analysis. But to d o this is to risk leaving the irapress ion t h a t 1 am, by my opposition, positing a single author. S u c h a n impression is n o t my i n t e n t . I h a v e spoken of "the single authorial voice" in Scripture as a whole; and I would n o t look for more t h a n a single author's p e n in anv given peric o p e — b e it a c h a p t e r or several chapters in Genesis, or in t h e Book of Isaiah— unles> I h a v e good reason to posit several authors (or a u t h o r and editor) who are not mutually aware ol each o t h e r s contributions. Bur this is certainlv not to rule out t h e possibility, or even the likelihood, that some of Scripture's narratives may be the result of a collaborative effort. T h u s , for example, in regard to the narrative

160

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

of the flood. O n e can imagine an Israelite professor of theology (1 suspect we should identify him as a prophet) reviewing the Utnapishtim story, analyzing it— as I have done—as a satiric critique of polytheism, and assigning to two students an exercise: "Drawing as freely as you like upon this Babylonian satire, tell essentially the same story, not as a satire, to portray man and divinity so as to bring out the essential attributes of both—and vis-à-vis one another—in keeping with our Israelite view of the One God and His creatures" He might then have been so pleased with the inventions of both his pupils as to draw on the products of both his pupils to present a narrative, weaving elements of both together, but preserving a harmonious whole. This despite his incorporation of two different (but not contradictorv) introductions and two different (but not contradictory) conclusions. And in the process, in drawing upon the two narrative exercises, he might even have left us a clue as to the devolution of his narrative by incorporating the terms his students used for Deity, one having preferred YHWH and the other Elohim "God." As a matter of fact, however, such an imaginative feat ot literary detection would be open to serious criticism on at least one score: the elements in the flood story that may be assigned to one or another of twro original authors are not confined to the flood story. They go back to include chapters τ to 5, and, possibly, ahead to chapters 9:18 -1 1:32. To help the readers follow in a sketch ol the coinpatihility of my literary analysis with standard source-criticism, I have drawn up table 4-1, limited to the C !enesis text 1 have thus far treated. In respect tu the deployment of YblWI 1 or Hlohini as the name for Deity, 1 have stressed before that the most painstaking care with diction on an author's part dues not constitute writing-by-formula, nor is it a legitimate demand of a literary critic that he try to hold his author to such a near-scientific exactitude. (The poetic apρ roach need not: falsify the source-critical explanation; it need only provide an equally plausible reason for choice of diction.) The two first-person personal pronouns in biblical Hebrew may serve as analogy to the two proper names of God, YHWH and Elohim. As often as these synonyms a ni/(pausal) "am and änö/| the first Mesopotamia!! ruler to d o so o n a solid basis" Of especial interest to us is that for all lus legendary conquests and "his celebrated building activities . . . !giving rise toi an epic extolling his exploits [which] is o n e of t h e literary legacies of Assyria," T u k u l t i - N i n u r t a I lost t h r o n e and life in a n Assyrian insurrection. A chief cause of t h a t uprising, or a principal factor cited by his kindred rebels, may well h a v e b e e n his over-favoring of t h e city h e h a d c o n q u e r e d and of its god Marduk, In a similar vein, t h e king w h o is t a u n t e d by t h e p r o p h e t Isaiah in C h a p t e r 14 and wdio is identified only as t h e King of Babylon is n o Babylonian at all, but t h e Assyrian master of Babylon, Sargon II. T h i s great king, taking a t h r o n e - n a m e t h a t evokes t h e first Semitic conqueror, Sargon of A k k a d , lost his life on a battlefield from which his troops were routed and his body never recovered. It is this disastrous fate, denial of burial and t h e dire consequences of such exposure tor t h e shade of the unhuricd, to w h i c h Isaiah refers in his m o c k i n g of t h e conqueror. 1 6 A n d we k n o w all this t h a n k s to a c u n e i f o r m tablet in w h i c h Sargon s son, S e n n a c h e r i b , inquires of Assyria's gods as to t h e n a t u r e of his f a t h e r s sin, w h i c h led t h e m to ahand o n h i m to such a fate. O n c e again, a n Assyrian m o n a r c h judged as deficient in respect to Assyria's gods because h e was overly a t t e n t i v e to t h e cosmopolitan‫ !־‬city of Marduk. For all t h e interest of the foregoing, with all its a u t h e n t i c a t e d and nearly authentic.ated historic detail, it does not bear significantly o n the interpretation of t h e bower of Babel story. W h a t is crucial (or interpretation is the m a n n e r m which t h e biblical a u t h o r deployed his material to achieve his m y t h o p o e i c expression of a crucial even! in his fict ive Primeval History. Χ!) Assyrians appear in the story, nor, for that matter, do any Babylonians. IVspite t h e tale's focus o n the city of Babylon and its ziggurat, its echoes of that city's pride or vainglory, t h e personae of t h e tale are not: Babylonians, not e v e n Semi(es. T h e y are, as we h a v e seen, m a n k i n d as a whole, all t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of Noah! in t h e t h r e e - b r a n c h line of his sons. T h e y are still a n e x t e n d e d family, at the nvo^r only five generations removed from Father N o a h , sharing one language and-—if our rendering in verse 1 of t h e Hebrew, w h i c h literally reads "single words, single tilings, single matter," is correct—•a c o m m o n purpose. T h a t purpose is to take précaution.

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

against the negative, divisive, disuniting consequences of humanity's spreading out as il‫ ־‬continues to propagate. That purpose is to he achieved by building a city with a sky-scraping tower, an achievement that will somehow "make ourselves a name." O n e meaning oi this phrase is, as in English, "to establish a reputation." A n o t h e r sense oi "name" is, by moi on y my, a stele or m o n u m e n t , which is raised to keep a name alive or in remembrance. And in a related and extended context, "to keep a name going" is an expression lor the continuing of a family line so that the an cestors may enjoy felicity in the afterlife, may t h e r e b y · - in a manner of speaking- gain immortality. T h e crucial question is, however, what‫ ־‬was the objection of Y H W H to mankind's ambition in building the tower-‫׳‬topped city? Is it to man's longing for continuity that God objects, or is it to the means by which he seeks to achieve that goal? Is it likely, for example, t h a t in mythopoeic fashion we have here another attack on pagan religion, symbolized in the temple-architecture of t h e ziggurat? Our answer is no: it is not very likely. For as the critique is of mankind and its ambition, rather t h a n of Babylonians and their ambition, so is the distinctive cultic element notably absent here. T h e function of the tower as a ziggurat, a temple for worship, is masked here to the point of unrecogniiability. H e n c e it is unlikely t h a t the critique is pointed at the cult system of Babylon in specific, or of Mesopotamia in general. ( A n d nothing in the formulation of the narrative bears out the traditional interpretation, that t h e tower's builders were intent on a stairway to heaven, a siege-tower from which they might launch an attack on G o d in his fortress.) Imagery, however, lends itself to many uses. And what serves in an original context as emblematic of reverence and piety may be distorted to express an opposite set of values. (Even as, by a reverse process, a name given in scornful derision— Protestant, Quaker‫ ״‬may come to be worn as a badge of honor.) T h e Mesopotamia!! ziggurat was no mote an expression, of human pride than the lemple of Solomon or the vaulting Gothic cathedrals of Christendom. Both of these latter were exprèssiotis of awe before divine majesty and ol a hope that Deity would grace such earthly palaces with his presence. Similarly did the ziggurat, based on earth and reaching heavenward, express the human aspiration to the gods and a prayer for the gods' condescension to humankind. But the ziggurat did reach lor the sky, and such a symbol of humility could easily lend tiself to interpretation as a sign of pride. Perhaps a h i n t as to what was in our authors mind may be gleaned from Gilgamesh's address to Enkidu, as he seeks to overcome Enkidus fear of confronting Huwawa, the god-appointed guardian of the mountain-peak Cedar Forest: Who, my friend, can scale heaven J Only the gods live forever under the .sun. As for mankind, numbered are their days; Whatever they achieve is but the wind! (ANET p. 79 TAB. Ill (iv) 5 - 8 ) In this affirmation that permanence is an attribute of t h e divine, while the greatest of man's achievements is as substantive and as stable as t h e wind; that since death is inevitable, it makes no sense not to risk life for a heroic triumph; and in the characterization of man's aspiration tor permanence and immortality as an a 111bition "to scale heaven," we have a clue 10 our ancient a u t h o r s vision of the ambi‫׳‬

F R O M NOA'H T O AB RAM

183

tion of t h e T o w e r s builders, and of why it was c o n d e m n e d a n d frustrated Κ (Jod. T h e a m b i t i o n to be o n e and n o t many, c o n c e n t r a t e d a n d n o t scattered, to secure some kind of p e r m a n e n c e for h u m a n achievement-- all this without recourse to G o d - is t h e biblical sin of Pride, what t h e Cheeks called /rvbm.

"Till•: PR I Ml·'VA.L H I S T O R Y " : A N

OVERVIEW

T h e biblical authors c a n be as specific and explicit as a n y o n e else. O f t e n they choose to be hyperbolic, especially in d e n o u n c i n g Israelite eultic practices they disapprove of in terms of apostasy and idolatry, or in characterizing moral lapses as willful rebellion against t h e G o d of Israel. In t h e eleven chapters of Genesis, in sketching t h e Primeval History of m a n k i n d , t h e shortcomings of h u m a n i t y are, and deliberately so, broadly allusive. T h e n a m e s of cities and countries b e c o m e arte estral figures in genealogical tables, t h e tables themselves b e c o m e t h e framework for story plots t h a t are as symbolic as t h e actors w h o figure in t h e m . T h e genealogies in c h a p t e r s 10 a n d 11 are totally c o n s o n a n t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r , a n d serve t h e m e a t of the Tower of Babel story as slices of bread d o in a sandwich. First comes the line ot m a n until, t h e time of t h e Tower. T h i s line details t h e branchings of t h e lines ot S h e m , H a m , a n d J a p h e t h e v e n in t h e generations after t h e G r e a t Dispersion svmbolized in t h e frustration of t h e Tower's builders. This, e x c e p t for t h e one line of S h e m t h a t ends in Pel eg, h e of t h e g e n e r a t i o n of t h e G r e a t Dispersion. Alter the Babel story t h e second genealogy picks up again this o n e line of S h e m , descending from o n e of Eber's two sons, Peleg, t h e line t h a t ends with A b r a m . W i t h A b r a m "the triend or lover of G o d " as h e is called (Isaiah 41:8), t h e Primeval History ends and Israels emergence i n t o history begins. A b r a m , t h e i n t i m a t e of Goci, will begin t h e religious family tradition of fidelity to t h e o n e G o d of Genesis 1 and to his will. A b r a m , as Genesis 12 shows G o d proclaiming, is lhe o n e through whom all m a n k i n d is to achieve blessing. Perhaps including the blessing of unity (under G o d ) , which was in the Primeval History disrupted by G o d because it was att e m p t e d w i t h o u t reference to (‫ ־וי‬reckoning with t h a t G o d . Fhe symbolic loroe of t h e Babel story- like the reasons for the Bible's inclusion of t h e flood story or of N o a h s nakedness -will stand out more clearly, and for all its aliusivcness richer in d i m e n s i o n , if we consider it in terms of t h e form i n t o which it. fits, the pattern and c o n t e x t of t h e material preceding it. T h e first eleven chapters of Genesis can be outlined in a three-unit synopsis; h F O U N D A T I O N S OF THEOLOGY

A. The Creation Story—Focus on God: The Nature of Deity and Ultimate Reality: ( C h . 1:1 - 2 : 4 a )

B. The Eden Story—Focus on Man: Death in a World Made for VIan (Ch. 2:4a4:16 History

‫) ״ ־‬

begins with Expulsion from Eden and the Atrocity of Fratricide

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

1L Ο ΟΠ INTERRUPTS HISTORY A. M;u1V ( îenealogy Culminâting in Noah (( de 4:1 7 IV Ί110 Delude

Its Causes ami Aftermath (Ch. 6:1 • c>:2y)

History resumes with C o d ' s f o l e r a u c e and t h e A t r o c i t y of Mam ill. PRIMEVAL HISTORY Κ Ν HS

A. Noah's Genealogy Culminating in lhe Oenerauon oi the Dispersion (Ch. 10:1-32) Β. The Tower of Babel and the Dispersion oi Man (Ch. 11:1 g) C. Noah's Genealogy through Shem Culminating in Abrain (Ch. 13:10-32) Israelite History begins with Gods Servant and His Promise T h e p a t t e r n in this outline is as linear as an arrow: chapters 1 - 1 1 constitute a n int r a d u c t i o n to C h a p t e r 12. T h e overall focus is o n universal m a n in three successive phases of relationship to t h e source of C r e a t i o n , t h e G o d of n a t u r e and history. Each of t h e phases begins o n a n o t e ot high promise for h u m a n k i n d and ends o n a n o t e of h u m a n k i n d ' s failure: I. Mankind as the crown of creation, with its potential for majesty under God, chooses to be historic man and begins history wirb murder. II. Mankinds second chance, in the line ot Cain or Seth, fails of morality and is doomed by the Deluge, save for a third chance in the person of Noah. III. Mankinds third chance, in the line of Noah, culminates in universal mans fail‫׳‬ ure, the failure adumbrated in the licentiousness of the Hamite line and symbolized in the building of the Tower and God's sentence of dispersion. A fourth chance is implicit in the narrow ing of the focus on the one line of Shem, through Eber, then Peleg, culminating in .Ahram, first of braeD patriarchs. It is as though G o d , having tried once, twice, and a third time w i t h h u m a n k i n d as a whole, concludes that his hopes were too ambitious. He will start again, this time with o n e m a n and Iiis family, one people, slowly emerging into history, perhaps t o succeed w h e r e m a n k i n d as a whole bus failed. A h r a m will h a v e many descendants, but his chosen role as ( Kids destined vessel, as the. o n e line a m o n g so many, w h i c h may be an exemplar for all m a n k i n d s branches, will go from Isaac to Jacob, w h o becomes Israel. Let all w h o will take this literally. T h e evidence is a b u n d a n t in Scripture t h a t t h e r e were m a n y in t h e generations oi Israel who took m u c h of this literally, especially t h e pride and t h e privilege to the exclusion of t h e humility w h i c h becomes t h e servant, and its c o n c o m i t a n t sense of noblesse oblige. A n d spokesmen of Script u r c — b e they f u l m i n a t i n g prophet, legislating moralist, masterful storyteller, or arc h i t e c t o n i c e d i t o r — a r e n o t h i n g loathe to give this p h e n o m e n o n its proper n a m e : failure before G o d . T h e n o t i o n of m a n s creation in the divine image, perhaps e v e n his descent f r o m a c o m m o n ancestor, can be traced to M e s o p o t a m i a n myth. 1 7 O n l y in Scripture do we h a v e this notion, so underlined as to c o n s t i t u t e o n e of its few universal dogmas. M a n k i n d is tone through Adam, S e t h a n d C a i n , and N o a h . T h r o u g h t h e seed of A b r a h a m in the line of Israel it can realize its oneness o n c e again. T h e H e b r e w Bible sees the past as a c h a i n of failures; it judges its c o n t i n u i n g

h'KOM N O A H Ί Ο ABRAM

!85

present in terms of the failures so ironic in the chosen line; and for all the many fail· ures and t h e paucity oi triumphs it does n o t — i n t h e last analysis—ever give up o n Israel, or t h e h u m a n i t y whose protagonist Israel can yet, and ought to, be. T h e Hebrew Bible is the expression of Israel's sell-consciousness of its place and role in t h e e c o n o m y of the universe. This is to say, if is t h e expression of t h a t self-consciousness o n t h e part of Israels best minds and best hearts. T h e heirs of t h a t self-consciousness are those w h o make it their own. If this last has t h e ring of p r e a c h m e n t , well, t h e Bible is a literature of p r e a c h m e n t . T h e only question is w h e t h e r t h e interpretation w h i c h rings of p r e a c h m e n t resonates recognizably w i t h t h e ring of Scripture's voice.

E V E N T S IN T H E OF

LIFE

ABRAHAM

A B R A M T H E Ν O B T.K W A R R Ï O R

Biblical discourse is discursive (and it is so to a remarkable degree). W h a t keeps the first clause of this sentence from constituting a tautology is t h e odd difference in the nuances oi the noun and adjective. W h e r e a s the rmmm^ ίο ond fro (of t h e original and literal Latin) conveys in the n o u n the >cnse of logical and consecutive speech or thought, in t h e adjective there h a strong sense of discontinuity or db gression. O n e exemplary aspect of the discursiveness of biblical discourse is reflected in t h e "stories and structures" in this v o l u m e s subtitle. T h e r e are m a n y o t h e r aspects of this (literary) p h e n o m e n o n in addition to a l t e r n a t i o n of forms and genres, such as perspectival shifts in consecutive narratives h i n g e ing o n changes in identities of implied author, more-or-lcss reliable or o m n i s c i e n t narrator, and variably sophisticated implied audience. Genesis 1 2 - 1 5 , t h e first four chapters c e n t e r e d o n t h e p a t r i a r c h A b r a m , present several examples of t h e m a t i c c o n t i n u i t y i n t e r r u p t e d by generally inapposite narratives, w h i c h could w i t h artistic benefit h a v e b e e n inserted elsewhere in t h e c h r o n i c l e of t h e patriarch's career. O n e can readily see, therefore, h o w inviting this would be to source criticism (or any ‫ ״‬e n c t i c a p p r o a c h to t h e text t h a t is undisturbed by t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n ot the i n c o m p e t e n t editor), a n d — a t t h e opposite pole—-how challenging to a poetic re ad um ( w h i c h c a n n o t by its n a t u r e c o n c e d e incapacity or i n a d v e r t e n c e on t h e part of cither editor or a u t h o r ) . The way of t h e

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF A B R A H A M

187

critic is n o t , however, rhe way of t h e artist, nor that of t h e c o m m e n t a t o r . W e shall therefore in our t r e a t m e n t ol t h e material in these four chapters reserve t h e adventures of Sarah and A b r a m in Egypt lor t r e a t m e n t later in c o n n e c t i o n with o t h e r romances ol t h e triangular modality, defer t h e consideration of t h e o p e n i n g revelation in C h a p t e r 12 so as to treat it t o g e t h e r with t h e o t h e r narratives Icaturing divine revelations and promises, ‫׳‬and hegin A h r a i n s career in media res with t h e egregious C h a p t e r 14. T h e characterization of this c h a p t e r as egregious owes to t h e a n t on y m o us conn o t a t i o n s of t h e word, .standing out from the herd, in t h e sense of "distinguished" in t h e original Latin, and in English, 'dike a sore thumb." T h e following c i t a t i o n from Speiser is a fair s u m m a t i o n of t h e view ot critical scholarship: Genesis xiv stands alone among all the accounts in the Pentateuch, if not indeed in the Bible as a whole. The setting is international, the approach impersonal, and the narration notable for its unusual style and vocabulary. . . . On one point the critics are virtually unanimous; the tarai liar touches ot the established sources of Genesis are ahsent in this instance. For all these reasons the chapter has to be ascribed to an isolated source . . . it is [the sue cess tul] exploit by Abraham, in the otherwise unfamiliar role of a warrior, that evidently led to the inclusion of the chapter with the regular patriarchal material in Genesis. . . . The date of the narrative has been variously estimated. . . . A fresh reexamination of all the available scraps of evidence, both internal and external, favors an early date, scarcely later in fact than the middle of the second millennium. 1 Speiser s well-earned repute as philologian, linguist, Semitist, and cultural historian has n o t lost luster in t h e three decades since his demise. It is t h e more remarkable t h e n t h a t his fine-tuned ear and perceptive sight and insight could be so dulled by the b l a n d i s h m e n t s of* source-critical literary science. Except for a single syntactic and idiomatic anomaly in the o p e n i n g clause of this account (to use Speisers telltale word for narrative) there is not a single item of style or vocabulary t h a t is 1111usual; if anything, the stvle is classic biblical 1 lehrew. T h e inability ot doe untentarists to discern traces of J, Ε or Ρ 111 this passage entitles it to status as a u n i q u e " d o c u m e n t " (labeled X by Speiser); a d o c u m e n t in which we can read t h e translat i o n into H e b r e w (bad Hebrew, to be sure) oi an A k k a d i a n text t h a t was incorporated into Genesis because t he editor, presumably, was so thrilled to find attestation in a foreign source of t h e historicity ot an ancestor of whose career h e is himself t h e historian. A s for t h e d a t i n g of a literary text (rather, snippet of a literary t e x t ) to a h a l f - m i l l e n n i u m earlier t h a n t h e earliest of its d o c u m e n t a r y c o m p a n i o n s , why this is just f u r t h e r indication of that measurability t h a t is a critical hallmark of science! Let us proceed to t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e text: (τ) In the time of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king ot Goiini2)—‫ )־‬they waged war with Bera king of Sodom, and Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shi nab king of Admah and Shemeber king of Zeboim and the king of Bela (that is Zoar). (3) All these gathered in alliance in the Vale of Siddim (that is the Salt Sea). (4) Twelve years had they been subject to Che‫׳‬ darlaomer, and i n the thirteenth year r o e in rebellion. (5) And in the fourteenth year Chedarlaomer arrived and the k1n^< his allies. They defeated the Rephaites in

188

Ν Τ Ο Γι ï 1‫ ׳‬S —1 1 T D K PRIMI:" VA I.

HISTORY"

Ashteroth-qarnaim, and die Zuzites in Ham, and the Hmim in Shaveh-Qirytaim (6) and the Horites in their hil !-country Seir- —as far as Ebparan which is at the steppe harder. (7) Turning about they came tu Enumdipar (that is, Qadesh) and battered the Amalekite steppe-land as well as the Arno ;·!res settled around Hazazon-tamar. (8) The k i n g of Sodom s a l l i e d f o r t h , a n d t h e king o f G o m o r r a h , and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboim, and t h e k i n e of Be la ( t h a t is, Zoar) and arranged for battle with them in the vale of S i d d i m , (y) n a m e l y , with Chedarlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and A m r a p h e l k i n g of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, four kings against the five. (10) (The Vale of Siddim now was pocked with bitumen pits.) They — the king of Sodom a n d G o m o r r a h — w e r e r o u t e d . There fell there [many] casualties, while the s u r v i v o r s f l e d to the hill c o u n t r y . ( 1 1 ) They [the invadersl took all the wealth of Sodom and G o m o r r a h , all their f o o d s t o r e , and departed. (12) They took Lot and his wealth, the s o n ot Ahram's b r o t h e r a n d departed, he now l i v ing in Sodom. ( 1 3 ) There came an escapee and t o l d Abrain the Hebrew—he then abiding at the Gaks of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman o f E s h k o l a n d kinsman of Aner, they being Ahrains confederates. ( 1 4 ) When Ahram heard t h a t his kinsman had been taken captive he unsheathed h i s shock t r o o p s , h i s home-born slaves eighteen and three hundred [in numbed, and made pursuit all the way to Dan. (15) Separating into two lorees against then! at night, he and his slaves, he attacked then! and pursued them all the way to 1 lobah which is north oi Damascus. (!6) J fe recovered all the properly a n d also h i s k i n s m a n L o t a n d his p r o p e r t y d i d h e recover and the women and the [rest o f t h e ] p e o p l e as w e l l (17)

The

king of Sodom

came

out to

meet

him,

upon

his

return from

defeat i n g

C h e d a r l a o m e r a n d h i s a l l i e d k i n g s , t o t h e V a l e of S b a v e h ( t h a t is, t h e K i n g ' s V a l e ) . (18)

Now Melchizeclek

priest t o E l E l y o n -

king

of Salem brought out bread and

wine—he,

that

is,

( 1 9 ) H e g r e e t e d h i m as f o l l o w s , " B l e s s e d he A h r a m b y E l E l y o n ,

creator of heaven and earth. (20) And praised he El Elyon [the god] that has delivered your enemies into your power." To him he gave a tenth-part of everything.) (21) The king of Sodom said to Ahram, 4'Let me have the humans, the material property keep for yourself." (22) Said Ahram to the king of Sodom, "My hand have I raised [in oath] to YHWH-E1 Elyon, creator o f h e a v e n a n d earth. ( 2 3 ) That not thread nor shoelace, nothing whatsoever 01‫ ־‬y o u r b e l o n g i n g s will I keep, lest you ever think, It is I that made Ahram rich: ( 2 4 ) Nothing f o r m e e x c e p t for my lads' expenses . . . and the shares owing to those who c a m p a i g n e d at m y side, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre-—they are to keep their shares." (Genesis 14:1 — 24) More t h a n any other f a c t o r — p e r h a p s more than all other factors c o m b i n e d — making for difficulty and perplexity to the modern Bible scholar is the presumption of historiographie intent on t h e part, ot the biblical author. O n c e we grant Scripaire's authors the same freedom we do to today s writers of historical romances, the freedom to blend documented persons and events with legendary motifs in a melange in which the predominating element is pure invention, it is wondrous how so many problems simply fall away.‫'־‬ More than a case in point, a parade example rat !1er, is this Chapter 14. hong hefore Speiser, scholars were impressed by the 11 it lient icit y of the1 names 0( kings and

E V E N T S IN THE LIFE

OF A B R A H A M

189

places f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a o n the o n e h a n d and, o n t h e other, t h e indicators t h a t t h e collocation of these n a m e s and their collaboration in an e x p e d i t i o n o n southern Palestine presents a historical absurdity. Speiser himself confessed to his students t h a t his speculation t h a t c opper was t h e tribute so n e e d e d in M e s o p o t a m i a was a desperate way to a c c o u n t tor whar looked like t h e resources of a mighty empire being mustered to reduce a tew barns in a harclscrabble f a r m l a n d . A s incongruous as t h e image invoked in this simile is, and fittingly so, its appositeness holds only for t h e Dead Sea landscape that meets our eyes today (and so m e t t h e eyes of t h e biblical a u t h o r s contemporaries). But this landscape was n o t t h e o n e seen and chosen for himself by Lot w h e n , as told in t h e preceding C h a p t e r 1.‫ל‬, be parted with U n c l e A b r a m , "Lifting his eves (to t h e horizons) Lot beheld t h e stretch of t h e Jordan s valley, so very richly w a t e r e d — ' t w a s (remember( before VI IWl Is dévastalion ot S o d o m and oi G o m o r r a h — l i k e Y1 I W l P s own garden, like the land ot Egypt, from Zoar onwards," A n d rhe cities of that lush legendary plain must have b e e n rich, populous and walled, like all those w h i c h , over some five centuries, fell to o n e or a n o t h e r imperial c o n q u e r o r trom M e s o p o t a m i a until t h a t tide swept over Egypt itself in t h e reign of t h e C h a l d e a n king of Babylon, A s h u r b a n i p a b A l l t h e five cities of t h e plain are legendary; two of t h e m , A d m a h a n d Zeboim, are proverbial elsewhere in Scripture for sharing t h e fate of S o d o m and G o m o r r a h . T h e fifth exists as a place n a m e in the time of m o n a r c h i c a l Israel, o n t h e fringe of t h e N e g e b steppe. A n d it is a n o t h e r aspect of t h e whimsy t h e biblical a u t h o r permits himself t h a t in C h a p t e r 14 he pictures Zoar under t h e n a m e Bela as o n e of t h e five cities facing up u n d e r its own ( u n n a m e d ) king to t h e Empire in t h e East; while in C h a p t e r 19, Lot, in escaping t h e fate of S o d o m , asks t h a t h e be permitted safe h a v e n in Zoar, p u n n i n g o n the stem ‫" ז י‬small, tiny." Presumably in asking t h a t a spot scheduled for o v e r t h r o w be s p a r e d — " a f t e r all, it is such a n insignificant p l a c e " — h e is referring to a settlement rather t h a n a spot w i t h i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l boundary. A n d this settlement, if s e t t l e m e n t it is, survives i n t o centuries later. Perhaps its p o p u l a t i o n t u r n e d over a n e w leaf some time after t h e sulfurous tide lapped almost to its borders, but not immediately, for Lot, "fearing to r e m a i n In Zoar," takes to a cave in t h e hill country w i t h his two daughters. T h e possibility t h a t Zoar h a d n o p o p u l a t i o n in L o t s time would seem to be supported by t h e rationalization of Lot's daughters for c o h a b i t i n g w i t h h i m , "there being nary a o n e o n e a r t h to come upon us in t h e normal way of t h e world" ( 19:31 ). But if there were no men to (ear in little Zoar t h e n why did Lot withdraw into the highlands? Hid h e tear that the P e t t y who had saved his family alone m i g h t vet relent oi his gracious resolve, might yet extend the rising waters oi the Salt Sea Γ That sea which in 1 4 : o u r narrator informs us, is identical wild! w h a t was, in t h o s e Edenic days, t h e Vale of Sicldim, t h a t is, "Vale of Pits." 11ère too we are treated to an a n a c h r o n i s t i c reversal t h a t could only be i n t e n t i o n a l . T h e Salt Sea area k n o w n today for its minerals m i g h t today lay claim to t h e n a m e Valley of Lime (‫•׳‬deposits), in Hebrew Emeq Hassiddim, w h i c h n a m e it bore in pre- fire-and-hrimstone clays. But in those days some part of t h a t plain was p o c k e d w i t h pits oi bit innen, a relative of t h e p e t r o l e u m so absent from t h e area, to t h e chagrin oi t h e polities t h a t are its newest owners, just w h a t role, if any, these pits played in c o n n e c t i o n with the battle is a question as yet unanswered. T h e n o t i o n , advanced by Speiser and accepted by t h e N e w Jewish

lyo

S Τ Ο RIES — '‫'־‬THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

Publication Society (NJPS), t h a t t h e defeated kings flung themselves into tar pits to hide from their pursuers, evokes an image so ludicrous as to warrant more support t h a n t h e text provides for the possibility t h a t this too is a result of t h e a u t h o r s whimsy, But wbimsy is clearly at play in the names oi the five kings. Most notably in. the absence oi‫ ־‬any n a m e whatsoever for the king oi‫( ־‬Zoar Insignificance ) Bcla "swallow up, destroy." But also in the long-recognized stems lor "evil" (r") and "wicked" (rs ) in the names of the kin‫״‬s of Sodom and ( fomorrah. T h e authenticity of t h e names in the Mesopotunuan coalition serving to reinforce t h e philologians c o n c e r n for historicity, it is (111‫ •\י‬to he expected t h a t such scholars would hardly allow t h a t a creative author's whimsy might account for t h e following anomalies in respect to these items: 1) the dat ing ot a historic event to the lifetime of four kings rather t h a n one; 2) t h e heading of t h a t list by A m r a p h e l of S h i n a r (= Babylonia) in verse 1, while in verses 4 - 5 it is twice asserted t h a t it is C h e d a r l a o m e r w h o is t h e liege-lord and t h e other kings his vassals; 3) t h e feature of t h e introductory biymë "in t h e days o t " or "when." which Speiser finds "unacceptable by normal Heb. [syntactic] standards." (His solution of this last problem by recourse to a hypothe tic a 1 translation ot an Akkadian c o n j u n c t i o n is linguistically unnecessary and improbable.) 3 In the supposed strangeness ot this C h a p t e r 14 which, untraceable to t h e canonical sources ], E, and P, must constitute a source in itself because, being historiographic or legendary, it c a n n o t be t h e work of t h e biblical author; in the unique status assigned to it bv source-biblical criticism, there are overlooked a n u m b e r of congruities and concordances with the P e n t a t e u c h a l picture of t h e patriarchal age, and with t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of warfare obtaining during t h e centuries of Scripture's composition, beginning with t h e Assyrian irruption into Aram-Syria, and continuing through t h e Neo-Babylonian conquest, of Egypt and t h e Persian succession to that imperialist tradition of Mesopotamia. Of the population stocks in the area over which Israel later claimed sovereignty or vital influence, t h e oldest stratum, superseded by the Israelites under Moses or even earlier by Israel's kinsmen, included the legendary Rephaites (sometimes associated with the Anak titans), a lew of their descent! ant s surviving in Philistin into David ic times. In this siratum too belonged A montes, who founded kingdoms such as those of Og in Bashan and Sihon of 1 leshbon in trans-Jordan; t h e Emim, ρ redecessons of t h e Moabites (related to t h e gigantic A n a k i t c s and Rephaites in Deuteronomy 2 : 1 0 - 1 1); the Za mi urn in im, a name given to their Rephaite predecessors by their A m m o n i t e conquerors (Deuteronomy 2 : 2 0 ) ; t h e A w im, displaced by t h e Philistines; and t h e Horites ("cave dw ellers") in t h e hill country of Seir before t h e arrival of t h e Edomites. All of these, except for t h e Avvim o n the Gaza coastland, are situated in t h e trans-Jordanian area from t h e n o r t h e r n highlands to the southern terminus, t h e Dead Sea and south-southwest o f t h a t terminus. All of these peopies (equating t h e ^rri wdth t h e ‫ )דמדללזוזלד‬are victims of t h e M e s o p o t a m i a n sweep, t h a t is, Emim, Zuzim, H o n , Rephaites, and Amorites. T h r e e o t h e r A m o r i t e kinsm e n are chieftains in the vicinity of Hebron, and allied with Abrarn (the Hebrew; what other gentilic might have been applied ‫ ז‬ο Ahram, given the gentilic company h e was keeping/)· Ehe kings ot the five Cities of the Plain are not identified as to

EVENTS IN T H E Li FE OF A B R A H A M

19 I

stock, as the Mesopotamian kings are not, and while we are welcome to speculate on this question it is of n o particular importai :e for the narrator. T h e campaign conducted by the invaders 1. in keeping with the imperial si rategy of the period of Israelite monarchy. T h e warfare carried on by Israel in the time of Joshua and the Shoietim (as also, implicitly, by her agnate tribesmen of Amnion, Moab, and Hdom) is pictured as one tor Lebensraum, requiring the supplanting ol an indigenous population. T h e imperial wars of the Mesopotamians, by contrast, was to expand dominion over territories which might be milked of yearly iributc as economically as possible. Thus in t h e first stages of invasion the farm and timber lands, mines and trade-routes, and unwalled settlements were ravaged and. pillaged with the aim ot persuading the ruler of t h e city-state to accept a vassalage that left his city's walls intact. Recalcitrant polities might resist such depredations for several years, until their cities were laid under siege. W h e n a polity had been so reducecl to vassalage, rebellion was constituted by t h e withholding of tribute. So in the case of the Cities of the Plain, which withheld tribute in the thirteenth year ot subjection and were forced to meet retaliation in t h e fourteenth. Our biblical narrator, unconcerned as ever with historiographie detail, leaves us to speculate on the decision of the five kings to hazard fie Id-warfare against their erstwhile overlord. (Here too whimsy may be in play in the choice of an Elamite king to head the Mesopotamian coalition, for Elam—for many centuries foe of Babylon— never figured as threat to any other hegemony, let alone the Syro-Palestinian tcrritories.) Perhaps it was the small size of the force from the east that emboldened the kings of the Plain. In any case they were trounced, the survivors fleeing to the hill country. A n d the victors would have been free to deal with the cities, their walls now so thinly defended. There is no mention of siege or parley, nor is Sodom taken by storm, Yet the ability of the victors to abscond with "all the wealth and food stores of Sodom and Gomorrah" would seem to indicate that the invaders were able to exact from the cities 1 defenders, if not a reinstitution of allegiance and the yearly tribute, at least a considerable prize of valuables, and enough rations to see them safely back to home base. Among the prizes yielded to the invaders were humans, for enslavement or ransom. And among the latter it is not surprising that the Sodomites would inelude the alien Lot and his family among those surrendered. 1 his first episode is, on lhe whole, syntactically and stylistically unexceptionable by the canons of biblical narrative even to t h e element of gapping; for exampie, t h e omission of military details of t h e war. In part this omission can be remedied by the imagination of any reader who is conversant with the nature of warfare in the biblical world. To that extent then, it is exemplary of the Bible's narrative economy or thrift J In part, however, it reflects the biblical author's mastery of perspectival leverage. Like ninety-nine percent of biblical narrative, related in that matter-of-fact m a n n e r that bespeaks the modality of history—real people caught up in real events in a real p a s t — t h e "account" in C h a p t e r 14 requires the realistic elements that will c o m m a n d t h e a t t e n t i o n of the serious reader. (Needless to say, serious readers in antiquity, as today, would not consider fictive art worthy of their study.) To that end therefore, t h e author of C h a p t e r 1:4 begins his narrative as an independent chronicle: "Now it happened in the [regnal] time o f . . ." This without an ν transition trom the history of its one hero Abram, who in the immédiat el ν pre-

I 92

S T O R I E S ‫ " —־‬T H E P R I M E V A L

HISTORY"

ceding verse was engaged in building yet another altar to the God named Y H W H , under whose protection he moves through a historic landscape as though it were an unpeopled continent. (Little wonder that geneticists find n o room for this chapter in their register ot sources, strata, or documents.) T h e concern for historicity or a facsimile thereof is. of course, present in the place names of t h e east-of-Jordan plain and the Negev-Sinai area to the south and west of the Dead Sea. So also in the vensimilitudinous names from Mesopotamia and the repetition of the royal names on both sides in verses 8 - 9 , "four kings against the five" (although proper syntax calls for the unartistic "five kings against the four"). Realism and historicity are at one end of the seesaw, while at t h e other end arc the countervailing element s of fantasy that we have noted: the whimsy in the names of t h e kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and of the anonymous king of a settlement, which in the narrator's time is called Insignificance but was t h e n k n o w n as Gulp; in the legendary autochthonous titans (the Rephaim) who are so surprisingly vulnerable to Lilliputian invaders; in assigning command of the imperial forces to the farthermost easte m power which, never itself an intrusive force in the west, was powerful and aggressive enough to periodically distract t h e rulers of Assyria and Babylonia from their imperial preoccupations with the1 western lands. T h e second episode, beginning with A bra m's learning of his nephew's capture by a marauding host of the Hrnpire in the East, also displays the badly balanced elemcnis of historiographie realism and historically incongruous plotting. T h e fugitive from the war on the Plain who tells the tale of the war to Abram arrived from where:7 T h e term tor him palit denotes a person escaped from a general disaster, hence the impression that he was one of the defeated army who escaped to the hillcountry in the north, making his way ultimately to Hebron. But were that the case he would have had no knowledge of the negotiations between the victorious gencrals and the defenders of Sodom's walks, a n d — c r u c i a l l y — t h e information that Lot, Abram s kinsman, had been handed over to the withdrawing army. N o r would he have known when that withdrawal began, nor the route of the retreating army. T h e important thing of course is that A b r a m learn of his kinsman's capture; the rest he can figure ο Lit for himself. It must be presumed that A b r a m knew of the twelve-year subjection of the plain cities to the Empire in t h e East; nor would it appear strange to him that that lush country and its opulent cities (chosen for himself by the ungenerous Lot) would draw the loot-hungry empire to the neglect of the much poorer hilL country west of the Jordan. So too would he have k n o w n that t h e invasion route would have been the King's Highway east of t h e Jordan, and so also the route of the withdrawal. H e himself would have made a forced march through the central highlands, cutting across at some point to head off t h e imperial force near the Jordan s headwaters in the northernmost of later Israel's tribal land, Dan. Here too the route of the invaders and the pursuit from Damascus to Hobah supposes that this area could be made into a no-man's-land without inviting the int e r v e n t i o n of its powerful city-states. T h e most factitious event in this second episode is the seemingly inapposite appearance of Melehiiedek, king of ||cru|salem. 1 low and whv would this king have climbed down to (he Ionian and crossed it at one of its lords to ; u v e t Ahram at Kings Vale (which every one knows, thouuh not by its fortner name, I A'VCI Valley)!

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

193

T h e stylistic normality of our narrative breaks d o w n at t h e transition point be‫׳‬ t w e e n the two episodes. Two verses tell of t h e t a k i n g of booty f r o m S o d o m a n d t h e taking of Lot as part of t h a t booty. Instead of o n e s e n t e n c e w i t h a h y p o t a c t i c clause following t h e m a i n o n e , we h a v e two remarkably and awkwardly similar par a tact i.e. sentences; VERSE ι ι

Lhey took all 11K‫ ־‬p r o p e r l y ot Sodom and Gomorrah a n d all t h e i r victuals a n d w e n t oil. (( îenesis 140 1 )

VERSE 1 2

They look Lui and his property the nephew of Abrain, and went off. (Me now was residing in Sodom) (Genesis 14:12)

T h e r e can be no doubt t h a t t h e repetitive parataxis is deliberate, designed in part at least to draw our a t t e n t i o n to two clumsy constructions in verse 1 2 , first t h e u n ‫׳‬ necessary interposition of "his property" b e t w e e n Lot and t h e appositional phrase "the n e p h e w of Abram," and t h e n t h e h y p o t a c t i c clause o n Lot's residence in Sodom c o m i n g after, rather t h a n where it belongs, before t h e verb whose subject is t h e invaders; "and they w e n t off." A comparison w i t h t h e n o r m a l and proper syntax of verse 16 will reveal t h a t verse 12 would normally h a v e read as follows: \vegam 'et ïôt ben‫״‬dhï abräm ur'küsö läkähü uWuf y ose/‫ ל‬bisdom "also Lot, A b r a m ' s nephew, a n d his property did they c a p t u r e — h e (at t h a t time) being resident in S o d o m " W h a t does the narrator achieve by his departure f r o m n o r m a t i v e style and syiv tax? For one thing h e suggests t h e avaricious c h a r a c t e r of Lot, and this by L o t s seitp e r c e p t i o n in w h a t Meir Steinberg terms implied free indirect discourse. Abram's n e p h e w is n o t Lot t h e m a n , nor Lot and his family, but Lot with his possessions; w i t h o u t his wealth h e is n o t h i n g . So too w i t h t h e p a r e n t h e t i c n o t e of his residence, placed where it will occasion remark. It is n o t t h a t w i t h o u t this explicit informat i o n we would be at a loss to bridge t h e gap for ourselves. But Lot, t h e wealthy catt l e m a n , his herd and flocks t e n d e d by servants o n t h e rich ranges of t h e Plain, himself w i t h family and coffers enjoys t h e security of t h e walls of Sodom, t h a t plutocratic city where even hospitality may be had for a price. All t h e more ironic, that his secure h a v e n b e c a m e t h e trap and that together with t h e wealth that won h i m guest-status he he a m o n g those surrendered by Iiis hosts to force majeure. Note, too, how artfully in verse 16 Lot and his property are sandwiched in b e t w e e n t h e booty belonging to S o d o m proper, and in a list t h a t reflects Sodom's values, beg i n n i n g with material wealth, c o n t i n u i n g w i t h wives a n d daughters, and e n d i n g with t h e male rabble destined for e n s l a v e m e n t : " H e recovered all t h e property •• • and also his kinsman, Lot and his property did h e recover—·and t h e women and t h e rest of t h e people as well." All these are fine touches. But t h e f u n c t i o n of the two paratactic sentences in verses 11 and 12 are revealing in respect to t h e author's artistic control. It was remarked earlier that C h a p t e r 14 begins with a n abrupt turning away from t h e story of Abram. A n d so the i n d e p e n d e n t , historic, a n d essentially neutral account of a campaign in which sympathy of n e i t h e r narrator nor reader is engaged continues until its end in verse 11. T h i s n o w is followed by a n alternative ending in verse 1.2, nor so

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

much an ending as a prolcpsis of t h e action in t h e n e x t verse 13; a sentence that says in effect, everything t h a t has b e e n told up to this point is of n o montent to us. W e should never have reproduced it here but for o n e tiny matter, trivial alike to kings ot the Plain and imperial earth-shakers: among t h e booty there was included a fateful victim, but for w h o m t h e withdrawing legions would h a v e returned h o m e unscathed. T h a t victim t h e n e p h e w of A b r a m , generous as his n e p h e w is greedy, loyal to kith and kin as his n e p h e w is opportunist and u n c o n c e r n e d deracinate. A n escapee came and told A b r a m . W h a t h e told A b r a m 1s n o t stated. T h e time factor is n o w h e r e present in t h e narrative: h o w long t h e sweep t h r o u g h t h e R e p h a i te plains took, h o w long t h e battle in t h e held, h o w long t h e haggling between the invaders t h r e a t e n i n g siege and Sodom's defenders weighing t h a t prospect and t h e cost of buying off t h e predators. A n army laden w i t h booty, textiles and precious metals, cattle and h u m a n s , w i t h n o reason to suspect t h e possibility of pursuit, will travel at a leisurely pace. Perhaps A b r a m learned f r o m runners dispatched to S o d o m t h a t t h e invaders h a d b r o k e n camp, departing with tribute wrested from : h e city; t h a t report included t h e o n e bit of i n f o r m a t i o n of interest to A b r a m . u W11en A b r a m heard t h a t his kinsman (ïïhlw "his brother"), not his ‫׳‬nephew (hen ähnv "his brother's son") h a d been t a k e n captive, h e u n s h e a t h e d t h e w e a p o n h e drew‫ ׳‬so rarely, his hanlkïm. T h e root of this n o u n , appearing only here, informs im its meaning. It is t h e root of t h e n a m e oi the exemplary a n t e d i l u v i a n Enoch, appears in Scripture with t h e sense of "dedicate, train, or educate," and far more irequentlv in later Hebrew with these meanings. T h e n u m b e r of these h o m e - b o r n slaves, drilled lor battle and passionate in their masters service, was ) Y H W H ' s a n g e l said t o her, " G o hack to your mistress, e n d u r e a b a s e m e n t at h e r h a n d s ' 1 ( 1 0 ) |Yes,] Y H W H ' s angel p r o m i s e d h e r [in Elis n a m e ] , " S o n u m e r o u s will I m a k e your offspring t h a t t h e y will be b e y o n d counting.' 1 ( 1 1 ) [The gist of] what Y H W H ' s a n g e l said, ‫ ״‬L o , w i t h child you are, a son w i l l you bear. You are t o n a m e h i m Lshmael [ m e a n i n g , G o d h a s h e a r d ( ; that is t o say, Y H W H h a s p a i d h e e d t o y o u r p l i g h t . ( 12) H e n o w will he a wild ass of a m a n , his h a n d a g a i n s t e v e r y o n e a n d e v e r y o n e ' s h a n d against h i m . G ver against all h i s k i n s m e n shall h e h i s d w e l l i n g secure." ( 1 3 ) S o s h e t h u s d e s i g n a t e d Y H W H , H e W h o was a d d r e s s i n g her, "Ehra!

is

W h o You a r e " — h e r t h o u g h t b e i n g "I lave I to s u c h p o i n t b e e n g i v e n sight, b e y o n d m y [gift of?] sight?" 1 7 ( 1 4 ) H e n c e is t h a t s p r i n g n a m e d B'erdahai-roi—

t h e r e y e t today,

b e t w e e n K a d e s h a n d Be red. ( 1 5 ) S o it was t h a t H a g a r bore A b r a m a s o n . T h i s s o n b o r n to h i m by H a g a r , A b r a m n a m e d l s h m a e l . ( 1 6 ) A b r a m n o w b e i n g 8 6 years old w h e n H a g a r b o r e Ishmael to Abram. (Genesis 16:1-16)

T h e h y p o t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n of verse :1 ties this narrative b e g i n n i n g to t h e t h e m e of A b r a m s childlessness, so central to t h a t in t h e immediately preceding chapter, t h e promise of a n end to t h a t barrenness. T h e c o n t e n t of this narrative, its plot if you will, points to t h e realization of t h a t p r o m i s e — i t s first r e a l i z a t i o n — i n t h e heir w h o will spring from A b r a m s loins, b u t n o t from Sarai's. Y e t — f o r all t h a t t h e plot will focus o n t h a t h e i r s m o t h e r — t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n in verse 1 also serves to

foreground Sarai as t h e initiator of the step t h a t will end A b r a m s barrenness (and, in a sense, h e r o w n ) . In a d d i t i o n to f o r e g r o u n d i n g Sarai by n a m i n g h e r at t h e narr a t i v e s very b e g i n n i n g a n d i m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r u n d e r l i n i n g that tire

Egyptian

slave-girl is hers, not Abram's, the narrator will c o n t i n u e to stress t h e distances (and proximities) of t h e characters trom (and to) o n e a n o t h e r as also from (and to) t h e ( !od w h o p e r s o n a l l y p r e s i d e s o v e r t h e d e s t i n y oi t h i s f a m i l y h e h a s c h o s e n t o r h i s p u r p o s e s . 1 le will d o t h i s b y d e p l o y i n g t h e n a m e Yl 1W1 1 t h r o u g h o u t t h e n a r r a tive in b o t h his o w n

voice and

in S a r a A d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e , by h a v i n g H a g a r

ad-

2 14

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

dressed nor by Y H W I I himself but by YHWI Γ s angel, and finally by making it clear in his own narratorial voice and in immediate c o n j u n c t i o n with H a g a r s direct discourse that, unlike Sarai, Hagar does n o t , perhaps may n o t , dispose of that name; perhaps because she lacks t h e requisite awareness of t h e significance inhering in t h a t n a m e . T h e status of t h e characters and their i m p o r t a n c e — i n varying de‫׳׳‬ g r e c s — t o Y H W H , to A b r a m , and to o n e another, is f u r t h e r u n d e r l i n e d by t h e nar‫״‬ rator's (sometimes repetitious) use of t h e personae's proper n a m e s and their epithets. frequently r e d u n d a n t in c o n t e x t a n d as information. T h u s in t h e n a r r a t i v e s first clause, t h e identification of Sarai as Abram's wife. T h e appearance of Y H W H everywhere in this c h a p t e r as in t h e preceding one. the Covenant (Enacted) Between the Parts, as well as t h e proximity and order ot t h e two chapters, should alert us to t h e problems in Scriptural composition that c a n n o t be resolved h ν recourse to t h e genetic theory of multiple authorship. T h e problem comes to the tore in Sarai s proposal to A b r a m . It is Y H W H , she says, w h o has kept her from giving birth. N o t a problem this, if (in keeping w i t h our suggestion) t h a t n a m e is a m e t a p h o r for t h e O n e and O n l y source of life and d e t e r m i n e r of all des‫׳‬ tinies. But is it conceivable t h a t A b r a m has n o t told her of t h e promise vouchsafed to h i m by Y H W H in yesterday's vision? O r is t h e story of t h e promise and the vision, itself a m e t a p h o r (and intended for t h e reader rather t h a n t h e personae of patriarch and matriarch) irrelevant for the consciousness or perspectives of these personae as they cast about for ways to achieve their longed-for heir, despite Heaven's seeming u n c o n c e r n with their barrenness/ O r may we indeed infer that Sarai has been informed of the promise, knows now that an heir will spring from A b r a i n s loins, if not from her own / But w h a t m a t t e r if she too may h a v e her line perpctua ted by a son w h o will be hers (ïhhanë) t h o u g h conceived in t h e foster w o m b of her slave-girl/ A b r a m accedes to Sara is proposal. But in t h e n e x t verse it is o n c e again Sarai Abram's teife w h o takes Hagar the Egyptian, her slave and makes h e r over to A b r a m her husband to be wife to him. T h u s t h e o n e and only wife transfers her c h a t t e l to her husband, but in t h e process t h a t lowly slave ceases to be h e r property, a mere proxy-womb for t h e p r o d u c t i o n of an heir to her husband and herself; hers n o w is the status 01 wife, secondary wife to be sure, but wife nonetheless to her lady's litisband. W e need n o t review here t h e legal background for t h e domestic web of s tatus-rclationships t h a t is provided by researchers 1 8 of t h e cuneiform literature. Sutrice it to sav t h a t e v e n if we could recover t h e store of legal expertise in t h e m i n d of the Scriptural author, we might still be at a loss to ascertain h o w m u c h of t h a t lore he would h a v e attributed to his c o n t e m p o r a r y readers. Yet there is e n o u g h in the narrative for us to judge t h e narrator's own judgment as to t h e rights and wrongs in the case. Hagar, u p o n conceiving, feels t h a t t h e social gap b e t w e e n herself as wife n u m b e r two and her former o w n e r has n o w narrowed significantly; it is likely t h a t the sense ot her laclvs b e c o m i n g "lower in h e r eyes" is a n expression for her o w n growing self-esteem. W h e t h e r her n e w sense of self was conveyed to Sarai by acts of commission or omission or only by indications of less t h e n w o n t e d subservience. t h e n a r r a t o r c h o o s e s n o t t o i n f o r m us. It is e n o u g h t h a t S a r a i r e g a r d s t h e s l i g h : t o

herself as totally illicit, bespeaking ingratitude (11 n o t h i n g eist1) on t h e part of the h a n d m , l i d p r o m o t e d t o c o n s o r t s h i p w i t h h e r l o r d , a o d ol t h e lord w h o h a s b e e n

E V E N T S I N T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

215

presented with, this odalisque by his wife of many decades. T h a t H e a v e n itself should be outraged by her husband's tolerance of such disrespect is e v i d e n t in h e r appeal to Y H W H ' s j u d g m e n t . A b r a m for his part either acknowledges Sarai to be in t h e right or assumes t h a t Sarai h a d all along t h e latitude to deal w i t h t h e ungrateful servant, w h i c h h e now makes explicit. Sarai acts in accordance w i t h t h e discretion allowed her, and w h e t h e r that entailed a d i m i n u t i o n in h e r wifely entit l e m e n t s (see Exodus 21:10) or r e d u c t i o n to c h a m b e r m a i d status, t h e newly abused (or disabused) Hagar opts to d e c a m p for N e g e b steppe. T h e perspective of t h e o m n i s c i e n t narrator, as Sternberg has disclosed, is sometimes separable from t h a t ot God s and sometimes virtually identical w i t h it. In this instance t h e direct discourse of Y H W H s angel is in accord w i t h t h e distinctly unj u d g m e n t a l voice of the narrator. N o t a o n e of t h e t h r e e protagonists is blamed, n o t a o n e is upheld. W h a t e v e r the ai feet ions and disaffections, hopes and piques, vanities a n d aspirations of t h e three flesh-and•-blood personae, those are of n o a c c o u n t as against t h e H e a v e n - d e s t i n e d histories of t h e posterities they foreshadow. H o w ever unrealistic: in existential terms, t h e Egyptian runaway expresses n o surprise at an address t h a t can only be divine in its recognition of her by name, t h e address that identifies her not as wife or c o n c u b i n e to A b r a m but as Sarai's slave girl. Knowing this about her, t h e interrogator surely needs n o f u r t h e r information from her. But the questions arc rhetorical: " W h e r e s o e v e r h a v e you c o m e from, whithersoever are you b o u n d : " To which she replies that d e s t i n a t i o n has she n o n e , her flight senseless, a n d fugitive she is from her legitimate rm.stress Sarai. My translation of the next three verses (for w h i c h I offer n o apology) conceals the fact: t h a t t h e 11ehrew opens .:ach verse w i t h t h e same four words wayy&mer läh mal'ak YHWH ‫ ״‬Y1 I W b f s angel said to h e r " T h e first s t a t e m e n t thus introduced picks up Hagar's confession of rebellion against legitimate authority. S h e is directed to return to h e r lady and accept subjugation. T h e second s t a t e m e n t provides h e r w i t h incentive to obey and consolation for t h e miseries yet in store: promise ( m a d e to n o n e of t h e matriarchs) of i n n u m e r a b l e posterity. T h e third s t a t e m e n t t h e n bridges t h e c o n t e n t and time-span b e t w e e n t h e instruction to submit to dégradat i o n n o w and t h e promise of glorious destiny in a far-off future. Drawing a t t e n t i o n to h e r pregnancy, t h e prediction is made t h a t t h e issue will be male, a n d she is instructcd to n a m e h i m Vts/1?71ac/ Έ 1 hears," a n a m e whose purport is immediately glossed as " Y H W H has heard ( t a k e n sympathetic n o t i c e of) your suffering," T h i s is t h e n followed by an aside, in hypotactic c o n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h n e e d n o t detain us here. 1 9 T h e r e c a n be little doubt t h a t for all t h e solicitude of G o d for Hagar and h e r issue, t h e distancing ot G o d from this wife of A b r a m s is expressed in h e r being addressed by an angel of Y H W H ' s rather t h a n by YE1WH himself. T h i s is t h e p o i n t of t h e three divine statements, each featuring this r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Y H W H , of t h e t h e o p h o r i c a l e l e m e n t El "God5‫ ־‬in t h e n a m e H e a v e n - c h o s e n for h e r son, yet of t h a t t h e o p h o r i c element's being immediately glossed as YHWH. A n d all these n u a n c e d emphases on the names and terms for t h e One G o d of Scripture are brought to a head in t h e construction t h a t literally has Hagar " n a m i n g Yl 1W1 I," w h o , being Y1 IW1 h c a n n o t he n a m e d a n y t h i n g else. S u c h a literal translation is, of course, ruled out by good sense, as also by the sense of "she said of t h e o n e addressing h e r (through the angel )‫ י‬Ύο u are el W h e n one adds to these options t h e (lit-

216

S I OR I IiS--- " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

eral) unlikelihood of a well he ing n a m e d after a designation for a b e n e v o l e n t n u m e n / d e i t y / G o d in the m o u t h of a runaway slave-girl, t h e kerygmatic options in this word-play are almost inexhaustible. In addition to this there must be some significance to t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t this place n a m e d after t h e experience of Ishm a e l s m o t h e r is twice identified as the Negeb h a u n t of Isaac (Genesis 24:62, 25:11). T h e return of Hagar to her h o m e is gapped in characteristic biblical narrative economy. T h e coda brings A b r a m back to f r o n t and center, carrying out t h e n a m ing instruction, which could only h a v e b e e n retailed to h i m by Hagar in a full acc o u n t of h e r experience. To overlook this i n v i t a t i o n to t h e gap-recognizing and gap-filling capacity of rhe reader is to overlook t h e discrepancy b e t w e e n t h e instruction to t h e w o m a n and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s fulfillment by t h e m a n . If t h e reader, identifying himself with t h e y e t - u n b o r n ancestor Isaac, has missed t h e p o i n t of Y H W H s c o n c e r n for Hagar, the Egyptian m o t h e r of U n c l e Ishmael, t h e narrator exploits t h e coda to stress t h e ties b e t w e e n G r a n d f a t h e r A b r a m and t h e young w o m a n w h o mothered his firstborn. T h r e e times in two verses it is Hagar w h o bears to Abram (four times) a son (twice) n a m e d Ishmael (twice), t h e n a m i n g — a n ack n o w l e d g m e n t of God's favor in t h e granting of this s o n — p e r f o r m e d by t h e patriarch himself.

Hu^ar's

Expulsion

— -•and Her

Revelation

( 1 ) Y H W H n o w look n o t e of Surah as l i e bad promised. Yi IWl 1 dealt with S a r a h according to his declaration, (2) Ihus it was that S a r a h c o n c e i v e d and bore A b r a h a m a sou in bis old age, at 1 he ‫ יי‬et‫ ׳‬l i m e that ( î o j had specified. (3) A b r a h a m n a m e d this son of his. just born to 11111), h e w h o m Sarai! had b o r n e t o h i m , Isaac. (4) A b r a h a m circumcised his son Isaac at t h e age of eight days as G o d h a d c h a r g e d h i m . (5) A b r a h a m n o w was 100 years old w h e n Isaac his son was b o r n to h i m . (6) S a r a h t h o u g h t , "Smiles has G o d p r o d u c e d for me, A n y o n e h e a r i n g [the news] will smile over/for m e . 7 )

‫) ״‬

[ T h e t h o u g h t b e h i n d w h a t ] S a r a h t h o u g h t : " W h o would h a v e pre-

dieted [such a m o m e n t | for A b r a h a m : Sarah has given suck to child, t h a t I should h a v e indeed b o r n h i m a son in his old ageT' (8) T h e lad grew older, r e a c h e d w e a n i n g age. A n d A b r a h a m h e l d a great feast at t h e t i m e ot Isaacs w e a n i n g . (9) Sarah spied t h e son of H a g a r t h e Egyptian, ( t h e o n e ) w h o m she had b o r n to A b r a h a m , m a k i n g merry. (10) Said she t o A b r a h a m , "Drive o u t t h a t slavegirl•—along w i t h t h a t son of hers." H e r t h o u g h t (hi): No son ofthat

slave-

girl shall he an heir alongside my son, not alongside (my) Isaac. (11) T h i s t u r n was m o s t u n w e l c o m e to A b r a h a m , troubled for his son. ( 1 2 ) But G o d said to A b r a h a m , "Be n o t distressed o n a c c o u n t of t h e youngster n o r of your m a i d s e r v a n t . Precisely as S a r a h proposes to you, e v e n so do h e r bidding. Verily it is t h r o u g h Isaac t h a t your line will c o n t i n u e . - 1 (13) For all t h a t , this maidservant's son will I also m a k e i n t o a n a t i o n , h e t o o b e i n g your issue." (14) F o r t h w i t h at m o r n A b r a h a m f e t c h e d f o o d and a skin of water. T h e s e h e h a n d e d to H a g a r — h e loaded [rhem] on h e r b a c k — a n d t h e lad as well, a n d sent h e r away. So she proceeded to wander in t h e wasteland beyond Rcersheba. (1 e ,) W h e n t h e water was d r a i n e d from t h e skin, she left t h e lad a l o n e u n d e r some hush or other, (16) herseli went on a MTelch and sat down a good bowshot's distance aw ay, her

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

217

t h o u g h t b e i n g , "i w o n ' t l o o k o n at t h e child's d e a t h throes." T h u s s e t t l e d at a d i s t a n c e s h e b r o k e i n t o loud s o b b i n g . ( 1 7 ) G o d t o o k h e e d of t h e youngster's call. A n a n g e l of G o d c a l l e d t o H a g a r f r o m h e a v e n , " W h a t t r o u b l e s you, H a g a r ? H a v e n o fear. Verily, G o d h a s t a k e n h e e d of t h e lad, yes of t h e p l i g h t t h a t h e is in. ( 1 8 ) U p n o w , r o u s e u p t h e lad, t a k e h i m firmly by t h e h a n d . O t a t r u t h , a great n a t i o n will I m a k e of h i m . " ( 1 9 ) G o d t h e n c l e a r e d h e r sight a n d s h e b e h e l d a spring of water. S h e p r o c e e d e d t o fill t h e s k i n w i t h w a t e r a n d g a v e d r i n k to t h e lad. ( 2 0 ) T h u s did G o d a t t e n d t h e y o u n g s t e r a n d h e grew t o m a t u r i t y . H e k e p t t o w i l d e r n e s s h a u n t s a n d b e c a m e a skillful archer. (2 1 ) H e settled in t h e wilderness of P a r a n . A n d his m o t h e r got a wife for h i m f r o m t h e land oi Egypt, (C !enesis 2 1:1 - 2 1 )

Source-criticism assigns verse 1 to J, h a v i n g n o odaer opt ion for t h e appearance twice of the T e t r a g r a m m a t o n . Verses 2-5-‫״‬, feat uring dohim twice, might well have b e e n assigned t o E, t o w h o m t h e rest of t h e s t o r y t h r o u g h v e r s e 20‫ ־‬is c r e d i t e d s i n c e

h e , like P, shuns t h e use of Y H W H in Genesis. But a c o n c e r n for n u m b e r s and dates, as for s u c h cultic matters as circumcision, being hallmarks of P's stationery, this source prevails over any possible claim for E. Speiser refuses to translate t h e second Y H W H in verse 1 (replacing it by t h e p r o n o u n a h e " noting: " T h e second half of t h e verse duplicates t h e first. It appears to stem from P, w i t h a secondary c h a n g e of E l o h i m to Yah weh, induced by t h e preceding clause" W e find it character is tic of source-critical m a n i p u l a t i o n s and typical ot its fast-and-loose c o n c e p t s of t h e editorial process to deny a h u m a n editor the leeway to iron o u t a discrepancy, e v e n while it permits t h e dead weight of u a preceding clause" to induce a pointless c h a n g e of P s elohim to j's YHWH. W e shall cite his f u r t h e r Comment t o serve as foil to our o w n reading: E x c e p t for t h e first five verses, t h e n a r r a t i v e is t h e w o r k of E. T h e proof goes d e e p e r t h e n t h e e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e c o n s i s t e n t use ot E l o h i m (6, 12, 17, 19, 2 0 ) . T h e p r e s e n t a c c o u n t d u p l i c a t e s c h . χ vi. M o r e significant, h o w e v e r is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e a s o n for H a g a r s d e p a r t u r e is n o t a t all t h e s a m e as in t h e earlier story by J, n o r d o e s t h e p e r s o n a l i t y of H a g a r as h e r e d e p i c t e d b e a r a n y r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h a t of h e r n a m e s a k e i n t h e o t h e r story. S o c o m p l e t e a d i c h o t o m y w o u l d be i n c o n c e i v a b l e in t h e work of t h e s a m e a u t h o r , or in a fixed w r i t t e n t r a d i t i o n . ( G e n e s i s p. 1 56)

To say that 1 'the present a c c o u n t duplicates ch. xvi" is slovenly use of language, for t h e verb suggests exact correspondence. But this lapse is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e on t h e part of a c o m p a r a t i v e Semitist newly fallen under the spell of source-critical solu‫׳‬ tion of narrative doublets via assignment to different hands. W h a t is not so comprehensible is h o w t h e differences between t h e doublets are seen as ρtool of two authors rather t h a n of o n e a u t h o r telling similar yet diitèrent stories. T h e characters are identical except for their names. In t h e first story A b r a m , Sarai, Hagar a n d — w a i t i n g in t h e wings, so to speak — lshmael a n d Isaac; while Deity is always referred to as Y H W H , even His agent is not just a n angel b u t YHWH's angel In t h e second story A b r a h a m , Sarah, Hagar, lshmael and Isaac; while Deity appears first as Y H W H and t h e n as G o d , even to his a g e n t s being called God's angel. B o t h stories begin with a focus on t h e matriarch. 111 t h e first it is Sarai w h o gives her slave over to Abram's embrace, t h a t she — S a r a i — m a y obtain a child by proxy (as Speiser convincingly demonstrates). In t h e second, it is

188

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY ‫'י‬

t h e sight of t h a t child, in his s e v e n t e e n t h year at t h e least, t h a t arouses h e r jealous fears for the newly weaned child w h o issued from h e r o w n womb. In b o t h stories, Hagar, in a situation dangerous or desperare in a barren steppe, is vouchsafed a divine revelation in t h e vicinity of a spring or cistern of liie-giving water. In both revelations the providential care of Deity is assured t h e mother: her son shall bec o m e a great n a t i o n . T h e martial skills of t h a t n a t i o n - t o - b e , implicitly or explicitly dwelling in the steppe lands and at odds with his more civilized kinsmen and neighbors, is symbolized in the second story by his masterful archery; in t h e first story, t h e second part‫ ־‬oi t h e oracle, predicting t h e u n t a m e a b l e n a t u r e of t h e Ishmaelite race and its bellicose destiny, could hardly h a v e b e e n c o m f o r t i n g to his m o t h e r ; it is therefore, in all probability, a n o t h e r instance of free direct discourse, seemingly addressed to Hagar, actually i n t e n d e d for a n Israelite a u d i e n c e in a future centuries away (trom Hagar s time, t h a t is, n o t f r o m t h e n a r r a t o r s time). H a v i n g d o n e fair justice to the similarities we t u r n n o w to t h e differences, differences t h a t will reveal t h a t t h e two narratives are n e i t h e r duplicates of nor inconsistent with one another, that e a c h is m e a n i n g f u l in its o w n c o n t e x t and is c o m p l e m e n t a r y to t h e other. In t h e first story t h e child t h a t Hagar is carrying in h e r w o m b is the child or Sara i. Sarai would only be spiting herself if she drove from h o m e t h e bearer of her future hope. H e r c o m p l a i n t is t h a t a n incubator sees herself as agent rather t h a n instrument, full-wife or sultana to A b r a m rather t h a n odalisquc subject to her royal mistress (16:4 gabirtäh). T h e flight to t h e N e g e v (Does she h o p e to make it back to Egypt? A n d to w h a t status or fate there?) is all H a g a r s idea. A n d h a d not Deitv intervened t o t u r n h e r back w h e n she was but a few hours gone from A b r a m s t e n t i n g grounds, w h o could d o u b t but t h a t t h e resourceful A b r a m would h a v e retrieved her, even restored h e r to a c h a s t e n e d mistress w h o would n o t again risk bringing to despair t h e young w o m a n bearing h e r heir a n d h e r h u s b a n d s . W h a t need t h e n at all for Y H W H s i n t e r v e n t i o n ? O n e might as reasonably ask why (}od gave tongue to church-hell clappers and turned gongs into words in young man's ears, "Dick W h i t t i n g t o n , Dick W h i t t i n g t o n , thrice Lord Mayor of L o n d o n - t o w n ! " Y H W H has promised A b r a m a countless posterity. In C h a p t e r 15 t h e territory promised to Iiis descendants was to e x t e n d f r o m u t h c river of Egypt to t h e Great river, Euphrates." In neither direction, as we n o t e d , did historic Israel ever attain ----- perhaps even aspire to -such distant borders. But Y H W H n e v e r limit eel his promise to a single b r a n c h nor e v e n to two or three b r a n c h e s of A b r a m s line. In C h a p t e r 17, which we h a v e yet to discuss, t h e promise is explicitly formulated in t e r m s of s e v e r a l n a t i o n s and separate dynasties in separate kingdoms. Y H W H s c o n c e r n t h e n for Egyptian H a g a r — h e r origin twice stressed in c h a p t e r 16 (again in ch. 21, and again in t h e n o t i c e there of her o b t a i n i n g from t h e land of Egypt a wife for Lshmael) — is also a n expression of care and c o n c e r n for A b r a m in t h e m a t t e r of his posterity, n o t only t h r o u g h t h e child yet to issue from Sarai's w o m b but t h r o u g h t h a t of his wife Hagar. 2 2 So long as Sarai remains barren (and at age 75, cf. 16:5, her recourse to IT agar as her proxy is as realistic as t h e desperation it bespeaks) the child in H a g a r s w o m b is t h e o n e and only c o n d u i t to a future line sprung from A b r a h a m s l o i n s . L e t u s n o t e t h a t it is t h e s o u r c e - c r i t i c a l a s s i g n m e n t of 1 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 t o Ρ i n a n o t h e r w i s c J n a r r a t i v e , oi C h a p t e r 17 t o P, of C h a p t e r 18 t o J, a n d m o s t o f C h a p t e r 2 1

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF A B R A H A M

237

to Ε, which masks from our poetical appreciation the unity, harmony, indeed the suspenseful buildup to a climax of t h e progressively emerging promise and fulfillment o f t h a t promise to Abraham. It starts with the most broad and general formu•‫׳‬ iation in Chapter 12 of his becoming "a great nation," continues with offspring "like grains oi earth" in J 3:10, to the assurance in ! t h e a l t a r is a t a b l e o n w h i c h ( i n c e n s e o r ) a n i m a l p a r t s a r e b u r n e d as a n o f f e r i n g p r e s u m a b l y p l e a s i n g t o Deity's o l f a c t o r y sense. N e v e r is a n a l t a r f e a t u r e d as b o t h s l a u g h t e r i n g - b l o c k a n d i n c e n d i a r y pyre. E x c e p t h e r e ! A n d n o t e t h e n a r r a tor's c a r e t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t t h e b o u n d Isaac was laid o n t o p ( n o t u n d e r or b e t w e e n ) t h e firewood. T h e firewood t h a t h a d b e e n h a u l e d o n d o n k e y - b a c k f r o m B e e r s h e b a b u t was s h i f t e d t o Isaac s b a c k for t h e last f e w m i l e s w a l k t o a n d u p t h e M o r i a h p e a k , w h i l e s e r v a n t s a n d ass e n j o y e d a w e l l - e a r n e d respite. A n d n o t e t h e c a r e of A b r a h a m t o lay o u t t h e w o o d ( p r e s u m a b l y i n l a t t i c e layers) t o i n s u r e a s a t i s f a c t o r y blaze o n c e t h e v i c t i m s t h r o a t is c u t a n d t o r c h a p p l i e d t o t h e k i n d l i n g . A n d t h e n t h e r e is t h e m a t t e r of t h e b i n d i n g of t h e v i c t i m , n a t u r a l e n o u g h if w e t h i n k of a m a v e r i c k b e i n g h o g - t i e d or a m a l e f a c t o r p r e p a r e d for gal l o w s - n o o s e or e x e c u t i o n b l o c k . B u t o n l y t h e H e b r a i s t will k n o w t h a t t h e v e r b for bind h e r e n e v e r o c c u r s a g a i n , so t h a t r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n c a n refer t o t h i s e n t i r e c h a p t e r as t h e Akedah}

the

( o n e a n d o n l y ) B i n d i n g . W h a t d o e s t h e rarity of t h i s usage suggest? If n o t h i n g else, t h a t t h e r e a d e r c o n s i d e r t h e r e a s o n for t h e b i n d i n g . W a s it d o n e w i t h Isaac's c o n s e n t or d e s p i t e his p r o t e s t ? E v e n if h e h a d a c c e p t e d t h e f a t e d e t e r m i n e d for h i m by his f a t h e r ' s r e v e l a t i o n , c a n we p i c t u r e h i m n o t h o r r o r - s t r i c k e n w h e n his f a t h e r begins to s t r a p h i m d o w n ? ( d m t h e r e be any d o u b l that t h e m i d r a s h is e n g a g e d in close r e a d i n g ol t h e n a r r a t i v e ( r a t h e r t h a n in pious a n d i n c r e d i b l e h o m i l y ) w h e n it p i c t u r e s Isaac: asking to be firmly h o u n d lest a n i n v o l u n t a r y s h u d d e r cause h i m to deflect t h e k n i f e a n d inllic! u p o n himselt a b l e m i s h that would disqualify h i m as

EVENTS IN THE LIFE ÜF A B R A H A M

287

c a n d i d a t e for immolation? O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , if Isaac h a d n o t b e e n o n e with his f a t h e r in response to t h e d i v i n e call, h o w could we envisage t h e effectuality of the b i n d i n g w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g t h e t e n o r of t h e story f r o m h i g h tragedy to ghoulish a n d — c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p e r s o n a e — l u d i c r o u s horror? W h e t h e r Isaac was closer to age seven or thirty-seven at t h e time makes little difference: Picture a father, revelation-gripped and r e v e l a t i o n - m a d d e n e d , chasing d o w n a terrified child or wrestling to t h e ground a slow-witted adult. A n d did this take place before or after t h e arranging of t h e kindling o n t h e grill t h a t is God's table? O u r n a r r a t o r s i n t e n t cann o t be mooted: In this text Isaac is A b r a h a m a n d A b r a h a m is Isaac. 64 As Abraham put out his hand, took up the butcher-knife to slaughter his son, an angel of YHWH

called out to him from heaven . . . N o t so fast! . . . and picked up the

butcher-

knife to slaughter his son—an angel of YHWI I . . . W h y consistently up to thus point is the voice h e hears t h a t of t h e Divinity (or t h e n u m e n ) and suddenly a change: not G o d , but an angel; n o t of God's but of YHWI Ts? bor o n e thing, 1 suggest, it is because t h e narrator is signaling that Abraham's activity was not: interrupted by the a n g e l s call. His activity stopped w h e n the voice w i t h i n stopped, Every step, every m o t i o n , had b e e n to t h e a c c o m p a n i m e n t of t h a t voice; else the trance would h a v e been b r o k e n , t h e normalcy of n o n r e v e l a t i o n restored, a n d time opened up lor a question: " W h a t a m I doing?" W h e n t h e receiver within fell silent, all m o t i o n stopped, t h e h a n d w i t h t h e k n i f e arrested in mid-swing. A n d t h e silence w i t h i n is succeeded by a voice f r o m without. N o longer t h e impersonal, inscrutable, overw h e l m i n g Will of t h e cosmos: f r o m h e a v e n a messenger calls w i t h the word trom his personal Deity, Y H W H his G o d and t h e G o d of Israel. T h e test is over, and A b r a h a m has passed. T h e t h r e a t to t h e future is lifted. T h e future is open again, w i t h a promise reiterated, renewed, reinforced, a promise told of before as act of gracious c h o i c e o n t h e part of G o d , a promise t h a t now has b e e n earned, earned at a price at w h i c h Y H W H himself seems to marvel: "Because you acted so, because you w i t h h e l d n o t your son, your one-and-only." T h e ram w h i c h A b r a h a m espies, its h o r n s entangled in a thicket, is modified by a word of t h r e e c o n s o n a n t s , w h i c h is strange in this c o n t e x t : fir. If the third conson a n t were a daleth rather t h a n a resh ( t h e two characters being very similar in b o t h t h e O l d H e b r e w a n d t h e later "square" alphabets), we should vocalize it chad and render it as " o n e " or "a" or "a certain." Or, adhering to t h e c o n s o n a n t a l text, we might vocalize it. ïiher, render it by "another," a n d see in it a syncopated m e t a p h o r ay il ( = se) aher "a ram [representing] a n o t h e r [i.e., substitute] victim." T h e image is clear enough. T h e pecus or head from t h e flock, whose absence was questioned by Isaac, whose place would (as c o n t e x t requires and A b r a h a m s response makes exρ licit), be filled by Isaac, has now indeed appeared: a sc literally, specifically a ram, and replacement victim ior Isaac. I low t h e n to a c c o u n t for t h e c o n s o n a n t a l text and the Masoretic pointing, which express a term t h a t is either adverb or preposit ion, n e i t h e r of t h e m appropriate t o t h e c o n t e x t ? S i n c e n e i t h e r t h e original a u t h o r nor the tradition t h a t t r a n s m i t t e d t h e story c a n be impugned o n t h e score of faulty knowledge of Hebrew, it is likely t h a t we h a v e h e r e a deliberately inserted interprelive crux. A weird t h a t t h e reader would first anticipate to be t h e indefinite article ( t h e need for it being a m a t t e r of t h e author's o p t i o n ) t h e n turns out ro be a n anomalously vocalized word for " a n o t h e r = substitute," designed to make us pull up

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL

HISTORY"

short, to invite us to dwell a m o m e n t o n this recognition: that t h e A b r a h a m w h o h a d prophesied, "We shall r e t u r n to you" e v e n as h e h a d prophesied, "God will provide a v i c t i m " has n o w b e e n vindicated (if n o t in t h e sense he had originally int e n d e d ) o n t h e score of b o t h prophecies. T h e G o d w h o had provided A b r a h a m w i t h his son Isaac, w h o asked t h a t Isaac be returned to h i m o n an altar, has n o w restored Isaac to his father, providing a vicarious offering for himself, thus rounding out t h e e x t e n d e d metaphor. A b r a h a m sacrifices this ram provided by G o d and gives t h e spot a sentencename: YHWH-yifë " Y H W H Sees, Y H W H Provides." T h e r e t h e n follows an expian a t i o n , as it were, by t h e narrator of A b r a h a m s i n t e n t in so n a m i n g it. T h e clause introducing this e x p l a n a t i o n is n o t t h e n o r m a l H e b r e w expression for "as it is said today" or " w h e n c e t h e present saying." T h e spot did n o t c o n t i n u e to be k n o w n in Israelite tradition, and so there was n o variation in t h e n a m e , nor was there "a prèsent saying" about a place whose location was u n k n o w n . O u r own translation ("in today s parlance") is closer to t h e Hebrew; a variation, perhaps closer to the original, is "as o n e might say today." T h e place n a m e YHWH Sees or YHWH Prorides is in t h e active voice. T h e " e x p l a n a t i o n " adds t h e reminder t h a t the place n a m e d is a m o u n t a i n height, a height special to Y\ 1W1 h and that f u r t h e r m o r e , the n a m e may also be understood in a passive and general sense: O n Y1 1W1 Is M o u n t a i n lie Ap‫״‬ pears, or There Is Revelation, or There is Vision, or T/icrc is Provision; perhaps even There is Providence, W h a t is this Vision or Provision? Perhaps the Providencewilled role of the people Israel. Perhaps t h e whole p o i n t ol this strange experience of Israel's forebears, A b r a h a m and Isaac.

The Point of the Story W h a t is t h e p o i n t of this story? T h e o n e t h i n g t h a t it certainly is not is t h e interp r e t a t i o n most c o m m o n l y proffered: a protest against t h e pagan practice of child sacrifice. For o n e thing, t h e evidence for t h e meta-literary c o n v e n t i o n of child sacrifice, certainly as a widespread practice, is flimsy. For another, there is n o n o t e of protest struck in t h e course of t h e narrative and, to q u o t e Speiser (who accepts t h e rite of child sacrifice as a practice k n o w n in Scripture and in M e s o p o t a m i a ) , "If t h e a u t h o r had i n t e n d e d to expose a barbaric custom, h e would surely h a v e gone a b o u t it in a n o t h e r way." Flow c a n o n e read such a repudiation ot child sacrifice i n t o a story in w h i c h t h e central t h e m e t h r o u g h o u t is A b r a h a m s readiness to make t h e sacrifice, a n d in t h e d e n o u e m e n t of w h i c h t h a t readiness of Abraham's is explicitly hailed as meritorious and certain to elicit reward? 65 W i t h w h a t t h e n are we left? W i t h t h e unequivocal s t a t e m e n t of t h e meritoriousness of A b r a h a m , of his f a i t h so strong as to override all other considerations w h e n called o n to slay his son and foreclose his future. But with whom is A b r a h a m , in his meritorious faith, to be compared? N o t w i t h his pagan contemporaries, w h o did n o t k n o w t h e b e n e v o l e n t God of Scripture in t h e first place; and w h o did n o t , in all probability, regularly sacrifice their children to their gods. 1 he an>wer, by a process of elimination, comes down to this: he is to be compared with the audience tor whom t h e story is intended, t h e seed of A b r a h a m and Isaac called Israel, ext e n d i n g trom the lime the story was first told to the present hei1\> of the biblical ((‫״וי‬

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

289

Judeo-Christian) tradition, and to all who in the furure will lay claim to constitute ing rhe ideal Israel. T h e story is told to us, and it is told, lo us in a context. As little as we know oi the Isaac who walked first with his father in blissful ignorance, then perhaps in knowledge and acquiescence, we do know him to be our ancestor, the longawaited, repeatedly promised hearer-to-be of that line of Abraham that is to culminate in us. Let us now remind ourselves that this fixing ot the intended audience is a metaliterary consideration, and that another metaliterary prejudice, which we have had to repeatedly overcome, is the denial to the ancient author of an elementary intelligence or sophistication comparable to that which we credit to today's hoi polloi. A n d then, proceeding from the assumption that it is not for us to insult the intelligence of the author of the Binding of Isaac, we arrive at the corollary that neither is that author to be seen as insulting our intelligence, the intelligence of his intended audience. God's command to Abraham, which if carried out would have made of him a liar and treaty ‫׳‬breaker, is acted upon by Abraham in a faithcontradict ing-faith obedience. Are we expected to accept at face value such a seeming absurdity? Without question or demurrer? And also to remain supinely silent in the face of this challenge to the quality of our own faith? A challenge in which our meritoriousness is to be measured against that of a great-grandfather who would have slaughtered our grandfather, and thus have precluded our very existence? Are we being asked to measure our faith by the faith of one whom, in our heart of hearts and unclouded rationality, we can only judge to be a madman? This last is the only honest response that could be expected of any rational person, whether or not that person considers himself a paragon of faith. Let us conjure up a scene in which one observes a neighbor and his son packing their station wagon for what is clearly a hunting and fishing trip; and then being told in confidence that the boy is headed for a butcher block at God's behest. Be that observer simple or wise, atheist or ficleist, even priest, pastor or rabbi, is there any question that he might fail to call the police? Or that the father would he committed ι ο a secure hospital ward for observation? No, there can be no question that the normal, honest, and rational reaction of audience to Abraham's obedience is the judgment that, in the forty-eight to seventy-two hours from call to slay to command to desist, he was a madman. And it follows therefore that this is precisely the response thai the author is inviting. Inviting the response, and inviting consideration of the reason for the invitation. How long should it take before we try to change places with the author? T h e reader exclaims, "But he must have been mad, Father Abraham!" A n d we, the author, respond with a riposte that pins him on the point of our metaphor: "Mad, was he? Well, well. Mad, compared to whom? Shall we compare his sanity to the sanity of your neighbors, or to your own ? Yes, he was prepared to sacrifice his son, his future, his eternity. Are you never p r e p a r e d — e v e r — t o do so? He did not, in the final event, make the sacrifice. Have you, or your neighbors, perhaps your own parents, not actually committed such acts of sacrifice? Abrahams readiness was in response to the God who is Ultimate Reality, who calls us into being and gives meaning to our existence. W h e n and where, to the call ot what authority, in loyalty to what cause, in the name of what values, is it your wont to sacrifice your children—and

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

yourself?" A n d w e n e e d c o n t i n u e n o f u r t h e r . L e t h i m c o n t e m p l a t e t h o s e m o m e n t s w h e n s a n i t y s u c c u m b s t o Eros' f e v e r i n g of t h e flesh, w h e n M a m m o n wafts h i s fool's g o l d i n t o o u r eyes, w h e n t h e s t a t e r e c r u i t s f o r war, w h e n t h e lust for f a m e or a n o t h e r lure of " t h e b i t c h - g o d d e s s S u c c e s s " a n e s t h e t i z e s us t o p a i n 01‫ ־‬s e n s i b i l i t y a n d w e lay e v e r y t h i n g d o w n o n t h e a l t a r of p u b l i c o p i n i o n . T h e lesson, t h e k e r y g m a , of t h e B i n d i n g of Isaac is t h a t if y o u will n o t m a k e t h e u l t i m a t e sacrifice e x c e p t a t t h e call of S c r i p t u r e ' s god, y o u will n e v e r h e a r t h a t call. F o r h e is t h e G o d of life a n d blessing. B u t if you t h i n k t h a t t o r e s p o n d t o s u c h a call f r o m G o d — w e r e it e v e r t o c o m e — w o u l d b e m a d n e s s , you will find t h a t t h e call will c o m e i n d e e d . B u t it will c o m e f r o m t h e d o m a i n of t h e less t h a n u l t i m a t e . A n d it will c o m e w i t h a n i m p o r t u n a c y y o u will n o t w i t h s t a n d .

C O M P A R I N G T H E AKEDA

WITH ANOTHER

BINDING

M a r t y r d o m is a w o r d f r o m t h e v o c a b u l a r y of r e l i g i o n , n o t p a t r i o t i s m ; y e t for e v e r y J e w o r C h r i s t i a n w h o was g i v e n a c h o i c e of apostasy o r d e a t h a n d a c c e p t e d m a r t y r d o m , h o w m a n y l e n s oi t h o u s a n d s h a v e d i e d for t h e flag o n b a t t l e f i e l d s far r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i r c o u n t r y ' s borders? T h e biblical e t h o s is n o t pacifism. Its l i f e - a f f i n n i n g t h r u s t d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e its s a n c t i o n i n g of civil war in t h e cause of a n e x c l u s i v e Y H W H w o r s h i p , n o r does it c o n d e m n m a n y a n Jsraelitish i m p e r i a l i s t war, m u c h less a r m e d d e f e n s e oi ο η e s ter‫״‬ ri tory. But w a r f a r e is t h e p h e n o m e n o n t h a t , foi‫ ־‬ils f r e q u e n c y a n d fatality, best lends itself t o illustrate t h e m e t a p h o r of Isaac's B i n d i n g , t h e l e g i t i m a c y ot t h e s u r r e n d e r of o n e ' s c h i l d r e n ' s lives f o r t h e sake of a v a l u e w h o s e u l t i m a c y must s o m e h o w e n t a i l its b e i n g t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n for life. A n d it was a British war p o e t , W i l f r e d O w e n , killed i n a c t i o n i n 1 9 1 8 a t t h e age of t w e n t y - f i v e , w h o p e n e t r a t e d t h e m e t a p h o r a n d e x p l o i t e d it: The Parable of the Old Man and the Youn^ So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went A n d took the fire with him, and a knife. A n d as they sojourned both of them together, Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father Behold the preparations, fire and iron, But where the lamb for this burnt-offering? T h e n Abram hound the youth with belts and straps, A n d huilded parapets and trenches there, A n d stretched forth the knife to slay his son. W h e n lo! an angel called him out of heaven, Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, Neither do anything to him. Behold, A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns; Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him. Bui the old 111:111 would not so, but slew his son, And half the seed of Europe, one by one. T h e A h r a m of W i l f r e d O w e n ' s p o e m is a m u r d e r o u s old m a n i n d e e d . But e x c e p t tor t h e initial u n d e r t a k i n g of t h e sacrifice, h e is n o t t h e A b r a h a m ot S c r i p t u r e , I le

E V E N T S IN T H E LIFE OF ABRAFÏAM

309

is t h e very o p p o s i t e of Scripture's p a t r i a r c h . W h a t e v e r t h e cause or reason for his u n d e r t a k i n g to b e g i n w i t h — a n d t h e first t h r e e words of t h e p o e m require a n an‫׳׳‬ t e c e d e n t call f r o m w i t h o u t , w h e t h e r real or i m a g i n e d — t h i s A b r a m is u n d e r n o ext e r n a l c o m p u l s i o n , o n c e t h e angel calls to h i m "out of h e a v e n " But c o m p u l s i o n t h e r e m u s t b e for h i m to reject t h e call of h e a v e n , and t h e n a t u r e of t h a t c o m p u b sion is explicit: It is Pride, R a t h e r t h a n surrender t h a t R a m , h e will slay n o t only his o w n son, b u t "half t h e seed of Europe, o n e by o n e " So m u c h is clear. W h a t r e m a i n s less t h a n clear is t h e p o i n t of O w e n ' s p o e m , as t h e p o i n t of Scripture s story will r e m a i n subject for d e b a t e despite our c o n f i d e n t e x p o s i t i o n of its purport. A n d , indeed, 1 betrayed my o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g oi O w e n ' s p o e m w h e n 1 wrote t h a t h e , in this p o e m , p e n e t r a t e d and e x p l o i t e d t h e m e t a p h o r of Scripture's story. T h a t is to say, O w e n u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e call from h e a v e n forbids t h e slaughter, a n d t h a t t h a t irrational i m p e t u s w i t h i n w h i c h h e calls Pride proves stronger (or at least, p r o v e d stronger in World W a r I) t h a n H e a v e n ' s call. T h u s t h e p o i n t of O w e n ' s p o e m , while n o t t h e p o i n t ot t h e A k e d a , is i n t o t a l c o n s o n a n c e w i t h t h e p o i n t of t h e A k e d a as we see it. The A b r a h a m of S c r i p t u r e did n o t n e e d t o sacrifice his son because t h e G o d in w h o m h e h a d s u c h f a i t h is o n e w h o by d e f i n i t i o n could n o t require such a d o o m . E v e n as d e e p in his b e i n g h e k n e w t h a t Isaac w o u l d survive t h e call, w h i c h h e h a d t o obey w h e n it p o i n t e d in o n e d i r e c t i o n , so was h e ready for t h e call w h i c h reversed t h a t d i r e c t i o n . B u t O w e n ' s A b r a m — w h o w o u l d certainly h a v e rejected a call to a celibate p r i e s t h o o d , for himself or his s o n — c o u l d n o t a t t e n d t h e call to preserve his son, c o m m i t t e d as h e is t o t h e r a m of his o w n pride. For such a c o n s o n a n c e t o o b t a i n , however, bet w e e n t h e t w o i n v e n t i o n s (if we may call t h e m t h a t w i t h o u t d e n y i n g t r u t h t o eit h e r ) , t h e A b r a h a m a n d Isaac w h o are o n e inseparable p e r s o n a (as we h a v e s e e n ) in Scripture's story, s h a r i n g o n e f a i t h a n d o n e destiny, m u s t also b e t h a t in O w e n ' s p o e m . A n d t h e A b r a h a m w h o b o u n d his son m t h e belts a n d straps of a soldier's u n i f o r m a n d p u t h i m o n t h e altar of Mars, " t h e parapets a n d trenches," in so d o i n g c o m m i t t e d self-slaughter as well. But n o t e v e r y o n e will acquiesce in this r e a d i n g of O w e n ' s p o e m . D u r i n g t h e uph e a v a l s in this c o u n t r y in t h e late 1960s a n d early 1970s, t h e years of t h e generation gap a n d protests against restrictions of civil rights a n d c o n s c r i p t i o n for service in t h e jungles ol V i e t n a m , this p o e m was presented for i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to several classes of s e m i n a r i a n s and g r a d u a t e students. A n d overwhelmingly, t h e c o n s e n s u s was that A b r a h a m was t h e slaughterer a n d his son t h e victim. N o solidarity het w e e n t h e two. N o sharing ol vision, of values or sense of i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . A n d w h a t b e t t e r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s A b r a m r e p r e s e n t e d t h e p a r e n t a l g e n e r a t i o n , smug i n c o m f o r t a n d smugly c o m p l a c e n t , feed ing t h e defenseless y o u n g into t h e m a w of t h e w a r - m a c h i n e , t h a n t h e c o n c l u d i n g line. For this A h ram "slew his s o n " — y e s , but also —"And half t h e seed of Europe, o n e by one." Literary criticism, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , exegesis b e i n g w h a t it i s — a r t a n d n o t seie n c e — t h e r e c a n be n o final a d j u d i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of O w e n ' s p o e m t h a t will satisfy (or be true for) everybody. In trying to w i n a m a j o r i t y over t o my side, I m i g h t plead t h a t m\ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is a d e e p e r r e a d i n g of t h e poet's i n t e n t i o n ; t h a t t h e message — a p p l y i n g to all peoples a n d all age groups, child r c n a n d p a r e n t s alike‫™־‬is m o r e universal, h c n c c more likely t h a n t h e c o m p e t i n g

2,36

STORIES — " T H E PRIMEVAL HISTORY"

interpretation. O n t h e poetical level, I might cite t h e larger literary corpus of Wil· fred O w e n , o n e w h i c h is characterized by a general horror at t h e blindnesses leading to and generated by warfare. 1 might also argue t h a t O w e n s insertion of " T h e Parable o f ' into his p o e m s title is not due to a p e d a n t s fear t h a t his reader could possibly miss t h e m e t a p h o r s of "belts and straps'" and "parapets and t r e n c h e s " for t h e binding of Isaac o n t h e altar. T h e "parable" reminder is against taking literally t h e victimization of o n e g e n e r a t i o n by the other. A n d , finally, militating against a n i n d i c t m e n t of t h e older g e n e r a t i o n s victimization of t h e young is a consideration of a d a t u m about the poet himself (which perhaps even t h e New Criticism would admit as relevant): he, like his friend and brother-poet in t h e lyrical war against war, Siegfried Sassoon, had enlisted for combat, served in t h e t r e n c h e s as a commissioned officer; returned to c o m b a t alter t h e publication-scandal of his pacifist protest; and met his d e a t h as a c o m p a n y c o m m a n d e r in t h e last week of a war which, as all knew, was w i n d i n g down to a n end. O u r introduction, for comparison, of O w e n s "Parable" patently ewes to a h o p e t h a t enlisting o n e poet as exegetical expert on the work of a n o t h e r poet m i g h t impress e v e n t h e disciplined, "objective" academician. A n d e v e n t h e awareness t h a t t h e poet-expert's testimony itself may be t a k e n as moot, as also t h e awareness t h a t contesting interpretations n e e d n o t be mutually exclusive does n o t deter me from proceeding w i t h this exercise in comparative study. For in t h e case of t h e kerygma of Genesis 22, ί a m driven n o t so m u c h by a desire to c o n v i n c e my readers as to t h e correctness of my reading, as by a desperate h o p e t h a t my colleagues c a n be o p e n e d up to c o n t e m p l a t e my reading of t h e kerygma as worthy of consideration as o n e of its possible meanings. A n d this because n o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a biblical narrative I h a v e put f o r t h has m e t w i t h such skepticism and quarrel as has this one, o n t h e part of students and colleagues alike. My collégial friends, in particular, h a v e tried to soften t h e skeptic's jeer by praising the homiletical brilliance of my reading. But such praise, characterizing as imaginative exegesis w h a t is put forward as sober exegesis, is cold comfort at best to t h e exegete. N o , I must insist t h a t b o t h brilliance and imaginative i n v e n t i o n lie in Scripture's m e t a p h o r and n o t in t h e homily of a derivative preacher. A n d so I must seek to a c c o u n t for t h e unwillingness of so many to e n t e r t a i n a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for Scripture s A keda s ο close to t h e o n e t h a t is regarded as at least plausible for O w e n s version of The Hmding. A. n u m b e r of facto! s may be operative here. For one, there is the deeply implanted prejudice of literal-mindedness, ascribed to t h e ancient anthor but actually characteristic of our own thinking, and particularly in regard to t h e ready recourse of t h e a n c i e n t s to devote their children to bloody cults. For an‫־‬ other, t h e r e is t h e assumption ot the a n c i e n t storytellers primitiveness. (How, lor example, ascribe a philosophical parable to an a u t h o r who believes t h a t t h e world's a n i m a t e populations were saved from e x t i n c t i o n by means of a capacious w o o d e n ark!) For others there may be a deeply rooted reluctance to h a v e so marvelous a n u m i n o u s mystery cleared up so t h a t a child may understand it. S u c h simplification may even seem to be a depreciation oi a fable appreciable only in terms of Kierkegaard's profound analysis and its resolution in the kerygma of "the leap of faith." My o w n suspicion, however, is t h a t the most p o t e n t factor in our resistance to this interpretation is t h a t we c a n n o t but resent being trapped by t h e a n c i e n t au-

]‫׳‬:VENTS IN T H E LIFE OF A H R A H A M

2Q_\

t h o r s genius for parable; rbe profundity ot the mythos is, paradoxically, subverted by its simplicity, by rhe m o r a l s lying so close to t h e surface; for if e a c h of us is A b r a h a m , each of us is t o u c h e d m an excruciatingly sensitive nerve. It is n o t only t h e R o m a n m o t h e r who gives u l t i m a t u m to her son: Come back, bearing your shield or being carried upon iL It: is not only t h e p r e d o m i n a n c e in each of us of t h e s h a m e culture as over t h e moral code. It is‫ ״‬in every o n e of u s — t h a t particular area of shallow values where we play t h e hypocrite, those values we actually live by as against t h e values we profess. Life a n d literature are replete w i t h t h e king (or bustness m a n ) w h o will do a n y t h i n g to preserve his dynasty except to retire a year early in favor of son and heir apparent.; t h e f a t h e r w h o will give his life for his son, so long as this son does n o t c o m p e t e for t h e w o m a n they b o t h love; t h e salvationc e n t e r e d clergyman whose life's dearest a m b i t i o n is, as it turns out, to enable his daughter "to marry u p " Yes, every o n e of: us could go o n adding t o this list, a n d feel little or n o pain, until someone w h o m h e loves best a n d w h o knows h i m best suggests t h e area ol his o w n hypocritical vulnerability. If I am close to t h e truth in this last suspicion of mine, t h e n I would do well, in pleading for my interpretation, to a b a n d o n t h e ubiquitous a n d m u n d a n e applications or extensions of t h e m e t a p h o r of t h e Akeda, and return to t h e narrower, less frequently self-indicting lesson m regard to war a n d pacifism. Most of us are n o t implicated as a n everyday m a t t e r in t h e defense of our n a t i o n s territories, nor in t h e r e c r u i t m e n t of our children for its defense forces. A n d , from this perspective, we may find an instructive comparison in a pacifist i n v e n t i o n from antiquity, a drama from a n c i e n t G r e e c e — no, n o t t h e comedy Ly .ses traf a of Aristophanes, but o n e t h a t , remarkably enough, is listed a m o n g t h e tragedies: Euripides' Iphigenia in Aldis. Euripides wrote his ]/‫)־‬hiberna m Aldis within a feu‫ ׳‬centuries of t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e Binditig of Isaac:. A n d the story he tells is, bizarrely enough, accepted as o n e of t h e attestations t h a t t h e ancients sacrificed their children to their gods. Let us review t h e plot. Before t h e play begins, t h e G r e e k armies h a v e gathered at Aulis for embark at i o n for t h e assault: on Troy. T h e fleet long becalmed and t h e soldiers growing restless, A g a m e m n o n , king ot Argos, t h e c o m m a n d e r - i n - c h i e f of t h e allied armies, h a s sent for his eldest daughter, Iphigenia. A n oracle has informed h i m t h a t favoring winds will n o t rise unless h e sacrifices this daughter to Artemis, she w h o is goddess of chastity, of t h e h u n t , and of t h e locality of Aulis. T h e pretext for bringing Iphigenta to Aulis is marriage to Achilles, t h e h e r o w h o has n o idea t h a t his n a m e is being thus used. T h e action begins with A g a m e m n o n s u m m o n i n g a servant to take a letter to Argos to his wife Clytemnestra. T h e message c o u n t e r m a n d s t h e earlier s u m m o n s of Iphigenia; h e r f a t h e r has t h o u g h t better of t h e d e m a n d e d sacrifice, and will instead dismiss t h e assembled host. T h e letter, however, is intercepted by Menelaus, b r o t h e r of A g a m e m n o n and h u s b a n d of H e l e n , whose a b d u c t i o n by Prince Paris of Troy has precipitated the gathering of t h e G r e e k armies. Menelaus, h a v i n g read t h e letter, a n d b e n t on compelling his b r o t h e r t o abide by his original i n t e n t i o n , accuses A g a m e m n o n of weakness unbefitting t h e m a n w h o aspired to lead t h e allied hosts of Hellas. A messenger arrives with t h e news t h a t C l y t e m n e s t r a and Iphige-

2,36

STORIES — "THE PRIMEVAL h i s t o r y "

n i a h a v e arrived. Menelaus relents, withdraws his woi ds 111 declares to A gam cmn o n , "I c a n n o t hid you slay your child for me." A g a m e m n o n n o w declares it is t o o late to save his child. In addition to t h e seer Calehas, who delivered the oracle, t h e c u n n i n g Odysseus has knowledge of it. Calehas' m o u t h can he stopped: u h e is hase, ambitious, like every prophet horn." Hut Odysseus c a n be c o u n t e d on to inform t h e armies that t h e aborting of t h e campaign is due to their leaders refusal to sacrifice his daughter for the cause; he wilt goad t h e men to kill their generals and sacrifice lphigenia, or if they ilee, to pursue t h e m to Argos, and raze its walls in revenge. Achilles arrives and is astounded to learn from C l y t e m n e s t r a that t h e bride h e never sued for is here. T h e puzzle is cleared up when t h e two of t h e m learn of t h e ruse t h a t brought lphigenia to Aulis for sacrifice. Achilles declares that h e has b e e n irrevocably implicated by t h e use of his n a m e to decoy l p h i g e n i a to her d e a t h , t h a t U I needs must bear t h e stain of murder if she perish thus," and vows to protect her e v e n against t h e entire army. Better, however, if C l y t e m n e s t r a can prevail u p o n h e r h u s b a n d to reconsider. S h e pleads w i t h h e r h u s b a n d , lphigenia pleads. A gam emn o n protests t h a t h e is n o m a d m a n , t h a t h e loves his children, but t h a t h e is bound. Achilles appears with news t h a t t h e army knows, and is howling for t h e sacrifice; his o w n m e n h a v e turned against h i m save for a few; he yet stands ready to s n a t c h lphigenia f r o m t h e altar steps. N o w lphigenia speaks. She rejects a sacrificial defense of herself by Achilles. Ten t h o u s a n d soldiers are o n fire to die for G r e e c e . S h e will n o t stand in t h e way. H e r victory will be her fame. By her d e a t h she will h a v e w o n f r e e d o m for Hellas. A t Iph igen la's bidding, C l y t e m n e s t r a remains b e h i n d in the t e n t while she, w i t h o n e a t t e n d a n t , makes for t h e altar, t h e chorus h a i l i n g h e r as t h e c o n q u e r o r of Troy. In t h e last scene a messenger appears to C l y t e m n e s t r a . H e informs her of a miracle t h a t has just token place in full view of t h e A c h a e a n army. T h e priestprophet C a l e h a s raised his knife and struck with it at t h e neck of lphigenia. But n o n e saw t h e blade reach its target. Instead, where lphigenia had lain on t h e altar, a doe now lay in the v i c t i m s place, dripping blood from t h e sacrificial wound. Artemis, so declares Calehas, has t a k e n t h e girl to herself and provided the p a n t ing hind as substitute. News of this w o n d e r has been sent to h e r by her lord, A g a m e m n o n , so that she may lay aside grief for h e r child and anger against her husband. T h e leader of t h e chorus expresses joy at t h e tidings, "Your daughter lives, h e tells us, w i t h t h e g o d s " N o t so C l y t e m n e s t r a . "Stolen, my child, by the gods? W h a t gods ! . . . A n idle story to c h e a t my sorrow." A g a m e m n o n comes o n stage to tell his u n b e l i e v i n g wife t h a t t h e y h a v e cause for joy in their daughter's being n o w w i t h t h e gods. H e sends h e r h o m e to Argos with t h e gift of a youngling steer, while h e himself faces t h e b e c k o n i n g sea. H e promises to send news from t h e b a t t l e f r o n t , "Farewell. From Troy 1 will send word. May all go well w i t h you.‫״‬ A n d t h e chorus sings h i m off: Rejoice, Ο king, go forth in joy. In joy return to us, bringing rich booty, Home again from captured Troy, (lines 1627-1629; tr. F. M. Stawcll)

E V E N T S IN I i i Ε El EE OF A H R A H A M

295

To label such a play a tragedy' A play wir h so happy a n e n d i n g ? T h e c h o r u s it-

sell‫ ־‬c o n c l u d i n g on so joyous a n o t e and in a n t i c i p a t i o n of g r e a t e r t r i u m p h s a n d richer rewards to a !:tend t h e h e r o s return!

In Toward a Grammer (pp. 25 1(26‫״‬a n i m a d v e r t e d u p o n t h e genres of d r a m a t i c tragedy and comedy with brief reference to t h e universal d e p l o y m e n t of these literary c o n v e n t i o n s , despite t h e absence of a g r e e m e n t as to critical aspects of their definitions. It was doubtless the incongruity of t h e h a p p y e n d i n g of this play t h a t led t h e translator whose verston 1 h a v e b e e n using to d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e original drama ended w i t h t h e chorus 1 praise of Iphigenia as she leaves t h e stage altarb o u n d . But if t h e last scene (which t h e translator labels " a n epilogue") is original, a n d if thereby t h e play is excluded from t h e category of tragedy, must we c o m m i t t h e absurdity of calling it a comedy? N o , w h a t e v e r t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of t h e a n c i e n t G r e e k theatre, we must make rot an for a dramatic genre in w h i c h t h e ludicrousness of h u m a n antics bring us close to laughter e v e n as t h e grimness of these antics' consequences renders tears and tearing of flesh a beggarly response. A n d t h e closest we c a n come to a literary i n v e n t i o n whose m a i n thrust is t o hold up h u m a n folly t o scorn is satire. T h e version of t h e Iphigenia tale w h i c h accepts as literal her being wafted away by A r t e m i s f r o m t h e altar in Aulis is treated by Euripides in a n o t h e r drama, Iphigenia in Tauris. In this barbarous locale we find Iphigenia, years after t h e fall of Troy, repaying her divine benefactress by presiding as priestess over t h e altar on w h i c h t h e r e is offered to A r t e m i s t h e life of every Greek w h o strays into this worshipful territory. So m u c h for a literal belief on t h e part ot the a n c i e n t Greeks in h u m a n sacrifice in general and child sacrifice in particular. Bui let us return to t h e iphigenia w h o was slaughtered in A u l i x T h a t maiden w h o goes (and so willingly!) to her death as "the conqueror ot iroy" before a single ship is launched is t h e symbol ot every warrior, ( }reek or Amazon, w h o fell be(ore t h e walls of Troy. A s A g a m e m n o n is every father who is "forced by circumstance" to sacrifice his offspring o n t h e altar of personal pride and national honor. T h e question t h e poet is raising is h o w m a n y battles would be fought if the c o m m a n d e r - i n - c h i e f had to sacrifice his own child before sounding t h e charge. A n d lie is n o t sanguine a b o u t t h e answer. Patriotism is love for t h e e x t e n d e d family. T h e family earns t h a t love by being t h e w o m b f r o m which o n e springs, t h e n u r t u r i n g bosom, t h e enfolding p r o t e c t i n g arms. To t u r n t h e family into a n abstraction of u l t i m a t e value, w h i c h breeds only to aggrandize itself, and aggrandizes by sacrificing its issue, is o n e of humanity's greatest absurdities. All war is madness. T h e best t h a t c a n be said for a defensive war is t h a t t h e madness originates with t h e aggressors. T h e defenders fight u n d e r compulsion, to protect life and liberty, w h i c h would be forfeited by surrender. But consider w h e n t h e poet introduces t h e t h e m e of defense of c o u n t r y and freedom. T h e entire play consists of some fifteen h u n d r e d lines, it is w i t h line 1255 t h a t A g a m e m n o n begins his richly ironic reply to wife a n d daughter: I know the touch of pity, know ii well: I love my children-- - I am no madman, wife. It is a fearful thing to do this deed, Yet: fearful nor to do it: I am round,

6,36 s t o r i e s — " t h e p r i m e v a l (He turns to

history"

lphigenia)

You see this host of ships and mai he lad m e n — T h e y cannot reach the towers of Ilium, T h e y cannot take the far-famed steep of Troy, Unless I sacrifice you as he bids, Calehas, the prophet. A n d our Greeks are hot To smite the foe, nor let t h e m steal our wives. If I refuse the Goddess, they will c o m e To Argos, kill your sisters, you and me! I am no slave of Menelaus, child; I do not bow to him, I bow to Hellas, A s bow I must, w h e t h e r I will or no. She is the greater. For her we live, my child, l o guard her freedom. Foreigners must not, rule O u r land, nor tear our w o m e n irom t h e i r homes, (lines

1277

‫ נ‬2 = ; ‫; ף‬

Could A r i s t o p h a n e s ( w h o composed Κi‫ יי‬own lampoon on war in Ly.s/.si rata) h a v e o u t d o n e t h e tragedian in painting the speaker as a buffoon? Twice t h e same p a t h e t i c n o t e is struck, in the middle and the final line: "nor let t h e m steal our wives" "nor tear our w o m e n from their homes. 1 ' T h e first q u o t e follows, " O u r Greeks are h o t to smite t h e f o e " That is to say, we are fighting a war of aggression; our justification, however, is to teach t h e e n e m y n o t to c o m e a t h o u s a n d kilometers to seduce our w o m e n . T h e second quote follows, "Foreigners must n o t rule our land." Is t h a t t h e threat to G r e e c e from Troy? A n d "tear our w o m e n from our homes‫ ?״‬Is t h a t w h a t Paris did? C l y t e m n e s t r a flung t h e reason for t h e Trojan campaign into A g a m e m n o n ' s t e e t h , "To win back H e l e n ! Your o w n child for a w a n t o n , your dearest for a foe!" H e l e n , wife to Menelaus, is Clytemnestra's sister-in-law. But, let us remember, she is also Clytemnestra's sister; they are b o t h Leda's daughters. W h o , better t h a n her sister, would k n o w Bielens whorish heart, or t h e disloyalty t h a t stamps h e r n o t just as frump, but foe: T h e irony does n o t stop here, however. W h e n A g a m e m n o n says t h a t h e is n o t bowing to Menelaus' d e t e r m i n a t i o n to win back his strumpet wife, h e speaks truth; for Euripides had pictured M e n e l a u s earlier as relenting of his purpose. A g a m e m n o n is indeed bowing to t h e will of Hellas, a Hellas t h a t does n o t exist except as cities warring against one another, but tor this one occasion w h e n they h a v e united to w i n t h e greater spoil of Troy. " S h e is t h e greater." To be sure; by reason of force, nor virtue. But to add, "For h e r we live, my child"? Fiel las is t h e threat! "To guard her freedom"? From whom? "Foreigners must not rule our land"? T h e land in dan get is n o t Greece, But A g a m e m n o n ' s Ar^os. A n d t h e foreigners arc not Trojans, but the very Greeks over w h o m he exercises so shaky a c o m m a n d .

ISAAC A N D ÏPHIGENIA, A B R A H A M A X I ‫י‬

AGAMEMNON:

A COMPARISON T h e B i n d i n g o f Isaac a n d Jpfii,[r<mi in Au lis‫ י‬d e r i v i n g i r o m t w o w i d e l y s e p a r a t e d c u l lures, e a c h w i t h its d i s t i n c t i v c e t h o s , m a k e tor i n s t r u c t i v e c o m p a r i s o n . T h e r e are m a r k e d s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d d i f f e r e n c e s , B o t h are s u p r e m e c r e a t i o n s . O n e , a s h o r t story

tr. KM. St

]‫׳‬:Vents

in t h e

life of

a H r a h a m 297Q_\

in the fahulary genre of Scripture; t h e o t h e r a play in t h e lofty tradition of G r e e k tragedy. Jerusalem a n d A t h e n s , t h e two m a j o r founts of W e s t e r n civilization, b o t h dealing with essentially t h e same p h e n o m e n o n in t h e h u m a n c o n d i t i o n : t h e absurdities of h u m a n response to a ubiquitous and ever-present dilemma. Life is t h e highest of values, for it is t h e bearer of all values. W i t h o u t life there is n e i t h e r goodness n o r evil, n e i t h e r beauty nor ugliness, n e i t h e r t r i u m p h nor defeat. Yet t h e defense of values highly cherished by m a n o f t e n requires t h e taking of life and its surrender. W h e n — f o r t h e defense of w h i c h values, and in t h e face ot how grave a danger to these v a l u e s — i s it justified t o sacrifice life itself, e v e n t h e life that represents our future, our immortality? Only, it would seem, for a value without which life itself becomes meaningless, and w h e n t h a t value is t h r e a t e n e d with e x t i n c t i o n . H o w o f t e n is such t h e case? In b o t h T h e Binding and Iphigenia, t h e call comes from t h e divine in a form of revelation. A b r a h a m receives t h e call directly, A g a m e m n o n t h r o u g h an in t er m eel iary. A b r a h a m c a n n o t d o u b t his inner ear. A g a m e m n o n , in desperate ambition, accepts t h e word of t h e prophet intermediary, w h o m h e himself describes as "base, ambitious, like every p r o p h e t b o r n " and c o n c e r n i n g whom. Menelaus agrees, " T h e y do n o good; they are never any use." T h e G o d w h o m A b r a h a m obeys is t h e source of all goodness and t h e guarantor of the future. T h e deity w h o s u m m o n s Aga memn o n is one of middling i m p o r t a n c e . T h e G o d w h o calls to A b r a h a m initiates t h e action; the h u m a n must respond. T h e r e is n o call to A g a m e m n o n : h e asks tor an oracle, and t h e divine response poses for h i m a d i l e m m a of his own making. Ί h e d e m a n d of t h e divine u p o n A b r a h a m is u n c o n d i t i o n a l . A b r a h a m m u s t obey or deny t h e ground of his f a i t h and hope. T h e r e is n o d e m a n d upon A g a m e m n o n , if h e wants s o m e t h i n g f r o m t h e g o d d e s s — a wind to speed h i m o n his a m b i t i o n of c o n q u e s t — h e must give h e r s o m e t h i n g in return; unfortunately for him, t h e goddess drives a hard bargain. But h e is u n d e r n o compulsion to do business at alb A b r a h a m ' s f a i t h results in t h e affirmation of life, t h e preclusion of sacrifice. Agam e m n o n ' s vacillation leads to a sacrifice, which opens t h e way to many more deaths. A b r a h a m s G o d is t h e o n e we w a n t to believe in, t h e O n e w h o m many of us claim to worship. A g a m e m n o n ' s gods are those we deny w i t h our lips and to w h o m we render ourselves slave. A b r a h a m is t h e protagonist we would w a n t to be. A g a m e m n o n is t h e o n e we are. A n d so we wallow in t h e welter of our absurdities. In action, in philosophy, in reading t h e texts from our a n t i q u e heritage, w e — i n t h e words of t h e p r o p h e t Isai a h — " c a l l evil good and good evil; present darkness as light and light as darkness, make t h e bitter sweet and t h e sweet bitter" (5:20). Every fiber of our being is w o v e n into t h e c l o t h of A b r a h a m ' s faith; we tear it and ourselves to tatters. T h e faith of A b r a h a m is t h e moral force of gravity t h a t anchors us to life; the leap we make is not. into faith b u t out. of it, a n d such is its ease and regularity t h a t we d o n o t discern it as a leap at all. This, at least, is what Scripture is telling us. Had Euripides Scripture before him, what c h a n c e t h a t he would disagree. 7

This page intentionally left blank

T A R T

I I

STRUCTURES

This page intentionally left blank

S E V E N

S T R U C T U R E S LIΤ Ε R A R Y

A S

A

B I B L I C A L

P H E N O M E N O N

T h e division of this hook into two sections, o n e o n srories and o n e o n structures, is b o t h o c c a s i o n e d by and reflective of the uniqueness of Scripture (in general, and of G e n e s i s or the Pentateuch in particular) in respect to the question of literary genre. G e n r e is a matter oi classification, and classification is a highly

subjective

h u m a n organization of its perceptions, !:very system of classification is assessable, not in terms of true or false or valid or invalid, hut rather in terms ol usefulness or idleness, wcightiness or frivolity. T h u s o n e broad literary distinction is that bet w e e n prose a n d poetry, a classification so obvious that ‫ > : 2 4

2‫)ר‬ I tyre s si on

(26) Ahimeiech now went to him from ι ïerar

and [with him] Ahuzath his intimate

and Pikol ]!is marshal. (27) Isaac addressed them, "How comes it that you come to me a-visit ing seeing it was you who rejected me and dismissed me from your company!" (28) Said they, "We came to an inescapable conclusion, that it was Y H W H who was with you. Hence have we have come to propose, bet sanctions be invoked between our two parties, between us and y o u — t h a t is to say, we should like to conclude a pact with you-—{29) that vou will not deal injuriously with us, just as we have not touched you, indeed just

we have dealt most: amicably with you, sending you off safe and

sound—ye>, vou now [clearly] blessed favorite of YHWH." (30) l ie treated them to a feast. They ate and, drank, (31) Promptly on the morn they took oaths to one an-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIBLICAL i CEE HARY !M ί EN UM E N< >N

other,

Isaac saw t h e m

off a n d

t h e y p a r ! er, l i m n

h un

sate n o d

sound.

‫׳)(>׳‬/

(Genesis

26:26-31) Episode D (32) It was at that time that Isaac's minions came and. told him ahout the well they had dug, announcing to him, "We have struck water!" Me η :mied it Stub'-a [Seven/ Swearing], hence the town's name to this very day: Beersheba [Seven Spring / Swear Spring]. (Genesis 26:32) T h i s story is a c o n t i n u a t i o n of I s a a c s story in G e r a r ,

Linder

t h e p r o t e c t i o n of its

p u n c t i l i o u s a n d h o s p i t a b l e k i n g A b i m e l e c h . T h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h a t first e p i s o d e is t h a t Isaac's e n t e r p r i s e in t h e G e r a r area n e t t e d h i m a h u n d r e d f o l d r e t u r n . T h e t w o last w o r d s of verse 2 wayyebärckehü

Y H W H introduce a new narrative. Due to

Y H W H ' s favor, t h e h e r o of o u r story b e c o m e s so rich! a n d p o w e r f u l as t o g i v e rise t o e n v y a n d e v e n m i s g i v i n g o n t h e p a r t of m a n y of his P h i l i s t i n e h o s t s . T h r e e or f o u r e l e m e n t s in t h e d i c t i o n of verses 1 3 - 1 4 c o n t r i b u t e to a n aura of n a i v e t é a n d f a n ‫׳‬ tasy, a k i n t o w h a t is a c h i e v e d i n E n g l i s h s t o r y - t e l l i n g by t h e " O n c e u p o n a t i m e " o p e n i n g . T h e h e r o ' s s u d d e n rise t o w e a l t h a n d p o w e r is expressed in an. e i g h t - w o r d verse w h o s e flavor is t o t a l l y m i s r e p r e s e n t e d by m y t r a n s l a t i o n . F e a t u r i n g t h r e e 0 0 c u r r e n c e s of t h e t e r m gdl "big," t w o o c c u r r e n c e s of t h e v e r b hlk " t o go," a o n e - w o r d s u b j e c t , o n e p r e p o s i t i o n , a n d o n e a d v e r b , t h e flavor of t h e H e b r e w is b e t t e r captu red by a literal r e n d e r i n g : 4 T h e m a n b e c a m e big, h e w e n t o n g o i n g bigger u n t i l so big h e b e c a m e indeed." T h e subject oi t h e s e n t e n c e h not !suae ( o u r v u l n e r a b l e a n c e s t o r s o j o u r n i n g in lands t h a t may s o m e d a y c e n t u r i e s late;‫ ־׳‬b e c o m e ours), b u t the Mon

a n d t h e word 'nbuddä

" h a c i e n d a , (hat is, works, e s t a b l i s h m e n t " a p p e a r s o n l y

o n c e m o r e i n S c r i p t u r e ( a n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h e n o r m o u s q u a m !ties oi l i v e s t o c k ) . T h e b o o k of j o b begins " A M a o t h e r e was, a n d 11 ‫ ר‬.‫ וו‬M a n was , . " A l o n g w i t h h e r d s a n d flocks, c a m e l s a n d asses, his e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t e s an ahnddei rahbä " a n ex t e n sive h a c i e n d a , " so t h a t t h a t M a n was bigger tlum (gadol mi!η I) a n y of his a n c i e n t c o n t e m p o r a r i e s (Job 1 : 1 3 ‫ ) ״‬. T h e final e l e m e n t of d i c t i o n is t h e c u r i o u s g r a m m a t i c a l f a c t t h a t , a l o n e a m o n g t h e m a n y e t h n i c g r o u p s in S c r i p t u r e , Philistine(s)

is regu-

larly d e f i n i t e , w i t h o u t t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e ( p e r h a p s 07 p e r c e n t of all o c c u r r e n c e s ) . T h u s in t h e m a t t e r of t h e s e P h i l i s t i n e s , e n v i o u s of Isaac in verse 14 a n d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s t o p p i n g u p of A b r a h a m ' s wells i n t h e par e n (he tic verse 15 ‫ י‬t h e a m b i g u i t y as t o d e f i n i t e n e s s serves t o a m h i g u a t e t h e p e r s o n a l s t a n c e of A h i m e l e c h a n d t h a t of his c o u r t i e r s i n r e s p e c t t o t h e i r i n o r d i n a t e l y p r o s p e r o u s guest. T h u s it is t h a t w h e n A b i m e l e c h in v e r s e 16 advises Isaac t h a t t h e t i m e h a s c o m e f o r h i m t o l e a v e t h e city of G e r a r , w e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r h e is a c t i n g u n d e r p o p ular pressure, or possibly e x p r e s s i n g his o w n lately d e v e l o p e d r a n c o r as well. I n verse 17 Isaac leaves G e r a r a n d e n c a m p s in W a d i Gera.]‫׳‬, in w h i c h valley h e redigs t h e wells first d u g by his f a t h e r A b r a h a m . T h i s last r e p e t i t i o n of t h e c o n t e n t of pare n t h e t i c verse 15 raises t w o q u e s t i o n s . First, w h y t h e r e p e t i t i o n t o b e g i n w i t h ? A n d s e c o n d , a s s u m i n g we c a n c o m e u p w i t h a r e a s o n for t h e r e p e t i t i o n , wdiy s h o u l d t h e p a r e n t h e t i c n o t i c e not p r e c e d e verse 17, w h e r e it w o u l d logically s e e m t o b e l o n g / T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n is easily a n s w e r e d . By placin 1 ‫״‬: r h e p a r e n t h e s i s b e t w e e n t h e e n d oi t h e ( v e r s e 14) P h i l i s t i n e h e g r u d g m c n i ol lsaa; < >IKCCSS, a n d ( v e r s e 16) t h e

368

STRUCTURES

c o n s e q u e n c e of t h a t e n v y i n A b i m e l e c h ' s r e q u e s t t o Isaac to l e a v e G e r a r . t h e n a r r a t o r suggests t o us t h a t for all t h e f r i e n d s h i p s h o w n hy A h i m e i e c h t o A b r a h a m a n d t h e n t o Isaac, t h e P h i l i s t i n e g r u d g e d a t e d hack t o A b r a h a m ' s t i m e . It f u n her p o i n t s up t h e n a t u r e of t h e P h i l i s t i n e aiiect: not (ear or anxiety, but r a t h e r d o g - i n - t h e • ‫׳‬ m a n g e r envy. For t h e s l o p p i n g u p of wells expresses spite a n d spite a l o n e . O t h e r wise o n e would exploit t h e wells for o n e s o w n b e n e f i t . W h e n t h i s item of i n f o r m a l i o n is r e p e a l e d in verse 1 y, it is w i t h t h e e x p l i c a t i o n of w h a t t h e reader may or may not h a v e sensed in t h e p a r e n t h e s i s , t h a t t h e filling in of t h e wells t o o k p l a c e " a f t e r t h e d e a t h of A b r a h a m " T h e r e a c t i o n of ( t h e ) P h i l i s t i n e s to I s a a c s r e d i g g i n g of t h e wells is o m i t t e d ( g a p p e d ) i n t h i s first episode; it will he p r o v i d e d in t h e res u m p t t v e E p i s o d e B. 1 ‫ י‬h e s y n o p t i c E p i s o d e A e n d s w i t h t h e e n i g m a t i c s t a t e m e n t t h a t , h a v i n g r e d u g t h e wells e x c a v a t e d by h i s f a t h e r , " h e g a v e t h e m n a m e s like t h e n a m e s w h i c h his f a t h e r h a d g i v e n t h e m " T h e w o r d w e italicized, like, m e a n s s mitfar, a n d n o t , as S p e i s e r r e n d e r s it, the same (names).

In w h a t ways w o u l d t h e n a m e s ,

r e p o r t e d i n E p i s o d e B, b e s i m i l a r t o yet n o t t h e s a m e as t h e u n r e p o r t e d

names

g i v e n t o t h e wells by A b r a h a m ? A n d , for t h a t m a t t e r , aside f r o m t h e r e p o r t e d d e t a i l so c h e r i s h e d by t h e a n t i q u a r i a n h i s t o r i a n , w h a t is t h e p u r p o r t of t h e s e names!' W h y h a v e t h e y b e e n p r e s e r v e d for us? A n d w h y in t h e ' 1 similar" v e r s i o n of Isaac s a n d n o t t h e o r i g i n a l o n e of A b r a h a m s ? E p i s o d e Β b e g i n s w i t h v e r s e 1 9 s r e s u m p t i o n s of t h e prior e p i s o d e s verse 18, t h e d i g g i n g of t h e wells — w e l l , n o t q u i t e — w i t h t h e digging of t h e first ot several wells w h e r e w a t e r was s t r u c k . O u r t r a n s l a t i o n struck

there a flowing spring is a close a n d

d e f e n s i b l e r e n d e r i n g of t h e H e b r e w , f a i t h f u l t o b o t h t h e English a n d H e b r e w id10ms. But w h i l e a n i d i o m a t i c r e n d e r i n g m a y b e f a i t h f u l t o a / t h e m e t a p h o r i n h e r e n t in t h e o r i g i n a l i d i o m , it m a y lead us astray f r o m a n o t h e r m e t a p h o r i c p u r p o r t in t h e original idiom, 1 hasten therefore to r e m i n d my readers that other

translations,

close t o t h e literal, m a y o p e n up t h e field of m e t a p h o r i c o p t i o n s . T i r e H e b r e w is ‫׳‬a ^winis

'u - säm Ir'er maynn

hayyuu.

A m e r i c a n S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n reads " a n d f o u n d

t h e r e a well oi s p r i n g i n g w a t e r ; ‫ ״‬N J P S " l o u n d t h e r e a well of s p r i n g w ater." d ' h u s old and. n e w t r a n s l a t i o n s agree o n " f i n d " as i r a n s l a t i o n of m.s, o n e w i t h w i n c h we c a n find n o f a u l t h e r e as l o n g as we r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e m e a n i n g of " f i n d " is to conic upun (hy c h a n c e , or a f t e r s e a r c h ) s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is t h e r e ( w h e r e it is) hv c h a n c e or by c h o i c e . 1 h e English word, "well" m a y d e n o t e a s p r i n g ( w e l l i n g u p f r o m a subt c r r a n e a n s o u r c e ) , or it m a y c o n n o t e a p i t or h o l e s u n k i n t o t h e e a r t h in s e a r c h for water, as in t h e case of a dry well. O n e c a n t h e r e f o r e dig d o w n u n t i l o n e r e a c h e s t h e w a t e r t a b l e , a n d o b t a i n w a t e r by l o w e r i n g a c o n t a i n e r by r o p e i n t o t h a t u n d e r g r o u n d flow. O r o n e m i g h t strike a flow w h e r e t h e i n t e r n a l pressure will b r i n g w a t e r s p u r t i n g t o w a r d t h e surface, as in t h e case of a n a r t e s i a n well. A n d s u c h a v i g o r o u s flow m a y h e all t h a t is i n t e n d e d hy t h e H e b r e w , " b r i m m i n g w a t e r " as o p p o s e d t o s t a g n a n t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , mayïm

hayyïm,

literally " l i v i n g w a t e r " or " l i f e - g i v i n g

w a t e r " m a y h a v e s o m e special s i g n i f i c a t i o n in t h i s c o n t e x t . T h e c l a i m of t h e G e r a r i t e s h e p h e r d s is p o i n t e d l y in d i r e c t discourse; t h e well is n o t t h e i r s , for t h e y did n o digging. B u t t h e w a f e r is theirs, w h i c h is t o sav t h a t a n y waiter struck o n G e r a r i t e territory b e l o n g s t o t h e m . S u c h b l a t a n t d e n i a l of e a r n i n g s to t h e laborers r e v e r b e r a t e s w i t h t h e c h a r g e of A b r a h a m t o A b i m e l e c h in 21:25 t h a t his m i n i o n s h a d robbed

h i m (gzl)

of a water-well.

A s f o r t h e n a m i n g or t h i s w e l l , it

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

569

points up t h e inanity of etiology as a n explanatory category. N o such place-name appears again, and t h e root of t h e verb from w h i c h t h e n a m e is derived never appears again in Scripture. All translations of it are pure c o n j e c t u r e based o n a sense of what might be contextually appropriate. T h e n a m e of t h e second well derives from a root more often attested, yet still only rarely, and such renderings as our own (or others, such as Opposition, C h a l l e n g e ) all derive from t h e general assumption that (the) Satan means Adversary. Needless to say, n o such place n a m e appears again in Scripturc. Oi clear relevance to our story is t h e omission of any information as to the resolution of these two contests for water-rights, as also t h e absence of contest for the third well. T h e n a m i n g of this third well, featuring a well-known root, is clearlv in expression of good o m e n , in contrast with t h e circumstances a t t e n d i n g the n a m i n g of t h e first two wells, but this place-name is also unique. W h a t t h e n is the point of these unedifying particulars in the life and travels of this patriarch, whose c a r e e r - as ha> so often been noted — is distinguished for the absence of event ? Episode Β ends with t h e purport o! Isaacs n a m e for t h e third well: it is a ·ayn of Y H W H ' s iavor and presage of a flourishing posterity. H e t h e n moves up from the Philistine littoral to t h e Beersheba plateau. Episode C begins with Yl IWl IV revel a‫׳‬ tion to him, apparently o n t h e fust night of his arrival there, t h a t the presentiment h e had experienced at R e h o b o t h was n o t a n idle one. For t h e sake of 1 'iny (îaithru!) servant A b r a h a m " h e would c o n t i n u e to favor Isaac, particularly in respect to 11 umerous progeny. Isaac t h e n proceeds to erect at Beersheba an altar (such as A brah a m had erected at S h e c h e m , Bethel and H e b r o n , b u t — p o i n t e d l y — n o t at Beersheba). H e invokes in Y H W H - n a m e , as did A b r a h a m before h i m at Beersheba (as well as at Bethel). T h e episode ends w i t h Isaac's servants digging a well o n c e again. But this t h e m e is b r o k e n off, to be resumed in verse 32 w i t h t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t of water being struck there, and Isaac's n a m i n g of t h e spring, a n a m e to w h i c h the settie m e n t there in t h e n a r r a t o r s time owes its n a m e . T h a t verses 2 6 - 3 1 represent a d i g r e s s i o n — w i t h t h e associated sense of oddity in respect to t h e composition w i t h i n w h i c h it appears, h e n c e to which it must somehow and significantly relate—is u n q u e s t i o n e d . T h e e v e n t told in this digression is preceded by t h e notice t h a t Isaac's m i n i o n s ' are digging a well, and it is toi‫׳‬ lowed by t h e same diggers report to Isaac t h a t they h a v e struck water. T h e oddity of this particular digression is reinforced by its c o n t e n t , plot, and characters almost duplicating those of t h e freestanding narrative, Genesis 2 1 : 2 2 - 3 4 , T h e king of Gerar, A b i m e l e c h , and Pikol his marshal would appear to be the same who, h a v i n g b r o a c h e d a nonaggression treaty to A b r a h a m , n o w broach t h e same proposal to A b r a h a m s son, Isaac, ί his, as if the treaty concluded with the f a t h e r - which explicitly referred to posterity oi t h e two p a r t i e s — d i d n o t already apply to or brad Isaac. I h e only addition, to A h i m e l e c h s party, is an intimate associate by t h e n a m e A/1w;7ai71. I be m e a n i n g of this word, with, an alternate f e m i n i n e ending (u/iu^oh sec Genesis 25:20) is laud-holding, real estate ou‫׳‬nerd1//>, and it, therefore, reinforces the Philistine collectivity represented in t h e !1rs!, narrative by the king and his marshal, Pikol u Voice oi Alb" In the freestanding narrative featuring A b r a h a m , Philistine hostility seems to he almost nugatory, confined perhaps to t h e greed of those who had infringed on A b r a h a m s well water u n b e k n o w n s t to A b i m e l e c h . Yet a consciousness oi ad versa!‫־‬-

388

STRUCTURES

ial interests may be read into Abimelech's very proposal of t h e nonaggression treaty. In t h e Isaac narrative, by contrast, t h e patriarch taxes t h e Philistines with t h e unfriendliness t h a t forced his departure from t h e city of Gerar. A n d t h e h o s t i h ity is o p e n and explicit in t h e claim ot the Gerarite shepherds to t h e water of two of t h e t h r e e springs dug or redug by Isaac's shepherds. A l t h o u g h Isaac does n o t bring up to A b i m e l e c h t h e actions of the Gerarite shepherds, h e n c e allows for n o disavowal by t h e king as to his sanctioning their behavior, there is n o reason to involve t h e sovereign in t h e fault of his subjects. Isaac, for his part, accepts A b i m e l e c h s c o m p l i m e n t t h a t h e is Heaven's favorite, and accedes to t h e p e t i t i o n for a nonaggression pact. H e treats his visitors to a feast. O n t h e morrow oaths are exchanged, and Isaac sees Iiis visitors oit. T h e r e may be s o m e t h i n g ironic in t h e coneluding n o t i o n that his visitors "parted from him safe and sound‫( ״‬/>\saimn), corresponding to the visitors' claim that they had "seen h i m oil sale and sound" (tmnnvsulc/r'ka /Ksäföm, verse :>0), when h e departed from Gerar, bor t h e Isaac with w h o m they are treating is hardly in a posit ion to oppose ‫ ו‬hem with physical force. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , Mlöm also has t h e sense of "amity," so the point‫ ״‬of the second bc$älöm may merely be t h a t t h e guests left in a spirit ol good feeling. T h e amicable conclusion of b o t h narratives would seem to point to t h e same kerygma: t h e descendants of Abraham-Isaac, in secure possession of Peershcba and t h e wad is leading f r o m it to t h e Philistine coastal plain, are by a n c i e n t treaty b o u n d n o t to commit aggression against those a n c i e n t neighbors. Militating against a c c e p t a n c e of this kerygmatic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these two patriarchal narratives is t h e mindset of t h e heirs of t h e biblical tradition (be these heirs t h e early rabbis or m o d e r n biblicists) on t h e o n e h a n d , and o n t h e other, t h e likely mindset of t h e I s r a e h j u d a h populations that t h e biblical a u t h o r (authors) was (were) addressing. T h e heirs of t h e tradition are c o n d i t i o n e d by the historical fate of t h e household of Israel, a history c u l m i n a t i n g in t h e destruction of t h e n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m (and t h e "lost" t e n tribes), in t h e destruction of the southern k i n g d o m less t h a n a century a n d a half later (and t h e "exile" of the Judean p o p u l a t i o n ) , b o t h disasters foh lowed by t h e renewal of a precariously m a i n t a i n e d priestly city-state c e n t e r e d o n a rebuilt shrine in Jerusalem. T h i s is to say t h a t trom t h e point of view of temporal hegemony, we c a n n o t but view the history of Israel's states as a tale of defeat and failure. Far, far different was t h e view of the audience addressed by the first of t h e writing prophets, A m o s . A close r e e x a m i n a t i o n of, for example, C h a p t e r s 6 and 11 ol this hook, will, show that his audience oi both, kingdoms were allush with a sense of power, victory, success; and with this sense, inclined to a confidence in a stable future as surely as t h e present is rooted in a promise-fulfilled past. It is to c o u n t e r such a rosy and smug mindset that A m o s stresses t h e transitory nature of all polities, this before h e goes o n to prophesy the end of the sinful state(s), but not of the Israelite people. Unterritoried Gushites ( ‫־־־‬: Midiamtc-like b e d o u i n ) h a v e in the mind of Y H W H , says Amos, equal status with Israel lies. A n d the act of bringing up Israel from Egypt (not, be it noted, from Ur Kasdim or 1 iaran) is not to be viewed as unique. For t h e o n e and t h e same and only god it was who !etched t h e (uncir cumcised) Philistines from (ancestral) C r e t e as lie did t h a t collectivity called A r a m from a far-distant: Kir.

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

571

G i v e n such a sense o n the part of a polity and a populace, c o n f i d e n t in its prèset it well-merited success and c o n c o m i t a n t n o t i o n s such as national probity and manitest destiny, we can appreciate why a narrative warning o n e s own against encroaching o n an a n c i e n t rivals territory should be told twice, e a c h telling featuring t h e same ancestral a n t e c e d e n t s and their respective legitimate territories. So m u c h for t h e similarities and identities in t h e two narratives. W h a t of t h e differences? O n e is in t h e m a t t e r of t h e digging of wells. A b r a h a m digs only one, t h a t o n e at Beersheba. 3 6 T h i s spring, its water rights contested by A b i m e l e c h s subjects, is c e n t r a l to t h e narrative, a n d — f o r all t h e play o n t h e root sb = seven — is cited in its sense of "swearing" in t h e n a m i n g of it, (seemingly by A b r a h a m ) Beersheba. In t h e Isaac narrative t h e spring at Beersheba is n o t at all related in terras of plot ( t h o u g h it is so in terms of narrative structure) to t h e oaths exchanged between patriarch and Philistines. A s t h e site of t h e swearing b e t w e e n the two parties it later comes by t h e n a m e Beersheba. T h i s n a m e , however, is n o t here associated with the swearing sense of sh but w i t h t h e n a m e given to it by Isaac after the Philistines' departure, sibâ( "Seven." T h i s c a n n o t but point to t h e s e n n-Okvp paym e n t m a d e by A b r a h a m to A b i m e l e c h , a n i n f o r m a t i o n a l detail n o t to be credited to Isaac's consciousness, but provided by t h e n a r r a t o r to t h e reader w h o is privy to t h e first narrative, a n d in t h e recesses of whose mind there still lurks the quest ion as to t h e m e a n i n g of t h e n a m e s given by Isaac to t h e (redug) wells of his father, to which he "gives n a m e s like (but not identical with) those w h i c h his lather had given them." T h u s , whereas A b r a h a m had n a m e d it Sheba (as in Beersheba), m e a n ing (according lo t h e explication in 21:31 ) Swearing Well, yet with an allusion to the .seven-sheep payment, Isaac n a m e d it Shibä ( S e v e n ) — f o r reasons known to G o d alone—yet. in doing so came so close to t h e n a m e (apparently) given to it by his father! But what is t h e point: of this n a m i n g rigmarole? If t h e well had been n a m e d Beersheba by his father, t h e n t h a t would h a v e been, it for Isaac (and for t h e rest of us). But t h a t could n o t h a v e "been it" for Isaac, i n a s m u c h as n o such well existed in his time. H e merely (or inadvertently) hit u p o n a n a m e for a well that, unhek n o w n s t to him, h a d b e e n dug by his father, filled in by Philistines, and was thus "redug" by his own servants (inadvertently) and by Providential arrangement turned out to be t h e same site where b o t h h e and his f a t h e r pledged nonaggression to t h e Philistine d e s c e n d a n t s of their legendary lord, k n o w n to t h e patriarchs (if n o t to either d e s c e n d a n t s of either or b o t h ) as A b i m e l e c h , king of Gerar. T h e p o i n t of all this rigmarole is, of course, t h a t w h e n a narrative or a (nearly) twice-told narrative adds up to nonsense w h e n t a k e n as history, o n e must look for its m e a n i n g in terms of t h e fictive; ideological fiction, to be precise. A n d this brings us hack to Isaac's redigging of his father's wells. O n e c a n no more red ig hl led-in wells in a wadi t h a n o n e c a n retrace a n o c e a n i c voyage w i t h o u t a pilots router. A n d t h e n o t i c e t h a t t h e stopping-up of A b r a h a m ' s wells took place after his death certifies t h a t t h e father, a n t i c i p a t i n g n o such meanness, would n o t h a v e left a m a p tor his son's benefit. But why does t h e second narrative feature such a point‫״‬ l c ^ action on t h e part of Philisiine h e r d s m a n , who -apparently --had no use tor the water themselves? F he answer points to a n o t h e r item oi contradictory information: 111 this narrative doublei. Whereas, as wo saw, in the A b r a h a m narrative the

372

STRUCTURES

B e e r s h e b a a r e a lies i m p l i c i t l y i n P h i l i s t i n e t e r r i t o r y , n o s u c h t e r r i t o r i a l o w n e r s h i p is c r e d i t e d t o t h e P h i l i s t i n e s i n t h e Isaac n a r r a t i v e . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , for all t h a t Isaac t a k e s u p r e s i d e n c e in W a d i G e r a r , t h a t n a m e is n o m o r e a t t e s t a t i o n t o t h a t v a l l e y s o w n e r s h i p t h a n , say, f o r t h e O h i o R i v e r v a l l e y ' s b e i n g t h e t e r r i t o r y of t h e S t a t e of O h i o ‫ ־‬I n d e e d , t h e v e r y p o i n t of t h e f a i l u r e of t h e G e r a r i t e s t o c o n t e s t o w n e r s h i p of t h e t h i r d well m a y be t h a t Isaac has n o w m o v e d b e y o n d t h e a m b i t c l a i m e d by t h e Philistines. H e n c e , Isaacs n a m e for t h e third well ( R e h o b o t h =

Expansiveness,

B r o a d S c o p e ) . I s a a c is n o l o n g e r c r o w d i n g o r b e i n g c r o w d e d by r i v a l s , d h a l I s a a c is n o w in b i s o w n u n c o n t e s t e d t e r r i t o r y is a l s o b o r n e o u ! by h i s q u e s t i o n t o h i s P h i l i s t i n e v i s i t o r s ; ' 1 W h y h a v e y o u c o m e n o w to m e ( i n m y b a i l i w i c k ) w h e n y o u d r o v e m e o u t mëiit 1 ‫־‬kern " f r o m y o u r o w n j u r i s d i c t i o n ? " S o a l s o , by t h e a b s e n c e of a n y p a y m e n t o n h i s p a r t t o h i s P h i 1 i st i η e c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . A s s u m i n g t h e n ( a n d w e h a v e n o r e a s o n n o t t o ) a single narrai or tor b o t h stories, w e h a v e a n a r r a t o r w h o m a y b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as reliably

unreliable.

H e is u n r e l i a b l e

as t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n : in t h e m a t t e r of w h e t h e r B e e r s h e b a d i d o r d i d n o t in p a t r i a r c h a l t i m e s c o n s t i t u t e p a r t of P h i l i s t i n e t e r r i t o r y . S o t o o is h e u n r e l i a b l e in tracing the n a m e S h e b a to o n e root or another, to o n e patriarch or t h e other, i f — i n d e e d — t o e i t h e r . H e is, h o w e v e r , a l t o g e t h e r r e l i a b l e i n t h a t h e t a k e s s u c h p a i n s t o d e n y t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . W h a t e v e r w a s t h e c a s e i n t h a t r e s p e c t , the double narrative leaves n o question in our (Israelitish) minds: W e are solemnly bound

by a n c e s t r a l

oath

to refrain f r o m aggression against our

uncircumcised

neighbors on t h e coast. W h y d o w e o b t r u d e t h e d e t a i l as t o c i r c u m c i s i o r r a l p r a c t i c e , a d e t a i l a p p a r e n t l y i ! r e l e v a n t f o r o u r n a r r a t o r h i m s e l f ? J u s t so: t o r e m i n d o u r s e l v e s t h a t t h i s d e t a i l , ot a s u r g i c a l l y u n i m p a c t e d m a l e o r g a n , a p p e a r s i n n a r r a t i v e s , n o t as a n e p i t h e t b e t o k e n ‫׳‬ i n g h a t r e d , b u t r a t h e r c o n t e m p t . I t b e s p e a k s t h e c o n d e s c e n s i o n of t h e i n s i d e r t o t h e o u t s i d e r . B u t s u c h a s t a n c e r e q u i r e s n o c o n c o m i t a n t s e n s e of fear, h a t r e d , h o s tility. Esau's first h o r n s o n E l i p h a z n u m b e r e d a m o n g h i s s o n s o n e b o r n e t o h i m by a c o n c u b i n e . T h i s g r e a t - g r a n d s o n of I s a a c , p r e s u m a b l y c i r c u m c i s e d i n i n f a n c y , be‫־׳‬ c o m e s - — t o r all h i s i n s i d e r , i n d e e d , k i n d r e d s t a t u s — i n v e t e r a t e f o e of I s r a e l . S o t o o t h e p r e s u m a b l y c i r c u m c i s e d d e s c e n d a n t s of M i d i a n , A b r a m ' s s o n b y K e t u r a h . S e e m ‫• ׳‬ i n g l y w i p e d o u t in a he r e m - w a r at t h e b e h e s t of Y H W H o r M o s e s ( s e e N u m b e r s 3 1 : 1 - 3 arid 31:441!,), a b r a n c h of t h e s e c o u s i n s s u r v i v e s as i m p l a c a b l e t o e s t o t h e t i m e of G i d e o n . 1 7 B u t t h e P h i l i s t i n e s

d e s p i t e o u r d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n of t h e m —

a r e n e v e r p o r t r a y e d as v i n d i c t i v e , a t r o c i t y c o m m i t t i n g e n e m y . A s e n e m y oi S a m sot! ( w h o

intermarried

with

t h e m ) , they arc m o r e victim than, perpetrator.

As

e n e m y of S a u l , l h e y d e f e a t h i m in f a i r b a t t l e . I n D a v i d s t i m e t h e y a r e s u b d u e d by 1 h e k i n g , w h o m t h e ν b e f r i e n d e d w h e n h e w a s o u t l a w a n d f u g i t i v e f r o m S a u l . Just w h e n i n h i s t o r i c t u n e t h e i r f e w c o a s t a l e n c l a v e s w e r e s o w e a k as t o t e m p t I s r a e l i t e o r J u d e a n a g g r e s s i o n is a m a t t e r f o r s p e c u l a t i o n . B u t t h a t s u c h t e m p t a t i o n w a s o n c e a h i s t o r i c fact, a n d v e t o e d by t h e n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s in G e n e s i s — i f n o t by t h e G o d of Israel h i m s e l f — i s t h e k e r y g m a t i c t e s t i m o n y of t h i s n a r r a t i v e d o u b l e t ,

1 HA\T: LEFT UXANSWI-RKU a n

implicit

problem

I raised

in c o n n e c t i o n

with

a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e as b e t w e e n t h e A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c n a r r a t i v e s c e n t e r i n g on. B e e r s h e b a : Isaac b u i l d s o n e a l t a r only, t h e o n e at B e e r s h e b a , w h i l e A b r a h a m builds

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B1BLICAI

1. ITH RAR Y I' H Ε Ν ί ) VI 1;•‫\ן‬Ο Ν

t h r e e altars, n o n e of t h e m at B e e r s h e b a . In c o n n e c t ion w i t h t h e a l t a r b e t w e e n B e t h e l a n d A i , we h a v e t w i c e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a l I y r e d u n d a n t " a n d h e c a l l e d in Y H W H - n a m e . " A s if t o call o u r a t t e n t i o n t o A b r a h a m s p l a n t i n g a t a m a r i s k at B e e r s h e b a , r a t h e r t h a n e r e c t i n g a n a l t a r t h e r e , t h e n o t i c e of t h i s p l a n t i n g f e a t u r e s , for a t h i r d t i m e , t h e n o t i c e " a n d h e c a l l e d in Y H W H - n a n i e " T h e r e m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e a p o i n t e d m e a n i n g t o I s a a c s b u i l d i n g a n a l t a r at Beersheba.. t h e o n e site o u t of f o u r w h e r e A b r a m d i d n o t d o so. A n d t h a t m e a n i n g , a l t o g e t h e r in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e k e r y g m a of t h e t w o B e e r s h e b a n a r r a t i v e s , :cap-, t o m i n d if w e recall f r o m e l s e w h e r e in S c r i p t u r e a u n i q u e f e a t u r e of altars b u i l t l e g i t i m a t e l y for t h e w o r s h i p of Y H W H . S a c r i f i c e t o Y H W H , e v e n b e f o r e t h e a t t e m p t to restrict it t o t h e o n e c e n t r a l a l t a r 111 J e r u s a l e m ( t h i s a c c o r d i n g t o biblical " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y " ) , w a s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h a t p a r t of Israel's t e r r i t o r y t h a t — e n v i s a g e d as G o d ' s o r i g i n a l g r a n t t o t h e p a t r i a r c h s — w a s sacred or p u r e soil. O n l y o n s u c h tracts m i g h t altars t o Y H W H b e e r e c t e d , n o t o n l y t o a c h i e v e his f a v o r b u t to a v o i d i n c u r r i n g his w r a t h . T h u s , t o c i t e t h r e e e x a m p l e s a n t e d a t i n g J e r u s a l e m ' s c o n q u e - 1 by K i n g D a v i d : t h e a l t a r f o r s h o w b u t n o t for r i t u a l p r a c t i c e in t r a n s - J o r d a n ( J o s h u a 22); t h e c h a r g e of D a v i d t o Saul, t h a t his d r i v i n g h i s loyal vassal f r o m Y H W H ' s territory ( t o P h i l i s t i a , let us recall) is d e p r i v i n g Y H W H of a w o r s h i p e r (1 S a m u e l

20

‫אל‬: 1 8 ‫ ; ) ״‬a n d t h e p

N a a m a n , w h o fills t h e s a m e role ior t h e k i n g of A r a m as cud Pikol ior t h e k i n g of G e r a r (.sar y ' h d o ) , (or t w o m u l e loads of soil so t h a t h e m a y offer sacrifice t o Y H W H in A r a m e a n t e r r i t o r y (2 Kings

5:17‫)׳‬.^

T h u s , f o r t h e s t r u c t u r i n g s o r t h e p a t t e r n i n g s of a l t a r s b u i l t a n d

1lot h u i h

by

A b r a h a m , of i n v o c a t i o n s oi Y H W I I a n d t a m a r i s k - p l a n t i n g , ot wolfs d u g by A h r a h a m a n d Isaac, a n d a n a l t a r reared by Isaac, a t t h e o n e site w h e r e A b r a m e r e c t e d n o n e ; f r o m all t h i s e m e r g e s t h e m e a n i n g of t h e p a c t s c o n c l u d e d at B e e r s h e b a t h a t w e h a v e d i s c e r n e d h i t h e r t o . T h e title t o t h e t e r r i t o r y a r o u n d B e e r s h e b a , its water‫׳־‬ rights ceded to A b r a h a m ,

r e m a i n e d w i t h Philistia d u r i n g A b r a h a m ' s

lifetime.

H e n c e A b r a h a m c o u l d b u i l d n o a l t a r t h e r e t o Y H W H , t h o u g h lie m i g h t (as h e d i d ) i n v o k e t h e r e in Y H W H - n a m e , Yl I W H n a m e h e r e glossed as El öläm " G o d E t e r n a b " T h e p a y m e n t of flocks a n d h e r d s m a d e by A b r a h a m t o A b i m e l e c h ( i n addit i o n t o t h e s e v e n s h e e p in a t t e s t a t i o n t o h i s o w n r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r ) was f o r t i t l e r i g h t t o a c c r u e t o his posterity. T h e s y m b o l i s m of t h a t accrual t o A b r a h a m ' s p r o g e n y is t h u s m e t a p h o r i c a l l y if n o t h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l l y p r e s e n t in B e e r s h e b a ' s n o l o n g e r c o n s t i t u t i n g G e r a r i t e t e r r i t o r y in t h e l i f e t i m e of A b r a h a m s son, Isaac, w h o " d i d b u i l d a n a l t a r t h e r e , i n v o k i n g in Y H W H - n a m c , p i t c h i n g t h e r e h i s t e n t " A l l this, let us b e c a r e f u l t o n o t e , in p a r a t a c t i c a l l y f o r m u l a t e d v e r s e 2 6 : 2 5 , b e f o r e t h e visit of t h e G e r a r i t e s , w h i c h b e g i n s i n h v p o t a c t i c a l l y f o r m u l a t e d verse

26:26,

w h i c h — h a d it b e e n f o r m u l a t e d p a r a t a c t i c a l l y (as, i n d e e d , t h e c o n t i n u i n g n a r r a t i v e i s ) — m i g h t h a v e b e e n read by us } m i s t a k e n l v to be sure, as a r e s u m p t i v e expansive episode.

A D D E N D U M : TWO MORE GENEALOGIES Α Ν Ο Τ HER N U M B E R S

AND

GAME

W e d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r ( s e e ‫ין‬. . j i o ) t h e s e v e r i t y n a n i r s in t h e l i n e s ol S h e m , I i a m , a n d J a p h e t h , i h e s a m e n u m b e r oi n a m e s a t t r i b u t e d

t o t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of J a c o b /

392

STRUCTURES

Israel in G e n e s i s 46, a n d d i e allusion to these n u m b e r s in D e u t e r o n o m y 32:8 in t h e S o n g of Moses‫ ־‬T h e p e r i c o p e t h a t c o n t a i n s t h e line of J a c o b s d e s c e n d a n t s , G e n e s i s 4 6 : 8 - 2 7 , is r e p l e t e w i t h f e a t u r e s of d i c t i o n , r e p e t i t i o n , v a r i a t i o n s o n f o r m u l a s , a n d lists of n a m e s w i t h i n c o n g r u e n t n u m b e r s a t t a c h e d t o t h e m , s u c h as t o p o s e a formi‫׳‬d a h l e c h a l l e n g e t o t h e p o e t i c a l c r i t i c . ( N e e d l e s s t o say, t h e p o i n t o f t h e

genealogy

a n d t h e n u m b e r s and t h e dictional and a r i t h m e t i c perplexities are largely

ignored

by source-critics.) I w i l l p r e s e n t a t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s p e r i c o p e , a n d p r o v i d e a g r a p h o f t h e g e n e a l o g ical t r e e (figure 7 - 5 ) to h e l p t h e r e a d e r to r e t r a c e w i t h m e t h e f e a t u r e s of a craftily d e s i g n e d puzzle, a l t o g e t h e r in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e p l a y f u l n e s s t h a t , as w e h a v e

seen,

c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e n u m b e r play in t h r e e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s . T h e stylistic f e a t u r e s in t h e t e x t u p o n w h i c h I will f o c u s m y a t t e n t i o n in t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n will app e a r i n i t a l i c s o r b o l d f a c e . A n d t h e l i n e - b y - l i n e a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e v e r s e s will b e s u c h as t o h i g h l i g h t t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d d i f f e r e n c e s i n w h a t p u r p o r t s t o b e a genealogical table. Superscription ( 8 ) '1'here ί/icii are d i e n a m e s ci d i e c/iii'Jrcu of Israel, his children: ( G e n e s i s

those arrkmg

in b ‫ ״‬y p t : Jacoh

and

(6:8‫ן׳‬ 7 he Ij‫׳‬ne through

Leah

T h e f i r s t b o r n of‫ ׳‬Jueoh was R e u b e n . ( 9 ) N o w t h e c h i l d r e n of R e u b e n w e r e E n o c h , a n d Pallu, a n d I l e r r o n a n d C n n n i ( ! 0 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n ot S i m e o n w e r e Yetvtuel, a n d Yarn 111, a n d C h a d , a n d Y a e h i n , a n d Z o h a r , a n d S a u l s o n ot a C a n a a n i t e w o m a n . ( 1 1 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of Levi w e r e Gershon, Kehath, and Merari. ( 1 2 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of J u d a h w e r e Er, a n d O n a n , a n d S h e l a b , a n d P e r e z , a n d Z e r a h . Er a n d O n a n d i e d in t h e l a n d of C a n a a n . The

c h i l d r e n of P e r e : w e r e H e z r o n a n d Ida m u l .

( 1 3 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of b s a c h a r w e r e Tola, and Puwah, and Y o k and S h i m r o n . ( 1 4 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n ot Z e b u I o n w e r e S e r e d , a n d E l o n , a n d Y a h 1 eel. ( 1 5 ) T h e s e the sons of Leah, t h a t s h e b o r e t o Jacob i n P a d d a n - A r a m , as w e l l as h i s d a u g h t e r D i n a h ; all souls, sons and daughters:

33. (Genesis 4 6 : 9 - 1 5 )

The Line through

Zilpah

( 1 6 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of ( bid w e r e Z i p h i o n , a n d H a n g i , S h u ni. a n d E z h o n , E r g a n d A r o d b a n d A r e l i . ( 1 7 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n or A s h er w e n ‫׳‬ Y i i u n a h , a n d Yishwa, a n d Yishwi, anil B e r i a h , a n d fiteir ‫״‬si.sk‫־‬r S er ah. A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of t V r i a h w c t v 1 (cher a n d M a l c h i e l .

JACOB w. Leah

Enoch ι Hezron i i ί Fallu Carmi

issachar Toia

Gershon ! Merari 1 Kehath

> ‫ ן‬me on Yemuel i Ο h ad Yam in

w. R a c h e l

Levi

Reuben

Dinah

Yob

Puwa

j

Mariasse!!

Shimron

Judah

! Zohar

Yachin Saul h. C

Er

Ephraim

Zebulun

Shela

Onan

Joseph

Zerah

Sered

Benjamin

Yahleel

Bela

[ Ashhel N a a m a n ί Rosh Huprnm I i ; ! ! Becher Gera Ehi M u p p i m Ard

Elon

Perez i •iezron

i:\plieir Toia! = 14

ί iamul Expiicat I n t a l = 33

w. /ilp.ih

w, B i l h a h Dan

Gad Ziphion

[ ‫ ״‬S h u n i Γ Eri

Haggi

Ezbon

| Are

Hushim

Arodi Naplitali Yahzeel Yishvva

Benah Heber

FIGURE 7 - 5

Israe 1 ite E n try to Egypt

Guni

j Shillem

Explicit T o t a l = 7 Makhiel

Explicit Total = 16

j Yezer

376

STRUCTURES

( 1 8 ) T h e s e t h e c h i l d r e n of Z i l p a h , s h e w h o m L a h a n g a v e t o h i s d a u g h t e r L e a h . T h e s e s h e b o r e t o Jacob: ; 6 s o u k ( G e n e s i s 4 6 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) 'The Lme through

Rachel

( 1 9 ) T h e s o n s of R a e lie 1, Jacob's 1e!je w e r e Joseph and Benjamin. ( 2 0 ) C h i l d r e n w e r e b o r n t o J o s e p h i n t h e l a n d of E g y p t , [ t h o s e ] h o r n t o h i m b y A s e n a t h d a u g h t e r of P o t n p h e r a , p r i e s t of O n : namely, Manasseh and Ephraim. (2 1) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of B e n j a m i n w e r e Bela, a n d B e c h e r , a n d A s h b e l , G e r n a n d K a a m a n , Ehi a n d R o s k M u p p i m and H u p p im and Ard. ( 2 2 ) T h e s e t h e c h i l d r e n of R a c h e l , t h a t w e r e b o r n t o Jacob,

all soids: 14. ( G e n e s i s

46:19-22) The Line th rough B il hah (2 ‫ ) י‬A n d t h e c h i l d r e n cd 1 lan - - 1 h i s h i m . ( 2 4 ) A n d t h e c h i l d r e n of N a p h t a l i w e r e Yahzcei, a n d t a m i , a n d Ye::cr, a n d S h i l l e n i . ( ‫ ) ף‬T h e s e i h e c h i l d r e n ot B i i h a h . d u ‫ ׳‬w h o m f . a h a n g a v e t o h i s d a u g h t e r R a c h e l . T h e s e s h e b o r e ι ο j a c k \ all s u n k 7. ( 2 6 ) A l l the: souls t h a t a r r i v e d ([that: is,] e x c l u d i n g t h e wive.-» ol

of Jacob's

Jacob's

it) Hgypt, s p r u n g of h i s o w n

loins

s o n s ) , all souls: 6 6 ; ( 2 7 ) p l u s t h e c h i l d r e n of

J o s e p h t h a t w e r e b o r n t o h i m in k ! y p t : ‫ י‬souls; all r h e souls of t h e l i n e (bet)

of Jacob

a r r i v i n g i n E g y p t : 70. ( G e n e s i s 4 6 : 2 3 - 2 7 ) L e t u s f i r s t n o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s of d i c t i o n i n r e s p e c t t o ( 1 ) t h e

appear-

a n c e of t h e t w o n a m e s , Israel a n d J a c o b , for t h e a n c e s t o r by w h o s e n a m e ( s ) c h o s e n p e o p l e a r e c a l l e d ; ( 2 ) t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e t e r m bänim, c o n s t r u c t (bene), t e r s ) ; issue

a t e r m t h a t m a y d e n o t e sons,

children

the

particularly in the

(i.e., b o t h s o n s a n d d a t i g l v

( e v e n if t h e r e is o n l y o n e s u c h ) ; descendants

(i.e., c h i l d r e n a n d

grand-

children); a n e t h n o s or polity traced to a n e p o n y m o u s ancestor a n d expressed E n g l i s h b y t h e a d d i t i o n t o t h a t a n c e s t r a l n a m e of t h e s u f f i x die

o r 4tes;

a n d (3)

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s o m e o r m o s t of t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of t h e p a t r i a r c h b y t h e m i n e d p a r t i c i p l e of bö

deter‫׳‬bcnë‫׳‬

"those arriving," e i t h e r in t h e plural m a s c u l i n e (with

P N ) o r i n t h e f e m i n i n e s i n g u l a r c o l l e c t i v e w i t h t h e f e m i n i n e n o u n nepes

in the

"person(s),

s o u l ( s ) . " N e e c d l e s s p e r h a p s t o s a w t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f o n e o r an-‫׳‬ o t h e r d e n o t a t i o n t o t h e s e t e r m s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h i s p e r i c o p e is d u e t o t h e per‫״׳‬ plexing counts

in t h r e e c o n t e x t s :

verse.

1:3

·the 33 descendants

of L e a h ;

verse

2 6 — t h e 6 6 d e s c e n d a n t s of J a c o b a r r i v i n g i n E g y p t ; v e r s e 2 7 — t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f persons, 70, arriving in hgypt. In t h e s u p e r s c r i p t i o n those

of

the

in v e r s e 8 t h e n a m e s t o c o m e

/?‫־׳‬ϊκ^-Υ/μυϊ cl, w h i c h

might

hear

a l m o s t , all

i n t h e f o l l o w i n g list the

connotations

a b o v e , a s t a t e m e n t t h a t m i g h t b e m a d e w i t h a l m o s t e q u a l t r u t h if t h e t e r m

Ycfqob

appeared

(see

1 above)

Almost

tun n o t q u i t e , b e c a u s e t h e s e

a r e i m m e d i a t e l y g l o s s e d by t h e m u t a t o r as

1

are in

2

hue-

hôicA'tsni el

' t h o s e w h o a r r i v e d i n E g y p t , Jacob

and

structures

a s a BIB LI CAL LITERARY p h e n o m e n o n

377

/!is o t t s p r i n g ‫ ״‬T h e p a t r i a r c h in h i s o w n p e r s o n m i g h t as Jacob ( p e r h a p s s t r e t c h i n g a l i t t l e ) he i n c l u d e d

in t h e g e n t i l i c for t h e n a t i o n - y e t ‫ ־ ! ׳‬ο he, t h e g e n t i l i c

boic-

Yisra ci, h u t t h e s a m e c a n n o t ho said in respect t o the 1 i n c l u s i o n oi Jacob a m o n g the issue oj Jacob,

T h e o v e r w h e l m i n g p r e p o n d e r a n c e uf t h e g e n t i l i c

Israel/Israeli!c

o v e r t h e g e n t i l i c J a c o b / J a c o b i t e is a n a d d i t i o n a l d a t u m t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e sense o i t h e p a t r i a r c h ' s p e r s o n h o o d in t h e n a m e J a c o b , a n d oi e p o n y m in t h e n a m e Israel. S u c h t h e n is t h e reason for t h e p r e s e n c e oi J a c o h as p e r s o n in o u r verges ‫ ( א‬t w i c e ) , r5, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26 ( t w i c e ) ; t h e i n f o r m a t i o n 111 t h e s e verses b e i n g so r e d u n d a n t as t o m a k e us q u e s t i o n t h e p o i n t of t h e s e r e p e t i t i o n s . If t h e p o i n t of t h e s e is t o u n d e r l i n e t h e i n c l u s i o n of J a c o b a m o n g t h e " I s r a e l i t e s " w h o c a m e t o L g y p t (in verse 8 ) , w e s h o u l d t h e n h a v e t o a d d r e s s t h e final a p p e a r a n c e of t h e n a m e J a c o b in verse 27. H e r e i n c o n t r a s t t o leYaaqob

"of J a c o b ' s " w e h a v e lebet-Yaaqoh

"ot t h e

h o u s e / f a m i l y / l i n e of J a c o b , " a n e x p r e s s i o n always r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p e o p l e or n a t i o n . it w o u l d s e e m t h e n t h a t i n t h i s v e r s e t h e n u m b e r 7 0 w o u l d b e i n c l u s i v e ot t h e p a t r i a r c h J ac o b h i m s e If. N o w to t h e n u m b e r s . T h e listed o f f s p r i n g of J a c o b — i n c l u s i v e ot sons, g r a n d c h i l d r e n , a n d g r e a t - g r a n d c h i l d r e n — a r e e x p l i c i t l y n u m b e r e d as follows: L e a h s desc e n d a n t s . 33; Z i l p a h s , 16; R a c h e l ' s , 14; a n d B i l h a h ' s , 7. T h e s e n u m b e r s add up t o 70, a n a d d i t i o n t h a t t h e n a r r a t o r d o e s n o t p e r f o r m h e r e (as h e d o e s e l s e w h e r e , see, e.g.. G e n e s i s 5). But t h e r e is, f u r t h e r , t h i s p e c u l i a r i t y : t h e 3 3 n a m e s of L e a h s c h i b dren and grandchildren do not include her daughter D i n a h . T h u s the récapitulan o n in v e r s e 3: 5 refers t o t h e benë‫״‬LëU

"sons [ n o t c h i l d r e n ] of L e a h . , . a n d in addi-

t i o n ( u |C t) his d a u g h t e r Leah." T h i s is i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d by "all souls, sons a n d d a u g h t e r s , 3 3." T h i s is m a n i f e s t l y w r o n g , for t h e n a m e s — i n c l u s i v e of D i n a h — w o u l d add u p t o 34. ( T h a t t h e n a r r a t o r is d e l i b e r a t e l y i n t r o d u c i n g a red h e r r i n g h e r e is a t t e s t e d t o by t h e n a m e s in A s h e r ' s l i n e . I n c l u d e d a m o n g t h e bcne Asher

is

his daughter S e r a h , a n a m e t h a t m u s t be i n c l u d e d in r h e t o t a l g i v e n for /;!paid‫ ־‬des c e n d a n t s : J6.) ! b u s t h e o n l y way t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a r r a t o r ' s a r i t h m e t i c at t h i s p o i n t is t o r e a d verse 15 as iollows. " T h e s e t h e sons of L e a h , w h o m s h e bore t o J a c o b in P a d d a n - A r a m — plus his d a u g h t e r D i n a h

- a l l souls, s o n s a n d d a u g h t e r s

! e x c e p t tor t h e b r a c k e t e d d a u g h t e r ] , 33." T h e p o e t i c a l q u e s t i o n , tb.cn, is w h y i h e n a r r a t o r p r o c e e d s in such c i r c u i t o u s f a s h i o n : t o list

m a l e n a m e s , t o add a 1.‫׳־‬th

n a m e — i b i s o n e a f e m a l e , t o a n n o u n c e t h a t t h e s u m a b o u t t o be g i v e n is inclusive ot b o t h m a l e a n d f e m a l e , a n d t h e n t o p r o v i d e t h a t n u m b e r — n o t 34, b u t 3

And

t h e n ‫ רגז‬t u n h e r p e r p l e x t h e close reader, t o a d d t h e n a m e s of t h e d e s c e n d a n t s ot o t h e r t h r e e wives, r e s p e c t i v e l y 16, 14, 7, w h i c h n u m b e r s h e e x p l i c i t l y p r o v i d e s w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , m a k i n g e x p l i c i t t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n will s h o w a t o t a l of 70. Instead, c o n t i n u i n g in his seemingly pointless r o u n d a b o u t manner, he provides t w o parallel f o r m u l a t i o n s of s u m m a t i o n , o n e at t h e b e g i n n i n g of verse 2 6, t h e o t h e r a t t h e e n d of v e r s e 2 7 .

VERSE 2 6 A

VERSE 2 7 B

A l l t h e souls a r r i v i n g — o f J a c o b ' s

All the souls of Jacob's line arriving

in Egypt. . . all the souls: 66

in Egypt: 70

378

STRUCTURES

T h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n of t h e s e f o r m u l a t i o n s v i r t u a l l y g u a r a n t e e s t h a i t h e t w o n u m b e r s 66 a n d 70 m u s t b e c o n g r u e n t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r . T h e i n c o n g r u e n t factor, t h e differc n c e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e n u m b e r 4, m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e r e s o l v e d by e l e m e n t s in t h e t e x t e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t . T h e e x p l i c i t e l e m e n t is t h a t t w o of Jacob's g r a n d s o n s — h a v i n g b e e n horn, t o J o s e p h i n E g y p t — c a n n o t h e said t o h a v e b e e n a m o n g " t h o s e a r r i v i n g in Egypt." ( S o v e r s e 2 7 a a n d v e r s e 2 0 . ) W h a t a b o u t t h e r e m a i n i n g discrepancy, n o w t h e n u m b e r 2? N o p r o b l e m . I m p l i c i t in verse 2 6 ("all a r r i v i n g in E g y p t " ) a n d explicit in verse 12 a r e t h e t w o of Jacob's g r a n d s o n s w h o , h a v i n g d i e d in t h e l a n d of C a n a a n (verse 12), c o u l d also n o t h a v e b e e n a m o n g ‫ ד‬h o s e a r r i v i n g in Egypt." T h u s , w e m i g h t c o n c l u d e , t h e c o n g r u e n c e b e t w e e n t h e 6 6 souls in v e r s e 26 a n d t h e 7 0 souls in verse 27 l1‫־‬as b e e n restored. S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n would b e w r o n g o n a n u m b e r of c o u n t s , bor o n e , t h e 70 souls " w h o a r r i v e in Egypt" in verse 27 c a n n o t possibly i n c l u d e Er a n d O n a n , t h e t w o sons of J u d a h w h o died in C a n a a n w i t h o u t issue. ( T h e t w o sons of J o s e p h , h o w ‫״‬ ever, d e s p i t e t h e i r b i r t h in Egypt, m i g h t h e i n c l u d e d in t h e 70; t h e w o r d " a r r i v e d " c a n h a v e a m e t a p h o r i c sense w i t h o u t

a g e o g r a p h i c t e r m i n u s . In t h i s

context

specifically t h e s e n s e of " a c c r u e " c a n c e r t a i n l y i n h e r e in t h e v e r b hö . ( dans id er, in verse 26, "all t h e souls accruing

t o J a c o b " a n d c o m p a r e t h e usage in E x o d u s 2 2 : 1 4 .

Thus, in verse 26, t h e d o u b l e e n t e n t e — a c c r u i n g to Jacob a n d arming

in

Egypt—

a c h i e v e d by t h e p l a c i n g of lcYaaqob a f t e r habbä'ä a n d b e f o r e MLsrairmt ( i n s t e a d of, as in verse 27, t h e n o r m a l o r d e r ) . T h u s we w o u l d h a v e t o find a n o t h e r t w o souls t o c o m p l e m e n t t h e n u m b e r 70 in verse 27. T h e clues t o c l e a r u p t h i s m y s t e r y will also r e s o l v e a f e w a d d i t i o n a l p e r p l e x i t i e s t h a t we h a v e n o t e d . T h e J a c o b i n verse 26 t o w h o m souls a c c r u e , all s p r u n g f r o m h i s loins, is t h e p a t r i a r c h in h i s o w n p e r s o n a , a n d t h e r e f o r e is n o t , a n d c a n n o t b e , c o u n t e d i n h i s 6 6 d e s c e n d a n t s . B u t in verse 27 t h e 70 souls of' hër-Ya a i.|0b— this last t e r m , like hët-Yisrâel,

or like t h e bcnë~Yisrâ'el

. . . i.e., Jacob and his

children—are

m e m b e r s of a family, o n e of w h i c h c a n b e a n d is t h e p a t r i a r c h h i m s e l f . T h u s w e n o w h a v e a n o t h e r p r o b l e m . T h e n a m e - l i s t s of t h e m a t r i a r c h s ‫ י‬d e s c e n d a n t s a d d e d up ( i m p l i c i t l y ) t o t h e n u m b e r 70, i n c l u s i v e of Er a n d O n a n a n d M a n a s s e h a n d E p h r a i m . N o n e of t h e s e f o u r g r a n d s o n s , h a v i n g i n d e e d b e e n d e s c e n d e d f r o m J a c o b , c a n b e s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h e list of 70. If w e n o w add J a c o b h i m s e l f to t h e list ( i n k e e p i n g w i t h v e r s e 8) a n d h i s d a u g h t e r D i n a h ( i n k e e p i n g w i t h verse 15), w e h a v e arrived at a t o t a l of 72 souls! T w o souls m u s t b e s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h i s t o t a l t o a c h i e v e t h e n u m b e r 70. W h o a r e t h e y ? T h e a n s w e r i s — a s h i n t e d a t by t h e ( r e d u n dant‫ )׳‬e x c l u s i o n ot the wives of the sons oj (/children jrom his loins y in verse 26

o f ) Jacob f r o m those who

sprung

-the t w o w o m e n ( w o m e n n e v e r c o u n t i n g as c o n t i n u e r s

of t h e p a t r i l i n e a l l i n e s ) , P i n a h a n d S e r a h ; t h e f o r m e r n e v e r i n c l u d e d in t h e n a m e s that t o t a l 70; !lie l a t t e r i n c l u d e d in t h e n a m e s that t o t a l 70. But n o w w e k n o w why t h e n a r r a t o r n e v e r p r o v i d e d t h e e x p l i c i t a d d i t i o n of t h e n a m e s of t h e m a t r i a r c h s 1 d e s c e n d a n t s : I lad h e d o n e so, h e w o u l d h a v e h a d t o s u b t r a c t S e r a h a n d c o m e up w i t h a t o t a l of 6 9 ! H a v e w ç t h e n resolved all t h e p r o b l e m s of t h e n a m e s listed, n u m b e r e d , o n c e unt o t a l e d , o n c e t o t a l e d to yield 66, o n c e t o t a l e d t o yield 7 0 / N o , we h a v e n o t . F o r t h e total of 6 6 in verse 26 ( n o t i n c l u s i v e of M a n a s s e h a n d E p h r a i m , Er a n d O n a n ) is i m p l i c i t l y b a s e d o n t h e list of n a m e s of c h i l d r e n (sons) a n d g r a n d c h i l d r e n of J a c o b

S T R U C T U R E S AS A B I B LI C A L L I T E R A R Y P H E N O M E N O N

379

i n verses 2 - 2 5 , a list t h a t adds a p t o 70 n a m e s i n c l u s i v e of g r a n d d a u g h t e r S e r a h . T h u s by i n c l u d i n g t h i s o n e g r a n d c h i l d in t h e list a n d by e x c l u d i n g d a u g h t e r D i n a h f r o m it o u r n a r r a t o r g u a r a n t e e s t h a t , h o w e v e r w e process t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e so ing e n i o u s l y f o r m u l a t e s , w e s h a l l fall s h o r t by o n e , o r find t h a t w e h a v e o n e t o o m a n y , i n r e s p e c t t o t h e t a r g e t e d n u m b e r 70. W h a t is t h e p o i n t of t h i s baffling d e s i g n ? B e f o r e w e go o n t o address t h i s q u e s t i o n , I will ask t h e r e a d e r t o b e a r w i t h m e as I present, t w o r i d d l e s f r o m m y o w n p e r i o d s r e c r e a t i o n a l a r i t h m e t i c : A n A r n h w h o s e e s t a t e c o n s i s t s of π h e r d of 17 c a m e l s dies, l e a v i n g a will specifies t h a t r h e e k l e s t s o n is t o i n h e r i t youngest

which

V! t h e h e r d , t h e m i d d l e s o n '/·> a n d

the

S i m p l e division reveals that this a m o u n i s to 8 / camels for t h e eldest, s o

c a m e l s for t h e m i d d l e s o n , a n d 1% c a m e l s for t h e y o u n g e s t . S i n c e a u m i c l c a n n o t he d i v i d e d i n i o h a c t i o n . s w i t h o u t s e r i o u s i m p a i r m e n t ot !is m o n e t a r y v a l u e , t h e hears h a v e r e c o u r s e t o t h e t r i b a l s h e i k h . I b i s g e n t l e m a n , aft er m i d i m g o v e r t h e p r o b l e m tor s e v e r a l m i n u t e s , v o l u n t e e r s t o e n r i c h t h e d e c e a s e d ' s e s i a f e w i t h a c a m e l f r o m Iiis o w n h e r d . H e t h e n a l l o t s 9 c a m e l s t o t h e e l d e s t , 6 t o t h e m i d d l e son a n d

2 to

the

y o u n g e s t — e a c h t h u s r e c e i v i n g m o r e t h a n t h e a l l o t m e n t of h i s l a t h e r ' s will. T h e a h l o t t e d c a m e l s , 9 + 6 + 2 a d d i n g u p t o 17, t h e s h e i k h t h e n ‫ ו‬ides oft o n t h e c a m e l w h i c h h e h a s r e p o s s e s s e d . . . T h e s h e i k h s t r i c k : N o n e a t all. T h e e n i g m a is c l e a r e d u p w h e n a f t e r l a b o r i o u s c a l c u l a t i o n w e a r r i v e at t h e a w a r e n e s s w h i c h t h e

sheikh

r e a c h e d so q u i c k l y . T h e c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r o t /-, !‫'׳‬, a n d ,‫׳‬s is 18, a n d t h e t r a c t i o n s add up to

+ Yin +

f o r a t o t a l of

T h e deceased father had not distributed the

s u m t o t a l of h i s e s t a t e . F r o m t h i s u n d i s t r i b u t e d p o r t i o n , : ‫׳‬,s t h e s h e i k h w a s a b l e t o sat•‫׳‬ isfy all p a r t i e s . A n i g h t - c l e r k r e n t s o u t h i s h o t e l ' s last u n o c c u p i e d r o o m t e t h r e e s a l e s m a n t o r $ 1 0 p e r p e r s o n . A f e w m i n u t e s later, r e a l i z i n g t h a t h e 11,1s o v e r c h a r g e d t h e m f o r a $ 2 5 r o o m , h e s u m m o n s t h e b e l l h o p , e x p l a i n s his m i s t a k e , a n d h a n d s h i m five singles to be r e t u r n e d t o t h e t h r e e s a l e s m e n i n R o o m 8 1 9 . O n h i s way u p t o t h e e i g h t h floor, t h e b e l l h o p — a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e d i f f i c u l t l y of t h r e e m e n d i v i d i n g 5 s i n g l e s — d e c i d e s t o e a s e t h e i r p e r p l e x i t y . H e p o c k e t s t w o d o l l a r s , a n d r e t u r n s t h e r e m a i n i n g t h r e e t o t h e salesm e n . E a c h of t h e s e guests, h a v i n g p a i d t e n d o l l a r s a n d g o t t e n o n e d o l l a r b a c k , t h e t h r e e t o g e t h e r h a v e n o w p a i d 27 d o l l a r s ( 3 X 9 = 27) f o r a r o o m w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e cost t h e m

2 5 . B u t it d i d c o s t t h e m

27 d o l l a r s a n d t h e b e l l h o p k e p t

2

dollars

(27 + 2 - 2 9 ) . W h a t , t h e n , h a p p e n e d to t h e 3 0 t h dollar? . . . A n s w e r : N o t h i n u . T h e q u e s t i o n is m i s l e a d i n g . T h e 27 d o l l a r s p a i d by t h e s a l e s m e n i n c l u d e d t h e 2 p o c k e t e d by t h e b e l l h o p ( t h e y p a i d , in e f f e c t , 23 d o l l a r s f o r t h e r o o m and! 2 ior t h e b e l l h o p ' s dis• h o n e s t y ) . H e n c e t h e 2 d o l l a r s p o c k e t e d m u s t be s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h e 27 p a i d , t o m a k e f o r t h e $ 2 3 r o o m c h a r g e , a n d c a n n o t b e a d d e d t o t h e 27 as was d o n e t o c r e a t e t h e problem.

W h y h a v e 1 c i t e d t h e s e t w o riddles? Because this, b e i n g a p o e t i c a l e n t e r p r i s e , must d e p e n d o n c o m p a r a t i v e literary study ior its a r g u m e n t a t i o n . A n d s u c h structurcs as t h e s e g e n e a l o g i c a l lists a n d t h e n u m b e r - p l a y associated w i t h t h e m simply d o n o t figure largely, if at all, in t h e sparse l i t e r a t u r e f r o m a n t i q u i t y or in t h e s p a t e of it in m o d e r n times. C o m p a r i n g t h e n t h e n u m b e r - p l a y in t h e B i b l e — s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t in G e n e s i s 4 6 — a n d i n t h e c i t e d e x a m p l e s , 1 w o u l d h a v e to c o n c e d e t h a t t h e aut h o r s or " n a r r a t o r s " are in b o t h cases in c o m p l e t e c o n t r o l of t h e i r m a t e r i a l a n d t h e i r c r a f t . I w o u l d f u r t h e r h a v e to agree t h a t t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e two cited riddles, like t h a t in G e n e s i s 46, is a p o e t i c a l factor. W h i c h is to say t h a t t h e wav in w h i c h t h e

398

STRUCTURES

riddle is formulated has a great deal to do with the challenge posed for t h e reader or hearer. Consider, for example, t h e following formulation of t h e first riddle: T h r e e brothers inheriting respectively one-half, one-third and o n e - n i n t h of a flock of ‫ך ך‬ sheep worked oui die [raclions due to t h e m as HC ·y and 1%. "Phey d i e n rounded off each share to the nearest highest integer, and so divided t h e flock into shares consisting oi 9, i>, and 2, for a total of 1 7. 1 low was this operation possible.' d i r e difference between the biblical and the modern riddles is striking. T h e inf o r m a t i o n given in t h e m o d e r n riddles is minimal, and the necessary arithmetic operations are simple, linear, and compel a single answer. Only the p r e s e n t a t i o n of' t h e plot or t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of the question may be charact erized, to some e x t e n t , as misleading. In t h e biblical ricldle(s) the data may appear in o n e or more parallel c o n t e x t s or sets, t h e items sometimes identical, sometimes variant, sometimes strangely inconsistent w i t h (if n o t contradictory to) one another. T h e data may or may n o t include n u m e r a t i o n , explicit process ot addition, implicit process of subtraction; and t h e totals given in two different sets of such a r i t h m e t i c processes are o f t e n such t h a t t h e conclusion t h a t will satisfy one sot of data will be contraindicated by t h e data in t h e second set, and vice versa. W e h a v e seen t h e above in t h e seven preceding sections dealing w i t h structures of o n e kind or another. In t h e case of Genesis 46, we h a v e a single genealogy, w i t h a c u n n i n g conflation of personal n a m e s p o i n t i n g either to a single individual or to a n e t h n i c polity. All t h e data c u l m i n a t e in the bewilderingly clashing implications of t h e two different a r i t h m e t i c s u m m a t i o n s in two successive verses, o n e yielding a c o u n t of 66, t h e o t h e r a c o u n t of 70. But a n o t h e r clue to t h e overarching design of t h e biblical a u t h o r would be overlooked it we c o n t i n u e d , as we h a v e d o n e so far, to be preoccupied only w i t h t h e numbers and arithmetic operations in c o n n e c t i o n with this genealogy in Genesis 46, this line of Jacob. For another, swollen version of this genealogy appears in N u m b e r s 26. In characterizing this last genealogy as swollen we have two things in mind. O n e is the sleep-inducing or, if you will, mesmeri:;ing d r o n e of t h e census-taker as he names lirst each c l a n s eponymous ancestor from whom derives t h e clan that is named--- how else !‫ י‬- - a f t e r him. T h u s : "(belonging) to Neuntel, the family/clan of t h e Nemuel-ites; (belonging) In Van un, the clan of the Yainm-ites; belonging to Yachin, t h e clan of Yachin-ites, ‫ יי‬and so o n and so on for perhaps halt a hundred clans. T h a t such a litany-like recital of (putative) ancestral clan n a m e s is testim o n y to t h e piety of t h e recorder, or to his sacerdotal status (P, being a priest, is naturally dedicated to preserving and t r a n s m i t t i n g archival data), is as reasonable as t h e conclusion t h a t an arranger w h o set t h e names of St. Peter's successors to t h e strains of a Gregorian c h a n t must have been a pious a d h e r e n t of t h e R o m a n c h u r c h , possibly himself ordained a priest, and drawing his material f r o m Vatican archives. T h e o t h e r e l e m e n t of swollenness is t h e differences in n a m e s in t h e census of N u m b e r s 26. T h e s e are for t h e most part additions in t h e N u m b e r s list of grandchildren and great-grandchildren of J a c o b s sons. T h e two lists being 90 p e r c e n t identical, I will n o t reproduce t h e second list here. Instead 1 wall n o t e t h e differences. In the N u m b e r s list:

S T R U C T U R E S AS A IHUEICA !.. I ITEKAKV Ρ I Ι Ε Ν Ο Vi EN ί ) Ν

3'S ‫י‬

ι . R e u h e r A st ‫ י ו וי‬P a l l u , sires h l i a b , w h o ill t u r n sires Ν e m ne 1, D a i h a n , a n d

Abirain.

L ‫ י‬: u b a n a n d A h i r a m a r e p o i n t e d l y i d e n t i f i e d as t h e t w o R e u b e n i 1rs w h o j o i n e d t h e ! a n i o n of K o r a h , a n d p a i d lor 11 w i t h t h e i r lives. T h u s w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d

then

l e a v i n g n o c l a n - d e s c e n d a n t s b e h i n d . B u t t h i s o n l y d r a w s (01‫ ׳‬s h o u l d d r a w ) o u r a i t e n d o n t o r h e d a r u m t h a t n e i t h e r t h e i r b r o t h e r N e m u e l n o r t h e i r h i t h e r E l i a h leit b e h i n d c l a n s n a m e d a f t e r t h e m s e l v e s . W h y t h e n a r e t h e y i n c l u d e d in t h i s c e n s u s list t o h e ^ i n w i t h .7 2. S i m e o n ' s e l d e s t is n o t Y e m u e l b u t N e m u e l

(like his Re ub e n i te great‫ ׳‬nephew,

Eliab's s u r v i v i n g s o n ) . T h e t h i r d s o n . O h a d , is m i s s i n g . I n p l a c e of Z o h a r (shr)

the

n e x t t o y o u n g e s t s o n is Z e r a h ( z r / 1 ) — l i k e J u d a h ' s last m e n t i o n e d s o n — a n d so w e h a v e t h e i m p r o b a b l e p h e n o m e n o n of t w o Z a r h i c l a n s in Israel, o n e S in! e o n ire, r h e o t h e r J u d a h i t e . F i n a l l y , t h e last s o n S a u l , a n c e s t o r of t h e S a u l i t e c l a n , is n o t .sin‫׳‬ gled o u t h e r e for h a v i n g h a d a C a n a a n i t e m o t h e r . 3. G a d ' s s e v e n s o n s are d i e s a m e e x c e p t f o r Z i p h i o n , w h o a p p e a r s as Z a p h o n , a n d E z b o n , w h o a p p e a r s as O z n i . 4. i s s a c h a r ' s t h i r d s o n is n o t Yob ()‫׳‬/‫ )ל‬b u t Y a s h u b

(ysb).

5. J o s e p h ' s •‫׳‬wo s o n s a r e e a c h p r o v i d e d w i t h t h r e e or t w o g e n e r a t i o n s of s o n s , e a c h of w h o m constitutes an eponymous clan ancestor. Thus: Mmasseh

Ephraim

Machiriite.-o

Shutelah(ites)

Gilead(ites)

Eran(ites)

!ezer(ires) j Helck(iles)

Becher( ites)

Tahan( ites'!

1 Hcpher(ites) Slurinidntiles)

Asliriel(itcs) ‫ ־־‬Shechein( li es) 6. In p l a c e oi‫ ׳‬B e n j a m i n s let! s o n s t h e r e a r e o n l y h v e . T w o of d i e s e are., as in the• ί κ*ηes is list (but also c o n s t i t u t i n g c l a n a n c e s t o r s ) ; B e l a ( i t e s ) , A s h h e l ( i i e s ) . t h e m h e a r n a m e s s u g g e s t i v e of s o n s i n t h e G e n e s i s list: S h e p h u p h a m ;!mites), el. ( î e n e s i s Mw/>/)m1, a n d H u p h a m ( i t e s ) , cf. G e n e s i s Huhjyim.

f w n ot (Shuph-

A iilrh s o n ,

a b s e n t in G e n e s i s , is Abir;1m(1t:es). B u t t w o s o n s of B e n j a m i n in t h e G e n e s i s list, N a a m a n a n d A r d , a p p e a r as e p o n y m o u s c l a n a n c e s t o r s , ( h e y t h e s o n s of Ben‫־־‬ j a m i n > f i r s t b o r n s o n , Beda. 7. 111 p l a c e oi t h e o n e s o n of D a n i n G e n e s i s , H u s h i m (/ism), t h e r e a p p e a r s a s i n g l e s o n by t h e n a m e S h u h a m ( s h m ) . 8. T h e five s o n s of A s h e r a r e r e d u c e d t o f o u r ( Y i s h w a g o t lost, p r o b a b l y t o t h e relief of h i s b r o t h e r Y i s h w i ) . B u t t h e y o u n g e s t s o n B e r i a h ( h i m s e l f h e r e t h e c l a n a n c e s t o r of t h e B e r i a i t e s ) is a l s o f a t h e r (as i n G e n e s i s ) of t h e c l a n a n c e s t o r s H e b e r a n d M a l c h i e l (of t h e H e b e r i t e s a n d M a l c h i e l i t e s , t o b e s u r e ) . B u t p e r h a p s t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g i t e m i n a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e t w o lists is t h a t A s h e r ( t h e e i g h t h scan in o r d e r o f a p p e a r a n c e i n G e n e s i s , i.e., t h e s e c o n d s o n of L e a h ' s m a i d Ζ il p a h , f a l l o w i n g t h e six s o n s of L e a h h e r s e l f ) is t h e n e x t - t o d a s t of t h e t r i b a l a n c e s t o r s in t h e elandist. A n d , interesting e n o u g h , despite this being a (patrilineal) elan-list, the last n o t i c e i n r e s p e c t t o t h i s A s h e r is t h a t " t h e n a m e of h i s d a u g h t e r w a s S e r a h A It w i l l b e o f i n t e r e s t t o n o t e t h e c o m m e n t s o n t h e s e t w o l i s t s o f t w o

source-

c r i t i c s , b o t h o f t h e m a s s u m i n g ( i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of r i g i d i t y ) t h a t s u c h g e n e a l o g i e s r e p r e s e n t h i s t o r i o g r a p h i e o r h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l l y i n t e n d e d r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s of I s r a e l s a n c e s t r y . T h u s S p e i s e r in f o o t n o t e s a d . l o c . a n d i n h i s n o t e s t o C h a p t e r 4 6 doe1‫ ׳‬t h e f o l l o w i n g : l i e c o n f i d e n t l y a s s u m e s t h a t t h e yob

( j o b ) of b s s a c h a r s l i n e is a t e x t u a l

‫ראן‬ e r r o r f o r t h e yswh

STKtK , TU R|-‫־‬S

( Y a s h u b ) οί Ν ‫ והו ו‬h e r s 2 6 : 2 4 , a n d s o e m e n d s t h e n a m e i n h i s

translation. H e prefers the N u m b e r s 26:15 " Z c p h o n " to Gad's firstborn "Ziphion" in G e n e s i s 46:16‫ ־‬T h e

names

"Ehi, Rosh,

Mupppim,

and

Eluppim" ought,

he

t h i n k s , t o b e c o r r e c t e d t o t h e " A hi r u m , S h e p h u p h a m , H u p p i m " of N u m b e r s 2 6 : 3 9 h H e a l s o r e f e r s us t o τ C h r o n i c l e s 8 : 4 h w h i c h , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t c o m p o r t w i t h e h t h e r of t h e t w o

lists w e a r e e x a m i n i n g .

Now

his a r g u m e n t a t i o n : Jemuel

(our

Y c m u e l ) , e l d e s t sot! of S i m e o n in G e n e s i s 4 6 : 1 0 , is i n f e r i o r t o t h e N e m u e l of Ν urn‫־׳‬ hers 26:12 a n d 1 C h r o n i c l e s 4:24, "because ( t ) N u m b e r s 26 h a d "proved d e p e n d a b l e o n m a n y c o u n t s " ( W h a t , w e w o u l d a s k , a r e t h e c r i t e r i a f o r d e p e n d a b i l i t y of N u m b e r s , o r of t h e u n d e p e n d a b i l i t y of G e n e s i s I), " a n d ( 2 ) H e b η w i l l b e m i s t a k e n f o r y m o r e r e a d i l y t h a n t h e o t h e r w a y a b o u t " ( W h i c h is t o say, g i v e n t h e s h a p e s of t h e H e b r e w l e t t e r s , t h a t t h e c l o s i n g s q u a r e b r a c k e t ] is m o r e r e a d i l y m i s t a k e n f o r h a l f t h a t b r a c k e t ‫ יי־‬t h a n t h e o t h e r w a y a b o u t . O n t h i s p o i n t w e s h o u l d l i k e t o h e a r o u r r e a d e r s ' o p i n i o n s . ) S i m i l a r t o t h e p r e c e d i n g is h i s a p o d i c t i c , r a t h e r t h a n re as o n e d , j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e "list ot B e n j a m i n s s o n s h a s b e e n m a n g l e d i n t h e p r e s e n t version. . . . Aside from mechanical textual corruptions w h i c h can be corrected o n t h e b a s i s of p a r a l l e l p a s s a g e s . . . . A l l of w h i c h s e r v e s t o p o i n t u p t h e

secondary

c h a r a c t e r o t t h e list b e f o r e us." F r o m G e r h a r d v o n R a d s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e G e n e s i s 46 genealogy I will cite only his c o n c l u s i o n : 111 d i s t i n c t i o n ‫־‬irom the list m N u m b e r s 26:31b, ior example, which must he c o n s i d ‫׳‬ ered a historically a c c u r a t e Maternent oi t h e g e n e r a t i o n s trom t h e period before t h e formation oi t h e slate, our Ibi has 10 he thought oi as the work of very late and t h e o ‫׳‬ relieal erudition. 11 is t h e product of erudite o c c u p a i i o n w i t h ancient iraditions and belongs, therefore, to a thcolo^ical Priestly literature of w h i c h t h e r e is m u c h in t h e Old d est, 111 lent (ci. Χ1 ! a 1,, ch. 7) but the actual fife and real purpose of w h i c h is only recognizable with difficulty b e h i n d t h e hard, dry shell w i t h w h i c h it is c o v e r e d . 9 ‫י‬ It w o u l d s e r v e n o p u r p o s e t o e n t e r i n t o d e t a i l e d d e b a t e w i t h t h e s e t w o n o t a b l e s c h o l a r s . ( T h e f a u l t may, i n a n y c a s e , lie w i t h m y o w n p e r v e r s e m e n t a l i t y : I u n d e r s t a n d h a r d l y a s i n g l e w o r d in t h i s last c i t a t i o n f r o m v o n R a d . ) M y c i t a t i o n of t h e s e h is t o r i o g r a p h ic a 11 y o r i e n t e d a p p r o a c h e s t o b i b l i c a l g e n e a l o g i e s is i n t h e i n t e r e s t of c o n t r a s t i n g t h e m w i t h m y o w n p o e t i c a l a p p r o a c h . F o r all t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t w o lists, t h e u n i f o r m i t i e s a n d s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t h e m a r e e v e n m o r e s t r i k i n g (as, f o r e x a m p i e , w e h a v e s e e n i n t h e c a s e of t h e g e n e a l o g i e s p r o v i d e d f o r t w o d i f f e r e n t a n c e s t o r s , C a i n a n d S e t h ) , A n d m a n y of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e , g i v e n t h e d i f f e r e n t p u r p o r t s of t h e t w o lists, n o t a t all p r o b l e m a t i c .

T h u s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e list i n G e n e s i s 4 6 , a l b e i t i n

t h e g u i s e of a g e n e a l o g y , is a list of h u m a n b e i n g s i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y w h o a r r i v e d i n E g y p t , a list a d d i n g u p t o 7 0 ( 0 1 6 6

‫ ׳‬,

d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r o n e includes o n e arrival

or more, a n d paterfamilias, and o n e female but n o t a n o t h e r ) . O n e could not, therefore, i n c l u d e g r a n d c h i l d r e n or g r e a t - g r a n d c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e n o t yet b o r n at t h e t i m e of J a c o b ' s d e s c e n t t o E g y p t , o r w h o w o u l d h a v e d i s t u r b e d t h e c o u n t c u l m i n â t i n g i n t h e n u m b e r 7 0 . N o t so, h o w e v e r , t h e list i n N u m b e r s 2 6 , w h i c h , a l b e i t i n t h e g u i s e of a g e n e a l o g y , is a list of c l a n s ( a n d s u b - c l a n s ? ) c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e t r i b e s of Isr a e l . N u m b e r is not: r e l e v a n t h e r e , h e n c e t h e t r a c i n g of c l a n a n c e s t r y t o a n e p o n y m in t h e s e c o n d o r t h i r d ( o r tilth, for t h a i m a t t e r ) g e n e r a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s n o p r o b l e m . But t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s in t h e c o n t e x t or t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r c r e s o l v a b l e o n l y o n p o e t i c a l

S T R U C T U R E AS Λ U I HL Κ Ά L LITERARY P H E N O M E N O N

3^3

grounds. T h u s , for example, e v e n it we could figure out why two "Priestly" lists would h a v e b e e n piously preserved despite their differences, which would seem to impeach t h e historical authenticity of o n e or t h e other, or both, we should h a v e to explain t h e following: the appearance in either list of two descendants of Jacob (Er and O n a n ) who, having died young, were precluded from either arriving in Egypt or from b e c o m i n g clan ancestors. A n d this is of course even more strikingly t h e case in respect to t h e inclusion of the female grandchild Serah in b o t h lists, she w h o by virtue of patrilineal descent c a n n o t be c o u n t e d in t h e 70 of Genesis 46 and, n o t constituting a clan ancestor, h a ;‫ י‬n o place in N u m b e r s 26. T h e telling consideration, in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h questions of historicity or invention, a u t h e n t i c i t y or fabrication, is t h e significant n u m b e r of compositional absurdities in b o t h t h e lists, given t h e explicit and different purport of each. Let us review some of these in each list. In N u m b e r s 26, verse 8 — c o m i n g after t h e c o u n t of 4 3 , 7 3 0 males of military age in t h e R e u b e n i t e clans of E n o c h ites, Palluites, Hezronites, and C a r m i t e s — p r o vides these totally irrelevant data: Fallu h a d a son n a m e d Eliah (who n e v e r b e c a m e an e p o n y m ) , a n d he in turn had three sons, n o n e of w h o m b e c a m e eponyms. D a t h a n and Ahiram might h a \ e b e c o m e eponyms if they bad not c o m m i t t e d the fatal error of joining K o r a h s c ompany. Eliahs third son, the surviving N e m u e l , would bave caused a problem had he sired a (dan, for t h e n there would h a v e been two Nemuel i te clans, o n e Reubenite, t h e o t h e r Sirneonite, Of course this problem could not have arisen if the firstborn ot S i m e o n were n a m e d Yemuel, as in Genesis 46. O n the o t h e r h a n d , one might retort t h a t such c o n j e c t u r a l t h i n k i n g is utterly absurd, in t h a t Simeon's son Zerah (rr/1)—and n o t , as in Genesis 46, Zohar (?/!τ)— is t h e f a t h e r of t h e Sirneonite Zarbites, despite t h e existence of t h e Zarhites, descended f r o m J u d a h t h r o u g h hi: son Zerah. A more incongruous e l e m e n t in a list of tribes a n d their c o n s t i t u e n t clans is t h e listing of two clans deri ving from sons of Zerah s brother ( t h e Judaite Zerah) Perez. T h e s e two sons, Flezron and Ha mul, h a v e given rise to t h e clans of t h e Hezroni and t h e H a m u l i , but their father Perez gave rise to a separate clan, t h e Parzi. Could t h e "families" of t h e Hezroni and Flamuli represent sub-clans of t h e Parzi clan? If they can, however, be so regarded, who would be those members of t h e Parzi ( m a i n ) clan w h o are n o t also either Flezroni or Hamuli? T h e same problem presents itself with E p h r a i m s son S h u t e l a h and S h u t e l a h s son Eran, w h o s o m e h o w c o n s t i t u t e two separate clan groupings who must s o m e h o w be identical; for if t h e Eran i tes are only "sub-clan" derived from Stiutela, t h e n t h e only S h u t e l a h - i t e s w h o exist must be Eran ites as well. Similarly for t h e A r d i t e and N a a m a n i t e clans deriving from t h e Belaite clan of B e n j a m i n . But on. a m u c h more ludicrous scale for t h e Menasseh-ite clans, w h i c h are descended f r o m G dead ( w h o also constitutes a clan), h e t h e son of M a c h i r ( w h o also constitutes a clan), h e t h e son of Manasseh, w h o like his b r o t h e r E p h r a i m enjoys full tribal statu‫·׳‬. T h a t t h e above problems could n o t h a v e escaped t h e notice of t h e biblical a u t h o r is guaranteed by t h e notice in (sen es is 4 8 : 6 - 7 . W h e n Jacob adopts these two oi Josephs sons as his o w n , raising t h e m 10 tribal status on a par with R e u b e n and him eon, he specifies that any other line's of children "that you have !better, i/uu you will /1atv| sired after t h e m jsicl will be yours, |but| under t he names oi t heir b r e t h r e n will they he call cd/su η 111 ioned/1 is ted in respect

384

STRUCTURES

to their [tribal] h e r i t a n c e of real e s t a t e " T h u s there are n o Joseph it es, only M a n a a sites and Ephraimites, and just h o w t h e descendants of sons of Joseph other t h a n these two came to or into their patrimonies is left to our imagination. i lie clan-line oi Manasseh through. Maehir, his son Gilead, and the six sons of Gilead must he t h e locus of our a t t e n t i o n for yet a n o t h e r reason. Gilead is almost always elsewhere in Scripture a place name, not a personal name, a t o p o n y m und not an eponym. So this n a m e seems to lcprcsent an area oi territory t h e n a m e oi whieh has been c o n v e r t e d - - a n d ever so openly-----by t h e a u t h o r ol this clan list into a social grouping and its ancestor. A n d so t o o in the case of S h e c h e m , 1 he n a m e of a city in Genesis 33:18, which 1s also the name oi that city's prince; this young man s sire being I bmior, who is in this chapter and t h e next lihT Aiccm, b o t h "father ol (Prince) S h e c h e m " and "lord of S h e c h e m (the city).' 1 T h u s the names of well-known cities and tracts of land o n b o t h sides of t h e J o r d a n — w e l l k n o w n to us from narratives of t h e patriarchy, exodus, judges and m o n a r c h y — h a v e hccome, in this wilderness period, full-fledged clans tracing their ancestry to g r a n d c h i l d r e n or great-grandchildren of Jacob, w h o must (presumably) h a v e been born some time during t h e centuries-long stay in Egypt. In s u m m a t i o n , t h e n , whatever else may be said of t h e N u m b e r s l i s t — a n d we h a v e n o t e v e n raised t h e m a t t e r of 601,730 m e n of fighting age in these clans, plus t h e 23,000 additional c l a n s m e n of Levi — there would seem little in it to support Speisers j u d g m e n t as to its "reliability" or v o n R a d s assessment of it as "a histoidcally accurate s t a t e m e n t of t h e generations from t h e period before the f o r m a t i o n of t h e state." Let us t u r n n o w to t h e incongruities in t h e Genesis 46 list. We have already dealt at length with t h e incongruities of m u c h of t h e diction, w i t h the difficulty of making two sets of addition square w i t h o n e another, w i t h the inclusion (in t h e c o u n t ) of a granddaughter Serah, and t h e exclusion (from the c o u n t ) of a daughter, D i n a h . Additional elements for w h i c h there are good poetical r a t i o n a l e s — y e t which are, nevertheless, out of place in a list merely purporting to a c c o u n t 1 or 70 Jacohitic family members arriving in Egypt - a r e such caritative narrative touches as the identification oi Leah and Rachel as Laban s "daughters" and Rachel (but not Leah) as Jacob's "wife" Also extraneous in such a lisl arc t h e two grandsons who died before t h e descent, to Egypt, w h o are nevertheless included in the line of Leah's descendants and in t h e sum of t h e m as 33, which explicit total along with t h e explicit totals of t h e o t h e r wives' descendants adds u p — i m p l i c i t l y — t o 70, To these we may n o w add t h e consideration (raised by Speiser) about t h e chronologically unlikely possibility that; Perez could already have had two sons at a time oi J a c o b s migration to Egypt. A n d , finally, v o n Rad's apperception: "For B e n j a m i n already to be t h e f a t h e r of t e n sons h e r e does n o t fit into t h e narrative at all A if we review our o w n discussion of t h e chronology of Exodus 6 (see p. 33 τ ) these improbabilities caught by Speiser and v o n Raci will b e c o m e e v e n more glaring. For we have seen t h e improbabilities arising from a n assumption t h a t Levis son K e h a t h coidd h a v e b e e n at most two years of age at t h e time of t h e descent, and here a son who might: well h a v e b e e n a grandson of J u d a h is already possessed of two sons, b o t h of w h o m arc part of t h e Israeli tic c o m p l e m e n t of 70, along with the sons of B e n j a m i n , t h e youngest of whose sons must h a v e been about the age of his Ju-

S T R U C T U R E S AS A BIB LI CAL L I T E R A R Y P H E N O M E N O N

385

d a h i t e cousin H a m u l . Even more to t h e point, a comparison of our discussions o n previous chronologies and genealogies will confirm a conclusion t h a t we h a v e previously drawn: All t h e improbabilities and incongruities (in Genesis 46 and Ν urn-‫־‬ bers 26) were as clear to t h e biblical narrator as they are to us, his readers. A review of t h e kerygmas t h a t we h a v e discerned in t h e m e t a p h o r s of t h e scriptural structures we h a v e studied, kerygmas altogether in accord w i t h those of their interlocking narratives, will disclose t h a t the overarching lesson is this: Literalness, in respect to t h e events of t h e past, to t h e individual personalities w h o figured in t h e these events, to t h e time a n d place of these p e r s o n a e — i n a word, historiograp h y — i s t h e least of Scripture's concerns. T h e c o n c e r n of Scripture, being t h e nature of G o d and t h e c o n d u c t this G o d requires oi humanity, is w i t h t h e n a t u r e of h u m a n s as they have shown themselves in t h e prist, in contrast with t h e moral potcnualilies ol that nature. A m o n g t h e constituent metaphors of this overarching o n e are: t h e supreme dignity of t h e h u m a n race, endowed with t h e knowledge of morality a n d t h e freedom to act in its despite; the oneness ol humanity, a single race for all its differentiations, and kindred in t h e 1 lesh arid in t h e spirit for all t h e sins against kinship's moral imperatives; every h u m a n s descent from a murderer, a n d vulnerability to t h e role of vict im or t h e t e m p t a t i o n to perpetrate crime; t h e repeated failures of h u m a n i t y to m e e t t h e challenges of divinely set morality, t h e grace of G o d in sparing a r e m n a n t so that t h e h u m a n species have a n o t h e r c h a n c e ; t h e c h o i c e of a single ancestor, to sire a single family to serve as moral model for its kindred families and polities; t h e i n d e t e r m i n a c y ot genetic i n h e r i t a n c e for moral or immoral or amoral careers; t h e vagaries of cherished ancestors as they c o n f r o n t t h e moral ambiguities and dilemmas in coping with siblings and strangers in t h e neverending existential struggles for necessities and luxuries, for d o m i n a n c e or indep e n d e n c e or redemption; and their struggles to achieve t h a t charity w h i c h must begin at h o m e while eschewing t h e x e n o p h o b i c bias t h a t is so o f t e n t h e o t h e r face of blood-tie loyalties. A t first blush it would s e e m — a n d perhaps correctly s o — t h a t we could hardly educe these kerygmas f r o m structures unless we had t h e m already before us in t h e form of narratives. O n t h e other h a n d , is the kerygma of a narrative n o t o f t e n misread for t h e very reason t h a t , ignorant ot those structures t h a t we call poetical principles or procedures or options, we ignore t h e i m p o r t a n c e of structure in t h e framing of t h e narrative? W e are c o n d i t i o n e d by experience to t h i n k of narrative as t h e core edifice, and external structures as t h e scaffolding built to expedite t h e rearing of the edifice. Rut the scaffolding is normally removed o n c e the edifice is completed. In t h e case oi Scripture, the ubiquity ot structures (prescriptive, legalistic, cultic, poetic, along with the kinds on which we have focused) must be seen as ( o f t e n ) ingenious formal creations to direct t h e readers a t t e n t i o n to t h e blueprints that: tell so m u c h of t h e f u n c t i o n ( s ) for which the edifice and us c o n s t i t u e n t parts were designed. T h u s , fitting into t h e kerygma that h u m a n pedigree m e a n s n o t h i n g in itself 4 0 is t h e identification in Genesis 46:10 of S i m e o n s son Saul as "son oi that C a n a a n itess" T h i s might h a v e been read by manv a loyalist Israelite as a slur on this grandson of Jacob's, perhaps an implication that he should not be included in t h e list of J a c o b s true descendants (which woidd therefore turther complicate t h e problem of

386

STRUCTURES

couni:). Such a reading would, to he sure, imply t h e improbable assumption that r h e o t h e r grandchildren were born to other t h a n C a n a a n i t e mothers, improbable in itself, and clearly contradicted in t h e case oi j u d a h s progeny by Tamar, expireit'ly identified as the daughter of a C a n a a n i t e . Jt would further lly in the face oi‫־‬ S c r i p t u r e s exclusion of t h e males but not t h e females ol coil ai η groups with whom intermarriage is interdicted. Yet this da!um loo did not -deter Miriam and A a r o n from prejudice against Moses 1 C u s h i t e wife ( Κ umbers 12:1), nor did it rule out for t h e a u t h o r of t h e Book of R u t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e of stressing dial King David himself derived f r o m a M o a b i t e great-grandmother. Perhaps t h e n , the c o u n t e r i n g of such a x e n o p h o b i c or racist m e n t a l i t y is t h e whole point ot making Saul S i m e o n s o n t h e issue of a C a n a a n i t e m o t h e r in Genesis 46, and listing h i m in N u m b e r s 26 w i t h o u t his m a t e r n a l origin as a constitutively legitimate clan ancestor in Israel. T h e key to t h e overarching kerygma of t h e Table of 70 N a t i o n s in Genesis 10, t h e List of 70 members of B e t h Jacob descending to Egypt (and its comparative and contrastive counterpart, t h e C l a n s of Israel in N u m b e r s 26) could lie only in t h e explication of t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two lists of 70 in t h e S o n g of Moses: (7) Take note of the days of the primordial past Consider the years of generations long, long aone; Ask your father, let him tell you, Your elders, let them confirm to you: (8) When Elyon allotted nations their heritance, In defining the lineages of humankind, He fixed the territories of peoples In the number of the descendants of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:7—8) Verse 7, the first imperative verb ί 0kor), translated " r e m e m b e r " is widely understood us an expression of the importance of the past (history) and an urging of t h e wilderness generation to repair to their parents and grandparents lor their witness to the events of t h a t past (historiography). Sued! a literalistic interprétai ion ol !fus verse is incongruous w i t h w h a t it is l hat Israel is "to re mem bei," or to retrieve in )111 t h e memory-store of past generations. Lor witnesses oi the Jacobite descent to Egypt there exist n o more. A n d t h e r e never were witnesses to the " e v e n t " of m a n k i n d s separation into e t h n i c and n a t i o n a l entities defined by !heir differing tongues and geographical boundaries. T h e appeal to Israel is to refer to parents and grandparents, n o t for their historical memories of Israels ethno-political origins, n o r to those of t h e far more r e m o t e beginnings of m a n k i n d s national origins, but for t h e core-article of Israel's faith, t h e central position of Israel in God's program for t h e world, its unique role in t h e e c o n o m y of t h e universe. But this t e n e t too, as expressed in t h e m e t a p h o r i c application of D e u t e r o n o m y 32:8 to t h e m e t a p h o r i c structures of Genesis 10 a n d 46, is subject to a range of n u a n c e d , even opposed, interpretations. T h e most chauvinistic oi Israelites will he confident t h a t t h e meaning is t h e commensurability of Israel o n t h e one side and, o n t h e other, of all t h e rest of h u m a n k i n d . A t t h e o t h e r end of t h e interpretive ranee is t h e role of Israel to exemplify G o d s will for all humanity, to unity in God's n a m e and as A b r a h a m ' s seed a prideful h u m a n unity expressed and disrupted in the primordial division at Babe Ids baked - br i ck ed ifi ce.

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, ANTICIPATIONS

This page intentionally left blank

E I G H T

POETICAL AND

ODDS

ADDENDS

APOLOGIA !he

poetic

address

to

Scripture,

departing

in so m a n y

ways

irom

the

regnant

schools oi biblical literary criticism, necessarily entails t h e a r g u m e n t a t i v e a n d dis‫׳‬ p u t a t i o u s n a t u r e oi o u r d i s c u s s i o n of t e x t s , n a r r a t i v e a n d s t r u c t u r a l . 1 e m p l o y

the

h r s l t w o a d j e c t i v e s in t h e o h l e ! s e n s e of r e a s o n i n g , d e d u c i n g , a r r i v i n g a t c o n c l u s i o n s , w i t h o u t t h e n e w e r o v e r t o n e s of q u a r r e l o r a l t e r c a t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s

putting

l o r l h a n a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o o n e t h a t h a s t a k e n t h e s t a n c e o f a n o r t h o d o x y is w h a t o c c a s i o n s t h e u b i q u i t o u s e x p o s i t i o n of t h e a s s u m p t i o n s a n d

presuppositions

( a n d t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n ) of a m e t h o d which., b y r e a s o n of its r e l a t i v e n o v e l t y , w i l l a p p e a r as a c h a l l e n g e a t ber variable

ι. Sabbath Day Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:12—15 6 days work permitted. 7th day work forbidden.

Homage is paid lo ( ïod, die Creator of Ί ime in Genesis 1 and !he author of Israel's live · do m in Deuten ) no m y > 1 2 - ι 5, by human dedication ol tho 7th day to God's work.

Clearly ‫ ז‬he Sabhath day has to ht‫ ו ׳‬he same Jay for the entire n;1üon. It thus introduces the \\vek‫ ־‬into Israels cultic calendar.

2. Seventh Agricultural Year Exodus 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 2 6 years fields may be worked and reaped.

Ho mage p a i d to G1 ‫ י‬d h y withholding cultivation as symbol of ear 111's reversion to G ο d 's owner si lip. The lordship of G o d is reinforced by two elements: f ) the homage paid to Y H W H alone in oath-‫ י‬and imprecarions; and 2) the association w i t h the 7 th d a y of t he S abbath.

The association of this 7th year vor h the 7 th day sah hath would seem to point to a national 7th year return of the land to God. On the other hand, this is not explicit iv -;peeked; and one might argue that to leave the soil untended hy an entire nation ί 01‫ ׳‬the world for that mat‫׳‬ 1er ‫ ·י נ‬an absurdity; that the intent is that every farmer leave !‫ ייול‬fields uiUended one year out ot every ‫ יי‬even,

3. Sövent/1 Year Release of Persons hxodus; •‫׳‬v / ‫ י ׳‬is sum, i.e., decreed by the God who is the source ‫ (י׳‬all prosperity. Obedience to the decree is homage to G o d s lordship.

T h e somewhat, extraneous p r e a c h m e n t that remission not. be forestalled by a refusal to lend to begin with compels this 7th year as fixed. If the 7th year release of land is also fixed, we should have the improbability of two fixed years in every 7. O n the other band, every year of t h e six served in distraint is in payment of a debt; hence any debt chargeable to the distrainee should be expunged in t h e 7th year erf debt-remission.

7 th year, work •and reaping forbidden

Deuteronomy 15:1-3, 9-10 6 years, a creditor may exact, payments from a debtor. 7th year, debt is erased (?)

400

S U Ρ Ρ LE Μ Ε N T S , C O N C L Γ S I Ο ‫ א‬S , Λ Ν T I C ] P A T I O N S

FABLE 8 - 1

(cmitmueci )

A 5. Jubilee Year: 7 χ ‫ ך‬-1‫ ־‬1 ‫^ ״‬ο

l htambi^iif !nsly fixed. S o t h e

Leviticus 2 5 : 8 - 2 6 : 2

sinus as expressive oi h o m a g e l o

49 years, real e s t a t e m a y b e

( jod's lordslup ot people and

a l i e n a t e d in f e e tail.

p r o s p e r i t y is e x p l i c i t

5 0 t h year, real e s t a t e reverts to

2

t h e line of h e i r s 111 fee simple.

la.ted in t h e coda Leviticus

inverses

38, 42, 55, and rec.api.tu‫׳‬

26: ι

I u Im I e r , I ‫ ו‬t ‫ ׳‬π ί ί ‫ ׳‬t h e s e v e n 7 t h 1rs .‫ י!־״‬also lixcd. T o wit, d i e 711 ‫ ׳‬agricultural year of E x o d u s

2 3:10 1 2 .

2.

cations of legal or h a l a k h i c corpora (or membra disiecta ol such corpora) it is of little w o n d e r t h a t there are few attempts to date such, regulations according to historical progression. T h e substantive c o n t e n t of t h e regulations in the five items of (vertical c o l u m n ) A constitutes more t h a n a similarity; they are a n identity. So, too, t h e theological symbolism in t h e five items t h a t constitute !v ertical c o l u m n ) B. N o reader coming across these texts for t h e first time without, any idea as t o their p r o v e n i e n c e in respect to time, place, and language would credit a suggestion t h a t they did n o t derive from a single source. By way of contrast consider vertical column. C. T h e sketchy discussion in t h e graph builds up to an impression—one that will upon f u r t h e r study exfoliate into a c o n v i c t i o n — t h a t the author is d e t e r m i n e d to frustrate t h e readers search for logical congrulty or suggestive patterning. T h u s , for example, t h e f o r m u l a t i o n in item C1 derives its compelling necessity not f r o m t h e formulation here but from, other texts, which rule out a choice of Sabbath-days for every Israelite. So the sense oi the formulation in item C 2 is also moot. Item C 3 is not moot due ι ο the nature oi the1 regulation, hut it sets up t h e question of mootness in respect to item ( 4 . A n d in !1)‫׳‬spect to this last item, t h e identity ol t h e year in item 4 could be without logical bar that same year in item .1, but the p a t t e r n i n g oi these two years-in-one (in Exodus and! Deuteronomy respect i vcly ) in. two widely scattered formulations becomes editorially (or authorially) incomprehensible. A n d there remains as well, t h e considérât ion raised in ( 4 , t h a t a fixed seventh-year remission of debt might effectively m e a n a maximal three-year term oi service for any distrainee. W h y t h e n h a v e t h e six-year limit at all? W h y would a n y o n e lend a n a m o u n t c o m m e n s u r a b l e w i t h more t h a n three years of i n d e n t u r e d service? All these perplexities c o m e to a head (at least one, perhaps more) in Leviticus 25, of w h i c h our item C 5 is only a snippet, V erse 20 raises a question t h a t should h a v e appeared after Exodus 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 2 (item A2 ), namely, h o w to make up t h e shortfall of t h e s e v e n t h year w h e n b o t h cultivation and harvesting are forbidden. T h e answer in verses 21 — 22 is G o d s providential care for t h e cultivated crop of every year six. Somehow, t h e harvest of one year to suffice for two years is made to appear e v e n more miraculous by h a v i n g its crop suffice, for three years (i.e., t h e sixth year, t h e s e v e n t h year of fallowness, and t h e eighth, year, w h i c h is t h e first year of t h e new seven-year cycle). If is nonsense to attribute t h e seed crop to the eighth year to this n u m e r a t i o n , d 1‫ר‬c seed crop ?s part and parcel of t h e crop for any given year. N o t to reserve a seed crop for t h e eighth year f r o m t h e mpïah of the sev-

p o e t i c a l o d d s a n d a d d enTd a

401)

e n t h y e a r w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a g r o n o m i c a l suicide, for a seed c r o p h e l d o v e r for t w o years w o u l d result i n a g e r m i n a t i o n r a t e of less t h a n half of seed p l a n t e d f r o m t h e c r o p of t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g year. For all t h a t , 2 5 : 2 2 e x p l i c a t e s " t h e t h r e e years" of verse 2 1 as i n c l u s i v e of " t h e n i n t h year u n t i l its c r o p m a y b e r e a p e d . ' ( T h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n t a k e s t h i s n i n t h year as r e f e r r i n g t o t h e f i f t i e t h y e a r of t h e J u b i l e e cycle, a d e s p e r a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i n a s m u c h as t h e q u e s t i o n of s u f f i c i e n c y is raised o n l y in r e s p e c t t o t h e s e v e n t h year; t h u s t h e f o r m u l a t i o n m a k e s a l l u s i o n e v e n w h i l e it e v a d e s t h e q u e s t i o n of h o w t w o c o n s e c u t i v e years of f a l l o w n e s s c o u l d h e surv i v e d . ) A n a d d i t i o n a l hit of n o n s e n s e is t h e f o r m u l a t i o n in verses 1:4-17 t h a t f o r ‫׳‬ bids f r a u d or u n f a i r n e s s in t h e sale a n d p u r c h a s e ot l a n d t h a t is r e n d e r e d i n t o a l e a s e h o l d for a m a x i m u m of f o r t y - n i n e years, a n d so is n o l o n g e r a ( f r e e h o l d ) purc h a s e at all. In t h e case of t h e p r i c e asked for t h e p u r c h a s e of a plot a n y e x c e s s i v e d e m a n d w o u l d b e unfair, w h e t h e r t h e p u r c h a s e is l r c e h o l d or l e a s e h o l d . A n d furt her m o r e , s u c h u n f a i r n e s s c o u l d o n l y apply t o a p u r c h a s e r w h o is d e a l i n g w i t h a seller so r e d u c e d as to sell his i n h e r i t a n c e for a song. 1 h e seller c a n n o t h e a c c u s e d of u n f a i r n e s s , b e t h e sale f r e e h o l d or l e a s e h o l d , b e c a u s e n o o n e is e v e r f o r c e d t o b u y l a n d . T h i s last c o n s i d e r a t i o n must b r i n g us t o t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t o n e c a n n o t , as t h e " b i b l i c a l legislator" d o e s i n d e e d again a n d a g a i n , t u r n a m o r a l d e m a n d

into

civil l e g i s l a t i o n by a p p e a l t o p i e t y a n d b r i n g o n a m e s s i a n i c age by a c o m m u n i s t i c a b o l i t i o n of all p r o p e r t y rights. T h i s e n t i r e d i s c u s s i o n m i g h t v e r y welt h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d in o u r c h a p t e r o n s t r u c t u r e s , for laws a n d c o d e s c o n s t i t u t e by t h e i r n a t u r e a s t r u c t u r i n g of society a n d society's v a l u e s . T h e b i b l i c a l g e n i u s , f r o m a l i t e r a r y p o i n t of view, is t o e n l i s t a p l e t h o r a of t h e m e s a n d g e n r e s so t h a t a s t r u c t u r e m a y b e t h e e m b o d i m e n t of a nar‫•׳‬ ratives kerygma, a narrative may be transformed into a constitutive kerygma, and b o t h s t r u c t u r e a n d story b e s p u n i n driest prose or lyric v e r s e . P e r h a p s w e c a n c o n c l u d e in n o b e t t e r way t h a n w i t h t h e c i t a t i o n of t w o peri‫״‬ c o p e s t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w t h e c o n c l u s i o n ot t h e j u b i l e e y e a r passage. C h a p t e r 2 6 : 1 - 2 i n t r o d u c e s a p r o h i b i t i o n of idolatry, a n i n j u n c t i o n t o o b s e r v e t h e s a b b a t h s a n d r e v e r e t h e s a n c t u a r y of Y H W H . T h e t e x t c o n t i n u e s : It you follow my decrees and observe my commands, obeying them, I will provide your rains at their due time so that earth produces its bounty and your scattered trees yield their fruit: threshing will follow hard upon harvest, and harvest follow hard upon sowing, so thai you consume your food to satiety and seule in comfort on your land. Peace shall 1 dower on your land, you will loll at ease upon your land with none to cause you fright. You will put your enemies to flight and they shall fall from before you by the sword. Five of you will rout a hundred and a hundred of you will rout ten thousand; by the sword shall they tall before you. 1 shall ihen turn about to you making you fruitful and many and shall fulfill my covenant with you. hong stored -,tores will you consume and ancient stores withdraw to make way ior a new ^tore. 1 shall fix my sanctuary in your midst and fmd you never distasteful. 1 shall m o w freely among you serving you as G o d and you shall be my own people. I Y H W H , your C!od, in that 1 liberated you fron! Egypt-land that you serve them not as slaves, and hn >ke apart t he span of your yoke and led you forth head high and chin up. (Leviticus 26;y-13)

408

S U P P L E M E N T S , C O N C LI' S I G N S ,

T H E S A B B A T H DAY I N T H E T W O A POETICAL

ANTICIPATIONS

DECALOGUES:

COMPARISON

T h i s discussion of t h e poetic h a r m o n y of t h e various sabbath day a n d sabbath year texts would be notably i n c o m p l e t e if 1 did n o t address t h e problem ot t h e two versions of t h e decalogue, w h i c h centers o n t h e two different formulations of t h e sabh a t h day prescriptions in the two decalogues. If we e x a m i n e t h e two verses t h a t immediately precede the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s in Exodus, we must be struck by this: t h e text carefully, indeed, awkwardly, avoids any explicit s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e words of G o d were directly received by Israel, gathered at t h e foot of M o u n t Sinai and forbidden to ascend it. In Deuteronomy, w h i c h is explicitly cast as t h e last address of Moses to the people he has led to t h e threshold of t h e Promised Land, Moses recapitulates the e v e n t at H o r e b - S m a i w h e n Y H W H m a d e His c o v e n a n t with Israel. In G h a p t e r 5:4 he says, 14Face to face did t h e Lord speak w i t h you at t h e m o u n t a i n from amidst the tire."' N o w n o one will insist t h a t these words are to be t a k e n l i t e r a l l y — n o t even t h e most literalist of t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s — f o r G o d has n o face. But e v e n t h e metaphoric sense of "face to f a c e " — i n a direct c o n f r o n t a t i o n — i s applicable here at only a second remove: For Moses c o n t i n u e s in verse 5, ‫ ״‬I was stationed b e t w e e n Y H W H and you at that time to tell you t h e word ot Y1 I W H , because you were so afraid of the fire that you did not ascend t h e mountain. 1 ' T h i s statement‫־‬, which is repeated and expanded immediately following t h e words of the Decalogue, leaves us to c o n c l u d e t h a t Israel witnessed a fire blazing through an otherwise impenetrable cloud and recognized il LIS emblematic of the presence of G o d . T h e y heard a sound from the Sire and acknowlcdged 11 as the "voice" ol G o d . But the words they heard were t h e words t h a t issued from t h e m o u t h of Moses. T h e substance ot t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s is of G o d . T h e formulations and t h e expansions of t h e c o m m a n d s — are those of Moses. A n d Moses, t h e mediator of the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d and Israel, is free t o give o n e emphasis to t h e sabbath institution in Exodus, and to stress a n o t h e r o n e w h e n h e recapitulates t h e decalogue in Deuteronomy. T h e r e is n o inconsistency nor i n c o n g r u e n c e in t h e two rationales for t h e S a b b a t h . O n t h e contrary, t h e clue to Scripture's c o n c e p t of time and freedom, h e n c e to t h e sabbath celebration of G o d as t h e C r e a t o r of nature and t i m e and as t h e A u t h o r ot history and freedom, will appear in t h e following excursus o n a h a l a k h i c passage.

Of Time and Freedom: A Poetical Reading of Halakha T h e passage appears in Exodus in a body of laws, precepts, and a d m o n i t i o n s that immediately follows t h e revelation of t h e decalogue. T h i s body (chapters 2 1 - 2 2 a n d 23 in part, called "the C o v e n a n t C o d e " by m o d e r n scholars) begins with t h e previously discussed regulation, w h i c h limits t h e servitude of one Israelite to a n ‫׳‬ o t h e r to a m a x i m u m of six years; at t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e s e v e n t h year t h e b o n d m a n must go free. T h e r e follow regulations c o n c e r n i n g a woman subordinated to a master, homicide oi a ireeman, abuse of parents, and violent injury to a freeman. O u r interesi lies in t ho three 1Vf.‫׳‬ulal ions that follow.

401)

POETICAL O D D S A N D A DDE NT DA

C a s e A . Fatal and Nonfatal

Beating

< >f a

Bondservant

S h o u l d a m a n heat his b o n d s e r v a n t , m a l e or female, w i t h a rod so r h a t h e d i e s r h e n a n d t h e r e !literally, " u n d e r his h a n d " | , v e n g e a n c e ο to he e x a c t e d . But it l1‫׳‬e s u r v i v e s a day or t w o , n o v e n g e a n c e is t o h e e x a c t e d m a s t e r ' s ] m o n e y - i n v e s t m e n t . ( h x o d u s 220-21:‫ז‬ C a s e B , Violent Injury

ioi\ t o be sure, h e ( i s / r e p r e s e n t s ] his | t h e ) to a Pregnant

Woman

I n a c a s e of m e n e n g a g e d in a b r a w l w h e r e a p r e g n a n t [ p a s s e r b y ] is s t r u c k a b l o w r e ‫׳‬ s u i t i n g i n a m i s c a r r i a g e , n o o t h e r d a m a g e e n s u i n g [to t h e w o m a n ) , t h e p e n a l t y m u s t h e in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a judicial assessment t a k i n g u u o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e value c l a i m e d b y t h e w o m a n ' s h u s b a n d . If, h o w e v e r , d a m a g e [to t h e w e m i a n j e n s u e s , p a y m e n t m u s t h e m a d e [ a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p l e ] : life f o r life, e y e tor e y e , t o o t h f o r t o o t h , h a n d f o r h a n d , f o o t f o r f o o t , b u r n f o r b u m , w o u n d f o r w o u n d , b r u i s e tor b r u i s e . ( E x o d u s 21:22-25) C a s e C . The Maiming

of a

Bondservant

S h o u l d a m a n s t r i k e a b l o w t o r h e e y e o t h i s m a n s e r v a n t or t h e e y e of h i s m a i d s e r v a n t w h i c h d e s t r o y s it, h e m u s t g r a n t h i m h i s f r e e d o m in r e p a y m e n t f o r t h e e y e . A n d if it is a t o o t h of h i s m a n s e r v a n t 01‫ ־‬a t o o t h ot h i s m a i d s e r v a n t t h a t h e k n o c k s o u t , h e m u s t grant h i m his f r e e d o m in r e p a y m e n t for t h e t o o t h , ( Exodus 2 j : 2 6 - 2 7 ) C a s e A l e a v e s n o r o o m f o r d o u b t t h a t t h e t e r m ebed

h e r e refers to a debt-slave

o r i n d e n t u r e d s e r v a n t . T h e m a s t e r , w h o h a s a n i n v e s t m e n t in. h i m , m a y r e s o r t force to compel h i m to work. Should the bondservant, however, d i e — h i s

to

death

unmistakably caused by such a b e a t i n g — t h e master incurs the same penalty

pre-

s c r i b e d for t h e k i l l i n g of a f r e e citizen, i n C a s e Β t h e i n j u r y — i f a n y — i s t o a f r e e p e r s o n . T h e i c t u s is c l e a r l y n o t r e g a r d e d a s a l i f e , b u t r a t h e r a s a p r o p e r t y of t h e f a t h e r , w h o m u s t h e c o m p e n s a t e d f o r h i s l o s s . It i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n o c c u r s , it is o n l y t o t h e Israelite Iree w o m a n , in w h i c h c a s e t h e p e n a l t y p r i n c i p l e of t h e lex talionis,

is d e t e r m i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e

t h e s o - c a l l e d " r u l e of r e t a l i a t i o n : " a l i t e f o r a l i f e , a n e y e

f o r a n e y e , a t o o t h f o r a t o o t h , a n d s o tan.

I his principle h a v i n g b e e n stated,

the

t e x t reverts t o i n j u r i e s i n f l i c t e d u p o n s l a v e by m a s t e r in t h e c o u r s e of a d i s c i p l i n a r y beating. C a s e C p r o v i d e s first t h a t f o r m a y h e m t o a b o n d s e r v a n t s eye, t h e m a s t e r

loses

t h e s e r v i c e s of t h a t s e r v a n t . It t h e n g o e s o n t o s t a t e in a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e t h a t t h e p e n a l t y is t h e s a m e i n t h e c a s e o f m a y h e m t o a t o o t h . T h e i m m e d i a t e q u e s t i o n is, w h y t h e necessity for two sentences? W h y does the text n o t state that for striking o u t eye or t o o t h of a slave t h e o w n e r m u s t release his s e r v a n t ? T h i s q u e s t i o n

of

f o r m is o v e r s h a d o w e d b y o n e o f s u b s t a n c e : B y w h a t l o g i c o f a r i t h m e t i c o r r e t a l i a t i o n d o e s t h e t e x t p r e s c r i b e t h e s a m e p e n a l t y or c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r a l o s t t o o t h a s f o r a l o s t e y e ? S u r e l y , t h e l o s s o f a t o o t h is t r i v i a l c o m p a r e d t o t h e l o s s o f a n e y e !

A

t h i r d q u e s t i o n is w h y C a s e B , d e a t h o r i n j u r y t o a f r e e p e r s o n , is p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r vene between A

a n d C , cases dealing respectively w i t h d e a t h or injury dealt

to

bondservants. T h e s e questions p o i n t to a single answer, an answer that discloses o n c e t h a t b i b l i c a l v e r s e s d i d n o t just g e t m i s p l a c e d b y c h a n c e , n o r w e r e t h e y

again

permitted

428

S U P P L E M E N T S , CON C LI' SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

t o r e m a i n i n disarray by later editors. T h e a n s w e r will also r e v e a l h o w artfully t h e b i b l i c a l a u t h o r c a n e x p r e s s a p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e p t b y s i m p l e j u x t a p o s i t i o n of s e v eral legal cases. C a s e Β d i f f e r s f r o m t h o s e s u r r o u n d i n g it n o t o n l y in t h e s t a t u s of t h e p e r s o n in‫״‬ j u r e d , f r e e r a t h e r t h a n " s l a v e " b u t a l s o i n t h e a c c i d e n t a l n a t u r e of t h e i n j u r y t o t h e f r e e p e r s o n . T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l o n e s h o u l d c a u s e us t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r a b b i s c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e l i f e f o r life, e y e f o r e y e f o r m u l a as a p r i n c i p l e of c o m p e n s a t i o n , n o t of m i n d l e s s , m e c h a n i c a l r e t a l i a t i o n . W h a t p u r p o s e w o u l d b e s e r v e d e i t h e r as a p r e v e n t i v e or p u n i t i v e m e a s u r e by i m p o s i n g exactly t h e s a m e injury u p o n t h e pers o n w h o c a u s e d t h e i n j u r y b y accident!

A n d w h a t c o m f o r t to t h e victim t h a t t h e per-

s o n a c c i d e n t a l l y c a u s i n g h i s i n j u r y w a s s i m i l a r l y m a i m e d ? 1 h e " l a w of t a l i o n " is n o t to be read literally ( n e i t h e r h e r e n o r in Mesopotamia!:! c o n t e x t s ! ) , n o t to be unders t o o d as a p r i n c i p l e of ret a l i a t i o n at all. It is a p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r p a y m e n t f o r d a m a g e s : T h e p a y m e n t is t o c o r res ρ ο ι κ ί t o t b e g r a v i t y ot t h e i n j u r y i n f l i c t e d , t h e g r e a t e s t p a y m e n t : f o r t h e loss of life, t h e s m a l l e s t p a y m e n t f o r a b r u i s e ( a n d in C a s e B, p a y m e n t f o r t h e e m b r y o l o s t o n t h e b a s i s ol t h e v a l u e of t h e c h i l d - t o - b e , g i v e n t h e sex of t h e f e t u s , its c l o s e n e s s t o t e r m , p o s s i b l y t h e h u s b a n d s h a v i n g o t h e r c h i l d r e n o r n o t ) . T h e i n s e r t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e a t t h e p o i n t of its a p p e a r a n c e is t o s e r v e u s as a r e d flag, t o a l e r t us t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of w h a t f o l l o w s ( C a s e C ) : I n t h e c a s e of a b e a t i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a b o n d s e r v a n t , w h e r e t h e b e a t i n g is b o t h i n t e n t i o n a l a n d l e g i t i m a t e b u t t h e m a i m i n g is u n i n t e n t i o n a l , t h e p r i n c i p l e o f " t a l i o n " f e a t u r e d i n C a s e B, d o e s n o t a p p l y . T h e p e n a l t y d o e s n o t v a r y w i t h t h e g r a v i t y of t h e i n j u r y . W h e t h e r t h e l o s s t o t h e s l a v e is so m u c h as a n e y e o r s o l i t t l e as a t o o t h , t h e s l a v e w i n s h i s f r e e d o m a n d t h e m a s t e r loses h i s s e r v i c e s . W h y ? B e c a u s e t h e s l a v e is n o s l a v e a t a l l . H e is n o t t h e p r o p e r t y of h i s m a s t e r . H e b e l o n g s t o h i m s e l f . T h e o n l y c l a i m t h e m a s t e r h a s u p o n h i m is n o t o n h i s p e r s o n b u t o n h i s time. A n d t h e s l i g h t e s t i m p a i r m e n t of h i s p e r s o n , t h e s l i g h t e s t i n v a s i o n — s o t o s p e a k — o f h i s c a p i t a l , m u s t e v e n t u a t e in t h e e n d of his servitude.

Poetic Congruence

of the Sabbath Texts in the Decalogue

T i m e . T i m e is w h a t t h e s a b b a t h is all a b o u t : G o d s t i m e a n d m a n ' s t i m e . S o v e r e i g n t y o v e r t i m e , w h i c h is f r e e d o m , a n d s u r r e n d e r of t i m e , w h i c h is s e r v i c e . L e t u s t u r n n o w to t h e two D e c a l o g u e S a b b a t h texts: L X O L H J S

2 0 : 8

1 ί

ι. Mark the Sabbat h Day by sanctifying it.

P H U T H R O N O M y

1

3

2-1‫־‬

ί )hs^rve t h e S a b b a t h Day hy sanctifying it, as ΥΗ\ΧΊ I your Ci od. has bidden you.

2. Six days you may work in pursuit of your every enterprise. The seventh day, however, is a Sabbath owing to YHWH, your God: (On it:) you are to perioral no work neither you, your son nor daughter, your manservant or maidservant

Six days yon r!u1\ work in pursuit of your ei e! y enterprise.

I he seventh day, however is a Sabhath owing to YHWH, your God: (Cn it) you arc to periorm no work— neither you, your son 1101‫ ־‬daughter, vour manservant: or maidservant:

p o e t i c a l o d d s a n d a d d enTd a

401)

Y o u r o x o r a s s — r h a r is, a n y of

your cattle, the alien in your jurisdiction.

y o u r c a t t l e , t h e a l i e n in y o u r j u r i s ‫׳‬ diction. — T h a t your manservant and maid-

servant may rest as you do. Thus you will mark that you were subjugated in the land of Egypt, whence Y H W H delivered you by unremitting lor ce, ν The reason: In six days Y H W H made heaven and earth, the seas and. everything in them, and rested on the seventh day. 6. That is the reason Y H W H blessed ι he Sahhaih Day, sanctifying it.

Thar is the reason ‫ ו‬bat Yl IWH \om‫־‬ CM‫()׳‬/ /!us charged sou to enact the Sabbath Pay.

In t h e first p r o c l a m a t i o n of t h e D e c a l o g u e , t h e e m p h a s i s is o n t h e universal c l a i m of t h e Lord of C r e a t i o n o n t h e t i m e (or service, or w o r s h i p ) of all his c r e a t u r e s . In his r e v i e w of t h e D e c a l o g u e in D e u t e r o n o m y , M o s e s stresses t h e p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m of G o d o n t h e t i m e of h i s p a r t i c u l a r p e o p l e , t h e p e o p l e h e h a s r e d e e m e d f r o m s e r v i t u d e t o h u m a n m a s t e r s in Egypt, t h a t t h e y m a y c o v e n a n t t o b e s e r v a n t s to Eli ‫ דת‬a n d t o H i m a l o n e . T h e p a r a l l e l c o l u m n s of t h e t w o s a b b a t h t e x t s will h e l p us n o t e t h e t e l l ‫׳‬ tale d i f f e r e n c e s . I n 1, M o s e s in his r e c a p i t u l a t i o n uses t h e w o r d observe in t h e p l a c e of mark, a n d adds "as Y H W H y o u r G o d h a s b i d d e n y o u " — a n u n n e c e s s a r y r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s c o m m a n d in t h e E x o d u s d e c a l o g u e e x c e p t by way of r e m i n d i n g t h e r e a d e r t h a t M o s e s is s p e a k i n g — q u o t i n g his o w n r e t a i l i n g of Y H W H s c o m m a n d . In 3. i n p l a c e of "your cattle," h e says, "your o x o r ass, t h a t is a n y of y o u r cattle," t h u s s p e c i f y ‫׳‬ ing t h a t t h e release f r o m l a b o r applies t o d r a f t a n i m a l s ; s h e e p a n d cows d o n o t l a b o r In 4, h e a d d s t o t h e E x o d u s c h a r g e t h e words, " t h a t y o u r m a n s e r v a n t a n d m a id sex‫׳‬ v a r a ma)! rest as you do." By t h u s p u t t i n g t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e c h a r g e to t h e Isiaelite h o u s e h o l d e r t o a b s t a i n f r o m w o r k , h e m a k e s it clear t h a t t h e call o n tire m a s t e r of his o w n t i m e t o observe

G o d ' s t i m e by n o t w o r k i n g is n o t social legislation, b u t

r a t h e r a n o b l i g a t i o n t o G o d . T h i s o b l i g a t i o n , t o s h o w oneself as G o d ' s s u b j e c t , is also a privilege, t h u s a privilege ‫׳־‬obligation t h a t t h e m a s t e r m u s t allow his b o n d s e r v a n i s t o s h a r e w i t h h i m . O n l y t h e n d o e s Moses rakes up t h e word "mark," w h i c h b e ‫׳‬ gins t h e E x o d u s version a n d c o n t i n u e s w i t h t h e t h e m e t h a t t h e Israelite master, by s h a i i n g t h e cessat ion of work w i t h his servants, mar/es‫ ־‬his a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t his a w n f r e e d o m as a n Israelite is a gift f r o m t h e G o d w h o liberated h i m f r o m Egyptian servitude, this liberal ion u n d e r l i n e d as a f e a t p e r f o r m e d o n his b e h a l f "warb, unr e m i t t i n g h a v e " Finally, in 6, in p l a c e of E x o d u s ' r e f e r e n c e t o G e n e s i s , " t h e r e a s o n thai Y H W I I blessed a n d s a n c t i f i e d t h e S a b b a t h Day," h e n o w states t h a t this is t h e reason why Y H W H , w h o h a d at t h e t i m e of C r e a t i o n blessed a n d s a n c t i f i e d t h e S a h b a t h , t h e l i b e r a t i n g G o d w h o c o v e n a n t e d a t S i n a i t h a t h e be 1 'your G o d " did then charge you (Israel) as His people to enact the Sabbath

Day.

I n brief, t h e a u t h o r s of S c r i p t u r e h a d o n e t e r m (,bd) w h i c h as v e r b m e a n s b o t h to labor a n d to serve; a n d w h i c h as n o u n (,ebed)

m e a n s b o t h s e r r a n t a n d slave.

They

4Γ2

SUPPLEMENTS, CO NI CLL S ÎO.NS, ANTICIPATIONS

h a d several w o r d s a n d a d d i t i o n a l m e t a p h o r s tor t h e c o n c e p t s of s o v e r e i g n t y a n d i r e e d o m , w h i c h m e a n respectively t h e f a c u l t y t o dispose of p o w e r a n d t h e !acuity to dispose of t i m e . T h e sovereign, c r e a t o r ot t i m e a n d m a t t e r h a d d e p u t e d of his sovere i g n t y to t h e race of m a n k i n d . T h e r e t u r n h e asks (or t h i s h o o n is s u b j e c t i o n to his will, t h i s r e t u r n b e asks f r o m Israel in particular., t h e p e o p l e lor w h o m h e h a s w r o u g h t a n o t h e r leal: a r e - c r e a t i o n , a r e b i r t h i n t o f r e e d o m , T h i s r e t u r n t h a t h e asks, p a r t i c u l a r l y of Israel, symbolized in a w e e k l y s u r r e n d e r oi t i m e t o h i m , is n o t a h e a v y b o n d a g e . T h e o l o g y a b o u n d s in p a r a d o x e s t h a t m a k e a p e c u l i a r sense: T h e p u r e s t f r e e d o m lies i n b e i n g s e r v a n t - s l a v e to t h e A u t h o r of all t h a t is, t o t h e G o d w h o is t h e p r i n c i p l e of f r e e d o m .

TWO MORE A D D E N D S T h e s e o d d s a n d a d d e n d s h a v e r e l a t e d mostly to t h e discussions in c h a p t e r 2 c e n t e r ing o n t h e s a b b a t h e l e m e n t in t h e biblical c r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e . I will c o n f i n e myself t o t w o m o r e a d d e n d s , t h e o n e i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g , e n t i t l e d E x c u r s u s of P s a l m 19, a n d a c o n c l u d i n g a d d e n d t h a t c o m p l e m e n t s t h e D r u n k e n n e s s of N o a h i n c h a p t e r 5. T h e excursus o n P s a l m 19 c o u l d well a p p e a r e l s e w h e r e : m y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o ine l u d e it h e r e is in t h e i n t e r e s t s of several aspects of biblical p o e t i c s t h a t w e h a v e b e e n discussing. Specifically it is p l a c e d h e r e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e ways in w h i c h t h e solar o r b figures a n d d o e s n o t figure in t h e G e n e s i s c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t . M o r e generally, it is i n s t r u c t i v e as t o h o w a t h e o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t is o n l y i m p l i e d i n t h e c r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e is a l m o s t k e r y g m a t i c a l l y p r o n o u n c e d in t h e p s a l m , a n d how, further, t h e b o r d e r s of t h e c o s m o s m a y a p p e a r figuratively in b o t h n a r r a t i v e p r o s e a n d lyric verse as p r i m e v a l wafers or t h e gauze ‫׳־‬thin c o s m i c t e n t - w a l l s . Finally, t o b e sure, is t h e m y t h o p o e i c n a t u r e of t h e n a r r a t i v e c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t , a n d t h e sly h u m o r in t h e p o e t i c p a e a n to ( t h e G o d b e h i n d ) t h e c r e a t e d world, as well as t h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n in t h e psalm ol power, e s t h e t i c s , a n d morality, a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e s e t o o n e a n o t h e r and t o t h e revclation,11 c a p a c i t i e s of m u t e n a t u r e a n d p r o p h e t i c u t t e r a n c e .

Excursus

on Psalm

19

(2) T h e heavens do tell the glory of (dnd, T h e works of His hands the skv·‫׳‬sheet, recounts. (3) Day by day it [Creation] wells forth utterance, A n d night by night creates awareness j T h o d (4) There is no utterance, there are no w o r d s — [ T h o ] N o sound from them is heard. (5) Through all the earth their cable-lines have stretched, Even to world's end their guy-ropes. For the Sun has he designated a tent within them [the heavens]. (6) A n d he, like a bridegroom coming fort h trom his pavilion, Rejoices, like an athlete, to run his race, ( 7 ) [Ye s ] fro m one of heavens' limits his c ο 1111 ng forth and to their [other] limits his arc from his heat there is no hiding.

POETICAL ODDS A N D ADDENDA

4ί3

(S) Y H W H ' s g u i d a n c e ( t o r n ) Ls of a p i e c e — l i f e - r e s t o r i n g ; Y H W H ' s rules are reliable

e n l i g h t e n i n g t h e most s i m p l e .

( 9 ) Yl I W l I s r e g u l a t i o n s are s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d — i l l u m i n a t i n g t h e m i n d ; \ 1 I W l i s b i d d i n g is t r a n s p a r e n t — b r i n g i n g lustre t o o u r eyes.

{ 10) Revere! ice for YHWI h when pure, stands us ever in good stead; VI I W l V< n o r m s are t r u e , c o r r e c t — e a c h a n d all. ( 1 1 ) M o r e d e s i r a b l e t h a n gold o r r i c h e s g r e a t , Sweeter t h a n fruit-honey and dripping nectar. ( 1 2 ) I l o w a l e r t t o t h e m is y o u r ! o b e d i e n t ] s e r v a n t — t h a i great is r h e o u t c o m e of t h e i r o b s e r v a n c e , (.13) C a n a n y o n e b e c o n s c i o u s of all e r r o r ? C l e a r m e t h e n of u n c o n s c i o u s [ w r o n g d o i n g ] . (14) So, indeed, f r o m w r o n g i n t e n t i o n h o l d h a c k your servant, L e t t h e m h a v e n o sway o ' e r m e . O n l y t h e n s h a l l I b e w h o l e A n d so c l e a r e d of g r a v e t r a n s g r e s s i o n . ( 1 5 ) M a y t h e s e w o n ! s of m y m o u t h find f a v o r , M y i n a r t i c u l a t e m e d i t a t i o n — a c c e p t a n c e by y o u , Y H W H , m y R o c k a n d m y R e d e e m e r . ( P s a l m 1 9 : 2 - 15)

H i e affinity of t h e first six verses ( 2 - 7 ) to Psalm 8 has n o t escaped the notice of scholars. T h e "work of His h a n d s " recorded o n t h e sky-she et of h e a v e n reters, ot course, to t h e celestial p h e n o m e n a as they appear to h u m a n sight. T h i s visual perceprion is translated into a n auditory o n e — a story "told," a feat proclaimed — despite "no sound from them," t h a t is, t h e h e a v e n s , being literally heard. A n d as the "message" of what transpires up there regularly by day and by n i g h t is one that even a blind m a n may see or a deaf o n e hears, so is t h e u t t e r a n c e of t h a t message assigned to time-divisions-—abstract, mute, u n c o n s c i o u s — d a y and night expressing, like a n t i p h o n a l choristers, t h e m e a n i n g oi their being in respect to the Power that created t h e m . A n d even while t h e poet engages in personificatory imagery he makes double use of the preposition /‫" '׳‬to," which also governs temporal periods, so t h a t "day utters ίο day" e v e n as it does so "day by day." Several interpret ive difficulties in verse 5, owing to a slavish fixation on words rather t h a n imagery, interfere with a n easy grasp of t h e psalmist s t h o u g h t . W h a t is t h e 1 dine" (qaw) which has "gone out" t h r o u g h t h e earth and to w h o m or what does t h e possessive suffix reter? T h e general assumption is t h a t t h e antecedent is day and night, and t h a t parallel to t h e lines of day and night, is "their •words" (miileyhem); since "their lines" referring to day and night makes dubious sense, a n d "their words" has a parallel in rhe words (debanm) of verse 4, many scholars accept t h e e m e n d aticin of qawwam "their line" to qowlam "their voice;" this latter despite the fact that verse 4 explicitly denies utterance ('ömer), words (debanm), or voice/sound (40/) alto‫״‬ gether. T h e only antecedent‫ ־‬t h a t makes sense h o w e v e r is t h e sky-sheet of the h e a v e n s , in w h i c h h e ( t h e only possible subject here is t h e C r e a t o r ) has provided a tent for the sun. A n d t h e presence h e r e of imagery for two different tents has t h r o w n exegetes otf t h e track: t h e bowl of h e a v e n u n d e r w h i c h we live, this concave sky-sheet is one "tent," and at its eastern extremity, ' n e a t h its stretched skins, there is a n o t h e r tent t h a t t h e C r e a t o r has p i t c h e d for the sun.

414

S 11 Ρ Ρ ί .KM F N T S , c e )Ν C ί. I 1 S J C ) Ν S , A N T 11:1 PAT I O N S

T h e biblical tent (o/u·/) is in its n a r r o w e s t d e n o t a t i o n a s h e l t e r i n g e n c l o s u r e of c l o t h or s k i n s t r e t c h e d o v e r s u p p o r t i n g b e a m s , a n d in its broadest c o n n o t a t i o n a t e r m for home; H e b r e w nus km! " r e s i d e n c e " is a c e r t a i n k i n d ot t e n t , o n e in w h i c h t h e t e n t "walls" are f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d by h o a r d - p a n e l s , T h e a r e a c o v e r e d hy t h e t e n t is its mäqom

"site" o r hevei " b o u n d a r y " d h e "walls" of t h e t e n t are

yertöt

" d r a p e - c l o t h , " salmä "sheet," Or "skin, in t e g u m e n t , " a n d doq " t h i n c u r t a i n . " T h e s e walls e x t e n d i n g f r o m u p r i g h t posts are a t t a c h e d to ropes (qawwlm "cords," meytänm

"anchor-ropes")

"lines,"

habâlïm

at p o i n t s o n t h e i r v e r t i c a l axis, t h e s e r o p e s

s t r e t c h i n g t o p o i n t s o n a p e r i m e t e r w h e r e t h e i r pegs (ytd) a r e h a m m e r e d i n t o t h e g r o u n d . T h e t e r m s for p i t c h i n g a t e n t are t h u s tq' "fix in p l a c e " (i.e., t h e pegs), nth " s t r e t c h " (i.e., t h e w a l l - c u r t a i n s ) , mi.(! "pull taut." T h u s , for e x a m p l e , w h e n t h e p r o p h e t addresses Israel as a w o m a n w h o h a s p r o d u c e d n o t a single c h i l d b u t is dest i n e d t o m o t h e r a h u g e b r o o d , h e calls o n h e r t o p r e p a r e a t e n t large e n o u g h t o acc o m m o d a t e h e r m a n y c h i l d r e n , a t e n t o c c u p y i n g a large a r e a r e q u i r i n g l o n g e r r o p e s a n d reinforced pegging: E n l a r g e t h e area of y o u r tent L e t t h e w a l l p a n e l s of y o u r p a v i l i o n s t r e t c h l o n g —-do n o t stint — M a k e long your anchor-ropes A n d fix m o r e f i r m y o u r t e n t - p e g s . ( I s a i a h 5 4 : 2 )

S i m i l a r l y all of J e r u s a l e m , s y n o n y m o u s n o w w i t h t h e p i l g r i m s h r i n e c a l l e d Z i o n , is p i c t u r e d in a f e l i c i t o u s f u t u r e as

- by t h e grace of VI IW11 - - - o n e fixed a n d u n but-

feted t e n t : A tranquil r e s i d e n c e , A t e n t n o t to he relocated, Its p e g s n e v e r t o s h i f t , N o r a n y of its r o p e s s e v e i e d . ( I s a i a h

5:20

5‫)־‬

T h i s t e n t i m a g e r y w e h a v e c o m e across in Psalms, w h e r e t h e C r e a t o r : Draped light like a sheet-cloth, S t r e t c h e d t h e h e a v e n s o u t like a d r a p e . ( P s a l m 104:2)

T h i s imagery for t h e celestial e x p a n s e a p p e a r s a g a i n in Isaiah, w h e r e G o d is pictu red as: H e w h o s t r e t c h e s o u t t h e h e a v e n s like gauze, A n d p u l l s t h e m t a u t like a t e n t [ m a d e ) tor d w e l l i n g . ( I s a i a h 4 0 : 2 2 )

R e t u r n i n g t o verse 5 of our p s a l m , we see n o w t h a t t h e qawwlm

are t h e m e t a -

p h o r i c c a b l e s a n c h o r i n g t h e f i g u r a t i v e t e n t - w alls of h e a v e n , a n d t h e i r miïiïm a r e a n e l s e w h e r e - u n a t t e s t e d t e r m for s o m e a s p e c t of t h e t e n t - a p p u r t e n a n c e s

(perhaps

t h e i r skirts), s t r e t c h i n g t o ( / b e y o n d ) t h e limits of t h e world ( , eres). T h e s h e e r m a g n i t u d e of t h a t s t r e t c h a n d t h e sights it p r e s e n t s to t h e senses by d a y a n d by n i g h t , m u t e b u t e l o q u e n t w i t n e s s e s t o t h e p o w e r ot its G r e a t or, is m u l t i p l i e d in i m a g i n a t i o n w h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s t h a t for its C r e a t o r all this is, as it was, a child's p l a y h o u s e ( " t h e w o r k of his fingers"). A n d t u c k e d aw ay at o n e edge ο ί t h i s ci r e u s - t o p t e n t -

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

bubble is a smaller tent: t h e abode of t h e sun. A n d here this mighty object ot t h e p a g a n s awe, personified as t h e god Samas (or Sol or Helios) resides, ' , He trom whose heat there is n o h i d i n g " Except of course w h e n he regularly and on schedule "sets." But it is at t h e point of his c o m i n g forth from his pavilion in the cast t h a t our psalmist chooses to make f u n of this personified paragon of polytheistic paganism. For this epiphany is not t h e ordinary awakening of any s u p e r h u m a n male: ibis is of a bridegroom making his first emergence from under his nuptial canopy. T h e heroic virility of a long-abstinent groom in t h e c h a m b e r where h e has first been treated "to a woman's task" is probably a staple of every h u m a n culture. Perhaps our earliest record of it is in Tablet I, iv of t h e G i l g a m e s h Epic, where the courtesan introduces t h e virgin Enkidu to a woman's task, welcoming his ardor: As his love was drawn unto her, For six days and seven nights Enkidu comes forth, M a t i n g w i t h t h e lass.

After he had had (his) fill of her charms, He set his face toward his wild beasts. On seeing him, Enkidu, the gazelles ran off . . . Enkidu had to slacken his pace . . . (ANET p. 75 TAB. 1 iv. 2 0 - 2 ‫י‬

M

So too our psalmist parodies t h e emergence of Sol, filled w i t h a sense of his n i g h t ‫׳‬ long profusion of puissant potency, ready n o w to exert his leg muscles in a n o t h e r of the competitive sports. T h e appositeness of these six verses to t h e general t h e m e ot t h e grandeur ot ere‫׳‬ at ion, and to t h e particular o n e of p u t t i n g paganism in its place by p u t t i n g one of its gods in his, is clear. But to stop h e r e is to miss a golden opportunity to o p e n our‫׳‬ selves up to t h e full range of poetical resources a n d strategies available to S c r i p ‫׳‬ ture's authors, w h e t h e r in a figurative n a r r a t i o n ol c r e a t i o n s c h r o n i c l e s , or a c c h ehratory resume of creational results as record and teaching of the theological s i g η i h e a η c e ο f c tea 11 ο 11 d 1 ‫ ו‬st υ try. ! h e r e can he n o question t h a t b e t w e e n t h e last three words ( Fl eh re w) oi verse 7 •—from his heat there is no hiding, a seemingly pointless praise of heaven s overheated a t h l e t e - and t h e three words o p e n i n g verse 8 — Y H W H ' s tora is of a piece, begin‫״‬ η ing a catalogue in praise of YHWH's t e a c h i n g s — t h e r e seems to he a semantic gap of huge proportion. S o great indeed is t h e felt absence of a transitional phrase or two, t h a t most scholars opt for t h e conclusion t h a t t w o unrelated poems have been patched together. Even more impressive, however, is t h e n u m b e r of readers w h o are n o t driven to this poetical conclusion. W h i c h is perhaps to say t h a t t h e very abrupt switch 111 t h e m e s as in r h y t h m b e t w e e n verse 2 - 7 and verse 8™το has been p e r ‫׳‬ ceived by m a n y as a dramatic device to compel t h e reader to e x a m i n e w h a t implie it t h o u g h t ‫ ׳‬l i n k bridges t h e two pericopes. A n d a f o r m u l a t i o n of t h a t t h o u g h t , o f t e n cited, and as philosophically impressive as it is lucidly simple, is this s e n t e n c e of I m m a n u e l Kant's: " T h e r e are two things t h a t fill my soul with holy reverence and ever-growing w o n d e r — t h e spectacle of t h e starry sky t h a t virtually a n n i h i l a t e s us as physical beings, and t h e moral law t h a t raises us to infinite dignity as i 11 telligent agents." It may be argued that the cosmic awe felt by m o d e r n m a n under t h e -tarry sky

416

SUPPLEMENTS, CON CLI'SIGNS, ANTICIPATIONS

a n d t h e s e e m i n g l y s a m e e m o t i o n s e x p e r i e n c e d by o u r p r e d e c e s s o r s in a n t i q u i t y are e s s e n t i a l l y i n c o m m e n s u r a b l e , t h a t a firework display, h o w e v e r b r e a t h t a k i n g , c a n n o t c o m p a r e t o t h e i m p a c t of s u c h a display w h e n t h e o b s e r v e r is also a w a r e t h a t e a c h s p a r k l i n g light is o n e oi m a n y b i l l i o n s ot‫ ־‬suns, m o s t of t h e m d w a r f i n g o u r o w n sun. A n d , lurther, t h a t t h e r e d u c t i o n of t h e solar p h e n o m e n o n t o a jeer at t h e m a c h o m a l e p r e t e n s i o n w o u l d s e e m t o w e a k e n t h e e q u i p o i s e of t h e m a n - r e d u c i n g effect oi c o s m i c vast ness o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d o n t h e ο the1!‫ ־‬t h e m a n - e l e v a t i n g el· f e e t of m o r a l d i g n i t y as, i n d e e d , t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l g r a n d e u r of t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h a t dignity. T o t h e first of t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s t h e f o l l o w i n g verses f r o m Isaiah 4 0 w o u l d s e e m a d e q u a t e t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e h u m a n a p p r e c i a t i o n of i n f i n i t y is n o t e n h a n c e d or l e s s e n e d w h e n it is e x p a n d e d or r e d u c e d hy t h e p o w e r of n; (12) W h o has measured [creation's] waters h ν handful [s], Or fixed heaven's distance by his handspan, Or collected earth's soil in a scales pod Or taken the weight of the mountains in a [hand-held] scale, Or the heights in a balance! (13) W h o has fixed [the magnitude of] Y H W H s spirit, Is there anyone who can make known his blueprint! (14) W h o m has he taken into his counsel, Given him all-embracing consciousness, Trained him in the way of judgment, Trained him in awareness, Made known to him the path of comprehension! (Isaiah 4 0 : 1 2 - 1 4 ) T h e t h e m e of G o d as C r e a t o r is r e s u m e d in verse 21: (21) Will you not acknowledge, Will you not pay h e e d ' 1 lave you not been told of the Beginning, I hive you not been made aware of eanh's Foundations? (22) bnthroncd (ysb)/Uc is o'er earth's sphere, Whose populations (‫־‬ys/n/i) are ‫״‬rasshupper-like: 1 le W h o si ret eh es out the heavens like gau:e, Pulls them taut like a rent-habitation (hhc). (26) hook upwards

-high u p — a n d consider

W h o 'twas created all these . . . (Isaiah 40:21, 2 2 6

,‫)י‬

A s for t h e s e c o n d of o u r q u e s t i o n s , t h e i n c o n g r u o u s l e a p i n P s a l m 19 f r o m m a c h o S u n t o a w a r e n e s s of Y H W H ' s torn, let us n o t e t h e p a r a l l e l p h e n o m e n o n in t h i s p e r i c o p e f r o m Isaiah 40: T h e t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n verse 14 ( t h e p u n i n e s s of h u m a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of c r e a t i o n s v a s t ness) a n d t h e call t o r e c o g n i z e t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t d i m e n s i o n s of c r e a t i o n ' s C r e a t o r (verse 2 1) is a j e e r at p a g a n i s m ' s a t t e m p t t o portray divinity: (18) To whom will you liken God, And what likeness will you impute to him?

P O E T I C A L O D D S A N D A D D ENTDA

401)

(19) The idol cast by the smelter Plated o'er by the smith in gold. Fastened together by the smith with silver? (Isaiah 40:18-19) In t h e m e and structure, Psalm 19 and Is. 4 0 share so much as to suggest a single composer or, perhaps, t h e variations of a Beethoven o n a t h e m e of Mozarts. It is not t h e sun as such, one of n a t u r e s many and great artifacts ("from whose heat there is n o hiding"), which is laughed to scorn in t h e psalm, as t h e b r e a t h t a k i n g sweep of h e a v e n is nor deprecated in itself by likening it to a mere tent's canopy. T h e mockery is directed not at nature but at t h e a t t e m p t s of pagan imagination to personify aspects of nature, a t t e m p t s t h a t trivialize n a t u r e even, as they deify its constituencies and veil from h u m a n appreciation t h e truly awesome t r a n s c e n d e n c e of t h e Power and Intelligence for w h o m all nature is but a plaything. T h e attack o n a pagan t h e o l o g y — w h e t h e r in Isaiah 4 0 : 1 8 - 1 9 , where a m a n - m a d e idol is p u t forward as p a g a n i s m s best effort to imageize t h e divine, or in taking t h e s u n s daily trek across t h e sky as t h e literal race of a divine a t h l e t e — i s jocular and c o n d e scending in mood, for how could so silly a n ideology stir t h e perceptive m i n d to anger? A n d ultimately, of course, it is n e i t h e r paganism n o r its representation t h a t is t h e object of derision for psalmist or prophet. T h e derision is reserved for t h e humans, and for Israelite h u m a n s at t h a t , w h o fail to receive t h e thunderously m u t e message presented to their organs of sight and h e a r i n g for processing by t h e intelligence t h a t these !acuities are supposed to feed. A n d w h o , asks the psalmist in 19:11, is t h e loser by this but t h e h u m a n s w h o so regularly forego the sweet-beyond•‫ ׳‬compare fruit of revelation. N o t so t h e psalmist himself. Fie is alert and grateful for t h e revelation, h e knows t h a t t h e ultimate revelation of G o d s creative power is made to p r o m o t e t h e revelation of God's moral purpose for t h e race h e has created and placed at creation's c e n t e r stage. But this consciousness and self-consciuusness of t h e psalmist does n o t lead h i m to t h e hubris of self-preening in moral pride. For all his awareness ol what G o d wants of him, he is aware of t h e moral myopia ol t h e most clear-sighted ot moralists. W h e t h e r irom. unconscious error or conscious actions performed in sell-delusive wrongheadedness, he needs a deterrence t h a t only G o d can supply. Only if G o d keeps him alert to t h e never-interrupted message (‫׳‬,‫ ווו‬he aspire to moral i n n o c e n c e and integrity. A n d in the humility that alone is proof against e v e n the pride ol probity, t h e psalmist in t h e poem s last verse reviews t h e c o m p o s i t i o n h e has so truly ordered in praise of G o d , and recognizes t h a t at its best it is but a weak articulation of the praise warb which he would, if he could, do justice to t h e majesty of his G o d .

The Drunkenness

of Noah

T h e Odds and A d d e n d s treated h i t h e r t o relate primarily to c h a p t e r 2, t h e c o n t e n t and f u n c t i o n of the biblical creation account, and to poetical problems raised in c o n n e c t i o n with the cluster ot sextets and septets akin to t h e seventh-day construction imposed on Israels 11 mar-solar calendar. M u c h of the material might well h a v e been considered in chapter 7 ("Structures") w i t h emphasis on t h e f u n c t i o n of scriptural structures that lend thenwelves to a poetic consideration of t h e similar (yet n o t

418

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, Α Ν ΤIΓ ί PAT 10 ‫ א‬S

s a m e ) f o r m u l a t i o n s vis-à-vis t h e m y t h o p o e i c aspects in prose a n d in verse, a n d of d i e c o n c e p t u a l c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y b e t w e e n w o r k a n d rest, b e t w e e n work a n d r e c o m p e n s e , a n d of t h e associative c o n c e p t i o n s of d o m i n i o n a n d s u b s e r v i e n c e , of liberty a n d t h e p r e r o g a t i v e t o dispose of t i m e . H e n c e I h a v e r e s e r v e d t h i s d i s c u s s i o n for t h i s s u p p l e m e n t a r y c h a p t e r . So, t o o , w i t h respect t o P s a l m 19, T h e role of t h e s u n (as we h a v e d i s c e r n e d ) as d i v i n e g y m n a s t in t h i s spoof of p a g a n i s m s e g u e i n g i n t o t h e priority of m o r a l i t y in Scripture's m o n o t h e i s t i c t h e o l o g y is in p o l a r c o n t r a s t t o t h e s o u r c e - c r i t i c a l s c h o o l of "literary criticism," w h i c h c a n d i s c e r n s u b s t a n t i v e c o n c e p t u a l c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n aspects of t h e c r e a t e d w o r l d as p i c t u r e d in verse versus prose; b e t w e e n p a g a n p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of n a t u r a l forces i n f i l t r a t i n g biblical p o e t r y a n d t h e d e m y t h o l o g i z a t i o n of c o s m o g o n y in t h e c a t e c h i s t i c prose of G e n e s i s 1. I will c o n c l u d e t h i s c h a p t e r w i t h a n a d d e n d u m o n t h e D r u n k e n n e s s of N o a h (see c h a p t e r 5), r e s u m i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h a c o n j e c t u r e as t o t h e c o n n e c t i o n of t h e C a n a a n in N o a h ' s curse w i t h t h e G i b e o n i t e s of J o s h u a 9, w h o w e r e d e s t i n e d in J o s h u a s words t o b e h e a v e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s of w a t e r for his p e o p l e Israel a n d tor t h e h o u s e of his G o d . A r e v i e w ot o u r d i s c u s s i o n in c h a p t e r 5 will s h o w t h a t in v e r s e 27

u

h e " of t h e

s e n t e n c e " m a y h e reside in t h e t e n t s of S h e m " is g e n e r a l l y t a k e n t o be t h e J a p h e t h of t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g i n v o c a t i o n " B r o a d s c o p e m a y G o d t o J a p h e t h g r a n t " 1 b o w e v e r , l e a n i n g u p o n Rash i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t a k e t h e subject as t h e " G o d " w h o h a s b e e n i n v o k e d to bless J a p h e t h . It is a mat 1er of h a p p e n s t a n c e t h a t 1 a r r i v e d 111d e p e n d e n t l y at t h e i d e n t i t i e s of t h e p e r s o n a e in t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g verse. (26) IWhat'l he said, |in full]; "Praised he Y1 1WH, god of Shem! And slave 10 them may Canaan be! (Genesis 9:26) T h e s e p e r s o n a e arc Y H W H , god of S h e m , S h e m , b e i n g a m e t o n y m for Israel, a n d t h e " t h e m " t o w h o m C a n a a n is t o b e slave are Y H W H a n d his p e o p l e , w h i l e t h e slave C a n a a n is a f o r e - r e f e r e n c e t o t h e G i b e o n i t e s of J o s h u a 9. It was q u i t e s o m e t i m e l a t e r t h a t I d i s c o v e r e d t h a t I h a d f o r g o t t e n or a l t o g e t h e r missed t h a t t h e s e s a m e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s w e r e m a d e ad loc. by O b a d i a h S t o r n o . T h i s r e c o v e r y of S f o r n o s h a v i n g p r e e m p t e d m e in t h e G i b e o n i t e s / C a n a a n i t e identification bolsters m e as I p r o c e e d t o m y less t h a n p i o u s or o r t h o d o x r e a d i n g o : J o s h u a , C h a p t e r 9. A. Prelude (1) W h e n all the kings across the Jordan in the hill country and the Shephela, on the entire coast of the Great Sea as far [north as] facing Mt. Lebanon — t h e Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites and the J cousîtes — sot word, (2) they mobilized for war with Joshua and with Israel in single accord. B. The Plot (3) The citizens of Gibeon now got word of what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai.) (4) 1 hew for their part also, behaved with guile. They went and constituted themseh es an embassy. They fetched worn sacks for their asses, wineskins worn, ^plit and re sown, (‫ )ך‬footgear worn and patched and attired in worn oui uarb and, all their edible ριο\ is ion stale and mold tierkcd.

p o e t κ: a l o d d s a n d a d d e n d a

419

ί >. bo't'CMtiim oj the Plot (6) They went to Joshua, to the encampment at Gilgal, To him and the fighting men of Israel they said, "From a distant land have we come. N o w then, conclude a pact with us." (7) T h e fighting men or Israel responded to the Hivvites, "Perhaps it is within my ambit you dwell. In which c;!se, how can I make a pact with you?" (8) So they said to Joshua, "It is your liege-men we are." Whereupon he said to them, "Just who is it you are and just where do you come f r o m ; 9 )

‫) ״‬

To him they said, "From a far distant land

have your liege-men come, for the sake of your god Y H W H . Truly we have heard re-‫׳‬ port of him, yes of all his doings in Egypt, (10) And the whole of his execution of the two Amorite kings in trans-Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshhon and to Og king of Bashan, he that was of Ashtaroth. ( 1 1 ) 1 hen it was that our elders and all our land's citizens said, 'Take food provision for your trek and go ι ο encounter them. Say to them: Your liege-men are we. Make a paec with us.12)

‫י‬

)

This food of ours—warm we provi-

sioned ourselves with it from home that day we set out to journey toward y o u — a n d [look] now: dry and mold-flecked. (.13) A n d these wineskins that new were when we filled them, [look] now: split open. A n d this garb ot ours and our footwear, worn out hy reason of our trek, so long, so long." (14) The |lsraehte| leaders rook samples of their provisions

hut of Y H W l l f s ] oracle they made no inquiry. (15) Thus did Joshua

make ;»nily with them. He made a pact assuring them survival. And the confederacy's chieftain's took oaths to them. D, i )isanvry, ;Yknv/i, and Ahseiu Assault (16) It was a threesome of days after they had made this pact with them that they got word: how near their distance to him, yes well within his ambit dwelling, they . . . (17) T h e Israelites moved out and on the day after the morrow arrived at their cities— these cities being Gibeon, Kephirah, Beerot and KirHth-jearim. (18) Yet did the Israelites not attack them, for the confederacy's chieftains had taken oath to them hy Y H W H , god of Israel. E. (chagrin and Reprisal Decree T h e confederacy's rank-and-file grumbled against the chieftains. (19) T h e chieftains all addressed the confederate ranks, "We did take oath to them hy Y H W H , god of Israel. Hence, we may do them no harm. (20) This we must do to t h e m — ( y o u ) guarantee their lives—only thus avert trom ourselves [God's] wrath [in keeping] with the oath we took to them." (21) Thus did the chieftains decree to them: They are to live. A n d thus did they become hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the confederacy, in keeping with the declaration to them ol the eh ie ft a ins. F. Resumption of Reprisal, Recapitulation of Decree (22) Joshua summoned them and dressed them down, to wit: "Why did you deceive us, saying 'We are at a tar far distance from you,' when you live well within our ambit s center. (2$) Now, then: Under I van you are [decreed! to be. Never will there fail to he from among you slave, lu‫־‬wcrs of wood and d r a w e e of water for tin‫ ׳‬house ol my god!" (24) [‫ וו‬response to Joshua they -aid, 1'Verily it was liild in detail to your servants that which your god YFIWH ordained lo his servant ΜΠΗ‫ \־‬ι Ο grant you all 1 h i*> land and

42ο

SUPPLEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, Λ NTH Τ PAT ΙΟ Ν S

exterminate on your account all the inhabitants oi the land, in ereal tear tor our lives were we on your account, hence we did what we did. (2s.) And, now, we are in vour power. However it seem,s proper and upright in your opinion to treat us, do so!1' (.26) Thus did he do to them, as told, delivering them from the Israelites power, so that they did not kill them. (27) Thus it was that Joshua dedicated them at that time as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the confederacy, and [or, that is] to the altar of YHWH—continuing to this very day—in the place that he chooses [for it]. (Joshua 9:1-27) T h e e c o n o m y of S c r i p t u r e s narrative style would seem to be notably absent in this long c h a p t e r devoted to a single e v e n t in t h e c o n t e x t of Israel's invasion of t h e promised, land. A single e v e n t t h a t may be m o m e n t o u s for t h e hapless Hivvttes of G i b e o n , but of trivial significance to t h e Israelite conquerors or their descendants. A simple a n d straightforward telling of t h e story would omit the pericopes A and Β altogether. It. would start with C, t h e arrival of t h e G i b e o n i t e embassy, present t h e reason for its mission, and omit, t h e ambassadors' wearisome citation of the instructions delivered to t h e m at h o m e . T h e substance of pericopes D, E, and F could be given in a single pericope w i t h o u t a n o t h e r supererogatory e x p l a n a t i o n ot t h e tea•‫׳‬ son for t h e G i b e o n i t e ruse, and w i t h a single s t a t e m e n t of the decree t h a t appears three times, and wdth seeming inconsistency and r e d u n d a n t repeiitivencss: once, seemingly, in t h e mouth of the chieftains, o n c e in t h a t of Joshua, and o n c e in the voice of t h e narrator, assuring us that the decree was Joshua s.. Let us t h e n proceed to a (dose rereading oi our c h a p t e r it) search lor the poetic purposes oi the narrational convolutions.

Episode A . Prelude (1) When all the kings across the Jordan in the hill country and the Shephcla. on the entire coast of the Great Sea as far [north as] facing Mt. Lebanon. — the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites and the Jehusites— k:ot word, (2) they mobilized for war with Joshua and with Israel in single accord. T h e prelude is, at first glance, totally irrelevant to t h e narrative t h a t follows. It tells us of t h e u n a n i m o u s reaction of t h e kings of C a n a a n to the Israelite threat, their mustering their armies into a single force to do battle with the invaders. A n d n o t a n o t h e r word to follow up this i n t r o d u c t i o n appears until the G i b e o n i t e narrative is concluded. T h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n is resumed w i t h t h e first verses of chapters 10 and 11, which begin w i t h t h e identical o p e n i n g words of 9:1, toax/iT kismcf1 " W h e n [so a n d so] got word . . In 10:1 it is Adoni-zedek, king ot Jerusalem, w h o gets word of Joshua's conquest of A i and Jericho a n d his putting their populations and kings t o t h e herem ban; and word as well of t h e G i b e o n i t e s preclusion of 3 similar fate for themselves by d i n t of their peace treaty w i t h Israel. His rallying ot a η umher of kings against t h e G i b e o n i t e s results in disaster for these royal city-states to t h e south and west of G i b e o n . In 11:1 it is Jabin, king of Hazor, w h o gets word — presumably of t h e debacle of t h e Adoni-zedek coalition and ‫׳׳‬allies the kings of n o r t h e r n C a n a a n , who meet a like fate at Joshua's hands. I he list ol defeated kings 1> resumed and enlarged in C 'hapter 12. 11 is important to note that the conquered

p o e t i c a l o d d s a n d a d d enTd a

401)

populations subsumed in 12:8 are exactly those six nations, and in t h e identical order to their appearance, in our g:1, " T h e Hittites, t h e A n i o n i c s , the C a n a a n i t e s , the Perizzites, t h e blivvites and the Jehusites' 1

/:>‫*־‬uic P. The Pit Λ {‫ ) ן‬The citizens of Gibeon now got word of what Joshua had done to Jericho and Αι.) (4) They, for their part also, behaved with guile. They went and constituted them-‫׳‬ selves an embassy. They fetched worn sacks for their asses, wineskins worn, split and resown, (5) footgear worn and patched and attired in worn out garb and all their edible provision stale and mo Id‫׳‬-flecked, In c o n t r a s t t o 9:1, where t h e word reaching t h e cis-Jordanian kings is left u n ‫׳‬ specified, is t h e p a r e n t h e t i c h y p o t a c t i c verse 3, w h i c h I h a v e placed at the begin‫׳‬ n i n g of pericope B. T h i s verse, serving as t h e transition b e t w e e n the prelude and t h e m a i n narrative, specifies t h a t the word received by t h e G i b e o n i t e s was of J o s h u a s t r e a t m e n t of Jericho and A i . W e shall see t h a t this contrast in specification serves a significant poetic purpose in t h e narrative t h a t tollows. For our inv m e d i a t e focus, t h e significance of t h e p r e l u d e — w h o s e train of t h o u g h t is n o t picked up again until 10:1—is to contrast t h e a c t i o n of t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 4 with t h e stance of their fellow a u t o c h t h o n e s . T h e first verse proper of pericope B, verse 4, rendered by t h e Revised Version (RV) as 'They also did work wilily and w e n t and m a d e as if they h a d been amhassadors," for all its fidelity to t h e Hebrew may be misleading o n at least two counts. O n e , inasmuch as t h e comparison (contrast) in c o n t e x t is as between "all the kings" and t h e Gibeonites, one would think that the wiliness of t h e Gibeonites is in comparison with t h e wiliness oi "all the kings.1' But these latter are not wily in the least. T h e i r hostility and bellicosity is open and straightforward. H e n c e the comparison can. only he with the third party, the [sraelitcs. A n d the guile oi the Gibeonites is in counterploy to the guile of Joshua at Ai. As h e lured these iocs from their torn ess into a c u n n i n g ambuscade, so did t h e G i b e o n i t e s lure Israel into a cunningly conrrived compact. T h e poetic question would t h e n remain: Is the ruse (‫ '(י‬the Cube-on‫״‬ it:es. which guarantees their survival, being justified by comparison wit11 the ruse of Joshua, which led to t h e e x t e r m i n a t i o n of Ai? O r is it likely that J (isla 11a's own wilb ness serves to highlight his folly in falling for t h e G i b e o n i t e ruse: T h e second misperception t h a t may arise f r o m RV's rendering is the implication that the G i b e o n i t e s p r e t e n d e d to be a n embassy w h e n they were n o t t h a t in reality. This, of course, is nonsense. T h e y did indeed c o n s t i t u t e themselves an embassy— n o t e my t r a n s l a t i o n — t h e ruse was in h o w they dressed themselves up for t h a t mission. T h e stem syr appears a half-dozen times in t h e n o u n form w i t h t h e c o n t e x t u ally attested sense of "agent, representative, legate," but t h e hitpael verb form "set o n e s self up as legate" appears only here, and seems to be a deliberate approximat i o n of the h i t p a e l of t h e stem syd "game, food, provisions" t h a t appears in verse 12, "to provide oneself with food." T h i s occurrence is similarly the only verbal occurre nee of this stem. (It. is perhaps recognition of this a p p r o x i m a t i o n ot s\r/s\d that led L X X to render this verb in verse 4 exactly as it does t h e verb in verse 1.2.) The

422

SUPPLEMENTS, CON C LI' SIGNS,

anticipations

play o n t h e two stems thus would suggest a p o r t m a n t e a u signification: they proceeded to provision themselves for an embassy role, as detailed in t h e description t h a t follows of worn pack-hags and wineskins, footgear and body-wraps and food stale and moldy.‫׳‬

Episode C, Execution of the Plot (6) They went to Joshua, lo the encampment ai i algal. Ίο him and the fighting men of Israel they said, "From a distant land have we come. Now then, conclude a pact with us" (7) The fighting ‫ ז‬neu of Israel responded to die Idivvites, ‫״‬Perhaps it is within my ambit you dwell. In which case, how can 1 make a pact with you Γ (8) So they said to Joshua, "It is your liege-men we are" Whereupon he said to them, "Just who is it you are and just where do you come from Γ ‫( י‬y) To him they said, "From a far distant land have your liege-men come, for the sake of your god YHWH. Truly we have heard report of him, yes of all his doings in Egypt, (10) And the whole of his execution of the two Amorite kings in trans-Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon and to Og king of Bashan, he that was of Ashtaroth. (11) Then it was that our elders and all our land's citizen's said, 'Take food provision for your trek and go to encounter them. Say to them: Your liege ‫״‬men are we. Make a pact •with us!* ( 12) This food of ours—warm we provisioned ourselves with it from home that day we set out to journey toward you— and [look] now: dry and mold-flecked. (13) And these wineskins that new were when we filled them, [look] now: split open. And this garb ot ours and our footwear, worn out by reason of our trek, so long, so long.1' (14) The [Israelite] leaders took samples of their provisions—but of YHWH ['s] oracle they made no inquiry. (15) Thus did Joshua make amity with them. He made a pact assuring them survival. And the confederacy's chieftain's took oaths to them. T h e address of t h e embassy upon reaching the e n c a m p m e n t at Gilgal is so terse that it can only be instance of free direct discourse. The: far distance they have c o m e suffices to identify themselves; their purpose in coming is to propos( 1 a treaty; t h e n a t u r e of t h e treaty is unspecified. 1 he Israelite 1 dent ity is constituted of at least four elements or entities, two of which appear in this pericope. There is Joshua (the c o m m a n d e r - i n - c h i e f ) , t h e n the ïs yisräel. T h e rendering of the hfty or so appearances of this phrase h y "the men of Israel" leaves this singular collective construct altogether undifferentiated from t h e construct (bearing this m e a n i n g ) featuring t h e plural form ansei. T h i s latter can have a n u m b e r of c o n n o t a t i o n s : simple distributive or plural w i t h reference to t h e individuals, members, citizens, magistrates, freemen, soldiers of a given people, polity, or political group. T h e expression Ts yisräel (/or a specified tribe of Israel) is always in c o n s t r u c t i o n or c o n t e x t t h a t guarantees t h a t t h e term refers to warriors or a warrior class, whereas a similar sense for 'ansei is achieved only by t h e addition of stich terms as milhämä "war," säbä' "army." T h e sense t o o of a status or role, rather t h a n a n exemplary execution of t h a t role, is suggested in a n u m b e r of contexts where these braves of Israel are cowering from conflict, or routed by t h e e nemv. T h i s collectivity t h e n , t h e " m a n h o o d ot Israel," may be expressing a macho bravado w h e n , in contrast to t h e plural a d d r e s s oi t h e Giheonites, it speaks of itself

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

in t h e singular and addresses t h e embassy in t h e singular. ( N o t e also Joshua's use ot plurals for t h e Israelites a n d t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 20.) T h e narrator too prepares us for this switch in person n u m b e r w h e n h e has " t h e m a n h o o d of Israel 1 ' speaking to "the Hivvite" (singular collective). Aside f r o m t h e arrogation of self-importance in t h e first person singular address to t h e H i v v i t e embassy, there is certainly an overwhelming arrogance in speaking of t h e a u t o c h t h o n o u s p o p u l a t i o n as living "in my midst," w h e n t h a t "midst" is confined to "the c a m p at Gilgal" (verse 6). A n d for all t h e presage of t h e victories at Jericho and Ai, t h e first of these fell to Y H W H s miraculous i n t e r v e n t i o n , and t h e second to a divinely inspired ruse. To this macho address t h e G i b e o n i t e s m a k e n o answer. H a v i n g declared their origin in a distant land, t h e question is t a n t a m o u n t to a charge t h a t they are lying. R a t h e r t h a n a t t e m p t a rebuttal, they t u r n to t h e c o m m a n d e r Joshua and submit themselves to his mercy. A n d Joshua asks again for specifics as to their identity and land of origins, to which questions n o answer is f o r t h c o m i n g . Instead we h a v e a response implying t h a t their land is too distant and their polity too insignificant to be meaningful to Israel. By contrast to this is w h a t inspired t h e m to c o m e so far, t h e report t h a t has resounded worldwide, t h e mighty acts of Y H W H in Egypt, the destruction of t h e kings ot H e s h h o n and Bashan, told as if it were ancient history, citation almost from t h e book, of Deuteronomy. N o m e n t i o n , of course, of Ai and Jericho, for these are only events of yesterday, and the embassy entrusted to ‫ ו‬hem. by u n a n i m o u s vote oi eiders and citizens alike took place o h so many m o o n s ago; To t h e implicit charge of the Ts yisrä'el t h a t they are telling less t h a n the t ruth, they stress first t h e unqualified legitimacy of their legation. T h e i r mission had the u n a n i m o u s authority of their h o m e l a n d s oligarchy and c o m m o n s . T h e y t h e n p o i n t to t h e sad stare of their dress, gear, and provisions as proof of t h e long trek t h a t has e v e n t u a t e d in their arrival at t h e Gilgal e n c a m p m e n t . T h i s a r g u m e n t supportive of their veracity, an argument t h a t they did n o t raise in pericope B, where t h a t veracity is questioned hy Israel's m a c h o braves, leads to a n e x a m i n a t i o n of their dry and moldy provisions. T h i s e x a m i n a t i o n apparently accepted as attestation to t h e bona fides of t h e embassy leads to a conclusion t h a t is formulated in verse 15 in three paratactically formulated clauses. In clause 1, Joshua concludes an amicable agreem e n t with t h e m . Despite t h e formal parataxis, t h e following clause 2 may be hypotactical in relation to it as far as m e a n i n g is concerned: t h e amity that Joshua had enacted was embodied in t h e treaty t h a t h e made w i t h t h e m , a treaty w h i c h specifically and explicitly guaranteed t h e m — w a s it only, or a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s : — their survival. Clause 3 adds t h a t t h e (Joshua-sponsored) treaty was confirmed by an o a t h taken by t h e ne si ë häedä "the confederacy's chieftains." T h e s e η T r i m are t h e third c o n s t i t u e n t of t h e Israelite identity (after Joshua a n d t h e Ts yisraei), arid will be shortly differentiated from t h e rank-and-file of t h e confederacy (kol-ha edä) over w h i c h they preside (verses 18, 19, 21). T h e s e last t h e n are t h e f o u r t h of t h e Israelite constituency. A filth term, however, /u771‫״‬äsim "the men." ("leaders" in our translation) is t h e μ ι hi eel of the verb "took (samples) o f ' 111 verse 14, and it is unclear w h e t h e r this term includes Joshua, t h e chieh ains, or hot h. But t he second clause of this verse, in hypotactic const ruction, is a pointed cont rast ivc no! ice, an aside on t he pan o: t lie narrai 01‫ ׳‬a ‫ י־‬to what t h esc leaders might well h a v e d o n e but did not do: consult t he

424

S U P P L E M E N T S , c o n c lI' s i G n s ,

o r a c l e ol Y H W H . H a d ihey d o u e so

anticipations

- t h e i n f e r e n c e is i n e l u c t a b l e

the outcome

of t h e ruse a n d t h e f a t e of its i n i t i a t o r s would h a v e b e e n a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t . But was t h i s f a i l u r e t o c o n s u l t Yl I W H a m o r a l lapse or a singular d e f i c i e n c y of judgm e n t • From w h a t follows, t h e s u s t a i n e d d e c i s i o n t o a b i d e hy t h e c o n s é q u e n c e of t h e o a t h t a k e n in YT1WI h-naine, it w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t r h e lapse, d any, was a trivial o n e c o m p a r e d t o t h e far g r e a t e r o n e t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n s t i t u t e d h γ a violat i o n of t h e o a l h , for all t h a t t h e o a t h h a d b e e n e x t o r t e d by a ruse. If t h a t t h e n b e t h e case, J o s h u a s d e c i s i o n a n d its e n d o r s e m e n t by t h e e o n f e d e r acy's elders r e p r e s e n t s a lapse, n o t f r o m o b e d i e n c e t o G od's will, hut f r o m o r d i n a r y c o m m o n sense. A n d t h e a b s u r d i t y of t h i s f o o l i s h n e s s o n t h e p a r t of Israel s c o n s t it u ted a u t h o r i t i e s is o n l y h e i g h t e n e d by t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I s r a e l s m a c h o r a n k a n d - f i l e w e r e n o t t a k e n i n by t h e ruse, as i n d i c a t e d n o t o n l y by t h e initial skeptic i s m of t h e Ίs yisrä'el, b u t by t h e s u b s e q u e n t c r i t i c i s m of t h e d e c i s i o n lodged by t h e r a n k - a n d - f i l e of t h e c o n f e d e r a c y (häëdâ/koî-/1â l ëda) a g a i n s t t h e elders

(hamvsim/

nesïë hâ'ëda). W h a t a r e w e t o m a k e of t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n of p e r s p i c a c i t y t o t h e h o i polloi a n d of gullibility t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e s ? I will d e f e r t h i s q u e s t i o n for a w h i l e . But let us n o t e t h a t t h e c o m m o n sense of t h e r e a d e r s h o u l d lead h i m , as critic, to q u e s t i o n n o t o n l y t h e i m p l a u s i b i l i t y in t h e p l o t of t h e ruse's success, b u t o l its h a v i n g b e e n a t t e m p t e d t o b e g i n w i t h . W o r n s h o e s a n d stale b r e a d are a t e s t i m o n y to t h e age of t h e s e c o m m o d i t i e s , a n d n o t t o t h e t i m e w h e n t h e y w e r e first laced o n or b a k e d . s B u t t h e o b v i o u s silliness of t h e ruse is m e r e l y t h e icing o n t h e e n t i r e c o n f e c t i o n of t h e G i b e o n i t e c l a i m t o b e f r o m so d i s t a n t a l a n d . C a n o n e i m a g i n e a n a r r a t i v e in w h i c h M a y a n I n d i a n s f r o m c e n t r a l A m e r i c a , p r e t e n d i n g t o b e E s q u i m o s , arrive at Piz-2aros h e a d q u a r t e r s in t h e P e r u v i a n h i g h l a n d s , c i t i n g t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of t h e S p a n i a r d s ' r a v a g i n g of M o n t e z u m a ' s H a l l s a n d asking for a t r e a t y w h i c h

would

spare t h e m a like fate in t h e i r A r c t i c ranges?

Episode!).

Discovery,

March,

and Absent

Assault

( 1 6 ) 11 was a t h r e e s o m e of days ,11 Km‫ ־‬they had m a d e s His pact w i t h t h e m that ‫ ו‬h e y g o t word; h o w near their d i s t a n c e t o him, 1 ; yes w e l l w i t h i n ins ambit d w e l l i n g , they . . .

(17) T h e Israelites moved out and on the day after the morrow arrived at their cit ies

-

these cities being Gibeon, Kephirah, Beerot and Kiriathqeanai. (rS) Yet did !he Israelites not. attack them, for the confederacy's chieftains had taken oath to them hy Y H W H , god of Israel. O n l y t w o days a f t e r t h e d e p a r t u r e of t h e G i b e o n i t e embassy, t h e t r e a t y - g r a n t o r s l e a r n of t h e p r o x i m i t y of t h o s e t o w h o m t h e y h a v e s w o r n i m m u n i t y . A n d a m e r e t w o clays l a t e r t h e Israeli h o s t s a r r i v e a t t h e G i b e o n i t e h o m e l a n d — n o , n o t t h e city of G i b e o n i t s e l f — b u t at G i b e o n , a n d t h r e e o t h e r G i b e o n i t e cities as well. 1 0 A r r i v e ior w h a t p u r p o s e ? T h e v e r b at t h e b e g i n n i n g of verse 17 b e s p e a k s t h e b r e a k i n g of a c a m p a n d t h e p u r p o s e f u l s e t t i n g o u t of a m i g r a t i n g h o r d e . But t h i s p e r i c o p e c o n t i n ties a n d e n d s , n o t w i t h a s t a t e m e n t of t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s b r e a k i n g ot c a m p , but. w i t h a h y p o t a c t ic d e n i a l of w h a t we m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d LIS t h e p u r p o s e a n d e v e n m a t ion of this m o v e , a n a t t a c k o n t h e G i b e o n i t e s . T h e reason tor this n o n - e v e n t is t h e n g i v e n in t h e b o t t o m l i n e of t h i s s y n o p t i c episode: it !‫ יי‬r h e o a t h t a k e n by t h e

POETICAL O D D S A N D A DDENTDA

401)

c o n f e d e r a c y ' s c h i e f t a i n s by Y H W H , I s r a e l s god. I n a s m u c h as t h e n a r r a t o r n e e d n o t i n f o r m us as t o w h a t r o l e Y H W H fills for Israel, t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e n a m e ( m i s s i n g i n verse 15), t h e first n o t i c e of t h i s o a t h , a l o n g w i t h t h e a t t r i b u t i o n , m a y b e c o n f i d e n t l y r e a d as t h e n a r r a t o r s signal t h a t t h i s d e c i s i o n t o h o n o r t h e o a t h was i n k e e p i n g w i t h w h a t t h e y o w e d t o t h e god by w h o m t h e y s w o r e . T h e r e s u m p t i v e e p i s o d e Ε b e g i n s w i t h t h e last clause of verse 18, w h i c h i n f o r m s us t h a t t h e a r r i v a l a t t h e b o t t o m l i n e was n o t a f o r e g o n e c o n c l u s i o n .

Episode E.

OJtagWn und Reprisal

Decree

T h e c o n f e d e r a c y ' s r a n k ‫ ׳‬a n d d . d e grumbled a g a i n s t i h e r b i e i t a i n s . ( κ ; ) T h e c h i e h a m s all a d d r e s s e d t h e c o n f e d e r a t e r a n k s , " W e d i d take o a t h t o t h e m by Y H W H , g o d of Israel. H e n c e , w e m a y d o t h e m n o h a r m . ( 2 0 ) T h i s we m u s t d o t o t h e m — ( y o u ) g u a r a n t e e t h e i r lives — o n l y t h u s averl from ourselves [God'sj wral h |in k e e p i n g with (lie o a t h w e took t o t h e m . " ( 2 1 ) T h u s did the ehielt a ins dccrce 10 diem: Ί 'hey are to live. A n d t h u s d i d t h e y b e c o m e h e w e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s ot w a t e r f o r all t h e c o n f e d e r ‫״‬ acy, i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e d e c l a r a t i o n t o t h e m of t h e c h i e f t a i n s .

T h e g r u m b l i n g of t h e r a n k - a n d - f i l e c a n o n l y be a g a i n s t t h e c h i e f t a i n s ' d e c i s i o n , w h i c h p r e c l u d e s a n a t t a c k o n t h e wily G i b e o n i t e s . Yet t h e s e c h i e f t a i n s h o l d fast t o t h e o a t h s w o r n by t h e m i n Y H W H - n a m e , t o d o t h e G i b e o n i t e s n o h a r m , t h e exp r e s s i o n for t h e l a t t e r b e i n g literally " t o t o u c h / l a y h a n d " u p o n t h e m . T h i s u n i t of d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e is u n a m b i g u o u s , a n d w o u l d a p p e a r s u f f i c i e n t r e s p o n s e t o t h e disg r u n t l e d r a n k s of Israel. B u t t h e i r d i s c o u r s e d o e s n o t s t o p h e r e . I n s t e a d w e h a v e a c o n t i n u a t i o n of it i n v e r s e 20, w h i c h w o u l d a p p e a r n o t o n l y r e p e t i t i v e l y r e d u n d a n t , b u t s y n t a c t i c a l l y p e r v e r s e l y a w k w a r d . S u c h t r a n s l a t i o n s as t h a t of AV, ( " T h i s w e will d o t o t h e m a n d let t h e m l i v e " ) , w h i l e n o t u n f a i t h f u l t o t h e H e b r e w o r i g i n a l , c o n c e a l f r o m t h e r e a d e r t h a t t h e r e is a jerky s u c c e s s i o n of verbs, a first p e r s o n p l u r a l i m p e r f e c t e x p r e s s i v e of a c o h o r t a t i v e or o b l i g a t o r y m o d a l i t y (This let us/must

we do)

f o l l o w e d by a s i n g u l a r i m p e r a t i v e , i m p l i c i t l y s e c o n d p e r s o n , c o l l e c t i v e (you, allow them to live). H e n c e m y o w n t r a n s l a t i o n , w h i c h b e g i n s w i t h a n e l l i p t i c a l s t a t e m e n t i n f r e e d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e of h o w w e ( c o r p o r a t e Israel) m a y deal w i t h t h e m , t h i s foll o w e d by t h e d e i c t i c w a w a n d t h e i m p e r a t i v e " t h a t is, you [for y o u r p a r t | m u s t agree t o t h e i r safety f r o m p h y s i c a l h a r m . " T h i s is t h e n f o l l o w e d by t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t o n l y t h u s , t h a t is, by your a g r e e m e n t to t h e i r sur\ ival a n d t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of o u r ( g a p p e d ) p r o p o s a l , c a n we a c h i e v e a goal m u t u a l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y t o us, yet n o t inc u t t i n g H e a v e n s w r a t h . By t h i s t w o - p r o n g e d p r o p o s a l , r e p o r t s verse 21, did t h e c h i e f t a i n s s u c c e e d in d e c r e e i n g t h e survival of t h e G i b e o n i t e s in Israel's m i d s t . A n d t h e g a p p e d p r o p o s a l " t h i s w e m u s t d o " is n o w b r i d g e d or filled in by t h e c o n c l u s i o n , of t h e verse, t h e b o t t o m l i n e of t h i s r e s u m p t i v e e p i s o d e b: t h e u p s h o t of t h e m a t t e r was t h a t t h e G i b e o n i t e s " b e c a m e h e w e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s of w a t e r for all the confederacy—this

in keeping with the declaration

to them [to G i b e o n i t e s , t o Israelites,

or t o b o t h ? ] of the chieftains " Just h o w t h e r a n k - a n d - f i l e d e m a n d t h a t t h e G i b e o n i t e s h e e l i m i n a t e d f r o m Isr a e l s m i d s t is r e c o n c i l e d w i t h t h e i r survival as m e n i a l s for all t h e tribes of t h e c o n f e d e r a c y is far f r o m clear. A t t h e least it w o u l d s e e m t o r e q u i r e a r e d u c t i o n of sen-

426

S U P P L E M E N T S , CON C LI' SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

t e n c e from extirpation to slavery and a distribution of t h e G i b e o n i t e slaves a m o n g t h e tribes of Israel, these at t h e m o m e n t constituting a migratory horde, o n e not destined ior decades or centuries to come into settled possessions ‫״‬from Dan to Beersheba" T h e resolution ot this problem will appear w h e n we recognize t h a t this last verse of Kpisode h is the b o t t o m litte of an episode t h a t , while it f u n c t i o n s as t h e resumptive of synoptic Episode D, !‫־‬unctions also as the synoptic for the re-‫־‬ sumptive hp ist )de F.

Episode F, Resumption of Reprisal, Recapitulation

of Decree

(22) Joshua summoned them and dressed them down, to wit: "Why did you deceive us, saying 4We are at a far far distance from you,' when you live well within our ambits center? (23) Now, then: Under ban you are [decreed] to be. Never will there tail to be from among you slave, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my god!" (24) In response to Joshua they said, "Verily it was told in detail to your servants that which your god YHWH ordained to his servant Moses, to grant you all this land and exterminate on your account all the inhabitants of the land. In great tear tor our lives were we on your account, hence we did what: we did. (25) And, now, we are in your power. However it seems proper and upright in your opinion to treat us, do so!" (26) Thus did he do to them, as told, delivering them from the Israelite s power, so that they did not kill them. (27) Thus it was that Joshua dedicated them at that time as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the confederacy, and [or, that is] to the altar of YHWH ™continuing to this very day—in the place that He chooses [feu‫ ־‬it]. T h e narrative logic ol our story requires t h a t the address oi Joshua to t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 22 take place b e t w e e n verses 17 and 18; while the altercation b e t w e e n t h e chieftains and t h e rank-and-file of t h e confederacy and its resolution needs to h a v e taken place before the action related in verse 17, t h e advance of t h e warriors of Israel from the camp at Gilgal to the territory of t h e Gibeonites. Further to he noted in this concluding episode is that t h e personae of Joshua and t h e confederacys chieftains are assimilated to o n e a n o t h e r as a single protagonist as in verse 15 (pericope G), verse 18 (pericope F)), and verses 1 Sb :21 (pericope H); while similarly assimilated to o n e a n o t h e r as a single protagonist arc t h e ‫ ״‬h a r d liners,‫ ״‬t h e Ts yisrä'el of verses 6 and 7 (pericope B) and the cda of verses 18b and ι y (pericope E). T h e proposal of the chieftains, gapped in verse 20 and expressed in verse 21, is t h e n t h e verdict or decree p r o n o u n c e d by Joshua to t h e G i b e o n i t e s in verse 23. T h e f o r m u l a t i o n in t h e m o u t h of Joshua differs, however, b o i h from the n a r r a t o r s explication of t h e decree " T h e y are to live" in verse 2 1 — b u t only as "hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the c o n f e d e r a c y " — a n d from the n a r r a t o r s explication of Joshua's decree as well in t h e c o n c l u d i n g verse 27. T h e two di if er ing formu I at ions in Episode F, of Joshua's in verse 23 and of t h e n a r r a t o r s in verse 21, thus together resolve t h e questions we raised about t h e gap-filling formulation of t h e chieftains in Episode Ε (verse 21). T h e menial service to which :he G i b e o n i t e s are doomed forever does not. require the geographic dispersal of the Gibeonites throughout Israel. T h e i r service "to t h e confederacy" in verse 27 is explicated by

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

t h e deictic waw u t h a t is"—"to t h e altar of Y H W H . " By fulfilling this f u n c t i o n they will thus he "stand-ins" tor t h e Israelite confederacy at large, w h o bear t h e b u r d e n of t h e c e n t r a l sanctuary's support. T h a t Israel at large is to be relieved of this obligation for ongoing generations (verse 27, " c o n t i n u i n g to this very day") is implicit in t h e formulation ot the decree to t h e Gibeonites. T h e word J urfir(nn), as I long ago argued, bespeaks a metaphorical wall or enclosure that separates o n e entity trom another. 1 1 In this case, the simple sparing of the Gibeonites' lives would eventuate in their intermarriage with and assimilation i n t o t h e Israelite folk. T h i s eventriality is ruled out hy the proposal of the chieftains and t h e decree of Joshua: t h e G i b e o n i t e s are not to b e c o m e chattel slaves as individuals or in tof.o. Incorporated t h o u g h they may be in t h e Israelite entity, t h e y will constitute a separate entity that will n o t be p e r m i t t e d to iniermarry and assimilate w i t h Israel. T h e y will thus c o n s t i t u t e a caste w i t h i n I s r a e l — c o n d u c t i n g their lives in n o r m a l f a s h i o n — b u t fated to m a i n t a i n their separate identity so t h a t in every g e n e r a t i o n they may supply t h e hierodules to w h o m will he assigned t h e necessary but less dignified service to "the altar of Y H W H " t h a n those acts performed by t h e a u t h o c h t o n o u s Israelite castes, t h e priests, and (other) Levites of t h e "sons of Levi" N o essentially contradictory exegesis to t h e foregoing can be (or at least, has b e e n ) proposed for t h e p r e g n a n t f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t might equally well be rendered, "now t h e n , outside t h e pale you are, in t h a t t h e r e must n e v e r he cut off (i.e., cease to exist) f r o m a m o n g you some one(s) in thrall, splitters of kindling and haulers of water for my god's t e m p l e " But t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of Joshua's direct discourse is notable for o t h e r significant features, w h i c h will n o t be lost o n t h e ear trained to c a t c h n u a n c e s in narrative style generally a n d biblical idiom in particular. As I h a v e rendered t h e Hebrew, Joshua first asks a question, t h e response to w h i c h is so obvious to the s t u d e n t ot t h e Bible as to p r o m p t t h e question why it is raised at all. Joshua does not wait for t h e answer and proceeds immediately to t h e decree, which says in effect, No aimcer will du, herewith I declare your punishment, and only t h e n are t h e G i b e o n i t e s allowed to answer t h e question t h a t was asked of them. If this were t h e purport‫ ־‬or t h e only purport of J o s h u a s discourse, the "why" of the question " W h y did you deceive us:" would be expressive oi a rhetorical ques‫״‬ tion rather t h a n one for information. W h e r e v e r a question of why in biblical 1 lebrew is unquestionably and unequivocally rhetorical that word is ntuddîT' "how does it t h e n t r a n s p i r e " expressive ot surprise, a s t o n i s h m e n t , incredulity, c o n s t e r n a t i o n and e v e n — protest. "The expression oi why in a purely i n f o r m a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , or tinged with some expression oi surprise is lama appearing—·as we should expect‫—־‬ almost four times as o f t e n as the more restrictive maddua. H e n c e , if in Joshua's expression to t h e Gibeonites, the why were followed by t h e c o n d e m n a t o r y decree and n o t h i n g else, it would h a v e been expressed by maddïia. But t h e q u e s t i o n — a f t e r t h e dialogue follow-up of c o n d e m n a t o r y decree, w h i c h allows only for a strong rhetorical e l e m e n t in it — is followed by t h e response of t h e Gibeonites, treating t h e lämä "why" as a request for e x p l a n a t i o n and providing t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e explanation is t h a t t h e G i b e o n i t e s wert‫ ־‬afraid of being e x t e r m i n a t e d in a herem-war. T h i s explains their lying as to their origin, and their immediately following words ac> c e p t m g any decision of Joshua'- is ambiguous in this respect: while in narrative order it follows the decree of Joshua, in chronological order it may h a v e preceded

428

S U P P L E M E N T S , C O N CLI'SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

it. In t h a t ease, verse 26 is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e as a w e l c o m i n g of t h e decree of Joshua, t h e negative aspect of imposition of caste and servitude being a nugatory consideration as against t h e a l t e r n a t i v e ot' a n n i h i l a t i o n : T h u s h e dealt (ken "as told"), delivering t h e m from t h e power of the Israelites, so that they could n o t kill t h e m . As we suggested earlier, however, the question of why the G i h e o n i t e s resorted to lie and ruse to win a peace treaty would never have been asked by a student of t h e P e n t a t e u c h , w h o knows h o w o f t e n the e x t e r m i n a t i o n of the promised l a n d s η atives is ordained. A n d in t h a t case, n e i t h e r would it h a v e been asked by Joshua, w h o was at least as well informed as we are. A n d the answer of t h e Gibeonites, "verily it was told to u s " — t h a t is, we h a d it on t h e best a u t h o r i t y — r e q u i r e s examin a t i o n o n two counts, t h e o n e substantive: h o w did t h e y get this reliable inform a t ion; a n d t h e o t h e r stylistic: t h e strange formulation ot the i n f o r m a t i o n they received. In respect to t h e latter, a more literal rendering of the H e b r e w is, " t h a t Y H W H , your [Joshua] god charged his servant Moses :o give you [the Israelites] all t h e land a n d to destroy all t h e land's inhabitants from your f r o n t " N o w t h e Lord could promise Moses to give Israel t h e land, promise repeatedly expressed by 'ämar "averred" or nisbä "swore." But Moses was n o more commanded (shvä) to give you (pi.) t h e land t h a n h e was to exterminate {hismJd) its i n h a b i t a n t s from your advance. Both t h e granting of t h e land and t h e clearing of its i n h a b i t a n t s ( m e t a p h o r ically speaking to be sure) are t h e activities of Y H W H , promises to Moses, b u t n o t delegated to h i m for performance. A n d this requires us to e x a m i n e those texts in the P e n t a t e u c h t h a t we so confidently assumed (or presumed) constitute the c o m m a n d s of Y H W H t h a t Israel c o m m i t genocide against t h e i n h a b i t a n t s of C a n a a n . N o c o m m a n d to sue 11 el I cet exists in Genesis. The o n e intimation of t h e necessit.y of C a n a a n ' s being vacated to make room for Israel's settlement is in 1 5:16: t h e accumulation of A m o r i t e offenses will not add up to a sentence of extirpation for several generations yet to come. Against the n o t i o n that a n n i h i l a t i o n of a populace is a light m a t t e r for t h e god of Israel is t he debate preceding the doom of S o d o m in Genesis 18 and t h e rise of two nations from t h e loins oi hot, despite their incestuous origin in C h a p t e r 19. N o c o m m a n d to such effect exists in Exodus. The A m a l e k w h o attack Israel in C h a p t e r 17, a clan deriving f r o m Esau, n e i t h e r settled in. territory promised to Israel nor constitutes o n e of t h e supposedly proscribed nations t h a t must be cleared f r o m Israel's p a t h . T h e notice at this c h a p t e r s end, twice phrased and full of ambiguity, to be recorded in writing and d i n n e d into Joshua s ears, is that it is Y H W H w h o intends at some future time to blot out any trace 01 this e t h n i c group. A n d t h e reason, supplied in D e u t e r o n o m y 2 5 : 1 7 - 1 9 , is t h a t this treacherous attack by a kindred people was directed at t h e w o m e n and children and s u p e r a n n u a t e d w h o brought up t h e rear of Israel's migrating multitude. T h e one pericope in this book t h a t focuses o n Israels c o m i n g arrival at t h e territory of A m o r i t e , Hittite, Perizzite, C a n a a n i t e , Hivvite, and Jebusite ( 2 3 : 2 0 - 3 3 ) features Y H W H " s clearing t h e way for Israel, by means of sir a (variously rende reel as /torn er or pestilence), which will drive out (grs) these natives. A t t h a t this process is to be a gradual one. T h e one prescription to Israel is n o t to make a treaty iü/iern t r i e lôhëhem "with t h e m along

P O E T I C A L ODDS A N D A DDENTDA

401)

with their gods." T h e reason "they may n o t dwell in your land" is t h a t they m i g h t lure you i n t o worshipping their gods. But suppose they abjure their gods in favor of Y H W H ? T h i s question is unanswered, for it is n o t raised. N o c o m m a n d to such effect exists in N u m b e r s . In 1 0 : 2 9 - 3 3 Moses invites his M i d i a n i t e brother-in-law H o b ah, son of his f a t h e r - i n d a w R e u e b to scout tor Israel in their wilderness travels, promising to share with h i m t h e felicitous destiny in t h a t place t h a t Y H W H has promised to grant t h e m . I n a s m u c h as the invitation is first declined a n d t h e n renewed w i t h o u t a second response from H o b a k it is n o t clear w h e t h e r h e relented or n o t . T h a t this e x c h a n g e is immediately followed hy the notice, t h a t Y H W H ' s cloud hovered above t h e Israelites during their daytime m o v e m e n t s and by Moses' i n v o c a t i o n to Y H W H at every start to clear the way of their a d v a n c e need n o t mean that‫ ־‬I lobab was n o t moved from his i n t e n t to return ‫״‬ t ο my own n a t i v e land." '!"his because a separate m e t a p h o r may be intended here.1•'· But what the text does make clear is that t h e native land of t h e Midianitcs is outside the C a n a a n i t e pale of settlement, and that Midianitcs are welcome in t h a t territory destined for Israel's possession. d he story of t h e attack o n Israel by t h e Canaan it e king 0( Arad (in the Nogcb) is witness either to (his later Judaean territory n o t h a v i n g been considered p a n oi t h e promised land (an easily dismissable possibility) or t h a t n o destruction of t h e C a n a a n i t e s there had been dictated by G o d . For Israel makes a vow to Y H W H that It will put t o t h e h e re m ‫־׳‬ban " t h e m and their cities" if h e delivers t h e m to Israel! (Numbers 2 1 : 1 - 3 ) S i n c e a vow is essentially a bribe offered to G o d if he will er tectu ate a h u m a n desire, t h e n o t i o n of a vow uttered to achieve God's help in carrying o u t a n express m a n d a t e of G o d s is t h e h e i g h t of absurdity. I n a s m u c h as the archaeological spade has uncovered n o level a n t e d a t i n g settlement at Arad prior 10 t h e t i m e of the J u d a e a n monarchy, this entire fictive n o t i c e would seem designed to c o n t r a d i c t the n o t i o n of a divine c o m m a n d to e x t e r m i n a t e t h e C a n a a n i t e s . W h e r e a genociclal war seems to be indicated (as h a v i n g t a k e n place) in t h e Book of N u m b e r s is in ( t h e intriguingly separated) chapters 2 5 and 31, C h a p t e r 25 begins with t h e 'am (of Israel ) ‫ ״‬- a t e r m ambiguous in t h a t it can stand for a populace or for t h e empowered council or p a r l i a m e n t of t h a t p o p u l a c e — c o m m i t t i n g harlotry w i t h M o a b i t e w o m a n . W h a t e v e r acts, literally sexual or metaphorically 11 straying from fidelity," in t h e t e r m for "harlotry" (?n/1), this activity involves participation in sacrificial feasts celebrated in tribute to t h e gods or ancestral spirits of t h e Moabites. T h i s interfaith intercourse, characterized as Israels "coupling with Baal Peor" ires Y H W H to inflict u p o n Israel a pestilence t h a t takes a toll of twenty-four t h o u s a n d lives before it is abruptly haired by the enterprise ot Phineas, grandson of‫ ׳‬A a r o n , the priest. Ί his enterprise is his spontaneous spearing of an Isracine noble together with t h e foreign woman in his embrace; a d e n o u e m e n t not altogether c o n g r u e n t with the preceding notice of Y1 IWI1 to Moses t h a t t h e rem‫׳‬ cd y lor the harlotry-inspired pestilence is the public i m p a l e m e n t oi all the chieftains ot the ‫׳‬am. I he oddest feature of this account, however, is t h a t t h e w o m a n who is transfixed together w i t h her Israelite lover is not a Moabite, but a M i d i a n i t e p n n c c s v Moses is t h e n instructed by Y H W H to open hostilities against the Midiunites in return for their hostile wiles which lured Israel into t h e embrace of Baal Peor

448

SUPPLEMENTS, CON C LI' SIGNS, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

N u m b e r s 3 1 o p e n s w i t h a r e p e t i t i o n of Y H W H ' s c o m m a n d t o i n i t i a t e h o s t i l i t i e s against

the

Midianites,

this

time

the

bidding

formulated

as t h e

exaction

of

Y H W H ' s v e n g e a n c e , a n d as t h e last m i s s i o n t o b e e x e c u t e d b y M o s e s b e f o r e h e d i e s . M o s t of t h i s c h a p t e r , v e r s e s 1 3 - 5 4 » i‫׳‬s d e v o t e d t o t h e a f t e r m a t h of t h e M i d i a n i t e d e f e a t , t h e d i v i s i o n ot t h e s p o i l a n d — o f r e l e v a n c e t o o u r t h e m e — t h e s l a u g h t e r of e v e r y m a l e i n f a n t a n d of e v e r y f e m a l e c a p t i v e w h o h a d h a d i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h a m a n . A m o n g t h e indications t h a t this constitutes herem-war are t h e following: 1. T h e casual b l e n d i n g or overlay of M o a b and M i d i a n as t h e enemy. T h i s narrative strategy will h a v e b e c o m e familiar 10 t h o s e w h o h a v e a t t e n d e d to t h e plays o n personae and protagonists, individual and corporate, that 1 h a v e h i t h e r t o n o t e d in both narratives and structures.‫י ־‬ 2.

[ h e recourse lo two adversarial groups that are o n e , or to o n e w h i c h hi lutea tes i n t o two‫ ׳‬begins in 22: ί with the LraeliteV. e n c a m p m e n t at ihe Rifts of M o a b o n t h e east side oi t h e Jordan across iron! j e r i e h o . d he.se n i t s or wad is are n o m o r e t h e legitim a t e territory of M o a b t h a n the W a d i G e r a r was t h a t of Philistia. 1 4 For Israel has been forbidden to e n c r o a c h upon M o a b i t e sovereignty, a n d M o a b makes n o effort t‫׳‬o repel a n invasion of its voil. Rather, Ralak. t h e k i n g of M o a b , in his fear of w h a t t h e Israelite borders may do to t h e ecology, sends for t h e warlock e x t r a o r d i n a i r e Balaam f r o m his n a t i v e territory Pethor, w h i c h is located o n t h e Euphrates, But this only after h e has addressed his tear of Israel, n o t to his o w n council, b u t to t h e ebders of M i d i a n . N o w since t h e plot as it develops will require a war of e x t i r p a t i o n , t h e e n e m y c a n n o t be M o a b , w h i c h has been granted i m m u n i t y by Y H W H (this el· e m e n t is, of course, gapped and only bridged in D e u t e r o n o m y ) , h e n c e t h e M i d i a n ite compile ity in t h e seduction ot Israels f a i t h f u l to t h e Baal Peor horror.

3. T h e sexual liaisons a e n v e e n Israelites and M o a b i t e w o m e n , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e Peor sin against Y H W H , segue into liaisons w i t h M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , thus p r o v o k i n g t h e h e r c m - w a r against this people, w h i c h — u n l i k e M o a b — h a s received n o grant of immunity from Y H W H . 4. T h i s s u d d e n iransformatieni of M i d i a n i t e s f r o m t h e friendly family i n t o w h i c h Moses has married into virulent enemies, a n d their presence in h u g e n u m b e r s east of t h e J o r d a n River on terrirory occupied hy M o a b (whereas Moses' flight f r o m Egypt to M i d i a n i t e terrirory would place this people in t h e S i n a i to t h e east of Egypt, or e v e n to the southeast oi t h a i p e n i n s u l a where Moses acquired his " C u s h ite" wife), is a t t e n d e d by o t h e r marvels of incongruity. 5. T h e loot t a k e n by Israel includes 6 7 5 , 0 0 0 head of t h e flocks, 7-2,000 head (‫ (י‬t h e herds, 61,000 asses, and the sole surviving h u m a n s : μ , ο ο ο virginal w o m e n . Of ibis spoil, t h e participating warriors ( o n e t h o u s a n d from each ot t h e twelve tribes) reeeive hall minus 0.02 percent, which goes to {lie priests; !he rank and file ol t h e confederacy receive halt n u n i h 0.2 p e r c e n t , which goes to t h e Levites, Aside from such staggering wealth ot the Midianites, t h e assignment of ι p e r c e n t to t h e Levites and o n e - t e n t h of a p e r c e n t ic‫ ׳‬t h e priests c o n f o r m s to t h e legislation for later times a p p o r t i o n i n g to t h e Levites a l i t h e from all Israel a n d a t e n t h of t h a t t i t h e to t h e priests from the Levites. But this assignment would appear to be o u t of all propor‫״‬ tion to t h e ratio of 23,000 bevites (see N u m b e r s 26:52) to t h e A a r o n i d e priests Eleazar and his overlooked b r o t h e r Ithamar. 6. Finally t h e r e is t h e >ee1va1w d o c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e n o t i c e of t h e p a r t i n g of Balaam and Balak in 24:30 and t h e presence of Balaam a m o n g those w h o fell to Israelite sword in

1 ‫ ן‬:S. l h e !ormer verse reads "Balaam proceeded to go off, r e t u r n i n g

to his place; Balak now also w e n t his own way." A p p a r e n t l y then. Balaam's "place" in

POETICAL ODDS A N D ADDENDA

43 I

this verse is n o t t h e Pe thor-on - the 4 Euphrates - ] River, and of his ethnic kindred of 22:5, but a m o n g t h e M i d i a n i t e elders addressed by Balak in 22:4. T h e r e h e apparently 1‫־‬em a i n e d a f o r c e for evil c o u n s e l in t h a t 31:15 h a s Moses laying t o his door the tarai luring of Israels males to t h e Peor apostasy represented by their intercourse with t h e w o m e n of Mid?an. 7. T h e final discrepancy is n o t w i t h i n this story itself b u t w i t h c h a p t e r s 6 - 8 in t h e Book of Judges. W h e r e a s t h e war in N u m b e r s e v e n t u a t e s in t h e total destruction of t h e tive kings of M i d i a n a n d all their followers, a few g e n e r a t i o n s later t h e c a m e l ‫׳‬ riders of M i d i a n , organized u n d e r four kings, t o g e t h e r w i t h A m a l e k i r e s ( w h o are normally situated s o m e w h e r e in Sinai) a n d o t h e r " c h i l d r e n of t h e e a s t " cross t h e Jordan f r o m t h e east and c o m m i t t h e i r d e p r e d a t i o n s as far west and south as Gaza. T h e i r fighting m e n n u m b e r at least 135,000. A n d f r o m t h e i r ill-defined (or rather, totally u n d e f i n e d ) p r e c i n c t s , w h i c h c a n he n e i t h e r t h e C u l e a d of Israel's transJ o r d a n i a n tribesman, nor t h e steppes of M o a h and A m n i o n ( a n d what othei t e r n tory is there:') t h e y c o m e not as raiding parties but as a migrating locust-like horde, t o g e t h e r with their livestock and tenls. In D e u t e r o n o m y a l o n e d o w e find a n y t e x t s — a n d a t t h a t , o n l y t w o - — t h a t m a y b e f a i r l y r e a d as a c o m m a n d ( d e r i v i n g f r o m D e i t y ) t o e x t e r m i n a t e t h e n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n s of t h e p r o m i s e d l a n d . A n d h e r e , t o o , t h e v o i c e is t h a t of Meases, a n d t h e foru l u l a t i o n as w e l l as t h e c o n t e x t of h o w t h e s e p o p u l a t i o n s a r e t o h e t r e a t e d n e e d n o t a t all a d d u p t o a s e n t e n c e of e x t i r p a t i o n : ( 1 ) W h e n Y H W H your god brings you to t h e land i n t o t h e possession of w h i c h you are about to enter, and casts o f f 1 5 f r o m your a d v a n c e great n a t i o n s the H i t t i t e , and t h e Girgashite, and t h e A m o r i t e , and t h e C a n a a n i t e , a n d t h e Perizzite, a n d t h e Hivvite, and the J e h u s ! r c — s e v e n n a t i o n s greater a n d mightier t h a n y o u — ( 2 ) a n d Y H W H your god disposes t h e m before you so t h a t you defeat t h e m : you shall p u t t h e m t o the /icrem-han. G r a n t t h e m n o treaty a n d s h o w t h e m n o grace. (3) N o r may you intermarry with them; do n o t give your d a u g h t e r to his son, and take n o t his d a u g h t e r for your son. (4) For he w i l l t u r n your son away f r o m o b e d i e n c e to me, a n d w h e n t h e y (thus) serve other gods Y H W H ' s anger will blaze against you and h e will m a k e quick dispatch 1 you. (5) Thus a n d t h u s a l o n e are you to treat t h e m : t h e i r altars you are to break up, their pillars you are to smash, t h e i r A s h e r a posts you are t o t r u n c a t e and their carved images you are to p u t to t h e torch. ( D e u t e r o n o m y 7 : 1 - 5 ) T h e r e a d i n g o t M o s e s ' i n s t r u c t i o n s as a n i m p e r a t i v e t o c o m m i t g e n o c i d e is b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e v e r b hah^ïm

e n t a i l s t h e t o t a l d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e o p p o s -

i n g p o p u l a c e , l i v e s t o c k , a n d a r t i i a c t u a l s p o i l s . But c o n t r a r y t o t h i s , w e h a v e i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t e v e n i n t h e c o n t e x t ‫ ׳‬of a p r e s c r i b e d / i c r c ï n - w a r v i r g i n a l w o m e n m a y b e t a k e n a n d r e s e r v e d for Israelite m a r r i a g e s , l i v e s t o c k m y be h e r d e d to swell t h e store of Y f f W h P s s h r i n e , a n d u t e n s i l s p u r i f i e d f o r u s e s o l o n g as t h e i r f u n c t i o n is n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r i d o l a t r o u s p r a c t i c e . W h e r e a s t h e i o l l o w i n g c o m m a n d in v e r s e 2 — t o m a k e n o t r e a t y w i t h t h e d e f e a t e d e n e m y a n d o f f e r hum n o r e p n e v e ‫״‬ m a y b e r e a d as a r h e t o r i c a l l y r e d u n d a n t b u t e m p h a t i c r e a f f i r m a t i o n , of t h e a b s o l u t e ness of t h e h e r o n - b a n , t h e s a m e c a n n o t b e s a i d f o r v e r s e 3. If m a l e s a n d females a l i k e are t o be s l a u g h t e r e d , i n c l u d i n g e v e n f e m a l e i n f a n t s , t h e r e c a n be n o q u e s t i o n oi i n t e r m a r r i a g e . But d e f e a t of a n e n e m y i n t h e field d o e s n o t m e a n t h e r e d u c t i o n o f h i s cities, a n d t h e r e p e a t e d a s s e r t i o n s o n Y H W H ' s p a r t t h a t t h e i n d i g e n o u s p o p -

4.2 ‫ר‬

S U ΓΙ' 1l·!Μ ΗΝ TS, CON CM..I CS 1 ON S, A N T I C I P A T I O N S

illations will not he conquered in a genera!ion, or perhaps two or three, confirms t h e picture of a contested land, much oi it m t h e h a n d s oi the proscribed enemy, and t h e consequent t e m p t a t i o n s to come to ternis with, t h e m or to c o n t r a c t m a r ‫׳‬ riage alliances in the periods ol stalemate. Most telling, however, is t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of verse 5. Instead of specifying t h e proper herein-war procedure of p u t t i n g m e n , w o m e n , and children, old and young, to t h e sword, t h e contrary prescribed behavior is t h e destruction of pagan cult-practices, those cult-practices t h a t are t h e reason for t h e herem-ban of peace treaty 01‫ ־‬intermarriage: t h e fear t h a t Israel might be seduced into imitating t h e m . T h e second passage in D e u t e r o n o m y having reference to herem-war is verse 2 0 : 1 0 - 1 8 . Its primary c o n c e r n is c o n d u c t ot war against an e n e m y outside t h e borders promised to Israel. If such a city accepts an otter of peace and surrenders, you may subject it to feudal obligations. If it rejects such an offer and, as a result of Y H W H ' s h e l p succumbs to a siege, t h e n — a c c o r d i n g t o most translations—;you are to put all its males to the sword. S i n c e such a prescription of e x e c u t i o n for all t h e fighting males of a stubborn e n e m y serves the interests of n e i t h e r Y H W H nor his people, our suggestion is t h a t t h e modality ot the verb is permissive rather t h a n imperative: you are free to execute them as you please. W h a t follows, however, seems to give Israel permission to d o w h a t all would take tor granted, namely, to e n j o y t h e spoils of war. T h e p o i n t of this permission, however, as of t h e ambiguous modality of t h e verbal formula "to put to t h e sword," is to foreshadow t h e contrast w i t h herem-wdr: ( 1 4 ) I l o w e v e r , t h e w o m e n , i n f a n t s , c a t t l e a n d w h a t e v e r t h e r e h e w i t h i n t h e city, all its b o o t y , you m a y a p p r o p r i a t e as .spoil, c o n s u m i n g w h a t e v e r b o o t y t h a t y o u r g o d Y H W H h a s g r a n t e d you. ( 1 5 ) S o m a y you t reat all c i t i e s o u t s i d e y o u r p a l e , t h o s e n o t ol t h e s e n a t i o n s | w i t h i n y o u r p a l e f ( 1 6 ) I l o w e v e r , ol t h e c i t i e s ol t h e s e p e o p l e s , t h e e s t a t e |oi w h o m ] Y H W H y o u r god is g r a n t i n g to y o u , vou .dial I n o r s p a r e a n y a n i m a l e . (17)‫־׳‬ R a t h e r , l o t h e /1ercm‫׳‬ban must you put t n e m - • — t h e H i t t i t e , t h e A m o r i t e , t h e C a n a a n ite a n d t h e Perizzite, t h e H i v v i t e a n d t h e J e h u s i t c - - - j u s t as y o u r g o d Y H W H h a s c o m ‫״‬ m a n d e d you, ( 1 8 ) f o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h a t t h e y m a y not t e a c h y o u t o p r a c t i c e i n k e e p i n g w i t h all t h e a b o m i n a t i o n s t h e y p r a c t i c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r g o d s a n d t h u s [cause] y o u to c o m m i t offense against your god Y H W H , ( D e u t e r o n o m y .20:14-18)

Again, t h e reason for t h e ruthless removal of t h e land's indigenous inhabitants, ( w h e t h e r projected or performed) by Y H W H n s act or instance or t h a t of his peopie, i n t e r m i t t e n t l y or programmatic ally over generations or centuries, t h a t reason is to immunize Israel from their a b o m i n a b l e ways. But again, t h e q u e s t i o n — u n a n swercd, because it is n e v e r r a i s e d — t h a t we posed 111 c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Exodus 2 3 : 2 0 - 3 3 : Suppose any of these populations abjure their gods and/or their h e i n o u s practices in favor of Y H W H and his ordinances. W e would submit t h a t it is this question t h a t is implicit b e h i n d t h e c o n v o l u t e d narrative of Joshua 9. T h e i n h e r e n t absurdities of a f r i g h t e n e d p o p u l a t i o n trying to persuade a n invading h o r d e that they should abstain f r o m attacking a people whose h o m e is beyond t h e farthest horizon; of a leadership being t a k e n in by a ruse as transparent as it is hoary while t h e hoi polloi insightfully resist it; of t h e failure to consult a god whose oracles and miraculous i n t e r v e n t i o n s are responsible for the

PO ET ÎC Aï. ODDS A N D A D D E N D A

433

success of t h e i n v a s i o n u p t o t h i s p o i n t ; of t h e b i n d i n g f o r c e of a t r i c k - i n d u c e d o a t h or t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e D e i t y will h e m o r e w r a t h f u l o v e r a ( b r o k e n ) p r o m i s e m a d e i n his n a m e t h a n in a d i r e c t c o n t r a v e n t i o n of h i s r e p e a t e d a n d e x p l i c i t a n d unqualified c o m m a n d to e x t e r m i n a t e a p o p u l a t i o n ( w h i c h h e has himself predicted will o n l y d i e o u t o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d of t i m e ) ; of t h e G i b e o n i t e s b e i n g p r i v y t o a m a n d a t e of g e n o c i d e g i v e n by a n u n h e a r d - o f god c a l l e d Y H W H t o a w i l d e r n e s s w a n d e r i n g r a b b l e leader c a l l e d M o s e s , a n d t r u s t i n g in t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of s u c h a r e v e l a t i o n , as well as in t h e p o w e r t o g u a r a n t e e its success a g a i n s t a far m o r e n u m e r o u s p o p u l a t i o n e n s c o n c e d 111 cities f o r t i f i e d " t o t h e skies;" t h e r e a d i n e s s of t h i s as yet u n c o n q u e r e d p e o p l e t o a c c e p t w h a t e v e r f a t e is o r d a i n e d f o r it by t h e i n v a d e r s w h o h a v e a l r e a d y s w o r n n o t t o h a r m t h e m ; all t h e s e p l o t - a b s u r d i t i e s p o i n t t o t h e key e l e m e n t of t h e G i b e o n i t e s 1 p o s t u r e , w h i c h is at t h e c r u x of t h e n a r r a t i v e . In t h e last r e s p o n s e of t h e s e 1 I n v i t e p a g a n s of C a n a a n t o J o s h u a in verse 24, t h e rcsum/?iii'c r e s p o n s e , w h i c h in n a r r a t i v e t i m e c o m e s b e f o r e t h e synoptic-conclusive J o s h u a , t h e y c o n f e s s t h e i r iear

h e n c e , their faith

d e c r e e of

i n t h e p o w e r of Y H W I I; a

la it h t h e r e f o r e that: does not p r e c l u d e his r e l e n t i n g in r e s p e c t t o t h o s e a b o r i g i n a l C a n a a n i t e s , w h o a b a n d o n t h e i r l o a t h s o m e cults a n d a d o p t t h e god a n d t h e ways of J o s h u a a n d Israel. T h i s r e s p o n s e , let us n o t e , w a s a d u m b r a t e d i n t h e G i b e o n i t e s ' first r e s p o n s e t o J o s h u a . In verse 9, in r e s p o n s e t o t h e q u e s t i o n s "Just w h o is it y o u a r e a n d just w h e r e d o you c o m e f r o m ? " t h e y s e e m t o be s a y i n g t h a t t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e i r r e l e v a n t , i n a s m u c h as it is, "for t h e sake of (Mem "for t h e n a m e o f ) y o u r g o d Y H W H we h a v e come." S o m u c h for a n u n q u a l i f i e d d i v i n e d e c r e e t o c o m m i t g e n o c i d e , t h i s in t h e n a m e of t h e " a n g r y G o d of t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t " A r e v i e w of t h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s a n d n a r r a t i v e s p r e c e d i n g J o s h u a 9 0 6 as well as t h o s e n a r r a t i v e s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y in J o s h u a b u t also i n Judges a n d S a m u e l ) t h a t d i s c l o s e t h e a c t u a l f a t e s of t h e p o p u l a t i o n s of t h e cities w h o s e kings o p p o s e d J o s h u a , will disclose h o w c u n n i n g l y t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t o r s c o n t r i v e d t o c o n v e y o n e i m p r e s s i o n as t o t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e in m o n a r c h i c a l t i m e s of t h e a b o r i g i n a l races then no longer in the land a n d p r o v i d e q u i t e a n o t h e r r e a d i n g i n J o s h u a 9; a r e a d i n g t h a t m u s t b e t r a c e d b a c k t o p r i m o r d i a l t i m e s in t h e p r o p h e t i c n a r r a t i v e of N o a h s d r u n k e n n e s s , a n d p u r s u e d f u r t h e r i n t h e f a t e of t h e G i b e o n i t e s u n d e r S a u l a n d D a v i d , t h e h i e r o d u l e class of N e t h i n i m in t h e t i m e of Ezra a n d N e h e m i a h a n d t h e d o m i c i l i n g of t h e w i l d e r n e s s t a b e r n a c l e in t h e city of G i b e o n . Yet we s h a l l h a v e missed a s i g n i f i c a n t l i n k in t h e saga of t h e G i b e o n i t e s , or r a t h e r a critical e l e m e n t in t h e i r saga's k e r y g m a , if we fail to a t t e n d t o t h e last baffling clause that‫ ״‬c o n c l u d e s t h e Rook of Z e c h a r i a h . A f t e r Y H W H ' s i n f l i c t i o n of a c r u s h i n g d e f e a t 011 t h e p e o p l e s g a t h e r e d to assail J e r u s a l e m (14:1 2 - 15), t h e t r m m p h of t h e o n e a n d o n l y god expressed in t h e e s c h a tologica! p e r i c o p e , 1 4 : 6 - 1 1 ( ‫ ״‬A t t h a t t i m e will Y H W H b e c o m e k i n g ol all t h e e a r t h , at t h a t t i m e it will he Y H W H a l o n e a n d his n a m e a l o n e " ) , is f o l l o w e d by t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of t h i s t r i u m p h tor t h e cult c e n t e r in J e r u s a l e m ( 1 4 : 1 6 - 2 3 ) . 1 7 I will p a r a p h r a s e t h i s passage, i n t e r p o l a t i n g in b r a c k e t s m y o w n c o m m e n t s : 111 e survivors, [pamcularlyl Ireit! among those nations who had come [in hostility] against Jerusalem will ascend veai in, year out, to do obeisance to King YHWH-hosts, [particularly] in celebration oi the [Harvest] Feast of Tabernacles. A n d surely, if any of these families of Earth do not come up to Jerusalem to do obeisance to King Y H W H -

434

S U PIM ,Κ M H Ν TS, CONC I. U S I ONS, Λ Ν TIC IP AT ΙΟ Ν S

hosts, no rain will fall [on their sown fields]. And if the Egyptian family [which, Nile‫׳‬ led, needs no rain] tails to come up in pilgrimage, verily upon them will tall the affliction with which Yl I W H will assail those nations lahove mentioned] who |ram-depen‫׳‬ dent] yet do not come up to celebrate the Feast ot Tabernacles. [Probably famine, such as afflicted Egypt in Joseph's time.] Such will be the punishment ot Egypt or the punishment of any ot the nations that do not make pilgrimage for the célébration of the Feast of Tabernacles. A t that time upon the head ‫׳‬-ornaments of [even] the horses will be writ [the legend] "Holy to YHWH." A n d the wash-basins in YHWH's temple will he even as the sprinkling-bowls [used] at the altar. A n d [indeed] every cauldron [anywhere] in Jerusalem or Judah will b e — h o l y to YHWH-hosts. A n d [any and] all making sacrifice will come and, taking freely from among them, boil [their meat from the seïem-offerings] in them. Nor will there be any longer in the temple of YHWH-hosts — at that t i m e — a n y Canaanite. I n t h i s v i s i o n of Z e c h a r i a h , m o r e i n k e e p i n g w i t h o u r sense of messianic r a t h e r t h a n eschatalogical,

t h e r e will t a k e p l a c e a u n i v e r s a l i z a t i o n of Y H W H w o r s h i p , a de-

m o c r a t i z a t i o n — s o t o s p e a k — o f s t a t u s i n r e s p e c t t o a l i e n s a n d Israelites, h u m a n s a n d beasts, laity a n d p r i e s t h o o d : t h i s e x p r e s s e d i n i m a g e r y d e r i v i n g f r o m t h e c u l t a n d its a p p u r t e n a n c e s . T h e c a p a r i s o n e d r i d i n g m o u n t s s h a l l b e a r u p o n t h e i r foreh e a d s t h e l e g e n d r e s e r v e d ( i n E x o d u s 2 8 : 3 6 , 3 9 : 3 0 ) f o r t h e f o r e h e a d ot t h e H i g h Priest. T h e large vessels w i t h i n t h e t e m p l e p r e c i n c t s , like t h e brass laver ( E x o d u s 3 0 : 1 8 ) or c o o k i n g p o t s of e v e n h e a v i e r base m e t a l , will b e e q u a l ( i n v a l u e , s a n c t i t y ) t o t h e small vessels of p r e c i o u s m e t a l like t h e s p r i n k l i n g bowls i n t o w h i c h is p o u r e d t h e b l o o d for s p r i n k l i n g t h e altar. I n d e e d t h e p o t s a n d k e t t l e s a n d c a u l d r o n f r o m a n y w h e r e in J e r u s a l e m a n d J u d a h will be as sacred ( p u r e , f i t t i n g for c o n t a i n i n g sacral m e a t ) as t h o s e w i t h i n t h e t e m p l e s p r e c i n c t s , a n d any a n d e v e r y c e l e b r a n t of t h e sheiamim-offerings will be w e l c o m e t o m a k e use of t h e m . A n d , finally, w h e t h e r b e c a u s e t h e lowest c a s t e in t e m p l e - s e r v i c e will be a b o l i s h e d , or w h e t h e r i n v i d i o u s c a s t e d i s t i n c t i o n s will n o l o n g e r apply, n o l o n g e r will t h e r e he in t h e t e m p l e ol Yl I W H , a scion ot t h a t c a s t e o t C a n a a n i t e stock, t h e I l i v v i t e G i b e o n i t e s d e d i c a t e d as h i e r o d u l e s in t h e t i m e of J o s h u a .

AFTERWORD

N o w w e a r e c o m e ro a n e n d . T h e s e last p a r a g r a p h s w e r e d i c t a t e d s h o r t days b e f o r e d e a t h , h e n c e t h e l a c k of s u m m a r y o r c o n c l u s i o n s . Yet: t h e r e is n a u g h t n o r said o v e r a n d a g a i n in t h e p r e c e d i n g p a g e s t h a t w o u l d a d d to, o r clarify, m y f a t h e r s a p p r o a c h a n d m e t h o d o l o g y , a n d it was e v e r h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t o s u c c e e d , his work w o u l d he a c c e p t e d as a b e g i n n i n g r a t h e r t h a n a n e n d i n g . Herschel D.

Bric ht ο

January 1997

NOTES

P HI‫'! ;־‬Αι •H

ι. 11 erben Bricht ο, "On Faith and Revelation in the Bible," HUG A (Hebrew Union College Anr.uaΠ ^9 ( u)68): 37,

CHAPTER I

ι. It is highly unlikely that even the most meticulous of reciters would ever try to distinguish between a dipthong in which the "a" is short and the one in which the "a" is long. Hence the lengthening of the patah here, as in the case in other instances of Masoretic notation, is a signal for the eye and the mind and not the mouth or the ear, (Which is also to say that ketib and qere are not to be taken literally as representing respectively written and oral phenomena. ) The presumptions and underpinnings of this methodology are spelled out in chapters 1 and 2 ot H. C Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics (hereinafter designated by TAG), (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1992). The method is exemplified in the Exegetical Essays, chs. 3 — 7, on prophetic narratives. Chapter 9 of that volume adumbrates the extension of the poetical treatment to the early chapters in the Book of Genesis. See also p. viii of TAG's preface. 3. On the adoption ot this term, see TAG pp. 46, 5 7 - 9 , and listings in the General Index. See TAG, pp. 27ff. ‫ף‬. ^ee, for example, Genesis 20:18 and note e, ad loc. in E. A. Speiser, Genesis, vol. 1 ot The Ancncr Bihie (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964). See also Speiser, ibid., on Genesis 21:21‫ ׳‬and on Genese 22:1 r, 14, 1 5, 6 ‫ ז‬. See also R. N. Why bray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A MVr.UA;' \cical >tu‫׳‬h i Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament !'hereafter JSOT|. 1967). Cited

436

NOT HS TO PAGES 6 - 1 5

437

hereafter as MP. P. 63: "Even Eiskddi admitted that 1 sometimes an Elohim has intruded into a Yah‫׳‬ weh stratum and a Ya/neei! into an Eu •him s t r a t u m / " 6. It is interesting (some would say appalling) to note how many advanced students still think t h e phrase "the exception proves the rule" means that the exception validates the ride rather t h a n puts the rule to the test. 7. Whyhray ( M P , p. 64t.) on the avoidance, of the n a m e Y H W H by Ρ and E: "This theory is hardly convincing, Since both the author of Ε and Ρ and their readers would themselves have been familiar with the name Yah weh, there is no reason, why these writers should not from the very o u t ‫׳‬ set have used the proper name ot (Jod except when quoting the words of their characters." See also Whybray's citation of M. H. Segals "demonstration that a variety of biblical authors of texts where a plurality of documentary sources is out of the question use both Yahweh and Elohim interchangeably (p. 6 7 ) " 8. See below, "On fe r m s to r D1 ν 11 ‫ ו‬i ty, C 'omm ο η and Prop er," ρ. 16. 9. Commentary on Genesis /, transi, from Hebrew by Israel Abrams, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1e>61), pp. 8 7 - 6 8 . 10. T h e point or the ass seeing what even a true prophet will not see when a film of gold is laid over his prophetic eyeglasses would be lost it there were any doubt about Balaam being such a prophet. T h a t he is such is thus guaranteed by the consistent presence of the name YHWH. 11. O n t h e problem of dichotomous analysis, see T A G , pp. 3 0 - 3 4 . 12. This citation is trom Maiitiahu d s e v a C "Cod and the (Sods in Assembly: A n Interprétat ion of Psalm 82," Hl ‫'׳‬CA vols. 4 0 - 4 1 ( 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 ) , p. ]26. Whyhray (MP, p. 69h) is satisfied that the preponderance of bdohim 111 the Elohistic Psalter is U due to redactional or scribal activity" Questions never asked about t h o putative "psalter" is why it exists at all, what drove scribes or redactors to change Yl IWl 1 to H h ‫ י‬l ‫ ב‬i 111 where they did, why they did not: do so elsewhere, why they limited then‫ ־‬activities to these psalms, •and why ihey neglected other names of the Deity in their passion to displace the letragratnmaton. ι 3. do speak of any translation oi the 1‫ ־‬fehrew biblical text as a " v e r s i o n b e the translation old or recent, into a Semitic or Indo‫׳‬European tongue, is to render a status and authority to that trans‫׳‬ lation that has never-—in any instatu e whatsoever—been justified. Needless to say, the promotion of such translations to the status ot ersion" multiplies the quantity of biblical text many times, offers opportunities of specialization to bihlieists whose strengths may lie elsewhere t h a n within t h e parameters of Ο. T. linguistics, and encourages the activities of emenders and glossators whose stance toward the taxtus r^/HiiS can only be described as jaundiced. 14. Speiser, Genesis, pp. XLIII-EIL 15. See chs. 2 and 4 in this volume. 16. Speiser, Genesis, pp. XLl-XLii. 17. A n d indeed in C a n a a n as well, witness t h e fine fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic found at Megiddo in a layer dated a century or two before the Israelite monarchical era. 18. Thus, for example, the mysterious n u m e n with whom Jacob wrestles until the rising of the morning star by the tord of the Jabbok (Genesis 3 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 ) is not the only superhuman personage who serves as intermediary between this patriarch and t h e O n e G o d . In the scene at Bethel ( 2 8 : 1 0 - 2 2 ) there is a strong indication that it is through an angelic intermediary that this G o d identifies Himself to Jacob as YHVfH. Yet Jacob makes a conditional v o w — a s though one car! bar‫׳‬ gain with D e i t y — t o acknowledge Y H W H as h o god, to establish a shrine at that site and, address‫׳‬ ing the representative of Y H W H , apparently, otter h i m — i n the second p e r s o n — "a t e n t h of whatever you grant to me.‫ ״‬in Chapter 3 ‫ ו‬Jacoh tells of an angel of G o d appearing to him in a dream, identifying himself as ha'ei bei-e! (,the numen Betlvel), to whom vow had been made. In 35:1 — 7 it is God who bids Jacob to return to Bethel, to erect an altar there 1 'to the god/uumen (/laef) who was appearing to you when you were tiering from your brother Esau." In 48:15ft. Israel in hlesMng Joseph through his two sons M-em*‫ ־‬in his invocation to identify "the C o d with whom my iather walked" with "the C o d shepherding :ne" since early times, with "the angel who lias been ledeeming me from every trouble." I he prophet 1 losea then, in 12:4 7, idemifies 1 he numen with whom

438

Ν Ο ' Γ Ii S T Ο Γ A c; U S T Q 3

‫׳‬

Γ

Jacob wrestled at the Jabbok ford with the numen oi Bethel "where lie held converse with us"—all this despite the fact that YHWH is the mark/nami‫( ׳‬xikrC 0 or YHWH, God of Hosts. These alternating manifestations ot the One God YHWH through less than omnipotent inter‫׳‬ medianes and seemingly separate numina blending into one another, alternately acknowledged without adverse bias by the One God, yet mildly chided by an early writing prophet, can only be the stuff of metaphor, and humorously tolerant metaphor at that, of a prefiguring ancestor and the descendants' in his likeness, groping their inconsistent way from glimpse of the One True God to particularistic lapses in which He becomes a tame and turclary deity before He is recognized again as One, Unfathomable, Universal and Ineffable, (Ct., particularly in 35:2-4 the only mention of "alien gods" in the patriarchal period and their burial at Shechem.) 19. Speiser, Genesis, pp. xxii-xxiii. 20. See, for example, in S. R. Driver's An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909) pp. 27—28, the tortuous reasoning behind the source analysis of Exodus 7:14-11:10, the plague narratives. 21. See TAG, note 24 to chap. 4, p. 274. 22. Pointless, or illogical rather, as explained by source criticism. But not at all pointless if we consider its appearance from a poetical point ot view. Genesis 4:17-24 presents the line of Cain, concluding in verse 24 with the taunt song of Lamech. This line (see my discussion ad loc.) died out in the Deluge. Verses 25 and 26 then introduce the line that will survive the flood, the line of Seth, lather of Enos (i febrew 1 nüs "human, humanity'1"). The concluding notice in verse 26, the authorial aside that die letragrammaton was known to the iirst generationfs) ot humanity, draws our attention to Eve's deployment of the name ldohim/God when in ver,se 25 she cites 1 leaven's ‫״‬race in ‫״‬ranting her a third son, while in the first verse of t h !.‫ י־‬t haprer .she deploys the name Y1IWÏI in citing the supernal grace that enabled her to produce her firstborn, ( "ain. 2 3 . This is the popular and regularly used expression m ,spoken 1 lehrevv. The Mishna itself, however, knows this expression not at all. Yoma 6:2 as we shall note be-low, reads sem hammL'fôras as discussed below. 24. Rabbinic Hebrew would probably use the stem bt\ modern Hebrew the verb habhïa, for "pronounce, enunciate." 25. The Mishna text does not qualify the noun seem 11name" with the definite article (see note 23 above). The text thus features ,sent in the construct state and kararivforas is a genitive; thus: "the name of the expounded one,'1 01‫" ־‬the name expounded.'" In his commentary on the alteration of the priest's invocation of God by hassem and fravsem, Hanoch Alheck (Sissâ S/cira Mishnä, Israel: BialikDvir, 1958) indicates his understanding ο Γ die Expounded Name as a reference to God's own expo‫׳‬ sition of his name as betokening the middnt "attributes'1 in Exodus 34:5-7. I suspect that Albeck is correct in this reading of the Mishna's intent, for the expression of the exposition as a prolonged statement (and not one bisyllabic word) is indicated by the use of several durative verbs in the past tense. "The priests and the populace standing in the courtyard, as they were hearing the name of the Expounded One as it was issuing from the High Pne-Ts mouth, were bending knees, worshipping falling prone and scrying, 'Praised be . . ."' 26. That is to say, there never existed a set of vowels designed to accompany any of the pronounced consonants whose letters, vocalic or consonantal, were Y-H-W-H. See my following argument.‫׳‬ 27. For the importance of the distinction between literary and metal it er ary conventions and assumptions for exegesis, see TAG, pp. 22-37, 28. Without claiming any additional weight for my argument 1 would cite as of interest the fob lowing: In the Elephantine texts the name tor Israels God is regularly and without exception Yï ÏW. The inscriptions of the divine Name on die two /mlmi fiom Tel Ajrud are Y/ ÎW on (he one and on the second—-if is not at all clear from the drawings the leuer alict Yl iW does nor look like a he. In any case, the case tor a rebuttal ot my argument would depend not on the tact of VJ IW'd l appearing epigraphically, but on die earls d : 1 : 1 1 s : e! such an inscription. The sad history of (die stone bearing Mcshu's inscription rules out a collation u· confirm or cast doubt on ibc supposed

NO Π‫׳‬: S TO PA( Tis

3 1 - 4 7

439

appearance in il of rhe (lull) hn nigra mm a ton. My own feeling is that it is unlikely that t h e Y H W -> Y H W H transi tion would have already been so entrenched by t h e middle of the n i n t h century that a Moabite scribe would not know that Israel's god was named Yahu; h e n c e the clear appearance of the Tetragrammaton on an early inscription, especially one authored by a non-Israelite, would be a significant witness to the :.improbability of my suggestion. 29. See T A G , pp. 2 7--34 tor the latal (in my view) effect on exegesis of t h e assumption that the biblical authors, like their contemporaries in the Near East (but perhaps n o t those in Greece), were n o match in sophistication for ‫״‬modern m a n " 30. See 2 Kings 3 : 4 - 2 4 and my exegetical essay on this narrative in T A G , pp. 201 — 209. 31. W h a t could be clearer evidence that the "name Y H W H " can figure in Scripture as metaphor for G o d s sovereignty and not a vocable in everyday speech? See the following argument for the sense of the construct .sem YHWH.

CHAPTER

2

ι. E. A . Speiser, Genesis, vol. 1 01‫ ׳‬The Anchor Bible (New York: Double day, 1964), pp. 9 . 1 0 ‫״‬ 2. Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. 101. 3. Cf. Speiser, Genesis, p. 12, for the welbargued case for reading the first clause as a dependent one. I would, however, take iSMie with his statement that "Hebrew permits a finite verb in this position"—this in reference to hard following the construct‫ ־‬/r'rcsü. T h e support he adduces (as ah ready Rashi ad loc.,) is hlosea 1:2, where the construct‫״‬. I'hillal is followed by d/Wvr-YHWl I, where dibber is presumed to be the verb in the perfect tense. It is much more likely, however, thai dibix'r here is the singular n o u n as in Jeremiah 5 0 ‫( ן‬and plural in later 1 Iebrevv d/W^'roi). Since the Ma‫״‬ so ret es could have precluded the entire problem by vocalizing t h e opening preposition with a tja.1M.es, it is my suspicion that here (a^ m) o f t e n elsewhere) the Masoretes ))reserved a deliberate a m -

biguation in the text. Whereas the dependent clause here as in 2:4b and the opening of Enuma elish is appropriate in context, there is a different kind of grandeur in t h e reading of the opening words as an independent sentence. 4. Eor further support of rii, lit. "see," metonymically "conclude," see ch. 3, η. 6 in this volume. g. Day One, Day ocn, etc., are the only names in Hebrew for the days of t h e week. 6. My translation is based on taking the first pair as a hendiadys "for signs, i.e., of time-periods" and t h e second pair as a merism for longer and shorter periods, i.e. "of days, and years." 7. T h e Masoretes who vocalized the Hebrew text must be regarded as participants in the authorial process of Scripture. This will strike many as a bold claim for the role of the "editors" whom we call Masoretes, for whom rhe termmns a quo is usually regarded as the earliest datable systems of vocalization, be they Babylonian or Tibenan. My own view is that the Masoretic text, i.e., the consonantal text as vocalized in the Rabbinic Bible, is our textus receptus, for without these vocalization aids much of the Hebrew text would be undecipherable. Thus, the majority of cases where M T provides for alternative readings {ketih and qere) should be expounded in terms of possibilities of double entente rather t h a n adjudicated in terms of !1 correct versus an incorrect Vorlage. See, e.g., T A G , pp. 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 , for a classic example ot what I have in mind. Needless to say, the spellings k1, ln\ iü, lü\ löh are prime examples of such interpret i\ e lodes. Note also the comment in note 1 above. 8. See T A G , pp. 1 6 - 1 8 . 9. See "Pagan and Biblical Anthropology: A Contrast," pp. 68 ff. 10. See "Paganism and Biblical Religion Compared and C o n t r a s t e d " pp. 5 8 - 5 9 . 11. T h u s Speiser, ad loc., translating äpar correctly by clod rather than the traditional and incorrect (fust. In note 5 on this verse he comments on the play on words, a resort here to popular eryniology by the win er "who not interest ed in derivation as such." The notion that the etonyin aJaw might have been a coinage 1!r the biblical author's is one that he would have surely rejected. Such indeed was his reaction to• n:\ suggestion that the noun .sub/wi might have been coined with allusion to the Babylonia suppuUnr, \e! wilh '\leriv;1t i< >11" ironi the Hebrew verb sin u lο desist "

44ο

NOTES T O PAGES 4 7 — 7 3

12. This question of liternfness or figuration in respect to fauna that are by nature carnivorous must of course be raised in connection with Genesis 9 : 1 - 8 and Isaiah 1 1 : 6 - 7 . See ch. 4, "Poetical Review ot the Flood Story,‫ ״‬p. 1‫ ־‬s ‫ י‬ft13. See Yehe:kcd K a u f m a n n s discussion. 14. See ch. 3 in this volume. 15. Indeed, the at the end of verse 30, criming after the food-provision for the beasts created on t h e sixth day, but also for the birds created on t h e fifth, may thus apply to all three classes of animates, hence rendering supererogatory LXX's insertion of this phrase in verse 20. 16. Speiser, Gent‫׳‬.sis, p. t τ. 17. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955), p. 371, col. ι. Hereafter cited as ANET. 18. A n o t h e r more extended and humorous lampoon of the sun as an anthropomorphic god appears in the context ot a stately anthem in praise of the biblical God. See below, my interpretation of Psalm 19. 19. See Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, pp. 21 — 26. 20. For the durative hitpael, see E. A. Speiser, "The Durative Hitpael; A tan Form," from Ort‫׳׳‬ ental and B/Wtcai .Studies, ed. j. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenburg (Phildelphia: University of Permsy 1 νania Press, 196 7 ), ρ. ‫ ך‬ο6. 2 1. T A G , pp. 13-18. 22, Μ, 1 scvau "d he Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath,' 1 Zei'fscliu/i: des deutschen l^alaestinaVereins (beipng) 84 ( 1972), pp. 4 4 7 - 5 9 . OilAPTliR 3 1. T h e term mi^c/edem as a directional preposit ion always connotes "from the east," never "in the cast.11 W h e n ibis sense is inappropriate in a given context, t h e sense of anteriority in time is usually the only meaningful option, d he sense here ol inserting "in that time of yore" is to indicate that the actions (of I iod) arc not related in their chronological order; for surely God would have prepared, the habitat lor /iT'ciam before he lashioned him. d i m s the focus of t h e story- o n this m a n - t h i n g — i s expressed in the initial telling of his creation, and the details of the habitat provided for him coming (in the telling but not in narrative-time) after he is fashioned. 2. Most grammarian^ would not hesitate to pronounce the definite article attached to daat as grammatically inadmissible in biblical Hebrew, o n the ground that a term followed by a genitive construct cannot be definite, i.e., by attachment of prepositive article or postpositive suffix. Yet among the exceptions to this rule is the locative usage mizreha hassem.es (Joshua r2:r, Judges 21:19), and the röb u‫׳‬am' may be in the accusative case governed hy the verb-noun as in Isaiah 11:9 (cf. also Malachi 2:13b Thus Ε. Λ. Speiser, Genesis, veil. 1 of The Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doiibledav, 1064), p. 2 6, notes that in 2:5 and 22, "the objective phrase 'knowing/to know good and bad 1 is faultless in terms ot Heb. syntax. Bat the longer possessive construction 'the tree of knowledge of good and bad' (n 9. ι 7) is otherwise without analogy in biblical Hebrew and may well be secondary." Or, we would argue, the "longer construction 1 ' may also be an "objective phrase." 3. See Speiser, Genesis, pp. 1 9 - 2 0 . "The traditions involved [i.e., edu "flow" and edinu "plain"] must go back, therefore, to the oldest cultural stratum of Mesopotamia. N e x t comes the evidence from the location of Eden which is furnished by the notices about the rivers of that region. Recent data on the subject demonstrate that the physical background of the tale is authentic (see the writer's T h e Rivers of Paradise,' Festschrift Johannes Friedrich, pp. 4 7 3 - 4 8 5 ) , " For all my admiration of the scholarship displayed in this article on Eden's rivers, my own evaluation of its relcvance has changed in the degree of mv growing commitment to the poetical as opposed to the historical or genetic approach to the biblical literature. We no hinger understand just‫ ־‬what Speiser could have had in mind by judging the "phvMcai background of the laie' 1 îo he "authentic." 1 le surely did no! himself believe in the Mtiuetinie cxisierue oi a Garden oi Eden. Did he mean to convey a confidence that 1 he biblical atuhor himselt believed in its existence, and took pains to locate it tor

NOTES TO PAGES us, so rhar we might, ploration of how the revealing or cloaking in the text, "Poetical

168-181

441

perhaps, go looking for it? T h e poetical approach would dictate a further exvensimilitudinous details in the setting contribute to the author's purpose in rhe meaning of the mythos of which this is a constitutive segment. See below Review of Eden."

4. T h e metaphoric intent of this verse and the story behind it is certainly apprehended and expressed in one ot the seven traditional benedictions of the Jewish wedding liturgy. God is invoked to provide joy to the newlvweds, just as he provided joy to his creature (singular) in Eden aforetime (miqqedem). 5, Julian Morganstern, The Book of Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1965), p. 45 ft. ό. See Speisers discussion of the verb ;yd' in t h e sense of "experience" generally and "sexual experience" in particular, Genesis, pp. 3 1 - 32. Speiser cites the use of the Akkadian cognate ot >‫׳‬a , as well as 1 'the analogous use ol the Akk. verb lanuitlum 1 to learn, experience,"' and cil es his own ear‫־׳‬ lier observation that, "The Hebrew stem )1d' signifies not only 'to know/ but more especially "to experience, to come to know." 11 is this last sense as the primary meaning of yd' (as of its close synonyiu /ma) which I would !ike to underline‫׳‬. It is to this sense, I believe, thai the phenomenon oi yd in the perfect tense l d know'* owes: "having experienced, f have come to know." Further support ior the primarily inchoative force oi yd' appears in the yct^r'h couplet, in 1 ‫ ז‬instances the order of the verbs testifies (lint r h ' 1 realize/come to the conclusion" follows in time the act oi yd', which must therefore h a \ e the sense of "consider, experience, explore" parallel to the sense of im in Psalm 34:9. ( T h e instances are 1 Samuel 12:17, 14:58, 2 p22, 24:15, 25:17; 1 Kings 20:7, 22; 2 Kings 5:7; Jeremiah 2 a y , 23. Only in one instance is the order reversed, in ί Samuel 23:23. In Jeremiah 5:1 the two verbs appear together but not as a couplet.) It is this sense of r'h "to conclude" which prompts me to render wayyar' ki toh as "approved," i.e., "concluded that it was good" in Genesis 1, and to render the same verb as "concluded" in Genesis 3:6. 7. Note this rendering for miqqedem here. T h e r e is no reason to suppose that there was only one entrance to the G a r d e n — a n d that one from the east. Hence, as the plural cherubim suggests. any and all approaches to the G a r d e n were guarded by these fantasy-creatures with ever-turning propellerdtke blades. 8. TAG, pp, 2 5 - 2 7 . 9. W h a t people will eat and wear in various narratives comports with the conditions determined by the extended metaphors 01‫ ־‬symbolism of the individual narrative. Thus, for example, in Genesis 1, in prescribing a diet for herbivores, God 111 verse 29 specifies cereal grasses (the mainstay of bread-eating man) as well as fruit of trees (verse 29). In the G a r d e n of Eden context, where the threshing, milling, and baking of civilized society would be inappropriate, trees are divided aito shade and fruit trees, and the fruit of the latter is the only specific edible (2:9, 16). Like baked goods, textiles are a product of civilization. Animal hides, therefore, are appropriate for people leading eremitic lives on the steppe. Thus, Elijah in II Kings 1:8, and Gilgamesh on his quest through the wilds tor the secret, of immortality. T h e state before t h e use of animal hides is represented in the h u m a n couples use of the broad fig-leaf t:o improvise loin-clouts; the state after the dress of hides in Enkidus sharing the harlot's garments ( A N E T p. 77, ii 28-- 30), "becoming h u m a n " in conjunct ion with "putting on clothes" (p. 77, iii .:3 26) and in Sainas's response to his anger at the harlot who in bringing hi)η to his civilized state also rendered his death inevitable; Samas savs that Enkidu should he grateful to her who brought him "to eat food fit for divinity . . . drink fit for royally" and clothed him in "noble garments" (p. 86, iii 56-• 38). jo. See preceding noie 9 lor the lines that immediately precede these. ι i. My use ot the term mythos n a h e r than myth is occasioned by the iollowing considérai ions: T h e noun epic is dehned is a narrative poem dealing with heroic action and written in an elevated style; it therefore involves !onn as well as substance and cannot be applied to a heroic legend unless it is composed in verse. Lcqend is a term for a story coining down from the past, ostensibly historic:!!, but whose historicity is unverihable. A myth, like a legend, comes down from a remote past, but the chief characters are divine or semi-divine beings, whereas in legends t h e principal characters are human. A myth, can usuady he interpreted as explaining the origin ot a natural p h e n o m e n o n or of a

442

NOTES TO PAGES 9 7 - Î I 4

religious institution, belief, or practice. Because myths feature adventures of the gods, and the God of Hebrew Bible has no adventures, I employ the term rnyt/itxs for a story which in symbolism, metaphor, or allegorical fashion attempts to convey a religious moral or vision of reality. τ2. T h e standard and universal translation of wayyö'mer Qayyin el Hebel ahïiv ‫״‬Gain said to his brother Abel" leaves us bereft of Cain's declaration. This lacuna is filled in the Greek and t h e Targum by, "Come, let us go out into the field." Speisers acceptance of this filling for the perceived lacuna is particularly interesting in view ot his awareness—and the importance of this awareness— that "The Hebrew stem ‫׳‬mr coincides by and large with the English verb 'to say.' But the Hebrew verb in question carries mar.y other nuances: to tell, promise, threaten, express fear, reflect (speak to oneseli ), and the like." (Genesis, p. LXYdl). My translation, based on the recognition that 'mr here is not .sit/fl but t/um^/ti., spoke to himself, does away with the problem of a lacuna by recognizing the clause el flehel ahnv as the object oi Jtir. My translation tails, however, to express the dramatic force ol the clause in presupposing die c.ausc as indirect discourse. I h e preposition el actually introduces Cain's thought, internal dialogue, viz. "ΓTis| to my [//(., hi.s| brother |l owe this rebuff hy God|." d'he thinness oi the line between free direct and free indirect discourse (particularly in biblical 1 lehrew) is suggested in T A G , pp. 1 0 — 5 ‫ נ‬. In this instance, in response 1.0 Yl IWf l's having just, told hmi that his fate is in his own hands, as it was before his niggardly offering—there is n o third party in addilion to himself and the temp! ation to s i n — C a i n nevertheless thinks that it was all a matter of (being shown up by) lus brother Abel |indirect discourse] = thinks, "I lay it to his my brother Abel's door." 13. As frequently in the parenthetic aside signaled by the nominal (or formally hypotactical) clause. See T A G , pp. 1 6 - 1 9 ^uid ch. 1, note 15. 14. See Speisers discussion of this passage, and for further instructive detail on t h e plethora of benevolent and malignant spirits/demons the article cited in ch. 8, note 1 of T A G . 15. T h e general interpretation, of the Pandora myth, that she, representing woman, opens the box because of her overweening curiosity, overlooks t h e vital significance of her name. She represents man, humankind, endowed with all the riches and blessings. T h e foible of curiosity is not her undoing, but avarice, fear that some precious blessing has been withheld. 16. See, e.g., Deuteronomy 2 2 - 2 7 f ot the significance of a forbidden act taking place in a frequented place (tr lit., "city") rather than "in the field" (basfade). !7· See my discussion of this verb s meaning in The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible, SBL Monograph Series 13 {1962 ). 18. See T A G , ch. S, ' T h e Sign on the Forehead" pp. 235ff. 19. For the reason God spared Cain, see below the discussion of the lines of Cain and Seth. 20. For t h e synoptic-resumptive episodic technique in biblical narrative, see T A G , pp. 1 3 - 1 7 . 2 1. See preceding note 3, particularly t h e last sentence. 22. See Ch. 1 ot this volume. 23. See TAC! C h . 3, pp. 67 EN Λ P

‫ א‬y Note particularly η. 2

‫ן‬

t

IT: κ 4

ι. See Sir Leonard Wooley, Dr >\l die ( •hahlees, (London: Penguin, 1954), ch. 1, particularly pp. 2 2 - 2 3 : "There could be‫ ־‬no doubt ihat the flood of which we bail thus found the only possible evidence was the Flood of Sumerian historv and legend, the Hood or! which is based the story of Noah." 2. As implied in Wooley's statement ejted in preceding note 1. 3, These citations are from Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1966), pp. 14, 100, and 101 respectively For an interesting example of how genre labels can be deployed to mystify rather than to enlighten (see T A G , pp. 26 -30), see W. F. Albright's introduction to this Schocken volume, particularly pp. viii, xi-xii. Gunkel's standing in biblical scholarship is reflected in the Albrights comment: ,, His mistakes were inevitable two-thirds ot a century ago, and do not detract from his epochal place in the history of scholarship" (op. cit., p. xi), and in Spenser's

NOTES TO PAGES

168-181

443

icieience to Gunkel's ( knesis (the introduction tlVr), which then in 16:14 ils name (ΠΑτ /a-hiiy-rfw), and is now located not as in 16:7 "on the way to Sluir" hut situate "be‫׳‬ t ween Qadesh and Re red." (2) From the site m Mamie's ( bks, where the three divine visit! 1rs enjoy Abraham's hospitality (18:11, Abraham moves to the Negeb territory, settling "between Oadesh and Shut‫־‬," hul sojourning on occasion in Gerar. ( $) After the invitation of Abimelech in 20:1 s to Abraham to settle anywhere in his land, I lagar and lshmael are expelled and wander "in the steppe of Beersheba" (clearly known as such only to t h e narrator and his audience). This steppe-land ( 2 1 : 1 4 - 1 9 ) is waterless to I lagar until G o d opens to her sight a water-spring (bcr mayïm). T h e notice of the ha un ν of the adult lshmael 111 21:21 is pointedly not Beersheba (nor Isaac's h a u n t at beer la-hay-mi) but the more distant steppe-land of PcTran. Only now comes the visit of Abimelech and Phicol to Abraham a: an unnamed site which will get its name Beersheba at some future time (21:34).(‫) ז‬ After the Binding oi Isaac Abraham returns to Beersheba 22:19, twice mentioned in one narrator's breath, whence presumably he travels north to perform the obsequies for Sarah, who

NOTES TO PAGES

168-181

455

died "in Qiryat Arba, that is Hebron, in the territory of Canaan {23:2). (5) Let us note that Abraham's dispatch of his major-domo to A r a m Naharaim must have been from Hebron 01‫ ־‬the not-yetnamed Beersheba, and that when t h e major-domo returns h o m e with Isaac's bride Lt is to find the groom in a landscape from which A b r a h a m is, narratively speaking, missing. As to the location of that particular steppe where Isaac is musing at even time just as the return m g caravan comes into view, it is provided in 24:62, a parenthetic double hypotaxis, "Isaac n o w had come trom coming [trom] hL'er la*hay*rö'Tt he now residing in Negeb territory." 37. Judges 6 - 8 . 38. See T A G , pp. 2 6 3 - 6 6 , notes 6 and 7. 39. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, tr. J. H. Marks, (Philadelphia: Westminster Ρ res 973! .‫)י־‬, p. 403. 40. See also my essay in !assays 011 I lurnan Rights, ed. David Sidorsky, JPS (1919), 111'hc 1 lebrew Bible on I luman Rights," particularly pp. 2 19- 221. C H Λ P I CK 8

ι. See I AC c pp. 1 9 - 3 6 . 2, See TAG, p. 39. 3. See TAG, Chapter 7, Table 6 (pp. 2 1 4 - 2 2 0 ) , with particular attention to the last paragraph o n page 20. . See Zeehariah 3:1. 5. Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981), p. 41. 6. See ch. 2 in this volume. 7. N o t e the absurdity in my translation of verse 5, "footgear worn and patched and attired in worn out garb"—as though the subject of attired is t h e footgear and not the people shod in this way. A literal translation, beginning in verse 4b, is; They took worn socks for their asses, worn wine‫•׳‬ skins also split and resown, (5) and footgear worn and patched on their feet and worn out garb upon themselves, and all food of their provision—dry—was mold-flecked. The five expressions that I have italicized are all redundant for a) the sacks/sackcloths are not for the beasts ot burden but burdens to be laden upon them; b) footgear/shoes are by definition for the feet, c) garb (simlä) is a bodywrap; d) bread/food (lehem) is synonymous with provision (sayld) and e) since all these items are t h e objects of the opening "they took," the verb "to b e " normally omiued e \ e n when implicit, is b o t h syntactically and grammatically pleonastic. These egregious peculiarities m die storytelling. stylistically jarring and seemingly purposeless, along with the other peculiarities that I will show to be suggestively meaningful, thus provide further support of my contention (see TAG, pp. 5 7 - 4 4 on figures of speech and translation) that the more anomalous 01‫ ׳‬gauche an expression m rhe biblical text, rhe more it is incumbent upon us to search for its purpose. Such respect for the biblical aurhobs competence constitutes modesty on the reader's part, whereas the scholarly reson tu einen‫׳‬ dation bespeaks either disrespect for the texl or critical arrogance. S. '1 he ploy of bread -fresh baked, soggy, stale, and moldy-—as an attestation oi time's passage is exploited in Tablet XI of the* Gilgamesh lipic. Utnapishtim has lus wife bake bread and mark thus rhe six or seven days of Gilgamesh , s unbroken sleep. T h e marks and the regrt»ivelv dcteriorated loaves are to [!rove to Gilgamesh upon his awakening that he has indeed slept a week rarher than the moment he thinks he has. T h e humor in this episode extends beyond what I have just noted - · the proffering of stale and moldy bread as proof of when a historical event began in a h u m a n s experience, when all it attests is to the objective duration of time since its baking, bor one thing, n o t h i n g hinges on whether Gilgamesh will or will not accept Utnapishtim's account of the length of his sleep. For another, Gilgamesh's anticipated refusal to believe that he has slept so long is interpreted by Utnapishtim as an example of humanity's proclivity for deception — U. himself presumably no longer party to this human weakness by virtue of his accession to immortality/ divinity. It is against such human wiliness that Mrs. U . must protect herself by rhe dahv baking of : v‫־‬ead. The ta il are of scholarship to credit the ancient authors with a scn.se of humor, hence to

456

NOTES TO PAGES 4 2 4 - 4 3 3

overlook such clear examples of its presence in biblical and cuneiform writings, makes tor the greatest impediment to the appreciation of the literature of the ancients. See TAG, pp. 2 8 - 2 9 , 257-258, and in this volume ch. 4, "The Babylonian Flood Story," pp. 117-126. 9. Note this twice-deployed singular pronoun, whereas the referent subject is plural, the verbs having no explicit subject. That subject becomes explicit only after the implicit "thev" and the exρ 11cit "him." This subject is the benë‫׳‬yisrael "Israelites" of verses 17 and 18. What we must then rec‫״‬ ognize is that the collective pronoun (to) him/his reflects the viewpoint of the mach(,‫ ׳‬braves of verse 7 ("my ambit" . . . "how can I") which the Israelites of verses 17 and 1:8 are the en rue people (thus a firth term for this "identity") who move out against but — in the end—do not assault the Gibeonite confederacy. Yet: a sixth term for this ancestral collective identity ot ours is the "Israel" of verse 18 (Y1 ÏWI ί god oflsiacl). do review then the narrator's deployment ol terms for bis people in its totality or constituent elements, the broadest term is ( 1 ) Israel, the entire people through its history from its beginnings in the patriarch, who was given that secondary name through the ioreseeable future (.\erses2);(8!‫) י י‬ the Israeiiles, the present generation (hat is entering the promised land (verses 17 18, 2(!); ( the assembly or the entire assembly representing the whole people (verses 18, 19, 21, 27); (4) the ("11 iejtains, or chieftains j)residing over the assembly (verses 15, 18 |twice|, 19, 2 1 [twice]); (5) the tmrnor.s (verses 6. 7. 16 (implicit ly|); (6) die ambiguated "men/leaders" of verse 14. 10. The inclusion of three additional cities in the category of Gibeon must serve a poetic purpose. That purpose, as we shall see, in terms of this story's kerygma, is that the inhabitants of llivvitc Gibeon were not the sole survivors of the aboriginal stock. Cf. Joshua 15:63, where the narrator, supposedly engaged in outlining the borders which fall by lot 111 Joshua's time to Judah skips ahead (to the time of David's kingship in Jerusalem) ever so insoucienrly to report, ‫״‬so for the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Judahites (ketib: are not able) were not able [gere) to dispossess them. [Why ever not?] and so the Jebusite(s) dwell with the Judahites in Jerusalem down to this very day. 11. See Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible, JBL Monograph 13 (1963), pp. 77-1 17. 12. Namely, that the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night ate not expressive ot YHWH's literally showing Israel its path in the wilderness so much as of the accompanying gracious and protective presence of YHWH among his people. So too, the purport of Moses' prayer to God at the beginning and end of each "day's" march is Numbers 10:35-36. But the availability of the metaphor of God's personal function as guide in the wilderness raises the question as to why a human guide is invited to serve in this capacity. The only answer 1 can suggest therefore is to stress the welcome to the Midianit.es to share Israel's felicity in the land destined to be wrest ed from the Canaanites. 13. As, for example, Abraham and Isaac, Pharaoh and Abimelech. But consider also the cat avaneers bound for Egypt in the Joseph story (Ishmaelites = Midianitcs = Medanites), or Pottphar, Josephs master in 39:1 and his father-in-law Poti-phcra (41:45), priest ot On. whose name ineludes the three oi the pharaoh (/.('‫־וי‬ 14. See ch. 7, "Digging Wells in Philistia," p. 54$. 15. Phis rare root (n.s/) appears only here and iu 7:22 in the qal with the sense oi removing an enemy; in the piel it appears in 2 Kings 16:0, with the Judeans as the population "removed" from Flat. Bui even here in 1 )euteronomy the usage is strange, for the iirst context (verse 2) requires the sense ol‫" ־‬sweep from your path," and in the second context (verse 22) such a sense is ruled out by the adverbial modifier meal meat "little by little." The strangeness of this usage here thus r e i n f o r c e s the strangeness of the diction here in other respects. 16. Among the many implausibilities 111 the preceding chapters in Joshua: In Chapter 1 YHWH's repeated urging Joshua to be of good heart and to rely not on the unqualified support of God just, promised, but on his obedience to the Tora of Moses; Joshua's charge to the people: limitcd to the preparation ot food in the next few days preparatory to the lording 01 ; he Jordan and a campaign projected to endure for years, ii not centuries; the picture of the entire Israelite horde n u ^ e d at one point for the river crossing in sharp contrast to the 2‫ ''••׳‬trans-Jordanian irAes hem:.;

NOTES TO PAGES 4 3 3 - 4 3 4

457

already set tied on their homesteads and ranges, where the fighting men will abandon wives and children as they cross over for t h e war of conquest that endures beyond their lifetimes. 111 C h a p t e r 2, the mission to scout out the weaknesses of a fortified city whose walls will collapse by divine tiar; the foreshadowing of the kerygma of Joshua 9 (as 1 discern it) in t h e exemption from the decree of extirpation of the family of a C a n a a n i t e a le-wife/mad am who earns this reprieve by her faith m Y H W H ; the dwelling of R a h a b set in the city wall, its window facing outward, from which window the faithful harlot is to signal with a red thread her h a b i t a t i o n — t h i s to the invaders who, having entered the city via the breaches in t h e wall, would need to see t h e red flag/thread trom a window overlooking the city street. In 7:24 the animate and inanimate items consigned to the heremAire and the contrast with 6:24, where metals precious and base are deposited in the treasury of YHWH's sanctuary (bayit). 17· Such a follow-up to the absoluteness of the universal recognition ot Y H W H would in itself constitute a bathetic descent, how much the more so the conclusion of this pericope and the book with the picture of Y H W H ' s house bereft n o w — a n d apparently for all future rime—of a single Canaanite. Yet generations of translators and commentators can soberly propose that rhe Canaanite here is a me tony m for "merchant." (Was it to fulfill this métonymie ally expressed messianic prophecy :hat Jesus is pictured driving the money-changers from the sacred precincts?)

SELECTED

Ahrains, Israel Aaron. The Fall ofjudea,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baltimore; Baltimore Talmud Tora h, 1913.

( A>mmentary on Genesis 1: Jerusalem: Magnes Press, I lebrevv University, 1961. Blank, Sheldon. Prophet Thought, Essays and Addresses. Cincinnati: I iebrew U n i o n College Press, 1977· Cassuto, Umberto. La Questione della Genesi. Florence: F. Le Monnier, 1934. Danby, Herbert. The Mi.shnah. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1909. Gunkel, H e r m a n n . The Stories of Genesis. Translated by J o h n J. Scullion; edited by Willtam R. Scott. Va lie jo, Calif.: BIBAL Press, 1994. Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation. Chicago: University ci Chicago Press, 1963. Kaufman. Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel Chicago: University of Chicago Press, i960. Lane Fox, Rubin. The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. New York: Viking, τ991. Morgenstern, Julian. The Book of Genesis: A Jewish Interpretation. N e w York: Schocken Books, 1965. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel. York, X.Y.: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Owen, Wilfred. The Complete Poems and Fragments. Edited by Jon Sallworthy. London: C h a t t o & Wi η Jus/Hogarth Press, 198 3. Pope. Marvin EI. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1955‫־‬ Pritchard. )ames Bennett. Ancient Near Lastern Texts Relating to the GW TosgaTvnr. Princeton, N.J.: P r i η c e r ο η U η i vers i ty Press, 1950. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis, A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. London: S C M , 1972. Rendsburg, Gary A. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eiseabrains, 1986. 458

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

459

Russell, Bertrand. MysUaMn arid Logic. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday A n c h o r Books, 1957. Sidorsky, David. Essays on Hit man Rights: Contemporary Issues and Jewish Perspectives. Edited by David Sidorsky et al. Phildelphi a: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979. Speiser, Ε. A . Genesis. G a r d e n City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Sprinkle, Joe M. The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT, 1992. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Tsevat, Matitiahu. 1 'Gods and the Gods in Assembly: A n Interpretation of Psalm 82" Hebrew Union College Annual vols. 4 0 - 4 1 ( 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 ) . Whybray, R. N . The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT, 1967. Wooley, Sir Leonard. L'r of the Chaldees. London: Penguin, 1954.

D I C T I O N A R I E S A N D E N C Y C L O P E DJ A S

Mi lion Hada.s/1. Evan Shoshan, Avraham. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1958. The Interpreters' Bible. Nashville: Ahington, 1962. The Interpreters' Dtcu om‫־־‬o‫ \־‬of the Bible, Nashville: Abington, 1962. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Unabridged ed. N e w York: R a n d o m House, 1966 Webster's (Collegiate Dictionary. 51h ed. Springfield, Mass.: GS( - Merriam, n> 56.

INDEX Allegory, 81, 98, too, 108, 113, 138, 176, $04 Allusion, 183, r94, 3^8, 371,374 Anthropology, 108, i n , 112 Anthropomorphism, 57, 71, 75, 84, 160, 239 Aposiopesis, 273, 330, Apostasy, 183, 202, 290, 431 Apposition. 172, 207, 285, 415 Aristophanes, 79 Babylonian Creation Epic, 3 7 - 9 , 5 0 - 5 7 Bathos, 55, 117, 122, 150-51, 153 B c m, 207-8, 226, 364 Blake. William. 47, 62, 94 Blank, Sheldon, 238 Bowdlerization, 273 Cassuto, Umberto, 8 - 1 1 , 103, 2 5 7 - 8 Chaos, 64, 394, 395 Character. See Persona Chronology, 32:, 333, 338 Comedy, 1 17, 12 2, 240, 295 Cosmogony, 50 2‫ל‬ Comparative-contrasrive, 39, 52, 59, 64, 66 Cosmology, 50. 59 ,1‫ל‬ Covenant, 26. See also IirrTt Decalogue, 278, ^gS. 401, 408 -12 Dialogue internal, 47, 233 direct, 268 (.see iil.sw Direct discourse) Dichotomy, 11, 103 Didactic, 239-2,0 Discourse direct, 4 6 - 7 , 141, 196-7, 199, 204-5, 207> 210, 213, 215, 250-52, 259, 283, 368, 425,427 tree direct, τ το, 139, 204, 218, 222, 232, 247, - 4 0 ·

2

^ 2 - 3 ‫ י‬422> 425

free indirect. 194, 204, 258, 273 implied free direct, 193-4 2 ° 4 2 5 8

‫י‬

implied free indirect, 193, 197 indirect, 282 Documentary hypothesis, 8, 71, 267. •See also Source crit icism Doxology, 69 Enuma Elish, 37-62, 395, 398, 400 Eisegesis, 28, 391 Ellipsis, 247 Eponym, 174, 221, 304, 312, 319, 3 ; 344 356, 376, 380, 3 8 3 - 4 Ethonym, 301, 356 Etiology, 88, 244, 252, 362, 365, 369 Etymology, 2 8 - 2 9 , 77> 2 86 Euripedes, 293-6 Exegesis, 25, 28, 200, 226, 280, 291, 302, 391, 397, 427. See also Kerygma Faith, 284, 289 gap bridging, 148, 207, 251, 261, 263 3 ‫ן‬.6‫י‬ gap idling, 365, 426 (dapping, 115, 137-8, 140, 191 4, )96,216, 243, 251, 26ο, 28^, 368 Genetic

analysis, i n division, 71 hypothesis, 259 theory, 214 Genocide, 4 2 8 - 3 3 . See also Her em Genre, 112, 295, 301 assignment, 88, 109 distinction, 301 division, 390 fahulary, 297 label, τ77, 303 oriented, TTI Gentilic, 22 1, 32τ, 377 Glossing, 206 Graf-Wellhausen, 13

46ο

INDEX (draoheme, 3, 4. See also 1 etragiammaton Gunkeb Hermann, 114-13,177,4430.3

461 criticism, so, 111, 1 1 4.8

3 .250 ,159 ,137 ‫י>י‬

s c i e n c e , 187, 2 g 1

Ilalnkha, 230, 3l> 1, 406, 408, 4,18η.2g 1 leidel, 38 ‫; 253, 268, 282, 340, 348, 360 Ihn E:ra, 338 Idiom, 77. 2 08, 368 Idolatry, 32, 183, 202,43! Interpretation, 238, 237, 291. See also Kerygma Ironv, 22, 106, 117, 175, 177, 185, 193, 246, 296 job, 16, 238, 367, 394 Jonah, 106· -7 Kant, Immanuel, 41 5 Kaufmann, Yehezkel, !4, 60 Kerygma, 6, 30, (14, 163, 198, 201, 270, 302,

Malthus, Rev. Thomas, 95 Masoretes (MT), 5, 30, 41, 40, 172, 2^1, 2 252, 287, 3 5 0 - 5 1 , 353, 4 3 6 n . j , 439η

454 Π ·3 Τ Melchizedek, 26, 192, 197-202, 276 Merism, 43, 72, 75, 99, 109, ! 3 4 2 0 8 ‫י‬ , Mesha, 43 8η, 28 Meta-literary, 6, 17, 164, 204 assumption, 43 consideration, 229, 289 conventions, 273, 288, 390 fact, 274 focus, 2 2of prejudice, 289 question, 280, 404 Metaphor, 10, 52, 55, 63, 90, 98-100, 1 20 1 35‫ ׳‬ιΦ~9·> 1 7 1 ‫ ׳‬1 73‫ י‬2 3°‫ י‬2.5*‫ י‬255‫י‬ 269, 2 ^4‫ ו‬3°^‫ י‬3 ‫ ז‬2 ‫ י‬344‫ י‬4 0 ΐ Metonym, 7 ^ 2 0 1,182

Milton, 394 Monolatry» 4‫ז‬ 1 ‫ז‬ Monotheism, 12-13, 3 ‫ י‬57‫ ו( י‬° 162, 400, 4 Ϊ 8 Moral, 2 7 4 3 ‫י‬ 3°4‫ · י ל י‬See aho Kerygma Morality, 163,401 Morgenstern, Julian, 1 ‫ ו‬y- 16 Moriali, 282-3, 3 4 5 ‫י^צ‬ou59‫־‬ Myth, 125, 184, 44m.11 Mythology, 57, 112, 1 3 7 - 8 Mythopoeia, 179, 393 Mythos, 83, 9 4 - 6 , 165, 44111.11

591 ‫ י‬4°7 Legend, 125,44111.11 Lewis, C, S, 50 Literal. See also Metaditerary intent, 163 minded, 176, 2 9 2 , 3 1 1 , 3 3 6 ,

Literal-figurative spectrum, 43, 47, 5 0 - 5 1 , 57, 270 Literal-historic, 108 Literal/metaphoric dichotomy, 68 Literal ist, traditional, 310, 408 Literary analysis, 1.60,303 art, 291 conventions, 295

Naivete, 88, 94, 311, 367 Narrative spectrum, 302 Narrator, 186, 194, 2x4, 246, 268, 272, authoritative, 202 intrusive, 250 omniscient, 21, 118, 140, 197, 201, 2 r o 215, 3413 347 reliable, 186, 341, 372 unreliable, 53, 137-8, 146, 344, 372 See also Point of view Nephilim, 135-6, 138, 139 Noth, Martin, 156 O a t h , 199, 2 0 7 , 2 0 g , 365, 3 7 0 - 7 1 , 4 2 4 •3 Obliqueness, 206, 265

462 Og, 136, 190, 357 Ontology, 2 9 - 3 0 , .162 Oracle, 263, 270, 275, 283, 424 Owen, Wilfred, 2 9 0 - 9 2

INDEX Simile, 271 Source analvsis, 112, 15 9, 2 2 5, 3 08 assignment, 151, 218, 225 criticism, 6 - 8 , 12, 50, : 0 2 - 4 , 107, 133-4,

Paganism, 57, 6 1 - 2 , 69, 105, 125-6, 161-2, 145 7, 159, 1 8 6 - 7 , 203, 308, 321, 404, 4.8 197, 274-6, 393, 395 — 7, 400 division, 141, 151, 3 4 7 Pandora, 99, 442η. τ 5 history, τ 11 Paranomasia, 2 r, 28 5 ] hypothesis, 6, 10, Parataxis, 65, 1 $ 8 5 4 0,248 ,238 ‫־־‬9‫י‬18‫י‬44‫י‬ 9 3 ‫ י‬, VI ‫לי‬- 4-‫י ׳‬

Pat !ms, 285 Persona (e), 2 10, 22 1 •>, 27 ‫ז‬, 274‫י? י‬°2 ‫יו״‬

provenance, 142,

86, ι $7, t 7 1 4‫י‬

Speiser, Η. Α., 1 8, 18ο - S i , 187

90, 190. -M 7

,

2

3

8,6—24‫י‬

268, 288, yj(> 91 3 5 5 3 ‫ ־‬Ö 1 » 3^4 4261^3

Perspective, 194» 197s 4‫״‬0‫ י•'׳‬2 °4‫ י‬2 ‫׳‬ Plato, 7 9 9 5 ‫־‬ Pleonasm, 14 7 1 Point of view, 2441 246, 2 5 4 2 5 ‫^ י‬ Polytheism, 14, 31 ‫ י‬57‫י‬ 94‫ י‬162, 202, 304‫י‬ 397 Pope, Marvin, 199 Preachment, 185. See also Kerygma Prolepsis, 45, 49, 102, 148, 194, 198 Prometheus, 124, 238-9, 395 Protoevangelon, 8 τ Pun, 77, 82, 97, 102, τ71, 179, 189, 226, 273, 311 play on numbers, 379 play on personae, 430 play on perspective, 197 play on words, 209, 2 16, 356, 371 Rashi, 37, τ58, 173-4, 3 41 ‫י‬8‫י‬S Redundancy, 146-7, 157-8, 2 2 6, 246, 324, 339-40, 355, 373, 377, 425 Rephaites, 136, 190, 357 Revelation, 119. See also Oracle Rhetoric, 117, 505 Rhetorical, 198, 215, 2 53, 2 38, 247, 261, 27 278,427 Russell, Pert rand, 396

S t e r n b e r g , Meir, 1 ίο, 193, 197, 215, 246, 258,

‫י‬4‫ז‬ 1

2

Syncretism,‫ י‬202 5 9 ‫ י‬49>

2

5 ‫ י ר‬-5·‫ ר‬8, 2 ‫ך‬

Synecdoche, 141, 157 Synthesis, 393 Talmud, 3 2 7 - 9 T c h o m , 42, 51, 5 7 - 8 , 63 Tetragrammaton,4-13, 2 2 - 3 , 2 7 - 3 4 , 104-5, 2 0 0 - 1 , 217, 231, 2 5 8 - 9 . See also Grapheme Theodicy, 9 5 - 6 Theology, 9 3 , 9 6 , 9 9 , 101, 126, 1 6 5 , 2 3 8 , 3 3 7 , 35b, 397, 4 1 2 T o p o n y m , 301, 356 Tragedy, 295

Tsevat, Matitiahu, 6 7 - 8 , 399 Vocable, 29, 105 Vocalization, 29, 41, 172, 207, 231, 245, 252, 287, 355 Voice, 27 3, 268-72. See also Narrator; Point of view Von Rad, Gerhard, 382, ^84 Vorlage« 355, 4 590.3 1 W a w - c o n v e r s i v e , 6 s , 144, 2 0 4 - 5 , 2 1 1 , 2 3 1 Waw-t opulative, 205

Waw deictic, 158 Welfaushauung, 49, $97 child as, 288—9, 2 9345111.65 ‫י‬ Woolev, Sir Leonard, 442,31 ‫ו‬ Samaritan, 350 Satan, 81, 369, 394 YHWH, See Tetragrammaton Satire, 53, 57, 126, 138, 1 6 0 2 9 5,164,61 ‫־‬ Scientism, 3 9 6 - 7 Zt-1 mi8—196‫וו‬ Scripture, 29, 353 / Li ‫ ו‬r 182,8^‫ג‬ Sem, 3, 2 8 - 9 , 3 2 - 4 v 1 / ) >52-6 Sfotno, Obadiah, 418

Sacrifice, 361

η

.

1