VIRTUAL HISTORY AND THE BIBLE EDITED BY
J. CHERYL EXUM
"'~-I"GIO~
~
~ 7
< ~
?
~
<
. I 6
s) .
,
~
BRILL LEI...
269 downloads
1986 Views
41MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
VIRTUAL HISTORY AND THE BIBLE EDITED BY
J. CHERYL EXUM
"'~-I"GIO~
~
~ 7
< ~
?
~
ossibie facing the inhabitants of the region but recognises the role of contingenC)' in history and the fact that societies do not develop in a uniliniar fashion. Viewed in this way, it is by no means clear that the indigenous Palestinian responses to the dislocations throughout the eastern Meditel"ranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age would have been radically altered if Merneptah's 20 Wright (1950: 7) bclic\'cd that Israel and its faith was ulliquc so that thc CClltral c1cllIcnu of its faith could nOt be cxplaincd by CIl\'irOlllllcnL"ll or gcogra~hical condilioning. I Ie is often recognizcd that thc archaeological data is too ambiguous to settle thc qucstion of the cthnic idcnlit)' of the inhabiL"ll1tS of the highland scttlcmcnts in Palestine. Howcver, the label 'Israelite' is invariably attachcd to these sctllclllClmi on thc grounds Ihat this area was later associated with the Israelite monarchy (Mazar 1994: 91: 1992: 295-96. Herzog 1994: 148). Thus the ethnicity of the settlements is defined in reference 10 the Israelite monarch)' evell though it is recognized that there is nothing inherent in the dala themseh'cs ""hi,h a1l0\'\"5 for such an interpretation. n Ferguson (1997: !;g, fJ9) CrltlCIZCS Brauders conception of IIISI01"} as 'geographical determinism' and im'ohing a 'serious misconception of the natural \'I·orld'.
20
KEITH W. WH ITELAM
Israel had been wiped out. Of course, if Memeplah's scribes had been telling the truth, it might have resulted in some revisionist
sceptic emerging from a postrrlodern, postcolonial western Europe writing a book called The Invention oj Palestine: The Silencing oj Israelite History. Fortunately, Ferguson's strictures on what is possible and plausible in the alternative worlds of virtual history rule out such idle speculation. ABSTRACT
The reference to Israel in the Merneptah stele plays a pivotal role in the debate on Israel's emergence in Late Bronze-Iron Age Palestine. Most scholars ignore 'the plain sense of the text' which suggests that Ismel has been wiped out. Recent research on clhnicit)' undermines the essentialist notion that there is a dire
To put the maller another way: Israelite tradition has given us as part of its legacy the "Song of Deborah" inJudges 5 and the paean to the hero Jael embedded within it in v. 24-27. Were we, how· ever, to imagine ourselves as the Philistines' cultural heirs, it might be the "Song of Delilah" instead---or at least a celebration of the hero Delilah incorporated into in some larger "Song"-that would have come down to us as a hymn of praise. Indeed. although we cannot know how aware he was of all the specifics, Milton is particularly insightful to compare Delilah in , As brilliantly catalogued by j.C. Exum in ~Why, Why, 'Vhy, Delilah?~ in Plot~ led. Shol, mul Painled: Cllllural HeprtSnllalions oj IJibli((l{ Women (JSOTSup, 215; GeT, 3; Shcffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1996), pp. 175-237. 8 Brought to my attention by Exum, ~Why, Why, Why, Delilah?,~ pp. 201-202.
WHAT IF JUDGES HAD BEEN WRITfEN BY A PHILISTINE?
37
Judg. 16:4-22 tOJael inJudg. 5:24-27. for example, inJudg. 5:2427 (and in the parallel account in Judg. 4:17-22), Jael acts on behalf of the Israelites and against the Canaanite war leader Sisera, but the text, in both its rccoulltings, is quitc clcar that shc is not herself an Israelite. Rather, she is from a small ethnic group known as the Kenites. Delilah, likewise, acts on behalf of the Philistines and against the Israelite hero Samson even though she herself is nowhere identified as Philistine; we only know that she comes from the "Valley of Sorek" (Judg. 16:4), which lies in the Shephelah, between the hill counlJ)' inhabited by the Israelites and the Philistine plain. Both Delilah and Jael, then, can be envisioned as outsiders within their stories, playing a role within an ethnic conflict that is not necessarily their own. Jael and Delilah both also seem to conduct their lives independent of roen, by which I mean that neither is unequivocally pictured as a part of the household of a father, a brother, or a husband who has authority over the woman's life. This is clearer in the case of Delilah, who is never mentioned in relation to a man other than her paramour Samson and who seems to have her own house that she manages alone (the place where Samson sleeps and where the Philistines hide, waiting to capture him, in a "inner chamber" [Hebrew ~lellerl).Jael's abode is different, since it is a tent, nOI a house, and, moreover, it is a tent she is traditionally assumed 10 share with a husband, Hebel". The NRSV translation of Judg. 5:24, for example, reflects this: Most blessed of women be jac!. The ,,'ife of Heber (helm') thc Kcnite. Of lem-dwelling women most blessed.
Many commentators, though, prefer an altcmate rendition, arguing that the second line of this verse describes Jael as "a woman of the Kenite community."9 The basis for such a translation lies in texlS from Mari, where the term [tibru11t is used to describe some sort of a community unit. a clan, a band, or a tribe. to This sug9 See, for example. B. Halpem. MThc Resourceful Israelitc Ilistorian: The Song of Debor'lh and Israelitc Historiography.~ j-ITll76 (1983), pp. 379-401 (388, n. 45 and 393 n. 56);j.A. Soggill. "'Hcber dcr Qcnil.· Das Ende cines biblischen Personnennamells?,~ vr31 (1981). pp. 89-92; Soggin.Juriges: A Commelltary (OTL; Philadelphia: \VCSlmillSter Pre~s. 1981), pp. 74-75. III A. lIhbrnal, "Mad and the Bible: Some P:ntc..ns orT..ibal Org:.miz:llion and Instilutions. ~ JAOS 82 (1962). pp. 143-50 (144-46), see also Ihe demiled survey of the uses of llbr/hbr throughollt Nonhwest Semilic in M. O·Connor. "North-
38
SUSAN ACKERMAN
geslS that !uber, the Hebrew cognate of !Jibrutn, should be similarly translated as a common noun refening to some sort of bondedtogether group. In fact, elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, /.ieber does occur with such a meaning. In Hos. 6:Y, a "band" or a "company" of priests is referred to as a /.leber Utcber koluinim). The Israelite place name Hebron (Ilcl.n"on). which is derived from the root ~llr,., also seems to draw on this idea of "band" or "company," as can especially be seen in lcxlS that give the name J(jriath-Arba, the "City of Four" (presumably, four bonded-together villages), as an alternative appellation for Hebron. ll In 2 Sam. 2:3, which speaks of the ~cities (are) of Hebron," we find a further indication that Hebron was comprised of several small communities that were banded together as one. If, in Judg. 5:24, we likewise understand lleber to be a reference to some sort of bonded-together group, specifically, the Kenites, then Jael, like Delilah, stands again depicted as a kind of an outsider, this time standing outside a relationship with a husband or other male authority figure. And then there is the sexual imagery that occurs in both the stories of Delilah and Jae!. In this case, however, neither text is particularly clear. For example, while Delilah in Judg. 16:4-22 is commonly assumed to be a seductress and even a whore, this is never stated explicitly. To be sure, she has her own house where she entertains Samson; moreover, he is there, we are told, because he loves her. All this could suggest a brothel. Delilah's story in addition is prefaced by the story of Samson's Gazaite prostitute, and this prologue might intimate Delilah's association with prostitution as wel!.12 Nevertheless, prostitutes are not the only women in the Bible who can be depicted as owning houses of their own. Widows also do, and in many respects, Delilah is as much like a famous widow of the biblical tradition, Judith, as she is like the Gazaite prostitute of Judg. 16:1·3, or like Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho described in Josh. 2:1-24; 6:22-25, with whom she is often compared. LikeJudith, Delilah is called upon at her home by her wcst Semitic Designations for Elective Social Affiliations," JANESCU 18 (1986). pp. 67.80 (72.80). II Gen. 23:2; 35:27; Josh. 14:15; 15:13; 15:54; 20:7; 21:11;Judg. 1:10. 12 Further on this ~guih by associationfl-that is, lhe negative judgments that lcnd to be imposed Oil Delilah on the basis of comparing her with the Timnitc wife ot Judg. 14 and the (jazaite prostitute or Judg. 16:1-3-see J.c. Exum, ~Samson's Women," in Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)vmiom oj Biblical Narrative (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993), pp. 61.93, esp. 68-77.
WHAT
n- JUDGES
HAD BEEN WRITTEN BY A PHILISTINE?
39
region's nobility (the lords of the Philistines come to Delilah in Judg. 16:5; tlle elders of the town of Bethulia come to Judith in Jdt. 8:10); like Judith, Delilah seLS out to engage an enemy warrior in a one-on-one confrontation (Samson in Delilah's case; Holofernes in Judith's); and like Judith, Delilah uses the warrior's auraction to her to gain mastery over him (Delilah ultimately persuades Samson to reveal the secret of his uncut hair by asking how he can remain evasive if he truly loves her Uudg. ]6:15]; Judith presents herself dressed in "all her women's finery" so that she can manage to be left alone with Holofernes in order to attack him in his tent Udt. 12:15]). Finally, Judith's triumph over Holofernes, beheading him while he is passed out, drunk Odt. 13:6-9), is not so different than Delilah's triumph in "behairing" Samson while he sleeps. The fact that Judith holds Holofernes' hair as she severs his neck (jdt. 16:7) makes the connection be1:\veen this part of the 1:\'10 stories particularly clear. Still, in the Delilah story, although there may not be prostitution, there is, by the end, sexual imagery, as Samson sleeps, while he is shaved, be1:\'1een Delilah's knees (Hebrew 'al birkeyha;Judg. 16:19). As in passages associated with birth (Gen. 30:3; Job 3:12), "knees" here should refer to female genitalia. In this respect, the noun is similar to Jael's raglayim, "feet," also euphemistic for genitalia, between which Sisera lies collapsed in Judg. 5:27 after his head has been struck and pierced in Judg. 5:26. As Susan Niditch points out, the other language used in Judg. 5:27 to describe Sisera's collapse is also sexual in character: the verbs kara', "to kneel," and niipal, "to fall," especially when used in conjunction, can suggest the sexual posture expected of a would-be lover; the verb siikab, "to lie," is frequently used in illicit sexual contexts; and sadild, "despoiled," can be used-as in Jer. 4:30-l0 describe the fate that those who play the harlot will suffer.l:i But crucial to note here is that the "harlot" whom sadiUl describes in this text is Sisera; Jael is no more automatically to be identified as a prostitute than is Delilah. Indeed, if anything, what underlies the erotic imagery of both of these passages are intimations not of prostitution but of motherhood and the womb: Samson lies shorn between Deli· lah's knees in the same way he lay as a newborn, bald, between his mother's, and immediately following the description of Sisera J~ S. Niditch, "Eroticism and Death in the Tale or Jacl,~ in P.L. Day (ed.), Gender (lnd Differmct in Ancien/Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 435i.
40
SUSAN ACKERMAN
lying between Jael's legs in Judg. 5:27 is a verse that describes his mother, the woman between whose legs the newly delivered Sisera first lay (judg. 5:28). Maternal imagery is also found further on in the same stanza, inJudg. 5:30, where one of the women attending Sisera's mother suggests (ironically it turns out) that the reason Sisera is delayed in returning home from war is that he tarries to collect booty after his viclOry in battle, in particular women as booty. These "trophy women" are referred to in Hebrew as ra~lam rafu'imiitayim, words whose literal foot meaning is "womb."14 In addition, there is maternal imagery found in the verses that precede the description of jael's killing of Sisera, as jael's giving milk and ghee to Lhe fugitive Sisera in Judg. 5:25 can be seen as a very nurturing and motherly act. There is in fact even a rabbinic mid rash that envisions that the milk Jael gives to Sisera was suckJed by him from her breast. 15 Nevertheless, no matter how like Jael Delilah seems to be-in terms of an "outside" ethnicity, in terms of standing outside of a hegemonic relationship with a man, and in terms of combining a triumph over an enemy with sexual imagery and, more specifically, maternally-linked eroticism-there is still the fact that Delilah betrayed Samson for money (eleven hundred pieces of silver from each of the Philistine lords who commissioned her; Judg. 16:5), and this "selling" of herself might present a serious problem to our "what if" Philistine who would write the laudatory "Song of Delilah" or extol Delilah in a Jael-Iike manner in a stanza of some other celebratory hymn. Or would it? In Israelite tradition, the verses of the "Song of Deborah" that describe Jael offer no reason to explain why she, a Kenite, would act on behalf of the Israelites and against the Canaanites in killing the Canaanite war leader Sisera. The prose account of the same episode, in Judg. 4: 17-22, likewise offers no reason explaining why Jael acted as she did. But the prose does offer a powerful argument against Jael's killing act: it posits that there was a peace treaty between King Jabin of HalOr, for whom Sisera was said to be fighting, and Jael's clan. In the logic of Judges 4, that is, Jael is just as much a beI.. R. Aller, ~FroTl1 Line lO Story in Biblical Verse,· Poetics Todo)' 4 (1983), pp. 615-37 (633), (as poimed OUl by NidilCh, "Eroticism and Death: p. 46); see also Aller, The Arl of Biblical POi/ry (New York: Basic Books, 1985). p, 46. I~ Poinled om by R. Alder, ~A MOlher in Israel: Aspecl.'l orlhe Mother Role in Jewish Myth,· in R.M. Gross (cd.), Beyolld Androcmlrism: New Essa)'s 011 Womerl a1ld Religion (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 237-55 (248).
WHAT IF JUDGES HAD BEEN WRrn'EN BY A PHILISTINE?
41
trayer as is Delilah in Judges 16, "selling out" her Kenite kin; in her case, moreover, "selling out" her Kenite kin without even a clear-cut motivation (like money), Yet in the biblical tradition as it has come down to us, Jael is still considered a hero despite her seemingly unsuborned betrayal because she "sells out" on Israel's behalf. From a Philistine point of view, the heroic status of Delilah, who sold herself to capture a Philistine enemy, should likewise stand undiminished. In Cecil B. De Mille's film "Samson and Delilah," the last words Samson (Victor Mature) speaks to Delilah (Hedy Lamarr) before he is blinded by the Philistines are, "The name Delilah will be an everlasting curse on the lips of men."16 But as we have now seen, this enobled depiction of Samson and his everlasting curse of Delilah is all a matter of perspective. If Judges had been written by a Philistine, it might well be Delilah who would bear the epithet othenvise given to Jael in Judg. 5:24, "most blessed of wonlen." ABSTRACT
Judges 13-16, the saga of Samson, is a text that, in popular imaginatiol1, is lypically described as depicting the exploits of the heroic Samson against the l'hitistine barbarians. But, in fact. as comment;IlOrs have often pointed out. Samson. although endowed wit.h superhuman strenglh in this tale, is Olhclwise something of a fool and a boor: posing an unfair riddle at his wedding feast, engaging again and again in acts of violent destruction, and revealing the secret of his uncut hair to Delilah even though she has made clear that she intends to Sllmmon the Philistines to seize him after rendering him powerless. Yet however stupid Samson and hOWC\'cr forthright Delilah are depicted as being in their inte.-actions IOgether, popular imagination again has almost always I-emembcred Delilah as the evil seductress who leads the helpless Samson astray. I'hilistine illterpl"eters, though. might well have remembered Delilah as an e(luiva1cnt of the Is.-aelite hero Jael: as a woman who, in terms of ethnicity, seems to stand outside of the di'pute in which she plays a role; as a woman who is not necessarily a part of the household of a father or husband; and as a womcn depicted in terms of erotic imagery that is primarily maternal ill nature. From a Philistine point of vicw. that is, Delilah might well bear the epithet Israelite tradition awards toJae! inJudg. 5:24: "most blessed of womcn.~
16
As in n. 8 above, brought to my attention by Exum. ~Why. Why, Why,
Delilah?~
p. 175
IF DAVID HAD NOT CLIMBED THE MOUNT OF OLIVES THOMAS L. THOMPSON Univl!'f5ity of Ccpe1lhagen
Virtual History as Histoncal Method While Eduard Meyer long ago warned us of the slippery virtuality of the Bible's historical slopes, 1 and Kurt Galling distinguished for us historical event from tradition varialll,2 Ono Eissfeldl's hisloricizing revision of Gunkel's Gauungsgeschichte has been nevertheless successful in turning biblical narrative into a virtual cornucopia of historical scenarios.~ Biblical narratives were, he claimed, storied events: a fictionalized past with roots in a real past and a real history that could be uncovered through a proper understanding of the history and growth of these traditions. 4 Bible historians needed not fear unemployment. And so indeed it was ... for nearly a half century. However, ifJoshua's assembly of the tribes of Israel at Shechem offered a distant echo of history's sacred amphictyony creating Israel as a people of Yahweh,!' Genesis's origin story of Israel in E. Me}'er, Dk Enlslehung desJlUkntums (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1906), pp. 13031.
2 K. Galling, Die Enll(jhlungstraditionm Israels (BZAW, 48; Berlin: Alfred Topelmanll, 1928), pp. 1-2. S I anl thinking here cspecially of his cOlllribution lO the Gunkel Festschrifl: O. Eissfcldt, 'Slam message und Novclle in den Geschichten von Jakob und scinen SOhnen'. Eucharisterion: H. Cllnkef:wm 60. Geburtstag, 1 (Berlin: AJfred Topelmann, 1923), pp. 56-77; but see also his ]'cvisions of this thesis: Eissfeldt, 'Achronische, anachronische und synchronische Elemente in del' Genesis',jEOL 17 (1963), pp. 148-64; Eissfeldt, 'Stammessage und Menschhcitserzahlung in del' Genesis', Sitzungsherichte der Sochsischen Akademie der Wissenschaft :w Uipzig, (Phil-hist. kl. Bd 110,4; Unl\'crsitat Leipzig, Leipzig, 1965). pp. !'r21. 4 Here, see esp. Eissfcldt, 'Stammessage lind Menschhcitscrziihlung', following, abol'c all, Martin NOlh's revision and s)'nthcsis of Wcllhauscn and Gunkel (M. NOlh, UberlkJenwgsgeschichle des Pentateuch [Stuugan: W. Kohlhammer. 1948)); sec also G. \"on Rad, Das JOrolgtschichtfiche Problem des fltxaleuch (Stuttgart: \'1'. Kohlhammer, 1938). ~ M. Noth, Das System d~ zwiJlj Sujrnme Israels (BWANT, lV/l; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammcr, 1930): NOlh, 'Ubcdicfcrungsgcschichtliches zur zweitcn Hf,lfte des Joshuabuches', in H. Junker and J. Botle,wcck (eds.), AIUts/amentliehes Slu(lien: Friederich NQ/scher zum sechsigen Ctburts/ag 19 Jufi 1950 (BBB, 1; Bonn: Peter Hannstcin, 1950), pp. 152-67. On the litem!)' and unhistorical characterislics of
IF DAVID HAD NOT CLIMUED THE MOUNT 01'" OLIVES
43
the familiar triad of the patriarchal narratives became, historically, both redundant and unnecessary, understandable merely as a legendary etiological expansion of Israel's original tribal rootedness in the early West Semitic migrations. fI The peaceful migration of judges could then replace the conquering heroes ofjoshua's early chapters, and an original Mosaic monotheism might far better be associated with Protestantism's prophetic forebearers. Moses was no longer necessary, nor as important as he had been in a reconstruction of ancient Israelite history. The tribal amphictyony under joshua not only rendered Moses expendable but incompatible as an historical explanation of Israel's 0l"igins. 7 The conselvative side of the debate about Israel's origins was far less rational, complicated as it was both by its point of de· parture in the broad field of comparative ancient Near Eastern studies and by its positivistic, if not fundamentalistic, orientation towards biblical narrative. s This latter issue is far more important than has often been recognized, as it has encouraged historians to ignore one of the most important aspects of reading texts historically; namely, to understand the anachronic: the meaning of documents which are not addressed to us. 9 So, Gustav Dalman could use his immense anthropological experience in Palestine to recreate a virtual world of the Bible. 'o This 'orientalist', romantic understanding of the primitive is a denial of the historical, transposing as it does the past with the present. William Albright, on the other hand, followed a more realist bent, seeking to confirm the reality of the past through its remnants. l1 However, his depenthc amphictyon)·. see most recently N.J>. Lemche, TJII! Ismelilts in Hi~.Io1)' alld Tradition (Lonis\'il1e: \Veslminster/John Knox Press, 1998), pp. 104-107. {I M. NOlh, 'Zum Problem del' OSlkanaanaer', ZA 39 (1930), pp. 213-22; Noth, Geschichte Israels (GOllingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprechl, 2nd edn, 1954); Noth, Der Beitrag der Archiiologir: tUr Gesrhichte Im/els (TIS, i; Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 262-82; Noth, Die Ur.ipnillge des aUell Ismel im Lichte neuer Qllellen (Sluttgart: \-\1. Kohlhammer, 1950). 7 NOlh, r.eschichte Ismels, p.128; cf. also Lemehe. Tile Israelites, pp. 138-41. S See T.L. Thompson, The His/aridty oj thf Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW, 133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), I'p. 6-9. 52-57, 315--16. 9 Thompson. Historicity oj tile Patriarchal Narratives, p. 328; Thompson, 'Das ahe TeSl'l.lIlCnt als theologisehe Disliplin', in ReligiOlugtschicllte /smels oder Theologie des allen Testamtmts (18Th, 10; Neukirehcn: Ncukirehner Vcrlag, 1995), pp. 15773. 1(1 G. Dalman, Arbeit Ulul Sitte ill Paulstilla 1-11/1 (GfHcrsloh: Dcutschc Palastina Verein, repro 1964). II See esp. W.F. Albright. His/0l)', Archeology, alul Christian HU/IIanisWl (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversilY Press, 1964).
44
THOMAS L. THOMPSON
dence on narrative led him to champion one virtual history after the other, whose acceptance was dependent-like most fictionnot on evidence but on his construct's plausibility.12 For nearly two generations, Old Testament studies oscillated uncertainly between two alternative virtual histories. The Bible was read according to one's choice. I find it interesting that this impasse was finally broken when George Mendenhall offered what was at hean a theological compromise. l! Moses, who had been dismissed by Nolh and was nearly invisible in the archaeologically oriented construcls of Albright, was reinstated, along with monotheism, as the original spring from which Israel's history flowed. AJl and Noth's centuries-long peaceful immigration and sedemarization of nomads and Bright and Albright's invading conquerors inaugurating the II-on Age were synthesized by a sermon to Palestine's peasants about freedom from slavel)'_ Already in 1967, Manfred Weippert, in his decisive critique of the conquest theory, undersLOod well both the attraction and plausibility of Mendenhall's scenario, even as he remained faithful to AJl and Noth's option. 14 Although Nonnan Gott\\lald's support of Mendenhall's hypothesis of a peasant rebellion with analogous models drawn from the libraries of American sociology and a Vietnam-
era reading of the Bible in terms of 'liberation theol ogy 'l5 gave this scenario the form of historical reconstructions common to the field, the border between historical argument and narrative virtuality had been crossed. History's intrinsic inLOlerance for narrative V'drianIS, once engaged, led to rapid deconstruction. Neither Niels Peter Lemche's, Israel Finkelstein's nor this writer's shortlived efforts to offer evolutionary models for Israel's origin l6 could 12 Here, most notoriously, W.F. Albright, Yahweh and Ihe Gods of Canaan (London: Alhlone Press, 1968); cr. T.L. Thompson, 'Review ofW,F. Albright, Yahweh and the (;(xis of Canaan', CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 251-16; M. Weippen, 'Abraham del' Hebraer? Bemerkungen zU W.F. Alb,ights Deutung der Vater Israds', Biblica 52 (1971), pp. 407-32. " C,E. Mendenhall. 'The Hebl'ew Conquest of Palestine', BA 25 (1962), pp. 66-87; see also Mendenhall, 'Between Theology and A"cheology',jSOT 7 (1978), pp, 28-34. I. M. Weippert. Die Landnahme der ismelilischen Stiimme ;n der "elleTen wisslmschaftlichell diskllssiQn (GOuingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). 15 N.K. Gottwald, The "lhbts of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 125()..1050 BCE (Maryknoll. I'\'Y; Maryknoll Press. 1979); for a systematic critique, cr, N.r. Lemche, t:arly Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1985); also T.L. Thompson, The Early History of the Israelite People, (SI-IANE, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 5()..76. 16 Here, one must refer to N.r. Lemche, Del gamle Israel (Arhus: Anis, 1984),
IF DAVID HAD NOT CLIMBED THE MOUNT OF OLIVES
45
shore up histodcal criticism's grand projecl. That we were dealing in virtual history had become obvious, and the suspension of belief we had freely granted our biblical scenarios no longer held. T\\u of the guidelines of historical methodology in biblical stud· ies have been (a) evenlS are singular and (b) those of the past that we are aware of are the ones we need for our histories. This not only allows us lO define data as evidence, it also allows us to assert that the evenlS of the past we imagine on the basis of this evidence in fan happened. The sense that we make of our world's relationship to biblical traditions, the importance of such guidelines even as we now begin to doubt them, will, I hope, become clearer as we explore the literary evenlS of our texlS. The awareness of the hislOricization of our traditions that has been encouraged by Eissfeldt's and Noth's rationalizing paraphrases, as well as of the politicization of both archeology and history today, has increased our sensitivity to the relative character of the histories of the past we have chosen to create. 17 What we have written as a history of Israel has been more a theological product for an increasingly secularized world than it is the Bible's hist~ry. We might well ask why it is that as soon as we find anything at all that might be identified as e\;dence supporting a confinnation of the possible existence of a central biblical hero-and here I am thinking of the b)·tdwd in the inscription from Tel Dan l8 and the d(i7)w3t of the Karnak inscription-we begin to read the
publi.shed in Engli.sh as Ancimllsr~ (Sheffield: Sheffield Acadcmic PreMo 1988); see now, howe\'er, The [sr(ll'liles; see al.50 L Finkel.stein, The Archeology of Ihe Israelil, Settlement (Jerusalem: IES, 1988), now also Finkelstein, The Archeology or the United Monarchy: An Ahernative View', Levanl 28 (1996), pp. 177-87; and T.L. Thompson, The Early His/ory of Ihr Israelilt Prof)lr: from the Wriltm and Ardwwlogiml Sourc,s (Leidcn: Ikill. 1992); sec IIOW, howcver, Thompsoll, The Bible ill His/my: Huw Writers CrellU {/ 'Jasl (London:Jonathall Cape, 1999), published ill the USA as 77ie MJthic I'asl: IJiblical Archeology and the MJlh of Ismel (Ncw York: Basic Books, 1999). 17 Already j.M. Sasson, 'On Choosing ~fodcls for Recreating Israelite PreMonarchic History', JSOT 21 (1981), pp. 13-24: cr. al.50 B. Lollg, Plmltillg and &api"g Albright: Politia, ldbJiogy, UllIllntnprrt;ng tht IJible (PclIll.5}'h~"nia: University of Pennsylvania PreM, 1997). 18 A. Biran andJ. Na\"eh, 'An Aramaic t"rngmelU from Tel Dan', It] 43 (1993), pp, 81·98; also Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan In.scriplioll: A Ne¥l' Fragment', It] 45 (1995), pp, 1~18; T.L Thomp.50Il, '~House ofDavid~: an Epon}Tuic Rererenl to Y.. h¥lt:h ..." Godf. Jished (a hislorical necessity and causality which has ever been the envy of the hisLOrian). This is the beginning of the Saul story in God's C)'ts: to re-establish God's kabod in Israel. This scene eSlabIishes a plot tension within the narrative which is not resolved until 2 Samuel 6-7, when David brings the ark back to Zion and Yahweh establishes David's house forever (le-'olam, 2 Sam. 7:29) that the children of Israel might be established as God's eternal people (ad 'olam, 2 Sam. 7:24) and Yahweh as their God. 24 It is in this implicit author's voice that Hannah's universal and cosmic psalm of salvation is to be read, and with it the whole of I and 2 Samuel within the context of this song, which is reiterated at its closure in 2 Samuel 22: 'There is no rock like our God' (1 Sam. 2:2); 'Yahweh is my rock, my fonress, my salvation' (2 Sam. 22:2). It is also Yahweh, Hannah sings (in yet another variation of this wordplay, Saul and David's destiny are wrapped within a cryptic allusion to the theme of birth and salvation), who is the one who both 'brings one down to Hades (sM'ot) and raises one up' (I Sam. 2:6; 2 Sam.
22,6). The story in I Samuel turns again to this theme in the story of Samuel's call in I Sam. 3:1-19. At the close of this scene Eli interprets the mysterious voice which has called Samuel from his sleep in a time in which God is silent: 25 'He is Yahweh: he does what is good in his own eyes!' This definition of Yahweh as Israel's patron that introduces the complex chain of narratives in 1 and 2 Samuel can already be seen in Genesis 1 in the set reiteration of the refrain: 'And God saw that x was good', especially as it stands in contrast to the woman of Gen. 3:6 (made in God's image, Gen. It This is well understood by Luke 1:25 as once again the binh of a child remo\'es Israel's shame (I wi$h (0 thank I. Hjelm for pointing out the importance of the Ichabod tale in reference to the Hannah and Elizabeth Stories). r. So, in the introduction to the story in 3:1, lhere is II silualion of gra\'e thre.1,( comparable (0 Jerusalem jusl before the fall (Lam. 2:9); also a day of hope and truth in which the pious hunger for Yahweh's silenl \'()ice (Amos 8:3; so in I Kgs 19:12b).
H' DAVID HAD NOT CLIMBED THE MOUNT OF OLIVES
51
1:26) who 'sees the tree as good' and so eats of it. and establishes the universal chain of narratives in Genesis I-II about the divine and the human in conflict over their contrary views of the good. 1 and 2 Samuel bring this patron-client connict into explicit f The mentioned change in Israel's foreign policy was most likely related to the coup against and murder of Pekahiah by Pekah, which took place in 736 BeE. The cumulative weight of the following points supports such a position: (a) The lurn around in foreign policy and the violent change of dynasties are temporally related;
, For chronologies of the peliod, see, for instance, G. Galil, The Chronology of tM Kings of Israel and Judah (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, 9; Brill: Leiden, 1996). pp. 63-70, 81-82; N. Na'aman, "HislOrical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Eighth Century B.C.,fl vr 36 (1996), pp. 71-92 (74-82, 92); J. Hayes and P.K. Hooker, A New Chronolog:)'for tile Kings of Israel andJudah and Its Implications for Dibfical History and LiUrature (Atlanta:John Knox Press, 1988); GJ-Jones, I and 2 Kings (NCB, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 9-28; H. Tadmor, ~The Chronology of the First Temple Period: A Presentation and Evaluation of the Sources,fl in J.A. Soggin, A History of Israel: From the Beginnings to lhe Dar Kochba Revolt AD 135 (London: SCM Press, 1985), pp. 368-83. • See Ann. 13· line 10, and Stele III A, line 5 (H. Tadmor, The hucriP/ions of Tiglath Pikser III King of Assyria. Critical EditiQ/l, witllIntroductiOlu, Translations and Commentary Ucrusalem: Magnes Press, 1994], pp, 68-69 and 106-07), the discussions in TadmOI', Inscrilltions, pp. 265-68 and 274-76; B, Becking, The Fall of Samaria. An Historical and ArcJweowgical Study (SllIdies in the History of the Ancient Near East 2; Brill: Leiden, 1992), I'p. 3-4; L. Levine, Two Nf!t)-Ass)'rian Stelae [rom Iran (Royal Ontario Musellm: Toronto, 1972), col. 11, 1. 5; I'p. 18-19. As for
biblical sources, see 2 Kgs 15:19-20. ~ See Ann. 18:3'-7' and 24:3'-11'; Slimm. 4:15-19, Summ. 9:r9 and Slimm. 13: 17-18 (Tadmor, hucriptions, pp. 81-83, 140-41, 188-89, 202-3), the general discussion in Tadmor, Inscriptions, pp. 279-82. See also N. Na'aman, ~Tiglath-pileser Ill's Campaigns against Tyre and Israel {734-32 B.C.E.),fl TA 22 (1995), pp. 26878; Z, Gal, TIle Lower Galilee during tile frOlI Age (ASOR, Dissertation Series, 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), Pl'. 108-109. Cf. 2 Kgs 15:29; I ebron. 5:6, 26.
CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT VIRTUAL ISRAELITE HISTORY
73
(b) Menahem was clearly identified with one policy, Pekah with the other; (c) the Syro-Israelite coalition, and the coup d' elat itself may be seen in the light of the model of forced panicipation in alliances against a suzerain overlord;6 (d) since, within this model, Rezin will be the one who forced the alliance, it is worth stressing that all the documents give him a hegemonic role over Pekah;7 (e) Pekah executed his coup d'itat with the help of fifty Gileadites (2 Kgs 15:25); significantly the Gilead was probably under Aramean control at that time. 8 The l-esults of the change of policy were clear. Israel suffered much destruction, deportation, and the loss of the nonhem part of the kingdom,9 the loss of any hope of gaining conu'ol over the area of Gilead-which was likely taken earlier by Aram and became now Assyrian territory-as well as the loss of the coastal area.
6 Of. Hezekiah's aClions against I'adi, king of Ekron, and his likely involvemellt in the palace coup that brought Sidqa to the throne of Ashkclon, see 011' col. II, lines 60-72. 73-77. col. III, lines 14-15 (D.O. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennaclw1h [Chicago: The University of Chicago aden tal Institute Publications, 1924], ml. 2, pp. 30-32). See N. Na'aman, MForced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West,~ in M. Cogan and I. Eph'al (eds.), Ah AS~'ria ... SluditS in Assyrian History and Ancirnt Ntar t:asttnl Hisllmography Prt-senled 10 Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymitalla, 33: Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), pp. 80-98. 1 See Becking, Fall of Samaria, pp. 6-7. , N. Na'aman, MRezin of Damascus and the Land ofGilead,~ WPV III (1995), pp. 105-17. Other scholars have suggested that the entire northern area or Israel was in Aramcan hands and that TP III, in fact. conquered these territories from Aram. Sec, for instance, S.A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Sym-EI'hraimile Crisis (SBLOS. 123; Allanta: Scholars Press), pp. 34-35, 39-40, 66-68; J.I-I. Hayes and SA Irvine, Isaiah, the Eigh/h Om/Ill)' Prophel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), pp. 12021. On Rezin's ~Greater Syria,M see alsoJ.M, Miller andJ.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Imud andJll(lah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1986), pp. 323-26, 332. cr. Na'arnan's objections in Na'aman, MRezin,~ p. 114 and cr. Tadmor, Inscriptions, p. 280. 9 See Tadmor, Inscriptio"s, pp. 280-81, and earlier, Tadmor, ~The Conquest of Galilee by Tiglalh-pilcscr Ill, King of Assyria,W in H. Hirshberg (cd.), Ailihe umd ofNafttlfi (Jerusalem: Ismc1 ExplorationJollrnal. 1967), pp, 62-67 (Heb.); Gal, The Iflwer Galilee, PI" 108-109; Becking, Fall of Samaria, pp. 15-19; Na 'aman, ~Tiglath pileser Ill's Campaigns;M B. Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in Ille Nro-Ass)'ria71 Empire (Wiesbaden: Or. Ludwig Reichcrt Verlag, 1979). It is worth mentioning that the severity 01 the demogl:!i e\·cn it could have been reHlmed lO (counterfaclUal) Israel, but TP III could have also considered its territory as part of Aram and, accordingly he could ha\·e annexed it to Assrria, as an)' other part of Damascus' domain. zt These deportations were a Mform of punishment for rebellion against Assyrian rule~ and sen·e to liqUidate -rival powers and weakening centers of resist.ance.~ See Oded, MlllS ~atio1U. pp. 41-45. Counterfactual Israel was. of course, an ally of Assp;a.
78
EHUD BEN ZVI
larger than the one LO be expected from the Arameans armies; cf. Judah in 734 and 701 BeE), and most likely would have remained with a much larger terrilOry than post-732 Israel. The reigning dynasty would have been strengthened, and the country would have probably been more stable than post-732 actual (as opposed to virtual) Israel. Moreover. at least the potential of economic growth and settlement development-such as the one in Judah in the last decades of the eighth century-would have been possible in Israel too. To return to the issues raised in the introduction, would anything of historical significance be different beyond the basic counterfact in this case? Needless to say, had these virtual events been actual ones, they would have changed in numerous ways the life of many Israelites who lived through them, who lost their lives, who were deported from (and to) and the like. History as lived by them would have been drastically different. Can the same be said of Israelite history and of the historical data as commonly understood by late twentieth-eentUl)' historians? To answer this question, let us assume, for the sake of the argu~ ment, a theoretical framework that strongly minimizes the historical change that any counterfactual event may cause to history, and that claims a priori that histol)' must almost immediately return to "iLS factual course." Significantly, even within this framework, some differences between the factual and countelfactual history of Israel beyond the event iLSelf must be allowed. For one, within this counterfactual historical frame, it is difficult to assume that the socalled "Syro-Ephraimite" war againstJudah would have happened, because there would be no "Syro-Ephraimite" coalition. In fact, it is most likely that under such (counterfactual) circumstances there would have been an anti·Rezin coalition between the kings ofJudah and Israel. Rezin could have still invaded Judah and it is possible that he could have tried to appoint a client king over Judah, instead of Ahaz. But if he did not succeed with Pekah's support, there is no reason to assume that he would succeed with Pekahiah's opposition. In addition, scholars of the Hebrew Bible would immediately notice that even \vithin this minimal change framework, and even if the introduction of the counterfact would have changed absolutely nothing in the worldview and the ideologies of those who wrote the books of Kings, and Isaiah-and Chronicles-some pericopes and verses (e.g., Isa. 7:1-9; 2 Kgs 15:25-32) would have
CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT VIRTUAL ISRAELITE HISTORY
79
been written differently if the counterfact had been the fact. Moreover. additional verses or passages could have been written, and some changes in, or additions to, the characterization of biblical personages could havl:: takell piau::. FOI instancl::, Pekahiah could have been characterized negatively because of his "bribing" of TP Ill, and his voluntal}' submission to Assyria,2~ or Ahaz would have added LO his reported sins that of an alliance with a sinful king of Israel.2~
To be sure. it may be claimed that these changes are minimal, and, in fact, only support a case for a deterministic hisLOI}' of Israel, or for deterministic histol}' in general. But a framework built around the assumption that hislOI}' must immediately I-eturn to "its factual course," does not seem to be the most "realistic" scenario. This is so because of the differences between the factual and counterfactual circumstances in Israel in the aftermath of the 73432 crisis. Given the magnitude of the differences, it is hard to assume that they would have contributed nothing to the relative likelihood that either of the alternative paths that stood before the leadership in Samaria (probably. within this counterfactual hisLOry, still Pekahiah and his court) would have been adopted as policy in following years, and perhaps decades. It is wortJl noting in this regard that if one accepts a priori that history must return to "its factual course" immediately, and, accordingly. that change must be as minimal as possible, then one cannot claim that "the sludy has shown" change lO be minimal, and, accordingly. has provided support for a more deterministic histol}' of Israel, wilhout falling inLO the trap of circular thinking. But would hiSlorical change likely be relatively minimal even if such an a priori assumption is not broughl into consideration? To answer that question, one must venture additional sleps in counterfactual history.
2~
Cf. N. Na'aman, 'The Deuteronomist and Vo[ulnary Scn·itude to Foreign 65 (1995), pp. 37-53. 2. Biblical theologians, and those interested in the living fhilistia under Assyrian Rulc," BA 29 (1966), PI'. 86-102 (94-95). 'lI Sec the account of Menander as reponed ill Jos. Ani. 9:283-87; H.]. ~tlenstein, The History of T)'J"f:, from Ihe Beginning of Ihe Ser:011d Millen.ium l/C}: unlil O,e Fall of the Nro-BafJ)'{01lian Empire Uerusalem: The Shocken Institute of Research of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1973), Pl'. 225-26; Na'aman, "Historical Backgro\lnd,~ PI" 213-14; C.W. Ahlstrom, 'l1Ie Hislory of Ancienl Pulesline from Ihe Paleolithic (~m(){i 10 Alexander's Q:mquesl USOTSup, 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Acadcmic Press, 1993), pp. 669·70. )I III fact, the Phoenician cilies---other than Tyre-provided the navy neccs-
CONSIDERATIONS AI\OUT VIRTUAL ISRAELITE HISTORY
83
Israel must have joined Ilu'bidi's revolt, in which most of the western panicipallls-inciuding Damascus-were already Assyrian provinces, as opposed to coulllerfactual Israel. It is true that "faclual" brad seems to have joined all the above-mentioned revolts, but (a) its starting poi III was different from that of countelfactual Israel, (b) its elite is differelll, and (c) given the histol)' of successive, failed, but not fatal confrontations bet\veen the factual Samarian ruling elite and Assyria since 731 BCE,.'l2 one cannot dismiss the mounting effect that each of them had on the next. In other words, previous encounters with Assyria almost certainly informed the decision-making process of, and attitude to, Assyria within that process;3.'l to be sure, these circumstances do not apply to counterfactual Israel. Further, the example of Judah may be helpful to evaluate the chances that countelfactual Israel could have sUlvived these two decades without becoming an Assyrian province. Judah, whose actual political behavior closely matched that of counterfactual Israel in 732 BCE, did not lead nor was it a main participalll in any significant revolt against Assyria until after the death of Sargon, Although it seems to have supported in some way the regional revolt led by Yamani in 712 BCE, it probably hastened to pay tribute to Sargon, as probably Moab, Edom, Ammon, Ekron, and others did. Significantly, none of these countries were turned into Assyrian provinces, neither at that time nor ever..'l4 In sum, il Sl.:"1nds to reason that countel-factuallsrael did not have lO become an Assyrian province during the 732-712 BCE period, or ever. In fact, whereas one surely cannOl dismiss that possibilsary 10 keep a maritime siege. See Elat, "Phoenician Ovcrland Trade," p, 24; cf. Menander's account in Jos., Ani. 9:285. '2 Sec, for instancc, Na'aman, "Historical Backgl'ound," Hayes and Kuan, "Final Years." "" COlwcrscly, these encoullters may have innuenced the Assyrian polic)' towards the nonhern kingdom of Israel in its last years. ,. It is wonh stressing that "the geo-political arrangements imposed by Tiglalhpileser upon the other vassal states between Samal'ia and Egypt survived until the end of the Assyrian dominion or the region" (Tadmor, Inscrip/iQl'lS, p, 282), Samal"ia is rather the exception in the area. This cxception cannot be explained away by simply pointing to systemic reasons such as its geogl-aphical position. Moreover, Samaria cannot be compared in its potential as an advcrsary of Assyria with either lhe northem or southern powers that sel the borders or this area and providcd the main challenges to the Assyrian hegemon)', name I)' Damascus and Eg>1H. s..,maria's particular rate seems, howevcr, closely related to its own policies towards and intemctions Wilh Assyria rrom 734-720 BeE (sce above),
84
EHUD BEN ZVI
ity. comparisons with other countries and mainly with Judah, as well as an analysis of actual rebellions that occurred, do not seem to suggest that such an alternative was necessarily the most likely. CounterfaClual Israel could have avoided the fate of factual Israel and remained a vassal, tributary kingdom during the Assyrian regime, and probably-again taking the example of Judah-it could have seen a significant growth in settJements, trade, and its elite, at least, could have prospered within the political and economic domain of the Assyrian empire. To be sure, such a counterfactual Israel would not have been spared the great troubles that followed the collapse of the Assyrian empire in Palestine. Most likely, as all its neighbors, it would have remained loyal to Assyria during the last decades of its power in the area, and would have supported Egypt, who acted as the successor state in the area, most likely in consultation and agreement with Assyria:'J.~ As such it would have fallen into the hands of the Babylonians, and sooner or later-and probably sooner-it would have ended up as a Babylonian province. After all, no vassal state was left standing either east or west of the Jordan after a few decades, and surely there is no reason to assume that counterfactual Israel wOlllrl have heen an f'xrf'ptioll.
Some Concluding Thoughts First, this work has pointed out that the critical study of counterfactual histolY may serve as a powerful heuristic device for the furthering of our understanding of the hisLOly of the period, the structural forces that influence its shaping, tlle role of contingency, and questions of agency. To be sure, this work reaffirms the importance of regional, systemic structures. For instance, no action by Pekah or Pekahiah would have ever led to a really independent Israel. In fact, the possibility of an independent Israel \vas nOt even discussed above, because the data shows that such a development would have been extremely unlikely, even in the ShOft run. This is due to the might and political tendencies of Assyria at the time, but, significantly, it is also consistent with a long-term, systemic trend towards large interregional polities in tlle area, which led first to the nco-Assyrian ~ See N, Na'aman, ~The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah,~ TA 18 (1991), pp. 3--71, and esp. p. 40; Bell Zvi, ~HjslOry and Prophetic Texts."
CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT VIRTUAL ISRAELITE HISTORY
85
empil'e, and, in succession, to the neo-Babylonian and the Achaemenid. This trend was so dominant for centlllies that even the fall of mighty empires did not weaken it. One large empire was sim· ply replaced by another large empire..'16 Systemic circumswnces do have an extremely important impact on historical developments, but, significantly, they may allow for, or are often compatible with, more than an alternative, even in issues of large scope, such as the character of a regional polity. For instance, the pl-esent study has shown that it is reasonable to assume that Israel could have ended up as either an Assyrian province or a tributary vassal state during the Assyrian periodat least there was the potential for both options within the neoAssyrian hegemonic system. Although such a potential seems to have faded away during ule neo-Babylonian period, within the political system of lhe countries east and west of the Jordan, it ex· isted for more than a centlll)'. In this particular case, the factual and counterfactual history ended up realizing different pOlenlials within the system. If the study case here points to a more general situation, then one may conclude that the actions of individuals, the vicissitudes of human agency, and particular contingencies that cannot be explained by any "general historical frame"-and certainly not by a later "teleological frame"-may play decisive roles in the "historical selection" of which alternative-and sub-alternative-becomes factual and which countel-factual within a set of (systemically) acceptable options. As for the historical process al work, it can be characterized by a mathematical analogy. Once particular (and basically non.-deter· ministic) factors decide the value of a function in a related set of functions (e.g., Pekah assassinated Pekahiah, Pekah did not assassinate Pekahiah; there was a purge of pro-Rezin elements in israel, etc.), such a value does affect lhe probability lhat related functions will receive this or that value, in both the "real" and lhe simulated "history." In other wOI"ds, the final outcome of a particular event is likely to affect the outcome of other subsequent events, creating a net of "fulfilled (probabilistic) events" thal strongly affects the probabililies of still unfulfilled events within the 36 This trend cominued later in thc rorm or Alexander's empire. thc Sclcucid til"" ",ith S/"rinl ll".!I'rI"t!C' fo 01' D,st;'U1fion of CallI/inns (WUNT, 84;
Tlibingcn: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. 1995). 11 Therefore he denics that Paul's purpose in going lO Ambia was missionary: Paul's Early Pen'od, pp. 258-60.
176
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
common assumption that Paul, the strongly Hellenized Jew from Tarsus, chose as an obvious matter of cultural affmity to preach in the cities of the north-east Mediterranean world. The Nabaleans, in this period before their annexation as the Roman province of Arabia in 106, were among the least Hellenized peoples of the Near EaSl. l2 There is rather little evidence for the use of Greek. Nahatean remained the language of government, law, re· ligion and ordinary speechyl But Paul, a 'Hebrew born of Hebrcv.s' (Phil. 3:5), that is, a native Semitic speaker,H was cenainly fluent in Aramaic as well as Greek. If> There were Jewish communities in Nabatea (probably mentioned in Acls 2: II), which no doubt Paul would use as a point of contact with sympathetic Gen· tiles, as was his regular missionary strategy later. Paul's policy of prioritizing the synagogue precisely in his Gentile mission (cf. Rom. I :16) was not merely pragmatic. It corresponded to the prophetic expectation that in the last days the nations would come to Zion bringing with them the Israelites of the diaspora (Isa. 11: 10-12; 60:4-9; 66: 18-20). Paul's Gentile mission was therefore bound to be to the lands of the Jewish diaspora, though it was in any case commonly supposed that thel"e were Jews in every part of the inhabited world (e.g. Philo, ug. Gai. 283-84). Mter a period, perhaps more than 1\..0 years (Gal. 1:17·18), in Arabia Paul returned to Damascus. Why to Damascus? There were more direct routes to Jerusalem. If Paul had become persona non grata to the Nabatean authorities, as is commonly deduced from the circumstances of his leaving Damascus (2 Cor. 11 :32-33), there were more rapid routes out of Nabatean territory. It must be that Paul now intended to travel the other main route from Damascus: the caravan route north-east to Palmyra and thence to Mesopotamia. That way the whole of the eastern diaspora, the original diaspora not just of the Judean tribes, but of all the twelve tribes who must all be brought back to Jerusalem by their Gentile neighbours
12 M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Plwl Belwtlm Damascus and Antioch (trans. Bowden; London: SCM Press. 1997), p. 112. give a somewhat exaggerated impression of Hcllenization in Nabatea at this time. \3 F. Millar, Th, Roman Near East 31 Be-AD 337 (Cambl'idge: Harvard Univcrsity Press. 1993), pp. 401407. 14 M. Hcngel, The Prf!-Chrislian Paal (trail:>. j. BOWUCll; Lonuon; SCM Pn::>:>, 1991), pp. 25-26:J. Murphy-O·Connor. Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford Uni\'ersity Press. 1996), pp. 36-37. l~ Hengel and Schwemer. Palll, PI'. 118-19.
J.
WHAT IF PAUL HAD TRAVELLED EAST RATHER THAN WEST?
177
in the last days, lay before Paul. Moreover, the nations to the east were Semites. The descendants of Shem lived from Syria eastwards to India (Gen. 10:21-31)-01" even to China, as Josephus seems to indicate (Ant. 1.143-47). On the principle of beginning with Israel's closest kin, these were the nations to whom Paul should turn after the Abrahamic tribes of Arabia. Prophecy explicitly envisaged the return of the eastern diaspora along with the nations of the east (Isa. 11:10-12, 15-16; cr. 45:6, 22; 48:20; 49:12). P.-obably;t was only the attempt of the Nabatean ethnarch in Damascus to arrest Paul and Paul's ignominious flight from the city (2 Cor. 11 :32-33) that prevented Paul following this direction to the east. The Nabateans controlled the routes nonh-east as well as south, and so Paul, in flight for his life, could take only the road to Jerusalem. 16 Doubtless, for Paul, this was providential guidance, an instance, as he was later to see it, of God's ability to further his purpose through Paul's weakness (2 Cor. 11:32-12:10). From Jerusalem Paul made, as it were, a new start (cr. Acts 22:17-21), understanding the prophetic programme now to direct him first to Tarsus (Isa. 60:9; 66:19; Gal 1:21; Acts 9:30) and so in an arc from Jerusalem to the furthest west (Rom. 15:19,23-24). His own origin in Tarsus no doubt now provided the providential indica· tion that this was his own role in the eschatological events, as missionary not to the descendants of Shem but to those ofJapheth. 17 The apostle who, but for the antipathy of the Nabatean authorities, might have travelled to the eastern end of the earth now followed a consistent imperative towards its opposite extremity. Paul in the
cast
Paul's missionary strategy in the east would have been similar to that which we know he followed in the west. He would have targeted the Hellenistic cities with significant Jewish communities in them, like those we know him to have worked in in Asia Minor and Greece. He might, in the first place, have travelled north from Palmyra to cross the Euphrates at Nicephorium and then followed 16 Riesner. Paul's Earl)' Pmod, pp. 261-62; cr. tl-Wlar, The Roman Nmr East, pp. 298-99. 17 Perhaps nOl only lhe location of the places in Isa. 66; 19 in the tcrrilory of Japheth. btl! also the priorily 01 Japheth in the table 01 the nations «(jen. JU;
178
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
the route alongside the river Balikh to the Hellenistic cities of lchnai, Charax Sidoll and Charrhae. This would also take him to Edessa, whence he could travel east to Nisibis and Adiabene. where many of the non.hern Israelite exiles still lived. He would be unlikely to travel further north or east to Media, but would (urn south, perhaps ending this journey by crossing the Euphrates at Doura Emopos, another Hellenized and (at this date) Parthian city with a significant Jewish community. and thence back to Palmyra and Damascus. Another journey might take him to Babylonia, the area of the largest Jewish settlement in the east, travelling through Doura and sOllLh-east along the Euphrates LO the Jewish seulemem at Nehardea and then to Seleucia on the Tigris, the old capital of Seleucid Babylonia, the centre of Hellenistic culture in Babylonia, with a large Jewish community. Continuing south-east he could visit Antioch in Mesene and Charax Spasinou on the Gulf, perhaps also Susa. In many of these cities he might have stirred up the kind of local Jewish opposition that he encountered in some of the cities of Asia Minor and Greece, according 1O Acts, but he is unlikely to have been harassed by the tolerant Parthian authorities. IS Finally, Paul could have set his sights on travelling even further east, towards the eastern end of the earth, just as the Paul of Romans intended to Lravel west as far as Spain. This would take him as far as Alexander's empil-e had stretched, to north-east India, where the Acts of Thomas take their hero, the apostle Judas Thomas. Like the Palmyrene merchants who travelled down the Euphrates to Charax Spasinou where they embarked on ships,19 Paul would no doubt have travelled by sea through the Gulf to India. Although it is intrinsically likely that some Jews had already travelled this far and settled in India, we cannot be sure that there were already Jewish communities in India at this date. One difference from Paul's travels in the west might have been that he would probably have preached in the synagogues in Aramaic rather than Greek, and in general might have used some Greek but more Aramaic. This is difficult to judge precisely. Greek was spoken in the Hellenistic cities in which Paul would most likely have spent most of his time, and Greek is used on most Parthian 18 BUllhe chil war in I'anhia during the early years of his minisuy there could have complicaled matters for Paul. I') Millar. Tht Roman Near East, pp. 330-31.
WHAT II- PAUL HAD TRAVELLED EAST RATHER THAN WEST?
179
coins. But Josephus, writing the first (no longer extant) version of his jewish War in Aramaic for readers east of the Euphrates, presumably judged that this language was the most effective for reaching both a Jewish and a Gentile readership in the east. We may thus presume that the letters Paul would have written to some of his newly founded Christian communities in the Parthian e;=m· pire would probably have been written in Aramaic. This is an important point for following through our speculation, because it would inhibit their circulation to the west of the Euphrates outside Syria unless they were translated into Greek. This in turn would prevent the influence of Pauline theology on Greek and Latin Christianity and their successors. But translation of Paul's Aramaic letters into Greek would be not unlikely. Some of the earliest Christian literature in Syriac, probably all from Osrhoene, such as the Odes oj Solomon, the Acts oj Thomas, and some of the works of Bardaisan, were translated into Greek. The contacts with Greek-speaking Christians that would make a translation of Paul's letters into Greek desirable and likely certainly existed at an early date. Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis, who recorded his extensive travels in a rather cryptic epitaph on his tombstone, travelled to Rome and then to the east, around the middle of the second century. He 'saw the plain of Syria and all the cities, even Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates. And everywhere I had associates. Having Paul as a companion, evel)"\lhere faith led the \\I3y'.20 In our present context the somewhat puzzling reference to Paul is tantalizing. Did Abercius mean that he was following in Paul's footsteps, not only to Rome, but also to Nisibis? The lack of any other trace of a tradition that Paul ever crossed the Euphrates makes this unlikely. Perhaps Abercius meant only that, like Paul, he travelled extensively, visiting Christian communities. Perhaps he meant that his copy of the Pauline letters was something he had in common with the 'associates' (fellow Christians) he encountered everywhere. Would Paul's travels in the east have made a significant difference to Christianity east of the Euphrates? If his letters had come down to us and/or he had inspired a Luke to write a Mesopotamian equivalent to Acts, we should certainly know a great deal morc abollt the beginnings of Christianity in Mesopotamia than 20 Translation in j. Quasten. Palrology, vol. I (UtTech\: SpCClnlffi, 1950), p. 172.
180
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
we do. Though scholars who begin with the legends and find it impossible to ascertain the truth behind them tend to think Christianity did not reach Mesopotamia in Paul's lifetime or even in the t1rst century.21 it has to be said that the constant communication and travel between Jerusalem and the eastern diaspora makes it virtually incredible lhal it did 110[.22 Jewish pilgrims and merchams from me east would have heard the gospel in Jerusalem and taken it back to their synagogue communities. 23 This would surely have been the way Christianity initially spread lO much of the diaspora. including such areas as Egypt and Cyrene, aboUl which we know no more than we do of Mesopotamia. In addition, there is no reason Lo doubt the basic historicity of Addai, the apostle of Edessa, and his links with the pre.70 Jcmsalcm church,24 or Mari, whom traditions suggest planted the church in SeleuciaCtesiphon, travelling there from Nisibis, in the following generation. Such names, handed down in local traditions, are often reliable even when the stories told of them are legendary.?!> However, even these traditions do not indicate flourishing Christian communities as early as Paul's lifetime, other than in Edessa. Had Paul travelled east, this might have been otherwise. The churches of Seleucia on the Tigris and Charax Spasinou on the Gulf might have been as important as those of Ephesus and Corinth actually were. Moreover, the character of the Christian 2\ E.g. M.-L Chaumont. LA ChristiQnUation tk l'mlpir~ lranim tin urigina aUJl' granda fi'"sicution du !\'esikle (CSCO, 499; Lou"ain: Peeters, 1988), Pan I. n In my "iew the address ofJames 10 'Ihe lweh'e lribeS in the diaspora' (Jas I: I) is aemal evidence of this: sec R. Bauekham,jama: Wisdom ofjalMS, Discipu of jaus theSa~ (NT Readings; London: Routledge. 1999), pp. 14-16. IS Compare Ihe way in which Izales, before his accession 10 the throne of Adiabenc in 36 CE, W'dS convcrtcd 10 Judaism by a Jcwish merchant in Charax Spasinou, while his mOlher was similarly convcrtcd by aliolherJew in Adiabene. L,ler hates was influenccd by a Pharisec from Galilee (Josephus. Ant. 20.34-35, 38-48). 2i Discussions of Addai havc rei to take accounl of whal is probably lhe earliest known reference 10 him in the First Apocalypse of James (CC V, 3) 36:1525. Though this text had long been published by the time he ....rote, there is 110 reference to it in the diKussion of Addai by ChaullloIH, UI Cilristianisat;on, pp. 14-16. By linking Addai with James of Jerusalem, it makes improbable Ihe conclusion or Chaumonl and others that, Ihough historical, Addai's ministry in Edessa should be daled c, 100 at Ihe earliest. t5 Note also Ihe possibility that re!ali"es or Jesus were mISSionaries in the eastenl diaspora in Ihe- C"arly vrnnrl ce-nlllry: R. R:mckham,jll/" ",Id til, IUlat;,,,, of jaus in /he Earl] Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990), pp. 68-iO; and the rull account no~' of Ihe C\idellce in Chaumont, La Cilrist;anisa/:Oll, pp. 4247 (he does nOi credit it).
WHAT IF PAUL HAD TRAVELLED EAST RATHER THAN WEST?
181
theological tradition east of the Euphrates might have been different. The great Syriac Fathers, Ephrem and Aphrahat of Nisibis, evidently formed in a theological tradition influenced by the kind of jewish Christianity that first took root in northern Mesopotamia,26 knew and used Paul's letters, but were not deeply influenced by them. Had Paul been the aposLJe of the east and his letters addressed to churches of the east, this might have been othenvise. The West without Paul The most challenging issue our counterfactual hypothesis raises is that of imagining what Christianity in the Roman Empire would have been like without Paul. The prominence of Paul in Acts and in the Western theological tradition down the centuries has led to such absurd exaggerations of Paul's significance as the claim that Paul invented Christianity or that without Paul Christianity would have remained a sect within judaism. Since the German Liberalism of the nineteenth cemu,)', Paul has been required to effect the transition between jesus, the preacher of ethics, the fatherhood and kingdom of God, and the dogmatic Christianity which proclaimed a Christocentric gospel of salvation through the death and resurrection ofJesus. 27 In LJle many versions of this view, it has been Paul who Hellenized the Jewish religion of Jesus and his first followers, Paul who created Christianity as a Gentile religion for Gentiles, Paul who made Jesus the object of faith and worship, Paul who set Christianity on the road to becoming the religion of credal orthodoxy it was in the age of the ecumenical councils. AJI aspects of this understanding of Paul and his significance have been comprehensively refuted in recent decades, both in Pauline studies and in studies of early Jewish and non-Pauline forms of Christianity. Against such exaggerations of Paul's role in the development of early Christianity, we must first note that, creative thinker though he was, not everything in Paul's writings is originally Pauline. Rather than detecting Pauline influence wherever other early Christian writings employ terms or ideas also found in Paul, 'ffi
R. Murray, S)'mbols oj Church and Kingdom (Cambridgc: Cambridge Univcr-
sity Press. 1975), lillruduuiull