Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TO
UNDERSTAND
THE
SCRIPTURES:
Essays in Honor
of
William H. Shea
Contributors Include:
Merling Alomia
Dalton D. Baldwin
Richard M. Davidson
David A. Dorsey
Ron du Preez
Roy Gane
Norman R. Gulley
Larry G. Herr
Robert M. Johnston
Gerald A. Klingbeil
Donn W. Leatherman
Robert K. McIver
David Merling
Daegeuk Nam
Samuel Niiiiez
Gudmundur Olafsson
Paul J. Ray, Jr.
Angel Manuel Rodriguez
Zdravko Stefanovic
Steven Thompson
S. Douglas Waterhouse
Bryant G. Wood
Edwin M. Yamauchi
Norman H. Young
Randall W. Younker
TO
UNDERSTAND
THE
SCRIPTURES:
Essays in Honor
of
William H. Shea
Edited by
David Merling
Institute of Archaeology
Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, MI 49104-0990
The book was prepared by the Archaeological Publication Department of the Andrews
University Institute of Archaeology under the direction of Ralph E. Hendrix with the
technical assistance of Philip R. Drey. Front cover photograph 0 1997 by Dave B. Sherwin.
CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Introduction
David Merling
A Selected Bibliography of William H. Shea
Edited by Paul J. Ray, Jr.
xvii
Gudmundur Olafsson
2 The Book of Joshua: Its Structure and Meaning
David Merling
29
33
David A. Dorsey
7 The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel
71
Richard M. Davidson
8 The Usage and Meaning of the Hebrew Word -pm 95
in the Old Testament ,
Samuel Nithez
9 Jewelry in the Old Testament: A Description of Its Functions 103
Angel Manuel Rodriguez
127
149
163
173
Zdravko Stefanovic
17 The Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 9:27 and Related Texts:
Theology of Retributive Judgment
Paul J. Ray, Jr.
18 Those Who Are Wise: The Maskilim in Daniel
and the New Testament
Steven Thompson
205
215
233
SECTION 4: ARCHAEOLOGY
245
265
273
291
General Index
301
Scripture Index
313
Acknowledgments
William H. Shea
Introduction
Wright for a while, Horn and Wright had an occasion to visit together. When
Horn mentioned Shea's name, Wright exclaimed, "That Shea is a genius!"
The Sheas returned to Trinidad for another two years. Then, in 1972, their
family moved to Berrien Springs, Michigan. Dr. Karen Shea worked as an
anesthesiologist in a local hospital and Dr. Bill Shea began commuting to Ann
Arbor where he began studies at the University of Michigan with George
Mendenhall and David Noel Freedman for a Ph.D. in Near Eastern studies,
which he completed in 1976.
For 14 years Dr. Shea taught at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological
Seminary, in Berrien Springs, Michigan, as part of the Old Testament
Department. He served as Chair of that department and acting Director of the
Institute of Archaeology, during some of that time. Although, he continued to
be an Adjunct Professor at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,
between 1986 and his retirement, he has been an Associate Director of the
Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
His primary role during this time has been research and teaching at extension
schools, and weekend seminars.
If anything, Dr. Shea is unassuming, which is combined with his creativity
and enthusiasm. On more than one occasion, I have heard Dr. Shea relate the
story of an article that was approved for publishing, only for him to change his
mind on a detail that he asked the editor to make. Some time later, he changed
his mind again, and again wrote the editor to make the change. This time the
editor returned the article with the note, "Send it back to me when you make
up your mind." This story was always told with the glee of a school boy in the
midst of a playground. Learning the "truth" for Dr. Shea has always been
dynamic and more important than defending pet theories.
My own academic career is an example of how Dr. Shea's openness was
shared with his students. At one point in my doctoral program, I found myself
without an adviser. Even, after trying to get me to switch topics, he took me
as a student, badgered me more than anyone else at my oral defense, then
wrote a highly supportive letter (one I will always treasure) that led to
publication of my dissertation.
The contributors of this volume knew Dr. Shea best during his 14-year
sojourn (1972-1986) as a teacher at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological
Seminary and the years following. As the reader will note, after perusing
through Dr. Shea's bibliography in the appendix at the end of this book, he
published more in the last twenty years than many scholars do in a lifetime.
Bill Shea has had a host of admirers, including those who have written for
this work. That "Dr. Shea," as most of his students call him, has had a widespread influence can be easily noted by the large number of home countries
and universities of the contributors (Australia, Canada, England, Korea, Peru,
the Philippines, and five universities in the United States).
Also similar to Dr. Shea's written work, the chapters that follow are an
Introduction xv
eclectic mix of Old Testament and New, theological, historical, and textual. To
those who know his work, it will not be surprising that there are so many
chapters relating to the Book of Daniel since he has also written and spoken
often on aspects of that book. Above all, you will find in the following
chapters a creative way of looking at the biblical text and history. Those of us
who have known him have found him refreshingly insightful and bursting with
new ideas. He has inspired his students, challenged his colleagues, and made
all pause when reflecting on established presuppositions.
The Sheas have three children and two grandchildren. Upon his retirement
Dr. Shea, with his wife, is returning to the Pacific coast and will live near the
ocean he has always loved. DM
19966
Daniel 7-12: Prophecies of the End Time. Boise, ID: Pacific Press.
Articles
1966 The Sabbath in the Epistle of Barnabas. Andrews University Seminary Studies 4:
149-175.
1971a An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, I.
Andrews University Seminary Studies 9: 51-67.
1971 b An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, II.
Andrews University Seminary Studies 9: 100-128.
1972a An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, DI.
Andrews University Seminary Studies 10: 88-117.
1972b An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, IV.
Andrews University Seminary Studies '10: 147-178.
1980i The Location and Significance of Armageddon in Rev. 16:16. Andrews University
Seminary Studies 18: 157-162.
1980j One Invasion or Two? Ministry 53 (March): 26-28.
1980k The Poetic Relations of the Time Periods in Dan. 9:25. Pp. 277-282 in Andrews
UniversiO rSeminary Studies 18: 59-63. Reprinted in Sanctuary and Atonement, ed.
F. B. Holbrook. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.
19801 The Relationship Between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9. Pp. 228-250 in Studies in
Sanctuary and Atonement, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Washington, DC: Biblical Research
Institute.
1980m The Year-Day Principle. Pacific Union Recorder 80 (September): 3, 4.
1981a The Amman Citadel Inscription Again. Palestine Exploration Quarterly: 105-110.
1981b The Ark-Shaped Formation in the Tendurek Mountains of Eastern Turkey. Origins
8: 77-92.
1981c Artistic Balance Among the Beni-Hasan Asiatics. Biblical Archaeologist 44: 219228. Reprinted in Bible and Spade 12 (1983): 1-21.
1981d The Calendars of Ebla: II. Andrews University Seminary Studies 19: 59-70.
1981e The Calendars of Ebla: DI. Andrews University Seminary Studies 19: 115-125.
1981f The Carpentras Stela. Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1981): 215217 .
1981g Esther and History. Ministry (July): 26, 27.
1981h Shea Replies to Ford. Spectrum 11: 57-60.
1982a
Chiasm by Theme and by Form in Rev. 18. Andrews University Seminary Studies
20: 249-256.
1982b Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura. Andrews
University Seminary Studies 20: 29-52.
1982c Daniel 9:24-27. Pp. 255-301 in Prophetic et Eschatologie. Collonges, France:
Seminaire Adventiste.
1985a Ancient Cities of Refuge and Modern Political Refugees. Liberty Magazine 80
(May/June): 11.
1985b Further Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4. Andrews
University Seminary Studies 23: 193-202.
1985c Further Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 5. Andrews
University Seminary Studies 23: 277-295.
1985d The Literary Structures of Dan 4 and 5 Integrated into the Literary Structure of Dan
1-6. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 277-296.
1985e Mutilation of Foreign Names by Bible Writers: A Possible Example from Tell elUmeiri. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 111-115.
1985f The Parallel Literary Structure of Revelation 12 and 20. Andrews University
Seminary Studies 23: 37-54.
1985g Sennacherib's Second Palestinian Campaign. Journal of Biblical Literature 104:
401-418.
1986a Chiasmus and the Structure of David's Lament. Journal of Biblical Literature
(March): 13-25.
1986b Daniel 9:24-27. Pp. 75-118 in Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, ed. F.
B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC:
Biblical Research Institute.
1986c The Early Development of the Antiochus Epiphanes Interpretation in Daniel's
Prophecies. Pp. 256-328 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.
1986d Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus. Pp. 131-168 in Seventy Weeks,
Leviticus, Nature ofProphecy, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.
1986e Menahem. Pp. 317-318 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., vol.
3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
1986f The Neo-Babylonian Setting of Daniel 7. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24:
31-36.
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
1988d Esodo 11:1-12:36: Critica y Struttura Litteraria. Adventus 1: 32-44.
1988e Gomorrah? Archaeology and Biblical Research 1 (Autumn): 12-23.
1988f The Military Strategy of Sheshonq/Shishak in Palestine. Chronology and
Catastrophism Review 10: 2-10.
1988g Noah's Ark? Archaeology and Biblical Research 1 (Winter): 6-14.
1988h Proto-Sinaitic Inscription 357. Ugarit Forschungen 20: 301-308.
Co-Authored Articles
1976 The Tell Mardikh Tablets, with L. T. Geraty. The Review and Herald.
1992 1844: A People of Prophecy, with C. R. Goldstein. Adventist Review 169: 8-11.
1996 Taken by Rapture, with L. R. Torres, J. Paulien, W. G. Johnsson, and J. Lutz.
Perspective Digest 1: 47-60.
Reviews
1975 Review of The First 7000 Years, by G. C. Ozane. Andrews University Seminary
Studies 13: 91, 92.
1991c Review of Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, by G. F.
Hasel. Ministry 64 (September): 28.
1991d Review of Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, by A. Dearman. The Journal
of the American Oriental Society 111 (January-March): 187.
1993 Review of Primitive and Ancient Medicine: A History of Medicine 1, by P.
Prioreschi. Andrews University Seminary Studies 31: 81-83.
1994 Review ofBlessing and Curse in the Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age,
by T. 0. Crawford. Hebrew Studies 35: 121-124.
The Problem
For centuries, Bible students have noted that the creation accounts of
Genesis 1 and 2 use different names for God. This observation eventually led
to the development of the Documentary Hypothesis in the 18th and 19th
centuries. Even though it is now based more on different theological outlooks,
the different names of God still play an important role in the identification of
the alleged sources found in the Pentateuch of which Genesis 1 and 2 are seen
as the prime example.
The two chapters are generally seen to present two versions of the creation
account, one by P (Gen 1:1-2:4a), the other by J (Gen 2:4b-25; for a thorough
survey of studies see Westermann 1976: 754-798). This classification is
supported by the facts that: (1) the initial environment is different: water and
darkness in Genesis 1; dry, uncultivated land in Genesis 2; (2) the names for
God are different: Elohim in Genesis 1; YHWH Elohim in Genesis 2; (3) the
actions listed are different: fiat creation by means of a powerful word in
Genesis 1, versus anthropomorphic activities in Genesis 2; and (4) the
sequence of events is different: man is created last in Genesis 1, but at the
beginning in Genesis 2.
On the basis of these differences, Genesis 1 and 2 are seen by proponents
of the Documentary Hypothesis as originally independent accounts which were
later combined by a skillful editor. Some see Genesis 2 primarily as the
background for the "fall-story" in Genesis 3, and as such is "earth-centered,"
concentrating on the creation of man, in contrast to Genesis 1 which is
"heaven-centered," with man's creation as the climax (e.g. Speiser 1979: 19).
Others consider the account of creation in Genesis 2 as basically an expansion
Analysis
In Genesis 2, man is also the central focus of attention, but the account
never claims to present a story of creation. In fact, none of the words used
about creation in Genesis 1, (Ma, bara , create; rfwv, a( .Oh, make; 1n),
natan, appoint) are found in Genesis 2, instead we find words that express
physical actions ON), yasar, form; vv), mita plant; nns , samah, grow).
Genesis 2 begins with a statement about the initial environment, a structural
reminder of the creation story in Genesis 1, even though the details are quite
different (water covers the earth in Genesis 1, but dry land characterizes the
environment in Genesis 2). Some have explained the difference on the basis
that the environment in Genesis 2 consisted of that part of nature which was
immediately affected by the fall in Genesis 3, whereas the environment in
Genesis 1 was more universal (e.g. Sailhamer 1990: 40, 41).
The initial environment (vss. 5, 6); table 1.1. The words "earth" ('M,
eres) and "ground" (MTN, bdamah) are used interchangeably throughout
Genesis 2 in accordance with general usage in Hebrew. Besides, "earth" may
refer to either the world in general or a localized plot of land, as is also
common in Hebrew.
Explanation (2:6)
for
YHWH Elohim had not sent rain upon the earth
and
man was not (there) to cultivate the ground
but
a mist used to rise from the earth
and water the whole surface of the ground (trans. by author)
Genesis 2:6 seems to imply that there was enough water provided by the
mist for general usage, for it watered "the whole surface of the ground," so the
condition in Gen 2:5a is not caused by the apparent lack of water, but rather
the fact that "man was not (there)" to cultivate the ground, so those plants that
depended on special cultivation and care were not yet on the earth. In Gen 2:79, however, a dramatic change takes place.
The garden environment (vss. 7-9); table 1.2. It is noticeable that all of
these events are centered around the garden, which is not created (N11, bara)
nor made (nv.)y, Asah) by a fiat creation as is everything in Genesis 1, but is
rather planted (vw), nata) by YHWH Elohim Himself It is there that He
caused to grow
commanded man
saying: You may eat from any tree of the garden
but shall not eat from the tree of knowledge
of good and evil (trans. by author)
The general statement in Gen 2:8, "and there (i.e., in the garden) He
placed the man He had made" is now expanded with the added detail that man
was placed in the garden for the purpose of cultivating and keeping it. That,
again, solves the problem presented in Gen 2:5 where the absence of man is
seen as the reason for the lack of cultivation of the earth. This confirms that
Gen 2:5 is not referring to plants in general, but rather those plants which are
specially dependent on cultivation and care by man.
Then God instructs man concerning the use of the trees in the garden, not
trees in general. Man was free to eat of any tree in the garden, except the tree
of knowledge which was located in the middle of the garden (Gen 2:9). Again
The locus of this activity is not specified, but in light of the overall context
of Genesis 2 it is most natural to see it taking place in the garden setting. Man
had been placed in the garden, so that is where he felt alone. Next, God forms
(ON), yasar) animals and birds to occupy the garden. This interpretation seems
justified on the basis of the parallel non-localized action where God "caused
to grow every tree pleasing to the sight and good for food" (Gen 2:9). When
he says to man that he can eat freely of any tree of the garden (Gen 2:16), it
makes the most sense if the trees mentioned in Gen 2:9 are located in the
garden. The whole event is different from the creative activity of Day 3 in Gen
1:9-12 when God created the seed-bearing vegetation of the earth, including
fruit-bearing trees, with no specific instruction as to their function.
The same localization seems to apply to the animals (Gen 2:19). Other
animals and birds had already been created on Days 5 and 6 (Gen 1:20-30).
The animals created in Gen 2:19, 20 were specifically formed for a particular
purpose which relates to man who is in the garden. Again, it may be significant to note that Genesis 2 is never referred to as a creation, but its activities
are "hand-crafted" and apparently localized in the garden.
The remaining six verses (Gen 2:20-26) are also best understood in the
context of the garden. Man was already there, so that is where God performed
the creative "surgery" of removing one of man's ribs in order to "build" (1n,
banah) the woman, and then, brought her to the man (Gen 2:22).
There is not clear evidence within Genesis 2 of any activity outside of the
garden. Those texts which might seem to point in that direction may be better
understood in the more local setting of the garden.
References
Sailhamer, J. H.
1990 Genesis. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Shea, W. H.
1978 The Unity of the Creation Account.
Origins
5: 9-38.
Speiser, E.
A.
1979
Genesis. Anchor Bible, vol. 1, eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freeman. New
York: Doubleday.
Westermann, C.
1976 Genesis 1
11.
David Merling
Archaeology and Bible, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
land among the Israelites was accomplished by the direct involvement of God
(Num 26:55; Josh 14:1, 2). The biblical writers recorded that each tribe was
to be allotted its portion by God, not based on the size of a tribe or conquest
rights or military capability.
The Israelites were to divide the land by the casting of lots (511)), an
activity that YHWH controlled (Dommershausen 1977: 450; and Aune 1986:
172, 173; cf. Mendelsohn 1962: 164) The casting of lots was a holy act and
seen by the Israelites as a clear "answer and final decision of Yahweh, against
which there is no appeal" (Dommershausen 1977: 452).
The overriding belief in YHWH's omnipresence in history is present in all
the biblical books, but nowhere more forceful than in the book of Joshua
stories. In all its stories, "there is one hero, and only one. It is God himself and
to him Israel must give all praise and credit" (Wright 1984: 13).
The Conquest Theory looks for physical remains from events said to have
been caused by the Divine. This in itself should give pause.
The Relationship between
the Book of Joshua and Archaeology
One might expect that if the book of Joshua accurately represents
historical occurrences (even if caused or instigated by YHWH), archaeological
investigations of sites said to be conquered by Joshua would yield evidences
of that conquest. One problem faced by excavators is that the book of Joshua
provides very little specific information about the cities captured by the
Israelites. Table 2.1, which summarizes the information about captured cities
provided by the biblical writers, demonstrates the limited nature of the details
of those incidents.
According to the book of Joshua, the wall of Jericho fell and the city was
burned. Ai was set on fire and left in ruin. Makkedah was utterly destroyed.
Hebron was utterly destroyed and Hazor was burned. Nothing specific is said
about Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, and Debir, except that whatever happened to
the other cities happened to them.
As this summary suggests, the statements of what was done to these cities
are in general terms with no specific, detailed descriptions provided. Regarding
Jericho itself, about which the biblical writers provide the most comment, the
biblical writers tell the readers nothing about what the city looked like after the
destruction or before. Was it a city of 50 acres or one acre, like the most
assumed spot for Jericho, Tell es-Sultan?
Readers are left in a quandary: Should we expect that the Israelites
dismantled Jericho stone by stone? What about Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish,
Eglon, Debir, and Hazor? Were all of their walls knocked down or was only
one breach made in each of their walls, or is there some other possibility? I
would suggest that an interpretation of the specific deeds done to these cities
be drawn cautiously since it seems that one reason so few details are provided
Site
Reference
Description
Jericho
6:20
8:19
8:28
6:24
Ai
10:28
Libnah
Lachish
Eglon
Hebron
10:30
10:32
10:35
10:37
Debir
Hazor
10:39
11:11
Josh 10:37, 39 could be seen as implying the total destruction of Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, and Debir, but there is no specific statement
in the text that describes the destruction of these cities.
Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph (Josh 11:1) could conceivably be added to this list. It seems, however, that the pronoun "them" (Heb.
MIN) ofortiti tannn (Josh 11:12) does not refer to these cities but to the kings, since the "kings" are the closest antecedent to
this pronoun and is in the masculine form of the pronoun. In any case, nothing specific in the text is said about the destruction of
Madon, Shimron, or Achshaph.
Table 2.1. Sites destroyed by Joshua with specific reference to their destruction.'
is that each city destroyed in the book of Joshua was a city that experienced a
"Day of YHWH" kind of judgment. Experiencing such a judgment, it had to
be totally destroyed and that judgment had to fall in one day, no matter its
physical condition following an Israelite attack.
The implications of Stuart's (1976) insights into the "Sovereign's Day of
Conquest" have not been considered as they should have been for the book of
Joshua. Stuart made a connection between the biblical prophets' "Day of the
Lord" and the ancient Near Eastern concept that "a true sovereign could win
his war in a day" (1976: 159; emphasis in original). In the same way that other
great kings won their battles in one day, the prophets said that there, would be
a final "Day of the Lord," when YHWH would defeat all foes in one day. This
same kind of judgment is suggested in the book of Joshua, where the Israelites,
led by YHWH, conquered city after city in one day.
Would a biblical writer dare suggest that any part of the city or population
remained following a "Day of YHWH" judgment? In other words, few details
are provided because the destruction of these cities was an act of YHWH and,
for the biblical writers, that says it all. The lack of information is especially
Biblical
Jericho
Ai
Makkedah
Libnah
Lachish
Eglon
Hebron
Debir
-Hazor
Madon
Shimron
Achshaph
Site
(Modern)
(Tell es-Sultan)
(et-Tell)
(Tell es-Safi)
(Khirbet el-Qom)
(Tell es-Safi)
(Tell Bornat)
(Tell Judeideh)
(Tell ed-Duweir)
(Tell el-Hesi)
(Tell `Aitun)
(Tell Hebron)
(Tell Beit Mirsim)
(Khirbet Rabild)
(Tell el-Qedah)
(Tel Qarnei Hittin)
(Tell Shimron)
(Tell Keisan)
Late Bronze
Settlement
Late Bronze I
Destruction
--
?
?
?
?
--?
--?
?
?
--?
?
?
-?
---
Table 2.2. A summary of the archaeological data for the book of Joshua.
----?
?
?
?
?
?
Noth was a bit kinder to the text, suggesting that it is not necessarily
wrong but that the book of Joshua offers the reader a simplified view of
Israel's early history (1960: 72).
In general, the conclusion has been that the archaeological evidence
Description
Chapters
1-5
1
2, 9
3, 4
5
5:13-15
6-8
9, 10
11
12
13
14, 15
16
17
18-22
23, 24
In the words of this prostitute (n)lt; the location of Rahab's house on the
walls of Jericho fits the pattern of other prostitutes [Josh 2:15; Bottro 1992:
190, 194] underscoring the point that she was indeed a prostitute), the biblical
writers repeat previous events that demonstrated YHWH's mighty power,
causing everyone to tremble. In the book of Joshua, Rahab serves as direct
evidence of the fear possessed by those opposed to the Israelites.
The epic of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) serves a similar, albeit expanded,
role of confirmation as the story of Rahab. The Gibeonites respond like
Rahab, assuming, like her, that their only hope was to make a treaty with the
Israelites. This conclusion, we are told, was based on what happened to Ai and
Jericho (Josh 9:3) and what happened in Egypt and Transjordan (Josh 9:9,
10). The Gibeonites approached the Israelites at Gilgal and sued for peace,
falsely telling the Israelites that they were from a distant country (Joshua 9).
The biblical writers assumed that the Gibeonites would know that the Israelites
were not supposed to make peace treaties with the inhabitants of Canaan, thus
the ruse. This account, like the story of Rahab, serves the biblical writers as
evidence (or, using the term I prefer, "confirmation") that the people of
Canaan were terrified of the Israelites and knew their only hope was surrender.
The Gibeonites were so terrified that they pretended to be inhabitants of a
distant land.
The crossing of the Jordan River (Joshua 3 and 4) serves a similar goal of
confirming Israel's right to the land and Joshua as her leader. In fact, the entire
process of crossing the Jordan River is presented to the reader like a marriage
19
For the Lord has driven out great and strong nations from before you; and as
for you, no man has stood before you to this day. One of your men puts to
flight a thousand, for the Lord your God is He who fights for you, just as He
promised you (Josh 23:9, 10).
The Israelites were victorious because "the Lord, God of Israel, fought for
Israel" (Josh 10:42) and Joshua gave the land to the Israelites as an inheritance
(Josh 11:23). Not that these war stories do not picture conflict, destruction,
and slaughter. They do, but the purpose of the war accounts is the same as the
non-war stories that precede them. The military successes of the Israelites
against Jericho/Ai, the Southern and Northern coalitions, confirmed to the
biblical writers that YHWH fought for the Israelites and gave them the land.
The list of all the kings whom they defeated and the land that was under their
dominion (Joshua 12, 13) confirmed that YHWH was with them.
The war stories are confirmation accounts, confirming YHWH's presence
with the Israelites and their right to the land. That the conquest accounts are
used this way by the biblical writers and interpreted in the same way by the
participants of these battles can be seen by the figurative act of having all of
the warriors put their feet on the necks of the defeated Amorite kings (Josh
10:24). If the battle accounts were simply about conquest, there would have
been no reason for such a demonstration. The battles of Joshua 10 and 11 are
about confirming Israel's right to the land. At the same time, these war stories
have all the elements of real historical events (Younger 1990: 237).
The dividing of the land (Joshua 13) amounted to a claim by the biblical
writers that YHWH had deeded the land to the Israelites. Thus, Hess compared
the land allocation of Joshua 13-19 with the Hittites and concluded, "These
descriptions serve to emphasize the role of Israel's deity who, like the Hittite
emperor, determines the boundaries" (1994b: 138). No doubt the boundary
lists represent the ideal and there is no need to explain "discrepancies and
inconsistencies" (Curtis 1994: 27).
Theories of Israelite conquest/settlement have assumed that a major theme
of the book of Joshua is the cities and land the Israelites conquered. Some even
suppose that this theme of "land" is the only subject on which the book of
Joshua can be trusted. Finkelstein, for example, considers the book of Joshua
as historically unreliable, but accepts the book's geographical territorial
description. In fact, for Finkelstein, it is the Iron I settlement of the Canaanite
hill country that explains the origins of Israel.
It is impossible to come to grips with the settlement episode without a
thoroughgoing acquaintance with at least one region of the hill countryin
which the events took place. This means studying its archaeological and
ecological components, as well as the patterns of occupation during the
i
periods mmediately
preceding and succeeding the time of Israelite
Settlement (1988: 21).
book of Joshua) was the confirmation that YHWH was in league with Israel.
The biblical writers saw that Presence in the events of Joshua 1-13. The
second step of the conquest was the day-to-day contest of possessing the land,
actually settling the land. While, for the biblical writers, the victories of Joshua
6, 8, 10, and 11 were real, the results of those victories were limited, according
to Joshua 13-24. Likewise, the biblical writers of Judges 1 provided their own
version of Joshua Part I, while reflecting the more day-to-day struggle of the
later part of the book of Joshua Part II, in Joshua 3-21. I agree with Na' aman
who observed that Judges 1 "can be considered as a complete conquest story,
alternative and supplementary to the conquest stories of the Book of Joshua"
(1994: 260).
Repetitions of sites conquered (e.g. Jerusalem, Judg 1:8, 21) and even
stories previously recorded in Joshua (Judg 1:12-15; Josh 15:16-19) provide
only further evidence of the difficult struggle Israel had for the land; the
struggle that is first clearly stated in the book of Joshua. Obviously, Judges 1
includes events that happened in earlier times. These events were convoluted
simply because the Judges 1 writers selected what they needed to demonstrate
their point, without consideration of time-frame. They were not arguing for
timing, only a limited selection of the difficulties and experiences of the
Israelite struggle. At that, they were providing a "south-to-north geographical
arrangement" to heighten the reader's awareness of the Israelites' moral decay
(Younger 1994: 216, 217).
That the biblical writers were providing only the barest of reports is
evidenced in the 26 verses of Judges 1 it took to record it (Judg 1:1-26). That
they reflected the latter half of the book of Joshua says only that the
experiences reflected there were the normative Israelite experience. That later
readers have found conflicts between the accounts of the book of Joshua and
Judges 1 suggests only that interpreters have simplisticly assumed that the 26
verses of Judges 1, comprising possibly several hundred years of events, and
Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11 were both written as complete histories, written to be
used for analysis. As it is, Judges 1 has a different purpose than the conflict
accounts of the book of Joshua.
Though his archaeological support for Joshua 10 may now be suspect,
Wright was right in concluding that the book of Joshua is a more detailed
account than is Judges 1. He wrote:
Furthermore, it is now apparent that Judges 1 is not an old, unified account
of the original Conquest. From the standpoint of territorial history it must be
seen as a collection of miscellaneous fragments of varying dates and of
varying reliability (Wright 1979: 69, 70).
References
Albright, W. F.
1939 The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 74: 11-23.
Aune, D. E.
1986 Lots. Pp. 172, 173 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3,
ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans.
Boling, R.
G.
1992
The Book of Joshua. Pp. 1002-1015 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N.
Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Boling, R. G., and Wright, G. E.
1984 Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. The Anchor Bible,
Vol. 6, eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bottero, J.
1992 Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Bratcher, R. G., and Newman, B. M.
1983 A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Joshua. Helps for Translators.
London: United Bible.
Butler, T. C.
1983 Joshua. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word.
Sharon, I.
1994 Demographic Aspects of the Problem of the Israelite Settlement. Pp.119-134 in
Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. L.
M. Hopfe. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Soggin, J. A.
1972 Joshua: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Stern, P. D.
1991 The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel's Religious Experience. Brown
Judaic Studies 211. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Stuart, D.
1976 The Sovereign's Day of Conquest. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 221: 159-164.
Waltke, B. K.
1982
Book of Joshua. Pp. 1134-1138 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Wood, B. G.
1990a Dating Jericho's Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts. Biblical
Archaeological Review 16.2: 45-49, 68, 69.
1990b Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological
Evidence. Biblical. Archaeological Review 16.5: 44-59.
Woudstra, M. H.
1981 The Books of Joshua. The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Wright, G. E.
1940 Epic of Conquest. The Biblical Archaeologist 3: 25-40.
1979 Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: Westminster.
1984 Introduction. Pp. 3-88 in Joshua: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary by Robert G. Boling, Introduction by G. Ernest Wright. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
Younger, K. L., Jr.
1990 Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical
History Writing. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
98. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
1994 Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context. Pp. 207-27 in Faith, Tradition,
and History. Eds. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffineier, D. W. Baker. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Larry G. Herr
Biblical Archaeology, Canadian Union College, College Heights, Alberta, Canada.
Bill Shea has always been quick to understand the importance of literary
and archaeological observations in the Hebrew Bible. This paper studies the
way the polysemy (dual meaning) of the Hebrew word raah (nn, "wind,
spirit") in 1 Kings 22:19-25 sheds light on the intensity of a prophetic
interchange and then how typical Israelite domestic architecture found on
countless archaeological sites helps us picture a prophetic allusion.
One of the most frequently used words with two meanings in the Hebrew
Bible is rilatz While in normal, everyday speech it meant "wind," in religious
or theological contexts this idea was extended to mean an "unseen force" or
"spirit." The story of Micaiah (1 Kings 22) uses these two meanings to
provide us with a witty example of two opposing prophets trading polysemic
insults.
The altercation occurs when the Israelite King Ahab seeks to convince
Jehoshaphat of Judah to join a military coalition with him to retake Ramot
Gilead from the Arameans of Damascus. In the face of four hundred of Ahab's
prophets who say that God is firmly behind the king, Micaiah alone declares,
after some anxiety, that Ahab will be killed. He details his message by
describing a vision in which he sees Yahweh's divine council in session. The
scene pictures God seeking advice from his court on ways to trick Ahab into
fighting the Arameans so he will be killed. After various unsuccessful
suggestions from members of the council, ha-riCall steps forward and says he
will be a lying rfiali in the mouths of Ahab's prophets. Although virtually all
English versions translate these instances of rfial? as "spirit," it is just as
correct to translate them with "wind." Indeed, a member of most divine
councils in the ancient world was the Wind (or Winds). If /Thah is understood
this way, then Micaiah's statement that God approves this plan clearly insults
the 400 prophets by calling their prophecy a deceiving wind. Moreover, the
References
Stager, L. E.
1985 The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 260: 1 36.
-
Wilkinson, T. J.
1982 The Definition of Ancient Manured Zones by Means of Extensive SherdSampling Techniques. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 323-334.
Gerald A. Klingbeil
Professor for Old Testament and Biblical Languages, Universidad Peruana Union, Lima, Peru.
Remarks
105:36 God
firstborn
135:8 God
135:10 God
firstborn
many nations
136:10 God
136:17 God
firstborn
great kings
Table 4.1. The contexts of the root nDJ (nkh) in the Psalms.
occurring in the poetic language of the psalms, although it has also been
observed in other contexts as the following quote will demonstrate:
Of particular theological importance is the fact that God is often the subject
of n aka . It is God who "smites" people with blindness (II Kgs 6:18) and
lagues (Deut 28:22, 27-28, 35). He brings judgment upon man for his sin
1 Kgs 14:15; Lev 26:24), even death (II Sam 6:7). Likewise, nature is under
Gods control for he, not Baal, "smote" Israel's vines and fig trees (Ps
105:33) [sic] (Wilson 1980: 578).' 7
In the context of Ps 121:6, the sun or the moon are the agents of the verbal
action. As has already been noted above, most commentators do not provide
a satisfying interpretation of this act. The "smiting" by the sun would still be
understandable, but how can the moon strike or smite the unknown "you"
protagonist of this verse?
The interpretation of the verse as undertaken in this paper attempts to
enhance the understanding of the text without relying on unsubstantiated
external information. I suggest that in the context of Psalm 121 one should
understand "sun" and "moon" as referring to the well-known deities of the
surrounding nations of Israel. Thus the predominant usage of the verbal root
TIM in the framework of the psalms as referring to divine intervention and
smiting could also be applied to the usage of the verb in Ps 121:6 as referring
to the "supposed deities." VinVi "sun" and n-P "moon" occur some 22 times
together in the same verse in the Old Testament: 8 They are often used in a
creation context (Pss 72:5; 104:19; 148:3; Jer 31:35)' 9 or in contexts referring
to re-creation (Isa 60:19, 20). Another very important context in which the
combination occurs could be termed as polemics (and sometimes prohibitions)
against the worship of the elementsand thus especially the worship of sun
and moon (Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2). Finally the darkening of the
sun and moon on the "day of the Lord" (Joel 2:10; 3:4 [2:31]; 4:15 [3:15])
must be seen in the framework of judgment or the reverse of creation (cf also
Hab 3:11). Joshua 10:12, 13 describes the miracle of the standing still of the
sun and moon over Gibeon and indirectly describe God as the creator who not
only set both planets in their course, but as creator also has the power to
change their course.
It would thus appear that the author of Psalm 121 is introducing a polemic
against the celestial deities as worshiped by his contemporaries. Smick (1989:
12, 13) has suggested that Psalm 121 is a "conscious demythologizing" or an
"anti-myth" and polemic against the cosmic mountain motif "as expressed in
hill-shrines and the deities themselves as patrons." It is interesting that he has
not noted the definite polemic contained in the Psalm against the celestial
deities. This polemic against the sun and moon is not the only one utilized by
the psalmist. In Ps 121:4, the fact is emphasized that the keeper of Israel does
not "slumber" or "sleep" (cf. Barker 1995: 176). In sharp contrast to this is
The existence of the cult of the sun and moon in early Israelite experience
(as well as during later periods, cf. Jer 8:2) has also been established by the
iconographic evidence as was recently demonstrated by 0. Keel and C.
Uehlinger (1995: 69). From Hazor are known several iconographic items
containing the moon sickle. Keel and Uehlinger interpret the stele sanctuary of
Hazor as the sanctuary of the moon-god and state in summary:
Hervorzuheben ist jedenfalls, dall sich mit dem Mondemblem and der
Verbindung . des Wettergottes mit dem Sonnengott in Palastina/Israel die
ersten Anzeichen einer an den Himmelskorpern orientierten Frommigkeit
bemerkbar machen ... (ibid.)
Thus it appears that the author of Psalm 121 reacted to a real need in his
communitynamely, directing his audience to the true God of the Universe,
YHWHby means of a polemic against the "unreal" astral deities that were
so prevalent during his time and in his historical and religious context.
The Old Testament does contain clear-cut warnings against the foolery of
idol worship as, for example, can be found in Isa 44:9-20, but it is often the
more subtle usage of irony and polemics that bring across the message, as can
also be found in other passages such as Ps 29:3 9 (Craigie 1983: 247), Ps
68:17 [16] (Klingbeil 1995: 233), Isa 14:12-15 (Grogan 1986: 105; Kaiser
1974: 40; Raabe 1995: 236-257; Jemielity 1992: 94), and Ezekiel 28
(Eichrodt 1970: 394).
By playing on popular beliefs and fears, the psalmist firstly established
rapport with his listeners, and then, by the inclusion of the "powerful" negative
particle N5 (/5 ), these fears and beliefs were clearly put into their place:
YHWH is your keeper. He will protect you from all evil. He that does not
slumber nor sleep will definitely be at your side. What a powerful message in
a grabbing package!
-
Although the striking of the rock was actually performed by Moses (Exod 17:1-7), the pericope itself
does indicate that the rebellious attitude of the Israelites was actually directed against the Lord. Thus, the
providing of water was the answer to this challenge. Exodus 17:2 reads nirrnm (mah-tenassfin
'et-yhwh) "why do you test the Lord?" (NRSV). ;IV)(nasith) refers to "testing" in a very existential context
(see, for example, Gen 22:1 in the context of the story of the attempted sacrifice of Isaac, God is said to "test
Abraham"). God is often the subject of the root (Gen 22:1; Exod 15:5 where he tests the Israelites with the
bitter water; Exod 16:4; 20:20 in the context of the theophany during the law-giving ceremony at Sinai).
See here also Matthews and Benjamin (1993: xvi, xvii) who state: "The world of the Bible is
agricultural. In an agricultural world human life is synchronized with nature. ... Farming and herding
become the foundational metaphors or basic analogies which people use to understand their daily life."
The suggested interpretation of Ps 105:33 as referring to Israel cannot be sustained in view of the
many references in the sections before and after this verse describing the Exodus events. The objects
envisioned by the author of the psalm clearly were the Egyptians. Compare on this also Allen (1983: 43);
Kidner (1975: 376, 377); VanGemeren (1991: 5:669, 670); and Weiser (1962: 675).
Gen 37:9; Deut 4:19; 17:3; Josh 10:12, 13; 2 Kgs 23:5; Pss 72:5; 104:19; 121:6; 148:3; Eccl 12:2;
Isa 13:10; 60:19, 20; Jer 8:2; 31:35; Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:10; 3:4 [2:311; 4:15 [3:151; and.Hab 3:11.
Another example of this can be found in Ps 136:8, 9 where the two terms appear in two succeeding
verses. Clifford argues that to "the psalmist the origin of the people of Israel includes the making of the
physical environment and the bringing of Israel into the land" (1992: 66). It is not entirely clear whether
he would like to apply this interpretation solely to Psalm 136 which he discussed earlier, or whether it is a
more general statement. If the latter is the case, one would have to challenge this understanding, since one
may find psalms (as, for example Psalm 104 and Psalm 148) which do not contain this characteristic.
The Egyptian evidence seems to be more complex.
References
Alonso Schokel, L. and Carniti, C.
1993 Salmos (Salmos 73-150). Traduccion, Introducciones y Comentario. Nueva
Biblia Espahola. Estella/Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino.
Allen, L. C.
1983 Psalms 101-150. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21. Waco, TX: Word.
Barker, D. G.
1995 'The Lord Watches Over You': A Pilgrimage Reading of Psalm 121. Biblioteca
Sacra 152: 163-181.
Bernhardt, K. H.
1973 NM. Pp. 769-777 in Theologisches Worterbuch zum Allen Testament, ed. G.
J. 'Botterweck and H. Ringgren.Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.
Ceresko, A. R.
1989 Psalm 121: Prayer of a Warrior? Biblica 70: 501-510.
Clifford, R. J.
1992 Creation in the Psalms. Pp. 57-69 in Creation in the Biblical Traditions, eds.
R. J. Clifford and J. J. Collins. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series,
vol. 24. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America.
Craigie, P. C.
1983 Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 19. Waco, TX: Word.
Dahood, M.
1970 Psalms III. Anchor Bible, vol. 17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Eichrodt, W.
1970 Ezekiel. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Even-Shoshan, A.
1985 A New Concordance of the Old Testament. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.
Gerstenberger, E. S.
1988 Psalms, Part I. Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. 14. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
1995 Der Psalter als Buch and als Sammlung. Pp. 3-13 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, eds. K. Seybold and E. Zenger. Herder Biblische Studien 1.
Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder Verlag.
Gibson, J. C. L.
1975 Textbook ofSyrian Semitic Insc-riptions. Vol. II: Aramaic Inscriptions. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Grogan, G. W.
1986 Isaiah. Pp. 3-354 in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 6. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan.
Klingbeil, M. G.
1995 "Yahweh fighting from Heaven. God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the
Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography." Unpublished D. Lift.
dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.
Kraus, H. J.
1978
Psalmen 1-2. 5th edition. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1985 Teologia de los Salmos. Trans. Victor A. Martinez de Lapera. Salamanca,
Spain: Ediciones Sigueme.
Louw, J. P., and Nida, E. A.
1989 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based upon Semantic Domains.
2 vols. Capetown, South Africa: Bible Society of South Africa.
Ringgren, H.
1979 Die Religionen des Allen Orients. Grundrissee zum Alten Testament
Sonderband. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Smick, E. B.
1989 Old Testament cross-culturalism: Paradigmatic or Enigmatic? Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 32/1:3-16.
Van der Toorn, K.
1992 Sun. Pp. 237-239 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol . 6, eds. D. N. Freedman et
al. New York, NY: Doubleday.
VanGemeren, W. A.
1991 Psalms. Pp. 3-880 in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 5. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan.
Walton, J. W.
1994 Joshua 10:12-15 and Mesopotamian Celestial Omen Texts. Pp. 181-190 in
Faith, Tradition, and History. Old Testament Historiography in its Near
Eastern Context, eds. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker. Winona
Zenger, E.
1995 Zur redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen. Pp. 175-198 in
Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, eds. K. Seybold and E. Zenger. Herder
Biblische Studien 1. Freiburg/Basel.Wien: Herder Verlag.
Introduction
Undoubtedly, the psalms have long formed a very important element in
both the corporate and private religious life of the Hebrew people (Childs
1979: 508). They expressed poetically in songs, laments, and liturgy the
foundation of the Israelite hope, love, trust, and confidence in YHWH, their
God and Lord of the covenant. Drijvers remarks that,
The whole life of Israel, the delight of knowing itself to be God's chosen
nation, the trials of persecution, the desperation resulting from man's sin and
ingratitudeall this is frankly experienced and candidly expressed in song
in the psalms. In short, the whole of the Old Testament is reflected in the
psalms. There is no single experience of the soul of Israel that is not put into
words there. The psalms are the fullest expression of God's revelation in the
Old Testament (1965: 4, 5).
Even in the community of Qumran, the psalms were held in high esteem.
This is evident by the fact that of the eleven caves in which manuscripts were
found, seven have yielded a combined total of more than 30 distinct psalms
texts (Wilson 1983: 377-388). So, it is possible, as Sanders suggests, that
there were "more copies of Psalms in the Qumran library than any other
biblical writing" (1967: 9; see Vermes 1995 for an English translation and
Garcia-Martinez 1993 for a Spanish translation of the Qumran Psalter).
The salvation acts of YHWH presented in a metaphoric way are plentiful
in the Psalter. Everywhere in the Psalms, God is portrayed in metaphors that
represent Him in either a hidden or prominent way. Recently Klingbeil has
suggested that the "metaphorical language is an adequate vehicle and is often
used as such in the Bible to describe unobservable realities" regarding God
Psalm 126
a. Bewildering joy of the redeemed of Zion: 1, 2a
b. Bewildering recognition of the redeemed gentiles: 2b
c. Agreeing recognition of the redeemed of Zion: 3
d. Prayer for the eschatological restoration: 4
e. The heavenly sower: 5, 6a
f. The joy of the heavenly Harvester: 6b
Table 5.1. Six-fold structure of Psalm 126.
The opening words of the psalm show the purpose of the poet. The
psalmist begins the psalm with fib (2W)). The use of .fwb in Qal involves a
crucial theological statement in passages that point to the return of the
covenant people to God. In many places .wb means "to return from the exile,"
and frequently a return from exile was an equivalent of a turning from any
condition of sin (Hamilton 1981: 2340). Swb combined with gybt in 126:1 and
then .bwt in 126:4, is a well known prophetic expression.' The phrase .fwb
.bwt is a technical term referring to the eschatological end-time (Bellinger, Jr.
1984: 64). Since Mosaic times, it was used to exalt the mercy and eternal
purpose of YHWH towards his people.
In Deut 30:3, Moses announced to Israel, with eschatological tones, a
changed situation for them from a dispersed situation thanks to YHWH's
mercy: "Then YHWH your God will change your fortunes and have
compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he
Zion stands for the city of Jerusalem, but the psalmist is probably also
thinking of the new Jerusalem, based on the prophetic perspective of the
psalm. Zion is a common reference to Jerusalem and God's people. "The city
with all its prophetic associations assumes a prominent place in Biblical
escathology" (Payne 1975: 1066). The prophets assure the glorious future of
Zion when God will reign forever (Mic 4:7, 8; Isa 33:20-22, 24; 60:14-16,18,
19; 62:1, 2, 11; Ps 146:10), and the apostolic church understood that Zion
represented "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:22;
11:10; 13:14; Phil 3:20). The .fybt, "captivity," referred to in Ps 126:1, 4 does
not necessarily stand for the exile experience, but it is a reference to any
misfortune actually experienced by the people of God that they want to be
changed through God's mercy and power in the same way that Israel's
captivity was changed. $ybt is also translated as "captivity," however, the term
does not necessarily mean deportation. It may refer properly to any misfortune.
The expressions of joy here are combined with the thankful recognition of
the redeemed ones. The mighty acts of salvation of YHWH are joyfully
glorified not only for those who witnessed it, but moreover for those who
experienced it. Again, the object of admiration is YHWH, however, this time
it is a thankful expression of recognition and admiration, higdil YHWH la 's&
immana (Iry inv.N, Mil 5)
1)71 "YHWH has done great things for us," or
"YHWH became great himself on behalf of us." It is a plain recognition of all
the things manifested by YHWH through the ages, but especially the
redemption achieved by ransom on their behalf.
Suddenly the psalmist remembers that the final restoration is still ahead,
and he cries out with a prayer that shows his deep longing for eternity. Here
it is evidently an earnest petition with a charged eschatological content
(Gunkel 1983: 350; Keel 1978: 230). It is the expression of the "ready now
but not yet" that goes through the experience of the saved ones in that tension
of salvific realities of the present, that Paul expresses so dramatically
affirming that "in this hope we are saved" hoping "for what we do not yet
have," and waiting "for it patiently" (Rom 8:24, 25), but, at the same time, the
apostle reminds us that this hope of final redemption is a cosmic expectation.
It is something universally awaited and it will be consummated only with the
parousia of the blessed hope when the great final transformation will be
consummatedthe sub ?brit of the redeemed ones. Paul expressed it in these
words:
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed ...
the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought
into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole
creation has been groaning as in thepains of childbirth right up to the
present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the
Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the
redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:19-23).
To express this, the psalmist also remembers that the dry Judaic south
land, the Negev, can illustrate his hope in a dramatic way during the rainy
season, thanks to the bptqfm (o)p)ozso. He earnestly prays that the final
restoration may be manifested like those seasonal changes. Jesus urged his
own disciples to repeat this same petition in the Lord's prayer with the words,
"Thy kingdom come"; which is also echoed by John the Revelator with the
words, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev 22:20). Kraus rightly perceives the
eschatological implication of this line pointing out that "in saying, 'Revert, 0
YHWH our fortune', the psalmist not only supplicates the manifestation of the
God of Israel, but also prays for the total restoration" (1985: 87).
The longing desire for the ending of Zion's captivity is directly connected
with the prayer, "Restore our captivity, 0 YHWH" ubah WWII 'etg.ebiwtenti (Win VTIN rnn) nom)). It does not merely ask for that moment,
but says, "0 Lord, we cannot wait to be ready to enjoy that happy moment of
the final restoration."
Now, the psalmist not only uses the figure of the rivers in the desert to
express his faith in YHWH's future restoration of Zion; he also resorts to the
agricultural endeavors of Zion's land. In the hard toil of the peasant that sows
with faith, waiting for the nourishing harvest, he also envisions the reward of
the perseverance and confidence in the covenant promises, but in doing that,
the psalmist makes a difference between the sowers, the thre im (t:PYit) and
the One who carries the pouch of seedn5V maek-hazzara ' Ontn-Tvin
NV)). To understand the reality of this metaphor it is necessary to refer to
Jesus who, in his parables, illustrates the realities of the covenant and the
kingdom of God.
In Jesus' parables, this dual figure of land sowing also appears: the picture
of the sowing where "the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11), and "the
farmer sows the word" (Mark 4:14), but, on the other hand, it also plainly
shows the reality of the heavenly sower in which "the one who sowed the good
seed is the Son of Man" (Matt 13:37) in "the field of the world" (Matt 13:38).
In this way, the psalmist uses a familiar figure to convert it into a prophetic
device in order to illustrate, like Isaiah with his figure of the suffering servant,
the redeeming mission of YHWH as sower of eternal life.
Because of Ps 126:5, 6a, some commentators have seen in Psalm 126 an
expression of hope amid a time of famine; something like a cry asking the
blessing of a harvest (Bellinger 1990: 51). Others think that the weeping
indicates an ancient pagan belief connected with the rites of the deity of
fertility who was believed to die every dry season and come back to life with
the returning of the rain (Brachter and Reyburn 1993: 1020).
YHWH himself is depicted in this verse in human form as he went out
weeping through the furrows of the world, carrying the pouch of seed, and
finally pouring out his own life as seed in order to give eternal life to dead
humanity (cf. Heb 5:7). Not in vain he said of himself, "Unless a kernel of
wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies,
it produces many seeds" (John 12:24). Weiser reminds us that, "suffering and
death, too, are part of God's work of redemption. They are a divine seed which
sprouts in secret and ripens for God's blessed harvest" (1972: 763).
In this verse, the weeping of the heavenly sower is changed by the wb into
rejoicing, as in .fwb in verse 1, and the seed is transformed into sheaves, while
the weariness becomes rest. It is an allusion to the final harvest, and again
Jesus affirms that, "The harvest is the end of the age," when he returns with
his angels as harvesters (Matt 13:39, 40). It recalls the final harvest depicted
by John:
I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was
one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle
m his hand. Then another angel called in a loud voice to him who was sitting
on the cloud, "take our sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come,
for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So he who was seated on the cloud
swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested (Rev 14:14-16
N/V).
It is the time when the sower enjoys the joy of the harvester.
Christ is the heavenly sower, and the seed that he sowed he planted with
tears, sweat, and his very blood. He fulfilled his mission of sowing amidst
inexpressible suffering. Never has a sower been more dedicated to his task of
mission, but he also is the celestial harvester. He comes for his precious
harvest, he knows when to reap. He sowed with tears and pain. But now he
does not come to weep for his own, but to laugh with them. The fortunes have
been changed for everyone and joy overflows the whole universe.
The harvester, having gone up to the heights carrying captive the captivity
(cf. Ps 68:18), now returns in glory to consummate his victory bringing to him
the results of his victory over death and the author of death. It is the majestic
unutterable joy of the Creator that loved us and made our redemption possible
in Jesus Christ. It is the triumphant return of the celestial harvester that in
glorious and majestic parousia returns triumphant, carrying his sheaves,
showing in satisfaction to the whole universe the fruits of his redemptive work
(cf. Isa 53:11). It is the moment to receive his portion among the great and
divide the spoils with the strong (cf Isa 53:12) because he alone is worthy of
the eschatological harvest.
The sheaves of his harvest, blummotayw (1)rin,x), are those who were
resurrected by His creative power, those who have fallen asleep in Christ to be
triumphantly taken to be where he is (cf. John 14:1-3; 1 Cor 15:51-55; 1
Thess 4:14-17). The happy returning, b Lyabo ' be rinn (71313, N11)7.0.), of
the harvester points to the blissful reunion of the Most High with all his saints.
varieties, voluntative perfect (used in contracts, and energic affirmations, over all divine ones) and mental
perfect (also called prophetic perfect, which is used in the imminent and undoubtedly successful) or with
the perfect dependent with its subjunctive (also called futurum exactum) and optative types (Rodriguez
1924: 8). Yates notes the different uses of the perfect under the mode of perfect of dependency or perfect
ofcontingency, in which the perfect of certainty expresses actions "in the future time viewed as complete
based upon the authority of the speaker." In the same way, the perfect of prophecy which "is a perfect in
the future time is viewed as completed, based only upon the authority of God. This perfectly portrays vividly
and boldly a confidence that the speaker has in certain fulfillment of a prediction (Yates n.d.: 134).
The German revidierte Elberfelderfibesetzung renders Zeph 3:17, "Der HERR, dein Gott, ist in
deiner Mitte, ein Held, der rettet; er freut sich fiber dich in Frohlichkeit, er schweight in seiner Liebe,
er jauchzt fiber dich mit Jubel."
References
Alonso-Schokel, L., and Cartini, C.
1993 Salmos (Salmos 73-150). Traduccion. Introducciones y Comentario. Estella
[Navarra]: Editorial Verbo Divino.
Alonso-Schiikel, L.
1994 Diccionario Biblico Hebreo-Espaciol. Madrid: Editorial Trotta.
Bellinger, W. H., Jr.
1984 Psalmody and Prophecy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Bellinger, B. H., Jr.
1990 Psalms. Reading and Studying the Book of Praises. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Beyerlin, W.
1982 We Are Like Dreamers. Studies in Psalm 126. Edinburg: T&T Clark.
An analysis of the literary structure of Jonah reveals a great deal about the
book's meaning. In particular, it helps clarify the significance of Jonah's
prayer in chapter 2 and Yahweh's lesson in 4:5-11; and it may help identify
the author's purpose in writing the book.
The Overall Layout of the Book
Most people reading Jonah recognize that the book is composed of a series
of episodes (table 6.1). There appear to be a total of seven, each marked off
for the audience by shifts in setting, genre, and characters (Limburg 1993:
28). 1
These seven episodes are arranged in a simple chronological order: A-BC-D-E-F-G. There is also a secondary arrangement scheme that is less obvious
but nevertheless apparent (table 6.2). The first three episodes are matched by
the second three episodes, in an A-B-C // A'-B'-C' configuration; that is, the
episodes of Jonah's first commission, his first experience with the pagans, and
his first prayer (chapters 1-2) are paralleled by his second commission, his
second experience with pagans, and his second prayer (chapters 3:1-4:4).
The seven episodes of the book thus exhibit a secondary arrangement: ABC // A'-B'-C' // D. It is this secondary scheme that invites further
examination:
Correspondence of the two commissioning episodes (1:1-3; 3:1-3). The
two episodes of Jonah's call (1:1-3; 3:1-3) echo one another by the verbatim
repetition of Yahweh's commissioning. This repetition serves to highlight the
only difference between the two episodes, namely, Jonah's drastically different
responses:
Jonah and the pagan sailors (1:4-16). While this episode, like the others
in Jonah, is primarily linear in its arrangementfollowing a chronologically
sequential order, the episode also exhibits a symmetrical touch. It is structured
in an extended chiasm, a fact noted by a number of scholarsalthough analyses
differ in details from scholar to scholar (Lohfink 1961: 185-203; Keller 1965:
329-340; Pesch 1966: 577-581; Landes 1963: 206ff; Magonet 1976: 56, 57;
haypim)
This layout highlights the contrast between the futility of the sailors
appealing to their own pagan gods, and the remarkable results when they call
upon Yahweh and obey his prophet. Jonah's God is clearly the true God, "who
made the sea and dry land" (1:9).
The intervening episodes of the story move the audience, first inexorably
toward the identification of Jonah as the culprit, and to the story's natural
center and turning point, Jonah's grand confession (1:9). Then, in reverse
order, the story moves back outward to its resolution, as represented in table
6.5. By repeating the scenes of the sailors' frantic efforts to save themselves
by their desperate efforts and by crying out for divine mercy, in parts 2, 3, 3',
and 2', the author highlights their commendable response.
The episode is concluded by a statement that stands outside this tightly
constructed chiasm and is thus given prominence. The statement recounts three
things the sailors did as a result of their experience: "Then the men greatly
feared Yahweh; they sacrificed a sacrifice to Yahweh, and they made vows"
(1:16). This response by the pagan sailors is evidently important to the
author's agenda (see below), because it is structurally accented in its
placement at the end, standing unmatched and outside the chiasm.
Jonah 's first prayer (chapter 2). Jonah's psalm of thanksgiving in
chapter 2 appears to comprise four parts (Walsh 1982: 219-229; Trible 1994:
163-165; Cross 1983: 159 167), framed by a narrative inclusio. His prayer
forms a chiasm, except for its final part, which closes the prayer and stands
outside the chiasm (table 6.6).
Like the preceding episode about Jonah and the sailors, this prayer also
features a highlighted final unit that speaks of vows and sacrificing to Yahweh
(2:8 [9]), which of course invites the audience to compare the two. The ironic
contrast between the two is unmistakable. In the latter, Jonah's boasts, "Those
who serve empty idols forfeit (your) loving kindness; but I, on the other hand,
will offer you sacrifice with thanksgiving; I will pay my vows!" (2:8, 9), but
while the rebellious prophet makes this self-righteous boast and promise from
-
his wretched situation in the fish's belly, the praiseworthy pagan sailors are up
above, happy recipients of Yahweh's grace, doing precisely what pathetic
Jonah can mostly only promise to do (and what he assumes nobody except
faithful Israelites like himself do): they are sacrificing to Yahweh and making
vows to him (1:16)! By this structuring technique the author helps the
audience understand how he intends Jonah's pious prayer to be heardas
hypocritical!
Jonah and the pagan Ninevites (3: 3b-10). As in the episode of Jonah and
the sailors, the episode of Jonah and the Ninevites exhibits a secondary
symmetrical touch, in this case with either five, or, less likely, seven parts
(table 6.7).
The similarity of the design of these two prayers intensifies the contrast
between them. The chiastic portion of the first prayer is introduced and
concluded by Jonah's praises of Yahweh's kindness to him; while here in the
same two slots, ironically, Jonah complains about Yahweh's kindness to the
Ninevites.
Likewise, the conclusions stand in striking contrast. In his first prayer,
when he himself has been spared, Jonah concludes with a joyous vow to serve
Yahweh; while in his second prayer, following Yahweh's sparing the
Ninevites, Jonah concludes with an ignoble wish to die. The prophet's
hypocrisy is thereby accented.
The author has also underscored a fifth theme by his structuring strategy,
namely, the hypocrisy of rejoicing at one's own salvation while resenting the
salvation of others. He has emphasized this theme in two ways: (1) by the
intentional contrasting of the two prayers in chapters 2 and 4; and (2) by the
highlighted position of Yahweh's lesson about this kind of hypocrisy, at the
climactic conclusion of the book.
References
Allen, L. C.
1976 The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Barre, M.
L.
1991
Jonah 2, 9 and the Structure of Jonah's Prayer. Biblica 72: 237-248.
Christensen, D. L.
1985 The Song of Jonah: A Metrical Analysis. Journal of Biblical Literature
Monograph Series, vol. 104.
Cohn, G. H.
1969 Das Buch Jona im Lichte der biblischen Erzahlkunst. Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 12. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Cross, F. M.
1983 Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of the Psalm of Jonah.
Pp. 159-167 in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of
George E. Mendenhall, eds. H. B. Huffinon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Holbert, J.
C.
1981
`Deliverance Belongs to Yahweh!': Satire in the Book of Jonah. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 21: 59 - 81.
The initial impetus for this study came from William Shea: whose
enthusiasm for exploring the literary structures of Scriptureespecially the
phenomenon of chiasmus (e.g. Shea 1979, 1980, 1986a, 1986b)was
contagious to many of us, his students; whose ground-breaking insights into
Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48 (Shea 1981, 1982) are foundational to this research;
and to whom I appreciatively dedicate this article.
Previous Study on the
Structure of the Book of Ezekiel
Already in the nineteenth century, commentators frequently noted the
intricate structural design of the book of Ezekiel. Rudolf Smend wrote: "The
whole book is ... the logical development of a series of ideas in accordance
with a well thought out, and in part quite schematic, plan. We cannot remove
any part without disturbing the whole structure" (1880: xxi). Even after the
cycle of critical attacks on the unity and integrity of the book during the second
quarter of the twentieth century, recent Ezekiel scholars are still impressed by
the literary orderliness and artistry of the book in its canonical form. Walther
Zimmerli remarks: "In coming from the other prophetic books, one is struck
by the impression of great order in the book of Ezekiel" (1979: 2). James
Luther Mays concurs: "Among all the books of the prophets, Ezekiel's has the
clearest and most orderly arrangement" (1978: 22). Joseph Blenkinsopp
expresses like sentiments: "On a first reading of the book, one gets an
impression of continuity, structure, and order and of its being a well thought
out whole to a much greater extent than other prophetic books" (1990: 3).
Judgment
3:16-7:27
Restoration
34-39
First Vision
Commission
1:1-3:15
Second Vision
Judgment
8-11
Third Vision
Restoration
40-48
Judgment
12-33
Table 7.1. Parunak's literary structure (after 1978: 118, table 4).
E
Oracles against
the foreign nations
25-28:10
Jerusalem besieged C
24
Oracles of judgment
12-23
1-11 A
Yahweh Comes to His Temple:
He comes
to the defiled Temple
for investigative judgment
then departs.
Oracles of restoration
34-39
A' 40-48
Yahweh Comes to His Temple:
He comes
to the restored Temple
on the Day of Atonement
and does not depart.
A-A' (Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48): Yahweh comes to His temple. The
following summarizes Shea's insights regarding the unity of theme, structure,
and focus in Ezekiel 1-11;the relationship between this material and Ezekiel
40-48 (1981: 12-24); and some points not presented by Shea.
According to Ezek 1:1, 2, Ezekiel's ministry began in July 592 BC, only
some 3 1/2 years before the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, which started in
January 588. Thus Ezekiel gave God's last warning message to Judah just
before the siege and destruction of Jerusalem.
Commentators have rightly recognized that the vision of Ezekiel 1
concerns the glory of God, but they have only incidently noted the emphasis
on motion involved in the visionthe wings of the living beings (1:6, 8, 11,
14) and the four wheels of the divine chariot throne, all in intense intentional
and directional movement (1:15-21). God is going somewhere. Where?
Already in Ezek 1:4 there is a hint, since the storm-cloud chariot comes from
the north, implying that He is heading to the south.
What is implicit in Ezekiel 1 becomes explicit in Ezekiel 8-11. In Ezek 8:1
we have another dateline, this time coming some 14 months later than the first
vision (i.e. September 591). Ezekiel is taken in vision to Jerusalem, to the
temple, and the glory of God which He had seen in his vision is there (Ezek
8:4). Ezekiel 9:3 reveals more specifically that God had taken up residence in
the Most Holy Place of the Jerusalem temple, presumably for most if not all
of the interluding 14 months since Ezekiel began his ministry (Shea does not
point out that according to Ezek 3:12, 13, 23, the glory of Yahweh appears to
have remained in Babylon with Ezekiel at least during the seven-day period of
his commissioning., but from the reference to the glory of Yahweh in Ezek 8:4
and 9:3, with the strong implication that He had taken up residence in the
Jerusalem temple for a special work, it appears that the glory of the Lord must
have moved on to Jerusalem shortly after Ezekiel's call vision.) At the end of
this extended residence, He is now preparing to leave.
Why had God come to the temple if His presence was already manifested
there by the shekinah glory resting over the ark of the covenant between the
cherubim in the Most Holy Place? Shea points out the evident answer: He
came to do a special work, and that work is the subject of the chapters between
the visions of Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 8namely, judgment. Following the
description of Ezekiel's call in Ezekiel 2, 3, four chapters are devoted to a
series of indictments against Judah and prophecies of judgment. Chapter 8 is
the climax of indictments, in which Ezekiel is brought in vision to witness the
abominations done in Jerusalem. Shea summarizes:
Yahweh sat in judgment upon His people in His temple for some 14 months,
according to the datelines connected with these visions, the contents of the
visions themselves, and the nature of the messages given to Ezekiel during
the interval between the two visions (1981: 287).
In other words, chapters 1-11 are one structural unit, displaying the
movement of God to His temple for judgment and away from the temple as
His work of judgment is complete.
After a brief review of the evidence in Daniel that the glory of God was
still in the east some 70 years later, Shea suggests a crucial, but overlooked,
connection between Ezekiel 1-11 and the final nine chapters of the book. The
central theme of Ezekiel 40-48 is the restoration of the temple and the return
of the glory of God to it. The dateline of these chapters (Ezek 40:1), reckoned
according to the fall-to-fall calendar, which Shea elsewhere shows is to be
preferred (1991: 130-135; cf. Zimmerli 1983: 345, 346; Cooke 1951: xviii;
McKeating 1993: 71; Greenberg, 1983: 11), is the tenth day of the seventh
month, or Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement, which that year fell on October 22
573 BC). Therefore,
this vision of the cleansed and restored temple was given on the day of
atonement, when the first temple was cleansed ritually during the services.
On the day when the fi rst temple was to be cleansed ritually Ezekiel saw in
vision the second temple restored, cleansed, and purified (Shea 1981: 291).
,
1.
2.
1.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
Table 7.3. Panel structure of A-A': Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48,Yahweh comes to His temple.
Some scholars have placed Ezekiel 24 and 33 together with sections of the
book that precede or follow,' but the pivotal importance of these chapters
appears to warrant recognizing them as separate chiastic members (C-C') of
Ezekiel's overall chiastic structure.
Furthermore, the content of these chapters sets them apart from either the
oracles of judgment or restoration. Whereas the oracles of judgment warn of
Chapter
Oracles of Judgment
(12-23)
Chapter
Oracles of Restoration
(34-39)
12
38-39
13
38-39
14
38-39
38-39
375
15
Jerusalem (15:1-8)
16
Unfaithfulness to divine
covenant: Jerusalem's defilement
by spiritual adultery (16:1-59)
17
Covenant-breaking rebellion of
Judah's princes (17:1-20)
Israel scattered (17:21)
375
Covenant-obedience of restored,
reunited Israel (37:15-24)
Israel gathered (37:21)
Messianic reference: New
David (37:24, 25)
37A
Chapter
Oracles of Judgment
(12-23)
Chapter
Oracles of Restoration
(34-39)
19
3613
20
368
35-36"
21
22
Messianic allusion:
"Overthrown ... until He comes
whose right it is" (21:25-27)
345
Messianic reference:
"My Servant David" (34:23,
24)
34"
23
,......1
a.
a.
b.
b.
c.
c'
d.
d.
e.
e'
1.
g.
g'
Table 7.5. D-D': Ezekiel 25-28:10 and Ezek 28:20-Ezekiel 32, oracles against the foreign nations; block
parallelism (panel structure).
"Perfect in F F'
Your ways
from the day
you were (v. 15a)
created"
(vv. 15b, 16)
"Till iniquity
was found in
you, ... and
you sinned"
(v. 16)
A (vv. 12b-13)
Condition before expulsion:
Perfection/proportion
Wisdom/beauty (perfect)
In Eden, garden of God
Covering is prepared
Fiery precious stones
Origin: "On the day you were created"
Inclusio
48). Just as in Ezekiel there is the investigative/trial judgment (Ezekiel 1-11) matched by the restoration
of the sanctuary (Ezekiel 40-48), so in Daniel the vision of chapter 7 ends with an investigative/trial
judgment (Dan 7:9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22) while the parallel vision of chapter 8 ends with the restoration of
the sanctuary (Dan 8:14). These two aspects of the Day of Atonement complement each other thematically
and counterbalance each other structurally in both Daniel and Ezekiel.
3. Note, e.g. the comment of McKeating (1993: 101): "The overall pattern of these chapters (40-48) is
thus a somewhat untidy one." My analysis of the block parallelism between Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48 does
not preclude other structural and thematic constraints upon the ordering of materials in these sections. For
example, the order of the three main sections in Ezekiel 40-48 follows the order of similar materials in the
Torah of Moses. The description of the temple form (Ezek 40:3-42:20) parallels Exodus 25-40; the temple
procedures and cultic worship elements (Ezek 43:12-46:24) parallels the material in the book of Leviticus;
and the description of the boundaries of the land (Ezek 47:13-48:29) parallels Numbers 34 (for further
parallels with the work of Moses, see McKeating 1993: 102; Parunak 1980: 72; and Levenson 1976: 3749). Again, there may be literary-structural considerations within these larger blocks, such as the chiastic
structures of Ezekiel 1-3 and 8-11 analyzed by Parunak (1980: 61-69), and the concentric (chiastic)
structure of Ezekiel 40-48 outlined by Tuell (1992: 18-20). Thus, more than one thematic or structural
feature may be interlocking or overlapping in the overall compositional design of Ezekiel.
Some scholars tend to deny the Messianic character of one or more of these passages that have
traditionally been regarded as referring to the Messiah (for an exegetical defense of the Messianic
interpretation of all four of these passages, see E. W. Hengstenberg (1970: 697-715); James Smith (1993:
361-372).
It should also be noted that, as indicated in the last section of table 7.4, Ezekiel 23 has parallels with
Ezekiel 33B (especially Ezek 33: 23, 24, 26, 29); although for reasons explained in the next section, we treat
chapter 33 as a separate part of Ezekiel's macrostructure.
So, e.g. Parunak (1978: 158) places these two chapters together with the oracles against the nations
as an inclusio to the central section of the book that thus spans chapters 24-33. Allen (1990: xxiii) suggests
that Ezekiel 33 may be a "self-contained chiastic introduction to chapters 34-37, but cites another scholar's
proposal that chapter 33:1-20 is a recap of Ezekiel 1-24. A case could also be made that these two chapters
continue the extended chiastic parallels in members B-B' discussed in the preceding section. We have
already noted in the previous section that the chiastic parallel to chapter 23 is a block of verses in 33 B (see
table 7.4).
References
Allen, L. C.
1990 Ezekiel 20-48. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 29. Dallas, TX: Word.
Alexander, R. H.
1986 Ezekiel. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 6. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Bertoluci, J.
1985 "The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the Context of the
Controversy between Good and Evil." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews
University.
Blackwood, A. W., Jr.
1965 Ezekiel: Prophecy of Hope. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Harrison, R. K.
1969 Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Hengstenberg, E. W.
1970 Christology of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.
The Book of Ezekiel. The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Mays, J. L.
1978 Ezekiel, Second Isaiah. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress.
McKeating, Henry
1993 Ezekiel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield, England: Sheffield.
Neufeld, D. F., and Neuffer, J. eds.
1962 Seventh-day A dventist Bible Students' Source Book. Washington, DC: Review
and Herald.
Nichol, F. D., ed.
1955 The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4. Washington, DC:
Review and Herald.
Parunak, H. van Dyke
1978 "Structural Studies in Ezekiel." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard
University.
1980 The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel's mar'ot 'elahim. Journal of Biblical
Literature 99: 61-74.
Rowley, H. H.
1953 The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
36: 146-190.
Shea, W. H.
1979 The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and Its Implications. Origins 6: 829.
1980 The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs.
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92: 378-396.
Smith, J.
1993 What the Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson.
Stalker, D. M. G.
1968 Ezekiel. Torch Bible Commentary. London: SCM.
Talmon, S., and Fishbane, M.
1976 The Structuring of Biblical Books: Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Ed. B.
Knutsson. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute X: 129-153. Leiden:
Brill.
Taylor, J. B.
1969 Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Tuell, S. S.
1992 The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-98. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49.
Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Wevers, J. W
1969 Ezekiel. The Century Bible. London: Nelson.
Zimmerli, W.
1979 Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, vol. 1. Hermeneia.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
1983 Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, vol. 2. Henneneia.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Zvi, E. B.
1993 Understanding the Message of the Tripartite Prophetic Books. Restoration
Quarterly 35: 93-100.
This chapter has a twofold objective. First, it attempts to show how the
word 1)Y3T1 (amid) is used in the Old Testament. Secondly, it suggests some
possible meanings this word may have in its different usages and contexts of
the Old Testament.
The Usage of the Word 11)31:1
I have found in my investigation that the word -nn is used in the Hebrew
Bible in three different ways. It is employed as an adverb, in a nominal role,
and as a noun.
Dian used as an adverb. The most common usage of the word 'Pori in
the Hebrew Bible is as an adverb. Adverbs, as they are well known, extend or
modify the meaning of "either a verbal clause or the verb itself or either a
nominal clause or a single noun or adjective. In the latter cases they should
strictly speaking be called adnominals" (Gibson 1994: 139).
The word 'MB is used as an adverb 69 times in the Old Testament. In
this function it is employed 20 times in connection to some objects of the
tabernacle/temple or in relation to the ministry of the priests in the service of
the sanctuary,' and 49 times in either a general religious (30 times) or secular
context (19 times). 2
In Hebrew grammar, the use of independent adverbs are broadly divided
into place, time, degree, and manner. The word -pnn pertains to the fourth
division. It is an adverb of manner (Gibson 1994: 140, 143).
Pan used in a nominal role. Hebrew adverbs may play a nominal role
in a construct relation or "genitive relationship" (ibid. 24, 34; Green 1861:
283; Davidson 1954: 34). 3 In this usage the adverb always follows the noun
Davidson says: "Adverbs and particles being really nouns may stand virtually in the Gen[itive]"
(1954: 34). According to Gibson, "The term genitive should not be used to denote the second noun" (1994:
30). The reason is because "The noun in Heb. fulfils its various grammatical. functions by syntactical means
as in English, not through a system of cases as in Latin or Greek or some Semitic languages" (1994: 24).
The word Ton, in a construct relation, is used seven times without the article in relation to the service
ofthe sanctuary: Exod 29:42; 30:8; Num 28:6; Lev 6:6; 2 Chr 2:3; Ezra 3:5; Ezek 46:15. -Pnn four times
is an adjectival or "genitive attributive" of rtyy, one of nivp, one of OM, and one ofIlD1).16. It is also used
three times in a secular context: 2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34; Ezek 39:14.
The word 1)Y311, in a construct relation, is used 19 times with the article and always in relation to the
sanctuary: Num 4:7, 16; 28:10, 15, 23, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Neh 10:34; 16
times is a "genitive attributive" of rby, twice of nrun, and once of on5.
Definite: Num 28:10, 15, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; indefinite: Exod 29:42;
Num 28:6; Ezra 3:5; Ezek 46:15.
E.g. Exod 25:30; 28:30, 38; Lev 6:13; 24:8; Num 9:16; Deut 11:12; 2 Sam 9:7, 10, 13; 2 Kgs 4:9;
1 Chr 16:6, 11, 37, 40; 23:31; 2 Chr 9:7; 24:14; Ps 15:8; 24:15; 34:1, 27; 39:12, 17; etc.
Num 4:7, 16; 28:10, 15, 23, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Neh 10:34.
Exod 29:42; 30:8; Num 28:6; Lev 6:6; 2 Chr 2:3; Ezra 3:5; Ezek 39:14; 46:15; 2 Kgs 25:30; Jer
52:34.
References
Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich, W.
1979 A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: The University of
Chicago.
Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, C. A.
1968 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon.
Cowley, A. E.
1976 Geseniiis 'Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
Davidson, A. B.
1954 Hebrew Syntax. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Gibion, J. C. L.
1994 Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar-Syntax. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Green, W. H.
1861 A Grammar of the Hebrew Language. New York: John Wily.
The "Little Horn," the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Time of the End: A Study
of Daniel 8:9-14. Pp. 378-461 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook.
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical
Research Institute.
Holladay, W. L.
1971 A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.
Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W.
1951 Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Montgomery, J. A.
1927 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark.
S.
1987 The Vision of Daniel 8: Interpretations from 1700 to 1900. Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University.
Rodriguez, A. M.
1986 Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel 8:9-14. Pp. 527-549 in
Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute
Schwantes, S. J.
1986 Ereb Boger of Daniel 8:14Reexamined. Pp. 462-474 in Symposium on
Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2.
Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.
Seow, C. L.
1987 A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Shea, W. H.
1986
Spatial Dimensions in the Vision of Daniel 8. Pp. 497-526 in Symposium on
Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2.
Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.
Williams, R. J.
1967 Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. Toronto: University of Toronto.
This article will catalogue the usage of jewelry in the Old Testament
indicating at times its parallels with ancient Near Eastern practices. This is an
area of study in which one can find elements of continuity and discontinuity
between Israel and its neighbors and between Israel's official religion and
popular practices. Undoubtedly, jewelry played a significant role in the ancient
Near East as evidenced by archaeological findings, iconography and literary
works, and inscriptions. Jewelry was a vehicle for the expression of cultural,
social, religious and magical practices and convictions. In a sense it was a
concrete expression of the individual's interests, values, concerns and fears,
and of his or her standing in society. It is this richness of meaning that we seek
to uncover by examining the multiplicity of usages of jewelry in the Old
Testament.
Uses of Jewelry in the Old Testament
Jewelry used as adornment. Personal adornment is the most obvious
purpose of jewelry in the ancient Near East, as evidenced in part by the simple
fact that, in general, it was beautifully crafted and, therefore, it served to
enhance the appearance of the individual wearing it.' In an old Babylonian
letter, a son writes to his father asking him to send him "a fine string full of
beads, to be worn around the head. ... It should be full (of beads) and should
be beautiful. If I see it and dislike (?) it, I shall send it back!" (Oppenheim
1967: 87; on the use and symbolism of beads, consult Dunham 1993: 237257; and on the making of beads, see Gwinnett and Gorelick 1991: 187-196).
One of the best examples of adornment in the Old Testament is found in
the dress of the High Priest which was decked with precious and semi-precious
stones and gold. It is explicitly stated that one of the basic purposes of this
special and unique attire was to beautify (tiph'eret, rnzston) this religious
leader (Exod 28:2). The noun tiph'eret seems to emphasize that which makes
people feel happy and proud Wetter 1971: 387) and can be rendered
"ornament, splendor, beauty." The negative side of beautification is recorded
in Isa 3:16-23 where Israelite ladies put on their jewelry to beautify themselves
attracting attention to their own proud persons. The catalogue of jewelry is
introduced by the term tiph'eret, indicating that the elements listed were
considered to be beautiful (cf. Platt 1979: 71-73).
In Ezekiel's allegory of Jerusalem the city is compared to a beautiful girl
adorned with different kinds of jewelry (16:11-15). The verb yph is used
("become beautiful," no)), which tends to put the stress on the attractiveness
of outward appearance (Ringgren 1970: 219), which in this particular case is
directly associated with jewelry. In Ezek 23:40, God's people is likened to a
woman who painted her eyes and adorned herself with ornaments in order to
improve her appearance and to increase her sex-appeal, like a prostitute
(Hosea 2:2[4], 13[15], cf. Rev 17:4, 5; Goodfriend 1993: 506, 507; Meek
1969: 183; Forbes 1965: 1-50; Cassin 1981: 214-218). The same idea is
expressed in Jer 4:30 and clearly indicates that Israel was attempting to make
herself beautiful (the hithpael of the verb yph could be translated "try to
beautify oneself'; Holladay 1986: 170). The description is similar to the
experience of Jezebel before she was killed (2 Kgs 9:30).
The Old Testament recognizes the beauty of gold, silver, and precious
stones. In the Song of Songs, the arms of the beloved are described as
"rounded gold set with jewels. His body is ivory work, encrusted with
sapphires" (5:14). He describes her saying, "Your rounded thighs are like
jewels, the work of a master hand" (7:1; cf Lam 4:7). In both cases the beauty
and value of each other is being praised by comparing parts of the body to
gold and or precious stones.
In spite of the fact that one of the functions of jewelry was decorative this
was not always its exclusive or even primary purpose. Together with its
ornamental element we find several other reasons for wearing jewelry.
Jewelry used as currency. Before the invention of coinage or money
jewelry was used as a medium of exchange (Rosenthal 1973: 7; Archi 1987:
116, 117; Kupper 1985: 25-33). It appears to have been a common practice
through most of the ancient Near East to make pieces of jewelry with a
standardized weight which could then be used in commercial transactions in
exchange for other goods or as payment for work done. For instance, in Egypt,
during the Old Kingdom, working women were usually paid in jewelry
(Fischer 1989: 16). Jewelry was also used, among other places, in Egypt and
in Assyria (Wilson 1969a; Oppenheim 1969: 275) to pay tributes. This is the
function of the jewelry given by Abraham's servant to Rebekah at the well.
the basic theological reason for it. The exodus from Egypt appears to be
depicted here as a military defeat over the Egyptians and their gods (12:12, 41)
and the spoils belong to the victorious ones, the Israelites (2 Chr 20:25). The
fundamental theological concern of the narrative "focuses on God's plan for
the Israelites to leave Egypt as victors from a battle" (Childs 1974: 176, 177;
cf. Cole 1973: 67; Durham 1987: 40, 147). Jewelry (kelt) was part of the
spoils and the defeated ones handed it over to the Israelites voluntarily thus
enriching them. This seems to be described as a fulfillment of the promise God
made to Abraham that his descendants will leave Egypt "with great
possessions" (Gen 15:14). The Lord made sure that they left Egypt with a firm
financial base as they began a new life in their journey toward the promised
land. The primary purpose of jewelry in this narrative is to provide some
financial security to the Israelites. Interestingly, the people were instructed to
place the jewelry on their sons and daughters (3:22). If by this is meant that
they wore it, then we can suggest that they were to display the spoils of war,
the acquired wealth of their parents.
Platt has argued that the fact that the items were placed on the children
may suggest that "these were not large amounts of gold and silver to be carried
by adults for use in trade or commercial exchange" (1992: 832), but the rest
of the Exodus narrative does suggest that the amount was considerable
because some of it was probably used to make the golden calf (Exod 32:2-5)
and given as offerings for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 35:20-22;
cf. Hyatt 1971: 138, 304). Notice that in a later chapter we are told that
women were also wearing jewelry (Exod 32:2).
Jewelry as a symbol ofsocial status. Jewelry functioned as an identifying
mark of the individual's position in the social strata and his or her role within
it. This is one of the most common uses of jewelry in the Old Testament. The
figure of the king is probably the most important one in this respect. After
defeating Neku, Ashurbanipal took him to Nineveh and there he,
clothed him in splendid (lit. brightly colored) garments, laid upon his (neck)
golden chain, as the emblem of his royalty. I put rings of gold upon his
fingers, gave him an iron girdle dagger, set in gold ... (Luckenbill 1926,
1927: 295; Staehelin 1981: 613-616).
Saul wore a crown (nezer, 10) and an armlet ( nlyNist; 2 Sam 1:10)
as his royal insignia. The "crown" could have been of metal or silk, it may
have been adorned with jewels (Zech 9:16), and was used by Israelites kings
(2 Kgs 11:12; Ps 89:39 [40]; 132:18; cf Raffety 1979: 831). Armlets and
bracelets were particularly worn by royal figures in the ancient Near East
(Anderson 1989: 8). In 2 Sam 1:10, these two adornments serve the primary
function of defining the social function of Saul, the king of Israel (McCarter
1984: 60).
protect his people (8:2, 8, 10). Clearly the seal was in those cases a symbol of
deputized power (cf. Isa 3:21; Herr 1988: 370).
Jewelry used for religious purposes. One of the basic purposes of jewelry
was religious, consisting in the manifestation of the religious convictions
and/or function of the person wearing it. This was particularly the case of the
priestly attire. In the ancient Near East, the style of the priestly dress may have
varied from country to country. We know that in Assyria sometimes the priests
officiated naked in rituals that required cultic nudity (Saggs 1984: 152). This
was also the case among the Sumerians (Ringgren 1995: 63). In Akkad, the
priests wore linen garments of different colors (ibid. 64). In Egypt, the
Pharaoh was the only one who could approach the gods and the priests
functioned as his representatives. It is probable that the high priest may have
been dressed like a king. The priests wore special clothes which in some cases
were richly decorated and adorned with jewelry (Velde 1995: 1732, 1733).
Interestingly, among the Hittites temple personnel were not allowed to wear
jewelry of gold, silver, or bronze. If any of those metals were given to them
they were not to make ornaments for their wives and children, but were rather
expected to sell them in court. This was done to protect the gold, silver and
bronze that belonged to the temple (Kuhne 1978: 182, 183).
Several examples from the Old Testament illustrate the religious usage of
jewelry. The first one is the jewelry of the high priest. We have already
indicated that it expressed beauty and social status, but it also communicated
profound religious convictions. In fact, it identified him as a religious leader,
not a military or civil one. A golden plate was attached to the crown of the high
priest with an engraved inscription on it: "Holy to the Lord" (Exod 28:36-38),
which identified the nature of his work. It was related to his work as an
instrument in the atonement process (Exod 28:38). One of the Hebrew words
used to refer to the crown is nezer (10), which is the noun form of verb nzr
(10), "to consecrate" (29:6; cf. Zech 6:11). The noun identifies the crown as
a sign of the consecration of the high priest to the Lord (Kuhlewein 1976: 51).
The two onyx stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod with the names
of the twelve tribes engraved on them (Exod 28:9-14) and the twelve semiprecious stones on the breast piece of the priestly dress (Exod 28:17-30) had
also a religious motivation. It is very difficult to identify the stones mentioned
in the Hebrew text (for a good attempt, see Harris 1963-65: 40-62), but in
terms of function they served as a remembrance before the Lord (Exodus 12,
29). In his person the high priest took the Israelites before the Lord as their
representative. One could say that the stones reminded him of his function, but
at the same time, they were "an invocation to God to be mindful of His people
Israel, with whom He enacted a covenant" (Sarna 1986: 179). The semiprecious stones on the shoulder and breastplate of the high priest looked like
seals, i.e. stones on which a name, the name of the owner, was engraved (Platt
1992: 830). This underscores the functional nature of the stones. A seal was
was not a temporary display, but a continuous one. ... Although the
terminology of repentance is not used, the tradition of the stnppmg of
ornamentswhatever it may have once meantnow serves in the narrative
to demonstrate Israel's change of heart (Childs 1974: 589).
It became "a perpetual rule" (Cole 1987: 222, 223), a constant manifestation
of the Israelites' dependence and reliance on God's forgiving grace.
It is indeed difficult to know for how long the Israelites did not wear
jewelry. It has been suggested that this was the case only during the wilderness
wanderings, but this is just a conjecture (Sarna 1989: 211). Judges 8:24 seems
to suggest that during the period of the judges "ornaments were not worn" by
the Israelites (Moore 1895: 23; Cole 1987: 213). We recognize that it is
difficult to prove a direct connection between the incident on Mount Horeb and
this one in the period of the judges. We do know that the Israelites did wear
jewelry, but it may not have been that common. The archaeological evidence
suggests that jewelry was not that habitual among the Israelites and what has
been found is of inferior quality (Platt 1979: 827; Rosenthal 1973: 54; Negev
1986: 203). It has been indicated that "Israel, in many respects, must have
seemed a nation of puritans in the ancient world, not only in worship and
morals, but even in dress" (Cole 1987: 222, 223). This could have been the
case in earlier times, but by the time of Hosea (2:13[15]) and Isaiah (3:16-23)
religious and ornamental jewelry was very popular among the Israelites.
Isaiah's attack on jewelry (Isaiah 3) which we have mentioned several
times, was a condemnation of jewelry as a religious and social symbol, and as
an expression of pride. It is sometimes argued that the prophet's attack is not
against wearing jewelry and beautiful apparel, but that "the lesson is on the
misuse of the authority of office for which that apparel stands" (Platt 1979:
200), but this overlooks the pagan ideas associated and expressed through the
dress style used by those leaders and against which the prophet had already
reacted (Isa 2:8, 18, 20). It is probably this same kind of apparel that
Zephaniah condemns (Zeph 2:8). Undoubtedly, wearing this kind of ornaments
was a common condition among those in high positions in the palace. Hans
Wildberger perceptively argues that the catalogue of jewelry in Isaiah 3
"betrays the influence that the palace had on the lifestyle of the leading citizens
of the capital city. Without intending to do so, it indicates how intensely Israel
allowed itself to be influenced by foreign custom" (1991: 155).
Third, there is some indirect evidence that seems to indicate that Yahwistic
faith was not positively predisposed toward jewelry. It is interesting to notice
that precious stones and metals are not directly associated with the creation of
Adam and Eve. This is an argument from silence; yet some of those metals and
stones are mentioned in the creation account in Gen 2:11, 12 and we are
informed that they were located outside the garden of Eden, in the land of
Havilah. This is surprising if we take into consideration that in ancient Near
Eastern mythology the garden of the gods were embellished with precious
stones (e.g. "Gilgamesh Epic" ix.v 47-vi.35; Wallace 1985: 71, 72; Cassuto
1961: 77-79).
What is important for our purpose is that in the creation of Adam and Eve
jewelry played no role at all and that no reference to it was made when the
Lord provided clothes for them and dressed them (Gen 3:21). They were both
created in God's image and it was this fact that allowed them to rule over the
rest of the created world. It would appear that there is here an implicit
devaluation of the use of jewelry for personal adornment and to define or
represent one's social status or power and authority. Adam and Eve functioned
as rulers of God's creation because they bore in their own person and character
the image of God.
It is also important to observe that Yahweh is never described in the Old
Testament as wearing jewelry. This is again surprising because in the ancient
References
Anbar, M.
1974
Les Bijoux Compris dans la Dot du Fianc a Mari et dans les Cadeaux du
Mariage dans Gen 24. Ugarit Forschungen 6: 442-444.
-
Hittite Texts: Instructions for Cultic Officials and Temple Personnel. Pp. 146-84
in Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. W.
Beyerlin. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.
Leemans, W. F.
1952 Ishtar of Lagaba and Her Dress. Leiden: Brill.
Lewis, T. J.
1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
1992 Ancestor Worship. .Pp. 240-242 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, eds. D. N.
Freedmen, et al. New York: Doubleday.
Lichtheirn, M.
1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings-Volume 1: The Old and
Middle Kingdoms. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
Luckenbill, D.
1926-27 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2. Chicago, IL: University.
Malul, M.
1990
Maxwell-Hyslo
p, K. R.
1971
Western Asiatic Jewelry c. 3000-612 B.C. London: Methuen.
McCarter,
P. K ., Jr.
1984
2 Samuel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
McKenzie,
J. L
1976
Mythological Allusions in Ezek 28:12-18. Journal of Biblical Literature 75:
322-327.
Meek, T. J.
1969
Milgrom, J.
1983
Miller, J. A.
1993
Mobil, G.
1981
Moore, G. F.
1895
Neukirchener Verlag.
Par. Pp. 387, 388 in Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, vol.
2, eds. E. Jenni and C. Westennann. Munich: Kaiser.
Wallace, H. N.
1985 The Eden Narrative. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Waltke, 13. K., and O'Connor, J.
1990 An Introduction to Biblical Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbruan.
Watts, J. D. W.
1985 Isaiah 1-33. Waco, TX: Word.
Wenhatn, G. J.
1994 Genesis 15-50. Dallas, TX: Word.
Westermann, C.
1971 Kbd schwer sein. Pp. 794-811. Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Allen
Testament, vol. 1, eds. E. Jenni and C. Westerinann. Munich: Kaiser.
1985 Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.
Wildberger, H.
1991 Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Wilson, J. A.
1969a Egyptian Myths, Tales, and Mortuary Texts. Anceint Near Eeastern Texts 3-36.
1969b Egyptian Historical Texts. Anceint Near Eastern Texts: 227-264.
Yardeni, A.
1991
Remarks on the Priestly Blessing and Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem.
Vetus Testamentum 41: 176-185.
Zimmerli, W.
1983 Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48.
Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
10
Edwin M. Yamauchi
History Department, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
1994 Mesopotamian Bronzes from Greek Sites: The Workshops of Origin. Iraq 56: 125.
Desborough, V.
1972 The Greek Dark Ages. New York: St. Martin's.
Dion, P.-E.
1992 Les KTYM de Tel Arad: Grecs ou Pheniciens? Revue Biblique 99: 70-97.
Driver, S. R.
1960 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Meridian
Library reprint of the 1897 edition.
Duchesne-Guilletnin, M.
1969 La theorie babylonienne des metaboles musicales. Revue de Musicologie 55: 311.
Lewis, D. M.
1977 Sparta and Persia. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Lipinski, E.
1991
Lloyd, S.
1978
The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Mitchell, T. C.
1992a The Music of the Old Testament Reconsidered. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
124: 124-143.
1992b Where was Putu-Iaman? Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 22:
69-80.
Muscarella, 0. W.
1977 The Archaeological Evidence for Relations between Greece and Iran in the First
Nylander, C.
Journal of Cuneiform
Porteous, N. W.
Quinn, J. D.
1961 Alcaeus 48 (1316) and the Fall of Ascalon (604 B.C.).
Schools of Oriental Research 164: 19, 20.
Riis, P. J.
1970 Sukas I. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Saggs, H. W. F.
1965 The Nimrud Letters.
Shea, W. H.
1983 Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10.
Semina ry Studies 21: 225-250.
Szemerenyi, 0.
1974 The Origins of the Greek Lexicon:
Studies 94: 144-157.
Andrews University
Weidner, E. F.
1939 Jojachin, Konig von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, vol. 2. Pp. 923-935
in Mlanges Syriens offerts a M. Rene Dussaud. Paris: Geuthner.
Yamauchi, E.
1967 Greece and Babylon. Grand Rapids, ME: Baker.
1970 The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East. Pp.
170-200 in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne. Waco:
Word.
1974 The Archaeological Confirmation of Suspect Elements in the Classical and the
Biblical Traditions. Pp. 54-70 in The Law and the Prophets, ed. J. H. Skilton.
Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed.
1981 Daniel and Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East before Alexander.
11
Introduction
Scholars generally agree that the biblical book of Daniel belongs to a
literary genre which can be called "apocalypse," however, there has been
intense debate over the definition of the genre and the boundaries of its corpus.
In the mid-1970s, Stephen Kaufmann commented on the situation:
"Unfortunately, there are probably as many different definitions of apocalyptic
and lists of works to be included under that rubric as there are writers on
Biblical literature" (1977: 225).
In 1979 there was major progress when a group of essays by a team of
scholars belonging to the Apocalypse Group of the SBL Genres Project was
published in Semeia 14. These essays surveyed all texts which are regarded or
potentially regarded as apocalypses and which are dated by the majority of
scholars to the period 250 BC to AD 250. The project, headed by John J.
Collins, resulted in a definition of the genre "apocalypse" which was based
upon inductive observation of a core of consistently recurring elements within
the corpus of works for which the label "apocalypse" was established. Collins
expressed the definition as follows:
"Apocalypse" is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework,
in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human
recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as
it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves
another, supernatural world (I 979a: 9).
This definition recognizes a common type of form in terms of a narrative
framework and otherworldly mediation, and a common type of content in
139
Now suppose that Daniel or John had included more information in the
narrative introductions just cited. John refers to "tribulation," "patient
endurance," and the fact that he was on the island of Patmos. What if he told
us in several verses what kind of tribulation he had endured and what events
had led to his location on Patmos? Such an introduction would be directly
relevant to the circumstances in which he saw his visions. Suppose an
introduction of this kind took up one or more chapters and included stories
which could stand on their own? Would this material be disqualified as an
apocalyptic narrative framework because of its length and/or complexity?
Perhaps not.
What about Daniel? Just as John was in exile on Patmos, Daniel was in
exile in Babylon. Suppose he had told us more about his circumstances before
the commencement of the vision recorded in chapter 7. Would we exclude this
material from the apocalyptic narrative framework? The fact is, Daniel does
tell us more in the first six chapters. These narratives provide the background
to the visions even if their focus is not specifically upon the precise, narrow
circumstances of the prophet on the exact days when he went into vision. If we
understand an apocalyptic narrative framework in this broader sense, Daniel
1-6 are apocalyptic not simply because they are dominated by the visions of
Daniel 7-12, but because they function within the book as an apocalyptic
narrative framework.
141
Genre definitions are useful tools in that they provide general reference
points for comparing works with each other (Collins 1991: 19). Genre
The difficulty with this approach is that "the genre assumptions with
which we approach the visions" are not the same as those of the ancient
audience. For example, the audience of Daniel, which by any reckoning is one
of the earliest Jewish apocalypses, would not have included later apocalyptic
works in its frame of reference. While these later works should be compared
with Daniel, such comparison should come after interpretation of Daniel on its
own terms, within its historical context. This case illustrates the tension
involved in the application of genre definition, which is necessarily synchronic
(Collins 1991: 18), to exegesis, which is subject to diachronic constraints.
It is true that even the early stages of exegesis must deal with literary
factors which happen to be genre characteristics., however, it is through
internal examination that the meaning and genre characteristics of a work are
ascertained. Following such examination, the work can be compared with other
143
works, whether they share the same dominant characteristic, and thus belong
to the same genre, or not. Genre analysis in the form of comparing works with
reference to a synchronic definition is not essential for basic understanding; it
enriches an understanding which is already established. This kind of genre
analysis comes under the umbrella of comparative studies, which is subject to
the constraint that an individual phenomenon should be interpreted on its own
terms, within its own context, before it is compared with other phenomena. If
comparison between works, including evaluation of a work in light of a
synchronic definition abstracted from comparison between works, is
introduced into interpretation too early in the interpretive process, the tendency
will be to import foreign elements which contaminate results.
Daniel and Akkadian
Historical Prophecies: An Illustration
Thus far, I have discussed in theoretical terms the relevance of genre
concepts for interpretation of the book of Daniel. To partially illustrate how
this theory can be applied, let us consider a particular parallel between Daniel
and some Akkadian historical prophecies. Daniel shares with the Uruk
Prophecy (Hunger & Kaufman 1975: 371-375) and the Dynastic Prophecy
(Grayson 1975: 24-37) not only the feature of historical outline, and not only
the motif of an ideal era for Babylon within such an outline; it shares specific
identification of that era as the glorious early part of the Neo-Babylonian
empire, i.e. the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC). How can genre
awareness help us to evaluate this parallel?
Just because Daniel and two Akkadian works identify the ideal era for
Babylon similarly does not mean that the significance of this identification is
the same in all three works. The significance in each compoSition depends
upon the function of the identification in relation to other literary elements
within the framework of characteristics which determines the genre of the
work.
Separate examination shows that the relationship of each of the three
works to the Babylonian ideal era is different. The Uruk text, probably
composed during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (Lambert 1978: 12), favors
the ideal present and hopes that it will continue indefinitely. The Dynastic
prophecy, dating from the early Seleucid period (Grayson 1975: 27), reacts
against a later status quo following a progressive deterioration from the ideal
for Babylon. While Daniel recognizes deterioration following the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar, the "head of gold" (Dan 2:38, 39), the true ideal is the
future, eschatological kingdom of the God of heaven which comes after the
fourth kingdom. In Dan 2:45, the gold is destroyed along with the other
elements of the statue, implying that Babylon is just as worthless, ultimately,
as the rest of the kingdoms.
145
References
Borger, R.
1971 Gott Marduk and Gott-Konig Sulgi als Propheten.. Bibliotheca Orientalis 28:
3-24.
Charles, R. H.
1963 Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Lift in Israel, Judaism, and
Christianity. New York: Schocken.
Collins, A. Y.
1986 Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism. Pp. 1-11 in Early Christian
Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting, ed. A. Y. Collins. Semeia 36.
Decatur, GA: Scholars.
Collins, J. J.
1979a Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre. Pp. 1-20 in Apocalypse: The
Morphology of a Genre, ed. J. J. Collins. Semeia 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars.
1979b The Jewish Apocalypses. Pp. 21-59 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a
Genre, ed. J. J. Collins. Semeia 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars.
1981 Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in Daniel. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 21: 83-100.
1983 The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism. Pp. 531-548 in Apocalypticism
in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm. Tubingen: J.
C. B. Mohr.
1984 The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of
Christianity. New York: Crossroad.
1991 Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism. Mysteries
and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium, eds. J.
J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth,Journalfor the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
Supplement Series 9: 11-32. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament.
1992 Early Jewish Apocalypticism. Pp. 282-288 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.
1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Davies, P. R.
1980 Eschatology in the Book of Daniel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
17: 33-53.
147
Grayson, A. K.
1975 Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto: University of Toronto.
1992 Akkadian 'Apocalyptic' Literature. Pg. 282 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Grayson, A. K., and Lambert, W. G.
1964 Akkadian Prophecies. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 18: 7-30.
Hallo, W. W.
1966 Akkadian Apocalypses. Israel Exploration Journal 16: 231-242.
Hanson, P. D.
1975 The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1992 Apocalypses and Apocalypticism. Pp. 279-282 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Hartman, L.
1983
12
Introduction
Scholarly study of the book of Daniel has produced several theories
regarding the source documents from which the book was composed. These
are described by H. H. Rowley in his review of the criticism of the book of
Daniel prior to 1952 (1952: 235-268). Of the various critical options, the
commonest view during the latter half of the twentieth century has been that
the major division of the book should be made after chapter 7, with the seventh
chapter seen as an appendix to the first six, written after them, but before
chapters 8-12. This view was developed further by Ginsberg (1948) in a
protracted debate with Rowley, who argued for the essential unity of the book
of Daniel (cf. Rowley 1952).
This debate, which occurred mostly in the pages of The Journal of
Biblical Literature (Ginsberg 1948; Rowley 1949; Ginsberg 1949; Rowley
1950, 1952; Ginsberg 1954) left twentieth century scholarship with the two
views which are still current: the former, that the book of Daniel was written
or edited by a single hand (probably about 165 BC), and the latter, that the
book of Daniel comes from two major sources, one responsible for chapters
1-6 (or possibly 1-7) and the other responsible for the balance of the book.
The complex literary problems of the book of Daniel have not yet been
definitively resolved and are therefore still contendable issues. This paper is
not intended to resolve these issues, but rather to consider the degree to which
purely literary criteria may be helpful in resolving the questions of the literary
origins of the book of Daniel. This study will be limited to consideration of the
overt internal literary indications of textual discontinuity in this book.
Genre
2:14
2:45
7:1
9:1
9:22
10:1
10:5
--
10:1
10:2
Unfortunately, though everyone sees this, scholars have not been careful
in observing this point. All too frequently, divisions of the book which seem
151
Two things must be said about this. First, the statement that chapter 7 acts
as a transition between the two parts mitigates against the separation of two
parts. It is tautological to say that to the degree to which chapter 7 joins the
two parts it also fails to distinguish them. Second, the statement that chapter
7 participates in both genres is not quite true. Chapter 7 does act as a
transition between the former part of the book of Daniel and the latter part, but
the seventh chapter does not share the anecdotal narrative genre of the first six
chapters. Rather, it shares the language of most of the first part. In the end,
however, Lacocque concedes the essential redactional unity of the book of
Daniel: "... the redactor and veritable author of the book of Daniel availed
himself of the tales belonging to a popular cycle about Daniel" (1979: 10).
Like the preceding comments by Lacocque, most recent studies which
assume the early date of chapters 1-6 also tend to assert the redactional unity
of the book, that is, that the material of these chapters had to be substantially
re-edited in order to conform to the material of the later chapters of the book.
John Collins, for example, says,
Two points, however, are widely agreed upon: The first six chapters of the
book contain material which is older than the later chapters, and this material
has been re-edited in Maccabean times to attain a redactional unity with the
apocalyptic visions of chapters 7-12 (1975: 218).
Collins also names other indicators of the over-all unity of the book, such
as the schema of the four kingdoms, which is used in chapter 2 and in chapter
7, and the pattern of veiled revelation decoded by a wise interpreter, which
occurs in chapters 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (1975: 230).
Delcor also recognizes genre variety as the criterion for dividing the book:
Le livre de Daniel, conserve en hebreu et en arameen, se compose de deux
parties nettement distinct. La premiere (1 a 6) comprend des recits dont
Daniel est le heros et la deuxieme (7 a 12) concerne les visions dont Daniel
est lui-meme le beneficiaire (1971: 9).
It should be noted that, like Delcor, most commentators and scholars are
unable to keep the question of language out of the question of genre variety,
even though the changes of language do not coincide with the changes of
genre.
Objections to the use of genre variety for the division of Daniel. There
are several objections to the use of genre variety for dividing the book. First,
this criterion is applied inconsistently. This is almost inevitable, since the
genres in this book are not neatly divided. When we say that most of the first
six chapters are narrative, we admit that some part of this section is not
narrative. In fact, chapter 2:14-45 is an apocalypse, even though it conforms
only partially to the apocalyptic pattern in chapters 7 and 8.
153
book evidenced by the fragments from Qumran. These fragments, brief as they
are, show the changes of language at precisely the same points as the
Masoretic text. The date of these fragments is somewhat uncertain, but they
are believed to be quite early, probably no later than 100 BC (Collins 1977:
7, 8).
In the second case, we must either explain why an author would write a
book in two languages, or why anyone would attempt somewhat artfully to
combine two documents written in different languages. Of course, we cannot
hope to determine conclusively the veritable motive for such a procedure, but
unless a plausible motive can be suggested, this suggestion should be regarded
as doubtful.
The third suggestion is also problematic. In the first place, it requires the
conjectural loss of every copy of part of the original version. In the second
place, this loss must have taken place after the conjectural translation of the
book into the second language. Furthermore, the loss of part of the original
must have occurred after the form of the book was so well established as to
prevent anyone from retranslating to the original language the part which had
been lost from the original version. Finally, we must also conjecture that after
the original book was partially replaced by the translation, every copy of the
rest of the translation was lost.
In brief, every proposal for explaining the bilingualism of the book
requires the multiplication of hypotheses. We may well concur with Eissfeldt,
who says, "An explanation of the double language which is entirely
satisfactory has not yet been proposed by anyone" (1965: 528).
Even if we could offer a good explanation of the bilingualism of the book,
we still face some problems in dating the various parts. While the text gives
us some clues to its age, these are insufficient to date the sections with
accuracy.
From a conservative point of view, K. A. Kitchen argued that the Aramaic
of the book of Daniel is practically undatable (1965). Rowley (1966: 112116), who had already pronounced himself on the Aramaic of the book of
Daniel (which he considered to be quite late,`and which he gave as one of his
reasons for accepting the integrity of the book as a second century production),
responded vigorously to Kitchen's article, but Joyce Baldwin, after reviewing
the discussion, concluded,
If roper allowance is made for this modernization [of spelling], the Aramaic
of Daniel could have been written at any time between the late sixth and
second centuries B.C. (1978: 34).
More recently, the linguistic evidence for the Aramaic part of the book
was reviewed by G. Hasel, who concludes that the language used is Official
Aramaic, and could have been written as early as the sixth century BC, and
Collins intends by this to show that his views regarding the supposed
predictions of Daniel are not gratuitous assumptions. They are conclusions
based on the study of other texts which resemble Daniel in form, but in saying
this, he also makes it clear that his view of predictive prophecy in Daniel does
159
not derive from the book itself, but rather from similar literature, that is, from
other documents of the same genre. These views are then imported to the
study of Daniel. They are not gratuitous assumptions, but with regard to the
book of Daniel they are assumptions nevertheless, and by no means deductive
conclusions. It is clear that Collins' dating of source documents in Daniel is
based on their historical information. For example, with regard to the
apocalypses of Daniel 8-12, he says,
By .contrast with the elusiveness of the tales, we have exceptionally clear
indications of the historical provenance of the revelations. Porphyry noted in
antiquity that the predictions of Daniel 11 are correct down to (but not
including) the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, but thereafter incorrect or
unfulfilled. Analogy with other historical apocalypsessupports the
conclusion that these "prophecies" were actually written during the time of
persecution but before the king's death s or at least before his death was
reported in Jerusalem. The date of composition must thus be set between the
profanation of temple in 167 and the end of 164 B.C. (1975: 36).
It can only be repeated that source documents in the book of Daniel are
distinguished by the source critics solely on the basis of historical references
and the assumption that the supposed predictions are actually vaticinia ex
eventu. It would be well if all scholars who deal with this book would accept
this fact frankly, and recognize that inasmuch as the internal indicators in the
text give us very little help to distinguish sources, critical judgements
regarding these sources must be based on historical facts and not on literary
evidence. Accordingly, it would be better for them to abandon recourse to the
evidence of the literary indicators of textual discontinuity when attempting to
defend source-critical conclusions which are in fact based on the historical
information contained in the book of Daniel.
Notes
It is interesting to note, in passing, Lacocque's implicit eschatological definition of "apocalypse."
The book of Ezra quotes Persian documents in Aramaic without, however, incorporating any
significant amount of Aramaic into the Hebrew narrative text.
. 3. According to. Ginsberg, the motive for translating the first and last parts of the book was to obtain
canonical status for Daniel. This suggestion is simplistic and naive and presumes an attitude toward
canonicity which is probably anachronistic.
References
Baldwin, J.
1978 Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Heaton, E. W.
1956 Daniel. London: SCM.
Kauffmann, Y.
1956 History of Israel 's Faith. Tel Aviv: Hotsa'at "Mosad Byalik".
Kitchen, K. A.
1965 The Aramaic of Daniel. Notes on Sonic Problems in the Book ofDaniel, ed. D.
J. Wiseman et al. London: Tyndale.
Lacocque, A.
1979 The Book of Daniel. Trans. David Pellauer. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.
Rowley, H. H.
1949 Review of Studies in Daniel by H. L. Ginsberg. The Journal of Biblical
Literature 48: 173-177.
1950 A Rejoinder. The Journal ofBiblical Literature 49: 201-203.
13
Dalton D. Baldwin
Emeritus Professor of Christian Theology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA.
It is widely held that the book of Daniel was written from a deterministic
world view. According to this view, the events of history are God determined.
The characterization of this world view as deterministic is in conflict with
some of the same scholars' descriptions of the purpose of the book as
encouragement for the community to choose to remain faithful under duress.
If people were determined, they could not freely choose whether or not to be
faithful.
My thesis is that Daniel was written from a world view which is not
deterministic and in which divine action in reference to human beings is
conditioned on their free choices.
Theological Interpretation
This study emphasizes the theological aspects of biblical interpretation.
That Daniel was written from a deterministic world view is not explicitly
stated in the text. It is an inference from some features of the text put together
with what I regard as a faulty assumption. The book does state that God (2:21;
4:17, 25, 32; 5:21) and transcendent beings (10:13, 20) act in the rise and fall
of kings. The book also includes detailed predictions of the course of history
in which this divine action occurs. If one assumes that a world view that
includes detailed divine predictions requires determinism, the deterministic
conclusion follows.
I assume that if a person is able to choose either to act faithfully or not to
act faithfully, the choice is not determined. My thesis that Daniel is written
from a world view that includes divine action conditioned on the free choices
of human beings is an inference from many instances in Daniel where divine
action is understood as divine response to human free choice.
Canonical Approach
This study uses a "canonical" approach in the sense that the book will be
dealt with as a whole as it now stands in the canonical text. There will be no
attempt to identify and date various strands of material in the text in order to
differentiate early and late positions. The English translation provided in this
chapter is the New Revised Standard Version.
Definition of Terms
The terms "free choice" and "free will" are not used by Daniel or other
Bible writers. Apparently these conceptions were not present in their thinking
vocabulary, however, reproofs of sin and appeals to choose rightly (e.g. Josh
24:15; Dan 4:27; 11:32-35) were made in a way that show that either a right
or a wrong choice could be made in the same causal situation. Whether the
choice is right or wrong is not determined by causes operating in or on the
chooser. A free choice is choice determined by the agent without having been
caused to do so by any internal or external cause.
In a deterministic world view, in a theistic context, what happens in
history is determined by God; and what God does and when He does it are not
conditioned on what has happened previously such as on what people have
chosen to do. When in my thesis I say that the world view from which Daniel
is written is not deterministic, I mean that free choices by human beings occur.
God does not determine human choice. When I say that divine action is
conditioned on free choice, I mean that God acts differently in relation to a free
choice to be faithful than He does to a choice to be unfaithful.
A world view is composed of understandings at the highest level of
generalization about the enduring structure of the universe held by a
community. Since these understandings are transmitted to the members of the
community through unconscious social interaction, the members of the
community often are not explicitly conscious that they have them. The
marginally conscious character of a world view increases the possibility of the
inclusion of contradictory elements. The conflict between determinism and
freely chosen faithfulness, therefore, does not mean that they are not both parts
of the world view from which Daniel is written, however, this conflict should
alert us to reexamine the data to learn whether unconditional God determinism
accurately describes the world view.
As background for the study, it may be helpful to cite a small sample of
references to these conflicting world view factors.
Unconditional Determinism
Collins (1993: 55) notes that the "division of history into set periods" in
Daniel is usually traced to Persian influence and conveyed a "sense of
determinism by claiming that history was measured out and under control."
Among the differences between Daniel and post-exilic prophecy is (1993: 60)
time in order to make their choices. In 2 Esdras when the righteous dead asked
how long they had to wait for vindication, the archangel Jeremiel answered,
"When the number of those like yourselves is completed" (2 Esd 4:36). In
these explanations the point at which divine judging action destroys beastly
powers and vindicates the faithful is conditioned on the free choices of both
those who "finish the transgression" and those who decide to be faithful (Dan
9:24).
Captivity and Restoration Conditioned on Free Choice
In his lament and prayer in chapter 9, Daniel understood that Israel's
captivity resulted "because we have sinned against you" (9:11). Levitical
legislation held out hope for captives in the "land of their enemies." If they
"confessed their iniquity" and repented, God would remember his covenant
(Lev 16:40-42). Daniel confessed, "We did not entreat the favor of the Lord
our God, turning from our iniquities" (9:13). He had read in the "books" that
Jeremiah had indicated the number of years Jerusalem would be devastated
(9:2). He must have recognized the conditionality of this prediction, perhaps
from Jer 18:7-10, and therefore prayed, "0 Lord, 0 Lord forgive; 0 Lord,
listen and act and do not delay!" (9:19). In this prayer both the captivity and
the restoration were conditioned on human free choice.
Vision Conditioned on Humble Prayer
After Daniel had been praying for three weeks, the heavenly messenger
said, "I have come because of your words," which were heard "from the first
day" (10:12). Collins (1993: 374) implies that, since the divine revelatory
initiative occurred on the first day, the events predicted were part of
predetermined, unconditional divine action which Collins also sees in Dan
9:23 (1993: 352-360). He nevertheless, refers to the revelation as a "response"
(1993: 374). As a response it is conditioned on that to which it responds.
The reason for mentioning the "first day" was to explain why Daniel did
not receive the response quickly (10:12). The remaining twenty days were
spent in opposing the prince of the kingdom of Persia (10:13). Collins regards
the prince of Persia as a "patron angel" of Persia (1993: 374). He sees the
conflict between Michael, the patron angel of Judah, and the princes or patron
angels of Persia and Greece as the apparatus of the divine determinism. Such
a conclusion would mean that in apocalyptic literature the affairs of men and
nations are not determined by the choices and actions of men, but by the
outcome of the actions of transcendent powers.
Shea has assembled a mass of chronological and historical data in support
of Calvin's view that the expression "prince of Persia" refers to Cambyses
(1983: 225-250). If the prince of Persia is an earthly ruler able to resist divine
influence for twenty days, there is no unconditional divine determinism.
References
Collins, J. J.
1993 Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Di Lella, A. A.
1978 Introduction. In The Book of Daniel, eds. L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella.
Anchor Bible, vol. 23, eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Johnsson, W. G.
1986 Conditionality in Biblical Prophecy with Particular Reference to Apocalyptic.
Pp. 259-287 in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, vol.
3, ed. F. B. Holbrook. in Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Washington,
D.C.: Biblical Research Institute.
Shea, W. H.
1983
Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study of Daniel 10. Andrews University
Seminary Studies 21: 225-250.
von Rad, G.
1965 The Message of the Prophets. New York: Harper & Row.
14
The name "Darius the Mede," well known to the readers of the book of
Daniel, has not yet been found in any extra-biblical inscription of preChristian times. Not only do both Greek and Babylonian sources not mention
a Median king named "Darius," but they leave no room for his existence! By
official Babylonian-Persian reckoning, the reign of Cyrus in Babylon began
immediately after the city's fall. The cuneiform tablets confirm the fact that
regnal year 1 of Cyrus, king of Persia, began at New Year's Day in the spring
of 538 BC, after his capture of Babylon in October, 539 BC. The book of
Daniel, on the other hand, states that one known as Darius the Mede
"received" the Chaldean kingdom of Belshazzar (Dan 5:30, 31). Seemingly the
only way he could have enjoyed a first regnal year (mentioned in Dan 9:1),
would have been to have ruled concurrently with Cyrus. Given his nonexistence in contemporary official records, the temptation is either to dismiss
Daniel's Darius or to assign his status as a minor figure of non-importance;
perhaps a sub-ruler, a mere "shadow king," who ruled only by the courtesy or
policy of the ruling suzerian known to history as "Cyrus the Great."
Before reaching such a conclusion, however, it is prudent to assess the
historical memory of the Israelites, which was not limited to the book of
Daniel. In very sharp contrast to the classical and cuneiform sources which
speak of the Persians as the conquerors of Babylon, the Old Testament writers
speak of the Medes as the primary movers who caused the overthrow of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire. The Old Testament testimony is explicit:
See, I am stirring up the Medes against ... Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms
... the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew
them' (Isa 13:17, 19).
The phrase "... the law of the Medes and the Persians" (Dan 6:8, 12, 15)
implies a formal coalition in which the Medes are listed in the prominent first
position. Compare the significant reversal in order in the same phrase in Esth
1:19: "the laws of the Persians and the Medes." The implication of the above
quotes from both Daniel 5 and 6 is that Cyrus is subordinate to Darius.
In the eighth chapter of Daniel, the political union of the Medes and
Persians is put in a different way. There the angel Gabriel explains the
meaning of the ram with two horns which Daniel saw in vision: "As for the
ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia"
(Dan 8:20). In other words, both Medes and Persians were a coalition, sharing
power at the time of Babylon's fall, but Dan 8:3 goes on to state that one horn
later became higher: "... a ram ... had two horns; both were tall, but one taller
than the other, and the one that rose the higher was the second" (The
Jerusalem Bible translation). The Persians, the second of the listed powers in
coalition (Dan 8:20), triumphed and succeeded over the Medes, an event which
did not take place until later, when the reign of Darius came to an end and
Cyrus then came to rule over "all the kingdoms of the earth" (Ezra 1:2; 2 Chr
36:20).
Intertestamental Jewish writers do not deviate from this Scriptural
scenario. In the apocryphal 1 Esdras, Cyrus is found in command of Babylonia
while his overlord, Darius the Mede is in his palace in far away Media. The
passage in question (1 Esd 3:1-3; 4:42-44, 57, 61) speaks of both Darius and
Cyrus as having made joint plans for the attack on Babylon, both making vows
to return to Jerusalem the sacred vessels which had been carried away from the
Jewish temple by the Chaldeans (cf. Torrey 1946: 10). 3 In like manner,
Josephus, the famed Jewish historian, in his Antiquities of the Jews, speaks
of Babylon as having been taken by Darius with the help of his kinsman Cyrus
(Book X,11.4).
In summary, the Jewish sources remember the Medes as playing a major
role as conquerors of Babylon, a position which is in stark contrast to standard
historical textbooks which know nothing of a Median invasion of Babylonia,
or that there was a Median domination of that area. The Old Testament, of
175
course, knew that the conquest of Babylon was not the work of the Medes
alone, and that a Persian king named Cyrus deserved a significant share of
credit for the city's fall (Isa 41:25; 44:27-45:1), but as C.C. Torrey has put it:
"In Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah Cyrus is never thought of as the conqueror of
Babylonia, and in first Esdras ... Cyrus is plainly subordinate to Darius"
(Torrey 1946: 7).
When the book of Daniel labels Darius as "king," the term is found in the
context of overlord and not as vassal. Any attempt to solve the conflicting
sources by suggesting that Darius the Mede was a governor, or a vice-regent
ruling only over a limited "realm of the Chaldeans," is to ignore the Biblical
understanding that the Median empire existed between the Babylonian and
Persian empires both in the interpretation of the dream of Dan 2:31-45 and the
vision in 7:3-7, 15-18that it was a Median king named Darius who was the
supreme suzerain who incorporated Chaldea/Babylonia into his vast MedoPersian empire in the year 539 BC (Dan 5:31), previous to the establishment
of a Persian empire.
The explanation of why Darius the Mede, who made such an imprint in
Hebrew literature, fails even in having a small place in secular history, is found
in a series of events which occurred during the shifts in political power during
the Achaemenid dynasty in ancient Persia. Hostile animosity against Cyrus on
the part of the Persian royal house is the underlying cause for the retelling and
distortions to be found in ancient historical sources concerning Cyrus and the
end of the Median kingdom. It began in 559 BC, when Cyrus not only
ascended the throne of the city-state of Anshan (part of the Fars region of
Maliyan), but also when he extended his hegemony over the remainder of
Persia (the modern province of Fars). This extension of power was done at the
expense of the then ruling Persian monarch Arsames, who was deposed from
his throne, but allowed to retain his life and liberty. Arsames, who
understandably lost no love on Cyrus, was still alive 61 years later when his
grandson Darius I restored his family's fortunes by seizing the Persian throne
in 522 BC (Kent 1946: 210-211; Cameron 1955: 90). Arsames was present
to remind his grandson that unlike the intrusive interloper Cyrus, who was half
Median (Herodotus I. 107), the line of Arsames was of pure Persian
descentthe possessor of Persia's royal prerogatives. Cyrus was to be blamed
for preventing both the legitimate king Arsames and his son Hystaspes from
occupying their rightful inherited positions as the true rulers of Persia.
In 518 BC, Darius I erected his famous Behistun relief and inscription (in
Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian) as a victory monument on an imposing
cliff overlooking the royal road from Persia to Mesopotamia. He is at pains to
stress his legitimate Persian descent: "I am ... a Persian, son of a Persian, an
Aryan, having Aryan lineage" (Cameron 1955: 88). The old order of confusion
and injustice was now proclaimed to have been replaced by a new order of
equity and truth. The king had restored the royal line of Achaemenes to its
rightful place. While Cyrus is named in the inscription, nothing is said of his
reign, and of Cyrus' son, Cambyses, only that little is told which implies his
unfitness to rule. The purpose of erecting the Behistun inscription with its
accompanying relief was to disseminate state propagandapropaganda which
aimed at discrediting the "Median dynasty" (the house of Cyrus and his son
Cambyses), while at the same time proclaiming the reigning monarch's right
of succession (Cameron 1955: 89; Levit-Tawil 1983: 76, n. 21).
State propaganda directed against Cyrus became even more blatant as a
result of events that occurred during the years 404 to 401 BC. In 405 BC,
Darius II, the great-grandson of Darius I, died, leaving his throne to his son
Artaxerxes II, who had to contend with the enmity of his brother Cyrus "the
Younger." In an attempt to take the crown away from Artaxerxes, Cyrus led
ten thousand Greek mercenaries into the heart of the Persian Empire. At a
battle in the plains of Cunaxa, in 401 BC, the Greeks were on the verge of
winning, when their leader, Cyrus, having pressed himself forward into the
center of the conflict, was killed by one of the king's bodyguards (Xenophon
Anabasis I. 8).
In the eyes of the Persian victor Artaxerxes, this was yet another attack
against the royal house of Persia by "Cyrus"! The very name Cyrus meant
treason and rebellion. Had not Cyrus the Younger attempted to usurp the
throne in the same treasonous manner as Cyrus had done one hundred and
fifty-eight years earlier?
Feeling that there was a need to discredit the name Cyrus, especially as it
pertained to the Elder Cyrus, Artaxerxes used two methods to vilify and distort
the origins of Cyrus. The first method consisted of erecting a series of
monuments, with attached inscribed gold tablets, at the old Median palace in
Ecbatana, the royal capital most connected with the Elder Cyrus. Two extant
examples survive, inscriptions purportedly written by Arsames and his father
Ariaramnes. These, however, were forgeries made to glorify the sovereignty
of Artaxerxes' ancestral line whom he felt had been eclipsed from their true
honor by the usurpation of the Persian throne by Cyrus the Great; an event
which a Cyrus redivivus had tried to emulate (Kent 1946: 211; Cameron
1955: 96). That the tablets represent a form of political propaganda is made
evident by the fact that they ostensibly were written at a time when the Medes
and Persians were illiterate and unable to write. For it was only after the
conquest of Babylon in 539 BC that the unlettered Cyrus the Great used
Babylonian scribes to commemorate his victory (in Akkadian). Although the
Old Persian syllabary did not come into use until late in the reign of Cyrus,
nevertheless Darius I boasted that he was the inventor, stating that the Aryan
(Persian) system of writing "formerly (had) not been both on clay tablets and
on parchment" (paragraph 70 of the Behistun text: Cameron 1955: 88;
Hallock 1970: 54, 55).
The second method used by Artaxerxes to bring discredit upon Cyrus was
Henceforth the Medes were forced to accept Cyrus as their king; the
supremacy had passed from the Medes to that of the Persians.
Both Herodotus and Ctesias, in their accounts of how Cyrus rose to power
over the Medes and the Persians, share a number of points in common, namely
that Cyrus was abandoned by parents, raised as a lowly commoner, and then
became king.
The fabrication of Ctesias, however, notably progresses this demeaning
presentation so that Cyrus is supposedly from inferior stock, the offspring of
a bandit-father. As a number of scholars have observed, the sequence-pattern
of an unwanted child who becomes a renowned ruler, suspiciously bears the
same imprint as the Greek legend of Oedipus and the story of the rise of
Sargon of Agade in the 23rd century BC (Drews 1974: 387-389; Jones 1967:
87, 88; Yamauchi 1990: 80).
While Herodotus and Ctesias are in agreement that Astyages was the last
and final king of an independent Media, both accounts are intertwined with an
obviously fictitious biography of Cyrus. Should not then Xenophon's account,
another Greek historian, be considered? An Athenian of the upper class,
Xenophon also has left an account of this very time, found within his work
called Cyropaedia, or "Education of Cyrus." Xenophon's writings are of
pertinence in the discussion for he is in agreement with the Danielic assertion
that there was a Median supremacy over Persia up to the time of the taking of
Babylon in 539 BC.
Before the 20th century AD, Xenophon's Cyropaedia was considered by
many to contain the true history of Cyrus. "And ... I think him to have been an
historian of much better credit in this matter than Herodotus" (Prideaux 1848:
130). Those remarks were first penned by Humphrey Prideaux in 1716. Since
that time, Xenophon's account of Cyrus has been looked upon with increasing
scepticism. Among the reasons why modern historians generally discount
Xenophon is because: (1) he asserts that there reigned an additional Median
monarch, Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, an assertion otherwise unknown
in history; (2) there is no known conquest of Egypt, ascribed to Cyrus by
Xenophon (I.1.4); and (3) Xenophon is the only historian who speaks of a
peaceful passing of Cyrus (VIII.7.28). In defense of Xenophon, it may be
pointed out that (1) Cyaxares II could well turn out to be an historical figure
who otherwise is known as Darius the Mede; (2) Cambyses, the son of Cyrus,
went immediately to an Egyptian war, following the passing of his father; a
war, which Xenophon states was started by Cyrus (VIII.6.20); (3) if Cyrus was
killed in a battle against the Massagetae, as reported by Herodotus (1.214),
why did Cambyses, upon his succession to Cyrus, not go forth with an army
to avenge his father's death? Incidentally, the tomb of Cyrus is located at
Pasargadae, some thousand miles from the place where he supposedly was
slain. Herodotus also gives a disclaimer, reporting that "many stories are
related of Cyrus' death ..." (1.214). The final words of Cyrus, as reported by
PERSIA ANSHAN
MEDIA
Achaemenes
Teispes
I
i
Ariaramnes Cyrus I
Astyages (594-559 BC)
I
I
I
I
I
f
Arsames
Cambyses l (marriage) Mandane Cyaxares H (559-537 BC)
I
I
Hystaspes Cyrus II (559-530 BC)
I
I
Cambyses II (530-522 BC)
False
Bardiya (522 BC)
I
Darius I (522-486 BC)
BC dates I
539 I
538
537 I 536
I acc. I 1 2
acc.
I 1 I 2 ! ace. I 1 Cyrus
185
the third year of Cyrus (Dan 10:1), for Daniel 10 dates to 536/5 BC, the
very final 70th year. This is why Daniel, perceiving that his fellow Jews still
remained in exile, began a three week period of mourning and fasting (Dan
10:2, 3), and this is why the angel Gabriel, speaking during the third year of
Cyrus, makes reference to the first year of Darius the Mede (Dan 11:1); for
that was when, in Daniel's mind, the crisis began to trouble his spirit. This
time, however, the crisis is to be resolved (Dan 10:13, 14). Cyrus was to
issue his famous decree, allowing the Jews to return and rebuild their
Temple in Jerusalem.
The realization that the third year of Cyrus could also have been his
"first year," in inaugurating a new era of justice and freedom, is here
suggested as a key which might unlock the mystery of the nature of the
crisis of Daniel 10 and a true understanding of the 70-year period, which
constituted a focal point of Daniel's interest (Dan 9:2), but this can only be
made possible if the true position of Darius the Mede is properly understood. That is why it is imperative to come to grips with this enigmatic
figure known as Darius the Mede.' 3
Notes
It gives me much pleasure to have a part in a volume dedicated to William H. Shea, with whom I
have enjoyed a long friendship and collegial association. I have continually appreciated his original
insights, his contagious enthusiasm, his prodigious pen, and his commitment, which has been so
beneficial, to the field of biblical studies.
All biblical citations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
Modern commentators tend to identify the Darius in the "Story of the Three Bodyguards" (1 Esd
3:1-4:63) as Darius I Hystaspes (522-485 BC). The present author, however, is impressed with the
analyses of Charles C. Torrey. Not only does the Darius of this apocryphal passage rule over Media and
Persia (3:1), with Media listed in the significant first position, but Darius reigns in an eastern capital,
while Cyrus is in command of Babylonia. This is shown by the fact that the youth who is the hero of the
episode leaves the court of Darius to journey to Babylon (4:61). "One of his missions is to see that the
purpose of Cyrus regarding the vessels of the temple of Jerusalem, a purpose well known to Darius, is
carried out" (4:43, 44, 57; Torrey 1946: 10).
The assertion that Darius the Mede was the "son of Ahasuerus" (Dan 9:1), probably is to be
understood in the broader sense that he was a "descendant" of Ahasuerus. The term "son" was used by
Semitic speakers to mean a descendant of the first degree, or also a more remote offspring. Christ, for
example, was the "son of David," and David was the "son of Abraham" (Matt 1:1).
For a discussion on the identity of the Umman-Manda, see especially D.J. Wiseman 1956: 15, 16
with full bibliography. Among those who identify the Umman-Manda with the Scythians are M. AviYonah, C.J. Gadd, E. Dhorme, J. Lewy, and A. Malamat. That Cyrus fought against the Scythians and
subdued Scythia is documented in the Behistun inscription. Darius I lists Scythia as already under
Achaemenid rule before the erection of his famous cliff inscription in 518 BC (Yamauchi 1990: 84).
The time of the transference of the Median empire to the Persians should thus be dated to 536 BC.
This may have been the very time when the cities of Media refused to submit to Cyrus, who only
reduced them to obedience after a long and obstinate resistance. Xenophon places this Median revolt
against Cyrus as taking place "at the time when the Medes lost their empire to the Persians ..."
(Anabasis 111.4).
The Cyrus Cylinder Inscription confirms Cyrus' benevolence. The Persian monarch allowed
captives in Babylon to return to their former habitations, so that they could rebuild their ruined temples.
He also ordered that "all gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought to Babylon," be
returned to their former chapels (Oppenheim 1955: 316). Anciently, a 70 year period was considered
"an appropriate period of punishment" (Isa 23:215; Borger 1959: 74). The decree of Cyrus setting the
Jewish exiles free (Isa 45:13) is recorded no fewer than three times in Scripture (2 Chr 36:22, 23; Ezra
1:1-4; 6:3-5).
An example from antiquity of a king, who more than once started a new count of his regnal years,
is the case of Pharaoh Mentuhotep. It was only in comparatively recent times that Egyptologists began
to recognize that Mentuhotep I, II, and III, was not three rulers, but a single monarch who ruled for 51
years. Three separate royal titularies, previously attributed to three distinct Pharaohs all bearing the
name Mentuhotep, turned out to belong to one sovereign, each titulary reflecting a different stage in his
career (Gardiner 1961: 120).
187
13. In this endnote I would like to express my enduring appreciation to my former history teacher,
Prof. Wilfred J. Airey (retired from La Sierra University), who was the first to inspire my interest in the
vexing problem of the non-existence of Darius the Mede in modem secular history.
References
Avi-Yonah, M.
1962 Scythopolis. Isr.ael Exploration Journal 12: 123-134.
Borger, R.
1959
Brown, T.
S.
1973
The Greek Historians. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Burstein, S. M.
1978 The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from the Ancient Near East 1/5.
Malibu: Undena Publication.
Cameron, G. G.
1955 Ancient Persia. The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. C.
Dental. New Haven: Yale University.
Drews, R.
1969
1974 Sargon, Cyrus and Mesopotamian Folk History. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 33: 387-393.
Falconer, W. A. (trans.)
1946 Cicero De Deviniatione. Loeb Classical Library, ed. T. E. Page. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Fish, T.
1961a The Cyrus Cylinder. Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton
Thomas. New York: Harper.
1961b Texts Relating to Nabonidus. Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D.
Winton Thomas. New York: Harper.
Frye, R. N.
1966
Gardiner, A.
1961
The Heritage of Persia. Mentor Book. New York, NY: The New American
Librart.
Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: Clarendon.
Godley, A. D. (trans.)
1946 Herodotus. Loeb Classical Library. 4 Vols, ed. T. E. Page. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Hallock, R. T.
1970 The Old Persian Signs. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29: 52 55.
-
Jones, T. B.
1967 Paths to the Ancient Past: Applications of the Historical Method to Ancient
History. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kent, R. G.
1946 The Oldest Old Persian Inscriptions. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 66: 206 212.
-
Levit-Tawil, D.
1983 The Enthroned King Ahasuerus at Dura in the Light of the Iconography of
Kingship in Iran. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
250: 57-78.
Lewy, J.
1958
Malamat, A.
1950
The Biblical Institution of Deror in the Light of Akkadian Documents. EretzIsrael 5 (Benjamin Mazar volume): 21*-36*.
The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9:
218-227.
Mason, C. P.
1880
Astyages. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology,
vol. 1, ed. W. Smith. London: John Murray.
Miller, W. (trails.)
15
Introduction
Many scholars assume the Little Horn mentioned in the book of Daniel is
the second century BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniel 7 portrays this Little
Horn as judged. When does this judgment take place? Is there internal
contextual evidence to support the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a time
of judgment or does Daniel 7 envision an eschatological judgment of this Little
Horn? The key passage to answer this question is Dan 7:21, 22:
As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating
them (7:21), until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in
favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed
the kingdom (7:22, NIV).
Note the triple sequence of time and the progression of events in these
verses as presented in table 15.1.
Phase Temporal Signal Event
1
2 "until"
"at that time" The time came when they possessed the kingdom.
Table 15.1. Temporal sequences in Dan 7:21, 22.
Babylon
Medo-Persia
Greece
Rome
10 kingdoms
God's kingdom
-Medo-Persia
Greece
Little Horn
193
of the Little Horn in this sequence of nations clearly puts it beyond the time of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century BC).
195
the period of time during which Antiochus Epiphanes did his wicked deeds"
(Gaebelein 1968: 99, emphasis supplied) or the time from the temple's
desecration by Antiochus until deliverance by Judas Maccabeus "was exactly
two thousand three hundred days" (De Haan nd: 230, emphasis supplied).
Looking beyond such creativity, if Daniel was written after the events
(vaticinia ex eventu), as critical scholarship claims, then why do the 2,300
days of Dan 8:14 not compute for the activities of Antiochus IV?
Only the historicist interpretation understands the 2,300 days (Dan 8:14)
as 2,300 years. This interpretation is based on "a day for a year" principle,
which is found within Scripture (Shea 1982: 56-93) and best describes the
Messianic context of Dan 9:24-27, and the historical time-frame of the Little
Horn as coming between pagan Rome and God's eschatological kingdom. Is
there internal contextual evidence for this "day for a year" principle? Yes there
is. In Daniel 8:13 the angel asks "until when," ( cad-matai, )31Y3-0.9, not "how
long" (NN), "will be the vision, which includes the continual service and the
transgression causing horror, to make both sanctuary and host a trampling?"
(Hasel 1981b: 198, 199).
What is the meaning of "vision" here? Is it the entire vision, or only its
latter part? The answer to this question determines the length of the 2,300
"evenings and mornings," and therefore its length is the answer of 8:14, "Unto
2,300 evenings and mornings, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."
Internal contextual evidence demonstrates that the vision includes the
entire period, and not just a final segment.
I . The term for vision is hazon
a sub-element of the vision.
2. What is included in the hazon, according to what Daniel was shown? In Dan
8:1, 2 the term is used three times, and includes all that follows. Thus the
hazon vision begins with the ram (Medo-Persia, 8:3, 4), continues through
the goat (Greece, 8:5-8) and into the latter part of the Little Horn power
(8:8-12), because the angel says, "Son of man understand that the vision
(hazon) pertains to the time of the end" (8:17).
Thus the hazon reaches from the beginning of the vision to the time of the
end. It covers the entire period from the time of the Medo-Persian empire to
the "time of the end." This includes the entire history of Greece, and the entire
period of the Little Horn in its pagan and ecclesiastical phases to the "end of
time" (8:17). Thus it only can be 2,300 years. Therefore, the sequence of
question and answer demands that "evenings and mornings" be equated with
literal years for no other equivalent will reach from Medo-Persia until the
"time of the end" when the sanctuary will be cleansed (as suggested by Hasel,
oral communication).
Summary
These are some of the reasons why the Danielic Little Horn cannot be the
second century BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Notes
H. H. Rowley gives the three interpretations of these four held through the Christian era, noting that
the Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome "view has been by far the most popular traditional view.
Rowley is representative of critical scholars who divide the second kingdom into Media and Persia.
The execution of the judgment on the Little Horn includes the second advent (see Rev 18, 19).
Porphyry was not the first to question the authenticity of predictions. Celsus (ca. AD 180) may well
have been the first to question prophecy (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy,
1986: 292).
Calvin rejects the idea that Antiochus is a type ("figure" "analogy") for the antichrist. Daniel is, to
him, only relevant to the time before the first (not second) advent of Christ.
References
Beale, G. K.
1984 The Use ofDaniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of
St. John. Maryland: University Press of America.
Calvin, J.
1989
Calvin's Commentaries, vol. 13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Casey, M.
1979
Son ofMan, the Interpretation and Influence ofDaniel 7. London: SPCK.
De Haan, M. R.
nd Daniel the Prophet. Grand Rapids, ME: Zondervan.
Baker.
Lacocque, A.
1979 The Book of Daniel. Trans. D. Pellauer. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.
Leupold, H. C.
1969 Exposition ofDaniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Nuilez, S.
1987 The Vision ofDaniel 8, The Interpretations from 1700-1800. Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University.
Porteous, N. W.
1965 Daniel, a Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.
Rowley, H. H.
1964 Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. A
Historical Study of Contemporary Theories. Cardiff, Wales: The University.
Schwantes, S. J.
1986 Ereb Boger of Daniel 8:14 Re-examined. Pp. 462-474 in Symposium on
Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2.
Washington: Biblical Research Institute.
Shea, W. H.
1982 Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. Lincoln, NE: College View
Printers.
1986 The Unity of Daniel. Pp. 165-255 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook.
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington: Biblical Research
Institute.
16
Conclusion
In this brief look into the book of Daniel, the figure three and a fraction
has been found in four chapters evenly distributed in the book. Table 16.1
presents the ways this literary device is used in the respective chapters.
References
Baldwin, J. G.
1978 Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Davies, P. R.
1985 Daniel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament.
Doukhan, J. B.
1987 Daniel: The Vision of the End. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University.
Lenglet, A.
1972 La Structure Litteraire de Daniel 2-7. Biblica 53: 169-190.
Shea, W. H.
1988 Bel(te)shazzar Meets Belshazzar. Andrews University Seminary Studies 26:
67-81.
Stefanovic, Z.
1989
Thematic Links Between the Historical and Prophetic Sections of Daniel.
Andrews University Seminary Studies 27: 121-127.
Thompson, S.
1997
Those Who are Wise: The Maskilim in Daniel and the New Testament. In To
Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. D.
Merling. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology/Horn Museum.
1 '7
wider context of the same passage (Dan 9:2, 17, 18). Beyond this, further
thematic comparison with Ezekiel and Jeremiah points to this same destruction
in 586 BC, the latter also pointing to an event of the same nature, i.e. the
destruction of Shiloh and the Tabernacle several centuries earlier. In each of
these instances throughout the history of Israel, it was the Israelites who,
through their continual abominations and refusal to repent, precipitated the
destruction or desolation of their city (Shiloh and Jerusalem) and Temple (or
Tabernacle) through a power (Philistines, Babylonians, and Romans) directed
by God. Likewise, in each one of these cases of divine retributive judgment,
it was the removal of the presence of God, symbolizing the protection of his
people, that was necessary for the destruction or desolation to be carried out.
References
ANET = Pritchard, J. B.
1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton:
Princeton University.
Arnold, B. T.
1994
The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia. Pp.
129-148 in Faith, Tradition and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its
Near Eastern Context, eds. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoftineier, and D. W. Baker.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Austel, H. J.
1980a 1:93V (shamem). Pp. 936, 937 inTheological Wordbook of the Old Testamen,
vol. 2, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke. Chicago, IL: Moody.
1980b
vv.) (shigges). Pg. 955 in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol.
2, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke. Chicago, IL: Moody.
Holladay, W. L.
1971 A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.
Kaiser, 0.
1986 111"1 harab I. Pp. 155, 156 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol.
5, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Kaiser, W. C.
1979 Desolating Sacrilege. Pp. 930, 931 in The International Standard Biblical
Encyclopedia, vol. 1, ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
18
Introduction
Did earliest Christianity contain a group who were the equivalent of the
maskilim (o) ,DV.)n), the "wise, discerning ones" mentioned in Daniel? This
question will be addressed by examining the evidence in Daniel for their nature
and function, then by examining possible New Testament evidence which has
been put forward to support the claim that earliest Christianity acknowledged
the presence in its midst of a group who were the functional equivalents of
Daniel's maskilim. Since the function of the maskilim is defined in relation to
the harabbim (o)nn) and the reshacim (0)YVii) in Daniel, a survey of these
two groups will be included.
The Maskilim in Daniel
The maskilim in Dan 11:33-35; 12:3, 10 constitute a distinct group found
within the covenant community during the tumultuous times leading up to "the
time of the end" (Dan 11:32-35). The role and function of the maskilim
according to Daniel include the following:
They "discern," "possess insight into" matters in general (according to
such _passages as Amos 5:13 and Ps 14:2=53:3, Job 22:2), and
specifically in Daniel (1:4; 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10) into revelations of the
divine intentions. This is based on the usual meaning of the hiphil
participle of the verb sakal (5DV) in biblical Hebrew (Koehler and
B aumgartner 1990; Saeboe 1984: 824ff).
They "give heed" (if yabinu, 1))1), in Dan 11:33 and 12:10 is taken to
be hiphil); or "understand" (if the verb is taken to be co al). In either case
the object of their "giving heed" or "understanding" . is the apocalyptic
p1 s) . the rabbim, Dan 12:3 (assuming that the second clause of the
verse is in synonymous parallelism with the first, and that the maskilim
is its subject).
But why does Beale argue that in the Revelation all Christians are the
maskilim? The descriptions of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 may
contain the key for unlocking additional information about the identity of those
possessing nous and sophia. Inserted after each letter is a direct address to
"the one having (ho echon, o Excov) ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to
the churches" (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). These addresses are not
incorporated within each of the seven letters, otherwise they would address the
(particular) "church" (singular) rather than "the churches" (plural). So while
each letter would be understandable to its recipient church and aggelos
(ayyXoc), another category of recipients was envisioned by the Seer when
he wrote these insertions, a category of hearers able to extract from all seven
letters some additional meaning which would give insight into the condition
of the church at large. Who were these special ones "having (ho echon) ears?"
An almost identical form of this address, "if anyone has (ei tis echei, EL ttc
Ex1) ears, let him hear" occurs in Rev 13:9 at the conclusion of the
description of the first of that chapter's two beasts. I suggest that in all its
occurrences this expression refers to the same group later referred to in the
expression "the one who has understanding (ho echon nous), let him calculate
..." (Rev 13:18). The identical expression occurs in Rev 17:9. Thus when the
expression "here is sophia/nous" (wisdom/understanding) in Rev 13:18 and
"here is nous/sophia" in Rev 17:9 is linked to "if anyone has ears" in Rev
13:9 against the background of the address following each of the seven letters
to "the one having ears" it should be understood as a (possibly coded) address
to the early Christian maskilim. These early Christian maskilim have the
following responsibilities to the larger believing community according to
Revelation 13 and 17:
They "hear" what the Spirit declares to the churches as a whole and
discern a special message promising victory and reward to the
overcomer who endures to the end; and
They discern the identity, nature and fate of the beast which is working
to bring about the destruction of the end time community.
References
Beale, G. K.
1980
Freyne, S.
1982
The Danielle Background for Revelation 13:18 and 17:9. Tyndale Bulletin 31.
The Disciples in Mark and the Maskilim in Daniel. A Comparison. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 16.
Goldingay, J.
1989 Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word.
Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W.
1990 Hebraisches and Aramiiisches Lexikon zum Allen Testament, ed. J. J. Stamm.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Sxbo, M.
1984
Sakal. In Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Allen Testament, vol. 2., ed. E.
Jenni and C. Westermann. Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag.
Wiklander, B.
1974 Begrepet Rabbim I Daniel 8-12. Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 39.
19
Those who have known Jesus and His family during His childhood and
early manhood identify Him as a carpenter. 'The Greek word translated
carpenter in Mark 6:3 is TgKVAW (tekton). This word means anybody working
in wood or construction (Liddel and Scott 1961: 1969; Lampe 1961: 1379;
Batey 1991: 76). It would therefore correspond with either of the English
words "builder" or "carpenter." Due to the rebuilding of Sepphoris, Herod
Antipas's engineers and architects would have needed to call on all the
available resources of the countryside around them as well as importing skilled
laborers from elsewhere in the country. Amongst these resources would be the
builder or carpenter Joseph (Matt 13:55). and later his son Jesus. Nazareth
was but a very small and economically depressed village, so while there would
be work there for a carpenter, no doubt the family welcomed the extra income
Michigan team had dated this structure to the rebuilding program of Herod
Antipas, on the grounds that "There is no other period in the history of the
town when the erection of a similar building was likely" (Yelven 1937: 29).
More recently, the University of South Florida excavation team have taken the
dating of this theater as one of the goals of their excavations, and the result of
their work is as summed up by James F. Strange in the following manner:
We were able to determine with certainty that the founding -of the main
internal wall [of the theater] took place in the first half of the-Early Roman
period, however there is nothing in our evidence that would require a date
later than Herod Antipas (Strange 1992: 342). 8
The theater was rebuilt on two occasions, and then in the mid-fourth
century AD a large wall was built across the cavea. Strange presumes the wall
was built to contain the debris fill which enabled useable area of the summit
to be extended (Strange 1992: 342).
Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, on the other hand, while conceding a date
under Antipas is possible, consider a later date more likely (1992: 33); and
Eric M. Meyers, has pointed out that "the theater and other so-called pagan or
Roman aspects of Sepphoris cannot be positively dated to the first century"
(1992a: 88). To some degree, Meyers late-dates the theater on the basis of his
wider interpretation of the character of Sepphoris in the first century. He
points to the "enormous number of miqva'ot" and the many burials which
accord with the strict interpretation of Jewish burial practices (ibid.), as well
as the absence of any depictions of humans or any statuary which can be dated
to this time period (Meyers 1993: 8). In addition, several important priestly
families are associated with Sepphoris (Miller 1984: 63-132). Meyer's
conclusion that "Antipas largely respected the religious sensibilities of his
Jewish subjects," and that the city was largely made up of "torah observant"
Jews appears to be well founded (1993: 8).
The city did take on a more cosmopolitan face to some extent after AD 70,
and more particularly after the Bar Kochba revolt. Written sources inform us
that some of the ancient privileges of self government were removed, and it is
to this period that the sumptuous villas found in several places on the tell are
to be dated. While it has yet to be found by archaeologists, coins from the midsecond century AD depict a Capitoline temple, which also appears to date to
this period (Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers 1992:13). Thus, in the Late Roman
period, the governing elite of Sepphoris became Roman, and lived in a style
familiar from the wider Greco-Roman world, furthermore, the locus of
political power had changed as well. The region no longer looked to Sepphoris
for its political and economic focus, but to the larger city of Legio, the garrison
of the sixth legion.
From the time of Hadrian (117-139 BC), the city took on a more
After setting this background, against which the sayings of Jesus should
be interpreted, Mack examines the document Q, and discovers that its earliest
"layer" shows that Jesus' "followers thought of him as a Cynic-like
sage"(1993: 115). 9 In other words, according to Mack, Jesus should be
understood in terms of Greco-Roman categories: He is best understood as a
Palestinian Cynic teacher. Mack is but one of several writers that draw on
Cynicism as the primary background against which to understand the
teachings of the historical Jesus or His immediate followers (see Downing
1992: passim, especially 115-142, and Crossan 1991: 421 who calls Jesus a
"peasant Jewish cynic").
But how fair is it to characterize first century AD Galilee as "thoroughly
hellenized," especially in comparison with Judea? Sean Freyne's standard
work on Galilee provides detailed evidence that this is probably untrue of rural
Galilee. Galilee had deep religious ties to Jerusalem going back centuries.
These ties had been strongly felt even during the crises bought on by
Antiochus Epiphanes' systematic attempt at the Hellinization of Palestine
(Freyne 1980: 37-41), and continued right into the first century AD.
Furthermore, it may not be possible even to characterize Sepphoris as strongly
Hellenized during the first century. The archaeological evidence from
Sepphoris thus far available tends to support Meyer's assertion that first
century Sepphoris was a predominantly Jewish city (e.g. Meyers 1992a: 87,
88). This should not be overstated, of course. After all, Antipas had spent
significant time in Rome, and the urban and administrative elite that gather
around the court would have had an education that exposed them to a wide
range of ideas. The question that remains, though, is how widely these ideas
were adopted by the general population of Sepphoris, especially in the light of
the fact that the archaeological remains reveal households which took seriously
Jewish purity laws. Not only this, Freyne documents the deep divide that often
existed between the Hellenistic cities and the Galilean countryside (1980: 101150). It is this last observation which bring us back to the primary focus of
this paper, the relationship between Jesus and Sepphoris.
What does this Data Reveal about the
Historical Jesus? or "The Dog that did not Bark"
Sherlock Holmes was able to solve the mystery of the apparent murder in
"The Adventure of Silver Blaze" because, amongst other things, a dog did not
bark. As in fiction, so in real life absences can be significant. Sepphoris is
absent from the New Testament and there is no reference to Jesus visiting
Tiberias.' The significance of this is unclear, although significant it
undoubtedly is. 11 There are many possible explanations that might lie behind
this absence. In this chapter, we will investigate two: the sociological and the
pragmatic.
References
Adan-Bayewitz, D., and Perlman, I.
1990 The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period. Isreal Exploration Journal
40: 153-172.
Batey, R. A.
1984a Is Not This the Carpenter? New Testament Studies 30: 249-258.
1984b Jesus and the Theatre. New Testament Studies 30: 563-574.
1991 Jesus and the Forgotten City. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
1992 Sepphoris: An Urban Portrait of Jesus. Biblical Archaeological Review 18/2:
50-62.
Broshi, M.
1979 The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Bulletin
of the American School of Oriental Research 236: 1-10.
Case, S. J.
1926 Jesus and Sepphoris. Journal of Biblical Literature 45: 14-22
Crossan, J. D.
1991 The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San
Francisco: Harper.
Downing, F. G.
1992 Cynics and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: Clark.
Freyne, S.
1980 Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian: 323 BCE to 135 CE.
Wilmington: Glazier.
1994 The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the
Historical Jesus. Pp. 77-121 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluation of the
State of Current Research, eds. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. Leiden: Brill.
1993 Jesus and his Galilean Context. Paper presented at the Endowment for Biblical
Research Lecture, Duke University.
Meyers, E. M., Netzer, E., and Meyers, C.
1986 Sepphoris: 'Ornament of All Galilee.' Biblical Archaeologist 49: 153-168.
1987 Artistry in Stone: The Mosaics of Ancient Sepphoris. Biblical Archaeologist 50:
223-231.
1985 Sepphoris (Oippori). Israel Exploration Journal 35: 295-297.
1987 Sepphoris (Oippori). Israel Exploration Journal 37: 175-178.
20
Reconciliation in Philo,
the big thing of giving His Son in death for enemies, He certainly will not
withhold His Son's life from friends. Cranfield quotes Chrysostom to great
effect: 6 yap to g14ov Toic exOpoic 886.m.1)c irk to eAattova of)
&Loa toic (fraoic; ("for shall not he who has given the greater thing to his
enemies, give the least things to his friends?"; 1975 I: 268).
The aorist passives in Rom 5:10 are not referring to any human action,
whether directed to God or to itself (Porter 1994: 160, 161). Romans 5:8-11
fits within the "reconciliation by forgiving and removing category," the te.)
04 (Rom 5:10a) notwithstanding. God (0 06c, Rom 5:9), through His
action in Christ, has dealt with human sin. Paul's oticoa6)06vtEc (Rom 5:1,
9) is the guarantee that God has now in the present time dealt with sin. The
interpersonal and reciprocal nature of reconciliation is preserved in Paul's
assurance that we have now received reconciliation through Christ (Rom
5:11).
There are two places in Philo and two in Josephus which deal with marital
reconciliation and they are relevant to 1 Cor 7:10, 11. In the cases in Quod
Deterius Potiori insidiari Soleat 149, Jewish Antiquities 5.137 and Jewish
Antiquities 11.195, the situation appears to be short of divorce and, therefore,
from the Jewish point of view, open to reconciliation. That is to say, 1)
pipakmaa gevirriTtrA.) oe hcPEPATIOVTI tOti KCCAOU *Uri (Quod Deterius
Potiori Insidiari Soleat 149), lacteal:Tram Toy civopa (Jewish Antiquities
5.137) and tiiiv otelCogtv (Jewish Antiquities 11:195) parallel Paul's
yvveciwa &no avopoc voptclOTIvat (1 Cor 7:10). The separation
(drreaaayEim) in De Specialibus Legibus 3.31 implies divorce since the
woman remarries. Therefore the reconciliation with her former husband is
illegitimate and Philo severely condemns it.
The Rabbis understood the law against remarriage to a former husband
(Deut 24:1), to be a means of preventing the use of divorce to facilitate wife
swapping. This appears to be Philo's view too, hence his pejorative
condemnation of the first husband as a pimp (De Specialibus Legibus 3.31).
Thus Philo and Josephus allow for reconciliation only in cases where the
husband and wife have separated, but have not yet formally divorced. Once
divorce has occurred, honorable reconciliation is not possible. This appears to
be Paul's position too.''
The aorist infinitive passive (xwptclefivat) follows a verb of "saying",
and is used deponently with middle voice, "I say ... that a wife should not
separate herself from her husband." The driving force behind the wife's action
might be a misunderstanding of the Christian attitude to sex in marriage. She
may think that physical desires are inimical to spirituality (Hurd, Jr. 1983:
167, 168; contra Dungan 1971: 89-93). The onus for reconciliation thus falls
on the wife, presumably either to abandon her view of marital sexuality or to
forgo her own anger (Fee 1987: 290-296). Accordingly, this verse is similar
to "reconciliation by forgiveness," with this modification: the wife does not
simply accept back the husband with whom she has been angry, but she
returns to him."
The uniqueness of 2 Cor 5:18-21 is immediately apparent in that God is
the stated subject of both participles in 2 Cor 5:18, 19, and yet the indirect
object is the reflexivealutc"p' in both cases. Philo and Josephus prefer npac
with the accusative following icatcOlacFm...), though there are several
examples of the dative, however, these two writers never have the subject
actively reconciling someone or something to himself or herself In 2 Cor 5:18,
19, God reconciles "us" and "the world" to Himself; such a usage distances
Paul from his two fellow Jews.
The method of God's reconciliation is via forgiveness, "by not imputing
to them their transgressions" (Aoyt(oiEvoc earwig is napant6uata
ain6v, 2 Cor 5:19). The means of the reconciliation was the death of Christ
(2 Cor 5:14, 15, 21), which must be assumed to be present in the simple otee
Xptcrcoii (2 Cor 5:18) and iv Xptcrai) (2 Cor 5:19). 2 Corinthians 5:19 is
probably an imperfect periphrasis, "God, by Christ, was reconciling the world
to himself."'
The exhortation in 2 Cor 5:20, 6s6110a intip Xptotof), xataXAcipir
T4.) 6E4), is similar to "reconciliation by mediation," but the emphasis on
God's prior role places the passage in the "reconciliation by initiative"
category. The apostles' ambassadorial appeal, "as though God were entreating
through us," illustrates again the reciprocal nature of reconciliation." As
Marshall says, "the action is complete only when friendly mutual relations are
restored" (1990: 121). Forgiveness always has as its objective the restoration
of relationships. This passage is an additional example of "reconciliation by
forgiving and removing."
Conclusion
As far as a comparison with Philo and Josephus is concerned, this study
concurs with the conclusion of Marshall and Porter. That is, that Paul uses the
iccaaAlay-group in a way that is new, a semantic lateral shift. There are clear
affinities between the three Jewish authors, but Paul, moved as he was by the
saving significance of the death of Christ, gives the term reconciliation a new
and unique context. God not only forgives sinners, He also removes the barrier
of their sin.
Notes
Surprisingly, Steve Mason (1992) gives little attention to the relevance of Josephus' Greek for New
Testament usage.
De Somniis 2.108 is an example of the subject giving up his own anger, for Philo speaks of Joseph's
repentance (LEsa vo Ca).
The one exception is De Vita Mosis 60, where either the sense is unusual or the text is corrupt.
Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 149. Loeb translates "widowed but not yet cast out," which
does not make much sense of the later reconciliation, that is, if the husband is dead. LSI gives "divorce" as
one ofthe meanings of kic136XXca, cf. Lev 21:7 (LXX) Kal. yuvaixce &13(3Xrinevriv dent) avopog ccinfic.
S. Belkin points out that Philo uses xrIp15(a for deprivation by divorce as well as by the death of the
husband.
The Loeb reads Kat.pOv yap cting) and Karbicravn. I have taken KatcaAccyfivai as an ingressive
aorist infinitive; cf 1 Sam 29:4 (LXX) which uses otaDdinow in the same context.
Taking dotaXAccyauct as dismissal following the issuing of a bill of divorce (cf. TDNT 1.253).
XrIpEtian cannot mean "widowed" here because Philo then says "whether the second husband is alive or
dead;" if she were widowed the state of the second husband's health would be obvious.; cf fn 22.
De Specialibus Legibus 3.31. The Loeb translation "if a man is willing to contract himself to such
a woman" is misleading. Philo does not disallow an alliance with a third husband, but to her first husband
only (axxe, -gam coic cTel.Aotc gvcrrcovooc nEc).A.ov rj sepo yEvecrOw). It is her reconciliation with her
first husband after the ending of the second marriage that constitutes the sin for Philo (see L. William
Countryman 1989: 37 fn. 29).
1 do not agree with those commentators who take x,wpC(G) as a synonym for ec4Crint, that is, as
referring to divorce.
For this reason Marshall sees elements of both "reconciliation by initiative" and "reconciliation by
forgiveness" (1990: 121).
Paul uses periphrastic tenses 24 times, and the imperfect five times if we include 2 Cor 5:19. The only
examples besides 2 Cor 5:19 where there are intervening words other than ae are Col 2:10, 23, which many
would not accept as Paul's.
The genitive absolute with 6; is conditional or Supposition.
References
Belkin, S.
1940 Philo and the Oral Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Bilde, P.
1988 Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and
Their Importance. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.
Chadwick, H.
1965-66 St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria. Bulletin, John Rylands Library 48: 292.
21
Bryant G. Wood
Associates for Biblical Research, Ephrata, PA_
Hazor
(227-28)
Acco
(232-34,
235+327)
Megiddo
(242-48, 365)
Beth Shan
Gath Padalla
(249-50)
Pella
(255-56)
Shechem
(252-54)
Beth El
Gezer
(292-94, 267-77,
297-300, 378)
Ashkelon
(320-26)
Gaza
Gath?
(63-65, 335,
278-84, 366)
Jericho
Jerusalem
(285-91)
Lachish
(328-32) Hebron
Cities of ancient Canaan, with the numbers of the Amarna Letters originating at each city
indicated in parenthesis.
He charges that the sons of Lab'ayu, along with others, are attempting to
isolate Jerusalem (EA 289).
The king of Gezer at one time complained about attacks from the habiru
and harassment from Lab'ayu, but later seems to have joined forces with
Lab'ayu's sons and the habiru. He says that the war against him is severe and
he begs the king to "save his land from the power of the habiru" (EA 271) and
states that there is "war against me from the mountains" (EA 292) and that the
habiru are stronger than him and that he is in danger of being destroyed by the
habiru (EA 299).
Suwardata, possibly the king of Gath, another city that the Israelites could
not conquer, states that Lab'ayu, who is now dead, used to take his towns (EA
280). He also tells the king of Egypt that he has smitten the habiru that rose
up against him, and that he and the king of Jerusalem are at war with the
habiru (EA 366).
Turning to the north, the king of Gath-Padella writes that the sons of
Lab'ayu are trying to coerce him to revolt:
And thus the two sons of Lab 'ayu keep saying to me, "Wage war against the
king, your lord, as our father did, when he attacked Sunama, Burquna, and
Harabu, and deported the evil ones, lifting up the loyal." He also seized
Gittirimmunima, and he cultivated the fields of the king, your lord (EA 250).
The king of Megiddo was also being besieged by the Shechemites and the
habiru. He complains:
May the king, my lord, know that since the return to Egypt of the archers,
Lab'ayu has waged war against me. We are thus unable to do the harvesting,
and we are unable to go out of the city gate because of Lab'ayu. When he
learned that archers were not coming out, he immediately determined to take
Megiddo. May the king save his city lest Lab'ayu seize it. Look, the city is
consumed by pestilence, by ... So may the king give a garrison of 100 men
to guard his city lest Lab'ayu seize it. Look, Lab ayu has no other purpose.
He seeks simply the seizure of Megiddo (EA 244).
Notes
This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Near Eastern
Archaeological Society, November 19, 1993, at Tysons Corner, VA.
In a similar fashion, Israel bypassed the central part of the country in the conquest of Transjordan
(Num 21:21-35). It is possible that Shechem controlled this territory as well, since Lab'ayu's son MutBahlu ruled Pella (EA 255, 256).
Translations of the Amarna Letters are those of Moran (1992).
References
Anderson, B. W.
1957 The place of Shechem in the Bible. Biblical Archaeologist 20: 10-19.
NIV Study Bible=Barker, K., ed.
1985 NIV Study Bible: New Internations Version. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Barre, M. L.
1992 Treaties in the ANE. Pp. 653-656 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,vol. 6,
ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Bimson, J. J.
1981 Redating the Exodus and Conquest, 2nd ed. Sheffield, England: Almond.
Blaike, W. G.
1893 The Book of Joshua. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son.
Boling, R. G.
1982 Joshua: A New Translation With Notes and Commentary. The Anchor
Conquest and Crisis: Studies in Joshua, Judges and Ruth. Winona Lake,
IN: BMH Books.
Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 268: 57-70.
Finkelstein, I.
1994 The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the Cyclic History of Canaan in the
Third and Second Millennia BCE. Pp. 150-178 in From Nomadism to
Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, eds.
Finkelstein and N. Na'ainan. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Israel
Exploration Society.
Gray, J.
1967
Joshua, Judges and Ruth. London: Thomas Nelson.
Harrelson, W.
1957 Shechem, the "Navel of the Land," Part I: Shechem in Extra-Biblical
References. Biblical Archaeologist 20: 2-10.
Hess, R. S.
1993
Jack, J. W.
1925
Kitchen, K. A.
1966
Shea, W. H.
1982 Exodus, Date of the. Pp. 230-238 in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Soggin, J.
A.
1972
Joshua, a Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.
Toombs, L. E.
1992 Shechem. Pp. 1174-1186 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, ed. D.
N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Vaux, R. de
1978 The Early History of Israel. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.
Wilson, J. A.
1969a Egyptian Historical Texts. Pp. 227-264 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition with Supplement, ed. J.B.
Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
1969b Egyptian Hymns and Prayers. Pp. 365-381 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition with Supplement, ed. J.B.
Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
1969c Egyptian Rituals and Incantations. Pp. 325-330 in Ancient Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition with Supplement, ed.
J.B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Wood, B. G.
1985
22
Kafafi, Z. A.
1985
Egyptian Topographical Lists of the Late Bronze Age on Jordan (East Bank).
Bihlische Notizen 29: 17-21.
Kallai, Z.
1986 Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Boundaries of Israel.
Jerusalem: Magnes.
1993 A Note on 'Is Mefdat to be Found at Tell Jawa (South)?' by R. W. Younker
and P. M. Daviau. Israel Exploration Journal 43: 249-251.
Knuaf, E. A.
1984 Abel Keramim. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 100: 119-121.
1992 Abel-Keramim. Pp. 10, 11 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N.
Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Mittmann,
S.
1969
Aroer, Minnith, and Abel Keramim (Jdg. 11, 33). Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palastina-Vereins 85: 63-75.
Peake, F. G.
1958 History and Tribes ofJordan. Florida: University of Miami.
Redford, D.
1982a A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan. Journal for the Society of Egyptian
Archaeology 12.2: 55-74.
23
If this reasoning is accepted, the last five commandments constitute the area
that is the normal concern of ethics in the traditional sense: the moral
regulation of human interaction and lifeour horizontal relationships, as
distinguished from the vertical ones.
It is upon these commandments in the second half of the Decalogue (as
well as the fifth commandment) that the emphasis falls in the New Testament,
as will be seen in the citations of the commandments in the New Testament
texts noted above.
The Sequence of the Last Five Commandments
Not only do the last five commandments make a natural group, but their
sequence exhibits a logical and natural progression. Before examining it,
however, it is necessary to attend to a potential difficulty.
A sequence of the commandments different from that of the Masoretic
Text is traceable to Egypt. Found in the Septuagint, in Philo (Decalogue 121),
and in the Nash papyrus (Stamm and Andrew 1967: 22), it reverses the order
of the sixth and seventh commandments: adultery, murder, theft. In fact,
Such extensions of the commandments are not illegitimate, but they are in a
different category from the core meanings. Extensions are derivative and
secondary, while cores are primary.
It is in the aspect of these extensions that the commandments appear to
come into conflict. Betraying to death a person who has entrusted his life to
your protection does not literally violate the core of the sixth commandment,
but it is within the purview of its reasonable extensions. Similarly, deceiving
an adversary in war or during enemy occupation is not the same as uttering
malicious perjury against your neighbor, but it does involve a lie, and the
Christian conscience places that under the umbrella of the ninth
commandment. Hence arises the dilemma.
Resolving the Dilemma
We have seen that the last five commandments of the Decalogue are the
basis of common morality and ordinary ethics. We have observed a logical
hierarchy exhibited by the progression from the sixth to the tenth
commandment. We have noted that a distinction must be made between their
core (philological) meanings and their extended meanings. These
understandings put us into a position from which we can formulate rules for
resolving the sort of ethical dilemma that we have been using as an example.
Here are the rules:
The cores of the commandments never conflict, but the extensions may
conflict.
When faced with a conflict between the extensions of two commandments,
that of the commandment higher in the list of five has priority over that of
one lower on the list.
When faced with a conflict between the core of one commandment and the
extension of another, the commandment core always has priority over an
extension, regardless of its place in the list.
Conclusion
Applying these rules to the case with which we began this discussion, we
may come to the following conclusion. Betraying the innocent fugitive that you
have been hiding is condemned by an extension of the sixth commandment.
References
Decalogue=Philo Judmus
ca. A.D. 40 The Decalogue. Ed. and trans. F.H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann, 1968.
Gall, A. F. von
1918 Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Giessen: Alfred Topelmann.
Grant, R. M.
1947 The Decalogue in Early Christianity. Harvard Theological Review 40.1:1-17.
Kline, M. G.
1963
Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Lauterbach, J. Z., trans.
1933 Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 2. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America.
Mendenhall, G. E.
1955 Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical
Colloquium.
Nielsen, E.
1968 The Ten Commandments in New Perspective: A Traditio-Historical Approach.
Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 7. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson,
and London: SCM.
Ptolemxus
AD 2nd c. Letter to Flora. Pp. 30-38 in Second-Century Christianity: A Collection
of Fragments, ed. Robert M. Grant. London: SPCK, 1957.
Stamm, J. J., and Andrew, M. E.
1967 The Ten Commandments in Recent Research. Studies in Biblical Theology,
Second Series, 2. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, and London: SCM.
Vokes, F. E.
1968
The Ten Commandments in the New Testament and in First Century Judaism.
Pp. 146-152 in Studia Evangelica: Papers presented to the Third
International Congress on New Testament Studies held at Christ Church,
Oxford, 1965, vol. 5, part 2: The New Testament Message, ed. F. L. Cross.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
White, E. G.
1913
The Story ofPatriarchs and Prophets. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press.
24
Ron du Preez
Ethics and Religion, Associate Professor of Religion, Southern Adventist University, Collegedale, TN
Based on codes such as the above, Leggett and others have correctly
recognized that the law and practice of the levirate operated differently in
Hebrew society than among its neighbors (Leggett 1974: 19, 20, 27; Manor
1984: 131). Since the specific purpose of this paper is to investigate levirate
law and polygamy in the Bible, this extra-biblical material will not be
considered in further detail here, however, the current practice of the levirate
in some African cultures merits brief attention. Some who have studied
African levirate habits seriously question the correctness of calling this custom
a "marriage." As a result of his empirical study of African widows, Michael
Kirwen concluded:
There is a great deal of evidence, therefore, supporting the claim that the
African leviratic union is not a marnag_e in any ordinary sense of the term
and should not be described as such. The African leviratic union is more
accurately described as a marital adjustment in a continuing marriage in
G. K. Falusi concurs, noting that the majority of Africans "now feel that
the levirate is a way of caring for widows and is not a new marriage" (Falusi
1982: 307). While the conclusions of these scholars are not doubted, the
important point to investigate is whether or not the levirate as legislated in
Scripture is likewise not a new marriage but merely the continuation of the
previous marriage by means of substitution for the dead man, as well as a way
of caring for widows. Furthermore, the question concerning the obligatory
nature of this law also requires analysis.
The Deuteronomic Legislation
The biblical law. The only biblical law concerning the levirate is located
in Deut 25:5-10, where it is delineated at length:
v. 5 When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the
wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange
man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as
wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
v. 6 And it shall be that the first-born whom she bears shall assume the
name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out from
Israel.
v. 7 But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his
brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, "My
husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel;
he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me."
v. 8 Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if
he persists and says, "I do not desire to take her, "
v. 9 then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and
pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare,
"Thus it is.done to the man who does not build up his brother's house."
v. 10 And in Israel his name shall be called, "The house of him whose sandal
is removed." 2
Based on this supposition it has been concluded that the social security of the
widow "demanded that the closest appropriate male relative fulfill his
obligation whether he was already married or not" (Oliver 1986: 11, 12), thus
promoting the practice of polygamy.
The Hebrew word a( lmanah (71)Y35N; widow) is not used in this entire
legislation. This is significant, espeCially when the Old Testament carefully
defines how widows were to be cared for. For example, the whole community
was instructed that widows were to be treated with justice (Deut 27:19), and
were to be provided with the basic necessities of life: food (Deut 14:29),
clothing (Deut 24:17), and shelter (Lev 22:13). The levirate, however, was not
listed as one of the ways in which "widows" were to be cared for.'
Roland de Vaux notes that the discussion about the purpose of the levirate
seems to be endless, but then he rightly adds that "the Old Testament gives its
own explanation, which seems sufficient" (de Vaux 1961: 38). A critical reading of Deut 25:5-10 indicates, as Falusi himself recognizes, that "the object of
the levirate is made quite clear in the passage. It is to produce offspring for the
dead man 'that his name not be blotted out of Israel' (Falusi 1982: 302). This
is the only purpose that is outlined in this legislation, and that repeatedly (Deut
25:6, 7, and 9). In the words of de Vaux: "The essential purpose is to
perpetuate male descent" (de Vaux 1961: 38; cf. Davies 1981a: 139).
provision for widows.' As pointed out above, there were other provisions
made for these distressed women.
A third concern relates to whether or not the levirate was a binding
obligation, as Davies maintains (1981b: 267). The story provides scant
information on which to determine whether or not the levirate was a binding
obligation, however, two facts can be seen. First, Onan pretended he was
fulfilling this duty by marrying Tamar and by having sexual intercourse with
her, but, "he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to
his brother" (Gen 38:9). In this way he tried to avoid the full responsibility of
the levirate, while still doing part of it. According to text, this manipulative
abuse of Tamar resulted in Onan's death (Gen 38:10). A more direct
avoidance of the levirate can be observed in the fact that Judah, withheld
Shelah from marrying Tamar.' There was apparently no penalty for such an
avoidance.
If the levirate had been a binding obligation required by law, then Tamar
would have been able to appeal her case. Instead, she took matters into her
own hands, and by playing the harlot got Judah to impregnate her. De Vaux
suggests that "Tamar's intercourse with Judah may have been a relic of a time
when the duty of levirate fell on the father-in-law if he had no other sons" (de
Vaux 1961: 37; cf. Parrinder 1950: 24). Such a practice of the levirate was
apparently followed by other ancient Near Eastern societies (Pritchard 1950:
182-196). There is, however, no biblical evidence to support such a theory. On
the contrary, the text carefully notes that Judah was totally unaware of the
identity of the so-called "prostitute" (Gen 38:15 26). Moreover, the twins born
to Tamar are called Judah's sons (Gen 46:12; cf. Num 26:20; 1 Chr 2:4), and
not Er's, as they would have been in a levirate marriage (Gen 38:8, 9; cf. Deut
25:5-10). This indicates that Judah's action was not leviratic at all (Kaburuk
1976: 30; Leggett 1974: 37). As Walter Kaiser puts it: "Tamar's act was not
a levirate relationship" (Kaiser 1983: 191).
Finally, and vital to this discussion, is the question regarding whether the
levirate was practiced monogamously or polygamously in this case. The
narrative does not directly state what the marital status of Onan was when he
was called upon to perform the levirate duty, however, since no spouse other
than Tamar is mentioned as being passed on when Onan died, it seems that the
levirate was practiced monogamously here.
In the case of Onan's younger brother, Shelah, the available biblical evidence implies a similar situation. According to Gen 38:11, Judah maintained
that Shelah was too young for marriage and Tamar needed to wait until he
grew up. This would indicate that Shelah was still single at that time. Only
when old enough for marriage would Judah have Shelah fulfill the levirate,
apparently in a monogamous way. No evidence of polygamy occurs in this
entire narrative. As Samuel Wishard stated: "There is no polygamy here. It
was the first marriage of each son" (Wishard 1816: 50; cf. Newman 1874: 34).
-
An overview of the four passages that deal with the levirate custom
reveals a considerable degree of harmony relating to issues connected with
marital structures. First, the research indicates that the biblical levirate was
viewed and practiced as a full and regular marriage, and not merely as a sexual
union. Second, the unique purpose of this custom was to raise up an heir for
the dead man, with no mention of caring for widows. Third, while this
institution was strongly encouraged, it was never, as far as recorded in
Scripture, considered obligatory. And fourth, there is no evidence that the
levirate required, or resulted in polygamy. W. White concurs that the biblical
levirate marriages "appear to have been monogamous" (White 1975: 498).
Wishard also noted that "in every instance the kinsman who took in marriage
the widow of the deceased kinsman was unmarried" (Wishard 1816: 50).
In conclusion then, this study of both Old and New Testaments
demonstrates that there is no scriptural support for the idea that the levirate
institution prescribed, permitted, or promoted polygamy in any manner. To the
contrary, this optional custom was a regular monogamous marriage, for the
purpose of raising up an heir for the childless, deceased man. Thus, taking
account of all explicit statements as well as indirect indications, it can be
concluded that the weight of biblical evidence points to the fact that, both in
its promulgation and in its practice, the levirate system harmonized well with
the model of monogamous marriage as instituted by God at creation (Gen
1:27, 28; 2:18-25; Matt 19:4, 5; cf. Hitchens 1987: 15; Makanzu 1983: 58;
Kaiser 1983: 182; Trobisch 1980: 21; White 1975: 497; Wegner 1970: 29;
de Vaux 1961: 24; Parrinder 1950: 30; Calvin 1948: 136; Brunner 1947: 345;
Dwight 1836: 9).
References
Baab, 0. J.
1962 Concubine. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, ed. G. A. Buttrick,
et al. Nashville, TN: Abihgdon.
Belkin, S.
1969-70 Levirate and Agnate Marriage in Rabbinic and Cognate Literature. The Jewish
Quarterly Review 60: 275-329.
Calvin, J.
1948 Commentary on the Book ofGenesis, vol. 1. Trans. J. King. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
Cohn, M.
1942 Marriage. Pp. 369-376 in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 7, ed. I.
Landman. New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.
Vetus
1981b Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage, Part II. Vetus
Testamentum 31: 257-268.
de Vaux, R.
1961 Ancient Israel: Its Life and Times. Trans. J. McHugh. London: Darton,
Longman & Todd.
Driver, S. R.
1902 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. The International
Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Dwight, S. E.
1836
The Hebrew Wife: Or, the Law of Marriage Examined in Relation to the
Lawfulness of Polygamy and to the Extent of the Law ofincest. New York:
Leavitt, Lord & Co.
Epstein, I., ed.
1935-48 Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino.
Eslinger, L.
1984
More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws. Vetus Testamentum 34:
221-225.
Falusi, G. K.
1982
African Levirate and Christianity. African Ecclesial Review 24: 300-308.
Freedman, H., and Simon, M., eds.
1939 Midrash Rabbah, 10 vols. London: Soncino.
Geisler, N. L.
1971 Ethics: Alternatives and Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Gitari, D.
1984 The Church and Polygamy. Transformation 1: 3-10.
Grunlan, S. A.
1984 Marriage and the Family: A Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Hall, D. M.
1984 "Polygamy in the Bible and the Ancient Near East: A Comparative Study."
Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary.
Kronholm, T.
1982 Polygami och Monogami i Gamla Testamentet: Med en Utblick over den Antika
Judendomen och Nya Testamentet. Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 47: 48-92.
Leggett, D. A.
1974 The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: With Special
Attention to the Book of Ruth. Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack.
Leupold, H. C.
1956 Exposition of Genesis, vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Lockyer, H., ed.
1986 Levirate Marriage. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson.
Mace, D. R.
1953 Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study.. London: Epworth .
Makanzu, M.
1983 Can the Church Accept Polygamy? Accra, Ghana: Asempa.
Manor, D. W.
1984 A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as It Relates to the Bible. Restoration
Quarterly 27: 129-142.
Matthews, V. H., and Benjamin, D. C.
1991 Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. New
York: Paulist.
Neufeld, E.
1944 Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. London: Longmans, Green.
Newman, J. P.
1874 [In a Debate with Orson Pratt]. Great Discussion! Does the Bible Sanction
Polygamy! Baltimore, MD: J. S. Dye.
Oliver, B. D.
1986
Parrinder, G.
1950
London: SPCK.
Phillips, A.
1973
1986 The Book of RuthDeception and Shame. Journal ofJewish Studies 37: 1-17.
Welch, D. E.
1977 "A Biblical Perspective on Polygamy." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Fuller
Theological Seminary.
Westennarck, E.
1921 The History of Human Marriage, vol. 3. London: MacMillan.
White, W., Jr.
1975 Family. Pp. 496-501 in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,
vol. 2, ed. M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Wise, D. L.
1987 "African Polygamy Reexamined." Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary.
Wishard, S. E.
1816 The Divine Law of Marriage, Or, The Bible Against Polygamy. New York:
American Tract Society.
Wright, J. S., and Thompson, J. A.
1962 Marriage. Pp. 768-791 in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
25
Daegeuk Nam
Old Testament and Biblical Theology, Sahmyook University, Seoul, Korea.
"God is in heaven" (Eccl 5:2) and "dwell[s] in the high and holy place"
(Isa 57:15). Heaven is a place as well as a state. It is a locality (Barth 1960:
432-437; Strong 1907: 1032). Thus, Yahweh is called "the God of heaven"
(Gen 24:7; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4; Dan 2:37, 44; Rev 11:13), "God
in the heaven" (Lam 3:41), "the Lord of heaven" (Dan 5:23), and the "Father
who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16, 45; 18:10, 14; Mark 11:25, 26; cf. Matt 6:9).
Yahweh, the God of heaven, is implored in prayer to "look down from thy holy
habitaion, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel" (Deut 26:15). Since God
is there in heaven, His people lifted their hands in oaths (Deut 32:40; Ps
106:26; Dan 12:7) and in prayer (Exod 9:29; Ps 28:2; 1 Tim 2:8). All these
texts and references indicate that "heaven" is the abode or habitation of God'',
which the apostle Paul designated "the third heaven" and "Paradise" (2 Cor
12:2, 3; Kraus 1986: 46-49).
It is true that "there is no indication at all in the Old Testament that God
created heaven for Himself to live in as happens, for example, in Egypt:
`When heaven was separated from earth, when the gods climbed up to
heaven (Westermann 1984: 119), but Scripture says that God dwells in
heaven, beyond the heaven or firmament, or in the heavenly place.
References
Barth, K.
1960
Clark.
Bartelmus, R.
1995 0)YA amajim. Pp. 204 239 in Theologisches Worterbuch zum Allen
Testament, vol. 8. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
-
Welker, M.
1989 Himmel. Pp. 519-520 in Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon: Internationale
theologische Enzyklopadie, vol. 2, ed. E. Fahlbusch et al. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Westermann, C.
1969 Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. OTL. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster.
1984 Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Trans. J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg.
General Index
Abel Keramim, vi, 257, 259-262
Abil, 260
abomination, 193, 207-209
abomination of desolation, vi,
194, 205,210 ; 211, 213
Abraham, xxix, 104, 105, 106,
235, 243, 282
Abyssinians, 274
accession year, 182
Achaemenes, 175, 179
Achaemenid, xvii, 131, 175, 185
Achan, 18
Achshaph, 10, 11
Adad-guppi, 115
adorn, 117
adornment, 103, 105, 107, 108,
116, 118
adultery, 82, 238, 267, 268
Aegean, 127-129, 132, 134
Afghans, 274
African, 274, 286-288
Ahab, xix, 29
Ahasuerus, 180, 181, 185, 188
Ai, 9-12, 17-19, 246, 249
Akkadian, 132, 143, 145, 148,
175, 176, 188
Akkadian texts, 129, 144, 147
Al Mina, 129
Alcaeus, 130, 134
Alexander the Great, 127, 230
Amalekites, 18
246, 265
Jeroboam II, 67
Jerome, 193, 197
Jerusalem, xxvi, 12, 22, 25, 26,
33, 41, 46, 48, 53, 75, 76, 79,
81-85, 89, 91, 100, 104, 107,
108, 119, 120, 125, 133, 145,
147, 159, 169, 174, 185, 194,
206-212, 222, 225, 226, 228,
229, 234, 242, 244, 246, 249,
250, 252, 254, 262, 298
Jesus, vi, 50-53, 119, 140, 210,
211, 217, 218, 221-223,
225-231, 243, 244, 266, 268,
269, 283, 295-297
jewelry, v, 103-118, 122-124
Jewish, xvii, xxv, xxx, 78, 89,
112, 124, 142, 145-148, 158,
160, 174, 180, 184, 186, 196,
210, 211, 217, 224-228,
230-234, 236, 237, 239-242,
244, 265, 271, 282, 285, 288
Jezreel Valley, 249
Jonah, v, 57-69, 124, 167, 170,
292, 298
Jordan River, 8, 15-18, 258
Joseph, xxv, 71, 81, 109, 222,
238, 243, 247
Josephus, vi, 72, 174, 180, 184,
189, 194, 210, 233-237,
239-242, 244
jubilee, 49, 89
Judah, xix, xxix, 16, 21, 23, 24,
29, 65, 67, 76, 77, 81-84, 87,
89, 92, 169, 184, 188, 207,
225, 278-280, 285
Judah the Prince, 225
Judas Maccabeus, 193, 195
Judean, 65, 130
judgment, vi, xix, xxiii, 10, 36,
59, 61, 66, 67, 72-79, 81-87,
89-92, 165, 167, 168, 171,
191-193, 196, 200, 205-209,
Thebes, 128
theft, 267, 268
throne, 68, 76, 78, 80, 130, 175,
176, 179, 180, 182, 184, 246,
292, 294-296
Thutmose III, 108, 260, 261
Tiberias, 223, 226-230
Tiglath-pileser III, xviii, 130
Titus, 54, 158, 210
Transjordan, 17, 253, 260, 262
tree of knowledge, 3, 4
tribulation, 140, 219
Tubal, 86
turkey, xx, 130
turquoise, 117
2,300 days, 194, 195
Tyre, 85-87, 107, 122, 123
Ugarits, 274
Umman-Manda, 181, 182, 185,
186
Urartu, 129
Uruk Prophecy, 143
Uruk text, 143, 144
vassal, xvii, 175, 182, 248, 249
Vespasian, 210
vineyards, 260, 261
vision, xxiii, 29, 48, 74, 76-79,
90, 102, 140, 141, 153-155,
160, 166, 169, 174, 175, 195,
197, 201, 203, 211, 292, 295
visions, 73, 76, 78, 89, 138,
140-142, 150-152, 197, 202
Wadi el-Mojib, 258
warfare, 237, 269
Waters of Merom, 247
wealth, 105, 106, 108, 114, 118,
285
wedding, 105, 107
Weidner Chronicle, 207, 212
widows, 274-277, 280-282, 284,
287, 288
wife, xv, 24, 84, 107, 114, 120,
124, 180, 229, 236-240, 275,
Scripture Index
Biblical and apochryphal books are listed alphabetically.
Acts
Acts 4:24
Acts 7:48-50
Acts 17:24
Acts 22:3
293
295
292
234
Amos
Amos 5:13
215
Chronicles
1 Chr 2:4
1 Chronicles 6
1 Chr 7:15
1 Chr 16:6
1 Chr 16:11
1 Chr 16:31
1 Chr 16:37
1 Chr 16:40
1 Chr 23:31
1 Chr 29:23
2 Chr 2:3
2 Chr 2:6
2 Chr 6:18
2 Chr 6:21
2 Chr 6:27
2 Chr 6:30
2 Chr 6:33
2 Chr 6:35
2 Chr 6:39
280
258
276
101
97, 101
293
101
101, 196
100, 101
295
96, 98, 101
293
293
294
294
294
294
294
294
2 Chr 9:7
2 Chr 9:8
2 Chr 18:18
2 Chr 18:23
2 Chr 24:14
2 Chr 30:27
2 Chr 33:12
2 Chr 33:13
2 Chr 36:20
2 Chr 36:20-22
2 Chr 36:22
2 Chr 36:23
101
295
295
31
100, 101
294
67
67
174, 184
184
186
186, 292, 294
Colossians
Col 1:5
Col 2:10
Col 2:23
Co13:1
Col 3:2
296
242
242
297
297
Corinthians
1 Cor 2:4
1 Cor 7:10
1 Cor 7:11
2 Cor 5:18
2 Cor 5:18-21
2 Cor 5:19
2 Cor 5:20
2 Cor 10:10
234
240
240
241
241
241, 242
241
234
Daniel
Daniel 1
xvii, 138, 140, 141,
150, 152, 158, 202
Daniel 1-6 138, 140, 141,
149-153, 155
Daniel 1-7 xvii, 149, 158
Dan 1:1-4
184
Dan 1:1-6
206
150
Dan 1:1-2:4
Dan 1:2
202
Dan 1:4
166, 215
166, 202
Dan 1:17
Daniel 2 . . xxii, 141, 145, 152-154,
192, 193, 199, 200, 203, 218
Daniel 2-7 xxii, 158, 203
Dan 2:4-7:28
150
Dan 2:4b
150
Dan 2:13
154
Dan 2:14
150, 154
Dan 2:14-45
152
Dan 2:21
166, 192
Dan 2:23
166
Dan 2:24
192
Dan 2:29
200
Dan 2:33
200
Dan 2:37
294
Dan 2:37-44
192
Dan 2:38
143, 192
Dan 2:39
143
Dan 2:41
200, 201
Dan 2:42
200
Dan 2:43
200
Dan 2:44
294
Dan 2:45
143, 150
Dan 2:46
99
Daniel 3 xx, 128, 133, 141,
150, 170, 202
Dan 3:5
127
Dan 3:7
127
Dan 3:10
127
Dan 3:13
166
Dan 3:15
127
Dan 3:18
167
Dan 3:28
167
Daniel 4 xxii, 141, 152, 167
Dan 4:17
141, 167
Dan 4:23[20]
296
Dan 4:25
141, 167
Dan 4:26
167
Dan 4:27
167
Dan 4:37
167
Daniel 5 . . xxii, 141, 152, 174, 202
Dan 5:3
202
Dan 5:4
200, 202
Dan 5:15
202
Dan 5:21
141
Dan 5:22
167
Dan 5:23
200, 294
Dan 5:24
200, 202
Dan 5:25
200
Dan 5:27
167
Dan 5:28
167
Dan 5:30
173, 174
Dan 5:31
173, 175, 186
Daniel 6 xxi, 141, 167, 170
Dan 6:1
174
174
Dan 6:8
Dan 6:10
100
Dan 6:12
174
Dan 6:15
174
Dan 6:22
168
Daniel 7 xvii, xxi, xxii, 89,
138-141, 149-155, 158, 171,
191-194, 196, 201, 202
Daniel 7-12 xvii, 138-141,
150-153, 157
Dan 7:1
150, 155
Dan 7:2
150
Dan 7:3-7
175
Dan 7:4-14
192
Dan 7:7
192, 202
Dan 7:8
168, 192, 194, 211
168
Dan 8:23
Dan 8:23-26
211
211
Dan 8:24
Dan 8:25 168, 202, 211
Dan 8:27
209
Daniel 9 152, 153, 169
Dan 9:1 . . 150, 173, 180, 183-185
Dan 9:1-27
206
169, 183, 185, 206,
Dan 9:2
209, 212
Dan 9:3-19
209
Dan 9:11
169
169
Dan 9:13
206
Dan 9:14
Dan 9:17 206, 209, 212
Dan 9:18 206, 209, 212
169
Dan 9:19
Dan 9:21
99
Dan 9:22 150, 209,218, 219
Dan 9:23
218, 219
Dan 9:24 168, 169, 195
Dan 9:24-27 xx, xxii, 206,
209, 213
Dan 9:25
210
Dan 9:26 206, 209, 210
Dan 9:27 . . . vi, 99, 193, 205, 206,
208, 209, 211
Daniel 10 xxi, 87, 131, 134,
172, 185
Daniel 10-12
154, 170
Dan 10:1 150, 183, 185
150, 185
Dan 10:2
185
Dan 10:3
150
Dan 10:5
Dan 10:12
169
Dan 10:13 163, 169, 185
185
Dan 10:14
Dan 10:19
170
Dan 10:20
163
Daniel 11
159
Dan 11:1
185
Dan 11:3
168
Dan 11:27
171
Dan 11:31 96, 99, 193, 211 Deuteronomy 25 276, 277, 281
Dan 11:32
170 Deut 25:5 273-281, 283
Dan 11:32ff
216 Deut 25:5-10 273-281
Dan 11:33 170, 215, 216, Deut 25:6
276
218, 219
Deut 25:7 276, 277
Dan 11:33-35 215, 216 Deut 25:8
276
Dan 11:34
171 Deut 25:9
276
Dan 11:35 168, 170, 171, Deut 25:10
277
215, 216
Deut 26:15
294
Dan 11:39
216 Deut 27:19
276
Daniel 12 xxv, 201, 220 Deut 28:22
36
Dan 12:1 171, 211 Deut 28:27-28
36
Dan 12:2 170, 216, 217 Deut 28:35
36
Dan 12:3 171, 215, 216 Deut 30:3
47
Dan 12:6
201 Deut 32:40
294
Dan 12:7 168, 172, 294
Dan 12:10 .... 215, 216, 218, 219 Ecclesiastes
Dan 12:11
96, 99 Eccl 5:2
294
Dan 12:12
171 Eccl 12:2
40
Dan 12:13
170
Deuteronomy
Ephesians
Eph 6:2
266
Deut 2:37
258 Eph 6:3
266
Deut 3:10
258
Deut 3:16
258 Esdras
Deut 4:19
36, 40 1 Esdras
174, 175
Deut 4:39
293 1 Esd 3:1
185
Deuteronomy 5 266, 268 1 Esd 3:1-3
174
Deut 5:22-27
16 1 Esd 3:1-4:63 185
Deut 7:2
249 1 Esd 4:42-44 174
Deut 8:8
111 1 Esd 4:57
174
Deut 10:14
293 1 Esd 4:61 174, 185
Deut 11:11
292 2 Esdras
169
Deut 11:12
101 2 Esd 4:36
169
Deut 14:3
208
Deut 14:29
276 Esther
Deut 17:3
36, 40 Esth 1:19
174
Deut 21:11
276 Esth 3:10
109
Deut 23:7
281 Esth 3:12
109
Deut 23:17
209 Esth 4:3
216
Deut 23:18
209 Esth 8:2
110
Deut 24:1 238, 240 Esth 8:8
110
Deut 24:17
276 Esth 8:10
110
Ezekiel 4-8
80
Ezekiel 4-24
73
Ezekiel 5
79
Ezek 5:5a
79
Ezek 5:5b
79
Ezek 5:6
79
Ezek 5:7
79
Ezek 5:8-17
79
Ezek 5:11
207
Ezekiel 6
79
Ezek 7:20
207
Ezekiel 8 73, 74, 76, 78, 79
Ezekiel 8-11 . . . . 72, 74, 76, 78, 79
Ezek 8:1
76
Ezek 8:4
207
Ezek 8:6
207
Ezek 8:14
207
Ezekiel 9
76, 77, 89
Ezekiel 9-11
77
Ezek 9:1-11:13
80
Ezek 9:3
76, 77, 80, 207
Ezek 9:4-6
77
Ezek 9:5
207
Ezek 9:6
207
Ezek 9:7
207
Ezekiel 10-11
78
Ezek 10:3
77
Ezek 10:4
77, 80, 207
Ezek 10:14
205
Ezek 10:18
77, 80, 207
Ezek 10:19
77, 80
Ezek 11:18
207
Ezek 11:14-21
80
Ezek 11:21
207
Ezek 11:22
77, 207
Ezek 11:22-25
80
Ezek 11:23
77, 207, 211
Ezekiel 12
81
Ezekiel 12-23
75, 79, 81-83
Ezekiel 12-33
74
Ezek 12:1-7
81
Ezek 12:10
87
Ezek 12:14
81
Ezek 12:16
81
Ezek 12:18
81
Ezek 12:19
81, 207
Ezek 12:20
81, 207
Ezekiel 13
73, 81
Ezek 13:11
81
Ezek 13:13
81
Ezekiel 14
81
Ezek 14:12-23
81
Ezekiel 15
81
Ezek 15:1-8
81
Ezekiel 16 . . 79, 81, 107, 122, 124
Ezek 16:1-59
81
Ezek 16:10-12
107
Ezek 16:11-15
104
Ezek 16:13
108
Ezek 16:60
81
Ezekiel 17
81
Ezek 17:1-20
81
Ezek 17:21
81
Ezek 17:22-24
81
Ezekiel 18
81
Ezek 18:31
81
Ezek 18:32
81
Ezekiel 19
82
Ezek 19:10-14
82
Ezekiel 20
82
Ezek 20:1-32
82
Ezek 20:11
82
Ezek 20:13
82
Ezek 20:16
82
Ezek 20:18
82
Ezek 20:19
82
Ezek 20:21
82
Ezek 20:24
82
Ezek 20:33
87
Ezek 20:34
82
Ezek 20:41
82
Ezek 20:43
82
Ezek 20:44
82
Ezekiel 21
82
Ezek 21:2
82
Ezek 21:3-25
82
Ezek 21:25-27
Ezekiel 22
Ezek 22:1-14
Ezek 22:15
Ezek 22:17-22
Ezekiel 23
Ezek 23:1-49
Ezek 23:40
Ezekiel 24
Ezek 24:1
Ezek 24:2
Ezek 24:3-14
Ezekiel 25
Ezekiel 25-28 - 10
Ezekiel 25-32
Ezekiel 25-48
Ezek 25:1
Ezek 25:2
Ezek 26:1
Ezek 26:1-6
Ezek 26:1-10
Ezek 26:3
Ezek 26:4
Ezek 26:5
Ezek 26:7-11
Ezek 26:12
Ezek 26:12-18
Ezek 26:14
Ezek 26:15-18
Ezek 26:19-21
Ezek 26:20
Ezekiel 27
Ezek 27:1
Ezekiel 28
Ezek 28:1-10
Ezek 28:2-6
Ezek 28:7
Ezek 28:8
Ezek 28:10
Ezek 28:11-15
Ezek 28:11-19
Ezek 28:12
Ezek 28:12-15
82
82
82
82
82, 83
79, 82, 90
82
104
75, 81, 82-84
84
84
82, 84
75, 84, 85
75, 84, 85
72, 75, 84
72
84
84
85
85
86
85, 86
86
86
85
86
85, 86
86
86
85, 86
86
85
86
38, 87, 122
85
86
86
86
86
87
75, 87, 107
107
87
Ezek 28:12-19
88
Ezek 28:12b
87, 88
Ezek 28:13
88
Ezek 28:14
88
Ezek 28:15
89
Ezek 28:15a
88
Ezek 28:15b
88, 89
Ezek 28:16
87-89
Ezek 28:16-19
87, 89
Ezek 28:17-19
88
Ezek 28:20
84
Ezek 28:20-26
84-86
Ezek 28:20-Ezekiel 32
84, 85
Ezek 28:21
84
Ezek 28:24-26
84
Ezekiel 29-32
75
Ezek 29:1
85
Ezek 29:1-16
85
Ezek 29:3
85
Ezek 29:9
86
Ezek 29:12
86
Ezek 29:16
86
Ezek 29:17-30:19
85
Ezek 30:20-26
85, 86
Ezek 30:23
86
Ezek 30:25
86
Ezek 30:26
86
Ezek 31:1-18
85, 86
Ezek 31:16
86
Ezek 32:1-16
85, 86
Ezek 32:2
86
Ezek 32:7
40
Ezek 32:17-32
85, 86
Ezek 32:18
86
Ezek 32:19
86
Ezek 32:20
86
Ezek 32:21
86
Ezek 32:31
86
Ezekiel 33 . . 72, 75, 79, 81-84, 90
Ezekiel 33-39
72, 81
Ezekiel 33-48
72, 79
Ezek 33:1-20
84, 90
Ezek 33:21
83, 84
Ezek 39:21-29
81
Ezek 39:23
81
Ezek 39:26
81
Ezek 39:28
81
Ezekiel 40-43
72, 73
Ezekiel 40-43:12
78, 79
Ezekiel 40-48 71, 72, 74-80,
90-93
Ezek 40:1
77, 78, 80
Ezek 40:2a
80
Ezek 40:2b
80
Ezek 40:3-42:20
80, 90
Ezek 40:4
80
Ezek 43:1-9
80
Ezek 43:2-7
210
Ezek 43:3
80
Ezek 43:5
80
Ezek 43:7
295
Ezek 43:10
80
Ezek 43:11
80
Ezek 43:12-46:24
80, 90
Ezek 46:14
100
Ezek 46:15
98, 101
Ezek 47:1-12
80
Ezek 47:13-48:29
80, 90
Ezek 48:30-35
80
Ezra
Ezra 1:1-4
184, 186
Ezra 1:2 174, 292, 294
Ezra 3:5
98, 101
Ezra 6:15
211
Genesis
Genesis 1
xxiv
Gen 1:1
I, 39, 292, 293, 295
Gen 1:1
39
Gen 1:1-2:4
39
Gen 1: I-2:4a
1
Gen 1:2
2
Gen 1:3
194
Gen 1:3-13
2
Gen 1:6
194, 293
293
4
194
292
2
292
292
194
5, 292
5
39
194
2
39
2
194
xxiv, 1-6
39
39
1
4
3
3
3
4
4, 5
116, 117
116, 117
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1, 2
116
292
30
130
106
168
31
Gen 18:27
Gen 22:1
40
Gen 22:17
292
Gen 24:3
292
276
Gen 24:4
Gen 24:7
292, 294
Gen 24:10
105
Gen 24:22
105
Gen 24:35
105
Gen 24:38
276
Gen 24:53
105
Gen 25:20
276
Gen 27:11
281
Gen 28:6
276
279
Gen 29:28
Gen 30:9
279
Genesis 34
247, 253
Gen 34:8
279
279
Gen 34:12
Gen 35:2
112
Gen 35:4
114
Gen 37:9
40
Genesis 38
278, 279, 281
Gen 38:10
280
Gen 38:11
280, 285
Gen 38:15-26
280
Gen 38:6
279
Gen 38:8
279, 280
Gen 38:9
279, 280
Gen 41:42
109
Gen 46:12
280
Gen 48:22
247
Habakkuk
Hab 1:17
Hab 2:3
Hab 3:11
101
171
36, 40
Haggai
Hag 2 - 9
211
51
99
99
99
48
297
297
48
48
48
Hosea
Hos 2:13
112
Isaiah
Isa 2:8
Isa 2:18
Isa 2:20
Isaiah 3
Isa 3:3
Isa 3:13-15
Isa 3:16-23
Isa 3:16-26
Isa 3:18-23
Isa 3:20
Isa 3:21
Isa 13:10
Isa 14:12-15
Isa 21:2
Isa 21:8
Isa 25:9
Isa 34:4
Isa 41:25
Isa 44:9-20
Isa 44:23
Isa 44:27-45:1
Isa 45:8a
Isa 45:13
Isa 49:13
Isa 51:6
Isa 51:13
Isa 52:13
116
116
116
108, 112, 116
112
108
104
108
108
112
110
40, 292
38
174
101
53
293
175
38
293
175
293
184, 186
293
292, 293
101
216
Isa 53:11
Isa 53:12
Isa 54:11
Isa 54:12
Isa 55:10
Isa 57:15
Isa 60:19
Isa 60:20
Isa 62:3
Isa 63:15
Isa 65:17
Isa 65:18
Isa 65:19
Isa 65:19b
Isa 66:1
Isa 66:2a
52
52, 216
117
117
292
294
36, 40
36, 40
109
294
297
297
297
297
295, 296
295
James
James 2:10-12
266
Jeremiah
Jer 2:9
Jer 2:32
Jer 4:25
Jer 4:29
Jer 4:30
Jer 6:7
Jeremiah 7
Jer 7:1-34
Jer 7:10
Jer 7:12-14
Jer 7:30
Jer 7:31
Jer 7:34
Jer 8:2
Jer 13:18
Jer 13:24
Jer 19:1-15
Jer 23:24
Jer 25:11
Jer 25:12
Jeremiah 26
Jer 26:1-24
207
105
292
23
104
101
208, 209
207
207
208
207
207
207
36, 38, 40
109
30
207
292, 293
170, 183, 206
170, 183, 206
208, 209
207
208
207, 208
166
170, 183, 206
48
207
207
207
207
281
258
174
174
293
101
96, 98, 101
Job
Job 22:2
Job 28:15-19
Job 37:21
215
114
30
Joel
Joel 2:10
Joel 3:4 [2:31]
Joe14:15 [3:15]
36, 40
36, 40
36, 40
John
John 1:45
John 1:46
John 3:27
John 6:1
John 6:23
John 12:24
John 14:1-3
John 14:2
John 14:3
John 21:1
221
221
296
229
229
51
52
297
297
229
Jonah
Jonah 1
Jonah 1-2
Jonah 1:1-3
63
57
57-59, 61
Jonah 1:3
67
Jonah 1:4
62, 63, 67
Jonah 1:4-5a
62
Jonah 1:4-16
58, 59, 61, 63
Jonah 1:5a
62, 63, 67
Jonah 1:5b
67
Jonah 1:5b-c
63
Jonah 1:5c
67
Jonah 1:6
63
Jonah 1:6a
67
Jonah 1:6b
67
Jonah 1:7
63, 67
Jonah 1:7a
67
Jonah 1:7b
67
Jonah 1:8
63, 67
Jonah 1:9 62, 63, 67, 292
Jonah 1:10
63, 67
Jonah 1:10a
67
Jonah 1:10b
67
Jonah 1:10c
67
Jonah 1:11
63, 67
Jonah 1:12
63, 67
Jonah 1:13
67
Jonah 1:14
62, 63, 67
Jonah 1:15
62, 63, 67
Jonah 1:16
62, 64
Jonah 1:16a
67
Jonah 1:17
64
Jonah 1:17-2:10
61
Jonah 2 . . . .... 57-60, 62-66, 68
Jonah 2:1
60
Jonah 2:1-9
59
Jonah 2:2
60, 64
Jonah 2:3
68
Jonah 2:3-6b
64
Jonah 2:4
68
Jonah 2:5
68
Jonah 2:5-7
60
Jonah 2:6
68
Jonah 2:6c-7
64
Jonah 2:7
68
Jonah 2:7a
68
Jonah 2:7b
68
68
60,63, 64, 68
63, 68
64, 68
64, 167, 170
57
58, 59
61
57
64
58, 59, 64
64, 65
59
61
64
64, 68
65
64
64
65
64
60, 66
65, 68
60
59, 61, 67
58, 59, 65
68
60
65
65
65
65
65, 68
61
66, 68
67
57-60, 66, 67
66
66
66
66
66
66
Jonah 4:10
Jonah 4:11
66
66
Joshua
Joshua 1
Joshua 1-5
Joshua 1-13
Josh 1:1
Josh 1:11
Joshua 2
Josh 2:11
Joshua 3
Joshua 3-21
Josh 3:2
Josh 3:3-6
Josh 3:5
Josh 3:15-17
Joshua 4
Josh 4:9
Josh 4:13
Joshua 5
Josh 5:2
Josh 5 . 13-15
Josh 5:15
Joshua 6
Joshua 6-8
Joshua 6-13
Josh 6:1-5
Josh 6:8
Josh 6:20
Josh 6:24
Joshua 7
Josh 7:11
Josh 7:26.
Joshua 9
Joshua 8
Joshua 8-10
Josh 8:19
Josh 8:28
Josh 8:33
Josh 8:35
Joshua 9
Josh 9:2
16
15, 16
13, 15, 20-24
8
18
16, 17, 265
293
16, 17
22
18
18
18
18
16, 17
18
18
16, 23
18
16
8
13, 15-18, 21, 22
16
15, 16
8
8
10
10
18
18
18
16
13, 15, 21, 22
18
10
10
246
246
17, 247
248
207
293
293
294
294
294
294
97, 101
208
209
37, 38
30
v, 29
295
v, 29
101
109
109
36
104
106, 109, 111
67
67
67
36, 40
208
98, 101
96, 98, 101
Lamentations
Lam 3:41
Lam 3:50
Lam 4:7
294
294
104
Leviticus
Lev 1:1
Lev 3:3-5
Lev 3:16
Lev 6:13
Lev 6:6
Lev 7:29-34
Leviticus 8
208
209
209
100, 101
96, 98, 101
209
99
Leviticus 9
Leviticus 16
Lev 16:12
Lev 16:13
Lev 18:21
Lev 18:24-30
Lev 21:7
Lev 22:13
Leviticus 23
Lev 23:29
Lev 23:30
Lev 24:2
Lev 24:3
Lev 24:4
Lev 24:8
Leviticus 25
Lev 25:9-17
Leviticus 26
Lev 26:24
Lev 26:31-35
99
78
96
96
207
207
242
276
78
89
89
100
97, 100
100
100, 101
281
89
79
36
206
Luke
Luke 2:39
Luke 2:41-52
Luke 4:16
Luke 4:43
Luke 8:10
Luke 8:11
Luke 9:1-6
Luke 10:20
Luke 15:18
Luke 15:21
Luke 18:18-23
Luke 18:20
!Luke 20:27-33
Luke 20:33
221
222
221
296
296
51
228
297
296
296
266
268
283
284
Maccabees
1 Macc 1:54
1 Macc 1:54-5:1
1 Macc 1:59
1 Macc 4:52
194, 210
194
209, 210
194, 209
221
296
296
51
222
222
266
266
294
294
296
283
267
xxi, 218
218
218
Matthew
Matt 1:1
Matt 2:23
Matt 4:13
Matt 4:17
Matt 4:23
Matt 5:14
Matt 5:16
Matt 5:19
Matt 5:34
Matt 5:35
Matt 5:45
Matt 6:9
Matt 6:20
Matt 10:5-15
Matt 13:11
Matt 13:37
Matt 13:38
Matt 13:39
Matt 13:40
Matt 13:55
Matt 15:1-20
Matt 18:10
Matt 18:14
Matt 19:16-22
185
221
221, 230
296
296
228
294
268
295
295
294
294
297
228
296
51
51
52
52
222
266
294
294
266
Matt 21:25
Matt 22:23-28
Matt 22:37-40
Matt 22:38
Matthew 23
Matthew 23-25
Matt 23:22
Matt 23:37
Matt 23:38
Matthew 24
Matt 24:1
Matt 24:3
Matt 24:15
Matt 24:16
Matt 24:29
296
283
267
268
211
211
295, 296
211
211
211
211
211
193, 210, 211
210
292
Micah
48
48
79
79
Nah 3:19
97
Mic 4:7
Mic 4:8
Mic 6:1
Mic 6:2
Nahum
Nehemiah
Neh 1:4
Neh 3:19
Neh 5:7
Neh 10:34
292, 294
101
281
96-99, 101
Numbers
Num 4:7
Num 4:16
Num 9:16
Num 9:16
Num 13:23
Num 15:37-41
Num 15:39
Num 15:40
Num 16:31
Num 18:1-7
Num 21:13
34, 35
294 Qumran Pesher
Ps 109:19
97, 101 1 QpHab 7:9-12
Psalms 120-134 33, 34, 46
Psalm 121 . . . v, 33, 34, 36-39, 41 Revelation
Ps 121:1
33, 39 Rev 1:4
Ps 121:2
33, 39 Rev 3:5
Ps 121:3 33,34,39 Rev 4:7
172
295
171
205
Ps 121:3-5
34 Revelation 5
xxi
Ps 121:3-8
39 Rev 6:11
168
Ps 121:4 33, 34, 36-38 Rev 6:2-8
205
Ps 121:5
33, 34 Revelation 7
89
Ps 121:5-8
33 Rev 10:6
293
Ps 121:6 v, 33, 34, 36-38 Rev 11:13
294
Ps 121:7 33, 34, 39 Revelation 12 xxii, xxv
Ps 121:8 33, 34, 39 Revelation 13 xxv, 219
Ps 123:1
294 Rev 13:8
171
Psalm 126 . . . . v, 46-48, 51, 53-55 Rev 13:9
219
Ps 126:1 40, 46, 47, 48 Rev 13:18 218, 219
Ps 126:1-3
48, 53 Revelation 14
89
Ps 126:2
46 Rev 14:9
168
Ps 126:2a
47 Rev 14:14-16
52
Ps 126:2b
47, 49 Revelation 17
219
Ps 126:3 46, 47, 49 Rev 17:4
104
Ps 126:4 47, 48, 50 Rev 17:5
104
Ps 126:5
47, 51 Rev 17:8
171
Ps 126:5-6
53 Rev 17:9
218, 219
Ps 126:6a
47, 51 Rev 17:15
205
Ps 126:6b
47 Revelation 18
196
Ps 135:8
34, 35 Revelation 19 xxi, 196
Ps 135:10
34 Revelation 20
xxii
Psalm 136
40 Rev 20:12
171
Ps 136:8
40 Rev 20:15
171
Ps 136:9
40 Rev 21:1
292, 297
Ps 136:10
34, 35 Rev 21:3
297
Rev 21:15-21
Rev 22:1
Rev 22:3
Rev 22:20
117
295
295
50
Romans
Rom 5:8-11
Rom 5:9
Rom 5:10
Rom 5:10a
Rom 5:11
Rom 7: 8
Rom 7:7
Rom 8:24
Rom 8:25
Rom 13:9
239
240
240
240
240
266
266
50
50
266, 268
1 Sam 29:4
2 Sam 1:10
2 Sam 1:24
2 Sam 9:7
2 Sam 9:10
2 Sam 9:13
2 Sam 12:30
242
106
108
101
101
101
109
Song of Songs
Songs 4:3
Songs 4:13
Songs 5:14
Songs 6:7
Songs 6:11
Songs 7:1
Songs 7:13
Songs 8:2
111
111
104
111
111
104
111
111
Ruth
Ruth 1:12
Ruth 1:13
Ruth 2:1-3:10
Ruth 2:2-23
Ruth 3:12-4:4
Ruth 3:15
Ruth 4:5
Ruth 4:6
Ruth 4:10
Ruth 4:13
Ruth 4:14-22
285
285
282
282
281
109
281
282, 285
281
281
282
Samuel
Thessalonians
1 Thess 4:14-17
2 Thess 2:1-12
52
193, 194
Timothy
1 Tim 1:8-11
1 Tim 2:8
266
294
Titus
Titus 2:13
54
Zecharia
1 Sam 2:12-17
1 Sam 2:22
1 Sam 4:21
1 Sam 4:22
1 Sam 8:7
1 Sam 9:16
1 Sam 10:1
1 Sam 13:14
1 Sam 15:2
1 Sam 19:11-17
1 Sam 25:39
1 Sam 25:40
209
209
208
208
87
87
87
87
18
265
276
276
Zech 3:4
Zech 3:5
Zech 6:11
Zech 6:11-13
Zech 9:16
Zech 13:6
108
109
109, 110
109
106
49
Zephaniah
Zeph 2:7
Zeph 2:8
Zeph 3:14
Zeph 3:17
53
116
53
53, 54
The Andrews University Center for Adventist Research is happy to make this item available for your
private scholarly use. We trust this will help to deepen your understanding of the topic.
Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions
This document may be protected by one or more United States or other nations copyright laws. The
copyright law of the United States allows, under certain conditions, for libraries and archives to furnish a
photocopy or other reproduction to scholars for their private use. One of these specified conditions is that
the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or
research. This documents presence in digital format does not mean you have permission to publish,
duplicate, or circulate it in any additional way. Any further use, beyond your own private scholarly use,
is your responsibility, and must be in conformity to applicable laws. If you wish to reproduce or publish
this document you will need to determine the copyright holder (usually the author or publisher, if any)
and seek authorization from them. The Center for Adventist Research provides this document for your
private scholarly use only.
The Center for Adventist Research
James White Library
Andrews University
4190 Administration Drive
Berrien Springs, MI 49104-1440 USA
+001 269 471 3209
www.andrews.edu/library/car
car@andrews.edu
Disclaimer on Physical Condition
By their very nature many older books and other text materials may not reproduce well for any number
of reasons. These may include
the binding being too tight thus impacting how well the text in the center of the page may be read,
the text may not be totally straight,
the printing may not be as sharp and crisp as we are used to today,
the margins of pages may be less consistent and smaller than typical today.
This book or other text material may be subject to these or other limitations. We are sorry if the digitized
result is less than excellent. We are doing the best we can, and trust you will still be able to read the text
enough to aid your research. Note that the digitized items are rendered in black and white to reduce the
file size. If you would like to see the full color/grayscale images, please contact the Center.
Disclaimer on Document Items
The views expressed in any term paper(s) in this file may or may not accurately use sources or contain
sound scholarship. Furthermore, the views may or may not reflect the matured view of the author(s).