Tradition and Innovation

in Biblical Interpretation
 Studia Semitica Neerlandica

Editor-in-Chief
Prof. dr. K.A.D. Smelik

Editorial Board
Prof. dr. P.C. Beentjes, Prof. dr. W.J. van Bekkum,
Dr. W.C. Delsman, Prof. dr. H. Gzella,
Prof. dr. J. Hoftijzer, Dr. W. Th. van Peursen,
Prof. dr. J. Van Steenbergen, Prof. dr. E. Talstra,
Prof. dr. M. Tanret

VoluME 57

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/ssn

Eep Talstra
 Tradition and Innovation
in Biblical Interpretation
Studies Presented to Professor Eep Talstra
on the occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday

Edited by
W.Th. van Peursen and J.W. Dyk

lEIDEN • BoSToN
2011
Photo frontispiece Jelly Reinders

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN 0081-6914
ISBN 978 90 04 21061 5 (hardback)
ISBN 978 90 04 21518 4 (e-book)

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, uSA.
Fees are subject to change.
 CoNTENTS

list of Contributors ........................................................................... ix

Preface ................................................................................................. xiii

Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen

Tradition and Innovation in Biblical Scholarship:

An Introduction ............................................................................ 1
Wido van Peursen and Janet Dyk

PART oNE
TRADITIoN AND INNoVATIoN IN THE BIBlE ITSElF

A Story of Three Prophets: Synchronic and Diachronic

Analysis of Jeremiah 26 ................................................................ 13
Joep Dubbink

‘Against you, Daughter of Babylon!’ A Remarkable Example

of Text-Reception in the oracle of Jeremiah 50–51 ............... 31
Eric Peels

‘Reading Jeremiah Makes Me Angry!’ The Role of Jeremiah

32[39]:36–41 in Transformation within the ‘Jeremianic’
Tradition ......................................................................................... 45
Janneke stegeman

Beyond ‘Singers and Syntax’: Theological and Canonical

Reflections on Psalm 8 ................................................................. 69
Carl J. Bosma

Where is God? Romans 3:13–18 as an Addition to Psalm 14 .... 93

Eveline van staalduine–sulman

Reading Qohelet as Text, Author, and Reader ............................. 113

Timothy Walton
vi contents

Tradition through Reading—Reading the Tradition:

Reflections on Eep Talstra’s Exegetical Methodology ............. 133
Louis Jonker

PART TWo
TRADITIoN AND INNoVATIoN IN THE RECEPTIoN
oF THE BIBlE

Between Stigmatizing and Idolizing the Bible: on the

Reception of Genesis 12:10–20; 20; 26:1–11 ............................. 155
Cornelis Houtman

‘out of Egypt I Have Called My Son’: Matthew 2:15 and

Hosea 11:1 in Dutch and American Evangelical
Interpretation ................................................................................. 171
Gert Kwakkel

Daniel’s Four Kingdoms in the Syriac Tradition ......................... 189

Wido van Peursen

The Identity of Israel’s God: The Potential of the So-called

Extra-Calvinisticum ....................................................................... 209
Cornelis van der Kooi

A Jewish Childbirth Amulet from the Bibliotheca

Rosenthaliana ................................................................................. 223
Margaretha Folmer

PART THREE
TRADITIoN AND INNoVATIoN IN lINGuISTIC AND
CoMPuTATIoNAl APPRoACHES To THE BIBlE

Computer-Assisted Tools for Textual Criticism .......................... 245

Emanuel Tov

on Biblical Hebrew and Computer Science: Inspiration,

Models, Tools, and Cross-Fertilization ..................................... 261
Ulrik sandborg-Petersen
 contents vii

Persuasive Hebrew Exercises: The Wit of Technology-

Enhanced language learning ..................................................... 277
nicolai Winther-nielsen

Judging Jephthah: The Contribution of Syntactic Analysis to

the Interpretation of Judges 11:29–40 ....................................... 299
Klaas spronk

Masoretic Tradition and Syntactic Analysis of the Psalms ........ 317

Luis Vegas Montaner

Who is Speaking—Who is listening? How Information

Technology Can Confirm the Integrity of the Text ................ 337
Oliver Glanz

Jerusalem’s Comforters in Isaiah 40:1–2: Participant Tracking

in a Prophetic Text ....................................................................... 361
Reinoud Oosting

Hebrew hāyāh: Etymology, Bleaching, and Discourse

Structure .......................................................................................... 379
Frank Polak

The lexeme ‫ ָס ִביב‬............................................................................... 399

Christo H. J. van der Merwe

language, Structure, and Strategy in Isaiah 53:1–6: ‫ ָא ֵכן‬, Word

order, and the Translator ............................................................ 417
Lénart J. de Regt

‫ ָא ִבי‬in Job 34:36 ................................................................................. 437

Constantijn J. sikkel

Dissertations under the Guidance of Eep Talstra ........................ 461

Publications by Eep Talstra ............................................................. 465

Index of Sources ................................................................................ 483

Index of Modern Authors ................................................................ 493
 lIST oF CoNTRIBuToRS

Carl J. Bosma is Associate Professor of old Testament at Calvin Theo-

logical Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, uSA.

Joep Dubbink is minister in the Protestant Church in the Netherlands

and Extraordinary Professor for Biblical Theology (Dirk Monshouwer
Chair) at Vu university Amsterdam.

Janet W. Dyk is Assistant Professor of Bible Translation at the Faculty

of Theology and Faculty of Arts, and linguistic researcher at the Werk-
groep Informatica of the Faculty of Theology, both at Vu university
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Margaretha Folmer is Assistant Professor of Hebrew at the Faculty

of Theology, Vu university Amsterdam, and Assistant Professor of
Aramaic at the School for Middle Eastern Studies, leiden university,
leiden, the Netherlands.

Oliver Glanz is post-doctoral researcher at the Werkgroep Infor-

matica of the Faculty of Theology, Vu university Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.

Cornelis Houtman is Professor Emeritus of old Testament at the Prot-

estant Theological university, Kampen, the Netherlands.

Louis C. Jonker is Professor of old Testament at the Department of

old and New Testament of the Faculty of Theology, university of
Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Cornelis van der Kooi is Professor of Western Systematic Theology and

Director of the Centre for Evangelical and Reformation Theology at
the Faculty of Theology, Vu university Amsterdam.

Gert Kwakkel is Professor of old Testament at the Theological

university of the (liberated) Reformed Churches, Kampen, the
Netherlands.
x list of contributors

Christo H.J. van der Merwe is Associate Professor at the Department

of Ancient Studies, and Director of the Centre for Bible Interpretation
and Translation in Africa, university of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Reinoud Oosting is post-doctoral researcher of old Testament at

the Institute for Religious Studies, leiden university, leiden, the
Netherlands.

Eric Peels is Professor of old Testament Studies at the Theological uni-

versity of Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, and old Testament Research
Fellow at the university of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Wido van Peursen is Associate Professor of old Testament at

the Institute for Religious Studies, leiden university, leiden, the
Netherlands.

Frank Polak is Professor of Bible at Tel Aviv university, Israel.

Lénart J. de Regt is Europe-Middle East Area Translations Coordinator

for the united Bible Societies.

Ulrik sandborg-Petersen is a postdoctoral researcher in computational

linguistics at the Department of Communication and Psychology,
university of Aalborg, Denmark, and academic programmer at the
Werkgroep Informatica of the Faculty of Theology, Vu university
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Constantijn sikkel is academic programmer at the Werkgroep Infor-

matica of the Faculty of Theology, Vu university Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.

Klaas spronk is Professor of old Testament at the Protestantse The-

ologische universiteit, the Netherlands.

Eveline van staalduine-sulman is Assistant Professor of old Testament

at the Faculty of Theology, Vu university Amsterdam, and researcher
in Targum Studies within the project ‘A Jewish Targum in a Christian
World’ at the Protestant Theological university, the Netherlands.
 list of contributors xi

Janneke stegeman is PhD researcher in old Testament at the Vu

Institute for the Study of Religion, Culture, and Society (VISoR), Vu
university Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Emanuel Tov is J.l. Magnes Professor Emeritus at the Department of

Bible, Hebrew university, Jerusalem, Israel.

Luis Vegas Montaner is Professor of Hebrew Studies at the Com-

plutense university, Madrid, Spain.

Timothy Walton is Extension Faculty of old Testament for Trinity

Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, uSA, and Adjunct Pro-
fessor of old Testament at Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary,
Amman, Jordan.

nicolai Winther-nielsen is Associate Professor of old Testament at

the Copenhagen lutheran School of Theology (DBI), Copenhagen,
Denmark, and external reader in Persuasive Design, university of
Aalborg, Denmark.
 PREFACE

on Sunday, the 4th of August, 1946, Ebele Talstra was born in the
Groningen village of Middelstum.1 As a school teacher, Father
Harmen followed job openings in Giekerk (1953), Hemelum (1955),
and Warffum (1960). In Hemelum, somewhere half way through the
Mulo,2 Eep developed an interest in theology. ‘If you want to become
a minister, you are going to the wrong school’, Mother Renskje
remarked drily. The required preparatory education—Gymnasium—
was not available in the sparsely populated agrarian environment of
the southwest corner of Friesland. The move to Warffum opened new
perspectives: at the age of fourteen Eep began again as seventh grader,
this time at the Willem-lodewijk Gymnasium in Groningen.
once at the Vu university, Eep began his theological studies but
acquired his first degree in Semitic languages, a kandidaats, cum laude,
under Professor M.J. Mulder. In 1973, two years later, he received his
kandidaats in theology. Eep spent the fall of that year in Manchester
studying old Testament exegesis and ugaritic under Professor James
Barr.
In 1975 Eep received his doctoraal degree, cum laude, under Profes-
sor N.H. Ridderbos. Eep’s zeal for the ministry had tempered some-
what as he became more and more fascinated by the academic side of
theology, especially linguistics and biblical interpretation. To this was
added the new dimension of computer science. While still a student,
Eep began to develop his own line of research involving a combina-
tion of Bible and computer. International contacts relating to the use
of computers in biblical research quickly developed; at times he would
receive mail from foreign countries addressed to ‘Professor Talstra’,
though he had not yet earned his PhD degree.
Various aspects of Eep’s thinking as a Christian and as a theologian
emerged at this time—his characteristic balance between modern and

1
our special thanks to Harmen Talstra for the information on his father's life.
2
In the Dutch educational system, there are various types of secondary educa-
tion, each with particular career possibilities. The prospectives of the Mulo did not
include a university education.
xiv janet dyk and wido van peursen

classical points of view, the emphasis upon the primacy of what the
Word of God has to say above any sort of theorizing, and a strong
aversion to materialism and liberalism.
Eep’s concentration on his studies did not make him immune to the
charms of Elizabeth Schulp—lies—a self-assured, outgoing law student
from Weesp who stole Eep’s heart in the cafeteria. They were mar-
ried in 1974 and in 1977 moved into a fourth-story apartment within
walking distance of the university. originally intended as a temporary
abode, this apartment remained their home for almost thirty years.
Never before had Eep stayed so long at one address. They became a
family, with two sons born close together: Harmen and Arendjan.
Arendjan, diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, brought an unexpected
dimension into their lives. During the ’80s and ’90s, along with other
parents of Down’s syndrome children, Eep and lies became actively
involved in creating more opportunities for ‘mongoloid’ children. A
national association was founded—the VIM3—which still today advo-
cates the integration of such children into regular primary educa-
tion. Arendjan was one of the first children with Down’s syndrome
to attend a regular grade school, the same one his brother, Harmen,
attended. This was so innovative in the ’80s that more than once the
Talstra family was interviewed on national television.
In 1987 Eep defended his PhD thesis at leiden university, again
under the inspiring and watchful eye of Professor M.J. Mulder. The
exceptional quality of his dissertation was awarded not only a cum
laude, but also the Professor Willem Mallinckrodt Award from the
university of Groningen for the best doctoral dissertation in theol-
ogy defended at a Dutch university in the period 1985–1995. Char-
acteristically, Eep argued in his thesis against a polarization between
two dominant approaches to the biblical text—diachronic and syn-
chronic—advocating rather the correct order of these two principles:
first synchrony and then diachrony.
Year in, year out, Eep acquired the finances for his research through
grants for individual projects. Even earning his doctor’s degree
in 1987 did not change this. Starting in 1969 as a student assistant
under Professor N.H. Ridderbos and continuing on through a series

3
‘Vereniging voor de Integratie van Mongolen’ (Association for the Integration of
Mongoloids).
 preface xv

of teaching positions and research projects, Eep’s position remained

one of temporary appointments. It was not until 1988 that Eep finally
was granted a position with tenure at the Vu university. His success
at acquiring grants enabled him to maintain a staff representing the
diverse aspects of his innovative approach: computer programming,
linguistics, and exegesis. The new department for research in Bible and
computer he instituted, the Werkgroep Informatica, continues today to
consolidate and expand his insights by applying them to ever new lay-
ers of the text. The data produced by this department is now broadly
available in a software package, the stuttgart Electronic study Bible.
Eep has continued to strive for a recognition of the formal contribu-
tion of linguistics and computer-science to exegesis and the theologi-
cal discussion, though this was sometimes slow in coming.
In 1991 Eep was appointed as Extraordinary Professor for ‘Bible and
Computer’. Three years later the responsibilities of his own specializa-
tion were lumped together with and overridden by his appointment as
professor of old Testament. Though officially the new position came
with the appendage ‘with special attention to computer-assisted tex-
tual research’, Eep’s time was mainly consumed by the teaching load
of the chair of old Testament.
Throughout his career, Eep has sought for new opportunities and
fruitful interchange between various areas of expertise. His member-
ship in church boards and national and international academic societ-
ies reflect his primary interests: the Bible as text, language structures as
guidelines to insight into the texts, the computer as research instrument,
and the significance of the text as the foundation for life’s choices.
These were good years, bursting with the love of life, friends, and
work. A shadow fell over this energetic existence when lies began to
be more and more tired. After years of treating symptoms, a specialist
finally diagnosed her condition as one for which there was as yet no
cure. Her ability to relativize her own situation and her unfailing inter-
est in others throughout her illness remains engraved in the memo-
ries of her friends and family. In the end, this vivacious, life-loving,
beloved partner had to be bade adieu in January 2006.
When grief had run its course, Eep enlisted the assistance of his
faithful instrument—the computer—and presented himself on the dat-
ing market. New perspectives opened and those around him could
only rejoice with him. His choice fell again on a legal advisor, Saskia
Hammann–van de Kletersteeg. With the children grown up, Saskia
and Eep face the golden years together.
xvi janet dyk and wido van peursen

Though after his retirement officially free of university responsibili-

ties, Eep remains involved in the most recent research project for which
he acquired funding from the Netherlands organization for Scientific
Research (NWo): ‘Bridging Data and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible
as a linguistic Corpus and as a literary Composition’. The explicit
focus of this project is on Eep’s long cherished dream of integrating
the formal approach to data with the interdisciplinary dialogue with
theologians and linguists.
All the while, Eep’s long stream of PhD students, each in his or her
own way, carry on his work around the world. Along with his bibliog-
raphy at the end of this volume we provide a list of the dissertations
written under his supervision, which show an impressive diversity of
topics inspired by his approach. His colleagues both in the Netherlands
and outside of it have not been left unchanged by Eep’s ideas and
methodology, to which the various contributions in this volume bear
testimony.
It is a pleasure to offer Eep the present volume as a token not only
of our respect for his substantial contribution to the study of the old
Testament and for his pioneering efforts in introducing the computer
as an analytical tool in this area of study, but also of our appreciation
for his personal involvement as teacher, PhD supervisor, colleague,
and friend. We are grateful to the editors of Studia Semitica Neer-
landica for including this volume in their series.

Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen

May 2011

The system of abbreviations used in this volume is based upon Siegfried M. Schwertner
(ed.), Theologische Realenzyklopadie. Abkurzungsverzeichnis, 2. überarbeitete und
erweiterte Auflage (Berlin, 1994), and where deficient, The sBL Handbook of style for
Ancient near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian studies (Peabody, 1999).
TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP:
AN INTRODUCTION

Wido van Peursen and Janet Dyk

The title of the present volume, Tradition and Innovation in Biblical

Scholarship, refers to the role of these two aspects both in the formation
of the Bible and in its reception. In the formation of the Bible, tradition
and innovation relate to an inner-biblical phenomenon involving the
literary development of the biblical text and thus stand at the centre
of the current debate on methods and approaches between those who
advocate a strictly synchronic approach and those who defend a dia-
chronic study in Old Testament scholarship.
The role of tradition and innovation in the reception of the Bible
relates to the complex interaction between religious traditions and
their foundational literature. For the Bible, this can refer to the way in
which it is used both for confirming the Jewish and Christian tradi-
tions and for challenging them (see below). For the scholarly tradition,
this manifests itself in, for example, the interdependence of Biblical
Hebrew lexica1 and in the interaction between exegetical traditions
and the innovation brought about by the introduction of the computer
as a research instrument.
For Eep Talstra these two aspects are not separate issues, but are
rather two sides of the same coin. He has traced an ongoing process
of preservation, transmission, appropriation, and actualization from
the first stages of the formation of the books of the Bible up through
its interpretation in modern digital approaches. In his publications,
the debate on synchrony and diachrony, the reception of the Bible
in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and the computer-assisted use
of the Bible are all intertwined. This becomes immediately clear from
his PhD dissertation on Solomon’s prayer, in which he combines dia-
chronic and synchronic methods in his study on 1 Kings 8 (1987;

1
This has been extensively dealt with in another volume edited by the present edi-
tors: J.W. Dyk and W.Th. van Peursen, Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III: Col-
loquia of the International Syriac Language Project (Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics
4; Piscataway, nj, 2008).
2 wido van peursen and janet dyk

English edition 1992), his methodological handbook entitled Oude en

nieuwe lezers (‘Old and New Readers’), and his two inaugural addresses
(1992, 2003), in which he brought both general methodological issues
and the specific role of linguistic and computational analysis to the
fore. In addition to these key publications, the bibliography at the end
of this volume includes many other publications on these topics by our
prolific honoree. Since they have been the main concerns in Eep’s own
research throughout his scholarly career, it is appropriate to devote
this tribute to him to these themes.
Although in Eep’s view the exegete should cover the whole spec-
trum of text production and reception,2 including the ongoing history
of tradition and interpretation from Jewish and early Christian litera-
ture up through modern times, he does not hide his own preferences.
On several occasions he explicitly stated that he has the most affinity
with the Dutch reformed tradition;3 the place of the Bible within that
tradition has been a recurrent theme in his writings. The function of
the Bible, so he argued, is not only to illuminate one’s own tradition in
order to understand its choices and preferences. Exegesis should never
be made subservient to systematic theology, and any reduction of the
task of the exegete to merely a confirmation of church doctrine should
be avoided. Scriptures have a critical role, also in relation to tradition.
In his words, the Word has ‘preeminence’ above any systematic reflec-
tion on the creation and the Creator.4 This priority given to the Word
makes the exegetical scholar’s craftsmanship of crucial importance,
and in this, linguistic analysis takes a leading role. Because syntax is
considered to be the framework of the text, it deserves priority over
other areas of linguistic analysis, such as semantics, and literary or
rhetorical analysis.5
To indicate the importance of linguistic analysis in exegesis, Eep
Talstra has used the terms ‘system’ and ‘design’ more than once. These

2
See, e.g., Eep Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van
uitleg van het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002), 11.
3
Oude en nieuwe lezers, 11.
4
Talstra, ‘De voorsprong van het woord’, in J. van Dorp en T. Drieënhuizen (eds.),
Heilige tekst in onze taal: Bijbelvertalen voor gereformeerd Nederland (Heerenveen,
2006), 103–119.
5
Talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax: On the Balance of Grammar and Poetry in Psalm 8’,
in J.W. Dyk (ed.), Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and other Poetry in and around the
Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of Professor N.A. van Uchelen (Amsterdam, 1996),
11–22, esp. 12.
 introduction 3

terms have reappeared in the title of one of the projects granted to

him by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO),
‘Linguistic System and Literary Design: Computer-Assisted Analysis
of Non-Narrative Texts of the Hebrew Bible’ (2005–2009) According
to Eep, one first has to take the language system into account in order
to see the linguistic constraints of an utterance, before one can investi-
gate the particular way in which the utterance is modelled, that is, the
author’s design. Talstra called this change of focus from the general to
the particular ‘a shift in the priorities in exegetical practice’.6
Into the workshop of the exegete, Eep introduced a new tool: the
computer. In his approach, even when the text is treated as data
and the computational potential of the machine is implemented in
the analysis, tradition and the continuity with pre-digital exegesis is
strongly present. This includes not only grammatical tradition, which
is the point of departure for linguistic encoding, but also lexical tradi-
tion, which forms the basis for distinguishing lexemes and describing
the patterns in which the words occur, and, finally, exegetical tradi-
tion, or in a broader sense, the tradition of readers, which presumes
a specific understanding of the text. Even in these matters, for Eep
computer-assisted structural analysis does not serve merely to confirm
prevalent viewpoints, but rather forms the basis for critical consider-
ations concerning these viewpoints. His publications often show how
computer-assisted linguistic analysis corrects traditional interpreta-
tions represented in commentaries, children’s Bibles,7 and Bible trans-
lations.8 The interaction of ‘data’ and ‘tradition’ is the focus of Eep’s
most recent research project funded by NWO, ‘Bridging Data and

6
Eep Talstra and Christo H.J. van der Merwe, ‘Analysis, Retrieval and the Demand
for More Data: Integrating the Results of a Formal Textlinguistic and Cognitive Based
Pragmatic Approach to the Analysis of Deut 4:1–40’, in Johann Cook (ed.), Bible and
Computer: The Stellenbosch aibi-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association Interna-
tionale Bible et Informatique “From Alpha to Byte”, University of Stellenbosch, 17–21
July 2000 (Leiden, 2002), 43–78, esp. 76.
7
See, e.g., Talstra, ‘Wat heet vertellen? Abraham, grammatika en geloven’, in
T. Baarda et al. (eds.), Segmenten. Studies op het gebied van de theologie (Amsterdam,
1981), 1–34.
8
Talstra, ‘De voorsprong van het woord’; idem, ‘Hebrew Syntax: Clause Types and
Clause Hierarchy’, in K. Jongeling, H.L. Murre-van den Berg, and L. Van Rompay
(eds.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Sytnax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the
Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (SSLL 17; Leiden 1991), 180–193.
4 wido van peursen and janet dyk

Tradition: The Hebrew Bible as a Linguistic Corpus and as a Literary

Composition’, which started in 2010.
To do justice to the various processes of tradition and innovation
mentioned above, we have divided this volume into three parts, one
dealing with inner-biblical evidence for these processes, one devoted
to their role in the reception history of the Bible, and one focusing on
computational and linguistics approaches.

Part One, ‘Tradition and Innovation in the Bible Itself ’, deals with
the ways in which tradition, reception, and innovation have shaped
the books of the Bible. Various contributors refer to Eep’s metaphor
of the Bible as an historical edifice which is still inhabitable, though
marked by ages of habitation and (re)construction.9 Traces of this use
and reuse sometimes can be detected within a single book of the Bible
through source criticism or redactional criticism; in other cases one
book reflects the adaptation and appropriation of another.
Part One opens with three studies on the literary growth and the use
and reuse of traditions in Jeremiah. With reference to Eep’s position
in the above-mentioned synchrony-diachrony debate, Joep Dubbink
(‘A Story of Three Prophets: Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of
Jeremiah 26’) argues that the most fruitful approach to Jeremiah is to
take the text as it is, to do all possible synchronic analysis, and then
to add a diachronic dimension to deal with the remaining puzzles.
Dubbink investigates the literary growth and composition of Jeremiah 26
and the way in which this chapter elaborates the story of the Temple
Sermon in Jeremiah 7. The three prophets referred to in the title of his
contribution are Jeremiah, Micah (cf. Jer 26:17–19), and Uriah.
Janneke Stegeman (‘ “Reading Jeremiah Makes Me Angry!” The Role
of Jeremiah 32[39]:36–41 in Transformation within the “Jeremianic”
Tradition’) discussses how the story of Jeremiah’s buying a field has
been continually reshaped and reinterpreted by new groups, a pro-
cess refleted in the various textual layers of the Hebrew text, in the
Septuagint, and up through current appropriations of this story in the
contemporary Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Stegeman proposes looking

9
Cf. most recently: Eep Talstra, ‘In the Beginning, when Making Copies used
to be an Art . . . The Bible among Poets and Engineers’, in W.Th. van Peursen,
E.D. Thoutenhoofd and A.H. van der Weel, Text Comparison and Digital Creativity:
The Production of Presence and Meaning in Digital Text Scholarship (Scholarly Com-
munication 1; Leiden, 2010), 31–56.
 introduction 5

at the Jeremianic tradition as a form of collective memory, in which

a social group expresses its identity by continually reconstructing
its own history from a current ideological stance in interaction with
tradition.
Eric Peels (‘ “Against you, Daughter of Babylon!” A Remarkable
Example of Text-Reception in the Oracle of Jeremiah 50–51’) focuses
on the reuse of Jer 6:22–24 in Jer 50:41–43. The addressees of these
oracles of judgement differ: in chapter 6 it is Judah who will be perse-
cuted by the Babylonians, while in chapter 50 it is the Babylonians who
are the object of judgement. This reversal contributes to the dynamic
of the book of Jeremiah by turning a message of doom (destruction by
the Babylonians) into a message of hope (doom to the destroyers).
The book of Psalms, to which two contributions in the present vol-
ume are devoted, also manifests traces of such processes of tradition
and reception. At first sight the various chapters in the book of Psalms
seem to be more independent than those in, for example, Jeremiah.
However, here, too, individual psalms receive new purpose and func-
tion when placed within the context of the book as a whole. Carl J.
Bosma (‘Beyond “Singers and Syntax”: Theological and Canonical
Reflections on Psalm 8’) argues that the unique canonical placement
of Psalm 8 in the centre of Psalms 3–14 (the first collection after the
introduction to the Psalter as a whole in Psalms 1–2) is a clue to its
theological significance.
Eveline van Staalduine–Sulman (‘Where is God? Romans 3:13–18 as
an Addition to Psalm 14’) discusses the text and reception of Psalm 14
and shows how Psalm 53, which is almost identical to it, solves some
of the problems inherent in Psalm 14 by harmonization and historiza-
tion. She further shows how the Septuagint adds eight lines to Psalm
14 which seem to originate from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and
reflect another stage in its reception history.
Two other contributions deal with examples of how one biblical book
is a reception of or a response to other books of the Bible. Timothy
Walton (‘Reading Qohelet as Text, Author, and Reader’) presents
Qohelet as a reader of Israelite Wisdom literature and the Solomon nar-
ratives. Louis Jonker (‘Tradition through Reading—Reading the Tradi-
tion: Reflections on Eep Talstra’s Exegetical Methodology’) argues that
an approach that relates ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ reciprocally is of great
value in highlighting the character of the type of literature found in
Chronicles as ‘reforming history’. He illustrates his argument that ‘the
Chronicler’s adaptation of the Deuteronomistic tradition bears witness
6 wido van peursen and janet dyk

to the fact that new readers in changed circumstances re-appropriated

the older traditions for the need of their own time’ by an analysis
of the story of Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33).

The processes of tradition and innovation continued beyond the com-

position of the biblical books into the interpretation and reception
of the biblical text in religious traditions. Part Two, ‘Tradition and
Innovation in the Reception of the Bible’, addresses this reception his-
tory, which was already touched upon in some of the contributions to
Part One, especially in Stegeman’s discussion of the appropriation of
Jeremiah 32 in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Various moments in the
history of interpretation at diverse times, places, and traditions come
to the fore in this part of the volume.
Cornelis Houtman (‘Between Stigmatizing and Idolizing the Bible:
On the Reception of Genesis 12:10–20; 20; 26:1–11’) investigates the
ways in which the three narratives from Genesis in which a patriarch
passes off his wife as his sister have been received by some freethink-
ers and by certain proponents of devout exegesis in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. Referring to Eep’s metaphor of the Bible as
an historical edifice (see above), he argues that the freethinkers open
our eyes to the strangeness of these stories, which results from the
complex ‘construction history’ in which ‘folkloristic building materi-
als’ have been used in a larger structure, whereas the devout exegetes
take care that the building remains inhabitable, even if this requires
serious reconstruction and modernization.
Gert Kwakkel (‘ “Out of Egypt I Have Called My Son”: Matthew
2:15 and Hosea 11:1 in Dutch and American Evangelical Interpreta-
tion’) describes how evangelical interpreters from the Netherlands
and the United States have dealt with the way in which Matthew con-
nects Hos 11:1 with Jesus’ stay in Egypt, though this diverges from the
meaning of this verse in its own context. While acknowledging the
historical-grammatical analysis as an indispensable tool to discover the
author’s original intention, he argues that the meaning of a text may go
beyond that.
Wido van Peursen (‘Daniel’s Four Kingdoms in the Syriac Tradi-
tion’) takes an example from another tradition: he shows how the four
kingdoms in Daniel’s visions have been interpreted and reinterpreted
in Syriac literature and how Syriac authors attempted to come to terms
with current events on the basis of Daniel’s visions. At the end of the
seventh century, a major break with the Christian exegetical tradition
 introduction 7

came about when the fourth kingdom was identified with the Arabs
rather than with the Greeks or the Romans.
The reception of the Bible by systematic theologians presents
another aspect of the theme in Part Two. There seems to be tension
between the systematic character of this field of theology and the nar-
rative and poetic character of its main source of reflection, the Bible.
Cornelis van der Kooi (‘The Identity of Israel’s God: The Potential
of the So-called Extra-Calvinisticum’) addresses the question of how
systematic theology can do justice to the biblical drama of God’s fel-
lowship with mankind. Van der Kooi argues that the so-called extra-
calvinisticum, a concept that distinguishes between the manifestations
of God’s involvement in human history and God as the origin of such
involvement, can help to do justice to the redemptive, historical, and
dramatic perspective of the biblical narrative.
In spite of their variety of contexts, presuppositions, and methods,
the various forms of reception discussed in these articles, have in com-
mon that they deal with the interpretation of the text. In one way or
another, each of these cases reflects a hermeneutical activity by the scribe,
the commentator, or the systematic theologian. Margaretha Folmer
(‘A Jewish Childbirth Amulet from the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana’)
draws our attention to a completely different use of biblical verses,
namely, their application as magic formula. It is interesting to note
that also in this type of reception, tradition plays a role and determines
to a large extent the biblical phrases used and the way they are orga-
nized. The fact that most of the biblical texts quoted in the amulet are
also used in the Jewish prayer before sleep shows, according to Folmer,
‘how the language of prayer and spell is intertwined by drawing from
the same group of powerful and effective biblical texts’.

Part Three, ‘Tradition and Innovation in Linguistic and Computa-

tional Approaches to the Bible’, starts with three contributions focus-
ing on the use of the computer as an instrument for analysing, storing,
and teaching the Bible. Emanuel Tov (‘Computer-Assisted Tools for
Textual Criticism’) presents a survey of the various available modules,
categories of information, and predetermined information included
in computer databases and programs. Tov discusses the human fac-
tor in the production and use of these tools, and shows how even in
such a seemingly purely mechanical process as the counting of plene
and defective spellings human decisions and choices play an impor-
tant role.
8 wido van peursen and janet dyk

The next two contributions deal with the database of the text of the
Hebrew Bible developed by Eep and his research group, the Werkgroep
Informatica Vrije Universiteit (WIVU). Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen (‘On
Biblical Hebrew and Computer Science: Inspiration, Models, Tools,
and Cross-Fertilization’) demonstrates that Eep’s computer-assisted
approach to the Bible has influenced not only biblical studies, but also
scholars working in the field of computer science. The WIVU database
provided the basis for the development of the MdF database model
and the QL query language and their descendents, the EmdF database
model and the MQL query language. Nicolai Winther-Nielsen (‘Per-
suasive Hebrew Exercises: The Wit of Technology-Enhanced Language
Learning) gives a presentation of the Ezer Emdros-based Exercise Tool
(3ET) and its predecessors, in which the WIVU database is used for
corpus-based language learning.
Innovative linguistic approaches to the Bible are the subject of three
contributions dealing with morphosyntax, clause syntax, and text syn-
tax and their contribution to biblical exegesis. Timothy Walton’s con-
tribution, included in Part One, investigates the text-linguistic signals
in Qoheleth to determine the cohesion of the book of Qoheleth.
Klaas Spronk (‘Judging Jephthah: The Contribution of Syntactic
Analysis to The Interpretation of Judges 11:29–40’) deals with the
morally problematic story of Jephthah. Focusing on structuring syn-
tactic elements in the text, such as clearly signaled pivots and the refer-
ence to participants, he concludes that the text of Judges 11 indicates
that in the confrontation with his daughter and with the Ephraimites
Jephthah is losing control.
The interaction of text-syntactic features, morphosyntax, and unit
delimitation is highlighted in Luis Vegas Montaner’s contribution
dealing with the Psalms (‘Masoretic Tradition and Syntactic Analysis
of the Psalms’). Vegas Montaner discusses some of the uses of yiqtol
in relation to other finite verbal forms, taking into account aspects
such as word order and masoretic accentuation. He argues that the
sequence qatal—wayyiqtol reflects either simultaneous or consecutive
action, depending on whether the two clauses are separated by a major
disjunctive accent or not.
Two contributions deal with participant reference and identification
throughout the text. Oliver Glanz (‘Who is Speaking—Who is Listen-
ing? How Information Technology Can Confirm the Integrity of the
Text’) discusses participant-reference shifts in Jeremiah. Since there
are more than 600 of such shifts attested in the book of Jeremiah, a
 introduction 9

computer-assisted systematic analysis of all its occurrences is practi-

cally a prerequisite to grasp the various literary and rhetorical factors
that cause these shifts. Glanz observes both rhetorical effects of partic-
ipant-reference shifts, such as increasing or decreasing the distance to
participants, and effects on the discourse structure, such as marking
discourse shift or modification.
Reinoud Oosting (‘Jerusalem’s Comforters in Isaiah 40:1–2: Partici-
pant Tracking in a Prophetic Text’) shows how the question as to the
identity of the anonymous addressees in Isa 40:1–2 can be answered
if the larger context of Isaiah 40–55 is taken into account. In his view
the strong connections between Isa 40:1–2 and 50:1–3 show that the
addressees in 40:1–2 are best identified as the children of Jerusalem.
Four other contributions deal with the function and meaning of par-
ticular lexemes. In each of them the lexicographic questions are related
to other fields such as text-syntax or exegesis. Frank Polak (‘Hebrew
hāyāh: Etymology, Bleaching, and Discourse Structure’) argues that it
is preferable to analyse the locative/existential use of the verb hāyāh
in accordance with the insights of cognitive linguistics, as a bleached
metaphor (Abblassung): ‘to fall’ > ‘to occur’ > ‘to be’. This accounts,
among others, for those cases where hāyāh interchanges with verbs of
motion.
Christo H.J. van der Merwe discusses the particle ‫ ָס ִביב‬, ‘surround-
ing’. Whereas the semantics of this word is rather straightforward,
there is no scholarly consensus regarding its grammatical analysis.
Based on the ‘constructions of use’ of ‫ ָס ִביב‬, he postulates besides its
substantive, prepositional, and adverbial use a fourth category, namely,
its adnominal use.
Lénart J. de Regt (‘Language, Structure, and Strategy in Isaiah 53:1–6:
‫ ָא ֵכן‬, Word Order, and the Translator’) discusses various aspects of
the language and structure of Isa 53:1–6 in order to arrive at a pro-
posal for the interpretation and translation of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬. He argues that in
the syntactic structure of Isa 53:4 the element immediately following
this particle, ‫‘ ֳח ָליֵ נּו‬our afflictions’, is the Focus, and that, therefore, a
translation that implies that it is the Topic and that the following ‫הּוא‬,
‘he’, is the Focus, for example, ‘it was he who bore our affliction’, is
incorrect.
Constantijn J. Sikkel focuses on ‫ ָא ִבי‬in Job 34:36. In his 1876 com-
mentary on Job, Franz Delitzsch’s had suggested to take it as a wish
particle. The dominance of this interpretation in dictionaries and
other reference works since then, with or without explicit reference to
10 wido van peursen and janet dyk

Delitzsch, shows how biblical scholarship has its own ‘tradition’. Sikkel
confronts this scholarly tradition with the results of a computer-assisted
corpus analysis and concludes that ‫ ָא ִבי‬should rather be interpreted as
a religious title or an honorific, ‘my father’.
 part one

tradition and innovation in the bible itself

 a storY of three prophets:
sYnChroniC and diaChroniC analYsis
of JereMiah 26

Joep dubbink

Within old testament scholarship there had been a long debate between
the advocates of a synchronic approach and those of a diachronic approach.
diachronic approaches, known as a variety of Geschichte, predominated the
field for a long time. in recent years, more attention has been given to syn-
chronic approaches, and gradually the assumption that this method is naive
and unscholarly has paled. at the height of the debate, often with religious
zeal, each method claimed exclusive right to the explanation of the hebrew
bible, without allowing for the validity of the other approach even in the most
obvious cases. for this reason, the debate has often been tedious and unfruit-
ful for actual exegetical work.
eep talstra offers a simple and convincing solution to this dilemma: take
the text as it is, do all possible synchronic analysis, and then add a diachronic
dimension to deal with whatever problems remain.1 in this article i apply this
double method to Jeremiah 26 and hope to show that using it is far more
fruitful than laboriously working with only one of the two approaches. in this
way, a new perspective on Jeremiah 26 emerges.

1 a first Glance

Jeremiah 26 is the opening chapter of Jeremiah 26–45, the extensive

prose sections that offer a third person account of the work of the
prophet Jeremiah—formerly called the ‘baruchschrift’, more recently
the ‘second book of Jeremiah’.2 in particular, Jeremiah 26 describes

1
eep talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van
het Oude Testament (ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002), pp. 97–117, esp. 115: ‘Compositie
gaat vóór de reconstructie van de tekst’ (‘composition has priority over the reconstruc-
tion of the text’). talstra offers an important theological argumentation for this double
approach, which unfortunately cannot be treated here.
2
ernest Wilson nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition
in the Book of Jeremiah (oxford, 1970), p. 137, regards the Jeremiah prose as a ‘second
stage in the formation of the Jeremiah tradition’; likewise Kathleen M. o’Connor, ‘ “do
not trim a Word”: The Contributions of Chapter 26 to the book of Jeremiah’, CBQ
51 (1989), pp. 617–630, esp. 617; else Kragelund holt, ‘Jeremiah’s temple sermon
14 joep dubbink

the reactions to a speech or sermon the prophet delivers in the temple

precinct.3 The speech, found in vv. 4–6, appears to be a short version
of the so-called temple sermon (Jer 7:1–15). a resemblance between
the two texts is to be expected since they share a number of words
and expressions (see below), in particular a reference to the former
sanctuary in shiloh (Jer 26:6; 7:12–15). The remark of else Kragelund
holt, however, ‘[t]hat these two chapters recount the same event in
the life of the prophet Jeremiah is a fact that is universally accepted
among old testament scholars’, is too optimistic, as the character of
the resemblance is disputed. as Kathleen o’Connor puts it, ‘[the exe-
gete] may appeal to the existence of two independent traditions aris-
ing from the same event, propose literary dependence of one account
upon the other, or posit the occurrence of two different events’.4 even
the term ‘event’ is not undisputed, and the choice between the alter-
natives depends largely on one’s opinion on the historical character
of this ‘biography’, while positions vary strongly between the com-
mentators.5 if we take the relation between both texts to be literary,
the question remains which text is dependent on the other, or whether
both are dependent on an older source, now lost.

and the deuteronomists: an investigation of the redactional relationship between

Jeremiah 7 and 26’, JSOT 36 (1986), pp. 73–87, esp. 73.
3
an overview of the classic positions regarding the chapter can be found in f.l.
hossfeld and i. Meyer, ‘der prophet vor dem tribunal’, ZAW 86 (1974), pp. 30–50,
esp. 30–31. The questions raised by the narrative are summarized by Klaas a.d.
smelik, ‘Jeremia 26 als literarische Komposition’, DBAT 26 (1989–1990), pp. 102–124,
esp. 102.
4
o’Connor, ‘ “do not trim a Word” ’, p. 620.
5
William l. holladay, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 2.
Chapters 26–52 (hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1989), p. 103, is most outspoken in dating
the event: ‘. . . most likely at the feast of booths in september/october 609’. on the
opposite side we find robert p. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (sCM press, old
testament library; london, 1986), p. 515, who sees a number of redactional layers
that have completely obscured the meaning of the text. in general Carroll does not
accept the historicity of any event told in the book: ‘. . . the only Jeremiah we have is
the textual or literary Jeremiah’ (robert p. Carroll, ‘radical Clashes of Will and style:
recent Commentary Writing on the book of Jeremiah’, JSOT 45 [1989], pp. 99–114,
esp. 102). behind this clash of opinions lies a more fundamental issue: is the prose of
Jeremiah to be attributed to the historical prophet, or is it mainly the work of one or
more deuteronomistic redactors? The classical debate on this issue between Winfried
Thiel and helga Weippert in the 1980s ended, as far as i can see, with most com-
mentators deciding in favour of Thiel. in my opinion a more precise distinction is
necessary between deuteronomistic language—which is to be found everywhere in the
book of Jeremiah—and deuteronomistic theologies, of which there seem to be more
than one. This issue is, however, beyond the scope of this article.
 a story of three prophets 15

besides these introductory questions, the story confronts us with a

number of issues regarding the narrative structure of the story:

• Jeremiah’s sermon in vv. 4–6 offers a conditional prophecy of doom,

which is rather unusual in classical prophecy. When the listeners
give their version of what they heard, they leave out this conditional
aspect. in their summary of Jeremiah’s preaching in v. 9, they accuse
the prophet of having uttered an unconditional prophecy of doom.
• In v. 9, the people are radically opposed to Jeremiah, while later on
they seem to be neutral or even positive (vv. 11, 16).
• In Jeremiah’s own words in v. 13, the conditional aspect returns.
is literary-historical analysis needed here, or can rhetorical analy-
sis arrive at a convincing explanation for this apparent tension in
the text?
• In vv. 17–19 a verse from the book of Micah is quoted by the elders
in support of Jeremiah’s position. This quotation, however, is placed
after the verdict ‘not guilty’ has been delivered (v. 16). The same
question arises: can this order of verses be explained from the com-
position of the text, or do we see here the remnants of a redaction
process?
• What is the connection between vv. 20–23—the story of the prophet
Uriah being arrested and executed—and the rest of the chapter? is
there a connection at all, apart from the theme of the opposition a
prophet encounters when uttering words that are unfavourable to
the authorities?
• Finally, what is the intention of the story, and who is the implied
audience? Many solutions have been proposed: it is simply a report
of a crucial event at the beginning of Jeremiah’s career;6 it serves to
legitimate Jeremiah as a prophet;7 it is an admonition to the Judeans
in exile to be obedient to the torah, their only hope for the future;8
it is a meditation about God who is always willing to suspend his
decision to punish the people when they repent.9

6
holladay, Jeremiah 2, p. 110.
7
see, e.g., Gunther Wanke, Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift (bZaW
122; berlin, 1971), p. 80; holt, ‘Jeremiah’s temple sermon’, p. 82.
8
nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, p. 133; holt, ‘Jeremiah’s temple sermon’,
p. 85.
9
Georg fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (hthK; freiburg etc., 2005), p. 41.
16 joep dubbink

2 Jeremiah 26 step by step

2.1 The Setting (Jer 26:1–3)
The story is dated at the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim
(609–597 bce). While the dating is more recent than that of Jeremiah 7,
the location is virtually identical. The expression ‘(you) that enter these
gates to worship Yhwh’ links both passages closely,10 a link the reader
of the Masoretic text cannot overlook.
The Masoretic text, however, offers neither the only nor the earliest
form of this story, and for the reader of other versions the reference
is much less clear. Most of Jer 7:1–2 is not found in the septuagint,
which is to be regarded as a witness to a textual tradition rather differ-
ent from the one the Masoretic text represents.11 instead of these two
verses, the septuagint only has: ‘hear the word of Yhwh, all Judah’.
apparently the sermon itself predates the current historical framing.

10
This only occurs twice apart from Jer 7:2 and 26:2, according to the Stuttgarter
Elektronische Studienbibel (SESB) 3.0 (stuttgart, 2009), used for all searches in this
article. of the other citations, ezek 46:9 also refers to the temple, 2 sam 15:32 to a
different place of worship.
11
The matter of the two editions of the book of Jeremiah seemed to be settled by
the work of, amongst others, emanuel tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
(Minneapolis–Maastricht, 1992), pp. 319–321. The theory that the lXX is a witness
to an older hebrew text has been widely acknowledged. There is no other satisfying
explanation for the fact that the lXX is about 1/6 shorter than the Mt. Janzen long
ago concluded that the hypothesis of abridgment by the lXX translators ‘ought to be
abandoned once and for all’ (J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the text of Jeremiah [hsM 6;
Cambridge, Mass., 1973], pp. 114–115). recently, however, this view has been chal-
lenged by fischer, who argues that the lXX is ‘eine stark verändernde Übersetzung’
(a strongly invasive translation), and rejects the possibility that the lXX is based on a
different hebrew text: Georg fischer, ‘die diskussion um den Jeremiatext’, in Martin
Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus (eds.), Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten
(WUnt 219; tübingen, 2008), pp. 612–629, esp. 615, 620 (quotation). in my opin-
ion, his argumentation does not take into account the fact that two of the Qumran
manuscripts (4QJerb and 4QJerd; cf. tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 178, 225–227; ernst
Würthwein, Der Text des alten Testaments [stuttgart, 1973], pp. 54–55) support lXX
readings. although my observations fit in with the lXX version as the ‘first edition’,
it is perhaps better to stay on the safe side and follow the extensive research of shead.
he confirms that there must have been two different hebrew textual traditions, the
lXXv (the hebrew Vorlage of the lXX) and the Mt, but refuses to choose which
text is older: ‘. . . each recension adds secondary readings to a common text base. . . .
lXXv has revised this text less extensively than M. There is no saying on textual
grounds which text came first’ (andrew G. shead, The Open Book and the Sealed
Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions [sheffield 2002], esp. 255–263
[quotation from p. 260]).
 a story of three prophets 17

This does not have to mean that Jer 7:1–15 originally was not related
to the temple. in fact, it probably was, if only for the famous words in
7:4: ‘The temple of Yhwh, the temple of Yhwh, the temple of Yhwh
are these!’12 This sentence quite clearly identifies the setting as being
in the temple, where the prophet points to the buildings around him.
his prophecy is closely related to psalm 15 and ps 24:3–6, both to
be identified as ‘songs of entrance’, sung to the pilgrims entering the
temple to warn them concerning their moral conduct. The prophet,
or rather the prophetic writer, varies the theme of these songs, radi-
calizes the demands made of the pilgrims, and transforms them into
an accusation to the people as a whole. Just as the psalms without a
frame still have a recognizable Sitz im Leben, so does the prophecy in
Jer 7:3–15. however, in a more narrative setting, the ‘staging’, includ-
ing direct references to the temple, was added, as we now find it in
the Masoretic text.
in Jer 26:2 the prophet receives the instruction not to omit a word.
The word ‫גרע‬, ‘cut off, trim’, is used as almost a technical term for
leaving out parts of the word of Yhwh. both other occurrences of
the combination of ‫ גרע‬and ‫ דבר‬in the hebrew bible are found in
deuteronomy, and it is important to note that in both texts, not taking
away anything from the words of God (or adding anything to them) is
a condition for living in the promised land.13
Many commentators observe that the opening verses of the chapter
closely resemble the opening verses of Jeremiah 36. both chapters have
the same theme: the reaction of the hearers, and more specifically of
the king, to prophetic criticism. The third verses of both chapters are
almost identical. The poignant ‫אולי‬, ‘perhaps’, gives voice to the divine
hope that the words of the prophets will receive due attention.

12
The lXX has ναός κυρίου only twice, but this does not imply anything concern-
ing the hebrew original of the lXX: it is quite possible that a triple repetition, rare
even in hebrew, was simply too much for a Greek translator.
13
deut 4:2, cf. v. 1, ‘when you enter the land’; deut 13:1 (transl. 12:32), cf. 12:30–32
(transl. 12:29–31): israel is admonished to listen to the unabridged commandments
of God, lest they should be expelled from the land like the foreign people who were
removed from the land before them.
18 joep dubbink

2.2 The Sermon (Jer 26:4–6)

The sermon Jeremiah delivers in this chapter is much shorter than
the version in Jeremiah 7. The content is quite straightforward. The
speech consists of a single complex sentence, ranging over three verses14
(words in italics have parallels in Jeremiah 7):
4 . . . if you do not listen to me 7:5; 7:13
and walk according to the law i gave you [negative: 7:9, 12]
5 and do not listen to the words [negative: 7:4, 8]
of my servants the prophets
that i sent to you, early and late 7:13
without you listening to them—
6 then i will make this house similar to Shiloh 7:12, 14
and this city i will make into a curse
for all peoples of the earth.
While the occurrence of shiloh and some specific expressions like
‫השכם ושלח‬, ‘rising early and sending (diligently, persistently)’, can
hardly be accidental, the actual number of words in common is sur-
prisingly low. it is clear that Jer 26:4–6 covers only a part of 7:1–15.
essential to the shared part is the conditional message, which is for-
mulated negatively in Jeremiah 26, whereas Jeremiah 7 offers a posi-
tive version: ‘if you [do justice, etc.] i will let you dwell in this place
forever and ever’ (7:5–7). but Jer 7:1–15 also discusses the matter of
false trust in the temple, with the keyword ‫שקר‬, ‘lie’ (7:4, 8, 9), and
the verb ‫בטח‬, ‘to trust’ (7:4, 8, 14). rather surprisingly, the example
of shiloh in Jeremiah 26 is used in Jeremiah 7 for a completely differ-
ent purpose.
some commentators suppose that the version of the sermon in chap-
ter 26 is the original one, mainly because it is shorter. redactors tend
more often to expand their material than to abridge it.15 in this case,

14
fischer, Jeremia 26–52, p. 26. rather rare in biblical hebrew, but cf. Jer 7:5–7,
7:9–10.
15
on the other hand, some commentators explicitly try to save Jer 7:1–15 for the
historical prophet, so they have to regard it as the primary source: a. van selms,
Jeremia 2 (de prediking van het oude testament; nijkerk, 1974), p. 29: Jeremiah dic-
tated a prose version of his sermon to baruch (7:1–15), while baruch wrote Jeremiah
26 himself; William l. holladay, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah
1. Chapters 1–25 (hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1986), pp. 239–240; helga Weippert, Die
Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (bZaW 132; berlin, 1973), pp. 29–30. holt, ‘Jeremiah’s
temple sermon’, p. 77, calls Jeremiah 26 ‘an abbreviated summary of the oracle which
exists in its complete form in ch. 7’, but at the same time regards them as ‘two mutu-
ally independent versions’.
 a story of three prophets 19

however, there are various reasons to assume a different relationship

between the two. Jeremiah 7, as shown above, has a history of its own.
not only is the setting in 7:1–2 a later addition, but vv. 12–15, about
the destruction of the sanctuary in shiloh, are also disputed because
they have a rather loose connection to the first part of the sermon.
even William holladay, who attributes the entire sermon Jer 7:1–15
to the historical prophet, regards 7:12–15 as a later addition.16 in
Jeremiah 7 these verses constitute an extra, repeated warning to those
who fear no harm will come to Jerusalem because of the presence of
the temple, a theme already present in 7:1–11. This theme is, however,
apparently not the main issue in Jeremiah 26. The fate of shiloh forms
the core of the shorter version of the sermon in Jer 26:4–6: if you go
on like you are doing, then temple and city will be destroyed like what
happened to shiloh. if Jeremiah 7 were an elaboration of Jer 26:4–6,
it is hard to explain how this fits in with the later addition of 7:12–15,
when that is the core of Jeremiah’s speech in 26.
another procedure is more likely. Jeremiah 26 can be regarded as
a midrash,17 answering the obvious questions the story evokes: where
and when did the prophet utter this speech, and how did the hearers
react? The addition of 7:1–2a in the Masoretic text answers the ques-
tion ‘where’, and Jeremiah 26 fills in the hearers’ reaction.

2.3 The First Reaction (Jer 26:7–9)

The words of the prophet are greeted with massive opposition. v.
7 focuses on the combination of hearing and speaking, and mentions
again the setting: ‘in the house of Yhwh’. v. 8 reminds us that Jeremiah’s
words were not his own, but spoken in obedience to the command-
ment of Yhwh. in the second half of that verse the counterreaction
begins: Jeremiah is seized by all those present in the temple. Three
groups are mentioned: the priests, the prophets and ‫כל־העם‬, ‘all the
people’. The first two, the ‘religious professionals’, form an undistin-
guishable group throughout the story.18 for the moment, the people

16
holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 240: 7:1–12 was, in his opinion, part of the ‘first scroll’
(Jer 36:2–4), while 13–15 was added when Jeremiah dictated the ‘second scroll’ to
baruch (Jer 36:32).
17
o’Connor, ‘do not trim a Word’, p. 618: ‘midrashic elaboration’.
18
The expression ‘prophets and priests’ is typical of Jeremiah’s prose: eight out of
eleven occurrences, and one in Jeremiah’s poetry (2:26).
20 joep dubbink

join this group and there seems to be unanimous opposition to

Jeremiah. The situation can be graphically shown like this:

priests
prophets seize, ‘you must die’ Jeremiah
 
all the people

The misquotation of Jeremiah’s sermon was mentioned above. some

commentators presume that for this reason v. 9 (together with v. 11,
where unconditional doom is implied as well ) belongs to another
source than vv. 4–6 and 13; they consist of an ‘alternativ-predigt’ so
typical to the Jeremiah prose (e.g., Jer 18:7–10). in this way Carolyn
sharp perceives two ‘strands’ within this chapter: a tradition with a
‘full-doom view’ and one with a conditional perspective. she attempts
to divide the text into these strands, and proposes an implied audience
for both versions, to which i will return later.19
as always, this kind of literary analysis has one major problem: it
supposes a redactor of the book who combined both strands into one
story without bothering to retouch the differences. The implication is
that this redactor, although much closer to the situation of the text
than we are, did not care about the inconsistencies we perceive in the
final text. sharp is aware of this problem and addresses it in this way:
‘it appears that . . . variant traditionists’ perspectives have been allowed
to stand side by side, in varying degrees of tension, in the final form
of the text’.20 This remark may be true in certain cases, but it is hardly
enough to explain that within a few generations first a writer, or group
of writers, goes through the trouble of completely rephrasing the story
for a specific purpose, while shortly afterwards another writer, or
group of writers, decides that both versions are compatible enough to
be combined into one text. a synchronic solution seems more appro-
priate here.

19
Carolyn J. sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in
the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose (london, 2003), pp. 54–62. her attempt is apparently
not the first: Gunther Wanke, Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift (bZaW
122; berlin, 1971), pp. 82–91, describes a division into two ‘Quellen’ by f. horst, ‘die
anfänge des propheten Jeremia’, ZAW 41 (1923), pp. 94–153. neither Wanke nor
horst are quoted by sharp.
20
sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, p. 61.
 a story of three prophets 21

2.4 The Trial (Jer 26:10–16)

in v. 10, a new episode is marked by the arrival of new players on stage:
the ‫שרים‬, princes or officials.21 While already in v. 8 priests, prophets,
and the people used a technical term from apodictic law, ‫מות תמות‬,
‘you shall surely be put to death’, the setting is now far more formal.
The scene is one of the rare examples of a fairly complete judicial trial
found in the hebrew bible, and forms the climax of the story.
in my opinion, the narrator stresses the different positions these offi-
cials take. While some commentators dwell on questions like whether
the uproar in the temple could be heard in the palace, this seems
hardly relevant compared to the theo-political implications: by letting
the officials descend directly from palace to temple, from ‘the house of
the king’ to ‘the house of God’, both ‘houses’ are placed in opposition
to one another. of course, we should not assume anything close to
the modern separation of religion and state, but it is remarkable that
there is, at least in these verses, a different approach. together with the
people, the religious leaders scream: ‘death!’, while the officials remain
silent: they merely set themselves down in the gate, which functions as
a courtroom.22 a fair trial is expected, although in the end this turns
out to be only a theoretical possibility.
The trial begins with an accusation. The priest and prophets, who in
v. 8 formed one group together with the people, now direct themselves
to the officials and to the people. With a subtle technique, the narra-
tor demonstrates how the people have shifted to a ‘neutral’ position.
together with the officials they form a kind of jury that is ready to
hear both parties.23

priests officials
speak to speak to Jeremiah
prophets the people

21
Throughout the whole story, new players keep coming onto the stage, cf. smelik,
‘Jeremia 26 als literarische Komposition’, p. 106.
22
Cf. HALOT s.v. ‫שער‬, 4.c. examples: isa 29:21; amos 5:10, 12, 15; ruth 4:1, 10, etc.
23
o’Connor, ‘do not trim a Word’, p. 622, may be right when she supposes that
the narrator considers the priests and prophets beyond a possible conversion, so there
is no need for Jeremiah to address them. on the other hand, directing his defence only
to the officials and the people is already given by the court setting.
22 joep dubbink

The indictment in v. 11 is formulated concisely. in fact, no evidence

or argument is presented. in a court situation, a short speech usually
signifies a confident party: the matter is self-evident, no argumentation
is needed.24 The simple fact that words of doom are spoken against the
city is enough for a ‫משפט מות‬, ‘a death warrant’.
Jeremiah’s defence, on the other hand, is extensive and clever, and
the importance of this speech is stressed by the setumot surrounding
it. in the first place, he confronts judges and jury with his commission
from Yhwh himself, and repeats his prophecy (v. 13). The repetition
of the prophecy is not without significance: by doing so he confirms
that he is a real prophet. Who could have doubts about a prophet who
sticks to his message, even when in grave danger during a capital trial?
in the meantime, Jeremiah has the opportunity to correct the way his
opponents summarized his words. he does not make the misquota-
tion—leaving out the conditional aspect—into an explicit theme, but
corrects it without further comment. in this way he fulfills the com-
mand of Yhwh ‘not to hold back a word’ (v. 2).25 The implication
is, of course, that there cannot be anything wrong with a conditional
message of doom: the prophet is not an opponent of the temple and
the city, on the contrary, he tries to save them!
in v. 14, Jeremiah seems to submit to the judges and the jury: ‘i’m in
your hands, do with me as seems good and right to you.’ The expres-
sion may be a formula for closing a plea,26 but note that Jeremiah’s
speech does not end here: the sting is in the tail. before ending as he
started, by stipulating his commission by Yhwh, the prophet adds a
final remark, introduced with an emphatic ‫אך‬, ‘ but’. The consequences
of a ‘guilty’ verdict will be serious, because Jeremiah is innocent. The
expression ‫דם נקי‬, ‘innocent blood’, is also found in Jer 7:6, where it
forms the climax of a series of transgressions committed against fellow
human beings, only surpassed in gravity by idolatry.27 in Jeremiah 7

24
to understand the intricacies of this part of the narrative, some acquaintance
with tv courtroom dramas is helpful.
25
surprisingly, o’Connor, in spite of her scrutinous reading of the text, paying
much attention to this command (it is even in the title of her article), does not seem to
notice that the conditional aspect of the prophecy is left out by Jeremiah’s opponents
and reinserted by the prophet. o’Connor, ‘do not trim a Word’, p. 622.
26
fischer, Jeremia 26–52, p. 31, sees a direct quote from Josh 9:25, where the
Gibeonites ask Joshua for mercy with the very same words.
27
This supports the order Jeremiah 7 → Jeremiah 26; the author seems to expect
that his readers are familiar with the temple sermon in Jeremiah 7.
 a story of three prophets 23

putting an end to all these transgressions is an absolute requirement for

saving the city and the temple. so the trial seems to be a matter of life
and death for Jeremiah, but in this final statement he turns the tables
on his opponents: their lives or at least their future are at stake!
immediately after Jeremiah’s closing statement, the officials and the
jury give what seems to be their verdict. for the unsuspecting reader,
the trial apparently ends here: the ‫אין־לאיש הזה משפט־מות‬, ‘no death
sentence for this man’, echoes the same expression the priests and
prophets used in their indictment in v. 11. The matter seems settled,
and the position of the people has changed again, this time together
with that of the officials:

officials priests
the people deciding in favour of Jeremiah prophets

We observe that Jeremiah is taken out of the equation: he is no longer

speaking or spoken to. his role as an active player in this chapter is
finished; he is now just the recipient of a verdict: ‘not guilty’. some
commentators are bothered by the apparent inconsistency of the peo-
ple’s changing sides during the process.28 rather than being left with a
problem that has to be solved, for example, by splitting up the text, we
are faced here with one of the important purposes of the story: show-
ing how easily reactions to prophecy can vary, even among the same
group: here ‫כל־העם‬, ‘all the people’.

3 provisional Conclusions

The story could have ended with v. 16, which would then be regarded
as a ‘not guilty’ verdict. in fact, that would have made things much
easier for the exegete, for Jer 26:1–16 can be understood as a unity. i
can see no reason so far to divide the story into different ‘strands’, a
conditional and an unconditional one. doing so would mean tearing
apart a perfectly understandable story. The fact that the conditional
aspect is left out by Jeremiah’s opponents is a matter of storytelling: it

28
sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, p. 56.
24 joep dubbink

illustrates that they are listening selectively to the prophecy, not grasp-
ing its meaning as a whole, but only reacting to certain catchwords,
‘this house shall be like shiloh’. The people are easily aroused, officials
are needed to calm them down, and just as easily they are convinced of
the legitimacy of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The matter seems to be settled,
but in the text as we have it, we have arrived at a Trugschluss, a fake
ending.

3.1 The Precedent of Micah (Jer 26:17–19)

again new players appear on the scene: we meet ‘some of the elders
of the land’. indicating that they are ‘elders’ is not without reason: as
older people they form a natural bridge with the past. it is impossible
that they witnessed in person an event that is said to have occurred
about a century before, but they are presented as the guardians of tra-
dition. What they do is unique in prophetic literature: they quote a
verse from the prophet Micah of Moresheth (Mic 3:12) in support of
Jeremiah.29
What is strange here is that the argument from history could have
helped convince the officials to decide in favour of Jeremiah. indeed
the end of their speech in v. 19 suggests that this was their purpose:
‫ ואנחנו עשים רעה גדולה על־נפשותינו‬forms a nominal sentence, to be
understood as ‘we are about to commit (right now—participle) a great
evil against ourselves’, with the implication that one should refrain
from taking action against Jeremiah. for the purpose of influencing
the trial, however, the verses seem to be in the wrong place: we would
have expected the elders, as witnesses for the defendant, between vv.
15 and 16. There are several possibilities. first, the conclusion could
be that we have arrived at the end of the synchronic approach to the
text, and that we have to regard vv. 17–19 as a later addition to the
story. The second option is to conclude that apparently we have to
try harder to understand vv. 17–19, for example, by translating v. 17
as ‘some of the elders . . . had said . . .’.30 This solution is rather strained
and goes against the grammar of the text: for such an explanation to

29
The quotation is almost literally in the Mt; the lXX has a small difference
(ἄβατος, ‘deserted place’, instead of ὀπωροφυλάκιον, ‘shed’); apparently the Mt redac-
tion has adapted the quotation to the Micah text.
30
Thus Wilhelm rudolph, Jeremia (hat 12; tübingen, 1947), pp. 144–145.
 a story of three prophets 25

be valid, we would have expected qatal forms instead of the present

wayyiqtol forms.
There is, however, a third option: acknowledging that vv. 17–19 are
a later addition, but still trying to explain the Letztgestalt of the chapter
as a sensible text. This means that in the final redaction of the text, the
trial is not over in v. 16; the reaction of the officials and the people
towards priests and prophets is reinterpreted as an argument in favour
of Jeremiah, not as the final decision.31 smelik stresses the fact that
v. 16 can be read as just a new phase in the trial: Jeremiah’s release is
not told, neither is there any sign that the people or the officials are
really convinced by the prophet to change their attitude.32

3.2 The Death of Uriah (Jer 26:20–23)

The next episode, the tragic death of yet another prophet, also seems to
disturb the flow of the narrative. This episode has a double effect.
on the one hand, the king is introduced suddenly into the story.
Thus far he was almost absent from the narrative, being mentioned
only twice: the story is situated at the beginning of his reign (v. 1) and
it is from his house that the officials come to preside over the trial
(v. 10). Though the rather neutral or even positive attitude of the offi-
cials towards Jeremiah might give us reason to think that the king
himself is also open to Jeremiah’s prophecy, these hopes are shattered
in the next four verses. Uriah is known only from these verses, and his
function is clear: he is a copy of Jeremiah. his preaching is identical,
‫ככל דברי ירמיהו‬, ‘like all the words of Jeremiah’, and his fate is what
easily could have been Jeremiah’s. The king is not amused by Uriah’s
words, the prophet flees to egypt but is arrested there by Jehoiakim’s
secret service agents.
some authors regard Uriah’s flight as a sin, as a lack of trust in God,
for which the prophet suffers the consequences.33 This leads to a com-
pletely different interpretation of the text, because if this were true,
Uriah’s death could have been avoided, which would mark a contrast
between the brave Jeremiah and the cowardly Uriah. however, in the

31
a possibility already mentioned by hossfeldt and Meyer, ‘der prophet vor dem
tribunal’, p. 38. They reject this explanation on valid grounds, yet this is how the
author of the final text must have understood the verse.
32
smelik, ‘Jeremia 26 als literarische Komposition’, p. 110.
33
fischer, Jeremia 26–52, p. 139.
26 joep dubbink

text i see no indication for this point of view. Jeremiah himself is in

chapters 26–45 not always described as the hero we would want him
to be. he avoids dangerous situations, for example, when, instead of
going himself, he sends baruch to the temple with the scroll he dic-
tated (Jer 36:5), when he is afraid to tell the truth to King Zedekiah
(38:14–15), and when he follows Zedekiah’s instructions to lie about
their conversation (38:24–28). in Jer 36:19 baruch is told to hide, and
again there is no hint that there is anything wrong with avoiding immi-
nent danger. blaming Uriah for his flight amounts to blaming the vic-
tim and obscures who is really responsible. rather, the text stresses the
fact that Uriah is not killed in egypt but is brought back to Jehoiakim
to be killed; this leaves no doubt about the king’s responsibility for his
death, and the premeditated character of the murder.
in this way, Jehoiakim is depicted as the opposite of hezekiah, the
king who gave heed to the words of Micah long ago.34 Yet it is surpris-
ing to read that ‘the officials’ (‫ השרים‬again) as well are on the side of
the king in his action against Uriah. of course, historically speaking,
these could have been other officials than those presiding at the trial
of Jeremiah, but just like on a literary level ‘the people’ are one entity
who change sides, so also the ‫ שרים‬must be regarded as one group,
unless the narrator makes an explicit difference. The conclusion must
be that the ‫ שרים‬are just as whimsical and two-faced as the people:
you never know on which side they are, and you can expect them to
lean towards the most powerful human actor in the story, the king. in
his absence, they can be convinced by a well-phrased prophetic speech
and decide in favour of Jeremiah, but in the king’s presence the offi-
cials support a brutal action against Jeremiah’s counterpart.
The name of the leader of the officials being sent to egypt is quite
interesting: elnathan, son of achbor. achbor is mentioned as a mem-
ber of a small group of officials sent to the prophetess hulda by King
Josiah to confirm the authenticity of the torah scroll found in the
temple (2 Kgs 22:12, 14). The implication is clear: only one generation
ago the king sent his men to consult a prophetess and urged the people
to hear to the torah, but now the king sends his men to arrest and

34
o’Connor, ‘do not trim a Word’, p. 623; smelik, ‘Jeremia 26 als literarische
Komposition’, pp. 123–124.
 a story of three prophets 27

kill a prophet and does not listen to the prophet’s reminder to heed
to the torah.

3.3 Narrow Escape (Jer 26:24)

The last verse of the chapter is again surprising, but consistent with the
conclusion about the two-facedness of the people and the officials. in
v. 16 we were left with the impression that the officials and the people
had chosen the side of the defendant. vv. 20–23 leave us disappointed
about the officials, but maybe we could still be hopeful that Jeremiah
would at least be supported by the public. v. 24 destroys this last hope:
the words ‘in the hands of the people’ and ‘kill’ are directly connected,
the chaos of vv. 8–9 returns, the people turn into a violent mob and
Jeremiah is in grave danger.
The good news is that there is someone to save him: ahikam ben
shaphan, a member of the family who often plays a positive role in
stories like this. ahikam and his father, shaphan, were involved in
finding the torah scroll during Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22–23), and
ahikam was also a member of the group sent to consult hulda.35 The
purpose of the author must be to show that Judah develops in two
directions: the new king uses his power to assure that there is no longer
room for critical prophecy, and the vast majority of the officials and
the people go along with this, but there are some, like ahikam, who
remain true to the prophetic word and protect the prophet. The pic-
ture changes again, and becomes more complicated:

king influence ‘they’ deliver Jeremiah to be killed the people

(officials)

Ahikam
intervention ben Shaphan

35
see fischer, Jeremia 26–52, p. 39. ahikam also plays a role in favour of Jeremiah
in Jer 36:10–12; 39:14, and his son, Gedeliah, is appointed governor after the fall of
Jerusalem, but was soon murdered (Jeremiah 40–41).
28 joep dubbink

4 Conclusions
4.1 Literary Aspects
There is, in my opinion, a remarkable difference between the com-
plicated exegetical questions the chapter raises and the compelling
impression the story leaves on the reader. Jeremiah 26 serves well as
an introduction to Jeremiah 26–45: the theme of the perilous existence
of the prophetic word is expanded in detail in this chapter. The only
explanation for that tension i can find is that the chapter does show
clear signs of different stages of production, but is, on the other hand,
skillfully told and forms a strong thematic unity.36
Jer 26:1–16 is best understood as narrative elaboration of the
famous speech held by Jeremiah in the temple, apparently familiar to
the audience. it seems clear to me that the shortened version of the
sermon itself in vv. 4–6 is hardly understandable without knowledge
of Jer 7:1–15. The conditional aspect of both chapters is inherent. The
midrashic expansion we have in Jeremiah 26 cannot be dependent on
a presumed ‘original version’ of Jeremiah 7, reconstructed by various
authors, as the conditional aspect is always excluded from this ‘origi-
nal version’.37 Jer 26:17–24 can be considered as a later addition, but
an addition that makes sense.

4.2 Audience
for whom was this story written? in its present form, it has all the
marks of a story that relates events that happened some time previ-
ously, and that had their impact on the Judean society, in other words,
the audience knows the outcome. it seems plausible to locate these
readers in the babylonian exile.38
Carolyn sharp tries to establish ‘two competing deutero-Jeremianic
traditions’, of which one is specifically meant to promote the interests
of the ‘gôlâ group’. for example, the destruction of the shilo sanctu-
ary fits in with their idea that Yhwh is not bound to the temple in

36
Contra Wanke, Untersuchungen, pp. 82–83, who is very negative about the com-
position of the chapter.
37
reconstruction by Wilfred Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia
1–25 (WMant 41; neukirchen 1973), pp. 105–115, followed by holt, ‘Jeremiah’s
temple sermon’, p. 74.
38
Cf. nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, pp. 133–134.
 a story of three prophets 29

Jerusalem.39 in the same way, stulman sees in ahikam and the other
supporters of Jeremiah a model of the core group of the society after
the exile.40 all this appears to me to be a little too speculative.

4.3 Purpose
The question remains: why did the author write this story? Many com-
mentators try to establish one single issue as the aim of the text. When
they perceive different aims in various portions of the text, they con-
clude that the authors of these parts must have had different theologi-
cal intentions. it seems to me that the concept of the meaning of a
story that many exegetes work with is too simple. The author(s) of this
book are certainly capable of writing a text with a complex meaning.
The story as we have it now is a story about three prophets. one
lived in the past: Micah, who like Jeremiah prophesied against city
and temple, but—at least in the tradition offered here—he was heard.
his words were even sharper than Jeremiah’s: the quotation speaks
about unconditional doom. nevertheless this doom was averted by
the repentance of the people, an indication that the difference between
conditional and unconditional prophecy is not absolute. if uncondi-
tional prophecy of doom can be averted, conditional prophecy cer-
tainly can as well.
The second prophet, Uriah, lives and dies during the story. he
shows the negative attitude of the leaders, the people, and the king
towards critical prophecy.
The third prophet and main character of the story is Jeremiah. This
chapter is the first account of the reactions to his prophetic work
(apart from his ‘psalms of lament’ in Jeremiah 11–20), and the signs
are ominous. The readers of the story know the outcome: they know
what the fate of Jerusalem was. The aim of the story can hardly be to
legitimatize the prophetic calling of Jeremiah—that matter had been
settled by the fall of Jerusalem when all Jeremiah’s prophecies of doom
came true. apart from that, the story has many aspects, but not one
single aim. it explains how not listening to the prophecy contributed
to the fate of Jerusalem. it shows how vulnerable a prophet is when
leaders and the people are not willing to listen to a critical message. it

39
sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, 50.
40
louis stulman, Jeremiah (abingdon old testament Commentaries; nashville,
2005), p. 236.
30 joep dubbink

shows how feeble in fact the word of Yhwh is: it is powerless, when
people decide not to obey. The theological aspect of the story is not
made explicit, but it is clearly there: Yhwh runs out of options. one of
his prophets is brutally murdered, another is almost lynched. he does
not have many other possibilities left except the most dramatic one,
the destruction of the temple and the city.
of course, this story is meant not only as an explanation of ‘how
and why this happened’, but also as an invitation to act wiser than the
generation of Jehoiakim did, with the implicit promise that this will
make a difference. The keyword ‫נחם‬, ‘regret, be sorry’, with Yhwh
as the subject, occurring three times in this chapter, is theologically
relevant here.41 right at the beginning of the account of the decline of
Judah and the fall of Jerusalem, this story gives a glimmer of hope to
the exiles:42 there are role models, there is the possibility of repentance,
Yhwh will eventually change his mind, and there will be an end to the
supremacy of the babylonians (cf. 27:22; 29:14). for that to happen, a
radical change of attitude is necessary. in an unobtrusive way, by all
rhetorical means a story can offer, this complex message is conveyed
to the audience.

41
see also Jer 26:3, 13, 19; cf. Jer 18:8, 10; 42:10; exod 32:14; Judg 2:18; 1 sam 15:11,
29, 35; 2 sam 24:16; amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2.
42
Walter brueggemann, The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (Cambridge, 2007),
p. 140.
 ‘AgAinst you, DAughter of BABylon!’
A remArkABle exAmple of text-reception
in the orAcle of JeremiAh 50–51

eric peels

A peculiar phenomenon in the book of Jeremiah has until now, in the author’s
opinion, not fully received the attention it deserves: the frequent repetition or
reuse of material in quotations and doublets.1 These quotations and doublets
contain interesting material for the study of the history of composition, as
well as for the exegesis of larger passages. This is all the more true when a
passage is reused with a new addressee. The focus of this article is on one such
doublet: the reuse of Jer 6:22–24 in 50:41–43. This remarkable doublet surpris-
ingly reverses the object against which the message of judgement is directed:
the pursuer (Babylon) of Jeremiah 6 becomes the prey in Jeremiah 50. first,
the reader is provided with a translation and explanation of 6:22–24, and a
comparison of these verses to 50:41–43. Then the two passages are placed
in their own immediate context. A consideration of several historical ques-
tions (authorship and date) follows. After giving attention to the structure of
Jeremiah 50–51, some conclusions are drawn concerning the particular nature
and theological function of the quotation of Jer 6:22–24 in 50:41–43. in light
of the original text in Jer 6:22–24 and read within its own immediate context,
the doublet of 50:41–43 shows itself to have a functional place emphasizing
the theological message of the great oracle against Babylon.

1 introduction

‘one beginning in the field of exegesis soon discovers that contrasting

a prejudiced reading with a historical reading is naive from a theo-
logical perspective.’2 This quotation from eep talstra, in whose hon-
our this contribution has been written, illustrates clearly his position
on the relationship between exegesis and dogmatics. for eep the task
of exegesis includes critically guiding the way church and confession
appeal to scripture and exposing this as prejudiced where necessary.

1
This article was translated from Dutch by Albert gootjes.
2
eep talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van
het Oude Testament (ontwerpen 2; kampen, 2002), p. 20: ‘Wie aan het vak exegese
begint, ontdekt al gauw dat de tegenstelling tussen bevooroordeeld lezen en historisch
lezen theologisch gezien naïef is.’
32 eric peels

yet exegesis must also honour this appeal to scripture ‘as a way of
understanding that does justice to old textual traditions which once
again receive relevance in a contemporized form’.3 This hermeneutical
conviction is bolstered by the observation that examples of such ‘prej-
udiced reading’ are found within the Bible itself. in the old testament
there are cases where textual traditions grew by way of application and
appropriation rather than by historical analysis.
few books in the old testament lend themselves to reflection on
this issue as does the book of Jeremiah. even apart from the many
questions on its textual history, such as those raised by the differ-
ence between the masoretic text and the septuagint, Jeremiah shows
numerous traces of a complicated history of composition. one such
indication is the frequent repetition or reuse of material in quotations
and doublets,4 a phenomenon which in my opinion has not received
fully the attention it deserves.5 The quotations and doublets provide
interesting material for the study of the history of composition, as
well as for the exegesis of larger passages. This is all the more true
when a reused passage has a new addressee. in the book of Jeremiah
many doublets can be found within the oracles against the nations
(Jeremiah 46–51), and especially in the long prophecy against Babylon
(Jeremiah 50–51). in this article i intend to focus on one such doublet:
the reuse of Jer 6:22–24 in Jer 50:41–43.

2 A remarkable Doublet

The doublet i have chosen is an extraordinary example of reusing a text

because the object against which the message of judgement is directed
is surprisingly reversed. in Jer 6:22–26 judgement is pronounced over
Zion with the coming of the ‘foe from the north’, clearly identifiable

3
talstra, Lezers, p. 21: ‘als een vorm van verstaan waarbij recht wordt gedaan aan
oude teksttradities die vervolgens in geactualiseerde vorm opnieuw geldigheid krijgen’.
4
for a list of texts, cf. franz D. hubmann, Untersuchungen zu den Konfessionen Jer
11,18–12,6 und Jer 15,10–21 (fzB 30; Würzburg, 1978), pp. 225, 235, 333–395.
5
Aside from hubmann, see esp. Jean–Daniel macchi, ‘les doublets dans le livre de
Jérémie’, in Adrian h.W. curtis and Thomas c. römer (eds.), The Book of Jeremiah
and Its Reception (Betl 128; leuven, 1997), pp. 119–150; Alfred marx, ‘A propos des
doublets du livre de Jérémie: réflexions sur la formation d’un livre propétique’, in J.A.
emerton (ed.), Prophecy (festschrift georg fohrer; BZAW 150; Berlin–new york,
1980), pp. 106–120, and Bernard gosse, ‘la menace qui vient du nord, les retourne-
ments d’oracles contre Babylone et Jérémie 30–31’, EstBib 56 (1998), pp. 289–314.
 ‘against you, daughter of babylon!’ 33

as Babylon.6 in Jer 50:41–43, however, the same prophecy is directed—

with several small modifications—against Babylon itself. The hunter
becomes the hunted, the pursuer becomes the prey. to be sure,
more examples could be given of doublets in which the addressee is
changed,7 but given the significant role of ‘Babylon’ within the book of
Jeremiah, the present passage is quite remarkable. Babylon can rightly
be considered the ‘organizing metaphor’ in this book.8 gradually the
outlines of the ‘foe from the north’ become more clearly distinguish-
able: it is Babylon that will seal the fate of Judah and Jerusalem.9 Zion
and Babylon therefore form the two foci to the ellipsis that is the book
of Jeremiah, and together these two theo-political powers determine
its themes. The full reversal that occurs in the reuse of Jer 6:22–24 in
50:41–43 is so striking that it once led c. Budde to characterize it as
a ‘misuse’ of the text.10 however, much more can and must be said
about this doublet. What is, therefore, the nature and function of this
particular case of text reception?
in the following i will first provide a translation and explanation of
Jer 6:22–24, and compare these verses to 50:41–43. i will then place the
two passages in their own immediate context. This will be followed by
considering several historical questions (authorship and date). After
giving attention to the structure of Jeremiah 50–51, i will draw conclu-
sions concerning the particular nature and theological function of the
quotation of Jer 6:22–24 in 50:41–43.

6
Brevard s. childs, ‘The enemy from the north and the chaos tradition’, in leo
g. perdue and Brian W. kovacs (eds.), A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah
Studies (Winona lake, 1984), pp. 151–161; David J. reimer, ‘The “foe” and the
“north” in Jeremiah’, ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 223–232.
7
cf. the list in hubmann, Untersuchungen, p. 225.
8
John hill, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremia MT (Bibli-
cal interpretation series 40; leiden, 1999); rannfrid i. Thelle, ‘Babylon in the Book of
Jeremia (mt): negotiating a power shift’, in hans m. Barstad and reinhard g. kratz
(eds.), Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (BZAW 388; Berlin–new york 2009), pp.
187–232. cf. also ulrike sals, Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon” (fAt 2.6; tübingen,
2004).
9
starting with Jeremia 20, Babylon is explicitly identified both as the instrument
of god’s judgement and as the place of exile.
10
carl Budde, ‘ueber die capitel 50 und 51 des Buches Jeremia’, Jahrbücher für
Deutsche Theologie 23 (1878), p. 452: ‘Dass ein Jeremia seinen eigenen text so sollte
misshandelt haben, ist unglaublich.’
34 eric peels

3 translation and explanation

Jeremiah 6:22–24
‫ כה אמר יהוה‬22 Thus says yhwh:
‫הנה עם בא מארץ צפון‬ look, a nation is coming from the land of the
north,
‫וגוי גדול יעיר מירכתי־ארץ׃‬ a great nation is arising from the ends of the
earth.

‫ קשת וכידון יחזיקו‬23 Bow and sword they grip tightly,

‫אכזרי הוא ולא ירחמו‬ cruel is this nation and ruthless.
‫קולם כים יהמה‬ Their clamour is as the roaring of the sea.
‫ועל־סוסים ירכבו‬ They rush in on horses,
‫ערוך כאיש למלחמה‬ well-armed as a man for battle:
‫עליך בת־ציון׃‬ it is against you, Daughter of Zion!

‫ שמענו את־שמעו‬24 We have heard the report about that nation,

‫רפו ידינו‬ our hands have become weak.
‫צרה החזיקתנו‬ Anguish has gripped us,
‫חיל כיולדה׃‬ pangs like those of a woman in labour.

This fragment is the first part of the diptych formed by Jer 6:22–
26. The description of the enemy that is closing in on Jerusalem
(vv. 22–23) is followed by the reaction of the people to this threat
(vv. 24–26). Again the nation is confronted with the message of judge-
ment concerning ‘the foe from the north’ which yhwh himself has
led up against Judah and Jerusalem. The vague reference to ‫מארץ צפון‬,
‘from the land of the north’ (seven times in Jeremiah), and ‫מירכתי־ארץ‬,
‘from the ends of the earth’ (exclusively in Jeremiah), suggest an alien
foe far away in mesopotamia. it is ‘a great nation’,11 great in number,
power, and cruelty. The clamour this army makes as it approaches
Jerusalem is terrifying, like the roar of crashing waves (cf. isa 17:12).
The further description of the enemy forces as cavalry only serves to
underline the pending devastation. The phrase ‫ערוך כאיש למלחמה‬,
‘well-armed as a man for the battle’ in v. 23 is not entirely clear, but

11
georg fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (hThkAt; freiburg, 2005), p. 278, pushes things
too far when he speaks of a conscious reversal: ‘Wo gottes Volk seiner eigenen Beru-
fung (gen. 12:2; 18:18; 46:3) nicht nachkommt, übernimmt ein fremdes Volk die ihm
zugedachte Rolle samt Titel.’ This is incorrect; after all, also the Anakites and emites
are called ‘a great nation’ (Deut 2:10, 21).
 ‘against you, daughter of babylon!’ 35

it may depict the enemy’s efficiency as that of an army drawn up in

strict battle array that acts together as one man.12 The effect is clear
(v. 24): the mere hearing of the report is sufficient to make Judah sink
into deep despair. first-person plural forms (‘we’) are used to describe
the reaction of the people of Judah as being completely paralysed with
fear. As the enemies grip their weapons tightly (v. 23: ‫יחזיקו‬, ‘they grip
tightly’), so Jerusalem is now in the tight grip of fear (v. 24: ‫החזיקתנו‬,
‘[anguish] has gripped us’). The next two verses from Jeremiah 6 (vv.
25–26) are not repeated in Jeremiah 50 because in particular v. 25 does
not fit the context of the oracle against Babylon: v. 25 contains a call
to stay in the city (Jerusalem), to stop all daily work and travel due to
the dangers posed by the enemy in the land. This section closes with
an exhortation to the people to enter into mourning (v. 26). to put it
briefly, the nation is hopelessly lost.

4 Adaptation

in Jer 50:41–43, the fragment 6:22–24 is adapted to the new context

by means of several small modifications.13
in v. 41 the Botenformel (‘Thus says yhwh’) is absent; the expres-
sion ‫ארץ צפון‬, ‘land of the north’, is shortened to ‫צפון‬, ‘the north’;
and after the phrase ‫וגוי גדול‬, ‘and a great nation’, the words ‫ומלכים‬
‫רבים‬, ‘and many kings’, are added with the necessary changes in the
verbal forms (plural), since 50:9 had already announced a coalition of
nations which would rise up in battle against Babylon (cf. 51:27–28).
in v. 42, ‫‘ הוא‬he’, becomes ‫המה‬, ‘they’, to reflect the plurality of ene-
mies spoken of in the reused form of the preceding verse. The most sig-
nificant adaptation is the change of address, as the enemy does not turn
against the ‘Daughter of Zion’ but against the ‘Daughter of Babylon’.
in v. 43 the subject is the king of Babylon, and the verbal forms
and suffixes are changed accordingly. The strength of the lion (50:17)

12
see the discussion of this point by J.A. emerton, ‘A problem in the hebrew
text of Jer. Vi.23, l.42’, JThS 23 (1972), pp. 106–113, and David J. reimer, The Ora-
cles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: A Horror Among the Nations (san francisco,
1993), pp. 62–63.
13
see geoffrey h. parke-taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets
and Recurring Phrases (society of Biblical literature, monograph series 51; Atlanta,
2000), pp. 175–176.
36 eric peels

has disappeared, and the king of Babylon is no longer in a position

to lead.
for the exegete there is no question as to which of the two texts
is the original. given that the great prophecy against Babylon in
Jeremiah 50–51 is a collage, there is no doubt that 50:41–43 is a repeti-
tion of 6:22–24.

5 place in context

Jer 6:22–26 occurs near the end of Jeremiah 2–6, a relatively coher-
ent literary unit in the larger collection of materials that comprise
the book of Jeremiah. scholars by and large agree that the oracles of
Jeremiah 2–6 mostly stem from the early period of Jeremiah’s pro-
phetic activity.14 Within this unit, Jer 4:5–6:30 has its own place as a
collection of prophecies concerning the ‘foe from the north’. in that
context, the prophecy of Jer 6:22–26 is again of special significance. it
is the fourth and final time15 in Jeremiah 4–6 that the announcement is
made of the destruction from the north looming over Judah, now for
the first time explicitly together with the reaction of the nation (panic)
and followed by the pregnant expression ‘terror on every side’.16 in
6:22–26 the announcement of Jeremiah 4–6 comes to a climax and
a conclusion17 which summarizes and radicalizes the theme of god’s

14
cf., e.g., rainer Albertz, ‘Jer 2–6 und die frühzeitverkündigung Jeremias’,
ZAW 98 (1982), pp. 20–47; peter c. craigie, page h. kelley, and Joel f. Drinkard,
Jr., Jeremiah 1–25 (WBc 26; Dallas, 1991), pp. 19–20; Artur Weiser, Das Buch
Jeremia (AtD 20/21; göttingen, 1977), pp. 14–15; o. eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte
Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokry-
phen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumrān–Schriften: Entstehungsgeschichte des Alten
Testaments (tübingen, 1976), p. 485.
15
The other instances are found in Jer 4:5–8; 5:15–17; 6:1–8.
16
Adrian h.W. curtis, ‘ “terror on every side!” ’, in curtis and römer, Book of
Jeremiah, pp. 111–118.
17
gosse, ‘la menace’, p. 293, points to the inclusio formed by 4:8 and 6:26. cf.
macchi, ‘les doublets’, p. 213: ‘la thématique de l’attaque contre Jérusalem qui mar-
que ces chapitres est en quelque sorte synthétisée dans ce bref oracle dont le vocabu-
laire est en outre similaire.’ similarly, fischer, Jeremia, p. 277, argues that preceding
words of judgement from Jeremiah 4–6 are taken up in 6:22–26 and there receive ‘eine
letzte schärfe’. The end of Jeremiah 6 marks a transition in the book of Jeremiah; ‘eine
etappe innerhalb des Buches erreicht damit ihren Zielpunkt’ (p. 284). According to
fischer, Jeremiah 6 has an important place not only in the book of Jeremiah, but also
in the rest of the old testament and in fact in the Bible as a whole.
 ‘against you, daughter of babylon!’ 37

judgement over Judah. in other words, the verses cited and reused in
Jeremiah 50 represent a loaded text.
At the end of Jeremiah 50, other quotations, in addition to the one
from Jer 6:22–24, are incorporated into the text. in Jer 50:39 we find
isa 13:20–22, in Jer 50:40 it is Jer 49:18 that is cited, while 50:44–46 is a
doublet of Jer 49:19–21. The majority of scholars correctly consider the
use of these texts in Jeremiah 50 as secondary.18 What remains striking
is that 50:41–43 interrupts the citations from Jeremiah 49 in 50:40 and
50:44–46. The author of the prophecy concerning Babylon will have
had a good reason for this. he ends the judgement of Jeremiah 50 with
three biblical quotations (50:39–46) which successively:

a) announce the total ruin of Babylon: it shall remain uninhabited,

a home to wild animals (50:39–40, with quotations from oracles
against Babylon from isaiah 13 and against edom from Jeremiah 49);
b) identify the instrument which shall accomplish this ruin: the enemy
from the north who will take away all power from Babylon and its
king (50:41–43, with a quotation from the prophecy against Zion
from Jeremiah 6);
c) identify the actor behind this undertaking: yhwh himself, who has
made a final decision concerning Babylon (50:44–46, continuing
the quotation from the oracle against edom from Jeremiah 49).

The words of Jer 49:18 in 50:40 tie in seamlessly with the words from
isa 13:19–20 in Jer 50:39 in terms of content, while the rest of the
quotation from Jeremiah 49 functions well after Jer 50:41–43. intro-
duced by a repeated ‫הנה‬, ‘look’ (50:41, 50:44), the central message of
Babylon’s destruction (50:39–40) is followed by the identification of
the means (50:41–43) and of the orchestrator (50:44–46).19

18
see, e.g., the discussion in William mckane, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on Jeremiah ii: Jeremiah XXVI–LII (icc; edinburgh, 1996), p. 1293.
19
A similar analysis of the logic of the context is offered by Alice o. Bellis, The
Structure and Composition of Jeremiah 50:2–51:58 (lampeter, 1995), pp. 100–103;
idem, ‘poetic structure and intertextual logic in Jeremiah 50’, in A.r. pete Diamond,
kathleen m. o’connor, and louis stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah (Jsotsup 260;
sheffield, 1999), pp. 179–199. cf. also leslie c. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (otl;
louisville, 2008), pp. 516–517.
38 eric peels

6 historical Questions

exegetical literature has given little attention to the function this

remarkable reuse of Jer 6:22–24 could have in the context of Jeremiah
50. most commentators simply note the presence of the doublet, list
the differences, and then refer the reader to the exegesis of 6:22–24.
more attention has been given to questions of authorship and date. it
goes without saying that one’s position will be inextricably tied to one’s
view on the history of composition of the great oracle against Babylon
in Jeremiah 50–51. in this context also the relationship of 50:1–51:58
to 51:59–64 is important. After all, the latter mentions a scroll with
all the disasters to come upon Babylon which was read by seraiah at
Jeremiah’s command and thrown into the euphrates river.
considering the character of Jeremiah 50–51 as a collection of texts
with many quotations from other prophetic writings as well as from
the book of Jeremiah itself, it is generally accepted that this proph-
ecy concerning Babylon cannot be an authentic text of the prophet
Jeremiah, among other things because these chapters refer to histori-
cal circumstances after Jeremiah’s death. on this basis many scholars
suppose that these chapters are the product of a later redactor or scribe
who freely used existing material.20 others, however, partly in view of
51:59–64, maintain that there was an original text from the hand of
Jeremiah himself which was later developed and expanded.21 The most
significant argument for this view has been offered by W.l. holladay
who considers 82 of the 104 verses of Jeremiah 50–51 to be authentic,
although he remarkably excludes 50:39–46 from these.22 The attribu-
tion of a passage to the historical Jeremiah in the end often depends

20
karel van der toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
(cambridge, mass–london 2007), pp. 192–193. hubmann, Untersuchungen, in his
study on the doublets of Jeremiah concludes that the tradents of this book handled the
received text with great care and could hardly have introduced emendations (pp. 231–
243). he sees the legitimacy of the process of contemporizing and re-interpreting texts
connected to the authority of Jeremiah’s own prophetic consciousness (p. 243).
21
cf. Duane l. christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament
Prophecy: Studies in the Oracles against the Nations (missoula, 1975), pp. 263–279,
and cornelis de Jong, De volken bij Jeremia: hun plaats in zijn prediking en in het
boek Jeremia (kampen, 1978), pp. 264–270. The view that Jeremiah 50–51 must in
its entirety be ascribed to Jeremiah himself, as was still defended by such scholars as
g.ch. Aalders, Oud–testamentische kanoniek (kampen, 1952), pp. 231–233, is cur-
rently shared by few.
22
William l. holladay, Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 2. Chapters
26–52 (hermeneia; minneapolis, 1989), pp. 402–408.
 ‘against you, daughter of babylon!’ 39

on circular reasoning.23 We can sympathize with m. kessler’s sigh:

‘reading numerous commentaries and their judgements about what
is “authentic” and what is not, or what could be Jeremiah speaking,
and what could not possibly be him, becomes not only tiresome, it
provides no help in understanding the text.’24
Just as vexing is the date of composition, which has produced a wide
variety of proposals ranging anywhere from 594 bce (the fourth year
of Zedekiah, Jer 51:59) to the persian period well after 539 bce (the
fall of Babylon).25 The text itself contains no further clues that would
permit greater precision. This is closely related to the character of the
text:
Alle prädikatformen für Abgeschlossenes, unabgeschlossenes, gleich-
zeitiges und Vorzeitiges sind im text auf Babels untergangs verwen-
det. Die fehlende zeitliche struktur im kriegschaos des textes bewirkt,
dass der untergang Babels allzeitig wird, Vergangenheit, gegenwart und
Zukunft besetzt.26
The nearly apocalyptic portrayal of the downfall of Babylon which
Jeremiah 50–51 gives stands historically at odds with the peaceful
takeover of the city by the persian king cyrus in 539. There is a certain
process of symbolization and ‘spiritualization’ that takes place within
this oracle, and Babylon becomes the symbol par excellence of ungodly
powers.27 This makes all efforts to date the oracle against Babylon more
precisely a precarious undertaking. This text is not so much historical
as theological in nature.
The questions with which a diachronic approach leave us lead me
back to a synchronic approach with the expectation of more satisfying

23
see, for example, the uncertainty concerning the authenticity of the doublet
in emanuel tov, ‘some Aspects of the textual and literary history of the Book of
Jeremiah’, in pierre–maurice Bogaert et al. (eds.), Le livre de Jérémie: le prophète et son
milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (Betl 54; leuven, 1997), p. 153: ‘This repetition
may have originated with the prophet himself, who applied certain prophecies to more
than one situation, either orally or in writing, or it may have derived from editor i’.
24
martin kessler, ‘The function of chapters 25 and 50–51 in the Book of
Jeremiah’, in Diamond, o’connor, and stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah, p. 72, and
idem, Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel Versus Marduk of Babylon. A Literary
/ Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51 (ssn; Assen, 2003), pp. 202–203. cf.
klaas A.D. smelik, ‘De functie van Jeremia 50 en 51 binnen het boek Jeremia’, NTT
41 (1987), pp. 265–266.
25
A short overview can be found in sals, Biographie, pp. 392–395; cf. fischer,
Jeremia, p. 569.
26
sals, Biographie, p. 395.
27
fischer, Jeremia, p. 569; kessler, Battle, p. 192, characterizes the text as ‘histori-
cized narrative’.
40 eric peels

results. What is the purpose and function of the doublet in Jer 50:41–
43? is it merely the application of stereotyped phrases to a new con-
text, a recycling of Jer 6:22–24 as an illustration of the announcement
of judgement on Babylon, and nothing more? recently authors such
as A. marx, A.o. Bellis, and J.-D. macchi have correctly pointed out
that the quotations and doublets in Jeremiah are more theologically
significant than they appear to be at first glance.28 in my opinion this is
certainly true for the doublet in Jer 50:41–43. Before i develop this the-
sis, it will be necessary to consider the structure of Jeremiah 50–51.

7 structure of Jeremiah 50–51

The older, historical-critical scholarship was negative about Jeremiah

50–51: it is an inauthentic text, with a negative message and a cha-
otic composition. The newer, synchronic-literary approach contrasts
significantly with the older approach. more attention is given to the
important place the prophecy against Babylon occupies within the
book of Jeremiah as a whole, as well as to the internal structure of
Jeremiah 50–51.
This prophecy is highly significant because of its scope and its posi-
tion at the end of the book. The message of judgement of the entire
book culminates in the depiction of Babylon as the archetypal enemy
which will be brought to its knees by yhwh himself. Almost all motifs
from the preceding judgements on the nations return, and one could
even argue that all Babylon texts in the book of Jeremiah are tightly
summarized in chapters 50–51.29
The composition of Jeremiah 50–51 is marked by a unique and
dynamic structure. As fischer remarked, the texts witness ‘von einer
meisterhaften und bis in feine nuancen variierenden gestaltung’.30

28
marx, ‘A propos’, p. 219, speaks of ‘un choix conscient’ in connection with
the inclusion of doublets in the text: ‘le lieu même de cette insertion, tout comme
d’ailleurs le choix des textes ainsi repris, est étroitement lié aux préoccupations des
rédacteurs, et n’est pas le fait du hasard.’ Bellis, ‘poetic structure’, p. 199, and macchi,
‘les doublets’, p. 218. see also hill, Friend or Foe?, p. 174, n. 37, and p. 177, n. 45.
29
kessler, Battle, p. 64; sals, Biographie, p. 405. for more detailed analyses of
the place and function of Jeremiah 50–51 within the book as a whole, see the afore-
mentioned article of smelik as well as the contributions by Alice o. Bellis, robert p.
carroll, and else k. holt in the collected volume of Diamond, o’connor, and stulman
(eds.), Troubling Jeremiah.
30
fischer, Jeremia, p. 570.
 ‘against you, daughter of babylon!’ 41

extensive studies of the structure were carried out by Aitken, reimer,

and Bellis,31 among which especially Bellis’s analysis has met with
approval. it offers a refinement on the structural analysis of Aitken,
from whom Bellis adopted the hypothesis that Jeremiah 50–51 is
composed of six literary units: three poems in Jeremiah 50, and three
poems in Jeremiah 51. The structure of Jeremiah 50 is tighter than that
of Jeremiah 51. Bellis concluded that Jeremiah 50 must be subdivided
into 50:2–20 (forgiveness and restoration of israel ), 50:21–32 (punish-
ment of Babylon’s arrogance), and 50:33–38 (Judah’s complaint against
Babylon). in the first poem it is the relationship between yhwh and
israel that takes centre stage, in the second, the relationship between
yhwh and Babylon, and in the third poem, the relationship between
israel and Babylon. Added to the third poem are the three scriptural
quotations in 50:39–46 which shed greater light on the downfall of
Babylon. The last verse (50:46) forms an inclusio with 50:2. in u. sals’s
opinion, however, such a clean structural overview of the passage can
only be produced at the cost of a reduction of its contents.32 What also
weighs against Bellis’s view is that she identifies the scriptural citations
in Jer 50:39–46 and 51:15–19 as ‘additions’ that fall outside of the six-
poem structure.
Although the earlier characterization of Jeremiah 50–51 as a cha-
otic construction is surely to be rejected, the delineation of a clear
structure and development in the prophecy is not so simple.33 i add,
however, that it is questionable whether the absence of a logical, thema-
tic progression can be termed a shortcoming. it is quite possible that
the concluding prophecy of Jeremiah’s book deliberately takes such a
wide sweep and offers such a kaleidoscopic image.34 When the topic in
this prophecy turns to the great opponent of Judah—the destroyer of
the city and temple of god, the oppressor of the nations—all stops are
pulled out. past, present, and future follow each other in quickly shifting

31
kenneth t. Aitken, ‘The oracles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: structures
and perspectives’, TynBul 35 (1984), pp. 25–63; reimer, Oracles against Babylon;
Bellis, Structure and Composition.
32
sals, Biographie, pp. 389–390.
33
recently pierre J.p. van hecke, ‘metaphorical shifts in the oracle against Babylon
(Jeremiah 50–51)’, SJOT 17 (2003), pp. 68–88, has offered a strong argument in favour
of a thematic progression in this prophecy on the basis of an analysis of the pastoral
metaphors in Jeremiah 50–51.
34
cf. sals, Biographie, p. 390: ‘so ist das fehlen jeder struktur und die Zerstörung
jeder kohärenzkonstruktion im leseprozess ein strukturprinzip, es macht die einzelnen
Verse zu einer Abfolge von “multiple echoes” desselben Themas: Babels untergang.’
42 eric peels

metaphors. commands to advance and instructions to retreat tumble

over each other. The whole can best be compared to a musical composi-
tion in which the themes reappear in continually changing combinations
to emphasize the one message of the retributive and liberating vengeance
of the god who punishes Babylon and restores justice to israel.35

8 A forceful message

With A.o. Bellis i share the view that the citations in Jer 50:39–46 lend
force to the message of Jeremiah 50. Within the ‘musical composi-
tion’ of Jeremiah 50–51, the doublet in 50:41–43 in particular strikes
a distinctive note when the hearer remembers the special place and
function this text has at the end of the unit formed by Jeremiah 4–6. it
accentuates the central concerns of Jeremiah 50–51, that is, the themes
of reversal and of retribution.
Thematically and idiomatically there is undoubtedly a correspondence
between Jeremiah 4–6 and Jeremiah 50.36 The beginning and end of
Jeremiah 50 refer to the beginning and end of Jeremiah 4–6. Within the
inclusio of Jeremiah 50 the message that Babylon has been taken (50:2;
50:46), 50:3 and 50:41–43 correspond to each other in that they both
treat the arrival of the nation from the north. Jer 50:3 is virtually identi-
cal to 4:5–6, while Jer 50:41–43 is a doublet of 6:22–24. The language and
message of the old collection of judgement prophecies concerning ‘the
foe from the north’ which would seal Judah’s downfall are revitalized
and contemporized, but now applied to the former ‘foe from the north’
itself. instead of the lion that once rose up against Judah (4:7), yhwh
himself as a lion now rises up against Babylon (50:44). Just as Judah fell,
so shall Babylon fall. The reversal of the loaded text of Jer 6:22–24 is
particularly well suited to this end. As Bellis has argued, the irony of the

35
see hendrik g.l. peels, The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM
and the Function of the NQM–Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old
Testament (ots 31; leiden, 1995), p. 182. cf. smelik, ‘functie’, p. 270.
36
see sals, Biographie, p. 397; hill, Friend or Foe?, pp. 177–180; else k. holt, ‘The
meaning of an Inclusio: A Theological interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah mt’,
SJOT 17 (2003), pp. 183–205. holt even identifies this correspondence as one of the
keys to the theology of the book of Jeremiah; the ‘foe from the north oracles’ in the
beginning of the book (Jeremiah 4–6) are the structural counterpart to the oracles
against the nations at the end (Jeremiah 46–51, esp. 50–51). she interprets the ‘foe
from the north oracles’ in Jeremiah 4–6 as an oracle-against-the-nations judgement
directed at Judah.
 ‘against you, daughter of babylon!’ 43

reinterpretation of this text fits in with the contrasts in the first poem
(vv. 2–20) between israel’s and Babylon’s reversed fates.37 The ‘great
reversal theme’38 is characteristic not only of Jer 50:2–20, but in fact of
the prophecy concerning Babylon of Jeremiah 50–51 as a whole. This
is underlined yet one more time in the doublet 50:41–43 at the very
heart of this prophecy.39
simultaneously, the core theme of Jeremiah 50–51 also resounds in
the ironic reversal of 50:41–43. This lengthy prophecy concerning the
fall of Babylon is entirely dominated by the theme of divine retribution.
Among the many expressions and images employed to develop this
theme, the notion of god’s vengeance occupies a prominent place. in
five texts spread throughout the prophecy, the root ‫נקם‬, ‘to revenge’,
occurs nine times. The destruction that strikes Babylon can simply be
referred to as ‫נקמת יהוה‬, ‘the vengeance of yhwh’ (50:15, 28; 51:11).40
The divine vengeance upon Babylon’s outrages is accomplished by fol-
lowing the lex talionis: to Babylon will be done what it did to others. This
correspondence is determinative for the way in which Jeremiah 50–51
speaks of the relationship between guilt and punishment, as is also evi-
dent from the recurring formula ‫עשה כאשר עשתה‬, ‘to do (to her) as
she has done (to others)’ (50:15, 29; 51:6, 24, 49, 56).41 The message of
retaliatory justice is elucidated all the more in a special way through
the doublet of Jer 50:41–43. The devastator will be devastated.

37
Bellis, ‘poetic structure’, p. 194; cf. robert p. carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary
(2nd ed.; london, 1996), p. 833.
38
The term has been taken over from kessler, Battle, p. 65.
39
This does not, however, mean that the original prophecy is symbolically undone,
as has been argued by Bellis, Structure and Composition, p. 209. Walter Brueggemann
spoke about the doublet in a way similar to Bellis: ‘This is not simply a conventional
recycling of poetic images, but this reuse of poetic material intends to counter and
refute the first use’ (Brueggemann, ‘At the mercy of Babylon: A subversive rereading
of the empire’, JBL 110 [1991], p. 7). The reality of the execution of judgement against
Judah and Jerusalem (Jeremiah 6) rather underlines the urgency of the message in
Jeremiah 50; as surely as Jerusalem was brought to ruin, so certainly will Babylon now
be brought to ruin. in my opinion, one cannot consider this doublet as an indication
of a relationship of similarity between Babylon and Judah in contrast to the negative
language of condemnation and punishment of Babylon, as has been argued by hill,
Friend or Foe?, p. 192.
40
‘The word ‫ נקם‬is the term par excellence, via its associations with the legal field
and warfare, to take the major theme of retribution against Babylon and the subtheme
of israel’s deliverance, and combine them together in one description: god’s vengeance
upon Babylon’ (peels, Vengeance of God, p. 181). cf. also Thelle, ‘Babylon’, p. 213.
41
cf. patrick D. miller, Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theologi-
cal Analysis (chico, 1982), pp. 107, 111–113.
44 eric peels

This remarkable example of text reception therefore contains a the-

ology of hope which closely ties in with the dynamic of the book of
Jeremiah in its final form. Judah has been severely punished but will be
restored to its former state, while Babylon as political world power has
been god’s instrument but will be removed by that same god.42 The
doublet brings a message of continuity: the god who punished israel
is the same god who punishes the nations and restores israel. he does
not abandon the work of his hands.

9 conclusion

This brief study confirms the view of J.-D. macchi: ‘on peut constater
que l’utilization des doublets dans les oracles contre les nations répond
à des motifs théologiques très précis, lesquels apparaissent de façon
programmatique dans le cadre où ils ont été insérés’.43 in light of the
original text in Jer 6:22–24 and read within its own immediate context,
the doublet of Jer 50:41–43 proves to have a function of emphasizing
the theological message of the great oracle against Babylon. yhwh is the
sovereign lord of history who leads the nations and who causes jus-
tice to triumph. This ‘prejudiced’ reuse of a scriptural text within the
book of Jeremiah thus cultivates a hermeneutics that does justice to
the ancient textual tradition which once again is accorded relevance
in a contemporized form. ‘Das Blatt der geschichte hat sich gewendet,
gottes Wort aber bleibt.’44

42
Van hecke, ‘metaphorical shifts’, p. 85.
43
macchi, ‘les doublets’, p. 221.
44
Weiser, Jeremia, p. 432.
 ‘READING JEREMIAH MAKES ME ANGRY!’
THE ROLE OF JEREMIAH 32[39]:36–41 IN TRANSFORMATION
WITHIN THE ‘JEREMIANIC’ TRADITION

Janneke Stegeman

In this contribution I argue that it is fruitful and integrating to approach the

Jeremianic tradition as a form of collective memory that continually shapes
and is shaped by new groups of readers. In collective memory a social group
expresses its identity by continually reconstructing its own history from a
current ideological stance in interaction with tradition. This approach illu-
minates how processes of identity formation take place in the Jeremianic
tradition, including not only the book of Jeremiah but also subsequent appro-
priations of the book.
I apply this approach to Jer 32:36–41 and its appropriations in the Masoretic
Text, in the Septuagint, and in the contemporary context of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. The insertion of these verses into the chapter changes
the perspective of the chapter as a whole and constructs a new identity for
its readership. The Masoretic Text and the Septuagint represent two differ-
ent interpretations of the position of these verses in the chapter. Israeli and
Palestinian responses give insight into the role of conflict in the tradition,
mostly by pointing out the exclusivist and dominant voice in the text which
overlaps with the Zionist narrative, dominant in Israeli society.

1 Introduction

Professor Eep Talstra writes that today’s challenge in exegesis is to

clarify the relation between exegesis as an attempt to understand the
historical processes leading to a certain text and exegesis as a debate
between text and reader.1 The book of Jeremiah poses great chal-
lenges to both exegetical approaches: the book is notoriously com-
plex in structure and content, and its appropriation in the present-day
Palestinian-Israeli conflict—to mention only the example that will be
addressed in this paper—poses complicated hermeneutical questions.
Nevertheless, this article attempts to show that a new perspective on
the book of Jeremiah contributes to building bridges in exegesis. The

1
Eep Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van
het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002), pp. 91, 97.
46 janneke stegeman

approach to the book of Jeremiah that I see as appropriate is that of

considering it as part of an ongoing process of transformation: the
Jeremianic tradition. The processes leading to the Masoretic Text in
its present form and subsequent phases in which these texts were
appropriated again and again are all phases in this tradition, which I
understand as a form of collective memory. This approach combines
diachronic, synchronic, and hermeneutical considerations since in the
‘Jeremianic tradition’ the historical processes leading to the text and
hermeneutical processes are intertwined. This understanding enables
me to compare processes of transformation in different phases of the
tradition and to point out parallels.
I use Jer 32[39]:36–412 as a test case of how ongoing transformation
takes place in the Jeremianic tradition.3 Jeremiah 32 is a multi-layered
chapter4 built around a short story. While Jerusalem is besieged, God
tells the prophet that his cousin will come and offer him a field for sale.
The cousin comes, Jeremiah buys the field, and God instructs him to
put the document(s) of purchase in an earthen jar. This sequence of
events was interpreted and reinterpreted by groups appropriating the
text in the light of their changing circumstances, thus resulting in a
layered text. In an early layer the purchase embodies the hope of those
staying in the land: one day the Babylonian threat will have passed
and documents of purchase will again be of value. In a subsequent
phase the experiences of the destruction of Jerusalem and of being

2
As a result of a different placing of the Oracles of the Nations, Jeremiah 32 in the
Masoretic Text is chapter 39 in the Septuagint.
3
My PhD research, undertaken under the supervision of Professor Eep Talstra,
is on the interpretation history of Jeremiah 32[39]. I intend to see whether paral-
lels can be drawn between appropriations in different phases of the Jeremianic tradi-
tion of chapter 32, including its Masoretic and Septuagint recensions, early Christian
and early Jewish appropriations, and appropriations in the context of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. In this article I present some of my findings thus far. I thank Eep
Talstra for opening my eyes to the riddles and beauty of the book of Jeremiah and
for providing tools to make sense of this difficult book. During my time of research
in Jerusalem, Eep did not hesitate to take part in a conference in Bethlehem and to
share his insights with Palestinian and Israeli students. I consider it a fine example of
his ability to combine different aspects of Old Testament scholarship.
4
Chapter 32 in the Masoretic Text begins with a superscript (v. 1), followed by
a sketch of the context (vv. 1–5), the story about Jeremiah buying land (vv. 6–15),
a prayer (vv. 16–25), and a reaction from God consisting of several sections (vv. 26–35,
36–41, 41–44). See Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book, Jeremiah 32
in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions (Sheffield, 2002), pp. 26, 27; Christof Hardmeier,
‘Jeremia 32, 2.6–15 als Anfang der GBJ-Erzählung von 34,7; 37,3–40,6’, in Walter
Groß (ed.), Jeremia und die ‘Deuteronomistische Bewegung’ (Weinheim, 1995), pp. 15,
187–214. See below for a diachronic perspective on these sections and for differences
in the structure in the Septuagint version of the chapter.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 47

away from the land are interpreted as being part of God’s plan. Hope
becomes focused on a return from exile. The last layer of the chapter,
vv. 36–41, offers a reinterpretation from the radically new perspective
of exile. Hope is based on an eternal covenant in which the relation
between God and the people will be one of complete harmony. These
verses transform the chapter as a whole and set the scene for further
appropriations.
After discussing the concept of collective memory, we look at the
unique viewpoint of renewal presented by vv. 36–41.5 The message
the text had in a previous stage is transformed and applied to a new
addressee. I regard these verses as an independent prophecy that was
inserted into the chapter after the already complicated and multilay-
ered chapter took a more fixed shape.6 Third, I present the way this
insertion is understood in the Masoretic and Septuagint versions of
the chapter. I discuss the structure of Jeremiah 32 in these versions7 in
order to clarify the function of vv. 36–41 and the readership addressed.
Slight differences in this structure together with differences in word-
ing change the function of the verses and the focus of the chapter as a
whole.8 Finally, we look at the function of these verses in present-day
appropriations of the Jeremianic tradition in an Israeli Jewish group
and a Palestinian Christian group each reading Jeremiah 32.

2 Collective Memory

Social groups express their origins, history, and in-group and out-
group stereotypes in narratives that constitute their identity, which
together form their collective memory. These narratives express ‘what

5
Dalit Rom-Shiloni, ‘The Prophecy for “Everlasting Covenant” (Jeremiah xxxii
36–41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?’, VT 53/2 (2003), pp.
201–223, esp. 216, 221.
6
Rom-Shiloni, ‘The Prophecy’, p. 207. See also below.
7
Studies on the structure of Jeremiah 32 in its MT and LXX recensions include
Hardmeier, ‘Jeremia 32, 2.6–15’, Shead, The Open Book, and Herbert Migsch, Jeremias
Ackerkauf, Eine Untersuchung von Jeremia 32 (Frankfurt am Main, 1996).
8
In keeping with Talstra’s method (Oude en nieuwe lezers, p. 92), a structural anal-
ysis of the chapter forms the basis of my work. Talstra differentiates between discourse
and narrative portions in the text and distinguishes several levels of communication.
In the first level the speaker or author communicates with the reader, and discourse
sections are embedded in this. These levels are indicated by macro-syntactic signals,
first by main clause conjunctions, and second by pronominalization and syndetic and
asyndetic connections.
48 janneke stegeman

is, and what should be, going on’.9 They function as a prism through
which ‘society members construct their reality, collect new informa-
tion, interpret their experiences, and then make decisions about their
course of action’.10 Collective memory is not static, but is continually
subject to transformation.11 It is able to host ambiguity and even con-
trasting claims, so that the narratives in themselves contain seeds for
transformation.12 Transformation in collective memory is crucial for
the continuity of a community: constant revitalization of narratives
enables new experiences to be embedded in the collective memory.13
Thus, a constant dialogue between the past and the present takes place
in which collective memory is formed and reshaped through a process
in which a social group ‘reconstructs its own history from a current
ideological stance’.14
The narratives of collective memory are built around formative
events. The narratives open with commemorations of beginnings,
emphasizing ‘a “great divide” between the in-group and the out-group’,
which is ‘used to dispel any denial of the group’s legitimacy’, justifying
‘the group’s claim as a distinct unit, often by demonstrating that its
roots go back to a distant past’.15 These formative events that function
as building blocks are ambiguous and open to different interpreta-
tions, thus playing an important role in processes of transformation.
When changes occur in society, the tension between the way that a
formative event is understood and the present reality may become so
high, that the interpretation is transformed. Counter narratives that
function within the collective memory provide material for such a new
interpretation.16

9
Nikki Slocum-Bradley, ‘Introduction: Borders of the Mind’, in idem (ed.), Pro-
moting Conflict or Peace through Identity (Hampshire, 2008), pp. 1–20, esp. 8.
10
Daniel Bar-Tal and Yona Teichmann, Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict:
Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish Society (Cambridge, 2005), p. 124.
11
Transformation is understood here as the result of new experiences leading to
change in the perspective of a group, and therefore to a change in narratives. The term
is also used in hermeneutics in a more normative way. Transformation then refers to
a form of appropriation of a narrative in which the reader is changed, as opposed to
freezing up, which occurs when a melting of the reader’s horizon and that of the text
does not take place.
12
Yael Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli
National Tradition (London, 1997), p. 5.
13
Alan Kirk, ‘Social and Cultural Memory’, in Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher (eds.),
Memory, Tradition and Text (Semeia Studies, Atlanta, 2005), pp. 1–24, esp. 5.
14
Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, pp. 8–9.
15
Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, p. 7.
16
Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, p. 10.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 49

In counter or hidden narratives, the master narrative that is the

dominant narrative in a certain society is challenged by subordinate
groups living under the hegemony of the dominant master narrative.
These counter narratives use the language and concepts of the domi-
nant narrative, making use of the rights and duties explained there and
the ambiguity and tensions it contains.17
The concept of collective memory has been applied in biblical
research mainly to the New Testament,18 but thus far memory stud-
ies have not influenced the research on the book of Jeremiah.19 Given
the characteristics of the book, it is worth the effort to do so. Crucial
to the development of the book of Jeremiah was the context of ten-
sions and group conflict in Judean society resulting from the threat of
the Babylonians, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the deportations
of groups of Judeans.20 A ‘Jeremianic debate’ took place in which
each of these groups expressed their identity in interaction with the
Jeremianic tradition, often exclusively identifying themselves as the
heirs of the tradition. We find traces of these struggles for identity in
the book, testifying to the complicated history of its genesis. The book
therefore contains conflicting, overlapping, dominant, and counter
narratives, and it is shaped like a master commemorative narrative in
which transformation takes place again and again.

3 The Jeremianic Tradition

Not only the book of Jeremiah, but also what I call the ‘Jeremianic tra-
dition’ can be understood from the perspective of collective memory:
the process of re-appropriation did not stop when the texts took on
a more definite shape. First, differences between the Septuagint and

17
James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, New Haven, 1990.
18
See, for instance, Kirk and Thatcher, Memory, Tradition and Text.
19
The conflicting ideological perspectives in the book of Jeremiah have attracted
attention. See, for instance, Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Strug-
gles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose (London, 2003). Sharp argues that
in the redaction of the Deutero-Jeremianic prose two competing ideological positions
can be identified: a pro-exile and a Judah-based group. According to Christopher Seitz
a conflict over the interpretation of the exile influenced the formation of the book of
Jeremiah. Seitz distinguishes between a position that foresees full doom in the events
of 597, a post-597 voice which calls Zedekiah and those who remained in the land to
submit to the Babylonians, and an exilic voice (Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Con-
flict: Redactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah [Berlin, 1989], pp. 294–296).
20
Seitz, Theology in Conflict, p. 3.
50 janneke stegeman

the Masoretic Text testify to ongoing literary and textual develop-

ments: the book in the Septuagint is about one-seventh shorter, which
seems to reflect a shorter Hebrew text.21 Second, some of the mate-
rial is arranged differently.22 The Oracles against the Nations follow
Jer 25:13 in the Septuagint, while in the Masoretic Text they are placed
at the end of the book, in chapters 46–51. John Hill writes that the
place of the Oracles against the Nations in the masoretic tradition
reflects the self-understanding of the group behind the last redaction
of the Masoretic Text, who considered the exile as not having ended
with the return. This idea was present in the post-exilic community
and the Masoretic Text of the book of Jeremiah has its own particular
contribution to it. The book does not move from prophecies of doom
to those of hope, picturing Babylon as the evil empire, but maintains
‘a delicate balance and tension between the present judgment and
the future hope’. It establishes a metaphorical identification between
Babylon and Judah, presenting a nuanced, distinct, and subtle por-
trayal of Babylon, reflecting the book’s ‘capacity to surprise’. The book
of Jeremiah according to the Masoretic Text is framed by references to
exile in 1:1–3 and chapter 52, thus constructing ‘the world of the text
as one of unended exile’.23
Andrew Shead notes that ‘the existence of two recensions of
Jeremiah does not unlock the literary history of the book, but attests
only to the existence of a literary history’, of which Jeremiah in the
Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are two witnesses. With Shead I
assume that the Septuagint is based on a shorter Hebrew text, which
I will call its Vorlage. This text cannot simply be seen as more origi-
nal, but has to be understood as a distinct recension.24 The book of
Jeremiah once existed in a stage preceding the present Masoretic
and Septuagint shapes. From there it developed in different direc-
tions partly as a result of tensions in the text, of developments already
present in the chapter, and of extra-textual factors. My interest is

21
Emanuel Tov, ‘The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Tex-
tual History,’ in The Greek and the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint
(Leiden, 1999), pp. 363–384, esp. 363.
22
Tov, ‘Literary History’, p. 363.
23
John Hill, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT
(Leiden, 1999), pp. 212, 213, 218.
24
Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book, p. 22.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 51

in the understanding of Jeremiah 32 reflected by these two distinct

recensions.25
The book of Jeremiah continued to be appropriated in the world
outside of the text. It was reinterpreted by new groups in new contexts,
shaping and being shaped by the narratives of these contexts. This
runs parallel to processes in the genesis of the book of Jeremiah: new
participants in the tradition reinterpret elements and actualize them.
By doing this they (re)define their identity in interaction with the text
and other interpretations of it. Often in the Jeremianic tradition this
process took place in a situation of conflict, a situation in which iden-
tity is under pressure. Analysing these appropriations is relevant not
only because they are part of the ongoing Jeremianic tradition, but
also as a test case of how the interaction between group identity and
tradition takes place in a situation of group conflict. In the intractable
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, two parties representing national ideolo-
gies claim the same land. Because the state of Israel is the more pow-
erful party, the Zionist narrative functions as the dominant narrative.
The Palestinians occupy a subordinate position, trying to counter the
Zionist narrative.26 Given the stress, fear, and ambiguity caused by the
conflict, the narratives of both groups need to safeguard their group
identity vis-à-vis the other group.27
In this approach to the Jeremianic tradition as cultural memory, I
do not make a fundamental distinction between the different layers of
Jeremiah 32, the chapter in its final version in the Masoretic Text and
the Septuagint, and subsequent phases in which Jeremiah 32 has been
appropriated again and again in the world outside of the text. I under-
stand each of these as phases in an ongoing process of transformation
within the Jeremianic tradition.

25
In this article I do not address the question of which text is more original, nor
do I differentiate between the work of the redactor of the Vorlage of the Septuagint
and its translator.
26
See Scott, Domination and the Arts, p. 92. In both the Israeli and in the Palestinian
society several narratives function. The majority of Israelis, whether or not they are
religious, supports the Zionist narrative, which is connected to the biblical narra-
tive of exile and return (see David M. Gunn, ‘Next Year in Jerusalem’, in Thomas
L. Thompson [ed.], Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition [London, 2003], pp.
258–271, esp. 260).
27
Bar-Tal and Teichman, Stereotypes and Prejudice, p. 84.
52 janneke stegeman

4 The Unique Perspective Presented

in Jeremiah 32[39]:36–41

Jeremiah 32 contains traces of contesting narratives. These can be

understood when associated with groups in Judean society, during and
after the days of Jeremiah, which claim to be the heirs of the Jeremianic
tradition. In terms of collective memory, their narratives are transfor-
mations within the Jeremianic narrative, through experiences of crisis
and group conflict resulting from the Babylonian threat.
We find the first interpretation of the purchase integrated into the
story itself, in vv. 14 and 15:
14. Thus said Adonai of Hosts, the Lord of Israel:
‘Take these documents, this document of purchase, the sealed one and
this open book, and put them in an earthenware jar so that they last
a long time.’
15. For thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel:
‘Houses and fields and vineyards will continually (again)28 be bought in
this land.’
The purchase is interpreted as a modest perspective of hope, pointing
beyond the Babylonian dominance to a future in which documents of
purchase will have value once more and economic life will be revived.29
This is the perspective of those who remained in the land with King
Zedekiah after King Jehoiachin and the upper class were deported in
597. Jeremiah is pictured as one of those who remain, showing perse-
verance in days of oppression.
The perspective differs from that of those deported with Jehoiachin,
now living in Babylon and pressing for a return. In their ideology
King Zedekiah and the people who remained in the land are doomed.30
Hope is only for those who return from exile. Vv. 1, 3–5, and
42–44 put the story in a new setting which reapplies the message of

28
Oesch points out that ‫ עוד‬can express continuality (in English translation, ‘con-
tinually’) or a new beginning (‘again’). The former interpretation fits the perspective
of those who remain, the latter that of the returning exiles. The LXX unambiguously
translates, ἐτι, ‘again’ (Josef M. Oesch, ‘Zur Makrostruktur und Textintentionalität
von Jeremia 32’, in Walter Groß [ed.], Jeremia und die ‘Deuteronomistische Bewegung’
[Weinheim, 1995], pp. 215–223, esp. 216–218).
29
Hardmeier writes that the story presents a ‘bescheidene Zukunftsperspektive
nach dem Untergang Jerusalems’ (Hardmeier, ‘Jeremia 32, 2–15’, p. 211).
30
Chapter 24, for instance, presents this perspective.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 53

hope.31 The introduction situates the story in the context of the siege
of Jerusalem in 587 bce. The group of exiles from 597 bce had already
been deported. King Zedekiah and those with him remain in the city
under siege. From the perspective of the exiles from 597, they will be
punished by the disaster God brings upon them (v. 42), which will
result in desolation (v. 43). Their fate is contrasted with that of the
deported, whom God will bring back (‫)כי אשיב את שבותם‬. Verse
44 counters the claim that the land is desolate (v. 43) with a state-
ment derived from v. 15, now applied to a larger geographical area.32
The return is described in factual, economic terms. It is presented as
the restoration of a previous situation. Verse 43 reflects the attitude
towards Judah of those exiles who, after some generations, had built
up a life in Babylon and had no intention of leaving. The concepts
of ‘exile’ and ‘return’ are used to counter this position. Identifying
Judeans living in Babylon as exiles suggests that they should ‘return’ to
what is their land because being in Babylon means being out of place.
The concepts express a claim to the land and an exclusive identity as
the people of God. The concepts only apply to those who return from
exile. The reality is concealed that while some groups were deported
during the period of Babylonian rule, others stayed in the land. This
perspective then is the dominant perspective in this chapter. The nar-
rative of those who stayed in the land functions as a kind of counter
narrative. Those who returned from Babel to Judah were confronted
with those who remained in the land, having had different experiences
and having constructed a different identity.
Judging from vv. 16–25 (Jeremiah’s prayer) and vv. 26–35 (God’s
response), the transformation took place in phases. Step by step those
recipients of the tradition who were deported gave meaning to their
experiences of being away from the land, interpreting it as a neces-
sary punishment. Vv. 26–35 seem to present an earlier phase in this
development than vv. 16–25, which offer a more positive and refined
narrative, discussing the human responsibility and presenting the ori-
gins of the addressees in a positive light. Parallels can be pointed out
between the processes here and the way in which collective memory
is shaped. Verse 25 links the prayer and the answer to the chapter by

31
See Rom-Shiloni, ‘The Prophecy’, p. 207, and Hardmeier, ‘Jeremia 32: 2–15’,
p. 198. Hardmeier points out that vv. 6–15 are ‘kunstvoll nachinterpretierend in die
Komposition eingearbeitet’.
32
Rom-Shiloni, ‘The Prophecy’, pp. 206, 207.
54 janneke stegeman

creating a contrast between Jeremiah’s purchase of the land and the

fact that the city is delivered into the hands of the Chaldeans.33 Other-
wise the sections are not reflections on future hope but rather on why
the destruction happened. Narratives of collective memory establish
the origins of a group and point out continuity34 in order to demon-
strate ‘that its roots go back to a distant past’, and to justify ‘the group’s
claim as a distinct unit’.35 We see this in vv. 20, 21: continuity is estab-
lished with ‘your people Israel’ to whom the land was given, and who
then turned to sin. Narratives of collective memory also assign rights
and duties to in-group and out-group members. This is what happens
in vv. 18 and 19, where the effects of the deeds of men are discussed,
and also in vv. 22 and 23. According to these last verses the relation-
ship between God and his people is such that God gave them the land,
and in response the people should have listened to God’s teachings.
Since they did not listen, the people have to be punished.
The answer to the prayer (vv. 27–35), however, presents the ori-
gins of the people negatively: they have done nothing but evil (v. 30),
Jerusalem has aroused anger from the day it was built (v. 31), and,
therefore, it needs to be destroyed completely (v. 31). This section
presents the perspective of full doom. In the terms of James C. Scott,
the entire pre-597 order is accused of failing to meet the rules of God’s
hegemony, and, therefore, the bond between them and God no longer
exists.36 According to these sections God gave the city into the hands
of the Chaldeans, and thus God is still in control, safeguarding a
restricted group of Judeans—the returning exiles. Their narrative has
become the dominant narrative.
Vv. 36–41 are of a very different nature:
Jer 32:36–41 (Masoretic Text)37
36. Therefore, assuredly, thus Adonai the Lord of Israel has spoken con-
cerning this city of which you say: ‘It has been given into the hand of the

33
Both MT and LXX present this delivering of the city into the hands of the
Chaldeans as something that had already happened, which matches the urgency of
the situation presented here: ‘here are the siege mounds!’ (v. 24).
34
Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, p. 7.
35
Slocum-Bradley, ‘Introduction’, p. 12.
36
See Scott, Domination and the Arts, p. 92. Scott explains that this is a tactic used
by oppressed groups to negate dominant ideologies. A less radical step is to criticize
the dominant stratum for violating the rules according to which they rule. According
to Seitz these verses stem from those deported in 597, who regard the remnant as
doomed (Seitz, Theology in Conflict, p. 294).
37
My translation—JS.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 55

King of Babylon by the sword and by the famine and by the pestilence.’
37. ‘Behold, I will gather them out of all countries to which I have driven
them in my anger and in my wrath and in great indignation and I will
bring them again unto this place and I will cause them to dwell safely.
38.They will be my people and I will be their God 39. And I will give
them one heart and one way to fear me for ever for their good and for
their sons after them. 40. And I will make an everlasting covenant with
them [which involves that] I will not turn away from them to do them
good and I will put my fear in their hearts that they do not turn away
from me. 41. I will rejoice over them to do them good and I will faith-
fully plant them in this land with all my heart and all my soul.’
Dalit Rom-Shiloni demonstrates the independent character of vv.
36–41 through an examination of five unique literary features of these
verses. Of these I discuss the concept of the everlasting covenant and,
most importantly, the genre of this section. As to genre, the section is
shaped like a quasi-disputation. The statement in the quotation (v. 36)
addresses the city of Jerusalem and presents the destruction as already
having taken place. The refutation (vv. 37–41) does not counter this
statement and has no literary connections to it.38 The city and its
destruction are not discussed at all here. Instead, those in exile are
addressed. The sin-punishment scheme central to vv. 16–25 and vv.
26–35 does not apply here. In fact, the genre of disputation speech is
used to counter previous positions present in the chapter. In v. 36 King
Nebuchadnezzar is presented as the agent of destruction by uniquely
applying to him the execution of God’s instruments of destruction—
war, pestilence, and disease. Verse 37 counters this by presenting God
as the ultimate agent of the exile: God is pictured as the active force of
destruction.39 The refutation continues to sketch an image of the future
that differs greatly from the claims in vv. 14, 15, 42–44: an everlast-
ing covenant will govern the relation between God and his people, in
which turning away from God is no longer an option. While other
texts in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah refer to a bilateral covenant, here
God ‘is the only active agent of change’. This time the change is not
one of destruction, but of a positive transformation of the people with-
out demanding their positive response. Rom-Shiloni also points out
that in the prophecy of the new covenant in Jer 31:31–34 the attri-
bute ‘new’ points back to the former covenant, while ‫‘ עולם‬projects the
future, and does not mention either past commitments or prior sin of

38
Rom-Shiloni, ‘The Prophecy’, pp. 202–204.
39
Rom-Shiloni, ‘The Prophecy’, p. 211.
56 janneke stegeman

the people’.40 Vv. 38–41 describe the ‘return’ not in economic terms as
in vv. 42–44, but in religious terms, as a return to God.
The perspective of hope expressed in vv. 36–41, embodied in the
everlasting covenant which depicts the future relation between God
and people as one of perfect harmony, seems beyond the experience of
any group of readers. It functions in a different way than the more tan-
gible claims of vv. 42–44. Vv. 36–41 seem to be beyond any claim of
fulfillment. The section constructs a world in which the events of 587
belong to the far past, but the everlasting covenant has not yet come.
The group producing this insertion apparently experienced itself as
living in between punishment and the fulfillment of these promises.
Exile and return gain a more symbolic meaning. One may live in the
land, but still be in exile, in a situation of religious shortcoming. This
indicates that what lies behind this insertion in the text is no longer
the group pressing for return and for ownership of land and religious
tradition, but apparently a group urging religious renewal, a group that
has Jerusalem as its centre, while also including the Diaspora. Although
they returned to the land, in their experience the exile, in a spiritual
sense, had not ended. The idea of the unending exile then does not
seem to be an innovation in the Masoretic Text, but is already pres-
ent in this stage of the literary development of the text. In a way, this
position steps over older debates of which we find remainders in the
chapter. It no longer distinguishes between ‘returning exiles’ and other
groups. It does not focus on the past, but sketches a common future.

5 Verses 36–41 within the Structure

of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint

The insertion of vv. 36–41 casts new light on Jeremiah 32 in its pre-
vious redactional structure. The Masoretic Text and the Septuagint
as texts in their own right present a particular understanding of the
chapter, especially of vv. 36–41. An analysis of the structure of the two
versions shows that they differ in what the role of the narrator is and
how the different sections are presented. This, together with differ-
ences in wording, results in two texts bringing forward different mes-
sages. Below is an overview of the relevant differences in Jeremiah 32

40
Rom-Shiloni, ‘The Prophecy’, pp. 217–218.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 57

between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, the differences being
mainly in structure but also in wording:

Jeremiah 39 (Septuagint)41 Jeremiah 32 (Masoretic Text)

v. 1 the word that came from the word that came to Jeremiah
God to Jeremiah from God

v. 5 and Zedekiah will enter and to Babel Zedekiah will be brought

Babylon
and there he will sit and there he will be
until I take note of him
declares God
if (when) you fight the Chaldeans
you will not succeed

v. 6 and and Jeremiah said

the word of God came to the Word of God came to me
Jeremiah
saying saying

v. 8 and Hanamel came to me and Hanamel came to me

v. 25 [. . .]
‘Buy for you the field for ‘Buy for you the field for money
money.’
And I wrote a book
and sealed it
and had witnesses witness. and have witnessed witness.’

v. 26 and the word of God came and the word of God came to
to me Jeremiah
saying saying

v. 36 therefore
[. . .] [. . .]
the city of which you (sing., the city of which you (pl., anonymous
Jeremiah) say group) say
‘It will be given [. . .]’ ‘It has been given’
v. 37 behold, I gather them from behold, I gather them from all
the whole land the lands

v. 43 the land of which you the land of which you

(sing., Jeremiah) say (pl., anonymous group) say

41
My translations of Hebrew and Greek text—JS.
58 janneke stegeman

v. 44 and fields will be bought with and fields will be bought with
money money
and you will write a book and a book written
and seal it and sealed
and have witnesses witness and witnesses will witness [. . .]
[. . .]

In the Masoretic Text the narrator plays a more important role, such
that the text moves away from the situation of Jerusalem’s siege and
Jeremiah’s imprisonment to a post-exilic context. Here the accent is
on vv. 26–44 and, within that section, on vv. 36–41. A new group is
explicitly addressed in the Masoretic Text. In the Septuagint the chap-
ter is constructed as a dialogue between God and Jeremiah, staying
within the temporal framework indicated in the introduction, accord-
ing to which the city is besieged. The accent is on the word of God in
v. 7 and on the role of the prophet Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 32 begins, in both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,
with a Wortgeschehensformel in v. 1, a macro-structural feature
announcing a word of God. Here it is only loosely connected to what
follows, functioning as a superscript for chapters 32 and 33.42 In both
versions vv. 6 and 26 introduce a word of God. The Masoretic Text
presents Jeremiah as the speaker of the formula, ‘and the word of God
came’, in v. 6b. In v. 26 the narrator introduces the word so that in
this verse a link is established with v. 1. In the Septuagint it is the
other way around: the narrator introduces the word of God in v. 6,
connecting back to v. 1, and in v. 26 Jeremiah continues to speak. In
v. 8 in the Septuagint, Jeremiah quite abruptly begins telling a story,
taking over from the narrator (‘and Hanamel came to me’).43 Vv. 16–44
are shaped like a dialogue between God and Jeremiah, reported by
Jeremiah. The accent of the chapter according to this structure is on
v. 7, which presents the word of God. Everything seems to take place in
one scene, namely, while Jerusalem was besieged by the Babylonians.
In the Masoretic Text Jeremiah is presented in the 1st person in vv.
6–25, but in v. 26 the narrator takes over and remains in control until
the end of the chapter. The text focuses the reader’s attention on the
word of God announced by the narrator in v. 26, and delivered in

42
Shead, The Open Book, p. 53.
43
The beginning of the story is odd: Jeremiah takes over from the narrator without
a proper introduction.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 59

v. 27. ‫ ועתה לכן‬in v. 36 in the next section heightens the expectation

of the reader even more.44 Vv. 36–41 form the heart of the chapter.
Connected to these differences in structure is a difference in addressee
in vv. 36 and 43. In the Septuagint God addresses a 2nd person sing.
in vv. 36 and 41, namely, Jeremiah. This fits the construction of the
chapter as a dialogue between God and the prophet. In the Masoretic
Text, however, a 2nd person pl. is addressed. It is not clear how this
group is to be identified. We find the 2nd person pl. addressee in
v. 5, too, in a plus in the Masoretic Text to which we will now turn
our attention.
The plus in the Masoretic Text of vv. 5 and 6 consists of two parts:
‘until I take note of him, declares God’ and ‘if you fight the Chaldeans
you will not succeed’. Shead suggests parablepsis in the Vorlage of
the Septuagint, although he does regard a similar plus in chapter
27[34]:22 as an expansion in the Masoretic Text.45 However, in both
cases the plus makes sense as an addition specific to the perspective
of the masoretic tradition. With respect to chapter 32, in the first part
of the plus in v. 5 we find ‘until I take note of him’. Carolyn Sharp
points out that the verb ‫ פגד‬serves to ‘underline the point that it is
the Lord who controls and wills all of these things’.46 What this plus
aims at countering is the ironic, negative view of Nebuchadnezzar that
the similar passage in Jer 34:1–5 puts forward. In Jer 34:5, Zedekiah
is told he will ‘die in peace’. This has to be read as a ‘heavily ironic
proclamation to Zedekiah that he will not die in the military conflict
[. . .] but will instead be treacherously murdered by Nebuchadnezzar’.

44
‫ לכן‬is not represented in the LXX. The combination with ‫ ועתה‬also occurs in Jer
42:15 where LXX only has διὰ τοῦτο. It seems that the MT redactor added emphasis
here by suggesting a causal relation.
45
Shead, The Open Book, pp. 97–98, 102–103. Shead suggests parablepsis in the
Vorlage of the LXX between ‫ יהיה‬in v. 5 and ‫ היה‬in v. 6. The translator supplied the
verb καθίζω to make sense of ‫יהיה‬, while ‫ אלי‬was read as short for ‘to Jeremiah’. This
would explain the occurrence of καθίζω in v. 5, which never translates ‫ יהיה‬in the
book of Jeremiah, as well as the odd word order in the LXX: ‫ ויהי דבר יהוה‬is always
rendered with καί ἐγένετο (ἐγένεθη) λόγος κυρίου. Shead suggests that the translator
transposed the verb to reflect that the Vorlage was unusual. However, it might be that
parablepsis occurred, but that v. 5b was added to the MT in a later stage, as Shead
also acknowledges.
46
Strengthening the case for the secondary nature of the plus is the occurrence of
the verb ἐπισκέπτομαι in v. 41 LXX, where it oddly translates ‫שוש‬. ‫ פקד‬is always ren-
dered with ἐπισκέπτομαι in the Septuagint. It seems then that in the Masoretic Text
in v. 41 ‫ פקד‬was changed into ‫שוש‬, because after the addition in v. 5 ‫ פקד‬became
too ambiguous.
60 janneke stegeman

The addition ‘until I take note of him’ does not mean to cast a more
favourable light on Zedekiah but seeks to rehabilitate Nebuchadnezzar,
who is, according to the masoretic tradition only, a servant of the
Lord.47 Sharp’s explanation shows that in fact the outlook of this plus
matches a similar plus in Jer 27[34]:22. This chapter recounts how the
temple vessels will be brought to Babylon, and then the Masoretic Text
has a plus: ‘and there they shall remain, until I take note of them, says
the Lord, and bring them up and return them to this place’. Here, too,
the role of God in foreseeing and planning the events is underlined,
and exile is presented as a phase that will last until God takes the ini-
tiative to end it.
In the second part of the plus the anonymous ‘you’ group is told
that fighting against the Babylonians is to no avail since God is in
control and the Chaldeans are a tool in his hands. A new construc-
tion of identity for those Judeans who underwent this fate is opened
up: destruction and exile had to happen, and hope for the future
lies beyond these events. These lines of thinking are present in the
Septuagint tradition as well, but there is a tendency in the Masoretic
Text to elaborate on them.
We now turn to the difference in addressee in vv. 36 and 43. The
Masoretic Text addresses a 2nd person plural, while the Septuagint
has a singular addressee. Vv. 26–44 in the Masoretic Text are for-
mulated as a dispute between God and this anonymous group. This
dispute is presented to the reader by the narrator. The prophet retreats
into the background, making room for new recipients of the tradition
quoted and addressed in the (quasi-)disputation speeches of vv. 36–41
and 42–44. Verse 43 addresses those living in Babylon. Their claim
in v. 42, that Judah is a desolated land, is countered, and they are
exhorted to return to Judah.48 In vv. 36–41, on which the Masoretic
Text focuses, a different group is addressed. Here it is not the perspec-
tive of the ‘returning exiles’ that is put forward, but the position of a
later group, who claimed that the exile has not ended with the return
to Judah. A difference between the two versions in v. 37 matches this.
The Masoretic Text reads ‫( מכל הארצות‬pl.), while the Septuagint

47
Sharp, Prophecy, pp. 136–140. The title ‘my servant’ applied to Nebuchadnezzar
is found in the book of Jeremiah only in its MT version, in Jer 25:9, 27:6; 43:10.
48
Palestinian readers of Jeremiah 32 pointed out that it was and is part of Zionist
ideology to present Palestine as ‘a land without people for a people without land’.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 61

has ἐκ πάσης τῆς γῆς (sing.).49 Apparently, the group addressed in

the Masoretic Text is a post-exilic group living in a situation of wider
Diaspora and experiencing themselves as still living in exile. In the
Masoretic Text, vv. 26–44 are situated (long) after the narrative of the
purchase. The Masoretic Text takes the liberty to explicitly address
the post-conquest context.50 This version of the chapter steps over the
older controversies presented in vv. 16–25.
In accordance with that, in v. 36 of the Hebrew text the phrase ‘the
city is given’ refers to the past, whereas the Septuagint has a future
tense.51 The Septuagint stays within the temporal framework indicated
in the introduction, namely, the siege of Jerusalem. In vv. 36 and 43 of
the Septuagint, Jeremiah is quoted, and thus a link is established with
σὺ λέγεις in v. 25. In v. 25 the Septuagint has a plus, in which the ele-
ments of the purchase as presented in vv. 9–12 are repeated. Besides
this, in v. 25 of the Masoretic Text Jeremiah quotes God, while in the
Septuagint this is shorter and is followed by lines in which Jeremiah
lists how he responded to God’s message. Whereas in the Masoretic
Text v. 26 marks a new section, in the Septuagint the story told by
Jeremiah continues. Thus, the Septuagint presents vv. 8–44 as a dia-
logue between God and Jeremiah, focusing on the role of the prophet
in establishing the new future. The prophet himself is presented as the
agent of transformation in the tradition. Here the accent is on how to
go about actually buying land. Jeremiah is presented as the guardian of
that process. We see this in v. 44, too. The Septuagint again explicitly
addresses Jeremiah: when land is bought, the prophet has to take care
of the legal details of purchasing land. The Masoretic Text does not
specify who will be writing, sealing, and witnessing, but presents these
activities as a procedure taking place in general after the return.
The final shaping of both versions of chapter 32 has to be placed at
some distance to the conflicts in Judean society following the events

49
Shead argues that the Vorlage of the LXX must have had a plural and that the
rendering in the LXX may also mean ‘from the whole earth’. He points out that the
question of who is gathered according to these verses is a crux interpretum (Shead,
The Open and the Sealed Book, p. 212). From this literary perspective it is reasonable
that the Vorlage of the LXX stays closer to the situation of the chapter (as also in
vv. 36 and 43), while the MT expands the message of the chapter.
50
Shead, The Open Book, p. 221.
51
In v. 25, the city is referred to as already delivered into the hands of the Chaldeans,
which is consistent with the situation of the siege. The city is not pictured as destroyed
(as it is in v. 36).
62 janneke stegeman

of the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of part of its peo-

ple. The Masoretic Text moves away from the context of the siege in
order to address new participants of the tradition in different circum-
stances. Here vv. 36–41 are the heart of the chapter. Apparently, in the
Masoretic Text it is necessary to explicitly create distance between the
debates between ‘exiles’ and the ‘people of the land’ in order to pres-
ent a new perspective. The Septuagint does not move away from the
context of the siege. It seems then that the interest of this version of
chapter 32 is not so much to present a new perspective on (post-)exilic
debates but to present a more accurate version of the chapter and a
particular understanding of the role of Jeremiah. The prophet becomes
a symbolic figure here, more or less detached from history.
In both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, Jeremiah 32 is a
multilayered chapter that often suggests cohesion and unity, where
in fact it is ambiguous. Each version puts the various elements in
a framework according to its understanding of the text. The chap-
ter contains many themes and elements, creating a complicated set
of intertextual relations with the rest of the book and with the other
books of the Hebrew Bible. The transformations within the chapter set
some of these themes aside, such as the identity construction in which
staying in the land is central.52 Other themes are elaborated upon in a
continuing development of the tradition. The Masoretic Text develops
the themes of (unending) exile and return, and the positions of God
and Nebuchadnezzar, while the Septuagint focuses on the role of the
prophet.

6 Appropriations in Bethlehem and Jerusalem

A group of Israeli Jews and a group of Palestinian Christians each read

and responded to Jeremiah 32.53 With me present each group met four
times between November 2008 and March 2009.54 The Jewish-Israeli

52
Hardmeier, ‘Jeremia 32, 2–15’, p. 211.
53
What I present here is the attitude towards the text and the appropriation devel-
oped in the group in general. Individuals sometimes held different views. Though
such minority views, often representing creative appropriations, may be an important
aspect of the process of tradere, they are not discussed in this article, though they will
be included in my PhD research.
54
I explained to the groups that my interest was in the way they read and under-
stand the text as a group. They were free to approach the text in the way they
were accustomed to. I made recordings of the meetings. I did not take part in the
conversations.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 63

group consisted of four women from Jerusalem, all religious and affili-
ated with (modern) orthodox, conservative, or liberal Judaism. Two
of them teach at yeshivas, the other two are also well acquainted with
the Tanakh. The Palestinian Christian group consisted of four people,
three of them Bethlehemites and the other an Israeli Palestinian from
Galilee. Two members were theologians and the others were inter-
ested in theology. All were religious and belonged to different Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Both groups perceived the
text as part of their religious heritage and read a translation based on
the Masoretic Text. Both groups brought up the conflict in the process
of readings. I sketched the interaction taking place between vv. 36–41
and the narratives of each group, asking whether and how new experi-
ences are embedded into the Jeremianic tradition.55
The Israeli Jewish and the Palestinian Christian groups understand
themselves and Jeremiah 32 in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict, and approach the text as if it is part of the Zionist narrative.56
In both groups the claims of the ‘returning exiles’ and their impli-
cations are central to the discussion. Whereas in general the Israeli
group transfers the claims of the ‘returning exiles’ to Israeli Jews, the
Palestinians try to counter these claims. Both groups focus on the
claims and the rules they read in the chapter.
The Palestinian Christians attempt to place Jeremiah 32 in the
Christian meta-narrative, thus transforming its perspective and re-
addressing it:
He [Jesus] is taking it to a new level. It is no longer the promises to one
people: it is the good news to all people.
The group members relate positively to aspects of the chapter:
Not only Jeremiah put his documents in an earthen jar: we also did that
when we were pushed out by force;
The prophetic voice criticizes—that is what we need;

55
As part of my PhD research I conducted these meetings with one more Palestinian
Christian group and one more Israeli Jewish group. The two sets of groups engaged
in a dialogue on the text in a second phase. In this article, I present some of my find-
ings so far, only concerning the two groups mentioned above and only discussing the
separate meetings, not the dialogue of the second phase.
56
Though Zionism is diverse and largely non-religious in origin, non-religious
Zionists also consider the Tanakh as their book of national history, on which their
claim to the land is founded: it is the narrative of their origins (Zerubavel, Recovered
Roots, p. 9).
64 janneke stegeman

For me as a Palestinian, we are living in a crisis today. It is almost an

analogy to the crisis the Jews were living in: they were under occupation.
It was a real crisis, but from such a crisis a sign of hope came out: take
a piece of land and you will come back and you will have it.
However, they feel this chapter presents a ‘limited perspective on his-
tory’ and presents God as a ‘tribal God’. Moreover, they see parallels
with Zionist claims:
When I read v. 43: ‘Fields shall be bought, in this land, of which you say:
it is without man or beast.’ That is the Zionist idea! That Palestine is a
land without people, and the Jews are a people without land! I see many
Zionist principles in this chapter. I also have a problem with that.
Similarly, they oppose the exclusivism of the eternal covenant:
An eternal covenant. I have a problem as a Palestinian, as a Christian, as
a human being. If I believe in the Bible, and this is the word of God, and
it speaks of an everlasting covenant for the Jews, that is how I understand
it. ‘With all My heart and soul.’ What is left for me as a Christian?
In the end, the Palestinian group experiences the chapter as voicing
one massive and dominant perspective. Like the Zionist narrative it
does not allow for partial appropriation or transformation by new
experiences, rather it needs to be countered. Thus, their criticism of
exclusivist ideology in the text as well as in Zionism prevents them
from transforming the message and applying it to themselves:
I might agree with certain moral lessons, but I am not going to take all
of that as my parameters for faith or for enhancing my commitment to
peace and justice.
They do not want to be addressed by this chapter or connect their
identity to a narrative that they experience as part of a dominant nar-
rative violating their rights.
The Israeli Jewish group experiences the chapter as part of their
national history, indeed as their national narrative: it narrates their
origins, mirrors their experiences, strengthens their identity, and sets
out the rules they have to obey. They empathize with the narrative told
in this chapter:
As I read it, I became excited—I feel it talks about my family, it gives
all the history, from bad times to good times. The feeling of destruction
connects it to our generation. In the destruction of the city I see the
Holocaust: my grandfather who did not survive, my dad did. My grand-
mother came back with two children. They were coming from destruc-
tion, and going to building. It is something we feel in my family.
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 65

Though the covenant is presented without conditions in vv. 36–41,

they focus on a covenant relation which includes responsibilities from
the side of the people,
That is a fundamental view in the Torah. According to Deuteronomy
11 God says: ‘As long as you observe the commandments you are here.’
Otherwise no rain, no crop, exile. Exile is always the ultimate penalty.
They apply this to their situation in the state of Israel. Vv. 36–41 will
come true if Israeli Jews keep the covenant:
The last verses are about creating a better land. [. . .] We started very well,
but then we did not go in the right direction. If we do better, we will go
in the direction of v. 39. But v. 43 is part of the reality. If we behave bad,
if we don’t buy field in a right way—meaning: to create a country that is
led well, with judges behaving OK, etc. Buy fields with money means: we
have to live a normal and ethic life, I have no question that buying fields
is about living a normal life, to be settled. If we don’t, maybe tomorrow
we will be kicked out.
The Israeli readers feel that this chapter in the first place is meant for
them: the Jewish people are addressed here. The chapter lays out the
rules governing the relation between God and them:
My problem is, this chapter for me is very private: it is about my people,
it is about our dirty laundry.
It is here that the Palestinian readers attempt to counter the Zionist
narrative, pointing out that the Israeli Jews do not keep the rules laid
out in this chapter:
They do not buy land as they should according to this chapter, they
steal it.
The Palestinian readers insist that the Israelis apply the same rules to
the Palestinians:
We took the keys of our homes. Jeremiah here says: you will come back
and this is yours. We don’t even have the right to come back. Israelis
are not recognizing, although we have the documents, that we belong
to this land.
Thus, they criticize ‘the dominant stratum for having violated the
norms by which they claim to rule’,57 countering them on the basis

57
Scott, Domination and the Arts, p. 92.
66 janneke stegeman

of the rights and duties assigned in the narrative. They criticize the
Zionist narrative of history.
Within the framework in which both groups read, the Palestinian
readers have to access the text through the Zionist narrative. They
approach the text as a subordinate group, trying to counter the text
they experience as part of the dominant narrative used to oppress
them. In this framework, the prophecy of vv. 36–41 is understood as
a conditional promise that is applied to Israeli Jews.

7 Some Last Words

An analysis of the Jeremianic tradition as collective memory makes

the processes shaping this tradition visible. The Jeremianic tradition
developed in situations of conflict, in which groups defined their iden-
tity in an interchange with the tradition, often by exclusively claiming
to be the addressees of the text and the heirs of the tradition, thus
transforming the tradition. These transformations are a necessary
endeavour for the continuity both of the tradition and of the groups
appropriating it. The book of Jeremiah then is a collective memory
consisting of a complicated network of interrelated, often contradict-
ing narratives, promoting the interests of one group over against those
of other groups. Chapter 32 is a multi-layered chapter that contains a
plurality of both dominant and subordinate voices. This goes against
a massive view on the text. Vv. 36–41 in particular seem to stem from
a post-conflict perspective, moving beyond older opposing ideological
positions.
The responses of the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Christian
groups give insight into the role of conflict in the appropriation of
the Jeremianic tradition. For readers in the Israeli-Palestinian con-
text, conflict is a daily reality. In this particular case, the dominant
voice in the text overlaps with the dominant narrative of society. Both
groups indeed responded to the chapter as if it were part of the Zionist
narrative. This limits the groups in engaging creatively with the tradi-
tion and in arriving at new appropriations. Both groups had a massive,
take-it-or-leave-it approach to the text, which led the Israeli readers
to fully identify with the text, and the Palestinian readers to dismiss
it. From a hermeneutical point of view then, it can be asked whether
transformation indeed took place in the groups. Did the dispute
between text and reader lead to a melting of horizons, to new insights?
 ‘reading jeremiah makes me angry!’ 67

From this perspective, transformation in the ongoing tradition could

be re-examined as well.
At the same time, counter narratives play a role in the ongoing tra-
dition, and this, too, was seen in the group meetings. The interpreta-
tions of both groups are sometimes ambiguous and show tensions and
counter voices. Individuals gave the onset to interpretations not only
for countering the dominant Zionist narrative, but also for providing a
fresh access to the text, making room for a new perspective on the tra-
dition as well as on their own narrative. In my further PhD research,
I hope to shed light on the role of these counter voices.
 Beyond ‘SingerS and Syntax’: theological
and canonical reflectionS on PSalm 8

carl J. Bosma

This two-part essay interacts with two of eep talstra’s published articles:
‘Singers and Syntax: on the Balance of grammar and Poetry in Psalm 8’ and
‘Psalm 25: Partituur van een gebed’. The first part explores the theological
implications of talstra’s proposed translation of the verbs in Ps 8:3–6. The sec-
ond part argues that talstra’s reading of Psalm 8 fits a holistic reading of this
psalm and that it is an important step in the hierarchy of exegetical steps.

1 translation options and implications

in his stimulating article on Psalm 8, ‘Singers and Syntax: on the Bal-

ance of grammar and Poetry in Psalm 8’,1 my friend and colleague, eep
talstra, to whom i have the privilege of dedicating this essay, reiterates
one of the keynotes that resounds throughout his writings, namely, the
priority of careful syntactic analysis of biblical texts over form-critical
and stylistic analyses. in this article talstra lauds n.a. van Uchelen’s
endeavour to combine syntactic and stylistic features in his exegesis of
the Psalms,2 and laments the fact that in general those who advocate
stylistics, like our mutual mentor, nicholas h. ridderbos,3 are will-
ing to allow perceived stylistic and/or thematic patterns to override
weighty syntactic considerations.4
ironically, however, Van Uchelen’s analysis suffers from the prob-
lem underscored by talstra. to maintain his claim that the poem con-
sists of four strophes of four cola each, Van Uchelen has to break

1
eep talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax: on the Balance of grammar and Poetry in Psalm
8’, in Janet dyk (ed.), Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and other Poetry in and around
the Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of Professor N.A. van Uchelen (amsterdam, 1996),
pp. 11–22.
2
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 11.
3
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 20.
4
a case in point is henning graf reventlow’s intentional translation of the yiqtol
verbs ‫ ִתזְ ְּכ ֶרּנּו‬and ‫ ִת ְפ ְק ֶדּנּו‬in Ps 8:5 as simple past tenses because he is of the opinion that
Psalm 8 is a song of thanksgiving; reventlow, ‘Psalm 8’, Poetica 1 (1967), pp. 309, 320.
70 carl j. bosma

up vv. 5–6.5 Pace Van Uchelen, however, talstra goes on to argue

that syntactically vv. 5–6 must be read as one complex rhetorical
question, a position that, interestingly, was also already defended by
n.h. ridderbos.6
in this article, talstra takes issue with the great variety of proposals
for the segmentation of Psalm 8 into strophes.7 like edward J. Kissane
before him,8 talstra attributes this problem to the fact that exegetes
disregard the grammatical structure of the poem. more specifically,
talstra maintains that exegetes are inconsistent in their translation of
the verbs in Psalm 8: qatal, yiqtol, and, significantly, one wayyiqtol.9
moreover, the various proposals for the segmentation of Psalm 8 are
primarily based on stylistic criteria and not on syntactic markers that
define the type and function of a clause as well as its relationship to
preceding and subsequent clauses. important questions in this regard
are the syntactic place and function of the ‫ ִּכי‬in v. 4, of the complex
interrogative clause in v. 5, of the two ‫ ִּכי‬clauses in v. 5, and the syn-
tactic function of the wayyiqtol verb in v. 6.10 to resolve this problem,
talstra proposes the following hierarchy of exegetical steps for the
analysis:11
Syntactic –tenses, clause types, and clause connections
–the (changing) pattern of actors in the text
Lexical –newly introduced words or sets of words
–repetition of words
Rhetorical –repetition of similar expressions
–refrains
–parallel colons
The application of these exegetical steps to the text of Psalm 8 leads
talstra to translate the yiqtol, yiqtol, wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and yiqtol verbs

5
n.a. van Uchelen, Psalmen deel 1 (1–40) (Pot; nijkerk, 1971), p. 55.
6
nicholas h. ridderbos, De Psalmen opnieuw uit de grondtekst vertaald en ver­
klaard: Eerste deel, Psalm 1–41 (KV; Kampen, 1962), p. 114. in defense of his position,
ridderbos appeals to his father’s commentary, Jan ridderbos, De Psalmen vertaald en
verklaard 1. Psalm 1–41 (cot; Kampen, 1955), pp. 68, 74–75.
7
to this problem one might add the difficulty of the various proposals for a chi-
astic structure for Psalm 8.
8
edward J. Kissane, The Book of the Psalms Translated from a Critically Revised
Hebrew Text 1. Psalms 1–72 (dublin, 1953), p. 32.
9
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 12.
10
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 14.
11
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 21.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 71

in vv. 5–6 modally, and the yiqtol verb in v. 7a as a present indicative.12

moreover, he segments the poem into the following units: vv. 2a, 2b–3,
4–6, 7–9, and 10.13
The purpose of this essay is two-fold. The primary aim is to probe
the theological implications of talstra’s proposed segmentation of the
masoretic text of Ps 8:4–10 and especially of his proposed translation
of the yiqtol, wayyiqtol, yiqtol, yiqtol, and qatal verbs in Ps 8:5–7. to
that end we will first present an overview of the major options for seg-
menting Ps 8:(4)5–10 and for translating the verbs in question. Based
on the results of this survey, we will look at the theological implica-
tions of talstra’s proposed segmentation of Ps 8:4–10. Second, this
article will demonstrate that talstra’s reading of Ps 8:4–9 fits a canoni-
cal reading of Psalm 8 and that this reading is also a significant final
step in the hierarchy of exegetical methods.

1.1 Overview of Segmentation and Translations

a survey of the segmentation of Ps 8:4–9 and of the translation of the
verbs in vv. 5–7 confirms that there is no agreement on the compo-
sitional structure of the passage. a small minority prefers to read v. 4
with vv. 2–3.14 however, n.h. ridderbos, a proponent of this position,
observes that it really does not make any difference for the interpre-
tation of the psalm if v. 4 is read with vv. 2–3 or with vv. 5–9. for
ridderbos it depends more on one’s interpretation of vv. 2–3,15 a com-
plex crux interpretum that is beyond the scope of this essay. The major-
ity reads vv. 4–5 together, with v. 4 serving as the occasion that prompts
the vitally important question in v. 5. following the Septuagint, the
advocates of this position introduce a break between vv. 5 and 6.16 as
a result, vv. 6–9 constitute the answer to the cardinal question posed

12
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 19.
13
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 21.
14
P.a.h. de Boer, ‘Jahu’s ordination of heaven and earth: an essay on Psalm
Viii’, OTS 2 (1943), p. 184; n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, pp. 178–181; Jan l. Koole,
‘Bijbelstudie over Psalm 8’, GThT 65 (1965), pp. 1–2; Ǿystein lund, ‘from the mouth
of Babes and infants you have established Strength’, SJOT 11 (1997), pp. 97–98.
15
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 121. in our opinion, v. 4 can be read as a ‘Janus
line’. moreover, it should be noted that the self-abasement questions in Ps 144:3 and
Job 7:17–18 are not preceded by a ‫ ִּכי‬clause. consequently, we infer that v. 4 in Psalm
8 is not essential to the meaning of the self-abasement question in vv. 5–6.
16
Samuel rolles driver, A Treatise on the Use of Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other
Syntactical Questions (3rd ed.; oxford, 1892), p. 89. cf. davidson, Syntax, § 51.3.
72 carl j. bosma

in v. 5. again, following the Septuagint, the adherents of the major-

ity position translate the wayyiqtol, yiqtol, yiqtol, and qatal verbs in
vv. 6–9 as simple past tenses17 on the assumption that vv. 6–9 refer
to the divine act of creation recorded in gen 1:1–2:3. in fact, robert
alter calls Psalm 8 ‘a kind of summarizing paraphrase of the account
of creation in genesis 1’.18 on the basis of their interpretation of the
wayyiqtol verb ‫ וַ ְּת ַח ְּס ֵרהּו‬in v. 6, however, a small minority prefers to
read v. 6 with vv. 4–5 so that vv. 5–6 (or 4–7a) function as the question
and vv. 7–9 (or vv. 7b–9) as the answer.19 talstra advocates this option
and, in addition to gKc §111l­m, he calls attention to syntactic simi-
larity between Ps 8:5–6 and Job 7:17–18.20 Some of those who argue
for this segmentation translate the verbs in vv. 5–7 as present tense
forms (cf. gKc §107v),21 whereas talstra renders the verbs in vv. 5–6
modally (gKc §107u; Joüon §169e) and the verbs in v. 7 in the pres-
ent and past tense, respectively. to facilitate comparison between the
two basic options, we will provide the dominant translation of Ps 8:4–7
represented by the nrSV next to talstra’s translation of these verses:
nrSV talstra
3
When i look at your heavens, the 4
When i watch heaven, the work of
work of your fingers, your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you the moon and the stars that you
have established; have established,
4
what are human beings that you 5
What is man, that you should notice
are mindful of them, him,
mortals that you care for them? and a human, that you should pay
5
yet you have made them a little attention to him?
lower than god, 6
That you even placed him little
and crowned them with glory below gods
and honor. and with honour and spendour
6
you have given them dominion would crown him?
over the works of your hands; 7
yet you make him rule the works of
you have put all things under your hands.
their feet. all of it you have put under his
feet.22

17
Van Uchelen (Psalmen 1, p. 55) is a notable exception.
18
robert alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (new york, 1985), p. 117. according to
J. clinton mccann, Jr. (‘The Book of Psalms’, in leander Keck et al. [eds.], New Inter­
preter’s Bible 4 [nashville, 1996], p. 712), Psalm 8 ‘clearly recalls’ gen 1:26–28.
19
cf. gKc §111l­m.
20
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, pp. 16–17.
21
J. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, pp. 73–74; n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 114.
22
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, p. 19.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 73

1.2 Comparison of the Two Basic Options

What is the primary difference between these two basic options? With
respect to the first option, n.h. ridderbos observes perceptively that
if one limits the question to v. 5, one has more freedom in identifying
the referents of the verbs.23 according to this reading, for example,
the self-abasement formula in v. 5 emphasizes human insignificance,
whereas vv. 6–9 proclaim human grandeur.24 if, however, one fol-
lows Jan ridderbos, n.h. ridderbos, and talstra and reads v. 6 with
v. 5, then v. 6 constitutes the explanation of the actions referred to by
the verbs in v. 5. moreover, according to this reading, vv. 7–9 con-
stitute the explanation of the indirect claim in v. 625 and function as
the answer to the complex self-abasement question in vv. 5–6.

1.3 Theological Implications

What is the major difference between these two basic options for the
exposition of Ps 8:4–9? if one adopts the majority position that trans-
lates the verbs of vv. 6–9 in the past tense, then these verses refer to
creation as a past event reported in gen 1:1–2:3, a text which is far
removed from the conscious experience of the (contemporary) reader.
moreover, because this reading of Psalm 8 highlights humanity’s pris-
tine status and dignity, it must also explain its disruption. if, however,
one adopts the second position and reads the verbs of vv. 5–6 either as
present indicatives (Jan ridderbos and n.h. ridderbos) or as modals
(talstra), then the emphasis falls on the present.26
The latter is clearly the case in Jan ridderbos’s reading because
he translates the verbs in vv. 5–7a as present indicatives. according
to his reading, v. 6 articulates implicitly and v. 7 explicitly yhwh’s
ongoing providential maintenance of humanity’s near divine status
(v. 6a), royal investiture (v. 6b), and vocation in creation (vv. 7–9).

23
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p 122, n. 6.
24
raymond c. van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18: a mistaken Scholarly
commonplace?’, in P.m. michèle daviau, John W. Wevers, and michael Weigl (eds.),
The World of the Aramaeans 1. Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul­Eugène Dion
(JSot.S 324; Sheffield, 2001), p. 213. according to artur Weiser (The Psalms: A Com­
mentary [tr. herbert hartwell; otl; Philadelphia, 1962], p. 144), in vv. 6–7 ‘the poet
pursues this thought in great detail in order to be able to grasp to the fullest extent
the grandeur of that miracle’.
25
J. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 75; n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, pp. 122–123.
cf. Van Uchelen, De Psalmen 1, pp. 58–59.
26
J. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 73.
74 carl j. bosma

continuously yhwh maintains their royal status (v. 6) and he causes

them to have dominion over creation (v. 7a).
The emphasis on the present is not so clear in talstra’s modal trans-
lation of Ps 8:5–6. This, however, is due to the fact that, as raymond c.
van leeuwen has noted in another context, the translation ‘should’ is
ambiguous ‘and can refer to things done in the past and continuing as
well as to future possibility’.27 in spite of this ambiguity, talstra’s pres-
ent indicative translation of the yiqtol verb ‫ילהּו‬ ֵ ‫ ַּת ְמ ִׁש‬in v. 7a suggests
that his modal translation of vv. 5–6 assumes that these verses refer to
yhwh’s continuous providential care in the present. The primary dif-
ference between his translation and that of ridderbos is that talstra’s
does more justice to the fact that vv. 5–6 are a complex two-part self-
abasement question, which, as george W. coats has demonstrated,28
consists of an element a (a non-verbal interrogative clause) and an
element b (a verbal clause),29 and may therefore be outlined and trans-
lated as follows:30

element a What is man

element b └that you should remember him;
element a and the son of man
element b └that you should care for him,
element b that you should have placed him a little lower than gods
element b and with honour and splendour should crown him?

for the interpretation of this complex self-abasement formula it is

important to recognize the function of each element. The primary
function of element a is not to ‘ask for information about the object’31
but, as is evident from a comparison with exod 16:7–8, to establish the
unworthiness of the subject.32 as such, element a serves as the basis
for element b. The relationship between these two elements may be
described as follows: the subject of element a is unworthy to perform
(cf. exod 3:11) or, if the subject of the(se) verb(s) is socially a superior,

27
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 207, n. 7.
28
george W. coats, ‘Self-abasement and insult formulas’, JBL 89 (1970),
pp. 14–26.
29
coats, ‘Self-abasement and insult formulas’, p. 18.
30
coats, ‘Self-abasement and insult formulas’, p. 15 (translation mine).
31
coats, ‘Self-abasement and insult formulas’, p. 18.
32
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 208.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 75

unworthy to receive (cf. 1 Sam 18:18; 2 Sam 9:8) the verbal actions of
element b.33
in view of the function of the self-abasement formula, we conclude
that in Ps 8:5–6 the speaker uses this formula to underscore that he
as a human being,34 the socially inferior party in the god-man rela-
tionship, is unworthy of the verbal actions in element b of vv. 5–6.
The modal translation of the verbs in element b of vv. 5–6 raises the
question of divine obligation and, in so doing, emphasizes yhwh’s
beneficent actions on behalf of humanity. Because of human unwor-
thiness, yhwh, as the socially superior in the relationship, is not under
any obligation to implement the actions of the verbs in element b of
vv. 5–6. nevertheless, as is evident from ‫ילהּו‬
ֵ ‫ ַּת ְמ ִׁש‬in v. 7a, yhwh takes
the risk of freely overriding the unworthiness of humans in element a
and beneficently implementing the actions of the verbs in element b
(vv. 5–6) on behalf of humanity so that humanity may rule on behalf
of yhwh (vv. 7–9).
in summary, a comparison of J. ridderbos’s and talstra’s transla-
tions of the verbs in Ps 8:5–6 leads us to conclude that ridderbos’s
translation and exposition emphasizes yhwh’s providential action
in the present, while talstra’s modal reading of these verbs assumes
yhwh’s present ongoing action but emphasizes yhwh’s sovereign
beneficence towards human beings in the present.
to highlight the fundamental difference between the translations of
ridderbos and talstra, on the one hand, and the majority position, on
the other hand, we call attention to ridderbos’s claim that in vv. 5–9
the poet is not speaking about something which humanity possessed
at one time (genesis 1) and lost afterward (genesis 3).35 according to
ridderbos’s reading, vv. 6–7a express eloquently yhwh’s beneficent
gifts in the present.36 yhwh’s sovereign grace continues to override
human unworthiness by endowing human beings with almost divine
royal dignity (v. 6) and causing them to have dominion over every-
thing that his hands have made (v. 7). for ridderbos this does not

33
Pace coats (‘Self-abasement and insult formulas’, p. 18), Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5
and Job 7.17–18’, pp. 208–209.
34
according to Patrick d. miller (‘What is a human Being? The anthropology of
the Psalter i’, in idem, The Way of the Lord: Essays in Old Testament Theology [grand
rapids, 2007], p. 229), the question, ‘What is a human being?’, in Ps 8:5 is essentially
the question, ‘What am i?’.
35
J. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 73.
36
J. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, pp. 73–74.
76 carl j. bosma

mean that the poet ignores the creation account. in fact, the qatal verb
‫ ַׁש ָּתה‬in v. 7b that provides the background for the claim in v. 7a may
be an allusion to the creation account, but the primary emphasis in
vv. 5–9 is on the present.37
in support of ridderbos’s interpretation of Ps 8:5–9, we observe
that Ps 8:6–9 is not as closely related to gen 1:26–28 as is frequently
claimed by the advocates of the majority position. Van Uchelen rightly
notes that the vocabulary and thought pattern of Psalm 8 and genesis
1 are quite different.38 to support Van Uchelen’s claim, we note, first
of all, that Ps 8:6 does not refer to human beings being created in the
image of god (gen 1:26, 28).39 Second, gen 1:26, 28 do not refer to
yhwh’s coronation of humanity, as does Ps 8:6b.40 Third, although
v. 7a reminds the reader of gen 1:26b, 28, it employs the verb ‫ ָמ ַׁשל‬,
which is not used in genesis 1 to describe human dominion over cre-
ation. genesis 1 uses the verbs ‫( ָר ָדה‬gen 1:26, 28) and ‫( ָּכ ַבׁש‬gen 1:28).
ironically, in fact, gen 1:16 uses the noun ‫ ֶמ ְמ ָׁש ָלה‬in connection with
the sun and the moon. moreover, in the Psalter the verb ‫ ָמ ַׁשל‬has god
as its primary subject.41 fourth, richard Whitekettle has argued con-
vincingly that the taxonomy of the animals listed in vv. 8–9 is similar
to the one found in genesis 2, not genesis 1.42
These factors lead us to conclude that, as Van leeuwen has also noted,
Psalm 8 deals with yhwh’s benevolent endowment of dominion over
the animal world, not with the pristine creation of genesis 1 before
divine and human alienation took place, but from a post-lapsarian
perspective (gen 2:4ff.).43 to be sure, Psalm 8 assumes the original cre-
ation account. nevertheless, the reference to enemies, foe, and avenger
in v. 3 suggests that Psalm 8 emphasizes the fact that even in a corrupt
and rebellious world yhwh still keeps humans in a position of respon-
sible, delegated ‘lordship’ over the creation (v. 7).44

37
J. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 74.
38
Van Uchelen, De Psalmen 1, p. 61, n. 18.
39
J. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 72.
40
Bernard W. anderson, ‘human dominion over nature’, in miriam Ward (ed.),
Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought (Burlington, Vt, 1975), pp. 36, 39–40.
41
cf. Ps 22:29; 59:14; 66:7; 89:10; 103:19. in Ps 105:20, 21; 106:41 it is used of
human kings.
42
richard Whitekettle, ‘taming the Shrew, Shrike, and Shrimp: The form and
function of Zoological classification in Psalm 8’, JBL 125 (2006), pp. 749–795, esp.
754–756.
43
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 213.
44
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 213.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 77

in our judgement, ridderbos’s translation of the verbs in Ps 8:5–7a

naturally lends itself to this post-lapsarian reading of Psalm 8, as does
talstra’s modal translation of the verbs in Ps 8:5–6 and especially his
translation of the yiqtol verb in v. 7a in the present tense. in the second
part of this essay we will show that their translation of these verbs also
leads to a useful canonical reading of Psalm 8.

2 Unique canonical Placement of Psalm 8

advocates of canonical criticism claim that one should not read indi-
vidual psalms in isolation in light of their Sitz­im­Leben, but instead in
their literary contexts, in their Sitz­im­Buch. for canonical critics, this
is an important final step in the hierarchy of exegetical steps.45
in his article, ‘Psalm 25: een partituur van een gebed’, talstra has
expressed his qualms about this method.46 he characterizes the work
of several european advocates of this method as ‘klassieke trefwoor-
dentheologie’ (‘classic keyword theology’).47 his reservations should be
noted, but to continue the methodological conversation we propose
that Psalm 8 was intentionally placed in its present literary context
to orientate the disoriented,48 and that a due recognition of Psalm 8’s
unique canonical placement in the Psalter enhances its theological
message.
to demonstrate this, we first note that there is a growing scholarly
consensus that Psalms 3–14 constitute the first collection of psalms
after Psalms 1 and 2, two introductory psalms that serve as the port of
entry into the Psalter. next we will describe Psalm 8’s unique canoni-
cal placement in this collection. Then we will provide internal evidence
for the intentionality of this placement, and finally, we will make some
concluding theological comments.

45
for a brief discussion of this method see carl J. Bosma, ‘discerning the Voices
in the Psalms, Part ii’, CTJ 44 (2009), pp. 149–166.
46
eep talstra, ‘Psalm 25: Partituur van een gebed’, in m. Barnard, g. heitink, and
h. leene (eds.), Letter en feest: In gesprek met Niek Schuman over bijbel en liturgie
(Zoetermeer, 2004), pp. 173–184.
47
talstra, ‘Psalm 25: Partituur van een gebed’, p. 175.
48
for this function of hymns see Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms:
A Theological Commentary (augsburg old testament Studies; minneapolis, minn.,
1984), pp. 19–23, 25–28.
78 carl j. bosma

2.1 Description of Psalm 8’s Unique Canonical Position

to describe the unique canonical placement of Psalm 8, we note, first
of all, that there is a growing scholarly consensus that Psalms 1 and
2 introduce the Psalter.49 after this double preamble that focuses on
happiness (Ps 1:1; 2:12), those who as active participants pray through
the Psalms discover—perhaps to their great surprise—a sequence of
five lament psalms (Psalms 3–7),50 in which petitioners plead plain-
tively to yhwh to address human perversity. Beginning with Psalm 3,51
these laments introduce readers to the basic grammar and vocabulary
of prayer.52 following this quintet of consecutive laments by an indi-
vidual about a world full of disorientation, the reader encounters an
unexpected shift in tone and theme in the jubilant outburst of praise
in Psalm 853 that, unlike typical hymns, is addressed directly to yhwh.54
Strikingly, Psalm 8 is the first song of praise in the Psalter that func-
tions as a ‘psalm of orientation’.55 moreover, there is a switch from the
‘i’ of Psalms 3–7 to the ‘our’ of Ps 8:2, 9.56 in this remarkable canonical
position, the praise of yhwh’s sovereignty and his constant endow-
ment of humanity with royal ‘glory and honour’ in Psalm 8 ‘serves as
a striking, unexpected and praise-filled counterpoint’ to the suffering

49
in addition to the authors cited in Bosma, ‘discerning the Voices’, p. 151, n. 127,
see hossfeld and Zenger, Die Psalmen 1, p. 45; michael lefevre, ‘torah-meditation
and the Psalms: The invitation of Psalm 1’, in david firth and Philip S. Johnson
(eds.), Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (downers grove, ill., 2005),
pp. 213–225. in the same volume see also gerald h. Wilson, ‘The Structure of the
Psalter’, pp. 229–246, esp. 233, 237.
50
marvin e. tate, ‘an exposition of Psalm 8’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 28
(2001), pp. 343, 344, 347. on p. 347 tate calls attention to the fact that both Psalms 3
and 7 have a historical note in the superscription. he interprets this fact to mean that
‘Psalms 3–7 are all intended by the scribes who provided the psalm titles to be read in
the davidic context of 2 Samuel 15–19’.
51
frank-lothar hossfeld and erich Zenger, Die Psalmen 1. Psalm 1–50 (neB.at;
Würzburg, 1993), pp. 56, 68.
52
eugene h. Peterson, Answering God: The Psalms as Tools for Prayer (new york,
1989), pp. 35, 40.
53
geoffrey W. grogan, Psalms (The two horizons old testament commentary;
grand rapids, 2008), p. 52. cf. tate, ‘an exposition of Psalm 8’, p. 344.
54
frank crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in
Israel (Wmant 32; neukirchen, 1969), p. 44. according to tate (‘an exposition of
Psalm 8’, p. 344), Psalm 8 is the only song of praise in the o.t. that is in its entirety
a direct address to yhwh.
55
for this functional category and classification of Psalm 8 see Brueggemann, The
Message of the Psalms, pp. 19–23, 25–28, 36–38.
56
michael Wilcock, The Message of Psalms 1–72: Songs for the People of God (The
Bible Speaks today; downers grove, ill., 2001), p. 38.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 79

voiced in Psalms 3–7.57 moreover, according to Willem a. Vangeme-

ren, Psalm 8 also returns to the portrayal of the ideal human being
of Psalm 1.58
after the brilliant chorus of praise in Psalm 8 that dispels momen-
tarily the pain of suffering, there follows another set of psalms that
take the reader once more through the dark valleys of acute pain and
suffering. The exact number of these psalms depends on one’s reading
of Psalms 9 and 10. if one reads Psalms 9 and 10 as two independent
psalms,59 then Psalm 8 is also followed by another set of five psalms
(Psalms 9–13). moreover, if one classifies Psalm 11 as a lament,60 then
Psalm 8 is also followed by five laments that serve as a counterpart
to Psalms 3–7. in any case, John h. Stek has argued that the five lament
psalms (Psalms 3–7) prior to Psalm 8 have a total of 64 poetic lines
and that the same is true for Psalms 9–13.61 consequently, he suggests
that Psalms 3–14 consist of two sets of five prayers (Psalms 3–7; 9–13),
to each of which is appended a psalm that describes the human condi-
tion (Psalms 8, 14).62 each of these counterpoints describes the human
condition in a complementary manner.63 Psalm 8 celebrates yhwh’s

57
John h. Stek, The NIV Study Bible, Fully Revised (grand rapids, 2002), p. 794.
58
Willem a. Vangemeren, Psalms (The expositor’s Bible commentary 5; revised
edition; grand rapids, 2008), p. 137. cf. Patrick d. miller, Jr., ‘The Beginning of the
Psalter’, in J. clinton mccann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSot.S 159;
Sheffield, 1993), pp. 91–92; reprinted in idem, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology:
Collected Essays (JSot.S 267; Sheffield, 2000), pp. 269–278.
59
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, pp. 126–127.
60
cf. W.h. Bellinger, ‘The interpretation of Psalm 11’, EvQ 56 (1984), pp. 95–101.
Psalm 11 is usually classified as a psalm of confidence. however, it should be noted
that v. 3 contains a lament:
When the foundations are being destroyed, ‫ִּכי ַה ָּׁשתֹות יֵ ָה ֵרסּון‬
What can the righteous do? ‫ה־ּפ ָעל׃‬ָ ‫ַצ ִּדיק ַמ‬
moreover, translations of the verb ‫ יַ ְמ ֵטר‬in v. 6 vary. morphologically, it is a jussive
(driver, Tenses, pp. 61, 213). however, usually translators assume that it is jussive
in form only. consequently, they translate this verse as a declaration. yet it should
be underscored that this verb occupies the first position in the clause and should,
therefore, be translated as a jussive, as a.f. Kirkpatrick (The Book of Psalms [The
cambridge Bible for Schools and colleges; cambridge, 1910], p. 60), driver (Tenses,
p. 213), and the net Bible recognized. as a result, v. 6 serves as an imprecation and
not a declaration.
61
Stek, The NIV Study Bible, p. 794.
62
Stek, The NIV Study Bible, p. 789. hossfeld and Zenger (Die Psalmen 1, pp. 77,
80) position Psalm 8 between Psalms 3–7 and 11–14. tate (‘exposition of Psalm 8’,
p. 344) considers Psalms 9–10 to be ‘an elongated supplement to Psalm 8’. conse-
quently, Psalms 11–14 form the counterpart to Psalms 3–7.
63
Stek, The NIV Study Bible, p. 789.
80 carl j. bosma

exclusive sovereignty over all the earth and his astounding providen-
tial beneficent endowment of human beings with royal ‘honour and
glory’ and dominion over all that yhwh has made. Psalm 14 closes the
first collection of psalms (Psalms 3–14). as such, ‘five psalms (and 64
poetic lines) after Ps 8’s surprising evocation of humanity’s “glory and
honor”, this psalm highlights their disgrace’,64 which is the primary
cause of the suffering experienced by the petitioners in the preceding
lament psalms.65 consequently, Psalm 14 serves as the counterpart to
Psalm 8.66 moreover, as Vangemeren notes, Psalms 8 and 14 form two
bookends around Psalms 9–14 and Psalm 14 ‘closes off the positive
expectation of human beings in Psalm 8 with a negative assessment’.67
finally, according to erich Zenger, the final petition of Psalm 14 (v. 7)
and the final petition of Psalms 3 (v. 9b) frame Psalms 3–14.68

2.2 Internal Evidence for Psalm 8’s Canonical Position

to support our claim that Psalm 8 occupies a unique position in
Psalms 3–14, we begin by noting two intertextual features to which
Patrick d. miller calls attention. first, the reference to ‘foe’ and ‘the
avenger’ in v. 3 furnishes a clear link to the lament psalms that pre-
cede (Psalms 3–7) and follow (Psalms 9–13) Psalm 8 because the foes
dominate in these psalms.69 The second feature is the double use of the
same mot­crochet to connect Ps 7:18 to Ps 8:2 and Ps 8:10 to Ps 9:3.70
Psalm 7 concludes with the following vow to praise:
I will give thanks to Yhwh because of his righteousness
and will sing praise to the name of Yhwh Most High.
This is the first vow to praise in the quintet of laments in Psalms 3–7.
as if to fulfill this vow, Psalm 8 proceeds to praise the lord’s name
enthusiastically in its opening powerful and majestic exclamation:71

64
Stek, The NIV Study Bible, p. 799.
65
Stek, The NIV Study Bible, p. 799.
66
Stek, The NIV Study Bible, pp. 794, 799–800.
67
Vangemeren, Psalms 5, p. 174.
68
hossfeld and Zenger, Die Psalmen 1, pp. 56, 100. a concordance search on the
noun ‫ ַעם‬shows that it used to denote yhwh’s people only in Ps 3:9; 14:4, 7.
69
miller, ‘The Beginning of the Psalter’, pp. 89–90. in Psalms 3–14 the root ‫צרר‬
occurs in Ps 6:8; 7:5, 7; 8:3; 10:5. The root ‫ איב‬occurs in Ps 3:8; 6:11; 7:6; 8:3; 9:4, 7;
13:3, 5.
70
miller, ‘The Beginning of the Psalter’, pp. 89–90; idem, ‘The end of the Psalter:
a response to erich Zenger,’ in idem, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology, p. 316,
n. 5; idem, ‘What is a human Being?’, p. 232.
71
hossfeld and Zenger, Die Psalmen 1, p. 72.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 81

Yhwh, our Lord,

How majestic is your name in all the earth!
The obvious link between Ps 7:18 and Ps 8:2 is the term ‫ ֵׁשם‬, ‘name’,
which in Psalms 3–13 occurs in 5:12; 7:18; 8:2, 10; 9:3, 11 with refer-
ence to yhwh. The emphasis on the divine name in Ps 8:2 is repeated
in v. 10, an exact repetition of the stirring exclamation of v. 2, thereby
forming a frame around the poem that articulates the primary theme
of the poem. This climactic verse (v. 10) in turn leads to the open-
ing resolve to praise in Ps 9:2–3, an individual psalm of lament (cf.
vv. 13–20) in which, surprisingly, the sequence moves from praise to
lament (cf. Psalm 40), not from lament to praise (cf. Psalms 7; 13).72 of
particular interest of this resolve are the words of v. 3c:
I will sing praise to your name, o Most High. ‫ ֲאזַ ְּמ ָרה ִׁש ְמָך ֶע ְליֹון׃‬c
The following comparison between Ps 7:18b and Ps 9:3c shows their
similarity:
Ps 7:18b Ps 9:3c
‫וַ ֲאזַ ְּמ ָרה ֵׁשם־יְ הוָ ה ֶע ְליֹון‬ ‫ ֲאזַ ְּמ ָרה ִׁש ְמָך ֶע ְליֹון׃‬c
and will sing praise to the name of I will sing praise to your name,
the Lord Most High. o Most High.
Both clauses employ the verb ‫ זָ ַמר‬and the divine appellative ‫ ֶע ְליֹון‬,
‘most high’. There is, however, one notable exception. instead of the
construct phrase ‫ ֵׁשם־יְ הוָ ה‬in 7:18b, 9:3b uses the noun ‫ ִׁש ְמָך‬, a substi-
tution that is obviously designed to establish the link between 8:10 and
9:3.73 The resultant external frame of Ps 7:18b; 9:3c74 around the inclu­
sio of Ps 8:2, 10 suggests that Psalm 8 is intentionally placed between
Psalms 7 and 9.
a third argument in support of this suggestion is based on the use
of the verbs ‫ זכר‬and ‫ פקד‬in Ps 8:5. as Van leeuwen has noted, these
verbs also occur in self-abasement formulas found in the amarna

72
frederico g. Villanueva, The Uncertainty of a Hearing: A Study of the Sudden
Change of Mood in the Psalms of Lament (Vt.S 121; leiden, 2008), pp. 101–113.
73
miller, ‘The Beginning of the Psalter’, p. 90. cf. hossfeld and Zenger, Die
Psalmen 1, p. 82.
74
franz delitzsch (Biblischer Commentar über die Psalmen [3rd revised and
expanded edition; leipzig, 1873–1874], p. 116) already noted this frame in l873–
1874. later, in 1903, alexander maclaren (‘The Psalms, Vol. i, Psalms i.-xxxVii’,
in W. roberton nicoll [ed.], The Expositor’s Commentary [london, 1903], p. 78)
also observed that Psalms 7 and 9 are thematically connected through the concept of
yhwh as the judge of the nations and the act-consequence principle of the wicked
falling into the pit that they dug.
82 carl j. bosma

letters.75 in this context these verbs refer to ‘a “visit” or “remembering”

of the inferior by the superior’.76 Such a ‘visit’ or ‘remembering’ can
be positive or negative.77 moreover, in the old testament these verbs
are also used in the semantic field of laments and songs of thanks-
giving.78 on the one hand, suppliants use the two verbs in their peti-
tions. for example, they use the verb ‫ זכר‬to ask yhwh as the divine
royal judge to remember them, that is, to intervene positively in their
plight.79 Similarly, petitioners use the verb ‫ פקד‬to request that yhwh
act positively toward them (Ps 31:6; 79:8; 80:15) or negatively against
their enemy (Ps 59:6). Significantly, with this juridical nuance the
verbs ‫ זכר‬and ‫ פקד‬occur in parallel clauses in two instances. The first
is the petition in Ps 106:4:
Remember me, Yhwh, in the favour of your people; ‫זָ ְכ ֵרנִ י יְ הוָ ה ִּב ְרצֹון ַע ֶּמָך‬
Care for me in your deliverance. ‫יׁשּוע ֶתָך׃‬
ָ ‫ָּפ ְק ֵדנִ י ִּב‬
The second is the emphatic plea in Jer 15:15, which is of special inter-
est because it also uses the verb ‫ נקם‬that occurs in Ps 8:3.
You, you know, Yhwh! ‫ַא ָּתה יָ ַד ְע ָּת יְ הוָ ה‬
Remember me, ‫זָ ְכ ֵרנִ י‬
And care for me; ‫ּופ ְק ֵדנִ י‬ָ
And vindicate me from those who pursue me! ‫וְ ִהּנָ ֶקם ִלי ֵמר ְֹד ַפי‬
on the other hand, these same verbs are also used of yhwh to denote
his response to human cries, be it positive80 or negative.81 in fact, in Jer

75
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 210.
76
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 210.
77
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 210.
78
reventlow, ‘Psalm 8’, p. 320; Werner h. Schmidt, ‘gott und mensch in Ps. 8:
form- und überlieferungsgeschichtliche erwägungen’, ThZ 25 (1969), pp. 8–9. cf.
Brevard S. childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (SBt 37; naperville, ill., 1962),
pp. 35–41; n.a. Schuman, Gelijk om gelijk: Verslag en balans van een discussie over
goddelijke vergelding in het Oude Testament (Phd diss., Vrije Universiteit; amsterdam,
1993), pp. 169, 192.
79
Ps 20:4; 25:6–7; 74:2, 18, 22; 79:8; 89:48, 51; 106: 4; 119:49; 132:1; 137:7. cf. exod
32:13; Judg 16:28; 1 Sam 1:11; Job 10:9; 14:13; isa 64:8; Jer 14:21; 15:15; 18:20; lam
3:19; 5:1; neh 1:8; 5:19; 6:14; 13:14, 22, 29, 31; 2 chr 6:42.
80
for the verb ‫ זכר‬see gen 30:22 (rachel); exod 2:24; num 10:9; 1 Sam 1:19
(hannah); Ps 78:39 (cf. Ps 103:14); 106:45; 115:12; 136:23. for the verb ‫ פקד‬see
exod 4:31, in which it refers to yhwh’s positive response to israel’s lament referred
to in exod 2:23. for a positive meaning see also: gen 21:1 (Sarah); 50:24; ruth 1:6 (his
people); 1 Sam 2:21 (hannah); Ps 65:9.
81
cf. Jer 14:10; hos 8:13; 9:9.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 83

14:10; hos 8:8; 9:9 the two verbs in question occur in parallel clauses
to denote yhwh’s negative response.
given the use of these verbs, it is clear that in the context of lament
psalms the verbs ‫ זכר‬and ‫ פקד‬refer to yhwh’s juridical interven-
tions in response to a petitioner’s plea. This juridical nuance is clearly
expressed with respect to the verb ‫ זכר‬in the call to praise in Ps 9:12–
13, which should remind the reader of Ps 8:5:82
Sing praises to Yhwh, enthroned in Zion; ‫זַ ְּמרּו ַליהוָ ה י ֵֹׁשב ִצּיֹון‬
proclaim among the nations what he has done. ‫ילֹותיו‬
ָ ‫ַהּגִ ידּו ָב ַע ִּמים ֲע ִל‬
For he who avenges blood remembers them; ‫אֹותם זָ ָכר‬ ָ ‫ִּכי־ד ֵֹרׁש ָּד ִמים‬
he does not forget the cry of the afflicted. ‫א־ׁש ַכח ַצ ֲע ַקת ֲענָ יִ ים‬
ָ ֹ‫ל‬
as shown above, the verbs ‫ זכר‬and ‫ פקד‬also have this nuance in Ps 8:5
and this specific use cements the intertextual connection between
Psalm 8 and the psalms of lament that precede and follow it.
With respect to the self-abasement formula of Ps 8:5, we note that
the noun ‫( ֱאנֹוׁש‬cf. Job 7:17; Ps 144:3) and the construct phrase ‫ן־א ָדם‬ָ ‫ֶב‬
(Ps 144:3) denote the relative insignificance and unworthiness of
human beings. While human insignificance is implied in element a of
the self-abasement formula in Ps 8:5–6, it is clearly stated in Ps 144:4,
the response to the self-abasement formula in v. 3. humans are ‫ֶ֫ה ֶבל‬
(cf. Job 7:16). Because in the Psalter the conventional word pair ‫ֱאנֹוׁש‬
and ‫ן־א ָדם‬
ָ ‫ ֶב‬occurs for the first time in the Psalter in Ps 8:5,83 it would
seem that the choice of these words in Ps 8:5 and their repetition in
Psalms 9–14 intentionally links them to the negative perception of
the human condition and behaviour that pervades these psalms.84 in
Ps 9:20–21, for example, the inimical nations are ‫ ֱאנֹוׁש‬, not gods.85
Similarly, Ps 10:18 underscores that oppressive humans (‫) ֱאנֹוׁש‬, who
terrify others, are ‫ן־ה ָ ֽא ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ ִמ‬. humans are clearly not gods.86 conse-
quently, they constitute no ultimate threat to the god of israel who is
King forever (Ps 10:16).87 moreover, in Ps 12:2 the poet complains that
there are no faithful ones among human beings (‫) ְּב ֵנ֥י ָא ָדם‬. on the con-
trary, they lie to each other and ask, ‘Who is lord (‫ ; ָאדֹון‬cf. Ps 8:2, 10)

82
miller, ‘What is a human Being?’, p. 230.
83
in the self-abasement formula of Ps 144:3 this word pair occurs in an inverted
order: ‫ ָא ָדם‬and ‫ן־אנֹוׁש‬
ֱ ‫ ֶּב‬.
84
Vangemeren, Psalms 5, p. 140.
85
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 135.
86
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 145.
87
Stek, The NIV Study Bible, p. 798.
84 carl j. bosma

over us?’88 as a result, they celebrate what is vile (Ps 12:9). further-
more, in Psalm 14 yhwh’s examination of human beings (‫י־א ָדם‬ ָ֫ ֵ‫; ְּבנ‬
cf. Ps 11:4) concludes that human beings are totally corrupt (vv. 2–3).
no one seeks god (v. 3) and they oppress the poor (vv. 4–6).89
Significantly, this negative portrayal of the human condition is con-
firmed by the occurrences of the terms ‫ ֱאנֹוׁש‬and ‫ ָא ָדם‬in the rest of
the Psalter.90 in fact, according to Ps 89:48, god seems to have cre-
ated humans for futility (‫) ָׁשוְ א‬. consequently, as the answer to the
self-abasement question in Ps 144:3 underscores emphatically, ‫ ָא ָדם‬is
‫( ֶ֫ה ֶבל‬v. 4).91
in light of this negative perception of the human condition and
behaviour in Psalms 9–14 and in the Psalter as a whole, particularly
in the traditional negative picture in the self-abasement formulae of
Ps 144:3 and Job 7:18–19 (cf. Sir 18:6–8), the self-abasement formula
in Ps 8:5–6 is ‘virtually unique in moving from a formula that implies
human insignificance to a statement proclaiming human grandeur
(8.6–9)’.92 Whereas Psalms 9–14 emphasize human oppressiveness
and sinfulness, Ps 8:5–9 emphasizes yhwh’s beneficent maintenance
of humanity’s high royal status (v. 6) and vocation (vv. 7–8).93 in fact,
in comparison to Ps 144:3 and Job 7:7–14, the repeated element b
in the self-abasement formula of Ps 8:5–6 subverts the typical use of
this formula.94 in sharp contrast to Ps 144:3–4, the message of the
self-abasement formula in Ps 8:5–6 is that the divine lord of Ps 8:2,
10 ‘maintains rebellious and imperfect humans in their status as

88
in Psalms 3–14 the noun ‫ ָאדֹון‬occurs only in Ps 8:2, 10; 12:5.
89
Vangemeren, Psalms 5, p. 140. cf. n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 116.
90
a survey of the 13 occurrences of ‫ ֱאנֹוׁש‬in the Psalter, reveals that human beings
are oppressive (Ps 56:1; 66:12), they suffer ills (Ps 73:5) and are mortal (Ps 90:3), and
their life is transient (Ps 103:15; 144:4). moreover, a survey of the 62 occurrences of
‫ ָא ָדם‬confirms this dark view. ‫ ָא ָדם‬is oppressive (Ps 17:4; 56:12; 57:4; 105:14; 118:6;
119:34; 124:2; 140:1), a liar (Ps 62:10; 116:11), mortal (Ps 49:12, 21; 82:7; 90:3), and suf-
fers ills (Ps 73:5). human life is transient (Ps 89:48) and human aid is futile (Ps 60:13;
108:13; 146:3). humans are the object of scorn (Ps 22:7), sinners (Ps 32:2), and there-
fore the object of divine wrath (Ps 76:11). for a synopsis of this rather pessimistic
picture see Job 14.
91
cf. Ps 39:6, 12; 62:10.
92
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 213. Van leeuwen limits the self-
abasement formula to v. 5 and therefore considers vv. 6–9 to be the answer.
93
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 116.
94
as Van leeuwen (‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, pp. 205–206) has noted, Job
7:17–18 is normally considered to be a parody on Ps 8:5. Van leeuwen (pp. 210–213)
argues convincingly that the opposite is true.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 85

“servant-kings” responsible for the cosmos’.95 considered against the

background of Psalms 9–14 and the rest of the Psalter, this seemingly
paradoxical message explains the poet’s complete astonishment in
Ps 8:5–6.
at the risk of committing the error of ‘klassieke trefwoordenthe-
ologie’, we would also note with respect to the word pair ‫ ָכבֹוד וְ ָה ָדר‬,
‘honour and glory’(cf. Ps 145:12) in Ps 8:6b that the noun ‫ ָּכבֹוד‬occurs
in Ps 3:3; 4:2; 7:5.96 in each case it refers to human ‫ ָּכבֹוד‬. in this con-
nection it is important to observe, first of all, that in Ps 8:6b ‫ ָּכבֹוד‬and
‫ ָה ָדר‬are clearly royal attributes. Within the Psalter these attributes are
normally reserved for yhwh97 but, significantly, in Ps 21:6 they are
also ascribed to a davidic king:
Great is his glory through your deliverance; ‫יׁשּוע ֶתָך‬
ָ ‫ּגָ דֹול ְּכבֹודֹו ִּב‬
Majesty and splenduor you bestow on him. ‫הֹוד וְ ָה ָדר ְּת ַׁשּוֶ ה ָע ָליו‬98
consequently, in view of the fact that in Ps 8:6b yhwh continues to
crown all humans with these royal attributes,99 every human being
has royal status, not just monarchs. Second, the divine endowment of
humans with royal attributes echoes the royal attributes used in refer-
ence to god in Ps 8:2 (‫ ;הֹוד‬cf. Ps 148:13)100 and the framing vv. 2 and 10
(‫ ַא ִּדיר‬101).102 Third, the clearly royal nuance of the noun ‫ ָּכבֹוד‬in Ps 8:6b
leads us to conclude that the occurrences of this noun in Ps 3:3; 4:2;
7:5 are also connected to the royal ‫ ָּכבֹוד‬of Ps 8:6b, a conclusion that

95
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 213.
96
michael Wilcock, The Message of Psalms 1–72: Songs for the People of God (The
Bible Speaks today; downers grove, ill., 2001), p. 38.
97
for ‫ ָּכבֹוד‬see Ps 19:1; 29:1–2, 9; 96:8; 145:5, 11–12. for ‫ ָה ָדר‬see Ps 96:6; 104:1;
145:5, 12.
98
for the word pair ‫ הֹוד‬and ‫ ָה ָדר‬see also Ps 45:4. for ‫ ָה ָדר‬see Jer 22:18.
99
for the double accusative with the Piel verb ‫ ָע ַטר‬see Bruce K. Waltke and
m. o’connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona lake, 1990),
§ 10.2.3.c, and davidson, Syntax, § 78. for the connection between crowning and
‫ ָּכבֹוד‬see Job 19:9.
100
The noun ‫ הֹוד‬is used with reference to god in Ps 8:2, 96:6; 104:1; 111:3; 145:5;
148:13. in Ps 21:6; 45:4 it is used with reference to human kings.
101
in Ps 8:2, 10; 76:5; 93:4 the noun ‫ ַא ִּדיר‬is used with god. in Ps 16:3; 136:18 it is
used of human kings.
102
howard neil Wallace, Words to God, Word from God: The Psalms in the Prayer
and Preaching of the Church (Burlington, Vt., 2005), p. 160. according to n.h.
ridderbos (De Psalmen 1, p. 123), it is probably not accidental that the royal attri-
butes ‫ ָּכבֹוד‬and ‫ ָה ָדר‬are not ascribed to yhwh in Psalm 8. in his opinion, this fact
underscores that humans are only almost divine.
86 carl j. bosma

gains in significance in light of the fact that Psalms 3–14 are attributed
to david.
moreover, as talstra has noted, many commentators call attention
to the thematic relationship between Ps 8:5–6 and Job 7:17–18.103 in
this connection, J. clinton mccann Jr. claims that Psalm 7 recalls the
book of Job at several points.104 mccann works out the implications
of this connection as follows:
in the beginning, Job’s suffering leads him to deny the royal status and
vocation of humanity that is voiced by Ps 8:4–5 (cf. Job 7:17 with Ps 8:4;
Job 19:9 with Ps 8:5). Job eventually moves forward reclaiming the vision
of Psalm 8 (see the royal imagery in Job 31:36–37), and god’s challenge
at the end of the book (Job 40:10) leads Job to change his mind. Job
finally concludes: ‘i . . . change my mind about dust and ashes [vulnerable
humanity]’ (Job 42:6; see gen 18:27; Job 30:19). What Job has learned
is that the royal status and vocation of humanity involves suffering as
well as glory.105
as a final argument in support of Psalm 8’s unique canonical place-
ment, attention is also called to the connections between Psalms 9–13
and Psalm 14 as outlined by Vangemeren. he first notes the practi-
cal denial of god in Ps 14:1; 9:17; 10:4. next, he observes that the
ungodly speak in Ps 10:4, 6, 11, 13; 14:1. furthermore, Ps 10:2–11;
11:2–3; 12:2–4; 14:1, 3 speak of the vile acts of the wicked. addition-
ally, Ps 8:5 [4]; 9:20; 10:18; 14:2 refer to human beings. moreover,
Ps 11:1; 14:6 speak of god as refuge. finally, Ps 9:14; 13:5; 14:7 refer
to rejoicing in god’s salvation.106
The above arguments demonstrate that Psalm 8 was placed inten-
tionally in the centre of a collection of lament Psalms. We shall now
proceed to explain the theological importance of this placement.

2.3 Theological Significance

an important clue to the theological significance of the unique canon-
ical placement of Psalm 8 is the complex double rhetorical question
that starts at v. 5. Three features of this question merit special attention
for understanding the theological significance of Ps 8:4–9.

103
talstra, ‘Singers and Syntax’, pp. 16–19.
104
mccann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, p. 713.
105
mccann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, p. 713.
106
Vangemeren, Psalms 5, p. 174.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 87

The first feature is the repetition of the interrogative ‫ ָמה‬in v. 5 from

the opening and concluding exclamations in vv. 2 and 10. This repeti-
tion naturally draws the reader’s attention from the frame to the two-
part self-abasement question in v. 5 that occupies a pivotal position
in the poem.107 rhetorically it clearly introduces the primary theme
of vv. 4–9.108
The repetition of the interrogative ‫ ָמה‬in v. 5 leads Walter
Brueggemann to affirm that v. 5 must be read together with the fram-
ing exclamation in vv. 2 and 10.109 he writes:
The two must be held together. Praise of god without human author-
ity is abdication and ‘leaving it all to god’, which the psalm does not
urge. But to use human power without the context of praise of god is to
profane human regency over creation and so usurp more than has been
granted. human persons are to rule, but they are not to receive the ulti-
mate loyalty of creation. Such loyalty must be directed only to god.110
in other words, when the frame and the centre are held together, it
is obvious that humanity’s nearly divine status, royal investiture, and
vocation must be understood in the context of yhwh’s ongoing rule.
Brueggemann’s strategic interpretative move reminds us of calvin’s
correction of the Socratic tradition that the first principle of wisdom
is self-knowledge (‘Know thyself !’). calvin claims that ‘. . . it is self evi-
dent that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previ-
ously contemplated the face of god’.111 accordingly, calvin claims that
human wisdom ‘consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge
of god and of ourselves’.112 This is precisely the message of Psalm 8.

107
Scholarly opinions differ on the compositional function of v. 5. for some v. 5
constitutes the thematic centre of the poem: reventlow, ‘der Psalm 8’, pp. 316–319;
alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 120; idem, The Book of Psalms: A Translation
with Commentary (new york, 2007), p. 23; Stek, The NIV Study Bible, p. 795; lund,
‘from the mouth of Babes and infants’, p. 97; mccann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, p. 711.
n.h. ridderbos (De Psalmen 1, p. 118) divides the poem into two strophes (vv. 2–4;
5–10) so that each strophe begins with ‫ ָמה‬. in a private publication Stek, who initially
read vv. 4–6 as a strophe, opts for ridderbos’s position. Pace ridderbos, talstra (‘Sing-
ers and Syntax’, p. 14) appears to downplay the visual, audial, and rhetorical function
of ‫ ָמה‬because of the difference in syntactic function of the interrogative non-verbal
clause in vv. 2, 5, 10.
108
P.a.h. de Boer, ‘Jahu’s ordination’, p. 186.
109
Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms, p. 37.
110
Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms, p. 38.
111
calvin, Institutes, i, i, 2; ii, i, 2.
112
calvin, Institutes, i, i, 1.
88 carl j. bosma

calvin’s and Brueggemann’s perspective also lead us to the second

feature of the double question in vv. 5–6, namely, the fact that the
question in these verses is not an abstract query concerning human
essence per se in the greek philosophical tradition.113 on the contrary,
as we have noted above, Ps 8:5–6 constitutes a complex self-abasement
question. as such, it raises the essential existential question concern-
ing humanity in dialogue with yhwh and its primary concern is not
human beings as such but yhwh’s ways with them.114 consequently,
the self-abasement question in vv. 5–6 is not primarily anthropological
but theological.115 This is evident, first of all, from the fact that yhwh
is the subject of the six verbs in vv. 5–6.116 moreover, as is evident
from the exclamations of admiration in vv. 2 and 10, the speaking
about human beings in Ps 8:4–9 is ‘totally wrapped in a speaking about
god’.117 in fact, with the exception of the ‘i’ in v. 4 and the sea crea-
tures in v. 8, yhwh is the subject of all the verbal forms in Psalm 8.
accordingly, Psalm 8 does not provide the reader with a complete
anthropology.118 instead, the emphasis falls on god’s sovereign and
beneficent providence that continues to override human unworthiness
in a world filled with troubles caused by human folly that does not
recognize god (Psalm 14).
The third feature concerns the yiqtol verbs ‫ ִתזְ ְּכ ֶרּנּו‬and ‫ ִת ְפ ְק ֶדּנּו‬in
v. 5. as we have noted above, these verbs are used in self-abasement
formulas, in laments, and in songs of thanksgiving. according to
Patrick miller, these verbs make the claim ‘that being human means
to be the recipient of God’s attention, to be noticed and regarded by
the creator of the universe’.119 as a result, as Walter Zimmerli notes,
‘the only way that he [human being] can understand himself is as one
that god has graciously visited’.120
in connection with this daring claim of Ps 8:5, we would reiter-
ate that the use of the verbs ‫ ִתזְ ְּכ ֶרּנּו‬and ‫ ִת ְפ ְק ֶדּנּו‬here also cements
the unique place of Psalm 8 in Psalms 3–14. accordingly, this bold

113
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 213.
114
miller, ‘What is a human being?’, p. 228.
115
craig c. Broyles, Psalms (niBc 11; Peabody, mass., 1999), p. 76.
116
cf. Weiser, Psalms, p. 144; Broyles, Psalms, p. 76.
117
miller, ‘What is a human being?’, p. 229.
118
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 117.
119
miller, ‘What is a human Being?’, p. 230.
120
for this quote i am indebted to Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’,
p. 214.
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 89

claim becomes the ground on which the outcry of the troubled sufferer
appeals to god.121 in fact, the lament psalms and songs of thanksgiving
as well as biblical narratives remind the reader that ‘the ears of god
are “fine-tuned” to hear the cries of the human in pain’.122 together
these psalms force the readers to ask why the lord should listen to the
prayers of fragile human beings.
The answer to this existential question is actually rather simple and
is already implied in the question of vv. 5–6. human beings are the
object of yhwh’s continuous beneficent care. daily he upholds their
near divine status (v. 6a). daily he endows frail humans with royal
status (v. 6b). daily he makes them rule over the cosmos (v. 7b).
The perspective of Psalm 8 is distinctly different from the under-
scoring of the relative insignificance of human beings in Ps 144:3–4
and the pessimism of Job 7:17–18. in fact, as James Wharton notes,
‘in his desolate suffering, Job has experienced god’s “inordinate atten-
tion” as a nightmarish terror that makes death preferable to such a
“life” ’.123 for this reason Job wishes that yhwh would leave him alone
(Job 7:19; cf. Ps 39:13). in sharp contrast, however, Psalm 8 under-
scores yhwh’s undeserved providential maintenance of humanity’s
near divine status, royal position, and vocation in the cosmos.
decidedly different is also Psalm 8’s perspective on humanity in its
relationship to yhwh from the concept of humanity in the ancient
near east. according to ancient near eastern anthropology, with the
exception of kings who are the image of the gods or sons of the gods,
humans are slaves of the gods.124 in sharp contrast, Psalm 8 ‘takes a
radical departure from ancient near eastern ideology by its declara-
tion that yhwh has made every human being a king . . .’.125
an additional feature of Psalm 8 that requires attention is that when
this remarkable psalm is read in the context of the five lament psalms
that precede it (Psalms 3–7) and the five that follow it (Psalms 9–14),
it is clear that the ‘i’ of Ps 8:4–9—with whom the reader as an active
participant of the communication process in Psalms 3–14 identifies—
makes the claim about humanity’s god-like character, royal investiture,

121
miller, ‘What is a human Being?’, p. 230.
122
miller, ‘What is a human Being?’, p. 231.
123
James Wharton, Job (WBc; louisville, 1999), pp. 50–51. for this reference i am
indebted to miller (‘What is a human Being?’, p. 234).
124
hossfeld and Zenger, Die Psalmen 1, p. 77.
125
Broyles, Psalms, p. 72.
90 carl j. bosma

and vocation ‘. . . in the midst of quite other voices who cry out in
the face of oppression, sickness and suffering’.126 in other words, the
speaker is also a ‘creature of suffering’.127 as miller formulates it, ‘the
one who is astonished by god’s attention as making us kings and
queens is also the one . . . [who suffers from] god’s abandoning inat­
tention’128 (cf. Psalm 13).
in connection to this, it is important to note that in its unique place in
Psalms 3–14 the self-abasement question in Ps 8:5–6 and its answer in
vv. 7–9 has a similar function as in Ps 144:3–4. in Psalm 144 the
double self-abasement question in v. 3 and its answer in v. 4 serve as
the basis for the petitions that follow in vv. 5–8.129 Similarly, Ps 8:5–9
serves as the basis for the hope of a positive answer to the laments in
Psalms 3–7 and 9–13. from this we infer that yhwh’s beneficent care
as described in Ps 8:5–9 is foundational for the practice of lament.
a final feature of Psalm 8 that demands careful attention is the fact
that while the poem does not directly mention human sin, its coun-
terpart, Psalm 14, does. although the references to enemies and the
foe and the avenger in Ps 8:3 hint at the fact that we live in a messy
world, the primary concern of the poet in Psalm 8 is not human sin
but yhwh’s overriding, continuing care for humanity. This empha-
sis has important consequences for two interrelated dimensions of
christian ministry, namely, missions and pastoral care. for missions it
means that we begin with a message of divine providence in the midst
of human misery rather than with the doctrine of sin. Similarly with
pastoral care in situations of brokenness and grief, we begin with an
affirming relationship and emphasizing god’s providential care rather
than stressing the doctrine of sin in a culture that has lost this con-
cept decades ago.130 as my colleague ronald J. nydam emphasizes, ‘sin
does not matter in our contemporary culture until it creates pain in
the context of the relationship’.

126
miller, ‘What is a human Being?,’ p. 232.
127
miller, ‘What is a human Being?,’ p. 234.
128
miller, ‘What is a human Being?,’ p. 234.
129
n.h. ridderbos, De Psalmen 1, p. 118, n. 2; reventlow, ‘der Psalm 8’, p. 321;
Van leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17–18’, p. 211.
130
cf. Karl augustus menniger, Whatever Became of Sin? (new york, 1973).
 beyond ‘singers and syntax’ 91

3 conclusion

The first part of this essay demonstrates that talstra’s concern about
the proper translation of the verbs in Psalm 8 is vitally important. his
persistent interest in the proper translation of verbal forms and his
insistence that the exegetical process should start with a careful syntac-
tic description of texts forces readers to reconsider the complex issue
of translating verbs in the Psalms. in the case of Psalm 8 this resolve
uncovers inconsistencies in the translation of verbs to which talstra’s
proposed translation opens doors to a post-lapsarian interpretation
of the poem, one that in our opinion also lends itself to a canoni-
cal interpretation. The second part of this essay shows that, despite
talstra’s reservations, canonical exegesis is a vital part of the hierarchy
of exegetical methods.
 WHERE IS GOD?
ROMANS 3:13–18 AS AN ADDITION TO PSALM 14

Eveline van Staalduine–Sulman

Eep Talstra’s publications and lectures have taught me at least two things
about his view on texts. First, a text to him is a speech, and—until proven
otherwise—is to be seen as a unity, with grammar, syntax, and meaning. That
applies equally to prose and to poetry, even though in the latter we are not
able to understand entirely the use of the various verbal tenses. Second, a text
can be likened to an old church, which has been built and rebuilt, restored
and adapted to the needs of the users. You can see the fissures between older
and newer parts, although you may never be able to reconstruct exactly the
history of its building. Talstra seems to accept adaptations rather than attempt
to reconstruct the most original form.
According to these lines of exegesis, in combination with my own back-
ground of structural analysis within the Kampen School, I want to examine
the building and rebuilding activities around the text of Psalm 14. There
are difficulties in the Hebrew text itself, which are partly solved in the text
of its twin, Psalm 53. In the Greek text eight lines are added, which seem
to originate from Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgar-
tensia suggests that there was a Hebrew original behind these lines. I pro-
pose to follow this text, not to reconstruct its original form, but to see its
Wirkungsgeschichte.

1 Psalm 14 in the Masoretic Text

The greatest difficulty in the Hebrew Psalm 14 is the transition from

v. 5, in which the wicked are in terror, to v. 6, in which a second per-
son plural confounds the plans of the poor. If the latter persons are to
be identified with the wicked of v. 5, how is it possible that they are
first scared and yet still put the poor to shame? Solutions have been
given by translating the verb of v. 6 to express the subjunctive,1 by
making the verb of v. 5 a Hiphil,2 and by emending the text.3 A lesser

1
E.g., RSV: ‘You would confound the plans of the poor, but the Lord is his refuge.’
2
Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC; Waco, 1983), p. 145.
3
E.g., Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1. Psalms 1–50 (AncBi 16; Garden City, 1966),
p. 80: ‘The council of the poor will humiliate it.’
94 eveline van staalduine–sulman

problem is the meaning of ‫ שם‬at the beginning of v. 5. Since there is

no place mentioned to refer to, it is taken as a time reference,4 as a
word meaning ‘behold’,5 or vocalized as ‫ ֵשׁם‬and transposed to the end
of v. 4. In that case the evildoers do not ‘call upon the Name’.6 The
verb ‫ ידע‬in v. 4 raises questions concerning the object of this knowing7
and whether it should be rendered with ‘to be submissive’.8

1.1 Syntax
Taking the Hebrew tenses seriously means that exegesis has to account
for the transition from the qatal forms in vv. 1–5 to the yiqtol forms
in vv. 6–7. The qatal in discursive texts usually refers back, either to
the past or to things known, while the yiqtol usually gives the main
line of a discursive text.9 In this view, Psalm 14 should not be consid-
ered a description of the depravity of mankind (vv. 1–3), but rather an
accusation against the wicked person, who makes the poor ashamed
because they can only trust in the Lord, and a prayer for deliverance
(vv. 6–7). The transition lies between vv. 5 and 6, although these verses
seem to be bound together by similar dependent clauses, starting with
‫ כי‬plus a reference to God. Vv. 1–3 form a strong unity with regard to
verbal tenses. The qatal is alternated with the words ‘there is not’ (vv. 1
and 3) and ‘there is’ (v. 2).
The word ‫שם‬, which occurs at the beginning of v. 5, usually
refers back to an earlier point in the text.10 Since it cannot refer to
a place in this Psalm, I suggest that it points to the circumstances in
v. 4. It is then still an adverb of place, although in a rather abstract

4
Cf. Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary
(Grand Rapids, 2003), p. 166: ‘A reference to a “distant location” may be a metaphori-
cal allusion to the distant future.’
5
Dahood, Psalms, p. 81.
6
Arnold A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms I: Psalms 1–72 (NCeB; London, 1972),
p. 133, referring to Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen (HK; 4th ed.; Göttingen, 1926), and
Hans Schmidt, Die Psalmen (HAT; Tübingen, 1934), also accepting their proposal to
read ‘the bread of Yhwh’.
7
Herbert B. Huffmon, ‘The Treaty Background of Hebrew YĀDA`’, BASOR 181
(1966), pp. 31–37.
8
D. Winton Thomas, The Text of the Revised Psalter (London, 1963), cited by
Anderson, Psalms, p. 133.
9
Cf. Wolfgang Schneider, Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch: Ein Lehrbuch
(Mönchengladbach, 2001), p. 197.
10
Schneider, Grammatik, p. 230.
 where is god? 95

sense.11 The meaning of ‫ כי‬in v. 6 should also be examined, because it

is strange that ‘you’ make people ashamed, because God is their refuge.
It seems rather as though ‘they’ make them ashamed in this regard:
they mock the people who take God as their refuge. The same meaning
of the particle can be found in Ps 31:18, ‘Let me not be ashamed with
regard to my calling upon You’, and Ps 119:78, ‘Let them be ashamed
with regard to their false oppression of me’.
Combining all these elements, I propose the following translation
of vv. 5–6: ‘In those circumstances they have been in great terror, for
God is with the generation of the righteous. It is the counsel of the
poor that you make ashamed (with regard to the fact) that the Lord
is his refuge’. The author turns away from the past tense and utters
the explanation of why the evildoers met terror. He may even sug-
gest by the yiqtol that the evildoers are not men of the past, but that
they are amongst his audience. Because there are no new participants
indicated, both verses seem dependent on the indignant question of
v. 4, ‘Do they not know?’ Do they not know that there used to be terror
in circumstances of oppression and of not calling upon the Lord? Do
you not know that you strike the poor in this one area left to them—in
their taking refuge in the Lord?

1.2 Participants
Analysis of the participants in Psalm 14 shows that there are several
changes in vv. 1–3, although these verses form a strong unity in their
use of verbal tenses. Verse 1 starts with ‘the fool’, which must be taken
to function as a collective term since the same verse continues with
plural verbs. Verse 2 focuses on the Lord in heaven who examines
mankind. The latter term—mankind—is wider than the collective
‘fool’, and is the subject of v. 3, referred to by the term ‘all’.
Verses 4–6, which have less coherence in their use of verbal tenses,
are all connected by means of the same participants: the evildoers,
also called the ‘eaters of my people’. They are specifically mentioned
in v. 4, implicitly referred to in v. 5, and most likely also indicated by
the second person plural of v. 6, since no other subject is present. The
same verses also introduce a new group: my people (v. 4). The latter

11
A similar usage is found in Job 35:12, ‘In those circumstances [described in the
previous verses] they will cry out, but He will not answer.’ It reflects the meaning of
‫משם‬, ‘from those things’, in 1 Kgs 17:13.
96 eveline van staalduine–sulman

group—or at least a part of it—is repeated in vv. 5–6 in the terms

‘righteous generation’ and ‘the poor’.
Verse 7 stands alone in having a new subject ‘who’ and with an
abundance of nominal references to the last group beginning and end-
ing with ‘Israel’, with ‘his people’ and ‘Jacob’ occurring in between. The
over-specification of this group may well serve as a climactic ending
to the psalm.12 In this verse over-specification is also visible in the use
of Yhwh: according to the alternation of ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ אלהים‬in the rest
of the psalm, ‘Elohim’ should have occurred here. Although the fools/
evildoers are the topic of the beginning of the psalm, it ends explicitly
with the other group, Yhwh and his people Israel.

1.3 Poetic Structure

The Greek codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus divide every verse into
two lines, except for vv. 1 and 7 which consist of three lines. This
results in long lines in most verses; only vv. 5–6 have shorter lines. The
Masoretes seem to subdivide most verses into four lines, although this
sometimes separates the subject from its verb (vv. 2 and 4). Following
their idea of short verse lines, but basing myself entirely on the paral-
lelisms13 and the spread of participants I propose the poetic structure
below.14 I divide the lines into strophes, which form units on the basis
of main participants and similar topics. In most cases a strophe con-
tains only one verse, but I linked vv. 5–6 together into one strophe
because of their parallel structure. After each strophe I deal with the
question of where poetic devices are merely ‘presentation’, as Talstra
calls it, and where they give extra meaning to the text.

12
Lénart J. de Regt, Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Refer-
ence Devices and their Rhetorical Impact (SSN 39; Assen, 1999), p. 61.
13
Parallelism is one of the main characteristics of Hebrew poetry: two (or more)
verse lines contain more or less the same information, but can complement each
other. Parallels are recognized on the basis of contents, but are frequently also formed
through identical word order, by syntactic structures, or by grammatical features.
14
Cf. Pieter van der Lugt, Strofische structuren in de bijbels-hebreeuwse poëzie
(Kampen, 1980), p. 473; Jan Ridderbos, De Psalmen vertaald en verklaard (COT;
Kampen 1955), pp. 111–112.
 where is god? 97

Verse English Translation15 Strophe Hebrew Text16

14:1 To the Choirmaster. Of — ‫למנצח לדוד‬
David.
The fool said in his heart: I.1 ‫אמר נבל בלבו‬
‘There is no God’. ‫אין אלהים‬
They corrupted and ‫השחיתו התעיבו עלילה‬
destroyed behaviour.17
There is none that does good. ‫אין עשה־טוב‬

After the heading, the first two lines contain the introduction to the
direct speech and its contents.18 Especially Psalms 79 and 115 show
that certain groups of people ask stereotyped questions: the heathen
ask, ‘Where is God?’; the fool says, ‘There is no God’. Denying the
existence of God is linked to trespassing his commandments even
though these are known.19
The next two lines have the parallel of ‘behaviour’ and ‘does’, but
also the parallel of corruption/destruction and ‘not good’. However,
the first and third line have the contradiction of word and deed, while
the second and fourth line run parallel by their identical beginning
(‫)אין‬, thus giving a connection between ‘no God’ and ‘none that does
good’. God no longer functions as the example of doing good.20 This
strophe has therefore two parallelism schemes: AAʹBBʹ and ABAʹBʹ.
The coherence of the strophe is enhanced by several instances of allit-
eration and assonance.

15
The translation is based on the RSV.
16
Most remarks in the critical apparatus of the BHS point to some harmonization
with Psalm 53 (vv. 1, 3–5, 7) or with the text of the Septuagint (v. 3). The Hiphil
qatal in v. 6 of one manuscript harmonizes the tense and person of this verse with
the preceding one, although it does not take away the contrast in content between
the vv. 5 and 6.
17
Taking ‫ עלילה‬as an object of both verbs.
18
Cf. Ps 50:7, 16; 62:12; 79:10a; 115:2; 116:4; 122:1; 126:2b; 129:8; introduction and
content as parallel also acknowledged by Van der Lugt, Strofische structuren, s.vv.
19
Cf. Job 2:10; Isa 32:5–6; Ezek 13:3.
20
Cf. Lev 19:2, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.’
98 eveline van staalduine–sulman

14:2 The Lord, on the other hand,21 from I.2 ‫יהוה משמים‬
heaven
looked down upon the children of men ‫השקיף על־בני־אדם‬
to see if there is any that acts wisely, ‫לראות היש משכיל‬
any that seeks God. ‫דרש את־אלהים‬

The first two lines of the second strophe do not exhibit parallelism, but
only a contrast between God and mankind. The second two lines con-
tain parallelism in that both participles ‘acts wisely’ and ‘seeks God’
are dependent on the word ‫היש‬. This parallelism defines the term ‘acts
wisely’ as ‘seeks God’. These two words are antithetical to the first two
lines of strophe I.1: ‘fool’ and the utterance ‘there is no God’. Just as
the utterance ‘there is no God’ is parallel to the ‘fool’ in strophe I.1,
here the search for God is parallel to the ‘wise’. The words ‘looked’ and
‘to see if’ contrast completely with the saying of the fool that ‘there is
no’. God at least is investigating ‘whether there is’.22

14:3 They have all gone astray, I.3 ‫הכל סר‬

they were (all) alike corrupt. ‫יחדו נאלחו‬
There is none that does good, ‫אין עשה־טוב‬
there is not even one. ‫אין גם־אחד‬

The third strophe has parallelism in the first two and the second two
lines, making a AAʹBBʹ pattern. The negation ‫ אין‬is again used twice,
as in strophe I.1. This time it functions as an answer to God’s question
about mankind. Whereas it was obvious in strophe I.1 that no fool
does good, God now comes to the conclusion that no single person
does good. The fool has corrupted all behaviour.
The first two and the second two lines form a contrast: ‘all’ and
‘together’ against ‘none’ and ‘not even one’. The repetition of the
words ‫ אין‬and ‫ היש‬in these three verses gives these strophes a mutual
coherence. Therefore, a new unity starts in verse 4, also introducing
new participants.

21
The position of Yhwh at the beginning of the sentence indicates a contrast to
the previous subject.
22
Thus also in Gen 11:5; Jer 5:1.
 where is god? 99

14:4 Had they no knowledge, II.1 ‫הלא ידעו‬

all the evildoers? ‫כל־פעלי און‬
The eaters of my people ate (their) ‫אכלי עמי אכלו לחם‬
bread,23
but24 they did not call upon the Lord! ‫יהוה לא קראו‬

This strophe does not contain a clear syntactic parallelism. The evil-
doers are paralleled semantically by the term ‘eaters of my people’.25
There are two negations, linked to two verbs in qatal 3rd person plu-
ral, one at the beginning and one at the end of the verse. Although the
verse introduces two groups of participants, the use of ‫כל‬, the nega-
tions and the use of the name Yhwh at the beginning of the last line
still link it to the first three strophes.

14:5 There they were in great terror, II.2 ‫שם פחדו פחד‬
for God is with the generation of the ‫כי־אלהים בדור צדיק‬
righteous.
14:6 It is the counsel of the poor that you ‫עצת־עני תבישו‬
confound,
in that the Lord is his refuge! ‫כי יהוה מחסהו‬

The second and fourth phrase in this strophe are parallel to one another
by beginning with ‫ כי‬and by the reference to God/Yhwh. Parallelism
is also found in the words ‘righteous’ and ‘poor’ and in the expressions
‘is with’ and ‘is his refuge’. The fact that qatal and yiqtol phrases are
linked together in one strophe makes the contrast between these two
tenses more severe.

23
Taking the text as it is, like the Targum on Psalms does. This line could also be
interpreted as a metaphor: eaters of my people as if they eat bread.
24
Again the position of the name of God indicates a contrast.
25
Eating as a metaphor for oppression, as used in the prophets, cf. Jer 2:3; 10:25
(// Ps 79:7); 30:16; 50:7, 27; Ezek 22:25; Mic 3:3.
100 eveline van staalduine–sulman

14:7 Who gives26 deliverance for III ‫מי יתן מציון ישועת ישראל‬
Israel out of Zion?!
In27 the Lord’s restoring of the ‫בשוב יהוה שבות עמו‬
fortunes of his people
let Jacob rejoice; ‫יגל יעקב‬
let Israel be glad! ‫ישמח ישראל‬

The last strophe stands alone in its participants, its use of names, and
the introduction of ‘who’.28 Parallelism is created by beginning the sec-
ond sentence with the preposition phrase, before the verbs to which
this phrase is linked. The first two lines run parallel in the combination
‘from Zion’ // ‘Yhwh’ and ‘the deliverance for Israel’ // ‘the fortunes
of his people’. The second two lines also run completely parallel. The
strophe is full of alliteration and assonance, as is strophe I.1.29 The
fact that strophe I.2 described Yhwh as ‘from heaven’ seems to form
a parallel to his restoring ‘from Zion’ in the last verse: although the
question does not focus on the Lord, the answer makes clear that He
is meant and not a human king.
The poem as a whole makes use of repetition: ‘none’ twice in stro-
phe I.1 and twice in I.3, ‘none that does good’ in strophes I.1 and I.3,
‘eat’ in strophe II.1, the root ‫ פחד‬twice in strophe II.2, and twice Israel
and ‫ שוב שבות‬in strophe III. The poem refers seven times to God,
alternating Elohim and Yhwh. The last time, however, Yhwh is used:
the use of the Name matches the use of other names in the strophe,
while the other strophes all describe human groups, but do not name
them. The subdivisions all concern a relationship between two parties:
canticle I between the fool and God; canticle II between the evildoers
and the poor, righteous people; canticle III between God and Israel.
The evildoers will be overcome.
If this poetic structure is right, the psalm is an acrostic.30 The first
letters of the six strophes form together the phrase ‫איה השם‬, ‘Where

26
Usually translated with ‘Oh that . . .’. The answer to the question who gives deliv-
erance is, however, given in the second line: it is the Lord who restores his people. In
this manner the idiomatic, rhetorical question is answered by the psalm itself.
27
Both verbs can be followed by a prepositional phrase with ‫ב‬, cf., e.g., Isa 25:9.
28
Van der Lugt, Strofische structuren, p. 517.
29
This argues against Jacquet, Les Psaumes, p. 375, who calls v. 7 ‘une addition de
liturgiste’.
30
More psalms and songs in the Bible are acrostics, although most of them alphabeti-
cal. For other non–alphabetical acrostics, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation
 where is god? 101

is the Name?’ The word ‫ השם‬could be used to indicate God’s name

(Lev 24:11; Deut 28:58). The question then is synonym to ‫איה יהוה‬,
‘Where is Yhwh?’ A query in the Stuttgarter Elektronische Studienbibel
(SESB) shows that the question thus formulated is a serious ques-
tion concerning God’s activities—or rather invisibility—in the course
of history (2 Kgs 2:14; Jer 2:6, 8). The rhetorical question ‘Where is
God?’, meant as mockery, is always formulated as ‫איה אלהים‬.31 The
question, ‘Where is the Name?’ is parallel to the prayer of v. 7. Both
contain an appeal to Yhwh to act on behalf of his people. Verses 2,
5, and 7 give some hints as to the answer: Yhwh is ‘from heaven’ and
‘from Zion’, He is ‘in the generation of the righteous’.

1.4 Genre
Although Psalm 14 starts with a term from wisdom literature, ‘the
fool’, this does not define its genre,32 especially not in vv. 4–7: the
psalm is not neutrally describing the fate of the fool, but makes an
accusation against him and ends with a prayer for salvation. Although
the psalmist complains about the situation, it is not a lament of the
individual:33 it is about the situation of the people, without references
to the personal setting of the writer, and it does not use vocatives when
calling upon the Lord. The psalm has links to the prophetic genre, viz.
the angry questioning, the citing of the opponents, the more of less
historical survey, and the emphasis on everybody’s guilt.34 One can at
most say that this poem has borrowed characteristics from wisdom,
prophetic, and lament literature:35 it uses the strophes in wisdom terms
(vv. 1–3) as a basis for the prophetic strophes with questions and accu-
sations (vv. 4–6), which in turn are the basis for the passionate plea

in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1988), p. 464, n.13; Marjo C.A. Korpel, ‘Kryptogramme in
Ezekiel und im ‘Izbet–Ṣarṭa–Ostrakon’, ZAW 121 (2009), pp. 70–86.
31
Cf. 2 Kgs 18:34; Isa 36:19; Jer 2:28; Joel 2:17; Mal 2:17; Ps 42:4, 11; 79:10.
32
Against Bennett, ‘Wisdom Motifs’, BASOR 220–221, pp. 15–21, cited by Terrien,
The Psalms, p. 162.
33
Against Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen I (BK, IV/1; Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1960),
p. 105, although he also states that the themes comply with that of the prophets.
34
Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen
der religiösen Lyrik Israels (Göttingen, 1933), pp. 362–364.
35
Dahood, Psalms, p. 80: lament, wisdom; Anderson, The Book of Psalms, p. 130:
prophecy, wisdom.
102 eveline van staalduine–sulman

for redemption (v. 7). The author might have been playing with the
different genres, disturbing the reader with each transition.36

2 Psalm 53 in the Masoretic Text

An intriguing question about Psalm 14 is its connection to Psalm 53.

Which one came first or are both reworked versions of an earlier Vorlage?37
The greatest contrast between the two psalms lies in strophe II.2.

53:6 There they were in great terror, II.2 ‫שם פחדו פחד‬
which was no terror, ‫לא־היה פחד‬
for God has scattered the bones of ‫כי־אלהים פזר עצמות חנך‬
your opponent;
you made (them) ashamed, for ‫הבשתה כי־אלהים מאסם‬
God has rejected them.

Whereas Psalm 14 contains the awkward transition from qatal to yiq-

tol, combined with the transition from the third person to the second,
Psalm 53 harmonizes the Hebrew tenses, the contents, and some of the
persons. The qatal forms suggest that the entire strophe belongs to the
example taken from the past38 and that only strophe III is an utterance
concerning the present situation of the author. Strophe II.2 of Psalm 53
is completely about the negative fate of the wicked. There is no longer
a contrast between their ‘terror’ and their ‘making ashamed’ of the
poor. The use of the second person singular in Psalm 53 means that
the reader is not confronted with the third and second person plural
which are to be identified with each other. The second person singular
seems to refer to the audience. In short, Psalm 53 seems to harmonize
the difficulties in Psalm 14, and is therefore likely to be younger.39

36
Cf. Marjo C.A. Korpel, ‘The Literary Genre of the Song of the Vineyard (Isa.
5:1–7)’, in Willem van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor, The Structural Analysis of
Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (JSOT.S, 74; Sheffield, 1988), pp. 119–155.
37
Reconstructions of a mutual origin are proposed by Charles C. Torrey, ‘The
Archetype of Psalms 14 and 53’, JBL 46 (1927), pp. 186–192; Karl Budde, ‘Psalm 14
und 53’, JBL 47 (1928), pp. 160–187.
38
Not ‘in konstatierenden (“prophetischen”) Perfekta das visionär geschaute
Geschick der in V.2–5 beschriebenen Menschengruppe’, according to Claudia
Süssenbach, Der elohistische Psalter (FAT 2/7; Tübingen, 2005), p. 107.
39
Thus also Süssenbach, Der elohistische Psalter, p. 108. Against Louis Jacquet, Les
Psaumes et le coeur de l’Homme. Etude textuelle, littéraire et doctrinale, vol. 1: Intro-
 where is god? 103

The context in which Psalm 53 is placed is noteworthy. Psalm 52

refers to Doeg the Edomite betraying David’s stay with Abimelech
(1 Sam 22:9), while Psalm 54 refers to the Ziphites informing Saul
concerning David’s hiding in their desert (1 Sam 26:1). It is as if the
editor of the Elohistic Psalter wanted the psalm to be interpreted
as a biographical psalm of David. Reading Psalm 53 one has Nabal
(1 Samuel 25), ‘the fool’, in mind as an example: his evil deeds led
to his destruction; he was struck by terror, although there was noth-
ing terrible present. In that case the second person singular of v. 6
must firstly be understood to refer to David himself: ‘God scattered
the bones of your opponent.’

3 Psalm 14 in the Greek Texts

The text of Psalm 14 is longer in most manuscripts of the Septuagint40

(Psalm 13) and in its citation in Rom 3:10–18. It is generally assumed
that the Septuagint manuscripts borrowed the addition from Paul.
Therefore, I will first discuss Paul’s quotation of Psalm 14 and later
deal with the question of its origin. The text of Paul’s quotation is
poetic, both in his version of Psalm 14 and in the addition.

Verse Greek Text Strophe Translation

3:10 καθὼ ς γέγραπται ὅτι as it is written
οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς I.1 There is no one righteous,
not one,
3:11 οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων there is no one
understanding,
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν there is no one seeking God.
3:12 πάντες ἐξέκλιναν I.2 All have turned aside,
ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν together they have become
worthless,
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα there is no one showing
kindness,
οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός there is not even one.

duction et Premier Livre du Psautier. Psaumes 1 à 41 (s.l. 1975), p. 374, who considers
Psalm 14 more general and therefore younger.
40
Codex Alexandrinus and the Lucian recension leave it out, according to Alfred
Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta 10. Psalmi cum Odis (Göttingen, 1931).
104 eveline van staalduine–sulman

Paul starts with one of his usual introductions, ‘as it is written’. He

then quotes the last line of Ps 14:1, but mixes it with words from Eccl
7:20 and Ps 14:3. This technique shows similarity to the second exe-
getical rule of Hillel, called Gezerah Shavah, in which two texts are
explained by each other because of similar phrases in the texts.41 This
mixture gives Paul the exact statement that he wants to give, namely,
that there is no one just before God, not even one—Jew or Gentile. He
then gives a Targumic rendering of the second half of Ps 14:2, chang-
ing the question, whether there is a human searching for God, into
a statement that there is not.42 He could do that, because the answer
was already given in 14:3, which is quoted almost literally. The only
divergence is the addition of ὁ in the third line.
Several lines of these strophes begin with οὐκ ἔστιν, more than in
the Greek version of the Psalm. Both the beginning and the end of
these canticle43 have the number ‘one’.

3:13 τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ II.1 An open grave is their

αὐτῶν throat,
ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν their tongues deceive.
ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν The venom of asps is under
their lips,
3:14 ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας whose mouth is full of
γέμει curse and bitterness.
3:15 ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα II.2 Their feet are swift to shed
blood.
3:16 σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν Ruin and misery is in their
ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν ways.
3:17 καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν and the path of peace they
did not know,
3:18 οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι there is no fear of God
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν before their eyes.

41
Cf. Eveline van Staalduine–Sulman, The Targum of Samuel (Leiden, 2002),
pp. 109–110.
42
Targum Jonathan does exactly the same with some questions, starting with ‫היש‬,
in Josh 22:24; 1 Sam 26:18; 2 Sam 7:18; 22:32; 1 Kgs 12:16; Isa 14:27; 29:15; 51:19;
Jer 8:9; 14:22; 18:14; 49:19; 50:44. This technique was already used in 1 Chr 17:4 with
regard to 2 Sam 7:5.
43
A canticle is a group of strophes belonging together.
 where is god? 105

What follows, is a poem with a structure of its own. It consists of quo-

tations from Septuagint Ps 5:10; 139:4b (MT 140:4b); 9:28 (MT 10:7);
Isa 59:7d–8a; and Ps 35:2b (MT 36:2b).44 It is not strange for Paul to
use such an amalgam of texts.45
The poem consists of two strophes of four lines. The first strophe
focuses on the speech of the wicked, with parallelism between mouth
and throat (both cavities) and between tongues and lips (both moving
body parts involved in producing speech). According to the mean-
ing and the number of these words, the first strophe has an ABBʹAʹ
structure. The second strophe focuses on the wicked deeds, with par-
allelism between the body parts feet and eyes, and between the plural
and singular ‘ways’ and ‘way’. This strophe also has an ABBʹAʹ struc-
ture, although the plural and singular words are not evenly distributed.
Chiasm can be found throughout the poem. If one considers the two
usages of the word ‘way’ and body parts on the one hand (b) and
wicked speech and deeds on the other hand (w), the whole poem has
the structure of w-b-b-w, w-b-b-w, b-w-w-b, b-w-w-b.
The quotations, which are not entirely identical to the Septuagint
texts of these verses, are adapted to the third person plural and chiasm
is formed by changing the word order. The quotations are all con-
nected to each other, and mostly to Psalm 14 as well. Three of them
stem from a verse in which the Hebrew ‫ אין‬and the Greek οὐκ ἔστιν
occur: Ps 5:10; 36:2; Isa 59:7. The two quotes following Ps 5:10 are
both taken from a verse in which the ‘tongue’ plays a role. The last
two quotations are connected to the sequel of Psalm 14 by the words
‘know’ and ‘fear’, while the last line also refers back to the ‘there is
not’ of vv. 1–2 of the Psalm. Furthermore, the topics of the speech
and the act of the wicked concur with the first strophe of Psalm 14, in
which the speech and behaviour of the fool are depicted. These links to
Psalm 14 form the first hints that, in the first place, the composition is
an addition to Psalm 14 independent from its use in Romans 3. Three
more hints follow: (1) The text appears not to be an ad hoc catena
of quotations for the Pauline letter, but the verses are purposefully

44
Cf. Douglas Moo, Romans 1–8 (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Chicago,
1991), pp. 206–207.
45
Cf. Rom 9:25–26; 11:26–27; 11:34–35; 2 Cor 6:14–7:1. See also Anthony T.
Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (London, 1974), pp. 192–193.
106 eveline van staalduine–sulman

adapted to each other.46 (2) The text does not give any explicit refer-
ence to the described persons. Only as an addition to the first verses
of Psalm 14 does the reader understand to whom the text refers.
(3) The addition gives a description of several sins rather than explor-
ing the universality of sin—the theme of Paul’s line of thought in
Romans 2–3.47 The fact that not all Septuagint manuscripts contain
this poem suggests that is was not an integral part of the Septuagint
text from the beginning.

4 The Addition to Psalm 14 in Hebrew

4.1 A Hebrew Manuscript
This article could end here, were it not for a most intriguing remark in
the critical apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia that the addi-
tion to the Greek Psalm 13 is also found in two Hebrew manuscripts.
Stuttgarter Elektronische Studienbibel gives references to several cata-
logues and books in which these manuscripts would be found. Almost
all of them mention the Dissertatio generalis of Benjamin Kennicott
as their source.48 This book quotes the Hebrew addition to Psalm 14,
referring to two numbers in the enclosed catalogue: 649 and 694. Num-
ber 649 is indeed a manuscript, now known as ms Or. 4725 (Scal. 8) of
the Leiden University. Number 694 refers to a book from 1580, writ-
ten by Franciscus Brugensis.49 Brugensis quotes Wilhelmus Lindanus,
who wrote a tractate about the same manuscript, using it to prove
that the Jews had forged their Hebrew texts. Lindanus had described
the manuscript as coming from the library of Thomas Morus50 (which

46
Cf. Leander E. Keck, ‘The Function of Rom 3:10–18: Observations and Sugges-
tions’, in Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks (eds), God’s Christ and His People: Studies
in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Oslo, 1977), pp. 141–157, esp. 147. He mentions the
‘bookishness’ of the composition.
47
Moo, Romans, p. 206.
48
Benjamin Kennicott, Dissertatio generalis in Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum:
cum variis lectionibus ex codicibus manuscriptus et impressis, Vol. 2 (Oxford, 1713).
49
Franciscus L. Brugensis, Notationes in Sacra Biblia, quibus, variantia discrepanti-
bus exemplaribus loca, summo studio discutiuntur (Antwerp, 1580); pp. 103–104.
50
Bernard Rekers, Benito Arias Montanus 1527–1598 (Groningen, 1961), p. 117.
 where is god? 107

is indeed true of the Leiden manuscript),51 while Brugensis says that

Franciscus Raphelengius, who is also one of the listed owners of the
Leiden manuscript, showed him the manuscript.52 Brugensis proves in
his book that this addition is not the original Hebrew text behind Paul’s
version. Because it is obvious that Brugensis consulted ms Or. 4725
itself and because he only quoted two phrases, each of two words long,
his book should not be mentioned in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia as
an independent manuscript containing Psalm 14.
ms Or. 4725 is a parchment manuscript containing the Psalter in
Hebrew with a Latin translation and glosses in Latin to the first part
of the manuscript.53 It originates in twelfth century England and is
clearly written by a Christian copyist. It has no Jewish characteristics
such as Masorah. Contrary to Jewish scribal practice, the scribe intro-
duced illuminated initials and divided the Hebrew words if necessary,
‘a practice unattested by Franco–German Hebrew scribes’.54 Beit-Arié
notes that
this entirely Christian manuscript exhibits a striking manifestation of
intercultural scribal creativity in some of the initials of its Hebrew text,
which were cunningly manipulated so as to playfully represent both the
Hebrew and the equivalent Latin letters.55
The text of the addition runs as follows:

51
Cf. Robert M. Kerr (ed.), Vetus Testamentum in Lugduno Batavorum: Catalogue
of an Exhibition of Old Testament Manuscripts held in the Leiden University Library
July 1st–August 7th 2004 (Kleine publicaties van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek 60;
Leiden, 2004), p. 14.
52
Kerr, Vetus Testamentum in Lugduno, p. 14, indeed states that Raphelengius
had owned the manuscript. Raphelengius probably took it with him when he was
appointed professor in Leiden.
53
Cf. Moritz Steinschneider, Catalogus codicorum hebraeorum bibliothecae aca-
demiae Lugduno–Batavae (Leiden, 1858), p. 349; Albert van der Heide, Hebrew Man-
uscripts of Leiden University (Codices Manuscripti 18; Leiden, 1977), p. 62; Pieter
A.H. de Boer, ‘Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts in the Netherlands’, in Matthew Black
and Georg Fohrer (eds), In Memoriam Paul Kahle (Berlin, 1968), pp. 44–52; Jan
Just Witkam, Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University
of Leiden 5. Manuscripts Or. 4001–5000 registered in Leiden University Library in the
Period between 1896 and May 1905 (http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/inventories/
leiden/or05000.pdf ), pp. 112–113; Kerr, Vetus Testamentum in Lugduno, pp. 12–14. I
greatly appreciate the helpfulness of the Leiden librarians in this research.
54
Kerr, Vetus Testamentum, p. 14.
55
Malachi Beit–Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts of East and West: Towards a Compara-
tive Codicology (London, 1993), p. 18.
108 eveline van staalduine–sulman

Translation Hebrew Text

An open grave is their throat, ‫קבר פתוח גרונם‬
their tongue deceives. ‫לשונם יחליקון‬
The venom of asps is under their tongues, ‫חמת עכשוב תחת לשונם‬
with a curse and bitterness their mouth is ‫אשר פיהם אלה ומרמה מלא‬
filled.
Their feet were swift to shed blood. ‫קלו רגליהם לשפוך דם׃‬
Bad luck and bad fate is in their paths. ‫מזל רע ופגע רע בדרכיהם‬
The path of peace they did not know, ‫ודרך שלום לא ידעו‬
there is no fear of God before their eyes. ‫אין פחד אלהים לנגד עיניהם‬

All Christian features of the manuscript lead to the suspicion that the
Hebrew text of the addition is not original, but a translation from the
Greek to bring the Hebrew text in line with the Septuagint, or rather,
the Vulgate.56 This is confirmed by:

(1) The quote from Isaiah is no longer an exact quotation, but uses the
words ‫ פגע‬and ‫מזל‬, the latter of which does not occur in Biblical
Hebrew, but stems from later times.57 It is frequently used in the
Babylonian Talmud, but never without its original connotation of
‘star’ or ‘constellation’. The abstract meaning ‘luck’ is medieval.
(2) A kind of rhyme is visible: the first strophe ends three times in
-am, the second strophe ends two times in -ehem. The desire for
rhyme could explain the repetition of ‘their tongues’ and points to
a date later than Paul.
(3) The text contains the word ‫ דרך‬twice, because the Greek contains
the word ὁδός twice. Had the author used exact quotations from the
Hebrew Bible, there would not have been exact repetition, but two
synonyms.
(4) The poem is divided into two sections with a Soph Passuq after five
lines. This poetical structure concurs with the author’s ideas of the
contents: one strophe of five lines concerns the bad behaviour of
the wicked; the other of three lines describes his awful fate.

56
Thus Giovanni B. de Rossi, Variae lectiones veteris testamenti 4 (Parma, 1788),
p. 7.
57
Franz Delitzsch, Biblischer Kommentar über die Psalmen (Leipzig 1894), s.v., calls
the addition ‘rabbinical’, especially the altered words in the quote from Isaiah 59.
 where is god? 109

It is typically Christian, not Jewish, to interpret Isa 59:7 in this

way. 1QIsaa adds ‫‘( וחמס‬and violence’) to this verse, referring to
evil deeds, not to the fate of the wicked. Rashi also interprets the
verse actively, witness his remark: ‘that in their paths there is noth-
ing judged truly according to its law’. Augustine, however, in his
exposition on Psalm 14 speaks of the fate of the fool: ‘For all the
ways of evil men are full of toil and misery.’ Calvin is aware this
passive interpretation, but argues against it: ‘Wasting and destruc-
tion are in their paths. He means that, wherever they go, they will
resemble wild beasts, which seize and devour whatever they meet
with, and leave nothing behind’.58 By this interpretation, the beau-
tiful structure of the Greek text is abandoned.

4.2 The Original Addition in Hebrew

If there were an original Hebrew version of the addition to Psalm 14,
it would have to consist of almost exact quotations from the indi-
cated passages, would need to show the same structure as the Greek
version—four lines about the speech and four lines about the deeds of
the wicked—and would look something like this:

Translation Hebrew Text

While their throat is an open grave, ‫קבר פתוח גרונם‬
their tongues deceive.59 ‫לשונם יחליקון‬
The venom of asps is under their lips,60 ‫חמת עכשוב תחת שפתימו‬
a curse fills their mouth and bitterness.61 ‫אלה פיהם מלא ומרמה‬
Their feet run to shed blood,62 ‫רגליהם ירצו לשפוך דם‬
desolation and destruction is in their paths. ‫שד ושבר במסלותם‬
The way of peace they did not learn,63 ‫דרך שלום לא ידעו‬
there is no fear of God before their eyes.64 ‫אין פחד אלהים לנגד עיניהם‬

58
John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah 4 (Grand Rapids,
1948), p. 253.
59
An exact quote of Ps 5:10b–c.
60
An exact quote of Ps 140:4b.
61
A quote from Ps 10:7a, adapted to the third person plural and leaving out the
last word.
62
Quoting words from Isa 59:7a–b in the same order as in the Masoretic Text,
leaving out the words that are not in the Greek text of the Septuagint. Alternative is
Isa 59:7a: ‫רגליהם לרע ירצו‬, ‘their feet run to do evil’.
63
An exact quote of Isa 59:7d–8a.
64
An exact quote of Ps 36:2b.
110 eveline van staalduine–sulman

The structure and poetical devices are almost the same as in the Greek
version. The fourth line of the first strophe fits less well within the
repetitive chiasms; however, it now has some extra qualities. It consists
of almost exact quotations from the Hebrew Bible, in contrast to the
medieval text of ms 4725. It no longer contains repetition of words,
such as twice ‘tongue’ and twice ‘way’, but uses synonyms, thus sur-
passing both the Greek text and ms 4725. Moreover, its syntax is more
consistent, because the main thoughts are given in yiqtol and nominal
phrases. This flow of thought is no longer interrupted by a sudden
qatal (‘were swift’).

5 Conclusions

Psalm 14 has an awkward transition from v. 5 to v. 6. Using the syn-

tactic analysis of Eep Talstra one can overcome this problem by ascrib-
ing v. 5 to the description of the past—or at least of the already known
things—and v. 6 to the core of the speech. Both syntax and participant
tracking focus on the last verses: the accusation against the wicked and
the prayer for salvation.
As presented above, the poetical analysis of the Psalm mostly added
insight into the presentation of the contents. Sometimes it focused
attention on parallelisms that had something to say about the inten-
tion of the author and the later users of the psalm: the combination
of speech and deeds of the wicked (v. 1), the difference between the
group of fools and mankind in general (v. 2), but also the transition
from qatal to yiqtol within one strophe, stressing the foolishness of the
wicked people, who do not learn from the past. The greatest contribu-
tion from the poetical analysis is the detection of the acrostic question
which gives the underlying lament of the Psalm: ‘Where is the Lord?’.
The question concerning the genre provided us with the insight that
the author used three genres to draw the reader’s attention. The focus
of this psalm, at least syntactically, lies in v. 6, where the author makes
his accusation against the oppressors of his people who strike the poor
on this one point, namely, that God is their refuge. By denying the
very existence of God and by corrupting all behaviour, there is no
hope left for the poor, nor for the restoration of justice in the country,
nor for their own salvation because of their sins and deplorable situ-
ation. The answer of the author of Psalm 14 is twofold: he points at
the well–known situations in which these oppressors were ‘terrified’
 where is god? 111

after God’s search for prudent people (from wisdom literature) and he
utters a prayer for the salvation of Israel (from lamentation literature)—
two prophetic tasks.
The answer in Psalm 53 focuses on King David. God is asked to save
Israel just as He made His enemies ashamed, especially Nabal. The har-
monizations and the historization of Psalm 53 point to a later date.
The lament of Psalm 14 of the Septuagint is expanded by addi-
tional material. Analysis showed that the addition was most probably
made for Psalm 14 and not as an ad hoc catena for Paul’s letter to the
Romans. It is a description of the wicked words and deeds of man-
kind, and is therefore not found accompanying a version of Psalm 53,
which has a special link to the figure of Nabal. Someone who knew
the Hebrew text later made the same string of quotations from the
Septuagint. Paul was acquainted with the addition—either in Hebrew
or in Greek—and used its contents to indicate the guilt of the entire
mankind—Jews and Gentiles. There are two possibilities how the addi-
tion ended up in the Septuagint. Either Paul translated the addition for
his letter and Christian copyists added it to the Septuagint, or someone
else had translated it and added it to the Septuagint, in which case Paul
could have just quoted his Septuagint version of Psalm 14. However
this may be, Paul could only use the addition in connection to the first
half of Psalm 14, because otherwise the texts would lack an indicated
subject and they would not have supported his idea of the universality
of sin. Taken separately, the amalgam points to different kinds of sin
(speech and actions), but taken within the context of Psalm 14, the
third person plural refers to the ‫בני־אדם‬, ‘all mankind’.
In medieval England Christians were interested in learning Hebrew
and started making bilingual manuscripts. One copyist was obviously
disturbed by the lack of two strophes in his Hebrew psalm and trans-
lated the Latin text back into the Hebrew. He may have accused the
Jews of not having copied the entire psalm, as Wilhelmus Lindanus
did centuries later, although the two versions of the Vulgate on the
Psalms made the medieval scholars aware of the differences between
versions. Our copyist made the translation according to his contempo-
rary explanation of the addition, which became visible in the poetical
analysis. He stressed the terrible end of the wicked, as Psalm 53 did as
well, giving the reader more hope than the original author of Psalm
14 did.
Finally, the editors of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta should be aware
of two facts: (1) Kennicott’s catalogue does refer to two numbers, but
112 eveline van staalduine–sulman

there is only one manuscript that actually contains the Hebrew text
of the addition; and (2) this Hebrew addition is a Christian inter-
polation. Their job is to decide whether or not to incorporate this
Christian translation of Paul’s words. It cannot be used to reconstruct
the most original text, but if they want to give an overview of the pos-
sible uses of Psalm 14, they will somehow preserve this beautiful piece
of history.
 READING QOHELET AS TEXT,
AUTHOR, AND READER

Timothy Walton

In various publications Professor Talstra has pressed for the order of exege­
sis or reading of a text to be: (1) text—the language, structure and themes
of its present form; (2) author—historical setting, production, sources,
redactions; and (3) reader—addressee vs. modern reader, perspective to
be adopted, participation level, response of the reader to the text.1 Talstra
has successfully demonstrated the benefit of such an ordered approach to
various Old Testament texts. This article investigates the benefits of apply­
ing this proposed methodological order to a text from Qohelet. It begins
by establishing the text structure for Qoh 8:9–15 assisted by the computer
programs designed for this purpose by Professor Talstra and his colleagues
at the WIVU. It then examines the history of the text, focusing primarily
on the intertextual allusions Qohelet utilizes in 8:12c–13 and 8:15 and the
connections these make to traditional Israelite wisdom teachings and the
circumstances under King Solomon. It concludes by examining the role of
Qohelet as reader and the response he desired from his audience—one of
trusting in God’s control of human affairs and enjoying His basic provisions
as signs of His blessing.

1
In numerous articles Talstra has written about the need to make an analysis of
the synchronic features of the text or the language system itself the first step in the
application of exegetical methodologies. Only once the text structure is established
should questions of a diachronic nature be applied. For examples of this see Eep
Talstra, ‘Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exege­
sis’, in J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old
Testament Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België and The Society for Old Testament Study
(OTS 40; Leiden, 1995), pp. 187–210; ‘From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Nar­
rative: Reflections on Methods of Biblical Exegesis’, in E. Noort (ed.), Perspectives
on the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of
A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Groningen 1997 (VT.S 73;
Leiden, 1998), pp. 1–41; and ‘Texts and Their Readers: On Reading the Old Testa­
ment in the Context of Theology’, in The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible (ACEBT.S
1; Maastricht, 1999), pp. 101–119.
114 timothy walton

1 Qohelet 8:9–15

The book of Qohelet presents a challenge to the modern reader on

several levels.2 First is the problem of cohesion, since the book appears
to lack a consistent thematic development and contains many con­
trasting, if not contradictory, views. The second challenge is closely
related to the first. The lack of cohesion has led many to propose the
presence of multiple hands in the text of Qohelet. The challenge to
the modern reader then is to determine whether the source of the
text affects how it is to be read. Can one simply ignore its source and
determine the meaning of a passage based solely on its final form?
However, if the source of the text is important, how does one go about
finding the original source? Finally, any modern reader of the book of
Qohelet is confronted with the challenge of determining the meaning
of the book. How is it possible to arrive at an objective interpretation
of the book when it presents such diverse opinions on such things as
the benefit of wisdom or human labour? Does it encourage a positive
or negative perspective of life under the sun?
I have chosen Qoh 8:9–15 to serve as a model for our investiga­
tion since, like the book itself, the cohesion, the source of some of
its comments, and the meaning of this passage have been greatly dis­
puted.3 The methodological order of text–author–reader proposed by
Eep Talstra addresses each of these challenges directly. I first examine
Qohelet as text by developing the text unit’s cohesion and structure
through a systematic analysis of the linguistic signals found at the
surface level of the text. Then I look at Qohelet as author, seeking
to answer questions regarding the importance of source identification
and text production. Finally, I focus on Qohelet as reader, moving
from his own reading of traditional wisdom to how the passage may
have been read by the addressees and then to how it can now be read
by the modern reader.

2
It is my privilege to dedicate this article to my mentor and friend, Professor Eep
Talstra, whose emphasis on the ‘preeminence of the Word’ has greatly influenced my
own methodology in reading biblical texts.
3
Based on my study, the complete text unit should be 8:9–17. However due to
space limitations I have restricted my discussion here to 8:9–15.
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 115

2 Qohelet as Text
2.1 Methodology
Where does one begin when seeking to understand a text? Traditionally
the starting point has been the application of various historical­critical
analyses (whether literary, social, cultural, or theological) in order to
reconstruct a text’s history or transmission or to describe the society
or social/cultural setting that produced it. These questions have their
place, of course, but in my opinion they are not where to start since
the reader must go outside the text itself to find answers. Even those
approaches that appear to be more ‘text­internal’, like modern literary
and rhetorical criticism, tend to focus more on the author’s artistic
and creative abilities or the text’s conformity to certain established
patterns (e.g., chiasmus) rather than on the language system itself.
It seems to me that the best place to start when seeking to under­
stand a text is not the author’s use of sources or stylistics but the
linguistic structure of the text itself. Since with an ancient text we
have no other access to the author and cannot ask for assistance from
native speakers contemporary to the text, we must let the text be our
guide by carefully determining what signals it contains that help the
reader navigate through it. Therefore, following Talstra’s example, I
begin my analysis by a systematic inventory of the signals found at
the surface level of the text in order to determine the text’s linguistic
structure. The methodology I have used for determining a linguistic
structure for Qoh 8:9–15 utilizes the computer programs developed
by Talstra in conjunction with other members of the Werkgroep
Informatica Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.4 These programs facilitate
the reading process by suggesting various connections, relationships,

4
These programs, which continue to be developed and modified, are designed to
aid linguistic analyses at the word, phrase, clause, and text levels. They accumulate
information mainly from surface­level criteria in a bottom­up fashion (i.e., progress­
ing from morpheme to text) and allow for interactive decisions to be made at various
levels of the analysis. Talstra has written numerous articles describing the details of the
use of the computer for linguistic analysis of biblical texts, of which I list three here:
‘Towards a Distributional Definition of Clauses in Classical Hebrew: A Computer­
Assisted Description of Clauses and Clause Types in Deut 4,3–8’, ETL 63 (1987), pp.
95–105; ‘Text Grammar and Computer: The Balance of Interpretation and Calcula­
tion’, in Actes du troisième Colloque International Bible et Informatique: Interpréta-
tion, Herméneutique, Compétence, Informatique (Paris–Geneve, 1992), pp. 135–149;
‘Hebrew Syntax: Clause Type and Clause Hierarchy’, in K. Jongeling, H.L. Murre­van
den Berg, and L. van Rompay (eds.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax presented
to Professor J. Hoftijzer (SSLL 17; Leiden, 1991), pp. 182–193.
116 timothy walton

and functions for each clause as the operator systematically works

through the text. Since the human reader maintains total control
over the final text­syntactic decisions made, the resulting text struc­
ture is a computer­assisted product, not a computer­generated one.
First, it will be helpful to describe briefly the overall structure
of Qohelet which resulted from the application of this methodol­
ogy to the entire book.5 From the inventory of the linguistic sig­
nals present in the text, it was determined that some features are
more helpful than others in determining clause relationships and the
resulting clause hierarchy. These linguistic features are: the gram­
matical features (especially clause type and morphosyntax), the use
of participants or participant sets, and the repetition of lexical fea­
tures (lexemes or phrases). Through a systematic, sequential reading
of Qohelet guided by the formal, surface­level, text­linguistic signals
encountered in the process, five major divisions were identified in
the text: 1:1–2:26; 3:1–7:24; 7:25–10:15; 10:16–12:7; and 12:8–12:14.
The beginning of a new division was not determined by content but
by identifying combinations of grammatical, syntactic, and lexical
features. For example, the above divisions were linguistically marked
in the text by the introduction or reintroduction of participant sets
(e.g., wisdom, folly, knowledge, time) in combination with the type
of clause (e.g., first person qatal [perfect]) or a shift in perspective
(e.g., 10:16 shifts to second person and 12:8 shifts to third person).
In addition to marking the boundaries of a major text division, this
method also indicates the relationship which exists between the indi­
vidual text segments which make up the larger section. These rela­
tionships can be displayed graphically in a text hierarchy such as that
given for Qoh 8:9–15 below.

5
For a thorough presentation of the steps involved in determining clause relation­
ships and a text­linguistic structure for Qohelet see, Timothy Walton, Experimenting
with Qohelet: A Text-linguistic Approach to Reading Qohelet as Discourse (ACEBT.S 5;
Maastricht, 2006).
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 117

Clause Hierarchy Reference Clause P/N/G

Type
[<Su> ‫<[]אני ולבי‬Pr> ‫ ]סבותי‬....7,25a 0QtlX 1sg-

[<Su> ‫<[]אני‬PC> ‫<[]מוצא‬Cj> ‫]ו‬.........................7,26a ptc. –sgM

[<PC> ‫<[]כהחכם‬Qs> ‫]מי‬................8,01a NmCl ----

[<Pr> ‫<[]ראיתי‬Ob> ‫]את כל זה‬.......8,09a 0ZQtl 1sg-

[<Co> ‫<[]לכל מעשה‬Ob> ‫<[]את לבי‬Pr> ‫<[]נתון‬Cj> ‫]ו‬..................8,09b Winfa. ----

[<Pr>‫<[]ראיתי‬Mo> ‫<[]בכן‬Cj> ‫ ]ו‬...............8,10a WZQtl 1sg-

[<PC> ‫<[]קברים‬Su> ‫ ]רשעים‬................................8,10b ptcP. -plM

[<Ng> ‫<[]אין‬Cj> ‫ ]אשר‬..............................8,11a NmCl ----

[‫<[]מאת‬Ob> ‫<[]רע‬PC> ‫<[]עשה‬Su> ‫<[]חטא‬Cj> ‫ ]אשר‬.................................8,12a ptc. -sgM

[<Su> ‫<[]אני‬PC> ‫<[]יודע‬Mo> ‫<[]גם‬Cj> ‫ ]כי‬.........................8,12c ptc. -sgM

[<Su> ‫<[]הבל‬eX> ‫ ]יש‬....................8,14a NmCl ----

[<Ob> ‫<[]את השמחה‬Su> ‫<[]אני‬Pr> ‫<[]שבחתי‬Cj> ‫ ]ו‬...........8,15a WQtlX 1sg-

[<Lo> ‫<[]השמש תחת‬PC> ‫<[]לאדם‬Su> ‫<[]טוב‬Ng> ‫<[]אין‬Re> ‫ ]אשר‬................. 8,15b AjCl -sg-

Translation:
7,25a – I and my heart turned
7,26a – and continuously I encountered
8,01a – Who is like the wise
8,09a – All this I observed
8,09b – and I paid attention to every deed
8,10a – And then I saw
8,10b – (the) wicked buried
8,11a – Because there is not
8,12a – Because the sinner does evil a hundred times
8,12c – But I also know
8,14a – There is an absurdity
8,15a – So I commended enjoyment
8,15b – since there is nothing better for man under the sun

A further comment is in order regarding the importance of identify­

ing the text’s structure before applying additional exegetical methods.
The indentations of the clauses in the hierarchy attempt to depict in a
two­dimensional schema the multiple levels at which clauses function
within a given text. While a text is meant to be read linearly, its meaning
118 timothy walton

is not always uncovered by following a strictly sequential order. Just

because two sections are physically adjacent to each other does not
necessitate a direct syntactic or semantic relationship between them.
During the reading process readers are guided by the text to make
the appropriate connections between clauses and to group together
clauses into text segments. These text segments are then connected to
previous text segments with which they have a text­syntactic relation­
ship even when they are separated by intervening material. In this way
the discourse structure and the meaning of the text are built up during
the reading process and become progressively clearer. Indeed, if one’s
goal is to understand the meaning of a text, then failure to consider its
hierarchical nature will, no doubt, lead to confusion.6 This embedding
of text segments is a common feature in Qohelet.
In addition to constructing clause hierarchies for the entire book of
Qohelet, I have proposed discourse structures as examples of how the
various text segments relate or connect to each other.7 For example the
structure and function of the text segments found in 7:25–8:17 can be
displayed as:
7:25 – Introduction of new phase of the Investigation
7:26–29 – Initial summary of investigation
8:1–8 – Teaching on Wisdom
8:9 – Continuation of the Investigation: General Observation
8:10 – Observation: Specific example
8:11a–12b – Comment on evil deeds
8:12c–13 – Contrasting comment regarding the result of deeds
8:14 – Observation resumed and expanded
8:15–17 – Conclusions

2.2 Text Structure of Qohelet 8:9–15

As can be seen from both the hierarchy and the discourse structure
given above, section 8:9–15 is part of the larger division which begins
in 7:25. The majority of commentators conclude the previous text

6
In the hierarchy for 8:9–15, clauses are indented under the clauses to which
they connect. If more than one clause separates the daughter clause from the mother
clause, then arrows have been used to make the connection more apparent. The arrows
extend from the daughter clause to the mother clause with which it connects. Due to
space limitations, some clauses have been omitted from the hierarchy. This is marked
by the ‘ ’ line in the right columns of the table.
7
For a complete presentation of the clause hierarchies for Qohelet and my pro­
posed discourse structures see Walton, Experimenting, pp. 153–185.
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 119

segment with verse 9 (i.e., 8:1–9) and begin a new text segment with
8:10. This is largely based on their identification of word repetition in
8:1–8 and 8:9. In my opinion this view does not take into account the
broader linguistic evidence available in the text. The first person qatal
clause in 8:9a and the reintroduction of ‫לבי‬, ‘my heart’, in 8:9b suggest
a connection to 7:25a. Elsewhere I have argued that 7:25 functions to
introduce a new phase of the investigation while, at the same time,
continuing the investigation that began in 1:13 and 1:17.8 This point
seems to be further supported by the occurrence in 8:9 of ‫נתן‬, ‘gave’,
with Qohelet as subject (a combination that has not occurred since 1:13,
17), and the restatement of the scope of the investigation in general
terms in 8:9b.c: ‫לכל מעשה אשר נעשה תחת השמש‬, ‘to all the work
that is done under the sun’ (cf. 1:13c.d). It also is worth noting that the
syntactic pattern first person qatal + infinitive with the same subject
occurs in both 7:25a.b and 8:9a.b. Finally, the phrase ‫את כל זה‬, ‘all
this’, with which 8:9 begins functions not only as an anaphoric signal
of general summation for what has already been said but also provides
the basis for the additional comment which follows.9 In 8:9d–f Qohelet
describes what he has seen as ‫עת אשר שלט האדם באדם לרע לו‬, ‘a
time when one exercises authority over another for evil’. This combines
participants that have been previously introduced (e.g., ‫עת‬, ‘time’, ‫אדם‬,
‘man’ or ‘person’, ‫רע‬, ‘evil’) and presents them for further comment.
This ‘further comment’ is what we find in 8:10–17.
Rather than beginning a new section, as the majority of commentators
suggest, 8:10 actually contributes to the general observation stated in
8:9 by giving a specific example which supports and expands Qohelet’s
general statement. However, the decision to connect 8:10 to 8:9 is not
based on content. The key linguistic features are the presence of the
Waw (which makes beginning a new section here awkward at best), the
repetition of the same verb form ‫ראיתי‬, ‘I observed’, and the recurrence
of the ‫רשע‬/‫רע‬, ‘evil/wicked’, participant set. Qoh 8:10 is one of the
most difficult verses in the whole book to interpret. Therefore, it is
even more critical to establish its place in the hierarchy first before
attempting to explain it. Once its immediate context is established
on the basis of text­linguistic features, the interpreter is in a better
position to make sense of the text before him or her.

8
Walton, Experimenting, pp. 43–44, 57–59, 83–89.
9
Compare the similar function of this phrase in 7:23 and 9:1.
120 timothy walton

The hierarchy given above indicates that 8:10–14 forms a unified,

cohesive text segment. This cohesion is marked in at least four ways.
First, the first person participant of 8:10a is reintroduced in 8:12c
(‫אני‬, ‘I’). Cohesive ties are also formed by the repetition of the lexeme
‫רשע‬, ‘wicked’, in 8:10b, 13a, and 14d and the lexeme ‫ארך‬, ‘prolong’,
in 8:12b and 13b. Thirdly, the cohesion for the internal part of the
segment is clearly marked grammatically by the persistent use of parti­
cipial forms in 8:11–13. While the use of ‫ כי גם‬in 8:12c does cause the
reader to pause to determine its meaning and function, the use of the
participial form of ‫ ידע‬can be anticipated from the context. In 8:12a
and 12b the participles ‫ע ֶֹׂשה‬, ‘does’, and ‫ ַמ ֲא ִרְך‬, ‘prolongs’, have been
used to express the actions of the ‫חטא‬, ‘sinner’. In addition to these
two forms in 8:12a.b, most scholars agree that ‫ נעשה‬in 8:11b, which
is pointed in the Masoretic Text as a qatal, should also be pointed
as a participle due to the presence of ‫אין‬, ‘there is not’.10 Finally, the
semantic correspondence between the ‫חטא‬, ‘sinner’, of 8:12a and the
‫רשע‬, ‘wicked’, of 8:10b, 13a, and 14d is transparent. All these features
combine, in my opinion, to mark 8:10–14 as a cohesive text segment
framed by the observations given in 8:10 and 14.
There is little debate among commentators that 8:11–12b contains
Qohelet’s reflection on the state of affairs as he saw them. He sur­
rounds his conclusion (8:11c.d) with two causal statements in 8:11a.b
and 12a.b: ‘Because there is no quick action taken against an evil deed
(and) because a sinner does evil a hundred times and lengthens his life,
therefore, mankind’s heart is prone to do evil.’
The determination of the correct placement of Qoh 8:12c, ‫כי גם‬
‫יודע אני‬, ‘but (or although) I also know . . .’, in the clause hierarchy
presents a challenge due to the small number of linguistic clues
available. This, of course, is one of the reasons why some commentators
believe that this segment is a later addition. However, in my opinion,
there are adequate linguistic signals present in 8:12c–13 to suggest that
a linguistic connection to 8:10a is possible. This connection is based
on the presence of the first person pronoun ‫אני‬, ‘I’, and the repetition
of the participant ‫רשע‬, ‘wicked’, in both clauses. If this connection is
correct, it has the effect of allowing 8:12c–e to function as a comment

10
See Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and A Time to Build Up: A Rereading
of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, 1999), p. 285; C­L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AncBi 18C; New
York, 1997), p. 287; and A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A
Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part 1. Grammar (OLA 41; Leuven, 1992), p. 96.
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 121

on all that has been said in 8:10–12b and not just as a response to
8:11–12b. I will save further remarks on the function of the sub­unit
introduced by 8:12c until I return to it again under the discussion of
the author/source of the text.
In the hierarchy 8:14 is connected back to 8:10 based on the
reintroduction of the participants ‫הבל‬, ‘absurd’,11 and ‫רשעים‬, ‘wicked’.
Verse 14 can then be seen as an additional observation or a resumption
and expansion of the observation explained in 8:10. Thus the linguistic
structure for 8:10–14 indicates four sub­units: 8:10; 8:11a–12b; 8:12c–
13; and 8:14.
In 8:15a the reader discovers a syntactic connection back to 8:9a
signaled once again by the presence of the Waw with a first person
qatal verb and the twofold repetition of ‫תחת השמש‬, ‘under the sun’,
in 8:15b.g (cf. 8:9c).

3 Qohelet as Author

Now that a structure for 8:9–15 has been determined on the basis of
linguistic features, we are ready to address the questions regarding its
history. Talstra includes the type of diachronic analysis that is typical
of historical criticism under the category of ‘author’.12 The answers to
the questions employed by this analysis provide important informa­
tion as to how the text has been interpreted by previous readers and
how the modern reader should interpret it as well. I will limit the
discussion of issues under this category to two passages found in our
sample text, namely, 8:12c–13 and 8:15.

3.1 Qohelet 8:12c–13

Both the source of 8:12c–13 and its function within this portion of the
discourse are greatly debated. Some commentators view the content
of this segment as being at odds with Qohelet’s own beliefs and pro­
pose that it is either a gloss by a later editor/redactor13 trying to bring

11
I have chosen ‘absurd’ as the default English gloss for ‫הבל‬, though I remain
unconvinced that this is appropriate for all its occurrences in Qohelet.
12
See Talstra, ‘Texts and Their Readers’, pp. 109–113.
13
For example, George Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Ecclesiastes (ICC; Edinburgh, 1980), p. 153, attributes 8:11–13 to the work of a Chasid
glossator. Thomas Krüger, Qoheleth (transl. O.C. Dean Jr.; Minneapolis, 2004), p. 160, n. 6,
122 timothy walton

the message of the book in line with traditional wisdom, or that here
Qohelet quotes a teaching (usually identified as a traditional wisdom
teaching) with which he disagrees.14 The assumption upon which these
proposals are based is, of course, that material which presents an alter­
native perspective to that which has been determined to be normative
for Qohelet must reflect an alternative source.15
Not all commentators base their authorship or source decisions
solely on the juxtaposition of opposing viewpoints in the text. Some
exegetes point to the presence of the participle, ‫יודע‬, ‘know’, in 8:12c
as a signal marking an alternative source for 8:12d–13. For example,
Gordis believes that Qohelet uses verbs of cognition ‘at times to intro­
duce a quotation of conventional cast (cf. ‫ראיתי‬, 2:13f.; ‫אמרתי‬, 3:18;
9:16)’.16 Isaksson focuses on the shift from the normal pattern of qatal
+ ‫ אני‬which Qohelet uses to indicate knowledge he has acquired by
investigation or experience to the participle + ‫ אני‬pattern found here.
He concludes that ‘[t]he verb form speaks of the kind of knowledge
that represented the comme il faut teaching of the sages. This tradi­
tional wisdom is not acquired by Qoheleth, simply taken over, as most
people would have done.’17 Such a function can indeed be signalled
by the present or continuous nuance of the participle and by the fact
that it is used to introduce a segment which occurs off of the mainline

also includes Ellermeier, Galling, Lauha, McNeile, Podechard, and, to a lesser extent,
Crenshaw as subscribing to the view that 8:12b–13 is an ‘orthodox gloss’.
14
Robert Gordis’ comment is typical of this view. In reference to the use of the
participial form ‫יודע‬, ‘know’, in 8:12c, Gordis states that it ‘introduces a restatement
of a conventional idea, which Koheleth does not accept’ (Gordis, Koheleth—The Man
and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes [New York, 1968], p. 297). Others agreeing with
the idea that Qohelet rejects the view expressed in 8:12c–13 are Schoors, The Preacher
Sought, 1, p. 135; F. Backhaus, ‘Denn Zeit und Zufall trifft sie alle’: Studien zur Kom-
position und zum Gottesbild im Buch Qohelet (BBB 83; Frankfurt am Main, 1993), pp.
254–255; Ludger Schwienhorst­Schönberger, ‘Nicht im Menschen gründet das Glück’
(Koh 2,24): Kohelet im Spannungsfeld jüdischer Weisheit und hellenistischer Philoso-
phie (HBS 2; Freiburg, 1996), pp. 189–190 (though in Kohelet [HThKAT; Freiburg,
2004], p. 426, he presents an alternative view in which Qohelet upholds the traditional
teaching expressed in 8:12d–13 regarding deeds/consequences); and Roland Murphy,
Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas, 1992), p. 87.
15
For the difficulty in isolating ‘Qohelet’s thought’ as a measure of what must be
attributed to a secondary source see Fox, A Time to Tear Down, pp. 18–20.
16
Gordis, Koheleth, p. 293.
17
Bo Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, with special Emphasis on the
Verbal System (SSU 10; Stockholm, 1987), p. 67 (italics his).
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 123

communication level.18 This view can be further supported by the

occurrence of a series of yiqtol clauses found in 8:12d–13b.
In his study of intertextuality in Qohelet, Schoors states: ‘A simple
perusal of the main commentaries on Qoheleth shows that the read­
ers and commentators have always found quotations, references or
allusions to other biblical texts in this unconventional wisdom book.’19
He provides several examples of allusions to other Old Testament
texts that can be found in Qohelet. For example, the king’s activities
described in 2:4–9 can be understood as allusions to various aspects of
Solomon’s reign found in 1 Kings 5–11. He cites additional examples
of legitimate intertextual references including the description of the
woman in 7:26.20 Qohelet uses intentional allusions to the ‘danger­
ous/foreign’ woman of Proverbs (e.g., 2:16–19; 5:3–6, 20–23; 6:24–35)
rather than direct quotations to describe ‘the woman’ in 7:26. Schoors
does not include 8:12c–13 in his study but, in my opinion, these verses
function in a similar way by making intentional allusions to the gen­
eral teaching of traditional wisdom and emphasizing the appropriate
divine response to mankind’s actions. Through the use of the participle
and the intertextual allusions, Qohelet signals to the reader that what
he says in 8:12c–13 comes from a source other than his own observa­
tions: it comes from their shared wisdom tradition. However, I would
disagree with those who conclude that Qohelet rejects the viewpoint
contained in these clauses. For those who would object to the idea that
contrary views such as those expressed in 8:12c–13 and 8:14 can come
from the same person, I offer the viewpoint of Fox. In his response to
those who attribute the contrary propositions, that is, the ‘Zwar’21 to
someone else and the ‘Aber’ to Qohelet’s own view, Fox counters:
Qohelet does not merely restrict the ‘Zwar’ in favor of the ‘Aber’. The
‘Zwar’ is as much Qohelet’s belief as the ‘Aber’ is, and Qohelet does not

18
In my analysis of 7:26 I arrived at a similar conclusion about the function of the
participle ‫ מוצא‬which introduces Qohelet’s description of ‘the woman’. See Walton,
Experimenting, pp. 89–97.
19
A. Schoors, ‘(Mis)Use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis’, in André Lamaire
and Magne Sæbo (eds.) Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (SVT 80; Leiden, 2000), p. 46.
20
Schoors, ‘(Mis)Use of Intertextuality’, p. 48.
21
H.W. Hertzberg, Der Prediger (KAT 17.4; Gütersloh, 1963), p. 30, developed
this principle of ‘Zwar-Aber-Aussage’ (‘it is true–but statement’) and describes it as
‘Innerhalb der Beweisführung kommt gern zunächst das Gegenteil des vorgetragenen
Ergebnisses, die “Zwar”­Tatsache, dann das Aber, das Qohelets eigene Ansicht enthält’
(‘Within the argumentation the opposite of the stated result surely comes first, the “it
is true”­fact, then the but, which contains Qohelet’s opinion’—transl. mine).
124 timothy walton

propose the latter happily. The ‘Aber’—the recognition of the anoma­

lies—imposes itself on Qohelet, who would prefer to retain the rule, the
‘Zwar’, uncontested.22
Fox concludes that ‘[t]he relation between the two propositions is
“this is true and—alas—that is true”.’23 So, while the use of the parti­
ciple, ‫יודע‬, may indeed function to introduce an intertextual source, it
does not necessarily follow that Qohelet is opposed to the viewpoint
he cites.
A second grammatical feature that has been used by some to indi­
cate an alternate source for 8:12d–13 is the phrase ‫ כי גם‬in 8:12c.
Many exegetes combine these two particles and propose a concessive
translation like ‘although’.24 However, Fox believes that such a mean­
ing for ‫ כי גם‬is not well established.25 As Schoors accurately observes,
this composite conjunction occurs in Qohelet six times (4:14, 16; 7:22;
8:12, 16; 9:12).26 Of these, he supports a concessive translation only for
4:14; 8:12c; and possibly 7:22. He treats the other usages as disjoined
particles retaining their individual nuances. The combination of ‫כי‬
‫ גם‬also occurs sixteen times outside of Qohelet.27 However, none of
these have a clear concessive meaning and are usually best translated
as separate particles. Other exegetes and translators have proposed an
adversative meaning for ‫ כי‬in this context.28 The difficulty with this
translation is that ‫ כי‬cannot have this meaning except under certain
syntactic environments which are not present here.29

22
Fox, A Time to Tear Down, p. 17 (italics his). Fox makes a similar conclusion but
provides a more thorough discussion and critique of the ‘Zwar-Aber-Tatsache’ as it is
usually applied to Qohelet in, Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT.S 71; Sheffield,
1989), pp. 21–23.
23
Fox, A Time to Tear Down, p. 17 (italics his).
24
Cf. Gordis, Koheleth, p. 293, ‘although’, ‘even if’; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, p. 79,
‘although’; Walther Zimmerli, Das Buch des Predigers Salomo (ATD 16.1; Göttingen,
1962), p. 215, ‘wenn’; Seow, Ecclesiastes, p. 288, ‘Even though’.
25
Fox, A Time to Tear Down, p. 286.
26
Schoors, The Preacher Sought 1, p. 134.
27
Gen 35:17; Deut 12:31; 1 Sam 21:9; 22:17; 2 Sam 4:2; Isa 26:12; Jer 6:11; 12:6; 14:5,
18; 23:11; 46:21; 48:34; 51:12; Ezek 18:11; Hos 9:12.
28
For some examples of adversative translations see: Krüger, Qoheleth, p. 158,
‘however’; James L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (OTL; Philadelphia, 1987), p. 153, ‘yet’;
Graham Ogden, Qoheleth (Sheffield, 1987), p. 137, ‘however’; NRSV, ‘yet’; NBG (1951),
‘nochtans’.
29
According to Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; transl. and ed.
by T. Muraoka; SubBi 14; Rome, 1993), 2 §172c, ‫ כי‬may have an adversative nuance
only after a negation, e.g., 2 Sam 20:21; Gen 18:15.
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 125

So how should we interpret the particles ‫ ?כי גם‬In his analysis of this
construction, Fox concludes that ‘[i]t seems that ki + gam in Qohelet
usually introduces and calls attention to a concomitant fact, much like
wegam’.30 Such a nuance fits nicely with our connection of 8:12c to
8:10a. It surely seems that ‫ כי‬is used at this point in the text to mark
a break by referring to a new fact, namely, what Qohelet knows. The
use of the participle also reinforces that this knowledge is something
that he possesses at the same time as the observations and comment
were made. When the content of the knowledge expressed in 8:12d–13
is compared to that of the observations and comment, the logical con­
clusion is that the relationship between them can best be described as
one of contrast.31 Therefore, the placement of 8:12c–13 introduced by
‫ כי‬at this point in the text implies that on the discourse level this unit
functions as an adversative. While ‫ כי‬cannot have the direct meaning
of ‘but’, except in cases where it follows a negative statement, it is
used in this case to introduce a unit that functions as an adversative to
the context.32
The fact that the view of justice presented in 8:12d–13 seems to con­
tradict what Qohelet has said in 8:10 and 8:14 is recognized by most
exegetes. The difference is in the interpretation of Qohelet’s attitude
toward this viewpoint. In my opinion, it is difficult to prove from the
text that Qohelet rejects what is said in 8:12d–13. Therefore, I allow
the contrast at the discourse level to stand and suggest the translation:
‘But I also know’ for 8:12c. This view accurately expresses the con­
trast and, therefore, the tension that I believe was intended by the
text. In 8:10–14 Qohelet expresses the tension caused by the clash
between what he knows to be true from his own experience (8:10,
14) and what he knows from his tradition (8:12d–13). Qohelet’s com­
ment in 8:12d–13 expresses a view of ultimate justice which, though
greatly challenged, he continues to hold—it will go well for the God­
fearers if they fear God, and it will not go well for the wicked. But it

30
Fox, A Time to Tear Down, p. 286.
31
Roland Murphy, ‘Qohelet’s “Quarrel” with the Fathers’, in Dikran Y. Hadidian
(ed.), From Faith to Faith (Pittsburgh, 1979), p. 241, identifies 8:12b–13 as a contrast
and believes it represents the second part of a ‘yes, but’ saying.
32
Murphy, Ecclesiastes, p. 80, note 6.b, proposes this function for the second ‫כי‬
occurring in 8:6. His note, in part, reads, ‘The second ‫ כי‬goes counter to the tenor of
the preceding lines by introducing an “evil” (cf. 6:1), which v 7 will explain as human
ignorance. Hence it is in tension with the preceding lines, and ‫ כי‬can have an adversa­
tive force here; it is introducing a new perspective.’
126 timothy walton

is juxtaposed to the equally true statements of 8:10 and 14—excep­

tions exist.33 God is just and injustices occur under the sun. Indeed it
is precisely because he holds so firmly to the truth of both that life for
him is so ‫הבל‬, ‘absurd’.34

3.2 Qoheleth 8:15

The questions related to the history or source of 8:15 are similar to
those already encountered in 8:12c–13. While some have attributed
this verse and the corresponding carpe diem refrains found through­
out Qohelet (e.g., 2:24–26; 3:10–15, 22; 5:18–20[17–19]; 9:7–10;
11:7–10) to a later redactor influenced by Greek hedonistic or epi­
curean thought, most current commentators have abandoned such
an explanation. By ascribing these passages to the same author as the
majority of the book, the focus of discussion has shifted from the ori­
gin of these passages to their ideology—whether these texts should be
interpreted in a negative or positive sense. Do they commend enjoy­
ment as a legitimate gift of God35 or is it simply a distraction or a nar­
cotic36 to numb mankind to the pain of life? I will not take time here
to examine the reasons for these interpretations since such are easily
found in the literature. However, in my opinion, these interpretations
have abandoned the question of the source for 8:15 too quickly. Even
though I would agree with the current opinion that the carpe diem
passages are by the same author as the majority of the book, that does
not preclude investigating the possibility of intertextual sources for
these passages. If such an intertextual allusion can be found in 8:15,
it may provide additional support for one of the proposed ideological
interpretations. In the remainder of this section I will present a pos­
sible intertextual allusion, examine its original context, and attempt to
describe its meaning for the original readers.

33
Cf. Fox, A Time to Tear Down, p. 286, ‘Although Qohelet “knows” the principle
of retribution and nowhere denies it, he also knows that there are cases that violate
the rule. It is because Qohelet holds to the axioms of Wisdom that he is shocked by
their violation and finds the aberrations absurd’ (italics his).
34
Cf. Fox, A Time to Tear Down, pp. 17, 30–32.
35
E.g., see, R.N. Whybray, ‘Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy’, JSOT 38 (1982), pp. 87–98,
and Norbert Lohfink, Qoheleth (transl. Sean McEvenue; Minneapolis, 2003).
36
E.g., see Fox, A Time to Tear Down, p. 287, and A. Schoors, ‘Qoheleth: The
Ambiguity of Enjoyment’, in Ellen van Wolde (ed.), The Bright Side of Life (Concilium
2000.4; London, 2000), pp. 35–41.
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 127

Since I am assuming Qohelet as author of this text, my question

regarding the source of 8:15 is not ‘who?’ but ‘from where?’. Is there
a possible source within biblical literature that may serve as an
explanation for Qohelet’s use of the imagery of ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’
and the accompanying attitude of ‘rejoicing’ (‫ )שמח‬found in 8:15
and similar passages, or did he create this on his own? Of course,
the actions of ‘eating and drinking’ are common events throughout
the Hebrew Bible and those occurrences which refer simply to the
actions themselves (e.g., Gen 24:54; 25:34) can be ignored for the
purposes of this study. Of particular interest are those occurrences
that imply a state of affairs by the mention of these actions and include
the concept of ‘enjoyment’ or ‘rejoicing’ in the context as well. Once
these requirements are applied, the number of relevant cases is greatly
reduced.
The first set of occurrences that combine the ideas of eating,
drinking, and rejoicing are associated with the activities surrounding
certain festivals and offerings, ‫שלמים‬, ‘peace/fellowship offerings’ (e.g.,
Deut 12:6–7; 16:14; 2 Chr 30:22).37 In addition to these, two significant
occurrences appear in the context of activities related to Solomon. In
1 Chr 29:22 we read: ‘And they ate and drank before the Lord on that
day with great gladness (‫)בשמחה גדולה‬. And they made Solomon the
son of David king the second time, and they anointed him as prince
for the Lord, and Zadok as priest.’ This, of course, can be explained
as a type of festival and the natural activities that one would expect
surrounding the anointing of a king. However, it does seem significant
that this is the only time these three terms are used to describe the
activities of the people during an enthronement ceremony of a king
of Israel or Judah.
The next occurrence seems even more significant. 1 Kgs 4:20 reads:
‘Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. They ate and
drank and were happy’ (‫)שמחים‬. This verse occurs in the midst of the
description of the Solomonic wisdom tradition (1 Kgs 3–4:34 [MT
3–5:15]). In 1 Kgs 3:15 we read that Solomon, in response to God
granting him wisdom and discernment, offered peace/fellowship offer­
ings (‫ )שלמים‬and made a feast for his servants. This festive activity
is consistent with that described in our first grouping of occurrences

37
See Robert K. Johnston, ‘ “Confessions of a Workaholic”: A Reappraisal of
Qohelet’, CBQ 38 (1976), p. 20.
128 timothy walton

and, in light of this, 1 Kgs 4:20 could be read as a further description

of this same event. However, in its present position 1 Kgs 4:20 follows
two examples of Solomon’s wisdom, the first being his settling of the
dispute between two women claiming to be the mother of the surviv­
ing child (3:16–28) and the second being the description of his wise
administration of his government (4:1–19). The result of this is that
the peoples’ circumstances and response described in 1 Kgs 4:20 are
now connected to the wise rule of Solomon. Under Solomon they had
become ‘like the sands of the sea’38 and were able to eat, drink, and
rejoice due to the blessing of national peace and security. Both their
increased population and the fact that they are able to eat, drink, and
rejoice are signs of God’s blessing because He is the one who gave this
wisdom to Solomon (1 Kgs 4:29 [5:9]).39 The natural result of Solomon
exercising his God­given wisdom was peace for his people so that they
had their daily needs met and they rejoiced in their good fortune. Here
we see a direct connection made between wisdom correctly applied
and the response of eating, drinking, and rejoicing.40
It seems that since Qohelet went to great lengths to associate himself
with Solomon in 1:12–2:11, his comments regarding eating, drinking,
and rejoicing may also make that same connection. I turn now to dis­
cuss what effect this connection might have on the reader.

4 Qohelet as Reader

Qohelet was an observer of life. In 8:10–12b and 14 he expresses the

main concern of this section—the apparent breakdown of divine justice
as demonstrated by the delayed punishment of sinners/the wicked
and mistreatment of the righteous. But Qohelet was also a reader of
Israelite wisdom literature. Though he challenged some of its teachings
or applications that seemed to guarantee specific outcomes for specific

38
The statement ‘Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea’ may well
be a quote of the Abrahamic blessing in Gen 22:17 and 32:13. If so, the people are
here recognizing this part of the blessing as being fulfilled in their day under the rule
of Solomon.
39
Note that in Deut 28:48 and Joel 1:16 the opposite physical circumstances and
responses, namely, hunger, thirst, and poverty/weeping are seen as signs of God’s
judgement/curse.
40
There is one additional occurrence of eat, drink, and rejoice that I will not pursue
at this time. It occurs in Neh 8:10, 12, where the people respond in this way to hearing
and understanding the Torah read by Ezra.
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 129

actions, he remained within the tradition and functioned as a purifier

of it.41 The importance he placed upon the wisdom teachings can be
seen by the fact that in the middle of his negative assessment of justice
on earth as seen from a human perspective (8:10–12b, 14) he inserts
a positive view of divine justice (8:12c–13). This appeal to the divine
justice of God drawn from their own shared wisdom tradition would
have had a profound effect on the original readers. As if to answer
those who may have given up hope in the absence of a wise king or
beneficent government that could provide justice, peace, and security,
Qohelet reminds them of the importance of fearing God. Qohelet
presents the reader with an option to hold on to the hope that ulti­
mately those who truly fear God will receive their right reward, just
as the wicked, who do not fear Him, will receive their appropriate
punishment (cf. 8:8). Qohelet retains a hope in such future justice as
is evidenced by the fact that even though he sees injustice all around
him and the wicked going unpunished, he never advises a life of evil
or folly. Krüger is correct when he states:
In spite of all its critical statements about ‘wisdom’ and ‘the wise’, the
book of Qoheleth does not reject them completely. By contrast, ‘folly’
and ‘fools’ are judged completely negatively, and readers are admon­
ished not to behave like fools.42
Thus the original reader was encouraged to hold two truths in ten­
sion: the inequities of justice in this world as witnessed in human
experience and the assertion of the wisdom tradition that God is an
equitable judge.
Not only was Qohelet a reader of the Israelite wisdom literature but,
as his allusions to Solomon and the wisdom tradition surrounding him
would suggest, he was also familiar with it. As we have already seen in
the discussion of 8:15 above, Qohelet invites his readers to respond in
ways similar to those of the people who lived under Solomon’s rule:
they are to eat, drink, and enjoy themselves. There seems, however,
to be one important difference between the two contexts. The people
under Solomon responded in this way because they saw their peace and
prosperity as a direct blessing of God provided by means of Solomon’s
wise rule. Qohelet, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths to tell
his audience that such obvious signs of God’s favour are no longer

41
See Murphy, ‘Qohelet’s “Quarrel” ’.
42
Krüger, Qoheleth, p. 5.
130 timothy walton

visible. In fact, it would appear that God has almost entirely removed
the influence of divine wisdom from the affairs of man. Under similar
conditions Israel’s prophets called the people to repent and obey God’s
law. Qohelet calls the people to believe that God is still in control and
to focus on what they do have—the ability to eat, drink, and work, as
signs of his provision for them. Instead of rejoicing because they were
being blessed as a nation, ruled by a wise king, secure and prosperous,
they were now to rejoice in the everyday ‘blessings’ of life—especially
their labour. Though small, these, too, were to be seen as gifts of God,
and, therefore, to be a source of enjoyment. The original reader could
not miss the irony here. At a time when Israel was at its lowest and
God’s blessings seemed non­existent, they were called to respond
in ways reminiscent of the time when Israel was at its greatest and
experienced God’s direct blessing. In this way they were to embrace
the reality of their present situation and continue to trust that God was
in control, even if invisibly, behind the scenes.
The modern reader is faced with several choices for participation in
the world Qohelet has described. He or she can fully embrace Qohelet’s
explanation of the limitations of wisdom and the inequalities of justice
in this world and reject his attempts to temper this view by making
reference to God’s sovereign albeit indiscernible control of human
events. Or, on the opposite extreme, the reader can reject Qohelet’s
description of the world’s injustices and hold onto something closer
to the guarantees of cause–effect described in much of the traditional
wisdom literature. A third option is, of course, available to the reader,
the one that Qohelet himself suggests. One can allow the truth of
both perspectives to remain side by side and confess that a solution
to how these can both be true escapes us, even the wisest among
us (cf. 8:17).
Like Qohelet’s original readers the modern reader finds him or
herself in a time when God’s direct blessings upon an individual or a
nation are difficult to perceive. Therefore, he or she is also faced with
a choice between competing views of how to respond to Qohelet’s
commendation in 8:15 of enjoyment, eating, and drinking. Is the reader’s
response to be merely one of resignation to life’s limited pleasures or
one of recognition of God’s blessings in the midst of life’s challenges?
Because Qohelet makes an association through intertextual allusions
between the response of the people under Solomon and those in his
time, it is difficult, in my opinion, to see this as a negative or narcotic
prescription. Indeed, the reason for enjoyment has been modified and
 reading qohelet as text, author, and reader 131

the extent of the enjoyment muted, but it is a recognition that what

one has comes from God—it is his gift (cf. 2:24; 3:15; 5:19). This is now
God’s way of bestowing his blessings on his people. Qohelet calls his
readers, both ancient and modern, to trust that God is in control, even
in the face of apparent injustices and to find enjoyment in the provision
of daily needs for they are signs of God’s blessing and provision.

5 Conclusions

I began this analysis by stating that the challenge confronting the

modern reader of the book of Qohelet is the correct determination of
its cohesion, its source or authorship, and its meaning. Using 8:9–15
as an example, this study has attempted to provide a solution to each
of these challenges. The challenge of cohesion was addressed by mak­
ing an inventory of the text­linguistic signals and constructing a clause
hierarchy. The result was that 8:9–15 was shown to be a cohesive unit
with clauses functioning at different levels of the text. This synchronic
analysis is an essential first step before moving on to diachronic issues.
Next, based on the syntactic relationships between clauses indicated
in the hierarchy, the challenge of source was applied to 8:12c–13 and
8:15. Both sub­units were found to incorporate intertextual allusions.
8:12c–13 alludes to the teaching found within traditional Israelite wis­
dom literature regarding the assurance of divine justice in the affairs of
mankind. The textual allusion of 8:15 is of a different sort. It connects
the actions of eating, drinking, and rejoicing to Israel’s response to the
enthronement of Solomon and his wise rule. In my opinion, the iden­
tification of these two allusions is essential for the correct understand­
ing of the meaning of the passage. The last challenge of determining
the text’s meaning is addressed by reflecting upon the effect that these
allusions would have had on the original reader. It seems that Qohelet
is encouraging them not to give up hope in God’s divine justice and
to demonstrate their trust in him by responding positively to God’s
provision. Though the context has changed, I would suggest that the
message of this passage for the modern reader is the same.
 TRADITION THROUGH READING—READING THE
TRADITION: REFLECTIONS ON EEP TALSTRA’S
EXEGETICAL METHODOLOGY

Louis Jonker

In this essay I provide an overview of my own process of becoming acquainted

with the work of Eep Talstra. I have come to see the inter-relationship between
the different fields of specialization that he represents. His ground-breaking
work in computer linguistics rests upon his vast knowledge of Hebrew gram-
mar, which in turn serves his exegesis of the Old Testament. Ultimately, his
exegetical studies stand in service of the theological task. Talstra as theologian
presents his biblical exegesis in such a way that he stands between the former
and the present-day readers of the texts, as a responsible facilitator of the
hermeneutical dynamic that we call the ‘Word of God’.
Pivotal to Talstra’s hermeneutic approach is his understanding of the con-
cepts ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ (‘overlevering’ in Dutch). After a brief survey
of his methodology, I concentrate on these two concepts in Talstra’s work.
When it comes to Old Testament interpretation ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ are
inseparable categories. The value of Talstra’s exegetical approach relates to his
articulating the reciprocity between the two.
By applying Talstra’s exegetical approach to a specific corpus in the Hebrew
Bible, namely, the Books of Chronicles, I show that an approach that relates
‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ reciprocally is of tremendous value in highlighting the
character of this type of late Persian period literature as ‘reforming history’.

1 Introduction

‘Specialization’ is the name of the game in current scholarship. Even bib-

lical scholarship does not escape this trend. This is understandable—even
desirable. The field of biblical scholarship, at least in my own view,
suffers enough from quasi or superficial knowledge of the biblical lan-
guages, biblical texts, and their Umwelt. Contributions at conferences
and even published articles often show almost no appreciation for the
peculiarities of biblical literature, or for the ancient contexts within
which these originated, were written down, compiled, and handed
down to the following generations of believers. Specialization in the
vast array of sub-disciplines in biblical scholarship helps our guild to
dig below the surface of the readers’ own awareness.
134 louis jonker

However, specialization also has a dark side. At the same confer-

ences where one is exposed to quasi or superficial scholarship, one
often witnesses how scholars, specialized in all these sub-disciplines,
speak different languages, to the point that they do not know how to
communicate their work to others. Specialization often leads to com-
partmentalization and isolation.
The field of biblical scholarship needs depth and breadth: depth in
terms of well-founded knowledge of the various sub-disciplines, and
breadth in terms of both the biblical corpora and the historical peri-
ods of origin, transmission, and reception. Admittedly, this is a daunt-
ing task. Only a few would be able to deliver this service to biblical
scholarship.
I first met Eep Talstra when I was a Master student attending
the first international conference on the Bible and the Computer in
Louvain-la-neuve, Belgium, in 1985.1 I left the conference impressed
by the stature of Eep as a specialist in computer applications and data-
bases. Shortly afterwards, when visiting his institute in Amsterdam,
I was overwhelmed by the amount of morphological and syntactic
knowledge of the Hebrew language that went into the construction of
the electronic databases. I realized that it was Eep Talstra, the Hebrew
language specialist, who was also interested in computers as a tool to
deepen even his vast knowledge of the Hebrew language. In ensuing
years, I became better acquainted with Eep Talstra, the exegete. I was
impressed by his well-founded and balanced way of looking at the
exegetical task. I then realized that it was Eep Talstra, the exegete who
was interested in the conventions of the Hebrew language in order to
benefit his exegesis. When I was exposed to even more of his publica-
tions, I became aware that this is a responsible theologian at work.
Talstra as theologian presents his biblical exegesis in such a way that
he stands between the former and the present-day readers of the texts,
as a responsible facilitator of the hermeneutical dynamic that we call
the ‘Word of God’.
The depth and the breadth of Talstra’s work are reflected in his pub-
lications. In my understanding, his work culminates in his exegetical
methodology, particularly as published in the Dutch publication Oude

1
See the proceedings of this conference in Actes du premier Colloque International
Bible et Informatique: le Texte = Proceedings of the First International Colloquium
Bible and Computer: the Text (Travaux de linguistique quantitative 37; Paris, 1986).
 tradition through reading 135

en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van het Oude
Testament.2
Pivotal to Talstra’s hermeneutic approach is his understanding of
the concepts ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ (‘overlevering’ in Dutch). After
a brief overview of his methodology, I will concentrate on these two
concepts in his work. The point will be emphasized that ‘reading’ and
‘tradition’ are inseparable categories when it comes to Old Testament
interpretation. The value of Talstra’s exegetical approach relates to his
articulating the reciprocity between the two.
By applying Talstra’s exegetical approach to a specific corpus in
the Hebrew Bible, namely, the Books of Chronicles,3 I show that an
approach that relates ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ reciprocally is of tre-
mendous value in highlighting the character of this type of late Persian
period literature as ‘reforming history’.4

2 Talstra’s Exegetical Methodology: A Brief Overview

Talstra works with the notion that exegesis is a conscious and well-
documented report on the reading process. According to him, the
challenge in this reading process is to balance two important aspects
of interpretation, namely, the meticulous (even artisan-like or well
crafted—‘ambachtelijk’ in Dutch) analysis of the biblical texts5 and
their theological-hermeneutical interpretation.6 The first challenge

2
Eep Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van
het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002). Unfortunately, this publication is
not yet available in English. However, Talstra summarized his methodology in at least
two preparatory English articles: ‘From the “Eclipse” to the “Art” of Biblical Narra-
tive: Reflections on Methods of Biblical Exegesis’, in Florentino García Martínez and
Ed Noort (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism
(VT.S 73; Leiden, 1998), pp. 1–41; and, with Carl J. Bosma, ‘Psalm 67: Blessing, Har-
vest and History. A Proposal for Exegetical Method’, CTJ 36 (2001), pp. 290–313.
3
In another publication I have indicated the value this approach would have for
Pentateuch studies. See Louis C. Jonker, ‘Reading the Pentateuch with Both Eyes
Open: On Reading Biblical Texts Multidimensionally’, in Jurie H. le Roux and Eckart
Otto (eds.), South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch between Synchrony and Dia-
chrony (LHBOTS 463; London, 2007), pp. 90–107.
4
See particularly Louis C. Jonker, ‘Reforming History: The Hermeneutical Signifi-
cance of the Books of Chronicles’, VT 57/1 (2007), pp. 21–44.
5
See Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers, p. 27: ‘Het heeft een ambachtelijke kant: aan
de orde is de kennis en kundigheid die nodig is om concrete teksten uit de oudheid
te lezen en vertalen.’
6
See Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers, p. 27: ‘Daarnaast is er een theologisch-herme-
neutische kant: er worden vragen opgeroepen naar de geldigheid, de eenheid en de
oorspronklijkheid van de oudtestamentische teksten.’
136 louis jonker

implies that exegetes should be able to read and translate concrete texts
from antiquity. The second challenge calls for answers to the questions
of the validity, unity, and originality of the Old Testament texts as
viewed from modern-day interpretative contexts. It is not enough for
the exegete merely to identify those diverse original texts that underlie
the present text. Exegesis should extend its task to investigating how
this textual diversity in the Old Testament is the end product of a con-
tinuous process of reading and appropriation of existing texts in ever
new situations. Exegesis should therefore assume its position between
the former readers and the present readers of the texts.
In Talstra’s view, the reading of texts precedes the formulation of
an exegetical method. Not meant to be presupposed frameworks, or
even recipes, with which exegetes can analyse biblical texts, exegeti-
cal methods are rather formalized reactions to questions posed by the
texts during the reading process. Therefore, the expectation should not
be to deliver certainty and finality on the theological-hermeneutical
questions of validity, unity, and originality, but rather to guide us in
our movement from the position of the former readers to that of the
present readers.7
For Talstra, the above view on the status of our exegetical methods
implies that the reading process should consist of three fundamental
steps. The first step would be drawing up an inventory of the texts
that will be read, which involves getting to know the workplace. No
text is read in isolation: texts are related to other texts. This is espe-
cially true of biblical texts, which were composed over a long period
of time. The second step is analysis. Like an artisan, the exegete has to
investigate the texts meticulously in order to get acquainted with their
language, structure, background, and intended readership. The third
step is interpretation. In this activity, the exegete wrestles with the
argumentative fibre of the text in order to grasp the religious claims
being made by it. Interpretation stimulates the discourse between for-
mer and present-day readers.
In applying these steps, Talstra takes as point of departure the fol-
lowing presuppositions in order to suggest which exegetical questions
should be asked at which stage in the reading process:

7
See Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers, p. 30.
 tradition through reading 137

1. Analysis in terms of the general aspect of texts precedes analysis

in terms of the particular—this presupposition implies that syn-
chronic questions pertaining to the more general aspects of texts
precede diachronic questions that pertain to the more particular
aspects.8
2. Linguistic analysis precedes literary analysis—this presupposi-
tion suggests that one should be careful not to relate features of
texts (such as repetition and inclusions) primarily to the strategy
of authors or their theological intentions, when these features are
merely characteristics of language use.

These two presuppositions then lead Talstra to indicate how the read-
ing process should proceed. The first step is a meticulous linguistic
analysis. From the linguistic analysis one should proceed to a descrip-
tion of the textual composition in a literary analysis. In this analysis
one should determine the position of the text in its present literary
context as well as its rhetorical force in its transmitted form. After the
synchronic literary analysis, the diachronic reconstruction of the text’s
transmission history follows. The claims that are formulated by the
texts pertaining to the original addressees in their historical situations
are then identified. These claims form the basis of the final part of
the reading process, namely, the dialogue between present-day readers
and the texts. This dialogue takes place within the context of the long-
standing Jewish and Christian traditions of interpretation. The task of
the exegete is only completed when theological-hermeneutical choices
have been made in the dialogue between texts and traditions.
According to Talstra this formalized reading process enables the
exegete to face successfully the two-fold challenge mentioned above,

8
Erhard Blum makes a similar point in his methodological discussion. See Erhard
Blum, ‘Von Sinn und Nutzen der Kategorie “Synchronie” in der Exegese’, in Walter
Dietrich (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit—Diachronie und Synchronie im Wett-
streit: Beiträge zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches (OBO 206; Göttingen, 2004),
pp. 16–30: ‘Gerade für eine historische, auf den “Eigensinn” der Texte gerichtete Exe-
gese müsste sich von daher die methodische Priorität einer synchronen Wahrneh-
mung, die sich vorbehaltlos und nachhaltig auf den (wie auch immer) gegebenen
Text einlässt, von selbst verstehen—sollte man meinen. Freilich ist diese “methodische
Priorität” der synchronen Fragehinsicht nach dem Vorstehenden nicht im Sinne eines
starren Abfolgeschemas zu verstehen, sondern als methodische Positionierung inner-
halb eines komplexen Prozesses der Urteilsbildung, der sich idealiter nach der Art
eines wiederholt durchlaufenen Regelkreises vollzieht’ (p. 28).
138 louis jonker

namely, that of meticulous textual analysis on the one hand, and of

theological-hermeneutical interpretation on the other.

3 Talstra’s Understanding of ‘Reading’ and ‘Tradition’

In the above overview of Talstra’s methodology it is clear that he works

with a broad understanding of ‘reading’.9 Much more than merely the
(in-)audible pronunciation of words, reading includes an awareness
of intertextuality (‘drawing up an inventory’), critical analysis (start-
ing with linguistic and literary analysis, but also including analysis of
origin and intended readership), and interpretation (appropriation
within the context of present-day needs).
From the outset, in Talstra’s approach the ‘reading’ done by exe-
getes is qualitatively analogous to the ‘reading’ that produced the texts
and transmitted them to further generations. The close relationship
between ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ becomes evident at this point. Talstra
states it as follows in the introduction to his methodological work:
(H)et is belangrijk te beseffen, dat wie de bijbel leest geen nieuw toneel
betreedt, maar een monument binnengaat. Een huis dat al generaties
lang wordt bewoond. Generaties voor ons hebben er aan gewerkt, nog
meer generaties voor ons hebben er ervaring mee opgedaan, positief
of negatief. Dat is een gegeven waaraan methoden van bijbellezen en
tekstuitleg recht moeten doen. Immers, al heeft ieder het recht en de
mogelijkheid om met het lezen van de teksten een nieuw begin te maken,
tegelijkertijd is niemand de eerste lezer van een bijbeltekst. Wij hebben
vele generaties met hun ervaringen voor ons. Zij hebben grote invloed
gehad op de vormgeving, die overlevering, het bewaren en het vertalen
van de bijbeltekst.10

9
See the philosophical reflection on ‘reading, interpretation, reinscription’ in
Douglas G. Lawrie, ‘Reading, Interpretation, Reinscription: Three Perspectives on
Engaging with Texts’, Scriptura 78 (2001), pp. 399–417. Although Talstra does not
make the same distinctions in his work, his use of ‘reading’ probably includes aspects
of all these three perspectives highlighted by Lawrie.
10
Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers, p. 13: ‘It is important to realize that whoever
reads the Bible does not step into a new scene, but rather enters a historical building,
a home which has been inhabited for generations. Generations before us worked on
it, still more generations before us had experiences with it, positive or negative. It is
to those aspects that methods of Bible reading and exegesis should do justice. Even
if everybody has the right and the possibility of making a fresh start in one’s read-
ing of the texts, at the same time, one is never the first reader of a Bible text. We
have many generations with their experience before us. They had immense influence
 tradition through reading 139

The novel point here is that the ‘reading’ of biblical texts by modern-
day exegetes does not only entail tracing a certain history of interpreta-
tion: ‘reading’ is not merely repeating the ‘tradition’, rather ‘tradition’
is regarded as ‘reading’. It is through the constant reading of the tradi-
tion that new phases and modes of the tradition are generated—and
these can again be read. The hermeneutical spiral involved in creating
the biblical witnesses is the same spiral that is continued and extended
by all new acts of exegetical reading.
The reciprocity of the notions of ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ can be bet-
ter understood when Talstra’s conclusion to his methodological work
is taken into account:
De teksten van de gezaghebbende bijbelse overlevering kan men . . . niet
lezen als de meest oorspronklijke elementen uit deze religieuze traditie,
maar wel als bewust gemaakte keuzen. Toeëigening is de motor van de
traditie. . . . Een professioneel exegeet . . . moet wel in de methoden van
exegese tenminste een plaats vinden voor de waarneming dat keuzes de
teksttradities hebben gestuurd. Een historicus heeft daarbij een andere
blikrichting dan een theoloog, maar voor beide geldt dat de overgele-
verde teksttraditie niet als neutraal materiaal behandeld kan worden.
De teksten zelf tonen de samenhang van teksoverlevering en leesgemeen-
schappen (my italics—LCJ).11

on the formation, transmission, preservation, and translation of the Bible text (my
translation—LCJ).
11
Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers, p. 305: ‘The texts of the authoritative biblical
tradition cannot be read as the most original elements of this religious tradition,
but rather as deliberate choices. Appropriation is the motor of tradition. . . . A profes-
sional exegete should find in the exegetical method a place for the observation that
choices have determined the textual traditions. A historian has a different perspective
than a theologian, but neither historian nor theologian can regard the transmitted
text as neutral. The text themselves show the relationship between textual transmis-
sion and reading communities (my translation and italics—LCJ). Similar formulations
can be found in Talstra’s inaugural lecture (Eep Talstra, ‘Zou er ook wetenschap zijn
bij de Allerhoogste?’ (Psalm 73:11) [Amsterdam, 2003], pp. 23–27), as well as in a
recent publication (Eep Talstra and Reinoud Oosting, ‘Jeremiah 32: A Future and
its History—Actualisation in Writing and Reading’, in J. Hans de Wit and Gerald
O. West [eds.], African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of
a Shared Meaning [Studies of Religion in Africa 32; Leiden, 2008], pp. 199–218). In
the last-mentioned publication Talstra qualifies his view even further: ‘Our emphasis
on processes of actualisation being present in the text is not a post-modern plea for
a plurality of meaning, as against the claim of just one original message. It is a plea
for concentration on the very existing complexity of the text traditions that neverthe-
less came together into one book and that continued to be read in the context of one
community. . . . The complexity of traditions demonstrates a process of actualisation
that can be observed in the actual travelling of the text from one generation to another
and from one language and culture to another. It is this complexity that should not
140 louis jonker

According to this view, ‘reading’ involves appropriation (‘toeëigening’)

and appropriation implies a choice of position (‘positiekeuze’). Talstra
admits in the above quotation that some readers of the biblical texts
may have other interests. The historian may not be obliged, like the
theologian, to appropriate these texts for the sake of identifying with
the traditions and reading communities embodied and reflected in
them. The same applies to somebody who reads the Bible for aesthetic
purposes and for literary appreciation. However, Talstra insists that
these other modes of reading should acknowledge that the transmitted
textual traditions are not neutral, but represent a particular tradition
of theological subjectivity.
With this standpoint, Talstra escapes the problematic splitting of
subject and object in biblical interpretation. The exegete is not a sub-
ject investigating and analysing a textual object in a detached manner.
According to Talstra, ‘Bible reading is an act of continuity’.12 At this
point two critical questions could perhaps be asked:
1. Is there any qualitative difference between those readers who pro-
duced the traditions before the canonization of the texts, and those
reading the texts in their canonized form? That is, is there any quali-
tative difference between those traditions that were deemed authori-
tative by faith communities of old, and were therefore canonized,
and the exegetical commentaries and other studies produced by
modern-day biblical scholars? Talstra would most probably empha-
size that the traditions gaining authority in canonized form also rep-
resent a series of ‘positiekeuzen’. He would also probably emphasize
that reading these canonized texts always takes place in an intertex-
tual environment, particularly highlighted in the first phase of his
exegetical model, namely, the drawing up of an inventory. However,

be generalised into a post-modern agenda on plurality of meaning. Rather, it offers

new readers the possibility to participate in this particular journey of the text and its
community of readers through history. Exegesis should therefore be an attempt to
understand textual complexity as signalling a theologically relevant process of tradi-
tion’ (his italics—LCJ). This view corresponds with what I have indicated elsewhere:
‘(T)he production of biblical texts was actually a result of the reading or reception of
earlier stages of those texts. The dynamic of the Wirkungsgeschichte at all stages of the
history of production and reception of the Bible is actually a reading process’ (Jonker,
‘Reading the Pentateuch’, p. 101).
12
Talstra and Oosting, ‘Jeremiah 32’, p. 217.
 tradition through reading 141

the question is whether there is also discontinuity when Bible read-

ing is viewed as an act of continuity.
2. With reference to Talstra’s strong insistence on linguistic analysis as
first step in the reading process, one could ask: is linguistic analysis
always a ‘neutral’ process? Does the analysis of the linguistic (and
literary) structure of the text not involve certain presuppositions or
preconceived positions? This second question makes the fairly rigid
compartmentalization of ‘analysis’ and ‘interpretation’ in Talstra’s
model somewhat problematic.

4 Assessing the Value for Chronicles Studies

Talstra’s dynamic understanding of ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ is of par-

ticular value for Chronicles studies. Biblical scholars are in the fortu-
nate position that the main sources that were used by the Chronicler
are known and available to the exegete. Scholars can, in synoptic com-
parisons with the Pentateuch and particularly with the books of Samuel
and Kings, observe the ‘reading’ strategy of the Chronicler. The Chron-
icler deliberately quoted, rephrased, alluded to, and re-interpreted the
texts from his Vorlage. These strategies of the Chronicler are normally
well-documented in scholarly literature. How these strategies contrib-
ute to a specific kind of theology in the late Persian era is, at least in
my opinion, still neglected in these studies.
In a previous contribution I have proposed that the books of
Chronicles should be seen as ‘reforming history’.13 The ambiguity of the
chosen designation is intentional: it indicates that the books of Chroni-
cles simultaneously are an attempt to reformulate and sanitize the older
traditions and to recreate the identity of God’s people in the changed
socio-historical circumstances of the late Persian era. The designation
‘reforming history’ is therefore not an indication of genre, but is a
characterization of the hermeneutical dynamics embodied in these
texts, indicating that Chronicles intended to form a unique bridge
between past and present. Not only was the past reformed (or, at least
the perspective on the past), but a specific view on the present (and
future) of the intended audience was given. The processes of inter-
pretation during the Chronicler’s age were certainly not merely a

13
Jonker, ‘Reforming History’, particularly pp. 24–26.
142 louis jonker

repetition of the past, but show the courage to re-interpret and adapt,
and reflect the deep hermeneutical presupposition that understanding
is never finished. The re-appropriation of older historical and cultic
traditions stood in the service of identity formation in changed and
changing circumstances.
The analogy with Talstra’s positioning of exegesis between former
and present readers (‘tussen oude en nieuwe lezers’) is obvious.14 It
confirms Talstra’s view on the relationship between ‘reading’ and
‘tradition’: the re-appropriation of older traditions available to the
Chronicler contributed to the development of further (written) tradi-
tions relevant to their own time and circumstances.
This observation confirms the point that Talstra so aptly makes,
namely, that biblical interpretation is an act of continuity. I have
therefore suggested that in our own interpretive endeavours we could
take our hermeneutical cues from the dynamic re-appropriations that
can be witnessed within biblical literature. The interpretive dynamic
embodied in biblical literature warns against interpretation that
remains oriented to the past without giving account of present cir-
cumstances, and against interpretation that orients itself only to the
present without taking into account the past. The hermeneutic embod-
ied in the ‘reforming history’ of Chronicles encourages a position that
interacts with and facilitates between past and present, thus, a position
between former and present readers.

Talstra himself devoted some attention to the Books of Chronicles,

comparing it to the so-called Deuteronomistic History.15 One example
is his study of the ‘Name’ (as reference to the deity Yhwh) in Kings
and Chronicles.16
Talstra takes as his point of departure Solomon’s question—reported
in both Kings (1 Kgs 8:27) and Chronicles (2 Chr 2:5; 6:18)—concerning

14
Whether the Chronicler’s work should be seen as ‘exegesis’ is, of course, debated.
Thomas Willi in his Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen
Gestaltung der historischen Űberlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106; Göttingen, 1972) par-
ticularly represented this position.
15
Compare also Wido van Peursen and Eep Talstra, ‘Computer-Assisted Analysis
of Parallel Texts in the Bible: The Case of 2 Kings xviii–xix and its Parallels in Isaiah
and Chronicles’, VT 57 (2007), 45–72.
16
Eep Talstra, ‘The Name in Kings and Chronicles’, in George H. van Kooten (ed.),
The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan
Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity (Themes in Biblical Narrative 9; Leiden,
2006), pp. 55–70.
 tradition through reading 143

whether God would really live on earth. He indicates that many studies
on the usage of ‘the Name’ as designation for God relates Solomon’s
question to the reality and mode of God’s presence. Without present-
ing his argument in detail here, Talstra’s conclusion on the usage of
‘the Name’ in Kings is as follows:
The Name is part of the tradition expressed in the books of Kings:
Yhwh’s presence is related to the institutions of dynasty and temple,
but he is not restricted to them. The temple is the place where he is to
be addressed by human prayers.17
In Chronicles, however, this term is used differently. Talstra makes an
extensive synoptic comparison between the two versions of Solomon’s
prayer in 1 Kings 818 and 2 Chronicles 5–7, in which he shows that
the composition is altered significantly, and that the Chronicler also
changed the participants in the temple dedication ceremony. Termi-
nological and compositional differences show that ‘the Name’ and the
temple were not exclusively tied together in Chronicles as they were
in Kings. According to Talstra:
The Name is (rather) related to the communal history of God and peo-
ple, originally in formulas related to the institutions such as temple and
city, later in formulas referring to the identity of the people. When in
the books of Chronicles the use of the Name is a contribution to the
formulation of Israel’s identity, it remains connected to the place it has
been connected to first, i.e. the temple, later on the city (2 Kgs 21). But
now its function is extended to include the people of Israel as well. . . . The
idea that with the presence of the Name in the temple the books of Kings
express a kind of protection of God’s transcendence and hence render it
a religious turning point in terms of secularisation and demythologisa-
tion, implies that the books of Chronicles cancelled and nullified this
Deuteronomistic intellectual achievement. . . . Chronicles demonstrates
that the Name is attached to the main participants in the religious his-
tory of Israel: the temple, the city and now also the people itself. Rather
than being an idiom of transcendence, it has become part of the language
of identity. The Name is called upon the people. Israel is the fundamental
sign of how God is present in the world: by liberating them, by electing
them, by taking them into exile and by bringing them home again . . . (my
italics—LCJ)19

17
Talstra, ‘The Name’, p. 69.
18
This text was also the focus of Talstra’s dissertation, Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony
and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8:14–61 (Kampen, 1993).
19
Talstra, ‘The Name’, pp. 69–70.
144 louis jonker

Talstra’s study of the Chronicler’s use of ‘the Name’, particularly in

the context of the temple dedication ceremony and Solomon’s prayer,
shows again the close relationship between ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ in
the production of this literary corpus. The Chronicler’s adaptation of
the Deuteronomistic tradition bears witness to the fact that new read-
ers in changed circumstances re-appropriated the older traditions for
the needs of their own time. In doing so, they extrapolated the older
traditions into renewed processes of transmission, in continuity with
the past, but also in discontinuity due to the changed circumstances
of appropriation.
By showing the continuity and discontinuity between Kings and
Chronicles, Talstra lives up to the expectation of what he sees as the
task of biblical scholarship:
Bijbelwetenschap moet . . . natuurlijk wel trachten de moderne lezer terug
te voeren naar de oorspronklijke situatie van de tekst, maar ze moet juist
de kennis ook benutten om inzicht te geven in die verschillende wijzen
waarop de tekst is gelezen, herschreven en herlezen, de generaties door.
Dat wil zeggen: trachten de hele route te tekenen, om zo tot een visie
te komen op de aard van die tekst, zoals die door de synagoge en door
christelijke kerk is ontvangen, bewaard en verder gegeven. Het authen-
tieke zit in de processen van overlevering zelf .20

20
Talstra, Zou er ook wetenschap zijn, p. 24: ‘Biblical scholarship should . . . of course,
attempt to take the modern reader back to the original situation of the text, but it
should also use this knowledge to give insight into the different ways in which the text
was read, rewritten, and reread, throughout generations. That means attempting to
sketch the whole route in order to grasp the nature of the text, as it was received, pre-
served, and transmitted by the synagogue and the Christian church. The authenticity
resides in the transmission processes themselves’ (my translation—LCJ). In a critical
discussion of another contribution of Talstra’s (Talstra and Oosting, ‘Jeremiah 32’;
cf. Gerald West, ‘Contesting Exegesis: A Response to Eep Talstra and Reinoud
Oosting,’ in De Wit and West, [eds.] African and European Readers of the Bible in
Dialogue, pp. 219–222), West indicates that one should not overemphasize the his-
torical dimension of texts to the detriment of other dimensions that play a role in
appropriation (or, ‘actualization’ as it is called in that particular publication). West
indicates: ‘My strongest disagreement is with your insistence that non-historical-
critical readings are equal to actualization. This is simply not the case. What all
biblical scholars have in common is their common commitment to a two-stage or
two-moment process of exegesis and actualisation. . . . Indeed, whether socio-historical
(behind the text), literary-narratological (on the text), or even semiotic-symbolic (in
front of the text) exegesis, the commitment of biblical scholars of different orienta-
tions is to the voice of the text. The difference lies in the different dimensions of text.
Your interest is in the historical dimensions of text, including composition, transmis-
sion, and reception. Other biblical scholars are more interested in the literary and/or
semiotic-symbolic dimensions of text. We can argue about which dimensions are the
most important and why, but we must accept that each of these sets of interpretive
 tradition through reading 145

Especially noteworthy is the fact that Talstra emphasizes the category

of identity so prominently in his interpretation of the Chronicler’s re-
appropriation of the reference to ‘the Name’ of Yhwh. Although I
have approached the matter quite differently than Talstra, identity for-
mation has become a central hermeneutical key for my own reading
of Chronicles.21 In various studies I have observed that a prominent
interest of the Chronicler was to define ‘All Israel’ in the post-exilic
Persian province Yehud. Particularly the material supplied in the
Chronicler’s Sondergut, when viewed against the background of the
late Persian era, provides interesting insights into the processes of
negotiating identity that were prevalent in those socio-political and
socio-religious circumstances.22
Although many examples may be selected to illustrate how the
Chronicler reread the traditions of his time in order to serve his aims
of the negotiation of his contemporary situation, the Chronicler’s ver-
sion of Manasseh’s reign (2 Chr 33:1–20) is especially interesting. Not
only did the Chronicler add a significant portion of narrative and made
certain changes to the earlier tradition found in 2 Kgs 21:1–18,23 but
there are also quite a few other textual traditions that are related to the
Chronicler’s interaction with the Manasseh narrative in Kings. These
traditions still attract the interest of contemporary biblical scholars, as
can be witnessed in numerous recent publications.24

interests are precisely that, they are interpretive interests in the meaning of the text.
Each is a form of exegesis’ (West, ‘Contesting Exegesis’, pp. 220–221). West is probably
right in emphasizing that exegesis involves more dimensions than just the historical
dimension. However, whether the dynamic relationship between ‘reading’ and ‘tradi-
tion’ will still be observable when the historical dimension is left out of the exegetical
equation, remains debatable.
21
See particularly Louis C. Jonker, ‘Textual Identities in the Books of Chronicles,’ in
Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau (eds.), Community Identity in Judean Histo-
riography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (Winona Lake, 2009), pp. 197–217.
22
See, for example, Louis C. Jonker, ‘The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Solomon as the
King of Peace within the Context of the International Peace Discourses of the Persian
Era’, OTE 21/3 (2008), pp. 653–669; idem, ‘Revisiting the Saul Narrative in Chronicles:
Interacting with the Persian Imperial Context?’, Old Testament Essays 23/2 (2010),
pp. 283–305.
23
See 2 Chr 33:10–19 where the Chronicler mentions Manasseh’s captivity in
Babylon, as well as his repentant prayer and his measures to restore the cult of Yhwh
in Jerusalem.
24
See the following that appeared since 2000: Philippe Abadie, ‘From the Impi-
ous Manasseh (2 Kings 21) to the Convert Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33): Theological
Rewriting by the Chronicler’, in Matt P. Graham et al. (eds.), The Chronicler as Theo-
logian (JSOT.S 371; Sheffield, 2003), pp. 89–104; E. Axel Knauf, ‘The Glorious Days of
Manasseh’, in Lester Grabbe (ed.), Good Kings and Bad Kings (LHBOTS 393; London,
146 louis jonker

When drawing up an inventory of the textual witnesses, to use

Talstra’s terminology, the recent overview of Hulbert is particularly
helpful.25 Apart from discussing the primary biblical witnesses in
2 Kings 21 and 2 Chronicles 33, Hulbert also refers to other biblical
references to Manasseh,26 as well as to two Assyrian royal records,27
some Second Temple Jewish pseudepigrapha dating from the second
century bce to the second century ad,28 and some rabbinic sources.29
To Hulbert’s list could perhaps also be added The Prayer of Manasseh
included in the non-canonical psalms from Qumran (4Q381 33:8), a
text which differs in content from the pseudepigraphon with the same
title, and about which Schniedewind holds the opinion that it could
probably predate the Chronicler’s history.30
This is not the place for detailed studies on each of these related
textual witnesses. The mentioned literature can be consulted for that
purpose. However, the interesting appearance of a prayer of Manasseh
in more than one of these witnesses provides a good opportunity to
relate our discussion again to Talstra’s understanding of the recipro-
cal relationship between ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’. Many studies focus-
ing on the historical value of the Deuteronomistic version in Kings
and the Chronicler’s account of Manasseh, respectively, have deval-
ued the latter’s mentioning of Manasseh’s prayer and repentance as a
theological explanation of the fact that this evil king (according to the

2005), pp. 164–188; Francesca Stavrakopoulou, ‘The Blackballing of Manasseh’, in

ibid., pp. 248–263; Marvin A. Sweeney, ‘King Manasseh of Judah and the Problem of
Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History’, in ibid., pp. 264–278; James R. Davila, ‘Is
the Prayer of Manasseh a Jewish Work?’, in Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber (eds.)
Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (JSJ.S 119;
Leiden, 2007), pp. 75–85; W.G. Hulbert, ‘Good King and Bad King: Traditions about
Manasseh in the Bible and Late Second Temple Judaism’, Stone-Campbell Journal 11/1
(2008), pp. 71–81.
25
Hulbert, ‘Good King and Bad King’, pp. 71–81.
26
Jer 15:4 where a negative judgement of the king is offered similarly to the Kings
version; Jdg 18:30 where the name of Moses was changed by later copyists to read
Manasseh, blaming this king for the heterodox cultic activities at Dan.
27
Prism B and C, respectively, where Manasseh is mentioned as a loyal vassal.
28
2 Baruch 64 and 65; The Lives of the Prophets 1; The Martyrdom and Ascension
of Isaiah; The Prayer of Manasseh.
29
m. Sanh 10:2; b. Sanh 102b.
30
See William M. Schniedewind, ‘A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient “Prayer of
Manasseh”?’, ZAW 108 (1996), pp. 105–107. On this issue see, however, Ariel Gutman
and Wido van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh (accepted
for publication in the series Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies; scheduled to appear
in 2011), section 1.4.
 tradition through reading 147

Deuteronomist’s portrayal) had the longest reign (55 years) among

Judah’s rulers. However, further studies brought more nuance in the
discussion, emphasizing that both the Deuteronomistic and Chronicles
versions had specific ideological intentions and had therefore pre-
sented the data differently. The authors of 2 Kings 21 did not mention
Manasseh’s prayer for forgiveness and repentance since this version
had a specific historical construct in mind which provided an explana-
tion for the severity of the exile. In this, Manasseh was presented as the
epitome of evil and apostasy and was blamed for the destruction of the
kingdom of Judah and the resultant Babylonian exile.
The Chronicler, writing most probably in the late Persian or early
Hellenistic era, had a different intention with his narration of the his-
tory of Judah. Building upon the foundation of the Deuteronomistic
construction, the Chronicler took the liberty of re-appropriating these
textual materials to suit his own purposes. Within his construction the
Prayer of Manasseh is mentioned (2 Chr 33:12–13, 18–19), symboliz-
ing another side of Manasseh—he is turned into a repentant king who
dedicated the latter part of his life to the restoration of the Yahwistic
cult in Jerusalem.
Schniedewind presents an interesting theory that the Chronicler not
only made use of the Deuteronomistic version of the Manasseh nar-
rative, but that he also referred to a known prayer of Manasseh in
2 Chronicles 33:18–19.31 According to him the prayer of Manasseh
mentioned in the non-canonical psalms of Qumran (4Q381) does not
have any ‘dependence on biblical literature in general or II Chr 33 in
particular’, and does not show any relationship to the Greek Prayer of
Manasseh of the Apocrypha.32 Schniedewind comes to the following
conclusion with reference to the Qumran prayer:
The unusual nature of the Hebrew ‘Prayer of Manasseh’ from Qumran
can be best explained by an early date for the original composition.
4Q381 33 does not appear to be an autobiographical psalm like other
Second Temple period psalms. Rather, we seem to have preserved here
an early, perhaps even pre-exilic psalm, which reflects that same tradi-
tion that we have in the source citation for Manasseh in Chronicles and
may even be the inspiration for the ‘Prayer of Manasseh’ mentioned in

31
Schniedewind, ‘A Qumran Fragment’, p. 106, as well as idem, ‘The Source Cita-
tions of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily’, VT 91 (1991), pp. 450–461.
See also Gutman and Van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions, section 1.4.
32
Schniedewind, ‘A Qumran Fragment’, p. 105.
148 louis jonker

II Chr 33,18. At the very least, we have a parallel tradition which does
not rely on II Chronicles.33
If Schniedewind is right in his assessment of the Hebrew prayer found
at Qumran, the Chronicler’s creative merging of traditions in his own
version becomes even more apparent.
There is general agreement among scholars that the pseudepigraphic
Greek Prayer of Manasseh was a later creation most probably influ-
enced by the Chronicler’s version. Although scholars disagree as to
whether this pseudepigraphic prayer is of Jewish or Christian origin,34
there is agreement that its creation was prompted by the mentioning
of such a prayer in 2 Chronicles 33. In this creation one can observe
how the spiral of ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ developed further. Scholars
agree that the creation of this prayer had the intention of reflecting a
specific understanding of repentance and forgiveness—an understand-
ing also reflected in early Christian works. Manasseh becomes a para-
digm in this context for the fact that forgiveness is available to even
the worst of sinners if they are repentant.
This overview of how textual witnesses to a prayer of Manasseh
influenced one another to fuel the further development of the tradi-
tion is intended to confirm the point that Talstra makes so aptly in his
work: the primary interest of the biblical exegete should not merely be
to discover the historical or literary value of biblical and related textual
witnesses. The exegete should position herself or himself between the
former and contemporary readers of these texts. In order to do so,
the exegete should become sensitive to those ‘choices of position’ that
were made within the hermeneutic spiral of tradition.
This brings us back to the specific portrayal of Manasseh in
2 Chronicles 33. As one stage in the process of tradition development,

33
Schniedewind, ‘A Qumran Fragment’, p. 107.
34
Although the majority view goes in the direction of a Jewish origin for this
prayer, Davila recently came to the following conclusion in his investigation: ‘. . . I
propose that our primary working hypothesis should be that it is a Christian work
that gives us some early and interesting evidence about ideas that some ancient
Christians accepted about repentance in the Old Testament dispensation. This much
we know to be true from its transmission history. But Jewish authorship remains a
real possibility also, although the data in it should not be used to reconstruct aspects
of ancient Judaism which are otherwise unsupported by verifiably Jewish sources, one
may reasonably use the Prayer of Manasseh as ancillary evidence for aspects of ancient
Judaism found elsewhere in sources already established beyond reasonable doubt to be
Jewish’ (Davila, ‘Prayer of Manasseh’, p. 85). See also Gutman and Van Peursen, The
Two Syriac Versions, section 1.9.
 tradition through reading 149

this text engages with the needs of its own time, interacting with
the pool of available textual resources that provided continuity with
the past. The histories of the Judahite kings, therefore, also of King
Manasseh, were used to interact with the contemporary socio-histor-
ical and socio-religious circumstances. It is interesting that the narra-
tive about Manasseh is not the only one given a twist by the Chronicler
as compared to the versions in Kings. Some other kings (such as Asa),35
who are evaluated positively by the Deuteronomistic writings, are given
some negative attributes by the Chronicler. The opposite happens with
Manasseh who is turned from the epitome of apostasy and the one
who is to blame for the exile into a repentant king receiving forgive-
ness from Yhwh. Abadie’s explanation of this trait in Chronicles is
probably heading in the right direction:
Without forcing issues, one sees how the theological writing of the chro-
nistic narrative may be taken in a double manner, individually (through
the experience of conversion of the king) and collectively (the exile of
Israel and her restoration) without one interpretation excluding the
other. By these theological and literary means, the Chronicler reintro-
duces the reality of Israel into the narrative, but in a completely differ-
ent way than the deuteronomistic author in the book of Kings. It is less
about realizing the reasons for the exile and its consequences, the col-
lapse of the royal Davidic institution, than about suggesting to Israel that
its return to the land depends on its return to God in faithfulness. . . . In
this light, Manasseh appears with all his ambiguities as the reflection of
Israel, the believing community that must always repent. One under-
stands henceforth the theological choices made by the Chronicler that
led him to engage in a complete rewriting of this figure’s reign.36
Abadie’s viewpoint can be easily related to my own proposal that the
Chronicler first and foremost wanted to contribute to a process of
negotiating the identity of ‘All Israel’ during the post-exilic Persian
dispensation. The portrayal of the kings of Judah, including King
Manasseh, served the purpose of indicating that this post-exilic com-
munity should seek Yhwh in order to receive his forgiveness. A new
existence as people of Yhwh was possible in this new dispensation
under the condition that Yhwh be sought. This formed the basis of
the Chronicler’s cultic and religious self-understanding. In this respect

35
See Louis C. Jonker, ‘The Cushites in the Chronicler’s Version of Asa’s Reign: A
Secondary Audience in Chronicles?’, OTE 19/3 (2006), pp. 863–881.
36
Abadie, ‘Theological Rewriting by the Chronicler’, pp. 103–104.
150 louis jonker

a study of the tradition of Manasseh confirms the observation that

Talstra made with reference to the Chronicler’s usage of ‘the Name’
as an indication of the deity.
In the conclusion to his investigation of the traditions about
Manasseh in the Bible and Late Second Temple Judaism, Hulbert sum-
marizes the situation appropriately:
The various traditions and opinions regarding Manasseh begin with
the biblical accounts and continue, no doubt, with sermons today. It
seems that the narrative of choice is dependent on one’s agenda. In
2 Kings, YHWH and the Deuteronomist were speaking to a fallen, exiled
people. Readers should know how they found themselves in this hope-
less state. Years later, YHWH and the Chronicler were speaking to a
people returning home. They were a people with a vibrant history and
a limitless future, and it was important to instill a sense of hope in the
people. . . .
No doubt sermons are delivered today on Manasseh that choose their
account based on whether the essence of the message is concerning
humanity and its fallen state or repentance and restoration. Perhaps we
should bear in mind, however, that unlike the exiled people to whom the
Deuteronomist wrote, we may have a more complete picture of the life
of Manasseh, and it’s worth remembering both sides of the story.
Some have argued that there is no diversity, no variation, no devel-
opment within the biblical text. However, the fact of the matter is that
there is variation and development attested in the biblical text. The
data regarding Manasseh constitutes a fine example of this. For some
the presence of variation and development in the biblical text might be
troubling. However, it should not be. Rather, the presence of this in the
biblical text should be discussed and embraced, as it demonstrates that
the biblical texts are divine, but they also reflect the varied choices of
God’s people through the centuries.37
Precisely because of the diversity and variation attested in the biblical
texts, it is indispensable to take note of Talstra’s methodological con-
tribution. Exactly because of the fact that these various traditions will
prompt diverse continuations of the tradition in future sermons and
scholarly studies, we need Talstra’s methodological input to position
ourselves between former and contemporary readers of biblical texts.

37
Hulbert, ‘Good King and Bad King’, p. 81.
 tradition through reading 151

5 Conclusion

My own journey with Talstra’s work began at a point where I saw

him merely as a computer expert, but has continued to the point of
a deep appreciation for his work as theologian, which cannot be said
of all exegetes. Scientific exegesis does not necessarily lead to sound
theology. His commitment towards this movement is testified in his
inaugural address:
Exegese is een onafhanklijk vak, zij staat niet in dienst van de kerken
als organisatie. Maar zij hoeft haar onafhanklijkheid ook niet nood-
zaaklijk te beleven in die kritische deconstructie van traditioneel chri-
stelijk geloof. Niet elke vrome inval is goed, daarom is exegese kritisch.
Maar, in de rol van geheugen van de geloofsgemeenschap heeft exegese
ook de taak—laat ik het minimaal formuleren—om huidige lezers niet te
beroven van die mogelijkheid zichzelf te zien als mede-erfgenaam van de
bijbeltekst. Wetenschappelijke exegese kan veel meer theologie worden
als zij ook de wijze waarop deze teksten gemeenschapstichtend hebben
gewerkt, weet te honoreren.38
This contribution honours Eep Talstra as an exegete who understands
that the Bible is about more than literature and history, and as a theo-
logian who through his exegesis will never be satisfied with a static or
rigid understanding of the biblical witnesses. Interpretation is an act of
continuity, and ‘reading’ and ‘tradition’ are reciprocally related.

38
Talstra, Zou er ook wetenschap zijn, p. 24: ‘Exegesis is an independent discipline
which is not at the service of the church as institution. But it should not necessarily
understand its independence as the critical deconstruction of traditional Christian
faith. Not every pious inspiration is good, therefore exegesis should be critical. But, in
the role of being the memory of the community of faith, exegesis also has the task—let
me be conservative in my formulation—not to deny modern readers the possibility
of seeing themselves as co-heirs of the biblical text. Scientific exegesis can be more
theological by honouring the way in which these texts contributed to community for-
mation’ (my translation—LCJ).
 PART TWO

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE RECEPTION

OF THE BIBLE
 BETWEEN STIGMATIZING AND IDOLIZING THE BIBLE:
ON THE RECEPTION OF GENESIS 12:10–20; 20; 26:1–11

Cornelis Houtman

Eep Talstra once described the Bible as an historical edifice marked by ages
of habitation and (re)construction, but notwithstanding inhabitable. In the
present contribution, I discuss this view by studying the way in which three
narratives from the book of Genesis have been received by some freethinkers
and by some proponents of devout exegesis. The three narratives relate how
a patriarch passes off his wife as his sister (Gen 12:20; 20; 26:1–11). It is con-
cluded that the freethinkers open our eyes to the strangeness of these stories
and make us wonder whether devout exegesis has not in reality ‘imposed’ a
traditional edifying interpretation on them; however, the devout interpret-
ers are the ones who appear to make the historical edifice ‘inhabitable’. The
Bible is an awe-inspiring building, but it should not be overestimated. Con-
sequently a confessionally bound theologian has to find his way between the
extremes of stigmatizing and idolizing the Bible.

As a biblical scholar, Eep Talstra has never limited himself to literary

and historical analyses of biblical texts. Rather, he has consistently—and
quite laudably, in my view—stressed the relevance of re-readings and
contemporizations of the Bible throughout the centuries.1 To me it
would seem, however, that till now he has not dealt exhaustively with
the questions that such an approach might raise. To honour him, I
would like to put one such issue on the table, drawing upon a meta-
phor which Talstra himself once used when he described the Bible as
an ancient building, an historical edifice marked by ages of habita-
tion and (re)construction. Talstra asks whether these marks should
be appraised as detrimental to the structure, or rather as a proof of its
inhabitability. He unhesitatingly chooses the latter option.2
We might ask whether the Bible is really a perfectly habitable build-
ing, or whether it would be wiser to seal off some of the rooms or

1
Eep Talstra, ‘Zou er ook wetenschap zijn bij de Allerhoogste?’ (Psalm 73:11) (inau-
gural address; Amsterdam, 2003). Cf. Eep Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding
in de methoden van uitleg van het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002), esp.
pp. 78–83, 120, 276–279, 308.
2
Talstra, Zou er ook wetenschap zijn, p. 10.
156 cornelis houtman

turn them into a museum. Let us consider this question by studying

some examples from the reception history of three narratives from
the book of Genesis in which a patriarch passes off his wife as his
sister (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:1–11).3 First, we will give the floor to five
freethinkers, who, in our metaphor, ‘condemn the building’. Then we
meet four proponents of a devout exegesis, to whom the historical
edifice seems perfectly fit to live in. We will conclude by evaluating
the two perspectives.

1 Freethinkers

One of the aims of Voltaire (Francois-Marie Arouet [1694–1778]) was

to demonstrate the dubious character of the biblical narratives.4 Under
the entry ‘Abraham’ of his Dictionnaire philosophique (1769)5 he elo-
quently and sardonically describes Abraham’s journey away from the
fertile banks of the Euphrates to the barren region of Sichem. Accord-
ing to Voltaire, this was an act of irrationality, performed at God’s
command, but incomprehensible to human reason. Scarcely had
Abraham arrived in Canaan when he leaves for Egypt with his wife to
seek a subsistence. Now does it make sense, Voltaire asks, for a man of
almost one hundred and forty years old6 to travel two hundred miles
to ask for grain in a country whose language he does not understand?

3
Gen 12:10–20 and Genesis 20 are narratives about Abram/Abraham en Sarai/
Sarah (we will use the names Abraham and Sarah throughout, regardless of the
changes of name reported in Genesis 17). Historically, exegetes have regarded them
as half-brother and half-sister, Terah’s children (cf. Gen 20:12), or as uncle and niece
(Sarah as a daughter of Haran, Abraham’s brother). Gen 26:1–11 contains a similar
narrative about Isaac and Rebekah. On the history of the interpretation of these pas-
sages until the 18th century, see P. Bayle, Dictionaire historique et critique (2nd ed.;
Rotterdam, 1702), I, cols. 27–29 (‘Abimelech’); III, cols. 2665–2669 (‘Sara’).
4
The authors are not cited in chronological order. Alexander de M. is mentioned
immediately following Voltaire because of the relatedness of their approaches. It
should be noted that moral criticism of the patriarchs can be found already in the
writings of ‘heretics’ and opponents of Christianity in the first centuries ce. Cf. Cees
Houtman, De Schrift wordt geschreven: Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek van
het Oude Testament (Zoetermeer, 2006), pp. 508–539.
5
Quoted from A Philosophical Dictionary; from the French of M. De Voltaire
(Boston, 1856). Cf. the edition by C. Mervaud (Oxford–Paris, 1994). On Voltaire and
the Old Testament, cf. P. Sakmann, ‘Voltaire als Kritiker der Bibel und des Chris-
tentums’, ZWTh 49 (1906), pp. 389–421, 494–571; B.E. Schwarzbach, Voltaire’s Old
Testament Criticism (Genève, 1971).
6
According to Voltaire, Abraham was one hundred and thirty-five years old when
he left Mesopotamia after Terah’s death (Gen 11:26, 32). Cf., however, Gen 12:4.
 between stigmatizing and idolizing the bible 157

Moreover, given the fact that Sarah, in Voltaire’s view, was sixty-five
years old, Abraham actually should have presented her as his daughter.
Voltaire describes what happened as follows:
The king fell in love with the young Sarah, and gave the pretended
brother an abundance of sheep, oxen, he-asses, she-asses, camels, men-
servants and maid-servants; which proves that Egypt was then a power-
ful, and well-regulated, and consequently an ancient kingdom, and that
those were magnificently rewarded who came and offered their sisters to
the kings of Memphis.
Voltaire then relates how Abraham, aged one hundred and sixty and
fond of travelling, leaves for ‘the horrible desert of Kadesh’, together
with his ninety-year-old7 ‘pregnant wife, ever young and ever pretty’.
Here,
the father of the faithful told the same lie as in Egypt, making his wife
pass for his sister; which brought him more sheep, oxen, men-servants
and maid-servants. It might be said that this Abraham became rich prin-
cipally because of his wife.
At the end of his expositions, Voltaire adds this subtle observation:
Commentators have written a prodigious number of volumes to justify
Abraham’s conduct, and to explain away the errors in chronology. To
these commentaries we must refer the reader; they are all composed by
men of nice and acute perceptions, excellent metaphysicians, and by no
means pedants.
Another scholar keen to highlight through his vocabulary and style the
absurdity of the narratives of Genesis 12, 20, and 26 is Alexander de
M.,8 in his monumental work, De Bijbel beschouwd in zijne eigenlijke
waarde (The Bible, Considered in its Own Right),9 a critical examina-
tion of all biblical books. On the events after the Pharaoh took Sarah
as his ‘concubine’, De M. comments:
Abraham, God’s friend, was not exactly opposed to this [act by the
Egyptian king]—indeed he accepted many gifts from the Pharaoh. How-
ever, the Lord God did not seem to approve of Abraham’s being without

7
Cf., however, Gen 18:10, 14; 21:1–2, and Reimarus (below).
8
Jonkheer (nobleman) Ferdinand Alexander de Mey van Alkemade (1828–1864).
Little is known about his life.
9
Vols. 1 and 2 on the OT, vol. 3 on the NT, published in 1859, at the expense of the
author, by F. Günst, an Amsterdam publisher who sympathized with the freethought
movement.
158 cornelis houtman

Sarai, which is why he plagued Pharaoh with many plagues; who fortu-
nately perceived that the plagues had come on account of Sarai, and thus
sent her back to Abraham with many more gifts, which the holy man
readily accepted (I, p. 23).
Abraham’s recidivism at Gerar, his wife being ninety years old by
then (Gen 17:17), causes De M. to characterize the patriarch as some-
one who, believing himself to be backed by God, ‘his mighty Friend’
(I, p. 30), gives a successful trick a second try. And it works! Abimelech
realizes that Abraham has full support from a very ‘clever God’ (Gen
20:18) and makes all efforts to please Abraham, allowing him to leave,
laden with gifts: ‘The profitable result of deceit with God’s help’, con-
cludes De M. (I, p. 31).
When history repeats itself once more—again in the land of the
Philistines, but now featuring Isaac as ‘brother’ and Rebekah as ‘sister’—
De M. remarks:
Abimelech’s land seems to have been a favourable place, since no famine
occurred there. Also, the people of that region grew very old indeed.
Abimelech was already Abraham’s friend, before Isaac was born, and
Isaac was 60 years old (according to the previous chapter [Gen 25:26])
when his sons were born, and these sons were grown-up men by now,
but Abimelech was still alive (I, p. 38).
De M. observes that Isaac, ‘God’s new favourite’, is as apt at lying as ‘the
deceased favourite’ was, and that the women of that period must have
preserved their ‘youthful charms’ for quite a long time, since Rebekah
cannot have been a young girl when the story took place (cf. Gen 25:20,
26 [I, p. 38]). Isaac’s performance as a liar notwithstanding, Abimelech
is gracious and generous to him (Gen 26:14): Isaac becomes so prosper-
ous that it raises the Philistines’ envy (Gen 26:12–14 [I, p. 39]).
De M. is evidently not impressed by the patriarchs’ moral standards.
He considers Abraham ‘not any better than other non-virtuous men,
even if he was God’s friend’—the more so as Abraham appears to have
fathered more sons during Sarah’s lifetime than just Ishmael and Isaac
(Gen 25:6), ‘about whom we learned nothing while Sarai was still alive,
who was innocent enough to offer her maid to Abraham so that he
might have at least one son’ (Gen 16:2 [I, p. 36]). It would seem that
Abraham’s only virtue was to beget ‘fathers of nations’, and if he was
‘God’s favourite’, he must have been so because he ‘faithfully kept the
very first commandment which God commanded man: Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth’ (Gen 1:28 [I, p. 37]).
 between stigmatizing and idolizing the bible 159

With his commentary, De M. sought to demonstrate that

Christendom’s Scripture is anything but holy, as it contains a repre-
hensible notion of God, and authorizes the use of violence and deceit.10
In De M.’s view, the Pentateuchal figures of Abraham and God were
created by Moses in order to convince the Israelites in Egypt ‘that
there was a mighty lord, who was concerned about their cruel fate, and
who was about to show them the way to some land of Cockaigne’ (I,
p. 202). To this end, Moses composed an ‘ingenious novel’, propound-
ing the idea, among other things, that all the Hebrews descended from
one single forefather, a ‘bosom friend’ of the Lord, who had sworn
time and again to Abraham and to his sons ‘that he would give them a
numerous and prosperous offspring, that he would always keep watch
over them and be their god, and that he would make them inherit this
land of Cockaigne they so much longed for’ (I, p. 203).
To De M. the idea that the Bible should have been inspired by God
seems preposterous, given its content. His examination serves to dem-
onstrate that it is instead a book written by men, and a work of poor
quality at that. In his own analysis of the biblical text, De M. based
himself exclusively on the Statenvertaling (the 17th-century Dutch
‘national’ Protestant Bible translation) and on a Jewish rendering ‘into
English by Dr. Leeser, Philadelphia’ (I, p. xiii).11 That is to say, he never
read ‘any book written against the Bible’ (I, p. xiii). De M. did not con-
sider himself an atheist but rather held a belief in ‘Providence’, which
makes itself known in nature through reason (I, p. x), ‘this Infinite
Being (. . .) which we are accustomed to calling God’, but which has
nothing to do with ‘that capricious, conceited character’, the God of
the Bible (II, p. v).
The results of historical-critical research had not yet gained much
acceptance in the Low Countries at the time De M. wrote his study.12
This explains why he leaves unchallenged many traditional assump-
tions such as the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In contrast,
the work of our next freethinker does contain the definite onset of
a literary-critical and historical-critical approach to the Bible. This
scholar does not ridicule the narratives of Abraham and Sarah, but

10
Cf. the Preface in vol. 1, pp. v–xv.
11
Isaac Leeser (1806–1868), Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures Translated,
after the Best Jewish Authorities (Philadelphia, 1845).
12
Cf. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer
Auswertung (Kampen, 1994), pp. 101–107.
160 cornelis houtman

instead tries to reconstruct the historical events through an analysis

of the text.
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768) was a versatile scholar,13
whose impressive Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen
Verehrer Gottes,14 contains a chapter on the patriarchs, including some
observations on Abraham (vol. I, pp. 220–243). Reimarus holds the
view that the events of Genesis 12 and 20 can and should be appre-
ciated as ‘worldly’ history, that is, the type of events that occur in
the world as we know it, a series of acts by humans who are led by
their personal inclinations when dealing with fellow mortals. Such an
approach to our stories of Abraham and Sarah demonstrates the two
decisive factors at work: first, Abraham’s penchant for wealth, a bet-
ter living standard, and a place to live (p. 226), and second, Sarah’s
morbid desire to have a son, an heir born of her own womb (p. 229).
Herein lies the key to the story, ‘wenn wir so wie bey andern naturli-
chen Menschen davon urtheilen’ (p. 229).
In Reimarus’ view, it is not without Sarah’s consent that Abraham
lets her pass for his sister. He portrays Sarah as a beauty with a strong
personality who effectively controls her husband’s actions (pp. 230,
233–234, 236). It is at Sarah’s instigation that Abraham takes Hagar as
a concubine (Gen 16:2), as she wants to ascertain the underlying cause
of her own childlessness.15 From Hagar’s pregnancy she concludes that
Abraham is not the right partner for her (p. 230). Driven by her desire
for offspring, she is all too keen on a sexual encounter with a man
of rank.
Da sie ihrem Manne das Vergnügen gemacht, ihm eine fruchtbare Bey-
schläferin zu geben: so erwartete sie auch von ihrem bequehmen Manne
die Gegenfälligkeit, daß er sie auch durch den Beyschlaf eines andern
Mannes fruchtbar werden liesse; zumal, da sie es nicht mit slechten Leu-
ten, sondern mit großen Herrn versuchen wollte, und es ihm wohlgehen
wurde um ihrentwillen (p. 230).

13
Cf., e.g., Henning Graf Reventlow, Epochen der Bibelauslegung 4 (München,
2001), pp. 157–166.
14
First published in its entirety only in 1972; vol. 1 on the OT, vol. 2 on the NT,
edited by G. Alexander (Frankfurt am Main, 1972).
15
John C. Vermeulen, in a rather trivial reworking of Old Testament stories, enti-
tled De erostoren: hoogstandjes uit het Oude Testament (The Eros Tower: Passionate
Prowess in the Old Testament) (Westerlo, n.d. [2006]), depicts the biblical charac-
ters as sex-obsessed. In Vermeulen’s version, Abraham’s adulterous relationship with
Hagar is at his own initiative, aimed at finding out whether he himself or Sarah is the
cause of Sarah’s childlessness (pp. 88–105).
 between stigmatizing and idolizing the bible 161

Abraham’s deceit, therefore, was in Sarah’s interest. She was offered

the opportunity ‘um einen Erben von königlichem Geblüte zu bekom-
men’ (p. 233). It is not at all unlikely that Sarah, urged ‘durch ihre
weibliche Passion’, was in fact ‘die eigentliche Stifterin dieser maskir-
ten Comedie’:
Denn wenn sie es nicht gewollt hätte: so hätte Abraham ihr unmöglich
anmuhten konnen dergleichen [Possen] zu spielen. Sie würde sich nicht,
in Betrachtung der Folgen, für unverheurahtet ausgegeben haben. Sie
hätte es, zur Bewahrung ihrer Ehre, wenigstens alsdenn entdekt, daß sie
eine Ehefrau sey, als sie zum Kebsweibe sollte abgeholt werden: sie hätte
sich gesträubt mitzugehen, oder wäre dem Zwange durch die Flucht
zuvorkommen: sie hätte dem Manne keine Geschenke auf ihre Rech-
nung geben lassen. u.s.w. Aber sie williget in alles, und thut nicht einmal
spröde (pp. 233–234).
Reimarus’ main focus of attention is on Genesis 20, the Gerar episode.
He does not take the protagonists’ advanced ages as specified by the
biblical narrator seriously, mainly because Sarah appears to be such an
attractive woman (p. 229). He accepts the general chronology, how-
ever, and maintains that the couple stayed in Gerar for several months,
as they had in Egypt. In fact, given the clues in Genesis, Isaac must
have been fathered by Abimelech during Sarah’s six-months’ stay in his
house. It is announced in Gen 18:10, 14—Abraham being ninety-nine
years of age—that Sarah will have a son within a year’s time. Indeed
we learn about Sarah’s pregnancy (Gen 21:1–2), but nowhere are we
informed that Abraham ‘knew’ his wife. If Abraham left both Egypt
and Gerar heaped with presents (Gen 12:16; 20:14–16), this must be a
reward for his willingness on both occasions to put his wife at the king’s
disposal for such a long time (p. 236). Reimarus does not believe the
observation in Gen 20:6 that Sarah’s honour remained untouched, as
it is contrary to the facts and to human nature:
Hatten sie doch den Abraham um ihrent willen mit kostbaren Geschen-
ken überhäufft! und sie sollten so viel umsonst weggeben, ohne die
gesuchte Liebes-Gefälligkeit, mit gutem Willen des Mannes, von ihr
wirklich genossen zu haben! Nein (. . .). Die Natur des Menschen wieder-
spricht. Wer seine Frau, unter dem Namen einer unverehligten Person,
einem Könige, zum Genus ihrer Liebe, willig übergiebt, und um ihrent
willen reiche Geschenke annimmt, der liebt die Geschenke über alle Ehr
und Redlichkeit, der trägt wissentlich verguldete Hörner, und verheuret
seine Frau fur eine gute Belohnung, wenn er gleich das Ansehen noch
haben will blind zu seyn und seiner Frauen übermenschliche Keuschheit
zu zu trauen (pp. 232–233).
162 cornelis houtman

In his discussion of Abraham and Sarah, Reimarus stays clear of such

terms as ‘prostitution’ or ‘whore’; however, when it comes to Isaac
and Rebekah in Gen 26:1–11 he does use these words (p. 248). He is,
of course, aware of the striking resemblance of this story to Genesis
20, and questions whether some biblical writer may have combined
data from several documents, thus unwittingly implicating Isaac and
Rebekah in the story that had already been told of Abraham and Sarah
(pp. 245–248). In doing so, this writer would have doubled the shame
of the patriarchs, who on all accounts did not exactly shine as exam-
ples of the true religion (pp. 236–237, 242–243, 249, etc.).
Reimarus just cannot believe that the stories of Abraham and Sarah
convey an accurate picture of God. To him it is inconceivable that the
‘Judge of all the earth’ (Gen 18:25) is identical to this god who does not
care whether a brother marries his sister (Gen 20:12), who even prom-
ises them the land of Canaan, but who, in the laws attributed to him,
would condemn such a marriage as an abomination causing calamity
and the loss of the land (Lev 18:9, 27–29). The ‘Judge of all the earth’
cannot possibly be the one that commands Abraham to heed Sarah’s
bidding by chasing away Hagar and her son—a inhumane act indeed
(Gen 21:12). We cannot assume that everything which the ‘eiffersüch-
tige Sarah in ihrem Affect begehrte’ was inspired by God, since ‘Was
aber wieder Gottes ewiges unwandelbares Gesetz und wieder die Ord-
nung der Natur laufft, das kann Gott nicht befohlen haben’ (p. 237).
In 1919, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis (1846–1919, a Dutch
Lutheran minister from 1870 until 1879, and later a renowned social-
ist and anarchist)16 published a little book entitled Een galerij van bij-
belsche personen (ter leering en navolging voorgehouden) (A Gallery of
Biblical Characters [Presented by way of Instruction and Example])17
in order to demonstrate that Christians are completely misguided in
using biblical characters as models of virtue. In particular, he destroys
Abraham’s reputation as the ‘father of the faithful’, observing that ‘in
our days, if a man has his wife abused for profit, we call such a man
a pimp’ (p. 8). With respect to the Gerar story, Domela Nieuwenhuis
suggests that Abraham, this ‘first-class liar’, may have remembered the
events of Gen 16:2, and may have considered:

16
On Domela Nieuwenhuis, cf., for example, C.Ch.G. Visser, in BLGNP 1 (1978),
pp. 66–68.
17
Amsterdam, 1919, reprinted 1924.
 between stigmatizing and idolizing the bible 163

My wife procured me some pleasure with this Hagar maid, so now I

should not be tardy to reciprocate (p. 9).
In calling Abraham a pimp, Domela Nieuwenhuis was influenced
by Leo Taxil’s La Bible amusante (The Amusing Bible), which was
widely used by the leaders of the social movement in many European
countries, including the Netherlands. This ‘Bible’ provided them with
ample ammunition in their struggle against the Church and its use of
the Bible as a source of revelation.
Leo Taxil—the pen name of Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-
Pages (1854–1907), an atheist and the author of anti-clerical works—
became famous particularly through the so-called ‘Taxil Hoax’. In
1885, he converted to Roman Catholicism and manifested himself as
an opponent of freemasonry, much to the delight of the ecclesiastical
authorities. In 1897 he admitted that his conversion had been feigned,
and that his ‘revelations’ on freemasonry were a fake.18 In 1882, before
his ‘conversion’, Taxil published La Bible amusante, which consti-
tutes a thorough tarnishing of the Old Testament, based on works
by Voltaire, Henry St. John Bolingbroke (1678–1751), John Toland
(1670–1722), and others. The book contains four hundred cartoons by
Frid’Rick that contribute considerably to its ‘amusante’ character.
Taxil observes that Holy Scripture does not in any way condemn
Abraham, the ‘patriarch-pimp’ (pp. 130, 174),19 this ‘sordid fellow’
(p. 175), or his wife-sister, ‘a common prostitute’ (p. 175). He does
not fail to mention Pharaoh’s gratification in the company of Sarah,
this ‘fair old lady’ aged seventy-five (p. 130), who joined another king
at the age of ninety (p. 175), who was Abraham’s half-sister not in
reality but only in his deceitful masquerade (Gen 20:12), and who thus
appears in a number of ‘jocular stories’ that abound with obscenity,
contradictions, and anomalies (p. 179).
Summarizing, we may observe that the comments by these free-
thinkers share a number of traits. Derisorily they argue that the nar-
ratives about Abraham and Sarah are extremely bizarre, incredible,
and anything but elevating. They criticize the morality and the notion
of God found in these stories. Finally, the great characters of biblical

18
There are no lemmas on Taxil in RGG4 and TRE. There are in RGG2 (5, cols.
1029–1030), LThK, 9 [2000], col. 1305.
19
References are to a reprint of the Dutch translation of La Bible amusante from
1907: De amusante Bijbel (Zandvoort, n.d. [ca. 1920]).
164 cornelis houtman

history are completely tarnished by these critics, occasionally through

a reconstruction of the events as they might have actually occurred.

2 Devout exegetes

In the Galerij van Bijbelsche vrouwen uit het aartsvaderlijk tijdperk (A

Gallery of Biblical Women from the Patriarchal Era),20 an anonymous
author devotes some 170 pages to Sarah, the wife of ‘a man whose supe-
rior piety outshone all his contemporaries’, who herself was ‘sparkling
like a bright star in pitch-black night’ (p. 129). She shared her husband’s
faith (cf. Heb 11:8–19). When Abraham was called by God, she followed
not only him, but also ‘her Creator, in perfect obedience’ (p. 166).
According to the author, for a correct understanding of Sarah’s
biography we should take into account the fact that the stories of
Abraham and Sarah are situated in another world with a different
morality from our own. A case in point is ‘polygamy’ and its effects on
the relationship between husband and wife, which in patriarchal times
was certainly less close than it is today. The bond between them had
a ‘less elevated and more material foundation than marriage as it was
originally ordained, and has been restored by Jesus Christ’ (p. 140).
Whereas the oriental woman engaged in marriage ‘in order to become
a mother—the Christian’s aim is above all to be a wife, to bind her-
self to a single soul that is ready to wage the good war together with
her’ (p. 148). What happened between Sarah, Hagar, and Abraham,
however, is a perfect illustration of the misery caused by polygamy
(Genesis 16; 21:8–21). To the credit of Abraham, the author observes
that it was not the patriarch himself who coveted a second or a third
wife. Rather, his outstanding ‘moderation’ was ‘excellent proof of his
enduring faith’ (p. 201). It was only at Sarah’s instigation that he took
Hagar as a concubine (Gen 16:2–3). He should, however, have sought
the Lord’s judgement on this proposition (p. 202).
Sarah and Abraham were united not only in faith. Contrary to
‘God’s subsequent regulations and our notions of decency’, there was
also a blood-tie between them (p. 139), as they had the same father.
We should take into consideration, however, that the patriarch had a
limited choice of partners because of ‘the scarcity of believing women
in that period’ (p. 139).

20
Groningen, 1842.
 between stigmatizing and idolizing the bible 165

In Egypt, Abraham showed himself to be a true oriental realist: he

had good reason to fear for his life. This does not, however, justify his
behaviour, which showed a lack of faith here, fearing the world more
than God (pp. 174–175). Sarah failed as well. Even if it was out of self-
denying love that she consented to Abraham’s scheme, she would have
set a true example if she had made her husband look to God, saying:
‘The Lord will provide’ (p. 176). Like Abraham, however, she acts in
a reprehensible way: ‘It was with the truth [she was Abraham’s sister
(Gen 20:12)], that she deceived Pharaoh’ (p. 183).
Genesis 12 mentions Sarah’s beauty, even though she was sixty-five
years old when she visited Egypt. This is no reason to suspect Abraham
of ‘blind prejudice’, nor the Pharaoh of a ‘lack of taste’:
Even if our own age knows only of sexagenarian ladies who think they
are still fair, Sarah was fair indeed. Considering her entire lifetime [she
died at one hundred and twenty-seven (Gen 23:1)], she had barely
passed half of her days, and was in her prime of life. Painful though
her childlessness may have been to her heart, it had left her physical
strength untouched, and thanks to a brisk and healthy life-style, the
bloom of youth had been preserved on her cheeks. In addition, she may
have utilized balms and unctions to maintain the beauty and colour of
her complexion (p. 185).
Sarah’s stay in Pharaoh’s harem may have lasted several months. Even
so, she has not been in danger, since ‘in the harems of oriental kings,
a year might pass before the marriage to the new bride was consum-
mated [Esth 2:12]’ (p. 191).
The author holds the view that the events of Genesis are not reported
in strict chronological order, and that, upon leaving Egypt, Abraham
and Sarah went to Gerar (Genesis 20) straight away, in order to hazard
‘the Egyptian test’ once more, while ‘trusting the same saving hand [of
God]’ (p. 195). As he explains, they were prone to self-delusion and
simply unaware of the true will of God. They had nothing but ‘the
dawn of the future Sun [Jesus Christ]’ to read the ‘perfect law of God’
by (p. 196).
In his Abraham de vriend Gods (Abraham, God’s Friend),21
J. Ridderbos makes similar observations. Like the anonymous author,
Ridderbos holds the view that Sarah’s attractiveness as a sixty-five-year-
old can be explained with reference to her total lifespan (pp. 138–139),

21
Kampen, 1928. Jan Ridderbos (1879–1960) was Professor of Old Testament at
the reformed Theologische Hogeschool, Kampen. Cf. R.H. Bremmer, in BLGNP 1
(1978), pp. 280–283.
166 cornelis houtman

and that the ‘abduction of women’ followed by the killing of the hus-
bands posed a real threat in Abraham’s days (pp. 137–138, 292). The
understanding between husband and wife (Gen 20:12) was a way to
outwit the powerful, a strategy typical of nomads, who lack a strong
sense of morality (p. 142). Ridderbos acknowledges that the narratives
of Genesis 12 and 20 do not depict Abraham as a hero of faith, but
rather as a man of ‘sinful human shortcomings’, concerned too much
‘with his own safety and well-being’ and too little with his wife’s hon-
our (pp. 139–141). Scripture itself does not approve of the couple’s
conduct, he adds (p. 141), and we should really ask ourselves whether
we would have done any better in similar circumstances:
A Christian should not think, Ah! Even Abraham lied and abandoned
Sarah to save his own life, so I need not be too scrupulous myself. On
the contrary, he should say, Even Abraham had not yet struggled out
of sin’s grasp, had not yet liberated himself from the erroneous beliefs
of his environment, so I must be all the more suspicious of myself!
(p. 143; cf. p. 148).
Ridderbos does not fail to add some positive observations concerning
Abraham and Sarah. He assumes that, after Sarah entered Pharaoh’s
harem, Abraham turned to the Lord in his anxiety concerning her
(p. 145). He praises Sarah for being determined not to jeopardize
her husband’s life through ‘feminine weakness’ (p. 145). He stresses,
however, that there is no excuse for Abraham’s conduct: the patriarch
should have trusted God completely (pp. 144, 146).
Both the anonymous author and Ridderbos, while criticizing
Abraham, accept the narratives as they are related in the Bible. Quite
different is the reading by P. Stegenga, in De bijbelsche verhalen voor
het moderne leven (The Biblical Narratives in Modern Life).22 Stegenga
admits to being quite embarrassed by the stories of a patriarch passing
off his wife as his sister. He approves of the decision by H.Th. Obbink
(1869–1947) not to include these stories in his translation of the Old
Testament,23 and in his own discussion he limits himself to just one of

22
Vol. 1, sub-titled: De patriarchen (Amsterdam, 1929). Popke Stegenga Azn.
(1882–1953) was an Evangelical-Lutheran minister. Cf. G. Fafié and Th.A. Fafié, in
BLGNP 4 (1998), pp. 406–407.
23
De Bijbel (verkorte uitgave) opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald (The Bible
[Abridged Edition], Translated Anew from the Source Text). The first edition of the
Old Testament was published in two volumes (Amsterdam, 1921, 1924). Later editions
include the first of our three narratives.
 between stigmatizing and idolizing the bible 167

them (p. 216). With respect to Genesis 12, he observes that the bibli-
cal author is ‘not at all oppressed by it the way we are’ and appears to
have deliberately told the story a second time (p. 38). To ‘the ancient
Israelite’s mind as it is reflected in this narrative [Gen 12:20–20]’
(p. 38), Abraham and Sarah display admirable bravery. Cunning and
deceit are not seen as wrong but as a legitimate means to escape from
a perilous situation. The positive outcome—increased wealth—is sat-
isfactory indeed; the portrayal of the ancestress as a woman of great
beauty, pride, and loyalty to her husband, willing to sacrifice her hon-
our for him, is an expression of common pride (p. 39).
Even if Gen 12:10–20 reflects ‘a completely different culture, moral-
ity, and sense of justice’ (p. 38), Stegenga does not consider this pas-
sage worthless ‘from a psychological or religious point of view’ (p. 37).
Switching from the narrator’s perspective to Abraham’s, Stegenga
depicts the patriarch as a disillusioned and depressed man: ‘Even he
is a man, susceptible to petty mundane reality which occasionally
depresses his soul’ (p. 40). Imagine this man, called by God, having
been promised a multitudinous offspring, now entering Canaan, a
land already inhabited. To make things worse, a famine breaks out
(Gen 12:10). All this does not fail to affect Abraham:
This is an episode of great seriousness. The immense disillusion expe-
rienced by Abraham in Canaan upon finding famine rather than God-
given prosperity, makes him go astray. He changes his moral standards,
and, out of fear, defends his life with lies (p. 42).
Nico ter Linden in Het verhaal gaat . . . (The Story Goes . . .)24 likewise
portrays Abraham as a disillusioned and depressed man. The reader
is told how ‘the father of the faithful’ ‘lost his way as he was baffled
by famine’ (p. 54), and how he must continue by trial and error
(p. 55). To Ter Linden Sarah represents ‘the oppressed woman’ (p. 54).
Hers is the voice ‘of the voiceless’, and it is heard by God who wants
to be ‘a helper of the helpless’ (p. 55), making history take a turn. Ter
Linden’s re-telling of Genesis includes each of our three passages. In
Genesis 20, he characterizes ‘the father of the faithful’ as someone who
is ‘just like any ordinary man: capable of the highest as well as the
lowest’ (p. 93). An illustration of the lowest is Abraham’s dealing with
Sarah, ‘the helpless’, whose help comes from the Lord this time as well

24
Vol. 1: De Thora (Amsterdam, 1996). Nico M.A. ter Linden (b. 1936) was a
reformed minister of the Westerkerk in Amsterdam from 1977 to 1995.
168 cornelis houtman

(p. 94). At the end of Gen 26:1–11, Ter Linden observes: ‘Isaac, just
like Father Abraham, has had his moments of weakness’ (p. 118).

3 Evaluation

What the devout readings of our stories have in common is their pre-
sentation of Abraham both as the father of the faithful and as a human
occasionally lacking in faith. The traditional image of Abraham as a
hero of faith (cf. Heb 11:8–19) constitutes the framework for these
interpretations, even though the stories themselves contain few clues to
that effect. Actually, as one fictitious correspondent in Conrad Busken
Huet’s Brieven over den Bijbel (Letters on the Bible) puts it: ‘Through
our reading of the Bible, these stories have become so familiar to us
that we hardly see how strange they really are’ (p. 39).25 As we saw in
our paragraph on the freethinkers, critical readers are ready to pass
judgement on the morality and the notion of God in many biblical
passages. Therefore they may open our eyes to the strangeness of these
stories and make us wonder whether traditional devout and edifying
interpretations may in reality have been ‘imposed’ on them.
Stegenga’s ambivalent reading of Gen 12:10–20 suggests that such
is indeed the case. He presents two images of Abraham that are essen-
tially incompatible. On the one hand, he argues that the biblical writer
depicts Abraham as a cunning old fox and admires him as such, but,
on the other, he highlights the patriarch’s disillusionment and lack of
faith. Resuming the metaphor of the historical building, it looks as
though Stegenga shows his readers two quite different chambers. In
the first we see the figure of Abraham as it emerges from literary and
historical-critical research,26 to which freethinkers have made a con-
siderable contribution through their tarnishing of the biblical stories.
The second chamber holds the result of centuries of devout exegesis.
Our other three devout exegetes would seem to show us into a single
room, but on a closer look we notice that this room has undergone

25
Huet (1826–1886) was a minister of the Walloon church of Haarlem from 1857
to 1858, when he wrote his fictitious correspondence Vragen en antwoorden: brieven
over den Bijbel (Questions and Answers: Letters about the Bible) (2nd ed.; Haarlem,
1863). Cf. O. Praamstra, Busken Huet: een biografie (Amsterdam, 2007). The expres-
sion ‘these stories’ refers to the numerous miracle stories in the Bible. The ‘strange-
ness’ of morally offensive stories is discussed extensively (pp. 60–86).
26
Cf., e.g., the analysis by K. Koch, Was ist Formgeschichte? Methoden der Bibelex-
egese (3rd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974), pp. 135–162.
 between stigmatizing and idolizing the bible 169

extensive reconstruction. A literary and historical-critical investiga-

tion of its ‘construction history’ reveals that the ‘architect’ has used
folkloristic ‘building materials’ for his ‘construction’ of the book of
Genesis, his aim being to incorporate its Leitmotiv (the fulfillment of
the promises to the patriarchs) in a dramatic chain of events in which
the patriarchs on three occasions put the realization of the promises
at risk.27 The entrance to the historical edifice has an overall struc-
ture which is clearly recognizable and which relates to the building as
a whole. Inside the entrance, however, as elsewhere in the building,
there appear to be chambers of a rather more museological signifi-
cance. The building as such is quite inhabitable, though this does not
apply to every room. The devout literature on the historical edifice
describes these chambers as living quarters, while in fact this descrip-
tion is not entirely fitting, but only applies to the rooms the way they
look after some serious reconstruction and modernization.
Returning once more to our narratives, I would argue that the
devout readings of Genesis 12, 20, and 26 have been imposed on these
stories, making them ‘inhabitable’. Whatever we might think of it, edi-
fying exegesis presents us with contemporized versions of the original
texts, versions that do not belong to the ‘historical building’ as it was
originally built.
Let me conclude this contribution by briefly explaining its title. The
moderate orthodox thinker, Cornelis Philippus Hofstede de Groot, in
a critical review of Huet’s Brieven over den Bijbel, cautions against slip-
ping from idolizing the Bible into stigmatizing it.28 Likewise, Domela
Nieuwenhuis, whom we met as a freethinker, declares himself to be
opposed to both forms of extremism.29 Indeed, idolization and stigma-
tization, in my view, confine the terrain where a ‘confessionally bound
theologian’30 has to try and find his way. The historical edifice is awe-
inspiring, but it should not be overestimated.

27
Cf. C. Houtman, De Schrift wordt geschreven, p. 84.
28
Brieven over den Bijbel, naar aanleiding van Busken Huet’s brieven over den Bijbel
(Groningen, n.d. [1859–1962]), pp. 115–116. On Hofstede de Groot (1929–1984), see
A. de Groot, in BLGNP 3 (1988), pp. 66–68.
29
De Bijbel: Zijn ontstaan en geschiedenis (Amsterdam, n.d. [1893; 2nd ed. ca.
1910]), pp. 7, 9, 44–45, 49–50, 53. The author particularly values those parts of the
Bible that advocate humanity and justice (pp. 22–23, 54–57, 60–66).
30
Cf. E. Talstra, ‘Een professioneel theoloog is een confessioneel theoloog’, in
M. Barnard et al. (eds.), Protestants geloven bij bijbel en belijdenis betrokken
(Zoetermeer, 2003), pp. 65–82.
 ‘OUT OF EGYPT I HAVE CALLED MY SON’:
MATTHEW 2:15 AND HOSEA 11:1 IN DUTCH
AND AMERICAN EVANGELICAL INTERPRETATION

Gert Kwakkel

This study concentrates on the relationship between Matt 2:15 and Hos 11:1.1
The way in which Matthew connects Hosea’s words ‘out of Egypt I have called
my son’ with Jesus’ stay in Egypt deviates from the meaning of the words of
the prophet in their own context. The article describes how evangelical inter-
preters from the Netherlands (such as F.W. Grosheide, H.N. Ridderbos, and
J. van Bruggen) and from the United States of America (such as W.C. Kaiser,
D.A. Carson, T.L. Howard, P. Enns, and M. Pickup) have attempted to solve
this problem. An evaluation of these interpretations follows in two parts. The
first part suggests a reading strategy for Matt 2:15 that can be adopted by
modern readers. The second part defends the claim that evangelical inter-
preters should realize that the meaning of a text may go beyond the original
intention of its author as established by historical-grammatical exegesis.

1 Introduction

‘Matthew twists the Scriptures.’ This provocative statement is the title

of an article published by S.V. McCasland in 1961.2 The article pres-
ents a concise discussion of how the author of the Gospel of Matthew
interpreted the Old Testament. One of the examples McCasland
adduces in order to underpin his view that Matthew twists the Scrip-
tures is the quotation of Hos 11:1b in Matt 2:15: ‘Out of Egypt I have
called my son.’
The problems relating to this text are well known. First, Matthew
apparently takes Hos 11:1 as a predictive prophecy which was fulfilled
by Jesus’ stay in Egypt. In its own context, however, Hos 11:1 does not
seem to be predictive but retrospective. Yhwh looks back on how he
showed his love to the people of Israel by calling them out of Egypt at

1
The author wishes to thank Dr C.B. McCully, Usquert, the Netherlands, for his
comments on the English text of this contribution.
2
S.V. McCasland, ‘Matthew Twists the Scriptures’, JBL 80 (1961), pp. 143–148;
reprinted in G.K. Beale (ed.), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the
Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, 1994), pp. 146–152.
172 gert kwakkel

the time of the exodus. This leads to the second problem, namely, that
Matthew connects ‘my son’ with Jesus, whereas in Hos 11:1 it stands
for the people of Israel (cf. v. 1a: ‘When Israel was a child, I loved
him’). The third and last problem is that the quotation seems out of
place, as Jesus’ return from Egypt is not related until Matt 2:21.
A thorough discussion of these problems requires not only an anal-
ysis of other fulfillment passages in Matthew,3 but also of the exegetical
methods, such as midrash and pesher, in use among the Jews in the
first century ce which, according to many interpreters, may eluci-
date Matthew’s interpretations.4 The present study limits its scope to
the way in which evangelical interpreters have addressed these prob-
lems. Given their exalted view on the inspiration and infallibility of
the Bible, evangelicals in particular must confront the question as to
whether the textual data can be reconciled with that view. How can the
divine inspiration of Matthew and his trustworthiness—let alone his
inerrancy—be maintained, if he could only make his point by distort-
ing the original meaning of Hos 11:1?5
In the past decade, the way in which the Old Testament is inter-
preted in the New Testament has been the subject of passionate debate
among American evangelical theologians. Central to the debate is the
question as to whether the facts of the Bible, such as Matthew’s use
of Hos 11:1, should not lead to a reconsideration of the evangeli-
cal doctrine on the Scriptures. Sad to say, the debate has resulted in
estrangement: one of the participants, Peter Enns, had to leave his
post as associate professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in
Philadelphia.
The role of the problematic relationship between Matt 2:15 and
Hos 11:1 in the American debate will be analysed in section 3 of this
study. Section 2 will present an overview of solutions proposed by
Neo-Calvinistic interpreters from the Netherlands. The first reason
for including the overview is that the Dutch have brought forward
points of view that do not play a part in the American discussion.

3
Namely, Matt 1:22–23; 2:17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:4–5; 26:54,
56; 27:9–10.
4
See, e.g., Joachim Gnilka, Das Mattäusevangelium 1 (HThK; Freiburg, 1986), p. 51.
5
Cf. Dewey M. Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia, 1963), p. 82:
‘Although unintentional, is not his [= Matthew’s] use of Hos 11:1 in a sense a distor-
tion of the context?’
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 173

The second reason is that this study is dedicated to Eep Talstra. As he

himself has recognized, Talstra reads the Old Testament in the con-
text of the Reformed-Protestant tradition of Christian theology.6 In
the Netherlands, Neo-Calvinistic exegetes from the VU University in
Amsterdam, where Talstra has worked, and from the two theological
universities in Kampen, have been prominent representatives of this
tradition.
After the description of Dutch and American interpretations in sec-
tions 2 and 3, section 4 will present an evaluation in two parts. The
first part (section 4.1) formulates a number of exegetical observations
with respect to Hos 11:1 and Matt 2:15. The second part (section 4.2)
widens the scope to include evangelical hermeneutics. It draws provi-
sional conclusions as to the extent to which the problems around Matt
2:15 and Hos 11:1 should stimulate evangelical interpreters to adjust
or renovate their interpretation of the Scriptures, and in this way to do
justice to the principle of the priority of the Scriptures over tradition.

2 Dutch Neo-Calvinistic Interpretations

The Dutch interpreters whose views will be summarized in this section

agree that Hos 11:1 refers to the exodus of the people of Israel, which
had preceded the days of the prophet by a long time. Nevertheless,
Matthew was not wrong in connecting this text with Jesus’ flight to
Egypt.
In this connection, J. Ridderbos, H.N. Ridderbos, and F.W. Grosheide
affirmed that when Israel stayed in Egypt and departed from it,
the people were a type of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Grosheide and
W.H. Gispen added that the Messiah was included in Israel, so that
he was called out of Egypt with them (in support of this, Grosheide
referred to Heb 7:10). Grosheide linked this idea with his interpreta-
tion of πληρόω, ‘to fulfill’, in Mat 2:15. In his view, πληρόω means
‘to complete, to add what is missing’. What Hosea had said, namely,
that God had called his son out of Egypt, was not ‘complete’ before this
had happened to Christ as well. Furthermore, H.N. Ridderbos stated

6
Eep Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van
het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002), p. 11.
174 gert kwakkel

that what Hosea himself meant to say is not decisive; rather the sense
of the word of the Lord, which the prophet had to speak, is decisive.7
In his monograph on the fulfillment texts in Matthew, J.W. Smitt
emphatically rejected the view that Israel in Hos 11:1 is a type of Jesus
Christ.8 Hos 11:1 refers to the exodus of Israel from Egypt as a histori-
cal fact. Yet it is also a prophecy, for Hos 11:2–11 shows that the exo-
dus of God’s son, Israel, was still unfulfilled, as Israel figuratively had
to return to Egypt by being exiled to Assyria. The prophetic element in
Hos 11:1 would be preliminarily fulfilled by Israel’s return from exile.
It will receive its final fulfillment when, in the age to come, the New
Testament church arrives in the heavenly Canaan. Accordingly, Israel
in Hos 11:1 is a type of the Christian church, not of Jesus.
As for Matt 2:15, Smitt emphasized that the quotation of Hos 11:1 is
linked to Jesus’ flight to Egypt and not to his return from there, which
is related in vv. 19–21. Furthermore, Matt 2:15 does not say that the
prophecy of Hosea was fulfilled by Jesus’ flight to and stay in Egypt.
If that is what Matthew had meant to say, he would have used τότε,
‘then’ (as in Matt 2:17; 27:9), instead of ἵνα. Since Matthew introduces
his quotation by ἵνα πληρωθ , ‘in order that may be fulfilled’, his point
is that Jesus’ flight to Egypt was a necessary step on the way to the
definitive fulfillment of Hosea’s prophecy. Jesus had to go to Egypt, the
house of slavery, in order to guarantee the deliverance of God’s people.
He was kept safe from being murdered by Herod, because he had to
die for his people on the cross of Calvary. In other words, he did not
repeat the exodus of Israel, but paid its price.
In Smitt’s view, then, Matt 2:15 is in perfect harmony with the
original meaning of Hos 11:1. In neither Hos 11:1 nor Matt 2:15 does
‘my son’ refer to the Messiah. In both texts ‘my son’ stands for God’s
people.9

7
J. Ridderbos, De kleine profeten 1. Hosea, Joël, Amos (KVHS; Kampen, 1932),
p. 103; H.N. Ridderbos, Het evangelie naar Mattheüs 1 (KVHS; Kampen, 1941), p. 42;
C. van Gelderen and W.H. Gispen, Het boek Hosea (COT; Kampen, 1953), p. 381;
F.W. Grosheide, Het heilig Evangelie volgens Mattheüs (2nd ed.; CNT[K]; Kampen,
1954), p. 34.
8
Jan Willem Smitt (1902–1997) served as a minister in the ‘Reformed Churches
in the Netherlands’ (GKN) and in the ‘Reformed Churches in the Netherlands Liber-
ated)’ (GKV).
9
J.W. Smitt, Opdat vervuld zou worden: exegetische monographieën over de ver-
vullingsverbanden in het evangelie naar Matteüs, bevattende de vervullingscitaten, die
worden ingeleid met de vervullingsformules hopoos plèroothèi, hina plèroothèi en tote
eplèroothè 1 (Groningen, 1975), pp. 79–107.
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 175

Like Smitt, Jakob van Bruggen has pointed out that according to
Hosea 11 the exodus was unfulfilled. Matthew’s readers had become
familiar with the Scriptures by listening to people who read entire
pericopes aloud. Accordingly, Matthew drew their attention to Hosea
11 as a whole. This chapter reveals that God wanted to call a son from
Egypt, but this was unsuccessful since Israel refused to live as God’s
child. Van Bruggen further agrees with Smitt as to the reason why
Hos 11:1 is quoted in Matt 2:15, rather than in connection with Jesus’
departure from Egypt in 2:20. Jesus had to return to Egypt, because
otherwise the work of God in the exodus would not come to its true
fulfillment.
Van Bruggen, however, differs from Smitt in that he does not claim
that ‘my son’ in Matt 2:15 does not refer to Jesus. He says that God
fulfills his purpose of calling a son out of Egypt when he calls his own
son, who is begotten from the Holy Spirit, out of Egypt. Jesus actually
came out of Egypt as an obedient child. He could not subsist on what
had happened to Israel in the past, but had to fulfill his own exodus.
In this way he accomplished the deliverance of sinners, both within
and outside Israel.10

3 Recent American Evangelical Interpretations

The overview of American interpretations in this section focuses on

the role of the relationship between Matt 2:15 and Hos 11:1 in the
hermeneutical debate of the past decade. In addition, it describes a
number of publications from the eighties and nineties of the last cen-
tury which still affect the debate.
The American evangelical interpreters whose views will be described
can be divided into three groups. The first group consists of those
who maintain that Matthew’s interpretation adds nothing to what the
prophet himself intended to say in his own historical context. In other
words, Matthew used Hos 11:1 in complete agreement with its literal
or grammatical-historical sense. The second and the third groups both
deny that the use Matthew made of the text was already in the prophet’s
mind. They differ from each other as to the question whether or not
Matthew made use of contemporary Jewish exegetical methods such as

10
Jakob van Bruggen, Matteüs: het evangelie voor Israël (CNT[K], 3rd series;
Kampen, 1990), pp. 53–54.
176 gert kwakkel

midrash and pesher. Members of the second group reject this idea and
offer alternative explanations. Members of the third group think that
the views of the second group do not provide an adequate explanation
of what Matthew did. His interpretation can only be accounted for by
accepting that Matthew made use of midrash or pesher.
In spite of all the dissimilarities, the interpreters mentioned in this
section agree with each other that τὸν υἱόν μου, ‘my son’, in Matt 2:15
refers to Jesus Christ. John H. Sailhamer even opens his article on
Hos 11:1 and Matt 2:15 with the following statement: ‘All agree that
Matthew’s understanding of Hos 11:1 is eschatological and messianic. He
applies Hosea’s words to Jesus literally and realistically.’11 Furthermore,
most interpreters take it for granted that the events which, according
to Matthew, fulfilled Hosea’s prophecy also included Jesus’ departure
from Egypt and his return to the land of Israel, since this is recorded in
v. 21.12 The fact that the quotation of Hos 11:1 is found in v. 15 instead
of 21 is mainly explained in terms of the structure of the chapter. Matt
2:13–15 focuses on Egypt, while vv. 19–23 focuses on Nazareth. Besides,
the effect of placing the quotation in v. 15 is that the reference to the
exodus precedes the allusion to the exile in vv. 16–18.13

3.1 Agreement with the Historical Meaning

Two authors will be presented here as representatives of those who
claim that Matthew did not add anything to Hosea’s original inten-
tion, namely, Walter C. Kaiser and John H. Sailhamer.
Walter C. Kaiser states that by using ‘my son’ Hosea deliberately
chose a technical term that could be applied either collectively to the
nation of Israel or specifically to the Messiah, who would come as the
nation’s final representative.14 Furthermore, when Hosea 11 as a whole

11
John H. Sailhamer, ‘Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15’, WThJ 63 (2001), p. 87.
Sailhamer might not have expressed himself in this way if he had known of Smitt’s
monograph.
12
Exceptions are: Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New
(Chicago, 1985), p. 51 (see below, section 3.1); Dan McCartney and Peter Enns,
‘Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer’, WThJ 63 (2001), p. 103 (see
below, section 3.3).
13
Cf., e.g., Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33a; Dallas, 1993), pp. 33, 36;
Craig L. Blomberg, ‘Matthew’, in G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on
the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 2007), p. 7; R.T. France,
The Gospel of Matthew (NIC; Grand Rapids, 2007), pp. 79–80.
14
Kaiser, Uses, pp. 47–53.
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 177

is taken into account, the main topic of the chapter is God’s love as
manifested in the preservation of his son. Kaiser admits that Hosea
himself did not intend to give a prophecy in Hos 11:1b. Nonetheless,
‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ was not merely a historical reminis-
cence. The rest of the chapter describes how God preserved his son
after the exodus and how he will do so in the future. Accordingly, the
prophet’s point about the son’s preservation ‘invited future compari-
sons with what God would do in subsequent history as He again and
again delivered that “Son” until the final and ultimate deliverance in
the last Man of Promise came’.15
In Kaiser’s view, this fully justifies what Matthew did. Matt 2:13–15
is not about Jesus’ exodus from Egypt (which comes in v. 21). In these
verses Matthew emphasizes God’s love in the preservation of his son
in the early years of his life. This act of God in a true sense completed
or consummated (πληρόω) what he had done according to Hos 11:1.
Consequently, Matthew did not distort or abuse the context of Hosea,
nor did he add his own interpretation to the prophet’s text.
According to John H. Sailhamer, Hosea 11 understands Israel’s his-
torical exodus from Egypt as a metaphor, an image of future redemp-
tion.16 In its own context, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ in Hos 11:1b
already had a messianic sense. This applies not only to the final shape
of the book of Hosea (as studied in Brevard S. Childs’ canonical inter-
pretation), but also to the personal intention of the prophet living in
the eighth century bce.17
In support of this view, Sailhamer argues that Hosea did not refer
to the historical event of the exodus itself, but to the event as con-
strued in the narrative of the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch the exodus
already functions as a key messianic metaphor or image. Sailhamer
infers this from Balaam’s oracle in Num 24:8 in particular. The first
words of this text—‫מֹוציאֹו ִמ ִּמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬
ִ ‫ ֵאל‬, ‘God who brings him out of
Egypt’—describe the coming of a future king as a new exodus. Since
Hosea in other prophecies gives evidence of careful exegesis of the

15
Kaiser, Uses, p. 53.
16
Sailhamer, ‘Hosea 11:1’, pp. 87–96.
17
In support of his approach, Sailhamer, ‘Hosea 11:1’, pp. 88–89, refers to Childs,
Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. It must be noted, however, that in this
book Childs wrote nothing about the metaphorical interpretation of the exodus in
Hosea; see Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London,
1979), pp. 373–384.
178 gert kwakkel

Pentateuch, he must have been aware of this view of the exodus as an

eschatological image of a future messiah.
Matthew, then, did not invent the messianic sense of Hos 11:1.
When he described an event in Jesus’ life as the fulfillment of this text,
he did not make use of typology. He took the text in its literal sense,
in accordance with the intention of the prophet himself.

3.2 Typological or Analogical Correspondences

The most influential studies representing the ideas of the second group
of interpreters were written by D.A. Carson and Tracy L. Howard and
published in the eighties of the past century. The description of their
views will be followed by a short overview of later publications.
D.A. Carson states that just like other authors of the New Testament,
Matthew regarded Jesus Christ as the typological recapitulation of
Israel.18 Israel is denoted as the Lord’s son in Exod 4:22–23, as is Jesus
in Matt 3:17. Furthermore, in Matthew the motif of fulfillment does
not merely refer to ‘one-to-one prediction’, but functions in a large
network of typological connections.
Carson recognizes that Hos 11:1 refers to Israel’s exodus from
Egypt, but 11:9–11 shows that Hosea also looked forward to a redemp-
tive visitation by the Lord. What he says about God’s son is part of
a messianic matrix which can be detected in God’s revelation up to
Hosea’s time. Therefore 11:1 also has a prospective element. This does
not mean that Hosea really had the Messiah in mind. If, however,
he had lived in Matthew’s days he would not have disapproved of
Matthew’s use of his text.
Carson concludes that it is legitimate to say that Matthew attrib-
uted a ‘fuller meaning’ (sensus plenior) to the text, but this meaning
fitted the pattern of revelation. Matthew did not reveal some hidden
divine knowledge; his new revelation can be checked against the older
one found in Hosea 11. In this respect Matthew’s method differs from
pesher exegesis, for unlike pesher, his exegesis did not make the origi-
nal context of the quoted text meaningless.19
The key concept in Tracy L. Howard’s ‘alternative solution’ to the
problems resulting from the use of Hos 11:1 in Mat 2:15 is ‘analogical

18
D.A. Carson, ‘Matthew’, in ExpB 8 (Grand Rapids, 1984), pp. 91–93.
19
For the comment on pesher exegesis, see Carson, ‘Matthew’, p. 28.
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 179

correspondence’.20 She distinguishes this concept from typology. Typol-

ogy assumes that events, persons, or things in the Old Testament pre-
figure their counterparts (antitypes) in the New Testament. Typology
appeals to meanings in the Old Testament texts of which the human
authors of the texts were unaware. Conversely, analogical correspon-
dence relates to connections that were made by the New Testament
authors in retrospect only.
Howard emphatically denies that a messianic prediction can be
found in Hos 11:1 and she takes issue with Carson’s idea of a mes-
sianic matrix.21 It was only by looking back that Matthew saw the
analogical correspondences between the history of Israel and the his-
tory of the Messiah. These correspondences relate, first, to an ‘exodus
pattern’. Just like Israel, Jesus was taken to and brought out of Egypt.
Since Matthew probably meant to refer not only to Hos 11:1 but to
the entire chapter, he may further have seen Jesus as a new Moses who
would lead the eschatological exodus announced in Hos 11:10–11.
Second, the correspondences relate to a ‘son pattern’. In contrast to
Israel who refused to obey the Lord (Hos 11:2), Jesus was the obedi-
ent son (cf. Matt 3:17), who did all that Israel should have done. He
recapitulated the history of the nation in a positive sense.
By drawing these correspondences Matthew ‘saw Jesus as the One
who actualizes and completes all that God intended for the nation’,
and that is what he meant by using πληρόω.22 This does not in the
least imply that Matthew presented an arbitrary exegesis of Hosea 11.
He did not make use of a sensus plenior, for he did not ascribe hid-
den divine meanings to the text, neither did he disregard the original
intent of the text in a way similar to the midrash-pesher technique of
the Qumran community. On the contrary, Matthew could only draw
his analogical correspondences by virtue of a historical-grammatical
understanding of the passage.
The much shorter discussions by Craig L. Blomberg, Donald A.
Hagner, and David L. Turner largely agree with Howard’s view.23

20
Tracy L. Howard, ‘The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solu-
tion’, BS 143 (1986), pp. 314–328.
21
Howard, ‘Use’, pp. 326–327, n. 20.
22
Howard, ‘Use’, p. 322.
23
Agreement with Howard can also be detected in Moo’s view of the sense of
πληρόω in Matt 2:15: ‘In the case of Matthew 2:15, then, the Evangelist may be suggest-
ing that Jesus, God’s “greater son”, brings to a climax—“fills up”—the “Exodus motif ”,
that had become, even in the Old Testament, an eschatologically oriented theme’,
180 gert kwakkel

A minor point of difference is that they are less hesitant about using
terms such as ‘typology’, ‘typological correspondences’, or sensus ple-
nior. Furthermore, Blomberg and Hagner suggest that Num 23:22 or
24:8 may have been in Matthew’s mind when he quoted Hos 11:1.24
‘Typology’ is the key term in Bruce K. Waltke’s interpretation of
Matt 2:15 in his discussion with Peter Enns. Just like Howard, he does
not believe that Hosea anticipated that the exodus referred to in Hos
11:1 would be a type of what happened to Jesus, that is, that God called
his son out of Egypt. He differs from Howard in that he lays more
emphasis on the role of God as the author of the whole canon and of
the history of redemption. God foresaw and prefigured the fulfillment,
which Hosea did not yet see. Matthew, however, who believed that
God wrote sacred history according to his eternal plan, saw the cor-
respondence. His approach differs from midrash because he did not
manipulate Hosea’s text ‘without regard to the unfolding of a unified
redemptive history’.25

3.3 Midrash or Pesher

The overview of the interpretations representative of the third group
of evangelicals opens with a critical response to Sailhamer published
by Dan McCartney and Peter Enns in 2001. Next, later publications of
Enns will be briefly reviewed. The subsection closes with a summary
of the views of R.T. France and Martin Pickup.
According to Dan McCartney and Peter Enns, Hos 11:1, in its
own historical context, is a mere reference to a past event.26 Hosea
does not say anything explicit about the Messiah, nor does he sug-
gest that the Messiah would recapitulate Israel’s history. McCartney
and Enns further state that a grammatical-historical interpretation of
the Pentateuch does not yield the metaphorical interpretation of the

see Douglas J. Moo, ‘The Problem of Sensus Plenior’, in D.A. Carson and John D.
Woodbridge (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (Leicester, 1986), p. 191.
24
Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC 22; Nashville, Tenn., 1992), p. 67; Hagner,
Matthew 1–13, pp. lvi, 36–37; Blomberg, ‘Matthew’, pp. 7–8; David L. Turner,
Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, 2008),
pp. 90–91.
25
Bruce K. Waltke, ‘Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation’, WThJ 71 (2009), pp.
91–92; idem, ‘Interaction with Peter Enns’, WThJ 71 (2009), pp. 124–125. The quote
has been taken from ‘Interaction’, p. 125.
26
McCartney and Enns, ‘Matthew and Hosea’, pp. 97–105.
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 181

exodus and the fully developed messianic eschatology that Sailhamer

claims to have found.
Matthew, then, cannot have based his quotation of Hos 11:1 on a
grammatical-historical interpretation of the text. He applied herme-
neutical methods similar to those in use in his days, for example, in the
community of Qumran. He did not try to find the original meaning of
the human authors of the Old Testament, but was interested in what
the divine author intended to communicate to his people through the
Scriptures.
More concretely, Matthew used his conviction of God’s redemp-
tion in Jesus Christ as a new interpretative key. For him, King Herod,
who tried to kill Jesus, had become a new Pharaoh and Israel a new
Egypt, from where Jesus fled. Thus Matthew could regard Jesus’ depar-
ture described in Matt 2:13–15 as a fulfillment of the exodus of Israel
referred to in Hos 11:1. He understood Hos 11:1 as pointing to Jesus,
because for him Jesus was the true son of God, who fulfilled the place
of Israel. Fulfillment (πληρόω), moreover, is more than ‘just a bringing-
to-pass the conditions expressed in some prediction’.27 It refers to
Jesus as the true purpose and goal of the Old Testament. Jesus’ escape
to Egypt was ‘a necessary feature of bringing to its true purpose the
whole expectation of redemption, of which Hosea’s words reminding
Israel of the exodus are a part’.28
Evangelical interpreters should not obscure Matthew’s lack of inter-
est in grammatical-historical interpretation, but they do not need to be
bothered by it, either. Like Matthew they believe that the Scriptures are
divine. Therefore they can accept that the intent of the divine author
transcends that of the human authors. After all, the Scriptures do
not require that interpreters should limit themselves to grammatical-
historical exegesis. Such limitation is a product of the rationalism of
the Enlightenment.
The interpretation of Matt 2:15 and its relationship to Hos 11:1 that
Peter Enns has presented in later publications differs from the above in
two minor details only.29 First, he has apparently abandoned the idea

27
McCartney and Enns, ‘Matthew and Hosea’, p. 103.
28
McCartney and Enns, ‘Matthew and Hosea’, p. 104.
29
Peter Enns, ‘Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture:
Moving beyond a Modernist Impasse’, WThJ 65 (2003), pp. 263–287 (see esp. pp. 265–
270, 275–279, 283); idem, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of
the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 2005), esp. pp. 132–134, 153–154; idem, ‘Interac-
tion with Bruce Waltke’, WThJ 71 (2009), pp. 97–114 (see esp. pp. 110–111).
182 gert kwakkel

that Matthew linked the fulfillment of Hos 11:1 only to Jesus’ flight
from Israel as the figurative Egypt. Instead, he states that Matthew
anticipates Jesus’ coming out of Egypt recorded in Matt 2:21.30 Second,
he is more open than in his earlier work to the idea that Matthew had
the larger context of Hosea 11 in mind and not just v. 1.31
Furthermore, Enns introduces two new elements into the discussion.
First, he coins a term to characterize the hermeneutics of the writ-
ers of the New Testament, namely, ‘christotelic’. ‘Christotelic’ stands
for the idea that those writers were convinced that Jesus Christ was
the telos—the end, purpose, or proper goal—towards which the Old
Testament story is heading and that their reading took that convic-
tion as its point of departure.32 Second, he emphasizes time and again
that evangelicals should adjust their view of the Scriptures to the facts:
Matthew and the other authors of the New Testament made use of the
interpretative methods of the Second Temple period, such as pesher
and midrash. Enns recognizes the value of typology and other explana-
tions defended by the authors discussed in section 3.2; however, these
explanations do not suffice, as long as one does not take into account
that Matthew worked within the framework of the methods that were
customary in his days.33
R.T. France agrees with McCartney and Enns in that he also states
that Matthew’s use of Hos 11:1 is not based on an exegesis of the
meaning of the text in its original context, but that it corresponds
to the interpretative strategies practised in Qumran and among the
Rabbis.34 Matthew could relate Jesus’ flight to Egypt to Hos 11:1 only
by looking back to the text from the perspective of his own conviction.

30
Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, p. 133.
31
Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, p. 134; contrast McCartney and Enns,
‘Matthew and Hosea’, p. 98, n. 1.
32
See Enns, ‘Apostolic Hermeneutics’, p. 277; idem, Inspiration and Incarnation,
p. 154.
33
See esp. Enns, ‘Interaction with Bruce Waltke’, pp. 110–111.
34
France, The Gospel of Matthew, pp. 10–14, 76–81. Whereas France speaks of
Matthew’s ‘pervasive midrashic agenda’ in The Gospel of Matthew, p. 14, he refused
to characterize Matthew 2 as midrash in an earlier study. France may have altered
his opinion, but it should also be noted that in the earlier study his criticism was
aimed against the view that the facts related in Matthew 2 are ‘merely the product
of a scriptural activated imagination’; see ‘The Formula-Quotations of Matthew 2
and the Problem of Communication’, NTS 27 (1980–1981), pp. 233–251; quote from
p. 235. France’s study has been reprinted in G.K. Beale (ed.), The Right Doctrine from
the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids,
1994), pp. 114–134.
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 183

Against authors who regard Matthew’s use of the text as illegitimate,

France argues that Matthew’s method agrees with the essence of typol-
ogy, ‘which depends not on predictions but on transferable “models”
from the OT story’.35 In this case, these models are the exodus, with
Moses as its leader, and Israel as God’s son.
Martin Pickup’s view agrees with that of McCartney and Enns on
essential points.36 Although he does not reject explanations such as
sensus plenior and typology, he maintains that midrashic exegesis
is the only rubric that really encompasses the New Testament’s use
of Old Testament texts.37 This also applies to Matt 2:15. In this text,
Matthew does not present an exegesis of what was in Hosea’s mind
when he wrote Hos 11:1, but of what was in God’s mind. Matthew
interpreted the text atomistically and recontextualized it in the life of
Jesus, that is, the context of God’s new revelation in his own days. In
his reading of Hos 11:1, Matthew most probably was prompted by
the correlation between Israel and the Messiah as both being God’s
firstborn son, an idea he shared with other ancient Jews. Besides, a
messianic interpretation of Balaam’s oracles in Numbers 23 and 24
may have influenced him.
The most essential point of Pickup’s study is that evangelicals
should take notice of the theological rationale behind midrashic exe-
gesis. The ancient Jews read the Scriptures in this way, because the
Scriptures were the verbally inspired and inerrant word of God—one
book, the work of one divine author, in which his eternal plan was
gradually revealed. Consequently, all intertextual connections and
multiple meanings that can be found were in God’s mind when he
inspired the human authors. Since evangelicals hold the same exalted
view of the Scriptures, they should not limit themselves to a historical-
grammatical exegesis, which confines itself to what was in the minds
of the human authors, but should accept the fact that they themselves
also make use of midrashic exegesis.

35
France, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 80.
36
Martin Pickup, ‘New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theo-
logical Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis’, JETS 51 (2008), pp. 353–381.
37
Pickup uses ‘midrashic exegesis’ as ‘a generic designation of the hermeneutics
used by virtually all Jewish groups of late antiquity’. For him, ‘midrashic’ denotes ‘an
exegetical methodology characterized by non-grammatical-historical interpretations
that often read OT words or phrases in new contexts drawn from other portions of
divine revelation’. See Pickup, ‘New Testament Interpretation’, p. 355, n. 10.
184 gert kwakkel

4 Evaluation

Sections 2 and 3 have made it clear that evangelical interpreters

from the Netherlands and the United States have proposed divergent
solutions to the problem of the relationship between Matt 2:15 and
Hos 11:1. A detailed discussion of all points of view would require
much more space than is available for this study. Therefore, the evalu-
ation in section 4.1 will merely consist of a number of observations
with respect to the Hebrew text of Hos 11:1 and the Greek text of
Matt 2:15.38 Persuasive points of view adduced by the authors whose
interpretations have been described in the previous sections will be
assimilated into these observations.
The purpose of these observations is to suggest a reading strategy
that can be adopted by present-day readers, including evangelicals.
The observations do not pretend to provide a historical reconstruction
of what Matthew may have done, for that would require a thorough
analysis of the exegetical methods of his days, which goes beyond the
limits of this study.

4.1 Observations on Hos 11:1 and Matt 2:15

1. In Hos 11:1b, ‫ ְּבנִ י‬, ‘my son’, obviously refers to the people of Israel.
This can be inferred not only from ‫ ִּכי נַ ַער יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬, ‘when Israel was
a child’, in the parallel line 1a, but also from the description of the
people’s behaviour in vv. 2–4. The book of Hosea does not present
any indication that the Messiah or another representative figure is
meant.
2. In vv. 2–4 the people of Israel or Ephraim are indicted for the apos-
tasy they displayed in reaction to Yhwh’s loving actions mentioned
in vv. 1, 3a, 4. Accordingly, the Qatal ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ ָק ָר‬, ‘I called’, in v. 1b
refers to a past action of Yhwh, that is, the exodus from Egypt.
3. The particular idiom used should not remain unnoticed. The text
does not have a verb that often occurs in connection with the exo-
dus, such as ‫ יצא‬Hiphil, ‘to lead out’, or ‫ עלה‬Hiphil, ‘to bring up’,
but ‫ קרא‬Qal, ‘to call’. This verb recurs at the beginning of v. 2.

38
The discussion will be based on the Hebrew text of Hos 11:1, because Matthew’s
reading in Greek agrees with the Masoretic Text as opposed to the Septuagint. For a
discussion of the textual data, see, e.g., Maarten J.J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old
Testament Text of the Evangelist (BEThL 173; Leuven, 2004), pp. 133–142.
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 185

Although the interpretation of this verse is problematic, the recur-

rence of the verb indicates that the idiom of v. 1b has been chosen
within the context of the purpose of Yhwh’s calling his son out of
Egypt, that is, that he would live with the people of Israel in a rela-
tionship of mutual love, as between parent and child.39
4. Hos 11:2–3a shows that this purpose has not been attained thus
far, in spite of Yhwh’s persistent parental care. Consequently,
v. 5 announces that the Israelites shall be forced to return to Egypt,
either literally or figuratively, that is, by being subjugated by the
Assyrians.40 Verse 6 announces additional disasters that will affect
the people. Nevertheless, this will not be the end of Yhwh’s relation-
ship with his people. His heart and divine holy nature cannot afford
to give them up, as he once did in the case of Admah and Zeboiim
(vv. 8–9). As a result, sons (‫ ) ָּבנִ ים‬will come from the west, Egypt,
and Assyria, so that they may live again in their homes (vv. 10–11).
In other words, in spite of many setbacks and delays, Yhwh’s aim
in calling his son out of Egypt will finally be accomplished.41
5. In New Testament Greek ἵνα introduces final and consecutive
clauses. The purpose or consequence may be something intended
to be fulfilled later, but it may also be materializing already.42 In
Matt 1:22–23; 12:17–21; 26:56 ἵνα πληρωθῇ introduces quota-
tions of passages from the Old Testament which most probably are

39
This reminds one of Exod 4:23: ‘Let my son go that he may worship me.’ Note
that ‫ קרא‬recurs once more in Hos 11:7, a complicated verse. It is clear, however, that
there the Israelites are the subject of the verb and not the object as in v. 1b and most
probably also in v. 2a. For a discussion of the textual problems, see, e.g., Wilhelm
Rudolph, Hosea (KAT 13.1; Gütersloh, 1966), p. 209; A.A. Macintosh, Hosea (ICC;
Edinburgh, 1997), pp. 439–441.
40
On Hos 11:5, see Gert Kwakkel, ‘Exile in Hosea 9:3–6: Where and for What
Purpose?’, in Bob Becking and Dirk Human (eds.), Exile and Suffering: A Selection of
Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South
Africa OTWSA/OTSSA Pretoria August 2007 (OTS 50; Leiden, 2009), pp. 125–135.
41
As the above discussion shows, Yhwh’s preservation of his son is certainly an
important element in Hosea 11. However, the overarching topic is the journey out of
Egypt, back to Egypt, and out of Egypt once more, which Israel has to make so that
Yhwh’s purpose in calling them as his beloved son may be accomplished. Cf. also
Howard, ‘Use’, p. 325, n. 5 (as against Kaiser’s interpretation set forth in section 3.1
of this study).
42
James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek 3. Syntax (by Nigel
Turner; Edinburgh, 1963), p. 102; Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Friedrich
Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (14th ed.; Göttingen, 1976),
§§ 369, 391,5 (with n. 10); Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den
Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur (6th ed., edited by
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland; Berlin, 1988), cols. 766–767.
186 gert kwakkel

considered to be ‘fulfilled’ at the time described in the narrative.43

However, in Matt 4:14–16; 21:4–5 the ‘fulfillment’ is not the imme-
diate effect of the events that have just been recorded, but it materi-
alizes later.44 For Matt 2:15 this means that although Jesus’ return to
the land of Israel is not announced until v. 21, it may be included in
the events that produce the ‘fulfillment’ of the passage from Hosea.
In other words, Jesus’ stay in Egypt until the death of Herod was a
necessary condition of the ‘fulfillment’ of Hos 11:1 which would be
accomplished by his later return.
6. The above implies that Jesus’ return parallels Israel’s departure from
Egypt at the time of the exodus. However, it must also be noted that
Jesus’ return differs considerably from what happened in the wake
of Israel’s exodus. Jesus’ exodus did not lead to freedom and rest
in the promised land. As soon as they arrived in the land of Israel,
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus had to withdraw to the despised areas of
Galilee and Nazareth (Matt 2:22–23; cf. also 4:15–16; John 1:46;
7:52). Therefore, the possibility must be left open that a ‘fulfillment’
that lay still further ahead is intended.
7. Christian readers of Matthew will naturally identify τὸν υἱον μου,
‘my son’, in Matt 2:15 as Jesus Christ. Yet it must be realized that
Matthew had not denoted Jesus as the son of God thus far. He will
not do so until 3:17, where a voice from heaven says: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ
υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ‘This is my son, the beloved’. Consequently,
readers who are well acquainted with the Old Testament, and who
know that ‘my son’ in Hos 11:1 stands for the people of Israel,
may entertain two interpretations of ‘my son’ in Matt 2:15, namely,
Jesus and Israel.45
8. When these well-informed readers arrive at Matt 3:17, their inter-
pretation of Jesus as the true son of God is confirmed. As such
Jesus not only shares the prerogatives of the heir of King David (cf.

43
In these cases there is apparently not much difference between ἵνα πληρωθῇ and
τότε ἐπληρώθη (Matt 2:17–18; 27:9–10); cf. also ὅπως πληρωθ in Matt 8:17; 13:35.
44
The same applies to ὅπως πληρωθ in Matt 2:23.
45
Cf. France, ‘Formula-Quotations’, pp. 243–244 (reprinted in Beale, Right Doc-
trine, pp. 125–126), where he distinguishes between the surface meaning of the text
and a more sophisticated interpretation that is accessible only for readers with a fuller
knowledge of the OT. In his view, the surface meaning of Matt 2:15 is that there
is scriptural warrant for a geographical connection of Jesus with Egypt. The more
sophisticated interpretation involves typological relationships between Israel and Jesus
and between Moses and Jesus, as well as a typological interpretation of the exodus.
 ‘out of egypt i have called my son’ 187

2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7), but also those of Israel (cf. Exod 4:22–23; Hos
11:1). He is what Israel was called to be. Thereafter, Matt 4:1–11
relates that Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the
devil. When Israel was in the desert, they were tempted by God
(see Deut 8:2, 16). In spite of the difference, there is a clear paral-
lel which reveals that Jesus recapitulates aspects of Israel’s history.
Unlike Israel, he will remain faithful and thus he will do what Israel
has failed to do.46 In this way, God’s intention in calling his son
Israel out of Egypt, which was frustrated by Israel’s unfaithfulness,
will yet be brought to fruition, not only for Jesus himself but also
for God’s people. The fact that Jesus, like Israel, had to flee to Egypt
and stay there, will indeed lead to the final fulfillment of God’s plan
behind his words in Hos 11:1: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’

4.2 Consequences for Evangelical Hermeneutics

Does the discussion of Matt 2:15 and Hos 11:1 pursued thus far invite
evangelical interpreters to readjust their hermeneutics? Obviously,
one single case is not enough to change a paradigm. Nevertheless,
some points of view, which concentrate on the issue of grammatical-
historical exegesis, can be formulated for further reflection.
1. Grammatical-historical exegesis of biblical texts can well be defined
as an attempt to answer the question: what was the human author
saying to his original audience?47 As for Hos 11:1b, it is improb-
able that Hosea intended to present a predictive prophecy when he
transmitted Yhwh’s words, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’, although
he announces a future exodus in the following verses. Moreover,
interpretations that argue that Matthew has merely reproduced the
original, grammatical-historical sense of Hos 11:1b have proved to
be unconvincing. Therefore, evangelical interpreters would be well-
advised not to insist on this point.

46
Cf. also W.H. Rose, ‘Messiaanse verwachtingen in het Oude Testament:
oorsprong en ontwikkelingen in de tijd na de ballingschap’, in G.C. den Hertog
and S. Schoon (eds.), Messianisme en eindtijdverwachting bij joden en christenen
(Zoetermeer, 2006), p. 18; P.H.R. van Houwelingen, ‘Israel and the Church: Three
Models for the Relationship’, Lux Mundi 27 (2008), pp. 16–18.
47
Cf. Pickup, ‘New Testament Interpretation’, pp. 358–359. Of course, the defini-
tion of grammatical-historical exegesis could be stretched in order to include, e.g., the
canonical approach, but that would harm the clarity of the discussion.
188 gert kwakkel

2. The postscript in Hos 14:10 already makes it clear that prophetic

words also function in new circumstances, in which elements of
the original scope of the words may have become less relevant. If
so, new meanings that the prophet himself may not have foreseen
can come to light. Furthermore, the New Testament reveals that the
meaning of messages communicated through prophetic inspiration
can surpass what the prophets had grasped themselves (see John
11:51–52; 1 Pet 1:10–12). This also cautions against insisting on the
exclusive rights of grammatical-historical exegesis.
3. It is doubtful whether or not Matthew ever worried about the dis-
tinction between the intention of the divine author and that of the
human author. Yet it may be helpful to realize that for him, accord-
ing to his own words in Matt 2:15, the Lord (κύριος) was speaking
through the prophet. This may stimulate evangelical interpreters to
concentrate on what God intended to say through the words of the
prophets, and not only on the prophets’ original intentions.48
In conclusion, although historical-grammatical exegesis is an indis-
pensable tool, especially in academic work, evangelical interpreters
should not be afraid to put its value into perspective. Instead, they
can, with a good conscience, agree with H.N. Ridderbos and several
authors whose views have been set forth in sections 3.2 and 3.3 that
the word of God comprises more than what the prophets themselves
were aware of.

48
Cf. also S. Greijdanus, Heilige geschiedenis volgens de vier evangelieverhalen:
geboorte van Jezus Christus en aanvang van Zijn publieke optreden (Goes, 1951), pp.
116–117; Moo, ‘The Problems of Sensus Plenior’, p. 210; Enns, Inspiration and Incar-
nation, p. 134.
 Daniel’s four kingDoms in the syriac traDition

Wido van Peursen

early christian exegetes identified the fourth kingdom in the book of Daniel
as the roman empire. according to modern scholarship, however, it origi-
nally referred to the greeks. The greek interpretation has been preserved in
syriac sources, including headings that were added in the text of Peshitta
Daniel. in addition to the historical interpretation, various syriac sources
reflect contemporanizations of Daniel’s prophecies. Thus in the seventh cen-
tury, in response to the rise of islam, a number of apocalypses were composed
which either tried to fit the arab conquest into the traditional four-kingdoms
model as a temporary trial, or interpreted the arabs as Daniel’s fourth king-
dom. The latter marked a major break with the traditional view that the
greek or the roman empire would be the last kingdom before the coming of
the antichrist. This contribution deals with the various ways in which Daniel’s
four kingdoms were understood in the syriac tradition, both in historical
interpretations and in appropriations in new contexts. it investigates how
these ways relate to the reception of Daniel’s four kingdoms in other christian
traditions, both eastern (cf. the role of Daniel in the Byzantine imperial
ideology) and Western (cf. augustine’s response to the decline and fall of
rome).

1 introduction

Throughout the centuries the book of Daniel has been a major incen-
tive for all kinds of speculation about the end of the world and people
have interpreted their own time in the light of Daniel’s visions. in
syriac christianity, the book of Daniel has been a more important
source for such speculations than the new testament book of revela-
tion, whose canonical status was disputed.
The earliest syriac documents, including the Book of the Laws of the
Countries, the Odes of Solomon, and the Acts of Thomas, do not reflect
strong apocalyptic expectations,1 but when faced with wars, such as
the fourth-century roman–sassanian conflicts, or triumphs of peoples
who did not adhere to the ‘true faith’, such as the arab victories, syriac

1
cf. ute Possekel, ‘expectation of the end in early syriac christianity’, Hugoye
11/1 (2008).
190 wido van peursen

christians interpreted these events as the beginning of the end pre-

dicted by Daniel.
in the fourth century we see such an interpretation of Daniel’s
visions in aphrahat’s Fifth Demonstration, in which the description
of the ram of Daniel 8 shifts from Darius to the Persian king of that
day, shapur ii.2 The largest collection of such contemporanizations,
however, stems from the seventh century. in response to the arab
conquests, middle-eastern christians sought to understand the events
that radically changed the political and religious landscape and made
them subordinate to non-christian rulers. They attempted to provide
an explanation that was compatible with their beliefs and their trans-
mitted history, and they struggled to give a place to the arab con-
quests in Daniel’s periodization of history into four empires.
The most important vehicle for the expression of these expectations
were not, as in the example of aphrahat, treatises or commentaries
on the biblical apocalypses, but rather new compositions that were
modelled on them: alleged revelations to saints from the past, depict-
ing how history would develop until the turmoil of the author’s own
time, and predicting divine intervention.

2 syriac apocalypses of the seventh century

The earliest apocalyptic response to the rise of islam occurs in Pseudo-

ephrem’s On the End.3 according to Pseudo-ephrem, just as the
Persian conquests earlier in the seventh century,4 the arab invasions

2
cf. craig e. morrison, ‘The reception of the Book of Daniel in aphrahat’s fifth
Demonstration, “on Wars” ’, Hugoye 7/1 (2004). cf. Phil J. Botha, ‘The reception of
Daniel chapter 2 in the commentary ascribed to ephrem the syrian church father’,
Acta Patristica et Byzantina 17 (2006), pp. 119–143, esp. 133: aphrahat ‘telescopes
history so as to be able to find answers from the dream with regard to things that were
happening in his own time’.
3
edition and translation: edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Ser-
mones III (csco 320–321, syr. 138–139; leuven, 1972), sermo 5, pp. 60–71 (text),
79–94 (translation). earlier apocalypses of the seventh-century, such as the syriac
apocalypse of Daniel and the Vision of the young Daniel or the apocalyptic sections
in the alexander literature, do not contain unequivocal references to the arab con-
quests. They have much in common with the older apocalypses such as 4 ezra and
the apocalypse of Baruch.
4
in 614 chosroes ii (603/4–625) had shocked christians by capturing Jerusalem
and thus bringing it under pagan rule. The lost territories were recovered by heraclius
in 626–627.
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 191

belonged to the wars that heralded the end of the world predicted by
christ in the synoptic apocalypse (cf. matt 24:7).5
as time proceeded, however, the arab conquests appeared to be
more permanent than the Persian invasions and the developments of
the seventh century required a reshaping of the apocalyptic expecta-
tions. in the late 680s, in the last years of the second arab civil War
(680–691 ad), John of Phenek’s summary of the history of the world
(Rish Melle)6 predicted that the arab rule would come to an end due
to internal struggles, after which the eschatological peoples would
come.7
after the restoration of the ummayad power, the expectation that
internal struggle would put an end to the arab rule appeared to be
idle. apocalypses that were composed in the early 690s, such as the
apocalypse of Pseudo-methodius (691/692 ad)8 and the edessene
apocalypse (also 691/692),9 developed another scenario for the end
of the arab rule, namely, that the Byzantine emperor would put an
end to it and restore the former political and religious situation in the
middle east.10 at the end of seventh century, the building of the Dome

5
see g.J. reinink, ‘alexander the great in seventh-century syriac “apocalyp-
tic” texts’, Byzantinorossica 2 (2003), pp. 150–178, esp. 169–170 (= idem, Syriac
Christianity under Late Sasanian and Early Islamic Rule [csts; aldershot, 2005], Vi).
6
unlike the other seventh-century syriac apocalypses, this text has an east-syriac
origin.
7
cf. also reinink, ‘Paideia: god’s Design in World history according to the
east syrian monk John bar Penkaye’, in e. kooper (ed.), The Medieval Chronicle 2.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle, Drieber-
gen/Utrecht July 1999 (amsterdam–new york, 2002), pp. 190–198 (= idem, Syriac
Christianity, Vii).
8
cf. reinink, Die Syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius (csco 540–541, syr.
220–221; leuven, 1993), ii (541), pp. xii–xxv.
9
shortly after and influenced by Pseudo-methodius; see reinink, ‘Der edesseni-
sche “Pseudo-methodius” ’.
10
cf. reinink, ‘Der edessenische “Pseudo-methodius” ’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83
(1990), pp. 31–45, esp. 44 (= idem, Syriac Christianity, X); idem, ‘Pseudo-methodius
und die legende vom römischen endkaiser’, in W. Verbeke, D. Verhelst, and
a. Welkenhuysen (eds.), The Use and Abuse of Escatology in the Middle Ages (mediae-
valia lovaniensia 1/15; leuven, 1988), pp. 82–111, esp. 103 (= idem, Syriac Christianity,
Viii); idem, ‘The romance of Julian the apostate, as a source for seventh century
syriac apocalypses’, in Pierre canivet and Jean-Paul rey-coquais (eds.), La Syrie
de Byzance à l’Islam. VII–VIIe siècles: Actes du Colloque international Lyon—Maison
de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Paris—Institut du Monde Arabe, 11–15 September 1990
(Damas, 1992), pp. 75–86, esp. 80–81 (= idem, Syriac Christianity, Xi). The expecta-
tion of a Byzantine-arab war was strengthened by the fact that in 691/2 the peace
treaty between Justinian ii and abd al-malik of aD 688 was broken as a result of fresh
hostilities between the arabs and the Byzantines.
192 wido van peursen

of the rock on the site of the Jewish temple (691 ad),11 tax reforms
that disadvantaged non-muslims, and a increased self-awareness of
the muslims rulers, which, according to the syriac sources, resulted in
a haughty and contemptuous attitude towards the christians,12 inten-
sified the highly wrought apocalyptic expectations.
shortly after Pseudo-methodius, the author of the gospel of the
twelve apostles (694 ad?) developed another scenario of the end. The
ummayad power was so firmly established that there was no hope
left that a Byzantine emperor would conquer the muslims. instead,
the author expected that first the umayyad empire would come to
its end through internal conflicts and that then, at the end, a ‘man
from the north’—rather than the Byzantine emperor from the West—
would rise.
since the ummayad power was now so well-established, the author
of the gospel of the twelve apostles took another drastic step in his
interpretation of history. for centuries christians had interpreted
Daniel’s fourth kingdom as either the greeks or the romans (see
below). Pseudo-methodius still tried to fit the arab conquest as a tem-
porary trial into this traditional model. The author of the gospel of the
twelve apostles, however, could no longer regard the arab rule as an
intermezzo and made it the fourth and final kingdom.13
By substituting the intervention of the Byzantine emperor in the
next arab-Byzantine war for a more shadowy and remote ‘king of the
north’ and by interpreting the arabs as Daniel’s fourth kingdom, and
hence accepting the arab rule as something that was more enduring
than had been anticipated, the gospel of the twelve apostle preludes

11
cf. reinink, ‘early christian reactions to the Building of the Dome of the rock
in Jerusalem’, Xristianskij Vostok 2/8 (2001), pp. 227–241 [= idem, Syriac Christianity,
Xii]; idem, ‘The romance of Julian the apostate’, p. 79.
12
reinink, ‘alexander the great’, pp. 172–173.
13
han J.W. Drijvers, ‘The gospel of the twelve apostles: a syriac apocalypse from
the early islamic Period’, in averil cameron and lawrence i. conrad (eds.), The Byz-
antine and Early Islamic Near East 1. Problems in the Literary Source Material (studies
in late antiquity and early islam 1; Princeton, 1992), pp. 189–213; idem, ‘christians,
Jews and muslims in northern syria in early islamic times: The gospel of the twelve
apostles and related sources’, in canivet and rey-coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance
à l’Islam, pp. 67–74. This interpretation of the fourth kingdom is also found in Jewish
sources (cf. h.h. rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book
of Daniel: A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories [cardiff, 1935], pp. 80–81),
including the colophon of the codex leningradensis (richard a. taylor, personal
communication, august 2010).
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 193

the end of the tense apocalyptic expectations reflected in the earlier

apocalypses. it shows a transition by which the expectation of the
immediate end, in which contemporaneous events and persons fig-
ured prominently, was replaced by some less concrete expectations for
a more remote future period.14

3 later Developments

in the eighth century, when muslim rule was well established, apoca-
lyptic expectations faded and a new orientation of the christian popu-
lations towards the arab government was needed:
The problem of the arab authority that manifested itself by very concrete
measures as the religion of the conquerors, superior to christianity, was
now to be solved on the level of theological apology, which should dem-
onstrate that it would be a mistake to believe that the political superior-
ity of the arabs implied religious superiority.15
an example of the literature that was composed under these condi-
tions is The Disputation between a Monk of the Monastery of Beth Hale
and an Arab Notable, the oldest known nestorian christian-muslim
disputation, written in ca. 720.16 The author of this dispute17 did not
expect a military solution to the hardships that the christians were
enduring, but rather considered them as the way that god chastises
his people in this ephemiral life.
it is beyond the scope of this article to deal with the various ways
in which syriac christian authors responded to the challenges that
emerged from the confrontation with islam after the initial apocalyptic

14
cf. Drijvers ‘christians, Jews and muslims’, p. 73; cf. ibid., p. 74: ‘The Gospel of
the Twelve Apostles marks a transition between a period of intense apocalyptic hope
and a more stable though more negative situation in which the various christian
churches, the Jews and the muslims had to deal with each other and find their identi-
ties and boundaries.’
15
Thus reinink, ‘The Beginnings of syriac apologetic literature in response to
islam’, OrChr 77 (1993), pp. 165–187, esp. 185 (= idem, Syriac Christianity, Xiii).
16
cf. sidney h. griffith, ‘Disputing with islam in syriac: The case of the monk of
Bêt hãlê and a muslim emir’, Hugoye 3/1 (2001).
17
it is doubtful that it reflects an actual muslim-christian disputation. rather,
these disputations were literary fictions written by christians for the members of their
own communities for the purpose of warding off the increasing danger of apostasy
(reinink, ‘syriac apologetic literature’, p. 186).
194 wido van peursen

reactions. syriac christians had to reflect on god (in response to

muslim objections against the doctrine of the trinity), authority (now
that the christians were subjected by non-christian rulers), scripture
(in response to the muslims’ rebuke that the Jews and the christians
had distorted their holy books), and history (since the apocalyptic
expectations were not fulfilled). however, it is worthwhile to mention
these developments because the new directions in syriac literature in
the eighth century highlight the apocalyptic writings of the seventh
century as the representatives of the very first phase of syriac christian
responses to islam.
two additional observations can be made. first, it should be noted
that the developments in the syriac responses to the rise of islam do
not stand in isolation. in the Byzantine empire, too, the initial apoc-
alyptic responses to the rise of islam, reflected in, for example, the
christmas sermon of Patriarch sophronius of Jerusalem (Patriarch
634–638) and the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati (634),18 were sup-
plemented by apologetic disputations, including the works of John of
Damascus, the earliest Byzantine apologist against islam.
second, after the eighth century apocalypticism did not die out com-
pletely, but reemerged in tumultuous periods. Thus the apocalyptic
sections in the syriac Bahira legend reflect the 9th-century upheavals
in the abbasid caliphat.19 in later times we see a reemergence of apoca-
lypticism in response to the failures of the crusades and the decrease
of christian power in the middle east,20 the fall of constantinople,
and the rise of the mongols.21

18
cf. Walter emil kaegi, ‘initial Byzantine reactions to the arab conquest’, Church
History 38/2 (1969), pp. 139–149, esp. 139–152.
19
Barbara roggema, The Legend of Sergius Bahīrā: Eastern Christian Apologetics
and Apocalyptic in Response to Islam (The history of christian-muslim relations 9;
leiden, 2009).
20
Bernard mcginn, Visions of the End. Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages
(new york, 1979), p. 149: ‘conflict between christendom and islam remained a nur-
turing ground for the production of apocalyptic texts during the thirteenth century.
as the reality of christian power grew more tenuous in the east, and as the crusading
expeditions became more desperate and less successful, men increasingly turned to
prophecies of the imminent end of moslem rule for solace and hope.’
21
Bert roest, ‘franciscaanse apocalyptiek’, in Jan Willem van henten and osger
mellink (eds.), Visioenen aangaande het einde: apocalyptische geschriften en bewegin-
gen door de eeuwen heen (Zoetermeer, 1998), pp. 189–220, esp. 204–205.
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 195

4 historical interpretations in Peshitta manuscripts

and commentaries

side by side with the contemporanizations of Daniel’s visions in the

sources discussed above, in which Daniel’s visions were applied to per-
sons and events of the era, an historical interpretation was transmit-
ted as well. This interpretation regarded Daniel’s visions as related to
events that took place in the past, referring to the Babylonian empire
and its successors. important witnesses to this historical interpretation
are rubrics and additions in the Peshitta manuscripts in chapters 7–8
(present in the earliest available manuscripts from the 6th century) and
chapter 11 (in manuscripts from the 10th century onwards),22 such as
the headings ‘Darius the mede’ (8:2, 19) and ‘Death of alexander, the
son of Philip’ (8:8), or the addition ‘alexander the first, the son of
Philip’ following ‘then a mighty king will appear’ (11:3).23
it is debated whether the headings in chapters 7–8 were part of
the original second-century translation24 or later additions.25 Van der
kooij thinks that the latter is the case because of the interpretation they
reflect. in taking the fourth beast in Daniel 7 as referring to the greeks
(which we will call ‘the greek interpretation’), the rubrics reflect an
interpretation that strikingly differs from the majority view among
early Jews and christians, who considered it a reference to the roman
empire (henceforth: ‘the roman interpretation’, see table 1).26 for this

22
see the introduction to the text of Daniel in the leiden Peshitta edition: ‘Daniel’,
in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version iii, 4. Dodeka-
propheton—Daniel-Bel-Draco (prepared by the Peshitta institute on the basis of mate-
rial collected and studied by Th. sprey; leiden, 1980).
23
cf. also konrad D. Jenner, ‘The unit Delimitation in the syriac text of Daniel
and its consequences for the interpretation’, in m.c.a. korpel and J.m. oesch (eds.),
Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope 1; assen, 2000),
pp. 105–129 (on delimitation markers), and idem, ‘syriac Daniel’, in John J. collins
and Peter W. flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (2 vols.;
leiden, 2002), ii, pp. 608–637 (on the selection of passages for liturgical use).
24
Thus abraham george kallarakkal, The Peshitto Version of Daniel—A Compari-
son with the Massoretic Text, the Septuagint and Theodotion (PhD diss., hamburg
university, 1973).
25
Thus arie van der kooij, ‘The four kingdoms in Peshitta Daniel 7 in the light
of the early history of interpretation’, in r.B. ter haar romeny (ed.), The Peshitta: Its
Use in Literature and Liturgy (mPil 15; leiden, 2006), pp. 123–129.
26
Within both interpretations there is variation. There are, for example, also repre-
sentatives of the greek interpretation that take the medes and the Persians together.
see below.
 196 wido van peursen

table 1: The greek interpretation and the roman interpretation

of Daniel’s four kingdoms
Daniel 7 ‘greek interpretation’ ‘roman interpretation’27
1 lion Babylonians Babylonians
2 Bear medes medes and Persians
3 leopard Persians greeks
4 terrifying animal with ten horns greeks romans

reason Van der kooij thinks that they were added somewhere in the
fifth century, after the fourth-century—since aphrahat, who identifies
the fourth kingdom as the romans, apparently was not familiar with
them—but before the sixth century—because all available manuscripts
from the sixth century onwards contain them. according to Van der
kooij the greek interpretation they reflect originated in Porphyrius’
anti-christian polemics, about which we are well informed because
Jerome goes to much trouble to refute Porphyrius’ claims; from there
they entered the syriac christian tradition.
although Van der kooij is right that the greek interpretation dif-
fers from the majority view attested in christian sources, we should
be aware that in the syriac tradition the greek interpretation is pre-
dominant. it occurs not only in all extant Peshitta manuscripts (6th
cent. and later), but also in Pseudo-ephrem’s commentary on Daniel
in the Catena Severi (9th cent.?),28 as well as in the commentaries by

27
But eusebius has assyria (!), Persia, macedonia, and rome. This may reflect the
influence of pagan sources which indeed do contain models of the four kingdoms
starting with assyria (see below, section 5). it is rather the substitution of assyria by
Babylonia in Daniel which is a secondary development; cf. Joseph Ward swain, ‘The
Theory of the four monarchies opposition history under the roman empire’, Clas-
sical Philology 35 (1940), pp. 1–21, esp. 19.
28
see Botha, ‘The reception of Daniel chapter 2’; idem, ‘The relevance of the Book
of Daniel in fourth-century christianity according to the commentary ascribed to
ephrem the syrian’, in katharina Bracht and David s. du toit (eds.), Die Geschichte
der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum und Islam: Studien zur Kommen-
tierung des Danielbuches in Literatur und Kunst (BZaW 371; Berlin–new york, 2007),
pp. 99–122. We disagree with Botha regarding the attribution of this commentary
to ephrem ‘or one of his students’; cf. Bas ter haar romeny, ‘ephrem and Jacob of
edessa in the commentary of the monk severus’, in george a. kiraz (ed.), Malphono
w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock (gorgias eastern christian
studies 3; Piscataway, nJ, 2008), pp. 535–557; idem, ‘The Peshitta of isaiah: evidence
from the syriac fathers’, in W.Th. van Peursen and r.B. ter haar romeny (eds.), Text,
Translation, and Tradition: Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 197

ishodad (9th cent.) and Bar hebraeus (13th cent.). it is also implied in
the Syriac Alexander Legend (629/30),29 the Alexander Poem (between
630 and 640?),30 and the apocalypse of Pseudo-methodius (691/692
ad).31 according to Pseudo-methodius, alexander and the Byzantine
emperor were genealogically related through a common ethiopian
ancestry,32 which reflects a combination of the greek and the roman
interpretation. Van der kooij’s hypothesis can only be maintained if
we assume that all these sources in the end go back to the allegedly
secondary additions in the Peshitta manuscripts, in which, according
to Van der kooij, the greek interpretation originated due to the influ-
ence of Porphyrius.
even more serious challenges to Van der kooij’s interpretation,
however, are the attestations of the greek interpretation in non-syriac
sources, including the Topography of the sixth-century Byzantine
author cosmas indicopleustes,33 as well as some indications that the
greek interpretation was also known to earlier authors, even if they
advocate the roman interpretation. Thus according to h.h. rowley,
4 ezra 12:12,34 ‘But is was not explained to him as i now explain it to
you’, immediately following the identification of the fourth beast as

Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (mPil 14;
leiden, 2006), pp. 149–164, esp. 154–159.
29
cf. reinink, ‘alexander the great’, p. 162; idem, ‘Die entstehung der syrischen
alexanderlegende als politisch-religiöse Propagandaschrift für herakleios’ kirchen-
politik’, in c. laga, J.a. munitiz, and l. Van rompay (eds.), After Chalcedon: Studies
in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his Seventieth
Birthday (ola 18; leuven, 1985), pp. 263–181, esp. 273, 276 (= idem, Syriac Chris-
tianity, iii).
30
cf. reinink, ‘alexander the great’, p. 162; idem, Das syrische Alexanderlied: Die
drei Rezensionen (csco 454–455; syr. 195–196; 1983), ii, pp. 15, 131.
31
on Pseudo-methodius’ depiction of the last emperor as an Alexander redivivus
see reinink, ‘Ps.-methodius: a concept of history in response to the rise of islam’,
in cameron and conrad, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, pp. 149–187, esp.
165–166 (= idem, Syriac Christianity, iX); idem, Pseudo-Methodius, ii (csco 541),
pp. 65–66 (annotation to translation of Xiii,16).
32
reinink, ‘concept of history’, p. 165; idem, Pseudo-Methodius, ii (csco 541),
pp. xxvi–xvii.
33
gerhard Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie: Die Periodisierung der
Weltgeschichte in den vier Grossreichen (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem Tausenjährigen
Friedensreiche (Apok. 20): Eine Motivgeschichtlichte Untersuchung (münchener uni-
versitäts-schriften. reihe der philosopischen fakultät 9; münchen, 1972), pp. 16–19.
cosmas considered rome as the fifth kingdom, see below.
34
see below, section 5, on 4 ezra as an early Jewish witness to the roman inter-
pretation.
198 wido van peursen

the romans, ‘admits with clear reference to the greek view that the
roman is not the original interpretation’.35
The situation with the classic fourth-century authors aphrahat and
ephrem is somewhat unequivocal. aphrahat advocates the roman
interpretation, but his complex argumentation in Dem. 5.19–20 seems
to reflect acquaintance with the greek interpretation. after identify-
ing the third beast as alexander the great he says that ‘the third and
the fourth were one’ and explains that the fourth beast includes both
the greek kings after alexander, including antiochus iV whom he
identifies as the little horn that arose from the fourth beast in Dan 7:8,
and the roman kings from augustus to the the third-century emperor
Philip, who was reputed to have been the first christian emperor.36
ephrem does not dwell at length on the identification of the four king-
doms in Daniel. however, his remark that the feet of the statute in
Daniel 2 are egypt,37 suggests that he, too, identified the fourth king-
dom as the Diadochi.38
another challenge to the view that the interpretation reflected in the
headings in the Peshitta manuscripts in the end go back to Porphyrius
is an obvious difference between Porphyrius and the Peshitta manu-
scripts regarding the identification of the second to the fourth king-
doms, as shown in table 2.

table 2: Differences between the Peshitta manuscripts and Porphyrius

Peshitta manuscripts Porphyrius
1 Babylonians Babylonians
2 medes medes and Persians
3 Persians greek kingdom of alexander
4 greeks alexander’s successors

35
rowley, Darius the Mede, 70.
36
cf. Van der kooij, ‘four kingdoms’, p. 126.
37
edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena i (csco
218–219), 34,6.
38
Thus harald suermann, ‘einige Bemerkungen zu syrischen apokalypsen des 7.
Jhds’, in h.J.W. Drijvers et al. (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984 (oca 10; rome
1987), pp. 327–335, esp. 331.
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 199

in summary, taking into account the supremacy of the roman inter-

pretation in the christian exegetical traditions, we agree with Van der
kooij that the dominance of the greek interpretation in the syriac
tradition is remarkable. however, because of its widespread diffu-
sion in all Peshitta manuscripts and in the extant syriac literature, the
acquaintance with the greek interpretation that seems to be implied
in aphrahat’s Demonstrations, and perhaps also in 4 ezra and one of
ephrem’s hymns, and the differences between the identification of the
four kingdoms in the Peshitta manuscripts and that in Porphyrius’
interpretation, we consider a direct dependence of the former upon
the latter unlikely.

5 the identification of Daniel’s fourth kingdom

in the christian tradition

since the identification of Daniel’s fourth kingdom as either the greeks

or the romans plays an important role in understanding the nature
of the syriac interpretation of Daniel, it is worthwhile to have a closer
look at it. The scheme of four kingdoms in the book of Daniel was bor-
rowed from the political propaganda of the hellenistic near east.39 in
Daniel, as in its near eastern parallels, it is employed to represent the
increasingly wicked successive empires of the world up to the worst,
final kingdom, which will be followed by a divine intervention in one
way or another. Thus in the sybilline oracles, where the list of empires
consists of (1) assyrians; (2) medes; (3) Persians; (4) macedonians
(sib. or. 4:49–101), the scheme of four kingdoms is used to express
the expectation of ‘a fifth empire from which the greeks would be
expelled, and under which the oriental system would return’.40 in
Daniel the scheme is used to describe the hellenistic rulers, especially
antiochus iV (175–164 bc), as the climax of wickedness, expecting an
imminent divine intervention.

39
for more details see swain, ‘four monarchies’; John J. collins, The Apocalyptic
Imagination. An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (new york, 1984),
pp. 74–78.
40
swain, ‘four monarchies’, p. 9.
200 wido van peursen

in the roman period the four-kingdoms scheme was rearranged in

such a way as to make rome the fourth empire. in the roman propa-
ganda, the new schedule was used to present rome as the successor of
the great empires of the past. Thus for aemilius sura,41 who wrote in
the early second century bc, the identification of rome as the fourth
kingdom42 serves to support the definitive status of the roman rule.
at the same time the four-kingdom model continued to be used as
a means to describe the fourth kingdom, now rome, as the culmina-
tion of evil. With this perspective, the new scheme was also applied
to Daniel, whose descriptions of the fourth empire were now taken as
prophecies about rome. The roman interpretation became the opinio
communis in Jewish sources,43 including Josephus, 4 ezra,44 2 Baruch,
targum Jonathan to the Prophets (cf., e.g., targum habakuk 3:17), and
targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch,45 and among christian
interpreters, starting with hyppolyte of rome.46 in this scheme, rome
was the final kingdom, after which a new, fifth kingdom was expected.
in christian sources different answers were given to the question as
to the start of the fifth kingdom, whether it should be identified as the
church on earth, either starting under augustus (thus hyppolyte)47 or
with constantine (thus eusebius of caesarea),48 or whether it would
start at christ’s second coming.49

41
cf. swain, ‘four monarchies’, 2.
42
following the sequence of (1) assyrians, (2) medes, (3) Persians, which we also
find in ctesias and herodotus and as the first three empires in the sibylline oracles;
cf. collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 74.
43
cf. Van der kooij, ‘four kingdoms’, 124–125.
44
But see above, section 4, on the view that 4 ezra admits that the roman inter-
pretation is not the original one.
45
cf. uwe glessmer, ‘Die “vier reiche” aus Daniel in der targumischen literatur’,
in collins and flint, The Book of Daniel (note 23), ii, pp. 468–489.
46
see, e.g., rowley, Darius the Mede, pp. 74–75; Van der kooij, ‘four kingdoms’,
p. 125; cf. swain, ‘four monarchies’, p. 18: ‘The early christians were of course the
most determined opponents of the roman empire, and eventually they gathered into
their system nearly all the criticisms of that empire that were current at the time.’
47
cf. Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie, p. 10 (about the roman empire):
‘als ökumenisches reich steht es jedoch einem zweiten, in seinem machtbereich unter
kaiser augustus neuentstandenden Weltreich entgegen: den christen.’
48
cf. Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie, pp. 11–12.
49
on the fifth kingdom in the syriac tradition see robert murray, Symbols of
Church and Kingdom (cambridge, 1975), pp. 239–247.
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 201

6 rome: the culmination of evil or the final

god-Willed empire?

for hyppolite and the Jewish interpreters mentioned above, the

identification of the fourth kingdom implied that rome embodied
the culmination of evil. according to hyppolyte and many authors
after him, the antichrist would be a roman emperor. however, after
constantine’s conversion to christianity, tension arose because such a
view of rome and its emperor became increasingly difficult to main-
tain. it had to give way to a more positive judgement of rome. Thus
for aphrahat, rome functioned as the protector of the christians:
for the time being, however, the romans hold it in trust for christ,
and therefore god preserves it and will not let their enemies (the
Persians, whom aphrahat prudently does not name) overcome them (. . .)
aphrahat wants the romans to win in the war which is just beginning,
simply because he wants relief for the church.50
a similar understanding of rome as the protector of the christians is
reflected in the Julian Romance, the Kreuzesauffindungslegende, and
the Alexander Poem. This understanding had an important rhetori-
cal effect. Whereas in the previous interpretations the four-kingdoms
model had functioned as an instrument to criticize the worldly pow-
ers, the reinterpretations that arose were used as a confirmation of
those who were in power, regardless of whether rome was identified
as the fourth kingdom but detached from its negative connotation, or
whether the new period which begun with constantine was considered
as the fifth kingdom overruling the fourth kingdom.51 This is especially
true for the Byzantines, to whom the identification of their empire as
the kingdom of god became a prominent part of their ideology:
in diesem Punkt scheint nur das spätere Byzanz der größten einsei-
tigkeit verfallen zu sein, indem es die rom-kritische haltung eines
hyppolytos, einiger jüdischer apokryphen sowie der sibyllinischen
orakel (vorchristlicher Bestand) nicht mehr auf Byzanz anzuwenden
wagte. mochte dieses mißtrauen gegenüber der herrschenden macht
auch tendenziös aus augenblicklicher Bedrängnis geweckt worden sein,
so führte seine bewußte eliminierung theoretisch zur unvermeidlichen

50
murray, Symbols, p. 242.
51
cf. Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie, p. 17, on the understanding of
the roman/christian empire in cosmas’ Topography.
202 wido van peursen

ideologisierung der byzantinischen reichseschatologie und praktisch zur

zunehmenden Diskrepanz zwischen anspruch und realität des byzanti-
nischen staatswesens.52
in syriac christianity the imperial ideology had not gone as far as it
had in Byzantium, but elements of it can be found in the portrayal of
the roman/Byzantine emperor as the protector of the christians and
the defender of the christian faith in response to the threat of non-
christian conquerors, be it the sassanians in the time of aphrahat or
the arabs in the seventh century. however, the syriac attitudes towards
the Byzantines were not uniform, and among the West-syrians, who
previously had lived under Byzantine rule, we also encounter the
view that the arab conquests were a punishment for the Byzantine/
chalcedonian arrogance and the persecution of the monophysites
under heraclius.
in the West-roman empire, a completely different voice was heard.
The decline and fall of rome in the early fifth century incited augustine
to write his City of God, in which he argued that the roman empire,
even though officially christian, was a worldly kingdom not to be con-
fused with the heavenly city of god. The confidence that god protects
and favours an empire as a result of the piety of its emperor and its
people, which persisted in the Byzantine empire long after the fifth
century, could not be maintained in the West. The contrasting for-
tunes of West and the east in the fifth century engendered two oppos-
ing attitudes to the roman and Byzantine empires.53

7 reinterpretations of Daniel’s four kingdoms

in response to the arab conquests

The syriac sources written in response to the arab conquests reflect

various attempts to fit the new state of affairs into an already accepted
conceptual framework,54 because the arab conquests challenged the
traditional interpretation according to which the greek or roman
kingdom is the last kingdom before the coming of the antichrist.

52
Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie, p. 71.
53
kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of Rome (Princeton, nJ, 1968), pp. 206, 210.
54
Thus s.P. Brock, ‘syriac Views on emergent islam’, in g.h.a. Juynboll (ed.), Stud-
ies on the First Century of Islamic Society (Papers on islamic history 5; carbondale,
1982), pp. 9–21, esp. 14 (= idem, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity [csts; london
1984], Viii).
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 203

on the one hand, we see attempts to maintain this traditional inter-

pretation and to fit contemporaneous events, including the rise of
islam, into this scheme. Thus Pseudo-methodius goes to great lengths
to support the traditional interpretation and to take the fourth king-
dom as the greeks/romans/Byzantines and to argue that the arabs are
just a temporary trial.55
on the other hand, we see reinterpretations of the Danielic scheme
of four kingdoms. The gospel of the twelve apostles abandons the
traditional scheme, interpreting the fourth kingdom as the arabs. in
the same period, the armenian author sebeos interpreted the four
kingdoms as being related to the four quarters of the earth.56 he also
considered the arabs as Daniel’s fourth kingdom. These reinterpreta-
tions are given in table 3.

table 3: reinterpretations of Daniel’s four kingdoms

sebeos (armenian) gospel of the twelve apostles
1 West: greeks romans57
2 east: sassanians sassanians
3 north: gog and magog medes
4 south: ishmaelites arabs

8 conclusions

in this survey of the history of interpretation of Daniel’s four kingdoms

in the syriac tradition, we have seen different processes at work. first,
we see various contemporarizations of Daniel’s visions in response to
current events. a clear example is Daniel’s fourth kingdom: in Daniel
it functions as the culmination of evil, and later interpreters identified
it as the evil powers they had to face in their own time. They discerned
the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies in their day and age, and con-
cluded that they lived in the last days, expecting an imminent end.

55
cf. reinink, ‘concept of history’, pp. 154, 158.
56
cf. reinink, ‘concept of history’, p. 158.
57
Beginning with constantine the great.
204 wido van peursen

second, we see that the tense apocalyptic expectations could last

over decades, but that new circumstances required new responses.
This happened, for example, at the beginning of the eighth century,
when apocalypticism faded and was replaced by a rethinking of the
fundamentals of the christian religion and a concern for the preser-
vation of its tradition. The arab dominion was no longer taken as a
sign of the imminent end, but rather as a chastisement of god’s people
during this earthly life.
Third, side by side with the reapplication of the visions to current
events, which is attested, for example, in the seventh-century apoca-
lypses, we see an awareness of the historical interpretation of Daniel’s
visions. The Peshitta manuscripts and syriac commentaries took
Daniel’s four kingdoms as references to the kingdoms of the world,
from the Babylonians up to the greeks, an interpretation that, unlike
the roman interpretation which received much more support among
christian interpreters, basically agrees with the insights of modern
scholarship.
fourth, the traditional interpretation was reshaped by historical
events, regardless of whether the fourth kingdom was identified as the
greeks or with the romans. The radical changes in the roman empire
starting with constantine made it hard to maintain that rome was
the culmination of evil, and the rise of new powers, such as the arab
rulers, challenged the view that rome was the god-willed final empire
before the coming of the antichrist.
The updating and reshaping of biblical interpretation in response
to contemporaneous events relate not only to the interpretation of
history, but also to the very question of the nature of the kingdom
of god. in this respect the West-romans and the Byzantines parted
ways. to the first, the disasters that befell rome prevented them from
a straightforward identification of the christian roman empire on
earth as the kingdom of god. The latter employed the model that took
the romans as the final god-willed empire to understand the divine
vocation of the Byzantine emperor in this world.

Postscriptum: hermeneutical and

Biblical-theological implications

as a staff member of a so-called duplex ordo university, i usually refrain

from adding hermeneutical or theological notes to my philological and
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 205

literary investigations. since, however, eep talstra has always attached

great importance to their integration into the study of biblical and
other ancient sources, i will end this contribution with some herme-
neutical and theological reflections.
in our survey we have seen an ongoing interaction between bibli-
cal interpretation and theological reflection on the one hand, and the
interpreter’s historical circumstances on the other, be it, for example,
in the tense apocalyptic expectations enhanced by the arab conquests,
or in the reflection on the way god acts in history in a period when
the arab dominion was well-established. it should be recalled that
the mechanisms that we see at work here—tense apocalyptic expec-
tations of divine intervention in the face of disasters that befall the
pious, and the recasting of the past when it appears that the immedi-
ate end did not come as expected—are recognizable in other periods
and contexts as well. in the realm of biblical studies we could think
of the expectation of a divine intervention in response to the impious
acts of antiochus iV reflected in Daniel and the reinterpretation of
the same events as chastisement in 2 maccabees 6:12–17. likewise,
in the new testament we see a transformation of the Naherwartung of
the earliest christians in, for example, luke–acts, in which a concept
of history was developed ‘that placed Jesus at the center of time and
that potentially, at least, was open to an indefinite postponement of
christ’s return’.58
other examples of this interaction between biblical interpretation
and the interpreter’s historical circumstances are the different views
on the roman/Byzantine empire and on the relationship between the
kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of god in the east (cf. the
Byzantine imperial ideology) and the West (cf. augustine’s reaction to
the fall of rome), discussed in section 6.
We have also seen how historical interpretations and contempo-
ranizations can go side by side. to put it differently: interpreting the
Bible in its own historical context and appropriating it in new contexts
are not two mutually exclusive approaches to the scriptures. as h.h.
rowley put it more than 75 years ago:

58
cf. Bernard mcginn, ‘The apocalyptic imagination in the middle ages’, in Jan
a. aertsen and martin Pickavé (eds.), Ende und Vollendung: Eschatologische Perspek-
tiven im Mittelalter (miscellanea mediaevalia 26; Berlin–new york, 2002), pp. 79–94,
esp. 82.
206 wido van peursen

When, therefore, we read the book of Daniel no longer as a chart of the

ages, but as the work of a man who saw the world in the light of what he
had seen of god, and whose interest was essentially and wholly religious,
we are free to feel its religious power, and to understand its message. to
the heroes of the maccabean days it gave encouragement and hope. and
beyond that it enshrined abiding principles which are as valid in our day
as in those. it tells us that every force which elevates itself against god
shall be broken, and that they who are humbly loyal to him, and who
find in his fellowship their strength, shall be able to laugh at the lions,
for theirs shall be the kingdom.59
in this approach Daniel informs us not only about the anti-hellenistic
sentiments of suppressed Jews in the second century bc, but also gives
us insight into the way in which kingdoms rise and fall, a movement
which oswald spengler has described strikingly, but also somewhat
dogmatically in his Der Untergang des Abendlandes,60 and which has
repeated itself many times after the second century bc or the seventh
century ad. What we see in Daniel, however, is not only the insight
that kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall, but also the trust that in the end
god is in control.
it is worth observing that the flexibility to discover new mean-
ings and applications of the scriptures without ignoring the histori-
cal interpretation is not an invention of modern scholarship, but that
interesting examples of it can be found throughout the syriac tradi-
tion. in addition to the co-existence of historical interpretations and
contemporanizations regarding the identification of Daniel’s four
kingdoms discussed on the previous pages, i want to draw attention
to the way in which various passages in Daniel’s visions were applied
to christ. other contributions to this volume deal with the challenges
christian interpreters face when they, on the one hand, are aware of
the historical meaning of old testament prophecies, and, on the other
hand, wish to apply them to christ, either because of the general con-
viction that in christ the old testament scriptures were fulfilled, or
because they want to do justice to the christological interpretation of

59
rowley, Darius the Mede, p. 181.
60
cf. oswald spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes: Umrisse einer morphologie
der Weltgeschichte 1. Gestalt und Wirklichkeit (münchen, 1927), p. 147: ‘Jede kultur,
jede frühzeit, jeder aufstieg und niedergang, jede ihrer innerlich notwendigen stufen
und Perioden hat eine bestimmte, immer gleiche, immer mit dem nachdruck eines
symbols wiederkehrende Dauer.’
 daniel’s four kingdoms in the syriac tradition 207

old testament passages in the new testament.61 in this respect, the

syriac interpreters showed a fascinating flexibility to combine vari-
ous interpretations. in the case of Daniel, it is interesting to see how
Pseudo-ephrem’s commentary on Daniel 2 deals with the stone that
overthrows the statue in nebuchadnezzar’s dream:
although it was delineated/imprinted (‫ )ܐܬܪܫܡܬ‬symbolically in the
house of the maccabees who subdued the kingdom of the greeks; in
truth (‫ )ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ‬it is fulfilled (‫ ) ̣ܗܗ ̇ܫܠܡܡܐ‬in the lord.62

61
see especially gert kwakkel’s contribution to the present volume on hos 11:1
and matt 2:15.
62
Botha, ‘The reception of Daniel chapter 2’, p. 123; cf. ibid., p. 120: ‘The com-
mentary does indeed explain the rock as the kingdom of the maccabees, but notes that
this is a symbol of a greater truth that would come later, namely christ.’ But see above,
footnote 28 on Botha’s ascription of this commentary to ephrem.
 THE IDENTITY OF ISRAEL’S GOD:
THE POTENTIAL OF THE SO-CALLED EXTRA-CALVINISTICUM

Cornelis van der Kooi

How can systematic theology do justice to the biblical drama of God’s fellow-
ship with mankind? Classical theology with its ideas of an eternal Council of
God has often threatened to hollow out the drama of God’s struggle with his
people. In this contribution the focus is on the so-called extra-calvinisticum
as a concept that profoundly distinguishes between the manifestations of
God’s life-giving involvement in human history and God as the origin of such
involvement. This basically soteriological concept helps (1) to understand that
we as humans in history remain recipients in the relationship with God, (2) to
do justice to the redemptive historical and dramatic perspective of the biblical
narrative, and (3) to hold on to the fact that according to the New Testament
God’s identity has been anchored in the incarnation.

1 Introduction: A Common Theological Task

Many have grumbled and much has been written about the chasm
between biblical studies and systematic theology.1 Systematic theolo-
gians claim that they have had little access to the often specialized
and detailed research of exegetes, while exegetes, in turn, consider
the work of systematic theologians to be either a product of gener-
alization or an undertaking that has little to do with the texts of the
Bible. The work of Eep Talstra is a good example of a persistent effort
to bridge this chasm. Precisely by adhering closely to the text of the
Old Testament and by tracing the current developments in the debate
concerning God and man, via the often intricate and complex history
of textual tradition, he arrives at theological questions. Exegesis for
him is ‘besides a historical, also a theological discipline’.2 Characteris-
tic of his work is his refusal to limit himself to a cultural-historical or
religious-historical explanation. In the debate that emerges from the

1
With thanks to Gerard den Hertog, Maarten Aalders, Gijsbert van den Brink, and
Jan Veenhof for their comments on an earlier version. The article was translated by
Gerrit W. Sheeres.
2
E. Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van het
Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002), p. 82.
210 cornelis van der kooi

texts, the issue is about who God is—his identity—and former and
new readers are asked to take note. The art of biblical scholarship has
a theological goal. Thus, both exegetes and dogmaticians find them-
selves in the role of being spoken to, of being addressees.3 They share
a common theological task.
Talstra’s article, ‘Exile and Pain: A Chapter from the Story of God’s
Emotions’,4 offers a good example of the attention paid to the drama
of this debate. In this article Talstra establishes that the biblical texts,
such as in Ezekiel (13:5; 20:8, 13, 21) and Trito-Isaiah (63:7–64:11),
which speak of God’s pain, wrath, and conflicting emotions, are often
dealt with by western biblical scholars within a religious-historical
context, but not without a prior ideological supposition. The issue
of God’s emotions is already excluded from playing a role.5 In this
regard, Talstra feels more affinity with the rabbinic exegesis of these
texts. In their exegesis, attention is indeed focussed on God who him-
self, when confronted with Israel’s reaction, experiences emotions
and inner conflict (for instance, consider the difficulties surrounding
Isa 63:9). Rabbinic exegesis paints an image of God who keeps his own

3
E. Talstra, ‘De exegeet als geadresseerde: over de rolverdeling rond de bijbel’, in
G.C. den Hertog and C. van der Kooi (eds.), Tussen leer en lezen: de spanning tussen
bijbelwetenschap en geloofsleer (Kampen, 2007), pp. 87–113.
4
In Bob Becking and Dirk Human (eds.), Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers
read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa
OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria August 2007 (OTS 50; Leiden, 2009), pp. 161–180.
5
The first instance that Talstra sketches is that the biblical texts about God’s pain
and inner conflict are placed in a context in which religion is a product or human
construct which makes it possible to deal with existence. A religious text becomes
the property of a person or a group and is considered as something that is produced
for the sake of that somebody or group. From this perspective to speak about God
being in conflict, or about God’s pain, is characteristic of the vocabulary of this group.
But, according to Talstra, the text is no longer able to communicate what it wants
to convey, namely, something about God himself. It is a strategy to avoid the pre-
dicament of having to appropriate the text. At the other end of the spectrum of how
to deal with these texts, according to Talstra, is the post-colonial, African reading
which approaches these texts about conflict, pain, and passion in God as possibilities
for present-day identification. Here the question of appropriation is answered quite
differently: on the basis of their own experience of oppression and pain, what do
today’s readers do with these texts that speak about God’s pain, wrath, and passion?
In this case as well human emotions and social tensions are central, and the dialogue
about God appears to lie beyond the range of vision, probably because people already
have a well-rounded image of God. In this connection Talstra asks: ‘Does an exclu-
sive focus on the history of religion (Albertz) imply a concentration on human emo-
tions and tensions in society? And does an exclusive focus on the completed Bible as
canon (Rendtorff) imply a completed picture of God too?’ Neither approach, however,
focusses on God’s emotions as part of the interaction between God and man.
 the identity of israel’s god 211

council and makes choices when faced with the conduct of his people.
In other words, through his dealings with his people, God is injured.
The texts bear witness to this drama.6

2 Drama and Causality

In this contribution I want to pose the question of how systematic the-

ology can do justice to the drama of God’s fellowship with mankind.
Was it not classical theology that often threatened to hollow out the
drama of God’s fellowship with man? How are we to picture the rela-
tionship of God to this world? Classical dogmatics resorted to the cat-
egory of the Council of God, and Christ as the eternal Word. Attempts
were made to do justice to history (historia revelationis) by making
emphatic distinctions between secondary causality and primary cau-
sality. God’s decrees are the prima causa, but this leaves intact the
responsibility and drama on the level of the secondary causality. God’s
decrees take place in the drama of the historia revelationis.7 Neverthe-
less, the question may be asked whether causality expresses the rela-
tionship of God to this world in a satisfactory fashion. The causality
concept has been greatly impoverished and is usually interpreted to
mean mechanical causality. The step to a deterministic view of the
Council of God is easily taken when God is viewed as the causa effi-
ciens. The danger is that people view the Council of God as resulting
in blueprints, as though there were a drawing that a craftsman could
follow. Then the believer is no longer the recipient, the addressee, but
rather the producer or the sender. Following C. Link I want to call
attention in this article to a theologoumenon that possibly may do jus-
tice to this drama and retain the recipient’s perspective in a consistent
manner: the so-called extra-calvinisticum.8

6
See also E. Talstra, ‘The Truth and Nothing but the Truth: Piety, Prophecy and
the Hermeneutics of Suspicion in 1 Kings 22’, in J. van Ruiten and J.C. Vos (eds.),
The Land of Israel in the Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort
(VT.S 124; Leiden, 2009), pp. 355–371, esp. 357: ‘The textual turn in biblical theol-
ogy . . . implies that topics of theology are to be regarded as present in the act of com-
munication in concrete contexts, rather than in particular religious statements and
testimonies made in the texts.’
7
See for a classical treatment of the doctrine of the divine counsel H. Bavinck,
Reformed Dogmatics 2 (Grand Rapids, 2004), pp. 341–405.
8
C. Link, ‘Das sogenannte Extra-Calvinisticum’, in idem, Prädestination und
Erwählung: Calvin-Studien (Neukirchen, 2009), pp. 145–170.
212 cornelis van der kooi

3 Christ as the Eternal Word

In the background of the extra-calvinisticum, an element from classical

Christology plays an important role, namely, the language about the
pre-existing Christ. In New Testament texts we find the conviction
that God knew Jesus Christ already before the foundation of the world,
that he was part of God’s Council and had already fully participated
in creation.9 A Council and plan of God precedes the creation of the
world, and therefore has priority over these, both logically and theo-
logically.10 It is precisely this image of the pre-existent Christ that has
greatly influenced historical theology. This confession of Jesus as the
one whose identity shares in God’s eternity has played a role in estab-
lishing the doctrine of the Trinity. In Protestant orthodoxy the bibli-
cal notion of God’s Council led to a locus theologicus ‘De Decretis’ in
which, following the doctrine of God, God’s decrees were dealt with.
Bavinck’s doctrine of God is a classic example of this approach. The
Council of God is a pre-temporal, all-determining category.
In the twentieth century, Karl Barth linked the doctrine of God
and the doctrine of the divine decrees by incorporating the election of
Jesus Christ into the doctrine of God. In him, the decree of election
is made part of the doctrine of God. God is God exactly in his choice
of the man, Jesus. The election of Jesus shows precisely that God is
the one who loves freely. This constituted a fundamental intervention
in traditional Protestant theology. In earlier Protestant theology the
doctrine of God’s decrees was dealt with after the doctrine of God had
been discussed.
In the more recent theology, influenced by Barth, redemptive his-
tory and the doctrine of God are telescoped. God’s election of Jesus
Christ determines who God is. A part of history, namely, the life and
work of Jesus Christ, is considered to be fundamental to God’s being.
Who God is, is determined by the history of Jesus Christ, particularly
in the events of the cross and resurrection.

9
See John 1:1–16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 1:3–14; Col 1:15–17; Heb 1:1–3; 1 Pet 1:20.
10
It is to be understood that the above-mentioned epistles do not so much present
a temporal view of the world in which eons follow one upon the other, but rather they
reflect a stratified world view in which God’s eternity is seen as a higher order from
which the new order invades time.
 the identity of israel’s god 213

4 Can History be Taken Seriously?

What does this Christological determination of God’s identity signify

with respect to the Old Testament? How are we to understand the
struggle of God and his people described there? Is it a specious pre-
lude, or is this history part of the whole? In Barth’s theology, the Old
Testament is consistently read from this Christological perspective
as the time of expectation. However, when the authors of the New
Testament, being confronted with the history of Jesus of Nazareth,
claim that what has been revealed in him always has been part of
God’s plan, how can we still read the prophets and the description of
God’s fellowship with his people as an actual drama in which God is
heavily involved in a fierce debate with himself and with the proph-
ets because of this nation? Can we take this history seriously, or does
the importance of human history dissolve when the doctrine of God’s
decrees is expanded into a framework in which the entire history is
already foreknown and willed by God?11 Not only does the motivation
of this expansion deserve to be respected, but it must be honoured
theologically: the doctrine of God’s decrees issues from a fundamental
acknowledgement of God’s dominion. God is never surprised. He is
Lord over all and the things that come about are not unforeseen and
do not happen to him or overwhelm him, like they would humans
who are swept along and perish by what happens to them. At the same
time, we must acknowledge the risks when theology tries to fathom
God’s dominion in terms of knowledge and purpose. When speaking
about God’s eternal Council, are we not at risk of thinking that we
have access to God’s council chamber and that we are able to look
over his shoulder? Is there an alternative? Is it possible to have an
interpretation of confessing Christ as the eternal Word of God which
does not lose the receiver’s perspective and does not lead to a denial
of the biblical drama?
The risks formulated above are not in the least figments of the
imagination. There are enough examples in the Reformed tradition
of theology in which the idea of God’s eternal council has relativized
the seriousness of the human response. This possibility of relativizing

11
H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2 (Grand Rapids, 2004), p. 373: ‘Included in this
counsel of God are all the things that exist and will occur in time, in short, the whole
plan, the blueprint of “the intelligible universe”.’
214 cornelis van der kooi

has grown in modern times, and is linked with the causality concept.
Indeed, in modern times the causality concept has been reduced to
mechanical causality. When today God’s Council is mentioned as
cause, the impression is easily given that God and man are related to
each other as two equal actors within one and the same context.12 This
problem of freedom and necessity, which has already held Reformed
theology hostage for a few centuries, has led to considerable differ-
ences of opinion. The disputes between the Remonstrants and the
Contra-Remonstrants have left deep marks in Reformed theology.
This dispute continues today, especially in the ‘open theism’ debate in
the USA.13 It appears that in this debate the participants move inside
the fatal dilemma of determinism over against an open theism that
makes God deeply dependent on human actions. The problem of
God’s relationship to the world seems to concentrate on the question
of God’s knowledge. The question is, however, to what extent this is
correct. Is God’s being God or his sovereignty to be understood first
of all as a matter of knowledge? Specifically in the Reformed tradition
a segment can be found that refuses to acknowledge the equality of
God’s sovereignty and determinism, and that desires to take utterly
seriously the importance of human history and human decisions, as
can be seen in the dogmatic works of Herman Bavinck and Gerard
Cornelis Berkouwer. The latter resisted every form of speculation and
emphasized that the acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty becomes
only visible—to use his characteristic expression—‘in the way of faith’.
In other words, he emphasized fellowshipping with the Bible which
will remind the believer emphatically of his position as recipient of the
promises.14 Only in this way is history not stripped of its drama and
can the texts of the Old Testament be taken seriously.

12
See C. van der Kooi, As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God.
A Diptych (Leiden, 2005), pp. 168–169.
13
See C.H. Pinnock and R. Brow, Unbounded Love: A Good News Theology for the
21st Century (Downers Grove, 1994); C.H. Pinnock, Most Moved Lover: A Theology of
God’s Openness (Grand Rapids, 2001); Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: A Critique
of Open Theism (Leicester, 2000). See also W. Hasker, ‘Why Simple Foreknowledge
is Still Useless (in spite of David Hunt and Alex Pruss)’, Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 52 (2009), pp. 537–544; David P. Hunt, ‘Contra Hasker. “Why
Simple Foreknowledge is still Useful” ’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
52 (2009), pp. 545–550.
14
See D. van Keulen, Bijbel en Dogmatiek: Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in
het dogmatische werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck and G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen, 2003),
pp. 471, 562–564.
 the identity of israel’s god 215

In this contribution I want to dwell on Berkouwer’s statement and

focus attention on the extra-calvinisticum as a concept from Reformed
theology that is (1) able to do justice to the view that we humans
remain recipients and that even in our theology we are not able to
penetrate into God’s council chambers. This is a concept that (2) will
be helpful in doing justice to this redemptive historical and dramatic
perspective, and, at the same time, (3) hold on to the fact that God’s
identity according to the New Testament has been anchored in the
history of Jesus Christ. It is preeminently suited to remind us that God
in his involvement with the world starts a history in which he retains
his freedom, and that this involvement of God in Christ finds a point
of identification which sheds light on both the future and the past.

5 The Extra-Calvinisticum as Summary of the

Asymmetrical Relationship between God and Men

First, I explain briefly how the extra-calvinisticum functions for Calvin,

specifically in his Christology, in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,
and in his doctrine of God. Next, I propose to show that this doctrine
actually functions as a marginal note to the texts of the Old and New
Testament, reminding the readers of their role as recipients in the his-
tory of God and man.
The extra-calvinisticum summarizes in a systematic way a struc-
tural principle that determines all of Calvin’s theology and spiritual-
ity, namely, the asymmetrical relationship between God and man. The
inequality of God and man means that God accommodates himself in
his revelation to human standards and uses what is properly human
without, however, being absorbed into it. This principle is also appli-
cable to the incarnation, the adoption of human nature by the eternal
Son. As far as his divinity is concerned, by his assumptio carnis the
Son is not incarcerated in his humanity. The eternal Son has a plus
or an ‘extra’ with respect to Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son. In spite
of its long history that extends from the Apologists to the late medi-
eval theology, this doctrine became known as the extra-calvinisticum
as a result of Luther’s criticism, and has come under heavy criticism.15
In the eyes of his Lutheran critics, Calvin disconnected the divinity of

15
H.A. Oberman, ‘Die “Extra” Dimension in der Theologie Calvins’, in idem, Die
Reformation: Von Wittenberg nach Genf (Göttingen, 1986), pp. 253–282.
216 cornelis van der kooi

Christ from his humanity and made himself subject to the condemna-
tion of Nestorianism. For Calvin to divorce the divine nature from
the human nature was considered inadmissible; however, the context
of the two places in the Institutes where the extra-calvinisticum is
formulated explains that something else is going on here. In the first
instance Calvin opposes the thought, dominant in Manichaeism and
Marcionism, that incarnation means that the Son permitted himself to
be imprisoned in human corporality. According to Calvin, the incar-
nation does not diminish the divinity of the Son. Faith has to hold on
to two things that appear to be paradoxical. Calvin formulates it as
follows: ‘The Son of God descends from heaven and at the same time
does not leave heaven, is born of the virgin, walks on earth, hangs on a
cross, and yet, as Son he fills the earth, as in the beginning.’16 The point
of this citation is the will and power of the exalted God to bind himself
to the human condition, however incomprehensible this may be.
The second time that Calvin formulates the thought of the extra-
calvinisticum is found in the context of the Lord’s Supper where he
emphasizes that in the Lord’s Supper we are granted the life-giving
power of his flesh and blood. In response to the question whether this
does not mean that omnipresence should be ascribed to the body of
Christ, Calvin draws attention to the distinction between the power of
the eternal Son and the incarnate Lord:
It is not that his divinity left heaven in order to conceal itself in the
prison of a body, but because this divinity, although it filled all things,
nevertheless resided bodily in the humanity of Christ, that is, naturally,
and in an inexpressible manner.17
Appealing to a scholastic distinction he argues that, although accord-
ing to his all-encompassing identity (totus Christus), Christ is every-
where, not everything belonging to his identity is everywhere (non
totum, quod in eo est).18 An appeal is made to the freedom of God
who is superior, and whose power reaches farther than is presented to
us visibly in the incarnation and in the Lord’s Supper. For Calvin this
does not mean that he wants to take anything away from the presence
of the Son in the incarnation and in the Lord’s Supper, but he points

16
Institutes II.13.4.
17
Institutes IV.17.30.
18
Inst. IV.17.30: ‘Mediator ergo noster quum totus ubique sit, suis simper adest: et
in Coena speciali modo presentem se exhibit, sic tamen ut totus adsit, non totum: quia,
ut dictum is, in carne sua caelo comprehenditur donec in iudicium appareat.’
 the identity of israel’s god 217

to the way that leads to this goal and beyond it. God’s dominion does
not limit itself to the incarnation, or to guiding believers, but through
the power of the Spirit extends into the common life of people and
nations. It is a way of descent, of accommodation, of growing together
with human history.19

6 The Extra-Calvinisticum brings Human History

into a Theological Perspective

In this way Calvin makes a distinction between the incarnate God

and the basis for God becoming man, between manifestation and the
ground of this manifestation. He thus explains that the incarnation,
the revelation of God in the flesh, is not an unfathomable miracle, but
results from a movement or act that emanates from God and touches
this world. With this, even the static scheme of the doctrine of the
two natures is challenged. The incarnation or the story of Jesus Christ
results from a movement. God manifests himself in human flesh: Deus
manifestus in carne.20 To put it differently, by acknowledging this, a
historic experience—the life and acts of Jesus—is classified under a
theological viewpoint. This theological viewpoint creates the specific
theological problem, namely, that it is no longer possible to put the
experience described in the biblical texts only in terms of a human
construction. The parables of Jesus illustrate this.21 We must indeed
speak about God in earthly terms, but the human terminology must
accommodate the movement that emerges from the texts. Earthly lan-
guage must be utilized in such a way that points to an assumption
contained in these texts, namely, that God comes into the world. This
also means then that purely religious-historical explanations of bibli-
cal texts take second place to the assumptions that they contain. This
limiting, insular way of dealing with the texts happens, for instance,
when only religious-historical arguments are allowed to play a role in
the explanation of a text. In such an instance, God has not yet been

19
I follow here C. Link, Prädestination und Erwählung: Calvin Studien (Neukirchen,
2009), p. 161: ‘So trägt das “extra” der theologischen Differenz zwischen Gott selbst
und seiner je konkreten Manifestion Rechnung, darüber hinaus aber auch der histo-
rischen Differenz zwischen der Gestalt dieser Manifestationen im Alten und Neuen
Testament.’
20
Institutes II. 14.5.
21
Cf. Eberhard Jüngel, ‘Metaphorische Wahrheit’, in idem, Entsprechungen: Gott—
Wahrheit—Mensch (München, 1980), pp. 103–157.
218 cornelis van der kooi

mentioned. Then everything that is brought up can only be done so as

a reflex of this world. Only when there is room for acknowledging that
biblical texts contain experiences which properly distinguish between
God and man is a theological question in order.22

7 The Soteriological Function of the Extra-Calvinisticum

In the preceding we stated that the extra-calvinisticum draws atten-

tion to an important aspect of the incarnation, namely, that the life
of Jesus is part of God’s movement and pathway toward mankind. In
him God comes to the world. With that the soteriological purpose and
background of how this shapes thinking becomes central. This image
of a movement and pathway has been formulated in a classic way in
the Nicene Creed: ‘Who, for us and for our salvation, came down from
heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary.’ In
this language gratitude prevails for this movement on behalf of man. It
does not express the relationship between God and the world in terms
of knowledge or causality, but in terms that arise from the experience
of salvation and deliverance.
According to this interpretation the acknowledgement of Christ as
the eternal Word and as the firstborn of creation has a soteriological
function. This confession does not intend to assume some level above
our history, to which, on the basis of these texts, theology now has
access, as though it were a sort of director’s room from which every-
thing that happens on the lower level is regulated. I qualify this sort
of theology as ‘director’s room theology’. Speaking about Christ as the
eternal Son of God, who was already involved in God’s work before
creation, leads to the suggestion that this confession gives a precise,
ontological description of God’s thoughts. In this suggestion, the his-
tory of God wrestling with man begins to resemble the situation in
the film The Truman Show. Without his knowledge, the main figure in
this film is part of a show that is being directed in its minutest detail
from the director’s room. Truman may think that he makes his own
choices and decisions in life, falls in love, chooses a profession, but in

The lack of a theological apex is precisely Karl Barth’s criticism of the biblical
22

scholarship of his day in his ‘Vorwort’ to the second version of his Commentary on
Romans.
 the identity of israel’s god 219

reality it is one big indescribably cruel play in which Truman is toyed

with. The drama ends when Truman bumps into the walls of what
appeared to be an endless sea, but which turns out to be the fragile
walls of the studio. At that moment he realizes that he is a pawn in a
despicable play.
Is this the kind of director’s room theology that is assumed in Col
1:15, where Christ is confessed to be the firstborn of all creation? We
assume that Christ came to our rescue, but, in fact, it had already
been programmed long ago, and we are the actors in a preconceived
drama. In that case, the thought of a blueprint becomes dominant. Or,
must we go in the opposite direction and proceed from the surprise
and astonishment of the experience of salvation? What the first wit-
nesses experienced as salvation in the life of Jesus, as an overwhelming
awareness of God’s grace, is linked in the Epistle to the Colossians
with God as the foundation of the world. The revelation of God incar-
nate is confessed to be a part of a movement that has its origin in
God. The first witnesses acknowledge that what they have seen,
belonged to the scenario all along in a specific way. If we are to speak
in terms of causality here, a final causality would be more proper. God
intends to make a covenant with man, and the establishment of this
covenant is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Once again, it is the language of
wonderment that prevails and that acknowledges God’s rule in all of
human history.
This idea of a preceding pathway and a more encompassing drama
can be read back into texts such as Luke 24:26: ‘Did not the Christ
have to suffer in order to enter into his glory?’ This ‘did not have to’
is not a necessity based on a blueprint that was drawn up once upon
a time, but a re-reading of Moses and the prophets in the light of the
surprising and liberating experience. The apocalyptic ‘have to’ is not a
matter of mechanical causality, but a result of the rejection the proph-
ets experienced constantly. Such ‘have to’ fits in the plan of God who
wrestles with people that do not realize what brings them peace (Luke
19:42). It is this God who nevertheless provides a way out.23

23
Cf. also Luke 13:6–9; 20:9–19, where this aspect of struggle and conflict are heav-
ily emphasized.
220 cornelis van der kooi

8 God confirms Himself

Systematic-theological concepts do not aim at designing a perspective

which makes the reading of the texts no longer necessary, for then
they would have lost their meaning. When dogmatics speaks about the
Council of God and about eternal decrees, this language may never be
used to define exhaustively the way God deals with man, nor to deprive
that of its dramatic authenticity. This would go against the texts which
speak explicitly of the authenticity of the drama between God and man.
We can interpret these concepts as efforts to build a bridge between
the experiences of history and God himself. These concepts emphasize
God’s sovereignty or his dominion in one way or another, concepts
which point to the qualitative difference between God and man. God
does not perish in the drama of history, but confirms precisely who he
is in that history. The incarnation is then the event in which God, in
a new way, confirms that he is God. It is precisely this difference that
benefits man. The extra-calvinisticum articulates that in the incarna-
tion God’s life-giving Word confirms God in a new way.

9 Earlier and Later Readers

The extra-calvinisticum makes it possible to do justice to the differ-

ence between earlier and later readers. This may be illustrated by the
re-interpretation of Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8. Later readers have identi-
fied the Word of which Deuteronomy 30 speaks as Jesus Christ. This is
undoubtedly a re-interpretation on the basis of a new experience. Pro-
ceeding from an experience with Jesus Christ, later readers localized
and identified the life-giving Word of the Torah with Jesus himself.
In Jesus the Word comes near, and his appearing is identified with the
Word. Continuity is established in retrospect. Thus, looking back, the
history of God with his people is read once again, and re-interpreted
in the light of Christ. What God seeks in his dealings with Israel is
no different from what he achieves in Christ, but it does happen in a
different way. In retrospect, the incarnation of the Word appears to be
related to what God had done earlier and what he had sought to achieve.
The Word that was at work in Christ to reconcile the world with itself
was also already at work in the Old Testament, granting its life-giving
presence. When viewed in this way, the extra-calvinisticum offers the
reader a purely redemptive-historical function. It aims at encouraging
 the identity of israel’s god 221

the reader to place what he reads in the Old Testament in the light
of what the new readers of the early Christian Church learned about
Jesus. In other words, as long as this redemptive-historical retrospec-
tive is taken into account, putting man in the role of the receiver and
not as God’s equal, the extra-calvinisticum works as an encouragement
to read the Old Testament texts as moments along a journey that God
travelled with people and which he continues to travel as a present-day
reality. Calvin’s idea of the unity of the old and new covenants is quite
fruitful here. Within a changing scene of panorama and promise, there
are also many episodes of manifest disobedience, obstinacy, punish-
ment, and of God hiding himself. It is a turbulent history in which
God manifests himself toward Israel as one who also can punish them
as a father as he strives to bring them back.

10 The Identity of God: Creating Openings

When we use the extra-calvinisticum to arrive at a consistent redemp-

tive-historical theology in which older and newer readers of the bibli-
cal story are taken seriously as addressees or recipients of salvation, we
follow the direction Calvin himself indicated. On the other hand—and
this has to be admitted frankly—we must disagree with him. With
Calvin and, by proxy, in Reformed orthodoxy, the doctrine of divine
providence has been construed in such a way that God as unchang-
ing and omniscient has foreknowledge of man’s deeds, and that from
God’s perspective history has been fixed. The problem of this approach
is that God’s being God is in danger of being reduced to a matter of
knowledge. This is certainly not the intent of Reformed theology, in
which election is held to be an unexpected gift. However, when this
soteriological apex is forgotten and attention is focussed unilaterally
on God’s powers of thinking and willing, the Reformed tradition is in
danger of being seen as a form of determinism. It is even worse than
in The Truman Show, for it is already known how man will react. The
history of theology has produced enough examples of the possibility
of interpreting Calvin in this way. I plead, however, for the other pos-
sibility, which in my view is more in accordance with Calvin’s spiri-
tuality and theology. With him man is consistently urged to be the
receiver, the pupil.
How, then, can we define God’s identity? What is the relationship of
God’s identity to the emotions mentioned in the texts and to conflict?
222 cornelis van der kooi

If systematic theology is to take biblical texts seriously, it can do noth-

ing but accept God’s sorrow and conflict, mentioned in various pass-
ages, as not being alien to God.
Does this define God’s identity? What is characteristic of God is
not that he has feelings, but that he is not limited by them. Just as it
is impossible to limit God’s being to terms of foreknowledge, so also
his identity cannot be reduced to feelings. More characteristic of the
biblical image of God is the view that God makes history, and in an
impasse creates an opening:24 he initiates a movement that benefits
Israel and all of mankind.
In the parable of the gardener who, contrary to the command of the
owner, wants to give the tree a one year reprieve (Luke 13:6–9), and in
the dialogue of Jesus on the cross with God, the Father, according to
the same gospel (Luke 23:34), we find again indications of the effects
of a conversation, of something that is not a matter of course, that
may not be debilitated by a concept of providence. In the conversation
between the Father and the Son, it becomes obvious that a solution is
reached: it is clear that God is the Lord. This is characteristic of the
way in which the conflict is solved. Here is a pattern that is already
present in the Old Testament. When the Sinaitic covenant reaches a
dead end, an appeal is made to the Abrahamic covenant. God finds
reasons within himself to perpetuate history, to sanctify his own name.
It may be said that in the end God himself has vindicated his name
in history by entering into the depths. This means that the history of
revelation is a movement with curves and twists, with anomalies and
moments in which God’s goodness is invisible. God comes near, but
nowhere is his proximity such that man can possess it, or own it. In his
drawing near, distance is maintained. It is precisely this distance that
shows that in whatever form God approaches, this does not deplete his
divine power and glory. God’s gift of the Torah does not exhaust the
possibilities of his nearness; even the incarnation of the Word does not
exhaust it. That is the deepest meaning of the extra-calvinisticum. It
remains God’s prerogative to speak and act through Word and Spirit:
as he did in the past he continues to do today.

24
Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers, 278.
 A Jewish Childbirth Amulet from
the bibliotheCA rosenthAliAnA

margaretha folmer

This contribution presents an 18th century printed Jewish childbirth amu-

let from the bibliotheca rosenthaliana (Amsterdam).1 The amulet contains
a number of names and biblical verses, quoted according to the principle of
the notarikon. biblical texts serve as an eternal source of inspiration in Jewry
throughout the ages. special power is ascribed to particular biblical verses
as being capable of protecting individuals from all kinds of misfortune and
attack from evil forces (particularly verses from the torah and the book of
Psalms).

1 introduction

The bibliotheca rosenthaliana in Amsterdam houses a collection of

childbirth amulets,2 fifteen of which are printed on paper,3 and about
twelve of which are handwritten. most of the amulets from this col-
lection date from the 18th century and probably were produced in
Germany. some are unique, while others are known from several
prints. some time ago i published an amulet whose main character-
istic is the historiola of the encounter between the prophet elijah and
the demon lilith.4 in this contribution i would like to present another
printed amulet from this collection.5 The amulet contains a number
of names and biblical quotations and is characterized by quoting the

1
i dedicate this article to eep talstra, a devoted and learned scholar, and a great
colleague.
2
bibliotheca rosenthaliana, bibliotheek bijzondere Collecties, universiteit van
Amsterdam.
3
d 2; d 3; d 4; d 20; d 23; d 24; d 25; d 27; e 63; e 64 and b 14–1; C 11; d 28;
e 61; e 62.
4
margaretha folmer, ‘A Jewish Childbirth Amulet for a Girl’, in martin f.J. baasten
and reinier munk (eds.), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture (Amsterdam
studies in Jewish Thought 12; dordrecht, 2007), pp. 41–56. on the term historiola and
its function in magical texts, see shaul shaked, ‘form and Purpose in Aramaic spells’,
in shaul shaked (ed.), Officina Magica (leiden, 2005), pp. 14–15.
5
This is a preliminary publication. i intend to publish all the printed and handwrit-
ten amulets from the bibliotheca rosenthaliana in one volume.
224 margaretha folmer

biblical verses according to the principle of the notarikon, with only

the first letter of a word written. There are three prints of this amu-
let in the collection of the bibliotheca rosenthaliana.6 Though true of
amulets in general, this amulet in particular not only demonstrates
that biblical texts serve as an eternal source of inspiration in Jewry
throughout the ages, but also that, because of their holiness, special
power is ascribed to particular verses as being capable of protecting
individuals from all kinds of misfortune and attack from evil forces. in
Jewish amulets this is especially true of verses derived from the torah
and from the book of Psalms.

2 Childbirth Amulets

Childbirth amulets are protective amulets to be placed in the room

where the woman was to give birth. An early Jewish magical handbook
from the talmudic period, Sefer ha-Razim, ‘The book of mysteries’,7
prescribes that for this purpose four silver lamellae should be hung on
the four walls of the room during childbirth. These amulets contain
incantations to ward off the female demon lilith who is believed to
have the power to cause the death of the mother or of her newborn
baby. Jewish childbirth amulets are known from late Antiquity and
the early middle Ages onwards (Jewish Palestinian amulets from the
5th to the 7th centuries; Jewish babylonian magical bowls from the
6th to the 8th centuries; mediaeval Jewish Palestinian amulets from
the Cairo Genizah written on paper).8 from the early 16th century

6
i am not aware of the existence of this particular amulet in other collections.
7
datable to the end of the 4th century ce or later. see P.s. Alexander, ‘incantations
and books of magic’, in emil schürer (ed.), The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ, 175 B.C.–A.D. 135 vol. 3.1 (rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, f. millar, and
m. Goodman; edinburgh, 1986), p. 349.
8
see James A. montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Publications
of the babylonian section 3; Philadelphia, 1913); Charles d. isbell, Corpus of Aramaic
Incantation Bowls (missoula, 1975); Joseph naveh and shaul shaked, Amulets and
Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1985); Joseph naveh
and shaul shaked, Magic Spell and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiq-
uity. ( Jerusalem, 1993); dan levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in
Jewish Aramaic from Later Antiquity (london, 2003). The amulets from the Cairo
Genizah were published by laurence h. schiffman and michael d. swartz in Hebrew
and Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo Geniza: Selected Texts from Taylor-
Schechter Box K1 (semitic texts and studies 1; sheffield, 1992).
 a jewish childbirth amulet 225

onwards the first printed amulets appear. in the 17th, 18th, and 19th
centuries the Jewish printing presses in holland and Germany pro-
duced a large amount of amuletic literature, ‘often of a grossly ignorant
type’, according to schrire.9 frequently these amulets were no more
than a piece of paper with the printed text of Psalms 121 and 91 on it
and ‫שדי‬, ‘the Almighty’, or ‫בשם שדי‬, ‘in the name of the Almighty’.
These amulets are known by the names shir hamloostsetl, shimir tsetl,
kimpet briv, kimpettsetl, ‫שמירה ליולדת‬, and ‫שמירה‬. The amulets had
to stay in place for eight days for boys—until their circumcision—
or twenty days for girls.10 today childbirth amulets are still in use in
certain Jewish communities, especially in north Africa, syria, ethiopia,
Yemen, and among Chassidic communities in israel.11

3 description of the Amulet

The amulet discussed here belongs to a type which is represented in

the collection of the bibliotheca rosenthaliana by three prints (e 61;
e 62; d 28), which contain exactly the same text. The text is printed
on paper measuring 20×17 cm (d 28 measures 21×17 cm), which has
been glued onto cardboard. two of the three prints still have a ribbon
at the top (e 61; e 62); one of them clearly has a hole at the top, but
its ribbon has been lost (d 28). The presence of ribbons and holes
demonstrates that the amulets were attached somewhere, perhaps to
a wall or a window.12 The ornamentation of the amulet under discus-
sion is modest: there is a simple decorated border and the central text
is framed by floral motives.13 The size of the amulet is similar to those
which contain the story of the encounter between the prophet elijah
and the demon lilith. These amulets are datable to the 18th century

9
Cf. t. schrire, Hebrew Amulets: Their Decipherment and Interpretation (london,
1966), p. 78.
10
The rationale for twenty days so far remains unclear.
11
Cf. also michele Klein, A Time to be Born: Customs and Folklore of Jewish Birth
(Philadelphia, 1998), p. 155.
12
Also other amulets in this collection are damaged at the top. see also folmer,
‘Jewish Childbirth Amulet’, p. 45.
13
d 28 and e 61 have the same decorated border, whereas e 62 has a different
border. The three prints, nevertheless, share the same mistakes. see on this (c), (d)
(n. 28), and (f ).
226 margaretha folmer

and were possibly printed in Germany.14 it is likely that the two types
of childbirth amulets are contemporary to one another.15

4 the text of the Amulet

in the text of these amulets the story of the encounter between elijah
and lilith is absent.16 with other childbirth amulets in this collection,
these amulets share the following elements: ‫חוץ לילית‬, the names of
the three helpers, ‫סנוי‬, ‫סנסנוי‬, ‫סמנגלף‬, the 42-letter name, and the
quotation of Psalm 121 (see [g], below, and section 5.7). The text
of this amulet is centred around the word ‫( עשציי‬ʿAshtsei) which is
framed by a text and rectangular ornamented border (see reproduc-
tion). several rectangles are thus created. i will discuss the text starting
with the central rectangle, and continue with the rectangles surround-
ing it, moving from the centre to the outside.
(a) in the centre of the amulet ‫( עשציי‬ʿAshtsei) is found. The word
‫ עשציי‬is composed of the consonants which immediately follow the
five occurrences of the tetragrammaton in Psalm 121. Psalm 121 is a
fixed element in hebrew childbirth amulets (see [g], below, and sec-
tion 5.7). ‘by its use, the psalm with all its protective influences is
invoked, particularly for protection in childbed’.17
(b) The first rectangle around ‫ עשציי‬reads from the top to the left:
(bottom) ‫( הרע וכל מיני כישוף‬left) ‫( דילה וכל מין עין‬top) ‫חוץ לילת וכל כת‬
(right) ‫וכל מיני מזיקין‬
outside with lilith and all her companions and all sorts18 of evil eye and
all sorts of witchcraft and all sorts of evil spirits!
other amulets in this collection have ‫חוץ לילית חוה ראשונה‬, ‘out!
lilith, first eve’.19 The circumlocution ‘lilith, first eve’ reflects a desig-
nation of lilith found in a mediaeval elaboration of the ancient myth

14
folmer, ‘Jewish Childbirth Amulet’, p. 45 (and n. 20).
15
similarly the bibliotheca rosenthaliana. The bibliotheca rosenthaliana fixes the
date of both types in the middle of the 19th century.
16
other elements which are lacking in these amulets are, for instance, the reference
to the gender of the child to be protected, a text in Yiddish, an enumeration of the
fourteen names of lilith, a quotation from exod 22:17, and the abbreviation of ‫אמן‬
‫( סלה‬see folmer, ‘Jewish Childbirth Amulet’).
17
schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 119.
18
for ‫ מין‬read the pl. form ‫מיני‬.
19
folmer, ‘Jewish Childbirth Amulet’, pp. 46–47.
 a jewish childbirth amulet
227

Jewish childbirth amulet d 28 (bibliotheca rosenthaliana, bibliotheek bijzondere Collecties,

universiteit van Amsterdam). The biblical verses are quoted according to the principle of the
notarikon.
228 margaretha folmer

of the sanguinary demon lilith hunting at night for newborn babies.20

it is found in the so-called Alphabet of Ben Sira (alphabetum Siracidis),
a hebrew work from the Geonic period.21 The story relates that simul-
taneously with the creation of Adam, and before the creation of eve,
lilith was created and given to Adam as his wife. Therefore lilith and
not eve was Adam’s first wife, hence the designation ‘first eve’.22 lilith
fled from Adam upon his refusal to grant her sexual equality. There-
upon God sent out three angels (‫סנוי‬, ‫סנסנוי‬, and ‫ )סמנגלף‬to bring her
back. even though the angels threatened lilith that daily a hundred of
her demon children would die, lilith refused to return to Adam and
declared that she was created to cause sickness in newborn babies. The
only way to ward off this threat was to write the names of the three
protecting angels or to depict their forms on an amulet (‘whenever
i see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, i will have no
power over that infant’).23 The formula in this amulet casts a spell not
only on lilith but also on other demons and demonic threats. The
rectangle is framed by a decorated rim with floral motives.
(c) The floral rim is surrounded by another rectangle with the words
‫מזל טוב סימן טוב‬, ‘good constellation, good sign’, positioned at the
four corners. At the top of the floral rim the names ‫אדם וחוה‬, ‘Adam
and eve’, referring to the first human couple, are found. Just below the
floral rectangle the angelic name ‫רדפמיאל‬, ‘radafmiel’ (?), is found.
to my knowledge no such angelic name is known in the literature. The
name possibly is a printing error for ‫בדפטאיל‬, ‘badpaṭiel’ (?), since the
letters ‫ ט‬and ‫ מ‬are often confused.24 The name ‫ בדפטאיל‬is mentioned
by schrire as the name of an angel who protects women against mis-

20
it has its roots in the ancient mesopotamian cultures of the sumerians,
babylonians, and Assyrians. lilith can be associated with lilû, lilītu, and ardat lilî,
originally storm demons, which occur in Akkadian texts. The demon lamashtu, who
is known from Assyrian amulets and who was assimilated to lilith, is a female demon
who endangers women who have just given birth and their babies. The character of
this demon has much in common with the Jewish demon lilith. The only reference
to lilith in the bible is found in isa 34:14. see raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess
(new York, 1967), pp. 207–209; Karel van der toorn, bob becking, and Pieter w. van
der horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; leiden,
1999), pp. 520–521, s.v. lilith.
21
for a translation of this midrash, see david stern and mark J. mirsky (eds.),
Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature (Yale
Judaica series 29; new haven, 1998), pp. 183–184.
22
see Klein, Time to Be Born, p. 143.
23
stern and mirsky, Rabbinic Fantasies, p. 184.
24
see folmer, ‘Jewish Childbirth Amulet’, p. 48
 a jewish childbirth amulet 229

carriages. it is also found in other childbirth amulets,25 though these

are not in the bibliotheca rosenthaliana.
(d) The rectangle described above is surrounded by a rectangle,
which is formed by the 42-letter name of God consisting of seven
groups of six letters each. it is often arranged in fourteen groups of
three letters: ‫אבג יתץ קרע שטן נגד יכש בטר צתג חקב טנע יגל פזק‬
‫שקו צית‬. This name of God has been known since the 1st century ce.26
An important element of this name is ‫קרע שטן‬, which is interpreted
as ‘rend satan’ or ‘destroy satan’. This part of the 42-letter name is
also found in other amulets from this collection. in our amulet, the
42-letter name starts at the top of this rectangle and continues on the
left. on the right side of the rectangle we read ‫ליולדת לקי קיל ילק‬,
‘for the woman giving birth ‫’לקי קיל ילק‬. The last three groups of
signs represent Gen 49:18: ‫לישועתך קויתי יהוה‬, ‘i have waited for your
salvation, o lord!’ (nkjv). The verse is abbreviated according to the
principle of the notarikon27 and reproduced in three different word
orders (see further section 5.2). The bottom of this rectangle reads
‫מלי סינוי וסנסינוי וסמנגליף שומרים‬, ‘the words of sjnwj, snsjnwj, and
smngljp, (the) guardians’.28
(e) A fourth textual rectangle is formed by the names of the four
archangels and the rivers of paradise. At the top of this rectangle we
find michael, the greatest of the archangels. on the left we find Gabriel,
at the bottom raphael, and on the right uriel. The four rivers which
issue from the universal river in the Garden of eden are positioned
at the four corners of this rectangle (Gen 2:11–14): to the right upper
corner the river Pishon, to the left upper corner the river Giḥon, to the
right lower corner the river ḥ iddeqel, and to the left lower corner the
river Perat.29 it is in this order that the four rivers of paradise appear in

25
schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 108.
26
schrire, Hebrew Amulets, pp. 97–98. see on this name also Joshua trachtenberg,
Jewish Magic and Superstition (Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 94–95.
27
schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 91.
28
The spelling of ‫ סמנגליף‬with ‫ י‬is anomalous and is a printing error for ‫ו‬.
29
ḥ iddeqel is the river tigris and Perat is the river euphrates. The identification of
the rivers Pishon and Giḥon is uncertain and much disputed, but this is not relevant
here. noort has convincingly argued that the narrator of the biblical story did not
want to locate the Garden of eden in an accessible and locatable place, which has
added to its attraction and its mystery (ed noort, ‘Gan-eden in the hebrew bible’,
in G.P. luttikhuizen (ed.), Paradise Interpreted: Representation of Biblical Paradise in
Judaism and Christianity [leiden, 1999], pp. 33–34).
230 margaretha folmer

Gen 2:11–14. They appear frequently in amulets and usually are found
at the corners of ‘a rectangular area or in anagrammatic forms’.30
(f) Around the names of the four archangels and the rivers of para-
dise a rectangle is formed of the following biblical verses, abbreviated
according to the principles of the notarikon: only the first letter of
each word is given.31 The texts are separated by a colon. often the
alphabetical signs are grouped together, apparently deriving from a
mnemonic principle. The text starts at the top, above the name of the
archangel michael, with the text of the priestly blessing from num
6:24–26 (‫)ייוייפאוייפאולש‬. it is followed by the text of Psalm 20 (with
the omission of the superscription ‘to the chief musician, a psalm of
david’). Vv. 2–6 of this psalm are found above the name of the arch-
angel michael (‫)ייבצישאייעמוייכמויסילכועינבואנייכמ‬. it continues on
the left with vv. 7–9 of this psalm (‫ )עיכהימימקבייאבובוביאנהכווקו‬and
concludes at the bottom of the rectangle with v. 10 (‫)יהה יבק‬. The text
continues with a quotation of Gen 48:16 )‫)ההאמריאהובשואאיולבה‬.
Though mistakes are rare in the quotations of biblical verses in amu-
lets, the text contains a mistake: instead of ‫אוולבה‬, our amulet has
‫איולבה‬. According to schiffman these mistakes result from the habit of
quoting biblical verses from memory.32 Another error is found in the
subsequent quotation from exod 15:26, which starts with ‫ואשת ליא‬
at the bottom of the rectangle and continues on the right side of the
rectangle (‫)ובתולוכחכהאשבלאאכאיר‬. here, the group ‫ לאא‬is found,
instead of the expected ‫לאע‬.
(g) The outer rectangle as well is formed by quotations from biblical
texts. Again, the principle of notarikon is followed. The top of the rect-
angle starts with the quotation of Ps 90:17 and is followed by Psalm 91
(‫)וניאעויכעויכיבעבשיאלמואאבכהימימהבילוכתצואלתמלמיימבימיצ‬.33
it continues on the left side of the rectangle (‫ימאומאלירבתורתכאימע‬
‫ )שמלתארוליבכמיללבדעכי‬and finishes at the bottom (‫פתברעשותתכו‬
‫)כבחואכישיועאבאואיאוב‬. After the colon the quotation of Psalm 121

30
see schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 113. The names of the four rivers also appear
positioned outside a circle. see schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 62, figure 3, and p. 63,
figure 4 (examples from two editions of Sefer Raziel, a mediaeval German magical
handbook; the book was printed in Amsterdam in 1701 and was a primary source for
european Jewish magic).
31
Alternatively, the last letter of the word may be used. see schrire, Hebrew Amu-
lets, p. 91.
32
schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 51.
33
note that ‫ אדני‬in Ps 91:2 is abbreviated as ‫( י‬reflecting the tetragrammaton).
 a jewish childbirth amulet 231

commences. The psalm is quoted in its entirety, including the super-

scription in v. 1 (‫)שלאעאהמיעעמיעשו‬. The first two verses are found
at the bottom of the rectangle. it continues on the right side with the
quotation of vv. 3–8 (‫)אילראישהליוישיישיצעיייהליוביימריאנייצומוע‬.

5 discussion of the biblical texts

As is apparent from the preceding, the following biblical verses are

quoted in this amulet: Gen 49:18; num 6:24–26; Ps 20:1–9; Gen 48:16;
exod 15:26; Ps 90:17; Psalm 91; Ps 121:1–8. The texts of Psalm 91,
Psalm 20 (with the exception of the superscription in v. 1), and Psalm
121 are quoted in their entirety in this amulet. All of the verses are
quoted according to the principles of notarikon. some biblical verses
were used for magical purposes already in antiquity.34 Their assumed
effectiveness derives from their being part of holy scripture. Psalms
and psalm verses were considered to be particularly effective for magi-
cal purposes. some of them even may have been used for such pur-
poses before they were included in the biblical book of Psalms.35 A
popular work was Shimmush Tehillim, ‘(magical ) use of Psalms’,36
printed for the first time in 1551 in sabbioneta in northern italy. it has
often been reprinted and translated,37 but it is also known from several
11th century manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah, which are invaluable
for understanding the redactional history of the work.38 The printed

34
for example, num 6:24–26 and Psalm 91 (see below). overviews of effective
biblical verses are found in schrire, Hebrew Amulets, pp. 124–134, and trachtenberg,
Jewish Magic and Superstition, pp. 110–111. see also naveh and shaked, Magic Spells,
pp. 22–31; schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts, pp. 37–40.
35
Thus particularly Psalm 91. see bill rebiger, ‘die magische Verwendung von
Psalmen im Judentum’, in erich Zenger (ed.), Ritual und Poesie: Formen und Orte
religiöser Dichtung im Alten Orient, im Judentum und im Christentum (herders biblis-
che studien 36; freiburg, 2003), p. 267; Ann Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient
Palestine and Syria (leiden, 1996), p. 120.
36
schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 101; trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition,
p. 109. on the specific connotation of the word ‫ שמוש‬as ‘magical use’, see rebiger,
‘die magische Verwendung’, p. 271.
37
it has remained a popular and inspiring work until this very day, as is confirmed
by the recent reprint of an english translation of the 18th-century German translation
by selig (Godfery selig, The Use of the Psalms for the Physical Welfare of Man: A Frag-
ment out of the Practical Kabbalah [whitefish, print on demand]).
38
for an edition of these texts, see Peter schäfer and shaul shaked, Magische Texte
aus der Kairoer Geniza 3 (tübingen, 1999), pp. 202–375 (nos. 78–84). on the redactional
232 margaretha folmer

edition starts with the sentence ‘The entire torah is composed of the
names of God and in consequence it has the property of saving and
protecting man.’39 The work describes the purposes for which specific
psalms (or specific psalm verses) were effective, often in combination
with a magical act. The treatment of the Psalms follows the biblical
order. Another work which lists the magical use of biblical verses is
the mediaeval work Sefer Gematriot.40

5.1 Genesis 48:1641

‫המלאך הגאל אתי מכל רע יברך את הנערים ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבתי‬
‫אברהם ויצחק וידגו לרב בקרב הארץ‬
The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; let my
name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and
isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
(nkjv)
This verse contains Jacob’s blessing of ephraim and manasseh, the two
sons of Joseph. blessings containing a form of the verb ‫ ברך‬are com-
monly found in amulets. in addition to Gen 48:16, a verse from the
passage of the blessing of Jacob’s sons which is devoted to Joseph (Gen
49:22) can be mentioned here: ‫בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין‬, ‘Joseph
is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a well’ (nkjv).42 According to
the babylonian talmud (b. ber 55b), Joseph’s offspring is protected
against the evil eye, just like the fishes in the sea (the talmud associ-
ates the word ‫ וידגו‬in Gen 48:16 with hebrew ‫דג‬, ‘fish’). The same
passage in the babylonian talmud also refers to Gen 49:22 as a verse

history of the work, see schäfer and shaked, Magische Texte, pp. 5–10; reimund
leicht, ‘some observations on the diffusion of Jewish magical texts from late
Antiquity and the early middle Ages in manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah and
Ashkenaz’, in shaul shaked (ed.), Officina Magica (leiden, 2005), pp. 222–223;
rebiger, ‘die magische Verwendung’, pp. 271–273.
39
trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, p. 109.
40
trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, pp. 109–111, 293 [n. 8], 322. The
work is accessible in a facsimile edition (Sefer Gematriot of R. Judah the Pious: Fac-
simile Edition of a Unique Manuscript [hebrew], los Angeles, 1998).
41
Gen 48:16 is mentioned in schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 134 (samaritan amu-
lets). it is not mentioned in trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, pp. 110–111
(overview of effective biblical verses mentioned in Sefer Gematriot).
42
on Gen 49:22 in an amulet from the Cairo Genizah (ts K1.127,22) and in amu-
lets in general, see schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts, pp.
38, 121. see also schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 114. see also section 5.2 on Gen 49:18
and section 5.4 on the priestly blessing.
 a jewish childbirth amulet 233

which is effective in warding off the evil eye (‫ עין‬in this verse being
understood not as ‘well’, but as ‘[evil] eye’):
The second commenced and said: if a man on going into a town is afraid
of the evil eye, let him take the thumb of his right hand in his left hand
and the thumb of his left hand in his right hand, and say: i, so-and-so,
am of the seed of Joseph over which the evil eye has no power, as it
says: Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain. do not read
‘ale ‘ayin [by a fountain] but ‘ole ‘ayin [overcoming the evil eye]. r. Jose
b. r. ḥ anina derived it from here: And let them grow into a multitude
[weyidgu] in the midst of the earth; just as the fishes [dagim] in the sea
are covered by the waters and the evil eye has no power over them, so
the evil eye has no power over the seed of Joseph. if he is afraid of his
own evil eye, he should look at the side of his left nostril.43
i do not know of any quotation of Gen 48:16 in amulets from late
Antiquity and the middle Ages. in more recent childbirth amulets,
however, Gen 48:16 is quoted in, for instance, an amulet from nitra
(slovakia), printed in 1832 (collection of the hebrew university,
Jerusalem).44

5.2 Genesis 49:18

‫ לישועתך קויתי יהוה‬i have waited for your salvation, o lord! (nkjv)
This verse derives from Jacob’s blessing of his sons and occurs fre-
quently in amulets. it is often quoted according to the principle of the
notarikon in as many as six possible word orders. in this amulet it is
quoted in three different word orders (‫)לקי קיל ילק‬, apparently to make
the verse with three different positions of the powerful divine name as
effective as possible. The same three permutations arise when reading
the first sign of each group, followed by the second and the third of
each. in addition to abbreviations of the hebrew text, the abbreviation
of the Aramaic translation (targum onqelos) is sometimes found as
well (‫לסי‬, which is an abbreviation of ‫)לפרנקך סברת יוי‬.45 in an amulet

43
translation of maurice simon, in isodore epstein (ed.), Hebrew-English Edition
of the Babylonian Talmud. Berakhot (london, 1960).
44
http://cja.huji.ac.il/ritual_objects/slovakia/Amulet_slovakia_1832_Gross_coll.html.
45
Thus, for instance, in an amulet from iraq in schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 162,
plate 37, and in some of the shivviti amulets in Y. shachar, ‫אסף פויכטונגר‬
(3 ‫ ;מסורת ואמנות יהודית‬Jerusalem, 1971; nos. 782, 783, 784, 789). Also on an amulet
234 margaretha folmer

from the Cairo Geniza the verse is written in full and followed by the
same verse in two different word orders (ts K1.168,1–3):46 ‫לישועתך‬
‫קויתי י׳י קויתי לישועתך קויתי לישועתך י׳י‬. The second quotation lacks
the divine name. it is uncertain whether this is due to a scribal error
or not. Sefer Gematriot recommends this biblical verse for protection
during the night.47 it is particularly frequent in amulets written on
paper or on parchment.48

5.3 Exodus 15:26

‫ויאמר אם שמוע תשמע לקול יהוה אלהיך והישר בעיניו תעשה והאזנת‬
‫למצותיו ושמרת כל חקיו כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך‬
‫כי אני יהוה רפאך‬
And (he) said, ‘if you diligently heed the voice of the lord your God
and do what is right in his sight, give ear to his commandments and
keep all his statutes, i will put none of the diseases on you which i have
brought on the egyptians. for i am the lord who heals you.’ (nkjv)
This verse occurs frequently in Jewish amulets from late Antiquity
onwards. The verse, found in a 6th or 7th century ce hebrew amulet
from the ancient synagogue in nirim (ancient ma‘on),49 gives protec-
tion against evil spirits. The same verse is also found in an Aramaic
amulet from the Cairo Genizah (ts K1.137, ll. 21–27):50 exod 15:26
follows the first five words of deut 7:15, with which it shares the image
of God as a healer. from exod 15:26 the idea arose that God is the
only legitimate healer and that illness is the consequence of human
failure which can only be forgiven by God.51
The verse is also referred to in m. sanh 10:1. According to r. Aqiba
those who whisper a charm over a wound while reciting exod 15:26

box from the same collection (no. 804) and in a childbirth amulet (no. 833). in one
amulet (no. 834), the verse is found in three permutations of the Aramaic translation:
‫לסי סיל ילס‬. shivviti amulets give protection against the evil eye (schrire, Hebrew
Amulets, p. 89) and are named after the beginning of Ps 16:8 which together with
Psalm 67 constitute the core element of shivviti amulets. on the Aramaic abbreviation
‫לסי‬, see also naveh and shaked, Magic Spells, p. 27.
46
see schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantations, pp. 38, 143, 154.
47
see trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, p. 110.
48
trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, p. 110; schrire, Hebrew Amulets,
p. 133.
49
naveh and shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, no. 13, ll. 12–22.
50
schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts, pp. 131–133
(= naveh and shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, Geniza no. 8).
51
Giuseppe Veltri, Magie und Halakha (tübingen, 1997), p. 267.
 a jewish childbirth amulet 235

are amongst the people who will not have a share in the world to
come. The text should be understood in the sense that not the use of
incantations and spells in itself was problematic for the rabbis, but the
use of biblical verses therein:52
All israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, Your people
also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch
of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified (is. 60:21).
And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come:
(1) he who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which does
not derive from the torah, (2) and the torah does not come from
heaven; and (3) an epicurean. r. Aqiba says, ‘Also: he who reads in
heretical books, and he who whispers over a wound and says, I will put
none of the diseases upon you which I have put on the Egyptians, for I
am the Lord who heals you (ex. 15:26).’ Abba shaul says: ‘Also: he who
pronounces the divine name as it is spelled out.’53

5.4 Numbers 6:24–26

‫ ישא יהוה פניו‬.26 ‫ יאר יהוה פניו אליך ויחנך‬.25 ‫ יברכך יהוה וישמרך‬.24
‫אליך וישם לך שלום‬
24
The lord bless you and keep you; 25 The lord make his face shine
upon you, and be gracious to you; 26 The lord lift up his countenance
upon you, and give you peace. (nkjv)
The priestly blessing (‫( )ברכת הכהנים‬num 6:24–26) occurs frequently
in magic formulae.54 The oldest attestations for the use of this text in
a magical context are two silver amulets written in hebrew found in a
burial cave in Ketef hinnom (Jerusalem).55 The amulets are datable to
the 6th century bce and contain the text of num 6:24–26, but with dif-
ferences in comparison to the masoretic text (on one of the amulets
the last word of v. 25 and the first four words of v. 26 are missing). it
is uncertain whether this is due to a scribal error (homoioteleuton) or
whether this is a genuine textual variant. The text of num 6:24–26 is
also quoted in Ps 67:2:

52
see Veltri, Magie und Halakha, p. 164 (Veltri also discusses the treatment of this
passage in the babylonian and Jerusalem talmuds); Gideon bohak, Ancient Jewish
Magic: A History (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 378–379.
53
translation from Jacob neusner, The Mishna: A New Translation (new haven,
1988), p. 604.
54
for a detailed discussion, see naveh and shaked, Magic Spells, pp. 25–27.
55
Ada Yardeni, ‘remarks on the Priestly blessing on two Ancient Amulets from
Jerusalem’, VT 41 (1991), pp. 176–185.
236 margaretha folmer

‫אלהים יחננו ויברכנו יאר פניו אתנו סלה‬

God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause his face to shine upon
us. selah. (nkjv)
The evidence demonstrates that even at an early period the text was
used outside a priestly context as well. The priestly blessing is also
found in a magic bowl from late Antiquity and in an amulet from the
Cairo Genizah.56 According to b. ber 55b the recitation of a certain
formula at the very moment the priests are stretching out their hands
(and reciting the priestly blessing) is effective in recovering a dream
which one cannot remember:
one of them began: if one has seen a dream and does not remember
what he saw, let him stand before the priests at the time when they
spread out their hands, and say as follows: ‘sovereign of the universe, i
am Thine and my dreams are Thine. i have dreamt a dream and i do not
know what it is. whether i have dreamt about myself or my companions
have dreamt about me, or i have dreamt about others, if they are good
dreams, confirm them and reinforce them like the dreams of Joseph, and
if they require a remedy, heal them, as the waters of marah were healed
by moses, our teacher . . .57
The work Sefer Gematriot advises recitation of the text for warding
off demons and evil spirits. it should be recited ‘immediately before
retiring, or over an infant’s cradle’.58 The priestly blessing is often com-
bined with the 22-letter name of God (‫אנקתם‬, etc.), which according
to certain sources is believed to derive from the words of the priestly
blessing itself.59 in one of the amulets from the Cairo Genizah the
priestly blessing and the 22-letter name are interwoven.60

56
see isbell, Aramaic Incantation Bowls, no. 66,4–5; naveh and shaked, Amulets
and Magic Bowls, Geniza no. 7,33–37 (= schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic
Incantation Texts, amulet ts K1.127).
57
translation by simon, in epstein, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian
Talmud.
58
see trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, p. 110.
59
see trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, pp. 92–94; naveh and shaked,
Magic Spells, p. 27.
60
schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts, amulet ts
K1.127,33–37. see the discussion on p. 122.
 a jewish childbirth amulet 237

5.5 Psalm 20:2–10 61

‫ ישלח עזרך מקדש ומציון‬.3 ‫ יענך יהוה ביום צרה ישגבך שם אלהי יעקב‬.2
‫ יתן לך כלבבך וכל עצתך‬.5 ‫ יזכר כל מנחתך ועולתך ידשנה סלה‬.4 ‫יסעדך‬
‫ נרננה בישועתך ובשם אלהינו נדגל ימלא יהוה כל משאלותיך‬.6 ‫ימלא‬
‫ עתה ידעתי כי הושיע יהוה משיחו יענהו משמי קדשו בגברות ישע ימינו‬.7
‫ המה כרעו‬.9 ‫ אלה ברכב ואלה בסוסים ואנחנו בשם יהוה אלהינו נזכיר‬.8
‫ יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו‬.10 ‫ונפלו ואנחנו קמנו ונתעודד‬
1
may the lord answer you in the day of trouble; may the name of the
God of Jacob defend you; 2 may he send you help from the sanctuary,
and strengthen you out of Zion; 3 may he remember all your offerings,
and accept your burnt sacrifice. selah 4 may he grant you according to
your heart’s desire, and fulfill all your purpose. 5 we will rejoice in your
salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners! may
the lord fulfill all your petitions. 6 now i know that the lord saves
his anointed; he will answer him from his holy heaven with the saving
strength of his right hand. 7 some trust in chariots, and some in horses;
but we will remember the name of the lord our God. 8 They have bowed
down and fallen; but we have risen and stand upright. 9 save, lord! may
the King answer us when we call. (nkjv)
The magical use of Psalm 20 is known from the handbook Sefer
Shimmush Tehillim. it was believed to protect from danger and suffer-
ings and to be effective if one needed to appear in court.62 The Genizah
manuscripts of Sefer Shimmush Tehillim amply attest the application
of the second verse of this psalm if one needed to go to an authority.
According to Klein this psalm was also recited to ease delivery. The
nine verses of the psalm are believed to correspond to the nine months
of pregnancy and its seventy words to the seventy pangs of labour.63
This prayer for help derives its applicability to magical acts from the
threefold occurrence of the verb ‫ענה‬, ‘to answer’ (vv. 2, 7, 10), and
the root ‫ישע‬, ‘to save’ (vv. 7, 10; in v. 6 ‘deliverance’), in combination
with the holy name.

61
The superscription of v. 1 (‫ )למנצח מזמור לדוד‬is omitted.
62
selig, Use of Psalms.
63
Klein, Time to Be Born, p. 116. Klein (ibid. p. 247, n. 22) bases her opinion on an
edition of Shimmush Tehillim from Cracow (1648). i have been unable to verify this.
238 margaretha folmer

5.6 Psalm 90:17 and 91:1–16

‫ ויהי נעם אדני אלהינו עלינו ומעשה ידינו כוננה עלינו ומעשה ידינו‬.17
‫ אמר ליהוה מחסי ומצודתי‬.2 ‫ ישב בסתר עליון בצל שדי יתלונן‬.1 ‫כוננהו‬
‫ באברתו יסך לך‬.4 ‫ כי הוא יצילך מפח יקוש מדבר הוות‬.3 ‫אלהי אבטח בו‬
‫ לא תירא מפחד לילה מחץ יעוף‬.5 ‫ותחת כנפיו תחסה צנה וסחרה אמתו‬
‫ יפל מצדך אלף ורבבה‬.7 ‫ מדבר באפל יהלך מקטב ישוד צהרים‬.6 ‫יומם‬
‫ כי‬.9 ‫ רק בעיניך תביט ושלמת רשעים תראה‬.8 ‫מימינך אליך לא יגש‬
‫ לא תאנה אליך רעה ונגע לא יקרב‬.10 ‫אתה יהוה מחסי עליון שמת מעונך‬
‫ על כפים ישאונך‬.12 ‫ כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך‬.11 ‫באהלך‬
‫ כי בי‬.14 ‫ על שחל ופתן תדרך תרמס כפיר ותנין‬.13 ‫פן תגף באבן רגלך‬
‫ יקראני ואענהו עמו אנכי בצרה‬.15 ‫חשק ואפלטהו אשגבהו כי ידע שמי‬
‫ ארך ימים אשביעהו ואראהו בישועתי‬.16 ‫אחלצהו ואכבדהו‬
17
And let the beauty of the lord our God be upon us, and establish
the work of our hands for us; yes, establish the work of our hands. 1 he
who dwells in the secret place of the most high shall abide under the
shadow of the Almighty. 2 i will say of the lord, ‘he is my refuge and
my fortress; my God, in him i will trust.’ 3 surely he shall deliver you
from the snare of the fowler and from the perilous pestilence. 4 he shall
cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you shall take refuge;
his truth shall be your shield and buckler. 5 You shall not be afraid of
the terror by night, nor of the arrow that flies by day, 6 nor of the pes-
tilence that walks in darkness, nor of the destruction that lays waste at
noonday.7 A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your
right hand; but it shall not come near you. 8 only with your eyes shall
you look, and see the reward of the wicked. 9 because you have made the
lord, who is my refuge, even the most high, your dwelling place, 10 no
evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come near your dwelling; 11 for
he shall give his angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. 12
in their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a
stone. 13 You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra, the young lion and
the serpent you shall trample underfoot. 14 ‘because he has set his love
upon me, therefore i will deliver him; i will set him on high, because he
has known my name. 15 he shall call upon me, and i will answer him; i
will be with him in trouble; i will deliver him and honour him. 16 with
long life i will satisfy him, and show him my salvation. (nkjv)
Psalm 91 occurs frequently in Jewish amulets. According to Joshua
trachtenberg this psalm is ‘the most popular selection from the
hebrew bible’ to be used for magical purposes.64 its specific function
to protect mankind from demons may have its roots in the biblical
period. even before its inclusion in the Psalter the psalm, which is
characterized by Ann Jeffers as ‘a prayer against demons or magical

64
trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, p. 112.
 a jewish childbirth amulet 239

attack’,65 may have had the function of warding off demons. early
anti-demonic usage of this psalm is also apparent from one of the
documents found in Qumran. in 11Q11 (= 11QApocryphal Psalms),
Psalm 91 appears amongst a series of magical incantations (11Q11 vi
3–13).66 some of the words and phrases, particularly in the third com-
position (col. v), point to a magical context: ‫בשם יהו[ה‬, ‘in the name
of Yhwh’ (11Q11 v 4); ‫לחש‬, ‘incantation’ (11Q11 v 4); ‫הפגוע[ים‬, ‘the
possessed ones’ (11Q11 v 2). in this scroll, Psalm 91 is found in a ver-
sion which differs from the masoretic text. All the compositions are
attributed to david. Quotations from Psalm 91 are also found in magic
bowls from late Antiquity.67 in an amulet from the Cairo Genizah (ts
K1.18/30,21–25),68 the vv. 1–9a are abbreviated and grouped together
in a manner which differs from the amulet under discussion. Accord-
ing to the Cairo Genizah manuscripts of Sefer Shimmush Tehillim, Ps
91:1 is effective against the attack of lions, spirits, home robbery, and
all other kinds of evil.69 Ps 91:1–9 is considered anti-demonic in b.
shev 15b where its magical use is mentioned.70 The psalm is said to
be called either ‫שיר של פגעים‬, ‘song of (= against) afflictions’ (based
on vs. 7a: ‫יפל מצדיך אלף‬, ‘a thousand may fall at your side’), or ‫שיר‬
‫של נגעים‬, ‘song of (= against) plagues’ (based on vs. 10a: ‫ונגע לא‬
‫יקרב באהלך‬, ‘nor shall any plague come near your dwelling’).71 This
psalm is also known as Vi-hi no‘am, after the first two words of the
last verse of Psalm 90.72 Psalm 91 is often combined with this verse, as
for instance in the ‫( קריאת שמע על המטה‬see 6).

65
Jeffers, Magic and Divination, p. 120. she argues that the nightly setting of Psalm
90 and some of its vocabulary (such as ‫פח יקוש‬, ‘the snare of the fowler’ in v. 3) can
be associated with the practices of ‫רשעים‬, ‘evildoers’ (v. 8), understood by her in this
text in the narrow sense of ‘sorcerers’ ( Jeffers, Magic and Divination, pp. 120–121).
66
see Émile Puech, ‘les deux derniers Psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme,
11QPsApa iv, 4–v, 14’, in deborah dimant and uriel rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (leiden, 1991), pp. 64–89. see also matthias henze,
‘Psalm 91 in Premodern interpretation and at Qumran’, in matthias henze (ed.), Bib-
lical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand rapids, 2005), pp. 168–193.
67
isbell, Aramaic Incantation Bowls, no. 52,9 (vv. 7, 10); naveh and shaked, Amu-
lets and Magic Bowls, bowl no. 11,6f. (v. 1).
68
see schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 71.
69
schäfer and shaked, Magische Texte 3, pp. 206, 250, 265, 297.
70
Klein, Time To Be Born, pp. 151–152; schiffman and swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic
Incantation Texts, p. 39.
71
see also naveh and shaked, Magic Spells, p. 25.
72
Klein, Time to Be Born, pp. 151–152.
240 margaretha folmer

According to sefer Shimmush Tehillim the recitation of this psalm

(in combination with the recitation of Psalm 90) is extremely effective
against all kinds of distress, dangers, and sufferings. There are specific
prescriptions on how to procure the healing of someone who is pos-
sessed by evil spirits or someone who is incurably ill.73
The observation that the rabbis attributed anti-demonic powers to
Psalm 91 is significant: even though the rabbinic authorities in general
rejected the use of biblical verses for magical practices, this apparently
was not true for Psalm texts.74

5.7 Psalm 121

‫ עזרי מעם יהוה‬.2 ‫ שיר למעלות אשא עיני אל ההרים מאין יבא עזרי‬.1
‫ הנה לא ינום ולא‬.4 ‫ אל יתן למוט רגלך אל ינום שמרך‬.3 ‫עשה שמים וארץ‬
‫ יומם השמש‬.6 ‫ יהוה שמרך יהוה צלך על יד ימינך‬.5 ‫יישן שומר ישראל‬
‫ יהוה‬.8 ‫ יהוה ישמרך מכל רע ישמר את נפשך‬.7 ‫לא יככה וירח בלילה‬
‫ישמר צאתך ובואך מעתה ועד עולם‬
1
A song of Ascents. i will lift up my eyes to the hills–from whence
comes my help? 2 my help comes from the lord, who made heaven
and earth. 3 he will not allow your foot to be moved; he who keeps you
will not slumber. 4 behold, he who keeps israel shall neither slumber nor
sleep. 5 The lord is your keeper; The lord is your shade at your right
hand. 6 The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night. 7 The
lord shall preserve you from all evil; he shall preserve your soul. 8 The
lord shall preserve your going out and your coming in from this time
forth, and even forevermore. (nkjv)
This psalm is a fixed element in Jewish childbirth amulets. it was pop-
ular in Yiddish-speaking communities, and childbirth amulets were
named after the first two words of this psalm (‫שיר המעלות‬, ‘a song of
ascents’).75 often the abbreviation ‫( עשציי‬see section 4 [a]) is found in
childbirth amulets. The consonants of this name are the consonants
which follow the five occurrences of the tetragrammaton in Psalm
121. ‘by its use, the psalm with all its protective influences is invoked,
particularly for protection in childbed’.76 in the amulet under discus-
sion, ʿAshtsei is found in the centre of the text (see section 4 [a]). to

73
selig, Use of Psalms.
74
Another example is Psalm 29, which is recommended in the babylonian talmud
against evil spirits (b. Pes 112a). see also rebiger, ‘magische Verwendung von Psal-
men’, pp. 268–269. see also section 5.3 on the use of exod 15:26 for such purposes.
75
see for instance Klein, Time to Be Born, p. 152.
76
schrire, Hebrew Amulets, p. 119.
 a jewish childbirth amulet 241

the best of my knowledge, Psalm 121 is not found in ancient amulets

nor on magical bowls. in Sefer Shimmush Tehillim, Psalm 126 is rec-
ommended for the protection of the child during childbirth, whereas
Psalm 121 is recommended for a person who needs to travel alone by
night.77 by its recitation a person will be protected from all kinds of
threats. There is no evidence at this point for Psalm 121 in the manu-
scripts of Sefer Shimmush Tehillim in the Cairo Genizah.78

6 Concluding remarks

in the preceding pages we have seen that the biblical texts which
appear in our amulet have a venerable tradition of being used in magi-
cal practice. The magical use of some of these texts even reaches back
into antiquity.
most of the biblical texts quoted in our amulet are also used for
another purpose. with the exception of Psalm 20, all of the biblical
texts are found in the Jewish prayer before sleep, ‫קריאת שמע על‬
‫המטה‬, though in a different order.79 The order of biblical quotations
in this prayer is: deut 6:4–9 (‫ ;)שמע‬Ps 90:17 (‫ ;)ויהי נעם‬Psalm 91
(starting with ‫ ;)ישב בסתר‬Ps 3:2–9; Gen 48:16; exod 15:26; Zech 3:2;
Cant 3:7–8; num 6:24–26; Ps 121:4; Gen 49:18; Ps 4:5; Psalm 128.
Joseph naveh and shaul shaked have discussed the striking similarity
between the use of the biblical verses in this prayer and in amulets
from late Antiquity.80 As they have pointed out, it is sometimes dif-
ficult to make a distinction between prayers and magic spells, since
both prayers and spells commonly incorporate biblical quotations.81
our amulet is a fine confirmation of how the language of prayer and
of magical spell is intertwined by drawing from the same group of
biblical texts deemed to be powerful and effective.

77
selig, Use of Psalms.
78
Ps 126:6 was considered to be effective when someone should return. see schäfer
and shaked, Magische Texte 3, p. 146.
79
see naveh and shaked, Magic Spells, p. 24.
80
The oldest reference to an important element of this prayer is found in b. ber
60b. see naveh and shaked, Magic Spells, p. 23.
81
naveh and shaked, Magic Spells, p. 22.
 PART THREE

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN LINGUISTIC AND

COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO THE BIBLE
 COMPUTER-ASSISTED TOOLS fOR TExTUAL CRITICISM

Emanuel Tov

It is probably true to say that without the aid of electronic tools involvement
in textual criticism is virtually impossible in the twenty-first century. An ever-
expanding number of Bible computer modules and databases are becoming
available and the possibilities for using them profitably within existing or
custom-made programs are expanding. This increasing availability enables
several types of data retrieval, and allows scholars to access data and formu-
late conclusions that would not have been possible with the conventional
research methods.
The present study briefly describes the available modules, categories of
information, and predetermined information included in computer databases
and programs. The area best covered in the computer modules is that of mor-
phological analysis, followed by syntactic analysis. While caution is in order
because of the human factor behind the data input and the definition of the
search categories, computer-assisted research has become an integral part of
textual criticism. In linguistic analysis (including the study of orthography)—
which often has bearing on textual criticism—one should start the research
with computerized databases and supplement these with printed tools. This
pertains also to other areas of textual criticism, but in most cases the data-
bases have not yet been sufficiently developed. The subjectivity of recording
the data, which comes to light in the results of the searches, is illustrated by
computer-assisted examinations of three different spelling patterns.

Since the end of the twentieth century, the study of textual criticism
has been aided greatly by computer-assisted tools and research.1 Such
tools consist of flexible, interactive databases and programs that assist
the researcher in obtaining and analysing data, while computer-assisted
research presents non-flexible2 results of investigations that were

1
It is a real pleasure to dedicate this study to Eep Talstra, a leading scholar in the
areas described in this study. Thanks are due to M.G. Abegg for helpful comments.
2
This term refers to the results of research that was performed with the aid of
computers, while the computer files or computer applications are not accessible to
the researcher, and as a result the user cannot work with the data themselves. A good
example of this research is contained in the valuable studies of f.I. Andersen and
A.D. forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (BibOr 41; Rome, 1986) and The Vocabulary
of the Old Testament (Rome, 1989). for a list of some results of computer-assisted
research in the area of textual criticism, see E. Tov, ‘The Use of Computers in Bibli-
cal Research’, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran—Collected Essays (TSAJ 121;
Tübingen, 2008), pp. 228–246.
246 emanuel tov

compiled with the aid of machine-readable data. The latter type of

research will not be referred to in this study. It is probably true to say that
involvement in textual criticism is virtually impossible in the twenty-first
century without the aid of electronic tools. An ever-increasing number
of Bible computer modules and databases are becoming available and the
possibilities for using them profitably within existing or custom-made
programs are expanding. This expanding availability enables several
types of data retrieval, and allows scholars to access data and formulate
conclusions that would not have been possible with the conventional
research methods. The present study briefly describes the available data,
but it should be remembered that there is ongoing development in this
area and some of the statements in the following pages may be in need
of updating.

1 Available Modules

Electronic tools are available in commercial and non-commercial

programs, on the web, in CDs and DVDs, and elsewhere.3 Tov lists
the existing modules,4 programs, and tools.5 The modules needed for
textual criticism also include a morphological analysis.6 This analy-
sis allows for searches of all the words, combinations of words, and
grammatical categories.7 The searches cover the following corpora and
tools:

3
See Tov, ‘Electronic Resources Relevant to the Textual Criticism of Hebrew Scrip-
ture’, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 8 (2003) [http://purl.org/TC]; idem,
‘The Use of Computers’. Scanned images and privately available databases and pro-
grams are not included in this survey.
4
A module is a text (e.g., the Masoretic Text) that is accessible and searchable
within a program (e.g., Accordance, Bible Works, Logos). The more sophisticated the
search possibilities of the program, the more effectively the text can be analysed.
5
See above, note 3. All programs also offer access to Hebrew and Greek lexica, such
as BDB, HALOT, and LSJ.
6
The key to the effective use of any software program of Scripture texts is the avail-
ability of lemmatization and morphological analyses (grammatical tagging) of all the
words in the source texts. This lemmatization allows for a search of all the words in
addition to the producing of concordances. for example, the ‘lemmas’ or ‘headwords’
of ‫ ויאמר‬are ‫( ו‬particle, conjunction) and ‫( אמר‬verb, Qal, waw-consecutive, 3rd per-
son masc. sing.). The morphological analysis is mentioned above in parenthesis.
7
for example, in the example listed in the previous note, each of the morphological
features is searchable within the text module, such as all Qal forms of this verb or all
other verbs in the Torah, all the 3rd person masc. sing. forms of all verbs in 2 Kings.
In this way, all the types of nouns, verbs, prepositions, and conjunctions are search-
able in the whole Bible or certain books or parts of them.
 computer-assisted tools for textual criticism 247

• The Masoretic Text (according to the Leningrad and Aleppo codi-

ces and without additional medieval variants), allowing for sepa-
rate searches of words or meaningful parts of them, vocalization,
division of the text into sections (parashiyyot), Ketib-Qere forms,
accents, and the Masorah Magna and Parva.8
• The Samaritan Pentateuch (edition of Tal9 without variants).
Accordance enables the automatic indication of the divergences
from the Masoretic Text, and searches of all words and grammati-
cal categories in the Samaritan Pentateuch.
• Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, or any group of them such as the pre-
Samaritan texts, with indication of the divergences from the
Masoretic Text, enabling searches of all words and grammatical
categories.
• The Septuagint (edition of Rahlfs and Hanhart10 without variants).
In addition, the CATSS module11 indicates the divergences from the
Masoretic Text, reconstructs details in the Vorlage of the Septuagint,
and indicates select features in categories in translation technique.12
The Septuagint module allows for inner-translational searches in
Greek, while the CATSS module also allows for comparative searches
of the equivalents of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.
• The ancient versions Vulgate, Targum, and Peshitta, allowing for all
the inner-translational searches in the translation languages, with-
out variants and without indication of their relation to the Masoretic
Text.
• Apparatus of BHS: fully searchable.

8
These different features are not all searchable in a single program. for details, see
Tov, ‘Electronic Data’, and idem, ‘The Use of Computers’.
9
A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch, Edited according to MS 6 (C) of the Shekhem
Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects 8; Tel
Aviv, 1994).
10
A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes
(Stuttgart, 1935; 2nd edition: R. Hanhart, Stuttgart, 2006).
11
Computer-Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies; available in Accordance, Bible
Works, and Logos.
12
for example, differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text in num-
ber, person, diathesis (active/passive), prepositions, the addition/deletion of pronouns,
the article, addition/omission of ‫כל‬, etc. It also includes notes on transliterations and
doublets in the Septuagint, interchanges of consonants between the Masoretic Text
and the Septuagint, and the relation between the Septuagint and Ketib/Qere.
248 emanuel tov

Since the desire to retrieve information is constantly growing, it

should be stressed that in 2011 the data available in machine-readable
format are limited, only allowing for some types of computer-assisted
research. Most research requires combinations of electronic and man-
ual study of the data, depending on the topic. The machine-readable
form of the BHS apparatus is unsatisfactory for text-critical analysis
since it provides far too little information and is much too subjective.
The equivalent tool for BHQ,13 when available, will be more helpful,
since that edition encompasses more data and is more cautious than
its predecessors in the BH series. However, both tools contain merely
a selection of textual data, and therefore are not substitutes for other
types of research, among them manual research. A machine-readable
form of the HUB14 apparatus, if and when available, would come closer
to the needs of the researcher, but that edition also provides too little
information.
As a result, there is no substitute for the manual use of the data
in the source languages, with the supplement and aid of machine-
readable modules.15 In 2011, none of these modules includes vari-
ant readings, making the manual use of the editions of the versions a
necessary supplement to electronic searches. furthermore, use of the
modules would be more efficient if they included a reconstruction,
however tentative, of the Vorlage of the ancient versions when they
supposedly differ from the Masoretic Text, providing the researcher
with additional research possibilities. In 2011, such facilities are avail-
able only for the CATSS database for the Septuagint (see n. 12). In
the world of tomorrow, we hope to see sophisticated modules of
all the ancient versions and an improved version of CATSS for the
Septuagint. further, we would like to see interconnected modules of
Hebrew manuscripts and the ancient versions. However, even then the
researcher would need to resort to several printed sources as supple-
ments to the computer modules. In future research, the most efficient
first step would be the use of electronic data, allowing the researcher to
access more data than was previously available. After all, in the study

13
A. Schenker et al. (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Stuttgart, 2004–.
14
M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah
(Jerusalem, 1995); H. Rabin, S. Talmon, and E. Tov, The Hebrew University Bible:
The Book of Jeremiah (Jerusalem, 1997); M.H. Goshen-Gottstein and S. Talmon, The
Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel (Jerusalem, 2004).
15
See the lists in Tov, ‘Electronic Data’, and idem, ‘The Use of Computers’.
 computer-assisted tools for textual criticism 249

of textual criticism we need access to a multitude of details, and while

judgement remains the major component in the study of texts, we
can only ever hope to access all the data with the aid of electronic
databases.
Subjectivity and Caution. Machine-readable modules should be used
with caution, which applies as well to the use of any printed source.
Since modules are compiled manually, we must remember that a
machine-readable text, having been encoded by humans, may contain
mistakes. furthermore, text modules involve editorial judgement in
the choice of, for example, a printed edition or manuscript, recording
of Ketib-Qere, and the indication of verses. This subjective element
comes to light especially in the recording and analysis of the biblical
Dead Sea Scrolls because of the fragmentary nature of these texts. The
morphological (grammatical) analysis of all the texts and the deter-
mining of the ‘headwords’ are also subjective and may be incorrect. As
a result, subjective or incorrect decisions on these headwords limit the
usefulness of searches. for example, a search for all the participles in a
text module will be defective if a certain participle is parsed as a noun
or vice versa.16 Likewise, the recording of the reconstructed parent text
of the Septuagint in the so-called col. b of the CATSS module (see
n. 12) is subjective, and an examination of a Hebrew word or pattern
will provide incomplete results if a researcher expects to find a certain
reconstruction in that column that is not supported by the editors of
CATSS. Usually, there are no alternatives provided in morphological
analyses, and therefore by definition not all information is available for
searches. In printed sources, alternative grammatical analyses can be
more easily embedded in the data. finally, the analysis in section 3.3
illustrates the different types of results reached by different definitions
of orthographic patterns.
The evaluation of variant readings may be based partially on data
that are collected electronically, but ultimately evaluating these variants
remains subjective.17 Evaluations are based on the raw material such as
that included in concordances, dictionaries, and electronic tools. Other
evaluations are based on processed data provided by electronic tools,
such as reconstructed readings, which contain a greater percentage

16
See further the analysis of searches in the area of orthography, below.
17
for an analysis, see Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.;
Minneapolis–Assen, 2001), pp. 293–311.
250 emanuel tov

of subjective information than the readings of the ancient sources them-

selves. Use of electronic data does not replace using good judgement.

2 Categories of Information

Textual criticism involves the comparison of all details in the texts and
therefore necessarily deals with all types of information that may be
extracted from them. This includes, for example, the areas of language,
theology, geography, history, chronology, mythology, literary genre
(wisdom, psalmody, prophecy, laments, narratives), and all other cat-
egories of information contained in all texts. Variant readings in all
these areas may be equally as relevant as the main text (for example,
the Masoretic Text) for textual criticism, since in principle any variant
may reflect the original text.18
Not all types of information can be retrieved using electronic tools;
in fact, in the long list of areas mentioned on p. 247, only a small
percentage of the variants can be researched en bloc. for example, the
reason that variants in the areas of history, geography, or prophecy
cannot be researched is because the details have not been marked as
‘historical’, ‘geographical’, or ‘prophetical’. Some computer programs
enable the indication of units (named a ‘search range’ in Accordance),
such as historical units. In this way, the user can indicate all the his-
torical books, and historical sections in such books as Jeremiah, as
‘history’, but if a search is performed on such a unit, the details are not
necessarily ‘historical’. Variations are more likely to be in linguistic or
stylistic details. In short, in order to focus on or search for historical
details or variants pertaining to historical details, these first need to be
indicated manually.
As a result, most, but not all, information that we wish to retrieve
from the computer modules needs first to be inserted. However, the
computer can also help us in retrieving information that has not been
expressly indicated. Thus, we can find differences between sources
in the same language, enabling the user to focus on the differences

18
See A. Rofé, ‘The Historical Significance of Secondary Readings’, in C.A. Evans
and S. Talmon (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Intertextuality
in Honor of James A. Sanders (Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden etc., 1997), pp.
393–402.
 computer-assisted tools for textual criticism 251

between the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the biblical
Dead Sea Scrolls, the various Greek texts, the different translations
of the Septuagint (Brenton19 and NETS),20 the various Targumim, the
English translations, or other European modern translations. Other
types of information that have not been inserted are the number of let-
ters, words, and verses in the text, information about the distribution
of words, patterns, and word combinations in Hebrew Scripture as a
whole, in a book, or chapter. Among other things, the computer can
determine the most frequent or less frequent words or Greek-Hebrew
equivalents in a unit or the patterns in the use of the divine names.
Another type of information that has not been recorded expressly can
be extracted from the text on the basis of predetermined grammatical
information to be mentioned below.
With the exception of the types of information mentioned in the
previous paragraph, the user cannot retrieve information from com-
puter modules that has not been entered. Thus, the computer will not
list, for example, the names of the kings of Israel and Judah, the num-
ber of such kings, the names of the sons of Jacob, the cities in the tribal
area of Asher, a list of the true and false prophets, or a comparison
of the prophecies against the foreign nations by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel. All these types of information must first be indicated manu-
ally on the basis of contextual exegesis before they can be retrieved
automatically. In the world of tomorrow, differences between any two
texts relating to, for example, history or geography will be indicated.
An indication of these or any other types of details would significantly
expand the search and research facilities in the post-modern world.
We call this type of data ‘predetermined information’. In my view,
commentators on all biblical books are unable to obtain the necessary
data in the textual witnesses, making expanded sets of information a
desideratum for the writing of more complete commentaries.

19
L.L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament with an English Trans-
lation (London, 1879).
20
A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septua-
gint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally included under that Title (Oxford,
2007).
252 emanuel tov

3 Predetermined Information

In the future, hopefully many of the afore-mentioned information

types will be indicated in the biblical modules. In 2011, the major sets
of analysis that have been predetermined are limited, covering only the
morphological analysis of the main texts without variants and some
features of the Septuagint:

a. Morphological and syntactic analysis of the Masoretic Text;21

b. Morphological analysis of the Samaritan Pentateuch;
c. Morphological analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls;
d. Morphological analysis of the Septuagint, Vulgate, Targumim, and
the Peshitta;
e. Indication of some areas of the translation technique of the Septuagint
and the relation between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text in
the CATSS module.

It would be advantageous for the development of the research if many

additional sets of information such as those mentioned in section 2
were to be incorporated into the existing databases. As examples, I
mentioned readings of the Masoretic Text and variant readings in
Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions pertaining to geography or
history. Such data may be added to extant databases such as CATSS
that cover the comparison of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,
or may be included in a new database based on the Masoretic Text,22

The morphological analyses are listed in Tov, ‘Electronic Data’, and idem, ‘The
21

Use of Computers’; for the syntactic analyses, see SESB and the Andersen and forbes
database available within Logos.
22
for example, the recording of geographical variations would involve the many
variations between the sources in the tribal lists in Joshua 15–19. The recording would
necessarily involve forming judgement on the data. for example, one would have to
decide which of the many Greek variants in a given instant should be included in the
recording and which should be excluded. One would also have to decide on categories
of notes on the content. for example, names with a similar spelling, form, or content
should be linked in the recording (Timnath-Heres in Judg 2:9 and Timnath-Serah
in Josh 19:50; 24:30). One should also decide on a special notation for place names
listed in one source as belonging to one tribe and in another source as belonging to
a different tribe, e.g., Jerusalem is connected with both the tribe of Benjamin (Judg
1:21) and the tribe of Judah (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8). An important type of notation
pertains to variations in place names, such as 1 Sam 9:4, where ‘the district of Shaalim’
is reflected in the Lucianic tradition of the Septuagint as ‘Gaddi of the town Segaleim
(= Shaalim)’. The recording of historical variations would include the chronological
differences in 1–2 Kings, such as in 2 Kings 3. This chapter mentions the encounter
 computer-assisted tools for textual criticism 253

enabling their automatic retrieval. By the same token, it would be

advantageous if all possible theological variations between textual
sources were to be mapped. Undoubtedly, the very recording of
such variations is subjective, but should be sophisticated enough to
enable meaningful continued research.23 for example, in my view,
the Masoretic Text contains more examples of theological changes in
Samuel (as contrasted with the Septuagint and 4QSama) than in other
books, but this impression needs to be substantiated through a listing
of this type of variation. Searches based on such recordings would not
be the end product of research, but would provide raw materials for
continued research.
In the following, I single out a number of areas for special attention.

3.1 Textual Analysis

In the area of textual criticism, computer-assisted research is only
merely beginning.24 future databases should include textual varia-
tions and some categories of notes on the translation technique of the
ancient versions similar to the notations in the CATSS database of the
Septuagint, as well as textual phenomena, such as harmonizations,25

of the ‘king of Israel’ and the ‘king of Judah’, and both are identified differently in the
various textual traditions. The Lucianic tradition of the Septuagint identifies the king
of Judah as Ahaziah (vv. 7, 9), while the Masoretic Text identifies him as Jehoshaphat
(vv. 7, 11, 12, 14); he remains anonymous in the other verses. The king of Israel is
identified as Joram in the Lucianic tradition of the Septuagint (vv. 6, 7, 8) and in the
Masoretic Text (v. 6), but, as a rule, he remains anonymous in these sources.
23
for example, differences between Hebrew manuscripts and the reconstructed
parent text of the ancient versions. Of necessity, this procedure excludes the transla-
tor’s theological changes. While it is often almost impossible to distinguish between
changes due to a translator’s tendencies and those of his Vorlage, the challenge must
be met.
24
Relevant research has been recorded in E. Tov, ‘A Computerized Database for
Septuagint Research’, The Greek and Hebrew Bible—Collected Essays on the Septuagint
(VTSup 72; Leiden, 1999), pp. 41–43, and Tov, ‘The Use of Computers’. These lists
relate to various aspects of the translation technique of the Septuagint and its relation
to the Masoretic Text, the creation of J. Lust et al. (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of
the Septuagint, I–II (Stuttgart, 1992, 1996), the relation between the Septuagint, the
Qumran scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the creation of a database of the
minuses of the Septuagint vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text (cf. f.H. Polak and G. Marquis,
A Classified Index of the Minuses of the Septuagint, Part I: Introduction; Part II: The
Pentateuch [CATSS Basic Tools 4, 5; Stellenbosch, 2002]). The bibliography also
includes internal studies of the Masoretic Text referring to petuhot/setumot and, above
all, orthographical studies (see paragraph 3 below).
25
The adaptation of a detail in text a to text b. In the formulation of D. Barthélemy,
Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, vols. 1–5
254 emanuel tov

pluses and minuses,26 exclusive inner-translational agreements,27 and

several types of information such as described in section 2 above.
Despite its subjectivity, such recording will advance scholarship and, in
the case of harmonizations, will help us in determining which sources
are prone to harmonizing.28
In another area, the computer-assisted analysis of the interchanges
of consonants between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint shows
some distribution patterns in the Scripture books. It also shows the
letters that are most frequently interchanged.29

3.2 Linguistic Analysis

The area that is best covered in the computer modules is that of mor-
phological analysis. Among the various possible types of analysis, this
area was chosen for immediate attention because it enables the search
for all words on the basis of the headword of each word in the text.
However, the morphological analysis is far more extensive than needed
for such purposes.30 This area was developed greatly because scholars
recognized its importance for continued linguistic research. Indeed,
research based on the morphological analysis has been developed
extensively and is relevant for text-critical analysis. The research of the
Werkgroep Informatica directed by Eep Talstra has further advanced
research by including syntactic analysis.31

(2nd ed.; New York, 1979–1980), p. xi (‘factor 5’): ‘Some variant forms of text arose
because ancient editors, scribes, or translators, assimilated the text of one passage to
that of a similar or proximate passage, usually with the apparent purpose of attaining
greater consistency.’
26
See Polak and Marquis, A Classified Index of the Minuses of the Septuagint.
27
for example, between the Septuagint and the Peshitta, the Septuagint and the
Vulgate, the Peshitta and the Targumim.
28
We will likely find out that in the Torah, the Septuagint harmonizes more in small
details than the Samaritan Pentateuch and all other sources. Thus R.S. Hendel, The
Text of Genesis 1–11—Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York–Oxford, 1998),
pp. 81–92; E. Tov, ‘Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy’,
Hebrew Bible, pp. 271–282. In the past, this phenomenon was linked especially to the
Samaritan Pentateuch.
29
In the meantime, see Tov, ‘Interchanges of Consonants between the Masoretic
Text and the Vorlage of the Septuagint’, Greek–Hebrew Bible, 301–311.
30
In the example presented in n. 5, ‫ויאמר‬, it would have sufficed for searches to
separate ‫ ו‬and ‫יאמר‬, and to indicate the headwords, but the analysis includes the full
morphological information.
31
See SESB and http://www.logos.com.
 computer-assisted tools for textual criticism 255

3.3 The Human Factor in the Study of Orthography

One of the most promising areas for computer-assisted research of
textual sources is that of orthography, which is technically part of the
linguistic analysis. The results seem to be quite stable, but even within
this area two scholars will not achieve the same results if they use
different base texts, a different morphological analysis, or define the
searches differently. In the examples below, the tables mention first
the results reached with the aid of the Accordance program and sub-
sequently those of Andersen and forbes, Spelling.

3.3.1 Spelling of the Feminine Plural Participle in All Conjugations

The main difference between the two searches is the definition of the area
searched. Andersen and forbes, Spelling, covers a much larger sample
including participles as well as nouns, adjectives, and numerals. How-
ever, the different behaviour of the spelling of these groups requires a

Table 1: feminine Plural Participle in MT based on Accordance32

Occurrences Defective Plene Percentage of plene
Torah 58 45 13 22.41
former Prophets 28 2 26 92.85
Latter Prophets 102 6 96 94.11
Hagiographa 68 0 68 100.00

Table 2: feminine Plural Ending in MT in Nouns, Adjectives, Numerals,

and Participles according to Andersen and forbes, Spelling, 11
Occurrences Defective Plene Percentage of plene
Torah 1732 1188 544 31.40
former Prophets 1060 276 784 74.00
Latter Prophets 1945 299 1646 86.40
Hagiographa 2141 424 1717 80.20

32
Words with pronominal suffixes are excluded. The defective/plene spelling of the
first syllable of qotlot, which in some instances possibly influences the writing of the
last syllable, has not been recorded.
256 emanuel tov

more narrowly defined search procedure that excludes nouns, adjec-

tives, and numerals.33 Our own statistics are limited to the feminine
plural participle in all conjugations, and while they point in the same
direction as the results of Andersen and forbes, Spelling, they reflect
more clearly the difference between the Torah and the other books.
Table 3 shows that the biblical Qumran scrolls reflect the same ten-
dency as the post-Pentateuchal books in the Masoretic Text.
The Samaritan Pentateuch reflects the trend of the plene spellings in
the post-Pentateuchal books rather than the defective spellings in the
Torah in the Masoretic Text.
The books of the Prophets and Hagiographa in the Masoretic Text,
the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Samaritan Pentateuch reflect the
same plene spelling, with internal differences, while the Torah in the
Masoretic Text has a defective spelling for the feminine plural parti-
ciple in all conjugations.

Table 3: feminine Plural Participle in the Biblical Qumran Scrolls based on

the Resident Module34 in Accordance
Occurrences Defective Plene Percentage of plene
Qumran scrolls 61 6 55 90.00

Table 4: feminine Plural Participle in SP based on Accordance

Condition Occurrences Percentage
SP plene (MT defective) 43 75.43 plene
SP plene (MT plene) 10 17.54 plene
SP defective (MT defective) 3 5.26 defective
SP defective (MT plene) 1 1.75 defective
Total: 5735

33
Both the Accordance search and that of Andersen and forbes, Spelling, p. 12,
exclude words containing a pronominal suffix since the addition of prefixes or suffixes
creates what J. Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (The Schweich Lectures
of the British Academy, 1989), pp. 14, 25–32, names the ‘affix effect’. In this condition,
words that are otherwise spelled plene lose their mater lectionis in the final syllable
when an element is affixed to the word.
34
Prepared by M.G. Abegg.
35
Lev 26:16a, reflecting a different reading in the Samaritan Pentateuch, is dis-
regarded.
 computer-assisted tools for textual criticism 257

Table 5: All Spellings of ‘Three’ in MT as presented by Andersen and

forbes, Spelling, 936
Occurrences Defective Plene Percentage of plene
Torah 179 176 3 1.7
former Prophets 181 179 2 1.1
Latter Prophets 53 48 5 9.4
Hagiographa 185 135 50 27.0
Totals 598 538 60 10.0

Table 6a: All Spellings of ‘Three’ in MT based on Accordance

Occurrences Defective Plene Percentage of plene
Torah 183 180 3 1.63
former Prophets 183 181 2 1.09
Latter Prophets 55 52 3 5.45
Hagiographa 185 136 49 26.48
Totals 606 549 57 9.40

3.3.2 Spelling of the Word ‘Three’

for the spelling of the word ‘three’, different procedures can be fol-
lowed. The more comprehensively the search procedure is defined,
progressively fewer differences come to light.
The statistics in table 6a are rather close to those of Andersen and
forbes, Spelling, presented in table 5. They are not very significant
since ‫ של(ו)שת‬and ‫ של(ו)שים‬behave differently from the other forms
because of the ‘affix effect’:37 when an element is affixed to the base
word, even in the fuller spelling system of the later books, the base
word becomes defective.38 Therefore, these words are excluded in
tables 6b and 6c.

36
All vocalizations of ‫של(ו)ש‬, ‫של(ו)שה‬, and ‫ של(ו)שת‬as well as ‫ של(ו)שים‬are
included in tables 5 and 6a.
37
See Barr, Variable Spellings, pp. 14, 25–32.
38
By excluding ‫של(ו)שים‬, we obtain a clearer distinction between the Hagio-
grapha and the other books. Because of the ‘affix effect’, ‫ של(ו)שים‬is usually spelled
defectively in the Hagiographa (38 times, 7 times plene), against the general trend of
these books. Table 6c is therefore more significant than the other tables.
258 emanuel tov

Table 6b: Spelling of ‘Three’ (excluding ‫ )של(ו)שים‬in MT based on

Accordance39
Occurrences Defective Plene Percentage of plene
Torah 108 105 3 2.77
former Prophets 125 123 2 1.60
Latter Prophets 45 42 3 6.66
Hagiographa 129 94 37 27.13

Table 6c: Spelling of ‘Three’ (excluding ‫ של(ו)שים‬and ‫ )של(ו)שת‬in MT

based on Accordance40
Occurrences Defective Plene Percentage of plene
Torah 83 80 3 3.61
former Prophets 85 83 2 2.35
Latter Prophets 36 32 4 11.11
Hagiographa 104 67 37 35.57
Among which:
Job 4 3 4 75.00
Prov 4 2 2 50.00
Esth 8 3 5 60.00
Dan 6 3 3 50.00
Chron 52 32 20 38.46

The spelling of ‘three’ in Job, Proverbs, Esther, Daniel, and Chronicles,

and less so in the Hagiographa as a whole, differs significantly from
the other Scripture books.

3.3.3 Spelling of ‫( קול‬sing.) with Pronominal Suffixes

According to the searches in Accordance, ‫קול‬, ‘voice’,41 in the singular
occurs 493 times in Hebrew Scripture, 449 times plene and 44 times
defective, with and without pronominal suffixes. The distribution of
these spellings is given in table 7.

39
All vocalizations of ‫של(ו)ש‬, ‫של(ו)שה‬, and ‫ של(ו)שת‬are included. ‫ של(ו)שים‬is
not included.
40
All vocalizations of ‫של(ו)ש‬, ‫ של(ו)שה‬are included. ‫ של(ו)שת‬and ‫ של(ו)שים‬are
excluded.
41
One should be careful to distinguish between qol ‘voice’ and qol ‘lightness’, the
latter occurring only in Jer 3:9 (defective: ‫)קל‬.
 computer-assisted tools for textual criticism 259

Table 7: Spelling of ‫( ק(ו)ל‬sing.) with Suffixes and Prefixes in MT based on Accordance

Total Percentage No suffix/prefix Suffix and prefix Prefix only
Torah
Defective 38 40.0 0 33 5
Plene 57 60.0 28 6 23
Total 95 100.0 28 39 28
former Prophets
Defective 8 8.7 0 8 0
Plene 84 91.3 30 26 28
Total 92 100.0 30 34 28
Latter Prophets
Defective 0 0 0 0 0
Plene 174 100.0 69 36 69
Total 174 100.0 69 36 69
Hagiographa
Defective 4 3.0 0 4 0
Plene 128 97.0 46 38 44
Total 132 100.0 46 42 44

In the Torah, the preferred spelling for qol is plene, including words
with prefixes (‫ו ‚ה‬, ‫ב‬, ‫)מ[ן[ ‚ל ‚כ‬. When a suffix is added to the noun,
the preferred spelling of the noun becomes defective. On the other
hand, in the former Prophets, Latter Prophets, and the Hagiographa,
the preferred spelling is plene under both conditions.42 With five
exceptions,43 the non-biblical and biblical Qumran scrolls always pres-
ent the plene form of this word.

4 Conclusions

Since the end of the twentieth century, the study of textual criticism
has been aided greatly by computer-assisted tools and research. The
present study briefly describes the available modules, categories of
information, and predetermined information included in computer

42
Andersen and forbes, Spelling, pp. 47–48, analyses only the suffixed forms of qol,
which are presented there in a somewhat different way. Barr, Variable Spellings, pp.
50–51, records only the plural forms of qol.
43
4QGenј (Gen 45:16); 4QPsm (Ps 95:7); 4QJobа (Job 37:2); 4QCantb (Cant 2:12, 14).
260 emanuel tov

databases and programs. The area best covered in the computer mod-
ules is that of morphological analysis, followed by syntactic analysis.
While caution is in order because of the human factor behind the data
input and the definition of the search categories, computer-assisted
research has become an integral part of textual criticism. In linguistic
analysis, which often has bearing on textual criticism (including the
study of orthography), one should start the research with computer-
ized databases and supplement with printed tools. This pertains also
to other areas of textual criticism, but in most cases the databases have
not yet been sufficiently developed. The subjectivity of the recording
of the data, which comes to light in the results of the searches, is illus-
trated by computer-assisted examinations of spelling patterns.
 ON BIBLICAL HEBREW AND COMPUTER SCIENCE:
INSPIRATION, MODELS, TOOLS, AND CROSS-FERTILIZATION

Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen

Eep Talstra’s work has been an inspiration to many researchers, both within
and outside of the field of Old Testament scholarship. Among others, Crist-
Jan Doedens and the present author have been heavily influenced by Talstra
in their own work within the field of computer science. The present article
describes some of the ways in which Talstra’s work has influenced the work of
Doedens and the present author, and some of the outcomes that have sprung
from this inspiration. In particular, the MdF model and the QL query language
of Doedens are described, including their descendants, the EMdF model and
the MQL query language as implemented in the Emdros corpus query system
of the present author. In addition, the tools surrounding Emdros, includ-
ing SESB, Libronix, and the Emdros Query Tool, are described. Examples
are given, showing how these tools can enhance the research done by the
Biblical Hebrew scholar. Thus the inspiration of Talstra comes full-circle:
from Biblical Hebrew databases to computer science and back into Biblical
Hebrew scholarship.

1 Introduction

Eep Talstra’s work has been an inspiration to many researchers, both

within and outside of the field of Old Testament scholarship. One such
field is that of computer science, within which my own work1 and that
of Crist-Jan Doedens2 lies. In this article I will show how some of the
ideas, methods, and results of Talstra have inspired not only Doedens
and myself, but also others to contribute to the field of computer sci-
ence, and how this inspiration has resulted in tools that can support
the research of the Biblical Hebrew scholar.

1
For example, Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen, Annotated Text Databases in the Con-
text of the Kaj Munk Archive: One Database Model, One Query Language, and Sev-
eral Applications (PhD dissertation, Department of Communication and Psychology,
Aalborg University; Aalborg, Denmark, 2008).
2
Crist-Jan Doedens, Text Databases: One Database Model and Several Retrieval
Languages (Language and Computers 14; Amsterdam–Atlanta, 1994).
262 ulrik sandborg-petersen

In this paper, I first describe the PhD work of Doedens which

resulted in a general model of annotated text for text databases as well
as a query language for searching the annotated text of this model.
Second, I show how Doedens’ work inspired my own PhD work,
resulting in a modification and implementation of Doedens’ ideas. I
then turn to some of the computational tools which I have developed,
directly or indirectly inspired by the work of Talstra. Finally, I draw
some conclusions.

2 Preliminary Definitions

Some definitions from the field of computer science are necessary in

order to better explain how and why Talstra’s work has been influen-
tial in the field of computer science.
In mathematics, and its sub-branch, computer science, it is com-
mon to distinguish between natural languages and formal languages. A
natural language, such as Biblical Hebrew, has a set of rules, described
by a grammar of the language. The grammar describes which utter-
ances are part of the natural language (‘grammatically correct’), but
often cannot do so exhaustively, both because there are exceptions to
the general rules, and also because natural languages are inherently
malleable: a speaker of the language is free to ‘bend’ the rules of the
language to some extent, so long as the utterances produced can be
understood, often for poetic, rhetoric, or other effect. A formal lan-
guage also has a set of rules, often described by a formal grammar.
The difference between a natural language and a formal language is
that while a formal language can be described rigorously, both as to
its syntax and as to its semantics, a complete description of a natural
language is often elusive. The formal language will have an explicitly
defined way of deciding whether a string of symbols is part of the
language or not. Often, the formal language will also have a rigorously
defined way of interpreting the string of symbols, i.e., the formal lan-
guage will have both a formal syntax and a formal semantics.
When Eep Talstra began digitally encoding the Hebrew Bible in
the 1970s, a formal language was devised for transcribing the Hebrew
consonants, vowels, cantillation marks, and other features of the BHS.
This formal language not only transcribed the BHS, but also analysed
the Hebrew text in terms of morphemes, parts of speech, and other
morpho-lexical features such as elision of consonants. The formal
 on biblical hebrew and computer science 263

language used for encoding the BHS under Talstra’s supervision is thus
an example of his work which mixes computer science and Hebrew
scholarship.
A database is a collection of meaningful information, stored in
a retrieval system for easy access. Thus the central component of a
database is the data it contains. A database, then, is distinct from the
retrieval system which operates on the database in order to store and
retrieve the data.
Databases may contain data of various kinds, including financial,
historical, locational, organizational, and other kinds of data. A text
database is a database whose primary content is text. An example
would be a collection of newpaper articles, or a collection of sacred
texts stored in a text database system.
An annotated text database is a database whose primary content
is text plus information about that text (namely, the annotations). In
the case of the Werkgroep Informatica (WIVU) database, which is an
example of an annotated text database, the text is the BHS, and the
information about the text is a linguistic analysis of the text in terms
of morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and paragraphs.
A corpus is a text database, annotated or not, whose primary func-
tion is to be a research instrument. The WIVU database is precisely
this: a corpus. The WIVU database is both the product of research
and an instrument to be used for research. It is a product of research
because the Werkgroep members perform research on the Hebrew lan-
guage in order to be able to analyse the texts. It is an instrument for
research because it can be queried for examples of linguistic construc-
tions, which in turn may lead to the formation, verification, or falsifi-
cation of new hypotheses about the language. In order to exploit the
database as an instrument for research, a query language is needed.
A database model is a set of formally defined mathematical con-
structs which can be used to express what kinds of data a given data-
base retrieval system can contain. As we shall see later, the WIVU
database had an implicitly, informally defined database model which
was later defined formally in the work of Crist-Jan Doedens. Indeed,
as Doedens explains,3 the database model implicit and latent in the
WIVU database served as the primary inspiration for the work of
Crist-Jan Doedens on database models for annotated text databases.

3
Doedens, Text Databases, Chapter 4, pp. 85–105, especially p. 85.
264 ulrik sandborg-petersen

A query language is a formal language whose primary function is to

query a database, that is, to retrieve parts of a database, often based
on certain criteria. For example, with Google, it is possible to search
for words that occur on web pages. By means of straight quotes (". . .")
placed around several words, it is possible to search for those words
in that exact order. Thus Google provides an example of a simple,
formal query language. Query languages, however, can be much more
complex, supporting, for example, searches for fronted subjects con-
taining relative pronouns followed by verbs of a certain semantic class,
followed by phrases which are time-references, or for specific clause
types that are connected in a certain way in a hierarchy. The work
of Crist-Jan Doedens contains a description of a query language for
searches of this nature. As we shall see shortly, Crist-Jan Doedens’
work was heavily influenced by the work of Talstra.

3 The Work of Crist-Jan Doedens

As far as I have been able to trace, some of the ideas presented by

Doedens in his PhD dissertation4 were first published by Henk
Harmsen.5 In this article, Harmsen described a query language for
posing research questions to a linguistically analysed text, and placed
the ideas into the public domain for others to implement. Some of the
ideas presented in this article had appeared in an unpublished report
in 1988.6
On 23 June 1992, the first QUEST software program (version 1.0)
appeared,7 being an ‘Electronic Concordance Application for the
Hebrew Bible’. It was programmed by AND Software, Rotterdam,
and was published with financial support of the Netherlands Bible
Society. The program contained the WIVU database of the Hebrew
Bible as it was in 1991, and had a query language similar to the one
described in Harmsen’s article. Accompanying the program was a

4
Doedens, Text Databases.
5
Henk Harmsen, ‘QUEST: A Query Concept for Text Research’, in Actes du
Troisième Colloque International: ‘Bible et Informatique: Interprétation, Herméneu-
tique, Compétence Informatique’, Tübingen, 26–30 August, 1991 (Travaux de linguis-
tique quantitative 49; Paris–Genève), pp. 312–328.
6
Henk Harmsen, Software-Functions, Quest-Operating-System (unpublished report,
Faculty of Theology, VU University, Amsterdam, September 1988).
7
Doedens, Text Databases, p. 263.
 on biblical hebrew and computer science 265

User’s Manual describing the program, its use, and the query language
of the program.8
Crist-Jan Doedens was a partner in the discussions between Jan
Melein of AND Software, Henk Harmsen of the Werkgroep Informatica,
and the other players in the endeavour to produce QUEST 1.0.9 In
these discussions, Doedens helped shape the QUEST query language,
which is further described by Doedens in his PhD dissertation.10
Doedens continued doing research based on the work done on the
QUEST query language, resulting in his PhD dissertation from 1994
which described at least three major advances within the field of text
databases. First, a mathematically elegant, simple, and clean database
model for annotated text databases was described, called the MdF
model.11 A database model, in this case, defines the abstract, math-
ematically precise concepts with which the contents of a database can
be described. Second, the notion of ‘topographic languages’ was intro-
duced, an important notion which applies to formal languages, and
of which the query language of QUEST 1.0 was an example. Third, a
query language called ‘QL’ was described, a powerful language, sup-
porting advanced queries on MdF databases. Like the query language
for QUEST 1.0, QL is also a ‘topograhic language’, and, in fact, QL
resembles the query language for QUEST 1.0 to a high degree. The
major achievement of Doedens in his PhD dissertation was two-fold:
first, to generalize the underlying assumptions of the QUEST 1.0
query language into the MdF model and the notion of ‘topographic
languages’, and second, to generalize the QUEST 1.0 query language
itself into a much more powerful version while giving both the MdF
model and the QL query language a solid mathematical foundation,
including a so-called ‘denotational semantics’ for the QL query lan-
guage, on which we shall have more to say later.
A ‘database’, as defined by Doedens, is a collection of information
stored in a system for ready access. A ‘text database’, then, is a data-
base whose primary data consists of text. An example would be the
words of a Hebrew Bible without book, chapter, and verse markings.

8
J.A. Groves, H.J. Bosman, J.H. Harmsen, and E. Talstra, User Manual QUEST:
Electronic Concordance Application for the Hebrew Bible (Haarlem, 1992).
9
Doedens, Text Databases, p. 264.
10
Doedens, Text Databases, pp. 261–264.
11
Doedens describes an ‘expounded text or text database’ as ‘. . . a combination of
text and information about this text, stored in a computer, and structured for easy
update and access’, Doedens, Text Databases, p. 19.
266 ulrik sandborg-petersen

An ‘annotated text database’ is, according to Doedens, a database

consisting of text plus information about that text.12 Two examples of
annotated text databases worth mentioning would be: (1) a Hebrew
Bible including book, chapter, and verse boundaries,13 and (2) The
WIVU database, consisting not only of the text of the Hebrew Bible,
but also of information about that text in the form of linguistic anno-
tations and analyses of the text.
If a database is a collection of information stored for ready access, a
‘query language’ is a way of providing that ‘ready access’ to the infor-
mation stored in a database. Doedens’ QL query language, an example
of a query language for accessing an annotated text database, includes
ways of asking questions of the data in terms of the linguistic structure
of the data, such as the order in which predicate, subject, and object
appear within the boundaries of a clause. Thus an implementation of
QL would allow the researcher to find instances of a given syntac-
tic construction in a properly analysed text database. These instances
would then undergo the scrutiny of scholarly analysis, and would, in
turn, provide evidence for or against the hypotheses originally held by
the scholar. Thus QL can be conceived of as being part of the scholar’s
arsenal of tools, supporting the quest of obtaining data useful for argu-
ing a research position.
A ‘query’ in a query language, then, is a statement of what the user
(here a scholar) wishes to find in a database. That QL is a ‘topographic
language’ means that the structure of a query mirrors the structure of
the textual elements which the query states must be found. For exam-
ple, it is possible within QL to state that one wishes to find sentences
within which a certain configuration of clauses occur, within which
certain configurations of phrases occur (such as predicate, object, and
subject). This ‘mirroring’ of the structure of the query in the textual
elements to be found is expressed in terms of two key notions famil-
iar to scholars, namely, ‘sequence’ and ‘embedding’. That two textual
elements are in sequence means that one element follows another ele-
ment, for example, the object follows the predicate. That one element

12
These definitions are paraphrased from Doedens, Text Databases, pp. 18–20.
13
Properly viewed, the information about where a certain book, chapter, and verse
starts and ends is information about the text that is not part of the text itself. Thus the
example of the Hebrew Bible including book, chapter, and verse boundaries is a good
example of an annotated text database.
 on biblical hebrew and computer science 267

is embedded inside another element means that the second element

is ‘larger’ than the first, and may encompass more than one element.
For example, a clause usually has more than one embedded phrase,
such as the predicate, the object, the subject, and other phrases. Thus
the topographic nature of QL is a great advantage to scholars who can
state what they wish to find in a database using familar notions.
As mentioned, the QL query language was a descendant of the work
done by Henk Harmsen within the Werkgroep Informatica, but the
MdF model, for which the QL query language was designed, was in
fact also inspired by the WIVU database.14 From the structure of this
database, Doedens was able to generalize the key notions into the MdF
database model.
In this way, the work of Talstra and his Werkgroep led to the cre-
ation of the QUEST 1.0 software, and inspired and heavily influenced
the work of Doedens.

4 My own PhD Work

In 1996, Nicolai Winther-Nielsen, a long-time friend and associate

of Talstra and the Werkgroep Informatica, presented me with a copy
of Doedens’ PhD dissertation, with the casual remark that I might
want to implement the ideas presented in the book some day. I was at
the time a student of computer science, and read the book with great
enthusiasm.
One of the problems inherent in the design of the QL query lan-
guage was that the semantics provided by Doedens in his disserta-
tion were denotational. That is, they described what to retrieve for any
given language construct, but not how to retrieve it. In other words,
the denotational semantics of QL, as described by Doedens, described
the cake, but provided neither the ingredients, nor the recipe for bak-
ing the cake.
Similarly, the MdF model, as presented by Doedens, described
the MdF model in abstract, mathematical terms, but did not provide
instructions for implementing the model in a computer system.

14
Doedens, Text Databases, pp. 55, 85.
268 ulrik sandborg-petersen

In 1999, I submitted my Bachelor of Science thesis to the Depart-

ment of Computer Science at Aarhus University, Denmark.15 It con-
tained a description of a method for implementing the MdF model,
but with slight extensions and certain limitations. I called the extended
and slightly limited model ‘the EMdF model’, where the ‘E’ stood for
‘Extended’. More importantly, however, I also presented an operational
semantics for a subset of the QL query language, a subset which I
called ‘MQL’ for ‘Mini QL’.16 While a denotational semantics describes
what to calculate, but not how, an operational semantics has it the
other way around: an operational semantics describes how to calculate
something, but not what to calculate. Thus one of the major obstacles
to implementing both Doedens’ MdF model and Doedens’ QL was
surmounted in my Bachelor of Science thesis.
In late January 2001, during a 40-minute train ride from Copenhagen
to a town to the north, I was able to sketch out a language which
not only included a retrieval part, but which also was able to create,
update, and delete from an EMdF database. A few days later, I was
able to outline a method for storing EMdF data in a standard database
engine based on the relational model, which has been the standard
database model within computer science since the 1970s.17 I then spent
about two months writing on the subject, specifying in detail how to
implement the ideas described in my Bachelor’s thesis in a relational
database management system. Two more months were spent imple-
menting the ideas. Thus, my Emdros database engine for annotated
text was born. The implementation more or less worked in May of
2001, and on 10 October 2001, I released version 1.0.3 as Open Source
software.

15
Ulrik Petersen, ‘The Extended MdF Model’ (unpublished Bachelor of Science
thesis in computer science, DAIMI, Aarhus University, Denmark, 1999). Available
from http://ulrikp.org.
16
The MQL query language was really a ‘Mini’ version of QL, and hence, the name
was appropriate at the time. Today, MQL is close to having the full power of the origi-
nal QL query language, and hence, the attribute might no longer be as apt.
17
See, for example, E.F. Codd, Data Models in Database Management (Interna-
tional Conference on Management of Data, Proceedings of the 1980 Workshop on Data
Abstraction, Databases, and Conceptual Models, Pingree Park, Colorado, USA, 1980),
pp. 112–114. See also C.J. Date, An Introduction to Database Systems (6th ed.: Boston,
1995).
 on biblical hebrew and computer science 269

Emdros was rather slow at first. It took me another three or four

years to make its speed acceptable for daily use. I spent significant time
fine-tuning the implementation, as well as extending the query lan-
guage in various ways, making it more like Doedens’ QL language.
In 2004, the German Bible Society licensed Emdros for inclusion
in the successor to QUEST 1.0, christened ‘Stuttgart Electronic Study
Bible’, or SESB for short. Emdros was to drive the syntax search in
SESB, searching the WIVU database. In 2005, Logos Research Systems,
creators of Logos Bible Software, also licensed Emdros for searching
other Hebrew and Greek syntax databases. In 2009, the first edition of
SESB using Emdros came on the market.
In 2005, I commenced PhD studies at the University of Aalborg,
with Professor Peter Øhrstrøm as my supervisor. My work centred
on the notion of annotated text databases, and I was able to extend
Emdros, the EMdF model, and the MQL query language further. My
PhD dissertation18 described the theoretical background for the EMdF
model and the MQL query language, as well as their application to
saving a part of the Danish cultural heritage in a digital world, namely,
the works of Kaj Munk, a Danish pastor, poet, and playwright who
lived in the first part of the 20th century.
The WIVU database was the first database to be imported into
Emdros, and it still serves as the primary example of an EMdF data-
base. It is also the standard against which I test new ideas for Emdros,
and it provides a ready test bed for making sure that extensions to
Emdros do not break or alter any previous behaviour of the query
language.
A scholar may wish to use the MQL query language in order to
find examples of a certain linguistic construction. For example, the
following MQL query finds all instances in the WIVU database of
clauses which contain two phrases (not necessarily adjacent), where
the first phrase is the predicate, and the second phrase is the subject;19
the predicate should contain a word whose part of speech is verb,
and whose number is singular, and the subject should contain a word
whose part of speech is a conjunction.

18
Sandborg-Petersen, Annotated Text Databases.
19
For another example of an MQL query see Constantijn Sikkel’s contribution to
this volume.
270 ulrik sandborg-petersen

select all objects where

[clause
[phrase
function = Pred
[word (part_of_speech = verb) and (number = singular)]
]
..
[phrase
function = Subj
[word part_of_speech = conjunction]
]
]
go

An example of this construction occurs in Judg 5:1, where it is reported

that Deborah and Barak sang a song of victory. Deborah and Barak
are a plural subject, yet the Hebrew verb for ‘sang’ is singular. This
construction is described by Gesenius and Kautzsch,20 presenting a
handful of examples, but this evidence is not statistically significant
enough to be able to say whether the examples cited are exceptions
to the more general rule of person and number agreement between
the predicate and the subject. Yet a simple search using Emdros and
this MQL query will reveal that the construction is, in fact, a common
one, since the results show more than 250 ‘hits’ throughout the entire
BHS.
Thus a formal query language, operating through a corpus query
system, resting on the foundation of a solid database model, modeled
after and operating on the WIVU database, can lead to verification
of the hypothesis that a given construction is common enough not
to be labelled as an exception. The WIVU database can thus function
as a research instrument in the pursuit of more knowledge about the
Hebrew language.

20
Wilhelm Gesenius and Emil Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Translated
by A.E. Cowley (Oxford, 1910), § 146g.
 on biblical hebrew and computer science 271

5 Tools
5.1 Emdros Query Tool
Emdros does not stand alone as a software tool, but is a software library
which can be embedded in other software tools, such as SESB, in order
to provide the facility of searching syntax. The other tools must, how-
ever, provide a user interface with which the user can interact in order
to use the syntax search services which Emdros provides.
As part of the Open Source version of Emdros, I have written a
tool which does just this, called the Emdros Query Tool (EQT). The
EQT, in turn, has its roots in a series of tools written by Hendrik Jan
Bosman, an associate of the Werkgroep Informatica. The EQT pro-
vides a way for the user to enter an MQL query and to get meaningful
results displayed. Thus the EQT tool can potentially aid the Biblical
Hebrew scholar in doing both exegesis and Hebrew language research
by providing a way for the scholar to search the WIVU database for
examples of a desired linguistic construction.21
For example, figure 1 shows a screenshot of the EQT in which both
a query and one of its ‘hits’ are shown. The query finds instances of
clauses containing a phrase within which there is a verb whose lexeme
is ‘‫’ ִׂשים‬. After the phrase containing the verb, we may have an arbi-
trary number of words (that is what ‘. .’ means), yet confined within
the boundaries of the surrounding clause, followed by a phrase whose
function is either Object (Objc) or Interrogative pronoun with an
object suffix (IrpO). Then we may have an arbitrary number of words
again (within the boundaries of the surrounding clause), followed by a
phrase whose function again is either object or interrogative pronoun
with an object suffix. The effect is to find instances of clauses with the
verb ‘‫’ ִׂשים‬, followed by a double object. This collection of clauses is
useful for investigating the valence patterns of that particular verb. The
screenshot does not show this fact, but the query reports 22 instances
of this construction, and lists all instances with examples, one of which
is shown (1 Sam 8:1). Figure 1 shows the example as an immediate

21
An example of this process is given in Ulrik Petersen, ‘Emdros—A Text Database
Engine for Analyzed or Annotated Text’, in Proceedings of COLING 2004, held August
23–27, 2004 in Geneva (Geneve, 2004), pp. 1190–1193.
272 ulrik sandborg-petersen

constituency tree containing the functional hierarchy22 of that particu-

lar sentence from this particular verse.
The idea is that the scholar can pose research questions to the
Hebrew text database, formulated as MQL queries, which find the syn-
tactic construction under investigation, and then get all instances of
this particular construction. These constructions are then placed under
scholarly scrutiny and interpretation, and further study of the query
results may yield significant research results. That is the idea behind
the use of syntactic databases in scholarly research.
Another use of syntactic databases is for exegesis. For example,
when dealing with a passage which is difficult to interpret on account
of linguistic problems inherent in the text, the scholar may search the
database for similar constructions and may then interpret the results
in order to come up with an exegetical solution.
Still another use of syntactic databases is for teaching Hebrew and/
or exegesis. Here, the syntactic database can be used to make the struc-
ture of the text explicit, thus aiding students in reading the Hebrew
and in more quickly grasping both the Hebrew language and the texts
read during their studies.
Talstra has had both of these goals for the WIVU database in mind
from the very beginning: on the one hand, assisting the Hebrew scholar
in doing scholarly research, and on the other hand, teaching students
to read, understand, and exegete the Hebrew texts.
The Emdros Query Tool is thus able to aid both the scholar and the
student in their interaction with the Hebrew text.
But I will show you a yet more excellent way.23

5.2 Libronix and SESB

As stated previously, version 3.0 of the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible
(SESB) was released in 2009 with an Emdros-based syntax search func-
tion. SESB, in turn, is based on the Libronix Digital Library System
from Logos Research Systems, also known as Logos Bible Software.
Both Libronix and SESB incorporate and make use of Emdros for

22
For an introduction to the distinction between the functional and the distribu-
tional hierarchy in the WIVU database, see Eep Talstra and Constantijn Sikkel, ‘Genese
und Kategorienentwicklung der WIVU-Datenbank’, in C. Hardmeier et al. (eds.), Ad
Fontes! Quellen erfassen—lesen—deuten. Was ist Computerphilologie? (Applicatio 15,
Amsterdam, 2000), pp. 33–68.
23
With apologies to St. Paul: 1 Cor 12:31.
 on biblical hebrew and computer science 273

Figure 1: Emdros Query Tool with query and query results

doing syntax searches. In effect, Logos Research Systems has put a more
user-friendly and neater user interface on top of Emdros than what the
EQT can currently provide. Yet the basic research and teaching para-
digms remain the same: for scholarly research, formulate the research
questions in terms of syntactic constructions for Emdros to find, let
the program show the results, then study and interpret the results; for
teaching, show the syntactic database to the students, thereby aiding
them in learning to read and interpret the Hebrew texts. Emdros is
involved in both of these processes in SESB and Libronix.
Figure 2 shows an example query made in SESB 3.0. Its purpose
is to support a research question about adjacent clauses, the first of
which has an undetermined phrase as the first phrase and a phrase
containing a perfect verb as the second phrase. This first clause must
274 ulrik sandborg-petersen

then be immediately followed by a second clause, inside of which there

is a phrase containing an imperfect verb.
That this construction is not unimportant in Hebrew can be seen
from the results shown in figure 3: there are no less than 103 such con-
structions in the Hebrew Bible. The left side of the screen in figure 3
shows all of the query results as ‘flat text’ in Hebrew, with the Vulgate
beside it, and the right side of the screen has been opened to one of
the results in ‘tree display’ view, in this case, Lev 20:13.
Perhaps figure 3 can aid the reader in seeing the vision that Talstra
has always had for the WIVU syntactic database. In particular, figure
3 shows one possible representation of the syntactic data, a visual rep-
resentation which makes it possible for the scholar and the student
alike to obtain, at a glance, an overview of the structure of each sen-
tence and clause. This makes it easier both to conduct research and to
comprehend the text.

6 Conclusion

Eep Talstra started work on the WIVU database in 1977. This inspired
Henk Harmsen to write a report24 detailing some requirements on a
software program (later to become QUEST 1.0) which could aid the
scholar and the student in researching and learning the language and
the text of the Hebrew Bible. Harmsen later described some of his
ideas about searching the Hebrew Bible.25 Harmsen’s collaboration
with Crist-Jan Doedens on QUEST 1.026 resulted in Doedens’ putting
the query language of QUEST 1.0 on a firmer theoretical basis (in the
form of QL), in addition to placing the database model inherent in
Talstra’s WIVU database on firm theoretical foundations (in the form
of the MdF model), in his PhD dissertation.27 Doedens’ PhD work in
turn inspired me to write Emdros, and thus to implement Doedens’
ideas, as well as doing my own doctoral research standing on Doedens’
shoulders, who in turn stood on the shoulders of Talstra. Emdros later

24
Harmsen, Software-Functions.
25
Harmsen, QUEST: A Query Concept.
26
The full story is, of course, more complex, and involves more people than
described here. As stated previously, a fuller description of the history of the WIVU
database and its relationship to Doedens’ work can be found in Doedens, Text Data-
bases, pp. 85–105, 261–264.
27
Doedens, Text Databases.
 on biblical hebrew and computer science 275

Figure 2: A syntax search on the WIVU database in SESB 3.0

Figure 3: Part of the query results from the query of figure 2, shown by
SESB 3.0
276 ulrik sandborg-petersen

became part of both SESB and Libronix. In both of these programs,

Emdros fulfills the vision of Talstra that a syntactic database of the
Hebrew Bible can aid both the scholar and the student in their inter-
actions with the text.
Eep Talstra’s work has thus inspired many, also outside of his own
field. As I have shown, Talstra’s work has influenced Doedens, myself,
and others. As a result, methods and tools have arisen within the field
of computer science that feed back directly into Talstra’s own field,
Biblical Hebrew scholarship.
 PERSUASIVE HEBREW EXERCISES:
THE WIT OF TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED
LANGUAGE LEARNING

Nicolai Winther-Nielsen

This paper describes current work by the author to develop learning technol-
ogy for the WIVU database which Eep Talstra and his Werkgroep Informatica
team is building for storage and retrieval of linguistic and textual information
on the Hebrew Bible. The work on corpus-based language learning described
in this paper is an initial stage in a larger research project to construct persua-
sive learning objects and technologies, or PLOTs, inspired by the pioneering
work of the Werkgroep and by the construction of the database system called
Emdros.
The paper traces the development of tools from the early teaching tech-
nology in 2004 to the current Ezer Emdros-based Exercise Tool (3ET), but
also refers to the Linguistic Tree Constructor and the Paradigms Master Pro.
The paper introduces the linguistic terminology from the database which will
be used in learning technology. It explains the structure of a curriculum for
teaching Biblical Hebrew from the database for Genesis 1–3, and describes
when and where technology-enhanced exercises can be introduced, based on
the author’s test results and observations from the classroom as well as on
focused interviews.
Development of persuasive exercise technology can enhance learning by
interactive engagement with the text in a database. Students develop into self-
directed learners in control of their texts, and they are able to excel while
being trained to use Bible-software more effectively. We expect databases like
the WIVU to change teaching, study, and research in profound ways.

For more than three decades, a team led by Eep Talstra, the world’s
first Professor of Informatics of the Hebrew Bible and director of the
Werkgroep Informatica Vrije Universiteit (WIVU),1 Amsterdam, has
been creating an annotated text of the Hebrew Bible and exploring
how it can be used in research projects. In a course on Pascal pro-
gramming in 1977 the instructor remarked that Talstra’s plan to use
Biblical Hebrew for computational linguistics must surely be a practical

1
For information in general on the WIVU, see http://wivu.dans.knaw.nl/index
.php?view=about.
278 nicolai winther-nielsen

joke. Thirty years later, research by the Werkgroep Informatica has

clearly shown the benefits gained from using databases and linguis-
tic approaches for the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. This paper
will argue that we can expect even more persuasive results from new
applications of this database.
The Werkgroep Informatica’s text of the Hebrew Bible has occasion-
ally been abbreviated as the WIT, and in the following I will explore
some of the ‘wit’ of using this text and its database in information
technology for language learning. This paper will demonstrate the
wisdom of using the WIVU database for exercises in language learn-
ing and explain how a new generation of learners can master Biblical
Hebrew faster, better, and easier thanks to new technologies based
on the database. I will present various tools that support persuasive
learning by interactive engagement with the Hebrew text. It will also
become clear why we tell our story of technology-enhanced learning
as a plot—the tools presented are evidence in our case for persuasive
learning objects and technologies, in short a PLOT.2

1 PLOTting Technology for Learning

To appreciate the reasons for using the WIVU database for persua-
sive learning, we need to grasp the concept of a text as a database for
which various applications can be developed, and the interface as a
guide for the learner or researcher. If best practices for online teach-
ing are built into the applications, and if the logic of the programs can
produce instructive activities while running the programs, then these
programs can in practice function as self-instructing learning objects.
The wit of the database is then that it offers the learner a self-coaching
text whereby he or she is presented with random exercises and can
select a PLOT that serves a useful learning experience. It is the goal of
the project Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew—better known as 3BH, and
marketed under this name by the Bible software company 3BM—to

2
The PLOT for language learning was presented at the SBL Annual Meeting in
New Orleans on 24 November 2009, in the paper ‘Persuasive Hebrew Learning: the
case for IT’, read for the Computer-Assisted Research Group. It is available online at
http://www.3bmoodle.dk/course/view.php?id=33 (Login: som gæst [=as guest]). Pro-
fessor Talstra honoured me by attending the session and commenting favourably on
my presentation. It is a pleasure for me on the occasion of this Festschrift to express
my appreciation, having been a member of the Werkgroep Informatica since 1987.
 persuasive hebrew exercises 279

develop tools to support such practical language learning skills.3 The

project supports the development and use of inexpensive and interac-
tive virtual environments among which are simple frame games, or
quizzes.4 The project offers a learning environment for these tools in
the open source learning management system Moodle.5
It was natural to select the WIVU database of Biblical Hebrew for
the PLOT. The database is marketed commercially by the leading pub-
lishers of scholarly editions of the Hebrew Bible, the Deutsche Bibel-
gesellschaft, in the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible, the SESB.6 Now
in its third version, the digital version of the WIVU database is inte-
grated into the resources that students and scholars use for translation
and interpretation. Furthermore, since the Original Languages Library
bundle of Logos Bible Software also contains the morphology of this
database, a Logos user may also profit from the use of the new tools
developed for the PLOT.7
Our project Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew, or 3BH, started in the
summer of 2008. Earlier projects, begun already in 2003, are now
incorporated into the new learning environment to support activities
in technology-enhanced blended learning. Foremost among the earlier
projects was a quiz tool that has been released in December 2009 as
the Paradigm Masters Pro.8 This program, designed and programmed
by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen as a web-application, was initially planned
in 2003 to be used in my courses on information and communication
technology and biblical languages offered at Aalborg University. The
program is an interactive frame game that allows learners to practice
the paradigms of the verb, noun, and pronominal suffixes of Biblical
Hebrew. Sandborg-Petersen has also added quizzes for New Testa-
ment Greek and is now offering the tool for Spanish.

3
Current information on the 3BH is available at http://3bm.dk/main/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=76&lang=da (=www.3bm.dk
→ 3BH Moodle).
4
For Highly Interactive Virtual Environments, see Clark Aldrich, Learning Online
with Games, Simulations, and Virtual Worlds: Strategies for Online Instruction (San
Francisco, 2009), pp. 7–8, et passim.
5
Moodle (www.moodle.org) is the world’s largest learning management system
with some 35 million users, and growing (http://moodle.org/stats).
6
Christof Hardmeier, Eep Talstra, and Bertram Salzmann, SESB: Stuttgart Elec-
tronic Study Bible 3.0 (Stuttgart–Haarlem, 2009).
7
On Logos and its more than ten thousand resources, see www.logos.com.
8
The new Paradigms Master Pro is introduced at www.paradigmsmasterpro.com
and http://quiz.emergence.dk. For several years the quizzes have been freely available
at http://quiz.emergence.dk, and can still be tried out there. For the history of the
program, see http://quiz.emergence.dk/quiz/about/nwn.
280 nicolai winther-nielsen

The Linguistic Tree Constructor was the first tool to prove the wit of
displaying the Werkgroep Informatica text.9 Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
in 2005 developed this program as a tool for students to practice con-
structing phrases and clauses from the Hebrew text. The Linguistic
Tree Constructor supports the tagging of texts according to the gram-
matical conventions of the WIVU database and modern grammars
like X-bar theory and Role and Reference Grammar. For the new ver-
sion 3.X of this program, we can supply files containing the constitu-
ent structure of selected texts from the WIVU database. Users of the
SESB program can now experiment interactively with the constituent
trees of the WIVU database in order to learn the phrase, clause, and
sentence structure available in the SESB.
In 2005, I began coordinating the Role-Lexical Module project that
has some educational import, even though this was not the primary
goal from the start.10 This web-application was designed and pro-
grammed by Chris Wilson as a tool that will allow linguists to map
from Biblical Hebrew syntax, as stored in the WIVU database, to the
logical structure of the clause; it also provides an online semantic rep-
resentation in accordance with Role and Reference Grammar. To help
linguists who do not read Biblical Hebrew, this application gives access
to a transliteration and glossing of the parsed clauses of the Werkgroep
Informatica text.11 The Role-Lexical Module is therefore a tool that
helps students familiar with Role and Reference Grammar to under-
stand Biblical Hebrew data better while learning from an interactive
interface to syntax and semantics.
The fourth and most innovative project is the Ezer Emdros-based
Exercise Tool, which we usually refer to as the 3ET in order to relate it

9
The Linguistic Tree Constructor can be downloaded at www.ltc.sourceforge.net.
For its use in the 3BH for teaching purposes, I obtained permission from Dr Bertram
Salzmann, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (www.dbg.de) to use the WIVU database.
10
See Nicolai Winther-Nielsen, ‘A Role-Lexical Module (RLM) for Biblical Hebrew:
A Mapping Tool for RRG and WordNet’, in Rorbert D. Van Valin Jr (ed.), Investi-
gations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface (Studies in Language Compan-
ion Series 105; Amsterdam–Philadelphia, 2008), pp. 455–478; idem, ‘Biblical Hebrew
Parsing on Display: The Role-Lexical Module (RLM) as a Tool for Role and Reference
Grammar’, Hiphil 6 [http://www.see-j.net/index.php/hiphil],(2009). Current informa-
tion on the project is available at http://3bm.dk/main/index.php?option=com_conten
t&view=article&id=68&Itemid=86&lang=da, and the text of Genesis 1–3 is available
at http://lex.qwirx.com/lex/clause.jsp.
11
The transliteration following the Bergman system is explained in Nicolai Winther-
Nielsen, Claus Tøndering, and Chris Wilson, ‘Transliteration of Biblical Hebrew for
the Role-Lexical Module’, Hiphil 6 [http://www.see-j.net/index.php/hiphil] (2009).
 persuasive hebrew exercises 281

to the framework of the 3BH.12 We released this exercise tool in January

2010 as an example of the ultimate learner-centred tool for quizzes.
The idea of the self-coaching text object is inspired by the theory of
Persuasive Technology that is an important framework for develop-
ing persuasive tools, media, and social worlds among specialists in
Information Architecture.13 The plan is to combine persuasive design
and technology-enhanced learning into my proposal for Persuasive
Learning Objects and Technology, PLOT.14 I ‘plot’ to create instructive
information and technology that can help students learn better, faster,
and more profoundly when texts function as objects associated with
technology. The technology stimulates persuasive changes of attitudes
and habits of learners.
Using the data structure of the WIVU database, Claus Tøndering
created a quiz generator and an interface for learners to be able to
construct their own exercises from the database. He also provided
the tool with an export feature which allows a Hebrew instructor to
upload quizzes on texts to the question bank of a teaching manage-
ment system like Moodle.15 As coordinator of the project, I test the
tool in teaching and constructing pedagogical exercises for e-learning
in Moodle. In 2009 Claus Tøndering developed a free virtual keyboard
for use in programs and on the Internet as a part of this project.16 This
tool allows students to write non-Latin scripts for exercises in the 3ET
and online exercises on the Internet. This virtual keyboard offers the
learner the option to select the layout of a Libronix keyboard, which
will train the learner in the skills needed for performing searches in
the SESB and Logos Bible software products.

12
The tool was published in Claus Tøndering, ‘3ET—An Automaic Tool for Grammar
Training’, Hiphil 6 (2009). Information on 3ET is available at http://3bm.dk/main/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=75&lang=da (=www.3bm.dk →
3ET exercises, and at http://www.ezer.dk/3ET/index.php). The program can be down-
loaded at http://www.ezer.dk/3ET/download.php.
13
Proposed by B.J. Fogg, Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What
We Think and Do (San Francisco, 2003). This seminal book gave name to Captology, a
major new movement in Information Architecture (cf http://captology.stanford.edu).
14
Originally launched on 30 March 2009 at a conference at Aalborg University
Copenhagen Institute of Technology, the contributions are published as screencapture
at http://www.livssyn.hum.aau.dk/course/view.php?id=19 (login as guest).
15
The 3ET supports the eXtensible Markup Language, or usually simply XML,
which is a widely used standard for transport and storage of data between different
IT systems.
16
EzerKB emulates a keyboard with non-Latin characters like Hebrew, Greek, and
Russian without actually installing a keyboard driver. It can be downloaded free of
charge at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ezerkb.
282 nicolai winther-nielsen

In our experience, it is not easy for students to learn how to use

the advanced syntactic search features available in sophisticated soft-
ware like the SESB. However, we believe that persuasive technology
of the sort we are developing can help the learner use the Libronix
interface more effectively. He or she will be familiar with the structure
of the data from the displays of the Linguistic Tree Constructor, and
will have ample opportunities to exercise skills through the quizzes
generated by the Ezer Emdros-based Exercise Tool. Future versions
of the tools are expected to improve on the interfaces, enhancing the
user friendliness of the tools and simplifying them for easier use at the
beginners’ level.
As the name Ezer Emdros-based Exercise Tool indicates, the 3ET
is implemented in the Emdros storage and retrieval system.17 Since
Emdros is a further development of the WIVU database, which Eep
Talstra originally created for linguistic analysis, this tool is a direct
descendent of the database in Amsterdam. To the best of our knowl-
edge, our tool is the first attempt to use an Emdros database for a
commercial program designed specifically for interactive learning
purposes. Within the Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew framework, this
tool best illustrates how linguistic data from the Hebrew Bible stored
in a hierarchical database can be used for technology-enhanced lan-
guage learning, allowing the database to provide material for interac-
tive exercises. From 2011 to 2013 it will be further developed in the
EuroPLOT project (http://www.eplot.eu).
To sum up, the Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew project exemplifies
the best types of tools being developed to enhance learning of the
Hebrew Bible. The potential to have unrestricted access to the WIVU
database in sophisticated software, to the interactive display of text,
and to the construction of exercises enhances learning in this new
approach. The usefulness of the database is especially evident in the
innovative concept of the self-teaching text which has shaped the Ezer
Emdros-based Exercise Tool. In the following, we will look at what
these tools offer and how the database has helped learners and their
coaches so far.

17
Emdros is best described in the dissertation of its developer Ulrik Sandborg-
Petersen, Annotated Text Databases in the Context of the Kaj Munk Archive: One
Database Model, One Query Language, and Several Applications (PhD diss., Aalborg
University, 2008; available at http://www.hum.aau.dk/~ulrikp/PhD). See also his con-
tribution to the present volume.
 persuasive hebrew exercises 283

2 PLOTting Learning from the WIVU Database

Thus far we have traced the history of development of persuasive

learning tools and demonstrated that the 3ET is a prime example of
how a text can be viewed as an object associated with its own technol-
ogy for learning. We will now proceed to an examination of how this
tool integrates the WIVU database, and how the software product is
structured, before we present empirical data on how persuasive tech-
nology enhances learning.
At the outset we would like to stress that the Ezer Emdros-based
Exercise Tool has only been released in its first version, and we are still
exploring the full potential of the tool for the next version. At pres-
ent the program adheres closely to the way that the WIVU data are
built hierarchically around the lexical morpheme, or the ‘word’, as the
basic unit in an Emdros database. Each word is associated with struc-
tural and functional information on its lexical category, surface form,
and constituent grammatical morphemes. The morpheme is stored as
a constituent of progressively higher levels of phrases and clauses as
well as fragments of these. This linguistic structure must be learned
quite early in the course, and is therefore introduced while the learner
is still concentrating on memorizing the Hebrew script.

Figure 1: Some Selections of Categories for Word in 3ET

284 nicolai winther-nielsen

For the lexical morphemes, or words, the 3ET has access to long lists
of information in the Emdros database format.18 However, the learner
can open the text in a simple mode that gives access to the most
important word-level information as shown in figure 1.19 Most options
to select graphic variants from the text are left out, so the learner will
be able to select exercises on parts of speech and specific lexical sets
and grammatical morphemes like gender, number, and suffix-types for
nouns and verbs. In the following we will exemplify some of these
categories which learners need to know.
For lexical category, or part of speech, as well for special lexical
sets, the choices listed in the database follow traditional classifications.
The main classes are noun, verb, preposition, adjective, adverb, and
conjunction. The minor classes are article, pronoun, negation, inter-
rogative, and interjection.
The Hebrew verbal stem in the simple mode displays the crucial list
for the beginner: the Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hiphil, Hophal, and Hit-
pael, and a few rare stems. Unfortunately, the database does not contain
information on Polel, Polal, Hitpolel, or Pilpel, which are usually taught
in introductory grammars. Verbal tense in our tool is called aspect, as in
many other theories, thereby distinguishing between the perfective and
the imperfective conjugations. The database uses Wayyiqtol, Weqatal,
and Weyiqtol for conjugations that I personally refer to as the narrative,
the (con)sequential and the clause-initial imperfective/jussive (cf. also
table 2 below). The person, gender, and number distinctions are the tra-
ditional ones learned by the beginner; for nouns, where this data is not
available in the WIVU database, and therefore ‘unknown’, the choices
sometimes differ from the dictionaries. For noun type, it is possible to
select common or proper nouns, for pronouns personal, demonstrative,
and interrogative forms. For common nouns, the states included are
absolute, construct, and for Aramaic also determined. Pronominal suf-
fixes can mark the clitic objects and infinitival subjects attached to the
verb or the possessors attached to the nominal.

18
These long lists of items are exemplified in Winther-Nielsen, ‘Biblical Hebrew
Parsing’, p. 12 (table 1).
19
The user of the 3ET in version 1 in the file menu can choose ‘New exercise’ and
choose between ‘Hebrew (Simple, WIVU, OT)’ and ‘Hebrew (Advanced, WIVU, OT)’.
 persuasive hebrew exercises 285

The above terms are the only choices available to the learner
who selects the option to use the database in the simple mode and
only wants to exercise skills at word level. However, the tool also
allows the learner to access the full information of the WIVU data-
base by selecting the advanced mode. In this mode the learner can
move beyond the lexical word to higher levels of the phrase and
clause.
For the phrase level, the WIVU database stores phrase types with
traditional labels used in structural linguistics. The primary phrase
constituents are verb phrase, noun phrase, prepositional phrase, adjec-
tival phrase, and adverbial phrase. The secondary phrase types are
proper noun phrases, pronominal phrases, and more specialized ones
like the negative, conjunctional, and interjectional phrases.
The database also contains phrase functions that to a certain degree
fit into the organization of a functional grammar like Role and Refer-
ence Grammar, but only if we add some terminology peculiar to Biblical
Hebrew. The phrase categories in the database are best explained if we
compare them to how they are organized in the five layers used in the
SESB software product—see table 1 for the functional terms and their
abbreviations.

1. The nucleus layer consists of the predicate.

2. Core arguments include obligatory nominal phrases functioning
in roles traditionally called subject and direct object. Prepositional
phrases in the core are called complements, and there is a particular
supplement constituent that increases valence.
3. Peripheral arguments include optional adjuncts referring to man-
ner, instrument, and pace modifications; the specialized functions
of temporal and locative settings are distinctively marked.
4. ‘Qualifiers’ are a mixed group of elements which in a Role and Ref-
erence Grammar mostly will be part of the operator projection, for
example, modifiers, negations, and interjections.
5. ‘Pre-Core Elements’ are not identical with the Pre-Core Slot of
Role and Reference Grammar, but combine fronted items as well
as clause-linking functions like conjunction and relative pronoun.
The pragmatic function of vocative is also included here.
 286 nicolai winther-nielsen

Table 1: The Five Layers of Phrase Functions

Layers 1–3: Predicate, Core, and Periphery Elements

1st layer ‘Nuclei’ 2nd layer ‘Core 3rd layer ‘Peripheral

arguments’ arguments’
Pred Predicate Subj Subject Adju Adjunct
PreC Predicate Object Object Loca Locative
Complement
PreS Predicate with Compl Complement Time Time
Subject Suffix Reference
PreO Predicate with Supp Supplementary
Object Suffix Constituent
PreC Predicate with
Non-Object Suffix

Layers 4–5: ‘Qualifiers’ and ‘Pre-Core Elements’

4th layer ‘Qualifiers’ 5th layer ‘Pre-Core Elements’
Exst Existence Rela Relative
ExsS Existence with Subject Suffix Conj Conjunction
Nega Negation Frnt Fronted Element
NegS Negation with Subject Suffix Voct Vocative
Modi Modifier
ModS Modifier with Subject Suffix
Ques Question
IrpP Interrogative Pronoun as Predicate
IrpS Interrogative Pronoun as Subject
IrpO Interrogative Pronoun as Object
IrpC Interrogative Pronoun as Complement
Intj Interjection
IntS Interjection with Subject Suffix

At clause level, the most interesting information to note are the differ-
ent clause types in table 2.20

20
The WIVU database contains fragments of clauses which are called atoms and
encompass embedded or relational constituents. For clause constituent relations, the
database notes the following functions: Coordinated (Coor), predicative (Pred), sub-
ject (Subj), object (Objc), complement (Cmpl), adjunctive (Adju), attributive (Attr),
resumptive (Resu), continuation of vocative (CoVo), and genitival relation (RgRc).
 persuasive hebrew exercises 287

Table 2: Clause Types

WIVU and 3ET Non-abbreviated terminology

Narrative WayO Wayyiqtol-Ø
WayX Wayyiqtol-X
Perfective clauses21 NulQtl Ø-Qatal
WXQt We-X-Qatal
WxQt We-x-Qatal
XQtl X-Qatal
XxQt X-x-Qatal
(Con)sequential clauses WQtl We-Qatal
Imperfective clauses NullYqt Ø-Yiqtol
WXYq We-X-Yiqtol
WxYq We-x-Yiqtol
XxYq X-x-Yiqtol
XYqt X-Yiqtol
xYqt x-Yiqtol
Weyiqtol-clauses WeY0 Weyiqtol-Ø
WeYX Weyiqtol-X
Infinitive clauses InfC Infinitive Construct
InfA Infinitive Absolute
Imperative clauses Impv Imperative
Participial clauses PtcA Active Participle
PtcP Passive Participle
Verbless clauses AjCl Adjectival
(nominal clauses) NmCl Nominal
Non-predicative clause CPen Left-detached Periphery
fragments (Casus Pendens)
Ellp Ellipsis
MSyn Macrosyntactic linking (signal)
Voct Vocative

As mentioned earlier, only the advanced mode of the interface gives

access to information above the lexical word. It should be apparent
that much of this information reaches well beyond the beginner’s
level. However, when a text is parsed to this degree of complexity,
the database offers a rich textual learning object that can be used for
the development of technology-enhanced learning, thereby offering

21
Incidentally, there is no x-Qatal category in the 3ET.
288 nicolai winther-nielsen

learners, coaches, and researchers alike multiple options for construct-

ing exercises on a text selected from the annotated database.
To conclude, in our experience it is important to learn basic terms
from the very beginning of the study of Biblical Hebrew, if students
are to profit from the possibilities of accessing the WIVU database
through the SESB software and the PLOT technology. Course creators
constructing learning experiences within the PLOT environment will
have to use the terminology of this database consistently, or find ways
to reinterpret the terminology in a consistent way, if the learner is to
profit from this new concept of the self-teaching text.

3 The Persuasive Unfolding of the PLOT

in Online Learning

This presentation of the structure of the database and its linguistic

categories explains what a prototypical exemplar of a PLOT tool can
offer, and how this technology is implemented in the online curricu-
lum of the Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew course material.
From 2004 onwards, earlier versions of the course were created in
Moodle and lectures were recorded as screencapture videos, which
are Power Point presentations with an added audio dimension. In the
course material, these presentations serve as short pedagogical intro-
ductions to the core grammatical content. When students embark
on a new lesson, they will first watch a screen capture introduc-
tion to key grammatical content for four to ten minutes. They will
be able to repeat the lesson, or parts of it, when they choose, so that
the content is more accessible and condensed. Feedback has indi-
cated that students prefer a slow and non-agitated factual presenta-
tion, especially when English is their second language. Most students
will also want to take notes and immediately transform content into
their own words and style of learning. For all these reasons, screen-
capture videos appear to persuade the learner to persevere until
he or she has grasped the content far better than the usual printed
introductions do.
Learners can use their software to study the WIVU database and
get reading helps from the transliteration in the Role-Lexical Mod-
ule. They can then check their parsing of the Hebrew constructions
with the displays in the Linguistic Tree Constructor and afterwards
use the 3ET to test how well they grasp the structure of the text they
 persuasive hebrew exercises 289

are studying. For learners in developing countries who do not have

access to expensive Bible software, the text of Genesis 1–3 is available as
a file for the Linguistic Tree Constructor at no extra cost. This tool only
requires installation on computers running Windows XP for support of
Unicode. For Scandinavian Logos users we deliver further detail on the
contents introduced in the videos by offering pedagogical introductions
created by Logos’ Personal Book Builder. Unfortunately, these files can-
not be opened in the SESB, but Logos users can click on links to the
leading reference grammar which users of the SESB can buy.22
The structure of the curriculum for the Bereshit Basic Biblical
Hebrew course material is illustrated in tables 3–5. The columns list
the number of weeks for the activity, the lesson number, the course
content, the learning goals, and the technology particularly relevant to
a the subject matter being studied.
As the name Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew implies, the course
material in lesson (1) begins with ‘Bereshit’ which is the Hebrew title
of the first book of the Bible. To begin learning Hebrew from Genesis
is a venerable tradition in Hebrew instruction.23 These chapters on
the creation, the garden of Eden, and the fall hold a strong emotional
attraction for most beginners. Thus, they are easily persuaded to focus
on these chapters because they are crucial to the learners’ theology,
literature, and cultural history. Students are motivated to study the
Hebrew language in a specific and significant context. All learning
activity focuses on the parsing of actual items in texts, so the learner
will become aware of the most frequent forms and notice the most
important irregular phenomena in the texts.
By way of example, this implies that early in the course the grammar
must introduce the frequently occurring and highly irregular Hebrew

22
Learners who own the Original Language Library have access to a digital version
of Christo H. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar (Sheffield, 1999), and the aim of the course is to expose learners
to this pedagogical intermediate range grammar. We hope that SESB 4.0 will support
the use of instructor-generated course material, and that this material as well as the
Logos and SESB resources can integrate with our new system in English which we
plan to develop as learning objects through the GLOMaker (http://www.glomaker.
org) or similar applications.
23
William Rainey Harper, Elements of Hebrew by an Inductive Method (Chicago,
1895). The famous founder of the University of Chicago pioneered this inductive
approach by teaching all Biblical Hebrew from Genesis 1–8. Recently Barry L. Bandstra,
Genesis 1–11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Waco, Texas, 2008), has used these
chapters for an introduction to a Systemic Functional Grammar approach.
 290 nicolai winther-nielsen

verb hāyāh, which is comparable to the English copula verb be and

therefore is presented already in lesson (11). Since about one quarter
of the irregular verbs belong to the same irregular type with the -āh
ending, students should learn this irregular type of verb first after the
regular stem conjugations. At the same time, learners need to be per-
suaded to practice only the most important forms of the conjugation.
In this regard, the 3ET tool supplements the Paradigm Masters Pro
quiz program, because exercises of morphological patterns in the para-
digms of the verb are afterwards exercised from actual Hebrew texts.
During lessons (1)–(4) the learner practices the most important ele-
ments of the Hebrew script and works with reading aids. Exercises are
available on the Moodle platform and are, therefore, easy to use. In
lessons (5)–(7) the learners look at the structure of the linguistic data
in SESB and the Linguistic Tree Constructor, while they continue to
memorize and practice reading starting with Gen 1:1. Learners can in
this phase test the accuracy of their reading through the Role-Lexical
Module, and they are expected to be able to read Hebrew words accu-
rately, albeit at a slow pace. They will understand the hierarchical lev-
els of the language by working with the text in the Linguistic Tree
Constructor and clicking on the nodes of syntactic trees. This helps
them exploit the structure of the data that are available in the SESB
software and the 3ET exercise tool.

Table 3: Reading Hebrew and understanding Text (BH01–BH07)

Week Lesson Course elements Learning goals 3BH

1–2 INTRODUCTION TO SIGNS AND
LANGUAGE
1–4 Gen 1:1. (1) Consonants. Begin Gen 1:1. → be able to recognize (game)
(2) Vowels. (3) Dagesh, Shewa and other all signs. 3BH
masoretic signs. (4) The syllable and the
consonants used to denote vowels.
5–7 (5) Morphemes and levels of language. → be able to read and RLM
(6) Parts of Speech. (7) Phrase, clause understand words. LTC
and sentence units. Know Gen 1:1 by
heart and be able to
read aloud.
 persuasive hebrew exercises 291

Table 4: Clause Structure and the Basic Paradigms of Verbs and Nouns
(BH07–BH12)

Week Lesson Course elements Learning goals 3BH

2–3 BASICS OF GRAMMAR:
REGULAR VERB
8 Gen 1:2. Basic conjugation → see irregular verb PMP
form – perfective to be LTC
9 Nouns → noun declination
10 Verbal system and verbless → understand verb
clause and clause structure
11 Gen 1:3. Qal imperfective → exercise Qal
and other non-perfective
forms
12 Gen 1:4–5. The syntax of the → be persuaded to 3ET
construct noun look at actual
language

For lessons (8)–(12), during the remaining part of the third week, and
probably into the fourth week, the learner needs to study the basics
of verbal and verbless clauses and basic noun declensions as given
in table 4. The challenge is to do exercises in the Paradigm Masters
Pro while continuing to use the Linguistic Tree Constructor for Gen
1:2–5. The goal is to obtain a better grasp of parts of speech, phrases,
and clauses, as the learners struggle to understand the morphology of
the verb conjugations and the irregular forms occurring in the text. In
less than a month, the learners should have become familiar with the
basic tools available to study Biblical Hebrew texts as linguistic learn-
ing objects.
For the remaining five weeks of the eight to nine week course, exer-
cises in the Paradigms Master Pro and the 3ET exercise tool will deter-
mine the workload of the learning processes (see table 5). It is now
simply a matter of looking at videos, reading texts, and continuously
exercising one’s grasp of the texts in order to master the SESB or the
Logos WIVU morphology. There are also some exercises for learning
vocabulary; the course material focuses on words occurring more than
500 times.
292 nicolai winther-nielsen

Table 5: Regular and Irregular Verbs and Suffixes (BH13‒BH28)

Week Lessons Course elements Learning goals 3BH

4–5 STEMS
13–17 (13) Gen 1:6–8. Verbal stems → master verbal PMP
and Hiphil (14) Gen 1:9– morphemes, SESB
10. Prepositions with suffix. stems 3ET→
(15) Gen 1:11–13. Passive, 3BH
Niphal and Hophal.
(16) Gen 1:14–19.
Possessive suffixes.
(17) Gen 1:20–23. Piel,
Pual and Hitpael.
5–8 DEEPENING:
IRREGULAR VERBS
18–28 Gen 1:24–3:24. -āh types and → be able to read
other less frequent types at a regular pace
and know how to
exercise

The duration of the Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew course is set to

eight weeks of intensive study, but learners and coaches can, of course,
slow down the pace as they wish. After the first 28 lessons, the course
should be expanded into reading additional texts for continued prac-
tice, using the tools introduced and explained for Genesis 1–3.
To summarize, the structure of this course has evolved from class-
room experience and several years of developing blended learning
enhanced by technology. We have emphasized the crucial role of
learning from an actual text from the start, as artificial data or scat-
tered evidence is less effective in motivating learners. We have shown
how the tools are integrated into the course material and explained
expected outcomes. In the following section I will present some solid
results from tests done with the material.

4 The Resolution of the PLOT in Feedback

For a digital system to count as prototypical PLOT technology, learners

and their coaches must be able to construct activities that will persuade
users to work more satisfactorily with the technology. To be worth
the effort, the technology should enhance learning perceivably when
compared with traditional teaching methods. The tools must motivate
learners to increase their involvement and enhance their practice; the
 persuasive hebrew exercises 293

learning environment should be highly interactive and preferably easy

for the majority of learners and coaches to use. Persuasive technology
should enable learners to design their own individual progression and
be adaptable to individual learning styles.
For Biblical Hebrew it has been demonstrated that exercises are the
key to learning the language.24 When the persuasive force of technol-
ogy is combined with realistic activities and inviting contents, it will
affect the attitudes and enhance the commitment of the learner. The
optimal language-learning experience is in our view to select a text
and then decide on a series of quizzes, in other words, to plot a learn-
ing experience. When learners have responsibility for and control over
their progression, they are able to assess their results and select the
desired level of achievement. This is the ultimate example of persua-
sive objects with technology.
The first version of the Bereshit Basic Biblical Hebrew course mate-
rial was tested on a class of four students from September 2009 to mid
January 2010.25 When new experimental technology was introduced, I
received instant oral feedback from a cooperative group of learners. The
personal contact between students and their course constructor/coach
stimulated ongoing discussions on learning experiences. Though this
online course is still being developed, the first results are encouraging.
The students were able to read Hebrew words and sentences after two
weeks. For the next three weeks, they memorized the morphology of
the Hebrew verb by means of the paradigm quizzes in Paradigms Mas-
ter Pro, and developed excellent skills for parsing verbs. At that point,

24
See Nava Bergman, The Cambridge Biblical Hebrew Workbook (Cambridge, 2005).
Her teaching material now works well as course material for an internet-supported
self-directed study. The material incorporates decades of expert teaching experience
and offers an abundance of excellent exercises. We expect that her material would
gain from technology-enhanced learning, as proposed at http://3bm.dk/main/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=64&lang=da.
25
The students studied for a Bachelor of Theology degree accredited at the Uni-
versity of Wales, and their final oral exam was recorded to allow external examiners
to assess the level of marking. Three out of four students had to work alongside their
studies, because students at evangelical schools in Denmark are not granted the nearly
10,000 Euro which students at the two state-recognized Faculties of Theology at the
universities in Copenhagen and Aarhus obtain. Time was therefore precious, and they
had to be able to trust that what I asked them to learn was worth their efforts. They
achieved 10 ECTS/20 Credits in the course, and invested some 13 hours each week in
my course. They needed to study 17 pages of the BHS and pass an oral exam without
further help and preparation time. In the beginning, the class had a daily face-to-face
coaching session four days in the week to help the students use the technology more
efficiently, but after four weeks this was reduced to three lessons per week to give
more time for exercises.
294 nicolai winther-nielsen

they felt a desire to read texts which had been somewhat neglected.
They were excited to learn that they could now read and understand
larger stretches of text. From lesson twenty onwards, they used the
exercise tool to practice some irregular verbs, but mostly read from
Genesis at a pace of two to three verses per lesson by using the SESB
and Logos Bible software, along with dictionary resources.
The basic course material from Genesis 1–3 amounts to some five
pages of Hebrew text in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. For the next
phase of the course, I selected twelve more pages from the book of
Exodus which were read for six intensive weeks, with one week off in
the middle. The students had to finish by mid December to allow time
for the holidays and preparation for their oral exam in mid January.
When the students began reading the first text from Exodus, they
experienced a major crisis as the vocabulary was new and the text
was different from Genesis 1–3. Fortunately, after the first two lessons,
they were comfortable with their new task and were able to speed up
because of the skills learned from the Paradigms Master Pro and the
3ET exercise tool. I managed to complete the entire course in some
48 lessons. Students were allotted some 135 hours altogether for face-
to-face coaching, reading, and exercises, which gave them ample time
to practice for the oral exam. During the Exodus lessons, I spent each
session rehearsing the oral exam situation with the students and guid-
ing them in their use of Bible software.
After eleven weeks of study, an evaluation of the course was made.
Three out of four students wrote detailed responses, and the results
were confirmed in the oral exam and from personal communication.
The students responded that it would never have been possible for
them to succeed without the SESB and Logos, and confirmed that they
learned best from looking at the most important points of grammar in
the first chapters of Genesis. They found the videos, drills, and readings
from texts the most valuable. In the beginning, they wanted more face-
to-face teaching and were concerned about the technology-enhanced
learning style. Their preferred tools were the SESB and Logos soft-
ware with grammar and dictionaries. After that, in descending order,
the consonant game was great fun and inspirational from the start,
and the Paradigms Master Pro was the most essential and used all the
time. They understood the value of the 3ET, but the new concept of
a self-teaching text was not sufficiently integrated into the online pre-
sentations for this test group. Therefore, they used exercises exported
to Moodle as part of drills for their lessons, but did not construct
 persuasive hebrew exercises 295

exercises on their own. The teaching material clearly must incor-

porate this tool at a much deeper level in the further development
of the online course material. The display of the Hebrew text in the
Linguistic Tree Constructor became available only in the middle of the
course, thus being introduced too late for serious testing, but it would
have helped them interact with the phrases, clauses, and sentences of
the texts. The Role-Lexical Module was not used by these students,
but we expect that it will help interested students to understand the
linguistic structure of Hebrew far better, and that it will be useful for
learners in courses on Bible translation and in more advanced Masters
and PhD courses.
Continuous feedback will no doubt enable course creators to improve
on the interactive learning, but I was pleased that the test results for the
students surpassed my expectations. Compared to the amount of time
spent on previous courses, students learned much faster with the new
PLOT-supported course. Face-to-face coaching was reduced by some
40% as compared to courses run in 2002–2004 in the proto-technical
days. The teacher becomes the coach who encourages the students to
improve their use of the tools and helps them perform the most pleasant
and rewarding learning activities at their own pace and style.
The profile of those interviewed varied somewhat. Student A con-
sidered himself to be a poor language learner based on his prior expe-
rience with Latin and Greek, but his interest in computers made him
exercise well and eventually achieve the top position of the class, mas-
tering the stems and conjugations of the verbs almost like a virtual
Paradigm Master Pro morphology cruncher. Student B knew some
Modern Hebrew and had already completed the beginner’s course;
once she grasped the essentials of the technology, she proceeded
quickly and was eventually able to read at a considerable pace. Student
C was often away from class due to extra-curricular activities; when-
ever he joined the class it would only take him a few lessons to catch
up and he was capable of directing his studies effectively at his own
pace. Student D had not gained much from previous teaching methods
in Hebrew; she preferred the new coaching role of the teacher, and
would have fared better had she been able to start with the flexible
tools from the beginning.
The evaluations from only four students form a slender basis, but in
February and March 2010 the tools were tested among some 15 Mas-
ters students studying at the Lutheran Graduate School of Theology
(SALT) in Madagascar. Due to extreme poverty, these students cannot
296 nicolai winther-nielsen

afford to buy books, let alone purchase their own personal computers,
but the tools were accessible on the school’s stationary computers with
Window XP shared by all students.26 The feedback was extremely posi-
tive, and the first class ιn Madagascar will now be able to coach fellow
students. What works in Africa can work elsewhere, so we expect that
future development of our project may help offer low-cost tools for
technology-enhanced learning on a global scale.
Accordingly, the technology in my view has passed the test and
proven its persuasive force at the beginners’ level. The best prospect
of our project is that PLOT technology can enhance language learn-
ing through training exercises. I am now planning a development
team which will work on the improvement of the interfaces and will
explore persuasive features in learning technology. Through interna-
tional scholarly cooperation and funding we hope to be able to test
and improve the tools. Thanks to cooperation with Eep Talstra we
will have access to the WIVU database and will be able to explore its
potential in a learning environment.

Conclusions

In this contribution on new PLOT technology, I have focused on the

Ezer Emdros-based Exercise Tool (3ET) as well as the Linguistic Tree
Constructor. These two programs are the primary exemplars of how
the WIVU database can be used for technology-enhanced learning.
We have traced the history of this persuasive technology and
explained how these tools fit into a curriculum for effective learning of
Biblical Hebrew. Even if the empirical basis for this study is relatively
small, feedback suggests that a new learning environment supported
by persuasive learning objects and technologies—or in this case the
Hebrew Bible turned into a database with various plug-ins for exer-
cises—is an important step forward. Students develop into self-directed
learners in control of their texts, and they are able to excel, while being
trained to use Bible-software like the SESB more effectively. The evalu-
ations indicated that students benefit from proceeding at their own
pace and developing individual technology-enhanced learning styles.

26
For information on the project at SALT, see http://3bm.dk/main/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=76&lang=da
 persuasive hebrew exercises 297

The linguistic categories of the WIVU database are crucial, because

student feedback indicates that the learning environment must aim
at consistency in terminology. For the future, we therefore suggest
that the categories used in the WIVU database should be used for
the construction of technology-based courses of Biblical Hebrew. This
will help learners to use the SESB and integrate technology into other
courses. Ultimately we expect that the demands of learners will influ-
ence the production of new data and the creation of new categories for
the WIVU database, and thus also for the SESB.
We have not discussed persuasion in learning at any depth in this
contribution, but in order to be able to be effective, a PLOT technology
must be interactive, efficient, and affordable. Schools and faculties of
theology tend to cut down on the teaching of Biblical Hebrew, but the
use of persuasive learning tools may slow down or even counter this
unfortunate development by motivating students and enabling learn-
ing. The tools can help professors coaching smaller groups of students
without investing in a heavy teaching load, thus making them cost-
effective. All this will be tested as we develop the new PLOTLearner
in the EuroPLOT project 2011–2013.
This new step in technology-enhanced learning could not be taken
without Talstra’s ground-breaking work. First, his construction of
databases to store text as objects for experiment and his focus on tech-
nology to enhance the linguistic study of the Hebrew Bible has stimu-
lated the development of learning objects and exercise technology. The
PLOT was developed in an attempt to learn from the structure of the
WIVU database. Second, through the WIVU database and its applica-
tions Talstra has set the standards for new terminology to be used in
learning Biblical Hebrew. From the beginning, the learner should be
familiar with how data are structured hierarchically from morpheme
level to text level, and students should learn by emulating the parsing
of linguistic data. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Talstra has
not only had the vision to give priority to the study of the linguistic
text of the Bible as the norm of theology, but he has also shared the
research of the WIVU with scholars, Bible translators, and students
through the SESB software program. He has enabled and motivated
learners to do better exegesis and innovative biblical theology that will
answer questions from the church and society. Thanks to his efforts
and his cooperative and team-building spirit, we are only at the begin-
ning of developing new applications of the WIVU database.
298 nicolai winther-nielsen

The sophisticated learning applications we have described in this

contribution are built on the solid basis of the database developed by
Eep Talstra, and therein lies their ultimate value. It all started in 1977,
when Eep Talstra, the up-and-coming scholar of Hebrew Bible, lin-
guistics, and information science, had the wit to attend his first class
of PASCAL in order to build what was to be become the Werkgroep
Informatica Text of the Hebrew Bible—the WIT. We now have a rich
annotated database, ripe for study and learning in the next generation
of applications for future students.
 JUDGING JEPHTHAH: THE CONTRIBUTION OF SYNTACTIC
ANALYSIS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JUDGES 11:29–40

Klaas Spronk

This contribution explores the issue of the overt or covert bias in the scholarly
interpretation of the morally problematic story of Jephthah. Is it possible to
avoid the influence of prejudice? In the survey of previous research, the focus
will be on the feminist and the historical-critical approaches. In order to let
the text speak for itself as much as possible, attention is paid to the struc-
turing elements in the text, such as verbal tenses, morphological relations,
references to the participants, lexical relations, and clearly signaled pivots.
The combination of these elements produces arguments for describing the
main line of the story and the relations between the different participants. In
this way it can be demonstrated that Jephthah is introduced only gradually.
As soon as he has assumed a prominent place, he becomes dominant as the
one speaking and acting. His position changes with the introduction of his
daughter. In the final part of the story Jephthah regains some of his previous
power of speaking and acting, but at the end this is abruptly taken over by
the Gileadites. It is concluded that, apart from the question whether Jephthah
was acting morally correctly, the text indicates that in the confrontation with
his daughter and with the Ephraimites Jephthah is losing control.

1 Introduction

It is hard to maintain scholarly distance when reading the story of a

judge who sacrificed his daughter. Such morally offensive behaviour
calls for condemnation and the reader of this part of the sacred texts
of Judaism and Christianity expects to find this in the text itself. Oth-
erwise one would have to admit ‘in Marcionite horror’1 that people
like Voltaire are right in using this text as proof that the god of the
Old Testament was barbarous.2 The problem is that the narrator of the

1
Walter Sundberg, ‘Jephthah’s Daughter: An Invitation to Non-lectionary Preach-
ing’, Word and World 13/1 (1993), pp. 85–90, esp. 86.
2
Cf. D.M. Gunn, Judges (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Malden, 2005), pp. 150–
151; C. Houtman and K. Spronk, Jefta und seine Tochter: Rezeptionsgeschichtliche
Studien zu Richter, 11, 29–40 (Altes Testament und Moderne 21; Münster, 2007),
pp. 27–28.
300 klaas spronk

story appears neither to condemn the sacrifice explicitly nor to give

clear indications of mitigating circumstances.3 The fact that Jephthah
is presented positively in other texts in the Bible, as a saviour sent by
God (1 Sam 12:11) and as a faithful hero (Heb 11:32–33), even seems
to indicate that he does not deserve criticism for his actions at all.
Does this mean that what a modern reader finds to be reprehensible
was not interpreted as such by the narrator and his intended audience?
The history of interpretation4 shows that from the beginning in both
the Jewish and Christian tradition opinions have been divided. No
one dares to judge this story as complete nonsense, but all try to make
some sense of this part of the sacred Scriptures.5 Jephthah is either
praised for being steadfast or judged for making a rash vow.
Surveying the centuries of comments also makes clear how much
the interpretation is influenced by the context of the commentator.
An interesting example of this is given by David Gunn in his presen-
tation of the way the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter was visualized
in English family Bibles in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
He notices that illustrations of the sacrifice itself, which were quite
common in the eighteenth century, gradually disappeared in the
books of the nineteenth century. Gunn sees a parallel in the change of
cultural attitudes towards public executions during the same period.
These were no longer regarded as pedagogically suitable for viewers.6
It makes one realize how much views can change in a relatively short
period and how careful we should be, therefore, when projecting our
present standards onto the distant past of ancient Israel.

3
J.C. Exum, ‘Feminist Criticism: Whose Interests Are Being Served?’, in G.A. Yee
(ed.), Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2nd ed.; Minneapolis,
2007), pp. 65–89, esp. 74.
4
Cf. Gunn, Judges, pp. 133–169; M. Sjöberg, Wrestling with Textual Violence: The
Jephthah Narrative in Antiquity and Moderniy (Sheffield, 2006); Houtman and Spronk,
Jefta und seine Tochter; W. Groß, Richter (HThK; Freiburg, 2009), pp. 624–632.
5
U. Hübner, ‘Hermeneutische Möglichkeiten: Zur frühen Rezeptionsgeschichte
der Jefta-Tradition’, in E. Blum et al. (eds.), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache
Nachgeschichte (FS R. Rendtorff; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990), pp. 489–501. With regard
to the interpretation in the first centuries bce he speaks of ‘jene Art von Theologie,
die von einem ungebrochenen Vertrauen in die Selbstevidenz aller biblischer Texte
lebt und ganz aus der Binnenperspektive des Glaubens Zugang zu ihnen sucht (. . .).
Diese Sichtweise rechnet nicht mit der Möglichkeit, in der Bibel Un-Sinn anzutreffen’
(p. 500). This can be said of most later interpretations as well.
6
D.M. Gunn, ‘Viewing the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter’, in Yee, Judges and
Method, pp. 202–236, esp. 234.
 judging jephthah 301

With the rise of the historical-critical method of exegesis, during

approximately the same period as that described by Gunn, came the
suggestion that it is possible to give an objective explanation of the old
texts, taking into account their specific place of origin and develop-
ment. In his impressive recent commentary on the book of Judges this
is exactly how Walter Groß presents the way he interprets this text or,
to be more precise, how he dismisses the way in which many modern
commentators succumb to the temptation of assuming that Jephthah
was pictured negatively in the book of Judges:
Auslegungen im fortschreitenden 20. Jh. auf der Basis der Lektüre der
jetzigen Abfolge der Episoden ergeben nicht selten ein sehr ungünstigen
sich zunehmend verdunkelndes Jiftach-Bild (. . .)
Man kann keinen biblischen Autor oder Bearbeiter benennen, der
dieses Jiftach-Bild absichtlich erzeugt oder die in dieser Auslegung impli-
zierten Beurteilungsmaßstäbe angelegt hätte. (. . .) Man kann allerdings
auch keinen modernen Leser daran hindern, ihn so zu rezipieren: Es
ist eine historisch unangemessene, aber dem Wortlaut nicht widerspre-
chende Weise, aus heutiger Perspektive, mithilfe psychologisierender und
moralisierender Kategorien und unter Eintragung von den damaligen
Autoren fernliegenden Handlungsalternatieven Jiftachs die Leerstellen
des Textes zu füllen. Der Text scheint freilich so sein eigenes Wort nicht
sagen zu können, sonder zur Projektionsfläche für die Selbstspiegelung
des Lesers zu werden.7
Similar criticism is also voiced by other scholars, especially against
a synchronistic approach (Groß speaks of ‘eine holistische Lektüre’)
based on the assumption that the book of Judges is a coherent text
with a clear message. According to Greger Andersson this is a way of
taming texts that violates their autonomy.8 In his opinion the diver-
gences between the different synchronic analyses show that they are
based on prejudices which pass over the outcome of historical-critical
research, namely, that in Judges 10–12 we are dealing with a ‘conglom-
erate of material that has not been reworked into a coherent literary
unit’.9 As a consequence the interpreter should leave more room for
polyphony.

7
Groß, Richter, p. 621.
8
G. Andersson, The Book and its Narrative: A Critical Examination of Some
Synchronic Studies of the Book of Judges (Örebro, 2001). On pp. 83–109 Andersson
discusses a number of interpretations of the story of Jephthah and his daughter.
Cf. also his ‘A Narratologist’s Critical Reflections on Synchronic Studies of the Bible:
A Response to Gregory T.K. Wong’, SJOT 21 (2007), pp. 261–274.
9
Andersson, The Book and its Narrative, p. 95.
302 klaas spronk

The same reproach, however, is also made from ‘the other side’
against seeing the book of Judges as the result of a complicated process
of growth, for instance, when Eli Assis explains why in his study of
Judges 6–12 he wants to focus on the structure of the account and the
plot development, looking for the ideology behind the text. Against
the theory of a Deuteronomistic editor he maintains:
Even if every scholar bases his historic reconstructions on scientific his-
torical examples, one cannot but feel that the presuppositions of each
scholar depend on subjective feelings in relation to the credibility of the
Biblical historiography in general and the Book of Judges in particular.10
In the next sections I want to explore this issue of the open or hidden
bias in the scholarly interpretation of the morally problematic story
of Jephthah. Is it possible to avoid the influence of prejudice? Is the
historical-critical method a safe way to achieve that? In this discussion
I want to bring in the significant contribution of Eep Talstra to the dis-
cussion about methods of biblical exegesis: can it help in this situation
to start with a thorough syntactic analysis of the text?11

2 Open and Hidden Bias

It is important to distinguish between an open, deliberately chosen

bias and a hidden bias of an author who pretends to be objective but
is not. The best example of the first is the feminist approach to the
biblical text.12 J. Cheryl Exum makes no secret of the fact that ‘the

10
E. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon,
Abimelech and Jephthah Narratives (Judg 6–12) (VT.S 106; Leiden, 2005), p. 12.
11
Cf. among other publications E. Talstra and C.J. Bosma, ‘Psalm 67: Blessing, Har-
vest and History: A Proposal for Exegetical Methodology’, Calvin Theological Journal
36 (2001), pp. 290–313; E. Talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden
van uitleg van het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002). I was happy to
work together with Eep Talstra in supervising the dissertation of M.E.J. den Braber,
Built from Many Stones: An Analysis of N. Winther-Nielsen and A.G. Auld on Joshua
with Focus on Joshua 5:1–6:26 (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2010), in which she
evaluates the work of Winther-Nielsen and Auld on the basis of Talstra’s method-
ological approach.
12
Cf. the surveys in Houtman and Spronk, Jefta und seine Tochter, pp. 19–25, and
B. Miller, Tell it on the Mountain: The Daughter of Jephthah in Judges 11 (Interfaces;
Collegeville, 2005), pp. 77–93. Cf. also my article ‘Frauen und Simson: Die feminis-
tische Auslegung von Richter 13–16’, in C. Houtman and K. Spronk, Ein Held des
Glaubens? Rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu den Simson-Erzählungen (CBET 39;
Leuven, 2004), pp. 247–263.
 judging jephthah 303

starting point of feminist criticism of the Bible is not the biblical texts
in their own right but the concerns of feminism as a worldview and
as a political enterprise’.13 The reader should be aware of the domi-
nant androcentric agenda in the story of Jephthah and resist it, among
other things, by putting extra emphasis on the part of the story where
the daughter and her friends take time for themselves and find their
own ritual.14 It is a way—not only for female exegetes—to find mean-
ing in or to give a meaning to the story by making the reader aware
of the problematic relation between the sexes. In his ethical evaluation
of the story Mikael Sjöberg focuses on the issue of power and takes
sides with the daughter as the oppressed party.15 Joseph R. Jeter states
that he could only find one way of preaching on the text, namely, by
relating it to stories in recent history of innocent young girls—Helga,
daughter of Joseph Goebbels, and Marie, daughter of Czar Nicholas II
of Russia—who were brutally killed only for being the daughter of
their father. Instead of telling our daughters to die, we, inspired by the
gospel of resurrection, should say to them: ‘Arise’.16
Within feminist exegesis we also find the standpoint that the bibli-
cal text itself is critical of the traditional relation between man and
woman, father and daughter. Pamela Tamarkin Reis comes with a
remarkable analysis which in her opinion shows that Judges 11 is
the story of a powerless girl who succeeds in manipulating her father
in order to secure for herself ‘a life of comfortable independence’.17
Tamarkin Reis suggests that this is not something she reads into the
text, but that it is the ‘plain, surface meaning’ of the text itself.18 There
is nothing wrong with Jephthah’s vow, because we have to assume
that he knew the Torah, which means that he intended to dedicate a
slave and redeem him or her. He was surprised by his daughter, who
must have known of the vow and used it to choose her own future. By
going out to meet her father she forced him to ‘condemn’ her to stay
unmarried and without children. This must have been felt by her as

13
Exum, ‘Feminist Criticism’, p. 65.
14
Miller, Tell it on the Mountain, pp. 86–91.
15
Sjöberg, Wrestling with Textual Violence, p. 210.
16
J.R. Jeter, Preaching Judges (St. Louis, 2003), pp. 94–99.
17
P. Tamarkin Reis, Reading the Lines: A Fresh Look at the Hebrew Bible (Peabody,
2002), p. 130. Her article ‘Spoiled Child: A Fresh Look at Jephthah’s Daughter’, was
published earlier in Prooftext 17/2 (1997), pp. 279–298.
18
Tamarkin Reis, Reading the Lines, p. 128.
304 klaas spronk

a positive outcome, because it secured her independence and enabled

her to profit from the wealth of her father.
Apparently unaware of the exegesis of Tamarkin Reis, Roger Ryan
offers a similar explanation. He speaks of ‘a daughter’s act of self-
sacrifice’.19 According to Ryan, the daughter positively accepts her
fate as an act of independence from her father. The problem is not
Jephthah’s inconsiderate vow, but the daughter who cannot be stopped
from sacrificing herself. In Ryan’s view, the most shocking thing is that
the storyteller gives no comment whatsoever.
Going over the detailed exegesis of Tamarkin Reis, it can be noted
that she fills in many of the blanks in the story. She assumes that she
knows what was on Jephthah’s mind when he made the vow and that
his vow was made public in the city of Mizpah. There is reason to
doubt whether her attempt to bring Jephthah’s daughter ‘down to
earth’ is merely a matter of close reading of the text within the wider
context of the Hebrew Bible. In her introduction she describes as the
basic problem of the interpretation of the story the fact that she can-
not accept that a man like Jephthah, who is described so positively in
Judges 10 and in the first part of Judges 11, can suddenly become a
fool.20 What put her on the right track, in her opinion, was her own
experience with spoiled children. In fact, she describes herself as a
spoiled child making life difficult for her loving father.21 This brings
her close to the older pre-critical exegesis in its attempt to explain why
Jephthah is held in high esteem in other parts of the Bible.
A similar, more or less hidden agenda can be detected in the mono-
graph of David Marcus. He carefully weighs the evidence put forward
by what he calls ‘the sacrificialists’ and, on the other side, ‘the non-
sacrificialists’, to show that it is not beyond doubt, that Jephthah’s
daughter was really sacrificed.22 The basic argument for his conclusion
that she was not killed but sentenced to a life of celibacy, is that the
text is ambiguous at many points and that this ambiguity is deliberate
in order to heighten the suspense of the story. Many interpreters note
that it is a characteristic of this story that the storyteller left a number

19
R. Ryan, Judges (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield, 2007), pp.
82–92.
20
Tamarkin Reis, Reading the Lines, p. 107.
21
Tamarkin Reis, Reading the Lines, pp. 107–108. It is interesting to note that she
dedicated her book to her father.
22
D. Marcus, Jephthah and his Vow (Lubbock, 1986), p. 9.
 judging jephthah 305

of narrative gaps.23 To interpret these as ambiguities, and even as delib-

erate, is not necessary, and is probably influenced by the wish to find
a solution to the problem of a seemingly uncritical reference to child
sacrifice. Marcus does not hide his intentions: ‘My conclusion is that
while I personally favour a non-sacrificial fate for Jephthah’s daughter,
the evidence is so ambiguous that it must be admitted that both con-
clusions are possible’.24 For most scholars this fifty-fifty already goes
too far, because it seems to be based predominately upon filling in the
narrative gaps. When the balance then swings to the non-sacrificial
outcome, one can hardly avoid the suspicion that Marcus is lead by
wishful reading.
In his final conclusions Marcus makes an interesting observa-
tion about the chief focus of the story. The focus is not Jephthah’s
(unnamed!) daughter, but Jephthah himself. The fate of the girl may
have been blurred to throw the rash vow of her father in sharper
relief.25 The fact that Marcus does not consider this as an argument in
favour of the ‘sacrificial’ interpretation again indicates that he is prob-
ably focused too much on the fate of the girl.

3 The Bias in the Historical-Critical Approach

Historical-critical exegesis usually presents itself as being objective,

not bound to theological presuppositions like the traditional Jewish
and Christian exegesis, and furthermore as free from the wish to use
the text to further the psychological or social human well-being. In
fact, scholars like Andersson and Groß see it as part of their task to
free the biblical text from this straitjacket. In some respects, however,
the historical-critical approach also has its own one-sidedness and
short-sightedness or tunnel vision.
In any case it is clear that the historical-critical theories about the
origin of the story have had consequences for the way Jephthah’s
vow is judged by modern commentators. The suggested reconstruc-
tion of the development of the text into its present canonical form
made it possible to give a more rational explanation for the seemingly

23
Cf. Hübner, ‘Hermeneutische Möglichkeiten’, p. 499; Miller, Tell it on the Moun-
tain, pp. 22–23.
24
Marcus, Jephthah and his Vow, p. 50.
25
Marcus, Jephthah and his Vow, p. 54.
306 klaas spronk

strange behaviour of Jephthah. Julius Wellhausen diminishes the role

of Jephthah by stating that his story was only told to explain the custom
described at the end of the story: ‘Seine ganze Geschichte hat nur ihre
Pointe in dem Opfer der Jungfrau und dient zur Erklärung des Fes-
tes, welches man alljährlich in Gilead zu Ehren der Tochter Jephthahs
feierte.’26 Likewise, instead of discussing Jephthah’s motives, an exegete
like Hugo Greßmann looks primarily for parallels of this ‘ätiologische
Kultsage’ in the ancient Near East and in Greece.27 It has long been
assumed that, as in the Pentateuch, a Jahwistic and an Elohistic source
could be traced behind the text of the books of Joshua and Judges as
well. This also has had its consequences for the view on the story about
Jephthah’s sacrifice. According to many scholars the story stemmed
from the Elohistic source, to which also the story in Genesis 22 about
Abraham sacrificing Isaac belonged. In his commentary Karl Budde
uses this as an argument in favour of the theory that human sacrifice
was accepted in an early phase of the religion of Israel:
was der rein menschlich dargestellte Held Jephtha thut, muss sich aus
dem Gedankenkreise seines Volkes begreifen lassen. Dass es insbeson-
dere in den Gedankenkreis von E neben Gen 22 vortrefflich past, leuch-
tet ein.28
Within the theory of the book of Judges as part of a Deuteronomistic
History, the story of Jephthah was put in another perspective. Martin
Noth’s redaction-critical analysis has been influential, showing a consis-
tent theological framework in the books of Deuteronomy through Kings
which emphasizes a negative trend in the book of Judges. Compared to
the history of Gideon, the stories about Jephthah show an increase in
the sins of the people. This fits well into the redactional strategy:
In alledem wird der Plan von Dtr ganz deutlich, den ständig wachsenden
Abfall des Volkes in der ‘Richter’-Zeit zur Darstellung zu bringen, so
daß es hier bei dem letzten geschichtlichen Beispiel zu dem Programm
von Ri. 2, 11 ff. fast schon zum völligen Bruch zwischen dem Volke und
seinem Gott zu kommen scheint.29

26
J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments (4th ed., Berlin, 1963 [= 3rd ed. 1899]), p. 224.
27
H. Greßmann, Die Anfänge Israels (Von 2. Mose bis Richter und Ruth) (SAT 1.2;
2nd ed.; Göttingen, 1922), pp. 228–230.
28
K. Budde, Das Buch der Richter (KHC; Freiburg, 1897), p. 86; cf. also W. Nowack,
Richter, Ruth und Bücher Samuelis (HKAT; Göttingen, 1902), p. 108.
29
M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeiten-
den Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen, 1967; 1st ed. 1943), p. 53.
 judging jephthah 307

This view has become influential also with regard to the judgement
concerning Jephthah. His deeds are seen as part of a process of dete-
rioration. Gerhard von Rad points to such a line in the stories about
Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, and Saul. After the vocation comes a first
proof of their charisma, but then things go wrong: ‘Der, der ein sonder-
liches Werkzeug des Geschichtswillen Jahwes war, fällt in Sünde,
Erniedrigung oder sonst in Katastrophen.’30 It is remarkable that he
mentions with regard to Jephthah only the ‘Selbstzerfleischung der
Bruderstämme’ in Judges 12. Apparently it is self-evident to him that
the story of the sacrificing of his daughter should be read against this
background as well and is therefore theologically not a problem.
This way of dealing with the story has set a trend. It has become cus-
tomary to speak of Jephthah as an ‘anti-hero’31 and of ‘the pattern of
moral decline in the book of Judges’.32 Here the results of redaction crit-
icism and most synchronic analyses meet. As indicated above, Walter
Groß strongly opposes this interpretation as not taking the story in its
original context seriously. In his own lengthy expositions he repeatedly
differentiates between a canonical and an historical approach. The text
itself contains neither a negative nor a positive judgement concerning
Jephthah. When read as part of the Old Testament as a whole, the role
of Yhwh in this story becomes problematic.33
Over against the, in his view, unfounded or historically misplaced
judgements in many modern studies of Judges 11, Groß bases his
own judgement on a detailed reconstruction of the development of
the text. Together with many other scholars he assumes that the story
of the vow (Judg 11:30–31, 34–40) is an old tradition taken up by
a pre-Deuteronomistic redactor (probably in the sixth century bce)
who combined it with the story of Jephthah being appointed as leader
(Judg 11:1–11). When it was given its place within the Deuteronomis-
tic history of the judges, some verses were added. First, the reference to
the spirit of Yhwh coming over Jephthah was placed before he started
his liberating actions (11:29a). By relating that Jephthah received the
spirit of Yhwh, the narrative places him in line with predecessors like

30
G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments 1. Die Theologie der geschichtlichen
Überlieferungen (München, 1960), p. 342.
31
B.P. Robinson, ‘The Story of Jephthah and his Daughter: Then and Now’, Bib. 85
(2004), pp. 331–348.
32
D. Janzen, ‘Why the Deuteronomist Told about the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s
Daughter’, JSOT 29 (2005), pp. 339–357.
33
Groß, Richter, p. 597.
308 klaas spronk

Gideon. A later redactor inserted the story about the negotiations with
the king of Ammon. This makes Jephthah look like Moses and takes
away any doubts about a possible relation between Jephthah having
received the spirit and him bringing a human sacrifice: ‘Nach der Ein-
fügung von 11,12–28 besteht für den Leser kein Anlaß mehr zur Ver-
mutung, JHWH habe den Sieg geschenkt, um seinen Teil des Gelübdes
Jiftachs (11,30) zu erfüllen.’34 Further textual distance between the giv-
ing of the spirit and Jephthah making his vow was created by another
addition in Judg 11:29b–d which was placed there as a link to the story
of the struggle with Ephraim (12:1–6) which was added to the history
of Jephthah.
Thus Groß solves the problem of the reference to the exceptional
human sacrifice diachronically: it was something that the Deuterono-
mistic redactor and also a predecessor adopted from an existing tradi-
tion. Apparently they did not feel free to suppress it or condemn it:
Wann und warum dieses Motiv sich mit Jeftach verbunden hat, muß
auch offen bleiben. Dem Verfasser von 11,30–40* war das Tochteropfer
Jiftachs allerdings bereits vorgegeben, denn es bereitet ihm offenkundig
Probleme.35
According to Groß the author tried to deal with these problems by
leaving Yhwh out of the story as much as possible. Jephthah is not
explicitly condemned by the author and therefore Groß, too, abstains
from passing judgement on his behaviour. In this regard he distin-
guishes sharply between historical exegesis and reception history.
Groß’s argument, no matter how well thought out it may be, rests
on some presuppositions that can be questioned. His choices may not
be as objective as he presents them to be. He assumes some kind of
development in Israelite thinking concerning human sacrifice. The
story of the vow would be no more than a relic of something which
was once accepted in a primitive state of Israelite religion. This does
not explain, however, why the Deuteronomist redactor gave it a place
in his version of the history of Israel. It is also possible, as suggested
by Thomas Römer,36 that the story stems from a later period and was
influenced by similar motives in the Hellenistic atmosphere. As an
alternative to Genesis 22, it would have been added to the history of

34
Groß, Richter, p. 620.
35
Groß, Richter, p. 623.
36
T.C. Römer, ‘Why Would the Deuteronomists Tell about the Sacrifice of
Jephthah’s Daughter?’, JSOT 77 (1998), pp. 27–38.
 judging jephthah 309

Jephthah to emphasize the different outcome of the story and thus

present Jephthah as a negative counterpart of Abraham. Groß dis-
misses this suggestion by stating that it is not likely that one would
have invented such a story in this period without any critical Yahwistic
comment.37 The same can be maintained, however, concerning his own
way of finding answers to the questions that come up when looking
at the coherence, tensions, and irregularities in the text. One could
at least also leave the possibility open that we are dealing here with
the work of one author using different sources. It is not necessary to
assume so many redactions over a long period.
With regard to his reluctance to judge Jephthah, Groß is influenced
by the history of interpretation. He is so much aware of the subjective
judgements made in pre-critical and synchronic exegesis that he seems
to overstate his case that the text gives no hints at all to the reader
about how the actions of Jephthah should be judged.

4 The Syntactic Analysis

In his publications on the methods of biblical exegesis, Eep Talstra38

calls for the right combination of exegesis, linguistics, and theology.
He observes that all too often the different fields of research are kept
separate. To do justice to the biblical text, the exegete should start with
a sound linguistic analysis. This helps to let the text speak for itself and
can, therefore, be of importance when trying to avoid bias creeping
in from preconceived theological views concerning the text. On the
other hand, biblical scholars should also take the text seriously as part
of an ancient and ongoing tradition in which it functioned and still
can function as a source of religious inspiration. In this combination
of approaches analysing and describing a long and ongoing process of
text production and interpretation, it is important to have clarity con-
cerning the many steps involved in interpretation and the right order
in which these should be taken.
When we compare this to the approach by Groß in his commentary
on Judges, we notice that Groß pays much attention both to linguistics39

37
Groß, Richter, p. 564.
38
See above, note 11.
39
As could be expected from an expert in this field; cf. W. Groß, Verbform und
Funktion: wayyiqtol für die Gegenwart? Ein Beitrag zur Syntax poetischer althebräischer
Texte (ATSAT 1; St. Ottilien, 1976); idem, Die Pendenskonstruktion im biblischen
310 klaas spronk

and to the history of interpretation, but that these two have a different
place. The linguistic analysis is used by Groß primarily in his recon-
struction of the historical development of the text. Deviations from
the normal pattern are interpreted as pointing to redactional activ-
ity, whereas one could also assume that they signal a specific element
within a coherent unity. With regard to the reception history, one can
doubt whether it is possible or even desirable to draw a sharp bound-
ary, as Groß does, between the exegesis of the text itself and the his-
tory of its interpretation. The process of interpretation started already
within the period in which the Bible texts were composed.
Two dissertations written on the basis of research supervised by
Talstra on parts of the book of Judges have already demonstrated how
useful it is to start the exegesis by establishing the hierarchy of the
clauses on the basis of a syntactic analysis.40 Possible structuring ele-
ments include the change in verbal tense, the reference to the partici-
pants, morphological relations, and lexical relations. The combination of
these elements produces arguments for signaling pivots, describing the
main story line of the text, and denoting the relations between the differ-
ent participants in the text. I tentatively suggest that when one looks at
Judges 10–12 in this objective way, one may come across some hints of a
negative judgement by the writer in describing the actions of Jephthah.
To get a good picture of the story of Jephthah and his daughter, the
story should be analysed as part of the whole story about this judge in
Judg 10:6–12:7. The text begins with the introduction of the Israelites
(‫)בני ישראל‬. This differs from the preceding verses speaking of Jair
judging Israel. The wayyiqtol (‫ )ויספו‬at the beginning does not in itself
designate a new section, but indicates that this story is told as part
of the ongoing history of Israel. In the next verses the story unfolds,
consistently using the wayyiqtol, as a growing conflict between the
Israelites and Yhwh develops. There is a regular change of subject:
first the Israelites (v. 6), then (the anger of) Yhwh (v. 7), the Israelites
(v. 10), Yhwh speaking (v. 11), the Israelites speaking (v. 15), and

Hebräisch (ATSAT 27; St. Ottilien, 1987); idem, Die Satzteilfolge im Verbalsatz alttesta-
mentlicher Prosa untersucht and den Büchern Dtn, Ri und 2 Kön (FAT 17; Tübingen,
1996); idem, Doppelt besetztes Vorfeld: syntaktische, pragmatische und übersetzung-
stechnische Studien zum althebräischen Verbalsatz (BZAW 305; Berlin, 2001).
40
Cf. P. van Midden, Broederschap en koningschap: Een onderzoek naar de betekenis
van Gideon en Abimelek in het boek Richteren (Maastricht, 1998); W. van Wieringen,
Delila en de anderen: Een syntactisch georiënteerd bijbels-theologisch onderzoek naar de
rol van de vrouwen in de Simson-cyclus (ACEBT.S 7; Vught, 2007).
 judging jephthah 311

acting (v. 16). In v. 7 the Ammonites are introduced and in v. 8 they

are the subject of the sentence without being explicitly named. This
underlines that this part of the story is in the first place about the
beginning and end of a conflict between the Israelites and Yhwh.
In Judg 10:17 a new beginning is marked by the explicit reference to
the Ammonites as subject. There is a remarkable sequence of chang-
ing subjects in the ongoing line of the story carried by wayyiqtols.
After the Ammonites come ‘the Israelites’, then ‘the people’ (‫)העם‬
in v. 18. They are indicated more precisely in the following words as
‘the leaders in Gilead’ (‫)שרי בגלעד‬. Then the text zooms in on one of
the Gileadites—Jephthah. So we have the order: Israelites—people of
Gilead—leaders in Gilead—the Gileadite, Jephthah.
The main line of the story is indicated by the repeated introduc-
tion of direct speech (‫)ויאמר‬. This begins in Judg 10:18 and is taken
up again by the elders of Gilead speaking in 11:7. So Gilead, its lead-
ers, or its elders are the leading characters in this part of the story.
Jephthah figures at a secondary level, indicated by the qatal form (‫)היה‬
in 11:1. After the introduction of Jephthah, the story line is resumed
by a repeated reference in vv. 4–5 (twice introduced by ‫ )ויהי‬to the
warring peoples, Ammon and Israel, followed by the initiative taken
by the elders of Gilead towards Jephthah. It is not clear why the subject
changes from ‘leaders’ to ‘elders’.
After the intermezzo the story continues in the same way as the
previous part about the Israelites and Yhwh, namely, with a conversa-
tion between two parties who are explicitly named in speaking to one
another—the elders to Jephthah and vice versa (vv. 6–10). As in 10:16,
this section ends with the action following upon the agreement (v. 11).
Yhwh is introduced as the third party by the elders in v. 10. This is
taken over by Jephthah in the next verse. Because this takes place as
part of the negotiations between Jephthah and the elders, it should not
be regarded as a separate part of the story.
Things change, however, in the next verse of the ongoing story (with
continuous use of the wayyiqtol), when new characters appear—the
messengers of Jephthah and the king of Ammon (v. 12). From this point
on Jephthah is the leading character in the story. He takes the initiative
in the conversation with the king of Ammon. As in the previous two
conversations, the two parties are always explicitly named. Jephthah
speaks through his messengers, but his main speech is clearly marked
as his own words, with a double use of the verb ‫אמר‬: ‫ויאמר לו כה‬
‫אמר יפתח‬. This part ends in v. 28 with another reference to Jephthah
as the one who was speaking.
312 klaas spronk

What follows in v. 29—the spirit of Yhwh coming over Jephthah—

can be regarded as an intermezzo. It has the same place within its
context as previously 10:7–8 had about Yhwh’s anger being kindled
against Israel. In both cases it concerns a certain aspect of Yhwh and
in both cases Yhwh works through humans, first the Ammonites
and now Jephthah. It is also formulated in a similar way, because in
describing the action they take, the participants are not explicitly men-
tioned as subject (in 10:8 and 11:29aβ). This means that in 11:30 the
story simply continues with Jephthah as the main character. He acts
like he did before: he starts talking (‫)ויאמר‬, this time to Yhwh. The
emphasis is on the verb.41 In contrast to the earlier parts of the story,
Jepththah does not receive a direct answer. He goes on with what he
was doing already (note the repeated verb ‫ ויעבר‬in vv. 29, 32). The
action of Yhwh in v. 32 and the situation described in v. 33 with
Ammon as subject are syntactically speaking no more than remarks
to the side.
A pivot in this ongoing line of Jephthah’s action is indicated by
the ‫ הנה‬in v. 34, introducing his daughter. She is presented similarly
to how Jephthah was introduced in 11:1. Just as in 11:4–5 where the
main line of the story is resumed by a double ‫ויהי‬, in v. 35 we find
the line describing Jephthah’s reaction introduced by ‫ויהי‬. He still has
the initiative. With the story as it was told until now, it is striking that
Jephthah is no longer mentioned explicitly by name. This part of the
text is characterized by pronominal references: ‘his house’, ‘his daugh-
ter’, ‘to meet him’, ‘to him’, ‘to see her’, ‘his clothes’, ‘my daughter’, ‘to
make me bow’, ‘to trouble me’, ‘I’, ‘my mouth’, ‘to him’, ‘my father’,
‘your mouth’, ‘to me’, ‘from your mouth’, ‘to you’, ‘her father’. The
conversation is recorded differently as well. In the story of Jephthah
we already came across three conversations: between the Israelites
and Yhwh, between the elders of Gilead and Jephthah, and between
Jephthah and the king of Ammon. Every time we saw the same pattern
with repeated ‫ ויאמר‬followed by the explicit reference to the inter-
locutors. In vv. 35–38 this scheme is abandoned. The subject of the
introductory ‫ ויאמר‬is not named. The regular sequence is broken as
well when in v. 37 the reference to the daughter speaking (‫ )ותאמר‬is
repeated. After v. 36 one would expect a reaction from Jephthah. This
can be interpreted as an indication of another digression in the story.

41
Groß, Die Satzteilfolge im Verbalsatz, p. 335.
 judging jephthah 313

It is supported by the introduction of new characters at the end of

v. 37: the friends of the daughter. Just as in 11:4–5 and in 11:35, ‫ויהי‬
is used again to return to the main line of the story, describing that
Jephthah acted as promised. Again, it is noteworthy that the name of
Jephthah is not explicitly mentioned.
The remark introduced at the end of v. 39 by ‫ ותהי‬is placed outside
of the main line of the story by the reference to the new characters,
‘the daughters of Israel’. In 12:1 another new character is introduced,
‘the man of Ephraim’. That Jephthah remains the main character
becomes clear in the description of the following conversation. Like in
the first three conversations, the interlocutors are clearly indicated. In
12:2, however, only Jephthah is mentioned by name. This is repeated
in v. 4 where Jephthah is mentioned again together with the return of
the Gileadites into the story. Here the focus shifts to the Gileadites.
They take over the fight against the Ephraimites. First, we read that
Jephthah waged war (‫ )וילחם‬against Ephraim and in the next phrase
the fight appears to have been handed over to the Gileadites: ‘and the
men of Gilead smote (‫ )ויכו‬Ephraim’. The final scene describing how
this was done is syntactically set apart by the weqatal ‫ והיה‬in v. 5.
The last verse of the history of Jephthah (12:7) is only loosely related
to the previous stories: it uses a verb (‫ )שפט‬which was not used earlier
for describing his actions, a time span of six years is mentioned which
has no connections to anything told before, and an enigmatic burial
place (‫ )בערי גלעד‬is named for which there are no clear indications
earlier in Judges 10–12.

5 Some Conclusions

This is not the place to give a full exegesis of the story of Jephthah
and his daughter with a discussion of all historical and theological
questions that arise from reading the text.42 What concerns us here is
whether the given syntactic analysis, sketchy though it may be, offers
a sufficient basis for the exegesis of the text and, specifically, whether
it gives an indication of the way in which the actions of Jephthah were
judged by the author.

42
I hope to do so in a commentary on the book of Judges in the series Historical
Commentary on the Old Testament.
314 klaas spronk

The analysis shows that in some places, especially at the end of Judges
10 and in 12:7, there is incoherence which can hardly be explained as
intentional. Here a diachronic approach may be helpful to arrive at the
right understanding of the text. In general one gets the impression that
we are dealing here with the work of one author. He may have used
different sources for his work, but he wrote this story in his own style,
with a number of characteristic features. Good examples of this style
are the way the four conversations are built up and also the way in
which the story is resumed after the inclusion of remarks in an aside,
in 11:4–5, 35, 37.
When it comes to the role of Jephthah in this story, it can be noted
that he is introduced only gradually. First, there is the conversation
and confrontation between Israel and Yhwh. Then the primary role
is taken over by the people of Gilead, who finally install Jephthah as
their leader. The text zooms in from the people as a whole, via one of
the tribes, to a member of that tribe. As soon as Jephthah has assumed
the leading role, he becomes dominant as the one speaking and act-
ing. This changes when his daughter is introduced into the story. She
has no name, but the name of Jephthah is missing in this part of the
text as well. In the speech the girl is dominant. In the final part of
the story, Jephthah’s name is heard again and he regains some of his
previous power to act and speak, but at the end this is abruptly taken
over by the Gileadites. We may conclude that, apart from the ques-
tion whether or not Jephthah’s actions were morally correct, the text
indicates that in the confrontation with his daughter and with the
Ephraimites, Jephthah is losing control.
This goes together with another interesting characteristic of the text,
namely, the distribution of the references to Yhwh. In the first part of
the text, Yhwh is a leading character in the story as one of the speak-
ers. In the conversation between the leaders of Gilead and Jephthah,
Yhwh is only mentioned at the end as a witness to their agreement. In
the conversation between Jephthah and the king of Ammon, Yhwh is
again referred to as the authority on which Jephthah bases his claims
to the land. On the basis of the syntactic analysis, the giving of the
spirit of Yhwh belongs to the part of the story about the conflict with
Ammon and not to the story of the vow. Here Jephthah starts a conver-
sation with Yhwh by making a vow. Yhwh does not answer directly,
although he later does give the victory. In the conversation between
Jephthah and his daughter, Yhwh is mentioned by both father and
daughter, but at the end of that part of the story references to Yhwh
 judging jephthah 315

are missing. This is a basic difference in comparison to the previous

three parts of the story where Yhwh was in one way or another deci-
sive for the outcome. In the last part of the story, about the conflict
with Ephraim, Yhwh is even completely absent. The declining role
of Yhwh appears to be parallel to the noted tendency of Jephthah’s
losing control.
With regard to the daughter, it can be remarked on the basis of the
syntactic analysis that the way she is introduced in Judg 11:34 closely
resembles the way Jephthah was presented in 11:1. The description of
their status in life is not part of the main line of the story. In both cases
the story is resumed by ‫( ויהי‬11:4, 35). The correspondences and, in
particular, the differences in the ensuing verses are striking. In 11:6–15
Jephthah is fully present as the dominant character. In 11:35–39
Jephthah is falling silent and his name is not mentioned. The daughter
remains unnamed as well, but she becomes the dominant speaker.
In conclusion, it can be noted that the syntactic analysis proves to
be an important tool in the exegesis of the biblical text. It helps to get
a better view of the structure of the text and also of the discrepancies
which may require a diachronic approach. Before taking into account
the possible associations with other biblical texts, historical facts, and
related religious concepts, and before bringing up our questions from
a theological, moral, or gender perspective, we should take the time to
let the syntactic analysis provide indications as to the main line of the
story and as to the possible emphasis made by the author or redactor
of the text. We may thank Eep Talstra for constantly stimulating us to
pay due attention to this part of exegetical work.43

43
Thanks are due to my assistent Gerard van Zanden for his help in preparing this
article.
 MASORETIC TRADITION AND SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF
THE PSALMS

Luis Vegas Montaner

Although the syntax of the biblical prose has been the object of a number of
seminal studies, poetry has been mostly neglected. In the present paper some
examples from the book of Psalms are shown in which the variation of syn-
tactic structures has semantic effects. This basically syntactic study of some
uses of yiqtol in relation to other finite verbal forms takes into account aspects
such as the word order in related clauses and the masoretic notation of verse
structures. The hemistichs in the verse are marked by the major disjunctive
accents (silluq-sof pasuq, atnah, and ‘oleh weyored).
Among the conclusions we arrive at in this analysis the following can be
mentioned: (a) the different position of nominal phrases in two contiguous
yiqtol—weyiqtol clauses within the same hemistich is a syntactic strategy to
indicate synonymous parallelism (yiqtol—weyiqtol—x) or sequence (yiqtol—
x—weyiqtol); (b) the masoretic accentual division of the text reflects diverse
structures of the verses which can indicate different functions of identical
sequences of verbs (qatal—wayyiqtol), namely, either simultaneous or con-
secutive, depending on whether the two clauses are separated by a major dis-
junctive accent or not. All of this has no bearing on any temporal or aspectual
value of the individual verbal forms.

1 Introduction
1.1 Syntactic Environment
The syntax of verbal clauses in biblical prose has been the object of
seminal studies, whereas poetry has been mostly neglected, no doubt
due to its inherent difficulties and presumed lack of consistency.1
Despite, if not because of, this oversight, in Madrid we are carrying
out a systematic analysis of the syntax of poetic biblical books.2 In the

1
I am extremely pleased to be able to contribute to this well-deserved volume to
honour Professor Eep Talstra, one of the pioneers in the application of the theoretical
principles of text linguistics to computer-assisted analysis of Hebrew. His relevant
opinions in this field, as well as his friendliness, have always been encouraging.
2
The present study is produced within the context of the research project FFI2008–
01120, financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.
318 luis vegas montaner

present paper we will show some examples from the book of Psalms
in which the variation of syntactic structures has semantic effects.
What follows is a basically syntactic study of some uses of yiqtol and
wayyiqtol in relation to other finite verbal forms. We take into account
aspects such as the order of the constituents in related clauses and the
masoretic notation of verse structures.
Standard Hebrew grammars offer us a vast repertory of uses and
values of verbs, but, as they neither furnish a structural organization
of the cases in a system of oppositions nor sufficiently consider clause
structure, it is easy to believe that the function of verb forms depends
on the subjective choice of each scholar.
Taking the whole clause in which a verb appears into consideration
as a formal element provides important information for choosing
between the several possible meanings of a verb. The remarks by Jacob
Hoftijzer in this respect are worth noting.3 He distinguishes between
two types of functions on the level of the sentence or clause. By ‘inde-
pendent function’ of a verb we mean the function of an isolated verb
form irrespective of its combination with other forms or its position
in the clause; however, a verb form has a dependent function when
it is combined with other forms or stands in a particular syntactic
position. According to Hoftijzer, the functions of Hebrew verb forms
belong almost exclusively to the dependent functional type. Therefore,
the structure of the clause should be taken into account.
In strict accordance with the new insights of text linguistics, the
traditional understanding of the function of qatal or yiqtol needs to
be reformulated by taking into account the syntactic structure of the
clause in which these verb forms are present. Some recent studies do
nothing other than confirm that posing the question in terms of the
meaning of qatal or yiqtol as isolated forms is misguided. Hebrew verbs
appear within certain syntactic patterns, and each syntactic pattern, in
conjunction with the verb within it, constitutes a syntactic ‘form’.
We shall end this theoretical sketch by stressing the importance
for the syntactic study of Hebrew tenses of the application of Harald
Weinrich’s grammatical principles to Biblical Hebrew by Wolfgang
Schneider, in addition to the implementation of these principles by

3
J. Hoftijzer, Verbale vragen (inaugural lecture; Leiden, 1974). Cf. Marc Vervenne,
‘Hebrew Verb Form and Function’, in Proceedings of the Second International Collo-
quium Bible and Computer: Methods, Tools, Results, Jerusalem, 9–13 June 1988 (Paris–
Genève, 1989), pp. 605–640, esp. 617–626.
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 319

scholars like Eep Talstra, Robert E. Longacre, and Alviero Niccacci.4

The renewed interest in the application of text-linguistic theories to
Biblical Hebrew is confirmed in recent years by some monographs5
and collected works.6

1.2 Poetic Parallelism

This study is part of a broader project on the analysis of verb syntax
in the Psalms, in which we take into account all the verses which have
more than one finite form and analyse their mutual relationship. Fre-
quently, such verbs are the constituents of a structure of poetic paral-
lelism, in accordance with the usual system of literary composition in
Biblical poetry.7 There are, however, numerous cases where both verbs
record succeeding actions, without parallelism, or even that they have
no relationship at all.
It is interesting to note that similar sequences of finite verb forms
in related clauses sometimes can be considered poetic parallelism and
sometimes not. As illustration, I shall concentrate on some uses of
yiqtol in relation to weyiqtol and qatal in relation to wayyiqtol.

4
H. Weinrich, Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt (4th ed.; Stuttgart, 1985);
W. Schneider, Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch (5th ed.; Munich, 1982); E.
Talstra, ‘Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory’, BiOr 35 (1978),
pp. 169–174; idem, ‘Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. II: Syntax and Semantics’, BiOr
39 (1982), pp. 26–38; R.E. Longacre, ‘Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb:
Affirmation and Restatement’ [1987], in W.R. Bodine (ed.), Linguistics and Biblical
Hebrew (Winona Lake, 1992), pp. 177–189; A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in
Classical Hebrew Prose (Sheffield, 1990), new revised and expanded edition in Spanish:
Sintaxis del hebreo bíblico (Estella, 2002).
5
E.g., David A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Sheffield, 1994);
Yoshinobu Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An
Approach from Discourse Analysis (Assen, 1996); Tal Goldfajn, Word Order and Time
in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Oxford, 1998); Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A.
Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield, 1999);
Fr. Javier del Barco, Profecía y Sintaxis: El uso de las formas verbales en los Profetas
Menores preexílicos (Madrid, 2003).
6
E.g., Bodine (ed.), Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew; Robert D. Bergen (ed.),
Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Dallas, 1994); Eep Talstra (ed.), Narrative
and Comment. Contributions to Discourse Grammar and Biblical Hebrew presented to
Wolfgang Schneider (Amsterdam, 1995); Ellen van Wolde, Narrative Syntax and the
Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Leiden, 1997).
7
This is not intended to be a comprehensive study on parallelism in this biblical
book, which would require the consideration of all clause types, nominal and verbal,
and the cases of ellipsis in the second hemistich of elements present in the first hemi-
stich, a phenomenon typical of Semitic poetic compositions.
320 luis vegas montaner

We have considered the masoretic verse as the basic element of par-

allelism, in agreement with scholars like James L. Kugel and Adele
Berlin,8 who hold the bicolon or couplet as the basic unit of parallel-
ism. There are also some cases of parallelism between verses, but cer-
tainly the system of composition of the Psalms is mainly based on the
verse.9 Moreover, almost never is the first verb of a parallel construc-
tion syndetic,10 which confirms that it is linked with the following text
in the verse, and not with the previous one.11 The chains of wayyiqtol
forms, of course, are to be set aside in this respect: as is to be expected
from a characteristic form of the narrative text type, they are linked to
the previous context, although at the same time another verb can be
parallel with the wayyiqtol within the verse.
Another point to consider is the relation between parallelism and
stichoi. The distribution of the parallel clauses by cola is frequent, but
the occurrence of parallel clauses inside the same colon is similarly
regular. Moreover, there are cases of verses with three cola, according
to the masoretic accentuation. All this has less to do with verbal syn-
tax than with the literary techniques of redaction. Whether the poetic
division of biblical verses ought to be bipartite or tripartite, with nomi-
nal phrases as ‘pivot’ elements, is a well-known debate.

8
J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New Haven,
1981; 2nd ed.: Baltimore–London, 1998); A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Paral-
lelism (Revised and expanded edition, Grand Rapids, 2008). Cf. Michael P. O’Connor,
Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, 1980; revised edition, 1997).
9
On the difficult issue of establishing the correspondence between syntactic
and poetic units, cf. Michael Rosenbaum, Word-Order Variation in Isaiah 40–55: A
Functional Perspective (Assen, 1997), and the methodological insights by E. Talstra,
‘Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry—Linguistic Structure or Rethorical Device?’, JNSL
25 (1999), pp. 101–126; idem, ‘Singers and Syntax: On the Balance of Grammar and
Poetry in Psalm 8’, in Janet W. Dyk (ed.), Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and other
Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of Professor N.A. van Uchelen
(Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 11–22.
10
A priori this would imply a close connection with the preceding context. But
even here Barry L. Bandstra has shown that at the text level ‘all non-narrative tense
verse initial -‫’ו‬s (including verbals and nominals) are associated with thematic transi-
tion and some kind of discontinuity (subject, theme, tense, or temporal) rather than
with thematic continuity’ (B.L. Bandstra, ‘Marking Turns in Poetic Text: Waw in the
Psalms’, in Talstra [ed.], Narrative and Comment, pp. 45–52, esp. 51).
11
By the same token, the parallelisms of several contiguous verses can be of a
similar type, in which case this affinity has the function of linking the verses and
ensuring the coherence of a particular textual segment.
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 321

1.3 Masoretic Prosody

We based the present analysis on the Masoretic Text,12 taking into
account the variants in the critical apparatus that could have some
bearing on our syntactic analysis. These variants are few in number,
and, moreover, we do not intend to analyse each case, but rather to
give a general description of the tendencies. It must also be said that
the masoretic accentuation coincides in general with the distribution
of the elements in parallelism, and only sporadically does such accen-
tuation differ from the clause division that is generally accepted by
scholars. The hemistichs in the verse are marked by the major disjunc-
tive accents (silluq-sof pasuq, atnah, and ‘oleh weyored).
Although the combination of the syntactic data with the diachrony
of the Psalms is interesting with regard to finding a possible evolution
in the behaviour of the pre-exilic and post-exilic Psalms, the fact is
that there is no scholarly consensus on their chronology. Some schol-
ars tend to emphasize the bearing of the epoch—post-exilic—in which
the definitive redaction took place. Others, of the opposite persua-
sion, remark on the importance of comparative analyses with Ugaritic
poetry and insist on the archaic elements present in the literary tech-
nique of parallelism in the Psalms. Nevertheless, the attempts to offer
a reliable chronology are so diverse that some scholars, such as Luis
Alonso Schökel,13 renounce a chronological division of the Psalms. On
the other hand, the studies of coincidences with Ugaritic poetry are
mainly lexical, which is important indeed for the analysis of poetic
parallelism in general, but beyond the scope of the present paper.

2 The Importance of the Position of the X Constituent

We shall now show that the variation in the position of nominal

phrases can be a syntactic strategy to indicate a different meaning,
not merely a stylistic variation. In our research we have discovered
a curious behaviour when two yiqtol forms (the second of which is

12
According to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia as recorded in The Dead Sea
Scrolls Electronic Library software package. The English translation of the Hebrew
examples in this paper is that of the English Standard Version as recorded in the Bible
Works software package.
13
L.A. Schökel and C. Carniti, Salmos 1–2 (Estella, 1992–1993).
322 luis vegas montaner

syndetic, weyiqtol) appear in a tight sequence, closely linked to each

other by a conjunctive accent. Curiously, there can also be an interven-
ing nominal element that can accompany the first or the second verb.
Therefore, two syntactic sequences are attested: yiqtol—weyiqtol—
x and yiqtol—x—weyiqtol. Let us compare some examples.

2.1 The Sequence yiqtol—weyiqtol—x

Ps 9:3 ‫ֶא ְׂש ְמ ָ ֣חה וְ ֶא ֶע ְל ָצ֣ה ָ ֑בְך ֲאזַ ְּמ ָ ֖רה ִׁש ְמָך֣ ֶע ְלֹיֽ ון׃‬
I will be glad and exult in you; I will sing praise to your name,
O Most High.
Ps 21:14 ‫בּור ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
ָ ְ‫הו֣ה ְב ֻע ֶּזָ֑֑ך נָ ִ ׁ֥ש ָֹירה ּוֽ ֝נְ זַ ְּמ ָרה ּג‬
ָ ְ‫ּומה ֹי‬
ָ ‫֣ר‬
Be exalted, O Lord, in your strength! We will sing and praise
your power.
Ps 31:8 ‫ת־ענְ ֹיִ ֹ֑י ָֹי ַ ֗֝ד ְע ָּת ְּב ָצ ֥רות נַ ְפ ִ ֽׁשֹי׃‬
ָ ‫ֹית ֶא‬
ָ ‫ׁשר ָ ֭ר ִא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ָא ִ ֥ג ָֹילה וְ ֶא ְׂש ְמ ָ֗חה ְּב ַ֫ח ְס ֶ ּ֥דָך ֲא‬
I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love, because you have
seen my affliction; you have known the distress of my soul,
Ps 52:7 ‫א ֶהל וְ ֵ ֽׁש ֶר ְׁש ָ֙ך ֵמ ֶ ֖א ֶרץ ַח ִּיֹ֣ים ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ם־א ֮ל ֹיִ ָּת ְצָך֪ ֫ ָל ֶנ ַ֥צח ֹיַ ְח ְּתָך֣ וְ ֹיִ ָּס ֲחָך֣ ֵמ‬
ֵ ַ‫ּג‬
But God will break you down forever; he will snatch and tear you
from your tent; he will uproot you from the land of the living.
Selah.

2.2 The Sequence yiqtol—x—weyiqtol

Ps 51:9 ‫ּומ ֶ ּׁ֥ש ֶלג ַא ְל ִ ּֽבֹין׃‬
ִ ‫ְּת ַח ְּט ֵ ֣אנִ ֹי ְב ֵאז֣ וב וְ ֶא ְט ָ ֑הר ְּ֝ת ַכ ְּב ֵ֗סנִ ֹי‬
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall
be whiter than snow.
Ps 104:32 ‫ַה ַּמ ִ ּ֣בֹיט ָ ֭ל ָא ֶרץ וַ ִּת ְר ָ ֑עד ֹיִ ַּג֖ע ֶּב ָה ִ ֣רֹים ְ ֽוֹ֑יֶ ֱע ָ ֽׁשנּו׃‬
Who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the
mountains and they smoke!
Ps 107:42 ‫ֹיה׃‬
ָ ‫ל־עוְ ֗ ָלה ָ ֣ק ְפ ָצה ִ ּֽפ‬
ַ ֝ ‫ֹיִ ְר ֣אּו ֹיְ ָׁש ִ ֣רֹים וְ ֹיִ ְׂש ָ ֑מחּו וְ ָכ‬
The upright see it and are glad, and all wickedness shuts its
mouth.
Ps 119:77 ‫ֹי־ת ָור ְת ָ֗ך ַ ֽׁש ֲע ֻׁש ָ ֽעֹי׃‬
ֽ֝ ‫ֹיְ ב ֹ֣אּונִ ֹי ַר ֲח ֶ ֣מֹיָך וְ ֶ ֽא ְח ֶֹי֑ה ִּכ‬
Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my
delight.
It is clear from these cases that when the nominal phrase (the x con-
stituent) comes after the second verb (and, consequently, the two verbs
are adjacent), both verbs are usually parallel and synonymous; on the
contrary, when the x constituent comes after the first verb, the second
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 323

one is not parallel but sequential with respect to the first one. The sta-
tistics of distribution will allow us to consider this to be a rule.

2.3 The Distribution of the yiqtol—weyiqtol—x Cases

In the following examples, which are classified according to the kind
of intervening accents, it can be seen that:

(a) With a conjunctive accent (19 cases),14 both verbs are always paral-
lel and synonymous, in accordance with the proposed rule.
Ps 27:6 ‫רּועה‬
֑ ָ ‫ֹיבותֹי וְ ֶאזְ ְּב ָ ֣חה ְ ֭ב ָא ֳהלו זִ ְב ֵ ֣חֹי ְת‬
ַ֗ ‫אֹיְ ַ֬בֹי ְ ֽס ִב‬
ֹ ֽ ‫אׁשֹי ַ ֤על‬
ִ֡ ֹ ‫וְ ַע ָּ֨תה ֹיָ ֪רּום ר‬
‫ֹיהוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ָא ִ ׁ֥ש ָֹירה וַ ֲ֝אזַ ְּמ ָ ֗רה ַל‬
And now my head shall be lifted up above my enemies all around
me, and I will offer in his tent sacrifices with shouts of joy; I will
sing and make melody to the Lord.
Ps 40:17 ‫א ֲה ֵ֗בֹי‬
ֹ ֽ֝ ‫הו֑ה‬
ָ ְ‫אמ ֣רּו ָ ֭ת ִמֹיד ֹיִ גְ ַ ּ֣דל ֹי‬
ְ ֹ ‫ל־מ ַ֫ב ְק ֶ ׁ֥שֹיָך ֹי‬
ְ ‫ָֹ֘י ִ ׂ֤שֹיׂשּו וְ ֹיִ ְׂש ְמ ֨חּו ׀ ְּב ָ֗ך ָ ּֽכ‬
‫ׁשּוע ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
ָ ‫ְּת‬
But may all who seek you rejoice and be glad in you; may those
who love your salvation say continually, ‘Great is the Lord!’
Ps 50:21 ‫ֹיחָך֖ וְ ֶ ֽא ֶע ְר ָכ֣ה‬
ֲ ‫אוכ‬
ִ ‫ֹיות־א ְה ֶֹי֥ה ָכ ֑מוָך‬
ֶֽ ‫ֹית ֱ ֽה‬
ָ ‫ֹית ׀ ְ ֽו ֶה ֱח ַ ֗ר ְׁש ִּתֹי ִּד ִּ֗מ‬
ָ ‫ֵ ֤א ֶּלה ָע ִׂ֨ש‬
‫ְל ֵע ֶֹינֹֽיָך׃‬
These things you have done, and I have been silent; you thought
that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge
before you.
Ps 67:5 ‫ּול ֻא ִּ֓מֹים ׀ ָּב ָ ֖א ֶרץ ַּתנְ ֵ ֣חם‬
ְ ‫ֹיׁשור‬
֑ ‫ֹי־ת ְׁש ֹּ֣פט ַע ִ ּ֣מֹים ִמ‬
ִ ‫ֹיִ ְֽׂש ְמ ֥חּו ִ ֽו ַֹירּנְ נ֗ ּו ְל ֻ֫א ִ ּ֥מֹים ִ ּֽכ‬
‫ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
Let the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you judge the peoples
with equity and guide the nations upon earth. Selah.
Ps 70:3 ‫רּו ְמ ַב ְק ֵ ׁ֪שֹי ַ֫נ ְפ ִ ׁ֥שֹי ֹיִ ּ֣סֹגּו ָ ֭אחור וְ ֹיִ ָּכ ְל ֑מּו ֲ֝ח ֵפ ֵ֗צֹי ָר ָע ִ ֽתֹי׃‬
֮ ‫ֹיֵ ֣בֹׁשּו וְ ֹיַ ְח ְּפ‬
Let them be put to shame and confusion who seek my life! Let
them be turned back and brought to dishonor who desire my
hurt!
Ps 107:27 ‫ל־ח ְכ ָמ ָ֗תם ִּת ְת ַּב ָ ּֽלע׃‬
ָ֝ ‫ֹיָ ֣חוּגּו ְוֹ֭יָ נּועּו ַּכ ִּׁש ּ֑כור וְ ָכ‬
They reeled and staggered like drunken men and were at their wits’
end.

14
See supra the examples of Ps 9:3; 21:14; 31:8; 52:7; cf. also Ps 9:4; 35:4, 26, 27;
40:15; 70:5; 83:18; 108:2.
324 luis vegas montaner

Ps 118:24 ‫הו֑ה נָ ִ ֖ג ָֹילה וְ נִ ְׂש ְמ ָ ֣חה ֽבו׃‬

ָ ְ‫ה־הּיום ָע ָ ׂ֣שה ֹי‬
֭ ַ ֶ‫ז‬
This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad
in it.

(b) With a minor disjunctive accent we find four cases where both
verbs are parallel, according to the rule.
Ps 6:11 ‫ֹיֵ ֤בֹׁשּו ׀ וְ ֹיִ ָּב ֲה ֣לּו ְ ֭מאֹד ָּכל־אֹֹיְ ָ ֑בֹי ָֹי ֻׁ֗֝שבּו ֹיֵ ֥בֹׁשּו ָ ֽרגַ ע׃‬
All my enemies shall be ashamed and greatly troubled; they shall
turn back and be put to shame in a moment.
Ps 32:8 ‫ֹיע ָ ֖צה ָע ֶלֹ֣יָך ֵע ִ ֹֽינֹי׃‬
ֲ ‫אור ָ֗ך ְּב ֶ ֽד ֶרְך־ז֥ ּו ֵת ֵלְ֑ך ִ ֽא‬
ְ ‫ַא ְׂש ִ ּֽכ ְֹיל ָ֨ך ׀ ְ ֽו‬
I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will
counsel you with my eye upon you.
Ps 73:8 ‫ֹיָ ִ ֤מֹיקּו ׀ וִ ַֹיד ְּב ֣רּו ְב ָ ֣רע ֑עֹ ֶׁשק ִמ ָּמ ֥רום ֹיְ ַד ֵ ּֽברּו׃‬
They scoff and speak with malice; loftily they threaten oppression.
Ps 129:5 ‫ֵ ֹ֭יבֹׁשּו וְ ֹיִ ּ֣סֹגּו ָא ֑חור ֗ ּ֝כֹל ׂש ֹנְ ֵ ֥אֹי ִצּיֽ ון׃‬
May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned backward!
Four other cases go against the aforementioned rule: the second verb
is not parallel but sequential with respect to the first one.
Ps 22:32 ‫ולד ִ ּ֣כֹי ָע ָ ֽׂשה׃‬
ָ ֗ ֝‫ָ ֹ֭יבֹאּו וְ ֹיַ ִּגֹ֣ידּו ִצ ְד ָק ֑תו ְל ַ ֥עם נ‬
They shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet
unborn, that he has done it.
Ps 77:4 ‫רּוחֹי ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
֣ ִ ‫ֹיחה ׀ וְ ִת ְת ַע ֵ ּ֖טף‬
ָ ‫ֹלהֹים וְ ֶ ֽא ֱה ָמ ָֹי֑ה ָא ִׂ֓ש‬
֣ ִ ‫ֶאזְ ְּכ ָ ֣רה ֱא‬
When I remember God, I moan; when I meditate, my spirit
faints. Selah.
Ps 78:6 ‫ֹיהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ֵ‫ֹיס ְּפ ֥רּו ִל ְבנ‬
ַ ‫ְל ַ ֤מ ַען ֹיֵ ְד ֨עּו ׀ ּ֣דור ַ ֭א ֲחרון ָּב ִנֹ֣ים ֹיִ ּוָ ֵל֑דּו ָֹי ֻ ֗֝קמּו ִ ֽו‬
That the next generation might know them, the children yet
unborn, and arise and tell them to their children.
Ps 119:17 ‫ל־ע ְב ְּדָך֥ ֶ ֽא ְח ֶֹ֗יה וְ ֶא ְׁש ְמ ָ ֥רה ְד ָב ֶ ֽרָך׃‬
ַ ‫מל ַ ֽע‬
ֹ ֖ ְ‫ּג‬
Deal bountifully with your servant, that I may live and keep your
word.
Ps 78:6 is dubious15 and Ps 22:32 is of a different kind than the rest of
analysed examples, with an auxiliary use of the verb ‫בוא‬. Of the two
remaining cases, a chiasmus with the first hemistich can have played
a role in Ps 77:4.

15
See the mention of a possible haplography in the critical apparatus and the propo-
sal of addition of Waw before yqmw, according to the Septuagint and the Peshitta.
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 325

2.4 The Distribution of the yiqtol—x—weyiqtol Cases

In eighteen cases the second verb is sequential with respect to the first
one, that is, the proposed rule is systematically followed.

(a) Cases with a conjunctive accent (nine cases)16

Ps 34:3 ‫ַ ּ֭בֹיהוָ ה ִּת ְת ַה ֵּל֣ל נַ ְפ ִ ׁ֑שֹי ֹיִ ְׁש ְמ ֖עּו ֲענָ ִוֹ֣ים וְ ֹיִ ְׂש ָ ֽמחּו׃‬
My soul makes its boast in the Lord; let the humble hear and be
glad.
Ps 35:4 ‫מּו ְמ ַב ְק ֵ ׁ֪שֹי ַ֫נ ְפ ִ ׁ֥שֹי ֹיִ ּ֣סֹגּו ָא ֣חור וְ ֹיַ ְח ְּפ ֑רּו ֝חֹ ְׁש ֵ֗בֹי ָר ָע ִ ֽתֹי׃‬
֮ ‫ֹיֵ ֣בֹׁשּו וְ ֹיִ ָּכ ְל‬
Let them be put to shame and dishonor who seek after my
life! Let them be turned back and disappointed who devise evil
against me!
Ps 40:4 ‫ֹיראּו וְ ֹ֝יִ ְב ְט ֗חּו‬
֑ ָ ִ‫אֹל ֵ ֥הֹינּו ֹיִ ְר ֣אּו ַר ִ ּ֣בֹים וְ ֹי‬
֫ ‫וַ ּיִ ֵּ֬תן ְּב ֨ ִפֹי ׀ ִ ׁ֥שֹיר ָח ָד ׁ֮ש ְּת ִה ָּל֪ה ֵ ֽל‬
‫ֹיהוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ַּב‬
He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the Lord.
Ps 77:4 ‫רּוחֹי ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
֣ ִ ‫ֹיחה ׀ וְ ִת ְת ַע ֵ ּ֖טף‬
ָ ‫ֹלהֹים וְ ֶ ֽא ֱה ָמ ָֹי֑ה ָא ִׂ֓ש‬
֣ ִ ‫ֶאזְ ְּכ ָ ֣רה ֱא‬
When I remember God, I moan; when I meditate, my spirit faints.
Selah.
Ps 147:18 ‫לּו־מֹיִ ם׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ּוחו ֹיִ ּז‬
֗ ‫ֹיִ ְׁש ַל֣ח ְּד ָב ֣רו וְ ֹיַ ְמ ֵ ֑סם ֹיַ ֵ ּׁ֥שב ֝ר‬
He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow
and the waters flow.

(b) Cases with a minor disjunctive accent (nine cases)17

Ps 18:38 ‫ּלותם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ד־ּכ‬
ַ ‫א־אׁשּוב ַע‬
ָ֝ ֹ ‫ֶא ְר ּ֣דוף ֭אוֹיְ ַבֹי וְ ַא ִּׂש ֵֹיג֑ם וְ ֽל‬
I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and did not turn back
till they were consumed.
Ps 22:27 ‫אכ ֬לּו ֲענָ ִ ֨וֹים ׀ וְ ֹיִ ְׂש ָּ֗בעּו ֹיְ ַ ֽה ְלל֣ ּו ְֹי֭הוָ ה ּ֣ד ֹ ְר ָ ׁ֑שֹיו ֹיְ ִ ֖חֹי ְל ַב ְב ֶכ֣ם ָל ַ ֽעד׃‬
ְ ֹ ‫ֹי‬
The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall
praise the Lord! May your hearts live forever!
Ps 55:20 ‫ֹיפות ָל֑מו וְ ֖ל ֹא ְֹיָר ֣אּו‬
֣ ‫ֹ֑יַענֵ ֮ם וְ ֹי ֵ ֹׁ֥֤שב ֶ ֗ק ֶדם ֶ ֥ס ָלה ֲא ֶ ׁ֤שר ֵ ֣אֹין ֲח ִל‬
ֲ ‫ֹיִׁש ַ ֤מע ׀ ֵ֨אל ׀ ְ ֽו‬
ְ
‫ֹלהֹים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ֱא‬
God will give ear and humble them, he who is enthroned from of
old, Selah because they do not change and do not fear God.

16
See supra the examples of Ps 51:9; 104:32; 107:42; 119:77.
17
Cf. also Ps 7:6; 40:15; 70:3; 119:175.
326 luis vegas montaner

Ps 57:4 ‫ֹלהֹים ַח ְס ּ֥דו‬

ִ֗ ‫ֹיענִ ֹי ֵח ֵ ֣רף ׁש ֲֹא ִ ֣פֹי ֶ ֑ס ָלה ֹיִ ְׁש ַ ֥לח ֱ֝א‬
ֵ ֗ ‫ֹיוׁש‬
ִ ‫ֹיִ ְׁש ַל֤ח ִמ ָּׁש ַ֨מֹיִ ם ׀ ְ ֽו‬
‫וַ ֲא ִמ ּֽתו׃‬
He will send from heaven and save me; he will put to shame him
who tramples on me. Selah God will send out his steadfast love
and his faithfulness!
Ps 107:20 ‫ֹיתותם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ֹ֝ימ ֗ ֵּלט ִמ ְּׁש ִח‬
ַ ‫ֹיִ ְׁש ַל֣ח ְ ּ֭ד ָברו וְ ֹיִ ְר ָּפ ֵ ֑אם ִ ֽו‬
He sent out his word and healed them, and delivered them from
their destruction.
Only once, with a conjunctive accent,18 weyiqtol is semantically parallel
instead of sequential.
Ps 55:3 ‫ֹימה׃‬
ָ ‫ֹיחֹי וְ ָא ִ ֽה‬
֣ ִ ‫ֹיבה ִ ּ֣לֹי וַ ֲע ֵנ֑נִ ֹי ָא ִ ֖רֹיד ְּב ִׂש‬
ָ ‫ַה ְק ִ ׁ֣ש‬
Attend to me, and answer me; I am restless in my complaint and
I moan.
We can summarize the numbers in the following chart:

yiqtol—weyiqtol—x yiqtol—x—weyiqtol
Accent Parallel Sequential Parallel Sequential
( // ) (→) ( // ) (→)
– Conjunctive 19 0 1 9
– Disjunctive (minor) 4 4 0 9
Total 23 4 1 18

In sum, syntactic diversity in the structure of paired clauses usually

goes together with a semantic difference (synonymous parallelism ver-
sus sequentiality).

3 The Importance of the Verse Structure:

Related Clauses Distributed in Different Hemistichs
or within the Same Hemistich
3.1 qatal → wayyiqtol
A second case to offer here is the importance of the pausal distribution
of related clauses. It is well attested in grammars that wayyiqtol has a

18
Unlike the disjunctive tifha in prose books, tarha is a conjunctive accent in the
Psalms.
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 327

consecutive value when preceded by a qatal verb form, and indeed this
sequential value is frequent in the Psalms (50 cases), as in:
Ps 33:9 ‫מד׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫ּוא־צ ָ ּ֗וה ַ ֽוּ֑יַ ֲע‬
ִ֝ ‫ִ ּ֤כֹי ֣הּוא ָא ַ ֣מר וַ ֶּי ִ֑הֹי ֽה‬
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood
firm.
Ps 78:59 ‫אד ְּבֹיִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ֹ ֗ ‫ֹלהֹים ַ ֽוּ֑יִ ְת ַע ָ ּ֑בר וַ ּיִ ְמ ַ ֥אס ְ֝מ‬
ִ ‫ָׁש ַ ֣מע ֭ ֱא‬
When God heard, he was full of wrath, and he utterly rejected
Israel.
Ps 97:4 ‫ֵה ִ ֣אֹירּו ְב ָר ָ ָ֣קֹיו ֵּת ֵ ֑בל ָר ֲא ָ ֖תה וַ ָּת ֵ ֣חל ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬
His lightnings light up the world; the earth sees and trembles.
Ps 105:34 ‫ָ ֭א ַמר וַ ּיָ ֣ב ֹא ַא ְר ֶ ּ֑בה וְ ֶֹ֗֝י ֶלק וְ ֵ ֣אֹין ִמ ְס ָ ּֽפר׃‬
He spoke, and the locusts came, young locusts without
number.
Ps 105:41 ‫ָ ּ֣פ ַתח צ֭ ּור וַ ּיָ ז֣ ּובּו ָ ֑מֹיִ ם ָ֝ה ְל ֗כּו ַּב ִּצּי֥ ות נָ ָ ֽהר׃‬
He opened the rock, and water gushed out; it flowed through the
desert like a river.

3.2 qatal // wayyiqtol

It is not so well documented that the same verb sequence qatal—
wayyiqtol can also be applied to simultaneous and parallel actions
instead of consecutive ones. In the Psalms there is a significant amount
of cases (29), such as the following:
Ps 44:19 ‫לֹא־נָ ֣סוג ָא ֣חור ִל ֵ ּ֑בנּו וַ ֵ ּ֥תט ֲא ֻׁש ֵ ֗רֹינּו ִמ ִ ּ֥נֹי ָא ְר ֶ ֽחָך׃‬
Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from
your way;
Ps 73:13 ‫ֹיתֹי ְל ָב ִ ֑בֹי וָ ֶא ְר ַ ֖חץ ְּבנִ ָּקֹי֣ ון ַּכ ָ ּֽפֹי׃‬
ִ ‫ְך־רֹיק זִ ִ ּ֣כ‬
֭ ִ ‫ַא‬
All in vain have I kept my heart clean and washed my hands in
innocence.
Ps 80:6 ‫ֶ֭ה ֱא ַכ ְל ָּתם ֶל ֶ֣חם ִּד ְמ ָ ֑עה וַ ַּ֝ת ְׁש ֵ ֗קמו ִּב ְד ָמ ֥עות ָׁש ִ ֽלֹיׁש׃‬
You have fed them with the bread of tears and given them tears
to drink in full measure.
Ps 119:55 ‫ּתור ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
ָ ‫הו֑ה ָ ֽו ֶ֝א ְׁש ְמ ָ ֗רה‬
ָ ְ‫ָ֘ז ַ ֤כ ְר ִּתֹי ַב ַּלֹ֣יְ ָלה ִׁש ְמָך֣ ֹי‬
I remember your name in the night, O Lord, and keep your
law.
Ps 119:167 ‫אד׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫ָ ֽׁש ְמ ָ ֣רה ַ ֭נ ְפ ִׁשֹי ֵעד ֶ ֹ֑תֹיָך וָ א ֲֹה ֵ ֥בם ְמ‬
My soul keeps your testimonies; I love them exceedingly.
If one pays attention to these two lists of examples, it becomes clear
that in the first one both verbs, qatal and wayyiqtol, appear in the same
328 luis vegas montaner

hemistich, with a minor disjunctive or a conjunctive accent between

them. On the contrary, the samples in the second list show that both
verbs are in different hemistichs, separated by a major disjunctive
accent.
In other words, a different distribution of similar verbal sequences
in related clauses within the verse is a strategy used by the bibli-
cal author to discriminate, on the one hand, between simultaneous
actions in parallelism, which are mainly synonymous, and, on the
other, sequential or consecutive actions. The statistics of distribution
allow us to speak of a generalized tendency of usage.
Both structures can be found within one verse:
Ps 78:13 ‫מו־נֽד׃‬
ֵ ‫ב־מֹיִ ם ְּכ‬
֥ ַ ‫ֹירם ַ ֽוּ֑יַ ֶּצ‬
֑ ֵ ‫ָ ּ֣ב ַקע ָֹי֭ם וַ ַּי ֲֽע ִב‬
He divided the sea (→) and let them pass through it, // and made
the waters stand like a heap.

3.3 The distribution of the qatal → wayyiqtol cases

This distribution can be illustrated by the following examples, classi-
fied according to the kind of intervening accents.

(a) With a conjunctive accent (six cases)19

Ps 33:9 ‫מד׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫ּוא־צ ָ ּ֗וה ַ ֽוּ֑יַ ֲע‬
ִ֝ ‫ִ ּ֤כֹי ֣הּוא ָא ַ ֣מר וַ ֶּי ִ֑הֹי ֽה‬
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood
firm.
Ps 97:4 ‫ֵה ִ ֣אֹירּו ְב ָר ָ ָ֣קֹיו ֵּת ֵ ֑בל ָר ֲא ָ ֖תה וַ ָּת ֵ ֣חל ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬
His lightnings light up the world; the earth sees and trembles.
Ps 97:8 ‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫הּודה ְל ַ ֖מ ַען ִמ ְׁש ָּפ ֶ ֣טֹיָך ֹי‬
֑ ָ ְ‫ָׁש ְמ ֬ ָעה וַ ִּת ְׂש ַ֨מח ׀ ִצּי֗ ון ַ ֭ו ָּתגֵ ְלנָ ה ְּבנ֣ ות ֹי‬
Zion hears and is glad, and the daughters of Judah rejoice,
because of your judgments, O Lord.
Ps 102:8 ‫ל־ּגג׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ּבודד ַע‬
֥ ֵ ‫ָׁש ַ ָ֥ק ְד ִּתֹי וָ ֶ ֽא ְה ֶֹי֑ה ְּ֝כ ִצ ּ֗פור‬
I lie awake; I am like a lonely sparrow on the housetop.
Ps 105:40 ‫ֹיעם׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ָׁש ַ ֣אל וַ ּיָ ֵב֣א ְׂש ָל֑ו וְ ֶ ֥ל ֶחם ָׁ֝ש ַ֗מֹיִ ם ֹיַ ְׂש ִּב‬
They asked, and he brought quail, and gave them bread from
heaven in abundance.
Ps 119:106 ‫מר ִמ ְׁש ְּפ ֵ ֥טֹי ִצ ְד ֶ ָֽקָך׃‬
ֹ ֗ ‫נִ ְׁש ַ ּ֥ב ְע ִּתֹי וָ ֲא ַק ֵּי ָ֑מה ִ֝ל ְׁש‬
I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous
rules.

19
Five of them in the first hemistich.
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 329

(b) With a minor disjunctive accent (39 cases)20

– Dehi (18)21
Ps 105:28 ‫ת־ּד ָב ָרֹיו׃‬
ְ ‫א־מ ֗רּו ֶא‬
ָ֝ ֹ ‫ָ ׁ֣ש ַ ֽלח ֭חֹ ֶׁשְך וַ ּיַ ְח ִ ׁ֑שְך וְ ֽל‬
He sent darkness, and made the land dark; they did not rebel
against his words.
Ps 105:31 ‫בּולם׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ָ ֭א ַמר וַ ּיָ ֣ב ֹא ָע ֑ר ֹב ִּ֝כ ִּ֗נֹים ְּב ָכל־ּג‬
He spoke, and there came swarms of flies, and gnats throughout
their country.
Ps 114:3 ‫ַה ָּי֣ם ָ ֭ר ָאה וַ ּיָ ֹ֑נס ַ֝הּיַ ְר ֵ ּ֗דן ֹיִ ּ֥סֹב ְל ָא ֽחור׃‬
The sea looked and fled; Jordan turned back.
Ps 119:147 ‫ִק ַ ּ֣ד ְמ ִּתֹי ַ ֭בּנֶ ֶׁשף וָ ֲא ַׁשֵּו ָ֑עה ִל ְד ָב ֶרֹיָך ֹיִ ָ ֽח ְל ִּתֹי׃‬
I rise before dawn and cry for help; I hope in your words.
Ps 138:3 ‫אתֹי ַ ֽו ַּת ֲע ֵנ֑נִ ֹי ַּת ְר ִה ֵ ֖בנִ ֹי ְבנַ ְפ ִ ׁ֣שֹי ֽעֹז׃‬
ִ ‫ְּבֹי֣ ום ָ ֭ק ָ ֽר‬
On the day I called, you answered me; my strength of soul you
increased.
– Rebia (18)22
Ps 22:5 ‫ְּ֭בָך ָּב ְט ֣חּו ֲאב ֵ ֹ֑תֹינּו ָּ֝ב ְט ֗חּו ַ ֽו ְּת ַפ ְּל ֵ ֽטמו׃‬
In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered
them.
Ps 30:3 ‫ֹלהֹי ִׁשַּו ְ֥ע ִּתֹי ֵ֝א ֗ ֶלֹיָך וַ ִּת ְר ָּפ ֵ ֽאנִ ֹי׃‬
֑ ָ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫ֹי‬
O Lord my God, I cried to you for help, and you have healed me.
Ps 78:21 ‫ם־אף ָע ָ ֥לה‬
ַ֝֗ ַ‫הוה ַ ֽוּ֑יִ ְת ַע ָ ּ֥בר ְו ֵ֭אׁש נִ ְּׂש ָ ָ֣קה ְבֹיַ ֲע ֑קֹב וְ ג‬
֗ ָ ְ‫ָל ֵכ֤ן ׀ ָׁש ַ ֥מע ֹי‬
‫ְבֹיִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
Therefore, when the Lord heard, he was full of wrath; a fire was
kindled against Jacob; his anger rose against Israel.
Ps 81:8 ‫ֹיבה‬
֣ ָ ‫ל־מֹי ְמ ִר‬
֖ ֵ ‫את וָ ֲא ַ֫ח ְּל ֶ ֥צּךָ ֶ֭א ֶענְ ָך ְּב ֵ ֣ס ֶתר ַ ֑ר ַעם ֶא ְב ָ ֽחנְ ָ֨ך ַע‬
ָ ‫ַּב ָּצ ָ ֥רה ָק ָ ֗ר‬
‫ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
In distress you called, and I delivered you; I answered you in the
secret place of thunder; I tested you at the waters of Meribah.
Selah.

20
Twenty-seven in the first hemistich and twelve in the second hemistich.
21
Always in the first hemistich. See supra the examples of Ps 78:13, 59; 105:34, 41;
cf. also Ps 7:16; 44:3, 10; 50:18; 78:3; 105:20; 119:26, 131, 158.
22
Six cases in the first hemistich and twelve in the second one, followed by silluq.
Cf. also Ps 3:6; 7:13; 20:9; 33:9; 69:21; 78:31; 89:20; 90:10; 102:11; 109:17; 119:52; 120:1;
139:1.
330 luis vegas montaner

Ps 119:90 ‫מד׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫ּכונ֥נְ ָּת ֶ֗֝א ֶרץ ַ ֽו ַּת ֲע‬
ַ ‫ְל ֣ד ֹר ָ ֭וד ֹר ֱא ֽמּונָ ֶ ֑תָך‬
Your faithfulness endures to all generations; you have established
the earth, and it stands fast.
– Accent with paseq (3)23
Ps 65:10 ‫ֹלהֹים ָ ֣מ ֵלא ָ ֑מֹיִ ם ָּת ִ ֥כֹין‬
ִ ‫ָּפ ַ ָ֥ק ְד ָּת ָה ָ֨א ֶרץ ׀ וַ ְּת ׁ֪ש ֹ ְק ֶ ֡ק ָה ַר ַּ֬בת ַּת ְע ְׁש ֶ ֗רּנָ ה ֶּפ ֶ֣לג ֭ ֱא‬
‫ֹי־כן ְּת ִכ ֶֹינ ָֽה׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫ְ ּ֝דגָ ָ֗נם ִּכ‬
You visit the earth and water it; you greatly enrich it; the river
of God is full of water; you provide their grain, for so you have
prepared it.
Ps 78:20 ‫ּוכל ֵ ּ֑תת‬
ַ ֣‫ם־ל ֶחם ֹי‬
ֶ֭ ַ‫ה־צּור ׀ וַ ּיָ ז֣ ּובּו ַמֹיִ ֮ם ּונְ ָח ִ ֪לֹים ִֹ֫י ְׁש ֥טֹפּו ֲהג‬
֨ ‫ֵ ֤הן ִה ָּכ‬
‫ִאם־ֹיָ ִ ֖כֹין ְׁש ֵ ֣אר ְל ַע ּֽמו׃‬
He struck the rock so that water gushed out and streams over-
flowed. Can he also give bread or provide meat for his people?
Ps 109:28 ‫לּו־ה ָּמ ֮ה וְ ַא ָ ּ֪תה ְת ָ֫ב ֵ ֥רְך ָ ֤קמּו ׀ וַ ּיֵ ֗בֹׁשּו ְ ֽו ַע ְב ְּדָך֥ ֹיִ ְׂש ָ ֽמח׃‬
ֵ ‫ֹיְ ַ ָֽק ְל‬
Let them curse, but you will bless! They arise and are put to
shame, but your servant will be glad!
In all the cases of (a) and (b), wayyiqtol appears in the same hemistich
as qatal and indicates a sequential or consecutive action, according to
the detected general tendency.

(c) With a major disjunctive accent ( five cases)

Ps 40:2 ‫הו֑ה וַ ֵּי֥ט ֵ֝א ֗ ַלֹי וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַ ֥מע ַׁשוְ ָע ִ ֽתֹי׃‬
ָ ְ‫ֹ֣יתֹי ֹי‬
ִ ‫ַק ֣ ֹּוה ִקִּו‬
I waited patiently for the Lord; he inclined to me and heard my
cry.
Ps 66:12 ‫ֹיאנּו ָ ֽל ְרוָ ָֹיֽה׃‬
ֵ֗ ‫ּ֝תוצ‬
ִ ַ‫ּוב ַ ּ֑מֹיִ ם ו‬
ַ ‫אנּו־ב ֵ ֥אׁש‬
ָ ‫אׁשנּו ָ ּֽב‬
֥ ֵ ֹ ‫ִה ְר ַ ּ֥כ ְב ָּת ֱאנ֗ וׁש ְל ֫ר‬
You let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and through
water; yet you have brought us out to a place of abundance.
Ps 80:10 ‫א־א ֶרץ׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ֹיה וַ ְּת ַמ ֵּל‬
ָ ‫ֹ֑יה וַ ַּת ְׁש ֵ ֥רׁש ָׁ֝ש ָר ֶׁ֗ש‬
ָ ‫ֹית ְל ָפ ֶנ‬
ָ ‫ִּפ ִ ּ֥נ‬
You cleared the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the
land.
Ps 105:29 ‫ת־ּדגָ ָ ֽתם׃‬
ְ ‫ֹיהם ְל ָ ֑דם וַ ָּ֗֝י ֶמת ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ֹימ‬
ֵ ‫ת־מ‬
ֵ ‫ָה ַ ֣פְך ֶא‬
He turned their waters into blood and caused their fish to die.
Ps 106:33 ‫ת־רּוחו וַ ֹ֝יְ ַב ֵּ֗טא ִּב ְׂש ָפ ָ ֽתֹיו׃‬
֑ ‫ֹי־ה ְמ ֥רּו ֶא‬
ִ ‫ִ ּֽכ‬
For they made his spirit bitter, and he spoke rashly with his lips.

23
Two cases in the first hemistich.
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 331

Against the general tendency, the wayyiqtol that indicates a sequential

action in these five cases does not appear in the same hemistich as
qatal, but in a different one.

3.4 The Distribution of the qatal // wayyiqtol Cases

(a) With a conjunctive accent (two cases)

Ps 50:1 ‫ח־ׁש ֶמׁש ַעד־‬
ֶ ֝֗ ‫א־א ֶרץ ִמ ִּמזְ ַר‬
֑ ָ ‫ֽהוה ִּד ֶ ּ֥בר וַ ּיִ ְק ָר‬
֗ ָ ְ‫ֹלהֹים ֹי‬
ִ֡ ‫ִמזְ ֗מור ְל ָ֫א ָ ֥סף ֵ ֤אל ׀ ֽ‍ֱא‬
‫ְמב ֹֽאו׃‬
A Psalm of Asaph. The Mighty One, God the Lord, speaks and
summons the earth from the rising of the sun to its setting.
Ps 77:19 ‫֤קול ַר ַע ְמ ָ֨ך ׀ ַּבּגַ ְל ֗ ַּגל ֵה ִ ֣אֹירּו ְב ָר ִ ָ֣קֹים ֵּת ֵ ֑בל ָרגְ ָז֖ה וַ ִּת ְר ַ ֣עׁש ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬
The crash of your thunder was in the whirlwind; your lightnings
lighted up the world; the earth trembled and shook.

(b) With a minor disjunctive accent (seven cases)

Ps 45:8 ‫ֹלהֹיָך ֶ ׁ֥ש ֶמן ָׂש ׂ֗שון‬
ֶ ‫ֹלהֹים ֭ ֱא‬
֣ ִ ‫ל־ּכ֤ן ׀ ְמ ָׁש ֲח ָ֡ך ֱא‬
ֵ ‫ָא ַ ֣ה ְב ָּת ֶּצ ֶד ֮ק וַ ִּת ְׂש ָ֫נא ֶ ֥ר ַׁשע ַע‬
‫ֵ ֽמ ֲח ֵב ֶ ֽרֹיָך׃‬
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore
God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond
your companions.
Ps 102:5 ‫ֹי־ׁש ַ֗כ ְח ִּתֹי ֵמ ֲא ֥כֹל ַל ְח ִ ֽמֹי׃‬ ָ֝ ‫ה־כ ֵע ֶׂשב וַ ּיִ ַ ֣בׁש ִל ִ ּ֑בֹי ִ ּֽכ‬
֭ ָ ‫הּוּכ‬
ָֽ
My heart is struck down like grass and has withered; I forget to
eat my bread.
Ps 16:9 ‫ף־ּב ָׂש ִ ֗רֹי ֹיִ ְׁש ּ֥כֹן ָל ֶ ֽב ַטח׃‬
ְ֝ ‫בודֹי ַא‬
֑ ִ ‫ָל ֵכ֤ן ׀ ָׂש ַ ֣מח ִ ֭ל ִּבֹי וַ ָּי֣֑גֶ ל ְּכ‬
Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh
also dwells secure.
Ps 39:12 ‫ל־א ָ ֣דם‬
ָ ‫מּודו ַ ֤אְך ֶ ֖ה ֶבל ָּכ‬
֑ ‫ל־עו֨ן ׀ ֹיִ ַּ֬ס ְר ָּת ִ֗אֹיׁש וַ ֶ ּ֣ת ֶמס ָּכ ָ ֣עׁש ֲח‬
ָ ‫תוכ ֤חות ַע‬
ָ֘ ‫ְ ּֽב‬
‫ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
When you discipline a man with rebukes for sin, you consume
like a moth what is dear to him; surely all mankind is a mere
breath! Selah.
Ps 90:2 ‫ולם ַא ָ ּ֥תה ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ָ ֗ ‫ד־ע‬
֝ ‫עולם ַע‬
֥ ָ ‫ולל ֶ ֣א ֶרץ וְ ֵת ֵ ֑בל ּוֽ ֵמ‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ְּב ֶ ֤ט ֶרם ׀ ָ֘ה ִ ֤רֹים ֹיֻ ֗ ָּלדּו וַ ְּת ֣ח‬
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed
the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are
God.
Ps 109:16 ‫ֹיׁש־ע ִנֹ֣י ְו ֶ֭א ְבֹיון וְ נִ ְכ ֵ֨אה ֵל ָ֬בב‬
ָ ‫ַֹ֗י ַען ֲא ֶ ׁ֤שר ׀ ֥ל ֹא זָ ַכ ֮ר ֲע ׂ֪שות ָ ֥ח ֶסד וַ ּיִ ְר ּ֡ד ֹף ִא‬
‫מותת׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ְל‬
For he did not remember to show kindness, but pursued the poor
and needy and the brokenhearted, to put them to death.
332 luis vegas montaner

Ps 119:73 ‫ותֹיָך׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ֹיָ ֶ ֣דֹיָך ָ ֭עׂשּונִ ֹי ַ ֽוֹ֑יְ כונְ נ֑ ּונִ ֹי ֲ֝ה ִב ֵֹ֗יננִ ֹי וְ ֶא ְל ְמ ָ ֥דה ִמ ְצ‬
Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding
that I may learn your commandments.
These nine cases do not follow the aforementioned general tendency,
since the wayyiqtol that indicates a simultaneous action in parallelism
appears in the same hemistich as the previous qatal.
All cases are found in the first hemistich.24 Therefore, qatal keeps
the same position as in the regular cases of parallelism,25 whereas way-
yiqtol does not follow the major disjunctive accent, but precedes it. The
accentual distribution of these cases of parallelism is the same as that
of the ones arranged in sequence26 but, if we pay due attention to the
diverse structures of the clauses concerned, a difference can be seen
between qatal // wayyiqtol and qatal → wayyiqtol: in the qatal // way-
yiqtol parallelism some nominal phrase is added to both of the verbs,27
whereas most of the qatal → wayyiqtol cases have only one nominal
phrase, with either one of the verbs.28

(c) With a major disjunctive accent (twenty cases)29

Ps 7:5 ‫צור ִ ֣רֹי ֵרֹי ָ ָֽקם׃‬
ְ ‫ול ִ ֥מֹי ָ ֑רע וָ ֲא ַח ְּל ָ ֖צה‬
ְ ‫ם־ּג ַמ ְל ִּתֹי ֽׁש‬
֭ ָ ‫ִא‬
If I have repaid my friend with evil or plundered my enemy with-
out cause.
Ps 29:10 ‫עולם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫֝הוה ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ְל‬
֗ ָ ‫ְֹי֭הוָ ה ַל ַּמ ּ֣בּול ֹיָ ָ ׁ֑שב וַ ֵּי ֶׁ֥שב ְֹי‬
The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord sits enthroned
as king forever.
Ps 30:12 ‫ָה ַ ֣פ ְכ ָּת ִמ ְס ְּפ ִדֹ֮י ְל ָמ ֪חול ִ ֥לֹי ִּפ ַ ּ֥ת ְח ָּת ַׂש ִ ּ֑קֹי ַ ֽו ְּת ַאּזְ ֵ ֥רנִ ֹי ִׂש ְמ ָ ֽחה׃‬
You have turned for me my mourning into dancing; you have
loosed my sackcloth and clothed me with gladness.

24
Ps 109:16 has no major disjunctive accent.
25
Cf. infra 4(c).
26
Cf. supra 3(a) and (b).
27
With the exception of Ps 119:73 (x—qatal // wayyiqtol). Clause structures in the
remaining 6 cases: qatal—x // wayyiqtol—x; x—qatal // wayyiqtol—x, and x—qatal—
x // wayyiqtol—x.
28
This occurs in 32 out of the 39 cases of a qatal → wayyiqtol sequence after a
minor disjunctive accent, with the following structures: qatal—x → wayyiqtol (10);
x—qatal → wayyiqtol (16); x—qatal—x → wayyiqtol (4); qatal → wayyiqtol—x (2). Of
the remaining seven cases, five have nominal phrases in both clauses and two have
none in either clause.
29
See supra the examples of Ps 44:19; 73:13; 78:13; 80:6; 119:55, 167.
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 333

Ps 38:3 ‫ֹי־ח ֶּצֹיָך ִנ ֲ֣חתּו ִ ֑בֹי וַ ִּתנְ ַ ֖חת ָע ַלֹ֣י ֹיָ ֶ ֽדָך׃‬
֭ ִ ‫ִ ּֽכ‬
For your arrows have sunk into me, and your hand has come down
on me.
Ps 41:13 ‫עולם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ֹיבנִ ֹי ְל ָפ ֶנֹ֣יָך ְל‬
֖ ֵ ‫וַ ֲא ִ֗נֹי ְ ּ֭ב ֻת ִּמֹי ָּת ַ ֣מ ְכ ָּת ִ ּ֑בֹי וַ ַּת ִּצ‬
But you have upheld me because of my integrity, and set me in
your presence forever.
Ps 44:20 ‫ֹיתנּו ִּב ְמ ֣קום ַּת ִּנֹ֑ים וַ ְּת ַ ֖כס ָע ֵלֹ֣ינּו ְב ַצ ְל ָ ֽמוֶ ת׃‬
ָ ‫ִ ּ֣כֹי ִ ֭ד ִּכ‬
Yet you have broken us in the place of jackals and covered us with
the shadow of death.
Ps 44:21 ‫ֹלהֹינּו וַ ּנִ ְפ ֥ר ֹׂש ַּ֝כ ֗ ֵּפֹינּו ְל ֵ ֣אל ָזֽר׃‬
֑ ֵ ‫ׁשם ֱא‬
֣ ֵ ‫ם־ׁש ַכ ְחנּו‬
֭ ָ ‫ִא‬
If we had forgotten the name of our God or spread out our hands
to a foreign god.
Ps 50:17 ‫מּוסר וַ ַּת ְׁש ֵלְ֖ך ְּד ָב ַ ֣רֹי ַא ֲח ֶ ֽרֹיָך׃‬
֑ ָ ‫֣את‬
ָ ‫ְו ַ֭א ָּתה ָׂש ֵנ‬
For you hate discipline, and you cast my words behind you.
Ps 105:14 ‫ֹיהם ְמ ָל ִ ֽכֹים׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫וכח ֲע ֵל‬
ַ ֖‫א־ה ִּנ ַֹ֣יח ָא ָ ֣דם ְל ָע ְׁש ָ ָ֑קם וַ ּי‬
ִ ֹ ‫ֽל‬
He allowed no one to oppress them; he rebuked kings on their
account.
Ps 106:7 ‫אותֹיָך ֣ל ֹא ָ ֭ז ְכרּו ֶאת־ ֣ר ֹב ֲח ָס ֶ ֑דֹיָך‬
ֶ֗ ‫א־ה ְׂש ִּ֬כֹילּו נִ ְפ ְל‬
ִ ֹ ‫ותֹינּו ְב ִמ ְצ ַ ֨רֹיִ ם ׀ ל‬
֤ ֵ ‫ֲא ֘ב‬
‫ם־סּוף׃‬
ֽ ַ‫ל־ֹי֣ם ְּבֹי‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיַ ְמ ֖רּו ַע‬
Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your
wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your
steadfast love, but rebelled by the Sea, at the Red Sea.
Ps 109:3 ‫וְ ִד ְב ֵ ֣רֹי ִׂשנְ ָ ֣אה ְס ָב ֑בּונִ ֹי וַ ִּי ָּֽל ֲח ֥מּונִ ֹי ִח ָּנֽם׃‬
They encircle me with words of hate, and attack me without
cause.
Ps 118:21 ‫ֹיׁשּועה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ֹי־לֹי ִ ֽל‬
ִ֝ ֗ ‫ֹיתנִ ֹי וַ ְּת ִה‬
֑ ָ ִ‫֭א ְודָך ִ ּ֣כֹי ֲענ‬
I thank you that you have answered me and have become my
salvation.
Ps 119:59 ‫ל־עד ֶ ֹֽתֹיָך׃‬
ֵ ‫ֹיבה ַ ֝רגְ ֗ ַלֹי ֶא‬
ָ ‫ִח ַ ּׁ֥ש ְב ִּתֹי ְד ָר ָ ֑כֹי וָ ָא ִ ׁ֥ש‬
When I think on my ways, I turn my feet to your testimonies.
Ps 139:5 ‫ָא ֣חור וָ ֶ ָ֣ק ֶדם ַצ ְר ָ ּ֑תנִ ֹי וַ ָ ּ֖ת ֶׁשת ָע ַלֹ֣י ַּכ ֶ ּֽפ ָכה׃‬
You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me.
It is clear, therefore, that in a significant majority of cases qatal and wayyiq-
tol present simultaneous actions in parallelism when both verbs occur in
different hemistichs, with a major disjunctive accent between them.
In sum, the Psalms show a strong tendency of having an analy-
sed diversity of textual meanings in accordance with the distribution
of the clauses in the verse. There are, however, some exceptions. The
numbers are as follows:
334 luis vegas montaner

qatal → wayyiqtol
(a) With a conjunctive accent: 6 cases
(b) With a minor disjunctive accent: 39 cases
(c) With a major disjunctive accent: 5 cases
qatal // wayyiqtol
(a) With a conjunctive accent: 2 cases
(b) With a minor disjunctive accent: 7 cases
(c) With a major disjunctive accent: 20 cases

4 Conclusions

In order to perceive textual semantic contrasts properly, we cannot

limit ourselves to take into account the individual verbs, or even, in
the framework of a higher level syntax, to the kinds of verbs implied
in the related clauses. We must also look at their distribution within
the verse. The diverse kinds of distribution of the related clauses in the
verse, confirmed by the masoretic accentuation, can be considered as
syntactic forms. Different syntactic forms can have, as here, different
semantic values. In this grammatical study of some uses of yiqtol and
wayyiqtol in relation to other finite verbal forms, we have shown that
the variation of some syntactic structures has semantic effects.
The conclusions we have arrived at in our analysis are as follows:
(a) the difference in position of nominal phrases in two contiguous
yiqtol—weyiqtol clauses (within the same hemistich) is a syntactic
strategy to signify synonymous parallelism (yiqtol—weyiqtol—x)
or sequence (yiqtol—x—weyiqtol);
(b) the masoretic accentual division of the text reflects diverse struc-
tures of the verses which can indicate different functions of identi-
cal sequences of verbs (qatal—wayyiqtol ), either simultaneous or
consecutive, depending on whether or not both clauses are sepa-
rated by a major disjunctive accent. All of this has no bearing on
any temporal or aspectual value of the individual verbal forms.
By bearing these considerations in mind, new research methods can
be proposed. For instance, we can leave aside the traditional issue of
the temporal or aspectual function of the Hebrew verb and strictly
masoretic tradition and syntactic analysis of the psalms 335

adhere to the syntactic form of the whole clause, as described above,

in order to see if variant forms are due merely to a rhetorical variation
or, on the other hand, are syntactic devices linked to variant textual
functions.
It is also worthwhile to advocate collaborative research on the syn-
tactic clause patterns and the prosody of the text, as shown by the
masoretic accents, since a variety in the degree of the connection
between clauses (strong or weak interclausal pauses) may prove to be
a strategy to provide us with a greater variety of textual meanings.
Research such as this may be a complement to the achievements
obtained in the field of text liguistics, especially when taking into
account that insights of this kind have not been incorporated by
Weinrich, Schneider, Talstra, and Niccacci. Certainly the normal use
of the verbal system in prose does not seem to be directly applicable
to biblical poetry. Hence, we cannot leave out of our consideration
any kind of data related to the system of poetic composition, especially
literary structures of parallelism and prosodic relationship between
clauses.
 who is speaking—who is listening?
how information technology can confirm
the integrity of the text

oliver glanz

This article will take a closer look at the omnipresent phenomenon of

participant-reference shifts.1 The occurrence of more than 600 participant-
reference shifts in the book of Jeremiah constantly disturbs the reading pro-
cess, generating questions like ‘who is speaking’ and ‘who is listening’. while
there are diverse exegetical positions about the origin and function of these
shifts, no exhaustive attention has been given to this phenomenon in the
past. with the help of the wiVU database, the author has investigated all
participant-reference shifts found in the book of Jeremiah. some of his find-
ings with regard to their text-organizing functions will be presented here.
where participant-reference shifts are brought into focus, exegetical meth-
ods are needed that do justice to the phenomena and reduce the influence of
subjective theories which endanger the discovery of the intrinsic logic of the
encountered phenomena. This article will show that the methodological work
of eep talstra, and his tireless engagement in developing computer-supported
exegetical tools, enables phenomenological studies of the old testament text
as well as data-oriented critical examinations of exegetical opinions.

1 introduction

for the student, the process of getting acquainted with the history of
old testament interpretation is like riding a methodological roller
coaster. During the various epochs different exegetical methodologies
have risen and fallen, influenced by the progress of science and by
different philosophical climates. The latter caused continuous change
in the understanding of the relation between the reader as subject and
the text as object.2 methodologies depended to a great extent on the

1
i am especially thankful to wendy engelmann for improving the english of this
contribution.
2
manfred oeming, Biblische Hermeneutik: eine Einführung (2nd ed.; Darmstadt,
2007), pp. 6−30.
338 oliver glanz

developments within the fields of ontology and epistemology.3 today,

our scepticism towards metaphysics has led to a synchronization
of our turbulent methodological history. we find ourselves with
numerous exegetical methodologies, developed throughout the layers
of history, now simultaneously present and practised.4
The post-modern context welcomes this plurality of methodological
voices as a symphony and legitimizes it as long as there is no ‘disso-
nance’ of reductionism.5 in my view this standpoint is unsatisfactory
as it demands ignoring the philosophical issues involved, and as a con-
sequence clouds the methodological subject-object relation between
the reader and the ancient text.
with the skilled eyes of an engineer eep talstra has critiqued the
present methodological attitude of ‘everything goes’. in his works,
talstra has developed a different perspective that promises a way to
avoid the danger of reductionism: different methodologies are under-
stood as necessary steps that follow one another in a procedure.6 as a
student and colleague of talstra i have admired his position since it
does justice to the complex interaction between the reader and the text,
while acknowledging the importance of a critical hermeneutic investi-
gation of each methodological component involved. talstra’s empha-
sis on a text-syntactic reading, focusing on the observable systematic
use of language, as the first step to the exegetical procedure, is due to
his critical attitude towards hermeneutical theories and his awareness
that the ‘subject’ can always be a threat to the text.7 as a consequence,
he dedicated much of his scholarly work to the computer-assisted
text-syntactic analysis of the hebrew scriptures. This has led to the
development of the wiVU (Werkgroep Informatica Vrije Universiteit)

3
an investigation of this relation is described in oliver glanz, ‘investigating
the presuppositional realm of Biblical-Theological methodology 1. Dooyeweerd on
reason’, AUSS 47/1 (2009), pp. 9−13.
4
oeming, Biblische Hermeneutik, p. 29.
5
see John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (rev. and
enlarged ed.; louisville, ky., 1996), p. 246; oeming, Biblische Hermeneutik, p. 175.
6
see eep talstra, ‘from the “eclipse” to the “art” of Biblical narrative: reflections
on methods of Biblical exegesis’, in a.s. van der woude et al. (eds.), Perspectives in
the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adams
S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Vt.s; leiden, 1998), pp. 1−14;
eep talstra, ‘texts and their readers: on reading the old testament in the con-
text of Theology’, in J.w. Dyk (ed.), The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible (aceBt.s;
maastricht, 1999), pp. 101−120; eep talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in
de methoden van uitleg van het Oude Testament (ontwerpen 2; kampen, 2002), pp.
81−82, 97−120.
7
talstra, Oude en nieuwe lezers, pp. 111−115.
 who is speaking 339

database as an exegetical tool that allows the formal character of the

text to maintain a check on the reader’s intuitions. i will demonstrate
this with regard to the complex phenomenon of participant-reference
shifts in the book of Jeremiah.

2 participant-reference shifts: a case

more than 600 shifts in participant reference occur in the 52 chapters

of Jeremiah. The shifts are of two types:
(a) a single participant (e.g., Jerusalem) can be referred to by different
gender, number, and person within one textual unit (e.g., as ‘you’
[2nd fem. sing.] and as ‘they’ [3rd masc. pl.]).
(b) two participants (e.g., Jerusalem and Babylon) are referred to by
the same person, number, and gender (e.g., as ‘you’ [2nd fem.
sing.]) within one textual unit, making an identification of the
separate participants on the basis of grammatical characteristics
impossible.
a first rudimentary computer-assisted text-syntactic analysis of
Jeremiah 11 illustrates this problem:

[<Co> ‫<[ ]אלי‬Su> ‫<[ ]יהוה‬Pr> ‫<[ ]יאמר‬Cj>‫]ו‬ #.C45 09

[<Co> ‫<[ ]באיׁש יהודה וביׁשבי ירוׁשלם‬Su> ‫<[ ]קׁשר‬Pr> ‫]נמצא‬ q.C46 09
[<Co> ‫<[ ]על עונת אבותם הראׁשנים‬Pr> ‫]ׁשבו‬ ..C47 10
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]מאנו‬Re> ‫]אׁשר‬ | | ..C48 10
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]את דברי‬Pr> ‫]לׁשמוע‬ | | ..C49 10
[<Co> ‫<[ ]אחרי אלהים אחרים‬Pr> ‫<[ ]הלכו‬Su> ‫<[ ]המה‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ #.C50 10
[<PO> ‫]לעבדם‬ | ..C51 10
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]את בריתי‬Su> ‫<[ ]בית יׂשראל ובית יהודה‬Pr> ‫]הפרו‬ ..C52 10
[<Co> ‫<[ ]את אבותם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]כרתי‬Re> ‫]אׁשר‬ ..C53 10
[<Su> ‫<[ ]יהוה‬Pr> ‫<[ ]אמר‬Mo> ‫<[ ]כה‬Cj> ‫]לכן‬ ..C54 11
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]רעה‬Co> ‫<[ ]אליהם‬PC> ‫<[ ]מביא‬Is> ‫]הנני‬ q.C55 11
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]יוכלו‬Ng> ‫<[ ]לא‬Re> ‫| ]אׁשר‬ ..C56 11
[<Co> ‫<[ ]ממנה‬Pr> ‫]לצאת‬ | ..C57 11
[<Co> ‫<[ ]אלי‬Pr> ‫<[ ]זעקו‬Cj>‫]ו‬ ..C58 11
[<Co> ‫<[ ]אליהם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]אׁשמע‬Ng> ‫<[ ]לא‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ ..C59 11
[<Su> ‫<[ ]ערי יהודה ויׁשבי ירוׁשלם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]הלכו‬Cj>‫]ו‬ ..C60 12
[<Co> ‫<[ ]אל האלהים‬Pr> ‫<[ ]זעקו‬Cj>‫]ו‬ ..C61 12
[<Co> ‫<[ ]להם‬PC> ‫<[ ]מקטרים‬Su> ‫<[ ]הם‬Re> ‫| | ]אׁשר‬ ..C62 12
[<Ti> ‫<[ ]בעת רעתם‬Co> ‫<[ ]להם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]יוׁשיעו‬Ng> ‫<[ ]לא‬Mo> ‫<[ ]הוׁשע‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ ..C63 12
[<PC> ‫<[ ]אלהיך‬Pr> ‫<[ ]היו‬Su> ‫<[ ]מספר עריך‬Cj> ‫]כי‬ #.C64 13
[<Vo> ‫]יהודה‬ .vC65 13
[<Co> ‫<[ ]לבׁשת‬Ob> ‫<[ ]מזבחות‬Pr> ‫<[ ]ׂשמתם‬Su> ‫<[ ]מספר חצות ירוׁשלם‬Cj>‫]ו‬ #.C66 13
[<Ob> ‫]מזבחות‬ .lC67 13
[<Co> ‫<[ ]לבעל‬PC> ‫]לקטר‬ ..C68 13
[<Co> ‫<[ ]בעד העם הזה‬Pr> ‫<[ ]תתפלל‬Ng> ‫<[ ]אל‬Su> ‫<[ ]אתה‬Cj>‫]ו‬ #.C69 14
 340 oliver glanz

[<Ob> ‫<[ ]רנה ותפלה‬Co> ‫<[ ]בעדם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]תׂשא‬Ng> ‫<[ ]אל‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ ..C70 14
[<Ti> ‫<[ ]בעת‬PC> ‫<[ ]ׁשמע‬Ns> ‫<[ ]אינני‬Cj> ‫]כי‬ ..C71 14
[<Aj> ‫<[ ]בעד רעתם‬Co> ‫<[ ]אלי‬Ps> ‫]קראם‬ ..C72 14
[<PC> ‫<[ ]בביתי‬Qs><sp> ‫ לידידי‬/ ‫]מה‬ #.C73 15
[<Ob><sp> ‫ הרבים‬/ ‫<[ ]המזמתה‬Ps> ‫]עׂשותה‬ ..C74 15
[<Co> ‫<[ ]מעליך‬Pr> ‫<[ ]יעברו‬Ob> ‫ש‬ ׁ ‫<[ ]בׂשר קד‬Cj>‫]ו‬ ..C75 15
[<Su> ‫<[ ]רעתכי‬Cj> ‫| ]כי‬ ..C76 15
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]תעלזי‬Mo> ‫]אז‬ ..C77 15
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]ׁשמך‬Ob> ‫<[ ]יהוה‬Pr> ‫<[ ]קרא‬Ob><sp> ‫ יפה פרי תאר‬/ ‫]זית רענן‬ #.C78 16
[<Co> ‫<[ ]עליה‬Ob> ‫<[ ]אׁש‬Pr> ‫<[ ]הצית‬Aj> ‫| ]לקול המולה גדלה‬ ..C79 16
[<Su> ‫<[ ]דליותיו‬Pr> ‫<[ ]רעו‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ ..C80 16
[<Su> ‫<[ ]יהוה צבאות‬Cj>‫]ו‬ ..C81 17
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]אותך‬PC> ‫<[ ]נוטע‬Re>‫| ]ה‬ e.C82 17
[<Aj> ‫<[ ]בגלל רעת בית יׂשראל ובית יהודה‬Ob> ‫<[ ]רעה‬Co> ‫<[ ]עליך‬Pr> ‫]דבר‬ ..C83 17
[<Co> ‫<[ ]להם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]עׂשו‬Re> ‫]אׁשר‬ ..C84 17
[<PO> ‫]להכעסני‬ ..C85 17
[<Co> ‫<[ ]לבעל‬PC> ‫]לקטר‬ ..C86 17

after being introduced as speaker in clause 45, yhwh is referred to

by 1st sing. forms (for example ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ִר‬, ‘my covenant’, ‫ ָּכ ַר ִּתי‬, ‘i cut’,
‫ ְּד ָב ַרי‬, ‘my words’) describing the apostasy of his people. in clause 54
the reference to yhwh changes without warning to 3rd masc. sing.
(‫ ָא ַמר‬, ‘he spoke’). The reader is left wondering whether clause 54
is an integral part of the direct speech of vv. 9−10 or whether the
participant-reference shift should be taken as marking a shift in dis-
course structure. a case could be made for both.
in the direct speech contained in clauses 55−63, the cities of Judah
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem are referred to in 3rd masc. pl. forms
(e.g., ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ֵל‬, ‘to them’, ‫וְ זָ ֲעקּו‬, ‘and they shout’). in clause 64 the reference
changes and the cities of Judah are referred to by 2nd masc. sing. forms
(e.g., ‫ ָע ֶריָך‬, ‘your cities’) and in clause 66 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are
referring to by 2nd masc. pl. forms (‫ ַׂש ְמ ֶּתם‬, ‘you put’). The reader ques-
tions why there is this sudden shift in person. Does it together with the
‫ ִּכי‬, ‘for’, in clause 64 mark a shift in discourse, closing the direct speech
of clauses 55−63? or is the ‫ ִּכי‬phrase to be understood as introducing
an argument that is an integral part of the direct speech?
in clause 69 the identity of the 2nd person is changed: the 2nd masc.
sing. forms no longer refer to Judah (see clauses 64−65) but implicitly
to Jeremiah. for the reader the question is whether clause 69 should
be understood as taking place at the same discourse level as the previ-
ous lines or whether the fronting of the masc. sing. personal pronoun
‫ ַא ָּתה‬, ‘you’, in clause 69 should be understood as marking a break with
the previous discourse section.
The next participant-reference shift is encountered in clauses 73−77.
god’s people are no longer referred to by 3rd masc. pl. forms (see
 who is speaking 341

clause 72), but are identified as ‫ידידי‬, ‘my beloved’, and referred to by
the 2nd masc. sing. in clause 75 (‫ ֵמ ָע ָליִ ְך‬, ‘from you’). This shift also
implies that Jeremiah is no longer being referred to by the 2nd masc.
sing., as he was in the preceding clauses. again, the reader questions
how one is to understand the composition of this passage.
in clauses 73−83 the ‫ידידי‬, ‘my beloved’, of yhwh is addressed and
her condemnation announced (vv. 16b−17a). it appears unforeseen
that while the ‫ידידי‬, ‘my beloved’, is spoken to in the 2nd person, the
explanation for her condemnation in clause 83 refers to her in the 3rd
person (‫הּודה‬
ָ ְ‫ּובית י‬
ֵ ‫ ִּבגְ ַלל ָר ַעת ֵּבית־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬, ‘because of the evil of the
house of israel and the house of Judah’). This creates the impression
that the ‫ידידי‬, ‘my beloved’, of yhwh (2nd person) is different from
the house of israel and the house of Judah. however, such an impres-
sion conflicts with how the reader generally understands the passage.
finally, yhwh is not consistently referred to by the same number,
gender, and person. in clause 73 the 1st sing. suffixes seem to refer to
yhwh. however, in clauses 78−84 yhwh is referred to by 3rd masc.
sing. forms (e.g., ‫ ָק ָרא‬, ‘he called’). in clause 85 yhwh is again referred
to by a 1st sing. suffix (‫ ְל ַה ְכ ִע ֵסנִ י‬, ‘for offending me’) in an adjunct
clause belonging to the sentence where yhwh is referred to earlier by
3rd masc. sing. forms. This disturbs the textual coherence, making the
reader wonder whether he or she needs to assume a new segment of
discourse in the section where yhwh is referred to by the 3rd person
forms. perhaps it is Jeremiah himself speaking about yhwh.
This example illustrates how the reading process is constantly dis-
turbed by participant-reference shifts that trigger questions of ‘who
is who?’, ‘who is speaking?’, ‘who is listening?’, ‘is the same speaker
still speaking?’, ‘Does the speaker still speak to the same participant?’
while the reader must answer these questions to arrive at a meaningful
reading, it appears paradoxical that most of the shifts are neglected in
the exegetical works of the different methodological schools. in those
cases where there are attempts at interpretation, the general presup-
positions of each methodology are revealed.
with regard to Jer 11:11−17, only the first shift (clauses 55−68, where
the reference to the cities of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem
shifts from 3rd person to 2nd person forms) receives attention in the
commentaries. The following interpretative suggestions are given:
(a) Secondary gloss: w. rudolph’s entry in the critical apparatus sug-
gests that clauses 64−68 were added later during the transmission
342 oliver glanz

history of the text. consequently, the addition must have caused

the shift in person. w. holladay follows this suggestion, emphasis-
ing that ‘the shift from 3rd (vv. 11−12) to 2nd pl. in reference to
the people in this verse is impossible, given the second singular
address to Jeremiah in v. 14’.8
(b) Synchronic collection of sources: w. Thiel notices the shift and
argues against rudolph: ‘Der stilwechsel in 13a verweist also nicht
auf den sekundären charakter von 13 gegenüber 11f., sondern
zeigt die naht zwischen zwei aufgenommen texten, die nicht rest-
los aneinander angeglichen worden sind.’9 Thus, for Thiel, the shift
reveals an imperfection created when the Deuteronomistic redac-
tor imported foreign material but did not fully contextualize it.
(c) Marking of quotation (discourse function): g. fischer formulates a
different explanation: ‘Der erste satz wiederholt die letzte aussage
von 2,28, was den wechsel zur anrede in 2. sg. erklärt.’10 Thus,
for fischer, the shift is intentional as it marks a quotation that is
integrated into the present discourse.
(d) Hyperbole (rhetorical function): J. lundbom explains the phenom-
enon as ‘hyperbole, with the discourse now addressed to the peo-
ple directly’.11 Thus for lundbom the shift has an intrinsic stylistic
function.
each interpretation represents the hermeneutical presuppositions
of the scholar. while in Thiel’s perspective the participant-reference
shifts result from poor redaction or problems in the Deuteronomistic
redaction process,12 lundbom understands a great amount of shifts as
functioning rhetorically.13

8
william lee holladay, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 2.
Chapters 1–25 (hermeneia; philadelphia, 1986), p. 354.
9
winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (wmant
41; neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973), p. 154.
10
georg fischer, Jeremia (2 vols.; hThk 1; freiburg im Breisgau, 2005), p. 416.
11
Jack r. lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (ancBi 21a; new york, 1999), p. 625.
12
This is in full accordance with his own methodological presuppositions that only
a redaction-critical approach to the book of Jeremiah will give the prose section a
reasonable place within the book and consequently led to the conclusion ‘einer durch-
greifenden redaktionellen Bearbeitung des Buches’ (Thiel, Die deuteronomistische
Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25, p. 33).
13
This concurs with his a priori understanding that the structure of the prose and
poetry sections in the book of Jeremiah ‘are controlled by canons of ancient hebrew
rhetoric, taught at a rhetorical school in Jerusalem during the eighth to sixth centuries
bc’ (Jack r. lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric [Dissertation
series 18; missoula, 1975], p. 113); see also lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, p. 67.
 who is speaking 343

The diversity of opinions together with the general lack of registra-

tion of the reference shifts in the major commentaries strengthens the
need for a critical assessment of our exegetical situation. why is this
omnipresent phenomenon not registered? how is it possible that in
those few cases where the shifts are interpreted the exegetical intu-
ition involved, stimulated by the respective methodological a priori, is
not tested by data? while the first question hints at the fact that text-
syntactic readings are still carried out on a small scale among scholars,
the second question reveals the limitations of classical tools such as
concordances, grammars, and dictionary books for the verification or
falsification of exegetical intuitions. it is here that eep talstra’s work
has impacted our situation and continues to do so. modern tools, spe-
cifically the wiVU database with its registration of the phenomena as
encountered in texts, has been designed to guide a text-syntactic read-
ing, making explicit the presence and absence of textual (grammatical)
coherence and structures. further, it has become a powerful tool, not
only enabling the scholar to test his or her assumptions and intuitions,
but to equip him or her with retrievable data that can suggest new
data-oriented interpretations.
with the help of the wiVU database i was able to index all par-
ticipant-reference shifts in the book of Jeremiah. The indexation keeps
track of the person, number, and gender shifts, and the phenomena that
co-occur with a participant-reference shift. among those phenomena
are shifts in clause types, the presence or absence of vocatives, macro-
syntactic markers, deictic elements, and various particles. The result-
ing database of shifts allows a categorization of the diverse phenomena
which has helped me in doing research into the triggers and functions of
gender, number, and person shifts. in this contribution to the volume in
honour of eep talstra i focus on only one of the shifts encountered in
Jer 11:11−17—the shift in person. i try to demonstrate the categorization
that the distributional analysis has generated and what interpretations
follow from it. The results illustrate how the authority of the text with
its communicative potential is strengthened when a text-syntactic read-
ing is given priority over hermeneutical programs. Before doing so, one
should be reminded that almost all participant-reference shifts that are
contained in the book of Jeremiah in its codex leningradensis version
are supported by Qumran and the septuagint traditions.14 This reveals

14
a complete and detailed comparison has been performed in my phD disserta-
tion: glanz, Who is Speaking? Who is Addressed? A Critical Study into the Conditions
344 oliver glanz

that within the transmission and redaction processes this phenomenon

was not treated as problematic.

3 Distribution and function of person shifts

a participant-reference shift can affect the person, number, or gen-

der. in those cases where only one of these is affected we speak of a
single position shift. in those cases where a participant-reference shift
involves a shift of person, number, and gender, we speak of a triple,
or more general, a multiple position shift. for a distributional analysis
it is important to differentiate between cases of single and multiple
position shifts. This article will, however, not explicate the differences,
but rather summarize the conclusions that one can draw after doing
a detailed distributional analysis of single and multiple position shifts.
consequently, the adduced examples will include single as well as
multiple position shifts, but no attention will be given to double posi-
tion shifts involving number and gender.15
according to our database a shift in person can have different func-
tions. most dominant are the following functions:
(a) marking a shift in discourse;
(b) marking a discourse modification;16
(c) increasing or decreasing the distance to participants within a dis-
course.
which of the possible functions a shift in person fulfills is not decided
randomly, but depends on the phenomena that co-occur with the shift.

3.1 Shift in Person as a Marker of a Shift in Discourse

a shift in person usually functions as a discourse marker if it is accom-
panied by a shift in clause type, an imperative, a vocative, an inter-
rogative, and/or the use of particles like ‫הנה‬, ‘see’, or ‫כי‬, ‘for’. There

of Exegetical Method and Its Consequences for the Interpretation of Participant Refer-
ence-Shifts in the Book of Jeremiah (Vrije Universiteit, amsterdam, 2010).
15
This has been done in my paper, ‘who is who in Jeremiah? participant ref-
erences, text-syntactical hierarchies and the wiVU Database’, presented at the sBl
meeting in new orleans (2009), and in my phD dissertation, ‘Who is Speaking? Who
is Addressed?’.
16
such cases are explained in 3.2.
 who is speaking 345

are cases in which those elements are missing while the shift in person
still functions to mark a shift in discourse. if this is the case, the shift
is always accompanied by a change in the semantic texture.
The following examples will give an overview on the different pos-
sible phenomena that accompany the shift in person when functioning
to mark a shift in discourse. each example has a widespread distribu-
tion in the book of Jeremiah.

Clause type change: Jer 1:8−9

7
and the lord said (‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ )וַ ּי‬to me (‫) ֵא ַלי‬, ‘Do not say, “i am only a boy”;
for you shall go to all to whom i send you, and you shall speak whatever
i command you.
8
Do not be afraid (‫ ) ִּת ָירא‬of them, for i am with you to deliver you’, says
the lord.
9
and the lord put out (‫ )וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח‬his hand and touched (‫ )וַ ּיַ ּגַ ע‬my mouth
(‫ ;) ִּפי‬and the lord said (‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ )וַ ּי‬to me (‫) ֵא ַלי‬, ‘now i have put my words
in your mouth.’
in v. 8 yhwh is referred to in the 1st person while Jeremiah is referred
to in the 2nd person. The text type of v. 8 is discursive since an yiqtol
clause type is present (‫ל־ּת ָירא‬
ִ ‫ ַא‬, ‘do not fear’). The discursive setting is
interrupted by the wayyiqtol clause type (‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח‬, ‘and he sent’) in v. 9
in which the reader enters a narrative text. herewith the narrative level
of v. 7 is continued (‫אמר‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ י‬, ‘and he spoke’) where the identical speech
situation can be found (1st person: Jeremiah; 3rd person: yhwh). it is
frequently so that a shift in text type, indicated by a shift in clause type,
introduces a new discourse (e.g., 26:4−7; 26:9; 28:6−10, 16−17).

Imperative: Jer 18:18−21

18
Then they said, ‘come (‫) ְלכּו‬, let us make plots against Jeremiah, for
instruction shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise,
nor the word from the prophet. come (‫) ְלכּו‬, let us bring charges against
him, and let us not heed any of his words’.
19
give heed (‫יבה‬ ָ ‫ ) ַה ְק ִׁש‬to me, o lord, and listen (‫ּוׁש ַמע‬
ְ ) to what my
adversaries say!
20
is evil a recompense for good? yet they have dug a pit for my life.
remember how i stood before you to speak well for them, to turn away
your wrath from them.
21
Therefore give their children over to famine; hurl them out to the
power of the sword, let their wives become childless and widowed. may
their men meet death by pestilence, their youths be slain by the sword
in battle.
346 oliver glanz

The imperatives in v. 19 (‫ּוׁש ַמע‬

ְ , ‘listen’, ‫יבה‬
ָ ‫ ַה ְק ִׁש‬, ‘give heed’) refer to
a different participant from the one referred to by the 2nd person in
v. 18 (2× ‫ ְלכּו‬, ‘come’). further there is a clear distinction between the
participants referred to in the 1st and the 2nd person in v. 18 (2nd
person and 1st person: enemies of yhwh) and those referred to in
v. 19 (1st person: Jeremiah; 2nd person: yhwh). further, the con-
tent of v. 19 and the following verse seems to be a clear response to
the thoughts expressed in v. 18. it is often the case that imperatives
open a new discourse and thus introduce a new speech situation (e.g.,
28:6−10; 32:7−8).

Vocative: Jer 16:16−19:

16
i am now sending for many fishermen, says the lord, and they shall
catch them; and afterward i will send for many hunters, and they shall
hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the clefts of
the rocks.
[. . .]
18
and i will doubly repay their iniquity and their sin, because they have
polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and have
filled my inheritance with their abominations.
19
o lord, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in the day of trou-
ble (‫נּוסי ְּביום ָצ ָרה‬
ִ ‫ּומ‬
ְ ‫ּומ ֻעּזִ י‬
ָ ‫)יְ הוָ ה ֻעּזִ י‬, to you shall the nations come from
the ends of the earth and say: our ancestors have inherited nothing but
lies, worthless things in which there is no profit.
in vv. 16−18 the 1st person refers to yhwh. in v. 19 yhwh is identi-
fied by the 2nd person, being referred to by a vocative (‫ּומ ֻעּזִ י‬
ָ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֻעּזִ י‬
‫נּוסי ְּביום ָצ ָרה‬
ִ ‫ּומ‬
ְ , ‘o lord, my strength and my stronghold, my ref-
uge in the day of trouble’). consequently, it is this vocative form that
introduces the new speech situation and marks the shift in discourse.
again, the use of vocatives together with a shift in participant refer-
ence frequently indicates a shift in discourse (e.g., 14:2−7; 16:16−19;
17:10−12; 20:6−7; 38:8−9).

Fronted position: Jer 7:15−16

15
and i will cast you (‫ ) ֶא ְת ֶכם‬out of my sight, just as i cast out all your
brothers (‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫) ֲא ֵח‬, all the offspring of ephraim.
16
as for you (‫)וְ ַא ָּתה‬, do not pray (‫ ) ִּת ְת ַּפ ֵּלל‬for this people, do not raise
a cry (‫ ) ִּת ָּׂשא‬or prayer on their behalf (‫) ַב ֲע ָדם‬, and do not intercede
(‫ ) ִּת ְפּגַ ע‬with me, for i will not hear you (‫)א ָֹתְך‬.
in vv. 3−15, 2nd masc. pl. forms refer to god’s people. in v. 16 a
2nd masc. sing. pronominal form (‫ )וְ ַא ָּתה‬stands in fronted position
 who is speaking 347

making explicit a new participant referred to by the 2nd person. a

further signal for a change in discourse is the reference to the people
by a 3rd masc. pl. suffix (‫ ַב ֲע ָדם‬, ‘on their behalf ’) who are referred
to in the earlier discourse by 2nd masc. pl. forms (e.g., ‫ ֶא ְת ֶכם‬, ‘you’).
together with the fact that in the earlier section of chapter 7 the 2nd
masc. sing. forms were used only in v. 2 for referring to Jeremiah, the
reader is assured that the fronted 2nd masc. sing. pronoun in v. 16 is
referring to Jeremiah and is functioning to indicate a shift in discourse.
The reader then, understands v. 16 as belonging to the earlier level of
discourse of v. 2.
a shift in person, therefore, can mark a shift in discourse when it is
introduced by an explicit reference to the new participant in the form
of a fronted pronoun or fronted subject in a verbal clause. addition-
ally the reference to an earlier 2nd person changes into a 3rd person
as well (in our case: ‫ ֶא ְת ֶכם‬, ‘you’ < ‫ ַב ֲע ָדם‬, ‘on their behalf ’).

Interrogative: Jer 2:35−36

35
you say, ‘i am innocent; surely his anger has turned from me’. now i
am bringing you to judgement for saying, ‘i have not sinned (‫אתי‬ ִ ‫’) ָח ָט‬.
36
how (‫ ) ָמה‬lightly you gad (‫ ) ֵּתזְ ִלי‬about, changing your way (‫!) ַּד ְר ֵּכְך‬
you shall be put to shame (‫בוׁשי‬
ִ ‫ ) ֵּת‬by egypt as you were put to shame
by assyria.
god’s people are referred to in the 1st person in the last discourse of
v. 35b (‫אתי‬ִ ‫ ָח ָט‬, ‘i have not sinned’). however, they are referred to by
2nd fem. sing. forms in v. 36 (e.g., ‫ ַּד ְר ֵּכְך‬, ‘your way’). This shift from
1st to 2nd person is introduced by the use of the interrogative ‫ ָמה‬,
‘what’. together with the shift in person it opens a new discourse.
Besides the interrogative, the reader finds his or her understanding of
the new discourse situation confirmed since the speech situation of
v. 36 is identical to the speech situation of the direct speech introduc-
tion in v. 35 (‘you say’, ‘now i am bringing you to judgement for
saying’). Both introduce the people in the act of speaking. This use of
questions is a common technique for marking a shift in discourse in
the book of Jeremiah (e.g., 8:13−14; 23:25−26; 31:18−21; 32:3).

‫הנה‬: Jer 2:35

35
you say, ‘i am innocent; surely his anger has turned from me’.
see i (‫ ) ִהנְ נִ י‬am bringing you to judgement for saying, ‘i have not
sinned’.
348 oliver glanz

in the discourse of v. 35a god’s people are referred to in the 1st per-
son and yhwh in the 3rd person. This changes in the second part of
v. 35 where yhwh is referred to in the 1st person and the people in
the 2nd person. as in many other cases the marking of an interchange
of personal reference is corroborated by ‫ ִהנְ נִ י‬, ‘see i’, signalizing a shift
in discourse (e.g., 1:9; 3:4−5; 49:4−5).

Change in semantic texture: Jer 11:7–8

7
for i solemnly warned your ancestors when i brought them up out of
the land of egypt, warning them persistently, even to this day, saying,
obey (‫ ) ִׁש ְמעּו‬my voice.
8
yet they did not obey (‫ ) ָׁש ְמעּו‬or incline their ear, but everyone walked
in the stubbornness of an evil will. so i brought upon them all the words
of this covenant, which i commanded them to do, but they did not.
The discourse at the end of v. 7 (‘obey my voice’) is implicitly con-
cluded by the beginning of v. 8. This is because the participant referred
to in the 2nd person in the discourse of v. 7 (‫ ִׁש ְמעּו‬, ‘obey’), is referred
to in v. 8 by 3rd masc. pl. forms (‫ ָׁש ְמעּו‬, ‘did obey’). a shift in discourse
is signalled, not only by the inversion of participant positions, but also
by the semantic texture in combination with the shift in verbal forms.
The imperative predication of the people in v. 7b (‫ ִׁש ְמעּו‬, ‘obey’) is
reversed in v. 8a (‫לֹא ָׁש ְמעּו‬, ‘did not obey’) by the negation accompa-
nying a qatal form. The negation and the change in verbal form sup-
port the shift in person in marking a shift in discourse. This occurs in
many other passages as well (e.g., 2:8; 8:11; 22:21).
The above co-occurring phenomena are dominant when a shift
in person functions as a discourse marker. other less frequently co-
occurring phenomena are particles like ‫כי‬, ‘for’, or deictic elements.17

3.2 Shift in Person as mark of a Discourse Modification

The above examples show how a shift in person together with other
phenomena can mark a shift in discourse. on a more general scale
a shift in person changes a specific speech situation. so far we have
treated shifts of speech situation as being identical to shifts of dis-
course, but this does not apply in all cases. frequently the speech

17
a complete list of co-occurring phenomena that support the shift in persons in
marking a shift in discourse has been published in glanz, Who is Speaking? Who is
Addressed?
 who is speaking 349

situation changes within a single discourse. with ‘discourse modifica-

tion’ we refer to those types of participant shifts that do not mark a
new discourse but a modification of an existing discourse. one of the
prerequisites for different speech situations within a single discourse
is that the 1st person refers to the same participant(s) in all speech
situations that are contained in that one discourse.
The same elements that potentially can mark a shift in discourse also
mark a shift of speech situation within a single discourse. Jer 49:28−31
illustrates how an imperative opens a new speech situation:
concerning kedar and the kingdoms of hazor that king nebuchadrezzar
28

of Babylon defeated. Thus says the lord: rise up (‫)קּומּו‬, advance (‫) ֲעלּו‬
against kedar! and destroy (‫ )וְ ָׁש ְדדּו‬the people of the east!
29
take their tents and their flocks, their curtains and all their goods;
carry off their camels for yourselves, and a cry shall go up: ‘terror is all
around!’
30
flee (‫)נֻ סּו‬, wander (‫ )ּנֻ דּו‬far away, hide (‫ ) ֶה ְע ִמיקּו‬in deep places, o inhab-
itants of hazor! says the lord (‫)נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה‬. for king nebuchadrezzar
of Babylon has made a plan against you and formed a purpose against
you.
31
rise up (‫)קּומּו‬, advance (‫ ) ֲעלּו‬against a nation at ease, that lives secure,
says the lord (‫)נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה‬, that has no gates or bars, that lives alone.
in the above passage different participants are referred to by the same
grammatical forms, namely, imperatives (compare v. 28b with v. 30a).
in v. 28b the imperatives refer to the assaulter of the kedarites
(nebuchadrezzar), who are referred to in the 3rd person. in v. 30a
the kedarites are referred to by the imperatives and the assaulter is
referred to in the 3rd person. The speech situation of v. 28 is resumed
in v. 30 since the imperatives are parallel to the imperatives in v. 28b.
The fact that ‫נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה‬, ‘thus says the lord’, is present throughout the
verses shows that yhwh is referred to constantly in the 1st person and
therefore the imperatives do not mark a shift in discourse, but a shift
in the speech situation within the frame of a larger speech. obviously
the ‘physical’ distance between yhwh and the kedarites, on one hand,
and yhwh and the Babylonians, on the other hand, is identical, as
though both parties stand before him. consequently, the shift of the
participant reference does not change the physical reality (absence of
one party or the other when put in the 3rd person), but the commu-
nicational reality of the discourse. when yhwh speaks directly to one
participant, the other participant is automatically put at more distance
by being referred to in the 3rd person.
350 oliver glanz

in Jer 51:20−28 we see not only the presence of an imperative, but

also a form of ‫הנה‬, ‘see’, which confirms a shift of speech situation:
24
i will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of chaldea before your very
eyes for all the wrong that they have done in Zion, says the lord.
25
see (‫) ִהנְ נִ י‬, i am against you, o destroying mountain, says the lord,
that destroys the whole earth; i will stretch out my hand against you, and
roll you down from the crags, and make you a burned-out mountain.
26
no stone shall be taken from you for a corner and no stone for a foun-
dation, but you shall be a perpetual waste, says the lord.
27
raise (‫ ) ְׂשאּו‬a standard in the land, blow (‫ ) ִּת ְקעּו‬the trumpet among
the nations; sanctify (‫ ) ַק ְּדׁשּו‬the nations for war against her, summon
against (‫ ) ַה ְׁש ִמיעּו‬her the kingdoms, ararat, minni, and ashkenaz;
appoint (‫ ) ִּפ ְקדּו‬a marshal against her, bring up (‫ ) ַה ֲעלּו‬horses like bris-
tling locusts.
28
sanctify (‫ ) ַק ְּדׁשּו‬the nations for war against her, the kings of the
medes, with their governors and deputies, and every land under their
dominion.
Throughout the whole passage the 1st person refers to yhwh. in v. 24
the 3rd person refers to Babylon while the Jewish people are referred
to in the 2nd person. By means of the ‫ ִהנְ נִ י‬, ‘see i’, in v. 24 the 2nd per-
son and 3rd person are exchanged and Babel is referred to in the 2nd
person. in the continued use of the imperative in v. 27 a new exchange
of references is introduced. The 2nd person no longer refers to Babel,
but to the foreigners who launch the assault against Babel. Babel is
again referred to by a 3rd person form. again the ‘physical’ distance
between yhwh and Babel, yhwh and the Jewish people, and yhwh
and the medes seems to be identical. Therefore, the ‘macro’ speech
situation is stable throughout the verses. what changes are the ‘micro’
speech situations as yhwh increases and decreases the distance to dif-
ferent participants during his speech.18

3.3 Shift in Person as a Strategy for Increasing and Decreasing

Distance in Discourse
aside from marking discourse shifts and modifications in discourses,
the shift in person can also function rhetorically. a participant can
be referred to as ‘you’ or as ‘she/he/it’ within one discourse. when
referred to as ‘you’, a participant stands closer to the one referred to

18
some further examples of a discourse modifications marked by a shift in person
are: 5:7−13; 6:6−8; 6:16−17; 9:16−19; 20:12−13; 29:19−23; 48:26−28; 50:11−14.
 who is speaking 351

in the 1st person, than when being referred to as ‘she/he/it’. The 1st
person—2nd person constellation is of a subjective nature as the ‘you’
is a vital part of the communication. in the 1st person—3rd person
constellation, the ‘you’ is put at a greater distance as ‘he/she/it’ and is
no longer a part of the direct communication but is spoken about in
the 3rd person. There are also cases where a 1st person participant is
put at a greater distance and referred to by a 3rd person, commonly
referred to as self-references. This adjustment, which often creates
distance within a discourse, can frequently be found in the book of
Jeremiah. since this phenomenon is rather foreign to our modern style
of writing i will give a few examples.

3.3.1 Increasing Distance

cases of self-references, where the 1st person participant is changed
into a 3rd person participant, are frequently found in Jeremiah.
Jer 29:21 illustrates such a case:
Thus said (‫ ) ָא ַמר‬the lord of hosts, the god of israel, concerning ahab
21

son of kolaiah and Zedekiah son of maaseiah, who (‫ )ה‬are prophesying

a lie to you in my name (‫) ִּב ְׁש ִמי‬: i am going to deliver them into the
hand of king nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and he shall kill them before
your eyes.
in v. 21a we find yhwh referred to by a 3rd masc. sing. predication
(‫ ָא ַמר‬, ‘he said’), although the attached relative clause (introduced by
the so-called relative particle ‫ )ה‬in v. 21b refers to yhwh by a 1st
sing. suffix (‫ ִּב ְׁש ִמי‬, ‘in my name’). an sesB search for all sentences
in the book of Jeremiah that contain two clauses in which the second
clause is of an attributive nature, the first clause has a 3rd person pred-
ication, and the second clause has a 1st person suffix, results in four
cases.19 Those cases show that within one sentence a participant can
be referred to both by the 3rd person and by the 1st person. Besides
these four cases, many more self-references can be found; however,
these usually manifest themselves across sentence boundaries and can
therefore not be found by means of this sesB query.20

19
Jer 14:15; 23:2; 29:4; 29:21.
20
The sesB query allows only for formal text-grammatical searches beyond sen-
tence boundary. This is because the wiVU database does not as yet ‘track’ participants
beyond the sentence boundary. participant references of pronouns and finite verbs
can therefore not be searched for.
352 oliver glanz

self-references function to increase distance as we have seen in the

previous cases. Besides the 1st person—3rd person reference shift, the
most dominant shifts functioning in this way are the ones from 2nd
person to 3rd person as Jer 13:23−26 shows:
23
can ethiopians change their skin or leopards their spots?
Then also you (‫ ) ַא ֶּתם‬can do (‫ּתּוכלּו‬ ְ ) well who are accustomed to do
evil.
24
i will scatter them (‫יצם‬ ֵ ‫ )וַ ֲא ִפ‬like chaff driven by the wind from the
desert.
25
This is your lot (‫גור ֵלְך‬
ָ ), the portion i have measured out to you (‫) ִמ ַּדיִ ְך‬,
says the lord, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies.
26
i myself will lift up your skirts (‫ׁשּוליִ ְך‬ַ ) over your face (‫) ָּפנָ יִ ְך‬, and your
shame (‫ ) ְקלונֵ ְך‬will be seen.
after the leopard metaphor in v. 23a the people are referred to in 2nd
masc. pl. forms (‫ ַא ֶּתם‬, ‘you’). This situation changes in v. 24 when
yhwh pronounces the judgement that he will bring over his people,
referring to them by a 3rd masc. pl. suffix (‫יצם‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲא ִפ‬, ‘i will scatter
them’). This interruption becomes more surprising when in v. 25 the
nation, as convict, is again referred to in the 2nd person (this time
2nd fem. sing.). with the shift in person, the thematic focus of the
discourse has altered. The 3rd person section describes the judgement
that will come over the nation as an objective fact, while the preceding
2nd person section introduces the judgement by rhetorical questions
and presents a rationale for the judgement. The 2nd person section is
continued after v. 24, where the justification of the coming judgement
is continued in a more personal way.
The tendency to shift a participant reference from a 2nd person to
a 3rd person is a common phenomenon when a non-negotiable future
state or consequence needs to be described, such as in Jer 46:27−28:
27
But as for you (‫)וְ ַא ָּתה‬, have no fear (‫) ִּת ָירא‬, my servant Jacob, and do not
be dismayed (‫) ֵּת ַחת‬, o israel; for i am going to save you (‫מוׁש ֲעָך‬ ֽ ִ ) from far
away, and your offspring (‫ )זַ ְר ֲעָך‬from the land of their captivity.
Jacob returns (‫ )וְ ָׁשב‬and has quiet and ease, and no one shall make him
afraid.
28
as for you (‫) ַא ָּתה‬, have no fear, my servant Jacob, says the lord, for i
am with you (‫) ִא ְּתָך‬. i will make an end of all the nations among which
i have banished you (‫) ִה ַּד ְח ִּתיָך‬, but i will not make an end of you (‫א ְתָך‬ֹ ֽ )!
i will chastise you (‫ )וְ יִ ַּס ְר ִּתיָך‬in just measure, and i will by no means
leave you unpunished ( ָ‫) ֲאנַ ֶ ּֽקּך‬.
while both Jacob and israel are referred to by 2nd masc. sing. forms
in v. 27b and throughout v. 28 by 2nd masc. sing. predications (e.g.,
 who is speaking 353

‫ ִּת ָירא‬, ‘do not fear’), suffixes (e.g., ‫מוׁש ֲעָך‬

ִ , ‘saving you’), and pronouns
(e.g., ‫ ַא ָּתה‬, ‘you’), v. 27b predicates Jacob by a 3rd masc. sing. form
(‫וְ ָׁשב‬, ‘he returns’). The difference between the 2nd masc. sing. and
the 3rd masc. sing. sections is that the 3rd masc. sing. section focuses
on the redemptive result/state, emphasizing the future of Jacob/israel
as nation, and the 2nd masc. sing. sections focus on the redemptive
process/activity, emphasizing the relational process in which yhwh is
engaged with Jacob/israel. furthermore, the 2nd person sections con-
tain much more emotional vocabulary (e.g., ‘don’t fear’, ‘i am with
you’), while the 3rd person section contains descriptive vocabulary
(note the absence of 1st person forms). Besides this, similar to our pre-
vious example, the 2nd person section is accompanied by questions.

3.3.2 Decreasing Distance

The reverse of the 2nd person—3rd person shifts and their function of
increasing distance are the 3rd person—2nd person shifts that decrease
distance between participants. Jer 44:27−29 contains such cases:
27
i am going to watch over them for harm and not for good; all the
people of Judah who are in the land of egypt shall perish by the sword
and by famine, until not one is left.
28
and those who escape the sword shall return from the land of egypt
to the land of Judah, few in number; and all the remnant of Judah, who
have come to the land of egypt to settle, shall know whose words will
stand, mine or theirs!
29
This shall be the sign to you, says the lord, that i am going to punish
you in this place, in order that you may know that my words against you
will surely be carried out
in vv. 27−28, where we find a prophetic description of the judgement,
the people of god are referred to in the 3rd person. in v. 29 the people
are suddenly referred to in the 2nd person. with this shift, yhwh
becomes personal and explains the seriousness of the previous predic-
tion. Thus the objective prophetic view of judgement is brought into
a dialogue for the purpose of clarification. yhwh no longer speaks
about the people but to the people.
That a 3rd person—2nd person shift can take place within a single
discourse is also obvious in Jer 11:18:
it was the lord who made it known to me (‫יענִ י‬
18
ַ ‫הוד‬
ִ ),
and i knew;
then you showed me (‫יתנִ י‬
ַ ‫ ) ִה ְר ִא‬their evil deeds.
354 oliver glanz

in v. 18a the 3rd person refers to yhwh, but in v. 18b a shift towards
the 2nd person takes place. while the reference to yhwh has changed,
the 1st person reference has not altered. Besides the continuity of the
1st person, we also find that at the semantic level the predication
of first and third clause are identical as well (‫ראה‬, hiphil, ‘cause to
see’; ‫ידע‬, hiphil, ‘cause to know’). The 1st person continuity and the
semantic relations of the predications suggest that all three clauses are
part of the same discourse. consequently, a 2nd person participant
can also be put at greater distance by using 3rd person forms within
the boundaries of a single discourse.

4 conclusion

our case of participant-reference shifts illustrates that within exegetical

methodology, priority should not be given to hermeneutical theories
that either fragmentize the discourse of the studied text or artificially
project a fictive design onto it. rather, text-syntactic research, if pos-
sible computer-assisted, needs to be given priority. it focuses on the
distribution of encountered syntactic phenomena by which the voice
of a text is strengthened and the possibility is created for getting closer
to the text’s own communicative structure and problems. our investi-
gation into the distribution of person shifts showed that it is a mistake
to attach a single interpretation to participant-reference shifts in gen-
eral, as is often done in commentaries. shifts in person do not func-
tion only in the realm of rhetoric, discourse grammar, or historical
criticism. a functional classification follows specific rules. with these
rules in mind, shifts in person function much more as a guide to the
reading process than as a disturbance to it. The table below shows the
rules that must apply when a person shift functions in the text:
 who is speaking 355

contextual phenomena
discourse At the beginning of the clause containing the participant-
reference shift at least one of the following elements occurs:
shift
marking · Interrogative
· ‫ ָל ֵכן‬or ‫ִּכי‬
· Interjection like ‫ ִהּנֵ ה‬or ‫אוי‬
· Imperative
· Vocative
· Fronted personal pronoun or proper name in verbal clause
· Wayyiqtol clause disrupting the previous discursive clause
types
· Explicit introduction of a participant that has been referred
to in the previous discourse in a different person

Further accompanying phenomena can be:

· The speech situation is different from the speech situation

of the previous discourse. Often this can be a reversal of
the previous speech situation (2nd person—3rd person and 3rd
person—2nd person shifts)
· The 1st person is allocated to a different participant than in
the previous discourse
· An identical speech situation can be found in the text section
preceding the previous discourse
· Semantic parallels with text section preceding the previous
discourse
· Time markers indicating a temporal distance to the previous
discourse
· Absence of a participant that has been present in the previous
discourse

discourse At the beginning of the clause containing the participant-

reference shift at least one of the necessary elements outlined
modification above occurs.
marking Additionally the following must be true:

· Although the speech situation has changed with respect to

the previous discourse, the 1st person refers to the same
participant as in the previous discourse
· The participants involved have the same ‘physical’ distance to
the speaker
· Imperatives at the beginning of the clause containing the
participant-reference shift
· Reverse of previous speech situation (2nd person—3rd person
and 3rd person—2nd person shifts)
356 oliver glanz

The fact that explicit direct speech introductions are often missing
when a shift in person marks a discourse shift makes the reader more
a participant in the communicational setting: the reader finds himself
integrated into the speech situation, and does not need to be explicitly
introduced to the different discourses. This gives him a feeling of com-
municational proximity. however, this nearness is dependent on the
reader’s awareness of the different functions and rules of shifts in per-
son. a lack of awareness would cause him to become disturbed while
reading because he lacks the proper communicational orientation.
when none of the above rules apply it is possible that a shift in
person functions rhetorically as a means of increasing or decreasing
the distance to the speaker. whether this is the case or not must be
decided on the basis of the presence of specific co-occurring phenom-
ena. The writer or speaker can vary the proximity to a participant by
drawing him near as partner in the dialogue or by making him more
distant as the object of a discourse, and therefore making him unable
to respond or resist. in such cases the following rules apply:
 who is speaking 357

contextual phenomena
increasing · Although the speech situation has changed with
respect to the previous one, the 1st person of
distance both speech situations still refers to the same
participant(s)
· Similar/related content in both speech situations;
often the 2nd person section contains the same
theme, but contains more emotional vocabulary while
the 3rd person section contains more descriptive
vocabulary
· The 3rd person section is often in a context of
judgement or prediction and can form the climax of
a passage
· The 2nd person section is often in a context of
explanation or appeal
· ‫ ִּכי‬can introduce the 3rd person section as argument
for the emotional expressions found in the 2nd
person section
decreasing · Although the speech situation has changed with
respect to the previous one, the 1st person of
distance both speech situations still refers to the same
participant(s)
· Similar/related content in both speech situations;
often the 2nd person section contains the same
theme but more emotional vocabulary, while the
3rd person section contains more matter-oriented
vocabulary
· The 3rd person section is often in a context of
judgement or prediction and can form the climax of
a passage
· The 2nd person section is often in a context of
explanation or appeal
· ‫ ִּכי‬can introduce the 2nd person section for
explaining the judgement described in the 3rd
person section

with these conclusions as background a new reading of Jer 11:11−17

can be suggested:
 ‫‪358‬‬

‫]ו>‪] [<Cj‬יאמר >‪] [<Pr‬יהוה >‪] [<Su‬אלי >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪#.C45 N‬‬ ‫‪09‬‬
‫================== ‪===================================================================+‬‬
‫| ]נמצא >‪] [<Pr‬קׁשר >‪] [<Su‬באיׁש יהודה וביׁשבי ירוׁשלם >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪q.C46 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪09‬‬
‫| | | ]ׁשבו >‪] [<Pr‬על עונת אבותם הראׁשנים >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪..C47 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]אׁשר >‪] [<Re‬מאנו >‪[<Pr‬‬ ‫| | | | |‬ ‫‪..C48 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]לׁשמוע >‪] [<Pr‬את דברי >‪[<Ob‬‬ ‫| | | | |‬ ‫‪..C49 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫| | | | ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬המה >‪] [<Su‬הלכו >‪] [<Pr‬אחרי אלהים אחרים >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪#.C50 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]לעבדם >‪[<PO‬‬ ‫| |‬ ‫‪..C51 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫| | | ]הפרו >‪] [<Pr‬בית יׂשראל ובית יהודה >‪] [<Su‬את בריתי >‪[<Ob‬‬ ‫‪..C52 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]אׁשר >‪] [<Re‬כרתי >‪] [<Pr‬את אבותם >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫| | |‬ ‫‪..C53 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫| | ]לכן >‪] [<Cj‬כה >‪] [<Mo‬אמר >‪] [<Pr‬יהוה >‪[<Su‬‬ ‫‪..C54 NQ1‬‬ ‫‪1=3 11‬‬
‫| | ‪========================================================+‬‬ ‫======‬
‫| | | ]הנני >‪] [<Is‬מביא >‪] [<PC‬אליהם >‪] [<Co‬רעה >‪[<Ob‬‬ ‫‪q.C55 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫| ]אׁשר >‪] [<Re‬לא >‪] [<Ng‬יוכלו >‪[<Pr‬‬ ‫| |‬ ‫‪..C56 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫]לצאת >‪] [<Pr‬ממנה >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫| | | |‬ ‫‪..C57 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫| | | ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬זעקו >‪] [<Pr‬אלי >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪..C58 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫| | | | ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬לא >‪] [<Ng‬אׁשמע >‪] [<Pr‬אליהם >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪..C59 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫| | | ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬הלכו >‪] [<Pr‬ערי יהודה ויׁשבי ירוׁשלם >‪[<Su‬‬ ‫‪..C60 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫‪oliver glanz‬‬

‫| | | ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬זעקו >‪] [<Pr‬אל האלהים >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪..C61 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫| | ]אׁשר >‪] [<Re‬הם >‪] [<Su‬מקטרים >‪] [<PC‬להם >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫| | |‬ ‫‪..C62 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫| ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬הוׁשע >‪] | | | [<Mo‬לא >‪] [<Ng‬יוׁשיעו >‪] [<Pr‬להם >‪] [<Co‬בעת רעתם >‪[<Ti‬‬ ‫‪..C63 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫]כי >‪] [<Cj‬מספר עריך >‪] [<Su‬היו >‪] [<Pr‬אלהיך >‪[<PC‬‬ ‫| | |‬ ‫‪..C64 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪sub 13‬‬
‫| ]יהודה >‪[<Vo‬‬ ‫| | |‬ ‫‪..C65 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫| | | ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬מספר חצות ירוׁשלם >‪ׂ] [<Su‬שמתם >‪] [<Pr‬מזבחות >‪] [<Ob‬לבׁשת >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪..C66 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫]מזבחות >‪[<Ob‬‬ ‫| | |‬ ‫‪..C67 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫]לקטר >‪] [<PC‬לבעל >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫| | |‬ ‫‪..C68 NQ1Q‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫| | ‪==========================================================+‬‬ ‫======‬
‫| ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬אתה >‪] [<Su‬אל >‪] [<Ng‬תתפלל >‪] [<Pr‬בעד העם הזה >‪[<Co‬‬ ‫‪..C69 NQ2‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫| ]ו>‪] [<Cj‬אל >‪] [<Ng‬תׂשא >‪] [<Pr‬בעדם >‪] [<Co‬רנה ותפלה >‪[<Ob‬‬ ‫|‬ ‫‪..C70 NQ2‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫]כי >‪] [<Cj‬אינני >‪ׁ] [<Ns‬שמע >‪] [<PC‬בעת >‪[<Ti‬‬ ‫|‬ ‫‪..C71 NQ2‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫]קראם >‪] [<Ps‬אלי >‪] [<Co‬בעד רעתם >‪[<Aj‬‬ ‫|‬ ‫‪..C72 NQ2‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫‪=====================================================================+‬‬ ‫======‬
 who is speaking 359

in clause 54 the character string ‘1=3’ makes explicit that the self-
reference is established through ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬, ‘he spoke’, as predication of
yhwh, in contrast to previous 1st person references to yhwh in clause
49 (‫ ְּד ָב ַרי‬, ‘my words’), clause 52 (‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ִר‬, ‘my covenant’), and clause
53 (‫ ָּכ ַר ִּתי‬, ‘i cut’). The shift from 3rd person references to Judah and
Jerusalem in vv. 11−12 towards 2nd person references in v. 13 is made
explicit by the character string ‘sub’. This means that the distance to
the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem has been decreased
within the same direct speech as yhwh continues to be referred to
in the 1st person throughout vv. 11−13. according to our distribu-
tive observations the sudden shift in reference of the 2nd person form
between v. 13 (2nd person refers to the house of Judah and the inhab-
itants of Jerusalem) and v. 14 (2nd person refers to Jeremiah) must be
taken as marking a shift in discourse because of the fronted position of
‫ ַא ָּתה‬, ‘you’, and the inversion of the position to the former 2nd person
participant (god’s people) into a 3rd person participant. This is also
supported by the direct speech introduction in clause 45.
This example of participant-reference shifts is meant to illustrate that
the efforts of eep talstra have not only been of benefit to the meth-
odological debate in general, but his engineering skills have equipped
our exegetical workbench with new tools that enhance our self-critical
exercises and embrace the authority of the text in a new way.
 JERUSALEM’S COMFORTERS IN ISAIAH 40:1–2:
PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN A PROPHETIC TEXT

Reinoud Oosting

In poetic and prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible exegetes often find partici-
pants that are not or not fully identified. In discussing Talstra’s methodology,
this phenomenon is of interest, because the identification of participants plays
a significant role in his approach to the Old Testament. Talstra’s approach
confronts us with the question of how to deal with the gaps of information
in the texts. Should one try to fill them in with the help of information from
outside of the texts? Should one leave them open and put emphasis on the
indeterminacy of these texts? Is it possible to leave the gaps open for the time
being and to fill them in later? The present contribution will consider these
questions in searching for the identification of the anonymous addressees
in Isa 40:1–2. In doing so, the last question is particularly interesting because
Isa 40:1–2 is the beginning of Isaiah 40–55 which has often been recognized
as a distinct corpus. Assuming that these chapters constitute a cohesive text, it
is well possible that the remainder of Isaiah 40–55 sheds light on the identity
of the audience of Isa 40:1–2. For that reason, in trying to trace the identity
of these addressees, this paper does not confine itself to the first passage of
Isaiah 40–55, but also looks for clues in the ensuing chapters. In doing so, an
attempt is made to gain insight into the identification of participants in the
prophetic text Isaiah 40–55.

1 Introduction

The identification of participants in a text plays a significant role in Eep

Talstra’s methodology for analysing the Old Testament. In his view,
understanding the identities of the participants is important for two
reasons. First, the analysis of the various references to participants in a
text sheds light on its structure. This helps in answering questions such
as: Who are being addressed here? What is the mutual relationship
between the participants? What is their role in the literary composi-
tion of the text? Second, the identification of participants is important
for acquiring access to the world of these texts. Talstra points out that
to participate in these texts, readers need to identify themselves with
participants in them. According to him, the possibility of old and new
readers identifying themselves with one of the participants is decisive
362 reinoud oosting

for one’s position with respect to these texts. For that reason, Talstra
argues that Old Testament theology should not concentrate on the
universal message or moral behind these texts, but on the critical par-
ticipation of readers in the world of the texts. In his own words:
Reading the Bible in the context of theology in my view means that one
does not try to skip the historically determined in order to find the eter-
nal values that might lay hidden in the ancient texts; rather, it means an
ongoing reflection on the readers and their critical participation in the
world of the texts.1
The identification of participants is more difficult in poetic and pro-
phetic texts than in narrative texts. In poetic and prophetic texts, exe-
getes are faced with compact language and with unexpected shifts in
person, number, and gender. Furthermore, in these texts one often
finds participants that are not or not fully identified. The last phenom-
enon is of particular interest in discussing Eep Talstra’s approach to the
Old Testament. Talstra’s emphasis on the identification of participants
presents us with the question of how to deal with these gaps of infor-
mation in poetic and prophetic texts. Should one try to fill in the gaps
with the help of information from other parts of the Old Testament or
from its cultural background? Should one leave the gaps open and put
emphasis on the indeterminacy of these texts? Is it possible to leave the
gaps open for the time being and to fill them in later?
The above-mentioned questions will be considered in searching for
the identification of the audience of Isa 40:1–2. In doing so, the last
question is particularly interesting because Isa 40:1–2 is the beginning
of chapters 40–55 of the Book of Isaiah, which has often been recog-
nized as a distinct corpus. Many exegetes have argued that Isaiah 40–55
must be taken as literary unity, with distinctive word usage and spe-
cific themes.2 Assuming that Isaiah 40–55 constitutes a cohesive text,
it is well possible that the identity of the audience of Isa 40:1–2 is not

1
Eep Talstra, ‘Texts and their Readers: On Reading the Old Testament in the
Context of Theology’, in J.W. Dyk et al. (eds.), The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible
(ACEBT.S 1; Maastricht, 1999), pp. 101–119, esp. 115.
2
See, for example, the preliminary statement in the study of Michael Rosenbaum,
Word-Order Variation in Isaiah 40–55: A Functional Perspective (SSN 36; Assen,
1997), p. 5: ‘Isaiah 40–55 is considered one of the finest examples of poetry in the
Bible. It is a distinct corpus, which is generally agreed to have been written at the end
of the exilic period. The message of Is 40–55 is clear and the author loves to repeat
certain themes and motifs.’
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 363

revealed at the beginning of Isaiah 40–55, but is revealed in the course

of this literary unit. For that reason, in trying to trace the identity of
the ones addressed in Isa 40:1–2 this contribution does not confine
itself to the first passage of Isaiah 40–55, but also pays attention to
the signals that are found in the ensuing chapters. In doing so, an
attempt is made to gain insight into the identification of participants
in the prophetic text Isaiah 40–55. Our examination is divided into
five parts:
1. The first section will deal with the syntactic interpretation of Isa
40:1. It can be noticed that the absence of an explicit address at the
beginning of Isaiah 40 has led to different readings of this verse in
the Ancient Versions.
2. The second section will focus on the identification of the addressees
in Isa 40:1–2 within the immediate context. It is striking that cur-
rent interpreters usually try to understand the anonymous audience
of Isa 40:1–2 within the context of either Isa 40:1–8 or 40:1–11.
3. In the third section, the connection of Isa 40:1–2 to other parts of
Isaiah 40–55 is examined. The question as to whether indications
are found in the following chapters that help reveal the identity of
the addressees in Isa 40:1–2 is discussed.
4. The fourth section pays attention to the literary composition of Isa-
iah 40–55. The purpose of this section is to answer the question of
whether the order to speak to the heart of Jerusalem in Isa 40:1–2
is fulfilled in the course of Isaiah 40–55.
5. The last section will go into the consequences of this example for
participant tracking in poetic and prophetic texts. Does this exam-
ple provide us with tools that may be useful in examining other
poetic and prophetic parts of the Old Testament?

2 Identification within the Context of Isaiah 40:1–2

From ancient times, readers of Isaiah 40–55 were faced with the
absence of a clear addressee at the beginning of Isaiah 40. The Ancient
Versions offered two solutions to the question of who are being spo-
ken to in Isa 40:1–2. The Septuagint and the Targum, on the one hand,
made the identity of the addressees explicit by inserting the vocatives
ἱερεῖς, ‘O you priests’, and ‫נבייא‬, ‘O you prophets’, respectively. In
doing so, they indicated that the priests or the prophets were given the
364 reinoud oosting

task of comforting the people of Yhwh and of speaking to the heart

of Jerusalem. The Clementine Vulgate, on the other hand, took the
phrase ‫עמי‬, ‘my people’, in Isa 40:1 as a vocative: popule meus, ‘O my
people’. In doing so, it makes the command to comfort and to speak
to the heart of Jerusalem to be addressed to the people of Yhwh. The
syntactic interpretation of Isa 40:1–2 in the Clementine Vulgate has
been followed by Norman Snaith in his 1967 study on Isaiah 40–66.
Snaith points out that the proposal of the Vulgate to read the phrase
‫‘( עמי‬my people’) in Isa 40:1 as vocative has the advantage that there
is no need to add an extra vocative, as the Septuagint and the Targum
do. He states: ‘lxx makes “my people” the object of the verb “com-
fort”, but then feels compelled to supply a vocative in order to indicate
who it is that is bidden to act as comforter’.3 The main reason that
Snaith prefers the reading of the Vulgate is that it sheds light on the
identity of the addressees in Isa 40:1–2. This suggests, however, that
the identity of the audience is revealed within Isa 40:1–2.
Unlike Snaith, most exegetes prefer the reading of Isa 40:1–2 in the
Septuagint and the Targum, though not necessarily following their
inserted vocative. They point out that the phrase ‫עמי‬, ‘my people’, is
best understood as direct object of the verb ‫ נחם‬Piel, ‘to comfort’,
because this verb is usually construed with a direct object. Further-
more, they point to two other texts in the Hebrew Bible in which the
expressions ‘to comfort someone’ and ‘to speak to someone’s heart’
appear parallel to one another, namely, Gen 50:21 and Ruth 2:13.4
These two texts read as follows:
Gen 50:21 He [Joseph] comforted them and spoke to their hearts.
Ruth 2:13 She [Ruth] said, ‘May I continue to find favour in your eyes,
my lord, for you have comforted me and spoken to the heart of
your servant.’
Given this parallel use of the expressions, it is more reasonable to
assume that the phrase ‫עמי‬, ‘my people’, functions as direct object
of the imperative forms of the verb ‫ נחם‬Piel than to adopt the view
of Snaith that this phrase functions as vocative. That means that the

3
Norman H. Snaith, ‘Isaiah 40–66: A Study of the Teaching of the Second Isaiah
and its Consequences’, in Harry M. Orlinsky and Norman H. Snaith, Studies on the
Second Part of the Book of Isaiah (VT.S 14; Leiden, 1967), pp. 135–264 (see p. 177).
4
See, for example, Jan L. Koole, Isaiah 3.1. Isaiah 40–48 (HCOT; Kampen, 1997),
p. 50: ‘On account of the parallelism of v. 1 and v. 2aA ‫ עמי‬is the object of ‫נחמו‬.’
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 365

people of Yhwh are not called to comfort, but they are the ones who
will be consoled. On the basis of the syntactic analysis of Isa 40:1–2,
two conclusions concerning the addressees at the beginning of Isaiah
40 can be drawn. First, Isa 40:1–2 does not answer the question of
the identity of the audience addressed here. Second, the anonymous
addressees in Isa 40:1–2 are given the task of comforting the people of
Yhwh and of speaking to the heart of Jerusalem—to console and to
encourage the city of Jerusalem.5

3 Identification within the Context of Isaiah 40:1–11

Exegetes today still struggle with the identity of the audience of Isa
40:1–2. In trying to answer the question of its identity, they go beyond
the first two verses of Isaiah 40 and attempt to identify the audience
of Isa 40:1–2 with one of the participants mentioned in the follow-
ing verses. A view that has found a ready reception is the proposal
of Frank Cross, who emphasizes the parallels between Isa 40:1–8
and the call of the prophet Isaiah in Isa 6:1–8.6 Cross argues that the
setting of the present passage is that of a heavenly council in which
Yhwh gives directions to his angelic heralds. According to him, the
anonymous addressees of vv. 1–2 are to be identified as heralds who
are ordered by Yhwh to convey his message of comfort. The procla-
mation of these angelic heralds is first heard in v. 3, where ‘a voice’
directs supernatural beings to prepare the way of Yhwh, and then in
v. 6, where ‘a voice’ calls the prophet to proclaim. An alternative view
is held by Noel Freedman in his paper on the literary structure of
Isa 40:1–11.7 Freedman maintains that Yhwh’s order to speak to the
heart of Jerusalem in vv. 1–2 is addressed to the participant ‘all flesh’ in

5
The expression ‘to speak to her heart’ in Isa 40:2 refers both to the consolation
and the encouragement of Jerusalem, as was argued by Georg Fischer, ‘Die Redewen-
dung ‫ דבר על־לב‬im AT’, Bib. 65 (1984), pp. 244–250. He maintains: ‘dieser Ausdruck
[wird] durch zwei Pole geprägt: Der eine wird durch den dreimal belegten Parallelis-
mus mit ‫ נחם‬dargestellt, der andere durch die in 2 Chr zweimal in Erscheinung tredende
Betonung des Mutes. Meistens oszilliert die Bedeutung und begreift beides, Trost und
Mut, in sich’ (pp. 249–250).
6
Frank M. Cross, ‘The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah’, JNES 12 (1953), pp.
274–277.
7
David Noel Freedman, ‘The Structure of Isaiah 40:1–11’, in Edgar W. Conrad and
Edward G. Newing (eds.), Perspectives on Language and Text (FS F.I. Andersen; Winona
Lake, 1987), pp. 167–193.
366 reinoud oosting

v. 5. To reach that conclusion, Freedman, however, changes the actual

arrangement of Isa 40:1–11 into a ‘logical or sequential order’ of its
main parts.8 As a result, in Freedman’s representation of Isa 40:1–11,
v. 5 is moved to the end of the passage where it serves as the finale.
The attempts of Cross and Freedman to identify the audience in Isa
40:1–2 are not fully convincing because their answers do not emerge
from the text itself. While Cross’ interpretation is mainly based on the
supposed affinity of Isa 40:1–8 to Isa 6:1–8, Freedman needs a logical
rearrangement of the constituent parts of Isa 40:1–11 to reveal the
identity of Jerusalem’s comforters. It therefore is not surprising that
various exegetes assume that the identity of the addressees in Isa 40:1–2
is not revealed within Isa 40:1–11. The latter view has been defended,
for example, by Jan Fokkelman and Francis Landy,9 who emphasise
the ambiguity and the indeterminacy of Isa 40:1–11. They maintain
that the anonymity of the addressees in Isa 40:1–2 fits well into the
context of this passage. In their view, the main question is not who are
ordered to speak to the heart of Jerusalem, but whether the order to
console Jerusalem is fulfilled. To answer that question Fokkelman and
Landy pay attention to the literary structure of Isa 40:1–11, which they
say is circular. One of the indications that the first and the last part of Isa
40:1–11 are connected is the recurrence of the name ‘Jerusalem’ in vv. 2
and 9: the order to speak to the heart of Jerusalem in v. 2 is completed
in the appearance of the herald of good tidings in v. 9.10
The question is, however, whether Jerusalem is comforted within
Isa 40:1–11. It is hard to assume that Jerusalem receives consolation
in this passage, if it is not clear who is responsible for this. In my
view, it is more likely that Yhwh’s order to speak to the heart of Jeru-
salem is not fulfilled in Isa 40:1–11. The fact that the identity of her
comforters is concealed in these verses could indicate that Jerusalem
did not yet receive consolation. The obvious persons for that task of
comforting Jerusalem did not respond to the call of Yhwh to do so.

8
Freedman, ‘Structure’, p. 191.
9
Jan P. Fokkelman, ‘Stylistic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–11’, in Adam S. van der Woude
(ed.) Remembering all the Way . . . A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the
Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland
(OTS 21; Leiden, 1981), pp. 68–90, esp. 77, 85; Francis Landy, ‘The Ghostly Prelude to
Deutero-Isaiah’, BibInt 14 (2006), pp. 332–363, esp. 333.
10
Landy, ‘Prelude’, p. 350: ‘that which is spoken to the heart of Jerusalem in v. 2 is
completed in the announcement of the herald’; Fokkelman, ‘Stylistic Analysis’, p. 83:
‘Whereas at first “Jerusalem” was inconsolable and still had to receive the message, it
has now become bringer and passer-on of the good tidings itself.’
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 367

When continuing to read in Isaiah 40–55, it becomes clear that there

are several texts which state that someone is comforted by Yhwh: Isa
49:13 and 52:9 say that Yhwh has comforted ‘his people’; Isa 51:3
says that Yhwh has comforted both ‘Zion’ and ‘all her waste places’;
Isa 51:16 says that Yhwh is the one who comforts ‘you’ (masc. sing.).
With regard to Jerusalem, however, nowhere is it related that she
has received consolation.11 On the contrary, in Isa 51:19 Yhwh asks
Jerusalem the question of how she will be comforted. Although the
syntax of the verse causes difficulties, one cannot escape the impres-
sion that the order to encourage Jerusalem has not yet been fulfilled
at the end of Isaiah 51.12 That impression is strengthened by the terms
of address used in Isa 54:11: the female addressee is spoken to as ‘you
afflicted one, you tempest driven, you not comforted’ (‫)לא נחמה‬. It
is widely recognized that the female figure addressed in Isa 54:1–17
stands for Zion/Jerusalem. Assuming this for Isaiah 54, one has to
conclude that Jerusalem is still addressed as ‘you not comforted’ in
Isa 54:11.
Given the depictions of Jerusalem in Isa 51:19 and 54:11, it is unlikely
that Jerusalem has been comforted in Isa 40:1–11. If Jerusalem did
receive consolation in the first passage of Isaiah 40–55, it is hard to
explain why she is still portrayed as not being comforted in the sec-
ond half of this literary composition.13 The conclusion that Jerusalem
does not receive consolation in Isa 40:1–11 raises the question of why
the audience of Isa 40:1–2 did not respond to Yhwh’s call to speak to
the heart of Jerusalem. Why did they not fulfil the order of Yhwh to
encourage her? To answer these questions, we must continue reading
in Isaiah 40–55 in order to see whether the remainder of Isaiah 40–55

11
The present paper will not go into the distinction between the proper names ‘Zion’
and ‘Jerusalem’ in Isaiah 40–55. This issue is considered at length in my doctoral dis-
sertation: Oosting, Walls of Zion and Ruins of Jerusalem: A Corpus-Linguistic View on
the Participant Zion/Jerusalem in Isaiah 40–55, written under the supervision of Eep
Talstra (Amsterdam, VU University, 2011). In that study, I have claimed that the des-
ignations ‘Zion’ and ‘Jerusalem’ in Isaiah 40–55 must be taken as two sides of the same
coin. That means that the designations ‘Zion’ and ‘Jerusalem’ refer to the same participant
but represent different aspects. The proper name ‘Zion’, on the one hand, is related to the
return of the Babylonian exiles and the return of Yhwh himself to this place. The proper
name ‘Jerusalem’, on the other, is used in reference to the rebuilding of this city.
12
A full discussion on the syntactic interpretation of Isa 51:19 is offered in Oosting,
Walls of Zion and Ruins of Jerusalem.
13
A comparable literary technique is used in Judges 4. In Judg 4:9, the prophet-
ess Deborah predicts that ‘Yhwh will deliver Sisera into the hand of a woman’. The
identity of this female saviour is, however, not revealed until the end of the story. See
Yairah Amit, ‘Judges 4: Its Contents and Form’, JSOT 12 (1987), pp. 89–111.
368 reinoud oosting

sheds light on the identity of the addressees in Isa 40:1–2. The identifi-
cation of the anonymous addressees could be helpful in understanding
why they did not fulfil the order of Yhwh.

4 Identification within the Context of Isaiah 40–55

In searching for the identity of who are given the task of speaking to
the heart of Jerusalem in Isa 40:1–2, we look for clues in the ensuing
chapters. Two features of the audience in vv. 1–2 are of importance:
first, their identity is concealed; second, they are addressed in the 2nd
person masc. plur., as is indicated not only by the imperative forms of
the three verbs, but also by the plural suffix of the phrase ‘your God’.
Given those two features, we direct our attention to the indeterminate
masc. plur. audiences in Isaiah 40–55, where one encounters several
audiences that are not fully identified. In addition to Isa 40:1–2, refer-
ences to unidentified masc. plur. audiences occur in Isa 40:3, 18–26;
42:9; 18–23; 43:10–19; 44:8; 45:11, 17; 46:1; 48:1–6, 14–20; 50:1–3,
10–11; 51:1–7, 12; 52:3, 11–12; 55:1–12.
Particularly interesting are the references in Isa 50:1–3. The peo-
ple addressed in this passage are not personally spoken to, but are
addressed with reference to their mother. In the nrsv, the first verse
of the passage reads:
Isa 50:1 Thus says the Lord:
Where is your mother’s bill of divorce with which I put her away?
Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you?
No, because of your sins you were sold, and for your transgressions
your mother was put away.
The phrase ‘your mother’ in v. 1 is widely recognized as a reference to
the participant Zion/Jerusalem. That identification is very likely on the
basis of the various depictions of the participant Zion/Jerusalem as a
female figure in Isaiah 40–55, and particularly the portrayal of Jerusalem
as a mother in Isa 51:18.14 As a consequence, the people addressed in
Isa 50:1 are to be considered as the children of Jerusalem.

14
The connection between the designation ‘your mother’ in Isa 50:1 and the depic-
tion of Jerusalem in Isa 51:18 is in my view more cogent than the connection to the
depiction of Zion in the previous passage, Isa 49:14–26. The latter view is defended,
for example, by Richtsje Abma, Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts
with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3) (SSN
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 369

The close relationship of the addressees in Isa 50:1–3 to their

mother, Jerusalem, calls to mind the order intended for the audience
in Isa 40:1–2 who were directed to speak to the heart of Jerusalem.
It seems to be no coincidence that both the people addressed in Isa
40:1–2 and the ones addressed in Isa 50:1–3 are closely connected to
the city of Jerusalem. In addition to this point of agreement, the rela-
tionship between Isa 40:1–2 and 50:1–3 is supported by several obser-
vations offered in current exegetical literature. First, there is a lexical
connection between the two passages since in both Isa 40:2 and 50:1
the noun ‫עון‬, ‘sin’, occurs.15 Second, Isa 40:1–2 and 50:1–3 are seman-
tically connected since both passages make use of the same Leitmo-
tiv, ‘leading-motif ’, which contains concepts related to the sphere of
money and economics.16 Finally, Isa 40:1–2 and 50:1–3 show similari-
ties with respect to genre, since, as Henk Leene pointed out, in both
passages accusation and salvation are closely connected: ‘One who
started reading at Isaiah 40 and continued reading up through Isaiah
50, did not previously encounter such a direct link between accusation
and oracle of salvation.’17
Given the strong connections between Isa 40:1–2 and 50:1–3, it is
likely that the addressees in Isa 40:1–2 and in 50:1–3 are one and the
same. Consequently, it is plausible that the people addressed in Isa
40:1–2 are to be identified as the children of Jerusalem: Yhwh gives
the addressees of Isa 40:1–2 the task of speaking to the heart of their
mother, Jerusalem. This assumption is consistent with comparable
depictions in the Old Testament, such as Gen 37:35; Job 42:11; 1 Chr
7:22, which make clear that providing comfort was the duty of close
relatives.
That conclusion leads us to consider why the children of Jerusalem
did not provide comfort to their mother. Why did they not fulfil the
order of Yhwh to speak to the heart of their mother? The depiction

40; Assen, 1999). She maintains: ‘In light of the circumstance that Zion in 49:14–26 is
continuously addressed in her role as mother and in view of her absent sons, it is likely
that in 50:1–3 the sons of this mother are being addressed’ (see pp. 63–64). However,
unlike Jerusalem in Isa 51:18, Zion is not portrayed as a mother in Isa 49:21, but as a
barren one who did not give birth to her own children.
15
See Jan L. Koole, Isaiah 3.2. Isaiah 49–55 (HCOT; Leuven, 1998), p. 91.
16
See Abma, Bonds of Love, p. 73, n. 78.
17
Henk Leene, De stem van de knecht als metafoor: beschouwingen over de compositie
van Jesaja 50 (Kampen, 1980), p. 9: ‘Wie bij Jes. 40 begon te lezen en daarin tot Jes. 50
volhardde, kwam een zo directe koppeling van aanklacht en heilsaankondiging nog
niet eerder tegen.’
370 reinoud oosting

of Jerusalem’s children in Isa 50:1–3 helps answer this question by

shedding light on two significant characteristics of Jerusalem’s chil-
dren. First, they are not in the right place, for at the beginning of Isa
50:2, Yhwh asks the addressees: ‘Why was no one there when I came?’
Second, they are unwilling to respond to the call of Yhwh, for in the
continuation of v. 2 Yhwh presents the addressees with the question:
‘Why did no one answer when I called?’ Given those accusations, it is
not a surprise that the children of Jerusalem did not fulfil the order of
Yhwh to comfort their mother. Their depiction in Isa 50:1–3 shows
that these children are unwilling to go back to Jerusalem and provide
comfort to their mother. Due to their refusal, the order of Yhwh in
Isa 40:1–2 to speak to the heart of Jerusalem has not yet been fulfilled
in Isa 50:1–3.
The impression that the children of Jerusalem are unwilling to
encourage their mother is strengthened by their portrayal in Isa 51:17–
23. Because this passage is explicitly addressed to Jerusalem, there can
be no doubt that the children of Jerusalem are referred to in Isa 51:18
and 20. These two verses are rendered in the nrsv as follows:
Isa 51:18 There is no one to guide her among all the children she has
borne;
there is no one to take her by the hand among all the children she
has brought up.
Isa 51:20 Your children have fainted, they lie at the head of every street like
an antelope in a net;
they are full of wrath of the Lord, the rebuke of your God.
These portrayals leave little room for doubt that the children of
Jerusalem are unable to comfort their mother: there is no one who
guides her and there is no one who takes her by the hand among all
the children of Jerusalem. Verse 20 relates the powerlessness of Jerusa-
lem’s children to be of assistance to their mother to their punishment
by Yhwh. The depictions of Jerusalem’s children in Isa 51:17–23 make
clear that they are full of the wrath of Yhwh and not up to the task
of comforting their mother, Jerusalem. That means that the order of
Yhwh to provide comfort to Jerusalem must be fulfilled by someone
else. The identity of that comforter or those comforters will be exam-
ined in the following section.
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 371

5 The Consolation of Jerusalem in the Literary

Composition of Isaiah 40–55

As indicated in the previous section, the order of Yhwh in Isa 40:1–2

to speak to the heart of Jerusalem has not yet been fulfilled in
Isa 51:17–23, since the children of Jerusalem were unsuited to the task
of comforting their mother. Since the obvious persons for the task of
comforting her did not do so, it is to be expected that Jerusalem is
still deprived of consolation in Isa 51:17–23. This assumption is sup-
ported by the depiction of Jerusalem in Isa 51:19 where Yhwh asks
her the painful question of how she will be comforted. Assuming that
Jerusalem is still deprived of comfort at the end of chapter 51, the
question arises whether she will receive consolation in the remainder
of Isaiah 40–55. A first answer to that question is found at the begin-
ning of the next passage, Isa 52:1–12. In the first two verses of this
passage, Jerusalem is told to put on her beautiful clothes and to shake
herself from the dust:
Isa 52:1 Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city.
Isa 52:2 Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, take your seat, O Jerusalem.
These two orders leave little room for doubt that Jerusalem’s time of
mourning is finished: she must no longer lie down in sackcloth and
ashes, but must put on her beautiful garments and rise up from the
dust. The reason why Jerusalem’s days of mourning are ended becomes
clear in the remainder of Isa 52:1–12. Verse 7 depicts the arrival of a
messenger to Zion who announces to her that her God has become
King. That announcement leads to two reactions in the next verses.
First, the message of the herald is confirmed by Zion’s watchmen who
lift up their voice and sing for joy, because they see Yhwh returning
to Zion (v. 8). Second, in v. 9, the ruins of Jerusalem are called to burst
into song, because Yhwh himself has redeemed Jerusalem. Isaiah 52:9
in the nrsv reads as follows:
Isa 52:9 Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem;
for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed
Jerusalem.
372 reinoud oosting

Yhwh’s arrival at Zion in vv. 7–8 means that Jerusalem should no

longer mourn, because Yhwh himself will provide her comfort.
The ruins of Jerusalem are called to burst into song in v. 9. This call
strengthens the impression that Jerusalem is no longer deprived of
comfort in this passage. At the same time, it is striking that she is still
addressed as ‘ruins of Jerusalem’ in v. 9.
A second answer to the question of whether Jerusalem receives con-
solation in the remainder of Isaiah 40–55 is found in Isa 54:11–17. At
the beginning of this passage, the female addressee is spoken to as ‘you
afflicted one, you tempest driven, you not comforted (‫( ’)לא נחמה‬see
v. 11). As was mentioned above, it is widely accepted that Isa 54:11–17
is addressed to Zion/Jerusalem.18 There are several reasons why the
second part of Isaiah 54 is specifically addressed to Jerusalem. There is
no room to discuss all of these reasons in detail here, but particularly
noteworthy within the framework of this paper is the fact that the
title ‫עניה‬, ‘you afflicted one’, is used both in Isa 51:21 and in 54:11.
Assuming that Jerusalem is addressed in Isa 54:11–17, an interesting
link between the consolation of Jerusalem and her rebuilding becomes
visible. In vv. 11–12, Yhwh promises the ‘not-comforted’ Jerusalem
that she will be gloriously rebuilt. In the nrsv, Isa 54:11–12 is trans-
lated as follows:
Isa 54:11 O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted,
I am about to set your stones in antimony, and lay your founda-
tions with sapphires.
Isa 54:12 I will make your pinnacles of rubies, your gates of jewels, and all
your wall of precious stones.
By addressing Jerusalem as ‘you not comforted’ in Isa 54:11 Yhwh
implies that his order in Isa 40:2 to speak to the heart of Jerusalem
has not yet been fulfilled completely. As the previous sections showed,
the obvious persons for doing so, her children, did not respond to
Yhwh’s call in Isa 40:2. The depictions of these children in Isa 50:1–3
and 51:17–23 made clear that they were unsuited to the task of consol-
ing their mother. That conclusion is supported by Yhwh’s question to

18
An alternative view is held by Willem A.M. Beuken, ‘Isaiah liv: The Multiple
Identity of the Person Addressed’, in Adam S. van der Woude (ed.) Language and
Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis (OTS 19; Leiden, 1974),
pp. 29–70.
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 373

Jerusalem in Isa 51:19 concerning how she will be comforted. At the

beginning of Isaiah 52, however, Jerusalem is called upon to put on
her beautiful clothes and to shake herself from the dust. Her days of
mourning are over, because Yhwh himself has come to comfort her.
Because Jerusalem’s children were unsuited to the task of consoling
their mother, Yhwh takes over their role. This assumption is con-
firmed by the promise of Jerusalem’s rebuilding in Isa 54:11. Yhwh
promises the ‘not-comforted’ Jerusalem that he himself will take care
of her rebuilding, which will surpass in beauty the rebuilding by her
own children.
In addition to the promise that she will be gloriously rebuilt, Yhwh
promises Jerusalem in Isa 54:13 that all her children will be taught by
him. In the nrsv, v. 13 reads as follows:
Isa 54:13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be
the prosperity of your children.
This promise contrasts with the depiction of Jerusalem’s children in
Isa 51:17–23 where the emphasis was on the inability of Jerusalem’s
children to comfort their mother because they were full of the wrath of
Yhwh (v. 20). The contrast between the two portrayals makes it clear
that the children of Jerusalem will undergo a significant change. Their
former opposition to Yhwh will turn into obedience. The change in
the attitude of Jerusalem’s children is best explained as part of Yhwh’s
consolation of Jerusalem. In addition to the glorious restoration of her
ruins, Yhwh promises Jerusalem that her rebellious children will turn
into disciples of Yhwh. That means that they will listen to his word.
When Yhwh calls them to go back to their mother Jerusalem, they
will not refuse.
To put it briefly, the consolation of Jerusalem in Isaiah 54 consists
of two announcements: Yhwh promises Jerusalem that she will be
gloriously rebuilt (Isa 54:11–12), and Yhwh tells her that all the chil-
dren of Jerusalem will be his disciples (Isa 54:13). On the basis of the
preceding considerations, the line of thought concerning Jerusalem’s
consolation in the literary composition of Isaiah 40–55 can be sum-
marized as follows:
374 reinoud oosting

Isa 40:1–2 An anonymous audience is called by their God to speak to the

heart of Jerusalem.
Isa 50:1–3 The children of Jerusalem are directly addressed. Yhwh blames
them for not being in the right place and for not responding to
his call.
Isa 51:17–23 Jerusalem is addressed as a needy mother. Yhwh asks her how she
will be comforted, since her children are unsuited to the task of
consoling her.
Isa 52:1–12 Jerusalem is called to put on her beautiful clothes and to shake
herself from the dust, because Yhwh himself has returned to
Zion.
Isa 54:11–17 Yhwh promises the ‘not-comforted’ Jerusalem that she will be
gloriously rebuilt and that all her children will be disciples of
Yhwh.

6 New Perspectives on Participant Tracking in Poetic

and Prophetic Texts

The identification of Jerusalem’s comforters in Isa 40:1–2 discussed

above may serve as a guideline for revealing the identity of partici-
pants in poetic and prophetic texts which often keep us in suspense.
Some exegetes try to fill in the gaps with information from other parts
of the Old Testament or from its cultural background (Cross and
Freedman). Others prefer to leave the identity of the addressees open
by putting emphasis on the indeterminacy of these texts (Fokkelman
and Landy). The previous sections proposed a third option to deal
with the unknown identity of participants in a prophetic text. This
approach initially leaves open the identity of the people addressed in
Isa 40:1–2, because no indications with respect to this were found in
the immediate context Isa 40:1–11. The identity of the addressees could
only be revealed at a later stage with the help of the parallels between
Isa 40:1–2 and 50:1–3. On the basis of those correspondences, it was
claimed that the people ordered in Isa 40:1–2 to comfort Jerusalem
should be identified as her children.
The alternative view elaborated in the preceding sections provides us
with four aids to participant tracking in poetic and prophetic texts. The
first is that the identity of a participant need not be revealed within
the context of either a verse or a single passage. In attempting to trace
the identity, one should not only deal with the immediate context of the
passage, but also with the broader context of the literary composition.
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 375

This view runs counter to the usual focus of exegetes on a single pas-
sage, probably due to the recent dominance of the Formgeschichte in
this field of research.
The second aid is the observation that poetic and prophetic texts
contain various indications that are helpful for identifying partici-
pants. As was demonstrated above, the similarities between Isa 40:1–2
and 50:1–3 provide a solid basis for identifying the audiences of the
passages with one another. In addition to the linguistic parallel (2nd
person masc. plur.), the two passages share a lexical item (the noun
‘sin’), show overlap in semantic domains (concepts related to the
sphere of money and economics), and have a similar genre (a direct
link between an accusation and an oracle of salvation). When search-
ing for those similarities, a computer can be a great help, especially in
regard to linguistic and lexical parallels. The detection of semantic par-
allels and similarities with respect to genre is more complicated, and
may be regarded as a challenge for further computer-assisted research
on poetic and prophetic texts.
The third aid is the conclusion that participants may be designated
in various ways. Besides the names ‘Zion’ (Isa 40:9; 52:1, 2, 7, 8) and
‘Jerusalem’ (Isa 40:2, 9; 51:17; 52:1, 2, 9), the participant ‘Zion/Jerusalem’
is also referred to as ‘your mother’ (Isa 50:1) and ‘you afflicted one’
(Isa 51:19; 54:11) in the passages of Isaiah 40–55 discussed above. To
decide whether the various designations refer to the same participant,
it is important to look at the depiction of the participant in the liter-
ary composition as a whole. Of crucial importance for understanding
that Jerusalem is called ‘your mother’ in Isa 50:1 is the observation
that Jerusalem is clearly portrayed as a mother in Isa 51:18, 20. For
that reason, it is advisable to register the features of the various par-
ticipants in a database, so that a computer would be able to make
proposals for the identification of particular participants.
The last aid is the observation that participants in poetic and pro-
phetic texts often have relationships to one another in the world of
the text. These relationships may contribute significantly to the iden-
tification of the participants. In our example the relationship between
Jerusalem and her children plays a significant part in identifying the
audience of Isa 40:1–2 as the children of Jerusalem. This identification
is interesting for two reasons. The identification fits well into the liter-
ary composition of Isaiah 40–55 in which the consolation of Jerusalem
is closely related to the depiction of her children. Particularly note-
worthy are the references to Jerusalem’s consolation in Isa 51:19 and
376 reinoud oosting

Isa 54:11, and the depiction of her children in 51:18, 20, and Isa 54:13.
Furthermore, the identification of the audience of Isa 40:1–2 as the
children of Jerusalem is consistent with comparable depictions in
other parts of the Old Testament which show that providing comfort
was the duty of close relatives. Especially at this point information
from other parts of the Old Testament or from its cultural background
could prove to be useful.

7 Conclusions

The emphasis in Talstra’s approach on the participation of readers in

the world of the texts presents a challenge for the interpretation of
poetic and prophetic texts in the Old Testament which often confront
their readers with participants that are not or not fully identified. An
illustration of this is the unidentified audience of Isa 40:1–2 that is
called upon to speak to the heart of Jerusalem. The answer to the ques-
tion of who are called upon to comfort Jerusalem is of importance in
order to know whether current readers are able to identify themselves
with the people addressed in Isa 40:1–2.
On the basis of this examination of the text of Isaiah 40–55, it was
argued that the people addressed in Isa 40:1–2 are best identified as
the children of Jerusalem. This identification leads to the following
more general conclusions concerning the identification of participants
in poetic and prophetic texts:
1. The identity of a participant in poetic or prophetic texts is not nec-
essarily revealed within the context of the verse or a single passage.
The example discussed above shows that Isa 40:1–11 consciously
leaves blank the identity of the people addressed in vv. 1–2.
2. It is well possible that the identity of anonymous participants in
poetic and prophetic texts is revealed later on. The strong con-
nections between Isa 40:1–2 and 50:1–3 argue for identifying the
addressees in Isa 40:1–2 as the children of Jerusalem.
3. The initial anonymity of participants in poetic and prophetic texts
has the advantage that readers can easily indentify themselves with
those participants. It therefore seems to be no coincidence that
the question of the identity of Jerusalem’s comforters is answered
in the course of Isaiah 40–55. It is well conceivable that the first
readers of Isaiah 40–55 felt a close bond to the city of Jerusalem.
 jerusalem’s comforters in isaiah 377

By identifying themselves as her comforters, however, they were

faced with the fact that they are not able to comfort Jerusalem. As a
consequence of their inability, Yhwh reveals himself as Jerusalem’s
comforter. He promises Jerusalem that she will be gloriously rebuilt
and that all her children will be his disciples.
 HEBREW HĀYĀH:
ETYMOLOGY, BLEACHING, AND DISCOURSE STRUCTURE

Frank Polak

Schultens and Michaelis have postulated a connection between Hebrew

hāyāh and Arabic hawā, ‘to blow/ fall’. This analysis, adopted by Böttcher
and Palache but largely rejected in scholarship, can be buttressed by a signifi-
cant number of cases in which hāyāh interchanges with verbs of motion, for
example, ‘to fall’ (Deut 13:10/Gen 37:22; Num 24:2/Judg 14:6; Isa 9:7; Ezek
11:5; Exod 19:16/Dan 4:28[31]). Moreover, the view that hāyāh serves to indi-
cate tense only is undermined by instances in which it appears in parallelism
with a verbless clause (Gen 29:17). Hence it seems preferable to analyse the
locative/existential use of this verb, in accordance with the insights of cogni-
tive linguistics, as a bleached metaphor (Abblassung): ‘to fall’ > ‘to occur’ >
‘to be’ (also as copula). This conclusion is supported by the consideration
of a large number of languages in which the existential/locative meaning of
certain verbs likewise results from bleaching of verbs of motion (note English
‘accident’, ‘incident’ < Latin cado, ‘to fall’; ‘event’ < venio, ‘to come’; German
Zufall; English ‘to fall/turn out’). Thus the meaning potential of hāyāh con-
stitutes an interval extending from ‘to fall’ to ‘to be’, but always connoting
momentum and éclat. The function of wayyǝhī as narrative marker also fits
the syntactic role of motion verbs.

This paper is a bǝrāk̠ ā to Eep Talstra with whom I share almost

twenty-five years of common work, praxis, and orientation, starting
at our first meeting at the opening congress of the Association Inter-
nationale Bible et Informatique, in Louvaine-la-Neuve, and continuing
until today. Throughout the years we have had two core interests in
common: computer-aided research of the syntax of Biblical Hebrew,
and the structure of Biblical Hebrew discourse—and Amsterdam, of
course, or, as Eep insists, Mokum, in the Jiddish parlance.1
Hence it is a double and triple pleasure to dedicate to Eep this dis-
cussion of the connection between Hebrew ‫ היה‬and Aramaic ‫הוה‬, ‘to
be, exist, occur’, and Arabic hawā, ‘to fall’. According to the traditional
account, the basic functions of ‫ היה‬are locative and existential. With

1
‘Mokum’, derived from Hebrew māqōm, is the Dutch–Jiddish name of
endearment for Amsterdam, ‘the place’, an appellation that is adopted by all true
Amsterdammers.
380 frank polak

a nominal predicate it may serve as a copula, and the preterite (‫)ויהי‬

or present-future ‫ היה‬assumes a dynamic meaning (‘to occur, come
to pass’). It was Albert Schultens who first proposed a connection
between ‫ היה‬and the meaning ‘to fall’ of Arabic hawā.2 This innova-
tion, which bestows on ‫ היה‬a strongly dynamic character, was adopted
by Friedrich Böttcher and Franz Dietrich.3 Wilhelm Gesenius contin-
ued to support the traditional view, but had to admit that he was not
able to reject Schultens’ approach.4 By contrast, Juda Lion Palache has
advanced strong arguments in favour of the connection with Arabic
hawā, although he acknowledged that he was unable to suggest a
semantic explanation.5
In my view, this issue should be reopened from a cognitive point of
view. Perhaps it is helpful to point to a passage in which ‫נפל‬, ‘to fall’,
is used to indicate the ‘encampment’ of a group of people:6
Gen 25:18 ‫ל־א ָחיו נָ ָפל‬
ֶ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָכ‬
ְ ‫ ַ ע‬. . . ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ְּכנּו ֵמ ֲחוִ ָילה ַעד־ׁשּור‬
njpsv They dwelt (nrsv: ‘settled’) from Havilah, by Shur, . . . they
camped (nrsv: ‘settled down’) alongside all their kinsmen.

2
Albertus Schultens, Proverbia Salomonis: Versionem Integram ad Hebreaeum Fon-
tem expressit atque commentarium adjecit Albertus Schultens (Leiden, 1748), pp. 86–87
(on Prov 10:3); followed by Johann David Michaelis, Ioanni Davidis Michaelis Supple-
menta ad Lexica Hebraica. Partes Sex (6 vols.; Göttingen, 1792), II, 521–522. One of
Schultens’ strongest arguments is the use of ‫ היה‬in the Niphal, ‫נִ ְהיְ ָתה‬, ‫יתי‬ ִ ֵ‫( נִ ְהי‬Dan
2:1; 8:27), meaning ‘to come to an end, collapse’; see, e.g., James A. Montgomery, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh, 1927), p. 142.
3
Friedrich Böttcher, Neue exegetisch-kritische Aehrenlese zum Alten Testamente.
Erste Abtheilung: Genesis–2 Samuelis (Leipzig, 1863), p. 10; idem, Ausführliches Lehr-
buch der Hebräischen Sprache (ed. Ferdinand Mühlau; 2 vols.; Leipzig, 1866–1868) I,
p. 383, n. 2; II, p. 143; Wilhelm Gesenius and Franz E.C. Dietrich, Hebräisches und
chaldäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (7th ed.; Leipzig, 1868), p. 227.
Dietrich derives the meaning ‘to fall’ from ‫ הוה‬in the meaning ‘to blow’ > ‘herabsau-
sen’ > ‘fast movement’ > ‘to occur’ > ‘to exist’.
4
Wilhelm Gesenius, Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae
Veteris Testamenti 1 (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1835), p. 375.
5
J.L. Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon (Leiden, 1959), pp. 22–23,
points to such passages as Num 31:3; Ezek 8:1; 1 Sam 1:18. In the latter verse (‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ּופנ‬
ָ
‫יּו־לּה עֹוד‬
ָ ‫א־ה‬ָ ֹ ‫ )ל‬the verb ‫ ָהיּו‬interchanges with συνέπεσεν, ‘fell’, in the LXX. This ren-
dering has been compared with Gen 4:6 (‫)וְ ָל ָּמה נָ ְפלּו ָפנֶ יָך‬. However, we cannot be
sure whether the translator encountered ‫ נפלו‬in his exemplar, or followed the latter
verse. Moreover, ‫ פניה‬in 1 Sam 1:18 seems to fulfill the same function as ‫ פני‬in Job’s
complaint ( Job 9:27, ‫יחי ֶא ֶעזְ ָבה ָפנַ י‬
ִ ‫ ; ֶא ְׁש ְּכ ָחה ִׂש‬see Böttcher, Neue exegetisch–kritische
Aehrenlese, p. 91). Hence the suggestion that ‫ ָהיּו‬in 1 Sam 1:18 means ‘fell’ hardly
merits recommendation.
6
Similarly Judg 7:12; see Guilelmi Gesenii Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae
Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti 2 (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1840), p. 898, f, follow-
ing LXX, Targ. Onq. (‫)שרא‬, and Rashi on Gen 25:18 (and Eccl 11:3).
 hebrew hāyāh 381

As already noted by Rashi, a static, locative meaning of ‫ נפל‬is sug-

gested by the parallel passage (Gen 16:12, ‫ל־א ָחיו יִ ְׁשּכֹן‬
ֶ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָכ‬
ְ ‫וְ ַע‬, ‘He
shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen’). This passage is an important
Hebrew witness to the transition from ‘falling’ as a downward move-
ment, to a locative indication of position. In my view, the transition
from hawā, ‘to fall’, to ‫ היה‬with locative and existential meaning repre-
sents a similar process. As I will show in the second part of this study,
the connection between ‫ היה‬and Arabic hawā can also shed new light
on such vexing questions as the use of ‫ ויהי‬preceding indications of
time and circumstances.
In biblical theology, scholars have tried to define the meaning of ‫היה‬
as ‘wirkendes Sein’, an ‘effective existence’.7 With Barr and Bartelmus
we can scoff at the use of semantics for ontological purposes,8 but as
Barr himself concedes in his Semantics of Biblical Language, ‘The use
of words is often deeply influenced by their past history of use, and
the etymology may give helpful indications of how the word has devel-
oped and shifted in sense.’9 Moreover, Barr’s Semantics was written
before cognitive linguistics had made its appearance. When meaning
and function of ‫ היה‬are viewed from a cognitive perspective, etymo-
logical derivation acquires new meaning, indicating bleaching and
metaphorical usage, rather than ‘original and therefore proper’ mean-
ing.10 Indeed, an authoritative recent introduction to grammaticaliza-
tion asserts that ‘when a form undergoes grammaticalization from a
lexical to a grammatical item, some traces of its original lexical mean-
ings tend to adhere to it’.11 An eloquent example of this process is
offered by Arabic waqaʿa, meaning ‘to fall’, but also ‘to occur’,12 a use

7
Carl Heinz Ratschow, Werden und Wirken: Eine Untersuchung des Wortes hajah
als Beitrag zur Wirklichkeitserfassung des Alten Testamentes (BZAW 70; Berlin, 1941),
pp. 29–30, 78–86; similarly S. Amsler, ‘‫ היה‬hjh sein’, THAT 1 (München–Zürich,
1971), cols. 477–486, esp. 478–479.
8
Rüdiger Bartelmus, HYH: Bedeuting und Funktion eines hebräischen »Allerwelts-
wortes« (ATSAT 17; St. Ottilien, 1982), pp. 3–8; James Barr, Semantics of Biblical Lan-
guage (Oxford, 1961). Bartelmus’ scepticism is shared by K.H. Bernhardt, ‘‫ היה‬hayah’,
ThDOT 3 (Grand Rapids, 1978), pp. 369–381, esp. 372, 381.
9
Barr, Semantics, p. 108.
10
See already Hermann Paul, Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (5th ed.; Halle, 1920),
94–101. Notably, Palache, Semantic Notes, p. 23, quotes a dictum of Hermann Paul:
‘Die Sprache ist ein Wörterbuch verfliehener Metaphern.’
11
Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization (2nd ed.;
Cambridge, 2003), p. 96.
12
This ‘semantic parallel’ has already been noted by Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches
und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (17th ed.; ed. Frants Buhl;
Leipzig, 1915), p. 177 (s.v. ‫ הוה‬II).
382 frank polak

by which the occurrence of an event is described metaphorically as a

‘fall’, and subsequently loses the specific characteristics of direction,
velocity, and movement, but preserves the notion of ‘change’.13 Thus,
the diverse functions of ‫ היה‬indeed represent a process of this kind.
An analysis according to which ‫ היה‬lacks all semantic content, and
thus only serves to indicate tense, aspect, and mood,14 is fundamen-
tally unable to account for this dynamic.

1 ‫ היה‬and Verbs of Motion

1.1 Morphology
The connection between ‫ היה‬and Arabic hawā, ‘to fall’, is established
by the Aramaic equivalent of ‫היה‬, ‫הוה‬. One notes the Hebrew impera-
tives which preserve the Waw, ‫( ֱהוֵ ה‬Gen 27:29) and ‫( ֱהוִ י‬Isa 16:4), and
the participle, ‫ הֹוֶ ה‬used as copula (Neh 6:6) and as existential verb
(Eccl 2:22). The lexeme ‫הוה‬, in the meaning ‘to fall’,15 is preserved in
Elihu’s praise of creation:16
Job 37:6 ‫אמר ֱהוֵ א ָא ֶרץ וְ גֶ ֶׁשם ָמ ָטר וְ גֶ ֶׁשם ִמ ְטרֹות ֻעּזֹו‬
ַ ֹ ‫ִּכי ַל ֶּׁש ַלג י‬
njpsv He commands the snow, ‘Fall to the ground!’17 And the downpour
of rain, His mighty downpour of rain . . .
A second possible example must be deemed more dubious:
Eccl 11:3 ‫וְ ִאם־יִ ּפֹול ֵעץ ַּב ָּדרֹום וְ ִאם ַּב ָּצפֹון ְמקֹום ֶׁשּיִ ּפֹול ָה ֵעץ ָׁשם יְ הּוא‬
nrsv And if a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where
the tree falls, there it will lie.
This interpretation, which appears already in Luther’s version (‘auf
welchen Ort er fällt, da wird er liegen’), combines the locative meaning
of ‫הוה‬/‫ היה‬with the notion of ‘falling’. Most probably this rendition
was inspired by contextual considerations only. Nevertheless, in view

13
This meaning is shared by ‫ היה‬and its Akkadian cognate, ewûm, ‘to become,
turn into’.
14
Bartelmus, HYH, pp. 98–102, 110–114.
15
This meaning forms the backdrop for Hebrew ‫הֹוָ ה‬, ‘calamity’; Isa 47:11; Ezek
7:26; cf. Prov 19:13; Job 6:2; 30:10; this use is comparable to Syriac hawtā, ‘pit’, and
the use in malam of Akkadian ewûm, ‘to change, turn into’.
16
This meaning has been acknowledged by Gesenius, Thesaurus, 1, p. 370 (s.v. ‫הוה‬,
3), but other scholars prefer the reading ‫ ;רוה‬see K. Budde, Das Buch Hiob übersetzt
und erklärt (HKAT 2.1; Götttingen, 1913), p. 235.
17
But the LXX renders γίνου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, and similarly the Peshitta.
 hebrew hāyāh 383

of the parallelism with ‫יִ ּפֹול‬/‫ ֶׁשּיִ ּפֹול‬in the previous clauses, this ambigu-
ity could well be original.18

1.2 ‫ היה‬and Verbs Meaning ‘to Fall’

The use of ‫ היה‬in the meaning ‘to fall’, though far from commonplace,
is not entirely strange in Biblical Hebrew. We note a number of idioms
in which ‫ היה‬interchanges with a verb of this meaning. Thus the form
‫הֹויָ ה‬,19 the participle of ‫היה‬, is used to announce the future occurrence
of the pestilence among the animals:20
Exod 9:3 ‫ ֶ ּד ֶבר ָּכ ֵבד ְמאֹד‬. . . ‫ִהּנֵ ה יַ ד־יְ הוָ ה הֹויָ ה ְּב ִמ ְקנְ ָך ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ָּׂש ֶדה‬
Varying njpsv then the hand of Yhwh will strike your livestock in the
fields . . . with a very severe pestilence.
This use matches the Akkadian idiom maqātum, ‘to fall’, to indicate
the occurrence of illness.21 The surprising use of the participle indi-
cates a dramatic event rather than a mere occurrence, for which a
verbless clause would have sufficed. This use of the verb ‫ היה‬should be
considered in relation to ‫הֹוָ ה‬, ‘calamity’, which is obviously connected
to, ‫הוה‬, ‘to fall’.22
In this connection one should note the idiom ‫יד היתה ב׳‬, to indicate
bodily harm or manslaughter:23

18
See HAL, s.v. ‫ הוה‬II .
19
Bartelmus, HYH, pp. 89–90, views the infrequency of this form as proof that ‫היה‬
is a mere Zeitwort. However, the present form—which Bartelmus dismisses as ‘late’—
hardly serves as indication of time.
20
So also 1 Sam 5:9, but in Deut 2:15; Judg 2:15 (‫ ;) ְל ָר ָעה‬1 Sam 12:15; 2 Sam 24:17
(but one notes the connotation of pestilence!) this phrase is used in the general sense
of divine punishment.
21
See CAD M1, p. 187 (s.v. maqātum, 2˝). The use of the term ‘the hand of Yhwh’
to indicate a pestilence, matched by the Akkadian phrase qāt ištāri, ‘hand of Ishtar,
lethal illness’, is discussed by J.J.M. Roberts, ‘The Hand of Yahweh’, VT 21 (1971),
pp. 244–251. However, Roberts (p. 248, n. 6) also indicates the use of this phrase
with the verb bašû, ‘to be’ in the existential sense, which would match the traditional
view. However, this parallel cannot form conclusive evidence against Schultens’ inter-
pretation of ‫היה‬, since the etymology of bašû is entirely unclear. Maybe one should
consider a connection with baštu, ‘awe, dignity’ (CAD B, pp. 143–144); ‘Lebenskraft’
(AHw, p. 112, connecting this lexeme with bâštu ‘shame’), with the common inter-
change of weak roots.
22
See note 15 above.
23
So also Deut 17:7; Josh 2:19; 1 Sam 18:17, 21; 24:13–14; cf. Neh 13:21; 1 Kgs
11:26–27.
384 frank polak

Deut 13:10 ‫יָ ְדָך ִּת ְהיֶ ה־ּבֹו ָב ִראׁשֹונָ ה ַל ֲה ִמיתֹו‬

nrsv (v. 9) Let your hand be the first against him to put him to death.
This idiom matches the phrase ‫שלח יד ב׳‬, with similar meaning, such
as, for example:
Gen 37:22 ‫ל־הּבֹור ַהּזֶ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ִּמ ְד ָּבר וְ יָ ד‬
ַ ‫כּו־דם ַה ְׁש ִליכּו אֹתֹו ֶא‬
ָ ‫ל־ּת ְׁש ְּפ‬
ִ ‫ַא‬
‫ל־ּת ְׁש ְלחּו־בֹו‬
ִ ‫ַא‬
nrsv Shed no blood! Throw him into this pit here in the wilderness,
but lay no hand on him.
The dynamics indicated by ‫ היה‬contrasts with the verbless clause:
‫‘( יָ דֹו ַבּכֹל וְ יַ ד ּכֹל ּבֹו‬with his hand against everyone and everyone’s
hand against him’, Gen 16:12).
The correspondence between ‫ היה‬and verbs of motion stands out in
the idiomatic indication of divine inspiration:24
Num 24:2 ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫רּוח ֱא‬
ַ ‫וַ ְּת ִהי ָע ָליו‬
nrsv Then the spirit of God came upon him.
Judg 11:29 ‫רּוח יְ הוָ ה‬
ַ ‫וַ ְּת ִהי ַעל־יִ ְפ ָּתח‬
nrsv The Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah.
The verb ‫ היה‬is also used in the common formula of the verbal inspira-
tion of the prophet:25
1 Sam 15:10 ‫מּואל ֵלאמֹר‬
ֵ ‫ל־ׁש‬
ְ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְּד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬
nrsv The word of the Lord came to Samuel.
In other cases, however, we encounter verbs of motion,26 ‫ צלח‬and,
more importantly, ‫נפל‬:
Ezek 11:5 ‫רּוח יְ הוָ ה‬
ַ ‫וַ ִּתּפֹל ָע ַלי‬
NJPS Thereupon the spirit of the Lord fell upon me.
Judg 14:627 ‫רּוח יְהוָ ה‬
ַ ‫וַ ִּת ְצ ַלח ָע ָליו‬
nrsv The spirit of the Lord rushed on him.

24
So also Judg 3:10; 15:14; 1 Sam 16:16, 23; 19:9; 2 Chr 20:14. For an analysis along
similar lines of the formula ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ְּד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ֶאל‬see Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1 (BK
13/1; Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1969), 90–91 (referring to Isa 9:7). Gesenius, Thesaurus 1,
pp. 372–373, renders accidit, evenit. By the same token one notes the idiom ‫וַ ְּת ִהי ָע ָליו‬
‫( יַ ד־יְ הוָ ה‬2 Kgs 3:15; Ezek 3:14; 3:22; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1; similarly 1 Kgs 18:46), for which
see Roberts, ‘Hand of Yahweh’.
25
Gen 15:1; 2 Sam 7:4; and passim; see also C. van der Merwe, ‘The Elusive Biblical
Hebrew Term ‫ויהי‬: A Perspective in Terms of Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics in
1 Samuel’, Hebrew Studies 40 (1999), pp. 83–114, esp. pp. 99–100.
26
The status of the idiom ‫ הרוח‬. . . ‫( ותנח‬Num 11:25–26; 2 Kgs 2:15; Isa 11:2)
remains unclear. The use of ‫ נוח‬for a downward movement ending in rest is indicated
by Isa 7:19, ‫יקי ַה ְּס ָל ִעים‬
ֵ ‫ּובנְ ִק‬
ִ ‫ּובאּו וְ נָ חּו ֻכ ָּלם ְּבנַ ֲח ֵלי ַה ַּבּתֹות‬
ָ .
27
So also Judg 14:19; 15:14.
 hebrew hāyāh 385

1 Sam 10:6 ‫רּוח יְ הוָ ה‬

ַ ‫וְ ָצ ְל ָחה ָע ֶליָך‬
nab28 The spirit of the Lord will rush upon you.
In Aramaic Daniel the verb ‫ נפל‬is used to indicate the sudden impact
of the divine voice:
Dan 4:28 (31) ‫ן־ׁש ַמּיָ א נְ ַפל‬
ְ ‫עֹוד ִמ ְּל ָתא ְּב ֻפם ַמ ְל ָּכא ָקל ִמ‬
‫כּותה ֲע ָדת ִמּנָ ְך‬ ָ ‫בּוכ ְדנֶ ַּצר ַמ ְל ָּכא ַמ ְל‬
ַ ְ‫ָלְך ָא ְמ ִרין נ‬
njpsv29 The words were still on the king’s lips, when a voice fell from
heaven, ‘It has been decreed for you, O King Nebuchadnezzar:
The kingdom has passed out of your hands.’
Thus the impact of inspiration is described metaphorically as a fast
downward movement. Likewise, the verb ‫ נפל‬can be used to describe
the entreaty:30
Jer 36:7 ‫אּולי ִּתּפֹל ְּת ִחּנָ ָתם ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬
ַ
nrsv It may be that their plea will come before the Lord.
A similar metaphor is entailed by the phrase ‫נפל דבר בישראל‬:
Isa 9:7 ‫ָּד ָבר ָׁש ַלח ֲאד ֹנָ י ְּביַ ֲעקֹב וְ נָ ַפל ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬
nrsv The Lord sent a word against Jacob and it fell on Israel.
In this case the idea of motion is strengthened by the parallel verb
(‫) ָׁש ַלח‬.31
In the light of these passages it comes as no surprise that ‫ היה‬appears
as a verb of motion in the messenger’s report of the counterattack that
led to Uriah’s death:32
2 Sam 11:23 ‫יהם‬
ֶ ‫ִּכי־גָ ְברּו ָע ֵלינּו ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים וַ ּיֵ ְצאּו ֵא ֵלינּו ַה ָּׂש ֶדה וַ ּנִ ְהיֶ ה ֲע ֵל‬
‫ד־ּפ ַתח ַה ָּׁש ַער‬
ֶ ‫ַע‬
nrsv The men gained an advantage over us, and came out against
us in the field; but we drove them back to the entrance of the
gate.

28
The nrsv rendition amounts to the same: ‘the spirit of the Lord will possess
you . . .’.
29
The nrsv has ‘a voice came from heaven’.
30
So also Jer 37:20; 38:26; 42:2, 9; Dan 9:18, 20.
31
On ‫ ֵה ָידד נָ ָפל‬in Isa 16:9, for which the parallel ( Jer 48:32) reads ‫ׁש ֵֹדד נָ ָפל‬, see
George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah
1. I–XXVII (ICC; Edinburgh, 1912), p. 293.
32
See HAL, s.v. ‫ הוה‬I. Additional examples suggested there (1 Kgs 11:15; Prov
14:35) seem less relevant.
386 frank polak

The rendering ‘drove them back’, however idiomatic it may be, is merely
based on contextual considerations. What we need is a verb of move-
ment with an adversative interpretation of ‫על‬,33 ‘we attacked them’.
Palache discerns the same idiom in the tale of the Midianite war:34
Num 31:3 ‫ל־מ ְדיָ ן‬
ִ ‫ֵה ָח ְלצּו ֵמ ִא ְּת ֶכם ֲאנָ ִׁשים ַל ָּצ ָבא וְ יִ ְהיּו ַע‬
nrsv Arm some of your number for the war, so that they may go
against Midian.
Wellhausen, however, maintains that in these expressions the empha-
sis is on the preposition rather than on the verb.35 On the face of it,
this claim sounds convincing, but what casts doubt on its acceptability
is the accumulation of forms of ‫ היה‬in certain verses. Thus we have to
investigate the impact of ‫ היה‬on stylistic patterns of this kind.

1.3 The Revelation at Mount Sinai

The build-up to the great climax of the revelation at Mount Sinai uses
no less than three forms of ‫ היה‬in one single verse:
Exod 19:16 ‫ּוב ָר ִקים וְ ָענָ ן ָּכ ֵבד‬
ְ ‫יׁשי ִּב ְהי ֹת ַהּב ֶֹקר וַ יְ ִהי קֹֹלת‬ ִ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַבּיֹום ַה ְּׁש ִל‬
‫ל־ה ָעם ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬
ָ ‫ל־ה ָהר וְ קֹל ׁש ָֹפר ָחזָ ק ְמאֹד וַ ּיֶ ֱח ַרד ָּכ‬
ָ ‫ַע‬
nrsv36 —On the morning of—the third day there was thunder and
lightning, as well as a thick cloud on the mountain, and a blast
of a trumpet so loud that all the people who were in the camp
trembled.
The nrsv rendition reduces the threefold repetition of forms of ‫היה‬
to one existential verb, ‘there was . . .’. Thus the translator removes the
full weight of the threefold repetition of ‫היה‬, although it is indicated

33
Cases in which Arabic hawā ‘alā means ‘to attack’, and hawā ’ilā, ‘to hurry
toward’, are mentioned by R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes 1 (Leiden,
1881), p. 779. See also Theodor Nöldeke, Neue Beiträge zur Semitischen Sprachwis-
senschaft (Strassburg, 1910), p. 92.
34
Palache, Semantic Notes, p. 23. The njpsv renders here ‘let them fall upon
Midian’.
35
Julius Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen, 1871), p. 182; so
also Bartelmus, HYH, pp. 151–153, 177–179.
36
In this quotation and elsewhere in this paper, the dash indicates places where
the rendering does not represent the verb of the Hebrew. Unlike the net, nab, and
niv, kjv and njpsv mitigate the reduction. The asv preserves all verbs: ‘and it came
to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and light-
nings’. Luther introduces variation: ‘als nun der dritte Tag kam und Morgen war, da
hub sich ein Donnern und Blitzen’. This constellation is disregarded by Bartelmus,
HYH, p. 142.
 hebrew hāyāh 387

by the inclusio which places ‫ ִּב ְהי ֹת ַהּב ֶֹקר‬between two ‫ ויהי‬clauses: ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬
‫יׁשי‬
ִ ‫ ַבּיֹום ַה ְּׁש ִל‬and ‫וַ יְ ִהי קֹֹלת‬. Moreover, we have two indications of time
that use the verb ‫יׁשי ִּב ְהי ֹת ַהּב ֶֹקר( היה‬ ִ ‫ )וַ יְ ִהי ַבּיֹום ַה ְּׁש ִל‬and thus prepare
the way for the third case, the impressive climax of a highly dramatic
scene: ‫ל־ה ָהר‬ ָ ‫ּוב ָר ִקים וְ ָענָ ן ָּכ ֵבד ַע‬
ְ ‫וַ יְ ִהי קֹֹלת‬.
We would greatly diminish the emphasis inherent to this constel-
lation if we would maintain only the locative/existential interpreta-
tion of ‫היה‬. However, here the parallel from Daniel provides the clue:
‘The words were still on the king’s lips, when a voice fell from heaven’
(‫ן־ׁש ַמּיָ א נְ ַפל‬
ְ ‫ ; ָקל ִמ‬Dan 4:28[31]). The sudden perception of the divine
voice is likened to a voice falling from heaven. Hence I suggest that the
phrase ‫ל־ה ָהר‬ ָ ‫ּוב ָר ִקים וְ ָענָ ן ָּכ ֵבד ַע‬
ְ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי קֹֹלת‬conveys a similar meaning.
In this clause ‫ ויהי‬expresses the sudden impact of the thunder and the
lightning, and thus still preserves its meaning ‘to fall’, used here, like in
Daniel, as a metaphor for sudden and forceful downward movement.
The potency of this mighty event is indicated by the doubling of ‫ויהי‬
and its repetition by ‫בהיות‬,37 in a powerful inclusio and climax. In a
structure of this type, ‫ ויהי‬and ‫ בהיות‬serve to highlight a potent pic-
ture; these verbs should not be regarded as empty phrases. The meta-
phoric use of ‫ היה‬is weakened, but not lost.
More light can be shed on this issue by cognitive theory and the
insights of George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, and Joseph Grady concern-
ing metaphoric usage in all languages. This subject will be broached
in the next section.

2 Motion, Metaphor, and Non-Literary Language

In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is considered ubiquitous in language.

William Croft and Alan Cruse point to the metaphor implied in such
common statements as ‘at two o’clock’—where the locative preposi-
tion ‘at’ is metaphorically used to indicate time; ‘in danger’—with the
locative preposition indicating a state; ‘his anger boiled over’—with
‘boiling’ signifying emotion; ‘she has come a long way since her days

37
By the same token one notes the description of Joseph’s advance following his
acquisition by Potiphar; Gen 39:2 ‫ת־יֹוסף וַ יְ ִהי ִאיׁש ַמ ְצ ִל ַיח וַ יְ ִהי ְּב ֵבית ֲאד ֹנָ יו‬
ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִהי יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬
‫ ַה ִּמ ְצ ִרי‬, ‘the Lord was with Joseph, and he became a successful man; he was in the
house of his Egyptian master’ (nrsv).
388 frank polak

in the . . .’—with ‘way’ as metaphor for life.38 In the terms of George

Lakoff and Mark Johnson: ‘most of our ordinary conceptual system
is metaphorical in nature’.39 Thus time is conceptualized as space, in
which ‘before’ indicates the future and ‘behind’ the past, or, inversely,
‫אחור‬, ‘behind’, the future and ‫קדם‬, ‘before’, the past,40 or in which time
‘passes’ or ‘flies by’. The conceptualization of change as motion is indi-
cated, for instance, by ‘he went crazy’; ‘she entered a stage of euphoria’;
‘the home run threw the crowd into a frenzy’; ‘he fell asleep’.41 Notably,
much English terminology regarding change and state derives from
verbs of motion: transition < Latin īre, ‘to go’ (transīre); position <
ponĕre, ‘to place’; situation < sitūs, ‘place’ (sinĕre, ‘to leave’). By the
same token we note verbs such as ‘to become’, indicating change of
state, but based on the simplex ‘come’.
The process by which a metaphorical or a specific lexeme loses some
of its semantic content (Abblassung or ‘bleaching’) is one of the main
factors in semantic change.42 One notes, for instance, the shift of the
numeral into an indefinite particle or of the demonstrative pronoun
into a definite article,43 Well-known markers of the future tense have
developed out of verbs indication volition (‘will’), obligation (‘shall’),
or movement (‘go’).44
As many scholars have noted, bleaching is one of the main factors
in the development of copulas and existential verbs. Julius Pokorny
and Leon Stassen point to the correlation between the Indo-European

38
William Croft and D. Alan Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge, 2004),
pp. 194–198.
39
G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (2nd ed.; Chicago, 2003),
p. 4.
40
Rafael E. Núñez and Eve Sweetser, ‘With the Future behind Them: Convergent
Evidence from Aymara Language and Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of
Spatial Construals of Time’, Cognitive Science 30 (2006), pp. 1–49.
41
Şeyda Özçalişkan, ‘Metaphorical Motion in Crosslinguistic Perspective: A Com-
parison of English and Turkish’, Metaphor and Symbol 18 (2003), pp. 189–228; Lakoff
and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, pp. 56–61, 258, 263; Bernd Heine and Tania
Kuteva, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (Cambridge, 2002), p. 64 (‘change of
state’ > copula), 97–99, 156 (‘go’ > change of state), 203–204 (‘locative’ > existence),
276–278 (‘sit’ > continuous/copula), 282 (‘stand’ > copula).
42
Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, pp. 94–97; Paul, Prinzipien der
Sprachgeschichte, 94–101.
43
Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon, pp. 109–111, 220–221; Bernd Heine, Cognitive
Foundations of Grammar (New York, 1997), pp. 75–82; Otto Jespersen, The Philoso-
phy of Grammar (London, 1924), pp. 85–86, 113–114.
44
Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon, pp. 75–78, 161–163, 218, 310–311; Jespersen,
Philosophy of Grammar, pp. 260–261.
 hebrew hāyāh 389

root bheu/bhū (‘to grow’/φύομαι) and the copula/existential verb ‘to

be’, (Old English beo, Dutch ‘ben’, or German ‘bin’, ‘bist’), or the Latin
perfect fui (‘I have been’).45 Stassen also notes the Germanic use of the
root wes-, originally meaning ‘to abide, dwell’, in the paradigm of ‘to
be’ (‘I was’). In many Indo-European languages the copula is formed
from the root sta-, such as Spanish estar, from Latin stāre, ‘to stand’.46
By the same token, in a number of Semitic languages the verb kuānu,
‘to stand’, actually the antonym of hawā, serves to indicate stable posi-
tion (Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician),47 and thus turns, by bleaching,
into an indication of location and existence (Ugaritic, Phoenician,
Arabic kāna), and consequently—once again by bleaching—into a
copula (Phoenician, Arabic).
In my view, a similar transition has occurred in the case of the verb
‫היה‬, in the meaning ‘to fall’, which was transferred to contexts where
the idea of ‘fall’, or of motion in general, was metaphorical. The neu-
tral function of ‫ היה‬as locative/existential verb results from bleaching
in the new contextual frame, as the verb gradually lost its components
‘downward’, ‘fast’, ‘motion’, much like the Arabic verb waqaʿa, which
also appears in the meaning ‘to happen’.48
The use of motion verbs to indicate occurrence or event is well
known. One can point, for instance, to Hebrew ‫קרה‬, ‘to go toward’,
but also ‘to occur, happen’, paralleled by Aramaic ‫‘( ארע‬to meet’, cog-
nate with Arabic ʿaruḍa, with the same meaning),49 German ‘begegnen,
widerfahren’, and Dutch ‘overkomen’. In Latin one notes occurrĕre (‘to
run toward’, < ob-currĕre), like English ‘to occur’; eventus (< evenire,
‘to come out’), English ‘event’, and in Dutch and German geschieden,
geschehen (and Geschichte), from ancient Saxonian-Franconian skian,
‘move quickly’. Our main witness is, of course, provided by the inter-
national words ‘accident’ and ‘incident’, deriving from Latin cadĕre,
‘to fall’ (accĭdĕre and incĭdĕre), actually noted as ‘semantic parallel’ by
Gesenius.50 This verb has a verbal noun casus, ‘fall, case’. Both these
meanings are covered by German Fall, whereas Dutch has geval for

45
Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1 (Bern–München,
1959), pp. 146–149; Leon Stassen, Intransitive Predication (Oxford, 1997), pp. 97–99.
46
Stassen, Intransitive Predication, pp. 97–98; Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon,
pp. 278–282; already Böttcher, Ausführliches Lehrbuch 1, p. 383, n. 2.
47
And Hebrew ‫ כון‬in Niphal, Polel, and Hiphil.
48
As noted by Gesenius and Buhl, p. 177, s.v. ‫ הוה‬II.
49
In the Genesis Apocryphon one notes ‫לעורעהון‬, 1Q20 XXI, 31; ‫לעורעה‬, XXII, 13.
50
Gesenius, Thesaurus 1, p. 375; Böttcher, Ausführliches Lehrbuch, 1, p. 383, n. 2.
390 frank polak

‘case’ and ongeval for ‘accident’, like German Unfall. Dutch also has
voorvallen, ‘to happen’, toeval (or German Zufall), ‘accident’, and
uitvallen, ‘to turn out’, also appearing as copula.51 Significantly, BDB
renders the phrase ‫ה־היָ ה ַה ָּד ָבר‬
ָ ‫( ֶמ‬1 Sam 4:16) as ‘how has the mat-
ter fallen out’. This rendering, which uses the same metaphor as the
52

Hebrew, is justified by an expression Naomi uses:

Ruth 3:18 ‫ְׁש ִבי ִב ִּתי ַעד ֲא ֶׁשר ֵּת ְד ִעין ֵאיְך יִ ּפֹל ָּד ָבר‬
njpsv Stay here, daughter, till you learn how the matter turns out.
Thus the metaphorical use and bleaching of verbs indicating a fall,
like ‫היה‬, or fast, energetic motion, represent widespread cognitive
processes.

3 The Meaning Potential of hāyāh: An Interval

3.1 From ‘to fall’ to ‘to be’: An Interval
Thus the meaning potential of ‫ היה‬covers a wide interval. In some
cases the impetus carries with it a certain aspect of motion, such as,
for example:
Exod 10:14 ‫ה־ּכן‬
ֵ ֶ‫א־היָ ה ֵכן ַא ְר ֶּבה ָּכמֹהּו וְ ַא ֲח ָריו לֹא יִ ְהי‬
ָ ֹ ‫ְל ָפנָ יו ל‬
nrsv such a dense swarm of locusts as had never been before, nor
ever shall be again.
Böttcher53 vor ihm ist nicht eingefallen solcher Heuschreckenfrass, und
nach ihm wird es nicht so einfallen.
Maybe one should consider a rendition like ‘such a dense swarm of
locusts as had never befallen before, nor ever shall befall again’. In
other cases the particular aspect introduced by ‫ היה‬is just a matter of
éclat, which is to a large extent beyond translation, for instance:
Num 13:33 ‫יהם‬
ֶ ֵ‫וַ ּנְ ִהי ְב ֵעינֵ ינּו ַּכ ֲחגָ ִבים וְ ֵכן ָהיִ ינּו ְּב ֵעינ‬
nrsv and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed
to them.
Hence it is preferable to speak of an interval of meaning potential, from
dynamic and forceful movement, ‘to fall’, through ‘to befall, occur’, to
a neutral ‘to be’. Even then ‫ היה‬preserves some of its original flavour

51
For instance: ‘Die vergelijking viel goed uit’; ‘De proef viel goed uit’.
52
BDB, p. 224a, s.v. ‫ היה‬I.1a.
53
Böttcher, Ausführliches Lehrbuch 2, p. 154 (§ 945).
 hebrew hāyāh 391

and dynamics, although its lexical meaning could be categorized as ‘to

happen, occur’.54 Let us consider the case of the fateful battle in which
the Philistines inflicted a massive defeat on the Israelites. The descrip-
tion of the outcome of the battle uses ‫היה‬: ‫דֹולה ָהיְ ָתה ָב ָעם‬ ָ ְ‫וְ גַ ם ַמּגֵ ָפה ג‬:
(v. 17), rendered by BDB as ‘a great slaughter has taken place among
55

the people’. This ‫ היתה‬is far from neutral. Its force is similar to that of
‫נפל‬, such as, for instance, ‫( ָּד ָבר ָׁש ַלח ֲאד ֹנָ י ְּביַ ֲעקֹב וְ נָ ַפל ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬Isa 9:7;
see above). A similar idiom is used by the preacher of scepticism:
Eccl 9:12 ‫יהם ִּפ ְתאֹם‬
ֶ ‫יּוק ִׁשים ְּבנֵ י ָה ָא ָדם ְל ֵעת ָר ָעה ְּכ ֶׁש ִּתּפֹול ֲע ֵל‬
ָ ‫ָּכ ֵהם‬
nrsv . . . so mortals are snared at a time of calamity, when it suddenly
falls upon them.
To use a mathematical metaphor, in many a passage ‫ היה‬is a vector
which has direction, momentum, and impetus. It indicates an éclat
which should not be overlooked, for example, in the description of the
battle in which David’s army defeated the troops of Absalom:
2 Sam 18:6 ‫וַ ּיֵ ֵצא ָה ָעם ַה ָּׂש ֶדה ִל ְק ַראת יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וַ ְּת ִהי ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה ְּביַ ַער ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם‬
nrsv So the army went out into the field against Israel; and the battle
was fought in the forest of Ephraim.
In view of the dynamic movement of the first clause, the second clause
should also be taken in its dynamic aspect—its impetus and éclat. We
note this impetus again in the next verse, in which the ‫ היה‬clause
matches a verbal colon in parallelism:
v. 7 ‫וַ ּיִ ּנָ גְ פּו ָׁשם ַעם יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִל ְפנֵ י ַע ְב ֵדי ָדוִ ד‬
‫דֹולה ַּבּיֹום ַההּוא ֶע ְׂש ִרים ָא ֶלף‬ ָ ְ‫י־ׁשם ַה ַּמּגֵ ָפה ג‬
ָ ‫וַ ְּת ִה‬
nrsv The men of Israel were defeated there by the servants of David and the
slaughter there was great on that day, twenty thousand men.
It is not just that the slaughter was great. I doubt whether we have the
correct term, but in any case, ‫ ותהי‬implies a strong impact, rather than
a bleak ‘to take place’. The copula in the next verse also has impetus:
v. 8 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָכ‬
ְ ‫י־ׁשם ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה נָ פ ֶֹצת ַע‬
ָ ‫וַ ְּת ִה‬
nrsv The battle spread out over that whole region.

54
The dynamic character of ‫ היה‬was pointed out already by Böttcher, Ausführliches
Lehrbuch 2, p. 143 (§ 935, B, γ).
55
BDB, p. 224a s.v. ‫ היה‬I.1b
392 frank polak

The nrsv rendering is unduly passive. One notes in particular that this
clause expands the description of the battle, and that consequently the
use of ‫ ותהי‬is not conditioned by the time sequence, but instead sug-
gests the impact. A similar comment can be made in additional verses
where a ‫ היה‬clause is matched by a clause which uses a verb indicating
process or action, such as, for instance:
Gen 1:2 ‫ֹלהים ְמ ַר ֶח ֶפת‬
ִ ‫רּוח ֱא‬
ַ ְ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ְתהֹום ו‬
ְ ‫וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ ָהיְ ָתה תֹהּו וָ בֹהּו וְ ח ֶֹׁשְך ַע‬
‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּמיִ ם‬
ְ ‫ַע‬
nrsv The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the
deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Gen 2:5 ‫ל־ע ֶׂשב ַה ָּׂש ֶדה ֶט ֶרם יִ ְצ ָמח‬
ֵ ‫וְ כֹל ִׂש ַיח ַה ָּׂש ֶדה ֶט ֶרם יִ ְהיֶ ה ָב ָא ֶרץ וְ ָכ‬
nrsv when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the
field had yet sprung up.
The assumption that in such context ‫ היה‬merely serves to indicate
tense does not do justice to cases in which the narrator dispenses with
the copula in the description of circumstances of the past: ‫וְ ַה ְּכנַ ֲענִ י ָאז‬
‫ ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬, ‘At that time the Canaanites were in the land’ (Gen 12:6). On
the other hand, the narrator does use ‫ היה‬in the description of the
Nephilim: ‫ ַהּנְ ִפ ִלים ָהיּו ָב ָא ֶרץ ַּבּיָ ִמים ָה ֵהם‬, ‘The Nephilim were on the
earth in those days’ (Gen 6:4). The decisive difference between these
two descriptions relates to their position in discourse. The clause about
the Nephilim opens a weighty comment on the status of those famed
mortals, and thus merits highlighting. By contrast, in the Abraham
narrative the note on the Canaanites is formulated as a circumstantial
clause that does not mention the implications.
An additional constellation that demands our attention is the paral-
lelism of ‫ היה‬clauses with a verbless clause, such as, for example:
Gen 7:6 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ן־ׁשׁש ֵמאֹות ָׁשנָ ה וְ ַה ַּמּבּול ָהיָ ה ַמיִ ם ַע‬
ֵ ‫וְ נ ַֹח ֶּב‬
njpsv Noah was six hundred years old when the Flood ‘came’, waters
upon the earth.
The rendering ‘came’ (also presented by the nrsv) faithfully reflects
the hidden dynamics of ‫היה‬, in sharp contrast to the mention of
Noah’s age, which is not as consequential as the fateful appearance of
the flood.
On the other hand, in the description of Rachel’s beauty ‫ היתה‬indi-
cates some of the narrator’s admiration:
Gen 29:17 ‫יפת ַמ ְר ֶאה‬
ַ ִ‫וְ ֵעינֵ י ֵל ָאה ַרּכֹות וְ ָר ֵחל ָהיְ ָתה יְ ַפת־ּת ַֹאר ו‬
njps Leah had weak eyes; Rachel was shapely and beautiful.
 hebrew hāyāh 393

The particular value of ‫ היתה‬is sufficiently indicated by the absence of

a copula in the first colon, ‫וְ ֵעינֵ י ֵל ָאה ַרּכֹות‬. Consequently, in the clause
on Rachel ‫ היתה‬does not serve as an indication of time. According to
the Masoretic Text the verb carries a zaqef,56 showing that the tradition
regarded it as highlighted.57 Thus we may argue that Rachel’s qualities
are embodied exclusively by her description, but the verb ‫ היתה‬still
draws special attention to the description, in particular in its contrast
with the ‫היה‬-less clause about Leah.
By the same token one notes the description of Eve in the tale of
the garden in Eden:
Gen 3:20 ‫ל־חי‬
ָ ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ָה ָא ָדם ֵׁשם ִא ְׁשּתֹו ַחּוָ ה ִּכי ִהוא ָהיְ ָתה ֵאם ָּכ‬
nrsv The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all
living.
Notably, the Septuagint reads ὅτι αὕτη μήτηρ πάντων τῶν ζώντων,
not representing the copula. The use of ‫ היהת‬in the Masoretic Text
highlights Eve’s particular status more than the simple description.
Significantly, ‫ היתה‬is marked by a merkha, setting it apart from the
noun phrase ‫ל־חי‬
ָ ‫ ֵאם ָּכ‬, opened as it is by a ṭifḥa. In both cases the nar-
rator uses the verb ‫ היה‬not as indication of time, mood, and person,
but for the sake of impetus and éclat.
Impetus and éclat also stand out where a seemingly neutral ‫ויהי‬
serves to highlight the ensuing description, such as, for example,
Gen 7:12 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ַא ְר ָּב ִעים יֹום וְ ַא ְר ָּב ִעים ָליְ ָלה‬
ָ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַהּגֶ ֶׁשם ַע‬
nrsv The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
v. 17 ‫ת־ה ֵּת ָבה‬
ַ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ וַ ּיִ ְרּבּו ַה ַּמיִ ם וַ ּיִ ְׂשאּו ֶא‬
ָ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַה ַּמּבּול ַא ְר ָּב ִעים יֹום ַע‬
‫וַ ָּת ָרם ֵמ ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ‬
nrsv The flood continued forty days on the earth; and the waters
increased, and bore up the ark.
Thus ‫ ויהי‬is more than just a narrative marker. It indicates the impact
of the rain, lending added impetus and éclat to the core clause:

56
So Codex Leningradensis B19A, page 17, col. III, line 12, BHS, and Breuer’s edi-
tion, ‫תורה נביאים כתובים מוגהים על פי הנוסח המסורה של כתר ארם צובה וכתבי‬
‫ ( יד הקרובים לו בידי מרדכי ברויאר‬Jerusalem, 1989).
57
Barr (Semantics, p. 70, n. 1) argues that ‫ היתה‬patently lacks all emphasis, and just
resumes the indication of the time of the past, but he fails to explain why the resump-
tion appears in the second clause rather than in the first.
394 frank polak

Gen 15:12 ‫ימה ֲח ֵׁש ָכה‬

ָ ‫ל־א ְב ָרם וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֵא‬
ַ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַה ֶּׁש ֶמׁש ָלבֹוא וְ ַת ְר ֵּד ָמה נָ ְפ ָלה ַע‬
‫גְ ד ָֹלה נ ֶֹפ ֶלת ָע ָליו‬
nrsv As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and
a deep and terrifying darkness descended upon him.

3.2 ‫ היה‬in Context

Since the main argument of this study is cognitive and semantic, it is
impossible to offer a list of formal conditions under which ‫ היה‬should
be viewed in the light of the metaphor of ‘fast downward movement’.
Indeed, when ‫ היה‬appears together with such phrases as ‫דבר ה׳‬, the
main indication for the metaphor is semantic. Still, it is possible to
point to some conditions, such as the occurrence of verbs of motion (or
action) in the parallel colon. Such phenomena as the doubling of ‫היה‬
and the use of a presentation particle, such as ‫הנה‬, in the next clause,
indicate that ‫ היה‬is not used as a locative/existential verb. Thus, one
notes the double highlighting in the description of Abram’s vision:
Gen 15:17 ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַה ֶּׁש ֶמׁש ָּב ָאה וַ ֲע ָל ָטה ָהיָ ה‬
‫וְ ִהּנֵ ה ַתּנּור ָע ָׁשן וְ ַל ִּפיד ֵאׁש ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ַבר ֵּבין ַהּגְ זָ ִרים ָה ֵא ֶּלה‬
nrsv —When the sun had gone down and it was dark,—a smoking
fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.
By the same token we note the highlighting of Joshua’s stay at Jericho
before the revelation of the angel, commandeering the divine army:
Josh 5:13 ‫ה־איׁש ע ֵֹמד‬
ִ ֵ‫הֹוׁש ַע ִּב ִיריחֹו וַ ּיִ ָּׂשא ֵעינָ יו וַ ּיַ ְרא וְ ִהּנ‬
ֻ ְ‫ְלנֶ גְ ּדֹו וַ יְ ִהי ִּב ְהיֹות י‬
nrsv —Once, when Joshua was by Jericho, he looked up and saw a
man standing before him.
This is more than an indication of place. The narrator is highlighting
the situation. A time clause opened by ‫ ויהי‬is highlighted in itself, and
is thereby highlighting the core clause as well.
The protracted war between David’s ‘kingdom’ and the Saulide
dynasty is also highlighted in this manner:
2 Sam 3:6 ‫ּובין ֵּבית ָּדוִ ד‬
ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִּב ְהיֹות ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה ֵּבין ֵּבית ָׁשאּול‬
‫וְ ַא ְבנֵ ר ָהיָ ה ִמ ְת ַחּזֵ ק ְּב ֵבית ָׁשאּול‬
nrsv While there was war between the house of Saul and the house of
David, Abner was making himself strong in the house of Saul.
‫ בהיות המלחמה‬means ‘as long as the war lasted’, but really highlights
the war, whereas ‫ ויהי‬augments the impetus of the entire description.58

58
Similarly Gen 4:8; 34:25.
 hebrew hāyāh 395

3.3 The Revelation of the Divine Name to Moses

When we consider the revelation of the divine name to Moses at the
burning bush in this light, it seems rather unlikely that this text con-
cerns ‘being’,59 a presence, or even ‘ein Wirkendes Sein’.
Exod 3:14 ‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫ ֶא ְהיֶ ה ְׁש ָל ַחנִ י ֲא ֵל‬. . . ‫ ֶא ְהיֶ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ֶא ְהיֶ ה‬.
nrsv I AM THAT I AM . . . I AM has sent me to you.
The impetus implied by the ‘fall’ metaphor indicates overtones of
divine power and involvement, as only is to be expected in this scene
of commitment and promise which is dominated by the active inter-
vention of sending, ‫( שלחני‬vv. 14b, 15a), ‫( שלחתיך‬v. 10), rather than
by existence or presence. Indeed, ‫ אהיה‬parallels ‫( וְ ֶא ְׁש ָל ֲחָך‬v. 10) as first
person form and combines with ‫ שלחני‬in the solemn promise ‫ֶא ְהיֶ ה‬
‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫( ְׁש ָל ַחנִ י ֲא ֵל‬v. 15a).60 Accordingly, my proposal for the rendition of
‫ אהיה‬in the tale of Moses’ commission is ‘I step in’.

4 ‫ ויהי‬in Context

A particular problem is raised by the use of ‫ ויהי‬as an introduction to

clauses indicating time, place, manner, or circumstances. In this syn-
tagm the clause opened by ‫ ויהי‬is followed by a second clause offering
the main information,61 such as, for example,
Gen 41:8 ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַבּב ֶֹקר וַ ִּת ָּפ ֶעם רּוחֹו‬
nrsv —In the morning his spirit was troubled.
1 Kgs 19:13 ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִּכ ְׁשמ ַֹע ֵא ִלּיָ הּו וַ ּיָ ֶלט ָּפנָ יו ְּב ַא ַּד ְרּתֹו‬
nrsv —When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle.
This constellation raises the question of how to construe a syntactic
pattern in which the indication of time occurs in the first clause62 but

59
Böttcher analyses the meaning of Yhwh as ‘Hervorstürzer, Wettersender’; see
Friedrich Böttcher, Exegetisch-kritische Aehrenlese zum Alten Testament (Leipzig,
1849), p. 3, on Gen 3:15; similarly Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Gram-
matik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes 1 (Halle a.S., 1922), p. 24, n. 2.
60
In a previous treatment of this matter I regrettably relied exclusively on contex-
tual indications: Frank Polak, ‘Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme
in the Book of Exodus’, in Marc Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redac-
tion–Reception–Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven, 1996), pp. 113–147, esp. 122–124.
61
See Van der Merwe, ‘The Elusive Biblical Hebrew Term ‫’ויהי‬.
62
This problem is discussed by C. van der Merwe, ‘ “Reference Time” and Reconsid-
ering Biblical Hebrew Temporal Expressions’, ZAH 17 (1997), pp. 42–62, esp. 56–57.
396 frank polak

refers to the action described in a second clause, and thus crosses the
clause boundary. This phenomenon is not to be explained as a case of
extraposition or left dislocation for these constructions do not explain
the use of ‫ויהי‬. A paratactic construction that is germane to the par-
ticular ‫ ויהי‬pattern is the use of verbs of motion in a clause that pre-
cedes the description of the main action in a second clause,63 and, in
fact, serves to modify the predication of the core clause, such as, for
instance, in the following descriptions:64
Gen 26:18 ‫ימי ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬
ֵ ‫ת־ּב ֵאר ֹת ַה ַּמיִ ם ֲא ֶׁשר ָח ְפרּו ִּב‬
ְ ‫וַ ּיָ ָׁשב יִ ְצ ָחק וַ ּיַ ְחּפֹר ֶא‬
‫ָא ִביו‬
njpsv Isaac dug anew the wells which had been dug in the days of his
father Abraham.
Exod 34:8 ‫וַ יְ ַמ ֵהר מ ֶֹׁשה וַ ּיִ ּקֹד ַא ְר ָצה וַ ּיִ ְׁש ָּתחּו‬
njpsv Moses hastened to bow low to the ground in homage.
In these passages, the verbs ‫וַ ּיָ ָׁשב‬, ‘he returned’, and ‫וַ יְ ַמ ֵהר‬, ‘he has-
tened’, do not stand by themselves, but serve to describe the action in
the second clause. English has two ways to reflect this pattern:
(a) by unifying the clauses and turning the predicate of the first clause
into an adverb in the second clause (‘Isaac dug anew the wells’); or
(b) by turning the second clause into an infinitive clause, with the
predicate of the first clause as auxiliary verb (‘Moses hastened to
bow low to the ground’).
Both constructions are possible in Biblical Hebrew as well. ‫מהר‬/‫מהרה‬
can function as adverbs (Exod 32:8; Prov 25:8; Num 17:11; Deut 11:17),
as can ‫( שוב‬Gen 31:3; Num 23:5). On the other hand, these verbs can
be followed by infinitive clauses that present the main information
(Gen 18:7; 27:20; Judg 14:8; Hos 11:9; Ps 104:9). It is always possible
to place these and similar verbs in a separate clause that is formally
independent but in fact is a part of a construction that comprises both
clauses. Two different patterns present themselves:

63
Akkadian constructions of this type have been analysed by F.R. Kraus, Sonder-
formen Akkadischer Parataxe: Die Koppelungen (MKNAW.L, N.S. 50/1; Amsterdam,
1987), pp. 10–37; idem, ‘Koppelungen in einer Gruppe von Briefen nach Mari’, in
M. Lebeau and P. Talon (eds.), Reflets des deux fleuves: Volume de mélanges offerts à
André Finet (Leuven, 1989), pp. 83–88.
64
See my paper, ‘Verbs of Motion in Biblical Hebrew: Lexical Shifts and Syntactic
Structure’, in Ehud Ben–Zvi, Diana V. Edelman, and Frank Polak (eds.), A Palimpsest:
Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel (Piscataway, NJ,
2009), pp. 161–197, esp. 187–197.
 hebrew hāyāh 397

(a) The first verb is attached immediately to the second verb, which
binds subject and object, such as, for example, ‫וַ ּיָ ֻׁשבּו וַ ּיִ ְבּכּו ּגַ ם ְּבנֵ י‬
‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬, ‘and the Israelites also wept again’ (Num 11:4); ‫וַ ּיָ ָקם וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך‬
‫נֹוח ַא ֲח ֵרי ִא ְׁשּתֹו‬
ַ ‫ ָמ‬, ‘Manoah got up and followed his wife’ ( Judg
13:11). This pattern forms a bi-verbal construction, in which the
first verb serves as preverb and the second as nucleus of the core
clause.65
(b) The first verb is predicate of a first clause, which modifies the
action described in the second clause, such as, for example, ‫וַ ּיָ ָׁשב‬
‫ן־חזָ ֵאל‬ֲ ‫ן־ה ַדד ֶּב‬
ֲ ‫ת־ה ָע ִרים ִמּיַ ֶּב‬
ֶ ‫הֹוא ָחז וַ ּיִ ַּקח ֶא‬
ָ ְ‫הֹואׁש ֶּבן־י‬
ָ ְ‫י‬, ‘and then
Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz, took back the towns from Ben-hadad,
son of Hazael’ (2 Kgs 13:5). This construction reflects a bi-clausal
pattern, in which the first clause (with preverb as predicate) serves
as pre-clause, modifying the information in the core clause.
In Biblical Hebrew bi-verbal and bi-clausal patterns have been analy-
sed for the verbs ‫קום‬, ‫שוב‬, and ‫סבב‬.66 Such verbs as ‫ירד‬, ‫הלך‬, and
‫ לקח‬also appear frequently in bi-verbal/bi-clausal constructions,67 for
example:
2 Sam 23:20 ‫ת־ה ֲא ִרי ְּבתֹוְך ַהּבֹאר ְּביֹום ַה ָּׁש ֶלג‬
ָ ‫וְ הּוא יָ ַרד וְ ִה ָּכה ֶא‬
nrsv He also went down and killed a lion in a pit on a day when
snow had fallen.
Notably, the place into which Benaiah went down, the pit, is indicated
in the second clause. Hence ‫ ירד‬serves as preverb.
In view of this analysis we can now return to the question of the
use of ‫ ויהי‬in an independent clause that precedes the core clause
and serves as modifier for the predicate of the core clause. Since ‫היה‬
often preserves some characteristics of a verb of motion, with the
basic meaning ‘to fall’, it is now possible to describe the use of ‫ויהי‬
in introductory clauses as an impersonal preverb in a bi-clausal con-
struction. Thus the function of ‫ ויהי‬is not limited to marking time and
circumstances but can add impetus and éclat to the following clause.

65
The term preverb has been proposed by Ayo Bambgbose, A Grammar of Yoruba
(Cambridge, UK, 1966), pp. 67–75. ‘Two–Verb Constructions’ are discussed by
M. Eskhult, ‘The Verb sbb as a Marker of Inception in Biblical Hebrew’, Orientalia
Suecana 47 (1998), pp. 21–26. Eskhult also points to the close connection between
bi-verbal/bi-clausal patterns and serialization.
66
See L.W. Dobbs–Allsopp, ‘Ingressive qwm in Biblical Hebrew’, ZAH 8 (1995),
pp. 31–54; Eskhult, ‘The Verb sbb’.
67
See my paper, ‘Verbs of Motion’, pp. 187–191 (‫)הלך‬, 191–194 (‫)לקח‬.
398 frank polak

Its inherent power as vector bestows dynamic force to the pre-clause,

which it introduces, and to the following core clause. It is this dynamic
force which explains the use of ‫ ויהי‬for shaping discourse structure by
marking the introduction of new scenes and new narratives.

5 Conclusion

The analysis of the meaning of ‫ היה‬in the light of cognitive theory

and functional linguistics reveals an interval that includes, on the one
hand, rare cases in which ‫ היה‬indicates real, fast motion, and, on the
other hand, the bleached existential/locative use of the verb. Between
these poles we encounter the metaphorical use of the verb and cases
in which the verb still preserves a residue of its original semantic con-
tent, adding éclat and impetus to apparently static descriptions. The
dynamic force of this verb also explains its use to mark the opening
of new narrative frames.
 THE LEXEME ‫ָס ִביב‬

Christo H.J. van der Merwe

Semantically speaking the lexeme ‫ ָס ִביב‬is fairly unproblematic.1 It typically

refers to points in space that stretch from a point of reference into all directions
and therefore surround that point of reference. It could often be translated as
‘around, on all sides, surrounding(s)’. However, when one considers available
Biblical Hebrew resources, it becomes evident that there are a number of
uncertainties concerning this lexeme. In the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible
3, it is always parsed as a noun, in the Westminister morphological database,
it is always parsed as an adverb. Some scholars call it a preposition, some
state that it is a substantive used as an adverb or preposition. Based on what
is called the ‘constructions of use’ of ‫ס ִביב‬, ָ this study postulates beyond
the substantive, prepositional, and adverbial use of ‫ס ִביב‬, ָ a fourth category,
namely the adnominal use of ‫ס ִביב‬. ָ

1 Introduction

The lexeme ‫ ָס ִביב‬has not yet received much scholarly attention. This
may be because its semantics are fairly straightforward. ‫ ָס ִביב‬refers, for
the most part, to points in space that stretch from a point of reference
into all directions and therefore surround that point of reference. It
could often be translated as ‘around, on all sides, surrounding(s)’.
However, when one considers available Biblical Hebrew resources, it
becomes evident that there are a number of uncertainties concerning
this lexeme. In the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible 3 (= SESB-3),
it is always parsed as a noun; in the Westminister morphological
database, it is always parsed as an adverb. In Christo H.J. van der
Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, it is listed merely as a
preposition.2 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner are ‘mum’ as

1
The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South
Africa towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed in this pub-
lication and the conclusions arrived at are those of the author and are not necessarily
to be attributed to the NRF.
2
Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical
Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages, Hebrew 3; Sheffield, 1999), p. 290.
400 christo h.j. van der merwe

far as the word class of ‫ ָס ִביב‬is concerned.3 Francis Brown, Samuel R.

Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (BDB) are bolder and state ‘subst., used
most as adv. and prep.’4 Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor list
‫ ָס ִביב‬among the adverbs of location, but exclude it from their list of
prepositions.5 They nevertheless elsewhere observe: ‘Other important
elements related to the prepositional system include tāwek 418, sābîb
336, qéreb 227, néged 151, and lipnê’.6 Paul Joüon and Takamitsu
Muraoka include ‫ ָס ִביב‬among a list of ‘other prepositions’, that is,
‫ ַא ַחר‬, ‫ ֵּבין‬, ‫ ָס ִביב‬, ‫ ַּת ַחת‬.7
From this brief overview, it is clear why the morphological parsers
differ. Since our colleague Eep Talstra maintains as far as possible a
‘from form to function’ approach, he focuses on the formal features
of ‫ ָס ִביב‬. It indeed has the nominal pattern qatîl, which it, according
to Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander,8 shares with nouns like ‫ נָ ִביא‬and
‫נָ גִ יד‬.9 Talstra will certainly concede that ‫ ָס ִביב‬could also be used as an
adverb or a preposition. The question is, when and how often? Fur-
thermore, are the traditional word-class labels adequate for describ-
ing the use of ‫ ? ָס ִביב‬An answer to this question is difficult to infer
from available resources. Apart from the following remark by Wilhelm
Gesenius, Emil Kautzsch, and A.E. Cowley (GKC) ‘‫ ָס ִביב‬. . . as a prep-
osition, always has the plural form’, our resources offer little infor-
mation in this regard.10 In addition, BDB complicates the matter by
contradicting GKC.11 According to BDB, the absolute singular form
of ‫ ָס ִביב‬can also be used as a preposition.12 When in the plural, it has,

3
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament; subsequently revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann J. Stamm
(translated and edited by M.E.J. Richardson; 5 vols.; Leiden, 1994–2000, combined in
one electronic ed., Logos Library System, 2000), p. 738.
4
Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1906), p. 686.
5
Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, 1990), p. 657.
6
Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 192.
7
Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SubBi 14;
Rome, 2003), p. 346.
8
Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache
des Altes Testament (Halle, 1922), pp. 470−471.
9
Why ‫ ָס ִביב‬is not listed among the qatîl noun forms in Joshua Fox, Semitic Noun
Patterns (HSS 52; Winona Lake, 2003), pp. 192−194, is not clear.
10
Wilhelm Gesenius and Emil Kautzsch, Gesenius’s Hebrew Grammar, Translated
by A.E. Cowley (Oxford, 1910), p. 304.
11
BDB, p. 686.
12
GKC, p. 687.
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 401

according to BDB, ‘the force of a preposition’.13 Achieving more clarity

on the morphology and syntax of ‫ ָס ִביב‬, as well as its most prototypical
patterns of use, is the aim of this study in honour Eep Talstra. Since I,
in my analysis, will consider the syntactic labels provided in SESB-3,
an engagement with it may provide, as a spin-off, a critical appraisal
of this invaluable tool for Biblical scholars—the result of a nearly life-
long project initiated by Talstra in the 1970s.
In section 2 I provide a description of the morphology of ‫ָס ִביב‬
with special attention to the statistics and distribution of the differ-
ent morphological patterns throughout the Hebrew Bible. In section
3, I consider the categorization of ‫ ָס ִביב‬. Since, like Talstra, I have a
high regard for ‘the history of interpretation’, and in my study would
prefer to further refine our current understanding of ‫ ָס ִביב‬rather than
to claim to provide revolutionary new insights, I start with a detailed
discussion of BDB’s description of ‫ ָס ִביב‬. I restrict myself in this regard
to BDB since, in my opinion, it represents the most ‘useful’ descrip-
tion of ‫ ָס ִביב‬to date.14 In section 3.2, the theoretical considerations
which underpin the categories postulated in section 3.3 are described.
This categorization is based on what I call the ‘constructions of use’ of
‫ ָס ִביב‬, that is, the morpho-syntactic patterns that are used prototypi-
cally in specific syntactic constructions. I hypothesize that the descrip-
tion of a lexeme like ‫ ָס ִביב‬in terms of the statistics of these categories
of use provides a much more nuanced picture of the lexeme than
the one presented by BDB. Prompted by some of the syntactic labels
used by Talstra, I postulate beyond the substantive, prepositional, and
adverbial use of ‫ ָס ִביב‬, a fourth category, namely, the adnominal use of

13
BDB, p. 687.
14
Cf. also my references to the Biblical Hebrew grammars in the previous para-
graph. As far as more recent lexica are concerned, Ludwig Koehler and Walter
Baumgartner represent in my opinion nothing more than a summary of BDB. By
far the most exhaustive description of ‫ ָס ִביב‬up to date is that of David J.A. Clines
(ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew 6 (Sheffield, 2007), pp. 109−114. Clines dis-
tinguishes between the use of ‫ ָס ִביב‬as substantive, adverb, and preposition. He states
that it is often uncertain as to which one of these three categories instances of ‫ָס ִביב‬
in his corpus should be assigned (p. 109). Although this type of acknowledgement is
appreciated, double listing each dubious case, in addition to the consistent exhaustive
description of some formal aspects of the lexeme’s syntagmatic distribution, created
a hindrance in using Clines for the purposes of this study, which is to establish a sta-
tistically based profile of the different categories of use. What is more, it is not always
clear why some constructions are regarded as prepositions, for example, those listed
in 3.1 (Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, p. 114).
402 christo h.j. van der merwe

‫ ָס ִביב‬. Before summarizing the findings of this study in section 5, I will

briefly assess the value of the SESB for this study in section 4.

2 The Forms and Distribution of ‫ָס ִביב‬

The lexeme ‫ ָס ִביב‬occurs 334 times in the Hebrew Bible. It lacks, how-
ever, an even distribution, for example, it occurs 112 times in the book
of Ezechiel,15 but only three times in Isaiah.
In the absolute form ‫ ָס ִביב‬occurs 250 times. Among these, the fol-
lowing constructions may be distinguished: ‫ ָס ִביב‬alone (127 times);
‫( וְ ָס ִביב‬twice);16 ‫( ָס ִביב ְל‬21 times); ‫( ָס ִביב ַעל‬twice);17 ‫( ָס ִביב ֶאת־‬once);18
‫( ִמ ָּס ִביב‬43 times); ‫( ַה ָּס ִביב‬once)19 and ‫( ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬54 times).
Of the remaining 84 cases in the construct, 12 are masculine plu-
ral, 71 feminine plural, and only one is a masculine singular form.20
Significant is that in 6 instances in the construct, the construction is
preceded by ְ‫ו‬. This is in contrast to those cases where the singular
absolute form is used, namely, 2 out of 250 instances. The majority
of the forms in the plural govern a pronominal suffix. In three cases,
the feminine plural form takes a suffix that is normally used with con-
struct singular forms.21 In contrast to instances in the absolute form
where it happens 43 times, those in the construct are governed only
twice by ‫ ִמן‬.22 Even these relatively raw statistics suggest that there are
probably some fundamental differences between the use of the abso-
lute and construct forms of ‫ ָס ִביב‬.

3 Categories of Use
3.1 Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs
As I have indicated above, BDB describes ‫ ָס ִביב‬as a substantive that
is mostly used as an adverb and a preposition. In the dictionary entry,

15
Of these 112 instances, 52 are in the format ‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬. The bulk of the latter
repetitive construction occurs in Ezekiel 40–43.
16
Num 1:50; 2 Sam 24:6, of which the latter is text-critically contested. Num 1:50
is an instance of the combination ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬.
17
1 Kgs 7:18; Jer 12:9.
18
Ezek 43:17.
19
1 Chr 11:8.
20
Amos 3:11.
21
2 Kgs 17:15, Ezek 28:24; 26.
22
Jer 17:26; Ezek 28:26.
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 403

the main categorization principle is the number of the nominal form

of the lexeme. In other words, the first main categories are cases of
‫ ָס ִביב‬in the singular. Four sub-categories are distinguished, namely,
(a) as substantive, (b) as adverbial accusative (c) as preposition, and
(d) ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬.
Under (a) substantive, the one instance of ‫ ַה ָּס ִביב‬in 1 Chr 11:8 is
cited as an illustrative example. It is not mentioned, however, that this
is the only example of this type in the Hebrew Bible.
Under (b) adverbial accusative, examples are cited where ‫ ָס ִביב‬fol-
lows the construction it modifies, as well as where it occurs inside a
clause. In each case it is not unambiguously clear whether the scope
of ‫ ָס ִביב‬is a phrase or a clause. Under this sub-heading it is men-
tioned that ‫ ָס ִביב‬is sometimes doubled ‘for the sake of emphasis’. It is
observed that this construction occurs often in Ezekiel 40–43.
Under (c) preposition, BDB distinguishes four morpho-syntactically
based sub-headings: (a) the only singular construct form of ‫ ָס ִביב‬occurs
in Amos 3:11; it is, however, pointed out that ‫ּוס ִביב‬ ְ should be read
as ‫;יְ ס ֵֹבב‬23 (b) ‫ ; ָס ִביב ְל‬19 occurrences are listed; (c) two instances of
‫ ָס ִביב ֶאת־‬, 1 Kgs 6:5; Ezek 43:17, are listed. Here BDB merely remarks
‘strangely’.24 Why they regard 1 Kgs 6:5 as an instance of this type is
not clear to me.
Under (d) with ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬as heading, first, instances where the con-
struction must be translated as ‘from round about, from every side’ are
listed. Then it is pointed out that ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬usually has to be translated
as ‘on every side’. In these cases ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬is also used as a preposition
(like in 1.c).
The second main category BDB addresses includes those instances
of ‫ ָס ִביב‬that are in the plural. In 2.a. the masculine forms and in 2.b.
the feminine forms are treated. In 2.a. three subdivisions are made:
(a) instances with a semantic masculine sense, namely, ‘those round
about’, (b) instances with a neuter sense, that is, ‘the parts round
about’, and (c) those instances ‘with the force of a preposition’.
Since it is indicated that all of the instances are cited, it is obvious
that there are few instances of 2.a. In 2.b. a distinction is made between
instances where ‫ ְס ִביבֹות‬functions as a substantive, and (a) could either
be translated as ‘circuits’ or ‘the parts round about’ and (b) where it
is used ‘with the force of a preposition’. Although it is not explicitly

23
BDB, p. 687.
24
BDB, p. 687.
404 christo h.j. van der merwe

stated, one can infer from the number of citations that the latter cat-
egory is the one with the largest number of members.

3.2 Theoretical Considerations

From the classification proposed in section 3.3 below, it will be obvi-
ous that my major classification principle differs from that of BDB.
Its two major categories are semantically based and use neither the
morphology, nor the traditional word class labels of the lexeme (like
David J.A. Clines) as points of departure. However, this does not mean
that the morphology of ‫ ָס ִביב‬is not taken seriously. As I observed in
section 2, it appears that there are some significant differences between
some of the absolute and construct plural forms of ‫ ָס ִביב‬.
If one considers the differences of opinion among the resources
referred to in section 1 concerning the word class label(s) of ‫ ָס ִביב‬,
it is reasonable to argue that these labels are not able to capture fully
the syntactic behaviour of ‫ ָס ִביב‬. It appears as if BDB already sensed
the shortcomings of using only these labels, hence its use of the labels
‘adverbial accusative’ and ‘prepositional force.’25 The categories I pro-
pose below are based on the following criteria. First, if reference is
made to an entity, instances of that category are labelled as the sub-
stantive use of ‫ ָס ִביב‬. If ‫ ָס ִביב‬refers to a relationship, the scope of the
relationship is considered. If the scope of ‫ ָס ִביב‬is between two explic-
itly mentioned entities, x and y, a prepositional relationship is postu-
lated; if the scope is a clause, an adverbial relationship is postulated,
and if the scope is a phrase, an adnominal.

3.3 Categories of Use

3.3.1 ‫ ָס ִביב‬as a Substantive (24/334, that is, about 7%)
Of these 24 instances, one is an absolute masculine singular, 13 are con-
struct feminine plurals, and 10 are construct masculine plurals. Since
the text of the singular form (Amos 3:11) is uncertain,26 it will not be
considered further here. Of the remaining 23 instances, 13 are feminine27

25
BDB, p. 686.
26
See David J.A. Clines, Job 21–37 (WBC 18A; Nashville, 2006), p. 292.
27
Exod 7:24; Num 22:4; Jer 17:26; 50:32; Ezek 16:57; 28:24, 26; 34:26; Ps 44:14; 79:4;
Eccl 1:6; Dan 9:16; Ezra 1:6.
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 405

and 10 masculine.28 Apart from the fact that 7 of the latter 10 instances
are from the book of Jeremiah no specific pattern of distribution in the
corpus can be identified.
The semantic potential of the lexeme can be described as follows:29

1. Prototypically (12/23) a people x who live in an area surrounding or

near a people y, that is, their neighbours, are referred to.
(1) ‫ימנּו ֶ֭ח ְר ָּפה ִל ְׁש ֵכ ֵנ֑ינּו ַ ֥ל ַעג‬
֣ ֵ ‫ ְּת ִׂש‬You have made us the taunt of our
‫יבֹותינּו׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ וָ ֶ ֗֝ק ֶלס ִל ְס ִב‬neighbors, the derision and scorn
of those around us (Ps 44:14)30
(2) ‫יביו וְ ֖כֹל י ְֹד ֵע֣י ְׁש ֑מֹו‬
ָ֔ ‫ל־ס ִב‬
ְ ‫ֻנ֤דּו ֙לֹו ָּכ‬ Mourn over him, all you his neigh-
bors, and all who know his name
(Jer 48:17)31

Rarely (2/23) people who surround another person, that is, God, are
referred to (Ps 76:12 and 89:8).

2. Sometimes (8/23) an area (which may include its people, structures,

and inhabitants) x surrounding another area y is referred to.32
(3) ‫ּומ ְּס ִב ֨יבֹות‬
ִ ‫֠הּודה‬
ָ ‫י־י‬ְ ‫ּובאּו ֵמ ָע ֵ ֽר‬ ֣ ָ And people shall come from the
‫רּוׁש ֜ ַל ִם‬
ָ ְ‫ י‬towns of Judah and the places
around Jerusalem (Jer 17:26)33
(4) ‫ָׂש ֞דֹות ַּב ֶּכ ֶ֣סף יִ ְקנ֗ ּו וְ ָכ ֨תֹוב ַּב ֵ ּ֥ס ֶפר׀‬ Fields shall be bought for money,
‫יָמן‬
ִ֜ ְ‫ם ְּב ֶ֨א ֶרץ ִּבנ‬ ֒ ‫תֹום וְ ָה ֵע֣ד ֵע ִדי‬ ֮ ‫וְ ָח‬ and deeds shall be signed and
‫הּוד ֙ה‬
ָ ְ‫ּוב ָע ֵ ֤רי י‬ְ ‫רּוׁש ֗ ַל ִם‬
ָ ְ‫ּוב ְס ִב ֵיב֣י י‬
ִ sealed and witnessed, in the land
of Benjamin, in the places around
Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah
(Jer 32:44)34

28
Jer 21:14; 32:44; 33:13; 46:14; 48:17, 39; 49:5; Ps 76:12; 89:8; Lam 1:17.
29
From the examples below it has to be inferred that the gender of the substantive
appears to be irrelevant as far as the meaning of the construction is concerned.
30
Also Ezek 16:57; 28:24, 26; Ps 79:4; Dan 9:16; Ezra 1:6.
31
Also Jer 46:14; 48:39; 49:5; Lam 1:17.
32
In 1 Chr 11:8 the text-critically dubious masculine singular form is used.
33
Also Exod 7:24; Num 22:4; Jer 50:32; Ezek 34:26.
34
Also Jer 21:14; 33:13.
406 christo h.j. van der merwe

3. In one instance (1/23), it refers to the circuits of a whirling wind.

(5) ‫הֹולְ֣ך ָה ֔ר ַּוח‬
ֵ ‫סֹובב׀ ס ֵֹב ֙ב‬ ֵ֤ Round and round goes the wind,
‫ל־ס ִביב ָ ֹ֖תיו ָ ׁ֥שב ָה ֽר ַּוח׃‬
ְ ‫וְ ַע‬ and on its circuits the wind returns
(Eccl 1:6)

3.3.2 ‫ ָס ִביב‬as relational (296/334, that is, 87%)35

When ‫ ָס ִביב‬profiles a relationship between two entities, namely, x sur-
rounds y, I regard it as a relational. As a relational, ‫ ָס ִביב‬may be used
as a preposition, as an adverb, or as an adnominal.

1. ‫ ָס ִביב‬as preposition (70/334, that is, about 20%)

‫ ָס ִביב‬is regarded as a preposition when an entity x is predicated to
be ‫ ָס ִביב‬y. When ‫ ָס ִביב‬is used as a preposition, it is predominantly
(56/70) in the feminine plural construct form, that is, ‫ ְס ִביבֹ(ֹו)ת‬. In
most cases the preposition heads the predicate complement of a nomi-
nal clause (#6–9). The majority of the latter are relative clauses (#6–7).
In a few cases, it is a complement in a verbal clause (#10). It is more
often an adjunct (#11).
(6) ‫ל־הּגֹויִ ֖ם‬
ַ ‫ימה ָע ַ ֙לי ֶ֔מ ֶלְך ְּכ ָכ‬ָ ‫ָא ִ ׂ֤ש‬ I will set a king over me, like all the
‫ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר ְס ִביב ָ ֹֽתי׃‬ nations that are around me (Deut
17:14)36
(7) ‫ל־ה ָע ִ ֔רים ֲא ֶ ׁ֖שר ְס ִבי ֥בֹת‬
֣ ֶ ‫דּו ֶא‬
֙ ‫ּומ ְד‬ָ They shall measure the distances
‫ֶה ָח ָ ֽלל׃‬ to the towns that are near (lit.
around) the body (Deut 21:2)37
(8) ‫יבֹותיו‬
֖ ָ ‫ל־ק ָה ֔ ָלּה ְס ִ ֽב‬
ְ ‫ּׁשּור וְ ָכ‬
֙ ‫ָ ׁ֤שם ַא‬ Assyria is there, and all its com-
‫ִק ְבר ָ ֹ֑תיו‬ pany, their graves all around it
(Ezek 32:22)38
(9) ‫ימה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ְס ִב ֖יבֹות ִׁש ָּנ֣יו ֵא‬ There is terror all around its teeth
(Job 41:6)39

35
There are 15 instances (1 Sam 14:21; 2 Sam 24:6; 1 Kgs 7:23, 35; Ezek 41:5; 42:16,
17; 43:17; 48:35; Amos 3:11; Ps 97:3; Job 10:8; 1 Chr 11:8; 2 Chr 4:2; 34:6) that could
not be accounted for in terms of our model. The majority involve some text-critical
problem.
36
Also Gen 35:5; 41:48; Lev 25:44; Num 16:34; Deut 6:14, 13:8; Judg 2:12; 2 Kgs
17:15; Ezek 5:6, 7 (2×), 14, 15; 11:12; 12:14; Neh 5:17; 6:16.
37
Also Josh 19:8; 1 Chr 4:33; 2 Chr 17:10. 2 Chr 14:13 is an asyndetic relative
clause.
38
Also Ezek 5:5; 32:23, 24, 25, 26; Ps 18:12; 89:9; 97:2; Job 22:10; 29:5.
39
Ezek 6:13 is a nominal clause with an ellipsis of the subject.
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 407

(10) ‫א ֶהל׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫ַ ֽוּֽיַ ֲע ֵ ֥מד א ָ ֹ֖תם ְס ִבי ֥בֹת ָה‬ He placed them all around the tent
(Num 11:24)40
(11) ‫ָׁש ְפ ֬כּו ָד ָ֨מם׀ ַּכ ַּ֗מיִם ְ ֽס ִ֘ב ֤יבֹות‬ They have poured out their blood
‫ֽרּוׁש ֗ ָל ִם‬
ָ ְ‫י‬ like water all around Jerusalem
(Ps 79:3)41
Less frequently (14/70), the combination ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬is used as a preposition,
sometimes as a predicate complement of a nominal clause (#12),
sometimes as a complement of a verbal clause (#13), and sometimes
as an adjunct of a verbal clause (#14).
(12) ‫ים ָס ִ ֪ביב ָ ֥לּה ַ ֭ויהוָ ה‬ ֮ ‫ֽרּוׁש ֗ ַל ִם ָה ִר‬
ָ ְ‫י‬ As the mountains surround
‫ד־עֹולם׃‬
ָֽ ‫ָס ִ ֣ביב ְל ַע ּ֑מֹו ֵ֝מ ַע ָּ֗תה וְ ַע‬ Jerusalem, so the Lord surrounds
his people, from this time on and
forevermore (Ps 125:2)42
(13) ‫וְ ָס ִ ֥ביב ַל ִּמ ְׁש ָ ּ֖כן יַ ֲחנֽ ּו‬ They shall camp around the taber-
nacle (Num 1:50)43
(14) ‫ת־ה ָח ֵ֗צר ָס ִב ֙יב ַל ִּמ ְׁש ָּכ֣ן‬
ֶ ‫וַ ָּי֣ ֶֽקם ֶא‬ He set up the court around the
‫וְ ַל ִּמזְ ֵּ֔ב ַח‬ tabernacle and the alter (Exod
40:33)44
Apart from the fact that ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬is not used at all in relative clauses,
though this often happens in the case of ‫ ְס ִביבֹ(ֹו)ת‬, these two forms of
‫ ָס ִביב‬used as prepositions appear to be near synonyms. Compare, for
example, 1 Sam 26:5 and Num 1:50 (#13).

2. ‫ ָס ִביב‬as adverbial (167/334, that is, about 50%)

‫ ָס ִביב‬is regarded as an adverbial when it is used to indicate that as
far as a predication is concerned, it counts to be ‘all around’ an entity
referred to or implied by the predication. When ‫ ָס ִביב‬is used as an

40
Also 1 Sam 26:5, 7; Ezek 31:4; 1 Chr 9:27.
41
Num 11:31, 32; Judg 7:18; 1 Sam 26:5, 7; 2 Sam 22:12; 2 Kgs 6:17. SESB-3 calls
each of these constituents NP locations. In other words, it is not indicated whether
they are complements or adjuncts. See also Ezek 5:2, 12; 6:5; 36:36; Ps 50:3; Neh
12:28; 29.
42
Also Exod 16:13; Ps 128:3.
43
Also Num 1:53; 1 Kgs 18:35; Ps 34:8; Job 19:12. In Num 16:27 the complement
is headed by ‫ ִמן‬.
44
Judg 7:21; 1 Kgs 6:5; 18:32. In the SESB-3 it is not indicated whether these con-
stituents are complements or adjuncts. The latter three are labelled as ‘location’, while
Exod 40:33 is regarded as a ‘modifier’.
408 christo h.j. van der merwe

adverbial, it is predominantly in the form of ‫( ָס ִביב‬84×) or ‫ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬

(50×).45 Less frequent are ‫( ִמ ָּס ִביב‬27×). ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬appears to be used as
adverb only once. There are only three instances of the construction
‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב ְל‬.
When ‫ ָס ִביב‬is used as an adverbial, it is typically an adjunct of a
verbal (#15–18) or nominal clause (#19–21). Instances where ‫ָס ִביב‬
is the complement of a verb (in a verbal clause) or the predicate
complement of a nominal clause are rare (#22–23).
(15) ‫ית ּל֛ ֹו ֵז֥ר זָ ָ ֖הב ָס ִ ֽביב׃‬
ָ ‫וְ ָע ִ ׂ֥ש‬ You shall make a molding of gold
around it (Exod 25:24)46
(16) ‫֤יה א ָֹה ִל ֙ים ָס ִ֔ביב‬
ָ ‫ָּת ְק ֨עּו ָע ֶל‬ They shall pitch their tents around
her (Jer 6:3)47
(17) ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵ ּ֖ב ַח‬
ַ ֽ ‫ת־ה ָ ּ֛דם ַע‬
ַ ‫וַ ּיִ זְ ֨ר ֹק מ ֶ ֹׁ֧שה ֶא‬ Moses dashed the rest of the blood
‫ָס ִ ֽביב׃‬ against all sides of the altar (Lev
8:24)48
(18) ‫ת־ה ָע ֙ם ָס ִ ֣ביב‬
ָ ‫וְ ִהגְ ַּב ְל ָ ּ֤ת ֶא‬ You shall set limits for the people
all around (Exod 19:12)49
(19) ‫תֹוכֹו ְּכ ִ ֣פי ַת ְח ָ ֑רא‬
֖ ‫י־ה ְּמ ִ ֥עיל ְּב‬ ַ ‫ּופ‬ ִֽ And the opening of the robe in
‫ָׂש ָ ֥פה ְל ִ ֛פיו ֥ל ֹא יִ ָּק ֵ ֽר ַע ָס ִ ֖ביב‬ the middle of it was like the open-
ing in a coat of mail, with a bind-
ing around the opening, so that it
might not be torn (Exod 39:23)50
(20) ‫ל־ה ִ ֖עיר ָס ִ ֑ביב‬
ָ ‫וְ ַכ ְׂש ִ ּ֥דים ַע‬ The Chaldeans were all around the
city (2 Kgs 25:4)51

45
One may also argue that the construction ‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬occurs only 25 times.
46
Exod 25:11, 25 (2×); 28:33; 30:3; 37:2, 11, 12 (2×), 26; Judg 20:29; 1 Kgs 6:5 (2×);
6:6; 2 Kgs 25:1; Jer 52:4; Ezek 4:2; 23:24; 27:11. In Exod 39:25; 1 Kgs 6:6 the adjunct
of place referred to by means of ‫ ָס ִביב‬is further specified.
47
1 Sam 14:47; 2 Kgs 11:8, 11; Jer 50:14, 15, 29; 52:4; Ps 3:7; 2 Chr 23:10.
48
Exod 29:16, 20; Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2; 8:15, 19, 24; 9:12, 18; 14:41; 16:18.
49
Exod 40:8; 1 Kgs 6:5; 7:23, 24, 36; Jer 52:14; Job 18:11; 19:10; 2 Chr 4:2; 23:7. See
also 2 Sam 5:9 and Lam 2:3 where the object of the verb is implied, and Ps 12:9 where
‫ ָס ִביב‬is used in a verbal clause with an intransitive verb.
50
Exod 39:26; 1 Kgs 7:24; 2 Kgs 25:17; Jer 52:22, 23; Ezek 1:4, 27 (2×); 45:2 (2×);
46:23. Also Exod 28:32 with ‫ היה‬as predicate.
51
Exod 28:33, 34; Num 3:26; 4:26; Jer 52:7; Ezek 27:11. Also Zech 2:9 with ‫ היה‬as
predicate.
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 409

(21) ‫ֹופ ִּ֗נים ְמ ֵל ִ ֤אים ֵעינַ֙ ֙יִם ָס ִ֔ביב‬

ַ ‫ָה ֽא‬ The wheels were full of eyes all
around (Ezek 10:12)52
(22) ‫י־ס ִ ֤ביב ֵעינַ֙ יִ ְך‬
ָ ‫ְׂש ִ ֽא‬ Lift up your eyes all around (Isa
49:18)53
(23) ‫֑יה‬
ָ ‫ַה ַ ֖עיִ ט ָס ִ ֣ביב ָע ֶל‬ Are the birds of prey all around
her? (Jer 12:9)
When ‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬is used as an adverb, it is also typically an adjunct
(#24–25). Instances where ‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬is the complement of a verb are
rare (#26).
(24) ‫חֹומה ִמ ֥חּוץ ַל ַ ּ֖ביִת ָס ִ ֣ביב׀‬
֛ ָ ‫וְ ִה ֵּנ֥ה‬ Now there was a wall all around
‫ָס ִ ֑ביב‬ the outside of the temple area
(Ezek 40:5)54
(25) ‫וְ ֵ ֽא ַל ּ֖מֹות ָס ִ ֣ביב׀ ָס ִ ֑ביב‬ There were vestibules all around
(Ezek 40:30)
(26) ‫ּומ ָד ֖דֹו ָס ִ ֥ביב׀ ָס ִ ֽביב׃‬
ְ He measured it all around (Ezek
42:15)55
When ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬is used as an adverb, it is predominantly an adjunct of
a verbal clause (#27). In some instance it could be interpreted as a
predicate complement of a nominal clause (#28).
(27) ‫הו֤ה ָל ֶה ֙ם ִמ ָּס ִ֔ביב‬
ָ ְ‫וַ ָּ֨ינַ ח י‬ And the Lord gave them rest on
every side (Josh 21:44)56
(28) ‫ים ָמג֣ ֹור‬
֮ ‫ִ ּ֣כי ָׁש ַ֜מ ְע ִּתי ִּד ַ ּ֣בת ַר ִּב‬ For I hear many whispering: ‘Ter-
‫ִמ ָּס ִבי ֒ב‬ ror is all around!’ (Jer 20:10)57

52
1 Kgs 7:20; Ezek 1:18, 28; 46:23. See also Num 35:4.
53
The only other example is found in Isa 60:4.
54
Ezek 8:10; 40:5,16, 17, 25, 29, 33, 36, 43; 41:6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20;
2 Chr 4:3.
55
Ezek 37:2; 40:14; 41:5, 19; 42:15.
56
1 Kgs 5:18; Isa 42:25; Jer 4:17; 51:2; Ezek 16:33, 37, 57; 23:22; 36:3; 37:21; 39:17;
Job 1:10; Lam 2:22; 1 Chr 22:18; 2 Chr 14:6; 15:15; 20:30; 32:22. 2 Sam 7:1 and 2 Chr
11:8 differ from the other instances listed here since the adjunct of place, ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬, is
further specified.
57
Jer 6:25; 46:5; 49:29; Ezek 36:4, 7; Ps 31:14.
410 christo h.j. van der merwe

When ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬is used as an adverb, it is an adjunct of a nominal

clause (#29).
(29) ‫ּובין ַה ְּל ָׁש ֜כֹות ֣ר ֹ ַחב ֶע ְׂש ִ ֥רים ַא ָ ּ֛מה‬
ֵ֨ And the chambers of the court
‫ָס ִ ֥ביב ַל ַ ּ֖ביִת ָס ִ ֥ביב׀ ָס ִ ֽביב׃‬ was a width of twenty cubits all
around the temple on every side
(Ezek 41:10)
In three instances (3/76×) the construction ‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב ְל‬is used as an
adverbial or as an adjunct of a nominal clause (#30).
(30) ‫וְ ֣ר ֹ ַחב ַה ֵּצ ָל ֩ע ַא ְר ַּ֨בע ַא ּ֜מֹות ָס ִ ֧ביב׀‬ And the width of the side cham-
‫ָס ִ ֛ביב ַל ַ ּ֖ביִת ָס ִ ֽביב׃‬ bers, four cubits, all around the
temple (Ezek 41:5)58
3. ‫ ָס ִביב‬as an adnominal (59/334×, that is, about 18%)
This use of ‫ ָס ִביב‬is not described as such by available Biblical Hebrew
resources. However, in the SESB-3 most of the instances listed here are
described as NP specifiers.
As had been indicated above, the label adnominal is not a traditional
parts of speech label. Its most characteristic feature is that it modifies
a noun in the same way an adverbial modifies a clause. As far as the
morpho-syntactic features of ‫ ָס ִביב‬as adnominal are concerned, it has
been established that the most frequently used forms of this category
are ‫( ָס ִביב‬35×) and ‫( ִמ ָּס ִביב‬13×). Less frequent are the constructions
‫ ְס ִביבֹ(ֹו)ת‬+ pronominal suffix (6×), ‫( ָס ִביב ְל‬3×), and ‫( ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬2×).
When used as an adnominal ‫ ָס ִביב‬per definition modifies a noun
phrase (#31). Often the noun phrase contains a construct state con-
struction (#32) or a noun plus pronominal suffix (#33).
(31) ‫ּגֹוים ָס ִ֗ביב‬
ִ֜ ‫ל־ה‬ַ ‫וְ ֻא ַּס ֩ף ֵ֨חיל ָּכ‬ And the wealth of all the surround-
ing nations shall be collected (Zech
14:14)59

58
Ezek 40:16; 41:7.
59
See also Ezek 19:8; 43:17; 46:23; Zech 12:2, 6. In the case of Exod 38:20; 1 Kgs
5:11; Jer 25:9; Ezek 43:20; 1 Chr 28:12, the noun phrase is governed by a preposition.
It is also possible to regard ‫ ָס ִביב‬in Lev 25:31 as an adjunct of a nominal clause, while
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 411

(32) ‫ל־ק ְל ֵ ֧עי ֶה ָח ֵצ֛ר ָס ִ ֖ביב ֵ ׁ֥שׁש‬

ַ ‫ָּכ‬ All the hangings around the court
‫ָמ ְׁש ָזֽר׃‬ (lit. the hangings of the court all
around) were of fine twisted linen
(Exod 38:16)60
(33) ‫ּובאּו ְ ֽונָ ְתנּו֩ ִ֨איׁש ִּכ ְס ֜אֹו ֶּפ ַ֣תח׀‬
ָ֡ And they shall come and all of
‫יה‬
ָ֙ ‫רּוׁש ֗ ַל ִם וְ ַ ֤על ָּכל־חֹומ ֶֹ֙ת‬
ָ ְ‫ַׁש ֲע ֵ ֣רי י‬ them shall set their thrones at the
‫הּודה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ל־ע ֵ ֥רי י‬
ָ ‫ָס ִ֔ביב וְ ַ ֖על ָּכ‬ entrance of the gates of Jerusalem,
against all its surrounding walls
and against all the cities of Judah
(Jer 1:15)61
When used as an adnominal, ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬typically modifies a noun phrase
governed by ‫( ִמן‬#34). This is, however, not necessarily the case (#35).
(34) ‫וְ ֵה ִ֨נ ַיח ָל ֶכ֧ם ִמ ָּכל־א ֵֹיְב ֶיכ֛ם‬ And when he gives you rest from
ֽ.ֽ.ֽ.ֽ‫ִמ ָּס ִ ֖ביב‬ your enemies all around . . . (Deut
12:10)62
(35) ‫יה ֙ם ִמ ָּס ִ֔ביב‬
ֶ ‫ֹויְב‬
ֵ ‫ַ ֽוּֽיִ ְמ ְּכ ֵ ֞רם ְּבַי֤ד ֽא‬ He sold them into the hand of their
enemies all around (Judg 2:14)63
When used as an adnominal ‫ ְס ִביבֹ(ֹו)ת‬, a pronominal suffix is nearly
always attached to it. In most of the cases, the noun phrase it specifies
also contains a pronominal suffix that agrees with it (#36). Only in one
instance is this not the case (#37).
(36) ‫א ַ֬יְבי‬
ֹ ֽ ‫אׁשי ַ ֤על‬
ִ֡ ֹ ‫וְ ַע ָּ֨תה יָ ֪רּום ר‬ Now my head is lifted up above my
‫יבֹותי‬
ַ֗ ‫ְ ֽס ִב‬ enemies all around me (Ps 27:6)64

in Nah 3:8 and Cant 3:7, ‫ ָס ִביב‬could also be interpreted as a predicate complement
of a nominal clause. Since in each of these three instances, the latter interpretations
would imply extremely rare syntactic constructions as far as ‫ ָס ִביב‬is concerned (see
#22), I hypothesize that it is more probable that ‫ ָס ִביב‬is used as an adnominal in
these instances.
60
In nearly all instances ‫ ָס ִביב‬modifies the construct form. See Exod 27:17; 38:31
(2×); Num 3:37; 4:32; 32:33; Josh 15:12; 1 Sam 31:9; 1 Kgs 3:1; 7:12; 2 Kgs 25:10; 1 Chr
10:9. Only in one case the postconstruct is modified, namely, 1 Kgs 7:18.
61
Gen 23:17; Exod 30:3; 37:26; Num 34:12; Josh 18:20; Ezek 43:13; 45:1.
62
Num 16:27; Deut 25:19; Josh 23:1; Judg 8:34; 1 Sam 12:11; 1 Kgs 5:4; 1 Chr 22:9.
63
Ezek 28:23; Jer 20:3; Joel 4:11, 12.
64
Josh 21:11, 42; Zech 7:7; 1 Chr 6:40.
412 christo h.j. van der merwe

(37) ‫יהם ִּת ְּתנ֖ ּו‬

ֶ֔ ‫ּומגְ ָ ֗רׁש ֶ ֽל ָע ִר ֙ים ְס ִבי ֣בֹ ֵת‬ִ You shall also give to the Levites
‫ַל ְלוִ ִּיֽם‬ pasture lands surrounding the
towns (Num 35:2)
The construction ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬appears to be used twice65 (#38) as an adnom-
inal and ‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬only once (#39).66
(38) ‫וְ ֨טּור ָס ִ ֥ביב ָּב ֶ ֛הם ָס ִ ֖ביב‬ On the inside, around each of the
‫ְל ַא ְר ַּב ְע ָ ּ֑תם‬ four courts was a row of masonry
(Ezek 46:23)66
(39) ‫ל־ר ֹאׁש ֠ ָה ָהר‬֣ ‫ּתֹורת ַה ָ ּ֑ביִת ַע‬
֣ ַ ‫֖ז ֹאת‬ This is the law of the temple: The
‫ָּכל־ּגְ ֻב ֞לֹו ָס ִ ֤ביב׀ ָס ִב ֙יב ֣קֹ ֶדׁש‬ entire area on top of the mountain
‫ָק ָד ִׁ֔שים‬ all around will be most holy (Ezek
43:12)

4 Using SESB

This study benefited much from the WIVU Constituency Trees that are
part of SESB-3, which provided a theoretically well-founded means to
compare critically the syntactic labels and the scope assigned to ‫ָס ִביב‬
in this study. I regard it as theoretically well-founded since I know
that from the inception of the linguistic database underpinning these
constituency trees, our colleague Eep Talstra put a high premium on
exhausting the formal features of constructions before assigning any
functional labels to them. Whenever functional labels are assigned, it
should always be possible to trace the formal features of the construc-
tion involved. As one moves up the linguistic hierarchy of constitu-
ency trees, it is, however, inevitable that functional labels are assigned
that are not based solely on the formal features of a construction. It
is in regards to some of these labels that a few questions arose in the
course of my investigation of ‫ ָס ִביב‬.
First, why is ‫ ָס ִביב‬sometimes labelled differently in clauses of which
the syntax and semantics are similar or at least nearly similar? For
example, why is ‫ ָס ִביב‬labelled at constituent level as noun phrase:

65
In Num 2:2, ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬specifies ‫ ִמּנֶ גֶ ד‬. In terms of our definition this would not
count as the adnominal use of ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬. It is rather a prepositional phrase, used as an
adverbial phrase that specifies another one. The same applies to Ps 78:28.
66
Also Ezek 41:16.
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 413

locative in #40, but as noun phrase: modifier in #41?67 In #42, ‫ ָס ִביב‬is

labelled as a noun phrase: locative, but in #43, as noun phrase: adjunct.
In #44 and #45, the valence patterns of verbs are similar, but in the
former ‫ ָס ִביב‬is labelled as noun phrase: locative and in the latter as
adverb phrase: locative. In the same way, in #46 ‫ ָס ִביב‬is labelled as
noun phrase: modifier, but noun phrase: adjunct in #46 (literally the
next verse).
(40) ‫ָׂש ֡ ָפה יִ ְֽהיֶ ֩ה ְל ֨ ִפיו ָס ִ֜ביב‬ with a woven binding around the
opening (lit. a binding/seam must
be for the opening all around)
(Exod 28:32)
(41) ‫ָׂש ָ ֥פה ְל ִ ֛פיו ָס ִ ֖ביב‬ with a woven binding around the
opening (lit. a binding/seam must
be for the opening all around)
(Exod 39:23)
(42) ‫ל־ה ִ ֖עיר ָס ִ ֑ביב‬
ָ ‫וְ ַכ ְׂש ִ ּ֥דים ַע‬ The Chaldeans were all around the
city (2 Kgs 25:4)
(43) ‫ל־ה ִ ֖עיר ָס ִ ֑ביב‬
ָ ‫וְ ַכ ְׂש ִ ּ֥דים ַע‬ The Chaldeans were all around the
city (Jer 52:7)
(44) ‫֖יה ָּד ֵי֥ק ָס ִ ֽביב׃‬
ָ ‫וַ ְּיִבנ֥ ּו ָע ֶל‬ They built siegeworks against it all
around (2 Kgs 25:1)
(45) ‫֤יה א ָֹה ִל ֙ים ָס ִ֔ביב‬
ָ ‫ָּת ְק ֨עּו ָע ֶל‬ They shall pitch their tents around
her (Jer 6:3)
(46) ‫ל־ּב ֶב֤ל׀ ָס ִב ֙יב‬
ָ ‫ִע ְר ֨כּו ַע‬ Take up your positions around
Babylon (Jer 50:14)
(47) ‫֤יה ָס ִב ֙יב‬
ָ ‫ָה ִ ֨ריעּו ָע ֶל‬ Raise a shout against her from all
sides (Jer 50:15)
Second, while the label ‘noun phrase: specification’ used in the WIVU
Constituency Trees prompted me to distinguish between the adver-
bial and adnominal uses of ‫ ָס ִביב‬. Though it is indeed not always
easy to determine that the scope of a clause-final ‫ ָס ִביב‬is the clause
(adverbial use) or an immediately preceding noun phrase (adnominal
use), it has in a few cases not been clear to me why the constituency
trees and constituent labels of ‫ ָס ִביב‬in the WIVU Constituency Trees
imply that it has a wider scope than merely the immediately preceding
noun phrase.

67
The only difference between #40 and #41 is the use of ‫היה‬.
414 christo h.j. van der merwe

In #48, ‫ ָס ִביב‬is labelled as ‘noun phrase: specification’, in which it

falls under the scope of the preceding noun phrase, but in #49 as ‘noun
phrase: modifier’ and in #50 as ‘noun phrase: locative’ #51. The scope
of both #50 and #51 is regarded as the preceding nominal clause. In
my analysis, #48–50 are regarded as (adnominal) specifications at the
(noun) phrase level. The same apply to #51–53 which are labelled in
the WIVU Constituency Trees as ‘noun phrase: specification’ (#51),
‘noun phrase: adjunct’ (#52), and ‘noun phrase: modifier’ (#53).
(48) ‫ת־א ְד ֵנ֤י ֶ ֽה ָח ֵצ ֙ר ָס ִ֔ביב‬
ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ the bases all around the court (lit.
the bases of the court all around)
(Exod 38:31)
(49) ‫ּמּודי ֶ ֽה ָח ֵצ֤ר ָס ִב ֙יב ְמ ֻח ָּׁש ִ ָ֣קים‬
֨ ֵ ‫ל־ע‬
ַ ‫ָּכ‬ All the pillars around the court
‫ֶּ֔כ ֶסף‬ (lit. all the pillar of the court all
around) shall be banded with silver
(Exod 27:17)
(50) ‫יהם‬
ֶ֗ ֵ‫ּמּודי֩ ֶה ָח ֵ֨צר ָס ִ֜ביב וְ ַא ְדנ‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַע‬ and the pillars of the court all
around with their bases (Num
4:32)
(51) ‫הּודה ָס ִ ֖ביב‬
֛ ָ ְ‫ֶ֠זה ּגְ ֧בּול ְּב ֵנֽי־י‬ This is the boundary surrounding
‫ְל ִמ ְׁש ְּפח ָ ֹֽתם‬ the people of Judah according to
their families (Josh 15:12)
(52) ‫יה‬
ָ ‫ֹלת‬
֖ ֶ ‫את ִּת ְה ֶ֨יה ָל ֶ ֥כם ָה ָ ֛א ֶרץ ִלגְ ֻב‬
֩ ֹ‫ז‬ This shall be your land with its
‫ָס ִ ֽביב‬ boundaries all around (Num
34:12)
(53) ‫וַ ָּי֣ ָֽקם׀ ְׂש ֵ ֣דה ֶע ְפ ֗רֹון ֲא ֶׁש ֙ר‬ So the field of Ephron in
‫ַּב ַּמ ְכ ֵּפ ֔ ָלה ֲא ֶ ׁ֖שר ִל ְפ ֵנ֣י ַמ ְמ ֵ ֑רא‬ Machpelah, which was to the east
‫ר־ּבֹו‬
֔ ‫ַה ָּׂש ֶד ֙ה וְ ַה ְּמ ָע ָ ֣רה ֲא ֶׁש‬ of Mamre, the field with the cave
‫ׁשר ַּב ָּׂש ֶ ֔דה ֲא ֶ ׁ֥שר‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ל־ה ֵע ֙ץ ֲא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכ‬ that was in it and all the trees that
.ֽ.ֽ.ֽ‫ְּב ָכל־ּגְ ֻב ֖לֹו ָֽס ִ ֽביב‬ were in the field, throughout its
whole area (lit. that was on its bor-
der all around) . . . (Gen 23:17)

5 Concluding Remarks

It has been accepted in this study that the semantics of ‫ ָס ִביב‬is fairly
straightforward. A preliminary study of available resources, however,
revealed uncertainty concerning the profile of its syntax and patterns
of use. Distinguishing between ‫ ָס ִביב‬as substantive and as relational,
and then considering both its scope and morphology, the following
profile of the lexeme has been established:
 the lexeme ‫ָס ִביב‬ 415

1. In 7% of its uses, ‫ ָס ִביב‬refers to entities, either people surrounding

other people or areas surrounding other areas, always either in the
masculine or feminine plural. The gender used does not appear to
have any semantic implications for the interpretation of the con-
struction used.
2. ‫ ָס ִביב‬is predominantly a relational (about 88% of the cases).
a. By far the most frequent is the adverbial use of ‫( ָס ִביב‬about 50%
of the cases). Prototypically the form ‫ ָס ִביב‬is used, and it occu-
pies a clause-final position. There are, however, a few instances
where ‫ ָס ִביב‬is not clause final, for example (#21–23). Less fre-
quent, but still significant in number, is the ‘prepositional’ form
‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬, also typically in a clause-final position. Although rela-
tively frequent, ‫ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬can not be regarded as one of the
prototypical uses of ‫ ָס ִביב‬. It rather represents a stylistic variant
that is concentrated in Ezekiel 40–43.
b. In about 20% of its occurrences, ‫ ָס ִביב‬is used as a preposition.
When used as a preposition, the construct feminine plural form
is typically used, and then also often in relative clauses. In 20%
of the cases of the prepositional use of ‫ ָס ִביב‬, the form ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬is
attested. The latter is never used in a relative clause. Apart from
the fact that ‫ ָס ִביב ְל‬is never used in relative clauses, neither a
historical nor a semantic difference between the two forms of
the prepositional use of the lexeme could be established.
c. An adnominal use is attested in about 18% of the instances of
‫ ָס ִביב‬in the corpus. The dominant forms of the category are
‫ ָס ִביב‬and ‫ ִמ ָּס ִביב‬.
LANGUAGE, STRUCTURE, AND STRATEGY IN ISAIAH 53:1–6:
‫ ָא ֵכן‬, WORD ORDER, AND THE TRANSLATOR

Lénart J. de Regt

Händel’s Messiah takes its well-known phrase, ‘Surely he hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows’, from Isa 53:4. Looking at the context, there
are reasons to call the rendering ‘surely’ into question. In an attempt to solve
this translation problem we will discuss aspects of the language and struc-
ture of Isa 53:1–6 and of the strategy that we find at work in this passage.
The Hebrew differentiates between presupposed and unexpected information.
How can translators communicate this difference effectively to their readers?
Relevance Theory is a helpful model towards solving this problem. The con-
clusions of this linguistic approach and of a number of exegetical commentar-
ies will be compared to see if they are consistent with one another.

1 Introduction

Authors enable readers to correlate the message given in the text with
the knowledge they have of the world (the referential function of
communication). Some of this knowledge they share, some of it they
do not yet share. For example, some word-order features and spe-
cific particles in Isa 53:1–6 point to information which the addressees
are already expected to know and relate to (presupposed knowledge),
while other parts of the text give information which they are not yet
expected to know (unexpected information). The syntactic and prag-
matic approach of Michael Rosenbaum helps to show how the differ-
ence in informational status between these parts is made in the text.1
This in turn improves our understanding of the language and structure
of this text.
Translators face the question how this differentiation and balance
between presupposed and new information can be maintained in a
translation. Readers of the target text are readers from another cul-
ture and will not know what the addressees of the source text would
have known. Unless a translation somehow highlights the difference

1
Michael Rosenbaum, Word-Order Variation in Isaiah 40–55: A Functional Per-
spective (SSN 35; Assen, 1997).
418 lénart j. de regt

between presupposed and new information, readers of the target text

are likely to treat much of the presupposed information as new.
Does such highlighting in a translation have repercussions on the
translation model which should be chosen? Should the translation
confront readers with differences between their culture and the cul-
ture of the text (‘foreignization’) or should the translation adapt to the
target culture (‘domestication’) when rendering the different types of
pragmatic information?2
Some Bible translations restore the difference between presupposed
and new information more successfully than others do. Thus, only in
certain translations does the balance between presupposed and new
information resemble the balance in the source text. It is interesting
to see that these translations are not all of the same type.
Conclusions of an (innovative) syntactic and pragmatic analysis
and of a number of (more traditional) exegetical commentaries will
be compared. Is a syntactic and pragmatic analysis sufficient to draw
out the contrast between presupposed knowledge and unexpected
information? Where in the analysis does exegesis come in? Is this lin-
guistic approach still indebted to tradition in the interpretation of this
chapter?

2 Language and Structure3

Between the divine speeches of 52:13–15 and 53:11b–12, the first six
verses of Isaiah 53 form the first part of the middle section of the
fourth Servant Song (52:13–53:12). The information in verses 1–3,
4b is presupposed: the addressee is expected not to be surprised or
challenged by their content. In verses 4a, 5–6 the information is new
and intends to correct and change what the addressee presupposes.
In Rosenbaum’s terms, these contain ‘Replacing Foci’.4 The situation

2
On the distinction between foreignizing and domesticating translations see espe-
cially Lawrence Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (London,
1995).
3
See the order and arrangement of exegetical methods in Eep Talstra, ‘Texts and
their Readers: On Reading the Old Testament in the Context of Theology’, in J.W.
Dyk et al. (eds.), The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible (ACEBT.S 1; Maastricht, 1999),
pp. 101–119, esp. 115–119; idem, Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden
van uitleg van het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen, 2002).
4
Rosenbaum defines Replacing Focus as follows: ‘. . . a specific item, say X, in the
Addressee’s presupposed pragmatic information is replaced by the Speaker with
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 419

is the reverse of what the speakers had supposed: they are the guilty
ones, while the servant is innocent.5 So how are the sentences in this
section related pragmatically? What is the flow of the argumentation?

2.1 Presupposition and Replacing Focus in Isa 53:1–6

Verse 1 consists of two questions that can be understood as rhetorical:
1 Who would have believed what we have heard?
[Has anyone at all?]
To whom has the power of the Lord been disclosed?
[Who could have seen the hand of the Lord at work in the servant?
Anyone at all?]
After this, the addressee expects something that does not look like
a revelation of the Lord’s power, something without power. So this
is the presupposition behind verses 2–3. The second half of verse 2
should already be familiar to the addressee after the similar statements
in 52:14. The prophet and the people he represents neither look at the
servant nor esteem him.
2 He grew up (wayyiqtol) before him like a shoot,
like a root out of dry ground.
He had no appearance or beauty, that we should look at him,
no bearing, that we should be attracted by him.
3 He was despised (‫)נִ ְבזֶ ה‬, shunned by men,
a man of suffering, familiar with disease,
like one who hides his face from us;
he was despised (‫ )נִ ְבזֶ ה‬and we held him of no account.
This familiar presupposition is presented in the unmarked word order
in the Hebrew. There is no fronting in the verbal clauses. The order
in the only full nominal clause—‫ֹלֹא־ת ַֹאר ֹלו‬, ‘he had no appearance’
(verse 2)—is unmarked as well: Subject + Predicate.6 This subject, ‫ת ַֹאר‬,
has already been mentioned in 52:14.

another item, Y. This involves a clear opposition between X and Y’ (Word-Order,

p. 69).
5
R.N. Whybray, The Second Isaiah (T&T Clark Study Guides; London, 2003),
p. 68.
6
Randall Buth argues that the underlying, neutral order of a verbless clause is Sub-
ject + Predicate (Randall Buth, ‘Word Order in the Verbless Clause: A Generative-
Functional Approach’, in Cynthia L. Miller [ed.], The Verbless Clause in Biblical
Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches [Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1; Winona
Lake, Ind., 1999], pp. 79–108, esp. 79, 101, 107).
420 lénart j. de regt

Verse 4a shifts from presupposed information to Replacing Foci.

‫ָא ֵכן ֳח ָֹליֵ נּו הּוא נָ ָׂשא‬
‫ּומ ְכא ֵֹבינּו ְס ָב ָֹלם‬
ַ
(object + verb, object + verb)
Yet it was our sickness he bore,
and our suffering, he endured them.
The presupposition behind the preceding verses has been that there is
no connection between the servant and us; he was shunned by men.
Whose sickness, then, did the servant bear? The addressee would
assume that the servant had to bear sickness: his own. Instead of that
the servant bears the sickness and sufferings of others. This informa-
tion is entirely new and unexpected. This focus on ‘our sickness’ cor-
rects and replaces the assumption that it was just his own sickness. In
Rosenbaum’s approach, these two clauses contain the Replacing Foci
‘our sickness’ and ‘our sufferings’.7 These Replacing Foci bring the sub-
ject matter much closer to the addressee.
How is this pragmatic information matched by the syntax of the
Hebrew? There are three points that can be made.
– First, there is the strongly contrastive particle ‫ ָא ֵכן‬at the start of
these clauses.
– Second, the two parallel objects ‘our sickness’ and ‘our sufferings’,
each with a first person suffix pronoun, are placed before the respec-
tive verbs (object + verb, object + verb). These points are indications
of the start of a new paragraph.8 The suffix pronoun in the form
‫ ְס ָב ָֹלם‬, ‘he endured them’, at the end of the colon indicates that the

7
Rosenbaum, Word-Order, p. 83.
8
A paragraph can be defined briefly as the minimum unit in which a theme is devel-
oped within the same contextual situation. A paragraph boundary involves at least one
of four factors of discontinuity of a series of actions: change of time, place, action, and
participants. The non-sequential verb form qatal and a word order in which the verb
is not fronted but the subject, object, or adverb are among the syntactic indications
of such discontinuity. See the discussion in Ellen van Wolde, ‘Linguistic Motivation
and Biblical Exegesis’, in Ellen van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew
Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Leiden–New York, 1997), pp. 21–50,
esp. 39–40.
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 421

fronted object, ‘our sufferings’, is a casus pendens.9 A casus pendens

can certainly function as a Replacing Focus.10
– Third, the pronoun ‫ הּוא‬highlights again that it was the servant, not
the addressees, who was bearing the sickness. These features are
syntactic—thus affecting distinctions in meaning—and not simply
poetic or the result of a stylistic strategy. A chiastic structure (verb +
object, object + verb), for example, would have resulted in a poetic
colon as well, if not more so.
In light of the above, Blenkinsopp’s translation of verse 4a—‘Yet it was
he who bore our affliction, he who bore the burden of our sufferings.’11—
is problematic: it suggests that ‘he’ is in focus and replaces a presumed
‘we’ as bearers of the sickness and sufferings. This was not the presup-
posed information at all. No sickness or suffering on the part of the
‘we’ was presupposed. The assumption was that the servant bore his
own sickness. After this assumption comes the Replacing Focus. The
rendering ‘Yet it was our sickness that he bore, and our sufferings that
he carried’ brings out more correctly what was presupposed as well as
what is the Replacing Focus.
If the pronoun ‫ הּוא‬is treated as highlighting the subject in the finite
verb ‫ נָ ָׂשא‬so that there would be two preverbal Replacing Foci,12 the
pronoun still comes only after the preverbal object ‫ ֳח ָֹליֵ נּו‬. Alternatively,
if ‫ הּוא‬marks the verbal clause as a cleft construction, ‫ ֳח ָֹליֵ נּו‬is the only

9
T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew ( Jerusalem–
Leiden, 1985), esp. p. 96, where he mentions Isa 53:4a among a number of casus pen-
dens examples in Isaiah, Psalms, and Proverbs, in which perhaps for stylistic reasons
‘the extraposition occurs [only] in the second member of parallelism’.
10
Muraoka, Emphatic, p. 96: ‘In a limited number of places alone the extraposi-
tion is emphatic. So Ps 125.5 . . . (in contrast to “the good and the upright” . . .), . . . Dn
1.17 . . . (in contrast to other fellow students)’.
11
J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary (AB 19A; New York, 2002), p. 345. Compare also the New English Bible: ‘Yet on
himself he bore our sufferings’.
12
Compare the two preverbal Replacing Foci in Gen 14:10 (‫)וְ ַהּנִ ְׁש ָא ִרים ֶה ָרה ּנָ סּו‬:
‘the rest’ (not the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah) fled ‘to the high country’ (not to the
bitumen pits). Groß comments on this example: ‘Beide frei vorausgestellte Satzteile—
das Subjekt und die Richtungsergänzung—sind deutlich durch Kontrastfokus her-
vorgehoben, da sie in Opposition zu den Subjekten und der Richtungsergänzung der
beiden vorausgehenden Sätze stehen’ (Walter Groß, ‘Zur syntaktischen Struktur des
Vorfeldes im hebräischen Verbalsatz’, ZAH 7 [1994], pp. 203–214, esp. p. 207).
422 lénart j. de regt

preverbal Replacing Focus in the clause; this syntactic construction

may also highlight the first person plural pronominal suffix in ‫ ֳח ָֹליֵ נּו‬.13

2.2 Replacing Focus and ‫ָא ֵכן‬

The Septuagint does reflect the Hebrew word order but leaves ‫ָא ֵכן‬
untranslated: οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται,
‘This one bears our sins and suffers pain for us’ (nets).14 Is ‫ ָא ֵכן‬a con-
trastive or an asseverative particle in the Hebrew? Dictionaries mention
both these functions. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH) warns
that the distinction is not always clear.15 Alonso Schökel attributes the
meaning ‘ciertamente, realmente’ to all occurrences.16 Already Rashi,
the Jewish medieval commentator, did the opposite, when he stated
at Isa 53:4: ‘‫ ָא ֵכן‬, an expression of “but” in all places’.17 HALOT notes
that both functions ‘emphasize the unexpected’.18 Brown, Driver, and
Briggs (BDB) describe this and a few other occurrences of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬as
‘emphasizing a contrast, but indeed, but in fact, . . . expressing the real-
ity, in opp[osition] to what had been wrongly imagined’.19 HALOT
and DCH put Isa 53:4 in the contrastive/adversative category as well.
Actually most instances of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬reverse or restrict what immediately
precedes and should therefore be treated as contrastive rather than just
asseverative. In Jer 8:8, for example, ‫ ָא ֵכן‬does appear to be contrastive,
even though dictionaries put it under the asseverative function: ‘How
can you say, “. . . and the law of the Lord is with us,” when, in fact,

13
This summarizes the discussion of Isa 53:4, 11; Ps 23:4, and similar examples in
Stephen A. Geller, ‘Cleft Sentences with Pleonastic Pronoun: A Syntactic Construction
of Biblical Hebrew and Some of Its Literary Uses’, JANES 20 (1991), pp. 15–33, esp.
30–31. Geller rejects the neb translation of Isa 53:4 as well.
14
Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of
the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That
Title (Oxford, 2007).
15
David J.A. Clines (ed.), John Elwolde (executive ed.), The Dictionary of Classical
Hebrew 1 ‫( א‬Sheffield, 1993), p. 248.
16
Luis Alonso Schökel, Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español (Madrid, 1994), p. 61.
17
A.J. Rosenberg, Isaiah Volume Two: A New English Translation. Translation of
Text, Rashi, and Commentary (New York, 1983), p. 425.
18
Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament 1. ‫( ח–א‬transl. and ed. under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson;
Leiden, 1994), p. 47.
19
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (eds.), A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (Based on the lexicon of William Gesenius as transl. by
Edward Robinson; Oxford, 1906), p. 38.
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 423

the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?’ (nrsv).20 In Gen
28:16 ‫ ָא ֵכן‬indicates a sudden recognition in contrast to what Jacob had
assumed: ‘It is really the Lord who is in this place’. The same is true
of the other three instances of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬in Isaiah 40–55 (see below). Childs’
observation that in Isa 53:4 ‘the Hebrew ‫“ ָא ֵכן‬surely” marks the begin-
ning of a theme’21 does not do justice to the role of this particle here.
Beuken’s observation that ‫ ָא ֵכן‬introduces and highlights new informa-
tion which does not cancel what precedes, but amplifies and corrects
it,22 is much more nuanced.

2.3 Presupposition and Replacing Focus in the Rest of Isa 53:1–6

Verse 4b returns to the presupposed information that we saw in
verses 2–3.
‫ּומ ֻעּנֶ ה‬
ְ ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫גּוע ֻמ ֵּכה ֱא‬
ַ ָ‫וַ ֲאנַ ְחנּו ֲח ַׁש ְבנֻ הּו נ‬
And we, we considered him plagued,
smitten by God and afflicted.
The pronoun ‫ ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬co-occurs with a finite verb and is contrastive with
the Replacing Foci in verse 4a.
Verse 5 takes up the replacing focus of verse 4a again, where the
presupposed assumption was changed for the first time. (The change
already occurred in verse 4a, not just between verses 4 and 5 as
Blenkinsopp maintains.)23
‫וְ הּוא ְמח ָֹֹלֹל ִמ ְּפ ָׁש ֵענּו ְמ ֻד ָּכא ֵמ ֲעונ ֵֹתינּו‬
But he was wounded because of our sins,
crushed because of our iniquities.
‫א־ֹלנּו‬
ָ ‫ּוב ֲח ֻב ָרתו נִ ְר ָּפ‬
ַ ‫ֹלומנּו ָע ָֹליו‬
ֵ ‫מּוסר ְׁש‬
ַ
He bore the chastisement that made us whole,
and by his bruises we were healed.

20
A list of consulted Bible translations: Good News Bible (gnb); Gute Nachricht
(GuNa); New American Bible (nab); Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (nbv); New English Bible
(neb); New English Translation of the Septuagint (nets); Nije Fryske Bibeloersetting
(nfb); New International Version (niv); New Translation of the Jewish Publication
Society (njps); New Revised Standard Version (nrsv); Revised English Bible (reb);
Revised Standard Version (rsv); Nouvelle Version Segond Révisée 1978 (Segond);
Traduction Œquménique de la Bible (tob).
21
Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, 2001), p. 414.
22
W.A.M. Beuken, Jesaja 2 B (Prediking van het Oude Testament; Nijkerk, 1983),
p. 214.
23
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 351.
424 lénart j. de regt

Similarly to verse 4a, the third person pronoun ‫ הּוא‬and the first per-
son suffix pronouns highlight that the servant is suffering because of
our sins and iniquities, not his own. Second, the phrase ‫ ַב ֲח ֻב ָרתו‬, ‘by
his bruises’, is placed before the verb.
Verse 6 forms a conclusive inclusio of its own, ending this
paragraph.
‫ֻּכ ָּלנּו ַּכּצֹאן ָּת ִעינּו ִאיׁש ְֹל ַד ְרּכו ָּפנִ ינּו‬
We all went astray like sheep,
each of us turned his own way;
‫וַ יהוָ ה ִה ְפּגִ ַיע ֹּבו ֵאת ֲעון ֻּכ ָּלנו‬
but the Lord has laid on him
the guilt of all of us.
Rosenbaum seems to say that verse 6a returns to the presupposed
information that we saw in verses 2–3, 4b.24 The notion that those
addressed went astray themselves is still entirely new in this Servant
Song. The phrases ‫ ַּכּצֹאן‬, ‘like sheep’, and ‫ ְֹל ַד ְרּכו‬, ‘his own way’, are
both placed before the verb. If only one of them had occurred pre-
verbally, it might still have been to build a chiastic structure in this
half-verse. Now it seems more likely that these are Replacing Foci.
In fact, the first ‫ ֻּכ ָּלנּו‬, ‘we all’, is in Replacing Focus as well. The same
applies to the fronted subject ‫ יהוָ ה‬in verse 6b. Having learnt that the
servant was crushed because of our iniquities, not his own (verse 5),
the addressee now also finds out that the Lord himself has had a role
in the servant’s making atonement.

2.4 ‫ ָא ֵכן‬Elsewhere in Isaiah 40–5525

As mentioned above, most instances of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬reverse or restrict what
immediately precedes and should therefore be treated as contrastive
rather than just asseverative. This applies to 49:4 (‘yet my cause is with
the Lord’, reb) and actually to 45:15 (‘but you are a god who conceals
himself ’) as well: Israel’s God has been revealed to the nations through
his mighty redemption, but he does act incomprehensibly.26 reb trans-
lates here: ‘How then can you be a God who hides himself . . .?’

24
Rosenbaum, Word-Order, p. 83.
25
Eep Talstra, F. Postma, and H.A. van Zwet, Deuterojesaja: Proeve van automati-
che tekstverwerking ten dienste van de exegese (Amsterdam, 1981), p. 10.
26
J.L. Koole, Jesaja 2.1 Jesaja 40 tot en met 48 (COT; Kampen, 1985), pp. 35, 350.
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 425

Although ‫ ָא ֵכן‬in 40:7 does not reverse or restrict what immediately

precedes, its clause does contrast with what immediately follows: ‘Yes,
all flesh is like grass . . ., but the word of the Lord endures for ever’
(compare [concessive] ‘Certes . . .’ in Segond). What may seem an
asseverative particle actually marks the clause as concessive.

3 Structure and Strategy

Both syntactically and pragmatically, then, it seems reasonable to

divide Isa 53:1–6 into two paragraphs: verses 1–3 and verses 4–6, but
there is still the rhetorical strategy of some literary arrangements to
be considered. One question to ask is whether a paragraph division
according to rhetorical strategy would agree with our textual division
according to syntactic and pragmatic structure.
On the face of it the answer is ‘no’. Bailey discusses examples of
encased parables—a simile encased in matching lines—in Isaiah ‘that
mark off identifiable stanzas’, which are to be ‘seriously considered
for formatting in a manner that allows the reader to identify parallels
when they are clearly the conscious intent of the original writer’:27 Isa
42:1–4; 53:3–4, 5–6; 55:8–9. The encased parables of 53:3–4, 5–6 are
shown below as Bailey presents them (he follows rsv).28 The parables
are in the climactic centre and are preceded and followed by ‘semantic
envelopes’.
Isaiah 53:3–4
He was despised despised/rejected
And rejected by men; by men
a man of sorrows sorrows
and acquainted with grief; grief
and as one from whom men hide their faces parable of the
he was despised, and we esteemed him not. suffering man
Surely he has borne our griefs griefs
and carried our sorrows; sorrows

27
Kenneth E. Bailey, ‘ “Inverted Parallelisms” and “Encased Parables” in Isaiah and
their Significance for Old and New Testament Translation and Interpretation’, in L.J.
de Regt, J. de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelman (eds.), Literary Structure and Rhetorical
Strategies in the Hebrew Bible (Assen–Winona Lake, 1996, pp. 14–30), p. 15.
28
Bailey, ‘Encased Parables’, pp. 28–29.
426 lénart j. de regt

yet we esteemed him stricken, stricken/smitten

smitten by God and afflicted. by god (?)
Isaiah 53:5–6
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he suffered
he was bruised for our iniquities; for us
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, his suffering =
and with his stripes we are healed. our healing
All we like sheep have gone astray; parable of
we have turned every one to his own way; lost sheep
and the Lord has laid on him he suffered
the iniquity of us all. for us
With regard to the formatting of these encased parables, Bailey wants
to keep verses 3 and 4 in the same paragraph and he objects explic-
itly to the paragraph break between verses 3 and 4 in a number of
translations.29 However, it is difficult to reconcile his position with the
syntactic and pragmatic structure of the text, according to which a
paragraph break should come between verses 3 and 4 (verses 1–3 and
4–6 constituting two paragraphs). With regard to paragraph division
and formatting, a translation should give priority to the pragmatic
structure of the text over semantic envelopes. So this goes against the
formatting of the semantic envelopes around the parable of the suffer-
ing man (verse 3b) and against keeping verses 3 and 4 together. What
will still be important for translators is to preserve the character of the
parables as such in verses 3, 6, 7 (‘like a lamb . . .’), even in translation
situations where a simile cannot be rendered as a simile.
The answer to the question whether a paragraph division according
to rhetorical strategy would agree with a division according to syntac-
tic and pragmatic structure is much more positive when we consider
how Beuken describes the strategy behind verses 4–6: lines 4a and 5b
mention the real significance of what happened (from the speakers’
point of view); these are followed by lines 4b and 6a, which mention
what had been their wrong thoughts about it. It is the middle line, 5a,
which, from the point of view of the servant himself, gets to the heart
of the matter: our sins were his ruin.30

29
Bailey, ‘Encased Parables’, p. 29.
30
Beuken, Jesaja, p. 214.
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 427

4 We-Inclusive: You and I

The syntactic and pragmatic approach above has drawn out the con-
trast between presupposed knowledge and unexpected information in
Isa 53:1–6, and has also helped us to understand the language and
structure of the passage better. We remain indebted to tradition when
it comes to questions about the identity of speaker and addressee.
These questions can obviously not be settled here, but they do come
up early in the exegetical process and not just after the analysis of
language and structure: depending on the target language translators
will simply not be able to translate this passage if these questions are
not dealt with first.
Who was the original addressee in Isa 53:1–6? Do the first person
plural forms actually include the addressee? The question is impor-
tant for translators as well as for exegetes since the difference between
‘we’-inclusive (‘you and I’) and ‘we’-exclusive (‘they and I; not you’) is
grammaticalized in many languages. If the first person forms include
the addressee, the prophet—assuming he is the speaker—identifies
with those to whom he is speaking (‘we’-inclusive) and this middle
part of the Servant Song becomes a confession. If they do not include
the addressee (‘we’-exclusive), the prophet does not identify with the
addressee but with some other group (fellow prophets perhaps?). In
this case the addressee is not party to what is being said in this Ser-
vant Song and the passage becomes only ‘a kind of narrative, merely
informing them about the speaker’s and someone else’s relationship
to the servant, but not involving them in that relationship’.31 In verses
1–3 the prophet includes the people and himself in not looking at and
not esteeming the servant,32 so a ‘we’-inclusive form would be needed,
irrespective of who the speaker and the servant really are.
Who is the speaker? If it is not the prophet, it is still somebody who
speaks on behalf of many in Israel.
That the nations are the speaker is unlikely. The nations are mentioned
in 52:15ab . . . [they] are part of important scenes as chorus, not as

31
Phil Pike, ‘Always Expect the Unexpected: Expected and Unexpected Problems
Encountered in Checking Isaiah 52:13–53:12’, paper presented at the Europe-Middle
East Translation Meeting of the United Bible Societies, Crawley, UK, 14 January
2009.
32
Beuken, Jesaja, p. 206: the speaker asks his audience to agree with his confession
that none of them had any esteem for the servant.
428 lénart j. de regt

protagonist. The speaker is Israel, more precisely, ‘the many’ who, in the
thanksgiving psalms, would have listened to the vindicated just person
tell his story. . . . By an extraordinary shift in perspective, ‘the many’ tell
the story whereas the servant is silent.33
Who is the servant? While the Isaiah Targum sees him as the Messiah
and the teacher who prays effectively for the sins of Israel,34 a collec-
tive interpretation came to prevail among later Jewish rabbis.35 Rashi,
for example, mentions that the servant is Israel. It is at 53:3–4 that he
states: ‘this prophet mentions all Israel as one man . . . he was chastised
with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel’s suffering’.36
This collective interpretation is hard to reconcile with Isa 49:4–5 where
the servant and Israel cannot be the same: ‘the Servant refers to a divine
commission which he has received to restore Israel’s fortunes’.37 Israel
deserved its punishment; the servant did not. However, questions
about any historical identity of the servant as an individual will remain
unresolved. The alternative is to regard the servant as that (collective)
part of Israel which in spite of the suffering in exile has not given up
hope and has come to believe in the promise that Israel is chosen anew
(43:10; 44:21; 49:3, 5–7) and that its fortunes will be restored.38 ‘[T]he
servant—those associated with the prophet’s programme of return—
makes the unique power of Yahweh visible to the nations’.39
These exegetical issues are actually related to the literary composi-
tion and diachrony (in Talstra’s terms, to the strategy, reconstruction,
and address) of Isaiah.40 Brevard Childs notes the following:
Specifically in terms of Second Isaiah, the final form of the literature pro-
vided a completely new and non-historical framework for the prophetic

33
Richard J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second
Isaiah (New York, 1984), p. 178.
34
Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and
Notes (ArBib 11; Edinburgh, 1987), pp. xvii, xxvii, 103–105 (at 53:4–7, 12).
35
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 84.
36
Rosenberg, Rashi, p. 425.
37
Whybray, Second Isaiah, p. 70.
38
Ulrich Berges, ‘De opdracht en het succes van de Knecht: een uitleg van Jes.
42, 1–12’, Alef Beet: Tijdschrift van de Vereniging tot bevordering van kennis van
Hebreeuws 19/1 (2009), pp. 3–9, esp. p. 4.
39
Clifford, Fair Spoken, pp. 55–56; compare also p. 153.
40
Talstra, ‘Texts and their Readers’, p. 117; idem, Oude en nieuwe lezers, esp. 112–
120, 191–198.
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 429

message which severed the message from its original historical moorings
and rendered it accessible to all future generations.41
Even though the message was once addressed to real people in a par-
ticular historical situation . . . the canonical editors of this tradition [chap-
ters 40–55] employed the material in such a way as to eliminate almost
entirely those concrete features and to subordinate the original message
to a new role within the canon.42
By placing the message of Second Isaiah within the context of the eighth-
century prophet his message of promise became a prophetic word not
tied to a specific historical referent, but directed to the future.43
In any case, however, even Rashi’s interpretation that the nations (who
are mentioned in 52:15) are speaking to one another44 still leads to a
‘we’-inclusive rendering in languages where this is grammaticalized.
If the ‘many’ of Israel are the speaker, as Clifford maintains, they are
either speaking to the nations (a ‘we’-exclusive narrative) or indeed to
each other—a ‘we’-inclusive confession, containing a response for the
Israel in exile and of all times.45

5 Presupposition and Focus in Different Translations

Translations have taken conjunctions and word order into account

in different ways. If anything, rsv and nrsv have translated verse 4a
as presupposed information (‘Surely’), while rendering verse 4b as a
replacing focus:
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.
(nrsv, cf. also niv)

41
Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London, 1979),
p. 337.
42
Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, p. 325.
43
Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, p. 326.
44
Rosenberg, Rashi, p. 425, at 53:1: ‘So will the nations say to one another . . .’.
45
Compare also Beuken, Jesaja, p. 238.
430 lénart j. de regt

The reverse is the case in reb, gnb, nab, njps and GuNa which
translate verse 4a as a replacing focus and verse 4b as presupposed
information:
4 Yet it was our afflictions he was bearing,46
our pain he endured,
while we thought of him as smitten by God,
struck down by disease and misery.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
the chastisement he bore restored us to health
and by his wounds we are healed.
(reb)
4 Yet it was our infirmities that he bore,
our sufferings that he endured,
While we thought of him as stricken,
as one smitten by God and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our offenses,
crushed for our sins,
Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole,
by his stripes we were healed.
(nab)
4 But he endured the suffering that should have been ours,
the pain that we should have borne.
All the while we thought that his suffering
was punishment sent by God.
5 But because of our sins he was wounded,
beaten because of the evil we did.
We are healed by the punishment he suffered,
made whole by the blows he received.
(gnb)
4 Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing,
Our suffering that he endured.
We accounted him plagued,
Smitten and afflicted by God;
5 But he was wounded because of our sins,
Crushed because of our iniquities.
He bore the chastisement that made us whole,
And by his bruises we were healed.
(njps)

46
A helpful correction of neb (see note 11).
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 431

4 In Wahrheit aber hat er die Krankheiten auf sich genommen, die

für uns bestimmt waren, und die Schmerzen erlitten, die wir verdient
hatten.
Wir meinten, Gott habe ihn gestraft und geschlagen;
5 doch wegen unserer Schuld wurde er gequält und wegen unseres Unge-
horsams geschlagen. Die Strafe für unsere Schuld traf ihn, und wir sind
gerettet. Er wurde verwundet, und wir sind heil geworden.
(GuNa)
Only nbv translates in the same way as Blenkinsopp above: ‘Maar hij
was het die onze ziekten droeg . . .’ (‘But it was he who bore our sick-
nesses . . .’).
French translations usually highlight that verse 4b is presupposed
information in the same way as tob (‘et nous, nous . . .’) below:
4 En fait, ce sont nos souffrances qu’il a portées,
ce sont nos douleurs qu’il a supportées,
et nous, nous l’estimions touché,
frappé par Dieu et humilié.
5 Mais lui, il était déshonoré à cause de nos révoltes,
broyé à cause de nos perversités:
la sanction, gage de paix pour nous, était sur lui,
et dans ses plaies se trouvait notre guérison.
(tob)
Perhaps ‘En fait’ does not bring out the contrast which ‫ ָא ֵכן‬implies,
but the cleft constructions that follow (‘ce sont nos . . . que . . .’) make it
clear that replacing focus is involved.

5.1 Particles, Word Order, and the Choice of a Translation Model

All this does not imply that the Hebrew word order should be literally
followed in translation. For example, in some languages the replacing
focus on ‘our sicknesses’ is highlighted by actually placing this at the
end of a cleft construction, not at the beginning. nfb does this in the
first clause:
4 Lykwols, wat hy op him naam, dat wienen ús kwalen,
It wie ús lijen, dat hy te drage krige
(‘However, what he took on himself, those were our sicknesses,
It was our suffering that he was to bear’)
(nfb)
Constructions should be used which a target language has at its dis-
posal to indicate the difference between presupposed information and
432 lénart j. de regt

replacing focus so that the balance in the text between these bears a
close resemblance to the balance in the Hebrew. These constructions
may not necessarily involve syntactic inversion in that language, even
if this is still the case in English. After identifying the respective pat-
terns of expressing presupposed information and of replacing focus in
a Hebrew text, the translator should render these into syntactic forms
(and intonational patterns) of the target language which correspond in
function and pragmatics.47
The same applies to particles: their pragmatic information and
their function as a cohesive device should still be clear to the reader
of a translation. A literal or ‘foreignizing’ translation of particles and
transfer of word order is simply not an option. Not only would the
implications of the particles and word order in Hebrew be lost on the
readers of such a literal translation, but they are bound to read impli-
cations into these constructions according to the target language. In
many languages, for example, the fronting of a constituent before the
verb marks it as presupposed information, not replacing focus. The
translator should try to avoid such misunderstandings.
When it comes to translating terms, concepts, and language regis-
ter, it is a valid option to allow the culture of the source text to shine
through in the target text and thus confront readers with differences
between their culture and the culture of the text (‘foreignization’).
There is no way in which the pragmatic information of syntax and the
balance between presupposed information and replacing focus can be
rendered in such a ‘foreignizing’ translation. The translator will have
to adapt these features to the target language instead.
Which translation model will be most helpful when it comes to
conveying such pragmatic information? Relevance Theory attempts
to explain how the author enables the implied reader to process the
(pragmatic and other) information of the text, and how—with the
translator as mediator—the reader of the translation should be enabled
to do the same.

47
L.J. de Regt, ‘Hebrew Syntactic Inversions and their Literary Equivalence in
English: Robert Alter’s Translations of Genesis and 1 and 2 Samuel’, JSOT 30 (2006),
pp. 287–314, esp. 311–312.
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 433

5.2 ‫ ָא ֵכן‬and Relevance Theory

Sperber and Wilson define the key concept of Relevance Theory as
follows: ‘The relevance of a stimulus is determined by two factors:
the effort needed to process it optimally, and the cognitive effects this
optimal processing achieves.’48 The utterance is optimally relevant to
the addressee in a particular context when its contextual effects are
large and the effort required to process it in that context is small.49
Winedt developed a Relevance-Theoretic approach to discourse
particles.50 A particle marks the explicatures and implicatures of the
proposition in which it occurs. Explicatures are (implicit) inferences
which the addressee can link to something explicit in the text itself,
while implicatures are (implicit) inferences that the addressee has to
deduce from the situational context (contextual effects) of the text.
An explicature refers to lexical properties and logical implications of a
particular word in the world in general, while an implicature changes
the addressee’s implicit assumptions about his cognitive environment.51
The explicature serves to link propositions, while the implicatures help
to organize the discourse.52 Following Winedt’s model, the main expli-
cature of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬would be specific contrast, while the main implicature
would be denial of an expectation. Other implicatures would be: devel-
opmental, transitional, corrective, counterbalancing (even concessive),
and climactic. As we have said, the function of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬is strengthened by
the marked word order.
A translation of Isa 53:4 will have to highlight the implicature that a
specific expectation is being denied and going to be corrected. In this
way the balance between presupposed and new information can be
better maintained in a translation for readers from another time. The
point at which the subject matter of the passage comes closer to readers
of the translation (verse 4a) will then be the same as for the addressees
of the source text. A number of translations mentioned above—reb,

48
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition
(Cambridge, Mass., 1986), p. 158.
49
Stephen Pattemore, Souls under the Altar: Relevance Theory and the Discourse
Structure of Revelation (UBS Monograph Series 9; New York, 2003), pp. 230–231.
50
Marlon D. Winedt, A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Translation and Discourse
Markers with Special Reference to the Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke (PhD diss., VU
University, Amsterdam, 1999).
51
Winedt, A Relevance-Theoretic Approach, esp. p. 106.
52
Winedt, A Relevance-Theoretic Approach, p. 118.
434 lénart j. de regt

gnb, nab, njps, GuNa, tob, and nfb—illustrate that this is achieved
not simply by a certain rendering of the particle, but by cleft construc-
tions and other means which the target languages involved have at
their disposal to indicate the difference between presupposed informa-
tion and replacing focus.

6 Concluding Remarks

A syntactic and pragmatic approach helps to show the difference

in informational status between presupposed and new information.
Unless a translation somehow transmits this difference, readers of the
target text are likely to treat most of the presupposed information as
new. Not all Bible translations are equally successful at restoring the
difference between presupposed and new information. If this distinc-
tion is to be kept clear, a literal or foreignizing translation of particles
and transfer of word order is not an option.
The conclusions of a syntactic and pragmatic analysis and of exe-
getical commentaries match but only in the sense that they do not
disagree. Unlike Childs, some exegetical commentaries (Whybray,
Koole, Blenkinsopp) recognize the shift from presupposed informa-
tion to replacing focus in terms of a change of view, a reversal of what
the speakers had supposed:
Previously they had looked on him, without reference to themselves, as
stricken and a target of God’s wrath. Now they see that he has borne
their sin.53
The speaker in 53:1–12 was therefore stating that he and those with
whom he was associated had initially taken the conventional view of
the Servant’s misfortune but subsequently had been led to adopt a very
different interpretation.54
The speakers, who in the preceding verses have distanced themselves
from the Servant, now confess their grave misconception.55
However, with the exception of Beuken’s and Koole’s comments on
the function of ‫ ָא ֵכן‬and Beuken’s comments on 53:4–6,56 even when
exegetical commentaries recognize the strategy in the text at this point,

53
Clifford, Fair Spoken, p. 178.
54
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 352. Similarly Whybray, Second Isaiah, p. 68.
55
J.L. Koole, Jesaja 2.2 Jesaja 49 tot en met 55 (COT; Kampen, 1990), p. 230.
56
Beuken, Jesaja, p. 214; Koole, Jesaja 40 tot en met 48, p. 35.
 language, structure, and strategy in isaiah 53:1–6 435

they hardly relate their observations to aspects of the language (word

order) and structure of the text.
It turns out that a syntactic and pragmatic approach has been suf-
ficient to draw out the balance and contrast between presupposed
knowledge and unexpected information in Isa 53:1–6. The analysis has
also helped us to understand the language, structure, and strategy of
this passage better. We obviously remain indebted to tradition when
it comes to answering questions about the identity of speaker, servant,
and addressee.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in Job 34:36

Constantijn J. Sikkel

This contribution deals with a translation problem in Job 34:36 where God
might be being addressed as ‘my father’. Since Delitzsch, the interpretation
of ‫ אבי‬as a wish particle has become so widely accepted that it has found its
way into the standard reference works. Using the methods and the database
of Eep Talstra’s Werkgroep Informatica, we investigate Delitzsch’s two main
assumptions—that ‫ אבי‬cannot mean ‘my father’ and that ‫ יבחן‬is meant as
an optative—and arrive at the conclusion that neither is necessarily true. We
find—with Wolfers—that it is likely that the form ‫ אבי‬is not used here to refer
to God, but rather as a religious title or an honorific.

1 introduction

in Job 34:36 we read ‫אבי יבחן איוב עד נצח על תשבת באנשי און‬,
which is rendered by the nrsv as ‘Would that Job were tried to the
limit, because his answers are those of the wicked.’ The verse starts
with the word ‫ ָא ִבי‬, which normally means ‘my father’, but, as we shall
see, many translations do not take it as such in this verse. instead, one
finds great variation in the way this word has been treated in transla-
tions: it is taken as an interjection, a vocative, or some kind of wish
particle; it is ignored, or it is considered a textual error.
The interpretation of this verse has been greatly influenced by
Delitzsch’s commentary on Job1 in which he makes two assumptions:
1. ‫ אבי‬cannot mean ‘my father’;
2. ‫ יבחן‬is meant as an optative.
in this contribution, we investigate the problem of translating ‫אבי‬
when it appears not to mean simply ‘my father’, using the above pas-
sage as case study. First, we shall look at the occurrences of ‫ אבי‬to
determine the extent of the problem. Then we shall list the sources at
our disposal: the textual witnesses and the information provided by

1
Franz Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob (bC 4/2; 2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1876).
438 constantijn j. sikkel

lexica, grammars, and concordances. The section that follows takes

stock of existing translations and discusses whether the reading ‘my
father’ is indeed as unlikely as Delitzsch suggested. Then, using the
WiVU2 database, we try to verify Delitzsch’s second assumption and
study the linguistic features of the predicate, the clause, and its text
syntax. in the last section we draw our conclusions and propose a
solution.

2 Extent of the Problem

When does ‫ אבי‬appear not to mean simply ‘my father’? This sequence
of three letters occurs as a separate word 135 times in the Hebrew
bible and the word is almost always to be analysed as ‫ ָאב‬with a pro-
nominal suffix of the first person attached to it. Five of these occur-
rences3 cannot simply be explained as instances of ‘my father’. Two of
these, 1 Kgs 21:29 and Mic 1:15, are cases of the Hiphil imperfect of
‫ בוא‬with a defective Aleph. Here ‫ אבי‬means ‘i bring’ and these cases
do not pose any problems. in the other three, 1 Sam 24:12; 2 Kgs 5:13;
Job 34:36, ‫ אבי‬might have been used as some kind of particle.4
1 Sam 24:12 ‫ואבי ראה גם ראה את כנף מעילך בידי‬
‘See, my father, see the corner of your cloak in my hand’ (David
to Saul)
2 Kgs 5:13 ‫אבי דבר גדול הנביא דבר אליך הלוא תעשה‬
‘Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something dif-
ficult, would you not have done it?’ (the servants to naaman)
Job 34:36 ‫אבי יבחן איוב עד נצח על תשבת באנשי און‬
‘Would that Job were tried to the limit, because his answers are
those of the wicked.’ (wise men to Elihu)5

2
Eep Talstra’s Werkgroep Informatica at the Faculty of Theology of the VU Uni-
versity, Amsterdam.
3
They were found by looking at the entry for ‫ אבי‬in the standard dictionaries and
by identifying those instances of ‫ ָא ִבי‬which are not analysed as >b/+J in the WiVU
database.
4
Unless otherwise indicated all translations in this contribution are taken from
the nrsv.
5
We deal with the identification of the speaker in section 5.3.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 439

These cases are problematic because it is clear from the context that
the addressee is not the father of the speaker. So either ‘my father’ is
not meant in a literal way, or ‫ אבי‬does not mean ‘my father’.

3 Sources
3.1 The Text
3.1.1 Witnesses
The main sources of the original Hebrew text of Job 34:36 are the
Codex Leningradensis6 and the Aleppo Codex.7 They both have the
following text.
‫ָאוֶ ן‬ ‫ְּב ַאנְ ֵׁשי‬ ‫ְּת ֻׁשבֹת‬ ‫ַעל‬ ‫נֶ ַצח‬ ‫ָא ִבי יִ ָּב ֵחן ִאּיֹוב ַעד‬
trouble in men of answers upon continuation until Job he is aby
tried
The critical apparatus of the bHS has no annotation on the first colon
of this verse. There are no other important textual witnesses in Hebrew
of this passage. in Qumran, for instance, no Hebrew text of Job was
found.8
The versiones, the early bible translations, preserve ancient ren-
ditions of our text. of these, we shall examine the Septuagint, the
Peshitta, the Targumim, and the Vulgate. The Septuagint9 has οὐ μὴν
δὲ ἀλλὰ μάθε, Ιωβ, μὴ δῷς ἔτι ἀνταπόκρισιν ὥσπερ οἱ ἄφρονες, ‘never-
theless learn, Job, do not give any longer an answer like the fools’. The

6
K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed.; Stuttgart,
1997). Henceforth abbreviated as bHS.
7
Mordechai breuer and Yosef ofer (eds.), Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem ( Jerusalem, 2000).
8
The remnants of an Aramaic text of Job, a Targum, were found in Cave 11 at
Qumran. This Targum is different from the later Rabbinic Targumim of Job. The
manuscript is from the first century ad, the text appears to stem from the second
century bc. See J.P.M. van der Ploeg, ‘Job’, in M.J. Mulder et al. (eds.), Bijbels Hand-
boek 2a. Het Oude Testament (Kampen, 1982), pp. 432–437, esp. 437. Unfortunately,
the manuscript has a lacuna at the end of chapter 34. Verse 36 has not been preserved.
See, for example, Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S.
van der Woude (eds.), Qumran Cave 11 2. 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (DJD 23; oxford,
1998), pp. 135–139; J.P.M. van der Ploeg and A.S. van der Woude (eds.), Le targum
de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrân (Leiden, 1971), pp. 60–63.
9
Alfred Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta lxx inter-
pres (Stuttgart, 1979).
440 constantijn j. sikkel

Peshitta10 has ‫ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܐܬܒܚܪ ܐܝܘܒ ܥܕ ܣܘܦܐ‬, ‘truthfully may Job

be tried until the end’. The text of v. 36 appears to be well attested, as
it is not mentioned in the apparatuses. The Targum of Job11 has ‫רעינא‬
‫פון דאבא דבשמיא יבחן איוב עד עלמין מטול תיובתא באנשי שקר‬,
‘the desire that the father, who is in the heavens, may try Job forever
because of the answers to men of falsehood’, but there are also shorter
texts in later manuscripts and printed editions with ‫אבא דבשמיא‬, ‘the
father,12 who is in the heavens’, and ‫צבינא דיתבחר איוב‬, ‘the desire
that Job be tried’ at the beginning of the verse. The Vulgate13 has pater
mi probetur Iob usque ad finem, ‘my father, may Job be tried until
the end’.
Secondary sources of the text of Job 34:36 may be provided by the
Vetus Latina and by quotations of the text in the new Testament or
by ancient authors like the Church Fathers. The Vetus Latina is an
ancient translation of a Septuagint text, but there is no edition of Job14
available yet, apart from what is present in apparatuses of other text
editions. For our passage, the Vetus Latina is not mentioned in the
apparatuses of the editions. Furthermore, Job 34:34–37 is not quoted
in the new Testament, in the Talmud, or by ancient authors, as far as
we have been able to assess.

3.1.2 Evaluation
is the text we have correct? Although we are trying to understand
the text as it has been transmitted to us, we have to take into account
possible vicissitudes of the history of the text that are important for its
interpretation. in spite of the fact that ‫ אבי‬has proven to be quite an
embarrassment throughout the history of its interpretation, we have
seen little evidence that the text has been transmitted incorrectly.

10
L.G. Rignell (ed.), The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta version
ii/1a. Job (Leiden, 1982).
11
David M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical
Edition (AGJU 20; Leiden, 1994), p. 241*.
12
‫ אבא‬can be rendered both as ‘my father’ and as ‘the father’. See Marcus Jastrow,
A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic
Literature (new York, 1950).
13
Robertus Weber (ed.), Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. Editio minor
(3rd ed.; Stuttgart, 1984).
14
A critical edition of the Vetus Latina is prepared by the beuron Vetus Latina-
institut, but work on the volume of Job has yet to begin.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 441

Dhorme reads ‫ ֲא ָבל‬because the Septuagint and the Peshitta seem

to have translated this word rather than ‫אבי‬.15 indeed οὐ μὴν δὲ ἀλλά
means ‘nevertheless’, a meaning that ‫ אבל‬has assumed in late Hebrew,16
and the Peshitta has ‫ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ‬, ‘truthfully’, which is the early meaning of
‫אבל‬.17 What is problematic, however, and should have made Dhorme
hesitate, is that the Septuagint does not translate ‫ אבל‬as οὐ μὴν δὲ
ἀλλά anywhere, and that ‫ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ‬does not stand for ‫ אבל‬in any of
the other cases in Job. The rendering οὐ μὴν δὲ ἀλλά, ‘nevertheless’
is typical18 of ‫ אולם‬in the book of Job, and unusual for ‫אבי‬. Also, the
free translation of the Septuagint makes it difficult, if not impossible,
to infer what the text of the Vorlage was.19 in the Peshitta, ‫ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ‬is
used to render many different words, most notably ‫אכן‬20 and ‫אמנם‬,21
but occasionally also ‫אבל‬.22 in Job, ‫ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ‬translates ‫ אמנם‬four times,
and four times it does not.23 only in Samuel and Kings is it used for
‫אבל‬, where ‫ אבל‬means ‘verily’, the meaning it has in older Hebrew.24
Tur-Sinai thinks that ‫ אבי‬is a defective spelling of ‫אבוי‬25 which is
found in Prov 23:29, thus changing the vocalization to ‫ ֲאבֹי‬. Yet he
does not give a compelling reason. A weak point is also that Prov 23:29
is the only occurrence of ‫ אבוי‬and is labelled dubium on text-critical
grounds by Fichtner, the editor of Proverbs in the bHS.

15
‘Si l’on observe que G et Syr. traduisent ‫ ֲא ָבל‬, . . . on n’hésitera pas à lire ‫ ֲא ָבל‬. . . au
lieu de ‫’אבי‬, Paul Dhorme, Le livre de Job (2nd ed.; Paris, 1926), p. 482.
16
in Dan 10:7, 21; Ezra 10:13; 2 Chr 1:4; 19:3; 33:17. See bDb, who translate with
‘howbeit’, ‘but’.
17
With this meaning it occurs in Gen 17:19; 42:21; 2 Sam 14:5; 1 Kgs 1:43;
2 Kgs 4:14.
18
Found in Job 2:5; 5:8; 13:3; 17:10; 33:1.
19
Cox qualifies the Septuagint of Job as ‘a translation that can hardly be termed
literal: it is free but at the same time rather arbitrary in places’, Claude E. Cox, ‘Elihu’s
Second Speech According to the Septuagint’, in Walter E. Aufrecht (ed.), Studies in
the Book of Job (SR Supplements 16; Waterloo, ontario, 1985), pp. 36–53. Ziegler
concludes that ‘diese Übersetzungsart mindert den Wert der Job-LXX sehr beträcht-
lich und muss gebührend berücksichtigt werden’ (‘this translation technique reduces
the value of the Septuagint of Job most considerably and must be properly taken
into account’), Joseph Ziegler, Sylloge. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta (MSU
10; Göttingen, 1971).
20
1 Sam 15:32; isa 45:15; 49:4; 53:4, Jer 3:20, 23; 4:10; 8:8.
21
both ‫( ָא ְמנָ ם‬2 Kgs 19:17; isa 37:18; Job 9:2; 19:4; 34:12; 36:4) and ‫( ֻא ְמנָ ם‬1 Kgs 8:27;
Ps 58:2).
22
it does so in 2 Sam 14:5; 1 Kgs 1:43; 2 Kgs 4:14.
23
Job 14:18 ‫ ;ואולם‬25:6 ‫ ;אף כי‬33:27 ‫ ;ישר‬34:36 ‫אבי‬.
24
Francis brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament (oxford, 1952), p. 6a. Henceforth abbreviated as bDb.
25
n.H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job. A New Commentary ( Jerusalem, 1957), p. 487.
442 constantijn j. sikkel

Honeyman wants to read ‫ ֲא ִבי‬,26 because he thinks that the form is

‘a hitherto undetected’ imperative of ‫אבה‬. Fohrer wants to delete ‫אבי‬
as a dittographic gloss,27 but neither Honeyman nor Fohrer produces
any evidence for it beyond the suggestion that such might have been
the case.

3.2 Reference Works

3.2.1 Lexica
in bDb, 1 Sam 24:12 and 2 Kgs 5:13 are listed under ‫אב‬, ‘father’, as
a ‘term of respect and honour’, but in Job 34:36 ‫ אבי‬is taken as an
imperfect first person singular of a verb ‫ביי‬, ‘entreat’, with reference to
Wetzstein’s contribution in Delitzsch’s commentary on Job.28
According to Wetzstein, there are two possible explanations for ‫אבי‬.
The most obvious one is to take ‫ אבי‬as an original vocative, ‘o, my
father’, which through its use in lamenting the dead has ultimately
become a simple interjection of grief or yearning. He had encountered
a noteworthy analogy in contemporary Damascene practice. The sec-
ond explanation is to take it as a form of the imperfect first person
singular of an (Arabic) verb ‫ביה‬, ‘enter a house as a protégé’. in every-
day language this verb has eventually come to mean ‘entreat’, which he
had observed in the Haurani dialect.
in KbL29 all three cases are listed under a separate lemma ‫( אבי‬with-
out further references), an interjection meaning o dass doch, ‘o that’,
but the text of 1 Sam 24:12 is emended and 2 Kgs 5:13 and Job 34:36
are marked as doubtful. This has marked the entire lemma as doubt-
ful, as those cases constitute the whole lemma. in HAL30 it is still an
interjection meaning o dass doch, but ‫ בעה‬and ‫ ביה‬are added as pos-
sible etymologies with reference to bDb, and the translation wenn, ‘if
only’, for 2 Kgs 5:13 referring to the irrealis in brockelmann’s book on
Hebrew syntax.31

26
A.M. Honeyman. ‘Some Developments of the Semitic Root by’, JAOS 64/2 (1944),
pp. 81–82.
27
Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT 16; Gütersloh, 1963), p. 465.
28
Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob, pp. 461–463.
29
Ludwig Koehler and Walter baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros
(Leiden, 1958).
30
Ludwig Koehler and Walter baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon
zum Alten Testament (3rd ed.; brill, Leiden, 1967–1996).
31
Carl brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax (neukirchen, 1956), § 165c.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 443

Also the eighteenth edition of Gesenius’s dictionary32 has an inter-

jection meaning o dass doch, followed by the remark that some use
it to explain 1 Sam 24:12 and 2 Kgs 5:13 as well. it refers to König’s
Lehrgebäude,33 where he says that ‫ אבי‬occurs as ‘my father’ in
1 Sam 24:12 and 2 Kgs 5:13, but as a wish particle in Job 34:36. He,
too, refers to Delitzsch and Wetzstein when he explains that it can be
derived either from a verb ‫ אבי‬or from a verb ‫ביי‬.34
in DCH35 there is an entry for an interjection ‫( אבי‬without further
references) with just our three cases, but all three are conditioned by
‘perhaps’ and alternatives, which leaves this lemma doubtful as well.
The recent dictionary in modern Hebrew by Kaddari36 gives only
Job 34:36 and renders ‫ אבי‬as ‫הלוואי‬, ‘if only’. in a note he adds that
there are commentators who derive it from a noun meaning ‘desire’
and refers to the article by Honeyman.37 He also mentions that there
are commentators who recognize ‫ אבי‬in 1 Sam 24:12 and 2 Kgs 5:13.

3.2.2 Grammars
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar 38 bases itself on Wetzstein’s account:
in 2 K 513 the particle ‫( אבי‬Masora ‫ ָא ִבי‬, probably in the sense of my
father) appears exceptionally for ‫ ;לּו‬its meaning here is unquestionable,
but its origin is obscure. Cf. the exhaustive discussion of Delitzsch and
Wetzstein on Jb 3436, where this ‫ אבי‬appears to be used as a desiderative
particle. [§ 159cc]
1 Sam 24:12 is not mentioned.

32
Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte
Testament 1 (18th ed.; berlin, 1987).
33
Eduard König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache mit
comparativer berücksichtigung des Semitischen überhaupt 2.1. Abschluss der speciellen
Formenlehre und generelle Formenlehre (Leipzig, 1895), pp. 339–340.
34
See also the volume on syntax: Eduard König, Historisch-comparative Syntax der
hebräischen Sprache, Schlusstheil des historisch-kritischen Lehrgebäudes des Hebräi-
schen (Leipzig, 1897), § 321e.
35
David J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield, 1993–
2010).
36
Menaḥem Zevi Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Alef-Taw) (Ramat-
Gan, 2006).
37
Honeyman, ‘Semitic Root by’.
38
E. Kautzsch and A.E. Cowley (eds.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (19th impres-
sion of the 2nd English ed.; oxford, 1988).
444 constantijn j. sikkel

in A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew,39 Joüon and Muraoka seem to

stand in this tradition, judging by the fact that they call it ‘a dialectal
form’.
‫( ָא ִבי‬2×) seems to be a dialectal form having, like ‫לּו‬, the sense of ah!, if
Job 34.36 and of if (unreal) 2Kg 5.13. [§105f ]
note also the use of ‫ ָא ִבי‬in Job 34.36 ‫ ָא ִבי יִ ָּב ֵחן ִאּיֹוב‬I wish that Job were
tested! [§ 163c]
Waltke and o’Connor mention in a footnote that there appears to be
a particle ‫ אבי‬similar to ‫ לו‬which is used in Job 34:36 and not clearly
elsewhere.40

3.2.3 Concordances
in his concordance, Mandelkern41 lists all three cases under the main
entry ‫אב‬, but in the case of Job 34:36 he puts a question mark in front
of ‫אבי‬. Lisowsky lists 1 Sam 24:12 and 2 Kgs 5:13 under ‫אב‬, but has
an interjection ‫ אבי‬as well. As an interjection, it is not presented with
textual references,42 so Job 34:36 is not mentioned explicitly there. one
has to assume, however, that this entry was made for Job 34:36, as this
is the only candidate left. it is good to keep in mind that Lisowsky
is not an independent source of lemmatization, as he made use of
Gesenius–buhl,43 KbL, and bDb.44

4 Translations

in both ancient and modern bible translations, four different

approaches to this verse can be discerned: ‫ אבי‬is taken literally as ‘my
father’, as a form from a stem meaning ‘desire’, as a wish particle, or

39
Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subbi 14; Rome,
1996).
40
bruce K. Waltke and M. o’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, 1990), § 40.2.2d.
41
Solomon Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque
Chaldaicae (berlin, 1937).
42
As explained under the prolegomena, Gerhard Lisowsky, Konkordanz zum
hebräischen Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Stuttgart, 1993), p. xiii.
43
The previous edition of Gesenius, Handwörterbuch.
44
Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. ix.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 445

the rendering resorts to a free translation.45 We shall now present a few

examples of each approach. in our selection we restrict ourselves to
translations from the Hebrew, because only these faced the challenge
of rendering ‫אבי‬. This rules out bibles which are translations of trans-
lations, like, for instance, the Douay-Rheims bible, which is based on
the Vulgate. The date of the first edition of the translation (or a rough
estimate thereof) is shown in parentheses.

4.1 My Father
‫ אבי‬is translated as ‘my father’.

Vulgate (405)46
pater mi probetur iob usque ad finem
ne desinas in hominibus iniquitatis
Lutherbibel (1545)47
Mein Vater! laß Hiob versucht werden bis ans Ende,
darum daß er sich zu unrechten Leuten kehret.
bibbia Diodati (1607)48
o padre mio, sia pur iob provato infino all’ultimo,
per cagion delle sue repliche, simili a quelle degli huomini iniqui.
Statenvertaling (1637)49
Mijn Vader,50 laat Job beproefd worden tot den einde toe,
om [zijner] antwoorden wil onder de ongerechtige lieden.

45
There are several reasons conceivable, for example, the general style of the trans-
lation, embarrassment with the form, or a corrupted text.
46
Weber, Vulgata. For discussion and English translation see sectie 3.1.1.
47
Hans Volz and Heinz blanke (eds.), D. Martin Luther. Die gantze Heilige Schrifft:
Der komplette Originaltext von 1545 in modernem Schriftbild (München, 1972).
48
Michele Ranchetti and Milka Ventura Avanzinelli (eds.), La sacra bibbia tradotta
in lingua italiana e commentata da Giovanni Diodati. I libri del Vecchio Testamento
2 (Milan, 1999).
49
Statenvertaling. Bijbel, dat is de gansche Heilige Schrift bevattende al de canonieke
boeken des Ouden en Nieuwen Testaments, door last van de Hoog-Mog. Heeren Staten-
Generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden en volgens het besluit van de Synode Nationaal,
gehouden te Dordrecht, in de jaren 1618 en 1619, uit de oorspronkelijke talen in onze
Nederlandsche taal getrouwelijk overgezet. Met nieuwe bijgevoegde verklaringen op de
duistere plaatsen, en aanteekeningen van de gelijkluidende teksten. Vroeger uitgegeven
door Jacob en Pieter Keur, vol. Job–Maleachi (2nd ed.; Kampen, 1923).
50
A footnote is added: ‘Te weten, die in den hemel zijt: dat is, o mijn God. Anders,
mijn begeerte is dat Job beproefd worde.’ (‘To wit, who art in heaven: that is, o my God.
otherwise, my desire is that Job be tried.’)
446 constantijn j. sikkel

Fineish biblia (1776)51

Minun isäni! anna Jobia koeteltaa loppuun asti,
että hän kääntää itsensä vääräin ihmisten tykö.

4.2 My Desire
‫ אבי‬is taken as derived from a stem meaning ‘desire’.

Targum of Job (ca. 400)52

‫רעינא פון דאבא דבשמיא יבחן איוב עד עלמין‬
‫מטול תיובתא באנשי שקר‬
Geneva bible (1560)53
i desire that iob may be tryed, vnto the ende
touching the answeres for wicked men.
biblia del oso (1569)54
Desseo que iob sea prouado luengamente,
paraque aya respuestas contra los varones iniquos.
King James Version (kjv; 1611)55
My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end
because of his answers for wicked men.

in 1833, Webster made a revision of the kjv in which he added a note

to v. 36: ‘or, My father, let Job be tried’.56

51
Fineish Biblia 1776. not found in the library, consulted the text available at
http://www.finbible.fi.
52
Stec, The Targum of Job. For discussion and English translation see section
3.1.1.
53
Genevabible. The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition (Peabody, Mass.,
2007).
54
biblia del oso. La Biblia, que es, los sacros libros del Vieio y Nuevo Testamento,
trasladada en español (basilea, 1569). Digital images available at http://bdigital.sib
.uc.pt.
55
The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated out of the
Original Tongues and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised
by His Majesty’s Special Command. Authorized King James Version, Appointed to be
read in Churches (Cambridge, s.a.).
56
noah Webster (ed.), The Webster Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1988).
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 447

4.3 Wish Particle

‫ אבי‬appears to be interpreted as a wish particle.

Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar (1876)57

Ei daß doch iob geprüft würde bis aufs Aeußerste
ob der Gegenreden nach der Weise Heilloser.
nieuwe Vertaling (1951)58
och, mocht Job tot het uiterste beproefd worden
wegens zijn antwoorden op de wijze van boosdoeners!
Revised Standard Version (rsv; 1952)59
Would that Job were tried to the end,
because he answers like wicked men.
La bible de Jérusalem (1956)60
Veuille donc61 l’examiner à fond,
pour ses réponses dignes de celles des méchants.
Korte Verklaring (1960)62
och, dat Job zich voorgoed liet waarschuwen
voor antwoorden, gebruikelijk onder goddeloze mensen.
new international Version (niv; 1978)63
oh, that Job might be tested to the utmost,
for answering like a wicked man!
Willibrordvertaling (1981)64
God geve dat hij nog meer op de proef wordt gesteld,
want zijn woorden grenzen aan het godslasterlijke.

57
Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob, p. 459.
58
Bijbel. Nieuwe vertaling, in opdracht van het Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap
bewerkt door de daartoe benoemde commissies (Amsterdam, s.a.).
59
The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: Revised Standard Ver-
sion translated from the original languages being the version set forth ad 1611, revised
ad 1881–1885 and ad 1901, compared with the most ancient authorities and revised
ad 1946–1952, second edition of the New Testament ad 1971 (new York, Glasgow &
Toronto, 1978).
60
J.-M. de Tarragon, J. Taylor, and D. barrios-Auscher (eds.), La Bible de Jérusa-
lem, traduite en français sous la direction de l’École biblique de Jérusalem (nouvelle
édition revue et corrigée; Paris, 2003).
61
A footnote has been added: ‘« Veuille donc », trad. conjecturale, le terme hébreu
’abî semble exprimer le souhait ou la supplication’ (‘ “Please then”, conjectural trans-
lation, the Hebrew term ’abî seems to express a wish or an entreaty’).
62
J.H. Kroeze, Het boek Job opnieuw uit de grondtekst vertaald en verklaard (KVHS;
Kampen, 1960).
63
The Holy Bible: New International Version (London, 1987).
64
De Bijbel uit de grondtekst vertaald: Willibrordvertaling (boxtel, 1981).
448 constantijn j. sikkel

Lutherbibel (1984)65
oh, Hiob, sollte bis zum Äußersten geprüft werden,
weil er Antworten gibt wie freche Sünder.
Willibrordvertaling (1995)66
Laat God hem maar nog meer op de proef stellen,
want zijn woorden grenzen aan het godslasterlijke.
nieuwe bijbelvertaling (nbv; 2004)67
o, werd Job maar tot het uiterste beproefd,
want hij praat als iemand die op kwaad uit is.

4.4 Free
Septuagint (ca. 150 bc) 68

οὐ μὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ μάθε, Ἰωβ

μὴ δῷς ἔτι ἀνταπόκρισιν ὥσπερ οἱ ἄφρονες
Peshitta (150)69
‫ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܐܬܒܚܪ ܐܝܘܒ ܥܕ ܣܘܦܐ‬
‫ܘ�ܠܐ ܡܬܚܫܒ ܒܐܢܫܐ ܥܘ�ܠܐ‬
Good news bible (1976)70
Think through everything that Job says;
you will see that he talks like an evil man.
Parole de Vie (2000)71
il parle comme un homme mauvais,
donc il faut examiner son cas encore plus attentivement.

4.5 Preliminary Summary

in section 3.1.1 we established that the Masoretic Text is most likely
correct. now the question is: what kind of form is ‫ ? ָא ִבי‬The simplest
answer is ‫‘ אב‬father’ with a pronominal suffix first person singular.

65
Die Bibel nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (Stuttgart, 1984).
66
De Bijbel: Willibrordvertaling. Schooleditie. Geheel herziene uitgave 1995
(’s-Hertogenbosch, 1996).
67
Bijbel met deuterocanonieke boeken: De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (Heerenveen,
2004).
68
Rahlfs, Septuaginta. For discussion and English translation see sectie 3.1.1.
69
Rignell, Job. For discussion and English translation see sectie 3.1.1.
70
Good News Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha: The Bible in Today’s English
Version (new York, 1976).
71
‘He talks like a bad man, so his case has to be examined yet more closely.’ La
Bible: Ancien et Nouveau Testament. Parole de Vie (Alliance biblique universelle,
2002).
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 449

For any other reading, one will have to demonstrate not only that it is
possible, but also that it is the most probable in this case.
The first signs of the interpretation that it is not from ‫אב‬, ‘father’,
but from another noun meaning ‘desire’, we find in the Targum.
We see that at some point in time a scribe inserted -‫רעינא פון ד‬, ‘the
desire (then) that’, at the beginning of the verse ‫אבא דבשמיא‬, ‘(the)
father, who is in the heavens’. This way ‘desire’ was introduced whilst
‘father’ was retained. We subsequently find the translation ‘desire’
in the translations of the Renaissance.
The watershed in the history of the interpretation of ‫ אבי‬has been
the publication of the commentary by Delitzsch. Referring back to the
contribution of Wetzstein, Delitzsch proposes that it is most likely
an interjection, a sigh,72 that originated from an imperfect first per-
son singular of an (Arabic) verb ‫ביה‬. From this point on, ‫ אבי‬has
almost always been translated as a wish particle and authors are defi-
nite in their rejection of ‘my father’ to the point that it becomes an
assumption.73

4.6 Honorific
The question remains: why can ‫ אבי‬not mean ‘my father’? There are
a number of examples in the Hebrew bible where ‘father’ is used as
a title or an honorific. in Gen 45:8 Joseph says that God has made
him a father to Pharaoh; in Judg 17:10; 18:19 the young Levite from
bethlehem is asked to be a father and a priest; in 1 Sam 24:12 David
addresses King Saul as ‘my father’, to which Saul replies in v. 17 with
‘my son’; in 2 Kgs 2:12 Elisha cries out to Elijah, ‘my father, my father’;
in 2 Kgs 5:13 naaman’s servants address him as ‘my father’; and in
2 Kgs 6:21; 13:14 the king addresses Elisha as ‘my father’. note also
how in 2 Kgs 8:9 Hazael introduces his king to Elisha as ‘your son’.
Although it remains obscure from these examples exactly in which
social settings and with which connotations ‫ אבי‬functioned as an
honorific, they do show that ‫ אבי‬was used in various situations to

72
He phrases it as follows: ‘eher ließe sich mit Vergleichung von 1 S. 24,12. 2 K. 5,13
annehmen, daß ‫ אבי‬ohne bezug auf Gott ein solcher stoßseufzerartiger Aufruf gewor-
den’ (‘it is, in comparison with 1 Sam 24:12 and 2 Kgs 5:13, more admissible that ‫אבי‬
without reference to God has become such a sigh-like exclamation’), Delitzsch, Das
Buch Iob, p. 460.
73
See the survey by David Wolfers, ‘Sire! ( Job XXXiV 36)’, VT 44/4 (1994),
pp. 566–569, esp. 568.
450 constantijn j. sikkel

address persons with a higher status or a certain office.74 We also have

to bear in mind that the concept of father varies across cultures and
might have been used in situations in which we would not have readily
expected it.75 in this light one has to say that the assumption that the
reading ‘my father’ has to be ruled out, is unfounded.

5 Grammatical Features
5.1 The Niphal of ‫בחן‬
Turning to Delitzsch’s second assumption, namely, that ‫ יבחן‬is an opta-
tive, we see that some translations deviate in their rendering of ‫יבחן‬
from the usual ‘be tried’. Thus, for example, Tur-Sinai has ‘die’, the
Korte Verklaring waarschuwen, ‘warn’, and the Septuagint μανθάνω,
‘learn’. Let us therefore examine this verb first. The verb ‫ בחן‬occurs
29 times in the Hebrew bible,76 25 times as Qal, three times as niphal,
and once as passive Qal (or Pual). According to the standard diction-
aries, the meaning of the verb in Qal is ‘examine, try’ (bDb, KbL),
‘test’ (DCH), or ‘prüfen’ (KbL, HAL),77 and the niphal has the corre-
sponding passive meaning. in Job, the verb occurs five times:
1. Job 7:18
‫ותפקדנו לבקרים לרגעים תבחננו‬
‘Visit them every morning, test them every moment?’
2. Job 12:11
‫הלא אזן מלין תבחן וחך אכל יטעם לו‬
‘Does not the ear test words as the palate tastes food?’
3. Job 23:10
‫כי ידע דרך עמדי בחנני כזהב אצא‬
‘but he knows the way that i take; when he has tested me, i shall
come out like gold.’

74
See also Helmer Ringgren, ‘‫ ’ ָאב‬in G. Johannes botterweck and Helmer Ringgren
(eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testaments 1 (Stuttgart, 1973), pp. 1–19,
§ iii.1.d: ‘ein besonders zu ehren Mann’ (‘a particularly venerable man’).
75
‘Father is not a concept grounded universally in biology; rather it is culturally
constructed.’ William A. Foley, Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction (Lan-
guage in Society 24; oxford, 1997), p. 134.
76
outside the Hebrew bible it is found twelve times in Classical Hebrew, see
DCH.
77
Also Gesenius, Handwörterbuch.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 451

4. Job 34:3
‫כי אזן מלין תבחן וחך יטעם לאכל‬
‘for the ear tests words as the palate tastes food.’
5. Job 34:36
‫אבי יבחן איוב עד נצח על תׁשבת באנׁשי און‬
‘Would that Job were tried to the limit, because his answers are
those of the wicked.’
This gives the impression of a well-attested verb with a clear meaning,
of which the passive is formed using the niphal. The claim of Tur-
Sinai that ‘the main difficulty does not lie in ‫אבי‬, . . . but in the verb
‫ ’יבחן‬is therefore in need of more substantiation than the sole state-
ment that ‘neither the context nor the biblical style leaves room here
for the idea of an “eternal examination”.’78

5.2 Optative
Delitzsch’s assertion, ‘jedenfalls ist ‫ יִ ָּב ֵחן‬optativ gemeint’79 (‘in any
case, ‫ יִ ָּב ֵחן‬is meant as an optative’), prompts us to pay attention to the
optative. According to the grammars,80 wishes may be expressed using
the following grammatical devices.
•   The mood of the verb: imperative, jussive, or cohortative.
•   The protasis of a conditional sentence starting with the conjunction 
‫ אם‬or ‫לו‬.81
•   A clause introduced by a wish particle (an interjection) like  ‫אחלי‬.
•   A question starting with the interrogative pronoun  ‫מי‬.
our clause, however, does not have any of these features, or it should
be that the imperfect has the force of a jussive (there being no sepa-
rate jussive form in the niphal). The default mood of the imperfect is
the indicative, so we have to assume it is an indicative, unless we can
demonstrate that a jussive is the most likely.

78
Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, p. 487.
79
Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob, p. 460.
80
For instance, J.P. Lettinga (ed.), Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws (11th
ed., revised by T. Muraoka and W. Th. van Peursen; Leiden, 2000), § 85m, Joüon and
Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 163, Waltke and o’Connor, Hebrew Syn-
tax, § 40.2.2d.
81
Waltke and o’Connor add that the apparently similar particle ‫ ָא ִבי‬is used in
Job 34:36 and not clearly elsewhere.
452 constantijn j. sikkel

[clause_atom
[phrase first]
[phrase
[word (tense = imperfect) AND (stem = nifal)]
]
[phrase phrase_function = Subj]
]

Figure 1: MQL Query to collect Phrases in the Position of ‫אבי‬

Using the MQL82 query from figure 1, we localized which kind of

phrase would typically occur in the position of ‫ אבי‬in a niphal clause
like Job 34:36, assuming that it is part of the clause and not a sepa-
rate vocative clause atom. The query looks for clauses of at least three
phrases, of which the second phrase contains an imperfect niphal and
the third phrase is a subject.83 We found 77 similar clauses, with a
conjunction phrase as the most frequent (26×) filler of the slot, five
of which were with ‫אם‬84 and fourteen with ‫כי‬. The next fillers were a
negative (15×), a preposition phrase (12×), a relative (8×), an adverb
(6×), an infinitive absolute (5×), a noun phrase (4×), and only once an
interjection, the wish particle ‫אחלי‬.85
We then investigated the alternative of a vocative clause imme-
diately followed by the niphal clause, to see what kind of vocatives
would show up in the position of ‫אבי‬. For that, we modified the query
in such a way that it looked for two successive (portions of ) clauses,
the first with a clause atom type ‘vocative’86 and the second as in the
first query (save the first phrase). The only results were 1 Kgs 8:26 and
its parallel in 2 Chr 6:17.
We subsequently widened our search and relaxed the condition of
‘a niphal clause’ to ‘a null-yiqtol clause’ (i.e., a clause in which yiqtol

82
MQL is the query language of Emdros, the text database engine in use at the
WiVU. See http://emdros.org/mql.html. For another example of an MQL query see
Ulrik Sandborg–Petersen’s contribution to this volume.
83
For those parts of the WiVU database that lack a complete parsing (currently
29%), we replaced ‘subject’ by ‘determined noun phrase or proper noun phrase’.
84
Exod 22:6; Jer 23:24; Jer 31:37; Eccl 11:3; 2 Chr 6:24. none of those clauses
expresses a wish.
85
Ps 119:5.
86
For those parts of the WiVU database that lack a complete parsing, we replaced
‘vocative’ by ‘nominal’.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 453

[verse
[clause clause_type = Voct]
[clause clause_type = NullYqt
[phrase phrase_function = Pred]
..
[phrase phrase_function = Subj]
]
]

Figure 2: MQL Query Vocative/null-yiqtol

occurs in initial position).87 by now, the query looked like the one
in figure 2.
This query looks for a vocative followed by a null-yiqtol clause
within the confines of a verse. The yiqtol clause is required to have an
explicit subject. The query yielded the following result.
‫ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדני‬ Gen 44:18
‫ילך נא אדני בקרבנו‬ Exod 34:9
‫יאמן נא דבריך‬ 1 Kgs 8:26
‫תיקר נא נפׁשי‬ 2 Kgs 1:13
‫תפל נא תחנתי לפניך‬ Jer 37:20
‫תהי נא אזנך קׁשבת אל תפלת עבדך‬ neh 1:11
‫תהי נא ידך בי‬ 1 Chr 21:17
‫יאמן דברך עם דויד אבי‬ 2 Chr 1:9
‫יאמן דברך‬ 2 Chr 6:17
A couple of interesting observations can be made in this set of clauses,
which appear to be built with a common template. With the excep-
tion of the two clauses in 2 Chronicles,88 all cases are marked by ‫נא‬.
All subjects have a first or second person suffix. note that we did not
ask for these features in the query. All cases are wishes situated in a
dialogue between a first and a second person. Job 34:36 is different in
that it does not have any of these characteristics. Failing these mark-
ings, we may assume that it is not likely this kind of jussive.

87
A null-yiqtol clause is a clause with a yiqtol form in the initial position.
88
These raise the question whether the absence of ‫ נא‬signals that the imperfect
should be read as an indicative rather than a jussive. ‫ יאמן דברך‬in 2 Chr 1:9 has
been taken from 1 Kgs 8:26 (where it goes back to 2 Sam 7:25) and placed into the
context of Solomon’s dream of 1 Kgs 3:6–9. Has the different perspective on dynasty
and temple in Chronicles shifted the emphasis on the phrase borrowed from Kings,
and should we translate (as does the nasb in 1:9) ‘your promise to my father David
is fulfilled’?
454 constantijn j. sikkel

5.3 Clause Hierarchy

our text is part of a longer passage running from v. 34 to v. 37:
34
Those who have sense will say to me,
and the wise who hear me will say,
35
‘Job speaks without knowledge,
his words are without insight.’
36
Would that Job were tried to the limit,
because his answers are those of the wicked.
37
For he adds rebellion to his sin;
he claps his hands among us,
and multiplies his words against God.
A text-grammatical analysis in the form of a clause hierarchy, which
depicts the relations between the clauses in the passage to which our
verse belongs, could shed some light on another issue within this text,
namely, the question of where the speech of ‘those who have sense’
ends. Does it end v. 35,89 or continue on through v. 37?90 The answer
to this question decides who is uttering ‫אבי‬. Moreover, if ‫ אבי‬is con-
sidered to have a suffix first person singular, it determines the referent
of the suffix, and, in case of a vocative, the set of possible addressees.
in the analysis of the text hierarchy, a dependency tree of the clauses
of a text is established using parameters such as clause opening, tense
of the verbal predicate, and preposition and conjunction class of
the connection.91 The result of the analysis of the text hierarchy in
Job 34:34–37 is displayed in figure 3.92

89
As in the translations of Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob, p. 459; Dhorme, Le livre de
Job; Kroeze, Het boek Job; Lutherbibel; Céline Mangan, The Targum of Job, translated,
with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (Arbib 15; Edinburgh, 1991); niv;
rsv; Wolfers, ‘Sire’.
90
As in the translations of the nasb (The Lockman Foundation, 1995); De Tarragon,
La Bible de Jérusalem; La Bible. Ancien et Nouveau Testament, traduite de l’hébreu et
du grec en français courant (Alliance biblique universelle, 1986); Fohrer, Das Buch
Hiob, p. 465; Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Spe-
cial Studies (MorS 2; new York, 1978), p. 395; nbv; Willibrordvertaling 1981; 1995.
91
For a comprehensive description of the analysis, see Eep Talstra and Constantijn
Sikkel, ‘Genese und Kategorienentwicklung der WiVU-Datenbank oder: Ein Versuch,
dem Computer Hebräisch beizubringen’, in Christof Hardmeier et al. (eds.), Ad Fon-
tes! Quellen erfassen—lesen—deuten. Was ist Computerphilologie? Ansatzpunkte und
Methodologie—Instrumente und Praxis (Applicatio 15; Amsterdam, 2000), pp. 33–68;
Eep Talstra, ‘A Hierarchy of Clauses in biblical Hebrew narrative’, in E.J. van Wolde
(ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996
(biblical interpretation Series 29; Leiden, 1997), pp. 85–118.
92
in this figure, the transliteration alphabet of the WiVU is used, which, for the
consonants, is: >bGDHWZXVJKLMnS<PYQRFCT.
IOB 34,34 3plM XYqt [>NCJ LBB <Su>] [J>MRW <Pr>] [LJ <Co>]
IOB 34,34 -sgM PtcA | [W-<Cj>] [GBR XKM <Su>] [CM< <PC>] [LJ <Co>]
+=============================================================================\
IOB 34,35 3sgM XxYq | [>JWB <Su>] [L> <Ng>] [B-D<T <Aj>] [JDBR <Pr>]
IOB 34,35 ---- NmCl | | [W-<Cj>] [DBRJW <Su>] [L> <Ng>] [B-HFKJL <PC>]
IOB 34,36 ---- Voct | [>BJ <Ij>]
IOB 34,36 3sgM 0Yqt | [JBXN <Pr>] [>JWB <Su>] [<D NYX <Aj>] [<L TCBT / B->NCJ >WN <sp><Aj>]
IOB 34,37 3sgM xYqt | | [KJ <Cj>] [JSJP <Pr>] [<L XV>TW <Co>] [PC< <Ob>]
‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36

IOB 34,37 3sgM xYqt | [BJNJNW <Lo>] [JSPWQ <Pr>]

IOB 34,37 3sgM Wey0 | [W-<Cj>] [JRB <Pr>] [>MRJW <Ob>] [L-->L <Co>]

Figure 3: Clause hierarchy of Job 34:34–37

455
456 constantijn j. sikkel

The two columns next to the verse label indicate the grammatical
functions person, number, and gender of the predicate and the clause
type.93 We see that in the analysis the quotation runs from v. 35 to
v. 37. one of the reasons for this is that Job continues to be referred
to in the third person and there is no text-grammatical sign marking
a change of speaker. Elihu starts talking to wise men about Job, sig-
nalled by the second person plural in v. 2 and v. 10. Then in v. 16 the
second person singular marks a switch to Job as addressee, which is
concluded in v. 33. in v. 34 Elihu introduces the wise men who speak
to him about Job. This continues until the end of the chapter, because
no further change of speaker is marked.
Wolfers thinks that Elihu addresses Eliphaz ironically with this
title,94 but this seems unlikely as Eliphaz has not been introduced as
an individual on the discourse stage. The three comforters have only
been addressed collectively in the second person plural.

6 Conclusion

The view of Wetzstein and Delitzsch has proven to be influential.

it found its way into many reference works and bible translations.
Delitzsch was led to this view because of his conviction that ‫ יבחן‬had
to be an optative and his rejection of the meaning ‘my father’.95 This
corroborates the observation of Wolfers96 that this combination is the
crux of the problem. We have seen that both assumptions are unten-
able. The mood of ‫ יבחן‬is not in the first place an optative, and ‫אבי‬
can mean ‘my father’, be it as a title or an honorific.
The analysis of the clause hierarchy indicates that vv. 35–37 are
likely to constitute one quotation, which suggests that ‫ אבי‬comes from
the mouth of the wise men. This would imply that it is Elihu himself

93
The columns of mother clause type, text type, paragraph number, clause atom
number, indentation level, and subtypes, which also result from the analysis, have
been omitted for ease of presentation.
94
Wolfers, ‘Sire’, p. 568.
95
Witness his parenthetic remark: ‘nichtdestoweniger bleibt dieses “mein
Vater!” . . . zumal in Verbindung met dem folg. Wunsche abstoßend’ (‘nonetheless this
“my father” remains repulsive, especially in connection with the wish that follows’),
Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob, p. 460.
96
Wolfers, ‘Sire’.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 457

who is addressed with ‫אבי‬, that is, he portrays himself being addressed
as ‫אבי‬. This is dismissed by Delitzsch as obviously ‘not a good result’97
without further argumentation. Wolfers qualifies it as a ‘strange alter-
native’ which is ‘not entirely far-fetched’.98
We propose that in Job 34:36, ‫ אבי‬be translated in the same way in
which it is translated when a prophet is addressed, as in 2 Kgs 2:12;
6:21; 13:14. A satisfactory English translation, however, is not that
easy to come by. ‘My father’ is not a title, and titles like ‘Reverend’ or
‘Father’ are unsuitable because they are particularly connected with
Christian offices. Wolfers proposes ‘Sire’, but that has the disadvantage
of being either obsolete or used to address kings. So perhaps we should
for want of an appropriate religious title fall back on a more general
honorific like ‘sir’.
Sir, Job is being tried to the limit
because of his blasphemous answers.
Using the database and methods of Eep Talstra’s WiVU, we have
found that in this case they support a minority opinion against an
established exegetical tradition that goes back to a sizeable footnote
in a nineteenth-century commentary. An interesting topic left for
study is the issue of the mood of the imperfect in the two references
in 2 Chronicles, which we found when we looked at the optative. The
questions raised in note 88 may serve as a point of departure.

bibliographic note

in the last note of his article, Wolfers mentions that he has been una-
ble to identify the author to whom Delitzsch refers with ‘Maur.’ and
suggests that it is perhaps J.F.D. Maurice (1805–1872). i deem it more
probable that, like in his other works, Delitzsch refers to the commen-
tary on Job in the first section of volume 4 of Franz Maurer’s critical

97
‘ . . . jedenfalls ein bessere Auskunft als daß . . . Elihu sich selbst ‫ אבי‬anreden lasse
(Wolfson Maur.)’ (‘ . . . in any case a better result than that . . . Elihu would let himself
be addressed as ‫)’אבי‬, Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob, pp. 460–461. He attributes this view
to Wolfson and (probably) Maurer, but it proved difficult to verify that these authors
hold this view, as we shall explain in the biliographic note below.
98
Wolfers, ‘Sire’, p. 569.
458 constantijn j. sikkel

commentary on the old Testament, written by August Heiligstedt.99

on the face of it, the translation of Job by Hector de Saint-Maur
(1808–1879)100 seems another good candidate, but this is a free transla-
tion in verse in which the rendering of ‫ אבי‬can no longer be traced.101
The problem remains, however, that in their commentaries neither
Wolfson nor Maurer expressly seem to advocate the opinion attrib-
uted to them by Delitzsch. Wolfson ascribes v. 36 to the wise men and
translates Hiob (mein Herr) muß noch lange geprüft werden (‘Job [my
Lord] must yet be tried for a long time’),102 but does not say that this
mein Herr addresses Elihu. About ‫ אבי‬he writes the following.103
‫ ָא ִבי‬gleich ‫ ֲאד ֹנִ י‬s. 2tes b. d. Kön. 4 M. 11, 28. die Anrede des Josua an
Moses. Jes. 21,3.104 erklärt Michlal Jophi: ‫ֲא ִבי ָה ָענָ ק הּוא ַהּגָ דֹול ַּב ֲענָ ִקים׃‬
‫ ִּכי ָאב הּוא ֵׁשם ּגְ ֻד ָּלה‬d. i. ‘‫ אבי הענק‬bedeutet: der Vornehmste unter
den Anakim.’105
Maurer (Heiligstedt) even disapproves of the rendering ‘my father’
and takes ‫ אבי‬to be an interjection.106
Utinam exploretur Jobus in aeternam, i.e. utinam Jobus a Deo calami-
tatibus continenter vexetur, donec resipiscat, Propter responsiones, quae
audiri solent inter homines improbitatis, homines improbos, i.e. prop-
terea, quod hominum improborum more respondet. ‫ ָא ִבי‬est interjectio,
ut ‫ ֲאבֹוי‬Prov. 23, 29. cf. Ew. §. 101. gr. ampl. §. 101, c. 345, a. Alii (Vulg.
Saad. Luth. Arnh.) non apte vertunt: mi pater! ‫ ָא ִבי‬procompellatione
Dei habentes coll. Jer. 3, 19. Ps. 89, 26. Alii (Chald. Kimchi. Stuhlm.

99
Augustus Heiligstedt, ‘Commentarius in Jobum’, in Franc. Jos. Valent. Dominic.
Maurer (ed.), Commentarius grammaticus historicus criticus in Vetus Testamentum in
usum maxime gymnasiorum et academiarum adornatus 4.1 (Lipsiae, 1847).
100
Hector de Saint-Maur, Le livre de Job, traduction en vers par Hector de Saint-
Maur (Paris, 1861).
101
De Saint-Maur, Le livre de Job, p. 181: ‘Puisqu’à ses crimes Job a joint l’impiété, /
Qu’à la saine raison son coeur est insensible.’ (‘Since to his crimes Job has added
impiety, / To sound reason his heart is impervious.’)
102
J. Wolfson, Das Buch Hiob, mit Beziehung auf Psychologie und Philosophie der
alten Hebraër (breslau, 1848), p. 272.
103
Wolfson, Das Buch Hiob, p. 273.
104
Apparently a misprint for Josh 15:13.
105
‫ ָא ִבי‬like ‫ ֲאד ֹנִ י‬, see the Second book of Kings and num 11:28. The address of Joshua
to Moses. Josh 15:13 is explained by Michlal Jophi: ‫ֲא ִבי ָה ָענָ ק הּוא ַהּגָ דֹול ַּב ֲענָ ִקים׃‬
‫ ִּכי ָאב הּוא ֵׁשם ּגְ ֻד ָּלה‬, that is, ‘‫ אבי הענק‬means: the most prominent among the
Anakim.’
106
Heiligstedt, ‘Commentarius in Jobum’, p. 236.
 ‫ ָא ִבי‬in job 34:36 459

Umbr. de Wett. Ges. Stick.) interpretantur: voluntas mea est, ut cet. et

‫ ָא ִבי‬derivant a nomine ‫ ָא ֶבה‬voluntas, desiderium, a rad. ‫ ָא ָבה‬velle. Alias
interpretationes vocis ‫ ָא ִבי‬vid. in Ges. Thes. s. v. ‫ ָאב‬.107

107
‘O that Job be tested forever, that is, o that Job be continuously tormented
by God with disasters, until he comes to his senses. Because of the replies, that are
usually heard among men of evil, evil men, that is, therefore, that he answers in the
manner of evil men. ‫ ָא ִבי‬is an interjection, like ‫ ֲאבֹוי‬in Prov 23:29, cf. Ewald § 101,
Comprehensive Grammar, § 101c, 345a. others (Vulgate, Saadia, Luther, Arnheim)
render inappropriately: my father! having collected ‫ ָא ִבי‬as an address of God in Jer 3:19,
Ps 89:26. others (Aramaic, Kimchi, Stuhlmann, Umbreit, De Wette, Gesenius, Stickel)
translate: it is my desire, that and so on, and derive ‫ ָא ִבי‬from a noun ‫ ָא ֶבה‬desire, wish,
from the root ‫ ָא ָבה‬to wish. For other interpretations of the word ‫ ָא ִבי‬, see Gesenius’s
Thesaurus sub voce ‫ ָאב‬.’
 DISSERTATIONS UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF EEP TALSTRA

1. Stefan de Jong, Het verhaal van Hizkia en Sanherib: Een synchro-

nische en diachronische analyse van II Kon. 18,13–19,37 (par. Jes.
36–37).
Thesis defence: 11 June 1992. Supervised together with H. Leene.
2. Archibald L.H.M van Wieringen, Analogies in Isaiah. Volume A:
Computerized Analysis of Parallel Texts between Isaiah 56–66 and
Isaiah 40–66. Volume B: Computerized Concordance of Analogies
between Isaiah 56–66 and Isaiah 40–66 (Applicatio 10; Amsterdam,
1992).
Thesis defence 22 March 1993, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Supervised together with W.A.M. Beuken.
3. Janet W. Dyk, Participles in Context: A Computer-Assisted Study of
Old Testament Hebrew (Applicatio 12; Amsterdam, 1994).
Thesis defence: 16 June 1994. Supervised together with G. Booij.
4. Daniel Ryou, Zephanaiah’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Syn-
chronic and Diachronic Study of the Composition of Zephaniah
2:1–3:8 (Biblical Interpretation Series 13; Leiden, 1995).
Thesis defence: 8 December 1994. Supervised together with H. Leene.
5. Nicolai Winther-Nielsen, A Functional Discourse Grammar of
Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis (Coniec-
tanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 40; Lund, 1995).
Thesis defence: 9 March 1995, University of Lund. Supervised
together with T. Mettinger.
6. A. Frans den Exter Blokland, In Search of Text Syntax: Toward a
Syntactic Text-Segmentation Model for Biblical Hebrew Narrative
(Applicatio 14, Amsterdam, 1995).
Thesis defence: 23 March 1995.
7. J. Henk Harmsen, These are the Words: Procedures for Computer-
Assisted Syntactical Parsing and Actants Analysis of Biblical Hebrew
Texts.
Thesis defence: 28 January 1998. Supervised together with R. Scha
and N. van Uchelen.
8. Piet J. van Midden, Broederschap en Koningschap: Een onderzoek
naar de betekenis van Gideon en Abimelek in het boek Richteren.
462 dissertations under the guidance of eep talstra

Thesis defence: 10 November 1998, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Supervised together with K.A. Deurloo.
9. Londroma Bandony, Analyse sémantique des expressions idiom-
atiques de l’hébreu biblique: expressions relatives aux parties du
corps et leur traduction en Bbaledhà (Lendu).
Thesis defence: 23 September 2003.
10. Renilde G.W.M van Wieringen, Gaande het gesprek: Domeinana-
lytische benadering van het individuele pastoraal gesprek.
Thesis defence: 8 October 2004, Universiteit van Tilburg. Super-
vised together with M.P.J. van Knippenberg.
11. Jan Pieter Bommel, Simson in Tweevoud: Een onderzoek naar de
ontstaansgeschiedenis van Richteren 13–16.
Thesis defence: 3 December 2004.
12. Matthew Anstey, Biblical Hebrew: Functional Discourse Grammar.
Thesis defence: 1 March 2006. Supervised together with C.
Hengeveld.
13. Timothy Walton, Experimenting with Qohelet: A Text-linguistic
Approach to Reading Qohelet as Discourse (ACEBT.S 5; Maas-
tricht, 2006).
Thesis defence: 19 May 2006. Supervised together with A. Schoors.
14. Marianne Storm, ’Adamah Levensgrond: Een op syntactische
waarneming stoelende bijbels-theologische studie met systematische
en practische apecten (Delft, 2006).
Thesis defence: 17 October 2006. Supervised together with K.A.
Deurloo.
15. Marieke den Braber, Built from Many Stones: An Analysis of
N. Winther-Nielsen and A.G. Auld on Joshua with Focus on Joshua
5:1–6:26 (ACEBT.S 8; Bergambacht, 2010).
Thesis defence: 20 April 2010. Supervised together with K. Spronk.
16. Pieter Lugtigheid, De terugkeer van Jhwh’s dienaar: Jes. 44–46 als
betoog (Maastricht, 2010).
Thesis defence: 26 April 2010. Supervised together with A. van
der Kooij.
17. Bene Csongor-Szabolcs (Szaszi), The Identity of God. Modern and
Biblical Theological Notions of God.
Thesis defence: 16 June 2010. Supervised together with A. van de
Beek.
18. Oliver Glanz, Who is Speaking? Who is Addressed? A Critical Study
into the Conditions of Exegetical Method and its Consequences for
 dissertations under the guidance of eep talstra 463

the Interpretation of Participant Reference-Shifts in the Book of

Jeremiah.
Thesis defence: 9 December 2010. Supervised together with T. Li.
19. Reinoud Oosting, Walls of Zion and Ruins of Jerusalem: A Corpus-
Linguistic View on the Participant Zion/Jerusalem in Isaiah
40–55.
Thesis defence: 18 February 2011.
20. Rudy Van Moere, Salomo tussen taal, tekst en oeuvre: 1 Koningen
3:1–15, 9:1–9 en 11:1–13. Een intertekstuele leesoefening.
Thesis defence: 6 June 2011.
 PUBLICATIONS BY EEP TALSTRA

Monographs

1981 with F. Postma and H.A. van Zwet, Deuterojesaja: proeve

van automatische tekstverwerking ten dienste van de exegese
(Amsterdam).
1983 II Kön. 3: Etüden zur Textgrammatik (Applicatio 1; Amsterdam).
1983 with F. Postma and M. Vervenne, Exodus: Materials in Auto-
matic Text Processing Part I. Morphological, Syntactical and Lit-
erary Case Studies; Part II. Concordance (Instrumenta Biblica 1;
Amsterdam–Turnhout).
1984 with A.J.O. van der Wal, Amos: Concordance and Lexical Sur-
veys (Applicatio 2; Amsterdam).
1987 Het gebed van Salomo: synchronie en diachronie in de kompositie
van I Kon. 8,14–61 (PhD diss., Leiden University; Amsterdam).
1992 with J.A. Groves, H.J. Bosman, and J.H. Harmsen, User Manual
Quest: Electronic Concordance Application for the Hebrew Bible
(Haarlem).
1993 Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition
of 1 Kings 8,14–61 (Kampen).
1995 with N. Winther-Nielsen, A Computational Display of Joshua: A
Computer-Assisted Analysis and Textual Interpretation (Appli-
catio 13; Amsterdam).
1998 Een roostervrije dag: vrije wandeling langs teksten en ervaringen
(Kampen).
2002 Oude en nieuwe lezers: een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg
van het Oude Testament (Ontwerpen 2; Kampen).

Inaugural lectures

1992 Schermen met Schrift: de kombinatie van bijbelwetenschappen

en computer geïllustreerd aan de tekst van Genesis 48. Rede,
uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder
hoogleraar in de Bijbelwetenschappen en Alfa-informatica, in het
bijzonder de computergestuurde tekstanalyse, aan de Vrije Uni-
versiteit te Amsterdam op donderdag 4 juni 1992 (Amsterdam).
466 publications by eep talstra

2003 ‘Zou er ook wetenschap zijn bij de Allerhoogste?’ (Psalm 73:11).

Rede, uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoog-
leraar Oude Testament aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam
op 6 maart 2003 (Amsterdam).

Articles

1978 ‘Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible I: Elements of a Theory’,

BiOr 35, pp. 169–174.
1979 ‘Is Saul ook onder de profeten? De komputer in het theologisch
onderzoek’, GThT 79, pp. 24–36.
1980 ‘Exegesis and the Computer Science: Questions for the Text
and Questions for the Computer’, BiOr 37, pp. 120–129.
1981 ‘The Use of ‫ כן‬in Biblical Hebrew: A Case Study in Automatic
Text Processing’, in Remembering all the way . . .: A Collection
of Old Testament Studies published on the Occasion of the For-
tieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in
Nederland (OTS 21; Leiden), pp. 228–239.
1981 ‘Wat heet vertellen? Abraham, grammatika en geloven’, Seg-
menten, studies op het gebied van de theologie 2 (Amsterdam),
pp. 1–34.
1982 ‘Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible II: Syntax and Semantics’,
BiOr 39, 26–38.
1984 ‘Data Input and Data Coding: “Bible and Computer”, Study
Day, August 26, 1984, Leuven’, Interface 84/15, pp. 2–3.
1986 ‘Context and Part of Speech: Concordance Production from a
Textgrammatical Database’, Hebrew Computational Linguistics
24, pp. v–xviii.
1986 ‘Genesis Bit by Bit’, Bib. 67, pp. 557–564.
1986 ‘An Hierarchically Structured Database of Biblical Hebrew
Texts: The Relationship of Grammar and Encoding’, Proceed-
ings of the First International Colloquium Bible and Computer:
The Text, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique) 2–4 September 1985
(Paris–Genève), pp. 335–349.
1986 ‘Nieuwe namen voor de Naam? Onze taal is het Woord nog
niet’, GThT 86, pp. 65–79.
1987 ‘Towards a Distributional Definition of Clauses in Classical
Hebrew: A Computer-Assisted Description of Clauses and
Clause Types in Deut. 4, 3–8’, EThL 63, pp. 95–105.
 publications by eep talstra 467

1987 with F. Postma, ‘On Texts and Tools: A Short History of the
“Werkgroep Informatica”, Faculty of Theology, Free Univer-
sity, Amsterdam’, in J.J. Hughes (ed.), Bits, Bytes and Biblical
Studies: A Resource Guide for the Use of Computers in Biblical
and Classical Studies (Grand Rapids).
1988 ‘De hervorming van Josia, of de kunst van het beeldenstormen’,
GThT 88, pp. 143–161.
1988 with J.W. Dyk, ‘Concerning the Computer-Assisted Study of
Syntactical Change: Considerations on the Shift in the Use
of the Participle in Biblical and Post-Biblical Texts’, in P. van
Reenen and K. van Reenen-Stein (eds.), Distributions spatiales
et temporelles, constellations des manuscrits: Études de variation
linguistique offèrtes à Anthonij Dees à l’occasion de son 60me
anniversaire (Amsterdam), pp. 51–62.
1988 with A.J.C. Verheij, ‘Comparing Samuel/Kings and Chronicles:
The Computer-Assisted Production of an Analytical Synoptic
Database’, Textus 14, pp. 41–60.
1989 ‘Clio en de “agenda van de toekomst”. Het Oude Testament
van verhaalkunstenaars, gelovigen en historici’, GThT 89,
pp. 212–225.
1989 ‘Grammar and Prophetic Texts: Computer-Assisted Syntactical
Research in Isaiah’, in J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah—
Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures: Unité et complexité
de l’ouvrage (BEThL 81; Leuven), pp. 83–91.
1989 ‘Introduction: Opening Address and Report’, in E. Talstra (ed.),
Computer-Assisted Analysis: Papers read at the Workshop on
the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the ‘Werkgroep Infor-
matica’, Faculty of Theology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
November, 5–6, 1987 (Applicatio 7; Amsterdam), pp. 1–9.
1989 ‘The Production of a Syntactically Orientated Concordance of
Biblical Hebrew Texts’, in Proceedings of the Second Interna-
tional Colloquium Bible and Computer: Methods, Tools, Results,
Jerusalem, 9–13 June 1988 (Paris–Genève), pp. 563–580.
1989 ‘De talen van het Oude Testament’, in Inleiding in het Oude Tes-
tament (Open Theologisch Onderwijs; Kampen), pp. 41–50.
1989 with C. Hardmeier, ‘Sprachgestalt und Sinngehalt: Wege zu
neuen Instrumenten der computergestützten Textwahrneh-
mung’, ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 408–428.
468 publications by eep talstra

1989 with F. Postma, ‘On Texts and Tools: A Short History of

the “Werkgroep Informatica”,’ in E. Talstra (ed.), Computer-
Assisted Analysis: Papers read at the Workshop on the Occasion
of the Tenth Anniversary of the ‘Werkgroep Informatica’, Fac-
ulty of Theology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, November, 5–6,
1987 (Applicatio 7; Amsterdam), pp. 10–28.
1991 ‘Hebrew Syntax: Clause Types and Clause Hierarchy’, in
K. Jongeling, H.L. Murre-van den Berg, and L. van Rompay
(eds.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax presented to Pro-
fessor J. Hoftijzer (SSLL 17; Leiden), pp. 180–193.
1991 ‘Syntaxis van het Bijbels Hebreeuws: Tussen calculatie en inter-
pretatie’, in L.J. de Regt and P. Th. van Reenen (eds.), Jaar-
boek 1991 VF programma Corpus gebaseerde woordanalyse
(Amsterdam), pp. 131–146.
1992 ‘Demonstration ECA Database and Retrieval Software: A Pre-
liminary Report’, in Proceedings of the Third International
Colloquium Bible and Computer: Interpretation, Hermeneu-
tics, Expertise, Tübingen, 26–30 August 1991 (Paris–Genève),
pp. 605–611.
1992 ‘Section 1: The Interpretation of a Specific Text’, in Proceed-
ings of the Third International Colloquium Bible and Com-
puter: Interpretation, Hermeneutics, Expertise, Tübingen, 26–30
August 1991 (Paris–Genève), pp. 47–48.
1992 ‘Report of the Panel Discussion of Section 1: The Interpreta-
tion of a Specific Text’, in Proceedings of the Third International
Colloquium Bible and Computer: Interpretation, Hermeneu-
tics, Expertise, Tübingen, 26–30 August 1991 (Paris–Genève),
pp. 125–128.
1992 ‘De talen van het Oude Testament’, in H. Jagersma and
M. Vervenne (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament (Kampen),
pp. 40–49.
1992 ‘Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of
Wolfgang Schneider’, JOTT 5, pp. 269–297.
1992 ‘Text Grammar and Computer: The Balance of Interpretation
and Calculation’, in Proceedings of the Third International
Colloquium Bible and Computer: Interpretation, Hermeneu-
tics, Expertise, Tübingen, 26–30 August 1991 (Paris–Genève),
pp. 135–149.
 publications by eep talstra 469

1992 with A.J.C. Verheij, ‘Crunching Participles: An Aspect of

Computer-Assisted Syntactical Analysis Demonstrated on
Isaiah 1–12’, in E. Talstra and A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.),
A Prophet on the Screen: Computerized Description and Liter-
ary Interpretation of Isaianic Texts (Applicatio 9; Amsterdam),
pp. 21–33.
1992 with A.L.H.M. van Wieringen, ‘Introduction’, in E. Talstra and
A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), A Prophet on the Screen: Com-
puterized Description and Literary Interpretation of Isaianic
Texts (Applicatio 9; Amsterdam), pp. 1–20.
1993 ‘Een blik achter de schermen’, Return: interconfessioneel vak-
blad voor computergebruik in kerkewerk en godsdienstonderwijs
3, pp. 9–10.
1994 ‘Computers in het onderwijs in de Bijbelwetenschappen’,
Return: interconfessioneel vakblad voor computergebruik in ker-
kewerk en godsdienstonderwijs 4, pp. 16–19.
1994 ‘Dialogue in Job 21: “Virtual Quotations” or Text Grammatical
Markers?’, in W.A.M. Beuken (ed.), The Book of Job (BEThL
114; Leuven), pp. 329–348.
1995 ‘Bijbel en computer: betekenen of berekenen?’, Interpretatie 3,
pp. 24–27.
1995 ‘Clause Types and Textual Structure: An Experiment in Narra-
tive Syntax’, in E. Talstra (ed.), Narrative and Comment: Con-
tributions to Discourse Grammar of Biblical Hebrew presented
to Wolfgang Schneider on the Occasion of his Retirement as a
Lecturer of Biblical Hebrew at the ‘Kirchliche Hochschule’ in
Wuppertal (Amsterdam), pp. 166–180.
1995 ‘Desk and Discipline: The Impact of Computers on the Study
of the Bible’, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Col-
loquium Bible and Computer: Desk and Discipline. The Impact
of Computers on Bible Studies, Amsterdam, 15–18 August 1994
(Paris–Geneve), pp. 25–43.
1995 ‘Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observa-
tions’, in J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchrony or Diachrony? A Debate
on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Papers Read at the Ninth
Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in
Nederland en België and The Society for Old Testament Study,
held at Kampen, 1994 (OTS 34; Leiden), pp. 187–210.
470 publications by eep talstra

1995 ‘ “Een leviet en zijn broeders” (Deuteronomium 18)’, in

M. Gosker (ed.), Een boek heeft een rug: studies voor Ferenc
Postma op het grensgebied van theologie, bibliofilie en univer-
siteitsgeschiedenis, ter gelegenheid van zijn vijftigste verjaardag
(Zoetermeer), pp. 193–202.
1995 ‘Verba en syntaxis van het bijbels Hebreeuws’, Met Andere
Woorden 14, pp. 7–16.
1995 ‘Woord van God en Woord-vooraf: op zoek naar de Bijbel tus-
sen brevet en brevier’, in Het uitgelezen boek: opstellen over de
omgang met de bijbel als het Woord van God (Segmenten 1;
Den Haag), pp. 11–29.
1996 ‘Reconstructing the Menorah on Disk: Some Syntactic Remarks’,
in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus (BEThL
126; Leuven), pp. 523–533.
1996 ‘Singers and Syntax: On the Balance of Grammar and Poetry
in Psalm 8’, in J.W. Dyk (ed.), Give Ear to My Words: Psalms
and other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible. Essays in
Honour of Professor N.A. van Uchelen (Amsterdam–Kampen),
pp. 11–22.
1996 ‘Sola Scriptura aan een toetsenbord’, in Om het levende
Woord: bijbels-theologische en dogmatische serie 6 (Kampen),
pp. 44–53.
1996 ‘Zonder lied is de Tora een Unvollendete’, in J.W. Wesselius
et al. (eds.), Magister Morum: opstellen voor Jan Sanders van
leden van de Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis (Amsterdam),
pp. 56–58.
1997 ‘Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion? The Story of
Moses’ Threefold Succession’, in M. Vervenne and J. Lust
(eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (Festschrift
C.H.W. Brekelmans; BEThL 133; Leuven), pp. 87–110.
1997 ‘A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative’, in E.J.
van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers
of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series
29; Leiden), pp. 85–118.
1997 ‘Tense, Mood, Aspect and Clause Connections: A Textual
Approach’, JNSL 23, pp. 81–103.
1997 ‘Workshop: Clause Types, Textual Hierarchy, Translation in
Exodus 19, 20 and 24’, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syn-
tax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996
(Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden), pp. 119–132.
 publications by eep talstra 471

1998 ‘From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative: Reflections on

Methods of Biblical Exegesis’, in E. Noort (ed.), Perspectives on
the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium
in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His
70th Birthday, Groningen 1997 (VT.S 73; Leiden), pp. 1–41.
1999 ‘De exegeet: waarnemer of ook deelnemer?’, Credo: Confessio-
neel Gereformeerd Maandblad 26/7, pp. 10–18.
1999 ‘Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry—Linguistic System or Liter-
ary Device?’, JNSL 25, pp. 101–126.
1999 ‘Texts and their Readers: On Reading the Old Testament in the
Context of Theology’, in J.W. Dyk et al. (eds.), The Rediscovery
of the Hebrew Bible (ACEBT.S 1; Maastricht), pp. 101–119.
1999 with Janet W. Dyk, ‘Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Features in
Identifying Subject and Predicate in Nominal Clauses’, in C.L.
Miller (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic
Approaches (LSAWS 1; Winona Lake), pp. 133–185.
2000 ‘Alle zegen komt van boven, ook als zij van beneden komt:
gedachten bij Psalm 67’, in J.W. Dyk et al. (eds.), Psalmen
(ACEBT 18; Maastricht), pp. 47–60.
2000 ‘Een bijbelvertaling in aanbouw’, Ouderlingenblad. Maandblad
voor pastoraat en gemeenteopbouw 77, pp. 16–19.
2000 ‘Prediking tussen profeten en professionals: het einde van de
gereformeerde exegese?’, GThT 100, pp. 18–30.
2000 with C.J. Sikkel, ‘Genese und Kategorienentwicklung der
WIVU-Datenbank, oder: Ein Versuch, dem Computer Hebrä-
isch beizubringen’, in C. Hardmeier et al. (eds.), Ad Fontes!
Quellen erfassen—lesen—deuten. Was ist Computerphilologie?
(Applicatio 15; Amsterdam), pp. 33–68.
2001 ‘Bijbeluitleg, het vak van de toekomst’, Credo: Confessioneel
Gereformeerd Maandblad 28/7, pp. 18–30.
2001 ‘Psalm 8: de lofzang op Christus. Bijbel en liturgie’, Interpre-
tatie 9/4, pp. 20–22.
2001 ‘Texts for Recitation’, in J.W. Dyk et al. (eds.), Unless some
one guide me . . . Festschrift Karel A. Deurloo (ACEBT.S 2;
Maastricht), pp. 67–76.
2001 with C.J. Bosma, ‘Psalm 67: Blessing, Harvest and History. A
Proposal for Exegetical Methodology’, CTJ, 36, pp. 290–313.
2002 ‘Actuele basisposities in de bijbelse theologie: wijzen van lezen’,
KeTh 53, pp. 188–201.
472 publications by eep talstra

2002 ‘Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis: The Hebrew Database

used in Quest.2’, in J.A. Cook (ed.), Bible and Computer: The
Stellenbosch AIBI–6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association
Internationale Bible et Informatique, University of Stellenbosch,
17–21 July 2000 (Leiden), pp. 3–22.
2002 ‘Geloven in God’, Credo: Confessioneel Gereformeerd Maand-
blad 29/1, pp. 3–11.
2002 ‘ “Een knecht met recht van spreken”, Bijbelstudie over Joh.
13:12–20 en Jesaja 46’, In gesprek: Werk- en Informatieblad van
de Gereformeerde Vrouwenbond 60, pp. 4–5.
2002 ‘De priester, de Naam en de gemeente: bijbelse theologie als
rollenspel’, in J.W. Dyk et al. (eds.), In de Woestijn: Numeri
(ACEBT 20; Maastricht), pp. 59–68.
2002 ‘Second Isaiah and Qohelet: Could one get them on Speaking
Terms?’, in F. Postma, K. Spronk, and E. Talstra (eds.), The
New Things: Festschrift H. Leene (ACEBT.S 3; Maastricht),
pp. 225–236.
2002 ‘Signs, Design and Signification: The Example of I Kings 21’, in
J.A. Cook (ed.), Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI–6
Conference. Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible
et Informatique, University of Stellenbosch, 17–21 July, 2000
(Leiden), pp. 147–166.
2002 with C.H.J. van der Merwe, ‘Analysis, Retrieval and the Demand
for More Data: Integrating the Results of a Formal Textlinguis-
tic and Cognitive-Based Pragmatic Approach to the Analysis
of Deut 4:1–40’, in J.A. Cook (ed.), Bible and Computer: The
Stellenbosch AIBI–6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association
Internationale Bible et Informatique, University of Stellenbosch,
17–21 July, 2000 (Leiden), pp. 43–78.
2003 ‘Bijbelwetenschap: het geheugen van de kerk’, in Geandewei:
SOW Kerkblad van Friesland 10, p. 15.
2003 ‘1 en 2 Koningen: inzicht als weg tussen ideologie en falen’, in
K. van Bekkum et al. (eds.), Gods Woord in mensentaal: denken
over het gezag van de bijbel (Barneveld), pp. 143–146.
2003 ‘Een professioneel theoloog is een confessioneel theoloog’, in
M. Barnard et al. (eds.), Protestants geloven: bij bijbel en belijde-
nis betrokken (Zoetermeer, 2003), pp. 65–82.
2003 ‘Zoals geschreven staat: nieuwtestamentische interpretatie
van oudtestamentische teksten’, Opdracht en Dienst: Uitgave
 publications by eep talstra 473

van de Werkgroep Gereformeerde Bijbelstudieverenigingen 77,

pp. 4–10.
2004 ‘De bijbel bewaren en doorgeven’, Het Goede Leven,
pp. 18–19.
2004 ‘Numeri 6: De zegen van Aäron’, in F. Maas, J. Maas, and K.
Spronk (eds.), De Bijbel spiritueel: bronnen van geestelijk leven
in de bijbelse geschriften (Zoetermeer), pp. 127–132.
2004 ‘Psalm 25: partituur van een gebed’, in M. Barnard, G. Heitink,
and H. Leene (eds.), Letter en feest: in gesprek met Niek Schuman
over bijbel en liturgie (Zoetermeer), pp. 173–184.
2004 ‘Religious Pluralism: Biblical Voices, Theological Perspectives’,
REC Focus 4, pp. 3–11.
2004 ‘On Scrolls and Screens: Bible Reading between History and
Industry’, in C. Ess (ed.), Critical Thinking and the Bible in the
Age of New Media (Lanham, MD), pp. 291–309.
2004 ‘Text Segmentation and Linguistic Levels: Preparing Data for
SESB’, in C. Hardmeier, E. Talstra, and B. Salzmann, Instruc-
tion Manual SESB (Stuttgart–Haarlem), pp. 23–31.
2004 ‘Het Woord, de kerk en de cultuur: gedachten bij de Nieuwe
Bijbelvertaling’, Credo: Confessioneel Gereformeerd Maandblad
4/1, p. 4–14.
2004 ‘De zegen van Aäron: Numeri 6:22–27’, Interpretatie 12/4,
pp. 41–43.
2004 ‘ “Zoals geschreven staat”: onbevangen bijbellezen’, in B. Beute
et al. (eds.), HoogTijd voor de bijbel (Barneveld), pp. 49–59.
2004 with C.H.J. van der Merwe, ‘Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The
Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features’, ZAH
15/16, pp. 68–107.
2005 ‘Aarde, land’, in A. Noordegraaf et al. (eds.), Woordenboek voor
Bijbellezers (Zoetermeer), pp. 16–19.
2005 ‘Identity and Loyalty: Faith and Violence. The Case of Deu-
teronomy’, in D. van Keulen and M. Brinkman (eds.), Chris-
tian Faith and Violence 1 (Studies in Reformed Theology 10;
Zoetermeer), pp. 69–85.
2005 ‘ “Ik en uw volk”: syntaxis en dialoog in Exodus 33’, in H. Blok
et al. (eds.), Om voor te lezen—Miqra. Feestbundel voor F.J.
Hoogewoud (ACEBT.S 4; Maastricht), pp. 129–136.
2005 ‘Leraar, leren’, in A. Noordegraaf et al. (eds.), Woordenboek
voor Bijbellezers (Zoetermeer), pp. 345–348.
474 publications by eep talstra

2005 ‘Toetsing’, in A. Noordegraaf et al. (eds.), Woordenboek voor

Bijbellezers (Zoetermeer), pp. 539–542.
2005 ‘Tussen structuur en strategie: tekstanalyse van Jona 1–4’, in
K. Spronk (ed.), Jona (ACEBT 22; Maastricht), 23–45.
2005 ‘Verandering’, in A. Noordegraaf et al. (eds.), Woordenboek
voor Bijbellezers (Zoetermeer), pp. 562–565.
2006 ‘Eenzaam, maar niet sprakeloos’, in E. Talstra et al., Ongekend:
over eenzaamheid (Barneveld), pp. 9–20.
2006 ‘De heiliging van de Naam volgens het Oude Testament en de
Joodse traditie’, in A.S. Rienstra and W. Verboom (eds.), De
heiliging van de Naam (Heerenveen), pp. 9–37.
2006 ‘Jeremia 32: een oefening in bijbelse theologie’, Interpretatie
14/1, pp. 4–6.
2006 ‘The Name in Kings and Chronicles’, in G.H. van Kooten (ed.),
The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from
Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World and Early Christian-
ity (Themes in Biblical Narrative 9; Leiden), pp. 55–70.
2006 ‘Syntax and Composition: The Use of yiqtol in Narrative Sec-
tions in the Book of Exodus’, in R. Roukema et al. (eds.), The
Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman
(CBET 44; Leuven), pp. 225–236.
2006 ‘De voorsprong van het Woord: Jona in het land der lezenden’,
in J. van Dorp and T. Drieënhuizen (eds.), Heilige tekst in onze
taal: bijbelvertalen voor Gereformeerd Nederland (Heerenveen),
pp. 103–119.
2006 with J.W. Dyk, ‘The Computer and Biblical Research: Are there
Perspectives beyond the Imitation of Classical Instruments?’
in W.Th. van Peursen and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), Text,
Translation, and Tradition: Studies in the Peshitta and its
Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on
the Occasion of his Sixty-Fitfth Birthday (MPIL 14; Leiden),
pp. 189–204.
2006 with K.D. Jenner and W.Th. van Peursen, ‘CALAP: An Inter-
disciplinary Debate between Textual Criticism, Textual His-
tory, and Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis’, in P.S.F.
van Keulen and W.Th. van Peursen (eds.), Corpus Linguistics
and Textual History: A Computer-Assisted Interdisciplinary
Approach to the Peshitta (SSN 48; Assen), pp. 13–44.
2006 with W.Th. van Peursen and K.D. Jenner, ‘How to transfer the
Research Questions into Linguistic Data Types and Analytical
 publications by eep talstra 475

Instruments’, in P.S.F. van Keulen and W.Th. van Peursen

(eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-
Assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshitta (SSN 48;
Assen), pp. 45–83.
2007 ‘The Discourse of Praying: Reading Nehemiah 1’, in B. Becking
and E. Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint
Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and Het Oudtesta-
mentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn,
August 2006 (OTS 55; Leiden), pp. 219–236.
2007 ‘Eenheid en veelheid in de Bijbel’, in C. Dekker, R. van
Woudenberg, and G. van den Brink (eds.), Omhoog kijken in
platland: over geloven in de wetenschap (Kampen), pp. 127–144.
2007 ‘De exegeet als geadresseerde: over de rolverdeling rond de bij-
bel’, in G.C. den Hertog and C. van der Kooi (eds.), Tussen
leer en lezen: de spanning tussen bijbelwetenschap en geloofsleer
(Kampen), pp. 87–113.
2007 ‘The Hebrew Bible and the Computer: The Poet and the Engi-
neer in Dialogue’, International Journal of Humanities and Arts
Computing 1, pp. 49–60.
2007 ‘Heiliging van de Naam: bijbelse theologie tussen traditie en
actualiteit’, Interpretatie 15/4–5, pp. 8–11.
2007 ‘ “I and your people”: Syntax and Dialogue in Exodus 33’, JNSL
33, pp. 89–97.
2007 ‘Moses zwischen Sprache und Text: Am Beispiel Exodus 33’,
in S. Lubs et al. (eds.), Behutsames Lesen: Alttestamentliche
Exegese im interdisziplinären Methodendiskurs. Festschrift für
Christof Hardmeier zum 65. Geburtstag (Arbeiten zur Bibel und
ihre Geschichte 28; Leipzig), pp. 291–305.
2007 with W.Th. van Peursen, ‘Computer-Assisted Analysis of Par-
allel Texts in the Bible: The Case of 2 Kings xviii–xix and its
Parallels in Isaiah and Chronicles’, VT 57, pp. 45–72.
2008 ‘ “Zelfs uw houthakkers en uw waterputters”(Deuteronomium
29:10[11]): de ruimte voor het ambacht in de theologie’, ThRef
51, pp. 150–164.
2008 with R. Oosting, ‘Jeremiah 32: A Future and its History: Actu-
alisation in Writing and Reading’, in H. de Wit and G.O. West
(eds.), African en European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In
Quest of a Shared Meaning (SRA 32; Leiden), pp. 199–218.
2009 ‘Exile and Pain: A Chapter from the Story of God’s Emotions’,
in B. Becking and D. Human (eds.), Exile and Suffering: A
476 publications by eep talstra

Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the

Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria
August 2007 (OTS 50; Leiden), pp. 161–180.
2009 ‘The Truth and Nothing but the Truth: Piety, Prophecy and
the Hermeneutics of Suspicion in 1 Kings 22’, in J. van Ruiten
and J.C. Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History and
Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort (VT.S 124; Leiden).
355–371.
2010 ‘De Naam, levensecht tussen de mensen’, in Credo: Confessio-
neel Gereformeerd Maandblad 37/7, pp. 4–6.
2010 ‘In the Beginning, when Making Copies Used to be an Art . . .:
The Bible among Poets and Engineers’, in W.Th. van Peursen,
E.D. Thoutenhoofd, and A.H. van der Weel (eds.), Text Com-
parison and Digital Creativity: The Production of Presence and
Meaning in Digital Text Scholarship (Scholarly Communica-
tion 1; Leiden), pp. 31–56.
2010 ‘On Bridges, Bytes and Beaches’, in P. Enns, D. Green, and
M.B. Kelly (eds.), Eyes to See, Ears to Hear: Essays in Memory
of J. Alan Groves (Phillipsburg), pp. xxvi–xxvii.

Editorial work

Software Packages
1992 with C. Hardmeier and J.A. Groves, Quest: Electronic Concord-
ance Applications for the Hebrew Bible (data base and retrieval
software) (Haarlem).
2004 with C. Hardmeier and B. Salzmann, SESB: Stuttgart Electronic
Study Bible (Stuttgarter Elektronische Studienbibel) (Stuttgart–
Haarlem; updated version: 2007 and 2009).

Electronic Data
1998 with J.W. Dyk, F. Postma, and C. Sikkel, ‘Pentateuch: Electronic
Data of a Full Syntactic Analysis of the Hebrew Text according
to BHS, produced for Quest2’.
2003 with C. Sikkel, ‘Electronic Data of the Syntactically Analyzed
Text of the Biblia Hebraica, produced for SESB’, to be used in
SESB.
 publications by eep talstra 477

Books
1989 Computer-Assisted Analysis of Biblical Texts: Papers read at the
Workshop held at the Occasion of the 10th Anniversary of the
‘Werkgroep Informatica’ in Amsterdam, November 5–6, 1987
(Applicatio 7; Amsterdam).
1992 with A.W.H.M. van Wieringen, A Prophet on the Screen: Com-
puterized Description and Literary Interpretation of Isaianic
Texts (Applicatio 8; Amsterdam).
1995 Narrative and Comment: Contributions to Discourse Gram-
mar of Biblical Hebrew presented to Wolfgang Schneider on the
Occasion of his Retirement as a Lecturer of Biblical Hebrew at
the ‘Kirchliche Hochschule’ in Wuppertal (Amsterdam).
2002 with F. Postma and K. Spronk, The New Things: Eschatology
in Old Testament Prophecy. Festschrift H. Leene (ACEBT.S 3;
Maastricht).
2004 with C. Hardmeier and B. Salzmann, SESB: Stuttgart Electronic
Study. Bible Instruction Manual (Stuttgarter Elektronische Stu-
dienbibel. Handbuch) (Stuttgart).

Reviews

1977 Review of J. Calloud, Structural Analysis of Narrative (SemSup

4; Philadelphia, 1976), in BiOr 34, pp. 404–406.
1980 Review of D. Michel, Grundlegung einer Hebräischen Syntax
1. Sprachwissenschaftliche Methodik, Genus und Numerus des
Nomens (Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1977), in BiOr 37, pp. 211–214.
1983 Review of M.J. Mulder et al. (eds.), Bijbels Handboek 2a
(Kampen, 1982), in GThT 83, 118–119.
1984 Review of T. Collins, Lineforms in Hebrew Poetry: A Gram-
matical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets
(Rome, 1978), in BiOr 41, pp. 453–457.
1984 Review of W. Schneider, Taschen-Tutor Hebräisch (Göttingen,
1983), in GThT 84, pp. 110–111.
1986 Review of S.B. Saulson, Institutionalized Language Planning
(Berlijn–New York, 1979), in BiOr 43, pp. 760–761.
1986 Review of B. Zuber, Das Tempussystem des biblischen Hebrä-
isch: Eine Untersuchung am Text. (BZAW 164; Berlijn, 1986),
in GThT 86, pp. 239–240.
478 publications by eep talstra

1987 Review of M.J. Mulder et al. (eds.), Bijbels Handboek 2b

(Kampen, 1984), in GThT 87, pp. 120–121.
1987 Review of B. van ’t Veld, De klacht over de vergankelijkheid
van het menselijk leven in het Oude Testament (tegen de ach-
tergrond van andere oudtestamentische en van oudoosterse uit-
spraken inzake de vergankelijkheid) (PhD diss. Rijksuniversiteit
Utrecht, 1985), in NedThT 41 (1987) pp. 233–235.
1988 Review of J.G. Williams, Women Recounted: Narrative Thinking
and the God of Israel (Sheffield, 1982), in BiOr 45, pp. 170–171.
1989 Review of A. Jobsen, Krisis en hoop: een exegetisch-theologische
onderzoek naar de achtergronden en tendensen van de rebel-
liecyclus in Numeri 11:1–20:13 (PhD diss. Protestant Faculty,
Brussel; Kampen, 1987), in GThT 89, pp. 115–117.
1989 Review of E. Tov, A Computerized Database for Septuagint
Studies: The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek en Hebrew
Bible (CATSS 2) ( JNSL.S 1; Stellenbosch, 1986), in NedThT 43,
pp. 143–144.
1991 Review of B.K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN, 1990), in Alef Beet:
Tijdschrift van de Vereniging tot bevordering van kennis van
Hebreeuws 1, pp. 26–31.
1994 Review of G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuter-
onomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies 1. The
Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM 52; Atlanta,
1993), in GThT 94, p. 141.
1994 Review of W. Richter, Biblia Hebraica transcripta BHt 1. Genesis;
2. Exodus, Leviticus; 3. Numeri, Deuteronomium (ATSAT 33.1–
3; St. Ottilien, 1991), in JSS 39 (1994), 290–295.
1994 Review of H.N. Ridderbos and W. van der Meer (eds.), Hand-
wijzer op de grondtekst van de Bijbel: Nederlands–Hebreeuws /
Hebreeuws–Nederlands, Nederlands–Grieks / Grieks–Nederlands
(Kampen, 1993), in GThT 94, pp. 140–141.
1994 Review of E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Assen–
Minneapolis, 1992), in BiOr 51, pp. 619–622.
1996 Review of G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuter-
onomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies 2. The
Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah
(HSM 53; Atlanta, 1994), in GThT 96, pp. 39–40.
1996 Review of H. Nobel, Gods gedachten tellen: numerieke structuur-
analyse en de elf gedachten Gods in Genesis—2Koningen (PhD
 publications by eep talstra 479

diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; Coevorden), in NedThT 50,

pp. 243–244.
1996 Review of J. Wehrle, Sprichwort und Weisheit: Studien zur Syn-
tax und Semantik der b . . . min-Sprüche im Buch der Sprichwörter
(ATSAT 38; St. Ottilien, 1993), in NedThT 50, pp. 244–245.
1998 ‘Bijbelteksten als kunstwerken’, Review of L. Wierenga, . . . de
pen van een die vaardig schijft . . .: voor je plezier lezen in de bij-
bel (Kampen, 1997), in Friesch Dagblad, 9 January 1998, p. 2.
1999 ‘Dit heden en wat dan nog?’, Review of: W. Stoker and H.C.
van der Sar (eds.), Theologie op de drempel van 2000: terug-
blik op 100 jaar Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift (Kampen,
1999), in Kabats: magazine van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
VU Amsterdam, 1999–2000/1, pp. 24–29.
2000 ‘Dit heden en wat dan nog?’, Review of: W. Stoker and H.C.
van der Sar (eds.), Theologie op de drempel van 2000: terug-
blik op 100 jaar Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift (Kampen,
1999), in Interpretatie 8, pp. 2–6.
2000 ‘Deze tijd vraagt exegese: gedachten bij Herman Wiersinga,
Op ooghoogte: portret van een postmodern geloof (Zoetermeer,
2000)’, in Credo: Confessioneel Gereformeerd Maandblad 27/9,
pp. 17–21.
2001 Review of M. Dijkstra and K. Vriezen (eds.), Th.C. Vriezen,
hervormd theoloog en oudtestamenticus: studies over theologie
van het Oude Testament, bijbelse theologie en godsdienst van
Oud-Israël bij de honderdste geboortedag van Th.C. Vriezen
(Kampen, 1999), in Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse
Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 23/53, pp. 66–68.
2002 Review of C. Graafland, Bijbels en dus Gereformeerd (Zoetermeer,
2001), in Interpretatie 10/2, pp. 33–34.
2003 ‘De Bijbel als literair boek’, Review of J. Fokkelman and W.
Weren (eds.), De Bijbel literair: opbouw en gedachtegang van de
bijbelse geschriften en hun onderliggende relaties (Zoetermeer,
2003), in Friesch Dagblad (Sneinspetiele), 13 September 2003,
pp. 7–9.
2004 ‘Echte profeten maken mensen niet bang’, Review of G. Kwakkel
et al. (eds.), Wonderlijk gewoon: profeten en profetie in het Oude
Testament (TU Bezinningsreeks 3; Barneveld, 2003), in Neder-
lands Dagblad, 2 January 2004 (Het Katern), p. 4.
2004 ‘De groeten van Johannes’, Review of N. ter Linden, Het ver-
haal gaat . . . 6. De verhalen van Lucas en Johannes (Amsterdam,
480 publications by eep talstra

2004), in Friesch Dagblad (Sneinspetiele), 3 January 2004,

pp. 11–13.
2004 ‘Is er nog leven na het dogma?’, Review of C.J. den Heyer, Van
Jezus naar christendom: de ontwikkeling van tekst tot dogma
(Zoetermeer, 2003), in Friesch Dagblad, 2 January 2004, p. 2
(Part 1); Friesch Dagblad, 3 January 2004, p. 2 (Part 2); repub-
lished in Het Goede Leven 3/7 (2004), pp. 6–7.
2004 ‘Toegang tot de bijbel’, Review of M.J. Paul, G. van den Brink,
and J.C. Bette (eds.), Bijbelcommentaar Genesis—Exodus
(Studiebijbel Oude Testament 1; Veenendaal, 2004), in Friesch
Dagblad (Sneinspetiele), 4 September 2004, pp. 12–13.
2005 ‘Prediker zou zich nogal vervelen’, Review of H.M. Kuitert,
Hetzelfde anders zien: het christelijk geloof als verbeelding
(Kampen, 2005), in Friesch Dagblad (Sneinspetiele), 23 July
2005, pp. 12–13; republished in Het Goede Leven 4/29 (2005),
pp. 6–7.
2005 ‘Op alle toonhoogten van het menselijk bestaan’, Response to
H.M. Kuitert, Hetzelfde anders zien: het christelijk geloof als
verbeelding (Kampen, 2005), in Friesch Dagblad (Sneinspetiele),
13 August 2005, p. 2; republished in Het Goede Leven 4/29
(2005), 2.
2006 ‘In de leer bij de woestijnvaders’, Review of W. Reedijk, Zuiver
lezen: de Bijbel gelezen op de wijze van de vroegchristelijke
woestijnvaders (Budel, 2006), in Het Goede Leven 5/50 (2006),
pp. 14–15.
2009 Review of Het boek Genesis, getekend door Robert Crumb, ver-
taald door Nicolaas Matsier (Amsterdam, 2009), in Ad Valvas:
Weekblad van de Vrije Universiteit, 2009/13–14, 17 December
2009, pp. 8–9.

Other publications

1989 ‘Het lijkt wel een ruzie tussen een dichtbundel en een spoor-
boekje’, Trouw, 25 April 1989, p. 12.
1989 ‘Op verhaal komen in de wolken’, Evangelisch Commentaar
7/11, pp. 5–7.
1989 Editing of Ja kun je krijgen. Over de integratie van mongoloïde
kinderen in het reguliere onderwijs (Den Haag).
 publications by eep talstra 481

1989 ‘De Vereniging voor een geïntegreerde opvoeding van mon-

goloïde kinderen’, in E. Talstra (ed.), Ja kun je krijgen,
pp. 7–19; in abbreviated form also published in Info-Bulletin
voor het Onderwijs aan Zeer Moeilijk Lerende Kinderen 22, 7/2,
pp. 12–15.
1989 ‘Van domme ouders en slimme mongolen: of hoe een onder-
wijsdeskundige op klompen door een porseleinkast dendert’,
Trouw, 8 July 1989, p. 14.
1989 ‘Theologen aan een toetsenbord’, in a volume for the Stud-
iedagen Theologie en Informatica, at the Faculty of Theology,
Utrecht University, pp. 7–14,
1990 ‘Computer en Bijbel: een verstandshuwelijk?’ Open Deur 1
( January 1990), pp. 1–12.
1991 ‘Introduction to the Themes of this Conference’, in Just do
it: Report of the Conference on the Integration of Children
with a Mental Handicap in Mainstream Education (Utrecht),
pp. 7–12.
1994 with T. de Wit-Gosker, ‘The Story of the VIM’, in T. de Wit
(ed.), ‘All together (k)now’: Possibilities for integration in Europe,
secondary education (Utrecht), pp. 5–23.
1996 ‘Theologie met een overtuiging: mag het een onsje meer zijn?’,
Kabats: magazine van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid VU
Amsterdam, 1995–1996/2, pp. 1–5.
1997 ‘De strijd tussen postmodern bijbelonderzoek en vermoeide
predikanten’, Trouw, 20 August 1997, p. 6.
1998 ‘Noodzakelijk onderhoud: Bijbel herlezen onder de indruk van
nieuwe ervaringen’, Centraal Weekblad, 31 July 1998, p. 8.
1999 ‘Terugblik: advent met mevrouw Potifar’, Centraal Weekblad,
15 January 1999, pp. 8–9.
2000 ‘Mijn dominee is een mens’, in Kabats: magazine van de
Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid VU Amsterdam, 1999–2000/1,
pp. 27–28.
2000 ‘De berg Sinaï als website: Ex. 31,18’, in Kabats: magazine van
de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid VU Amsterdam, 2000–2001/1,
pp. 29–33.
2000 ‘Navolgen en belijden’, in Perspectief: kerkblad Willem de
Zwijgerkerkgemeente, Amsterdam.
2003 ‘1 en 2 Koningen: inzicht als weg tussen ideologie en falen’,
Nederlands Dagblad, 10 May 2003, p. 7.
482 publications by eep talstra

2003 ‘Laat de dominee toch gewoon goed blijven lezen’, Nederlands

Dagblad, 15 October 2003, p. 7.
2004 ‘Bijbellezen is ook een vak’, Ad Valvas: Weekblad van de Vrije
Universiteit, 2004/34, 24 May 2004, p. 2.
2004 ‘Gewoon de Bijbel lezen en uitleggen’, Nederlands Dagblad,
31 December 2004, p. 7.
2004 ‘Imams, de helderheid en de taal van het geloof ’ (response to
Marja van Bijsterveldt), in Het Goede Leven 2/10, p. 2.
2004 ‘ “Sla de wolven herder” van Theun de Vries: een roman uit de
Babylonische voortijd’, in Friesch Dagblad, 15 September 2004,
p. 2.
2005 ‘Wij theologen zijn al zo bescheiden’, Nederlands Dagblad,
January 2005, p. 7.
2009 ‘Harde vragen bij bijbel en geloof ’, Nederlands Dagblad, 4 April
2009, p. 7.
2010 ‘Voorwoord’, in H. Harmsen, Een brandende braamstruik: 50
verhalen voor onderweg (Veenendaal), pp. vii–ix.
 INDEX OF SOURCES

N.B. Lists of examples in footnotes containing only references have been excluded
from this index. If the page number is followed by an ‘n’, the reference is mentioned
only in a footnote.

A. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions

Genesis 20 155–169
1 75–76 21:1–2 157n, 161
1–3 277, 280n, 289, 21:8–21 164
292, 294 21:12 161
1:1 290 22 306, 308
1:1–2:3 72–73 22:17 128n
1:2 392 23:1 165
1:16 76 23:17 414
1:26–28 72n, 76 25:6 158
1:28 158 25:18 380
2 76 25:20 158
2:5 392 25:26 158
2:11–14 229–230 26:1–11 155–169
3 75 26:12–14 158
3:15 395n 26:14 158
3:20 393 26:18 396
4:6 380n 27:20 396
4:8 394n 27:29 382
6:4 392 28:16 423
7:6 392 29:17 379, 392
7:12 393 31:3 396
7:17 393 32:13 128n
11:5 98n 34:25 394n
11:26 156n 37:22 379, 384
11:32 156n 37:35 369
12:4 156n 39:2 387n
12:6 392 41:8 395
12:10–20 155–169 42:21 441n
14:10 421n 44:18 453
15:12 394 45:8 449
15:17 394 48:16 230–233, 241
16 164 49:18 229, 231,
16:2 158, 160, 162 233–234, 241
16:2–3 164 49:22 232
16:12 381, 384 50:21 364
17:17 158
17:19 441n Exodus
18:7 396 3:11 74
18:10 157n, 161 3:14 395
18:14 157n, 161 4:22–23 178, 187
18:15 124n 4:23 185n
18:25 162 4:31 82n
18:27 86 9:3 383
484 index of sources

10:14 390 8:16 187

15:26 230–231, 11 65
234–235, 241 11:17 396
16:7–8 74 12:6–7 127
19:12 408 12:10 411
19:16 379, 386 13:1 17n
22:17 226n 13:10 379, 384
25:24 408 16:14 127
27:17 414 17:7 383n
28:32 413 17:14 406
32:8 396 21:2 406
34:8 396 28:48 128n
34:9 453 28:58 101
38:16 411 30:14 220
38:31 414
39:23 408, 413 Joshua
40:33 407 2:19 383n
5:13 394
Leviticus 9:25 22n
8:24 408 15–19 252n
18:9 162 15:12 414
18:27–29 162 15:13 458n
19:2 97n 15:63 252n
20:13 274 19:50 252n
24:11 101 24:30 252n
25:31 410n
Judges
Numbers 1:8 252n
1:50 402n, 407 1:21 252n
2:2 412n 2:9 252n
4:32 414 2:14 411
6:24–26 230–231, 235, 241 2:15 383n
11:4 397 3:10 384n
11:24 407 4:9 367n
11:25–26 384n 5:1 270
11:28 458 7:12 380n
13:23 390 10 304
17:11 396 10–12 301, 310
23–24 183 10:6–12:7 310–313
23:5 396 11:1–11 307
23:22 180 11:29 384
24:2 379, 384 11:29–40 299–315
24:8 177 12 307
31:3 386 12:1–6 308
34:12 414 13:11 397
35:2 412 14:6 379, 384
14:8 396
Deuteronomy 14:19 384n
2:10 34n 15:14 384n
2:15 383n 17:10 449
2:21 34n 18:19 449
4:2 17n
6:4–9 241 1 Samuel
7:15 234 1:18 380
8:2 187 5:9 383n
 index of sources 485

8:1 271 6:21 449, 457

9:4 252n 8:9 449
10:6 385 13:5 397
12:11 300 13:14 449, 457
15:10 384 18:34 101n
16:16 384n 21 143, 145–147
16:23 384n 22–23 27
18:17 383n 22:12 26
18:18 75 22:14 26
18:21 383n 25:1 413
19:9 384n 25:4 408, 413
22:9 103, 443
24:12 438, 442–444, 449 Isaiah
24:13–14 383n 6:1–8 365–366
25 103 7:9 384n
26:1 103 9:7 379, 384n, 385,
26:5 407 391
11:2 384n
2 Samuel 13 37
3:6 394 13:19–20 37
5:9 408n 13:20–22 37
7:14 187 15:4 146n
9:8 75 16:4 382
11:23 385 16:9 385n
14:5 441n 17:12 34
15:32 16n 32:5–6 97
18:6 391 34:14 228n
18:7 391 36:19 101n
18:8 391 40:1–2 361–377
20:21 124n 40:1–11 365–368
23:20 397 42:1–4 425
24:17 383n 44–55 361–363, 367–376
45:15 424
1 Kings 47:11 382n
1:43 441n 49:4 424
3:15 127 49:4–5 428
4:20 127–128 49:13 367
4:29 128 49:14–26 368n
6:5 403 49:18 308
8 143 49:21 369n
8:26 452 50:1 375
8:27 142 50:1–3 368–370, 372,
11:26–27 383n 374, 376
17:13 95n 51:3 367
18:46 384n 51:16 367
19:13 395 51:17–23 370–373
21:29 438 51:18 368, 369n, 370,
375–376
2 Kings 51:19 367, 371, 373,
2:12 449, 457 375–376
2:14 101 51:20 370, 375
2:15 384n 51:21 372
3 252 52 373
4:14 441n 52:1–12 371
5:13 438, 442–444, 449 52:9 367
486 index of sources

52:13–53:12 418 15:15 82

53:1–6 417–435 16:16–19 346
54:1–17 367 17:10–12 346
54:11 367, 372–373, 17:26 405
375–376 18:7–10 20
54:11–17 372 18:18–21 345
54:12 372 20:6–7 346
54:13 373, 376 20:10 409
55:8–9 425 22:21 348
59 108n 23:2 351n
59:7–8 105, 109 23:25–26 347
60:4 409n 25:9 60n
63:7–64:11 210 26 13–30
63:9 210 26:4–7 345
26:6 14
Jeremiah 26:9 345
1:8–9 345 26–45 13, 28
1:9 348 27:6 60n
1:15 411 27:22 60
2–6 36 28:6–10 345
2:3 99n 28:16–17 345
2:6 101 29:4 351n
2:8 101, 348 29:21 351
2:28 101n 30:16 99n
2:35 347–348 31:18–21 347
2:35–36 347 31:31–34 55
3:4–5 348 32:3 347
3:9 258n 32:36–41 45–67
3:19 458 32:44 405
4:5–8 36n 34:1–5 59
4:5–6:30 36 36 17
4–6 36, 42 36:2–4 19n
5:1 98n 36:5 26
5:15–17 36n 36:7 385
6 43n 36:10–12 27
6:1–8 36n 36:19 26
6:3 408, 413 36:32 19n
6:22–24 31–44 37:20 385n, 453
6:22–26 34, 36 38:8–9 346
6:25–26 35 38:14–15 26
7 14, 16–19, 22, 28 38:24–28 26
7:15–16 346–347 38:26 385n
8:8 422 39:14 27
8:11 348 40–41 27n
8:13–14 347 42:2 385n
10:25 99n 42:9 385n
11:7–8 348 42:15 59n
11:11–17 339–342, 357–359 43:10 60n
11:18 353–354 44:27–29 353
12:9 409 46–51 32, 50
13:23–26 352 46:27–28 352–353
14:2–7 346 48:17 405
14:10 82–83 48:32 385n
14:15 351n 49:4–5 348
 index of sources 487

49:18 37 11:10–11 179, 185

49:19–21 37 14:10 188
49:28–31 349
50–51 31–44 Joel
50:7 99n 1:16 128n
50:14 413 2:17 101n
50:15 413
50:17 99n Amos
50:41–43 31–44 3:11 402n, 403–404
51:20–28 350
52:7 413 Micha
1:15 438
Ezekiel 3:3 99
3:14 384n 3:12 24
3:22 384n
6:13 406n Nahum
7:26 382 3:8 411n
8:1 380n
10:12 409 Zechariah
11:5 379, 384 3:2 241
13:3 97n 14:14 410
13:5 210
20:8 210 Malachi
20:13 210 2:17 101n
20:22 210
22:25 99 Psalms
32:22 406 1:1 78
33:22 384n 2:7 187
37:1 384n 2:12 78
40–43 402n, 403, 415 3–7 78–80
40:1 384n 3–14 80, 86, 88–90
40:5 409 3:2–9 241
40:16 410n 3:3 85
40:30 409 3:9 80
41:5 410 4:2 85
41:10 410n 4:5 241
41:16 412n 5:10 105, 109n
41:17 410n 5:12 81
42:15 409 6:11 324
43:12 412 7 81
43:17 402n, 403 7:5 85, 332
46:9 16n 7:18 80–81
46:23 412 8 69–91
9 81
Hosea 9–10 79
8:8 83 9–13 79–80
9:9 83 9–14 83–86
11 171–179, 182, 185 9:3 80–81, 322
11:1 171–188 9:11 81
11:2 179 9:12–13 83
11:2–11 174 9:20–21 83
11:7 185n 10:7 105, 109n
11:9 396 10:18 83
11:9–11 178 11:4 84
488 index of sources

12:2 83 65:10 330

12:9 408n 66:12 330
13 81 67 234n
14 79–80, 84, 86, 67:2 235–236
93–112 67:5 323
14:7 80 70:3 323
16:8 234n 73:8 324
16:9 331 73:13 327
18:38 325 76:12 405
20 230–231, 237, 241 77:4 324–325
21:6 85 77:19 331
21:14 322 78:6 324
22:5 329 78:13 328
22:27 325 78:20 330
22:32 324 78:21 329
23:4 422n 78:28 412n
24:3–6 17 78:59 327
27:6 323, 411 79 97
29 240n 79:3 407
29:10 332 79:7 99n
30:3 329 79:8 82
30:12 332 80:6 327
31:6 82 80:10 330
31:8 322 80:15 82
31:18 95 81:8 329
32:8 324 89:8 405
33:9 327–328 89:26 458
34:3 325 89:48 84
35:4 325 90 239n, 240
36:2 105, 109n 90:2 331
38:3 333 90:17 230–231,
39:6 84n 238–239, 241
39:12 84n, 331 91 225, 230–231,
39:13 89 238–241
40 81 97:4 327–328
40:2 330 97:8 328
40:4 325 102:5 331
40:17 323 102:8 328
41:13 333 104:9 396
44:14 405 104:32 322
44:19 327 105:14 333
44:20 333 105:28 329
44:21 333 105:29 330
45:4 98 105:31 329
45:8 331 105:34 327
50:1 331 105:40 328
50:17 333 105:41 327
50:21 323 106:4 82
51:9 322 106:7 333
52:7 322 106:33 330
55:3 326 107:20 326
55:20 325 107:27 323
57:4 326 107:42 322
59:6 82 109:3 333
62:10 84n 109:16 331, 332n
 index of sources 489

109:28 330 9:27 380n

114:3 329 12:11 450
115 97 19:9 85n, 86
118:21 333 23:10 450
118:24 324 30:10 383n
119:5 452n 30:19 86
119:17 324 31:36–37 86
119:55 327 34:3 451
119:59 333 34:36 437–459
119:73 332 35:12 95n
119:77 322 37:6 382
119:78 95 40:10 86
119:90 330 41:6 406
119:106 328 42:6 86
119:147 329 42:11 369
119:167 327
121 225–226, Canticles
230–231, 240–241 3:7 411n
121:4 241 3:7–8 241
125:2 407
125:5 421n Ruth
126 241 2:13 364
126:6 241 3:18 390
128 241
129:5 324 Lamentations
138:3 329 2:3 408n
139:5 333
140:4 105, 109n Qoheleth
144:3 71n, 83–84 1:1–2:26 116
144:3–4 89 1:6 406
144:4 83 1:12–2:11 128
145:12 85 1:13 119
147:18 325 1:17 119
148:13 85 2:22 382
2:4–9 123
Proverbs 2:13 122
2:16–19 123 2:24 131
5:3–6 123 2:24–26 126
5:20–23 123 3:1–7:24 116
6:24–35 123 3:10–15 126
10:3 380n 3:15 131
19:13 382n 3:18 122
23:29 441, 458 3:22 126
25:8 396 4:14 124
4:16 124
Job 5:18–20 126
2:10 97n 5:19 131
6:2 383n 7:20 104
7:7–14 84 7:22 124
7:16 83 7:23 119n
7:17–18 71n, 72, 83–84, 7:25 119
86, 89 7:25–8:17 118
7:18 450 7:25–10:15 116
7:18–19 84 7:26 123
7:19 89 8:9–15 113–131
490 index of sources

8:16 124 11 195

9:1 119n 11:3 195
9:7–10 126
9:12 124, 391 Nehemiah
9:16 122 1:11 453
10:16 116 6:6 382
10:16–12:7 116 8:10 128
11:3 380n, 382, 452n 8:12 128
11:7–10 126 13:21 383n
12:8 116
12:8–12:14 116 1 Chronicles
7:22 369
Esther 11:8 402n, 403, 405n
2:12 165 17:4 104n
29:22 127
Daniel
1:17 421n 2 Chronicles
2 198, 207 1:9 453
2:1 380n 2:5 142
4:28 379, 385, 387 5–7 143
7 195–198 6:17 452–453
7–8 195 6:18 142
7:8 198 11:8 409n
8 190 14:13 406n
8:2 195 20:14 384
8:8 195 30:22 127
8:19 195 33 146, 148
8:27 380n 33:1–20 145
9:18 385n 33:12–13 147
9:20 385n 33:18–19 147

B. Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Sirach 4 Ezra
18:6–18 84 book 190n, 200
12:12 197
2 Maccabees
6:12–17 205 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
book 146n
The Prayer of Manasseh
book 146–148 Lives of the Prophets
1 146n
2 Baruch (Apocalypse of Baruch)
book 190n, 200 Sibylline Oracles
64–65 146n 4:49–101 199

C. New Testament

Matthew 2:17–18 186n

1:22–23 185 2:19–13 176
2:13–15 176–177, 181 2:19–21 174
2:15 171–188 2:20 175
2:16–18 176 2:21 172, 176–177,
2:17 174 182, 186
 index of sources 491

2:22–23 186 10:8 220

3:17 178–179, 186 11:26–27 105n
4:1–11 187 11:34–35 105n
4:14–16 186
4:15–16 186 1 Corinthians
8:17 186n 8:6 212n
12:17–21 185
13:35 186n 2 Corinthians
21:4–5 186 6:14–7:1 105n
24:7 191
26:56 185 Ephesians
27:9 174 1:3–14 212n
27:9–10 186n
Colossians
Luke 1:15 219
13:6–9 219n, 222 1:15–17 212n
19:42 219
20:9–19 219n Hebrews
23:34 222 1:1–3 212n
24:26 219 7:10 173
11:8–19 164, 168
John 11:32–33 300
1:1–16 212n
1:46 186 1 Peter
7:52 186 1:10–12 188
11:51–52 188 1:20 212n

Romans
3:13–18 93–112
9:25–26 105n

D. Dead Sea Scrolls

1QIsaa 4QJobа
Isa 59:7 109 Job 37:2 259n

1Q20 (1QGenAp) 4QCantb

xxi 31 389n Cant 2:12 259n
xxii 13 389n Cant 2:14 259n

4QGenj 4Q381
Gen 45:16 259n 33:8 146–147

4QPsm 11Q11 (= 11ApPs)

Ps 95:7 259n v2 239
v4 239
vi 3–13 239
492 index of sources

E. Rabbinic and Other Jewish Writings

1. Mishnah 3. Rabbinic Targumim

Sanhedrin Jonathan to the Prophets

10:1 234 Hab 3:17 200
10:2 146n Pseudo–Jonathan to the Pentateuch
200
2. Babylonian Talmud
4. Other Rabbinic and Mediaeval Jewish
Berakot works
55b 232, 236
60b 241n Alphabet of Ben Sira 228
Rashi (on Isa 59:7) 109
Pesaḥim Sefer Gematriot 232, 236
112a 240n Sefer ha-Razim 224
Sefer Raziel 230n
Sanhedrin Shimmush Tehillim 231, 237,
102b 146n 239–241
15b 239

F. Classical, Patristic and Other Early Christian Sources

1. Greek and Latin sources Bar Hebraeus, Commentary

on Daniel 197
Aemilius Sura 200 Book of the Laws of the
Augustine, City of God 202, 205 Countries 189
Augustine (on Isa 59:7) 109 Catena Severi 196
Doctrina Jacobi nuper Disputation between a Monk
baptizati 194 of the Monastery of Beth
Eusebius of Caesarea 200 Hale and an Arab Notable 193
Hyppolyte of Rome 200–201 Edessene Apocalypse 191
Jerome, Commentary Ephrem, Hymns of Nisibis 198
on Daniel 196–199 Ephrem, Pseudo–,
John of Damascus 194 Commentary on Daniel 196, 207
Kreuzesauffindungslegende 201 Ephrem, Pseudo–,
Porphyrius 196 On the End 190
Sophronius of Jerusalem, Gospel of the Twelve Apostles 192–193,
Christmas Sermon 194 203
Ishodad of Merv, Commentary
2. Syriac sources on Daniel 197
John of Phenek, Rish Melle 191
Acts of Thomas 189 Odes of Solomon 189
Alexander Legend 197 Syriac Julian Romance 201
Alexander Poem 197, 201 Vision of the Young Daniel 190n
Aphrahat, Fifth
Demonstration 190, 198 3. Armenian sources
Apocalypse of Daniel 190n
Apocalypse of Cosmas Indicopleustes,
Pseudo–Methodius 191, 197, Topography 197,
203 201n
Bahira legend 194 Sebeos 2
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Aalders, G.Ch. 38 Beck, E. 190, 198

Aalders, M. 209 Becking, B. 185, 210, 228, 475
Abadie, P. 145, 149 Beegle, D.M. 172
Abma, R. 368–369 Begrich, J. 101
Abegg, M.G. 245, 258 Beit-Arié, M. 107
Aertsen, J.A. 205 Bekkum, K. van 472
Aitken, K.T. 41 Bellinger, W.H. 79
Aland, B. 185 Bellis, A.O. 37, 40–43
Aland, K. 185 Bennett, R.A. 101
Albertz, R. 36, 210 Bergen, R.D. 319
Alexander, G. 160 Berges, U. 428
Alexander, P.S. 224 Bergman, N. 293
Allen, L.C. 37 Berkouwer, G.C. 214–215
Alter, R. 72, 87 Berlin, A. 320
Amit, Y. 367 Bette, J.C. 480
Amsler, S. 381 Beuken, W.A.M. 372, 423, 426–427,
Andersen, F.I. 245, 252, 255–257, 259, 429, 434, 461, 469
365 Beute, B. 473
Anderson, A.A. 94, 101 Bijsterveldt, M. van 482
Anderson, B.W. 76 Black, M. 107
Andersson, G. 301, 305 Blanke, H. 445
Anstey, M. 462 Blass, F. 185
Assis, E. 302 Blenkinsopp, J. 421, 423, 428, 431, 434
Auld, A.G. 302, 462 Blomberg, C.L. 176, 180
Blum, E. 137, 300
Baarda, T. 3 Bodine, W.R. 319
Baasten, M.F.J. 223 Boer, P.A.H. 71, 87, 107
Backhaus, F. 122 Böttcher, F. 379–380, 389–391, 395
Bailey, K.E. 425–426 Bogaert, P.M. 39
Bandony, L. 462 Bohak, G. 235
Bandstra, B.L. 289, 320 Bommel, J.P. 462
Barco, J. del 319 Bosma, C.J. 5, 77–78, 135, 302, 465,
Barnard, M. 77, 169, 472–473 471
Barr, J. 256–257, 259, 381, 394 Bosman, H.J. 265, 271
Barrios-Auscher, D. 447 Botha, P.J. 190, 196, 207
Barstad, H.M. 33 Botterweck, G.J. 450
Bar-Tal, D. 48, 51 Braber, M.E.J. den 302, 462
Bartelmus, R. 381–383, 386 Bracht, K. 196
Barth, K. 212–214, 218 Brekelmans, C.H.W. 470
Barthélemy, D. 253 Bremmer, R.H. 165
Barton, G. 121 Brenton, L.L. 251
Barton, J. 338 Breuer, M. 393, 439
Bauer, H. 395, 400 Briggs, C.A. 400, 402, 422, 441
Bauer, W. 185 Brink, G. van den 209
Baumgartner, W. 399–401, 422, 442 Brock, S.P. 202
Bavinck, H. 211–214 Brockelmann, C. 442
Bayle, P. 156 Brow, R. 214
Beale, G.K. 171, 176, 182, 186 Brown, F. 400, 402, 422, 441
494 index of modern authors

Broyles, C.C. 88–89 Dimant, D. 239

Brueggemann, W. 30, 43, 77–78, Doedens, C.J. 261–269, 274, 276
87–88 Domela Nieuwenhuis, F. 162–163, 169
Brugensis, F.L. 106–107 Dorp, J. van 2, 474
Bruggen, J. van 175 Drieënhuizen, T. 2, 474
Budde, K. 33, 102, 306, 382 Drijvers, H.J.W. 192–193, 198
Buhl, F. 381, 389, 444 Drinkard, J.F. 36
Buth, R. 419 Driver, S.R. 71, 79, 395, 400, 402, 422,
441
Calloud, J. 477 Dyk, J.W. 1, 2, 69, 320, 338, 362, 418,
Calvin, J. 87, 109, 214–217, 221 461, 467, 470–472, 474, 476
Cameron, A. 192, 197
Canivet, P. 191, 192 Elliger, K. 439
Carniti, C. 321 Elwolde, J. 422
Carroll, R.P. 14, 40, 43 Emerton, J.A. 32, 35
Carson, D.A. 176, 178, 180 Endo, Y. 319
Childs, B.S. 33, 82, 177, 423, 428–429, Engelmann, W. 337
434 Enns, P. 171–172, 176, 180–183, 188,
Chilton, B.D. 428 476
Christensen, D.L. 38 Epstein, I. 233, 236
Clifford, R.J. 428–429, 434 Ess, C. 473
Clines, D.J.A. 401, 404, 422, 443 Evans, C.A. 250
Coats, G.W. 74–75 Ewald, G.H.A. 459
Codd, E.F. 268 Exter Blokland, A.F. den 461
Collins, J.J. 195, 199–200 Exum, J.C. 300, 302–303
Collins, T. 477
Conrad, E.W. 365 Fafié, G. 166
Conrad, L.I. 192, 197 Fafié, Th.A. 166
Cook, J.A. 3, 472 Firth, D. 78
Cowley, A.E. 270, 400, 443 Fischer, G. 15–16, 18, 22, 25, 27, 34,
Craigie, P.C. 36, 93 36, 39–40, 342, 365
Crenshaw, J.L. 122, 124 Fishbane, M. 100
Croft, W. 387–388 Flint, P.W. 195, 200
Cross, F.M. 365–366, 374 Fogg, B.J. 281
Crüsemann, F. 78 Fohrer, G. 32, 107, 442, 454
Cruse, A. 387–388 Fokkelman, J.P. 366, 374, 425, 479
Csongor-Szabolcs, B. 462 Foley, W.A. 450
Curtis, A.H.W. 32, 36 Folmer, M. 7, 223, 225–226, 228
Forbes, A.D. 245, 252, 255–257, 259
Dahood, M. 93–94, 101 Fox, J. 400
Date, C.J. 268 Fox, M.V. 120, 122–126
Daviau, P.M.M. 73 France, R.T. 176, 180, 182–183, 186
Davidson, A.B. 71, 85 Freedman, D.N. 365–366, 374
Davila, J.R. 146, 148
Dawson, D.A. 319 García Martínez, F.G. 135, 439
Debrunner, A. 185 Gelderen, C. van 174
Dekker, C. 475 Geller, S.A. 422
Delitzsch, F. 9–10, 81, 108, 437–438, Gesenius, W. 270, 380–382, 384, 389,
442–443, 447, 449–451, 454, 456–458 400, 422, 443–444, 450, 459
Dhorme, P. 441, 454 Gispen, W.H. 173–174
Diamond, A.R.P. 37, 39–40 Glanz, O. 8–9, 338, 343, 348, 462
Dietrich, F.E.C. 380 Glessmer, U. 200
Dietrich, W. 137 Gnilka, J. 172
Dijkstra, M. 479 Goodman, M. 224
 index of modern authors 495

Gootjes, A. 31 Hossfeld, F.L. 14, 25, 78–81, 89

Gordis, R. 122, 124, 454 Houtman, C. 6, 156, 159, 169,
Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 248 299–300, 302, 474
Gosker, M. 470 Houwelingen, P.H.R. 187
Gosse, B. 32, 36 Howard, T.L. 171, 178–180, 185
Graafland, C. 479 Hubmann, F.D. 32–33, 38
Grabbe, L. 145 Hübner, U. 300, 305
Grady, J. 387 Huffmon, H.B. 94
Graham, M.P. 145 Hughes, J.J. 467
Green, D. 476 Hulbert, W.G. 146, 150
Greijdanus, S. 188 Human, D. 185, 210, 475
Greßmann, H. 306 Hunt, D.P. 214
Griffith, S.H. 193
Grogan, G.W. 78 Isaksson, B. 122
Groot, A. de 169 Isbell, C.D. 224, 236, 239
Grosheide, F.W. 171, 173–174
Groβ, W. 46, 52, 300–301, 305, Jagersma, H. 468
307–310, 312, 421 Janzen, D. 307
Groves, J.A. 265, 465, 476 Janzen, J.G. 16
Gunkel, H. 94, 101 Jastrow, M. 440
Gunn, D.M. 51, 299–301 Jeffers, A. 231, 238–239
Gutman, A. 146–148 Jenner, K.D. 195, 197, 474
Jespersen, O. 388
Haar Romeny, R.B. ter 195–196, 474 Jeter, J.R. 303
Hadidian, D.Y. 125 Jobsen, A. 478
Hagner, D.A. 176, 179–180 Johnson, M. 387–388, 392
Hanhart, R. 247 Johnson, P.S. 78
Hanson, A.T. 105 Johnston, R.K. 127
Hardmeier, C. 46–47, 52–53, 62, 272, Jong, C. de 38
279, 454, 467, 471, 473, 475–477 Jong, S. de 461
Harmsen, J.H. 264–265, 267, 274, 461, Jongeling, K. 3, 115, 468
465, 482 Jonker, L.C. 5, 135, 140–141, 145, 149
Harper, W.R. 289 Joüon, P. 72, 124, 400, 444, 451
Hartwell, H. 73 Jüngel, E. 217
Hasker, W. 214 Juynboll, G.H.A. 202
Hecke, P.J.P. van 41, 44
Heide, A. van der 107 Kaegi, W.E. 194, 202
Heiligstedt, A. 458 Kaiser, W.C. 171, 176–177, 185
Heine, B. 388–389 Kallarakkal, A.G. 195
Heitink, G. 77, 473 Karrer, M. 16
Hendel, R.S. 254 Kautzsch, E. 270, 400, 443
Henten, J.W. van 194 Keck, L.E. 72, 106
Henze, M. 239 Kelley, P.H. 36
Heyer, C.J. den 480 Kelly, M.B. 476
Hertog, G.C. den 187, 209–210, 475 Kennicott, B. 106, 111
Hertzberg, H.W. 123 Kerr, R.M. 107
Hill, J. 33, 40, 42–43, 50 Kessler, M. 39–40, 43
Hofstede de Groot, C.P. 169 Keulen, D. van 214, 473
Hoftijzer, J. 3, 115, 318, 468 Keulen, P.S.F. van 474–475
Holladay, W.L. 14–15, 18–19, 38, 342 Kiraz, G.A. 196
Holt, E.K. 13–15, 18, 28, 40, 42 Kirk, A. 48–49
Hopper, P.J. 381, 388 Kirkpatrick, A.F. 79
Horst, F. 20 Kissane, E.J. 70
Horst, P.W. van der 228 Klein, M. 225, 228, 237, 239–240
496 index of modern authors

Knauf, E.A. 145 MacLaren, A. 81

Knoppers, G.N. 145, 478 Mangan, C. 454
Koch, K. 168 Marcus, D. 304–305
Koehler, L. 399–401, 422, 442 Marquis, G. 253–254
Kooi, C. van der 7, 210, 214, 475 Marx, A. 32, 40
Kooij, A. van der 195–200, 462 Maurer, F. 457–458
Koole, J.L. 71, 364, 369, 424, 434 Maurice, J.F.D. 457
Kooper, E. 191 McCann, J.C. 72, 79, 86–87
Kooten, G.H. van 142, 474 McCartney, D. 176, 180–183
Korpel, M.C.H. 101–102, 195 McCasland, S.V. 171
Kovacs, B.W. 33 McCully, C.B. 171
Kratz, R.G. 33 McGinn, B. 194, 205
Kraus, F.R. 396 McKane, W. 37
Kraus, H.J. 101 Meer, W. van der 102, 478
Kraus, W. 16 Melein, J. 265
Kroeze, J.H. 289, 319, 399, 447, 454 Mellink, O. 194
Krüger, T. 121, 124, 129 Menken, M.J.J. 184
Kugel, J.L. 320 Menniger, K.A. 90
Kwakkel, G. 6, 185, 207, 479 Merwe, C.H.J. van der 3, 9, 289, 319,
Kuitert, H.M. 480 384, 395–396, 399, 472–473
Kuteva, T. 388–389 Mey van Alkemade, A. de 156–157
Meyer, I. 14, 25
Laga, C. 197 Michaelis, J.D. 379–380
Lakoff, G. 387–388 Michel, D. 477
Lamaire, A. 123 Midden, P. van 310, 461
Landy, F. 366, 374 Migsch, H. 47
Lawrie, D.G. 138 Millar, F. 224
Leander, P. 395, 400 Miller, B. 302–303, 305
Leene, H. 77, 369, 461, 472–473, 477 Miller, C.L. 419, 423, 471
Leeser, I. 159 Miller, P.D. 43, 75, 79–81, 83, 88–90
Leeuwen, R.C. van 73–76, 81–82, Mirsky, M.J. 228
84–85, 88, 90 Montgomery, J.A. 224, 380
LeFevre, M. 78 Moo, D.J. 105–106, 179–180, 188
Leicht, R. 232 Moor, J.C. de 102, 113, 469
Lettinga, J.P. 451 Morrison, C.E. 190
Levene, D. 224 Moulton, J.H. 185
LiDonnici, L. 146 Mühlau, F. 380
Lieber, A. 146 Mulder, M.J. 439, 477–478
Linden, N.M.A. ter 167–168, 479 Munitiz, J.A. 197
Link, C. 211, 217 Munk, K. 261, 269, 282
Lohfink, N. 126 Munk, R. 223
Longacre, R.E. 319 Muraoka, T. 124, 400, 421, 444, 451
Lubs, S. 475 Murphy, R. 122, 124–125, 129
Lugt, P. van der 96–97, 100 Murray, R. 200–201
Lugtigheid, P. 462 Murre-van den Berg, H.L. 3, 115, 468
Lund, Ǿ 71, 87
Lundbom, J.R. 342 Naudé, J.A. 289, 319, 399
Lust, J. 253, 470 Naveh, J. 224, 231, 234–236, 239, 241
Luttikhuizen, G.P. 229 Neusner, J. 235
Newing, E.G. 365
Maas, F. 473 Niccacci, A. 319, 335
Maas, J. 473 Nicholson, E.W. 13, 15, 28
Macchi, J.D. 32, 36, 40, 44 Nicoll, W.R. 81
Macintosh, A.A. 185 Nobel, H. 479
 index of modern authors 497

Noordegraaf, A. 473–474 Reedijk, W. 480

Noort, E. 113, 135, 211, 229, 471, 476 Reenen, P. van 467–468
Noth, M. 306 Reenen-Stein, K. van 467
Núñez, R.E. 388 Regt, L.J. de 9, 96, 425, 432, 468
Rehkopf, F. 185
Oberman, H.A. 215 Reimer, D.J. 33, 35, 41
O’Connor, K.M. 13–14, 19, 21–22, 26, Reinink, G.J. 191–193, 197, 203
37, 39–40 Reis, P.T. 303–304
O’Connor, M.P. 85, 320, 400, 444, 451, Rekers, B. 106
478 Reventlow, H.G. 69, 82, 87, 90, 160
Oeming, M. 337–338 Rey-Coquais, J.P. 191–192
Oesch, J.M. 52, 195 Richardson, M.E.J. 400
Özçalişkan, Ş. 388 Richter, W. 478
Ofer, Y. 439 Ridderbos, H.N. 171, 173–174, 188,
Ogden, G. 124 478
Øhrstrøm, P. 269 Ridderbos, J. 70, 72–77, 96, 165–166,
Oosting, R. 9, 139–140, 144, 367, 463, 173–174
475 Ridderbos, N.H. 69–73, 79, 83–85,
Orlinsky, H.M. 364 87–88, 90
Otto, E. 135 Rienstra, A.S. 474
Rignell, L.G. 440, 448
Palache, J.L. 379–381, 386 Ringgren, H. 450
Parke-Taylor, G.H. 35 Ristau, K.A. 145
Patai, R. 228 Robinson, B.P. 308
Paul, H. 381, 388 Robinson, E. 422
Paul, M.J. 480 Roest, B. 194
Peels, H.G.L. (E.) 5, 42–43, 475 Römer, T.C. 32, 36, 308
Perdue, L.G. 33 Rofé, A. 250
Peterson, E.H. 78 Roggema, B. 194
Peursen, W.Th. van 1, 4, 6, 142, Rom-Shiloni, D. 47, 53, 55–56
146–148, 196, 451, 474–476 Rose, W.H. 187
Pickavé, M. 205 Rosenbaum, M. 320, 362, 417–418,
Pickup, M. 171, 180, 183, 187 420, 424
Pietersma, A. 251, 422 Rosenberg, A.J. 422, 425, 429
Pike, P. 427 Rossi, G.B. de 108
Pinnock, C.H. 214 Roukema, R. 474
Ploeg, J.P.M. van der 439 Roux, J.H. le 135
Podskalsky, G. 197, 200–202 Rowley, H.H. 192, 197–198, 200,
Pokorny, J. 388–389 205–206
Polak, F.H. 9, 253–254, 395–397 Rudolph, W. 24, 185, 341–342, 439
Possekel, U. 189 Ruiten, J. van 211, 476
Postma, F. 424, 465, 467–468, 470, Ryan, R. 304
472, 476–477 Ryou, D. 461
Praamstra, O. 168
Pruss, A. 214 Sæbo, M. 123
Puech, E. 239 Sailhamer, J.H. 176–177, 180–181
Saint-Maur, H. de 458
Rabin, H. 248 Sakmann, P. 156
Rad, G. von 307 Sals, U. 33, 39–42
Rahlfs, A. 103, 247, 439, 448 Salzmann, B. 279–280, 473, 476–477
Ranchetti, M. 445 Sandborg-Petersen, U. 8, 261,
Rappaport, U. 239 268–269, 271, 279–280, 282, 452
Ratschow, C.H. 381 Sar, H.C. van der 479
Rebiger, B. 231–232, 240 Saulson, S.B. 477
498 index of modern authors

Schäfer, P. 231–232, 239, 241 Sundberg, W. 299

Schenker, A. 248 Swain, J.W. 196, 199–200
Schiffman, L.H. 224, 230–232, 234, Swartz, M.D. 224, 230–232, 234, 236,
236, 239 239
Schmidt, H. 94 Sweeney, M.A. 146
Schmidt, W.H. 82 Sweetser, E. 388
Schneider, M. 107
Schneider, W. 94, 318–319, 335, Tal, A. 247
468–469, 477 Talmon, S. 248, 250
Schniedewind, W.M. 146–148 Talstra, E. 2–4, 13, 31–32, 45, 69–72,
Schökel, L.A. 321, 422 77, 86–87, 113, 121, 135–136,
Schoon, S. 187 138–140, 142–144, 151, 155, 169,
Schoors, A. 120, 122–124, 126, 462 173, 209–211, 222, 245, 265, 272,
Schrire, T. 225–226, 228–234, 240 279, 302, 319–320, 338, 362, 367,
Schürer, E. 224 418, 424, 428, 454
Schultens, A. 379–380, 383 Tarragon, J.M. de 447, 454
Schuman, N.A. 77, 82, 473 Tate, M.E. 78–79
Schwarzbach, B.E. 156 Taylor, J. 447
Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. 122 Taylor, R.A. 192
Scott, J.C. 49, 51, 54, 65 Teichmann, Y. 48
Seitz, C.R. 49, 54 Terrien, S. 94, 101
Selig, G. 231, 237, 240–241 Thatcher, T. 48–49
Selms, A. van 18 Thelle, R.I. 33, 43
Shachar, Y. 233 Thiel, W. 14, 28, 342
Shaked, S. 223–224, 231–232, 234–236, Thomas, D.W. 94
239, 241 Thompson, T.L. 51
Sharp, C.J. 20, 23, 28– 29, 49, 59–60 Thoutenhoofd, E.D. 4, 476
Shead, A.G. 16, 46–47, 50, 58–59, 61 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 439
Sheeres, G.W. 209 Toit, D.S. du 196
Sikkel, C. 9–10, 269, 272, 454, 471, 476 Tøndering, C. 280–281
Simon, M. 233, 236 Toorn, K. van der 38, 228
Sjöberg, M. 300, 303 Torrey, C.C. 102
Slocum-Bradley, N. 48, 54 Tov, E. 7, 16, 39, 50, 245–249,
Smelik, K.A.D. 14, 21, 25–26, 39–40, 252–254, 478
42 Trachtenberg, J. 229, 231–232, 234,
Smitt, J.W. 174–176 236, 238
Snaith, N.H. 364 Traugott, E.C. 381, 388
Spengler, O. 206 Turner, D.L. 179–180
Sperber, D. 433 Turner, N. 185
Sprey, T. 195 Tur-Sinai, N.H. 441, 450–451
Spronk, K. 8, 299–300, 302, 462,
472–474, 477 Uchelen, N.A. van 2, 69–70, 72–73, 76,
Staalduine-Sulman, E. van 5, 104 320, 461, 470
Stassen, L. 388–389
Stavrakopoulou, F. 146 VanGemeren, W.A. 79–80, 83–84, 86
Stec, D.M. 440, 446 Van Moere, R. 463
Steinschneider, M. 107 Van Rompay, L. 3, 115, 197, 468
Stek, J.H. 79–80, 83, 87 Van Valin, R.D. 280
Stern, D. 228 Veenhof, J. 209
Stoker, W. 479 Veld, B. van ’t 478
Storm, M. 462 Veltri, G. 234–235
Stulman, L. 29, 37, 39–40 Ventura Avanzinelli, M. 445
Suermann, H. 198 Venuti, L. 418
Süssenbach, C. 102 Verbeke, W. 191
 index of modern authors 499

Verboom, W. 474 Wierenga, L. 479

Verheij, A.J.C. 467, 469 Wieringen, A.L.H.M. van 461, 469,
Verhelst, D. 191 477
Vermes, G. 224 Wieringen, R.G.W.M. van 462
Vermeulen, J.C. 160 Wieringen, W. van 310
Vervenne, M. 318, 395, 465, 468, 470 Wiersinga, H. 479
Villanueva, F.G. 81 Wilcock, M. 78, 85
Visser, C.C.G. 162 Willi, T. 142
Volz, H. 445 Williams, J.C. 478
Vos, J.C. 211, 476 Wilson, C. 280
Vriezen, K. 479 Wilson, D. 433
Wilson, G.H. 78
Waard, J. de 425 Winedt, M.D. 433
Wal, A.J.O. van der 465 Winther-Nielsen, N. 8, 267, 280, 284,
Wallace, H.N. 85 302, 461–462, 465
Waltke, B.K. 85, 180–182, 400, 444, Wit, J.H. de 139, 144, 475
451, 478 Wit-Gosker, T. de 481
Walton, T. 5, 8, 116, 118–119, 123, 462 Witkam, J.J. 107
Wanke, G. 15, 20, 28 Wolde, E.J. van 126, 319, 420, 454,
Ward, M. 76 470
Ware, B.A. 214 Wolfers, D. 437, 449, 454, 456–457
Weber, R. 440, 445 Wolfson, J. 457–458
Webster, N. 446 Woodbridge, J.D. 180
Weel, A.H. van der 4, 476 Woude, A.S. van der 113, 338, 368,
Wehrle, J. 479 372, 439, 471
Weigl, M. 73 Woudenberg, R. van 475
Weinrich, H. 318–319, 335 Wright, B.G. 251, 422
Weippert, H. 14, 18 Würthwein, E. 16
Weiser, A. 36, 44, 73, 88
Welkenhuysen, A. 191 Yardeni, A. 235
Wellhausen, J. 306, 386 Yee, G.A. 300
Weren, W. 479
West, G.O. 139, 144–145, 475 Zanden, G. van 315
Wetzstein 442–443, 449, 456 Zenger, E. 78–81, 89, 231
Wevers, J.W. 73 Zerubavel, Y. 48, 54, 63
Wharton, J. 89 Zimmerli, W. 88, 124, 384
Whitekettle, R. 76 Zuber, B. 477
Whybray, R.N. 126, 419, 428, 434 Zwet, H.A. van 424, 465