(1979) Childs - Introduction To The Old Testament As Scripture PDF
(1979) Childs - Introduction To The Old Testament As Scripture PDF
(1979) Childs - Introduction To The Old Testament As Scripture PDF
Introduction
to the
Old Testament
as Scripture
BREVARD S. CHILDS
INTRODUCTION TO THE
OLD TESTAMENT
AS SCRIPTURE
FORTRESS PRESS
PHILADELPHIA
First American Edition by Fortress Press 1979
Preface I5
Abbreviations 19
PART ONE
THE OLD TESTAMENT:
INTRODUCTION
PART TW O
TH E PENTATEUCH
V
lI\'TROI)UCTIO\‘ TO THE PENTATEUCH I09
I The History of _\-Ioclern Critical Research ll‘)
2 The Present State of Critical Debate on the
Pentateuch ll9
3 The Canonical Shape of the Pentatcuch I27
VI GENESIS I36
I Historical Critical Problems I4-O
Q The Canonical Shape of Genesis I4-5
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications I57
VII EXODUS 61
I Historical Critical Problems 64
2 The Canonical Shape of Exodus 70
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 76
VIII LEVITICUS 80
I Historical Critical Problems 82
‘Z The Canonical Shape of Leviticus 84
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 87
IX NUMBERS Ell)
I Historical (lriticatl Pmliletns 92
CONTENTS 9
DEUTERONOl\/IY 202
I Historical Critical Problems 204
2 The Canonical Shape of Deuteronomy 2ll
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 224
PART THREE
THE FORMER PROPHE'l‘S
XI I.\lTRODUCTIO.\’ TO THE FORMER
PROPHETS 229
I Introduction to the Historical Critical Problems 230
2 The Canonical Shape oithe Former Prophets 232
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 236
X |l_KBHUA 239
l Historical Critical Problems 241
2 The Canonical Shape ofjoshua 244
T-I Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 0 =5->
-4;,-.
PART FOU R
THE LATTER PROPHETS
XVI INTRODUCTION TO THE LATTER
PROPHETS
XVII ISAIAH
I The Historical Approach to the Book of Isaiah
2 The Canonical Shape of the Book of Isaiah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XVIII JEREMIAH
l Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape ofjeremiah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XIX EZEKIEL
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Ezekiel
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXI JOEL
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of_]oeI
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXII AMOS
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Amos
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXIII OBADIAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Obadiah
3 'l'heoIoigit';iI aiitl Heriiiciiciilical Implications
CONTENTS
XXIV JONAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape ofjonah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXV MICAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Micah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXVI NAHUM
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Nahum
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XX\'II HABAKKUK
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Habakkuk
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
\X\'lll ZEPHANIAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Zephaniah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXIX HAGGAI
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Haggai
‘I 'l'lieological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXX /.I'l(IHARlAH
I Historical Ci'itiCal Problems
2 The (laiioiiical Shape of Zechariah
‘I 'l'Iit-ological and Hermeneutical Implications
XXXI Y\I.'\I..-\(Il-II
I llistorieal (Iritical Problems
1.’ The (laiioiiical Shape of Malachi
‘I 'l'lit-oloqical and Hci-meiieutical Implications
I2 CONTENTS
PART FIVE
THE WRITINGS
XXXII INTRODUCTION TO THE WRITINGS 50 I
PART six
CONCLUSION
\I.l\' 'I'IlI'l HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND THE
(IIlRlSTIAl\l BIBLE 659
TH E OLD TESTAMENT
INTRODUCTION
I
THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT
INTRODUCTION
ll: hliography
II W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, Englewood Cliffs 3I975,
'1 he Living World of the Old Testament, London “I978; W. Baumgartner,
‘ \Ittt-stamentliehe Einleitung und Literaturgesehichte,‘ ThR NF 8, I936,
I r"I-222; ‘Eine alttestamentliche Forschungsgeschichte’, ThR NF 25, I959,
‘rt I III; A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2 vols., Copenhagen
‘|'I:'i!I; ‘Skandinavische Literatur zum Alten Testament I939—I948’, ThR
\ I-' I7, l948—9, 273-328; Bower, The Literature if the Old Testament in its
Ilttmrieal Development, New York I922; F. Bleek, An Introduction to the Old
I}-tmment I, ET London I869, 5-28; John Bright, ‘Modern Study oi Old
I I-~.t;nnent Literature’, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of
It I". Albright, ed. G. E. Wright, Garden City, N.Y. and London 1961,
I I ‘II; _I- W. Brown, The Rise tjBiblical Criticism in America, 1300-1370,
\IItItllt‘I()Wl1, Conn. I964; M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig, Die Schnft und
tlm Terdeutschung, Berlin I939; K. Budde, Geschichte der althebriiischen
l llr'HtlIlt', Leipzig 21909; Buxtorf, Tiberias, sive commentarius masorethicus
triplet, Ii;1S('I I685.
I. (Iappellus, Arcanum punctationis revelatum; sive de punctorum vocalium et
tlnrttllllfllt npud Hebraeos vera et germana antiquitate Iibri II, Leiden 1624;
r nmo .\'rtt'rr1, sive de variis quae in sacris Veteris Testamenti libris occurrunt lec-
ttmtll-'u\ Iibri .st’.‘<, Paris I650; G. Carpzov, Introductio ad libros canonicos
ltlllllflttlttl Vrteris Testarnenti omnes, Leipzig I72]; Flavius Magnus Aurelius
(lassiodorus, De institutione divinarum, MPL 70; U. Cassuto, The Documen-
mn I l rpothei is and the Composition of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 3I959; T. K.
(lheyne, I"out|ders rj Old Testament Criticism, London and New York I893;
II S Childs, ‘Sensus Literalis: An Ancient and Modern Problem’, Bei-
tm|_'r .;m olttestornentlichen Theologie, FS W. Zirnmerli, Gbttingen 1976; R. E.
(llrments, /I (Ienturr if Old Testament Study, London and Philadelphia
I'Ir'I=, R. Cornely t-t .-\. Merk, Introductionis in S. Scripturae libros compendium,
l'.u|~\ ‘~'I‘I-III; (I. II. Cornill, I'.'inleitung in dos Alte Testament, I891, ET
Istntlntt attttl New York ITIII7.
R Davidson and :\. R. (1. Leaney, Ilthlirol (.'riticism, The Pelican Guide to
28 mreooucrrow
11/lodern Theology, vol. 3, Harmondsworth 1970; Simon De Vries, Bible and
Theology in the Netherlands, Wageningen 1968; F. Delitzsch, ‘Uber Begrifl
und Methode der sogennanten biblischen und insbesondere alttestament-
lichen Einleitung’, Zeitschriftfiir Protestantismus und Kirche, NF 28, Erlangen
1854-, 133-90; L. Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen
Kirche, Jena 1869; E. Dobschiitz, ‘The Abandonment of the Canonical
Idea’, A__]T 19, 1915, 416fT.; H. Donner, ‘Das Problem des Alten Testa-
ments in der christlichen Kirche. Uberlegungen zu Begriliund Geschichte
der alttestamentlichen Einleitung’, Beitrlige zur Theorie des neugeitlichen Chris-
tentnrns, FS W. Trillhaas, Berlin 1968, 37fT.; S. R. Driver, Introduction to the
Literature ofthe Old Testament, Edinburgh 1891, 91913; Louis Ellies Dupin,
Dissertatio praelirninaris de auctoribus librorum scripturae in Nova Bibliotheca
auctorurn eeclesiasticorum, Paris 1688.
J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3 vols., Leipzig 1780-3; 5
vols. 41820-24; Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament. An Introduction, ET
Oxford and New York 1965; Ivan Engnell, Gamla Testamentet: en tradition-
shistorish inledning, 1, Stockholm 1945; Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Claois
Scripturae Sacrae, Basel 1567; G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, ET
Nashville 1968, London 1970; Hans Frei, The Eclipse ofBiblical Narrative. A
Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics, New Haven 1974;
Goettsberger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, F reiburg 1928; N. Cottwald,
A Light to the Nations, New York 1959; E. M. Gray, Old Testament Criticism,
New York and London 1923; G. B. Gray, ‘Bible, Old Testament Critic-
ism’, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 3, "1910-1 1, 857-65; W. H. Green,
General Introduction to the Old Testament. The Canon, New York 1905; S. L.
Greenslade et al. eds., The Cambridge History qfthe Bible, 3 vols, Cam bridge
and New York 1963-70; H. Gunkel, ‘Die Grundprobleme der israelit-
ischen Literaturgeschichte’, Reden und Au_/slitze, Gottingen 1913, 29-38; ET
‘Fundamental Problems of Hebrew Literary History’, What Remains qfthe
Old Testament, New York and London 1928, 57-68; Die israelitische Literatur,
Leipzig 1925, Darmstadt 1963.
Hadrian, lsagoge ad Sacras Scripturas, MPG 98, 1273-1312; H. A. C.
Hiivernick, Handbuch der historisehe-ltritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testa-
ment, 3 Teile, Erlangen 1839-56; parts translated as A General Historica-
Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch and to the Old Testament, Edinburgh 1850;
H. F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern Research, Philadelphia 21966; R.
K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1969, London
1970, 3-82; H. Heidegger, Enchiridion biblicum, Zurich 1681, Jena
‘I723; E. W. Hengstenberg, Beitréige zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament,
3 Bande, Berlin 1831-39; G. von Herder, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, 2
vols., ET Burlington, Vt. 1833; H. Hfipfl, Introductiorzis in sacros utriusque
testamenti libros compendium, 3 vols., Rome 1921, 61958-63; T. H. Horne, An
Introduction to the Critical Stud_y and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 3 vols.
London 1818; 141877; G. Hornig, Die Anfiinge der historisch-kritischen
Theologie, Giittingcn 1961; H. Hupfeld, lilber Hegrijf und fltethode der
THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION
l ltt- sixteenth century had seen the rise ofa new understanding
III tltt- Bible which had emerged from the impetus of the Renais-
-..tttt t- and Reformation, but it was left to the seventeenth century,
to tltt- .~.t-t-ond and third generation of post-Reformation scholars, to
l.t\ tltt- lttttnclation ofthe modern Old Testament Introduction. The
It -t ttt tlt-\ t-lopt-cl was the critica sacra (it was sometimes called introduc-
rt-I ot t'ttt_g~gt») and it handled questions of text, canon, and her-
IIH'llt‘lllIt'S in a systematic fashion. However, it developed these
ltt|t|t s. at least at lirst, within the structure of orthodox Protestant
tl--t-_ttt.ttit-s. .-\ classic example was André Rivetus’ Isagoge (I627)
nlttt It ltt>t-t- the subtitle, Intmductio generalis ad scripturam sacram.
\tttottt_-_ tltt' l.ttthcrans NI. \\"'alther's learned volume, Officina biblica
lttittt. Itttl only discussed the traditional issues, but offered a
tlt t.ttlt-tl attttlysis of t-aclt book in a manner which adumbrated the
'-t|-t t t.tI itttt-otlttction‘ of the nineteenth century. Among the
lit-lot tttt-tl wittg of Protestatttism H. Heitlegger’s Enchiridion pro-
\ ttlvtl .ttt ttttttsttatlly lttcitl attitlysis of the structure and inner move-
ntt ttt Ill t-.tt‘lt ltiblical hook. ltt littglantl a similar task was skilfully
t u-t tttt-tl lt\ l"|‘;tttt'is Roln'|'ls in his xvcll-kttowtt volume, ('.'lavz'.t‘ Bib-
[lt-Hun I ll» lii).
34 tnrnonucrton
The critica sacra continued well into the eighteenth century and
included such famous authors as _]. Le Clerc and L. Cappellus. By
the time it was replaced as a form of Introduction the orthodox
confessional framework which it had once supported had been
badly damaged, and a very different understanding of the Old
Testament had emerged. Increasingly, this type of biblical-
theological manual had felt the need to engage in a defensive
apologetic to meet the newer questions regarding the Bible which
had begun to emerge from all sides. The last great work of this
genre which summarized the position of orthodox Lutheranism was
J. G. Carpzov’s Introductio ad libr0.t canonicos bibliorum Veteris Tes-
tamenti omnes (I721). In spite of its great erudition and impressive
thoroughness, its constant polemic revealed how much the tradi-
tional position regarding the Old Testament had been pushed into
a defensive, holding action.
The rise of the modern historical study of the Old Testament
must be seen in connection with the entire intellectual revolution
which occurred during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries, and which issued in a radically different understanding
ofGod, man, and the world (cf. K. Scholder). However, in terms of
the development of the discipline of Old Testament Introduction
certain key figures played a decisive role in opening up a series of
new questions. First, the integrity of the Hebrew text was seriously
undermined by Cappellus who was able to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of an increasing number of scholars that the Masoretic
text had suffered considerable corruption and that its vowel points
had originated in medieval times rather than being coterminus with
the consonantal text. Secondly, Spinoza°s famous book, Tractatus
Theotogico-Politicus (I670) dealt a hard blow to the traditional jew-
ish theories of biblical composition on which especially orthodox
Protestantism had built its theology by rejecting all claims of an
authoritative scripture and demanding that all theories be ration-
ally tested. He then proposed historical and psychological explana-
tions of material which had previously been relegated to the super-
natural, such as prophecy and miracles. Thirdly, Richard Simon’s
brilliant book, Hz'.ttoz're Critique du Vzeux Testament (1685) sought to
develop a genuine literature history of the Old Testament which
went far beyond the sporadic observations of his predecessors.
Above all, he sought to trace the process of growth and change
within the literature which no longer treated the Old Testament as a
THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION
\lthon~_;h I do not doubt that there are some areas of serious dis-
.ufIt'|'I||t'|ll in my briefsurvey ofthe development ofthe Old Testa-
||u'I|l lntrotluetion. particularly in matters of detail or emphasis,
-toll I ll'I'l that there is a broad consensus among scholars in regard
In tin‘ gt-in-rail lines of this history. The real point of controversy is
ll--\\ our t'\';t|tt;1tt~s this history.
lhr most common opinion is to view this history in terms of
In h..|.ol\ |n-ogt't'ss und sulistantiztl gain. In a burst of enthusiasm
\lIllIl' |tint-tt-t-ntli-t't-ntnt"y scliolars portrayed the history as ajour-
m \ In-in iu_|n>|';tn<'t' nntl error in \-vlticlt rct‘|csi:tstit‘:t| dogma stifled
40 INTRODUCTION
free research into a era of freedom measured only by critical stan-
dards of objective truth. Conversely, some conservative Christians
have described this history as a growth in unbelief in which the
truth of the Bible has been sacrificed on the altar of human wisdom
and pride.
In myjudgment, both ofthese evaluations have missed the mark.
On the one hand, it seems to me impossible to deny the enormous
gains which have been achieved in many areas of the study of the
Old Testament. To compare the church fathers, or the Reformers
for that matter, with modern scholarship in terms of philology,
textual and literary criticism, or of historical knowledge and exeget-
ical precision should convince any reasonable person of the undeni-
able achievements of historical critical scholarship in respect to the
Old Testament.
On the other hand, there have been serious losses reflected in the
victory of the critical Introduction. By this evaluation I do not
include the psychological impact of the new knowledge on tradi-
tionaljewish and Christian beliefs, which is a subject lying outside
the scope of this discussion. Rather in terms of the subject matter,
serious reservations can be held regarding the form of the critical
Introduction as an adequate approach to the literature it seeks to
illuminate.
In the first place, the historical critical Introduction as it has
developed since Eichhorn does not have for its goal the analysis of
the canonical literature of the synagogue and church, but rather it
seeks to describe the history of the development of the Hebrew
literature and to trace the earlier and later stages ofthis history. As
a result, there always remains an enormous hiatus between the
description of the critically reconstructed literature and the actual
canonical text which has been received and used as authoritative
scripture by the community.
Secondly, because of the predominantly historical interest, the
critical Introduction usually fails to understand the peculiar
dynamics of lsrael’s religious literature, which has been greatly
influenced by the process of establishing the scope ofthe literature,
forming its particular shape, and structuring its inner relationships.
The whole dimension of resonance within the Bible which issues
from a collection with fixed parameters and which affects both the
language and its iimtgery is lost by disregarding the peculiar func-
tion of canonical literature.
THE DISCIPLINE or OLD TESTAMENT mrnonuerton 41
'l‘hirdIy. the usual historical critical Introduction has failed to
tt-late the nature ofthe literature correctly to the community which
ltlt‘2lSl.1I'CCI it as scripture. It is constitutive oflsraelis history that the
literature formed the identity of the religious community which in
turn shaped the literature. This fundamental dialectic which lies at
the heart ofthe canonical process is lost when the critical Introduc-
Itlnll assumes that a historically referential reading ofthe Old Tes-
t.ttt1ettl is the key to its interpretation. It assumes the determining
‘ttt'i't' on every biblical text to be political, social, or economic fac-
tt -rs which it seeks to establish in disregard ofthe religious dynamic
ot tlte canon. In sum, the issue is not whether or not an Old Testa-
tttt-nt Introduction should be historical, but the nature ofthe ltistor-
it .tl categories being applied.
llow does this criticism relate to the history ofscholarship lead-
ll F: up to the development of the critical Introduction which we
|t.t\c outlined? It suggests that the friction which characterized the
l|I\lt)I'_\' of the discipline and is still present today between a liberal
t t'l‘\ll.*é conservative, scientific versus ecclesiastical, objective versus
tttttlt'ssit)l12ll approach to the Old Testament poses a false dicho-
|ttttt_\ of the problem. Because this issue has been confused
thtttngltout its history. the development of critical biblical scholar-
-.ht|> has brought both great gains and also serious losses in under-
.t,ttttlittg the Old Testament. In my judgment, the crucial issue
tt hit It produced the confusion is the problem ofthe canon, that is to
..t\. how one understands the nature of the Old Testament in
t- l.ttitttt to its authority for the community of laith and practice
tthteh ~4l1tl|)(‘(l and preserved it.
hit__~"l1er criticism.
lly the nineteenth century the traditional forms of the Old Tes-
|.nnent discipline had been radically reshaped by the newer
tnethodology. Text criticism had become a discipline devoted to the
tt'slnl‘2lIi0t1 of a frequently corrupt .\4asoretic text by the scientific
xii-lillg of the versions in search of an earlier and better text tradi-
tun). 'l'he canon had been defined in strictly historical terms as an
1-uernal ecclesiastical validation without any real significance For
Illt' shaping or interpretation of the biblical literature. Research
lllltl the history ol‘ composition, which had moved to the centre of
lilt' -.tage, sought to recover the history of each hook, distinguishing
lu'l\\'t‘(‘11 its allegedly genuine and non-genuine portions (cl. F.
\t hleiermacher, Brief Outline §§ lltlfi.) Conservative scholars ~
|t'\\l~4l1, Protestant. and Catholic — sought to reverse the tide by
.tp|n-ztliiig in dillerent ways to the traditional views. Occasionally a
-.ki|'|niSl1 was won, but, by and large, this endeavour was deemed
nnsnt-eessliul by the academic world.
l'he ellect of this history on the concept of the cation was clear.
I lltl\(‘ scholars who pursued historical criticism of the Old Testa-
nn-nt nu longer found a significant place tor the canon. Conversely,
Ilium‘ .~;t-holars who sought to retain a concept of the canon were
|lll.llllt' to find a significant role for historical criticism. This is the
|---l.nn\ which lies at the centre of the problem of evaluating the
tt.\Il|lt' ol'()ld 'l'estament Introduction.
In my jtitlgment, the crucial task is to rethink the problem of
li.nt-tlnction in such a way as to overcome this long established
n n--ton hetwecn the canon and criticism. ls it possible to under-
-.I,tIttl l|tt' ()ld 'l'estamcnt as canonical scripture and yet to make
lull .t||tl t-onsistent use ofthe historical critical tools?
II
THE PROBLEM or THE CANON
Bibliography
G. C. Aalders, Oud-Testamentische Kanoniek, Kampen 1952; P. R. Ack-
royd, ‘The Open Canon’, Colloquium, The Australian and New Zealand
Theological Review 3, Auckland 1970, 279-91; G. W. Anderson, ‘Canonical
and Non-Canonical’, The Cambridge History ofthe Bible 1, ed. P. R. Ackroyd
and C. F. Evans, Cambridge and New York 1970, 113-59; W. R. Arnold,
‘Observations on the Origin of Holy Scripture’,_]BL 42, 1923, l—2l;_]. P.
Audet, ‘A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek
Transcription’,jTS, NS 1, 1950, 135-54; W. Bacher, ‘Synagogue, the
Great’,jE ll, 640-43; W. J. Beecher, ‘The Alleged Triple Canon of the
Old Testament’,jBL 15, 1896, 118-28; P. Billerbcck, Der Kanon des
Alten Testaments und seine Inspiration’, Kommcntar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch [V 1, Munich 1928, 415-51; L. Blau, ‘Bible
Canon’, jE 3, 140-50; Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, Notre Dame,
Ind. 1977; Bloch, ‘Outside Books’, Mordecai ll/I. Kaplan jubilee Volume,
English Section, New York 1953, 87-108; reprinted Leiman, Canon and
Masorah (see below), 202-23;]. S. Bloch, Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung
der althebriiischen Literatur, Breslau 1876;]. Bonfrére, ‘In totam scripturam
sacram praeloquia’, Commentarii in Pentateuchum, Antwerp 1625, 1-92; K.
Budde, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments, Giessen 1900; F. Buhl, Canon and
Text ofthe Old Testament, ET Edinburgh and New York 1892.
H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, ET
Philadelphia and London 1972; Carmignac, ‘Les citations de 1’Ancien
Testament dans “1a Guerre des Fils de Lumiere contre les Fils de
Ténebres” ’, RB, 63 1956, 234-60, 375-90; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and
Tradition, Oxford and Philadelphia 1975, 54-7; ‘Covenant and Canon in
the Old Testament’, Creation, Christ, and Culture. Studies in Honour of T. F.
Torrance, ed. R. W. A. McKinney, Edinburgh 1976, 1-12; Jean Le Clerc,
Sentiments dc quelques théologiens d’Hollande sur l’Histoire Critique de Vieux Tes-
tament, Amsterdam 1686; R. Coggins, Samaritans andjeu.-s. The Origins of
Samaritanism Reconsidered, Oxford and Philadelphia 1975; H. Corrodi, Ver-
such einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte rle.s_jt1dischen und christlichen Bibelhanons, 2
THE PROBLEM or THE CANON 47
vols. Halle I792; Cosin, A Scholastic History of the Canon ty‘ the Holy
Scripture, London I657, reprinted Oxford I849; S. Davidson, The Canon of
the Bible, London I880; L.‘ Dennefeld, Der alttestamentliche Kanon der anti-
uchenischen Schule, Biblische Studien I4.4, Freiburg I909; L. Diestel, ‘Die
Kritik des Kanons’, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche,
_|ena 1869, 601-20.
A. Eberharter, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben Sira, Muns-
ter I9l I; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, Oxford and New
York I965, 560-71; I. H. Eybers, ‘Some Light on the Canon of the Qum-
ram Sect’, Ou TWP I962, I-14, reprinted Leiman, Canon and lldasorah, 23-
'Iti; ‘Some Remarks about the Canon of the Old Testament’, Theologia
lfeangelica 8, Pretoria I975, 88-I I7; L. Finkelstein, ‘The Maxim of the
.-\nshe Keneset Ha-GedoIah’,jBL 59, 1940, 455-69; E. Flessernan-van
Leer, ‘Prinzipien der Sammlung und Ausscheidung bei der Bildung des
Ixdmons’, ZTK 6I, I964, 404-20; D. N. Freedman, ‘The Law and the
|’mphCtS’, SVT 9, I962, 250-65, reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah,
>--20; ‘Canon of the Old Testament’ IDB Suppl, I30—6; _]. Fuerst, Der
Arman des Alten Testaments nach den I’/berliderungen in Talmud und flllidrasch,
I.t'ipZIg 1868; A. Geiger, ‘Warum gehort das Buch Sirach zu den Apok-
|\'|1hen?’, ZDMG 12, I858, 536-43; L. Ginzberg, ‘Some Observations on
the Attitude of the Synagogue toward Apocalyptic Writings’, _[BL 41,
l‘I'_’2, I15-36, reprinted LCIITIBII, Canon and Masorah, 142-63; H. Graetz,
‘Her Abschluss des Kanons des Alten Testaments’, MOW] 35, I886,
.’H| --98; W. H. Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: the Canon,
'\'¢-w York I905; D. E. Groh, ‘Hans von Campenhausen on Canon’, Interp
.'H. IFJ74, 331-43; H. A. C. Hiivernick, A General I-Iistorico-Critical Introduc-
trim to the Old Testament, ET Edinburgh I852, l7IT.; W. W. Hallo, ‘New
\'|t-wpoints on Cuneiform Literature’, IE] I2, I962, I3-26; M. Haran,
'I'm|>|ems of the Canonization of Scripture’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 25,
Ir-rn.~;;tIern 1955-6, 245-71; G. Hiilseher, Kartottisch und Apokrflrh, Leipzig
IIIII’-I,
I . Terminology
The Old Testament does not address directly the issue of when and
how the history of canonization took place, yet various_]ewish trad-
itinns developed during the Hellenistic period which were accepted
by both _]ews and Christians at least until the seventeenth century.
ll Esdras 14.4-4 (c. AD 100) recounts that Ezra restored in forty days
the sacred books which had been destroyed by the Babylonians by
his being supernaturally empowered to recall the entire scriptures.
The account in II Mace. 2.13 attributes the collection ofthe sacred
writings to Nehemiah. Although the Babylonian Talmud in a fam-
mils passage (Baba Bathra l4b—l5a) had sought to ascribe author-
~.|iip to the various books of the Bible, it was Elias Levita who
Iit'\'(‘lO[J€d the theory ofthe men ofthe Great Synagogue under Ezra
.|\ having established the canon of the Hebrew Bible and divided it
mm three parts. This theory was widely accepted by _]ews and
( fhristians until the end ofthe nineteenth century.
In spite ofthe variations within these traditional viewpoints, they
.Iii shared an underlying assumption of an unbroken continuity,
i'\ t-n ii‘ threatened at times, between the writing and collecting olian
.1t|lilt)I'l|.E1lIl\/C body of scripture. The canon was formed and
--n|;irgett as each new book was added. When the last book
.|p|ii~;ired, the canon was closed. The canon assured an unbroken
.|'t it's ol‘ sacred annals which had been preserved from the time of
\ltI\t'S. The establishment of authorship maintained its authentic-
n\. the divine inspiration its truth, the uninterrupted succession its
|ii|| ll).
I he t-ollapse of the traditional understanding of the canon was
|||=- it-snlt til‘ attacks from several directions. First ofall, the discov-
- |\ olli t'mI1pl(‘X historical development of the literature, especially
the l’t-nt.itetu'l1, seriously damaged the idea ofa direct, unbroken
ittli\ In-twt-t-1| the original writing and its linal Stage in which the
litwkk zutthnrity li;i(l lH‘('ll il(‘(‘(‘|)l(‘(l from its inception. Again, the
tr--»i11iitin1iti|';| lmig'p1't*lii.~:ltit'yrziisetlserioust|ut'stin|1s respecting
52 INTRODUCTION
the traditional authorship, and thus threatened the canon’s authen-
ticity. Then again, the discovery that certain of the biblical books,
especially Daniel, probably derived from a period alter the alleged
closing oi‘ the canon under l:lzra"s leadership did much to question
the accuracy ol‘ the traditional concept of the canon’s history.
l\'uenen’s devastatingly negative judgment regarding the history of
the Great Synagogue removed the last foundation block olithe older
view and wiped the slate clear for a new interpretation.
some portion oi‘ it. At the end ol“ the fifth century in the period of
Ezra the Torah had assumed its lixed canonical status with the
addition ol‘ the Priestly source to the earlier Pentatenchal strands.
The dating ot‘ the lorniatioii of the Pentateuch was established to
some extent by the Samaritan schism which marked a terminus by
which time these books had been set. The prophetic books were
next canonized in the third century, and the collection had been
firmly closed l)el'ore the book oli Daniel was composed, about I65.
The tinal stage of canonization was assigne(l to decisions at the
Council o[“_]amnia (c. Al) E10) at which time lmoks in use among the
.-'\lexan(lri;1tt _]e\\"s vvere also exeltttletl.
THE. PROBLEM or THE. canon 53
Within the last two decades this classic tiitictcctitli-century
rccotistructioti oi‘ the history olithe canon has been seriously eroded
in several ways. lti the first place, most ofthe lixed historical points
npoii which the theory had been built seem no lotigcr able to bear
the weight placed upon them. For example, recent research ittto the
Hantaritati question (Puryis. (Ioggiits) has raised serious doubts
whether one can any longer speak ol'a single event in the filth or
tonrth century - the exact date was never settled —- which resulted in
|lit' Samaritan schism. .\lor'can the restriction oli the Samaritan
\t‘l'l|)[Lli‘L‘S to the Pentateuch be used as a tcrmirzus ad t[Zl€I7l tor the
t losing of the [irst part of the Hebrew cation. Similarly, the argu-
tnent For the dating ofthe closing olithe linal section ofthe Hebrew
lithlc by the (louticil ol'_]antnia rests on the llinisiest possible evi-
dence. .\lot only is next to nothing known about this ‘council’, but
\\ hat transpired did not relate directly to the clositig olithe cation.
l'ht-n again, the research of A. C. Stnidberg has successfully des-
troyed the widespread theory olian Alcxandrian canon and seri-
tiltxly datiiaged the assumption oiparallcl cations, one narrow and
tttte broad, which were held by tlillerctit geographical cotiimtttiities
\\lllll]1_ILI(lftlSTl'1.
lit the secotid place, the assutnptioti that the Masoretic division
~-I .t tripartite cation was the original order rellecting three histori-
-.tl stages in the canoti’s development, and that the Septuagint’s
tn-ler was a later. secondary adjustmetit, has been questioned from
.t t ei';tl sides. Holsclter, Katz and Lebrani have dcirionstrated the
.tntn|uity oi other non—I\lasoretic orders. Margolis (7tllT.) has
.tt~-Itlctl tor the co-existence ol‘ Torah, prophecy, atid wisdom
tht -tttgltotit lsrat-l’s literary and religious history. This approach to
. .nton has tended to sustain the older conservative argutiietit (e.g.
It ll. \\'ilsoii) that Daniel's exclusion lirom the prophets in the
\l.|\tt|‘t‘llt‘ order ctitailcd a theological as tnttch as a historical
]t|tl"_|Ill‘Ill. ()nc catttiot assittne that one canonical section was
n-- In It closed |iclot'c another was lot‘tiietl becaitse oi‘ the lack olisolid
- -. ttlt'lIt't‘ lront which to draw such a conclttsiott.
l nt.tl|\". the reco\'er\" oli a sense olioral tradition which criticized
ll|t' ttltlt'l' liter.tr_\ critical school lor itlt-tttiliyitig the age ol‘ the tita-
tt tt.tl \\lllllll ;i hook with its literary lixatioii ltas also had a damag-
nn-_ ellcct on the classic critical l'(‘('t>il!~i[l'tl('ll()llt)l\ll1(‘ canon. Even if
tt||t' tttlllll illl‘lIlll‘§ the lmttk \y|iit'li was tlisco\'ci'e(l in liill (ll Kings
"t \\illt lletttertilitttitx. as litust st'liol;it's tltt, it tlties not liillow that
54 INTRODUCTION
one can infer that this event constituted the first stage of canoniza-
tion of Deuteronomy nor that the laws of .\/loses were without
authority up to that point in history. Many of the same assump-
tions cati be questioned regarding the final stage of the Pen-
tateuch’s alleged canonization uttder Ezra resulting from the addi-
tion of the Priestly source according to the classic Wellhausen
theory. To extrapolate a history of canonization from a highly com-
plex and obscure literary process remains a very fragile and tenta-
tive enterprise.
exerted an authoritative role. lhe history ofthe canon did not start
in 621 BC as ifthe book ofDeuteronomy, which had previously been
regarded as among the profane writings, was suddenly deemed
authoritative. Also I.eiman’s discussion of the rabbinic evidence for
the closing of the canon is of great value. .\ievertheless, there are
some problems with Leiman’s lull proposal, in my opinion. Because
he makes no real distinction between a book’s authority and its
canonicity, the entire Pentateuch is assumed to have been canon-
ized during the period of Moses. But then this portrayal of the
canonization process fails to reckon with the very history of the
literature's development, the recognition of which caused the col-
lapse of the traditional position. Leiman makes a passing reference
to Albright’s demonstration that ancient tradition has been pre-
served in the various sources as evidence against the classic literary
critical reconstruction. But he still does not make room for the
complex history of the litcrature’s growth. Nor docs he adequately
deal with a history ofaccommodating, collecting, and ordering of
saga and legends stemming from non-Israelite sources which
entered the Pentateuch. In the end, Leiman’s reconstruction ofthe
history still seeks to defend an unbroken succession ofattthoritative,
canonical writings from Moses to the close of the canon.
(iv) A similar hypothesis, but considerably more apologetic, has
been proposed by .\/I. G. Kline, who attempts to establish an
unbroken canonical continuity from the Mosaic period by finding
an analogy in the ancient Near Eastern Suzcrainty treaties. How-
ever, Kline’s basically dogmatic formulation of the history of the
canon in terms of a divine inspiration which assured an inerrant
transmission of the Word of God (23) reflects completely the pre-
Semlcr_ seventeenth-century understanding which has not even
seen the historical problem. These issues are far too complex simply
to circumscribe by a strictly theological definition. Therefore, in
spite of some excellent insights, the total impact of the book misses
its intended goal.
(v) .-'\t the other end ofthe spectrum is the bold attempt oli_]ames
A. Sanders to reinterpret the history of the canon as an ongoing
hermeneutical process extending throughout lst'ael's entire history.
Sanders greatly broadens the definition ofthe canon to describe the
community’s attempt to discover its sell‘-identity in the liglit ofits
authoritative traditions which it enntinttallv reinter|>rets to meet
the changing ltistorieal eomlitions ofits e.\ist<-111-e. .\rt-o|"<li||_|_»_" to his
THE PROBLEM or THE canon 57
model, ‘it is the nature of canon to be both stable and adaptable’
t‘Hermeneutics’, 404). It is stable in the sense of having an estab-
lished structure and content; it is adaptable in addressing the
cotnmunity in each new generation. Although Sanders has not yet
vvorked out the effect ofhis hermeneutical approach in detail on the
entire history of the canonical process, he has drawn some of the
Iiroad lines in his book Tara/2 and Canon.
In my judgment, Sanders has moved in the right direction in
liroadening the definition of canon to cover a process extending
throughout Israel's history which effected the shaping ofthe litera-
tnre itself. However, I am critical of Sanders’ existential categories
which understand the growth of canon as a search for identity in
tintes of crisis, oscillating between the two poles of stability and
.ttlaptability. In my opinion, the historical and theological forces
which evoked the formation of the canon were ofa very different
ortler from an identity crisis. Nor is the effect of canon on the
literature adequately described by Sanders’ category of‘monotheis-
tic pluralism’, as I shall attempt to demonstrate in the detailed
.tnalysis of each biblical book. Finally, I am critical of Sanders’
.ntempt to reconstruct the hermeneutical process within ancient
l\l';ll“‘l, which appears to be a highly speculative enterprise, es-
pecially in the light ofthe almost total lack ofinformation regarding
lltt' history ofcanonization. He assumes a knowledge ofthe canoni-
t.tl process from which he extrapolates a hermeneutic without
tlt't||t>t1S[I‘Et[il'lg, in my opinion, solid evidence for his reconstruction.
l'o summarize: the task of assessing the role of the canon in
understanding the Old Testament has proven to be an enormously
=l||lit-nlt problem. Its terminology, history, and function remain
lt|t_'_l|l_\ controversial. In spite of the serious erosion in the classic
lnt-r;n"§ critical reconstruction of the history of canon which
t t|tt't'L,_"t‘(l at the end of the nineteenth century, no fully satisfactory
ltt'\\ interpretation has been able'to achieve a consensus.
\t-t t-ntlly, tln-re \\t'|'t‘ periods in the history oli lsracl itt which the
|.ttuit|i< _ll liistor} was larttcly sttlistnnetl ttntlcr the history of the
lit--|.i||m-'~. tlt'\t'lt)]1lI1('lll. 'l'lti.~; litsiott ol' the two |)roccsscs was es-
62 mrnooucrton
pecially evident during the early, pre-exilic history, but in the later
exilic and post-exilic periods these Forces associated with the
development ofcanon increased in importance. There seems to be a
direct relationship between the quantity ofliterature and the inter-
est in its collection and ordering within set parameters.
Thirdly, because ofthe lack ofhistorical evidence, it is extremely
difficult to determine the motivations involved in the canonical
process. The Old Testament neither reports directly on this history,
nor does it even reflect a tradition of the canonical process. With
the one exception of the Deuteronomic tradition of .\/Ioses’ writing
and preservation ofthe Book ofthe Law, the Old Testament has no
tradition lirom which one could begin to recover its history. At most
we find an occasional isolated event or situation from which some
historical inlbrmation can be inferred. For example, it remains
exceedingly diificult to determine to what extent a canonical Force
was at work in the uniting of the] and E sources of the Pentateuch
or how a consciousness of the canon exerted itselfin the process.
Caution must be exercised not to hypothesize the history oi‘ the
literature’s growth in such a way as to eliminateapriori the religious
dimensions associated with the Function ofthe canon. One does not
have to read far in the standard historical critical Introductions to
find hypotheses regarding the literary and canonical histories
which rest on untested historiographical assumptions.
Bibliography
\l. Appel, Kanon und Kirche, Paderborn I964; James Barr, ‘Trends and
Prospects in Biblical TheoIogy’,jTS NS 25, I974, 265-82; ‘Biblical Theo-
logy’, IDB Suppl, l04—I I; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/I, ET New York
I936, Edinburgh I938; 2nd ed. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids, Mich.
I975; Die Schrift in der Kirehe, Ziirich I947; G. Bornkamm, ‘Die
okumenische Bedeutung der historisch-kritischen Bibelwissenschaft’, Ge-
tthirhte und Glaube II, Munich I971, II—-20; H. Cazelles, ‘Biblical Critic-
is-tn, OT’, IDB Suppl, 93-102; B. S. Childs, ‘The Old Testament as Scrip-
tttre ofthe Church’, CTM 43, I972, 709-22; G. W. Coats and B. O. Long,
t-tls., (l'anon'arzd Authority, Philadelphia I977; O. Cullmann, ‘The Tradi-
tion’, The Earl)» Church, ET London and Philadelphia I956; H. Diem, Das
Pm/>/em des Schriftkanons, Ziirich I952; E. Dobschiitz, ‘The Abandonment
ot the Canonical Idea’, AJT I9, I9I5, 4I6fT.; P.-G. Duncker, ‘The Canon
ot the Old Testament at the Council of Trent’, CBQ I5, I953, 277-99; G.
F.be-ling, ‘The Significance of the Critical Historical Method for Church
.ttttI Theology in Protestantism’, Word and Faith, ET Philadelphia and
I.otttlon I963, l7—6I; ‘ “So|a scriptura” und das Problem der Tradition’,
ttt /)u.t' Neue Testament als Kanon, ed. E. Kasemann (see below), 282-335; O.
ti Edwards, Jr., ‘Historical Critical Method’s Failure of Nerve and a
l'tt-seription for a Tonic’, AThR 59, I977, lI5—34; C. F. Evans, Is Holy
mt/irtzre (.'hri.t'tian?, London I97I.
I-'. V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible? A Study tj’ the Canon,
|'|til;ttlt-Ipltia I957; I. Frank, Der Sinn Der Kanonbildung, Freiburg I971; J.
Gerhard, Loci Theologici, Tiibingen I762, Tom. I, Locus I, chs. I—II, I-I3;
I I (Zese, ‘l"irw£igung zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie’, ZTK 67, I970,
ll/' Ilti, reprinted in Vom Sinai zum Zion, Munich I974, ll—30; B. Hag-
glund, ‘l)ie Bedeutung der “regula fidei” als Grundlage theologischer
\ttss.tgen’, .877’/2 ll, I957, I-44; F. Hahn, ‘Das Problem “Schrift und
I t.ttlition” int Urchristentutn’, Ez:Th 39, I970, 449—68; H. H. Howorth,
' I he ()t-igin and Authority ofthe Bihlieal Canon according to the Conti-
to-ttt.tl Refortners‘,_/718' ll, l§l(lti—7_ 3‘.Zl—65; ‘The Origin and Authority of
70 INTRODUCTION
the Canon among the Later Reformers’,]TS 10, 1908-9, 183-232; ‘The
Influence of StJerome on the Canon ofthe Western Church, ll’,_]TS 1 I,
1909-10, 321-47; M. Jugie, Histoire du canon de l ’Ancien Testment dans l ’égli.te
grecque et l’iglise russe, Paris 1909, reprinted Leipzig 1974; E. Kasemann,
‘Vom theologischen Recht historisch-kritischer Exegese’, ZTK 64, I967,
259-81; ed., Das Neue Testament als Kanon, Giittingen 1970; D. H. Kelsey,
The Uses ofScripture in Recent Theology, Philadelphia and London 1975; H.-J.
Kraus, ‘Zur Geschichte des Uberlieferungsbegriifs in der alttestament-
lichen Wissenschaft’, EvTh 16, 1956, 371-87, reprinted in Biblisch-
theologische Aujsatze, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972, 278-95; E. Krentz, The His-
torical Critical Method, Philadelphia I975; H. Kiing, ‘Der Friihkatholizis-
mus im Neuen Testament also kontroverstheologisches Problem’, in Das
Neue Testament als Kanon, ed. E. Kasemann, I75-204.
M.—J. Lagrange, La méthode historique, Paris 1966; A. N. E. Lane, ‘Scrip-
ture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey’, Vox Evangelica 9, Lon-
don 1975, 37-55; P. Lengsfeld, l7berlie_-femng. Tradition und Schrift in der
evangelischen und lcatholischen Theologie der Gegenwart, Paderborn I960; I.
Lfmning, ‘Kanon im Kanon ’, Oslo 1972; A. Maichle, Der Kanon der biblischen
Biicher und das Konzil von Trent, Freiburg 1929; G. Maier, Das Ende des
historisch-kritischen Methode, Wuppertal 1974; F. Mildenberger, Gottes Tat
irn Wort, Giitersloh I964; Die halbe Wahrheit oder die ganze Bibel, Munich
I967; J. H. Newman, ‘On the Interpretation of Scripture’, The Nineteenth
Century I5, London 1884, 185-99; D. E. Nineham, The Use and Abuse if
the Bible, London I976; S. M. Ogden, ‘The Authority of Scripture for
Theology’, Interp 30, 1976, 242-70; K.-H. Ohlig, Woher nimmt die Bibel ihre
Authoritéit? Zum Verhéiltnis von Schrifthanon, Kirche undjesus, Dusseldorf 1970;
Die theologische Begriindung des neutestamentlichen Kanons in der alten Kirche,
Diisseldorf I972; Eva Osswald, ‘Zum Problem der hermeneutischen
Relevanz des Kanons fiir die Interpretation alttestamentlicher Texte’,
Theologische Versuche 18, East Berlin 1978; F. Overbeck, Zar Geschichte des
Kanons, 1880, reprinted Darmstadt 1965; P. Ricoeur, La métaphore vive,
Paris I975; Conflict oflnterpretation, ET Evanston I976; F. A. Sawyer,
‘The “Original Meaning of the Text”, and other legitimate subjects for
semantic description’, BETL 33, 1974, 63-70; E. Schlink, ‘Zum Problem
der Tradition’, Der kommende Christus and die kirchlichen Tradition, Gottingen
I96], 196-201; W. Schrage, ‘Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon
im Kanon des Neuen Testaments in der neueren Diskussion’, Recht_tfizr-
tigung, FS E. Kasemann, Ttlibingen 1976, 415-42; S. J. Schultz, ‘Augustine
and the Old Testament Canon’, Bibliotheca Sacra I 13, Dallas 1955, 225-34;
E. Schweizer, ‘Kanon?’, EoTh 31, 1971, 339-57.
G. T. Sheppard, ‘Canon Criticism: The Proposal . . . and an Assess-
ment for Evangelical Hermeneutics’, Stadia Biblica et Theologica 4,
Pasadena, Calif. 1974, 3-17; R. Smend, ‘Nachkritisehe Schriftauslegung’,
Parresia, FS Karl Barth, Zurich 1966, 215-37; W. Staerk, ‘Der Sehril't- und
Kanonbegriff der jiidischen Bibel’, Zeitschrzftfiir .t"v.t'tentatz'.tche Tlzt-alrt_gie 6,
canon AND CRITICISM 71
Berlin I929, 101-I9; P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Historische Kritik und theo-
logische Schriftauslegung’, Schrzftauslegung auf dem Wege zur biblischen Theo-
logie, Giittingen 1975, 59-1'27; G. H. Tavard,_Hot_y Writ or Holy Church,
London I959, New York I960; E. Troeltsch, ‘Uber historische und dog-
matische Methode in der Theologie’, reprinted Theologie als Wissenschaft,
ed. G. Sauter, ThB 43, 1971, 105-27; B. B. Warfield, ‘Inspiration and
Criticism’, The Inspiration and Authority ofthe Bible, Philadelphia I948, Lon-
don I951, 419-42; W. Wink, The Bible in Human Transjormation, Philadel-
phia, I973; H. W. Wolff, ‘Zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments’, I956,
reprinted GSA T, Munich I964, 251-88; G. E. Wfight, The Old Testament
and Theology, New York I969.
l'he reason for insisting on the final form of scripture lies in the
peculiar relationship between text and people ofGod which is con-
stitutive of the canon. The shape of the biblical text reflects a
history of encounter between God and Israel. The canon serves to
tleseribe this peculiar relationship and to define the scope of this
history by establishing a beginning and end to the process. It
assigtts a special quality to this particular segment of human his-
toty which beeatne normative for all successive generations of this
tommunity offaith. The significance ofthe final form ofthe biblical
76 tnrnooucrton
text is that it alone bears witness to the full history of revelation.
Within the Old Testament neither the process of the formation of
the literature nor the history of its canonization is assigned an
independent integrity. This dimension has often been lost or pur-
posely blurred and is therefore dependent on scholarly reconstruc-
tion. The fixing ofa canon ofscripture implies that the witness to
Israel’s experience with God lies not in recovering such historical
processes, but is testified to in the effect on the biblical text itself.
Scripture bears witness to C-od’s activity in history on Israel’s
behalf, but history per se is not a medium of revelation which is
commensurate with a canon. It is only in the final form of the
biblical text in which the normative history has reached an end that
the full effect of this revelatory history can be perceived.
It is certainly true that earlier stages in the development of the
biblical literature were often regarded as canonical prior to the
establishment of the final form. In fact, the final form frequently
consists of simply transmitting an earlier, received form ofthe trad-
ition often unchanged from its original setting. Yet to take the
canon seriously is also to take seriously the critical function which it
exercises in respect to the earlier stages of the literature’s formation.
A critical judgment is evidenced in the way in which these earlier
stages are handled. At times the material is passed on unchanged;
at other times tradents select, rearrange, or expand the received
tradition. The purpose of insisting on the authority of the final
canonical form is to defend its role of providing this critical norm.
To work with the final stage of the text is not to lose the historical
dimension, but it is rather to make a critical, theological judgment
regarding the process. The depth dimension aids in understanding
the interpreted text, and does not function independently ofit. To
distinguish the Yahwist source from the Priestly in the Pentateuch
often allows the interpreter to hear the combined texts with new
precision. But it is the full, combined text which has rendered a
judgment on the shape of the tradition and which continues to
exercise an authority on the community of faith. Of course, it is
legitimate and fully necessary for the historian of the ancient Near
East to use his written evidence in a different manner, often reading
his texts obliquely, but this enterprise is of a dillcrent order from
the interpretation of sacred scripture which we are seeking to
describe.
Then again, the linal litrtn of the text perlitrnts a erttciztl ber-
canon ann cnrrtctsn 77
meneutical function in establishing the peculiar profile ofa passage.
Its shaping provides an order in highlighting certain elements and
subordinating others, in drawing features to the foreground and
pushing others into the background. To work from the final form is
to resist any method which seeks critically to shift the canonical
ordering. Such an exegetical move occurs whenever an overarching
category such as Heilsgeschichte subordinates the peculiar canonical
profile, or a historical critical reconstruction attempts to refocus the
picture according to its own standards of aesthetics or historical
accuracy.
Although much of my polemical attention up to now has been
directed against various forms of historicism which have made the
use of the Bible dependent upon a reconstructed form of historical
events rather than on the final form of the canonical text, I am also
aware that another, very different front has been opened up which
is equally incompatible with the canonical approach. In the
philosophical hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur and his followers the
Bible is seen as a deposit of metaphors which contain inherent
powers by which to interpret and order the present world ofexperi-
ence, regardless of the source of the imagery. The concern is to
illuminate what lies ‘ahead’ (deoant) of the text, not behind. This
approach shows little or no interest in the historical development of
the biblical text or even in the historical context of the canonical
text. The crucial interpretative context in which the metaphors
function is provided by the faith community itself (cf. D. Kelsey).
Such an approach fails to take seriously the essential function ofthe
cation in grounding the biblical metaphors within the context of
ltistoric Israel. By shaping Israel’s traditions into the form of a
ttormative scripture the biblical idiom no longer functions for the
t-ommunity of faith as free-floating metaphor, but as the divine
imperative and promise to a historically conditioned people ofGod
whose legacy the Christian church confesses to share.
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘Original Text and Canonical Text’, USQR 32, I977,
I66—73; B. Albrektson, ‘Reflections on the Emergence ofa Standard Text
of the Hebrew Bible’, SVT 29, I978, 49-65; W. F. Albright, ‘New Light
on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible’, BASOR I4-O, I955, 27-33;
reprinted F. M. Cross, Qumran and History (see below), I40—46; D. R.
Ap-Thomas, A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism, London I947; V.
Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur, I906, reprinted
New York, I970; W. Bacher, ‘Targum’, v/E I2, 57-63; Barr, ‘St
]erome’s Appreciation of Hebrew’, BJRL 4-9, I966—7, 281-302; Comparative
Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford I968; ‘Reading a Script
without Vowels’, Writing without Letters, ed. W. Haas, Manchester I976,
7l—lOO; D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’/Iquila, SVT IO, I963; ‘Les Tiq-
quné Sopherim et la critique textuelle dc I’Ancien Testament’, SVT 9,
I963, 285-304-; D. Barthélemy et aI., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Heb-
rew OT Text Project, London I973, v-xvii; ‘Text, Hebrew, History oi”, IDB
Suppl, 878-84-; P. Benoit, ‘L’inspiration des Septante d’aprés les Peres’ in
Mélanges H. de Lubac, Théologie 56, I963, I69—87; E. Bickerman[n], ‘The
Septuagint as a Translation’, PAAJR ‘28, I959, I-39; J. Bowman, ‘A
Forgotten Controversy’, EvQu 20, I94-8, 46-68; S. P. Brock, ‘Origen’s
Aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament’, Studia Patristica IO, TU
I07, I970, 215-18; S. P. Brock, C. T. Fritsch and S. Jellicoe, A Classified
Bibliography of the Septuagint, Leiden I973; F. F. Bruce, ‘Tradition and the
Text of Scripture’, Tradition Old and New, London I970, I5I—62; J. Bux-
torf (pater), Tiberias, rive commentarius massorethicus triplex historicus, didac-
ticus, criticus, Basel I620, 21665; Buxtorf (fiI.), Tractatus de punctorum
vocalium, et accentuum in Libris Veteris Testamenti hebraicis, origine. antiquitate et
authoritate; oppositus arcano punctationis revelato Ludovici Cappelli, Basel I64-8;
Anticritica seu vindiciae veritatis hebraicae adversus L. Cappelli criticam quam vacant
sacram eiusque defensionem, Basel I653.
L. Cappellus, Arcanum punctationis revelatum; sive de punctorum vocalium et
accentuum apud Hebraeos vera et germarza antiquitate libri H, I.t'itIt't1 I624; (.'ritim
"rcxr AND cANoN 85
Sacra: sive de variis, quae in sacris Veteris Testamenti libris occurrunt, lectionibus
libri sex, Paris I650, Halle 1775-86; _]. G. Carpzov, A Defiance ofthe Hebrew
Bible in Answer to the Charge of Corruption, ET London I729; F. M. Cross,
‘The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran’,“/BL 74-, I955, I4-7-72; reprinted
in Qumran and History, I47—76; The Ancient Library ofQumran, New York and
London I958, Garden City, N.Y., 2l96l; ‘The History ofthe Biblical Text
in the Light of Discoveries in thejudaean Desert’, HTR 57, I964-, 28l—99,
reprinted in Qumran and Histoijy, l77—95; ‘The Contribution ofthe Qumran
Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text’, IE] I6, I966, Bl-95;
reprinted in Qumran and History, 278-92; ‘The Evolution of a Theory of
Local Texts’, Qumran and History, 306-20; F. M. Cross and S. Talmon,
Qumran and the History ofthe Biblical Text, Cambridge, Mass. and London
I975; M. Dahood, ‘The Value of Ugaritic for Textual Criticism’, Bibl
40, I959, 160-70; A. Dotan, ‘Was the Aleppo Codex Actually Vocalized
by Aharon ben Asher?’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 34-, Jerusalem I964-5, I36-55;
‘Masorah’, E] I6, ]40I—82; G. R. Driver, ‘Introduction to the Old Tes-
tament’, The New English Bible, Oxford and Cambridge I970, xv-xviii; S.
R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel,
Oxford and New York 2l9l3; D. N. Freedman, ‘The Massoretic Text and
the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in “Orthography”’, Textus 2, Jerusalem
I962, 87-I02; reprinted in Qumran and History, l96—2l I.
H. S. Gehman, ‘The Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greek’, VT l,
I95 l, 81-90; A. Geiger, Urschrift und Llbersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhiing-
igkeit von der innern Entwichlung des V/udentums, Frankfurt 2l928; G. GerIe-
man, Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament, Lund I94-8; W. Gesenius, De
pentateuchi samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica,
llalle l8I5; C. L. Gibson, ‘The Massoretes as Linguists’, Studies in
Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis, OTS I9, I974-, 86-96; C. D. Gins-
burg, Introduction to the ll/fassoretico-Critical Edition Q/’ the Hebrew Bible, Lon-
tlon’ I897, reprinted New York I966; D. W. Goodwin, Text-Restoration
Methods in Contemporary USA Scholarship, Naples I969; M. Gosl'|en-
Gottstein, ‘The History of the Bible-Text and Comparative Semitics. A
Methodological Problem’, VT 7, I957, l95—20I; ‘Prologomena to a Criti-
<';tl Edition of the Peshitta’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8,_]erusalem 1960, 26-
I2; ‘Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism’, Textus 3, Jerusalem I963,
I30-58; ‘The Rise ofthe Tiberian Bible Text’, Biblical and Other Studies, ed.
.\. Altmann, Cambridge, Mass. and London I963, 79-I22; reprinted S.
l.<-iman, Canon and Masorah, 666-709; The Book of Isaiah, Sample Edition
i-with lntroduction, Jerusalem 1965; ‘The Psalms Scroll (I lQPsa). A Prob-
lrm ty‘ Canon and Text’, Textus 5, I966, 22-33; ‘Hebrew Biblical Manus-
rriptsi Their History and Their Place in the [Hebrew University Bible
I’rn_it‘t‘lI Erlitioit’, Bibl 4-8, I967, 243-90; reprinted Cross, Qumran and His-
ti-or. -12-89; M. Greenberg, ‘The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew
Ilililc, R(‘\'I(‘\Vt‘(I in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean
|)t'.'~s<'t't’,_/.-l().$' 7ti, l‘.l5ti, I57-67; reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah,
86 INTRODUCTION
298-319; ‘The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew
Text’, SVT 29, 1978, 131-48; P. Grelot, ‘Sur l’inspiration et la canonicité
de Ia Septante’, ScEc 16, 1964, 387-418.
W. Hamm, Der Septuagint-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. I-2, Bonn 1969; R.
Hanhart, ‘Die Septuaginta als Problem der Textgeschichte, der Fors-
chungsgeschichte und der Theologie’, SVT 22, 1972, 185-200; G. Jan-
zen, Studies in the Text qfjeremiah, HSM 6, I973; S. Jellicoe, ‘The
Hesychian Recension Reconsidered’,_]BL 82, 1963, 409-18; The Septuagint
and Modern Study, Oxford and New York 1968; Studies in the Septuagint.
Origins, Recensions and Interpretations. Selected Essays with a Prolegomenon, New
York 1974; A. Jepsen, ‘Von den Aufgaben der alttestamentliehen Text-
kritik’, VT 9, 1963, 337-4-1; P. E. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, 2 vols.,
Stuttgart 1927-30; ‘Problems ofthe Septuagint’, Studio Patristica 1, TU 63,
1957, 328-38; The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 21959, New York 11960; ‘The
Greek Bible Manuscripts Used by Origen’,jBL 79, 1960, ll I-I8; P. Katz,
‘Septuagintal Studies in the Mid-Century’, The Background ofthe New Tes-
tament and its Eschatology, FS C.H. Dodd, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube,
Cambridge 1956, 176-208; D. Kellermann, ‘Bemerkungen zur Neuaus-
gabe der Biblia Hebraica’, ZDMG Suppl III, 1, 1977, 128-38; B. Ken-
nicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, 2 vols., Oxford
1776-1800; R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament. From the
Septuagint to Qumran, Philadelphia 1974-; Elias Levita, The Massoreth Ha-
Massoreth, ed. C. D. Ginsburg, 1867, reprinted New York I968.
P. Maas, Textual Criticism, ET Oxford and New York 1958; M. L.
Margolis, ‘Hexapla and Hexaplaric’, A_]SL 32, 1915-I6, 126-40; ‘Textual
Criticism of the Greek Old Testament’, Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 67, Philadelphia 1928, 187-97; C. McCarthy, ‘Emen-
dations of the Scribes’, IDB Suppl, 263f.; W. McKane, ‘Benjamin Ken-
nicott: An Eighteenth-Century Researcher’,jTS 28, 1977, 445-64; B. M.
Metzger, ‘The Lueianic Recension of the Greek Bible’, Chapters in the
History of New Testament Textual Criticism, Leiden 1963, 1-41; _]. Morin,
Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, Paris 1631;
H. S. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche, Uppsala 1935; K. G. O’ConneII,
The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus, Cambridge, Mass. 1972;
‘Greek Versions (Minor)’, IDB Suppl, 377-81; H. M. Orlinsky, ‘The
Origin of the Kethib-Qere System: A New Approach’ SVT 7, 1959, I84-
92; ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament’, The Bible and the Ancient
Near East. Essays in Honor of W. F. Albright, ed. G. E. Wright, London 1960,
New York 1961, 113-32; ‘The Masoretic Text: Fact or Fiction?’, Pro-
legomenon to the KTAV reprint of C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the
Massoretico-Critical Edition qf the Hebrew Bible, New York 1966; R. R.
Ottley, A Handbook to the Septuagint, Cambridge and New York I920; D. F.
Payne, ‘Old Testament Textual Criticism: Its Principles and Practice,’
Tyndale Bulletin 25, Cambridge I974, 99-112.
C. Rabin, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the Old Testatment
TEXT AND cANoN 87
Text’,]TS NS 6, 1955, 174-82; ‘The Translation Process and the Charac-
ter of the Septuagint’, Textus 6, 1968, 1-26; A. Rahlfs, ‘Lucians Rezension
der Kifinigsbiicher’, Septuaginta Studien 3, Gbttingen 1911, 361-658; E.
Revell, ‘Studies in the Palestinian Vocalization of Hebrew’, Essays in the
Ancient Semitic World, ed. _]. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford, Toronto 1970,
51-100; B. Roberts, ‘The Divergencies in the Pre-Tiberian Massoretic
Text’,_]_/S 1, 1949, 147-55, reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah, 484-92;
The Old Testament Text and Versions, Cardiff 1951; B. de Rossi, Variae
lectiones Veteris Testamenti, 4 vols., Parma 1784-5; A. Sanders, ‘Pre-
Massoretic Psalter Texts’, CBQ 27, 1965, 114-23; ‘Palestinian Manus-
cripts 1947-1972’,_]_]S 4, 1973, 74-83, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History,
401-13; M. H. Segal, ‘The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the
Hebrew Bible’, _]BL 72, 1953, 35-47, reprinted Leiman, Canon and
.4/Iasorah, 285-97; S. Segert, ‘The Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Critic-
ism of the Hebrew Bible’, Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright, ed.
Hans Goedicke, Baltimore 1971, 413-20; _]. D. Shenkel, Chronology and
Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, HSM 1, 1968; P. Skehan,
‘A Fragment of the “Song of Moses” (Deut 32) from Qumran’, BASOR
136, 1954, 12-15; ‘Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran’,
[BL 74, 1955, 182-7; ‘The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism’,
SVT 4-, I957, 148-60, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History, 212-25; ‘The
Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament’, BA 28,
I965, 87-100, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History, 264-77; ‘Texts and
Versions’, The _]erome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, N 1968, II,
561-80; A. Sperber, ‘The Problems of the Septuagint Recensions’,_]BL
54, 1935, 73-92; H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,
revised by R. R. Ottley, Cambridge 21914, reprinted New York 1968.
S. Talmon, ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch’,_]]S 2, 1951, 144-50; ‘Double
Readings in the Massoretic Text’, Textus 1,_]erusa1em 1960, 144-84; ‘DSIa
.t:~; a Witness of Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah’, ASTI 1, 1962,
H2-72; ‘The Three Scrolls of the Law that were found in the Temple
t Iourt’, Textus 2, 1962, 14-27; ‘Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the
Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts’, Textus 4, 1964, 95-132; ‘The
I )ltl Testament Text’, The Cambridge History ofthe Bible 1, Cambridge and
\'t~w York 1970, 159-99, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History, 1-41; ‘The
1 t-xtual Study of the Bible — A New Outlook’, Cross, Qumran and History,
Q 1-400; ‘Confiate Readings (OT)’, IDB Suppl, 170-73; H. Stjohn Thack-
eray, ‘The Greek Translation of the Four Books of Kings’,_]TS 8, 1906-
-'. 262-78; The Septuagint and jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (Schweich
|.t-etures I920), London and New York 1923; D. Winton Thomas, ‘The
It-xtual Criticism of the Old Testament’, The Old Testament and Modern
Xttulr. ed. H. H. Rowley, Oxford and New York 1951, 238-63; A.
Thompson, ‘Textual Criticism, OT’, IDB Suppl, 886-91; E. Tov and R.
Kraft. ‘Septuagint’, IDB Suppl, 807-15; P. Walters and D. W. Gooding,
lltt' 7}-xt rg/‘the .§’r’ptur1_gz'rtt, (Iambridge and New York I973; Brian Walton,
88 INTRODUCTION
Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta, 1655, reprinted Leipzig 1777; G. E. Wei],
Initiation ti la Masorah. L’Introduction au Sepher Zikranot d’Elie Levita, Leiden
1964; ‘La Massorah’, RE] 131, 1972, 5-104; ‘Qere-kethibh’, IDB Suppl,
716—23;]. Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis, Giittingen 1871;]. W.
Wevers, ‘Septuaginta-Forschungen’, ThR 22, 1954, 85-138, 171-90;
‘Proto-Septuagint Studies’, The Seedof Wisdom, Essays in Honor ofT. Meek,
ed. W. S. McCullough, Toronto I964, 58-77; ‘Septuaginta Forschungen
seit 1954’, ThR 33, 1968, 18-76; E. Wiirthwein, The Text ofthe Old Testa-
ment, ET Oxford and New York 1957; Ziegler, Untersuchung zur Sep-
tuaginta des Buches Isaias, Gottingen 1934; ‘Die Vorlage der Isaias-
Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias Rolle von Qumran (IQlsa)’,_]BL
78, 1959, 34-59; F. Zimrnermann, ‘The Perpetuation of Variants in the
MT’, ,/QR 34, 1943-4, 459-74.
Up to this point the case has been made for describing the Masore-
tic text as the vehicle for the canonical text of the Old Testament.
Now it is in order to pursue more precisely the relationship between
the Masoretic text and the canonical text. The term canonical text
denotes that official Hebrew text of the Jewish community which
had reached a point of stabilization in the first century AD, thus all
but ending its long history of fluidity. From that period on, the one
form of the Hebrew text of the Bible became the normative and
authoritative expression of Israel’s sacred scripture. Stabilization
marked the point which separated the text’s history into two
sharply distinguished periods: a pre-stabilization period marked by
a wider toleration of divergent text types, and a post-stabilization
period characterized by only minor variations of the one official
text.
However, the point needs to be emphasized that the Masoretic
text is not identical with the canonical text, but is only a vehicle for
its recovery. There is no extant canonical text. Rather, what we
have is a Hebrew text which has been carefully transmitted and
meticulously guarded by a school of scribes through an elaborate
Masoretic system. The earliest extant manuscripts ofthe entire Old
Testament stem from about the tenth century AD (the Aleppo
Codex is dated to the first half of the tenth century, but has been
damaged in part. Codex Leningradensis dates from AD 1008). This
means that the canonical text of first-century Judaism is now con-
tained within a post-canonical tradition. Therefore, even though
the expressed purpose of the Masoretes was to preserve the canoni-
cal text unchanged, in fact, a variety of factors make clear that
changes have occurred and that a distinction between the MT and
the canonical text must be maintained.
A brief characterization of the MT will serve to illustrate the
problem. Orlinsky has made the point convincingly, even if in
slightly exaggerated form, that there is not just one Masoretic text,
but a variety of different Hebrew texts within the Masoretic tradi-
tion. Even after the period of stabilization the Hebrew consonantal
text was not fixed absoltttely, but a certain small degree of flexi-
bility was maintained. Talmon has demonstrated the role ofsuch
devices as double readings in maintaining a tlivcrsity of traditions
TExT AND CANON lOl
within the one textual family. Similarly such techniques as the
kethih/qere system and the seherin offer the clearest evidence of an
attempt to record a diversity in the text’s reading. Again, the rab-
binic tradition of the tiqquné sopherim, the inverted nuns, suspended
letters, etc. show a certain degree of freedom in the handling of the
text. Finally, that numerous mechanical corruptions within the MT
have occurred in spite of the meticulous care in its transmission is
evident to anyone who has worked with Kennicott and de Rossi.
If one turns to discuss the vocalization and accentuation of the
MT, then the diversity within the textual traditions becomes even
greater. This observation is not to suggest that little attention was
paid to how the text was read. Rather, exactly the opposite case can
be made. However, the differences between the Eastern and West-
ern recensions and between the rival families of Ben Asher and Ben
Naphtali affected the orthography as well as the vocalization and
accentuation systems.
The first task ofthe Old Testament text critic is to seek to recover
the stabilized canonical text through the vehicle of the Masoretic
traditions. This process involves critically establishing the best
Masoretic text which is closest to the original text of the first cen-
tury. It also involves weighing the evidence for the best tradition of
vocalization using the familiar historical and logical criteria. It
should be noted that in this endeavour the terms ‘best’ and ‘origi-
nal’ text are fully commensurate with a canonical approach. In the
post-stabilization period the effort to establish a superior and origi-
nal text is justified by the canon’s concern to distinguish between
an established, authoritative text and its subsequent elaboration. A
canon implies that text and targum are not to be confused. In
actual practice the task of recovering a text close to the first-century
Masoretic text is certainly attainable and supported by Qumran
manuscripts of the proto-Masoretic text type.
According to the canonical model for doing text criticism the goal of
the enterprise is the recovery and the understanding of the canoni-
cal text. One begins with the tradition and then seeks critically to
understand it. In order to achieve this goal the Old Testament text
critic must turn to a study of the Old Testament text before its
102 INTRODUCTION
canonical stabilization and bring to bear upon the investigation the
historical dimension of the text’s development.
It is of crucial importance to recognize the striking differences
in the textual situation which obtain between the pre- and post-
stabilization phases. Indeed, the failure to take seriously the differ-
ence, which is to say, to take seriously the effect ofthe canon, lies at
the heart of the methodological controversy over Old Testament
text criticism. Whereas in the post-stabilization period the differ-
ences within the Masoretic traditions are minor in the light of the
one dominant, unified tradition, in the pre-stabilization period the
multiplicity of textual traditions is the most characteristic feature.
Although logically one can posit an original text lying behind the
diversity, in terms of textual history the actual forms of the earliest
attested traditions are extremely diverse. As a result, the connec-
tion between the allegedly original text and the earliest extant
manuscripts is highly uncertain. One could even argue that the
diversity oftexts derives from an oral stage in between the original
delivery and textual transmission which would suggest that even
the concept of an original text is often misleading. At least in terms
of some of the duplicate texts in the Old Testament the extreme
diversity would appear to point in this direction.
In terms of the hermeneutical issues involved in establishing a
methodology for text criticism, the difference in the analysis of the
pre-stabilization period between Cross’s local text type theory and
Talmon’s and Goshen-Gottstein’s multiple text family hypothesis is
indecisive. Both theories recognize great diversity as well as certain
elements of homogeneity within this fluid textual situation. How-
ever, Cross’s position is useful in delivering the full impact of the
recent text-critical evidence on the traditional theories regarding
the text. He argues that there is no evidence before the time of
Hillel for recensional activity which would eventually lead to stabil-
ization, and thus even the terms ‘standard’ and ‘vulgar’ texts are
anachronistic during the entire pre-stabilization period. The
proto-Masoretic tradition was at_best one among many competing
traditions with no special claim for authority during an extended
pefiod.
Certain important facts affecting the evaluation of the MT
emerge from a study of this recensional history. The period ol
textual fluidity extended from at least 300 Bt: to An lllll, anti can in
part be reconstructed, which often pro\.'itles historical criteria for
TizxT AND cANoN 103
determining the priority of the different traditions. The present MT
developed from an earlier proto-Masoretic text which extended
back into the pre-stabilization period. However, the proto-
Masoretic text also was comprised ofa mixture of different textual
families which appears evident in the light ofthe different text types
represented in the parallel passages of Kings and Chronicles. The
selection of the MT as the dominant tradition by rabbinicJudaism
in the first century AD did not arise from an arbitrary, academic
decision, as once postulated, but was rather the culmination ofa
long recensional history. However, the grounds for selecting this
one particular tradition are far from clear, but appear to involve the
use of texts within certain religious groups for liturgical and didac-
tic purposes.
The most obvious implication to be drawn from this history of
the pre-stabilization period is that the subsequent status accorded
the MT did not derive necessarily from its being the best, or the
most original, Hebrew text. Its choice as the canonical text was
determined often by broad sociological factors and internal religi-
ous conflicts (cf. Geiger), and not by scholarly textual judgments.
However, this does not imply that the selection was completely
haphazard or arbitrary The MT is frequently a shorter, more
pristine tradition showing few signs oflater harmonistic expansion.
Nevertheless, to characterize the MT as the hebmica veritas is to
draw an erroneous implication from its canonical status.
THE PENTATEUCH
V
INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH
Bibliography
W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore 21957; O. T.
Allis, The Five Boo/cs (J Moses, Philadelphia 21949; A. Alt, Essays in Old
Testament History and Religion, ET Oxford and New York 1966; I. Ben-
zinger, jahwist und Elohist in den Kiinigsbtichern, Stuttgart 1921; E. C. Bis-
sell, The Pentateuch. Its Origin and Structure, London and New York 1885
(extensive bibliography of all older literature); J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The
Structure of P’, CBQ 38, 1976, 275—92; Bright, ‘Modern Study of Old
Testament Literature’, The Bible andthe Ancient Near East, FS W. F. Albright,
ed, G. E. Wright, Garden City, N.Y. 1961, l3—3l; History oflsrael, London
and Philadelphia 21972; W. Brueggemann, ‘The Kerygma ofthe Priestly
Writers’, ZAW 84, 1972, 397-414; ‘Questions addressed in the Study of
the Pentateuch’, The Vitality if Old Testament Traditions, Atlanta 1975, l3—
28; M. Buss, ‘The Study of Forms’, Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. John
H. Hayes, San Antonio, Texas 1974, 1-56.
U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pen-
tateuch, ET Jerusalem 1961; H. Cazelles, ‘Positions actuelles dans l'exég-
ese du Pentateuque’, De Maria Qumran. I/Ancien Testament, Hommage a Mgr.
/. Coppens, Gembloux/Paris 1969, 34—57; H. Cazelles, and P. Bouhot,
‘Pcntateuque’, DBS 7, 687-858; R. E. Clements, ‘Covenant and Canon in
the Old Testament’, Creation, Christ, and Culture. FS T. F. Torrance, Edin-
burgh 1976, l—l2; D. A. Clines, The Theme ofthe Pentateuch,jSOT Suppl
lfl, 1978; G. W. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt, Washington 1976; R-
Cornely, ‘De pentateucho mosaico’, Introductionis in S. Scripturae libros com-
pendium, Paris “I934, 303-45; F. Craghan, ‘The Elohist in Recent
Literature’, BTB 7, 1977, 23-35; F. M. Cross, Cartaanite Myth and Hebrew
Ilpic, Cambridge, Mass. and London 1973, esp. ‘The Priestly Work’,
'.Z93—325; F. Delitzsch, ‘Pentateuch-kritische Studien’, Zeitschriftfiir /circh-
liche I/Vis.mzschaft und /rirchliches Leben 1, Leipzig 1880 (12 articles); O. Eiss-
feldt, Hex'ateuch-Synapse, Leipzig 1922; K. Elliger, ‘Sinn und Ursprung der
pricstcrlichen Gcschichtscrziihlung’, ZTK 49, 1959, 121-43; P. F. Ellis, The
Yrtlmlist. The Bible ’.r First Thenlo_t_Iian, Notre Dame, Ind. and London 1968; I.
110 THE PENTATEUCH
Engnell, ‘The Pentateuch’, A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville 1969 (=Critical
Essays on the Old Testament, London 1970), 50-67; G. Fohrer, ‘Pries-
terschrift’, RGG3 5, 568f.; T. E. Fretheim, ‘Source Criticism, OT’, IDB
Suppl, 838i.
C. H. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel . An Investigation into some of the
Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis, Assen 1976; C. H.
Gordon, ‘Biblical Customs and the Nuzi Tablets’, BA 3, 1940, 1-12; N.
K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, London (=Liberated Israel , Maryknoll,
l\1.Y.) 1979; K. H. Graf, ‘Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pen-
tateuchs’, Archivfiir wissenschcflliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments I, Halle
1869, 466-77; W. H. Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, New
York 1895; P. Grelot, ‘La derniere étape de la redaction sacerdotale’, VT
6, 1956, 174-89; H. Gunkel, ‘Die Grundprobleme der israelitischen
Literaturgeschichte’, Reden und Aufsiitze, Géittingen 1913, 29-38; H. A. C.
I-Iiivernick, An Historico-Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch, ET Edinburgh
1850; M. Haran, ‘Shiloh and Jerusalem. The Origin ofthe Priestly Tradi-
tion in the Pentateuch’,jBL 81, 1962, 14-24; H, Hayes and M.
Miller, eds., Israelite and judaean History, OTL, 1977; Hempel, ‘Pries-
terkodex’, Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopoidie der classischen Altertumswissenschafl,
22, Stuttgart 1954, cols. l945iT.; E. W’. Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des
Pentateuchs, 3 vols, Berlin 1836-39; S. Herrmann, A History ofIsrael in Old
Testament Times, ET London and Philadelphia 1975; G. Hblscher, Ges-
chichtsschreibung in Israel , Lund 1952; H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hex-
ateuch, Leipzig 1893; F. I-Iommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments, ET London and New York 1897; A. Hurwitz, ‘The
Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code’, RB 81, 1974, 24-56;
B. Jacob, Der Pentateuch, Leipzig 1905.
A. S. Kapelrud, ‘The Date of the Priestly Code (P)’, ASTI 3, 1964,
58-64; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, ET Chicago 1960, London
1961; R. Kessler, Die Querverweise irn Pentateuch. l7berlieferungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pen-
tateuchs, Diss. Heidelberg 1972; R. Knierim, ‘Old Testament Form Critic-
ism Reconsidered’, Interp 27, 1973, 435-67; H.-_]. Kraus, Geschichte der
historisch-lcritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur
Gegenwart, Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969; M. G. Kyle, The Deciding Voice of the
Monuments in Biblical Criticism, Oberlin, Ohio 21924; M. Léihr, Unter-
suchungen zum Hexateuchproblem I: Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis, BZAW 38,
1924; B. Luther, ‘Die Personlichkeit des jahwisten’, Appendix to E.
Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstiimme, Halle 1906; S. E. McEvenue.
The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, Rome 1971; G. Mendenhall,
‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’ and ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite
Tradition’, BA 17, 1954, 26-46, 50-76=Law and Covenant in Israel and the
Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh 1955; S. Mowinckel, Erwiigunger: zur Pen-
tateuch Quellenfrage, Trondheim 1964; Tetrnteuch-Pentateuch~He.rat¢-uch, Berlin
1964; C. R. North, ‘Pentateuclial Critieisln’, The ()lrl Testrirrrerrt and .1-for/err:
INTRODUCTION To THE PENTATEUCH 111
Study, ed. H. H. Rowley, Oxford and New York 1951, 48-83; M. Noth,
Hberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948; ET A History of Pen-
tateuchal Traditions, Englewood Cliiis, N._]. 1972.
E. Otto, ‘Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der Pentateuchl-tritil-ti”, VF
22, 1977, 82-97; L. Perlitt, Vatlre und Wellhausen, BZAW 94, 1965; O.
Ploger, ‘Pentateuch’, RGG3 5, 211-17; G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im
Hexateuch, BWANT lV 13 (=65), 1934; Das formgeschichliche Problem des
Hexateuchs, BWANT IV 26 (=78), 1938; ET The Problem ofthe Hexateuch and
Other Essays, Edinburgh and New York 1966; R. Rendtorff, ‘Literatur-
kritik und Traditionsgeschichte’, EvTh 27, 1967, 138-53; ‘Traditio-
historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis’, Proceedings of the
Fifth World Congress ofjewish Studies (1969), Jerusalem 1971, 5-11; ‘Der
“_]ahwist” als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik’, SVT 28,
1974, 158-66; Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW
147, 1977; W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft, Giittingen 1971; H.
Ringgren, ‘Literarkritik, Formgeschichte, Uberlieferungsgeschichte’,
TLZ 91, 1966, 641-50; L. Rost, ‘Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pen-
tateuchquellen’, ZTK 53, 1956, 1-10; W. Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’von Exodus
bis _]osua, BZAW 68, 1938; A. Sanders, Torah and Canon, Philadelphia
1972; A. H. Sayce, The ‘Higher Criticism’ and the Verdict of the Ildonuments,
London and New York 21894; H. H. Schmid, Der sogennante jahwist:
Beobachtungen und Frage zur Pentateuchforschung, Ziirich 1976; K. Scholder,
Urspriinge und Probleme der Bibelkriti/: im I7. jahrhundert, Munich 1966; H.
Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel , BZAW 128,
1972; C. A. Simpson, The Early Traditions qfIsrael, Oxford and New York
1948; D. C. Simpson, Pentateuchal Criticism, London and New York 1924;
R. Smend, Die Erziihlung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin
1912; R. Smend, jr., ‘Pentateuchforschung’, BHH 3, 1413-19; J. A. Sog-
gin, ‘Ancient Biblica] Tradition and Modern Archaeological Discoveries’,
BA 23, 1960, 95-100; E. A. Speiser, ‘The Wife-Sister Motif in the Pat-
riarchal Narratives’, Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann, Cambridge,
Mass. 1963, 15-28; W. Staerk, ‘Zur alttestamentliehen Literarkritik.
Grundsatzliches und Methodisches’, ZA W 42, 1924, 34-74.
R. Thompson, I1/Ioses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf,
Leiden 1970; H. Tigay, ‘An Empirical Basis for the Documentary
Hypothesis’,jBL 94, 1975, 329-42;]. Van Seters, ‘Confessional Reformu-
lations in the Exilic Period’, VT 22, 1972, 448-59; R. de Vaux, ‘A propos
du second centenaire d’Astruc, Réflexions sur 1’état actuel de 1a critique
du Pentateuque’, SVT 1, 1953, 182-98;]. G. Vink, ‘The Date and Origin
of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament’, The Priestly Code and Seven other
Studies, OTS 15, 1969, 1-144; P. Volz and W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als
Erztihler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchltritik, Berlin 1933; N. Wagner, ‘Pen-
lateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future’, Canadian journal of Theology 13,
Toronto 1967, 225-32; H. Weidmann, Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im
I.icht der Forscbung seit_/ulius Wellhausen, FRLANT 94, 1968; A. Weiser,
112 THE PENTATEUCH
Introduction to the Old Testament, ET London (=The Old Testament: its Forma-
tion and Development, New York) 1961; Wellhausen, Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bflcher des Alten Testaments, Berlin 31899; H. M.
Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, London and Oberlin, Ohio 1910;
F. V. Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’,jBL 84, 1965, 1-19; H.
W. Wolff, ‘The Kerygma of the Yahwist’, ET, Interp 20, 1966, 13]-
58=W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff, The Vitality ofOld Testament Tradi-
tions, Atlanta 1975, 41-66; ‘The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch‘,
ET, Interpr 26, 1972, l58—73=Vitality, 66-82; G. E. Wright, ‘Modern
Issues in Biblical Studies: History and the Patriarchs’, E.rpT 71, 1960,
292-6; W. Zimmerli, ‘Sinaibund und Abrahambund’, TZ 16, 1960, 268-
80=Gottes Ojfenbarung, Munich 1963, 205-16.
The history ofthe modern critical study ofthe Pentateuch has been
reviewed many times and is readily available in Old Testament
Introductions (Eissfeldt, Fohrer, Kaiser), in encyclopaedia articles
(cf. under Pentateuch in RGG3, IDB, BHH, DBS), and in several
monographs (Hblscher, Kraus). Nevertheless, the importance of
this history is such that discussion ofit cannot be entirely omitted.
First, the basic methodological issues of critical biblical scholar-
ship, which have strongly aflected the entire discipline, were ham-
mered out primarily in the study of the Pentateuch. Knowledge of
the history is, therefore, indispensable for methodology. Secondly,
present research continues to occupy itself with many of the same
problems and often returns to the older positions for resolving
difficulties. Knowledge of the history is, therefore, crucial for
evaluating the continuing debate.
Archaeological method
Strictly speaking, there is no archaeological method which is com-
parable to the approaches which have been discussed above.
Rather, the rubric is used to include scholars who have consciously
distanced themselves from the direction of the critical majority and
have sought to find a different model for the study of ancient texts
in the science of archaeology.
During much ofthe nineteenth century recourse to archaeologi-
cal material as a form of extra-biblical evidence was used by con-
servative scholars in an effort to resist the predominantly literary
emphasis of Old Testament criticism. Hengstenberg’s Egypt and the
Books of Moses (ET 1845) provided an early example of this move.
Toward the end ofthe nineteenth century several British scholars,
especially Sayce and Rawlinson, attempted to exploit the new dis-
covcries against the documentary hypothesis. Also in Germany,
among critical scholars such as Hommel, Kittel and Sellin,
"1
Terminology
Later Jewish tradition commonly spoke of the first five books as
the Torah, the Torah of Moses, or the Book of the Law of Moses.
However, at least by the beginning of the Christian era but prob-
ably long before, the term Torah designated the first five books
within the Jewish canon. Moreover, already in the post-exilic
period, in the later books of the Old Testament, there are references
to ‘the Book of Moses’ (Ezra 6.18; Neh. 13.1; II Chron. 25.4), but it
is not clear whether the entire Pentateuch is intended or only the
legal sections. Subsequent Jewish tradition coined the technical
term ‘the five-fifths of the Law’ (hrmiiiah hiimsé hatttirtih) to describe
the division of the Pentateuch into five parts. This tradition is old
and already assumed by the Septuagint and all Hebrew manus-
cripts. The term pentateuchus is the Latin rendering of the Greekri
Hevrtirevxofi, meaning the fivefold book.
crucial points are made in the chapter. The law, which derived
from God’s speaking to Moses, applies to every successive genera-
tion oflsrael (31. 11-13). It serves as a witness to God’s will (v.28).
The law of God has now been transmitted for the future generations
in the written form of scripture. It is placed next to the ark in book
form to be read to the people periodically (l0ff.). Indeed, the origi-
nal role of Moses as the unique prophet of God (34.10) who pro-
claims the word of God as a witness (3l.27ff.) will be performed by
the book of the law in the future (3l.26ff.). Moses will shortly die,
but his formulation ofthe will of God will continue. Throughout the
rest of the Old Testament the identification of the divine law with
Moses’ writing ofit in a book is continued (Ezra 6.18; Neh. 13.1; II
Chron. 25.4). Although there is no explicit reference in the Old
Testament which connects the book of Genesis to Moses, the move
was made in Jewish tradition when the unity of the entire Pen-
tateuch was assumed.
If then the Old Testament canon assigns an important role to
Moses’ writing the book of the law, how is one to explain the
historical evidence that the canonical form of the Pentateuch con-
tains much material which is obviously later than the age of Moses?
In my judgment, the Old Testament does not provide direct evi-
dence by which to answer this question. It is possible, for example,
as some scholars have theorized, that the role of Moses was con-
tinued in an office and later persons accordingly added material in
the name of Moses. But the evidence to support the theory is mis-
sing. However, in spite ofthe lack of historical evidence by which to
trace the actual process, it would seem clear that the authorship of
Moses did perform a normative role within a canonical context
from a very early period. Thus laws attributed to Moses were
deemed authoritative, and conversely authoritative laws were
attributed to Moses.
The implication to be drawn from this understanding of the
Mosaic authorship is that a theological judgment was at stake
respecting the authority of Israe1’s law. The claim of Mosaic
authorship functioned as a norm by which to test the tradition’s
authority. This was obviously not a historical judgment in the
modern sense, but a measuring of the truth ofa growing corpus of
law by the tradition long experienced as authoritative. The appeal
to Mosaic authorship derived its meaning only within the context of
a community of faith liir whom a body of written tradition had
INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH 135
Commentaries
M. M. Kalisch, 1858 A. Clamer, SB, 1953
J. P. Lange, ET, LCHS, 1868 U. Cassuto, 1961-64
F. Delitzsch, 51899 E. A. Speiser, AB, 1964
A. Dillmann, KeH, 61892 W. Zimmerli, ZBK (chs. 1-11),
H. Holzinger, KHC, 1898 31967, ZBK (chs 12-25), 1976
S. R. Driver, WC, 1904 D. Kidner, TOTC, 1967
J. Skinner, ICC, 1910 G. von Rad, ET, OTL, rev. ed.
H. Gunkel, HKAT, 41917 1972
O. Procksch, KAT, 31924 R. Davidson, CNEB (chs. l—ll),
B. Jacob, Das Erste Buch der Tora, 1973
1934 C. Westermann, BK (chs. 1-11),
A. Richardson, TB (chs. 1-11), 1974
1953 B. Vawter, On Genesis, 1977
Bibliography
W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore 21957; L.
Alonso Schfikel, The Inspired Word. Scripture in the Light Qf Language and
Literature, ET London and New York 1967; A. Alt, Der Catt der Vtiter,
Stuttgart 1929=KS I, 1953, 1-78; ET Essays (see Pentateuch), 1-77; E.
Auerbach, Mimesis, ET Princeton 1953, Oxford 1954; Barr, ‘Reading
the Bible as Literature’, B]RL 56, 1973, 10-33; R. Barthes, ‘The Struggle
with the Angel. Textual Analysis of Genesis 32:23-33’, Structural Analysis
and Biblical Exegesis, ET Pittsburgh 1974, 21-33; P. Beauchamp, Creation
et separation. Etude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genése, Brussels 1969;
Blenkinsopp, ‘The Structure of P’, CBQ 38, 1976, 275-92; D. Bonhoef-
fer, Creation and Fall.‘ A Theological Interpretation of Genesis I-3, ET London
and New York 1959; Bright, see ‘Pentateuch’; W. Brueggemann,
‘David and his Theologian’, CBQ 30, 1968, 156-81; ‘Yahwist’, IDB Suppl,
971-75; H. Cazelles, ‘Patriarchs’ DBS 7, 81-156; B. Childs, ‘The
Etiological Tale Re-examined’, VT 24, 1974, 387-97; W‘. M. Clark, ‘The
GENESIS 137
Flood Story and the Structure of the Pre-patriarchal History’, ZAW 83,
1971, 184-211; R. E. Clements, Abraham and David. Genesis XV and its
Meaningfor Israelite Tradition, SBT II.5, 1967; D. A. Clines, ‘The Theo-
logy of the Flood Narrative’, Faith and Thought 100, London 1972-3, 128-
42; ‘Theme in Genesis 1-11’, CBQ 38, 1976, 483-507; G. W. Coats, ‘The
Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Reappraisal’, CBQ 35, 1973, 285-
297; From Canaan to Egypt. Structural and Theological Context for the joseph
Stogy, Washington 1976; F. Craghan, ‘The Elohist in Recent Litera-
ture’, BTB 7, 1977, 23-35; F. M. Cross, ‘The Religion of Canaan and the
God of Israel’, Canaanite M_yth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge, Mass. 1973,
3-75.
W. G. Dever and W. M. Clark, ‘The Patriarchal Traditions’ in Israelite
andjudaean Histo{y, ed.J. H. Hayes and M. Miller, OTL, 1977, 70-148;
D. S. DeWitt, ‘The Generations ofGenesis’, EvQu 48, 1976, 196-211; H.
Donner, Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentliehen josephsgeschichte, Heidel-
berg 1976; W. Eichrodt, Die Quellen der Genesis von neuem untersucht, BZAW
31, 1916; H. Eising, Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur jahobserziihlung der
Genesis, Emsdetten 1940; O. Eissfeldt, ‘Stammessage und Novelle in den
Geschichten von Jakob und von seinen Sohnen’, Eucharisterion, Studien
zur Religion und Literatur des A und NT I, FS H. Gunkel, FRLANT 36,
1923, 56-77 = KS I, 1962, 84-104; ‘Biblos Genese6s’, FS E. Fascher,
Berlin 1958, 31-40 = KS III, 1966, 458-70; ‘Jahwe, der Gott der Viiter’,
TLZ 88, 1963, 481-90=I(S IV, 1968, 79-91; A. Eitz, Studien zum Verhiiltnis
von Priesterschrift und Deuterqjesaja, Diss. Heidelberg, 1970; K. Elliger, ‘Sinn
und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzahlung’, ZTK 49, 1952,
121-43=KSAT, Munich 1966, 174-98; A. Emerton, ‘The Riddle of
Genesis XIV’, VT 21, 1971, 403-37; M. Fishbane, ‘Composition and
Structure in theJacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19-35:22)’,‘]]S 26, 1975, 15-38;J.
P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, Assen 1975; T. E. Frctheim, Crea-
tion, Fall and Flood. Studies in Genesis l—ll, Minneapolis 1969; ‘The Jacob
Traditions. Theology and Hermeneutic’, Interp 26, 1972, 419-36; ‘Elohist’,
IDB Suppl, 259-63.
K. Calling, Die Erwc'ihlungstraditionen Israels, BZAW 48, 1928;J. Goldin,
‘The Youngest Son or Where does Genesis 38 Belong’,]BL 96, 1977,
27-44; C. H. Gordon, ‘The Story ofJacob and Laban in the Light of the
Nuzi Tablets’, BASOR 66, 1937, 25-27; ‘Biblical Customs and the Nuzi
Tablets’, BA 3, 1940, 1-12; ‘Abraham and the Merchants of Ura’,]NES
17, 1958, 28-31; W. H. Green, The Unity of Genesis, New York 1895; H.
Gressmann, ‘Ursprung und Entwicklung derJoseph-Sage’, Eucharisterion
I, FS H. Gunkel, 1923, 1-55; K. R. R. Gros Louis, ed., Literary Interpretation
ty’ Biblical Narratives, Nashville 1974; W. Gross, ‘Jakob, der Mann des
Segens. Zu Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen
Jakobsiiberlieferungen’, Bibl 49, 1968, 321-44; H. Gunkel, ‘Die Komposi-
tion derJoseph-Geschichte’, ZDMG 76, 1922, 55-71; H. Haag, Is Original
Sin in Scripture?, ET New York and London 1969; M. Haran, ‘The Relig-
138 THE PENTATEUCH
ion of the Patriarchs: An Attempt at a Synthesis’, ASTI 4, 1965, 30-55; G.
F. Hasel, ‘The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology’, EoQu 46,
1974, 81-102; M.-L. Henry,_]ahwist and Priesterschrift. Zwei GlaulJen_._szeug-
nisse des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1960; S. Herrmann, ‘Joseph in Agyp-
ten. Ein Wort zu _]. Vergotes Buch “Joseph en Egypte”’, TLZ 85, 1960,
82 7-30; Hoftijzer, Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzvéiter, Leiden 1956; P.
Humbert, ‘Die neuere Genesis-Forschung’, ThR NF 6, 1934, 147-60,
207-28; ‘Die literarische Zweiheit des Priester-Codex in der Genesis’,
ZAW 58, 1940-41, 30-57; W. L. Humphreys, ‘]oseph Story, The’, IDB
Suppl, 491-3; A. Hurwitz, ‘The Evidence of Language in Dating the
Priestly Code’, RB 81, 1974, 24-56.
]._]. Jackson and M. Kessler, ed., Rhetorical Criticism, Essays in Honor of
James A/Iuilenlmrg, Pittsburgh 1974; M. D. johnson, The Purpose ofthe Bibli-
cal Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies Qfjesus,
Cambridge 1969; O. Kaiser, ‘Stammesgeschichtliche Hintergriinde der
Josephgeschichte’, VT 10, 1960, 1-15; C.-A. Keller, ‘Die Gefiihrdung der
Ahnfrau. Ein Beitrag zur gattungs-und motivgeschichtlichen Erforschung
alttestamentlicher Erzi~ihlunge_r_t’, ZAW66, 1954, 181-91; ‘Grundsatzliches
zur Auslegung der Abraham-Uberlieferung in der Genesis’, TZ 12, 1956,
425-45; M. Kessler, ‘Rhetorical Criticism of Genesis 7-’, Rhetorical Critic-
ism, 1-17; I. M. Kikawada, ‘The Shape__of Genesis 11:1-9’, ibid., 18-32;
R. Kilian, Die oorpriesterlichen Abrahams-Uberlieferungen, BBB 24, 1966; K.
Koch, The Growth ofthe Biblical Tradition, ET London and New York 1969;
S. R. Kuelling, Zur Datierung der ‘Genesis-P-Stiiche’, Kampen 1964; W. G.
Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood,
Oxford 1969; E. R. Leach, Genesis as Myth and Other Essays, London 1969;
M. R. Lehmann, ‘Abraham’s Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law’,
BASOR 129, 1953, 15-18; B. A. Levine, ‘Priestly Writers’, IDB Suppl,
683-87; Lewy, ‘Les textes paléo-assyriens et l’Ancien Testament’, RHR
1 10, 1934, 29-65; N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid, SBS 28, 1967; B.
O. Long, ‘Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and their Bearing on
Old Testament Criticism’, VT 26, 1976, 187-98.
A. Malamat, ‘King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical
Genealogies’,_]AOS 83, 1968, 163-73; B. Mazar, ‘The Historical Back-
ground of the Book of Genesis’,jNES 28, 1969, 73-83; S. E. McEvenue,
The Narrative Style ty’the Priestly Writer, Rome 1971; L. McKenzie, ‘The
Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2-3’, ThSt 15, 1954, 541-72 = Myths
and Realities, New York and London 1963, 146-81; A. Meinhold, ‘Die
Gattung derjosephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches. Diasporanovelle 1’,
ZAW 87, 1975, 306-24; S. Mowinckel, The Two Sources of the Pre-
deuteronomic Primeval History (IE) in Gen I-XI, Oslo 1937; “‘Rachelstiimme”
und “Leasti-imrne”’, Von Ugarit nach Qumran, FS O. Eissfeldt, BZAW 77,
1958, 129-50; M. Noth, History of Pentateuchal Traditions, ET Englewood
Cliffs, N._]. 1972; E. Otto, ‘Jakob in Bethel-Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Jakobiiberlieferung’, ZAW 88, 1976, 165-90; R. H. Pfeiffer, ‘A Non-
GENESIS 139
lsraelitic Source ofthe Book of Genesis’, ZAW 48, 1930, 66-73; R. Polzin,
“‘The Ancestress of Israel in Danger” in Danger’, Semeia III: Classical
Hebrew Narrative, ed. R. C. Culley, Missoula 1975, 81-98; A. de Pury,
‘Genese XXXIV et l’histoire’, RB 76, 1969, 5-49; Promesse divine et légende
cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob. Genise 28 et les traditions patriarchales, 2 vols.,
Paris 1975.
G. von Rad, ‘The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hex-
ateuch’, (1943), ET The Problem ofthe Hexateuch, Edinburgh and New York
1966, 79-93; ‘The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom’ (1958), ET
ibid., 292-300; D. Redford, A Study ofthe Biblical Story ofJoseph, SVT 20,
1970; R. Rendtorff, ‘Genesis 8,21 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten’,
KuD 7, 1961, 69-78; ‘Hermeneutische Probleme des biblischen Urges-
chichte’, FS Friedrich Smend, Berlin 1963, 19-29; “‘Der Jahwist” als
Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik’, SVT 28, 1974, 158-66;
Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147, 1977; H.
von Reventlow, Opfere deinen Sohn. Eine Auslegung von Genesis 22, BSt 53,
1968; W. M. W. Roth, ‘The Wooing of’ Rebekah: A Tradition Critical
Study of Genesis 24’, CBQ 34, 1972, 177-87; L. Ruppert, Die Josephser-
ziihlung der Genesis. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Pentateuchquellen, Munich
1965; N. M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, New York 1966; J. M. Sasson,
‘Generation, seventh’, IDB Suppl, 354-56; J. Scllarbert, ‘Der Sinn der
Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift’, Wort-Gebot—Glaube. ES W. Eichrodt,
Zijrich 1970, 45-56; ‘Patriarchentradition und Patriarchenreligion. Ein
Forschungs—und Literaturbericht’, VF 19, 1974, 2-24; W. H. Schmidt,
Die Schiipfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, WMANT 17, 21967; H. Seebass,
Der Erzvater Israel, BZAW 98, 1966; E. A. Speiser, ‘The Wife-Sister Motif
in the Patriarchal Narratives’, Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann,
Cambridge, Mass. and London 1963, 15-28; O. H. Steck, Die Paradieser-
ziihlung, BSt 60, 1970; ‘Genesis 12, 1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwis-
ten’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, FS G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 525-54; Der
Schiipfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, FRLANT 115, 1975; P. E. S. Thomp-
son, ‘The Yahwist Creation Story’, VT 21, 1971, 197-208; T. L. Thomp-
son, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical
Abraham, BZAW 133, 1974; J. Van Seters, ‘Jacob’s Marriages and
Ancient Eastern Customs’, HTR 62, 1969, 377-95; Abraham in History and
Tradition, New Haven and London 1975; ‘Patriarchs’, IDB Suppl, 645-8;
R. De Vault, ‘Les Patriarches Hébreux et l’Histoire’, Studii Biblici Francis-
cani Liber Annuus 13, Jerusalem 1962/3, 287-97; The Early History oflsrael,
ET, 2 vols., London and Philadelphia 1978; A. Vergote,Joseph en Egvpte,
Louvain 1959; W. Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ I, ET
London 1949; G. Wallis, ‘Die Tradition von den drei Ahnviitern’, ZAW
81, 1969, 18-40; H. Weidmann, Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im Licht der
Forschung seit Julius Wellhausen, FRI .ANT 94, 1968; P. Weimar, ‘Aulbau
und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte’, ZAW 86, 1974,
174-203; M. Weippert, ‘Abraham der Hebriier? Bemerkungen zu W. F.
140 THE PENTATEUCH
Albrights Deutung der Vi-iter Israels’, Bibl 52, 1972, 407-32; M. Weiss,
‘Einiges fiber die Bauformen des Erzéihlens in der Bibel’, VT 13, 1963,
456-75; C. Westermann, ‘Arten der Erziihlung in der Genesis’, Forschung
am Alten Testament, Munich 1964, 9-91; Genesis 1-ll, Darmstadt 1972;
Genesis I2-50, Darmstadt 1975; ‘Promises to the Patriarchs’, IDB Suppl,
690-93; Die Verheissungen an die Vater, Studien zur Vatergeschichte, FRLANT
116, 1976; R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, New
Haven and London 1977; W. Zimmerli, ‘Sinaibund und Abrahambund’,
TZ 16, 1960, 268—80=Gottes Ojfenbarung, Munich 1963, 205-16.
It has long been recognized that the present form of the book of
Genesis has been structured into a whole by means of a repeated
genealogical formula, ‘these are the generations (toledot) of... ’.
The formula with slight variation appears in 2.4; 5.1; 6.9; 10.1;
11.10; 11.27; 25.12; 25.19; 36.1(9) and 37.2. Commentators con-
tinue to disagree slightly on the semantic range of the term toledot,
and whether exactly the same meaning is conveyed throughout
the book (cf. the various translations in the RSV). But it is cer-
tain from the Hebrew syntax that the formula is always followed by
the genitive of the progenitor and never of the progeny (Skinner,
41). The immediate significance of this observation is that the first
occurrence of the formula in 2.4: ‘these are the generations of the
heavens and the earth . . ’ serves as a superscription to the account
which follows and can, under no circumstances, either be shifted to
a position preceding 1.1, or treated as a subscription to 1.1-2.4a.
(cf. B. Jacob, 71 for a list of the proponents of these theories).
The toledot formula is followed either by a genealogy or by a
narrative account. Thus, a genealogy is introduced in 5.1; 10.1;
11.10; 25.12 and 36.l(9), and a narrative in 2.4; 6.9; 11.27; 25.19
and 37.2. Furthermore, it is significant to observe that the
genealogies are of two different sorts. A vertical genealogy which
pursues one line of descendants is found in two places. 5.11f. traces
the line from Adam to Noah; 1 l.l0ff. from Shem to Terah. Three of
the genealogies are segmented or horizontal in form indicating the
146 rne PENTATEUCH
relationship of various subgroups within a family. 10. lff. traces the
offspring of the sons of Noah,Japheth, Ham and Shem along with a
description of their geographical distribution. 25.12ff. pursues the
descendants of Ishmael, and 36.1 those of Esau, also with a brief
account of geographical claims.
The crucial point to be made turns on the relationship between
the two types ofgenealogy and the narrative material. The function
of the vertical genealogies is to trace an unbroken line of descen-
dants from Adam to Jacob, and at the same time to provide a
framework in which to incorporate the narrative traditions of the
patriarchs. The descendants of Adam are traced to Noah (5.lff.)
and the toledot formula in 6.9 introduces the traditions of the flood
and Noah’s sons in the chapters which follow. Next 11.10 continues
the chosen line from Shem to Terah and the formula in 11.27
introduces the Abraham traditions. Again, in 25.19 the formula
picks up the line with Isaac and introduces the Jacob narratives.
Finally, the formula in 37.2 continues the story ofJacob’s family by
introducing the Joseph and Judah (ch. 38) stories. The three seg-
mented genealogies (10.1; 25.12; 36.1) are placed in their proper
sequential order, but remain tangential to the one chosen line
which is pursued by means of narratives and vertical genealogies.
The function ofthe ten toledot formulae is to structure the book of
Genesis into a unified composition and to make clear the nature of
the unity which is intended. The role of the toledot formula in 2.4,
which introduces the story ofmankind, is to connect the creation of
the world with the history which follows. This history includes both
the generations ofthe special line and the general, as the two types
of genealogy show. However, the major concern of the structure is
to describe both creation and world history in the light ofthe divine
will for a chosen people. The initial canonical implication to be
drawn from the structure is that the continuity of the whole history
cannot be threatened by overemphasizing other internal divisions,
such as the primeval history (contra Westermann), which has now
been subordinated to an overarching canonical framework.
Before one can adequately assess other significant effects of the
present structure ofGenesis, it is necessary to discuss the relation of
the book’s final form to its literary history. The general complexity
of the source problem has already been discussed in a previous
chapter. In terms of Genesis, the position is usually held, according
to its classic formulation, that the Priestly source, extends 1i‘otn 1.1
osuests 147
background and overlooks the main thrust being made by the pas-
sage itself.
The canonical function Qf genealogy
One of the sharpest breaks with traditional Christian interpreta-
tion which the critical study of the Old Testament effected came in
the handling of biblical chronology contained in the genealogies of
Genesis. (Jewish interpretation followed a somewhat different
approach.) As represented in classic form by Bishop James Ussher,
but defended by countless others, the view has been that one could
compute the history of the world since its creation in exact chrono-
logy by means of the Old Testament genealogies. Ussher arrived at
the figures of 4-O04 BC for the date of creation and 2368 years for the
historical period covered by the book of Genesis. The collapse of
this understanding of chronology came largely from the impact of
the natural sciences in the early nineteenth century.
From the side of biblical criticism, extra-biblical parallels to
Genesis had long been known through Berossus, a Babylonian
priest of the third century BC whose lists have survived in Greek.
With the discovery ofcuneiform literature the real source ofancient
Near Eastern chronology in the Babylonian and especially the
Sumerian king-lists became clear. As a result it first appeared that
the biblical genealogies had lost all theological significance and
were simply to be recognized as a somewhat garbled accommoda-
tion to ancient chronological tradition. However, in more recent
years a more fruitful approach to the problem has emerged both
from the side of cuneiform and from biblical studies.
The newer historical approach to ancient Near Eastern culture
(cf. Malamat, Sasson, and R. R. Wilson) has sought to discover the
sociological function of the genealogy, and has rejected the older
starting point, still held by Gunkel, which saw genealogy as a ves-
tige of an original narrative. Rather, genealogy in its various forms
emerges as an independent and highly significant literary form of
antiquity. It performed an important function of legitimating royal
dynasties and registering the changing political claims of groups by
adjusting their lineage to reflect the realities ofthe existing political
order.
In the light of this original function of genealogy in the ancient
Near East, it would seem that the book of Genesis stands in a
relationship of both continuity and (liseontinnity with its inherited
GENESIS 153
tradition. It frequently shares the same formal characteristics
(segmented, vertical), and employs the huge numbers characteris-
tic ofthe Babylonian and Sumerian lists. It also serves to legitimate
existing social realities. Nevertheless, the major function of the
genealogy in Genesis seems to differ from its analogue. The descrip-
tion of the structure of Genesis pointed out the role of the vertical
genealogies in tracing the line of the chosen family. This is predo-
minantly a theological function, indeed in relation to political
entities outside the chosen line, but one which uses the old tradi-
tions not primarily for political legitimation but for religious
affirmation.
Genesis 5 illustrates well the new function of the genealogy even
though the form of the listing is unusual for the Old Testament.
The age of the father is given before the birth of his child, then the
age after the birth, and finally his total age. Everything focuses on
the birth of the child who becomes the carrier of the promise. The
genealogy marks the passing of time in an orderly sequence, but
measured in terms of father and son rather than centuries. What is
particularly striking in this understanding of time is that it is not
reckoned in the form of absolute dates, but in the schematized
pattern of descendants. When Bishop Ussher sought to translate
biblical genealogy into scientific chronology and set a date for crea-
tion, he effected a major dislocation of the biblical approach to
temporal reality.
It remains a debatable question to what extent the extravagant
numbers in Genesis perform a specific canonical function. Occa-
sionally the theory has been defended that the purpose ofthe num-
bers lay in their decreasing size which functions as a parallel tradi-
tion to the ‘fall’ of ch. 3. But the evidence for the theory is indeci-
sive. Recently Westermann (BK, 4-80) has argued that the large
numbers which are confined to the primeval history testify to the
‘empowering of the blessing’ with which mankind was blessed at
the creation. Although this theory is suggestive, the issue has not
been fully resolved. In my judgment, it seems likely that the num-
bers did acquire a specific interpretation within the canon because
the Old Testament was always aware of the normal boundaries of
human life (Ps. 90.10) which appeared to have been inoperative in
the primeval days.
154 "rue PENTATEUCH
(a) Von Rad once wrote: ‘For no stage in this work’s long period of
growth is really obsolete; something of each phase has been con-
served and passed on as enduring until the Hexateuch attained its
final form’ (Genesis, rev. ed., 28). Certainly von Rad is right in
suggesting that the final form of Genesis reflects the layering of
tradition in which there has been no attempt to flatten out the
diverse material into a monolithic whole. However, von Rad’s
traditio-critical approach, as a legacy of Gunkel, has failed to
reckon seriously with the full implications of the canonical progress
on the traditioning process. Above all, the final form of Genesis
provides a hermeneutical guide by which to interpret this complex
prehistory of the literature. It introduces a critical judgment in
emphasizing certain features, subordinating others, and even sup-
pressing some. To speak ofGenesis as scripture is to acknowledge
the authority of this particular viewing ofIsrael’s tradition which in
its particular form provided a critical theological standard for
future generations of Israel.
(b) It was part of the great sensitivity ofvon Rad as an exegete to
have discerned a unique feature of the Genesis saga: ‘It reflects a
historical experience on the relevant community which extends into
the present time ofthe narrator’ (Genesis, 34-). However, rather than
attributing this peculiarity to the nature of a literary genre, the
canonical approach recognizes this feature of actualizing the bibli-
cal material as a major concern in its formation. This theological
force is not an extrinsic category which was later imposed by religi-
ous interpreters, but is constitutive ofthe literature itself. The book
158 "rne PENTATEUCH
History of Exegesis
Carpzov I, 67ff., DBS 7, 687-95; DThC 6, l206ff., 2335ff.; EB 2, 323;
Augustine, La Genese au sens littéral, Oeuvres 48 (Bibliotheque Augus-
tinienne, 78 série), Paris 1972, 67-79 (full bibliography of patristic
exegesis); E. F. C. Rosenrniiller, Scholia in Vetus Testamentum I, l, Berlin
31821, v—lii; RGG3 2, 1377-79.
Commentaries
M. M. Kalisch, 1855 A. Clamer, SB, 1956
C. F. Keil, BC 1864 M. Noth, ET, OTL, 1962
A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, KeH, G. Te Stroete, BOuT, 1966
31897 U. Cassuto, 1967
F. de Hummelauer, CSS, 1897 G. H. Davies, TB, 1967
H. Holzinger, KHC, 1900 F. C. Fensham, POuT, 1970
B. Baentsch, HKAT, 1903 J. P. Hyatt, NCeB, 1971
S. R. Driver, CB, 1911 R. E. Clements, CNEB, 1972
H. Gressmann, SAT, 21922 B. S. Childs, OTL, 1974
P. Heinisch, HS, 1934 F. Michaeli, CAT, 1974
G, Beer, HAT, 1939 W. H. Schmidt, BK, 1974-If.
Bibliography
M. Aberbach and L. Smolar, ‘Aaron, Jeroboam and the Golden Calves’,
jBL 86, 1967, 129-40; A. Alt, ‘The Origins of Israelite Law’, Essays (see
Pentateuch), 81-121; K. C. W. Béihr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, 1-ll,
Heidelberg 21874; K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, ET Oxford 1971;
James Barr, ‘Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant’, Beitréige zur Alttes-
tamentlichen Theologie, FS W. Zimmerli, Gtittingen 1977, 23-38; C. Barth,
‘Zur Bedeutung der Wiistentradition’, SVT 15, 1966, 14-23.; W. Beyer-
Iin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, ET Oxford 1965; ‘Die
Pariinese im Bundesbuch und ihre Herkunft’, Gottes Wort und Gottes Land,
FS H. W. Hertzberg, Gottingen 1965, 9-29; F. S. Bodenheimer, ‘The
Manna of Sinai’, BA 10, 1947, 1-6; C. Brekelmans, ‘Exodus XVIII and
the Origins of Yahwism in Israel’, OTS 10, 1954, 215-24; ‘Die sogenann-
ten deuteronomistischen Elemente in Genesis bis Numeri’, SVT 15, 1966,
90-96; M. Caloz, ‘Exode, X111, 3-I-16, et son rapport du Deutéronome’,
RB 65, 1968, 5-62; H. Cazelles, Etudes sur le code d’alliance, Paris 1946;
‘Les Localisations de 1'Exo(1e et la critique litteraire’, RB 62, 1955, 321-
162 "rue PENTATEUCH
64; B. S. Childs, ‘A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition’,
VT 20, 1970, 406-18; W. M. Clark, ‘Law’, Old Testament Form Criticism, ed.
J. H. Hayes, San Antonio, Texas 1974, 99-139; G. W. Coats, ‘The
Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif’, VT 7, 1967, 253-65;
Rebellion in the Wilderness, Nashville 1968; F. M. Cross, ‘The Tabernacle’,
BA 10, 1947, 45-68; ‘Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs’, HTR 55,
1962, 225-59; expanded as ‘The Religion ofCanaan and the God oflsrael’,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973, 3-75; ‘The Song of the Sea and
Canaanite Myth’, God and Christ: Existence and Providence, ed. R. W. Funk
(journal of Theology and the Church 5), New York 1968, 1-25; reprinted,
Canaanite Myth, 112-44; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, ‘The Song of
Miriam’,]NES 14, 1955, 237-50.
D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law, Cambridge and New York 1947,
74-101; G. I. Davies, ‘The Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study’,
Tyndale Bulletin 25, London 1974, 46-81; S. De Vries, ‘The Origin of the
Murmuring Tradition’,]BL 87, 1968, 51-8; O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon,
Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer, Halle 1932; ‘Die
Komposition von Exodus 1-12’, KS 2, Tilibingen 1963, 160ff.; Die Komposi-
tion der Sinai-Erzahlung 19-34, Berlin 1966; ‘Palestine in the Time of the
Nineteenth Dynasty. (a) The Exodus and Wanderings-’, CAH I1/2, 1975,
307-30; K. Elliger, ‘Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtser-
ziih1ung’,KSAT, Munich 1966, 174-98; I. Engnell, ‘Paesa_h-Ma_s_sot and
the Problem of “Patternism”’, Orientalia Suecana 1, Uppsala 1952, 39-50;
reprinted as ‘The Passover’, in A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville 1969 (=Critical
Essays on the Old Testament, London 1970), 185-96;.J.J. Finkelstein, ‘Mish-
pat’ (Hebrew), EB 5, 1968, 588lf.; G. Fohrer, Uberlieferung und Geschichte
des Exodus, BZAW 91, 1964; V. Fritz, Israel in der I/I/iiste, Marburg 1970; N.
Fueglister, Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha, Munich 1963; W. Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3-17, BZAW 126, 1972; E.
Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des apodiktischen Rechts, WMANT 20,
1965; H. Gese, ‘Der Dekalog als Ganzheit betrachtet’, ZTK 64, 1967,
121-38; M. Greenberg, ‘Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law’, Y.
Kaufmann jubilee Volume, Jerusalem 1960, 5ff.; ‘The Thematic Unity of
Exodus III-XI’, Fourth World Congress ofjewish Studies 1,Jerusa1em 1967,
151-4; H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, FRLANT 18, 1913; H.
Gronbaek, ‘Juda und Amalek. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Erwiigungen
zu Exodus 17, 8-16’, StTh 18, 1964, 26-45; A. H.J. Gunneweg, ‘Mose im
Midian’, ZTK 61, 1964, 1-9; H. Haag, ‘Péique’, DBS 6, 1120-49; M.
Haelvoet, ‘La Théophanie du Sinai’, ETL 29, 1953, 374ff.;J. Halbe, Das
Privilegrechtjahwes, Ex 34, 10-26, FRLANT I 14, 1975; M. Haran, ‘Exodus,
The’, IDB Suppl, 304-10; S. Herrmann, Israel in Egypt, ET, SBT 11.27,
1973; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament, Berlin 1955;
P. Hyatt, ‘The Site and Manner of the Israelites’ Crossing of the Sea’,
Exodus, NCeB, 1971, 156ff.
B. S. Jackson, ‘The Problem of Exod. xxi 22-25 (ius talionis)’, VT 23,
exoous 163
1973, 273-304; R. Knierim, ‘Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosais-
chen Gerichtsbarkeit’, ZAW 73, 1961, 146-71; K. Koch, Die Priesterschnft
von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus I6, Gcittingen 1959; L. Koehler, ‘Der Dekalog’,
ThR NF 1, 1929, 161-84; H.-J. Kraus, ‘Zur Geschichte des Passah-
Massot-Festes im Alten Testament’, EvTh 18, 1958, 47ff.; A. Kuenen,
‘Manna und Wachteln’, Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft,
Freiburg 1894, 276ff.; A. Kuschke, ‘Die Lagervorstellung der priester-
schriftlichen Erziihlung’, ZAW 63, 1951, 74-105; E. Kutsch, ‘Erwiigun-
gen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes’, ZTK 55, 1958,
1-35; Verheissung und Gesetz, BZAW 131, 1973; A. Lauha, ‘Das Schi1f-
meermotif im Alten Testament’, SVT 9, 1963, 32-46; S. Lehming,
‘Massa und Meriba’, ZAW 73, 1961, 71-7; S. E. Loewenstamm, The
Tradition of the Exodus in its Development (Hebrew), Jerusalem 1965; N.
Lohfink, ‘Zum “k1einen geschichtlichen Credo” Dtn 26,5-9’, Theologie und
Philosophie 46, Freiburg 1971, 19-39.
D. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, Rome 1963; G. Mendenhall,
‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’ and ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite
Tradition’, BA 17, 1954, 26-46, 50—76=Law and Covenant in Israel and the
Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh 1955; E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbar-
stamme, Halle 1906; S. Mowinckel, Le Décalogue, Paris 1927; MuiIen-
burg, ‘The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations’, VT 9,
1959, 347-65; ‘A Liturgy of the Triumphs of Yahweh’, Studia Biblica et
Semitica T. C. Vriezen dedicata, Wageningen 1966, 238-50; E. Nicholson,
Exodus and Sinai in I‘It$l07jt and Tradition, Oxford and Richmond, Va. 1973;
‘The Interpretation of Exodus xxiv 9-11’, VT 24, 1974, 77-97; ‘The
Decalogue as the Direct Address of God’, VT 27, 1977, 422-33; E.
Nielsen, The Ten Commandments in New Perspective, ET, SBT II.7, 1968; M.
Noth, Die Gesetze im Pentateuch, Kiinigsberg 1940; ET The Laws in the
Pentateuch and Other Studies, Edinburgh 1966, Philadelphia 1967, 1-107; A
History of Pentateuchal Traditions, ET Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1972; E. Oss-
Wald, Das Bild des Moses, Berlin 1962; E. Otto, ‘Erwiigungen zum iiber-
lieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung und “Sitz im Leben” des jahwisti-
schen Plagenzyklus’, VT 26, 1976, 3-27; S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book tyfthe
Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, Leiden 1970;
Pedersen, ‘Passahfest und Passahlegende’, ZAW 52, 1934, 161-75; L.
Perlitt, Die Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, 1969; ‘Mose als
Prophet’, EvTh 31, 1971, 588-608; Plastaras, The God tJExodus, Mil-
waukee I966; Popper, Der biblische Bericht iiber die Stiftshiitte, Leipzig
1862; W. J. A. Powers, ‘Glueck’s Exploration in Eastern Palestine in the
Light of Recent Evidence’, VT 21, 1971, 118-23.
K. von Rabenau, ‘Die beiden Erzéihlungen vom Schilfmeerwunder in
Exod. 17-14,31’, Theologische Versuche, ed. P. Wiitzel, East Berlin 1966,
9-29; G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch, Stuttgart 1934; ‘The
Form-Critical Problem ofthe Hexateuch’, Problem (see Pentateuch), 1-78;
A. Reichert, Der jahwist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen
164 "rue PENTATEUCH
im Buch Exodus, Diss. Tiibingen 1972; W. Richter, Die sogenannten vor-
prophetischen Bemfungsberichte, Gottingen 1970; L. Rost, ‘Weidewechsel und
altisraelitischen Festkalendar’, ZDPV 66, 1943, 205-16; W. Rudolph, Der
‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis josua, Berlin I938; H. Schmid, Mose: Uberligerung
und Geschichte, BZAW 110, 1968; H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte jahwist,
Ziirich 1976; H. Schulz, Das Todesrecht im Alten Testament, BZAW 114,
1969; H. Seebass, Mose und Aaron, Sinai und Gottesberg, Bonn 1962; B.
Segal, The Hebrew Passover, London and New York 1963; R. Smend, Die
Entstehung des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1978; Stamm and M. E.
Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research, ET, SBT II.2, 1967; T.
C. Vriezen, “"ehje’ iiser ’chje”’, FS A. Bertholet, Ttibingen 1950, 498-
512; ‘Exodusstudien, Exodus 1’, VT 17, 1967, 334-53; ‘The Exegesis of
Exodus XXIV, 9-11’, OTS 17, 1972, 100-33.
K. Walkenhorst, Der Sinai im liturgischen Verstiindnis der deuteronomistischen
undpriesterlichen Tradition, Bonn 1969; P. ‘Weimar, Untersuchungen zur pries-
terschriftlichen Exodusgeschichte, Wiirzburg 1973; P. Weimar and E. Zenger,
Exodus. Geschichten und Geschichte der Bdreiung Israels, Stuttgart l975;,J. Well-
hausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel , ET Edinburgh 1885, 83ff.; C.
Westermann, ‘Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift’, Wort-
Gebot-Glaube, FS W. Eichrodt, Ziirich 1970, 227-49; M. Weinfeld, ‘To the
Origin of Apodictic Law in Ancient Israel’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 41,
Jerusalem 1971-72, 349-60; H. Wildberger, jahwes Eigentumsvolk, Zii rich
1960; F. V. Winnett, The A/Iosaic Tradition, Toronto 1949; G. E. Wright,
God who Acts, SBT I.8, 1952; E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchung
zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk, Wiirzburg I971; Z. Zevit,
‘The Priestly Redaction and Interpretation of the Plague Narrative in
Exodus’,_]QR 61, 1976, 193-211; W. Zimmerli, ‘lch binJahwe’, Geschichte
und Altes Testament, Tiibingen 1953, 179-209=Gottes Ojfenbamng, Munich
1963, 11-40; ‘Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum Verstiind-
nis der Priesterschrift’, TZ 16, 1960, 268-80=Gottes O_/fenbarung, 205-16;
The Law and the Prophets, ET Oxford 1965; ‘Erwiigungen zum “Bund” ’,
Wort-Gebot-Glaube, 1 71-90.
History of Exegesis
A. Calmet, Dictionary Qflllé Bible, London 1732, III, 253a; Carpzov I,
97-99; DThC 5, l76lf.; RGG3 2, 83lf.
H. von Campenhausen, ‘Die Bilderfrage als theologisches Problem
der alten Kirche’, Tradition und Leben 1960, 2l6ff.; B. S. Childs, Exodus,
OTL, 1974; Daniélou, From Shadows to Reality, ET London 1960;
‘Exodus,’ Reallexikonfiir Anti/ce und Christenturn 7, 22-43; R. Le Déaut and
_]. Lécuyer, ‘Exode’, DS 4.2, 1961, 1957-95; P. Delhaye, Le Decalogue et sa
place dans la morale chrétienne, Bruxelles 21963; E. R. Goodenough, ‘Philo’s
Exposition of the Law’, HTR 27, 1923, l09ff.; R. M. Grant, ‘The
Decalogue in Early Christianity’, HTR 40, 1947, 1-17; T. Jansma,
‘Ephraim’s Commentary on Exodus’,jSS 17, 1972, 203-12;]. Z. Lanter-
baeh, ‘Introduction’, ll/Iekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Philadelphia and Lon-
don 1933, xiii-lxiv; Leclercq, ‘Moise’, DACL XI, 2, 1648-89; N.
Leibowitz, Studies in the Book of Exodus, 2 vols., New York 1975; E. B.
Levine, ‘Parallels to Exodus of Pseudo-Jonathan and Neophyti I’,
Neophyti I, ed. A. Diez Macho, II, Madrid 1970, 419-76; S. Lowy, The
Principle cy"Samaritan Bible Exegesis, Studia Post-Biblica 28, Leiden 1977.
F. Maschkowski, ‘Rashi’s Einfluss auf Nikolaus von Lyra in der
Auslegung des Exodus’, ZAW 11, 1891, 268-316; G. F. Moore, ‘Commen-
taries on the Laws’,_]udaisrn I, Cambridge, Mass. 1927, 135-49; E. Nor-
den, ‘_]ahve und Moses in hellenistischer Theologie’, Festgabe fiir A. von
exoous 179
Harnaclc, Tiibingen 1921, 292-301; E. Osswald, Das Bild des Mose, Berlin
1962; E. Preuschen, ‘Passah, altkirchliches und Passahstreitigkeiten’,
RE3 14, 725ff.; B. Reicke, Die Zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart, BGBE
13, 1973; L. Saalschiitz, Das Mosaische Recht mit Berucltsichtigung des
spiitern jiidischen, 2 vols. 1848, 21853; R. Smend, Das Mosebild von Heinrich
Ewald bis Martin Noth, BGBE 3, 1959; L. Smolar and M. Aberbach,
‘The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature’, HUCA 39, 1968,
91-116; P. verdam, Mosaic Law in Practice and Study throughout the
Ages, Kampen 1959; G. Vermes, ‘Circumcision and Exodus IV. 24-26.
Prelude to the Theology of Baptism’, Scripture and Tradition, Leiden 21973,
178-92; N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristohulus, TU 86, 1964.
VIII
LEVITICUS
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1864 H. Holzinger, HSAT, 41922
M. M. Kalisch, 1867-72 P. Heinisch, HS, 1935
A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, KeH 31897 A. Clamer, SB, 1940
A. Bertholet, Kl-IC, 1901 M. Noth, ET, OTL, 1965
B. Baentsch, HKAT, 1903 K. Elliger, HAT, 1966
D. Hoffmann, 1905-6 N. H. Snaith, NCeB, 1967
A. R. S. Kennedy, CeB, 1910 H. Caze1les,_]B, 31972
A. W. Streane, CB, 1914 R. Porter, CNEB, 1976
Bibliography
A. Alt, ‘The Origins oflsraelite Law’, Essays (see Pentateuch), 79-132; B.
Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz. Lev. X VII-XXVI. Eine historisch-ltritische
Untersuchung, Erfurt 1893;]. Begrich, ‘Die priesterliche Tora’, BZAW 66,
1936, 63-88; reprinted, GSAT, Munich 1964, 232-60; P._]. Bidd, ‘Priestly
Instruction in Pre-Exilic Israel’, VT 23, 1973, 11-14; A. van den Bran-
den, ‘Lévitique 1-7 et le Tariff de Marseille, CIS i, 105’, Rivista degli
Studi Orientali 40, Rome 1965, 107-30; A. Cholewifislti, Heiliglteitsgesetz
and Deuteronomium, AnBib 60, 1976; R. E. Clements, God and Temple,
Oxford and Philadelphia 1965; A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priest-
hood, Rome 1969; F. M. Cross, ‘The Priestly Houses of Early Israel’,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge, Mass. 1973, 195-215; K.
Elliger, ‘Das Gesetz Leviticus 18’, ZAW 67, 1955, 1-25; ‘Zur Analyse des
Siindopfergesetzes’, Verbannung and Heimkehr. FS W. Rudolph, Tiibingen
1961, 39-50; L. E. Elliott-Binns, ‘Some Problems of the Holiness Code’,
ZAW 76, 1955, 26-40; H. Gese, ‘Die Siihne’, Zur biblischen Theologie,
Munich 1977, 85-106; R. Gradwohl, ‘Das “fremde Feuer” von Nadab
und Abihu’, ZAW 75, 1963, 288-96; G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testa-
ment, Oxford and New York 1925; P. Grelot, ‘La derniere étape de la
rédaction sacerdotale’, VT 6, 1956, 174-89; M. Grintz, ‘Do not Eat of
the Blood’, ASTI 8, 1972, 78-105; M. Haran, ‘Studies in the Account of
LEVITICUS 181
the Levitical Cities’,_]BL 80, 1961, 45-54, 156-65; ‘Holiness Code’, E_] 8,
820-25; G. Harford-Battersby, ‘Leviticus’, DB 3, 102-9; E. W. Heng-
stenberg, ‘The Sacrifice of Holy Scripture’, Ecclesiastes, ET Edinburgh
1864, 367-409; Hoftijzer, ‘Das sogenannte Feueropfer’, SVT 16, 1967,
1 14-34.
H. Jagersma, Leviticus 19. Identiteit-Bevrzjding-Gemeenschap, Studia Semi-
tica Neerlandica 14, Assen 1972; R. Kilian, Literarlcritische undformgeschich-
tliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes, BBB 19, 1963; K. Koch, Die Pries-
terschrtft von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16, FRLANT 71, 1959; L. Koehler, Old
Testament Theology, ET London 1957, Philadelphia 1958; W. Kornfeld,
Studien zum Heiligheitsgesetz, Vienna 1952; B. A. Levine, ‘Ugaritic Descrip-
tive Ritua1s’,_]CS 17, 1963, 105-11; ‘The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of
the Pentateuch’,_]A OS85, 1965, 307-18; In the Presence ofthe Lord, Leiden
1974; B. van der Merwe, ‘The Laying on of Hands in the Old Testa-
ment’, OuTl/VP 5, 1962, 33-43; A. Merx, ‘Kritische Untersuchung liber
die Opfergesetze Lev. 1-VII’, ZWTh 6, 1863, 41-84, 164-81; A. Met-
zinger, ‘Die Substitutionstheorie und das alttestamentliche Opfer’, Bibl
21, 1940, 159-87, 247-72, 353-77;_]. Milgrom, ‘The Biblical Diet Laws as
an Ethical System’, Interp 17, 1963, 288-301; Studies in Levitical Terminology
I, Berkeley 1970; ‘The Function ofthe I-Ia_t_ta’t Sacrifice’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz
-f0,_]erusalem 1970-71, 1-8; ‘Sin Offering or Purification Offering’, VT 21,
1971, 237-39; ‘The ‘Alleged Wave Offering in Israel and in the Ancient
Near East’, IE] 22, 1972, 33-38; Cult and Conscience, Leiden 1976;
‘1.eviticus’, IDB Suppl, 541-5; G. F. Moore, ‘Leviticus’, Encyclopaedia Bib-
lira, ed. T. K. Cheyne and S. Black, vol. 3, London and New York 1902,
‘_'77ti—93; _]. Morgenstern, ‘The Decalogue of the Holiness Code’, HUCA
‘lb. 1955, 1-27.
_|. Neusner, The Idea qfPurity in Ancientjudaism, Leiden 1973; M. Noth,
The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, ET Edinburgh and New York
l‘ltiti; W. Paschen, Rein und Unrein. Untersuchung zur biblischen 1/I/ortgeschichte,
.\ltlllit'll 1970; G. von Rad, ‘Form-Criticism ofthe Holiness Code’, Studies
m lleuteronorny, SBT 1.9, 1953, 25-36; A, F. Rainy, ‘The Order of
fs'.n-rilices in Old Testament Rituals’, Bibl 51, 1970, 485-98; R.
Rendtorff, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrzft, Gottingen 21963; Studien zur
I-hiliichte (les Opfers im /-llten Testament, VV1\/[ANT 24, 1967; H. von Revent-
low. llus Heiligl.'eitsgeset.g forrngeschichtlich untersucht, WMAN T 6, 1961; R.
Schmid, this Bundesopfer in Israel. Wesen, Ursprung und Bedeutung der alttes-
!rHrH'rtllir'lu'rt .$'chelumim, Munich 1964; N. H. Snaith, ‘Sacrifices in the Old
‘lt'\1;I1]ll‘lIl’, V7’ 7, 1957. .'ifl1*l—l 7; ‘The Sin-Offering and the Guilt-
tlllt-ring’, 1'7’ 1."), 196.’), 73-80; W‘. B. Stevenson, ‘Hebrew ‘Olah and
/.cli.i1| .\';it'|'i1it‘t's’_ I55’ :1. I)’r’Tllmlt’l, '1’i'|l)iI1g'r‘lI 1951), 488-98; R. (I8 Vaux, L6
.\'mri/we dans l’.-lncien 'l'eitvment, l’;iris 1964; ‘l.e Saccrdoce en Israel’, Populus
llri 1- ltmcl. Stmli in onorr del (Zuni. .4. (lttavirmi, Rome 1969, 113—68;__l. G.
Villlt, "1'lic llntc nntl ()|'i_t_{in ufllic l’l‘icstly (lmlc in lllt‘ (lld Testament’,
t)'lI\' 1'1, l‘ll>¥l. 1 I-1-ll \’. Wagner, ‘Zur l‘1.‘ilS1t'I17.(lt‘!~i stigcitaulntcn Heilig-
I82 THE PENTATEUCH
keitsgesetzes’, ZAW 86, 1974, 307-16; Wilkinson, ‘Leprosy and
Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification’, S_]T 30, 1977,
153-69; P. Wurster, ‘Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des Priester-
kodex und der Heiligkeitsgesetzes’, ZAW 4, 1884, 1 12-33.
sacrifices which Aaron initiated did not derive from custom, but
from direct compliance with divine will. What Aaron instituted had
already been established as a ‘perpetual due’ from the people of
Israel throughout every succeeding generation (v. 36). Aaron’s
inauguration became an instance of obedient response of proper
worship; Nadab and Abihu illustrated judgment on unholy dis-
obedience (ch.lO).
The laws ofimpurities which follow in chs.] 1-16 as well as the
laws of holiness in 17-26 assume the establishment of a covenant
between God and Israel at Sinai. God had separated Israel to
himself as a holy people and sanctified them (2l.23). Israel was to
reflect the nature of God’s holiness by separating from all that was
unholy. The laws, therefore, spell out in detail the distinction be-
tween the holy and the common, the unclean and the clean (10.10).
Israel does not achieve a state of holiness by performing duties.
Holiness is not a process to be won. Rather, God has separated
Israel to himself, and rendered his people holy in the deliverance
from Egypt (22.31). However, holiness can be forfeited by con-
tamination with the profane. By keeping the divine commandments
lsi';t(‘l responds obediently to her status as an elect, holy nation.
'l'lte imperative, ‘Be holy as I am holy’ (l9.2) challenges Israel to
|'t';1li'!.f' the status and perform the role to which she has been called.
l'lie laws of Leviticus are grounded in the being of God who is the
stilt‘ measure of holiness. The statutes for distinguishing holiness
lI'|iIll unholiness are external, and so is the means of atonement
\\"l|it'll eleanses Israel’s sin, thus restoring her before the presence of
t;.,<| (lti.29ff.).
lhe status of a holy people, separated unto God, does not only
l(ll|lI'l)l Israel’s relation with the deity, but extends into the realm of
littiimii relations. Chs. 17-26 grounded Israel’s ethical response in
t-xiu-tly the same manner as chs. 11-16 had done for the cult,
n.tiii<-ly in the nature of God’s being as holiness (ch.l9). The con-
llllllill rt-frain: ‘I am Yahweh, your God’ (19/lff.) links the revela-
lint! of the divine will to the covenant at Sinai, which was made
hilly known in the disclosure of the divine name (Ex. 6.2ff.).
llie ettnonieal effect of structuring the book in such a way as to
tt|Hl|l'('l ttll the material of Leviticus directly to the revelation at
Sinai is ol'er1teinl lII1p()l'l2lll('(‘ in understanding how the book was
\lt.t|>etl in its role ats £llIllll)I'llil[lV(‘ scripture for Israel. All the laws
(ll l.e\'itit-its whieh steinmetl originally l’I"UII] very different periods,
186 THE PENTATEUCH
(a) A witness is given that the institutions and rites which deter-
mine how Israel is properly to worship God derived from divine
revelation. Israel’s cult is not her own invention. There is no ten-
sion between the spirit and the form of the covenant. Rather in the
service of the tabernacle the sons of the covenant realize their new
life of freedom to ‘walk erect’. The canonical shape provides a
critical theological judgment against any reading of the tradition
which isolates the priestly elements of the tradition from the so-
called prophetic, or plays the one against the other. When the
priestly material of Leviticus is interpreted only in relation to an
alleged post-exilic historical background, a major theological tes-
timony of the book is threatened.
(b) The book of Leviticus offers a major example of the Old
Testament’s understanding of law. Israel’s law presupposed the
eovenant of Sinai and the election ofa holy people. The imperative
of obedience to the law is grounded in the eternal will of God who
promises to dwell in the midst of his people. Israel has been made
holy by God’s act of choosing a people and a response is demanded
from Israel commensurate to the nature of God’s holiness. Obedi-
enee to the law does not make Israel holy — only God can sanctify—
but her disobedience can surely jeopardize the relation between
(iotl and people. To interpret the laws of Leviticus as a form of
sell-salvation which arose in contrast to the prophetic emphasis on
tlivine grace is to misunderstand the canonical function of the book.
Ill terms of Christian theology, the book of Leviticus contains both
_t__"t1s|)t‘l and law.
(r) There is no sign within the shape of the book of Leviticus
\\'lll('ll would indicate any canonical intentionality to interpret the
lll;lll‘l'I21l in at way which would abstract, symbolize, or rationalize
lsrnefs cult. Yet significantly neither Judaism nor Christianity
lmve eontinued to observe the cult in its Old Testament form in
spilt‘ of both religious communities’ claim to accept the book of
l.t-vitietts as zittthoritative scripture. The grounds for a reinterpreta-
tion of the eultie prescriptions ofI.eviticus are unique to each of the
tut; liiiths. I-'or jiitlaisni the destruction of the temple which
Iirouglit to nit entl the worship ofthe sectmd temple was understood
.is ;I pttnislnneiit of (lotl. The (‘lIlllt' iin|>er;tIives of sacrifice have
I88 THE PENTATEUCH
been fulfilled in the study of Torah (cf. Lev. Rabbah vii), but the
hope of the restoration of the original cult continues to constitute
the future hope ofJudaism (cf. Ber. 29b; Shab. 24-a; Musaf to New
Year’s Service, Ex. Rabbah xxxi, etc.). For Christianity the cult has
been reinterpreted christologically — particularly in the book of
Hebrews — and placed within the category ofthe old foreshadowing
the new.
What is of particular interest is that both Judaism and Christian-
ity have used warrants from the larger canon, of course in conjunc-
tion with the new tradition either of the synagogue fathers or the
gospel, by which to justify a non-literal interpretation of the laws.
But in both cases the grounds for theological reinterpretation have
not rested on the canonical shape of the book of Leviticus itself.
Moreover, neither Judaism nor Christianity has appropriated the
material according to the two most obvious options. Both rejected
the move which would bind the authority of Leviticus to the literal
observance of its laws, as demanded, for example, by various Jew-
ish and Christian sects over the centuries. Both also rejected a
consistently symbolic interpretation which would cut itself free
from Israel’s historic existence, according to the model of Philo. In
sum, both communities appealed to a larger canonical interpreta-
tion by which to justify a unique appropriation of the sacred tradi-
tion.
The issue between the two faiths on their differing use of
Leviticus remains a theological one which, however, relates closely
to the question of canon. In spite of having only a portion of the
biblical cation in common, it remains an important task for Jews
and Christians to explore the divergent understanding of Leviticus
in relation to the rest of the Hebrew Bible, as well as to the addi-
tional bodies oflater tradition treasured by the two religious com-
munities as authoritative.
Histotjy of Exegesis
Carpzov I, ll6—l9; DTllC' 9, 498; EB 2, 887f.; RGG3 4, 340.
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, I865 P. Heinisch, HS, 1936
A. Dillmann, KeH, 21886 A. Clamer, SB, I940
B. Baentsch, HKAT, 1903 A. Drubbel, BOuT, I963
H. Holzinger, KHC, I903 N. H. Snaith, NCeB, I967
G. B. Gray, ICC, 1905 M. Noth, ET, OTL, 1968
H. Gressmann, SAT, 21922 de Vaulx, SoBi, I972
L. E. Elliott Binns, WC, I927 Sturdy, CNEB, I976
Bibliography
W. F. Albright, ‘The Oracles of Balaam’,jBL 63, 1944, 207-33; ‘The List
ofLevitic Cities’, Louis Ginzbergjubilee Volume I, New York 1945, 49-73; M.
Barnouin, ‘Remarques sur les tableaux numériques des Nombres’, RB
76, I969, 351-64; C. Barth, ‘Zur Bedeutung der Wiistentradition’, SVT
I5, 1966, 14-23; A. Bergman, ‘The Israelite Tribe of Half-Manasseh’,
IPOS I6, 1936, 224-54; A. Bewer, ‘The Ordeal in Num., Chap. 5’,
AjSL 30, 1913, 36-47; U. Cassuto, ‘The Sequence and Arrangement of
the Biblical Sections’ (I947), in Biblical and Oriental Studies l, Jerusalem
I973, l-6; G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, Nashville I968; A.
Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Rome I969; F. M. Cross, ‘The
Priestly Houses of Early Israel’, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cam-
bridge, Mass. I973, 195-215; S. De Vries, ‘The Origin ofthe Murmuring
Tradition’,jBL 87, I968, 51-8; B. D. Eerdmans, ‘The Composition of
Numbers’, OTS 6, I949, l0l-216; O. Eissfeldt, ‘Die Komposition der
Bileam-Erzfihlung’, ZAW 57, 1939, 212-4l=KS II, Tiibingen 1963, 199-
226; ‘Sinai-Erzahlung und Bileamspriiche’, HUCA 32, 1961, I79-190;
‘Die Eroberung Palfistinas durch Altisrael’, W0 2, 1955, l58—7l=KS III,
1966, 367-83; K. Elliger, ‘Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Ges-
chichtserziihlung’, ZTK 49, 1952, l2l—43=K.S'AT, Munich I966, 174-98;
NUMBERS I91
M. Fishbane, ‘Numbers 5:1 1-31, A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in
Israel and the Ancient Near East’, HUCA 45, I974, 25-45; V. Fritz, Israel
in der Wriiste, Marburg 1970.
M. Greenberg, ‘Levitical Cities’, E] II, l36f.; H. Gressmann, Mose
und seine Zeit, FRLANT I8, 1913; W. Gross, Bileam. Literar- undform-
kritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22-24, StANT 38, 1974; A. H.
Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, FRLANT 89, 1965; M. Haran, ‘The Uses
of Incense in the Ancient Israelite Ritual’, VT I0, 1960, 113-29; ‘Studies
in the Account of the Levitical Cities’,_]BL 80, 1961, 45-54; ‘The Priestly
Image of the Tabernacle’, HUCA 36, 1965, 191-226; O. Henke, ‘Zur
Lage von Beth Peor’, ZDPV 75, 1959, 155-63; J. Hoftijzer, ‘The Prophet
Balaam in a 6th Century Aramaic Inscription’, BA 39, I976, 11-17; G.
Hort, ‘The Death of Qorah’, Australian Biblical Review 7, Melbourne 1959,
2-26; K. R. Joines, ‘The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite CuIt’,]BL 87,
1968, 245-56; D. Kellermann, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10
literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAI/V 120, 1970; H.-J.
Kraus, Worship in Israel, ET Oxford and Richmond, Va. 1966; A. Kuenen,
‘.\/Ianna und Wachteln’, Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft,
Freiburg 1894, 276IT.; Kupper, ‘Le recensement dans les textes de
Mari’, Studia Mariana, ed. A. Parrot, Leiden 1950, 99-110; A. Kuschke,
‘Die Lagervorstellung der priesterschriftlichen Erzah1ung’,ZAW 63, 1951,
74-105; S. Lehming, ‘Massa und Meriba’, ZAW 73, I961, 71-77; ‘Ver-
sueh zu Num. I6’, ZAW 74, I962, 291-321; B. A. Levine, ‘Numbers, Book
of’, IDB Suppl, 631-5; Liver, ‘Korah, Dathan and Abiram’, Scripta
Hierosolymitana 8, Jerusalem I961, 189-217; ‘The Ransom of the Half-
SI'1('I-(€‘1’,['1TR 56, 1963, 182-98.
R. S. Mackensen, ‘The Present Literary Form ofthe Balaam Story’, D.
B. MacDonald Presentation Volume, Princeton and London, 1933, 279-92; B.
Mazar, ‘The Cities ofthe Priests and Levites’, SVT 7, I960, 193-205; ‘The
Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the I'\'enite’,]NES 24, I965,
‘£97-303; G. Mendenhall, ‘The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,’jBL
77_ I958. 52-66; Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology I, Berkeley
I970; S. Mittmann, ‘Num 20, 14-21. Eine redaktionelle Kompilation’, in
Ilhrt und Geschichte. FS K. Elliger, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 143-9; K.
Mohlenbrink, ‘Die Ievitischen Uberlieferungen des Alten Testaments’,
Z.—IIt' 52, I934, I84-231; S. Mowinckel, ‘Der Ursprung der Bil‘amsage’,
Z.-III’ 48, I930, 233-71; E. Nielsen, ‘The Levites in Ancient Israel’, ASTI
'i. I964. 17-20; M. Noth, Das System der zwiilfStamme Israels, BWANT IV I
t =52). I930; ‘Der \Na11fahrtsweg zum Sinai (4.Mose 33)’, P_]B 36, I940,
"'1 ‘.38, reprinted in Aufsatze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde, ed. H.
\\'. \-\-'oIIf. I, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, 55-74; ‘Num 21 als Glied der
“I Ies;ttent'Ii"—I"lrz£ih1ung‘, ZA W 58, I940-41, 161-89; reprinted in Aufsatze
I, 7."i—IIII; ‘Iieitriige zur Geschichte des Ostjordanlandes’, I-IV (1941-
I‘I.">‘.I). reprint:-tl in /Iufsatge I, 345-543; liiberlieferungtgeschichtliche Studien I,
II.iIIe If)-I3. I!ItI-206; Histori= ti/'l’entateurhal Traditions, FIT Englewood Cliffs
I92 THE PENTATEUCH
N.J. I972; M. Ottosson, Gilead, Tradition and History, Coniectanea Biblica
OT, 3, Lund I969.
L. Pakozdy, ‘Theologische Redaktionsarbeit in der Bileam-Perikope’,
Von Ugarit nach Qumran, FS O. Eissfizldt, BZAW 77, I958, 161-76; R. Press,
‘Das Ordal im Alten Israel’, ZAW 51, 1933, 121-40, 227-55; G. von Rad,
Die Priesterschrift irn Hexateuch, BWANT IV.l3 (=65), 1934; G. Richter,
‘Die Einheitlichkeit der Geschichte von der Rotte Korah (Num 16)’, ZAW
39, I921, 128-37; W. Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bisjoshua, BZAW
68, 1938; K. Seybold, ‘Das Herrscherbild des Bileamsorakels Num 24,
15-19’, TZ 29, 1973, l—I9;J. Simon, ‘Two Connected Problems Relating
to the Israelite Settlement in Transjordan’, PEQ 79, 1949, 27-39, 87-101;
The Geographical and Topographical Texts qf the Old Testament, Leiden 1959,
233-66; E. A. Speiser, ‘Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel’,
BASOR I49, I958, 17-25; ‘Background and Function of the Biblical
Nciii’, CBQ 25, 1963, lll-I7; Stamm, Erliisen und Vergeben im Alten
Testament. Eine begri[flsgeschichtliche -Untersuchung, Bern I940; S. Talmon,
‘Divergencies in Calendar-reckoning in Ephraim and Judah’, VT 8, 1958,
48-74; Van Seters, ‘The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary
Examination’,]BL 91, 182-97; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and
Institutions, ET London and New York 1961, 361-6; D. Vetter, Seherspruch
und Segensschilderung, Stuttgart 1975; S. Wagner, ‘Die Kundschafterge—
schichten im Alten Testament’, ZAW 76, I964, 255-69; K. H. Wal-
kenhorst, Der Sinai irn liturgischen Verstandnis der deuteronornistischen und pries-
terlichen Tradition, BBB 33, 1969; M. Weippert, The Settlement of the Israelite
Tribes in Palestine, ET, SBT II.21, 1971; Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the
History ofIsrael, ET Edinburgh I885, 151-61; F. V. Winnett, The Mosaic
Tradition, Toronto I949; M. Wiist, Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographis-
chen Texten des Alten Testaments, I, Ostjordanland, Beihefte zum Tiibinger
Atlas der Vordern Orients, Wiesbaden I975; A. H. van Zyl, The Moabites,
Leiden 1960.
earlier (JE) and a later stratum (P), and that the same familiar
literary strands which had been found in Genesis and Exodus were
represented. There was a general agreement among such literary
critics as Baentsch, Holzinger, and Gray in separating the priestly
source from the earlier level. However, some disagreement con-
tinued in the details of dividing J and E, and in determining the
different levels within P.
Within more recent years there has been considerable interest in
reconstructing and dating the several poetic sections of Numbers
(10.35; 21.14-15, 17-18, 27-30). Albright’s essay on the Balaam
oracles in particular opened up a brilliant new approach to the text,
which his students have continued to pursue. Then again,
Rudo1ph’s attempt to dispense with the E source was also extended
to Numbers, as was also von Rad’s analysis of P. But clearly, the
most influential new source-critical analysis of Numbers was car-
tied on by Noth, both in a series of articles and in his two volumes
on the history of Israelite traditions. The major thrust of Noth’s
argument was that the older source-critical model was misleading
in its interpretation ofthe latter chapters of Numbers. He proposed
a type of fragmentary hypothesis in order to demonstrate that the P
source ended for Numbers with 27.l2—23 which section connected
directly to Deut. 34.1,7—9. He assigned the chapters which con-
tained a conquest tradition (e.g. 21; 31; 32; 34.1 12) to a composi-
tional level different from P. The issues raised by Noth are
significant and are closely related to his understanding of a
Deuteronomistic history.
H. Gressmann’s highly influential book on Moses (1913) was the
Iirst attempt systematically to apply Gunkel’s new insights to the
sIt1|‘lt‘S ofi\lumbers. In spite ofthe speculative nature of many of his
ieeonstructions, Gressmann was successful in opening up the com-
plex dimensions of the oral tradition which lay behind the sources.
tliinsequently in the more recent period, form-critical research has
tended to focus on individual traditions rather than to treat the
lltitih of Numbers as a whole. For example, significant work has
lieetl done on the twelve-tribe system (Noth), the ordering of the
t.inip (l\'ust'lil-te), the l..evitical traditions (Mohlenbrink, Gun-
iieweg). the murinttriug traditions (Coats, Fritz), the Balaam cycle
(.\lm.\"iitckt'l, (iross). and the allotment ofthe land (Alt, Noth). The
llltisl ambitiotis attempt to tiller at traditio-historical analysis ofa
l.ir_i;e portion of .\’|unlu-rs is that of l\'ellermanu. In spite of many
I94 THE PENTATEUCH
good observations regarding the relative age of the material, the
extreme complexity of the redactional analysis has blunted its
impact.
Problems of history and comparative religion were also closely
related in the study of Numbers. Of particular interest were the
early conquest traditions which spoke of an attack on the Negeb,
and the seizure of Transjordan (cf. Weippert). Debate on the his-
tory ofthe Levitical cities has also been intense (Albright, de Vaux,
Mazar, Haran). Again, the book of Numbers has been studied
critically for its references to the development of Israelite priest-
hood. Especially do the redactional levels of such stories as Korah,
Dathan and Abiram (chs. 16-17) appear to reflect a complex his-
tory of the struggle within the priesthood which has been all but
obliterated. Mazar has attempted to bring to bear archaeological
evidence from Arad on the problem of the early priestly clans.
Finally, Cross has offered a new synthesis which he sees as an
alternative to Wellhausen’s classic formulation.
One of the more significant attempts to interpret the high num-
bers reported in the two chapters of Numbers on the census has
been offered by G. Mendenhall. He has argued that the term ’elef
did not originally designate the term ‘thousand’, but rather a con-
tingent of troops under its own leader. The census lists contained
old tradition from the period of the amphicytony, and its numbers
were commensurate with other ancient Near Eastern records of the
same period. Later the military system broke down with the rise of
the monarchy and the original significance of the census was mis-
understood.
With regard to the theology of the book of Numbers, credit is due
to J. de Vaulx, who among all the recent commentators, stands
virtually alone in attempting to develop a theology of the book in
relation to the history of exegesis. Even though de Vaulx is not
always successful in bridging the gap from traditional to critical
interpretation, his reflections are always of theological interest.
t.'hapter.i l. I-I0. IO
l’i-rhaps the best place to start a closer analysis of the book is at
the beginning. The first ten chapters up to the departure from Sinai
III Ill.ll continue. the same setting of the people at Sinai which
exit-tuletl from l"lx.l9 through the entire book of Leviticus. The
In-.n"t of this section lies in chs. 1-4 which describe the census the
3
inuaiiizntioti of the camp, and the duties ofthe Levites in the ser-
196 THE PENTATEUCH
vice of the tabernacle. Chapters 5-6 present various laws and regu-
lations, and 7-10 offer additional cultic regulations, several of
which are additions to previously discussed rites (8.1—4; 9.lff.).
The literary form of these chapters is significant. Directives are
given to Moses by God in the form of direct address (1.1; 2.1,etc.).
Along with these prescriptions there are also descriptions of how
the imperatives were executed in fulfilling the census (l.l7ff.), and
in numbering the Levites (4.34ff.). Chapter 7 describes the bringing
of offerings by the leaders of the tribes at a period prior to 1.1.
Although the presentation is related in a historical tense, the
stereotyped repetition of the identical offerings for all twelve tribes
once again reveals the intent to portray an ideal. Finally, 9.15ff.
describe the c1oud’s appearance over the tabernacle as frequenta-
tive action which assumes a long history of experience on the
march, even before the people have broken camp.
The point to be made from this peculiar literary form is that the
writer is portraying a situation which combines both prescriptive
and descriptive elements, and which also falls outside clearly
defined temporal and geographical boundaries. The unifying force
behind this apparent disorder lies in a theological construct which
views the material from a unified sacerdotal perspective. The fun-
damental concern ofthis section lies in characterizing the nature of
a holy estate, which is set apart absolutely from all profane and
unholy elements, and thus provides the proper dwelling within
Israel for the presence ofGod (5.3). To characterize the theological
intent as an idealization of historical reality is misleading in so far
as the contrast is not between the ideal and the actual, but between
the holy and the profane. However, it is true that within this sacer-
dotal perspective the lines between the prescriptive (ideal) and the
descriptive (historical) are not clearly drawn.
Chapters 1-4 set forth the sacred order ofthe camp. At the centre
was the tabernacle, and arranged in concentric circles according to
the degree of holiness were the Levitical families and the other
tribes. (The pre—eminent position assigned to Judah in 2.3 is not
explained historically, but set forth simply as part of the divine
imperative.) The various laws which follow seem to be a miscel-
laneous collection. The ‘law in case ofjealousy’ (5.l1lf.) in particu-
lar appears to be a very ancient one. Other laws seem to be sup-
plements to previously discussed subjects (5.5-ll) // l.ev. 5.20-26;
8.l-4// Ex. 25.31111; 8.5-22//35-13; 9.l-I4// l*’.x.l2.lI1'.). (iertain
NUMBERS 197
sections, such as 8. 15-19, are borrowed almost entirely from other
passages in Numbers (8.l6a=3.9; 8.I6b=3.I2; 8.l7=3.l3;
8.l8=3.l2; 8.l9a=3.7; 8.l9b=1.53). But the decisive point to be
made is that these apparently miscellaneous laws have been con-
nected by way ofassociation to chs. 1-4 about the central theme of
holiness. All unclean persons are to be excluded from the camp
(5. 1-4). Even if an uncleanliness is only suspected, it is to be pur-
sued and rooted out (5.1 lff.). The law ofthe Nazirite (ch.7) focuses
almost entirely on his ‘separation’ from the profane and even things
generally regarded as clean. Again, the discussion ofpassover treats
the problem of the proper procedure when anyone has been made
unclean (8.6ff.). Similarly the cleansing of the Levites for their
service offers the means of atonement for Israel and of preventing
the plague which inevitably strikes against all uncleanliness (8.19).
I-'inally, the Levitical blessing (6.22ff.) and the continuing cloud
over the tabernacle (9.l5ff.) describe the effect of the divine pres-
ence among an undefiled, sacral encampment.
In sum, chs. I-I0 portray the divine will for Israel in completely
sacerdotal terms which not only relativize historical differences in
the age and original setting of the material, bttt obscure the line
In-tween the prescribed and the actual forms. The effect is that the
entire emphasis falls on characterizing the nature of being sepa-
r;|le(l to God in preparation for becoming a pilgrim people on the
ltltivt‘.
(.'/mpters 10.11-22.1
The difliculty of establishing the exact conclusion ofthis section
Inns already been discussed. Although it could possibly be set earlier
in eh. 21, the arrival at the plains of Moab and the ensuing threats
t'sl;|l)liSl] a decisive break in continuity with the period of the wil-
derness wanderings.
.\t Iirst glance the literary situation of this section appears to be
\II'il<I|I_L'ly different from the first section. Whereas l.l-10.10
derived exclusively from the priestly source, the succeeding section
ions-ists of a complex relationship between an earlier Pentateuchal
\I|.IlIIIIl (_]l-'.) anti various levels of a priestly strand. At times stories
.IIt' tnatle 11]) t‘llIil'ely of lllt‘ earlier sources (ll and 12), but more
lieipu-nlly llu-J1". at'counl has been closely intertwined with P ma-
It'lI.ll (chs. lIll'.: lIil'.; 21111). The very tlilfcretit ways in which the
pt It'\ll_\ materittl relates lo llie older sources would support seeing P
I98 THE PENTATEUCH
as a literary source in these chapters, rather than as simply a redac-
tional layer. Finally, there is a series of laws which appear to fall
outside of the narrative sequence, and thus are generally regarded
as an even later priestly interpolation (chs. 15; 18; 19).
A closer examination reveals a similar intent to that of the first
section. The editor of this section has used the earlier material in
order to illustrate the disastrous effect of Israel’s contamination
with the unholy during the wilderness journey. The stories in chs.
11 and 12 serve to illustrate divinejudgment on Israel’s disobedi-
ence without any needed additions, but the effect of contamination
is most clearly portrayed in the priestly additions to the remaining
stories (14.37; 16.4 lff.). Judgment by plague is particularly charac-
teristic of divine wrath against the unclean.
Moreover, the same principle of association is at work in the
inclusion of various cultic laws which appear to have no integral
relation to the narrative. Chapter 15 deals with the laws concerning
offerings, and the means of atonement for an error committed
unwittingly by a whole population (v.26). The association with the
preceding narrative is obvious since an entire generation has just
been condemned to die in the desert because ofits sin. Again, the
connection of ch. 18, the law of the priest’s portion, with the preced-
ing story of Korah, is made explicit in v.5: ‘that there be wrath no
more upon the people of Israel’. Similarly the function of the ‘red
heifer’ in ch.19 is to provide an ongoing means of atonement for
anyone who has been made unclean.
There is one additional feature to observe in the role assigned to
these laws. The three chapters (l5;l8;19) share in common a func-
tion as a ‘perpetual statute throughout the generations’ (15.15, 21,
23,37; 18.8, ll, 19, 23; 19.10, 21). There is no effort made to relate
these laws to the narrative sequence because they are directed to
future generations and provide them with a means of avoiding the
contamination experienced by their fathers in the wilderness.
In sum, the second section is also ordered from a strictly sacer-
dotal perspective which has made use of historical material by
which to contrast the clean and the unclean. The historical dimen-
sion is also disregarded and often obscured by a priestly concern
which is largely atemporal and which extends its directives to
encompass the future as well as the past.
NUMBERS 199
Chapters 22.2-36.13
A new theme of the impending conquest of the promised land is
introduced with the defeat of the Amorite kings in ch. 21. With the
peop1e’s arrival at the plains of Moab, it becomes a recurring motif
which is again interspersed with a variety of seemingly miscellane-
ous laws. Two initial threats endangered the people, that ofBalaam
(22-24) and of Baal Peor (25). However, in both instances the
danger was overcome. The plague which struck because of the false
sacrifices (25.8ff.) was stayed by the zeal of Phinehas, the priest. As
a sign ofa new nation which followed the death of the entire genera-
tion of the wilderness (26.63ff.) a new census was taken. Neither
Aaron nor Moses could participate in the inheritance because they
had failed to ‘sanctify’ God at Meribah (27.l2ff.). Thus they also
belonged to the unclean generation of the wilderness.
The laws which constitute the final section of the book again
reflect different stages of literary development (cf. Noth), but
also illustrate the editors’ concern that the laws of holiness and
the sacred allotment (34. lff.) be maintained throughout every suc-
cessive generation (35.29) lest the land be polluted in which God
has chosen to dwell (35.33ff.). The establishment of the Levitical
cities (ch.35) assures that no unjust blood be shed and the ruling
respecting the daughters of Zelophehad (ch.36) prevents any family
from losing its rightful inheritance.
In spite of its diversity of subject matter and complex literary
development the book of Numbers maintains a unified sacerdotal
interpretation of God’s will for his people which is set forth in a
sharp contrast between the holy and the profane. The holy is por-
trayed as the presence of God, the blessing of numbers, the laws of
cleanliness, the service ofthe Levites, the atonement of Aaron, and
the inheritance ofa clean land. Conversely, the profane consists of
all sorts of uncleanliness, and results in the wrath of God, his
plagues ofjudgment, a lost inheritance by a dying people, and the
pollution of the land.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov I, l33f.; DThC 9, 716; EB 2, 141; RGG34, 1543.
Commentaries
Schultz, 1859 A. Clamer, SB, 1940
Keil, BC, 1865 G. E. Wright, IB, 1953
illmann, KeH, 21886 P. Buis,_]. Leclercq, SoBi, 1963
Driver, ICC, 31901 G. von Rad, OTL, 1966
QFUWEe Hummelauer, CSS, 1901 A. Phillips, CNEB, 1973
Hoffmann, 1913-1922 J. A. Thompson, TOTC, 1974
Konig, KAT, 1917 P. C. Craigie, NICOT, 1976
A. Smith, CB, 1918 H. Lamparter, BAT, 1977
FQFUW@?OF Steuernagel, HKAT, 21923
Bibliography
A. Alt, ‘Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums’, KS II, Munich 1953, 250-75;
O. Biichli, Israel und die Viillcer, Ziirich 1962; K. Baltzer, The Covenant
Formulary, ET Oxford 1971; W. Baumgartner, ‘Der Kampf an das
Deuteronomium’, ThR NS 1, 1929, 7-25; A. Bentzen, Diejosianische Reform
und ihre Voraussetzungen, Copenhagen 1926; G. R. Berry, ‘The Code found
in the Temp1e’,_]BL 39, 1920, 44-51; A. Bewer, G. Dahl and L. B.
Paton, ‘The Problem of Deuteronomy: A Symposium’, jBL 4-7, 1928,
305-79; H. Breit, Die Predigt des Deuteronomisten, Munich 1933; C. Bre-
kelmans, ‘Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente in Gen.-Num.
Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums’, STV 15, 1966, 90-
96; K. Budde, ‘Das Deuteronomium und die Reform Konigjosias’, ZA W
44-, 1926, 177-225; C. M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy, Ithaca,
N.Y. and London 1974-; B. S. Childs, ‘Deuteronomic Formulae of the
Exodus Traditions’, SVT 16, 1967, 30-9; R. E. Clements, ‘Deuteronomy
and the Jerusalem Cult-Tradition’ VT l5, 1965, 300-12; ‘Covenant and
Canon in the Old Testament’, Creation, Christ and Culture, FS T. F. Torrance,
Edinburgh 1976, 1-12; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, ‘The Blessing
DEUTERONOMY 203
of Moses’,_]BL 67, 1948, 191-210; ‘_]osiah’s Revolt against Assyria’,jNES
12, 1953; 56-59.
P. Diepold, Israels Land, BWANT V.l5 (=95), 1972; W. Dietrich,
Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 108, 1972; F. Dumermuth,
‘Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie’, ZAW 70, 1958, 59-98; W. Eich-
rodt, ‘Bahnt sich eine Losung der deuteronomischen Frage an?’, NKZ
32, 1921, 41-51, 53-78; A. Emerton, ‘Priests and Levites in Deutero-
nomy’, VT 12, 1962, 129-38; R. Frankena, ‘The Vassal-Treaties of
Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy’, OTS 14, I965, 122-54; K.
Galling, ‘Das Gemeindegesetz im Deuteronomium 23’, FS A. Bertholet,
Tiibingen 1950, 176-91; ‘Das Konigsgesetz im Deuteronomium’, TLZ
76, 1951, 133-8; H. Gressmann, ‘_]osia und das Deuteronomium’, ZAW
42, 1924, 313-37; Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums, Leipzig
1914; Herrmann, ‘Agyptische Analogien zum Funde des Deutero-
nomiums’, ZAW 28, 1908, 291-302; G. Holscher, ‘Komposition und
Ursprung des Deuteronomiums’, ZAW 40, 1922, 161-55; F. Horst,
Das Privilegrechtjahwes, FRLANT 45, 1930; A. R. Hulst, Het Karahter van
den Cultus in Deuteronomium, Diss. Groningen 1938; R. H. Kennett, Deutero-
nomy and the Decalogue, Cambridge and New York 1920; P. Kleinert, Das
Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiher, Bielefeld 1872; M. G. Kline, Treaty of
the Great King. The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, Grand Rapids 1963.
_]. L’Hour, ‘L’A1liance de Sichem’, RB 69, 1962, 5-36, 161-84, 350-68;
J. Lindblom, Erwéigungen zur Herhunft der josianischen Tempelhunde, Lund
1971; S. Lqersch, Das Deuteronomium und siene Deutung. Ein _forschungsge-
sehichtlicher Uberblick, Stuttgart 1967; N. Lohfink, ‘Der Bundesschluss im
Lande Moab. Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28,69 bis 32,47’, BZ NF 6,
1962, 32-56; ‘Die Bundesurkunde des Kfmigs _]osias’, Bibl 44, 1963,
26]-288; Das Hauptgebot, AnBib 20,1963; ‘Zum “k1einen geschichtlichen
Credo”, Deut. 26.5—9’, Theologie und Philosophie 46, Freiburg 1971, 19-
39; ‘Deuteronomy’, IDB Suppl, 229-32; V. Maag, ‘Erwéigungen zur
deuteronomischen Kultzentralisation’, VT 6, 1956, 10-18; S. Dean
McBride, ‘The Yoke of the Kingdom. An Exposition of Deuteronomy
li:4-5’, lnterp 27, 1973, 273-306; D. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant,
Rome 1963; R. P. Merendino, Das deuteronomische Gesetz. Eine literar-
l."ritz'sche, gattungs- und iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Dt I2-26,
BBB 31, 1969; G. Minette de Tillesse, ‘Sections “tu” et sections “vous”
clams le Deutéronome’, VT 12, 1962, 29-87; S. Mittmann, Deuteronomium I,
I-6. 3. Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 139, 1975;
W. 1.. Moran, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love ofGod
in Deuteronomy’, CBQ 25, 1963, 77-87; E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and
Trarlition, Oxford and Philadelphia 1967; M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschich-
11:}-he.S'tudien 1, Halle 1943; T. Oestreicher, Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz,
(iillt'I‘S1t)ll 1923; 1.. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 26,
196$); _]. G. Ploger, l.iterarkrit:'.s"che,_fi1rm_geschichtliche und stilhritische Unter-
204 THE PENTATEUCH
suehungen zum Deuteronomium, BBB 26, 1967; G. von Rad, Das Gottesvol/c im
Deuteronomiums, BWANT 111.11 (=36), 1929; Studies in Deuteronomy,
ET, SBT 1.9, 1953; ‘Ancient Word and Living Word. The Preaching of
Deuteronomy and our Preaching’, Interp 15, 1961, 3-13; A. Rofé, ‘The
Strata of the Law about the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy
and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement’, SVT 22, 1972, 221-6;
review of M. Weinfeld’s Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School in Christian
Newsfrom Israel, 24, 1974, 204-9; Introduction to Deuteronomy, Part I (Hebrew),
Jerusalem 1975; M. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichheitsanspruch _/ahwes, BWANT
V1.6 (=106), 1975; G. Schmitt, Der Landtag von Sichem, Stuttgart 1964;
M. H. Segal, ‘The Book of Deuteronomy’,_]QR 48, 1957-8, 315-51;
C. Seitz, Redalctionsgesehichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium, BWAN T V. 13
(=93), 1971; P. W. Skehan, ‘The Structure of the Song of Moses in
Deuteronomy (Deut. 32:1-43)’, CBQ 13, 1951, 153-63; C. Steuernagel,
Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums, Berlin 1894; M. Weinfeld, ‘The Origin of
Humanism in Deuteronomy’,jBL 80, 1961, 241-7; ‘Cult Centralization in
Light ofa Neo-Babylonian Analogy’,_]NES 23, 1964, 202-12; ‘Deutero-
nomy - The Present Stage of Inquiry’, H/BL 86, 1967, 249-62; Deutero-
nomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972; A. C. Welch, The Code of
Deuteronomy. A New Theory of its Origin, London 1924, New York 1925;
‘When was the Worship of Israel Centralized in the Temple?’, ZAW 43,
1925, 250-5; ‘The Problem of Deuteronomy’, L/BL 48, 1929, 291-306;
Deuteronomy.‘ The Framework to the Code, London and New York 1932;
We11hausen,Prolegomena to the History ofIsrael , ET Edinburgh 1885; H. M.
Wiener, ‘The Arrangement of Deut. 12-26’,jPOS 6, 1926, 185-95; G. E.
Wright, ‘The Levites in Deuteronomy’, VT 4, 1954, 325-30; ‘The Lawsuit
ofGod: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32’, Israel’s Prophetic Herit-
age, FS,/. Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, New York
and London 1962, 26-67.
Redaction-critical problems
Redactional criticism is closely akin to both the literary and
traditio-historical problems on the composition, but it focuses its
major attention on the intentionality of those who gave it a present
shape rather than remaining with the earlier stages of the text’s
prehistory. Noth’s study of the reworking of Deuteronomy by a
Deuteronomistic editor who had before him 4.44-28.69 ( EVV 29.1)
provided a major stimulus for the newer approach. To this
influence was joined the new interest in the stylistic features of the
composition as a whole, exemplified by Lohfink’s approach (Haupt-
gebot). Within the last decade a rash ofhighly technical studies have
appeared, which, building on Noth, try to trace in great detail the
nature of the Deuteronomistic redaction (Pltiger, Merendino, Seitz,
Mittmann).
Certainly the most incisive, and yet extreme conclusions, among
the newer studies have been drawn by L. Perlitt in his Bundes-
theologie. He vigorously contests the widely held view that Israel’s
faith from the beginning centred in a covenant with Yahweh, but
rather argued that the covenant theology was a late development in
Israel derived from the Deuteronomistic authors of the seventh and
sixth centuries in an effort to meet the crisis brought about by the
destruction of the two lsraelite kingdoms. The elfcet of this highly
DEUTERONOMY 209
contested thesis is to bring the state of modern research into a full
circle by drawing at least near to the position once defended by
Wellhausen, but which had been widely assumed to be erroneous
for the last forty years. The very success of Perlitt’s attack on the
antiquity of covenant theology has pointed out the danger among
the current generation of scholars of building a superstructure on
earlier theories such as those of von Rad and Noth, which were
useful as working hypotheses, but disastrous when confused with
incontrovertible fact.
(I/zapters I—4
In spite of the different form and style of ch. 4, it now functions
along with the first three chapters of the book as an introduction to
the chapters which follow. The context for Moses’ address is
immediately given by the prologue. The words were delivered in
the fortieth year, that is, at the end of the long wilderness wander-
ings period whose history had previously been related and was now
assumed. The geographical setting is the plains of Moab on the
edge of the promised land. Moreover, the content of the speech is
described as having been given to Moses ‘by Yahweh in com-
mandment’ (1.3) which again assumes a knowledge of the events of
Sinai (Ex. 20.l8ff.). This history is subsequently repeated in more
tlvtuil in Deut. 4.9ff. and 5.22ff.
Deuteronomy 1.5 offers the first reference to ‘this law‘ (hatténii/2
/m.;.;e/z) and in the context of the chapter has its antecedent in the
wtirtls which 1\’Ioses had earlier received at Sinai. The full
significance of Moses’ ‘explaining’ (be-'21) the law has long been
ili-hated, but it would seem apparent that his task involved more
than simply imparting information which had hitherto been only
|n'i\‘_\' to Moses. Rather, the emphasis falls on his clarifying and
inti-t'pt'cting the material in ordcr to ensure its proper understand-
int; by lltc pt*o|>lt*. This rule docs not in itselfcontradict the descrip-
tion Hlilllfi zitl(li't*ss' in L3, hut (luvs shift the focus.
ll miiit-s as am initistl st1t'p|'ist‘ to clismver that the material which
214 THE PENTATEUCH
follows the prologue is not an explanation of law, but a rehearsal of
the nation’s history following the covenant at Sinai. Yet the selec-
tion of narrative material has been carefully chosen to describe the
historical situation and to ground the theological argument which
will occupy the rest of the book. Israel rebelled against God in
refusing to accept the promise of the land. As a result, a divine
judgment fell on the old generation which had been delivered from
Egypt (1.35). Not one of them would enter the land, but only their
children would inherit the promise. In addition, Moses himself, the
mediator of the covenant, was also denied entrance and was to be
replaced in his office by Joshua (Deut. 3.28). But the history which
Moses reviewed did notjust consist in rebellion and judgment. The
new generation (2.16) had already experienced the truth of the
promise. Israel had defeated their enemies, crossed into their pos-
session east of the Jordan, and had begun to occupy their inheri-
tance. Moreover, Moses’ successor, Joshua, had already been cho-
sen.
The purpose of this historical review is made clear in ch. 4. In the
light of this experience of both judgment and mercy, Moses appeals
to Israel to obey the commandments of God, to learn from the
lessons of the past in order, and to take full possession of the land
and its blessing. The rehearsal of the theophany at Sinai and the
giving of the decalogue serves to ground Israel’s life once and for all
in the covenant, but at the same time to indicate that the new laws
which Moses now delivers are extensions of the same divine will.
Israel’s new life in the land stands in direct relationship to the one
divine will (4.14). In sum, the content ofMoses’ address stems from
the one constitutive event of Israel’s life, Sinai, but it is offered as a
new formulation of the divine purpose in the light of that particular
moment in the nation’s life, standing between promise and
fulfilment.
Von Rad was the first to have pointed out that the probiem of
actualizing of past tradition for a new generation was basic to
Deuteronomy. This problem is closely related to the canonical
shaping of chs. I-4. Moses recapitulates Israel’s past history in
order to focus on the new and critical situation of the moment: a
new generation, a new leadership, a new land. The concern of the
book of Deuteronomy is how to actualize the covenant law in this
new situation. It is highly significant to observe in chs. 1-4 the
differing perspectives from which the issue of actualization is
naurnnonotvtv 215
viewed. On the one hand, the change that history produces is
strongly emphasized, and three different generations are deline-
ated. There is the old ‘evil generation’ (1.34) who refused to enter
the land. There is the ‘second’ generation of their children who
would possess the land (1.39). Finally, there is the future genera-
tion who would become corrupt in the land (4.25ff.) and would call
forth the divine judgment of exile. On the other hand, there is
another perspective reflected in these same chapters which envi-
sions only an unbroken continuity with the past. The same people,
addressed as ‘you’ and ‘we’, participated in the Sinai covenant
(4.11), the rebellion in the wilderness (1.26), the victory over Og
and Bashan (3.lff.), and the possession of the new land (4.40).
The shift in perspective which appears in chs. l-4 is not to be
resolved by means of a literary solution. Rather, the issue is a
theological one. It turns on the problem of relating the elements of
continuity and discontinuity within the tradition. There is only one
covenant and one law, but there are different generations, facing
new challenges. How does the old relate to the new? The problem
has been introduced in chs. l—4, and its resolution will occupy the
rest of the book of Deuteronomy.
It should be clear from this analysis of the canonical function of
chs. 1-4 that Noth’s theory of chs. l—3(4) as the introduction to the
l)euteronomistic historical work is being called into question. In
myjudgment, his hypothesis seriously misunderstands the function
ofthese chapters within the book of Deuteronomy, and destroys the
hasic link to the preceding Pentateuchal tradition.
(I/zapters 5-1]
Chapter 5 begins with a new introduction, but actually it serves
lo continue the same context which was established in ch. l. Moses
.tddresses all Israel in order to explain the ‘statutes and ordinances’
just before the entrance into the land. However, once again, if the
reader had expected an immediate description of the law to follow,
he will be disappointed. Rather chs. 5—ll present an extended
homiletical address which again reviews elements of Israel’s past
history and each time focuses on an appeal for new commitment to
the covenant. For this reason, Wellhausen considered 5-ll to be
simply a parallel to chs. l-4 from a different edition of the book.
.\iiith viewed chs. 5-1 l as the real introduction to the Deuteronomic
laws of 12-26, assigning 1-4 to the larger Deuteronomic historical
216 THE PENTATEUCH
work. In my judgment, neither of these alternatives have dealt
adequately with the role of 5-11 within the canonical book of
Deuteronomy.
In one sense, chs. 5-11 do not present anything different from
that already offered by 1-4. The rather rambling homiletical style is
akin to ch. 4. The chapters again repeat incidents from Israel’s
history which provide the grounds for the homily. The centrality of
the Sinai experience is also evident throughout the chapters. In
another sense, the effect of chs. 5-1 1 in their present role within the
book is far from being a tedious repetition. Rather, these chapters
serve to expand and develop the themes of the book in a highly
effective and dramatic style, which is lost ifthe unity ofthe chapters
is removed by some literary device, whether of Wellhausen or Noth.
Chapters 1-4 had raised the.issue of actualization. Chapter 5
returns to the issue and develops it into a major theological proposi-
tion. The covenant at Horeb was not confined to that first genera-
tion of Israelites who participated historically in the event, but the
homilist extends its actuality to the new generation as well: ‘all of us
who are alive this day’ (5.3). The decalogue is then repeated as
providing the unchanging and eternal will of God for all time. The
theophany is reinterpreted in order to focus completely on the
divine words, not on the form, as the bearer of the divine will. The
words were written down on stone and made final: ‘he added no
more’. The writer of ch. 5 makes it absolutely clear that the
decalogue formed the basis of the covenant and the new generation
stood under its imperative in complete continuity with the first
generation who had experienced the awesome event at the moun-
tain.
Once the ground of the covenant has been reaffirmed as constitu-
tive for every generation, the homily sets forth in great detail the
role of Moses in his office as continuing mediator of the divine will
(5.22ff.). Indeed 5.28ff. legitimates Moses’ role as interpreter ofthe
statutes and ordinances of the law which is to occupy the rest of the
book. Whereas chs. 1-4 assumed this role of Moses on the basis of
the tradition of Ex. 20, Deuteronomy eliminates all ambiguity in
the tradition and sets forth fully the rationale for Moses’ speech to
the people.
In the chapters which follow, the writer preaches to the people by
choosing as his text events in Israel’s history - with the exception of
Sinai - which had not been mentioned in the historical review of
DEUTERONOMY 217
1-4: exodus, manna, golden calf, the new tablets. Although the
general purpose of the historical review is similar to chs. l-4, to
inculcate obedience to the covenant, the intensity of the appeal is
far greater and forms a powerful introduction to the laws which
finally appear in ch. 12. Although these chapters are multi-layered
and reflect different historical stages in composition, the frequent
warning to the future generation of an exile from the land does not
fracture the movement of the chapters, but parallels the same
transition between generations which occurred in 1-4. In sum, the
final form of this section has easily accommodated the various
stages ofthe book’s prehistory to form an effective theological unity.
The canonical shaping of these chapters is not to be identified with
a strictly literary unity, but functions effectively in spite of tensions
and repetitions. Although some of Lohfink’s stylistic observations
regarding the literary structures of the chapters are surely correct,
the canonical function does not depend on a stylistic demonstration
of artistic intentionality.
(.'/mpters 12-26
The complex literary development of these central chapters has
lung been recognized and much of the effort of modern critical
st‘l10lE1I‘Sl'lip has been devoted to unravelling the history. It is fully
clear that the laws are of different periods within Israel’s history. A
t‘tiIfipElI‘lSOf1 with the laws of Exodus (cf. Driver) reveals a large
duplication, but with significant changes and additions. Some laws
t-ellect later institutions (ch. 17), or subsequent alterations of
t'('Ull()fnIC, political, and social conditions of the monarchial period
tel‘. 14.22ff.; l5.lff.; 20.lff.). At times critical research has been
quite successful in tracing the different levels. It may even be poss-
ihle to speak ofa ‘theological advance’ in some of the later attempts
.ll hutnanizing earlier laws (Weinfeld). However, these observa-
linns, important as they may be for certain questions, do not touch
the heart of the theological issue of how these chapters have been
\ll.l[)t'(l to function canonically within the final form of the book of
Ilenteronomy. Yet it is quite clear that the material has been sub-
|eet In some characteristic ordering which gives it a particular
\l1.l|)(‘.
l"it~st of all, the setting forth of the law is now set within the
innit-xt of the new situation. hitherto unexperienced by Israel, of
the etttr;uit'e into the lattitl (18.5); |il.llf.). Israel is not to continue
218 THE PENTATEUCH
behaving as before (12.8), but is given a new charter by Moses.
This means that the canon has recognized the very different charac-
ter of the laws of Deuteronomy and sought to accommodate the
change within the framework of the new historical condition of the
conquest. Thus, the old tithe law is adjusted to the new situation
‘when the way is too long for you’ (l4.24ff.), and the laws regarding
slaughtering are desacralized on the grounds that the land has been
enlarged, which demands that a new distinction be made between
profane and holy slaughter (12.20ff.). The effect of this ordering of
the laws within chs. 12-26 is to legitimate the principle of change
within the law — God’s will is not a lifeless statute — but at the same
time to subordinate all the various forces at work in the historical
development to one theological category. That is to say, the process
of canonical ordering accommodates into the final form of the book
a great variety of different laws, but virtually disregards the specific
socio-political forces at work which actually produced the new
forms of the law. In sum, the canon substituted one historical
category which it interpreted theologically for a great variety of
complex social and historical factors.
Secondly, the laws of Deuteronomy are described as regulating
future occurrences in the land: ‘ifa prophet arises . . . ’ (13.1), or
when a king ‘sits on the throne . . . ’ (17.18). By projecting the new
stipulations into the future the canonical shaping is able to accom-
modate a variety of later laws which could not possibly have func-
tioned under Moses. Once again, this move recognizes the
development oflegal tradition which derived from new institutions,
and seeks to accommodate the change in terms of the future orien-
tation of the Mosaic law.
Thirdly, the laws of 12-26 have been provided with a redactional
framework which has traditionally been characterized as central-
ization. It has long been noticed that the demand to worship
Yahweh only ‘in one place which he chose to let his name dwell’
(12.5), is limited to a few chapters and additions (l2.lff.; l2.20ff.;
l4.22ff., etc.), In myjudgment, Welch made out a strong case that
many of the laws of Deuteronomy originally functioned without a
concept of cult centralization. I-Iie felt that originally the theological
emphasis fell on the purity ofIsrael’s worship rather than its unity.
Be that as it may, the stress of ch. 12 on centralization as a means
for both the unity and the purity of Israel’s worship now functions
as a prism through which the whole legal collection is viewed. In
DEUTERONOMY 219
spite of the relatively late entry of centralization into the
Deuteronomic corpus, the demand for purity of worship by means
of centralization has been expanded into a major force within the
canonical shape of the book.
Chapters 27-30
The long history of composition is again evident in the tensions
within these chapters and a carefully structured literary unity cer-
tainly fails (cf. Fohrer, Introduction, 172). Chapter 27 is often
thought to interrupt an original connection between 26 and 28
and disturb the logical blessing-and-cursing sequence. But these
chapters do form a fitting conclusion to the laws of 12-26 by setting
forth obedience to this divine law in terms oflife and death (30.15).
That these chapters reflect liturgical elements from an original
covenant ceremony is certainly possible, but difficult to demons-
trate. The present function of the chapters is to evoke an obedient
response to the completed law from the generation who would enter
the land. To that end Moses re-establishes the covenant with them
in Moab on that day (29.11), and confirms the promise made to the
fathers. But in the act of renewing the covenant with the ‘second
generation’ Moses includes in the actualization, not only the new
generation, but all future generations as well (29.14).
(Ihapters 31-34
Although these final chapters are often dismissed as a miscel-
laneous collection of unrelated passages, they constitute in fact an
important example of canonical shaping of the final form of ancient
tradition. Because critical attention has focused mainly on recover-
ing the original setting of the poems (cf. Cross and Freedman;
\.\’right), the basic theological function of this final section in rela-
tion to the book as a whole has been largely overlooked.
(Ihapter 31 provides a definite shift from the context of Moses’
delivering an address to the people which has characterized the
hook so far. Now Moses enters into a series of actions. He ends his
st'I'tl1()l‘l, fixes it in written form (31.9), commissions Joshua as his
stlt‘t‘t'SS()I‘, and deposits the law beside the ark. Moreover, he estab-
lisllt‘S a routine for the law to be read at set periods in order that the
~.net-eeding generations may hear and do the law (31.12). This
nritten law is to function as a witness against future generations
who l'(‘l)t‘l. lntleetl, at't‘ording to 31.2011’. Moses actually reckons
220 THE PENTATEUCH
with the certain disobedience of the succeeding generation. In line
with this thought ch. 31 introduces the ‘Song of Moses’ which he
teaches the people as a testimony against their future disobedience.
It has long been evident that ch. 32 has undergone a lengthy
period of independent existence and only secondarily has been
given its present context in relation to ch. 31. Still little attention
has been paid to its new role in this final form. From a canonical
perspective this question is crucial. The poem contrasts the
unchangeable fidelity of God with the perversity of his faithless
people. Moses is portrayed as offering a prophetic understanding of
history in poetic dress which encompasses both past, present, and
future. The song is addressed not to the contemporaries of Moses,
but to later disobedient Israel, lying under the judgment of God.
The great acts of redemption under Moses are described as belong-
ing to the far distant past (32.7), and viewed from the perspective of
the ‘latter clays’ (31.29).
The significance ofthis new context in which the song now func-
tions lies in the effect it generates on the interpretation of the previ-
ous legislation ofthe book. Chapter 32 confronts future, disobedient
Israel with the same imperatives ofthe covenant God, but provides
a hermeneutical key by which to understand the Mosaic law in the
age of disobedience. Once again, the canonical setting addresses
the issue of actualization directly. However, the move is not to
‘update’ the laws to meet the new situation. Rather, a theological
judgment is offered regarding the nature of the covenant God - he
remains faithful to his promise - and the implications are drawn for
the people of God.
Chapter 33, the blessings of Moses, is similar to ch. 32 in also
participating in a long period of independent life before assuming
its present role within the book of Deuteronomy. However, the
poem brings no exhortation or warnings, but simply offers an invo-
cation of blessing for the future. The perspective is again prophetic
in which Moses surveys the future of the nation, picking up the
promises of Gen. 29, and seeing them fulfilled in a purely ideal
manner. The poem begins with the glorious fact of the founding of
the kingdom of God and concludes with reference to Yahweh as
Israel’s eternal refuge in whom his people find eternal salvation and
hope. The poem ends by celebrating the good fortunes of a
redeemed people.
The canonical function of ch. 33 serves to place the law fully
DEUTERONOMY 221
within the perspective of divine sovereignty, shifting the focus from
Israel’s behaviour to God’s ultimate purpose. The Mosaic legisla-
tion is thus subordinated to the overriding purpose of God for his
people and the final eschatological realization of his will is attested
to in spite ofthe nation’s failure.
The final chapter of the book, ch. 34, brings the role of Moses to
an end. Moses is allowed to view from afar the land promised to the
fathers and about to be possessed. Joshua assumes the leadership
and Moses’ unique role as covenant mediator is evaluated. His
significance is not to be perpetuated in a grave cult, but in the
memory of his great -deeds wrought for Israel through the power of
God and now recorded in the law of Moses.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov 1, 144-f.;DT/IC 4, 664-672; EB 2, 618; RGG3 2, 103.
_].-P. Bouhot, ‘Pentateuque chez les Peres’, DBS 7, 687-707; H. Cazelles,
‘Pentateuque, II. L’Epoque médiévale’, DBS 7, 708—28;_]. Daniélou, ‘Das
Leben, das am Holze héingt. Dt. 28,66 in der altchristlichen Katechese’,
Kirche und ffberlieferung. FS R. Geiselmann, Freiburg 1960, 22-34; S.
Maybaum, Die iiltesten Phasen in der Entwicltlung derjtidischen Predigt, Berlin
1901, 42ff.
XI
INTRODUCTION TO THE
FORMER PROPHETS
Bibliography
E. Auerbach, ‘Die grosse Dberarbeitung des biblischen Biicher’, SVT 1,
1953, 1-10; R. Bach, ‘Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk’, RGG3 2,
100f.; W. Brueggemann, ‘The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic His-
torian’, Interp 22, 1968, 387-402; F. M. Cross, ‘The Structure of
Deuteronomic History’, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge,
.\/lass. 1973, 274-89; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktions-
geschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerlt, FRLANT
I08, 1972; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament. An Introduction, Oxford and
New York 1965, 241-8; G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, Nash-
ville 1968, London 1970, 192-5; D. N. Freedman, ‘Pentateuch’, IDB 3,
71 I-27; ‘Deuteronomic History’, IDB Suppl, 226-8; E. Jenni, ‘Zwei_]ahr-
zelmte Forschung an den Bfichern Josua bis Konige’, ThR 27, 1961, 1-32,
98-146; A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Kiinigsbuches, Halle 1953, 21956; O.
Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament, ET Oxford and Minneapolis 1975,
lti8—75; N. Lohfink, ‘Bilanz nach der Katastrophe: Das deuteronomis-
tische Geschichtswerk’, Wort und Botschaft, ed. Schreiner, Wiirzburg
I967, 196-208; E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford and
Philadelphia I967, l07ff.; Preaching to the Exiles, Oxford and New York
1970; M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I, Halle 1943; L. Perlitt,
ltundestheologie int Alten Testament, WMANT 26, 1969, 54-128; O. Ploger,
‘Rt-den und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Ges-
ehichtswerk’, Aus der Spiitzeit des Alten Testaments, Gottingen 1971, 50-66;
(J. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, ET, SBT I.9, London 1953; A. N.
Radjawane, ‘Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Ein Forschungs-
liericht’, ThR NS 38, 1973-4, 177-216; M. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichlceits-
anipruch jahwes. Deuteronornische Schultheologie und die Vol/tsfriimrningkeit in der
ipliten Kiinigszeit, BWANT V1.6 (= 106), 1975; G. Saller, ‘Die chronologi-
sehen Angaben in den Biichern Deut. bis 2 Kiinige’, TZ 24, 1968, 1-14; R.
Smend, ‘Das Gesetz und die Véilker’, Problerne biblischer Theologie, FS G. von
Rail, Munich 1971, 494fl'.;_]. A. Soggin, ‘Deuteronomistische Geschichts-
230 rut-3 roaster. PROPHETS
auslegung wiihrend des babylonischen Exils’, Oikonornia. FS O. Cullmann,
Hamburg 1966, 1 1-17; H. W. Wolff, ‘Das Kerygma des deuteronomistis-
chen Geschichtswerkes’, ZAW 73, 1961, l7l—86=GSAT, 308ff.; E.
Zenger, ‘Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung
Jejachins’, BZ 12, 1968, 16-30.
creation to the conquest (cf. Sanders, Torah and Canon) the final
shape of the Hebrew canon is unambiguous in maintaining the
literary integrity of the Pentateuch. The canon does not recognize
either a Hexateuch or a Tetrateuch. In the earlier chapter on the
book ofDeuteronomy, we sought to draw out the full historical and
theological implications of this move. Deuteronomy performed a
critical canonical function, both in its authoritative reinterpretation
of the first four books as Torah and also in its effect on the subse-
quent historical books.
Although the strong lines of continuity between the Pentateuch
and Joshua are clear, the decisive factor to recognize is how the
canon established the relationship. Joshua is clearly dependent on
the laws of Deuteronomy, but Noth’s understanding of this depen-
dency fails to reckon with the new canonical role of Deuteronomy
within the Pentateuch. The book ofJoshua does not function sim-
ply as an extension of the book of Deuteronomy. Rather, Joshua
cites Deuteronomy in its canonical form as the ‘Book ofthe Torah’
(séper hattfirtih). Moreover, within the canon Deuteronomy is never
assigned an integrity all its own apart from the laws of Exodus.
This means that Joshua’s references to Deuteronomy includes the
entire law which is now encompassed within the Pentateuch.
Indeed, Freedman (IDB 3, 717) registers an important point
against Noth’s view ofthe Dtr. history in stressing that this history
assumed a period from the creation of the world and did not just
begin with Moses. What Freedman failed to consider was the
canonical shaping which encompasses the larger historical perspec-
tive.
In the last chapters of Deuteronomy Moses is commanded to
write the ‘words of the law in a book’ (31.24) which book is to be
placed beside the ark. The significance of this act does not lie in
determining the exact limits of the writing, which is nowhere
clearly revealed, but in the new authoritative role which the written
liirm of the Torah now performs. Crucial for understanding the
place of Joshua in relation to the Pentateuch is to observe the
central position assigned to the Book ofthe Law (cf. 1.8; 4.10; 8.3,
32. 35, etc.). Joshua assumed the leadership of the nation in the
place of Moses, but his role was not a continuation of the Mosaic
ttllit't‘. Rather, he was dependent upon carrying out the divine law
wltieh had not only been revealed to Moses, but which was
teeortled itt a book for future generations.
234 THE FORMER PROPHETS
(a) Within the Hebrew canon the four historical books belong
within the division of the Prophets. The significance of this
classification lies in the canon’s assessment of the nature of these
historical records. The object ofthis biblical witness is not to record
history per se - whatever that might be - but to bear testimony to
the working out of the prophetic word in the life ofthe nation. One
of the clearest indications that the canon regarded the prophetic
quality of these historical books to be of the same order as that of
the Latter Prophets appears in the frequent and wholesale incorpo-
ration ofthe historical material within the books ofthe prophets (cf.
Isa. 36—39// II Kings l8—20;Jer. 40.7-9// II Kings 25.23-26;Jer.
50.3l-34// II Kings 25.27—30; Jer. 52.lff.// II Kings 24.l8ff.). A
similar theological purpose of both sets of writings within the divi-
sion of the Prophets is confirmed. Thus the canonical shape lays
claim to a particular theological function for these books and is
critical ofan exegetical stance which would use the historical books
only as ‘sources’ of other information. This assertion is not to deny
that the historical books can serve this function in a fully legitimate
mraooucrton "ro THE FORMER PROPHETS 237
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1857 H. W. Hertzberg, ATD, 21952
A. Dillmann, KeH, 21886 M. Noth, HAT, 21953
G. A. Cooke, CB, 1913 Bright, IB, 1953
H. Gressmann, SAT, 21922 Y. Kaufmann, 1959
C. Steuernagel, HKAT, 11923 Gray, NCeB, 1967
J. Garstang, 1931 A. Soggin, ET, OTL, 1972
A. Fernandez, CSS, 1938 M. Miller, G. M. Tucker, CNEB,
A. Gelin, SB, 1949 1974-
H. Freedman, SonB, 1950
Bibliography
Y. Aharoni, ‘Problems of the Israelite Conquest in the Light of
Archaeological Discoveries’, Antiquity and Survival 2, The Hague 1957,
131-50; ‘The Province-List of Judah’, VT 9, 1959, 225-46; W. F.
Albright, ‘Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest of Pales-
tine’, BASOR 58, 1935, 10-18; ‘The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the
Light of Archaeology’, BASOR 74, 1939, 11-23; ‘The List of Levitic
Cities’, L. Cinzberg jubilee Volume, New York 1945, 49-73; B. Alfrink,
‘Het “stil staan” van zon en maan in Jos x, 12-15’, Studia Catholica 24,
Nijmegen 1949, 238-69; A. Alt, Die Landnahrne der Israeliten in Paliistina.
Territorialgeschichtliche Studien, Leipzig 1925; reprinted in KS I, 1953, 89-
125; ET Essays (see Pentateuch), 133-69; ‘Judas Gaue unter Josia’, P_]B
21, 1925, 100—16=KS II, 1953, 276-88; ‘Das System der Stammesgrcnzen
im Buche Josua’, FS E. Sellin, Leipzig 1927, 13-24=KS I, 1953, 193-202;
‘Josua’, in BZAW 66, 1936, 13-29=KS I, 1953, 176-92; O. Bfichli, ‘Von
der Liste, zur Beschreibung, Beobachtungen und Erwiigungen zu Jos.
13-19’, ZDPV 89, 1973, 1-14; Bright, Early Israel in Recent Histoqy Writ-
ing, SBT I.19, 1959; K. Budde, ‘Richter und Josua’, ZAW 7, 1887,
93-166.
240 THE rottttttan PROPHETS
B. S. Childs, ‘A Study of the Formula “Until this day”’,jBL 82, 1963,
279-92; F. M. Cross and G. E. Wright, ‘The Boundary and Province
Lists of the Kingdom ofJudah’,_/BL 75, 1956, 202-26; O. Eissfeldt, ‘Die
Eroberung Palastinas durch Altisrael’, KS III, 1966, 367-83; V. Fritz,
‘Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Kbnige in Josua 12’, ZDPV 85, 1969,
136-61; ‘Das Ende der spéitbronzezeitlichen Stadt Hazor Stratum XIII
und die biblische Uberlieferung in Josua ll und Richter 4’, UF 5, 1973,
123-39; K. Galling, ‘Der Beichtspiegel’, ZAW 47, 1929, 125-30; B. Goff,
‘The Lost Jahwistic Account of the Conquest of Canaan’,jBL 53, 1934,
24-9; N. K. Gottwald, ‘Were the Early Israelites Pastoral Nomads?’, in
Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor Qfjames /1/Iuilenburg, Pittsburg 1974,
223-55; M. Gruenthaner, ‘Two Sun Miracles of the Old Testament’,
CBQ 10, 1948, 271—90;J. Halbe, ‘Gibeon und Israel’, VT 25, 1975, 613-
41; E. Jenni, ‘Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Biichern Josua bis
Konige’, ThR NF 27, 1961, 118-29; Z. Kallai-Kleinrnann, ‘The Town
Lists ofJudah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan’, VT 13, 1958, 134-60; Y.
Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine, Jerusalem 1953;
H.-J. Kraus, ‘Gilgal - ein Beitrag zur Kultusgeschichte Israels’, VT 1,
1951, 181-99; F. Langlamet, Gilgal et les récits de la traverseé du jourdain,
Paris 1969; ‘Josué, II et les traditions de l’Hexateuque’, RB 78, 1971,
5-17, 161-83, 321-54; L’Hour, ‘L’Alliance dc Sichem’, RB 69, 1962,
5-36, 161-84, 350-68; N. Lohfink, ‘Die deuteronomistische Darstellung
des Ubergangs der Fiihrung Israels von Moses aufJosue’, Scholastik 37,
Freiburg 1962, 32-44.
B. Mazar, ‘The Cities of the Priests and Levites’, SVT 7, 1960, 193-205;
D. McCarthy, ‘The Theology of Leadership in Joshua 1-9’, Bibl 52,
1971, 165-75; G. E. Mendenhall, ‘The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine’,
BA 35, 1962, 66-87; The Tenth Generation, Baltimore and London 1973;
J. M. Miller, ‘Joshua, Book of’, IDB Suppl, 493-96; ‘The Israelite
Occupation ofCanaan’, Israelite andjudaean History, ed.J. H. Hayes and
M. Miller, OTL, 197 7, 213-84; K. Mohlenbrink, ‘Die Landnahmesagen
des Buches Josua’, ZAW 56, 1938, 238-68; S. Mowinckel, Zur Frage nach
dokurnentarischen Quellen in josua 13-I9, Oslo 1946; Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-
Hexateuch, Berlin 1964; M. Noth, Das System der zwiilf Stamrne Israels,
BWANT IV. 1 (=52), 1930; ‘Studien zu den historisch-geographischen
Dokumenten des Josuabuches’, ZDPV 58, 1935, 185-255 = Aufsiitze I,
1971, 229-80; ‘Bethel und Ai’, P_/B 31, 1935, 7-29; Uberlieferungsgeschich-
tliche Studien I, Halle 1943, 40-47, 182-90; ‘Uberlieferungsgeschichtliches
zur zweiten Halfte des Josuabuches’, FS F. Niitscher, BBB 1, 1950, 152-67;
L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, 239-84; H. H.
Rowley, From B/oseph to Joshua, London and New York 1950; F. A.
Sawyer, ‘Joshua 10:12-14 and the Solar Eclipse of 30 September 1131
BC’, PEQ 104, 1972, 139-46; P. P. Saydon, ‘The Crossing of the Jordan,
Jos. chaps. 3 and 4’, 12, 1950, 194-207; H. Schmid, ‘Erwagungen
zur Gestalt Josuas in Uberlieferung und Geschichte’,_]ud 24, 1968, 44ff.;
JOSHUA 24]
Chapters 1-12
Among modern scholars two somewhat different critical
approaches to the first twelve chapters of_]oshua have emerged.
The first emphasizes a literary critical approach, and is represented
by Eissfeldt and Fohrer. The second stresses a traditio-critical
approach, and is advocated by Alt, Noth, and a large number of
younger scholars (Kaiser, Soggin).
The literary critical approach is characterized by its attempt to
see the first twelve chapters of_]oshua as consisting of numerous
literary strands, many of which are continuations from the preced-
ing books, and hence constitute a Hexateuch. Although there
remains considerable disagreement in the designating of the
sources, some major features are held in common by supporters of
the literary approach. It is maintained that the earliest literary
account of the conquest is now found in _]udg. l.l-2.5 with only a
few fragments of this account distributed throughout the book of
Joshua (Josh. l5.l3—l9; 15.63; 17.11-13, etc.). This earliest
account, which was organized geographically to survey the results
of the occupation, provided the basis for a second stage of develop-
ment in which the tradition of conquest was arranged sequentially
and expanded with local aetiological material either in the_] source
or a Grundsc/zr;'ft. Subsequently, the figure of _]oshua, who was a
local Benjamite hero, was introduced into the account. Thus, there
emerged a pre-Deuteronomic stage which was made up of compo-
site strands. The decisive shape of the present book was formed by
a major Deuteronomic reworking of the older material, often seen
in two distinct stages. Finally, a few traces ofa priestly source were
discovered.
The major critical alternative to this schema was first proposed
by Alt (1926) and later developed by Noth in detail. First of all,
Noth rejected the idea of literary sources from the Pentateuch con-
tinuing into the book of_]oshua. Rather, he envisioned the book’s
developing from an ancient collection of aetiological sagas which
once existed independently of each other, but were collected about
Gilgal. About the year 900 th'e local figure of_]oshua was joined
with the cycle and united with the military stories of chs. lO—ll to
form a national epic of the conquest of West _]ordan. The
Deuteronomic material was attributed to the redactional work of
the Dtr. historian who placed the older material within his history.
JOSHUA 243
In spite of the real differences between these two currently held
critical positions regarding the composition of chs. l—-12, there are
large areas of agreement which are as significant as the disagree-
ments. Both critical positions hold that the present account of the
conquest is a historical construct with no clear-cut relationship to
the actual historical events, which is thought to be more accurately
portrayed by judges l. Actually the role which one attributes to
aetiology - whether of primary or secondary importance within the
tradition (Childs) — affects the degree of historical value ascribed to
the material more than does the choice of critical approach. Finally,
the major influence ofa Deuteronomic editor is recognized by both
approaches while a minor role is assigned to the priestly writers
whose contributions are relegated to homiletical expansions.
Chapters I3—2]
Modern critical scholarship is also sharply divided on the
assessment of the chapters dealing with the division of the land.
The older literary critical approach assigned these chapters mainly
to a priestly writer, although the presence of an earlier composite
source was often admitted. Generally the position was defended
that the tribal boundaries were a theoretical or ideal projection.
Mowinckel placed the material in the genre of ‘learned literature’,
which like the last chapters of Ezekiel sketched an ideal programme
for the future. Even Kaufmann, who defended the antiquity of the
tribal divisions, held them to be largely a theological projection.
More recently, chiefly from the impetus ofAlt and Noth, a differ-
ent assessment of these chapters has increasingly gained the ascen-
dancy. Noth in particular rejected assigning these chapters to the
late priestly writer, but argued that two documentary sources
formed the basis of the division. The one consisted ofa system of
tribal boundaries with a list of points which established the borders
of the tribal territories in the period of the judges. The other con-
~;i5IC(l ofa list of twelve administrative districts of_]udah from the
time of _]osiah. In spite of Mowinckel’s argument that such an
;u1eient list could not have survived, most modern scholars have
tt'll(‘lL‘Cl to regard the Alt-Noth approach as a genuine critical
.ttlvance. At the same time numerous suggestions for modification
of the original theory have been offered, especially by Israeli scho-
Int-s who have assumed the leadership in this area of research (cf.
(Iruss and W'1'igl1t, Kallzti-Kleinmatlti, Ahartmi, etc.).
244 THE FORMER PROPHETS
To summarize: although no clear consensus regarding details has
emerged, modern critical scholarship is agreed that the present
book ofJoshua represents only the last stage ofa long and involved
prehistory involving both oral and literary development. The tradi-
tional view which assessed the book as simply a unified composition
ofJoshua has surely been proven erroneous. The presence of an
extended history with resulting literary and historical tensions can-
not be successfully denied.
However, the historical critical approach with its concentration
on recovering the history of the tradition has failed to assess the
canonical role of the book ofJoshua. The issue of how the tradition
was formed and what role was assigned to the various parts has not
been adequately studied. Our attention will, therefore, focus on this
set of problems.
Joshua left. These nations, in turn, become the ‘snare and trap’
which call forth the need for a deliverer through the series of
‘judges’.
Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the variation
within the Deuteronomic tradition regarding the nature ofthe con-
quest reflects a traditio-historical development, as ifJosh. l offered
an earlier theology of Deuteronomy, whereas ch. 23 represents a
subsequent adjustment of the tradition which sought to explain the
actual historical process as gradual. Rather, the major elements in
Josh. 23 are already found in Deut. 7. God fought for Israel, but the
conquest was to be gradual and conditional on obedience.
There are several implications to be drawn from this line of
argument. First, the apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of the
conquest does not derive from a combination of different sources or
fragments, but is contained within the same Deuteronomic tradi-
tion. Secondly, there is no strong evidence to suggest that the
editors ofJoshua even recognized this tension as being a problem.
The Deuteronomic redactor ofch. 23 summarized the history ofthe
conquest fully in line with the earlier Deuteronomic theology of the
land.
How then is one to explain the peculiar features within Josh.
1-12 which present the conquest in the Deuteronomic idiom but as
total, unconditional, and of short duration? In my opinion, this
feature of the book ofJoshua is not to be dismissed as a variant
historical tradition, but understood as a unique theological pers-
pective of the Deuteronomic editor which the final canonical shape
has preserved as normative. The Deuteronomic editor ofJoshua
fashioned his material into a highly theological pattern which not
only disregarded strictly historical method, but which also shifted
the emphasis to a different focal point from that ordinarily repre-
sented by the Deuteronomic tradition. The editor of chs. 1-12 envi-
sions the period ofJoshua (Josh. l.l—Judg.l.l) as a paradigm of
obedient Israel.Joshua is presented in ch. 1 as the heir to the divine
promises who calls a people to obedience to the Book of the Law
and receives a unified response of faith. Because the conditions of
obedience have been met, the purpose of this ideal is to demons-
trate that the result is the complete and total victory of Israel as
(lod fulfils his promise to the letter. But the theology of the con-
quest in chs. 1-12 is different from Deuteronomy only in emphasis,
not in essence. That the conquest is in fact conditional upon obedi-
250 "rm-3 FORMER PROPHETS
ence is made fully clear by the disastrous defeat at Ai ‘when the
people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted thing’ (7.1),
specifically prohibited by Deut. 7.25. The Gibeonite deception also
reflects Israel’s failure to observe closely enough the stipulations of
Deut. 20 regarding the ‘cities which are near’.
A further confirmation of this thesis that the portrayal of the
conquest serves as a theological construct which bears witness to
God’s fulfilling his promise to his obedient people appears in the
manner in which the writer handles his earlier tradition. Critical
scholars have long recognized a different, and probably more
ancient, tradition of the conquest in Judg. l and in parallel frag-
ments in Joshua (l5.l3—l9 63, etc.). The editor ofJoshua has pre-
served this divergent material, but without destroying his theologi-
cal witness. On the one hand, he has relegated the picture ofa slow
conquest by individual tribes to the period after the death ofJoshua
(Judg.l.1), which in effect marked the end of the ideal period of
obedience. The portrayal in ch. l introduces the grounds for the
divine judgment in 2. lff. Even though this redactional move
resulted in chronological difficulties (2.6), the theological pattern of
obedient and disobedient Israel was firmly maintained. On the
other hand, the Deuteronomic editor ofJoshua has assigned all the
fragments ofthe earlier conquest account within the book ofJoshua
to the section which treats ofthe distribution of the land. Thereby
he has given this material another role within the tradition which
did not destroy his theological pattern. Even faithful Caleb must
secure his individual inheritance by means of distribution by lot
(l4.6ff.).
The distribution of the land
The chapters on the distribution of the land (Josh. 13-21) pre-
sent an analogous problem to that of the conquest. Some passages
suggest that the conquest was complete, and the land was distri-
buted among the Israelites according to their divisions and tribes
(12.7; 18.10; 21.43), whereas other passages speak as ifthe distribu-
tion had not yet been completed and lay in the future (18.2; 23.4).
Moreover, critical commentators have rightly pointed out the com-
plexity of the land division tradition. First, there are the difficult
historical problems. How much land was actually taken in the
initial invasion? How is one to assess the geographical descriptions
of the land? Again, there are the literary problems. How is one to
JOSHUA 251
explain the need for two distributions with an interruption and
change of location (chs. 13 and 18)? How does one evaluate the
sources used in these chapters to describe the geography of the
distribution? Finally, there are the theological problems. What is
the theology of the land, inheritance, and rest?
The task ofa canonical reading is to assess how the editing of the
book affected these problems. First of all, the dominant theme of
chs. 13-21 was to confirm that the promise of God regarding the
land was fulfilled. The biblical record goes to great lengths to
confirm an actual possession of the land. The emphasis falls on the
concrete, real distribution. Alt’s theory that historical documents of
boundaries and administrative districts were used seems far more
likely than Kaufmann’s theory of an ideal projection. Regardless of
what historical dating one assigns these lists, they served the bibli-
cal editors to document the promise of possession and they con-
tinued to function in this manner within the final canonical shape of
the book. The same motif of the actual possession of the land is
picked up in the final chapter. Both Joshua and Joseph are buried
in their own inheritance (24.30,32).
However, there is another movement within these chapters
which has retained a calculated tension between the land as an
ideal inheritance and the land as actually possessed. At times the
land is described as occupied and distributed by lot, whereas at
other times it is clear that the possession lies still in the future
(18.1,3; 11.23; 13.1; 23.5, etc.). Also this tension does not arise
primarily from a combination of sources, but from the particular
perspective from which the land is viewed. However, once this
dialectical pattern was established, it proved to be a means of
accommodating the older tradition which described that territory
which had in fact not been conquered (15.63, etc.).
Finally, the tension between the ideal inheritance and the actual
possession was used by the editor of the book of Joshua in a
homiletical fashion to urge continuous obedience. Joshua 23.4
speaks of all the land being allotted in principle, but not yet posses-
sed. The homilist then links the actual possession conditionally
with the people’s obedience. If Israel is disobedient, particularly to
the Deuteronomic prohibition of intermarriage (v.12), then the
nations who remain will become a ‘snare and trap’. The formula-
tion in the chapter of the punishment is clearly intended to adum-
l)I'El.1l' the exile from the land: ‘you shall quickly perish from off the
252 THE FORMER PROPHETS
good land which he has given you’ (23.16).
History: of Exegesis
Carpzov I, 162-6; DThC 8, 1573; 3, 564; RGG3 3, 1573.
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 R. Kittel, HSAT, 41922
E. Bertheau, KeH, 21883 Garstang, 1931
K. Budde, KI-1C, 1897 R. Tamisier, SB, 1949
G. F. Moore, ICC, 21898 J. Slotki, SonB, 1950
W. Nowack, HKAT, 1902 A. Vincent, JB, 21958
M.-J. Lagrange, EB, 1903 H. w. Hertzberg, ATD, 11959
G. A. Cooke, CB, rev. 1918 Gray, NCeB, 1967
C. F. Burney, 21920 R. G. Boling, AB, 1975
Bibliography
Zvi Adar, The Biblical Narrative, Jerusalem 1959; L. Alonso Schékel,
‘Erziihlkunst im Buche der Richter’, Bibl 42, 1961, 143-72; A. Alt, ‘The
Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine’, ET Essays (see Pentateuch),
171-237; A. C. Auld, ‘Judges I and History: A Reconsideration’, VT 25,
1975, 261-85; F. Biichli, Amplyktonie im Alten Testament, Basel 1977; A.
Besters, ‘Le sanctuaire central dans Jud. 19-21’, ETL 41, 1965, 20-41;
W. Beyerlin, ‘Gattung und Herkunft des Rahmens im Richterbuch’,
Tradition und Situation, FS A. Weiser, Ghttingen 1963, 1-29; ‘Geschichte und
heilsgeschichtliche Traditionsbildung im Alten Testament’, VT 13, 1963,
1-24; Blenkinsopp, ‘Ballad Style and Psalm Style in the Song of
Deborah: a Discussion’, Bibl 42, 1961, 61-76; ‘Structure and Style in
Judges 13—16’,_]BL 82, 1963, 65-76; R. G. Boling, ‘In those Days there
was no King in Israel’, A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor
41. M. Myers, Philadelphia 1974, 33-48; H. Cazelles, ‘Juges’, DBS 4,
1394-1414; L. Crenshaw, ‘The Samson Saga: Filial Devotion or Erotic
Attachment?’, ZAW 86, 1974, 470-504.
O. Eissfeldt, Die Quellen des Richterbuches, Leipzig 1925; ‘Der geschich-
tliche Hintergrund der Erziihlung von Gibeas Schandtat‘, FS (I. Beer,
Stuttgart 1935, 19-40; A. Emerton, ‘Gideon and _]eru1i1)aal’,_/TS NS
JUDGES 255
27, 1976, 289-312; G. Gerleman, ‘The Song of Deborah in the Light of
Stylistics’, VT 36, 1966, 32-53; C. H. de Geus, The Tribes oflsrael. An
Investigation into some of the Presuppositions of’ Martin Noth’s Amphictyony
Hypothesis, Assen 1976; O. Grether, ‘Die Bezeichnung “Richter” fiir die
charismatischen Helden der vorstaatlichen Zeit’, ZAW 57, 1939, 110-21;
H. Gunkel, ‘Simson’, Reden und Au/Isiitze, Giittingen 1913, 38-64; D. M.
Gunn, ‘Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel’, VT
24, 1974, 286-317; H. Haag, ‘Gideon-Jerubbaal-Abimelek’, ZAW 79,
1967, 305-14; H. W. Hertzberg, ‘Die Kleinen Richter’, TLZ 79, 1954,
285-90; A. van Hoonacker, ‘Le voeu de Jephté’, Le Muséon 11, Louvain
1892, 448-69; 12, 1893, 59-80; E. Jenni, ‘Vom Zeugnis des Richter-
buches’, 72 12, 1956, 257-74; ‘ZweiJahrzehnte Forschung an den Biich-
ern Josua bis Konige’, ThR NF 27, 1961, 129-36; J. Kitto, Cyclopaedia of
Biblical Literature, new ed. revised, Edinburgh 1856, II, 173-9; E. Kutsch,
‘Gideons Berufung und A1tarbau,Jdc. 6,11—24’, TLZ 81, 1956, 257-74.
A. Malamat, ‘The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-
Conquest’, Bibl 51, 1970, 1-16; A. D. H. Mayes, ‘The Period oftheJudges
and the Rise of the Monarchy’, in Israelite andjudaean History, ed. H.
Hayes and J. M. Miller, OTL, 1977, 285-331; B. Mazar, ‘The Sanctuary
of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite’,_]NES 24, 1965, 297-303; E.
Meyer, ‘Kritik der Berichte iiber die Eroberung Palaestinas (Num. 20,14
bis Jud. 2,5)’, ZAW 1, 1881, 117-46; S. Mowinckel, ‘The Background of
Judges 17-18’, Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Har-
relson, New York and London 1962, 80-85; Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-
Hexateuch, BZAW 90, 1964, 171f.; E, Nielsen, Shechem: A Traditio-Historical
Investigation, Copenhagen 21959; M. Noth, Blberlieflirungsgeschichtliche Stu-
dien I, Halle 1943; ‘Das Amt des Richters Israels’, FS A. Bertholet,
Tiibingen 1950, 404-17; E. O’Do1'lerty, ‘The Literary Problem ofJudges
1,1- 3,6’, CBQ 28, 1956, 1-7; W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichttiche Unter-
suchungen zum Richterbuch, BBB 18, 1963, 21966; Die Bearbeitungen des ‘Retter-
buches’ in der deuteronomischen Epoche, BBB 21, 1964; ‘Zu den “Richtern
1sraels”’, ZAW 77, 1965, 40-71; ‘Die Uberlieferungen um Jeptah, Ri
10, 17—12,6’, Bibl 47, 1966, 485-556; E. Robertson, ‘The Period of the
Judges’, B“/RL 30, 1946, 91-114; M. G. Roger, ‘Judges, Book of’, [DB
Suppl, 509-14; H. Schmid, ‘Die Herrschaft Abimelechs (Jdc 9)’,_]ud 26,
1970, 1-1 1; H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel,
BZAW 128, 1972; E. Sellin, Wie wurde Sichem eine israelitische Stadti’, Leipzig
und Erlangen 1922; U. Simon, ‘The Parable ofJotham (Judges 14, 8-15):
The Parable, Its Application, and the Narrative Framework’ (Hebrew),
Tarbiz 34, Jerusalem 1964-5, 1-34; C. A. Simpson, Composition of the Book
tjjudges, Oxford 1957, New York 1958; S. Talmon, ‘In those Days there
was no King in Israel’ (Hebrew), Proceedings Qf the Fifth World Congress of
/ewish Studies 1969, I, Jerusalem 1971, 135—44=ET Immanuel 5, Jerusalem
1975, 27-36; E. Tiiubler, Biblische Studien, Tiibingen 1958; R. de Vaux,
The Early History Q/‘Israel 11, ‘The Period of the Judges’, ET London and
256 THE FORMER PROPHETS
Philadelphia 1978; W. Vischer, ‘Das Buch der Richter’, Das Christuszeug—
nis des Alten Testaments II, Ziirich 21946, 65-144; W. Vollborn, ‘Die
Chronologie des Richterbuches’, FS F. Baurngdrtel, Erlangen 1959, 192-6;
M. Weinfeld, ‘The Period ofthe Conquest and of the Judges as seen by
the Earlier and the Later Sources’, VT 17, 1967, 93-113; A. Weiser, ‘Das
Deboralied, eine gattungs- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studie’, ZA W 71,
1959, 67-97; G. E. Wright, ‘The Literary and Historical Problem of
Joshua 10 andJudges 1’,_]NES 5, 1946, 105-14; H.-J. Z0be1,Stammesspruch
und Geschichte. Die Angaben der Stammesspruch von Gen 49, Dtn 33 undjdc 5 iiber
die politischen und kultischen Zustiinde im damaligen ‘Israel ’, BZAW 95, 1965; A.
H. van Zyl, ‘The Messenger Formula in the Book ofJudges’, OuTWP
1959,61-64.
mise which had been lost. The charismatic leader was successful in
repulsing the enemy. Moreover, he ruled over all Israel, and Israel
was faithful to God during his lifetime. Finally, the chronological
interest of the Dtr. redactor is theologically significant. The length
of the judge”s rule is recorded as if to establish God’s rule in a
temporal sequence. whereas in neither the introduction nor the
appendix is the chronology recorded. It is as though the historical
sequence of disobedient Israel had no movement and thus no
significance.
The appendices return to the same period of the introduction
which had been temporarily interrupted by the history of the
judges. Again this disobedient state is described in the two narra-
tives as being religiously chaotic (18.3l), without a leader (18.1;
19.1; 21.35), and in dire peril of permanently losing the unity of
Israel as the people of God (21.3).
There is one final point to be made in characterizing the effect of
the Deuteronomic redaction. Even though the framework served to
order the narrative diversity within a stereotyped pattern, the pat-
tern did not seriously alter the original shape of the stories. There
was no massive rewriting of the earlier traditions with an eye to
forcing them into one mould. Rather the framework allowed the
stories much room to function freely within the larger theological
construct. Thus, the Samson cycle (13-16) was also placed within
the Dtr. frame even though its content ofdefeat and victory focused
on the personal history of one man rather than the nation. Within
the larger narrative, however, the story was illustrative of the
nation’s disobedience through an easy analogy which the reader
could now draw between the one and the many. In a similar way,
the story of Abimelech‘s history formed an analogous relationship
to the nation’s history within the larger pattern.
((1) The study ofthe canonical shaping ofthe book ofjudges makes
clear that different functions can be assigned to different historical
sources even within the same book. Thus, for example, ch. 1 uses
the undigested details ofan ancient historical account in its original
form as a means of illustrating the breakdown of_]oshua’s legacy.
(Ionversely., 2.15111 has l)(‘('l\ plztcctl within at heavily schematized
262 "rm.-2 FORMER PROPHETS
theological framework which has sacrificed many original details
for the sake of the pattern.
Regardless of the different handling of the historical material,
each method performs a particular function within the canonical
form of the book. Any attempt to exercise a valuejudgment on the
sources in relation to an extrinsic norm of historicity makes neither
literary nor theological sense in the context of the canon.
(b) Much effort has been spent on reconstructing the variety of
offices subsumed under the title of judge, and a rich history of
development has been uncovered. For the historical enterprise the
endeavour of reconstruction is fully legitimate. Still it is far from
obvious that this information must of necessity have theological
significance, especially since the historical distinctions between
offices have been lost in the canonical shaping. At best one could
argue that a knowledge of the history of tradition in this instance
could illuminate the question of why the final form of the book
failed to transmit such historical information.
(tr) The book of_]udges affords an excellent example of how a
secondary theological framework can function on a body of older
tradition. Far from assuming that the framework established only
one exclusive interpretation of the material, the canonical shaping
ofjudges allowed for great freedom within an overarching pattern.
Nowhere was the relation of the parts to the framework so closely
established as to dictate only one possible hearing of the text. Thus
the charge that to take seriously the final shape is to impoverish the
vitality of the literature is far from the truth.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov 1, 192-4; or/tc a, tsett, RGG3 5, 109711".
R. Hermann, Die Gestalt Simsons bet Luther, Theologische Bibliothek
Tiipelmann 2, Berlin 1952, 5-20; F. M. Krouse, Milton’s Samson and the
Christian Tradition, Princeton and London 1949; A. Penna, ‘The Vow of
Jephthah in the Interpretation of St Jerome’, Studia Patristica 4-, TU 79,
I961, 162-70.
XIV
SAMUEL
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1875 W. Caspari, KAT, 1926
F. de Hummelauer, CSS, 1886 A. Médebielle, SB, 1949
O. Thenius, M. Loehr, KeH, 1842, S. Goldman, SonB, 1951
31898 A. van den Born, BOuT, 1956
H. P. Smith, ICC, 1899 K. Gutbrod, BAT, 1956-8
K. Budde, KHC, 1902 R. de Vaux,_]B, 21961
W. Nowack,'HKAT, 1902 W. McKane, TBC, 1963
P. Dhorme, EB, 1910 W. H. Hertzberg, OTL, 1964
S. R. Driver, 11913 H. Stoebe, KAT’, I, 1973
H. Gressmann, SAT, 21921 P. Ackroyd, CNEB, 1971-77
R. Kittel, HSA T, ‘I922
Bibliography
A. Alt, ‘Das Grossreich Davids’, TLZ 75, 1950, 213-220=KS II, 66ff.; ET
Essays, 239-59; K. Baltzer, Die Biographie der Propheten, Neukirchen-Vluyn
1975; B. C. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite ll/Ionarch_y: The Growth and Develop-
ment qfISam. 7-15, Diss. Yale University, 1970 = SBL Dissertation Series
27, Missoula 1976;]. Blenkinsopp, ‘_]onathan’s Sacrilege. I Sm 14, 1-46:
A Study in Literary History’, CBQ 26, 1964, 423-49; ‘Theme and Motifin
the Succession History (2 Sam xi 2ff.) and the Yahwist Corpus’, SVT 15,
1966, 44-51; ‘The Quest of the Historical Saul’, No Famine in the Land.
Studies in Honor L. McKenzie, Missoula 1975, 75-99; H.J. Boecker, Die
Beurteilung der Anfiinge des Kbnigtums in den deuteronomistischen Abschnittes des I.
Samuelbuches, WMANT 31, 1969; P. A. H. de Boer, ‘Texte et traduction
des paroles attribtiees it David en II Samuel xxiii 1-7’, SVT 4, 1957, 47-56;
_]. Bourke, ‘Samuel and the Ark, A Study in Contrasts’, Dominican Studies
7, Oxford 1954, 73-103; W. Brueggemann, ‘David and his Theologian’,
CBQ 30, 1968, 156-81; H. van der Bussche, ‘Le texte de la prophétie de
Nathan sur la dynastic davidique (II Sam., VII- I Chron., XVII)’, ETL
24, 194-8, 354-94; M. Buber, ‘Die Erzéihlung von Sauls Kbnigswahl’, VT
264 THE FORMER PROPHETS
6, 1956, 113-73; A. F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4-6, 2Sam 6). A
Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study, SBL Dissertation Series 16, Mis-
soula 1975; R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King. A Traditio-Historical
Approach to the Second Book ofSamuel , Stockholm 1964-; H. Cazelles, ‘David’s
Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim’, PEQ 87, 1955, 165-75; R. E. Cle-
ments, ‘The Deuteronomistic Interpretation of the Founding of the
Monarchy in 1 Sam VIII’, VT 24, 1974, 398-410.
L. Delekat, ‘Tendenz und Theologie der David-Salomo Erziihlung’,
Dasferne and nahe Wort. FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 26-36; W. Dietrich,
‘David in Uberlieferung und Geschichte’, VF 22, 1977, 44-64; O. Eiss-
feldt, ‘Nocheinmalz Text-, Sti1- und Literarkritik in den Samue1isbiich-
ern’, OLZ 31, 1928, 801-12; Die Komposition der Samaelisbiicher, Leipzig
1931; ‘The Hebrew Kingdom’, CAH II/2, 570-80; K. Elliger, ‘Die dreis-
sig Helden Davids’, 1935 = KSAT, Munich 1966, 72-118; W. Flana-
gan, ‘Court History or Succession Document? A Study of2 Samuel 9-20
and I Kings 1-2’,_]BL 91, 1972, 172-81; H. Gese, ‘Der Davidsbund
und die Zionserwéihlung’, ZTK 61, 1964, 10-26; Goettsberger, ‘Die
Verwerfung des Saul, 1 Sm 13 und 15’, Festgabefiir A. Knbpfler, Freiburg
1917, 140—58;]. H. Gronbaek, Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (I. Sam I5
-2. Sam 5), Copenhagen 1971; D. M. Gunn, ‘Narrative Patterns and Oral
Tradition in Judges and Samuel’, VT 24, 1974, 286-317; ‘Traditional
Composition in the “Succession Narrative”’, VT 26, 1976, 214-29; C. E.
Hauer, ‘The Shape ofSau1ide"Strategy’, CBQ 31, 1969, 153-67; S. Herr-
mann, ‘Die Konigsnovelle in Agypten und in Israel’, WZ Univ. Leipzig 3,
1953-4, 51-62; I. Hylander, Der literarische Samuel-Saul Komplex (I Sam.
I-I5), traditionsgeschichtlich untersacht, Leipzig 1932.
A. Kapelrud, ‘Konig David und die Stihne des Saul’, ZAW 67, 1955,
198-205; M. Kessler, ‘Narrative Technique in 1 Sm 16, 1-13’, CBQ 32,
1970, 543-54; L. Krinetzki, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Stilanalyse der Goliath-
perikope (1 Sam. 17, 1—18,5)’, Bibl 54, 1973, 187-236; F. Langlamet, ‘Les
récits de l’institution de la royauté (I Sam., VII-XII)’, RB 77, 1970,
_1_6l—200; G. C. Macholz, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Samuel-
Uberlieferungen, Diss. Heidelberg 1966; A. D. H. Mayes, ‘The Reign of
Saul’, Israelite andjudaean History, ed. _I. H. Hayes and _]. M. Miller, OTL,
1977, 322-31; D. McCarthy, ‘II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the
Deuteronomistic History’,_]BL 84, 1965, 131-8; L. McKenzie, ‘The
Dynastic Oracle: II Sam 7’, ThSt 8, 1947, 187-218; ‘The Four Samuels’,
Biblical Research 7, Amsterdam 1962, 3-18; I. Menclelsohn, ‘Samue1’s
Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the Akkadian Documents from
Ugarit’, BASOR 143, 1956, 17-22; T. N. D. Mettinger, “‘The Last Words
of David”. A Study of Structure and Meaning in II Samuel 2311-7’, SEA
41-42, 1976-77, 147-56; F. Mildenberger, Die vordeuteronomistische Saul-
Davidsiiberlieferung, Diss. Tiibingen 1962; M. Miller, ‘Sau1’s Rise to
Power: Some Observations concerning I Sam. 9. 1-10. 16; 10.26-11.15 and
13.2-14.46’, CBQ 36, 1974, 157-74; P. D. Miller and _]. _]. M. Roberts,
sxnut-:1. 265
The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the ‘Ark Narratives’ of I Samuel, Balti-
more and London 1977; K. Mohlenbrink, ‘Saul’s Ammoniterfeldzug und
Samuels Beitrag zum Ktinigtums des Saul’, ZAW 58, 1940, 57-70; S.
Mowinckel, ‘ “Die letzten Worte Davids”, II Sam. 23,1-7’, ZAW 45,
1927, 30-58.
M. L. Newman, ‘The Prophetic Call ofSamue1’, Israel’s Prophetic Herit-
age, ed. B. W. Anderson, New York and London 1962, 86-97; M. Noth,
Uberlitfirangsgeschichtliche Studien I, Halle 194-3; ‘David and Israel in II
Samuel VII’ (1957), ET Laws in the Pentateuch, Edinburgh 1966, Philadel-
phia 1967, 250-9; ‘Samuel und Shilo’, VT 13, 1963, 390-400; H.-U.
Niibel, Davids Austieg in derfriihe israelitischer Geschichtsschreibung, Diss. Bonn
1959; R. H. Pfeiffer, ‘Midrash in the Books of Samuel’, Quantulacumque K.
Lake, ed. R. P. Casey et al., London 1937, 303-16; R. Press, ‘Der Prophet
Samuel. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, ZAW 56, 1938,
177-225; O. Procksch, ‘Die letzten Worte Davids’, FS R. Kittel, BWAT
13, 1913, 112-25; G. von Rad, ‘Die Anfzinge der Geschichtsschreibung in
Israel’, in GSA T, Munich 1958, 148-88=ET The Problem ofthe Hexateuch,
Edinburgh and New York 1966, 166-204; ‘Zwei Uberlieferungen von
Ktinig Saul’, GSAT II, 1973, 199-211; R. Rendtorff, ‘Beobachtungen
zur altisraelitischen Geschichtsschreibung anhand der Geschichte vom
Aufstieg Davids’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, FS G. von Rad, Munich 1971,
428-39; H. N. Richardson, ‘The Last Words of David: Some Notes on II
Sam. 23, 1-7’,_]BL 90, 1971, 257-66; A. D. Ritterspach, The Samuel
Traditions: An Analysis (J the Anti-Monarchial Source in I _Samuel I-I5, Diss.
Graduate Theol. Union, California 1967; L. Rost, Die Uberlieferung von der
Thronnachfolge Davids, BWANT III.6 (=42), 1926.
F. Schicklberger, Die Ladeerzdhlungen des ersten Samuel -Buches, Wiirzburg
1973; j. Schildenberger, ‘Zur Einleitung in die Samuelbiicher’, Studia
Anselmiana 27-8, Rome 1951, 130-68; L. Schmidt, .Menschlicher Eifolg und
jahwes Initiative, WMANT 38, 1970, 120-88; W. H. Schmidt, ‘Kritik am
Kijnigtum’, Problerne biblischer Theologie, FS G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 440-
61; J. Schreiner, Sion-jerasalem jahves Kiinigssitz, Munich 1963; H.
Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel, BZAW 128,
1972; K.-D. Schunck, Benjamin, BZAW 86, 1963, 30-138; H. Seebass, ‘1
Sam 15 als Schliissel fiir das Verstandnis der sogenannten k6nigsfreund-
lichen Reihe I Sam 9:l—l0:16, 11:1-15, 13.2-14:52’, ZAW 78, 1966, 148-
79; ‘Traditionsgeschichte von I Sam 8,10f und 12’, ZA W 77, 1965, 286-96;
_]. A. Soggin, Das Konigtum in Israel, BZAW 104, 1967, 27-76; H.-_].
Stoebe, ‘Die Goliathperikope I Sam. xvii, 1-xviii, 5 und die Textform der
Septuaginta’, VT 6, 1956, 397-413; ‘David und Mikal’, BZAW 77, 1958,
224-43; ‘Gedanken zur Heldensage in den Samuelbiichern’, Dasjierne and
nahe Wort. FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 208-18; H. Timm, ‘Die Ladeer-
ziihlung I Sam 4-6; II Sam 6 und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen
Ceschichtswerkes’, I'.’t-Th 26, 1966, .505-26; M. Tsevat, ‘Studies in the
1lnokofSamttt-I’, Parts; 1-5, III-"(I/1 32-36, 1961-1965; ‘Samuel, I and II’,
266 THE FORMER PROPHETS
IDB Suppl, 777-81 ; T. Veijola, Die Ewige Dynastic. David und die Entstehung
seiner Dynastic nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, Helsinki 1975; W.
Vischer, ‘Die Biicher Samuelis und der Kiinige’, Das Christuszeugnis des
Alten Testaments II, Ziirich 21946, 145-280; G. Wallis, Geschichte und Uber-
lieferung, Berlin 1968; A. Weiser, Samuel. Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und
religiiise Bedeutung, FRLANT 81, 1962; ‘Die Legitimation des Kiinigs
David. Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogenannten Geschichte von
Davids Austieg’, VT 16, 1966, 325-54; A. C. Welch, Kings and Prophets,
London 1952, New York 1953; Wellllausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuel
untersucht, Giittingen 1871; R. N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative, SBT
II.9, 1968; H. Wildberger, ‘Samuel und die Entstehung des israelitischen
Ktinigtums’, TZ 13, 1957, 442-69; E. Wiirthwein, Die Erziihlung von der
Throrjolge Davids — theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung?, Ziirich
1974.
speech in ch. 12. The book division of II Samuel separates the two
reports of Saul’s death, but the effect of setting the division after I
Sam. 31 is to shift the focus, even of Saul’s death, to the figure of
David whose reign covers the remaining chapters ofII Samuel. The
present ending of II Samuel assigns the account of David’s final
years to the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 1-2), again allowing another
material principle to override a consistent historical sequence. In
sum, the divisions are now loosely grouped around the major figure
in each section, Samuel, Saul, and David.
It is significant to observe that the final structuring of the ma-
terial has often left the earlier divisions intact, which now function
as subdivisions within the larger divisions, but do not always
closely mesh. Thus in I Sam. 1-12, ch. 7 still serves as a significant
division of the Samuel narrative. Saul’s role as the last of the
‘judges’ is summarized in 7.15-17, and ch. 8 begins a new phase of
Israel’s history with the rise ofthe monarchy. Similarly, after Saul’s
initial disobedience in ch. 13 the remaining chapters in Saul’s reign
are viewed in the light of David’s rise to power (cf. 13.14; 15.28;
16.14). Finally, the reign of David as presented in II Samuel still
reflects earlier divisions and his successful rise to power is sharply
contrasted with his reverses following Nathan’s curse.
sion into the succession narrative. The most recent and thorough
study, that of Carlson, has recovered much of the importance of
these chapters, but has focused on the redactional issue without an
adequate treatment of their significance for the final form. The one
highly welcomed exception is offered by the commentary of Hertz-
berg who began to draw out the exegetical significance of the
appendix. He has correctly seen that the psalm of ch. 22 oifers a
theological commentary on the entire history of David (cf. also
Gutbrod).
If we review the function ofthese various sections, a very definite
canonical perspective is offered as a hermeneutical guide for under-
standing the books of Samuel. Of course, the recovery ofa canoni-
cal intentionality does not rule out the likelihood that other forces of
traditional history were involved in the transmission and shaping of
this particular block of material. Thus, for example, the case of
Elliger’s reconstruction of the background of David’s thirty chief
men (Il.23.8ff.), or the role of possible aetiological motifs in ch. 24,
are not affected by the concern for the function within the final form
of the narrative.
At the outset the story of the Gibeonites and the house of Saul
(21.1-14) picks up a dominant issue in David’s relation to Saul
which is reflected throughout both books of Samuel (l.24.20ff.;
II.3.l; II.9.lff.; II.l6.7ff.; II.l9.24ff.). The story is at pains to
demonstrate that David was not the cause behind the destruction of
the Saulites, but the guilt lay with Saul’s transgression which called
for his blood-guiltiness before the law (cf. Num. 35.33). David’s
own part consisted, rather, in an act of mercy and compassion to
the house of Saul. David had acted in righteousness and not broken
his oath to Saul.
The following section (2l.l5—22) relates four separate incidents
in the continuous war with the Philistines, but focuses on David’s
last battle. The description of his weakness serves to shift the focus
of this summary of David’s achievements away from his
glorification and forms a transition to his praise of God in ch. 22.
The psalm title provides the historical context of the hymn from
which it is to be understood. Only after David had been given
victory from all his enemies does he review his career in order to
praise God, his deliverer. The thanksgiving hymn picks up many of
the same themes of the song of Hannah and thus reinforces the
same theocentric emphasis now seen in retrospect. Again the theme
SAMUEL 275
the final editor ofthe book. Rost’s theory that chs. 9-20 were writ-
ten in majorem gloriam Salomonis can hardly be maintained as the
dominant theme of these chapters. Ifone takes the canonical shap-
ing seriously, one recognizes that the climax ofthis alleged succes-
sion narrative has been sharply separated from the books ofSamuel
and assigned a different function in the subsequent history of Solo-
mon. Again, the messianic reading of the book which is suggested
both by the song of Hannah and the last words of David moves the
narrative in a direction quite different from Rost’s.
However, the strongest evidence for seeing a different principle of
arrangement operative has been presented by Carlson. He argues
for a D-group redaction which sees II Sam. 2-5 as ‘David under the
Blessing’, and II Sam. 9-24 as ‘David under the Curse’. Without
debating the merits of trying to assign this ordering ofthe material
to a particular redactional group — an interpretation which often
seems very fragile - the analysis of the material of II Samuel into
two different parts around the Bathsheba incident seems highly
convincing. The statement in II Sam. 5.12 that Yahweh had
‘exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people’ summarizes the
period of David’s success as the ‘shepherd of Israel’ (5.2). In con-
trast, the execution of Nathan’s curse (l2.l liT.): ‘I will raise up evil
against you out of your own house’, forms a dominant force in the
succeeding chapters, and is repeatedly taken up in explicit refer-
ence to the curse (16.22, etc.).
In the final shape of the book Nathan’s promise to David in
ll Sam. 7 plays a crucial role for the composition as a whole. The
chapter is integrallyjoined to the ark story ofch. 6, but even though
it climaxes the theme of blessing on David and his house, it is set
apart with a different role from the blessings of chs. 2-5. The chap-
ter takes up the theme ofblessing, but projects it into an eschatolog-
ical, messianic promise. The blessings are ‘for ever’ on the house of
David (v.29). Thus II Sam. 7 both confirms the initial messianic
note sounded in the song of Hannah and is reiterated as valid even
after the period of the curse had passed (II Sam. 23.5). David’s sin
has been judged by the loss of the blessing, but in the end the
messianic promise to his house remains unchanged in force.
The crucial significance of II Sam. 7 can also be discerned in the
structure ofl Samuel. In the same chapter in which Saul’s reign
over Israel was begun, Samuel announced that Saul’s kingdom
would not endure forever. God was seeking for at man ‘after his own
SAMUEL 277
heart’ to replace him. Again, in ch. l5 Saul was rejected from being
king and the kingdom given to a ‘neighbour ofyours, who is better
than you’ (v.28). From the perspective of the final editor Saul’s
kingship was a false start from the beginning which never partook
of the messianic promise to David and therefore could not endure.
B A B A B
(a) The history of Israel as recorded in the two books of Samuel has
been refashioned in the light of an overarching theological perspec-
tive which views the history in the light ofa divine purpose. Both
the hymnic introduction of ch. 2 and the thanksgiving psalm at the
book’s conclusion (ch. 22) establish a dominant eschatological,
messianic perspective for the whole. Israel’s history reflects the
ways of God in the world which typologizes events into patterns of
divine response. God exalts the poor and debases the proud.
Although David’s human weaknesses are not suppressed and at
times even highlighted, his final role as the ideal righteous king
emerges with clarity. The effect ofthis theologizing ofhistory by the
canon is to provide a bridge between the reading of Samuel and
SAMUEL 279
that of Chronicles. The canonical effect is to draw these two blocks
of material closer together rather than to stress their differences.
(b) The frequent attempt of modern Old Testament theologians
to see the significance of Samuel to lie in the perfecting of a new
sense of God’s working in history through an immanental cause
and effect chain of human events (von Rad) is in acute danger of
overstatement. A warrant for such a claim does lie in the new
approach to historical writing reflected in Samuel. However, it is
crucial for the theological question to recognize that this approach
to history has been subordinated within the canonical context and
that the theological importance of this history has been located
elsewhere. No one within the canonical process appears to have
drawn the theological implications of a new historiography sug-
gested by von Rad. The theological weight of interpretation in the
canonical perspective rests on a history which has been harmon-
ized, typologized, and even proverbialized! To disregard this
canonical shaping and to extrapolate the theological significance
from a reconstructed philosophy is to rest the theological discipline
on a very fragile basis indeed.
(c) In spite of the dominant, overwhelming canonical rendering
of the material which rules out a move to historicize the tradition,
the material is still allowed enormous freedom of movement with
the larger canonical outlines. For example, even though David’s
career has been carefully structured within the rubrics of divine
blessing and curse, some of David’s most profoundly religious re-
actions occur within the period of the curse (II Sam. l6.9ff.). Simi-
larly, Saul’s reign is portrayed under the shadow of David’s coming
reign after ch. 13, and yet Saul is never stereotyped into a lifeless
symbol of the rejected. To speak of a canonical reading is not to
suggest that the flexibility of the text as religious literature was
strangled or its inherent possibilities with a vibrant tradition have
been quashed.
(d) Finally, the canonical perspective for reading this material
serves as the major channel by which later generations within
Israel sought to appropriate the sacred tradition. It is clear from
Pss. 78 and 132 that the messianic hope of divine blessing, which
was promised to the house of David forever, continued to inform
the faith of the community and provided the assurance ofa future
for Israel in times of greatest crisis. Similarly the book ofChronicles
affords additional evidence that the hope of the nation even in the
280 THE FORMER PROPHETS
History of Exegesis
Carpzov I, 228-33; DThC l3, 2304f.; RGG3 5, 1360f.
Commentaries
K. C. W. F. Baehr, ET, LCHS, I. W. Slotki, SonB, 1950
1872 Montgomery, H. S. Gehman,
C. F. Keil, BC, 1876 ICC, 1951
O. Thenius, M. Loehr, KeH, 31898 A. van den Born, BOuT, 1958
I. Benzinger, KHC, 1899 R. de Vaux, _]B, 21958
R. Kittel, HKAT, 1902 Gray, OTL, 21970 (31977)
C. F. Burney, 1903 H. A. Brongers, POuT, 1967-70
_]. Svkinner, CeB, 1904 M. Noth, BK, 1968
A. Sanda, EH, 1911-12 Fichtner, K. D. Fricke, BAT,
H. Gressmann, SAT, 21921 1964-72
O. Eissfeldt, HSAT, 41922 Robinson, CNEB, 1972, 1976
A. Médebielle, SB, 1949 E. Wiirthwein (I), ATD, I977
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘Historians and Prophets,’ SEA 33, 1968, 13-54; ‘An
Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of2 Kings 20, Isa. 38-39’,
S_]T 27, 1974, 329-52; ‘Kings, I and II’, IDB Suppl, 516-19; W. F.
Albright, ‘King joiachin in Exile’, BA 5, 1942, 49-55; ‘The judicial
Reform ofjehoshaphat’, A. Marxjubilee Volume, New York 1950, 61-82; B.
Alfrink, ‘Die Schlacht bei Megiddo und der Tod desjosias (609)’ Bibl 15,
I934, I73-84; A. Alt, ‘Israels Gaue unter Salomo’, 1913, KS II, 1953,
76-89; ‘Das Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel’, 1935, KS II, 1953, 135-49;
‘Der Stadtstaat Samaria’, 1945, KS III, 1959, 258-302; ‘The Monarchy in
the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah’, ET Essays (see Pentateuch), 1966,
239-59; Barr, ‘Story and History in Biblical Theology’,_]R 56, 1976,
I-l 7; I. Benzinger,_]a/zwist und Elohist in den Kfinigsbiichern, BWA[N]T II 2
(=27), 1921; K.—H. Bernhardt, ‘Der Feldzug der drei Konige’, Schalom.
Studien zu Glaube und Geschichte Israels. A. jepsen dargebracht, Berlin 1971,
I I-22; Bright, A History cflsrael_ Philadelphia and London 21972; R. P.
282 THE FORMER PROPHETS
Carroll, ‘The Elijah-Elisha Sagas’, VT 19, 1969, 400-15; B. S. Childs,
Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, SBT II.3, 1967; F. M. Cross, ‘The Themes of
the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History’,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge, Mass. 1973, 274-89; F. M.
Cross and D. N. Freedman, ‘_]osiah’s Revolt against Assyria’,jNES 12,
1953,56-8.
_]. Debus, Die Siinde jerobeams. Studien zur Darstellung jeroboams und der
Geschichte des Nordreichs in der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung,
FRLANT 93, 1967; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redalttionsges-
chichliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerh, FRLANT 108,
1972; H. Donner, ‘The Separate States of Israel and Judah’, Israelite and
judaean History, ed._]. H. Hayes and M. Miller, OTL, 1977, 381-434; O.
Eissfeldt, Der Gott Karmel, Berlin 1954; ‘Die Komposition von I Reg
16,29-II Reg 13,25’, Dasferne und nahe Wort. FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967,
49-58; I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East,
Uppsala 1943, Oxford 2l967;_G. Fohrer, Elia, Zurich 21968; K. Galling,
‘Der Gott Karmel und die Achtung der fremden Cotter’, Geschichte und
Altes Testament. FS A. Alt, Tiibingen 1953, 105-25; ‘Der Ehrennarne Elisas
und die Entriickung Elias’, ZTK 53, 1956, 129-48; P. L. Garber, ‘Recon-
structing So1omon’s Temple’, BA 14, 1951, 2-24; D. W. Gooding, ‘The
Septuagint’s Rival Versions of_]eroboam’s Rise to Power’, VT 16, 1967,
173-89; H. Gunkel, Elias,]ahwe und Baal, Tiibingen 1906; E. Haag, ‘Die
Himmelfahrt des Elias nach 2 Kg. 2,1—15’, Trierer TZ 78, Trier 1969,
18-32; E. Haller, Charisma und Ekstasis. Die Erziihlung von dem Propheten
Micha ben jimla, I Kiin. 22, I-28a, TheolEx NF 87, 1960; W. W. Hallo,
‘From Qarqar to Carchemish: Assyria and Israel in the Light of New
Discoveries’, BA 23, 1960, 33-61; B. Halpern, ‘Sectionalism and Schism’,
]BL 93, 1974, 519-32; ‘Levitical Participation in the Reform Cult of
Jeroboam I’,]BL 95, 1976, 31-42; M. Haran, ‘The Rise and Decline of
the Empire of_]eroboam ben_]oash’, VT 17, 1967, 266-97; G. Hentschel,
Die Elijaerzcihlungen, Erfurter theologische Studien 33, Leipzig 1977; G.
Hfilscher, ‘Das Buch der Konige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion’,
Eucharisterion. FS H. Gunkel I, FRLANT 36, 1923, 158-213; Geschichts-
schreibung in Israel , Lund 1953; E. _]anssen,]udah in der Exilszeit, FRLANT
69, 1956; A. K. Jenkins, ‘Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year. A New Inter-
pretation of 2 Kings xviii 13-xix 37’, VT 26, 1976, 284-98; A. Jepsen,
Die Quellen des Kiinigsbuches, Halle 21956; ‘Gottesmann und Prophet.
Anmerkungen zum Kapitel 1 Kénige 13’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, FS
G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 171-82; A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient
Israel, Cardiff 1955; Liver, ‘The’ Book of the Acts of Solomon’, Bibl 48,
1967, 75-101; N. Lohfink, ‘Die Bundesurkunde des Konigs _]osias. Eine
Frage an die Deuteronomiumsforschung’, Bibl 44, 1963, 261-88, 461-98.
A. Malamat, ‘The Last Kings of_]udah and the Fall ofjerusalem’, IE]
18, 1968, 137-56;]. McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732-609 BC,
SBT II.26, 1973; T. N. D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Ojficials: A Study ofthe
KINGS 283
Civil Government Officials Qfllte‘ Israelite Monarchy, Coniectanea Biblica OT, 5,
Lund 1971; M. Miller, ‘The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the
Omride Wars’,jBL 85, 1966, 441-54; ‘The Fall of the House of Ahab’,
VT 17, 1967, 307-24; K. Miihlenbrink, Der Tempel Salomos. Eine Unter-
suchung seiner Stellung in der Sakralarchitelctur des Alten Orients, BWANT IV.7
(=59), 1932; A. Montgomery, ‘Archival Data in the Books of Kings’,
JBL 53, 1934, 46-52; N. Na’aman, ‘Sennacherib’s “Letter to God” on his
Campaign to Judah’, BASOR 214, 1974, 25-39; D. Napier, ‘The
Omrides ofJezree1’, VT 9, 1959, 366-78; M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschicht-
liche Studien I, Halle 1943, 103-29; B. Oded, ‘Judah and the Exile’, Israel-
ite and judaean History, ed. H. Hayes, 435-88; A. Parrot, The Temple of
Ierusalem, ET London and New York 1957; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im
Alten_Testament, WMANT 36, 1969; I. Plein (= Willi-Plein), ‘Erwiigungen
zur Uberlieferung von 1 Reg 1 1, 26-14, 20’,ZAW78, 1966, 8-24; O. Pliiger,
Die Prophetengeschichten der Sarnuel- und Kéinigsbiicher, Diss. Greifswald 1937;
B. Porten, ‘The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings
3-11)’, HUCA 38, 1967, 93-128; O. Procksch, ‘Konig Josia’, Festgabefiir
T. Zahn, Erlangen 1928, 19-53.
G. von Rad, ‘The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Book of
Kings’, Studies in Deuteronomy, ET, SBT 1.9, 1953, 74ff.; M. Rehm, Text-
kritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der Samuel-Kiinigsbiicher und der
Chronilt, Miinster 1937; A. Rofé, ‘The Classification of Prophetical
Stories’, ]BL 89, 1970, 427-40; ‘Classes in the Prophetical Stories’,
SVT 26, 1974, 143-64; H. H. Rowley, ‘Elijah on Mount Carmel’, B_]RL
43, 1960-1, 190-219; W. Rudolph, ‘Die Einheitlichkeit der Erzéihlung
vom Sturz der Atalja (2 K6n 1 1)’, FS A. Bertholet, Tiibingen 1950, 473-8;
H.-C. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorltlassischen
nordisraelitischen Prophetic, Giitersloh 1972; H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der
Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel, BZAW 128, 1972; H. Seebass, ‘Zur
KonigserhebungJerobeams I’, VT 17, 1967, 325-33; ‘Der Fall Naboth in I
Reg xxi’, VT 24, 1974, 474-88; R. Smend, ‘Das Gesetz und die V611-ter’,
Probleme biblischer Theologie, FS G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 4941T.; ‘Der
biblische und der historische Elia’, SVT 28, 1975, 167-84; ‘Das Wort
Jahwes an Elia’, VT 25, 1975, 525—43;J. A. Soggin, Das Kiinigtum in Israel,
BZAW 104, 1967, 77ff.; ‘The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom’, Israelite and
judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes, 332-80; J. J. Stamm, ‘Elia am Horeb’,
Studia Biblica et Semitica T. C. Vriezen dedicata, Wageningen 1966, 327-34; O.
H. Steck, Llberliqferung and Zeitgeschichte in der Elia-Erziihlungen, WMANT
26, 1968.
R. de Vaux, ‘Les prophetes de Baal sur 1e mont Carmel’, Bulletin du
lllusée de Beyrouth 5, Beirut 1941, 7-20; ET in de Vaux, The Bible and the
Ancient Near East, New York 1971, London 1972, 238-51; Ancient Israel, ET
London and New York 1961, 312-30; H. Weippert, ‘Die “deuteronomis-
tischen” Beurteilungen der Konige von Israel undJuda und das Problem
der Retlaktion der Konigsbticher‘, Bibl 53, 1972, 301-39;J. Wellhausen,
284 THE FORMER PROPHETS
Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historischen Biicher des Alten Testaments,
Berlin 21899; P. Welten, ‘Naboths Weinberg (I Kbn 21)’, EvTh 33, 1973,
18-32; C. F. Whitley, ‘The Deuteronomic Presentation of the House of
Omri’, VT 2, 1952, 137-52; H. W. Wolff, ‘Das Kerygma des
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes’, ZAW 73, 1961, 171-86; E.
Wiirthwein, ‘Die Erziihlung vom Gottesurteil aufdem Karmel’, ZTK 59,
1962, 131-46; ‘Zur Komposition von I Reg 22,1-38’, Das ferne und nahe
Wort. FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 24-51212.; ‘Elijah at Horeb, Reflections on
I Kings 19.9-18’, Proclamation and Presence. OT Essays in Honour of C. H.
Davies, ed. I. Durham and R. Porter, London and Richmond, Va.
1970, 152-66; E. Zenger, ‘Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der
RehabilitierungJejachins’, BZ NF 12, 1968, 16-30.
History: of Exegesis
Carpzov I. l92-4; DThC I3, 2084; EB 4, ll57; RGG3 3. I706.
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘Isaiah i-xii: Presentation ofa Prophet’, SVT 29, 1978; K.
Baltzer, Die Biographie der Propheten, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975; R. V. Ber-
gren, The Prophets and the Law, Cincinnati, 1974; H. Birkeland, Zum heli-
riiischen Traditionswesen, Oslo 1938; K. Budde, ‘Eine folgenschwere Redak-
tion des Zwolfprophetenbuches’, ZAW 39, 1921, 218-29; A. Biichler,
‘The Reading ofthe Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle’,_]QR 5, 1893,
420-68; 6, 1894, 1-73; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition, Oxford and
Philadelphia 1975; ‘Patterns in the Prophetic Canon’, Canon and Authority,
ed. G. W. Coats, 42-55; B. S. Childs, ‘The Canonical Shape of the
Prophetic Literature,’ Interp 32, 1978, 46-68; G. W. Coats and B. O.
Long, eds., Canon and Authority; Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology,
Philadelphia 1977; C. H. Cornill, Der israelittlsche Prophetismus, Berlin
131920; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, Edinburgh and New York
1904; B. Duhm, Israels Propheten, Tiibingen 21922; O. Eissfeldt, ‘The
Prophetic Literature’, The Old Testament and .-1/Iodern Study, ed. H. H. Row-
ley, Oxford and New York 1951, 115-61; F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in I1/Iari
und Israel, Herzberg am Harz 1968; I. Engnell, ‘Prophets and Prophetism
in the Old Testament’, ET in A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville 1969 (=Critical
Essays on the Old Testament, London 1970), 123-79; H. G. A. von Ewald,
Commentary on the Prophets gt the Old Testament, ET, 5 vols, Edinburgh
1875-1881.
G. Fohrer, ‘Tradition und Interpretation im Alten Testament’, Studien
zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (I949-I966), BZA\N 115, 1969,
54-83;J. Fiirst, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1868, 15-54; H. M.
I. Gevaryahu, ‘Biblical Colophons: A Source for the “Biography” of
Authors, Texts and Books’, SVT 28, 1975, 42-59; H. Gunkel, Die Prophe-
ten, Gottingen 1917; A. H. Gunneweg, Miindliche und schriftliche Tradition
der vorexilischen Propheten, Gottingen 1959; W. W. Hallo, ‘New Viewpoints
on Cuneiform Literature’, IE] 12, 1962, 13-26; G. Holscher, Die Pro/ieten,
Leipzig 1914; C. K. Hofrnann, VI/'eissagun_g und Efillung, 2 vols.,
Erlangen 1841-44; A. Jepsen, Nabi. .\/Iunich 1934‘, P. Katz, ‘The Old
306 THE LATTER PROPHETS
Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria’, ZNW 47, 1956, 191-217;
A. Kuenen, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, ET London 1877; W. G.
Lambert, ‘Ancestors, Authors and Canonicity’,_]CS 11, 1957, 1-14; C.
H. Lebram, ‘Aspekte der alttestamentliehen Kanonbildung’, VT 18, 1968,
173-89; Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel , ET Oxford 1962, Philadel-
phia 1963; S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization Qf Hebrew Scripture, Hamden,
Conn. 1976; W. E. March, ‘Prophecy’, Old Testament Form Criticism, ed.J.
H. Hayes, San Antonio, Texas 1974, 141-77; M. Margolis, The Hebrew
Scriptures in the Making, Philadelphia 1922; R. Melugin, The Formation of
Isaiah 40-55, BZAW 141, 1976; W. L. Moran, ‘New Evidence from Mari
on the History of Prophecy’, Bibl 50, 1969, 15-56; S. Mowinckel, Prophecy
and Tradition, Oslo 1946; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology II, ET Lon-
don and New York 1965; T. H. Robinson, ‘Die prophetischen Biicher im
Lichte neuer Entdeckungen’, ZAW45, 1927, 3-9; H. E. Ryle, The Canon if
the Old Testament, London 1892, 94-118.
J. A. Sanders, ‘Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy’, Canon and
Authoricy, ed. G. W. Coats, 21-41; N. H. Sarna, ‘The Order ofthe Books’,
Studies in jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of Edward Kiev,
ed. C. Berlin, New York 1971, 407-13; W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets
oflsrael, London 21895; H. L. Strack, ‘Kanon des Alten Testaments’, RE-2
9, 741-68; H. B. Swete, ‘Title, Grouping, Number, and Order of the
Books’, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 21914,
reprinted New York 1968, 197-230; S. Talmon and M. Fishbane, ‘The
Structuring of Biblical Books, Studies in the Book of Ezekiel’, ASTI 10,
1976, 129-53; G. M. Tucker, ‘Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth
ofa Canon’, Canon and Authority, ed. G. W. Coats, 56-70; R. R. Wilson,
‘Form-critical Investigation of the Prophetic Literature: The Present Situ-
ation’, SBL Seminar Papers 1973, 100-27; ‘Prophecy and Society in Ancient
Israel: The Present State ofthe Inquiry’, ibid., 1977, 341-58; R. E. Wolfe,
‘The Editing of the Book of the Twelve’, ZAW 53, 1935, 90-129; T. Zahn,
‘Ziihlungen der biblischen Biicher’, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons
11,1, Erlangen und Leipzig 1890, 318-43; W. Zirnmerli, The Law and the
Prophets, ET Oxford 1965, New York 1967.
Histagz of Exegesis
W. Baumgartner, ‘Die Auffassung des 19._]ahrhunderts von israelitischen
Prophetismus’ (1922), reprinted in Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwett,
Leiden 1959, 27-41; R. E. Clements, A Centuga of Old Testament Study,
Guildford and Philadelphia 1976, 51-75; E. Cothenet, ‘Prophétisme dans
1e Nouveau Testament’, DBS 8, 1222-1337; B. Decker, Die Entwicklung der
Lehre von der prophetischen Ojfenbamng van Wilhelm van Auxerre bis zu Thomas van
Again, Breslau 1940; L. Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christ-
lichen Kirche, jena 1869, 650-60, 760-73; W. Hiibner, Die Praphetenfor-
schung des Alten Testaments seit der Mitte des I8. jahrhunderts, Diss. Heidelberg
1957; H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der histarisch-kritischen Eiforschung des Alten
Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969, 144-ff., 205ff., 275f1‘.; E. Von Matter,
Die Au_[fa.ssun_g der alttestamentliehen Praphetie von Eichhorn bis Volz, Diss.
Halle-Witten berg 1923; A. _]. Reines, Maimonides und Abrabanel on Prophegy,
Cincinnati 1970; H. H. Rowley, ‘The Nature of Old Testament Prophecy
in the Light of Recent Study’, The Servant qf the Lard, London 21965,
95-134; E. Sehmsdorf, Die Prophetenauslegung bei G. Eichhorn, Gottingen
1971; T. Sherlock, ‘The Limitation of Prophecy’, in Religious Thought in the
Eighteenth Century, ed. M. Creed and M. Boys Smith, Cambridge and
New York 1934, 61-64; H. Witsius, Miscettaneorum sacrorum Iibri quatuor I,
Leyden 1736, 1-317.
XVII
ISAIAH
tween the first and second parts of the book point to different
authors.
(c) The role of the Hebrew prophet involved addressing the
people of his day with contemporary issues in the light of God’s
commands. lfchs. 401T. were spoken by an eighth-century prophet
to the needs of an exilic people some 150 years in the future, it
would be a situation without parallel in the rest of the Old Testa-
ment (cf. the case made by G. A. Smith, Isaiah I1).
Conservative scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, reacted
vigorously with the following rebuttal.
(a) The present literary context attributes the whole book to
Isaiah which tradition is supported by rabbinic and New Testa-
ment authority.
(b) There are enough similarities in language and concepts to
maintain a unified authorship. The differences are to he explained
by the new subject matter and altered intention of the prophet.
(c) The supernatural quality ofthe prophecy isjeopardized ifchs.
40fI. were written in the sixth century rather than in the eighth.
However, by the end of the nineteenth century the force of the
historical critical arguments against a unified authorship appeared
to have convinced the great majority of Old Testament scholars.
The appointment ofA. Dillmann to Hengstenberg’s chair in Berlin,
and the reversal of positions by Franz Delitzsch in the fourth edi-
tion ofhis commentary, marked the end of the last serious opposi-
tion to the critical view within Germany. In Britain A. B. David-
son’s defence of the new position in 1883 — even when made with
great caution - broke the back of the conservative resistance and
cleared the way for G. A. Smith’s immensely popular commentary
of 1890 and S. R. Driver’s definitive Introduction of 1891. In America
the conservative position continued to find support for several more
decades from the Old Princeton school, but it represented increas-
ingly an isolated, minority opinion.
Whereas at the close ofthe nineteenth century both C. A. Smith
and S. R. Driver felt the need to mount an extended case for the
critical perspective, by the beginning of the twentieth century this
position was more and more taken for granted. Likewise the her-
meneutical principle becatne virtually axiomatic that a biblical
book could only be properly understood when interpreted in the
light ofits original historical setting. This historical review is not to
suggest that conservative opposition ceased, hut that its defence by
318 rnr; LATTER PROPHETS
scholars such as O. T. Allis and E. Young did not advance
substantially beyond the defensive lines set by Hengstenberg a cen-
tury earlier. When some conservative scholars, such as W. A.
Wordsworth, tried to defend the traditional stance with new histor-
ical evidence, the results were highly unconvincing and just as
speculative as the arguments which they contested. As late as 1905
the Roman encyclical supported the unity of Isaianic authorship,
but the position was generally abandoned by Catholic scholars
after the new encyclical of 1943. Conservative Jewish scholarship
never had the same stake in the traditional authorship of Isaiah as
they had in the Pentateuch, and by the early twentieth century
Jewish scholars generally went along with the new critical position
(cf. e.g. Y. Kaufmann).
One of the immediate effects of the new critical consensus was
that the study of the book of Isaiah became sharply separated into
two distinct sections. Increasingly commentaries on the two parts
of the book were assigned to different authors, and the history of
critical research for each book went its separate way.
faith for whom the book oflsaiah functions as scripture still seeks a
much more basic understanding ofthe relation ofcanon to criticism
than has been provided up to now. How then does a reckoning with
canon affect the understanding of the book of Isaiah?
Schoors). On the one hand, critical scholars argued that the phrase
‘former things’ must refer to events which were prior to the stand-
point of the speaker. The events which were then experienced by
both the speaker and the addressee confirmed the truth of the
earlier prediction regarding these ‘former things’. Then on the basis
of this confirmation, the prophet made a fresh prediction for the
future in terms of‘the latter things’. Therefore, the coming ofCyrus
was described as a predicted ‘former thing’ (41.25; 44.24ff.), which
had been confirmed. The coming deliverance of Israel from Baby-
lon through Cyrus was then announced for the future as a ‘new
thing’ (48.3lf.). Because the logic of the idiom demanded that the
speaker be standing in between the former and latter things, the
prophecy could not have been written by the eighth-century pro-
phet Isaiah, but only by the sixth-century Second Isaiah (cf. G. A.
Smith, ‘Introduction’, Isaiah II, for the development of the argu-
ntent). ‘
On the other hand, this usual historical interpretation could find
no convincing reference to a prophecy regarding Cyrus which Sec-
ond Isaiah had pronounced (contra North), even though the force of
the whole argument rested on the fulfilment of a former word. It
‘wits usually assumed that the oracles at issue either could not be
tletermincd (Skinner) or had been lost. As a result, although the
exlllt‘ setting of Second Isaiah came into sharp focus, the message
itself was deemed to be only a torso.
ltt my judgment, recognition of the new theological context pro-
xitletl by the canon affords a way out of this impasse. Critical
t-\t-gt-sis has correctly described the original setting of the speaker,
lllll has missed the basic theological witness by disregarding its new
t.t||tt|1it‘ttl shape. The ‘former things’ can now only refer to the
ptoplteeies of First Isaiah. The point of Second Isaiah’s message is
tlt.tt this prophetic word has been confirmed. Once the connection
lit'l\\t‘t'lt first and Second Isaiah is severed, then the latter is indeed
ottlt .t eottfused fragment. The canonical shape testifies to the con-
tt|)t|it\ ol'(}od’s plan with Israel which was first announced in chs.
I W .tt|<l eonftrnted in chs. 40ff. In the light of the present shape of
the hook of Isaiah the question must be seriously raised if the
ttt.tIt't'i;ll of Second Isaiah itt fact ever circulated in Israel apart
ttottt its being etnttteetetl to an earlier form of First Isaiah.
(iett.tinl_\' the litree of ntnelt of the imagery of both Second and
lltntl Isaiah is tnissetl unless the eonneetion with First Isaiah is
330 THE LATTER PROPHETS
inserted between First and Second Isaiah. They were edited in such
a way as to anticipate the Babylonian exile of chs. 40ff. (cf. particu-
larly 39.6, ‘nothing shall be left’) and thus they provided a histori-
cal context for Second Isaiah’s message of hope. These chapters in
their canonical context have assumed a new metaphorical role as a
commentary on the death and rebirth of the nation.
In sum, a major aim of the theological redaction of First Isaiah
was to assure that its message was interpreted in the light ofSecond
Isaiah. An interesting dialectic movement was thus established
when one recalls that the reverse effect was discernible in the edit-
ing of Second Isaiah.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, l22—6; DBS 4, 728f.; DThC 8, 77f.; EB 3, 935f.;RGG3 3, 611.
Commentaries
F. Hitzig, KeH, =1at-as A. Condamin, EB, 11936
C. F. Keil, BC, 1880 L. Dennefeld, SB, I946
J. Knabenbauer, CSS, I889 H. Freedman, SonB, 1949
B. Duhm, KHC, 1901 J. P. Hyatt, IB, I956
C. H. Cornill, I905 H. Lamparter, BAT, I964
F. Giesebrecht, HK, 21907 J. Bright, AB, I965
1.. Elliott Binns, WC, 1919 A. Weiser, ATD, 51966
_]. W. Rothstein, HSAT, ‘I922 W. Rudolph, HAT, 31968
P. Volz, KAT, 21928 A. van Selms, POuT, 1972-4 .
(J. A. Smith, 41929 E. W. Nicholson, CNEB, 1973-75
Bibliography
1’. R. Ackroyd, ‘Aspects of the Jeremiah Tradition’, Indian journal ojf
Theology 20, Serampore 1971, I-12; F. Augustin, ‘Baruch und das Buch
_|t-remia’, ZAW 67, 1955, 50-56; H. Bardtke, ‘Jeremia der Fremdv6lker-
propllct‘, ZAW 53, I935, 209-39; 54, I936, 240-62; A. Baurnann, ‘Urrolle
tttttl Fasttag. Zur Rekonstruktion der Urrolle desJeremiabuches nach den
.-\ngaben in Jet". 36’, ZAW 80, 1968, 350-73; W. Baumgartner, Die
Itlagedichte desjeremia, BZAW 32, I9l7;J. M. Berridge, Prophet, People and
the Word cg‘ Yahweh, Zurich 1970; H. Birkeland, Zam hebriitlrclzen Traditions-
.'t'etert, Oslo I938, 4lff.; S. H. Blank, ‘The Confessions ofJeremiah, and
the Meaning of Prayer’, HUCA 21, 1948, 331-54; Jeremiah, Man and Pro-
phet, (Iincinnati 1961; Bright, ‘The Date of the Prose Sermons in
_]t-rt-tttiah’._/BL 70, 1951, 15-35; ‘The Prophetic Reminiscence: Its Place
.tutl l"unetion in the Book of Jeremiah’, Biblical Essays, Proceedings: Die
(It:-Tettamentiese Werltgemeensltap, Stellenbosch 1966, 11-30; ‘Jeremiah’s
( It tntplaints’, Proclamation and Presence, Essays in honour ofG. H. Davies, ed.J.
l. l)urham antl_|. R. Porter, London and Richmond, Va. I970, 189-214;
W. Brueggemann, ‘Jeremiah’s use of Rhetorical Questi0ns’,_]BL 92,
340 THE LATTER PROPHETS
1973, 358-74; K. Budde, ‘Uber die Capitel 50 und 51 des Buches
Jeremia’,Jahrbiicher_fiir deutsche Theologie 23, Leipzig 1878, 428-70, 529-62.
U. Cassuto, ‘The Prophecies of Jeremiah concerning the Gentiles’,
Biblical and Oriental Studies, I: The Bible, Jerusalem 1973, 178-226; H.
Cazelles, ‘Jérémie et le Deutéronome’, RechSR 38, 1951, 5-36; ‘Sophonie,
Jérémie et les Scythes en Palestine’, RB 74, 1967, 24-44; B. S. Childs,
‘The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition’,_]BL 78, 1959,
187-98;J. L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, BZAW 124, 1971; O. Eissfeldt,
‘Jeremias Drohorakel gegen Agypten und gegen Babel’, Verbannung und
Heimkehr. PS W. Rudolph, Tiibingen 1961, 31-37; W. Erbt,_]erernia und seine
Zeit, Gottingen 1902; G. Fohrer, ‘Jeremias Tempelwort 7,1-15’, 7Z 5,
1949, 401-17; E. Gerstenberger, ‘Jeremiah’s Complaints’,_]BL 82, 1963,
393-408; A. H. Gunneweg, ‘Konfession oder Interpretation im
Jeremiabuch’, ZTK 67, 1970, 395-416; S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen
Heilserwartungen irri Alten Testament, BWANT V.5 (=85), 1965, 159ff.; ‘Die
Bewéiltigung der Krise Israels. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation des
Buches Jeremia’, Beitriige zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, FS W. Zimmerli,
Gottingen 1977, 164-78; ‘Forschung am Jeremiabuch. Problem und Ten-
denzen ihrer neueren Entwieklung’, TLZ 102, 1977, 481-90.
T. R. Hobbs, ‘Some Remarks on the Composition and Structure ofthe
Book ofJeremiah’, CBQ 34, 1974, 257-75; W. L. Holladay, ‘Style, Irony
and Authenticity in the Book ofJeremiah’,jBL 81, 1962, 44-54; ‘Pro-
totypes and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the
Book ofJeremiah’,_]BL 79, 1966, 351-67; ‘A Fresh Look at “source B”
and “source C” in Jeremiah’, VT 25, 1975, 394-412; The Architecture of
Jeremiah I-20, Lewisburg and London 1976; F. Horst, ‘Die Anfzinge des
Propheten Jeremia,’ ZAW 41, 1923, 94-153; W. Horwitz, ‘Audience
Reaction to Jeremiah’, CBQ 32, 1970, 555-64; F.-L. Hossfeld and I.
Meyer, ‘Der Prophet vor dem Tribunal’, ZAW 86, 1974, 30-50; P.
Hyatt, ‘Torah in the Book ofJeremiah’,_]BL 60, 1941, 381-96; ‘Jeremiah
and Deuteronomy’,_]NES 1, I942, 156-73; ‘The Deuteronomic Edition of
Jeremiah’, Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities, 1, Nashville 1951, 71-95;
The Beginnings ofJeremiah’s Prophecy’, ZA W 78, 1966, 204-14; G.
Janzen, Studies in the Text ofJeremiah HSM 6, 1973' M. Kessler, ‘Form-
Critical Suggestions on Jer. 36’, CBQ 28, 1966, 389-401; ‘Jeremiah Chap-
ters 26-45 Reconsidered’,_[NES 27, 1968, 81-8; ‘Rhetoric in Jeremiah 50
and 51’, Semitics 3, Pretoria 1973, I8-35; Kraus, Prophetie in der Krisis,
Neukirchen 1964; H. Kremers, ‘Leidensgemeinschaft mit Gott im Alten
Testament: Eine Untersuchung der “biographischen” Berichte im
Jeremiabuch’, EvTh 13, 1953, 122-40; O. Loretz, ‘Die Spriiche Jeremias
in Jer. 1.17-9.25’, Ugaritforschungen 2, Neukirchen I970, 109-30.
G. C. Macholz, ‘Jeremia in der Kontinuitat der Prophetic’, Probleme
biblischer Theologie, FS G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 306-34; H. C. May,
‘Towards an Objective Approach to the Book of Jeremiah: The Biog-
rapher’,_]BL 61, 1942, 139-55; ‘The Chronology of_]eremiah's Oracles’,
JEREMIAH 341
The Deuteronomicframewor/c
.\ second feature of the canonical shaping of the present form of
the hook of Jeremiah is the perspective provided by the
I le1tlt't‘tmt)t‘t‘liC flavoured prose sections which now frame the entire
|t‘l‘t'llll2lIllt‘ corpus. The decision to attach a verbatim excerpt from
ll Kings 24 to the book ofJeremiah, following the explicit conclu-
Rlltll to the prophet’s own words (51.64), is a further confirmation
tl1.tt his words are viewed as a prophecy leading up to the events
It‘|ItIl'l(‘(l in ll Kings. liqually important is the role of the Dtr. prose
.tt t ttlllll at the itttrotlttrtitm. The call ofJeremiah is part of the early
|tttt'll(' level, lmt the true si_gni|it‘at1ce of the call is explained in
l.tttQ1t;.|_Qt' l't‘|11i1llr~;t't'lll of l)t'ttlt‘I't>|lu|Il‘y (_|t'I‘. l.l.5ll’.). Tllfi‘ same
348 THE LATTER PROPHETS
reign, through the fall olijerusalem, and during the final period of
his life in Egypt.
One of the striking Features ofthis biographical material is that
many of the events recorded in this section contain abbreviated
summaries of oracles which are Found elsewhere in the earlier col-
lections in addition to descriptions ofincidents in the prophet’s life.
The classic example is the paralleled account of the temple speech
in_]er. 7. l—l5 and 36. lff. It seems quite evident that the biographi-
cal material, called B by Mowinckel, has undergone its own par-
ticular history. With a Few exceptions (cli. Wanke), the general
historical accuracy of the accounts has not been seriously chal-
lenged. Often the composition of the material has been attributed
to Baruch, not only because of his close association with the pro-
phet during this period and his explicit role as amanuensis, but
especially because of the private oracle in ch. 45 which appears to
conclude the collection. However, these critical issues have not
heen Fully resolved.
Scholars have argued at great length as to the purpose of the
biographical accounts within the book as a whole. H. Kremers’
st|g'f.-1{t€'S[lOI1 ofseeing the aim of the stories to portray the ‘passion of‘
|t-rerniah’ (l.eidensge.rchichte) has been accepted by some scholars.
l)l.ll appears to many as unconvincing. More recent studies, es-
pecially that of Nicholson, have emphasized that the chief interest
til“ the stories does not really fall on the personal sufiering of the
pmphet. His suffering serves as only a secondary element within a
I;irger Framework. Rather, the stories reflect a theological interest in
ilt-monstrating from his history ‘the rejection of the Word ofGod‘
~.poken by his prophets (Nicholson, 55). Thus the reaction to
|t-rt-mial1’s temple speech (ch. 26) is Followed by a similar story
it-g";ii'clir1g another prophet, Uriah, who was murdered because of”
his message of_judgment. Again, Nicholson has made an illuminat-
ni_i_-_ point in showing the conscious typological ellort to contrast the
tI'it‘t'llUll oIi_]eremiah’s message by the wicked king, Jehoiakim,
\\ itli the earlier acceptance by the repentant king,_]osiah (ll Kings
'1'].
The inclusion ofliiograpliical stories is ofgreat importance in the
t|n.i| slizipiiig o|' the_]e|'e|nianic material by the canonical tradition.
I‘ n.~.t. ll is an lIl(llt‘;lllt)Il tli;il_]eremiah"s proclamation consisted not
|ii~.t Ill. his \uit'tls_ l)lll was i't~|)t't's<‘|itctl liy his whole lili“. The pro-
|Il|t‘l tint only t'tlllSlH'l(‘lIll‘_\' w;trnt-tl olithe (‘t)IlIlI1_g'(li\‘llI('_lll(lg'Illt‘ll[
350 THE LATTER PROPHETS
upon the nation, but he participated himselfin thejudgment of his
people. The collectors of _]eremiah’s words moved in a direction
quite different from that taken by the editors ofthe eighth-century
prophets. They acknowledged by their inclusion of his life story
that a complete understanding of his ministry demanded elements
of both speech and action. Similarly, von Rad has made an
illuminating interpretation of the so-called ‘confessions’ in showing
that the central issue in recording the inner struggles ofthe prophet
turned on the nature of the prophetic office and the full dimensions
of divine judgment as a theological issue.
There is an additional element of significance to be observed
regarding the canonical role of the biographical material. Previ-
ously we discussed the problem of relating the poetic material (A)
with the Dtr. flavoured prose (C). The biographical material (B)
forms an important link in the redactional process. The false im-
pression of this process has often been engendered that the Dtr.
framework imposed a layer of foreign accretion upon the genuine
poetic portrait ofjeremiah. That this approach is a basic misunder-
standing of the tradition’s growth emerges clearly from the inclu-
sion of the biographical material. It is of crucial significance to
recognize that both _]eremiah’s message and his office were
immediately understood by his audience in terms congruent with
the Dtr. interpretation ofthe C prose. The biographical tradition of
Jeremiah is not built upon the early poetic material, but rather is
fully in accord with the Dtr. portrayal. The picture of_]eremiah as a
preacher ofjudgment did not, therefore, arise from a tendentious
literary programme, but was formed by the events of history, such
as the temple speech, when seen in the light ofscripture, and was so
perceived by both circles of disciples.
(a) First of all, by taking seriously the canonical shape of the book
ofJeremiah a different stance emerges as to how one evaluates the
different levels of tradition within the book. It has been typical of
the critical method, shared by such varying approaches as Duhm,
von Rad, and Bright, to seek to recover the ‘authenticJeremiah’ by
making use chiefly of the poetic oracles. As a result, the explicit
structure by which the prophetic material was shaped is consis-
tently removed as late and tendentious. Over against this her-
meneutical reflex a canonical approach to the book strives to
understand the full dimension of the interpreted testimony.
.-\lthough it does not burden the canonical profile with claims of
historicity, it acknowledges the normative theological shaping of
the material by the canon. It does not seek to play off the various
levels of tradition against each other, but rather follows the leads
within the composite as to how the parts relate theologically.
(b) Secondly, a most significant feature of the canonical shaping
lies in the close relation established between the law and the
prophets. Whereas critical scholarship has concentrated much ofits
cllort in seeking to discover how the historicalJeremiah reacted to
the Josianic reform in order to forge a bridge to the book of
lh-uteronomy, the biblical tradition itself passed over the incident
in complete silence. Rather, it placed Jeremiah within the tradition
of preachers of the law and provided the later community with a
|iru|)ll(‘liC interpretation ofhow the law properly functioned within
lllc divine economy. To take this interpretation seriously rules out
hoth an alleged conflict between the law and the prophets, and also
.t legalistic .suhordination of the latter into a minor role.
tr) l<’inally. the canonical approach speaks to the issue of prophe-
tit" collections as scripttn'e. ln my judgment, attention to the canon
354 THE LATTER PROPHETS
calls forth a very different model from that currently employed by
the majority of critical scholars. The theological function of the
book ofJeremiah is not adequately treated by using it as a referen-
tial source for historical reconstruction, whether or not one’s
approach is liberal (Hyatt) or conservative (Bright). Likewise, a
redactional approach which views the book as an historical actual-
ization of exilic preaching rests upon a non-canonical reconstruc-
tion in its effort to make the book serve theologically. It renders
interpretation dependent upon recovering a depth dimension
within the text when it has not been assigned a canonical function.
Moreover, this approach to actualization as a response to the com-
munity’s needs fails to reckon with the critical force unleashed by
Israel’s scriptures in establishing a new context from which to
interpret the growing tradition. Finally, the canonical approach
affirms that the witness of the book for the community of faith,
Jewish and Christian, which confesses its authority, lies in the form
which it received by the tradition in order to mediate the prophetic
word for every future generation.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 174-7; DThC 8, 884-8; EB 3, 885; RGG3 3, 590.
Commentaries
1-1. W. Hengstenberg, 1869 L. Dennefeld, SB, 1946
R. Smend, KeH, 21880 F. Fisch, SonB, 1950
(I. F. Keil, BC, 1882 G. Fohrer, K. Galling, HAT2, 1955
(.1. H. Cornill, 1886 H. G. May, IB, 1955
I. Knabenbauer, CSS, 1890 B. Aalders, COuT, 1955-57
.\. B. Davidson, CB, 1892 H. Lamparter, BAT, 1968
.\. Bertholet, KHC, 1897 W. Zimmerli, BK, 1969
_]. Herrmann, KAT, 1924 W. Wevers, NCeB, 1969
(;. A. Cooke, ICC, 1936 W. Eichrodt, ET, OTL, 1970
.\. Bertholet, K. Galling, HAT,
1936
l 1’ ihl i()gT(1p,l_)l
| (i. Aalders, Gog en Magog in Ezechiel, Kampen 1951; P. R. Ackroyd,
I-‘tile and Restoration, OTL, 1968, 103-17; P. Auvray, ‘Le probleme his-
t-iriquc tlu livre d’Ezechiel’, RB 55, 1948, 503-19; ‘Ezéchiel’, DBS 8, 1970,
fill-91; D. Baltzer, Ezechiel and Deaterojesaja, BZAW 121, 1971; E.
Haumann, ‘Die Hauptvisionen Ezechiels in ihrem zeitlichen und sach-
ln hen Zusammenhang untersucht’, ZAW 67, 1955, 56-67; G. R. Berry,
‘the Composition of the Book of Ezekiel’, JBL 58, 1939, 163-75; E.
llroome, ‘E.zekiel’s Abnormal Personality’, _]BL 65, 1946, 277-92; K.
Budde. ‘Zum Eingang des Buches Ezechie1’,_]BL 50, 1931, 20-41; M.
Burrows, The Literary Relations qfEzekiel, New Haven 1925; K. W. Carley,
l- -t-Air! among the Prophets, SBT 11.31, 1975; U. Cassuto, ‘The Arrangement
III the Book of Ezekiel’, Biblical and Oriental Studies I, Jerusalem 1973,
"’ I -it); H. van Dijk, I'.’.;ekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre, Rome 1968; L. Diirr, Die
\zillim_g der Propheten Ifgechiel in der israelitisch-_jzidischen Apokalyptik, Miinster
1'I'."i; W. Eichrodt, ‘Der Salihat bei Hesekiel. Ein Beitrag zur Nachge-
-.t hichte th-s Propltetentcxtes’, I.ex tun veritas, F5 H. jun/rer, Trier 1961,
356 THE LATTER PROPHETS
65-74; ‘Der neue Tempe] in der Heilshoffnung Hesekiel’, Dasjerne and nahe
Wort, FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 37ff.; K. Elliger, ‘Die grossen Tempel-
sakristeien im Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (42, lff.)’, Geschichte and
Altes Testament, FS A. Alt, Tiibingen 1953, 79-103.
G. Fohrer, ‘Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel’, ZAW 63, 1951, 33-53; Die
Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel, BZAW 72, 1952; Die syrnbolischen Hand-
lungen der Propheten, Ztirich 1953; D. N. Freedman ‘The Book of Ezekiel’,
Interp 8, 1954, 446-71; F. S. Freedy, ‘The Glosses in Ezekiel i-xxiv’, VT 20,
1970, 129-52; Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch, Berne and Frankfurt
1974; H. Gese, Der Verfassungsentwugf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40-43) traditionsge-
schichtlich untersucht, BHT 25, 1957; ‘Ez 20,25fund die Erstgeburtsopfer’,
Beitrage zur alttestamentliehen Theologie, F-S’ W. Zimmerli, Gottingen 1977,
140-51; M. Greenberg, ‘On Ezekie1’s Dumbness’,_]BL 77, 1958, 101-5;
‘The Citations in the Book of Ezekiel as a Background for the Prophecies’
(Hebrew), Beth 1'1/Ii/tra 50, Jerusalem 1973, 273-8; M. Haran, ‘Ezekie1’s
Code (Ezek. xl-xlviii) and its Relation to the Priestly School’ (Hebrew),
Tarbiz 44, Jerusalem 1974-5, 30-53; J. Harvey, ‘Collectivisme et indi-
vidualisme, Ez. 18, 1-32 etJér. 31,29’, Sciences Ecclésiastiqaes 10, Montreal
1958, 167-202; V. Herntrich, Ezechielprobleme, BZAW 61, 1932; S.
Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament, BWANT
V.5 (=85), 1965, 24lff.; G. Hiilscher, Hesekiel. Der Dichter and das Buch,
BZAW 39, 1924; F. Horst, ‘Exilsgemeinde und Jerusalem in Ez viii-xi.
Eine literarische Untersuchung’, VT 3, 1953, 337-60; C. G. Howie, The
Date and Composition Qf Ezekiel, New Haven 1950; VV. A. Irwin, The Problem
qfEzelciel, Chicago 1943; ‘Ezekiel Research since 1943’, VT 3, 1953, 54-66;
G. Jahn, Das Buch Egechiel anf Grand des Septuaginta hergestellt, Leipzig 1905;
K. Jaspers, ‘Der Prophet Ezechiel. Eine pathographische Studie’, Arbeiten
gar Psychiatric, Neurologie and ihren Grenggebieten, FS K. Schneider, Heidelberg
1947, 77-85.
P. Katz, ‘Zur Textgestaltung der Ezechiel-Septuaginta’, Bibl 35, 1954,
29-39; C. Kuhl, ‘Zur Geschichte der Hesekiel-Forschung’, ThR NF 5,
1933, 92-118; ‘Neuere Hesekielliteratur’, ThR NF 20, 1952, 1-26; ‘Der
Schauplatz der \Nirksamkeit Hesekiels’, TZ 8, 1952, 401-18; ‘Zum Stand
der Hesekiel-Forschung’, ThR NF 24, 1956-7, 1-53; D. Levenson,
Theology ofthe Program Qf-R£.Fl0T£1l1‘07l qfE.gelriel 40-48, HSM 10, 1976; H. G.
May, ‘The Departure of the Glory of Yahweh’,_]BL 56, 1937, 309-21;
W. Miller, Das Verhiiltnis jeremias and Heselriels sprachlich and theologisch unter-
sucht, Assen 1955; W. L. Moran, ‘Gen. 49,10 and its Use in Ez. 21,32’, Bibl
39, 1958, 405-25; M. Noth, ‘La catastrophe de Jerusalem en l’an 587
avant Jesus-Christ et sa signification pour Israel’, RHPhR 33, 1953, 81-
102=GSAT, 21960, 346-71; R. A. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylo-
nian Chronology 625 BC-AD 45, Brown University" Studies 19, Providence
1956; K. von Rabenau, ‘Die Entstehung des Buches Ezechiel in forni-
geschichtlichen Sicht’, l-1/Z Halle 5, 1955-6, 659-94; ‘Das prophetische
Zukunftswort im Buche Hesekiel’, Studien zur Theologie der alfleslamentlichen
EZEKIEL 357
flberlieferungen, Neukirchen 1961, 61-80; H. Graf von Reventlow, ‘Die
Viilkern als Jahwes Zeugen bei Ezechiel’, ZAW 71, 1959; 33-43; Wack-
ter fiber Israel. Ezechiel und seine Tradition, BZAW 82, 1962; H. H. Rowley,
‘The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study’, Bu/RL 36, 1953, 146-90; reprinted
in Men Q/“God, London and New York 1963, 163ff.; A. van Selms, ‘Liter-
ary Criticism of Ezekiel as a Theological Problem’, OuTl/VP 4, 1961, 24-
37;James Smith, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: A New Introduction, London
and New York 1931; S. Spiegel, ‘Ezekiel or Pseudo-Ezekiel?’, HTR 24,
1931, 245-321; ‘Toward Certainty in Ezekiel’,_]BL 44, 1935, 145-71.
S. Talmon and M. Fishbane, ‘The Structuring of Biblical Books:
Studies in the Book of Ezekiel‘, ASTI 10, 1976, 129-53; C. C. Torrey,
Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophegy, New Haven and London 1930; M.
Tsevat, ‘The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the
Prophet Ezekie1’,_]BL 78, 1959, 199-204; N. Turner, ‘The Greek Trans-
lators of Ezekiel’,_]TS 7, 1956, 12-24; R. R. Wilson, ‘An Interpretation of
Ezekiel’s Dumbness’, VT 22, 1972, 91-104; Ziegler, ‘Zur Textgestal-
tung der Ezechiel-Septuaginta’, Bibl 34, 1953, 435-55; W. Zimmerli, ‘Das
Gotteswort des Ezechiel’, ZTK 48, 1951, 249-62=Gottes Offenbarung,
Munich 1963, 133ff.; Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel, Ziirich
l954=Gottes Offenbamng, 41ff.; ‘Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des
Ezechiel’, ZAW 61, 1955, 1—26=Gottes Ofjenbarung 148ff.; ‘Das Wort des
giittlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung‘, in
llélanges A. Robert, Paris 1957, 154-64; ‘Der WahrheitserweisJahwes nach
der Botschaft der beiden Exilspropheten’, Tradition und Situation, FS A.
ll/eiser, Gijttingen 1963, l33ff.; Ezechiel. Gestalt und Botschaft, BSt 62, 1972;
‘l)eutero-Ezechieli", ZAW 84, 1972, 501-16.
The present shape of the book derives from a long and complex
canonical process which collected and shaped the material to func-
tion as authoritative writing within the Jewish community. In the
history of research on the book of Ezekiel, similar to the handling of
other prophetic books, the advocates of the usual historical critical
methods strove to relate each passage to a particular historical
event or situation. Particularly in Ezekiel’s case, the changing geo-
graphical locale, the fluid historical perspective, and the symbolic
forms of speech proved a major stumbling-block to this approach.
Unfortunately, evidence ofother forces at work which mitigated the
direct historical stimuli was dismissed as unimportant accretion or
redactional misunderstanding.
In addition, there is another peculiarity to the book of Ezekiel
which complicated the issue and made an understanding of the
canonical shape of the book even more elusive. The uniqueness of
EZEKIEL 361
Ezekiel among the major prophets derives from the unusual rela-
tionship between the original function of the oracles and its subse-
quent canonical shaping. I would argue the thesis that Ezekiel’s
original historical role was shaped by forces closely related to those
which have been characterized as canonical. The effect ofthis join-
ing of influences has been that there has emerged the strongest
continuity between the original oracles and the final canonical
shape. The prophetic material in this case did not undergo a major
literary or historical transformation in order to serve its new canon-
ical role. Indeed, there was a canonical process extending over a
lengthy period of time in which different editorial activity can be
discerned, but the development was one of closest continuity be-
tween the various stages of the literature. Because of this close
relation between the form and function of Ezekiel’s original oracles
and the later canonical use of the material, it is important to study
these features of the original oracles which lent themselves so easily
to later canonical adoption.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 225-7; or/ic 5, 20411.; en 3, 653; RG63 2, 851.
J. Daniélou, ‘La vision des ossements desséchés (Ezéchiel 37,l—14) dans
les Testimonia’, RSR 53, 1965, 220-33;J. Grassi, ‘Ezekiel XXXVII. 1-14
and the New Testament’, NTS ll, 1964-5, 162-4; G. Hacndlcr, ‘Altkir-
chliche Auslegungen zu Ez 3, 17-19’, TLZ 90, 1965, 167-74; J. Harvey,
‘Ezechiel’, DS 4.2, 1961, 2204-20; W. Neuss, Die Entwicklung der theologi-
schen Aujfassung des Buches Ezekiel zur Zeit der Friihscholastik, Bonn I91 1; Das
Buch Ezekiel in Theologie und Kunst bis zum Ende des I2. Jahrhunderts, Munster
1912; S. Poznanski, ‘Introduction’ (Hebrew), Kommentar zu Ezechiel and
den X11. Kleinen Propheten von Eliezeriaus Beaugency, Warsaw 1910-13; A.
Vanhoye, ‘L’utilisation du livre d’Ezéchie1 dans l’Apocalypse’, Bibl 43,
1962, 436-76.
THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE
XX
HOSEA
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 E. Osty,JB, 21958
F. Hitzig, H. Steiner, Kel-I, 41881 A. Deissler, SB, 1961
J. Knabenbauer, CSS, 1886 H. Robinson, HAT, 21964
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1896, (21928) E. Jacob, CAT, 1965
W. R. Harper, ICC,’ 1905 Ward, 1966
.-\. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1966
1'1. Sellin, KAT, 2‘3'l929 A. Weiser, ATD, 51967
S. L. Brown, \VC, 1932 C. van Leeuwen, POuT, 1968
S. M. Lehrman, SonB, 21952 t-t Mays, OTL, 1969
1). Deden 3 BOuT 3 1953 ;E—' \-"V.V1lolff1 Herm I 1974
Bibliography
1’. R. Ackroyd, ‘Hosea andJacob’, VT 13, 1963, 245-59; A. Allwohn, Die
l-fhe des propheten Hosea in p.9/choanalytischer Beleuchtung, BZAW 44, 1926; A.
Alt. ‘Hosea 5,8—6,6. Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Be1eueh-
tttiig’, NKZ 30, 191!-l=KS ll, Munich 1953, l63—87; R. Bach, Die
l-Jtciihlung Israels in der H/'t'iste, Diss. Bonn 1952; E. Baumann, “‘Wissen um
(;ott” bei Hosea als Urform von Theologielt’, EvTh 15, 1955, 416-25; S.
Bitter, Die Ehe des Prophetert Hosea. Eine auslegun_gsgeschichtliche Untersuchung,
(iottiiigen 1975; W. Brueggemann, Tradition for Crisis. A Study in Hosea,
Richmond 1968; K. Budde, ‘Der Schluss des Buches Hosea’, Studies pre-
\t'rllt'd10 C. H. Toy, New York 1912, 205-11; ‘Der Abschnitt Hosea 1-3’
/'lt.\'tl\'r 96/97, 1925, 1-89; M. Buss, The Prophetic Word ofHosea, BZAW
I I I, 196.9; R. E. Clements. ‘Llticlerstanding the Book of Hosea’, Review
nail l'.'ipoiitor 72. l.ouisville, Kit. 1975. 405—2.3;J. F. Craghan, ‘The Book of
lltis‘t‘;lI .-\ Survey of Rcct-tit l.itcratui‘e’, BTB 1, 1971, 81-100; I. Engnell,
'11ost';iliokcii’, .S'ttt'n.til! [lib/iitlt 1'/ip.s/agitierlt 1, Ciivle 1948, 847-83; C.
Fohrer. ‘l7tnl-it-Iir nntl l".i'It"isiuig beim l’rop11t-ten Hosea’, TZ 11, 1955,
llll 113') =.S'tur/icn gm . . . l’rop/trite, ll/..-\\\' ‘1l1_ 1967, 222-fl,‘ H. Frey, ‘Der
374 THE LATTER PROPHETS
Aulbau der Gedichte Hoseas’, WuD 5, 1957, 9-103; H. L. Ginsberg,
‘Studies in Hosea 1-3’, Y. Kaufmannjuhilee Volume,_]erusa1em 1960, 50-69;
‘Hosea’s Ephraim, more Fool than Knave’,_]BL 80, 1961, 339-47; E. M.
Good, ‘The Compositions of Hosea’, SEA 31, 1966, 21-63; ‘Hosea
5,8-6,6: An Alternative to A1t’,_]BL 85, 1966, 276-86; R. Gordis, ‘Hosea's
Marriage and Message: A New Approach’, HUCA 25, 1954, 9-35.
H. Hellbardt, Der verheissene Konig Israels. Das Chrz'stuszeu_gm's ales Hoseas,
Munich 1935; P. Humbert, ‘Osee le prophete bédouin’, RHPhR 1, 1921,
97-118; E. Jacob, ‘L’Héritage cananéen dans le livre du prophéte Osée’,
RHPhR 43, 1963, 250-9; ‘Der Prophet Hosea und die Geschichte’, EvTh
24, 1964, 281-90; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion oflsrael, ET Chicago 1960,
London 1961, amt; _]. Lindb1om,Hosea, literarisch untersucht, ‘Abe 1928;
N. Lohfink, ‘Zu Text und Forum von Os 4,4-6’, Bibl 1961, 303-32;
H. G. May, ‘The Fertility" Cult in Hosea’, AJSL 48, 1932, 73-98; H. S.
Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseahuch, Uppsala 1935; G. Ostborn, Yahweh and
Baal. Studies in the Book ofHosea and Related Documents, Lund 1956; H. W.
Robinson, Two Hebrew Prophets: Studies in Hosea and Ezekiel, London 1948;
H. H. Rowley, ‘The Marriage oiHosea’, B]RL 39, 1956-7, 200—33=Men
of God, London 1963, 66-97; W. Rudolph, ‘Praparierte Jungfraueni”,
ZA W 75, 1963, 65-73; N. H. Snaith, Mercy and Sacrifice. A Stanly on the Book
o/‘Hosea, London 1953; 1V. F. Stinespring, ‘A Problem of Theological
Ethics in Hosea’, Essays in Old Testament Ethics,j. P. Hyatt in Memoriam, ed.
James Crenshaw and T. Willis, New York 1974, 131-44; Vollmer,
Geschichtliche Riiclrhliclte und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und,/esaja,
BZAW’ 119, 1971; T. (1. Vriezen, ‘La tradition de_]acob dans Osée 12’,
OTS 1, 1942, 64-78; M. Ward, ‘The Message of the Prophet Hosea’,
lnterp 23, 1969, 387-407; I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der-Ychrtftexegese innerhalb
des Alten Testaments, BZAW 123, 1971; H. W. Wolff, “‘Wissen um Gott"
bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie’, EvTh 12, 1952--3, 533-54=GSA T,
Munich 1964, 182-205; ‘Der grosse Jezreeltag’, EvTh 12, 1952-3, 78-
104=GSAT, 151-81; ‘Hoseas geistige Heimat’, TLZ 81, 1956, 83-
94=GSA T, 232-50.
The difficulty of interpreting the book of Hosea has long been felt.
_]erome’s often quoted characterization of the book has not been
greatly improved upon: ‘Commaticus est [= in short sections] et
quasi per sententias loquens’ (Pmef. ad xiiproph.). The problems are
intense and varied. At the outset, the nest of problems surrounding
Hosea’s marriage in chs. 1-3 continues to resist the emergence ofa
consensus. Again, the lack ofa clear order within the book remains
baffling. Especially For chs. 4-14 even the vllort to t‘Sl£ll)li!~;l1 the
HOSEA 375
broad lines of divisions evokes much debate. Finally, the Hebrew
text of Hosea is generally regarded as one of the poorest in the Old
Testament.
Within these different areas several generations of modern criti-
cal scholars have expended great energy with only varying degrees
of success. The attempt to reconstruct the historical circumstances
surrounding Hosea’s marriage has been consistently frustrated (cf.
the surveys of Rowley and Bitter). Form-critical analysis has pro-
vided a useful, if mainly negative, service in emphasizing the im-
possibility ofpenetrating behind the text by means ofpsychoanalys-
ing the prophet, or by speculating on a theory of prolepsis in order
to remove the offence. Wolff has made out a good case for seeing
the form of both chs. 1 and 3 to be a prophetic sign-act. Yet the
difficulty of maintaining a consistent interpretation from this pers-
pective has not been overcome (cf. Rudolph’s criticism of Wolff).
The perennial attempt even by such modern scholars as Gress-
mann to resort to a symbolic interpretation of the marriage is a
further confirmation of the impasse in recovering the original
event
Similarly, the attempt to resolve the form-critical problems ofthe
book has met with persistent obstacles. Indeed, form-critical work
has at times succeeded in bringing certain sections into sharper
historical focus. For example, Alt has made out a good case for
relating 5.8ff. to the crisis of the Syrian-Ephraimic War of 734.
Then again Wolff has uncovered portions of prophetic disputation
oracles, of memorabilia, judgment oracles, and prophetic promises.
lNhat emerge frequently are bits and pieces of fragmented oracles.
Often Wolffis forced to posit several different voices in a passage or
to suggest a shift in audience in an effort to find coherence. In the
end, he speaks ofa larger ‘kerygmatic’ structure which has blurred
this original level of proclamation into a loose topical arrangement
of association. Although the modern form critic suspects that
Hosea’s oracles once functioned in a way analogous to those of
Amos, thisjudgment remains unproven and the present form ofthe
book has apparently obliterated this earlier level almost beyond
recovery. In part, Buss’s attempt to provide a more comprehensive
stylistic approach to the book arose from the inability of form critic-
ism alone successfully to analyse the form ofthe book.
The history of the book’s redactional development is equally
perplexing. (lertztittly the credit for pursuing this issue with the
376 THE LATTER PROPHETS
greatest thoroughness belongs again to Wolff. He argues for three
different transmission complexes. Chapters 1-3 contain a portion of
the prophet’s own memorabilia which are written in the first person
form of address. This material has been added to and expanded by
a disciple in 1.2-6, 8f. A second complex (chs. 4-ll) reflecting
many different periods, was written down in kerygmatic units
within Hosea’s circle of disciples shortly after being delivered. A
third complex (12-14) does not go back to the prophet himself, but
stems from his circle of disciples and is dated in the last period of
the Northern Kingdom. These three complexes were later transmit-
ted by a Deuteronomic redaction which added the superscription
and ‘updated’ a few passages. Finally, a few places such as 1.7 and
3.5 show signs of an early Judaic editing. However, it remains a
moot question whether the evidence available can really support
such a detailed reconstruction of the book’s literary history. A good
number of commentators remain unconvinced (Rudolph, Fohrer,
Buss, etc.).
A far simpler, but impressive attempt to trace the redactional
history of the book has recently been offered by R. E. Clements. He
seeks to demonstrate that knowledge of the history of the book’s
development offers the most reliable key for its interpretation, and,
among other things, serves an important negative function. On the
one hand, it refutes the psychological interpretation of Hosea’s
message which derives it from his marital experience (H. Wheeler
Robinson, Rowley, etc.). On the other hand, it offers a check to the
‘confused and wooden’ reflection of Engnell who infers from the
final form of the text that Hosea had a partisan preference for
Davidic kings. Clements argues positively that the essential charac-
ter of Hosea’s preaching was a warning ofthe coming destruction of
the Northern Kingdom and that the elements ofpromise are almost
entirely secondary and emerged only after the threats had been
fulfilled. (1l.8—9 is seen as an exception to this rule.) We shall
return later to the hermeneutical implications of Clements’
interpretation.
An even more controversial aspect of WolfI’s interpretation is his
attempt to reconstruct the historical and sociological background of
Hosea’s preaching. Two of his theses have been especially bold.
First, with the aid of Herodotus’ account he has sought to interpret
the divine command in 1.2 to ‘take a wife of harlotry’, as reflecting a
form of cultic prostitution which had infiltrated the Northern
HOSEA 377
Kingdom and which had polluted the entire nation in the eyes of
the prophet. Secondly, he has argued for Hosea’s kinship with the
Levites as the circle from which he gained his interest in the cult,
opposition to the priesthood, and knowledge of Northern Israelite
tradition. In both instances Wolff has succeeded in stimulating a
fresh and interesting debate, but support has remained divided,
with some of the sharpest rebuttal coming from Rudolph.
Finally, regarding the textual problems, clearly the pendulum
has swung away from the extreme distrust of the Masoretic text
which the classic literary critics shared (e.g. Harper, ICC).
Nevertheless, in spite of the persistent attempts of Nyberg to
rehabilitate confidence in the accuracy of the MT, many of his
suggested contributions appear highly artificial and not very
illuminating (cf. e.g. 4.4-6). The textual issue is, of course, a part of
a larger methodological controversy, but it remains particularly
acute for the book of Hosea.
1.11]; 4.15; 5.5, 10, 14; 6.4, ll; 8.14; 10.11; 12.2). These references
are ofdifferent kinds. 5.10, 14 appear to belong to the primary level
of Hoseanic preaching. Most of the remaining passages seem to be
redactional. The significance of this observation lies in the informa-
tion which it provides ofthe use which was made ofHosea’s preach-
ing. The judaean references indicate that chs. 4-14 were used and
applied to the Southern Kingdom, probably as a collection of ora-
cles. It is highly unlikely that Hosea himself preached in Judah.
Rather, at a later date, most probably during the last two decades
of the eighth century, his words were used and their original scope
was extended to include Judah also within the impending judg-
ment. Prophetic authority was not tied to an office, nor to a particu-
lar mode of delivery, but lay in the prophetic word itself.
The nature of this subsequent use of Hosea’s original words
indicates an important hermeneutical shift in the function of the
material. In its original role Hosea’s preaching and symbolic action
arose in confrontation with Israel's distorted syncretistic religion.
Hosea’s use of language was ‘realistic’, that is, it opposed the
Canaanite mythological concept of deity and land with a theologi-
cal alternative: Yahweh was Israel’s ‘lord’ (Baal) and lover. Hosea
chose to stand within the mythological world-view and shatter it by
introducing a new referent for the old language. But a generation
later, to a different people and situation, Hosea’s realistic language
was understood metaphorically. ‘Harlotry’ was only an image
apart from any mythological concept of sacred marriage which
could be applied to_]udah because ofher disobedience, i.e., unfaith-
fulness to God’s covenant (4.l5.). A further indication that the
prophet was seen as one who speaks metaphorically or symbolically
is reflected in 12.11: ‘I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multi-
plied visions, and through the prophets gave parables (analogies,
'"'rtammeh).’ This shift from a realistic to a metaphorical use of lan-
guage did not involve a drastic metamorphosis, but was simply an
t~.~;tension of the figurative dimension already within the language.
Nevertheless, this semantic possibility allowed for an extension of
Hosea’s ministry which functioned apart from the original office
.|t1tl afforded an independent integrity to the prophetic collec-
llull.
'l'ht-re is at third stage in the development of the book which one
t';|l| ll';l('(' to some tlegret-. The hypothesis of another level is sup-
|io|'tetl. lirst ofall, by the stril-tingl_\' tlillercttt |'cferen(‘cs to_]udah in
380 THE LATTER PROPHETS
Historfy of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 296-301; EB 2, 806; RGG33, 457.
Commentaries
K. A. Credner. 1831 M. Bib, 1960
(I. F. Keil, BC, 1868 M. Delcor, SB, 1961
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1896, (21928) D. R. Jones, TB, 196-1-
S. R. Driver, CB, 1898 T. H. Robinson, HAT, 31964
]. Wellhausen, 1898 C. A. Keller, CAT, 1965
.\. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 A. Weiser, ATD, 51967
]. Bewer, ICC, 1911 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1971
ti. W. Wade, WC, 1925 L. C. Allen, NICOT, 1976
1-'.. Sellin, KAT, 31929 H. W. Wolff, Herm, 1977
1). Deden, BOuT, 1953
Bibliography
(1. W. Ahlstr6m,joel and the Temple Cult Qfjerusalern, SVT 21, 1971; W.
Baumgartner, ‘Joel 1 und 2’, ES K. Budde. BZAW 34, 1920, 10-19;
Bourke, ‘Le Jour de Yahwé dans Joel’, RB 56, 1959, 5-31, 191-212; K.
Budde, “‘Der von Norden” in Joel 2,20’, OLZ 22, 1919, 1-5; ‘Der Um-
sehwung in Joel 2’, OLZ 22, 1919, 104-10; W’. \V. Cannon, “‘The Day
of the Lord” in Joel’, Church Quarterly Review 103, London 1927, 32-63; L.
Dennefeld, Les Problérnes du livre de Joel, Paris 1926; B. Duhm, ‘Anmer-
lttttlgeli zu den zwolf Propheten’, ZAW 31, 1911, 184-8; Israels Propheten,
liiliingen 21922; H. T. Fowler, ‘The Chronological Position of Joel
atntmg the PrOpl'1ets’,‘_/BL 16, 1897, 14-6-54; G. B. Gray, ‘The Parallel
l’.tssages in Joel and their Bearing on the Question of Date’, The Expositor
1\'. 8, London 1893, 208-25; E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology ofthe Old
/Ltmment l, 1-1'1’ l*idit1l)urgh and New York 1854, 285ff.; H. Holzinger,
‘Spraelteharakter und Abfassungszeit des Buches Joel’, ZAW 9, 1889,
W1 lill; .-\. Jepsen, ‘Kleine Beitriige zum Zwolfprophetenbuch’, ZAW56,
1‘I‘ltl_ tlfr-Flt}; .-\. S. Kapelrud__/eel .S’turlies, Uppsala 1.948; A. F. Kirkpat-
rick. The Ilortrine rg/‘the Prophets, l.ont1on -"1917. 4t'>—7‘.~l; 1'1. Kutsch, ‘Heu-
386 THE LATTER PROPHETS
schreckenplage und Tag Jahwes in Joel 1 und 2’, TZ 18, 1962, 81-94.
H. P. Muller, ‘Prophetie und Apokalyptik beiJoel’, Theologia Viatorum
10, Berlin 1965, 231-52; J. M. Myers, ‘Some Considerations Bearing on
the Date ofJoel’, ZAW 74, 1962, 177-95; E. Nestle, ‘Miscellen I. Zur
Kapiteleinteilung in Joel’, ZAW 24, 1904, 122-7; M. Plath, ‘Joel 1, 15-
20’, ZAW 47, 1929, l59f.; O. Ploger, Theocracy and Eschatology, ET Oxford
and Philadelphia 1968; G. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology II, ET Edin-
burgh and New York 1965, 133-7; B. Reicl-te, ‘Joel und seine Zeit’,
Wort—Gebot—Glaube, FS W. Eichrodt, Zurich 1970, 133-41; W. Rudolph,
‘Wann wirkteJoe1?’ Dasferne und nahe Wort, FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967,
193-8; O. R. Sellers, ‘Stages ofLocust inJoel’, A“/SL 52, 1935-6, 81-5; M.
Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament , New York
and London 1971; F. R. Stephenson, ‘The Date ofthe Book ofJoel’, VT
19, 1969, 224-9; J. A. Thompson, ‘Joe1’s Locusts in the Light of Near
Eastern Para11els’,_]NES 14, 1955, 52-5; ‘The Date ofJoel’, A Light unto my
Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor M. Myers, Philadelphia 1974,
453-64; A. C. Welch, ‘Joel and the Post-exilic Community’, The Expositor
VIII, 20, London 1920, 161-80; H. W. Wolff, Die Botschaft des joel,
TheolEx NF 109, Munich 1963.
The problems of the book’s literary integrity and its dating have
been closely intertwined in the history of critical research.
Nevertheless, these are separate problems and can be treated in
turn for the sake of clarity.
Literary integrity
During the last half of the nineteenth century the unity of chs.
1-2 and 3-4 (evv l.1—2.27 and 2.28-3.21) was firmly defended by
many scholars by interpreting the portrayal of the locust plague in
chs. 1-2 as a prophetic word without a historical basis which
pointed to a future event (Hengstenberg, Merx - see below, p. 394).
But the artificiality ofthe approach, which was particularly evident
in the handling of ch. 1, gave way to the more natural view that the
locust plague had already been experienced and lay in the past.
However, once this move was made, the unity ofthe book became a
major issue because the last two chapters were clearly eschatologi-
cal in nature.
Duhm developed the classic literary critical approach in dividing
joeL 387
the book into two parts. Chapters 1 and 2 dealt simply with a locust
plague. Later, when the Maccabean author of chs. 3-4 added his
eschatological material, he also entered a series of interpolations
into chs. 1 and 2 (1.15; 2.lb_. 2a, 10a, llb). Duhm’s approach has
been widely followed with slight modifications by G. A. Smith,
Bewer, T. H. Robinson, and others. However, the difficulties
involved in such a theory have also been pointed out. Jepsen (86)
made the incisive observation that to eliminate all the eschatologi-
cal elements in ch. 1 would logically entail the further elimination
of 1.2-4 as well. Weiser’s attempt to hold to a single author and to a
two-stage theory of composition cannot be considered successful.
Within more recent years there have been several notable
attempts made to develop a new theory ofthe book’s unity. In 1948
Kapelrud defended the unity ofJoel by postulating a single liturgi-
cal function for the book which he connected to an enthronement
festival of Yahweh. However, cultic interpretation in the form pre-
sented by Kapelrud has not been widely accepted. A more impress-
ive defence of the book’s unity has been made by H. W. Wolff. He
has argued for the striking literary and form-critical symmetry of
the entire book which he considers to be strong evidence for single
authorship. In the following section Wolffs theory will be discussed
in more detail.
Date of composition
The traditional Masoretic placing ofJoel between Hosea and
.\mos within the collection ofthe Book of the Twelve at first lent a
predisposition toward an early pre-exilic dating, even though the
hook’s superscription was silent on the subject. However, very
shortly the great majority of critical scholars had decided upon a
post-exilic date, indeed assigning the book to the Persian period.
The reasons for this evaluation turned on such evidence as Joel’s
heavy dependence on earlier written prophets (Isa. 13; Obad. 17,
t'1L'.). and the alleged historical allusions to the late period (1.9;
-1.11). (cf. Bewer, Wolff and Eissfeldt, Introduction, 394, for a sum-
tuary ofthe evidence). Although it is correct to say that a post-exilic
tlating still represents the majority opinion, there remains a strong
minority who continue to defend a pre-exilic dating. Kapelrud and
Rudolph in particular have argued for a seventh-century dating by
tleseriliing a eultie activity in the pre-exilic period which iS akin to
388 THE LATTER PROPHETS
that of_]oel, and by denying that the reference to Greeks in 4-.6 (Evv
3.6) is a decisive factor for post-exilic dating.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 3l2f.; DBS 4, 1102f; DThC 8, 1495; RGG3 3, 802.
A. Kerrigan, ‘The “Sensus Plenior” ofJoel III, 1-5 in Act. II, l4—36’,
Sacra Pagina II, Paris 1959, 295-313; B. Lindars, New Testament Apoiogetic,
London 1961, 36ff.; A. Merx, Die Prophetie desjoel und ihre Ausleger. Von den
iiltesten Zeiten his zu den Rqformation. Eine eaiegetisch-kritiseh und hermeneutisoh-
dogmengeschiehtliche Studie, Halle 1879; C. Roth, ‘The Teacher of Righte-
ousness and the Prophecy ofJoel’, VT 13, 1963, 91-95; G_._ Widmer, Die
Kommentare von Raschi, Ibn Ezra, Radaq zu _]oet. Text, Ubersetzung und
Eririiuterung mit einer Einfiihmng in die rabbinische Bibetexegese, Basle 1945.
XXII
AMOS
Commentaries
Keil, BC, 1868 M. Delcor, SB, 1961
zig, H. Steiner, KeH, 41881 T. H. Robinson, HAT, 31964
own ;->5?" Smith,
ExB, 1896, (21928) S. Amsler, CAT, 1965
S. R. Driver, CB, 1897 A. Weiser, ATD, 51967
W. R. Harper, ICC,’ 1905 L. Mays, OTL, 1969
A. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 E. Hammershaimb, 1970
H. Gressmann, SAT, 21921 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1971
E. Sellin, KAT, 2‘31923 H. W. Wolff’, Herm, 1977
R. S. Cripps, 21955
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘A Judgment Narrative between Kings and Chronicles?
An Approach to Amos 7.9-17’, Canon and Authority, ed. G. W. Coats and B.
O. Long, Philadelphia 1977, 71-87; R. Bach, ‘Gottesrecht und weltliches
Recht in der Verkiindigung des Propheten Amos’, FS G. Dehn, Neukirchen
1957, 23-34; E. Balla, Die Droh- und Scheltworte des Amos, Leipzig 1926;
K. Barth, Church Dogrnatics IV/2, ET Edinburgh and Grand Rapids,
Mich. 1958, 445-52; W. Baumgartner, Kennen Amos and Hosea eine Heils-
es'chatologie?, Diss. Ziirich 1913; A. Bentzen, ‘The Ritual Background of
Amos 1,2-2, 3’, OTS 8, 1950, 85-99; W. Berg, Die sogenannten Hyrnnenfrag-
mente im Arnosbuch, Bern 1974; W. Brueggemann, ‘Amos 4,4-13 and
Israel’s Covenant Worship’, VT 15, 1965, 1-15; K. Budde, ‘Zu Text und
Auslegung des Buches Amos’,jBL 43, 1924, 46-131; F. Craghan, ‘The
Prophet Amos in Recent Literature’, BTB 2, 1972, 242-61; K. Cramer,
Amos. Versuch einer theologischen Interpretation, BWANT Ill. 15 (=51), 1930;
]. 1.. Crenshaw, ‘The Influence ofthe Wise upon Amos. The “Doxologies
of/\mos" ancl_]oh 5:5—16, 9:5-I0’, ZAW 79, 1967, 45-52; Hyrnnic Aj]irma-
Non of l)ivine_/u.t"tice: the l)o.rolo_.qies of/lmos and Related Texts in the Old Testa-
396 THE LATTER PROPHETS
ment, SBL Diss. Series 24, Missoula 1975; F. Criisemann, ‘Kritik an
Amos im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Erwagungen zu 2 Kijnige
14,27’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, FS G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 57-63.
E. L. Dietrich, Die endzeitliche Wiederherstellung bei den Propheten, BZAW
40, 1925; R. Fey, Amos undjesaja, WMANT 12, 1963; H. Gese, ‘Kleine
Beitrage zum Verstandnis des Amosbuches’, VT 12, 1962, 417-38; R.
Gordis, ‘The Composition and Structure of Amos’, HTR 33, 1940, 239-
51; H. Gottlieb, ‘Amos und Jerusalem’, VT 17, 1967, 430-63; N. K.
Gottwald, All the Kingdoms Qfthe Earth, New York 1964, 94-1 14; A. H.
Gunneweg, ‘Erwisigungen zu Amos 7,14’, ZTK 57, 1960, 1-16; S. Herr-
mann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament, BWAN T V.5
(=85), 1965, 118-26; G. Holscher, Die Prqfeten, Leipzig 1914, 94-1 14; H.
W. Hoffmann, ‘Zur Echtheitsfrage von Amos 9,9f.’, ZAW82, 1970, 121f.;
F. Horst, ‘Die Doxologien im Amosbuch’, ZAW 47, 1929, 45—54=Gottes
Recht, Munich 1961, 155-66; A. S. Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos, Oslo
21961; U. Kellerrnann, ‘Der Amosschluss als Stimme deuteronomis-
tischer Heilsholfnung’, EvTh 29, 1969, 169-83; K. Koch, ‘Die Rolle der
hymnischen Abschnitte in der Komposition des Amos Buches’, ZAW 86,
1974, 504-37; K. Koch et al., Amos untersucht mit den :1/fethode einer strul:tura—
len Formgeschichte, 3 Teile, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976; L._ Koehler, ‘Amos-
Forschungen von 1917-1932’, ThR, NF 4, 1932, 195-213; S. Lehming,
‘Erwéigungen zu Amos’, ZTK 55, 1958, 145-69.
V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begrflswelt des Buches Amos, Leiden 1951;
L. Markert, Struktur und Bezeichnung des Scheltworts. Eine gattungskritische
Studie anhand des Amosbuches, BZAW 140, 1977; L. Monloubon, ‘Amos’,
DBS 8, 1972, 706-24;J. Morgenstern, ‘Amos Studies’, HUCA 11, 1936,
19-140; 12-13, 1937-8, 1-53; 15, 1940, 59-305; E. Nielsen, Oral Tradition,
SBT 1.11, 1954, 64-79; S. M. Paul, ‘Amos 1:3-2:3: A Concatenous
Literary Pattern’,jBL 90, 1971, 397-403; H. Graf Reventlow, Das Amt
des Propheten bei Amos, F RLAN T 80, 1962; L. Rost, Israel bei den Propheten,
BWANT IV.19 (=71), 1937, 6-20; H. H. Rowley, ‘Was Amos a Nabi?’,
FS O. Eissfeldt, Halle 1947, 191-98; W. Rudolph, ‘Die angefochtenen
Vtolkerspriiche in Amos 1 and 2’, Schalom. FS A. jepsen, Berlin 1971, 45-9;
H. H. Schmid, ‘Amos. Zur Frage nach der “geistige Heimat” des Prophe-
ten’, WuD NF 10, 1978, 85-103; W. H. Schmidt, ‘Die deuteronomistische
Redaktion des Amosbuches’, ZAW 77, 1965, 168-93; H. Schulte, ‘Amos
7,15a und die Legitimation des Aussenseiters’, Probleme biblischer Theologie,
FS G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 462-78; R. Smend, ‘Das Nein des Amos’,
EvTh 23, 1963, 404-23; S. Spiegel, ‘Amos versus Amaziah’, 1957, in The
jewish Expression, ed.J. Goldin, New York 1970, 38-65; H.-J. Stoebe, ‘Der
Prophet Amos und sein biirgerlicher Beruf’, WuD 5, I957, 160-at; ‘Uber-
legungen zu den geistlichen Voraussetzungen der Prophetie des Amos,’
Wort-Cebot—Glaube, FS W. Eichrodt, Zurich 1970, 209-25.
S. L. Terrien, ‘Amos and \Nisdom’, Israel ’s Prophetic Heritage, Essays in
Honor .11/Iuilenbur_.¢;f, New York and London 1962, 106-14; Tolk,
AMOS 397
Predigtarbeit zwischen Text und Situation, Beitriige zur evangelischen
Theologie 62, Munich 1972; G. M. Tucker, ‘Prophetic Authority (A
Form-Critical Essay on Amos 7: 10-17)’, Interp 27, 1973,_423—34; P. Volz,
‘Zu Amos 9,9’, ZAW 38, 1919-20, 105-11; S. Wagner, ‘Uberlegungen zur
Frage nach den Beziehungen des Propheten Amos zum Siidreich’, TLZ
96, 1971, 653—70;J. M. Ward, ‘Amos’, IDB Suppl, 21—23;J. D. W. Watts,
‘An Old Hymn Preserved in the Book ofAmos’,jNES 15, 1956, 33-9; A.
Weiser, Die Prophetic des Amos, BZAW 53, 1929;]. Wellhausen, Die kleinen
Propheten, Berlin 31898; I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb
des Alten Testaments, BZAW 123, 1971; H. W. Wolff, Amos’geistige Heimat,
WMANT 18, 1964; ET Amos the Prophet, Philadelphia 1973; Die Stunde des
Amos, Munich 1969; ‘Das Ende des Heiligtums in Bethel’, Archdologie und
Altes Testament, FS K. Calling, Tiibingen 1970, 287-98; E. Wiirthwein,
‘Amos Studien’, ZAW 62, 1950, 10-52.
During the pre-critical period, and well into the early nineteenth
century, it was generally assumed that the book of Amos had been
written by the prophet himselfin its present form except for parts of
ch. 7. The article in Smith’s Dictionagw cfthe Bible by G. E. L. Cotton
(1860) used as evidence for Amos’ authorship that the book was
‘logically and artistically connected in its several parts’.
The rise of modern literary and historical criticism altered this
assessment sharply. The book was judged to contain not only the
‘genuine’ oracles of the prophet, but non-genuine additions which
later editors had supplied. The promises in ch. 9 in particular were
thought to be spurious along with the oracle againstJudah (2.4f.).
lncreasingly the final form of the book was judged to reflect ele-
ments of disorder, especially in the sequence of the visions. Great
effort was expended throughout the literary critical period of the
late nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries by such
commentators as Wellhausen and W. R. Harper to recover the
ipsissima verba of Amos who was held in great esteem as the earliest
written prophet and exponent of ethical monotheism. Indeed, the
credit for recovering Amos’ literary skill which overturned Jerome’s
disparaging characterization (imperitum sermone) goes largely to
these literary critics. For the English-speaking world G. A. Smith’s
eloquent Victorian commentary played no small role in the new
assesstnent of the prophet’s true significance.
398 THE LATTER PROPHETS
The first serious form-critical work on Amos arose from within
Gunkel’s circle of students (H. Gressmann, W. Baumgartner, E.
Balla). Balla in particular sought to delineate more precisely the
nature of the oral forms used by Amos while continuing to employ
Gunkel’s terminology of ‘threat and invective’ (Droh- und Schelt-
worte). This form-critical interest has continued vigorously up to the
present, and has its most impressive representative in H. W. Wolff.
Along with the study of prophetic forms went an effort to recover
the oral traditions used by Amos. Whereas the older literary critics
usually conceived of Amos as an isolated individual ofgreat creativ-
ity, the work oftraditio-criticism altered this picture dramatically.
Amos was seen to stand in much closer continuity with Israel’s
sacred traditions. Wiirthwein and Rowley, following Mowinckel’s
original suggestion, pursued the theory ofAmos as a cultic prophet.
Again, Reventlow’s controversial monograph pushed hard the
thesis that Amos was dependent throughout on inherited liturgical
patterns. More recently, often in reaction to the cultic emphasis,
other institutional settings have been proposed, especially that of
wisdom (Wolff, Terrien). Unfortunately, one sees how little con-
sensus has been reached in the matter of the book’s setting by
comparing the modern commentaries of Wolff and Rudolph.
Most recently, in an effort to get beyond the apparent impasse
respecting oral tradition, more attention has been paid to the redac-
tional history of the book. The method usually assumes the critical
results of both literary and form criticism, but it seeks to under-
stand the process of the book’s formation in relation to the particu-
lar Tendenz of its editors. W. H. Schmidt’s provocative article in
1965 attempted to attribute a decisive editorial activity to the work
of a Deuteronomistic redactor. His conclusions have been picked
up and debated by a number of younger scholars (Criisemann,
Kellermann). Again, the monograph of Willi-Plein is representa-
tive of the newer approach in seeking to interpret the redactional
role ofthe alleged glosses in Amos rather than simply deleting them
as ‘non-genuine’ after the manner of the older literary critics.
Finally, the major credit in bringing together and developing the
newer lines of critical research on Amos certainly goes to the inci-
sive commentary of H. W. Wolff. His work has been at the forefront
of the critical debate for the last decade and, particularly in the
form ofa new English translation, will continue to be at the centre
of critical research on the book of Amos for the foreseeable future.
AMOS 399
Wolffs commentary is characterized by a consistent and detailed
use of the form-critical and redaction-critical methods which he
employs in developing his ‘kerygmatic’ exegesis. I shall focus on
Wolffs commentary because the hermeneutical and exegetical
issues at stake emerge here in their sharpest focus.
According to Wolff, the composition of the book of Amos has
passed through a lengthy process of oral and literary transmission.
He suggests that one can distinguish some six different levels within
the book. The first three he attributed to Amos himself and his
contemporaries in the eighth century. These include the oldest ker-
nel of the book found in chs. 3-6, the five vision reports (7.1—8;
8.1f.; 9.1-4) and the earliest level of redaction by the ‘Amos school’
found in such additions as l.1b, 7.10-17, etc. Wolff designates the
last three levels as arising from the text’s ‘afterlife’ (Nachinterpreta-
tion). New material has been added by way of commentary in an
attempt to actualize the older message for a new situation. These
levels include the three strophes ofa hymn (4.13; 5.8f.; 9.5f.), the
important Deuteronomic redaction (1.1, 9-11; 2.4f.; 3.lf.; 3.7;
5.25f.) and a post-exilic addition of promise in 9.11-15.
The basic issue at stake in the interpretation of Amos does not
turn on whether Wolff is correct in every detail of his literary
analysis — a conclusion hardly likely - but rather it turns on the
historical critical model of exegesis which is best illustrated by
Wolffs approach and is widely shared by his contemporaries. It is
certainly not my intention to disparage the efforts of modern critical
scholarship - a glance at E. B. Pusey’s commentary on the Minor
Prophets (1860) serves as a reminder of how far the discipline has
come — but seriously to question the manner in which the critical
method is employed in the exegesis of Amos.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov Ill, 329f.; Darling, I, 708-1]; DThC l, 1120; EB 6, 286; RGG3
l, 331.
Commentaries
C. P. Caspari, 1842 E. Sellin, KAT, 2'31929
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 G. C. Aalders, COuT, 1958
P. Kleinert, ET, LCHS, 1874 A. Deissler, SB, 1961
_]. Wellhausen, 31898 T. H. Robinson, HAT, 31964
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1898, (21928) C. A. Keller, CAT, 1965
T. T. Perowne, CB, 1898 A. Weiser, ATD, 51967
A. van Hoonacker, BB, 1908 D. W. Watts, 1969
J. A. Bewer, ICC, 1911 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1971
K. Marti, HSAT, ‘I923 L. C. Allen, NICOT, 1976
G. W. Wade, WC, 1925 H. W. Wolff, BK, 1977
Bibliography
H- Bekel, ‘Ein vorexilisches Orakel iiber Edom in der Klagestt-ophe—die
gemeinsame Quelle von Obadja 1-9 and jeremia 49,7—22’, ThStKr 80,
1907, 315-42; M. BEE, ‘Eine verkanntes Thronbesteigungsfestorakel im
.-\1ten Testament’, ArOr 19, 1951, 568-78; ‘Zur Problematik des Buches
Obadjah’, SVT 1, 1953, 1]-25; E. Bonnard, ‘Abdias’, DBS 8, 693-
701; W. W. Cannon, ‘Israel and Edom: The Oracle of Obadiah 1’, Theo-
logv 14, London 1927, 129-40, 191-200; A. Condamin, ‘L’unité
t1’Abdias’, RB 9, 1900, 261-8; F. Delitzsch, ‘Wann weissagte Obadja?’,
Zeit.schriftfiir die lutherische Theologie and Kirche 12, Leipzig 1851, 91-102; A.
H. Edelkoort, ‘De profetie van Obadja’, NedThT 1, 1946-7, 276-93; G.
Fohrer, ‘Die Spriiche Obadjas’, Studia Biblica et Sernitica T. C. Vriezen dedi-
rata, Wageningen 1966, 81-91; N. Glueck, ‘The Boundaries of Edom’,
H!-"(IA 11, 1936, 141-57; Gray, ‘The Diaspora of Israel and _]udah in
()1>.tt1i;th v.21)’, Z.-111' 65, 1961'), 53-9; M. Haller, ‘Edom im Urteil der
l’ropl1t~tett’, F5‘ K. .’l1nrtt'. B‘/..-'\W -H, I025. 109-17; U. Kellermann, Israel
um! l'.'tlom_ Nttttlit-rt ._‘_ttm l'.'tl.~mt/tttst Ismt-ls in U.-I. _/rt/trhtuttlrrt vor (.'hr., Miinstcr
412 THE LATTER PROPHETS
1975; P. K. McCarter, ‘Obadiah 7 and the Fall of Edom’, BASOR 221,
1976, 87-91;]. Muilenburg, ‘Obadiah, the Book of’, IDB 3, 578f.;_]. M.
Myers, ‘Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries BC’, Near Eastern
Studies in Honor cf W. F. Albright, Baltimore 1971, 377-92; M. Rinalcli,
‘In librum Abdiae’, Verbum Domini 19, Rome 1939, 148-54, 174-9, 201-6;
T. H. Robinson, ‘The Structure of the Book of Obadiah’,jTS 17, 1916,
402-8; W. Rudolph, ‘Obadja’, ZAW 49, 1931, 222-31; M. P. Smith,
‘The Structure of Obadiah’, AjSL 22, 1905-6, 131-8; H. W. Wolff,
‘Obadja — ein Kultprophet als Interpret’, EvTh 37, 1977, 273-84.
Two main issues have dominated the critical discussion ofthe book
of Obadiah: historical setting and literary integrity. In spite ofits
being the shortest book in the Old Testament, Obadiah’s two prob-
lematic issues have generated much debate and little concord.
Because the superscription affords no evidence as to the back-
ground of the prophet or of his age - the order of Obadiah within
the collection was disregarded early in the history of research - the
interpreter is dependent upon internal evidence for establishing a
setting. Although there are many gaps in the history of Edom in
relation to Israel, the description of Edom’s ruthless role in exploit-
ing the devastation ofjerusalem points most clearly to the Babylo-
nian attack of 587. The parallel passages (Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.2lf.;
Ezek. 25.12; 35.5, 12; Isa. 34.8) focus on the treachery of the Edo-
mites in harassing their kinsmen, the _]ews, precisely at _]udah’s
moment of greatest humiliation. The vividness of the description
would appear to indicate a period of composition not too far
removed from the beginning of the exile.
However, this line of argument for fixing a historical setting has
been complicated by another important literary consideration. Cer-
tain verses of Obadiah have a close parallel with _]er. 49 (Obad.
lb—4 // jer. 49.l4—16; v. 5 // 49.9; v. 6 // 49.10a). Ever since the
thorough study of Caspari (1842) the opinion has generally domi-
nated which held that Obadiah had the priority and thatjeremiah
was dependent upon his composition (cf. Keil, van Hoonacker,
Rudolph). However, a minority opinion has continued to defend
the priority of Jeremiah (Bonnard, 697 lf.). Wolff has sought to
avoid the impasse by opting for a common oral tradition underlying
both passages.
onaotan 413
For those who defended the priority of Obadiah a further ques-
tion emerged which affected the problem of dating the book. It was
usually assumed that _]er. 49 was written in the fourth year of
jehoiakim before the destruction of Jerusalem. How then could
Obadiah be dated in the exile? Caspari sought to avoid the
difficulty by interpreting the destruction ofjerusalem and Edom’s
treachery as prophecies, written in the historical tense, but this
move received little acceptance because of its extreme artificiality.
Another attempt to avoid the difficulty was put forward by Kleinert
and Keil who sought to relate the encounter with Edom to an
earlier event, such as the battle reported in II Chron. 21.8-l 1 during
the reign of_]oram. But again the evidence is very strained and the
identification has not commended itself. In more recent times the
issue has usually been resolved by holding to a later post-exilic date
for that section in _]er. 49 which parallels Obadiah. It is instructive
to observe that even such early commentators as Calvin held firmly
to the exilic dating of Obadiah, relating the book to the destruction
ofjerusalem. It should also be mentioned that some scholars (e.g.
Bewer) follow the lead of Wellhausen in relating certain of the
references to the attack on Edom by the Nabataeans in the first half
of the fifth century.
The second major critical issue turns on the literary integrity of
the book. The two extreme positions in the spectrum ofopinion are,
on the one hand, represented mainly by older commentators who
held to one unified work, and, on the other hand, scholars such as
Robinson and Fohrer who find half-a-dozen fragments within the
book. Occasionally the book’s unity has been defended by an
appeal to a cultic role (Biii, Watts), but the suggestion is without
adequate evidence to convince. Likewise, Wolifs most recent
attempt to understand the book as an actualization ofolder prophe-
tic words against Edom by the cult prophet, Obadiah, is forced to
supply many of the elements on which the hypothesis rests.
Probably the most convincing analysis ofthe book’s structure has
been put forth by Rudolph who refined Wellhausen’s divisions.
Rudolph describes two main oracles, 2-14, 15b and 15a, 16-18, to
which an appendix has been added in 19-21. In the first oracle,
which is ajudgment on Edom, the nations functioned as agents in
l".tlotn’s punishment, and the judgment was confined to the histori-
eal plane. ln the seeond oracle, which is an eschatologicaljudgment
on the ttatiotts. the pt-r.~;pet-tive l)tlt‘(lt'l'S on the ztpoealyptie.
414 rm-: LATTER PROPHETS
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 343f.; DB 1, 22f.; DBS 8, 701; RG03 8, 701.
Commentaries
Keil, BC, 1868 D. Smart, 1B, 1956
zig, H. Steiner, KeH, 41881 A. Feui11et,]B, 21960
Smith, ExB, 1898, (21928) M. Delcor, SB, 1961
n Hoonacker, BB, 1908 T. H. Robinson, HAT, 31964
Pecan rsega
Bewer, ICC, 1912 C. A. Keller, CAT, 1965
W. Nowack, HKAT, 31922 A. 1/Veiser, ATD, 51967
G. W. Wade, WC, 1925 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1971
E. Sellin, KAT, 2'3l929 H. W. Wolff, BK, 1977
G. A. F. Knight, TB, 1950
B ibliography
G. C. Aalders, The Problem of the Book qfjonah, London 1948; E. BiCk-
ermann, Four Strange Books of the Bible, New York 1967; S. H. Blank,
“‘Doest Thou Well to be Angry?” A Study in Self Pity’, HUCA 26, 1953,
29-41; W. Bohme, ‘Die Composition des Buches jona’, ZAW 7, 1887,
224-84; K. Budde, Vermutungen zum ‘Midrasch des Buches der
Kcinige’, ZAW 12, 1892, 40-51; M. Burrows, ‘The Literary Category of
the Book ofJonah’, Translating and Understanding the Old Testament, Essays in
Honor ofH. G. May, ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed, Nashville 1970,
80-107; R. E. Clements, ‘The Purpose of the Book of_]onah’, SVT 28,
I975, 16-28; G. H. Cohn, Das Buch jona im Lichte der biblischen Erzahlkunst,
Assen 1965;]. Ellul, Thejudgment ofjonah, ET Grand Rapids 1971; G. I.
Emmerson, ‘Another Look at the Book of_]onah’, ExpT 88, 1976, 86f.; I.
H. Eybers, ‘The Purpose of the Book of jonah’, Theologia Evangelica 4,
Pretoria 1971, 2| 1-22; P. Fairbairn,_]onah. His Life, Character and Mission,
lidinburgh 1849, reprinted Grand Rapids I964; A. Faj, ‘The Stoic Fea-
tures ofthe Book of_]onah’, /lnnali dell’ lstituto Orientale di Napoli 34, Naples
1974, ."lll9-1.5; A. Feuillet, ‘l.es sources tlu livre tle Jonas’, RB 54, 1947,
418 "mt-3 LATTER PROPHETS
161-86; ‘Le sens du livre dejonas’, RB 54, 1947, 340-61; T. E. Fretheim,
The Message tjjonah, Minneapolis 1977.
S. D. Goitein, ‘Some Observations on _]onah’,jPOS 17, 1937, 63-77; H.
Gunkel, Ausgewdhlte Psalmen, Giittingen 1904, 23%246; ‘jonabuch’,
RGG2, 3, 366-369; E. Haller, Die Erziihlang von dem Propheten jona,
TheolEx 65, 1958; A. Jepsen, ‘Anmerkungen zum Buche jona’, Wort-
Gebot-Glaube, FS W. Eichrodt, Zurich 1971, 297lf.; jorg Jerernias, Die Rene
Gottes, BSt 65, 1975, 98ff.; A. R. Johnson, ‘jonah 2, 3-10. A Study in
Cultic Phantasy‘, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy presented to T. H. Robinson,
ed. H. H. Rowley, Edinburgh and New York 1950, 82-102; O. Kaiser,
‘Wirklichkeit, Mciglichkeit und Vorurteil. Ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis
des Buches jona’, EvTh 33, 1973, 91-103; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of
Israel, ET Chicago 1960, London 1961, 282-86; C. A. Keller, ‘Jonas, le
portrait d’un prophete’, TZ 21, 1965, 329-40; E. G. Kraeling, ‘The
Evolution of the Story ofjonah’, Hommages ti Andre Dupont—Sommer, ed. A.
Caquot and M. Philonenko, Paris 1971, 305-18; C. Kuhl, ‘Die
Wiederaufnahme——ein literarkritisches Prinzip?’, ZAW 64, 1952, 1-11.
G. M. Landes, ‘The Kerygma of the Book ofjonah’, Interp 21, 1967,
3-31; N. Lohfink, ‘jona ging zur Stadt hinaus (jona 4,5)’, BZ NF 5, 1961,
185-203; O. Loretz, ‘Herkunft und Sinn derjona-Erziihlung’, BZ NF 5,
1961, 18-29; Magonet, Form and lldeaning. Studies in Literary Techniques in
the Book qfjonah, Berne and Frankfurt 1976; G. von Rad, Der Prophetjona,
Nurnberg l950=Gottes Wirken in Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974, 65-78; A.
Rofé, ‘Classes in the Prophetical Stories: Didactic Legenda and Parable’,
SVT 26, 1974, 153-64; W. Rudolph, ‘jona’, Archiiologie undAltes Testament,
FS K. Calling, Tiibingen 1970, 233-9; H. Schmidt,_/ona, eine Untersuchung
zur vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte, FRLANT 9, 1907; L. Schmidt, De Deo.
Studien zur Literarkritik and Theologie des Buches _/ona, des Gesprclchs zwischen
Abraham undjahwe in Gen. l6’,22jf. and Hiob 1, BZAW 143, 1976; U. Steffen,
Das M_ysterium von Tode and Aufirrstehang, Former: and Wandlungen des jenn-
Motivs, Gbttingen 1963; R. D. Wilson, ‘The Authenticity ofjonah’, PTR
16, 1918, 280-98, 430-56; H. W. Wolff, Studien zumjonabuch, BSt 47, 1964,
21975; A. G. Wright, ‘The Literary Genre Midrash’, CBQ 28, 1966, 105-
38, 417-57.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 367-70; DBS 4, l130f.;DThC 8, 1498ff.; EB 3, 612; RG63 3,
855f.; H. W. WoIff,_]ona, BK, 1977, 70-72.
E. Bickermann, ‘Jonah’, Four Strange Books in the Bible, New York 1967,
1-49; R. H. Bowers, The Legend qfjonah. Fifty Odd Interpretations ofjonah
from the New Testament through the English Renaissance, The Hague 1971;
Y.-M. Duval, Le livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine,
sources et influences du commentaire surjonas de Saint jérome, 2 vols., Paris 1973;
‘Jonas (le livre de)’, DS 8.2, 1974, 1264-67; R- A. Edwards, The Sign of
jonah in the Theology qfthe Evangelist and Q, SBT II.18, 1971; P. Friedrich-
sen, Kritische flbersicht der verschiedenen /lnsichten von dem Buche jonas, Leipzig
21841; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of thejews 4, Philadelphia 61954, 239-53;
J. Jeremias, ‘lonas’, TWNT 3, 410-13 = TDNT 3, 406-l();J. Leclercq,
‘Jonas’, DACL 1.2, 2572-631; A. Penna, ‘Andrea di S. Vittori: i1 suo
commento a Giona’, Bibl 36, 1955, 305-31; S. Poznanski, ‘Targoum
Yerouschalmi et son commentaire sur le livre de Jonas’, RE] 40, 1900,
130-53; K. H. Rengstorf, ‘Das Jona-“Zeichen”’, Tl/I/NT 7, 23lf.=TDNT
7, 233f.; E. Stommel, ‘Zum Problem der friihchristlichen Jonasdarste1-
1ungen’,_]ahrbuch flir Antilte und Christentum 1, Miinster 1958, 112-15; F.
Weinreb, Das Buch Jonah. Der Sinn des Buches Jonah nach iiltesten jiidischen
Uberligferung, Ziirich 1970.
XXV
MICAH
Commentaries
C. P. Caspari, 1852. E. Sellin, KAT, 3'31929
F. Keil, BC, 1868 A. Deissler, SB, 1964
F. Hitzig, H. Steiner, KeH, 41881 T. H. Robinson, HAT, 31964
J. \/Vellhausen, 31898 A. Weiser, ATD, 31967
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1898 (31928) R. Vuilleumier, CAT, 1971
A. van Hoonacker, BB, 1908 W. Rudolph, KAT3, 1975
J. M. P. Smith, ICC, 1911 A. van der Woude, POuT, 1976
W. Nowack, HKAT, 31922 M. Mays, OTL, 1976
G. W. Wade, WC, 1925 L. C. Allen, NICOT, 1976
Bibliography
W. Beyerlin, Die Kulttraditionen Israels in der Verltiindigung der Propheten
Micah, FRLANT 72, 1959; A. Bruno, .4/licah und der Herrscher aus der Vorzeit,
Leipzig 1923; K. Budde, ‘Das Ratsel von Micha 1’, ZAW 37, 1917-8,
77-108; ‘Micha 2 und 3’, ZAW 38, 1919-20, 2-22; ‘Verfasser und Stelle
von Mi. 4,l—4 (Jes. 2,2-4)’, ZDMG 81, 1927, 152-58; M. Collin,
‘Recherches sur 1’histoire textuelle du prophete Michée’, VT 21, 1971,
281-97; A. Condamin, ‘Interpolations ou transpositions accidentelles?’,
RB 1 1, 1902, 379—87;J. Coppens, ‘Le cadre littéraire de Michée V, 1-5’,
Near Eastern Studies in Honor qf W. F. Albright, Baltimore 1971, 57-62; M.
Crook, ‘The Promise in Micah 5’,_]BL 70, 1951, 313-20; K. Elliger, ‘Die
I-Ieiniat des Propheten Micha’ (l934)=KSAT, Munich 1966, 9ff.; I. H.
Eybers ‘Micah, the Morashthite: The Man and His Message’, OuTl/VP
11, 1968, 9-24; G. Fohrer, ‘Micha 1’, Dasjerne and nahe Wort. FS L. Rost,
BZAW 105, 1967, 65-80; V. Fritz, ‘Das Wort gegen Samaria Mi 1,2-7’,
ZAW 86, 1974, 316-31; A. George, ‘Le livre de Michée’, DBS 5, 1952,
1252-63; H. Gunkel, ‘The Close of Micah: A Prophetical Liturgy’, 1924,
ET in What Remains ofthe Old Testament, London and New York 1928,
1 15-49.
moan 429
book of Micah speaks of the Babylonian exile and the return from
captivity. This assessment of the nature of the book would imply
that the present prophetic collection is not simply recording
Micah’s original oracles, but has used them along with other ma-
terial for another purpose. The oracles seek to describe in the
prophetic idiom the full plan of God with Israel. The purpose of
the book is not to provide sources for the recovery of the ‘historical
Micah’ but rather to incorporate Micah’s witness within a larger
theological framework. The original proclamation by Micah of
judgment and salvation has been extended to bear testimony to the
larger intent of God with Israel.
During the time in which the oracles of Micah were being col-
lected and used in some sort of authoritative way (cf. Jer. 26. l7ff.)
the predicted destruction both of Samaria and ofJerusalem had
occurred. Events which originally served as prophecy became past
history and now served a new role as an awe-inspiring confirmation
ofthe truth of the prophetic message. However, the canonical shap-
ing of the book did not simply retain these oracles as a past record,
but placed them within a framework which supplied a theological
interpretation to the meaning of the original oracles. The events
assumed a typological dimension within a recurring pattern. The
judgment of which Micah spoke was only illustrative ofa continu-
ing plan ofGod. Judgment and salvation for the people of God lay
in the future as much as in the past. By placing the original oracles
within a conscious pattern, the canonical editors rendered a
theological judgment on how .\/licah’s oracles were to be under-
stood by every succeeding generation of Israel.
Secondly, the oracles of Micah have also been given a liturgical
stamp within the final canonical shape. This mark has its clearest
example in ch. 7. What is its effect on the reading ofthe book? The
liturgical ending again offers a profoundly theological interpreta-
tion ofhow the community offaith understands itselfin relation to
the prophetic proclamation. The pattern ofjudgment and salvation
does not serve as a timetable of future history, nor does it sketch a
Heilsgeschichte whose progress can be objectively measured. Rather,
the community of faith is assigning its role as the worshipping
body, standing in between God’sjudgment and salvation, and pos-
sessed by both memory and anticipation. The liturgical ending of
i\lical1 offers a tlireetive to the later community in regard both to its
place ofslantling and its ap|)ropriation of the ancient witness.
438 THE LATTER PROPHETS
which was not simply imposed, but which had exerted itself upon
the tradents.
(c) Although our study has emphasized the liturgical force at
work in the shaping process, the hermeneutical significance of this
observation does not necessarily support a continuing liturgical
use. An important theological distinction is here at issue. To
describe the forces which affected the canonical shape is not to
suggest that these forces themselves achieved canonical status. It is
not the process which is normative for the later community, but the
scriptures which reflect the process. The writings possess a canoni-
cal integrity apart from the historical process. Indeed, the canoni-
cal shape has frequently either eliminated or subordinated interest
in the historical forces at work. To transfer the canonical authority
to the historical process is to run counter to the whole intention
behind the canonization of scripture. Nevertheless in the case of
Micah, the liturgical setting of the book which originally func-
tioned to provide a point-of-standing betweenjudgment and salva-
tion for the worshipping community suggests a stance which is still
very compatible for its ongoing liturgical use. Yet the effect of the
liturgical shaping does not restrict its future use to any one form of
accommodation.
History of Exegesis
DBS s, vast; or/to 10, l667f.; EB 4, 891, RGG3 4, 931.
D. Barthélemy and T. Milik, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert I, Oxford
and New York 1955, 77f.; C. P. Caspari, Llber Micha den .’l/Iorasthiten and
seine prophetische Schrw, Christiana 1852, 449-58; H. Englander, ‘Joseph
Kara’s Commentary on Micah in Relation to Rashi’s Commentary’,
HUCA 16, 1941, 157-62;J. T. Milik, ‘Fragments d’un midrash de Michée
dans les manuscrits de Qumriin’, RB 59, 1952, 412-18.
XXVI
NAHUM
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 E. Sellin, KAT, 241930
P. Kleinert, ET, LCHS, 1874 W. A. Maier, 1959
F. Hitzig, H. Steiner, KeH, 41882 H. Lamparter, BAT, 1960
A. B. Davidson, CB, 1896 F. Horst, HAT, 31964
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1898, (19283) K. Elliger, ATD, 31967
A. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 C. A. Keller, CAT, 1971
J. M. P. Smith, ICC, 1911 W. Rudolph, KAT3, 1975
Bibliography
W. R. Arnold, ‘The Composition of Nahum l—2,3’, ZAW 21, 1901, 225-
65; K. Cathcart, ‘Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum’, CBQ 35,
1973, 179-87; D. L. Christensen, ‘The Acrostic ofNahum Reconsidered’,
ZAW 87, 1975, 17-30; S. J. De Vries, ‘The Acrostic of Nahum in the
Jerusalem Liturgy’, VT 16, 1966, 476-81; A. George, ‘Nahum (Le livre
de)’, DBS 6, 291-301; H. Gunkel, ‘Nahum 1’, ZAW 13, 1893, 223-44; A.
Haldar, Studies in the Book ofNahum, Uppsala 1946; P. Haupt, ‘The Book
ofNahum’,jBL 26, 1907, 1-53; P. Humbert, ‘Essai d’analyse de Nahoum
l,2—2,3’, ZAW 44, 1926, 266-80; ‘Nahoum 2,9’, RE] 83, 1927, 74-6; ‘La
vision de Nahoum 2,4-11’,AfO 5, 1928-9, 14-19; ‘Le probleme du livre
de Nahoum’, RHPIIR 12, 1932, 1-15; Jtirg Jeremias, Kultprophetie and
Cerichtsverlttindigung in der spaten Kiinigszeit Israels, WMANT 35, 1970; C. A.
Keller, ‘Die theologische Bewaltigung der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit
in der Prophetic Nahums’, VT 22, 1972, 399-419; P. Kleinert, ‘Nahum
und der Fall Ninives’, ThStKr 83, 1910, 501-34; L. Mihelic, ‘The
Concept of God in the Book of Nahum’, Interp 2, 1948, 199-208; H.
Schulz, Das Buch Nahum. Eine redalttionsltritische Untersuchung, BZAW 129,
1973; R. Weiss, ‘A Comparison between the Massoretic and the Qumran
texts of Nahum III, l-l1’,RQ 4, 1963-4, 433-9.
NAHUM 441
suggest that the original oracles in chs. 2 and 3 were totally devoid
of eschatological elements (cf. 2.11), but certainly the eschatologi-
cal dimension has been greatly intensified by its editing (cf.
Schulz). This interpretative move has been achieved, above all, by
the linking of Nineveh’s destruction to the nature of Yahweh whose
creative power spans the beginning (1.4) and the end (l.8f.) of
creation. However, the repeated reference to ‘no more’ (l.]2b, l4a;
2.lb, I4; cf. l.9b) contrasts the prior examples of divine interven-
tion with the ultimate encounter. In its present canonical shape,
the book of Nahum confirms the promise of divinejustice to suffer-
ing Israel, whether suffering from the domination ofAssyria, Baby-
lon, or Rome.
Finally, the concluding dirge serves the canonical editor as a
means of confirming the absolute certainty of the prophecy. To use
it as evidence for fixing a post-exilic date completely overlooks its
canonical function. The change of tone to timeless resignation also
serves as a literary device, halting the feverish activity of the fall of
the city and pointing back to the inexorable character of the divine
purpose with Nineveh to which the initial psalm had testified.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 395f.; H. Hopfl, Introductio specialis in libros Veteris Testamenti,
51946, 520f.; RGG3 4, 1298.
Commentaries
F. Delitzsch, 1843 E. Sellin, KAT, ‘H1930
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 _]. H. Eaton, TB, 1961
P. Kleinert, ET, LCHS, 1874 F. Horst, HAT, 31964
A. B. Davidson, CB, 1896 M. Delcor, SB, 1964
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1898, (21928) K. Elliger, ATD, 61967
K. Marti, KHC, 1904 C. A. Keller, CAT, 1971
A. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 W. Rudolph, HAT2, 1975
W. H. Ward, ICC, 1911
Bibliography
W. F. Albright, ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk’, Studies in Old Testament
Prophecy, FS T. H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley, Edinburgh and New York
1950, 1-18; W. H. Brownlee, ‘The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk’,
jBL s2, 1963, 319-25; ‘The Composition ofHabakkuk’, Hommages e Andre
Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971, 255-75; K. Budde, ‘Die Biicher Habakuk und
Zephanja’, ThStKr 66, 1893, 383-93; ‘Habakuk’, ZDAIG 84, 1930, 139-47;
W. W. Cannon, ‘The Integrity of Habakkuk 1-2’, ZA W43, 1925, 62-90;
E. Cothenet, ‘Habacuc’, DBS 8, 791-B11; B. Duhm, Das Buch Habakuk,
Tiibingen 1906; H. Eaton, ‘The Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3’,
ZAW 76, 1964. 144-71; A. Emerton, ‘The Textual and Linguistic
Problems of Habakkuk II.4—5’, _[TS NS 20, 1977, l-18; Donald E.
Gowan, The Triumph Q/‘Faith in Habakkuk, Atlanta 1976; M. _]. Gruen-
thaner, ‘Chaldeans or Macedoniansi”, Bibl B, 1927, 129-60, 257-89; P.
Humbert, Problémes du livre d’Habacuc, Neuchatel 1944; W, A. Irwin, ‘The
Mythological Background of Habakkuk Chapter 3’,_/NES 15, 1956, 47-
50; _]6rg Jeremias, Theophanie, WMANT 10, 1965; Kultprophetie and
Gerichtsverkundigung in der spiiten Kiinigszeit Israels, WNIANT 35, 1969, 1 lff.;
P. Jocken, Das Buch Habakuk, BBB 48, 1977.
C. A. Keller, ‘Die Eigenart des Propheten Habakuks‘, ZAI4/'85, 1973
448 "rm-3 LATTER PROPHETS
156-67; B. Margulis, ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Reconstruction and
Interpretation’, ZAW 82, 1970, 409-22; S. Mowinckel, ‘Zum Psalm des
Habukuk’, TZ 9, 1953, 1-23; E. Nielsen, ‘The Righteousand the Wicked
in Habaqquq’, StTh 6, 1953, 54-78; W. Rothstein, ‘Uber Habakkuk,
Kap. l und 2’, ThStKr 67, 1894, 51-85; H. Schmidt, ‘Ein Psalm im Buche
Habukuk’, ZA W 62, 1950, 52-63; S. Schreiner, ‘Erwagungen zum Text
von Hab. 2.,4-5’, ZAW 86, 1974, 538-42; B. Stade, ‘Habakuk’, ZAW 4,
1884, 154-9; W. Staerk, ‘Zu Habakuk 1,5-1 1: Geschichte oder Mythos?’,
ZAW 51, 1933, 1-29; M. Stenzel, ‘Habakuk 2,l—4.5a’, Bibl 33, 1952,
506-10; ‘Habakkuk II, 15-16, VT 3, 1953, 97-9; C. C. Torrey, ‘The
Prophecy of Habakkuk’,]ewish Studies in Memory of G. A. Kohut, New York
1935, 565-82; W. Vischer, Der Prophet Habakuk, BSt 19, 1958; H. H.
Walker, N. W. Lund, ‘The Literary Structure of the Book ofHabakkuk’,
JBL 53, 1934, 355-70; A. S. van der Woude, ‘ “Der Gerechte wird durch
seine Treue leben”. Erwéigungen zu Habakuk 2:4f’, Studia Biblica et Semi-
tica T. C. Vriezen dedicata, Wageningen 1966, 367-75;_]. Ziegler, ‘Konjektur
oder iiberlieferte Lesart? Zu Hab. 2,5’, Bibl 33, 1952, 366-70.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov 111, 41 1t, one 6, 2010; RGG3 3, 4.
A. Baumgartner, Le prophete Habakuk. Introduction critique et exégese avec
examan special des commentaire: mbbiniques, du Talmud el de la Tradition, Leipzig
l885; W. H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentaryfrom
Qumran, _]BL Monograph Series ll, 1959; ‘The Habakkuk Midrash and
the Targum of_]onathan’,jjS 7, 1956, l69—86; M. Burrows, The Dead Sea
Scrolls of St Mark’: Monastery I, New Haven 1950; S. Coleman, ‘The
Dialogue of Habakkuk in Rabbinic Doctrine’, Abr Nahrain 5, Leiden
l964-5, 57-85; E. Cothenet, ‘Habacuc VIII. Influence d’Habacuc’, DBS
8, 806-ll; K. Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommenlar vom Toten Meer,
Tiibingen 1953; A. Feuillet, ‘La citation d’Habacuc II, 4 et les premiers
chapitres de l’épitre aux Romans’, NTS 4, 1959-60, 52-80; P. Jocken, Das
Buch Habakuk, BBB 48, 1977; A. Sanders, ‘Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul
456 THE LATTER PROPHETS
and the Old Testament’,_]R 38, 1959, 232-44; A. Strobel, Untersuchungen
zum eschatologischen Verzogerungsproblem auf Grund der spdtji4'disch- urchnlrtlichen
Geschichte von Habakuk 2, 2_[f., Supplements to Novum Testamentum 2, Leiden
l964; Ziegler, ‘Ochs und Esel in der Krippe. Biblisch-patristische
Erwz‘-igungen zu jes l, 3 und Hab 3,2 (LXX)’, Miinchener Theologische
Zeitschrift 3, Munich I952, 385-402.
XXVIII
ZEPHANIAH
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 G. G. V. Stonehouse, WC, I929
P. Kleinert, ET, LCHS, I874 E. Sellin, KAT, 2'3l930
F. Hitzig, H. Steiner, KeH, 41881 A. George, _]B, 21959
A. B. Davidson, CB, I896 J. Eaton, TB, l96l
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1898 (2l928) F. Horst, HAT, 31964
K. Marti, KHC, 1904 K. Elliger, ATD, 61967
S. R. Driver, CeB, l’906 C. A. Keller, CAT, I971
A. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 W. Rudolph, KAT’, I975
_]. M. P. Smith, ICC, 1911
Bibliography
M. Bié, Trois prophetes dans un temps de ténebres: Sophonie-Nahoum-Habaquq,
Paris 1968, 39-42, 51-73; H. Cazelles, ‘Sophonie, Jeremie et les Scythes
en Palestine’, RB 74, 1964, 24-44; C. H. Cornill, ‘Die Prophetic Zephan-
jas’, ThStKr 89, 19l6, 297-332; F. C. Fensham, ‘Zephaniah, Book of,
IDB Suppl, 983f.; G. Gerleman, Zephania textkritisch und literarisch untersucht,
Lund I942; H. Gese, ‘Zephanjabuch’, RGG3 6, l90lf.;_]. P. Hyatt, ‘The
Date and Background of Zephaniah’,_]NES 7, 1948, 25-29; A. S. Kapel-
rud, The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah: Morphology and Ideas, Oslo 1975;
G. Langohr, Le Livre de Sophonie et la critique d’Authenticité, Analecta
Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia II.l7, Louvain I976; L. Sabottlta,
Zephanja. Versuch einer Neuiibersetzung mit philologischem Kommentar, Rome
1972; F. Schwally, ‘Das Buch Ssefanja, eine historisch-kritische Unter-
suchung’, ZAW l0, I890, 165-240; L. P. Smith and E. R. Lacheman,
‘The Authorship of Zephaniah’,jNES 9, 1950, 137-42; W. Staerk, Das
Assyrische Weltreich im Urteil der Propheten, Gottingen 1908, 165-79; D. L.
Williams, ‘The Date of Z.ephaniah’,_]BL 82, 1963, 77-88.
458 "rnt-: LATTER PRO PH tars
There are several clear indications that the material comprising the
book has undergone a period of development before reaching its
present form. Recent redactional study has been helpful in identify-
ing different layers within the book, but, in myjudgment, has failed
to relate the book’s prehistory to the canonical process.
The present form of the book has selected and collected a variety
of oracles which reflect the traditional forms of prophetic speech.
The original form of the invective-threat (3.l—8), oracles against
foreign nations (2.4—l5), and the promise (3.9—l3) has been pre-
served from an early oral stage, even ifin somewhat altered state.
However, there are signs pointing to an editorial activity which
goes beyond the mere collecting of individual oracles. As most
recent commentators agree, ch. l is comprised of many parts of
original oracles which have now been formed into a larger literary
unit around the subject ofthe ‘day ofYahweh’. Rudolph designates
it a ‘kerygmatic unit’. Moreover, by connecting the woe oracles of
2.4ff. integrally with the preceding oracles (note the ki of v. 4) the
level of eschatological intensity in the oracles against the nations
has been raised appreciably and they have been drawn within the
orbit of the one great divine event. Finally, the promise ofsalvation
in 3.88’. has been placed within a traditional pattern which has the
oracles of promise following upon threat and concluding the book.
In my judgment, it seems very likely that the oracle of promise
belongs to an early level in the development, and should not be
dismissed as a late and foreign accretion. The signs oftwo different
layers within the passage would argue against seeing the whole
passage (3.9-20) as post-exilic.
In addition to these early stages through which the book has
developed, the final shape of Zephaniah appears to bear the stamp
ofa post-exilic redaction. In the first place, the oracle of salvation
in ch. 3 has been expanded in the rhetoric of the return of the exiles
(3.20). The effect ofthe post-exilic theology ofthe remnant has also
left its impress on the oracles against the nations (2.7, 8, 9), and the
destruction of the enemy is contrasted with the possession of the
land by those righteous who survived thejudgment. Finally, and a
most important alteration in the structure of the book, the nations
have been assigned a new role in the promise of God which breaks
460 THE LATTER PROPHETS
out of their traditional role as mere recipients of divine judgment.
2.1 I first introduces a new note by describing the conversion of the
nations, but in 3.9f. the new period of promised salvation actually
begins with the conversion of the nations which precedes the pro-
mise to Israel. (Elliger’s emendation of 3.9 must be rejected.) The
universalism of the threatened judgment is closely paralleled by a
universal redemption.
In reviewing the history of the book’s composition, it is impor-
tant to observe that crucial canonical shaping occurred both in the
early and later periods of the book’s growth. In ch. l early prophe-
tic oracles have been selected, ordered, and condensed to form a
compendium of teaching on the topic of the ‘day of Yahweh’. Not
only has the chapter retained a dominant theocentric perspective
by its use of the first person of the divine speech, but it offers the
basic theological starting point from which to understand the
movement of the entire book. Once the message focuses on the
eschatological intervention of God on his day of reckoning, it
belongs to the logic of prophetic theology to include within this
event both thejudgment against Israel and the nations. Moreover,
if one begins with a theology of God in terms of his eschatological
work, the move to include the oracles of promise as an essential
part of the selfsame event follows easily. The effect ofthe canonical
process has been to restructure the prophetic material within a
theological understanding of the nature of God and his work. For
this reason Martin Bucer (In Sophoniam enarrationes, 1554) has
rightly designated the book as a ‘compendium’ of prophetic teach-
1ng.
The crucial point to be made is that in the canonical process
material has been organized about a theological centre. The ‘day of
Yahweh’ theme includes a word ofjudgment and promise which is
directed to Israel and the nations. Because of this overriding
eschatological perspective, temporal differences have been trans-
cended. The misunderstanding in the usual application of the his-
torical critical method arises from assuming that each prophetic
passage must be interpreted from a specific historical setting. When
the canonical process has disregarded historical differences and
organized the material theologically, the effect of the critical
approach is to fragment the book into various editions and thus
misunderstand the total witness. Indeed, the historical distinction
between the pre- and post-exilic passages of Zephaniah can be
ZEPI-IANIAI-I 461
highly misleading when disconnected from its canonical function.
However, the inner logic of the book is clear once the theocentric
starting point of the book is recognized.
The major effect on the understanding of the book arising from
the post-exilic additions lies in delineating more precisely the
result of the divine intervention among the nations (2.9lf.), and in
painting the promise of future salvation in the specific colours of
the exilic period. However, these final redactional expansions only
continued a use of the material which had already received its
decisive canonical role at a prior stage. The post-exilic redaction,
when viewed from its effect on the canonical text, was not an
attempt to make older material relevant by tying it to the exile, but
rather the reverse. It gave the exile its true meaning in the light of
the divine promise.
(a) The theological centre from which the material was structured
allowed the editors to change the historical perspective from pre-
exilic to post-exilic and beyond without destroying the integrity of
the biblical witness. Because of the nature ofGod who encompasses
in his will both the past and the future, every successive generation
of Israel found an immediate access to the prophetic message of
judgment and salvation.
(b) In spite of the radically theocentric perspective which focuses
fully on the eschatological nature of God in alone fulfilling his
purpose, the response of faith from Israel’s side is not overlooked.
The will ofGod calls forth ‘a people humble and lowly’ who ‘do no
wrong and utter no lies’ (3.l2f.). From the biblical perspective
eschatology and ethics are not in tension but stem from the same
divine source.
(c) The richness and versatility ofthe canonicalprocess is further
illustrated by recalling the similarities and differences between the
shaping of Amos and Zephaniah. There are several central themes
shared by both such as the ‘day of Yahweh’, the fierce anger of
God, thejudgment against the nations, and the priests who profane
the law. However, the differences are equally striking and reveal
clearly the different canonical processes through which the two
books were formed. In Amos the later stages ofgrowth have left the
original layer largely intact and the expansions come as interpola-
462 THE LATTER PROPHETS
tions and additions. In Zephaniah the original layer of prophetic
preaching has been largely obscured. His message has been con-
densed and epitomized into topical units. Moreover, Zephaniah’s
words have been blended with other prophetic voices (First and
Second Isaiah, Amos) which have been used in fashioning a
prophetic compendium. In sum, the process of shaping the two
collections was very different, but the final effect is similar and
testifies to the strong lines of continuity in the hearing ofthe differ-
ent prophets and in the fixing of consistent theological parameters
for the prophetic message.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, -42lf.; T. K. Cheyne and _]. S. Black, eds., Emycl. Bibl. 4,
Edinburgh and New York I903, 5408f.; RGG3 6, 1902.
XXIX
HAGGAI
Commentaries
A. Kiihler, 1860 A. Deden, BOuT, 1956
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 A. Gelin,jB, 31960
F. Hitzig, H. Steiner, KeH, ‘1881 P. R. Ackroyd, Peake rev., 1962
T. T. Perowne, CB, 1886 F. Horst, HAT, 31964
J. Wellhausen, 31898 K. Elliger, ATD, 61967
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1898 (21928) L. Koole, COuT, 1967
K. Marti, KHC 1904 T. Chary, SoBi, 1969
A. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 _I. G. Baldwin, TOTC, 1972
H. G. Mitchell, ICC, 1912 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1977
E. W. Barnes, CB2, 1917 R. Mason, CNEB, 1977
E. Sellin, KAT, 2‘3l930
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘Studies in the Book of Haggai’,_/jS 2, 1951 163-76' 3 7
1952, 1-13; ‘The Book of Haggai and Zechariah l-8’,__]JS 3, 1952, 15l—’56'1
‘Some Interpretative Glosses in the Book of Haggai’,_]jS 7, 1956, 163-7’9
‘Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period’
jNES 17, 1953, 13-27; Exile and Restoration, OTL, 1968, 153-70~ R. Bach,’
‘Haggai’, ‘Haggaibuch’, RGG3, 24-26; _]. Begrich, ‘Die priesterliche
Tora’, Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments, BZAW 66, 1936, 63-8,
reprinted GSAT, Munich 1964, 232-60; W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-
Secharja 1-8, Assen 1967; P. F. Bloomhardt, ‘The Poems of Haggai’,
HUCA 5, 1928, 153-95; T. Chary, ‘Le culte chez les prophetes Aggée et
Zacharie’, Les Prophetes et le culte ti partir de l’exil, Paris 1955, 119-59; A.
Deissler, ‘Aggée’, DBS 8, 701-6; D. N. Freedman, ‘The Chronicler’s
Purpose’, CBQ 23, 1961, 436-42; K. Galling, ‘Serubbabel und der
Wiederaufnahme des Tempels in Jerusalem’, Verbannung und Heimlcehr, FS
W. Rudolph, Tiibingen I961, 67-96; A. Gelston, ‘The Foundation of the
464 rm-: LATTER PROPHETS
Second Temple’, VT 16, 1966, 232-5; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn qfApocalyp-
tic, Philadelphia 1975, 140ff.; F. Hesse, ‘Haggai’, Verbannung und Heimkehr,
109-34.
F. James, ‘Thoughts on Haggai and Zechariah’,jBL 53, 1934, 229-35;
K. Koch, ‘Haggais unreines Volk’, ZAW 79, 1967, 52-66; R. A. Mason,
‘The Purpose of the “Editorial Framework” of the Book of Haggai’, VT
27, 1977, 415-21; H. G. May, “‘This People” and “This Nation” in
Haggai’, VT 18, 1968, 190-97; F. S. North, ‘Critical Analysis of the Book
of Haggai’, ZAW 68, 1956, 25-46; O. Procksch, Die hleinen prophetischen
Schriften nach dem Exil, Stuttgart 1916; W. Rothstein, juden und
Samaritaner. Die grundlegende Scheidung von judentum und Heidentum,
BWA(N)T 3, 1908; G. Sauer, ‘Serubbabel in der Sicht Haggais und
Secharjas’, Dasferne und nahe Wort, FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 199-207;
E. Sellin, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jiidischen Gemeinde nach dem
Babylonischen Exil, 2 vols., Leipzig 1900-1901; K. Seybold, ‘Die K6nigs-
erwartung bei den Propheten Haggai und Sacharja’,jud 28, 1972, 69-78;
R. T. Siebeck, ‘The Messianism of Aggaeus and Proto-Zacharias’, CBQ
19, 1957, 312-28; O. H. Steck, ‘Zu Haggai 1, 2-11’, ZAW 83, 1971,
355-79; T. N. Townsend, ‘Additional Comments on Haggai II, 10-19’,
VT 18, 1968, 559f.; H. W. Wolff, Haggai, BSt 1, 1951.
seven weeks later, Sellin reasoned that the report of the laying of
the foundation stone must have occurred in between these two
passages. He concluded that the passage in Haggai had been sup-
pressed because the dating of the laying of the foundation stone
conflicted with the Chronicler’s report (Ezra 3.8ff.).
Sellin’s suggestion was next picked up by Rothstein (53ff.) who
argued that Sellin’s lost passage was actually preserved in 2.15—l9
and that, whenjoined to l.l5a, it formed the missing oracle. Roth-
stein adduced a variety ofliterary and historical proofs for support-
ing his case that the present unit, 2.10-19, was an artificial con-
struct of two totally different passages. With slight variation (e.g.
Mitchell, Horst, Elliger) Rothstein’s reconstruction ofthe original
setting of two separate passages has been widely accepted (cf.
Wolff, Hesse, von Rad, OT Theology II, 282-5).
Rothstein’s reconstruction of 2.10-14 has been of crucial impor-
tance for an evaluation of the entire book. He argued that Haggai
made use of the form of the priestly decision tojustify his rejection
ofthe request of the Samaritans to participate in the rebuilding of
the temple (cf. Ezra 4. lff.). The original force of this harsh judg-
ment on ‘this people this nation’ (v. 14) was lost when the
referent was shifted from the Samaritans to the Jewish community
by adding vv. 15-19. The important effect of this historical
interpretation can be immediately sensed in the commentaries. Sel-
lin characterized the decision ofSamaritan exclusion as ‘the actual
moment of birth for post-exilic Judaism’ (Zwbljprophetenbuch, 463).
Elliger (92) wondered if the rejection of the Samaritans was more
formative for the Jewish community than the rebuilding of the
temple.
The effect of Rothstein’s reconstruction had also a profound
effect on the interpretation of2. 15-19. The promise ofa new period
of blessing was now made to synchronize exactly with the laying of
the foundation stone in the sixth month. Unquestionably this
reconstruction of the original sequence of events has succeeded in
bringing the passage into sharper focus, but at the cost of losing
several phrases as secondary misunderstandings. Thus, the refer-
ence in 2.18 to the twenty-fourth day ofthe ninth month has been
generally eliminated as a confused gloss. Only recently has Roth-
stein’s hypothesis been seriously questioned by Koch.
466 rne LATTER PROPHETS
The final form of the book of Haggai reflects the clear structure of
four prophetic oracles, each of which is introduced by a date for-
mula (1.1; l.l5b—2.l; 2.10; 2.20). Within this structure a variety of
different oral forms of speech have been preserved (disputation,
warning, promise, priestly decision, etc.). The reference to Haggai
in the third person, as well as the structuring of his oracles, makes
it obvious that the book has been edited by someone other than the
prophet himself.
In the present form of the book the unity of2. 10-19 is recognized
by the explicit reference in 2.20 to the ‘second’ oracle on the same
day. However, a closer look at this text, which has, ofcourse, been
the contribution of the historical critical study, makes it evident
that the unity of this passage is ofa secondary nature and belongs
to the redactional activity of the editors. This judgment stems from
a number of observations. First of all, the oracle of priestly pro-
nouncement (2.10—l4) still retains a well-preserved form from its
original historical function (Begrich) even though this function has
been redirected into a prophetic allegory by the addition of vv.
15-19. Again, the lack ofa close connection between the two parts
ofthe passage - either in form or content — would suggest a secon-
dary linkage of two once independent oracles. Finally, the extreme
difficulty of following the logic of the last section would corrobo-
rate the sense of some dislocation in the text through the restructur-
ing of the original oracles. Although Koch has made some impor-
tant observations on the structure of this passage in relation to
1.2-8, and I fully agree with his rebuttal of Rothstein, nevertheless,
in myjudgment, the symmetry is ofa redactional nature and does
not represent an original prophetic genre.
In spite of the presence of some friction between the first and
second parts of this unit, there are several signs which point to an
intentional linking ofthe parts. 2.14 speaks of‘this people .. . and
468 THE LATTER PROPHETS
this nation . . . every work of their hands’ (ma‘"s'eh y‘dEhem) being
unclean. The same vocabulary recurs in v. 17 in a divinejudgment
against Israel: ‘I smote you and all the works of your hands . . . ’
(ma‘“fehy'dEhem). The repetition ofthe same phrase serves to form a
bridge between the third person addressee of2. 1-14 and the second
person of vv. 15-19. Again, the recurrence in v. 18 ofthe date ofthe
superscription in v. 10 further binds the sections together. That the
redactional effort of moulding the two passages into one has not
been fully successful is testified to by the unusual difficulty of
interpreting the combined unit.
What is the effect of this redactional activity on the interpreta-
tion of the prophetic traditions of Haggai? First of all, the connec-
tion alleged by Rothstein of vv. 10-14 to a historic decision by
Haggai to exclude the Samaritans from rebuilding the temple, even
if originally made, which is very uncertain, has been fully obliter-
ated. There is no hint in the present text to relate the antecedent of
v. 14 to the Samaritans. Indeed, only one people is ever referred to
within the book and that is clearly theJewish remnant. The redac-
tional shaping of this oracle has removed the possibility of regard-
ing the passage as an archaizing historical footnote concerning the
Samaritans, but rather fashioned it into a homily addressed to the
Jews. The priestly decision (10-14) now functions in a figurative
manner (‘so it is ’) to highlight Israel’s sinfulness. When
Beuken (2l5f.) argues that the original sense of the passage as a
judgment against the Samaritans could not have been lost because
this issue remained of such great theological significance, he is
disregarding the effect of the canonical shaping which apparently
did not share this evaluation.
The function of the second part of the oracle (2.l5—l9) has also
been sharply altered by the new role which the redactor has
assigned it. By attaching this oracle to the priestly decision on the
twenty-fourth day of the ninth month the promise of blessing has
been given a new focus. Rather than the promise being attached
directly to the day on which the foundation-stone was laid (so
Rothstein), it has now been redirected to the day on which the
oracle ofIsrael’s sinfulness was proclaimed. As a result, the laying
of the foundation-stone has lost its independent significance and
has been made into a sign of something else, namely, of Israel’s
repentance. The failure to rebuild the temple, which God then
judged with crop failure, was a sign of Israel’s failure to repent (v.
HAGGAI 469
17). Conversely, the laying of the stone, for which blessing was
promised, was a sign ofa new spirit (1.14). In sum, the canonical
shaping has reinterpreted the historical event in terms ofits true
religious significance and thereby provided it with a different con-
IEXI.
Much of the difficulty ofinterpreting the role of the foundation-
stone turns on the dating of2.l8. Ifthis verse is interpreted to mean
that the laying of the foundation took place on the twenty-fourth
day of the ninth month, then there is a flat contradiction with 1. 14f.
where the date for the laying of the foundation-stone is set at the
twenty-fourth day of the sixth month. In my judgment, both the
Hebrew syntax of 2.18 (cf. l'min hayybm) and the structure of 2.10-
19 as a whole speak against the link to the ninth month. The
passage in 2.15-17 is an exhortation to consider today what will
come to pass by remembering what has transpired in the past before
the laying of the foundation. The passage in 2. 18-19 is an exhorta-
tion to consider today what will come to pass by remembering what
has transpired in the past since the laying ofthe foundation until the
present. By this call to consider, Haggai sets before the people the
choice of blessing or curses. However, the choice revolves about
repentance and not about the rebuilding of the temple. It is not tied
to a political event such as the rejection of the Samaritans, but is an
ever-present word ‘from this day onward’ setting before the people
life and death, sin and repentance. (1 am indebted to an unpub-
lished paper by Melanie Morrison for certain of these formula-
tions.)
There is another element to the canonical shaping of the prophe-
tic tradition which emerges in the larger structure of the book. In
the four separate oracles of the book, two major themes have been
carefully intertwined. In the first and third oracles (1.1-15; 2.10-
19) the prophet relates the present poverty of the people directly to
the disregard of God’s temple. In the second and fourth oracles
(2.1-9; 2.20—23) the promise is reiterated that Israel’s traditional
eschatological hope is still valid. Significantly, the two themes
have been carefully related to each other in the present shaping of
the oracles. The promise to Zerubbabel which renews the mes-
sianic hope is now placed chronologically on the same day as the
proclamation of Israel’s sinfulness and the blessing of obedience.
The promise is joined to Israel’s obedience, not to her rejection of
Samaria (contra ltllliger). ()ncc again the earthly temple is only a
470 THE LATTER PROPHETS
sign which adumbrates the heavenly temple (1.8; 2.8f.). The pre-
sent poverty of this age is contrasted with the splendour of the
eschaton which God will usher in. In sum, a theological dynamic is
established by the intertwining of oracles which is only correctly
understood by a holistic reading ofthe book. The attempt to recon-
struct an original chronological sequence has failed to deal seri-
ously with this dimension of the canonical text.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 434f.; DBS 8, 704f.; DThC 1, 564-573; RGG3 3, 26.
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, 1868 lin, KAT, 3"3l930
F. Hitzig, H. Steiner, KeH, 41881 Ackroyd, Peake rev., 1962
Ewald, ET, 1881 Jones, TB, 1962
T. T. Perowne, CB, 1886 . . Unger, 1963
J. Wellhausen, 31898 rst, HAT, 31964
G. A. Smith, ExB, 1898 (31928) liger, ATD, 31967
K. Marti, KHC, 1904 ary, SoBi, 1969
A. van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 QgggmfipgBaldwin, TOTC, 1972
H. G. T. Mitchell, ICC, 1912 Rudolph, KAT3, 1977
E. W. Barnes, CB3, 1917 P§9fiFWZpTF
A. Mason, CNEB, 1977
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘The Book of Haggai and Zechariah I—VIII’,JSS 3, 1952,
151-6; Exile and Restoration, OTL, 1968, 171-217; S. Amsler, ‘Zacharie et
1’origine d’apoca1yptique’, SVT 22, 1972, 227-31; W. A. M. Beuken,
Haggai-Sachatgtz 1-8, Assen 1967; D. Buzy, ‘Les symboles de Zecharie’, RB
15, 1918, 136-91, 323-405; M. Delcor, ‘Deux passages difficiles: Zech xii
11 et xi 13’, VT 3, 1953, 67-77; B. Duhm, ‘Anmerkungen zu den zwiilf
Propheten, XII-XIII’, ZAW 31, 1911, 189-200; R. Eckardt, ‘Der
religibse Gehalt von Sacharja 9-14’, ZTK 3, 1893, 311-31; W. Eichrodt,
‘Vom Symbol zum Typos. Ein Beitrag zur Sacharja-Exegese’, IZ 13,
1957, 509-22; K. Elliger, ‘Ein Zeugnis aus der jiidischen Gemeinde in
Alexanderjahr 332 v Chr. Eine territorialgeschichtliche Studie zu Sach 9,
1-8’, ZAW 62, 1950, 63-115; H. Frey, ‘Der siebenflammige Leuehter und
die Oelsohne. Beitrag zu einer theologischen Deutung von Sach. 4’, In
Piam memoriam A. von Bulmerincq, Riga 1938, 20-63; K. Galling, ‘Die Exil-
wende in der Sicht des Propheten Sacharja’, VT 2, 1952, 18-36=Studien zur
Geschichte Israel im persischen Zeitalter, Tiibingen 1964, 109-26 ‘Serubbabel
und der Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem’, Verbannung und
ZECHARIAH 473
Heimkehr, FS W. Rudolph, Tiibingen 1961, 67-96; ‘Serubbabel und der
Hohepriester beim Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem’, Studien,
1964, 127-48; H. Gese, ‘Anfang und Ende der Apokalyptik, dargestellt
am Sacharjabuch’, ZTK 70, 1973, 20—49=Vom Sinai zum Zion, Munich
1974, 202-30; —, ‘Die Deutung der Hirtenallegorie Sach 11, 4ff.’, Vom
Sinai zum Zion, 231-8.
P. D. Hanson, ‘Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient
Ritual Pattern’,jBL 92, 1973, 37-59; The Dawn Q/’/lpocalyptic, Philadel-
phia 1975, 240ff., 280ff.; P. Haupt, ‘The Visions of Zechariah’,jBL 32,
1913, 107-22; E. W. Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Cenuineness if Daniel
and the Integrity tjzechariah, ET Edinburgh and New York 1846, 293-315;
A. Jepsen, ‘Kleine Beitrage zum Zwblfprophetenbuch’, ZA W 61, 1945-8,
95-114; C. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. Untersuchungen zu ihrer
Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem
Bildmaterial, FRLANT 117, 1976; D. R. Jones, ‘A Fresh Interpretation of
Zech IX—XI’, VT 12, 1962, 241-59; A. Kohler, Die Weissagungen Sacharjas,
2 vols., Erlangen 186 1-63; Kremer, Die Hirtenallegorie im Buche Zacharias
au/“ihre Messianitéit hin untersucht, Miinster 1930; M.-J. Lagrange, ‘Notes
sur les prophéties messianiques des derniers prophetes’, RB NS 3, 1906,
67-83; P. Lamarche, Zacharie IX-XI V. Structure littéraire et messianisrne,
Paris 1961; E. Lipinski, ‘Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie’, VT 20,
1970, 25-55; H.-M. Lutz, jahwe, jerusalem und die Viilker. Zur Vorgeschichte
von Sach 12, I-8 und I4, I-5, WMANT 27, 1968; K. Marti, ‘Zwei Studien
zu Sacharja’, ThStKr 65, 1892, 207-45, 716-34; ‘Die Zweifel an der
prophetischen Sendung Sacharjas’, Studien zur semitischen Philologie und
Religionsgeschichte Wellhausen gewidmet, BZAW 27, 1914, 279-97; R. A.
Mason, ‘The Relation of Zech. 9-14 to Proto-Zechariah’, ZAW 88, 1976,
227-39; H. G. May, ‘A Key to the Interpretation of Zechariah’s Vision’,
JBL 57, 1938, 173-84; K. Miihlenbrink, ‘Der Leuchter im fiinften
Nachtgesicht des Sacharja’, ZDPV 52, 1929, 257-86.
R. North, ‘Zechariah’s Seven-Spout Lampstand’, Bibl 51, 1970, 183-
206; ‘Prophecy to Apocalyptic via Zechariah’, SVT 22, 1972, 47-71; B.
Otzen, Studien fiber Deuterosacharja, Copenhagen 1964; A. Petitjean, Les
Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, Paris 1969; O. Ploger, Theocraqy and Eschatology,
ET Oxford and Philadelphia 1968; R. Press, ‘Das erste Nachtgesicht des
Propheten Sacharja’, ZAW 54, 1936, 43-8; M. Rehm, ‘Die Hirtenal-
legorie Zach ll, 4-14’, BZ, NF 4, 1960, 186-208; Y. T. Ridday and D.
Wickmann, ‘The Unity of Zechariah Examined in the light of Statistical
Linguistics’, ZAW 87, 1975, 30-55; L. G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des
Sacharja, Lund 1950; L. Rost, ‘Erwéigungen zu Sacharjas 7. Nachtgesicht’,
ZAW 58, 1940, 223-8; ‘Bemerkungen zu Sacharja 4’, ZAW 63, 1951,
216—2l;J. W. Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, BWA[N]T 8, 1910;
M. Saebo, Sacharja 9-I4, WMANT 34, 1969; ‘Die deuterosacharjanische
Frage. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie’, StTh 23, 1969, 115-40; C.
Sauer, ‘Serubbabel in der Sicht Haggai und Sacharjas’, Dasjerne und nahe
474 THE LATTER PROPHETS
Wort, FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 199-207; Schmidt, ‘Das vierte
Nachtgesicht des Propheten Sacharja’, ZAW 54, 1936, 48-60; E. Sellin,
‘Der Stein des Sacharja’,“/BL 50, 1931, 242-9; ‘Noch einmal der Stein des
Sacharja’, ZAW 59, 1942/3, 59-77; K. Seybold, ‘Spiitprophetische Hoff-
nungen auf die Wiederkunft des davidischen Zeitalters in Sach 9-l4’,jud
29, 1973, 99-111; B. Stade, ‘Deuterozacharja’, ZAW 1, 1881, 1-96; 2,
1882, 151-72, 275-309; W. Staerk, Untersuchungen iiber die Komposition und
Abfassungszeit von Zech 9-I4, Halle 1891; N. L. A. Tidwell, ‘wa’6mar (Zech.
3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision’,__/BL 94, 1975, 343-55;
G. Wallis, ‘Erwiigungen zu Sacharja VI 9-15’, SVT 22, 1972, 232-7; J.
Wellhausen, ‘Zechariah’, Engyclopaedia Biblica, ed. T. K. Cheyne and S.
Black, vol. 4, London and New York 1903, 5390-95; I. Willi-Plein,
Prophetic am Ende. Untersuchungen zu Sachatfia 9-14, BBB 42, 1974; C. H. H.
Wright, Zechariah and his Prophecies in relation to Modern Criticism, London
1879.
Chapters I-<5’
The major critical problems in these chapters have to do with the
present editorial shape ofthe section. To the series of‘night visions’
(l.7—6.8) there has been added - usually by means ofinterpolation
— a variety of other interpretative material. Fohrer’s analysis (Intro-
duction, 463) shares a consensus among literary critics when he
designates the following as secondary additions to the visions:
l.l6f.; 2.l2f., 14, 15f. (Evv 2.8f, 10, l1f.); 3.8f.; 4.7aB-10a.
Moreover, chs. 7-8 are considered to be a loose collection of say-
ings which have been drawn into the orbit of an original legal
discussion regarding fasting.
zaonaamn 475
Ever since Wellhausen’s incisive commentary, it has been gener-
ally accepted that the major reason behind the alteration in the
form of the original visions resulted from an attempt to bring the
text in line with the changing political situation. Thus Wellhausen
considered Zerubbabel to have been the person who was originally
crowned in 6.11, but was replaced by Joshua and a future mes-
sianic figure (cf. also 3.8) when Zerubbabe1’s political career was
suddenly cut short. A similar attempt to reflect the political
realities is also thought to lie behind the complex imagery of the
lampstand in 6.1 lf.
Recent critical scholarship on these first eight chapters (e.g.
Elliger, Ackroyd, Petitjean, Galling, Rignell, Beuken, etc.) has
generally built on the literary analysis of Wellhausen and Roth-
stein, but has then sought to determine more exactly the nature of
the traditions and the circles responsible for their transmission.
Often the larger question ofthe rise ofapocalypticism has played a
role in the posing of the questions (Gese, Plijger, Hanson). It is
difficult to speak of any consensus having emerged on these larger
historical issues.
Chapters 9-I4
The history of research of these chapters has been exhaustively
handled by Otzen (1 l-34) and briefly summarized in English by
Hanson (287-90). A further recapitulation seems therefore un-
necessary. It is sufficient to state that a very wide consensus has
developed among critical scholars since the middle of the nine-
teenth century in assigning these chapters to an author or authors
different from the first eight chapters.
The most interesting and yet frustrating aspect of this research
has been in the strikingly divergent assessment by the critics of
so-called ‘Deutero-Zechariah’. Throughout most ofthe nineteenth
century the critical position which was dominant regarded much
within these chapters to be pre-exilic. Indeed chs. 9-11 were usu-
ally assigned to the eighth century. The evidence for this decision
rested mainly on the mention ofthe Northern and Southern King-
doms (9.10, 13; 10.6), the reference to Assyria and Egypt, and the
historical portrayal of Syria-Palestine in ch. 9. However, following
Stade’s article of 1881, a majority began to accept his arguments for
assigning lleutero-Zechariah to the early Greek period. Stade’s
evitleltee tnrnetl on the historical reference to the Creeks in 9.13 on
'5
476 THE LATTER PROPHETS
seeing in the reference to the Assyrians and Egyptians a cryptic
cipher for the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms, and on emphasiz-
ing the close parallels in ch. 9 with Alexander’s invasion. In addi-
tion, he sought to place these chapters within a historical develop-
ment ofIsrae1’s religion which would further demonstrate a late
post-exilic stage. Moreover, the complexity of the problem has
once again been demonstrated by Otzen’s extremely learned
defence of the pre-exilic dating of the chapters. It would seem that
critical opinion has come full circle and the same issues are being
as hotly debated today as in 1881.
The inability to reach a consensus on the dating ofthe book has
left unresolved the historical context for interpretation. As a result,
few Old Testament books reflect such a chaos of conflicting inter-
pretations. If further evidence for the breakdown of method within
the discipline is needed, the reader is challenged to compare the
recent proposals made by Lamarche, Otzen, Hanson and Seybold.
Although I am aware‘ of the danger of offering still another
approach, perhaps attention to the canonical shape of the book can
aid rather than exacerbate the problem.
Chapters I-6’
The initial observation to make is that the present book of
Zechariah reflects a definite redactional shaping ofthe visions. The
visions which begin in 1.7 have been set within a specific chronolog-
ical sequence. An absolute date has been provided in 1.7: the
twenty-fourth day, the eleventh month, in the second year of
Darius’ reign, that is, 519 BC. In addition, the introduction to the
visions (1.1-6) places the visions within a heilsgeschichtliche sequence
as well. The history of disobedience testified to by the ‘former
prophets’ is summarized along with the repentance of the fathers.
The grounds for a shift in God’s purpose for Israel has been pre-
pared. Something new is in stor-e for them.
What then follows is a series of visions. It was particularly the
essay of Kurt Galling (‘Die Exilwende’) which for the first time
demonstrated clearly the tension between the present literary
framework and the original function of the various individual vis-
ions. Each vision appears to have originally functioned indepen-
ZECHARIAH 477
dently and addressed a particular historical situation. Thus, for
example, the first vision (l.7ff.) pictures the nations ‘at ease’ and
Jerusalem still suffering the ‘indignation of seventy years’. The
tradition ofthe seventy years ofhumiliation is familiar from Jer. 25
and Dan. 9. The vision offers a promise that the period is about to
end and God will again have compassion on Jerusalem. Clearly
this message refers to the deliverance of the exiles under Cyrus
which still lies in the future. Again, the vision of the four horns
(2.lff., Evv l.l8ff.) portrays the imminent judgment on the
Babylonians who had once inflicted destruction on Judah. The
vision originally predated Cyrus’s victory. Similarly, the final vis-
ion of the four chariots (6. lff.) testifies to the gracious outpouring of
the divine spirit on the exiles in Babylon, as Ewald correctly saw,
and would again be set in a period close to the deliverance. How-
ever, the sixth vision (5.lff.) clearly reflects a subsequent period
when the returning exiles are promised divine vindication on those
who sought to steal their land.
In myjudgment, Galling has failed to draw the proper implica-
tions from his exegetical observations. Because of the tension be-
tween the message to the Babylonian exiles and the date given to
the visions by Zechariah (519 BC), Galling sought to find historical
evidence for shifting the date ofthe return from the exile away from
539 to one much closer to 519. Actually the issue at stake in Zech-
ariah is of a different order. The basic problem here is not histori-
cal, but theological. The canonical shaping reflects a new theologi-
cal interpretation. The original function ofthe various visions has
been altered to allow the visions to perform a different role within
the book of Zechariah. The prophetic visions are set in the second
year of Darius, that is to say, some twenty years after the return
from Babylon. The deliverance from the Babylonian exile now lies
in the past. Although the traditional language of the ‘second
exodus’ has been retained, it has been given a new reference. The
language of hope now points to a still future event in which Israel’s
deliverance lies. Thus, the original focus on the end of the Babylo-
nian rule has been interpreted eschatologically within its new liter-
ary framework and projected out into the future. The traditional
identification of the new redemptive age, particularly as found in
Second Isaiah, has been dissolved by a fresh eschatological vision
which reckons with the return as a past historical event (cf. Gal-
ling. ‘l*ixilwentle', I17).
478 THE LATTER PROPHETS
There is a second major sign ofcanonical shaping within chs. 1~8
which emerges clearly in the present expansion of the original
visions by means of additional interpretative material. As has
already been described, the visions have been supplemented by the
addition of oracles. The two most obvious examples are the inter-
polations in chs. 2 and 4. These secondary additions to the original
visions provide a very definite interpretation of the visions to which
they have been joined. The oracle which begins in 2.10 (Evv 2.6)
assumes the traditional form ofthe herald’s cry. In a striking paral-
lel to Isa. 48.20;_]er. 50.8ff.; 51.6, the oracle urges the exiles to flee
from Babylon to Jerusalem. The eschatological intent appears
most clearly in v. 11 with the conversion of the nations proclaimed
‘in that day’. Verse 9 is of particular importance for its eschatologi-
cal emphasis. The verse reflects the tradition of the ‘final shaking’
(Hag. 2.6) with the familiar theme of the ‘plundering of the plun-
derer’ (Isa. 14.2; 33.1).
What is the effect ofthe oracle on the interpretation ofthe vision?
The oracle has made use of the traditional language of the second
exodus and the final convulsion of the end time. Since the deliver-
ance from Babylon now lies in the past, the language ofthe second
exodus can only refer to a future redemption. The language is old,
but the referent is new. A similar redactional role can be seen in the
oracle in ch. 4. Through the outpouring of the divine spirit (Isa.
11.2) the mountains are transformed into a plain (Isa. 40.3f.) and
the foundation of the earthly temple built by Zerubbabel adum-
brates the heavenly temple of the new age (Ezek. 40ff.). In sum,
both oracles now serve further to support the new eschatological
role which the framework has assigned to the visions.
The expansion of the original sequence of the visions also
includes sign-acts. In ch. 6 the sign-act consists in the crowning of
_]oshua. Wellhausen’s argument that originally Zerubbabel was
the recipient of the crowning has been followed by many modern
commentators (Mitchell, Horst, Elliger, etc.), but even ifthis were
the case, this level of the tradition has been completely eliminated
(cf. the LXX). _]oshua’s crowning now functions symbolically to
foreshadow the coming of the future messianic figure of the
‘Branch’.
The sign-act in ch. 3 has also been fashioned by the redactor to
function as one ofthe visions within the series ofnight visions (cf. v.
1), but along with this move, a divine oracle has also been added
ZECHARIAH 479
(vv. 6ff.). The oracle betrays immediately the eschatological inten-
tion of the editor. Again the divine word speaks of the coming
Branch, ofthe final cleansing of the land, and the realization ofthe
traditional prophetic hope of peace (cf. Micah 4.4).
The similarity in the editing of the visions by means of oracles
and sign-acts points to the same level of redaction. The same for-
mula ‘you will know that Yahweh of Hosts has sent me’ occurs
both in the oracles (2.13, l6 [Evv 2.9, 12]; 4.9) as well as in the
sign-act (6.15). Both oracles and sign-acts have a similar
eschatological orientation, and employ a similar literary technique
ofattaching secondary material to the original vision by means of
block interpolation.
Finally, consideration of the function of chs. 7 and 8 is in order.
One is impressed immediately by the similar signs of redactional
activity. The passage is introduced by a date formula consistent
with 1.1, 7. The cultic question is raised in 7.3 but receives its
answer only in 8.l8ff. by means of a divine oracle. Between the
question and answer is a series of divine oracles which sound
eschatological notes similar to those found in the earlier chapters.
Whereas in the preceding chapters the hortatory emphasis was
confined mainly to the introduction in l.3ff. (cf. 3.7; 6.5), this
traditional element of prophetic proclamation has been greatly
expanded. The predominantly eschatological concern ofthe editor
has not undercut the ethical imperatives ofthe covenant. The simi-
lar reference to the preaching of the ‘former prophets’ in 1.4 and
7.12 (cf. 8.9) gives strong evidence of being shaped by the same
editorial hand.
To summarize: chs. l-8 reflect a variety of different materials
(visions, sign-acts, priestly Torah oracles) which, however, have
been fashioned into a consistent pattern, probably by the same
redactor. The effect of the shaping is to afford the present chapters
with a role often quite dilferent from the original function ofboth
the visions, sign-acts and Torah oracles. The message of chs. 1-8
has been firmly attached to the immediate period following the
return from Babylon and has transformed the traditional hope in
the second exodus to an eschatological portrayal ofa still further
redemption.
Chapters 9-14
At the outset, it appears clear that chs. 9-14 do not exhibit any
480 "rm: LATTER PROPHETS
features which would cause one to assign them to the same redac-
tional level which we havejust described in chs. 1-8. Chs. 9-14 are
divided into two separate sections, each introduced by a superscrip-
tion (9.1 and 12.1), which seemed to have functioned indepen-
dently, not only of chs. 1-8 but also of each other. There is no
direct literary dependence of9—14 on 1-8 such as a conscious pat-
terning, a midrashic expansion, or a prophecy-fulfilment relation-
ship. The immediate implication to be drawn is that the canonical
process which resulted in shaping the book of Zechariah was ofa
very different order than that which fashioned the Isaianic corpus
(cf. ch. XVII).
Chapters 9-II
These chapters consist ofa variety oftraditional prophetic forms
which have been subsequently collected together. There are genres
of threat, promise, herald’s cry, invective, and allegory. The final
collection does not exhibit a closely honed structural unity, but
there is some parallelism of content between 9.lff. and 1l.lff.
Because the forms appear to have arisen in a definite historical
situation, it is natural that much scholarly attention has focused on
specifying the original setting. The high density of specific histori-
cal and geographical references in ch. ll further supports this scho-
larly effort. But the apparent ability of the divine words ofjudg-
ment against Syria/Palestine to refer equally well to Sargon,
Tiglath-Pileser, or Alexander would suggest that the role of the
oracle lies in something else besides historical reference. Indeed the
his-torical specificity has not been replaced by a move toward abs-
traction, but the oracles seem to describe a pattern of divinejudg-
ment which refersjust as well to the past as to the future. Likewise,
it does not appear significant for the chapters that the ciphers
Egypt and Assyria could equally well designate the political forces
opposed to God in the pre-monarchial or Maccabaean periods. The
incongruity arises in that the historical detail does not refer to any
one given period in history. Therefore, in spite ofthe highly plaus-
ible historical reconstruction ofa Slade for the Greek period, and
an Otzen for the pre-exilic setting, the canonical intention as it is
reflected in the present role assigned to the material appears to lie
elsewhere.
A similar observation can be made regarding the famous
‘shepherd allegory’ (ll.4—l7). Evidently at some stage in the
ZECHARIAH 481
Chapters I2-74
The task ofassessing the role of chs. 12-14 is far easier than with
the previous section. The chapter is introduced with the familiar
messenger formula proclaiming divine judgment against all the
nations which lay siege on Jerusalem. What then follows — except-
ing l3.7—9 —~ is a series of loosely joined oracles of promise which
have been linked with the recurring formula ‘in that day’. There is
some sense of progression of thought in the sequence of oracles
which moves from judgment, through salvation, to the new
Jerusalem, but it is not a closely-knit logical one. Rather, there is
much repetition and overlapping of associated traditional motifs to
form a rich mosaic which depicts the end time. The historical
particularity of the previous chapters is lacking in 12-14 and a
consistently eschatological message prevails throughout. The close
dependence on motifs which appeared chiefly in the post-exilic
period provide the warrant for most critical scholars’ assigning a
late date to this material. Among traditions in this category are
usually included the attack on Jerusalem by the nations (Ezek.
38—39; Joel 4), the end of true prophecy (Neh. 6.l0ff.), the
eschatological transformation ofJerusalem (Isa. 65.l7ff.), and the
conversion of the nations (Isa. 56.6ff.).
482 THE LATTER PROPHETS
History of Exegesis
Carpzov tn, 451f.; EB 2, 928; RGG3 5, 1265.
S. H. Blank, ‘The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature’, HUCA 12,
1937, 327-46; F. F. Bruce, ‘The Book of Zechariah and the Passion
Narrative’, B_]RL 43, 1961, 336-53; L. Doutreleau, ‘Introduction’, Didyme
l ’aveugle sur Zacharie I, SC 83, 1963, 13-186; G. Diettrich, I.io‘dadhs Stellung
in der Auslegungsgeschichte des Alten Testaments an seinen Kommentaren zu . . .
Sach 9-I4 oeranschaulicht, BZAW 6, 1902; L. Hartman, Propheg» Interpreted,
Lund 1966, ll8f., 166f.; A. Kfbhler, ‘Einleitung’, Die Weissagungen Sachar-
jas, I, Erlangen 1861, 1-27; Kramer, Der Hirtenallegorie im Buche Zach-
arias auf ihre Messianitiit hin untersucht, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Exegese, Munster 1930; K. G. Kuhn, ‘Die beiden Messias in den Qumran-
texten und die Messiasvorstellung in der rabbinischen Literatur’, ZAW
70, 1958, 200-8; A. M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary on the
Prophecies of Zechariah, London 1837.
XXXI
MALACHI
Commentaries
eil, CB, 1868 C. Dentan, IB, 1956
"Wzig, H, Steiner, KeH, 41881 Ge1in,JB, 31960
.—1El?Perowne,
-"*1 CB, 1890 R. Jones, TB, 1962
A. Smith, ExB, 1898 (21928) Horst, HAT, 31964
Wellhausen, 31898 ?=."1.@E>P° Elliger, ATD, 61967
Marti, KHC, 1904 T. Chary, SoBi, 1969
?>?<‘-“F>.~1_”‘*.O van Hoonacker, EB, 1908 P. A. Verhoef, COuT, 1972
J. M. P. Smith, ICC, 1912 G. Baldwin, TOTC, 1972
E. W. Barnes, CB2, 1917 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1977
E. Sellin, KAT, “I930 R. A. Mason, CNEB, 1977
A. von Bulmerincq, 1926-32
Bibliography
W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, Assen 1967; H.-J. Boecker,
‘Bemerkungen zur formgeschichtlichen Terminologie des Buches
Maleachi’, ZAW 78, 1966, 78-80; K. Budde, ‘Zum Text der drei letzten
kleinen Propheten’, ZA W 26, 1906, 1-28; K. Elliger, ‘Maleachi und die
kirchliche Tradition’, Tradition und Situation, FS A. Weiser, Gottingen 1963,
43-48; l. H. Eybers, ‘Malachi - The Messenger of the Lord’, Theologie
Evangelica 3, Pretoria 1970, 12-20; J. A. Fischer, ‘Notes on the Literary
Form and Message of Maleachil, CBQ 34, 1972, 315-20; O. Holtzmann,
‘Der Prophet Maleachi und der Ursprung des Phariséiertums’, ARW 29,
1931, 1-21; R. Pautriel, ‘Malachie(le livre de),’ DBS 5, 739-46; E. Pfei.f-
fer, ‘Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi’, EvTh 19, 1959, 546-68;
J. Swetnarn, ‘Malachi 1.11: An Interpretation’, CBQ 31, 1969, 200-9; C.
C. Torrey, ‘The Prophecy of “Malachi”’,_]BI. 17, 1898, 1-15; T. C.
Vriezen, ‘How to understand Malachi 1:11’, Grace upon Grace, Essays in
Biblical Theology presented to L. Kuyper, ed. I. Cook, Grand Rapids 1975,
MALACHI 489
128-36; G. Wallis, ‘Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis’, Das
ferne und nahe Wort, FS L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 229-37; A. C. Welch,
Post-exilicjudaism, Edinburgh 1935, 113-25.
The book of Malachi has not received the same amount of critical
scrutiny as have many ofthe other Minor Prophets. This situation
probably arises from a feeling that the problems of the book seem
neither as complex nor as important as some ofthe other prophets.
Critical scholarship reflects a rather broad consensus in dating the
book in the first half of the fifth century before the reforms of Ezra
and Nehemiah. There is also wide agreement regarding the essen-
tial unity ofthe book. As to its form , the book consists largely ofa
collection of disputations (cf. especially the analysis of Pfeiffer).
The book is usually divided into six sections: 1.2-5; 1.6-2.9; 2.10-
16; 2.l7-3.5; 3.6-12; 3.l3—2l (Evv 3.l3—4-.3). Occasional glosses
have been suggested (1.11-14; 2.11-12), but most of the proposals
have not been widely accepted, e.g. Sellin’s theory regarding
2.10-16. The only widespread suspicion falls on 3.22-24. Neverthe-
less, there are a number of critical issues which seriously affect the
interpretation of the book and which are addressed by all modern
commentaries.
(a) The first part of the superscription has evoked considerable
notice. The phrase ‘oracle of the word of Yahweh’ (mas's'a’ d‘bar
yhwh) occurs only three times in the Old Testament, namely Zech.
9.1, 12.1, and Mal. 1.1. From this evidence the conclusion has
usually been drawn that the phrase introduces three anonymous
oracles which were appended at the conclusion ofthe collection of
the Book ofthe Twelve. In the course of transmission the first two
oracles became attached somehow to Zechariah, whereas the last
oracle attained an independent status (cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction,
440, Fohrer, Introduction, 469, and Dentan, for variations of this
argument). We shall return to the issue later for an examination of
its merits.
(b) The second part of the superscription relates to the problem
of the book’s authorship. The Hebrew mal’alti (Malachi) is
rendered by the LXX as ciyyéhori aziroii (‘his messenger’). The
Targum adds the clause ‘whose name was Ezra the Scribe’. The
490 THE LATTER PROPHETS
Babylonian Talmud (Megilla 15a) and Jerome share this same
tradition. Accordingly, the evidence from the versions, the
philological problem of taking the noun as a proper name, and the
lack of any historical information concerning such a person, has
convinced the majority ofscholars that the word does not refer to a
person, but is an appellative. There is, however, an additional
aspect to the problem. Sellin is typical of most modern commen-
tators in suggesting that the word was secondarily introduced into
the superscription by a redactor from 3.1. In other words, the editor
of the superscription identified the messenger who was announced
in ch. 3 with the prophetic author of the book. Again, a closer
scrutiny of this consensus will be in order.
(c) There is general agreement on the critical assessment of the
last three verses (3.22-23, EVV 4.4-6) as consisting of two separate
appendices. The evidence turns chiefly on the form and content of
these concluding verses. Verse 4 is thought to be a summarizing
admonition stemming from a ‘legalistic’ rather than prophetic
editor (so. M. P. Smith, ICC). The last two verses offer a secon-
dary attempt to identify the figure promised in 3.1. Dentan (IB)
characterizes the verses as ‘a bit of speculative exegesis’. Rudolph
has argued for seeing these verses as a final redactional conclusion
to all the prophetic books.
(d) The final problem turns on the issue of the book’s original
addressee. The form of the book still reflects clearly the original
disputation between the prophet and an antagonist. Who were
these persons? The frequent harshness of the response has caused
some commentators (e.g. Elliger) to suggest that at least part ofthe
message must have originally been directed to non-Jews, such as
the Samaritans. Indeed, many commentators have rested much of
their interpretation on distinguishing between the ‘godless’, i.e. the
Samaritans and the ‘discouraged pious’, the faithful Jewish
remnant (cf. Wellhausen on 3.16). For these commentators
Malachi’s distinction between the godless and the pious is consi-
dered as the first step toward the later development ofthe Hasidim
within later Judaism (cf. ICC, IB). Again, this important issue
needs to be closely re-examined.
How do these various issues appear in the light of the canonical
shape into which the present book of Malachi has been fashioned?
MALACHI 491
The appendices
The evidence for regarding 3.22 (Evv 4.4) as an appendix from a
different hand turns mainly on the particular style and theological
perspective of the verse. In my opinion, the suggestion that we see a
secondary level ofinterpretation in this appendix is probably right.
However, Rudolph’s theory that the appendix was intended as a
conclusion to the entire prophetic collection, and matches the
‘introduction’ in Josh. 1.2, is not convincing. Rather the signi-
ficance of 3.22 (Evv 4.4) lies in the effect it has as a concluding
appendix on the interpretation ofthe book as a whole. To dismiss it
as a ‘legalistic corrective’ stemming from some disgruntled priestly
editor, is to misunderstand the process by which the Hebrew scrip-
tures were collected. The imperative in 3.22 serves to establish an
important critical perspective from within the tradition in the light
of which Malachi’s prophetic disputation assumes its proper
theological place. The imperative calls to memory that the whole
nation of Israel still stands under the law of Moses which still
functions as the unchanging authority for the whole community.
The imperative does not weaken Malachi’s attack on the nation’s
sins, but it sets a check against any misuse of the prophet’s words
which would call into question national solidarity in the name of
additional requirements for the pious.
The second appendix (3.2f.; Evv 4.5f.) is of even greater signifi-
cance in its effect on the reading of the prophet’s message. It first
identifies the eschatological messenger of 3.1 with Elijah the pro-
phet, who will precede the final day ofjudgment. The use of the
eschatological vocabulary of Joel 3.4 (Evv 2.31) removes any
ambiguity as to what day is meant. E1ijah’s task is to restore the
spiritual unity of God’s people in preparation for the coming of
God to establish justice.
By identifying the eschatological messenger with a figure from
Israel’s tradition, namely Elijah, the editors again provided a
theological context in which Malachi’s message was to be under-
stood. Clearly the identification went beyond the original message
of the prophet, but arose from the compatible relationship between
the Elijah tradition and the prophetic proclamation. Like Malachi,
Elijah addressed ‘all Israel’ (1 Kings 18.20). The people oflsrael
were severely frztgmented by indecision of faith (18.21). A curse
llatl fallen on the ltmtl (18.1 // l\lal- 3.24, Evv 4.6). Elijah chal-
496 THE LATTER PROPHETS
lenged all Israel to respond to God by forcing a decision between
the right and the wrong ( // Mal. 3.18). He did it by means ofthe
right offering ( // Mal. 3.3) and a fire which fell from heaven (//
Mal. 3.3, 19). Of course, Elijah could return because he had not
died, but had been taken alive into heaven.
The effect of identifying Malachi’s eschatological prophet with
Elijah was not only to establish in great detail the role of the
prophet in respect to Israel’s restoration, but also to describe
theologically the condition of the addressee through this typologi-
cal analogy. The appendix served to equate the hearers of
Malachi’s prophecy - along with future generations who heard his
words in scripture - with the disobedient, vacillating people whose
national allegiance to the God of their fathers was in danger of
being dissolved. This redactional identification went beyond the
prophet’s original message, but it did not do injustice to it. Rather,
it served to bring together elements from his preaching into a
sharper focus, and to set them in a picture, which was enriched by
Israel’s fuller traditions.
The narrative report
There is one final indication ofcanonical shaping which comes in
3.16. At the outset the style is noteworthy (cf. Joel 2.18). A narra-
tive reports the reaction of a group to a disputation between the
prophet and the slanderers of God (3.13-15). Verse 16 does not
recount the activity ofthe prophet, but shares a narrative perspec-
tive apart from the original disputation. The verse reports a histori-
cal response - the contrast is deliberately made with the repetition
of the vocabulary (3.13//16) - and then adds a historicaljudgment
which is obviously of a theological order: God heard them and
reckoned their response to their credit. Then the original prophetic
words of promise (vv. l7ff.) are attached to this historical group of
faithful Israelites. The verse is clearly redactional. It reflects a
layer different from the original setting of disputation and provides
a new theological perspective.
The effect of the verse is to establish in the traditional prose of
Hebrew narrative style that God ‘heard’ the response ofthe faithful
as he had heard the prayers of Abraham, Moses and the psalmist.
The historical report thus established a historical — not typological
- continuity between faithful Israel in the past and in Malachi’s
age. It testifies to the fact that the promise ofa righteous Israel was
MALACHI 497
not simply a promise, but was even then a historical reality. Thus
the theological integrity of Israel as the people of God was main-
tained.
To summarize: the original message ofthe prophet Malachi was
placed within a larger theological context drawn from Israel’s trad-
ition which rendered the original prophetic words appropriate as
scripture for successive generations of the people of God. The
larger context acted both to enrich the prophet’s message by the
use of typological analogy, as well as to guard against a sectarian
misuse ofthe prophet which would fragment the national solidarity
in the name of reform.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov III, 464-6; DBS, 4, 610; DThC 9, 1759f.; RGG3 4, 629.
A. von Bulmerincq, Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten .4/Ialeachi. Der Pro-
phet Maleachi I, Dorpat 1926; J. Carmignac, ‘Vestiges d’un Pesher de
Malachie’, RQ 4, 1964, 97-100; J. Jeremias, ‘Die Elias Wiederkunft’,
TWNT 2, 933-36 = TDNT 2, 931ff.;J. Knabenbauer, Prophetae Minores II,
Paris 1886, 430-45; A. Kohler, ‘Einleitung’, Die Weissagungen Maleachi’s,
Erlangen 1865, 1-27.
PART FIVE
THE WRITINGS
XXXII
INTRoDUoTIoN TO THE WRITINGS
Bibliography
J. Bloch, On the Apocalyptic in_]udaism,JQR Monograph Series 2, 1952; H.
Gese, ‘Die Entstehung der Biichereinteilung des Psalters’, Vom Sinai zum
Zion, Munich 1974, 159-67; G. Hoelscher, Kanonisch und Apokryph, Leip-
zig 1905; Fiirst, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1868; P. Katz,
‘The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria’, ZNW 47, 1956,
191-217; C. H. Lebram, ‘Aspekte der alttestamentliehen Kanonbil-
dung’, VT 18, 1968, 173-89; S. Leiman, The Canonization ry'Hebrew Scrip-
ture, Hamden, Conn., 1976; M. Margolis, The Hebrew Scriptures in the Mak-
ing, Philadelphia I922; C. A. Moore, Esther, AB, 1971, XXIff.; D. R655-
ler, Gesetz und Geschichte. Untersuchung zur Theologie der jiidischen /lpoltalrptik
und der pharisliischen Orthodoxie, WMANT 3, 1962; H. E. Ryle, The Canon of
the Old Testament, London 1892, 1 l9ff., 2l0ff.; S. Segert, ‘Zur literarischen
Form und Funktion der Fiinf Megilloth’, /lrOr 35, 1965, 451-62; A. C.
Sundberg, The Old Testament ofthe Early Church, Cambridge, Mass. and
London 1964; R. D. Wilson, ‘The Book of Daniel and the Canon’, PTR
13, 1915, 352-408; ‘The Silence of Ecclesiasticus concerning Daniel’, PTR
14, 1916, 448-74; L. B. Wolfenson, ‘Implications ofthe Place ofthe Book,
of Ruth in Editions, Manuscripts, and Canon of the Old Testament’,
HUCA 1, 1924, 151-78; W. Wiirthwein, ‘Der Fiinf Megilloth als Samm-
lung’, Die Fiinfll/Iegilloth, Tiibingen 1969, iii.
Commentaries
E. Hengstenberg, 21849-52 H. Schmidt, HAT, 1934
J. Olshausen, KeH, 1853 W. O. E. Oesterley, 1939
H. Hupfeld, 1855-62 A. Cohen, SonB, 21950
W. M. L. de Wette, 51856 H. Lamparter, BAT, 1958
F. Delitzsch, BC, 1871 A. Weiser, ET, OTL, 1962
J. S. Perowne, 21890 E. Kissane, 21964
J. Wellhausen, 21898 A. Deissler, 1965
A. F. Kirkpatrick, CB, 1891-1901 M. J. Dahood, AB, 1966-70
C. A. Briggs, ICC, 1906-7 H.-J. Kraus, BK, 41972
B. Duhm, KHC, 21922 A. A. Anderson, NCeB, 1972
H. Gunkel, HKAT, 41926 D. Kidner. TOTC, 1975
R. Kittel, KAT, 5'6l929 W. Rogerson, W. McKay,
E. W. Barnes, WC, 1931 CNEB, 1977
Bibliographical Surveys
The amount of secondary literature on the Psalms is so immense that the
reader is referred to the following modern bibliographical surveys:
M. Haller, ‘EinJahrzehnt Psalmenforschung’, ThR NF 1, 1929, 377-402;
A. R. Johnson, ‘The Psalms’, The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. H.
H. Rowley, Oxford and New York 1951, 162-209; Stamm, ‘Ein
Vierteljahrhundert Psalmenforschung’, ThR NF 26, 1955, 1-68; Cop-
pens, ‘Etudes Récentes sur le Psautier’, Le Psautier, ed. R. de Langhe,
Louvain 1962, 1-91; E. Lipinsl-ti, ‘Les psaumes de la royauté de Yahwé
dans l’exégi=:se moderne’, ibid., 133-272; A. S. Kapelrud, ‘Scandinavian
Research in the Psalms after Mowincke1’,ASTI 4, 1965, 148-62;J. Schil-
denberger, ‘Die Psalmen. Eine Ubersicht iiber einige Psalmenwerke der
Gegenwart’, BiLe 8, 1967, 220-31; D. J. A. Clines, ‘Psalm Research since
1955: I. The Psalms and the Cult. II. The Literary Genres’, Tyndale
THE PSALMS 505
Bulletin 18, London 1967, 103-25; 20, 1969, 105-25; L. Sabourin, The
Psalms, Their Origin and Meaning, II, Staten Island, N.Y. 1969, 337-67;
P.-E. Langevin, Bibliographie Biblique I930-I970, Quebec 1972, l471f.;
Gerstenberger, ‘Literatur zu den Psalmen’, VF 17, 1972, 82-99; E.
Beauchamp, DBS 9, 1973, 127lf., 167ff., l88fT.; E. Gerstenberger,
‘Psalms’, Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. H. Hayes, San Antonio, Texas
1974, 220-21; O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament, ET Oxford and
Minneapolis 1975, 337lf.; B. S. Childs, ‘Reflections on the Modern Study
of the Psalms’, The I1/Iighty Acts ofGod. In ll/Iemoriam G. E. Wright, ed. F. M.
Cross, Garden City, N.Y. 1976, 377-88.
Selected Bibliography
G. W. Ahlstrfam, Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Kiinigs,
Lund 1959; W. F. Albright, ‘A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems:
Psalm 68’, HUCA 23, 1950, 1-39; L. Alonso Schfnkel, ‘Poésie Heb-
ra'I'que’, DBS 8, 47-90; A. Arens, ‘Hat der Psalter seinen “Sitz im Leben”
in der synagogalen Leseordnung des Pentateuch?’, Le Psautier, ed. R. de
Langhe, Louvain 1962, 107-31; Die Psalmen im Gottesdienst des Alten Bundes,
Trier2 1968; E. Balla, Das Ich des Psalmen, FRLANT 16, 1912; C. Barth,
Die Errettung vom Tode in den indioiduellen Klag- und Danltliedern des Alten
Testament, Ziirich 1947; Introduction to the Psalms, ET Oxford and New York
1966; E. Beauchamp and I. Saint-Arnaud, ‘Psaumes. II, Le psautier’,
l)BS 9, 125-214; Becker, Israel deutet seine Psalmen, Stuttgart 1966; Wege
der Psalmenexegese, Stuttgart 1975; Begrich, ‘Das priesterliche Heils-
orakel’, ZAW 52, 1934, 81-92; A. Bentzen, King and Messiah, ET London
and N aperville, I11. 1955; K.-H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der altorientalischen
Ktinigsideologie im Alten Testament, SVT 8, 1961; W. Beyerlin, ‘Die nee der
Heilsvergegenwartigung in den Klageliedern des Einzelnen’, ZAW 79,
1967, 208-24; Die Rettung der Bedriingten in den Feindpsalmen der Einzelnen auf
institutionelle Zusammenhang untersucht, F RLANT 99, 1970; H. Birkeland,
Die Feinde des Indioiduums in der israelitischen Psalmenliteratur, Oslo 1933; The
lioildoers in the Book of Psalms, ANVAO II, 1955, No. 2; W. Bloemendaal,
The Headings of the Psalms in the East Syrian Church, Leiden 1960; R. G.
Boling, ‘Synonymous Parallelism in the Psa1ms’,_]SS 5, 1960, 221-55; D.
Bonhoeffer, The Psalms as the Prayer Book of the Church, ET Philadelphia
19711 ((r’esammelte Schriften IV, Munich 1961, 544ff.); H. A. Brongers, ‘Die
R:tehe- und Fluchpsalmen im Alten Testament’, OTS 13, 1963, 21-42; F.
1". Bruce. ‘The Earliest Old Testament Interpretation’, OTS 1.7, 1972,
-1-1--52; M. Buss, ‘The Psalms ofAsaph and Korah’,_/BL 82, 1963, 387-92.
ll. Cazelles. ‘l.a question du lamed auctoris’, RB 56, 1949, 93-101; B. S.
Childs. ’I2stI1|n Titles ttntl .\'litlr;Ishi(‘ l“ixegt‘sis’,_/SS 16, 1971, 137-50; K.
R. Crim, The It’orul I’tr1lrrts, Riehmontl, Va. 1962; F. M. CTOSS, ‘The
l)i\'1Ilt' \\‘;tI'I'ioI' in lsr;tel's l'i;tI'ly (§nlt’. lillifi; reprintetl in Canaanite .’l/Iyth
506 THE wRITINos
S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth and Ritual, London and New York 1933; H.
Luden Jansen, Die spiitjiidische Psalmendichtung. Ihr Entstehungskreis und ihr
‘Sitz im Leben’, Oslo 1937; A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel ,
Cardiff 21967; H.-_]. Kraus, Die Kiinigsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament,
Tiibingen 1951; R. de Langhe, ed., Le Psautier, ses origines, ses problemes
litteraires, son influence, Louvain 1962; A. Lauha, Die Geschichtsmotive in den
alttestamentlichen Psalmen, Helsinki 1945; E. Lipinski, ‘Yahweh ma1ak’,Bibl
44, 1963, 405-60; La royauté de Yahwé dans la poésie et le culte de l’ancien Israel ,
Brussels 1965; ‘Psaumes: Formes et genre littéraires’, DBS 9, 1-125;]. L.
McKenzie, ‘Royal Messianism’, CBQ 19, 1957, 25-52; D. Michel, ‘Stu-
dien zu den sogenannten Thronbesteigungspsalmen’, VT 6, 1956, 40-63;
S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, 1. Awiin und die individuellen Klagepsalmen: II.
Das Thronbesteigungsfest jahwiis und der Ursprung der Eschatologie; III. Kult-
prophetie und prophetische Psalmen; IV. Die technischen Termini in den Psal-
meniiberschriften; V. Segen und Fluch in Israels Kult und Psalmendichtung; VI. Die
Psalmendichter, SNVAO, 1921-1924; The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, ET
Oxford 1962; P. A. Munch, ‘Diejiidischen “Weisheitspsalmen” und ihr
Platz im Leben‘, AcOr 15, 1936, 112-40; R. Murphy, ‘A Consideration of
the Classification “Wisdom Psalms”, SVT 9, 1962, 156-67; C. T.
Niemeyer, Het Problem van de Rangschikking der Psalmen, Leiden 1950;]. H.
Patton, Canaanite Parallels to the Book of Psalms, Baltimore 1944; _]. P. M.
van der Ploeg, ‘Réflexions sur les genres littéraires des Psaumes’, Studia
Biblica et Semitica T. C. Vriezen dedicata, Wageningen 1966, 265-77; R.
Press, ‘Die eschatologische Ausrichtung des 51. Psalms’, TZ 11, 1955,
241-49; ‘Der zeitgeschichtliche Hintergrund der Wallfahrts-Psalmen’, TZ
14, 1953, 401-15.
C. Qllell, Das kultische Problem der Psalmen, BWANT 11.1 1(=36), 1926;
G. von Rad, ‘Erwiigungen zu den Konigspsalmen’, ZAW 53, 1940/1,
‘.Z16—22; N. H. Ridderbos, Die Psalmen, BZAW 117, 1972; A. Robert, ‘Le
Psaume CXIX et les Sapientaux‘, RB 43, 1939, 5-20; ‘L’exégese des
Psaumes selon les méthodes de la “Formgeschichte”. Expose et critique’,
Miscellanea Biblica B. Ubach, ed. R. Diaz, Montserrat 1953, 211-25;]. A.
Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave ll, Oxford 1965; ‘Cave 11 Sur-
prises and the Question ofCanon’, New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed.
1). N. Freedman and C. Greenfield, New York 1971, 113-30; N. M.
Sarna, ‘The Psalm for the Sabbath Day (Ps. 92)’,_/BL 31, 1962, 155-63;
‘Psalm 39: A Study of Inner Biblical Exegesis’, Biblical and Other Studies,
t'(1. A. Altmann, Cambridge, Mass. and London 1963, 29-46; ‘Pro-
1v_q<m1enon’, The Psalms Chronologically Treated, by M. Buttenweiser, New
York 1969; ‘Psalms and the Cult’, 13, 1315-7; H. Schmidt, Das Gebet
der Angelclagten im Alten Testament, BZAW 49, 1923; H. Schneider, ‘Die
Psztlmen im Cotlestlit-nst (les Alten Bundes’, ThRev 53, 1962, 225-34; R.
Smend, ‘Uher das lrh der Pszt1men’,ZAW 3, 1333, 49—147;_]. A. Soggin,
‘Zum rrslc-n 1’s;tlm‘, TZ 23, I967, 31-96; ‘Zum zweiten Psalm’, Wort -
(irlml - (ilrmbe. FS H". l'.'it'hrmlt, /.i'|rii‘h 1971), 191-207; /\. Szorényi,
508 THE wnrrmos
‘Quibus criteriis dignosci possit, qui Psalmi ad usum liturgicum compositi
sunt’, Bibl 23, 1942, 333-63.
R. Tournay, ‘Les psaumes complexes’, RB 54, 1947, 521-42; 56, 1949,
37-60; M. Tsevat, A Study of the Language Qf the Biblical Psalms, JBL Mono-
graph Series 9, l955; G. Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem
traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97, 1966; W. R. Watters,
Formula Criticism and the Poetry ofthe Old Testament, BZAW 133, 1976; A.
Weiser, ‘Zur Frage nach den Beziehungen der Psalmen zum lxult’, FS A.
Bertholet, Tiibingen 1950, 513-37; M. Weiss, ‘Wege der neuen Dichtungs-
wissenschaft in ihrer Anwendung auf die Psalmenforschung’, Bibl 42,
1961, 255-302; A. S. Welch, The Psalter in Life, Worship and History, Oxford
and New York 1926; C. Westermann, ‘Struktur und Geschichte der
Klage im Alten Testament’, ZAW 66, 1954, 44-30; ‘Zur Sammlung des
Psalters’, Forschung am Alten Testament, Munich 1964, 336-43; ‘Vergegen-
wiirtigung der Geschichte in den Psalmen’, Forschung am Alten Testament,
253-30; The Praise of God in the Psalms, ET Richmond, Va. 1965; _]. W.
Wevers, ‘A Study in the Form Criticism of Individual Complaint
Psalms’, VT 6, 1956, 30-96; G. Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew
Psalms ofLamentations as Religious Documents, Stockholm 1937; H. W. Wolff,
‘Psalm 1’, EvTh 9, 1949/50, 335-94; W. Zimmerli, ‘Zwillingspsalmen’,
Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. FS j. Ziegler, Wiirzburg 1972, 105-113; H.
Zirker, Die kultische Vergegenwiirtigung der Vergangenheit in den Psalmen, BBB
20, 1964.
lt has long been recognized that the present shape of the Psalter
rellects a long history of development in both its oral and literary
stages. The presence of early collections of psalms throughout the
Psalter is evident, as for example, in the pilgrimage songs of Pss.
I20-134, and in the collections of Asaph and Korah (cf. Wester-
mann and Gese). The colophon-like conclusion of Ps. 72: ‘the
prayers of David, the son of_]esse, are ended’, also appears to mark
.|n earlier collection because other psalms are attributed to David
in the books which follow. It is also clear that the psalms have
tmtlergone a complex history of literary redaction such as is visible
in the l'll<:hiSti(‘ editing of Pss. 43-33.
At times it is possible to trace quite easily some of the stages_ in
tl1t' tl('\'t*lt>p|||t'r|t. Bunk 1 til‘ 1111' Ps'2t11t'r appears to he one Of the
512 THE wnrrmos
The introduction
Psalm 1 is generally classified as a ‘Torah Psalm’_and is akin to
Pss. l9b and 119 in its praise ofthe law. The psalmist pronounces a
blessing on the godly man who occupies himselfday and night with
the divine commandments. The parallels with Deut. 30 and josh. 1
reveal clearly that the commandments of Moses constitute the
divine law on which the godly reflect. It is highly significant that
the psalmist understands Israel’s prayer as a response to God’s
prior speaking. Israel’s prayers are not simply spontaneous mus-
ings or uncontrolled aspirations, but rather an answer to God’s
word which continues to address Israel in his Torah.
The present editing of this original Torah psalm has provided
the psalm with a new function as the introduction to the whole
Psalter. Westermann may be right in seeing Pss. l and 119 as
forming the framework for an earlier collection of psalms. Cer-
tainly in its final stage ofdevelopment, Ps. 1 has assumed a highly
significant function as a preface to the psalms which are to be read,
studied, and meditated upon. The Torah ofGod which is the living
word of God is mediated through its written form as sacred scrip-
ture. With the written word Israel is challenged to meditate day
and night in seeking the will of God. Indeed, as a heading to the
whole Psalter the blessing now includes the faithful meditation on
the sacred writings which follow. The introduction points to these
prayers as the medium through which Israel now responds to the
clivine word. Because Israel continues to hear God’s word through
the voice of the psalmist’s response, these prayers now function as
the divine word itself. The original cultic role of the psalms has
been subsumed under a larger category ofthe canon. In an analogy
to Israel’s wisdom collection the study of the Psalter serves as a
guidebook along the path of blessing.
Dietrich Bonhoelfer once reflected on the question of how the
psalins wliicli were the words of men to God could ever be consi-
tlt-retl (lot1's wortl to men. 'l'he redactional position ofPs. 1 testifies
that this llt‘I'lllt‘llt'll1lt';l1 shift tlitl actually take place within Israel.
'1'ht- p1'a\'t-rs of Israel tlirt-ctetl to Cod have themselves become
itlt-ntilietl with (iotlis wortl to his people. Israel rellccls on the
514 THE WRITINGS
psalms, not merely to find an illustration of how godly men prayed
to God in the past, but to learn the ‘way of righteousness’ which
comes from obeying the divine law and is now communicated
through the prayers of Israel.
The Psalter bears the title in the Hebrew Bible of t‘hillim, songs
of praise. This is not a literary classification and does not accu-
rately describe the various genres of prayer, songs and liturgies
which the Psalter contains, but it does accurately reflect the theo-
logy of Israel. The psalms have to do with the praise of God. The
title correctly bears witness to the conviction that the voice is that
of Israel, but it is only an echo of the divine voice which called his
people into being. The introduction to the Psalter testifies to a new
theocentric understanding of the psalms in the continuing life of the
people ofGod. The introduction is, therefore, the first hint that the
original setting has been subordinated to a new theological func-
tion for the future generations of worshipping Israel.
theme: ‘Redeem Israel out of all his troubles.’ Whether one wants
to explain this movement by an appeal to H. W'heeler Robinson’s
hypothesis of‘collective personality’ remains a moot question, but
certainly there is evidence to suggest that the individual psalms
were often understood collectively by the later generation of wor-
shippers. Of course, this is hardly a surprising development and
one which seems entirely natural even to modern liturgy. However,
it is significant in again showing a new function which ancient
psalms had already acquired within ancient Israel, and it calls into
question an exegesis which fails to deal seriously with the final
shape within the canonical collection.
Psaim titles
Finally, and surely the most far-reaching alteration with which
the collector shaped the canonical Psalter, was in his use of super-
scriptions. Little interest has been paid to these titles in recent
years. The reason for this lack ofinterest is clear. A wide consensus
has been reached among critical scholars for over a hundred years
that the titles are secondary additions which can afford no reliable
information toward establishing the genuine historical setting ofthe
psalms. Yet, although the titles are a relatively late addition, they
represent an important reflection of how the psalms as a collection
ofsacred literature were understood and how this secondary setting
became authoritative for the canonical tradition (cf. Childs, ‘Psalm
Titles’).
The titles are ofa wide variety ofkinds and reflect many different
functions. Some are ofa liturgical nature and designate the manner
in which the psalm was to be rendered by the choirmaster. Many of
these technical terms can no longer be understood and appear
unintelligible even to the early Greek translators. But most
significant in the titles is the close connection established with
David. The Masoretic Text assigns 73 psalms to David. The LXX
increased the number and later rabbinic tradition ascribed all of
the Psalter in a sense to Davidic inspiration. Clearly, David came to
be regarded as the source of Israel’s psalms as Moses was for the
law, and Solomon was for wisdom.
Perhaps the key to understanding this Davidic tradition regard-
ing the psalms is to be found in the thirteen examples in which a
specific incident in David’s life is described as the occasion for the
THE PSALMS 521
writing ofthe psalm. Thus Ps. 51 is connected with David’s sin with
Bathsheba, and Ps. 56 with his being seized by the Philistines in
Gath. Now the interesting thing to note is that the psalms are
related to historical incidents recorded elsewhere in scripture,
specifically in Samuel. Moreover, the process by which the rela-
tionship was established derived from an exegesis of the psalms
themselves which sought to establish the setting from the content of
the psalm (cf. Childs). In other words, the titles are not indepen-
dent historical traditions. How are we to understand this move?
Psalms which once functioned within a cultic context were his-
toricized by placing them within the history of David. Moreover,
the incidents chosen as evoking the psalms were not royal occasions
or representative of the kingly office. Rather, David is pictured
simply as a man, indeed chosen by God for the sake oflsrael, but
who displays all the strengths and weaknesses of all human beings.
He emerges as a person who experiences the full range of human
emotions, from fear and despair to courage and love, from com-
plaint and plea to praise and thanksgiving. Moreover, by attaching
a psalm to a historical event the emphasis is made to fall on the
inner life of the psalmist. An access is now provided into his emo-
tional life. One now knows how his faith relates to the subjective
side of his life.
The effect of this new context has wide hermeneutical implica-
tions. The psalms are transmitted as the sacred psalms of David,
hut they testify to all the common troubles and joys of ordinary
human life in which all persons participate. These psalms do not
need to be cultically actualized to serve later generations. They are
made immediately accessible to the faithful. Through the mouth of
David, the man, they become a personal word from God in each
individual situation. In the case of the titles the effect has been
exactly the opposite from what one might have expected. Far from
t_\ ing these hymns to the ancient past. they have been contempor-
izctl and individualized for every generation ofsulfering and perse-
cnted lsrael.
'l'o summarize: The attempt has been made to outline the canon-
ical shape of the Psalter and to describe the elements within the
hnal redaction. Several important alterations have been detected
which have pointed to a different function in the final collection
liont its original role in ancient lsrael. There was a growing con-
st'iiillSl|t‘S.\‘ of the Psalter as sacred scripture reflected in the intro-
522 THE wnrrtnos
duction and in the anthological style. There was a reinterpretation
which sought to understand the promise to David and Israel’s
salvation as an eschatological event. At times there was a move
within the Psalter to broaden an original individual reference to
incorporate the collective community, whereas at other times, the
move toward universalizing the psalm was achieved by relating it
to the history of David as a representative man.
Above all, one senses the variety within the canonical process.
Although the psalms were often greatly refashioned for use by the
later community, no one doctrinaire theology was allowed to domi-
nate. Then the question arises, did the later refashioning do viol-
ence to the original meaning? One’s answer depends largely on how
one construes ‘doing violence’. Certainly the elements of continuity
between the earlier and later interpretations are evident. Neverthe-
less, the original meaning is no longer an adequate norm by which
to test the new.
I lz'.rtor_;' of Exegesis
Carpzov III, I-ll—l53; DBS 9, I88-90 (Qumran Psalms); Hcipfl, Introd.
l”/', 5lfl4fi, fil l—l~'l'; RG63 5, 684—6.
Commentaries
A. Ewald, 31854 V. E. Reichert, SonB, 1946
Hengstenberg, 1870-75 H. Lamparter, BAT, 1951
OE;
f‘1P'1.Q elitzsch, BC, 31872 G. Holscher, HAT, 31952
O. Zbckler, ET, LCHS, 1875 N. H. Tur-Sinai, 1957
A. B. Davidson, CB, 1884 A. Weiser, ATD, 31959
_]. Knabenbauer, CSS, 1886 S. Terrien, CAT, 1963
A. Dillmann, KeH, 31891 C. Fohrer, KAT3, 1963
B. Duhm, KHC, 1897 E. Dhorme, (1926) ET 1967
A. S. Peake, CeB, 1905 F. Horst, BK, I, 1968
K. Budde, HKAT, 31913 H. H. Rowley, NCeB, 1970
S. R. Driver, G.B. Gray, ICC, 1921 M. H. Pope, AB, 31974
N. Peters, EH, 1928 F. I. Anderson, TOTC, 1976
Kissane, 1939 R. Gordis, 1978
Bibliography
A. Alt, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des Buches Hiob’, ZAW 55, 1937, 265-8; J.
Barr, ‘The Book of_]ob and its Modern Interpreters’, B_]RL 54, 1971-2,
28-46; K. Barth, Hiob, ed. H. Gollwitzer, BSt 49, 1966; G. A. Barton,
‘The Composition ofjob 24-30’,jBL 30, 1911, 66-77; L. W. Batten, ‘The
Epilogue to the Book of_]ob’, AThR 15, 1933, 125-8; F. Baumgiirtel, Der
Hiobdialog, BWANT IV.9 (=61), 1933; N. P. Bratsiotis, ‘Der Monolog
im Alten Testament’, ZAW 73, 1961, 30-70; K. Budde, Beitriige zur Kritik
des Buches Hiob, Bonn 1876; M. Burrows, ‘The Voice from the Whirl-
wind’, _]BL 47, 1928, 117-32; R. Cartensen, ‘The Persistence of the
“Elihu” Tradition in Later Jewish Writings’, Lexington Theological Quar-
terly. 2, Lexington, Ky. 1967, 37-46; T. K. Cheyne,“/ob and Solomon,
London 1887; M. B. Crook, The Cruel Cod, job ’s Search for the .-lleaning of
Suffering, Boston 1959; M. Dahood, ‘Northwest Semitic Philology and
JOB 527
job’, The Bible in Current Catholic Thought, ed. L. McKenzie, New York
1962, 55-74; L. Dennefeld, ‘Les discours d’E1ihou (job 32-37)’, RB 48,
1939, 163-80; G. R. Driver, ‘Problems in the Hebrew Text ofjob’, VT 3,
1955, 72-93; H. Duesberg, Les scribes inspires II, Paris 1939, 53-157,
Maredsous 31966; Fichtner, ‘Hiob in der Verkiindigung unserer Zeit’,
Gottes Weisheit, Stuttgart 1965, 52ff.; G. Fohrer, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte und
Komposition des Buches Hiob’, VT 6, 1956, 248-6 7; Studien gum Buch Hiob,
Giitersloh 1963; D. N. Freedman, ‘The Elihu Speeches in the Book of
job’, HTR 61, 1968, 51-9; K. Fullerton, ‘The Original Conclusion to the
Book of_]ob’, ZAW 42, 1924, 116-35; ‘job, chapters 9 and 10’, AjSL 55,
1938, 225-69.
B. Gemser, ‘The Rib- or Controversy Pattern in Hebrew Mentality’,
Wisdom in Israel, FS H. H. Rowley, ed. M. Noth and D. W. Thomas, SVT 3,
1955, 120-37; H. Gese, Lehre und Wirklichkeit in der alten Weisheit. Studien zu
den Spriichen Salomos und zu dem Buche Hiob, Tiibingen 1958; H. L. Ginsberg,
"_]ob the Patient and job the Impatient’, Conservativejudarlrrn 21, New York
I966/7, 12-28; N. H. Glatzer, The Dimensions ofjob, New York 1969; E. M.
Good, Irony in the Old Testament, Philadelphia 1965, 196-240; ‘_]ob and the
Literary Task: A Response (to David Robertson)’, Soundings 56, New
Haven 1973, 470-84; R. G01-dis, The Book ofGod and Man. A Study of“/ob,
(lhicago and London 1965; W. H. Green, The Argument ofthe Book qf_/ob
lnfnlded, New York 1873; ‘The Dramatic Character and Integrity of the
Book of_]ob’, Presbyterian and Reformed Review 8, New York 1897, 683-701;
11. Gunkel, ‘Hiobbuch’, RGG3, 3, 1924-30;]. Hempel, ‘Das theologische
Problem des Hiob’, Zeitschrzfl fur Systematische Theologie 6, Berlin 1929,
h'_'l-89= Apostysmata, BZAW 81, 1961, 114-174; G. von Herder, Vom
(iris! der ebrischen Poesie, Leipzig 1825, Vol. I, 107-21; ET, The Spirit ofHeb-
me Poetry, Burlington, Vt. 1833, Vol. I, 99-121; W. H. Hertzberg, ‘Der
.\lllIJilU des Buches Hiob’, FS A. Bertholet, Tiibingen 1950, 233-58; P.
Humbert, ‘Le modernisme de _]ob’, SVT 3, 1955, 150-61.
W. A. Irwin, ‘The First Speech of Bildad’, ZAW 51, 1933, 205-16;
'l'he Elihu Speeches in the Criticism of the Book of_]ob’,jR 17, 1937,
£7--17; A. Jepsen, Das Buch Hiob und seine Deutung, Berlin 1963; C. G.
Jung, Answer to job, ET London 1954; K. Kautzsch, Das sogenannte Volks-
tmch von Hiob, Tiibingen, Freiburg, Leipzig 1900; E. G. H. Kraeling,
'.\l.tn and his God. A Sumerian Variation on the “Job” Motive’, SVT 3,
l‘I.'i.'i. 170-82; C. Kuhl, ‘Neuere Literarkritik des Buches Hiob’, ThR 21,
l'I.'>Il. 103-205, 257-317; ‘Vom Hiobbuche und seinen Problemen’, ThR
.".'. 10.":-1, 261-316; R. Laurin, ‘The Theological Structures ofjob’, ZAW
H1, I972, 86-92; Lévi:que,_]ob et son Dieu, 2 vols, Paris 1970 (exhaustive
hih|iogra|iliy); R. .-\. 1*’. McKenzie, ‘The Purpose ofthe Yahweh Speeches
in llte Honk til'_]til)’_ Iilbl -Ill, lfl5.(l, 435-45, OWCHS, ‘The Prologue and
the l".pilogne’, l\’eviett' and l'.'.i'po.ritor 68, Louisville, Ky. 1971, 457-67; R. H.
l'l'eiffer_ ‘l-ldouiitic \\'isdom’, Z.1l|l'-14, 1926, 13-25; R. M. Polzin, ‘An
.\lteui|>t at Sltitctllratl .-\nalysis: 'l’||e Iitiok ol'_|ol)’, Riblical Structuralism,
528 "rm-3 WRITINGS
Missoula and Philadelphia 1977, 54-125; G. von Rad, ‘Hiob XXXVIII
und die altagyptische Weisheit’, SVT 3, 1955, 293-301 = GSAT Munich
1958, 262-71; ET in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. Crenshaw,
New York 1976, 267-77; Vlfisdom in Israel, ET London and Nashville 1972,
207-26; G. Richter, ‘Erwagungen zum Hiobproblem’, EvTh 18, 1958,
302-24; Studien gu Hiob, Berlin 1958; David Robertson, ‘The Book ofjobz
A Literary Study’, Soundings 56, 1973, 446-69; reprinted in slightly difTer-
ent form in The Old Testament and the Literary Critic, Philadelphia 1977,
33-54; H. W. Robinson, The Cross ofjob, London 21938; T. H. Robinson,
job and his Friends, London and Toronto 1954; H. H. Rowley, ‘The Book
ofjob and its Meaning’, BJRL 41, 1958, 167-207 = From Moses to Qumran,
London and New York 1963, 139-83.
_]. A. Sanders, Su_fl'ering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-
Biblical Judaism, Rochester 1955; N. M. Sarna, ‘Epic Substratum in the
Prose of_]ob‘,jBL 76, 1957, 13-25; H. H. Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte der
Weisheit, BZAW 101, 1966, 173lT.; P. W. Skehan, ‘_]ob’s Final Plea (lob
29-31) and the Lord’s Reply (Job 38-41)’, Bibl 45, 1964, 51-62; N. H.
Snaith, The Book Qfjob. Its Origin and Purpose, SBT II.1l, 1968; W. B.
Stevenson, The Poem ofjob, London and New York 1947; S. T. Terrien,
_/ob: Poet of Existence, Indianapolis 1957; Quelques remarques sur les
aflinités dejob avec le Deutéro-Isa'1'e’,SVT 15, 1965, 295-310; M. Tsevat,
‘The Meaning of the Book ol'_]ob’, HUCA 37, 1966, 73-106; W. Vischer,
Hiob. Ein_Zeuge_]esu Christ, Ziirich 61947; C. Westermann, Der Aaflrau des
Buches Hiob, BHT 23, 1956; H. Wildberger, ‘Das Hiobproblem und seine
neueste Deutung’, Reformatio 3, Ziirich 1954, 355-63, 439-48; E. Wiirfl1-
wein, ‘Gott und Mensch in Dialog und Gottesreden des Buches Hiob’,
1938, in Wort und Existenz, Gottingen 1970, 217-95.
General problems
In the light ofthese many special problems, it is not surprising to
find much disagreement respecting the over-all purpose of the
book. The traditional view, still supported in part by some modern
scholars, that the book describes job as ‘a type of the suffering
godly Israelite’ (Driver, Introductions, 411), has generally been
rejected as inadequate because it does justice to such a small por-
tion of the book. Nor has a variant of this theory been able to
sustain itself that _]ob is a type of the Hebrew nation in suffering
(Ewald).
Another major alternative for assessing the purpose of the book
sees its principal aim to be a negative one. The book sought to
contest the theory that suffering is a sign of divine punishment and
presupposes sin on the part of the sufferer. Although there is gen-
eral agreement that a negative function is certainly involved, it is
lltr from clear that this is the major purpose ofthe book, nor does it
adequately assess the role of the prose material. Occasionally a
scholar (e.g. Hengstenberg) has defended the view that the Elihu
speeches actually describe the author’s real intention, namely that
sulfering serves as a divine discipline. To the large majority the
dilliculties with this interpretation appear insurmountable.
Quite a different stance to the purpose ofthe book has been taken
Ii; those scholars, who, despairing of any literary or theological
purpose, seek to find the key to the book in the religious experience
ol'_]o|>. According to Rowley (job, NCeB, 19) the point of the book
lh to assert: ‘It is in the sphere of religion rather than in theology
that the meaning ofthe book is to be found.’ But this sharp contrast
ltetweett religion and theology reflects a modern post-Kantian
t.ttt-gory far more than it does a genuine biblical polarity. This
.tllem|>t to resolve the problem does not touch the real issues at
\l.tl\'t‘.
I-‘itt;tll_\"_ l)(‘t‘2lUS(‘ of the complexity of the issues and the inability
ol .tu_\ one theory to win consent, some ofthe more recent commen-
t.ttors lt;t\'t' tthandoned lto|)t' ol linding any one purpose. Some feel
t|i.tt tlte l)U(lk has at Ieztst two irreeott('ilztl>le pttrposcs in mind (so
l"ttl|et'toti. ‘( )t'l_L'.'itt;tl (ltlIlt'lll§ltIll‘) or rontttitts two itresolvable‘ con-
532 THE WRITINGS
History of Exegesis
Carpzov II, 80-87; D7"/2C 8, 1484-6; EB l, 256; _]. Lévéque.job, ll,
705lT.; RGG3 3, 3601".
( fomrnentaries
(). 7.t'ickIer, ET, LCHS, I870 C. T. Fritsch, IB, I955
1-‘. Delitzsch, BC, 1873 H. Lamparter, BAT. 21959
(I. Wildeboer, KHC, 1897 B. Gemser, HAT, 21963
(I. H. Toy, ICC, 1899 A. Barucq. SoBi, I964
|. Iinabenbauer, CSS, I910 D. Kidner, TOTC, I964
I. T. Perowne, CB, 1916 R. B. Y. Scott, AB, I965
\\'. (J. E. Oesterley, WC, I929 H. Ringgren, ATD, 21967
ll. Renard, SB, I949 W. McKane, OTL, I970
\. (Iohen, SonB, 21952 R. \’Vhybray, CNEB, 1972
]. van (ler Ploeg, BOuT, I952
I fthlio_grr1phy
\\'. I-'. Albright, ‘Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wis-
.|-int‘. SVT 3, 1955, 1-15; A. Barucq, ‘Proverbes (Livre des)’, DBS 8,
|‘lT‘_!. 1395-476; E. G. Bauckmann, ‘Die Proverbien und die Spriiche des
|t-sns Sirach’, ZA W 72, I960, 33-63; W. Baumgartner, lsraelische und
til/tut}-n!ali.sche Weisheit Tiibingen 1933; Becker, Gottesfurcht irn Alten
ll--tmment. AnBib 25, 1965; G. Bostrom, Proverbiastudien: Die I/Veisheit and
tlm /it-mrle Weih in Spr. l—9, Lund I935; G. E. Bryce, ‘Another \Nisdom
'Ilnnk“ in Proverbs',_/Bl. 91, I972, 145-57; W. Biihlmann, Vom rechten
ffrrltlt Imrl Nrhztteigerr, Giittingen 1976;]. Conrad, ‘Die innere Gliederung
-It-t l’tn\-t-rlaien‘, Z/1 l’1' 79, 1967, 67-76; B. Couroyer, ‘L‘origine égyp-
tn-tnte tle la Sngesse (Ii.-\ment'*t11ope', RB 70, I963. 2U8—24; Crenshaw,
\\tstlnnt'. Ulrl Tmtttritrnt Fortn (.'ritici.sm, ed. H. Hayes, San Antonio,
I t'\.|\' |!l7-1. 22.’:--ti-1; etI., .S'tut1ies' in /lncirnt Israelite I/l"i.t'(lorn, New York I976;
'\I _| Dahood, l’roz'rrln" amt ,'\'nrth-tttett .\'ernitic Philologv, Rome I963; E.
Ilrioton. ‘Sn: In S;igt-sst- tI'.-\tin‘-nt'-ntope'_ .lIflart_gr.t bibliques rt5di_gris en l’hon-
mui tlr .'l. Rtthrrh I);1|'i.~. |‘I."ili_ ‘ll’!-l~—-lit); .-\. Dfllbbfil. 'l.t‘ eonllit (‘l1tI'C Ia
\.nt_i-sse |t|"nl';\nt- t-I In l\';|_i_gt'sst- rt'ligit't|.se'_ liihl I7. liI'ili_ *1-.">—7(), _4fI7—28;
546 THE WRITINGS
A. M. Dubarle, ‘Oil en est l’étude de la littérature sapientielle?’, ETL 44,
1968, 407-19; H. Duesberg and _]. Fransen, Les scribes inspires, Maredsous
21966, l77ff.
O. Eissfeldt, Der 1'1/laschal im Alten Testament, BZAW 24, 1913; A.
Erman, ‘Eine iigyptische Quelle der Spriiche Salomos’, Sitzungsberichte der
Deutschen (Preussischen) Akadernie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1924 (XV),
86-93; Fichtner, Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jit'dischen
Auspriigung, eine Studie zur Nationalisierung der Weisheit in Israel , BZAW 62,
1933; B. Gemser, ‘The Instructions of ‘Onchsheshonqy and Biblical
Wisdom Literature’, S VT 7, 1960, 102-8; E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und
Herkurfl des ‘Apodiktischen Rechts’, WMANT 20, 1965; H. Gese, Lehre und
Wirlclichkeit in der alten Weisheit, Tiibingen 1958; R. Gordis, ‘The Social
Background of Wisdom Literature’, HUCA 18, 1943/4, 77-118; H.
Gressmann, ‘Die neugefundene Lehre des Amen-em-ope und die vorex-
ilische Spruchdichtung Israels’, ZAW42, 1924, 272-96;]. Harvey, ‘Wis-
dom Literature and Biblical Theology’, BTB 1, I971, 308-19; H.-_].
Hermisson, Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit, Wl\/IANT 28, 1968;
‘Weisheit und Geschichte’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, FS G. von Rad,
Munich 1971, 136-54; P, Humbert, Recherches sur les sources égyptiennes de la
littérature sapientale d ’Israel, Neuchatel 1929; C. Kayatz, Studien zu Proverhien
I-9, WMANT 22, 1966; K. Koch, ‘Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im
Alten Testament?’, ZTK 52, 1955, 1-42; B. W. Kovacs, ‘Is there a
Class-Ethic in Proverbs?’, Essays in Old Testament Ethics, _]. P. Hyatt in
memoriam, New York 1974, 171-89; B. Lang, Die weisheitliche Lehrrede. Eine
Untersuchung von Sprtiche I-7, SBS 54, 1972; C. Kuhn, Beitrlige zur Erkliirung
des salomonischen Spruchbuches, BWANT III. 16 (=57), 1931.
W. McKane, Prophets and Wise A/Ien, SBT I. 44, 1965; L. McKenzie,
‘Reflections on Wisdom’, _]BL 86, 1967, 1-9; R. E. Murphy, ‘The
Kerygma of the Book of Proverbs’, Interp 20, 1966, 3-14; ‘Assumptions
and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research’, CBQ 29, I967, 407-
18; ‘The lnterpretation of Old Testament Wisdom Literature’,'lnterp 23,
1969, 289-301; W. O. E. Oesterley, ‘The “Teaching of Amen-em-ope”
and the Old Testament’, ZAW45, 1927, 9-24; R. H. Pfeiffer, ‘Edomitic
Wisdom’, ZA W 44, 1926, 13-25; O. Ploger, ‘Zur Auslegung der Senten-
zensammlungen des Proverbienbuches’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, FS G.
von Rad, Munich 1971, 402-16; H. D. Preuss, ‘Das Gottesbild der iilteren
Weisheit Israels’, SVT 23, 1972, 117-45; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, ET
London and Nashville 1972; ‘Spriichebuch’, RGG3 6, 287; O. S. Ran-
kin, Israel’s Wisdom Literature, Edinburgh 21954; W. Richter, Recht und
Ethos. Versuch einer Ortung des weisheitlichen .-‘I/Iahnspruches, Munich 1966; H.
Ringgren, Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities
and Functions in the Ancient Near East, Uppsala 1947; A. Robert, ‘Les
attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. I-XI’, RB 43, 1934, 42-68, 374-84;
44, 1935, 344-65, 502-25; C. Rylaarsdam, Revelation in _jeutish Wisdom
Literature, Chicago 1946.
PROVERBS 547
G. Sauer, Die Spriche Agurs, BWANT V. 4 (=84), 1963; H. H. Schmid,
Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit, BZAW 101, 1961; R. B. Y. Scott, ‘Sol-
omon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel’, SVT 3, 1955, 262-279;
reprinted Crenshaw, Studies, 84-I01; ‘Wisdom in Creation: The ’Am6n of
Proverbs VIII 30’, VT I0, 1960, 213-23; ‘The Study of the Wisdom Liter-
ature’, lnterp 24, 1970, 20-45; ‘Wise and Foolish, Righteous and Wicked’,
SVT 23, 1972, 146-65; P. W. Skehan, ‘The Seven Columns of Wisdom’s
House in Proverbs I-9’, CBQ 9, 1947, 190-8; ‘A Single Editor for the
Whole Book of Proverbs’, CBQ 10, 1948, 115-30; reprinted Crenshaw,
Studies, 329-40; U. Skladny, Die tiltesten Spruchsammlungen in Israel, ost-
tingen 1962; C. I. K. Story, ‘The Book of Proverbs and Northwest Semitic
Literature’,_]BL 64, 1945, 319-37;]. M. Thompson, The Form and Function
qfProverbs in Ancient Israel, The Hague 1974; W. Vischer, ‘Der Hymnus
der Weisheit in den Spriichen Salomos, 8,22—3l’, EvTh 22, 1962, 309-26;
G. Wallis, ‘Zu den Spruchsammlungen Prov. 10,1-22,16 und 25-29’,
TLZ 85, I960, 147f.; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School,
Oxford I972, 261ff.; C. Westermann, ‘Weisheit im Sprichwort’, Schalom,
FS A._]epsen, Berlin 1971, 73-85; R. N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs. The
Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs I-9, SBT 1.45, I965; ‘Proverbs VIII 22-31
and its Supposed Prototypes’, VT 15, I965, 504-514; ‘Some Literary Prob-
lems in Proverbs I—IX’, VT I6, I966, 482-96; A. Wright, ‘Wisdom’,
Jerome Biblical Commentary I, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1969, 556-68; W.
Zimmerli, ‘Zur Struktur der alttestamentliehen Weisheit’, ZAW 51,
1933, 174-204; ET Crenshaw, Studies, 175-207.
Form criticism
Traditio-history of Proverbs
Much interest has concentrated on exploring the original prove-
nance of wisdom within the life of ancient Israel. Opinions have
widely varied. Gerstenberger has sought to locate wisdom’s original
place in the larger family (Sippenethos). Hermisson, disputing Eiss-
feldt’s theory of the popular folk proverb, derived the parable from
the learned activity ofthe scribal school which was directed toward
the education ofa privileged class. McKane described the original
function of wisdom as ‘primarily a disciplined empiricism engaged
with the problems of government and administration’ (Prophets and
Wise Men, 33). Others, such as Gese and von Rad, stressed the
analogy to the Egyptian concept ofmaat in criticizing the emphasis
on the pragmatic side of wisdom. They accentuated the general
religious and intellectual search for an understanding ofa divine
order which encompasses human experience. Finally, Skladny
assigned different original settings to the various collections and
spoke ofa ‘farmer’s manual’ or a ‘ruler’s guide’. In sum, in spite of
many illuminating suggestions, no one setting has emerged as offer-
ing an exclusive Site im Leben, nor is one likely. Scott’s suggestion
(Interp 1970, 29) may be the wisest when he lists six sources for
wisdom tradition without allowing any one the dominant place.
History of redaction
Several interesting studies have been attempted which sought to
trace the present shaping of the book of Proverbs through a com-
plex history of growth. Perhaps the most controversial issue in this
area is that posed by McKane (Proverbs) and sustained by Scott
(SVT 1972). McKane has argued that in their original form the
proverbs were fully secular and pragmatically oriented. Only at a
later period did a pious circle within Israel add a theological level
— .\lcl'§ane calls it ‘God-language’ — to the original. McKane tries
to support his theory with some philological evidence claiming that
a cllunge in the nteanittg ofccrtain key words can be observed. Yet
ultimately his tl|eor_\' rests l1t':|\"ily upon the at|tl1or’s cont'e|)t ofthe
550 THE WRITINGS
earliest level of wisdom. McKane’s theory has been strongly
opposed by von Rad and others who reject the sharp polarity in old
wisdom between the secular and the sacred which the theory of
McKane assumes.
What then can one say about the present shape of the book of
Proverbs? How was the material heard by the community of faith
and how did it function as sacred scripture for Israel?
The superscriptions
The book of Proverbs is introduced with the superscription, ‘The
Proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel’. This title obvi-
ously serves as an introduction to the entire book. The fact is
significant since several other titles are included within the book
which attribute sections to others beside Solomon. The implication
is that the ascription of the authorship of Proverbs to Solomon
was a far broader concept than our modern understanding. The
proverbs were assigned to Solomon who was the traditional source
of Israel’s sapiential learning (as Moses was of Torah and David of
psnlmody), but later sections collected by the men of Hezekiah
('_’5.l) were added, as well as sections by known and unknown
authors (30.1; 3].]; 22.17; 3l.lUfT.).
'l'hcrc are several clTects on the interpretation ofthe book which
(ll'l'lV(' from this title. First, Solomon is introduced as the author of
tlu~ |)l'l)\’t‘I'l)S in ;1 lli.\lHl'l(‘2ll S(‘l]ll(‘I1(‘(‘. Ht‘ is the ‘sun Oi. l)'.1v.id, king
552 THE WRITINGS
oflsrael’. Solomon is thereby identified with his position within the
total Hebrew tradition in the light of which he is understood to be
interpreted. The title thus establishes an obvious connection with
the ‘official’ record of Solomon’s place within Israel. Ifone turns to
I Kings 3ff. the connection of Solomon with wisdom, indeed with
this authorship of proverbs and songs, is made explicit (5.9—l5; EVV
429-34). The book of Kings links Solomon with international wis-
dom, with examples of his wisdom and renown, rather than with
the sacred historical tradition of Israel. The superscription of
Proverbs which connects with I Kings 3 thus serves a different
function from the psalm titles which establish a link between
David’s psalmody and Israel’s historical tradition. The title of
Proverbs does not seek to provide a secondary context on the basis
ofthe Law and the Prophets from which to interpret the proverbs,
but forms a connection only with the sapiential material within
Kings. The superscription thus guards against forcing the proverbs
into a context foreign to wisdom such as the decalogue, which is a
traditional theological move most recently used by Lamparter. The
title serves canonically to preserve the uniqueness of the sapiential
witness against the attempts to merge it with more dominant bibli-
cal themes.
Secondly, the superscription which assigns the proverbs to Sol-
omon serves an important canonical function in establishing the
relative age of wisdom within Israel. This sapiential witness arises
at the beginning of the monarchy and continues through
Hezekiah’s reign and beyond. The superscription ties the proverbs
to the period of the early monarchy and thus opposes the attempt to
derive them only from the late post-exilic period. For the canonical
editors wisdom was a portion of Israel’s sacred writing which
extended from the nation’s early history even though its running
parallel to the historical traditions of Torah and Prophets was
without an explicit internal connection. It is highly significant that
in both the subsequent titles (30.l; 3l.l) as well as in I Kings 3 the
connection of proverbs with international wisdom was maintained.
The titles thus offer a canonical warrant for comparison with
extra-biblical material which is unusual for the biblical tradition.
is found in the role which chs. l~9 play in respect to the whole book.
Zimmerli (I89) spoke ofthese chapters providing the ‘hermeneuti-
cal guide’ for understanding the rest of the book. Although chs.
l0ff. are usually regarded as the clearest example of Israel’s ‘old
wisdom’ and historically the earliest. in its present order this ear-
liest level is now read through the prism of chs. l--9. The effect is
far-reaching.
The book begins with a prologue which sets out the purpose of
collecting the proverbs: ‘that men may know wisdom . . . receive
instruction in wise dealings . . . ’ Kayatz has pointed out convinc-
ingly that the presence of such a prologue is a feature common to
Egyptian wisdom as well. Furthermore, to the traditional wisdom
prologue the biblical editor has added his programmatic statement
(v. 7): ‘The fear ofYahweh is the beginning of knowledge.’ Without
entering into a detailed discussion of the precise meaning of the
phrase ‘fear of Yahweh’ which has occupied much recent attention
(cf. Becker), the general thrust of the verse is clear enough. Com-
mitment to Yahweh - the issue is not legal adherence — is inextric-
ably linked to the search for human knowledge.
Indeed, it provides the proper starting place for the acquiring of
wisdom. The biblical editor thus joins into a unity intellectual.
experiential activity, and religious behaviour. Scholars have argued
over the role which religion played in Israel’s ‘old wisdom’. lNas it
originally purely secular (McKane), or was there always a religious
dimension which established limits to experience (von Rad)? How-
ever one may decide what historically was the case originally, the
biblical writer goes beyond both of these alternatives in program-
matically establishing a religious perspective from which he
intended the rest ofthe book to be understood. As sacred scripture
the book was not to be read according to a history of development
in the concept of wisdom, rather from a fully developed confessional
sl;|11(lp()il1[. In my judgment von Rad’s interpretation is far closer
to the mark than McKane’s regarding the original understanding
of wisdom. The later biblical editor, therefore, did not transform
the tradition in kind, but developed programmatically a religious
||ntlel'sl;t11('lit1g of wisdom which was at first only implicit.
'l'here is a second sign of editorial shaping which chs. l—9 refiect.
.\ldtotud1 sehtdars vvdl cotnintu* ua ch%n1u* alnrut the tnighaal
soeiologicatl selling of sapiettliatl knowledgt' witllin lsrael — royal,
liilk. st'|'il>;tl llH' etlilnr [Ill tlte li11;1l litrnl llzts made fully elem‘ the
554 rut-: wrurtnos
present didactic role of wisdom. The father addresses his son; the
older generation instructs the younger; the experienced sage
advises the inexperienced novice. The dominant form is the
imperative. The wise man not only describes the way of the wise,
but he commends it with great persuasion. If originally certain
sections of the proverbs were addressed to some specialized group
within the nation, the effect of the present ordering is to blur the
original intent. When older commentators such as O. Zockler
sought to understand the proverbs as the ethics of the Old Testa-
ment — Proverbs addressed the subjective side whereas the Law
offered the objective imperative — they could at least find a certain
warrant in chs. 1-9. The appeal is didactic and directed towards
right conduct. Yet the concerns of these chapters are far broader
than ethics, and the motivation for wise behaviour is not grounded
in the Mosaic law.
There is a third effect which derives from the new role assigned to
chs. 1-9. Recent scholarship has worked out very clearly the
sharply different understanding of wisdom which one finds in the
earlier period from that of the later. In chs. lOff. wisdom is a
human, indeed rational process of intellectual activity, which
sought to discern patterns oftruth within experience circumscribed
by God. But in the later period wisdom is, above all, a gift of God
(2.3). Moreover, in its personified form it is pictured as an aggres-
sive woman actively calling and urging the simple to embrace wis-
dom (l.20ff.). When chs. 1-9 are read as an introduction to chs.
lOff., the effect is that the search for wisdom emerges in a dialectic
between its being a gift of God which is given and an acquisition
which one actively pursues.
Perhaps the most striking development of the ‘self-revelation’ of
wisdom appears in Prov. 8 (cf. Job 28; Sir. ‘24). A full discussion of
the meaning of this passage lies beyond the scope of an Introduc-
tion, but its hermeneutical effect for interpreting the whole book is
worth exploring. Proverbs 3.19 speaks of ‘Yahweh founding the
earth by wisdom’. Chapter 8 goes far beyond the connecting of
wisdom to creation in describing wisdom as a personified entity
who was itself created before the world and assisted God in his
creative work. lfit had not previously been fully clear in chs. 10ff.
as to the exact nature ofthe divine order which prevailed in human
society — can one really speak ofa Hebrew counterpart to Egyptian
maat? - the canonical ordering of chs. I-9 provided at theological
PROVERBS 555
context ofwisdom in creation from which the whole book was to be
read. However, it is also important to add that the creation of chs.
1-9 is conceived of as a cosmic event of God, but not explicitly as
the first historical event in a series, that is, as part of a Heilsge-
schichte. In sum, the world order of chs. lOff. is brought firmly within
the order of divine creation, but not that tradition of creation found
in Genesis l—3.
Chapters 10-29
In describing the canonical shaping of the book of Proverbs it is
equally significant to register the lack of serious alteration in the
original form ofa collection. As we have suggested, chs. l-9 serve
as a hermeneutical guide for reading what follows. Yet it is of
importance to note that the older collection of chs. l0ff. has been
left largely in an unedited stage, that is to say, there has been no
attempt to interject the later developments upon the earlier stage.
No comprehensive perspective has been imposed on the whole col-
lection. The reasons for this conservative treatment of chs. lOff. can
he debated. Some would argue that the force of tradition preserved
it intact against innovators, others that there was no need felt for
change once the framework provided a developed theological pers-
pective. Regardless of how one adjudicates this issue, the effect on
the final form is clear enough. An earlier stage in the history of
Israelite wisdom has been left virtually unchanged and confirmed
in this state as canonical literature. Apart from the broad guidelines
ollered by the introductory position of chs. l—9, the reader is given
no overarching principle by which to interpret these chapters.
Rather, the reader is left freedom to follow the many different leads
found in the original collection.
A few characteristics ofthese chapters can be summarized. There
is no significant ordering of the individual proverbs into larger
t_'_t'otlpS. Occasionally single proverbs are linked in a loosely con-
nected group either by word association or by general similarity of
etmletll. Characteristic stylistic features such as antithetic parallel-
ism have been retained consistently in some sections. Again, the
original polarities in concept and vocabulary between the righteous
.||ttl the wicked, the wise and the foolish have been maintained
uilllutll any tnajor attempt to link them internally (cf. Scott, SVT
|‘l7‘_'). ln tnyjtttlgntettt, .\lel\';tne's ztttetnpt to relegate the proverbs
556 THE WRITINGS
Proverbs 30.5—6
(a) One ofthe more striking features which has emerged respecting
the canonical shaping of the book of Proverbs is the manner in
which various stages within the development of Israel’s wisdom
tradition have been carefully structured to produce the final form.
Yet this theological ordering has occurred without recourse to the
historical traditions ofthe Law and the Prophets. Even at the com-
paratively late historical period in which the final editing process of
Proverbs took place, there was no attempt to legitimize wisdom
from the side of the law. Rather, canonical shaping took place, by
and large, through debate within the wisdom tradition which
sollght to interpret and supplement the early stages of wisdom in
the light of a fuller understanding of the divine ordering of the
world and human experience. The major theological implication
from this canonical process is the support which the canon lends to
the full integrity of the wisdom literature. It is not a ‘foreign body’
nor an original secular philosophy which achieved religious status
tor Israel by being brought within the orbit of Heils_geschiehte. Nor
tan its role be accounted for by a process of nationalization. It is an
independent witness to God’s revelation which functions like the
|.;tw and the Prophets as sacred scripture for the people of God.
to) The canonical ordering of chs. l0ff. has not attempted to
.trr;tt1ge the proverbs into any clearly discernible topical or histori-
t.tl order. Indeed, it has retained the sharp polarities, even fiat
t'ti|)lI'£l('llC[IOfi5, in successive proverbs which derived from the
t'.tI'lit‘Sl collections. One hermeneutical implication to be drawn
ltom this shaping is that the proverbs continue to function within
~.t tipture in their original dialogical role. The significance of the
|>t'ti\'t't‘l) does not lie in its formulation oftimeless truths, but in the
alrility of the wise man to use the proverb in discerning the proper
ttttlIt‘Xl by which to illuminate the human situation.
tr) The point has been repeatedly made that the didactic func-
tion of the hook of l’ro'vt-rlis which was highlighted by the editor’s
using elts. l—9 as at fratntetvork for the whole composition served a
l.|t lirnittler role than \\lIill is itnplietl by the tltotlertt use oftlle term
558 "rat: warrmos
‘ethics’. When the wisdom teacher challenged his pupil to pursue
wisdom, it involved not only moral decision in respect to right
behaviour, but was an intellectual and highly pragmatic activity as
well which sought to encompass the totality ofexperience. There is
a certain analogy in the covenant theology of the Torah which
likewise involved a relationship far broader than the term ethics.
Nevertheless, it is striking that the patterns of human behaviour
which the Proverbs inculcate overlap to a large extent with that set
of ethical standards prescribed in the Pentateuch for the covenant
people. In spite ofthe radically different starting points, both sets of
Hebrew traditions converge on a basically unified expression of the
good and obedient life. Both the Proverbs and the Law call for a
commitment to God and his divine order. Both parts of the canon
call for man to lovejustice and honesty, to care for the poor and the
needy, and to accept life as a cherished gift from God. Obviously
there are areas in which the correspondence ends. Clearly the wit-
nesses are not to be identified. Rather the major point is that in
spite of striking variety in theological perspective, the canon has
rightly recognized the profound unity between these witnesses and
used them both without the need for adjustment in order to instruct
and guide God’s people in the way of righteousness.
(d) The particular shaping process of Proverbs raises a series of
extremely difficult questions regarding the canon. If the editor of
Proverbs sought to read earlier wisdom through the eyes ofits later
and fuller developed form, should not then the book of Proverbs
also be read through the prism of Sirach and the Wisdom of Sol-
omon? (cf. R. E. Murphy’s posing of the question, Interp Q3, 1969,
295ff.). The issue of the limits and authority ofthe Hebrew canon is
a complex issue which involves many historical and theological
problems lying beyond the scope ofthis chapter (cf. chs. II, III and
XLIV). Nevertheless, there is an urgent modern challenge to
re-examine theologically the substance of the canon rather than to
decide the issue along traditional, denominational lines.
There is at least one important factor arising from the study of
the redaction of Proverbs which should be considered in conjunc-
tion with the other issues ofthe canon. The theological relationship
between the different layers within Proverbs is a very different one
from that obtaining between Proverbs and the non-canonical books
ofthejewish canon, Sirach and Wisdom ofSolomon, in spite of the
elements of historical continuity. Whereas Proverbs reflects a
PROVERBS 559
debate within wisdom without an attempt to relate wisdom to Law,
Sirach offers a striking change ofapproach. Wisdom is nationalized
in Sirach (ch. 24). It sought a resting place and found it in Zion (vv.
7, IO).
This move within Sirach is not a simple, logical development
within wisdom, but it assumes an important new historical ele-
ment, namely, the development of the Hebrew canon. Sirach 44ff.
confirms the author’s acquaintance with the three parts ofthe Heb-
rew canon. The theological issue at stake is whether the manner by
which Sirach related the law and wisdom for the first time in the
light of the whole canon reflects an adequate theological under-
standing of the whole. Apparently Judaism did not feel that it did,
or at least remained uncertain. One ofthe issues which the modern
biblical theologian must face in reaching a decision would be the
extent to which Sirach (and Wisdom) reflect the canonical checks
to wisdom found in the Prophets and in the other wisdom books of
lob and Ecclesiastes. A study ofthe New Testament would indicate
that quite a different approach to wisdom could be reached which
also claimed a canonical warrant from the Old Testament.
History of Exegesis
(Iarpzov ll, l95—9; DBS’ 8, l472f.; DThC', I3, 932-35; EB, l, 256; RCC3 6,
- 1 88f
I-'.. G. Bauekmann, ‘Die Proverbien und die Sprijche des _]esus Sirach’,
/..-ll1"72, I960, 33-63; W. Baumgartner, ‘Die literarischen Gattungen in
tler Weisheit des Jesus-Sirach, ZAW 34, I914, l6l—98; A. Barucq, ‘Pro-
\'t'I'l)es, VI. Le Livre dans l’EgIise’, DBS 8, I469; C. I-I. Gordon, ‘Rab-
lJIIll(_' Exegesis in the Vulgate of Proverbs’,jBL 49, I930, 384-416;
M arboek, Weisheit in Israel. Untersuchungen zur Wez'sheitstheologie bei Ben Sira,
Rome I971; Obersteiner, ‘Die Erkléirung von Prov 31, lO—3l durch
lit-tla den Ehrwiirdigen und Bruno von Asti’, Theologisch-praktische Quar-
mloehri/i' I02, Linz I954, I-12; C. Roth, ‘Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue
.\iet'\'iee’, _[BL 7|, I952, I71-8; S. Sehechter, ‘The Quotations of
I-let-Iesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature’,jQR 3, I891, 682-706; B. Smalley,
'.\;oiue Latin Commentators on the Sapiential Books in the Late Thir-
n-enth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’, Archives d’Hist'oire Doctrinale
ff I.iHeraire du .-llqyen Age I8, Paris I950, I03-28; ‘Some Thirteenth-
(Ie||tt|t'_\ (Iomnteutaries on the Sapiential Books’, Dominican Studies 2,
(Ixford I949, Til8—.").‘i; 3, I950, 41-47. 236-74; W. Vollier, ‘Die Verwer-
tttng der \\’eisbeils I.itet';tlttt' liei den ehrisllieheil .-\I(‘X3l1Cll'II]('l'n’,
/-"tfuhii//_/iir Ifitrhrugeir/tn"/Hr It-I, Stuttgart I!l:'i'l/ii. I-33. -
XXXVI
RUTH
Commentaries
P. Cassel, ET, LCHS, I865 G. A. F. Knight, TB, 21956
C. F. Keil, BC, I868 de Fraine, BOuT, I956
E. Bertheau, KeH, 21883 H. Lamparter, BAT, I962
G. A. Cooke, CB, I913 VV. Rudolph, KAT2, I962
H. Gressmann, SAT, 21922 G. Cerleman, BK, I965
W. Rudolph, KAT, I939 Cray, NCeB, I967
M. Haller, HAT, I940 E. Wiirthwein, HAT2, 1969
I. W. Slotki, SonB, 21952 E. F. Campbell, AB, 1975
P. Joiion, 21953 W. Fuerst, CNEB, I975
Bibliography
D. R. Ap-Thomas, ‘The Book of Ruth’, ExpT 79, I967-8, 369-73; S.
Bertman, ‘Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth’,_]BL 84, I965, I65-
8; M. Burrows, ‘The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth’,jBL 59, I940, 445-54;
‘The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage’,
BASOR 77, I940, 2-I5; W. W’. Cannon, ‘The Book of Ruth’, Theology I5,
London 1928, 310-19; M. B. Crbok, ‘The Book OfRL1tl‘l. A New Solution’,
]BL I6, I948, 155-60; M. David, ‘The Date ofthe Book of Ruth’, OTS I,
I942, 55-63; O. Eissfeldt, ‘Wahrheit und Dichtung in der Ruth-
Erziihlung’, Sitzungsberichte der Siichsischeiz Akadernie der Wissenschaflen zu
Leipzig I10, 4, 1965, 23ff.;_].’Fichtner, ‘Ruthbuch’, RG03 5, 1961, I252-4;
A. Geiger, ‘Die Leviratsehe, ihre Entstehung und Entwicklung’,_]iidische
Zeitschrtft I, Breslau I862, I9ff.; G. S. Glanzman, ‘The Origin and Date of
the Book of Ruth’, CBQ 21, I959, 201-7; R. Gordis, ‘Love, Marriage and
Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew Customary Law’, A
Light unto .1/f_y Path, F-5']. ll/I. .-I/fyers, Gettysburg I974, 241-64; H. Gunkel,
‘Ruth’, Reden and Aiifsiitze, Gottingen I913, 65-92; ‘Ruthbuch’, RGG2 4,
I930, 2180-82; H. Hajek, Heirnltehr nach Israel. Eine Aasle_.gung (les Buches
Ruth, BSt 33, I962; R. M. Hals, The Theologv of the Book of Ruth, l’hiIadel-
RUTH 561
phia 1969; ‘Ruth, Book of’, IDB Suppl 758f.; P. Humbert, ‘Art et lecon de
1’histoire de Ruth’, RThPh 26, 1938, 257-86=Opuscules d’un Hébraisant,
Neuchatel 1958, 83-110; A. Jepsen, ‘Das Buch Ruth’, ThStKr I08, I937-
8, 416-28; L. Koehler, ‘Die Adoptionsform von Ruth 4.16’, ZAW 29,
I909, 312-14; ‘justice in the Gate’, in Hebrew Man, ET London I956,
149-75.
D. A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament
with special attention to the Book of Ruth, Cherry Hill, N._]. 1974; L. Levy,
‘Die Schuhsymbolik im jiidischen Ritus’, MGW] 62, 1918, I78-85;
E. Lipifislti, ‘Le Mariage de Ruth’, VT 26, I976, 124-7; O. Loretz,
‘The Theme of the Ruth Story’, CBQ 22, 1960, 391-9; ‘Das Verhiiltnis
zwischen Rut-Story and David-Genealogie in Rut-Buch’, ZAW 89, 1977,
I24-26; M. Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form ofthe Book qfRuth,
Leiden 1955; Nacht, ‘The Symbolism of the Shoe with Special Refer-
ence to Jewish Sources’,]QR NS 6, 1915/6, I-22; G. Von Rad, ‘Predigt
iiber Ruth I’, EvTh 12, 1952/3, 1-6; O. F. Rauber, ‘Literary Values in the
Bible: The Book of Ruth’,_[BL 89, 1970, 27-37; E. Robertson, ‘The Plot
of the Book of Ruth’, B_]RL 32, 1950, 207-28; H. H. Rowley, ‘The Mar-
riage of Ruth’, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays in the Old Testament,
London 21965, I69-94; Schildenberger, ‘Das Buch Ruth als
Iiterarischer Kunstwerk und als religiose Botschaft’, Bibel und Kirche 18,
Stuttgart 1963, 102-8; W. E. Staples, ‘The Book of Ruth’, A]SL 53,
I936-7, 145-57; T. and D. Thompson, ‘Some Legal Problems in the
Ilook of Ruth’, VT 18, 1968, 79-99; P. Trible, ‘Two Women in a Man’s
World: A Reading of the Book of Ruth’, Soundings 59, New Haven 1976,
‘J51-79;]. L. Vesco, ‘La date du livre de Ruth’, RB 74, 1967, 235-47; H.
II. Witzenrath, Das Buch Rut, Munich 1975; L. B. Wolfenson, ‘The
(Iharacter, Contents and Date of Ruth’, A]SL 27 1910/I1, 285-300;
‘Implications of the Place of the Book of Ruth in Editions, Manuscripts
.ttttI Canon of the Old Testament’, HUCA 1, 1924, 151-78.
'I'he contents ofthe book are familiar and do not require a lengthy
slltllITlElI“f/. In the days of thejudges oflsrael, Elimelech, a native of
llethlehem, went with his wife, Naomi, and two sons to Moab
because of a famine. He died and his two sons married Moabite
wonten. In time, both sons died and Naomi returned to Bethlehem
with one daughter-in-law, Ruth, who refused to be separated from
her. The main portion of the narrative describes the relation of
Ruth to Boaz, a distant kinsman, and how, after some intrigue from
Naotni, Boar. ntarrietl Ruth whose offspring became the grand-
l.i|lte1' of’ I);1vi(l. '
562 THE warrmos
The simplicity of the narrative has not hidden a large number of
problems with which critical scholarship has been engaged.
Canonical order
Considerable attention has been paid to the contrasting position
of the book within the Hebrew and Greek Bibles (cf. Rudolph,
Campbell, etc.). The Hebrew Bible has assigned the book to the
Writings to be read at the Feast of Weeks, but this is admittedly a
very late development. Its place within the third division of the
canon is, however, old. The Greek Bible, followed by the Latin,
placed the book in the Former Prophets after Judges. Josephus
supports the Greek order; II Esdras I4.44—46 the Masoretic.
Campbell (34f.) has recently argued that the Greek order must
be secondary since he finds it difficult to imagine moving a book out
of the Prophets into the Writings, whereas the reverse is easily
understood. In my opinion, there are far too many unverified
assumptions with such an argument to rest much weight on it. A far
more fruitful avenue ofinvestigation would be to explore the effect
ofa canonical ordering on the reading of the book and the differing
theologies involved in the canonical arrangements of the Hebrew
and Greek Bibles.
The canonical shape of the book of Ruth has retained the original
story as the vehicle for its message in its role as scripture. All the
features of the narrative - artistry, plot, characters, movement -
have been transmitted without change. The story was not made
into a simple lesson nor shortened for didactic reasons as was
Jonah. Nor were there any typological or allegorical moves made.
Therefore, those interpretations which emphasize the symbolic
nature of some of the names — Naomi, Mahlon, Chilion - run the
risk of replacing the major narrative form with a minor feature.
The canonical process did not have to transform a secular story
into a religious one because the original story was already highly
theological. Indeed, the major purpose ofthe narrative, as has been
RUTH 565
correctly described by several recent scholars (Humbert, Hertz-
berg, Hals) was to show the ways of God in the life of one family.
The original story was structured around a theological issue, as is
evident from Naomi’s discourse (l.2lf.): ‘I went away full and
Yahweh has brought me back ernpty . . . the Almighty has
brought calamity upon me!’ The mysterious ways of God form the
major thread of the Plot in chs. 2 and 3 (2.12, 20; 3.10, 13), and
culminate in the blessing in 4.14. All the features which make up
the qualities of a good story bear witness to God at work. Ruth
came to glean in Boaz’s field ‘by accident’. Boaz ‘happened’ to be a
kinsman. Naomi schemed to force Boaz into marriage. The canoni-
cal editors accept the story in its totality as a witness and make no
attempt to'mora1ize orjustify the events. Any theological interpre-
tation which threatens the narrative itself is surely wrong, such as
Hajek’s (86) strained exegesis of 4.14 to make God the g5Zl.
Part ofthe difficulty ofinterpreting the book lies in the manner in
which some of the story’s features have been blurred and rendered
confusing to the reader. For example, it is not clear why Ruth
would glean as a pauper when Naomi still owns property. Nor is
the application of the levirate law to Boaz, who is not a brother-in-
law, immediately obvious. Again, one wonders why the gotil ofch. 4
did not have the same information as did Boaz respecting the oblig-
ation of marrying Ruth, if he desired the land. Finally, the
announcement of a son to Naomi (4.17) rather than to l\/Iahlon
comes as somewhat of a puzzlement.
However, none of this confusion seems to reflect a canonical
intention, but derives from other sources. Certain ofthe problems
of the narrative stem from the modern reader’s lack ofinformation
which was assumed by the story. We do not know enough about the
nature and scope of levirate marriage in Israel at this period to
lollow the exact sequence, but there is no evidence that the narrator
himself was uninformed respecting the custom. Then again, some
of the features which have puzzled scholars can be attributed to the
freedom of the storyteller in emphasizing certain elements and
de-emphasizing others. Thus, atttributing the son to Naomi rather
than f\lahlon (4.17) climaxes a major theological theme, even
though it runs counter to parts ofthe levirate law which formed the
lmckgrottntl of the story.
566 THE wrurtnc-s
(a) The canonical shaping guards the integrity of the original liter-
ary form of the story against various attempts to shift the emphasis
away from the narrative. The theological witness of Ruth cannot,
therefore, be separated from its form, either by extracting a moral
or deriving a lesson apart from the context of these particular
events. The canon has thus retained unimpaired the realistic Ian-
guage of the original story, and provides a warrant for serious
attention to the literary features which constitute its witness.
(b) Although the characters within the story have been pictured
in language fully commensurate with its historical period and share
in the cultural milieu ofits time, certain ofthem— particularly Ruth
and Boaz - emerge as models of the faithful religious life of Israel.
The commendation is not provided by direct commentary on the
part of the author, but is offered by the movement of the whole
story. The figures are not dehistoricized to become stereotyped
vehicles of virtue, but evidence signs of genuine character in the
midst of historically conditioned circumstances, such as the ancient
legal fiction of Ievirate marriage.
(c) The story has been actualized by highlighting its role in the
larger divine economy. However,the connection between ordinary
history and redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte) is not a sharply
separatetl one. Rather, the two flow easily together when viewed
568 THE WRITINGS
from the theological perspective of a God from whom all causality
ultimately derives.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov I, 206-210; DThC I4, 382; EB 6, 343; RCC3 5, 1254.
Commentaries
E. W. Hengstenberg, 1853 G. A. F. Knight, TB, 1955
F. Hitzig, KeH, 1855 T. Meek, IB, 1956
C. D. Ginsburg, 1857 H. Ringgren, ATD, 21962
O. Zbckler, ET, LCHS, 1873 W. Rudolph, KAT2, 1962
F. Delitzsch, BC, 1875 H. Lamparter, BAT, 1962
K, Budde, KHC, 1898 A. Robert, R. Tournay, A. Feuillet,
A. Harper, CB, 1907 EB, 1963
P. Joiion, 1909 G. Gerleman, BK, 1965
K. Budde, I-ISAT, 41923 R. Gordis, 31968
M. Haller, HAT, 1940 E. Wiirthwein, HAT2, I969
S. M. Lehrman, SonB, 21952 M. H. Pope, AB, 1977
D. Buzy, SB, 31953
Bibliography
J. Angénieux, ‘Structure du Cantique des Cantiques,’ ETL 41, I965,
96-142; ‘Le Cantique des Cantiques en huits chants it refrains alternants’,
ETL 44, 1968, 87-140; J.-P. Auclet, ‘Le sens du Cantique des Cantiques’,
RB 62, I955, 197-221; A. Bentzen, ‘Remarks on the Canonization of the
Song of Solomon’, Studia orientalia I. Pedersen dicata, Copenhagen 1953,
41-7; K. Budde, ‘Was ist das HoheIied?’, Palfistinajahrbuch 78, Berlin
I894, 92-1 17; D. Buzy, ‘La composition littéraire du Cantique des Canti-
ques’, RB 49, I940, 169-94; ‘L’a1légorie matrimoniale deJahvé et d’Israé1
et le Cantique des Cantiques’, RB 52, 1945, 77-90; Albert Cook, The Root
rythe Thing. A Study Qfjob and the Song cyfSongs, Bloomington, Ind. I968; S.
R. Driver, ‘Appendix to Song of Songs’. Introduction to the Old Testament,
lidinburgh and New York 31909, 451 ff.; R. B. Dubarle, ‘L’amour humain
dans le Cantique des Cantiques’, RB 61, 1954, 67-86; ‘Le Cantique des
Catttiqucs’, RSPhTh 38. 1954, 92-I02; Cheryl Exum, ‘A Literary and
Structural .-\nal_\sis ofthe Song ofSongs’, Z/4 11' 85, 1973,47-79; A. Feuil-
570 THE WRITINGS
let, ‘Le Cantique des Cantiques et la tradition biblique’, Nouvelle Revue
Théologique 74, Louvain 1952, 706-33; Le Cantique des Cantiques, Paris 1953;
R. Gordis, ‘A Wedding Song for Solomon’, _]BL 63, I944, 263-70; S.
Grill, Die Symbolsprache des Hohenliedes, Heiligenkreuz 21970; P. Haupt,
‘The Book of Cantieles’, AJSL 18, 1901-2, 193-245; 19, 1902-3, 1-32;
G. von Herder, Lieder der Lieben, die iiltesten und schéinsten aus dem Morgen-
lande, Leipzig I778; A. Hermann, Altiigyptische Liebesdichtung, Wiesbaden
1959; F. Horst, ‘Die Formen des althebraischen Liebesliedes’, FS E. Litt-
mann, Leiden I935, 43—54=Cottes Recht, Munich 1961, 176-87; S. N.
Kramer, ‘Sumerian Sacred Marriage Songs and the Biblical “Song of
Songs”’, ll/Iitteilungen des Institutsfiir Orientforschung 15, Berlin 1969, 262-74;
C. Kuhl, ‘Das Hohelied und seine Bedeutung’, ThR NF 9, 1937, 137-67.
A. Lacocque, ‘L’insertion du Cantique des Cantiques dans le Canon’,
RI-IPhR 42, 1962, 38-44; O. Loretz, ‘Zum Problem des Eros im Hohen-
lied’, BZ NF 8, 1964, 191-216; Studien zur althebraischen Poesie I. Das altheb-
raische Liebeslied, Neukirchen-Vluy-n 1971; M. L. Margolis, ‘How the Song
of Songs Entered the Canon’, in W. H. Schoff, ed., The Song qfSongs: A
Symposium, Philadelphia 1924, 9-17; T. Meek, ‘Canticles and the
Tammuz Cult’, A_]SL 39, 1922/3, I-I4; R. E. Murphy, ‘The Structure of
the Canticle of Cantieles’, CBQ ll, I949, 381-91; ‘Recent Literature on
the Canticle ofCantic1es’, CBQ 16, 1954, 1-1 1; ‘Form-Critical Studies in
the Song of Songs’, Interp 27, I973, 413-22; ‘Song of Songs’, IDB Suppl,
831-8; ‘Towards a Commentary on the Song of Songs’, CBQ 39, 1977,
482-96; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, ET London and Nashville 1972,
166-76; A. Robert, ‘Le genre littéraire du Cantique des Cantiques’, RB
52, 1945, 192-213; ‘La description de L’Epoux et de l’Epouse dans
Cant. 5,1 1-15 et 7,2-6’, .1/Ielanges E. Podechard, Paris I945, 211-23; ‘Les
Appendices du Cantique des Cantiques (B, 8-14)’, RB 55, I948, 161-83;
H. H. Rowley, ‘The Interpretation ofthe Song of Songs,’ The Servant ifthe
Lord, London 21965, 195-245; W. Rudolph, ‘Das Hohe Lied im Kanon’,
ZAW 59, 1942/3, 189-99; N. Schmidt, ‘Is Canticles an Adonis Litany?’,
JAOS 46, 1926, 154-70; H. Schmbkel, Zur kultischen Deutung des
Hohenliedes’, ZAW 64, 1952, 148-55; —, Heilige I-Iochzeit und Hoheslied,
Wiesbaden 1956; S. Schott, Altiigyptische Liebeslieder, Ziirich 21950; M. H.
Segal, ‘The Song ofSongs’, VT I2, 1962, 470-90; R. Tournay, ‘Abraham
et le Cantique des Cantiques’, VT 25, 1975, 544-52;J. G. Wetzstein, ‘Die
syrische Dresehtafel’, Zeitschriflfiir Ethnologie 5, Braunschweis 1873, 270-
302; VV. Wittekindt, Das Hohe Lied und seine Beziehungen zum Iitarkult,
Hanover 1927; E. Wiirthwein, ‘Zum Verstéindnis des Hohenliedes’, ThR
NF 32, 1967, 177-212.
sono 01-" sonos 571
Conclusion
There is another important sign that the initial context of being
wisdom literature from Solomon has been significantly broadened
in its final canonical form. In 8.llf. Solomon is no longer the
speaker ofthe love poetry, but rather the addressee. Another voice
is introduced which is explicitly set over against that of the king. In
contrast to the great wealth of Solomon, which is portrayed in
staggering proportions, another voice evaluates his own exclusive
possession of a beloved one as of even greater value: ‘my vineyard,
my very own, for myself!’ If there had been any doubt up to now
that the love being described extended beyond the king’s to every
man. this explieit t'ottlI‘;tsl intlieates the effort to incorporate even
578 "rm-3 wnrrttsos
the poorest of Israel within the same reality of human love. A voice
within the community disputes Solomon’s exclusive claim.
Significantly, the canon’s assigning of the Song to Solomon (l.l)
does not rule out other voices, indeed even one which appears to
use Solomon as a foil.
Finally, there is a clear sign of editorial activity in the passage
8.6-7. These verses are unique in the book because they represent a
clear example of reflective generalization, which is characteristic of
wisdom literature. Elsewhere in the Song assertions are grounded
by a /ti’ clause of motivation (1.2), but in 8.6 a characterization of
love apart from that of the two lovers is offered. Not ‘your love’, but
simply generic love is portrayed as ‘strong as death’ and a ‘most
vehement flame’. The passage functions to summarize the message
of the entire book and to abstract its teaching beyond the historical
instance afforded by Solomon.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov II, 270-78; DThC 2, 1679; EB 6, 653-5; RGG3 3, 430f.
Commentaries
E. W. Hengstenberg, I860 K. Galling, HAT, I940
C. D. Ginsburg, I861 D. Buzy, SB, I946
F. Delitzsch, BC, I877 G. C. Aalders, COuT, I948
E. H. Plumptre, CB, l88l V. E. Reichert, SonB, ZI952
K. Siegfried, HKAT, I898 H. L. Ginsberg, I961
G. Wildeboer, KI-IC, I898 W. Zimmerli, ATD, I962
G. A. Barton, ICC, I908 H. W. Hertzberg, KAT2. I963
E. Podechard, EB, 1912 R. B. Y. Scott, AB, 1965
A. L. Williams, CB2, I922 K. Galling, HAT2, I969
K. Budde, HSAT, ‘I922 W. Fuerst, CNEB, I975
A. Allgeier, HS, I925 A. Lauha, BK, I978
H. W. Hertzberg, KAT, I932
Bibliography
W. Baumgartner, ‘The Wisdom Literature. IV. Ecclesiastes’, The Old
Testament and rl/Iodern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley, Oxford and New York l95l,
22l—7; A. Bea, Liber Ecclesiastae qui ab Hebraeis appellatur Qohelet, Scripta
Pontificii Instituti Biblici I00, Rome I950; E. Bickermann, ‘Koheleth’,
Four Strange Books ifthe Bible. New York I967; R. Braun. Kohelet und die
fruhhellenistische Popularphilosophie, BZAW I30, I973; D. Buzy, ‘La notion
du bonheur dans l’Ecclésiaste’, RB 43, I934, 494—5l I; G. R. Castellino,
‘Qohelet and his Wisdom’, CBQ 30, I968, l5—28; M. Dahood,
‘Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth’, Bibl 33, I952, 30-52;
‘Qoheleth and Recent Discoveries’, Bibl 39, I958, 302—l8; F. Ellermeier,
Qohelet, Herzberg: I970; K. Galling, ‘Kohelet-Studien’, ZAW 50, I932,
276-93; ‘Stand und Aufgabe der Kohelet-Forschung’. ThR NF 6, I934,
355-73; ‘Das Ratsel der Zeit im Urteil Kohelets (Koh. 3, I-5)’, ZTK 58,
l96I. I-15; H. Gese, ‘Die Krisis der Weisheit bei Koheleth’, Les sagesses du
Proche-Orient /lncien, Paris I963, l39ff.; H. I.. Ginsberg, .$'tudie.s in Koheleth,
ECCLESIASTES 58l
New York I950; ‘Supplementary Studies in Koheleth’, PA/I_]R 2|, I952,
35-62; ‘The Structure and Contents of the Book of Kohelet’, SVT 3,
1955, l38—49; R. Gordis, Koheleth. The Man and His World, New York
21955; ‘Qoheleth and Qumran — A Study ofStyle’, Bibl 41, I960, 395—4I0;
H. Graetz, Kohelet, Leipzig I87I; M. Hengeln/udaism and Hellenism, ET
London and Philadelphia I974, I, ll5—30; A. S. Kamenetzky, ‘Das
Koheleth-Riitsel’, ZAW 29, I909, 63-9; ‘Der Riitselname Koheleth’, ZAW
34, I914, 225-8; P. Kleinert, ’Sind im Buche Koheleth ausserhebri-iische
Einfliisse anzuerkennen?’, ThStKr 56, I883, 761-82; ‘Zur religions- und
kulturgeschichtlichen Stellung des Buches Koheleth’, ThStI(r 82, I909,
493-529; M. A. Klopfenstein, ‘Die Skepsis des Qohelet’, TZ 28, I972,
97—I09.
O. Loretz, Qohelet und der Alte Orient. Untersuchungen gu Stil und theologischer
Thematik des Buches Qohelet, Freiburg I964; A. Miller, ‘Aufbau und Grund-
probleme des Predigers’, in Miscellanea Biblica edita a Pontificio Instituto
Biblica II, Rome I934, I04-22; J. Pedersen, ‘Scepticisme israélite’,
RHPhR I0, I930, 317-70; R. H. Pfeiffer, ‘The Peculiar Skepticism of
Ecclesiastes’,_jBL 53, I934, I00-09; T. Polk, ‘The Wisdom of Irony: A
Study ofHebel and its Relation toJoy and the Fear ofGod in Ecclesiastes’,
Studia Biblica et Theologica 6, Pasedena, Calif. I971, 3—I7; G. von Rad,
Wisdom in Israel, London and Nashville I972, 226-37; H. Ranston,
Ecclesiastes and the Early Creek Wisdom Literature, London I925; H. H. Row-
ley, ‘The Problems of Ecclesiastes’,jQ_R 42, I95I/2, 87-90; R. B. Salters,
‘Qoheleth and the Canon’, ExpT 86, I975, 339-42; H. H. Schmid, Wesen
and Geschichte der Weisheit, BZAW l0I, I966, I86IT.; G. T. Sheppard, ‘The
Epilogue to Qoheleth as Theological Commentary’, CBQ 39, I977, I82-9;
W. Vischer, L’Ecelésiaste, Témoin de Jésus Christ’, Valeur de l’/Incien
Testament, Geneva I965, I0l—2l; J. G. Williams, ‘What Does it Profit a
Mani’: The Wisdom of Koheleth’,_judaism 20, New York l97I, I79-93,
reprinted L. Crenshaw, ed., Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, New York
I976, 375-89; A. G. Wright, ‘The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of
the Book of Qoheleth’, CBQ 30, I968, 313-34, reprinted Crenshaw,
.S"tudies, 245-66; J. S. Wright, ‘The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes’, EuQu
I8. I946, 18-34; W. Zimmerli, ‘Zur Struktur der alttestamentliehen
Weisheit’, Z.-‘-I W 5|, I933, I77—204; Die Weisheit des Predigers Salomo, Berlin
I936; ‘Das Buch Kohelet — Traktat oder Sentenzensammlungi”, VT 24,
I974, 22I-30.
The superscription
The epilogue
The most obvious sign of canonical shaping appears in the
epilogue. Critical commentators debate at length its unity and
authorship. Some scholars have ascribed the epilogue to a pupil of
Koheleth since Koheleth is addressed in the third person much in
ECCLESIASTES 585
the manner of the book’s superscription. Others (e.g. Zimmerli)
follow Podechard in seeing two distinct redactors at work in vv.
9-11 and 12-14, and note the repeated introduction in vv. 9 and I2.
From the canonical perspective the crucial issue focuses on deter-
mining the effect of the epilogue on the interpretation of the book
regardless of whether the addition derives from one or two editorial
layers. What guidelines are established for the community which
now uses the book of Koheleth as authoritative scripture? Few
passages in the Old Testament reflect a more overt consciousness of
the canon than does this epilogue (cf. Sheppard).
The first exegetical problem turns on determining the scope of
the epilogue, specifically the position of v. 8. The older commen-
taries (Hengstenberg) generally saw it as part of the epilogue. The
newer commentaries, with the exception of Galling, assign it to the
preceding section as a conclusion. An argument for assigning it to
the preceding verses lies in seeing the motto as a framework for the
book (1.1 and l2.8) to which an epilogue has subsequently been
added. The verse also serves as an appropriate summary ofthe final
poem on old age (l2.l-7).
What then is the perspective on reading Koheleth which the
epilogue offers? Verse 9 first characterizes Koheleth as ‘wise’. His
sayings are notjust pessimistic emotions, but designated as part of
Israel’s wisdom. Moreover, his words are put into the larger con-
text of his teaching ministry. He had an office or at least a function
within the community. His use of wisdom was not just a private
affair, hence the name Koheleth. Further, the nature of his role is
described as a critical one: weighing, studying, and ordering. The
emphasis does not fall on his writing activity, although this is
included, but on his critical judgment in the collection of wisdom.
Moreover, his literary critical role is explicitly characterized as
‘truthful’. The phrase ‘pleasing words’ (v. 10) is not an aesthetic
description, but rather portrays his writings as ‘fitting’ and ‘appro-
priate’.
In v. 1 I the epilogue sets Koheleth’s work into the larger context
of other wisdom teachers. The sayings of the h“/trimim (sages) are
parallel to their ‘collective sayings’. The role of wisdom collections
is then succinctly characterized: they act as ‘goads’ to stimulate
with a sting, and together they function as ‘firmly fixed nails’,
points of reference which stake out an area in which wisdom is
found. l\levertheless, in spite of this variety of functions thesource
586 "rue warrmos
of all wisdom is from God, ‘the one Shepherd’. This characteriza-
tion thus legitimates Ecclesiastes as divine wisdom and rules out
any merely private interpretation. In addition, there is a warning
against other books which the writer explicitly excludes from the
community as a distraction from the canonical collection.
Verse I3 offers a final summary. The major points have been
made regarding Koheleth and need only to be briefly rehearsed.
The imperative to ‘fear God and keep his commandments’ is
offered as the epitome of man’s duty. The biblical idiom of fearing
God and keeping his commandments could only have been heard in
the broadest context of the Jewish faith which included the Mosaic
legislation. Clearly no sharp distinction between wisdom and law
was being suggested by the epilogue.
In addition to the imperative addressing man’s whole duty, the
epilogue offers an overarching theological rubric under which all
human behaviour was to be viewed, namely, thejudgment of God.
God’s hidden wisdom penetrates the secret things ofthis world and
thus relativizes all human strivings by his final act ofdistinguishing
the good from the evil. In the present form of the book this
eschatological motif finds its confirmation in such verses as 3.17,
8.llf., and ll.9.
The theory was first put forward by Krochmal (cf. Graetz, 47ff.)
that the last three verses of the epilogue do not refer just to
Koheleth, but function as a conclusion to the whole Hagiographa.
The suggestion has not received much support (cf. Barton, Gordis).
Yet is it possible that the reference to the ‘words ofthe wise’ could
extend beyond Koheleth and give the canonical key to the book of
Proverbs as well? As is well known, Koheleth immediately followed
Proverbs in the order of the Talmud (Baba Bathra l4b) and there
are some parallels in language with Proverbs I. In my judgment,
the interpretation is unlikely. The evidence is not strong enough for
relating the ‘sayings ofthe wise’ specifically to the book ofProverbs.
The phrase simply establishes the larger literary category of which
Koheleth is an example. A more serious objection to Krochmal’s
theory is that it removes vv. llff. from a specific reference to
Koheleth and thus greatly weakens the critical impact of the
epilogue on the reading of the book.
ECCLESIASTES 587
(a) The canonical shaping both ofthe body ofthe book and also the
epilogue makes it clear that Koheleth is to be used as scripture
along with other books in the collection. Its authoritative role lies in
its function within a larger context. The editorial shaping of the
book did not consist of a heavy-handed reworking of the original
sayings of Koheleth. His words are left basically in their original
form without being blurred or softened. Instead, a new and larger
context is provided in which the book is to be interpreted. To what
extent the particular views of Koheleth arose from his personal
disposition is left unanswered. What is significant in a canonical
sense is rather the judgment that his sayings serve as a critical
sapiential guide for the community when placed with other
authoritative writings. The point of using the literary fiction of
Solomon, the eponymic father of Hebrew wisdom, is specifically to
guard the normative status of this message against ascribing it to
the individual quirks ofits author. The hermeneutical implication
of this move is to call into question interpretations which would
derive Koheleth’s views from his changing moods or pessimistic
disposition rather than to see them as playing a critical role within
Israel’s corpus of wisdom literature. Indeed, Koheleth’s sayings do
not have an independent status, but function as a critical correc-
tive, much as the book ofJames serves in the New Testament as an
essential corrective to misunderstanding the Pauline letters.
(b) Secondly we shall not achieve the proper interpretation of the
book of Koheleth for the community of faith by seeking to uncover
unusual historical or psychological influences on the author. This
statement is not to deny that such influences were present, as is
obvious for any historical writing. But in its particularity the canon-
ical process assigned to each part of scripture a new role for a
different context. The message of Koheleth is heard and interpreted
from a ‘rule of faith’ which is far broader than even the wisdom
corpus (l2.l3). By being set in the eschatological framework ofa
coming divinejudgment, Koheleth’s message is not only limited to
present human activity, but sharply relativized in the light of the
new and fuller dimension of divine wisdom. When later Jews and
Christians contrasted the wisdom of this world (I Cor. 1.20) with
the wisdom of God, they were interpreting the Hebrew scriptures
ECCLESIASTES 589
according to their canonical shaping.
(c) It is often claimed that the epilogue of Ecclesiastes robs the
book ofits original vitriolic force. Is it not the goal ofthe historical
critical method to make the modern reader experience the samejolt
as was felt by Koheleth’s first addressees? This commonly held
theory of actualization of a biblical text stems from a romantic
understanding of history (deriving from Herder). However, from a
theological perspective it is far from obvious. Indeed, the purpose of
a canon ofsacred writings is to propose a very different understand-
ing of actualization. The authority of the biblical text does not rest
on a capacity to match original experiences, rather on the claim
which the canonical text makes on every subsequent generation of
hearers.
History of Exegesis
caipmv 11, 235-9; DThC 4, 2053;:-2001* 5, 514.
R. Braun, Koheleth und die friihhellenistische Popularphilosophie, Berlin I973;
G. Calandra, De historica /lndreae Victorini expositione in Ecclesiasten, Palermo
I948; B. Grossfeld, The Targums to the Five II/Iegilloth, New York I973,
67-85; S. Holrn-Nielsen, ‘The Book of Ecclesiastes and the Interpreta-
tion of it in Jewish and Christian Theology’, ASTI I0, I976. 38-96;
Muilenburg, ‘A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran’, BASOR I35, I954, 20-
28; A. Palm, Die Qohelet-Literatur. Ein Beitrag zur Exegese des Alten Tes-
tamentes, Mannheim I886; S. Schiffer, Das Buch Kohelet. Nach der At;/fassung
der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch und der jiidischen Erkldrer des .’l/Iittelalters,
Leipzig I884; S. Vajda, Deux commentaires Kardites sur l ’Ecclésiaste, Leiden
I97 I; E. Wtilfel, Luther and die Skepsis. Eine Studie zur Kohelet-Exegese Luthers,
Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus X. I2,
Munich I958.
XXXIX
LAM ENTATIONS
Commentaries
O. Thenius, KeH, 1855 oldman, SonB, 21952
H. Ewald, 31866 F. Knight, TB, I955
C. F. Keil. BC, I880 Meek, IB, 1956
J. Knabenbauer, CSS, I891 (‘D iser, ATD, I958
Bibliography
B- Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations,
Lund 1963; G. Beer, Individual- und Gemeindepsalrnen, Marburg I894; G.
Brunet, Les larnentations contre Jeremie. Réinterprétation des quatre premieres
lamentations, Paris I968; K. Budde, ‘Das hebriiische Klagelied’, ZAW 2,
I882. I-52; 3, I883, 299-306; W. W. Cannon, ‘The Authorship of Lamen-
tations’. Bibliotheca Sacra 81. Dallas, Texas I924, 42-58; A. Gelin,
‘Lamentations (Livre des)’, DBS 5, 237-51; R. Gordis, ‘A Commentary
on the Text of Lamentations’, The Seventy-Fiflh Anniversary Volume ofthe
L/RQ, ed. A. A. Neuman and S. Zeitlin, Philadelphia I967, 267-86;
‘Commentary on the Text of Lamentations (Part Two)’, _]Q_R NS 58,
1967-68, 14-33; ‘The Conclusion ofthe Book of Lamentations’,]BL 93,
I974, 289-93; N. K. Gottwald, Studies in the Boot’: Qflmmentations, SBT I. I4,
I954; H. Gunkel, ‘KlageliederJeremiae’, RGG2, 3, I049-52; H. Jahnow,
Das hebrdische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Vtilkerdichtung, BZAW 36, 1923; E.
Janssenh/uda in der Exitgeit, FRLANT 69, I956, 9-I2.
W. F. Lanahan, ‘The Speaking Voice in the Book of l.amentation',_]BL
LAMENTATIONS 591
93, I974, 41-49; M. Liihr, ‘Der Sprachgebrauch des Buches der
Klageliedes’, ZAW I4, 1894, 31-50; ‘Threni III und die jeremianische
Autorschaft des Buches der Klagelieder’, ZAW 24, I904, 1-16;
‘Alphabetische und alphabetisierende Lieder im Alten Testament’, ZAW
25, 1905, 173-98; T. F. McDaniel, ‘The Alleged Sumerian Influence
upon Lamentations’, VT 18, I968, 198-209; ‘Philological Studies in
Lamentations, I-II’, Bibl 49, 1968, 27-53, 199-220; P. A. Munch, ‘Die
alphabetische Akrostichie in derjlidischen Psalmendichtung’, ZDMG 90,
1936, 703-10; M. Not.h, ‘Die Katastrophe von Jerusalem im Jahre 587 v.
Chr und ihre Bedeutung 1111- Israel’, GSAT, Munich 21960, 346-71; W.
Rudolph, ‘Der Text der Klagelieder’, ZAW 56, I938, 101-22; S. Segert,
‘Zur literarischen Form und Funktion der fi.'tnfMegilloth’, ArOr 33, I965,
451-62; R. Smend, ‘Iilber das Ich der Psalmen’, ZAW8, 1888, 49-147, H.
Wiesmann, ‘Der planmiissige Aufbau der Klagelieder desjeremias’, Bibl
7, 1926, I46-61; ‘Der Zweck der Klagelieder des Jeremias’, Bibl 7, I926,
412-28; ‘Der geschichtliche Hintergrund des Biichleins der Klagelieder’,
BZ 23, I935/6, 20-4-3; ‘Der Verfasser der Klagelieder ein Augenzeuge?’,
Bibl 17, 1936, 71-84.
H. I. Caro, Beitrtige zur iiltesten Exegese des Buches Threni mit besonderer Beriick-
sichtigung des Midrosch und Targum, Berlin I893; E. Cothenet, ‘Lamenta-
tions (Livre des)’, DS 9.1, 1976, 160-5; B. Grossfeld, The Targums to the
Five ll-Iegilloth, New York I973, 21-65; M. Schonfelder, Die Klagelieder
des jeremias nach rabbinischer Auslegung, Munich 1887; H. Wiesmann, ‘Der
Kommentar des hl. Thomas von Aquin zu den Klageliedern des
Jeremias’, Scholastilt 4, Freiburg I929, 78-91.
XL
ESTHER
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, I870 Schildenberger, HS, 1941
E. Bertheau, R. Ryssel, KeH, 21887 L. Sourigon, SB, I949
P. Cassel, 1888 S. Goldman, SonB, 21952
G. Wildeboer, KHC, 1898 B. W. Anderson, IB, 1954
K. Siegfried, HKAT, 1901 H. Ringgren, ATD, I958
A. W. Streane, CB, 1907 A. Barucq,JB, 21959
L. B. Paton, ICC, I908 H. Bardtke, KAT2, 1963
C. Steuernagel, HSAT, 41923 E. Wtirthwein, HAT2, I969
M. Haller, SAT, 21925 C. A. Moore, AB, I971
M. Haller, HAT, 1940 G. Gerleman, BK, 1973
Bibliography
B. W. Anderson, ‘The Place ofthe Book of Esther in the Christian Bible’,
JR 30, 1950, 32-43; Hans Bardtke, ‘Neuere Arbeiten um Estherbuch.
Eine kritische Wiirdigung’, Ex Oriente Lux 19, Leiden 1965-66, 519-49; A.
Bea, ‘De origine vocis par’, Bibl 21, 1940, l98f.; E. Bickerman, ‘The
Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther’,_]BL 63, I944, 339-62; ‘Notes on
the Greek Book of Esther’, PAAJR 20, 1950, 101-23; Four Strange Books of
the Bible, New York I967; G. J. Botterweck, ‘Die Gattung des Buches
Esther in Spektrum neuerer Publikation’, BiLe 5, I964, 274-92; H. Cazel-
les, ‘Note sur la composition du rouleau d’Esther’, Lex tua veritas, FS H.
Junker, ed. H. Gross and F. Mussner, Trier 1961, 17-29; V. Christian,
‘Zur Herkunft des Purim—Festes’, FS F. Niitscher, BBB I, 1950,33-37;J. L.
Crenshaw, ‘Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon “Histori-
cal” Literature’,jBL 88, I969, 129-42; D. Daube, ‘The Last Chapter of
Esther’,_]QR 37, 1946-7, 139-47; W. Dommershausen, Die Estherrolle.
Stil und Ziel einer alttestamentliehen Schrift, Stuttgart I968; W. Erbt, Die
Purimsage in der Bibel, Berlin 1900; T. H. Gaster, Purim and Hanukkah in
Custom and Tradition, New York 1950; H. S. Gehman, ‘Notes on the Per-
ESTHER 599
History of Exegesis
Carpzov 1, 364-6; one 5, mot, EB 1, 49212003 2, 707r.
M. Baumgarten, ‘Esther’, Real-Enqycloplidie, ed. J. J. Herzog, vol. 4, 1855,
l77—85; H. Bardtke, ‘Zur Auslegungsgeschichte des Buches Esther’, Dar
Buch Esther, KAT’, I963, 255-65; Luther und das Buch Esther, Tiibingen
I964; T. I-I. Gaster, Purim and Hanukkah in Custom and Tradition, New York
1950; B. Grossfeld, The Targums to the Five Megilloth, New York 1973,
87-170; B. Jacob, ‘Das Buch Esther bei den LXX’, ZAW 10, I890, 24-1'-
98; L. B. Paton, Esther, ICC, 1908, 97ff.; F. W. Schultz, ‘Introduction’,
The Book qfEsther, ET, LCHS, I876, l-28.
XLI
DANIEL
Commentaries
L. Bertholdt, 1806-1808 \/Iontgomery, ICC, 21949
H. A. C. Havernick, 1832 Young, 1949
C. von Lengerke, 1835 *4-?>
L."L'l JL."‘ Slotki, SonB, 1951
F. Hitzig, KeH, 1850 A. Bentzen, HAT, 21952
O. Zfiickler, ET, LCHS, 1871 E. W. Heaton, TB, 1956
C. F. Keil, BC, 1872 J. Barr, Peake rev., 1962
J. Meinhold, SZ, 1889 O. Pltiger, KAT2, 1965
A. A. Bevan, 1892 N. W. Porteous, OTL, 1965,
F. W. Farrar, ExB, 1895 (21979)
S. R. Driver, CB, 1900 M. Delcor, SoBi, 1971
K. Marti, KHC, 1901 A. Lacocque, CAT, 1976
J. Knabenbauer, CSS, 21907 L. F. Hartman, A. A. Di Lella, AB,
J. Goettsberger, HS, 1928 1978
R. H. Charles, 1929 J. G. Baldwin, TOTC, 1978
L. Dennefeld, SB, 1946
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, OTL, 1968, 242f.; C. A. Auberlen,
The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St john, ET Edinburgh 1856;
James Barr, ‘Jewish Apocalyptic in Recent Scholarly Study’, B_[RL 58,
1975, 9-35; G. A. Barton, ‘The Composition of the Book of Daniel’,_[BL
17, 1898, 62-86; W. Baumgartner, Das Buch Daniel, Giessen 1926; ‘Das
Aramiiische im Buche Daniel’, ZA W 45, 1927, 81-133; ‘Ein Vierteljahr-
hundert Danielforschung’, ThR NS 11, 1939, 59-83, 125-44, 201-28; M.
A. Beck, Das Daniel-Buch. Sein historischer Hintergrund and seine literarische
Entwicklung, Leiden 1935; ‘Zeit, Zeiten und eine halbe Zeit’, Studia Biblica
et Semitica T. C. Vriezen dedicata, \/Vageningen 1966, 19-24; A. Bertholet,
Daniel und die griechische Gdahr, Tiibingen 1907; E. Bickerman, Four Strange
Books cyfthe Bible, New York 1967; C. Boutfiower, In and Around the Book of
DANIEL 609
Daniel, London and New York 1923; C. H. W. Brekelmans, ‘The Saints
of the Most High and Their Kingdom (Dan. 7, 26.27)’, OTS 14. 1965,
305-29; F. F. Bruce, ‘Josephus and Daniel’, ASTI 4, 1965, 148-62; ‘The
Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community’, Neotestamentica et Semitica;
FS M. Black, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox, Edinburgh 1969, 221-35; ‘The
Earliest Old Testament Interpretation’, OTS 17, 1972, 37-52; H. Burg-
mann, ‘Die vier Endzeittermine in Danielbuch’, ZAW 86, 1974, 542ff.;
J. J. Collins, ‘The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of
Apoca1yptic’,jBL 94, 1975, 218-34; The Apocalyptic Vision ofthe Book of
Daniel, Missoula 1977; Coppens, ‘Le fils d’homme daniélique et les
relectures de Dan 7, 13’, ETL 37, 1961, 5-51; ‘Le chapitre VII de Daniel’,
ETL 39, 1963, 87-113.
M. Delcor, ‘Les sources du chapitre VII de Daniel’, VT 18, 1968,
290-312; L. Dequeker, ‘Daniel VII et les saints de Tres-Haut’, ETL 36,
1960_, 353-92; F. Dexinger, Das Buch Daniel und seine Problerne, Stuttgart
1969; W. Dommershausen, Nabonid im Buche Daniel, Mainz 1964; A.-M.
Dubarle, ‘Daniel’, DBS 8, 736-58; O. Eissfeldt, ‘Die Menetekcl-Inschrift
und ihre Deutung’,ZA1/V63, 1951, 105—14=KS III, 1966, 210ff.; A. Feuil-
let, ‘Le fils de l’homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique’, RB 60, 1953,
170-202, 321-46; A. Finkel, ‘The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures’, RQ
4, 1963/4, 357-70; D. Flusser, ‘The Four Empires in the 4 Sibyl and the
Book of Daniel’, Israel Oriental Studies 2, Tel Aviv 1972, 148-75; D. N.
Freedman, ‘The Prayer of Nabonidus’, BASOR 145, 1957, 31f.; ‘The
Flowering of Apocalyptic’,_]ournal of Theology and the Church 6, New York
1969, 166-74; A. von Gall, Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel, Giessen
1895; K. Galling, ‘Die 62 Jahre des Meders Darius in Dan 6, 1’, ZA W 66,
1954, 152; J. G. Gammie, ‘The Classification, Stages of Growth, and
Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel’,jBL 95, 1976, 191-204; M.
Gertner, ‘Terms of Scriptural Interpretation: A Study in Hebrew Seman-
tics’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 25, London 1962,
l-27; H. L. Ginsberg, Studies on the Book ofDaniel, New York 1948; ‘The
Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant’, VT 3, 1953, 400-4; ‘The
Composition of the Book of Daniel’, VT 4, 1954, 246-75; P. Grelot, ‘Les
versions grecques de Danie1’,Bil2l 47, 1966, 381-402; E. Gross, ‘We1treich
und Gottesvolk’, EvTh 16, 1956, 241-51; H. Gunlte1,Sch5pfun_g und Chaos in
Urzeit und Endgeit, Gijttingen 1895; R. A. Hal], Post-Exilic Theological
Streams and the Book ofDaniel Diss. Yale University 1974; R. Hanhart, ‘Die
Heiligen des Htichsten’, SVT 16, 1967, 90-101; ‘Kriterien geschicht-
licher Wahrheit in der Makkabaerzeit. Zur geschichtlichen Bedeutung
der danielischen Weltzeitlehre’, TheolEx 140, 1967, 7-22; P. D. Hanson,
‘Jewish Apocalyptic Against its Near Eastern Environment’, RB 78, 1971,
31-58; The-Dawn of Apocalyptic, Philadelphia 1975; F. I-Iasel, ‘The
ldentity of the “Saints of the Most High” in Daniel 7’, Bibl 56, 1975,
173-92; ‘The First and Third Year of Belshazzar (Dan 7: 1; 8:1)’, Andrews
Iinitwsitr Seminary Studies 15. 1977, 153-68; M- Henge]. judaism and Hel-
610 THE wturmos
lenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Earlr Hellenistic Period.
ET London and Philadelphia 1974; E. ‘W. Hengstenberg, Disserta-
tions on the Genuineness of Daniel, ET Edinburgh and New York 1848; G.
Holscher, ‘Die Entstehung des Buches Daniel’, ThStKr 92, 1919, 1 13-38;
A. Jepsen, ‘Bemerkungen zum Danielbuch’, VT ll, 1961, 386-91; B. W‘.
Jones, ‘The Prayer in Daniel IX’, VT 18, 1968, 488-93; C. Julius, Die
griecltisehen Danielzustitge and ihre kanonische Celtung, Freiburg 1901; H.
Junker, Untersuehzmgen iiher literarischen und e'.re_g{etis'che Proltlerne des Buches
Daniel, Rome 1932; K. A. Kitchen, D. J. Wiseman, ct al., Notes on some
Problerns in the Book cyf Daniel, London 1965; K. Koch, ‘Spiitisraelitisches
Geschichtsdcnken am Bcispicl (les Buches Daniel’, Historische Zeitschrift
193, Munich 1961, 1-32; The Rediscover)» of Apocalyptic, ET, SBT II. 22,
1972; E. G. Kraeling, ‘The Handwriting 011 the Wall’,,/BL 63, 1944,
1 1-18; C. Kuhl, Die drei .1Ianner irn Feuer (Daniel Kapitel 3 und seine Zusdtge) ,
BZAW 55. 1930.
M.-J. Lagrange, ‘La prophetic des soixante-dix semaines dc Daniel
(Dan. IX, 24-27)’, RB 39, 1930, 179—98;J. C. H. Lebram_ ‘Perspektiven
der gegenwartigcn Danielforschung’,journal of the Study ryfjudaism, 5,
Leiden, 1974, 1-33; ‘Konig Antiocltus im Buch Daniel’, VT 25, 1975,
737-72; A. Lenglet, ‘La structure littéraire (le Danie12-7’, Bibl 53, 1972,
169-90; A. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer,
Wtirzburg 1971; G. W. E. Nicltelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal
Life in IntertestarnentalJudaism, Cambridge, Mass. 1972. 11-27; M. Noth,
‘Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel’, ThStI\‘r 98/99, 1926, 143-
63 = GSAT 11, 1969. 1lff.; ‘Noah, Daniel und Hiob in Ezekiel XIV’,
VT 1, 1951, 251-60; ‘The Understanding of History in Old Testament
Apocalyptic’, ET, Yhe Laws in the Pentateuch, Edinburgh 1966, Philadelphia
1967, 194; ‘The Holy Ones ofthe Most High’, ibid., 215-28; E. Osswald,
‘Zuni Problem der vaticinia ex evcntu’,ZA1l‘ 75, 1963, 27-44; O. Ploger,
‘Siel)zigJal1re’, Aus der Splitgeit des Alten Testament, Giittingen 1970, 67-73;
E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, Oxford 1865; G. von Rad, Old Testament
Theology 11, ET Edinburgh and New York 1965, 301-15; H. H. Rowley,
‘The Bilingual Problem of Daniel’, ZA11' 50, l932,_2-56-68; ‘The Unity of
the Book of Daniel’, reprinted The Servant of the Lord and Other Essa_ys,
Oxford 21965, 247-80; ‘The Composition of the Book of Daniel’, VT 5,
1955, 272-6; Darius the .1iede and the Four World Empires in the Book ofDaniel,
Ca1'dil1’21959; ‘The Meaning ofDanie1 for Today’, Interp 15, 1961. 387-97;
D. Russell, The Method and Message Qfjewish Apocalrptir. OTL, 1964; H.
Schmid, ‘Daniel der .\1cnschensohn’. _/ad 27, 1971, 192-220; M.
Schmidt, Die jiidische Apokalyptik, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967; Schreiner,
Alttestarnentliche-jiidische Apokalyptik, Munich 1969; .\1. Smith, Palestinian
Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York and London
1971; O_. H. Steck, ‘Das Problem theologischer Stri'nnmungcn in nac1’1ex-
ilischer Zeit’, EvTh 28. 1961, 445-54; W. Swain, ‘The '1'11eory of the
Four .\1onarchics: Opposition History under the Roman l'1mpire’. (.'ln.uieal
DANIEL 611
Philology 35. Chicago 1940, 1-21; A. Szorényi, ‘Das Buch Daniel. eine
kanonisiertcr Pcscher1”, SVT 15, 1966, 278-94; W‘. S. Towner, ‘The Poetic
Passages of1)anic1 1-6,’ CBQ 31, 1969, 317-26; B. Vawter, ‘Apocalyptic.
Its Relation to Prophecy’, CBQ 22, 1960, 33-46; A. C. Welch. 1/z’.sz'ort.s Q/’lllt’
End, London and Boston 1922;J. C. Whitcomb, Darius the .1/lede; .4 Study in
Historical Identification, Grand Rapids, l\’lich. 1959; R. 1). Wilson, Studies in
the Book ty'Daniel, 2 vols., New York 1917, 1938; 7.. Zevit. ‘The Structure
and Individual Elements ofDanie1 7’, Z.-111‘ 80. 1968, 385-96.
The critical study of the book of Daniel has gone through various
stages during the last two hundred years which has resulted in a
radically different approach to the book from that held by Jewish
and Christian tradition up to the nineteenth century. The force of
this new critical approach caused the older controversy over the
Greek additions to the book to pale into virtual insigniftcance.
The first period, which was decisive, focused on the problems of
authorship, dating, and character of the book. Beginning in the
eighteenth century, in the writings of the English deist, Anthony
\
Jeremiah — but Daniel did not view the nations from the perspective
of within Israel. He was himself an exile, dwelling in a foreign land
which was far removed fromjerusalem. He dealt with the powers of
the world in their own history as they related to one another and
Israel entered the picture only at the periphery with the coming of
the kingship of God. The reason for this peculiar concentration on
the history of the nations is made clear from within the book of
Daniel itself. The book describes the period ofIsrael’s ‘indignation’
(8.19) which marked the destruction ofthe nation, and her sojourn
in exile among the nations of the world. Therefore, the book begins
with the destruction of_]udah under Nebuchadnezzar. It ends with
the entrance of the kingdom of Cod when the last of the nations is
cut off and Israel’s period of shame brought to a close (8.19, 25).
Between the beginning and the end of Israel’s time of trial lay the
history of the world powers envisioned by Daniel as a sequence
which accelerated towards the end.
How are we to suppose that the book of Daniel functioned in its
original historical setting? As previously suggested, historical criti-
cal scholars have made out a convincing case for believing that the
visions of chs. 7—l‘2 were written about the year 165 BC, shortly
before the death ofAntiochus (163) at the moment ofintense perse-
cution. (To what extent the material had a history prior to its
second-century composition is not a present concern.) The Macca-
bean author described the last great convulsion of the nations
before the end of the age in the form of Daniel’s visions. Moreover,
he focused on the final indignation of the fourth kingdom and
described its development leading up to its destruction by tracing
the detailed history of the Persian and Greek eras step by step.
There seems little doubt that the writer in ch. ll understood Anti-
ochus IV Ephiphanes to be the last ‘contemptible person’ who
would desecrate the temple, take away the burnt offerings, and
commit the final blasphemy before the moment in which Cod cut
him down in order to usher in the end (l 1.36). The visions called
the community of faith to obedience and challenged it to hold on
because the end of time which Daniel foresaw would shortly come.
Because it was written in the form of a oaticinium ex eventu, the effect
of this message would have been electrifying. Daniel had
prophesied about the rise and fall of the earlier three kingdoms and
these events had occurred. ;\-low his vision ofthe last days was being
fulfilled before their very eyes. The ‘little horn’ had appear_ed; the
616 THE WRITINGS
persecution had reached its height; the end was imminent. There-
fore ‘blessed is he who waits’. The visions ofchs. 7-12 were prob-
ably accompanied by the stories of Daniel and his friends to illus-
trate obedience under a similar persecution for the sake of one’s
faith.
Yet how was it possible that a later Maccabean author could
have cloaked his own words in the mantle of the sixth-century
writer ofthe exile? Does not this device call into question the valid-
ity of the message which depends at best on a literary technique,
and at worst on a ruse? In spite of the efforts of several generations
of critical biblical scholars to dispel this objection, the issue con-
tinues to trouble the average lay reader of the Bible who has not
been initiated into the critical approach.
In my judgment, the solution to this problem lies within the book
itself. There are many signs to indicate that the author ofchs. 7-12
understood his role as one of filling in the details of the early visions
of Daniel through the study of scripture and thus confirming
Daniel’s prophecies in the light of the events of contemporary his-
tory. The later author was neither creating new prophecies on his
own, nor consciously employing a clever literary ploy. Rather, he
was confirming and elucidating the visions of Daniel in ch. 2 for the
benefit of his Maccabean audience on the basis of further revelation
of scripture.
The evidence for this interpretation is apparent both from the
structure and content ofthe book. The vision in ch. 7 which bears a
clear Hellenistic stamp is an elaboration and confirmation of
Daniel’s vision in ch. 2 The Maccabean author had received the
ancient prophecy of Daniel which spoke of the rise and fall of the
four world empires before the end. The author ofch. 7 attests to the
truth ofthis vision. Indeed, ‘the dream is certain and its interpreta-
tion is sure’ (2.45). Three kingdoms will arise and the fourth will be
far worse. He quickly passes over the first three which were then
past history and concentrates on that which still lay ahead. Chapter
2 had spoken vaguely of the toes of the great image — surely there
were ten — consisting partly of iron, partly of clay. Chapter 7 picks
up this motifand spells out in greater detail the last great empire.
The fourth beast had ten horns. but there emerged from among
them the ‘little horn’ with a mouth which spoke great things. ‘.2.2l
had praised Cod as the one who ‘changes times and seasons‘. Now
in ch. 8 this evil one who blasphemes God would even try to
DANIEL 617
‘change the times and the law’ and the saints would be delivered
over to him for a season (7.25).
Again, the vision of Daniel in ch. 2 had spoken of the coming
kingdom, but had made no mention of the people of God. Yet
precisely here the need was felt most acutely for a prophetic word.
2.37 had described God’s giving to Nebuchadnezzar ‘the kingdom,
the power, the might and the glory’. Chapter 7 now transfers this
promise to ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’. To them is
given ‘the dominion, the glory, and kingdom’ (7.27). Indeed, their
kingdom will be eternal (7.27) as 2.44 had announced.
The same exegetical move — call it midrashic — can be seen in the
remaining visions within the second half of the book of Daniel.
Thus, the visions of ch. 8 continue to elaborate and confirm ele-
ments in both chs. 2 and 7. Chapter 8 picks up the central theme of
the rise and fall of the four world kingdoms from ch. 2, but Focuses
only on the last two within the original vision. Chapter 8 then
confirms the vision of Daniel by aifirming that the final kingdom
would be ‘broken without a human hand’ (8.25, citing 2.45). But
the main emphasis ofch. 8 falls on explicating the prophetic themes
ofch. 7 in even greater detail. In speaking ol‘the little horn’ (8.9; cf.
7.24), ofthe ‘people ofthe saints’ (8.24; cf. 7.27), and the arrogance
of the evil one (8.l l; cf. 7.25), the writer continues to explain what
Daniel really meant by recounting the persecution of Antiochus in
historical detail.
Then again, in ch. 9 Daniel is pictured reflecting on the ancient
prophecy of_]eremiah that Israel would sulTer exile for seventy
years. In his prayer Daniel combines the prophecy of_]eremiah with
the punishment ofdisobedience which the law of Moses (Dan. 9.1 l)
had threatened. The land would lie fallow to make up for thc
sabbaths which had been disregarded. Then the writer is made to
understand that the exile was only a foreshadowing of the final
period ofindignation. Not seventy years, but seventy weeks ofyears
were intended. The point of this reinterpretation is not that
1
Ieremiah was mistaken in his prophecy, but that which he correctly
envisioned was further clarified by a fresh illumination of scripture
through the spirit.
Finally. the last vision in chs. lO—ll with an epilogue in ch. l2
onee again explicitly develops the themes of ch. 2 along with the
interpretation ofchs. 7-9. Reference is made to the arrogance ofthe
evil one, to his perseetllinn of the saints, his removal of the burnt
618 THE WRITINGS
(a) The book of Daniel serves as scripture for the faithful in ‘dis-
cerning the times’. It testifies to the divine purpose ofGod for Israel
to languish for a time among the powers ofthe world. It speaks of
the beginning and the end ofIsrael’s sufferings and encourages the
people of God to be faithful. Above all, the witness of the book is
theocentric. Neither the faith of Daniel nor that of a Maccabean
author can be made the object ofthe biblical witness when divorced
from the hope which evoked the obedient response. It is theologi-
cally inadmissible to undercut the seriousness of the biblical wit-
ness by characterizing it as an example of a ‘late _]ewish loss of
nerve’, or as a typical sociological reaction of Hellenistic minority
groups under persecution. From the perspective of the tradition
622 THE WRITINGS
itself- and this is what canon means — the book continues truthfully
to instruct and to admonish the people ofGod in the crisis of faith.
(b) The danger of misunderstanding the apocalyptic vision has
been present from the beginning. The curious human mind has
often sought to know ‘when shall these things be’ (l2.6; cf. Matt.
24.3) in terms ofa human timetable. However, the biblical writers
pointed to the end of the world in order to call forth a faithful
testimony from the people of God. They sought to evoke a com-
mitment ‘even unto death’. The manner in which the book was
shaped in the canonical process provides a critical check against the
perennial danger of politicizing and trivializing its message. Unfor-
tunately, the history ofexegesis - both_]ewish and Christian — offers
a sobering record ofthe frequency with which the prophetic vision
has been transformed into a mathematical game, or the call of faith
converted into an esoteric mysticism which repudiated the agony
accompanying the birth of God’s kingdom.
(c) The apocalyptic visions of Daniel offer a witness distinct from
the classic prophets of the Old Testament. This theological tension
remains regardless of whether or not the book is assigned a position
in the canon among the Prophets or the Writings. Daniel’s radical
stance calls into question all human endeavours of‘bringing in the
kingdom’ or of‘humanizing the structures of society’. Rather, this
biblical witness challenges the faithful to be awake and ready for
the unexpected intervention of God in wrapping up all of human
history. The stories of Daniel and his friends picture men who bear
eloquent testitnony in both word and deed to an unswerving hope
in God’s rule. As a consequence, they were made free to hang
loosely on the world because they knew their hope rested elsewhere.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov Ill, 263-9; DBS 2, l277ff.; DTlzC 4, 75lf.; EB 2, 696f.; RGG3 2,
31; Rosenmiiller, Sclzolia in VT X, I832, 40-51.
Daniel’, ASTI 4, I965, I48-62; P. .\/l. Casey, ‘Porphyry and the Origin of
the Book of DanieI’,__/TS NS 27, I976, 15-33; N. Cohn, The Pursuit tjthe
.’I»fz'llennz'um, London I957, I8If., 256ff.; Daniélou, ‘Daniel’, RAC Ill,
575-85; Leon Festinger, H. W. Riecken, et al., When Propheer Fails,
Minneapolis I956; F. Fraidl, Die Exegese der Siebztg Wochen Daniels in der
alten und mittleren Zeit, Graz 1883; A.-F. Gallé, Daniel avec commentaires de R.
Saadla, Aben-Ezra, Raschi, Paris I900; L. Hartman, Propheey Interpreted,
Lund I966, l72ff.; C. Julius, Dz'egrz'eehz'schen Danz'elzi£sat.ze und ihre kanontsche
Geltung, Biblische Studien 6. 3-4, Freiburg I901; \'V. Kaser, ‘Die Monar-
chic im Spiegel von Calvins Daniel-Kommentar’, EvTh I I, I951/2, I12-
37; C. Kuhl, Die drei Manner irn Feuer, BZAW 55, I930; Leclercq,
‘Daniel’, DACL 4, 221-48; l. Levi, ‘L’histoire de “Suzanne et les deux
vieiIIards” dans la Iittérature juive’, RE] 95, I933, 157-71; T. Milik,
“‘Priere de Nabonide” et autres éscrits d’un cycle de Daniel’, RB 63,
1956, 407-15; Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, ICC, 21949, l05ff.,
I85ff., 390ff., 468if.; C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, andjeremiah: The Additions,
AB, 1977; H. H. Rowley, Darius the .4/Iede and the Four World Ernpires in the
Book of Daniel, Cardiff 21959; H. Volz, ‘Beitrage zu Melanchthons und
Calvins Auslegungen des Propheten Daniel’, ZKG 67, I955/6, 93—l I8.
XLII
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH
Commentaries
E. Bertheau, V. Ryssel, KeH, Slotki, SonB, I951
21887 K. Galling, ATD, 1954
C. F. Keil, BC, I888 A. Gelin,jB, 21960
H. E. Ryle, CB, 1893 de Fraine, BOuT, 1961
L. W. Batten, ICC, 1913 M. Myers, AB, I965
G. Holschcr, HSAT, 41923 F. Michaeli, CAT, 1967
M. Haller, SAT, 21925 P. R. Ackroyd, TB, 1973
W. Rudolph, HAT, 1949 R. Coggins, CNEB, 1976
B ibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, OTL, I968; ‘God and People in the
Chronicler’s Presentation of Ezra’, La notion biblique de Dieu, ed. Cop-
pens, BETL 41, 1976, 145-62; F. Ahlemann, ‘Zur Esra-(,luelle’,ZAl1/59,
194-2/43, 77—98; ‘W. F. Albright, The Biblical Periodfrom Abraham to Ezra,
Pittsburg 1955, reissued‘ New York 1963; A. L. Allrik, ‘The Lists of
Zerubbabel (Neh. 7 and Ezra 2) and the Hebrew Numeral Notation’,
BASOR 136, 1954, 21-7; E. Bayer, Das dritte Buch Esdras and sein Verhaltnis
zu den Biichern Esra-Nehemia, Biblische Studien 16.1, Freiburg 1911; A.
Bentzen, ‘Priesterschrift und Laien in derjiidischen Gemeinde des fi.'tnf-
ten jahrhunderts’, AfO 6, 1930/31, 280-6; E. Bickerman(n), ‘The Edict
of Cyrus in Ezra l’,jBL 65, 1946, 249-75; Bright, ‘The Date of Ezra’s
Mission tojerusalem’, Y. Kaufmannjubilee Volume,]erusalem 1960, 70-87;
M. Burrows, ‘The Topography of Nehemiah 12, 31-—43’,jBL 54, 1935,
29-39; H. Cazelles, ‘La mission d’Esdras’, VT 4, 1954, 113-40; F. M.
Cross, Jr., ‘Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and
Hellenistic Times’, HTR 59, 1966, 201-ll; ‘A Reconstruction of the
judean Restoration’,jBL 94, 1975, 4-18; T. Denter, Die Stellung der Biicher
Esdras im Kanon des Alten Testaments, Diss. Fribourg I962; A. Emerton,
‘Did Ezra go tojerusalem in 428 Bc?’,jTS NS 17, 1966, 1-19; review ofU.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 625
Ke1lermann’s Nehemia injTS NS 23, 1972, I71-85.
K. Galling, ‘Der Tempelschatz nach Berichten und Urkunden im
Buche Esra’, ZDPV 60, 1937. 177-83; ‘The “G615-List” according to Ezra
2/ Nehemiah 7’, jBL 70, 1951, 149-58; Studien .:ur_ Geschichte Israels im
persischen Zeitalter, Tiibingen 1964;]. Goettsberger, ‘Uber das III Kapitel
des Ezrabuches’, journal of the Society of Oriental Research 10, Toronto 1926,
270-28; P. Hfrffken, ‘Warum schweigt Jesus Sirach iiber Esra 7?’, ZA W
87, 1975, 184-201; A. van Hoonacker, ‘Zorobabel et le second temple.
Etude sur la chronologie des six premiers chapitres du livre d’Esdras’, Le
ll/Iuseon 10, Louvain 1891, 72-96, 232-60, 379-97, 489-515, 634-44; ‘La
succession chronologique Néhémie-Esdras’, RB 32, 1923, 481-94; 33,
1924. 33-64; S. Japhet, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chroni-
cles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew’, VT 18, 1968, 330-71; A.
Jepsen, ‘Nehemia 10’, ZAW 66, 1954, 87-106; A. Kapelrud, The Question
of Authorship in the Ezra-Narrative, Oslo 194-I; U. Kellermann, ‘Die Listen
in Nehemia ll, eine Dokumentation aus den letzten__]ahren des Reiches
_]uda?’_. ZDPV 82, 1966, 209-27; Nehemia. Quellen, Uberliefemng und Ge-
schichte, BZAW 102, 1967; ‘Erwéigungen zum Problem der Esradatierung’,
ZAW 80, 1968, 55-87; ‘Erwiigungen zum Esragesetz’, ZAW 80, 1968,
373-85; R. W. Klein, ‘Old Readings in I Esdras: The List of Returnees
from Babylon (Ezra//Nehemiah 7)’, HTR 62, 1969, 99-107; ‘Ezra and
Nehemiah in Recent Studies’, The Mighty Acts ofGod. ln Memoriam G. E.
Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, Garden City, N.Y. 1976, 361-76; K. Koch, ‘Ezra
and the Origins of]udaism’,_/SS 19, 1974, 173-97; W. M. Kosters, Die
Wiederherstellnng Israels in der persischen Period, Heidelberg 1895.
A. Lefevre, ‘Néhémie et Esdras’, DBS 6, 393-424; E. Meyer. Die Ent-
stehung des judenthums, Halle 1896; S. Mowinckel, ‘Die vorderasiatischen
K6nigs— und Fiirsteninschriften’, Eucharisterion I, FS H. Gunkel, FRLANT
36, I923, 278-322; ‘ “Ich” and “Er” in der Esrageschichte’, Verbannung
and Heirnltehr, FS W. Rudolph, Tiibingen 1961, 211-33; Studien zu dem
Buche Ezra-Nehemia. I. Die Nachchronz'sche Redaktion der Buches. Die Listen.
SNVAO II. NS 3, 1964; II. Die Nehemia-Den/cschrift, SNVAO II. NS 5,
I964; III. Die Ezrageschichte and das Gesetz .-Hoses, SNVAO II. NS 7, 1965;
R. North, ‘Civil Authority in Ezra’. Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra, Milan
I971, 377-404; .\-I. Noth, D'berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I, Halle I943,
110-79; A. Pavlovsky, ‘Die Chronologie der Téitigkeit Esdras-Versuch
einer neuen Losung?’, Bibl 38, 1957, 273-305, 428-56; K. F. Pohlmann,
Studien zum dritten Esra, FRLANT 104, 1970;]. R. Porter, ‘Son or Grand-
son (Ezra X 6)?’,V/TS NS I7, I966, 5-I-67; G. von Rad, ‘Die Nehemia-
Dettkschrift’, ZA W.76, I964, 176-87; L. Rost, ‘Erwiigungen zum Kyroser-
lass — Esra l’,,I/erlrannung and Heim/cehr, FS W. Rudolph, Tiibingen I961,
Iltll-07; H. H. Rowley, ‘The Chronological Order of Ezra and
Nehemiah’. The Servant of the Lord, Oxford 21965, 135-68; ‘Nehemiah’s
.\lissi0l1 and its Background’, BJRL 37, 1954, 528—61=1‘vfen ofGod, Lon-
tlnll and New York I963, 211-45; ‘Sanballat and the Samaritan Tem-
626 THE WRITINGS
ple’, BjRL 38, I955/6, l66—98=.l/fen cy'”God, 246-76.
H. H. Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, BHT 5, 1930; W. Schottroff, ‘Geden-
ken’ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, WMANT 15, 21967; M. H.
Segal, ‘The Books of Ezra-Nehemiah’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 14, Jerusalem
I943, 81-103; R. Smend, Die Listen der Biicher Esra und Nehemia, Basel I881;
Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament,
New York and London 1971, 119-47; W. T. in der Smitten, ‘Die Griinde
fiir die Aufnahme der Nehemiaschrift in das chronistische Ges-
chichtswerk’, BZ NF I6, 1972, 207-21; ‘Zur Pagenerziihlung in 3 Ezra (3
Ezra III I-V 6)’, VT 22, 1972, 492-5; Ezra, Studia Semitica Neerlandica
15, Assen 1973; S. Talmon, ‘Ezra and Nehemiah, Books and Message’,
IDB Suppl, 317-28; C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value cf
Ezra-Nehemia, BZAW 2, 1896; Ezra Studies, Chicago 1910; R. de Vaux,
‘The Decrees ofCyrus and Darius on the Rebuilding ofthe Temple’, The
Bible and the Ancient Near East, ES W. F. Albright, ed. G. E. 1Nright, Garden
City, N.Y. 1961, 63-96; W. Vischer, ‘Nehemia, der Sonderbeauftragte
und Statthalter des Kiinigs’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, ES G. Von Rad,
Munich 1971, 603-10; H. C. M. Vogt, Studie zur nachexilischen Gemeinde in
Esra-Nehemia, Werl 1966; A. Welch, ‘The Source of Nehemiah IX’, ZAW
47, 1929, 130-37; Post-exilicjudaism, London I935; Wellhausen, ‘Die
Riickkehr derJuden aus dem babylonischen Exil’, Nachrichten von der /co'ni_g-
lichen Oesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Giittingen 1895, 166-86; S. Wright,
The Date cf Ezra’s Coming to Jerusalem, London 21958.
Chronological sequence
The present structure of the books of Ezra-Nehemiah shows a
clear mark of intentionality which an author or editor established
by means of a chronological sequence. The book of Ezra begins
with a date formula (538) and continues with a series ofdates to the
completion of the temple in 516. Ezra’s arrival is set in ch. 7 (‘the
seventh year ... , .. . the first day of the fifth month’), and care-
fully carried through to the execution of Ezra’s reform in 10.17.
Again, the book of Nehemiah follows a clear chronological schema
from the twentieth year ofArtaxerxes (2.1) to his thirty-second year
(13.6). The only major disruption in the scheme occurs in Ezra
4.6—23. This section is enclosed within references to the reign of
Darius, and is clearly a use ofa topical order to illustrate the nature
of the continual resistance against the Jews. In sum. the present
arrangements of the chapters are not simply accidental, but reflect
a purposeful chronological pattern.
632 THE WRITINGS
records the building of the walls and Neh. 7-13 handle the re-
ordering ofthe community’s life. Moreover, the particular structur-
ing of these events reveal the writer’s perspective. Ezra I-6, 7-10
along with Neh. 1-6 are only preparation for the climax of this
sacred history which occurs in the combined activity of Ezra and
Nehemiah in chs. 7-13. Likewise, the last chapter (l3.4lf.) is sub-
ordinated to this section and not given an independent significance
(note 13.4).
In addition to the formal structuring of his material into histori-
cal periods according to varying degrees oftheological significance,
the author has also employed a variety ofthemes by which further
to explicate his theological intent. The theme ofGod’s use of foreign
rulers for Israel’s sake begins with Cyrus’ edict (Ezra l.2ff.) and is
picked up in Darius’ decree (Ezra 6) with the explicit commentary
in 6.22: ‘the Lord turned the heart of the king of Assyria to
them so that he aided them in the work’. Again, Artaxerxes’ letter
to Ezra (Ezra 7.1 lff.) develops the same theme and concludes with
the prayer: ‘Blessed be Yahweh . . . who put such a thing into the
heart of the king’ (v. 24). Finally, the same theme is developed at
length throughout Neh. 1-6 (cf. 1.11, etc.).
A contrasting theme which is intertwined with the above motif
describes the continuing bitter opposition from the people of the
land. The theme is first introduced in Ezra 3.3: ‘fear was upon them
because ofthe people ofthe land’. When the adversaries hear ofthe
building of the temple and are rebuffed (4. lff.), ‘the people of the
land . .. made them afraid to build’. The theme of opposition is
then illustrated throughout the rest of Ezra 4 with examples from
the reign of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. In ch. 5 the writer picks up
the historical sequence of his account, returning to the second year
of Darius, and again speaks of the opposition. In the book of
Nehemiah, the opposition to the rebuilding of the walls by Sanbal-
lat and the other enemies becomes one of the major themes ofthe
first six chapters. Continually Nehemiah overcomes the physical
threats and the attempts to create fear (6.9, 14). In the final chap-
ter, even after the restoration, the theme is once again dealt with in
ch. 13.29.
There is one more theme which plays such a major role in both
books that it has often been thought to sound the dominant note of
the entire composition. The theme is the separation of Israel from
foreigners of the land in order to reflect the purity of the people of
634 THE WRITINGS
God (contra Koch). Ezra 2 initiates the theme by describing the
function ofthe genealogies as a means ofprotecting the purity ofthe
priesthood. The theme recurs in Ezra 4 in the refusal to accept help
in the rebuilding of the temple. Again, in 6.21 only those who have
‘separated themselves from the population ofthe people ofthe land’
can keep the passover. The note of separation dominates Ezra’s
prayer in ch. 9, which paraphrases the early legal prohibitions, and
culminates in the abolition of mixed marriages (ch. 10). The theme
continues in an unbroken manner throughout the book of
Nehemiah. Foreigners ‘have no portion or right or memorial in
Jerusalem’ (2.20). In ch. 5 Nehemiah appeals to the unity of the
people of God in their task, and the book culminates in the restora-
tion of the community which excludes foreigners (l0.28ff; l3.lff.).
In a real sense, the building of the wall signifies not only physical
protection, but also the separation ofthe people ofGod frotn foreign
intercourse. As a result, Nehemiah can close the gate and exclude
those who profane the sabbath (3.l5lf.).
Ofcourse, it can be argued that the use ofthemes as evidence in a
literary analysis is a highly subjective enterprise. This objection
must be taken seriously. One test ofits validity is the application of
negative controls. For example, in my judgment, the evidence is
insufficient to claim that the theme ofa ‘second exodus’ is present
in Ezra-Nehemiah, or to project a cultic procession from Babylon
(contra Koch). In contrast, the exodus theme does have an impor-
tant typological function in Chronicles. Koch’s characterization of
Ezra 1,4 and 6 as a typical use of the theme ‘spoiling of the Egyp-
tians’ is unconvincing because the identity rests on a change in the
semantic: level on which Ezra is read and is a move without a
warrant from the literature itself. If one keeps the lines ofa theme
closely drawn without recourse to a shift in the level ofabstraction,
then a clear profile can often be sketched.
To summarize, the use of themes throughout the books of Ezra
and Nehemiah reveals a consistent perspective from which the
material has been selected and interpreted. These themes set the
message of these two books apart from the Chronicles in which
different themes play a dominant role.
History of Exegesis
Carpzov I, 333-5, 349~50;DT/1C 5, 55lf.; EB 6, I5]; RGG3 2, 697.
J_._Fl'irst, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments, Leipzig I868, l 12-19; A. Kuenen,
‘Uber die Manner der grossen Synagoge’ (I876), in Gesammelle Abhand-
Zungen zur biblischen Wissenschafl von Dr Abraham Kuenen, Freiburg 1894,
125-60; L. J. Liebreich, ‘The Impact of Nehemiah 9.5-3? on the Liturgy
of the Synagogue’, HUCA 32, I961, 227—37; .\/I. Munk, Esra der Schrift-
gelehrte nach Talmud and Midrasch, Phil. Diss. Wiirzburg 1931; W.
Schneemacher, ‘Esra’, RAC 6, 595-612.
XLIII
CHRONICLES
Commentaries
C. F. Keil, BC, I872 A. Noordtzij, KV, I937-38
E. Bertheau, KeH, 2I873 Goettsberger, HS, I939
O. Zijckler, LCHS, I879 L. Marchal, SB. I949
I. Benzinger, KHC, I901 I. W-'. Slotki, SonB, I95I
R. Kittel, HKAT, I902 K. Galling, ATD, I954
F. de Hummelauer, CSS, I905 \’\'. Rudolph, HAT, I955
E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, H. CazelIes._]B, 3I96I
ICC. I910 M. .\-lyers, AB, I965
W’. A. L. Elmslie, CB, I916 F. Michaeli, CAT, I967
_]. W'. Rothstein, HSA T, ‘I923 K. Roubos, P()uT, I969—72
J. IN. Rothstein, Hanel, KAT, (I P. R. Ackroyd, TB, I973
Chron.) I927 R. Coggins, C.\TEB, I976
Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘History and Theology in the \\/ritings ofthe Chronicler’,
CTM 38, I967, 5()l—l5; Exile and Restoration, OTL, I968; ‘Historians
and Prophets’, SEA 33, I968, I8—54; ‘The Theology of the Chronicler‘,
Lexington Theological Quarterly 8, Lexington. Ky. I973, IOI—l6; ‘The
Chronicler as Exegete’,jS()T ‘Z, I977, 2-32; \V. F. Albright, ‘The Date
and Personality of the Chronicler’,_]BL 40, l9ZZl, l(')4—2~'l; ‘The judicial
Reform ofjehoshaphat’. Atexander .'I-1a:rx_]abilee Votame, .\lew York I950,
61-82; L. C. Allen. The Greek Chronicles. The Relation ofthe Septuagint oft and
ll (.'hi'oniete.s in the Jtassoretic Text, ‘Z vols., Leiden I974; A. Alt, ‘Die Rolle
Samarias bei der Entstehung (les judentums‘. F5 O. Procksch, Leipzig
I934. 5—28=l\'-Si II, I953, 3I6—37; P. Asmussen, ‘Priestercodex und
(Ihronik in ihrem Verhiiltnis zueinander’, ThStKr 79, I906, I65—79; E. VV.
Barnes. ‘The Mitlrashic F.Ien"icnt in Chronicles‘, Expositor V.4. London
I896, -I26-fit); .-\. Bea, ‘Neuere Arbcitcn zum Problem der biblischen
(Ilironikl>iiel1er'. [Mil 213. IF)-ll, 46-5'18; G. Botterweck, ‘Zur Eigenart
640 THE WRITINGS
der chronistischen Davidsgeschichte’, ThQ I36, 1956, 402-34; R. Braun,
‘The Message of Chronicles: Rally Round the Temple’, CT.-I/I 42, 1971,
502-13; ‘Solomonic Apologetic in ChronicIes’,L/BL 92, I973, 503-16; ‘A
Reconsideration of the Chronicler’s Attitude toward the North’,jBL 96,
I977, 59-62; A.-.\I. Brunet, ‘Le Chroniste et ses sources’, RB 60, 1953,
48l—508; 6|, I954, 349-86; ‘La théologie du Chroniste, théocratie et
messianisme’, ETL I2, I959, 384-97; ‘Paralipomenes (Livre des), DBS 6,
1220-6]; R. Budde, ‘Vermutungen zum “Midrasch des Buches der
Kiinige” ’, ZAW 12, I892, 37-51.
F. M. Cross, ‘A Reconstruction of the judean Restoration’,“/BL 94,
I975, 4-18; G. Dahler, De librorum Paralipomenon auctoritate atone fide
historica disputatio, Strasbourg 1819; I). ;\l. Freedman, ‘The Chronicler’s
Purpose’, CBQ 23, 1961, 436-42; K. Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels
im persisehen Zeilalter, Ttibingen I964; H. Gese, ‘Zur Geschichte der Kuh-
siinger am zweiten Tempel’, Abraham unser Vater, FS O. .-I/lichel, Leiden and
Cologne I963, 222-34:-Vom Sinai gum Zion, Munich I974 I47-59;]. Gol-
dingay, ‘The Chronicler as a Theologian’, BTB 5, I975, 99-126; E. Jans-
sen,_]uda in der Exilszeit. FRLANT 69, I956; S. Japhet, ‘The Supposed
Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated
Anew’, VT 18, 1968, 330-71; The Ideology ofthe Book ofChronicles and its Place
in Biblical Thought, Diss. Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1973; R. W.
Klein, Studies in the Greek Texts ofthe Chronicler, Diss. Harvard University
I966; K. Koch, ‘Das Verhaltnis von Exegese und Verkiindigung anhand
eines Chroniktextes’, TZ 90, 1965, 659-70; A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors
der Chronik vergliehen mit der seiner Quellen, BZAW I6, I909; W. E. Lemke,
‘The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History’, HTR 58, I965, 349-
63; F. L. Moriarty, ‘The Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah’s Reform’,
CB Q 27, 1965, 399-406; R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronisti-
schen Geschichtswer/tes, Freiburg I97 3; F. C. Movers, Kritische Untersuchungen
itber die biblische Chronik, Bonn I834; S. Mowinckel, ‘Erwéigungen zum
chronistischen Geschichtswerk’, TLZ 75, I960, 1-8; _]. .\/1. Myers, ‘The
Kerygma of the Chronicler’, Interp 20, I966, 259-73; E. Nestle, ‘Zur
Frage nach der urspriinglichen Einheit der Biicher Chronik, Esra und
Nehemia,’ ThStKr 52, 1879, 517-2I.
J. D. Newsome,]r., ‘Toward a New Understanding ofthe Chronicler
and his Purposes’,jBL 94, 1975, 201-I7; A. Noordtzij, ‘Les intentions du
Chroniste’, RB 49, I940, I6l—68; North, ‘Theology ofthe Chronicler’,
jBL 82, 1963, 369-8|; M. Noth, Uberlie/erungsgeschichtlic/ze Studien I, Halle
I943; O. Plfiger, ‘Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und
chronistischen Geschichtswerk’, FS G. Dehn, Neukirchen 1957, 35-
49=/Ius der Splitzeit des Alten Testaments, Gijttingen 1971, 50-66; Theocracy
and Eschatology, ET Oxford and Philadelphia 1968; E. Podechard, ‘Le
premier chapitre des Paralipomenes’, RB I3, I9I6, 363-86; K.-F. Pohl-
mann, Studien zum dritten Ezra, FRLA;'\‘T 104. I970; G. von Rad, Das
Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werlres. BWANT I\/.3 (=54), I930; ‘The
CHRONICLES 641
Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles’ (I934), ET The Problem of the
Hexateuch, London and New York I966, 267-80; M. Rehm, Textkritische
Untersuchungen gu den Parallelstellen der Samuel—Ko'nigsbiIcher und der Chronik,
Miinster 193 7; G. Richter, ‘Untersuchungen zu den Geschlechtsregistern
der Chronik’, ZAW34, 1914, 107-41; 49, I931, 260-70; 50, 1932, 130-41;
G. Rinaldi, ‘Quelques remarques sur la politique d’Azarias (Ozias) de
Juda en Philistie (2 Chron XXVI 6ss.)’, SVT 9, 1963, 225-36; W.
Rudolph, ‘Problems of the Books of Chronicles’, VT 4, 1954, 401-9.
_]. D. Shenkel, ‘A Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in I
Paraleipomena and I-II Reigns’, HTR 62, I969, 63-85; W. T. in der
Smitten, ‘Die Griinde fur die Aufnahme der Nehemiasschrift in das
chronistische Geschichtswerk’, BZ NF I6, 1972, 207-21; O. H. Steck,
‘Das Problem theologischer Stromungen in nachexilischer Zeit’, EvTh 28,
1968, 445-58; C. C. Torrey, ‘The Chronicler as Editor and as Indepen-
dent Narrator’, AJSL 25, 1908-9, 157-73, 188-217; The Chronicler’s History
tjlsrael. Chronicles—E.gra-Nehemiah Restored to its Original Form, New Haven
1954, London 1955; P. Vannutelli, Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu
Librorum Regum et Chronicorum loci paralleli, 2 vols., Rome 1931-34; A. (T.
Welch, The Work qfthe Chronicler, London 1939, New York 1940; Well-
hausen, De gentibus et familiis judaeis, Gijttingen 1870; Prolegomena to the
History Qf Israel, ET Edinburgh 1885; P. Welten, Geschichte und Ges-
chichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbiichern, WMANT 42, 1973; W. M. L. de
Wette, Beitriige zur Einleitung in das Alten Testament, 2 vols., Halle 1806-7.
reprinted Hildesheim 1971; G. Widengren, ‘The Persian Period’, Israelite
andjudaean History, ed. H. Hayes and M. Miller, OTL, 1977. 489-
538; T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, FRLANT I06, 1972; H. C. M.
Williamson, ‘The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, VT
26, 1976, 351-61; Israel in the Book tfChronicles, Cambridge and New York
1977; R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, New Haven
1977; A. Zeitlin, ‘Midrash: A Historical Study‘,jQR 44, 1953, 21-36; L.
Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortriige der juden, Frankfurt 21892.
Distinctive features
(a) Harmonization
A characteristic feature of the Chronicler’s method arising from
his concept ofscripture is his reading ofits various parts as a unity.
He views his sources all on the same plane with no regard for
historical development which would attempt to distinguish be-
tween older and younger elements. The effect of this method is to
harmonize the various parts into an inner unity which reconciles
differences, resolves tensions, and establishes links between dispa-
rate parts. At times the process of harmonization is quite uncon-
scious and appears as almost a reflex from a concept of canon.
However, most often the process of harmonization within Chroni-
cles reveals a serious exegetical activity on the part of the author.
Thus, in the Chronicler’s account of the bringing of the ark to
Jerusalem (I Chron. l5.lff.) the Levites are explicitly assigned the
task of transporting the ark, which is a feature missing in II Samuel
6. Indeed, Davidjustifies his demand for the Levites’ role in accor-
dance with the prescription in Deut. 10.8. The particular role ofthe
Levites appears again in the story of_]ehoiada’s revolt (II Kings
ll.4ff. // II Chron. 23.1ff.). According to the earlier account the
revolt is staged by _]ehoiada in co-operation with the captains of the
guard. However, a problem arises for the Chronicler because the
story in Kings might imply that someone other than a priest or a
Levite entered the temple (II. 23.6). Therefore, his account focuses
on the Levites in the revolt who guard the temple and surround the
king.
It is important to notice in the process of harmonization that the
Chronicler did not for a moment feel himselfat liberty to change his
text at will, as commentators have tended to imply. In fact, such an
assumption is totally foreign to a sense of canon. Rather, on the
basis of a close study of the tradition the Chronicler sought to
explore the outer limits which the text allowed in order to reconcile
the differences. His method permitted him great creativity only
within certain boundaries which he could justify from the received
tradition. It is precisely this tension, indigenous to the Chronicler’s
method, which explains his oscillation between frccclom and con-
CHRONICLES 649
(b) Supplementation
Closely akin to the Chronicler’s aim to establish an inner har-
mony of all his sources through harmonization is his concern to
supplement the earlier accounts with the full range of prophetic
650 THE wnrrmos
revelation in an outer harmony. The Chronicler had at his disposal
other authoritative texts which he used to bring out the full dimen-
sion of divine revelation. The issue is not that of his combining
written scripture with oral tradition because he cites the prophets
according to their writings, and views all sources as a living tes-
timony instead of a dead letter. Rather, it is a canonical concern
that the full extent of the normative tradition be represented.
Although some stories could be omitted with impunity in a selec-
tion, it was thought necessary that other prophetic messages must
be supplied over and above the account in Kings to round out the
tradition. For example, it is not by accident that the Chronicler
elaborates at length on Hezekiah’s celebration of the passover
which had been omitted in the earlier source, while he greatly
condenses the story of Sennacherib’s invasion. Likewise, the
Chronicler considers David’s ordering of the liturgical service of
normative value and deals with it at length (I Chron. l5.l6ff.). By
means of the Levitical sermon the Chronicler brings in lengthy
homilies by which to instruct in the significance of the given event
in God’s economy. Usually it is a mistaken interpretation to regard
an expansion ofthe Chronicler as only a ‘natural’ embellishment to
be explained from general laws ofliterary accretion and glossing.
Rather, these expansions reflect a critical, theological process in
which the Chronicler supplemented the earlier record with material
considered to be normative for Israel.
(6) 7)P0l0§}*
Another aspect of the Chronicler’s method which arises directly
from his attempt to unify a variety of traditions is his typological
exegesis. The approach is basically a non-historical ordering of
material according to patterns which arise from a similarity of
content. It is a device by which the Chronicler can express his value
judgments as to what is normative, enduring, and representative
within the multiplicity ofvarying historical situations. The method
thus emphasizes that which is deemed essential while omitting and
curtailing elements which obscure the lines of continuity. For
example, by a small addition of the phrase ‘the house was full ofa
cloud’ (II. 5.l3b) the Chronicler describes the dedication of the
temple in language which parallels the dedication ofthe tabernacle
in Ex. 40.34-f., and thus records the selfsame divine reality at work.
Again, the description ofthejoy ofthe people and the abundance of
CHRONICLES 651
Bibliography
A. Amsler, L’Ancien Testament dans l-’Eglise, Neuchiitel 1960; D. L. Baker,
Two Testaments — One Bible, Leicester and Downers Grove, Ill. 1976;
Barr, Judaism - Its Continuity with the Bible (The Seventh Montefiore
Memorial Lecture), Southampton 1968; ‘Le Judaisme postbiblique et le
théologie de l’Ancien Testament’, RThPh I8, 1968, 209-17; O. Belz,
Offenbarung und Schri/iforschung in der Qumranse/cte, Ttibingen 1960; F.
Blank, ‘Erwéigungen zum Schriftverstéindnis des Baulus’, Rechtfiertigung,
F5 E- Kiisemann, Tiibingen 1976, am; F. Bleek, ‘Uber die Stellung der
Apocryphen des Alten Testaments im christlichen Kanon’, ThStKr 26,
1853, 268-354; Bloch, On the Apocalyptic in judaism, JQR Monograph
Series 2, Philadelphia 1952; ‘Outside Books’, Mordecai Kaplan jubilee Vol-
ume, English Section, New York 1955, 87-108; H. Bornkarnm, Luther and
the Old Testament, ET Philadelphia 1969; F. F. Bruce, Tradition Old and
New, Exeter 1970; F. F. Bruce and E. G. Rupp, eds., Holy Book and
Holy Tradition, Manchester 1968; R. Bultrnann, Primitive Christianity in its
Contemporary Setting, ET New York and London l956;J. Calvin, Institutes Qf’
the Christian Religion, Book II, chs. 10-1 1, Library of Christian Classics 20,
London and Philadelphia 1961, 428-64; H. von Campenhausen, The
Formation ofthe Christian Bible, ET London and Philadelphia 1972; G.
Carpzov, Introductio ad libros canonicos bibliorum Veteris Testamenti omnes,
Leipzig 1721, 20-37; B- S. Childs, ‘The Old Testament as Scripture ofthe
Church’, CTM 43, 1972, 709-22.
B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Lund and Copenhagen 1961;
H. Gese, ‘Erwéigungen zur Einheit der Biblischen Theologie’, Vom Sinai
zum Zion, Munich 1974, 11-30; ‘Das biblische Schriftverstéindnis’, Zur
biblischen Theologie, Munich 1977, 9-30; L. Ginzberg, ‘Some Observations
on the Attitude ofthe Synagogue towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological
Vi/ritings’,,]BL 41, 1922, 115-36; A. H. J. Gunneweg, Understanding the
Old Testament, ET, OTL, 1978, ch. II; V. E. Hasler, Gesetz und Evangelium
in der Alten Kirche bis Origenes, Ziirich 1953; M. I-Iengel,_]udaisrn and Hellen-
660 CONCLUSION
ism, ET London and Philadelphia 1974, l07ff.; F. Hesse, Das Alte Testa-
ment als Buch der Kirche, Giitersloh 1966; E. Hirsch, Das Alte Testament und
die Predigt des Evangeliums, Tiibingen 1936; C. Hoelscher, Kanonisch und
Apokryph, Leipzig 1905; H. Hopfl and L. Leloir, Introductio generalis in S.
Scripturam, Rome 61958; R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetgung zwischen K irche
undjudentum in Matthbusevangelium, Munich 21966; P. Katz, ‘The Old Tes-
tament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria’, ZNW47, 1956, 190-2l7;J. L.
Koole, De Overname van het Oude Testament door de christelijke Kerk, Hilversum
1938; H.-J. Kraus, Die Biblische Theologie. Ihre Geschichte und Problematik,
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970; ‘Theologie als Traditionsbildung?’, Biblisch-
theologische Studien, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977, 61-73; C. Larcher, L’Actualité
Chretienne de l’Ancien Testament, d ’apri's le Nouveau Testament, Paris l962;J. C.
H. Lebram, ‘Aspekte der alttestamentliehen Kanonbildung’, VT 18,
1968, 173-89; R. C. Leonard, The Origin of Canonicity in the Old Testament,
Diss. Boston University 1972; M. Limbeck, Die Ordnung des Heils. Unter-
suchungen zum Gesetgesverstandnis des Friihjudentums, Diisseldorf 1971; B. Lin-
dzirs, New Testament Apolagetic, London and Philadelphia 1961.
C. G. Montefiore, The Old Testament and After, London and New York
1923; G. F. Moore, ‘The Definition oftheJewish Canon and the Repudia-
tion of Christian Scriptures’, 191 1, reprinted in S. Leiman, ed., The Canon
and Masorah ofthe Hebrew Bible, New York 1974, l 15-4 l ;]udaism in the First
Centuries of the Christian Era, I, Cambridge, Mass. 1927, 125-216; G. von
Rad, Old Testament Theology ll, ET London and New York 1965, 3l9ff.; D.
Roessler, Gesetz und Geschichte in der spbitjtidischen Apolcalyptik, WMANT 3,
21962; A. A. van Ruler, The Christian Church and the Old Testament, ET
Grand Rapids l971;J. F. A. Sawyer, From Moses to Patmos, London 1977;
M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, New York and London 1971; A.
C. Sundberg, The Old Testament ofthe Early Church, Cambridge, Mass. and
London 1964; ‘The Protestant Old Testament Canon: Should it be Re-
examined?’, CBQ 28, 1966, 194-203; ‘The “Old Testament”: A Christian
Canon’, CBQ 30, 1968, 143-55; ‘The Bible Canon and the Christian
Doctrine of Inspiration’, Interp 29, 1975, 352-71; W. C. van Unnik,
xatvr} dtafifiicn - A Problem in the early History of the Cation’, Studia
Patristica 4, TU 79, 1961, 212-27; C. Westermann, The Old Testament and
jesus Christ, ET Minneapolis 1970; H. H. Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes. Das
Verhiiltnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin, Neukirchen. 1958; L. B.
Wolfenson, ‘Implications of the Place of the Book of Ruth. .’, HUCA 1,
1924, l77f.; W. Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets, Oxford and Rich-
mond, Va. 1965.
II
(a) Text
The argument that the Christian church is not restricted by or
committed to the Hebrew text of the Masoretic tradition uses as its
evidence the New Testament’s use of the Septuagint which practice
was continued by the church fathers. In addition, the final fixing of
the Hebrew text in a stabilized form occurred in the period after the
rise ofChristianity, and is therefore hardly authoritative for Christ-
ians.
In the chapter on ‘Text and Canon’ (ch. IV), I have sought to
deal with this issue from a canonical perspective. The major point
to be made is that the early Christian church did not make any
claims of having a better text than the Jews, as did for example the
Samaritans. Rather, the early Christians who were themselves
Jews, sought to establish the claims ofJesus Christ on the basis of
the Jewish scriptures in whatever form was currently available.
Obviously within a Hellenistic culture Greek was the linguajranca,
THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND THE cnrusrmu BIBLE 665
(b) Scope
The argument that the scope of the Christian Old Testament
should not be limited to the books of the Hebrew canon has tradi-
tionally been supported within the Roman church, and most
recently by the new historical case made by Sundberg. The division
within the Christian church on this issue only confirms the com-
plexity of the problem. At least two major issues are involved.
The first issue again turns on the role ofthe Jews as bearers ofthe
sacred tradition of Israel. The canonical process of selecting some
books as authoritative from among a larger number has a parallel
in the narrowing process involved in the establishing ofthe Masore-
tic text. The criteria for the selection remain largely obscure. How-
ever, literary and aesthetic judgments regarding the literature
played little part, as is made plain by the retention ofObadiah and
the exclusion of Ben Sira. It is also clear that the political, social,
and religious factors, particularly the inner conflicts within the
various circles ofJudaism, left an impact on the canonical process.
Obviously the entire canonical process reflects historical influences,
notjust the final period. Moreover, as I have sought to show in a
previous chapter on the canon (ch. II), the closing ofthe Hebrew
canon had been largely effected before the rise of Christianity. The
‘Council’ ofJamnia in the first century AD had nothing to do with
its closing, but it rather confirmed the prior decisions of canonicity
by the very nature ofthe debates as a scholastic exercise. Therefore,
I do not agree with Sundberg’s reconstruction of this history or his
formulation ofthe theological problem. To take the cation seriously
is also to take seriously the judgments which circumscribed the
scope ofthe Hebrew canon. In no sense is a claim to the infallibility
of the canonical process being defended, but rather the argument
turns on Christian identification with the Jewish scriptures.
There is a second issue respecting the scope of the Hebrew. canon
666 CONCLUSION
as normative for the Christian Old Testament. Both Jews and
Christians bring to the sacred scriptures of the Hebrew canon
another set of normative religious traditions by which to interpret
Israel’s ancient tradition. For Judaism it was the tradition of the
synagogue fathers now codified in the midrashim, Mishnah, and
Talmuds; for Christianity the gospel ofJesus Christ found in the
New Testament. Christians confess to understand the Old Testa-
ment from the perspective of the New, but the New serves to fulfil
the Old, not to replace or destroy it. The expansion ofthe Christian
Bible to include both an Old Testament and a New separates the
Christian faith from the Jewish, but does not sever the common link
with the scriptures of Israel.
In order to maintain a common scripture with Judaism I have
argued that the scope of the Hebrew canon has also a normative
role for the Christian Old Testament. However, it would perhaps
be possible to argue for the inclusion ofa larger canon, such as the
Apocrypha, on the grounds that these books, like the New Testa-
ment, testify to the promise of the New without destroying the
common link with the Old. Although I personally agree with the
tradition ofJerome in supporting the Christian use ofthe Hebrew
canon, I would not disparage the claims of those Christians who
follow Augustine in supporting a larger canon. However, the basic
theological issue for its inclusion turns on the ability to maintain
the crucial canonical relationship between Christian and Jew. Up
to now at least I have not seen this canonical argument for the
inclusion ofa larger canon adequately developed.
(c) Order
The problem of the arrangement of the books of the Hebrew
canon into an order presents a somewhat different issue from that of
text and scope. Although the tripartite division of the canon had
been established at least by the second century Bc, and is testified to
by the New Testament (Luke 24.44), the order of books within the
second and third divisions of the Hebrew canon varied greatly. In
fact, an exact order ofthese sections was never settled, as a perusal
ofthe orders in the variousJewish lists makes immediately clear (cf.
Ryle, Canon, 280; Swete, Introduction, 200). In other words, the order
within the Hebrew canon never achieved the same canonical status
within Judaism as did the text and the scope.
I would argue for the priority of the Jewish tripartite division —
THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE 667
normative is now too strong a word - when dealing with the Heb-
rew Bible for the same theological reasons which have been out-
lined before, namely to confirm the role of the Jews as tradents of
the canonical tradition. However, it should also be stressed that the
Jewish order is, in no sense, a ‘better’ or ‘original’ order. Katz and
Lebram have clearly demonstrated that other orders, such as those
reflected in the Septuagint, were equally as old and were long rivals
in Palestine of the tripartite division. Indeed, the tradition of
twenty-two books with its implication for the original position of
Ruth and Lamentations, is older than the Talmudic tradition of
twenty-four books.
However, the question of the order of the books takes on a difl’er-
ent face entirely when one speaks of the Christian Old Testament.
The order of the Hebrew canon has no historical or theological
claims for the Christian Bible. The order of the Christian Old
Testament varies considerably within the church (cf. the lists in
Sundberg, Old Testament, 58f.), but shares in common both a
dependence on the Septuagint and a disregard for the tripartite
division of the Hebrew canon. The chief point to be made is that
Christians did not create a new order for their Old Testament, but
chose an order from among the variety of options which best sup-
ported the Christian claim ofa different understanding ofthe Old
in terms of the New. Clearly a different theological interpretation
was offered by the Christians assigning the book of Daniel to the
prophets, and regrouping the tripartite division into a new sequ-
ence oflegal, historical, poetical (or wisdom), and prophetical (cf.
Leonard).
III
IV
establish the proper theological dialectic between the Old and the
New.
The threat which is posed by overemphasizing the discontinuity
between the Christian Bible and the Hebrew scripture is that of
severing the ontological relationship between Christianity and
Judaism. The Old Testament becomes simply background material
for the New and must be either ignored or christianized if it is to
remain in the Christian Bible. As a result, not only is the theologi-
cal integrity ol the Old Testament sacrificed, but also the New
Testament is rendered unintelligible and vulnerable to heresy.
The threat which is posed by overemphasizing the continuity
between the Old Testament and the Hebrew scriptures is that of
destroying the integrity of the Christian Bible. The Christian
church confesses to find a witness to Jesus Christ in both the Old
Testament and the New. Its Bible does not consist ofthe Hebrew
scriptures plus an appendix called the New Testament. Rather, the
form of the Christian Bible as an Old and New Testament lays
claim upon the whole scripture as the authoritative witness to
God’s purpose in Jesus Christ for the church and the world. By
reading the Old Testament along with the New as Christian scrip-
ture a new theological context is formed for understanding both
parts which diflers from hearing each Testament in isolation. The
Old Testament is interpreted by the New, and the New is under-
stood through the Old, but the unity ofits witness is grounded in
the One Lord.
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Aa1ders,G.C., 46, 355, 411, 417, 580 Ap-Thomas, D. R., 84, 560
Abarbanel, 474 Aptowitzer, V., 84, 92
Abel, F. .\/1., 338 Arens, A., 505
Aberbach, .\/1., 161, 179, 301 Armstrong, G. T., 158
Abramowski, R., 316 Arnold, W. R., 46, 440
Ackroyd, P. R., 46, 84, 263, 281, 305, Asmussen, P., 639
308, 311, 321, 332, 339, 355, 373, Astruc,J., 36, 113
395, 463, 472, 475, 608, 624, 628, Auberlen, C. A., 608, 614
639, 642, 644, 646 Audet, J.-P., 46, 569, 572, 5731T.
Adar, Zvi, 254 Auerbach, Elias, 229
Aharoni, Y., 239, 243 Auerbach, Erich, 136, 143
Ahlemann, F., 624 Augustin, F., 339
Ahlstrom, G. W., 385, 505 Augustine, St, 31, 42, 52.3, 666
Albrecht, O., 622 Auld, A. C., 254
Albrektson, B., 84, 590, 593 Auvray, P., 311, 355
Albright, W. F., 15, 37, 84, 91, 109, Avigad, .\1., 158
116f., 1261., 136, 142, 169, 190,
193f., 239, 281, 284, 298I., 447, Bach, R., 229, 373, 395, 463
505,545,548,624,629,639,642 Bacher, W., 46, 84, 159, 544
exander, A., 311 Bachli, O., 202, 239, 254, 257
=1 'nk, B. J., 239, 281 Bahr,1~i.C.W.,161, 281,301
legro, .\/1., 338, 384, 446 Bantsch, B., 161, 166, 180, 190, 193
len, L. C., 385, 411, 428, 639 Bainton, R. H., 159
lgeier, A., 523, 580 Baker, D. L., 659, 663
1is,O.T., 109, 318 Baker, J., 523
lrik, A. L., 624 Baldwin, O., 453, 472, 488, 608
lwohn, A., 373 Ball, B. W., 579
?: ’tF‘*.?: >.?*‘.?’ Z.> onso Schokel, L., 136, 143, 254, 338, Balla, E., 395, 398, 505, 519
505 Baltzer, 1)., 314, 355
Alt, A., 109, 115, 124f., 136, 142, 150, Baltzer, K., 161, 168, 202, 207f., 211,
161, 167, 180, 193, 202, 205, 239, 263, 305, 314, 323, 416
24211, 254, 257, 263, 281, 287, 312, Bardtke, H., 339, 598, 600, 607
320, 373, 516, 639 Bardy, C., 159, 544, 622
Amsler, S., 395, 472, 659 Barnes, E. W., 463, 472, 488, 504, 539
Andersen, K. T., 284 Barnouin, M., 190
Anderson, A. A., 504 Barr,J., 69, 84,98, 105, 136, 143, 161,
Anderson, B. W., 27, 39, 598, 602 174, 281, 298, 526, 608, 659
Anderson, F. I. 526 Barth, C., 161, 190,505,511
Anderson, C. W., 46 Barth, H., 312, 321
Andrew of St Victor, 31 Barth, K., 16, 69, 144, 395, 526, 544
Andrews, M. R., 164 Barthélemy, D., 84, 91, 93, 95, 439
Angénieux, J., 569 Barthes, R., 136, 143
Appel, N., 69 Barton, G. A., 526, 581), 586
1NoExtn=AuTHoRs 673
Barucq, A., 545, 559, 598 Bidd, P. J., 180
Batten, L. W., 526, 624 Billerbeck, P., 46
Bauckmann, E. C., 545, 559 Birch,‘B. C., 263, 270
Bauer,J. B., 568 Birkeland, H., 305, 307, 320, 339, 342,
Baumann, A., 339 505
Baumann, E., 355, 373 Bissell, E. C., 109
Baumgartel, F., 526 Bitter, S., 373, 374, 384
Baumgarten, .\/1., 607 Blanchard, P., 524
Baumgartner, A. J., 455 lank, F., 659, 669
Baumgartner, W., 17,27, 114, 202, 205 Iank, S. H., 312, 314, 339,417,487
310, 339, 385, 395, 398, 545, 559 Iau, L., 46
580, 608, 612 echmann, M., 410
Bayer, E., 624 leek, F., 27, 30,37, 113, 659
Bea, A., 580, 582, 598, 600, 639 gmpmmm enkinsopp,J., 46, 109, 136, 254, 263
Beattie, D. R.’ G., 568 loch, J., 46, 501, 659
Beauchamp, E., 505 CUCD Ioch,J. S., 46
Beauchamp, P., 136 Bloemendaal, W., 505
Becker,J., 312, 321, 505, 518, 519, 545 Bloomhardt, P. F., 463
553 Bodenheimer, F. S., 161
Beecher, W. J., 46 Boecker, H. J., 263, 270, 488
Beek, M. A., 608 Bohme, W., 417
Beer, G., 161,590,591 Boer, P. A. H. de, 263, 314
Begrich, J., 114, 180, 182, 284, 295111 Boling, R. G., 254, 505
314,32lf., 325,463,505, 506, 515 Bonfrere, J., 46
518 Bonhoeller, D., 136, 144, 505, 513
Bekel, H., 411 Bonnard, P. E., 311, 314, 322,411,412
Benoit, P., 84 Bonsirven, J., 579
Bentzen, A., 27,39, 52, 93, 98, 202,206 Bonwetsch, N., 622
314, 328, 395, 401, 505, 569, 608 Born, A. van den, 263, 281
624 Bornkamm, G., 69
Benzinger, I., 109, 114, 281, 639 Bornkamm, H., 659
Berg, K., 395, 404 Bostrom, G., 545
Berger, K., 622 Botterweck, G.J., 598, 639
Bergman, A., 190 Bouhot, P., 109, 159, 225
Bergren, R. V., 305 Bouman, G., 410
Bernhardt, K.-H., 281, 505 Bourke, J., 263, 385
Berridge,J. .\/1., 339 Boutflower, C., 608
Berry, G. R., 202, 355 Bowers, R. H., 427
Bertheau, E., 254, 560, 598, 624, 639 Bowman, J., 84
Bertholdt, L., 608, 611 Branden, A. van den, 180
Bertholet, A., 180, 355, 359, 608 Bratsiotis, N. P., 526
Bertman, S., 560, 562 Braude, W. G., 524
Besters, A., 254 Braun, R., 58(), 589, 640
Betz, O., 659 Breit, H., 202
Beuken, W. A. 1\/1., 314, 463, 466, 468 Brekelmans, C., 161, 166, 202, 609
472, 475, 488, 492 Brenz, J., 33
Beumer, J., 579 Briggs, C. A., 504
Bevan, A. A., 608 Bright,J., 27, 109, 117, 125, 126, 136,
Bewer,J. A., 27, 37, 113, 190, 202, 385, 142, 239, 281, 339, 342, 343E,
387, 411, 417 347E, 353E, 624
Beyer, H. W., 49 Brock, S. P., 84, 89, 99
Beyerlin, W., 161, 166, 168, 254, 428, Brongers, H. A., 281, 505
505 Broome, E., 355
BiE':, M., 3as,~111,41s,457 Brown, ‘W., 27
Bickerman(n), E., 84, 417, 418, 420 Brown, R. E., 49
427,580,598,603,608,622,624 Brown, S. L., 373
674 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Brownlee, W. H., 312, 447, 455 487, 498, 523, 544, 559, 568, 579,
Bruce, F. F., 84, 487, 505, 609, 622, 659 589, 607, 622, 638, 655, 659
Brueggemann, W.. 74. 109, 121. 136, Carroll, R. P., 282
229.263,339,373,395 Cartensen, R., 526
Brunet, A.-.\l., 640 Casey, P. M., 623
Brunet, C., 312, 590 Caspari, C. P., 411, 428, 439
Bruno, .-\,, 428 Caspari, W., 263
Buber, H., 27, 263, 54. \-7" Cassel, P., 560, 598
Bucer, I\l., 33, 460 Cassiodorus, 27, 31
Budde, R., 114, 123,202, 239, 254,263, Cassuto, U., 15, 27, 39, 109, 120, 136,
268.270,305,309,311.312.318E, 161, 190, 340, 355
340, 355. 373, 385, 395, 417, 428, Castellino, G. R., 580
447, 449. 488. 526, 569, 572, 580, Cathcart, K. J., 440
590, 592, 593, 640 Cavallera, F., 579
Bflchler, A., 305, 524 Cazelles, H., 69, 109, 127, 136, 159,
BL'1h1|nann, W., 545 I61,lBl,225,254,264,340,457,
Bugenhagcn, 33 505,590,624,629,639
Buhl. F., 46, 52 Chappuzeau, G., 579
Buis, P., 202 Charles, R. H., 608
Bulmerincq, .-\. von, 488, 498 Chary, T., 463, 472, 488
Bultmann, R., 659 Cheyne, T. K., 27,311, 312,462, 526
Burgmann, H., 609, 621 Childs, B. S., 27,69, 136, 162, 165, 173,
Burney, C. F., 254. 281 178, 201, 202, 240, 243, 282, 305,
Burrows, .\-1.. 355, 417, 455, 526, 560, 312, 340, 505, 5201",, 659
‘I
624 Cholewinski, A., 180
Bnss.Nl“l,109,1l4.373,375,376,505 Christensen, U., 440
Busschc, H. van der, 263 Christian, V., 598, 600
Buttenweiser, 51., 507 Clamer, A., 23, 136, 161, 180, 190, 203
J. Buxtor1'(sr), 27, 35, 84, 89F. Clark, W. .\/1., 136, 137, 162
J. P-uxtorftjr), 84, 98 Clements, R. E., 27, 46, 65, 109, 137,
Buzy, 1).. 472, 569, 572, 580 161, 180, 202, 264, 305, 308, 310,
313, 376, 3821T., 417, 420
Cabassut, .-’\., 579 Clines, D.J. A., 109, 137,284,314, 504
Cajeian (Caetani), '1'. cle V., 32 Coats, C. W., 69, 120, 137, 162, 168,
Calandra, G., 539 190,193,305
Calmet, .-’\.. 178 Cody, A., 180, 190
Caloz, 31., 161, 166 Coggins, R. J., 46, 53, 624, 639
Calvin. 32 43, 44, 324, 413. 420, Cohen, A., 504, 545
523, 536, Cohen, H., 384
Camplmell. A. 264,269 Cohn, G. H., 417
Campbell, E. I1
G.‘-"T
J
''
|-rq
\'|
%‘
uq LC
‘ 284, sso, 562, 564, Cohn, N., 623
568 Coleman, S., 384, 455
(la1npe1111ause11. H. von, 46, 178, 659 Collin, M., 428
Cannon. \"\'_ \\‘.. 411, 447, 560, 590 Collins, A., 611
Cappellus, l.., 27, 34, 35, 44, 84, 89E, Collins, J. J., 609
642 Condannn,Aa,339,411,428
Cartline, E., 524 Conrad, J., 545
Carley K. W., 355 Cook, A., 569
Carlson, R. .-\., 264. 269, 2711T. Cooke, G. A., 239, 254, 355, 560
(.Iarmichat‘1, C. .\l., 202 Coppens, J., 312, 428, 504, 609
Carmignac, J., 46, 498 Cornely, R., 27, 37, 109, 135
Caro, H. 1., 597 Cornill, C. H., 27, 37, 52, 90, 268, 305,
Carpzov, C., 20, 27, 35, 36, 80, 85, 307, 312, 339, 343, 355, 457
158. 178, 188.201. 225. 241, 253, Corrodi, H., 46, 52, 611
262, 280. 301. 354, 372, 384, 394, Cosi11.J., 47
410, 416, 427. 446. 455. 462, 470, Cothenet, E., 310, 447. 455. 5.97
INDEX or AUTHORS 675
Cotton, G. E. L., 397 Dequeker, L., 609
Couroyer, B., 545 Dever, W. G., 137
Craghan,J. F., 109, 122, 137,373, 395 Devreesse, R., 159, 280
Craigie, P. C-, 202 De Vries, S., 28, 162, 190, 284, 440
Cramer, K., 395 DeW'itt, D. S., 137
Credner, K. A., 385 Dexinger, F., 609
Crenshaw, J. L., 254, 340, 395, 404, Dhorme, P., 263, 280, 526, 530, 544
545,598,601 Diem, H., 69
Crim, K. R., 505 Diepold, P., 203
Cripps, R- S., 395 Diestel, L., 28, 30,47, 159, 310
Crook, M., 526, 560 Dietrich, E. L., 396
Cross, F. M.Qr), 85, 91, 102, 109, 117, Dietrich, W., 203, 229, 264, 282, 286,
123, 125, 127, 137, 141, 143, 147, 312
162, 166, 170, 180, 190, 194, 202, Diettrich, G., 487
219, 229, 232, 237, 240, 243, 282, Dieu, L., 544
2861'., 292, 300, 314, 505, 506,624, Dijk, H. van, 355
629, 640 DiLe11a, A. A., 608
Criisemann, F., 396, 399, 506 Dillmann, A., 113, 136, 143, 161, 180,
Culley, A. R., 506 l90,202,239,3l7,526
Cullmann, O., 69 Dobschiitz, E., 28, 69
Curtis, E. L., 639, 655 Déderlein, J. C., 316
Délger, F. J., 253
Dahl, G., 202 Dommershausen, W., 598, 600, 609
Dahl, N., 159 Donne, J., 523
Dahler, J. G., 640, 642 Donner, H., 28. 137, 282, 312, 506
Dahood, M. J., 85, 93, 504, 526, 545, Dotan, A., 85
580 Doutreleaux, L., 159, 487
Daniélou, J., 159, 178, 188, 225, 253, Dragnet, R., 544
280,372,524,544,623 Drijvers, P., 506, 51 1
Darling, J., 20, 410 Drioton, H., 545, 548
Daube, D., 162, 598 Driver, G. R., 85, 93, 527, 569
David, M., 560 Driver, S. R., 28, 37, 85, 90, 105, 113,
Davidson, A. B., 305, 314, 317, 355, 118, 136, 149, 161, 202. 209,217,
440,447,457,526 230, 263. 317, 338, 356, 38.5, 395.
Davidson, R., 27, 136 450, 457, 458, 526, 572, 531, 563,
Davidson, S., 47 592, 608, 612, 613
Davies, G. H., 161 Drubbel, A., 190, 545
Davies, G. 1., 162 Dubarle, A. ;\'1., 546, 569, 609, 611
Déaut, R. Le, 178 Dubberstein, W., 356
Debus, J., 282 Diirr, L., 355
Déchanet, J.-M., 579 Duesberg, H.. 527, 546
Decker, B., 310 Duhm, B., 36, 307, 311, 318, 3201T.,
Deden, D., 373, 385, 463 335, 339, 34211, 353, 385, 386113.,
Deeley, ;\'l., 486 426, 447, 450. -'1-72, 504, 509, 526
Deissler, A., 373, 411, 428, 463, 504, Duling, 1). C., 280
506 Dumermuth, F., 203
Delcor, .\1'l., 385, 395, 417, 447, 472, Duncker, P.-C., 69
608, 609 Dupin, L. l"1., 28
Delekat, L., 264, 271, 506 Duval, Y.-.\I., 427
Delhaye, P., 178
Delitzsch, F., 15, 19, 28, 30, 109, 118, Eaton, H., 312, 447, -1-57
136, 311, 317,411,447. 504, 526, Ebeling, O., 69, 524
532,545,569,572,573,580,587 Eberharter, A., 47
De1"111t'lelc1, L., 47, 311, 339, 355, 385, Eckardt, R., 472
527, 608 Fldelkoort. A. H., 411
1111111111. R- (1., 488, 4119, 4911, 1124 l"ltlwart1.s. O. C.1_ir)_ 69
676 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Edwards, R. A., 427 Feuillet, A., 29, 37, 312, 417, 455, .569
Eerdmans, B. D., 190 571, 609
Eichhorn, G., 28, 35, 36. 40, 52, 113, Fey, R., 312. 396
118, 241, 257,268,316 Fichtner, J., 281, 312, 321, 506 , 527,
'
lflichrodt, W., 17, 137, 169, 184, 203, 546,560,562
311, 324, 355,467,472 Filson, F. V., 69
Eisenstein, J. D., 301 Finkel. .-‘\., 609
Eising, H., 137 Finke1stei11,J. J., 47, 127, 162, 168
Eissfeldt, O., 15, 28, 38, 47, 52, 112, Finkelstein, 1..., 338, 506
114, 119, 120. 123, 137, 162, 190, Fisch, F., 355
229, 230. 2311., 240, 242, 254, 264, Fischel, H. A., 338
268, 270, 281, 28.5, 287, 305, 307, Fischer, B., 524
340, 387, 483, 489, .546, 549, 560, Fischer,J.. 311
563, 602, 609, 612, 614 Fischer, A., 488
Eitz, A., 137 Fishbane, 1\'l., 137, 191, 306, 357
Elbogen, 1., 524 Flacius, Matthias, 28, 32
Ellermeier, F., 305, 580, 582 Flanagan, J. W., 264
Elliger, R., 109, 124. 137, 162, 180, 183, Flesseman-van Leer, E., 47
190, 264, 311, 314, 316, 323, 356, Flusser, D., 609
428, 440, 442, 447, 450, 457, 458, Fohrer, G. 28 30 110, 112, 116, 119
450, 463, 465, 459, 472, 475, 478, 122, 1125, 125: 152, 165, ms, 206,
488, 490 212E, 219, 229, 231, Z35, 242, 257
Elliott Binns, L., 180, 190, 339 282, 285fl'., 305, 311, 312, 315, 318
Ellis, P. F., 109, 121 319, 331, 340, 355, 356, 366, 369
El1ul,J., 417 374, 376. 405, 411, 428, 442, 452
Ehnslie, W. A. L., 639 474, 489, 526, 527, 529
Emerton,J. A., 137, 203, 254, 447, 448, Fokkelman, P., 137
624 Fowler, H. T., 385
Errtnierson, G. 1., 417 Fraicll, F., 623
Englantler, H., 439 Fraine, de, 506, 560, 624
Engnell, 1., 15, 28, 39, 110, 116, 120, Francke, A. H., 523
162, 169F., 282, 305, 312, 314, 320, Frank, 1., 69
373, 510 Frankena, R., 127, 203
Erasmus, D., 43 Frar1se11, J., 546
Erbt, \=\1'.. 340, 598 Frazer, J., 183
Erlandsson, S., 312 Freedman. D. I\1., 47, 50, 55, 61,64, 85
Erman, 546, 548 117, 119, 162, 202, 219, 232f., 282
Etheridge, W., 159 284, 2941.. 356, 463, 506, 527. 609
l‘i\‘a11S. C. F.. 69 640, 643
Ewa1d,G_ H. 36, 113.305, 430, 472, Freedman, H., 239, 339
526, 531, 572. 590 Freed)". F. S., 356
Exum C., 569 Frei, H., 28, 299
Eybers, 1. H., 47, 417, -1128, 488 Fretheim. '1“. E., 110, 137, 418
Eynde. D. van den, 52-1 Frey, H.. 374
Fricke, K- D-, 281
Frieclrichsen. P., 427
Faber Stapulensis, 43 Fritsch C. T., 84, 545
Fairbairn, P., 417 Fritz, V., 162, 168. 191, 240, 428
1-':ij, A., 417 Fueglister, 1\'., 162, 506
Falkenstein, A., 592 Fuerst, J., 47, 305. 501. 638
Farrar, F. W., 608, 612 Fuerst, W. 560, 580. 590
Fascher, E., 338 Fullerton, 312, 527, 531
Feldmann, F., 21, 311 Fuss, W., 14:710.‘‘- C3 Q_, 7.">1“'5
Fensham, F. C., 161. 168, 457
Ferrianclez, A., 239 Gall, A. von, 609
Festinger, l.., 623 (1.-1111'-. A.-F., 623
1noExcn=AuTHoRs 677
Galling, R., 137, 150, 203, 240, 282, 569, 570. 572, 581, 586, 590, 599,
287, 5:15, 4:10, -103, 172, -175, 4761., 601, 602, 606
580,582,584.585,587.600_624, Gordon, C. H., 110, 137, 142, 559
625, 629, 639. 640 Goshen-Gottstein, 51., 85, 90f.. 94. 95,
Gammie, G., 609 102, 506
Garber, P- 1... 282 Gottlieb. E., 159
Garscha, J.. 356, 360 Gottlieb. H., 396
Garstang, 239, 254 Gottwald. N. R., 28, 39, 110, 126,240,
Gaster, T. H., 598, 600, 607 396, 590, 593
Geddes, A., 113 Goulder, M. D., 506
Gehman, H. S., 17,85, 281, 598 Gowan, D. E., 447
Geier, .\11., 523 Gozza, S., 338
Geiger, A., 38, 47, 90, 103, 560, 563 Gradwobl, R., 180
Gelin. A., 239, 463. 488, 506. 511, 514, Graetz, H., 47, 581, 586
590, 624 Graf,1\'.H.,1l0, 113
Gelstoli, A., 463 Grant, R. .\/1., 178
Gemser, B., 527, 545, 546 Grassi, J., 372
George, A., 428, 440, -1-46. 457, 524 Gray, E. 5-1., 28
Gerhard, J., 69 Gray. G. B., 28, 129, 180, 183, 190, 192,
Gerhardson, B., 659 193, 195, 311, 385, 506, 526
Gerleman, G., 85, 255, 457, 560, 569, Gray, J., 239. 254, 281, 411, 560
572, 598, 599, 600, 601, 605 Green. W. H., 37, 47, 110,113, 137,527
Gerson, 43 Greenberg, 1\/1., 85, 162, 168, 191. 356
Gersonides, 31 Greenslade, S. L., 28
Gerstenberger, E., 162, 168. 340, 505, G111-1111, P., as, 1111, 180. 609
506, 549 Gressmann, H., 114, 137, 161, 162,
Gert11er, .\/I., 609 1sޣ,1s9_190,191,193,203,239,
Gese, H., 69, 162, 168. 180, 264, 356, 263, 268. 270, 289, 312, 315. 395,
396, 457, 475, 501, 506, 5116, 524, 398. *-1-06, 5611
527, 546, 549, 580. 583, 640, 659, Grether. O., 255, 321
661, 662. 669 Grill, S., 570
Gesenius, W., 85, 90, 31 1 Grintz, .\1., 180
Geus, C. H. rle, 110, 125. 255, 257 Groh, 1), E., 47
Gevaryahu, H. M. I., 305, 308, 506 Grnnbaek, H., 162, 264, 269
Gibson, C. L., 85 Gros Louis, K. R. R., 137
Giesebrecht, F., 339 Gross, E., 609
Gillet. R., 544 Gross, \\-'., 137, 191, 193
Ginsberg, H, L., 117, 312. 374, 527, Grosslelcl, B.. 568, 579, 589, 597, 607
532, 580, 609, 612 Gruenthaner, ;\1. 240, 447
Ginsburg, C. D., 85, 569, 571, 579, 580 Guillaume, P.-51., 159
Ginzberg, L., 47, 159, 427, 659 Gunkel, H., 15, 28, 30, 38, 39. 110,
Clanzman, G. S., 560 11-117., 117, 126, 136, 137, 1-101I.,
Glatzer, N. 51., 527, 544 151, 155, 167, 255, 268, 282, 287,
G1ueek,J., 506 305, 307, 312, 298, 418, 428, 430,
Glueck, N., 411 435, 440, 443, 504. 506, 5091T_, 515,
Goettsberger,J.. 28, 264, 608, 625, 639 518, 523, 527, 560, 562. 563. 591,
Goff, B., 240 599, 600, 609
Goitein. S. D., 418, 420 Gunn, D. .\1.. 255, 264
Goldin, J., 137 Gunneweg, 1*\. 162, 191, 193, 305,
Go1dingay,J., 640 340, 396. 659
Goldman, S., 263. 590, 598 Gutbrod, R., 263, 274
Good, E. 51-1., 374, 527
Gooclmiough, E. R., I78 Haag, H-, 164, 255, 282, 315
(itnoding, 1). \’\i'.. 82, 87, 282 Hadrian, 28, 31
(loodwin, D. W., 85 Héiggluncl. B., 69
(iorrlis, R., 374, 396, 526, .327, 546, 561), Ha1e1\'11et, .\l , 162
678 INDEX or AUTHORS
Haendler, G., 372 Herder,J. G. von, 28, 35, 527, 570, 589
I'liivernick, H. A. C., 28, 37, 47, 110, Hermann, A., 570
608, 611 Hermann, R., 262
Hahn, F., 69 Hermisson, H.-J., 312, 506, 546, 549
Hahn, H, F., 28, 30 Herntrich, V., 356, 359, 371
Hailperin, H., 159, 384 Herrmann, J., 203, 355
Hajek, H., 560, 565 Herr1nann,S., 110, 125, 138, 162, 264,
Ha1be,J., 162, 175, 240 312, 340, 344, 353, 356, 358, 396
Haldar, A., 440, 442 Hertzberg, H. W., 239, 254, 255, 263,
Hall, R. A., 609 2741., 313, 527, 563, 565,580
Haller, E., 282, 418, 420 Hesse, F., 162, 464, 465, 660
Haller, l\l.. 411, 504, 560, 569, 590, Heyne, C. G., 36
598,624 Hill, D., 284
Hallo, W. W.. 47, 282. 284, 305, 308, Hillers, D. R., 590, 592, 593
506 Hirsch, E. G., 660
Halpern, B., 282 Hirsch1eld. H., 188
H1115, R. .\1.. 5151), 51121., 565 Hitzig, F., 339, 373, 395,417, 420,428,
Hamm, \*V., 86 440, 457, 463, 472, 488, 569, 608
Hammershaimb, E., 312, 395, 406, 429 Hobbs, T. R., 340
Hanhart, R., 86, 284, 609 Héflken, P., 625
Hanson, P. 1)., 464, 467, 473, 475, 476, Hiilscher, G., 47, 53, 54, 64, 110, 112,
6119, 613 114, 116, 119,121,203, 205, 222,
Hanson, R. P. C., 544 282, 305, 307, 356, 3581., 369, 371,
Haran, 5-1., 47, 110, 122, 137, 162, 180, 396, 501, 526, 529, 610, 612, 624,
191, 194,282,315, 328,356 6150
Har1or(l-Battersby, G., 181, 182 Hiipfl, H., 28, 37, 523, 579, 660
Harl, M., 524 Ho11mann, D., 38, 113, 118, 180, 182,
Harnack, A., 502 184, 202, 207
Harper, A., 569 Ho11mann, H. W., 313., 396
Harper, W. R., 373, 377, 395, 397, 402 Hofmann, C. R., 305
Harrison, R. l\'., 28, 30, 37, 93 Hoftijzer, 138, 181, 191
Hartman, L., 487, 623 Holladay, 1/V. L., 340, 3431.
Hartman. 1.. 1-'.. 608 Holm-Nielsen. S., 506, 524, 589
Hartmann, D., 568 Holtzmann, O., 488
Harvey, 356. 372. 429, 546 Holzinger, H., 110, 119, 136, 161, 180,
Hasel, G. F., 138, 312, 609 182, 190, 193, 385
Hasler, V. E., 659 Hommel, F., 110, 116
Hastings,_]., 20 Hooke, S. H., 169, 507, 510
Hauer, C. E., 264 Hoonacker, A. van, 255, 373, 385, 411,
Haupt. P.. 429, 440, 473, 599 412, 417, 428, 440, 447, 457, 463 I
Hziyek, l\1l., 301 464, 472, 488, 625, 628
Hayes._]. H., 110, 117.312 Horne. T. H., 28
Heato11. E. W., 608 Hornig, C., 28
Heir1egger,J. H., 28, 33 Horst, F., 203, 205, 340, 356, 396, 404,
Heinisch, P., 161, 180, 190 440, 457, 463, 465, 472, 478, 488,
Hellbarclt, H., 374 526, 570
He1npe1,J., 110, 203, 205, 527 Hort, C., 191
Henge], .\l., 581, 609, 659 Horwitz, 1N. J., 340
Hengstenberg, W. E., 15, 28, 37, 110, Hoss1e1r1, F.-L., 340
116, 118, 181, 317, 355,385, 386, Hottinger,J. H., 89
473, 504, 509, 526, 531, 569, 580, Howie, C. G., 356
585, 610. 611 Howorth, H. H.. 69
Henkt‘, O., 191 Huber, F., 313
Hennig, 159 Hiibner, 310
Henry, X1.-1... 138, 312 Hugh o1St Victor, 31
H1~111.%1~111-1. (1.. 2112 Hnlsl. .‘\. R., 203
INDEX or AUTHORS 679
Humbert, P., 138, 374, 440, 441, 447, Jones, 1). R., 313. 320, 38:3, 472, 473,
"
450, J46, 527, 563, 565 488
Hummel, H. D., 159, 561 Jones, G. H.. 315
Hummel, R., 660 Josephus, 50
Hummelauer, F. de, 161, 202, 263, 639 Joiion, P., 560, 569
Humphreys, W. L., 138, 599 Jugie, M., 70
Hup1e1d, H., 28, 30, 113, 504 Julius, C., 610, 623
Hurwitz, A., 110, 138 Jung, K. G., 527
Hyatt, J. P., 161, 162, 166, 339, 340, Junilius A1ricanus,29,31
354, 429,457, 458 Junker, H., 610
Hylander, 1., 264
Kéihler, E., 524
Rahler, I\1., 118
Ibn Ezra, 31,316,474
Kasemann, E., 70
Irenaeus, 42
Kaiser, W., 623
Irwin, W. A., 356, 358, 371.447, 527
Kahle, P. E., 86, 91. 103
Kaiser, O., 29, 39. 112, 125. 126, 138,
Jackson, B. S., 162 229, 242, 260, 267, 285. 311. 313.
Jackson, J., 138, 143 315, 327, 342. 358, 418, 450, 505,
Jacob, B., 110. 136, 599, 607 628
Jacob, E., 47, 373, 374 Kalisch, N1. 1\1.. 136. 161, 180
Jagersma, H., 181 1\'a11ai-l\'1einman11, 240, 243
Jahn, G., 599 Ranienetzky, A. S.. 581
Jahn,J., 29,37, 241,356 Kanneiigiesser, C., 354. 544
Jahnow, H., 590, 591 Kapelrud, A. S., 110, 264, 385. 387,
James, F., 464 396, 429, 457, 504. 625
Jansen, H. Luden, 507 1\'ap1an. 1\l. .\l., 313, 331
Jansma, T., 178 Rarlstadt, A. R. B. von, 29. 32
Janssen, E., 282, 590, 640 l\'atz, P., 47, 53, 66, 86, 87, 305, 309,
Janzen, G., 86, 340, 352 356, 501, 660, 667
Japhet, S., 625, 629, 640 Kau1mann, Y-, 15, 29. 38. 110, 113,
Jaspers, R., 356, 359 123, 239, 240. 243, 315. 318, 374,
Jaubert, A., 253 418
Jellicoe, S., 84, 86 Kautzsch, l\'., 5'27
Jenkins, A. 1\'., 282, 313 Kayatz, C., 546, 541-1, 553
Jenni, E., 229, 240, 255, 313 Keil, C. F., 19,29, 37, 118. 1-13. 161,
Jensen, P., 599, 600 180, 188. 190, 202, 207. 239, 241,
Jeppesen, 1\'., 429 254, 263. 267, 281, 355, 373, 385,
Jepsen, A., 47, 86, 126, 231, 282, 284, 395,4l1,412,413,4151,417,428,
2851., 296, 305. 307. 385,387,418, 440, 447, 457. 463, 464, 472, 488,
473, 527, 561, 610,625 560, 590, 593. 598. 601, 611, 624,
Jeremias, C., 473 639. 642, 646
Jeremias, J., 338, 427, 498 Keller, C. 138, 313, 385, 411. 417,
Jere1nias,J6rg, 418, 424, 429, 430, 433, 418, 419, 420. 440. 447, 457
440, 442, 447, 450 1~Le11ermann, 1)., 86, 91, 191, 193
Jerome, 31, 50, 98, 374, 397, 474, 490, Kellermann, U., 396, 398, 402. 406.
641, 666 411,625,627,628,637
Jervel1,J., 159 Kelsey, D. H., 70, 77
Jirku, A., 169 liennedy, A. R. S.. 180
Jécken, P., 447, 455 Kennett, R. H., 203, 205
Johnson, A. R., 169, 282, 418, 504, 507 Kenney, R. B., 201
Johnson, M. D., 138 Ke1111ic1>tt, B., 86, 90. 101
Joines, K. R., 191 Kent, C. F., 113
Jolles, A., 47, 141 l\'errigan, A., 394
Jones, B. W., 610 l\'essler, .\l., 138, 1-"13, 264, 340
Jones, (1- l1\'., 1.59 Kessler, R., 110 -
680 1NoEx or AUTHORS
Kessler, W., 316 Kropat, K.. 640
Kidner, D., 136, 504, 545 Krouse, F. M., 262
Kierkegaard, S., 159 Kiimmel, W’. G., 29
Kikawada, 1. l\’l., 138 Kuelling, S. R., 138
Kilian, R..138,181. 313 Kuenen, A., 29, 30. 37,47, 52,113, 114,
Kimhi, David, 38, 474, 523 118, 119, 165,191, 192, 306, 397,
Kirchmeyer, J., 579 471,638
Kirkpatrick, A. F., 385, 504 Kiing, H., 70
Kissane, E. J., 311, 322, 504, 526 Kiinzli, E., 338
Kitchen, K. A., 610, 612 Kuhl, C., 29, 356, 418, 527, 529, 570,
Kitte1,G., 24 610,623
1<1111-1, R., 116, 254, 263, 12118, 281, 504, Kuhn, C., 546
639 Kuhn, K. G., 487
K1110, J., 255 Kupper, J.-R., 191
Klatt, W., 29 Kuschke, A., 163, 191, 193
Kiein, R. W., 86, 931., 625, 627, 628, Kutsch, E., 126, 163, 174, 255, 385
640 Kyle, T\1l.G.. 29,37, 110
Kfeinert, P., 203, 207, 411, 413, 416,
440. 457, 581 La Bonnardiere, A. M., 280
ine, M. G., 47, 56, 61, 203, 207 Lacheman, E. R., 457, 458
op1enstein. M. A., 581 Lack, R., 313
7???? ostermann,
A., 182, 207, 655 Lacocque, A., 570, 608
Knahenbauer, J., 311, 339, 355, 410, Lagarde, P. A. de, 901., 600
498,526,545,590,608 Lagrange, M.-J., 15, 70, 113, 254, 473,
Knierim, R., 110, 126, 163. 313. 320. 610
331 Lamarche, P., 473, 474, 476, 483
Knight, I). A., Lamb, A., 524
Knight, G. P‘ f“1E 311, 417, 560. 5159, Lambert, W. G., 47, 138, 306
590 Lamparter, H., 202, 339, 355, 440, 504,
Knuth, H. C., 524 526, 545, 552, 560, 569. 590
1\'111~11,1§.,29, 138,141, 16:1, 172, 181, Lanahan, 1V. F., 590
182,315,396.404,464,465,467. Landes, G. I\-1., 418, 419
546.610,613,625.628,634,640 Lane, A. N. F... 70
K6h1er,A.. 463. 464. 471, 473, 487,498 Lang, B., 546
Koehler. L., 163, 181, 184. 313. 315, Lange,J. P., 136
396. 561 Langevin, P.-E., 505
Kijnig, E., 47, 202 Langhe, R. de, 507
Koester. H., 29,416 Langlamet, F., 240, 264
Koolc, L., 47, 463, 660 Langohr, G., 457
Korn1e1d, W., 181 La rcher, C., 660
Kosters, W. .\l., 625 Lauha, A., 163, 507, 580
Kovacs, B. \\'., 546 Laurent, Y., 159
Kraeling, E. G., 29, 418. 527. 610 Laurin, R., 527
Kra11, R., 87 Lauterbach,_]. Z., 178
Kramer, S. N., 570 Leach, E. R., 138, 143
1\'raus,H.-J..29,30, 70, 110, 112, 163, Leaney, A. R. C., 27
191,240.310.34u,504,5n7,524. l.ebra1n,J. C. H., 48, 53. 65, 306, 309,
590, 592. 660, 669 501,599,600,610,619,660,667
Krause, G., 384, 416 LeC1erc, J. (Clericus), 29, 34, 46, 80,
Krauss, S., 47 1 1"
1\'remer,J.. 473, 487 I.ec1ercq,J., 178, 202, 301, 427, 524
Kremers, H., 340, 349 Lécuyer, J., 178
Krentz, E., 70 Leder, H.-G., 159
Krey, E., 295 Leeuwen, C. va11. 375
Krinetzki. 1... 264 l.e1?*\-re. A., 625
Krochinal, A., 586 I.eggett, D. 561
INDEX or AUTHORS 681
Lehmann, M. R., 138 Maag, V., 203, 396
Lehming, S., 163, 191, 396 Maas, P., 86
Lehrman, S. M., 373, 569 Maass, F., 316, 323
Leibowitz. I\1., 159, 178 Macholz, G. C., 264, 340
Leiman, S. Z., 48, 50, 55, 56, 58, 6411., Mackensen, R. S., 191
306, 501, 670 Madsen, A. A., 639. 6.55
Leipo1dt,J., 48 Magonet, J., 418
Leloir, L., 660 Maichle, A., 70
Lemke, W. E., 640, 645 Maier, G., 70
Lengerke, C. von, 608, 611 Maier, W. A., 440
Lenglet, A., 610 Malamat, A., 138, 255, 282
Lengsfeld, P., 70 Mangenot, E., 159
Leonard, R. C., 48, 660, 667 Mann, J., 524
Lerch, D., 159, 579 Mantel, H., 48
Lescow, T., 313, 429, 430 Marbock, J., 559
Levene, A., 159 March, W. E., 306
Levenson, D., 356 Marchal, L., 639
Lévéque, J., 527, 544 Marcion, 42
Levi, I., 623 Margolis, M. L., 29, 48, 53, 86, 306,
Levine, B. A., 124, 127, 138, 166, 181, 501, 570
183, 191 Margulis, B., 448
Levine, E. B., 159, 178, 189, 201 Markert, 1..., 396
Levita, E., 48, 51,86 Marshall, R. J., 313
Levy, L., 561 Marti, K., 311, 411, 447, 457, 463,464,
Lewin, M., 544 472,473,488,608
Lewis, P., 48, 159, 599, 600 Maschkowski, F., 178
Lewy 125, 138, 599, 600 Masius, A., 241
L'Hour,J., 203, 240 Mason, R. A., 462, 464, 472, 473, 488
Liebreich, L. J., 313, 318, 638 Matter, E. von, 310
Limbeck, M., 660 5Iay,P1 c1,340,s43,355,574,4s4,
Lindars, B., 394, 660 473
Lindblom, J., 203, 306, 313, 315, 374, Maybaum, S., 225
429, 430 Mayes, A. D. H., 255, 264
Linton, O,, 524 Mays, L., 373, 395, 402, 406, 428,
Lipinski, E., 473, 504, 507, 509 430, 43111.
Littledale, R. F., 524 Mazar, B., 117, 138, 191, 194, 240,
Liver, J., 191,282 255
Lods, A., 29, 37, 113 McBride, S. D., 203
Liihr, .\/I., 110, 263, 281, 590, 591, 592 McCarter, P. K., 412
Liinning, 1., 70 McCarthy, C., 86
Loersch, S., 203, 205, 579 McCarthy, D. J., 163, 203, 207, 240,
Loewe, R., 524 264
Loewenstamm, S. E., 163 M'Cau1, A. M., 474, 487
Lohfink, 135, 155, 155, 203, 2051., McDaniel, T. K., 591, 592
208,217,229,240,282,3l5,374, McEvenue, S. A., 110, 120. 138
418, 419 McKane, W., 86, 263, 545, 546, 5491.,
Loisy, A., 48 553, 5551.
Long, B. O., 69, 138, 141, 305 McKay, W., 282, 504
Lord, A. B., 127, 141 McKenzie, L., 264, 311, 546
Loretz, O., 340, 418, 561, 570. 581 McKenzie, R. A. F., 138, 507, 527
Lowy, S., 178 Médebielle, A., 262, 281
Lubac, H. de, 29, 159 Meek, T. J., 569, 570, 572, 590
Lund, N. W., 448 Meinhold, A., 138, 608
Luther, B., 110 Melanchthon, P., 32
Luther, M., 32, 44, 523, 583, 602 Melugin, R., 306, 308, 315, 322
Lutz, H.-M., 473 Mendelsohn, 264
682 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Mendenhall, G., 110, 115, 117, 163, 507, 509, 510, 512, 515, 517, 625,
168, L91, 194, 2U7l'., 240, 247 627, 629, 640
Mercier, 33 Miiller, H. P., 313, 386
l\lerent"1ino, R. P., 203, 205, 208 Miiller, M., 160
Merk, .-\., 27 Miiller, W. E., 313
Merlens. A., 610 l\-1ui1enburg,_]., 143, 163, 311, 313, 322,
Merx, A., 181, 386, 394 325, 412, 589
Merwe, B- J., van der, 181 Muis, S. de, 523
Mettinger, T. N. D., 264, 282 Munch, P. A., 313, 507, 591
Metzger, B. M., 86 Munk, M., 638
Metzgcr, M., 159 Murphy, R. E., 48, 301, 507, 546, 558,
Metzinger, .-\., 181 570,572
Meyer, E., 163, 255, 625 Musculus, W., 33
Meyer, 1., 340 Myers, M., 386, 412, 561, 562, 624,
Meyer, R., 48 639, 640
Michaeli, F., 48, 161, 624, 639
Michaelis, D., 29, 35, 611 Na‘aman, .\l., 283
Michalski, A. _]., 253 Nacht, _]., 561
Michel, D., 507 Napier, B. D., 283
Mich]. 159 Nautin, P., 354
Mihelic, L., 441] Nea1e,_]. M., 524
Mildenberger, F., 70, 264, 269 Neher, A., 384
Milgron1,_]., 129, 181-3, 191,313,331 Neiman, D., 416
.\»1iIil<, T., 439, 623 Nestle, E., 94, 386, 640
Millard, A. R., 138 Neubauer, A., 328, 524
Miller, A., 581 Neumann, P. K. D., 341
Mi'.'.er, A. A., 159 Neusner,_]., 181, 183, 189
Miler, M., 110, 117, 239, 240, 264, Neuss, W., 372
283 Newman, H., 70
MiIler,_]. W., 341, 343 Newman, M. L_, 265
Miler, P. D.. 264 Newsome, D., 640
Minette cle Tillesse, G., 203, 205 Nicholas of Lyra, 31, 43
Mitchell, H. G., 463, 465, 472, 478 Nicholson, E. W., 163, 168, 203, 229,
Mittmann, S., 191, 203, 208 339, 341, 3421., 349, 523
.\/Iohlenhrink, K., 191, 193, 240, 265, Nickelshurg, G. W. E., 610
283,473 Nielsen, E., 163, 191, 255, 341, 396,
Monloubon, L., 396 429, 430, 448
Montefiore, CI. G., 660 Niemeyer, C. T., 507
Montgomery, A., 281, 283, 608, 623 Nikiprowetzky, V., 189
Montico, G., 354 Nineham, D. E., 70
Moore, C. A., 354, 501, 598, 601, 602, Notscher, F., 207
623 Noorcltzij, A., 639, 640
Moore, G. F., 48, 178, 181, 189, 254, Norclen, E., 178
660 North, C. R., 110, 311, 315, 328, 329
Moran, W. L., 127, 203, 306, 356 North, F. S., 464
Morgenstert1,_]., 181, 396 North, R., 473, 625, 640
Moriarty, F. L., 640 Noth, M., 75, 111, 1141T., 119, 120,
.\/10rin,_]., 86, 89 l22F., 1241., 138, l41ff., 161, 163,
Morrison, M., 392, 469 l66fF., 169, 1711., 180, 184, 190,
Mosis, R., 640, 642, 64411., 651 191, 194fF., 203, 2051., 2081'., 2151T.,
Moubarac, Y-, 160 229, 2301T., 235, 239, 240, 2421T.,
Movers, F. C., 640, 642 255, 257, 265, 266, 26911, 281, 283,
Mowinckel, S., 110, 119, 138, 163, 167, 2856., ‘290, 30011, 356, 591, tilt),
191, 193, 240, 243, 255, 258, 265, 612, 625, (328, 629, 641)
284,296,306,307,313,3l5,318E, .\'0w€lt‘l-1, 1/V., 254, 2153, -1-17. 428, -1-2‘)
320, 321, 341, 3421.. 349, 398. 448, Niilwl. H.-U., 2155, 2159
INDEX 01-" AUTHORS MN
Nyberg, H. S., 86, 374, 377 Pfcifler, E. 4881'.
Pfei1Ter, R.,H., 29, 37, »111_ 11-1, 1 111, ms,
Oberstei11er,_]., 559 268, 342, 359, 527, .'11t1_ ‘H11, fll
O’Connell, K. G.. 86 602, 643
Odeberg, H., 316 Phillips, A., 202
Oded, B., 283 Philonenko, M., 160
Odendall, D., 315 Pirot, L., 23
O’Doherty, E., 255 Plastaras, J., 163
Oesterley, W. O. E., 169, 504, 545, 546 Plath, M., 386
Oestreicher, T., 203, 205 Ploeg, P. M- van 111-r, Hm‘, HQ, H
Ogden, S. M., 70 Ploger, G., 203, 2118
Ohlig, K.-H., 70 Ploger, 0., 111, 229, -.111-1, -1111._ um, 1
Ohly, F. 579 473 475 546, .'1‘ltI, ‘1'I'.’, lull ‘
Olphe-Galliard, M., 579 613, 621, 640
Olrik, A., 140 Plumptre, E. H., 5811
Olshausen, J., 504 Podechard, E., 58ll_ 11-111
Oppel, H., 48 Pohlmann, K. F., 11-ll, h'."1_ I-N, 040
Origen, 31, 50, 99 Polk, T., 581
Orlinsky, H. M., 48, 86, 94, 125 Polzin, R. M., 139, ’1'."1'
Orr,__[., 37, 113, 118 Pope, M. H., 5211, ‘1-1-1, '.1.~1_ an
Qsswald, E., 70, 163, 179, 610 Popper,]., 163
Ostborn, G-, 48, 374 Porten, B., 283
Osty, E., 373 Porteous, N. W., 111111
Ottley, R. R., 86 Porter,__[. R., 11111, I-L":
Otto, E., lll, 138, 163 Posnanski, A., I111»
Ottosson, M., 192 Powers, W. .-'\.. I111
Otzen, B., 318, 473, 4751., 480 Poznanski, S., ‘£72’. 1'.’ -‘
Overbeck, F., 70 Press,_[., 192, '.!t1’1
Overholt, T. W., 341 Press, R., 473, '1tIi
Owens, J., 527 Preuschen, 11., 1}"!
Preuss, H. 1)-, ‘1-II1
Pagninus, S., 29, 31 Procksch, ()-_ l 1t1_ I H, .'l1’1, III, HI
Pzikozdy, L., 192 464
Palm, A., 589 Purvis,_]- 1) , -I11, ’-1
Parker, R. A., 356 Pury, .51. 114', 1'1‘!
Parrot, A., 283 Pusey. I-L. 11, 1111, 1'1-1_ I-I" I-I.‘
Parry, M., 127
Paschen, W., 181 Quell, (I., ">11!
Paton, L. B., 202, 598, 599, 602
Patrides, C. A., 160 Ra1)et1;1t1_ K \|-11, ll~| 1'"-
Patton, H., 507 Rabin, (I 1111
Paul, S. M., 127, 163, 168, 396 Rahi1111w1t/. 1 I , '- ‘I
Pauritisch, K., 316 Racl.(;--11-11. I ' ‘ll III ll'1l 1'|l
Pautriel, R., 488 l'1t1_ I 1‘I_ lllll Ill twill H-I
Pavlovsky, A., 284, 625 ll-71 , l!|l_ I111 111' :'I.' .'H
Payne, D. F., 86, 94 '.?H'.‘_ '.'lIH1 ‘W111 "Ill :1"
Peake, A. S-, 11B, 526, 590 '_ll1"|.'-'/"1, .’l11 _"|11|| 1111. lull 111
Pedersen,__[., 163, 167, 581 ‘1'.’11. 1-ll. 1-1' 1-1 1111- "'1 ll"
Pellicafl, "l1|1'-1_ Ill;-_ Ill: 1'11 ll‘ -Illa '||'|
Penna, A_, 252 "1-'1~I_ ~11.| 11.1 ..'11 .111 .11t_ 1.11
Perlitt, L., 29, 111, 125, 163,169, 174, l1‘.’."1. I-.'1' MW. '-I '. 1-1| I-I-" I-I-'1
203, 208f., 229, 240, 283, 2921. R;1t1.1_\_ Y 1 . ‘.1 1
Perowne, T. T., 41 1. 463, 472, 488, 504, Ratljzm-.1111-_ .-\ \ _ ' "1
545 Raetlt-r. 5.. F121
Peters, N., 301, 526 Rahlfs, .-\-, 117, '1-1
Petitjean, A., 473, 475 Rainy, A. l"'., I111. Hit
684 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Rankin, O. S., 516 Rosenmiiller, E. F. K., 90, 158, 622
Ranston, H., 581 Rosenthal, L. A., 599
Rashi, 38, 426, 479 Rosowsky, S., 160
Rauber, O. F., 561 Rossi,_]. B. de, 87, 91, 101
Red1ord, 1)., 139 Rost, L., 19, 29, 111, 164, 265, 2671. ‘I
Rehm, M., 283, 313, 473, 641 27311., 341, 396, 402,473, 563,625
Reichert, A., 163, 166 Roth, C., 394, 559
Reichert, V. E., 526, 580 Roth, W. M. W., 139
Reickc, B., 19, 179, 386, 429 Rothstein,_]. W., 322, 448, 46411., 473,
Reines, A. _]., 310 475
Renard, H., 545 Roubos, K., 639
Renaud, B., 429, 4301., 43311. Rousseau, O., 579
Rendtor1T, R., 111, 119, 121, 123. 126, Rowley, H. H., 240, 283, 287, 310,315,
132,139, l47,1661.,1811., 265, 341 341, 357. 374, 375, 376, 396, 398 1
Rengstor1, K. H., 427 526, 528, 531, 534, 561, 570, 571,
Reuss, 6. w. 6., 43, 113 572, 574, 531, 610, 612, 623, 625 I
Revell, 6.1., 37 623,629
Revent1ow,H., 139, 131, 133, 341, 357, Rudolph, w_, 111, 122, 164, 165 192
396, 393, 406 193, 233, 309, 313, 339, 342, 373:
Richardson, A., 29, 136, 144 374, 375, 331,335, 3363., 395, 396 I
Richter, w,, 111, 120, 126, 143. 164, 463,472,433, 490, 493,495, 560,
163, 255, 546 564, 569, 570 591 593 624 629
Ricoeur, P.,70, 77 631,641,642’ ’ ’ ’ ’
Ridday, Y. T., 473 Ruler, A. A. van, 660
Ridderbos, N. H., 507 Rupp, E. G., 659
Riecken, H. W., 623 Ruppert, L., 139
Rietzschel, C., 341 Russell, D. S., 610
Rignell, L. G., 131, 315, 473, 475 Russell, S. H. 524
Rinaldi, G., 412, 641 Ruwet, 48
Ringgren, H., 111, 545, 546, 569, 598, Ry1aarsdam,_]. C., 546
599. 600 Ryle, H. E., 48, 53, 306, 309, 624, 666
Ritterspach, A. D., 265, 270 Ryssel, V., 161, 180, 598, 624
Rivetus, A., 29, 33
Robbins, F. E., 160 Saalschijtz, L., 179
Robert, A., 29, 37, 507, 514, 546, 569, Sabottka, F., 457
570, 571, 575 Sabourin, L., 505
Roberts, B. _]., 48, 87, 94 Saebo, G., 473
Roberts, F., 29, 33 Saint-Arnaud, I., 505, 524
Roberts, M., 264 Salfeld, S., 579
Robertson, 1). A., 143, 527, 528 §a1tman, A., 280
Robertson, E., 255, 313, 561 Sanda, A., 281
Robinson, H. W., 315, 322., 374, 376, Sanders,_]. A., 43, 561., 59,37, 93, 111,
520, 523 131, 233, 300, 303, 333, 455, 507,
Robinson, _]., 231 524, 523
Robinson, T. H., 109, 306, 307, 341, Sand1nel,A.,29,48, 160
373, 335, 337, 395, 411, 412, 417, Sarna, M., 43, 139, 142 306, 303
3 I