NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT J. Barton Payne, editor WORD BOOKS, Publisher Waco, Texas - London, EnglandNEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Copyright © 1970 by Word Incorporated, 4800 W. Waco Drive, Waco, Texas 76710 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any way, with the ex- ception of brief quotations in reviews, without the written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-111958CONTENTS Preface I. Historiography 1. Ancient Orient, Socal and the Old Testa- ment. ; eee eee KENNETH ‘A. KITCHEN © 2. The Bearing of Current Eeyptian S Studies on the Old Testament... ; CARL E. DEVRIES" 3. The Historicity of the Book of Esther . J. STAFFORD WRIGHT IL. Pentateuch 4. The Literary Form of Genesis I-11 . WALTER C. KAISER 5. Date of the Exodus . LEON T. WOOD 6. The Tabernacle in Biblical-Theological Perspective . MARTEN H. WOUDSTRA Il. Poetry 7. Ugaritic and the Theology of the Psalms . ELMER B. SMICK 8. Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament . DEREK KIDNER IV. Prophets 9. Study of the Prophets Since World War II ROBERT L. ALDEN vii 25 37 48 66 88 104 117 131vi 10. il. 2s IZ: LHe 1. 16. 1 Contents Some Principles in the Interpretation of Isaiah as Illustrated by Chapter 24 Seed ALLAN A. MacRAE The Aramaic of the “Genesis Abocrihors Comarca with the Aramaic of Daniel . GLEASON L. ARCHER, JR. The Greek Words in Daniel in the Bie eh Greek Influence in the Near East . EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI V. Textual Criticism The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament Text R. LAIRD HARRIS The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament. . . BRUCE K. WALTKE VI. Theology The B'rith of Yahweh . J. BARTON PAYNE The Correlation of the Concepts 2 Canon and Cov- enant . ‘ e4% MEREDITH G. KLINE The Relationship Between the Old and the New Testaments ¥ . - PIETER A. VERHOEF 146 160 240 265 280PREFACE The essays that make up the following symposium, New Perspectives on the Old Testament, seek to embody things both new and old. The authors come from the United States and also from abroad. Most of them are professors of Old Testament and of subjects that are related to its study. Each presents a picture of recent developments in the field of his specialization, while emphasizing certain abiding values that date back to the teachings of Scripture itself. Prominent throughout are the results, both literary and historical, of current Near Eastern archacology, with stress falling upon those primary source-documents that illumine the ancient milieu as it actually was. The goal of each contributor, moreover, is to transcend the negative, e.g., mere refutations of the divisive criti- cism of the 19th (or 20th) century, and to move forward into positive syntheses and into proposed solutions for areas of Biblical discussion whose centrality may be anticipated for perhaps the next twenty years to come. Each author expresses his own creative insights, while holding to the conservative Scriptural position of the Evangelical Theological Soci- ety, for whose twentieth annual meeting these essays were prepared and whose doctrinal affirmation, that “the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and therefore inerrant in the auto- graphs,” is as old as Christianity itself (cf. John 10:35, Acts 24:14). Meeting on December 26-28, 1968, in Philadelphia, the anniversary sessions of E.T-S. centered about the theme, “An evangelical review of Old Testament studies’; and to its six areas of discussion—historiog- raphy, Pentateuch, poets, prophets, textual criticism, and Biblical theol- ogy—the divisions of the present volume correspond. The key position- papers that were there presented constitute, with minor editing, the chapters that follow. As coordinator of the program for the meeting, I would express my special appreciation to the two other members of the planning com- mittee, professors R. Laird Harris and Walter C. Kaiser, whose labors ex- tend back to 1966 and brought to fruition these New Perspectives on the viiviii, PREFACE Old Testament; to all the contributing scholars, for sharing the results of their respective research; and as coordinator of publication for the book that has resulted, to Floyd W. Thatcher, senior editor of Word Books, Inc. whose cheerful cooperation has made possible this volume, #3 in the Symposium Series of the Evangelical Theological Society. J. BARTON PAYNE, Wheaton, Ill. March 1970ABBREVIATIONS Books of the Bible Gen. Ex. Lev. Num. Deut. Josh. Jud. Ruth 1 Sam. Sam. kgs. Eee. Obad. = Mt. Phil. I Pet. I Kgs. Song Jonah = Mk. Col. 1 Pet. 1Chr. Isa. Mic. Lk. 1 Thess. I Jn. UChr. Jer. Nah. Jn. U Thess, II Jn. Ex. Lam. Hab. ‘Acts 1Tim, 1 Jn. Neh. Ezk. Zeph. ‘Rom. UTim. Jude Est. Dan. Hag. IGor, Tit. Rev. Job Hos. Zech. WCor. Phm. Ps. Joel Mal. Gal. Heb. Prov. ‘Amos Eph. Jas. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha IEsd. (I Esdras) Eccl. (Ecclesiasticus or Sus. (Susanna) Il Esd. (II Esdras) Ben Sirach) Bel (Bel and the Tob. (Tobit) Bar. (Baruch, with the Dragon) Judith Epistle of Jeremiah) Pr. of Man (Prayer of ‘Add Est. (Rest of Es Song of Three (Song of Manasses) ther) Three Holy Chil 1 Mace. (1 Maccabees) Wisd. (Wisdom of Sol- dren) IL Macc. (II Macca- omon) bees) Bk. Jub. (Book of Jue bilees) Periodicals, reference works, dictionaries, versions AASOR ANET ASV BA BASOR BDB BETS BJRL cBQ DOTT EQ GIT HTR HUCA 1B Annual, American Schools of Oriental Research Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. James Pritchard (Princeton: Prince- ton University Press, 1950) American Standard Version of the Bible Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin, American Schools of Oriental Research Hebrew—English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Francis Brown, Driver, Briggs (New York: Oxford University Press) Bulletin, Evangelical Theological Society Bulletin, John Rylands Library Catholic Biblical Quarterly Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961) Evangelical Quarterly Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick, 12 vols. (New York: Ab- ingdon)x Icc IDB Interp JAos JBL jes JIS JNES JQR Jss KB KD KV Xx MT PTR RB RSV RV TB TWNT vr vis wij ZAW Others AD. 2G ca. cen. cf. ch. Com. eg et al. fs IE fem. ABBREVIATIONS International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George A Buttrick, 4 vols. (New York: Abingdon, 1962) Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review ‘Journal of Semitic Studies Kohler, Baumgartner, Lexicon in VT Carl F. Keil, Franz Delitzsch, Commentaries on the Old Testament, 25 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans) King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible Septuagint Masoretic Text Princeton Theological Review Revue Biblique Revised Standard Version of the Bible English Revised Version of the Bible Tyndale Bulletin Theologisches Warlerbuch zum Neuen Testaments, ed. Kittel Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplement Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft anno domini Gr. Greek before Christ Heb. Hebrew circa, about ie. that is century masc. masculine compare mg. margin chapter MS, MSS_— manuscript, manuscripts Commentary nnn note, notes for example P» pp- page, pages and others pl. plural following sing. singular feminine Vo W. verse, versesI, HISTORIOGRAPHY ae e= ANCIENT ORIENT, “DEUTERONISM,” AND THE OLD TESTAMENT Kenneth A. Kitchen The present paper plays the role of a provisional sketch of one limited segment (“Deuteronism”) from a large topic (ancient Oriental and Old Testament historiography) only partly explored, and worthy of extended study. Here, the term “historiography” will be used in a broad sense to cover the whole gamut of literary and allied forms utilized by the peoples of the ancient Near East to express or allude to historical events, and not solely and narrowly (or “properly”) of narratives exclusively historical in their purpose, as might be true in modern times. It is not proposed here to survey all the different kinds of such written sources so richly afforded us by the Biblical world. Suffice it to refer the reader in passing to such cross-sections of ancient Oriental sources as are offered by Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, to more extensive series of texts such as the Ancient Records of Breasted for Egypt and Lucken- bill for Assyria, and to essays and notices on historical data in symposia,” articles? and books.’ Our purpose is to note the relevance of some phe- nomena from the Biblical world for consideration of just one aspect of Hebrew history and Old Testament studies, with essential, but not full- est, documentation—the aspect of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomist (s) and “Deuteronism.” I. Introductory In recent decades, discussion of the roles of the book of Deuteronomy and of possible Deuteronomic historian (s) has received a marked im- petus from Noth’s Uberlicferungsgeschichtliche Studien of 1943. (re- printed in 1957). In line with other Old Testament scholars of earlier years, Noth considered the books of Joshua-Kings to be “Deuteronomic” histories, in the sense that their authors or organizing editor (s) had given 12 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT to the story of Israel an interpretation tied to the religious concepts pres- ent in the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Noth, pp. 3-4) . Noth, however, took the matter some steps further. First, he took Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings to be not four separate works, but rather four parts of what had been one great historical work, the “Deu- teronomic history,” spanning the Hebrew story from the entry into Pal- estine down to the fall of Jerusalem and incidents in the Babylonian exile (cf, e.g, Noth, pp. 10-11). Secondly, Noth considered that this great “Deuteronomic work” began its story not as late as Joshua 1 (be- cause of retrospective references to Moses and the “law”) , not as far back as Genesis-Numbers, but with the book of Deuteronomy (noting its narra- tive elements), whose historical introduction (ch. 1-8) would preface not simply the “Deuteronomic laws” but the entire great historical work as postulated (cf. Noth, pp. 12-14, 87-90). Thus, in practice, he distin- guished almost a “Tetrateuch” (Gen—Num.) ,* plus a Deuteronomic his- torical work from Deuteronomy 1 (excluding 31-34) to I Kings 25. ‘While some scholars have preferred to follow more traditional paths in their literary criticism of a full-sized Pentateuch,’ Noth’s view has found various responsive echoes in the last twenty-five years. But this general reconstruction deserves scrutiny; and so do the sup- posed marks of the Deuteronomist and his theology, widely accepted also by various scholars who may not accept Noth’s larger and bolder scheme. The scrutiny offered here is of necessity specifically a limited, provisional, even fragmentary one; a full-scale account of such major questions would have to be on a larger scale. Limited though this essay may be, it will at least seek to utilize the extant (as opposed to reconstructed) Biblical data—which is all that we actually have—and also to employ the direct ancient Oriental context of the Biblical world itself, a vital factor by no means sufficiently taken into account in Old Testament studies, even today. . In dealing with larger units, nowhere is this clearer than in the ques- tion of the date and nature of the book of Deuteronomy. Conventional literary criticism for the most part’ still ties Deuteronomy in one form or another to the reform of Josiah in 622 x.c., not merely as the stimulus but also as the key date shortly before which the book was produced, and at earliest sometime within the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, or Josiah.* Furthermore, Deuteronomy is even then subjected to schemes of partition, implying incorporation of wholly different sources (eg., attribution of ch, 31-84 to “J-E”), and from varying and later dates “secondary” addi- tions) .° Thus, Deuteronomy is considered on these views to have been originated in the later eighth or the seventh century B.c. (using older, traditional matter) , and to have been crucial for Josiah’s reform, before (on Noth’s view) being used or adapted as preamble or first part of a larger historical opus, either of ca. 550 B.c., or of ca, 620-587 B.c., sup-Krrcuen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 3 plemented in the exile (Bright) . It then received later additions and was Jater removed and incorporated with Genesis-Numbers in the Penta- teuch. All this speculation is, however, plausible enough only as long as the ancient Near Eastern cultural context of the Hebrews is firmly excluded and the Biblical data are treated in an unreal vacuum. When one com- pares Deuteronomy itself and the supposed distinguishing marks of the “Deuteronomic historian (s)” with external data, it is not only desirable but seems very necessary to offer an entirely different view from that conventional-critical view sketched in the preceding paragraph. II. Deuteronomy as Renewal of the Sinai Covenant in Moab One of the most remarkable contributions to Old Testament studies by Near Eastern sources in the last two decades has been in the field of the covenant, beginning with Mendenhall’s study of 1954, comparing the covenant-features of Exodus 20 ff. and Joshua 24 with Near Eastern treaties and covenants of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries 3.c.;° and noting the significant differences between these covenants (both Bib- lical and Near Eastern) and the later treaties of the first millennium s.c. Mendenhall and others have, however, shown notably less inclination to apply this valuable background data to the covenant in Deuteronomy. Comprehensively, this has only been done by Kline™ and the present writer,” with a study of phraseology, etc., done by several others. When this is done overall, then there can be no serious doubt (on present evi- dence) that the greater bulk of Deuteronomy coincides very closely in- deed with the fourteenth. and thirteenth-century treaties, even more strikingly than do Exodus and Joshua. The essential difference in lit- erary nature is that the Near Eastern documents are formal legal docu- ments of the covenants concerned, whereas Deuteronomy is cast as the report of an actual ceremony of renewing a covenant in acts and speech. The fourteenth- and thirteenth-century documents include six main aspects in written form (1-6), and these could be accompanied by two or three enacted aspects (7-9) .* We find: Written Enacted 1. Preamble 7/8. Oath & Solemn ceremony 2. Historical prologue (9. Formal procedure against 3. Stipulations: a) basic covenant-breakers) b) detailed 4. a) Deposition of text in sanc- tuary b) Periodic public reading . Witnesses . a/b Curses and Blessings aex New Perspectives ON THE Otp TEsTAMENT The text of Deuteronomy yields the following picture: Written Enacted 1. Preamble (1:1-5) (7) /8. (Oath &) Solemn cere- 2. Historical Prologue (1:6 to mony (27) 3:29) with attached exhorta- (9. Formal procedure: rib; tion (4:1-40, 44-49) * grows from Deut. 82) 8. Stipulations: a) basic (5-11) b) detailed (12- 26) 4. a) Deposition (31:9, 24-29) b) Reading (81:10-13) . Witnesses (Song of Moses, for people, 31:14-23, 80 (back- ground), 82:1-47 (text, etc.) the book itself, for Levites, 31:26) a/b Blessings and Curses"* (28:1-14, blessings; 28:15~64, curses,” with summarizing ex- hortation attached (29-30) ot 6. The present writer cannot see any legitimate way of escape from the crystal-clear evidence of the correspondence of Deuteronomy with the remarkably stable treaty or covenant form of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries B.c. Two points follow here. First, the basic structure of Deuter- onomy and much of the content that gives specific character to that struc- ture must constitute a recognizable literary entity; second, this is a literary entity not of the eighth or seventh century 8.c. but rather from ca. 1200 z.c. at latest.** Those who so choose may wish to claim that this or that individual “law” or concept appears to be of later date than the late thir- teenth century 3.c.; but it is no longer methodologically permissible gaily to remove essential features of the covenant-form on a mere preconception (especially if of nineteenth-century [a.p.] vintage) of what is merely thought—not proven—to be “late.” This situation brings with it a variety of consequences, which find their echo not in almost abstract theory but in the known phenomena of the Biblical world. Some affect the large-scale interpretation of Hebrew his- tory, and others the details of critical study. III. Some Incidental Details Before an evaluation of the large-scale picture, one or two details may usefully be considered. Thus, in the study of Deuteronomy, much has been made of the variations in address between singular (‘‘thou”) andKrronen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 5 plural (“ye”). But the variation between singular and plural in a covenant-address is not restricted to Deuteronomy: variation in number and person is securely attested in the ancient Near Eastern treaties of the first and second millennia x.c., in which documents its significance for literary prehistory is nil As a criterion for literary analysis of Deu- teronomy, it must therefore be definitively abandoned as worthless. Nor is it the sole such item; a variety of other “criteria” must be discarded with firmness as equally worthless, seeing that the phenomena concerned recur in various Near Eastern treaty-documents wherein the kind of conclusions so beloved of Alttestamentler just do not work.* Noth described Deuteronomy 27:1-8 as “one of the most secondary ele- ments” in the framework of the book.”* Yet it fits perfectly well into at- tested covenant-form and usage as an equivalent of aspect 8, solemn cere- mony; the categorization as “secondary” rests on no controllable evidence, and hence should be discarded as unsubstantiated speculation. Similarly, the attempt to remove chapters 1-3 (or, 1-4) from its role as historical introduction to Deuteronomy (so Noth, loc. cit., among others) must also itself be ruthlessly pruned away: this very section is the indispensable preamble (1:1-5) and historical prologue (1:6 to 3:29, plus dependent exhortation in 4) of a late-second-millennium B.c. treaty of covenant, as the combined evidence of some two dozen Near Eastern examples clearly illustrates. Again, Deuteronomy 5 is not to be taken as “secondarily pref- aced” (Noth, p. 17) to what follows. In this covenant-renewal, it connects with the earlier Sinaitic covenant-enactment and is the most basic part of the section of “basic stipulations” (chapters 5-11), which in Deu- teronomy is so largely concerned to hammer home the fundamental rela- tionship between Israel and its divine Sovereign (illustrated from their past experiences) , before turning to detailed applications (12-26) 2° IV. The Concept of Exile One particular and major methodological error that insistently recurs in Old Testament studies is the assumption that any and every reference to destruction and loss of homeland with deportation to an alien land must automatically be designated a reference to the Babylonian exile (or at most, to the Assyrian deportations of ca. 734, 722 8.c.) and therefore must have been first penned in or after that particular exile. This erro- neous assumption is commonly applied to such passages as Deuteronomy 28 (verses 36, 63 ff., among curses) , I Kings 8:46 ff., 9:7 (Solomon's prayer and divine response) , and 14:15 (against Jeroboam I) . Therefore, it will be in order to reiterate here” that the concept and practice of exile was always a potential threat to the Hebrews and other politically “small” groups for most of the second and first millennia B.c., and also to out- line some of the background evidence for this observation.6 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Thus, already as early as the first half of the second millennium B.c. (the patriarchal age), one finds evidence of deportation and resettle- ment* in the Mari archives, ca. 1800 B.c. One official writes to lasmakh- Adad, Assyrian prince of Mari, of 1080 men designated (?) by their sov- ereign as a gift for the palaces in Kabat by the Euphrates.” In a damaged letter, the prince of Mari announces the capture of the town of Bakram, and the deportation of its people and dependents to Mari. A later king of Mari, Zimri-lim, refers to deportation (s) in damaged contexts men- tioning 30,000 men (troops ?).™ Further letters mention deportees em- ployed on fields of the palace of Mari,*? land assigned to such people,® a census of deportees,"* and moving some who originated in Rapiqum." In the sixteenth century 3.c., the Hittite king Hattusil I in his Annals tablet mentions removing and “freeing” the servile population of two towns, and taking them off to his own land for resettlement to the benefit of the temple of the sun-goddess of Arinna.* In the fifteenth century, Tuthmosis III of Egypt on the first of sixteen campaigns in Syria brought home 2,508 prisoners, some 25,000 animals and much plunder (ANET, p. 287b). His successor, Amenophis II, is credited with transplanting over 100,000 assorted Syrians to Egypt from two campaigns (ibid., p. 247 and n. 48). A small stela of the next king, Tuthmosis IV, refers to 2 Theban foundation as “the settlement (so-and- so) with Syrians . . . (of) the town of Gezer” (ibid., p. 248a) . In the late fourteenth century B.c., the annals of the Hittite king Mursil II offer several such allusions to transferring whole population-groups as a result of military conquest. One may note in passing 15,500 people of Arzawa assigned to the Hittite royal palace alone, those taken by the king’s army being “innumerable,” in Mursil’s third year;® a similar num- ber (15,x00) thence in his fourth year;® and a grand. total of 66,000 in his fifth year. Several thousand more are recorded for a much later year,* and small numbers in other years. In the thirteenth century 3.c.—the latest for the pattern of Deuteron- omy—we find Egyptian texts at Abu Simbel describing Ramesses II as “he who has removed Nubia to the Northland, and the Syrians to Nubia; who has placed the Shasu-Asiatics in the Westland (= Libya), and established the Libyans on the (E.) hills. . .”—i.e., the concept of transfer of peo- ples from S. to N., N. to S., E. to W., W. to E. After ca. 1200 s.c., Ramesses IMI similarly brought Libyans over the Nile from his wars there; and such settlements of Asiatics and Libyans are attested in Ramesside Egypt from ca. 1800 down to ca. 1150 B.c. (Ramesses II to VI) and beyond? In Western Asia in the thirteenth century, the same practices occur: Shalmaneser I of Assyria then carried off the youths of Urartu for serv- ice in Assyria, and 14,400 prisoners from Hanigalbat.“ His successor Tukulti-Ninurta I claimed to have brought away 28,800 Hittite warriors as captives.Krrcnen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 7 Thereafter, ca. 1100 8.c., Tiglath-pileser I took 4,000 men from Urumai and Abeshlai in his first year, and 20,000 men from Kumani in his fifth. In 879 B.c., Assur-nasir-pal II peopled Calah with captives from all lands that he had subdued,*’ and his son Shalmaneser III during some ten years’ campaigning carried off some 44,400 people into Assyria.® And so on, for the rest of Assyrian and Babylonian history. The Israelite de- portations of ca. 734, 722 n.c., and Judean ones in 597, 586/7 B.c., etc., are merely a few more in a very long series in the ancient Near East—a perspective so easily overlooked. In short, the concept and practice of “exile” need not wait till the eighth to the sixth centuries B.c. to appear in Hebrew literature—it is as old as the patriarchs, and can have been no mystery to a Moses, a Solomon, or a Jeroboam I, any more than to their ancestors, descendants and their contemporaries in the Levant. The concept of being removed from one’s land, not to return, is already reflected directly in the Hittite treaties of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.c.,° as well as in the Assyrian treaties of the eighth and seventh centuries®—a curse- tradition lasting in treaties or covenants for at least 800 years, and hence acceptable as a concept in Deuteronomy from before Moses, let alone Josiah. Therefore, the concept of exile cannot be used to date passages in Deuteronomy, etc., to times in or after the Assyrian and Neo- Babylonian captivities of the Hebrews. V. Continuity of Tradition ‘While much can yet be done to reexamine in detail the antiquity and integrity of the contents and structure of Deuteronomy, showing that a thirteenth-twelfth-century date need yield nothing on strictest academic grounds to an eighth-seventh-century date, such a survey would go far beyond the bounds and central concerns of this limited paper, and must be relegated to some more ample occasion. Instead, it is for the present more desirable to return from individual topics and details, and look ahead to the question of how a late-thirteenth-century book of Deuter- onomy would affect (i) large-scale interpretation of Hebrew history, and (ii) what one may call “Deuteronism” in Hebrew writing and re- ligion, and thus also to the question of the modern use of the term “Deu- teronomic” in relation to Hebrew history, literature and religion—all firmly in the context of the Biblical world. IE the essential book of Deuteronomy on objective form-critical grounds" is a report of covenant-renewal to be dated to ca. 1200 B.c. at latest, then some Old Testament scholars might well feel that this implies a long stretch of time—almost 600 years—before its celebrated impact on the reign of Josiah. One might, therefore, be tempted to raise two questions. First, is such a long continuity of distinctive con-8 NeW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT cepts (ca. 600 years) a fitting and compatible thing in the Old Testa- ment world; and secondly, is there, then, really nothing Deuteronomic between Joshua and Josiah? A. Continuity A continuity of concept (especially in religion) of 600 years’ duration is, in fact, nothing very remarkable in the Biblical Near East. Some ex- amples may help to make this clear. Thus, in Egypt, one may point to the literary tradition of the tri- umphal speech of the god Amun of Thebes to the victorious pharaoh, current on triumphal stelae and reliefs in the New Kingdom.” The characteristic literary elements of the speech are first attested in the poetical stelae of Tuthmosis III (Karnak, ca. 1470 p.c.) and Amenophis TIL (W. Thebes, ca. 1400 n.c.). The most characteristic parts of these were combined in the speech of Amun in triumph-scenes of Sethos I (ca. 1310 B.c.), Ramesses IL (ca. 1304/1290 v.c., ff.) and later kings, and recur as late as Shoshenq I (ca. 945-924 b.c.), the Biblical Shishak. The entire tradition, therefore, is attested for nearly 600 years (ca. 1470 to ca. 925 u.c.), with one significant adaptation after the first 150 years. Fur- thermore, one may note “gaps” in the tradition, for periods when we have no examples, of this literary entity that nevertheless continued to exist or was re (dis) coverable. More striking than the sixty years or so from Amenophis III to Sethos I is the much longer interval from Ramesses VI (ca. 1150 3.c.) last New Kingdom example—to Shishak (ca. 925) , a “gap”-period of 200 years spanned by late Dynasty XX and all of Dynasty XXI, for which no examples are so far known. Moreover, the iconography of the triumph-scenes—graphic witness for an important segment of “pharaonic theology’—to which the above- discussed literary form was attached by the Ramessides—shows itself a sweeping continuity of usage and tradition that entirely dwarfs that of the form just referred to, or of almost anything Biblical. The traditional scene of the pharaoh smiting his foe (s) already appears full-blown at the beginning of Egyptian history, ca. 3000 w.c.,* and it continues throughout Egyptian history down to the temples of the Graeco-Roman epoch, to the turn of the Christian era and beyond it, appearing also on the tomb-chapels of the rulers of Meroe on into the Christian era. In other words, we here have an ideological and iconographic conti- nuity of tradition that lasted for well over 3,000 years. Examples can be multiplied indefinitely. Suffice it to allude to the Hymn to the Uraeus (Serpent) Goddess, under Ramesses I, known 1,000 years later under the Ptolemies,™ and to the festival-text of the god Sokar which is attested with minimal changes for at least 800 years (between ca. 1200 and ca. $00 3.c.) & Or to the do ut des concept of exchange of benefits between the king and the gods in innumerable temple-scenes—explicitly attested asKrtcuen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 9 early as the IlIrd Dynasty (ca. 2600 s.c.) * and still the underlying and essentially unchanged principle with the Graeco-Roman temples up to the second Christian century; again, a vast continuity (as least 2,800 years) . Furthermore, it must be stressed that the wealth of material from Egypt is not unique in this regard. One may turn to the shorter-lived civilization of the Hittites, for example, and see the same thing. One may instance the tradition of Hittite kings extending their frontiers “to the sea” (Mediterranean) and penetrating Syria. This began with La- barnas I (ca. 17th cen. .c.), was imitated in practice by Hattusil I and Mursil I (later part of 16th cen.), and is a visible theme in the Decree of Telipinus. These themes entered Hittite literature in stories in pic- turesque language,” stories of sieges and personalities in Syria," and even in an ancient prayer on behalf of the monarch, that the seas (Medi- terranean and Black) may be his borders on either side (i.c., N. and S.) of the realm.® Such texts and traditions continued down to our extant copies which date to the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.c., and helped to induce later Hittite kings such as Suppiluliuma I to emulate their distant predecessors. The force of Hittite religious tradition was such that Hattusil III (ca, 1260 n.c.) restored the worship of the Storm- god of Nerik when he recaptured that place, after centuries™ of neglect that had elapsed since its capture by the Kaskeans in the days of Han- tilis 1. Mesopotamia, too, would yield ample evidence of continuity of tradi- tion in religion, literature, and many other spheres of life, rivaling Egypt and surpassing the Hittites, but a passing allusion or so must suffice here. The first great age of endeavor was that of the Sumerians, in the third to early second millennium 3.c.,% while the Semitic contribution prob- ably reached its first peak in the Dynasty of Agade (ca. 2400-2200 z.c.), and its maturity in the second millennium, thereafter showing an im- pressive continuity of literary, religious, and scholarly matter for the rest of the duration of Mesopotamian civilization, from before 1000 B.c. to the Persian age at least; again, we are dealing with centuries and mil- lennia, not merely a few generations. B. A Supposed Gap Furthermore, in all these cultures, there can occur not only centuries- long (even millennially long) streams of consistent tradition, but also great gaps in our documentation across which these traditions evidently survived, even though the means are not visible to our eyes at present. In this context, there is nothing unwarranted in having among the He- brews a Deuteronomy ca. 1200 3.c., and six centuries elapsing until Josiah’s reform, either on grounds of length of time, or on the apparent gap between the one and the other.10 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT But that supposed gap will bear further scrutiny. Is (or was) there a real non-Deuteronomic gulf of 600 years, if one sets Deuteronomy in ca. 1200, long before Josiah’s reform? One may doubt it; and at this point, one finds oneself beset by gnawing doubts about certain habitual procedures in Old Testament studies. First, let us consider the concept that Joshua-II Kings” was originally a single great work, either written ca. 550 B.c. (cf. Noth), or ca. 600 B.c. (cf. Bright) and then supplemented. This large entity is theoretically possible—it could conceivably be correct—but it must, physically, yet remain an unproven conjecture. Thus, one notes that Joshua has no overall framework of headings or the like, whereas much of Judges has (the Hebrews’ sins, cry for help, deliverance). Samuel, again, has no patently overarching scheme, while most of Kings does exhibit defi- nite formulae for opening and closing reigns. It may be objected that the subject-matter in each case is more, or less, amenable to arrangement under explicit forms; but Joshua and Samuel could have been given a framework, while Judges and Kings need not have had such regular formulae as they in fact do. At the same time what may look like a good reason for assuming con- tinuity between books is not needfully so on examination. Thus, Judges 1:1 appears to follow Joshua 24:29 ff. simply enough—yet not every- thing in Judges 1-2 is necessarily post-Joshua.” Judges 1 is rather, per- haps, an introductory panorama of tribal endeavor before and after Joshua’s death, followed by the so-called Deuteronomic interpretation of Israel's oscillating relationship with God and status in the land, from which the rest of the book flows by way of concrete exemplification in history. One concludes, then, that one factor apart, there is no reason why the book of Joshua should not be dated as an entity at any time from shortly after the death of Joshua down to the early monarchy.” The one factor otherwise is that of the supposed Deuteronomic editing which would ostensibly set the present main presentation of this book some- time shortly before ca. 622 8.c. But this depends (a) upon acceptance of conventional documentary analysis, now known to be invalid,” and (0) upon the thesis that a Deuteronomic work could not be written (nor such sentiments be conceived or expressed) before the late seventh cen- tury B.c. With Deuteronomy at ca. 1200 B.c., of course, this second thesis can be dismissed as needless. The book of Joshua would illustrate the happy consequences of obedience to the Deuteronomic (and Sinaitic) covenant—regardless of whether penned decades or centuries after Joshua's death. Turning to Judges-Samuel, one finds that the sequence of judges in the former ends with Samson in Judges 16, which (the presence of Phi- listines apart) has no direct link with the episodes of Eli and SamuelKrrcuen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” u in I Samuel | ff., and in fact is separated from the latter by the interposed stories of Judges 17-21. Thus, the much more schematic and well-ordered book of Judges’ forms a clear entity between Joshua and Samuel. Its date, inherently, may fall within broad limits, but not before very late in the judges’ period at the earliest. One also notes the repeated men- tion in chapters 17-21 on what happened when there was no king in Israel, with (twice) people doing right in their own eyes (i.e, what they pleased, without restraint on evil). This factor could indicate com- position during the early monarchy, a time still full of promise after David's accession to overall power. Again, the only real reason for favor- ing a later date is the unproven assumption that the Deuteronomic formulation represents a late editing of the stories (as with Joshua) ; but, again, with an early Deuteronomy, the early monarchy appears quite late enough (200 years after) for any such process. Indeed, it is easier to assume one deliberate composition at this period, using extant traditions, rather than successive conflations of multiple strands cen- turies later. Finally one comes to Samuel and Kings. Here again, it has become fashionable to speak of a “Succession Narrative,” linking straight across from II Samuel into I Kings 1-2." It is fairly generally assumed that the original narrative"—a court history of David, showing how the throne passed to Solomon—must have been split up by the editors of our exist- ing Samuel and Kings, with insertion of II Samuel 21-24. While such a narrative may conceivably have once existed, yet this whole picture is merely a modern assumption’* and pays little heed to the question of why the chapters of II Samuel 21-24 have been placed where they now are or why the assumed “court history” should eventually have been divided between two books (Sam., Kgs.). In fact, these four chapters seem simply to be a “tidying-up,” pulling-in the final strands of the his- tory and reign of David, before ending the book. On the other hand, the author or editor of Kings seems to have used the last days and death of David simply as a means of suitably beginning the reign of Solomon —particularly as Solomon was proclaimed king (hence, was briefly a co-rregent) before David's death (I Kgs. 1:43-47, 53, cf. 2:1, etc). It would, therefore, be difficult to begin Solomon's reign without appro- priate reference to the aging David, up to the latter’s death. That both Samuel and Kings may have been using the same source-material for what we find in II Samuel and I Kings 1-2 is probable enough; but this does not prove that Samuel and Kings are part of one book, nor can we be sure that modern conjectural definitions, such as a court history of David, correspond to reality. The book of I-II Samuel may well ful- fil, ultimately, a dynastic role for the young Solomon, as suggested by ‘Whypbray” and others. Furthermore, the whole entity would well illus- trate first the failure of the old usage of “judges,” and then of Saul’s12 New PERspEcTIVEs ON THE OLD TESTAMENT erratic kingship, before proceeding to document the far more effective role of David as God’s chosen ruler (imperfections and all) . Hence, to conclude this consideration of Joshua-Kings, we may grant that Noth’s unitary thesis is a possible one; but it is nothing more than that. Instead, one can suggest that Joshua is a work illustrating the for- tunate consequences of obedience to the covenant, composed (perhaps) in the early judges’ period to encourage Israel to maintain such obedi- ence. Its opening chapter would thus deliberately reecho the covenant charges of Moses in Deuteronomy.” Long thereafter, in the early mon- archy, the book of Judges (ca. 1000 8.c.) would have painted the evils of the intervening period of frequent disobedience and in its closing narratives have hinted at the kingship as a means of focusing obedi- ence to God’s covenant (instead of a man’s doing what was right in his own eyes). Then, early in Solomon’s reign, ca. 970/960 x.c., the failure of previous regimes, the glory of David and legitimacy of his son and successor—on the same underlying basis of faithfulness—was gathered into the pages of the present books of Samuel, originally one. Finally, in the long history of the “divided monarchy,” several kings (e.g., Asa, Jehoshaphat) sought to heed in some measure these considerations of orthodox tradition; Hezekiah attempted a reform in this light; and, after the years of reaction of Manasseh, Josiah’s reform gained impetus from the rediscovery of Deuteronomy or a related document. The issues involved (fundamentally, faithful response to Israel’s God and none other) found their contemporary echoes in the prophets (not least Jere- miah) and were then summed up with the lessons drawn out in the book of I-II Kings compiled or completed in the Babylonian exile (by ca, 550 n.c.), with a final ray of hope falling upon Jehoiachin. Second, it is habitual procedure in Old Testament studies, whenever certain attitudes or topics crop up in speeches or narratives of events— coinciding with supposedly “Deuteronomic” views—to consider these occurrences spurious to the characters and situations concerned and as largely embellished, or even invented, by the Deuteronomist (s), as though it were inconceivable that such things could be thought, said, or done before the environs of 622 8.c. A classic example ca. 964 B.c.— about halfway between Deuteronomy (ca. 1200) and Josiah (622) —is the dedication of the Jerusalem temple by Solomon, where (I Kgs. 8, esp. verses 15-21, 23-53, etc.) much of his speech (esp. in its present form) is widely referred to Deuteronomic efforts in the seventh to the sixth centuries n.c. But, again, this is simply begging the question. There is no material proof of any kind that such sentiments and language must be seventh century or later, no proof that it is not of the tenth century B.c., by a speaker deliberately conscious of what is religiously “right” (in his particular cultural context), and influenced by a basic covenant-Krrene: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 13 document of ca. 1200 u.c, For Solomon in his dedication so to pay heed is no more remarkable than is the corresponding concern for religious propriety in the dedications of other temples by other Near Eastern kings all over the Biblical world, at all periods of its history (cf. Section VII, below) . It is all too easy to assert there is no evidence for “Deuteronomic” attitudes between ca. 1200 and 622 s.c., if one has first relegated all such evidence to 622 and later on a priori grounds; but such a proceeding is too far-reaching to be so based, instead of being rooted in controllable facts. VI. A Cultural Profile in Depth One may, however, suggest that we have in the Biblical record not merely a general continuity of religious tradition extending through the centuries such as is also found elsewhere in the Biblical world. One may, with due care, go further and begin to see a historical profile of Hebrew history® within its context, giving us a far greater perspective than is possible on the “conventional” treatments of Hebrew history and reli- gion, with their heavily foreshortened views. A, A Formative Period Thus, one may speak of a formative period, in the Hebrews’ case from before the classical patriarchs through the sojourn to the Exodus. Be- fore Terah (Gen. 11:24-82) and Abraham (Gen. 11:27 onwards), we know nothing of the immediately preceding Hebrew prehistory or “proto- history” except for a genealogy of names (Gen. 11:10-25) , some of which are reminiscent of North-Mesopotamian placenames. On the other hand, the extensive narratives (Gen. 12-50) about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons show us a series of people with definite ways of life, religious beliefs and practices and social norms; and these characteristics are di- rectly comparable with those obtaining in the Near East (especially in Mesopotamia whence the patriarchs came) in the first half of the second millennium 8.c. They are not fully identical with what can be seen from the age of the Exodus and of the Sinai/Moab covenant—these latter be- tray a fundamental continuity, but also changes in details of customs or emphases. They also possess a fuller range of description in our surviving traditions. During the Egyptian sojourn, in the centuries hidden from us between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1-2, there would be no lack of con- tact between Hebrews and other Semites in Northeast Egypt, and be- tween Semites in Egypt and in Canaan itself." As for the Hebrews in Egypt, a whole realm of continuity and development is here hidden from us, simply through lack of explicit information.4 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT B. A Crystallizing of Forms Then, when the Hebrews left Egypt for Sinai, an event which cul- minated in the Covenant made there, one comes to a crystallizing of cultural forms and norms (already long-evolved) that in large measure was fundamental and normative for future ages. Here, in the accepted forms of the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries B.c.,* a covenant was made between a people and its Great Sovereign, in this case its God—a divine sovereign—with all the appropriate features: prologue to show forth the grace of the sovereign’s initiative, and stipulations (basic and detailed) by which the fitting response of a people’s obedience might be defined and regulated; arrangements for retention and reading of the covenant- document, witnesses to the act, and blessings and curses for encourage- ment and sanctions, etc. This particular covenant, however, was not merely another political treaty like many of its contemporaries. Its provisions centered not on payment of tribute and military service, but on the right conduct of the life of a whole people—conduct rooted in exclusive loyalty to, and worship of, one single, invisible and all-powerful God. This conduct was to be marked not only by appropriate arrangements for His cult (tabernacle, offerings, feasts), but also by relatively high moral and ethical standards, finding expression in specific laws and customs (often retained or adapted from traditional Near Eastern usage) reflecting social justice and requiring that the relationships of man and man should be on the same high basis as those of God and man. C. A Basic Tradition This covenant finds expression in Exodus-Leviticus and, after a forty- year interval, renewal in Deuteronomy. Thereafter, it was the basis— sometimes more or less observed,* sometimes more or less neglected*“— of Hebrew social and spiritual life. Much else grew up during Hebrew history in both those spheres, but largely around this nucleus. It served to crystallize attitudes toward deity and the various social norms, and so left a characteristic impress on Hebrew culture ever after. In other words, the Leitgedanke of the fundamental covenant henceforth influ- enced in varying degree those who thought or spoke or wrote in Israel, early or late. From Joshua and the judges right down to the Babylonian exile and beyond, we thus have a basic religious viewpoint and cultural tradition visible throughout the tapestry of ongoing history in all the undulations of its varying pattern. It is, therefore, no surprise to find a Joshua reechoing Deuteronomic language, and so subsequently a Solo- mon at his temple-dedication—other Near Easterners had their reechoes of concepts and literature in just this way—and no surprise to find the prophets recalling Israel to their covenant (even with heaven and earthKrrcuen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 15 to witness), or directly to that faithfulness to their God as required by the covenant even when unmentioned by them. se Is such a depth of perspective unparalleled and anomalous? As hinted just above, not so, and certainly not so in the Biblical world itself. Suffice it to take but one example and merely to allude to others. In Egypt, one may see to advantage the phases of a formative age, crystalliza- tion of the characteristics of a culture, and its ongoing history with varia- tions and enrichment with the passing of time, built on basic viewpoints and attitudes. Emerging from prehistory, Egypt's formative age was the Ist and IInd Dynasties (ca. 3100-2700 B.c.), when the pharaonic institu- tions can be discerned taking their form, whether in the monarchy, in religion, in the configurations of officialdom, administration, in art and architecture and so forth. By the beginning of the “Pyramid Age” (Old Kingdom) with the IlIrd and IVth Dynasties (ca. 2700-2500 p.c.), we can witness the full and rich maturity of that civilization, the crystal- lization of its typical cultural forms and outlook. Thereafter, much that was new or variable in detail was still to come, but the basic view- point and attitudes were already established fully or in germ. What was added was on, or became in some way largely integrated with, this basis, until at last an inner loss of faith and the impact of strong, alien cultures (especially Hellenistic) speeded the dissolution of the old, traditional order of life. In Egypt's case, the overall unfolding was not from (say) just ca. 2000 to ca. 400 3.c. as with the Old Testament (patriarchs to the Persians) , but from ca. 3000 3.c. to 300 B.c., and in religion up to ca. A». 300! So, the span of time in Egypt's experience was more than a mil- Jennium longer that what we have in the Old Testament. In other cultures, similar unfolding can be seen, but the interplay of various peoples and cultural strains in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor leads to a less clear picture than in Egypt or with the Hebrews. Thus, in Asia Minor, while the earliest history of the Hittites is far from clear, yet they are a visible element of the population by the 20th century B.c., and from such early Hittite kings and federal chiefs as Pitkhanas and Anittas (ca. 19th cen. .c.) down to the emergence of the powerful early Hittite monarchs Labarnas and Hattusil I, one may suggest that we have the formative period of the Hittite kingdom, with basic crystallization of cultural tradition and concepts in the Old Kingdom from Labarnas to Mursil I (16th cen. 3.c.). Thereafter, through thick and thin, Hittite culture: largely maintained its basic traditions, while synthesizing with Luvian, Hattic, etc., elements, and adding new things with passing time until cut off disastrously, ca. 1200 p.c. To take but one small facet, the Deeds of Anittas give us the germ of later Hittite annalistic writing; the Deeds of Hattusil I and the Decree of Telipinus, its first flowering. In the Hittite Empire period (ca. 1400-1200), the much longer and fuller16 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Deeds and Annals of Suppiluliuma I, Mursil IJ, etc., represent the final and full-scale development of the genre, but add very little new in principle. Mesopotamia would deserve full consideration on its own merits, with thé rise and flowering of both Sumerian and Akkadian periods of culture, merging in Babylonian civilization. The two former had their initial developments before fusing together in a formative period down to the early second millennium s.c., and the latter crystallizing in the course of the second millennium 8.c., becoming thereafter the norm in Mesopo- tamia for the late second and most of the first millennium B.c. In Syria-Palestine (other than the Hebrews), the very mixed popula- tion and culture and the extremely uneven nature of our information —Ugaritic texts, Egyptian and other external allusions, late classical writers, etc—make it currently impossible even to sketch large-scale profiles with any safety whatever. Suffice it to remark on the evident millennial continuity in Canaanite religious culture, exemplified by comparisons between data from Ugarit and from late classical/post- dlassical writers, up to fifteen or more centuries apart. Thus, if the existing Biblical data and their configurations be taken seriously instead of being crushed into the procrustean bed of vestigial 19th-century assumptions, one regains a full-length perspective of the rise, crystallization, and ongoing stream of tradition in Hebrew histor for up to 1,600 years, from the patriarchs to the Persians. Such a view is comparable with general profiles in the Near East as a whole: in Egypt and Mesopotamia for over 3,000 years (more complex in the latter), and in Asia Minor for the Hittites during ca. 800 years (their predecessors hidden in prehistory; themselves, prematurely cut off ca. 1200 n.c. Compared with conventional views that limit the floruit of a deutero- nomic viewpoint to only 150 years—ca. 650-500 ».c.—the Biblical data give us a full time-depth perspective in place of a flattened out and distorted picture lacking all depth. VIL. “Deuteronism”—A Modern Myth? In Old Testament literary and theological studies and history writing, much has been made of the “Deuteronomic” school of theology, writers, and so on. The viewpoint adopted tends to be that this is one entirely distinct outlook within Hebrew religion alongside several others (priestly, prophetic, and so forth) , and that this outlook stems from Deuteronomy. In comparing Deuteronomic tenets with the rest of the Old Testament, however, and also with the wider Biblical world, one begins to wonder whether in fact the isolation of a specific Deuteronomic outlook is not somewhat overdrawn, not to say illusory, and whether the label Deutero- nomic should not be dropped altogether, as being too narrow.Krtcnen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 7 That there is ample comparison between supposedly Deuteronomic ideas and the rest of the Old Testament is something that can be checked by any Biblical student for himself at leisure, so brevity must rule here. Within the detailed laws of Deuteronomy itself, there is some community of matter with the so-called JE, H, and P matter. Theologically, the Chronicler is a keen Deuteronomist—or, rather, Deuteronomic views on obedience to the covenant-law and against pagan practice (inevitable with an effective monotheism) are common ground between Deuteron- omy, Kings etc. and Chronicles. Ezra, long after the Babylonian exile, is Deuteronomic enough to note fulfillment of prophecy (1:1)—and, surely, it is of the nature of prophecy that one should expect it to be ful- filled? In the Psalms, there is attention paid to obedience versus disobe- dience, to tribulation and deliverance (cf. Pss. 78, 81, 105—emphasis on covenant and obedience to it—106, and cf. 107 passim) . And in Proverbs some of the same underlying basic viewpoints are to be seen, albeit in different garb and with emphasis on social justice.’ The concern of the Hebrew prophets to recall their people to the path of faithfulness and away from paganism, etc., needs no more than mere allusion here. In fact, a careful reading of the Old Testament at large may simply indi- cate that much of what is attributed to the Deuteronomic viewpoint is but the common ground of Hebrew mainstream belief (orthodoxy if one will), with rather little that is absolutely distinctive. Hence, “cove- nantal” (or, “mainstream” rather than “orthodox"?) would be a fairer label than “Deuteronomic,” if label be needed. Not a little, however, of the realm of Deuteronomic concepts is com- mon property far beyond Israel. The Deuteronomic concept of obedience to God and to His word has its equivalents elsewhere in the Biblical world.” In Egypt, the norm is not a covenant but Ma‘at, a term covering truth, righteousness, justice, and the proper world-order. To this norm, gods, kings, and commoners must conform—a fact (and a Deuteronomic type of attitude) attested to satiety in Egypt for three millennia.” In Deuteronomy 17:19-20, obedience to God’s word is enjoined upon any king that the Hebrews may elect. With a truly “Deuteronomic” spirit, a dozen Egyptian pharaohs of all periods from the Middle Kingdom to the Late Period (twelve centuries) can be cited in one breath" as per- forming “in accordance with all that the majesty of the god has com- manded ...,” “... according to his command... ,” “I have not transgressed the command . . . assigned to me. . . ,” “I have not acted without him" (i.e. the god), “it is he who commanded me to act""—even, with a flourish of election and predestination (Sesostris I, ca. 1950 8.c.) , “he [the god] created me [the king] . . . to execute what he commanded to be done.” One may profitably return to the so-called Deuteronomic prayer of Solomon in I Kings 8. The concern with “sin and retribution” is by no18 NEw PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT means confined to Solomon among royalty, or to his supposed Deuter- onomic ghost-writer. With I Kings 8:46, “there is no man that sins not,” compare three centuries earlier (ca. 1800 5.c.) the confession by the Hit- tite king Mursil II in his plague-prayers (ANET, p. 395b, § 9): “it is only too true that man is sinful.” Did he, also, have a Deuteronomic ghost-writer? About 1,000 years earlier still (ca. 2200 n.c.), the pharaoh Merikaré’s father confesses how he sinned by violating ancient tombs, and has suffered retribution for his transgression (ANET, pp. 416a, line 70, and 4172/b, 120)» In the thirteenth century B.c., one may note such humble Egyptian Deuteronomists as the workmen Nebré’ and Nefer‘abet: “the servant ever does wrong, the Lord is ever merciful” (after deliver- ance of the former's son after punishment), and “when I committed transgression against the Peak [goddess], she punished me . . . she pur- sued him who transgressed against her. . . ; I called . . . she turned in mercy,”® with a sequence worthy of Judges. The famous prayer of Ramesses II to Amun of Thebes in the Battle of Qadesh shows at least two aspects of Deuteronomic interest. Noth characterizes the concept of prayer towards the Jerusalem temple (I Kgs. 8:29, 30, 42, 44) as “Kibla,” citing only late parallels.” But already, in the thick of the Battle of Qadesh, Ramesses II (13th cen.) prays “at the end of the foreign lands, and my voice re-echoes in Thebes” (Poem 120 ff.) . And for obedience to his god, he is a Deuteronomist to equal his contemporary Moses and hardly to be bettered: “Have I done any con- cern without thee? Did I not walk and halt at a word of thine? I have not disobeyed a matter that thou didst command” (Poem, 95, etc.). “What will men say, if (ever) a little thing befall him who bends himself to thy will? Do good to him who counts on thee, then will one act for thee with a loving heart” (Poem, 108-110) . “O Amun, I have not overstepped thy will” (Poem, 120 &). Thereafter, the fulfillment of the prayer by Amun is recounted with as much gusto as any Deuteronomist did over the fulfill- ment of prophecy.** And the concept of predictive prophecy as something liable to be fulfilled is not foreign to Egypt.” That cult-centralization is the great care of Deuteronomy is false; pro- portionately little space is given to this, as can be seen on investigation. Even in Kings, the great objection to other places of worship is their pagan or paganizing rites. The reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah are far more a purifying than a centralizing of cult; the latter in any case was not new in 622 in the light of the temple existing from Solomon's time, and the tabernacle since Sinai before that. Then, sometimes, Old Testament scholars imagine features in their “Deuteronomist” to be peculiar, which features are, in fact, common- place and of no significance whatsoever. Thus, Noth seeks to play down the role of the Jerusalem temple as such (cultically) in Solomon's prayer, Claiming that there is no reference therein to the temple's role as theKrrcHEeNn: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 19 place of offering. But surely Solomon (or for Noth, “Dtr”) knew this was its basic function. For Noth, apparently, nothing can ever be taken for granted. In point of fact, the ritual is, of course, presupposed; what matters in the prayer is the spiritual role of the temple, the place where God’s Name (or, glory) is, where He hears prayer—not the mere mecha- nisms of ritual. It is instructive to look not only at Solomon’s dedicatory Prayer, but also at the dedicatory inscriptions and addresses of other ancient Oriental kings for their temples. At Luxor, Amenophis III (ca. 1400-1360 .c.) built a superb temple for Amun, with numerous dedica- tory texts, and across the Nile his own great funerary temple with dedi- catory stelae. Time and again, these texts dwell upon the splendor of the building, its role as the abode of the god, the piety of the king, etc. But in these scores of lines, there are hardly more than three or four brief and generalized references specifically to offerings and ritual! At the other end of the Near East, 800 years later, a series of texts of Nebu- chadnezzar II of Babylon similarly concentrate on almost everything except the details of offerings and ritual. So Solomon here is neither Deuteronomic nor extraordinary—just healthily normal. Conclusion So one might continue, with other concepts and further evidence; he need not limit himself to “Deuteronomics,” the main theme of this paper. Suffice it to sum up thus, Much that is called Deuteronomic is common ground conceptually in the religions and society of the Biblical Near East at large, and not even specifically Israelite, let alone specially Deuteronomic within Israel. Such matter, therefore, should not be erected into a Deuteronomic system, and least of all dated as late as the seventh century B.c. These concepts are used in the Old Testament with a power and a truth that is without compare at the deepest level in the Near East; but they should not be forced into a straightjacket. The the- ory of Deuteronomist (s) and a Dtr. history reflects, undoubtedly, a seg- ment of truth; but this theory may have refracted it needlessly in the process. Some readers may well consider the writer of this paper to have somewhat kicked over the traces; but, pray, may they first meditate upon the data offered before descending upon the culprit with Deuteronomic retribution! Notes 1, Eg,, those in Robert C. Dentan (ed.), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1955) . 2. Eg., C. de Wit, “Egyptian Methods of Writing History,” EQ, 28 (1956): 158-69. 3. Eg, for early Anatolia, in A. Goetze, Kleinasien (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1957), pp. 82-85, supplemented by (eg.) E. Laroche, “Catalogue des Textes Hittites,” I-IV, in20 New Perspectives ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Rewue Hittite et Asianique, 14-16 (Fascs. 58-60, 62, 1956-58), and H, Otten, “Schrift, Sprache und Literatur der Hethiter” in G. Walser (ed), Neuere Hethiterforschung, “Historia, Einzelschriften,” 7 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1964), pp. 11-22. 4, A term used by others rather than by Noth himself, eg. by John Bright in G. Er- nest Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; New York: Doubleday; 1961), p. 19. Noth's Pentateuch is (roughly) Gen.-Num. plus Deut. 81-34, cf. his Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlham- mer, 1948), pp. 5-6. 5. Eg. Harold H. Rowley, The Growth of the Old Testament (London: Hutchin- son University Library; New York: Hillary House; 1950/61), or Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, An Introduction (Oxford: Basil Blackwell; New York: Harper, 1965) , pp. 134-6, ete, 6. At random, cf. (eg.) George W. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Duckworth; Naperville, Il: Allenson, Inc., 1960; 1959) , pp. 93-6, and idem, The History and Religion of Israel (Oxford: University Press, 1966), pp. 5, 49, ete; Bright, loc. cit. (note 4, above), and his 4 History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959; London: SCM Press; 1960), pp. 118, 312, 419 (Deut=II Kgs.) , 330 (Josh=II Kgs.). Cf, also Eissfeldt, op. cit. (note 5, above), 242-8. 7. For other views, cf. Eissfeldt, op. cit., pp. 172-8, and Edward J. Young, An Intro- duction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1958; London: Tyn- dale Press; 1964) , pp. 145-7. 8. Cf. (cg) the outline given by Eissfeldt, pp. 171-3. 9. Cf. for example, Martin Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Titbingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957, repr. of 1943), pp. 16-18; among older examples, Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 9th ed. (Edinburgh: Clark; Magnolia, Mass.: Peter Smith; 1913) , pp. 72, 98-8 10. G. E, Mendenhall, BA, 17 (1954) , 26-46, 50-76 (esp. 53-70) , reprinted as Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955) . Il, Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963) . 12. Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press; Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966), pp. 90-102, with analyses (96-9), in brief form based on observations of 1955. 13. Cf. Ibid., pp. 91 ff., note 15 ff. 14. The fully independent analyses by Kline and myself concord remarkably well; some minor differences arise principally from slightly different methods used of setting out the data. 15. The use of the numeral 7 to 9 does not (for 7 & 8) necessarily indicate that these features come in order of performance after 1-6. 16. A distinction usefully made by K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960) , pp. 20, 22-4. 17. Deut. 4:41-48 is an incidental enactment; on ch. 4, note also Kline, op. cit. p. 31. 18, As already pointed out (my Ancient Orient and Old Testament, p. 97 and note 89), Deuteronomy contains all the essential elements of 14th-18th cen. treaties and covenants, but its order of Witnesses, Blessings, Curses exactly reverses the ancient Near Eastern order of Curses, Blessings, Witnesses; and this may be a specifically He- brew and Old Testament variant feature. Such purely minor variations can occur, as already pointed out in Anc. Orient & OT, p. 98, n. 25, and that in covenants regulat- ing a people as opposed to a vassal monarch. 19. On the preponderance of curses, cf. ibid., pp. 97£, note 41. 20. Itself following the schema of preamble, historical prologue, and stipulations (the “C” of ibid., pp 96-7) , passing into exhortation like ch, 4. 21. After which approximate date, the widespread upheavals (Sea Peoples, etc)Krrcnen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 21 Wrought great demographic and social changes in the ancient Near East (cf. standard histories) . 22. So, for example, Staerk, Das Deuteronomium (1894) , or Steuernagel, Deuterono- miwm und Josua (1900), in earlier days. In recent times, cf. use of this criterion by Noth, op. cit. pp. 16-17, also Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (Naperville, Ul: Allenson, Inc., 1950; London: SCM Press, 1958), p. 11, note 1, initially. 28. As already indicated by Baltzer, Das Bundesformular, pp. 29, n. 4, and 49, n. 2 (Ist and 8rd sing.) 48, n. 1 (2nd sing. and pl.) ; W. L. Moran, Biblica, 43. (1962) , 103, non-covenantal examples; and D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), pp. 32-8, citing 2nd pers. sing. and pl. variations in the Sfiré and Assur-nirari treaties. 24. This should be perfectly plain, e.g. from the data presented by Hillers, op. cit., pp. 30-5, on Deut. 28, where a whole series of misconceptions finds its answer in first- hand Near Eastern data, 25. Noth, op. cit., p. 16. 26. On the distinction of basic and detailed stipulations, cf, Baltzer, in note 16, above —a distinction independently established for Deut. 5-11, 12-26, by Kline, op. cit., p. 82 (but without using formal terminology as did Baltzer and 1). The main distinction in emphasis between Deuteronomy and the Near Eastern ‘Treaties is that the former is a covenant of religious import, affecting the spiritual and daily life of a whole people far more fundamentally than the purely political treaties between rulers (affecting their people mainly in terms of tribute, troops, and diplo- matic/economic relations). The same major means of expression is, however, being used for two parallel purposes: to regulate the relations between a divine sovereign and his people in one case, and between an earthly great king and a vassal king and state in the other case. 27. Developing the data and points briefly made by me in the Theological Students’ Bulletin, 41 (Spring, 1965) : 11-12. 28. Already in 1927, Rudolph Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, MI/1, p. 105 £., cited military settlement of personnel under Hammurabi of Babylon, after Meissner, but failed to heed its implications, perhaps as it was not a real example of “exile.” 29. G. Dossin, Archives Royales de Mari... traduite(s) (Paris: Imprimerie Na- tionale, 1952), V, Letter 27. 30. Ibid., V, Letter 2. 81. Ibid., TI, Letter 67. 82. Ibid., IV, Letter 4:5" ff cf. IV, Letter 86, passim. 88. Ibid., V, Letter 85; IV, Letter 4. 34. Ibid., V, Letter 35. 35. Ibid., V, Letter 29. 36. H. Otten, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 91 (1958): 88, rs. 11-17; cf. Otten, Saeculum, 15 (1964): 119. 37. See Albrecht Gétze, Die Annalen des MurSilis (Leipri 38. Ibid., pp. 56/7. 39, Ibid., pp. 64/5. 40. Ibid., pp. 76/7. 41. Ibid., pp. 170/1. 42. For references and brief discussion, see 8. Sauneron and J. Yoyotte, “Traces d’éta- blissements asiatiques en Moycnne-Egypte sous Ramses HI," Revue d’Egyptologie, 7 (1950) : 67-70, esp. 70. Under king Ay, a “Field of the Hittites” is attested at Memphis (W. Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958) , p. 2109, and Deutsch, 1961, p. 402. 48. Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: Uni- versity Press, 1926) , I, § 114. : Hinrichs, 1933) .22 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT 44, Ibid., § 116. 45. Ibid., §§ 164, 171; cf. E. F. Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und sei- ner Nachfolger (Graz: Selbstverlag, 1959) , p. 26. 46. Luckenbill, op. cit., I, §§ 818, 821, respectively. 41, Ibid., §§ 489, 511, etc. 48, Ibid., § 616. 49. CE, Weidner, Politische Dohumente aus Kleinasien (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1928) , pp. 545, lines 48, 51 (no return), noted by Hillers, op. cit., p. 34. 50. Esarhaddon’s treaty/ies with the Medes (Donald J. Wiseman, Iraq, 20 (1958): 51-2, lines 291-5 (exile) , as noted by Moran, Biblica, 48 (1962): 108. 51. Le., controlled by tangible, external evidence, physically open to inspection. 52. Full references for texts with publication of some, and a preliminary study of this tradition with earlier references, will be found in Kenneth A. Kitchen and G. A. Gaballa, “Ramesside Varia U1,” Zeitschrift fiir Aegyptische Sprache, 96 (1969) . 58. On the famous palette of Narmer, founder of the Ist Dynasty. 54. Treated by Jacques Vandier, “Quatre variantes ptolémaiques d'un hymne ra- messide,” Zeitschrift fiir Aegyptische Sprache, 98 (1966): 132-43. A precisely similar span (or longer) is exhibited by the myth of the divine birth of Pharaoh, cf. latterly G. A. Gaballa, “New Evidence on the Birth of Pharaoh,” Orientalia, 86 (1967): 299- 304. 58. See compact but full treatment by Gaballa and Kitchen, “The Festival of Sokar,” Orientalia, 88 (1969) : 1-76. 56, CE. Georges Posener, De la Divinité du Pharaon (Paris: La Societé Asiatique, 1960) , p. 40. 57. Eg, P. Derchain, “Le role du roi d’Egypte dans le maintien de Vordre cosmique,” in Le Pouvoir et le Sacré (Brussels: Institut Solvay, 1962) , pp. 61-78 passim. 58. Cf, Jaan Puhvel, “The Sea in Hittite Texts,” in Studies . . . Joshua Whatmough (1957) , pp. 225-87; on the present aspect, more briefly, Kitchen, Suppiluliuma, I Pro- tagonisti della Storia Universate, I, No. 66 (Milan: C.E.L, 1966) , p. 258. 59. “Proclamation of Telipinus,” §§ 8, 6, 8, in (eg.) Edgar H. Sturtevant and G. Bechtel, A Hittite Chrestomathy (Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America, 19852 1952), pp. 182/8, 184/5. 60. Otten, Zeitschrift fir Assyriologie, 55/NF.21 (1968): 156-68, and Saeculum, 15 (1964) , 117 n, 10, 118. 61. Tbid., pp. 120-1 and references. 62. Ibid., p. 117 and n. 8, 63. In the Hittite text (KUB, XXV:21) put at “500 years,” but in fact nearer to 850 years; cf. A. Goetze, BASOR, No, 122 (1951): 24-5 (the mention is by Hattusil III's son and successor Tudkhalia IV). 64. Reserves about this datum by E. von Schuler, Die KaSkder (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965), pp: 22-5, rest perhaps too heavily on negative evidence. 65. Le., in the historical period as determined by the emergence of clear written rec- ords, without prejudice to the notable achievements in the pre-literate periods. 66. Cf. (e.g) the sketch of Sumerian and Akkadian traditions into and from the second millennium x.c. given by Wilfrid G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: University Press, 1960) , pp. 1-20; and cf. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Meso- potamia (Chicago: University Press, 1964) , pp. 255 ff. (some texts, 400 and more years; Old-Babylonian/early Kassite coming down to Neo-Babylonian) . 67. Omitting Deuteronomy here, not accepted as part of the unit by some. 68. An observation also made long ago by Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 11/1 1927) : 198. 69. CE. briefly my Ancient Orient & OT, p. 66. 70. The conventional documentary analyses of Joshua, precisely as of the Penta-Kircuen: Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism” 23 teuchal books, is unacceptable not simply for dogmatic reasons but because its meth- ods and results are alike absurd in the light of what can be known of actual literary usage in the Biblical world; cf. my Ancient Orient & OT, pp. 112-88, for a compact outline of this matter in relation to the Pentateuch (but not irrelevant to Joshua) . 71. Eg., Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 255 (who, of course, would also add his “P” passages later than this) 72. Ch. 1 to 8:6, Introduction; 8:7 to 16, main survey; to point a further lesson on lawless life without kingship. 78. On which see latterly Roger N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative (London: SCM Press, 1968). 74, Substantially I Sam, 9-20 plus I Kgs. 1-2, with minor omissions. 75, While his work raises various points of interest, Whybray's interpretation of the “Narrative” as a historical novel finds very little echo in the known categories of an- cient literature and is too directly the imposition of a relatively modern concept. 76, Whybray, op. cit., pp. 51-5. 77. Note that Kittel, op. cit., IM/I (1927): 197, considers the outlook of Judges and Kings as the same, yet (p. 196), considers the material differences enough to preclude that the editing was done by the same hands, Hence, where greater degrees of differ- ence exist (as between Deuteronomy and Joshua, and Joshua, Samuel, Judges, and Kings) it would seem still less wise to assume one work, without other cause. 78. Cf, by way of random example, Driver, op. cit,, p. 191, John Gray, Kings I and I (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster; 1963) , pp. 189, 197, or Martin Noth, Kénige (Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), pp. 178 ff., passim, 79. Following out observations made in Christianity Today, 12/No. 19 (June 21, 1968) : 10 (922). 80. In this day and age, I make no apology for treating the patriarchs as essentially historical people, and the traditions concerning them in Gen, 12-50 as a long-trans- mitted, genuinely carly source of data. On the question of approach to the patriarchs and methodology, cf. my paper, “Historical Method and Early Hebrew Tradition,” Tyndale Bulletin 17 (1966): 63-97. 81. On Semites in Egypt, cf. references in J. D. Douglas et al. (eds.) , New Bible Dic- tionary (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; 1962) , pp. 343-4, and 844-5. On movement in and out of Egypt, cf, the texts (Papyri Anastasi IIT and Vi) cited in ANET, pp. 258-9. 82. On which cf. above, pp. 3-4, with references, 88. When considering the legal matter in the Pentateuch, especially in comparison with collections of laws in the ancient Near East, the striking thing is that, even if one credits pentateuchal matter with a 14th-13th cen, date, the comparative material is in most cases not of “Mosaic” but of “patriarchal” age or earlier—thus, Ur-Nammu, “Bilalama,” Lipit-Ishtar, Hammurapi, and the Old-Hittite origin and versions of the Hittite laws; hence my not so flippant term “patriarchal core,” Christianity Today, 12/No. 19 (1968) : 921. Note further, the observations by William F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London: Athlone Press, 1968) , pp. 88-92. 84. Exg., covenant-renewal by Joshua (Josh. 24); the pieties of David and Solomon; reforming moves by such as Asa or Jehoshaphat, and by Hezekiah and of course Josiah; covenant-renewal by Ezra and Nehemiah. 85. Eg., much of the period of the judges, or of the divided monarch 86, One cannot even begin to document here three millennia of Egypt's immensely rich and varied culture. In the realm of religion, cf. S. Morenz, Agyptische Religion (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), his Die Heraufkunft des transzendenten Gottes in Agypten (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964, Leipzig Sitzungsberichte, 109/2), and Gott und Mensch im alten Agypten (Leipzig & Heidelberg: Kochler-Amelang & Schneider, 1965) , for ably drawn perspectives. 7-21, supplements, possibly24 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT 87. Well visible in the versatile treatment of West Semitic mythology by Albright, op. cit., pp. 198-6, 207-9, 212-19, etc. 88. Cf. (eg.) the convenient tables in G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law (Lon- don: Tyndale Press, 1957), pp. 77 (A) , 85 (C), 88 (D) , and 90 (E). 89. Cf. classified references to relevant passages, Kitchen in Carl F. H. Henry (ed.), The Biblical Expositor (Philadelphia: Holman, 1960), 11: 79-83 passim, for con- venience. 90. Obedience to God is, surely, a generality in most religions; T know of none that enjoin disobedience. 91. E.g., Morenz, op. cit., pp. 118-26. On a famous stela (ca. 1170 B.c.) when address- ing Osiris, Ramesses IV says “For thou art he that made all, and thou canst not forsake them to carry out other designs with them, (for) that would not be right” (ma‘at) , line 20, ef. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, IV, § 470. 92. References are in Posener, op. cit., (1960), pp. 32-5. 93. E.g., Gray, op. cit. pp. 189, 197. 94. Cf. also ANET, p. 415b, line 50, for the god condemning a seditious person’s sins in blood. 95. CE. ANET, p. 380b, end, and 381b. 96, Noth, op. cit., p. 105. 97. Cf. the love of God in Deuteronomic theology, e.g. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster; 1967) , 11:335. 98. On which theme cf. G. von Rad, op. cit. (sce note 22 above) , pp. 78-81. 99. Kitchen, Tyndale House Bulletin, Nos. 5-6 (1960) : 6-7. 100. Noth, op. cit., pp. 104-5. 101. Texts in Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastic, pp. 1648-55, 1667-74, 1682-1712, and Deutsch, pp. 195 ff. 102, Exg,, in S. Langdon, Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Paxis: Leroux, 1905), I, Nebuchadnezzar Texts 1-8, 6-7, 10-18, 15-17; contrast the Texts 9, 19, where offerings are an important topic.oe THE BEARING OF CURRENT EGYPTIAN STUDIES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Carl E. DeVries Egyptian studies are herein defined as researches and publications by scholars academically trained in the field of Egyptology or otherwise recognized as competent in the area of ancient Egyptian language, his tory, and culture. It is desirable to place “current” studies as close as possible to the present, though it is convenient to extend the term to cover about twenty years, a period coinciding with the existence of this society; for since 1947 the Egyptologist has had a useful tool, the Annual Egyptological Bibliography, first compiled by Jozef M. A. Janssen. This bibliography provides a listing, often with summary and sometimes with evaluation, of practically everything published which relates to ancient Egypt, whether by non-specialists and popularizers or by experts in the most technical aspects of Egyptology. Among the Indexes 1947-1956 there is a section entitled “Biblical References and Hebrew Words,” which Old Testament scholars may find of assistance in researches relat ing to their field of specialization.* I. Relationships Between the Two Disciplines Before surveying the relevant studies which have been, or presently are, in progress, it will be helpful to look at the history of the relation- ships of Egyptological and Old Testament studies. At the beginning of archaeological excavation in the Near East, the study of the Bible was the stimulus for much of the investigation. Not only were names, places, and artifacts related to the Bible, but the Scrip- tures themselves often provided the key for the interpretation of the materials unearthed. As the number of excavations increased and as knowledge of Near Eastern history and culture expanded, it became necessary for scholars in the general field to concentrate on ever smaller areas of specialization and to acquaint themselves with a burgeoning technical literature. Taking Egyptology as an example, one may note that in recent years it has been remarked that the volume of written material concerning ancient Egypt has become so great that no one who attempts seriously to keep up with the current publications can expect to make 2526 New PERsPECTIVEs ON THE OLD TESTAMENT a significant contribution of his own. In 1961 the eminent English Egyptologist, Sir Alan H. Gardiner, writing of the development of Egyp- tological studies from the mid-eighteenth century onwards, commented: “The rivulet of Egyptological research was gradually swelling into the mighty stream which now makes it impossible for any student to keep abreast of all that is written save at the cost of abandoning all hope of personal contributions.”* In the light of such specialization it is not surprising that few Egyp- tologists have found time to devote to the study of the relationships be- tween Egypt and the Bible. Lo most of them, the Bible is of little interest; for they have no personal involvement in its message and no professional concern for its contents, except in those relatively infrequent instances in which Biblical references may concern Egyptology. Undoubtedly, some Egyptologists are afraid of contact with subject matter involving Chris- tian theology; but this attitude is understandable. Theological debate has a reputation for being especially acrimonious; consequently, many Egyptologists have been reluctant to expose themselves to the theological crossfire on the Old Testament battleground. Finally, it is felt that there are definite professional risks in bridging the areas of Old Testament and Egyptology. There is the danger of being charged with impiety on one hand and with religious bias on the other. In any case, there is the possibility of experiencing criticism based on prejudice, ridicule because of nonconformity, and academic or religious ostracism. It must be admitted that Bible study is a particularly democratic under- taking, ranging from the practical and devotional to the academic and theoretical. Between these there often is a great gulf fixed. The various aspects of Bible study also run the gamut of theological convictions, with proponents of conflicting theological positions mutually suspicious of each other. Even in the so-called objective climate of the academic world there is little opportunity for sober discussion of common interests by such groups, usually because their basic assumptions are so much at variance. It is little wonder that most Egyptologists, especially on the American scene, having enough chronological and other problems in their own province, have not ventured into the larger scene which appears so charged with emotion. On the other hand, writers concerned with popularizing archaeology for the sake of Bible students have not hesitated to plunge into the dis- cussion of Egypt and the Bible. Though some of these publications per- form an admirable service, often they overextend their authors’ abilities. When noticed by the professional Egyptologist, publications of this kind have characteristically been greeted with disdain, frequently well- deserved. An older example of qualified, fair reproof is provided by T. Eric Peet, the author of the well-known Egypt and the Old Testament (1928) and for a number of years editor of the Journal of EgyptianDeVauEs: Current Egyptian Studies 27 Archaeology. In the JEA for 1928, Peet reviewed a book on the exodus and labeled it a “typical example” of how Old Testament problems “should not be treated.”* He condemns the author's lack of attention to Egyptological fact and concludes with a forthright summary, worthy of being quoted in its entirety: This book is intended to vindicate the Old Testament narrative. It fails in its task, and it fails not because the Old Testament narrative is false, but because the evidence which would prove it correct is not at present forthcoming in Egypt: This being so the only honest procedure is to admit it, and not to bodge up a vindication by elevating mere guesses into the region of established facts and by quietly suppressing or distorting such ascertained facts as prove recal- citrant. He who does this merely damages in the eyes of the intelligent the cause which he sets out to defend This statement by Prof. Peet is elaborated in the preface to his Egypt and the Old Testament.’ Though he made these observations more than forty years ago the principles enunciated are still valid and pertinent. Prof. Peet has been referred to here not only because of the current applicability of the quoted comment but also because another and dif- ferent statement by him points to a hazard for the non-Biblical special- ist who dares to discuss subjects relating to the Bible. In his review of A. S. Yahuda’s Die Sprache des Pentateuch in ihren Beziehungen zum Aegyptischen, Peet concludes: “For most of us the archaeological evi- dence seems to fit the conclusions of the Higher Criticism remarkably well.”® This view is now traditional among Old Testament scholars and the Documentary Hypothesis has become nearly sacrosanct. Unquestion- ing mouthing of the doctrine has become the shibboleth by which cer- tain academicians test what they regard as authentic scholarship. To depart from the establishment is to invite possible academic banishment, just as the speaking of heresy may result in excommunication. Be that as it may, several Egyptologists have recently engaged in the study of Egyptian-Old Testament relationships and have found that applying to the Old Testament the principles used in the investigation of other ancient texts from the Near East has brought them to the con- clusion that the theory of the documentary origin of the Pentateuch is an artificial device which does not fit the Old Testament data.” The experience of Prof. J. Vergote of the University of Louvain is of particular interest. At meetings of the Near Eastern society “Ex Oriente Lux” in 1947-48, he presented some lectures relating to Joseph. When he later decided to publish this material in popular form, it was sug- gested to him by J. Coppens, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at Louvain, that a book of this kind should take into account the docu- mentary theory.* The result of a diligent accounting was the conclusion that the original of the history of Joseph was best explained as the work of Moses.28 New Perspectives on THE OL TESTAMENT K. A. Kitchen agrees with this conclusion and in his review of Ver- gote’s book devotes nearly two pages to the documentary hypothesis.” He briefly sketches the principles of the theory for Egyptologist readers unacquainted with Old Testament studies and then spells out six crite- ria of composite authorship which Egyptian documents demonstrate to be normal Near Eastern literary practice. These include multiple terms for deity, personal names, group names, names of places, common nouns, and personal pronouns. It should be encouraging to conservative Old Testament scholars to see philologists and historians from the field of Egyptology publishing evidence which controverts the traditional documentary views. It is also refreshing to observe that the material is presented in positive terms, not in the defensive, negative, or offensive manner which often typifies the approach of the evangelical scholar. If the views of these Egyptolo- gists were to have widespread acceptance, a most drastic change in Old Testament criticism would be forthcoming. A candid observer of human nature, however, may clearly predict the more probable result. If there should appear an appreciable affirmative response to the conclusions advanced by these two scholars, there will certainly also be a reaction from those opposed to these views. In the case of these Egyptologists one may well expect this opposition to come also from Egyptologists who hold other theological and critical positions. Already the rumbling has been heard in the distance. II. Problematic Areas In order to end on a somewhat positive note, it is best to look first at some of the less certain results of the study of Biblical and Egyptian re- lationships during this period of two decades. The evaluations are liable to some degree of subjectivism, for surely not all would place the same estimate on the present state of our knowledge of Egypt and the Bible. A, Chronology Chronology is still a thorny problem. In the more limited area of Egyptian chronology there are yet many questions, and during the past few years much ink has been spilled in an inconclusive debate concern- ing the possibility of a coregency of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) 2° In this case there is not just the involvement of harmo- nizing a few years, or the fixing of a kind of historical peg, but there are also complicated issues of relationships in art, religion, and government administration. In terms of absolute dates for the period of the New Kingdom, chro- nologists operate within a margin of some fourteen years and often are at variance among themselves and subject to changing their own views.DeVates: Current Egyptian Studies 29 A few years ago, the matter of chronology, both Egyptian and Western Asiatic, was given an Egyptologist’s summary by Prof. Keith C. Secle in the second edition of When Egypt Ruled the East: “Most dates in Egyp- tian chronology are approximate. Fixed dates for the period covered by this book depend on synchronization with western Asia, but the As- sytiologists are at present in sharp disagreement over matters of chro- nology.’"" More recently, there have been attempts to clear up the difficulties in the chronologies of the various geographic or national areas and to bring them into practical harmony; but problems of synchroniza- tion still exist, and certainty of dating continues to clude the best efforts.” It seems improbable that absolute dates can reach any final state, surely not within the near future, though we may expect refinements and greater exactitude as additional information comes to light and further studies are made. B. The Exodus Questions of chronology relating to Egypt and the Old Testament center around the date of the Israelite exodus from Egypt On this subject the Egyptian sources have contributed relatively little, and noth- ing of primary importance has been discovered during the last twenty years. Previously known monuments and inscriptions have been inter- preted variously by proponents of differing views. Though the majority of scholars and the most prolific writers among them appear now to favor a late (18th cen.) as opposed to an early (15th cen.) date for this event, there are a number who support the earlier one. Those who argue for the late date do so primarily on the basis of the evidence from Palestinian archaeology, but it is my understanding that the author of the article on the exodus in the revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia will use that source in support of the other position. In 1960 Shemuel Yeivin published a short article on the exodus in which he proposed that Amenhotep III was the Pharaoh of the Oppres- sion and Akhenaton the Pharaoh of the Exodus."' The condensed state- ment given in the 1961 Egyplological Bibliography” shows that the au- thor exercises some degree of imagination and that he makes certain assumptions for which there is little historical evidence. This view has not attracted much attention, but it does illustrate an exception to a trend toward the later date. Vergote, who decided that the basic account of the life of Joseph was best explained as written by Moses, also came to the decision that this account dated to the Ramesside period, and particularly the XTXth Dy- nasty; so one must grant that the evidence from Egypt may be interpreted as favoring a thirteenth-century date for the exodus.”* Obviously, conclusions relating to chronology cannot be reached by listing the names of those who hold to various views, but it is impossible,30 NEw PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT and undesirable, in a short generalized paper to rehash the essential facts and reasonings that have led to the present state of chronological study. At best, concerning the date of the exodus, one must judge that we have not yet reached certainty on this focal point of Old Testament chronology. The writer’s own inclination is still toward the early date, essentially because the relevant chronological notes of the Biblical nar- rative consistently point in that direction and, secondarily, because the combined archaeological and historical data from other sources do not appear to have produced a date for the exodus so definite and certain as to require reinterpretation of the Biblical statements to fit it. One may remark, however, that if the secular evidence eventually establishes the later date of the exodus, Old Testament scholars presently convinced of the validity of this dating have already proposed interpretations of vary- ing degrees of possibility and ingenuity in order to permit the harmo- nizing of this date with the Biblical passages which appear to conflict with it. Similarly, matters of Egyptian geography relating to the exodus have been the subject of much discussion over a period of many years; and the debate will undoubtedly continue for some time.” There is at present no near unanimity of opinion as to the identity of the store cities, Pithom and Raamses. Here we can only remark on the fact that again we have no final archaeological answers to a problem of identification. It was hoped that the revived interest in archaeological excavation in the Delta following the intensive Nubian campaigns would result in our learning more about this section of Egypt and the cities which were anciently situated there. This hope has diminished with the crisis in international relations which has forced the postponement or reconsideration of plans to dig in this part of Egypt. C. Wisdom Literature Another area of continued and varied discussion is the relationship between the wisdom literature of Egypt and the book of Proverbs. Though there is a wealth of proverbial wisdom, often called “instruc- tion,” from ancient Egypt, ranging from the Old Kingdom onwards, there is one work in particular, “the Wisdom of Amenemope,” whose proverbial sayings are so strikingly similar to part of Proverbs that many have sought to explain the likenesses.* The British Museum manuscript of Amenemope was published by E. A. W. Budge in 1923.” The following year Budge produced a book entitled The Teaching of Amen-em-apt, in which he stated that he could not believe that certain of the teachings could be of native Egyptian origin; he referred to the possibility of Asi- atic influence during the Middle Kingdom or under the Hyksos.” Also in 1924 there appeared a short study by Adolf Erman, who concluded that Proverbs was dependent on Amenemope and that Jews living inDeVaiss: Current Egyptian Studies 31 Egypt during Saite or Persian times became acquainted with Amenemope and adapted its sayings for Jewish use, translating them into Hebrew, or possibly into Aramaic. Erman’s view of borrowing on the part of the Hebrew book was soon generally accepted by the majority of Old Testament experts, as well as by most Egyptologists. In 1926, D. C. Simpson wrote that the resemblances between Amen- emope and Proverbs were so great that one must conclude either that the Hebrews borrowed from the Egyptian work or that Proverbs and Amenemope were dependent upon a common source. Expanding on the latter alternative, he suggested that there was an international prover- bial literature of the Near East.* Robert O. Kevin argued that the Egyptian author borrowed from Proverbs, but this thesis was largely rejected. In the judgment of Ronald J. Williams, this view failed to gain support because Kevin's “superficial knowledge of Egyptian rendered his arguments valueless,"** but other reasons may be cited, among them the eminence of Erman, whose conclusions on the subject had found wide acceptance in a very short time. Discussion of these relationships lagged a bit until 1957, when Etienne Drioton proposed that Amenemope was an Egyptian translation of a Hebrew original written by Jews in Egypt.” Kitchen states that Drioton has shown “weighty reasons” for his view, mainly “un-Egyptian usages in grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.” Kitchen enthusiastically endorses Drioton’s argument and declares that “Drioton’s thesis will be difficult to controvert and if it wins acceptance will be of the greatest importance for Old Testament studies.”?* Williams does not concur with Kitchen’s evaluation. In a well-written article in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,” he assails Drioton’s arguments and attacks his position on the basis of misinterpretation of the Egyptian text, mistaken understanding of the syntactic construction, and misidentification as Semitic certain words or concepts of which there are good Egyptian examples. Williams goes on to reason that there is “strong support for an original Egyptian text” in “the fact that parano- masia occurs at least three times in Amenemope, involving words which are not amenable to word-plays in Semitic.”*® He also feels that the lan- guage of Amenemope resembles that of the Wisdom of Ani, which prob- ably dates to the latter half of the XVIIIth Dynasty. This is part of the argument which Williams advances for a possible XIXth Dynasty date for Amenemope. Drioton also championed the Persian period as the time of the origin of Amenemope. Various previously proposed dates mentioned by Wil- liams® range from the XXth Dynasty to the reign of Darius, but the later dates are no longer possible, for Williams points out that a broken, unpublished Cairo Museum ostracon bearing parts of Amenemope has82 NeW PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT been definitely assigned to the XXIst Dynasty by Prof. Jarolav Cerny.” Williams reasons that use of the text for school purposes shows that Amenemope had been known for some time; he suggests that the original composition may date as early as the XIXth Dynasty Establishing a comparatively early date for the writing of the Wisdom of Amenemope is an important contribution to our knowledge of an- cient Egyptian wisdom literature, but it does not settle the question of the direction of the theoretical relationship between Amenemope and Proverbs; indeed, in spite of the “striking similarities” to which allusion is often made, the existence of historical literary connection between the two cannot be demonstrated, though it often is assumed. There remains a possibility that the section of Proverbs most immediately involved (22:17-23:14) may have had an earlier Hebrew history, but this sugges- tion is unduly speculative and certainly springs from silence.** One cannot, however, escape wondering about Israelite contributions to the culture of Egypt during the long period of Egyptian sojourn; and one would expect this influence to have been most pronounced during the Second Intermediate and New Kingdom periods. Little or no evi- dence of such influence has been forthcoming from Egypt, and on the surface this may appear strikingly strange. It may well be that with re- spect to possible connections between Amenemope and Proverbs the relationships are neither as many nor as close as has been thought. It has been hinted that a prospective publication will set forth arguments showing that the likelihood of such relationships has been overstated.® In dlosing these comments on wisdom literature in Egypt and the Old Testament, one must conclude that at present there is apparently still wide disagreement among scholars who hold differing views of theology and of the history of Near Eastern literature. No doubt there will be more discussion of Amenemope and Proverbs in the near future. III. Areas of Egyptian Contribution Thus far we have considered subjects of longstanding debate and problems not yet fully solved in spite of increasing information. Let us turn now to matters which are not so productive of disagreement but which may be of more importance, for they do give us light on the Old Testament and its background. A, Social Life From Egyptian literature and especially from the art associated with Egyptian funerary beliefs has come a wealth of information concerning the daily life of ancient times. The Egyptian contribution to knowledge of this background of the Bible is great, and it is probably the highest value that Egyptian studies provide for the understanding and appre-DeVairs: Current Egyptian Studies 33 ciation of the Old Testament. Much of this material has been repeatedly and widely discussed in a variety of publications, and many of the sub- jects have recently been capably treated by K. A. Kitchen in Egypt and the Bible: Some Recent Advances and in Ancient Orient and Old Testament.* I am happy to recommend these works and I feel that it would be mere redundancy to go over many items already so excellently presented by Kitchen. Passing by the plagues and those other subjects of interest which usually appear in writings about Egypt and the Old Testament, I would comment briefly on several less generally known contributions to our understanding of the Old Testament and Egypt. Interesting light on the background of several events in the life of Joseph has been provided by the publication of a Brooklyn Museum papyrus by William C. Hayes. The recto of this papyrus dates mostly from the XIIth Dynasty and deals with orders given to the Great Prison at Thebes concerning residents of Upper Egypt who have failed to per- form government services required of them. Previous writers have com- mented on the information up to then available concerning prisons and imprisonment in ancient Egypt and have related this material to the Joseph narrative.* On the verso of this papyrus is a list of household servants whose ownership is being transferred by an official to his wife. More than half of the servants bear West Semitic names, and it appears that these per- sons were slaves from Syria or Palestine. Hayes concluded: “We must, it would seem, postulate the existence at the time—as later, in the New Kingdom—of a brisk trade in Asiatic slaves carried on by the Asiatics themselves, with Egypt, still one of the richest nations in the Near East, providing the principal market for this class of merchandise.”" He then cites Genesis $7:28 and 36 as affording “a somewhat unusual example of the type of transaction I had in mind.” B. King “So” Much later in Bible history there is in our English Bibles an apparent reference to an Egyptian king named So, whose identity has been puz- zling.* II Kings 17:4 states that king Hoshea “had sent messengers to So king of Egypt” (rsv) . It appears now that Hans Goedicke has made a significant contribution to Old Testament study by eliminating this royal name altogether.* W. F, Albright has received Goedicke’s conclu- sions favorably and has added some helpful comments. The proposed reading is: “to Sais, to the king of Egypt,” the king of Egypt being Tefnakhte and Sais his residence city. A paper of this length cannot even list the varied subjects of Egypto- logical origin which focus in some way on the Old Testament, but in conclusion I should like to mention a facet of Egyptology which has enjoyed widespread and effective use. There are many Biblically ori-34 New PErspEctives ON THE OLD TESTAMENT ented books which are well illustrated by photographs of ancient Egyp- tian matters, whether large constructions like pyramids or small items of jewelry. Among the ironies of the present Near Eastern international situation one may remark that the two-volume publication by Major- General Professor Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study," contains many fine plates show- ing ancient Egyptian wall paintings and objects excavated in Egypt. Relationships in scholarly areas may lead one to hope for more. Here is a reminder to pray that the modern nations of the Near East may soon be able to lay down their arms and that the predicted peace of the Old Testament prophecies may finally be realized. Egypt, the land of the Nile, the country to which God sent Joseph to preserve a people, the nation to which in New Testament times another Joseph was directed to find a family refuge from a cruel king, has played an important role in the understanding of the Bible; and Egyptian studies will continue to add much to our knowledge of the Old Testa- ment, its background, and its environment. Notes 1, Jozef M. A. Janssen, Annual Egyptological Bibliography. Indexes 1947-1956 (Lei- den: E, J. Brill, 1960), pp. 438-4. 2. Alan H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 1961), p. 16. 8. T. Eric Peet, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 9 (1928): 256-7. (Hereafter re- ferred to as JEA.) 4, Ibid., p. 257. 5. T. Eric Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament, (Liverpool: University Press of Liver- pool, 1928), pp. 5-7. 6. T. Eric Peet, “A. S. Yahuda’s Die Sprache des Pentateuch in ihren Bezichungen zum Aegyptischen,” JEA, 16 (1980): 159. 7. For the documentary hypothesis and the Joseph account, see J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1959), esp. pp. v-vi and 3-7; re- viewed by Kenneth A. Kitchen in JEA, 47 (1961): 158-64. See also Kitchen, Egypt and the Bible: Some Recent Advances, offprint from Faith and Thought, 91 (1959-60) : 177-97, and Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press; Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press; 1966), pp. 18-20, 112-88. 8. Op. cit,, p. v. 9, Kenneth A. Kitchen, “J. Vergote’s Joseph en Egypte,” JEA, 47 (1961) : 162-8. 10. For discussion of Egyptian chronology, see, for example, E. Hornung, Unter- suchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), reviewed by Kitchen in Chronique d’Egypte, 40 (1965): 310-22. See also Donald B. Redford, Studies in the History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967) and Edward F. Camp- bell, The Chronology of the Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964) . 11. Keith G. Seele, When Egypt Ruled the East (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 274. 12. In addition to the sources named in Note 10, above, see Kitchen, Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1962).DEVauEs: Current Egyptian Studies 35 18. For a convenient source of current information concerning the date of the exodus, see Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, pp. 57-75, where numerous bib- liographical references are given. 14, Shemuel Yeivin, Tarbiz: A Quarterly for Jewish Studies (Oct. 1960): pp. 1-7. 15. 1961 Egyptological Bibliography (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), pp. 261-2. 16. Vergote, op. cit., pp. 208-13. 17. Cf. C, de Wit, The Date and Route of the Exodus (London: Tyndale Press, 1960) ; Pierre Montet, Géographie de 'Egyptienne ancienne (Paris: Imprimerie Na- tionale, 1957) , I: 218-19; and L’Egypte et la Bible (Neuchatel: Delachaux and Niestlé, 1959) , pp. 59-64. 18. An extensive bibliography relating to Amenemope has appeared, so the follow- ing documentation is only representative. For the text of Amenemope, see E. A. Wallis, Budge (cf. Note 19) and H. O. Lange, Das Weisheitsbuch des Amenemope aus dem Papyrus 10474 des British Museum (Copenhagen: A. F. Host and Son, 1925). The history of the papyrus and its interpretation is given in some detail by Robert O. Kevin, “The Wisdom of Amen-Em-Apt and Its Possible Dependence Upon the Hebrew Book of Proverbs," Journal of the Society of Oriental Research, 14 (1980) : 115-16. See also K. A. Kitchen, Egypt and the Bible, op. cit., pp. 192-8, and Ronald J. Williams, “The Alleged Semitic Original of the Wisdom of Amenemope,” JEA, 47 (1961) : 100. For a discussion of the extant texts of Amenemope, see Bengt Julius Peterson, “A New Fragment of the Wisdom of Amenemope,” JEA, 52 (1966) : 120. Jean Leclant has com- piled a bibliography of wisdom literature, published in conjunction with his “Docu- ments nouveaux et points de vue recents sur les sagesses de Egypte ancienne,” Les sagesses du Proche-Orient ancienne (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963), pp. 18-26, esp. pp. 28-4, 25-6. 19. E. A, Wallis Budge, Facsimiles of Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Mu- seum, 2nd Series (London: British Museum, 1928) , 9-18, 39-51, Plates I-XIV. 20. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Teaching of Amen-em-apt, Son of Kanekht (London: Martin Hopkinson, 1924) , pp. xv, 108 21. Adolf Erman, “Eine tigyptische Quelle der ‘Spriiche Salomos,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften XV (1924): 92. 22. D.C, Simpson, “The Hebrew Book of Proverbs and the Teaching of Amenophis,”” JEA, 12 (1962) : 282. 23, Kevin, op. cit., esp. pp. 1547. 24, Williams, of. cit., p. 100. 25. Etienne Drioton, “Sur la Sagesse d’Aménemopé, in Mélanges bibliques André Robert (Paris, 1957) , pp. 254-80; “Le Livre des Proverbes et la Sagesse d’Aménemopé, in Sacra Pagina, Miscellanea Biblica, 1 (Louvain, 1959) : 229-41: “Un livre hebreu sous couverture égyptienne,” in La Table Ronde, No. 154 (Oct. 1960) : 81-91; “L’Apologue des deux arbres,” Melanges V. V. Struve (Moscow: 1962) , pp. 76-80. 26. Kitchen, Egypt and the Bible, op. cit., p. 193. 27. Williams, op. cit., pp. 100-6. 28. Ibid., p. 106. 29. Ibid., p. 106, text and note 1. 30, See also Peterson, op. cit., p. 120, text and note 4. 31, It must be remembered that Williams has presented a strong case not only against Amenemope’s dependence upon a Semitic source but also for an oti of Amenemope in Egyptian; Williams, op. cit., p. 106. 32, Certainly the Israelites were neither a subservient nor insignificant clement of the population during all of their stay in Egypt. It seems highly probable that a capable people should have contributed something meaningful to the land of their sojourn, particularly during the time in which Joseph and his family enjoyed royal favor. It is nearly incredible that a sizable and well-placed family, an incipient nation, could have36 New Perspectives ON THE Otp TESTAMENT left no record of its achievements or even of its presence. Was this evidence destroyed anciently, has our sampling of ancient times been so accidentally selective as to have missed it, or have we incorrectly observed the known materials and misinterpreted this influence? 33. J. Rufile, unpublished M.A. thesis, Liverpool University, 1964. Of the research of J. Ruffle there is only a reference in Peterson, op. cit., p. 121 (text and note 8) and a comment by Kitchen: “careful study of both books in their full Near Eastern context (instead of in isolation, as is commonly done) has shown how inadequate are the grounds for relationship offered hitherto” (Ancient Orient and Old Testament, p. 88, n. 8). 84, See Note 7, above. 85. William C, Hayes, 4 Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Mu- seum (Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446) (Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1955) . 36. Cf. Jozef M. A. Janssen, “Egyptological Remarks on the Story of Joseph in Genesis,” Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux, 14 (1958-1956): 64; Kitchen, Egypt and the Bible, pp. 180-2. 37. Hayes, op. cit., p. 99. 38. Cf. Kitchen, Egypt and the Bible, op. cit., pp. 194-5. 39. Hans Goedicke, “The End of ‘So, King of Egypt,’” BASOR, 171 (Oct. 1968) : 64-6. 40. 66. 41. Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeologi- cal Study, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1968) . liam F. Albright, “The Elimination of King ‘So,’ BASOR, 171 (Oct. 1963) :age THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER J. Stafford Wright Most commentators on the Book of Esther agree that the author, wherever he lived, had an unusual knowledge of the Persian area of which he writes.’ With a few exceptions,” however, they dismiss the idea that the book contains serious history, even though it professes to be an accurate record. In the present paper it is not possible to argue every point. It is my intention, therefore, to take some things briefly and to expand other points that have been overlooked; but this paper cannot be regarded as a complete introduction to Esther. The action of the book takes place in the reign of Ahasuerus. This name is the equivalent of Xerxes (485-465 x.c.), although both the Septuagint and Josephus regard him as Artaxerxes I (464-424 n.c.) In recent years two writers who take the book seriously have argued for Artaxerxes II (404-859). They are Jacob Hoschander and A. T. Olm- stead.* I believe that etymologically the equation of the names is against them. The equation normally is khshayarsha (Persian) = akhashwerosh (Hebrew) = xerxes (Greek) =ahasuerus (English) as compared with artakhshatra (Persian) = artaksatsu (Babylonian) = artakhshasta (He- brew) =artaxerxes (Greek) = artaxerxes (English) . What Hoschander and Olmstead write about Persian customs and the palace at Susa is valuable, but if the events of Esther can be shown to fit the reign of Xerxes then there is no need to look elsewhere. Hence this paper will concentrate on the time of Xerxes. I. Some Agreed Points of Accuracy The following are points which commentators accept as significantly accurate when compared with what is otherwise known about Persia.* A. The extent of Xerxes’ empire, India to Ethiopia, 1:1. B. The banquet in the third year corresponds to the great council to plan for the invasion of Greece, 1:3; Herodotus vii.8. C. The strange gap of four years between 1:3 and 2:16 would repre- sent the period when Xerxes was occupied with the Greek campaign. 3738 NEw PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT D. The allusions to the layout and fittings of the palace correspond to the excavated palace of Artaxerxes II at Susa. This was a restoration of the palace built by Darius and used by Xerxes. E. L. B. Paton in his introduction to Esther summarizes additional minor points: ‘The arrangement of the banquet (i.6-8), the seven princes who formed a council of state (i.14), obeisance before the king and his favorites (iii.2), be- lief in lucky and unlucky days (iii.7), exclusion of mourning garb from the palace (iv.2), hanging as the death penalty (v.14), dressing a royal benefactor in the king’s robes (vi), the dispatching of couriers with royal messages (iii.18 and viii.10) * ‘We will not, stay to amplify these points, since they are generally admitted, but might add that Herodotus viii, 85, 90 confirms that there were royal records of benefactors (2:23; 6:1-8). IL. Alleged Inaccuracies We must look at what have been alleged as inaccuracies in Esther in greater detail than we considered the points of agreement, leaving the identity of Esther, Vashti, and Mordecai for separate treatment. A. “According to i.l and viii.9 the Persian empire was divided into 127 satrapies, but Herodotus iii.89 knows only 20.”* But the satrapies were divided into smaller units, and the word used in 1:1 (medinah) is used in Ezra 5:8 and Nehemiah 1:3, etc. of the province of Judah which formed part of the larger satrapy (Ezra 5:3). B. “In ii.5 Mordecai is one of the captives carried away with Jehoia- chin in 596 B.c., but he becomes prime minister in 474 B.c., ie. 122 years later.”" But if the relative pronoun applies to the last name in the genealogy (as in II Chronicles 22:9 and Ezra 2:61), it was Kish, Morde- cai’s great-grandfather, who was taken with Jehoiachin. In Esther 2:5, 6, there are three relative pronouns, and each refers to the name that im- mediately precedes. C. Commentaries unite in saying that Esther, a Jewess, could not have been chosen as queen, since Herodotus iii.84 states that the king must choose his wife from one of seven families. The seven families are the six, plus Darius, who together overthrew the usurper, Gaumata. It is a pity, however, that one commentator copies another without checking the facts for himself. Certainly Darius married other wives be- sides one from the Seven;* and his son, Xerxes, who succeeded him, was not the son of this wife. Xerxes’ wife, Amestris, was the daughter of Otanes; but this Otanes was the son of a certain Sisamnes,? while the Otanes who was one of the Seven was the son of Pharnaspes.” CtesiasWaicHT: The Historicity of Esther 39 xiii.51, moreover, says that she was the daughter of Onophas; and he was not one of the Seven. D. If the Feast of Purim was instituted in the time of Xerxes, it would surely have been mentioned again before II Maccabees 15:36, where the victory of Judas Maccabaeus in 16] B.c, is on “the day before Mordecai’s day.” Yet where could it have been mentioned in extant literature? The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah do not mention even all of the festivals of the Law, far less a new festival that would have been slow to gain a footing among a well-established cycle of feasts. The worth of this objection can be judged by the scant number of references to the festival even after it had certainly been established. The xx translation of Esther and its additions are likely to have been made in the first century B.c, II Maccabees 15:36, also written in the first century B.c., uses “Mordecai’s Day” as a well-known date. Josephus at the end of the Ist Christian century says that the festival was kept by Jews throughout the world.” Yet it is not mentioned in the New Testa- ment, with the unlikely exception of the unknown feast of John 5:1, and only rarely in Jewish writings in the first few Christian centuries. E. Objection is raised to the enormous size of the gallows (over 80 feet) in 5:14 and 7:9, built in an hour or two (5:14). The word trans- lated as gallows need mean no more than tree, and some have inter- preted the punishment as impaling on a stake, which was then sus- pended at a great height. But it may well have been a high gallows, though not necessarily fifty cubits. This figure occurs only on the lips of two people, and it is not so set down in the actual history. It belongs to the language of popular exaggeration, as when an exasperated mother says to her child, “I’ve told you fifty times already not to do that!” or when a teenager accuses a parent of being fifty years behind the times, or when Nebuchadnezzar orders the furnace to be heated seven times more than usual (Dan. 8:19). If there were various heights or grades of gallows, this might simply have been the highest. F. It is strange that neither Mordecai nor Esther is mentioned in the list of famous people in Ecclesiasticus 44-49. But even Ezra does not occur in this list, and Ben Sirach may not have approved of Esther's marriage to a pagan king. G. “The statement in i.19 and viii.8 that the laws of Persia were un- alterable is also found in Dan, vi.9, 13. It is not attested by any other early evidence, and seems most unlikely.”” However, H. H. Rowley quotes, without comment or translation, a sentence from Diodorus Sicu- lus: al? ow gar én dunaton to gegonos dia tés basilikés exousias agenéton hataskeuasai.* Taken in isolation this appears to mean, “It was not pos- sible for what was done by the royal authority to be undone.” I think it does mean this; but, to be fair, one must grant that the context offers40 New PERrsPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT the possibility of a different translation. The comment concludes the story of how Darius III in a rage ordered the execution of a certain Charidemus. After Charidemus has been led away, we are told, “When the King’s anger abated, he at once repented and blamed himself for having made the greatest mistake, but . . .” and then follows the above sentence. Diodorus may therefore mean that it was too late now, because Charidemus was dead, and the sentence could be differently divided: “But what was done could not be undone by the royal authority.” On the whole I think the previous translation is the better. The latter is a piece of sententious moralizing and is not improved by adding “by the royal authority.” The translation by Bradford Welles in the Loeb Classical Library is a little too colorful: “But all his royal power “was not able to undo what was done.” I cannot find that Diodorus is given to rhetorical pathos of this kind. Also noteworthy is his choice of words. If a Greek writer wanted to convey, “It was impossible that this particular event could be undone by Darius’s authority,” he is likely to have used the aorist (to genome- non) and the personal genitive (tou basileds). The use here of the perfect participle and the adjective (basilikés) makes the statement a general comment on Persian law. There is a further pointer toward this understanding a few sentences earlier, where Darius arrests Charidemus. “Having laid hold of the girdle of Charidemus according to the law of the Persians he handed him over to the attendants and ordered his execution.” I have reproduced the order of the Greek words without punctuation, but whether “ac- cording to the law of the Persians” is attached to the preceding or to the following words, it is significant that Diodorus mentions this law in conjunction with a probable statement that Darius could not reverse his command. If we regard these as the main difficulties of historicity, apart from one’s subjective feelings of what is “likely,” we can see that these are trivial, and at times based on false deductions. We may, therefore, pro- ceed to a fuller treatment of the identity of the three main characters, Vashti, Esther, and Mordecai. IV. Vashti, Amestris, and Esther According to the Book of Esther, Vashti was Xerxes’ queen until she was deposed in 484-8 n.c, as recorded in chapter 1. After a gap of four years Esther becomes queen and is still queen at the end of the book, about 473 B.c, On the other hand both Herodotus and Ctesias speak of Améstris' as queen. Since the third son of Xerxes and Amestris, Artaxerxes I, was born about 488, Amestris cannot be identified with Esther who was notWricut: The Historicity of Esther 41 yet married. She accompanied Xerxes during part at least of his Greek campaign, ending with the battle of Salamis in 480 p.c., and she had considerable power as queen-mother (i.e, the widow of the former king) during the reign of Artaxerxes I. This at first sight makes it impossible to identify her with Vashti. Nevertheless I believe that she can be. There are two points of dif- ficulty, linguistic and historical. A. Linguistic Can the two names, Vashti and Amestris, be equated? If one were to use an argumentum ad hominem, he could point out that those who interpret the story mythologically of a battle between the Babylonian deities Marduk and Ishtar with two Elamite gods, identify the latter with Humman and Mashti. If the initial M can be interchanged with V (W) in the Old Persian, then there is no great difference between Mashti and Amestris. Students of Old Persian, however, find no apparent inter- change of M and V (W) in this script* In Babylonian of the fifth century B.c, there is a tendency for B, M, and V (W) to be confused, but not usually in the initial position. Yet we are not actually concerned with Old Persian or Babylonian mutations, though this seems to have escaped general notice. We are concerned with matching a Hebrew rendering of a Persian name (Vashti) with a Greek rendering of possibly the same name (Amestris) . We have no independent Persian record of the name of Xerxes’ queen but are dependent on Herodotus and Ctesias, who wrote in Greek. Occasionally today we are aware of the difficulty of rendering a for- eign name into English. When a new Russian or African name leaps into the public eye, there is at first some difference over its spelling in the newspapers and over its pronunciation on radio and television. The Greeks had a similar difficulty with Babylonian and Persian names. Thus one would hardly recognize the Persian Khshayarsha as Xerxes, which became the standard Greek transliteration, or as Akhashwerosh which is the Hebrew form and is Anglicized as Ahasuerus. The Greek had trouble over the letter W. This in Hebrew is the letter that our Bible translators render as V, because this is how it was then pronounced by Western Jews and how it is still pronounced in modern Hebrew. Western students of Biblical Hebrew today learn it as W, which corresponds to its sound in ancient Semitic languages. For a time the Greek alphabet, which is based on the Semitic letters, used a letter known as digamma with the W sound; but it was dropped because there was no W sound in normal Greek words. Correspondingly, certain present- day visitors to Britain and America from overseas countries fail to pronounce the W. Thus we hear “Vhy are ve vaiting?” or “Fhy are fe faiting?” Others have difficulty with th, and put zee or see for the. W is,42 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT as its name suggests, a double vowel sound, and is still used as a vowel in Welsh, both long and short, e.g. Gwlad (country). One can see how the Greek Lxx translators handle Hebrew words with the initial W (v): Vashti becomes Astin; Vashni (II Chron. 6:28) becomes Sani; Vophsi (Num. 13:14) becomes Sabi; Vaniah (Ezra 10:36) becomes Ououania, which is the nearest attempt at rendering the W. If the original Persian name of the queen was Vashti, or something approaching this, Herodotus was faced with a double difficulty. He had no W and no Sh in Greek. He had to find a word that would look and sound right to a Greek reader. We have already seen that there was a certain affinity in Babylonian between W and M; and, if the reader says Ooashti quickly, he will find that he is on the way to forming an initial M, N, F, or V. Obviously Herodotus did not detect an F or V or he would have used the Greek letter PHI. Having chosen M as most suitable, he may well have put a short A in front of it to bring it a little nearer to the original opening vowel sound. The Sh had to become a simple S. Did Herodotus then add the R, perhaps to make a still clearer distinction between Amestris and Xerxes’ daughter, whose name is rendered as Amutis? Or was the R in the Persian original, but omitted by the Hebrew, which does not use a TR sequence? Without any sleight of hand we have been able to show a possible linguistic link between Vashti and Amestris. B. Historical Difficulty The Book of Esther does not mention Xerxes’ absence on the cam- paign against Greece, but it records an otherwise inexplicable gap of four years between the deposition of Vashti and the taking of Esther as queen (1:3 and 2:16). Note also that in Ezra 4:6 the opponents of the Jews in Palestine write a letter of complaint to Xerxes “in the beginning of his reign,” but evidently get no reply. Herodotus records a singularly unpleasant incident at Sardis while Xerxes was returning from Greece. Amestris gave Xerxes a specially fine robe, which she had woven herself. Xerxes was having an affair with his brother's wife and her daughter, and he was tricked, as Herod was later, into giving her daughter whatever she asked. She chose the robe. Amestris was furious, but blamed the mother, and had her horribly mutilated and her tongue torn out.’ Obviously therefore Amestris, or Vashti, was still acting as queen. Here one must consider not only the Book of Esther but also the habits of Persian kings and queens. One does not get rid of the mother of royal children during a drunken dinner party, nor does a powerful queen submit to be put away. Once Xerxes and his lord had “let off steam” in a childish passion, Xerxes had to accept the status quo for the time being. The new queen, if there was to be one, would have toWaicit: The Historicity of Esther 48 wait. He had the Greek campaign to see to, and Amestris-Vashti would accompany him part of the way at least. If she had played her cards properly, we might never have heard of Esther. But when she mutilated Xerxes’ mistress, and in consequence almost caused a revolution which would have brought his brother to the throne, she must have fallen into disfavor; and Xerxes on his re- turn to Susa would have been ready for his new queen. We notice the rather strange wording of Esther 2:1 which implies some lapse of time: “After these things, when the anger of King Ahasuerus had abated, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what had been de- creed against her.” This would not make sense on the day after the feast, or even six months after the feast; but on his return from the Greek campaign Xerxes remembers that he has an excuse handy for getting rid of Vashti. No one appears to have checked the evidence for the dates when Amestris’s children were born. Ctesias xiii.51 gives some useful informa- tion. “Xerxes married Amestris the daughter of Onophas, and a son Dareiaios [sic] was born to him: and a second, Hystaspes, was born after two years, and then Artaxerxes, and two daughters, of whom one was called Amytis after her grandmother, and the other Rodogoune.” Arta- xerxes was eighteen when he came to the throne in 465, so he must have been born about 488; and Amestris-Vashti’s refusal to appear in Esther may well have been because she was pregnant. Although the Greek might mean that the daughters were born after the sons, their place at the end of the list may merely be because sons were felt more important than daughters. I think Amytis was born before Artaxerxes, since before the death of Xerxes in 465 she was already not only married, but accused of adultery.” But even if she and her sister were born after 483, no chil- dren were born to Amestris-Vashti after the time when the Bible says that Esther became queen. There is no record of Esther’s bearing a child, and she may well have died soon after the close of the Book in 478 .c. We have little informa- tion about the second part of Xerxes’ life. The history of Herodotus ends shortly after 480 8.c.; and Ctesias has only two brief incidents, of about ten lines in all, between that date and the murder of Xerxes in 465 B.c. Amestris’s son, Artaxerxes I, succeeded Xerxes on the throne. This is Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah. Amestris as queen mother now came into prominence once more and continued to exert her power until her death in about 424 n.c. Ctesias records her pressure on Artaxerxes for the beheading of fifty Greek prisoners and her crucifixion of a man who killed her grandson in battle. By accepting the strong-willed Vashti as identical with Amestris, we are not doing violence to the record of Esther as queen.44 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT V. Mordecai Whether or not the names of Mordecai and Esther have any connec- tion with Marduk and Ishtar is not of great importance in view of the names known to have been adopted by Daniel and his three friends in Daniel 1:7. We cannot here discuss the theory that the story is based on a myth of the conquest by Marduk and Ishtar of the Edomite deities, Humman and Mashti. Commentators who are subject to cult-identifica- tions seem to lose all sense of proportion, not only here but in their interpretation of the Song of Songs, e.g., as Canaanite fertility cult songs. ‘These two Books had a struggle to maintain their place in the canon: it seems unlikely that they could even have competed for a place if they had originated in polytheism and sensualism. To the best of my knowledge we have no Persian or Greek references to any vizier or prime minister in Susa during the period when Haman and Mordecai are said to have held this office. There is thus no external confirmation or disproof of what Esther says about them. There may, however, be some confirmation of Mordecai as an histori- cal character, both in the Greek and in a Persian writing. Ctesias xiii.51, lists three men who had great influence in the early part of Xerxes’ reign. Among them is Matakas who “was the most in- fluential of the eunuchs.” Ctesias subsequently relates that, on his way home from Greece, Xerxes told Megabazus to plunder the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. On his refusal, Xerxes sent Matakas “to insult Apollo and plunder everything. He did this, and returned to Xerxes." It seems unlikely that, after the recent defeat of the Persians, an individual could have made a raid of this sort on Delphi; but Strabo XIV, i,5, relates that Xerxes destroyed the shrine of Apollo at Miletus, and Ctesias may have confused this with the more famous shrine at Delphi. This identification of Mordecai and Matakas goes back into the last century, but more recently claims have been made for a Persian equiva- lent. In 1941 Professor A. Ungnad of Berlin published a tablet in ZAW with the twofold mention of a certain Marduka as a high official at Susa during the early years of Xerxes, or possibly the last years of Darius. According to Professor Ungnad his title indicates that he was an account- ant or privy counsellor. A full discussion of the evidence in English is given by Siegfried H. Horn." I believe that one can make a good case for equating both of these men with Mordecai. I cannot understand Horn's reasoning when he rejects Ctesias's Matacas on the ground that his spoilage of Delphi took place before the events of the Book of Esther, and yet accepts Marduka although he is mentioned before the same events. The picture unfolds in a fascinating way. When Xerxes came to theWricut: The Historicity of Esther 45 throne he seems to have taken Matakas/Marduka/Mordecai into his con- fidence. If Mordecai were not already in office as privy counsellor, Xer- xes may have appointed him as such, Mordecai was a eunuch, as the Bible indicates when it presents him without any mention of wife and family (2:7), and with access to the women’s quarters (2:11). Mordecai could have traveled in the personal retinue of Xerxes on his campaign. As a eunuch he was probably in charge of Vashti and the other women. Xerxes was a staunch Zoroastrian, and in an inscription discovered at Persepolis he declares his devotion to Ahuramazda. He tells how he destroyed the temples of the evil gods in various countries and performed a proper religious service on the sites. One may suggest that he was thus able to rationalize his pillaging of the shrine of Apollo. Mordecai, the Jew, was a congenial accessory. He also had no use for pagan gods and may have delighted to help Xerxes in insulting Apollo. Yet something must have happened on the way home which partially set him back. As keeper of the women he may have taken sides with Vashti-Amestris in her conflict with Xerxes’ mistresses; and, when Vashti was discredited, Mordecai seems to have withdrawn. He may have planned to get back into favor by means of Esther. It is difficult to see how Esther could have been selected among the potential candidates unless she had had some influence behind her. In reading Esther 2-4 one gains the impression that Mordecai was a man of influence, even though his fortunes were temporarily at a low ebb: he can communicate freely with the palace; he is on sufficiently close terms with the king’s eunuchs to discover their plot against the king (2:21, 22). Could they have assumed that he would join them as a fallen favorite? Also he is sufficiently powerful to refuse to acknowledge Haman, and Haman can do nothing about it. How ludicrous if Morde- cai were but an ordinary Jew! Haman knew the ups-and-downs of court favoritism. So when the latter's own downfall came, Mordecai was ready to step back into his old influential position (8:1, 2). The Christian judgment of the Book of Esther has been unnecessarily cramped through our feeling that because Mordecai is a Bible character, he must be a good man. Yet, like Samson and Jehu he may have been little more than a time-server. The Bible makes no moral judgment upon him, but it expects us to use our Christian sense. He was raised up by God, but he was not necessarily a godly man. We note how he first forces Esther to conceal her Jewish ancestry (2:20), and then almost blackmails her on the ground that she is a Jewess (4:13, 14). We commend his astuteness in getting around the laws that could not be changed (8:11); but we condemn Esther’s en- couragement of the Jews in Susa to go beyond what they needed for self-defense, although we cannot say how far Mordecai advised her in this.46 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT If Mordecai was a racist, without too much devotion to Yahweh, we can suggest that in the book of Esther he wrote the records of the events in a suitable form for Persian consumption. He would not offend Xerxes, with his zeal for Ahuramazda, by mentioning the God of Israel by name. I do not see any other reasonable explanation of the total omission of the Name of God. If, as is often supposed, the book had been written in the Maccabaean period to encourage Jewish resistance, the enthu- siastic author could not have omitted Yahweh's name. The Lxx takes appropriate action by inserting additions into the Hebrew version to introduce God into the story. The idea of Mordecai’s authorship used to be widely held, though it has been generally abandoned today because of the theory of a late date for the book. But if we consider this idea as a possibility, there is some significance in the statements that Mordecai “recorded these things” (9:20) . If Mordecai was Marduka, the accountant, he would be able to write and to dictate and would have put his version of the story in the court records mentioned in 10:2 and 6:1. At what point the story was transcribed into Hebrew we cannot say, but we are at liberty to accept any date that the style of Hebrew demands.” Some have supposed that the Mordecai of Ezra 2:2, who is listed among important people who returned at various times to Jerusalem, is our Mordecai. This is possible, if Esther died and if the royal favor swung away to another vizier. Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus describe how ‘Artabanus, captain ‘of the royal bodyguard plotted with Aspamitros the eunuch, a man of great influence (so Ctesias) , or, according to Diodorus, with Mithridates, the eunuch, who was the king’s chamberlain and en- joyed his supreme confidence; and they murdered Xerxes." How long before this Aspamitros or Mithridates had been in Mordecai’s place, we cannot say. There was room for only one at the top; and Mordecai, reading the signs of the times, may have felt it wise to join the next train of returning exiles to Judah. Conclusion If the presentation in this paper is approximately correct, there is obviously a need to take the book of Esther seriously as a first-hand historical document. We have been able to show, not merely how the story can be fitted into a gap in the secular records, but how it may be linked to those very people and events in the story of Xerxes of which we have independent knowledge. Notes 1, In English, in addition to the standard commentaries and dictionaries, there are excellent treatments of the period in Arthur T. Olmstead’s two books, The History ofWain: The Historicity of Esther 47 Palestine and Syria (New York: Scribner, 1981; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; 1965) and The History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1948) . 2. Two important articles are by Siegfried H. Horn, “Mordecai, A Historical Prob- Jem,” Biblical Research 9 (1964) and by A. Ungnad, “Keilinschriftliche Beitrage zum Buch Esra und Esther,” ZAW 58 (1940, 1941) and 59 (1942, 1948) . 8. Jacob Hoschander, The Book of Esther in the Light of History (Philadelphia: 1928) ; Olmstead, History of Palestine and Syria, op. cit., pp. 612-14. 4. The two main sources for Persian history are Herodotus’ History of the Persian Wars and Ctesias' History of Persia. Herodotus (ca. 484-424 8.c:) was a contemporary of Xerxes, and Ctesias completed his history about 398 ».c. Both had some access to original sources, and Ctesias was physician at the Persian court from about 412 x.c. onwards. For the part of the history with which we are concerned, he claims to have used written records and the testimony of eyewitnesses. There are many editions of Herodotus, but, so far as I know, the only edition of the Fragments of the Persika of Ctesias is that edited by John Gilmore in 1888, and this has not been translated. Diodorus Siculus, writing a long history shortly before the time of Christ, uses Ctesias and other sources. Plutarch’s Life of Artaxerxes IJ is relevant for the Persian background, although not for the special period of Esther. I have not found anything of importance in Thucydides, Xenophon, or in Aeschylus’s Persae. 5. ICG, Esther, p. 65. 6. Ibid., p. 72. 7. Ibid., p. 78 8. Herodotus, iii, 87, 9. Herodotus, v. 25, vi 10. Herodotus, iii, 67. LL, Antiquities, XI. vi. 13. 12, Ed. L. E. Browne and A. S. Peake, A Commentary on the Bible (London: T. Nel- son, 1936), p. 881; similarly B. W. Anderson in the IB claims that there is no extra-" biblical evidence for this, 18, Harold H. Rowley, Men of God (London: Nelson, 1963) p. 288, note. The sen- tence is from Diodorus Siculus xvii. 80 (incorrectly given as xviii.30) 14, N.p. The e is long. 15. Cf. R. G. Kent, Old Persian Grammar (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1953) . 16. Herodotus ix, 108 f. 17. Ctesias xiii, 59. 18. xiii, 58. 19, Biblical Research, 9 (1964). 20. ICC (p. 62) lists certain late words. 21. Ctesias, xiii, 60; Diodorus Siculus,Il. PENTATEUCH 4 THE LITERARY FORM OF GENESIS 1-11 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. ‘The primary task of the Biblical scholar is to unfold the meaning of the text of Scripture as it was originally intended to be understood by the writer of that text. Those ideas, meanings, and truth-intentions which he had in mind are the first order of business. Further, if the concept of Biblical authority is to be introduced into the discussion, it will only heighten rather than decrease the intensity of the search to get back to that original writer’s thought; for he is the man who claims to have heard the revelation of God. Nowhere is this task filled with more difficulties for the modern Bibli- cal scholar than in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Indeed the very subjects contained in these chapters and the admittedly long interval of time that separates the writer from the topics he is writing about are enough to keep the researcher busy. But with the advent of modern destructive higher criticism following Astruc’s “clue” in 1753, a new problem was added to the two already mentioned: the alleged variations and repetitions within the narratives themselves. Now it was not the discipline of higher criticism which was the new feature; but the new and objectionable feature was the introduc- tion of a philosophical and historical grid, borrowed from Hegel (the dialectic) and Darwin (evolution applied to religious history) which was laid over the Biblical corpus so as to control its “true” sequence, order, and development. ‘This fallacy has since been corrected and for the most part retracted." Unfortunately it was the Wellhausen foundation stone and the first floor ofa house upon which had been built a second floor of the various source- documents distinguished by the criteria of doublets, style, and Iexicog- raphy. While many contemporary Old Testament scholars agree that the foundation and first story of this house, built by J. Wellhausen, K. H. Graf, and A. Kuenen, has fallen, only a few Jewish and evangelical 48,Kaiser: The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11 49 scholars have investigated the situation to see if the second story with its J, E, D, P, L, K, S source documents has actually remained intact despite the collapse of the foundation. Umberto Cassuto and now Ken- neth A. Kitchen are two of these who have documented the fact that the source documents did not survive the crash.? It is beyond the limits of this paper to trace this development, but students of the Scriptures are urged to acquaint themselves with the dispassionate presentation of contemporary Near Eastern materials by Kitchen in order to avoid the bottomless pit of subjectivism in this important area of higher criticism. While source criticism was emerging, another challenge was being prepared as a result of a collection of tablets uncovered in the 1850's by the British Museum. In 1872, George Smith began to publish the con- tents of a flood story which he found on one of these tablets which had been excavated from the Ashurbanipal library in Nineveh. This was followed in 1876 with a publication entitled: The Chaldean Account of Creation. The next contribution seems to have been a paper which a young American scholar named George A. Barton read in 1890 and later published in 1893, where he connected the Old Testament Passages con- cerning Rahab, Leviathan, Lotan, and the Dragon in the Revelation of John with the materials in these Babylonian myths. It would appear that George Barton's work was influential in the thinking of the German scholar Hermann Gunkel, for in 1895 Gunkel continued this line of thought by pointing to a series of poetic texts in the Old Testament where he found a battle between Yahweh and the various sea monsters named above. This tradition, he affirmed, was the background for the creation story of Genesis, though it had been purged by a monotheistic faith. Here we were introduced to our fourth problem, the alleged similari- ties between the literary form and content of Genesis and the ancient Near Eastern mythologies—particularly the Babylonian mythologies. From these early contributions up to our present day, very few scholars have found it necessary to challenge the validity of these results as a basis for understanding these chapters in Genesis. S. R. Driver, in his commentary on Genesis, did squirm a little; but he settled his fears by saying that any “antecedent difficulty” which he may have felt in tracing the Genesis material on creation to a Babylonian source was “considerably lessened” when he put alongside this the Baby- lonian similarities to the Genesis flood which seemed to be so obviously borrowed.> These were not the only challenges; several have been added by our own century: the semantical problem as evidenced in all language which describes the action of God (particularly now in light of the revolt against metaphysical discussions) , and the historical problem as seen in the difficulty of historiography to define its task and to validate its ma-50 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT terial. If these areas are staggering in their implications for current speech and history, surely the task does not become less difficult when it turns to the early chapters of Genesis. In part these last two issues in their Biblical application await the results of the first four problems posed above. All too often it has been possible to slide back and forth in the argument, eg. to go from the lit- erary form to the documents and from there to some conclusion about the level of truth or type of historiography that one could expect from these chapters in Genesis. To be sure, the questions all play their part, but an orderly discussion dictates that we must take one area at a time. Since we believe that the challenge of source criticism has been met, or at least is well on the road to being effectively met, this chapter proposes to investigate the alleged parallels from the ancient Near Eastern my- thologies as to their relevance for the type of literary form and content to be gleaned from the first eleven chapters of Genesis. One is fully aware that a number of disciplines stand off in the wings awaiting both the opportunity for an exchange of materials and the re- sults of our investigations—not the least are the two mentioned above (semantics and history) and the sciences. It is with the name and results of Hermann Gunkel that any researcher in Genesis must reckon. As early as 1895¢ Gunkel began to draw the con- trasts between history and the contents of Genesis 1-11. In 1901 he in- troduced his famous Genesis commentary with these words: “Are the narratives of Genesis history or legend? For the modern historian this is no longer an open question. . . .”° And so it was. Skinner repeated this controlling thesis in his JCC Commentary saying: “We are not entitled to assume a priori: That Israel is an exception to the general rule that a legendary age forms the ideal background of history.”* Thus Genesis 1-11, it was assumed, reflected “a preliterary and un- critical stage of society.’’ The difference between what these chapters reflected and real history could be put into six points. According to Gunkel they were the following: 1. Gen, 1-11 originates in oral tradition while history is found in literate so- cieties and in written documents of actual events. Gen. I-11 deals with personal and family stories while history concerns it- self with great events of public interest. 3. Gen. I-11 depends on the imagination of the raconteurs while history must be traced back to firsthand evidence. . Gen, I-11 (and this is the “most significant” criterion) narrates the impos- sible (origin of stars after the planets, derivation of all the streams of the earth from a single source, a chronology of 2666 years from creation to the Exodus, all the animals in the ark, Ararat the highest mountain) whereas history narrates the possible. » -Katser: The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11 51 * Gen. 1-11 is poetic by nature and intends to delight, inspire, and elevate while history is prose which seeks to inform. Gen. 1-11 is different in form from the classical example of true Hebrew historiography in I Samuel 9-20 whereas history is identical in form and style to those searching, uncomplimentary documents of David's Court in I Samuel 9-208 ° Gunkel, of course, did not limit these observations to Genesis 1-1] as we have here, but he certainly meant that they should apply here. Therefore, under the heavy pressure of the prestigious scholarship of the late nineteenth and the present twentieth century, the approach has become all but unanimous by now: Genesis 1-11 is primaeval history reflecting its Near Eastern origins (mainly Babylonian) from which it was borrowed. Any modern appraisal of this section of Scripture must thereby reflect these philological and mythological connections. I. The Subject Content ‘What are those elements in the Genesis narratives which suggest a connection with the mythology of the ancient Near East and Babylon in particular? Principally, the subjects discussed are common to the literature and culture of both groups. They are as follows: 1. The so-called four accounts of creation’ a. Gen, I:1-2:4a b. Gen, 2:4b-2:25 c. Prov, 8:22-81 d, Allusions found in prophetic and poetical books of O. T. . The Serpent and the Garden of Eden, Gen. 8 (Ezk. 28:12-19) The Cain and Abel conflict, Gen. 4 . The Genealogies of Gen, 5 and 11;10-22 The Sons of god marrying the daughters of men, Gen. 6:1-4 . The Flood, Gen. 6:5-9:19 The Curse of Canaan, Gen. 9:20-29 . The Table of Nations, Gen. 10 . The Tower of Babel, Gen. 11:1-9 PEs aap en For each of these subjects or topics there are parallels to a greater or lesser degree. The two most famous are the Gilgamesh Epic (Babylonian flood) and the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Genesis) . For the Garden of Eden there is the Sumerian Dilmun Poem, the myth of Enki and Nin- hursag, and the Akkadian myth of Adapa, The Cain and Abel story is seen in the contest of Dumuzi, shepherd-god, and Enkimdu, the farmer- god. The Weld-Blundell prism or the Sumerian king list is said to re- flect our genealogical list; while the themes of the sons of god, the ethnological details on Canaan and the seventy nations, and finally the52 New PERsPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT tower of Babel are all seen as being authentically Babylonian or at least Near Eastern in their origin. The scholarly community is beholden to W. G. Lambert for his master- ful article on the Babylonian background to Genesis. Noting how im- portant the Gilgamesh Epic is, with its striking examples of parallelism to the Genesis flood story (the episode of the sending out of the birds being one of the most impressive of those parallels), he begins by re- evaluating the dates of our alleged protoypes in Sumer and Babylon. Here is the interesting development: The Sumerian prototype dates from 1800 s.c., but makes no mention of the birds. The incomplete copy for the earliest known Babylonian text (1600 3.c.) also, to date, lacks any reference to the birds. “Thus the only surviving testimony to the most telling parallel happens to be later than the Biblical account, but nevertheless,” continues W. G. Lambert, “I hold that there is a certain dependence of the Hebrew writers on a Mesopotamian tradition.” Ap- parently, no copies earlier than 750 s.c. contain this reference in Tablet XI which is parallel to Genesis 8:6-12! This might have stirred up S. R. Driver" sufficiently to retain his “antecedent difficulty.” If this bird episode in the 750 .c. copies of the Gilgamesh Epic repre- sents the best example of parallelism, there are other examples which rate as a mere superficial comparison. An illustration of this type can be seen in the Cain and Abel comparison with Enkimdu and Dumuzi. The parallel is said to reflect the ancient feud between the pastoral nomad (here the shepherd-god Dumuzi) and the farmer (farmer-god Enkimdu) . This identification is “extremely flimsy.’*? The, Sumerian story has Inanna (same goddess as Ishtar) preferring the hand of the farmer-god, Enkimdu, in marriage rather than that of Dumuzi. Inanna’s brother, the son-god Utu, prefers the latter, but Inanna holds firm and Enkimdu appeases the loser, Dumuzi, with all kinds of gifts. How can this be the background for the Genesis 4 narrative? As Sarna points out, never does the Biblical text disparage the occupation of the farmer, let alone evaluate and compare the two occupations. The con- trast is on the quality of the men in their heart attitudes and not on their occupations. Nor is anything said of a marriage or of appeasing a loser in Genesis. Indeed, the chapter does go on, as Sarna observes, to enumerate just those skills which are generally connected with a pastoral and nomadic culture and places them in the line of Cain, the farmer, viz. cattle-rearing, music and metallurgy. Il. The Philological Parallels Another approach to the relationship of Genesis 1-11 with other Near Eastern accounts involves the philological aspect. Nowhere is this il-Katser: The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11 53 lustrated better than in the much discussed word thom, “the deep” in Genesis 1:2. Typical of the canonical status this discussion has reached. is the statement of S. H. Hooke: ‘The Hebrew word used for the chaos of waters, “the deep” is tehom, a word which is generally acknowledged to be a Hebrew corruption of the name of the chaos-dragon slain by Marduk before he proceeded to create order out of chaos." Even though Alexander Heidel dealt with the basic philological facts as long ago as 1942, Old Testament scholarship has been exceedingly slow in facing up to the realities he presented there." The difficulty of borrowing a feminine Babylonian word and bringing it over into Hebrew unaugmented by any sufformative elements, and locating a guttural letter “h” in the middle of the word has never been adequately explained. This observation by Heidel is generally by-passed with some remark about his orthodox motives for observing this feature.” Kitchen also calls the identification a “complete fallacy” and points to the fact that ¢hdm is common Semitic as shown now by the Ugaritic thm, which was known in the early second millennium s.c.* Moreover, he faults the whole assumption of Hebrew dependence on the Babylonian myths on methodological grounds as well. “In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa. Recently Thorkild Jacobsen has made an excellent case for the fact that Marduk means “son of the storm” and therefore his conflict with ‘Tiamat is a battle of the elements: the god of storm, rain, lightning, and thunder versus the goddess of the sea. This same motif occurs at the same time (middle of the 2nd millennium) in the Ugaritic myth of Baal versus Yam. This immediately raises the question of dependence and the direction of the borrowing. Since Canaan supplies the environ- mental context, because of its proximity to the Mediterranean Sea, whereas Babylon was somewhat removed, Jacobsen concludes that the myth comes from Ugarit and the possibility that the borrowing of the term for “sea” could be just the reverse of that pictured heretofore by orientalists, i.e. tiamat comes from tihamatum.® Now if this identification of Tehom with Tiamat has run on to hard times with morphological differences and methodological problems, then the final blow, so it would seem, is again given in W. G. Lambert's recent study. Not only is a watery beginning only one Mesopotamian notion among others, but it is not as commonly attested as is the notion that the earth came first. Neither is it the earliest cosmological idea known to us from the Babylonian sources. The primacy of the earth is known first around 2600 B.c.; then sometime after 2000 ».c. the primacy of water is known, followed by the primacy of time about 1700 3.c. Lam-54 New PERsPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT bert concludes that the “watery beginning of Genesis in itself is no evidence of Mesopotamian influence.” Another example of the results yielded by philological studies is to be found in the word taken to mean “to brood” in Genesis 1:2. This word, Gunkel felt, lent support to a connection with the Phoenician cosmic world-egg theory. Now it turns out that this very rhp, does occur in Ugaritic and has the same meaning there as it does in Deuteronomy 32:11, where the eagles are said “to hover, flutter or coast” in the air2* ‘The imagery here is one of God caring for the forming of the earth just as the young eaglets are dependent on their parent's attention while they soar over them until they are able to fly and fend for themselves. III. The Mythological Motif Recently some have acknowledged the point just made concerning “the deep” and “to flutter” in Genesis 1:2 and have moved on to dis- cuss the conflict of Yahweh versus the chaos monster. Brevard S. Childs puts it this way, “Although the present usage of the word in Genesis 1:2 has little in common with Tiamat, Gunkel has shown convincingly that the Old Testament does possess traditions in which the téhdm is con- nected with a primeval battle which initiates the creation (cf. Isa. 51:9, 10) "7? Here again Lambert gathers together the Near Eastern materials and the result is that “the case for a battle as a prelude to God’s dividing of the cosmic waters is unproven.”* While the Enuma Elish does have a battle which precedes the division and separation of the waters, the problem is to locate such a battle in Genesis, or even in the poetry of the Old Testament. The reference in Isaiah 51:9-10 clearly alludes to a request that God act in the historic present like He acted in the historic past, when the Red Sea opened up and “the redeemed passed over.” The only other convincing example one could suggest is in Psalm 74:13: “Thou didst crush or divide sea by thy strength”; even here, however, there is a lexicographical dispute and Lambert advises us to translate it: “Thou didst set the sea in commotion.” The separation does not neces- sarily imply a conflict in the Near Eastern mythology, for the three Sumerian accounts do it peacefully, as do the Hittites, Egyptians, and Phoenicians. Childs had used just such a conflict as his basis for con- cluding that “the material found in Gen. 1:2 has its roots ultimately in myth.” ‘The search for the mythological background to the Hebrew creation narratives does not seem to be any more successful when it turns to the figure of wisdom in the book of Proverbs, particularly in Proverbs 8.22— 31. A recent examination of this theory by R. N. Whybray® concludes that mythology is “notably absent” in the wisdom literature of EgyptKatser: The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11 55 and Mesopotamia. Indeed, the very name “wisdom” was never used as a name for any of the gods or goddesses. Although W. F. Albright had sug- gested a Canaanite goddess of wisdom, principally on the basis of four short passages in the Ugaritic corpus where hkm occurs six times, Why- bray complains that every one is a reference to the wisdom of the high god El. On examination, the alleged mythological features, such as the famous statement that wisdom built her house on seven pillars (9:1), also fails to yield the expected results. In the example just cited, it turns out that “remains of Phoenician houses from the late third millennium did have roofs supported by seven interior pillars.”"* The detail is not mythological but rather concrete. Whybray concludes by observing that “the terms used to describe wisdom’s origin are metaphorical, not mytho- logical.” The conclusion seems to be building that neither the subject material with its apparent, but unfulfilled, parallelism to ancient Near Eastern mythologies nor the initial lexicographical studies involving words like “the deep” and “to brood’ will serve as guides in leading us to the conclusion that the literary genus (Gattung) of these chapters is the category of myth. IV. The Scientifically Impossible But let us turn to Gunkel’s fourth category; the one he finds to be the “most significant.” What about those things in Genesis 1-11 which are clearly impossible? To begin with a fairly concrete example, one could point to the obvious reference to iron in Genesis 4:22, well in advance to the iron age, which is usually placed around 1200 n.c. Without pretending to be able to date this incident to lives of Cain’s descendants, one may remark that the knowledge of working iron is clearly much earlier than 1200 w.c. The very Hebrew word (barzel) ap- pears to be a loan word from the Sumerian parzillum. Several finds have added to the importance of this observation. At Tel Asmar," at Dorah in N. W. Turkey, and at Catal Hiiyiik,* evidence has been uncovered for working in terrestrial iron (as opposed to meteorite iron, which has a different nickel content) as early as 2500 B.c. for the first two sites and 6500-5800 b.c. in the last case. Apparently arts and crafts can be mastered and then lost only to reappear again in another age. One should be hesitant to declare an “impossibility” here. The genealogies of chapters five and eleven have often been paraded as prime examples of chronological impossibilities. The remedy, however, for this difficulty is to be found in the type of exposure to the Biblical genealogies given almost a century ago in William Henry Green’s epochal article. Green reminds us that these numbers are never totaled and are apparently in a symmetrical form of ten names each, with three sons56 New PERSPECTIVES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT climaxing each list. He points to the parallel lists in the Bible where obvious omissions can be demonstrated, e.g. in I Chronicles 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-5. Further, when we consider the range of meanings of Old Testament terms such as “generation” (which can equal 80 plus years) * “begat,” “son of,” “father of,” “she bore [yalad] a son,"™ both in the Bible and now in the ancient Near East," we are delivered from making some foolish occidental mistakes. The most instructive lesson of all can be gleaned from Kohath’s descent into Egypt (Gen. 46:6-1]), 480 years (Ex. 12:40) before the Exodus.* Now if Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 7:7), and no gap is understood (as we believe the evidence above now forces us to conclude), then the “grandfather” ‘of Moses had in Moses’ lifetime 8,600 descendants, 2,750 of which were males between the ages of 30 and 50 alone! (Num. 3:19, 27, 28, 34-36). Certainly the writers of the Bible are not that naivel The only new feature one meets in the Genesis 5 and 11 lists is the inclusion of the number of years A lived before he begat B and the total number of years A lived. The solution to the question concerning the function of these numbers was suggested as far back as 1906 by John H. Raven. Observing, correctly, that Zilpah was credited with “bearing” (yalad) her great-grandchildren (Gen. 46:18) , while Bilhah “bore” her grandchildren (46:25), and Canaan “bore” whole nations (10:15-18) , Raven allows that the first number in the formula may mean that B literally “was born” to A or that B was a distant descendant “born” to A. If it is the latter case, then “the age of A is his age at the birth of that child from whom B (eventually) descended.”* Many have seized upon the Genesis 6:1-4 incident, with the “sons of god” and the daughters of men in cohabitation, as one of the clearest examples of an impossibility in the natural realm leading to the category of myth. We believe this analysis fails to investigate the original mean- ings signified by the writer's use of the terms “sons of god” and “n*pilim gibbérim,” i.e. the so-called “giants.” The most adequate treatment and solution known to us is that article which calls upon an exegesis of the text in light of the cognate materials from the Near East by Meredith Kline. To equate “sons of god” with angels does not tally with the di- vine response given in v. 8, viz., God’s displeasure with the sin of man. The situation is not relieved by seeing in the “sons of god” a reference to a godly Sethite line as opposed to an ungodly Cainite line in the daughters of men; for while it meets the test of v. 8, it must equivocate on the meaning of “men” in wv. 1 and 2, ie. “mankind” generically in v. 1 and “Cainites” specifically in v. 2. Further, why do we find the kind of offspring mentioned in v. 4 if these are just religiously mixed mar- riages? Kline’s solution is to interpret “sons of god” (bn il) in its Near Eastern setting as a title for nobles, aristocrats and kings. These socio- logically mixed marriages lusted after power and wealth (the gibbdrimKalser: The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11 57 as seen in 6:4 = Gen. 10:8-10 and 4:19-24), ie, they desired to become “men of a name”—somebodies (cf. 11:4)! This structure of events, com- ing as it does before the flood narrative, agrees with the Sumerian Nippur fragment where the flood narrative is also immediately preceded by the lowering of kingship from heaven, and thus it suggests that both could be an historical reflex of the same event in time and space, Of course, common to all these “im possibilities” is the underlying sup- position that the world view resident in Genesis 1-11 is pre-scientific and primaeval. Nowhere can one find a greater unanimity on this point than in those discussions which point, with elaborately labeled diagrams, to a three-storied universe. A flat earth (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 20:8) is capped with a solid firmament (Gen. 1:7, 8, et passim) appropriately outfitted with windows (Gen. 7:11; 8:12: II Kgs. 7:2; Isa. 24:18, et passim) and supported by pillars (I Sam. 2:8; Job 9:6; etc), stretching upward past Sheol and “The Deep.” Laird Harris‘ has shown each step of this diagram depends more on the ingenuity of the modern scholar than it does upon the imagination of the original raconteurs. Nowhere does the text state or imply that the raqé, better translated “expanse,” is solid or firm. This latter idea of “firmness” is derived from the Vulgate firmamentum and the Septuagint stereoma. S. R. Driver tries to document the dome or canopy effect in his commentary on Genesis 1:6; but he fails to explain the Ezekiel 1 and 10 references, where the word clearly refers to an “extended” plat- form on which the throne of Ezekiel’s vision rests. As R. Laird Harris observes, the heavens are also likened to a curtain or a scroll which could be rolled up (Isa. $4:4; 40:22) .“ As for those windows in this vault which are alleged to let the starlight and rains in, we need only to see what is said to come in through these windows: barley in II Kings 7:2, trouble and anguish in Isaiah 24:18, and blessings in Malachi 3:10! Actually, in the II Kings passage God had to make the windows (not just open them) before he could send down the barley! (Note also the distinct Hebrew word used for window “*rubba vs. the more common halon. The subterranean features, including the pillars, sheol, and “the waters under the earth,” on examination also fail to uphold the triple-decked or three-storied universe. The “waters under the earth” easily qualify as waters below the shore line where the fish dwell (Deut. 4:18), and sheol is the poetic word for the usual prose word “the grave.” While some poetic passages describe the “foundations” of the earth as resting on “pillars,” we may note that both words are used metaphorically (one even continues today); and Job 26:7 even has the earth resting upon nothing!** The primitive view turns out to be an assigned interpretation and not one which was derived from the texts themselves. Nor does it help the