Weiter zum Inhalt

The Affliction and Divorce of Hagar Involves Violations of the Covenant and Deuteronomic Codes


Seiten 166 - 206

DOI https://doi.org/10.13173/zeitaltobiblrech.8.2002.0166




Los Angeles

1 Gen. R. 45: 6.

2 Ramban also attributes the exile of the Israelites in Egypt and their affliction to the sinful conduct of Abraham. On Gen. 12: 10 he says that Abraham sinned when he told her to tell Pharaoh she was his sister without mentioning that she was his wife. He adds that Abraham should never have gone to Egypt on account of the famine, but should have remained in the land of Canaan.

3 For the importance of Terah for the maintenance of endogamy in the Genesis narratives see Naomi Steinberg, “Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective,” Minneapolis, Fortress, 1993, 115, 133.

4 Laban considers the term אלהים coterminous with his teraphim that he calls his gods (Gen. 31: 30), hoping to enslave Jacob in perpetuity with the help of these gods, as I explain in “Jacob's Servitude Reflects Differences in the Covenant and Holiness Codes and Deuteronomy,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 2003 (in press).

5 See Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy and The Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation,” Oxford University Press, 1997, 111–112.

6 The Covenant Code uses the tetragrammaton only when mentioning the power before whom oaths must be sworn (Exod. 22: 10), a phenomenon that Levinson considers to parallel Akkadian parallels, rather than constituting a secondary interpolation as Otto suggests (see Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation,” Oxford University Press, 1997, 115–116, n. 47 and 48).

7 Phyllis Trible, “Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives,” Philadelphia, 1984, 14.

8 Commenting on the harshness of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael Ramban says: “All this occurred to Abraham because he had been commanded to do whatever Sarah said… It was at her command that he did not give them silver and gold, servants and camels to bear them.”

9 “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,” ed. J. B. Pritchard, 2nd edition, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1955, 164.

10 Jonathan Paradise, “What Did Laban Demand of Jacob? A New Reading of Genesis 31: 50 and Exodus 21: 10,” p. 97 in “Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg,” ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1997.

11 See Etan Levine, “Biblical Women's Marital Rights,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 63 (1997–2001): 87–136. According to this explanation, the word ענה is the opposite of עצור, which means “closed” and also denotes sexual abstinence (1 Sam. 21: 6, 8), perhaps the root of the word עצרת, a word denoting the closing day of a festival (Lev. 23: 36; Num. 29: 35; Deut. 16: 8; Neh. 8: 18; 2 Chron. 7: 8), perhaps implying that this day is one for sexual abstinence, a meaning that may also be implied in a sardonic wordplay in Jer. 9: 1 when Jeremiah juxtaposes the word עצרת to מנאפים, adulterers. Levine's explanation solves several cruces, including Exod. 32: 18; 1 Sam. 14: 14; Hos. 2: 17; Ps. 129: 3; Ecc. 5: 19; 10: 19 and supports the view that the so-called rape of Dinah was in fact consensual sex (Gen. 34:2). Interestingly, it provides an explanation for the goddess Anat, whose sobriquet means “open womb” so that her name actually implies an open vagina. Margalit also notes the connection between the verb ענה and “open,” saying that the use of the verb reflects the symmetry between oral and vaginal anatomy, although he considers that the verb often denotes “open forcibly,” denoting rape (B. Margalit, “K-R-T Studies,” Ugarit-Forschungen, 27 (1995):242, n. 32 and 284). Interestingly, the verb פתה, meaning “expand” (Gen. 9: 27), can denote seduction (Exod. 22: 15; Judg. 14: 15; 16: 5), which involves opening the genitalia, and is also used to denote the opening of the lips (Prov 20: 19). In Hos. 2: 16 it means both “persuade” by means of opening the lips, and “seduce”.

12 Etan Levine, 111, n. 49. Levine points out that עין, eye, also denotes an opening, being the source of tears just as an עין, spring, is a source of water.

13 An עין, spring, is conceptually similar to a באר, well, the site of several encounters that lead to reproduction, including Hagar's encounter with the angel (Gen. 16: 14 [2]; 21: 19), including Abraham's servant and Rebekkah (Gen. 24: 20, 21), Jacob and Rachel (Gen. 29: 2 [3], 3 [2], 8, 10) and Moses and Zipporah (Exod. 2: 15). Joseph's relationship with Potiphar's wife takes place only because his brothers put him into a בור, pit (Gen. 37: 24 [2], 28, 29), which the Torah says has no water to contrast his ultimate betrothal with Potiphar's daughter (Gen. 41: 45) with those of Rebekkah, Rachel and Zipporah. According to the Midrash (Lev. R. 18:1; 19: 1; J. T. Sotah 2), Aqabia ben Mahalel links the word באר, well, with the wordבורא, creator, as in Ecc. 12: 1, leading him to say that all people come from a “fetid drop” (Mishnah Aboth 3: 1). The fact that the wordsעין, spring, andבאר, well, are both related to procreation is indeed intriguing, especially since both are associated with what the bible callsמים חיים, living waters, which are also the waters of life.

14 Abraham's servant makes a sexual innuendo when he prays to Godהקרדדנא, make it happen (Gen. 24: 12). The verbקרה has sexual connotation, being the root of the wordמקרה mpD, seminal emission (Deut. 23: 13). The author of Ruth echoes the narrative of Abraham's servant and Rebekkah when, describing the encounter between Ruth and Boaz, he saysויקר מקרה mpD, and a happening happened (Ruth 2: 3).

15 Michael Fishbane, “Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts,” Oxford, Oneworld, 1998, 42 (originally published by Schocken, 1979).

16 Edward F. Campbell, Jr., “Ruth,” Anchor Bible, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1985, 98.

17 עינים, Enaim, is probably the village of Enam in Judah (Josh. 15: 34) (see B. T. Sotah 10a).

18 E. W. Good, “Deception and Women: A Response,” in “Reasoning with Foxes, Female Wit in a World of Male Power,” Semeia 42 (1988): 117–132.

19 Etan Levine, “Biblical Women's Marital Rights,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 63 (1997–2001): 87–136.

20 B. T. Berakhot 20a. The supposed connection between עין הרע, the evil eye, and reproduction may itself be related to a wordplay that linksעין, eye, toענה, conjugal right. The Talmud continues by saying: R. Joseph the son of R. Hanina learned from here: And they will multiply like fish in the midst of the land (Gen. 48: 16). Just as in the case of the fish of the sea the water covers them andעין הרע, the evil eye, does not prevail over them so also in the case of the seed of Josephעין הרע, the evil eye, does not prevail over them.

21 Shadal quotes anonymous opinions that suggest that Hagar was given her name after her flight from Sarai, relating it to the Arabic hajara, meaning “to flee,” as in the hijrah or hegira that, curiously enough, denotes the flight of Hagar's ostensible descendant Mohammed in 622 C.E. (“The Book of Genesis: A Commentary by ShaDaL (S. D. Luzzatto),” translated by Daniel A. Klein, Northvale, NJ, Jason Aronson, 1998, 151). Hagar is certainly associated with flight, since in the first narrative in which she appears the Torah saysותברח, and she fled (Gen. 16: 6). The early followers of Mohammed stressed the relationship of Mohammed to Hagar (see 22 The Midrash also sees Pharaoh's decree as an attempt to prevent Sabbath observance (Exod. R. 5: 18). The Midrash says that the Israelites used to console themselves on the Sabbath by reading scrolls, perhaps implying that they consoled themselves with the scroll containing the Covenant Code, a code which begins with the law concerning the manumission of slaves (Exod. 21: 1–6)!

23 Interestingly, the violation of gathering straw on the Sabbath described in Num. 15: 32 occurs after the Israelites say they want to return to Egypt (Num. 14: 4). The Israelite who gathers wood on the Sabbath does so to indicate his willingness to return to Egypt where he would be forced to violate the Sabbath.

24 R. H. Jarrell, “The Birth Narrative as Female Counterpart to Covenant,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 97 (2002): 3018.

25 Nahum Sarna, “The JPS Pentateuch: Genesis,” Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society, 1989, 51.

26 The linkage between the two verses is particularly ironic since in Gen. 6: 13 the Torah uses the verbשחת, destroy, to denote the way that all mankind destroys its way on the earth. The Torah also uses this verb to denote Onan's destruction of his seed when he fails to fulfill his levirate duty to Tamar (Gen. 38: 9). Sarai's use of the wordחמסי implies that she wishes to destroy Abram's seed in the manner of Onan!

27 R. Christopher Heard, “Dynamics of Diselection,” Society for Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2001, 67. Heard reviews the literature that discusses the meaning of the wordחמסי, the violence done to me, pointing out that it can mean “the violence done to me” or “the violence done by me,” and correctly suggests that the ambiguity implies that it means both. Bruckner points out that the irony is that while Hagar calls for YHWH to judge she does the judging, harshly, herself (James K. Bruckner, “Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative: A Literary and Theological Analysis,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 335, 2001, 86, n. 29).

28 The wordחמת links the expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar by Sarah and Abraham to the expulsion of Jacob by Rebekkah and Isaac after Jacob purloins Esau's blessing: And now, my son, listen to my voice, and arise, flee to Paddan-aram for a few days, untilחמתאחיך, the heat of your brother, abates (Gen. 27: 44). The expulsion of Jacob by Rebekkah and Isaac, like that of Joseph by Jacob, echoes that of Ishmael and Hagar by Sarah and Abraham, both of these expulsions being a “measure for measure” retribution for the affliction that Sarah and Abraham cause Hagar and Ishmael when they expel them to the wilderness.

29 Ibn Ezra (Gen. 21: 9) says that Sarah was jealous of Ishmael when she saw him sporting because she observed that he was bigger than Isaac. This rather curious interpretation caused Shadal to write: “Sarah, in her wisdom, having seen Ishmael make sport, realized…that he would be the wild ass of the human species…and would leave nothing, great or small, to her son Isaac.” He adds that the phrase עם־בני, with my son (Gen. 21: 12), does not imply that Sarah opposed the idea of Isaac and Ishmael sharing the inheritance together but merely wishes to prevent him from claim it in its entirety (“The Book of Genesis: A Commentary by ShaDaL (S. D. Luzzatto),” translated by Daniel A. Klein, Northvale, New Jersey, Jason Aronson, 1998, 195).

30 Interestingly, Malachi uses the wordחמס to denote the betrayal of the wife of one's youth (Mal. 2: 16). His use of this word is exquisitely ironic since his language recalls the betrayal by both Abram and Sarai of Hagar, who was the concubine of Abram's old age rather than the wife of his youth.

31 According to Bovati,ריב denotes an extra-judicial controversy in contrast toמשפט which denotes a court-like procedure (Pietro Bovati, “Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible,” trans. Michael J. Smith, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 105, Sheffield, 1994, preface). Bovati bases himself on Deut. 25: 1; 19: 17–18; 2 Sam. 15: 2 and his definition appears to apply to Gen. 13: 7. However, the distinction he makes clearly does not apply to Exod. 23: 2 where the wordריב is associated with false testimony and therefore must refer to a legal procedure.

32 Rabbinic exegesis claims that the word רבים in Exod. 23: 2 means “majority” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 1: 6; 4: 1). However, the word is more likely to means “mighty” because it resonates with the word ריב, dispute, implying that the mighty are litigious, taking advantage of the law to oppress the weak. See also David Weiss Halivni, “Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis,” Oxford University Press, 1991, 104, 118.

33 Jon D. Levenson, “Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity,” Yale University Press, 1993, 96.

34 The wordכאב, pain, may denote genital distress, as in the Dinah narrative where the Torah says: And it was, on the third day, when they were כאבים, in pain, the two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah, each took his sword and they came to the city unsuspecting and killed every male (Gen. 34: 25). Theכאב, pain, that God perceives may be the separation of men and women due to the way that Pharaoh deprives the Israelites of their conjugal right!

35 The parallel was first described by the medieval commentator Ba'al Ha'Turim on Gen. 16: 5.

36 The wordסרה, deviously, appears only 8 times in the bible, twice in the Torah (Deut. 13: 6; 19: 16), and 6 times in other parts of the bible (Isa. 1: 5; 14: 6; 31: 6; 59: 13; Jer. 28: 16; 29: 32).

37 The Deuteronomist does not require two witnesses are not required for the crime of instigation to idolatry (Deut. 13: 10), a contradiction with the law in Deut. 13: 7–12 that Otto tries to harmonize (Eckart Otto, “Von der Gerichtsordnung zum Verfassungsentwurf: Deuteronomische Gestaltung und deuteronomische Interpretation im “Ämtergesetz” Dtn 16, 18–18. 22,” in “Wer ist wie Du, HERR, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser,” edited by Ingo Kottsieper et al., Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995, 142–155). He suggests that the permission to execute judgment based on the testimony of less than two witnesses in Deut. 13: 7–12 is due to the fact that that the instigation take placeבסתר, in secret (Deut. 13: 7). This harmonization follows Ibn Ezra but Levinson disputes it (Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation,” Oxford University Press, 1997, 119, n. 57). Nevertheless, it is interesting that the wordבסתר, in secret, echoes the use of the wordונסתרה, and she was hidden (Num. 5: 17), in the pericope of the suspected adulteress where two witnesses are also not available. It is possible that Otto is correct and that the Deuteronomist felt that special measures were required for sins committed “בסתר, in secret, as in the case of the special ordeal that the Priestly law legislates for a woman who commits adultery in secret.

38 The importance of the laws of evidence, stated most clearly by the Deuteronomist and waived only in the case of the suspected adulteress, echoes the importance of the laws of evidentiary procedure in the code of Hammurabi, where these laws are placed at the very beginning (§§ 1–5) (see Herbert Petschow, “Zur Zystematik und Gesetztechnik im Codex Hammurabi,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 57 (1965): 148–149). The Deuteronomist requires witnesses even in the gravest of all cases, apostasy (Deut. 17: 2–7). The fact that the Torah prescribes an alternative method for investigating and punishing adultery in the pericope of the suspected adulteress highlights the gravity of this crime.

39 Eckart Otto, “Theory of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law,” in “Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development,” ed. Bernard M. Levinson, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 181, 1994, 160–196, p. 195–196, fn. 119.

40 According to halakhah excrement does not defile in spite of the Deuteronomic law, perhaps because it is normally solid and only liquids can defile.

41 Mishnah Gittin 9: 10. The School of Hillel says that the termערות דבר denotes any form of displeasure while R. Aqiba says that this may mean that the husband has found another woman whom he prefers since the verse says: “If she does not find favor in his eyes” (Deut. 24: 1). Josephus appears to have followed the interpretation of the School of Hillel (David Daube, “The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism,” Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 1998, 371). When R. Ishmael b. Yossi attributes Israel's exile toערות דבר, matter of nakedness (Abot deRabbi Nathan 38), he appears to agree with the school of Shammai, using the term as a metaphor for adultery, a metaphor that is found in many biblical passages where the faithless of Israel is compared to adultery, notably the episode of the Golden Calf which is followed by Moses forcing the Israelites to drink water mixed with the gold dust of the Golden Calf (Gen. 32: 20; Num. 5: 17).

42 The interpretation of the school of Shammai, which is followed by Matt. 5: 32, is the plain meaning of the text, because the verb מצא, followed by a bet, as in מצא בה, found in her, denotes the discovery of something that is forbidden (1 Sam. 29: 3, 6, 8; 2 Kings 17: 4; cf. 12: 5), suggesting that the Deuteronomist is talking about a case where a husband discovers that his wife has committed an offence that is not merely obnoxious but forbidden, namely adultery.

43 J. Goldin, “Towards a Profile of the Tanna, Aqiba ben Joseph,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 96 (1976): 47. See Etan Levine, “Biblical Women's Marital Rights,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 63 (1997–2001): 129, n. 83.

44 The impurity of which the Torah speaks is moral rather ritual since if the suspected adulteress had been regarded ritually impure she would have been unable to enter the sanctuary where the ritual occurs, as Klawans points out (Jonathan Klawans, “Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism,” Oxford University Press, 2000, 112). The person recovering from scale disease may only return to the camp when ritually purified (Lev. 14: 8).

45 Roger Syrin, “The Forsaken First-born: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 133, 1993, 61–63.

46 See Danna Nolan Fewell, “Changing the Subject: Retelling the Story of Hagar the Egyptian,” in “Genesis,” ed. Athalya Brenner. Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) 1. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, 194, n. 23.

47 R. Christopher Heard, “Dynamics of Diselection,” Society for Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2001, 176.

48 See Nahum Sarna, “The JPS Pentateuch: Genesis,” Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society, 1989, 343.

49 There are many connections between Ishmael and Esau, the ancestor of the Edomites. Neither of these descendants are fully expelled from the community of Israel, as is clear from Deut. 23: 8 which forbids the Israelite to abhor the Edomite or Egyptians and commands him to let them enter the community in the third generation. Ishmael is an Egyptian since his mother is Egyptian (Gen. 16: 1) and he himself marries an Egyptian woman (Gen. 21: 21). Since his wife is also an Egyptian (Gen. 21: 21) Ishmaelites must be regarded as Egyptians. The same fate does not befall Joseph since Jacob adopts his two sons and makes them his own (Gen. 48: 5).

50 Donna Nolan Fewell, David M. Gunn, “Gender, Power, and Promise,” Nashville, Abingdron, 1993, 135.

51 The term Holiness Code was first used by August Klostermann in 1877 in an attempt to refute the theory that Ezekiel wrote the second of Leviticus and is used by Knohl to distinguish the Priestly Torah from the laws of the Holiness School (see Israel Knohl, “The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School,” Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1995). However, the reader should be aware that the studies of Warning showing the literary unity between the writings attributed to the Holiness School and the Priestly Torah raise serious questions as to its existence as a separate entity (Wilfried Warning, “Literary Artistry in Leviticus,” Leiden, Brill, 1999). The term “Holiness Code” should be viewed with some skepticism. Kaufmann and Weinfeld both claim that the laws of the Holiness Code are part of the Priestly Torah (Y. Kaufmann, “a History of the Religion of Israel,” Jerusalem, 1960, 121; Moshe Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School,” Oxford, 1972, 179–243) and the work of Warning casts serious doubts about the separation between the laws attributed to P and HS since numerological patterns suggests that a single author was responsible not only for redacting these laws but writing them (Wilfried Warning, “Literary Artistry in Leviticus,” Leiden, Brill, 1999, 8–19).

52 Yair Zakovich, “The Woman's Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce,” The Jewish Law Annual, 4 (1981): 39.

53 It is possible that she is also forbidden to him since she does not comeמעמיו, from his people, as required in Lev. 21: 14 (see L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, et al., “Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament,” 3.792; Sara Japhet, “The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll's Attitude to Sexual Impurity and its Biblical Precedents,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society (Columbia University), Comparative Studies in Honor of Jochanan Muffs, 22 (1993); 69–87; “The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts according to a Document of the Second Temple Period,” 3–20, p. 19, n. 46, in “Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran,” Michael V. Fox et al., eds., Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1996). Interestingly, Aaron also violates this prohibition by marrying a Judahite (Exod. 6: 23).

54 Although halakhah does not permit a woman to divorce her husband such divorces would sometimes occur according to Josephus (“Antiquities,” 15: 259) and Mark 10: 12 (see Yair Zakovitch, “The Woman's Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce,” Jewish Law Journal 4 (1981): 35–36. See also M. Friedman, “Divorce upon the Wife's Demand as Reflected in Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah,” Jewish Law Journal 4 (1981): 103–127). However, a close reading of the Deuteronomic law of divorce does not support the view that such divorce is consistent with biblical law since according to the Deuteronomist the sole justification, indeed mandate, for divorce is the husband's suspicion that his wife has been unfaithful. The unfaithfulness of a husband would not cause him to be defiled in the same way as wife's unfaithfulness unless he was unfaithful with a married woman. It follows that the wife of an unfaithful husband would ostensibly have no grounds for divorce.

55 This would also seem to be the origin of the English word “divorce” which according to the Oxford English dictionary comes from the Latin divertere, meaning “to turn aside, specifically of a woman, to separate from or leave her husband”.

56 M. Zipor, “Restrictions on Marriage for Priests (Lev 21,7.13–14),” Biblica 68 (1987): 265. Zipor points out that the Torah arranges the women forbidden to the priest chiastically, beginning and ending with זנה.

57 The verbחלל can mean “trample to the ground” (Isa. 23: 8; Ezek. 28: 7–8, 15; Ps. 89: 40), further supporting his argument by the association of the verbsזנה andחלל in Lev. 19: 29; 21: 7, 14 (Moshe Weinfeld, “Hillul, kebisa umirmas regel,” in Mehqere laxon,” Festschrift Z. Ben Hayyim, ed. M. Bar-Asher et al., Jerusalem, Magnes (Hebrew), 1983, 195–200).

58 Jacob Milgrom, “Leviticus 17–22,” Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York, 2000, 1807. Milgrom's explanation follows A. Ehrlich, “Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel,” Leipzig, 1908; K. Elliger, “Leviticus,” Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4; K. Elliger, “Leviticus,” Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1966; W. Kornfeld, “Das Buch Leviticus,” Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1972, and is consistent with the reversal of the order of the words in Lev. 21: 14, a reversal that is best explained by the ascending order of prohibitions.

59 The author of Samuel makes a wordplay with the termבני־בליעל, worthless men, associating it with the sons ofעלי, Eli (1 Sam. 2: 12).

60 Wilfried Warning, “Literary Artistry in Leviticus,” Leiden, Brill, 1999, 122–123.

61 The only time the bible uses the word נתח, slice, in a non-ritual context is in Prov. 30: 14.

62 N. H. Snaith, “Leviticus and Numbers,” London, Thomas Nelson, 1967. See Jacob Milgrom, “Leviticus 1–16,” Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York 1991, 747.

63 H. Eilberg-Schwartz, “The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Religion,” Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1990, 175.

64 R. G. Boling, “Judges,” Garden City, Anchor Bible, Doubleday, 1975, 276.

65 Edward F. Campbell Jr., “Ruth,” Anchor Bible, Doubleday, Garden City, 1975, 35–36.

66 Yair Zakovitch, “Ruth: A Commentary,” Am Oved, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1990, 15–16.

67 Zakovitch also points out that there are several links between the book of Ruth and the beginning of the book of Samuel (Zakovitch, 16). The women's praise of Naomi (Ruth 4: 15) echoes Elkanah's praise of Hannah (1 Sam. 1: 8) and the words “from the seed that YHWH will give you from this maiden” (Ruth 4: 12) echo Eli's blessing of Elkanah, “May YHWH give you seed from this woman” (1 Sam. 2: 20).

68 The sexual union between Boaz and Ruth echoes the law in Num. 15: 38–40 (See Gershon Hepner, “Verbal Resonance in the Bible and Intertextuality,” Journal for the Study of the old Testament 96 (2001): 13–15).

69 S. Nikaido, “Hagar and Ishmael as literary figures: an intertextual study,” Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 219–242. Nikaido points out that both Hagar and Hannah are reproached by their fellow wives (Gen. 16: 6; 1 Sam. 1: 6–7), are addressed by a messenger of God (Gen. 16: 7–9; 1 Sam. 1: 14–18), give similar names to their sons (Gen. 16: 15; 1 Sam. 1: 19–20), return the child to the place where they encounter God, this being the wilderness in the case of Ishmael (Gen. 21: 20) and the sanctuary of Shiloh in the case of Samuel (1 Sam. 1: 27–28), leading to the child's prosperity with God (Gen. 21: 20; 1 Sam. 3: 19). Nikaido also notes that the Abraham's words to Sarahעשי־לה הטוב בעיניך, do to her as is good in your eyes (Gen. 16: 6), echo similar words that Elkanah speaks to Hannah (1 Sam. 1: 23).

70 Nahum Sarna, “The JPS Pentateuch: Genesis,” Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society, 1989, 146–147.

71 See F. C. Fensham, “The Son of the Handmaid,” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 312–321.

72 The verbsשלח and גרש appear together in Exod. 11: 1 where Coppens translatesכלה as “bride,” suggesting that they both imply that Pharaoh will send Israel away like a divorced bride (see J. Coppens, “Miscellan'es bibliques,” Ephemeridae theologicae lovaniensis 23 (1947): 173–190).

73 The wordוישלחה, and sent her away, (Gen. 21: 14), resonates with the wordואשלחך, and I will send you (Gen. 37: 13), linking the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael to the expulsion of Joseph.

74 See J. Coppens, “Miscellanées bibliques,” Ephemeridae theologicae lovaniensis 23 (1947): 173–190.

75 The verbשלח, send away, is conceptually the opposite ofנשא, carry away, the post-exilic word that denotes marriage (Ruth 1: 4; Ezra 9: 2, 1 Neh. 13: 25; 2; 2 Chron. 11: 21). While the latter describes the act of carrying a woman away from her father's house, as in Judg. 21: 23, the former means sending her away, presumably to her father's house, as occurs in the case of the concubine of Gibeah. In Rabbinic times, marriage was a two-stage process, in the first of which betrothal occurred, but the bride remained in her father's house. The bride only moved to her husband's home after נשו אי ן, the word that denotes final act of marriage – the carrying away of the bride!

76 The wordsוירע הדבר, and the matter was bad, echo language in the narrative of Onan the Torah says: וירע בעיני יהוה אשר עשה, and it was evil in YHWH's eyes what he did (Gen. 38: 10). In the Onan narrative the language is similar but the Torah uses the wordsאשר עשה, that which he did (Gen. 38: 10), instead ofהדבר, the matter, because it does not need to make a word play withערות דבר, a matter of nakedness (Deut. 24: 1), in order to imply that the allegation against Onan is one of sexual misconduct since the Torah states this explicitly. 77 The Torah's word ונקתה, and she shall be cleared, resonates anagrammatically with the wordקנא, be jealous, a keyword in the pericope of the suspected adulteress, appearing 10 times (Num. 5: 14 [4], 15, 18, 25, 29, 30 [2]). The resonance implies that that when the suspected adulteress is cleared her husband'sקנאה, jealousy, is also cleared.

78 Klaus points out that this verse is the pivot in the narrative (Nathan Klaus, “Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 247, Sheffield, 1999, 166).

79 Although David feels secure about himself when dancing before the Ark he initially feels insecure about himself when he learns that Saul wishes him to marry Michal, describing himself as a man who isרש ונקלה, poor and lightly esteemed (1 Sam. 18: 23).

80 It is not clear in whose eyes Sarai is slighted. The “her” in “her eyes” could refer to the antecedent “she” (Hagar) or “mistress” (Sarai), as Heard points out (R. Christopher Heard, “Dynamics of Diselection: Ambiguity in Genesis 12–36 and Ethnic Boundaries in Post-Exilic Judah,” Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2001, 65–66). Heard suggests that it may not be Hagar's esteem for Sarai but Sarai's self-esteem that has been diminished as a result of Hagar's pregnancy. Heard's suggestion is supported by the link with David in the narrative with Michal where the wordונקלתי, and I will be slighted (2 Sam. 6: 22), clearly refers to David and the topic is his own self-esteem which he considers to be more important that the esteem of others.

81 Meir Sternberg, “The Poetics of Biblical Narrative,” Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1985, 316.

82 The fact that God does not allude to the cereal offering of the suspected adulteress in the Covenant between the Pieces, as the Midrash points out (Gen. R. 44: 14), implies that the Torah wishes to indicates that Sarah is not truly an adulteress.

83 Rashi alludes obliquely to the existence of a midrash on 1 Sam. 1: 11 suggesting that Hannah offers to undergo the ordeal of the suspected adulteress in order to conceive, as per Num. 5: 28. While this Midrash offends Rashi, as Greenstein points out (“Medieval Bible Commentaries,” Edward Greenstein, 236, in “Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts,” ed. Barry W. Holtz, New York, Summit, 1984), the linkage is exquisite since Samuel is a “loaner” like Isaac. In the previous verse the Torah had said that Hannah wasמרת נפש, bitter in her spirit, and in this verse Hannah promises that if God gives her a child aמורה, razor, will not rise on his head. Both terms resonate withמריה, Moriah, the site of the near-sacrifice of Isaac, linking Samuel to Isaac. The Midrash's suggestion that Hannah offered to undergo the ordeal of the suspected adulteress may be related to its awareness of the possibility that Sarah underwent this ordeal as a result of her false suspicion of Hagar before conceiving Isaac!

84 Ironically, the vindication of Joseph which occurs before the presence of Pharaoh echoes the vindication of the suspected adulteress which takes place “before the presence of YHWH” (Num. 5: 15). The role that Pharaoh plays in Joseph's vindication echoes that which God plays in the vindication of the suspected adulteress. When Pharaoh says to Josephאני פרעה, I am Pharaoh (Gen. 41: 44), his language echoes that of God when He saysאני יהוה, I am YHWH.

85 The Torah uses the word an eighth time to denote the way that Joseph has his chariot harnessed when he sends for his father to come down to Egypt to join him (Gen. 46: 29).

86 The words שר הטבחים, chief of the executioners, associated withסריס, meaning “courtier” or “eunuch,” link the expulsion of Joseph to Egypt to that of the Judeans to Babylon (2 Kings 25: 18, 19; Jer. 52: 25). The Joseph narrative probably echoes the one in the Book of Kings because the intercalation of the narrative of Judah and Tamar describes the voluntary “exile” of Judah to a part of the land of Canaan where none of his brothers lived (Gen. 39: 1)! The Joseph and Judah narratives have the common echo of the historical exile of the Judeans to Babylon! Since both narratives conclude with an end to the exile they both were probably written after the return of the exiles to Yehud.

87 The Torah echoes the wordsהרבה ארבה, I will greatly multiply (Gen. 10: 10), when it describes Ishmael asרבה קשת, a shooter of the bow (Gen. 21: 20). The word has a sexual innuendo since the wordקשת denotes the male member in Gen. 49: 24 and 2 Sam. 1: 22. The Torah's language in Exod. 1: 12 not only echoes the language in the first expulsion narrative of Hagar but the second narrative of her expulsion with Ishmael.

88 The number 9 is a key number in the Joseph narrative. The wordאדון, master, appears 18 times, 9 times 2 (Gen. 42: 10, 30, 33, 44: 5, 7, 8, 9, 16 [2] 18 [2], 19, 20, 22, 24, 33; 45: 8, 9). [Joseph's brothers call Joseph ‚ אדני, my lord, just as Jacob calls Esau by this honorific term 7 times (Gen. 32: 5, 6, 33: 8, 13, 14 [2], 15).] The wordאח, brother, appears 63 times, which is 9 times 7, 18 times in the first chapter of the Joseph narrative, describing the way his brothers sell him (Gen. 37: 2, 4 [2], 5, 8, 9, 10 [2], 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 [2]). It appears 45 times in the second part of the Joseph narrative (Gen. 42: 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 28 [2], 32, 33, 34 [2], 38; 43: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 [2], 13, 14, 29 [2], 30; 44: 14, 19, 20, 23, 26 [2], 33; 45: 1, 3 [2], 4 [2], 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 28). The wordשלום, peace, appears 9 times (Gen. 37: 4, 14 [2]; 41: 16; 43: 23, 27 [2], 28; 44: 17).

89 The Midrash links the word שבר, produce, in Gen. 42: 1 to the wordשבר spelt with a sin and meaning “hope,” citing Ps. 126: 5 as prooftext (Gen. R. 91: 1), saying that Jacob seeks not only produce but hope in Egypt.

90 Mary Douglas, “Leviticus as Literature,” Oxford University Press, 1999, 207–208.

91 Joseph's rhetorical question echoes that of Jacob when Rachel demands that he provide her with sons (Gen. 30: 2). Joseph was not conceived as a result of Rachel's question but far later (Gen. 30: 22), but the question does lead to the birth of the children of Bilhah on Rachel's knees (Gen. 30: 3), foreshadowing the adoption of Joseph's grandsons on Joseph's knees (Gen. 50: 23) (see H. Holzinger, “Einleitung in den Hexateuch,” Freiburg, J. C. B. Mohr, 1893, 183).

92 Moshe Garsiel, “Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns,” Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press 1991, 248–250.

93 Philip J. Nel, “The Talion Principle in Old Testament Narratives,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20 (1994): 21–29.

94 Umberto Cassuto, “A Commentary on the Book of Genesis,” vol. 2, trans. I. Abrams, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1964, 294–296; G. W. Coats, “Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature,” Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1983, 28, 97–98; G. A. Rendsburg, “The Redaction fo Genesis,” Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1986, 28–29, D. M. Carr, “Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches,” Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996, 198–199.

95 Its irony may not have been lost on Paul who interpreted the narrative of the expulsion of Hagar in Gal. 4: 21–31 as predicting the supersession of the seed of Isaac, born under the promise, by the gentiles born in faith. Paraphrasing Paul, the measure for measure retribution of Joseph and the Israelites for the sin of Sarah continues to have adverse consequences for the Jews after the birth Christ. While Paul's allegorical interpretation of the Hagar narrative violates its plain meaning, Sperling suggests that many of the narratives in the Pentateuch should be regarded as allegory (S. David Sperling, “The Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible's Writers,” New York University Press, 1998, 27–40), a view that is supported by von Rad who says that that later history is likely to have been the first to be depicted, with early history only being recorded after a need for it became perceived following the recording of earlier history (G. Von Rad, “Old Testament Theology,” Vol. 1, New York, 1962, 49).

96 James K. Bruckner, “Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative: A Literary and Theological Analysis,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 335, 2001, 86.

97 J. Hoftijzer, “Die Verheissung an die drei Erzväter,” Leiden, 1956.

98 C. Westermann, “The Promises to the Fathers,” Philadelphia, 1976.

99 John Van Seters, “Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian,” Louisville, Westminster, John Knox, 1992, 218, 246.

100 R. H. Jarrell, “The Birth Narrative as Female Counterpart to Covenant,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 97 (2002): 3018.

101 Yehezkel Kaufmann, “The History of the Israelite Religion,” 4 vols., Tel Aviv, Dvir (Hebrew (1937–56).

102 A. Hurvitz, “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code,” Revue Biblique81 (1974): 25–55; “A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel,” Paris, Gabalda, 1982.

103 M. Haran, “Temples and the Temple Service in Ancient Israel,” Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978.

104 Ziony Zevit, “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 481–511. Zevit suggests that P was written around 600–550 B. C. E., based largely on the work of Hurvitz (Ziony Zevit, “The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches,” London, New York, Continuum, 2001, 47, n. 62. Although this is not technically “pre-exilic,” he points out that there was probably no radical transformation of the Judahite religious culture in the early “exilic” period (H. M. Barstad, “The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period,” Scandinavia University Press, Oslo, 1996, 77–82).

105 Jacob Milgrom, “Leviticus 1–16,” Anchor Bible, New York, Doubleday, 1990, 3–13.

106 Israel Knohl, “The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School,” Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1995, 209. Knohl suggests that the Holiness School edited the laws of the Priestly legist, probably inspired by Proto-Isaiah, emphasizing ethics and extending to all Israel the holiness of the priest. The term “Holiness Code” should be viewed with some skepticism. It was first used by August Klostermann in 1877 in an attempt to refute the theory that Ezekiel wrote the second of Leviticus. Kaufmann and Weinfeld both claim that the laws of the Holiness Code are part of the Priestly Torah (Y. Kaufmann, “a History of the Religion of Israel,” Jerusalem, 1960, 121; Moshe Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School,” Oxford, 1972, 179–243) and the work of Warning casts serious doubts about the separation between the laws attributed to P and HS since numerological patterns suggests that a single author was responsible not only for redacting these laws but writing them (Wilfried Warning, “Literary Artistry in Leviticus,” Leiden, Brill, 1999, 8–19).

107 Julius Wellhausen, “Die Composition des Hexateuchs,” Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie 21, 1876, 392–450, 531–602, now published as “Die Composition des Hexateuchs under der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments,” Berlin, de Gruyter, 4th edition, 1963. Wellhausen's view that the Priestly stratum of the Pentateuch was the latest of the Pentateuchal sources is supported by K. H. Graf, “Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historischkritische Untersuchungen,” Leipzig, Weigel, 1866; E. Reuss, “L'histoire sainte et la loi (Pentateuch et Josue),” 2 vols, Paris, Sandoz & Fischbacher, 1879; Abraham Kuenen, “An Historico-critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch,” 2 vols, London, Macmillan, 1886.

108 Baruch A. Levine, “Research in the Priestly Source: The Linguistic Factor,” Eretz Israel 16 (Orlinsky volume; 1982) 124–131 (Hebrew); “Numbers 1–20,” Anchor Bible, New York, Doubleday, 1993, 101–108.

109 J. Blenkinsopp, “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 495–518, pp. 508–516; “The Pentateuch,” in “The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation,” ed. John Barton, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 181–197.

110 Bernard M. Levinson, “The Case for Revision and Interpolation within the Biblical Legal Corpora,” 15–36, in Bernard M. Levinson ed., “Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 181, 1994.

111 See Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy and The Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation,” Oxford University Press, 1997.

112 See W. Spiegelberg, “Die sogenannte demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliothטque Nationale zu Paris,” Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1915, 30–32; M. Dandamaev and V. Lukonin, “The Culture and Social Institutions of Iran,” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, 125. See also G. Widengren, “The Persian Period,” in “Israelite and Judean History,” ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1977, 515; J. Blenkinsopp, “The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 409–421.

113 See Seth Schwartz, “Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E.,” Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001, 21. Of course, it should be emphasized that the fact that the laws were accepted by the Judeans suggests that they were largely pre-exilic and coincided with what the Judeans practiced before and during the exile.

114 Giovanni Garbini, “Hebrew Literature in the Persian Period,” in “Second Temple Studies, 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period,” Ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 175, Sheffield, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1994, 180–188.

115 Philip R. Davies, “In Search of ‚Ancient Israel,’” 2nd. Ed. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 148, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 101–107.

116 E. Theodore Mullen Jr., “Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch,” Semeia Studies, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997, 9–10, 13. Mullen proposes that the rationale of the narratives of Genesis-Kings is to explain the historical development of an ethnically distinguishable religious community and cultus in Jerusalem at the beginning of the fifth century B.C.E. under the hegemony of the Persian government, providing a context for the composition of the Tetrateuch.

117 R. Christopher Heard, “Dynamics of Diselection,” Society for Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2001, 16–23.

118 Richard Elliot Friedman, “The Hidden Book in the Bible: The Discovery of the First Prose Masterpiece,” Harper San Francisco, 1998, 80–81.

119 Roger Syrin, “The Forsaken First-born: A Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 133, 1993, 143–145.

120 Gershon Hepner, “The Sacrifices in the Covenant Between the Pieces Allude to the Laws of Leviticus and the Covenant of the Flesh,” Biblische Notizen 110 (2002): 38–73; “Jacob's Oath Reflects the Law about Oaths in Lev. 5: 4–6 and Causes Rachel's Death,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, 2002 (in press); “Jacob's Servitude Reflects Differences in the Covenant and Holiness Codes and Deuteronomy,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 2003 (in press).

121 R. Cover, “Nomos and Narrative,” Harvard Law Review, 97 (1983): 4–68

122 J. W. Watts, “Public Readings and Pentateuchal Law,” Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995): 540–557.

123 Terence E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis,” in “The New Interpreter's Bible,” 1, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1994, 321–674.

124 James K. Bruckner, “Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative: A Literary and Theological Analysis,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 335, 2001.

125 Calum Carmichael, “Law and Narrative in the Bible,” Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1985. For two trenchant critiques of Carmichael's view see Bernard M. Levinson, “Calum M. Carmichael's Approach to the laws of Deuteronomy,” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 227–258 and Jacob Milgrom, “Leviticus 17–22,” Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York, 2000, 1591–1593.

126 Moshe Weinberg, “Deuteronomy,” Anchor Bible, New York, Doubleday, 1991, 19.

127 See Gershon Hepner, “The Relations between Biblical Narratives and Laws.” Journal of Law and Religion 88 (2003) (in press).

Empfehlen


Export Citation