Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
335
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
Executive Editor
Andrew Mein
Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay,
Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick,
Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
A Continuum imprint
James K. Bruckner
ISBN 1-84127-241-8
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
7
8
Chapter 1
11
Chapter 2
51
Chapter 3
76
Chapter 4
124
Chapter 5
171
Chapter 6
199
Chapter 7
212
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors
236
250
258
PREFACE
ABBREVIATIONS
ABD
AOAT
BA
BASOR
BDB
BHT
BR
BTB
CBQ
CHR
CurTM
EvT
ExpTim
FOTL
GKC
HBT
HTR
HUCA
ICC
IDE
Int
JAAR
JAOS
JETS
JJS
JNES
JPSV
JQR
JR
JSOT
JSS
Abbreviations
JTS
NASB
NICOT
NRSV
OIL
RB
RSV
SBLDS
TDNT
TDOT
TLZ
TS
TTod
TWOT
VT
VTSup
WBC
WMANT
WTJ
ww
ZAW
ZTK
Chapter 1
INTERPRETING PRE-SINAI LAW
The thesis of this book is that creation is the first and normative context
for biblical law. This assertion is based on the observation that categories of law, more fully represented in Exodus-Deuteronomy, are also
present in Genesis. A full range of law, measured by means of formcritical categories, is implied and operative in the Genesis narrative.
These occurrences of law should not be dismissed from the narrative,
nor from its interpretation by any interpretive method. Indications of
law ought to be seen as intrinsic to and interpreted in the context of the
narrative. When the Genesis narrative is read in its canonical placement
in the over-arching biblical narrative, indications of law and lawkeeping carry significance for interpretation. Specifically, the canonical
position of the pre-Sinai legal data is an ipso jure (by operation of law)
argument for the operation of law from the beginning of the human
community. Its canonical position functions to set law in the context of
creation.
A study of all the law and law-keeping implied in the Genesis
narrative would be an unwieldy task, as the following survey of formcritical categories of law represented in Genesis will illustrate. The
argument of this thesis will be developed in detail on the basis of one
kind of legal referent, as it occurs in the Abraham narrative. This legal
referent will be called the 'ought' and the 'ought not' of the narrative.
The study of the Abraham narrative will be further limited to
Gen. 18.16-20.18. The rationale for this delimitation will be argued in
Chapter 3, which surveys the juridical terminology of oughts and ought
nots in the entire Abraham narrative. The exegetical case study of
oughts and ought nots delineates their occurrences in Genesis 18-20
and describes the literary and theological warrants by which these
oughts are implied.
The terms 'ought' and 'ought not' are used in this book to refer to a
judgment that is formally or informally disclosed in a narrative as
12
13
14
2.
3.
What follows is a brief summary of some of the referents of procedural law in Genesis. They are organized by means of the three major
categories, with attention to direct commands and sacrifice under the
rubric of treaties and covenants.
Commercial Law: Contracts, Family Law, Social Customs
Commercial law includes contracts for the exchange of rights to
property and persons. In Gen. 23.16, Ephron's field and the Machpelah
cave are purchased by Abraham with silver, for Sarah's tomb.2 In
Gen. 24.53-54, a marriage contract between the families of Isaac and
Rebekah is ratified by the exchange of ten camels laden with gifts, and
a meal eaten together. In Gen. 25.31-33, a birthright is exchanged by
means of swearing and the eating of pottage. Gen. 31.38-39 describes a
herding contract between Jacob and Laban.3
Many laws and customs surrounding family events and structures are
evident in Genesis. Marriage, birth, death, division of property, firstborn rights and the social customs that govern them all have referents in
Genesis. Westermann has provided a concise summary of these kinds
of 'legal practices' in Genesis.4
WJ. Harrelson offers these examples of family customs in Genesis:
rules, especially in legal hearings, commercial transactions, and treaties. In this
dissertation the term 'law' is defined as the binding custom or practice or mode of
obligatory conduct in a community.
2. See M. Lehman, 'Abraham's Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law',
BASOR 129 (1953), pp. 15-18; Gene M. Tucker, 'The Legal Background of Genesis
23', JBL 85 (1966), pp. 77-84.
3. See J.J. Finkelstein, 'An Old Babylonian Herding Contract and Genesis
31.38f, JAOS 88 (1969), pp. 30-36.
4.
Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion;
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), pp. 79-83.
15
A man whose wife had borne him no son might adopt a slave as his heir
(Gen. 15.1-4; 24.1-2). Such an adopted son had his rights secured by law
in the event that a natural son should later be born. A barren wife was
expected to provide another wife to bear children to her husband; she is
expressly prohibited from sending such children away (cf. Gen. 19.1-6;
21.8-14; 30.1-13). The possession of the household gods was an indication of the right to the inheritance of the firstborn (Gen. 31.19, 30-35).
Deathbed oaths also appear to have had a binding character in law, as
indicated by a lawsuit among brothers about the ownership of a slavewife of the dead father. (Gen. 24.1-9).5
16
17
18
The implications are that the men of Sodom ought to have been more
hospitable to the strangers and that Abimelech ought not to have had
Sarah in his tent. These oughts and ought nots cannot be described
formally as 'commands'. I suggest that this situation is typical in the
Genesis narrative. Conditional and unconditional commands are usually
represented rhetorically by implication as oughts and ought nots. To
this observation a second may be added: the context of oughts and
ought nots in Genesis is in court-like or 'juridical' proceedings, and not
in the context of covenant.
Juridical Procedure
The first and second form-critical categories of procedural law, commercial law and treaties/covenants, are clearly represented in Genesis.
The third category, however, known as 'juridical' procedure, is the
most fruitful for a study of oughts and ought nots in the Abraham narrative. Juridical procedure typically takes place in biblical 'courtroom'
14.
15.
19
Juridical procedure in the Abraham narrative tends to use the word CD22J,
'judge':18
16. H.J. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alien Testament
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964); H.J. Boecker, Law and the
Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1980).
17. D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1947), pp. 5-6. See 1 Kgs 3.27.
18. Clark, 'Law', pp. 125-27. Form critics distinguish between secular and
sacral juridical procedure. Sacral procedure tends to use the word CDS2): For
example, the conflict between Laban and Jacob in Gen. 31 contains both a secular
and a sacral form of appeal for a juridical decision: Gen. 31.37b: 'so that they may
decide between us two' (irDE? "pD IITD'H); Gen. 31.53a: 'May the God of
Abraham...judge between us' (ITm 1CDSB?\..Dn"D TT^K). The root HD" is also
typical of juridical procedure. See Pietro Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal
Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (trans. M.J. Smith; JSOTSup,
20
(Sarah concerning Hagar): May the LORD judge [tDQCD] between you
and me.
18.25b (Abraham to God): Shall not the Judge [CDD27] of all the earth do what
isjust[CDD2JQ]?
19.9b (Sodomites about Lot): He is acting like a judge [CDS2J].
21
characters that accuse, plead, describe evidence, argue and render judgment. The oughts are implied within the discourse of the narrative, not
in the forms themselves. Form-critical categories are necessary, but not
sufficient for discerning these implications. Critical forms that are identified are applied in the service of narrative and rhetorical criticism.22
The relationships between the speakers of the text, disclosed in an
analysis of the discourse in the text, also need to be interpreted. By this
rhetorical use of the form-critical categories of juridical procedure, the
interpreter has the tools to identify the oughts and ought nots of the text.
For example, in Genesis 18-19 an indictment is issued, based on a cry
to God (18.20). The process of trial is declared (18.21), the terms of the
trial are negotiated (18.23-33), evidence is established by eyewitnesses
(19.1-9), and verdicts and a sentence are declared and carried out
(19.12-29).
In Genesis 20 there are two arraignments. In the first, God indicts
Abimelech, a defense is offered and an acquittal is given. In the second,
Abimelech indicts Abraham, a defense is made and the conflict is
resolved. In these cases, however, the juridical categories in themselves
do not provide answers to fundamental questions of meaning and interpretation. Why is the whole valley surrounding Sodom and Gomorrah
destroyed? Why does Abimelech pay, if he is acquitted by God?
Questions like these require a rhetorical engagement of the narrative. A
juridical analysis, however (of the sequence of accusation, pleading,
evidence and decision), adds an indispensable depth for understanding
the narrative movement of the text. Within this movement, my interest
is in the oughts and ought nots by which each case is decided.
Oughts in Narratives. Within court-like procedures in narratives, oughts
and ought nots are disclosed in a variety of ways. Oughts and ought
nots may be disclosed by simple statements in a text, without the use of
technical legal vocabulary. The most common expressions are given by
means of the voice of the narrator or the voice of a character. In some
texts neither technical vocabulary nor a full courtroom sequence is
present. Often controversies are resolved before the complaint becomes
'formal'. W. Malcom Clark notes that 'two parallel stages [existed] in
the juridical processinterchanges which took place before the court
was convened and interchanges which took place after convening...
22.
See Chapter 2.
22
The process could break off at any point, with or without a formal
"decision".'23
Even in the absence of a full courtroom sequence or a technical legal
vocabulary, the narrative may disclose a legal or moral judgment by
means of the discourse among narrator, characters, and God.24 Sometimes the disclosure is by means of human voices. Abram says to Lot,
'Let there be no strife between you and me...for we are kindred' (Gen.
13.8). Sarai says to Abram, 'May the wrong done to me be on you...
May the LORD judge between you and me' (Gen. 16.5). Abimelech
says to Abraham, 'You have brought such great guilt on me and my
kingdom. You have done things to me that ought not to be done' (Gen.
20.9). Jacob says to his household, 'Put away the foreign gods that are
among you and purify yourselves...' (Gen. 35.2). Joseph's brothers say
to each other, 'Alas, we are paying the penalty for what we did to our
brother...' (Gen. 42.21).
In some cases the ought or ought not is expressed through the voice
of the narrator: 'But the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and his house with
great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife' (Gen. 12.17); Then the
LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD
out of heaven' (Gen. 19.24); 'He spilled his semen on the ground...
What he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD and he put him to
death also' (Gen. 38.9-10). In other cases the ought or ought not is
signified by the voice of God, which adds some explanation to the
action described by the narrator: 'Then the LORD said, "How great is
the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their
sin" ' (Gen. 18.20) and 'You are about to die because of the woman
whom you have taken; for she is a married woman' (Gen. 20.3).
Summary
This brief survey of three form-critical categories of procedural law
(commercial law, treaties and covenants and juridical procedure) serves
to demonstrate that Genesis has many texts that pertain to the study of
the practice of law before Sinai. A full range of implied and operative
law is represented in the narrative.
23. Clark, 'Law', p. 126. Clark follows Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens,
p. 47.
24. The more fully developed narratives with juridical procedures in Gen.
18.16-20.18 are, of course, more fruitful for the study of ought nots.
23
24
source is identified with the first decalogue (Exod. 20.2-17), the Yahwist source with the second (Exod. 34.11-26), and the Deuteronomist
with the third (Deut. 5.6-21). Older materials within Exodus 19-24 and
Exodus 32-34 are identified as independent, smaller and older sources
(e.g. The Book of the Covenant, Exod. 20.23-23.19), which were collected into the larger source documents J (for Jahwist) and E (for
Elohist). Priestly law (Exod. 25-31; Exod. 35-40; Lev. 1-27; Num. 110), with its interest in the regulation of the priesthood and tabernacle
construction, and the Law of Deuteronomy are similarly separated.
Within the levitical law, the older and independent Holiness code ('You
shall be holy, for I, Yahweh am holy') known as 'H' is distinguished in
Leviticus 17-26. The continuing interest of source critics has been to
separate the older strands within JE and P and to solve the numerous
problems of sequence and coherence. A recent proposal by Erhard
Blum represents a shift toward literary concerns, yet his interest
remains in reconstructing historical sources and promulgating a new
theory concerning their history of development.26
The Interest in Form Criticism and Law
The point of departure for the form-critical study of biblical law is
Albrecht Alt's The Origins of Israelite Law' (1934). This monograph
is an example of form critics' general interest in determining the original historical setting of a law code or a series of lays by means of its
style or form. Alt agreed with Sigmund Mowinkel that the setting of
apodictic law was to be found in the 'Festival of Yahweh's Enthronement', that is, in the cult and worship of Israel, rather than in a folk
setting, as Hermann Gunkel had suggested.27 Casuistic law, on the othe
hand, distinguished by protasis and apodosis, had its setting and origin
in Canaanite royal law codes (by way of Mesopotamia), used by jurists
and judges. Erhard Gerstenberger critiqued Alt's strict categories, arguing that the apodictic form was not unique to Israel, but was present in
26. E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984). A concise summary of Blum's theory is provided by Robert I. Letellier, Day in Matnre, Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in
Genesis 18-19 (eds. R.A. Culpepper and R. Rendtorff; Biblical Interpretation
Series, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 4-5.
27. Sigmund Mowinkel, Le Decalogue (Etudes d'historie et de philosophie
religieuses, 16; Paris: Felix Alcan, 1927).
25
ancient Near East liturgies.28 Further, he argued that the 'tribal circle'
was the setting of the commandments. More recently, Rifat Sonsino
argued that uniqueness in Hebrew law is to be found not in the form of
the law, but in the content of the motive clauses.29
A second interest of form critics is found in a focus on treaties and
covenants by Walther Eichrodt, Gerhard von Rad and George E.
Mendenhall.30 Mendenhall's comparison of the form of the Decalogue
to the Hittite second person suzerain-vassal treaty style widened scholarly interest in covenant and treaty as the setting for law.31 This focus of
interest in law was not new to Old Testament scholarship. In 1938 von
Rad's work on the form-critical problem of the Hexateuch had already
had made law subservient to covenant.32 He argued that the Sinai covenant and its laws were transmitted by cultic recollection at the Festival
of Booths at Shechem. With the covenant-renewing Deuteronomist
established as the final redacting theologian, biblical law was generally
considered in that context.
A third form-critical interest in law may be marked by Gerstenberger's generally accepted argument that wisdom was the original
setting of law, particularly given through the advice of clan elders to the
young (typified in Prov. 3).33 His study of the command form $h + the
second person has helped to establish this focus in the study of law.
Wisdom as a final setting for law has been developed most fully by
Joseph Blenkinsopp. He argues that there is a 'confluence of wisdom
and law' in the history of Israel.34
26
35. M. Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (trans. D.R. ApThomas; London: SCM Press, 1984).
27
law (particularly its law codes). This focus on Sinai law has led also to
an oversight of references to law in the pre-Sinai narrative.
The Study of Law in the Pre-Sinai Narrative
Specific reference to law in Genesis 1-Exodus 18 is rarely found when
reading historical criticism. The primary reason for this oversight is
methodological, that is, the predominant interest has been in the history
of composition. This means that any reference to law in these texts is
treated in its literary-historical context (e.g. as the addition of a late
redactor), rather than in its narrative context. When references to law in
the Genesis 1-Exodus 18 texts have been addressed, authors have taken
one of two paths. They have sought either to place specific legal references in their historical ancient Near Eastern context (that is, pursuing
an interest in the historical development of law, or placing these references in a theological schema, such as salvation history).36
For example, in order to make sense of an explicit reference to
Abraham's law-keeping (Gen. 26.5), historical and theological proposals have reached behind the text (by means of the history of composition and redaction) and theologically beyond the text (e.g. Abraham
kept the law by faith). If no other reference to law or legal procedure
were evident in Genesis, one might explain the reference to Abraham's
law-keeping only in those ways. But this is not the case. Genesis is full
of references that are of interest to procedural law: commercial law,
treaties and covenants and juridical procedure. We ought to ask, therefore, what law can be found in the Abraham narrative itself.
History and Law. The study of pre-Sinai law in its historical context is
sometimes referred to as the study of 'law as law'. The study of law as
law engages in comparing and contrasting biblical law with other historical law codes. Biblical references to law have been compared to
Roman law and, more commonly, to the seven ancient Near Eastern
law codes.37
36. For ancient Near East comparisons to legal referents in Genesis, see
Finkelstein, 'Babylonian Herding Contract', p. 15-18; Lehman, 'Abraham's Purchase', pp. 30-36; H. Petschow, 'Die Neubabylonische Zwiegespraechsurkunde
und Genesis 23', JCS 19 (1965), pp. 103-20; Tucker, 'The Legal Background of
Genesis 23', pp. 15-18.
37. W. Beyerlin (ed.), Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978); W. Beyerlin, Origins and History of
28
29
30
45. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (ed. John Bright; trans. John
Marks; OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1972), p. 270.
46. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th edn,
1964), p. 300.
47. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 425.
48. See C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament,
I (trans. James Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 270.
49. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament.
50. Gen. 22.18: 'And by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain
31
32
Here we see the typical either/or characterization in dealing with preSinai law. Either the law had not been received, in which case the
pre-Sinai references to and implications of law must be dismissed as the
hand of an inconsistent redactor ('this theological principle was not
carried through with complete consistency'), or Abraham had knowledge of the whole law.54
There is a middle ground between these options, and it is the intent of
this thesis to begin to demonstrate how broad that ground is. The Exod.
16.4 text is consistent with many implications in the Genesis narrative
that the patriarchs, though they did not have the formulations of Sinai,
nonetheless had some law akin to it.
While the authors surveyed have shown some interest in the literary
(narrative) and theological (creational) context of law, a close reading
of the Abraham narrative from the perspective of law has not been
done. Law as a factor in the study of pre-Sinai narrative is simply overlooked. For example, 'how' does Gen. 26.5 mean ('Abraham obeyed
my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my
laws')? How does a reference to Abraham's law-keeping function
rhetorically in the over-arching narrative? Historical explanations and
33
theological interpretations by historical critics do not address satisfactorily this verse or the many legal referents in Genesis. Historical
critics have had the effect of dismissing the interpretive questions,
usually by assigning the verse to a late redactor or offering theological
explanations extrinsic to the text. Other Genesis commentators simply
ignore the legal referents.55
The need for further investigation into the relationship between the
patriarchal narrative and the Sinai traditions has been noted by R.W.L.
Moberly.56 He quotes Coats, with whom he shares this concern: 'One of
the pressing problems, as yet unresolved in the scholarly discussion of
the Pentateuch, concerns the relationship between the patriarchs and
Moses.'57 A rhetorical and theological reading of the oughts and ought
nots of the Abraham narrative will contribute to that discussion through
a representation of legal referents that may be compared to the Sinai
traditions.
Theological Interests: Creation, Wisdom and Law
Studies in wisdom literature and creation have led to a renewed interest
in the study of biblical law.58 These studies provide a starting point for
55. Ephraim A. Speiser, Genesis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), p. 203;
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker;
WBC, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994). Wenham says they are only a feature of
rhetorical style.
56. R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal
Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 146.
57. George W. Coats, Moses (JSOTSup, 57; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p.
38. See also George W. Coats, Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL, 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
58. Walter Brueggemann, 'The Loss and Recovery of Creation in Old Testament Theology', TTod 53 (July 1996), pp. 177-90. Brueggemann provides a brief
summary of three movements in the history of creation theology in the last 70
years: (a) the marginalization of theologies of creation in the context of German
national socialism, (b) important paradigm shifts in the 1960s and 1970s that led to
the recovery of creation theology, and (c) proposals that have contributed to the
recovery of creation theology. See G. von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays (trans. E.W. Truman Dicken; London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966); Wright,
Environment; Claus Westermann, 'Creation and History in the Old Testament', in
Vilmos Vajta (ed.), The Gospel and Human Destiny (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1971), pp. 11-38; Claus Westermann, Creation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971);
P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of Religion of
34
35
60. See, for example, the historical flow of Perdue's and Crenshaw's tables of
contents.
61. 'Substantive' creation means the world and all that is in it. Childs refers to
this as the 'ontic' dimension of creation faith, in contrast to the noetic dimension.
Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1970), p. 110.
62. Perdue, 'Cosmology and the Social Order', pp. 330-31.
63. On the significance of this position, see Terence E. Fretheim, 'The Reclamation of Creation', Int45 (October 1991), pp. 354-64 (55).
64. Fretheim, 'Reclamation', pp. 354-55.
36
Even if the first chapter of Genesis were absent from the canon, one
would have to concede that such texts as Psalms 8, 100 and 104, Job
28, Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24 imply the substantive creation as the
foundational premise of wisdom. As Perdue states, 'sapiential cosmology is rooted in a theology of creation'.67
Creation, Wisdom, and the Canon. The role of creational thought in
relation to biblical wisdom is, in part, a function of its role in the canon.
James Crenshaw argues that creation ought to be moved from the periphery to the center. The issue begins with creation's function in relation
to the canon.
The function of creation theology within the thought of the sages remains
something of a mystery to this day... Any attempt to provide such an
analysis of creation theology within the framework of wisdom needs to
clarify the role of creation in the total thought of Israel before going on
to demonstrate the distinctiveness of the function of creation theology in
wisdom literature.68
37
69. Creation cannot be divorced from the concept of chaos. See Crenshaw,
Studies, p. 27.
70. Crenshaw, Studies, p. 30. Crenshaw notes especially Qoheleth and Sirach,
but also Prov. 30.1-4.
71. Crenshaw, Studies, p. 33. Such a defense is necessitated by the first point,
'the threat of chaos in every dimension of life'.
72. See especially Sir. 24.
73. Crenshaw, Studies, pp. 33-34, his italics.
38
39
40
For this conclusion, Childs shares von Rad's interest in the history of
composition of the text, that is, the world behind the text. An interest in
the canonical text itself, however, leads to quite another result. Creation
is more than an 'illustration' of the redemptive will of God. In the over82. Rolf Rendtorff, Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology (eds. W. Brueggemann et al.\ trans. M. Kohl; Overtures to Biblical Theology;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 103.
83. Rendtorff, Canon and Theology, p. 106.
84. Rendtorff, Canon and Theology, p. 107.
85. Gerhard von Rad, 'The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation', in B. Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 53-64.1 doubt that the idea of creation is 'late' or
underdeveloped in Israel's thought. It must have been so fundamentally assumed
early in Israel's history that it was not even a subject for discussion or writing.
86. Childs, Old and New Testaments, pp. 114, 109.
41
42
43
psalms.97 Psalms 1, 19, and 119 do not have a significant place in the
established critical approaches to the Psalms and are the 'problem
children of the Psalter'.98 By pairing them with Psalms 2, 18 and 118,
the torah psalms may be read as a torah piety based in the instruction of
the LORD.99 Moreover, these torah psalm 'leftovers' are the lens
through which the rest of the Psalter's wisdom ought to be read.100
The context for the construal of language in the Psalms shifts. Semantic
horizons are more those of intratextual relations and less groups of types
and reconstructed cultic occasions. Form-critical and cult-functional
questions are subordinated and questions of content and theology
become more important. The so-called mixed type of psalm takes on an
important role as a clue to the way the Psalms are to be viewed and
understood.101
97. James Luther Mays, 'The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter', JBL
106 (Spring 1987), pp. 3-12.
98. Mays, Torah-Psalms', p. 12.
99. Mays, Torah-Psalms', pp. 10-11.
100. Mays, Torah-Psalms', pp. 3, 12. Contra Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch,
pp. 85-107. Noth argues that these psalms represent a late and unfortunate [sic]
establishment of the status of law outside the covenant, which led to Judaism's
legalism. For a summary of critiques of Noth, see John Goldingay, Approaches to
Old Testament Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2nd edn,
1990), pp. 45-47. See especially H.J. Kraus, 'Freude an Gottes Gesetz: Bin Beitrag,
zur Auslegung der Psalmen 1, 19B und 119', EvT 10 (1950-51), pp. 337-51.
101. Mays, Torah-Psalms', p. 12.
102. Mays, Torah-Psalms', pp. 9, 12.
44
Creation is the continuous presupposition of wisdom and law. Wisdom has creation as its context, studies it and uses it as a theme. Law
shares the creational context with wisdom. Wisdom and law are two
streams, or, to adjust the metaphor, two channels in a wide river, sometimes joining to flow together and more deeply.
Creation and Law
The relationship of law to creation is a relatively recent scholarly interest. The laws of Exodus and Leviticus, law in the Psalms and law in the
Prophets have all been recently interpreted in relation to creation. In
each case, the respective authors argue convincingly that in those texts
creation is the proper context for understanding and interpreting law.
Gustav Wingren argues that creation is the proper theological context
for any discussion about law.105 As warrants, he offers that creation is
placed first in the canon, that creation is the first source of order, that
creation is the first source of life, that creation is the locus of any conversation about God, and that creation is the biblical worldview. More
recently, Terence Fretheim has called for the 'reclamation of creation'
103. Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law, p. 14.
104. Perdue, 'Cosmology and the Social Order', pp. 461-62. Perdue makes this
helpful shift when he says, 'Indeed, creation and Torah are the twin poles for
authoritative knowledge, for the wisdom used by God in creating and sustaining the
world now resides in nature and the text of the Torah (see Psalm 19)... But ben Sira
indicates that the increasing prominence given to the Torah as the source of
revelation does not displace creation (see Sir 39.1-35).' Note that 'torah' is capitalized here, and refers to the tradition of the five books, not law or instruction in
general.
105. G. Wingren, Creation and Law (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1961).
45
46
have access to the creative and life-giving energy that drives the
world.112
That priestly legislation has a creational context has been demonstrated convincingly by Brueggemann.113 He argues that Israel understood Israel's ritual activity in worship as a creating and recreating of
the world. This fundamental relationship between creation and worship
is also the theme of F. Gorman's work on priestly legislation.114 Obedience in ritual activity was understood as performing actions that
affected the created order.115 Priestly writers understood that 'incomplete creation' was 'finished' in the worshiping order of Israel around
the tabernacle.116
Previously, the creation themes of so-called Deutero-Isaiah were
noted. In the book of the prophet Amos, law also has a creational context.117 Amos's indictment against nations that weren't required to keep
the law was based in creation:
He was appealing to a kind of conventional or customary law about
international conduct which he at least believed to be self-evidently right
and which he thought he could count on his audiences familiarity with
and acquiescence in... He sees moral conduct as a matter of conformity
to a human convention held to be obviously universal, rather than to the
overt or explicit demands of God: in other words, ethics in Amos is not
simply a question of theonomy, as it is quite widely thought to be.118
The scholarship reviewed thus far shares the interest of my thesis that
law ought to be interpreted in the context of creation. Examples given
have argued that priestly law (Gorman), the law given at Sinai (Fretheim), commandments and law in the Psalms (Levenson) and appeals
to law in the prophets (Barton) are properly interpreted when understood in a creational context. These works have offered an important
112. Levenson, 'The Sources of the Torah', pp. 561, 569.
113. Walter Brueggemann, Israel's Praise: Doxology against Idolatry and Ideology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 1-28.
114. Frank Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the
Priestly Theology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
115. See treatment by Fretheim, 'The Reclamation of Creation', p. 364.
116. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, pp. 230-32.
117. John Barton, Amos' Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3-2.5
(New York: Cambrige University Press, 1980). This monograph is an expanded
version of a chapter of his doctoral thesis, The Relation of God to Ethics in the
Eighth Century Prophets' (DPhil dissertation, Oxford University, 1974).
118. Barton, 'Relation of God to Ethics', p. 2.
47
48
49
50
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY: A PLURALITY OF METHODS FOR READING
LEGAL REFERENTS IN PRE-SINAINARRATIVES
The thesis of this book is that a full range of law, measured by means of
form-critical categories (as demonstrated in Chapter 1), is implied and
operative in the Genesis narrative. These occurrences of law should not
be dismissed from the narrative or its interpretation by means of the
history of composition. Rather, indications of law ought to be seen as
intrinsic to the narrative and interpreted in the context of the narrative.
A sequential narrative reading leads to a recognition of the canonical
significance of law in Genesis. An exegetical case study of implied
oughts will delineate their occurrences in Genesis 18-20 and describe
the literary and theological warrants by which these laws are implied.
In this chapter it will be argued that the new literary criticism
provides the most helpful methodologies for establishing this thesis.
The general expression 'new literary criticism' refers to a plurality of
approaches in biblical interpretation. This plurality includes methods
for a close reading of narratives and for interpreting their rhetorical
features, discourses and structures. It also shares a common focus on
the final form of the text, a focus on the text rather than on the author,
and a conviction that meaning is found by the reader within the literary
signs of the text rather than in the world behind the text.l The general
shift toward these presuppositions and methods in the areas of literary
theory, hermeneutics and linguistics has been well documented.2
1. W. Randolf Tate, Biblical Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1991), p. xviii; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic
Books, 1981), p. 12; Leo G. Perdue, The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old
Testament Theology(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), p. 241.
2. Tate, Biblical Interpretation', John Barton, Reading the Old Testament:
Method in Biblical Study (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996);
Perdue, Collapse of History.
52
2. Methodology
53
54
In this book the development of thought in the narrative is treated without reference to the author. Attention is given to the rhetorical moves of
the narrative in the development of plot and character and in features of
style and the artful use of language.
My appropriation of rhetorical criticism follows the common meaning of the term, namely, 'the literary analysis of stylistic features'. W.L.
Holladay, Phyllis Trible, Meir Sternberg and Robert Alter all use the
term to refer generally to the investigation of key words and motifs in a
text. They use it to different ends, but this general sense is accepted.6 R.
Alter summarizes which rhetorical devices he includes in his 'literary
analysis' (which he uses as a synonym for rhetorical analysis): 'By
literary analysis I mean the manifold varieties of minutely discriminating attention to the artful use of language, to the shifting play of ideas,
conventions, tone, imagery, syntax, narrative viewpoint, compositional
units, and much else.'7
Another use of the term 'rhetorical criticism' that is also assumed in
this book refers to the analysis of text using classical rhetorical categories of persuasion. This approach has attended to means through
which literary works achieve particular effects on readers. Persuasion as
a rhetorical category is best described by G. Kennedy and by M. Sternberg.8 Sternberg argues that the Bible is 'ideological literature', which
seeks to persuade its reader through the drama of reading.9
The narrator deals with all the questions a reader or listener would
ask, in order to persuade the audience to his point of view. The biblical
narrator is an ideological persuader.10 George Kennedy has described
6. William L. Holladay, 'Style, Irony, and Authenticity in Jeremiah', JBL 81
(1962), pp. 44-54; Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1978).
7. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 12.
8. G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Meir Sternberg, The
Bible's Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric, and Poetics in Saul's Fall', HUCA 54
(1983), pp. 45-82.
9. Sternberg's subtitle is telling. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical
Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1985). See also Sternberg, 'The Bible's Art of Persuasion', his
Chapter 12, pp. 441-81. See also pp. 50, 179.
10. Sternberg, 'The Bible's Art of Persuasion', p. 46. Cf. the influential book by
Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver; Notre Dame: University of
2. Methodology
55
56
subtle than a persuasive speech and requires more than the tools of
argumentation in classical rhetoric for its interpretation. The primary
meaning of a narrative is not to be understood simply in terms of the
persuasive effect of its rhetorical strategies.14 Both understandings of
rhetorical criticism are necessary for the interpretation of oughts and
ought nots in the Abraham narrative.
On the one hand, the narrative is ideological and it does 'persuade'.15
Persuasion, as described by Kennedy and as understood by Sternberg,
has helped to shape my eclectic methodology. On the other hand,
rhetorical criticism, as it is defined by the tools of literary analysis, is
necessary to the interpretation of thoughts of the Abraham narrative.
Discernment of the content of oughts in the Abraham narrative is found
in the literary analysis of the artful use of language and the play of
ideas, and in the narrative viewpoint. Two authors, R. Alter and H.C.
White, have demonstrated the rhetorical critical methods used in this
interpretation of the oughts and ought nots of the Abraham narrative.
Robert Alter's analysis of literary style gives attention to the role of
type scenes and the function of indeterminacy. Alter's understanding of
the role of the repetition of key word roots as a means to interpretation
is helpful, as in the repetition of the roots QSEJ (judge) and U2H
(wicked) in Genesis 18 and 19.16 The study of courtroom-type scenes is
especially useful for interpreting the progression of the plot in the conversations between Abraham and God (Gen. 18.20-33) and among Abimelech, God and Abraham (20.1-18).17
Alter's understanding of indeterminacy and dissonance in the Abraham narrative is also a useful interpretive tool.18 Dissonance plays an
important role in the interpretation of Abraham's questioning of God:
'Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?' (Gen. 18.25). The indeterminacy and ambiguity of Abraham's actions in calling Sarah his sister
2. Methodology
57
(Gen. 20.2) also have a central part in the interpretation of the whole
narrative.19 It will be seen with the character of Abraham that in some
instances ambiguity gives way, by means of a close reading, to coherence, whereas in some instances it does not.
Discourse analysis, another of the many methods of narrative criticism, is also useful for an interpretive reading of oughts in the conversations of the Abraham narrative.20 My focus in discourse analysis is on
micro-dialogues, which are a primary matrix of the Genesis narrative.21
H.C. White's employment of discourse analysis is helpful for discerning oughts in the Abraham narrative in two ways. The first is his definition of the narrative text 'as the union of the narrator's discourse and
the character's discourse', particularly in 'semantic...implications for
the effacement of the narrator's instance of speech behind the thirdperson form of discourse'.22 His development of this idea is useful in
establishing the narrator's perspective, in tension with that of the
characters, as having priority in the interpretive task.
Secondly, his method is useful for establishing the priority of the
speech of God. In Genesis 18-20, for example, God expresses opinions
that imply that some action ought not be done.
18.20b
19. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, pp. 114-30. His heading is 'Characterization and the Art of Reticence'. On the art of reticence see also Sternberg, The
Poetics of Biblical Narrative, pp. 228, 235-37, 250, 258. H.C. White, Narration and
Discourse in the Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),
p. 185. For the use of dissonance in a legal text, see P. Hanson, 'The Theological
Significance of Contradiction within the Book of the Covenant', in G.W. Coats and
B.O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and
Theology(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 110-31.
20. William L. Lane, Hebrews (eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker;
WBC, 47; Dallas: Word Books, 1991), p. Ixxxii.
21. 'The Micro-dialogue as the Matrix of the Genesis Narrative', Chapter 7 in
White, Narration and Discourse. See P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and
Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989). See Chapter
4, 'Between Narration and Dialogue', in Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative,
pp. 63-87. Cf. T. Dennis, review of H.C. White, Narration and Discourse in the
Book of Genesis, Theology 95 (January 1992), pp. 51-52; G. Josipovici, review of
H.C. White, Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis, JR 73 (April 1993),
pp. 244-45.
22. White, Narration and Discourse, p. 41.
58
20.3b
2. Methodology
59
text.26 The definitions provided by form critics, however, have established categories and a critical matrix that are valuable for speaking
about law even when priority is given to the narrative itself. Further, the
vocabulary of legal form-critical categories is helpful to the interpretation of the Abraham narrative when it is understood as part of the
rhetoric of the text.
Klaus Berger's arguments for this new use of form criticism are most
helpful.27 He suggests that the 'forms' of form-critical scholarship be
understood as rhetorical elements of the text.
The 'classical' form-critical categories of law have been summarized
by W. Malcolm Clark.28 Those that pertain to pre-Sinai law are three
subcategories of 'procedural' law: juridical procedure, commercial law
and treaties (including covenants).29 For the study of oughts in the
Abraham narrative, juridical procedure is the most important. Boecker's
work on 'accusation', 'evidence' and 'a pleading' in 'secular' juridical
procedure is especially useful to a legal reading of the Genesis 20 narrative. 'Sacred' juridical procedure (with its minor differences from
secular procedure) is appropriate to interpreting the arraignment and
other court-like proceedings concerning Sodom in Genesis 18-19.
Classical form critics compare biblical legal texts with those extrinsic
to the biblical text in order to reconstruct life settings of law. A comparison of ancient Near Eastern law with occurrences of law in the
biblical narrative, however, is irrelevant to determining what oughts are
26. For a discussion of oral form and literary genre see Barton, Reading the Old
Testament, pp. 30-32.
27. Klaus Berger, 'Rhetorical Criticism, New Form Criticism, and New Testament Hermeneutics', in Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric
and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSOTSup,
90; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993), pp. 390-96. He argues that 'everything that leads the reader's psyche towards a goal has to be regarded as a rhetorical
element'. While I find Berger's argument concerning the rhetorical function of
forms convincing, I modify his narrow definition of rhetoric as a persuasive argument. Berger, 'Rhetorical Criticism', p. 391. The forms of law in pre-Sinai narrative
provide a more subtle persuasion, because they are implied. In these texts, legal
categories are deeply embedded in the narrative. They are not presented directly as
a means of persuasion. This difference, however, does not mitigate his basic argument for the semantic function of formal elements.
28. Clark, 'Law', pp. 99-139.
29. See the survey of Genesis texts by means of these categories in Chapter 1.
60
implied in the narrative biblical text itself.30 This study does not attempt
to verify the accuracy of the biblical witness through comparison with
extrinsic material. Rather it seeks to describe what the text itself implies
concerning oughts operative for the Abraham of the text. Comparisons
with ancient Near Eastern laws are extrinsic to that purpose.
Summary
The referents of the term 'rhetorical criticism' are diverse. They include
the development and progress of thought in a text, a reading of the art
of its literary style and a study of the techniques of persuasion. Each of
these is useful to the narrative analysis of oughts in the Abraham narrative. The sense in which Alter uses the term 'rhetoric' is especially
helpful. Study of the repetition of key word roots, the comparison of
type scenes and attention to indeterminacy and dissonance in the
narrative are important tools for reading implied oughts in the narrative.
Further, the analysis of the discourse, with a priority given to the voice
of God, especially in the work of H.C. White, assists the interpreter in
finding the signification of those oughts. Finally, categories of law,
established by form-critical scholars, are necessary for speaking about
implied law in general. They are helpful to the interpretation of the
Abraham narrative when understood as part of the rhetoric of the text
and, intertextually, as part of the canon.
Interpreting Legal Referents within the World of the Text
Interpreting legal referents in the pre-Sinai narrative is best done within
'the world of the text', which is, in general, the locus of the new literary
criticism.31 When W.R. Tate speaks about the 'world of the text', he
means the world of the final redaction of the text. The distinction
between the world of the final form of the biblical text and the sources,
written or oral, 'behind' the text is important to the study of pre-Sinai
law. Explicit references to law and law-keeping in the narrative before
Exodus 18 are typically identified with the hand of a late redactor, and
are thereby devalued in the search for early sources or valued only as
evidence of a Deuteronomist editor. A commitment to interpreting the
text within the world of the text, however, accepts the references to law
30. See a list of comparisons by Harrelson in Chapter 1 at 'Commercial Law',
p. 15. Harrelson, 'Law in the Old Testament', p. 78.
31. The phrase is used by Tate, Biblical Interpretation.
2. Methodology
61
32. Another benefit of interpreting legal referents within the world of the text is
that this commitment establishes the narrative resources of intertextuality for interpretation. For example, references to law and law-keeping in Gen. 26.5 ('because
Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes,
and my laws') and Gen. 18.19 ('that he may charge his children and his household
after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice') and
Exod. 16.4 ('that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not') are,
by means of intertextuality, pertinent to the interpretation of pre-Sinai law in Gen.
18-20. Gen. 26.5 is related by its explicit reference to Abraham's law-keeping, and
Exod. 16.4 by means of allusion. Allusion is one of the three kinds of intertextuality
named by Tate, Biblical Interpretation,pp. 93-94.
33. Tate, Biblical Interpretation, p. xviii. Tate quotes Abrams, 'intention is
irrelevant to the literary critic, because meaning and value reside within the text of
the finished, freestanding, and public work of literature itself.' M.H. Abrams, A
Glossary of Terms (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1981), p. 83. For the
presuppositions of close reading, see Perdue, Collapse of History, pp. 240-41.
34. Kenneth Gros Louis, Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, II
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982), pp. 14-15.
62
The general methods of interpretation that operate under this assumption include such diverse disciplines as narrative analysis, rhetorical
criticism, discourse analysis, canonical criticism, structuralism and
deconstruction. While these approaches are similar in their commitment
to a unified text, each locates the meaning of a text differently. For
example, canonical criticism seeks meaning in relation to the whole
biblical text, structuralism seeks the text's deep structural assumptions,
and deconstruction decodes the text against the plot and characters.
Narrative criticism, as it is used in this dissertation, seeks to discern the
argument of the text and its effect upon the reader through the agencies
of plot and character. Narrative criticism has two foci: the story and the
reader.36 It intentionally brackets the earlier historical questions of the
history of composition and authorial intention as defined in these terms:
[N]arrative criticism works with the text as 'world-in-itself. Other
approaches tend to fragment, in part because their purpose is to put
elements of the text into contexts outside the text; so, for example, biblical scholars may identify the feeding of the five thousand as a historical
event in Jesus' time or as an oral story emerging from the early church or
as a vehicle for a theological truth...or as a story which reveals the
author's intentions, or as instructions to Mark's community. Narrative
criticism brackets these historical questions and looks at the closed universe of the story-world.37
The new literary methodologies do not necessarily exclude the supportive role of historical comparison.38 The lexical and semantic
resources of extrinsic texts aid the narrative-critical task.39 They set
parameters for Hebrew and Greek texts by means of textual criticism.
In translation, they provide lexical parameters of word meanings. The
35. Robert M. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York: Seabury,
1980), p. 17.
36. Stephen D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical
Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. xxi. See the summary of
this section for a repetition of my interest as a reader and interpreter.
37. David Rhoads, 'Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark', JAAR 50
(September 1982), pp. 411-34 (413).
38. See Perdue, Collapse of History, p. 259.
39. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 13. His positive example is from Ras
Shamra.
2. Methodology
63
64
44. Moore, Literary Criticism, p. 225. Cf. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative,
p. x.
45. A narrower definition is used in narrative theology. '[W]e identify a story
a narrative, in the narrow sense...as an account of characters and events in a plot
moving over time and space through conflict toward resolution.' Gabriel Fackre,
'Narrative Theology: An Overview', Int 37 (1983), pp. 340-52 (341). See Moore,
Literary Criticism, p. 14, and Rhoads, 'Narrative Criticism', p. 412.
46. Any 'meaning' considered in this interpretation would have to be defined as
'a production of the mutual interaction between text and reader'. Edgar V.
McKnight, The Bible and the Reader (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 128.
2. Methodology
65
66
2. Methodology
67
59. Fretheim, Exodus, p. 205. See Waldemar Janzen, Old Testament Ethics: A
Paradigmatic Approach (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 60, 67-68; Mann,
The Book of the Torah, p. 116; Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, p. 290.
60. Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, pp. 277-78.
61. See Janzen, Old Testament Ethics, p. 59.
62. Fretheim, Exodus, pp. 59-60, 197-206. See also examples from Leviticus in
Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, p. 265. See Exod. 15.22-26; 18.13-27.
63. Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, pp. 277-83; Fretheim, Exodus, p. 206.
64. Fretheim, Exodus, p. 207; Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, p. 284.
65. Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, p. 288; Mann, The Book of the Torah,
pp. 146-47.
68
2. Methodology
69
70
75. He uses the Genesis narrative thoroughly. See Falk, Hebrew Law, p. 171.
76. Sarna, Genesis, pp. 376-77, 'The Noachide Commandments'.
77. 'Now it appears to me from a study of the opinion of our Rabbis that
Abraham our father learned the entire Torah by Ruach Hakodesh and occupied
himself with its study...', Ramban: Commentary on the Torah I (ed. and trans.
R. Charles B. Chavel; 5 vols.; New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p. 331.
78. M. Qid. 4.14. Philo also comments on this text with the conclusion that
Abraham obeyed the law before it was given, de Abr. 44.275-76. Jub. 33.16 comes
to the conclusion that all the patriarchs kept Torah so far as God made it known to
them.
79. Ps. 16.7 in Midr. Teh. on Ps. 1.13 and in Yal. on Ps. 16.7 and in ARN 37;
Isa. 41.8 in Jub. 16.21; 22.1-4; 36.2; John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic
Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing House, 1969), p. 235.
2. Methodology
71
72
2. Methodology
73
the flood story (cf. 6.6), this text offers a remarkable theological
innovation.o-y
74
2. Methodology
75
the narrative: '[Although the meaning of a text may not be found in the
author's world, at least our understanding of the text improves when we
immerse ourselves in its history.'95
This briefly outlined plurality of methods stands on the shoulders of
many who have developed tools for understanding biblical texts: interpreters of narrative (Alter, Sternberg and Moore), rhetorical critics
(Alter, White and Kennedy) and interpreters of forms and genres (Clark
and Berger). This thesis relies on their combined work in order to
identify the signification of implied oughts in the Abraham narrative.
Finally, the work of T. Fretheim and D. Damrosch on the story context
of Sinai law provides an important understanding of the relationship
between narrative and law.96
Chapter 3
A SURVEY OF JURIDICAL TERMINOLOGY IN THE
ABRAHAM NARRATIVE
77
'justice' in the Hebrew Bible; (2) the use of the categories of modern
Roman (Italian) law as a framework for talking about biblical law; (3)
the relationship between technical juridical terms and ordinary vocabulary in syntagmas that function as technical terms, and their interrelationship with the narrative context; (4) the research of H.-J. Boecker
and Pietro Bovati as seminal works in this field; and (5) problems of
(diachronic) historical reconstruction of legal procedure in ancient
Israel, and the value of synchronic studies of juridical terminology in
the Hebrew Bible.
The Idea of Justice. An important premise of this chapter and its work
on the vocabulary of law and juridical procedure is an understanding of
the term npliS. In the context of the Hebrew Bible, np"TC is not an
abstraction, but refers to right relationships. While the subject of this
book is not specifically 'justice' (nor 'righteousness'), oughts and ought
nots are most frequently signified in contexts in which the re-establishment of justice is the subject. G. von Rad emphasized understanding
HpliJ in the Old Testament not so much as a reference to an individual's ethical norm as to the relationship between beings expressed
through a life of communion.
But, oddly enough, no matter how urgently it was sought, no satisfactory
answer to this question of an absolute norm could be found in the Old
Testament... As we see now...ancient Israel did not in fact measure a
line of conduct or an act by an ideal norm, but by the specific relationship in which the partner had at the time to prove himself true.'
Bovati also works from this premise, and adds, 'The just is called
upon in fact not only to deal correctly with the other, but to re-establish
justice, so as to promote a right relationship between all the members of
the society.'2
1. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; New
York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 371. Quoting H. Cremer, G. von Rad adds, 'The
way in which it is used shows that p~I^ is out and out a term denoting relationship,
and that it does this in the sense of referring to a real relationship between two
parties...and not to the relationship of an object under consideration to an idea.'
H. Cremer, Biblisch-Theologisches Worterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Grdcitdt
(Gotha: F.A. Perthes, 7th edn, 1893), pp. 273-75.
2. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 19. For full bibliographic reference for
the term pHH and np"T2, see Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 18.
78
79
Ordinary (or 'generalized') Hebrew words are often used forensically: 'As regards terminology in common usage, I note with I.L. Seeligmann the difficulty of defining the language of judicial procedure with
precision.'7
'Ordinary' words used in technical ways are often found in syntagmas, where they are paired with a technical term or another ordinary
term. Bovati uses the term 'syntagma' to refer to words and word roots
that are used together in various texts consistently to express more than
the sum of the two words.8 In this way, common words are used
together to form technical expressions that have specific functions in
legal contexts.
When I speak of 'generalized' terminology I mean that it is not specialized into meaning something in opposition to other terms...but it can be
seen how it has a precise and specific function... Although belonging to
a wider semantic field [the word] has a place and specific function in the
juridical dynamic.9
It is necessary, therefore, for the interpreter to depend on narrative context for the interpretation of vocabulary of juridical procedure. Richard
Boyce makes a similar observation in his dissertation on p^, the cry to
God in the Old Testament: 'Some context other than their word field
must be analyzed in order to discover what the biblical use of pUT and
pPS might have to offer in debates such as these.'10 For example, Boyce
distinguishes four narrative settings that are legal contexts for the term
'cry': the cry of the legally marginal to the king, the cry of the oppres6. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 20.
7. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice; I.L. Seeligmann, 'Zur Terminologie fur das
Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des Biblischen Hebraisch', in Hebraische Wortforschung: Festschrift fur W. Baumgartner (VTSup; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967),
pp. 253-54.
8. A 'syntagma' is a systematic grouping of words.
9. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 125.
10. Richard N. Boyce, The Cry to God in the Old Testament (SBLDS, 103;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 24.
80
sed, the cry of the raped and the cry of the blood.11 These narrativesituational settings provide the context by which the function of an
'ordinary' (or non-technical) word or phrase may be understood as
juridical.
Boyce notes that there is basic agreement in the secondary material
that pltt is sometimes used as a technical term that calls for a legal
hearing. 12 His dissertation addresses the question of how narrative
contexts help the interpreter to distinguish whether pUT functions as a
technical term, and, when it does, to determine its precise function
within that context. For example: the cry of the legally marginalized to
the king is a technical cry for a legal hearing; the cry of the oppressed is
similar, except that in that setting, God is the king who is called upon;
the cry of the raped is not an immediate legal appeal, but the outcry in
the midst of the rape is later of 'extraordinary significance in court'; the
cry of blood is also to God, and, like the rape, is of legal significance
after the fact.13 In each of the cases presented, the 'cry' has a legal
function, either as a warrant for arraignment or as evidence in a trial.
Another general illustration of the need for narrative context in distinguishing juridical vocabulary is the variety of functions of the term
CDEJEJQ. Its variety of uses does not mitigate against its specific function
in a given text. As a procedural noun it means 'judging'; as a procedural action it means 'judged'; as a sentence or verdict it is 'a judgment'; as a result of a judgment it means 'law' or 'decree'.14 Narrative
context is the necessary locus of translation and interpretation.
Building on Boecker's work, Bovati has provided an exhaustive
analysis of legal terms and procedures and their occurrences in the
Hebrew Bible. He has summarized scholarly issues and consensus in
the field of biblical law, providing a valuable summary of research, a
task that need not be repeated here.15
One of Bovati's major contributions to understanding legal procedure
in the Hebrew Bible is his demonstration of the distinction between a
11. Boyce, The Cry to God, pp. 25-46.
12. Boyce, The Cry to God, pp. 27-28.
13. Boyce, The Cry to God, pp. 42-44.
14. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 208.
15. 'He has in fact done Old Testament scholarship a service in presenting the
[primary and secondary] material in such a clear and systematic way.' A. Gelston,
review of Pietro Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible, JTS 40 (April 1989), p. 141.
81
Since 1964, the difficulties have become more widely evident. Completing his work in 1985, Bovati observed:
A diachronic treatment of the Hebrew vocabulary would of course have
been desirable and methodologically more rigorous; unfortunately, current knowledge of the subject is so scarce or disputed that a projected
history of judicial terminology would risk being based on foundations
that were too hypothetical. The various dictionaries and word lists,
although occasionally providing useful distinctions, do not comment
except in passing on the possible chronological relationship between the
various terms and phrases.18
82
Bovati argues that, particularly in legal terminology, dating and historical reconstruction is, by definition, problematic':19
Moreover, although it is possible to establish, with relative likelihood,
the date of a text, the decision regarding a single word or a particular
syntagm remains difficult, given that for the most part the degree of harmonization exercised over the final redaction eludes us. As far as legal
circles are concerned, they may be considered by nature to tend to conservatism, and it is, therefore, not absurd to imagine the same terminology lasting for centuries, bearing in mind jurisprudence's constant
effort to get legally significant words and formulae to agree between
themselves.20
83
this book. The narrative of Lot's daughters and Lot in the cave (following the destruction of the Plain) in Gen. 19.30-38 is omitted, however,
from this legal analysis. Legal terminology is entirely absent from these
verses, even though they are in the midst of a narrative otherwise
replete with juridical language. In addition to the absence of legal
terms, the narrator offers no value judgment on the actions of Lot's
daughters. Their actions are simply reported as reasonable, given their
situation.22 Levitical law condemns incest but this text communicates
no negative conclusion.23 If any ought were to be implied, it would be
that Lot's daughters did what ought to have been done. The lack of
juridical terminology or narrator's discursive expression of judgment
leads me to exclude this too subtle text from consideration.
Four other texts in the Abraham narrative also require some attention
because of their juridical terminology or reference to an ought not.
These include Gen. 12.17-20 (Sarah in Pharaoh's tent), Gen. 13.2-13
(the separation of Abraham and Lot at the valley of Sodom), Gen. 16.116 (strife between Hagar and Sarah) and Gen. 21.25-34 (a complaint
about Abimelech's use of a water well). In these texts, ought nots seem
at first to be indicated by the presence of legal language or forms. For a
variety of reasons, however, they stand outside of the parameters of this
study. Genesis 12 cannot be treated separately and still effectively,
because its juridical context is so brief. It will be examined with its
parallel text in Genesis 20. The legal referent in Genesis 13 is also too
brief. Genesis 16 provides more material, but concludes ambiguously. It
is also a controversy, and not a fully developed trial (a distinction that
will be fully developed in Chapter 4). Genesis 21 contains juridical
terms, but properly belongs to contract law.
Genesis 12.17-18.
But the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because
of Sarai, Abram's wife. So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, 'What is this
you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?'
22. See Cheryl J. Exum, 'The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narratives
from a Feminist Perspective', Biblical Review 2 (Spring 1986), pp. 60-67.
23. See Lev. 18.
84
13.13
Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the
LORD.
nto.
26.
85
"IKQDfMDn, also has a parallel in 18.20: 'very grave sin', "O DPNBm
"1NQ n~QD). The vocabulary will be considered in that fuller narrative
context.
Genesis 16.5-11.
16.5
16.6b
Do to her as you please. Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she
ran away from her.
16.9
The angel of the LORD said to her, 'Return to your mistress and
submit to her.'
16.lib Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him
Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
86
(OQn;:mJ; "]srm man). The discourse also uses the root mi> in
repetition to designate wrongful behavior (16.6, 9, 11). Nonetheless, no
attempt is made in the narrative to demonstrate due process towards
justice, as in Genesis 18-20.
The use of the term 'judge' (QD2?) is, in fact, ironic in the text, given
Sarai's subsequent action. Sarai's action, despite her appeal to the
LORD'S judgment, can be seen only as retaliation against Hagar for her
contempt (^p).29
God's intervention is not as a judge bringing justice, but as a savior
who offers Hagar reasons for hope so that she will return to the relative
safety of Abram's care. God offers the hope of a son, a name for him
that reminds her that 'God hears', an assurance that God has noted her
affliction, and an acceptance of the name she gives to God, 'God sees'.
All these are given as motivation for her returning, not to a just situation, but to Sarai's harsh authority (illy). When Ishmael is older and
she leaves, not to return, she goes with aid from Abram and from God
(21.14-21). The temporary safety of Hagar's and Abram's only son,
Ishmael, is the implied reason for God's intervention (16.10-11).
This text is a case that points to the necessity of narrative analysis of
texts containing juridical language, especially for the interpretation of
oughts and ought nots in those texts. Sarai's ironic appeal to Abram that
the LORD 'judge' is a rhetorical category that is beyond the scope of a
purely lexicographical analysis. Understanding the juridical language in
this pericope as ironic (that is, the LORD'S decision is to have Hagar
live with Sarai) removes it from my consideration of oughts and ought
nots in the Abraham narrative. This narrative does not demonstrate a
due process towards justice, or make a claim that justice has indeed
been served. Hagar's return to Sarai's affliction can only be considered
a temporary necessity for her survival as a resolution to their
controversy.
29. For a discussion of the term 'j'jp, see J. Gerald Janzen, Abraham and All
the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 12-50 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 42. Hagar has certainly committed a wrong against
Sarah which is a warrant for Sarah's call for justice. The irony is that Sarah calls for
the LORD to judge (16.5) but does the judging, harshly, herself.
87
Genesis 21.25-27.
21.25
21.26
Abimelech said, 'I do not know who has done this; you did not tell
me, and I have not heard of it until today.'
21.27
So Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech and
the two men made a covenant.
'I do not know', 'you did not tell', and 'I have not heard' are commonly
used together in biblical juridical procedure (>QE>; 2J33; 1TP), especially
in noticing and reporting a crime. In addition, the claim of ignorance as
a protestation of innocence is a common form.30 Their occurrence
together in this text raises the question of its relevance to my investigation of oughts and ought nots in the Abraham narrative.
It may be excluded from consideration for three reasons. First, the
issue is not moral law, nor does it have a theological focus (e.g. God
does not participate in the dialogue). Its concern about land use and
water rights properly belongs to a discussion of contract law. Secondly,
the complaint is resolved without juridical procedure, in conversation
between the two principal parties, by the establishment of a covenant.
Thirdly, the term PD1*, 'complain', is generally used in sapiential contexts, rather than in contexts of juridical procedure against wrongful
action.31
Summary and Conclusions. These four texts differ in two substantive
ways from Gen. 18.16-20.18. While they contain some juridical language, the court-like context is not developed. The conflicts are settled
without recourse to court-like procedure or judgment (Bovati calls them
ZTT1, which are settled out of 'court'). Secondly, God does not play an
active role in identifying the oughts and ought nots, except in Genesis
12, which will be discussed in relationship to Genesis 20.
Genesis 18.16-20.18 is unique in the Abraham narrative in that God
initiates conversations for the purpose of discussing human behavior,
30.
31.
88
first with Abraham (18.17-18) and then with Abimelech (20.3). Furthermore, these verses contain the only uses of the root tftDil, 'sin', in the
narrative (11.27-25.18), except for the narrator's notice of Sodom's
evil in 13.13. These occurrences of tfttfT (18.20; 20.6, 9a, 9b) are preliminary indications that chs. 18-20 are most useful for the study of
oughts and ought nots in the Abraham narrative.
A focus on Genesis 18-20 is useful as a case study because of the
clustering of legal terms in these texts and the developed 'court-like
procedures' within them. Working with an extended narrative also aids
the interpreter by providing the context necessary for the integrity of
word study. Three diagnostic questions will shape the study: (1) What
are the technical terms of juridical procedure? (2) What are the common words or word combinations (syntagmas) used consistently in the
Hebrew Bible in a technical juridical sense? (3) What are the narrative
and discursive signs that disclose oughts and ought nots in the text?
Evidence of Legal and Juridical Terminology in Genesis 18.16-20.18
The purpose of the presentation of the research that follows in the
remainder of this chapter is to note the lexicographical terms of oughts
and ought nots and their significance in Gen. 18.16-20.18. This is not a
commentary on the whole text. It is limited to evidence from the
Hebrew Bible for (a) technical legal vocabulary, (b) common vocabulary or syntagmas that are used in a technical legal manner, and
(c) syntactical or discursive indications of legal procedures in the narrative context. A close narrative analysis of the legal referents will be
taken up in Chapters 4 and 5.
The texts are provided in English by chapter at the head of each
section (Genesis 18, 19, and 20). All biblical references are from
Genesis unless otherwise designated. Translations are from the New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV), except where noted. The underlined
phrases will be considered below, each in turn.
Legal and Juridical Terminology in Genesis 18.16-33
16
Then the men set out from there, and they looked toward Sodom; and
Abraham went with them to set them on their way. 17 The LORD said,
'Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 seeing that
Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of
the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 No, for I have chosen him, that he
may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of
89
the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may
bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.'
20
Then the LORD said, 'How great is the outcry against Sodom and
Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! 21 / must go down and see
whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come
to me; and if not, I will know.'
22
So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while
Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham came
near and said, 'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the
wickedl [* Read, 'the innocent with the guilty'.] 24 Suppose there are
fifty righteous [innocent] within the city; will you then sweep away the
place and not forgive it [* Read, 'not spare it'] for the fifty righteous
[innocent] who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing [*Read,
'to make a ruling like this'], to slay the righteous [innocent] with the
wicked [guilty], so that the righteous [innocent] fare as the wicked
[guilty]! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do
what is justl [Read, 'make a just decision'].'
26
And the LORD said, 'If 1 find at Sodom fifty righteous [innocent] in
the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake'. 27 Abraham
answered, 'Let me take it upon myself to speak to the LORD, I who am
but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose five of the fifty righteous [innocent] are
lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?' And he said,
'I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there'. 29 Again he spoke to him,
'Suppose forty are found there'. He answered, 'For the sake of forty I
will not do it'. 30 Then he said, 'Oh do not let the LORD be angry if I
speak. Suppose thirty are foundthere'. He answered, 'I will not do it,if I
find thirty there'. 31 He said, 'Let me take it upon myself to speak to the
LORD. Suppose twenty are foundthere'. He answered, 'For the sake of
twenty I will not destroy it'. 32 Then he said, 'Oh do not let the LORD be
angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.' He
answered, 'For the sake of ten I will not destroy it'. 33 And the LORD
went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham
returned to his place.
90
Proverbs
2.7b-8a He is a shield to those who walk blamelessly, guarding the paths of
justice.
8.20
I walk in the way of righteousness along the paths of justice.
17.23
The wicked accept a concealed bribe to pervert the ways of justice.
In Gen. 18.19 -p"! is construed with both UD&Q and ilplS. Wisdom
and legal procedure should not be separated in the interpretation of
these texts.
In several other familiar texts ~pl may be understood to mean 'legal
procedures and judgments':
Isa. 40.27 My way is hidden from the LORD and my right [tDSCJQ] is
disregarded by my God.
Jer. 5.4
These are only the poor, they have no sense; for they do not know
the way of the LORD, the law [CDSEJQ] of their God.
Ps. 1.6
For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous but the way of
the wicked will perish.
Amos 2.7 They who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth,
and push the afflicted out of the way.
91
1 Kgs 10.9b
Because the LORD loved Israel forever, he has made you king
to execute [H2JU] justice and righteousness.
2 Sam. 8.15b And David administered [HiDD] justice and equity to all his
people. (Also 1 Chron. 18.14.)
Ps. 99.4b
You have executed [n&U] justice and righteousness in Jacob.
Ps. 103.6
The LORD works [ITOU] vindication and justice for all who are
oppressed.
Jer. 22.3
Act [H2JU] with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the
hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do
no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow,
or shed innocent blood in this place.
Jer. 22.15-16a Are you a king because you compete in cedar? Did not your
father eat and drink and do [HE?I?] justice and righteousness?
Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor
and needy; then it was well.
Jer. 23.5b
He shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute
[H2JU] justice and righteousness in the land.
Ezek. 45.9 Enough, O Princes of Israel! Put away violence and
oppression, and do [ITOU] what is just and right. Cease your
evictions of my people, says the LORD God.
Jeremiah 9.24 and 33.15 also use these common words together in
the syntagma npl^l CODCdQ n&D to refer to the administration of just
juridical procedure. This is the syntagma used in Gen. 18.19. It does not
have the royal procedural context of these other examples, but is given
as a charge to Abraham concerning his own children and his household.
(The phrase BSBD1 Hpl^, which appears in Gen. 18.19, Ps. 33.5 and
Prov. 21.3, is less frequent than Hpl^l QSEJQ, which occurs 22 times
mostly in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.)
n&U and ttSEJQ are also frequently used together without npl^ to
mean 'administer justice' or 'execute justice'. (See Exod. 12.12; Num.
33.4; Deut. 10.18; 33.21; 1 Kgs 6.12; 2 Chron. 24.24; Pss. 9.16; 119.8
146.7; 149.9; Isa. 16.3; Jer. 5.1; 7.5; Ezek. 5.8, 10, 15; 11.9, 12; 16.41
18.8, 17; 20.24; 23.10; 25.11; 28.22, 26; 30.14, 19; 39.21; Mic. 7.9.)
Genesis 18.20: How Great Is the Outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah
(TD-pS rrpip. Dip npinj. The terms for 'outcry' (pJJS and pin)
represent 'the loud and agonized crying of someone in acute distress,
calling for help and seeking deliverance'.35 They are technical terms of
35.
92
In each of these verses the verb root is pJJiJ or pDT, except for Deut.
15.9, which has Klpl. This example (among many) is included to
demonstrate that other verbs of 'crying out' are also used to denote
legal complaint.
The commonest terms referring to the complaint are the verbs (and occasionally corresponding nouns) from the roots pPX or pUT, N~lp and VW
(Pi.)... The synonymous relationship between these verbs N~ip,pi^/pUT,
and I212J (Pi.) is obvious from the fact that they are often found linked to
one another.40
Examples of the linking and synonymous use of these roots has been
demonstrated by I.L. Seeligmann.41
36. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens, pp. 62-63; von Rad, Genesis,
pp. 106, 211; Boyce, The Cry to God, p. 27; Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp.
314-15.
37. N. f. s. cstr.
38. Interr.+ prep.+ n. f. S+ 3 f. s. sf.
39. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, p. 20. See 1 Sam. 4.13-14; Jer. 25.34-36;
Isa. 65.14-19; Jer. 48.3-5; Neh. 5.1-6. See 'ptfJS, Schreien', in Jenni and Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch, II, p. 574.
40. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, p. 314.
41. Seeligmann, 'Terminologie', pp. 257-60. For examples, see Jer. 20.8; Ps.
93
Richard Boyce notes that the setting of judicial procedure and the use
of pW and p^T in Genesis 18 are 'clear-cut'.42
The function of the single use of pUT is straightforward. While the cry
may yet function implicitly as an initiatory appeal for legal hearing, its
primary function within this narrative of crime and punishment is evidential serving as the rationale for a trial which is now in progress...
pl^...is a cry 'for help', specifically for legal hearing, arising from the
maltreated marginals within this community... In this narrative setting,
the use of the nominal form underlines this cry's evidential function,
serving as the basis for a 'trial'... As a person with a complaint must
come (83) before the king, so this negative evidence comes to God (KH
plus ^, Gen. 18.20) and thereby, becomes great 'before' him OB1?, Gen.
19.13; cf. 2 Kgs 19.28, Jonah 1.2, Lam. 1.22)43
The LORD came down [~IT] to see [H^~l] the city and the tower
which mortals had built.
Exod. 3.7-8a And I have observed [nK"~i] the misery of my people who are in
Egypt; I have heard [UQ2J] their cry [pi>^] on account of their
taskmasters. Indeed, I know t^T] their sufferings, and I have
come down [IT] to deliver them.
18.7; Job 19.7; 35.9; Prov. 21.13. For a long list of synonyms of the verb pittS, see
'pUU, Schreien', in Jenni and Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch,
II, p. 574.
42. Boyce, The Cry to God, p. 50.
43. Boyce, The Cry to God, pp. 50-51. 'In the J framework, once a cry from the
marginal has been heard by the king, it functions as a cry against his or her
murderer (Gen. 4.8) assailant (Gen. 19.13) or oppressor (Exod. 1.11 and 5.6-14).'
Boyce, The Cry to God, p. 53.
44. Boyce, The Cry to God, pp. 51-52. Boyce notes that the judicial provenance of such words as ilK"), 1?Q2J, in" and ~!T is now apparent to scholars. See
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 303.
94
The declaration 'I must go down and see' in Genesis 18 is the decision of a magistrate to try a case:
God decides to step in as judge; the intervention begins with a verification, a judicial inquiry, whether the situation is in accord with the cries
of lamentation.445
This is the manner in which Gen. 18.20-21 has to be interpreted: an
accusation against Sodom and Gomorrah has reached the divine judge;
as a result he undertakes to clarify the facts.46
Whether They Have Done Altogether According to the Outcry That Has
Come to Me (rb3 W ^K H^H nnpl^?n). The phrase 'whether they
have done altogether according to the outcry' describes the process of
45. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 290.
46. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 241 n. 38.
47. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 242-47. Hpn and ]!~!3 are also verbs of
judicial inquiry
48. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 244 n. 47, Bovati's emphasis.
95
There is also a link between the judge's being seated and the act of
judging:
The judge's being seated in the law court is linked.. .to the movement of
those who come forward for judgment; but above all it is the opposite of
'standing up' during the course of the trial.
96
For example:
Exod. 18.13 Moses sat as judge for the people, while the people stood
around him.
Judg. 4.4-5 She used to sit under the palm of Deborah...and the Israelites
came up to her for judgment.53
Genesis 18.23: Then Abraham Came Near (Drn?N B?a9X). The verb efa]
has special procedural value when it is used in the context of litigation.54 The first procedure preceding the biblical trial is the summons,
or an initiative designated by a motion towards a court of law. 273.] is not
the only verb of motion used in this way, but it is frequently used:55
Gen. 44.18
Then Judah stepped up [273]] to him and said, 'O my LORD, let
your servant please speak a word in my LORD'S ears, and do not
be angry with your servant; for you are like Pharaoh himself.'
Exod. 24.14 Wait here for us, until we come to you again; for Aaron and Hur
are with you; whoever has a dispute may go [2)3]] to them.
Deut. 25.1 Suppose two persons have a dispute and enter [273]] into
litigation, and the judges decide between them, declaring one to
be in the right and the other to be in the wrong.
1 Sam. 14.38 Come [273]] here all you leaders of the people; and let us find out
how this sin has arisen today.
Isa. 41.Ib
Let them approach [2733], then let them speak; let us together
draw near [3~lp] for judgment.
One of the two ways in which trial speech is introduced is a combination of 1QI7 with a verb of nearness. In Gen. 18.23, that verb of
nearness is 273156
The Innocent with the Guilty? peh'DI? p^X). pH2$ and 17271 are common words that are often used together to denote innocence and guilt in
legal contexts. In such texts as Genesis 18, they should be translated
'innocent' and 'guilty' rather than 'righteous' and 'wicked':57
53. See also Isa. 16.5; 28.6; Jer. 26.10; Joel 3.12; Ps. 9.5; Prov. 20.8.
54. Z.W. Falk, 'Hebrew Legal Terms', JSS 5 (1960), pp. 350-54.
55. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 218. For other verbs that function in the
same way (especially 3~)p), see 2 Sam. 15.2; 15.6; Exod. 18.16; 1 Kgs 3.16;
2 Chron. 19.18; Job 23.2; Deut. 17.8-9; Judg. 4.5.
56. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 236. The other way is by means of the
verb Dip linked to speech of some kind.
57. VonRad, Genesis, p. 212.
97
Deut. 25.Ib
Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and
those in the right [pH^l ""pTl], for I will not acquit the guilty
[UGh pHHtf-tf'? -D].
The judges decide between them, declaring one to be in the
right [p'-r^iTTlN ipn^m] and the other to be in the wrong
[srchrrnR ijrczhm].60
2 Chron. 6.23 And judge your servants, repaying the guilty [UGH'?] by bringing their conduct on their own head, and vindicating those who
are in the right [pH^S pH^rfn] by rewarding them.
Isa. 5.23
You...who acquit the guilty [tfEh yTiD] for a bribe, and
deprive the innocent pTp'HlS] of their rights!
In Gen. 18.23 and 18.25 p~IH and U2H are used together in opposition
three times:
18.23
18.25
Will you indeed sweep away the innocent with the guilty?
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the innocent with
the guilty, so that the innocent fare as the guilty!
pTS is used four more times in the narrative, with U2H only implied.
The juxtaposition between the innocent and the guilty is implied, without the use of p~IK and I?2J"l, four more times.61 The opposition and
58.
59.
60.
61.
and 32.
98
repetition of these terms is itself evidence for the argument that they
should be translated 'innocent' and 'guilty':
Verbs [including p7 and D2H] that express the jurisdictional function
are all the more relevant at this point to the extent that they refer to the
act of separation of the guilty from the innocent... in other words, judging becomes more obviously the final act of a trial the more it makes
explicit two opposing series of terms, the former referring to 'acquittal',
the latter to 'condemnation'.62
Finally, the translation of pHlS in Gen. 20.4b as 'innocent' is not disputed. No one translates it 'righteous' in that context. It is the Canaanite's protestation of innocence to God.66 Abimelech asks, 'Will you
destroy an innocent people?' (Jinn pHlTD} ""tin).
99
Genesis 18.24: Suppose There Are Fifty Innocent (Dp'HS D^qn 2T ^N).
The conclusion of a juridical inquiry, identified by the syntagma 'see' +
'know' (UT + riNH), 'may be signaled in Hebrew by the particle ET'.67
Abraham's question to God (18.24) intercepts God's going down 'to
see' n^"i and 'to know' JTP (18.21). When he says 'Suppose there are'
(2T ^18) in this context, he begins the use of a legal expression (which
will be repeated five more times in 18.26-32) known as such in other
biblical law court contexts.68
And Not Spare It for the Fifty Innocent (DTOH ]Dtf? Dips'? N&rr^l
Dpn^Hj. The NRSV has 'and not forgive it'. The verb nt0] in this context is better translated 'and not spare it' (RSV), for two reasons. First,
the direct object, translated as 'it', is 'the place' (DlpQ^) (repeated from
the first half of the verse). The verb 'forgive' assumes the people, not
'the place'. Abraham's request is that the 'place' should be 'spared'.
Secondly, the connotation of K2J3 is always juridical; it is not a verb of
substitutionary atonement.69 While it can often be properly translated
'forgive' (see Num. 14.19; Isa. 2.9; Hos. 1.6), it refers to a direct juridical pardon from God.
In Genesis 18, the translation must consider the use of the verb with
the preposition ]^Q^ translated 'for'. Translating N&] as 'forgive' with
PQ'? as 'for' can lead to the mistaken impression that 'forgive for the
sake of is a reference to an atoning function of the innocent for the
guilty. But this is never the use of tf&l Therefore, DlpQ^ N&rrN'?!
should be translated 'and not spare the place', and ]Vft>7should be
understood as a preposition of 'advantage', and not causally.70 This
retains the proper meaning of K&] as 'spare'. The city is to be spared for
the innocent people who are there. That the guilty people also would be
spared is not a sign of their forgiveness, but of their fortune to be in a
'spared' city.71
The meaning is not a substitutionary forgiveness because of the innocent (DpHKH), but a question of life and justice for any innocent in the
67. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 251.
68. See argument and details at 18.26 below.
69. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 143-44.
70. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 365, 366. Gen. 18.24 is cited as an
example.
71. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 292; Fretheim, 'The Book of Genesis',
p. 469.
100
city. In either case, however, the implied ought signified by the ]VFb of
advantage is that the innocent should not be destroyed with the guilty.
pQ^ introduces the warrant (innocence) for God's 'sparing' the city.
Thus, in addition to the formal juridical language of pardon, a moral
ought not is introduced by means of ]$rh> in the discourse.72
Genesis 18.25a To Make a Ruling Like This (TlTH "DTP HDUn). The
NRSV translates, 'to do such a thing'. Whenever "Q"T is used with the
language of judging (032JQ), it is translated as 'case', meaning 'legal
case', or 'juridical decision', meaning 'ruling', with the exception of
Gen. 18.25. This text should be translated in a similar way. In this context, 'to make a ruling like this' would be more precise than 'to do such
a thing'.73
There are only nine occurrences of the syntagma QD&ft + "Din in the
Hebrew Bible. In seven of them, the reference is to a legal case to be
decided (Gen. 18.25; Deut. 1.17; 17.8, 9, 11; 2 Sam. 15.6; 2 Chron.
19.6). The two other occurrences of the syntagma, 2 Chron. 8.14 and
Ezra 3.4, also have a legal context, referring to an ordinance (QSEJft)
that has a specific duty (~O~J).74
To Slay (TTnrh). The hiphil of the verb TO ('slay' or 'put to death') is
used to describe the official action of a court in meting out punishment.
Sometimes the actor is the executioner, as in Deut. 17.7, 1 Sam. 11.12,
22.17-18, 2 Sam. 14.7, and Jer. 26.24, 38.16. Sometimes, as in Genesis
18.25, 'the punitive act can be attributed directly to the judge'.75 For
example:
1 Sam. 19.1
Saul spoke with his son Jonathan and with all his servants
about killing David.
2 Sam. 14.32b Now let me go into the king's presence; if there is guilt in me,
let him kill me.
72. The same warrant (innocence) for not destroying the innocent with the
guilty is introduced by the compound preposition TniO in 18.26.
73. For the legal procedural use of n&U , see the commentary at 20.9b, 'You
have done'. See also 18.21, 'whether they have done', and 20.10, where the verb
HE1^ and the noun "Ql are used together in a similar way. Abimelech asks
Abraham, 'What were you thinking that you did such a thing?' In this light, it could
be translated, 'What were you thinking that you made such a decision?'
74. Falk, Hebrew Law, pp. 25-26. Falk argues that ordinances such as this are
the product of previous juridical decisions made, 'judge-made' law.
75. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 374.
101
.. .for you deserve death. But I will not at this time put you to
death.
.. .the king sought to put him to death.
In both situations, the reference is not simply to killing, but to the judicious action of a court.
Genesis 18.25b: Shall Not the Judge...Make a Just Decision? (CDD&n
UEtfZJp njpir vb...). The NRSV translates, 'Shall not the Judge...do what
is just?' The syntagma QDEJQ + tDDEJn ('the judge' + 'a just judgment')
occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible, including Gen. 18.25.76 In the
other two cases, the syntagma of the two words together is used technically to refer to the 'judge's just decision'. In Gen. 18.25 this specificity is lost in the more abstract translation 'do what is just' (NRSV) or 'do
right' (RSV). It is better rendered 'make a just decision', in consistency
with the other two occurrences (Deut. 17.9; 1 Kgs 3.28). These texts
reveal a technical use of non-technical vocabulary. For supporting
examples in the plural form see Deut. 16.18 and 2 Chron. 19.6.77
The context of Deut. 17.9 is an appellate court, and a contingency for
helping to insure the 'justness' of a decision is provided. 'If a judicial
decision is too difficult to make...' (Deut. 17.8):
Deut. 17.9
You shall consult with the levitical priests and the judge [tDSEJH]
who is in office in those days; they shall announce to you the
decision [C2S2JQi"I] in the case.
In 1 Kgs 3.28, King Solomon judges between two women who claim
the same child, a landmark case for 'just judgments'.
1 Kgs 3.28a All Israel heard of the judgment [CDSCJQiT] which the king had
rendered [QD2J ifmn].
102
either party'. Both the plaintiff and the defendant claimed the QDC2Q
(just judgment) to be theirs, 'until it was rendered to the party found to
be just'. Secondly, these individual legal decisions 'were cited as precedents for similar cases. Thus, CDSEJQ came to mean a collection of
casuistic laws such as Exod. 21, which was originally judge-made law,
though codified at an early date.'78 Again, it can be assumed that the
laws or 'judgments' were considered to be 'just' ones.
In Gen. 18.25 the first function of the term is represented. It refers to
an individual 'just judgment' that is best understood by the translation
'Shall not the Judge of all the earth make a just decision!'As in the
other cases of the syntagma, the abstraction 'do what is right' cannot
convey the specificity of the decision represented by the syntagma
tOD^Q + CDSCtfn.
The translation 'make a just decision' is also supported by a specific
use of the syntagma EDEJQ n&U. Usually this phrase means to have 'an
ethical attitude of conformity to the law (Jer. 5.1; Mic. 6.8; Prov. 21.7,
15). In certain contexts, however, it refers to a judicial action.'79 (See
also Pss. 119.84; 146.7; 2 Chron. 8.18.) For example:
1 Kgs 3.28b And they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that
the wisdom of God was in him, to execute justice [CDD2JQ nfoU].
Ps. 9.17a
The LORD has made himself known, he has executed judgment
[H2?U CQS3BJQ].
103
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in
the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and
bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, 'Please, my lords,
turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your
feet; then you can rise early and go on your way'. They said, 'No; we
will spend the night in the square'. 3 But he urged them strongly; so they
turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and
baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom,
both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
5
and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.' 6 Lot went out of the
door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, 7 beg you, my
brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have
not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you
please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the
shelter of my roof.'g But they replied, 'Stand back!' And they said, 'This
fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will
Ancient Near Eastern Law: An Evaluation of David Daube's Theory', RB 91
(1984), pp. 188-211. Related to the 'finding' of evidence is D. Daube's work on
legal discovery with the term TDil (hiphil of ID]), 'regard' or 'recognize'. These
uses refer to the recognition of evidence, and not to first person testimony of persons against persons as in this text.
82. tQ, qal impf. 1 c. s and NKQ, ni. impf. 3 m. p.
104
83.
105
Genesis 19.8b: Only Do Nothing to These Men for They Have Come
under the Shelter of My Roof (}^^3 "13"T ^rr^K ^ ZTtiMb pi
T"np ^3 183). The expression 'the shelter of my roof is unique to this
text. By using it as a warrant for the protection of the two men in
discourse, Lot discloses an obligation known to him and, arguably, also
to the men of Sodom. Lot's stated warrant, introduced by the causal "D,
is that 'they have come under the shelter of my roof'.87 The implication
of the discourse is that those who have been welcomed under the 'shelter of the roof ought not be abused. His claim that this 'shelter' ought
not be violated is supported by the narrative in the subsequent action of
the guests at 19.11 (blinding the men of Sodom) and in God's action at
19.24.
As these examples demonstrate, p^ir^ (translated 'for' in 19.8) is
associated with the obligation of hospitality in Genesis:88
18.5
106
With these imperatives the angels of the LORD attempt to deliver Lot's
family from the destruction of Sodom. In v. 17, the repeated imperative
'Flee!' is further rhetorically punctuated by the first use of the singular
107
'he' in the narrative, referring to the angels/God. These 'royal' imperatives result in the saving of the innocent. That they were not spoken to
the others in Sodom is equally a royal verdict.93
The repeated root NKQ 94 is not incidental to the story. The innocent,
to whom Abraham referred (18.23-33), are 'found'. The imperatives,
which provide the way of deliverance, are for Lot's wife and daughters,
who have been 'found' vulnerable by being legally marginalized in the
city. They are innocent in the midst of the aggressive inhospitality of
Sodom.95
Genesis 19.23: The Sun Had Risen on the Earth ff "INrr1?!? K tfl^n,).
The morning is the preferred time for an intervention or judgment by
God. Verse 23 describes the beginning of the execution of the judgment. The intervention of the messengers to save Lot's family began in
a similar manner: 'When morning dawned' (H^U "in^H 1QD1; 19.15).96
The sun's rising is 'one of the metaphors suggesting the advent of justice promoted by right judgment'.97 For example:
Exod. 14.24 At the morning watch, the LORD in the pillar of fire and cloud
looked down.
Josh. 6.15 On the seventh day they rose early, at dawn, and marched
around the city.
Isa. 13.10b The sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its
light.
The metaphor of the rising sun as the advent of justice is usually indicated in texts that combine the root N^*1 and CDD&Q.98
93. Boyce, The Cry to God. Compare royal imperatives that administer justice
in 2 Sam. 14.8; 19.30; 1 Kgs 3.24-25; and 2Kgs 8.6. The failure of the king to speak
in questions of justice is equally striking. See 1 Kgs 20.35-36 and 2 Kgs 6.24-25.
The absence of the royal imperative is the 'final deciding clue that something is
here amiss...the absence of the imperative in these two cases is, therefore, not a
rejection of this form but a testimony to its fixity'. Boyce, The Cry to God, p. 39.
94. Ni. ptc. f. p.
95. This is another warrant for the translation 'innocent' rather than 'righteous'. Lot's wife and daughters, 'found' here, are not 'righteous' in the text but are
innocent of the violent inhospitality of Sodom.
96. See 'early in the morning' at 20.8; 21.14; 22.3.
97. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 366; see Exod. 14.27; Judg. 5.31;
Ps. 19.6.
98. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 366-68; Seeligmann, 'Terminologie',
p. 278.
108
From there Abraham journeyed toward the region of the Negeb, and
settled between Kadesh and Shur. While residing in Gerar as an alien, 2
Abraham said of his wife Sarah, 'She is my sister'. And King Abimelech
of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
3
But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him,
'You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for
she is a married woman.' 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her; so
he said, 'LORD, will you destroy an innocent people! 5 Did he not
himself say to me, "She is my sister"? And she herself said, "He is my
brother". I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my
hands.' 6 Then God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know that you did
this in the integrity of your heart; furthermore it was I who kept you
from sinning against me. Therefore, I did not let you touch her. 7 Now
then, return the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you
and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall
surely die, you and all that are yours.'
8
So Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants
and told them all these things; and the men were very much afraid. 9
Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said to him, ' What have you done
to usl How have I sinned against you, that you have brought such great
guilt on me and my kingdoml You have done things to me that ought not
to be done.' 10 And Abimelech said to Abraham, 'What were you thinking of, that you did this thing?' 1 l Abraham said, 'I did it because I
thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me
because of my wife. 12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of
my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
13
And when God caused me to wander from my father's house, I said to
her, "This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we
come, say of me, He is my brother".'
14
Then Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves,
and gave them to Abraham, and restored his wife Sarah to him.
15
Abimelech said, 'My land is before you; settle where it pleasesyou1.
16
To Sarah he said, 'Look, I have given your brother a thousand pieces
of silver, it is your exoneration before all who are with you; you are
completely vindicated.' l 7 Then Abraham prayed to God; and God
healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that
they bore children. 18 For the LORD had closed fast all the wombs of the
house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife.
Genesis 20.3b: You Are about to Die (tlQ "^H). In the discourse of the
narrative, this statement reads like the verdict of a judge." The threat of
99. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 322; Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 178.
109
110
Whether the nuanced meaning of the term is 'property' or 'responsibility', it is a technical reference to a relationship between a husband
and wife that ought not be violated, even with the consent of the man
and the woman.107
Genesis 20.4b: Will You Destroy an Innocent People? fpn^'DS ^0
:hnn). This phrase is recognized as a legal formula, referred to as one
form of 'interrogative protestations of innocence'.108 Examples may be
found in Num. 22.28, 1 Sam. 17.29, Isa. 5.4, and Jer. 2.30. Another
common form of interrogative protestations is found in Abimelech's
subsequent question to Abraham: 'How have I sinned against you?'
($ TlKBrrnai; 20.9).109 Abimelech's appeal to God ('Will you
destroy?') is that God not destroy a 'completely innocent people'.
Although 'completely innocent' is redundant in English, it captures the
emphasis.110
Genesis 20.5b: In the Integrity of My Heart and Innocence of My
Hands fED fp^ ''in'p'DrQ,). This phrase in Abimelech's plea is recognized as a formula.111
[It is] a fixed phrase which, with its parallelism, allows us to recognize a
solemn formula: 'In integrity of heart and with innocent hands'...the
cultic formula in1? ~D1 D^SD "p] ('he who has clean hands and a pure
heart') of Ps. 24.4 is almost the same; it too has a similar function as a
rejection of guilt in the Liturgy at the Gate.112
111
words that are each typical in declarations of innocence: np] (free from
guilt, clean, innocent; exempt from punishment) and 'hands'.113 Clean
hands are often presented as a metaphor for innocence, as may be seen
in 1 Sam. 12.5 and 26.18, and Pss. 7.4, 18.21 and26.6.114It is possible
to maintain 'integrity of heart' and 'innocent hands' in the world of the
text and still suffer the consequences of liability for guilt.115
Genesis 20.7b: But If You Do Not Restore Her, Know that You Shall
Surely Die (man HlQ'^ JH zrtpQ ir'D1J. God says 'but if you do
not' ("p^'DKl) conditionally.116 Because it is God who speaks, the
phrase functions as a discursive sign of an ought not in the narrative. It
corresponds to the ought just spoken in 20.7a, 'return the man's wife'
(ETNn TON D2Jn). The phrase 'but if you do not' introduces the condition
(restoration) for accomplishing what ought to be done (ITCDD).117 Sarah's
restoration to Abraham is the condition of Abimelech's future wellbeing. The resultative "O (that) and the conditional DK (if not) together
introduce the consequence of not restoring Sarah to Abraham, 'you
shall surely die' (man miro).118
Genesis 20.9 Then Abimelech Called Abraham C^Wl^ N~p_'l
Dn'QN'p). The expression *? N"lp is another example of very common
vocabulary that functions in a precise way in juridical contexts. It is the
most common Hebrew form used to express the convening of a hearing
by a judge. In calling Abraham to account for his actions, Abimelech
functions as the judge in his camp.119 'The only thing which seems
common to the different acts of convening is that N~lp must take as its
113. BDB, p. 667: 'The accused declares himself innocent' using np]. Bovati,
Re-establishing Justice, p. 113.
114. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, p. 110.
115. Adrian Schenker, 'Once Again, the Expiatory Sacrifices', JBL 116 (1997),
pp. 697-719. For another view, Jacob Milgrom, 'Further on the Expiatory Sacrifices', JBL 115 (1996), pp. 511-14.
116. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 453, conditional DK, and para. 407, 'ptf in a
bound structure.
117. For comment on the use of the hiphil of D12J in legal procedure, see 325s 1,
'he restored her', at 20.14.
118. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 450, para. 527, resultative "3. For comment
on the phrase TOP fllQ, 'you shall surely die', see 20.3.
119. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 223.
112
113
accusation.125 In Genesis 20.9 the "O presents the accusation 'that you
have brought such great guilt on me and my kingdom'.
The reversal of perspective, from defense to counter-accusation (cf. Gen.
20.9; Job 7.20; Jer. 16.10) is signaled by certain syntactical indications...
Attention should first be directed to a "O which carries forward the
declaration of innocence, especially in the interrogative form (cf. e.g.
Gen. 20.9; 31.36; 40.15; 1 Sam. 20.1; 1 Kgs 18.9; Jer. 2.5; 37.18); this
particle introduces a criticism of whoever is doing the accusing, and lays
the accuser under accusation.126
125. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, paras. 450, 527, resultative "D clause introduced.
See 20.10 where Abimelech repeats the resultative "D in the question, 'What were
you thinking of that SD you did this thing?'
126. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 114.
127. For the form-critical category of sacral-juridical law, see Clark, 'Law',
pp. 127-28.
114
128. Sarna, Genesis, p. 143. See also E.A. Goodfriend, 'Adultery', ABD, I, pp.
82-86; Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 325; J.J. Rabinowitz, The 'Great Sin' in
Ancient Egyptian Marriage Contracts', JNES 18 (1956), p. 73; W.L. Moran, 'The
Scandal of the 'Great Sin' at Ugarit', JNES 18 (1959), pp. 280-81; Jacob Milgrom,
Cult and Conscience (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), pp. 132-33.
129. I am indebted to a conversation with Carolyn Pressler for the nuance in this
'almost committed' adultery, derived from her analysis of ancient Near Eastern
family law. Her dissertation is Pressler, The View of Women.
130. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 117.
131. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 118-19.
132. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice.
115
Did not your ancestors act in this way?... Yet you bring more
wrath on Israel by profaning the sabbath.
1 Sam. 26.16 This thing that you have done is not good. As the LORD
lives, you deserve to die.
Judg. 2.2
For your part, do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of
this land; tear down their altars. But you have not obeyed my
command. See what you have done!
And here also I have done nothing that they should have put
me into the dungeon.
O LORD my God, if I have done this, if there is wrong in my
hands.
O my people, what have I done to you? In what have I
wearied you? Answer me!
In the case of Gen. 20.9, the verb rrtoU (qal pf. 2 m.s.) is understood
as a legal declaration of accusation because it is bound to the object
'things that ought not to be done'.
133. See also Judg. 6.29; 1 Sam. 27.11; Ps. 50.21; Neh. 5.9; Gen. 12.18; 26.10;
31.26;44.15;Exod. 1.18; 8.1; 1 Sam. 2.23; 2 Sam. 16.10; Isa. 45.9; Job 9.12; Qoh.
8.4; Neh. 13.17.
134. See Gen. 20.5; Num. 22.28; Judg. 8.2; 15.11; 1 Sam. 20.1; 26.18; 29.8;
Neh. 5.15.
116
Gen. 29.26
135. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 172, obligative use of the imperfect, GKC,
para. 107g: 'It is not (wont to be) so done (and hence may not, shall not be)'. GKC,
para. 107w: 'In negative sentences to express actions, etc., which cannot or should
not happen, e.g. ...(Gen. 20.9) deeds...that ought not to be done'.
136. BDB, p. 795 (qal II).
137. Falk, Hebrew Law, p. 161. In reconstructing law in biblical Israel, Falk
distinguishes between the earlier history, in which ought nots were familial or clan
'customs', and later Israel, in which these customs became laws. For the purpose of
this thesis, both clan jurisdiction and later forms of judging show a similar commitment to oughts and ought nots by means of this particular vocabulary and syntax.
'An important source of law was custom. Everybody was expected to refrain from
doing things 'that ought not to be done' or 'which are not done' (Gen. 20.9; 29.26;
34.7; 2 Sam. 13.12).' Falk, Hebrew Law, p. 29. Westermann, Genesis 12-36,
p. 325: 'Abraham has violated an unwritten ordinance which exists among men.'
138. Niphal l.b., passive of qal I. BDB, p. 795.
139. Niphal impf. 3 m. p.
140. Niphal impf. 3 m. s.
117
Gen. 34.7b
When they heard of it, the men were indignant and very angry,
because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with
Jacob's daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done.141
Lev. 4.2
Speak to the people of Israel, saying: When anyone sins unintentionally in any of the LORD'S commandments about things
not to be done and does any one of them:142
The identical niphal imperfect third feminine plural of ilCT with the
negative $b is repeated in the Leviticus 4 context four more times (Lev.
4.13, 22, 27; 5.17). In each case it means the same thing: 'things not to
be done':
2 Sam. 13.12 She answered him, 'No, my brother, do not force me; for such a
thing is not done in Israel; do not do anything so vile!'143
Four have the second (BOB, II) meaning of HC1^ and are translated
'made' or 'used':145
Lev. 2.1 la
2 Kgs 12.13
Jer. 3.16
Ezek. 15.5a
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
Niphal impf. 3 m. s.
Niphal impf. 3 f. p.
Niphal impf. 3 m. s.
Niphal 1 .a, passive of qal I with the subject rDtto BOB, p. 795
Niphal 2, passive of qal II, BDB, p. 795.
118
Genesis 20.1 la: There Is No Fear of God at All (tTlf7K nNT-'pK P"U
In this context, the phrase 'fear of God' is a discursive element that
implies that some basic norm of behavior ought to be kept.146
Abraham's expression implies that where there is fear of God, he need
not fear being killed because of Sarah. If there were some 'fear of God',
Abraham's life would not be threatened, for Abimelech would fear
transgressing the norm of killing a man in order to take his wife from
him. 'Fear of God' is not an abstraction in this context, but refers to
specific rules of conduct.147
The deep irony is that Abimelech and his people do fear God. The
reader has heard already in 20.8 that the men of Abimelech's camp are
'very much afraid' ("INQ D"*2J]8n INT"1"!) simply through hearing about
Abimelech's dream. The 'fear of God', which Abraham fears is absent,
is 'very' active in Abimelech's camp. They have a high regard and
reverence for the 'elementary moral norms' of the divinity.148 The discursive use of the phrase 'fear of God' functions to reinforce the legal
language with a theological reference to the source of moral norms, the
Creator.
Genesis 20.12a: Besides, She Is Indeed My Sister fnh$ rnotjrDJU This
may also be translated, 'Besides, I testify that she is my sister'.149 The
only other use of the adverb il]QK is another introduction of testimony
during an inquiry into wrongdoing: 15
Josh. 7.20a
And Achan answered Joshua, 'It is true [H]QK] I am the one who
sinned...'
Both the use in Joshua and that in Gen. 20.12a introduce 'assertions
of a legal nature'.151 They are to be distinguished from the simple
146. Sarna, Genesis, p. 143.
147. A parallel concept, extrinsic to the text, is found in Egyptian thought in the
concept of ma'at. See J.A. Wilson, 'The Search for Security and Order', in The
Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 48, 58.
148. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 229.
149. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, p. 65; Shemaryahu Talmon, The New
Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C. in Historical Perspective', BASOR
176 (December 1964), pp. 29-37 (34).
150. Abraham Even-Shoshan (ed.), A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus
of the Language of the Bible, Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names,
Phrases and Synonyms (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1989), p. 53.
151. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, p. 65.
119
asseverative form of the adverb D]QK, which occurs in nine texts but is
not used to introduce assertions of a legal nature.152
Genesis 20.14: Then Abimelech Took...and Gave Them to Abraham
(DrraN'? inn...^^^ np_s_U This description of Abimelech's restoration of Sarah to Abraham has the form of the payment of damages to a
cuckold. Such settlements varied in the ancient Near East, usually at the
discretion of the injured party, the husband.153 Compensation and giftgiving were a part of reconciliation.
The most recurrent term for the settlement of a suit in biblical texts is
the verb ]D] (gave).154 For example:
Gen. 20.16
Gen. 21.27
The terms of the settlement in Gen. 20.14 are sheep, oxen, servants,
and silver. The exchange of livestock for a contract or a treaty is typical
in Genesis.155 Nahum Sarna notes the Akkadian parallels to the phase
'took and gave': 'Underlying this phrase is a technical, judicial formula
known from Akkadian texts (lequ/nasu...nadanu) in connection with
royal transfer or conveyance of property... Abraham, the injured party,
receives reparation from the king.'156
The biblical syntagma in which the root ]fl] is used to express
restoration after wrongdoing is constructed out of three elements: The
first consists of a verb, by which the idea of "giving", "handing over"
and the like is expressed; the second tells of what is "handed over"; the
third is a reference to the subject.'157
Genesis 20.14-16 contains these three elements of the re-establishment of justice. In addition, two of the three verbs that express this re152. 2 Kgs 19.17; Ruth 3.12; Isa. 37.18; Job 9.2; 12.2; 19.4; 19.5; 34.12; 36.4.
153. Goodfriend, 'Adultery', p. 83.
154. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 138-39.
155. Gen. 21.22-34; 26.31; 31.47-55.
156. Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1966), p. 144, n. 9.
157. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 378.
120
Within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore
you to your office.
Lev. 6.4
When one has sinned and become guilty, he shall restore what
he took by robbery, or what he got by oppression, or the deposit
which was committed to him, or the lost thing which he found.
Num. 35.25 And the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand
of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him
to his city of refuge, to which he had fled, and he shall live in it
until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the
holy oil.
Deut. 22.2b You shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you
until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him.
Judg. 11.13b Because Israel, on coming from Egypt, took away my land,
from the Arnon to the Jabbok and to the Jordan; now, therefore,
restore it peaceably.
158. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice. Both ]D] and H12J are used here. The first
element is expressed above all by the verbs ]Pi], DTO and D^O (piel).
159. See William L. Holladay (ed.), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), p. 363.
121
122
123
Chapter 4
A CLOSE NARRATIVEREADING OF LEGAL REFERENTS IN GENESIS
125
126
127
has not been met. The city will be destroyed. The safety of Lot's family
is a post-trial decision of the sentencing judge, because of his relationship to Abraham (19.29). The description of the catastrophic consequences that carry out the sentence concludes the court-like narrative.
The flow of the juridical procedure in Genesis 18-19 may be summarized briefly as follows:7
Pre-Trial Proceedings (18.20-33): an outcry 'against' Sodom is pretrial evidence > presented as probable cause for a trial (18.20a); > the
evidence results in issuing an indictment (18.20b); > and the declaration
of due process by public trial (18.21); > Abraham, for the defense
approaches the LORD, the pre-trial judge (18.22-23); > he negotiates conditions of the trial (18.23-32); > he confirms the trial judge (18.33).
Trial Proper (19.1-23): the evidence of the outcry is verified by means
of reporting first-hand information; > the reader is seated as a member of
the jury by means of the narrative style (19.1-11); > two messengers and
Lot are eyewitnesses (19.1); > the accused are clearly identified in five
phrases (19.4); > confession of wrongful harm is made by the men of
Sodom (19.9); > a verdict of 'guilty' is announced by repeating the originally filed complaint (19.13, cf. 18.20); > the sentence of destruction is
declared (19.13, 14); > the acquittal and safe passage of Lot, and any
who are related to him, is announced (19.12, 14, 15 and 19.16, 17, 22); a
post-trial decision by the sentencing judge relocates Lot's family and
saves Zoar, in the Plain (19.18-23).
128
(b) How does the text disclose a process of decision between competing
values? (c) How does the text disclose the relationship between the
moral and physical orders? An eclectic methodology will be used to
describe the art and techniques by which the narrative both raises and
responds to these questions.
The speaking characters of the narrative (God, Abraham, and the men
of Sodom) ask their own questions. The conflicts of the text are
represented by the questions that Abraham, the men of Sodom, and God
ask. Attending to their questions reveals the vested interests of the
characters. Each of their questions may serve generally to introduce the
reader to the three juridical conflicts in the narrative.
The interest of the men of Sodom is in how they can do what they
want. To this end they ask, 'Where are the men who came to you
tonight?' The Sodomites present a competing value in which their
exercise of power is the arbiter of its own 'justice'. Their question
signals at least two decisions for the reader: (1) Are the Sodomites'
intentions for Lot's guests innocent or not? (Ought they or ought they
not demand to 'know' them?) (2) Is the Sodomites' view of 'might
makes right' just, or not? Are they justified in their criticism of Lot?
('This fellow came here as an alien and he would play the judge!') The
reader is invited by this question to make a moral choice concerning the
Sodomites' intended acts: Are they wicked, or not? She is invited also
either to favor a power wielder's right to rule arbitrarily or to oppose it.
Do the Sodomites have the right to make their own judgments about
right and wrong, or not? The interest signaled by this kind of question
focuses the reader's attention on juridical issues related to the morality
of this specific situation and more generally to the use of power. What
ought and what ought not be done by the characters in this text?
For God, the initial question is, Shall I hide my inquiry from
Abraham? A related question at work in this inquiry is, Have they done
altogether according to the outcry that has come to me? God's stated
interest is twofold: (1) Abraham's involvement as a participant in determining justice in this particular case (God allows Abraham's inquiry of
God in a series of eight questions); and (2) Abraham's training as an
adjudicator who will learn to teach this 'way' of determining justice
and living righteously ('For I have chosen him that he may charge his
children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by
doing righteousness and justice'; 18.17-19). God's interests, signaled
by these questions, focus the reader's attention on the juridical process
129
8. The other six questions focus on a progressively smaller minimum of innocent men.
130
2.
3.
131
LORD said, "How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah, and
how very grave their sin" (18.20)'.
The context of God's declaration in a juridical reading is not a 'final
judgment'. This is a preliminary hearing. God's declaration initiates
these pre-trial procedings, based on the evidence of 'the outcry'. 10
God's expression 'how very grave their sin' refers to the alleged deeds
of the outcry, and should be read in the context of the next sentence
(18.21). If the allegations are founded, the behavior of the men of
Sodom is a punishable offense (sin). The repeated use of 'if found' in
the next verse (18.21) and in 18.26-32 confirms the preliminary legal
nature of God's speech.
God's involvement in speaking to this conflict indicates its gravity. If
God's speech is to have integrity, however, establishing the guilt of
Sodom and Gomorrah will require a story in which the outcome will
truly depend on the participation of other characters and the irrevocable
proof of that guilt. God's first juridical concern is to respond to the
outcry against Sodom by initiating this public discovery of evidence: 'I
must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to
the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know' (18.21).11
God's second juridical issue concerning the outcry against Sodom is
Abraham's participation. This is voiced in God's soliloquy at the beginning of the text and is based in nothing less than God's choosing of and
promise to Abraham (18.17-19). The two resultative clauses state the
purposes of Abraham's involvement in the allegations against Sodom
(18.19):
For I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and
justice; so that the LORD may bring about for Abraham what he has
promised him (18.19)12
however, knows of its content in 18.23. See the discussion in the next section of
what God 'knows' in the preliminary hearing with Abraham. "D is used twice in
18.20 and in both cases is asseverative. See Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 449.
10. See discussion below at 'Pre-trial Motions, Arguments, and Decisions',
pp. 143-51.
11. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.21, pp. 93-95.
12. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.19, pp. 89-90.
132
The voice of God in the text clearly expresses two primary concerns
for a close juridical reading. God is concerned, by personal involvement, in a thorough public inquest by which the allegations against the
men of Sodom may be established or disestablished. This concern is
summarized in the phrase 'whether they have done altogether (rto;
"completely") according to the outcry...and if not'. Secondly, God is
concerned that Abraham participate in this righteous and just way of the
LORD.
Abraham's Voice: Abraham's Concern for Due Process
Abraham's discourse also discloses that he values a specific standard of
behavior. In his pre-trial conversation with God, Abraham's opinion
concerning the behavior of the men of Sodom is largely procedural. He
is interested in more than proof of the offense and its consequences. He
is interested in the way in which it is handled. In his pre-trial conversation with God, Abraham raises four issues related to due process
in the trial of the men of Sodom. First, he is concerned with a detailed
discovery of the facts. For example, he asks God, 'Suppose five of the
fifty righteous are lacking?' (18.28).13 In order to establish the parameters of the trial and sentencing Abraham negotiates for agreement to
a thorough procedure, before the trial begins, with a series of five
similar questions: 'Suppose five of the fifty are lacking?' (v. 28); 'Suppose forty are found?' (v. 29); 'Suppose thirty are found?' (v. 30);
'Suppose twenty are found?' (v. 31); 'Suppose ten are found?' (v. 32).
These questions disclose Abraham's concern for the innocent by way of
securing a commitment from the judge to pay close attention to the
details of the case.14
Secondly, Abraham is concerned that the innocent do not bear the
consequences of the actions of the guilty.15 To this end he asks God,
'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?' (18.23).16
Then he declares, 'Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the
13. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.24 and 18.26, pp. 99, 102.
14. For example, what has been done and who is responsible for it.
15. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 103-104. See especially Boecker,
Redeformen des Rechtslebens, pp. 126-29.
16. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.23, pp. 96-98.
133
righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked. Far
be that from you' (18.25a).17
A third concern, implicit in Abraham's questioning, is for the community in which the innocent live. He advocates not only for the pardon
of the innocent living in Sodom, but for Sodom itself. By his conversation he secures a reprieve for the guilty majority in order to preserve
the community in which the innocent may be established.18
Fourthly, Abraham is concerned that the LORD act and hence be
known as a just judge. 'Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is
just?' (18.25b). The expression CDDEJQ nfoir could be translated, 'Shall
not the Judge of all the earth make a just decision!'19 The abstraction
'do what is just' does not convey the specificity of decision indicated by
this context. Abraham expresses his interest generally in due process. In
this question he also implies his concern that the God of 'all the earth'
be known as just in this specific judgment.
For these four purposes, Abraham participates in pre-trial negotiations with God. He explicitly or implicitly argues (a) for a discovery
of the case's details, (b) for a situation in which the innocent will not
bear the consequences of the actions of the guilty, (c) for the community in which the innocent live, and (d) for the LORD to act and be
known as a just judge. Together, these opinions and values demonstrate
17. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.25a, p. 100.
18. G. von Rad notes the 'astonishing fact that even a very small number of
innocent men is more important in God's sight than a majority of sinners and is
sufficient to stem the judgment'. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 214. Whether this stemming
is a pardon, a stay of sentencing, or some kind of atoning function is not clear in the
text. The alleged behavior is, however, still considered wicked. Westermann
counters von Rad, saying that Abraham's intercession could in no way alter the
situation. God 'punishes the impious and rewards the pious'. Westermann, Genesis
12-36, pp. 292-93. Brueggemann, Hamilton, and Plaut agree with von Rad that the
merit of a few is enough to stem judgment on a community. Brueggemann says,
'By the new mathematics of 18.22-23 (and 19.29) one is enough to save'. That is
not the case, however, in this text. Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 173; Hamilton, The
Book of Genesis, p. 25; Plaut, The Torah, p. 133.
19. The syntagma QS2JQ + Q22JH occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible (Gen.
18.25; Deut. 17.9; 1 Kgs 3.28). In these cases it is used technically as the 'judge's
verdict' or 'judge's decision'. These texts reveal a technical use of non-technical
vocabulary. See discussion in this chapter at 'Abraham Negotiates the Conditions
of the Trial', pp. 148-50 and in Chapter 3 at 18.25b, pp. 101-102.
134
that Abraham has begun to 'keep the way of the LORD by doing
righteousness and justice' (18.19). These concerns constitute the values
of judging, in general. They focus on 'the authoritative act of
discerning, separating, and deciding between what/whom (sic) is just
and what/whom is unjust, between the innocent and the guilty'.20 In
court, justice concerns more than the decision-making itself. It concerns
the integrity of the judge and the process of coming to the decision.
The Voice of the Men of Sodom: Juridical Issues and Political Power
The central juridical controversy of the text is found in the difference of
opinion among the characters concerning what should be done about
the alleged behavior of the men of Sodom. The sharpest conflict is
presented in the discourse among the men of Sodom, the messengers
and Lot (19.5-9). Their voices disclose another point of view about
innocent and guilty behavior and who has the power to judge them.
Their self-authenticating claims to justice are based in unanimity and
domicile, and are enforced physically: And they called to Lot, 'Where
are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we
may know them' (19.5). In the words 'Bring them out' (DR^in) the
men of Sodom do not simply suggest a course of action.21 The
imperative implies an assumed source of authority. It implies not
simply 'you ought to', but 'you must'. This command, which becomes
a demand when they attempt to break down the door (19.9), implies a
unanimous expression of the shared values of the community. The men
of Sodom speak as a community with one voice. The text is so
emphatic about the unanimity of the men that textual critics have
argued that 'the men of Sodom' (19.4, DID ''C03K) is a gloss.22 Their
speech is introduced with the phrases 'the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, both young and old, all the people, to the last man, surrounded
the house; and they called to Lot' (19.4-5). For purposes of characterization in the narrative, this emphasis presents the 'men of Sodom' as
one character, speaking with one voice.
From a legal perspective, their voice presents the values and rule of
a community that conflict with the values and norms of the other
20. This is seen in the 'very important texts', Deut. 25.1; 1 Kgs 8.32; Qoh.
3.17; Gen. 18.25; Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 185.
21. NIT hiphil impf. 2 m. s. + 3 m. p. suffix.
22. Discussion in Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 301.
135
n"pn~Bjg ripK'i
136
that the local authority will be used forcefully against Lot to bring him
into conformity with the community's standard.
On the other hand, the second meaning of the hiphil of Uin is 'to
cause evil'.28 Lot used the same verb, in its second sense, in his defense
of the messengers: 'Do not act so wickedly' (linn TTK Nr^N "IQ^^l,
19.7).29 The Sodomites' repetition of the root Din ('Now we will deal
worse with you than with them', 19.9) is spoken as an exercise of their
authority, autonomy, and values, but it functions for the reader as an
admission of wrongdoing.
A close reading of the speech of the men of Sodom raises two major
juridical issues for the reader. Because allegations have been made
against them earlier in the narrative, their first request to 'know' the
guests is under scrutiny. The reader must decide whether the Sodomites' intention for Lot's guests is innocent or guilty. Ought they or
ought they not demand to 'know' them? Are there limits to the authority of a community to set its own standards, especially in the treatment
of strangers? Their speech makes a claim to unanimous, autonomous
rule.
This question is partly decided in the text by the double entendre of
UIJ~1, but one is left to question whether they are 'wicked' or simply
enforcing the community's common values with the authority that is
naturally theirs. The question is not fully decided in the text until the
verdict and sentence are delivered. A related juridical issue is raised in
response to Lot's appeal to be involved in the decision. Should he be
allowed to participate, on any grounds? Lot suggests that the rules of
hospitality are grounds enough for his involvement. The men of Sodom
deny the validity of this warrant. The positive themes of hospitality
noted by most commentators in this text (19.1-3) and in its context
(18.1-8) serve to support Lot's claim. For the final word, however, the
reader must wait for the verdict and sentence. The power wielders' right
to rule arbitrarily is not accepted in the end.30
28. BDB, p. 949.
29. See discussion of Lot's speech below, pp. 137-38.
30. Is not the catastrophic sentence by which God demonstrates an opinion on
the matter indicated by power as well? Is the exercise of that power arbitrary, like
that of the men of Sodom? A theological reference to God's prerogative to act as
God is generally assumed. The text, however, offers a juridical response that invites
human participation in the process. The text discloses the possibility of a legal
process, involving humanity and God, by which questions of justice and injustice
137
138
those who have been welcomed ought not be abused. The same rule is
not applied, however, to his daughters: 'Look, I have two daughters
who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to
them as you please' (19.8a).
Juridically, the expression 'as you please' (DDTIH 3133) is a concession to the self-authenticating rule of the men of Sodom. This phrase
(and others like it) do not imply good or ill, but simply the power to
make judgments which may be judged good or ill by others or by
God.38 It implies a world of values and of striving in judgment in which
good decisions are not certain or secure. In this case, Lot is willing to
concede his daughters to the (abusive) power of the men of Sodom.
This blatant patriarchy is disturbing, and was even in the ancient world;
Judges 19 is (and was) a necessary co-text.39 Ze'ev Falk comments:
Biblical sources reflect the transition from absolute to limited patria
potestas which took place in Hebrew society... The exceptional events
in Sodom (Gen. 19.8) and Gibeah (Judg. 19.24) and the express prohibition of Lev. 19.29 also illustrate the extent of the patriarchal power. The
father's right of punishment was later transferred to the local courts.40
139
41.
42.
43.
140
justice', is unique.44 Narrative context is a necessary source for interpreting this phrase. Each of its parts may refer either to the observance
of God's commands (i.e. to proceeding behaviorally in conformity with
the law) or to administering a just legal procedure (i.e. to judging
justly).
Typically, the entire unique phrase has been interpreted in terms of
behavior. This is reasonable, given the dramatic focus of the narrative
on the actions of the men of Sodom and the messengers. Certainly
behavioral oughts are a dominant theme of the text. Nonetheless, more
consideration should be given to understanding the referent of this
phrase as the administering of proper legal procedure (the words of the
text are 'judge justly'). First, the narrative that follows is replete with
such procedure. Secondly, the primary question raised by Abraham is
centered in proper procedure. Thirdly, the lexicographical range of
meaning for the syntagmas in the phrase 'the way of the LORD, doing
righteousness and justice' clearly includes an administrative legal
procedural sense.
This commitment to just judging is an important part of the new
relationship between Abraham and God. The commitment forms an
inclusio for this narrative: 'The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham
what I am about to do?"' and 'So it was that, when God destroyed the
cities of the Plain, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the
midst' (18.16-17; 19.27-29). These verses bracket the whole text. They
set the lengthy narrative in the context of God's developing relationship
with Abraham. Conversely, the proceedings enclosed should provide
the context for understanding 'the way of the LORD, doing righteousness and justice'. Their new relationship is given its focus at the beginning of the narrative (18.16-19), treating Abraham's future governance
and teaching role with his household.
The text also points to the legacy of his governance, which shall be to
'all the nations of the earth' (18.18).45 The narrative concludes with
Abraham's silence 'standing in the place where he had stood before the
LORD' (19.27). His silence signals an acceptance of the sentence and
the procedure that led to it. In contrast to his earlier emphatic appeal
44. In addition to the discussion that follows, see previous discussion of the
legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at 18.19, pp. 89-91.
45. Gen. 26.5 reports that Abraham was successful in keeping the way of the
LORD.
141
(18.23-25), Abraham does not even address God. He has accepted the
justice of God's judgment.46
'Doing' or 'Administrating'. In 18.19 m&J)1? is translated 'by doing'
(righteousness and justice). In juridical contexts, n&U has a technical
procedural meaning that may be translated 'to administrate'. The verb
is widely attested in the course of juridical procedure.47 Although its
meaning is generic in itself, it is used to indicate specific legal procedures in a juridical context when bound syntactically in particular
syntagmas.48 In Genesis 18-20 the verb HtoD is used to designate both
personal behavioral and juridical procedural oughts and ought nots.
Thus, the texts in which it occurs can be divided into these two categories: those that designate 'doing right', in a general sense, and those
that refer to 'making just decisions' or 'making just rulings'. The meaning, depending on the context, is either to deeds that ought not be done,
or to juridical proceedings that re-establish balance in the created order.
Genesis 18.19, 25, 30 and 20.10 belong to the realm of 'making just
decisions', and the remainder (18.21; 20.5, 6, 9) to doing what ought
not be done. In these uses are two primary sources of evidence for the
operation of law in Genesis 18-20.
'Doing Righteousness and Justice'. In 18.19 the objects of the verb 'by
administrating' (NRSV, 'by doing') are 'righteousness and justice'
(CDD2JQ1 np"l^ rVKDI/T'). The most complete syntagma for 'judging justly'
is Hpl^l ttS&Q n&J}.49 Generally this refers to uprightness in behavior,
but in texts that have an administrative juridical context it has procedural force. For example, 'Because the LORD loved Israel forever, he
has made you king to execute justice and righteousness' (1 Kgs 10.9b);
Thus says the LORD: "Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver
from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed"' (Jer.
22.3).50
46. Abraham may also wonder if Lot has been spared. Gen. 14 demonstrates
his commitment to Lot's well-being.
47. See Gen. 20.9 in Chapter 3, pp. 111-12.
48. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 117-19.
49. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.25b,pp. 101-102.
50. See also 2 Sam. 8.15; Ps. 99.4b; Jer. 9.24; 23.5; 33.15; Ezek. 45.9. See
Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 188.
142
This exact syntagma is also in Gen. 18.19. It does not have the obvious royal administrative procedural context of these other examples, but
it is given as a charge to Abraham concerning his own children and his
household. Abraham's role in the particular 'proceeding' against
Sodom does not diminish his role as the (royal) administrator of justice
for his family and community.
'To Keep the Way of the LORD by Doing Righteousness and Justice'.
The administration of righteousness and justice in 18.19 is set in the
context of keeping the 'way of the LORD' (nplK HWVh mrr -pi 11001
CDQEJai).51 "j"n, like the other words in this syntagma, also has a dual use
in the literature. It sometimes means 'judgment' or 'trial'.52 Later, ~p~l
became a favorite word for a pious observance of the law.53
Part of that later pious observance of the law in general includes the
adjudication of conflicts. Approximately 30 per cent of the 613 commandments are laws concerning judicial process. In a general sense,
therefore, any reference to the pious observance of the law necessarily
refers in a substantial way to judicial process.54
For Gen. 18.19, however, it is enough to observe that ^"11 can mean
specifically 'the way of administering justice' for a community when it
is used with CDD00.55
When the term 'way' is construed with terms meaning law, justice, etc.
(of the kind CDQ2JQ n~lN)...it means 'to proceed' in conformity with the
law (cf. Isa. 26.8; 40.14; 59.8; Prov. 2.8, 8.20)... Just 'proceeding', in
certain contexts such as Prov. 17.23, may refer to law court procedure in
conformity with the law.56
51. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.19, pp. 89-90.
52. Seeligmann, 'Terminologie', p. 269.
53. Friedrich Heiler, Ersheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion (Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1961), p. 148. Heiler is quoted by Westermann, who adds: The way
of Yahweh consists in observing "righteousness and justice" and Abraham is to
teach this to his descendants.' Westermann, Genesis 12-36, pp. 288-89.
54. Harry Gersh, The Sacred Books of the Jews (New York: Stein & Day,
1968), pp. 232-38.
55. For example, see Jer. 5.4 and Ps. 1.6, where 'way' has a legal context.
56. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 192 n. 52.
143
144
God's declaration 'How great' establishes probable cause for the indictment against Sodom and Gomorrah.61
Indictment Issued (18.20b). This is the second action of God's soliloquy. The soliloquy is not directed to anyone in particular, yet Abraham
does know its content (v. 23). It is given in a declaratory form, as a
formal indictment. Once the probable cause for the trial has been
declared in the text (the outcry), the formal accusation of an indictment
immediately follows: 'How very grave their sin'.
This statement of offense declares that the accusation has been formally received and assessed by God. The alleged behavior is a punishable offense (18.20).62 This is not a pronouncement of final judgment,
as the conditional language of v. 21 shows ('whether they have done...
and if not'). It is an indictment against the alleged sin (implied in the
outcry), that is, an acknowledgment that the accused, if guilty, have
consequences to face.63 In 19.1-2 the messengers of God enter Sodom
to stay the night. Their purpose is not the destruction of the city based
on a previous judgment, but the verification or refutation of the indictment (18.21).
Declaration of Due Process by Public Trial (18.21).64 When God says,
'I must go down and see' (nNHNl K]~n~nN), the trial is declared. It does
not begin until Abraham's pre-trial negotiations are complete (18.2233) and the messengers enter Sodom (19.1), but God's commitment to
the due process of a public trial follows immediately on the indictment.
When God says 'whether they have done' and 'if not, I will know',
the implication is that he does not know enough to convict or acquit. He
only knows enough (from the outcry) to indict. Either there is something that God doesn't know, or we must read God's words with a
deeply ironic or even sarcastic tone. God repeats the phrase N2$DN~DK,
'If I find', three times, and implies it in three other cases.65
61. 'How great', asseverative SD. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 449.
62. Again note the asseverative "O. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 449.
63. See Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 290.
64. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.21, pp. 93-95.
65. Gen. 18.26, 28, 30 and 18.29, 31, 32. See discussion of the implication of
TDin below.
145
146
God says, 'I must go down.' God 'must' come down to see and
'know' and weigh the evidence publicly, in human form.69 This kind of
corporeal knowing surely is different from God's knowing in spirit. The
context of 'know' in this text is God's knowing in human form, and
thus in a public experience of 'going down'. 70 'Whether they have
done' and 'if not, I will know' express God's self-limiting commitment
to justice. Justice, as Abraham, his descendants and the nations are to
know it from God, is public and requires a process. That process, in
courts considered 'just', admits only first-hand evidence and testimony
based on first-hand, sensory experience.71 The phrase 'whether they
have done altogether according to the outcry' describes the process of
deciding guilt by personally verified evidence.
A judge may 'know', on the basis of pre-trial evidence, that a
defendant is guilty. Proper judgment, however, requires a trial of that
evidence, of witnesses and of the defendant, that is, a proper trial.
God's going down to see is God's commitment to a proper trial of the
indictment based on probable cause established by the evidence of the
outcry. Such due process and administration of law are not immaterial
to justice. They are essential parts of human (and here, divine) justice.
In this case it seems necessary to observe that God is committed to a
legal procedure and invites Abraham also to follow that procedure for
the sake of his household and his legacy ('all the nations of the earth').
God's stated intention is for Abraham to participate in keeping the
way of the LORD. How will he learn that way if God does not demonstrate it? In God's commitment to a relationship with Abraham, and in
this case to keeping the way of righteousness and justice, God's own
self becomes obligated to due process. That process, shown here,
involves a proper presentation of evidence. Even the reader of the narrative (19.1-11) becomes a part of weighing and deciding, precisely
"know" more conclusively (see Gen. 11.5) but in order to judge (see Gen. 11.7).'
69. For a discussion of theophanies in human form, see Terence E. Fretheim,
The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (ed. Walter Brueggemann;
Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 49-53. On
the issue of God's knowing, see Fretheim, Genesis, p. 476.
70. In Gen. 18.2 three men speak as one. After Abraham remains standing with
the LORD (18.22), two angels arrive in Sodom (19.1), sent by the LORD (19.13).
They also speak as one (19.17).
71. A common syntagma that signals a legal inquiry into the facts of a case: to
see + to know T + ilK"). Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 244 n. 47.
147
because God 'comes down to see'. There is a reciprocal movement toward due process in the text. God 'comes down' (18.21-22) and Abraham 'remains standing before' and 'draws near' to the LORD (18.2223).
Abraham, For the Defense, Approaches the LORD, the Pre-trial Judge
(18.22b-23a).12 Abraham stands before God, as God sits in judgment.
During judicial arraignments in the Hebrew Bible, the one pleading
stands and the judge is seated.73 'The legal overtones of the verb 1QU...
do appear important, both in the static sense of "to be on trial" and in
the dynamic one of "to file an appearance", "to appear in court".'74 The
legal referent for 1QU is especially evident when it is combined (as
here) with &31 Initiatives preceding the biblical trial are designated by a
motion towards a court of law.75 The combination of 1QU with a verb of
nearness is a primary way in which biblical trial speech is indicated.76
The judge's being seated in the law court is linked to the movement of
those who come forward 'to stand' trial. Abraham is not on trial himself, but stands as an advocate for and in the place of the accused.
Presenting oneself before a judge is not a neutral act; it always involves
some sort of charge or laying claim to a right. It may perhaps be thought
that the phrase "OD^ 1QJJ, in the sense of 'to intercede', may be regarded as
a kind of speech for the defense (cf. Gen. 18.22; Jer. 15.1; 18.20).77
In this pre-trial hearing, Abraham is approaching 'the bench' to negotiate for a just trial on behalf of the city of Sodom.
72. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
18.22 and 18.23, pp. 95-98.
73. For a similar relationship, see 1 Kgs 3.16: 'Later, two women who were
prostitutes came to the king and stood before him'. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice,
p. 233.
74. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 233 n. 29; BDB, p. 763. For other
interpretations and discussion of Abraham's standing before the LORD, including
the Masoretic emendations, see Fretheim, The Book of Genesis', p. 468; Hamilton,
The Book of Genesis, pp. 23-24. Hamilton favors Abraham as a precursor of a
mediating prophet.
75. 'The plaintiff is often described as moving toward the judge.' Falk,
'Hebrew Legal Terms', p. 350.
76. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 236.
77. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, p. 237 n. 34.
148
sti~o pis? rrrn y&rny pi^ rrpn'p njn TH? n&i:Q ft rft'pn
ft nV?n
A dynamic equivalent of 'to do such a thing' (NRSV) in 18.25 is 'Far be
it from you to make a ruling like this.'19
Abraham develops this foundational question ('Will you indeed
sweep away the innocent with the guilty?') with the first of his conditional proposals. The proposal and God's reply use a technical legal
expression of negotiation and agreement. Abraham asks, 'Suppose there
are [CT] fifty innocent within the city?' (18.24a). God answers,
'If I find at Sodom fifty innocent in the city, I will forgive the whole
place for their sake' (18.26).
78. I have translated 'innocent' and 'guilty' instead of 'righteous' and 'wicked'
throughout this chapter. For the argument that, in this context, p"H!$ should be
translated 'innocent' instead of 'righteous' and 1)27"! translated 'guilty' rather than
'wicked', see Chapter 3 at Gen. 18.23, p. 96.
79. Another preferable dynamic equivalent in this context is 'How can you
make such a ruling?' See especially 2 Chron. 19.6 and Deut. 17.8, 11. The RSV has
'verdict' for 131 in Deut. 17.11. When "131 is used with the language of judging, it
is translated as 'case', meaning 'legal case', or 'juridical decision'. See Chapter 3,
p. 100, for my argument for this translation of Gen. 18.25a.
149
The syntagma (2T + NKQ (there is + find), usually with the particle DN
(either 'if there is' or, as here, 'if I find'), is the typical biblical expression of the terms of a conclusion to the pre-trial inquiry.80 With this
legal terminology Abraham argues for the best conclusion he can negotiate with God for the city of Sodom.81
In Abraham's six proposals and in God's six positive responses, these
terms, or the ciphers by which they are implied, occur repeatedly. In
God's first, second and fourth responses the answer is 'If I find' (50, 45,
or 30). In the first response God also says, 'for their sake', which
becomes the cipher for the implied 'If I find' in the third, fifth and sixth
responses. There the answer is 'for the sake of 40, 20, and 10. Likewise, Abraham's questions are marked by the legal terminology, 'suppose there are found'. The particle & (there is) is linked to its cipher
""^IK (suppose) in 18.24, which takes its place in the remainder of
the negotiations: 'Suppose there are fifty' (18.24); 'Suppose five of
the fifty' (18.28); 'Suppose forty are found' (18.29); 'Suppose thirty are
found' (18.30); 'Suppose twenty are found' (18.31); 'Suppose ten
are found' (18.32).
Even in the use of this biblical legal terminology, the text discloses
Abraham's and God's mutual acceptance of a juridical procedure as
'the way of the LORD' for re-establishing righteousness and justice in
the earth. After Abraham develops his foundational question ('Will you
indeed sweep away the innocent with the guilty?') with the first of his
conditional proposals ('Suppose there are fifty innocent within the
city?'), he emphatically appeals to the character of God, asking the
question that introduces the central theological concern:
'Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?' (18.25b).
150
151
84. See discussion of Quo Warranto in this chapter at 'The Voice of the Men
of Sodom', p. 134-36.
85. Letellier, Day in Mamre, p. 139; Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 300;
Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 172.
86. Gen. 18.1,2, 16, 22; 19.1, 15.
152
the story by closing the gap between divinity and humanity.87 The
theophany begins in 18.1-2 with the notice that three men/the LORD
appeared to Abraham by the oaks at Mamre. It is continued at 18.16
before God's soliloquy: 'The men set out from there, and they looked
toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to see them on their way.'
The reader is reminded of them again before Abraham's conversation
with the LORD at 18.22: 'So the men turned from there and went
toward Sodom.' As a narrative device, these men bring God into the
realm of human experience. Finally they arrive in Sodom in 19.1, and
the reader is with them, more than ready to know what they will
actually encounter.
The theophany (God's 'coming down' as 'men') and the narrative art
of repetition at important transitions are additional ways by which the
reader is drawn into the story. Abraham's involvement (e.g. 'Abraham
drew near') in the administration of justice also serves to bring the way
of the LORD closer to the reader. Now the reader is seated as a member
of the jury by means of the narrative style and through hearing the
prima facie evidence without any value judgments by the narrator
(19.1-11).88
After the segue at 19.1, the direct style and presentation of evidence
(19.1-11) engages the reader to judge for herself, as a member of the
jury. In this respect, the reader hears 'first-hand' testimony. She also
hears the implicit confession of wrongful harm made by the men of
Sodom (19.9). The opinions of Lot and of the men of Sodom on the
incident are also presented as evidence, without argumentation by the
narrator. The opinions are permitted as evidence, as in a courtroom,
They are presented as first-hand information. Conviction cannot be
based on hearsay, but is based on personal knowledge and experience.
Because the narrator withholds value judgments concerning the
action, the reader formulates her own value judgments on the characters' behaviors. This artful silence draws the reader into the process of
decision, with God and with Abraham. The text also describes several
possibilities for reader reaction and response after the verdict and sentence are declared (19.12-13). Will the reader agree with the judgment?
87. For this function of theophanies, see Fretheim, The Suffering of God,
pp. 93-106.
88. Contrast the narrative style of Kings, for example, 'And Ahab...did evil in
the sight of the LORD' (1 Kgs 16.30).
153
Or will she consider the whole matter a jest (v. 14), linger (v. 16), look
back (v. 26), flee (v. 17), or find another escape (v. 20)?
Eyewitnesses, the Accused and a Confession.The two messengers and
Lot are the eyewitnesses in Sodom. The evidence ('the outcry against
Sodom') of the pre-trial hearing and the indictment ('their sin') must be
confirmed or contradicted by these witnesses.89 The messengers of the
LORD have not come to destroy Sodom, but to verify the indictment.
Their arrival in Sodom as strangers and their intention to stay the night
(19.1-2) are not the actions of those who have come to destroy on the
basis of a previous judgment.
The narrator's testimony is also given as the testimony of personal
experience. The personal knowledge style of this testimony establishes
the narrator as the fourth, though shadowy, witness to the events at
Sodom. He knows the times of day, the conversations and the details of
the actions of all the characters. Also, the accused are clearly identified
in five sequential phrases (19.4):
The men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the
people, to the last man, surrounded the house.
:H^P
The redundancy in v. 4 is considered by some to be a gloss. 90 In a
juridical reading, however, the repetition is useful to a definite identification of the guilty parties. The repetition leaves no doubt about who
is being accused. There are none in Sodom who are innocent. A positive identification of the indicted has been made.
These witnesses experience a surprising turn in the trial as the men of
Sodom make an implicit confession of wrongful harm. Lot begs them,
'Do not act so wickedly' (19.7).91 They respond, 'Now we will deal
worse with you than with them' (19.9). The hiphil imperfect of Lot's
plea (l^~lfl) and the hiphil imperfect of the men's response (in]) use the
same root, Uin. The men of Sodom do not mean this as a confession of
wickedness. They are, in fact, in this context, defending their right to
154
92. See my discussion in The voice of the men of Sodom: juridical issues and
political power'. Their will to self-rule is unanimous, pp. 134-36.
93. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 444.
94. Hiphil participle; piel infinitive construct.
95. Hiphil participle.
155
The Acquittal and a Post-Trial Decision. The acquittal and safe passage
of Lot and any who are related to him is announced with a series of
seven imperatives (19.12, 15, 17, 22). Royal judicial procedures are
typically concluded with a 'royal imperative', given for the protection
of the legally marginal.96 The acquittal consists of the information and
means of escape from Sodom's guilt and its consequences. In this
acquittal, the repetition of the imperatives is more urgent because of the
catastrophic physical nature of the judgment. The acquittal of Lot and
his relatives will be meaningless if they do not also escape the disaster.
In order to fully set them free from guilt and its consequences the messengers must also guarantee their safe passage out of the destruction of
the guilty:
'...or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place' (19.12).
156
Still, Lot will not go. He appeals the conditions of his safe passage.
The post-trial decision by the sentencing judge relocates Lot's family.
This action also serves to save a small city in the Plain, Zoar (19.21).
The versions agree that it is the LORD who speaks this decision.
Legally, only the judge, and not simply an agent of the court, can make
this kind of exceptional ruling.
He said, 'Very well, I will grant you this favor too, and will no
overthrow the city of which you have spoken' (19.21).
The royal imperative of acquittal is repeated for the last time, also by
this singular voice. 'Hurry, escape there, for I can do nothing until you
arrive there' (nnti efton lilO; 19.22).101 This final imperative is
rhetorically punctuated by the first use of the singular T. It results in
the saving of a small city in the Plain (which would also consequentially have been destroyed) and the full acquittal of three persons. When
Lot and his daughters arrive in Zoar, the catastrophic sentence is carried
out and recorded (19.23-29). That words of acquittal were not spoken to
the others in the Plain is equally a royal verdict, resulting in their
destruction.102
Conclusion. The due process of law outlined here is necessary to the
interpretation of the 'way of the LORD' in which Abraham is to walk. It
stands in contrast to the 'way' of 'judging' among the Sodomites. Their
claim to judge is self-authenticating. It is a claim that rules by means of
arbitrary power, without any external referent. The 'way of the LORD'
in matters of righteousness and justice could be based in a similar
claim. That God is the only legitimate self-authenticating judiciary and
has the prerogative to act is widely assumed by interpreters.
In this text, however, an argument of another kind is offered. The text
offers a juridical response that invites human participation in the process. The text discloses the possibility of a legal process, involving
humanity and God, by which questions of justice and injustice may be
101. Piel imperative 2 m. s.; niphal imperative 2 m. s.
102. Boyce, The Cry to God, p. 39 ('His failure to speak'). See Chapter 3 at
19.15, pp. 106-107.
157
raised and adjudicated. This is the 'way' into which Abraham enters.
He freely approaches, questions and influences God's procedure in
adjudicating justice. He negotiates a specific agreement concerning the
innocent. Abraham keeps, for God, God's intention to provide a due
process of adjudication and a way of escape for the innocent ('the way
of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice', 18.19).
The narrative carries the reader into this participation as well, by
means of the juridical process embedded in the story. The absence of
commentary by the narrator and the abrupt segue at 19.1 serve to draw
the reader into the decision process. While the reader cannot influence
the decision, the rhetorical effect is an experience of the process of
resolving conflict. Whether or not the reader concurs with the decisions
made and the process followed, the administration of justice by means
of due process has been demonstrated as the way of the LORD, and the
way for Abraham to keep.
Summary
The juridical procedure in Gen. 18.16-19.29 may be summarized as
follows:
a. Establishing the Court (18.17-19).
b. Pre-Trial Motions, Arguments, and Decisions (18.20-33). An
outcry 'against' is pre-trial evidence that results in an indictment
and the initiation of a trial.
1. Probable cause for a trial (18.20a; established on evidence of
the outcry).
2. Indictment issued (18.20b; pre-trial judgment on the outcry
evidence).
3. Declaration of due process by public trial (18.21).
4. Abraham, for the defense, approaches the LORD, the pre-trial
judge (18.22- 23).
5. Counsel negotiates conditions of the trial (18.23-32).
6. Trial j udge confirmed by Abraham (18.33).
c. Trial Proper (19.1-29)
1. The primary facts (prima facie) of the outcry are verified (the
pattern of the Sodomites' behavior is confirmed) by means of
reporting first-hand information and the description of personal knowledge without any added argumentation by the
narrator (19.1-11). Hearsay is not sufficient.
158
159
160
God Is the Subject of the Sentence. God is the one who acts through the
means of nature to impress, by catastrophic consequences, the oughts
and ought nots of the text. There is no doubt who is the primary actor
in these narratives...the repeated initiatives within these narratives are
traced not to human beings but to the divine, royal judge.' 106 For
Abraham, God's use of this imprecise means of judgment is the central
problem. God does not propose to strike the guilty individuals with
lightning, but to destroy an entire valley.107
Sentencing is from God, but it is by means of a cosmological
relationship, or 'link', between the moral and physical orders. 'Cosmological link' does not mean that moral violations of this kind always (or
ever) result in this same consequence. It is 'cosmological' in the sense
that sulfurous fire is a physical phenomenon that 'the LORD rained'
catastrophically on the whole valley because of the sin of the men of
Sodom. That the cosmological link between the moral and physical
order is made by God's action does not diminish the link, or the effect
of that relationship. Fretheim has noted this relationship:
But does not God cause all the damage? The text links God to this catastrophe (19.24) as an ecological disaster of divine judgment. God sees to
106. Boyce, The Cry to God, p. 53. While God is an 'initiator' of the consequences, the sin of the men of Sodom is the initiating factor.
107. HSO is translated 'sweep away' in 18.23, 24 (both qal impf. 2 m. s.). HDO is
translated 'consume' in 19.15, 17 (both niph. impf. 2 m. s.). "JSH is 'overthrow' in
19.21, 25, 29 (x2). ain is 'destroy' (qal impf.) in 20.4. nntf is 'destroy' in 18.28
(x2), 31, 32 (hiphil impf.); 19.13 (x2, hiphil ptc., piel inf. const.), 14 (hiphil ptc.)
and 29 (piel inf. const). mo is 'slay' in 18.25 (hiphil inf. const.), nm is 'the
disaster' in 19.19 (n. f. s.). EJKT msa is 'fire and brimstone' for the hendiadys
'sulfurous fire' in 19.24. For a summary on 'fire and brimstone' see Westermann,
Genesis 12-36, p. 306. For opinions, see Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, pp. 46-47;
von Rad, Genesis, p. 220; Sarna, Genesis, p. 138. A lot of speculation is offered on
these terms. The narrator's point is that it is 'from the LORD' and 'out of heaven'.
161
The objects of the verbs ('innocent with the guilty' and 'the place')
serve to emphasize Abraham's concern for the comprehensive nature of
the intended destruction. This concern is accompanied by a plea for
'forgiving'. H2J] is better translated 'spare' (as in the RSV). The meaning
is not a substitutionary forgiveness because of the innocent ('righteous'), but a question of life and justice for any innocent in the city.111
'NC73 is central to the terminology most frequently used to describe
162
163
rnrr n'pqii^ Trip TIE? T:n incpK~T;n IT? D'tp^n iptrn rmnorn
:~rsh firra innai in^] r^s
God's commitment to righteousness and justice leads to an escort
(19.16) for the innocent out of the 'guilt' (flU; 19.15) and 'consumption'
(riDO; 19.15, 17) of the Plain. The physical means of this rescue signals
God's limitation to work within the parameters of that moral-physical
cosmology.113
113. The limits of God's intervention within this cosmology are noted in 19.26,
where Lot's wife becomes a pillar of salt.
164
165
The warnings are not imperative commands. They are given in the
imperfect form in the context of physical consequence ('lest you be
consumed'). This warning of danger is an extension of the concern
expressed in v. 15: 'Get up, take...lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.' Even here, where the imperative is used (np Dip), it
is a warning of danger and not a commandment to fulfill some kind of
righteousness or faithfulness. Her death is not a discipline administered
by God. It is a consequence of a failure to heed a warning. This warning
is akin to a parent's warning to a child not to stand too close to a busy
street. Failure to heed warnings of this nature may result in death or
injury, but no one would call such consequences of heedlessness 'punishment' . This reading is clear if the warning is read in its immediate
context: 'Don't look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the
hills, or else you will be consumed.' The concern is for physical haste
and physical distance from the consuming destruction.
That Lot's wife turns into a pillar of salt, becoming part of the consumed environment for all to observe, is a symbol in the text of the
close connection between the moral and physical orders. Human sin has
ill effects on the environment, including the people who linger in it,
regardless of their level of complicity.115 An environment poisoned by
the consequences of human sin has ill effects on human life in general.
The cosmological connection between the moral and physical order in
this and other texts may be understood as a link, but it is an uncertain
link.116
more moderate position: She ignored the directive 'Do not look back' (v. 17). Von
Rad, Genesis, pp. 221-22; Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 307; Hamilton, The
Book of Genesis, p. 48.
115. For example, consider Chernobyl; see Fretheim, 'The Book of Genesis',
p. 369.
116. See Fretheim, The Book of Genesis', p. 477. Fretheim calls this a 'loose
166
The repeated use of consequential language functions to further disclose the relationship between the physical and moral orders to the
characters and to the reader. This language is used to convince Lot's
family to accept their escort. The language of consequence is necessary
for explaining the danger to the acquitted. The city and Plain are to be
entirely consumed:117
'For the LORD is about to destroy the city' (19.14b).
'Or else you will be consumed in the iniquity of the city' (19.15b).
'Or else you will be consumed' (19.17b).
causal link'. The connection (or link) is 'uncertain' because it is so loose. Immoral
action generally does not result in catastrophic consequence. When it does (as in
Gen. 18-20) and the link is observable, it is understood as an act of God.
117. rrn$Q hiphil participle; HSOfl niphal impf., 2 m. s. 'Iniquity' is the best
lexicographical and contextual translation of 711?.
167
118. See the appeal to creation in Abraham's warrant to God in the pre-trial
negotiations: 'I who am but dust and ashes' pDKl "Bi: "DDKI; 18.27).
168
The coming of the light often means the coming of judgment.119 The
morning is the favored time for an intervention by God.120 When the
sun had risen upon the earth, 'the LORD rained' (TCDQn mm).121 "ltDQ is
used only two other times in Genesis (2.5; 7.4). The striking contrast
between raining water (in the other two texts) and raining sulfurous fire
should not be lost.122 The hospitality of the earth depends on rainfall.
The lack of that falling rain and its fiery substitution graphically demonstrate the realm of Sodom's failure and violation.
The Environmental Effect of the Overthrow. The comprehensive and
catastrophic consequences of sin and judgment bring all things to
destruction, including the environment. This is a physical and environmental catastrophe. After the reader is reminded that the sun has risen,
sulfurous fire descends, destroying even what grew on the ground.
When it is over, smoke is rising and a salt pillar remains for the reader's
(and traveler's) reminder:
And he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of
the cities, and what grew on the ground. But Lot's wife, behind him,
looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. Abraham went early in the
morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD; and he looked
down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the Plain
and saw the smoke of the land going up like the smoke of a furnace
(19.25-28).
The consequences of the sin and judgment of the men of Sodom are
borne by the women and children of Sodom, who remain silent and are
noticed in the text only in the cursory 'and all the inhabitants of the
cities' (D'HDn ^sr'^D fittl). The consequences are borne by the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah as well: 'And he overthrew those cities' (~[Sm
^NH D'HtfiTPK). Even with new inhabitants, these cities will not exist.
The consequences also destroy all plant life: 'and what grew on the
ground' (HQT^n TO^I). Neither is the destruction limited to the cities.
The whole Plain is destroyed: 'and all the Plain' ("DDIT^ rwi). The
whole environment, previously 'like the garden of the LORD' (13.10), is
119. See previous discussion of the legal referents in this verse in Chapter 3 at
19.23, p. 107.
120. See Judg. 5.31; Isa. 13.10; Ps. 19.6; Bovati, Re-establishing Justice,
pp. 366-68.
121. ~1QQ hiphil perfect, 3 m. s.
122. The separation of the verb from its direct object emphasizes the contrast.
169
123. Fretheim, 'The Book of Genesis', p. 477: 'Both Israelites and moderns
know that human behaviors have led and will lead to cosmological disaster (flood
story, plagues). The devastation of Sodom and Gomorrah and their environs offers
a major instance, the depletion of the ozone layer may be another. See also pp. 476,
478-79, 473, 482, and 484 for discussion of moral order.'
124. On the omission of 19.30-38 see p. 83.
170
3.
The oughts and ought nots of Genesis 18-19 (and 20) are narratively and canonically (theologically) prior to the law given
at Sinai. The 'law' in these narratives should be understood as
antecedent to Sinaitic law.
Chapter 5
A CLOSE NARRATIVE READING OF LEGAL REFERENTS IN
172
173
174
175
Not only is the voice of God given in the text as a sign of the ought not,
but the assent of the Canaanite king is also given. In addition, he
believes his whole community to be at risk physically (20.4), a notion
that God subsequently confirms (20.7).8 He does not accept guilt for the
offense, but he does accept the implied prohibition of adultery.9
Abimelech's Defense: Character Dialogue
Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, 'LORD, will you
destroy an innocent people? Did he not himself say to me, "She is my
sister"? And she herself said, "He is my brother". I did this in the
integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands' (20.4-5).
rnqn p'^Da ^0 >]iT "ID1 IT1?** mp vh 'T|'?0"?]
Kin -FIN rna KirrDrNTn Kin <Tnn$ ^"m Kin vhrt
:PKT TTWU "35 f ppi 'in'p-Dn?
176
Abimelech follows this testimonial evidence with a plea that is recognized as a legal formula:12
'I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands'
(20.5b).
111
178
Abimelech's 'calling' and his question, 'What have you done to us?'
are both typical forms for the formal initiation of an inquest of a
crime.20 The arraignment includes two accusations: 'You have brought
such great guilt on me' and 'You have done to me things that ought not
to be done'.
You Have Brought 'Such Great Guilt' on Me and on My Kingdom
(if ^12 ntjstpnj. The first accusation, 'such great guilt', is a claim against
'adultery'. n^U riNCDn, however, is better translated 'a great sin', as in
the RSV. This preserves the repetition of the root NttFT (sin), which
occurs in 20.6 and in 20.9a, as well as the specificity of the reference to
adultery.21 In this context, adultery is an offense against 'sacral juridical
law'. This is the only indication of NCDn commited in the text, and the
sin belongs to Abraham.22
19. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis', p. 482.
20. 'The Hebrew form most commonly used to express convening by a judge is
the verb *p K~)p... The only thing which seems common to the different acts of convening is that K~lp must take as its subject someone with a measure of authority.'
Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 223-24. One of the characteristic 'forms in
which an accusation occurs' is introduced by 1~IQ. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice,
p. 76; see also Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens, pp. 26-31.
21. Verse 6 indicates that the 'sin' is against God: ft'iono (against Me). For the
form-critical category of sacral-juridical law, see Clark, 'Law', pp. 127-28. On the
sin, see Sarna, Genesis, p. 143; Rabinowitz, 'The "Great Sin"', p. 73; Moran,
'Scandal', pp. 280-81; Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, pp. 132-33; Westermann,
Genesis 12-36, p. 325.
22. For a general accounting of scholarship on the vocabulary of sin and 'misdeeds' in the Old Testament, see the lexicographical studies of Rolf P. Knierim, Die
179
Hauptbegriffe fur Stinde im Alten Testament (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965); Stefan
Porubcan, Sin in the Old Testament: A Soteriological Study (Rome: Herder, 1963).
See also 'The Misdeed according to the Hebrew Lexicon' for the use of terms
'which by their frequency achieve especial importance in the sphere of biblical
jurisdiction'. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 65-66.
23. See comments above at 18.19, 'Doing or Administrating', p. 141.
24. Qal I 'do' versus qal II 'make', BDB, p. 793. The niphal imperfect of H2Ji
with the negative particle $b occurs 15 times in the Hebrew Bible. Nine times the
niphal imperfect indicates something that 'ought not be done', ever. Cf. Gesenius,
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, para. 107g. These nine occurrences share the unique
syntax. See discussion in Chapter 3 at 20.9, p. 116, 'things to me that ought not be
done'.
25. See Chapter 3 at 20.9, pp. 111-17.
26. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, para. 172, obligative use of the imperfect;
Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, para. 107g: 'It is not (wont to be) so done
(and hence may not, shall not be)'', para. 107w: 'In negative sentences to express
actions, etc., which cannot or should not happen, e.g....Gen. 20.9; "WWltb ~I2JN
|tr0!)Q] 'deeds.. .that ought not to be done.'
180
181
182
~ T -
I T '
v -:
. . .
IT
36. Found, for example, in Gen. 20.14, 16; 21.27; 34.11-12; 1 Sam. 25.27; 1
Kgs 18.14-16. See Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, pp. 138-39.
37. Sarah is spoken to directly by Abimelech, who says 'your brother' rather
than 'your husband'. She is a person and not simply property in this address. If she
were considered only property there would have been no offense, for Abraham had
given his consent. Such settlements vary in comparative ancient texts, usually at the
discretion of the injured party, the husband. See Goodfriend, 'Adultery', p. 83. The
terms of the settlement here are sheep, oxen, servants and silver.
38. See discussion of these terms at Gen. 20.7 and 20.14 in Chapter 3, pp. I l l ,
119.
39. See Gen. 40.13; Lev. 6.4; 25.27; Num. 35.25; Deut. 22.2; Judg. 11.13; 17.3;
Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, p. 363.
183
184
47. Westermann outlines the text in this way: 'A wrong is committed in vv.1-2,
vv. 3-13 deal with the question of blame, and in vv.14-18 the wrong is righted.'
Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p.318. One would conclude from vv. 14-16 that
Abimlech is the perpetrator here. But who is guilty? A recent discussion between
Jacob Milgrom and Adrian Schenker offers an important perspective. Schenker
argues that in texts concerning matriachs in Pharoah's and Abimelech's tents, an
'objective' guilt is incurred. The kings are liable for the guilt, even though they are
not guilty. It is possible, then, for Abimelech to maintain 'integrity of heart' and
'innocent hands' and still suffer the consequences of liability for guilt. Schenker,
'Expiatory Scarifices', pp. 97-719. For another view, Milgrom, 'Further on the
Expiatory Scarifices', pp. 511-14.
48. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 228.
49. Sarna, Genesis, p. 142.
50. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 322.
51. For a discussion of the legal implications of the use of ^ID as a term of
marriage, see Falk, Hebrew Law, pp. I l l , 123, 141; Carmichael, Law and
Narrative, p. 216.
52. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 322.
185
.. .furthermore it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore,
I did not let you touch her' (20.6b).
b.
c.
186
are threatened with death. Abraham and Sarah were willing to allow
adultery in exchange for safety in Abimelech's realm. Yet they are only
accused by Abimelech and suffer no spoken verdict in the text.55
Secondly, no adultery has been committed. In both arraignments
adultery is the charge (v. 6, 'touch'; v. 9, 'great sin'). But Abimelech is
declared not guilty and Abraham seems to be guilty, though only of
almost causing adultery through deception.56 So why are Abimelech
and Abraham 'arraigned' in the text? The question of law is pushed
beyond the scope of the narrative's arraignments and legal procedures
to the level of discourse. The tensions are not resolved. The use of law
in this text cannot be explained simply in terms of rights and responsibilities.57
Sarah's culpability is similar in kind. It is not treated in the text
separately from Abraham's. No adultery has been committed. She is
simply an accessory to a 'close call'. The law against adultery in other
biblical texts pertains to the woman who is married, not to the man.
Sarah would be as much a culprit by ancient standards as Abimelech, if
there had been adultery.58 Under Hebrew law she is a guilty party, yet
she is never arraigned.59 Abimelech's household bears it all. Carmichael
suggests an inter-biblical response to this gap:
It is a lack of awareness in the Genesis tradition of Sarah's culpability
that explains the expanded formulation of the law: 'If a man be found
lying with a woman married to an husband, even both of them shall die,
the man that lay with the woman, and the woman.'60
187
188
in the oral tradition, and the second assigns the meaning of the narrative
to the social setting of the final redactor.
The interpretive task of assigning meaning to tensions in a text is
summarized by K. Craig:
Elements of indeterminacy invite the reader to search for meaning, and it
is precisely these indeterminate elements which involve the reader's
most active attention in the reading process. Informational suppression is
not only 'the most common, problematic, and instructively variable, but
also the most crucial' issue related to exposition. Various names have
been associated with the highly complex feature: vacancies, gaps,
lacunae, hiatus, blanks, and in the words of Martin Price, moments of
oblivion and transcendence... It is left to the reader to make sense of the
action by supplying a multiple system of gap-fillers in an attempt to
actualize the story.64
64. Craig, 'Jonah and the Reading Process', p. 105. The quote inside the quote
is from Meir Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction
(Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. 52. Also quoted is M.
Price, The Irrelevant Detail and the Emergence of Form', in J. Hillis Miller (ed.),
Aspects of Narrative (New York: Columbia University, 1971), pp. 66-91 (86). See
also Hanson, Theological Significance', pp. 110-12, 129-31; Robert C. Culley and
Robert B. Robinson (eds.), Textual Determinacy: Part One (Semeia Series 62;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); Robert C. Culley and Robert B. Robinson (eds.),
Textual Determinacy: Part Two (Semeia, 71; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
65. The conclusions may lead to some methodological preferences.
66. See previous discussion of this phrase from Gen. 20.3b in Chapter 3,
pp. 108-109.
67. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 322: 'A wife is the property of her ^ID.'
189
190
tension has evidence in the text in the references to the 'fear of God'
(vv. 8, 11). Yet the narrative context of 'fear' here is less reverence than
'frightened' (v. 8). The only motivation provided by the text for such
gift-giving is Abimelech's experience of the sickness and its deadly
threat to his entire household. The narrator reports that it is after these
gifts that Abraham prays for the restoration of Abimelech and his
household. Therefore, at the time of the gift-giving, Abimelech was still
sick unto death and the women still could not conceive (vv. 16-17).
Whether Abimelech was reverent to the point of honoring God is not
clear in the text. It is clear that the physical condition of his household
was still a concern. Abimelech's motivation for reparation payments is
provided, however, by the text. His motivation is not from guilt, nor out
of reverence for God. Abimelech's payments are an understandable
human response to the physical consequences of a close brush with a
devastating sin. Verse 7 gives us the cause of the restoration: 'Restore
her because pD] he is a prophet and will pray for you and you shall live;
but if you do not ["]rN~DN1] restore her, know that you shall surely die,
you and all that are yours.' This verdict (and the placement in the
narrative of the legal exchange of restoration which follows) isolates
the physical threat as the primary explanation of a legally peculiar
settlement.72
A Canonical Explanation. Another kind of theological explanation of
the recognized tension is made by means of the wider context of canon.
The theological priority given to Abraham in Genesis provides an interpretive key to this narrative:
Abraham emerges from the narrative with his power and authority not
only intact but enhanced. That is, the one who lies...is still the one preferred. The morally upright one [Abimelech] is still dependent on Israel.
The preeminence of Abraham here rests not on Abraham's virtue, but on
God's promise... The story has a strangeness about it, perhaps because
the theological narrator wanted to make a point that ill-fitted the
traditional material with which he had to work. As it stands, the text
makes the claim that Abraham is the chosen of God, not by words, nor
even by faith (which is feeble here), but only by God's incredible grace.
72. As we have noted above, it may be that flQ (20.3) ought to be translated as
continuous action, that is, 'You are dying because of the woman.' Williams,
Hebrew Syntax, para. 213.
191
Thus we can hardly advance on Calvin's thematic summary, 'The infirmity of man and the grace of God...' The infirmity of both men is evident.
But God's grace overrules.73
This is, in fact, the case in a canonical reading. B. Childs has also
argued convincingly for the canonical 'framing' of the individual
patriarchal stories.74 Yet, in this text, the canonical theological move
escapes the 'strangeness' of the story's legal problem too quickly. Is
law (i.e. the legal context and all the legal rulings of the text) to be seen
here in opposition to grace? Or is the legal context subsumed by an
overwhelming grace? Neither solution suffices in this case. There is
something first to be said about the theological role of this law (which
prohibits Sarah in Abimelech's tent) as a law of creation.
The legal settings and rulings are the means by which Abraham's
'grace' is received. The often ignored cosmo-logic of this narrative is
the key that turns the decision. The crucial difference in the courtroom
of this text is that physical phenomena are given as witnesses and
evidence to the truth. God's voice in a dream, a fear among the men of
Abimelech, a sickness, and the opening and closing of wombs are
crucial evidence in cases that impinge on the action of the characters.
The 'logic' of the physical phenomena explains the rulings. Sarah
cannot stay in Abimelech's tent and bear Abraham's child. It is a
cosmo-logic that provides the connection between the moral order and
the physical order.
Conclusion
Most efforts to resolve the tension of Abimelech's innocence and his
reparation payments do not fully consider the physical phenomena and
their relationship to the narrative's legal context. Neither the historical
explanations, which remove evidence from the text, nor the theological
explanations, which import other evidence, finally consider fully the
controlling factors in the narrative itself.
Two factors control the action of the narrative. The first is the ought
not against adultery. This ought not is implied by treating a lesser
'offense', that is, simply a 'close call' with adultery, with ultimate
seriousness (as a capital offense). The second is the fact that the action
is prompted by physical phenomena, to which the characters respond.
192
193
left hanging. No adultery has been committed, yet there are two
arraignments for adultery (v. 7, 'touching'; v. 8, 'great sin'). Abimelech
is declared innocent, but he pays a huge 'settlement'. Abraham's
defense is shadowy and psychological; and, though he and Sarah ar
clearly liable for the deception, they receive no pronounced verdict. In
fact, they prosper as a direct result. The certainty of judgment and
mercy is only rendered for the reader by the closing and opening of
wombs, the cosmologically appropriate consequence for an adultery
almost committed with and by the matriarch of Israel. The judgment is
presented as a law of creation, against even the possibility of adultery.
Sickness and Barrenness.
Then Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, and also
healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. For the
LORD had closed fast all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because
of Sarah, Abraham's wife (20.17-18).
194
woman. The causal ^U and the explicative 1 of Kim together signify this
ought not:77
'You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken, for
she is a married woman' (20.3b).
The warrant given for the closing of the wombs is signified by the
causal ^U, that is, 'because of Sarah, Abraham's wife'. The ^^ marks
the ought not of Sarah's presence in the house of Abimelech.
Corroborating the Causal Connection in the World of the Text
The operation of this causal connection in the world of this text is corroborated in three ways. First, Abimelech does not hesitate to believe
the voice of God or its message 'in a dream, by night'. Secondly, Abimelech shows that he shares the cosmology of the narrative in his
question, 'Will you destroy an innocent people?' Thirdly, the narrator
reinforces the cosmology by telling the reader that 'the men were very
much afraid', that is, they shared the cosmology of the causal
connection.
In a Dream by Night (Tl^H ubv\3).
But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, 'You
are about to die...' (20.3a).
195
physical order in the world of the text.79 Abimelech does not hesitate to
believe what he hears in his dream. He accepts it as a serious form of
communication. He accepts the ought not as a valid claim (although not
the guilt for it).
The dream of Abimelech is one of the physical phenomena in the text
that functions to create, for the reader of the narrative, the impression
that there is a connection between the moral and physical orders. The
law of God is known here by dreaming. There is no blinking between
the world of human action and the physiological experience of a dream.
The conversation is similar to a dialogue between persons fully awake,
full of immediacy and passion.80
Will You Destroy an Innocent People? fnnn p^TTOa "tnj.
Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said 'LORD, will you
oi
destroy an innocent people?' (20.4)
79. For the genre of communication through dreams, see Westermann, Genesis
72-36, p. 319; Speiser, Genesis, p. 148.
80. For a similar precipitous conversation between Solomon and God in a
dream, see 1 Kgs 3.5-15; cf. Num. 12.6-8.
81. For the translation of p "HIS as 'innocent', see comments at 18.23. No one
translates pHli as 'righteous' in this context.
196
82. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis', p. 483. For comment and summary of
scholarship on 'for he is a prophet', see Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 324.
197
198
Chapter 6
REFLECTIONS ON THE CREATIONAL CONTEXT OF IMPLIED LAW
200
with the righteous. There are occasions of marriage contracts and land
purchases. Treaties are made between Jacob and Laban and between
Abimelech and Abraham. It is, in part, the art of the narrative that
discloses or 'implies' the juridical categories by means of character dialogue, vocabulary, plot development, consequential language and gaps
of indeterminacy.
The narrative context of creation in the Genesis 18-20 text especially
refers to 'cosmological' settings of the implied oughts. In contrast to the
biblical text's depiction of God's revealing of the law to Moses on the
mountain, the oughts of Genesis are not explicitly delivered or revealed.
Rather, they are woven into creational motifs in the plot and dialogue of
the narrative. In the narrative context these creational motifs subtly
function to create a cosmology of relationship between the physical and
moral orders.
A Particular Cosmology
I have argued that a reading of legal referents in the Genesis 18-20
narrative discloses a dynamic cosmological connection between the
physical creation and the human moral order under judgment by God.
This cosmological relationship is embedded in a narrative context that
implies a prohibition of treating strangers violently, of coveting the
wife of another man, and of adultery.
The particular and dominating cosmo-logic of the narrative is rooted
in creational relationships: relationships among characters and between
the Creator and the created, and a cosmological relationship between
the moral and physical orders. The cosmology of Genesis 18-20 is
disclosed in the text in three ways: (1) in dialogue between characters;
(2) in the pronouncement of sentences by God the Judge; (3) in the
convulsing of creation.
Dialogue Assumes a Shared Cosmology. The character Abraham of
Genesis 18-19 and the character Abimelech of Genesis 20 share a common cosmology. Both disclose their assumptions about this particular
cosmology in their independent conversations with God. They both
assume a cosmological relationship between the physical and moral
orders in their questions. Abraham asks, 'Will you indeed sweep away
the innocent with the guilty?' (18.23). Abimelech queries, 'Will you
destroy an innocent people?' (20.4). They demonstrate, in these questions, their common assumption that whole communities are at physical
201
202
led to the unwitting coveting of another man's wife and the lively risk
of adultery. The violation of ought nots brings life-denying consequences in the physical world: closed wombs, life-threatening sickness among Abimelech's people and a fear that begins with a dream
and takes hold of everyone in the camp.
The sentences of Genesis 18-20 are not based in categories of human
courts, but in the relationship between Creator and created. The
sentences given can only be administered by one who can shape the
created: salt, fire, loss of sight, fertility, dreams, health and life itself.
The Convulsing of Creation. The particular and dominating cosmology
of Genesis 18-20 is demonstrated in dramatic convulsing of creation.
Individuals are not sentenced. Guilty parties are not separated and tried.
In Sodom, women and children are not exempt. Lot's wife, though
innocent, becomes a pillar of salt. In Gerar, Abimelech, declared innocent, suffers with a fatal illness. In Abimelech's camp, women are barren and men are under the threat of death. His whole nation is dying.
The catastrophic magnification of the connection between the moral
order and the order of the physical creation establishes a particular
cosmology in which anticreational and immoral acts result in God's
convulsing creation. The creational convulsion impinges on human and
environmental well-being in the realm of the immoral act, in a
catastrophic way.
In this cosmology, typical physical consequences of sin are magnified
catastrophically. The ordinary fact that Sarah cannot conceive
Abraham's child while residing in Abimelech's tent is magnified in the
convulsive consequence that all the women in the camp become barren.
The ordinary fact that Sodom is an inhospitable and violent place is
magnified in the convulsing of creation in the Plain, making it
inhospitable to all life.1 These convulsions of creation do not mitigate
the role of God as judge, but draw attention to creation as the means
through which consequences are experienced.
1. The New Testament carries the metaphor of raining fire from heaven as a
punishment for inhospitality to strangers in Lk. 9.51-56. For brimstone as a metaphor of inhospitable places, see Deut. 29.23; Job 18.15; Ps. 11.6; Ezek. 38.22; Isa.
34.9.
203
204
205
206
207
itself. They are given as part of the blessing and are not conditionally
related to God's promise never again to destroy the earth with water.
Rather, the commands given in Gen. 9.1-7 are in the context of strong
creational themes: Noah is the father of all human life; the command of
Gen. 1.26 to be 'fruitful and multiply' is repeated; the language of
fertility and blessing by which the commands are given is not
conditional. The blessings are given as an unconditional promise by the
Creator to the created. When the covenantal language is taken up in 9.817, it is not used in relation to the blood law, nor is it conditional in any
way. The covenant of the rainbow is given simply as a promise.
Likewise, God's covenant-making with Abraham is not conditioned
by law-keeping. Gen. 12.1-3, 7 is an unconditional promise of fertility,
blessing, protection and land. The promise in Gen. 15.1-6 includes
protection, fertility and fecundity. Gen. 17.1-8 repeats the promise of
fecundity, fruitfulness and land. In the covenant of circumcision that
follows (17.9-14), the only legal condition of God's covenant-making
with Abraham is given (17.14; 'any uncircumcised male...shall be cut
off). This legal reference, however, is exceptional for covenants in
Genesis. Other covenants before Sinai are not given legal conditions,
but are centered in the promises of a Creator who freely gives fertility,
land and blessing. The unconditional promise of a son is even the
occasion for an appearance of God to Sarah and Abraham (18.10, 14).
In Gen. 22.15-18, the final re-iteration of God's promise to Abraham is
given in response to the condition of his specific and unusual obedience
with regard to Isaac. Again, this is not a covenant requiring lawkeeping, but a horrific occasion of personal fealty. This occasion of
Abraham's unquestioning obedience results in a repetition of the
previously given promises of a full experience and legacy of the good
creation: fertility, fecundity, strength and blessing.
Law without Covenants. In the pre-Sinai narrative, legal referents are
presented within the ebb and flow of the lives of characters who have
not yet received the God-declared laws of Mt Sinai. Biblical law is
thereby set in the context of creation in relation to the broader Hebrew
canon. References to law in the pre-Sinai narratives are not made in
relation to covenants. Rather, they are implied in the context of divinehuman relationships, which are characterized by the Creator-created
relationship. The Genesis 18-20 texts, which contain by far the fullest
legal referents, are set in Sodom and in Abimelech's camp. Exodus 18,
208
209
210
Brueggemann notes the 'odd detachment' of the text from the context
as a fulfillment of promise. He draws attention to this birth as an act of
creation.11 He notes that the attention of the text is on the 'concrete
biological reality'.12 'But the announcement of birth by promise is not
the primal claim of the text. Rather, it is that the promise is kept to this
old-age pair.'13
Certainly Gen. 21.1-7 is an important text for the fulfillment of God's
promises to Sarah and Abraham. The text's central importance to that
covenant makes its creational themes all the more striking. Hutton's
observation that 'history and nature breathe the same air' is well noted
here. God's covenant-making and history-making is rooted deeply in
creating a people. Gustav Wingren suggests that this creating is the
over-arching focus: The unity of the Bible thus consists in the fact that
from beginning to end it is the same God who is at work. The act of
Creation does not end, but continues...'14
So it is with the legal referents in Genesis 18-20. Although they are
9. Westermann's view of a 'real' family is a little narrow, but his exclamation
of joy at new birth marks the creational theme.
10. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, pp. 334-35.
11. Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 180.
12. Brueggemann notes Paul's link of the birth of Isaac to the creation of the
world and the resurrection of the dead (Rom. 4.17). He also adds reference to
Schmid, 'Rechtfertigung', p. 403.
13. Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 181.
14. Wingren, Creation and Law, p. 128.
211
Chapter 7
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The study of implied law in the pre-Sinai narrative relies, in part, on the
analysis of juridical procedure in a narrative. The most fruitful possibilities for further research may combine a close narrative reading with
juridical analysis.
Combining the analysis of juridical procedure with a close narrative
reading contributes to the study of law by identifying and interpreting
the relationships and actions of the characters in the narrative from a
legal or ethical perspective. The juridical reading aids the interpretation
of the narrative as a whole by providing insight into plot and character
development. It also elucidates departures from expected procedure,
alerting the reader to gaps or lacunae in the narrative. When the narrative takes flight from the expected juridical procedure, a dissonance is
created for the reader.
213
214
sets up the irony of the narrative that follows. The promise is made to
the chosen Isaac, who is blessed and increases in wealth even when he
is deceitful, while Abimelech, who is juridically correct, is threatened
by Isaac's misdeed (Gen. 26.10-11).
Thirdly, the glossed-over reminiscence of Abraham's faith (26.5)
stands in stark contrast to Isaac's present struggle to believe the
promise of blessing, land, fertility, and protection just made to him.
Isaac's struggle (26.7b, 'or else the men of the place might kill me for
the sake of Rebekah'; 26.9b, 'Because I thought I might die because of
her') echoes Abraham's.
Fourthly, there is a tremendous theological irony between 26.1-5 and
26.6-13. The text's historical reminiscence of Abraham's good works is
itself ironic. The reader knows that Abraham's former encounter with a
former 'Abimelech' does not entirely support the claim of 26.5. To this
dissonance is added Isaac's own encounter with Abimelech. Although
Isaac inherits the blessing 'because of Abraham's works (his keeping
of the commands, statues, and laws), it is Abimelech who keeps the
commands better than Isaac, who freely receives the blessing and
increase. This rhetorical juxtaposition creates a dissonance for the
reader. Isaac deceives out of fear and mistrust of the promise.
Abimelech holds the line on the law. Isaac becomes wealthy, and
Abimelech cautious.
The ironies and ambiguities in the biblical narrative reflect human
life. The ambiguities and ironies of human life create capacities in the
reader for interpreting the biblical narrative. But the narrative carries
more than ambiguity and irony. Narratives containing implied law combine the similitudes of life with the ideals of law and law-keeping. The
Genesis narrative communicates these ideals by means of an assumed
and shared consequential cosmology. The narrative art, which combines
ambiguity and irony with implied law, is significant in that it establishes
law as integral to all human life. In the Genesis 26 narrative, law both
emerges from and is woven back into life. l It is known and practiced
by both the Philistine and the patriarch, to whom and through whom
future blessing will be given to all nations.
1.
215
216
217
This verse implies that Abimelech should not have had Sarah in his
tent. This ought not cannot be formally described, however, as a 'command'. I have suggested that these occurrences be called 'unconditional
implied imperatives'.2
As we have seen in our analysis of Genesis 18-20, physical phenomena in the biblical text function to indicate an implied imperative
against adultery. This implied imperative exists in the text by its operation (ipso jure). The consequences, which are swift in their purpose,
impress upon the reader that the law is unconditional. These imperatives are also implied as unconditional by treating a lesser 'offense',
that is, simply a 'close call' with adultery, with ultimate seriousness (as
a capital offense). It is appropriate, therefore, to describe the 'law' of
Genesis 20 by a form-critical category, 'unconditional implied
imperative'.
A Narrative Form of Law: Unconditional Implied Imperatives
'Implied imperative' means that the narrative discloses a legal or moral
judgment that is not accounted for by a motive clause or by an
explicitly stated command. By 'unconditional implied imperative' I
mean to suggest a narrative category for commandments that are intrinsic to the text. In Genesis 18-20, the clearest implications of the unconditional imperatives are by now familiar to the reader:
18.20b
19.7b
iinn
19.24a
Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire.
20.3b
You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken;
for she is a married woman.
20.9b
218
20.18
For the LORD had closed fast all the wombs of the house of
Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife.
Many other biblical narratives, both before and after Sinai in the canon,
contain 'unconditional implied imperatives'. This narrative form of law
provides many possibilities for further research.
Antecedents to Sinai: Implied Imperatives and Corresponding Sinai
Laws
The primary concern of the Genesis 20 narrative and its variety of legal
references (settings and vocabulary) serve the question of the almost
committed adultery. The unconditional implied imperative in God's
accusation of Abimelech, Abimelech's accusation (ought not) against
Abraham, and the effect of the verdict (sickness, fear, closed wombs)
imply the same unconditional imperative: a married woman ought not
be taken by, or given to, another man. Thus, Genesis 20 may be considered a narrative antecedent to the unconditional commandments
against adultery: 'You shall not commit adultery' (Exod. 20.14; Deut.
5.18) and its corollary, 'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife'
(Exod. 20.17; Deut. 5.21).
The threat of death for the offense of adultery is also reflected in the
canon in the form of conditional laws: 'If a man commits adultery with
the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be
put to death' (Lev. 20.10). It is also found in Deut. 22.22: 'If a man is
found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the
man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the
evil from Israel.' In this latter text, the exact use of the unusual expression ^in rftlO (married woman), found in Genesis 20, is repeated, with
the threat of death. Calum Carmichael has argued that Genesis 20 is a
narrative antecedent for Deuteronomic laws on renovating a marriage
(Deut. 24.1-4), on a man's desire for a foreign woman (Deut. 21.10-14),
against adultery (Deut. 22.22) and on covering (Deut. 22.12).3
3. On renovating a marriage, see Carmichael, Law and Narrative, pp. 254-55;
C. Carmichael, Women, Law and the Genesis Traditions (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 1979), p. 10; C. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1974), pp. 203-207. On desire for foreign women,
see Carmichael, Women, Law, p. 23. On adultery, see Carmichael, Women, Law,
219
pp. 43-44; Carmichael, Law and Narrative, pp. 215-16. On covering, see Carmichael, Law and Narrative, p. 209.
4. Westermann notes that the Sodomites are guilty of two crimes: unnatural
lust and the violation of the right of guests to protection. Westermann, Genesis 1236, p. 301.
5. See also Deut. 23.17. See R. Collins, 'The Bible and Sexuality', BTB 1
(1977), pp. 149-65; G.D. Coleman, 'The Vatican Statement on Homosexuality', TS
48 (1987), pp. 727-34. In the New Testament, the primary referent is judgment for
refusing to acknowledge or receive a messenger of God (Mt. 10.15; 11.23; Mk
6.11; Lk. 10.12; Rev. 11.8). Twice sexual immorality is indicated against false
teachers who indulge the flesh (2 Pet. 2.6; Jude 7). Two other New Testament
occurrences are general references to catastrophic judgment. In the New Testament,
the primary referent is lack of hospitality toward God. For a discussion of the
frequent biblical use of Sodom and Gomorrah as a reference to judgment and
destruction in general, see Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 298.
6. Letellier, Day in Mamre, pp. 157-58.
220
Lev. 18.22
Lev. 20.13
The reference to sexual sin is not, however, the most common focus
in the Old Testament. The theme of hospitality to strangers is the most
consistent echo. In the text, the men have come to Sodom as strangers
(19.1). Lot's hospitality mirrors Abraham's actions to these strangers in
18.1-8.7 When Lot tries to protect the strangers against the men of
Sodom, their accusation against Lot is precisely, This fellow came here
as an alien,' that is, 'to sojourn' ("TD1?; 19.9).
The theme of hospitality to the marginalized and the sojourner is the
most common referent for the sin of Sodom in the prophets. The unconditional implied imperative in God's grave concern about the 'outcry',
Lot's accusation ('wickedly') against the men of Sodom, and the
environmental effect of the verdict imply the same unconditional
imperative: Hospitality must be given to sojourners. Thus, Genesis 1819 may be considered a narrative antecedent to the unconditional commandments protecting the stranger.8 For example:
Exod. 22.21 You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were
aliens in the land of Egypt.
Lev. 19.33 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not
oppress the alien.
Deut. 10.19 You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the
land of Egypt.
Deut. 24.17 You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice.
You shall not take a widow's garment in pledge.
221
222
14. Patrick, The First Commandment, p. 115. Other gods are mentioned in
general in Exod. 15.11; 18.11.
15. For example, Exod. 23.23-33; 34.12-16; Lev. 20.22-26; Num. 25.1-5; Deut.
7.1-16; 12.29-31.
16. Letellier, Day in Mamre, p. 158.
17. Letellier, Day in Mamre, pp. 158-59.
18. The Jewish tradition defines coveting legally as an action that seeks to attain
what belongs to another by fraud or force. With this definition, laws requiring
hospitality are a positive form of the prohibition of coveting. See James K.
Bruckner, 'On the One Hand... On the Other: The Two-fold Meaning of the Law
against Covetousness', in Paul E. Koptak and Bradley J. Bergfalk (eds.), To Hear
and Obey: Essays in Honor of Fredrick Carlson Holmgren (Chicago: Covenant
Publications, 1997), pp. 97-118.
223
coveting action is a wealth source, but quite often the act of coveting is
related to sexuality. Consider the primary reasons for Abram's lie to
Pharaoh (Gen. 12), his lie to Abimelech (Gen. 20), and Isaac's lie to the
Philistine king (Gen. 26). They feared that the king would covet a
woman enough to commit murder. When Lot and Abram separated, it
was to avoid further strife over the desire for the same water (Gen. 13).
The conflict between Hagar and Sarai was based in coveting, related to
the other's sexuality (Gen. 16). Jacob and Esau separated because of
coveting strife (Gen. 27). Laban and Jacob also agreed to separate,
driven by coveting strife (Gen. 31). Dinah's rape by Shechem, and her
brother's revenge, were both driven by coveting, the former for sexuality, the latter for wealth (Gen. 34). The strife between Joseph and his
brothers was fueled by coveting a father's favor (Gen. 37). Judah's
coveting action protected a son whose sexuality belonged, by right, to
Tamar (Gen. 38).
The memory of Israel regarding Egypt was also oriented toward the
sin of coveting. Given the post-calf preoccupation with the problem of
idolatry, the Egyptians could have been remembered as an idolatrous
people. But the memory was of Pharaoh's covetousness of the Israelites' prosperity and their future labor:
Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. He said to
his people, 'Look, the Israelite people are more numerous than and more
powerful than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will
increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us
and escape from the land (Exod. 1.8-10).
In Genesis 18-19 the concern for hospitality for the stranger and the
implied prohibition against a coveting sexuality are two sides of one
coin. In Sodom the strangers deserved to be protected, both in principle
and against the forceful desire of the townsmen. In the post-Sinai
material, the concern of idolatry is linked to the question of sexuality.
Before Sinai, however, covetousness is the central problem of sexuality,
and hospitality is the means of protection against coveting.
The relationship between post-Sinai idolatry and pre-Sinai covetousness requires further study. Such study would be fruitful for pentateuchal studies as well as for the study of present-day sexual ethics.
224
There are two general implications of the study of Genesis 18-20 for
Old Testament ethics. First, the creational context of the narrative is a
valuable undergirding for approaching (teaching) ethics, particularly for
environmental ethics. Secondly, the ethical analysis of oughts in a
narrative form provides a useful point for critique of current proposals
that use biblical narrative as a source for ethics.
Creation and Ethics
The uncertain connection between action and consequence, evident in
Genesis 18-20, is congruent with common experience. From this
perspective, one keeps the law against stealing, not because one fears
losing the grace and redemption of God, but because, according to the
orders of creation, stealing is foolish. It is foolish in relation to one's
neighbor, and, because of the web of relationships (society), it is even
self-destructive. All thieves do not reap the same physical consequences
(the connection is uncertain), but stealing generally is bad for fleshly
existence. This is not the motive commonly given in the Sinaitic covenant for refraining from breaking commandments, but it is the inherent
rationale of the pre-Sinai narratives.19 It is also true to common experience, and thus lends itself to teaching ethics.
The biblical cosmology and its connection between the moral and
physical orders could be developed analogically for understanding
environmental issues today.20 God's convulsing of the physical creation
in the realm of the moral turpitude have implications for understanding
environmental issues today. The analogical principle is that catastrophe
may follow long patterns of ignorant or willful immoral behavior. For
example: Hydrocarbons and the cutting of rain forests in Brazil lead to
sunburn in Antarctica, where the ozone layer has become thinnest. The
damming of the Columbia River contributes to the demise of family
19. Notable exceptions are found in Deuteronomy, for example, Deut. 5.33:
'You must follow exactly the path that the LORD your God has commanded you, so
that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in
the land that you are to possess.'
20. An analogical development does not equate the cosmology of Gen. 18-20
with our own, but can, nonetheless, inform our thinking by a limited and useful
correspondence.
225
226
Limburg, 'Down to Earth Theology: Psalm 104 and the Environment', CurTM 21
(October 1994), pp. 340-46. For an argument for a theocentric understanding, see
Gene M. Tucker, 'Rain on a Land Where No One Lives: The Hebrew Bible on
Environment', JBL 116.1 (1997), pp. 3-17.
23. H.W. Wolff, Hosea (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p. 68: The whole
cosmos suffers from the effects of human sinfulness.
24. Leander E. Keck, 'Rethinking "New Testament Ethics" ', JBL 115 (Spring
1996), pp. 3-15(10).
227
The task of biblical ethics is not moral argument, but the discovery of systematic coherence.
Any systematic coherence must not diminish the distinctiveness of a text or genre's individual moral reasoning.
This may be accomplished by describing the rationale that
undergirds or is built into specific moral discourse.
Biblical ethics is oriented to formative events and their
memory in the community. The work on Old Testament ethics
that follows will be measured in relation to these criteria.
228
Systematic Coherence. The task of biblical ethics is not moral argument, but the discovery of systematic coherence of the many genres and
texts that serve as biblical resources for it. Janzen's approach to this
coherence is useful for understanding the oughts of the Abraham text as
well as for Old Testament ethics in general. In 'The Multiplicity of
Genres and the Unity of Old Testament Ethics', Janzen states his goal,
that is, to use his familial paradigm as the central model by which to
unify the multiple biblical genres:
It is the intention of the present study to steer a central course by discerning certain paradigms, in particular the familial paradigm... It will have
to be shown below that such genres as law, wisdom, prophecy, and
possibly others, also contribute to, build up, uphold, and promote the
central familial paradigm. It will have to be demonstrated also that the
multiplicity of genres function together to shape subsidiary and supportive paradigms, among them especially four: the priestly, the wisdom, the
royal, and the prophetic.27
229
230
231
Israel's unwritten self-understanding was not monolithic, but multifaceted. In my view, this multifaceted self-understanding has found its
Old Testament deposit in clusters of texts pointing to a variety of ethical
paradigms. Although the familial is foremost of these the priestly,
sapiential, royal and prophetic paradigms seem sufficiently distinct to
warrant differential treatment.38
232
233
The necessity of telling the stories is not simply an aesthetic preference. It is rooted in the experience of character formation. Birch and
Janzen share this presupposition. Janzen argues that the 'life' they teach
'can be grasped fully only as the stories and other texts shaping the
familial paradigm are heard again and again...the ethical reality continues to reside in them, rather than in a general formulation abstracted
from or illustrated by them'.46 Birch argues that values are fundamentally shaped by 'story', and that if they are not shaped by the
biblical story, they will be shaped by other 'cultural, national, ethnic, or
ideological stories'.47
A second necessity of an 'event orientation', as it is transmitted in
biblical narrative, is its stabilizing effect, which is not found in biblical
ethics that have a 'person' or 'hero' orientation. Old Testament narrative has sometimes been neglected (or reduced to principles) in Old
Testament ethics because its characters are not consistently shown to be
good models of character or behavior. Thus Janzen interprets model
stories rather than characterizing model persons:
Abraham, Phineas, Abigail, David and Elijah are not perfect people held
up to us for comprehensive imitation. That is precisely where our understanding of the Old Testament's ethical message fails us so often in our
45. Janzen, Old Testament Ethics, p. 29.
46. Janzen, Old Testament Ethics, p. 56.
47. Birch, Regaining Compassion, p. 55.
234
In sum, both pedagogy (the way in which values are shaped) and, in
accord with Keek's concern for event orientation, the text itself have
determined Janzen's commitment to the biblical narrative as the
primary means of the transmission of values.
Critique. I share Janzen's commitment to an interpretation of the
canonical text and his disavowal of the socio-historical contexts as the
dominant concern of interpreting biblical narratives. In spite of his
disavowal, however, Janzen uses the term 'biblical Israelite' and does
not clarify what this means. Specifically, how does Janzen know what
stood before the biblical Israelites' 'inner eye'?49 He does observe that
the biblical Israelite did not have the complete canon, yet he bases his
assessment on a post-canonical reading that 'emerges'.50 I would be
more convinced by the claim that the familial paradigm Janzen constructs stands before his inner eye, or even the inner eye of the church,
by means of the history of interpretation of the canonical text. I am
convinced, however, that his composite image of paradigms is accessible to the ideal reader of text and tradition, and that his middle level is
helpful to communities of faith.
A second issue pertains more directly to the thesis argued here.
Janzen's interest is the use of some Old Testament narratives for the
purpose of ethical instruction. My interest is the signification of oughts
in pre-Sinai narratives. Janzen seeks to present a systematic ethics of
the Old Testament by asserting a middle level of values, or paradigms,
discerned by the 'inner eye' in the canonical narrative. My thesis, while
sharing many of his presuppositions, does not seek a systemization of
ethics, but seeks to show how right and wrong are signified in the text.
My approach shares Janzen's conviction that the better reading does not
reduce the narrative to an ethical principle. It differs in that it seeks the
signification of oughts in texts where Sarah and Abraham are not
necessarily acting in ideal ways, rather than seeking the 'middle
aspects' evident to the 'inner eye'.
48. Janzen, Old Testament Ethics, p. 20.
49. Janzen, Old Testament Ethics, p. 27.
50. Janzen, Old Testament Ethics, p. 30.
235
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, Meyer H., A Glossary of Literary Terms (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1981).
Achtemeier, Elizabeth, 'The Gospel of Righteousness: A Study of the Meaning of p~li and
its Derivatives in the Old Testament' (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1959).
Ackroyd, Peter R., Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century
B.C. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968).
Albertz, Rainer, 'pUT Schreien', in Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament II. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag,
1976), pp. 568-75.
Alonso Schoekel, Luis, Genesis (Madrid: Los Libros Sagrados, 1970).
'Trends: Plurality of Methods, Priority of Issues', Congress Volume 40 (VTSup; Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1988).
Alt, Albrecht, Die Ursprunge des israelitischen Rechts (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1934).
'The Origin of Israelite Law', in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (trans.
R.A. Wilson; Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), pp. 79-132.
Alter, Robert, The An of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
'Biblical Imperatives and Literary Play', in Rosenblatt and Sitterson Jr (eds), 'Not in
Heaven', pp. 13-27.
'A Literary Approach to the Bible', in Paul R. House (ed.), Beyond Form Criticism:
Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992),
pp. 166-185.
Alter, Robert, and Frank Kermode (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987).
Anderson, Bernhard W., Creation Versus Chaos (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1994).
Anderson, Bernhard W. (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984).
Barr, James, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
The Scope and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980).
Barton, John, Amos' Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3-2.5 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1996).
'The Relation of God to Ethics in the Eighth Century Prophets' (DPhil diss., Oxford
University, 1974).
'Understanding Old Testament Ethics', JSOT9 (1978), pp. 44-64.
Bibliography
237
Berger, Klaus, 'Rhetorical Criticism, New Form Criticism, and New Testament Hermeneutics', in Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the
New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSOTSup, 90;
Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993), pp. 390-96.
Beyerlin, Walter, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (trans. S. Rudman;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965).
Beyerlin, Walter (ed.), Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (trans.
John Bowden; OTL, 49; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).
Birch, Bruce, Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1991).
Birch, Bruce, and Larry Rasmussen, Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1976).
Birch, Charles, After Nature's Revolt: Eco-justice and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992).
Caring for Creation: Vision, Hope, and Justice (Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America, 1993).
Regaining Compassion: For Humanity and Nature (St Louis: Chalice Press, 1993).
Bird, Phyllis, 'The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus', in Miller, Hanson and McBride
(eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion, pp. 379-420.
Bland, Kalman P., 'The Rabbinic Method and Literary Criticism', in Louis, Ackerman and
Warshaw (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, pp. 16-23.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 'Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 119-32.
The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York:
Doubleday, 1992).
Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early
Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).
Blum, Erhard, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984).
Boecker, Hans J., Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient
East (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1980).
Redenformen des Rechtslebens im Alien Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1964).
Bohannan, Paul (ed.), Law and Warfare(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967).
Booth, Wayne C., The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, 1(11 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974).
Bovati, Pietro, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the
Hebrew Bible (trans. Michael J. Smith; JSOTSup, 105; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
Bowker, John, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969).
Boyce, Richard N., The Cry to God in the Old Testament (SBLDS, 103; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1988).
Britt, Brian, Review of Robert I. Letellier, Day in Mamre, Night in Sodom, Critical Review
of Books in Religion 9 (1996), pp. 1-2.
Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver and Charles Briggs (eds.), A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).
Bruckner, James K., 'On the One Hand... On the Other: The Two-fold Meaning of the Law
against Covetousness', in Paul E. Koptak and Bradley J. Bergfalk (eds.), To Hear
238
and Obey: Essays in Honor of Fredrick Carlson Holmgren (The Covenant Quarterly;
Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1997), pp. 97-118.
Brueggemann, Walter, 'A Convergence in Recent Old Testament Theologies', in P. Miller
(ed.), Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 95-110.
Genesis (eds. James Luther Mays and Patrick D. Miller; Interpretation: A Biblical
Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982).
Israel's Praise: Doxology against Idolatry and Ideology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988).
'The Loss and Recovery of Creation in Old Testament Theology', Theology Today 53
(July 1996), pp. 177-90.
'A Neglected Sapiential Word Pair', ZAW 89 (1977), pp. 234-58.
Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992).
'A Shape for Old Testament Theology II: Embrace of Pain', CBQ 47 (July 1985),
pp. 395-415.
The Uninflected Thereforeof Hosea 4.1-3', in Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann
Tolbert (eds.), Reading from This Place, I (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995),
pp. 231-49.
Brueggemann, Walter, and Hans Walter Wolff, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982).
Buber, Martin, Werker (3 vols.; Munich: Kosel, 1964).
Burke, Kenneth, A Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).
Buttrick, George A. (ed.), The Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.; New York: Abingdon Cokesbury, 1951-57).
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; New York: Abingdon Press, 196276).
Calvin, John, The First Book of Moses Called Genesis (trans. J. King; Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1979).
Campbell, Ernest F.,and David N. Freedman (eds.), Biblical Archaeologist Reader, III
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970).
Carmichael, Calum M., Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic
Laws and the Decalogue (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985).
The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974).
The Origins of Biblical Law: the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1992).
The Spirit of Biblical Law (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1996).
Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
1979).
Cassuto, Umberto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;
Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Hebrew University, 1961).
Chatman, Seymour, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1978).
Childs, Brevard S., Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970).
Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974).
Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).
Clark, Warren Malcolm, 'Law', in Hayes (ed.), Old Testament Form Criticism, pp. 99-139.
Bibliography
239
'A Legal Background to the Yahwist's Use of "Good and Evil" in Genesis 2-3', JBL 88
(1969), pp. 266-78.
Clements, Ronald E., 'Israel in its Historical and Cultural Setting', in R. Clements
(ed.), The World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989),
pp. 3-16.
Clines, David J.A. (ed.), The Ancestor in Danger: But Not the Same Danger', in "What
Does Eve Do to Help?' and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament
(JSOTSup, 94; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 67-84.
The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978).
Clines, David J.A., David Gunn, and Alan Hansen (eds.), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in
Biblical Literature (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Series 19; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1982).
Coats, George W., Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God (JSOTSup, 57; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
Coleman, Gerald D., 'The Vatican Statement on Homosexuality', TS 48 (1987),
pp. 727-34.
Collins, John J., 'The Biblical Precedent for Natural Theology', JAAR 45 (March 1977),
pp. 35-67.
Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1997).
Collins, R., The Bible and Sexuality', BTB 1 (1977), pp. 149-65.
Coote, Robert B., and David R. Ord, The Bible's First History (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1989).
Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove,
IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989).
Craig, Kenneth, 'Jonah and the Reading Process', JSOT 47 (1990), pp. 103-14.
Cremer, Hermann, Biblisch-Theologisches Worterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Grdcitdt
(Gotha: F.A. Perthes, 1893).
Crenshaw, James L., Old Testament Wisdom (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981).
Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom (New York: Ktav, 1976).
Crenshaw, James L. (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983).
Crenshaw, James L., and John T. Willis, Essays in Old Testament Ethics (New York: Ktav,
1974).
Crim, Keith R. (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976).
Crites, Stephen, The Narrative Quality of Experience', JAAR 39 (1971), pp. 291-311.
Cross, Frank M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of Religion of
Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973).
Crossan, John Dominic, The Dark Interval: Towards a Theology of Story (Niles: Argus
Communications, 1975).
Criisemann, Frank, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans.
Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).
Culley, Robert C, and Robert B. Robinson (eds.), Textual Determinacy: Part One (Semeia,
62; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).
Textual Determinacy: Part Two (Semeia, 71; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
240
Bibliography
241
Freedman, Harry, and Maurice Simon (eds.), Midrash Kabbah (London: Soncino Press,
1939).
Fretheim, Terence E., 'The Book of Genesis', in The New Interpreter's Bible I. (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1994), pp. 321-674.
Exodus (eds. James Luther Mays and Patrick D. Miller; Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1991).
The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 385-96.
'The Reclamation of Creation', Int 45 (October 1991), pp. 354-65.
The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (eds. Walter Brueggemann and
John R. Donahue; Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984).
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, 'Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law', BA 44
(Fall 1981), pp. 209-14.
'Sex and Sexuality', ABD, V, pp. 1144-46.
Gaiser, Frederick, 'Homosexuality and the Old Testament', WW 10 (Spring 1990), pp. 16165.
Gammie, John G., 'From Prudentialism to Apocalypticism: The Houses of the Sages amid
the Varying Forms of Wisdom', in Gammie and Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Ancient
Israel and the Ancient Near East, pp. 479-97.
Holiness in Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).
Gammie, John G., and Leo G. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Ancient Israel and the Ancient
Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 1990).
Garcia-Treto, Francisco, Review of Pietro Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms,
Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible, JBL 107 (June 1988), pp. 302-303.
Gehman, Henry S., 'Natural Law and the Old Testament', in Jacob M. Myers, Otto Reimherr and Howard N. Bream (eds.), Biblical Studies in Honor of H.C. Allerman (New
York: J.J. Augustin, 1960), pp. 190-222.
Geller, Stephen A., 'Some Pitfalls in the "Literary Approach" to Biblical Narrative\JQR
74 (April 1984), pp. 408-15.
Gelston, Anthony, Review of Pietro Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible, in JTS 40 (April 1989), pp. 140-41.
Gemser, Berend, 'The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law', Congress
Volume 1 (VTSup; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1953).
Gerleman, Gillis, 'KHQ, Finden', in Jenni and Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch, I, pp. 922-25.
Gersh, Harry, The Sacred Books of the Jews (New York: Stein & Day, 1968).
Gerstenberger, Erhard S., 'Covenant and Commandment', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 38-51.
' "...He/They Shall Be Put to Death": Life Preserving Divine Threats in Old Testament
Law', ExAuditu 11 (1995), pp. 43-62.
Wesen und Herkunft des 'Apodikitschen Rechts' (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1965).
Gesenius, Wilhelm, Emil Kautzsch, and Arthur E. Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1915).
Ginzberg, Louis, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1968).
Goldberg, Michael, 'God, Acting and Narrative: Which Narrative? Which Action? Which
God?' JR 68 (January 1988), pp. 39-56.
Theology and Narrative (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982).
242
Goldingay, John, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
Goodfriend, Elaine A., 'Adultery', ABD, I, pp. 82-86.
Gorman, Frank, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
Greengus, Samuel, 'Law', in David N. Freedman (ed.), ABD, IV, pp. 242-52.
'Law in the Old Testament', in Crim (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary, pp. 532-37.
Gros Louis, Kenneth, James S. Ackerman and Thayer S. Warshaw (eds.), Literary
Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974,
1982).
Gunkel, Hermann, Genesis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, rev. edn, 1964).
The Stories of Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion; Vallejo: Bibal Press, 1994).
Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (eds. R.K. Harrison and Robert
L. Hubbard; NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
Hanson, Paul, 'The Theological Significance of Contradiction within the Book of the
Covenant', in George W. Coats and Burke O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority:
Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977),
pp. 110-31.
Harner, Philip B., 'Creating Faith in Deutero-Isaiah', VT 17 (1967), pp. 298-306.
Harrelson, Walter, From Fertility Cult to Worship (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969).
'Law in the Old Testament', in Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary, III, pp. 7789.
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr, and Bruce Waltke (eds.), Theological Wordbook of
the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).
Hasel, Gerhard, 'put', TDOT, IV, pp. 112-22.
Hauerwas, Stanley, A Community of Character (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1981).
The Peaceable Kingdom (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).
Truthfulness and Tragedy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977).
Hayes, John H., Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio: Trinity University Press,
1974).
Hayes, John H., and Maxwell Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1977).
Heiler, Friedrich, Ersheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,
1961).
Hermisson, Hans-Jiirgen, Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit (WMANT, 28;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968).
Herrmann, Siegfried, 'Das apodiktische Recht', Mitteilungen des Instituts fur
Orientforschung 15 (1969), pp. 249-61.
Hessel, Dieter T. (ed.), After Nature's Revolt: Eco-justice and Theology (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1992).
Killers, Delbert R., 'Delocutive Verbs in Biblical Hebrew', JBL 86 (1967), pp. 320-24.
Holladay, William L., 'Style, Irony, and Authenticity in Jeremiah', JBL 81 (1962), pp. 4454.
Holladay, William L. (ed.), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988).
The Holy Bible: New American Standard Version (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973).
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1991).
Bibliography
243
Hutton, Rodney, Charisma and Authority in Israelite Society (Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress, 1994).
Illman, Karl-Johan, Old Testament Formulas about Death (Abo: Abo Press, 1979).
Janzen, J. Gerald, Abraham and All the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book
of Genesis 12-50 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
Janzen, Waldemar, Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1994).
Jeansonne, Sharon Pace, The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar'sWife
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990).
Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten
Testament (2 vols.; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971-76).
Johnson, Alan F., 'Is There a Biblical Warrant for Natural-Law Theories?', JETS 25
(1982), pp. 185-99.
Josipovici, Gabriel, Review of Hugh C. White, Narration and Discourse in the Book of
Genesis, JR 73 (April 1993), pp. 244-45.
Kaiser, Walter C., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).
Keck, Leander E., 'Rethinking "New Testament Ethics"', JBL 115 (Spring 1996), pp. 3-16.
Keil, Carl F., and Franz Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (trans.
James Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971).
Kennedy, George A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey W. Bromiley (eds.), Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966).
Knierim, Rolf P., 'Cosmos and History in Israel's Theology', HBT 3 (1981), pp. 59-123.
Die Hauptbegrijfe fur Siinde im Alten Testament (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965).
The Problem of Ancient Israel's Prescriptive Legal Traditions', Semeia 45 (1989), pp.
7-26.
The Task of Old Testament Theology', HBT 6 (1984), pp. 25-57.
Knight, Douglas A., 'Cosmogony and Order in the Hebrew Tradition', in Robin Lovin and
Frank Reynolds (eds.), Cosmogony and Ethical Order: New Studies in Comparative
Ethics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 135-57.
Knight, Douglas A., and Gene M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985).
Koch, Klaus, 'Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?', in Crenshaw
(ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament, pp. 1 -42.
Kohler, Ludwig, 'Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament', JSS 1
(January 1956), pp. 3-24.
Kraus, H.J., 'Freude an Gottes Gesetz: Ein Beitrag, zur Auslegung der Psalmen 1, 19B und
119', EvT 10 (1950-51), pp. 337-51.
Laberge, Leo, Review of Pietro Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts
and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible, in CBQ 53 (April 1991), pp. 279-80.
Lane, William L., Hebrews (eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; WBC, 47A-B;
Dallas: Word Books, 1991).
Lehman, Marcus, 'Abraham's Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law', BASOR 129
(1953), pp. 15-18.
Letellier, Robert I., Day in Mamre, Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18-19
(eds. R. Alan Culpepper and Rolf Rendtorff; Biblical Interpretation Series, 10;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).
244
Levenson, Jon D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).
'The Eighth Principle of Judaism and the Literary Simultaneity of Scripture', JR 68
(April 1988), pp. 205-25.
Sinai andZion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985).
'The Sources of the Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple
Judaism', in Miller, Hanson and McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion, pp. 55974.
The Theologies of Commandment in Biblical Israel', HTR 73 (1980), pp. 17-33.
'Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology', in Jacob Neusner, Baruch Levine
and Ernest Frerichs (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 281-307.
Liedke, Gerhard, TO1", in Jenni and Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch, I,
pp. 730-32.
Limburg, James. 'Down to Earth Theology: Psalm 104 and the Environment', CurTM2\
(October 1994), pp. 340-46.
'The Responsibility of Royalty: Genesis 1-11 and the Care of the Earth', WW 11 (Spring
1991), pp. 124-30.
The Root m and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches', JBL 88 (1969), pp. 291-304.
'Who Cares for the Earth? Psalm Eight and the Environment', in Arland J. Hultgren,
Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury (eds.), All Things New: Essays in Honor of
Roy A. Harrisville (St Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, 1992),
pp. 43-52.
Long, Burke O., The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (Berlin: Alfred
Topelmann, 1968).
Louis, Kenneth Gros, James A. Ackerman and Thayer S. Warshaw (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, II (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982).
Luther, Martin, Luther's Commentary on Genesis (trans. J. Theodore Mueller; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1958).
Mann, Thomas, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1988).
Mayes, Andrew D.H., The Period of the Judges and the Rise of the Monarchy', in Hayes
and Miller (eds.), Israelite andJudean History, pp. 285-331.
Mays, James Luther, The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter', JBL 106 (Spring
1987), pp. 3-12.
McCarter, P. Kyle Jr, The Historical Abraham', Int42 (October 1988), pp. 341-52.
McKnight, Edgar V., The Bible and the Reader (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
Mendenhall, George E., 'Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law', in Campbell and Freedman
(eds.), Biblical Archaeologist Reader, III, pp. 26-46.
'Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition', in Campbell and Freedman (eds.), Biblical
Archaeologist Reader, III, pp. 50-76.
Meyer, John C., Review of Pietro Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts
and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible, CHR 74 (October 1988), p. 675.
Milgrom, Jacob, Cult and Conscience (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976).
'Further on the Expiatory Sacrifices', JBL 15 (1996), pp. 511-14.
Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983).
Miller, Patrick D., Deuteronomy (ed. James Luther Mays; Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1990).
Bibliography
245
Miller, Patrick D., Paul Hanson and S. Dean McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion:
Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
Moberly, R.W.L., 'The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah', VT 38 (July 1988), pp. 30223.
The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Moore, Stephen D., Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
Moran, William L., 'The Scandal of the "Great Sin" at Ugarit', JNES 18 (1959), pp. 28081.
Mowinkel, Sigmund, Le Decalogue (Etudes d'historie et de philosophic religieuses; Paris:
Felix Mean, 1927).
Muilenberg, James, 'Form Criticism and Beyond', in John Maier and Vincent Tollers
(eds.), The Bible in its Literary Milieu (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 363-80.
'Presidential Address', JBL 88 (1969), pp. 1-18.
The Way of Israel: Biblical Faith and Ethics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961).
Nachmanides, Ramban: Commentary on the Torah I (ed. and trans. R. Charles B. Chavel; 5
vols.; New York: Shilo, 1971), p. 331.
Napier, Bunyan D., 'Community under Law: On Hebrew Law and its Theological
Presuppositions', Int 1 (1953), pp. 404-17.
Nasuti, Harry P., 'Identity, Identification, and Imitation: The Narrative Hermeneutics of
Biblical Law', Journal of Law and Religion 4 (Winter 1986), pp. 9-23.
Nelson, Richard, 'Was Not Abraham Justified by Works?', Dialog 22A (1983), pp. 258-63.
Newsome, Carol, and Sharon Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1992).
Niditch, Susan, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1987).
Noble, Robert, 'Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical Interpretation', Journal
of Literature and Theology 1 (June 1993), pp. 130-48.
Noth, Martin, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas;
London: SCM Press, 1984 [1966]).
Osiek, Carolyn, 'Reading the Bible as Women', in Leander Keck (ed.), The New
Interpreter's Bible I. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), pp. 181-87.
Patrick, Dale, The First Commandment in the Structure of the Pentateuch (VT; Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1995).
Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985).
Rendering of God in the Old Testament (eds. Walter Brueggemann and John R.
Donahue; Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).
Perdue, Leo G., The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
'Cosmology and the Social Order in the Wisdom Tradition', in Gammie and Perdue
(eds.), Sage in Israel, pp. 457-78.
Sociological Theory (Palo Alto: Mayfield Press, 1986).
Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1994).
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969).
246
Bibliography
247
'Structure and Hermeneutics', in Don Ihde (ed.), The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays
in Hermeneutics (trans. Kathleen McLaughlin; Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1974), pp. 27-61.
Roberts, Jimmy J. M., 'The Ancient Near Eastern Environment', in Knight and Tucker
(eds.), Hebrew Bible, pp. 75-122.
Rodd, Cyril S., 'Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Just? (Gen. 18:25)',
ExpTim 83 (1972), pp. 137-39.
Rosenblatt, Jason, and Joseph Sitterson Jr (eds.), 'Not in Heaven': Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991).
Russell, Letty M. (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1985).
Sailhamer, John H., Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1995).
'The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch', WTJ 53 (1991), pp. 241-61.
Sarna, Nahum, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society of America Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1992).
Understanding Genesis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).
Schenker, Adrian, 'Once Again, the Expiatory Sacrifices', JBL 116 (1997), pp. 697-719.
Schmid, Hans Heinrich, 'Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: Creation Theology as the
Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology', in Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament,pp. 102-17.
Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte der alttestamentlichen
Gerechtigkeitsbegriffes (ed. Gerhard Ebeling; BHT, 40; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,
1968).
'Rechtfertigung als Schopfungsgeschelen: Notizen zur Alttestamentlichen Vorgeschichte
eines Neutestamentlichen Themas', in Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pohlmann and
Peter Stuhlmacher (eds.), Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fur Ernst Kdsemann zum 70
Geburtstag (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1976), pp. 403-14.
Wesen und Geschicte der Weisheit: Eine Untersuchung zur altorientalischen und israelitischen Weisheitsliteratur (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966).
Scholes, Robert, and Robert Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1966).
Schwarzschild, Steven, 'Do Noachites Have to Believe in Revelation? A Contribution to a
Jewish View of Natural Law', JQR 52 (1962), pp. 297-308.
Seeligmann, Isaac L., 'Zur Terminologie fur das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des
Biblischen Hebraisch', in Hebraische Wortforschung: Festschrift fur W. Baumgartner (VTSup, 16; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967), pp. 251-78.
The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).
Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1930).
Sonsino, Rifat, 'Law', ABD, IV, pp. 252-54.
Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels (ed. D.A.
Knight; SBLDS, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1980).
Speiser, Ephraim A., Genesis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1964).
Stahl, Nanette, Law and Liminality in the Bible (JSOTSup, 202; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995).
Sternberg, Meir, 'The Bible's Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric, and Poetics in Saul's
Fall', HUCA 54 (1983), pp. 45-82.
248
Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University, 1978).
The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985).
Stinespring, William F., 'The Participle of the Immediate Future and Other Matters Pertaining to Correct Translation of the Old Testament', in Harry T. Frank and William
L. Reed (eds.), Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor
of Herbert Gordon May (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970).
Stolz, Fritz, 'K2?j', in Jenni and Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch, II,
pp. 109-17.
Stroup, George, The Promise of Narrative: Recovering the Gospel in the Church (Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1981).
Talmon, Shemaryahu, 'The New Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C. in Historical Perspective', BASOR 176 (December 1964), pp. 29-37.
The Talmud of Babylonia (trans. Jacob Neusner; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984).
Tate, W. Randolf, Biblical Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991).
Thompson, R.J., Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Gra/(VTSup, 19;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970).
Thompson, Thomas L., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1974).
The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus
1-23 (Sheffield: JSOTS Press, 1987).
Trible, Phyllis, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).
Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress, 1994).
Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Reading of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984).
Tucker, Gene M., Form Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1971).
'The Legal Background of Genesis 23', JBL 85 (1966), pp. 77-84.
'Rain on a Land Where No One Lives: The Hebrew Bible on Environment', JBL 116
(Spring 1997), pp. 3-17.
Turner, Lawrence, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (JSOTSup, 96; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1990).
Van Seters, John, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1975).
Vella, J., La giustizia forense di Dio (Bresia: Paideia, 1964).
Wagner, Siegfried, 'WSQ', in G.J. Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds.), Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament, 8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 465-83.
Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1972).
'Sarah and Abimelech against the Background of an Assyrian Law and the Genesis
Apocryphon', AOAT215 (1985), pp. 431-35.
Welch, John W., A Biblical Law Bibliography(Toronto Studies in Theology; Lewiston,
NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).
Wenham, Gordon J., Genesis 1-15 (eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; WBC;
Waco, TX: Word Books, 1975).
Bibliography
249
Genesis 16-50 (eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word Books, 1994).
Westbrook, Raymond, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1991).
Studies in Biblical Law and Cuneiform Law (Cahiers de la Revue biblique, 26; Paris: J.
Gabalda, 1988).
Westermann, Claus, Creation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).
'Creation and History in the Old Testament', in Vilmos Vajta (ed.), The Gospel and
Human Destiny (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1971), pp. 11-38.
Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984).
Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985).
The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives (trans. David E.
Green; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).
White, Hugh C., Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991).
Whybray, Roger N., Review of Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, JSOT 27
(1983), pp. 75-86.
The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987).
Williams, Ronald J. (ed.), Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1978).
Wilson, John A., The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1951).
The Search for Security and Order', in The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 43-68.
Wingren, Gustaf, Creation and Law (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1961).
Flight from Creation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1971).
Wolff, Hans W., Hosea (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).
Woude, A.S. van der, New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament (Leiden: EJ. Brill,
1989).
Wright, Christopher J.H., Living as the People of God: The Relevance of Old Testament
Ethics (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983).
Wright, George E., The Old Testament against its Environment (London: SCM Press,
1950).
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis
1-Exod. 18
1-2
1.3
1.26-28
1.26
1.28
2.5
2.14-16
2.16-17
2.17
3.12
3.13
4.1-16
4.3-5
4.3-4
4.10
6.6
6.9
7.1
7.4
8
8.20
9.1-7
9.1-6
9.1
9.7
9.8-17
9.9-17
11.5
11.7
11.27-25.18
12
27, 199,
205, 208,
221
199
58
47,71
207
17
168
47
71
109, 174
181
112
13
16
16
92
73
72
72
168
14
16
207
47
17
17
16,207
71
93, 146
146
82,88
14, 83, 87,
209, 223
12.1-4
12.1-3
12.1
12.7
12.8
12.17-20
12.17-18
12.17
12.18
13
13.2-13
13.4
13.7
13.8
13.9
13.10
13.11
13.13
13.14
13.18
14
15
15.1-6
15.1-4
15.1
15.5
15.6
15.9
16
16.1-16
16.5-11
16.5
16.6
209
207
17,139
16,53,
207
16
83, 123
83
22, 194
115
14, 83, 84,
229,231
83, 123
16
84
22, 53, 84
84
167, 168
84
84
17
16
141
14, 209
207
15
139
17
31,72
16
83, 223
83, 123
85
20, 22, 53,
85, 86
85,86
16.9
16.10-11
16.11
17
17.1-8
17.1
17.9-14
17.10
17.14
18-20
18-19
18
85,86
86
85,86
209,215
207
13, 17,
139
207
13, 17, 18
207
11,49,51,
57,61,65,
74, 76, 82,
85, 86, 88,
114, 122,
123, 141,
158, 166,
170, 200,
202, 203,
205, 207,
209, 210,
216,217,
221,22427, 235
14,21,52,
59, 84, 90,
127, 137,
138, 170,
171, 179,
198, 200,
201,203,
204,213,
219-21,
223
52, 56, 72,
88, 93, 96,
Index of References
18.1-15
18.1-8
18.1-2
18.1
18.2
18.5
18.8
18.10
18.14
18.16-20.18
18.16-19.38
18.16-19.29
18.16-33
18.16-17
18.16
18.17-19
18.17-18
18.17
18.18
18.19
18.20-33
18.20-21
18.20
18.21-22
18.21
99, 207
213
124,209
136, 220
152
151
146, 151
105, 137
32
207
207
11, 12,22,
23, 82, 87,
88, 209
124, 169
129, 157
13,72,
125
140
88, 151
152
128, 131
139, 157
88
88, 125
88, 140
150
47,61,72,
88-91,
114, 131,
134, 140
43, 157
179
56, 127
157
94, 145
161
21,22,57,
85, 88, 89,
92, 93,
125-27,
130, 131
143, 144
154, 157,
158,217
147
21,89,92,
93, 99,
18.22-33
18.22-23
18.22
18.23-33
18.23-32
18.23-28
18.23-25
18.23
18.24
18.25
18.26-32
18.26
100, 114,
125, 127
131, 141,
144, 145
157
97, 125
144
107, 12
133, 147,
157
89,95,
125, 146
147, 151,
152
21, 148
171
127, 12
157
72
141, 15
89,96,97,
125, 129
131, 132
144, 147
148, 150
159-61,
195, 200
89,97,99,
103, 148
149, 16062, 164
201
20,47,56,
72, 73, 89,
97, 100
102, 114
125, 129
133, 134
141, 14850, 159
160
99, 131
89,97,99,
100, 102
103, 125,
144, 148
149, 155
161, 162
251
18.27
18.28-32
18.28
18.29
18.30
18.31
18.32
18.33
19
19.1-29
19.1-23
19.1-11
19.1-9
19.1-6
19.1-3
19.1-2
19.1
19.4-5
19.4
19.5-9
89, 167
155
89, 97,
103, 132
144, 149
160
89, 97,
103, 132
144, 149
89, 97,
103, 114,
132, 141
144, 149
89, 97,
103, 132,
144, 149
160
89, 97,
103, 132
144, 149
150, 160
89, 127
150, 157
52, 56, 72,
88, 98,
151,219
103, 151,
157
127
126, 127,
143, 146
151, 152
157, 158
21
15
136
144, 153
125, 127,
144, 146
151, 152
157, 158
220
134
126, 127
134, 153,
158
134
252
Genesis (cont.)
19.5
134, 159
219
19.7
84, 105
129, 136
137, 153,
217,219
19.8
105, 106
121, 137
138
20, 53,
19.9
126, 127
129, 134
36, 15153, 158
219, 220
19.11
105, 137
21
19.12-29
159
19.12-23
126
19.12-15
19.12-13
126, 152
19.12
106, 127
155, 158
162, 164
19.13-29
158
19.13
93, 98,
125-27,
130, 146
154, 158
160, 161
163, 166
167, 169
19.14
106, 127,
153-55,
158, 160
162, 164
166
19.15-29
106
106, 107
19.15
127, 151,
155, 156
158-60,
162, 163
166
19.16-23
126, 162
19.16
127, 150
153, 158,
162, 163
19.17-18
19.17
19.18-23
19.18
19.19-22
19.19
19.20
19.21
19.22-23
19.22
19.23-29
19.23-24
19.23
19.24-26
19.24
19.25-28
19.25
19.26
19.27-29
19.27
19.29
19.30-38
20
81
106, 127
129, 146
153, 155,
158, 160
162, 163
165, 166
127, 158
158
164
159, 160
166
153, 166
155, 156
158, 160
164
107
106, 127
155, 156
158, 16264
156, 158
167
107, 168
125
18,22,53,
55, 105
160, 167
217
168
159, 160
201
153, 163
140
140
127, 133,
160
83, 104,
169
13, 14,21,
59, 87, 88,
109, 112
122, 170
171, 185
187, 197
198, 200,
201,204,
20.1-18
20.1-2
20.2
20.3-13
20.3-7
20.3
20.4-5
20.4
20.5
20.6-7
20.6
20.7-8
20.7
20.8-10
20.8
20.9-10
20.9
213,217,
218,223,
235
13, 56,
108, 171
184
57, 159
184
173
22, 58, 84,
88, 109
111, 171
174, 175
188, 190
193, 194
198,217
171, 175
198
58, 72, 98,
112, 160,
175, 195
200
58, 110
114, 115
141, 176
186
177
88, 110
113, 114,
141, 171
173, 175
178, 184
86, 198
195
58, 109
111, 120
122, 174
175, 177
182, 190
193, 196
197
173, 198
107, 180
190, 193
178
22, 53, 84,
88, 100,
Index of References
20.10
20.11-13
20.11
20.12
20.13
20.14-16
20.14
20.15
20.16-17
20.16
20.17-18
20.17
20.18
21
21.1-7
21.1-2
21.2
21.3
21.4
21.5
21.6
21.7
21.8-14
21.14-21
21.14
105, 110
111, 113
16, 141
178-80,
186, 198
201,217
100, 113,
114, 141
180
173, 179
113, 118,
180, 190
194, 198
118
181, 186
119, 173
177, 181
182, 184
198
111, 119
182, 183,
189
120, 138
190
119, 121
176, 182
183, 196
55, 193
201
109, 122
174, 177,
196
18,84,
159, 173
194,210,
216,218
14,83
209,210
124
210
210
210
210
210
210
15
86
107
21.22-34
21.22-24
21.25-34
21.25
21.26
21.27
22
22.2
22.3
22.15-18
22.18
23
23.16
24
24.1-9
24.1-2
24.53-54
25.1
25.31-33
26
26.1-16
26.1-5
26.1
26.2-5
26.2-3
26.4-5
26.5
26.6-13
26.6-11
26.7
26.8-11
26.9
26.10-11
26.10
26.12-16
26.25
26.26-33
26.30-31
26.31
27
27.23
119
15
83, 123
87
87
87, 119
182
71
18
107
207
30
14
14
14
15
15
14
81
14
14,213,
214,223
213
214
213
213
17
30,31,
213
27, 30-32,
47,61,70,
71,73,
140,213,
214
214
30
213,214
213
214
214
115
213
16
30
15
119
223
19
253
29.26
30.1-13
30.33
31
31.3
31.19
31.26
31.30-35
31.32
31.36
31.37
31.38-39
31.39
31.47-55
31.53
31.54
32.32
33
33.10
33.20
34
34.7
34.11-12
35
35.1
35.2-4
35.2
35.7
35.11
37
37.31-35
37.32-33
38
38.8
38.9-10
38.25-26
38.26
40.13
40.15
42.21
44.5
44.15
44.18
116, 179
15
72
14, 19,
213,223
17
15
115
15
19
113
19
14
69
15, 119
19
16
15
14
105, 137
16
213,223
116, 117,
179
119, 182
14
17
221
22,53
16
17
223
69
19
14, 223
15
22,53
19
72, 105
137
120, 182
113, 115
22,53
105
115
96
254
Exodus
1.8-10
1.11
1.18
2
2.14
3.7-8
3.7
5.6-14
8.1
9.27
12.12
12.16
12.48-49
14.24
14.27
15-18
15
15.11
15.22-26
16.4
18
18.1
18.2-3
18.11
18.12
18.13-27
18.13-16
18.13
18.16
18.18
18.20
18.22
19-Num. 10
19-Deut. 34
19-24
19.1-40.38
19.1-25
20
20.1-17
20.2-17
20.14
20.17
20.18-21
20.22-23.33
20.23-23.19
223
93
112, 115
180
135
93
92
93
115
98
91,222
117
220
107
107
222
45
222
67
31,32,61
47, 60, 72,
209,215,
216
216
215
222
215,216
67, 208
215
96, 216
96,216
216
215,216
215,216
23
222
24
66
66
71
66
24
218
218
66
66
24
21
22.2
22.7
22.8
22.13
22.21
22.23
23.7
23.9
23.23-33
24
24.1-18
24.3-8
24.3
24.5
24.9-11
24.12
24.14
25-31
25.1-31.18
32-34
32
32.1-34.35
32.21-31
34.11-26
34.12-16
35-40
35.1-40.38
102
103
103
103
69
67, 220
92
97
67, 220
222
215,216
66
215
216
216
215
216
96,216
24
66
24
47
66
113
24
222
24
66
Leviticus
1-27
2.11
4.2
4.13
4.22
4.27
5.17
6.4
16.29
17-26
17.8-9
18
18.22
18.26
19.29
19.33
20.2
20.10
24
117
117, 179
117, 179
117, 179
117, 179
117, 179
120, 182
220
24
220
83
220
220
138
220
220
186,218
20.13
20.22-26
25.6
25.27
220
222
220
182
Numbers
1-10
9.14
12.6-8
14.19
15.15
19.10
22.28
25
25.1-5
32.2
33.4
35.25
24
220
195
99, 162
220
220
110, 115
231
222
103
91
120, 182
Deuteronomy
1.17
5.6-21
5.18
5.21
5.33
6.8
6.20-25
7.1-16
10.18
10.19
11.18
12.29-31
15.9
16.18
17.7
17.8-9
17.8
17.9
17.11
18.20-33
18.20
19.15
19.29
19.30-38
21.10-14
22.2
100
24
218
218
224
41
233
222
91
220
41
222
92
101, 150
100
96
100, 101
148
100, 101
133, 150
100, 148
127
174
126, 153
127
126
218
120, 182
255
Index of References
22.12
22.22
14.44
17.29
19.1
20.1
20.8
22.11
22.16
22.17-18
24
25
25.27
26.16
26.18
32.32
33.21
218
109, 186
218
219
218
103
220
96, 97,
134
15
112
159, 202,
219
219
91
Joshua
6.15
7.20
9
107
118
180
2 Samuel
8.15
13.12
Judges
2.2
3.15-30
4.4-5
4.5
5.31
6.29
8.2
11.13
15.11
17.3
19
19.24
115
180
96
96
107, 168
115
115
120, 182
115
182
138,235
138
Ruth
3.12
119
23.17
24.1-4
24.1
24.17
25.1
25.5-10
25.8
29.23
7 Samuel
2.23
4.13-14
7.8
11.12
12.5
12.17
12.25
14.38-39
14.38
27.11
29.8
14.7
14.8
14.32
15.2
15.6
16.10
19.30
22.10
24.10
7 Kings
1.52
2.26
2.37
2.42
3.5-15
3.16
115
92
92
100
111, 176
115
105
102
94,96
3.24-25
3.27
3.28
6.12
8.32
9.4
10.9
109, 174
110
100
113, 115
102
112
109, 174
100
231
231
119, 182
115
111, 115,
176
115
115
91, 141
116, 117
179
100
107
100, 102
81,96
96, 100
115
107
93
115
103
101
109, 174
109, 112
174
195
95, 96,
147
107
19
101, 102
133, 150
91
134
110
91, 141
14.9
14.24
15.12
16.30
18.9
18.14-16
20.35-36
21
22.46
105
219
219
152
112, 113
182
107
231
219
2 Kings
1.4
1.6
1.16
6.24-25
8.3
8.6
10.9
12.7
12.13
17.21
19.17
19.28
23.7
109, 174
109, 174
109, 174
107
92
107
98
112
117
113
119
93
219
7 Chronicles
18.14
91
2 Chronicles
6.23
8.14
8.18
12.6
19.6
19.18
20.7
24.24
97
100
102
98
100, 101,
148, 150
96
70
91
Ezra
3.4
9.15
100
98
Nehemiah
5.1-6
5.9
5.15
6.9
92
115
115
117
256
Nehemiah (cont.)
9.8
98
9.33
98
13.17
115
13.18
115
Job
6.30
7.20
9.2
9.12
10.4-7
11.11
12.2
18.15
19.4
19.5
19.7
22.13-14
23.2
28
34.12
35.9
36.4
102
113
119
115
94
94
119
159, 202
119
119
93
94
96
36
119
93
119
Psalms
1
1.6
2
7.3
7.4
8
9.5
9.16
9.17
11.6
14.2-3
16.7
18
18.7
18.21
19
19.6
24.4
26.6
33.5
26,43
90, 142
43
102
111, 115,
176
36
96
91
102
159, 202,
219
102
70
43
92,93
111, 176
26, 43, 44
107, 168
110
111, 176
72,91
50.21
51.4
51.6
78.72
99.4
100
101.2
103.6
104
118
119
119.66
119.84
119.89
139.23-24
146.7
149.9
115
115
98
110
91, 141
36
110
91
36
43
26, 43, 45
45
91, 102
45
94
91, 102
91
16.5
19.20
26.8
28.6
34.9
37.18
40.14
40.27
41.1
41.8
45.9
59.8
59.15
64.1
64.3
65.14-19
65.17
66.22
Proverbs
2.7-8
2.8
3
7.3
8
8.20
9.1
17.23
20.8
21.3
21.7
21.13
21.15
30.1-4
31.10-31
90
142
25
41
36
90, 142
36
90, 142
96
72,91
102
93
102
37
229
Jeremiah
2.5
2.23
2.30
3.16
5.1
Ecclesiastes
3.17
8.4
134
115
Isaiah
1.9-17
2.9
3.9-15
5.4
5.23
13.10
13.19
16.3
219
99, 162
219
110
97
107, 168
219
91
5.4
7.5
9.24
12.3
15.1
16.10
18.20
20.8
22.3
22.15-16
23.5
23.14
25.34-36
26.8
26.10
26.21
26.24
33.15
37.18
38.16
48.3-5
49.11-18
96
92
89, 142
96
159, 202
119
89, 142
90
96
70
115
89, 142
102
93
93
92
40
40
113
115
110
117
91,94,
102
90, 142
91
91, 141
94
95, 147
113
95, 147
92
91, 141
91
91, 141
219
92
109, 174
96
101
100
91, 141
112, 113
100
92
219
Index of References
50.20
50.40
102
219
Lamentations
98
1.18
1.22
93
4.6
219
Ezekiel
3.18
5.8
5.10
5.15
11.9
11.12
15.5
16.41
16.49-50
18.8
18.17
20.24
23.10
25.11
28.22
28.26
109, 174
91
91
91
91
91
117
91
219
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
257
30.14
30.19
33.8
33.14
38.22
39.21
45.9
91
91
109, 174
109, 174
159,202
91
91, 141
Jonah
1.2
93
Micah
1.3
6.3
6.8
7.9
93
115
102
91
Daniel
9.7
9.14
9.18
98
98
98
Zephaniah
2.9
219
Hosea
1.6
11.8
99, 162
219
Joel
3.12
96
Amos
2.7
4.1-11
5.3
90
219
150
Wisdom of Solomon
6.1-2
42
9.9-10
42
Sirach
24
24.11
39.1-35
36,37
42
44
Baruch
4.1-2
42
2 Peter
2.6
219
Jude
7
219
Revelation
11.8
219,221
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew
1.15
11.23
219
219
Mark
6.11
Luke
1.12
9.51-56
219
159,202
Romans
219
4.17
210
m. Qid.
4.14
70
70
70
70
32,70
70
Nachmanides (Ramban
Commentary on Torah
70
Other
Middle Assyrian Laws
13-14
177
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abrams, M.H. 61
Alonso Schoekel, L. 52, 73, 145
Alt, A. 17,24
Alter, R. 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 62, 64
Anderson, B.W. 34
Barr, J. 34,47,72,206
Barton,!. 46,51,59
Berger, K. 52,59
Beyerlin, W. 27
Birch, C. 225,233
Bird, P. 28
Blenkinsopp, J. 25, 38, 41, 42, 44, 150
Blum, E. 24
Boecker, H.J. 19, 22, 28, 59, 78, 81, 92,
98, 110, 112, 121, 122, 132, 143,
172,178,183
Booth, W.C. 55
Bovati, P. 19, 77-82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 92,
94-102, 107, 109-14, 119-22, 125,
132, 134, 141-43, 145-47, 149, 162,
168, 175, 176, 178, 179, 182, 183,
197
Bowker, J. 70
Boyce, R. 47, 79, 80, 92, 93, 106, 107,
137, 143,145,155, 156, 160
Britt,B. 52
Bruckner, J.K. 222
Brueggemann, W. 33, 34, 46, 71-73, 108,
110, 124, 133, 150, 151, 174, 176,
180, 191,206,210
Buber, M. 56
Burke, K. 55
Carmichael, C.M. 47, 109, 121, 183, 184,
186,218,219,221
Chatman, S. 63
Index of Authors
259
Gaiser, F. 159
Gammie, J.G. 42
Garcia-Treto, F. 82
Gelston, A. 80
Gerleman, G. 102
Gersh, H. 142
Gerstenberger, E.S. 17, 24, 25, 41, 109
Gesenius, W. 135, 179
Ginzberg, L. 32
Goldberg, M. 58
Goldingay, J. 43
Goodfriend, E.A. 114,119,177,182,
186, 189
Gorman, F. 46
Gros Louis, K. 61
Gunkel, H. 24,30
Laberge, L. 78, 81
Lane, W.L. 57
Lehman, M. 14, 27
Letellier, R.I. 24, 52, 73, 124, 138, 151,
219-22
Levenson, J. 31,34,45,46,205
Liedke, G. 122, 183
Limburg, J. 225,226
Long, B.O. 15
Luther, M. 189
Mann,T. 65-67
Mayes, A.D.H. 28,47
Mays,J.L. 42,43, 181
McCarter, P.K. 29
McKnight, E.V. 64,74
Mendenhall, G.E. 25,28
Meyer, J.C. 82
Michie, D. 63
Milgrom,J. 28, 111, 114, 178, 184
Moberly, R.W.L. 33,71
Moore, S.D. 62-65,74
Moran,W.L. 114, 178
Mowinkel, S. 24
Muilenberg, J. 20,53
Nachmanides 70
Noth, M. 26,43
Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 54, 56
Ord, D.R. 98
Patrick, D. 58,204,221,222,230
Perdue, L.G. 34-36,44,51,62
Perelman, C. 54, 56
Petschow, H. 27
Plaut,W.G. 124, 133, 145, 150
Polzin, R. 61,62
Porubcan, S. 179
Powell, M. 52,73
Pressler,C. 28, 109, 114, 181
Price, M. 188
260
Trible, P. 20,54
Tucker, G.M. 14,27,226
Turner, M. 57
VanSeters, J. 29
Vella,J. 97
Wagner, S. 102
Weinfeld,M. 41, 121, 183
Wenham, GJ. 33, 95, 124, 126, 145, 150,
153, 164
Westbrook, R. 28
Westermann, C. 14, 16, 30, 33, 81, 92-94,
99, 108, 110, 114, 116, 124, 126,
133, 134,137,142-44, 151, 153,
160, 161, 164, 165, 174-78, 184-86,
188, 189, 195, 196,210,219
White, H.C. 52, 56-58, 60
Williams, RJ. 84,99, 105, 109-11, 113,
116, 131, 135, 137, 139, 144, 154,
174, 176, 179, 185, 190, 193, 194
Wilson, J.A. 118
Wingren, G. 44, 205, 208-10
Wolff, H.W. 226
Wright, C.J.H. 228,231
Wright, G.E. 28,33
JOURNAL
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History
235 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature:
Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts
236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Reexamined
237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel:
Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present
238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The
Chronicler as Historian
239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus
240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form
and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats
241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel
242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David
243 Henning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in
Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete
245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written?
246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith
and his Heritage
247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets
248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the
Mishnah
249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action
250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene
251 Flemming A.J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History
252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme
in the Book of Psalms
253 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume I: 1 Chronicles 1-2
Chronicles 9: Israel's Place among the Nations
254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt
and Atonement
255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa: The Resonance of
Tradition in Parabolic Narrative
256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric
257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons,
Places, Perspectives
258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150):
Studies in the Psalter, IV
259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient
Israel and Ugarit?
260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.),
Troubling Jeremiah
261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near
Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible
262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.),
Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author:
Studies in Text and Texture
264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics,
Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel
5.17-7.29)
265 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural
Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium
267 Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected
Essays
268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties
269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume
of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies
270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar
111 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah
272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of
Social Identity
273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the
Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon
274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context
275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application
276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom ofJudah
277 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs
278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and
Ideology
279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and
Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings
280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes
281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 34-35: A Nightmare/A Dream
282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the
Story of Hannah
283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal
Communication
284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship
and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis
285 Paolo Sacchi, History of the Second Temple
286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End of Prophetism
287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation ofTorahfrom Scribal Advice
to Law
288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal
Dreams of Genesis
289 Jo_e Kra_ovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia
290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old
and New Testaments
291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period
292 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays,
1967-1998 Volume 1
293 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays,
1967-1998 Volume 2
294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social
and Demographic Study
295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew
Narratives
296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated
Reader
297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment
298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of
Songs
299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions
from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation
300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament
Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements
301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location ofna'ar
and na 'arah in Ancient Israel
302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew
Bible
303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis
304 Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubabbel: Messianic Expectations in the Early
Postexilic Period
305 Jo Bailey Wells, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology
306 Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research
307 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book HI (Psalms 73-89)
308 Yiu-Wing Fung, Victim and Victimizer: Joseph's Interpretation of his Destiny
309 George Aichele (ed.), Culture, Entertainment and the Bible
310 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew
Bible as a Woman
311 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in
Biblical Prophecy
312 Francis Landy, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew
Bible
314 Bernard S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law
315 Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal
Promise and its Covenantal Development in Genesis
316 Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes
317 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and
Scripture in the Hellenistic Period
318 David A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX 5666
320 Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the
Making of the Bible
321 Varese Layzer, Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible
322 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book ofMicah
323 Martin Ravndal Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in
Exodus 19^0
324 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World
of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 1
325 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World
of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 2
326 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World
of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 3
327 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in
Ecclesiastes
328 James M. Trotter, Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud
329 Wolfgang Bluedorn, Yahweh Verus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the
Gideon-Abimelech Narrative
330 Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), 'Every City shall be Forsaken':
Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East
331 Amihai Mazar (ed.), with the assistance of Ginny Mathias, Studies in the
Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan
332 Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (eds.), The Old Greek
Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma
333 Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical
Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman
334 Ken Stone (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible
335 James K. Bruckner, Implied Law in the Abrahamic Narrative: A Literary and
Theological Analysis
343 M. Patrick Graham and Andy Dearman (eds.), The Land that I Will Show You:
Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor
of J. Maxwell Miller