Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marriage as a Covenant
A Study of
Biblical Law & Ethics Governing Marriage,
Developed from the Perspective of Malachi
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT
SUPPLEMENTS
TO
VETUS TESTAMENTUM
EDITED BY
THE BOARD OF THE QUARTERLY
VOLUME LII
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT
A STUDY OF BIBLICAL LAW AND ETHICS
GOVERNING MARRIAGE
DEVELOPED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MALACHI
BY
EJ. BRILL
LEIDEN . NEW YORK' KOLN
1994
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the
Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on libraI)'
Resources.
ISSN 0083-5889
ISBN 90 04 09977 8
All rights reserved. No part qf this publication mqy be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval .rystem, or transmitted in a'!)l form or by a'!)l means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... ix
Abbreviations .................................................................................................. xi
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
The abbreviations for biblical books and Apocrypha follow the conventions
of lBL 107 (1988) 584.
Ber. Berakot
B.Mes. Baba. Mesi'a
B.Qam. Baba Qamma
Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah
Gif. Giffin
Ketub. Ketubot
Nid. Niddah
Pe'a Pe'a
Sofa Sofa
Seb. Sebi'it
Qidd. Qiddusin
Yebam. Yebamot
b. Babylonian Talmud
m. Mishnah
t. Tosefta
y. Jerusalem Talmud
CONVENTIONS
lengthening (vC > v); and a tilde marks vowels assumed to have been
lengthened due to contraction (vCv > v).
When reference is made to Dutch individuals whose surnames include
van, de, den, and der, standard Dutch practice regarding capitalization will be
followed. As a result, these particles, or the first in a series of these particles,
will be capitalized when an individual's forename, initials, or title are not
included (hence, AS. van der Woude, but Van der Woude).
Statistics of word uses throughout the dissertation which are
unattributed derive, in general, from either Even-Shoshan or from computer
searches conducted by the writer utilizing The Perfect WORD , version 2.0,
with complete RSV, NIV, and BHS text modules produced and marketed by
Star Software, Inc., Casselberry, Florida (1988) for use on an Apple brand
Macintosh computer.
INTRODUCTION
26 So, for example, DJ. Atkinson begins his defence of the covenantal nature of
marriage with the claim that "all human relations can be expressed in covenantal terms ... "
(To Have and to Hold, 71). If the meaning of the term "covenantal" is to be derived fram
an examination of n'i~, this is simply not the case. E.W. Nicholson points out an
analogous error among those who exaggerate the early evidence for identifying Yahweh's
relation to Israel in terms of "covenant" by an overly facile identification of "covenant"
with "relationship" (God and His People, p. 20 and passim).
27 This point is widely acknowledged and is made, for example, by 1. Barr, "Some
Semantic Notes on the Covenant," 23-38, esp. p. 32. See our further discussion in Chapter
6 below.
28 Cult and Conscience. The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (1976)
134.
29 Ibid. 134, where he cites CH 129, MAL A 14-16, and HL 192f. Milgram is
not explicit that he would draw this implication from the evidence he cites.
3D Although Milgrom discusses this example at some length, with the implication that it
is erroneously used to buttress the theory of covenantal marriage, he does not cite any
scholar who has made the mistake he alleges.
INTRODUCfION 5
as generally supportive of the notion that marriage was covenantal in the Old
Testament, in fact Palmer holds that this was the case only in terms of the
prophetic vision held out most explicitly by Malachi. Because Palmer
construes "covenant" as necessarily entailing an exclusive and indissoluble
bond (over against a "contract"), he concludes: "In a society where polygamy
and divorce were sanctioned by Mosaic law, where the wife was regarded as
the property of the husband and adultery a violation of the rights of the
Hebrew male, where fecundity was still the overriding concern, it would be
unreal to speak of Jewish marriage as a covenant either of love or of
fidelity."3l It is crucial to note that Palmer does not base his conclusion on
the all-too-familiar discrepancy between theory and practice, but rather on the
striking discrepancy which he alleges existed between the Mosaic legal
corpus and the later prophetic reform.
37 M. Silva makes a similar point and offers as one example the lack of the term
"hY!locrisy" in Isa. 1:10-15 (Biblical Words and their Meaning [1983] 26ff.).
38 So writes D.R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (1969) 123f. Cf. J.
Limburg, "The Root ryb and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches" (1969) 291ff. For a different
assessment of the prophets, cf., inter alia, E.W. Nicholson, God and His People, 114ff.,
following L. Perl itt.
In the same regard, cf. F.C. Fensham's discussion directed against Wellhausen
concerning "covenant" in the Former Prophets ("Covenant, Alliance," [1980]330).
39 Cf. Psalm 132 (I am grateful to N. Kiuchi for pointin~ out this example). M.
Weinfeld uses this comparison to establish the synonymy of 19n and n'i~ ("n'i~ berith,"
270). Cf. T.E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise, 59.
40 "Covenant" (1962) 715. Cf. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 3, n. 12.
41 Jesus and Divorce, 100-103.
42 Ezekiel 1-20, 278.
43 So, H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (1974) 168, citing E. Kutsch,
Verheissung und Gesetz (1973) 134ff. Wolff nevertheless accepts the evidence of Mal.
2:14 and Ezek. 16:8 as referring to the covenant of marriage.
INTRODUCTION 7
(1898); H. Winckler, "Maleachi" (1901) 531-9; A.c. WeIch, Post-Exilic Judaism (1935);
I.G. Matthews, "Haggai, Malachi" (1935); F.F. Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old
Testament (1962); A Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965) 27-34; B.
Vawter, "The Biblical Theology of Divorce" (1967); G.W. Ahlstrom, Joel and the Temple
Cult of Jerusalem (1971); J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (1976); M. Greenberg, Ezekiel
1-20 (1983); G.S. Ogden, "The Use of Figurative Language in Malachi 2:10-16" (1988);
and J.M. O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (1990).
Favouring the literal view are, among others, G.A Smith, The Books of the Twelve
Prophets (1899); A von Bulmerincq, "Die Mischehen im B. Maleachi" (1926); idem, Der
Prophet Maleachi, Vol. 2: Kommentar zum Buche des Propheten Maleachi (1932) 289;
J.M. Myers, The World of the Restoration (1968); T. Chary, Aggee - Zacharie - Malachie
(1969) 259; E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (1973) 93f.; S. Schreiner, "Mischehen-
Ehebruch-Ehescheidung: Betrachtungen zu Mal 2 10-16" (1979) 207-28; R.L. Smith,
Micah-Malachi (1984); P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (1987).
As will be discussed in Chapter 2, an alternative approach accepts a reference to literal
marriage in Mal. 2:10-16, but nevertheless denies that Mal. 2:14 identifies marriage as a
covenant. On this approach, the mentioned covenant refers to Israel's covenant with
Yahweh, identifying this wife as a fellow-Israelite. Cf., e.g., ad loc., K. Marti, Das
Dodekapropheton (1904); W. Nowack, Das kleinen Propheten (1922); E. Sellin, Das
ZwolJprophetenbuch (1929-30); and B.M. Vellas, Israelite Marriage (1956) 24. B. G1azier-
McDonald similarly identifies the covenant in 2:14 with that mentioned in 2:10, but
nevertheless supports an identification of marriage as a covenant in Ezek. 16:8 and Provo
2:17 ~Malachi [1987]101f.).
5 Considered by AC. WeIch to be unparalleled as a description of a non-Jewish
woman (Post-Exilic Judaism, 120).
53 F.F. Hvidberg (Weeping and Laughter, 120.) and A. Isaksson (Marriage and
Ministry, 31-32) relate this to ritual mourning, which they feel points to a distinctly cultic
inte\I:retation for the n'1:J.
4 AS. van der Woude, Haggai Maleachi (1982) 12l.
55 For example, some scholars, such as E. Kutsch (Verheissung und Gesetz [1973] and
"Gesetz und Gnade. Probleme des alttestamentlichen Bundesbegriff' [1967]18-35), deny
INTRODUCTION 9
that r":1 can mean "covenant." Sec Chapter 6 below for a discussion of Kutsch and an
examination of the meaning of the term r":J.
56 Cf. P.A. Lillback, "Covenant" (1988); W.W. Benton Jr., "Federal Theology: Review
for Revision" (1985) 180-204; and 1.H. Hughes and F. Prussner, Old Testament Theology
(198_5; 19.
) Of course, the most notable example of such a theology is that of W. Eichrodt,
Theologie des Alten Testaments, I Leipzig (1933), II (1935), III (1939); ET: Theology of the
Old Testament, I (1961), II (1967).
For the present debate concerning the problem of a '"centre" in OT theology, cr. G.F.
Hasel, "The Problem of the Center in the Old Testament" (1974); idem, Old Testament
Theology. Basic Issues in the Current Debate (1975) 77-103; J.H. Hughes and F. Prussner,
Old Testament Theology (1985) 257ff.; and H.G. Reventlow, Problems of Old Testament
Theology in the Twentieth Century (1985) 125-133.
58 Cf., e.g., R.E. Clements, Abraham and David (1967); F.e. Prussner, "The Covenant
of David and the Problem of Unity in Old Testament Theology" (1968) 17-41; F.e.
Fcnsham, "The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship between Old Testament
and New Testament" (1971); M.G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (1975) 145
and passim; R.T. Beckwith, "The Unity and Diversity of God's Covenants" (1987); and I.H.
Mar~hall, "Some Observations on the Covenant in the New Testament" (1990).
)9 K. Baltzer claims that Israel's covenantal relationship to her God is unparalleled in
antiquity (The Covenant Formulary, 90, n. 4), while F.e. Fensham says it is well-attested
("Covenant, Alliance," 328).
60 Here attention is particularly focused on M. Noth's hypothesis of an ancient Israelite
amphictyony. Cf. M. Noth, Das System der zw6lf Stdmme Israels (1930); idem, The
History of Israel (1960) 53-109; and the discussion in 1. Bright, A History of Israel (1981)
162ff.
61 Cr. S. Mowinckel, who considers the renewal of the covenant in a New Year festival
(Tabernacles) to have been a central feature of Israel's cultus (The Psalms in Israel's
Worship [1962]). Cf. the discussion in OJ. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 6f.
62 Considered not to be particularly old by G. Fohrer, "Altes Testament -
. Amphiktyonic' und 'Bund'?" (1966) 801-16, 893-904; L. Peri itt, Bundestheologie im Alten
Testament (1969); and more recently E.W. Nicholson, God and His People.
Supporting the antiquity of the covenantal concept within the OT are W. Eichrodt,
"Prophet and Covenant" (1970); T.e. Vriezen, "The Exegesis of Exodus 24:9-11" (1972); 1.
10 INTRODUCTION
Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes. Ex 34, 10-26 (1975); DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and
Covenant (1981); and J. Day, "Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and
Psalm LXXVIII" (1986) 1-12. Cf. also H.G. Reventlow, Problems ofOT Theology in the
Twentieth Century, 127.
For a summary of this controversy, cf. D.L. Magnetti, "The Oath in the Old Testament
in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal Context of the Ancient Near
East," 110f.
63 Cf., e.g., J. Begrich, who argues against the radical development posited by J.
Wellhausen ("Berit. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform" [1944]).
64 For a recent survey of the fifty-seven currently extant treaties with their publication
data, cf. J .H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (1989) 95-107.
65 Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (1955) [= BA 17 (1954) 26-
46,50-76].
66 The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writing~
[from Das Bundesformular, 2nd. rev. ed., 1964] (1971). The first edition of Baltzer's work
was ~ublished in 1960.
7 Cf., e.g., G.E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant (1955); M.G. Kline, "The Two Tables
of the Covenant" (1963); K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (1966) 90-102;
and A. Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. A New Approach to the Decalogue (1970).
More recently Phillips has reversed his earlier position ("The Decalogue - Ancient
Israel's Criminal Law" [1983]). Cf. also DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 158-
60, 249ff.; and F.B. Knutson, "Literary Genres in PRUIV," RSP, 11,175-77.
68 So, e.g., M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (1963); K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient
and Old Testament (1966) 96-102; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School (1972); and P.c. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (1976).
69 Typically chapters 5-26, 28 (cL K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 45f.; DJ.
McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant [1981] 158f.; F.B. Knutson, "Literary Genres in PRU IV,"
RSP, II, 165L). Elements of the treaty form are commonly seen combined in various
subsections of Deuteronomy including: Deut. 1:1-4:40 (K. Baltzer, op. cit., 41-43 vs. DJ.
McCarthy,op. cit., 188-194; cL F.B. Knutson, "Literary Genres in PRU IV," RSP, II,
167fL); Deuteronomy 4 (cL M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 136f.); Deuteronomy 5
(D.J. McCarthy, op. cit., 159L; F.B. Knutson, RSP, II, 163f.); and Deut. 28:69-30:20 (K.
Baltzer,op. cit., 44-5; F.B. Knutson, RSP, II, 168-71).
70 Cf. F.B. Knutson, "Literary Genres in PRU IV," RSP, II, 174f.
71 G.E. Mendenhall acknowledges that while Joshua 24 follows the treaty schema, as a
narrative it is not itself the text of a treaty. Cf. also K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament (1966) 96ff.; H.B. Huffmon, "The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo" (1965) 104, n.
16.
72 Cf. D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant [1981] 14lf.; F.B. Knutson, "Literary
Genres in PRU IV," RSP, II, 171-3; and, especially, J.R. Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at
Gilgal (1978).
INTRODUCTION 11
One aspect of this debate in applying the treaty form to biblical texts is the
need stressed by some scholars to give greater attention to the treaty versus
covenant distinction. Perhaps of even greater significance, there appears to
be an increasing awareness of the variety of treaty forms and by-forms with
which comparisons should be sought.73 The more important varieties
include: suzerainty (or vassal) treaties, parity treaties, patron treaties,
promissory (or grant) treaties, and perhaps still other types;74 as well as
related by-forms including the law collections, the covenant "lawsuit", and
the treaty-like kudurru stones. 75
73 So D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant [1981]. Cf. also F.B. Knutson, "Literary
Genres in PRUIV," RSP, II, 160; and R.P. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 76.
74 Cf. G.E. Mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition" (1954). Cf. also M.
Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in the OT and in the Ancient Near East" (1970).
75 H.B. Huffmon, "The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets" (1959); G.E. Wright, "The
Lawsuit of God" (1962); B. Gemser, The rfb- or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality
(1955J. Cf. E.w. Nicholson, God and His People, 63f.
7 Cf. also M.G. Kline, who defines n'i:J as a "sanction-sealed commitment to maintain
a particular relationship or follow a stipulated course of action. In general, then a covenant
may be defined as a relationship under sanctions" (By Oath Consigned, 16).
Similar also is the definition offered by G.E. Mendenhall, "A solemn promise made
binding by an oath, which may be either a verbal formula or a symbolic oath" ("Covenant,"
714). Cf. also M. Newman, "Review of E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz" (1975) 120;
and W: Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (1979) 113.
77 Treaty and Covenant (1963) 175. P. Kalluveettil notes "Covenant is relational, in
one way or other it creates unity, community" (Declaration and Covenant, 51). Not all
would agree. M.G. Kline offers a more general definition (see the previous footnote),
which includes either a relationship or a stipulated course of action.
78 Die Landverheissung als Eid, 101-13.
12 INTRODUCTION
79 "Covenant Forms and Contract Forms" (1965). So also DJ. McCarthy, Old
Testament Covenant, 34.
80 "r.'i~ berfth " 256.
81 Treaty anicovenant (1981) 141. Supportive of this same observation are K.A.
Kitchen (who stresses the invariable presence of sanctions and a ratifying oath even when
not explicitly mentioned in the covenant document), E. Gerstenberger (cf. F.B. Knutson,
"Literary Genres in PRU IV," RSP, II, 158), J. Barr ("Some Semantic Notes on the
Covenant," esp. p. 32), and E.W. Nicholson (God and His People, 103).
82 A similar disparity between marital ideal and practice is true for all societies
according to B.K. Malinowski (as cited by S.F. Bigger, "Hebrew Marriage and Family in
the Old Testament Period," vi).
As an analogy, one may compare the OT's teaching regarding monotheism and the
apparent rampant polytheism suggested in much of the OT's apologetic and independently
attested in archaeology. The admitted presence of the latter in no way diminishes either the
validity or the importance of a study of the former.
CHAPTER ONE
1 In addition to J. Milgrom, who holds that n'iJ in Mal. 2: 14 is used only as a "literary
metaphor" (Cult and Conscience, 133ft), a symbolic view has been supported by c.c.
Torrey, "The Prophecy of 'Malachi'" (1898); H. Winckler, "Maleachi" (1901); AC. Welch,
Post-Exilic Judaism (1935); I.G. Matthews, "Haggai, Malachi" (1935); F.F. Hvidberg,
Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament (1962) 120-123; A Isaksson, Marriage and
Ministry in the New Temple (1965) 27-34; B. Vawter, "The Biblical Theology of Divorce"
(1967); G.W. Ahlstrom, Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem (1971); M. Greenberg,
Ezekiel 1-20 (1983); G.S. Ogden, "The Use of Figurative Language in Malachi 2:10-16"
(1988); and lM. O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (1990).
2 Cf., e.g., K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (1904); O. Isopescul, Der Prophet
Malachias (1908); W. Nowack, Das klein en Propheten (1922); E. Sellin, Das
Zw61!prophetenbuch (1929-30); B.M. Veil as, Israelite Marriage (1956) 24; AS. van der
Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community" (1986) 68f.; W. Rudolph, Haggai,
Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi (1976); idem, "Zu Mal 210-16" (1981); A. Tosato "II
ripudio: delitto e pen a (Mal 2,10-16)" (1978) 552, n 19 and p. 553; and B. Glazier-
McDonald, although Glazier-McDonald accepts an identification of marriage as a covenant
in Ezek. 16:8 and Provo 2:17 (Malachi (1987)101f.).
Some interpreters seem to view n'i::l in 2:14 as a reference primarily to Yahweh's
covenant with Israel, but secondarily to the marriage covenant. Cf., e.g., T.V. Moore, A
Commentary on Haggai and Malachi (1856) 134; and A.R. Fausset, A Commentary,
Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments (1887) 738.
14 THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OF MALACHI 2:10-16
which rest mainly on evidence adduced from within the book of Malachi
itself. Before doing so, however, it will be useful to consider certain matters
of introduction to the book of Malachi as a whole in an effort to set our
discussion of Mal. 2: 14 within a proper interpretative context. In this first
chapter, therefore, we propose to consider briefly the date of Malachi; the
book's relationship to Ezra, Nehemiah, and the pentateuchal sources; and
finally the overall arrangement of the book itself.
Unlike most of the other prophetic books, the book of Malachi offers no
explicit indication of the date of its composition. It mentions no datable
event nor any contemporary ruler. 3 Moreover, the prophet himself, if
"Malachi [,:;It;:70],, is even to be regarded as a proper noun,4 is nowhere else
mentioned - not in Ezra, who mentions Haggai and Zechariah (5:1; 6:14);
nor even in Josephus, who mentions most of the major characters of the
period.s Nevertheless, there appears to be a scholarly consensus that the book
of Malachi was composed at some point within the Persian period (515 - 330
6 Cf., e.g., S.R. Driver, The Minor Prophets (1906) 287-93; W.H. Schmidt,
Introduction to the Old Testament (1984) 281; and R.L. Smith, Micah - Malachi (1984)
298-299.
7 On the approximate chronological order of the minor prophets, cf. R. Rendtorff, The
Old Testament (1985) 215f. G.M. Tucker argues that this order is also supported by the
opening formulae ("Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon" [1977]).
8 Cf. KB, 872;AHw 120a NT. 18 {bel pi/Jiiti / piilJiitiJ.
9 Although i1J;1~ often refers to a Persian appointee, it can have a more general
reference. Cf., e.g., 1 Kgs. 10:15; 20:24; 2 Kgs. 18:24; Isa. 36:9; Jer. 51:23, 28, 57; Ezek.
23:6i 23; and 2 Chr. 9:14.
o So, e.g., PA Verhoef, The Books o/Haggai and Malachi, 157.
11 These points of contact are so impressive that J. Blenkinsopp wonders if the
"messenger of the covenant" in Mal. 3:1 may be Nehemiah (Ezra - Nehemiah, A
Commentary [1988] 365f.)!
12 So R.L. Smith, Micah - Malachi, 299.
16 THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OFMAl.ACHI 2:10-16
Second, in addition to the parallel between Neh. 13:29 and the corrupted
covenant of Levi in Mal. 2:4, 8 (which is unrelated to marital offences), there
is a further parallel between Neh. 13:29 and the profaning of "the covenant of
our fathers" in Mal. 2: 10, which is the result of a marital offence. Finally,
Nehemiah's imprecation in 13:25,29 and his remedy of excommunication in
13:28 may both be compared to Mal. 2: 12, where Malachi's curse implies
excommunication.1 3
Given the meagre state of the available evidence, however, attempts at
greater precision in dating Malachi are bound to be speculative.
Nevertheless, scholars have sought to date Malachi more exactly based
mainly on two lines of argumentation. The first approach attempts to
correlate Malachi's ministry with that of Ezra and Nehemiah. The second
approach, which can be complementary to the first, seeks evidence III
Malachi for dependence on Deuteronomic and/or Priestly material.
Prophets, II (1868); W.H. Lowe, "Malachi" (n.d.) 597f.; and C. von Orelli, The Twelve
Minor Prophets (1893).
18 Cr. especially P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 158. Cf. also A.F.
Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets (1907) 500-502; and R.L. Alden, "Malachi"
(198~ 70lf. (though cf. p. 703).
1 T.T. Perowne,Malachi (1908) 10; and G.V. Smith, "Malachi" (1986) 227.
Arguing for a fourth century B.C. date are F. Hitzig, Die zw6lf kleinen Propheten
(1881), and I.G. Matthews, "Haggai, Malachi," viii-x.
Arguing for a third century B.C. date is o. Holtzmann ("Der Prophet Maleachi und der
Ursprung des Pharisaerbundes" [1931 D, and for a second century B.C. date is H.H. Spoer
("Some New Considerations towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi" [1908] 179f.) -
the latter, based on the contradiction between Malachi and Ezra on the subject of divorce.
20 Cr., e.g., L. Kruse-Blinkenberg, "The Pesitta [sic] of the Book of Malachi" (1966)
1031". Likewise H.H. Spoer considers the contradiction between Malachi and Ezra on the
suhject of divorce to support dating Malachi well after Ezra. He dates Malachi about 150
B.C. ("Some New Considerations towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi" [19081
179f.). Alternatively, G.V. Smith argues that Malachi's stance against the divorce of
Israelite wives was a necessary corrective to an assumed illegitimate extension of Ezra and
Nehemiah's prior permission for the divorce of foreign wives ("Malachi" [1986]227).
21 Cf. also the fuller discussion of Mal. 2:16 in Chapter 3 below.
18 THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXTOFMAI.ACHI 2:10-16
22 Cf. "The Identification of the Book of the Law" in H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra,
Nehemiah, xxxvii-xxxix. Cf. also S. Japhet, "Law and 'the Law' in Ezra-Nehemiah"
( 198iY.E.g., cf. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, 443; and C. Stuhlmueller,
"Malachi" (1970) 398f. Stuhlmueller lists the following allusions to Deuteronomy: Mal.
1:9 with Deul. 10:17; Mal. 1:12 with Deul. 7:8; Mal. 2:1, 4; 3:3 with Deul. 18:1; Mal. 2:6
with Deul. 33:10; Mal. 3:22 with Deul. 4:10. Cf. also B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p.
73, n. 126.
24 Cf., e.g., E. Rivkin, "Aaron, Aaronides," 1-3.
25 While this assumed synonymy of "priests" and "Levites" in Malachi has been
challenged by K. Elliger (Maleachi, 189), it has been carefully argued by I.M. O'Brien
(Priest and Levite in Malachi [1990] 143f., and passim). Cf. also G.S. Ogden and R.R.
Deutsch, A Commentary on the Books ofJoel and Malachi, 93.
26 For a more complete listing of Deuteronomic words and phrases within Malachi, cf.
A. von Bulmerincq, Der Prophet Maleachi, I., 436f.
THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OF MALACHI 2: 10-16 19
2. CANONICAL CONTEXT39
P ("Torah and Prophets: Malachi and the Date of the Priestly Code" [1988]). Fishbane's
conclusions, however, are supported by, inter alia, E.M. Meyers, "Priestly Language," 225.
35 J.M. O'Brien, "Torah and Prophets: Malachi and the Date of the Priestly Code"
(198~, and idem, Priest and Levite in Malachi (1990).
3 In comments made during the Israelite Prophetic Literature Section, Annual Meeting
of the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, IL, November 20, 1988.
37 Denying the originality of Mal. 3:22 [ET 4:4] are K. Elliger (1956), W. Rudolph
(1976), R.A. Mason (1977), A. Deissler (1981), AS. van der Woude (1982), R.L. Smith
(1984), and R.I. Coggins (1987), inter alios.
Favouring the originality of Mal. 3:22 [ET 4:4] are W. Nowack (1922), E. Sellin
(1929), G. Smit (1934), A. von Bulmerincq (1926), H. Junker (1938), D. Deden (1953), J.
Ridderbos (1968), H. Frey (1963), J.G. Baldwin (1972), S. Schreiner (1979), P.A. Verhoef
(1972; 1987), B. Glazier-McDonald (1987), and J.M. O'Brien (1990). W. Nowack, E.
Sellin, G. Smit, and D. Deden, however, consider 3:23-24 [ET 4:5-6] to be secondary.
Perhaps the most objective evidence for the secondary nature of 3:22-24 [ET 4:4-6] is
found in the LXX, which reverses the order of the appendices, placing the Moses appendix
after the Elijah appendix. S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace see in this an evidence that the
appendices "were not completely fixed in form at the time of the separation of the traditions
to which the MT and the LXX belong" ("Covenant Themes in Malachi," 560 n. 34). It is
possible, however, that the LXX was motivated by the same concern which led to the later
rabbinic practice of repeating 3:22 [ET 4:4] after 3:24 [ET 4:6], namely, the desire to end
Malachi on a more positive note (a practice also followed in the case of Isaiah,
Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes). Cf. P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 344.
38 The precise reference of "the law of Moses [i1~b n')in]" has been a matter of debate.
According to A. von Bulmerincq, for example, it refers to the "lawbook" of Ezra, while J.
Wellhausen and R. Rendtorff (The Old Testament. An Introduction, 242) equate it with
Deuteronomy. On the other hand, K. Marti, J.G. Baldwin (Malachi, 251), and J.M. O'Brien
sug~est that it refers to the entire Pentateuch.
9 For a discussion of the significance of the canonical placement of Malachi at the
close of "The Twelve," cf. P.R. House, The Unity of the Twelve (1990).
THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OF MALACHI 2:10-16 21
be of even greater import for exegesis than the elusive historical context of
Malachi. At almost every point Malachi betrays an intense concern to apply
and (re)interpret antecedent scripture - very much in the spirit of Mal. 3:22
[ET 4:4].40 Such appears to be the case with Malachi's major emphases,
especially his exceptional interest in "covenant" (2:4, 5, 8, 10, 14; 3:1).41 As
stressed by R.L. Smith, Malachi's dependence on the work of the
Deuteronomists is not simply a matter of shared isolated vocabulary, but also
a matter of motifs and perspective (d., e.g., the theme of election, though the
term does not appear in Mal. 1:2-3).42 Accordingly, R.I. Coggins observes:
"Malachi appears to have been attempting to apply the particular emphases of
the Deuteronomists in the circumstances of his own day."43
In a similar manner, H. Marks notes that, typical of the post-exilic
prophets, "the author of Malachi uses intertextual echoes to sharpen his
protest against current abuses [of the temple cult]."44 Marks has in mind the
probable "echo" in Mal. 1:6-2:9 mentioned above, which offers an extended
allusion to and ironic reversal of the Priestly Blessing in Num. 6:23-27. 45
This is hardly an isolated example; similar "echoes" are evident in texts such
as Mal. 1:2f. (Esau and Jacob) and 3:12 ("Then all nations will call you
blessed," d. Gen. 12:3). Compare also A. Tosato's suggestion that Mal. 3:5
may refer to Leviticus 19. 46
Although B.S. Childs considers 3:23f. [ET 4:5f.] to be secondary, his
claim that the appeal to Elijah is informed by typological analogy, if true,
suggests a nearly identical hermeneutic with that found elsewhere in Malachi:
"Like Malachi, Elijah addressed 'all Israel' (1 Kgs. 18:20). The people of
Israel were severely fragmented by indecision of faith (18:21). A curse had
40 Cf. H. Marks, "The Twelve Prophets" (1987) 231f. Cf. also Mal. 3:6.
41 C.T. Begg sets Malachi alongside Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deuteroffrito-
Isaiah as comprising one of the three great tradition-complexes, namely the prophetic,
within which the term rl'1:l figures prominently ("Berit in Ezekiel" [1986] 79). The other
two tradition-complexes are the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic (with which Malachi has
strong affinities) and the Priestly.
The centrality and sophistication of "covenant" within Malachi has been widely
recognized. Cf., e.g., J.G. Baldwin, Malachi, 216f.; L.C.H. Fourie, "Die betekenis van die
verbond as sleutel vir Maleagi" (1982); S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace, "Covenant
Themes in Malachi" (1983); R.L. Smith, "The Shape of Theology in the Book of Malachi"
(1987) 24; and PA Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 179-184.
42 Micah - Malachi, 300. So also RJ. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 76.
43 Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 76.
44 "The Twelve Prophets," 229.
45 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (1985) 332-334; E.M. Meyers,
"Priestly Language," 225; and H. Marks, "The Twelve Prophets" 229f.
Mal. 2:1-9 may also include echoes of Deut. 33:8-11, as noted by R.R. Deutsch,
"Calling God's People to Obedience" (1987) 71.
46 A. Tosato, "II ripudio: delitto e pena (Mal 2,10-16)" (1978) 553. Tosato similarly
compares Lev. 19:17-18 (and also 19:34) to Mal. 2:10 and 16.
C. Stuhlmueller argues for a literary dependence of Malachi on Ezekiel, based on a
number of plausible allusions: cf. Mal. 1:7, 12 with Ezek. 44:16; Mal. 1:11 with Ezek.
36:23; Mal. 2:3 with Ezek. 5:10; 6:5; 12:15; 30:36; and Mal. 3:2 with Ezek. 44:27
("Malachi" [1970] 398f.).
Mal. 1:11 may echo Isa. 45:6; 59:19; and 66:20-1 (cf. also Ps. 50:1; 113:3; Zeph. 3:9-
10; Zech. 2: 15 [ET 11 D.
22 THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OF MALACHI 2:10-16
fallen on the land (18:LfMal. 3:24, EVV 4:6). Elijah challenged all Israel to
respond to God by forcing a decision between the right and the wrong (fMal.
3:18). He did it by means of the right offering (fMal. 3:3) and a fire which
fell from heaven (f Mal. 3:3, 19).... The appendix served to equate the
hearers of Malachi's prophecy - along with future generations who heard
his words in scripture - with the disobedient, vacillating people whose
national allegiance to the God of their fathers was in danger of being
dissolved."47
Having explored the wider historical and literary context of Malachi, we now
tum to examine the literary structure of Malachi as a whole and of Mal. 2: 10-
16 in particular in the hope that by understanding this immediate context of
2:10-16 we may appreciate its concerns more adequately.
There is a widespread scholarly consensus that the book of Malachi is
carefully structured in terms of a heading (1:1), followed by six quite distinct
pericopes or "disputations" (1:2-5; 1:6-2:9; 2:10-16; 2:17-3:5 [or 3:6]; 3:6 [or
3:7]-12; 3:13-21 [ET 4:3]), followed by a closing "appendix" (3:22-24 [ET
4:4-6]).51 Each of these disputational units is relatively coherent in its content
and is introduced with an assertion made either by Yahweh or by the prophet:
"I have loved you ... " (1:2); "A son honours his father, and a servant his
master. If then I am a father, where is my honour ...?" (1:6f.); "Have we not
all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to
one another... " (2: 10); "You have wearied the Lord with your words" (2: 17);
"For I the Lord do not change ... " (3:6f.); "Your words have been stout against
me, says the Lord" (3:13).52 In each unit also the opening assertion is
followed by an anticipated challenge from those being addressed: 53 "But you
say [OQ10~J], 'How hast thou loved us?'" (1:2); "You say [Ol'1iO~J], 'How
have we despised thy name? ... '" (1:6f.); "You ask [oQ10~J], 'Why does he
not?'" (2:14); "Yet you say [OQ10~1], 'How have we wearied him?'" (2:17);
"But you say [Ol'1iO~J], 'How shall we return? ... '" (3:7f.);54 "Yet you ask
51 Favouring the above analysis are, inter alia, E. Pfeiffer, "Die Disputationsworte im
Buche Maleachi" (1959); W. Neil, "Malachi" (1962) 230f.; O. Eissfeldt, The Old
Testament, An Introduction (1965); J. Ridderbos, De Kleine Profeten, 3de druk (1968);
RK. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (1969) 958f.; J.A Fischer, "Notes on the
Literary Form and Message of Malachi" (1972); W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-
Nehemiah Reforms" (1976); AS. Van der Woude, Hagga~ Maleachi (1982); RL. Smith,
Micah - Malachi (1984) 299f.; R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament. An Introduction (1985)
242; and G.V. Smith, "Malachi" (1986) 226f.
P.A Verhoef agrees with the above analysis but divides the second unit into two: 1:6-
14 and 2:1-9 (Maleachi verklaart [1972] 35-37 and The Books of Haggai and Malachi
[1987]171-179). So does RR. Deutsch, "Calling God's People to Obedience" (1987) 68.
J.G. Baldwin likewise notes a subdivision within 1:6-2:9 between 1:14 and 2:1, although
unlike Verhoef Baldwin maintains with the above analysis that there are six principal units
(Hagga~ Zechariah, Malachi [1972]).
Less compelling is the five-fold structure suggested by W.C. Kaiser Jr.: 1:1-5; 1:6-14;
2:1-16; 2:17-3:12; 3:13-24 [ET 4:6] (Malachi [1984]).
52 This selection of verses seems preferable to that offered by W.J. Dumbrell in support
of the same outline ("Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 43). Dumbrell lists the
following six statements by Yahweh (usually in the first person) as providing the
theological core for the book: 1:2,2:14,2:16,3:1,3:6, and 3:17.
53 At times these are priests (1:6; 2:1, 8; cf. 3:3), but the book does not clearly divide
into a speech to priests followed by one to laymen, as G. Wallis has argued ("Wesen und
Strukture der Botschaft Maleachis"[1967]).
For a further discussion of the literary problems of Malachi, cf. A Renker, Die Tora bei
Maleachi (1979).
54 BHS tentatively suggests that ::l1tql ilp::l I:lrib~1 is an addition in 3:7. The lack of any
textual support, as well as the literary structure presently being considered, does not favour
this suggestion.
24 THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OF MALACHI 2:10-16
[Ol}lo~l], 'What have we said against you?'" (3: 13). Each anticipated
challenge, in tum, is answered with fuller substantiation by Yahweh or the
prophet speaking in Yahweh's behalf. This structure is further reinforced and
unified by the repetition of important themes, such as the imagined ignorance
or indifference of Yahweh to apathetic worship and evil-doers, especially as
this indifference appears to be revealed in the prosperity of the wicked; the
problem of deficient offerings and the contemptuous attitude this reveals; the
theme of covenant; the "fatherhood" of God; etc.
In addition to this careful linear structuring of Malachi, there may also
be an unobtrusive concentric structure to the book as a whole which hitherto
has not been recognized, although E. Wendland and others have noted
Malachi's fondness for concentric patterning within the individual
disputations. 55 The most visible literary indicator of this overall concentric
pattern is found in the double introductory assertion ("but you say [Ot'1iO~J)")
and anticipated response, which are found only in the "B" sections, that is, the
2nd (1:6-2:9) and 5th (3:6-12) disputations. 56 As may be noted, at certain
points the concentricity concerns ancillary matters and vocabulary, rather
than the main topic of the disputation.
Accordingly, without excluding other possible (even overlapping)
outlines, we suggest the following concentric outline:
55 "Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi" (1985). Cf. also S.D. Snyman,
"Chiasmes in Mal. 1:2-5" (1984); idem, "Antiteses in die boek Maleagi" (1985); and P.A.
Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 164-168.
560r1jOI!i in 3:14 differs not only because it lacks the expected introductory conjunction
1 found everywhere else, but also because it does not introduce a second objection. Rather,
it merely introduces the answer to the previous question, "How have we spoken against
you?" - "You have said [OtjiOl!ij, 'It is vain to serve God. '"
57 On the significance of applying the name "Israel" to the post-exilic rump state of
Judah, identifying Judah as obligated to the covenant and heir to the promises of Yahweh,
cf. W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 44f.; and R.L. Smith,
Micah - Malachi, 302f. Cf. also the preponderance of "Israel" over "Judah" in Ezekiel and
Ezra.
THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OF MALACHI 2:10-16 25
A God who is One [iQ~] created [tn:::l] his people (to be one)
General sin::: infidelity [1'J] (10)
B Specific sin::: infidelity [1'J] by intermarriage with a pagan (11)
C Verdict: exclusion, rejection of food offering [i1Q~O] (12)
I .
C Verdict: rejection of food offering [i1Q~a] (13)
B' Specific sin::: infidelity [1'J] by divorce (14)
A' God who is One [11J~iJ] made [i1~!)] husband and wife to be one [11J~]
General sin::: infidelity [1'J] (15-16a)
Summary exhortation (particularly of 13-15) not to commit infidelity
[i'J] (16b)59
58 Cf. also E. Wendland, who interprets 3:23f. [ET 4:5f.] as an appropriate summary of
the l!1ain points of Malachi's message ("Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi," 114).
)Q Note how the mention of "covering [ilO:::l] X with Y" in this verse forms an inclusia
with verse 13.
26 THE INTERPRETATIVE CONTEXT OF MALACHI 2: 10-16
Mal. 2:14 reads: "You ask, 'Why does he not [i1g-'?.p t:l(l!O~J]?' Because the
LORD was witness ["~ii 'iiji1;-'=iI '?,p] between you and the wife of your youth
[1"l1l)~ n~~ I ]';:11 ,r:l], against whom you have been faithless [i1t;11~~ 'i1t;1~ iWtli
i'l*], though she is your companion [~t;1 ..pO ~'i11] and your wife by covenant
[~\l'!::l ntzj~l]."
Although the "traditional" interpretation is more often assumed than
argued, the following arguments may be advanced in its support: 1
1) Malachi does not use "covenant [n'i~]" in a univocal manner.
While the covenant in Mal. 2:10 (and possibly 3:1) may refer to Yahweh's
covenant with Israel, the covenant in 2:4, 5, and 8 ("the covenant of Levi")
1 The most common argument in favour of the "traditional" interpretation is the citation
of Provo 2:17 and Ezek. 16:8, where "covenant [n'i:l]" is also used with reference to
marriage. Since the traditional interpretation of these texts is also frequently defended by a
citation of the remaining texts, a degree of circularity results. To avoid this difficulty, these
texts will be treated separately in Chapter 8 after the interpretation of Malachi 2 is
established independently.
Favouring the "traditional" view of Mal. 2:14 are, among others: Martin Luther,
"Lectures on Malachi"; E.B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (1860) 483; H. Cowles, The Minor
Prophets (1867) 392f.; G.A. Smith, The Books of the Twelve Prophets (1899); A. von
Bulmerincq, "Die Mischehen im B. Maleachi" (1926); idem, Der Prophet Maleachi, Band
2: Kommentar zum Buche des Propheten Maleachi (1932) 289; J.M. Myers, The World of
the Restoration (1968); T. Chary, Aggee - Zacharie - Malachie (1969) 259; J.G.
Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (1972) 239f.; H.W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old
Testament (1974) 167; S. Schreiner, "Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung: Betrachtungen
zu Mal 2 10-16" (1979); w.e. Kaiser Jr., Malachi (1984) 69f.; R.L. Smith, Micah -
Malachi (1984); R.S. Westcott, "The Concept of herit with Regard to Marriage in the Old
Testament" (1985) 73f.; P.A. Verhoef, Maleachi verklaart (1972) 181-183; and idem, The
Books of Haggai and Malachi. (1987) 273-275.
28 "COVENANT [n'i:l ]" IN MALACHI 2: 14
does not. Consequently, there can be no inherent objection to the view that
Malachi intends yet another reference by his use of covenant in 2:14.
2) Furthermore, Yahweh is described in 2: 14a as a "witness [1' illJ]
between you and the wife of your youth." The endearing designation "the
wife of your youth ["1'l1.\)J ntzj~]" in 2:14a is in parallel with "the wife of your
covenant ["1[1'iJ ntzj~1]" in 2:14b. 2 This implies that the covenant in 2:14b
was between the husband and the wife.
Although the precise idiom of 1'.\)i1 + j':l1 ... ]':l ["be a witness
between ... and ... "] is found only here, a close parallel, 1')) + ;'J1 ... l'J, is
attested in Gen. 31:50, "God is witness between you and me [',J':;" 1p Ci'ri'?~
"1t::l1]," where the covenant in question exists between the two persons so
described, i.e., Jacob and Laban. See also Gen. 31:44 and especially 48f.,
where the Lord is invited to watch between the covenant parties.
Accordingly, this idiomatic usage likewise supports the inference that the
covenant in 2: 14b was between the husband and the wife.
3) Another reason for holding that the covenant in 2: 14 refers to a
marriage covenant is the observation that the expression "the wife of your
covenant ["1[1'iJ ntzj~l]" is in apposition to "your companion [,t;1i::lIJ]." While
i::ll) / n")~1J can be a rather general designation for "companion," deriving
from its root meaning "to unite, to join together," iJn (verbal or nominal
forms) frequently designates persons who have come into association by an
agreement or contract. 3 In particular, in some cases iJn is used with
reference to covenant partners. According to P. Kalluveettil, for example,
covenant associations may be present in Dan. 11:6, 23; 2 Chr. 20:35ff.; and
Hos. 4: 17.4 While the evidence is not sufficient to require such a covenantal
reference in Mal. 2:14, it does suggest it. Moreover, it is notable that there
are no cases where fellow Israelites are designated with the term iJn (verbal
or nominal forms) merely on the basis of their mutual involvement in
Yahweh's covenant with Israel. 5
4) The expression 1 'J + J, "to act faithlessly against," which appears
in Mal. 2: 14, is supportive of the recognition of marriage as a covenant
between husband and wife: "You ask, 'Why does he not?' Because the
LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom
you have been faithless [i1~ i1I;'11t~ 'i1I;'1~ i~~], though she is your companion
and your wife by covenant."
2 Cf. also Provo 5:18 and Isa. 54:6. Cf. also S. Schreiner, "Mischehen-Ehebruch-
Ehescheidung. Betrachtungen zu Mal 2,10-16" (1979) 216, n. 66.
3 Cf., e.g., H. Cazelles, "i:lt;l, chabhar," TDOT 4 (1980) 196, and M. O'Connor,
"Northwest Semitic Designations for Elective Social Affinities" (1986) 73-80. Cazelles
notes that i:m in Sirach 7:25 may mean "to marry" (op. cit., 197).
4 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (1982) 51-53. i:ln, "become an ally," may
also appear with reference to Jonathan and David in 1 Sam. 20:30, if the text is emended
with the LXX - so P.K. McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel, 339.
5 So, e.g., while 2 Chr. 20:35 uses i:ln, "become an ally," to describe the Judahite king
Jehoshaphat's relation to Ahaziah, the king of Israel, it does so because of a special alliance,
not because of their mutual relation to Yahweh.
"COVENANT [n'lJ]" IN MALACHI 2:14 29
As noted by S. Erlandsson, "J is often used of acts of infidelity
committed against a covenant partner (cf., e.g., 1 Sam. 14:33, Jeremiah 3:21,
Ps. 78:57, etc.).6 Since "J + J can also be used to describe the infidelity of
fellow-Israelites bound together under the terms of Yahweh's covenant with
his people, however, as it is in Mal. 2: 10, the appearance of this idiom in 2: 14
is obviously not decisive.
5) Finally, while the semantic parallel between "the wife of your
covenant [':)Q'l::l ntP.~']" in 2: 14b and "the wife of your youth [':)''liDJ ntP.~]" in
2: 14a has been noted by other scholars, what has been unnoticed elsewhere
are the various parallel nominal syntagms of "covenant [n'i::l]," which offer
decisive evidence for the interpretation of the disputed expression "the wife
of your covenant [':)Q'i:;;l ntP.~l]." There are only four such nominal syntagms
attested in Biblical Hebrew where the nomen regens refers to a person and
n'i::l is suffixed or is in construct. 7 What is noteworthy is the fact that in each
case the referenced covenant exists between the person(s) indicated by the
nomen regens and the person referred to by the pronominal suffix or
additional construct, just as is being argued foqt:n~ ntP.~ in Mal. 2:14. The
first two nominal syntagms differ somewhat from ':)t)'l~ ntP.~ in that the
nomen regens is a participle, yielding an objective genitive: in'l:;) '')J~, "for
those who keep his covenant," found in Ps. 25:10, and it}'l:;l ''Jaili~, "to those
who keep his covenant," found in Ps. 103:18. Nevertheless, the referenced
covenant exists between the person(s) indicated by the nomen regens ("those
who keep") and the person referred to by the pronominal suffix (i.e., God).
The third nominal syntagm is D')J~-n'lJ '?'P.;l, "the possessors of
Abram's covenant," in Gen. 14:13. As argued by PJ. Naylor, this expression
signifies those who were "participants" in a covenant with Abram. The text
does not refer to members in covenant with some other, perhaps unnamed,
political entity. Rather, a covenant existed between Mamre, Eshcol, and
Aner, referred to by '?'P.;l (a term which in this context has no necessary
implication of superiority) and Abraham - on an analogy with the covenant
which exists between you and your wife in the expression, "the wife of your
covenant [':)t)'i::l ntP.~]."8
The final nominal syntagm is virtually identical to ':)t)'i~ ntP.~, "the
wife of your covenant," differing only in the gender and number of the nomen
regens: ':)r1'l:;l '\!iJ~, "the men of your covenant," found in Obad. 7. Although
there are some obscurities at both the beginning and the ending of this verse,
there is little doubt about its general sense. Edom was betrayed (or will be
betrayed) by her allies in a punishment which reflects her own earlier betrayal
of Israel: "All your allies [lit., 'the men of your covenant,' ':)r)'iJ '\!iJ~] have
deceived you, they have driven you to the border; your confederates [lit., 'the
men of your peace,' ':)9"',(1) '\!i~~] have prevailed against you; your trusted
6 S. Erlandsson, "'~~, baghadh," TDOT 1 (1974) 471-472. Cf. the fuller discussion of
, ':J as applied to marriage in Chapter 8 below.
7 P.J. Naylor, "The Language of Covenant" (1980) 199.
8 Ibid., 130,219.
30 "COVENANT [n'i:l]" IN MALACHI 2:14
9 So, e.g., J.A. Bewer, Obadiah (1911) 24f.; G.c. Aalders, Obadja en Jona (1958) 27f.;
L.C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (1976) 150f.; H.W. Wolff,
Obadiah and Jonah (1986) 50f.; D.K. Stuart, Hosea - Jonah (1987) 411, 417f.; and D.W.
Baker, Obadiah (1988) 34f.
10 A. Isaksson, after urging that marriage could not have been considered a r1'i:l in the
period of Malachi, states simply "The covenant mentioned in v. 14 must be the same
covenant as in v. 10, viz. the covenant between Yahweh and his chosen people" (Marriage
and Ministry in the New Temple, 31). Cf. also c.c. Torrey, "The Prophecy of 'Malachi'"
(1898) 9.
"COVENANT [n'i::l ]" IN MALACHI 2: 14 31
there is a striking parallel between the double use of "one ['r;r~]" in vs. 10 and
its double appearance in vs. 15. Finally, depending on one's interpretation of
vs. 15, there is the possibility of a parallel allusion to creation in these verses,
even though the immediate reference in vs. 10 is probably to the formation of
Israel, rather than of humanity.ll
Of course, these observations merely permit the proposed
identification of the covenant in vs. 14; they do not require it - especially
since, as has already been noted, Malachi uses "covenant" with a very
different reference only a couple of verses earlier (vs. 8, cf. vss. 4, 5) in a
clause that also closely resembles vs. 10.1 2 Indeed, the traditional
interpretation of the covenant in vs. 14 takes account of the close relationship
between vss. 14 and 10 by suggesting that between these two distinct
covenants there is parallelism and close interrelation, not synonymy.13
A closer examination of this approach which identifies the covenant in
vs. 14 with that in vs. 10 reveals a number of difficulties. In particular, we do
not find in vs. 14 an exact repetition of "the covenant of our fathers [n'i:;l
1J'Oj~]," the expression which appears in vs. 10, nor do we find simply the
term "covenant [n'i:;l]," as if referring back to vs. 10. Rather, what we find is
the strikingly dissimilar expression 1r'i~ nf?i~, "the wife of your covenant."
Proceeding on the assumption that the covenant in vs. 14 is the same
as that in vs. 10, namely one between Israel and God, some interpreters
suggest that the "wife" mentioned is merely a vivid figure for God.1 4 Two
considerations militate against this view, however. First, everywhere else in
Scripture where the marriage figure is applied to Israel's relation to God, it is
Israel or Judah who is uniformly depicted as the wife, never God. 1S This
practice does not appear to be coincidental in the light of the profound
11 The precise parallelism is most explicit in the use of "create [tn~)" in vs. 10, which
corresponds to its synonym, "make [iltD.I))," in vs. 15. Both these verbs are notably
prominent in Genesis 1-2. Possible, though less clear, allusions to Genesis may be detected
in the mention of the "sanctuary of Yahweh" in vs. 11 and the "spirit" in vs. 15. Cf. M.G.
Kline, Images afthe Spirit (1980); and GJ. Wenham, "Sanctuary Symbolism" (1986).
The following exegetes, among others, support a reference to creation in vs. 15
(although in some cases based on uncertain textual emendations): J. Wellhausen (1892), A.
van Hoonacker (1908), E. Sellin (1922), D. Deden (1953), F. Notscher (1957), A. Deissler
(196~, P. Grelot, Man and Wife in Scripture (1964) 69, and W. Rudolph (1976).
1 In both vs. 8 and vs. 10 the iI'i:;J is in construct with Israel's forebears ("Levi" finds a
close parallel in "our fathers"), and in both cases the charge is synonymous ("corrupting
[t:ll'lIJt!i]" the covenant in vs. 8 parallels "profaning [,?jlil]" the covenant in vs. 10).
13 Cf., e.g., P. Grelot, who offers the following comment on Mal. 2:14-16, "There is,
however, no doubt that the fidelity of Jahveh towards Israel, whom he has joined with
himself in a herith, is implicitly put forward as a model for husband and wife" (Man and
Wife in Scripture, 69f.).
14 F.F. Hvidberg writes, "'the wife of thy youth', who was a 'companion' and 'the wife
of thy covenant' ... are similes which denote the cult of Yahweh, the faith in Yahweh.
Yahweh is himself very nearly 'the wife of youth', with whom Judah had a covenant"
(Weeging and Laughter in the Old Testament, 123).
1 This difficulty is acknowledged by A. Isaksson, who defends the identification of
Yahweh as a wife here in Malachi as suggested by the image employed in vs. 11, Le.,
marriage to "the daughter of a foreign god" (Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple,
33). This explanation proceeds only by assuming what needs to be proven, namely that
"the daughter of a foreign god" is in fact a reference to a goddess.
32 "COVENANT [n'iJ]" IN MALACHI 2:14
16 F.F. Hvidberg seems to sense the awkwardness of this (Weeping and Laughter in the
Old Testament, 123). After noting how Yahweh is both wife and witness and judge, he
suggests without support, "It is, however, possible here, too, that the text has been
elaborated by later hands, who wanted to reinterpret it in the direction of an attack on
faithlessness in marriage."
17 "The Biblical Theology of Divorce," 621.
18 C.C. Torrey defines n'i~ in this expression as "covenant religion" in contrast to n::l
i::ll .,~ in vs. 11 as "the daughter of a strange god, i.e., a foreign cult" ("The Prophecy of
'Malachi'" [1898] 9f.).
19 E.g., C.C. Torrey declares them to be "hopelessly corrupt" ("The Prophecy of
'Malachi'," 10, note 20). It is possible, as R.A Mason notes, that "the very bad state of the
text bears its own witness to the probability that it did originally condemn divorce outright.
If so, ... it would be small wonder if it suffered from scribal efforts to soften it" (The Books
of Hagga~ Zechariah, and Malachi [1977]150).
"COVENANT [iI'i:l)" IN MALACHI 2:14 33
conjectural. 20 On the other hand, the proposed emendation of n')tz) can claim
support in the LXX of vs. 13a, KaL TUlhu, a EiJ.LaOUV, ETTOLELTE, which
interprets mill as "which I hate" ['n~~tq].21 Nevertheless, it is likely that the
LXX reflects a corruption in its Vorlage which took place under the influence
of ~jtD in vs. 16.22 In addition, the prevalence of the relative particle .,tl!~
elsewhere in the MT of Malachi (llx) would lead one to expect its presence
here if the reading of the LXX were correct. 23
Furthermore, in order to relate vs. 14b to 14a, on the view of Torrey
and Vawter, it is necessary to interpret the construct in the phrase l!"l'''~ ntz)~
as appositional: "your wife, that is, the covenant." While such an
appositional use of the construct is widely attested, in the present case it
requires the reader to ignore the evident parallelism between l!"l'l~ ntz)~ in vs.
14b and yi1l)~ ntz)~, "the wife of your youth," in vs. 14a, which clearly cannot
be understood as appositional. Equally problematic for an appositional
interpretation of lFi~ ntz)~ is the fact that it also requires one to overlook the
opposing evidence of lrl'iJ '\P~~, "the men of your covenant," that is, "your
allies," found in Obad. 7, as discussed earlier.
20 Cf. BHS. AS. van der Woude claims the proposed deletion is "unwarranted (despite
LXX) and only based on the false thesis that the prophecy of Malachi originally spoke of
divorce only" ("Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 68, n. 19).
21 One should not minimize this emendation with the term "revocalizing." In Malachi's
time Hebrew was written consistently with final matres lectiones (the MT must be assumed
to involve at least a metathesis of the y6d), and in not one of the 112 biblical occurrences of
the verb ~l~ does the'aleph fail to appear. The reading n'ltD in 4QXU a likewise supports
the MT. Cf. R. Fuller, "Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16," JBL 110 (1991) 47-57;
and Fuller's forthcoming treatment of 4QXUa in DJD.
22 So, e.g., P.A Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 262.
23 R. Althann's suggestion that n'"~~ should be interpreted as meaning "gnashing of
teeth" lacks adequate support ("Malachy 2,13-14 and UT 125, 12-13" [1977] 418-21).
Based on a proposal of M. Dahood (Psalms 1,42), Althann's other suggestion to interpret
n~n as "indignity" has been accepted by AS. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a
Pure Community," 68, n. 19. While it is claimed that n~i also appears with the meaning
"indignity" in Ps. 7:4; 44:18; 74:18; and Job 17:8, none of these texts require this newly
posited sense. Cr., e.g., AA Anderson, Psalms, 94,545.
24 The following scholars likewise equate the n'i:;J in 2:14 with that in 2:10, with the
implication that ":Jr';::! n~~, "the wife of your covenant," is understood as meaning simply
"a wife who is a fellow Jew": K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (1904); W. Nowack, Das
klein en Propheten (1922); E. Sellin, Das Zw6lfprophetenbuch (1929-30); B.M. Veil as,
Israelite Marriage (1956) 24; W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi
(1976) 274; C. Locher, "Altes und Neues zu Maleachi 2,10-16" (1981) 254f.; and B.
Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 101.
34 "COVENANT [n'iJ]" IN MALACHI 2:14
for the exact force of the expression '1r'i~, Van der Woude suggests that n'i3
here bears the special meaning "covenant community." He defends this
suggestion by asserting that it is a meaning which is also "intimated [italics
added] by Mal. 2:10; 3:1c and Ps. 74:20a," as well as Dan. 11:28,30,32 and
the Dead Sea Scrolls. 25 "Intimated" is not the same as "required," however,
and in the work of lexical semantics it is unwise to ignore the principle of
parsimony. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to posit this new sense
forn'i~.
2.2 The expression "the daughter of a foreign god [i(?) ~~-n~J" in Malachi
2:11 must refer to a goddess and not to a literal bride, thus requiring a
figurative "marriage" throughout Malachi 2:10-16
Another argument which has been advanced in support of a figurative
reference for "the wife of your covenant ['1[1'i3 nrq~l]" in Mal. 2: 14 relies on
the claim that the expression "the daughter of a foreign god [i;?~ "~-n:;J]" in
Mal. 2: 11 must refer to a goddess and not to a literal bride, thus requiring a
figurative "marriage" throughout Mal. 2: 10-16.
1) The first argument for understanding "the daughter of a foreign
god" as a reference to a goddess rather than a woman is the simple
observation that to be the daughter of a god, if understood literally, is to be a
goddess. 26 At least two considerations weigh against this interpretation.
First, had it been Malachi's intention to speak of a goddess, it is unclear why
he chose to use the circumlocution, "the daughter of a foreign god," rather
than simply saying "a goddess" or, better still, explicitly naming the goddess
in question.27 Second, while "the daughter of a foreign god" may be
25 AS. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 69. For other
scholars who support a similar interpretation of n'i~ in Mal. 3:1, cf. P.A Verhoef, The
Books of Haggai and Malachi, 289, n. 13.
26 So F.F. Hvidberg, who writes, "The expression bat 'el nekar in verse 11 undoubtedly
cannot - as generally maintained - mean 'eine Auslander,' 'Heiden,' A 'daughter of a god'
is a goddess ... " (Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament, 121). So also, A Isaksson,
Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, 31, and J.M. O'Brien, Priest and Levite in
Malachi, 68. Cf. also R. Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorsteliung in Alten Testament in ihrer
geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1896) 168, and c.c. Torrey, "The Prophecy of 'Malachi'," 9.
Alternatively, J. Morgenstern has argued that Mal. 2:10-16 refers to a marriage between
Menahem (= "Judah") and a Tyrian princess (= i:ll "~-nJ) ("Jerusalem - 485 B.c." [1957]
15-47). Lacking sufficient evidence for such a specific reference, this view appears
fanciful.
27 E.g., "Ashtoreth," "the Queen of Heaven," etc., mentioned elsewhere in the OT.
"COVENANT [r1'1::1]" IN MALACHI 2:14 35
understood in a literal manner, such literalism can hardly be insisted upon
since, on the present interpretation, this expression is located in the midst of a
very striking simile - namely one where human beings are being described
as having "married" [';.l!~] a goddess!
2) A second argument for taking "the daughter of a foreign god" as a
reference to a goddess is the observation that this expression would be
unparalleled in the Old Testament as a description of a non-Jewish woman.28
As P.A. Verhoef has argued, however, even if this expression were
unprecedented elsewhere as a description of a non-Jewish woman, within
Malachi it is entirely fitting.29 This is so because Malachi intends for it to be
understood as antithetical to his description of Yahweh as a father: "Have we
not all one Father?" (Mal. 2:10). If Israelites are all the children of Yahweh,
their Father, by virtue of their covenant relation to him, then by definition a
pagan woman would be the daughter not of Yahweh, but of a "foreign god."
Furthermore, the expression "the daughter of a foreign god" is not entirely
without parallel in the Old Testament. As pointed out by R.L. Smith, just as
Israelites are called "sons and daughters of Yahweh" in Deut. 32:19,
Moabites are called "sons and daughters of Chemosh" in Num. 21:29.30
3) A third argument for understanding "the daughter of a foreign god"
as referring to a goddess is its singular form. 31 This is unpersuasive since in
the context Malachi refers to the offending Israelites corporately as "Judah
[i111i1;]''' This corporate reference leads one to expect a similarly corporate
(and so singular) reference for Judah's bride. Clearly, it would have been
inappropriate for Malachi to have written: "Judah has profaned the sanctuary
of the Lord, which he loves, and has married the daughter~ of a foreign god"
- perhaps yielding an unintended implication of polygyny.32
33 c.c. Torrey, "The Prophecy of 'Malachi'," 4, n. 10; and A. Isaksson, Marriage and
Ministry in the New Temple, 32.
34 I.M.P. Smith, Malachi, 58; and P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi,
269. In support Verhoef cites, among others, GJ. Botterweck, "Schelt- und Mahnrede
gegen Mischehe und Ehescheidung" (1960).
35 So, according to R. Fuller, "Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16," IBL 110
(199~ 47-57. See also Fuller's forthcoming treatment of 4QXna in DJD.
3 So, e.g., K Marti (1904), E. Sievers (1905), E. Sellin (1922), C. Kuhl (1963), and
R.A. Mason (1977).
"COVENANT [r1'i:::l]" IN MALACHI 2:14 37
37 Cf. J.G. Baldwin, Hagga~ Zechariah, Malachi (1972) 238. Cf. also E.M. Yamauchi,
"Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World" (1978) 250, and idem, "Ezra,
Nehemiah" (1988) 677.
38 The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 194 and 206.
39 See the extensive bibliography on this verse in P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai
and Malachi, 222, n. 64.
40 The Book of the Twelve Prophets, II, 350. Cf., among others, C.c. Torrey, "The
Prophecy of 'Malachi'" (1898) 3; K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (1904); W. Nowack,
Das kleinen Propheten (1922); E. Cashdan, The Twelve Prophets (1948) 336; R.c. Dentan,
"The Book of Malachi" (1956) 1120; L.H. Brockington, "Malachi" (1962) 657; and H.
Frey, Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende (1963) 148. Cf. also F. Horst, who refers to
the heterodox Jewish worship of Samaria (Die zwolfkleinen Propheten [1964]267).
38 "COVENANT [n'iJ]" IN MALACHI 2:14
decent and righteous people in every nation, but that "the very sacrifices of
the heathen are pure and acceptable to Him."41
We note the following principal objections which have been raised
against this view of Smith and others: 42
a) The claim that Malachi considered pagan sacrifices offered to idols
to be acceptable to God ignores the important qualification within 1: 11 that
the offerings in question are made 'otli'?, "to my name."
b) This view contradicts other indications of uncompromising
"particularlism" within Malachi, such as Yahweh's enmity against Edom in
Mal. 1:2ff.
c) To suppose that Mal. 1:11 commends pagan sacrifices offered by
non-Levitical priests would set this verse completely at odds with Malachi's
pervasive concern with the abuses and false teaching of Israel's own
priesthood. 43
d) The claim that Malachi considered "sincere" pagan worship to be
acceptable to God sets Malachi at radical variance with the teaching of the
Old Testament at almost every other point. The only apparent exceptions are
passages such as Isa. 19:18-25 and Zeph. 2:11, which are widely recognized
as figurative and having an eschatological reference. Certainly such a view
would be difficult to square with Malachi's own exhortation concerning the
law of Moses (Mal. 3:22 [ET 4:4]).
e) What makes the proposed interpretation of Mal. 1:11 particularly
untenable is the way Malachi presupposes general agreement among his
hearers with his assertions about God's relation to the nations. 44 Such a
presupposition seems impossible given the unmitigated abhorrence of
paganism reflected in the roughly contemporaneous works of Ezra and
Nehemiah. 45
f) Finally, the present interpretation fails to note that the expression
"from the rising of the sun to its setting" in Mal. 1:11 appears to echo Isa.
45:6; 59:19; and 66:20-1. 46 If so, this would support an eschatological
interpretation of this notorious crux since these antecedent texts are clearly
eschatological, referring to a future conversion of the Gentiles. 47 Malachi
C.Y. Camp that Malachi has "literalized" Isaiah's image of the priesthood of the Gentiles
into a real expectation (Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, 323 n. 8).
48 Cf. e. von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets (1893) 389, and T.e. Vriezen, "How
to Understand Malachi 1:11" (1975).
49 "Some Notes on Malachi 1:11" (1967).
50 This "evangelistic" calling of Israel was made clear already in the Abrahamic
covenant in Gen. 12:2f. and exemplified in the careers of the Patriarchs, especially Joseph.
Cf. H.W. Wolff, "The Kerygma of the Yahwist" (1966). It appears to be reasserted in the
career of David and is especially prominent in the following (mainly eschatological) texts:
Psalm 47; 87; Isa. 2:1-4; 19:23-25; 41:5; 42:4-6; 45:14; 49:6, 22-23; 60:3; 66; Jer. 4:1-2
(Israel's obedience is the condition of her blessing to the nations); Mic. 4:1-5; Daniel;
Jonah; Zech. 2:15 [ET 11]; 8:23; and Esth. 8:17.
51 Cf., e.g., J.M.P. Smith, Malachi; J. Swetnam, who argues that the "sacrifices" in
question are metaphorical for prayer and study of the Torah ("Malachi 1,11: An
Interpretation" [1969]); and R.R. Deutsch, "Calling God's People to Obedience" (1987) 84-
87.
52 Cf. R.A Mason, who notes the lack of any blood sacrifice in 1:11 and the fact that
Psalm 50, to which the text may allude, rejects animal sacrifice in favour of more spiritual
sacrifices of thanksgiving (The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 144f.). So also
R.I. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 78.
53 Accordingly, if Mal. 1:11 does not contradict the "particularism" elsewhere in
Malachi, there is little ground left for viewing this text as secondary (as do, e.g., F. Horst,
K. Elliger, R. Rendtorff, and AS. van der Woude).
40 "COVENANT [11'1J]" IN MALACHI 2: 14
seem reasonable to modem man, but it is not at all apparent that this was in
the mind of the prophet. Indeed, Malachi's point of reference for the "we" of
his rhetorical question appears to be his fellow-Israelites, not mankind
indiscriminately. 54 Moreover, the only brotherhood Malachi goes on to
consider is that which derives from the profaned "covenant of our fathers"
(2: lOb). Whether this "covenant" is a reference to the Sinaitic covenant or to
the Abrahamic covenant and its subsequent developments which brought
Israel into existence, it is clearly one unique to fellow Israelites.
This parochial perspective for 2: 10 may find further support if "one
Father" in lOa is allowed to be defined by the "covenant of our fathers" in
lOb, that is, if we follow commentators like J.G. Baldwin in recognizing
"Father" as a reference to Abraham or Jacob.55 On the other hand, if "one
Father" is defined by synonymous parallelism with "one God" and so refers
to God's "fatherhood," as seems more likely, it has often been observed that
the "fatherhood" of God within the Old Testament defines God's special
relation not to mankind in general, but to Israel in particular: "fatherhood ...
not in a natural sense but in the spiritual sense of adoption and on the basis of
his covenant."56 Passages such as Deut. 32:6, Isa. 63:16, and 64:7 [ET 8],
which describe God as the "creator" and "father" of Israel, offer clear
instances of this usage.
Lord's coming to his temple to purify the Levites and the securing of pure
offerings from Judah and Jerusalem (2: 17-3:5); the nation's failure with
respect to tithes and offerings (3:6-18); etc. Accordingly, A. Isaksson writes:
"This interpretation of Mal. 2.10-16 as an attack on apostasy to an alien cult
is in entire agreement with the rest of the contents of the Book of Malachi....
Malachi is a priestly reformer, not a prophetic renovator of the ethics of
marriage."57
Three answers may be given in response to this claim of Isaksson:
1) Acknowledging the priority Malachi gives to cultic offences is quite
different from saying cultic offences are Malachi's exclusive concern. It is
unwarranted for the modem interpreter to reduce everything outside 2:10-16
to cultic matters. For instance, Mal. 1:6, at least incidentally, reinforces the
fifth commandment, a concern to which Malachi returns in 3:24 [ET 4:6]. It
is also possible that the priestly instruction being neglected or perverted in
2:6ff. may include ethical and legal matters. In any case, in Mal. 3:5 Yahweh
quite explicitly threatens His impending judgment against "adulterers," that
is, those who violate marriage, as well as his judgment against "sorcerers, ...
against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hireling in his
wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the
sojourner .... " These cannot all be reduced to merely cultic transgressions.
Indeed, highlighting this concern with Yahweh's judgment against
"adulterers," etc., in Mal. 3:5 is the overall literary structure of Malachi
considered in the previous chapter. There it was suggested that the second C-
section, the 4th disputation (2: 17-3:5 [or 3:6]), which treats sexual and other
ethical offences, offers a corroborating parallel to the literal marital offences
treated in the 3rd disputation (2: 10-16), the first C-section. Finally, a general
concern with the Lord's decrees and laws, rather than an exclusive interest in
narrowly cultic matters, seems to be indicated in Mal. 3:7, 14, 18, and 22 [ET
4:4]. In this last verse the laws in question are specified as "the law of my
servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb
for all Israel."
2) Although we may grant a predominant, though not exclusive,
interest in cultic matters in the work of Malachi, this need not rule out a
concern with mixed marriage and divorce in 2:10-16. As evidence for this, it
is widely recognized that the book and ministry of Ezra, and to a lesser
degree of Nehemiah, provide a striking and historically relevant parallel to
the same blend of interests as we find in Malachi - a predominant concern
with cultic matters together with special attention to the problem of mixed
marriage.
3) Finally, in keeping with Malachi's cultic orientation elsewhere, it
may be noted that the prophet frames much of his objection to Israel's
57 Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, 32. G.W. Ahlstrom similarly comments,
"Malachi is always interested primarily in what he himself considers to be a pure and right
Yahweh cult, and the social and moral problems are not his main concern here" (Joel and
the Temple Cult ofJerusalem, 50).
42 "COVENANT [n'i::J]" IN MALACHI 2:14
58 Based largely on context, so C. von Orelli, E. Sellin, and P.A Verhoef. See also the
arguments of AS. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 67f.
S9 So G.A Smith, K Marti, R.c. Dentan. So also G.W. Ahlstrom,loel and the Temple
Cult of Jerusalem, 49, who cites K Elliger, Das Buch der zw6lf kleinen Propheten, 189.
This approach is also preferred by J.G. Baldwin, who notes, "Certainly it is they whom He
loves" (Hagga~ Zechariah, Malachi, 238f.). A.S. van der Woude considers it more likely
that :Jilt;l and ?J)'t have the same subject (hence i~~ is not a relative here) ("Malachi's
Struggle for a Pure Community," 67, n. 14).
The view of Schreiner that ' '1' : ~I~ refers to the Lord's own "holiness" appears
implausible given the relative clause, "which he loves" (Mischehen-Ehebruch-
Ehescheidung," 210).
60 C. Stuhlmueller offers the rather improbable view that "'the temple' that 'Judah has
profaned' and 'which the Lord loves' is none other than the divorced wife" ("Malachi"
[1970]400).
61 Cf. the intriguing "sexual" interpretation offered by B. Glazier-McDonald, "Malachi
2:12: 'er we'oneh - Another Look" (1986). This seems more plausible than the "cultic"
understanding of G.W. Ahlstrom, who writes "The terms O1Jll1 ill, 'he who arouses himself
and [he who] answers' (or 'sings a lament'), may have something to do with rituals which
the prophet did not accept as Yahwistic" (Joel and the Temple Cult ofJerusalem, 49f., n. 8).
Against Glazier-McDonald, however, cf. J.M. O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi, 70f.
In support of reading Ill, "a witness," in place of ill, on the evidence of 4QXIIa (a
suggestion already made by J. Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten [1892] 207), cf. R.
Fuller, "Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16," JBL 110 (1991) 47-57; and also
Fuller's forthcoming treatment of 4QXIIa in DID.
62 P.A. Verhoef renders the verse with this sense: "May the Lord cut off from the tents
of Jacob that man, whoever he may be, even though he brings offerings to the Lord
Almighty" (The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 262).
"COVENANT [n'i::l]" IN MALACHI 2:14 43
2.5 Alleged ritual weeping in Malachi 2:13 favours the interpretation of 2:11
and 2:14 as referring to idolatry rather than to literal marriage
A final objection to a reference to literal marriage in Mal. 2:14 is based on a
supposed allusion to an idolatrous practice in Mal. 2: 13. In particular, F.F.
Hvidberg has refurbished an older argument that the weeping mentioned in
2:13 is an allusion to syncretistic ritual weeping. 64 Hvidberg's primary
argument for this interpretation rests on his identification of "the daughter of
a foreign god" in 2:11 as a goddess. 65 Hvidberg explains: "It cannot be
doubted that this is a deity of the Anat-Astarte type, and that her lover, for
whom the weeping is done, is an 'Adonis' deity." We have already
considered the merits of Hvidberg's interpretation of "the daughter of a
foreign god." Here we merely need to take up any additional arguments
which support a cultic interpretation of the weeping in Mal. 2: 13.
At issue is not whether cultic weeping is attested elsewhere in the
ancient Near East or elsewhere in Israel's apostasy. For example, it is
granted that a similar weeping is recorded in Ezek. 8:14, where Jewish
women wept for Tammuz in the temple of the Lord. 66 What is at issue is
whether this is what Malachi intends in 2: 13, particularly since this weeping
is mentioned without an explicit reference to Tammuz or any other alien
deity. Hvidberg renders the verse, "And this have ye done again: Covering
the altar of Yahweh with tears, with weeping and groaning, insomuch that he
63 P.A. Verhoef offers further support for this interpretation by an attractive, if still
uncertain, exegesis of "covering one's garment with violence" in vs. 16.
64 Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament, 120-123. Cf. also H. Winckler,
"Maleachi" (1899) 531-9; H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (1966) 197; and G.W. Ahlstrom,
Joel and the Temple Cult ofJerusalem, 49.
J.M.P. Smith dismissed Winckler's view as "a curiosity of interpretation" (Malachi,
52; cf. also p. 57).
65 Based on this identification, F.F. Hvidberg explains the expression "Judah ... has
married the daughter of a foreign god" (2:11) as reminiscent of Hosea's depiction of
Yahweh as the husband of Israel.
66 Singled out as supportive of this thesis by A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the
New Temple, 33.
44 "COVENANT [n'i~]" IN MALACHI 2:14
regardeth not the offering any more or receiveth gifts with good will at your
hand."67
Grammatically Hvidberg's argument rests on two points: 1) that in
2: 13 n',JtP, rendered by Hvidberg as "again," implies that the weeping is a
second abomination related to the marriage mentioned in 2:11; and 2) that in
2:13b n~O bears the meaning "insomuch that ... not," with the implication that
Yahweh will not accept Judah's offerings because of Judah's reprehensible
weeping. 68
In response to the first of these arguments, while it is appropriate to
recall our earlier discussion regarding the uncertainty of n',JtP, both textual and
semantic (2.1 above), we may grant with Hvidberg and others that a
rendering such as "again" or "secondly" is plausible. 69 This, however, does
not settle the matter at issue. What needs to be proven is that the second
abomination is the weeping of Judah, rather than the infidelity mentioned in
vs. 15. Strongly favouring this latter interpretation is the interchange
recorded by the prophet in vs. 14. Judah wants to know why [iilt?.?] Yahweh
no longer accepts their offerings. Malachi's explicit answer is that it is
because of ['~ ?~] their infidelity toward "the wife of your youth," not
because of their weeping, as we might expect on Hvidberg's view.?o
In response to the second of Hvidberg's arguments, it is not at all clear
that the passage cited by Hvidberg in support of his definition of n~O, Zeph.
3:6, means what he alleges: " ... I have laid waste their streets so that none
walks in them; their cities have been made desolate, without a man, without
an inhabitant [Jtpi' n~O)" (RSV).71 If this hypothetical resultative use is
rejected, one is left with a causal use which yields a sense exactly opposite to
that which Hvidberg desires: "You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with
weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it
with favour at your hand" (RSV). If for the moment the precise force of n~O
is left in abeyance, 2: 13f. clearly implies that Judah's weeping and her
question "why?" are both due to the fact that Yahweh refuses to accept her
offering, not the reverse as Hvidberg supposes.
Entirely consistent with this reading of the evidence, and highly
problematic for Hvidberg, is the observation that Judah covers "Yahweh's
altar [iiJii' n;m~] with tears." Indeed, this mention of Yahweh is so
72 Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament, 122; so also A. Isaksson, Marriage and
Ministry in the New Temple, 32.
G.W. Ahlstrom, willing to accept "Yahweh" as original to the text, can only maintain a
reference to "cultic weeping" by recourse to special pleading (Joel and the Temple Cult of
Jerusalem, 28). He writes, "Mal. 2:13 does not quite prove that the rite was Yahwistic from
the point of view of the prophet, but it could have been so from the point of view of the
priests."
While Israel's syncretism allowed worship of alien gods to take place in the Lord's
temple or sanctuary, it appears that it usually involved distinct altars set up to honour the
foreign deity - hence repeatedly we read about "the altar of Baal," "the altars for Baalim,"
"altars for all the host of heaven," etc., in such passages as Judges 6; 1 Kgs. 16:32; 2 Kgs.
11:18; and 2 Chr. 14:3; 33:3ff.
73 A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, 31-32. Cf. also G.W.
Ahlstrom, Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem, 49.
74 This view is based on the Targum and accepted by, inter alia, Jerome,
"Commentariorum in Malachiam Prophetam"; E. Henderson, The Twelve Minor Prophets
(1858) 454; H. Cowles, The Minor Prophets (1867) 392; and G.H.A. von Ewald,
Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament, 2 (1875) 81.
75 Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, 29.
76 Citing J.M.P. Smith, Malachi, 51 in support, G.W. Ahlstrom asserts: "women are not
allowed to approach Yahweh's altar" (Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem, 49). With
Smith, however, clearly the language of "covering the altar with tears" is figurative, and
"the legitimacy of the figure does not depend upon the proximity of the women to the altar
(cf. Hb. 2:17)." Perhaps more convincing is J.G. Baldwin, who notes that Ahlstrom's view
is untenable since the deserted wives have not yet been mentioned (Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi,239).
46 "COVENANT [[")'1:J ]" IN MALACHI 2: 14
77 Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem, 27f. Cf. also p. 50. In support G.W.
Ahlstrom cites numerous authorities, including D.E. Gowan, who asserts ~:lJ)1n "always
seems to refer to cuI tic irregularities" ("Prophets, Deuteronomy and Syncretistic Cult in
Israel" [1968]107).
78 Cf. E. Gerstenberger, ":JJ)tl t'b pi. verabscheuen," THAT 2, 1051-1055; and R.F.
Youngblood, ":l.\1t;1 abhor, etc.," TWOT2, 976-977.
Cf. also M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (1972) 267-9; and R.
Westbrook, "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4" (1986)
405.
79 Cf. A.S. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 67
80 Malachi, 89-91. B. Glazier-McDonald cites Lev. 20:2-5, as well as Ezek. 8:10, 14,
and 16, as proof that idolatrous practices, even when conducted outside the temple, defile
Yahweh's sanctuary.
"COVENANT [rl'1J)" IN MALACHI 2:14 47
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter began by reviewing the arguments for holding that covenant in
Mal. 2: 14 refers to marriage. In particular it was argued that although the
covenant in vs. 14 bears some relation to the covenant in vs. 10, the claim
that it is one of synonymy raises intractable problems. Certainly some
attention to the covenant in vs. 10 is appropriate in the attempt to define
1(1'i:;J n~l'Ii, "the wife of your covenant," in vs. 14b, but it should not be to the
neglect of the parallel expression 1'i1.1ll nil)~, "the wife of your youth" in vs.
14a or of the nominal syntagms of 1(1'i:l nil)~, especially 1~'iJ '\t1~~, the men
of your covenant," in Obad. 7. The implication of these parallels is that the
covenant in Mal. 2:14 is one which exists between a husband and his wife
(1-2.1).
Subsequently, we reviewed the objections which have been raised
against interpreting covenant in Mal. 2: 14 as a reference to literal marriage.
It was concluded that:
The arguments that "the daughter of a foreign god" must refer to a
goddess and cannot refer to a non-Jewish woman lack conviction (2.2).
The so-called "universalism" of Malachi is not such as forbids a
reference to literal "interfaith marriage" in 2: 11. and hence a reference to
literal marriage throughout 2:10-16 (2.3).
While Malachi shows a special interest in cultic matters throughout his
work, including 2:10-16, as with the work of Ezra, this need not exclude a
concern with Judah's literal marital practice (2.4).
The claim that Mal. 2: 13 refers to an idolatrous "cultic weeping" is
unconvincing (2.5).
Deuteronomy, such as the call to remember Yahweh's elective love, represents a "bold
transference to the rump-state by the post-exilic prophets of the projected ideal."
Whether or not one accepts the reading of ?~ltD'-?f-?~ in place of MT ?~l~'-?~ in
Mal. 1:11 (supported by some MSS. for which see BHS), this variant suggests a scribal
desire to assimilate this verse to Deut. 1:1. Cf. also Mal. 3:22 [ET 4:4J.
5 Accordingly, Dumbrell considers Malachi to be a book "bound together by
Deuteronomic inclusions, a fact which tends to underscore the derivative prophetic nature
of the work" ("Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 44). Cf. A. Renker, Die Tora
bei Maleachi (1979) 98-101.
6 So notes L.H. Brockington, "Malachi."
7 So W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 44, and L.H.
Brockington, "Malachi," 656.
8 So U. Kellermann, "Erwiigungen zum Esragesetz" (1968) 383, n. 81, and W.J.
Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 45.
9 So W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms." Against this see S.L.
McKenzie and H.N. Wallace, "Covenant Themes in Malachi," 550.
10 So, e.g., L.H. Brockington, "Malachi," 656.
See J .G. McConville for a careful reappraisal of Wellhausen's reconstruction of the
history of the priesthood and, related to this, the supposed synonymy of the terms "priest"
and "Levite" in Deuteronomy (Law and Theology in Deuteronomy [1984]124-153). Cf.
also J .M. O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (1990).
11 So W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 49. A contrary view
is expressed by a number of other scholars who argue that Malachi presupposes the
legislation of P rather than D. Cf., e.g., G.A. Smith (The Book of the Twelve Prophets, II,
2nd ed. [1929] 328-330), W. Neil ("Malachi," 229), and P.A. Verhoef (The Books of
Haggai and Malachi, 159).
50 MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE
the blessing sanction of a bounty which will command the respect of the
nations (Deut. 26: 19).
8) A further possible evidence of Deuteronomic influence is found in
Mal. 3:17, where the prophet identifies Israel as God's "special possession
[i1'nO ]."12 Apart from Ps. 135 :4, which is regarded as post-exilic and
dependent on earlier Deuteronomic texts, this designation for Israel is found
elsewhere only in texts which are thought to be Deuteronomic, namely Exod.
19:5, Deut. 7:6, 14:1-2, and 26:18. Moreover, in Deut. 14:1-2 "special
possession" is juxtaposed with an assertion of Israel's sonship, much as it is
in Mal. 3:17.
9) Finally, perhaps the most notable evidence of Deuteronomic
influence within Malachi is the prominence of covenant concepts throughout
this brief work.1 3 As has been demonstrated by S.L. McKenzie and H.N.
Wallace, this importance goes far beyond the six explicit references to
"covenant" (Mal. 2:4, 5, 8, 10, 14; 3: 1) to include the Deuteronomic
vocabulary of covenant (e.g., "love," "hate," "father," "son," "cursed," "great
king," etc.), as well as characteristic perspectives and themes.1 4
12 Or "covenant possession" according to S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace, who cite
M. Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East"
(197~ 195 ("Covenant Themes in Malachi," 561).
1 Stressing the centrality and sophistication of "covenant" within Malachi, cf. J.G.
Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (1972) 216f.; A Tosato, "II ripudio: delitto e pena
(Mal 2,10-16)" (1978); L.C.H. Fourie, "Die betekenis van die verbond as sleutel vir
Maleagi" (1982); S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace, "Covenant Themes in Malachi"
(1983); C.T. Begg, "Berit in Ezekiel" (1986) 79; R.L. Smith, "The Shape of Theology in the
Book of Malachi" (1987) 24; and P.A Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 179-
184.
14 "Covenant Themes in Malachi." Cf. also R.L. Smith, Micah - Malachi, 300, and
R.I. Coggins, Haggai, Zephaniah, Malachi, 75-76.
15 See, e.g., AS. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle For a Pure Community," and A
Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, as discussed above.
Cf. also S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace, who leave undecided the question of
whether Mal. 2:10-16 has to do with mixed marriage and divorce or apostasy and some
other offence, noting: "If Mal 2: 13-16 concerns divorce, it is in striking contrast to the law
of divorce in Deut 24:1-4" ("Covenant Themes in Malachi," 552f.).
16 For those who consider that Malachi not only prohibited divorce, but also urged
polygyny as a preferable alternative, yet a further tension is introduced between Malachi
and Deuteronomy, that is, if the prohibition of polygyny in Deut. 17:17 is taken as implying
a general prohibition.
MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE 51
At the close of this chapter we shall tum our attention to Deut. 24: 1-4,
unquestionably the locus classicus for any discussion of divorce in the Old
Testament. Before doing so, however, we shall examine Mal. 2: 16 by itself.
In particular, we shall seek to demonstrate the superiority of the MT of Mal.
2:16 over against the versions or 4QXIIa (or any conjectural emendations).
Furthermore, we shall seek to establish that the text condemns not divorce in
general, but specifically what may be called "unjustified divorce," that is,
divorce based on aversion. If successful, an important implication of this
conclusion for the present thesis will be to eliminate Mal. 2: 16 as evidence
against a reference to literal marriage in Mal. 2:10-16 and, at the same time,
to elucidate a key implication of the identification of marriage as a covenant.
1.1 The text and meaning of Malachi 2:16 is too uncertain to claim that it
addresses the subject of divorce
The MT of 2:16a reads: itV1:l'T',p '091;1 i19~1 '~ltq' 'ri'~ 'i1Ji1' i~~ n7~ ~)~-'~
nit:9:,\
i1Ji1~ ,~~ [lit., "For he hates 'sending,' says Yahweh, the God of Israel,
'and he covers his garment with violence,' says Yahweh of hosts"]' The
following is a brief listing of the principle lexical, grammatical, and textual
problems associated with this passage: How should the ,~ be understood?
The LXX, Vulgate, and Targum take it as a conditional, "if a man hates .... "17
Because they do so, the versions (excluding LXXMBQY) construe Mal. 2: 16
as providing an express permission for divorce. In other words, they consider
the apodosis to begin with n7~: "If you hate (her), divorce (her) .... "18
Alternatively, with LXXtlABQV, it is possible that the apodosis should begin
with i19~', "then he covers .... " If one understands '~ as a causative,
"because," or as a more mild conjunction, "for," one must still account for the
problematic ~,~~, "he hates." What is the subject of this verb? If the
antecedent is Yahweh, the third person is awkward in what purports to be
direct discourse. Moreover, the shift in reference from the "he" [= Yahweh]
of "he hates" to the "he" [= the divorcing man] of "he covers" appears
difficult.
A further difficulty concerns the precise meaning of n,?w, "sending," a
form which lacks an explicit object and which may be parsed as a Piel
infinitive construct, or as an alternative form of the Piel infinitive absolute, or
as a masculine singular imperative. In spite of the concurrence of both
tradition and the vast majority of modem scholars in understanding n,ili as
referring to divorce, it is often noted that the use of this verb with this sense is
by no means customary for the Old Testament.
A similar list of problems can be raised for iili1J'-'j) 'o9J;1 i19:l1, "and he
covers his garments with violence." What is the relation of this expression to
what precedes? If it is a second thing which is hated, why is i19:l1 not an
infinitive construct to balance n,?w (BHS suggests emending it)? Or is this
clause an apodosis? Is o9J;1 the subject ("violence covers ... ") or is it the object
of i1(P ("he covers with violence ...")?19 Is iib1J\ "his garments," to be
interpreted as a metaphor referring to the wife, or is there a cultic reference
here, etc.?
Despairing in the face of all these problems, c.e. Torrey simply
declares Mal. 2: 16 (and 2: 15) to be "hopelessly corrupt."20 Similarly, F.F.
Hvidberg writes: "nothing definite can be said about Verses 15 and 16, the
text being completely unintelligible in these.''21 Repeating the same thought
with only a slight elaboration, A. Isaksson writes, "nothing definite can be
said as to the content of vv. 15-16 on account of the poor state of the text.
When scholars construe from them that Yahweh hates divorces or that the
purpose of marriage is to procreate children, they can only do so, as I have
already pointed out, by resorting to quite arbitrary emendation of the text."22
All interpreters acknowledge the difficulty of the MT of 2:16, as well
as the striking disparity in the witness of the versions for this verse.
Nevertheless, most scholars are willing to attempt an exegesis of 2:16. The
few who demur because the verse is so "hopelessly corrupt" are most often
those who also deny any reference to literal marriage in Mal. 2:10-16. May
this textual agnosticism be a rather too convenient means of eliminating
contrary evidence? Indeed, it is possible, as R. Mason notes, that "the very
bad state of the text bears its own witness to the probability that it did
originally condemn divorce outright. If so, ... it would be small wonder if it
suffered from scribal efforts to soften it."23 At any rate, it is necessary to see
19 Favouring the identification of Or,l1J as the subject are, e.g., LXX, Vulgate, and J.G.
Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Favouring the identification of Or,l1J as the object
are, e.g., Peshi.tta, Targum, and P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi.
20 "The Prophecy of 'Malachi'," 10, note 20.
21 Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament, 123. So also A.c. WeIch, Post-Exilic
Judaism, 120.
22 Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965) 34. J.M. O'Brien seems to share
this view and, accordingly, offers no interpretation of 2:16a (Priest and Levite in Malachi,
72[,),
23 The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (1977) 150. Cf. also S. Schreiner,
"Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung" (1979) 208.
MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE 53
if sense can be made of the verse before giving up and claiming that it is
beyond interpretation.
::JtVn means "girdle," an item of dress associated with the high priest's
vestments in Exod. 28:27f., etc. Accordingly, Matthews supposes that
Malachi's original reference may have been to some pagan equivalent of this
garniture. Any such use of ::JtVn is speculative, however, and Matthews'
handling of the LXX is unconvincing. While Matthews' suggestion requires
EVeVfl~flaTa to correspond to 'o91J, it is more likely that it renders itDi::J'?, "his
garment." With J.M.P. Smith, EVevfl~flaTa, "thoughts," is probably the result
of an inner-Greek corruption of Ev8uflaTa, "garment," which has the support
of LXXW as well as the daughter versions (PeshHta, Arabic, Armenian,
Ethiopic, and Georgian).31
As a result it is unnecessary to suppose that the Vorlage of the LXX
differed from the MT in this clause. Therefore we conclude that to find a
reference to idolatry in 2: 16 and to dismiss its reference to divorce is
improbable.
1.3 Malachi 2:16 deals with the secondary status of a former Jewish wife,
not with divorce (A.S. van der Woude)
Other scholars, while admitting that 2: 16 deals with marriage-related
problems, deny that it treats divorce. A.S. van der Woude, for example,
argues that the exclusive concern of 2: 10-15 is with mixed marriage and that
at no point prior to vs. 16 is there any intimation of divorce. In particular,
Van der Woude notes that, as with the ,,::J ["be faithless"] in vs. 10, the ,,::J in
vs. 14 "does not necessarily imply divorce."32 After reviewing the difficulties
mentioned above concerning an overly facile identification of n';lil,i ["send
out" or "expel"] in 2:16 with divorce, Van der Woude offers his own view,
namely that n'?tv "is an abbreviation of the idiomatic expression sa-Ia/J yad
(the same abbreviation can be found in 2 Sam. 6:6 and Obad. 13) that
designates a morally detestable hostile act."33 Accordingly, Van der Woude
renders the verse, "For he who neglects (his Jewish wife) puts forth his hand
(in hostility), says Yahweh the God of Israel, and covers his garment with
violence, says Yahweh Almighty .... "34 Van der Woude explains Malachi's
intent in this verse as one of condemning not divorce, but the "subordination
and maltreatment of married Jewish women because of foreign heathen
wives."
Van der Woude's thesis is appealing for its avoidance of any
conjectural emendation of "and covers [;'9~']'" its ability to maintain the
31 Malachi, 60. Accordingly, the eclectic text of the Giittingen Septuagint, prepared by
J. Zie:p'er, reads Ev8urWTa in 2:16.
3 "Malachi's Struggle For a Pure Community," 69. Cf. also p. 67, where he examines
vs. 10, adding the observation that Deut. 24:1 demonstrates that "divorce as such could
hardlX violate the covenant community."
3 Ibid.,71. In support A.S. van der Woude cites P. Humbert, "Etendre la main" (1962)
383-395.
34 Hagga~ Maleachi, POT, 116. Van der Woude cites Gen. 29:31, 33 and Deut. 21:15-
17 in support of the rendering" achterstelt," that is "discriminates against" or "neglects" for
~tD (Hagga~ Maleachi, 124).
MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE 55
same subject for "hate [~,~tq]" and "and covers [i1~~11," and for the coherency
of theme which it supposes for 2:10-16 (mixed marriages). Nevertheless,
there are several difficulties which make it doubtful:
1) Van der Woude rejects several alternative views of 2:16 in part
because they require conjectural emendation (including revocalization) of the
text, but his own view requires revocalizing the MT n1'~ as a Qal perfect,
n'?~, a form unsupported by any of the versions. 35
2) Although Van der Woude's translation obscures the fact, his
proposal requires the assumption not only of an ellipsis of the direct object
"hand [':1," but also of an ellipsis of a prepositional phrase, presumably
something like "against her [i'91" (cf. 1 Sam. 24:7 [ET 6]).36
3) More seriously, Van der Woude's entire proposal depends on the
identification of n'?iV as "an abbreviation of the idiomatic expression salah
yad." Van der Woude defends this proposal by citing two texts, 2 Sam. 6:6
and Obad. 13, but neither proves the point at issue.
In the case of 2 Sam. 6:6, it appears that ", n~, "his hand," should be
restored in this verse (the MT of Samuel is notoriously haplographic),
following the multiple witness of 4QSam a , LXX, Peshitta, Targum, and
Vulgate.37 Alternatively, if the MT is retained, an ellipsis of the sort
suggested by Van der Woude might be feasible in 2 Sam. 6:6, where the
context makes clear what is intended. This is precisely not the case with
Malachi. Making this example still less apt for Van der Woude's purpose,
the meaning of the expression (,,' n~) n'?tLi in 2 Sam. 6:6 is not the same as
that proposed by Van der Woude for Malachi! In Samuel it refers to a literal
extension of Uzzah's hand, intended to steady the ark, not to an act of
hostility.
Turning to Obad. 13b, ;T~ ~;~~ ;'?'IJ=;! i1~n7tLirr'?~', "You should not
have looted his goods in the day of his calamity," once again the contention
of Van der Woude seems dubious. There appears to be a consensus among
modern commentators that the key term for Van der Woude's alleged
abbreviation, i1~n7tLin, has suffered some kind of corruption. This conviction
is based on the observation that the form of each of the seven other parallel
jussives in vss. 12-14 is a third person feminine singular, rather than the third
person or second person feminine plural as here. The LXX offers further
support for an emendation with its expected third person singular, <JvvEm8i].
Not surprisingly, many scholars read ': n"~n-"~' in place of MT
iT~n7~rT"~1. 38
4) A further difficulty with Van der Woude's proposal is that it
requires acceptance of his possible, but nevertheless speculative,
reconstruction of the social circumstances of Judah's mixed marriages. Van
der Woude writes, "By marrying foreign women Judaeans tried to share the
privileges of their alien overlords. The common cause they made with them
gave rise to severe tensions between a well-to-do class and the poor in one
and the same religious community."39 The problem with this posited class
struggle is that there is no hint of it in the text. Nevertheless, since Van der
Woude is unwilling to allow an allusion to divorce in vs. 10, he must insist on
this reconstruction because only in this way can he explain the faithlessness
of Jews toward their brothers mentioned in that verse, as well as the violation
of the "covenant community."40 To be sure, the expression "profaning the
covenant of our fathers" (vs. 10) may refer to mixed marriage, as Van der
Woude suggests, but it is not enough for Van der Woude to discuss whether
divorce mayor may not "violate the covenant community [italics added]"
since Van der Woude has not succeeded in establishing this rather
idiosyncratic definition of n'1J.41 Furthermore, even if the question "why are
we faithless, a man against his brother" (vs. 10) seems unlikely as a reference
to the relationship between a husband and his wife,42 in the light of a passage
38 So, e.g., C.F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. 1, 364; AB. Ehrlich,
Randglossen zur hebriiischen Bibel, vol. 5,261; BHS; and J.D.W. Watts, Obadiah (1969)
35.
Alternatively, L.c. Allen assumes an ellipse of 1', "hand," and repoints the MT as a
second masculine singular form of the energic imperfect, :11n,?tlin (The Books of Joel,
Obadiah, Jonah and Micah [1976]157, n. 11).
Yet a third option is favoured by H.W. Wolff, who argues that the MT arose through a
corruption of ~rn'?tlin (Obadiah and Jonah [1986]37). This suggestion was first made by
J.A Bewer, but Bewer considered it equally possible that the original text read 1; n'?iDn, or
even :'1'J; n'?tlin (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Obadiah and Joel [1911]42).
39 "Malachi's Struggle For a Pure Community," 66. Van der Woude also states, "Our
text envisages the internal controversies in the Judaean community engendered by those
who preferred social privileges and economic gains to religious and national loyalty and
unity by marrying foreign women" (ibid., 67).
40 "Malachi's Struggle For a Pure Community," 67.
Of course, if one admits a reference to divorce in Mal. 2:16, it is possible to find ample
evidence for the intimation of this problem prior to vs. 16. E.g., cf. P.A Verhoef, The
Books of Haggai and Malachi, 262-281, especially 278.
41 Cf. our discussion of this definition in chapter 2, 2.1. Van der Woude appears to be
more tentative in his identification of the n'i:J in vs. 10, stating it "may [italics added] have
here already, as in vs. 14, the meaning of covenant community" ("Malachi's Struggle For a
Pure Community," 67).
Van der Woude's understanding of the expression "profaning the covenant of our
fathers" as a reference to mixed marriage appears plausible. Against Van der Woude,
however, it is possible that just as adultery was recognized as a violation of Israel's
covenant with Yahweh, in terms of the stipulation of the seventh commandment, frivolous
divorce may have been viewed similarly.
42 So A.S. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle For a Pure Community," 67.
MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE 57
The great majority of commentators from the ancient versions to the modem
era agree that Mal. 2: 16 refers to divorce, but there is a wide diversity of view
as to Malachi's precise attitude toward divorce. At one extreme, some hold
that divorce is encouraged, at the other, that divorce is condemned
unreservedly. We shall review the main options.
43 Laban's concern over the future treatment of Leah and Rachel in Genesis 31:50 is
instructive as an example of a father-in-law's on-going concern for his married daughters.
Viewed from the husband's side, cf. also the corresponding breach of fellowship which was
the result of the unjust action of Saul, David's father-in-law, and the Timnahite father-in-
law of Samson, when these men attempted to dissolve the inchoate marriages of their
dau~hters.
4 Cf., e.g., CH 145f. and the classic biblical examples of Abraham, Sarah, and
Hagar; also Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah. On the other hand, cf. LI 28, which
recognizes the possibility that the second wife may be preferred over the first. Cf. also the
case of Jacob's marriage to Leah and Rachel. Cf. further T.E. McComiskey, "The Status of
the Secondary Wife: Its Development in Ancient Near Eastern Law" (1965).
45 See J.G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 241.
46 According to R. Fuller, 4QXn a reads: 10::01 ';~i~' ';~ [ ] n~ ;'11l~ t:l~ '::0
~ib[~::';] ';.1) oan ("Does Yahweh Hate Divorce? Malachi 2:16 and Text of Malachi at
Qumran" [1988)). R. Fuller notes that ;,m~ represents a second person perfect form
(unpublished paper on Malachi 2:10-16 [n.d.]). A quiescent 'aleph, as in the expected form
58 MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE
;rn~lt!), is often not represented in the orthography at Qumran. Cf. E. Qimron, The Hebrew
o/the Dead Sea Scrolls (1986) 100.61.
Consequently, this text may be rendered: "For if you hate, divorce! ... God of Israel, and
they cover your garment with violence." Fuller considers that the text of 4QXn a in 2:15f.
is "so corrupt we must still resort to conjectural emendation" (unpublished paper on
Malachi 2:10-16 (n.d.]).
47 LXXLW: aHa EaV ~la~aas [W: ~Ela~aasl E~aTToaTElAov ... , "But if, having
hated (or, "you hate"), divorce!. ... "
48 cum odio habueris, dimitte.
49 i11ts!;l i17 t;I'll;! tl~ '1~, "for if you hate her then divorce her."
50 See Rabbi lehuda in b. Git. 9Ob: "R. lehuda said, 'If you hate her, you should put her
away [... n?t!) [;rln~lt!) tl~]'." For this restoration of the text, cf. C. Locher, "Altes und Neues
zu Maleachi 2,10-16," 245.
51 Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040-1105 A.D.) begins by acknowledging a
division of opinion in the Talmud tractate b. Giffin regarding Mal. 2:16: "Some say 'if you
hate her send her away with a bill of divorce and marry another [~'::l ;rm~ n?t!) n~t!) tl~
in~? ~t!)lml." Preferring the alternative imperatival view, Rashi urges that it is kinder to
divorce a hated wife than to keep her in a marriage "causing her anger and pain."
52 So C. Locher, "Altes und Neues zu Maleachi 2,10-16," 245.
53 Hit. Geruschin X, 21, as cited by S. Schreiner, "Mischehen-Ehebruch-
Ehescheidung," 228.
54 Understanding n7t1i as a masculine singular imperative. It should be noted that this
view also presupposes an ellipsis of a pronominal direct object for both ~)t(l and n';W.
55 See below for a discussion of the view of S. Schreiner, who foHows the LXX in this
curious shift from the seeming endorsement of divorce in 16aa to an emphatic disapproval
of divorce in 16a~ ("Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung" [1979]).
56 For the use of Kal to introduce an apodosis, see Blass and Debrunner, 442(7).
MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE 59
others. The following text results for vs. 16: ';j'~ i1Ji1~ ~Jt?' 1t!i~ n~W D~ ,~
o9D i19~ ~'1 '~ltl)'. We may translate it: "On the
ni~~~ i1Ji1~ 10~ ~ili1J'-'J;
contrary, divorce the one whom Yahweh, the God of Israel, hates, then wrong
will not cover your garment (any more), says Yahweh of hosts."63
Consequently, von Bulmerincq views this verse as an encouragement to
divorce a non-Jewish wife, the sort of woman whom Yahweh "hates" because
such a marriage constitutes the most heinous sort of sin and a hindrance to the
advent of Yahweh.
Whatever the merits of von Bulmerincq's third and fourth proposals,
the first two proposals and the last proposal are entirely speculative and
appear to be merely a reflex of von Bulmerincq' s attempt to relate Mal. 2: 10-
16 to Ezra 10. Such a cavalier treatment of the text renders von Bulmerincq's
approach unconvincing.
2.3 Malachi recommends divorce in Malachi 2:16 as the lesser of two evils,
i.e., as preferable to polygyny (S. Schreiner)
S. Schreiner offers a significant modification of the traditional Jewish view,
which understands Mal. 2: 16 as urging divorce.64 Following LXXLW,
Vulgate, and Targum, Schreiner interprets ,~ as a conditional particle, with
the apodosis beginning with the unemended n,?W of the MT. Where Schreiner
parts company with the traditional Jewish interpretation is in his contrastive
rendering of the 1, which introduces the clause, itb1J'-'J; 'o9D i19:;)1, and
especially in his overall interpretation of the text. Schreiner translates the
verse, "If one no longer loves, divorce, says YHWH the God of Israel; but
such a one covers his garment with shame, says YHWH Sebaoth."65
Schreiner explains that the husbands in Mal. 2:16 were wanting
children (based on 2: 15) and so were taking second wives without regard to
their heathen identity. As a consequence, their conduct entailed a three-fold
violation of the law (perhaps intended by the "covenant" in 2: 10).66 First,
they were committing adultery because they had failed to divorce their first
wife before taking a second (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22-29; Lev. 20:10;
19:20). Second, they were marrying pagan women in violation of such texts
as Exod. 34:16 and Deut. 7:3. Finally, they were sinning with respect to their
children (cf. Mal. 3:18-21), since the offspring of these mixed marriages
would be prohibited from the assembly according to Deut. 23:4 [ET 3] (cf.
Neh. 13: 1ff.). In response Schreiner argues that Malachi upheld the ideal of
monogamy and urged that men who wanted to marry a second wife must
divorce their first wife. Nevertheless, this action is merely the lesser of two
evils ["die Wahl des kleinerell Ubefs"] because any such divorce constitutes
the defiling of one's garments, that is, a personal defilement. 67
The chief advantage of Schreiner's treatment of Mal. 2:16 is its fidelity
to the unemended MT and the support it can claim from the versions.
Attractive also is Schreiner's interpretation of ~,~~, "hates," as a reference to
the attitude of the divorcing husband, which is consistent with the use of this
term when it appears elsewhere in connection with divorce. On Schreiner's
view Malachi appeals to Deut. 24: Uf. Following Rashi, Schreiner considers
the hatred in 2: 16 to be an allusion to "if she does not find favour in his eyes
[1'~'1':l nT~~Qn ~irt:l~]" in Deut. 24: 1 (d. also "and he hates her [h~~tv1]" in
vs. 3). Accordingly, Malachi regarded a second marriage as permissible, but
only after a legal divorce, which Malachi tolerates as a lesser evil to the
alternative of polygyny.
Nevertheless, there are some serious problems with this otherwise
appealing view:
1) As was noted above with respect to the traditional Jewish view, the
versions support this view only by eliminating the awkward shift in personal
reference in the MT between ~,~~-'?, "if he hates," and n,?iP, "you send away."
2) Although the apodoses of conditionals introduced by') are often
unmarked (as in Exod. 21:14, 36, 37 [ET 22:1]; 22:9f. [ETlOf.], etc.), hence
supporting Schreiner's identification of n,?iP as the apodosis, just as often they
are marked, typically employing a converted perfect (as in Gen. 4:24; Exod.
1: 10, 12: 15, 19; 22:26 [ET 27], etc.). Accordingly, some justification is
needed for preferring to begin the apodosis with n,?iP, rather than i19:;'1, as is
implied by, inter alia, LXXMBQV.
3) The conjunctive position of the 1 in its clause itti1J'?-'?.p 'o9Q i19:;'1,
that is, its position attached directly to the main verb, may permit but does not
favour Schreiner's interpretation of this clause as contrastive: "but, such a one
covers his garment with shame" (italics added).68
4) Related to this grammatical observation, the contradictory change
from the seeming approval of divorce in vs. 16aa ("If one no longer loves,
divorce") to the disapproval of divorce in 16a~ and 16b ("but such a one
67 Ibid., 226f.
68 Cf., e.g., T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 132, and Waltke and
O'Connor 39.2.3, who consider one of the main uses of the disjunctive clause, where 1
does not attach directly to the verb, to be to express the contrastive idea ("but," "however,"
etc.).
The apparent clarity of Lambdin's and Waltke and O'Connor's interpretation of inter-
clausal syntax contrasts with the practice of modern English translations, which commonly
render examples of conjunctive 1 (especially converted imperfects) as "but," etc. Cf., e.g.,
Gen. 3:9, 6:18, 8:1, etc.
Lacking a full-scale study of the biblical evidence for the contrastive use of 1, a study
which would be alert not only to word order, but also to key particles, such as the presumed
effect of a prior negative (cf., e.g., F.1. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew [1974]
183), etc., the most that can be safely asserted here is that there appears to be a tendency for
the contrastive use of 1to manifest itself in disjunctive rather than conjunctive clauses.
62 MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE
covers his garment with shame, says YHWH Sebaoth. Therefore guard your
spirit and do not act faithlessly") fails to commend itself as too abrupt and
unexpected. 69 Moreover, the language of that disapproval is far too strenuous
to allow Schreiner's claim that Malachi considered divorce "the lesser of two
evils" - an ethical calculus which seems rather too modem for the fifth
century B.C. in any case. Furthermore, Schreiner's assumption that Mal.
2:15-16 alludes to Deuteronomy 24, as opposed to Genesis 1-2, is uncertain
and has been challenged by W. Rudolph.70
5) Schreiner's conclusion that Mal. 2: 16 was an attempt to address the
problem of polygyny, which Malachi deemed to constitute adultery is
unconvincing. Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah, nor any other ancient source,
suggests that polygyny was a problem in the post-exilic community, and the
text of Malachi nowhere else mentions this matter. 71
With such an "astonishing result [erstaunliche Ergebnis]," as his
conclusions have been termed by W. Rudolph, Schreiner's interpretation has
failed to commend itself among more recent interpreters. 72
81 W. Rudolph, Haggai - Sacharja 1-8 - Sacharja 9-14 - Maleachi (1976) 270. Cf. also
idem, "Zu Malachi 2:10-16" (1981) 90, and C. Locher, "Altes und Neues zu Maleachi 2,10-
16" (1981) 245-247.
A simpler way of stating this is that for intransitive stative verbs of the form '?t:iR or '?~R
the participle generally coincides with the third masculine singular perfect. See GKC 50b
and Waltke and O'Connor 37.1b.
82 Probably because ~l~ is transitive, in spite of its stative vowel pattern, it has a well-
attested active participle of the form ~lW. Even-Shoshan lists eight occurrences. Cf. GKC
50b and Jotion 41c.
A. Tosato appears to accept and to build on Rudolph's approach to 2:16 ("II ripudio:
delitto e pena [Mal 2,10-16]" [1978]552 - the writer is indebted to Mr. Paul J. Collacott
of Cheltenham for his help in translating Tosato). Tosato renders Mal. 2:16, "Since
Yahweh the God of Israel has said 'I hate divorce' and Yahweh of hosts has said '(I hate) a
man covering his garment with violence,' therefore be careful for your lives and don't act
faithlessly."
Although A. Tosato does not discuss this verse at length, he does say that Malachi is
persuaded that divorce is sinful because it violates the covenant between Yahweh and Israel
(op. cit., 552, esp. note 19). Tosato supports this assessment by noting the fairly extensive
terminological parallels between Mal. 2:14-16 and Jer. 3:1-13, where Judea is called i11lj
(8, 11) and i1lil~ (10) because of its infidelity toward Yahweh, the friend of its youth ("11~t:\
'"l,pl vs. 4), infidelity which is the cause of its divorce (8). Consequently, Mal. 2:13-16
makes the behaviour of the man who would divorce the wife of his youth equivalent to that
of the unfaithful "wife" in Jeremiah with respect to her husband, Yahweh - an equivalence
(men are no less obligated to marital fidelity than their wives) found also in the Gospels.
Tosato's view, however, shares the difficulties of the "traditional Christian
interpretation" mentioned above. In addition, Tosato's rendering of the third masculine
singular perfect i19::J1 is problematic (unless Tosato accepts the emended reading i10::JJ,
proposed by E. Sellin and W. Rudolph).
83 E.g., C.F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. 2, 454; P.A. Verhoef, Maleachi
verklaart (1972) 190; and idem, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (1987) 278.
Verhoef cites GK 116s (as does W. Rudolph) in support of the suppressed pronominal
subject (Maleachi verklaart [1972]190).
MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE 65
Finally, there are three further problems with this approach to Mal.
2: 16 which need to be considered:
1) As Van der Woude has noted, since there is an awkward shift in the
subject from ~J(() (whether emended or not) to il9Jl, this approach inevitably
needs to explain away or to emend il9J1 without textual support. 84 Although
Verhoef succeeds in defending the MT of il9J1, based on the third person
suffix on iW1:h, he fails to support his rendering of this perfect (as if it were a
substantive use of the participle): "I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel,
even the one who covers [italics added] his garment with (the marks of)
violence, says the Lord Almighty." Some scholars emend iltpl to an
infinitive construct to balance n7W,85 while others prefer an infinitive absolute
with a preposition, ilQ~J.86 While neither of these suggestions is impossible,
they lack textual support.
2) By failing to interpret "hates [~)~]" as a reference to the divorcing
husband's attitude, this approach overlooks a considerable body of evidence,
both biblical and extrabiblical, where hate in the context of divorce is a
frequently specified attribute of one of the marriage partners. This evidence
will be discussed in detail below.
3) Of the approaches to Mal. 2: 16 considered thus far, this is the first
which necessarily involves a conflict with the seemingly lenient attitude
toward divorce in Deut. 24:1-4. Although we must defer judgment until a
more detailed evaluation of that text, it may be useful to note here two
alternative responses to this objection which have been made by those
wishing to support the "traditional Christian" interpretation of 2:16:
a) W.1. Dumbrell has argued that Malachi's attitude toward divorce
need not be considered incongruous with Deuteronomy 24 if, as J. Murray
and others have argued, the purpose of Deuteronomy 24 was not "to facilitate
divorce (the possibility of which is admittedly presupposed), but rather [to
affirm] the indissolubility of the (original) marriage relationship."87
b) Alternatively, Malachi's view of divorce may have gone beyond the
more lenient provision of Deuteronomy, but in so doing may simply reflect a
hermeneutical approach to antecedent scripture which is well-represented
during the post-exilic period. 88 For example, P. Grelot observes how
Malachi's view of marriage and divorce goes "far beyond the tolerances of
the Torah."89 To account for this Grelot notes that during this same time the
requirements of the Torah were also being made more strict by the reforms of
Nehemiah and Ezra. Only Ruth "makes a tactful protest against this
severity .... "90 Also of significance is the fact that Malachi appears to base his
argument quite explicitly on Genesis 1-2, rather than Deuteronomy 24.91
The problem here in reconciling Mal. 2: 16 with Deuteronomy is
similar to the difficulty of relating Ezra 9-10 to Deuteronomy (in view of
Ezra's widely recognized affinity with Deuteronomy). H.G.M. Williamson
believes that Ezra did, in fact, go far beyond the stipulations of Deuteronomy
both in his identification of the nations of his day with the Canaanites of pre-
exilic days and, perhaps also, in his insistence on the dissolution of mixed
marriages. 92
In summary, while the view that Mal. 2:16 prohibits all divorce is
easier than the view that it encourages divorce, this absolutist interpretation
has enough problems to encourage the search for a better approach.
4.1 Malachi prohibits divorce only when initiated by the woman (one
rabbinic view)
The view of y. Qidd. I S8c, 16 and Gen. Rab. 18, 12c, ascribed to rabbis
living in the 4th century A.D., is that the divorce which God "hates" in Mal.
2:16 is "mutual divorce." What is intended by "mutual divorce" is divorce
which may be initiated by either the husband or the wife, such as is practiced
among pagan couples, not Jewish divorce which may be initiated only by the
husband, according to the rabbinic view. 93 An apparent assumption of this
interpretation is that it was the offended women who initiated the dissolution
of their marriages in Malachi. Perhaps the rabbis based this assumption on
the curious order in Malachi's treatment of mixed marriage and divorce.
Malachi mentions the problem of mixed marriage before divorce, as if to
suggest that the divorces were a response of the offended Jewish wives
(forcing their bigamous husbands to divorce them), rather than the
preparatory action of husbands anticipating a second marriage (this time to a
pagan).94 Apart from its interest for the history of interpretation, however,
this view has little to commend it.
4.2 Malachi condemns only unjustified divorce, that is, divorce based on
aversion
Finally, we turn to consider the interpretative approach which views Mal.
2:16 as condemning divorce when it is based on aversion: "If one hates and
divorces, says Yahweh, God of Israel, he covers his garment with violence,
says Yahweh of hosts .... " We shall seek to establish this approach as that
which is most faithful to the text, requiring minimal or no emendation of the
MT, and as most congruent with the larger context of Mal. 2: 10-16.
94 This curious order of treatment is also noted by W.F. Luck, who concludes that the
divorce condemned by Malachi is divorce based merely on the desire to be monogamously
married to another (Divorce and Remarriage [1987]82).
95 So NIV. Cf., e.g., T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew
(1985) 158-164, and Waltke and O'Connor 39.3.4.e. A. Aejmelaeus considers that the
emphatic use of ';' is less frequent than is often alleged ("Function and Interpretation of '~
in Biblical Hebrew" [1986]208).
96 The context of Mal. 2:16 appears to exclude the other principal uses of ':;> listed, for
examfle, in Williams, Syntax, 444-452.
9 In support of this analysis of ';' clauses, cf. A. Aejmelaeus, "Function and
Interpretation of'~ in Biblical Hebrew" (1986) 193-209, esp. 197-199. Cf. also Waltke and
O'Connor 39.3.4.e.
98 Deul. 4:29; 28:2, 9, offer rare counter-examples.
99 A. Aejmelaeus, "Function and Interpretation of'~ in Biblical Hebrew," 197.
68 MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE
antecedent of the "he" in vs. 16a.106 Furthermore, it is not obvious how the
assertion, "for he has hated, divorced ... ," actually explains the command,
"Take heed to yourselves .... "107 .
A translation of the whole makes these difficulties readily apparent:
'''Take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of your youth.
For he has hated, divorced,' says Yahweh, God of Israel, 'and covered his
garment in injustice. '" Who is the intended referent of this "he"? Moreover,
as is evident from the capitalization of "For," Westbrook fails to render the ')
clause in 2:16a in a manner which makes clear its grammatical subordination
to 2: 1Sb (although he insists on its logical subordination). If 2: 16a is not
grammatically subordinate to 2: 1Sb, then the frontal position of the ') clause
no longer favours the causal interpretation.108
106 The grammar of third person form '~J' in vs. lSb is discussed below. Here we
merely note that even if it is left unemended (against the versional evidence), it appears
inade~uate to account for the wholesale shift to the third person in vs. 16a.
10 E.g., with such an explanatory clause it would seem more logical for the command
to be: "Expel such a man, for he has hated.... " Alternatively, if the command is to be
maintained, it would seem more logical for a rather different explanatory clause: "Take
heed to yourselves .... for I will judge all such faithless husbands."
108 It is possible that special emphasis is intended when a causal ') clause precedes the
main clause (Joiion 170n). If so, the fact that no particular emphasis is required in 16a
does not favour the present causal interpretation of its ') clause. Other grammarians,
however, fail to confirm this point. Cf., e.g., A. Aejmelaeus, "Function and Interpretation
of'=> in Biblical Hebrew," 196f.
109 Alternatively, if ~iq is identified as a verbal adjective, or participle (cf. GKC SOb
and Waltke and O'Connor 37.1b), the MT may be rendered, "if one who hates divorces ... ,
then he covers.... "
110 LXXMBQV reads: ciAM [LXXlliA: ciAA ' j Env ~la~aas EeaTTOaTElAl]S, AEYEl
KUPlOS (; eEOS Toil lapaTjA, Kat KaAUljiEl ciaE~Ela ETTl Tn Evew~~aTCi aov, AEYEl
KUPlOS TTavToKpciTwp, "But if you divorce, having hated, says the Lord the God of Israel,
then ungodliness will cover your thoughts [or "garment" if LXX~ABQV are corrected with
LXXWj, says the Lord Almighty."
111 A Commentary on Haggai and Malachi, 138.
70 MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE
other uses of ':;l predominate, '::l is used in a conditional manner in well over
fifty verses, as rendered by the RSV,112 Moreover, in a significant number of
cases, the apodosis is marked by a 1 + perfect, as is being suggested for Mal.
2:16 (cf., e.g., Exod. 23:5; Lev. 13:16; 25:25; Num. 27:8; etc.).113
112 Cf., e.g., Gen. 4:24; Exod. 21:14,37; 22:9f. [ET lOf.), 13 [ET 14),15 [ET 16); Lev.
11:38; 13:40; etc.
113 Cf. also Deut. 18:21f., where a non-converted perfect appears in an unmarked
apodosis.
114 It is also the view of a considerable number of modem scholars, including A. van
Hoonacker, H. Junker, F. N6tscher, T. Chary, S. Schreiner, and M. Smith, who render the
passaBe either "if one sends away out of hate" or "if one hates, (let him) send away."
1 Malachi,56.
The foundational study to make this point was that of J.J. Rabinowitz, "Marriage
116
Contracts in Ancient Egypt in the Light of Jewish Sources" (1953), although the biblical
example cited by Rabinowitz, Deut. 21:15, has been rejected by R. Yaron, "On Divorce in
MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE 71
Old Testament Times" (1957) 119. Cf. also R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the
Aramaic Papyri (1961).
AS. van der Woude notes simply that while "hate" bears the sense of "divorce" in
Aramaic, it is unattested with this meaning in Biblical Hebrew ("Malachi's Struggle for a
Pure Community," 70, n. 32).
117 "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4," 398ff.
118 Westbrook does not use the term "encapsulation." For an examination of the
phenomenon of "encapsulation" in lexical semantics, cf. J. Lyons, Semantics, I, 262.
119 Cowley 15 (= PY B2.6) and Kraeling 2 (= PY B3.3).
120 Kraeling 7 lines 21-22 (= PY B3.8) is obviously intended, correcting the
typographical mistake in R. Westbrook, "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in
Deuteronomy 24:1-4," 401, n. 51.
121 DJ. Wiseman, "Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets," JCS 8 (1954) 7, No. 94,
lines 17-19.
122 B. Parker, "The Numrud Tablets, 1952 - Business Documents," No. ND 2307,
lines 49-50 read sum-ma (m)Mil-ki-ra-mu [itti-:si] e-zi-ra e-zip-pi iddan(an). Similarly, R.
Westbrook: sum-ma H e-zi-ra e-zip-pi SUM-an ("The Prohibition on Restoration of
Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4," 400). Westbrook rejects the various alternative
interpretations/emendations of this text proposed by CAD E (1958) 422; V. Jakobson,
"Studies in Neo-Assyrian Law" (1974) 116; and J.N. Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal
Documents (1976) 105f.
To this evidence, Westbrook adds a legal formula attested in the ana ittiSu series (VII iv
1-5 =ana itti3u A 5): "if a wife hates her husband and says 'You are not my husband' ... "
(B. Landsberger, Die Serie ana ittiSu, MSL I, 103).
123 "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4," 401. Cf. also
LE 30 and CH 142, 193.
72 MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE
4.2.4 "he covers his garment with violence [irbr:J~-'1) 0l?1J ,19;'1J"
Finally, we need to consider how the clause "he covers his garment with
violence [itV1::l'?-'?.l} '0917 ii9Ji]" is to be understood on the present
interpretation. We have already argued that this clause ought to be construed
as an apodosis, against the view of LXXLW, etc. (see 4.2.1 above). In
addition to offering greater congruence with its context, one special
advantage of this proposal is that it obviates any need to emend ii9~!.129
Even though we may have clarified its grammatical function within its
context, because this figure occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, there
remains considerable uncertainty as to its interpretation. In addition, there is
further uncertainty regarding the grammar within the clause itself. T.V.
Moore rules out the rendering "who covers violence with his garment" on the
ground that '?.l}, when used with iiOJ, always designates the thing covered. l30
Nevertheless, it may be asked whether "violence [0917]" is the subject of
126 Malachi, ad loco Smith renders the verse, "For one who hates and sends away
covers his clothing with violence, says Yahweh of hosts." Cf. also A. van Hoonacker, H.
Junker F. Notscher, T. Chary, and R. Westbrook.
127 Jotion 123x and Waltke and O'Connor 35.5.2. Waltke and O'Connor note that all
of the narrative examples which they cite occur in direct discourse, a fact which may lend
additional support to the recognition of n?t(i in 2:16 as an infinitive absolute. Cf. also W.L.
Moran, "The Use of the Canaanite Infinitive Absolute as a Finite Verb in the Amarna
Letters from Byblos" (1950) 169-172. Within the immediate context of Malachi, it is
possible that ni9~ in 2:13 offers another, generally undetected, example of an infinitive
absolute used as a finite form.
128 Cf. GKC 520, which notes that in the Piel the infinitive construct form is "much
more frequently" employed for the infinitive absolute than the special infinitive absolute
form. Cf. also Jotion 52c.
129 The most common proposals are to repaint :19:l as an infinitive construct to balance
n'?~ (so BHS), or to emend it to an infinitive absolute with prefix, :10:;9. Cf. discussion of
this in A.S. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 70 and 71, n. 35.
130 Malachi (1856) 139. So also W.C. Kaiser Jr., Malachi, 73.
Cf. Deut. 13:8, Hab. 2:14, etc. These parallels, likewise, appear to offer little support
for the interpretation of the NIV (assuming that it is not intended to be paraphrastic): "I hate
a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment."
74 MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE
131 The LXX reads, Ka'\ul/!El aaEj3Ew ElTl TO. Evevll~rwTCi aou. I.M.P. Smith notes
that EVeull~llaTci is an inner-Greek corruption for Ev8ullaTCl, based on the daughter
versions of LXX, viz., Peshitta, Arabic Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian (Malachi, 60).
So also LXXw.
132 So, e.g., P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 279.
133 Ibid., 280.
134 E. Pococke, A Commentary on the Prophecy of Malachi (1740) - so, according to
A. von Bulmerincq, Der Prophet Maleach~ Band 2,315. This view is supported by, among
others, E. Henderson, The Twelve Minor Prophets (1858) 455; 1. Wellhausen, Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten (1892) 199; G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (1899) 365; K.
Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (1904); 472; R.C. Dentan, "The Book of Malachi" (1956)
1136; and C.M. Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible (1985) 198.
MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE 75
135 Cf. E.B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (1883) 484, n. 5, and J.M. P Smith, Malachi,
60, against G.H.A. von Ewald, who terms itii1:l7 "a genuinely popular phrase ... for his wife"
(Mal'aki [1881] 82).
136 So, e.g., W.E. Barnes, Malachi (1917) 125.
137 So, e.g., J.M.P. Smith, Malachi, 55f.; W.C. Kaiser Jr., Malachi, 73f.; and E.
Achtemeier, Nahum - Malachi (1986) 183.
138 Cf., e.g., A. Phillips, "Uncovering the Father's Skirt" (1980) 38.
139 Cf. Martin Luther, Lectures on Malachi, 406; C.F. Keil, The Twelve Minor
Prophets, vol. 2 (1868) 454; J. Packard, "The Book of Malachi" (1876) 17; E.B. Pusey, The
Minor Prophets (1883) 609, n. 13; T.T. Perowne, Malachi (1890) 27; c. von Orelli, The
Twelve Minor Prophets (1893) 397f.; S.R. Driver, The Minor Prophets (1906) 317; E.
Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch (1922) 554; P.M. Schumpp, Das Buch der zwolf Propheten
(1950) 396; D.R. Jones, Hagga~ Zechariah, Malachi (1962) 197; C. Stuhlmueller,
"Malachi" (1970) 400; W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi (1976)
275; and S. Schreiner, "Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung. Betrachtungen zu Mal 2,10-
16" B6~{ ;fs~ Zech. 3:3-5; Ps. 109:29; Provo 31:25; Isa. 59:17; 61:10; 64:5 [ET 6], etc.
141 Cf. J.M.P. Smith, Malachi, 55f. Smith also cites W.R. Smith, Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia, 1st ed., p. 87, as offering Arabic parallels for the use of garments
in claiming a wife. N.B., Smith is careful to distinguish his view from the view which uses
these texts to argue an identification of "his garments" with the man's wife (op. cit., 60).
Possibly there is also some connection between the garment mentioned in 2:16 and the
Akkadian practice of "cutting the hem/veil" as expressive of divorce (perhaps reflected in
the expression, 'nl:1"f '!?9, bill of divorce [cutting]"). In any case, the expression "the wife
of your youth," with its allusion to the time of one's wedding, may offer some indirect
support to an association between the garments mentioned in 2:16 and the use of garments
in the act of betrothal.
Moreover, it is also possible that an allusion is intended to 2:13, where i10~ also appears
in what is a distinctly cultic context. Cf. P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi,
279f. Thus understood, Malachi employs an image which is reminiscent of that found in
Zechariah 3 in order to indicate that by his divorce the offerer has been spiritually
disqualified from cultic participation.
76 MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE
In summary, we may paraphrase Mal. 2:16, "If one hates and divorces
[that is, if one divorces merely on the ground of aversion], says Yahweh, God
of Israel, he covers his garment with violence [i.e., such a man visibly defiles
himself with violence], says Yahweh of hosts. Therefore, take heed to
yourselves and do not be faithless [against your wife]."
5. DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4
We began this chapter noting how A.S. van der Woude rejects an
interpretation of Mal. 2: 16 which is similar to the one just defended - that
Malachi repudiated not divorce in general, but divorce based on aversion.1 43
Van der Woude acknowledges that he might be prepared to accept this
interpretation on other grounds were it not for the lenient attitude toward
divorce attested in Deut. 24: 1-4. We turn now to this decisive passage.
It is not possible within the limits of the present study to establish
which, if any, of the ten major competing views is to be preferred for the
rationale behind the prohibition of palingamy to a former spouse in Deut.
24:4.1 44 Nevertheless, in spite of this unresolved debate, there has emerged a
142 "It must be sincerely doubted whether in Old Testament times even a prophet would
have denounced divorce as a crime [italics added)" ("Malachi's Struggle Por a Pure
Community," 71).
143 Ibid.
144 The ten views in question are:
a) To renew such a marriage would be to condone adultery (the adultery is implicit in
the second marriage, whether or not a remarriage to the first husband takes place). Cf.
Philo, Special Laws, 3:30f. Philo's approach is discussed and rejected by R. Yaron, "The
Restoration of Marriage" (1966) 6f., and R. Westbrook, "The Prohibition on Restoration of
Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4," 388f.
b) The remarriage of a divorced woman is tantamount to adultery. Cf. c.P. Keil and P.
Delitzsch, The Pentateuch (1878) 418, and S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 272. Against
this, cf. R. Yaron, "The Restoration of Marriage," 7.
c) Protect the first marriage (a deterrent against rash divorce). Cf. S.R. Driver,
Deuteronomy, 272. Against this, however, cf. R. Yaron, "The Restoration of Marriage,"
5f.; J.A. Thompson, Deuteronomy (1974) 244; GJ. Wenham, "The Restoration of Marriage
Reconsidered" (1979) 36; and R. Westbrook, op. cit., 389.
d) A consequence of marriage as an unobliterable relationship. Cf. J. Murray, Divorce
(1961) 14.
e) Codify natural revulsion. Cf. H. Junker, Das Buch Deuteronomium (1933) 100;
C.M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (1974) 203-207; and idem, Women, Law, and
the Genesis Traditions (1979) 8-21. Against this view, cf. GJ. Wenham, "The Restoration
of Marriage Reconsidered," 37, and R. Westbrook, op. cit., 391.
f) Protect the second marriage. Cf. S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy, 272, and R. Yaron, "The
Restoration of Marriage," 8-11. Against this view, cf. C.M. Carmichael, The Laws of
Deuteronomy, 204; R. Westbrook, op. cit., 389f.; and G.J. Wenham, "The Restoration of
Marriage Reconsidered," 37.
g) Avoid incest. Cf. GJ. Wenham, "The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered," 37ff.,
and W.A. Heth and GJ. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (1984) 106-110. Against this view,
MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE 77
scholarly consensus that the intent of this casuistic law is neither to authorize
divorce, nor to stipulate its proper grounds, nor to establish its requisite
procedure. Rather, its sole concern is to prohibit the restoration of a marriage
after an intervening marriage.1 45 If so, there is no necessary contradiction
between Malachi's prophetic indictment of divorce on the ground of aversion
and Deuteronomy 24.1 46
In grammatical terms this consensus reflects the conviction that the
only apodosis in Deut. 24: 1-4 is the clause which begins '?~1'-~? in vs. 4.
Accordingly, as against the AV, for example, the clause beginning ::llJ~l in vs.
1b is not an apodosis, but is rather part of a complex protasis extending from
vss. 1 to 3.1 47 It may help to illustrate this analysis if we set out the various
elements of Deut. 24:1-4 as follows:
cf. R. Westbrook, op. cit., 390f., and H.W. Hoehner, "A Response to Divorce and
Remarriage [a paper read by W.A. Heth]" (1987) 240-246, at 243.
h) Protect the woman. Cf. W.F. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage (1987) 57. Against
this, cf. H.W. Hoehner, "A Response to Divorce and Remarriage [a paper read by W.A
Heth ]," 242.
i) Prohibit unjust enrichment (due to estoppel). Cf. R. Westbrook, op. cit., 387-405.
j) Avoid legalized adultery (closing a possible loophole in the prohibition against
adultery). Cf. J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the
form of a Harmony, III, 94: "The reason of the law is, that, by prostituting his wife, he
would be, as far as in him lay, acting like a procurer." Cf. also S.F. Bigger, "Hebrew
Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period" (1974) 237, and P.e. Craigie,
Deuteronomy (1976) 306f.
It will be noted that these ten main approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive
and that not all scholars confine themselves to just one of these opinions. For example, at
various points in his discussion, S.R. Driver supports positions c), which he most favours,
but also b) and f). Similarly, C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 416ff., appear to
hold a combination of b), c), and h); while J.A Thompson, Deuteronomy, 245, speaks in
favour of b), c), and f).
For a further discussion of this issue, see the writer's unpublished paper, "Alternative
approaches to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and a defence of the 'adultery loophole' view"
(submitted to G.J. Wenham on 18/8/87).
145 So, already, J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, III, 94. Cf.
also, e.g., e.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, III, 416f.; S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy
(1895) 269; M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (1963) 114f.; A. Phillips, Deuteronomy
(1973) 159f.; J.A. Thompson, Deuteronomy (1974) 243.; P.e. Craigie, Deuteronomy (1976)
304; and AD.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 322.
146 The regulation of a practice does not thereby imply moral approval for that practice.
Cf., el' Chapter 4, 6.2.1 below.
14 AV: "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no
favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write
her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when
she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter
husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her
out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former
husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is
defiled; for that is abomination before the LoRD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin,
which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deut. 24:1-4)
Cf. also the English Revised Version, the American Revised Version, and the ASV of
1901. These translations give the impression that divorce is not merely permitted, it is
mandatory under the circumstances described in vs. 1 (so notes J. Murray, Divorce, 4).
Typical of the present scholarly consensus is the view of R.C. Campbell, who writes,
"There is scarcely any question that these verses constitute one conditional sentence, the
78 MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE
Complex protasis:
Condition 1: An initial legal marriage
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, ... "
i'!~-\,~1 i1W~ tli,~ nR '-'~ 24: I
Condition 2: Because the wife commits some offence
" ... if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some
indecency in her, ... "
i~l nrw 'i'!:t ~~lt'~ "~'.l)J llT~~~n ~'?-Cl~ i1:~1
Condition 3abcd: He legally divorces her
a) " ... and he writes her a bill of divorce ... "
c) " ... and sends her out of his house, ... "
d) " ... and she departs out of his house, ... "
c) " ... and sends her out of his house, ... "
itT:!l~ i'!D~tli'
Alternative to Conditions 5 and 6abc: Or the second husband dies
" ... or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, ... "
:i1W~7 i7 i'!D~''-i~~ li"1J~~ tli,~~ 'm~: '~ i~
Apodosis: Under such conditions remarriage to the first husband is prohibited
" ... then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her
again to be his wife ... "
i1~~'? i? ni:~'? i'!~n~7 :mV7 i'!1!~i4hW~ lit!i~i~ i'!~.l)~ '?~1'-~'? 24:4
Reason part 1: because the woman is defiled
protasis of which is to be found in the first three verses and the apodosis of which beings
[sic for "begins"] only with v. 4" ("Teachings of the Old Testament Concerning Divorce"
[1963~ 174f.).
14 Although the MT of Deut. 24:1-4 is generally reliable, it is possible that one should
follow the LXX in omitting j9~;;1 iIT:lD, as noted in BHS. In any case, the sense is not
greatl y affected by the choice.
MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE 79
other hand, in cases where the divorce was justified because of some serious
misconduct on the part of the woman (less than adultery, for which the
penalty would be death according to Westbrook), the financial consequences
were radically different. Under such a circumstance the husband was entitled
to keep the dowry and incurred no financial penalty.1 51
Westbrook then argues that the first divorce in Deuteronomy 24 was
precisely such as would involve "the kind of misconduct referred to in CH
141-142 and in m. Ketub. 7:6 and therefore justifies the husband in
divorcing his wife without a financial settlement."152 The second divorce, on
the other hand, because it specifies a motive of "hate," a term that in
numerous other legal contexts expresses "the mens rea, the 'guilty mind',
which is a necessary constituent of the offence," would entitle the wife to
receive the normal financial settlement. 153 We have already considered
Westbrook's argument concerning the meaning of "hate [~jtD]" in the context
of divorce. Here it should be noted that under such a circumstance the second
divorce would leave the woman in much the same financial condition as if
her husband had died.
Westbrook concludes, "The effect would be that the first husband
profits twice: firstly by rejecting his wife and then by accepting her. It is a
flagrant case of unjust enrichment which the law intervenes to prevent." In
modern law such a prohibition would be grounded in the concept of
"estoppel," the principle that a man who has benefited from asserting a
demonstrates that the possibility of this kind of murderous intrigue on the part of a wife is
anything but farfetched.
For the financial settlement in the case of divorce, cf. LU 6-7; CH 138-140; MAL
A 20, 37, 38; and m. Ketub. 1:2 (cf. b. B. Qam. 82b). CH 138 specifies the general case
where the divorced woman is entitled to her returned dowry [seriktam] and a divorce
payment equal to her marriage present [kaspam mala ter{jatiSa]. Westbrook argues that
MAL A 37 need not be understood as giving the husband total discretion with respect to
the divorce settlement (op. cit., 395, n. 27). It may only intend to relieve him of a statutory
minimum, such as mentioned in CH 6-7, 138.
151 Westbrook cites CH 141, where the wife's misconduct was of a financial nature
(according to Westbrook), and the punishment is expUlsion "without giving her anything,
not her journey-money, nor her divorce-money." Westbrook also notes CH 142-143,
where the wife in an inchoate marriage is to be cast into the water if she was unchaste and
involved in some financial misconduct, but if she is innocent of the charge, she may leave
with her dowry. Finally, Westbrook cites MAL A 29 (following the interpretation offered
by G. Cardascia,Les lois assyriennes [1969]161-163) and m. Ketub. 7:6.
Westbrook's assumption of the death penalty for adultery presumably reflects the
typical case of a guilty spouse caught in flagrante delicto. Cf., e.g., CH 129; LE 28; HL
195, 197, 198; MAL A 13, 15, 16, and 23. It is important, however, to stress the
condition of being caught in flagrante delicto and also to note that some laws suggest the
possibility that the death penalty for an adulterous wife, even if caught in flagrante delicto,
could be waived by her husband as long as equal leniency was shown to the guilty lover.
Cf., e.g., CH 129; HL 198; and MAL A 14, 15, 16, and 23. See the fuller treatment of
this to~ic in Chapter 8 below.
15 "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4," 399.
153 "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4," 401.
Westbrook cites LE 30; CH 136, 142, 193, as offering examples for this usage of
"hate."
MALACHI 2:16 AND DIVORCE 81
particular set of facts may not benefit a second time from conceding that the
facts were otherwise.
Whether or not one agrees with Westbrook that estoppel is the
underlying rationale for the prohibition in Deut. 24: 1-4, his analysis of the
distinction between the two divorces and the resulting financial benefit to the
first husband, which may have motivated the remarriage, appear plausible.
Of course, in the absence of corroborating evidence, some uncertainty about
the precise meaning of "some indecency" must remain.1 54 Still, there is an
inherent plausibility in Westbrook's attempt to distinguish "if then she finds
no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency [i~l n)i.i)] in
her" in vs. 1 from "and he hates her [;'~JiD1]" in vs. 3. If these expressions
were entirely synonymous, why would the author use the fuller expression
when "hate" is sufficiently clear and well attested elsewhere in divorce
contexts? 155 Likewise, the evidence from the ancient Near East and post-
biblical Judaism presented by Westbrook should predispose the interpreter to
discover in the biblical legislation a similar practice of distinguishing various
grounds for divorce - in particular, mere aversion ~JiD) from some more
serious failing in one's spouse (presumably i~ 1 n)i.lJ). Accordingly, as
against those scholars who consider Mal. 2: 16 to be in tension with Deut.
24:1-4, the implied financial penalty on the second husband who divorces in
Deut. 24:3 in reality reflects a disapprobation of divorce when grounded in
mere aversion similar to what is attested in Mal. 2: 16.1 56
154 Whatever the precise origin and meaning of this crux interpretum, it seems
warranted to conclude with Westbrook that it refers to a cause serious enough to permit the
husband to divorce his wife while avoiding any financial penalty. Cf. also, e.g., M.G.
Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 115.
Amo~g others, A.D.H. Mayes considers that the entire clause 1'j'J)? llT~9i1 ~,?1:l~ i1:;;r1
1~l i1,11J! i1:;J ~9-'J is "probably a later addition" (Deuteronomy, 322). Mayes bases this
conjecture on the fact that the verse "has a new beginning with the word wehiiyiih; see
comment on 18:19." Mayes' comment at 18:19 proves to be unilluminating, however, and
the argument must be judged unconvincing since i1:;;r1 is so widely attested with this same
grammatical function in texts of unquestioned integrity (e.g., Mayes himself does not
consider 18:19 to be a later interpolation). Indeed, given the repetition in phraseolog;y
between the description of the first divorce, where we read i'1l:::J 1m' 'i1I}'1J 1El9 Cli ::llJ11
il}':JO i1~~:1 irp1:i ClQ"tli1, and the second, where we find the only slightly abbreviated ::llJ?'
il}'::J1:i ClQ7D1 Clt::J 1m1 'i1I}'1J 1El9 Cl/, it would be quite surprising to be left, as ~ayes would
have it, without any expression in the first divorce to parallel (or contrast with) CI~ltvl in the
second.
155 Here we assume the widely conceded observation that since 24: 1 occurs in the
protasis of this case law, the legislator was not intending to introduce a novel requirement in
the procedure for divorce which would necessitate the unusually full description.
156 Less convincing is Westbrook's interpretation of i1~~~, "she has been caused to be
unclean," as a reference to the first husband's allegation of defilement: " ... the first
husband's earlier assertion that she was unclean makes her unclean now for the purposes of
marrying her. Having profited from the claim that she was unfit to be his wife, he can not
now act as if she were fit to marry him because circumstances have made her a more
profitable match" ("The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4,"
404f.).
Also problematic is the characterization in 24:4 of any such remarriage as an
"abomination [i1~J)ii1)" which would bring "guilt upon the land [n~;;r-m~ '~'~1:tQ ~?'l,"
statements which appear excessively harsh for the pecuniary wrong he alleges. Although
Westbrook cites M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (1972) 272-269,
82 MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE
158 For this asyndetic construction, cf. Chapter 3, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 above.
Alternatively, if ~~ is identified as an otherwise unattested verbal adjective, and hence the
equivalent of a participle, the MT may be rendered without significant difference in
meaning: "if one who hates divorces ... , then he covers .... " Cf. GKC 50b and Waltke and
O'Connor 37.1b.
CHAPTER FOUR
3 So, inter alia, G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (1899) 340, 363-65; K.
Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (1904) 469; E. Sievers, Alttestamentliche Miscellen, 4, Zu
Maleachi (1905); W. Nowack, Die klein en Propheten (1922) 404, 418f.; E. Sellin, Das
Zw6lfprophetenbuch (1922); K. Elliger, Das Buch der zw6lf kleinen Propheten (1950) 189,
193; R. Rendtorff, "Maleachi," RGG3, IV, col. 629; R.A. Mason, The Books of Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi (1977) 149; A. Renker, Die Tora bei Maleachi (1979) 90; and R.
Vuilleumier, Malachie (1981) 237, 240f.
There are minor differences among scholars as to whether to include vss. 10, lla, or
13a in the proposed interpolation. So, e.g., R. Vuilleumier considers only llb-12 to be
86 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
secondary, while K. Elliger prefers llb-13a. A. van Hoonacker, on the other hand,
considers all of vss. 10-12 to be secondary.
4 The Book of the Twelve Prophets (1899) 340, 363-65.
5 So G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (1899) 340. Cf. also p. 363, where
Smith writes, "Certain verses, 11-13a, ... disturb the argument by bringing in the marriages
with heathen women .... "
This objection is summarized by J.M.P. Smith, "their interest is not in ethics as in v. 10,
but in cultus" (Malachi, 57).
6 So also, inter alia, R.A. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 149.
? G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (1899) 340.
8 So notes R.L. Smith without necessarily agreeing that vss. 11-13b are secondary
(Micah-Malachi, 320)
9 G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (1899) 340. Cf. also E. Sellin, Das
Zwo/fprophetenbuch, 551; J. Morgenstern, "Jerusalem - 485 B.c." (1957) 21; and E.
Lipinski, "Malachi," EJ, 11, col. 814.
10 So, e.g., E. Sellin, Das Zwo/fprophetenbuch, 55l.
11 R.A. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 149.
MALACHI 2: 10-16 AND POLYGYNY 87
7) The descriptive and prosaic character of these verses does not fit
Malachi's style elsewhere.1 2
8) Although A. S. van der Woude considers vs. 11 to be original, with
respect to vs. 12 he writes, "The metre, the wording and the contents of the
verse strongly suggest that it is a glosS."13 More specifically regarding the
contents of the verse, Van der Woude explains, "the curse clashes with the
call on the audience of the prophet to heed to their spirit and not to be
unfaithful. "14
9) O. Eissfeldt notes "the removal of these words which condemn the
marriage of foreign women, would give a more general character to the
reproach made to the people in ii, 10-16, since divorce then would be
absolutely condemned here, and not just divorce occasioned by a desire for a
foreign wife."15
10) Finally, perhaps the most important argument for the secondary
character of vss. 11-12 is that the proposed deletion would resolve the
problem of an apparent rejection of the option of polygyny.1 6
12 E. Sellin, Das ZwolJprophetenbuch, 551; K. Eiliger, Das Buch der zwo/f kleinen
Propheten, 189; G.J. Botterweck, "Schelt- und Mahnrede gegen Mischehe und
Ehescheidung. Auslegung von Malachias 2, 10-16" (1960) 181; and A Renker, Die Tora
bei Maleachi, 73.
13 "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 68.
14 Ibid., 68, n. 17. In a similar manner, R.A Mason notes that "the separateness of
verses 11-12 is further shown by the finality of the concluding curse in verse 12" (The
Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 149).
15 The Old Testament: An Introduction, 442.
16 Cf., e.g., K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, 469; and AS. van der Woude, "Malachi's
Struggle for a Pure Community," 66. AS. van der Woude unaccountably cites G.A. Smith
and E. Sellin in support of this argument (op. cit., 66, n. 6).
17 Recognizing this difficulty, A van Hoonacker has argued that vs. 10 is also
secondary, along with vss. 11 and 12 (Les douze petits prophetes [1908] 721ff.). Other
scholars, however, have not followed Van Hoonacker in this suggestion.
18 The MT pointing here of a Niphal, "~:ll, a conjugation otherwise unattested for this
verb, may have been motivated by a misguided scribal concern to protect Malachi from
including himself among the offenders.
19 G.S. Ogden argues that the priests continue to be the assumed audience of 2:10-16
("The Use of Figurative Language in Malachi 2:10-16" [1988]223-230). Ogden, however,
fails to take account of the overall literary structure of Malachi, which distinguishes the
disputation in 2:10-16 from what precedes. Furthermore, Ogden's assumption that "Judah"
in 2:11 is intended as a figurative reference to the priesthood appears unconvincing.
88 MALACHI 2: 10-16 AND POLYGYNY
20 It should be noted that vs. 10 does not teach that the infidelity and profaning are
separate (coordinate) failings. To "profane the covenant" is to break faith with fellow
members of the covenant community. ., used with the infinitive construct here is either
explanatory, "Why then are we faithless: .. by profaning the covenant...," or it expresses a
result, "Why then are we faithless ... with the result of profaning the covenant.. .. " Cf.
Waltke and O'Connor 36.2.3.d and e.
21 S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace prefer a reference to the patriarchal covenant,
based on the references to Jacob (1:2-5), Levi (2:1-9), and perhaps Abraham (2:15)
("Covenant Themes in Malachi," 552). Alternatively, they suggest the reference is
intentionally ambiguous because Malachi regarded the Sinaitic covenant and the patriarchal
covenants "as standing in continuity with the original covenant of election."
22 J. Van Seters considers the emphasis on racial purity inherent in the Abrahamic
covenant and texts like Gen. 24:7 (which prohibits intermarriage with Canaanites) to reflect
exilic and post-exilic concerns (Abraham in History and Tradition [1975] 272ff.).
B. Glazier-McDonald, however, challenges Van Seters' emphasis on racial purity to the
neglect of the issues of apostasy and syncretism (Malachi, 86-88). Glazier-McDonald cites
G.W. Ahlstrom in support of the notion that the threat of apostasy and syncretism remained
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 89
Alternatively, as is perhaps more probable in view of Malachi's use of
"fathers" in 3:7, if the reference in 2:10 is to the Exodus generation, then
interfaith marriage was explicitly prohibited by the stipulations of the Sinaitic
covenant (cf. Exod. 34:12-16; Num. 25:1ff.; Deut. 7:3f.).23
Further supporting the coherence of 2: 11f. with 2: 10, it is notable that
Ezra specifically relates interfaith marriage to the transgression of God's
commandments (e.g., 9:lOf., 14) and to breaking faith [L;.IlD] with God (9:2, 4;
10:2, 10). Likewise, Nehemiah explicitly recalls the critical failure of Israel's
idolatrous sexual alliance with Moab, when Israel yoked herself with the Baal
of Peor (Numbers 25), as well as Solomon's sinful interfaith marriages
(13: 1ff., 26ff.).24 Finally, Nehemiah decries interfaith marriage in a manner
which closely parallels Mal. 2:lOff., thus supporting its unity: " ... they have
defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites
[Cl,',L;;:11 i1,~i1:;iJ n'):l1 i1~i1:;iJ '!~~ L;,pJ" (Neh. 13:29).25
2) If a section of text, such as vss. 11-12, can be removed without
disrupting the flow of a narrative or argument, this may indicate that the
portion is secondary, but it hardly requires this conclusion. As has often been
observed, the criterion of excisability is notoriously precarious as a means for
determining the originality of a work. This is especially true with biblical
and ancient Near Eastern texts, which are fond of such literary techniques as
repetition, digression, layering, etc. As a matter of fact, removal of vss. 11
and 12 does not leave a coherent result without radical philological
emendation or outright deletion of vs. 13a, "and this again you do [n',Jil,i 'n~r'
1(bPQ]." The suggested philological emendation of R. Althann, who renders
vs. 13a, "Even indignity, gnashing of teeth you perform," does not commend
itself.26 The alternative expedient of deletion, although widely accepted,
offends the principle of parsimony and is not favoured by 4QXIIa or the
versional evidence.27
issues in the exilic and post-exilic periods (G.W. Ahlstrom, Joel and the Temple Cult of
Jerusalem, 27).
23 Further supporting a reference to the Exodus generation, it has been argued that the
designation of God in 2:10 as our "father" (cf. Mal. 1:6) and as the one who "created us"
probably alludes to the formation of Israel as a people at Sinai (cf. Deul. 32:6; Isa. 43:1, 15;
44:7; 63:16; 64:8; etc.). So, e.g., E. Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch, 551; A.S. van der
Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 67; and P.A. Verhoef, The Books of
Haggai and Malachi, 265f.; as against, inter alia, J. Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten
(189~ 198; and W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten (1922) 417f.
2 Cf. discussion of Ezra 9:10f. in H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 137.
25 H.G.M. Williamson would prefer to relate Nehemiah's statement to Mal. 2:4-8,
where the covenant of Levi is explicitly mentioned (Ezra, Nehemiah, 401). To be sure, the
perspective of this passage does offer some parallel to that found in Nehemiah.
Nevertheless, it is only in Mal. 2:lOff. that the problem of interfaith marriage is treated.
26 "Malachy 2, 13-14 and UT 125, 12-13" (1977) 418-19.
27 In support of deleting 13a, cf., inter alia, G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve
Prophets (1899) 340; K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (1904) 470; and W. Nowack, Die
kleinen Propheten (1922) 419.
Against the proposal to delete n',l~ in Mal. 2:13 on the basis of the LXX, cf. A.S. van
dcr Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 68, n. 19. The LXX, EflLOOUV,a
90 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
supports the consonantal text of the MT although it apparently read 'rlltq, "which I hate"
(perhaps under the influence of 2: 16), rather than n')tD, "second."
28 On the other hand, cf. A. van Hoonacker, who argues against the originality of vs. 10
(Les douze petits prophetes [1908] 721ff.).
29 1:2-5 has but four verses; 1:6-2:9 has eighteen verses; 2:10-16 has seven verses;
2:17-3:5 has six verses; 3:6-12 has seven verses; 3:13-21[ET 4:3] has nine verses.
30 Cf. BHS on 3:7, however.
MAlACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 91
31 Post-Exilic Judaism (1935) 113-25. Cf. the discussion of Welch's views in R.L.
Smith, Micah - Malachi, 298f.
32 The Book of the Twelve Prophets, 334f.
33 On the dating of Malachi, cf. our discussion in Chapter 1, 1.
34 "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 66, citing in support K. Elliger, F.
Horst, and R. Rendtorff, "Maleachibuch," as well as his own commentary, Haggai,
Maleachi.
35 Cf. also P.A. Verhoef, "Some Notes on Malachi 1:11" (1967); J.G. Baldwin,
"Malachi 1:11 and the worship of the nations in the Old Testament" (1972) 117-24; and
T.e. Vriezen, "How to Understand Malachi 1:11" (1975) 128-136.
36 Cf., e.g., C.F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, 449; and R.A. Mason, The Books of
Haggfi, Zechariah, and Malachi, 150.
Cf. the similar assessment of 2:11, 12 offered by, e.g., J.G. Baldwin, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, 238; and w.e. Kaiser Jr., Malachi, 68.
92 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
38 Cf., e.g., GKC 144p and the examples of heterosis of person and number offered by
E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 524f. R. Yaron makes a similar
observation with respect to Akkadian; he notes that abrupt changes of person in the LE may
offend our Sprachgefuhl, but, apparently, did not so affect the ancient speaker (The Laws of
Eshnunna, 2nd ed. [1988]284).
39 The clause, "Let none be faithless to the wife of your youth," is a parade example of
the fluidity of personal reference permissible in Hebrew even within a sentence. Cf. also S.
Schreiner, "Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung," 213; and A.S. van der Woude,
"Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 70, n. 30. Van der Woude finds similar
exa~les in Isa. 1:29 and Ps. 49:20.
"Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 66. On the lack of scholarly agreement
concerning the prosody of Malachi, see below.
41 Cf. I.M.P. Smith, Malachi, 4f.; and P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi,
166. So also the RSV, NEB, and most English commentators and translations. A contrary
opinion is expressed by a number of German scholars, including K. Marti, E. Sievers, W.
Nowack, and W. Rudolph, who have been joined in their opinion most recently by R.L.
Smith, Micah-Malachi, 301.
42 The other examples of:J~.!1; are found in Mal. 1:2 and 3:6. Apart from the two in
2:12, there are thirty-nine other examples of the tetragrammaton i11i1' (Mal. 1:1,2 [bis], 4
[bis], 5, 6, 7, etc.) Excluding 2:12, the verb i1tD.Il appears seven times (Mal. 2:13, 15, 17;
3:15,17,19 [ET 4:1],21 [ET 4:3]); the noun iV'IUhree times (Mal. 2:10; 3:16,17); and the
relative particle 'iV~ ten times (Mal. 1:4; 2:9,11,14; 3:1 [bis], 17, 18, 19 [ET 4:1], 21 [ET
4:3]).
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 93
one who answers[?] from the tents of."43 Given the observation that every
other word in this verse is entirely at home within Malachi, it would appear
unwarranted to judge the wording of this curse unlikely for Malachi. This is
so not only because of the uncertainty of the meaning of '7Q~O i1~l,)! ip, but
also because of the extremely limited corpus of Malachi's undisputed
writings by which one is to judge his customary manner of expressing
curses. 44
Finally, Van der Woude's explanation that "the curse clashes with the
call on the audience of the prophet to heed to their spirit and not to be
unfaithful" lacks cogency. Not only is the Bible replete with examples of
curses used as dire warnings, but also the prophets provide a number of apt
parallels where imprecation based on past sin is followed by an urgent appeal
to repentance (cf., e.g. Jer. 17:5-21; 11:3ff.).45 Indeed, a particularly striking
parallel for this exact phenomenon can be found elsewhere in Malachi itself,
namely in 1: 14ff. In this text Malachi prays a curse against those who offer
blemished sacrifices, but then Yahweh proceeds to warn the priests that they
will indeed be cursed, if they will not "take it to heart" to give glory to his
name.
9) In response to O. Eissfeldt, who wants to remove vss. 11 and 12 so
that "divorce then would be absolutely condemned here [in 2: 16], and not just
divorce occasioned by a desire for a foreign wife," just such a limitation
makes sense of 2:16, as we have argued above in Chapter 3, 4. The
unconditional prohibition of divorce, which Eissfeldt would wish for 2: 16,
would place that verse in intolerable and unnecessary tension with the
testimony of the rest of the Old Testament concerning the practice of divorce
(including Deut. 24:1-4).46
10) Finally, it is notable that the interests and perspective, if not
vocabulary, of Mal. 2:10-16 find significant parallels in Neh. 13:23-29, a fact
which tells against the proposed deletion of vss. 11-12. Nehemiah's
emphasis on the unholy children born of interfaith marriage in 13:24 recalls
by contrast the "godly seed [D'i"i"~ 1l"1]]" of Mal. 2: 15, however the rest of
this problematic verse is to be rendered. Nehemiah's use of cursing in 13:25,
29 and his remedy of excommunication in 13:28 invite a comparison with
Mal. 2:12, where Malachi's curse implies excommunication. Lastly, as
43 For yet another, not entirely convincing, attempt to interpret this expression, cf. B.
Glazier-McDonald, "Malachi 2:12: 'er we'6neh - Another Look" (1986) 295-298. R. Fuller
notes that 4QXIla reads ill.ll1 ,.Il, "witness and respondent [perhaps one who speaks in
defence of the accused]," which would support 1. Wellhausen's proposed emendation of the
MT if. Fuller, "Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16," JBL 110 [1991]47-57).
Without implying agreement with their methodology, it may be noted that Y.T.
Radday and M.A. Pollatschek consider Malachi 1 and 2 to exhibit a coherency of
vocabulary throughout ("Vocabulary Richness in Post-Exilic Prophetic Books" [1980]333-
46).
45 For curses used as dire warnings, cf. Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15; etc.
46 I.M.P. Smith makes the further suggestion that had divorce alone been in view in
2:10-16, rather than the additional offence of mixed marriage, one might expect some term
designating the wronged women in vs. 10 in place of the mentioned "brothers" (Malachi,
48).
94 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
47 A.S. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community" (1986) 66.
48 Ibid., 71.
49 Hagga~ Maleachi, 116: "Immers, wie (zijn vrouw) achterstelt, strekt zijn hand uit
(ten onheil), spreekt YHWH, de God van Israel, en bedekt zijn gewaad met onrecht, spreekt
YHWH almachtig.... "
50 "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4," 399-402. Cf.
also D. Daube, "Terms for Divorce," (1973) 366. This evidence was discussed in detail in
Chapter 3 above.
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 95
below, it is far from evident that polygyny was as prevalent among post-exilic
Jews as Van der Woude supposes.
In contrast to those who argue that Mal. 2: 10-16 originally opposed only
divorce, but also in contrast to Van der Woude who argues that Mal. 2:10-16
opposes only mixed marriage, each of the three views remaining for our
consideration concedes that Malachi opposed both mixed marriage and
divorce. The first of these is represented by L. Kruse-Blinkenberg, who in
his influential study of the Pesh.ta of Malachi renewed a suggestion made
earlier by G. H. A. von Ewald and H. H. Spoer that the "I hate divorce" of
Mal. 2: 16 may have been intended to oppose the dissolution of marriages
recorded in Ezra 9-10. 51
Offering more argumentation, J. J. Collins similarly observes, "Many
scholars have assumed that Malachi supported Ezra's reform, but that view is
difficult to reconcile with Mal. 2: 13-16, which unequivocally rejects divorce
as itself a breach of covenant."52 In support, Collins notes: "There is nothing
to suggest that Malachi opposes only the divorce of Jewish wives, nor is there
any reason to believe that the Jews who married foreign women had divorced
the wives of their youth. Malachi's objection is to divorce as such."53 In
addition, Collins considers that the unqualified rejection of divorce in Mal.
2:16 amply refutes those scholars who speculate that Malachi may have
helped prepare for Ezra's reform. The weeping at the altar suggests that an
attempted reform had already taken place, presumably the one which was led
by Ezra. In other words, it is possible that those who had complied with
Ezra's mandate and had divorced their wives were now perplexed as to why
Yahweh still did not accept their offerings. If this evidence is accepted, then
not only did Malachi fail to pave the way for Ezra's work, it must be assumed
that he condemned it. Finally, as argued by Collins, if certain of these
intermarriages led to idolatry, this would constitute an abomination, but it is
not a necessary consequence of intermarriage as such. Malachi's starting
point, that we all have one Father, demonstrates his fundamental openness to
51 "The Pesitta [sic] of the Book of Malachi" (1966) 95-119, cf. esp. 103-104.
Although not cited by Kruse-Blinkenberg, the same suggestion was made earlier by G.H.A.
von Ewald, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament, Vol. 5 (1881) 79f., and by
H.H. Spoer, "Some New Considerations towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi" (1908)
179f. - the latter as part of his argument for a second century date for Malachi.
Cf. also M. Smith, who considers Malachi to be the work of a "segregationist"
prophesying before Ezra, but 2: 16 to be a later interpolation into the text by an
"assimilationist" who repudiated Ezra's program of enforced divorce ("Jewish religious life
in the Persian period" [1984]273).
52 "The Message of Malachi" (1984) 212.
53 Ibid., 212.
96 MALACHI 2: 10-16 AND POLYGYNY
were initiated neither by the husband, nor by the wife, but by a corporate
action imposed on the guilty husbands. As such, in this respect particularly,
they resemble the dissolution of Michal's invalid "marriage" to Paltiel at the
instigation of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 3:] 5).56 In any case, by contrast to Ezra,
the divorces which Malachi condemns in 2: 16 are explicitly divorces which
are the result of a husband's unjustified aversion (~j~) and not the result of a
corporate action. This last point merits particular emphasis since both Kruse-
Blinkenberg and Collins, based on their rendering "I hate divorce," assume
that Malachi condemns divorce in an unqualified manner. As argued above
in Chapter 3, this rendering and interpretation are unsatisfactory.
Fourth, Collins' appeal to Mal. 2: 10 is unconvincing; as we have
already argued, the reference to our "one Father" may not intend anything
beyond God's paternal/covenantal relationship to Israel by which all
members of the covenant community (but not those outside it) are constituted
brothers. Nevertheless, it is possible, though uncertain, that Malachi might
have accepted intermarriage with a converted Gentile (as in Boaz's marriage
to Ruth).57 Certainly the phrase "daughter of a foreign god" appears to stress
the threat of idolatry, rather than racial miscegenation, as the basis for
Malachi's rebuke. On the other hand, at least a superficial concern with
biological descent does appear prominent in Ezra. In part, this emphasis may
be a reflex of the need for priestly genealogical purity, which may also have
been extended to all the people as a "kingdom of priests."58 On closer
inspection, Ezra implies that the primary motive for the prohibition against
intermarriage was the danger of religious syncretism (ct., e.g., Ezra 9:2, 11,
14).59 Such a perspective is entirely congenial with Malachi and,
accordingly, does not favour Collins' hypothesis.
He continues (vss. 11, 12) to see the nation as a spiritual family, and in the
last four verses turns to individual family life within the nation."65
Perhaps clearest is the view of J. Wellhausen, who observes that mixed
marriage with Gentiles (vss. 11-12) and the divorce of Jewish wives (vss. 13-
16) are simply two different examples of the more general offence prohibited
in vs. 10. 66
Arguing against Wellhausen's interpretation, c.c. Torrey insists that
"it is not possible thus to separate vs. 13-16 from vs. 10-12."67 Torrey's
objection, however, fails to do justice to Wellhausen's concern to stress the
unifying role of vs. 10. Further neutralizing Torrey's objection, it is not
difficult to detect literary and thematic parallels between vs. 10, as the
controlling rubric, and vss. 11-12 and vss. 13-16, which suggest that mixed
marriage and divorce are merely parallel offences without any necessary
causal connection between them. C.V. Camp notes, for example, the
significant repetition of several catchwords: "'one' ('eJ,ad, vv. 10 [bis], 15
[bis]); 'faithlessness' (bgd, vv. 10, 11, 14, 15, 16); 'covenant,' (berft, vv. 10,
14); 'offering' (minna, vv. 12, 13); 'do' ('sh, vv. 11, 12 [bis], 15)."68
As has already been discussed, had it been the intention of the text to
suggest that these divorces were the necessary prerequisite for the subsequent
mixed marriages, one might have expected Malachi to treat these two
offences in the reverse order of what is found. In any case, the present order
appears to have been dictated largely by a literary purpose, rather than by any
attempt to reproduce the chronology of offences. In particular, as was argued
above in the first chapter, the present arrangement yields an artful envelope
structure for Mal. 2: 10-16:
A God who is One ['IJ~] created [~i::J] his people (to be one)
General sin = infidelity [,,::J] (10)
B Specific sin = infidelity [,,::J] by intermarriage with a pagan (11)
C Verdict: exclusion, rejection of food offering [iiQJD] (12)
I .
C' Verdict: rejection of food offering [i1IJ~o] (13)
B' Specific sin = infidelity [,,::J] by divorce (14)
A' God who is One ['IJ~;;r] made [i1~,I)] husband and wife to be one ['IJ~]
General sin = infidelity [,,::J] (15-16a)
Summary exhortation (particularly of 13-15) not to commit infidelity
[,,::J] (16b)69
65 Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 237. Cf. also W.e. Kaiser Jr., Malachi, 65.
66 Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (1892) 199.
67 "The Prophecy of 'Malachi'," 9.
68 Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (1985) 323, n. 12. To Camp's list
one might add "profane" ('?':m, vss. 10, 11) and "cover" (iiO', vss. 13, 16), among other
terms.
69 Note that the mention of "covering [iiO'l X with Y" in this verse forms an indusio
with vs. 13.
This suggested outline of 2:10-16 is based on the study of E. Wendland, "Linear and
Concentric Patterns in Malachi" (1985) 108-21.
100 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
70 Cf. P.A. Verhoef for this possible interpretation, which reflects an important
subtheme of Malachi (cf. 1:10) (The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 279f.). Cf. also our
discussion in Chapter 3, 4.2.4.
71 C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (1985) 323, n. 12.
Camp adds that "a similar sort of implicit equation is also made by the use of the zara-
figure in Proverbs. The editors of both books seemed to have had such an equation in
mind."
72 Cf. Chapter 5, 8.1.5 below.
73 Cf. W. Rudolph, "Zu Malachi 2:10-16" (1981) 86.
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 101
is eminently suitable for divorce motivated by the desire to enter into another
marriage.?7
4) It appears likely that most divorces in Malachi's day would have
been followed by a remarriage. In the context of life in post-exilic Palestine,
where the population of available Jewish women would have been at a
minimum, many of these remarriages would have been mixed. 78
5) More specifically, it is often supposed that the appellation "the wife
of your youth" in Mal. 2:14 suggests that the aging of one's wife, and by
implication the presence of younger, more attractive (Gentile) women, was
the primary motive for the divorces and subsequent mixed marriages. 79
6) Attempting to account for the lack of opposition when the mixed
marriages of Ezra 9-10 were forcibly dissolved, H.G.M. Williamson has
suggested that "knowledge of this fact [that the guilty men had previously
divorced their Jewish wives in order to enter into these mixed marriages] may
have reduced the sympathy of the majority of the families concerned."80
7) It is possible that Malachi's stress in 2:15 on "godly offspring" as
Yahweh's intention for marriage is best explained as due to Malachi's
assumption that such divorces would be followed inevitably by a mixed
marriage and that mixed marriage poses a clear threat to this purpose (d.
Neh. 13:23ff.; Ezra 10:3,44).81
While these considerations have merit, perhaps especially the last, the
following objections may be mentioned:
1) The fact remains that Mal. 2:10-16 nowhere explicitly interrelates
the offences of intermarriage and divorce. As noted earlier, it is possible, for
example, that the two offences are juxtaposed not to suggest a causal
connection, but simply to emphasize how each of them is a prime example of
the more general infidelity [,,:l] condemned in 2: 10.
2) It is uncertain whether divorce based on aversion was especially
prevalent in Malachi's day, particularly given the fact that neither Ezra nor
Nehemiah mentions the problem. Nevertheless, if the divorce rate was
particularly high among Malachi's contemporaries, alternative explanations
are possible. For example, the upsurge of religious relativism (Mal. 1: 13;
2:17; 3:14f.; etc.), the disregard ofvows (Mal. 1:14), and the disintegration of
family and moral values (Mal. 3:5, 24 [ET 4:6]) may all have contributed to
82 A.C. Welch bases his argument in favour of this disparity on the doubtful assumption
that Malachi should be dated nearly a century earlier than is argued by most scholars,
namely about 520 B.C. (Post-Exilic Judaism, 251).
83 Given the modern flavour of the suggestions of some scholars about how pretty
young Canaanite women might have seemed (cf., e.g., W. Neil, "Malachi," 231), as an ad
hominem argument it may be noted that in modern times divorce is most common among
youner couples, not those who have matured together.
8 There may be a nostalgic allusion in this expression to the first blush of marital love.
Cf. Deut. 24:5; Cant. 8:5; and Rev. 2:4, 5. T.T. Perowne speaks about "the tender
recollection of 'the kindness of youth and the love of espousals' (Jerem. ii. 2), and the
binding force of years since spent together in intimate companionship ... " (Malachi [1910]
26).
104 MALACHI 2: 10-16 AND POLYGYNY
85 G.A. Smith argues "such alliances were the surest way both to wealth and to political
influence" (The Book of the Twelve Prophets, 344). Cf. also W,J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and
the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 47; and AS. van der Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure
Community," 66.
86 Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, who also cites an account of the marriage between Manasseh, the
brother of the high priest Jaddua, and a daughter of Sanballat, recorded in Josephus,
Anti~ities 11.302-312 (Ezra - Nehemiah, 365).
The World of the Restoration (1968) 88f., 98,122.
88 Ezra, Nehemiah, 160. Ezra 10:15 is ambiguous in its implication.
89 It is possible, for example, that Joiada refused to divorce his wife and so was
ostracised in Neh. 13:28 (as suggested by J.M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, 218).
90 H. Cowles, The Minor Prophets (1867) 391-393. Cf. also C.F. Keil, The Twelve
Minor Prophets, 447; L.H. Brockington, "Malachi," 657; and W,J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and
the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 48.
Rashi's interpretation may be mentioned here, although his understanding of vs. 16 is
unconvincing (see previous chapter). On his view, Malachi rebukes his contemporaries for
two offences: first for interfaith marriage, which would be reprehensible under any
circumstances, and second for the injury to one's Jewish wife which is the result of bringing
the rival Gentile wife into the home. Consequently, Malachi urges such men to divorce
their Jewish wives, rather than to treat them with such cruelty.
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 105
instigated by, or were a response to, the Jewish wives' discontent. 91 Second,
in most cases of polygyny in the ancient Near East, the pre-eminent status of
the first wife was protected.92 Indeed, if Jewish men contracted their mixed
marriages for economic or social reasons, as is widely argued, it is
questionable whether the Gentile aristocracy would have permitted their
daughters to enter such polygynous marriages, where they would be relegated
to a secondary status. Finally, Cowles' view assumes that an unrestricted
polygyny was practiced in Malachi's day and that Malachi would have
preferred polygyny to divorce. Against these assumptions, there is little
evidence for unrestricted polygyny anywhere in the ancient Near East and
considerable doubt whether even a restricted polygyny would have been
prevalent in post-exilic Israel. There is a wide scholarly consensus that not
only was monogamy seen as the marital ideal in this period (post-exilic
Israel), but also it was actually practiced with few, if any, exceptions. 93
Alternatively, G.A. Smith, among others, considers that Malachi's
order of treatment of mixed marriage and divorce is logical, rather than
chronological. Smith suggests that "the relatives of their half-heathen brides
made it a condition of the marriages that they should first put away their old
wives .... "94 While this view succeeds in recognizing the normal pre-
eminence accorded a first wife and the likely concern of Gentile families to
safeguard the status interests of their daughters, it must still be acknowledged
that the text offers no hint that Gentile families in fact made such demands.
8) It is possible that Malachi viewed the purpose of marriage (to
produce "godly offspring") to be directly threatened only by mixed marriage,
but that he mentions this matter in the context of divorce in 2: 15 because he
assumes that mixed marriage would inevitably follow divorce. It is also
possible, however, that Malachi recognized that both mixed marriage (with
the "daughter of a foreign god") and divorce equally endanger this purpose.
As such, this implied consequence for divorce may offer an additional
parallel between the offences of mixed marriage and divorce (see 4 above).
In summary, the weight of evidence appears to favour the view that the
offences of mixed marriage and divorce are juxtaposed not because they were
causally interrelated, but because they are parallel instances of the more
general infidelity ['~:J] condemned in 2: 10. Nevertheless, since the
traditional view remains possible, the identification of marriage as a covenant
in 2: 14 needs to be secured against the claim that a literal reference would be
contradicted by the toleration of polygyny in Malachi's day. To accomplish
91 For example, cf. Nuzi marriage tablets Nos. 1 and 2 discussed above. Cf. also E.
Lipinski, "The Wife's Right to Divorce in the Light of an Ancient Near Eastern Tradition"
(198~.
9 Cf., e.g., T.E. McComiskey, "The Status of the Secondary Wife: Its Development in
Ancient Near Eastern Law" (1965) 1 and passim.
93 For evidence, cf. the fuller discussion below in 6.
94 The Book of the Twelve Prophets, 344. Cf. I.M.P. Smith, Malachi, 52; PA Verhoef,
The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 275.
106 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
No one denies that polygyny was practiced within Israel throughout much of
the Old Testament period. Unfortunately, a similar scholarly consensus for
virtually every other important question surrounding this practice is lacking.
In particular, it would be helpful to know the prevalence and class
distribution of polygyny during each period. 95 Furthermore, there is
serious reservations about the reconstruction (UT, Supplement, 14). Text 2068 lists ten
households and in each case mentions only one wife (w . alth, "and his wife").
Finally, to these texts we may add one more particularly significant text, UT 1077,
classified by Gordon under the heading "Lists of personal and/or geographical names" (UT,
291). After a broken beginning, the text lists four men each simply identified as a b'l alt,
"the husband of a wife." Following this are listed six men each identified as a b' I sslmt,
"the husband of a concubine(?)." No individual is recorded as having more than one wife.
(This text may offer corroboration for an interpretation of Abraham as monogamously
married to his concubine Keturah and the Levite of Judges 19 as monogamously married to
his concubine).
There is no point in summing up these totals to offer a new measure for the relative
prevalence of polygyny in Ugaritic society. An undetected special purpose behind any or
all of these lists would radically skew the results of any such computation. We need merely
observe that even this modest amount of new data leaves one with a very different
impression of typical marital practice from what Van Selms was able to offer on the basis of
UT 119 alone.
96 Without denying that there are important distinctions in the usage of these terms,
such as the fact that tDj'?'9 is only used of a married woman, it is notable that a number of
OT texts employ them in an overlapping manner. For example, Bilhah is variously
identified as Rachel's il1;it:\ (Gen. 30:3), Rachel's ilr;rEltD (Gen. 29:29; 30:41 7; 35:25), Jacob's
ilr;r!;ltD (Gen. 32:23 [ET 22]; and possibly 30:43; 32:6 [ET 5]), Jacob's tDl?'9 (Gen. 35:22), as
well as Jacob's wife, il~tI (Gen. 30:4).
Reflecting their views of Mesopotamian practice, however, many scholars have sought
to distinguish "concubines" from slave-wives, though with decidedly dissimilar results. For
example, while E. Neufeld insists that the legal status of the tDl?'9, il1;it:\, and ilr;r!;ltD vis-a-vis
their husband was probably identical, nevertheless he considers it likely that the tDi;"9 was
originally a prostitute and so had a distinctly lower social status than the il1;it:\ and ilJ;lEitD, who
were originally slaves (Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws [1944] 121-123). On the other
hand, L.M. Epstein and S.F. Bigger take the opposite view, placing the tDi?'9 both legally
(as a free woman) and socially over the il1;it:\ and ilr;r!;ltD (L.M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in
Bible and Talmud [1942]35, 50; and S.F. Bigger, "Hebrew Marriage and Family in the Old
Testament Period" [1974] 105f.). With uncertain success, other scholars attempt to
distinguish further an il1;it:\ from a ilr;r!;ltD. Cr., e.g., A. Jepsen, "Amah und Schiphcha h "
(1958); Ch. Cohen, "Studies in Extra-Biblical Hebrew Inscriptions 1. The Semantic Range
and Usage of the terms il1;it:\ and ilr;r!;ltD," Shnaton 5-6 (1978-79) xxv-liii; and P. Trible, Texts
of Terror (1984) 30, n. 9.
Perhaps most problematic, however, is the view of some scholars who simply
disqualify all biblical examples of "concubines" by insisting that they do not offer instances
of marriage. Cr., e.g., E. Neufeld, who writes, "The concubine was not married by her
master, and her status differed very slightly from that of a slave" (op. cit., 124). So also
C.J.H. Wright, An Eye for an Eye (1983) 176; and P. Trible, op. cit., 66.
Such an assessment of the meaning and status of the tDl'?'9, however, rests largely on
conjecture, on an uncritical acceptance of S.l. Feigin's classic study of concubinage in
Mesopotamia, and on assumed parallels with occidental practice, in part fostered by the
misleading traditional rendering "concubine" (S.1. Feigin, "The Captives in Cuneiform
Inscription" [1934]). Unfortunately, Feigin's results are in urgent need of re-examination in
view of his consistent identification ofSugitum as a "concubine." Given that CH 184, for
example, appears in the midst of legislation concerned with the dowries of priestesses, and
given the frequent association elsewhere (as in CH 137, 144, 145 and 183) between the
sugftum and the nadftum (a high priestess who was prohibited from bearing children), it
appears that the older view of B. Landsberger and W. Eilers that thdugitum was some kind
of "lay priestess" is still to be preferred. It is true that in occidental practice a concubine
was, in general, a mere sexual consort and was not considered to be a member of her
108 MALACHI 2: 10-16 AND POLYGYNY
in every period, what legal restrictions were placed on this practice, if any,
and what was its ethical status. Was it required (for example, in the case of
levirate marriage), recommended, approved, merely tolerated, or condemned?
Obviously, it is impossible to treat these matters in detail within the scope of
the present study. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the evidence to be presented
will be adequate to challenge the overly facile assumption that in post-exilic
Israel polygyny was a viable alternative to the divorces indicated in Mal.
2:16.
partner's household. Because her relationship was not one of marriage, it was protected
neither by the laws of adultery, nor by the requirement of some sort of formal divorce for its
dissolution. Such an understanding, however, fails to do justice to the complex phenomena
of concubinage both in the Bible and elsewhere in the ancient Near East (cf., e.g., the
following texts which identify concubines as wives: Gen. 16:3; 25:1, 6; 1 Chr. 1:32; 2 Sam.
16:22' and Judg. 19:1-5).
97 To this one example we could possibly add 1 Chr. 7:4f., if the commonly proposed
emendation to restore a comparative r:l at the beginning of vs. 5 is accepted. This would
yield " ... because they had more wives and sons than their brothers" (cf. E.L. Curtis and
AA Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles; and W.
Rudolph, Chronikbucher).
Based on the armies they could muster, etc., it appears that J. Bright has correctly
identified the patriarchs as "chieftains of semi-nomadic clans" and not "commoners" (A
History of Israel, 3rd. ed. [1981] 92f.).
98 Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (1944) 118.
99 So the Talmud, b. Yebam. 64b, and most modern commentators. Cf. also L.M.
Epstein, Marriage Laws in Bible and Talmud (1942) 20.
100 Cf. R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law" (1982) I, 56f.
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 109
While CH 145 pertains to the spedal case of marriage to a nadftum-priestess (who was
prohibited from bearing children), the presence of other laws, such as LE 59, and similar
stipulations within extant marriage tablets supports the inference that this law was applied
more generally. For a discussion of LE 59, cf. R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna (1988)
79,211-222.
Demonstrating that these laws reflect actual practice, the following Nuzi marriage
contracts contain an explicit prohibition against bigyny unless the first wife proves to be
infertile: Nuzi marriage contracts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 101 (cf. also 104), as edited by J.M.
Breneman, "Nuzi Marriage Tablets" (1971). Cf. also C.H. Gordon, "Nuzi Tablets Relating
to Women" (1935) 163-84.
For a similar provision at A1alag, cf. texts 91:24-31 and 92 (DJ. Wiseman, The Alalakh
Tablets [1953]). Cf. I. Mendelsohn, "On Marriage in A1alakh," 355-357. Mendelsohn
concludes that the prohibition of a second wife was "probably inserted in all marriage
contracts of well-to-do brides where the girl's father was in a position to impose such a
pledge on his future son-in-law" (ibid., 355).
Cf. also similar clauses in three Old Assyrian marriage contracts, I 490, ICK 3, and TC
67, discussed by J. Lewy, "On some Institutions of the Old Assyrian Empire," 6-10; A.J.
Skaist, "Studies in Ancient Mesopotamian Family Law" (1963) 71; and T.L. Thompson,
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 262.
For the Neo-Babylonian period, cf. No.3 in M.T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage
Agreements: 7th - 3rd Centuries B.C. This contract is for a concurrent second marriage for
a man whose first wife was infertile (lines 1Of.). Otherwise fifteen of the forty-five
agreements preserve a clause anticipating what will happen if the husband divorces his wife
because he wants to marry another woman (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19,20, 25, 26,
30, and 34). No contract anticipates the possibility of an additional marriage without a
preceding divorce.
Alternatively, other laws permit a wife to pre-empt the action of her husband by
providing him with a concubine of her own choosing (so CH 144-47) or, going one step
further, require a barren wife to provide her husband a second wife or concubine - so Nuzi
HSS 5 (1929) No. 67, as treated by E.A. Speiser in "New Kirkuk Documents Relating to
Family Laws" (1930) 31ff.; "Ethnic Movements in the Near East in the Second
Millennium" (1933) 44; and Genesis (1964) 120f. Cf. also R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, I,
24. Cautioning against certain aspects of Speiser's application of these texts to Genesis, cf.
J. Van Seters, "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of
Israel" (1968); and T.L. Thompson, op. cit., 252-280.
LI 28 may appear to offer an exception. It is more likely, however, that since this law
mandates the support of the first wife, it merely parallels CH 148. Unfortunately a lacuna
occurs at the decisive point where the original text may have mentioned the first wife's
illness.
Laws which treat the inheritance rights of the children of different wives may not
contradict the assumption that bigyny was typically limited to cases of infertility or illness
(e.g., CH 146, 147, 170, 171; LI 24, 25; SL 12, 13, 14; Deut. 21:15-17). These laws
may have been intended to address the case of the offspring of successive monogamous
marriages or cases such as that of Abraham and Sarah and Elkanah and Hannah, where the
barren wife had her children later after a second marriage had already been concluded (this
seems probable in the case of CH 146, 147). In any case, even if these laws envision the
consequences of a more general polygyny, they may not approve polygyny any more than
the laws regarding premarital intercourse (Exod. 22:15f. [ET 16f.] and Deut. 22:20f.)
necessarily authorize or approve that practice. They merely provide a remedy to mitigate
some adverse consequences of these perhaps disapproved practices.
It is unclear whether CH 141 authorizes bigyny as a penalty against a wayward wife or
whether, as seems more likely, the first wife is stripped of her wifely status and reduced
quite literally to the status of a slave as a lex talionis. Cf., perhaps, 2 Sam. 6:23 and Hosea
3.
For other examples of bigyny motivated by infertility, cf. Abraham's simultaneous
marriage to Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16), motivated by Sarah's infertility. Although Jacob
already had three sons by his wife Leah, it seems likely that Jacob's marriage to Rachel's
maid Bilhah (Gen. 30:4) should be considered as an example of this motive. As such, this
example is particularly instructive in that the biblical text stresses the role of Rachel and her
110 MALACHI 2: 10-16 AND POLYGYNY
apart from infertility or sickness. Indeed, the opposite is implied by the very
presence of these laws and marriage contracts, some of which stipulate stiff
financial penalties and authorize the offended wife to leave, should her
husband acquire a second wife after she has borne children. Nevertheless, the
legal texts leave little doubt that unjustified polygyny, that is, polygyny
unmotivated by infertility or illness, was officially and widely
discountenanced. Accordingly, the majority of cuneiform texts which allude
to marriage, whether in the legal corpora or wisdom literature, etc.,
presuppose monogamy as the normal, if not also the ideal, form of marriage
in Mesopotamia.1 01
Thus, the case of Elkanah, far from suggesting widespread polygyny,
indicates that actual Israelite practice closely resembles that of Mesopotamia
and of ancient Egypt. In the latter case, excluding the royal family, polygyny
is attested only twice throughout the whole of Egyptian antiquity - a fact
which is all the more remarkable because, as S. Allam has noted, "we are
relatively well informed about Egyptian marriage, due to numerous
documents beginning in the Late Period (11th - 4th centuries B.C.)."102
desire for children ("Give me children, or I shall die!" Gen. 30:1) as the cause of polygyny,
not Jacob's desire. Cf. also Gen. 30:9, where Leah gives her maid Zilpah to Jacob because
she "saw that she had ceased bearing children."
On the other hand, it should be noted that the acute need posed by barrenness did not
always lead to bigyny (cf. Isaac and Rebekah in Gen. 25:21, Manoah and his wife in Judges
13, and, presumably, Seled and his wife in 1 Chr. 2:30). Further, the modern reader should
not suppose that the ancients were unaware of male infertility as a contributing factor to
childlessness. Cf. Abraham's incredulous response to the divine promise: "Shall a child be
born to a man who is a hundred years old?" (Gen. 17:17). Similarly other passages readily
acknowledge that a moral deficiency in a man, just as in a woman, can be the precipitating
cause of infertility as a divine judgment: E.g., Gen. 20:17f. and possibly Lev. 20:20f. Cf.
also K van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia, 85-87.
101 Accordingly, I. Mendelsohn, J. Klima, and others summarize the evidence by
stating that Babylonian marriage was with few exceptions ~ssentially monogamous. Cf. I.
Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East (1949) 50; idem, "On Marriage in Alalakh"
(1959) 351-57; J. Klima, "Marriage and Family in Ancient Mesopotamia" (1966) 100, 102;
R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna (1988) 79, 211-222; and R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian
Marriage Law" (1982) I, 56f.
Cf., e.g., MAL A 55, which is of special interest in that it explicitly presupposes
monogamy. Resembling Deul. 22:23-27, this law specifies that if a married man ravishes
an unbetrothed virgin, his wife will be ravished in a tal ionic punishment and taken from
him; then he must marry the ravished virgin at the discretion of her father. If the ravisher is
unmarried, he must pay an inflated marriage present (perhaps to be understood as threefold
the customary amount as a penalty [salsate kaspa slm batalte], vs. ANET); once again, he
must marry the ravished virgin at the discretion of her father.
102 So S. Allam, Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt (1985) 27. Cf. also p. 35; idem, "Ehe"
(1975) 1162-81; and P.W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt
(1961) passim.
W.A. Ward confirms that monogamy was the exclusive form of marriage for non-
royalty throughout Egypt's history and denies any evidence for the existence of harems or
conCUbinage even among royalty during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Only with the new
internationalism of the Empire did royal polygyny (not concubinage) for the purpose of
diplomacy become a necessity ("Reflections on some Egyptian terms presumed to mean
'harem, harem-woman, concubine'" [1983] 67f., 74).
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 111
6.2 The ethical stance of the Old Testament with respect to polygyny
Concerning the ethical status of polygyny in the Old Testament, nowhere do
we find an express biblical permission for polygyny comparable to what
obtains in the Code of Hammurabi, for example, much less the Qur'an or
Talmud.1 03 Nevertheless, it has often been argued that the Old Testament
does not merely recognize polygyny as a legal form of marriage, but that it
also approves it. This conclusion does not rest on any particular Old
Testament examples of polygyny since most of these are reported without any
indication of moral approbation.1 04 Rather, it seeks its support in eight
specific texts: Exod. 21: !Of.; Lev. 18:17f.; Deut. 21:15-17; Deut. 25:5-10; 2
Sam. 12:7f.; Jer. 3:6-13; Ezekiel 23; and, of particular interest to our study,
Mal. 2: 10-16. On closer examination, however, it is not so clear that any of
these texts require the conclusion that polygyny was ethically approved.
103 Cf. CH 144-148 and Qur'tin 4:3. Cf. W.M. Watt, who argues that Qur'tin 4:3
does not merely limit polygyny to four wives, as it is generally understood, since it would
condemn Muhammed himself, who is said to have taken thirteen wives, but it encourages
men who had only one or two wives to marry as many as four (Muhammad, Prophet and
Statesman [1964]151-159).
Although contradictory opinions are expressed, Mishnaic and Talmudic interpretation
sees polygyny not as a tolerated deviation, but as a legal right (cf., e.g., b. Yebam. 65a).
Furthermore, according to the positive view, polygyny is obligatory in the case of infertility
(b. Yebam. 61b; b. S4a 24a) and the levirate (cf., e.g., b. Yebam. 44a). Cf. also m. Yebam.
4:11; m. Ketub. 10:1-6; m. Git. 2:7; 3:1;m. Qidd. 2:6-7; m. So,ta 6:2; andm. Ber. 8:4.
Nevertheless, the Talmud shows a general tendency to favour monogamy and
specifically commends monogamy for priests (cf. E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage
Laws [1944]119, n. 4; and L.M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in Bible and Talmud [1942]10).
In fact, it seems likely that the discussion concerning the right of polygyny was largely
theoretical. For this reason neither a single rabbi among the more than two thousand sages
in the entire Talmud nor a single plaintiff is mentioned as actually having more than one
wife - so, according to G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, II
(1927) 122; D.M. Feldman, Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law
(1968) 37; and R. Biale, Women and Jewish Law (1984) 49. Contrarily, L.M. Epstein
challenges this observation (Marriage Laws in Bible and Talmud [1942]17).
104 Indeed, moral disapprobation is suggested by some of these examples: e.g., Lamech,
Abraham, David, Solomon, and possibly Jacob and "the sons of the gods" in Genesis 6. For
one possible interpretation of this last, obviously problematic text, which finds in it a
reference to royal polygyny, cf. M.G. Kline, "Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4"
(1961/62). Supporting Kline's interpretation over against the more common view may be
the recognition that nowhere in Ugaritic literature do the gods have sexual relations with
men ~so A. van Selms,Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature [1954]19).
1 5 R. Holst, "Polygamy and the Bible" (1967) 205-213; and B. Vawter, "The Biblical
Theology of Divorce" (1967) 226f.
112 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
2 Samuel 12:7f
Although Nathan's words to David in 2 Sam. 12:7f. appear to endorse royal
polygyny by implicating the deity in the acquisition of David's wives ("I
gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom"),
unfortunately moral approbation cannot be inferred so easily from Yahweh's
acts.1 08 2 Sam. 12: 11, for example, appears to offer a deliberate parallel to
12:8. Here Yahweh threatens David with a talionic punishment, that he will
"take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he
shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun." Nevertheless, even though
this text asserts that Yahweh will "give" David's concubines to another, 2
Samuel leaves little doubt that the fulfillment of this threat in what Absalom
did on the palace roof "in the sight of all Israel" (2 Sam. 16:22) constituted a
flagrant act of adultery deserving the death penalty.109
106 Cf. also Isa. 54; 61:1-6. The warning against the over-interpretation of allegory cuts
both ways, however. It cautions equally against the emphasis P. Grelot wishes to place on
the fact that in the eschatological wedding feast of Ezek. 16:53-63, and hence in the ideal
state, Jerusalem is Yahweh's only bride, with the other cities identified as her daughters
("The Institution of Marriage: Its Evolution in the Old Testament" [1970]46). Similarly,
not too much should be made of the other prophetic texts which metaphorically depict
Yahweh in a monogamous marriage with Israel (e.g., cf. Isa. 1:1; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8; and
Hos. 2:18 [ET 16]). Against such arguments, S.F. Bigger correctly insists that the pre-
eminent concern in these texts is with fidelity to the marital bond, not with the number of
one's wives ("Hebrew Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period" [1974]97).
107 Cf. also the parable in Matthew 25 of the wise and foolish virgins awaiting the
bride{oom.
1 8 Since they do not affect the point at issue, we leave aside a number of text critical
problems in 2 Sam. 12:7f. Cf., e.g., P.K McCarter Jr., II Samuel, 292, 295.
109 For an alternative approach to 2 Sam. 12:7f. which denies any reference to
polygyny, cf. C.J. Goslinga, Het Tweede Boek Samuel (1962) 215; and w.e. Kaiser Jr.,
Toward Old Testament Ethics (1983) 187.
MAlACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 113
Deuteronomy 25:5-10
The law of levirate marriage in Deut. 25:5-10 provides a starting point for the
Talmudic discussion of polygyny, and it remains a key evidence for modem
scholars who consider that the Old Testament approved, rather than merely
tolerated, polygyny.ll3 According to the school of Shammai, since
Deuteronomy makes no provision for exempting a married brother from his
levirate duty, it thereby implicitly requires, and hence approves, polygyny
under such a circumstance. Closer examination, however, reveals that this
law does not bear on the issue.
To begin with, it is important to recognize that Deut. 25:5-10 makes no
pretence at an exhaustive coverage of the situations to which it might
apply.H 4 So, for example, there is no attempt to treat the possibility that there
is no living brother or that a living brother might be disqualified by his
immaturity from entering a levirate marriage)lS Given this incompleteness,
it is entirely possible that if a brother were already married, this too may have
disqualified him from assuming the levirate obligation. The evidence of
Genesis 38 suggests this possibility since the direction of levirate
responsibility seems to have been downward to increasingly younger, and
hence normally unmarried, brothers.
Deut. 22:23-27, the law requiring a ravisher to marry his victim, may
offer an instructive analogy in that this law does not consider the case of a
ravisher who is already married. One might be tempted to argue from this
omission that under such a circumstance this law also would require and thus
approve polygyny. The comparative evidence of MAL A 55, however,
challenges such an inference. MAL A 55 provides a close parallel to Deut.
22:23-27, but it is more complete in several of its specifications, including its
treatment of the exceptional case of the ravisher who is already married (in
this case the law requires both a talionic ravishing of the ravisher's wife and
the prior dissolution of that marriage before any marriage to the victim).
113 Cf. b. Yebam. 44a (and m. Yebam. 4:11). Cf. also B. Vawter, "The Theology of
Divorce," 226, n. 8; and W.F. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage, 230ff.
114 On the typical incompleteness of biblical and ancient Near Eastern law, cf. R.
Westbrook, "Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes" (1985) 247-264. It was the
incompleteness of Deut. 25:5-10, of course, which stimulated so much of the Talmudic
speculation in Yebamot.
115 That such exceptional cases were not unknown is clear from their presence within
the biblical record. Cf., e.g., the situation of the widowed Ruth, left without any living
brother-in-law, in Ruth 1: IH. The "kinsman-redeemer" ("~") appears to function in a
manner which is analogous to the brother-in-law (t:l:t:), and yet Ruth l:llf. implies that the
levirate responsibility was, strictly speaking, considered to be limited to the immediate
family (in the wording of Deut. 25:5, "If brothers dwell together ... "). Evidently, such was
also the view of the Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33. Cf. the fuller treatment of these complex
issues in D.A Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament (1974); E.
Levine, "On Intra-familial Institutions of the Bible" (1976); AA Anderson, "The Marriage
of Ruth" (1978); and W.C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (1983) 190ff.
On the other hand, immaturity was the ostensible reason for postponing Shelah's
levirate marriage to Tamar in Genesis 38. Cf. MAL A 43; and J. Morgenstern, "The Book
of the Covenant, Part II," (1930) 164.
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 115
More explicit support for the view that levirate marriage may not have
required polygyny appears in the Targum for Ruth 4:6: "I cannot marry her,
because I am already married; I have no right to take an additional wife, lest it
lead to strife in my home." While offering an inferior text for the passage,
the Targum nevertheless reveals what must have been the common
understanding in its day, namely that an existing marriage would exempt one
from performing the duty of the levirate. 116
Leviticus 18:17,18
According to the traditional interpretation, Lev. 18:17, 18 prohibits a man
from simultaneously marrying a woman and her daughter, or a woman and
her sister. Such a prohibition, it is argued, implies a more general permission
for (or approval of) polygynous marriage to women unrelated to each other.
This implication is possible, but it is by no means necessary. For example,
the fact that Lev. 19:29 forbids a man from turning his daughter into a harlot
does not necessarily imply permission for him to tum other women into
harlots, etc.
More problematic for these verses, however, is the likelihood that the
traditional interpretation of Lev. 18: 18 is wrong and that this text, in fact,
offers a general (ethical) prohibition of polygyny.ll7 The following seven
arguments may be advanced in support of this alternative interpretation.
1) The operative expression i1Qh~-'?1:Ii ii~~ (lit., "a woman to her
sister") is used everywhere else in the Old Testament in the distributive sense
of "one to another" and nowhere else refers to literal sisters. 118 Likewise, the
masculine equivalent, 1'n~-'?1:Ii ib'~ (lit., "a man to his brother") invariably has
an analogous distributive sense, "one (man) to another," and does not refer,
except by coincidence, to literal brothers.H9 Indeed, had it been the intention
of Lev. 18:18 to prohibit a man from marrying two women who were literal
sisters, it could have done so with considerably less ambiguity by the use of
the conjunction "and [1]," rather than the preposition "to ['?~]," that is, "a
116 Cf. J.H. Hertz, "Foreword" to The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, I, xvii. Cf.
also the notice of the death of Judah's wife in Gen. 38:12, which appears to be recorded in
order to establish the transference of the levirate responsibility now to Judah. Cf. HL 193.
On this view, the text implies that Judah was not responsible to perform the levirate duty
while his wife was still alive.
117 So, according to, inter alia, M. Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible (1803) ad
loc.; S.E. Dwight, The Hebrew Wife (1836) 105-27; anon., "Art. IV - The General
Assembly of 1842" (1842) 518-520; J. Murray, Principles of Conduct (1957) 250-256,
esp.p. 253; and A. Tosato, "The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination" (1984).
Against this view, cf. G. Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Leviticus
(1842) 192-98, cited with approval by W.C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, 114-
16. At other points, however, Kaiser interprets Lev. 18: 18 as a prohibition of polygyny (op.
cit., 93-94, 186, 189).
118 This is so whether or not persons are in view: Exod. 26:3(bis), 5,6,17; Ezek. 1:9,
possibly 11 (cf. BHS), 23; 3:13. Cf. J. Murray, Principles of Conduct (1957) 253. This
summary of actual usage is not intended to imply that the expression could not refer to
literal sisters.
119 I.e., Gen. 42:21, 28; Exod. 16:15; 25:20; 37:9; Num. 14:4; Isa 9:18 [ET 19]; Jer.
13:14; 23:35; 25:26; and Ezek. 24:23.
116 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
woman and her sister ["r.h~l i1W~]." The grammar of this expression would
then be precisely analogous to that of "a woman and her daughter [i1W~
"DJ1]," the phrase employed by the author in the immediately preceding
verse, where he forbids sexual relations with a woman and her daughter (cf.
also Lev. 20:14). It appears likely that it was the awareness of this usage
which already led the Zadokites and the Qumran community in the first
century B.C., as well as the much later Karaites, to interpret Lev. 18:18 as an
explicit prohibition against polygyny. 120
2) Even apart from any consideration of the expression i1l;Jh~-'?~ i1tq~,
the possibility of a non-literal sense for "sister [n1n~)" (or "brother [n~]") is
widely recognized. l21 In the past such a meaning in Lev. 18:18 has often
been overlooked because of the assumption that vs. 18 must be interpreted in
the light of the long series of incestuous unions which are prohibited in vss.
7-17, where n1n~ consistently refers to a literal sister.l 22 A. Tosato has noted,
however, "Elsewhere in Leviticus 18 we find 'ah6t, and not as in v. 18 'issa ...
'ahotah. A simple equation between these two philologically different
expressions seems to be false."123
3) Moreover, according to Tosato, the overall literary structure of
Leviticus 18 suggests that there is a major break between vss. 17 and 18. As
Tosato outlines the chapter, there is a parenetic framework consisting of vss.
1-5 and 24-30. Vs. 6 then introduces two series of laws: the first series
prohibits incestuous unions; the second series prohibits a variety of non-
incestuous sexual unions. Up to this point virtually all scholars are in
agreement; the problem comes in determining the dividing point between the
two series. While some interpreters favour a division between vs. 18 and vs.
19, others, including Tosato, divide the two series between vs. 17 and vs. 18.
Supporting this second analysis, whereby vs. 18 is placed with other non-
incestuous sexual unions, Tosato notes that the eleven prohibitions in vss. 7-
17 have the same formal structure: each begins with "the nakedness of
120 For the Zadokite interpretation of Lev. 18:18, cf. "Fragments of a Zadokite Sect,"
7:1, in R.H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in
English, II (1913) 810. Cf. also R. Holst, who summarizes the whole of 7:1-4 in the
Fragments, noting that the Zadokites prohibited polygyny based not only on Lev. 18:18, but
also on Gen. 1:27 and Deut. 17:17 ("Polygamy and the Bible" [1967] 210). Cf. G.F.
Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, I, 202; and L.M. Epstein,
Marriage Laws in Bible and Talmud, 13.
For the Qumran interpretation of Lev. 18:18, cf. CD 4:20-21, which reads "and you
shall not take a woman as a rival wife to another .... " This interpretation is further
confirmed in llQTemple 57:17-19, "And he (=the king) shall not take in addition to her
another wife, for she alone shall be with him all days of her life; but if she dies, then he can
take to himself another.... " Cf. A. Tosato, "The Law of Leviticus 18:18" (1984) 199-201.
For the Karaite interpretation of Lev. 18:18, cf. L.M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in Bible
and Talmud (1942) 22f.
121 Cf., e.g., A. Tosato, "The Law of Leviticus 18: 18," 20lf., n. 8 and n. 9.
122 So, e.g., G.J. Wenham, Leviticus, 258, n. 27, arguing against J. Murray.
123 "The Law of Leviticus 18:18," 202, n. 8.
Tosato is not denying that other pronominally suffixed forms of rlil1l;\ appear in 18:6-17.
Rather, presumably, his point is that the precise syntagm, i1t;lh~-"~ i1rq~, must be interpreted
on its own.
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 117
[n]il7)" and culminates in "you shall not uncover [ii'?~n ~?]." On the other
hand, none of the second series of prohibitions, including the disputed vs. 18,
begins with "the nakedness of [n]i.!)]," and none culminates in "you shall not
uncover [ii,?~n ~'?]." Rather, each of the six prohibitions in vss. 18-23 begins
with the conjunction "and [1]," and the main verb, which is preceded by the
negative ~'?, is some second person imperfect other than "uncover [ii,?~t;1]."
4) Further supporting Tosato's analysis is the observation that all but
one of the anti-incest laws conclude with a justification based on the identity
of the forbidden individual.124 In form each justification appears as a
verbless clause with a pronominal subject: "she is your mother [~1ii ~Q~)" (v
7); "it is your father's nakedness [~1\1"']';:J~ n,]i.!))" (v 8); "for they are your
own nakedness [ii~\1 :Inn.!) '?]" (v 10); "she is your sister [~1V :lnin~]" (v 11);
"she is your father's near kinswoman [~1\1 "']';:J~ i~tLi]" (v 12); "she is your
mother's near kinswoman [~1\1 :lQ~ i~tLi-'?)" (v 13); "she is your aunt [~n1'l
~1\1)" (v 14); "she is your son's wife [~1i1 '"']jJ n~~)" (v 15); "she is your
brother's nakedness [~1\1"']'r~ n,Ji-\,]" (v 16); "they are your near kinswomen
[ii~D iiJ~~]" (v 17). As is readily apparent, however, the prohibition in vs. 18
lacks a similar explanatory clause; one would be expected if the writer had
intended it to be classified with the first series of laws, rather than the
second.125
5) What is perhaps even more striking, the justification offered in vs.
18, "to be a rival to her [iT?l? ... i'i~'?]," far from emphasizing the intrinsic
perversity of this wrong, is quite general and applicable to any bigynous
marriage. As Tosato remarks, "the harm which the law wants avoided is such
(rivalry, enmity) that any woman (and not necessarily a sister of the first
wife) is capable of causing .... "126 Indeed, the same root, ii~, "to be a rival"
or "to be hostile," is used in 1 Sam. 1:6 to describe the discordant relationship
between Peninnah and Hannah, who need not have been literal sisters.1 27
Accordingly, if the motive for this prohibition was to avoid vexation to one's
wife, there is little reason for limiting its prohibition to a literal sister; both
the Bible and anthropology provide ample testimony to the unpleasant reality
of contention among co-wives, whether sisters or not.1 28
6) Further, if Lev. 18: 18 had been concerned to avoid the incestuous
implication of marriage to a woman and her literal sister, it would be difficult
to account for the explicit time limit on the application of the present law,
"while she is alive [;;r'~Ij~]," found nowhere else in the anti-incest laws.
7) Finally, such a prohibition against polygyny ought not be dismissed
as out of character for the Holiness Code because of its impossible idealism.
Rather, it compares favourably with a number of other equally idealistic
provisions, such as the prohibition against hatred in Lev. 19: 17f.! The fact
that Lev. 18: 18 and many other "idealistic" stipulations lack criminal
sanctions suggests that these may have been intentionally ethical, rather than
legal norms. Putting this somewhat differently, Lev. 18:18 can be
categorized as a lex imperfecta, a law which prohibits something without
thereby rendering it invalid (reflecting a society which would have lacked the
requisite means of enforcement in any case).1 29
6.2.2 Texts which presuppose or may encourage monogamy as the ideal form
of marriage
Having concluded that Lev. 18:18 may plausibly be interpreted as it was at
Qumran, namely as an ethical prohibition of polygyny, we need to consider
whether other texts within the Old Testament similarly discourage or
disapprove polygyny, even if polygyny remained a legally valid form of
marriage. Certainly a number of texts appear to presuppose monogamy and
perhaps even to advocate monogamy as desirable, if not normative. As R. de
Vaux, B. Vawter, W. Plautz, and other scholars have noted, this preference
for monogamy seems to be the case especially in the wisdom literature and
the J account of creation (i.e., the paradigmatic monogamous marriage of
Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, to be discussed more fully in Chapter 5 below,
and the decidedly unflattering account of the origin of polygyny in the
reprobate line of Cain in Gen. 4:19ff.).13o As argued by W. Plautz, however,
many of the texts which initially appear to favour monogamy may do so only
because they reflect monogamy as the prevalent and typical practice at the
time. They need not require the conclusion that monogamy was the exclusive
or even the ideal form of marriage.l31
129 For other examples and a more general discussion of leges imperfectae, cf. S.E.
Loewenstamm, "The Laws of Adultery and Murder in Biblical and Mesopotamian Law"
(198~ 153, n. 9; and R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna (1988) 212.
1 0 R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, II, 25f.; B. Vawter, Genesis, 76; idem, "The Biblical
Theology of Divorce," 223f.; and W. Plautz, "Monogamie und Polygynie im Alten
Testament" (1963) 3-6.
Cf. Ps. 128:3 (discussed by W. Plautz, op. cit., 4); Provo 5:15-21; 12:4; 18:22; 19:14;
31:10-31; Eccl. 9:9; and Canticles (according to "the Shepherd Hypothesis"). Other "non-
Wisdom" passages could also be added, such as Deut. 28:54,56; Jer. 5:8; 6:11; Mal. 2:14
- cf. discussion of these verses in W.C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, 189f.
By contrast, texts which attest to the inexpedience of polygyny (factiousness and
jealousy of wives, favouritism toward children, etc.) abound. Cf. Genesis 16; 21; 29-31; 1
Samuel 1 (including the use in vs. 6 of the term
11:21; Deut. 21:15; Sir. 26:6; and 37:11.
'l"', "adversary," for a co-wife); 2 Chr.
131 "Monogamie und Polygynie im Aiten Testament," 5. Cf. also S.F. Bigger, "Hebrew
Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period" (1974) 86ff. As will be argued in
Chapter 5, however, this objection appears to be unjustified in the case of Genesis 2.
MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY 119
132 Cf. also W. Berg, who argues that narrative analogy may offer a key to condemning
the patriarch's practice of polygyny: Abraham is presented as a second Adam figure, who
falls when he heeds the advice of Sarah, his Eve ("Der Siindenfall Abrahams und Saras
nach Gen 16,1-6" [1982]7-14).
Less clear, but nevertheless possible, is the example of Hannah's temporary infertility,
which may have motivated Elkanah to take Peninnah as a second wife, but which the text
explains was an evidence of Yahweh's judgment (cf., e.g., 1 Sam. 1:5f., 11, perhaps
reflected also in Hannah's unwillingness, or inability, to partake of the peace offerings in
Shiloh until after Eli's priestly benediction).
133 Cf. also 1 Kgs. 3:1 and Neh. 13:26.
I. Mendelsohn notes that the anti-monarchical polemic of 1 Samuel 8 and Deuteronomy
17, including its prohibition of royal polygyny, was very likely an early direct repudiation
of the excesses of Canaanite kingship, rather than a late reflection of Israel's own bitter
experience from Solomon et al. ("Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the
Akkadian Documents from Ugarit" [1956]17-22).
120 MAlACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
alliance with Egypt, cf. Isa. 30: 1-7; 31: 1-3),134 Similarly, the prohibition
against "increasing" wives is not so much concerned with the legality of
polygyny in the abstract, but with the inevitable result of royal polygyny in
apostasy and accommodation to the gods of one's wives: as the text explicitly
states, "lest his heart turn away" (cf. 1 Kgs. l1:lff.; 16:31-33),135 Since this
danger can attend diplomatic polygyny practiced to any degree and since the
text insists that the king should neither allow his heart to be "lifted above his
brethren" nor to think himself above the law (vss. 18-20), it appears that the
seemingly vague expression, "he [the king] shall not increase wives for
himself," was intended precisely to prohibit the king from having any more
wives than other men were permitted, just as the parallel lines prohibit him
from having any more horses or wealth.136 In other words, the Zadokites and
the community at Qumran were not misguided in their interpretation of Deut.
17: 17 as requiring monogamous marriage for the king,137
With respect to the post-exilic period, although Mal. 2:10-16 has been
supposed by some scholars to assume (A.S. van der Woude) or even to
commend polygyny (e;g., H. Cowles and W.F. Luck), it is far more likely that
monogamy was seen as the marital ideal in this period and that actual marital
practice was monogamous with few, if any, exceptions.139 Such an
assumption may find some support in the rejection of polygyny among the
Jews in 5th century B.c. Elephantine, as well as in later sectarian Judaism.l 40
In any case, at least in terms of the biblical record, there is not a single
example of polygyny among the Israelites during the post-exilic period
(excluding Esther). Even apart from any consideration of the relevant biblical
and epigraphic evidence, however, the rarity of polygyny in Malachi's day
should be readily apparent from the sociological observation that polygyny is
138 This is not to deny the existence of many other possible motives for polygyny in the
OT, as well as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, including love (Gen. 29:26-30); guilt (2
Sam. 11:27); the desire to please parents (Gen. 27:46; 28:8f.); and perhaps display status
(Esther 1, 2), among others. No law or marriage document appears to accord any of these
its approval, however, while many would penalize the husband who takes a second wife on
these~rounds (apart from the infertility or grave illness of the first wife).
1 Cf. W. Nowack, Die klein en Propheten (1922) 417; E. Sellin, Das
Zwolfprophetenbuch (1930) 550ff.; R. Yaron,Introductwn to the Law of the Aramaic
Papyri (1961) 61; B. Vawter, "The Biblical Theology of Divorce" (1967) 223-43; S.
Schreiner, "Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung" (1979) 226; A Tosato, "The Law of
Leviticus 18:18" (1984) 199-214; E. Achtemeier, Nahum - Malachi (1986) 181; and B.
Glazier-McDonald, Malachi (1987) 114.
As argued by these scholars, Gen. 2:18-25 appears to support monogamy as an ideal,
and many of the Pentateuchal laws and statements in the wisdom literature seem to
presuppose it as the normal or ideal marriage form. Cf., e.g., Exod. 20:7; 21:5; Lev. 18:8,
16, 18; 20:10; 21:13; Num. 5:12; Deut. 5:21; 22:22; Provo 5:18-20; 12:4; 18:22; 19:13;
31:10-31; Eccl. 9:9; Sir. 26:1-4; Tob. 7:12; 8:6-8; and the Damascus Document.
140 Cf., e.g., R. Yaron,Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 60.
This growing tendency to reject polygyny in a more explicit manner may reflect a later
inclination to apply earlier priestly standards to the covenant people as a whole. Cf., e.g.,
D. Bossman, "Ezra's Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined," 37f.; and M. Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 114ff.
In support, it may be noted that there is no clear example of polygyny among the
priesthood throughout Israel's history. (In favour of Moses as a monogamist, cf. W. Plautz,
"Monogamie und Polygynie im Alten Testament," 4; and F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and
Hebrew Epic, 204). Cf. also the New Testament requirement for church leaders to be the
"husband of but one wife," an uncertain expression which may have a more general
application, perhaps intending to prohibit remarriage, but which appears to exclude
polygyny as well (1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6; cf. also 1 Tim. 5:9).
122 MALACHI 2:10-16 AND POLYGYNY
most commonly associated with men who enjoy considerable wealth and
status, characteristics which hardly typified Malachi's beleaguered
contemporaries living in the rump state of Judah. 141
7. SUMMARY
Cl'1i'?~ l)"J} tliiP:;ID 'Q~iJ 'i191ay i? 'rJi, '~tli1a~ i1~~ 'J:!~-tl;?laa 2: ISa
:'~:;J'-'?~ 1'J1l)~ ntq~::11b~ Cl~lJ1l~ bmotli~lba 2: lsb
5 For example, Mal. 2: 10 begins with the rhetorical question, "Have we not all one
Father?" - a question which presupposes a body of theological common knowledge. Of
course, Judah may have been ignoring this fact of its "sonship" and mutual "brotherhood,"
and certainly many offenders were prepared to conveniently overlook the idolatrous
paternity of their foreign wives (hence Malachi's pointed reminder that such a wife was a
i;?l "~-n:;l). Malachi's argument and condemnation, however, presuppose an essential
agreement on the part of his contemporaries with his own rather nuanced understanding of
Israel's existence as a people in covenant with Yahweh.
6 According to certain interpretations, vs. 15a offers this kind of self-justification either
by appeal to the example of Abraham (cf., e.g., E. Cashdan, "Malachi" [1948]347) or by
reference to the mandate to have children, which may have motivated the taking of a new
wife.
7 Cf. Chapter 1, 2-3 above for a defence of the authenticity of 3:22 [ET 4:4] within
Malachi and an interpretation of ... ii~b nlin which takes this as a plausible instance of
synecdoche intended by Malachi to encompass the Pentateuch as a whole.
126 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
14 Without claiming to be exhaustive, the present author surveys the most important
interpretations of Mal. 2:15a on pages 127-172 of his dissertation, "Marriage as a
Covenant" (1991). Eight major approaches are distinguished based on whether they
consider'Dt:\ to be the subject of i1tq-\' (the direct object of which may be variously "it,"
referring to the offence described in vs. 14, or, requiring some emendation, "her" or
"them") and if so, whether (I.) 'D~ in 15aa or '~t:\O in 15ay or both refer to Abraham, or
whether (II.) 'Dt:\ refers to God, or whether (III.) 'D~ is employed in a pronominal sense
(i.e., 'D~-~" means "no one" or "nobody"), or whether (IV.) iT1~ is read in place of the MT
'Dt:\, following the LXX. Alternatively, some views understand 'D~ as an attributive
adjective, or delete it altogether, in that (V.) they follow the Peshjtta and read t!i,~ in place
of i1~-\,. Finally, there are views which consider 'Dt:\ as the direct object of i1~-\" with
"Yahweh" as its assumed subject. These may be distinguished based on whether (VI.) 'Dt:\
has some reference other than Genesis 1 and 2, or whether (VII.) 'Dt:\ refers to Adam or to
Eve, or whether (VIII.) 'D~ refers to the "one flesh" marital unity of Adam and Eve in Gen.
2:24.
Other useful surveys are offered by J.C. de Moor, De Propheet Maleachi (1903); A.
von Bulmerincq, Der Prophet Maleachi, 2 vols. (1926-1932); P.A. Verhoef, Maleachi
(197~; and B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger (1987).
1 This proposal was first advanced by A. van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophetes
(1908) 726, 728. Among those who have accepted this proposal are E. Sellin, Das Zwolf-
prophetenbuch ubersetzt und erkliirt (1922); D. Deden, De Kleine Profeten (1953); T.
Chary, Aggee - Zacharie - Malachie (1969); W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja
9-14, Maleachi (1976); NAB; and JB.
16 For a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of six other major approaches to
Mal. 2:15a, cf. G.P. Hugenberger, "Marriage as a Covenant" (1991) pp. 127-137 and 141-
153.
128 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
17 The present view is held by the following: B. Duhm, Die zw6lf Propheten in den
Versmassen der Urschrift abersetzt (1910); A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebriiischen
Bibel, V (1912) 360; A. von Bulmerincq, "Die Mischehen im B. Maleachi" (1926); idem,
Der Prophet Maleachi, II (1932) 290ff.; F. Horst, Nahum bis Maleachi (1964) 268; I.G.
Matthews, "Haggai, Malachi" (1935) 23f.; K. Elliger, Das Buch der zw6lf kleinen
Propheten, II (1950) 189; D.R. Jones, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (1962); A. Tosato, "II
ripudio: delitto e pena [Mal 2,10-16]" (1978) 552; S. Schreiner, "Mischehen - Ehebruch-
Ehescheidung. Betrachtungen zu Mal 2 1016" (1979) 217; P.M. Schumpp, Das Buch der
zw6!f Propheten (1950) 393; P.A. Verhoef, Maleachi (1972); idem, The Books of Haggai
and Malachi (1987) 277; and B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger
(1987).
K. Budde's view is similar, but he interprets Mal. 2:15aa as an interrogative (Zum Text
der drei letzten kleinen Propheten [1906]).
18 "Mischehen - Ehebruch - Ehescheidung. Betrachtungen zu Mal 2 10-16" (1979) 217:
"Und niemand tut (so etwas), sofern er einen Rest von Verstand besitzt; denn was sucht
derjenige (der so etwas tut): Kinder! Doch bewahrt (euch) euren Verstand, und die Frau
seiner Jugend behandele niemand treulos."
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 129
moral and religious offence of such gravity that it causes Yahweh to reject
Israel's sacrifices, while in vs. 15a he brands it as mere stupidity! 19
In addition to these, several more fundamental objections have been
raised against this approach, which considers "one ['t;r~]" to be employed in a
pronominal sense:
1) Various scholars note the inherent difficulty which this view seems
to entail for "the one [,tr~iJ]" in 15ay. J.M.P. Smith, for example, objects that
the "sudden shift of stand-point in the word 'one' is most remarkable and
unnatural."20 Putting this same objection somewhat differently, Van der
Woude simply asserts, "it is unlikely that the author of the verse could refer
to 'no one' by 'that one' (hii'eJ,ad)."21
2) J. Packard, among others, notes that the present view assumes an
ellipsis of the direct object of "does [i1~.v]" in the first clause and typically
also an ellipsis of a predicate for "the one ['~~iJ]" in the second clause.22
3) Packard further objects to the present view by noting that an
interrogative sense appears to be indicated for 15aa both by the position of
't;rlr~'J, preceding the verb in its clause, and by the explicit question
introduced by "and what [i1~1]" in the second clause (conjoined to the first
clause by "and [1],,).23
4) Finally, Packard and others observe that the pronominal rendering
"no one" for 'J:rIr~" lacks lexical support. 24 Packard asserts, "Had the
prophet meant to say that no one ever did so, he would have used tLi,~ r~, as
Gen. xxxix. 11, or simply r~." Although Packard is cited approvingly by
W.e. Kaiser Jr., this assertion somewhat oversimplifies the evidence.25
While it is true that the Old Testament does commonly use r~ or tLi,~ r~ to
mean "no one," this is by no means its exclusive practice;26 in fact, r~ and
tV'~ 1'~ are nowhere employed with a perfect, as would be required in the
present case.
Nevertheless, the essence of Packard's objection stands. In the vast
majority of instances when an Old Testament author intends to say "no one"
with some verb in the perfect, this is accomplished by employing tV'~ + ~'? + a
perfect (as in Gen. 41:44), or more simply ~? + a perfect (as in Gen. 41:21),
or even~? + a third person plural perfect (as in Gen. 26:22 and 35:5). On the
other hand, no example of~? + 'r;r~ offers clear support for the pronominal
rendering posited for Mal. 2:15. Although "one ['r;r~]" in its various forms
occurs some six hundred and ninety-nine times in the Old Testament,27 there
are only nineteen occurrences in seventeen verses where "not [~'?]" and "one
['r;r~]" appear together within the same clause;28 of these, there are only three
verses where the precise phrase 'r;r~ ~'? is attested: the Kethih of Ps. 139:16,
Job 14:4, and Mal. 2:15. 29
In none of the sixteen occurrences where "not [~'?]" and "one ['r;r~]"
occur together, but not in the phrase 'r;r~ ~'?, does "one" bear an indefinite
pronominal sense. Instead, in each case the numerical sense of "one" is
clearly prominent. Seven examples employ 'r;r~ as an attributive adjective
describing "one" item or individual singled out from, or contrasted with, a
larger number mentioned in the context (i.e., Num. 11:19; 35:30; Deut. 19:15;
Josh. 17:17; 23:14 [his]; and 1 Kgs. 8:56). In eight other examples 'r;r~
appears as a substantive, but again it refers to "one" item or individual singled
out from, or contrasted with, a larger number mentioned in the context (i.e.,
Exod. 8:27 [ET 31]; 10:19) and is often accompanied by eitherJ~, hence "one
out of' (Exod. 9:6; Num. 16:15 [his]; 2 Sam. 13:30; and Ps. 106:11), or~,
"one among' (2 Sam. 17: 12).
The single remaining example of "not [~'?]" and "one ['r;r~]" occurring
together, but not in the phrase 'r;r~ ~?, is Job 31:15: 1~~:;:l~11iTWf '~tp17 It;l::l~~~'?q
'r.~ t:lT)l~, "Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not
one fashion us in the womb?" (RSV). Two difficulties with this example
require special comment. First, on almost any interpretation, it is necessary
to assume that "not [~?]" has been elided in the second clause. Second, it is
uncertain whether 'r.~ should be understood as a reference to God ("And did
not one [or the same God] fashion us in the womb?") or as an attributive
adjective modifying t:lT)"! ("And did he not fashion us in one [or, the same]
womb?"). Although this latter interpretation of Job 31:15 may be preferable,
on either interpretation 'I:J~ appears to have been chosen in order to
27 So Even-Shoshan, s. v.
28 I.e., Exod. 8:27 [ET 31]; 9:6; 10:19; Num. 11:19; 16:15; 35:30; Deul 19:15; Josh.
17:17; 23:14; 2 Sam. 13:30; 17:12; 1 Kgs. 8:56; Mal. 2:15; Pss. 106:11; 139:16 (Kethib);
Job 14:4; and 31:15.
291'~ + ,~~ is equally rare, occurring only in Ps. 14:3, its parallel, Ps. 53:4 [ET 3], and
Dan. 10:21.
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 131
emphasize the fact that Job and his slave had one rather than two distinct
origins.3o
Finally, turning to the two examples (apart from Mal. 2:15) where the
phrase 1D~ ~? occurs, we shall first consider Ps. 139:16, 1JP~' t:lj~ '11~O-'?i!1
t:lr~ 1D~ [i~11 ~'?1 1i~:. t:I'~:, "All the days ordained for me were written in
your book when as yet there was not one of them." Unfortunately, this
difficult verse requires the resolution of several lexical and text-critical
uncertainties, not the least of which is the need to decide whether to follow
the Qere reading of 1'?, "to him," in place of t6, "not," which would eliminate
this as an example altogether. If one accepts the Kethib, however, once again
"one" is employed as a cardinal and not as an indefinite pronoun; its
numerical sense is emphasized both by contrast to "all of them [the days],"
mentioned earlier in the verse, and by the subsequent modifying prepositional
phrase, "among them [t:li1~]" (or "of them [t:li7~]," as in some MSS).31
Regrettably, both the text and sense of 1D~ ~'? in Job 14:4 are also
disputed. After the question, "Who can bring what is pure out from the
impure?", the answer, "not one," would seem unexpected in view of Job's
insistence on the omnipotence of God. As a result, a number of scholars
suggest following the sense of the Vulgate (which offers, nonne tu qui solus
est ["is it not you alone?"]) and the Targum (which adds, "except God") and
emend the MT, for example, by rep ointing ~'? as ~,?, "the Mighty One."32 F.1.
Andersen, who notes that Hebrew normally expresses the idea "not one" by
employing the negative existential predicator 1'~, offers the alternative
suggestion that 1D~ should be understood as a reference to God, "The One."33
On this approach Job 14:4 would presumably be interpreted with the Vulgate
as an unmarked rhetorical interrogative: "Is it not 'The One'?" Whatever the
proper solution to Job 14:4 might be, M.H. Pope has argued that from a
metrical point of view the MT 1D~ ~'? appears to be "entirely too short."34
Thus, with so many uncertainties surrounding Job 14:4, it would appear
unwise to allow this single example to overturn the impression gained from
the widely established patterns of Hebrew usage, which render implausible
the proposal to interpret 1D~-~?1 in Mal. 2: 15 in a pronominal sense.
35 D.A. Bruno is the only exception since he emends 'J:!\n~" to ,~~'? (Das Buch der
Zwo/f. Eine rhythmische und textkritische Untersuchung [1957]181, 233).
For an analysis of six other approaches to Mal. 2:15 that are less commonly supported
by current scholars, cf. G.P. Hugenberger, "Marriage as a Covenant" (1991) pp. 127-137
and 141-153.
36 A. van Hoonacker renders Mal. 2: 15, "Did he not make 'them' to be a single [being],
which has its flesh [and] its life? And what does this unique [being] seek? A posterity for
God! Therefore take care of your life, - and 'do not be' faithless to the wife of your youth"
[= "Ne 'Ies' a-t-il point faits pour n'etre qu'un seul [etre], qui a sa chair ret] sa vie? Et cet
[etre] unique a quoi tend-il? A une posrerite pour Dieu! Ayez donc soin de votre vie, - et
ne 'sois' point perfide envers I'epouse de ta jeunesse"] (Les douze petits prophetes [1908]
726,728).
Those scholars who hold views similar to Van Hoonacker's include D. Deden, De
Kleine Profeten (1953) 393; T. Chary,Aggee - Zacharie - Malachie (1969) 258, 260; NAB;
JB; and perhaps J.G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (1972) 240f.; and the NIV.
Likewise, E. Sellin revocalizes i~1, "and a remnant of," as i~~l, "and flesh" (Das
ZwolJprophetenbuch iibersetzt und erkliirt [1922] 550ff.). Accepting several other
proposed emendations, Sellin also follows the LXX in reading iD~ (clAAOS, ano) in place
of the MT ,~~ in 15ar. As a result, Sellin renders Mal. 2:15, "Did he not make into one,
flesh and life for you (sing.)? But you (pI.) say: What does God require other than
progeny? Indeed, take heed for your (pI.) life! And do not be faithless against the wife of
your (pI.) youth!" [= "Hat er nicht zu Einem gemacht I <Fleisch> und Leben <dir>? I <Aber
ihr sprecht: Was anderes> I <Ais> Nachkommenschaft veriangt Gott? I Doch hiitet euch fiir
euer Leben! lUnd gegen das Weib <eurer> Jugend <seid> nicht treulos!"].
Offering views similar to that of Sellin are W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten Ubersezt
und erkliirt (1922) 420f.; J.E. McFadyen, "Malachi" (1929) 835; A. Deissler in A. Deissler
and M. Deicor, Les petits prophetes, II, Michie-Mal (1964); A. Deissler, ZwolJ Propheten,
Die Neue Echter Bibel, 4 (Stuttgart: Echter, 1981); and A. Renker, Die Tora bei Maleachi.
Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von tora imAlten Testament (1979) 73.
Among those scholars who support the present approach while maintaining the MT of
i~i\i1 are Rashi (against the implication of E. Cashdan, "Malachi," 347); John Calvin,
Zechariah and Malachi, 554; E. Pococke, "A Commentary on the prophecy of Malachi"
(1740); T. Scott, The Holy Bible with Explanatory Notes, Practical Observations, and
Copious Marginal References (1788-1792); W. Newcome, Minor Prophets (1836); E.
Henderson, The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets (1858); J. Packard, "The Book of
Malachi" (1876) 16; E.B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets, vol. 2 (1883); T.T. Perowne,
Malachi (1890); W.H. Lowe, "Malachi" (no date); H. Frey, Das Buch der Kirche in der
Weltwende. Die kleinen nachexilichen Propheten (1957) 157-160; TJ. Delaughter,
Malachi, Messenger of Divine Love (1976) 101; W.C. Kaiser Jr., Malachi (1984 ) 7lf.; and
R.L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (1984) 319; as well as the RV, ASV, and the RSVmargin.
Kaiser's view is typical of many of these scholars who maintain the MT. He translates,
"Did not he [God] make them one? - even though he had the residue of the spirit [i.e.,
'enough creative power in reserve'] [presumably to 'supply many partners']. So why only
one [partner]? Because he was seeking godly offspring" (Malachi [1984] 139). "The
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 133
thought would then run like this: Why did God make Adam and Eve only one flesh, when
he might have given Adam many wives, for God certainly had more than enough of the
Spirit, or his creative power, in reserve to furnish many partners? However, our God was
seeking a godly offspring, and such plurality would not have been conducive to this result"
(op. cit., 71f.).
134 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
2.1.1 The antecedent of j" "to him/it," in the expression j, 'm'; i!$rp~
"though a remnant of the spirit belonged to him/it," is "one ['I7~J," not
Yahweh
As already mentioned, many interpreters who share the present approach
consider the antecedent of i?, "to him/it," in the expression i? 'T'Jii i~~1,
"though a remnant of the spirit belonged to him/it," to be Yahweh and so
interpret this clause as polemic against polygyny. Allegedly, Malachi is
recalling how God had plenty of spirit left after creating Eve; so the divine
choice not to create more than a single wife for Adam implies a repudiation
of polygyny .37
This interpretation fails on at least three different grounds. First, such
an interpretation of "though a remnant of the spirit belonged to him" virtually
demands that "one ['r.r~]" be understood primarily as a reference to Eve, not
to marriage: "Did he not make just one [wife for Adam], even though he had
a remnant of the Spirit?" Yet such an interpretation would expect the
feminine form nlJ~, "one," or even nlJ~ i1~~, "one woman," not the masculine
form ,r,t~, "one," as in the MT. Second, it seems strange that there would
have been any need in the post-exilic context for Malachi to insist that
Yahweh's creative potential, that is, his "spirit [mi]," was not exhausted after
the creation of the first two souls. Surely, not even the most ardent
polygynist would have thought otherwise. Finally, a repudiation of polygyny
in vs. 15 would appear unexpected in its context. Nowhere else in 2:10-16 is
polygyny mentioned, nor is there any allusion to this as a problem elsewhere
in the post-exilic biblical corpus.38 Moreover, at least according to some
interpreters, Malachi's condemnation of exogamous marriage in 2:10-12 and
of divorce in 2:13-16, if anything, presupposes monogamy among Malachi's
contemporaries. In other words, if polygyny had been a common practice,
there would have been little reason for a man who wished to marry a pagan
woman to divorce "the [Jewish] wife of his youth." In addition, there is a
clear linkage between vss. 14, 15, and 16 (with the latter two sharing the
parallel conclusion, ~~D1i~ ~OlOiliJl, "Therefore watch out for your lives,"
and all three verses linked by the term ":1, "be unfaithful"), and in vs. 16 the
practice condemned is explicitly identified as divorce, not polygyny.
H. Frey and others offer an alternative interpretation. They argue that
the antecedent of "to him/it [i?]" in the expression i? 'T'Jii i~t4i1 is "one ['r.r~]"
rather than Yahweh: "with a remnant of the spirit belonging to it?"
Admittedly, this interpretation has its own difficulties - although it is
salutary to recognize that the expression is problematic on virtually every
interpretation. Other texts support the notion that an individual may possess
37 So, e.g., J. Calvin, Malachi, 556. Cf. P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and
Malachi, 277.
38 Cf. the discussion of polygyny in Chapter 4, 6 above.
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 135
the spirit, but nowhere else does the Bible suggest that a married couple as
such might similarly possess the spirit. Nevertheless, there are a number of
texts which teach that the community of Israel corporately possesses the spirit,
who is present as a witness to the covenant, and this may provide an
appropriate analogy for the present passage.39
2.1.2 In spite of its admitted difficulty the MT 'rJh i,~CP1, "and a remnant of
the spirit," in 15af3 should be maintained
As mentioned above, the expression "and a remnant of the spirit belongs to
him/it [i'? '111' '~~1]" is problematic on virtually any view of 2:15. I.M.P.
Smith, for example, has noted, '''remnant of the Spirit' is scarcely a Hebrew
point of view, and it lacks all analogy."4o Smith's observation has often been
thought to favour an alternative interpretation of '11i, '~~1, for example, "a
remnant of sense," which would not support the present approach to vs. 15a. 41
While this interpretation may be suggestive of various modem idioms, such
as "an ounce of sense," it finds little lexical support in the ancient texts.
Moreover, it appears to be opposed by the use of 111' in vs. 15b, since "guard
your sense" is not particularly convincing for t:I~D1l:;l bi;llOt!i~'. Accordingly,
many scholars have accepted A. van Hoonacker's attractive proposal to
emend ad sensum the MT'11" '~~1, "and a remnant of spirit," to 111'1 '~~(1),
"flesh and spirit." The result of this emendation comports with the present
interpretative approach to 2:15 because it makes more explicit the assumed
allusion to Gen. 2:24 - the emended text recalls how God "made one (both)
flesh and spirit." The fact that Gen. 2:24 employs ,~~, rather than ,~~, for
"flesh" need not detract from this view since these two terms function as
synonyms elsewhere.
While we recognize the plausibility of Van Hoonacker's proposal,
nevertheless, our interpretation assumes the integrity of the MT i'? '111' ,~t!i1.
There are a number of reasons for this choice.
1) Although the discussion of the proposed emendation normally
focuses on the merits of an admittedly modest repointing of ,~~, "remnant
of," as ,~~, "flesh," in fact the emendation requires at least one and very
often two additional changes in the text: the introduction of the conjunction 1
before'11i, (hence, "and spirit") and often the deletion of the initial 1, "and,"
prefixed to '~~1. These changes are not trivial and require a more adequate
defence according to the canons of textual criticism.
2) The MT vocalization for ,~t!i1, "remnant," is uniformly supported
by the versions (LXX: lJTTOAEq.q.la; Peshitta: t<::Ii.:z:.C1; Vulgate: residuum) in
spite of the marked divergence from the MT of those same versions
elsewhere in vs. 15. Given the acknowledged difficulty of the expression
39 E.g., cf. Hag. 2:5 and the interpretation of this verse offered in M.G. Kline, The
Structure of Biblical Authority (1972) 20lf. Cf. also, M.M. Kline, "The Holy Spirit as
Covenant Witness" (1972) passim.
Cf. H. Frey, Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende (1957) ad loco
40 Malachi, 54.
41 Cf., e.g., PA Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 276.
136 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
"and a remnant of the spirit belongs to him/it [i'? '11" ,~~,]," this uniform
witness of the versions is remarkable and would be hard to explain on any
other basis than the assumption of the originality of the MT.
3) Related to the comment just made, even apart from the supportive
witness of the versions, it is hard to imagine how a supposed original text
which was understood as ,~tD, "flesh," could have been uniformly corrupted
by the versions into ,~t4!, "remnant," precisely because this resulting reading
is so difficult (principle of lectio difficilior).42
4) Further, as noted by A. Tosato, there is at least a slight grammatical
confirmation for the suitability of '~tDi, "and a remnant of," in the expression
'11" '~~i, since ,~~ is commonly found elsewhere in the Old Testament in the
construct state, just as it appears in the present verse. 43
5) Finally, the claim of J.M.P. Smith and others, namely that "remnant
of the spirit" lacks analogy elsewhere in the Old Testament, is true only for
the usual view, which holds that "to him/it [i'?]" has Yahweh for its referent. 44
As mentioned earlier, however, our interpretation holds that the antecedent of
"to it" is "one."
With A. von Bulmerincq and others, "spirit [11"]" in both 15a~ and
15ba is to be understood as in Ps. 104:29f.; Job 32:8; Dan. 5:12; and 6:4,
namely as a reference to the spirit of God which resides in man. If "spirit" is
considered as a reference to the divine spirit, then a possible analogy for our
text may be found in Num. 11:25, where the Lord "took some of the spirit
that was upon him [i.e., Moses] and put it upon the seventy elders."45
Nevertheless, since the presence of the spirit which comes from God
and a creature's life are coterminous (cf. Ps. 104:29f. 46), "spirit" may be at
one and the same time a reference both to the spirit of God and to the breath
of life (cf. D';'O n9t4!J in Gen. 2:7).47 If "spirit" is understood as a reference to
one's life breath, then the present clause may find an analogous text in Dan.
10: 17, where the Niphal of i~tli is used to describe the near depletion of one's
life-breath [i19i9~]: "How can my lord's servant talk with my lord? For now
no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me ['~-i1l~tqJ ~7 i19i9~1]."
Tosato recognizes an advantage of this interpretation, namely that it
maintains the same sense for "spirit [mi]" in the present expression in 15a~
as it bears later in vss. 15b and 16c.48 Tosato notes that the warning to guard
one's life-spirit in those two later passages corroborates his interpretation
here of an implied threat of being completely deprived of "life-spirit [1m]."
Finally, in support of the present interpretation of 2: 15a~, H. Frey
makes the interesting proposal that Malachi, having already drawn attention
to creation and the marriage of Adam and Eve, now also obliquely alludes to
Genesis 6, where God determined that his holy life-giving spirit would not
continue to strive with mankind (Gen. 6:3) as a result of the marital
infractions described in that context. So here, men who have similarly
transgressed have only a residue of his spirit [l1ii i~tli1], which now they must
guard [O~t)1"P 'ot'llOtli~1]49
48 In support, A. Tosato cites D. Lys, "ROach" (1962) 336, who presents evidence that
this is the prevalent sense which 1111 bears in all the post-exilic texts where it is found ("II
ripudio: delitto e pena [Mal 2,10-16)," 551, n. 16)
49 H. Frey, Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende, 160.
50 It is true that the unemended MT in 15ay is not particularly difficult and, as such,
may not seem to demand the presence oft:lt;l""1tl~1 or correction by recourse to the LXX. Yet
one may question the consistency of a text-critical methodology which resorts to the
versions only when the MT is considered difficult or corrupt. Cf., e.g., R.W. Klein's
warning, "A common mistake in Old Testament textual studies is to resort to LXX only
when the MT, for one reason or another, seems difficult or corrupt" (Textual Criticism of
the Old Testament From the Septuagint to Qumran [1974)62).
51 For scholars who emend the remainder of 15ay in accord with the LXX, cf. E. Sellin,
W. Nowack3rd ed., A. Deissler, A. Renker, and R. Fuller (in "Does Yahweh Hate Divorce?
Malachi 2:16 and the Text of Malachi at Qumran").
52 R. Fuller, "Does Yahweh Hate Divorce? Malachi 2:16 and the Text of Malachi at
Qumran." Cf. also R. Fuller's forthcoming edition of 4QXna in theDJD series.
138 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
2.1.4 "One ['IJ~)" alludes to Genesis 2:24 while "the one ['Ij~(J]" refers to
God
Unlike most interpretations, the present view considers it likely that "one
['l:r~]" and "the one ['Q~\:I]" in Mal. 2: 15 do not share an identical reference.
Even if this conviction were proved false, however, once again our
conclusions concerning the overall interpretation of Mal. 2: 15 would not be
greatly affected.
Certainly it is possible to render 15ay, "But you say, 'Why one [i1~1
'Q~\:I]?' He was seeking a godly seed [C'ri'?~ 1)"11 ilii?~9]." This rendering
does have the advantage of allowing "one ['l:r~]" and "the one ['Q~\:I]" to bear
an identical reference, but three difficulties weigh against this alternative.
First, while an unaccompanied i1~ may on occasion mean "why," this is
53 "Does Yahweh Hate Divorce? Malachi 2:16 and the Text of Malachi at Qumran."
MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 139
hardly its most common sense since it is found in only seventeen or so of its
554 occurrences in the OT.54 It may also be significant that in none of these
examples does ii9 bear the meaning "why" in a verbless clause, such as would
be required in 15ay. Second, the rendering "why one?" appears to ignore the
article on 'D~O without justification. Finally, it is extremely rare in Hebrew
to elide the pronominal subject of a participle, such as is posited by the
rendering: "he was seeking a godly seed."55 The single other example in
Malachi, namely 2:9, differs significantly from the present case. In that verse
there is an obvious parallelism between '~l'-n~ o'"J1?tv 'o~~'~, "you have not
been keeping my ways," and the following coordinate clause, O'~~ o'~tp~l
ii"Jir1:;t, "and [you] have been showing partiality in your instruction." This
parallelism between two coordinate participial clauses makes the elided
subject for the second participle readily apparent, but it is precisely this sort
of parallelism that is lacking in Mal. 2: 15.
An alternative interpretation which would construe "God [O'D'~)" as
the subject of "was seeking [tV~:;lD)" (cf. the LXX) requires an unusual word
order for the clause (participle-object-subject) and appears to be excluded by
the resulting sense: "And why one? Because God was seeking a seed!"56
Since the Bible recognizes that progeny can result equally from exogamous,
adulterous, as well as other illicit unions, there is no obvious logical relation
between God's desire for mankind to reproduce and the question posed
concerning this marital "oneness."57 Further, even if some connection were
posited, this line of discussion would be at best tangential to Malachi's
concern to oppose divorce and exogamous marriage (indeed, it could be
argued that this interpretation of the clause would actually justify the divorce
of an infertile wife).
54 Cf. Even-Shoshan. BOB, S.V., 553, offers the following examples of i1~ with the
meaning "why": Exod. 14:15; 17:2; 2 Kgs. 6:33; 7:3; Ps. 42:6; Job 15:12; and Cant 8:4.
While KB, s. V., offers additional examples, each of these actually reads i1ri11;1, and, in any
case, may not require the rendering "why": Gen. 3:13; 12:18; 26:10; Judg. 18:24; 1 Kgs.
21:5; and 2 Kgs. 1:5.
Eliminating cases of i10", i11;1 ]l", i11;1 nnlJ, i1~-i11;1, n~i-i11;1,':;' . . . i11;1, ~'? i11;1, and
i1tiJ i~liJ-i19, none of which could support a rendering "why" in Mal. 2:15, the following 17
examples of i11;1 (excluding Mal. 2: 15) are rendered "why" in either the NIV or RSV: Exod.
14:15; 17:2; Josh. 7:25; 2 Kgs. 6:33; 7:3; Jer. 2:36; 30:15; 49:4; Pss. 42:6; 42:12; 43:5; 52:3
[ET~; Job 7:21; 15:12; Cant. 7:1 [ET 6:13]; Eccl. 7:10; and Lam. 3:39.
5 It is acknowledged that the decision to separate '~~iJ from what follows, rather than
taking it as the subject of tliP:;l9, has the support of the Masoretic cantillation marks (as
indicated by the zaqep qetannah).
56 F.1. Andersen notes that there are only five examples (out of 355) in the Pentateuch
where a participial predicate introduces an independent verbless clause (The Hebrew
Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 48).
57 E.g., cf. Lot and his daughters in Genesis 19, Esau and his Canaanite wives in
Genesis 36, or David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11.
140 MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
2.1.5 D'i?ff .vI~ "seed of God" or "godly seed, " includes, but need not be
confined to, literal children in their minority
It is granted that from the biblical perspective all children are viewed as
having come from God (cf. Ps. 127:3).58 Nevertheless, it appears unlikely
that the phrase Cl'Ii'?~ l'''1}, lit. "seed of God," was intended as a tautology or
poetic elaboration meaning merely "children," such as is supposed by S.
Schreiner. Indeed, given our interpretation that "seed of God" answers the
question "What was the One [i.e., Yahweh] seeking?" it is doubtful that
Malachi intends the construct to express merely the origin of this seed, that is,
"seed from God."59 Rather, in the context of Mal. 2:10-16, "seed of God"
seems to reflect the imagery established in 2:10 (and 1:6) of God as the "one
father to all of us [1Ji':;J'? '1r;r~ J~]," that is, to his people in virtue of his
redemptive acts and covenant, and seems to offer an intentional contrast to
the phrase "the daughter of a foreign god ["j~~ '?~-n;l]" in Mal. 2: 11. 60
Since God's paternity in 2:10 is not restricted to youngsters and "the
daughter of a foreign god" is similarly not confined to girls in their minority,
this context has been used by J. Ridderbos to suggest that "seed of God" is
intended as a reference to Israel herself, rather than the actual dependent
children of some human couple. This interpretation may find further support
in Ezra 9:2, where tV1p;:T l'''1}, "seed of holiness" or "holy race," appears to
refer to Israel as a whole. Compare also '?~ltp' l'''1}, "seed of Israel," in Neh.
9:2. This broader reference in Mal. 2: 15 appears plausible, but it would seem
unwarranted to exclude a reference to literal children as well, particularly in
the light of the parallel concern in Ezra and Nehemiah regarding the spiritual
disqualification and erosion of faith and Hebrew culture in the literal children
born to mixed marriages (cf. Ezra 10:3, 44; and Neh. 13:24f.), as well as the
threat to faith entailed in the sin of giving and taking literal daughters in
mixed marriage (Ezra 9:2, 12; and Neh. 13:25ff.).61
Combining these perspectives, H. Frey notes that "the One" who is the
Father of Israel desires not merely indiscriminate procreation, but the
proliferation of covenant children - seed born not just of the will of man but
of God (cf. 1 John 5:1,4; John 3:3ff.). In other words, the seed mentioned in
2: 15ay should be understood as having the same kind of dual interdependent
paternity as does Israel in Mal. 2: 10: "Have we not all one father ... why then
are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?"
Given the allusion to Gen. 2:24 in Mal. 2: 15aa (and allusions to the Genesis
narrative elsewhere in Malachi - cf., e.g. Mal. 1:2), significant support for
62 Already in Genesis 4 and 5 there is a sharp differentiation between the Cainites and
the Sethites. Only the latter share a family likeness to God: God "made him [Adam] in the
likeness of God" (Gen. 5:1), and subsequently Adam "became the father of a son [Seth] in
his own likeness, after his image" (Gen. 5:3), etc., down to Noah, who "found favour in the
eyes of the Lord." (Gen. 6:8).
Later, in a manner which parallels the experience of Malachi's contemporaries,
Abraham moved from Vr of the Chaldeans to live in the occupied land of promise, where
Sarah gave birth to a son, Isaac, the godly child of the promise (cf. Gen. 21:12). Yet this
was only after the birth of Ishmael, the fruit of merely human plans and a mixed marriage,
which threatened the marriage of Abraham and Sarah, the wife of his youth. (Cf. H. Frey,
Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende, 160.) To safeguard the covenant line, later
Abraham's servant is prohibited from procuring a wife for Isaac from among the Canaanites
and is commanded to find a wife from among Abraham's own relatives instead (Gen.
24:3f.). Still later while Esau weds some local Hittite women, Rebekah pleads with Isaac to
instruct Jacob to find a wife from among their kinsmen and so to beget children who would
be heirs of the Abrahamic blessing in Genesis (cf. Gen. 27:46ff.).
63 Cf. P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 342, citing A. Jeremias, The
Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, vol. 2 (1911) 312.
64 This more spiritual reference may also be favoured by Mal. 1:6, where Malachi takes
it for granted that sons generally honour their fathers (an assumption which Micah, for
exa~le, might not have found so gratuitous).
Cf. P.A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 342.
142 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
2.2 Objections to the present approach which considers "one (ilJ(!] " to offer
an allusion to the "one flesh" marital unity ofAdam and Eve in Genesis 2:24
Having considered certain distinctive features of the interpretation of Mal.
2: 15 which is favoured here, we now need to examine a variety of objections
which have been raised against the present approach.
2.2.1 The problem of conjectural textual emendations
A. Tosato and A.S. van der Woude, among others, have objected that
interpretations of Mal. 2:15 which consider "one ['r,r~]" to allude to the "one
flesh" marital unity of Adam and Eve frequently require a number of purely
conjectural textual emendations in the latter part of vs. 15a.66 Obviously, an
uncertain theory is not rendered more convincing by the accumulation of
additional uncertainties. The present view, however, neither requires nor
favours any emendation of the MT.67
We have already discussed our reasons for rejecting the common
proposal to emend 'r]ii i~tV1, "remnant of the spirit," in 15a~ and for rejecting
the proposed restoration of oQ10~J, "and you say," in 15ay, although this
latter emendation would not greatly affect the sense of the text. We also
noted that w hile ~'?tT or ~'?m, "(and) did not...?", has often been suggested as
an emendation of the MT ~'?l. "and did not...?", in 15aa (based on Targum
Jonathan, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate), this emendation too is unnecessary.68
Finally, two proposals have been advanced to temper or eliminate the
odd shifts of personal reference in the MT of 15b (from second masculine
plural, to second masculine singular, to third masculine singular): bQ10tqj1
'~::l'-'?~ 1''J111~ nt4~:;l1 O~011:l., lit. "Therefore watch out for your lives and let
one not act faithlessly against the wife of your youth." Some scholars follow
the PeshHta and read a third masculine singular suffix, 1'")1llJ, "his youth,"
while others follow the LXX, Targum Jonathan, Vulgate, and a few MSS of
the MT read a second masculine singular form, ,j~n, "do (not) act
faithlessly," in place of the third masculine singular jussive verb, '~~', "let
one (not) act faithlessly."69 Neither of these proposals is required. It is
widely recognized (cf., e.g., E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 524f.; GKC
144p) that Hebrew tolerates heterosis (= change) of person and number to a
66 Cf. A Tosato, "II ripudio: delitto e pena (Mal 2,10-16)," 548-553; and AS. van der
Woude, "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community," 69.
67 It is entirely possible with A Tosato that the confusion of the ancient versions
concerning 2:15 may be less the result of variations in their Vorlagen or misunderstandings
of the meaning of the text than studied attempts to avoid that meaning ("II ripudio: delitto e
pena rMaI2,1O-16]," 553).
~ See our more detailed discussion of unmarked rhetorical interrogatives below.
Favouring tIi'?ii are, among others, 1. Well hausen, Die kleinen Propheten (1898); W.
Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten ubersezt und erkliirt (1903); A van Hoonacker, Les douze
petits prophetes (1908); and O. Isopescul, Der Prophet Malachias (1908); E. Sellin, Das
Zwolfprophetenbuch (1922); D. Deden, De kleine profeten (1953); F. Niitscher,
Zwolfprophetenbuch (1957); and A Deissler in A Deissler and M. Delcor, Les petits
prophetes, II, Michee-Mal (1964).
69 1'")1lll is favoured by, inter alios, W. Nowack, K. Marti, B. Duhm, and I.M.P. Smith.
On the other hand, jj::Jl'1 is favoured by 1. Wellhausen, W. Nowack, S.R. Driver, C. von
Orelli, E. Sievers, and A van Hoonacker.
MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 143
much greater degree than English. As such, the Hebrew Bible includes
numerous examples of exactly the kind of mixing of personal reference as is
found in our text. Not all of these can be dismissed as the result of textual
corruption; some of them may even reflect an intentional stylistic choice.70
Moreover, in the light of the contradictory versional evidence for Mal. 2:15b,
emendation to remove the heterosis of person in the MT appears to be
misguided. This is so because it is only on the assumption of the originality
of the MT, which has both second and third person references in tension, that
a reasonable account can be given for the simpler uniform third person
reference of the Pesh~ta as well as the simpler uniform second person
reference of the LXX, Targum Jonathan, and Vulgate. In other words, the
MT should be maintained on the principle of lectio difficilior.
Reinke, G.H.A. von Ewald, e. von Orelli3rd ed., J.e. de Moor, E. Sellin, and W. Nowack3rd
ed., each of whom maintains an interrogative sense for the unemended MT iD\n~"l.
The definitive study of this phenomenon is still that of H.G. Mitchell, "The Omission of
the Interrogative Particle," in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in memory of William
Rainey Harper, I (Chicago, 1908) 115-129.
Mitchell, op. cit., p. 117, objects to GKC's characterization of unmarked interrogatives
as occurring "frequently" given that he is able to discover only 27 clear examples of this
phenomenon within the OT (e.g., Gen. 3:1; 18:12; Judg. 11:9; 1 Sam. 21:16 [ET 15]; 22:7,
15; 2 Sam. 16:17; 19:23 [ET 22]; 1 Kgs. 1:24; 21:7; Isa. 14:10; Hos. 10:9; Hab. 2:19; Zech.
8:6; Provo 22:29; 26:12; 29:20; Job 2:9f.; 11:3; 14:3; 37:18; 38:18; 40:30 [ET 41:6]; Cant.
3:3; and Lam. 3:36, 38). He considers 12 other cases to be the likely result of textual
corruption (e.g., Gen. 27:24; 1 Sam. 16:4; 30:8; 2 Sam. 18:29; 2 Kgs. 5:26; 9:19; Ezek.
11:31 13; 17:9; Provo 5:16; 30:24; and Job 40:25 [ET 41:1 D.
4 For a further discussion of the interrogative/affirmative use of ~'?, cf. G.R. Driver, '''1
+
was am 1no prophet, neither was [am1I a prophet's son.' (RV)" (1955-56) 91-92.
5 Though cf. GKC 141n, where inversion of word order is observed in interrogative
verbless clauses. The example which GKC cites, namely 1 Sam. 16:4, is problematic,
however, both because it may be textually corrupt and also because, at least according to
the analysis of F.1. Andersen, its word order (P-S) may be construed as entirely normal for
such a clause where P is indefinite (The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch [1970]
106).
While recognizing the remaining uncertainties regarding word order in Biblical
Hebrew, for our present purpose we accept as valid the main conclusions of F.1. Andersen
concerning the typical core sequence of P-S in independent verbless clauses of
classification (i.e., clauses where P is indefinite), of S-P in clauses of identification (i.e.,
clauses where P is definite), of S-P in a circumstantial clause of classification, and of S-P in
participial clauses. In so doing, we do not necessarily accept each of Andersen's
explanations of the exceptions to these sequences, and particularly, we do not need to
accept his exclusion of "emphasis" as an appropriate, even if subjective, explanatory
category (op. cit., 18,24). Cf. also Williams, Syntax 577-582.
Andersen's aversion to the notion of "emphasis" has been challenged both by J.
Hoftijzer, "The Nominal Clause Reconsidered" (1973) 475 (whose analysis stresses the
notion of "contrastiveness") and by T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical
Hebrew (1985) 1-46, at p. 6.
With respect to the word order of verbal clauses, we accept the consensus summary
offered by Williams, Syntax 571-576, and T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures
in Biblical Hebrew, 28-46, both of whom begin by acknowledging verb-subject(-object-
prepositional phrase/adverb) as the normal sequence of independent verbal clauses. To be
noted also is the often overlooked, but helpful distinction between conjunctive and
disjunctive verbal clauses (not just circumstantial clauses, as in Muraoka), which is offered
in Lambdin 133, 197.
76 Jotion 161a, 495 and R. Meyer, Hebriiische Grammatik, III (1972) 111, 1.
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 145
77 Cf., e.g., H.G. Mitchell, "The Omission of the Interrogative Particle," 117; and c.L.
Me)'ers and E.M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 417.
78 Alternatively, this may be a declarative clause, as in the NIV. Cf. also H.G.
Mitchell, "The Omission of the Interrogative Particle," 118.
79 Unless the MT should be emended with the LXX to include a negative: "Who was it
who said, 'Saul shall not reign over us!'?" (so also H.P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Books of Samuel, 81; H.G. Mitchell, "The Omission of the
Interrogative Particle," 118; P.K. McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel; contra S.R. Driver, Notes on the
Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 87; and R.W. Klein, 1 Samuel,
103).
80 It will be noted below with Mitchell that questions which are expressed by an
unmarked interrogative clause are invariably rhetorical. 1 Kgs. 1:24 may not require this
conclusion because it is possible that Nathan wished to appear uncertain of the answer to
his question. Since to presuppose David's complicity with Adonijah's revolt would be to
accuse David of disobedience, however, it appears more likely that Nathan asked his
question in a rhetorical fashion.
81 H.G. Mitchell considers the MT to be corrupt, but this appears unnecessary ("The
Omission of the Interrogative Particle," 115f.). Cf., e.g., M. Cogan and H. Tadmor in
support of the MT (II Kings [1988] 66). Alternatively, with G.H. Jones, this may be a
declarative clause (1 and 2 Kings, II, 420). ,
82 Frequently rendered, "shall we accept good... and not evil?," but with E. Dhorrne,
perhaps better is a conditional rendering: "if we accept good, shall we not accept evil?"
(Job 20).
83 Correct with the Samaritan Pentateuch to include the interrogative ;'T.
84 Delete ~." with LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate, resulting in a declarative clause: "they
will stone us!"
85 The elliptical inquiry here concerning one's well-being may be idiomatic, cf. 2 Sam.
18:29, or the text may need to be emended to include an interrogative;'T following the LXX
and Sebir - so H.G. Mitchell, "The Omission of the Interrogative Particle"; P.K. McCarter
Jr., 1 Samuel, 274; and R.W. Klein,! Samuel, 157.
86 The elliptical inquiry here concerning one's well-being may be idiomatic, cf. 1 Sam.
16:4, or the text may need to be emended to include an interrogative ;'T, as in 18:32, with
some MSS, Sebir, Targum [codex Reuchlinianus], Vulgate - so Mitchell, "The Omission
of the Interrogative Particle"; and BHS; contra S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 332.
87 The text may need to be emended with LXXB-~'-68, which prefix [l~. This reading
may imply an initial -1!l. Cf. BHS.
88 Most interpreters understand Absalom's first question to Hushai as rhetorical and
sarcastic, "Is this your loyalty to your friend?!" Cf., e.g., P.K. McCarter Jr., 2 Samuel, 378,
388; H.W. HertZberg, I and II Samuel, 348f.; and J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry
in the Books of Samuel, Vol. 1: King David (II Sam. 9-120 & I Kings 1-2) (1981) 207.
It is not at all obvious, however, why Absalom would have been so sarcastic on this
occasion. What could Absalom hope to gain by offending Hushai if he had, in fact,
transferred his loyalty, as had been the case, presumably, with many of Absalom's supports
(cf., e.g. Ahithophel)? On the other hand, it would not be at all unexpected for Absalom to
doubt and wish to test Hushai's supposed transfer in loyalty. For this reason it seems
preferable to understand this clause in a declarative sense, expressing an accusation: "This
is [only] an act of loyalty to your friend! Why did you not go with your friend?" Absalom
146 MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
and Hos. 4:1690). This leaves only two examples (1 Sam. 24:20 [ET 19];91
25:11), of which both happen to be apodoses and one gains its interrogative
sense from an initial explicit interrogative pronoun (1 Sam. 25:1Of.92).
We may summarize the data to this point by saying that where the text
of the MT is sound and an interrogative sense is clear, the word order of
unmarked interrogative verbal clauses is frequently inverted (having other
core elements fronted before the verb).93 We may also note that in every case
there is a passionate rhetorical character to the unmarked interrogative with
the expected answer never in doubt. 94 As such, the evidence clearly supports
H.G. Mitchell's contention that the purposeful omission of the interrogative i1
lends to the clause an element of incredulity, sarcasm, or irony.95 While the
inverted word order of Mal. 2:15 can be explained differently, it appears
plausible that it is best explained as an indicator of an otherwise unmarked
interrogative. 96
Confirmation for an interrogative interpretation of 15aa at times has be
sought in the possible co-ordination of 15aa with 15ay, which is explicitly
suspected that Hushai had remained behind in order to serve David in some way. Now he
demanded to know what Hushai was up to, what he hoped to accomplish by not
accompanying David.
89 This may be a declarative clause, so NIV; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39 (1974) 258; H.
Wildberger, Jesaja 28-39 (1982) 1083f.; J.D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (1985) 374; and J.N.
Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (1986) 523.
90 Based on the usual precative function of the introductory :"1t;1-\', it seems preferable to
lake Hos. 4:16 as a declarative clause Cf. F.1. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Hosea (1980)
334,377.
91 "And if a man finds his enemy will he send him on his way in peace?" Rather than
intending a rhetorical appeal to common sense, it is possible that Saul was quoting a
proverbial expression which summarizes the legal requirement to love one's enemies (cf.,
e.g., Exod. 23:4), on the grounds of which David's obedience would merit God's blessing
-"And if a man finds his enemy, he should send him on his way in peace."
92 "Who is David ... that I should take my bread.... "
93 By "core elements" is meant either a subject or an object, not simply a conjunction,
negative particle, or adverb, all of which commonly precede verbs in verbal clauses.
94 Omitting only the textually dubious Gen. 27:24.
In cases where there might be some doubt as to the appropriate answer, such as 2 Sam.
11:11, where David puzzles over Uriah's unwillingness to go home, considerable effort is
expended to introduce the unmarked interrogative so that no doubt could remain concerning
its answer. Uriah rehearses for David how the ark and Israel's army are all in tents -
recalling in an ironic manner David's own sentiment in 2 Sam. 7:2. Obviously, under such
a circumSlance it would be unthinkable for him to return home. Cf. also Judg. 11:23; 14:16;
Isa. 37:11; and Jonah 4:11.
An exception to this observation may be offered by the special case of inquiries
concerning another's well-being, which were asked, presumably, without knowledge of the
answer (i.e., 1 Sam. 16:4 and 2 Sam. 18:29). Both of these examples involve some textual
uncertainty, but if the MT is to be mainlained, manners may have dictated the appearance of
a presumption of well-being for the inquirer ("He is well, isn't he?").
95 "The Omission of the Interrogative Particle," 209.
96 This conclusion obtains whether one interprets 'J:!~ as a negated subject or a negated
direct object fronted before the finite verb. If the former is so, Mal. 2: 15 finds a precise
parallel in 2 Kgs. 5:26; if the latter, a precise parallel exists in 1 Sam. 20:9.
Referring to the fronting of '!:I~ in 15aa, J.M.P. Smith remarks, "It is an unusual
position for the subject of a verbal sentence, unless it is intended to be emphatic; and it is
just as abnormal a position for the object" (Malachi, 59).
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 147
2.2.3 The problem of the use of "create [In:::Jj'' in vs. 10 to refer to God's
creative act which appears to oppose the use of "make [,irpP} " in vs. 15 as an
allusion to creation
Contrary to the present view, which interprets "he made [i1~~]" in 2: 15 as an
allusion to the creation narrative, A. Tosato objects that in vs. 10 God's
creative act is referred to by "create [~i:J]," not "made [i1tv.ll]," even ifvs. 10
probably refers to the creation of Israel as the people of God, rather than to
the original creation of Genesis 1-2. In answer to Tosato, however, the use of
~i:J in vs. 10 does not exclude a similar use for i1~~ in vs. 15 since Genesis 1
exhibits this same diversity of usage and, in particular, uses "made [i1tv.ll]" for
the creation of man in 1:26. 99 Compare also Gen. 2:4, where both ~i:J and
i1tv.ll appear. Furthermore, while Tosato draws attention to Malachi's use of
i1~~ elsewhere with reference to the misconduct of his compatriots (i.e., 2: 11,
12, 13), this need not control our interpretation of 2:15. 100 It is hardly to be
expected that Malachi would use such a common verb as i1tqS? in some
univocal sense (cf. 3: 17 and 3:21 [ET 4:3], where Malachi employs i1~~ to
describe Yahweh's eschatological redemptive intervention!). 101
2.2.4 The problem of Yahweh as the assumed antecedent of "made [liIPJ/] "
A. von Bulmerincq has objected to the present view that it appears forced
because it requires "Yahweh" to be the implied subject of "made [i1~~]" in vs.
15aa, while the closest explicit reference to "Yahweh" is found in vs. 14a,
97 So, e.g., both E. Sellin (Das Zwolfprophetenbuch [1922]553) and W. Nowack (Die
kleinen Propheten ubersezt und erkliirt [1922] 420) cite the LXX as supporting their
conjecture that one should read ~"il in place of the MT ~"1.
98 A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (1935) and J. Ziegler, ed., Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum
GraecumAuctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottin~ensis editum (1984).
A. von Bulmerincq asserts that the LXX (OUK aA'Aos/v) favours a declarative sense in
vs. 15a (Der Prophet Maleachi, II, 294f.). In support of recognizing ou at the head of its
clause as a marker of a rhetorical question expecting an affirmative answer, however, d.
Blass and Debruner 427, 433, 440; and R.W. Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar
of Hellenistic Greek (1973) 617.7.
99 Cf. also W. Rudolph, "Zu Mal 210-16," 90, esp. note 12.
100 Cf. also 3:19 [ET 4:1].
101 On the present view, of course, ilf?J.\' in Mal. 2:15 refers not to creation in general,
but to the special creative activity of God (related in Gen. 2:18-24) by which he made
Adam and Eve to become one flesh in Gen. 2:24.
148 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
2.2.5 The problem of a lack ofparsimony in requiring "one [ill!}}" and "the
one [i&~i;r}" to bear a different reference
A final argument against the present view, which understands "one ['D~]"
and "the one ['~~iJ]" to bear a different reference, is that such an
interpretation lacks parsimony. We have already considered, however,
numerous arguments which appear to demand the conclusion that, in fact,
"one ['D~]" and "the one [,~~V]" do bear a different reference. Here we need
only add the observation that the dual referencing of "one" in 2: 15 finds
adequate preparation in the logic of Mal. 2: 10. As R.L. Smith has noted, the
whole burden of 2:10 is to impress upon Malachi's hearers that because
Yahweh is "one" so should they be "one."l04 By analogy with 2:10 Malachi
may imply in 2:15 that the One God who made Adam and Eve likewise made
them to be "one" and hence, on penalty of their lives (2:15ba, d. Gen. 2:23),
requires that they should act as "one" (d. Gen. 1:27 and 2:24).
Third, as W.e. Kaiser Jr. has noted, already in Mal. 2:14 there appears
to be a conceptual framework for marriage which parallels Genesis 2, if it is
not directly indebted to it, in its radical view of the position of the wife.107 In
Genesis not only is the wife called "a helper, suitable for him," but also the
highest natural loyalty owed by a man to his parents is now to be superseded
by an even higher loyalty to his wife - as a husband, he "leaves his father
and mother and cleaves [a term employed elsewhere in covenantal contexts]
to his wife." Consequently, Kaiser writes, "Perhaps there is an echo of the
'one flesh' of Gen. 2:24 in the word 'companion [:Jt;ll~1J],' which means
'united, or joined together. '" Similarly, although S. Schreiner does not accept
the present interpretation of 2:15a, he recognizes a possible allusion to Gen.
2:23f. in the wider context of Mal. 2:15 and cites Tob. 8:6ff. in support.1 08
Fourth, perhaps the most striking point of similarity between Genesis 2
and Malachi 2 is the fact that the primary obligation of marriage as stressed in
both of these texts is not that of the wife toward her husband, as might be
expected from their ancient contexts, but that of the husband toward his wife.
We will leave to the end of this chapter a closer examination of Adam's
obligation to nurture and to love his wife. This obligation is already-implied
in the mode of Eve's creation, but it is explicit in Adam's recognition of Eve
as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," as well as in the narrator's
conclusion in Gen. 2:24. In a similar manner, throughout Mal. 2:14-16 the
prophet repeatedly stresses the fidelity which is required not of the wife, but
of the husband, whose disloyalty against his wife constitutes a threat against
his own life. Apart from Genesis 2 (and much later texts, such as Eph. 5:21-
33, which are dependent on it), such a perspective is almost unparalleled.
Finally, in the past scholars have been understandably impatient with
interpreters who read a fully developed New Testament theology back into
associated Old Testament texts. In recent years, however, there has been a
fresh appreciation for the Jewish background of the teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth and his radical dependence on the Old Testament in keeping with
his own disavowal of originality (Matt. 5: 17-20).109 Having established the
likelihood of the present interpretation of Mal. 2: 15, whereby Malachi
grounds his prohibition of divorce in the conjugal unity effected by God in
marriage, as taught in Genesis 2, we join many scholars (such as A. van
allusion in Mal. 2:15 to Genesis is widely accepted even among interpreters who reject the
present exegesis of Mal. 2:15a. Cf. G.P. Hugenberger, "Marriage as a Covenant" (1991)
pp. 127-137 and 141-153.
107 Malachi 70
108 "Misch~hen - Ehebruch - Ehescheidung," 226. According to Schreiner, this
possibility was also favoured by J. Saucin, Kurtzer Entwurff der Christlichen Theologie und
Sitten-Lehre (= abrege de theologie et morale chretienne, dt.) (1723) 473.
109 Cf., e.g., C.H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New
Testament Theology (1952); R.T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (1971); and D.A.
Carson and H.G.M. Williamson, cds., It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (1988). Cf.
also I.H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism. New Light from Exciting Archaeological
Discoveries (1988).
150 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
2.4 Concluding remarks on the view that "one [iI:'~]" offers an allusion to
the "one flesh" marital unity ofAdam and Eve in Genesis 2:24
We began this chapter (1) by reviewing the major alternative interpretative
approach to Mal. 2: 15, which takes "one ['r;r~]" in 15aa as the subject of its
clause and understands it in a pronominal sense (i.e., 'mn~~ is taken to mean
"not one," "no one," or "nobody"). Deeming the evidence for that approach
to be unconvincing, in the present section (2) we examined the view that
"one ['r;r~]" is the direct object of "he made [i1~-?]." This recognition brings
with it two further implications, namely that "Yahweh" (from 2:14) is the
implied antecedent of "he made" and that i1~-? 'lJ~-~~l is to be understood as
an unmarked rhetorical interrogative. Accordingly, we suggest rendering
Mal. 2:15: "Did He not make [you/them] one, with a remnant of the spirit
belonging to it? And what was the One seeking? A godly seed! Therefore
watch out for your lives and do not act faithlessly against the wife of your
youth."
In support, it was noted that the present view requires no emendation
of the MT. Furthermore, it was argued that an unmarked rhetorical
interrogative in 15aa is paralleled elsewhere in Malachi (1:8) and is favoured
by the inverted word order of its clause (2.2.2 above), by the co-ordination
of 15aa with 15ay, which is explicitly interrogative, and by the versional
evidence for 15aa (LXXB-~*-68, Peshitta, Targum, Vulgate, and probably
LxxWConstit. Chr.III221 (and AQr.
An advantage of the present view, as noted by A. van Hoonacker, E.
Sellin and others, which helps to confirm it, is its ability to account for the
dire warnings in 15b and 16b ("Therefore watch out for your lives"). These
warnings carry the radical implication that for an unfaithful spouse divorce is
an offence against one's own life. In other words, concern for one's life and
fidelity to one's legitimate spouse are considered virtually synonymous (cf.
Eph. 5:28). It follows that in 15a Malachi must have intended to articulate a
110 P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Lelia render Sir. 25:24-26, "In a woman was sin's
beginning: on her account we all die. Allow water no outlet, and be not indulgent to an
erring wife; If she walks not by your side, cut her away from your flesh with a bill of
divorce" (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, [1987] 343f., cf. also 348f.).
Cf. N. Lohfink and J. Bergman, "1!Jt:\ 'echadh," TDOT, 1,198, who cite Sirach 25:24-26
and Mal. 2:15.
MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 151
111 In support, cf. GJ. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (1987) 71; and V.P. Hamilton, The Book
of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (1990) 181, both of whom identify Adam's marriage to Eve as
covenantal.
112 Besides the need to explain the origin and character of the human race, various
other aetiological purposes have been suggested for Genesis 2-3 including the following:
the need to explain the lack of ribs about the abdomen; the presence of the navel;
embarrassed consciousness of sexuality in 3:7; the use of clothes in 3:7, 21; the origin of (or
perhaps new postJapsarian significance for) the leglessness of snakes in 3:14; woman's fear
of snakes (3:15); pain in childbearing (3:16); futility of labour (3:17ff.); the existence of
death (3:19); man's need to till the ground to gain a living and why he is buried in the
ground when he dies (based on a pun between tlll;1i and ii1;llt$ in 2:7 and 3:19) - cf. H.
Gunkel, Genesis iibersetzt und erklart, ad loc.; P. Humbert, "Etudes sur Ie recit du Paradis
et de la chute dans la Genese," 57f.; N. Lohfink, "Gen 2-3 as 'historical etiology';" G. von
Rad, Genesis, ad loc.; 1. Rogerson, The Supernatural in the Old Testament, 27; M.
OduYQye, The Sons of the Gods and the Daughters of Men; C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11,
ad loco
152 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
Recent OT scholarship has been increasingly alert to the literary function of the Adam
and Eve narrative within the framework of Genesis in particular, but also within the larger
literary work of the Pentateuch. For example, AJ. Hauser has explored the literary parallels
between Genesis 2-3 and the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 ("Linguistic and Thematic
Links between Genesis 4:1-16 and Genesis 2-3" [1980]).
Likewise, I.M. Kikawada stresses ways in which the Adam and Eve narrative
anticipates and prepares for the account of the deluge, which in tum offers a kind of judicial
decreation followed by a redemptive recreation ("Literary Convention of the Primaeval
History" [1975]). Cf. also the similar observations in DJ.A Clines, "The Theology of the
Flood Narrative" (1972-73); and idem, The Theme of the Pentateuch (1978) 73ff.; M.G.
Kline, Kingdom Prologue (1981-85); I.M. Kikawada and A Quinn, Before Abraham Was.
The Unity of Genesis 1-11 (1985); and W.A Gage, The Gospel of Genesis. Studies in
Protology and Eschatology (1984). The possible identification of the mysterious ,~ of
Gen. 2:6 as a "flood," fructifying in the case of Eden, but nevertheless a major water source
in view of the mentioned four rivers in Gen. 2:10ff., may provide further support (D.
Kidner, "Genesis 2:5,6: wet or dry?").
Similarly, DJ.A Clines emphasizes the parallels between Adam and Abraham (The
Theme of the Pentateuch [1978]; cf. also W. Berg, "Der Siindenfall Abrahams und Saras
nach Gen 16,1-6" [1982]). On the other hand, B.T. Dahlberg notes how Genesis 2-3 and
the Primeval History more generally are paralleled by the Joseph Narrative (Genesis 37-50),
thereby forming an inclusio for the book ("On recognizing the unity of Genesis;" cf. also
DJ.A Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 84-85).
Looking beyond Genesis, I.M. Kikawada and A Quinn demonstrate how the Primeval
History offers a close literary parallel to Exodus 1-2 (Before Abraham Was). They also
briefly suggest a much broader comparison of the whole of Exodus with Creation by
identifying Genesis as a "foretelling of the Exodus," much as Deuteronomy offers a
"retelling."
Further afield, and for this reason less secure, is a purpose first articulated by W.
Brueggemann, who argues for an intentional extended parallel between Adam and Eve, on
the one hand, and David and Bathsheba, on the other ("David and His Theologian" [1968]).
As summarized by G.W. Coats, Gen. 2:4-3:24 "derives from circles (wisdom?) who stand
over against the king to admonish, instruct, and correct him, or finally to impeach him ....
At earlier stages, the tradition may have served as a critical judgment on the power of the
king. It reflects the efforts to limit and thus to instruct the king in his administration of state
affairs. It calls on mythological tradition which, by annual repetition in the ritual of the
royal cult, secured the stability of the king's world" (Genesis with an Introduction to
Narrative Literature [1983]39, 59f.). Cf. the similar views of W.M. Clark, "The Flood and
the Structure of the Pre-patriarchal History" (1971); J.W. Rosenberg, "The Garden Story
Forward and Backward: The Non-Narrative Dimension of Gen. 2-3" (1981) 1-27; and idem,
King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (1986); J.M. Kennedy, "Peasants in
Revolt: Political Allegory in Genesis 2-3" (1990) 3-14. Against this approach, however, cf.
DJ.A Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 73f.; and W. Richter, "Urgeschichte und
Hoftheologie."
113 Vs. 25 then functions as a transitional verse, connected to 3:1ff. perhaps by the
verbal linkage of a pun between "naked [t:l'1:l1i!)]" in 2:25 and "subtle [t:lr1l?l" in 3:1, but
especially by the relation of this verse to the mentioned shame and remedy for their
nakedness in 3:7ff. Qualifying the recognition of a deliberate pun, in a language like
Hebrew with only twenty five consonantal phonemes (if one accepts the view of J. Blau, On
Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew, regarding bivalent n, '\), and iv) and largely triconsonantal
roots, one should not be surprised by frequent assonance, which may be purely accidental.
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 153
114 Genesis 1-11 , 232f. The only proof offered by Westermann for his assessment of
2:24 is the criterion of excisability: "It is clear then that v. 24 is but an addition to the
narrative which is complete without it, ending with v. 23."
115 Ibid., 233. G. von Rad, Genesis, 84. Later, however, C. Westermann somewhat
inconsistently states that "the narrative 2:4b-8, 18-24 is brought to a conclusion in v. 24"
(Genesis 1-11,234).
116 Genesis 1-11,232. Of course F. Delitzsch and A. Dillmann were "misled" in their
assessment by the fact that 2:24 clearly does, in fact, have the institution of marriage in
view.
117 Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, 53.
154 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every
living thing that moves upon the earth. "'118 Just as this blessing was not
restricted to or exhausted by the original pair (cf. Gen. 9: 1), the correlative
curse appears similarly to go beyond Adam and Eve to encompass everyone
of their descendants in its baleful grip. 119
Finally, in view of the literary parallels between Genesis 1-11 and
various ancient Near Eastern creation accounts and other myths (e.g., the
Sumerian King List, the Sumerian Flood Story or its reconstructed form as
the Eridu Genesis, the Memphis creation documents, the Atra-basIs Epic,
Eniima Elis, the Gilgames Epic, the Adapa Myth, etc.), the inclusion of an
intentionally paradigmatic marriage in Genesis 2-3 should not be
surprising.120 In fact, such an account may even serve to foster the pervasive
anti-pagan polemical intent underlying the biblical account, as detected by
many scholars.1 21 While many specific facets of this polemic have been
identified, none is more foundational than the implied repudiation in Genesis
122 Cf. A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 96-114. Genesis also distances itself from
the mythical by its quasi-precise location of Eden near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, its
insistence that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the entire human race, etc. These
features demand that the biblical creation and subsequent history be understood as real
events at the head of the continuum of real time and space. Cf., e.g., W. Brueggemann,
Genesis, 96f., 102-115; and H. Blocher,ln The Beginning, 154-170.
123 Israelite Religion, 111. n. 24.
124 Cf., e.g., E.A. Speiser, Genesis, 26f.; and S.G.F. Brandon, Creation Legends of the
Ancient Near East, B1f., both cited by Ringgren.
125 "Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2-3," 147.
126 "Hebrew Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period," xviiff.
This is not to claim that there are no parallels for a concern with the human institution
of marriage. The Atra-i!aslS Epic, I, Ins. 255ff., records the creation of an original seven
human couples and considers the topic of human marriage in In. 301. The first of these
observations qualifies the claim of J.A. Bailey that Genesis 2 provides the only account of
the creation of a woman to be found in all the extant ancient Near Eastern literature
("Initiation," p. 143).
127 In support of these suggestions concerning the cultus and royal marriages, Bigger
cites S.H. Hooke, ed., Myth and Ritual (1935); idem, Myth, Ritual and Kingship (1958);
E.D. James, Myths and Rites in the Ancient Near East (1958); and P. Grelot, Man and Wife
in Scripture, 22f.
Bigger may be on less secure ground, however, as he proceeds to affirm the commonly
repeated notion that the purpose of such cultic re-enactments was to secure "fertility to
156 MALACHI 2:15: MALAcHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
points especially to the two divine couples, Inanna and Dumuzi and Enki and
Ninhursaga. In the Babylonian mythology Ishtar and her numerous divine
marriages (affairs?) are mentioned; at Ugarit EI and his consort Atrt, as well
as other wives, and the marriage between Nkl and YrO are offered as
important examples. 128 When Bigger turns to Israel's "mythology," he notes
by contrast: "Yahweh had no consort, so the Old Testament presents no
divine prototype for marriage ... )29 However, a human prototype for marriage
was postulated. Marriage was instituted, according to Hebrew mythology,
with the first couple, Adam and Eve .... "130
For all these reasons and especially because of Gen. 2:24, it appears
that Malachi, as well as certain intertestamental and New Testament authors,
was justified in his understanding of the Adam and Eve narrative as providing
a normative paradigm for marriage. l3l
families, flocks and fields." Cf. the recent cautions of W.G. Lambert about "the modern
term 'fertility', beloved of historians of religion but not so easily found in the ancient texts"
("Trees, snakes and gods in ancient Syria and Anatolia," 436).
128 A. van Selms appears to share Bigger's understanding of these divine marriages as
prototypical of human marriage or at any rate as so highly reflective of human marriage that
one may freely draw upon the epic texts for a study of the dynamics of purely human
marria.ye at Ugarit (Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature, 10-12.)
12 Later Bigger offers two modest qualifications of this statement. First, he notes the
common prophetic image of Yahweh's marriage to his people ("Hebrew Marriage and
Family in the Old Testament Period," xix-xx), and second, he accepts the interpretation of
Gen. 6:1-4 which understands this text as the residue of an earlier myth of divine-human
marriages (ibid., xx).
The assumed lack of a consort for Yahweh has been challenged recently on
archaeological grounds. Cf., e.g., W.G. Dever, "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New
Evidence from Kuntillet 'Ajrfid" (1984) 21-37. The absence of any such consort in
Genesis, however, is hardly debatable. In any case, against Dever's interpretation of the
'Ajrfid inscriptions which refer to "Yahweh and his Asherah," d., e.g., J.A. Emerton, who
objects that Hebrew does not affix pronominal suffixes to proper nouns as Dever supposes
("New Light on Israelite Religion: the Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet
'Ajrud" [1982]3-9, 14-15). Cf. also J.H. Tigay, "Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and
Epigraphic Evidence" (1987) 157-194, esp. 173f.
130 Ibid., xviii-xx.
131 For allusions to Adam and Eve's marriage, d. Job 18:12 (uncertain); Tab. 8:5f.; Sir.
25:24-26; Matt. 19:4-9; Eph. 5:21-33; etc. Cf. G.P. Hugenberger, "Women in Church
Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A Survey of Approaches to 1 Timothy 2:8-15," JETS
35 (1992) 341-360; and especially P. Grelot, "The Institution of Marriage: Its Evolution in
the Old Testament" (1970) 39-50.
132 Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965) 34.
MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 157
133 A scholar! y consensus that warns against the frequent error of denying the presence
of a r1',J merely because of the absence of the term has emerged. Cf., e.g., W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament, I (1961) 17f.; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I
(1962) 133; J. Barr, "Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant" (1977); PJ. Naylor, "The
Language of Covenant" (1980); and P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (1982) 3;
91, n. 356.
134 On the importance and sophistication of covenant concepts in Malachi, cf. J.G.
Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (1972) 216; P.J. Naylor, "The Language of
Covenant" (1980) 422; L.C.H. Fourie, "Die betekenis van die verbond as sleutel vir
Maleagi" (1982); P.A. Verhoef, Malachi, 180, n. 2; S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace,
"Covenant Themes in Malachi" (1983); and R.L. Smith, "The Shape of Theology in the
Book of Malachi" (1987) 24.
135 Cf. the classic study of W.L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the
Love of God in Deuteronomy" (1963).
158 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
3.2.1 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to
his wife ... " (Genesis 2:24a)
The implication of this command in Gen. 2:24 has been much contested
among biblical scholars. Beginning with W.R. Smith, a number of scholars
have argued that Gen. 2:24 reflects a hypothesized primitive matriarchy.136
While this view offers a plausible parallelism between "leaving" and
"cleaving," in that the authority of the wife over her husband replaces the
former authority of the husband's parents, in fact most of those who hold this
view do not consider the implied matriarchy to operate in this fashion. As R.
de Vaux notes, such a thorough-going matriarchy is rare within "primitive"
societies and, in any case, is contradicted by the quite emphatic patriarchal
order upheld elsewhere in Genesis and stated explicitly in Gen. 3:16.137 The
kind of matriarchy most commonly defended is not one where the wife
exercises authority over her husband, but a more limited type where a child is
considered to belong to the mother's family and social group (i.e., matrilineal
descent). This theory, however, is unconvincing in the few biblical examples
it offers as proof, for which reason it has been largely discredited among
recent scholars; in any case, it fails to support the proposed exegesis for Gen.
2:24,138
Alternatively, C.H. Gordon, among others, has argued that Gen. 2:24
is a "survival" from a primitive form of marriage termed an erebu
marriage. 139 It is argued that in this kind of marriage the husband enters his
father-in-Iaw's house in effect to be adopted as the son of the father-in-law in
136 W.R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 2nd ed. (1903) 82-87; J.
Morgenstern, "Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel and its Historical
Implications" (1929); and idem, "Additional Notes on Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in
Ancient Israel" (1931).
137 Ancient Israel, Social Institutions, 19.
The discussion of an original Semitic matriarchy often has been flawed by a tendency
to apply conclusions drawn from modern "primitive" societies to the far less accessible
ancient societies, which were frequently anything but primitive.
Some scholars prefer to assign Gen. 2:24 and 3:16 to different recensions (e.g. H.
Gressmann, "Mythische Reste in der Paradieserziihlung," Archiv fUr Religionswissenschaft,
10 [1907]345-367). Even so, since Gen. 2:24 is "an editorial comment," one would expect
on the critical methodology that it would represent one of the latest elements in our text and
hence would come from a time in Israelite history when such a marital arrangement would
be least imaginable.
138 For a more fundamental critique of the assumption of an original matriarchy, cf.
T.e. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude semietische volken
(1937) 170f.; D.R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage (1953) 35-43, 76-94; and R. de Vaux,Ancient
Israel, Social Institutions, 19f.
Against matrilineal descent, d. R.W. Wilson, "Sociology of the Old Testament" (1985)
970-971. For a recent attempt to rehabilitate the notion of an early "non-patriarchal" social
system in ancient Israel, including matrilineal descent, cf. SJ. Teubal, Sarah the Priestess
(198~. Teubal, however, does not discuss Gen. 2:24.
1 9 e.H. Gordon, "Erebu Marriage" (1981) 159. Previous advocates of the view that
an erebu marriage was a recognized marriage form in the ancient Near East, rather than an
exceptional condition arising out of individual circumstances, include H. Gunkel (Genesis
ubersetzt und erkliirt [1910]); M. Burrows ("The Complaint of Laban's Daughters" [1937]
259-276); C.H. Gordon ("The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets"
[1937]25-27); and E. Neufeld (Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws [1944]56-67).
MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 159
the absence of any true sons. The evidence frequently cited for this
hypothesized form of marriage, however, appears doubtful.1 4O Nevertheless,
even if some examples of an erebu type of marriage remain after closer
scrutiny, this is far from establishing the widespread practice which would be
required for this interpretation of Gen. 2:24.
Moreover, it is not at all clear that "leave" ought to be understood in
such a literalistic manner, as if this term could refer only to a change in
domicile (although, cf. Ruth 2: 11 ).141 Rather, it is far more likely that the
terms "leave" and "cleave" are intended to define each other. Since it is
unlikely that the author of Gen. 2:24 intended to require a literal or physical
"cleaving" or "fastening" to one's wife, it is doubtful that in this context a
literal "leaving" of one's parents was intended. As C. Westermann notes
wryly, the text says "leaves his parents," not his "parents' house"!142
Accordingly, the language of "leave" and "cleave" appears intended to
stress the necessity of a radical change, not of domicile, but of one's pre-
eminent loyalty - a husband is to transfer to his wife the primary familial
140 Erebu is the Akkadian word "to enter" and is utilized to describe this hypothesized
form of marriage based on its appearance in MAL A 27, where it is found in the 1/3
("frequentive") stem: "If a woman is living in her father's house (and) her husband has been
frequently entering [etanarrab], any marriage-gift [nudunna, perhaps better rendered,
"widow's settlement"], which her husband gave her, he may take back as his own, (but) he
may not touch what belongs to her father's house." It is possible, however, that the
husband in MAL A 27 is authorized to take back the nudunnu because his father-in-law
has thwarted the consummation of the marriage by refusing permission for his daughter to
leave home (the husband's intent is made clear by his repeated "entering"). On such a
view, the existing marriage is an "inchoate" marriage, not an erebu marriage as often
supposed.
Alleged examples of erebu marriage in the Bible include Jacob, Moses, and Samson.
Since Jacob and Moses were both fugitives when they entered marriage, however, and since
they later relocate their domicile outside the home of their in-laws, their value as evidence
for this theory is greatly diminished. Had Jacob's marriage been of the erebu type, T.L.
Thompson argues that he should not have paid a marriage present consisting of his labour,
the equivalent of a terlJatu (The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 279f.). Least
convincing is the case of Samson since his Timnahite father-in-law was emphatically
unaware of the erebu theory and, as a result, interpreted Samson's temporary absence as a
repudiation of the marriage!
For a detailed refutation of the example of Jacob and challenge to the alleged parallel
between Jacob's marriages and the Nuzi marriage contract Gadd 51, which is frequently
cited in support of erebu marriage, cf. 1. Van Seters, "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near
East Customs: a re-examination" (1969) 377-95; T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the
Patriarchal Narratives (1974) 269-280; M.J. Selman, "Published and Unpublished
Fifteenth Century B.e. Cuneiform Documents and Their Bearing on the Patriarchal
Narratives of the OT" (1975) 29, 251-259; and J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and
Tradition (1975) 72-82.
Against the theory of erebu marriage, cf. also G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, The Assyrian
Laws, 134ff.; and S.F. Bigger, "Hebrew Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period"
(197~ 163-174.
1 1 Cf. also the reading of Targum Onkelos for Gen. 2:24, "Therefore a man leaves the
sleeping-abode ['::l:ltD1J rI'::l] of his father and mother." It is likely that this interpretative
reading arose to avoid the impression that Gen. 2:24 might require a man to leave his
parents' house, rather than just their bedroom, since in Talmudic times it was customary for
the new bride to come to live in her father-in-law's house. Cf. M. Aberbach and B.
Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis (1982) 33.
142 Genesis 1-11, 233.
160 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
3.2.2 "... and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24b)
Another key feature of Gen. 2:24 which also suggests the presence of a
covenant is its mention of "they will become one flesh [10~ iW:t7 1~;;rl]."
Understandably, this enigmatic clause has occasioned a great deal of
scholarly discussion.
The view of Rashi, repeated by G. von Rad and others, that we have
here an allusion to offspring, seems least likely.147 This is so not only
because on this view the expression seems to equate parents with their own
children ("they will become ... "), but also because it requires a sense for it?l?,
"flesh," which is unattested elsewhere in biblical Hebrew.
A second view which is possible, but on closer examination unlikely,
is that of J. Skinner and others, who equate "become one flesh" with sexual
union.1 48 This interpretation rests mainly on an inference from the
chronological sequence of what might be expected to follow "leaving" and
"cleaving" and also on contextual clues which suggest a reference to sexual
intimacy. It is self-evident that the sexual associations of "flesh [it?l~]"
elsewhere, as in Lev. 15:2-3, 7, and 19, where "flesh [it?l~]" appears as a
euphemism for male and female genitals, cannot be applied to the present
case.1 49 Certainly we are prepared for an interpretation of 2:24 which stresses
a physical union of man and woman because of their derivation from a very
literal "one flesh" in the preceding verses.1 50 What appears decisive for this
interpretation, however, is the implication of sexual intimacy in the
immediately following verse, Gen. 2:25, where we read "and the man and his
wife were both naked, and were not ashamed."151
Nevertheless, had it been the author's intention to refer just to the act
of sexual union, it is unclear why he employed such an unusual expression as
"become one flesh," rather than, for example, " ... and he will know her
[i'Tf~'1]." Furthermore, in the present sequence of "he will leave [:JH'~]" and
"he will cleave [p:;ni]," especially given the semantic implication of
"cleaving" as expressive of on-going adherence and loyalty, rather than a
punctiIiar act, one expects the third member of the sequence likewise to refer
to an enduring state, rather than a single act of intercourse, or even a series of
such acts. In other words, it is doubtful that the reader is to imagine that
following the consummation of the marriage in sexual union or following
each successive act of intercourse, the couple reverts to their former state of
being two separate fleshes!
147 For Rashi's views, cf. A.M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum, Chumash with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi's Commentary: Bereshith (1934) 12. Cf. also O. Procksch,
Die Genesis, ad loc.; and G. von Rad, Genesis, 85.
Although 1. Skinner considers that the interpretative addition of Ciii'ltDtl in the Samaritan
Pentateuch suggests that it may have understood the text in this manner (the full Samaritan
text reads 'm~ 1tD:J? Ciii'ltDtl ii'ii1), it seems forced in the present context and may require an
assumption of the death of the parents, which is nowhere suggested in the text (Genesis,
70). Cf. also H.W. Wolff against this view (Anthropology o/the Old Testament, 93).
148 J. Skinner, Genesis (1930) 70; and N.M. Sarna, Genesis (1989) 23.
149 For more examples, cf. N.P. Bratsiotis, "1tq:t, biiSlir," TDOT, II, 319, par.f.
150 A.J. Hauser says that the mention of 1tq:t in Gen. 2:21, where God closes Adam's
wound with flesh, prepares the reader for the one flesh union in verse 24 ("Genesis 2-3: The
Theme of Intimacy and Alienation" [1982]23). Cf. also G. von Rad, Genesis, 85.
151 G. von Rad, Genesis, 85. C. Westermann acknowledges verse 25 as "a bridge"
between what precedes and what follows; he agrees with H. Gunkel, however, against G.
von Rad, in stressing the latter rather than the former (Genesis 1-11,234).
162 MALACHI 2:15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
157 1. Skinner considers this view possible, though he prefers a reference to the
"connubium" (Genesis, 70). U. Cassuto also appears to favour this view, though he offers
no argumentation (Genesis, Part One, 137). Cf. especially GJ. Wenham, "The Restoration
of Marriage Reconsidered" (1979) 36-40; idem, Leviticus (1979) 253-61; A.F.L. Beeston,
"One Flesh" (1986) 115-117; and GJ. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (1987) 71.
158 For kinship terminology utilizing i~~, cf. S. Rattray, "Marriage Rules, Kinship
Terms and Family Structure in the Bible" (1987) 537-544.
159 Cf. GJ. Wenham, Leviticus, 254f.
160 Cf. also Neh. 5:5.
161 Cf., e.g., P. Kalluveettil who summarizes, "Covenant is relational, in one way or
other it creates unity, community" (Declaration and Covenant, 51 - d. also pp. 51-57;
102f.). Similarly, DJ. McCarthy concludes that the basic idea of a covenant was "a union
based on an oath" (Treaty and Covenant [1963] 96). At another point he notes that
164 MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE
covenant was "the means the ancient world took to extend relationships beyond the natural
unity by blood" (ibid., 175).
For the use of the terms "father" and "son" and "brothers" to refer to covenant partners,
cf., eA' P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 98-101, and passim.
1 It seems likely that Adam's naming of Eve bears some relation to God's own
naming of his creation (cf. Gen. 1:5, 8, 10; 5:2) as well as Adam's previous naming of the
animals (Gen. 2:19). One possible background for such naming activity may be discerned
elsewhere in the biblical record and the ancient Near East in the example of kings, who
name animals and plants, perhaps as an expression of their royal dominion, but especially to
exhibit their great wisdom and discriminating judgment (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs. 4:33).
How such parallels should be applied to the case of the naming of Eve is less clear. Cf.,
e.g., O. Eissfeldt, "Renaming in the Old Testament," 69-79; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric
of Sexuality, 133f.; G.F. Hawthorne, "Name," 480-483; P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenant, 76; and DJ.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? (1990) 38f.
If this naming activity is understood in terms of covenant concepts, there is an
especially intriguing parallel for consideration. H. Blocher observes that ancient suzerains
often (re)named their covenant partners when entering into a covenant. For instance,
Nebuchadnezzar renamed Eliakim as Iehoiakim (2 Kgs. 23:34) and Mattaniah as Zedekiah
(2 Kgs. 24:17), etc. (In The Beginning, 91). It would be easy to multiply examples (cf., e.g.,
Dan. 1:7). This practice may provide a more adequate explanation for God's practice of
naming his creation than simply the expression of his wisdom (for the idea of a covenant
with creation, cf., e.g., Gen. 9:16) and for renaming his human vassals, such as when
Abram became Abraham or Iacob became Israel, than the frequent claim to find here an
evidence of conversion.
In terms of this background, Adam names Eve "woman" or better "wife [;'~IoIi]" at the
moment when they enter into a covenant (of marriage), as indicated by the Bundesformel,
"This is bone of my bones.... " Adam's renaming of his wife as "Eve" in Gen. 3:20
coincides with the renewal of their marriage following its acute breakdown in the alienation
expressed in Gen. 3:7,12.
163 So I.G. Herder, as quoted by C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 231. Similarly, cf. I.A.
Bailey, "Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2-3," 142f.; A.I.
Hauser, "Genesis 2-3: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation," 24; and W. Neuer, Man and
Woman in Christian Perspective, 67.
MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 165
4. SUMMARY
a covenant (or presuppose such a view), it has been our concern in the present
chapter to argue that from Malachi's own perspective his view of marriage
was not unprecedented, but was consciously derived from, or at least
supported by, the paradigmatic marriage of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24), to
which he makes allusion in Mal. 2:15.
After rejecting the principal alternative interpretative approach, we
determined that Mal. 2:15 is best rendered, "Did He not make [you/them]
one, with a remnant of the spirit belonging to it? And what was the One
seeking? A godly seed! Therefore watch out for your lives and do not act
faithlessly against the wife of your youth."167
Although we stressed the grammatical and textual support for this
interpretation, which has the advantage of requiring no emendation of the
MT, it was noted that important confirmation for this view comes from the
concluding admonition in 2:15b (cf. also 2:16b). This warning carries the
radical implication that for an unfaithful spouse divorce is an offence against
one's own life. Only when 2:15a is rendered as suggested above ("Did He
not make [you/them] one ... ?") is this equivalence between concern for one's
life and fidelity to one's spouse explained; it is the result of the profound
communion of life which God effects between a man and his wife, as
established in Gen. 2:24. In a book replete with allusions to Pentateuchal
texts, the present allusion to the "one flesh" marital unity of Adam and Eve in
Gen. 2:24 is hardly out of place - particularly given the preparation for this
allusion in the imagery of creation in Mal. 2: 10 and given the widely
recognized verbal and conceptual links which exist between 2:10 and 2:15.
Further confirming Malachi's indebtedness to Gen. 2:23f. is the remarkable
stress throughout Mal. 2:14-16 on the primacy of a husband's obligation of
fidelity toward his wife, a viewpoint which is almost unparalleled apart from
these two texts,168
As throughout his work, the prophet's argument in Mal. 2:10-16
proceeds by way of reminder and appeal to the ancient standards and
common convictions (cf. Mal. 3:22 [ET 4:4]), rather than by way of
innovatory insights. Indeed, Malachi's condemnation of his contemporaries
would have lost all its force if the underlying understanding of marriage as a
covenant could not command their assent or be substantiated from the
received texts - particularly since he tosses off the expression "though she is
your companion and your wife by covenant ['1(1'1:;) nili~1 1rl1~1J ~'rn]" as
though this would be readily understood.
We concluded the chapter by arguing that the character of Adam and
Eve's marriage would have lent itself to being identified by Malachi as a
"covenant [n'1~]" (2:14) in spite of the absence of this term in Genesis 2-3.
This identification is suggested by the original purpose of marriage, which
167 For other interpretative approaches to Mal. 2:15a, cf. G.P. Hugenberger, "Marriage
as a Covenant" (1991) pp. 127-137 and 141-153.
168 Cf. 2.3 for a survey of arguments in support of an allusion to Genesis 2 in Mal.
2:15.
MALACHI 2: 15: MALACHI'S APPEAL TO ADAM AND EVE 167
Having established that Malachi and Genesis 2-3 probably regard marriage as
a covenant, we need to address a fundamental objection to this view raised by
1. Milgrom and M. Greenberg. It is claimed that a ratifying oath is
indispensable for the existence of a covenant [n'i~].1 Lacking evidence for
any such oath in marriage, Milgrom and Greenberg have questioned the
identification of marriage in the Old Testament as a covenant. 2 To deal with
this objection, we must look at what constitutes a covenant in the Old
Testament, as well as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, to determine
whether marriage fits this understanding. Accordingly, the present chapter
endeavours first to establish the definition of "covenant [n'i::l]." In particular,
we shall examine the claim that a ratifying oath is indispensable for a
"covenant" in its normal sense. Leaving aside the question whether such an
oath exists in marriage, we will then consider the appropriateness of the use
of the term "covenant" in reference to marriage. In the second half of the
chapter, we will suggest that the search for the requisite covenant-ratifying
oath in marriage has been hampered by two factors: first, by the tendency to
expect evidence in the wrong place; second, by the tendency to reduce "oath"
to verbal self-malediction. In contrast, it will be demonstrated that biblical
oaths in general and hence covenant-ratifying oaths in particular may be
gestural or enacted (= "oath-signs") and that they need not always be overtly
self-maledictory. The following chapter will apply these arguments to the
search for the requisite covenant-ratifying oath or oath-sign for marriage in
the Old Testament.
this term in biblical texts, its inadequacy is apparent in a text such as Mal.
2: 14. Here the prophet appeals to the identity of the wife as ~Q'i:l ntq~l;),
"your wife by covenant," in order to underscore the heinous character of the
infidelity ['~::l] of these guilty husbands. If "covenant" conveyed nothing
more than "relationship," Malachi's comment would seem strangely vacuous
and add little to what is already more forcefully implied in the designation
~ ... ntq~, "your wife."
To generalize the evidence of this single example, among its 283
occurrences in 263 verses some sense of obligation typically attends the
presence of a covenant.3 For this reason covenants are said to be kept (ioiD -
15x; i~J - 2x), commanded (i11~ - 7x), remembered (i~t - 14x), or confirmed
("Olli1 - 3x), and one is to be faithful in a covenant (]o~J - 1x) or to hold fast
in a covenant (p'tni1 - 1x). Alternatively, covenants are said to be broken
(iEli1 - 20x), transgressed (i::lll - 9x), forgotten (n~iD - 4x), forsaken (::lTlJ - 5x),
profaned ('?'"m - 3x), despised (i~J - 1x), acted falsely against (ipiD - 1x), or
violated (miD - 1X).4
Also problematic for an interpretation of "covenant [n'i:;l]" which
would reduce it to a "relationship" are a number of examples, such as Ezra
10:3; 2 Kgs. 11:4; 2 Chron. 23:1; and Jer. 34:8-10, where a covenant does not
appear to effect a relationship at all, but merely secures a stipulated course of
action. In other texts, far from creating a relationship de novo, the making of
a covenant seems to presuppose an existing relationship, to which explicit
appeal is made during the negotiations to make the covenant. This seems to
be the case, for example, in the covenant between Abraham and Abimelech in
Gen. 21:22ff.s
For reasons such as these, E. Kutsch has argued that n'i~ never
establishes a relationship.6 Instead, virtually everywhere it consists of an
obligation, whether self-imposed, as in a promise or the undertaking of a
commitment, or imposed on another, as in a law.? While many texts support
this emphasis on the obligations implied in covenants, Kutsch has gone too
far in denying that n'i:;l ever creates a relationship. J. Barr argues against
Kutsch's conclusions noting the logical dependence of Kutsch's view on the
very uncertain etymology which he proposes - deriving n'i~ from the rare
and uncertain root i1i:::l II, supposed to mean "to look for, to choose" (related
to the Akkadian barum, "to look"), hence "determining," and finally
"obligation [Verpfiichtung],"8 Barr further suggests that in spite of Kutsch's
appropriate concern with the context in each of the appearances of n'i~,
nevertheless Kutsch's argument appears to confuse the words spoken when a
n'i:;l is made and the effects which are promised or which actually follow the
making of a n'i:l with the semantic content of the term n'i:;l.9 Finally, Barr
wonders whether Kutsch was unduly influenced by a theological agenda since
"the whole discussion seems dominated by a strong sense of the opposition
between grace and law, promise and law, which makes the reader
uncomfortable."l0
20]; Job 31:1; 40:28 [ET 41:4]; 1 Chron. 11:3; and 2 Chron. 16:3. For examples where a
n'i:;J is imposed on another, cf., e.g., Josh. 24:25; 2 Chron. 23:1, 3; Jer. 34:8; Ezek. 17:13-
16:18; and Job 5:23. Covenants with mutually assumed obligations appear in 1 Kgs. 15:19;
Amos 1:9; Ps. 83:6; and 2 Chron. 16:33.
8 E. Kutsch, "Sehen und Bestimmen. Die Etymologie von n'iJ" (1970) 165-178; idem,
Verheissung und Gesetz (1973). Kutsch proposes the following etymological development
for j1iJ II to n' i J: sehen - ersehen - auswiihlen - bestimmen - Bestimmung -
Verpflichtung (Verheissung und Gesetz, 39).
Cf. J. Barr, "Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant" (1977) 24, 25 and 36. Barr notes
that as a matter of procedure Kutsch is careful not to begin with this etymological
argument: "But logically his proposal depends rather more on etymology than this would
suggest. The total effect of his reasoning depends very considerably on the proposaL .. "
Later Barr observes that an analogy based on the older English term "beholden" (which
appears to suggest a development from "to see" to "to be obligated"), which is offered by
Kutsch in support, is inapplicable. This is so because "beholden," in the sense of "to be
obligated," comes from a term meaning "to hold, retain," and not from "to behold" in the
sense of "to see," as Kutsch supposes.
Not surprisingly, Kutsch's proposal has found little support. Cf. M.L. Newman,
"Review of Verheissung und Gesetz" (1975); M. Weinfeld, "n'i:;J berith," TDOT, II, 255. It
should be acknowledged, however, that none of the proposed etymologies for n'i:;J has
received notable support. Perhaps most widely favoured is the proposal of E. Meyer,
followed by L. KOhler and others, that n'iJ derived from the root j1iJ I, which means "to
eat," alluding to the meal which frequently accompanies the covenant-making ceremony (E.
Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme [1906]; L. Kiihler, "Problems in the Study
of the Language of the Old Testament" [1956]3-24).
Others, however, prefer to relate n'i:;J to the Akkadian term birtu / birltu meaning "a
fetter" (so M. Weinfeld, "n'i:;J berlth," TDOT, II, 255; and K.A. Kitchen, "Egypt, Ugarit,
Qatna and Covenant" (1979] 461), or to go further back and relate n'iJ to the Akkadian
preposition birit meamng "between," from which birtu possibly derives (so, O. Loretz,
"Berit - Band, Bund" [1966]239-41; M. Noth, "Old Testament Covenant Making in the
Light of a Text from Mari" [1967]108-117).
A more recent suggestion is that of E.B. Smick, who relates n'i:;J to the Akkadian term
burru (D) meaning "to establish a legal situation by testimony with an oath" ("n'iJ (b Tit)
covenant," TWOT, I, 128; cf. CAD, B, 125ff.).
9 J. Barr, "Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant'" (1977) 37.
10 Ibid., 37. Barr's reservations about Kutsch have been cited with approval by DJ.
McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant [1981]16, n. 26. McCarthy likewise suggests that "there is
more than merely scientific interest at work [behind the concern to demonstrate that n'iJ
"COVENANT [r1'i:J]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 171
"covenant."16 Not only does rl'i~ occur most frequently with this sense in the
biblical corpus, it does so most often while referring to covenants between
Yahweh and his people, as in Exod. 19:5, etc. (appearing in what Naylor
terms the 3rd dimension of its semantic field, after the first two dimensions of
literal and figurative uses). rl'i::l also bears this sense while referring to
secular relationships, as in Gen. 14:13, 1 Sam. 18:3, etc. (Naylor's 1st
dimension). An important special case of this usage occurs when the
relationship in question is of an international political nature, where a more
specific English rendering for rl'i::l would be "treaty" (e.g., cf. 1 Sam. 11: 1
and 1 Kgs. 5:26 [ET 12]).
As is well-known, a great deal of scholarly attention has been devoted
to the apparent analogy between the ancient Near Eastern treaty texts and
various portions of the Bible which refer to a covenant between Yahweh and
Israel since this comparison was first suggested, apparently independently, by
DJ. Wiseman, E. Bickerman, G.E. Mendenhall, and K. BaltzerP Without
entering further into this vast area of scholarly discussion, it is sufficient to
emphasize here that not all covenants are treaties. Thus it should not be
expected that wherever a covenant is mentioned it will necessarily exhibit any
or all of the features of some single "covenant form" derived from a detailed
comparison of international treaty texts.1 8 In particular, it is the concern of
the present thesis to argue that a number of Old Testament texts, and Malachi
in particular, conceive of marriage as a rl'i:O - not as a "treaty," and thus not
necessarily in a manner which exhibits each of the well-rehearsed features of
offered by G.E. Mendenhall is similar: "A solemn promise made binding by an oath, which
may be either a verbal formula or a symbolic oath" ("Covenant," 714). Cf. W. Oyrness,
Themes in Old Testament Theology (1979) 113. Cf. also M.L. Newman, who defines
covenant as a "formal relationship of obligation between two parties, normally resulting
from some prior common experience and sealed by a solemn oath or cultic rite" ("Review
of Verheissung und Gesetz" [1975]120).
16 Although this translational choice is rather arbitrary, it reflects a common convention
established by the translational practice of the AV (which so renders r1'i:P 260 times). As a
translation, "covenant" has been faulted because of the many inappropriate senses which
attach to this term in contemporary English (e.g., a mutual agreement, especially regarding
the use of land; a financial or church membership pledge; etc.). As 1. Barr observes,
however, the objections raised by, e.g., E. Kutsch against the traditional German rendering
"Bund" (since n'i:p does not mean "alliance" or "agreement") do not apply to the English
term "covenant" ("Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant," 36). In any case, the utility of
"covenant" as a translation choice can be defended based on the fact that for most English
speakers this term is largely an "empty word," deriving any meaning it may have from
biblical usage (J. Barr, op. cit., 36).
17 OJ. Wiseman, in a paper read to the Society of Old Testament Studies in January
1948, according to M.G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 114, n. 2; E.
Bickerman, "Couper une alliance" (1950-51), according to E.W. Nicholson, God and His
People (1986) 57; G.E. Mendenhall, "Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near
East" (1954); and K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (1960). These scholars base their work
on V. Koro"1l:c's foundational study of the structure of the Hittite treaties, Hethitische
Staatsvertrdge: Ein Beitrag zur ihrer juristischen Wertung (1931).
18 Cf. OJ. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 4.
"COVENANT [rl'1::J]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 173
19 The texts which are most explicit in their identification of marriage as a n'i:J are
Mal. 2:14; Provo 2:17; and Ezek. 16:8. .
As noted by D. L Magnetti, there is a considerable conceptual and terminological
overlap between the treaties and the interpersonal covenants of the ancient Near East ("The
Oath in the Old Testament in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal
Context of the Ancient Near East" [1969]94).
20 There are some examples where n'i:J is used with this first sense, but in a figurative
manner. The fact that these examples are confined to poetic and highly rhetorical contexts
and the fact that one of the covenant partners is typically an impersonal entity, but
personified for the purpose of the figure, confirm the recognition of these uses as figurative.
Cf., e.g., Isa. 28:15, 18.
21 It is not always possible to be certain which of the first two senses of n'i~ is intended
(e.g., cf. Isa. 33:8; Hos. 10:4). The following instances appear to be fairly clear examples
ofn'i:;J bearing its second sense: Ezra 10:3; 2 Kgs. 11:4 {f2 Chron. 23:1); Jer. 34:8,10,15,
18 (his); and Ps. 83:6 [ET 5].
22 "Encapsulation" is a term coined and defined by J. Lyons as the "lexicalization of ...
[a] syntagmatic modifying component" (Semantics, I, 262). Cf. also PJ. Naylor, "The
Lan~uage of Covenant," 93.
3 Cf. also the parallel in 2 Chron. 6:11.
24 Apart from the expression n'i:J lii~, "Ark of the Covenant," the only other clear
example is 2 Chron. 6:11, the parallel text to 1 Kgs. 8:21.
174 "COVENANT [n'1J]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
A chief difficulty which vexes any discussion of the tenn n'i:l is the
broad semantic range of n'i~, but the curious lack of contrastive tenns
occupying the same semantic field. 31 This fact alone renders implausible, for
example, the overly precise analysis of A. Jepsen, who argues that n'i:l
always refers to the constitutive act which produces a relationship, rather than
to the relationship itself.32 Certainly some texts employ n'!:o to refer to the
constitutive act (e.g., Exod. 24:8). Other texts, however, seem equally clear
in their reference to the relationship more generally. For instance, the
expression, "an everlasting covenant [Cl7ill n'i:O]," which occurs sixteen
times, would seem rather odd if only the constitutive act were in view.3 3
A second problem that needs to be discussed is the apparent
complexity of the definition which has been offered: "an elected, as opposed
to natural, relationship of obligation established under divine sanction." This
is especially true because it will be argued that this definition is operative for
n'i:O in Mal. 2: 14.
Reflecting a fundamental assumption of modem linguistics, J. Barr has
warned biblical scholars against what he has termed "illegitimate totality
transfer." This error is committed when "the 'meaning' of a word
(understood as the total series of relations in which it is used in the literature)
is read into a particular case as its sense and implication there."34 Stating this
principle more positively, E.A. Nida urges that "the correct meaning of any
tenn is that which contributes least to the total context."35
While this principle offers an important corrective for certain past
interpretative excesses, it appears to overstate the case and has recently been
criticized and replaced by a more nuanced approach offered by A. Wierzbicka
and P. Cotterell and M. Turner.3 6 Offering the English word "bicycle" as an
example, Cotterell and Turner note that any English speaker would recognize
as semantically anomalous the sentence: "It's a bicycle, but you steer it with
31 Cf. J. Barr, "Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant" (1977) 31-33; and M.
Weinfeld, "r1'iJ berith," TDOT, II, 256-262.
32 A Jepsen, "Berith. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit" (1961) 161-179.
33 Gen. 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod. 31:16; Lev. 24:8; 2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 24:5; 55:3; 61:8;
Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:26; Ps. 105:10; and 1 Chron. 16:17. By contrast, no text
speaks of an "everlasting oath" (l):JI!i(l)m'?~ + Cl7il) or an "everlasting meal/banquet"
(il7~t;\ / ilt'il!iD + Cl7il), etc. For a discussion of the meaning of Cl7il) in covenant contexts, cf.
M. Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel," 75-77. Cf. also J. Barr, "Some Semantic
Notes on the Covenant," 33.
Other attributes of r1'i:;J may also favour a reference to the relationship itself, rather than
to its constitutive act. For example, Cli'?l? r1'i:;J ("covenant of peace") in Num. 25:12; Isa.
54:10; Ezek. 34:25. Cf. M. Noth, "Old Testament Covenant Making in the Light of a Text
from Mari" (1967) 108-117.
Finally, although Dan. 9:27 teems with interpretative difficulties, the fact that it can be
said of the anointed, 'Dt:I .t11~~ Cl';Ji7 r1'"):;J i';ml ["he will make a strong covenant with
t
man for one week (of years)"], implies that t"l'i:;J does not refer to the constitutive act.
4 J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 218.
35 E.A Nida, "The Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship"
(1972) 86. Cf. also AC. Thiselton, "Semantics and New Testament Interpretation" (1977)
84.
36 A Wierzbicka, Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis (1985); P. Cotterell and M.
Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 122-123.
176 "COVENANT [n'i:::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
1.3 Four diagnostic sentences to help test the first sense posited for
"covenant [n'i::J] "
It remains for us to attempt to justify each of the elements in our definition of
the first sense of r1'i:J and to consider these elements as they relate to
marriage. Ideally, it would be desirable to construct a series of diagnostic
sentences in order to discover which, if any, of these appear anomalous to a
native speaker of Biblical Hebrew. While we shall begin each section of our
discussion with a proposed diagnostic question, obviously, in the absence of
native speakers and with the limited body of evidence at our disposal, our
conclusions will necessarily be far more tentative.
37 Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 148f. Cotterell and Turner draw this example
from Wierzbicka's work.
38 Ibid., 152.
39 "The Language of Covenant," 422f.
40 Among those scholars who reject "relationship" [Verhaltnis 1as central to n'l:J are E.
Kutsch (Verheissung und Gesetz); and, following Kutsch, L. Perlitt (Bundestheologie im
Alten Testament) and E.W. Nicholson (God and His People). Cf. also M.J. Buss, "Review:
L. Perlitt, Bundestheoiogie imAlten Testament (WMANT 36)"; and D.I. McCarthy, "berit in
Old Testament History and Theology" (1972).
"COVENANT [r1'iJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 177
Yahweh and Isaac (Gen. 17:21; etc.), Yahweh and the Patriarchs (Exod. 6:4),
Yahweh and Israel (Exod. 19:5; etc.), Yahweh and Phinehas (Num. 25:12f.),
Yahweh and David (2 Chron. 7:18; etc.), Yahweh and Levi (Mal. 2:4ff.),
Yahweh and the eschatological Israel (Jer. 31:31; Isa. 42:6; 49:6-8; 55:3;
etc.), and so on.
Besides these theological covenants, there are numerous examples of
secular covenants, that is, covenants between persons other than God,
although God remains their guarantor. Apart from possible instances
involving marriage, the biblical text mentions covenants which exist between:
individuals (Gen. 21:22f.; 26:23ff.; 31:44ff.; 47:29; 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:8; 22:8;
23:18; 2 Sam. 3: 12f.; 1 Kgs. 2:42-46; etc.), leaders often acting as
representatives of their peoples (Gen. 14:13; 1 Kgs. 5:26 [ET 12]; 15:19;
20:34; perhaps 2 Sam. 3:13, 21; etc.), people groups (Josh. 9:6, 11, 15f.),
leaders and their subjects (2 Sam. 5:3 II 1 Chron. 11:3; 2 Kgs. 11:17 II 2
Chron. 23: 16, 3; perhaps Hos. 6:7-11a; 10:3-4), an individual and the
representatives of a people (Joshua 2), and a priest and military leaders (2
Kgs. 11:4112 Chron. 23:1).
In only a few cases do we read about covenants involving impersonal
entities, such as a covenant between: men and animals (Job 5:23; 40:28 [ET
41:4]; and perhaps Hos. 2:20 [ET 18], where Yahweh is mediator), a man and
the stones of the field (Job 5:23), Israel's apostate leaders and death (Isa.
28:15-18), Job and his eyes (Job 31:1), and Yahweh and day and night (Jer.
33:20, 25). These examples, however, all appear in poetic contexts, often
involving hyperbole, personification, or other rhetorical features which
suggest that n'i:;J is being employed only in a figurative manner.41 It is
notable that even in these cases there are no examples of a n'i~ which
involves only a single party. In this respect a n'i~ differs markedly from, for
instance, a vow (cf., e.g., the Nazirite vow in Num. 6:2ff.).42
Also supportive of the centrality of relationship in covenant is the
frequency with which familial or social relationships appear to provide a
model for the obligations of a covenant and, consequently, for the
terminology by which reference is made to the partners of a covenant. For
example, scholars have noted that "brother" may be employed as a
designation of a partner in a covenant. This is clearly the case in certain
extra-biblical texts.43 It may also be the case in Judg. 9:3; 1 Kgs. 9:13; 20:32;
41 So M. Weinfeld, "n":l berith," TDOT, II, 264; and J.A. Thompson, "Covenant (OT)"
[SBE Revised, I, 791, who lists these (and, curiously, Zech. 11:10) as "metaphorical
covenants."
42 Apart from the Nazirite vow, most vows also differ from covenants in being
conditional (cr., e.g., Gen. 28:20; 1 Sam. 1:11). On the other hand, like covenants vows
include an oath and hence involve God as a witness or guarantor.
O.L. Magnetti defines a "vow ["1)" as "a solemn promise made to God to do or to
perform a certain act in the context of the cult" ("The Oath in the Old Testament," 199).
43 OJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 106ff. Cf. P Kalluveettil, Declaration
and Covenant, 99-101.
178 "COVENANT [r1'i:1]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
2 Sam. 1:26; and perhaps Num. 20:14. 44 Possibly the clearest example is the
expression D'n~ r1'i~, "a covenant of brothers," used in Amos 1:9 of the
treaty between Tyre and Israe1. 45 Similarly, the terms for "father" and "son"
appear in extra-biblical texts as designations of covenant partners; they may
so appear within biblical texts in 1 Sam. 25:8; 2 Sam. 7:14; 2 Kgs. 16:7; Isa.
63:16 (bis); 64:7 [ET 8]; Jer. 31:9; Ps. 2:7; 89:27f. [ET 26f.]; and 116:16.46
Furthermore, of special interest to the present study, the husband-wife
analogy, although unattested outside the Bible, is used extensively to depict
the deity's relationship to Israel in Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel and is
perhaps already implied in the language of "jealousy [~jp]" and "whoring
[i1~!]" elsewhere. 47 Whether or not some of these texts demand an
interpretation of marriage as a covenant, as will be argued later, they certainly
support an emphasis on the relational aspect of r1'i:;J (perhaps even including
an emotional component).48
Turning to the social sphere, the terms "lord" and "servant" are well
attested as designations of covenant partners in extra-biblical covenants. 49
Within the Bible there are numerous plausible examples of "lord" and
"servant" used in this manner in both theological and secular covenants. For
instance, compare Gen. 50:18; Josh. 9:8; 1 Sam. 25:8; 27:12; 2 Kgs. 10:5-6;
16:7; 24:1; and Ps. 116:16.50 Further, the language of "friend" or
"companion" is similarly used of covenant partners in the extra-biblical texts
and possibly within the Bible. 51 Compare :ij~, "be a friend," used of Hiram's
(1969) 71-87; P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 51-53, 99f., 101-102; and E.W.
Nicholson, God and His People (1986) 61f.
52 Cf. W.L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Love of God in
Deuteronomy"' (1963); DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 160f., n. 6; P.J. Naylor,
"The Language of Covenant," 27; and P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 84.
This "love" should not be reduced to mere loyalty, as if it were entirely dispassionate.
Cf. JeT. 2:2 and M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 81f.
Cf. also DJ. Wiseman, "Is it Peace? - Covenant and Diplomacy" (1982) 311-326.
53 Declaration and Covenant, 91, n. 354.
54 Ibid., 18, n. 9.
55 DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 297. At another point McCarthy notes,
"rites and cultic acts are what bring the covenant relationship into being. They are
'sacrifices of union' (sellimim) which establish a certain community between God and
Israel. The treaties aim at the same effect designated by the cognate term, 'peaceful union,'
(salimu) but the means is not rite but the agreement based on a pledge which they
represent" (ibid., 295).
56 Declaration and Covenant" 51. Cf. also Kalluveettil's comment on p. 91: "Secular
covenant actually means, 'relation and obligation, commitment and action'; one cannot
separate the idea of relationship from it."
57 Ibid., 212. Cf. also McCarthy's summary, "there is no doubt that covenants, even
treaties, were thought of as establishing a kind of quasi-familial unity" (Old Testament
Covenant, 33).
Cf. M.L. Newman, who writes with respect to E. Kutsch's one-sided emphasis on
obligation in covenant, "Although obligation is invariably one element in the meaning of
berit, it does not exhaust that meaning. Relationship is also an essential feature. Berit
180 "COVENANT (rI'i::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
always involves two parties and a specific relation between them" ("Review of Verheissung
und Gesetz," 120).
58 R. Smend and N. Lohfink, among others, have argued that marriage and adoption
were the ultimate models for covenant and hence the "Bundesformel," the declaration "I
will be your God and you will be my people," may itself derive from the legal formulae for
marriage and adoption. Cf. R. Smend, Die Bundesformel (1963); idem, Die Mitte des Alten
Testaments (1970) 49-54; and N. Lohfink, "Dt 26,17-19 und die Bundesformel" (1969)
517-53.
Cf. also M. Weinfeld, who asserts that the "Bundesformel" is "a legal formula taken
from the sphere of marriage, as attested in various legal documents from the ancient Near
East (cf. Hos. 2:4 [2])" ("n'!~ berith," TDOT, II, 278). Less convinced is P. Kalluveettil,
Declaration and Covenant, 213.
L. Perlitt has argued against the assumed covenant setting for the "Bundesformel"
(Bundestheologie im Alten Testament [1969] 105-115). His objections, however, are
refuted by D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 182-185.
59 1. Ziegler, "Die Liebe Gottes bei den Propheten" (1930) 73-77. Cf. also T.e.
Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (1958) 146; and M.H. Woudstra, "The
Everlasting Covenant in Ezekiel 16:59-63" (1971) 25.
60 Treaty and Covenant, 1st ed. (1963) 175. This section was eliminated from the
second edition, but its essential point is reiterated and nowhere disavowed. Cf., e.g., idem,
Treaty and Covenant, 2nd ed. (1981) 295. Cf. also McCarthy's assertion, "there is no doubt
that covenants, even treaties, were thought of as establishing a kind of quasi-familial unity"
(Old Testament Covenant [1972]33).
61 W.R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1927) 318.
62 Cf. PJ. Naylor, "The Language of Covenant," 126-127.
"COVENANT [n'1:l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 181
Apodiktischen Rechts, 145-6 (op. cit., 3, n. 4). M.G. Kline similarly favours the mutuality
of obligations in a covenant (The Structure of Biblical A uthority, 125f., 145f.).
69 Cf. G.P. Hugenberger, "Rib," [SBE Revised, 4 (1988) 183-185.
70 On the covenantal associations of iJI1, cf. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant,
51-53.
Kalluveettil notes that while the stipulations of a covenant are generally indicated, at
times these may be left unspecified apart from the general obligation of behaviour befitting
friends (as in the Abimelech-Abraham pact) (op. cit., 91). Kalluveettil cites approvingly the
comment of W.R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, 315f.: "Primarily the covenant is not a
special engagement to this or that particular effect, but a bond of troth and life-fellowship to
all the effects for which kinsmen are permanently bound together."
71 N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid (1967) 101-13. For a brief critique of
Lohfink, d. DJ. McCarthy, who, nevertheless, acknowledges that both originally and
subsequently in "many" OT texts n'i~ may mean "oath" (Treaty and Covenant [1981]22).
Conversely, it is interesting that although the Akkadian phrase riksu [I rikiltu ] u
mamitu ("bond and oath") is the standard expression for "treaty," the term miimitu, "oath,"
by itself can refer to a treaty by metonymy.
"COVENANT [n'1::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 183
covenant formula was based on the oath pattern and the contract was not."72
M. Weinfeld similarly concludes: "berith as a commitment has to be
confirmed by an oath ... : Gen. 21:22ff.; 26:26ff.; Dt. 29:9ff. (lOff.); Josh.
9: 15-20; 2 K. 11:4; Ezk. 16:8; 17: 13ft.... The oath gives the obligation its
binding validity .... "73
72 "Covenant Fonns and Contract Forms," 500. If oaths were optional in the contract
form, as Tucker argues, this need not imply that they are infrequently attested. Indeed, as
D.L. Magnetti argues, it seems that "the swearing of an oath was part of the normal
procedure" for contracts in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria-Palestine ("The Oath in the Old
Testament," 47, cf. also pp. 49, 65-85).
73 M. Weinfeld, "11';:::1 ber/th," TDOT, II, 256.
Likewise, D.J. McCarthy concludes that the basic idea of a treaty is "a union based on
an oath" (Treaty and Covenant [1981]141). Cf. the similar insistence on oaths as an
indispensable feature of covenants in G.E. Mendenhall, "Covenant" (1962) 716; H,C.
Brichto, The Problem of 'Curse' in the Hebrew Bible (1963) 70; G.M. Tucker, "Covenant
Forms and Contract Forms" (1965) 488-490; D.L. Magnetti, "The Oath in the Old
Testament" (1969) 72-4, 113, 123 and passim; KA. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World (1977)
80f.; 1. Barr, "Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant" (1977) 23-38, esp. p. 32.; 1.
Scharbert, "ii71:1 'alah," TDOT, I (1978) 264; and E.W. Nicholson, God and His People
(198~ 103.
7 "The Language of Covenant," 380-395.
In support of the semantic proximity of ii"~ to 11';:::l in terms of collocation, ii"~ appears
with 11';:::l: in Hos. 10:4; in an hendiadys in Deut. 29:11, 13 [ET 12, 14]; in synonymous
parallelism in Ezek. 16:59; 17:16, 18, 19; and in functional parallelism in Gen. 26:28.
Idiomatic overlap is apparent in the hendiadys mentioned above, which is comparable
to the Akkadian phrase riksu u miimitu. Of interest also is a Phoenician incantation text
involving a covenant granted by the god Ashur, along with other deities, to the people (Z.
Zevit, "A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology" (1977) 110-118). The
text reads O"l! . rI"~ [cognate of Hebrew ii"~] . 1" . i1i~, which offers a striking parallel for
Jer. 32:40, O?il! 11';:::1 Oii'? 'n;~1.
Functional commuta'tivity'is illustrated in a text such as Gen. 24:1-67. Here it appears
that ii"~ and iil!1:l~ may be used interchangeably (cf. vss. 3, 9, and 37 with vss. 8 and 41).
Elsewhere it is apparent that 11';:l i1i~ and iil!:::l~ l!:l~l commute. Hence, it may be
suggested that ii"~ (l!:::l~l) may be parallel to, though not necessarily interchangeable with,
11';:l i1i~,
Finally, the following are shared syntagms, demonstrating syntagmatic intersection:
ii"~ iirl'ii /l'I~l ~ 11';::l ii11'ii/l'l~l
ii"~:l ~':lii/~1:l ~ t1';:l:l ~':lii/~1::l
ii"~ l!::l~l ~ t1';:::l l!:::l~l
ii"~ 1m ~ 11';:l 1m
ii"~" 1m II 11';:l" 1m
ii"~ :::lt1~ II t1';::l :::lt1~
ii"~ ;'Jii II rI';:l ;'Jii
ii"~ii ';:::l1 11~ l!Oi!) ~ 11'i:::lii ';:::l1 11~ l!Oi!)
184 "COVENANT [i1'1J]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
speak of entering [1:J,I) / ~J] an oath: Deut. 29: 11 [ET 12] and Neh. 10:30 [ET
29]. Finally, also of interest are a number of texts which closely associate
n'1J, "covenant," or nlf + n'.,~, "make a covenant," with either il,?~, "oath"
(Gen. 26:28; Deut. 29: 11, 13, 20 [ET 12, 14, 21]; Ezek. 16:59f.; 17: 13, 16,
18, 19; Hos. 10:4; Neh. 10:31 [ET 30]), or il.v1:J~, "oath" (Deut. 7:8f.; Jer.
11:3-5; Ps. 105:9; Neh. 10:30 [ET 29]; 2 Chron. 15:12-15), or ,l)JtVJ, "swear"
(Gen. 21:31-32; 26:28-31; 31:44 compared with 31:53; Deut. 7:8f.; 31:20;
Josh. 9:15f.; Judg. 2:1; 1 Sam. 20:8 compared with 20:17; 2 Kgs. 11:4; Isa.
54:9f.; Jer. 11:3-5; Ezek. 16:8; Ps. 89:4 [ET 3]; 132:11f.; Ezra 10:3-5; and 2
Chron. 15: 12-15).
against God. Nevertheless, Milgrom considers that its usage in Num. 5:11ff.
is best understood as a "literary metaphor."
Finally, the actual reason for his digression into the subject of marriage
as a covenant, Milgrom denies that the penalty prescribed for the violation of
a betrothed slave-girl in Lev. 19:20-22, namely an tJ~~, a "guilt/reparation
offering," is not to be explained on the supposition that adultery violates an
individual oath made at the time of her betrothal (after all, the paramour is
punished although he had not taken an oath!).78 Rather, according to
Milgrom, the "guilt/reparation offering" is required because adultery violates
the prohibition made within the Decalogue and hence violates Israel's
collective oath of commitment to Yahweh by which they bound themselves to
the Sinaitic covenant,79
2.1 The lack of any explicit reference to an oath within marriage in the
ancient Near Eastern law collections or extant marriage contracts is not
unexpected
Although Milgrom observes that none of the extant marriage contracts or
laws from the ancient Near East stipulates an oath for marriage, three
considerations may help to put this objection into perspective.80
1) First, it should be recalled that ancient Near Eastern law in general,
just as biblical law in particular, is predominantly concerned with the unusual
and difficult, not with what could be assumed. 81 For example, limiting our
78 According to J. Milgrom, the C1~~ offering was the appointed means for expiating
crimes against God when committed under mitigating circumstances (Cult and Conscience
[1976]133). These crimes divide between "sancta trespass" (the subject of Chapter 2) and
"oath violation" (the subject of Chapter 3).
79 Ibid., 135f. We may add here that Milgrom qualifies his own objections by
acknowledging that "the betrothal/marriage rite might be conceived as a covenant if there
were a mutual exchange of verba solemnia even though an oath formula was not used"
(ibid., 135, n. 487). Milgrom goes on to cite some evidence for the likelihood of such a
verbal exchange, including Hos. 2:4 [ET: 2]. On the crucial oath-like function of such
solemn declarations, see our discussion below in Chapter 6, 2.3.3.
80 Ibid., 134.
81 On the problematic nature of the so-called "law codes," their purpose,
incompleteness, and emphasis on exceptional cases, etc., cf., e.g., G.E. Mendenhall,
"Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law" (1954) 26-46; J.J. Finkelstein, "Ammisaduqa's Edict
and the Babylonian Law Codes" (1961) 103-104; DJ. Wiseman, "The Laws of Hammurabi
Again" (1962) 161-72; S. Greengus, "Law in the OT," IDBSup. (1976) 533; R. Westbrook,
"Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes" (1985) 247-264; and M. Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel (1985) 91-97. In fact, according to Fishbane, the frequent
lacunae and ambiguities in biblical law impelled subsequent innerbiblical and extrabiblical
interpretation, apart from which the law would have been inoperative.
186 "COVENANT [n'iJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
doubt that this was the formality which made the covenant valid."85 One
evidence in support of this assumption of a ratifying oath in biblical
covenants is seen in later texts which frequently refer to such an oath, even
though it was unrecorded in the original instance. 86 Hence, by analogy with
the practice of the treaty documents, it appears unwarranted to assume from
the omission of a similar stipulation in marriage documents that a ratifying
oath was necessarily lacking in actual practice. 87
3) Contrary to Milgrom's assertion that none of the extant marriage
contracts stipulates an oath, in point of fact, a considerable number of
marriage contracts do include an oath. For instance, eight of the forty-five
neo- and late-Babylonian marriage contracts assembled by M.T. Roth invoke
a curse against anyone who would violate the terms of the agreement (Nos. 2,
5, 8, 14, 18, 19, 26, and 30).88 In one case (No.6), and possibly a second
(No. 16), the contract specifies a mutual oath by which both bride and groom
are bound to the terms of the contract.
Roth offers the following translation for No.6:
(1-4) NabU-a{!-iddin, son of ApIa, spoke to DanIi-essu, son of
Arba'ila, as follows: (4-6): "Please give me fBanat-Esagil, your
daughter, the lass. Let her be my wife."
85 G.E. Mendenhall, "Covenant" in !DB, I, no. Cf. also D.L. Magnetti, "The Oath in
the Old Testament," nff.
Analogous to the situation with covenants and their assumed attending verbal oaths or
oath-signs, M. Malul notes that the ancient Near Eastern law compendia in general, "except
for one or two cases in MAL, do not make reference to symbolic acts ... ," although there can
be little doubt that a rich variety of symbolic acts were customary and even mandatory
(Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 12f.). Cf. also ibid., 449-452.
86 Cf., e.g., the reference in 2 Sam. 3:9 to Yahweh's oath to David to establish his
throne, nowhere suggested in the earlier narrative. Cf. similar examples in Isa. 54:9, which
mentions Yahweh's oath not to allow another deluge after Noah, and Ezek. 16:8 and 20:5-6,
which mention Yahweh's otherwise unrecorded oath with respect to the Mosaic covenant.
Finally, although Gen. 22:16 does record an explicit oath taken by Yahweh to bless
Abraham and his progeny, it nowhere mentions Yahweh's intention to give Israel the
promised land (as in Gen. 15:18-20 and 17:8). Nevertheless, in more than forty OT texts,
reference is made to Yahweh's oath guaranteeing possession of the promised land (e.g., d.
Gen. 24:7; 26:3; Exod. 32:11-13; Deut. 8:18; Judg. 2:1; JeI. 11:3-5; and 2 Chron. 15:15).
Cf. also D.L. Magnetti, who discusses these texts and notes that while it is unusual, an oath
sworn by the sovereign is attested in extra-biblical treaties ("The Oath in the Old
Testament," 70f., 113ff., 125, cf. AT nos. 3 and 456).
87 While this argument assumes some similarity between the treaties as international
covenants and marriage as an interpersonal covenant (ct, e.g., D.L. Magnetti, "The Oath in
the Old Testament," 94), it does not presuppose a particularly close analogy between treaty
documents and betrothal/marriage documents. As will be stressed below, marriage
documents, in fact, are not closely related to treaties since they are typically contract
documents (following a contract form and primarily concerned to list human witnesses,
though at times they may include curses, etc.) and not covenant documents (which have an
alto~ther distinct form including the mention or assumption of a divine witness).
M.T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th - 3rd Centuries B.G. (1989), 19.
Cf. also the MB ijana marriage document,discussed by A.J. Skaist, wherein the couple
"swore an oath by the god and the king before Pagirum" ("Studies in Ancient
Mesopotamian Family Law Pertaining to Marriage and Divorce," 89-93), and a 17th
century B.C. marriage contract from Sippar discussed by J. Klima, wherein the bride (a
priestess) and groom "both swore in the names of God Shamash, God Marduk and the town
of Sippar" ("Marriage and Family in Ancient Mesopotamia" [1966]100).
188 "COVENANT [n'i::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
89 iz-ku-ru, is a 1/1 Preterite, expressive of simple past action. As such, this text does
not stipulate an oath for marriage, but merely records as a matter of fact that the couple (the
antecedent is clearly Nabfi-a))-iddin and fBanat-Esagil, not Nabft-ag-iddin and DanIi-essu)
swore their agreement. For the typical use of historical narrative in the first millennium
"subjective" contractual form, cf. M.T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements, If. Cf.
also T.G. Pinches, "Babylonian Contract-Tablets with Historical References" (1890).
90 I.e., this marriage agreement indicates that the couple were oath bound to the terms
of the marriage contract, but not necessarily that they were oath bound to the marriage
itself. Cf. also M.T. Roth, '''She will die by the iron dagger': Adultery and Neo-Babylonian
Marriage" (1988) 186-206.
"COVENANT [r1'i:::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 189
Esagila, cut short his long days. May Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon,
decree his destruction." What makes this functional equivalence of mutual
oath and curse significant is the observation that in marriage agreement No.8,
at least, a third party besides the husband and wife is bound by the curse.
This is so because No.8 is a betrothal agreement. Although the mother of the
bride has promised her daughter in marriage (lines 1-5), the marriage has not
been consummated and a later stipulation in the contract (lines 8-11)
anticipates the possibility that the mother may renege on her promise:
"Should fQudasu [the mother of the bride] not give qmmertu [her daughter]
(in marriage) to Nabu-balassu-iqbi [the groom], fQudasu will pay five minas
of silver from her own dowry to NabU-balassu-iqbi." Since fQudasu is a
party to this agreement and has an obligation which is included within its
stipulations, presumably she, along with the bride and groom, is also an
object of the curse (lines 20-24): "May Marduk and Zarpanltu decree the
destruction of whoever contravenes this matter; may Nabu, the scribe of
Esagil, cut short his long days; may Nergal, the almighty, the overpowering
among the gods, not save his life from plague and massacre." Being bound
by this curse, alternatively the mother could have been made the subject of a
mutual oath, at least in principle, but clearly such an oath bears little
resemblance to the exclusive oath between a husband and wife which ought
to be expected of marriage if indeed it was a covenant.
Considering the presence of oaths and curses in contracts which
already have human guarantors, D.L. Magnetti notes that while "contracts
were made in a sphere in which men could take care ofthe situation ... the fact
remains that evidence indicates that oaths were sworn as part of contract
procedure in at least some ancient Near Eastern civilizations. Perhaps this
was due to influence by the procedure in the law court [where oaths of
clearance or oaths for witnesses were required at times] or to a desire for the
additional sanction of the supernatural."91
On the other hand, contrary to Milgrom's expectation, it is unlikely
that any betrothal or marriage contract would necessarily stipulate a marriage-
ratifying oath precisely because of the special commercial and ancillary focus
of these contracts. With respect to the extant marriage contracts, Milgrom
himself notes, "it seems that in Babylonian betrothal/marriage, contracts
were not even written, except when additional stipulations had to be made."92
indicate the presence of children (requiring the clarification of property rights in the event
of the dissolution of the marriage). In support of Greengus' view, cf., e.g., B. Porten, op.
cit., 208; and P.W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt, 28-30.
R. Yaron, however, has some reservations regarding Greengus's view (The Laws of
Eshnunna [1988]200-205). Unfortunately, the Nuzi marriage tablets, studied in detail by
I.M. Breneman, neither support nor refute the claim made by Greengus concerning riksatu
(Nuzi Marriage Tablets, 257-261). They do suggest, however, that at times marriage
contracts may have been intended only to provide legal protection for the wife and not to
address any unusual family circumstance or property concern.
M.T. Roth, however, concludes that it is unlikely that a written agreement always
accompanied marriage in the Neo-Babylonian period (Babylonian Marriage Agreements,
26). As an impressive example she offers the case of the 6th-5th century family of Itti-
Marduk-balaW concerning whom "hundreds of documents pertaining to the family's
economic and legal activities have survived, including documents revealing the dowry
transfers of nine women (five daughters who married out, four brides who married into the
family) over three generations." In spite of this impressive documentation, no marriage
contracts have survived from this family almost certainly because none were written.
94 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 110. In general, Kalluveettil's conclusion
seems well founded (and especially convincing in the case of Elephantine - cf. B. Porten,
Archives from Elephantine, 208). "Main concern," however, should not be misunderstood
as "only concern." For example, there are a number of Nuzi marriage tablets which say
nothing about inheritance or personal property (i.e., texts 1, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, as well as
all the slave marriage texts, 16-22), and some texts are silent about the bride-price as well
(i.e., texts 14 and 21). As a consequence, I.M. Breneman concludes that at times marriage
tablets may have been drafted merely for the legal protection of the wife (Nuzi Marriage
Tablets, 258-260).
Similarly, M.T. Roth emphasizes economics as the most frequent consideration in the
Neo- and Late Babylonian marriage contracts, but also acknowledges that the purpose or
purposes behind many other texts is entirely elusive (Babylonian Marriage Agreements,
28). One evidence of this ancillary focus in the marriage contracts is the fact that only a
tiny fraction of the extant marriage contracts, namely ten, all from the Neo-Babylonian
period, consider the subject of adultery. Cf. M.T. Roth, "'She will die by the iron dagger':
Adultery and Neo-Babylonian Marriage" (1988) 186, n. 1.
95 Cf., e.g., P.W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt, 28.
192 "COVENANT [n'i:J]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
2.2 Oaths may often be accompanied by, or even consist of, symbolic acts
("oath-signs")
In attempting to discern the presence or absence of an oath in marriage, it is
vital to be clear about what exactly constitutes an oath.1oo We understand by
"oath" any solemn declaration or enactment which invokes the deity to act
against the one who would be false to an attendant commitment or
affirmation. 101
Although oaths are referred to in a wide variety of ways in the Old
Testament, ilf1Jtzi and il7 ~ are the specific terms in Hebrew for "oath"
(including both the act of swearing and the content of what is sworn as
distinct senses ).1 02 The fact that il?~ (originally meaning "curse," d. Gen.
100 M. Malul has lamented the fact that prior to his own work no comprehensive study
had been made of the r.omplex subject of the legal symbolism of Mesopotamia (Studies in
Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, v). Because a similar deficiency exists with respect to
biblical practice, with a few notable exceptions such as P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenant, the reader's indulgence is asked as we build on these works and undertake a
methodical consideration of the specialized topic of biblical oath-signs (cf. M. Malul, op.
cit., 36).
Althopgh it appeared too late to be of benefit to the present work, see now the welcome
study of A. Viberg, Symbols of Law. A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the
Old Testament (1992).
101 While this definition covers the great majority of cases and, in particular, all
examples involving covenant making, to take full account of the evidence it is necessary to
acknowledge that some less solemn oaths could be sworn by the life of another individual,
generally the king (what Fensham terms "profane" as opposed to "sacred" oaths; cf. Gen.
42:15f.; 1 Sam. 17:55; 2 Sam. 11:11). This implies that the king or other individual, rather
than God (or in addition to God, as in 1 Sam. 20:3; 25:26; 2 Kgs. 2:2, 4, 6; 4:30; 15:21), is
invoked to examine and act against any perjury. For ancient Near Eastern parallels to oath-
taking by the life of the overlord, cf. the examples cited by P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenant, 87, n. 329 (although note that some biblical oaths are sworn by the life of an
equal, as in 2 Kgs. 2:2, 4, 6).
For a more adequate treatment of oaths, see the full-scale study of D.L. Magnetti, "The
Oath in the Old Testament in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal
Context of the Ancient Near East" (1969). Cf. also S.H. Blank, "The CUrse, Blasphemy,
the Spell, and the Oath" (1950-51) 73-95; H.e. Brichto, The Problem of "Curse" in the
Hebrew Bible (1963); AD. Crown, "Aposiopesis in the Old Testament and the Hebrew
Conditional Oath" (1963-64) 96-111; F.e. Fensham, "The Treaty Between Israel and the
Gibeonites" (1964) 96-100; F.e. Fensham, "Oath," ISBE Revised, III (1986) 572-574; M.
Greenberg, "The Hebrew Oath Particle, hay / he" (1957) 34-39; F. Horst, "Der Eid im AT"
(1957) 366-384; e.A Keller, "il71;1i 'ilia Verfluchung," THAT! (1984) 149-152; idem, "l)::ltD
sb' ni. schworen," THAT, II (1984) 855-863; M.G. K1ine,By Oath Consigned (1968); M.R.
Lehmann, "Biblical Oaths" (1969) 74-92; I. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten (1914);
M.H. Pope, "Oaths," IBD, III, 575-577; I.M. Price, "The Oath in Court Procedure in Early
Babylonia and the Old Testament" (1929) 22-29; H. Ringgren, "il:~, chtiytIh," TDOT, IV,
339-340; I. Scharbert, '''Fluchen' und 'Segnen' im Alten Testament" (1958) 1-26; idem,
"il71;1i 'Illah," TDOT, I, 261-266; M. Tsevat, "Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal
Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel" (1959) 199-204; M. Weinfeld, "The Loyalty Oath in the
Ancient Near East" (1976) 379-414; H.e. White, "The Divine Oath in Genesis" (1973) 165-
179; and J.A. Wilson, "The Oath in Ancient Egypt" (1948) 129-156.
102 For example, apart from explicit references employing the verb l)::ltD or the nouns
il-\,l::lt?i or il71;1i, oaths may be referred to by the mention of an accompanying rite (such as the
dividing of animals in Jer. 34:18ff.), or an accompanying gesture (such as the raising of the
hand in Exod. 6:8), or by the presence of a formula (with 'n, e.g., Judg. 8:19; or il?''5n, e.g.,
Gen. 44:7; or "]'01' il~1 ... iltl!l)' il~, e.g., 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Sam. 3:9,35;
19:14 [ET 13]; 1 Kgs. 2:23; 19:2; 20:10 [a pagan oath]; 2 Kgs. 6:31; Ruth 1:17), or by the
194 "COVENANT [11'i::1]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
24:41; Deut. 29:19 [ET 20]; 30:7; Isa. 24:6; Jer. 23:10; Ps. 10:7; 59:13) is
used in this manner serves to emphasize the hypothetical self-curse which
underlies biblical oaths - that is, if the oath should be broken, a curse will
come into effect.l03
use of certain grammatical constructions involving t:l~, particularly if stated before God (Ps.
137:5f.; 7:4ff.; Job 31:5ff.; etc.), or by the content of the oath itself spoken before God (e.g.,
Exod. 24:3; 2 Sam. 5:1). Cf. D.L. Magnetti, who employs such criteria to discover 127
oaths employed in non-legal and non-covenantal contexts within the OT ("The Oath in the
Old Testament," 147-193).
103 Cf. 1 Kgs. 8:31; Ezek. 16:59; 17:16, 18f.; Zech. 5:3; Job 31:30; Provo 29:24; 2
Chron. 6:22.
As D.L. Magnetti notes, "every oath contains at least an implicit self-curse" ("The Oath
in the Old Testament," 40). J. Scharbert similarly notes, "In translating the different forms
[of ii'?~l, one should always begin with the meaning, 'to pronounce a conditional curse'"
("ii,?~ 'altIh," TDOT, I 261).
104 E.g., cf. M.G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, passim.
105 G.E. Mendenhall, "Covenant," IDB, I, 714.
106 M.G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 41.
Cf. also the vivid oath rites enumerated in the Sefire Treaty, I A 35-42, as pointed out to
the author by A. Lemaire (A. Lemaire and J. M. Durand, Les inscriptions arameennes de
Sfire et l'Assyrie de Shamshi-Ilu (1984) 114ff.
107 This translation, followed by Kline, is offered by D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and
Covenant, 1st edition (1963) 195. For a more recent translation, cf. S. Parpola and K
Wlltllnllhp plio ~Tn~ ~ ",r;an TrPt1tip~ and rnvaltv Oaths (1988) 8ff.
"COVENANT [r1'"lJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 195
threatens that the shoulder of Mati'ilu, and his sons, etc., would similarly be
tom out if Mati'ilu sins against the treaty.
In view of this and many other similar examples, it is possible, with
D.J. McCarthy and others, that the prominence of such cutting oath-signs in
the ratification ceremony for covenants gave rise to the widespread
terminology of "cutting" a covenant as well as "cutting" a curse (Deut. 29:13
[ET 14]), etc., attested in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician texts, and the
cuneiform texts from Qatna.108 This example from the treaty of Ashurnirari
V and Mati'ilu is especially instructive in that it offers a clear instance of a
self-maledictory oath-sign which does not involve cutting, namely the
separation of the ram from its herd.
Likewise, the Old Testament provides numerous examples of both
cutting and non-cutting rites employed in connection with the swearing of
oaths and, more particularly, in the ratification of covenants. Unlike the
treaty of Ashurnirari V and Mati'ilu, however, the Bible is not always so
helpful in making explicit the precise symbolism of these acts. For this
reason, there is often room for doubt whether any individual covenant rite, for
example, the animal cutting ceremony recorded in Genesis 15, is necessarily
intended to depict such an oath. 109
108 D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 2nd ed. (1981) 91ff.; idem, Old Testament
Covenant,42. Cf. also W.F. Albright, "The Hebrew Expression for 'Making a Covenant' in
Pre-Israelite Documents" (1951), 21-22; D.R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament
Prophets (1964) 20, n. 27; M.G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (1968) 42; and KA. Kitchen,
"Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant" (1979) 453-464.
The Akkadian expression ~iiram qatiilum berit X u Y, "to kill an ass," which was
idiomatic at Mari for covenant making, offers additional conceptual support for the
prominence of a ratificatory oath-sign in covenant making. Cf. DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and
Covenant (1981) 91.
109 Cf. Jer. 34:18ff. In support of this widely held interpretation, cf., e.g., M.G. Kline,
By Oath Consigned, 16f., 42; E. Kutsch, "nl~ krt," THAT, I, 857-860; E. Speiser, Genesis,
112; E.B. Smick, "m~ (karat)," TWOT, I, 456-457; and L. Perl itt, Bundestheologie im Alten
Testament (1969) (who uses a comparison between Gen. 15:18ff. and Jeremiah 34, as well
as an 8th century treaty between Ashumirari V and Mati'ilu, the King of Arpad, as evidence
for a late dating for Gen. 15:18ff. - cf. the counter-argument by DJ. McCarthy, "berit in
Old Testament History and Theology," 115). Cf. also J. Ha, Genesis 15: A Theological
Compendium of Pentateuchal History (1989).
In further support, cf. Gen. 24:7, where Abraham himself refers to an otherwise
unrecorded oath on Yahweh's part, unless he intended a reference to the rite in Genesis 15.
G.F. Hasel ("The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15" [1981] 61-78) and GJ.
Wenham ("The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G.F. Hasel,
JSOT 19 (1981) 61-78" [1982] 134-137; idem, Genesis 1-15 [1987] 332-333), among
others, however, reject a comparison with Jeremiah 34 and ANESTP, 532. While these
scholars also reject an identification of the theophanic procession between divided animals
as a hypothetical self-malediction, this conclusion may not be necessary. Cf., e.g., DJ.
McCarthy, who rejects the traditional comparison of Genesis 15 with Jeremiah 34, but
nevertheless accepts an interpretation of Genesis 15 as a self-maledictory rite (Old
Testament Covenant [1972]60f.). Cf. also DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 91-
96,2,55, and idem, "ber!t in Old Testament History and Theology" (1985) 115f.
A. Viberg, on the other hand, accepts a comparison of Genesis 15 with Jeremiah 34,
and he allows that self-imprecation may have played a part in the formation of this act. He
denies, however, that this act symbolizes a (self-)malediction in these texts (Symbols ofLaw
[1992]52-69).
196 "COVENANT [n'i:l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
2.3 Oaths and oath-signs may invoke the deity to witness an attendant
declaration or promise without employing an explicit self-malediction. At
times they may only implicitly invoke the deity by a solemn declaration or
depiction of a commitment being undertaken
The obscurity and variety of the various gestures and acts attested in the Old
Testament in connection with oaths or covenant making, including the lifting
of the hand, placing hands under another's thigh, the exchange of gifts, the
exchange of clothes, shaking hands, eating common meals, the use of salt, oil,
etc., have led D.J. McCarthy and others to suggest that at times the
ratification of a covenant was accomplished by a rite rather than by an
oath.114 In this manner, for example, McCarthy attempts to distinguish the
covenant ratification in Exod. 24, accomplished by the rites of a common
110 For a fuller treatment of circumcision, cf. M.G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 39-49,
86-89. Cf. also E. Isaac, "Circumcision as Covenant Rite" (1964) 444-456. For an
alternative interpretation, c[ W.H. Propp, "The Origins of Infant Circumcision in Israel"
(198"7) 355-370.
111 M.G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 43: "In the cutting off of the foreskin the judgment
of excision from the covenant relationship was symbolized." Noting that circumcision was
performed on the organ of generation, Kline later supplements this interpretation of its
symbolism stating, "we may now add that the specific malediction expressed by the
symbolic action of circumcising the foreskin was the cutting off of the vassal's descendants
so as to leave him without heir or name in the kingdom" (op. cit., 87).
112 Ibid., 43ff.
113 Cf. also the figurative use of ?ill in Lev. 19:23-25. Cf. also the use of
"circumcision / uncircumcision" as descriptive of one's heart in Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16;
30:6; and Jer. 6:10; 9:24, 25 [ET 25,261.
114 So D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 254ff., 294, n. 39; idem, "Three
Covenants in Genesis," 179-89; idem, Old Testament Covenant, 41; and E.W. Nicholson,
God and His People, 69, 171.
"COVENANT [r1'iJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 197
meal, the sacrifice of peace offerings [O'o,?ili o'n:t\], and the manipulation of
blood, from the ratifying practice of oath swearing attested in the suzerainty
treaties. 1l5
Similarly, P. Kalluveettil has argued at length that while "covenant
generally implies oath"116 and "the oath is the most important factor"117 for
covenant making, it is also the case that "a covenant can be ratified by
pledged word or by rites,"118 which in many cases may not have an oath
function. 119 Kalluveettil is especially interested in demonstrating that a
"Declaration Formula," such as the solemn assertion of Israel to David at
Hebron that "we are your bone and flesh," by itself can effect a covenant
between parties. In support he notes that 2 Sam. 5:1-3 if 1 Chron. 11:1-3)
offers no mention of an accompanying oath.12o Hence, on McCarthy's and
Kalluveettil's view, an oath may not always be the sine qua non constitutive
element of covenant; on the contrary, other acts may well serve to ratify a
covenant.l 21
2.3.1 Not all rites connected with covenant making are oath-signs
It must be acknowledged that not all rites connected with oath taking or
covenant making are necessarily intended as oath-signs. For example, the
placing of one's hand "under the thigh ['~T nOD]" of another (i.e., on or near
the genitals) during an oath, as recorded in Gen. 24:2, 9 and 47:29, may well
be intended as an act of acknowledgement on the part of the subordinate
concerning his continuing obligation of fidelity to the progeny of his superior,
whose genitals are being touched. 122
(1970) 671-681; R.D. Freedman, '''Put Your Hand Under My Thigh' - The patriarchal
Oath" (1976) 3-4; D.G. Burke, "Gesture," ISBE Revised, II (1986) 451f.; A. Viberg,
Symbols of Law (1992) 45-5l.
123 Cf. Deut. 27:2ff. Cf. also Exod. 24:4; Josh. 4:20f.; 24:26f.; 1 Kgs. 18:31; Isa
19:19f.
124 Such a purpose is unsurprising based on non-covenantal contexts. Cf., e.g., Provo
19:6.
125 Cf., e.g., E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, 115-117; D.G. Burke, "Gift,"
ISBE Revised, II, 465-467; and G.A. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel
(198~ 57-75 (for a discussion of Ehud's gift of tribute to Eglon in Judges 3).
1 6 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 10-12, 29. P. Kalluveettil cites J.
Pedersen (Der Eid, 25, 49, 52; idem, Israel, 1-2, 296ff.) for evidence that "gift created
relationship and effected covenant among the ancient Semites and Hebrews" (op. cit., 10, n.
16.).
127 Declaration and Covenant, 10.
o 128 "It [i.e., Abimelech's reception of the lambs] will be a witness for me ['7-il~~D
iljll'?]" is preferable to the RSV, "you will be a witness for me." Cf., e.g., C. Westermann,
Genesis 12-36, 349.
129 This royal outfitting appears to be ironically prefigured in Saul's clothing of David
in 1 Sam. 17:38f. Cf. J. Morgenstern, "David and Jonathan" (1959) 322; T.N.D. Mettinger,
King and Messiah (1976) 39; D.K Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative (1978) 12; P.K
McCarter Jr., I Samuel, 305; R.W. Klein, 1 Samuel (1983) 182; and R.P. Gordon, 1&2
"COVENANT [tl'i::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 199
this appears to have been Saul's view of the substance of this covenant (cf. 1
Sam. 20:30ff.; 22:8). Accordingly, the purpose of such a gift would be, once
again, not to effect the covenant, but rather to constitute a public and
enduring evidence, a "witness" to Jonathan's commitment. In the nature of
the case, for such an abdication to be effective it was necessary for David to
have the sort of tangible evidence which the possession of these clothes and
weapons offered.130
2.3.2 In spite of their opacity to modern readers some rites may prove to be
self-maledictory oath-signs after all
With respect to covenant-making narratives which fail to mention a ratifying
oath or oath-sign, in most cases it is doubtful whether one may exclude the
possibility that the covenants in question were ratified by other umecorded
acts (oaths or oath-signs) or that the rites which are mentioned may be better
understood as oath-signs after all, in spite of their opacity to the modem
reader,131 As two examples of this latter option, one may consider the
frequently overlooked, but possible self-maledictory symbolism of salt (as in
Num. 18:19, Lev. 2:13, and 2 Chron. 13:5) and of oil (as in Hos. 12:2 [ET
12: 1]) when these appear in covenant contexts,132
Samuel (1986) 159. Cf. also the use of royal garments in RS 17.159:22-31 - cf. F.B.
Knutson, "Political and Foreign Affairs," RSP, 11,120-122.
130 Other texts likewise suggest an association between the donning of clothes and the
acquisition of throne rights (or inheritance rights) or, alternatively, between the removal of
clothes and the loss of throne rights (or inheritance rights). Cf. RSP, II, 122-215, where 1
Kgs. 11:30-31; Genesis 37 (the special garment of Joseph); Isa. 22:21; Num. 20:24-28; and
1 Kgs. 19:19-21 are discussed. Cf. also the fuller discussion below and in Chapter 7 on the
use of garments. Cf. also M. Malul, who discusses cuneiform texts which require the
removal/leaving of one's garment as an expression of disinherison (Studies in
Meso~otamian Legal Symbolism, 93ff.).
1 1 Frequently preferring to build his case on negative evidence P. Kalluveettil seems to
overlook the option that there may have been a ratifying oath or oath-sign which the
narrator did not bother to record. For example, at times Kalluveettil attaches special
significance to the observation that an oath is not mentioned in a particular account. Cf.,
e.g., "the fact that oath does not appear in 2 Kg 1O,15f. and Lam 5,6 deserves special
attention" (Declaration and Covenant, 26). Cf. also p. 91, n. 357. At other points,
Kalluveettil's observation that a particular covenant lacks a ratifying oath applies only to
one source-critical strand of the account. E.g., P. Kalluveettil notes that according to the J
account there was no oath in the Abimelech-Abraham covenant, although an oath is
mentioned three times in verses frequently assigned to E, i.e., Gen. 21:23, 24, 31 (op. cit.,
10). Cf. ibid., 29.
E. Gerstenberger appears to have a similar objection in mind when he suggests that
McCarthy fails to take into consideration that in the OT we do not have "drafts of treaties,
but, at best, narratives and sermons about covenants.... [McCarthy's] distinction of 'ritual'
and 'verbal' treaty form (162f., 176) may be a direct result from this oversight" ("Review of
Trea~ and Covenant" [1964]199).
1 2 In support of the possible self-maledictory symbolism of salt, cf. F.C. Fensham,
"Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East" (1962) 48-50; and DJ.
McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 42. Cf. also J.F. Ross, "Salt," IDB, IV, 167; PJ.
Naylor, "The Language of Covenant," 200; and D. Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis (1984)
63f., who also cites H.C. Trumbull, The Covenant of Salt (1899).
200 "COVENANT [n'i::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
2.3.3 Other covenant-making rites may be oath-signs, but they need not be
overtly self-maledictory
Perhaps the most telling objection against McCarthy's and Kalluveettil's
understanding of oaths is their implied assumption that oaths and oath-signs
must be overtly self-maledictory.133 To be sure, oaths are at times explicitly
self-maledictory; as we have seen, oath-signs frequently share this same
characteristic, but not all do so.1 34
For alternative views of the symbolism of salt, cf. P.J. Budd, Numbers, 206; G.J.
Wenham, Numbers, 144; M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 378; and
especially J.E. Latham, The Religious Symbolism of Salt (1982).
In support of the self-maledictory symbolism of oil, cf. DJ. McCarthy, "Hosea XII 2:
Covenant by Oil" (1964) 215-21; K. Deller, "smn bll (Hosea 12,2). Additional Evidence"
(1965) 349-52; K.R. Veenhof, review of E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten
Testament und im alten Orient (1966) 308-13; DJ. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant,
41f., n. 2; idem, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 119, n. 46; P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenan~ 14, n. 34; and D. Stuart, Hosea -Jonah (1987) 189f. Cf. also lines 622ff. of the
Vassal-Treaty of Esarhaddon with Ramataya inANET, 540; and Ps. 109: 18.
An alternative view (perhaps involving an altogether different use of oil) is posited by
M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 161, 176.
133 This assumption may have been influenced by the use of :1'?t;\ (literally "curse") for
"oath." As J. Scharbert notes, "In translating the different forms [of :1,?~), one should
always begin with the meaning, 'to pronounce a conditional curse'" (":1'?t;\ 'lilah," TDOT, I,
261).
Further strengthening this identification, one may note the uses of curse [:1'?t;\) and oath
[:1-tJ1::ltliJ in close proximity in Num. 5:21; Neh. 10:29 [ET 28); and Dan. 9:11.
13 The full unexpurgated oath with an elaboration of curses is found in Num. 5:19-28;
Ps. 7:4-5; 137:5-6; Job 31:5, 7-8; 31:9-10; 31:16-17,19-22. Cf. Deut. 21:1-9.
135 For further examples, cf. 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22 (cf. S.R. Driver, Notes
on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, 199, for proposed emendation); 2 Sam. 3:9, 35; 19:14 [ET
13); 1 Kgs. 2:23; 2 Kgs. 6:31; Ruth 1:17; and Jer. 42:5. Compare 1 Kgs. 19:2 and 20:10,
where the same formula in the plural is used by lezebel and Ben-hadad with reference to
their pagan deities: "So may the gods do to me, and more also .... " Cf. D.L. Magnetti, "The
Oath in the Old Testament," 200f.; and G.M. Tucker, "Covenant Forms and Contract
Forms," 491.
"COVENANT [n'iJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 201
importance of words when uttered in God's presence: Judg. 11:11, " ... and
Jephthah spoke all his words before the LORD at Mizpah."141 Compare also
1 Kgs. 8:31f.; 2 Chron. 6:22f.; JeT. 34:15; and Hos. 4:15.1 42 Of course, the
point of this stress in the biblical record on how particular oaths were made in
various sanctuaries is just a reflection of the more pervasive concern to have
God be a witness to one's oath.143
For example, as we noted in the previous chapter, the third person
reference in Gen. 2:23, with God's presence asserted in the immediate
context, implies that Adam was addressing his affirmation not to Eve, nor,
presumably to himself but to God as witness when he said, "This at last is
bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh ... ['J~J~ 1~91 'O~P9 O~J), OP~il n~!]."
Indeed, as in Gen. 2:23, verba solemnia are frequently though not exclusively
couched in the third person with the apparent implication that they are being
stated before God as witness.1 44 Compare also the affirmation of the men of
Shechem concerning Abimelech, "he is our brother" (Judg. 9:3).145
Alternatively, an example of verba solemnia couched in the second
person is offered in 2 Sam. 5:2f., where the context makes plain their function
as part of a covenantal commitment made "before the LORD": "Then all the
tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and said, 'Behold, we are your bone
and flesh .... ' So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King
important covenant elements, but destined to fulfil different functions. Oath has
stipulations as its object, one swears to the observance of the covenant terms.... The DF is
concerned with the covenant union; it serves to affirm and effect the relationship."
This distinction, however, may be more a product of modem scholarship than ancient
reality since, as Kalluveettil acknowledges, often the declaration formulae constitute the
content of the oath (op. cit., 212, n. 9; cf. also 93f.).
141 Cf. R.G. Boling, Judges, 199; and P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 33f.
142 The sanctuaries at Gilgal and Beth-aven were places where oaths were administered
- cf. M.H. Pope, "Oaths," 576.
143 The emphasis on God as a divine witness to oaths and covenants is manifest in Gen.
31:50; Josh. 24:22, 27; 1 Sam. 12:5; 20:23 [if MT 1ll is to be emended to ,ll); Jer. 42:5;
Gen. 31:49 (where God is to watch); and Gen. 31:53 (where God is to judge). Cf. 1 Sam.
20:42; and Judg. 11:10. Cf. also Ezekiel 17, where God determines to punish Zedekiah for
breaking "my covenant" and "despising" "my oath," although in fact it was a covenant
imposed on Zedekiah by the Babylonian overlord,
144 In the case of Gen. 2:23, the absence of any human witnesses to these verba
solemnia, such as the elders of the city, other family members, etc., helps to clarify God's
role as witness.
In terms of ancient Near Eastern parallels, cf. the use of the third person in the
formulae: "this is our king" (cf. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 94, n. 5; p. 107);
"he is the king" (op. cit., 107); "this is my brother" (op. cit., 105); and especially "she is my
wife" [assiti SIt] in MAL A 41 (also cf. op. cit., 111).
Note that in a NB letter, ABL 280, r. 3, Belibni reports to king Ashurbanipal how the
leaders of two cities surrendered to Mushezi-Marduk: "They took the oath of loyalty to
Mushezib-Marduk declaring: we are vassals of the king of Assyria" (P. Kalluveettil,
Declaration and Covenant, 93). This is a clear example of a declaration formula, identified
as the content of their oath (even though it lacks any self-malediction).
For second person formulae, cf. Gen. 29:14; 2 Sam. 5:2f.; and "our life is yours" (P.
Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 87).
145 Cf. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 209ff. Cf. also 1 Kgs. 20:32.
"COVENANT [n'i::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 203
David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they
anointed David king over Israel."
146 DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 253. So also D.L. Magnetti, "The Oath
in the Old Testament," 128. While McCarthy makes this concession, his analysis of the
Sinai covenant as a ritual covenant, rather than a verbal covenant in the tradition of the
ancient Near Eastern treaties, requires him to reassert a fundamental difference between
what is "the equivalent of an oath" and what is actually an oath. "The ritual is a familial
thing and not the terrorizing acted out oaths of some treaty rituals" (op. cit., 276). This
difference, however, is not altogether convincing in the face of McCarthy's
acknowledgment that the oath-bound treaties similarly effected a familial union between the
covenant partners. Cf. the similar point made by M.G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical
Authority, 2nd ed., 116.
147 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 157.
148 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 61. Though the text does not identify
this as a covenant, Kalluveettil is convinced that the reality was there.
Cf. also Kalluveettil's earlier discussion where he calls Laban's words in the Eversion
of his covenant with Jacob (Gen. 31:45,49,50, 53b, 54) "analogous to an oath formula, vv.
49 and SOb" (op. cit., 11).
204 "COVENANT [t1'i:]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
of a drohritus, that is, an acted-out conditional curse, not all oath-signs are so
explicitly self-maledictory. For example, perhaps the most common
symbolic action in connection with swearing is that of raising the hand (~(!)~ +
1'; O'iil + 1'; O'iil + i~'IY [+ i?~O(!)]). Specifically, when used of oaths ~(!)~ +
1', "lift a hand," refers exclusively to oaths taken by God: Exod. 6:8; Num.
14:30; Deut. 32:40; Ezek. 20:5 (his), 6, 15, 23, 28, 42; 36:7; 44:12; 47:14;
Neh. 9: 15; and Ps. 106:26. On the contrary, the related expression O'iil + 1',
"raise a hand," appears as an oath-accompanying gesture on the part of
Abraham in Gen. 14:22, while the expression O'iil + i~'O' + i?~O(!), "raise his
right hand and his left hand," appears as a gesture of swearing on the part of
an angel in Dan. 12:7.1 49
Although there is little doubt that the upraised hand is intended as a
symbol of swearing in the texts which have been mentioned, as with many
symbolic acts, the same gesture may bear a different significance when found
in a different context (cf., e.g., Exod. 17: 11). Furthermore, it is possible that
this gesture assumed different meanings over time or that it was so
stereotypically associated with oaths that its precise meaning was lost sight
of.15o Nevertheless, without excluding other possibilities, it seems most
probable that in oath contexts the upraised hand represents an appeal to the
deity to act as a witness against any peIjury or infidelity.151 Supporting this
interpretation, it may be noted that in certain non-oath contexts the raising of
the hand(s) also seems to symbolize an appeal to the deity, functioning as a
gesture of supplication (e.g., cf. ~(!)~ + 0'1', "lift hands," in Ps. 28:2; 134:2;
and Hab. 3:10; ~(!)~ + :op, "lift a palm," in Ps. 63:5 [ET 4]; 119:48; and Lam.
2:19; and 0'1il + 1', "raise a hand," in Exod. 17:11).152 If this is the proper
interpretation of "raising the hand," then this gesture is only implicitly self-
maledictory and, as such, appears to be a symbolic equivalent of the widely-
attested oath formula, "as the Lord lives."153
149 Cf. also Isa. 62:8. For a plalJsible explanation for the interesting distribution of
these three closely related idioms, cf. A. Viberg, Symbols of Law (1992) 19-31. For a more
extensive discussion of the various expressions for upraised hands and their Akkadian
equivalents, cf. M.1. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient East
(198~ 22-89.
10M. Malul warns about a further possibility with respect to Mesopotamian legal
symbolic acts: what may seem like a performable gesture is in fact merely a graphic figure
of speech, much like the English expression "to pull one's leg" (Studies in Mesopotamian
Legal Symbolism, 19,23-27). In the present case this seems unlikely because of the use of
varied phraseology (an important indicator according to Malul, op. cit., 25) and especially
because of the abundant iconographic evidence of actual performance to be adduced below.
Naturally, when applied to the deity, this gesture is being attributed as a vivid
anthropomorphism.
15 So, e.g., S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy, 379; and I.A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, 303.
152 It is possible that this gesture of supplication in turn derived from the use of raising
hands as a hailing or greeting gesture. Cf. the use of ~l + l' in Isa. 49:22. Cf. also Keel
#414 and Keel's discussion on p. 311.
153 Alternatively, even if the oath-sign of the upraised hand symbolizes an incomplete
self-malediction (cf. the frequent use of upraised hands in non-oath contexts as a sign of
surrender as in Keel ##15, 25, 39, 40, 63, etc.), implying the hypothetical surrender of
oneself to the deity to do with the swearer as he pleases if there is any perjury or infidelity,
nevertheless, it does not constitute a drohritus.
"COVENANT [r1'lJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 205
154 Cf., e.g., Gen. 26:30; 31:46-54; Josh. 9:14; Exod. 18:12; Ps. 23:5; 41:10 [ET 9];
69:23 [22]; 1 Kgs. 1:9,25; 1 Chron. 12:39f.; 29:22; and 2 Chron. 18:2. For extra-biblical
examples, cf., e.g., EA 162, 22f. (= AL, p. 249); and DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant
(1981) 254, n. 19.
Cf. also E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstiimme (1906) 558 n. 1; J.-. Kohler,
"Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament" (1956) 4-7; and A. Viberg,
Symbols ofLaw (1992) 70-76.
155 Cf. P. Farb, Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating (1980), cited
approvingly by M. Malul (Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 377f.) in support of
the general importance of shared meals throughout history as a means of securing comity.
Focusing on biblical and ancient Near Eastern practice, cf., e.g., W.T. McCree, "The
Covenant Meal in the Old Testament" (1926) 120-128; J.F. Ross, "Meal," IDB, 3, 315-318;
DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 254, n. 19; P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenant, 11, 12f., 118; and M. Malul, op. cit., 176,346,353,356,376-378.
206 "COVENANT [r1'iJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
156 Thus the biblical record mentions common meals which were held to celebrate,
inter alia, a birthday (Gen. 40:20), the day when a child is weaned (Gen. 21:8), the
conclusion of sheep shearing (1 Sam. 25:4-13; 2 Sam. 13:23f.), the conclusion of the grape
harvest (Judg. 9:27), the conclusion of a temple building project (2 Chron. 7:8; 30:23), and,
with special significance for the present thesis, the conclusion of marriage negotiations
(Gen. 24:33, 54) and a wedding (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:10). Cf. also Gen. 31:27f. For
Jewish practice beyond the OT, cf. Tob. 8:19f.; 10:7ff.; 2 Esdr. 9:47; Matt 22:2; John 2;
and m. Seb. 7:4.
Related to this sense of conviviality and gratitude for one's well-being, a number of
texts imply an expectation that such festive meals would be shared often with neighbours
and persons who were less fortunate. Cf., e.g., Exod. 12:4; Deut. 12:12, 18; 1 Sam. 30:24;
2 Kl!s. 7:9; Esth. 1:3,5,9; and Job 31:16f.
57 Cf. SJ. DeVries, I Kings (1985) 53. The fact that this feast was not one which was
shared between the covenanting parties (the covenant was between Yahweh and Solomon,
not Solomon and his servants) makes clear that this feast functioned in a celebratory
manner, rather than as an oath-sign.
158 Cf. also Isa. 55:2f. Alternatively, the meal in 1 Chron. 29:22 may be part of a
covenant-ratifying ceremony presided over by David and designed to establish Solomon as
king.
159 Cf., for example, the protest of the Judahites against the men of Israel, "Because the
king is near of kin to us. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we eaten at all at
the king's expense? Or has he given us any gift?" (2 Sam. 19:43 [ET 42])
160 Cf. Isa. 11:7. Cf. also Ps. 23:5. While the traditional view that Ps. 23:5 alludes to
food on a common table (perhaps from a sacrifice in view of the implied temple setting in
vs. 6) remains probable, it is possible that one should read this text in the light of ANEP,
#608 (= Keel # 122, 96, cf. discussion on 95f.), which also appears to have a temple setting.
If so, there were covenant documents on the table, rather than food.
"COVENANT [["1'1:1]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 207
161 Perhaps similar in its romantic associations is the mention of how Tamar prepared
and then fed Amnon "heart-shaped cakes" [ni:J:l'?] in 2 Sam. 13:6,8, 10.
The obligation to extend hospitality to strangers may be compared here, although some
texts make clear that in such contexts it was not always necessary to eat together. Cf. Gen.
18:5, 8 (where the men ate while Abraham stood by) and Judg. 13:15ff. (this is an important
text since the substitution of a burnt offering in this theophanic context implies an
equivalence between burnt offerings shared with God and common meals shared with
mortals). Cf. also Gen. 19:3; 43:32; Judg. 19:4,8, 19,21.
For examples where the king shows his munificence and personal favour by invitations
to share in a common meal, cf. 2 Sam. 9:7-13; 19:29,43 [ET 28,42]; 1 Kgs. 2:7; 18:19; and
Esth.5:12. Cf. also Judg. 1:7; and 2 Kgs. 25:27-30.
162 This point is made by D.I. McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant [1981] 253ff., 266, 276)
and P. Kalluveettil (Declaration and Covenant, 11: "Indeed they become kinsmen, since
only kinsmen eat together"), inter alios.
163 In some contexts, particularly where sacrifices are included with their symbolism of
the deity figuratively sharing in the table fellowship (cf. Judg. 13:15ff.), such meals express
simultaneously a renewed commitment to the deity. Cf. S.R. Driver, Genesis, 289.
164 Cf. ANET, 536, as noted by M.G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (1975)
117, n. 8. Cf. also D.I. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (1958) 84; R. Borger,
"Zu den Asarhaddon Vertriigen aus Nimrud" (1961) 173-196; and S. Parpola and K.
Watanabe,Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (1988) 35.
For another example, cf. EA 162 (= AL, p. 249).
165 On the complex source-critical issues raised by Gen. 31:43-54, cf., e.g., D.I.
McCarthy, "Three Covenants in Genesis" (1964) 179-189; and, offering a different
analysis, C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 490, 498ff.
It appears that the heap (and perhaps the pillar) was intended as a symbol of the deity,
who is identified as a witness to the covenant, 1~':l1 ',l':J. ',1' C1'~?~ (Gen. 31:50), by Laban,
employing the same terms as he uses of the heap in vs. 48: C1i;iJ ~l':l1 ',l':J. '1' i1,tjJ '?h It is
this context and symbolism which make particularly significant the fact that "they ate there
208 "COVENANT [r1'1::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
by the heap~ (Gen. 31 :46). The arrangement of pillar and heap, if original to the text, may
recall an earlier dual representation of the deity in the "smoking fire pot and a flaming
torch" in Genesis 15 and may have been intended to replicate the twofold pillar of God's
presence in oath posture (Exod. 13:21, etc.; cf. 1 Kgs. 7:21). Cf. M.M. Kline, "The Holy
Spirit as Covenant Witness" (1972).
166 Cf. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 12f., who also cites D.1. McCarthy,
"BTU and Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History," 80f.; W.T. McCree, "The Covenant
Meal in the Old Testament," 126f.; A. Malamat, "Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite
Monarchy," BAR III, 164f.; and T.C. Vriezen, "The Exegesis of Exodus 24:9-11," 112 (op.
cit., 13, n. 26). R. Smend, however, denies a covenant implication for this meal ("Essen
und Trinken - ein Stiick Weltlichkeit des AT," 456).
167 For Exod. 18:12, cf. A. Cody, "Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites"
(1968) 153-166. For Josh. 9:14, cf. F.C. Fensham, "The Treaty Between Israel and the
Gibeonites" (1964) 96-100; J.M. Grintz, "The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites~ (1966)
113-126; D.1. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 43; and P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenant, 116f.
168 D.1. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 254, n. 19, referring to events recorded
in C.M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta (1888).
169 In terms of modern sensibilities, by which we prefer to dissociate the slaughter of
animals from our subsequent dining by the services of a butcher, any such symbolism may
appear far-fetched. In antiquity, however, the connection between slaughter / sacrifice and
eating was patently closer and in covenant-making contexts, as we have seen, frequently
explicit. Cf. W.W. Hallo, "The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from
Mes0,fc0tamia and Israel" (1987) 3-13.
1 0 Some scholars would prefer to stress how the sacrificial blood is a symbol of life
rather than threat of death. Cf. D.1. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 255, 294f. It is
not obvious that these alternatives are mutually exclusive.
"COVENANT [r1'iJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 209
171 Perhaps an even closer parallel is afforded by the New Testament Eucharist,
referred to by Pliny the Younger in his letter to Trajan: "[Christians] come together to bind
themselves by an oath." Paul's threat that whoever eats and drinks unworthily will "eat and
drink judgment upon himself' (1 Cor. 11:27ff.) supports a self-maledictory symbolism
underlying the Lord's Supper (our infidelity deserves the same dreadful curse which
overtook Christ, whose death is symbolized in the elements). At the same time, Paul
affirms a more positive symbolism entailed in the communal nature of this meal: "Because
there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1
Cor. 10:17). In the following verse Paul invites a comparison between the symbolism of
the Lord's Supper and OT sacrifices similar to that being presently suggested: "Consider
the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" (1 Cor.
10:18)
Cf., e.g., G.E. Mendenhall, who relates the cup of the New Covenant to OT concepts of
oath and curse ("Covenant," 722). Cf. also C. F.D. Moule, "The Judgment Theme in the
Sacraments," 464-481; A.R. Millard, "Covenant and Communion in First Corinthians,"
242-248; and M.G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 80f. For a similar approach to Passover, cf.
K. van der Toorn, "Ordeal Procedures in the Psalms and the Passover Meal" (1988) 427-
445.
172 Cf. The Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon with Ramataya, ANET, 538, lines 425ff.,
where the curse is that Ninurta would "give your flesh to eagles and vultures to feed upon,"
and lines 440ff., where Adad is asked to bring such famine that you would eat your own
children, and, rather than grinding barley, "they [your enemies?] grind your bones" and the
bones of "your sons and daughters."
173 Cf. also Num. 26:10; Deut. 11:6; Ps. 69:16 [ET 15]; Isa. 5:14; 9:12; 34:6-7; JeT.
46:101 20-21; 50:6f.; Ezek. 34:28; Dan. 7:5; and Amos 3:12.
1 4 ANET, 539f., lines 551ff.
210 "COVENANT [rl'iJ]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
175 Cf. M. Fishbane, "Accusations of Adultery, A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in
Numbers 5:11-31" (1974) 24-45; H.C. Brichto, "The Case of the SOfa and a
Reconsideration of Biblical 'Law'" (1975) 55-70; GJ. Wenham, Numbers (1981) 79-85;
P.I. Budd, Numbers (1984) 60-67; and T. Frymer-Kensky, "The Strange Case of the
Suspected Sotah (Numbers v 11-31)" (1984) 11-26.
Cf. also Isa. 51:17, 22; Zech. 12:2; and Hab. 2:15.
176 M.G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical A uthority (1975) 116f.
177 Alternatively, noting that "eating and drinking in the presence of God cannot be
understood as ipso facto the making of a covenant with God," E. Nicholson has urged that
the meal in Exod. 24:11 need not be covenant making in any sense (God and His People
[1986]126). Cf. also idem., "The Origin of the Tradition in Exodus XXIV 9-11" (1976)
148-160; and idem., God and His People, 121-133, 164-178.
Nicholson prefers to view this meal as an expression of their enjoyment of life or the
simple fact that they continued to live after their visio dei. In support of this interpretation
of "eat and drink," Nicholson cites 1 Kgs. 4:20, Ier. 22:15, and Eccl. 5:16. Unlike the case
of Exodus 24, however, none of these texts implies that the eating and drinking in question
was of a shared meal nor that the meal was consumed in the presence of God. Furthermore,
Nicholson's claim that Exod. 24:11 offers an instance of parallelismus membrorum, where
"they saw God" is balanced with "they ate and drank," is unconvincing (God and His
People, 131).
"COVENANT [rI''lJ]'' AND "OATH" DEFINED 211
covenant concept in Israel's religion, we may note that in the present form of
the text, the common meal in vs. 11 appears to presuppose the earlier
sacrifices of vs. 5. Further, the text is explicit that this meal was eaten by
Israel's representatives (Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel) in the
presence of their God. As has been widely recognized, the confluence of
these details closely parallels the common meal before God in Exod. 18: 12
and, as such, may support their coherence in the present context,178
Following Israel's solemn affirmation, "all that the Lord has spoken we will
do, and we will be obedient," the meal in Exod. 24:11 appears to serve in the
ratification of Yahweh's covenant with Israel. Whether it is preferable to
view the underlying symbolism of this oath-sign exclusively in terms of its
positive depiction of communion between Israel and Yahweh, as does D.J.
McCarthy, or whether there may also be a self-maledictory aspect for this
meal and its antecedent sacrifices is less clear,179
178 Further support may be offered by the frequent association elsewhere of a common
meal shared in a covenant-making context accompanied by antecedent sacrifices (e.g., cf.
Gen. 31:54, where the parties tarry on the mountain in a manner which resembles Exodus
24; 1 Kgs. 1:9,25; 1 Chron. 29:22; 2 Chron. 18:2).
179 D.l. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 294, n. 34. Alternatively, cf., e.g.,
M.G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 18; idem, Treaty of the Great King, 15f.
It is possible that McCarthy's analysis of Exodus 24 was influenced by the view of
earlier scholars who hypothesized an evolution from covenant ratification through symbolic
ritual, supposed to be a characteristic feature of second millennium treaties, to ratification
by verbal oaths, supposed to be a characteristic feature of first millennium treaties (cf. I.J.
Gelb, "Review of DJ. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," 161-162; M.
Weinfeld, "Deuteronomy - The Present State of Inquiry," 225, n. 34). This supposed
evolution has been rejected by more recent scholars. Cf., e.g., D.L. Magnetti, who argues
that oath and ritual are, in fact, integrally connected in the earlier treaties, while rituals,
even if less elaborate ones, continue to accompany oaths in the later treaties ("The Oath in
the Old Testament," 106, n. 59).
180 In support of the covenant-making associations of this gesture in these texts, cf.,
e.g., J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel (1969) 106; D. Hillers, Lamentations (1972) 98; J.M. Myers, 2
Chronicles (1979) 175 (who cites in support, R. Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im
Alten Testament, 47; and J. Wellhausen, Reste artibischen Heidentums, 186); F.e. Fensham,
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (1982) 143; R.L. Br~un, 1 Chronicles (1986) 285; and M.
Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (1988) 115. Cf. also A. Viberg, Symbols of Law (1992) 33-
44.
181 So Keel, p. 96. The ancient Near Eastern iconographic evidence supports the
assumption here that it was the right hand which was used for shaking hands (cf., e.g., Keel
#123,96.).
212 "COVENANT [tl'i::l]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
biblical texts and in ancient Near Eastern iconography which support the
biblical evidence for the use of this gesture as a pact or covenant-making
rite.1 82
The biblical text perhaps clearest in its association between the gesture
of giving the hand and covenant making, is Ezek. 17: 18: "Because he
despised the oath and broke the covenant [tl'J:l iliJ'? i1l~ i1.!~1), because he
gave his hand and yet did all these things [i1~W i1'~-'?~' i1; 1m i1~i1'], he shall
not escape [~7.9' ~7]" (Ezek. 17: 18 RSV). Kalluveettil writes with respect to
this example, "There are two covenant-making acts in Ez 17,11-21: an oath
(v. 13 wayyabe' '610 be'ala) sworn in the name of God (2 Chr 36,13) and the
rite of natan yad (v. 18) which was not merely a gesture of assent to the
covenant terms, but a sign which effected the covenant relationship."183
Kalluveettil offers the plausible suggestion that "the hand stands for the
person"; as such, giving one's hand to another symbolizes the giving of
oneself. 184
As mentioned earlier, however, Kalluveettil wishes to distinguish
between rites or actions which "effect" or "constitute the covenant
relationship, i.e., union" and any oath which merely makes the covenant
binding and "gives it a sacred and inviolable character."185 In the present
case, as elsewhere, this distinction is not entirely convincing because there is
no suggestion in vs. 18 that Yahweh considers the commitment symbolized in
Some scholars suggest that the gesture of "giving a hand" is the same as "striking
hands" (Dpn + C1'El:l / I'l / "?), particularly as found in Provo 6:1; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; and
Job 17:3. This is the view, for example, of Keel, p. 96; and C.H. Toy, Proverbs, 120.
Against this, however, cf. Ps. 47:2 [ET 1] and Nah. 3:19, which suggest that "striking
hands" consisted of clapping one's own hands (less probably of slapping the other person's
hand~ but not of a handshake [ =i1:li1 + C1'El:l, cf., e.g., 2 Kgs. 11: 12].
1 ~ The Akkadian expressions leqiim + qiitatim ("take hands"), nasalJum + qiitatim
("remove hands"), and sabiitum + qatiitim ("seize hands") all have to do with the
assumption or repeal of suretyship and do not appear to be related to the handshake being
considered here (cf. M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 219-231).
On the contrary, the less well attested nadiinu + qatu ("give the hand"), discussed by
Kalluveettil, does appear to describe a similar gesture, possibly with similar significance, as
does its Hebrew cognate, 1nJ +', (Declaration and Covenant, 2lf.).
Kalluveettil also mentions a related Egyptian idiom, which appears in the Instruction of
the Pharaoh Amenem-Het, "It was the eater of my food that made insurrection, I gave to
him my two hands (rai'.n.i' n.f 'wy.i') and he produced terror" (op. cit., 22, n. 25).
Kalluveettil suggests that the giving of hands "seems to be used here metonymically for the
covenant-making itself." Cf. F.L. Griffith, "The Millingen Papyrus" (1896) 35-51. a. also
Keel #123, 96.
183 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 14.
184 Ibid., 21, based on the gesture of "striking the hand," as in Provo 6:1; 11:15; 17:18;
Job 17:3 (cf. Provo 22:26).
M. Malul prefers to interpret the hand as emblematic of a person's power (Studies in
Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 221, 225, and passim). This interpretation is reasonable
in the contexts of concern to Malul, for example, in the expression ana qiitati(m)
nadiinu(m), "to give into the hands" (op. cit., 220), but in other contexts the hand appears to
represent the person as a whole on the principle of pars pro toto. For example, compare the
symbolism of washing one's hands to represent the cleansing of the whole person in Lev.
5:11 and Job 9:30 (cf. 2 Sam. 22:21; Deut. 21:6-7; Ps. 73:13).
185 Ibid., 10, with reference to the Abimelech - Abraham covenant.
"COVENANT [r1'i:J]" AND "OATH" DEFINED 213
186 Cf. OJ. McCarthy, "The Uses ofwehinneh in Biblical Hebrew," 336f.
187 This seems preferable to the rendering of M. Greenberg, who takes the i1lm clause
as concessive and parenthetical (Ezekiel 1-20, 308). Greenberg translates: "He flouted the
curse-oath to violate the covenant - although he gave his hand to it yet he did all these
thin~s! - he shall not escape!"
88 Further confirmation for this suggestion may be offered if vs. 18 is read in the light
of the literary structure of its context. As analyzed by M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 17 reveals a
chiastic structure, A-B-B'-A', with each end member consisting of an extended allegory
(Ezekiel 1-20, 317-324). The first allegory (vss. 1-10) begins by describing an eagle who
lops off the top of a cedar and later plants it, but the planting turns to another great eagle
who transplants it. In this figure Ezekiel considers the activities of Nebuchadnezzar and
Pharaoh Psammetichus II, the two eagles, with respect to Nebuchadnezzar's rebellious
vassal, Zedekiah. The clOSing allegory (22-24) opens similarly, but rather than speaking of
an eagle (representing a merely human agent), it speaks directly of Yahweh, who personally
lops off the top of the cedar and later himself plants and cultivates it. In this manner the
prophet represents the promised restoration of his people. The change in focus from human
agents to Yahweh evident in the allegories is likewise reflected in the two central
interpretative sections. While the first B section (vss. 11-18) considers the role of
Nebuchadnezzar and Psammetichus II, the second B section (vss. 9-21) attributes the
impending judgment of Judah exclusively to Yahweh.
In terms of this structure, coming at the end of its section, vs. 18 summarizes
Zedekiah's crime (12-15) and threatened punishment (16-17) and repeats key terms which
appear in the rhetorical question of vs. 15 and its answer in vs. 16:
i1?t;\ i1,91 (vs. 18a),f ir1?):Ii-n~ 'i1!~ (vs. 16; cf. i1?t;\~ 'inili ~;=l:1 in vs. 13)
n'J:J ifJ~? (vs. 18b),f n'J:J ifJi11 (vs. 15) il}'i:J-nt:\ i~0 (vs. 16; cf. n'J:J it'1~ n")J'l in vs.
13) .
i1~-I' i1'~-":t1 (vs. 18c),f i1'~ i1iPSl~ (vs. 15)
~7~' ~'? (vs: 18d),f~?9~1 ... '~"~'0 (vs. 15)
As a summary verse, so closely related to what precedes (particularly vss. 15-16), one
should expect to find an appropriate antecedent for the gesture of "giving his hand"
mentioned in vs. 18b which makes Zedekiah's perfidy so reprehensible and the judgment
against him consequently inescapable. On the present interpretation that gesture was
understood as the oath(-sign) by which Zedekiah became Nebuchadnezzar's vassal.
189 Ezekiel 1-20, 315.
214 "COVENANT [r1'i:J]" AND "OATH" DEFINED
3. SUMMARY
Given that no Old Testament text expressly stipulates the use of declaration
formulae in marriage, it is, of course, impossible to be certain that any such
formulae accompanied or were expected to accompany Israelite marriages.
Nevertheless, there are a number of arguments which in their cumulative
weight rencler it highly probable that verba so/emnia were in fact normally
employed in Israelite marriage. We shall consider each of these arguments in
turn, beginning with the extra-biblical comparative evidence first from
ancient Near Eastern texts preceding or contemporary with the Old Testament
and then from Jewish texts later than the Old Testament. Finally, we shall
consider evidence within the Old Testament itself.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 217
Sin-nada shall not say to Abu-tabum, 'you are my husband [muti atta)," (Ins.
19-24).
If "you are my husband" were understood as referring to the verba
sofemnia of marriage, this text would prevent Sin-nada from marrying Abu-
~abum against his will and in spite of the dissolution of their previous
relationship. 6 Any such concern seems doubtful. Accordingly, the prohibited
declaration, "you are my husband," must be understood as some kind of
formal legal claim on the part of the woman that her marriage (or perhaps her
inchoate marriage) still exists. Nevertheless, Greengus suggests that the
wife's prohibited words "could be patterned after the marriage formulas: la
mutY atta or atta fa mutfma."7
Objecting to Greengus' suggestion, R. Westbrook notes that the
present formula bears an "entirely different" function from that required for
the verba solemnia of marriage and therefore denies any necessary
resemblance between this declaration and that which is posited for marriage. 8
In response to Westbrook, however, perhaps an "entirely [italics added]
different" function overstates the case. The primary legal function of the
posited verha sofemnia is, to be sure, the formation of a marriage.
Nevertheless, a declaration such as "you are my husband," which formally
asserts the existence of a relationship, is not so far from the solemn
acknowledgement of a relationship, that is, a "Bundesformel," which canies
with it implications of consent and commitment. With Westbrook, however,
it appears likely that the hypothesized formulae, fa mutT atta or attit hi
mutuna, "surely you are my husband,"9 fail to take sufficient account of the
differing contexts of these legal declarations. If, however, the posited reflex
for the wife's formal claim, "you are my husband," is the husband's prior
verba solemnia, "1 am your husband lO [la anclku mutka]," then Westbrook's
objection is answered.
rather than discourse from the marriage itself, their value as evidence for the
posited verba so/emnia of marriage is greatly diminished. 12
18 Cf. also Ps. 2:7, a text which is generally thought to include verba solemnia for
adoption: "I will tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to me, 'You are my son, today I have
220 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
begotten you. '" Cf. also the corresponding acknowledgement by David in Ps. 89:27 [ET
26], "You are my Father."
Cf. H.-J. Boecker, "Anmerkungen zur Adoption im AT" (1974) 86-89; S.M. Paul,
"Adoption Formulae" (1978) 31-36; idem, ., Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and
Biblical Legal Clauses" (1979-1980) 173-85; H.J. Hendriks, "Juridical Aspects of the
Marriage Metaphor in Hosea and Jeremiah," 61; and M. Malul, "Adoption of Foundlings in
the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents" (1990) 99, lllf.
Rejecting this interpretation is H. Donner, "Adoption oder Legitimation?" (1969) 87-
119. Against Donner, however, cf. H.J. Hendriks, "Juridical Aspects of the Marriage
Meta~hor in Hosea and Jeremiah," 61f.
1 Cf. the many examples cited by Greengus, "The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract,"
518, n. 60.
20 Cf. also ana iltisu A 1, which appears to refer to a natural son, "If a son says (0 his
father, 'You are not my father,' lui abi alta] he may/will shave him, he may/will put a
slave-mark on him [and] sell him" (G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, II,
308f.). Cf. also ana iui.'iu A 2 and SL 4 (in ,WET, 526).
ARN 36, In. 3 and BE 6/1 59 offer important evidence that these examples of verba
solemnia were actually recited in a public (court-room) setting. Cf. S. Greengus, "The Old
Bab~lonian Marriage Contract," 518.
1 The Babylonian Laws, I, 402f.
Cf. ana ittisu A 3, which appears to refer to a natural son, "If a father says to his son,
'You are not my son [ul mari alta],' he forfeits house and wall" (G.R. Driver and J.e.
Miles, The Babylonian Laws, II, 308f.). Cf. also, ana ittisu A 4, "If a mother says to her
son, 'You are not my son,' she forfeits house and furniture" (G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles,
The Babylonian Laws, II, 310[.).
Cf. also SL 5-6, which has the father and mother saying, "You are not our son"
(ANET,526).
22 Cf. BE 6/2, p. 3l, text 57; and HSS 19, 27, discussed by M. Malul, Studies in
Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 85. Underscoring the possible primacy of symbolic
actions over declaration formulae, the document goes on to specify that "from [this] day I
have broken his clod [oo.PN] is no more my s[on!]" Cf. also ibid., 88.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 221
in the previous chapter, the legal corpora are typically concerned with the
exceptional and the difficult, such as issues surrounding adultery, desertion,
the dissolution of marriage, or inheritance under special circumstances, etc.,
not with what was normal or could be assumed, such as would be the case
with verba solemllia, if these were employed in the manner argued by
Greengus.
Although R. Westbrook argues for a profound similarity between
marriage and adoption, he questions whether Greengus' critical example of
the positive use of verha solemnia recorded in CH 170-171 is applicable
beyond the very limited circumstances envisaged in this law. 23 If Westbrook
is correct that verba solemnia may not have been employed in adoption more
generally, then the assumed reciprocal relationship between "my children!"
and the repudiation formulae, "you are not my son," etc., evaporates.
Westbrook agrees that CH 170-17l demonstrates that verba solemnia
could be constitutive of a legal relationship in OB law and, therefore, that it is
possible that they were used in the formation of marriage as.. well.
Nevertheless, Westbrook insists that a stricter analogy with CH 170-171 at
most allows the inference that verba solemnia may have been employed only
when a woman who was already de facto wife, i.e. a concubine, was elevated
to the legal status of "wife."24
In response to Westbrook, however, it is doubtful that the use of the
verha solemnia, "my children," found in CH 170-171, was as restricted as
he suggests. Indeed, if these verha solemllia were not more generally
employed to effect adoptions elsewhere, one would be left to wonder about
their origin within this law. Why use verha solemnia at all, rather than some
other rite invented solely for the purpose? Without the assumption of the
more normal usage, would contemporaries have understood a father's
intention under these particular circumstances?
It should be recalled that the purpose of CH 170-17l is not to
introduce a novel procedure for legitimation, but merely to establish the rights
of inheritance by the legitimated sons born to a concubine (or to deny the
same if the natural sons by the concubine were not so legitimated). Further,
as noted by M. David and G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, this more general use
of verba solemnia appears to be implied by a legal text in which a mother
surrenders her son for adoption saying, "Take the lad away; surely (he is) thy
son [tabli subaram lU maruki]."25
Accordingly, M. David has argued in favour of the assumption of the use of verba
solemnia for adoption under normal circumstances (Die Adoption im altbabylomschen
Recht [1927} 79-81). Cf. G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, Babylonian Laws, I, 401f.
26 Baby onian Marriage Agreements: 7th-3rd Centuries B. c., 13,44-47.
27 Ibid., 13.
28 Although "concubine" is commonly offered for esirtu (CAD, E, 336), because of the
inappropriate connotations of the English term "concubine," perhaps the rendering "slave
wife" or "captive-wife" would be more felicitous.
29 Cf. G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, The Assyrian Laws, 186-189.
P. Kalluveettil notes that in most cases the superior party utters the "Bundesformel"
(Declaration and Covenant, 213). It is possible, however, that the androcentricity of this
law is exceptional or merely conventional and that in actual practice brides also pronounced
corresponding verba solemnia. After noting the declaration formula of the bride Ereskigal
in EA 357:84f. (not included in AL), "Be thou master, I will be mistress," S. Greengus
concludes, "We see therefore that the patriarchal character of Babylonian family structure,
even with possible legal subordination of its women, need not preclude brides from
participating in the formation of the marriage contract via recitation of verba solemnia"
("The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," 521).
30 "The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," 516, n. 48.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 223
Supporting this interpretation of the text, the reverse of the e.tlu tablet,
col. I, Ins. lff., refers to a ritual for delivering the e!/u from his demonic
possession and so curing him of a demonically induced illness. The text
prescribes a symbolic "marriage" between a piglet and a sickness-figurine in
which the god Samas acts as witness. 41 Deliverance from the demon is
accomplished, apparently, by tricking the demon to leave its victim in order
to marry the figurine instead. Although verba solemnia are not explicitly
mentioned in this second marriage, their presence may be inferred from the
intended parallel between this "marriage" and the earlier one, a parallel which
is reinforced by the shared mention of the well-attested marriage rite of tying
For the history of interpretation of this text, cL S. Greengus, "The Old Babylonian
Marriage Contract," 516, n. 53. For a more recent discussion, cf. M. Malul, Studies in
Mesofotamian Legal Symholism, 127, 171 f., 173, n. 55 and 182ff.
3 Cf. CAD Ii, s. v. ~dru. CL also S. Greengus, "The Old Babylonian Marriage
Contract," 516.
38 Lackenbacher (RA 65,126) Text No.1, col II, Ins. 11-15.
39 S. Greengus is troubled by the unexpected masculine alia in place of the feminine
am and similarly the masculine -ka in place of the expected feminine -ki ("The Old
Babylonian Marriage Contract," 516, n. 51). He suggests that this may reflect Aramaic
influence where the final vowels of some forms became indistinguishable. Cf. GAG, 13 b-
c.
This difficulty disappears if, with M. Malul, the etlu is the victim who is espoused by
the unnamed demon (Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 171f., n. 49). This
interpretation seems preferable to Lackenbacher's view that the etlu has been transformed
into a demon on an analogy with the ardat !iii described in text no. 2 (the ardat !iii tablet).
This is so especially since, as Malul notes, the reverse of the etlu tablet. col. II, Ins 18-20,
refers to the etlu as the one to be cured and delivered.
40 As re~dered by S. Greengus, "The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," 516. M.
MaIuI prefers, "I am filling" for the ll/I durative, u-ma-Iu (Studies in Mesopotamian Legal
Symbolism, 183).
41 Cf. W.G. Kunstmann, Die bahylonische Gehetsbeschworung, Leipziger semitische
Studien, NF 2, 106, n. 9, as cited by M. MaIul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolzsm,
173, n. 55.
VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION 225
a purse of gold and silver into the hem of the bride. 42 The fact that the god
Samas acts as witness to this procedure, and hence to its accompanying
solemn declarations, supports the interpretation of the recitation of such
words as verba so/emnia.
A second bilingual magical text, the ardat lill tablet, unavailable to
Greengus, appears to offer a close parallel to the etlu tablet including the
mention of the indicated verba so/emnia. As reconstructed by Lackenbacher,
the text of rev. col. II, Ins 1-6 reads:
1. [ il lu-u mu-ut-ka a ]na-ku
2. [ il lu-u a.~-satu a ]t-ta-mi
3. [ il an-nu-u? q ]? -bi-.su
4. [ ilxx(x) KU.B]ABBAR u GUSKIN
5. [ ;/ i-fla qa- ]an-ni-sa
6. [ il ir-t]a-kas
"I [be your husband, be y]ou [(my) wife, these are] his
[wo]rds(?), ... [si]lver and gold [he t]ied [in] her [h]em."43
1.2 Extrabiblical evidence for the use of verba solemnia among Israelites
lind Jews
1.2.1 Elephantine45
The marriage formula, "she is my wife and I am her husband from this day
and forever [c'/J.) lJ.) l1:i ~m' i~ 11'/J.)J I1J~i 'rlm~ '11]," appears with virtually
the same wording in four marriage documents from Elephantine: Cowley
46 = Porten-Yardeni, B2.6, 4: ... cl';lJJ 'JJl :1:; ~m' 10 :1?JJJ :1l~~ ';:m~ '~.
47 = Porten-Yardeni, B3.3, 3f.: '" C?.IJ ,.Ill :1:; ~m' 1Q :"1?JJ::l ,-:l~~ '!"1rm~ ';;.
4S = Porten- Yardeni, B3.8, 4: ... O'?.IJ ,JJ ~li ~Q1' 10' [;;j?JJJ ilJ~l 'ml~ ,~.
49 = Porten- Yardeni, B6.1, 3f.: r... OJ'?.IJ ,.IJ :m ~01' ;0 il?j)J :1:~1 ['nm~ ':1j.
Fragments from three more marriage documents exist, Cowley 36 (= Porten-Yardeni,
B6.2), Cowley 46 (= Porten-Yardeni, B6.3), and Cowley 18 (= Porten-Yardeni, B6.4), but
they do not include the introductory section in which the marriage formula would be
expected.
50 "Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine," 30. In support of the Israelite
origin the legal procedures of the Elephantine texts, particulary in matters of family law, cf.
J.e. Greenfield, "Aramaic Studies and the Bible" (1981) 121.
This is not to imply, however, that Egyptian marriage contracts were altogether lacking
in a documentary formula for marriage. E.M. Yamauchi observes that Egyptian contracts
typically began with the phrase, "I have made you my wife" ("Cultural Aspects of Marriage
in the Ancient World," 245).
51 = Porten- Yardeni, B2.6:1-4. As indicated by the use of ellipses, the translation is
abbreviated here for greater clarity.
52 Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 47.
53 Cowley 15:3 (= Porten-Yardeni, B2.6:3).
54 Kraeling 7:2lf. (= Porten- Yardeni, B3.8:2lf.).
Here and eslewhere a present tense "hate" for the stative perfect n';t:1 may be preferable
to the past tense "hated" offered by Porten and Yardeni. Alternatively, these may be
instances of the present perfect usage for certain first person perfect verbs in Aramaic
documents (= "I hereby hate"), as also in Biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages,
discussed by Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Documents from Elephantine, 2nd cd.
(1973) 32, n. 2. Cf. also M.A. Friedman, "The Minimum Mohar Payment as Reflected in
the Geniza Documents: Marriage Gift or Endowment Pledge?" (1976) 42, n. 56.
55 Kraeling 7:25 (= Porten-Yardeni, B3.8:25).
56 Tfrrvl.lr,h ..... ~A ~"" Il.n T nw nfthp A rnmnir PnnlJri 47.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 227
heir or the prohibition against removing property from a wife, each with
specified penalties for its contravention.57
Furthermore, although the contracting parties in each of these
documents are the husband and his wife's guardian, rather than the husband
and his wife, there are so many indications of mutuality that there is little
reason to doubt that similar "legal consequences" as attached to "she is my
wife" did, in fact, attach to "I am her husband." It is notable, for example,
that the contracts stipulate a similar right for both husband and wife to inherit
the estate of a spouse who dies without issue. Even more striking, the
contracts recognize that the wife enjoys a right to initiate divorce like that of
her husband - and both face considerable financial penalties if they exercise
this right unjustifiably or merely because of "hatred."58
Furthermore, two contracts, Kraeling 7 and Cowley 18, prohibit both
the wife and the husband from palingamy by using much the same
language. 59 See, for example, Kraeling 7:33f., 36f.: "But Jeho[ishma] does
not have the right [to] acquire another husband be [sides] Anani. And if she
do thus, it is hatred; they shall do to her [the law of ha]tred;"6o "Moreover,
[Ananiah shall] n[ ot be able to] take anoth[ er] woman [besides Jehoishma]
for himself for wifehood. If he do [thus, it is hatred. H]e [shall do] to her
[the la]w of [ha ]tred."61 Although the precise interpretation of this
prohibition has been disputed (whether it prohibits palingamy or, less likely,
polygamy or adultery), a degree of mutuality appears self-evident and is
supported by the heretofore undetected paraliel literary structure of the
protective clauses (lines 21b-40a) as a whole. 62
Alternatively, as appears from Porten- Yardeni, Fold-out No. 19, In 37b may be restored
as :1~*) Ji['1 ]:":'?[ j1-:P[J!" which yields, "Thely [shall d]o to him [the la]w of [haltred."
The implication of this restored text is that a husband must relinquish the wealth of his first
wife (presumably to her family) if he married another woman following the death of his
first wife who died without issue. This consequence resembles the case where a man
divorces his wife merely on the ground of aversion.
62 Favouring a reference to palingamy is E. Volterra, "Review of The Brookline
Museum Aramaic Papyri," lura 6 (1955) 359, as noted by B. Porten, Archives From
Elephantine, 224. For an alternative view, cf. R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the
Aramaic Papyri, 60f., 73f.; idem, "Aramaic Marriage Contracl~ from Elephantine," 24[[.
Confirming a reference to palingamy, or at least some mutually prohibited act, is the
linguistic parallelism and balanced literary structure of the protective clauses as a whole:
A. Divorce by husband who declares his hatred for his wife and the consequence
thereof (she receives back her dowry and is free to go where she pleases) --
Ins. 21b-24a
A'. Divorce by wife who declares her hatred for her husband and the consequence
thereof (she forfeits her dowry and returns to her father's house) -Ins. 24b-
28a.
B. Predecease of husband without issue, wife inherits everything; penalty for anyone
who attempts to thwart this provision
Prohibition against the wife acquiring another husband and the consequence of
any contravention thereof -Ins. 28b-34a
B'. Predecease of wife without issue, husband inherit~ everything;
Prohibition against the husband taking another wife and the consequence of any
contravention thereof -Ins. 34b-37a.
C. Prohibition against the husband not doing to his wife "the law of one or two" [=
conjugal rights?] and the consequence of any contravention thereof -- Ins.
37b-39a.
C. Prohibition against the wife not doing to her husband "the law of one or two" and
the consequence of any contravention thereof - Ins 39b-40a.
63 "Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You are my Husband'" (1980) 203. For the
traditional view that the marriage formula do reproduce the verba solemnia of marriage, cf.
B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 206.
64 To Friedman's arguments we may add the observation that similar documentary
formulae are attested elsewhere among the marriage documents which have survived from
the ancient Near East. Cr., e.g., "Kikkinu is her husband; Bitti-Dagan is his wife" (Ins. 4f.
of the MB marriage document from Ijana in A.T. Clay, Babylonian Records in the Library
of1. Pierpont Morgan, Part IV, text 52, 50-52).
The mutual negative verba solemnia of divorce which immediately follow this
documentary formula, "thou art not my wife" (In. 8) and "thou art not my husband" (In. 13),
VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION 229
1.2.2 Five second century A.D. marriage documents from Wadi Murabba'at
Among the important discoveries found at the Wadi Murabba'at were five
fragmentary Jewish marriage contracts written during the early second
century A.D. prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt. Three of these are written in
Aramaic (Mur 20, 21, Babata's marriage contract); the remaining two are in
Greek (Mur 115, 116).65
Mur 20 is dated by its editors about 117 A.D.66 Like the other
marriage contracts from Murabba' at (as far as can be determined from their
poor state of preservation) Mur 20 appears to exhibit the following
established pattern: 1) date, 2) contracting parties, 3) report of the marriage
formula and any general promises, 4) record of financial matters, 5)
protective clauses for the wife and children in the case of death or divorce,
and 6) concluding list of witnesses. Specifically, Mur 20, Ins. 1-3, read:
"[On] the seventh of Adar, in year e[leven of ... , the son] of Manasseh from
the sons of Eliashib [ ... ,] that you 67 shall become mine in wifehood according
to the law of M[oses] [liiiJ1P ;'1: iir:~'; ~liir, ,'; '[1]]68." The end of this line
is missing, but it may proceed to detail various promises from the groom to
care for his wife from this day "and forever [C';l)';[l]]" (the start of line 5),
such as are found in the later Geniza marriage contracts.
The marriage formulae attested in Mur 21 and Babata's marriage
contract are similar, though the texts are fragmentary. Unfortunately, due to
its poor state of preservation Mur 116 lacks the marriage formula. On the
other hand, Mur 115, dated 124 A.D., offers a significant variation in the
wording of its marriage formula in line 4: "the same Elaios Simon now
agrees 69 to live with her in love," o[ull'~l(00EOS XciPlV VUl'EL 0lloAOYEL 6
mJTOs'l::AQLOS Llll(u[vos]. While there is a tendency to repeat stereotypical
formulae in the extant Jewish marriage documents, especially those from the
support the suggestion that the documentary formula may renect the earlier unrecorded
mutual marriage verha solemnia, "you are my wife" and "you are my husband."
65 P. Benoit, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les Groltes de Murahha'Llt, DJD II (1961)
109ff., 114tT., 243fL, 254ft'. Ct'. also the reprint of these texts in E. Koffmahn, Die
Doppelurkunden aus der Wiiste Juda (196i\) 114ft'.
The full text of '"Babata's marriage contract" is apparently still unpublished. It is
mentioned in Mur, p. 253, n. 5, however, and portions have heen published hy Y. Yadin,
"Expedition D - The Cave of the Letter," (1962) 244-245.
66 Confusingly, Mur 20 has been variously referred to as the "Bar Menasheh marriage
deed" as well as the "Kephar Bchhayu marriage deed." Cf. S.A. Birnbaum, "The Kephar
Bcbhayu Marriage Deed" (195i\) 12-18; idem, The Bar Menasheh Marriage Deed (1962) 7;
and S. Greengus, "Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," 522, n. 83.
67 In support of an interpretation of K,;;r as a second feminine singular, d. M.A.
Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, I, 15i\, n. 31.
68 J.T. Milik proposes '[rKj for the start of line 3, which he understands as the
(intensive) second person feminine singular pronoun. M.A. Friedman has challenged this
by arguing that the expected second person form would he r.:K, as in no. 21, line 12 (Jewish
Marriage in Palestine, I, 158). As a result he proposes to restore the relative T1].
69 Though uncertain, S. Bigger's rendering "swears" for ()~()AOY{l is an intriguing
possihility ("Hebrew Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period," 75).
230 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
later quite rigid Gaonic Babylonian tradition, the evidence of Mur 115
provides a salutary reminder that creative variation was permitted among
Jews operating within other traditions. 7o
From the evidence thus far considered it appears that verba solemnia
were a regular feature in the contraction of marriage throughout the ancient
Near East and into post-biblical times. This fact predisposes us to find
allusions to marital verba solemnia in the Old Testament. We turn now to an
examination of the relevant biblical texts.
70 L.M. Epstein fails to take adequate account of this potential for variation, both here
and in the 66 Palestinian-style marriage contracts found among the Cairo Geniza (The
Jewish Marriage Contract [1927]57). On the latter, cf. M.A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage
in Palestine, 2 vols. (1980)
71 Cf. L.M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract (1927) 57; and M.A. Friedman,
Jewish Marriage in Palestine, r, 147.
72 Cf. t. Ketub. 4:9; y. Ketub. 4:8, 29a; y. Yebam. 15:3, 14d; and b. B. Mes. 104a.
73 Cf. M.A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, I. 156-8.
VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION 231
74 On this formula, cr. W. Reiser, "'Der Verwandschaftformel in Gen 2,23" (1960); and
W. Brueggemann, "Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen 2,23a)" (1970). Cf. also D. Daube
and R. Yaron, "Jacob's Reception by Laban" (1956); F.r. Andersen, "Israelite Kinship
Terminology and Social Structure" (1969); R.G. Boling, Judges (1975) 171; and P.
Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 209[
75 D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (1947) 7f.
76 Cf., e.g., C.H. Gordon, "Hosea 2:4-5 in the Light of New Semitic Inscriptions"
(1936); R. Yaron, "On Divorce in Old Testament Times" (1957); idem, "Aramaic Marriage
Contracts from Elephantine" (1958) 30-31; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, I (1961) 35; S.
Grecngus, "Old Bahylonian Marriage Contract" (1966) 522, n. 82; U. Cassuto, "Second
Chapter of the Book of Hosea" (1973) 120-122; H.W. Wolff, Hosea (1974) 33f.; and M.
Fishhane, "Accusations of Adultery. A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numhers 5,11-
31" (1974) 40.
M.A. Friedman suggests that Hosea actually introduced two modifications to the
original formula ('"Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You are my Hushand'" [1980]199).
First, Friedman considers it likely that the original formula was expressed in the second
person, "You are not my wife, and I am not your hushand." Though possible, this
suggestion may not be required since third person disavowal formulae (presumably stated
before witnesses) are attested elsewhere. Cf., e.g., M.T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage
Agreements: 7th - 3rd Centuries B.c., No.5, 13.
Second, Friedman supposes that the original formula employed the expression '?lJJ for
"husband," as attested in the Elephantine papyri. Hosea eschewed this term, however,
hecause of its association with the Baal cult. C[ Hos. 2:18[ [ET 16f.].
MJ. Geller has offered an alternative explanation for Hos. 2: 18f. [ET 16[ J, suggesting
that in this text ?!JJ bears the meaning "lover," as he supposes it does in Kraeling 7:33 (=
Porten- Yardeni, B3.8:33) ("The Elephantine Papyri and Hosea 2,3: Evidence for the form
of the Early Jewish Divorce Writ," 146, n. 21). Against this view, cf. M.A. Friedman,
"Israc!'s Response in Hosea 2:17h," 201, n. 9.
77 Cf. M.A. Friedman, "Israel's Response in Hosea 2: 17b," 198, n. 1.
78 S. Greengus, "Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," 522, n. 82. Cf. also J.C.
Greenfield, "Aramaic Studies and the Bible," 122.
232 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
Cf. Cowley 15:4 (= Portcn- Yardeni, 82.0); Kraeling 2:31'. (= Porten- Yardeni, 83.3); 7:4
(= Porten-Yardeni, 83.8); and 14:3L (= Porten-Yardeni, 86.1).
79 F.L Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Hosea, 219-224.
80 Against this view, J.L. Mays posits a juridical setting for Hosea 2, but rejects 2:4a
lET 2aJ as a divorce formula (Hosea, 35fL). Alternatively, A. Phillips recognizes 2:4a lET
2a I as a divorce formula, but insists that as a matter of family law, neither a juridical setting,
nor even necessarily a public setting, was required for divorce ("Some Aspects of Family
Law in Pre-Exilic Israel," 352).
81 F.r. Andersen and D.N. Freedman explicitly reject the proposed identification of
Hos. 2:4a [ET 2aJ as a divorce formula (Hosea, 200f.). This conclusion is demanded only if
it is assumed that the divorce formula necessarily terminates a marriage then and there.
Other scholars have disputed the identification of a divorce formula in Hos. 2:4a [ET
23J, including R. Gordis, "Hosea's Marriage and Message: A New Approach" (1954) 9-35,
esp. 201'.; H.H. Rowley, "The Marriage of Hosea" (1963) 92; W. Rudolph, Hosea (1966)
65; J.A. Fitzmyer, "A Re-Study of an Elephantine Marriage Contract (AP 15)," 150; and
J.L. Mays, Hosea (1969) 37f.
Cf., however, H.J. Hendriks' response to Gordis ("Juridical Aspects of the Marriage
Meta~hor in Hosea and Jeremiah," 57fL).
8 In support of Hos. 2:4a lET 23] as a threat of divorce based on its nonjuridical setting
and the conditional threat of vs. 3, cf. H. McKeating, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 83.
VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION 233
Yahweh's covenant with Israel by its use of the parallel covenant dissolution
formula, "for you are not my people and I am not your God ["wj) ~'?cm~ '~
0;:7 i1.';-Wn~7 '::~'I]," which appears in the context of the oracular names of
Hosea's children. 83 Although positing a complex redactional history for
Hosea, G.A. Yee considers that the author of Has. 2:4 avoids using the
customary divorce formula in order to highlight this reversal of the covenant
reflected in Has. 1:9.84
Accordingly, just as the threatened covenant dissolution in Hosea 1 is
followed by an unexpected promise of covenant renewal in Has. 2: 1-3 [ET
1: 10-2: 1], so also the threatened divorce in Has. 2:4ff. [ET 2ff.] is followed
by an unexpected promise of a new marriage in Has. 2: 16ff. [ET 14ff.].
Moreover, in each case the promised restoration is expressed in terms of the
use of positive declaration formulae which correspond to and reverse the
preceding negativ~ dissolution formulae. 8s This structural parallelism is
clearly intentional since Hosea identifies the effects of the restored marriage
at the end of chapter 2 with the effects of the earlier promised restored
covenant:
And in that day, says Yahweh, I will answer the heavens and they
shall answer the earth; and the earth shall answer the grain, the
wine, and the oil, and they shall answer lezreel [ct. 1:4f., 11]; and I
will sow him for myself in the land. And I will have pity on Not
pitied [ct. 1:6f.; 2:3 [ET 2: 1]], and I will say to Not my people [d.
1:9f.; 2:3 [ET 2:1]], "You are my people"; and he shall say "Thou
art my God." (Has. 2:23-25 [ET 21-23])
83 F.1. Andersen and D.N. Freedman are inconsistent in their interpretation of these
parallel verses (Hosea, 197f., 223f.). As mentioned, they consider Hos. 2:4a [ET 2a] to be a
private complaint or perhaps even an affirmation if K? is asseverative, but on either view
Yahweh has no intention 10 dissolve the marriage. By contrast, noting the positive
covenant-making formulae in Lev. 26:12 and 2 Sam. 7:14, they consider that with the
corresponding negative formulae in Hos. 1:9, "All this is now undone; a relationship
hundreds of years old has been dissolved [italics addedJ."
Cf. also Exod. 6:5-7; Jer. 7:21-23; 11:4; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 37:26-27, for other
examfles of the corresponding positive covenant formula.
8 G.A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A. Redaction Critical
investigation (1987) 105-108.
Yee posits a four-stage redactional history for Hosea, yielding some interpretative
novelties, such as his view that the original adulterous mother of chapter 2 is Rachel, the
favourite wife of Jacob, not Gomer, and that her children are the northern tribes, the House
of Isr~el (op. cit., 3(5).
8) Cf. "Children of the Living God ['~-'iK ':::r in 2:1 [1:10], perhaps by contrast to "I
am not Ehyeh to you [c:,? ~';;K-K'i '::~1r in 1:9; 'My People ['9])]" in 2:3 [ET 2: 1], by
contrast to "not my people ['0]) ~?]" in 1:9; 2:1 [ET 1:10]; and "Shown Compassion
p;r;:~1" in 2:3 [ET 2: 1], by contrast to not pitied r;;9J:~ ~?r in 1:6, 8. Cf. the use of "my
children" as the formula for legitimation in CH 170-171, discussed earlier.
For Hos. 2:16-25[ET 14-23], d. the discussion below.
234 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
15 And there I will give her her vineyards, and make the Valley
of Achor a door of hope. And there she shall answer as in the days
of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
16And in that day, says Yahweh, you will call me, 'My husband,'
and no longer will you call me, 'My Baal.' 17For I will remove the
names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by
name no more.
86 Cf., e.g., H.J. Hendriks, "Juridical Aspects of the Marriage Metaphor in Hosea and
Jeremiah" 58
87 In'support, Hendriks appeals to his overall trcatmcnt of Hosea 2-3, which cannot be
reproduced here.
88 Ibid., 47f.
89 It is possible that the reference to Yahweh as "my first husband" in Hos. 2:9 [ET 2:7J
implies the prior dissolution of the marriage. If it is objected that the promised renewcd
marriage between Yahweh and Israel would contravene the express prohibition of Deul.
24:1ff., it may bc responded that Jer. 3:1 raises the very same objection. Perhaps Hosea
employs this imagery to threaten Israel's irreparable ruin if she continues in her religious
harlotry. Alternatively, if Hosea depicts Israel's state as already irremissible, then this
poses an insuperable legal obstacle which, in the end, only the relentless love of God can
overcome. P. Grelot observes with respect to Yahweh's promised remarriage of his bride,
"according to the law and customs of those days no husband would have acted like this"
("The Institution of Marriage: Its Evolution in the Old Testament," 46)
On the relationship between Hosea and Jeremiah, cf., e.g., J. Skinner, Prophecy and
Religion. Studies in the Life of Jeremiah (1922) 21; H.J. Hendriks, "Juridical Aspects of the
Marriage Metaphor in Hosea and Jeremiah," 182-186; and J.A. Thompson, The Book of
Jeremiah (1980) 81-87. Thompson cites the full-scale study of this subject provided by K.
Goss, "Die literarische Verwandschaft Jeremias mit Hosea" (1930); and idem, "Hoseas
Einfluss auf Jeremias Anschauungen" (1931).
90 Unfortunately, there is some dispute about the precise beginning of the or~cle of
restoration. E.g., J.L. Mays, H.W. Wolff, and D.K. Stuart favour starting with the
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 235
mentioned that the parallel promise of covenant renewal in Hos. 2: 1-3 [ET
1: 10-2: 1] employs positive declaration formulae which correspond to and
reverse the preceding negative dissolution formulae. It seems that, in the very
same manner, Hos. 2: 17-19 [ET 15-17] uses "my husband ['9'~]" as an
example of the wife's verba so/emilia, establishing this new marriage and so
reversing the preceding divorce formula, "she is not my wife, and I am not
her husband [i1W'~ ~? ';:n~l TlitJ~ ~?~'ii]," in Hos. 2:4 [ET 2].
In a careful study of this text, M.A. Friedman concludes that 2: 18 [ET
16] alludes to the content of the wife's "response [ii>;iJl,'i]" mentioned in 2:17
[ET 15].91 That is, in 2:16 [ET 14] Hosea alludes to God's proposal of
(re)marriage, which is made explicit in Hos. 2:2lf. [ET 19f.].92 Naturally,
Hosea assumes his audience knows what must have been the customary
marriage formula of the time, perhaps one in which the husband declares,
"You are my wife [n~ 'nitJ~]," and the wife responds, "You are my husband
[i1D~ ''?ll~].'' In contrast to the Elephantine use of '?.\JJ., 'husband" or "lord,"
in its marriage formulae, however, vs. 18 [ET 16] instructs the bride that her
response can no longer be "my Baal (= "husband" or "lord") [';ll:;;!]," but
rather "my husband ['9'~]."93
Most commentators consider that this change in vocabulary signals a
total repUdiation of Baal worship (cf. 2: 19 [ET 18]). It may also be the case,
with C.V. Camp and others, that the wife's response of '9'~, "my husband,"
implies a heightened character of intimacy in this renewed marriage.9 4 As
Camp tentatively suggests, '''In that day' this relationship will be
transformed. No longer will Israel call the deity 'my ba'al,' my master, but
eschatological "In that day r~l;-:;TDi': ;-::~11" of 2:18 lET 2:16], while 1. Lindblom
(Prophecy in Ancient Israel [1962] 243); HJ. Hendriks, and F.r. Andersen and D.N.
Freedman, prefer starting with "therefore IF:;'?]" in 2:16 [ET 2:14]. Besides allowing the
preceding section to end with the structural indicator, ;-:r'-c~:, the principal advantages of
this second approach are not only that it bettcr renects the change in tone from judgment to
promise, which occurs at 2: 16 lET 2: 14], but also that it prcserves the coherence between
2:17 [ET 2:15J and 2:18 lET 2:16]. On this last point, cf. M.A. Friedman, "Israel's
Response in Hosea 2:17b." Accordingly, the entire oracle is the unexpected (because of its
positive tone) third member in a series of F7 passages (cf. 2:8 rET 6J and 2:11 lET 9])
which follow Yahweh's complaint against his adulterous wife in 2:4-7 lET 2-5]. Cf. also
H.J. Hendriks, "Juridical Aspects of the Marriage Metaphor in Hosea and Jeremiah," 157
160.
91 M.A. Friedman, "Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You are my Husband'" (1980)
199-204
92 Friedman cites Judg. 19:3, especially, as well as 2 Sam. 19:8 lET 7J; Isa. 40:2; 2
Chron. 30:22; and 32:6 in support of this implication for the expression, :1;'?-'5.1) 'r"J1~.
93 M.A. Friedman, "Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You are my Husband'," 200.
Friedman rejects MJ. Geller's proposal that ''?.I)J means "my lover" in favour of the
traditional view that Hosea's opposition to the term ''?.I)J stems from a repudiation of Baal
worship (op. cit., 201, n. 8).
94 C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (1985) 106f.
Elsewhere, however, Camp acknowledges that '/.1):) need not always have domineering
connotations, as in its repeated appearance in Provo 31:11, 23, and 28 (op. cit., 91f.). Cf.
also L.M. Muntingh, "Married Life in Israel according to the Book of Hosea" (1964-65) 80;
C. van Leeuwen, Hosea (1968) 72; 1.L. Mays, Hosea, 48; and HJ. Hendriks, "Juridical
Aspects of the Marriage Metaphor in Hosea and Jeremiah," 145.
236 VERBA SOLEMN/A AND SEXUAL UNION
95 W. Brueggemann, "Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gn 2,23a)," 538f.; and P. Trible,
God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (1978) 100-102.
96 Z.W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. An Introduction (1964) 134f. So also
M.A. Friedman, '"Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You are my Husband'," 203, n. 18.
97 Cf. E.F. Campbell Jr., Ruth (1975) 88-90, 117; H.B. Huffmon, "The Treaty
Background of Hebrew yada'" (1966) 31-37; and H.B. Huffmon and S.B. Parker, "A
Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew yada' " (1966) 36-38.
Against Campbell d., e.g., J.M. Sasson, Ruth (1979) 39. Sasson's inconsistent
renderings of ll'r~ in Ruth 2: 1 as "acquaintance" (doubtful in view of the subsequent
identification of Boaz as "of the family of Elimelech [1';9'';~ nn!;li!!1:I~]" in the same verse)
and of ;:I;11110 in Ruth 3:2 as "our relative," however, are unconvincing.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 237
1.4 Further biblical texts, or expressions, which may allude to the marriage
formula
Although some scholars have suggested that the idiomatic expressions i"i1 + '?
+ tti,~,?, "to become a husband to ... ," and i1'i1 + '? + i1it.i~'?, "to become a wife
to ... ," may derive from marriage formulae, the evidence for this hypothesis is
not compelling.1 08 More likely is a possible allusion to the marriage verba
solemnia in an expression found in Canticles, repeated with variations: "My
beloved is mine and I am his [i'? ')~1 ',? 'J~1]" (2: 16); "I am my beloved's and
my beloved is mine [''? '1i11 "1i1'? ',:~]" (6:3); and "I am my beloved's [';~
'1i1'?r (7: 11 [ET 10]). While these texts are comparable to other examples
of relationship formulae, none of them occurs within the context of marriage
formation. 109 Accordingly, their evidence for the use of verba solemnia in
marriage is, at best, indirect. Nevertheless, these texts may help to
underscore the mutual belonging of (marital?) love and, as such, may support
the assumption of reciprocal marriage formulae during the biblical period.
1.5 Conclusions
In his rejection of the identification of marriage as a covenant, 1. Milgrom
concedes that "The betrothal/marriage rite might be conceived as a covenant
if there were a mutual exchange of verba solemllia even though an oath
formula was not used."110 While not every example considered above proved
105 M.A. Friedman, "Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You are My Husband," 203.
106 Z.W. Falk explains this as due to the fact that Sarah was a potential heiress,
requiring marriage to a relative, and the related fact that there had been no marriage present
(Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, vol. 2 [19781281).
107 So LXXBA. LXX~ reads, "until you settle my affairs rEU1~ dv 8L(WT~cnJ~ TO
iTpi)~ EflE J."
108 Gen. 20:12; 24:67; Lev. 21:3; etc. Cf., e.g., L.M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage
Contract (1927) 1-52, esp. 55; Z.W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (1964) 142; H.L.
Ginsberg, "Studies in Hosea 1-3," 53; and H.J. Hendriks, "Juridical Aspects of the Marriage
Metaghor in Hosea and Jeremiah," 60.
19 Cf.. Deut. 26:171.; 29:12 [ET 13J; Hos. 2:25 [ET 23J; Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 31:33:
Ezek. 34:30f.; 36:28; 37:23; and perhaps Ps. 95:7; 100:3 - so M.H. Pope, Song of Songs,
405.
110 Cult and Conscience, 135, n. 487.
VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION 239
111 The clearest evidence for mutual formulae is [rom the OB legal document from
Ishchali and from Hos. 2:17-19 [ET 15-171. Mutual formulae may also be implied,
however, by the corresponding mutual formulae [or the disavowal of marriage or divorce,
which are attested for most periods. Finally, it is possible that the mutual character of
documentary formulae such as "she is my wife and I am her husband," attested at
Elephantine, for example, may imply that the corresponding original oral formulae were
pronounced by both husband and wife (although the similar oral formula known from the
OB etlu tablet and the arda!!ili tablet demonstrate that this is not a necessary conclusion).
112 Cf. MAL A 41. Cf. also R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," II, 125.
113 Cf. the analogous situation of the legitimating formula in CH 170-171.
114 Cf. the treatment of the oath-like character of verba solemnia in the previous
chapter.
115 The context of the verba solemnia in Tobit is thoroughly religious; Raguel
pronounces a blessing on the couple immediately following his declaration. Cf. also
Raguel's command to Tobias, "take her ISarah 1according to the law of Moses" in Tob.
7:12, with its apparent implication that his marital responsibilities were defined in the
Scripture, which, if so, would imply their sanctioning by the deity. Cf. the similar mention
of "the law of Moses" in the verba solemnia attested in the Babata marriage contract,
marriage contracts from the Cairo Geniza, and the "traditional" Jewish marriage contract.
240 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
Having established that verba solemnia were customary for marriage in the
Old Testament, we shall now investigate the significance of gifts and
especially sexual union in the contraction of marriage. In general, verba
solemnia do not take the place of symbolic acts in effecting changes in legal
status, contracts, or covenants, but instead typically supplement them.1 16 In
fact, contrary to our modem prejudice in favour of consensual contract with
its almost exclusive emphasis on the written word, or at least the spoken
word, it appears that the ancients often considered a symbolic act to be the
constitutive instrument for effecting a desired legal outcome.l17 As a
consequence, there is a prima facie likelihood that if marriage was a covenant
there may have been a covenant-ratifying oath-sign or even a variety of such
oath-signs associated with the formation of marriage.
A considerable number of ceremonies and symbolic rites are known to
have been associated with the formation of marriage elsewhere in the ancient
Near East (e.g., ct. a prenuptial bath, perhaps for both bride and groom;
pouring oil on the bride's head; clothing of the bride [or perhaps tying clothes
together between bride and groom]; sewing the dowry into the bride's
garment; and a processional celebration for the removal of the bride from her
father's home to that of her husband).118 Some of these rites were even
mandatory (e.g., ct. the need to settle a marriage contract [riksatu] in LE
27-28 and CH 128; the required kirrum in LE 27-28, generally
understood as some kind of formality involving beer; or the veiling of th(~
bride in MAL A 40-41). Nevertheless, the biblical evidence for these or
any other wedding ceremonies is regrettably scant. 119 Some texts are so terse
116 So M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Lega/Symbolism, 2-3, 51, 85, and passim.
117 Ibid., 2ff., 88, and passim.
118 Cf. MAL A 42-43. Cf. also S. Greengus, "Old Babylonian Marriage Ceremonies
and Rites" (1966) 55-72; R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna, 2nd. ed. (1988) 59, 200-205; R.
Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," I, 52; II, 155; and M. MaluI, Studies in
Mesopotamian Lega/ Symbolism, 152, 161-197,345.
M. Malul, for example, notes how the garments of the bride and groom could be tied
together to symbolize marriage (op. cit., 200 n. 197, 345). By contrast, there is some
evidence that when a couple divorced their clothes would again be tied together, only this
time it would be in order to immediately cut them apart (op. cit., 2061'.).
119 Cf., e.g., OJ. Baab, "Marriage" IDB 3 (1962); S.B. Parker, "The Marriage Blessing
in Israelite and Ugaritic Literature" (1976); E.M. Yamauchi, "Cultural Aspects of Marriage
in the Ancient World" (1978) 241-252; P.A. Kruger, "The Hem of the Garment in
Marriage" (1984); and M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 196 n. 125,
3361'.
Prior to the formation of marriage, there are examples of circumcision (Gen. 34:22ff.,
Exod. 4:24-26 is doubtful); a gift of clothes or covering of the bride (Ezek. 16:10-12, and
perhaps Ruth 3:9); and anointing the bride (Ezek. 16:9, though it is more likely that this
anointing, as well as washing and clothing, is merely illustrative of Yahweh's exemplary
care, by contrast to Ezek. 16:4-5).
Actions which are expressive of the joy of a wedding include music, songs, and group
celebrations, which need not imply any particular formalities (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9;
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 241
the impression is left that marriage, at least at times, could have been
contracted almost entirely without ceremony. Compare, for example, Gen.
24:67, "Then Isaac brought her into the tent, and took Rebekah, and she
became his wife; and he loved her."120 Even where ceremonies are
mentioned, or alluded to, it would seem unwarranted to assume that any
given rite was necessarily universally practiced. Furthermore, because of the
limitations of our evidence, the symbolism and legal consequences, if any, of
any individual ceremony are often very much in doubt.
In any case, besides the verba solemnia discussed earlier, two actions
especially have dominated scholarly discussion of the formation of marriage
and are thought to be indispensable for its validity. These are the payment of
a betrothal present (terbatum / Iii 6 )121 and sexual intercourse (copula
carnalis).
25:10; d. also IS3. 62:4-5), as well as the donning of special wedding attire (Isa. 61:10;
perhaps Cant. 3:11; Ps. 45:13-14; Jer. 2:32; a veil is mentioned in Gen. 24:65 and may be
implied in implied in Gen. 29:23, 25 - cf. MAL A 40-41), though not royal attire (cf. M.
Pope, SonK of Songs, 141-144), 3 procession of bride and groom (1 Macc. 9:37-39), and a
common meal (Gen. 24:54; 29:22).
While Gen. 24:54 indicates that the common meal lasted only a single evening (though
the family may have wished for ten days, cf. Gen. 29:55), from Gen. 29:27 it appears that
the wedding feast and celebration were intended to last an entire week. Judg. 14:12,
likewise, mentions a week long marriage feast, but from the context it is clear that either
this practice was confined to Philistia, or at least it was no longer being observed in Israel in
the period of the author/editor of the text: And his father went down to the woman, and
Samson made a feast there; for so the young men used to do" (Judg. 14:10). On the other
hand, by the time of Toh. 8: 19; 10:7, the wedding hanquet lasted two weeks (preceded by a
meal between the father-in-law and groom in 7:14 and 8:1). Cf. also Judg. 19:4-9.
Other briefly mentioned ceremonies and rites include the giving of a dowry [C'T:1?iD] to
the bride from her family (1 Kgs. 9:16; Mic. 1:14; Tob. 8:21; and perhaps 1 Sam. 25:42),
bridal gifts given hy the husband to his bride at the time of the wedding (termed ii~TJ,
"blessing," in Josh. 15: 19 and J udg. 1: 15, but appearing without the term in Has. 2: 17 [ET
15]), and a possible allusi()n to the kirrwn ceremony in Gen. 49:6 (as pointed out to the
writer hy GJ. Wenham; cf. D.W. Young, 'A Ghost Word in the Testament of Jacob IGen
49:5]T' [1981]335-342).
Other actions may be intended primarily as expressions of the consent of the bride's
family. These include the presentation of the bride to the groom by her father (Tob. 7:13;
cf. also Gen. 2:22; 29:23); the writing of a marriage contract, or a contract for cohabitation
(if, with S. Zeitlin, Ragucl's contract was not the marriage contract, the :-::;l1nJ of Tannaic
literature, obligatorily written hy the groom, but was instead the riDn'? ,~tv, written by the
father of the bride 1'The Origin of the Kethubah: A Study in the Institution of Marriage"]);
and a blessing on the couple by the family and other guests (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11; and
Tob.1O:12).
120 Even this text mentions Rebekahs self-veiling in vs. 66, perhaps reflective of the
ancient Near Eastern practice cited above. In any case, naturally this marriage takes place
under exceptional circumstances, since most of the attested celebrations appear to have
taken place at the wife's home, while Rebekah's marriage takes place hundreds of miles
from her father's house. Cf. also Gen. 38:2.
121 The terminology and significance of marriage prestations in cuneiform law and
practice are complex and at many point uncertain. For a recent discussion of this topic, d.
G. Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes (1969); R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law,"
II. passim; M.T. Roth, 'Marriage and Matrimonial Prestations in First Millennium B.C.
Babylonia" (1989) 245-255; and R. Westbrook, et al., "Responses to Prof. Roth's Paper"
(1989) 256-260.
242 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
Bridewealth or marriage
present = property given by
the husband, or his family, to
the bride's family (this use of
biblu(m) is mentioned only in
CH 159-161, MAL A 30,
and M.T. Roth, Babylonian
Marriage Agreements, Nos.
34,35). bihlum biblu hiblu
Widow's settlement
property given by the
husband to the wife in
anticipation of her
maintenance needs as a
widow. nudunniim siriktum nudunnii siriktu
R. Westbrook differs with M.T. Roth over the nudunniim / siriktum, "widow's
settlement" ("Responses to Prof. Roth's Paper" (1989] 256f.). Westbrook considers this
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 243
2.1 The 17;rJ / ter~atum as a "betrothal present" (purchase marriage and the
17;;3 / ter~atum as a "bride price" refuted)
According to the majority view of an earlier generation of scholars, especially
following P. Koschaker and E. Neufeld (who applied Koschaker's theory to
Israelite practice), marriage throughout the ancient Near East (or at least in
OB, Nuzian, and MA practice) conforms to the pattern of "marriage by
purchase."122 In other words, it was argued that the husband legally
purchased his bride from her guardian, usually her father, by paying a "bride
term in the OB period (and CH) to describe the totality of the property of the wife, or what
is assigned to the wife, including the dowry as well as any other special gifts to the bride
from the groom. Confusingly, these special gifts may also be called nudunnum, hence the
nudunnum in its broad sense includes the nudunni1m in its narrow sense. In other words,
while nudunntlm elsewhere includes the siriktum, in CH 171-172 these terms are used
contrastively because in this case nudunni1m refers merely to the special gifts from the
husband (for which reason these laws are careful to qualify the term with "which her
husband gave to her [.~a mussa iddinasimJ" or "her husband did not give to her [mussa ... la
iddinusim j").
Unfortunately, there are no examples in either CH or MAL where nudunnu(m) bears the
comprehensive meaning posited by Westbrook. Besides CH 171-172, the term appears
also in MAL A 27. According to the restored text of G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, nudunnu
also appears in MAL A 32, but this is almost certainly wrong since nudunnu is not
feminine, as would be required by the following tadnat (a third person, feminine singular
1/1 Stative of tadanu).
According to W. Lambert (private communication) the biblu(m) mentioned in CH
159-161 as well as MAL A 30 may have been a douceur. The key to this interpretation
is the recognition that there are two engagements in MAL A 30; the initial one (where
sinniltu is used) has not progressed as far as the second one (where assalu is used). The
biblu(m) only expresses interest in a marriage; it is not a "bride price" or "marriage
present." Lambert suspects that this is a gift given to the future father-in-law when the man
initiates his own marriage, rather than having his parents arrange it. The biblu(m) would
offer tangible proof that the young man was at one point quite eager for the marriage. For
other evidence for this older view that the biblu(m) was an engagement gift, by contrast to
the lerbalum, the bridal gift, cf. P. Koschaker, Rechlsvergleichende Studien zur
Geselzgebung Hammurapis (1917) 133f.; F. Mezger, "Promised but not engaged" (1944)
28-31; and G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, I (1952) 249-265.
Against this view, cf. 1. Renger, "Who are all those People?" (1973) 259-273; and R.
Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," II, 303-306. Westbrook concludes that the
biblu(m) "is a gift of various items other than money made on the occasion of 'marriage'
celebrations by members of the groom's family to members of the bride's family" (op. cit.,
305).
122 P. Koschaker expressed his views regarding OB purchase marriage in "Zum
Eherecht," Chapter 2 in his Rechtsvergleichende Siudien zur Gesetzgebung Hammurapis
(1917) 111-235, and idem, 'Eheschliessung und Kauf nach altern Recht, mit besonderer
Berlicksichtigung der iilteren Keilschriftrechte" (1950) 210-296. Koschaker's views for
MA practice are expressed in his "Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den altassyrischen
Gesetzen" (1921), and his views regarding Nuzi practice are in "Neue keilschriftliche
Rechtsurkundcn aus der EI-Amarna Zeit" (1928).
Koschaker later argued that all marriages in which a ler!Jalum is mentioned are
purchase-marriages ("Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft und Mutterrecht in
Keilschriftrechten" [1933]24).
Cf. also E. Neufeld,Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (1944) 94-117.
244 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
price," the terbatum / 1iJ6.1 23 As in all sales transactions, the sale would be
completed not by the use of the object purchased (in the case of marriage tbis
would be the copula carnahs), but simply by its transfer, the traditio (which
in the case of marriage would imply a consummation of the marriage by the
in domum deductio).l24
Repeatedly criticized from its inception, especially by G.R. Driver and
J.e. Miles, Koschaker's theory of "marriage by purchase" and his
corresponding identification of the terbatum / 1iJD as a "bride price" have
been all but abandoned among recent Assyriologists. 125 In addition to several
studies which have challenged its applicability to Hittite, Egyptian, Nuzian,
and Israelite practice, most recently the theory has been rejected decisively by
R. Westbrook for the OB period, the very period for which the evidence had
been considered the strongest. 126
Since none of the alternative views of 1;,6 excludes the possibility that
marriage may have been consummated in sexual union, as does Koschaker's
view, or that marriage itself may have been a covenant between husband and
wife, we do not need to examine these views any further in the present
context. Here we simply record our agreement with the main substance of M.
Burrows' view regarding the 1;'0, stated with more precision by R.
Westbrook with respect to the terbatum.
In contrast to Koschaker's attempt to compare the law of marriage to
that of sale, and hence to identify the terbatum as the price, Westbrook argues
persuasively that the comparison ought rather to be between marriage and
adoption and that this analogy was one which was recognized by ancient
jurisprudence. 127 Like adoption, marriage is a status with rules peculiar to
itself.12R Just as there are two modes of adoption, there are also two modes of
marriage. In the primary mode, where no third party is involved, a man
adopts a foundling, an orphaned baby he finds in the market place.1 29 Under
such a circumstance, by the unilateral act of adoption without any conttact the
law simply accords the relationship the status of "sonship [maratum ]."
The second mode of adoption differs from the first by the fact that the
adoptee has natural parents. In this case, before the adoptive relationship can
be created, the legal relationship of the adoptee to his natural parents must
first be extinguished. This dual transaction in which the natural parents first
relinquish their rights of control over the child to allow the adoptive parent to
perform his act of adoption is typically recorded in an adoption document (the
form and content of which are remarkably parallel to those of the marriage
documents 130 ). The contract, however, is ancillary to the adoption itself.
shOUld have been returned in their dowry. or inheritance, as was customary throughout the
ancient Near East. Rightfully, it belonged to them. In other words, Leah and Rachel
themselves reject Laban's self-serving theory of marriage by purchase! Cr., e.g., C.
Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 492.
For the practice of returning the terlzatum ! ,:-:0 with the dowry, a practice which
undermines the theory of marriage by purchase, cr., e.g., CH 163f. Cf. also A. van Praag,
Droit matrimonial assyro-hahylonien (1945) 152ft".; M. Burrows,op. cit., 44; G.R. Driver
and J.e. Miles, The Babylonian Laws. J, 253ff.; I. Mendelsohn, "On Marriage in Alalakh"
(1959) 352ff.; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, I, 26-29; R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the
Aramaic Papyri (1961) 47ff.; S. Dalley, "Old Babylonian Dowries" (1980) 53-74, at 571'.;
K. Grosz, "Dowry and Brideprice in Nuzi" (19Rl) 161-182, esp. 170; R. Westbrook, "Old
Babylonian Marriage Law," II, 300-303; and M.T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements:
7th - 3rd Centuries B.C., 1U.
127 "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," II, [50.
12g Westbrook defines a "status," which he distinguishes from "contract," as a "set of
rights and obligations between persons the extent and character of whieh is determined by
the general rules of law .... But it is ih own rules, not the agreement of the parties, which
give the status its substance" (,"Old Bahylonian Marriage Law," II, 151 L). Cf. also the
distinction between status and contract discussed by M.T. Roth, '''She will die by the iron
dagijer': Adultery and Nco-Babylonian Marriage," 187, 189, 190.
29 Westbrook notes that this is the situation, for example, recorded in UET 5260 ("Old
Babylonian Marriage Law," 11,186, n. 74).
130 Westbrook considers this parallelism of form and content between the marriage
contracts and adoption contracts to he supportive of the analogy hetween marriage and
adoption (",Old Babylonian Marriage Law," II, 150t'.).
246 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
131
132
133
II:
Ibid II 155
Ibid:: 156: In both cases alJilzum expresses the transfer of control.
The Basis of Israelite Marriage, 20.
134 Cf. V. Korosec, "Ehe," in RLA, II, 282.
H.1. Hendriks cites CH 160 as evidence that "a marriage is legally effected" with the
bringing and acceptance of a terbatum ("Juridical Aspects of the Marriage Metaphor in
Hosea and Jeremiah," 19). CH 160, however, does not support this view. It proves only
that acceptance of the terbatum (and/or bib/um) obligates a father-in-law to give his
dau1h~er in marriage and that, should he fail to do so, he will incur a financial penalty.
3) Cf. R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," II, 50. Cf. LE 26. Cf. also
Deut. 20:7; 22:23-29; Exod. 22:15, 16 [ET 16, 17]; 1 Sam. 18:25; and 2 Sam. 3: 13.
Following common practice, the present study employs the terms "betrothal" and
"inchoate marriage" interchangeably to refer to the married status of couples prior to their
cohabitation. R. Westbrook, however, prefers to distinguish these terms and employs
"betrothal" to refer only to the preliminary stage in the marriage negotiations preceding the
givin~ of the terbatum (op. cit., 51).
1 6 Ibid., II, 153.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 247
legally possible to prevent the marriage from taking place; hence the
ter~atum did not itself effect a marriage. 137
As A. Skaist observes more generally, one must be careful to
distinguish two distinct relationships involved in the formation of marriage in
ancient Near Eastern practice. 138 The first is attested in the documents (i.e.,
the riksatum) and consists of a contract between a husband (or his guardian)
and his father-in-law (or other guardian of the bride).139 In this relationship
in which the ter~atum plays a vital role, the wife appears as an object with the
husband invariably marrying the wife, acquiring her from her father or other
guardian (he "takes" her, she is "given" to him, etc.). The second relationship
is the marriage proper, a relationship which exists between a husband and his
wife.
If one considers only the first of these aspects of marriage, for
example, if one supposes that the husband and the father-in-law create the
marriage, it should be expected that only the husband and the father-in-law
would have the authority to dissolve the marriage. Conversely, just as a piece
of land cannot alter an agreement between a buyer and a seller, so it might be
supposed that the wife would have no right to dissolve the marriage. In
reality, however, there is no evidence that the bride's father can dissolve a
marriage once it is formed; in fact, there is no evidence that he plays any
continuing role in the marriage. Furthermore, contrary to expectation, for
most of the ancient Near East there is substantial evidence that the wife did
have a legal right to dissolve the marriage.1 40
2.2.1 Anciellt Near Eastern evidence for the role of sexual union in the
consummation of marriage
G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles argue that in both OB and MA practice "inchoate
marriage" was effected by the giving and receiving of the terbatu(m), while
marriage itself was completed by sexual union, for which the riksu offered
confirmatory evidence.1 42 This understanding of sexual union as
consummating marriage is perhaps most evident in CH 155f. If a man is
caught having relations with a daughter-in-law whom he chose for his son
[ana marlSU kallatam ibirma], it is a capital offence if it takes place after his
son has "known her [ilmassi]." If, however, his son has "not yet known her
[la ilmasslma]," a financial penalty is imposed on the father-in-law, and the
girl is permitted to leave and be married to another man. Other laws
demonstrate that betrothal already confers on a woman the protective status
of "wife [asatum]" with respect to outside parties, rendering any extramarital
142 The As.lyrian Laws, 172. CL also M. Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Marriage, 19.
Similarly, A van Praag argues that copula camalis consummates marriage, while the
terljatu(m) was originally intended to provide evidence for the legitimacy of the marriage,
i.e., that it was not merely "concubinage" (Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien [1945]
87f.). According to Van Praag, although the terljatu(m) continued to be paid in later
periods, its evidentiary value was rendered redundant with the advent of written marriage
contract~.
R. Wcstbrook criticizes Van Praag, however, for identifying al]tizum in CH 128, 142,
159-61, etc., as a reference to sexual relations (Old Babylonian Marriage Law, II, 182, n.
22). Westbrook argues that in legal contexL~ related to marriage aljazum is not euphemistic
for sexual intercourse, but is used to express "the acquisition of control over a woman by a
man, sometimes expressly by way of transfer from her parent or guardian, and specifically
for the purpose of placing both in the status of marriage" (op. cit., 4; cL also pp. 1-19).
While this understanding of atulzum is convincing for expressions like ana at'iutim
aljazum, "to take for wifeship," which find a counterpart in the parents' promise ana
as."utim nadanum, "to give for wifeship," it is not so clear in other contexts, such as CH
142 or CT 8 37d. Westbrook's otherwise careful treatment appears to assume a false
disjunction: either abazum in marital-legal contexts must always refer to sexual union
(which he demonstrates is certainly not the case), or it may never do so (here his treatment
is less convincing). In fact, it appears that OB aljiizum may at times have a sexual
reference, as it does in MB - a usage conceded by Westbrook (op. cit., 19). Cf. the fuller
discussion of ahtizum below.
Accepting aljtizu(m) as a reference to intercourse in the relevant texts, M. Burrows
argues that sexual union regularly consummates marriage in Mesopotamian practice (op.
cit., 19, n. 13).
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 249
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
R. Westbrook's analogy between marriage and the two modes of adoption is
helpful for understanding the mode of marriage in Deut. 21:10-14, which is
analogous to the primary mode of adoption, that is, a case in which a third
party (the adoptee's natural parent) is not involved:
When you go forth to war against your enemies ... and see among
the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and
would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home
to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And
she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house
and bewail her father and her mother a full month; 144 after that you
may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife
[i1W~" ~., i1D'~i i'1~".!,)~' ,~,,~~ ~i:;Jt;11~ ilJ~i]. Then, if you have no
delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not
sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave,145 since you
have had your way with her.
Because this woman was taken captive, there is no need to secure her
parents' consent or to transfer control over her from them to the groom;
accordingly, there is no mention of any marriage negotiations, marriage
present, etc. Instead, in vs. 13 the would-be husband merely "goes into her
(~'~~ ~i:;Jt;1]," that is, has sexual relations with her, and the result of this single
act is that he becomes her husband, and she becomes his wife. In other
words, vs. 13 does not describe three separate actions in temporal sequence,
as if the husband first "goes into her (~'~~ ~i:;Jt;1]," and then sometime later
"he becomes her husband [i'1t;1".!,)~']'" and still later "she becomes his wife
[i1W~" ~., i1D~~1]." Rather, the last two clauses are epexegetical and, as such,
are simultaneous reciprocal consequences of the first clause.1 46
Deuteronomy 25:5
A second example of Westbrook's "primary mode of marriage" is found in
Deut. 25:5, the case of levirate marriage, where because of her widowed
status a bride can once again enter marriage without a transfer of control from
143 So G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, I, 318f. Cf. also idem, The
Assyrian Laws, 162-164.
144 It may have been of more than incidental benefit that the month of mourning would
also serve to assure the captor of his paternity of any children born to the union.
145 Or "merchandise." Cf., e.g., P.e. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 282.
146 For the converted perfect used to express epexegesis, cf. Waltke and O'Connor
32.1e, 32.2.3e, 39.2.4.
250 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
her father (or other guardian): "If brothers dwell together, and one of them
dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the
family to a stranger [iJ ~'~, i1~jr:riJ npiJ-n~ i1:.i1m~?]; her husband's brother
shall go in to her [;;r''?.v ~~: 'i19~~], and take her as his wife [i1W~' i? i1lJi?,j],
and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her [i1~:l'1]."
Without attempting to resolve here the many complexities of the
institution of the levirate, this text identifies the brother's act of sexual union
with marriage. The clause, "her husband's brother shall go in to her," is
explained in the two subsequent clauses, each of which is introduced by a
converted perfect: "he shall take her [i1lJi?"] as his wife" and "he will
perform the duty of a husband's brother to her [i1~:l'1]." This sequence is
hardly chronological, since the normal idiom would be first to "take" a wife
and then to "go in to her."147
Genesis 38:8,18
An illustration of Deut. 25:5 is offered in Gen. 38:8: "Then Judah said to
Onan, 'Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law
to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.'" In this situation of
widowhood, where marriage negotiations, etc., are neither present nor
expected, the whole duty and formation of a levirate marriage is identified
with sexual union. Accordingly, Judah's own unwitting sexual intercourse in
vs. 18 appears to have sufficed to form a legal marriage, from which issued
Perez and Zerah as legitimate offspring, and to have fulfilled Judah's shirked
obligation for levirate marriage (for which reason Judah rescinds his
condemnation of Tamar for her supposed adultery).148 Whatever the precise
explanation for Gen. 38:26, " ... And he did not lie with her again," this
statement appears to presuppose the existence of a marriage between Judah
and Tamar, in which such relations would have been expected. 149
Genesis 29:21-28
Perhaps the clearest example of sexual union consummating a marriage is
provided by Gen. 29:21-28. Having met his contractual obligation to work
for Laban seven years in exchange for Rachel, "Then Jacob said to Laban,
'Give me my wife that I may go in to her, for my time is completed'" (Gen.
147 Cf. the previous note. As is also the case with Deut. 21:10-14, this abbreviated
account does not exclude the possibility that there may have been various unrecorded
ceremonies or rites which attended the marriage. It merely implies that these were without
the decisive legal import which is accorded to sexual intercourse.
148 Cf. Ruth 4:12.
149 C. Westermann, for example, suggests that apart from the initial sexual union
intended to father a child for the deceased husband, any subsequent relations may have been
deemed incestuous (Genesis 37-50, 55). However, given the acceptance elsewhere in
Genesis of endogamous marriage (cf., e.g., Abraham and his half-sister, Sarah, etc.), this
suggestion appears unconvincing.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 251
29:21).150 From this verse it is apparent that copula carnalis is not just a
characteristic feature of marriage, it is the decisive expression of the end of
mere betrothal and, as such, consummates the marriage.
From the modem point of view where contracts are routinely nullified
for an error in essentialibus, the following verses, Gen. 29:23-28, offer a
surprising example of the irrevocable consequences of sexual union following
the appropriate preliminaries of betrothal (payment of the marriage present,
here in the form of seven years' labour, as well as the expressed desire for
consummation on the part of the groom, and the consent of the guardian of
the bride). On Jacob's wedding night Laban tricked Jacob into having sexual
intercourse with Leah, rather than Rachel (perhaps helped by an unmentioned
customary use of veiling151). In the morning Jacob discovers his error and
complains bitterly about Laban's deceit.l 52 At no point, however, is any
question raised about the validity of the marriage which was thus formed by
sexual union. The legal consequences of this action for the creation of a valid
marriage appear to have been deemed irreversible.1 53
150 Ezek. 16:32 differs because its subject is a woman rather than a man, but also
because it refers to adulterous unions as well as the rejected marital sexual union:
"Adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband!"
151 So, e.g., D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law, 191f.
152 Cf. Z. Jagendorf, "'In the morning, behold, it was Leah': Genesis and the Reversal
of Sexual Knowledge" (1984) 187-192.
153 Deut. 22: 13-21 is less clear in the implication it attaches to sexual union because the
husband's act may be mentioned not for its legal consequence, but for its practical
consequence in accounting for the ensuing pregnancy.
252 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
namely that the man seduces [i1nEl] the girl, is important not only because it
emphasizes the man's primary responsibility for this illicit act - he seduces
her, not the reverse (cf., e.g., MAL A 56 or SL 8 154) - but especially
because it distinguishes the present case from that of rape, which is not
explicitly considered in the Covenant Code.1 55 Such a concern with the
presumption of consent, or lack thereof, on the part of a woman is recognized
as of critical importance in determining culpability in cases of extramarital
sex (Le., whether such acts are to be prosecuted as adultery or rape)156 and
would be a necessary consequence of the recognized need for volition in the
contraction of covenants and the resulting nullity of covenants made under
duress.1 57
The further qualification that the woman in question is "not betrothed"
serves to distinguish the present case from that of adultery (cf. Deut. 22:23-
29).1 58 It is not immediately clear, however, why the girl is identified as a
154 MAL A 56: "If the virgin has given herself to the seignior, the seignior shall (so)
swear and they shall not touch his wife; the seducer shall give the (extra) third in silver as
the value of a virgin (and) the father shall treat his daughter as he wishes" (ANET, 185)
SL 8: "If (a man) deflowered the daughter of a free citizen in the street, her father and
her mother having known (that she was in the street) but the man who deflowered her
denied that he knew (her to be of the free-citizen class), and, standing at the temple gate,
swore an oath (to this effect, he shall be freed)" 0JVET, 526).
With respect to the woman in SL 8, J.1. Finkelstein notes that her presence "in the
street" implies loitering in a manner that causes the man to mistake her for a prostitute, to
which misimpression he swears ("Sex Offences in Sumerian Laws" [1966] 357ff.).
Cf. further the legal recognition of the possibility of a (married) woman seducing a
man in LV 4, "If a wife of a man, by resort to her charms, enticed a(nother) man, so that
he slept with her, he! (i.e., the husband) shall slay that woman, but that man shall be set
free."
155 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 288. The failure of the Covenant Code to consider the case
of rape is typical of its incompleteness (as is also the case with all ancient law collections).
Cf., el' N.M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 168-171.
15 Cf. Deul. 22:22-27.
This interest with the presumption of consent, or lack thereof, is abundantly paralleled
in cuneiform law. The following are deemed cases of rape (where only the rapist is liable to
a death penalty) based on the woman's lack of consent inferred from circumstantial
evidence: LE 26; CH 155; MAL A 12, 23b; and HL 197a. The following are deemed
cases of adultery (where the woman and usually the man are both criminally liable) based
on the woman's consent inferred from circumstantial evidence: LV 4; LE 28; CH 129,
133b; MAL A 13, 14, 15, 16, 23a, 23c; and HL 197b.
157 Cf. D. Daube, "Covenanting under Duress" (1967) 352-59.
M. Malul stresses the importance of intention as a basic characteristic of symbolic
actions having dispositive force (Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 27). There
can be no intention if there is coercion.
Alternatively, cf. the stress on volition, particularly as expressed in the extant marriage
contracts. Cf., e.g., Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Documents from Elephantine
(1973); idem, "Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity
in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures" (1975) 1-36; idem, "Love and Joy
as Metaphors of Volition in Hebrew and Related Literatures" (1979) 91-111; and M.T.
Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th - 3rd Centuries B.C. (1989) 1.
158 So also V. Cassuto, Exodus, 288. The alternative view of D.H. Weiss seems less
likely ("A Note on <1tDj~ ~? jtD~" [1962]67-69). Weiss stresses that <1f\l"J~ is a Pual perfect,
rather than a Pual participle, hence "who had (never) been betrothed." According to Weiss
the rationale for such a condition is that if the girl had ever been betrothed, even if the
betrothal was later dissolved, the father would already have received a marriage present and
so would incur no financial loss from this seduction.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 253
"virgin [;'?1n:J]." It is doubtful, for example, that the text intends to stress her
lack of previous sexual experience, since such a background would appear to
be immaterial here. In any case, as argued by GJ. Wenham, the term ;'71n~
refers to a girl of marriageable age, not necessarily a virgo intacta.1 59 Such a
qualification in the present context may be intended to stress the woman's
capacity to give consent or, perhaps, to differentiate this case from one of
paedophilia (although biblical law gives little indication of how such a case
might be viewed). Alternatively, and perhaps preferably, the identification of
this woman as a ;'71n~ may be intended merely to distinguish this case from
one involving a divorcee [;'~1i~] or widow [;'~9'?~], for whom these
stipulations would be inapplicable (i.e., such a marriage would not require a
father's consent and the amount of the marriage present, if any was even
required, would differ).160
The normal situation anticipated by this law is that any such act of
"premarital" sex will be resolved by the man paying the marriage p-resent
[i;'O], which, if accepted, formalizes the relationship in marriage.1 61 For our
present purpose what is crucial to note is that the formation of the marriage,
expressed in the dependent verbless clause ;,w~'? ;7,
"making her his wife," is
not a third item in a list, contrary to a possible implication of the rendering of
the RSV: " ... lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and
make her his wife [italics added)." Instead, the girl is constituted a wife by
However, the perfect of statives and quasi-fientive verbs, such as tvj~ is normally best
rendered as a present tense, especially in the case of passives. So Waltke and O'Connor
30.5.3. Furthermore, as Weiss acknowledges, the LXX, Vulgate, and Targumim all agree
with a present tense rendering for <1~l~ in both Exod. 22: 15 [ET 16] and Deut. 22:28,
perhaps because of their appreciation of the complementarity between this law in Deut.
22:28f. and those which precede it (where the girl is betrothed).
159 GJ. Wenham, "betaliih 'A Girl of Marriageable Age'" (1972) 326-48. A. van
Selms argues similarly for the Ugaritic term glmt, noting, for example, the case of one
lesser god, gpn wugr, who is called a son of (the divine) glmt (Marriage and Family Life in
Ugaritic Literature [1954] 38f.). Cf. also B. Landsberger, "Jungfriiulichkeit: Ein Beitrag
zum Thema 'Beilager und Eheschliessung'" (1968) 41-105, who stresses the evidence of
the cognate Akkadian term batultu for a reference to age and not virginity as such; and M.
Tsevat, TDOT, II, s. v. "<111n:l" 342f. In favour of "nubile," "marriageable," etc., rather than
"virgin" as renderings of batulu, cf. also JJ. Finkelstein, "Sex Offences in Sumerian Laws,"
356f.; and CAD B, s. v. batulu.
In favour of "virgin" for <1~1n:l and batulu(m), contra Wenham, et al., cf., e.g., T.
Wadsworth, "Is There a Hebrew Word for Virgin? Bethulah in the Old Testament" (1980)
161-171; and especially C. Locher, Die Ehre einer Frau in Israel (1986). Likewise, M.T.
Roth favours a reference to virginity among the range of meanings of batulu in the NB
period ("Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-
Assyrian Household Forms" [1987] 742ff.). It is possible that the conflicting impression of
these scholars may be the result of a confusion of reference with meaning - since in the
ancient Near East a "marriageable" young woman would almost always be a virgin.
Alternatively, I.M. Sasson suggests that <1'?1nf means "virgin" in the sense that the
womb of such a girl had been opened neither by birth nor by miscarriage (Ruth, 133).
160 M. Burrows, for example, notes that a ter~atum was not normally required for
marriage to a widow (The Basis of Israelite Marriage, 30). Cf. MAL A 34. Cf. the
treatment of this law in V. Korosec, "Die Ususehe nach assyrischem Recht" (1937) 1-12.
161 The primary case may assume that the man in question is unmarried (cf. MAL A
55). For the more general case, cf. LE 26-27 and MAL A 55-56.
254 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
meeting two, and only two, indispensable requirements, namely sexual union
and securing the formal consent of the bride's parents expressed in the
payment and receipt of the marriage present: " ... and lies with her, he shall
give the marriage present for her, making her his wife [i1W~'? ;7]."
The subsidiary case in Exod. 22: 16 [ET 17] considers the situation
where the father of the girl refuses to give his daughter in marriage to the
offending man. In such a case, the man must still pay "money equivalent to
the marriage present for virgins." It seems plausible that in the main case the
requirement for a marriage present (with its implied negotiations and receipt
by the father) makes clear the consent of the girl's father and the subsequent
legitimacy of the marriage, as well as providing indirectly for the financial
well-being of the bride (as the marriage present [1i1~] was customarily
returned to brides in the dowry 162). Whatever the precise justification for the
payment in the subsidiary case (not identified as a marriage present [1i1~]
because there would be no marriage), it is clearly viewed as a penalty against
the man for his sexual misconduct.l 63
Furthermore, if the qualifying phrase, "the marriage present for
virgins," applies to the main case as well, in view of Shechem's desperate
willingness to pay any price for Dinah and the readiness of Dinah's brothers
to take advantage of his willingness, the intention of this text may have been
to protect such a committed suitor from extortion.1 64 The law stipulates that
the marriage present [1;:rO] will be no more (and no less) than the customary
amount for a virgin.
Finally, the ability of the father to disallow the marriage in the
subsidiary case (an ability presupposed also in the account of Shechem and
Dinah in Genesis 34 165 ) does not contradict the possibility that sexual union
in certain contexts may have been viewed (at least by some biblical authors)
as a covenant-forming oath-sign. This provision may be viewed merely as a
corollary of a father's more general right to disallow any vow made by a
dependant daughter (Num. 30:3-5).1 66 On the other hand, the major case,
where the seducer marries the girl, may be compared to the normal
requirement in Lev. 5:1-4 to keep even a rash oath (cf. Num. 30:2).167
Deuteronomy 22:28, 29
Deut. 22:28, 29 reads:
"If a man meets a virginia woman of marriageable age who is not
betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then
the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young
woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he
has violated her; he may not put her away all his days."
:1~~m1 i'lDll :Dili1 i'l(DElm i1(D"tn~'? 1ili~ 'i1'?1nJ [i11llJ] 1llJ ili'~ ~~D'-':D 28
;$~'? ~i:;;Trl::i~1 ~9? Cl'tDQO [i1"JP~dl :,~~~ '~~'! ;:r~~ j?,ilm ili'~Q 1~~' 29
:1'9:-'?f i'lO'?W '?~1'-~'? i'l~ll 1~~ rllJlJ,
her own second marriage (cf. LE 29, 30, 59; CH 137, 156, 172; and MALA 36, 45).
For the similar Talmudic practice under such circumstances, cf. m. Ketub. 4:2.
167 Cf. also Jer. 7:9; Ps. 15:4; 24:4; and Eccl. 5:4ff.
168 Deuteronomy, 295. So also J. Morgenstern, "The Book of the Covenant, Part 2"
(1930) 118ff.; G. von Rad, Deuteronomy (1966) 143; J. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy (1984)
227. M. Weinfeld observes that this is the typical view of rabbinic exegetes as well
(Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 287, n. 2).
169 The Hiphil of pm typically means "seize," "take hold of," "overpower," etc., and is
used elsewhere in quite general ways (e.g., cf. Ps. 35:2, "Take hold of shield and buckler,"
or Provo 4:13, "Keep hold of instruction"), as well as in connection with various acts of
physical violence including sexual violence (i.e., Judg. 19:25 and 2 Sam. 13:11). It is
important to note, however, that in these last two examples pm refers only to the seizure of
the female victim, not to the sexual act itself. Judg. 19:25 makes this especially clear since
the man who "seized" the Levite's concubine was not among those who sexually abused
her.
256 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
174 Cf., e.g., "if the wife of a man is found [itta$bat] lying with another man ... " in CH
129. Cf. also LE 28 and MAL A 15.
Cf. also M.T. Roth, '''She will die by the iron dagger': Adultery and Neo-Babylonian
Marriage" (1988) 192-7, for a discussion of the stipulation in certain Neo-Babylonian
marriage documents, "Should fpN be found with another man .... " Roth considers that this
expression implies both the woman's consent and also the fact that the adulterers are caught
in flagrante delicto (much as in CH 129, 131, 132; LE 28; and MAL A 15).
Confirming the assumption of the woman's consent in 22:28f. and the relevance of the
repetition of the expression "and they are found [1101r.ml'' in both 22:22 and 22:28, GJ.
Wenham and J.G. McConville argue for an extensive intentional parallelism between the
first three and the second three cases in Deut. 22: 13-29, such that the law of adultery in
22:22 corresponds to the present law in 22:28f. ("Drafting Techniques in Some
Deuteronomic Laws" [1980]248-252).
175 Deuteronomy, 313. So also M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School 286.
176 Deuteronomy, 304. Note the similar sequence of verbs in Gen. 34:2, "and when
Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her [nR')
:1D~l and lay with her [:1D~ :qtZi'1] and humbled her [iJ~.p~)]."
77 Cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 286f.
Although biblical practice, as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, can hardly be said to
stress the role of love as a motivation for marriage, or even the consent of the bride, there
are a number of texts which reveal that such concerns may not have been totally
disregarded. Cr., e.g., Gen. 24:5, 57ff.; 29:18; Exod. 2:21; Judg. 14:3,7; 1 Sam. 18:20; 2
Sam. 13:13; Provo 18:22; and Tob. 6:17. Cf. also M. Burrows, The Basis of Israelite
Ma"iage, 24f.; T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 251f.; and T.
Jacobsen, The Harps That Once... Sumerian Poetry in Translation (1987) 10-15.
178 The justice of Absalom's execution of Amnon is nowhere questioned and appears as
an indictment against David's perversion of justice (advertised by Absalom in 2 Sam.
15:3q for having failed to deal with Amnon.
1 9 The ensuing requirement in MAL A 55 that the wife of the rapist was now to be
sexually abused (as a rigid, if not impractical, application of the lex talionis) has been called
by J J. Finkelstein "a piece of typically Assyrian moralistic 'calculated frightfulness'" ("Sex
Offences in Sumerian Laws," 357).
258 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
Having argued that Deut. 22:28f. treats a case of premarital sex, rather
than rape, we may observe several points of contrast between this law and the
similar case in Exod. 22: 15, 16 [ET 16, 17]. One obvious difference is the
precise specification of the amount of the marriage present ['iJO], namely
"fifty shekels of silver." Based on Exod. 22: 15, 16 [ET 16, 17], W.H.
Gispen, for example, assumes that this amount represented the normal
marriage present for virgins,180 This is possible, but not certain. As argued
earlier, this figure may be exceptionally high in order to penalize the
offender. At the same time, there may also be a secondary concern to
compensate the parents, who are deprived somewhat of their customary right
of refusal unlike the case in Exodus 22. In support of understanding the fifty
shekel payment primarily as a penalty, G.J. Wenham and J.G. McConville
note a chiastic literary structure in Deut. 22: 13-29, whereby this fifty shekels
paid to the girl's father and the prohibition of divorce find corresponding
stipulations in the first case treated in vs. 19, where they are clearly intended
as penalties. 181
The apparent denial of the parents' right of refusal constitutes a second
striking difference between the present law and that found in Exodus 22.
A.D.H. Mayes suggests two possible explanations. First, it is thought that the
Deuteronomic insistence on marriage may represent an innovation intended
to protect the girl by ensuring that she would not be left unmarried. While
possible, this insinuates that the girl needs protection from her own father's
poor judgment, since Exodus 22 already insists on a marriage apart from his
refusal. Second, Mayes suggests that the required marriage may be intended
to prevent the girl's father from receiving a second marriage present. 182 It is
unclear, however, why this would be deemed a problem given the examples
cited elsewhere of widows and divorcees who commanded a second marriage
present.1 83
CM. Carmichael offers an alternative explanation for the denial of the
parents' right of refusal in this law. 184 Given the concern expressed in Deut.
22:13-21 about marriage to a nonvirginal (or perhaps pregnant) bride, Deut.
22:28-29 may be intended to prevent this possibility by its insistence on
marriage without exception.
A final possibility is that the explanation for the differing remedies in
these laws is to be found in the degree of the girl's consent and (perhaps even
on-going) abetment implied in the phrase "and they are found [1~~al1]" in
Deut. 22:28. 185 In other words, while Exodus 22 considers the case of the
seduction of an unbetrothed nubile girl (a one-time occurrence perhaps
requiring some assessment by her father of the degree of her reluctant
consent), Deuteronomy considers the special case where there is
unmistakable circumstantial evidence for consenting premarital sex,186
The last significant difference between Exod. 22: 15, 16 [ET 16, 17]
and Deut. 22:28, 29 concerns the revocation of the husband's right of divorce
in the latter text (as also in Deut. 22: 19b). The inequality of this punishment
by contrast to Deut. 22:22, for example, where the girl is also punished, and
the remarkable protection it affords to the wife suggest that this law
"recognizes that an injury has been inflicted on the girl. This is entirely in
accord with Deuteronomy's humanitarian ideals, particularly towards those
who had no means of protecting themselves through the courts (Deut. 10: 18,
24: 17-22)."187 This recognition of an injury to the girl need not contradict the
earlier claim for her consent. Vs. 28a makes plain the man's initiative and so
and Narrative in the Bible [1985] 218-220). A father eager for financial gain is limited by
Exodus 22 from jacking up the "bride price" beyond what was normal for virgins.
Accordingly, he decides to collect the fine and double his gain by arranging another
marriage. Deuteronomy 22 prevents this scenario by fixing the "bride price" and insisting
on marriage.
183 For example, R. Westbrook cites a case where a terlJatum was paid for a nonvirgin
bride ("Old Babylonian Marriage Law," II, 155).
184 Law and Narrative in the Bible, 220.
185 Cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 286.
CM. Carmichael, on the other hand, argues that the purpose of the qualifier, "and they
are found," is merely to establish their guilt (Law and Narrative in the Bible, 220):
"Without it, a woman in collusion with her father could exploit a man, especially under the
existing law in Exod 22:16,17)." It may be doubted, however, that in biblical times there
would have been many girls or fathers who would have considered the potential damage to
the daughter's reputation to be worth this financial gain. The case of Potiphar's wife, cited
by Carmichael, differs significantly. The claim to have rebuffed the sexual advances of a
youthful and handsome Joseph could only enhance her reputation and appearance of
rectitude.
186 With this evidence of the girl's complicity, there would be little point in a father so
disregarding his daughter's implied wishes by forbidding a marriage. Cf. 1 Sam. 18:20 and
2 Sam. 13:13. Cf. also footnote 175 above.
187 A. Phillips, "Another Look at Adultery" (1981) 9f., cf. also p. 12. Phillips accepts
D.H. Weiss's proposal discussed above ("A Note on i1tDill; 11;" itDII;" [1962]67-69).
260 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
greater responsibility for what transpires: He "meets a virgin ... seizes her and
lies with her."188
Furthermore, if it is the case that in Exodus 22 the couple voluntarily
reveal what has transpired, while in Deuteronomy "they are found," this
difference may suggest a further explanation for the forfeiture of the
husband's right of divorce in Deuteronomy 22. It may be that this law
considers this man's marital intentions to be questionable, as in Deut. 22:19
where a husband who was looking for a way out of his marriage (but wanted
to keep the marital property?) similarly forfeits his right of divorce,189 In
Exodus 22, on the other hand, no such provision is necessary because it
appears that this groom is quite ready to rectify his situation (much as was the
case with Shechem). Not only are his honourable intentions implied by their
self-revelation, but also the only impediment anticipated is that the bride's
father might "utterly refuse" his request. As will be recalled, the stipulated
customary "marriage present for virgins" may offer further testimony to the
repentant groom's willingness, in that it may have been intended to protect
him from extortion (cf. Gen. 34:11,12).
188 As argued by J.J. Finkelstein, unmarried women (normally girls) in the ancient Near
East almost never sought out sexual experiences on their own initiative ("Sex Offenses in
Sumerian Laws," 368ff.). As a result, the law collections normally assume an element of
coercion or persuasion on the part of the man in such cases (MAL A 56 and SL 8 are
exceRtions).
89 In support of a parallel between the third and sixth cases presented in Deut. 22: 13-
29, cf. again the structural analysis of GJ. Wenham and J.G. McConville, "Drafting
Techniques in Some Deuteronomic Laws" [19801248-252.
190 Given the lack of any certain examples of::l::Jlli being used transitively (2 Sam. 13:14
and Ezek. 23:8 are both doubtful), perhaps i1Q~ should be repointed i1t;1~ with BHS,
following the LXX (and Syriac, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Vulgate): !lET' airrijs.
191 Because of the inversion of love into hate in 2 Sam. 13:15 (perhaps a result of
transferred guilt), it is perhaps too easy to dismiss the earlier mention of Amnon's "love"
for Tamar in 13:1 as a euphemism for lust. In any case, the text implies that Tamar cared
for Amnon, not only because of her ministration to him in his "sickness," as well as her
willingness to feed him from her own hand the suggestive "heart-shaped cakes (ni::l::l?;:rj,"
but particularly because of her expressions of consent for marriage in 2 Sam. 13:13 and
13:16.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 261
While Genesis 34 nowhere explicitly mentions Dinah's love or consent, this consent
may be inferred from the extraordinary emphasis in the narrative on Shechem's love and
willingness to pay any price for her hand in marriage (cf. Gen. 34:3, 4, 8,11,12).
It is doubtful whether there would be the same expectation for the urgent regularizing
of sexual relationships in marriage apart from such a context of consent and even love.
192 Alternatively, M. Sternberg sees Dinah's detention as an offence, offering proof that
her brothers were negotiating under duress and were justified to resort to "guile and
violence" (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative [1985] 456ff., as pointed out to the writer by
GJ. Wenham). As conceded by Sternberg, however, the text is not so clear in its moral
assessment of the brothers' stratagem. In any case, at no point does the text state or imply
that Dinah's residency in Shechem's home was either against her will or supportive of the
brothers' charge that their sister was being treated like a harlot (whether by Judah, as
Sternberg suggests, or by Shechem). Harlots were paid for their services, not domiciled.
Furthermore, the contrast between Gen. 34:17, 26, and 2 Sam. 13:16, as well as the
emphasis in Genesis 34 on Shechem's love for Dinah, does not favour Sternberg'S view on
this p,0int
93 Cf. also S. Rattray, "Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the
Bible" (1987) 537-544; and P. Trible, Texts of Terror, 37-63.
194 This may be mentioned in order to stress the groom's culpability, rather than to
suggest any defect in the girl which would warrant this change in plans.
195 For a new edition of this text, cf. R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," I,
145-147.
262 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
providing evidence that a fonnal divorce was required for dissolving even an
inchoate marriage.1 96 The precise reference of the verb a&t:Izum, "to take," is
ambiguous in both of these examples. This verb may refer to the
consummation of a marriage in general terms (perhaps referring to the
acquisition of responsibility for and control over the bride), but it may also
refer more particularly to sexual intercourse, as it appears to in CH 142.1 97
196 Cf. J.J. Finkelstein, "Cutting the sissiktu in Divorce Proceedings" (1975-76) 236-
240, at 240; and M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 203f. Cf. also Matt.
1:19.
197 "If a woman hated her husband and [summa sinnistum mussa izerma] she has
declared, 'you may not take me [ul tiilJlJazanni iqtabi]" .... " The context and subsequent
investigation of the wife makes plain that this was a full-fledged marriage, and so "take"
cannot refer to the groom's acquisition of responsibility for and control over the bride from
his father-in-law - this was already the case. Accordingly, most interpreters consider
tiilJlJazanni a reference to the refusal of conjugal rights.
So also CAD N1, s.v. afjazu, 1(b); and G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles, The Babylonian
Laws, I, 299-301; II, 57, 223. Further possible examples of ~azum with a sexual reference
are CT 8 37d, In. 3 and especially YOS 8 51, In. 7 (both of which are available in R.
Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," I, 137-138, 309-311). A contrary view is
expressed by R. Westbrook,op. cit., II, 16-18.
198 Cf. also Deul. 24:5.
199 J.A. Thompson notes how this law expresses the humanitarian concern typical of
Deuteronomy elsewhere (Deuteronomy, 221).
200 Assuming the qere, i1l~f~" is to be preferred over the ~tib, i1l"l~'.
201 It is unlikely that Joel 1:8 refers to a girl's mourning for her "bridegroom" (Le., a
betrothal situation). Cf. GJ. Wenham, "betCtlah 'A Girl of Marriageable Age'" (1972) 345.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 263
birth (p '?rn), the following three texts are of interest because they appear to
employ nj?7 + i1t?i~, "take a woman," to refer inclusively to marriage and
sexual union (or to sexual union by synecdoche): Exod. 2:lf. ("and he took
[to wife] a daughter of Levi and the woman conceived and bore a son."); Hos.
1:3 ("he took [to wife] Gomer the daughter of Diblaim and she conceived and
bore him a son."); and possibly 1 ehron. 4: 17f. ("Bithiah, the daughter of
Pharaoh, whom Mered took [to wife], and she conceived and bore
Miriam ... ").204
204 The RSV transposes "took [to wife]" from the end of vs. 18. Whether or not the
MT is emended to support this transposition, the sense demands that the expression "take to
wife" be considered as referring to an event prior to the conception and birth.
20S Cf. M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 22f.; and M.1. Gruber,
Nonverbal Communication, passim.
206 The legality of a i1~':J marriage is recognized in b. Qidd. la, but discouraged as
immoral in b. Qidd. 12b and b. Yebam. 52a. Cf. also b. Ketub. 46a.
207 Cf. P.E. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (1930).
208 "Hebrew Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period," 84.
Cf. LV 8, which considers the case of a widow who has cohabited with a man without
a marriage contract. The law does not call into question the validity of such a marriage, as
it would, presumably, if the woman had been a dependent in her father's house and the
marriage had lacked her parents' consent (as in LE 27-28; CH 128). It merely
demonstrates that in the absence of such a contract, a widow may be divorced without any
compensation. Cf. also MAL A 34, where cohabitation of two years is required for a
widow without a contract to assume the full rights of a wife with respect to divorce
protection.
VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION 265
failed to gain the prior consent of her guardian. 209 This requirement for
parental (or guardian) consent is explicit in Exod. 22: 15-16 [ET 16-17] and is
clear in Mesopotamian practice, for example, LE 26, 27, and 28. 210
2.3 Sexual union meets the conditions expected of an oath-sign and, as such,
resembles other covenant-ratifying oath-signs
Since sexual intercourse is the indispensable means for the consummation of
marriage in the Old Testament, as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, can it
also be viewed as an oath-sign for the ratification of the covenant of
marriage? In that no text offers a theoretical discussion of sexual union in
terms of covenant concepts, our discussion must necessarily proceed by way
of probability and the accumulation of a weight of evidence. Before
examining those texts which offer the most direct evidence for identifying
209 The case of Judges 21 is extraordinary and complicated by the issue of kidnapping.
Even here, however, parental consent was extracted ex post facto.
210 Cf. also S. Greengus, "The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," 521.
211 Accordingly, this law is cited as the clearest evidence for in domum deductio, as
argued by P. Koschaker. Cf. R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," 11,125-131.
The drafting of this law is less than felicitous given the discrepancy between CH
151-152, In. 37, which describes the transition point for liability for the husband's debts
as when he "took that woman [sinniStam su'ati l~azul," while Ins. 44-45, and especially
Ins. 54-55, use the woman's entrance into the house of the man as the transition point: "If
the debt is incurred by them after that woman entered into the house of the man [summa istu
sinnistum Si ana bit awzlim irubu ]. ... "
212 Cf. also R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," 11,131.
266 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
213 E.F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (1923) 86f., VI r. 9-10; cited as
text #15 in P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 102.
214 Other examples of "becoming one" mentioned in the treaties are found in the treaty
between Muwatallis and Sunassurah of Kizzuwatna, Ins. 35-36, and in AK. Grayson,
Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, II, 459. Cf. further P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenant, 93-106.
215 E.g., cf. J. Skinner, Genesis (1930) 70; and H. Gunkel, according to C. Westermann,
Genesis 1-11,233.
Against limiting the reference of "one flesh" in Gen. 2:24 to the sexual act, cf. M.
Gilbert, "'Une seule chair' (Gn 2,24)" (1978) 66-89.
216 The giving of the hand represents the person, according to P. Kalluveettil,
Declaration and Covenant, 21. M. Malul discusses how gestures involving the forehead
and the head as a whole are similarly used to represent the person (Studies in Mesopotamian
Legal Symbolism, 74, 176, 249ff.). Likewise, hair, fingernails, saliva, etc., in various
gestures and ceremonies are identified by P. Koschaker as emblems of the person (so Malul,
op. cit., 115, n. 100).
Cf. also the claim of W.G.E. Watson that in Isa. 28:15 the parties metaphorically
conclude a covenant with death by ceremonially facing each other and touching each
other's chests (Classical Hebrew Poetry, 57). Related to this, according to Watson, is the
manner in which covenants could be broken by fondling another's breasts as in Isa. 28:3dc.
Cf. CAD S, 165f.
If Koschaker is correct that garments (undergarments), because of their proximity to the
intimate parts of one's body, were a symbol of personality and could represent the owner,
then it is all the more likely that those intimate parts themselves were symbolic of the
person as a whole. In support of this understanding of garments, cf. also M. Malul, Studies
in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 114f., 152.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 267
one's hands under another's "thigh" (Gen. 24:2, 9 and 47:29).217 At the very
least, these examples provide an associative context between the genitalia and
oath taking.
Finally, recalling DJ. McCarthy's explanation for how a shared meal
effects a covenant bond because only kinsmen eat together, a similar logic
may well apply to sexual union. 218 Since sexual intercourse is characteristic
of marriage and, further, since licit sexual acts take place only between
husbands and wives, for a couple to willingly engage in sexual intercourse
may simultaneously imply the recognition of each other as husband and wife.
As an adjunct to McCarthy's explanation, it is possible that the covenant-
forming effect of touching or of eating together may not be entirely
arbitrary.219 In any case, although it raises questions which exceed the scope
of this study, it is possible that the posited union effected by sexual
intercourse reflects and is reinforced by a deeper sociobiological reality of
sexual imprinting and pair-bonding.220
2.4 The covenantal implication of referring to sexual union with the verb J)i',
"know"
Not only does the symbolism of intercourse suggest that it may have
functioned as a covenant-ratifying oath-sign, but also one of the prominent
terms used to refer to intercourse, the term .I)", "know," may also point in the
217 Cf. R.D. Freedman, "Put Your Hand Under My Thigh" (1976) 3ff.; M. Malul,
"More onpahad yi!!/:uIq (Genesis xxiv 42,53) and the oath by the thigh" (1985) 192-200;
and idem, "Touching the Sexual Organs as an Oath Ceremony in an Akkadian Letter"
(198!) 491-2.
218 Treaty and Covenant, 253ff., 266, 276. Cf. also P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and
Covenant, 11.
219 Cf., e.g., P. Farb, Consuming Passions. The Anthropology of Eating (1980).
220 Cf. D. Morris, The Naked Ape (1967); idem, Intimate Behavior (1971).
For more technical studies in defence of the theory of (normally monogamous) pair-
bonding in homo sapiens, cf. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Ethnology: The Biology of Behavior (1975)
502; D.P. Barash, Sociobiology and Behavior (1977) 297, 360; L.A. Fairbanks, "Animal
and human behavior: guidelines for generalization across species" (1977) 87-110; B.A.
Hamburg, "The biosocial basis of sex differences" (1978) 155-213; and S.B. Hrdy, The
Woman That Never Evolved (1981).
D. Morris, I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, and S.B. Hrdy speculate that the extreme demands of
rearing human children, due especially to their slow maturation by comparison to other
primates, necessitated the permanent association of the parents (required to allow a more
significant paternal investment in the offspring), which fostered the evolution of the "pair-
bond." The similarity of human pair-bonding to that found in about 8,000 bird species, a
few members of the dog family (coyotes, bat-eared foxes), and some other primates (the
gibbons, or lesser apes, siamang, and marmoset) appears to be the result of convergence
toward a similar solution to a similar problem, namely the special challenge of rearing
offspring (cf. L.A. Fairbanks,op. cit., 100). In each of these recognized pair-bonding
species, the father contributes substantially to the care of the young.
Against the assumption of human adult male-female pair-bonding, based particularly on
the sexual dimorphism of humans (a feature normally associated with non pair-bonding
species), cf. E.O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975); idem, On Human
Nature (1978); and D. Symons, The Evolution of Human Sexuality (1979) 96-141.
M. Konner argues for an intermediate position: humans are pair-bonding, but
imperfectly so (The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit [1982]261-
290).
268 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
same direction. Whatever the precise historical explanation for the use of ll",
"know," with reference to sexual union,221 an association between the
covenantal use of this term and its sexual use (apparent, for example, in cases
of double entendre) may have fostered an ancient identification of sexual
union as a means of covenant recognition. Before presenting the evidence for
this association, it is necessary to review briefly the evidence for the
aforementioned covenantal usage.
As argued by H.B. Huffmon and S.B. Parker and since supported by
other scholars, there are a number of examples in the Old Testament where
ll'" "know," is used with personal objects in a non-cognitive and non-
experiential manner (apart from references to sexual union).222 Huffmon
explains these relational uses as instances of a technical usage of "know"
drawn from treaty practice, in which the suzerain and vassal "recognize" each
other as covenant partners. 223 Huffmon offers as evidence of this background
a similar use of the Hittite verb sek- / sak-, meaning "(legally) recognize."
For example, in the treaty between Suppiluliumas and I!uqqanas, the suzerain
Suppiluliumas tells his vassal, "And you, I!uqqanas, know only the Sun [a
designation for the Hittite king] regarding lordship .... Moreover, another lord
... do not .,. know!"224
221 In spite of numerous attempts, the relevant facts for recovering the origin of the
sexual sense of "know" lie irrecoverably buried in hoary antiquity. Cf., e.g., G.J.
Botterweck, ".\,,:, yada'," TDOT, V, 448-48l.
While it is possible that the range of usage for Hebrew ll1' (paralleled by Ugaritic yd')
represents an independent development, it seems more likely that this remarkable range
reflects an early semantic borrowing, probably from Akkadian (where both idum and
lamadum, "to know," may be used in a cognitive sense as well as a sexual one). It is not
clear, however, whether the Akkadian usage of idiim and lamadum itself may reflect a still
earlier semantic borrowing from Sumerian zu, which also means "to know" and can bear a
sexual sense, or whether the borrowing went the other way (as is now recognized to have
often been the case). It is also of interest that the Egyptian term r~ can bear a sexual sense.
222 H.B. Huffmon, "The Treaty Background of Hebrew yada'" (1966) 31-37; H.B.
Huffmon and S.B. Parker, "A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew yada'"
(1966) 36-38. In support, cf., e.g., F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973)
269, 273; and A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 202. Cf. also F.e. Fensham, "Covenant,
Alliance" (1980).
As an example of a simple "cognitive" use of the Oal of ll1' with a personal object, i.e.,
"to know of, to be acquainted with," cf., e.g., Gen. 29:5, "Do you know Laban the son of
Nahor?" Cf. also Deut. 9:2; 22:2; 2 Sam. 22:44; Ps. 18:44 [ET 43]; Ezek. 28:19.
Related to this cognitive use is what might be termed an "analytic" use of ll1'. Here the
knower is cognizant of the character of the individual, and hence ll1' could be rendered, "to
know what an individual is like," "to understand." Cf., e.g., Exod. 32:22, "And Aaron said,
'Let not the anger of my lord bum hot; you know the people, that they are set on evil.'" Cf.
also 2 Sam. 3:25; 17:8; 2 Kgs. 9:11; Job 11:11; Ps. 139:1, 14; Jer. 9:23 [ET 24];12:3
The "experiential" use of the Oal of ll1' with a personal object refers to cases where ll1'
is used to indicate that the knower personally knows the other individual, hence "to know
personally." Cf., e.g., 1 Sam. 3:7, "Now Samuel did not yet know Yahweh, and the word of
Yahweh had not yet been revealed to him." Cf. also Exod. 33:13; Deut. 11:28; 13:3 [ET 2],
7 [ET 6], 14 [ET 13]; 28:33; 29:25 [ET 26]; 32:17; Judg. 2:10; Ruth 2:11; 1 Sam. 2:12;
10:11; Job 19:13; 42:11; Isa. 1:3; 29:15; 45:20; 55:5 (bis); Jer. 7:9f.; 19:4; 44:3; and Dan.
11:38.
223 H.B. Huffmon, "The Treaty Background of Hebrew yada'," 31.
224 Huffmon suggests that the use ofyada' as "(legally) recognize" and a similar use of
ida in the Amama tablets, not found in Akkadian more generally, may represent a calque
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 269
Since Huffmon's studies, under the strictures of modem lexical
semantics, Biblical scholars have become considerably more sceptical about
any claims for a technical usage. 225 Without insisting on Huffmon's posited
restriction to formal covenantal contexts, a result of his assumption of a
"technical" use, nevertheless, many of the non-cognitive, non-experiential
examples of .l.l1' discussed by Huffmon and others do appear to support his
interpretation of these as meaning "tei acknowledge (the authority of, the
claims of, etc.)," "to recognize (legally, covenantally)," that is, "to recognize
(or even to establish another as a covenant partner)."226
from Hittite sek- / sak-, which normally means "know," but in the treaty texts can mean
"legally recognize."
A. Goetze has challenged the assumption of direct borrowing from Hittite based on the
fact that when sek- / sak- means "legally recognize," it is accompanied by the reflexive
particle -za, usually attached to the first word in the sentence, while when it means "know,"
the particle -za is lacking ("Hittite sek- / sak- '(Legally) Recognize' in the Treaties" [1968-
69] 7f.). While G.J. Botterweck concludes that this leaves Huffmon and Parker's analysis
of 1'1: "without foundation," this is far from the case (s. v. 111: in TDOT, V, 478). Goetze's
argument concerns only the posited origin for this particular usage of Amarna Akkadian ida
and Hebrew lli;. Goetze nowhere challenges and, in fact, appears to accept Huffmon's
analysis of the usage itself in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Hittite. Even with respect to the
origin of this usage, Goetze acknowledges that the Hebrew usage might still derive from
Hittite, but insists that if it does, the borrowing is more complicated than at first thought. In
support of Huffmon and Parker, however, since Hebrew and Akkadian both lack anything
comparable to the separable particle -za, it is possible that a calque would depend simply on
context to discriminate these usages.
225 Cr., e.g., D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (1984) 45-48.
226 E.W. Ni<;:holson rejects Huffmon's proposal without citation (God and His People
[1986] 80). Nicholson prefers the definition offered by Baumann, "know someone for
one's own" or "choose and make someone one's own" (cf. E. Baumann, "Yada' und seine
Derivate. Ein sprachlich-exegetische Studie," 39). It is not clear, however, what Baumann
means by "know someone for one's own" or "choose and make someone one's own" or that
he intends anything different from Huffmon's definition (expressed, to be sure, without the
tabooed adjective "covenantal").
S.E. Loewenstamm agrees that, apart from Huffmon's one-sided emphasis on the
"mutual recognition of the partners to a treaty," his understanding of the covenantal usage
of ,1)1' is comparable to that of Baumann's ("A Didactic Ugaritic Drinkers' Burlesque"
[198~ 374-375).
2 This verse involves a minor k!fib-qere problem with 1'J::l as the qere for iJ::l.
228 Cf. A.D.H.. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 403. ""
270 VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION
229 D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law, 1947, 7f.; and idem, "Rechtsgedanken in den
Erziihlungen des Pentateuchs" (1961) 34.
230 This verse could hardly refer to the new Pharaoh's lack of personal acquaintance
with Joseph - such would be obvious and require no special comment since Joseph had
long since died. The ensuing report of persecution shows that loyalty is what is at issue.
231 W.H. Wolff,Amos, 174, 176f.
232 Hosea - Jonah, 321f. J. Lindblom offers "care for," "be interested in, concerned in"
(Prophecy in Ancient Israel [1%2]326). S.R. Driver offers "took notice of, deemed worthy
of His self-revealing friendship and regard," as also in Gen. 18:19 and Deut. 34:10 (Joel
and Amos [1915] and idem, Deuteronomy [1902]425).
233 Cf., e.g., G.E. Mendenhall, "Election," IDB, II, 79f. Those scholars who reject any
pre-Deuteronomic reference to Yahweh's covenant with Israel (see footnote 59 in Chapter 8
below) explain Amos 3:2 as a reference to "election theology" (of J), rather than "covenant
theology." Accepting a covenantal allusion in Amos 3:2, however, are H.L. Mays, Amos
(1969) 56f.; H. McKeating, The Books of Amos, Hosea and Micah (1971) 26f.; D. Stuart,
Hosea - Jonah (1987) 321f.; G.V. Smith, Amos. A Commentary (1989) 105; and F.1.
Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Amos (1989) 38lf.; among others.
234 This is not to deny that 1n:::l at times may also be used in this manner. Cf., e.g.,
Deut. 7:6; and Ps. 78:70.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 271
(by covenant)" may be more adequate for ll" in those verses where the idea
of election is in view.235
Other plausible examples where God is the subject of covenantal
knowing include the following: Gen. 18:19; Exod. 33:12, 17; Deut. 9:24;
34:10; 2 Sam. 7:20; 1 Chron. 17:18; Ps. 144:3; Hos. 5:3; 13:5; Nah. 1:7; and
especially Jer. 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you [~'M.l:'T],
and before you were born I consecrated you [~'!.'I~1Pi1]; I appointed you
[~'f:1lJ~] a prophet to the nations."
There are a number of examples where God is the object of this kind
of knowing which may be helpful to note. 236 Jer. 22:16, for instance, says of
the righteous king, "He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was
well. Is not this to know me ['\i~ n,p;Iij ~'rn~i?01? says Yahweh." It seems
clear from such a text that "knowing" God is more than a matter of mere
cognition! Similarly stressing the commitment of service implied in
"knowing" God, David enjoins his son Solomon, "And you, Solomon my
son, know the God of your father [~':J~ 'iJ?trn~ '.1)1 '~:;J-i19?~ i1f;i~1], and serve
him with a whole heart and with a willing mind; for Yahweh searches all
hearts, and understands every plan and thought" (1 Chron. 28:9). Of note
also is Hos. 6:6, which sets "the knowledge of God [C'\i?~ n,p'Jl1" in
synonymous parallelism with "steadfast loyalty ['9P]": "For I desire steadfast
loyalty and not sacrifice [n~r~?l 'n~t;I '9P '?], the knowledge of God, rather
than burnt offerings [ni,?:VO C'~?~ n,p'Jl]." On the other hand, Provo 2:5 seems
to equate the "fear of Yahweh" with "knowing" God: "Then you will
understand the fear of Yahweh and find the knowledge of God [n,p11
C'D?~]."237 Other examples of the present use of ll" where God is the object
include the following: Exod. 5:2; Job 18:21; 24:1; Ps. 36:11 [ET 10]; 79:6;
87:4; Provo 3:6; 9:10; Isa. 19:21; 43:10; 45:4, 5; 53:11;238 Jer. 2:8; 4:22; 9:2
[ET 3]; 9:5 [ET 6]; 10:25; 24:7; 31:34 (2x); Ezek. 38:16; Dan. 11:32; Hos.
2:22 [ET 20]; 4:1; 5:4; 6:3 (bis); 8:2; and 13:4.
239 Cf. R. Boling (Judges, 276) and P. Trible (Texts of Terror, 73), both of whom note
the ambiguity of the identical clause in Judg. 19:22.
240 Cf. S. Niditch, "The 'Sodomite' Theme in Judges 19-20: Family, Community, and
Social Disintegration" (1982) 365-378; R. Alter, Putting Together Biblical Narrative
(1988); and H.-W. Jiingling, Richter 19 -Ein Pladoyer fUr das Konigturn (1981).
VERBA SOLEMNlA AND SEXUAL UNION 273
man's241] concubine, and put her out to them; and they 'knew' her, and
abused her [i'!~-1"7.lJt;1~J i'!t;1;~' WI')] all night until the morning." When the
narrator reports how the Gibeahites "knew" the concubine, he picks up this
term from its earlier use by the Gibeahite mob, as if to underscore in bitter
irony the heinousness of this atrocity.242 Their brutal act was the antithesis of
the kind of covenantal "knowing" which should have taken place. To avoid
any misunderstanding, however, the narrator makes explicit that the
Gibeahites' "knowing" consisted rather in "abusing her all night until the
morning."
As a modern parallel to this ironic use of "know," one might imagine
a gang of hoodlums demanding to "have a little fun" with some guest (an
ironic use of a normally inoffensive phrase). Later, a newspaper account
reports that the gang "had their fun" and in order to clarify the bitter sarcasm
adds that "they abused her all night...." Our translation of Judg. 19:25
reflects this interpretation by its use of quotation marks around "knew."
Naturally, because of the laconic nature of these texts, any such interpretation
of Genesis 19 or Judges 19 can be no more than a suggestion. Nevertheless,
if correct, it provides an interesting example of the possible interplay between
the covenantal and sexual senses of ,l)1', "know."
241 This interpretation is supported by the extensive parallels between Genesis 19 and
Judges 19, implying that it was the host, not the Levite, who negotiated with the Gibeahite
mob. For additional arguments, cf. D.K. Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis (1984) 59f.
242 So, e.g., P. Trible, Texts oj Terror, 76.
243 E.F. Campbell Jr. suggests that Ruth 3:3, "do not let yourself be known," may offer
yet another example of sexual double entendre - although in this case, the primary sense
of 111' is cognitive, not covenantal (Ruth, 131f.).
Cf. also the earlier discussion of Amos 3:2, according to the interpretations of K.
Cramer, Amos (1930); and F.1. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Amos (1989) 381f.
274 VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION
244 H.W. Wolff, "Erkenntnis Gottes im AT" (1955) 428ff. So also F.I. Andersen and
D.N. Freedman, Hosea, 283; and G.A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of
Hosea (1987) 88.
245 J.L. Mays, Hosea, 52.
246 OJ. Baab, "Marriage," lBD 3 (1962) 286.
247 Cf. H. McKeating, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 88.
248 Hosea, 284.
249 Cf. also Gen. 19:8; Num. 31:17, 35; and Judg. 21:12.
VERBA SOLEMNIA AND SEXUAL UNION 275
To insist with Mays and others that Hosea suddenly departs in vs. 22b
[ET 20b] from the extended marital imagery which controls most, if not all,
of 2:4-22a [ET 2-20a] is unpersuasive.25o This is especially so since in their
view Hosea accomplishes this imagined abrupt change in imagery by
utilizing the second person feminine singular of l)1', "know," a term which is
emphatically at home within a marital context and entirely to be expected
following the promised betrothal "in faithfulness," in contrast to Israel's
previous adultery.
Finally, as already suggested, to allow "know" in the present verse to
include a sexual allusion does not imply that Hosea is necessarily abandoning
his customary covenantal understanding of this verb.251 Indeed, embedded as
it is in the present marital imagery, the use of "know" within this verse offers
an impressive confirmation of our hypothesis that as the marriage covenant-
ratifying (and renewing) act sexual union is the means by which an individual
"acknowledges" his or her spouse as covenant partner.
Hosea 13:5
"It was I who knew you [1'!'1l)T ',~~] in the wilderness, in the land of drought"
(Hos. 13:5). This verse offers an intriguing example of the usage under
question. Unfortunately, however, the text of the MT is not beyond dispute.
H.W. Wolff and J.L. Mays, for example, both prefer to emend the MT 1'!'1-1'T,
"I knew you," to 1't1'i)!, "I pastured you," following the LXX, Targum,
Syriac, and Vulgate. 252 Accordingly, the MT may be explained in terms of a
i - 1 graphic confusion and dittography of the final yod of the preceding ',~~.
The LXX et al., however, may be accounted for just as easily by the reverse
errors, and the MT supported as a lectio difficilior. 253 The use of the
emphatic pronoun ',J~, "I," may suggest a contrastive reference to the knowing
mentioned previously in vs. 4, "I am Yahweh your God from the land of
Egypt; you were to know no God but me [l)10 ~? "t:17i: C'~'?~l], and besides
me there is no saviour."254
In support of the MT, H.B. Huffmon has advanced an important
argument which had been previously overlooked.255 Huffmon notes that l)1"
"know," in this context offers a specific allusion to the covenant at Sinai,
which is referred to as the place where God "knew" Israel in Deut. 9:24,
"You have been rebellious against Yahweh from the day that I knew you
[o;?n~ '!'I.I?'1 0;:0 i1Ji1~-Ol) O(l"i.) 0'J90]." Compare also Amos 3:2 and Deut.
2:7.
As noted by F.1. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Hos. 13:4-6 briefly
alludes to the marriage metaphor developed in chapter 2, as it recalls the
redemption from Egypt and subsequent wilderness wanderings under the
figure of a try sting place.256 Although the imagery is not blatant and lacks
feminine gender references, the connections with Hosea 2 in vocabulary and
subject matter are clear enough to recognize the allusion. In addition to the
mention of "Egypt" and "wilderness" in Hos. 13:4f. (cf. 2:16f. [ET 14f.]), the
repetition of the theme of the provisioning of Israel in 13:6 (cf. 2:7, 10, 11
[ET 5, 8, 9]) and the subsequent indictment that in their satiety Israel "forgot
me" (cf. 2: 15 [ET 13]), all offer points of contact.
In 2: 16-17 [ET 14-15], Hosea identifies the period of the Exodus and
wilderness wanderings as the point when Yahweh contracted his "marriage"
with Israel. As Hos. 2:21f. [ET 19f.] promises a day when Yahweh's
marriage will be renewed, when he will betroth Israel to himself forever, and
when "you will know Yahweh" (employing the metaphor of the sexual
consummation of the marriage covenant), so Hos. 13:5 recalls that already in
the original marriage, "I knew you in the wilderness [";nO~ 7j'!'1.1?T ',~~ ]."257
In keeping with the same imagery, when Hos. 13:4 rehearses the central
stipulation of the Sinaitic covenant, it does so in a manner which comports
perfectly with the marital imagery.258 As a wife owes her husband exclusive
sexual fidelity, so "you [Israel] were to know no God but me [~? 'n'{ii O'D?~l
l)1t:!]"259
Hosea 5:3-4
3a"l know Ephraim [O''l~~ 'l'1.1?): '~~],
3band Israel is not hid from me ['~pO 'lJ~r~? '~l~'1],
3cfor now, 0 Ephraim, you have played the harlot [l;1'}.\i1 'i1I;1-P '?
O''l~~ ],
3dIsrael is defiled ['~l~' ~9tp~]
4cFor the spirit of harlotry is within them [Cl*lp:l 'o'J1J\ 111") '~],
4d and they know not Yahweh [1.1)1: ~7 i1)i1~-n~I]."
Jeremiah 31:34
In addition to the Hoseanic texts just considered, there is one final text, Jer.
31:34, which is less clear in its implication, but may provide further evidence
for an association between "know" as a reference to sexual union and its
covenantal use. Jer. 31:34 reads: "And no longer shall each man teach his
neighbour and each his brother, saying, 'Know Yahweh [i1Ji1'-n~ 1-\"],' for
they shall all know me ['ni~ 1ll" b71Y'?], from the least of them to the
greatest, says Yahweh; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more." In the context, especially in view of the preceding verse
("But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law within them, and I will write it
upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."), a
covenantal nuance to "know" seems plausible. 263 This passage is of special
interest, however, because Jer. 31:32 (if we are to follow the RSV rendering
of 't'l7;l,9 as "I was a husband") may set this "knowing" within the context of
the marriage metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel. This
metaphor, which may have derived from Hosea, is used by Jeremiah in
chapter 3. While it must remain uncertain, it is possible that Jeremiah briefly
alludes to the marriage metaphor again in the present context. If so, a
reference to "knowing" in the context of the marriage metaphor suggests a
3. CONCLUSIONS
secure the parents' consent, the act of sexual union by itself is constitutive of
marriage. A similar perspective of sexual union as constitutive of marriage is
suggested by instances of synecdoche, by which sexual union is used to refer
to marriage and vice versa.
Likewise, consistent with this predisposition to view sexual union as a
marriage-forming act, Exod. 22:15, 16 [ET 16, 17]; Deut. 22:28f.; Genesis
34; and 2 Samuel 13 all encourage or insist on the formalizing of marriage
following an act of "premarital" sex. This formalization consists simply of
paying the marriage present, which, if accepted, constitutes an ex post facto
approval of the union by the girl's parents and extinction of their parental
authority.
Clearly, sexual union is the indispensable means for the consummation
of marriage both in the Old Testament and elsewhere in the ancient Near
East. While it is less certain, it seems probable that sexual union functioned
in this manner precisely because it was viewed as an oath-sign. For example,
Israel's covenant with Gibeon in Joshua 9 was considered irrevocable once
Israel ratified it by the oath-sign of a shared meal, even though Gibeon
secured this covenant through a blatant deception. 264 In an analogous
manner, as was noted in our discussion of Genesis 29, Jacob's marriage with
Leah appears to have been deemed valid and irrevocable, in spite of the
underlying deception, once Jacob consummated the marriage through sexual
union with Leah.
In any case, in support of this identification of sexual union, it was
recalled how oath-signs, such as eating together or giving one's hand in a
hand shake, often function by offering a solemn depiction of the covenant
commitment to unity being undertaken. With respect to sexual union, it is
clear that this act is ideally suited to depict the "one flesh" reality which is
definitional of marriage in Gen. 2:24. Furthermore, it is notable that a
number of oath-signs involve physical contact or the use of the parts of the
body to represent one's whole person on the principle of pars pro toto, and
two oath gestures involve the organs of generation (i.e., circumcision and
placing one's hands under another's "thigh"). At the very least, such
examples provide an associative context between the genitalia and oath
taking.
264 Cf. 2 Samuel 21 for the enduring consequences of this commitment which Saul
attempted to revoke. Nevertheless, Josh. 9:14 makes plain that this meal was the decisive
point of Israel's failure to consult the Lord, "So the men partook of their provisions, and did
not ask direction from Yahweh." Cf. R.G. Boling and G.E. Wright, loshua, 265.
CHAPTER EIGHT
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT
ELSEWHERE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Having posited the use of verba solemnia as a ratifying oath in marriage and
having identified sexual union as a complementary ratifying oath-sign, we
shall argue that marriage was not only a status regulated by custom (ethics)
and family law, but also, at least in the minds of some biblical authors, a
sanction-sealed commitment to which the deity was witness.
As has been discussed, the most direct evidence for this perspective is
found in Mal. 2:14: "You ask, 'Why does he not?' Because Yahweh was
witness between you and the wife of your youth [ntzj~ I 1';;11 ~~'~ ,'im ;'iii~
1'i1.l)~], to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and
your wife by covenant [1D'!~ ntzj~i :F'IlJ.O tIi'Di]." Although Malachi
nowhere mentions a ratifying oath in connection with marriage, the presence
of such an oath, which would invoke the deity to act as a witness, is implied
in his explicit identification of Yahweh as a "witness" between the husband
and his wife. 4
On the other hand, if marriage was understood more widely as a
sanction-sealed commitment between husband and wife to which the deity
was witness, even if other texts are less explicit than Malachi, four
implications follow, for which we may seek evidence:
1) First, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife, any
offence against the marriage by either the husband or the wife may be
4 There are only two other OT texts where God is acknowledged as a "witness between
[1111,hll+ )':;1)" two parties; as in Malachi 2, in each case the declaration is made in an oath
context. Cf. Gen. 31:50 and 1 Sam. 20:12, if the MT is emended with the Peshi.tta, as
suggested by P.K McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel, 336. Cf. also Gen. 31:48, where in a covenant-
ratifying oath context the "heap," perhaps acting as a representation of the deity, is
acknowledged as "a witness between you and me." Cf. further Gen. 31:44 and Josh. 22:27.
Finally, cf. Judg. 11:10, which employs different vocabulary: "And the elders of Gilead
said to Jephthah, 'Yahweh will be witness between us [1l'riil';;J 'lit:ltO il.~il' iljil']; we will
surel y do as you say. "
Cf. our discussion in Chapter 7, L5 above in support of the assumption that the deity
was considered to be a witness to marriage.
282 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
identified as sin (~~n, lltLi=.J, etc.), perfidy ('llO), or infidelity (,JJ) against the
other.
2) Second, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife,
because God is invoked in any covenant-ratifying oath to act as guarantor of
the covenant, any marital offence by either the husband or the wife may be
identified as sin (~~n, lltLi=.J, etc.) against God.
3) Third, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife,
because God is invoked in any ratifying oath to act as guarantor of the
covenant, any marital infidelity ought to prompt God's judgment against the
offending party.
4) Finally, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife,
because the deity is invoked in any ratifying oath, intermarriage with pagans
ought to be prohibited because idolatry would necessarily ensue when a
ratifying oath is sworn.
1.1 Marital offences may be identified as sin (~~n, ))rC:J, etc.), perfidy ('))D),
or infidelity (i;~) against one's spouse
As mentioned, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife, then any
offence against the marriage by either the husband or the wife may be
identified as sin (~~n, lltLi=.J, etc.), perfidy (?llO), or infidelity ("J) against the
other, as these terms are employed elsewhere in analogous cases of covenant
violation (e.g., 2 Kgs. 1:1; 18:14; etc.). Given the relatively few specific
examples of adultery mentioned in the Old Testament, however, it is perhaps
unsurprising that no biblical text identifies adultery, or any other marital
offence, specifically as a sin (~~n) or act of rebellion (lltLi=.J) against one's
spouse. s Nevertheless, some texts do describe adultery as "perfidy ['llO]" or
"infidelity [,JJ]" against one's spouse.
1.1.1 The significance of the use of '))D, "perfidy," for marital offences
Num. 5:12 and 27 describe a wife's adultery as an example of 'llO, "perfidy,"
against her husband. Stressing the significance of these examples, J.
Milgrom notes that these two verses represent the only occasions where 'llO
S Some texts are ambiguous in that they pertain to the marriage analogy of Israel's
relationship to Yahweh, describing Israel's spiritual "adultery" as lltD!l. Cf. Isa. 50:1 and
57:4. Cf. also Jer. 3:13. Alternatively Jer. 2:22 declares to adulterous Israel: the
ineradicable "stain of your guilt [lli~ t:lf;9l) is still before me."
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 283
is used outside the sacral sphere of sancta and oath violations. 6 This
observation makes very appealing the hypothesis that the reason that ';.1)0,
"perfidy," is applied to adultery is because it refers to a violation of the oath
by which the marriage covenant was ratified. Further supporting the
hypothesis of such an oath is the stipulation of a reparation/guilt offering
[~f?i~] in Lev. 19:20-22 for adultery with a betrothed slave-girl. As Milgrom
notes, the reparation offering is directly linked to perfidy [';.1)0] as the specific
offering intended to redress sancta trespass or oath violations. 7
Having drawn attention to these points, which naturally suggest that a
covenant-ratifying oath was involved in marriage, nevertheless Milgrom
rejects this inference for the following four reasons:
1) There is no explicit stipulation of an oath in any of the law codes or
extant marriage contracts which have survived from the ancient Near East.
This objection has already been answered in Chapter 6, 2.1.
2) The only explicit evidence in the Old Testament of an oath in
marriage is Ezek. 16:8, which refers to an oath taken by Yahweh, the husband
in this metaphor. According to Milgrom, however, "it should have been
expected of the bride, Israel, for it is the bride, not the husband, who is
subject to the laws of adultery.''8
In large measure this objection was answered in Chapter 7, where we
considered the evidence for an oath or oath-sign by both the husband and the
wife. Even apart from that evidence, the fact that one chapter in Ezekiel
mentions an oath by the husband hardly requires the conclusion that there
could have been no corresponding oath by the wife. At the end of the present
chapter we shall examine in more detail the widely-held assumption, shared
by Milgrom, that the Old Testament obligates only wives and not husbands to
sexual fidelity. Nevertheless, this has no bearing on the interpretation of
Numbers 5 or its implication that adultery may represent an oath-violation,
i.e. ';.1)0, since the adultery in this chapter is by the wife.
3) In Num. 5:11ff. ".1)0, "perfidy," is used to refer to a wife's suspected
adultery against her husband (vss. 12, 27). Everywhere else in the Old
Testament, however, ';.1)0 is used of sancta or oath-violations committed
against God. Hence Milgrom argues that in this passage ';.1)0 is "a literary
metaphor and has no legal value."9
6 Cult and Conscience, 133f. For examples of ?l!r:l with sancta violation, cf. Josh. 7:1; 2
Chron. 26:16, 18. For use with oath violation, cf. Num. 5:6-8; Lev. 26:40; and Ezek. 17:18-
20. For ?l!r:l applied to adultery, cf. Num. 5: 12, 27.
Cf. also Num. 31:16, where ?l!r:l is used for the Baal of Peor incident; Ezek. 20:27,
where it is used of idolatry; and Ezra 10:2, 10, which so describes interfaith marriage.
Milgrom argues that these two categories of ?l!r:l, sancta trespass and oath violation, are
essentially similar and were so considered throughout the ancient Near East (op. cit., 21f.).
7 Milgrom notes that ?l!r:l is found only with I:ltq~ in the sacrificial texts (Cult and
Conscience, 16).
8 Ibid., 134.
9 Ibid. Cf. especially note 486, where Milgrom suggests that the use of "llO in Numbers
5 probably derives from the analogy of Israel as an unfaithful wife whose ?llr:l against
Yahweh was literal. "Since maal denotes straying after other gods, it can also describe
straying after other men."
284 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
10 As rendered by the NJPS. In support, cf. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 17, 105
n.388.
11 Lev. 5:21 [ET 6:2]; Num. 5:6; Josh. 22:31; 1 Chron. 10:13; 2 Chron. 12:2; 26:16;
28:191 22; and 30:7.
1 Deut. 32:51; Lev. 26:40; Ezek. 14:13; 20:27; and 39:23,26.
13 Josh. 22:16; Ezra 10:2; Neh. 13:27; and 1 Chron. 5:25.
14 Milgrom considers these both to refer to oath violation: "the king who commits maal
with 'his mouth' by deviating from God's justice and the self-assumed authority of Job's
friends to speak for God's theodicy" (Cult and Conscience, 20 n. 64).
15 Ibid., 134f.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 285
betrothal vow, since the paramour was no party to this, but the violation of
the Sinaitic oath by which all Israelites were obligated to adhere to the
seventh commandment against adultery.
There are four main difficulties with Milgrom's explanation of Lev.
19:20-22.
a) Milgrom's assumption that the reparation offering [C~~] was
restricted to cases of '.1>0, that is to sancta and oath violations, finds its
strongest support in Lev. 5:14-24 [ET 6:5], the one text which addresses the
purpose of the reparation offering in a general manner, but the limited
evidence available to test this interpretation forbids certainty,16 While the
term c~~, bearing the meaning "reparation offering," appears about 34 times
in the Old Testament, 11 of these are grouped within Lev. 5-7.n Of the
remaining 23, the only instances which offer support for Milgrom's view are
4 verses in 1 Samuel 6, where the Philistines provide a reparation offering
after they violated the sanctity of the ark. On the other hand, at least 13
examples occurring in four separate contexts call for explanation from
Milgrom since they are not obviously related to oath or sancta violation.1 8
b) On Milgrom's view, any violation of anyone of the commandments
of the Decalogue ought to require an c~~, "a reparation offering," since every
such violation will entail '.1>0, "perfidy," by reason of an oath violation (of the
Sinaitic oath). One looks in vain, however, for examples of '.1>0 applied to
desecration of the Sabbath, dishonour to parents, murder, theft, covetousness,
16 Perhaps the most decisive issue in establishing the meaning of the tl~~ offering is the
contention of Milgrom that tl~~ in Lev. 5:6 and 7, as well as elsewhere, means "penalty" or
"reparation," rather than "reparation offering." Cf. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 2, 3-
7. For alternative explanations, however, cf., e.g., D. Kellermann, "tl~~ 'asluim," TOOT, I,
431-434. Cf. also B.A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (1974) 91-101 [revieWed by J.
MiI~rom, op. cit., Appendix D, 142f.].
7 Lev. 5:15,16,18,19,25 [ET 6:6]; 6:10 [ET 17]; 7:1, 2, 5, 7, 37; 14:12, 13, 14, 17,
21,24,25 (2x), 28; 19:21,22; Num. 6:12; 18:9; 1 Sam. 6:3,4,8,17; Ezra 10:19; Isa. 53:10;
Ezek. 40:39; 42:13; 44:29; and 46:20. For Isa. 53:10, cf. T.H. Gaster, "Sacrifices and
Offerings, OT," IDB, IV, 152.
Some scholars would add 6 more occurrences of tl~~ with the meaning "reparation
offering," or "guilt offering," to this list: Lev. 5:6, 7, 15, 24 [ET 6:5], 25 [ET 6:6] and
19:21.
If Lev. 5:6 and 7 are added, they would imply an essential identity between the tl~~ and
the n~~n offerings. The first occurrence of tl~~ in Lev. 5:15, 25 [ET 6:6] and 19:21 is
identical to 5:6 and 7.
Alternatively, with J. Milgrom (Cult and Conscience, 2, 3-7), B.A. Levine (Leviticus,
28,30), and GJ. Wenham (Leviticus, 104-112), tl~~ in these verses may bear a different
sense, namely that of "penalty" or "reparation."
With respect to Lev. 5:24 [ET 6:5], cr. the RSV, which renders it:J9~~ tli;; "on the day
of his guilt offering." Alternatively, J. Milgrom renders the phrase, "as soon as he feels
guilt" (op. cit., 84).
18 These are: nine examples found in Leviticus 14, as a required offering for persons
who have been cleansed of a serious skin disease (ibid., 45, 80-82); two (or three)
examples in Leviticus 19, the text regarding sex with a promised female slave (ibid., 129-
137); one example in Numbers 6, the required offering for the Nazirite for his or her
premature desanctification (ibid., 39, 66-70); and one example in Ezra 10, where this
offering is made after intermarriage with pagans (ibid., 41, 71-73).
286 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
19 Achan's theft in Josh. 7:1 is better explained as a case of sancta trespass. For Lev.
19:20-22, often considered as a case of adultery, cf. the discussion below.
20 Cf. Exod. 20:14 and Deut. 5:18. Cf. also Lev. 20:10.
The absence of "1~ may not be decisive, however, since the term is similarly absent
from Deut. 22:22, "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man [I :::l?t!i t!i,~ ~9'-';:>
'?.p$-n7p:;J i1\\i~1:Ill], both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the
woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel." Nevertheless, the more general language
of Deut. 22:22 [Oll :::l:::>t!i] appears to have been dictated by the desire to establish more
clearly the legal parallel which exists between adultery with a married woman, "1~, and the
case of extramarital relations with a betrothed woman, which, contrary to KB, and TWOT,
S.v., is nowhere described as "1~, and may not be within the linguistic usage of"1~ (cf.
Deut. 22:23-24).
21 Cf. Deut. 22:23f.
22 On Milgrom's view this difference resides in the remaining slave-status of the
woman, which denies her the legal status of a person (Cult and Conscience, 130 n. 463). It
seems reasonable that the present law takes into account the diminished capacity of a slave
to resist the sexual advances of a man (perhaps a member of her owner's household?). It is
less clear why this law does not simply apply the death penalty to the offending man for
raping a betrothed woman who was presumably an unwilling victim (cf. Deut. 22:25-27).
While it can be no more than a suggestion, it is possible that this law would not exclude
such a penalty, assuming that it could be established that a rape took place. It may be,
however, that the controlling purpose of the law was simply to exclude the joint death
penalty, which was normally required where there was circumstantial evidence for the
woman's consent, precisely because of a female slave's diminished capacity to withhold
consent.
23 As will be argued below, the fact that this woman was pledged, but not betrothed, is
indicated both by the lack of her redemption or manumission and by the use of the hapax
legomenon n~'Jr:p, as opposed to the customary expression for betrothal, rvi~, as in
Deuteronomy 22.
24 The Samaritan Pentateuch adds lw, "to him" or "regarding him," after iii'? and reads
,n9" as a singular, yielding: bqrt thyh lw I' ywmt. The singular reading, "he will not die,"
may imply a resemblance of this case to rape, as in Deut. 22:25-27 (cf. LE 26; CH 130;
HL 197), rather than to adultery, as in Deut. 22:23-24. In support of the singular reading
of the Samaritan Pentateuch, a resemblance to rape may better account for the subsequent
stress on the man's guilt and the lack of any punishment stipulated for the woman. On the
other hand, it is unclear why the man should avoid execution" because she was not free."
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 287
In addition to n!:)]1)l and mR J, the noun "~Elr:t and the verb "~?,lr:t are also hapax
legomena. Their meaning is not m dispute, however, based on the related forms m!i!:)iJ and
'tVEliJissupported by Akk~dian and Ugaritic cognates. .
Cf., e.g., K. Elhger, Levltlcus (1966) 260; Holladay, s.v.; KB, s.v.; E.A. Speiser,
"Leviticus and the Critics," 33ff.; and J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 129 n. 460.
26 So J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 129 n. 459. Cf. J astrow, s. v.
27 Cf. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 130; and GJ. Wenham, Leviticus, 27l.
28 EA Speiser, "Leviticus and the Critics," 34f. Cf. CAD, s.v. ~ariipu, A. So also B.
Maarsingh, Leviticus (1980) 169; and BA Levine, Leviticus (1989) 130.
S.M. Paul wonders if ~in may be related to the buruppatu tokens of engagement in
MAL A 42:17 and 43:20 (Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform
and Biblical Law [1970]54 n. 3).
29 J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 131 n. 467.
Such a situation would seem inherently contradictory with the girl caught between a
conflict of loyalties to her owner and to her husband, both designated as her "ll~.
Moreover, if the woman was not yet engaged, that is, if the betrothal gift (brideprice) had
not yet been fully paid, this fact would explain why she had not yet been "ransomed" (Lev.
19:20J - the requisite money had not yet been paid.
3 Cf. also Gen. 49:4 and 2 Sam. 16:2lff.
288 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
1.1.2 The significance of the use of iJ;J, "act faithlessly," for marital offences
The verb ,~~, "to act faithlessly, treacherously," always in the Qal
conjugation, appears 49 times in 39 verses in the Old Testament. In addition,
there are five, or possibly six, occurrences of the cognate noun '?~'
"faithlessness"; the abstract noun ni,~j, "faithlessness"; and the adjective
;i:9, "faithless." There appears to be a scholarly consensus that these various
forms of "J refer not to improbity in general, but specifically to infidelity
against some culturally expected or oath-imposed obligation. BDB, for
example, suggests that the basic meaning of the root is "act or deal
treacherousl y. "32
Reflecting this basic meaning, it is not surprising to find ,~~ frequently
used to refer to infidelity against a covenant partner.33 An example of this
usage involving the violation of a secular covenant is found in Judg. 9:23:
F. Hauck supposes that the law of adultery was simply more lenient when applied to
slaves (Lev. 19:20fL), while it was more severe when applied to a priest's daughter
(requiring burning, according to Lev. 21:9) ("110lXEVW, KTA.," TDNT 4,730 n. 3). But he
appears to be mistaken on both accounts. As argued here, Lev. 19:20ff. does not consider a
case of adultery because the girl was not fully betrothed, and Lev. 21:9 is explicit that it
pertains not to adultery (~~l), but to prostitution (illl) - perhaps especially heinous in the
case of priestly daughters because of the resemblance to cultic prostitution. Cf. also the
penalty of burning in Gen. 38:24 and Lev. 20:14.
31 Cf. also HL 28-29. Cf. F. Mezger, "Promised but not engaged" (1944) 28-31.
32 Cf. also KB, s. v. ("treulos handeln," "treulos verlassen"); S. Erlandsson, "'~~,
baghadh," TDOT, I, 470-73 ("to act faithlessly [treacherously])"; and M.A. Klopfenstein,
"'l:J bgd treulos handeln," THAT, I, 261-4.
33 Cf. S. Erlandsson, "'P, baghadh," 471-2.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 289
"And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem;
and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech [-'''-P,:;:l i",)~:;J')
1'?9'::1~:;.1 Cl?~]."34 Most of the time, however, ,~~ is used with reference to
Israel's infidelity against Yahweh's covenant,35 See, for example, Hos. 6:7:
"But at [or, like?] Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt
faithlessly with me ['~ i'~# ClW ti''J:;J ij::lo\' Cl1~~ i19~l]." At times the
infidelity is more particularly directed against fellow Israelites, as in Mal.
2:10: "Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then
are we faithless to one another ["ri~J ~'~ "~:;lJ ~ii1;l], profaning the covenant
of our fathers [iJ'rj~ ti'JJ '70,]?"36
Consistent with this usage of ,,::1 as a description of infidelity against
one's covenant partner, ,,::1 is frequently applied to marital offences, often in
passages where the marriage analogy is employed for Israel's covenantal
infidelity against Yahweh. 37 What is especially noteworthy is the fact that
,,::1 is utilized not only to describe an unfaithful wife, whose infidelity
typically consists of adultery or harlotry, but also to describe an unfaithful
husband, whose infidelity also proves to be sexual, though at times may
include other offences as well. For example, a wife's infidelity is termed ,,::1
in Jer. 3:20: "Surely, as a faithless wife leaves her husband [i1W~ i111~ p~
i1p,lO], so have you been faithless to me ['~ Cl!)l~~ 1;>],0 house of Israel, says
Yahweh." Reflecting the same marriage analogy, Jer. 3:8 identifies a wife's
adultery and harlotry as ,,::1: "She saw that for all the adulteries of that
faithless one, Israel ['~l~' i1~~O 'i1~~,~ ,~~], I had sent her away with a decree
of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear [i1~in~ 'i11ii1~ i11~~ i1~',: ~?1],
but she too went and played the harlot [~'V-Cl~ nm 1"-m]."38
In other verses, however, it is the husband who is guilty of committing
infidelity [,,::1]. What is particularly interesting is that several of these make
explicit that the infidelity [,,::1] in view is committed against [+::1] one's wife
and not merely against one's father-in-law, as some might suppose by
extrapolating from the example of Laban's covenant with Jacob in Gen. 31:44
or from the evidence of many ancient Near Eastern marriage contracts. 39 So,
34 For evidence that there was a covenant between Abimelech and the men of Shechem,
cf. Judg. 9:3, 6 and the discussion of these texts in R.G. Boling, Judges, 171; and P.
KaUuveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 62f., 209f.
35 Cf., e.g., 1 Sam. 14:33; Ps. 25:3; 73:15; 78:57; 119:158; Isa. 24:16; 48:8; Jer. 3:7, 8,
10, 11,20; 5:11; 12:1; Hos. 5:7; and Mal. 2:11.
36 J.M.P. Smith observes that, "A covenant was regularly confirmed by an oath and
thus given religious sanction; hence its violation is properly characterised as profanation; cf.
Ps. 5521 8932. 35 [ET 31, 34]" (Malachi, 48).
37 Cf. S. Erlandsson, "'J~, baghadh," 470.
As mentioned earlier, the obligations which are transgressed when there is "infidelity
[,J:J]" may be merely culturally expected, rather than specifically oath-imposed or
covenantal. Cf., e.g., Lam. 1:2. The fact that these terms are so often used of violations of
a covenant makes their appearance with marriage unsurprising on the view that marriage is
a covenant.
38 Cf. also Jer. 3:11 and Hos.5:7.
39 K van der Toom notes that Akkadian texts tend "to picture adultery as a breach of
the good faith reigning among men" (Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia, 17).
290 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
Cf., however, the discussion of marriage contracts in the previous chapter and R.
Westbrook's summary: "marriage is a legal status and must be distinguished from the
marriage contract which is incidental thereto" (Old Babylonian Marriage Law," I, ii).
40 Cf. the fuller discussion of Exod. 21:8 in 3.4 below. Cf. Chapter 3 for a defence of
our rendering of Mal. 2: 16.
41 W. McKane, among others, favours a figurative reference here and in Hos. 7:4,
which is thought to be parallel (Jeremiah, I, 199). On the contrary, J.L. Mays and others
note that Hosea usually uses "adultery," in contrast to "harlotry," for literal sexual
unfaithfulness (Hosea, 105). Moreover, contrary to McKane, Jer. 2:20ff. and 3:1-5 differ
significantly from Jer. 9:1 [ET 2] because, in keeping with the marriage metaphor
elsewhere, their references to adultery are consistently in the feminine gender, not
masculine plural as here. Cf. also Ezekiel 16 and 23. Furthermore, the mention of adultery
in Jer. 9:1 [ET 2] constitutes the first in a (perhaps rhetorical or stereotypical) sequence of
offences including falsehood, evil, untrustworthiness, slander, deception, oppression, etc.
Since each of these successive offences appears to bear its literal sense, there is little reason
to suppose otherwise for "adulterers."
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 291
1.2 Second, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife, because
God is invoked in any covenant-ratifying oath to act as guarantor of the
covenant, any marital offence by either the husband or the wife may be
identified as sin (t~~n, .v"~ etc.) against God.
Many biblical texts identify adultery as iniquitous, a sin against God, etc.,
which, correspondingly, brings shame and renders both of the participants
unclean and guilty. If the converse of this were true, that is, if the Old
Testament did not consider marital offences as sins against God, etc., such a
perspective would contradict the view that marriage was a sanction-sealed
covenant. It is unnecessary to suppose, however, that each particular
condemnation was a conscious reflection of a covenantal view of marriage or
even a reflection of the explicit prohibitions against adultery set forth in the
Decalogue and elsewhere. Rather, the Old Testament appears to presuppose
a general moral consciousness in man, shared even by pagans, which
acknowledges adultery as a heinous wrong committed not only against the
injured husband, but also against God. Hence, Gen. 20:6 records God's
words to the pagan king Abimelech: "Then God said to him in the dream,
'Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was
I who kept you from sinning against me ['?-;~IJO]; therefore I did not let you
touch her. '" In response, Abimelech asked Abraham, "What have you done
to us? And how have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and
my kingdom a great sin [ii71' ii~t;lIJ]? You have done to me things that ought
not to be done" (Gen. 20:9). Similarly, Abimelech addresses Isaac, "What is
this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your
wife, and you would have brought guilt [~W~] upon us'" (Gen. 26:10).
Supportive of these acknowledgments of adultery as a "great sin" on
the lips of non-Israelites, an Akkadian text from Ugarit similarly condemns
the adultery of Ammistamru's wife, the queen of Ugarit, saying she "sinned a
great sin [~i-i.t-ta ra-ba-a ti-i~-te-ti]" against her husband.43 While this
42 For a sampling of alternatives, cf. C.H. Toy, Proverbs, 437f.; and W. McKane,
Proverbs, 391.
43 PRU IV, 139. Cf. also W.L. Moran, "The Scandal of the 'Great Sin' at Ugarit"
(1959) 280f. J.J. Rabinowitz notes that the same expression is attested in four Egyptian
marriage contracts from about the ninth century B.C. ("The 'Great Sin' in Ancient Egyptian
Marriage Contracts" [1959]73).
Note, however, that the Akkadian expression "a great sin [~itta raM]" also occurs in
PRUIII, 96ff.:13-17, where it refers to forging royal tablets. Hence, the phrase must simply
refer to a serious offence, of which adultery was only an example. Cf. F.B. Knutson,
"Literary Phrases and Formulae," RSP, 11,409-411.
292 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
1.3 Third, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife, because
God is invoked in any ratifying oath to act as guarantor of the covenant, any
marital infidelity ought to prompt God's judgment against the offending
party.
Many biblical texts indicate that marital infidelity and particularly adultery
provoke God's direct judgment against the offenders, whether or not the
adultery in question would have been justiciable within Israel's courtS.49
While this fact is consistent with the present view that marriage was a
sanction-sealed covenant, once again, it is unlikely that these texts represent a
conscious reflection of this fact. This is the case because, as in
Mesopotamian practice, God is generally depicted as judging the guilty lover
44 "The Laws of Adultery and Murder in Biblical and Mesopotamian Law," 146-53.
45 W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (1960) 119, In. 4.
46 Ibid., 130f. The broken text is thought to predict a premature death for the one who
lusts.
47 The citation of ancient Near Eastern parallels is not intended necessarily to imply an
identity of outlook or jurisprudence with biblical practice. In the present case, for example,
it appears that Joseph does share the outlook of LV 4, Ins. 222-231, which considers it a
mitigating circumstance if the woman entices the man into adultery. In such a case she is to
be executed, while the man is allowed to go free. Of course, it is possible that while free of
any criminal sanction, such a man might still be considered guilty before the gods.
Cf. also J.J. Finkelstein, who discusses the Mesopotamian predisposition to impute the
burden of guilt for adultery to the married woman ("Sex Offences in Sumerian Laws,"
366ff.). Cf. MAL A 14, 16, and 22. Cf. also K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction, 17f.
48 If Num. 5:6 may also be applied to the adulteress in Num. 5:11-31, then her offence
may be further characterized as sin [n~t!ln) and infidelity [".1)0) against God.
49 Cf. Gen. 12:10-13:1; 20:1-8; 26:10; 39:9; 2 Sam. 12:13; and Wisdom of Solomon
3:16-19 (cf. 4:6).
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 293
who was not a party to the marriage vow.50 So, for example, God closed the
wombs of Abimelech's wife and his female slaves as a deterrent against
committing adultery with Sarah. He also warned Abimelech in a dream that
if Abimelech should go ahead and commit adultery with Sarah, God would
kill Abimelech and his family (Gen. 20:7, 18). Although the book of Job
rejects the simplistic views of suffering put forth by Job's "comforters,"
nevertheless in his oath of clearance in 31:9-12, Job himself acknowledges
that the sin of adultery would rightfully incur both human and divine
retribution. Other texts warn Israel that since adultery was one of the chief
sins which prompted Yahweh's wrath against the Canaanites and for which
Yahweh cast them out, Israel will incur a like judgment for her practice of
adultery (Lev. 18:24; Jer. 5:7-9; 7:9-15; 23:10; 29:23; and Ezek. 33:26).51
1.4 Finally, if a covenant existed between a husband and his wife, because
the deity is invoked in any ratifying oath, intermarriage with pagans ought to
be prohibited because idolatry would necessarily ensue when a ratifying oath
is sworn.
D.L. MagneUi argues that international parity treaties were prohibited for
Israel because of the idolatry that would be a necessary consequence of
swearing ratificatory oaths (Exod. 23:32; Deut. 7:2; and Judg. 2:2).52
Although suzerains did not generally impose the worship of their gods on
their unwilling vassals, the gods of both parties were invoked in parity
treaties, and such an invocation carries an implicit acknowledgement of the
reality of those gods and their ability to punish any would-be covenant
breaker. 53
If this is so, it would seem likely that the same concern would require
an analogous prohibition of intermarriage with pagans if, as is being argued,
marriage required the mutual swearing of ratifying oaths. As expected, there
are several Old Testament prohibitions against intermarriage with pagans:
Exod. 34: 12-16; Deut. 7:2-4; Judg. 3:6; 1 Kgs. 11:2; Ezra 9: 12; Neh. 10:31
50 Cf., e.g., K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction, 17, 161 n. 80.
Similarly, S.E. Loewenstamm notes several cuneiform texts which assume that the
offended gods will kill an adulterer ("The Laws of Adultery and Murder in Biblical and
Mesor0tamian Law," 146-53).
5 Nathan's consolation of David after his repentance in 2 Sam. 12:13 implies that
David's wrong was similarly deserving of a divinely-imposed death penalty: "Yahweh also
has put away your sin; you shall not die." Because of the compound nature of David's
offence (he was guilty of both adultery and murder), however, the text does not contribute
unambiguously to the present argument.
52 "The Oath in the Old Testament in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and
Covenantal Context of the Ancient Near East" (1969) 85f.
On the importance of swearing one's oaths in the name of Yahweh, cf. Deut. 6:13;
10:20j Isa. 48:1; and Jer. 12:16.
5 Cf. Gen. 31:53.
Cf. also G.E. Mendenhall, "Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest Semitic Covenant Making"
(1954) 39; R. Frankena, "The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of
Deuteronomy" (1965) 130; DJ. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1981) 120; and P.
Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 81 n. 301.
294 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
[ET 30]; and 13:25.54 Of these, the most remarkable is found in Ezra 10:2,
10, where this offence is condemned as '?llO, "perfidy," a term often used of
oath violation. 55 As argued in an earlier chapter, these prohibitions are
concerned to prohibit only interfaith marriage, not exogamous marriage as
such. Moreover, the prohibitions assume that when a marriage is concluded
with a pagan wife, idolatry will be an inevitable result. For example, Exod.
34:16 asserts that "their daughters will play the harlot after their gods and
make your sons play the harlot after their gods." This confidence is puzzling
if it assumes that Yahwistic husbands or wives will succumb in every case to
a more resolute faith of their pagan spouses. On the other hand, it is entirely
comprehensible if the mentioned idolatry is a necessary consequence of the
very act of solemnizing such a marriage by means of bilateral oaths.
2.1 The marriage analogy and especially Hosea 2:18-22 fET 16-20J
Hosea appears to have been the first to describe Israel's infidelity as "adultery
[~~J]" and to develop the marriage analogy so fully (d., e.g., Hos. 2:4-25 [ET
2-23]). As a result of chronological priority, it is generally assumed that
Hosea's use of the marriage analogy is the source of its reappearance in
Isaiah (d. Isa. 1:21; 54:5-8; 57:3-10; 61: 10-11; 62:4-5); Jeremiah (d. Jer.
2:2,20; 3:1-5; 3:6-25; 13:27; 23:10; 31:32); Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16,23); and
perhaps also Proverbs (Proverbs 8).57 Dependence on Hosea is not certain,
however, and it is possible that some of these examples may represent an
independent development.58
In the previous chapter (Chapter 7, 1.3) we examined Hos. 2:18-22
[ET 16-20] in an attempt to provide evidence for the use of marriage-forming
verba solemnia in the biblical period. In that discussion evidence was offered
56 OJ. Baab, for example, suggests that the marriage metaphor may have been a reflex
of Israel's polemic against the fertility cults ("Marriage," 286).
Alternatively, W. Zimmerli considers that the marriage analogy may have been
suggested by the popular OT figure of speech by which Zion, Egypt, Babylon, etc. were
described as young women (Ezekiel 1, 335). Cf., e.g., Amos 5:2, where Israel is called
"virgin Israel" (cf. also Jer. 4:31; 46:11, 24; and 50:42).
It is possible that the attribute of Yahweh as a "jealous God [~Ij? ?~]" in Exod. 20:5 and
numerous other texts may also have contributed to this development, given the
characteristic use of "jealousy" in marital contexts (cf., e.g., Num. 5:14; etc.). This is
especially so because a text such as Exod. 34:14-16 appeals to Yahweh's character as a
jealous God ("whose name is Jealous") as the basis for prohibiting "a covenant with the
inhabitants of the land" and consequently intermarriage with these pagans because "they
play the harlot after their gods," and they will "make your sons play the harlot after their
gods." Cf. M. Greenberg for a discussion of harlotry (not specifically a marital offence) as
descriptive of Israel's forbidden alliances with foreign powers (Ezekiel 1-20, 282f.). Cf.
also examples where the harlotry refers instead to Israel's apostasy after other gods, as in
Num. 25:1 and Judg. 2:17.
Though less clear than cases involving "adultery ["1~ll," examples of "harlotry [;om]"
used figuratively may also have been suggestive of the marriage metaphor, if they do not
presufPose it. Cf., e.g., Deut. 31:16.
5 Cf. M. DeRoche, "Jeremiah 2:2-3 and Israel's Love for God during the Wilderness
Wandering" (1983) 364-76; and C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of
Proverbs, 106-109, and especially 269-271.
58 Although Malachi nowhere employs the marriage analogy itself (where Yahweh's
covenant relationship to Israel is compared to a marriage), from this literary parallelism it is
apparent that Malachi acknowledged a profound similarity between Israel's covenant with
Yahweh and the marriage covenant. It is doubtful, however, that Malachi has "literalized"
the earlier metaphor, against C.V. Camp, if this is intended to imply that the identification
of marriage as a covenant was first suggested by the marriage analogy (Wisdom and the
Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, 323 n. 8). To be sure, Malachi appears to offer the first
of many "reverse applications" of the marriage analogy. In other words, while the marriage
analogy was originally intended to elucidate Yahweh's relationship to Israel, it is now being
reapplied to serve as a paradigm for marriage itself. Cf., e.g., Eph. 5:21-33 and especially
the later rabbinic view of the marriage ceremony as a replica of the formation of God's
covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai. Cf. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (1928) 6, 36 n.
200; T.H. Gaster, Customs and Folkways of Jewish Life (1955) 109f., 126-28; and M.R.
Wilson, "Marriage and Sinai: Two Covenants Compared," in Our Father Abraham (1989)
203-208.
296 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN mE OT
Relying mainly on the context and the awareness of other biblical texts
which identify marriage as a covenant, earlier commentators have generally
59 Some scholars deny the relevance of Hos. 6:7, claiming that it refers to a political
treaty, rather than to Yahweh's covenant with Israel. They also deny the authenticity of the
reference to the covenant in Hos. 8:1, deeming it to be a later Deuteronomic addition. So,
e.g., L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie imAlten Testament (1969) 141-144, 146-149. If this is so,
then the marriage analogy as such offers no particular support for the identification of
marriage as a covenant. Against the tendency to eliminate all pre-Deuteronomic references
to covenant, cf. J. Day, "Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm
LXXVIII" (1986) 1-12; and E. W. Nicholson, God and His People (1986) 179-188.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 297
2.2.1 G. Bostrom's view that "the covenant of her god [n'), jJ'j7'~~J" refers
to a commitment to her pagan god
Defending the widely held view that i1l!, "strange," and i1:iJ~, "foreign," are
intended as references to this woman's non-Israelite status, G. Bostrom
argues that ;;r'fi'~, "her god," is most naturally interpreted as a reference to
this foreign woman's pagan deity (d., e.g., 2 Kgs. 19:37; 2 Chron. 32:21; Isa.
37:38; Dan. 1:2; and Jonah 1:5).61 Bostrom supports his interpretation by the
observation that i11i1', "Yahweh," is used consistently throughout Proverbs 1-9
(where it appears nineteen times); thus, a reference to D'i1'~, "god" or "God,"
is likely to be to a pagan deity.
Bostrom's interpretation, however, fails for five reasons: First, ~m'~,
"God," appears also in Provo 2:5 (where it is in synonymous parallelism with
i1Ii1', "Yahweh") and 3:4 (where it offers an unmistakable reference to the true
God), so that its appearance in 2:17 as a reference to Israel's God is not
without parallel within the corpus of Proverbs 1-9. Although D'i1'~, "God,"
appears only twice more in Proverbs 10-30, namely 25:2 and 30:9, in both
cases the reference is once again to the true God. Second, since i1Ii1',
"Yahweh," nowhere appears with a pronominal suffix, there is no lexical
choice available for the precise expression ;;r'rr"~ n')::l-n~1, "the covenant of
her God," and so there is no particular significance to the author's choice of
D'i1'~ instead of i1Ii1' in such an expression. Third, it is unlikely that the
orthodox author of Proverbs would condemn this woman for any offence
against her pagan deity or that he would bother to brand her sexual
immorality as such an offence, rather than emphasizing the wrong committed
against the true God, or more likely the principles of wisdom. Fourth, while
there is some evidence for the concept of a covenant between pagan deities
and their followers, it is far too slight to make its appearance probable in the
book of Proverbs.62 Finally, it is not so clear that the terms i1l!, "strange,"
and i1:iJ~, "foreign," require the view that this woman is a non-Israelite, as
60 Cf., e.g., J. Calvin, The Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol. V, Zechariah and Malachi, 553;
F. Delitzsch, Proverbs, 82; and C.H. Toy, Proverbs (1899) 47.
Modern commentators who consider the covenant to be that of marriage include B.
Gemser, "The Instructions of Onchsheshonqy and Biblical Wisdom Literature" (1960) 102-
128; and R.B.Y . Scott, Proverbs (1965) 43.
61 Proverbiastudien: die Weisheit und das fremde Weib in Spriiche 1-9 (1935) 103ff. In
support of ill! and il;'l=?l as references to this woman's non-Israelite status, cf., e.g., J.G.
Williams, Women Recounted. Narrative Thinking and the God of Israel (1982) 107-109.
62 Cf., e.g., D.L. Magnetti, The Oath in the Old Testament (1969) 138; Z. Zevit, "A
Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology" (1977) 110-118; K.A. Kitchen,
"Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna, and Covenant" (1979) 453, 462; and D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and
Covenant (1981) 31 n. 6.
K. van der Toorn summarizes the evidence, "Compared with the Mesopotamian
documents, the Old Testament displays a striking preference for the covenantal concept to
define the relation between God and his creatures" (Sin and Sanction, 49).
298 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
Bostrom and others suppose. 63 For example, it may be that this woman is
termed a "strange" woman in order to emphasize that she is not the man's
own legitimate wife.64 Alternatively, L.A. Snijders has argued that these
terms may stress the fact that this woman is a "social outsider," an Israelite
woman who has become an outcast because of her behaviour. 65
Consequently, Snijders suggests rendering them as "loose," "unrestrained," or
"unchaste," much as does the RSV ("You will be saved from the loose [iiJ!1
woman, from the adventuress [ii:iJ~ri] with her smooth words").
2.2.2 The view that "the covenant of her God [j;r';J''7~ n'7:Pj" refers to the
Sinaitic covenant
A. Cohen, among others, argues that "the covenant of her God [iJ'i1'~ n'):;J]"
refers to the Sinaitic covenant and notes that "the prohibition of adultery
formed part of God's covenant with Israel (Exod. xx. 13)."66 Although the
seventh commandment is framed in conventionally androcentric terms, "You
[masculine singular] shall not commit adultery [~~ Jf:1 ~,?J," Cohen
presupposes, reasonably enough, that this commandment applied no less to
women.
D. Kidner's interpretation is similar, but he adds the observation that
had the text intended to refer to the marriage covenant, the wording would
have been closer to that found in Mal. 2: 14.67 In other words, Kidner
63 Against Bostrom's view that personified Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9 is pitted against
the "strange woman," who is literally a foreigner and devotee of Ishtar (or Canaanite
Astarte), cf. R.N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (1965) 89-92; W. McKane, Proverbs
(1970) 286, 312, 328-331; and C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of
Proverbs (1985) 25-28.
64 So also P. Humbert, who argues that the author is mainly concerned to offer a
polemic against adultery ("La femme etrangere du Livre des Proverbes" [1937)40-64; and
idem, "Les adjectifs 'ar' et 'Nokri' et la femme etrangere" [1939)259-66).
Likewise, J. Huehnergard discusses a case of a will (Text 2) specifying that if the
deceased's wife should later "go after a strange man [amIli zayyan1, let her put her clothes
on a stool, and go where she will" ("Five Tablets From the Vicinity of Emar" [1983)19,
30). Comparing Deut. 25:5, Huehnergard argues that "strange" means a man of another
family. Cf. also K. van der Toorn, "Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient
Israel" (1989) 199.
Alternatively, F. Hauck and S. Schulz reject the identification of <Ill as merely the wife
of another, or a foreigner, much less an allegorical reference to the alien secular wisdom of
Greece ("rropvTj KTA.," in TDNT VI, 586). Rather, citing Egyptian Wisdom literature which
"warns against wandering women from other places [Bohlig)," they suggest a reference to
native Israelite women who are strangers to a particular locality and, as such, constitute a
dangerous temptation to the local male population. Cf. "The Instruction of Ani," in ANET,
420.
Finally, G.A. Yee leaves undecided the precise identity of the <Ill <I~~ in Proverbs 1-9,
but suggests that, analogous to lady Wisdom, a composite portrait of a single immoral
woman stands behind the various designations of the <Ill <I~~ in Proverbs 1-9 ("'I Have
Perfumed My Bed With Myrrh': The Foreign Woman (,issii zarii) in Proverbs 1-9," 54).
65 Cf. L.A. Snijders, "The Meaning of zar in the Old Testament" (1954) 1-154; and
ide~ "111 /11, zur / ziir," TOOT, IV, 56.
6 A. Co'hen, Proverbs (1946) 1H. So also H.W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old
Testament (1974) 168, citing E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (1973) 134ff. Wolff
nevertheless accepts the evidence of Mal. 2:14 and Ezek. 16:8, which he understands as
references to the covenant of marriage.
67 Proverbs (1964) 62.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 299
considers that the text should have read "the husband of her covenant [ID'lrIi~i
or perhaps "the covenant of her husband [i'T~'~ Ii'"J:;l-Ii~l]," rather than
i'Tt;I'i~]"
"the covenant of her God [iJ'fi'?~ Ii'"J:m~i]."
W. McKane and others carry this interpretation further; they deny that
there is any reference to marriage in Prov. 2: 17 because :"P?~, "the
companion," in vs.17a does not refer to the woman's husband. 68 McKane
renders the verse "who forsakes the teacher of her youth, and has forgotten
the covenant of her God."69 McKane supports his understanding of :P?~ as
"teacher" based on Jer. 3:4 (suggesting that her "teacher" may have been her
father) and 13:21.
2.2.3 The traditional view that "the covenant of her God (17'J:P l'J'j7'~J"
refers to her marriage covenant
The following arguments may be advanced in support of the traditional
interpretation of Provo 2: 17:
1) Although the verb ~'?~ I (appearing only in Job 15:5; 33:33; 35:11;
and Provo 22:25) is recognized as meaning "to learn" or "to teach," McKane's
proposal to render the noun ~1'y~ as "teacher" is unconvincing. 70 While
McKane appeals to Jer. 3:4 as an example of ~1'y~ bearing this meaning, the
context does not favour the proposal. In the midst of an extended marriage
metaphor, it would be most unexpected for Israel, the harlot bride, to describe
Yahweh as her teacher! Rather, "My father" and "the friend of my youth"
appear to be intended as endearing appellations for a husband from a wife
who remains brazenly unrepentant)l Accordingly, W.L. Holladay, for
example, supports the traditional rendering of :"p'y~ in this text as "someone
trusted, confidant."72 McKane also appeals to Jer. 13:21 in support of his
proposal, but against McKane both the text and the sense of this verse are
uncertain.73 Apart from these two examples, no other occurrence of ~1'y~
68 Proverbs, 286. The rendering of the KJV is similar: "Which forsaketh the guide of
her youth." Cf. also B. Gemser, "The Instructions of Onchsheshonqy and Biblical Wisdom
Literature" (1960) 102-128.
C.H. Toy mentions that some commentators suggest that "the companion of her youth
[~'J111~ ~P'?t!i]" in Provo 2:17 refers to God (Proverbs, 46). The similar expression in Jer. 3:4
does appear to refer to God, but there it occurs within a metaphor of marriage. At the level
of the metaphor itself, with most commentators, the reference is to her husband. Specific
arguments in favour of this view are presented below.
69 W. McKane, Proverbs, 213.
70 KB, 57, adds Job 32:13, if the text is emended.
71 Though unexampled elsewhere in the OT, for the use of "father" as an affectionate
epithet for a husband, cf. L.M. Muntingh, "Amorite Married and Family Life according to
the Mari Texts" (1974) 58-60; and J.B. White,A Study of the Language of Love in the Song
of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry (1978) 95.
72 Jeremiah 1, 115. Further supporting this marital interpretation of ''J~~ ~1?t!i in Jer.
3:4 is the similarity of its formation to that found in Joel 1:8; Mal. 2:15; and Provo 2:17. Cf.
also Hos. 2:9, 17 [ET 7, 15]; and Ezek. 16:43.
73 J. Bright, for example, despairs of offering any translation (Jeremiah, 93, 95).
Alternatively, W. Rudolph (Jeremia), A. Weiser (Das Buch Jeremia), and R.P. Carroll
(Jeremiah) maintain the traditional rendering of t:l'~,?t!i as "friends." Given the ovine
context of the previous verse, however, perhaps C'~,?t!i should be understood as bearing its
300 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
requires or supports McKane's suggested meaning (see Mic. 7:5; Ps. 55:14
[ET 13]; 144:14; Provo 16:28; 17:9; and Sir. 38:25).74
2) Three considerations favour understanding "the companion of her
youth [iJ'J1llj C"J1~~]" in Prov. 2: 17 as a reference to her husband. First, as
seen above, the term C"J11y~, "companion, is nowhere else used as an
appellation for the deity. Although C"J11y~ does refer to God in Jer. 3:4, this is
so only because of the marriage metaphor in that text. In terms of the
metaphor "the companion of my youth ['"}l)j C"J1~~]" is an endearing epithet
used by a harlot (Israel) to refer to her husband (Yahweh). Second, the
formation of iJ'J1llj C"J1~~, "the companion of her youth," relating the
companion to the woman's youth, finds a close parallel not only in Jer. 3:4,
"the companion of my youth ['"J.l)j C"J1?~]," where it refers to a husband (in the
metaphor), but also in Provo 5:18, "the wife of your youth ["1l1llj ntq~]"; Isa.
54:6, "a wife of youth [O'J1llj ntzj~]"; Joel 1:8, "the bridegroom of her youth
[iJ'l1ll~ ?.l}~]"; Mal. 2:15, "the wife of your youth ["1'")1llj ntzj~]"; and
especially Mal. 2:14: "Because Yahweh was witness to the covenant between
you and the wife of your youth ["1'11ll~ ntzj~], to whom you have been faithless
[i'1* i1t;11~~ 'i1t;1~ iW~], though she is your companion [~rn:l1J ~'rT1] and your
wife by covenant ["1[1'iJ ntzj~1] ."75 Finally, given that Prov. 2: 17 intends to
describe a sexually immoral woman, it is not at all unexpected that such a
woman would be described as one who "forsakes [Jill]" her husband. By
contrast, compare Provo 4:6, where the young man is enjoined not to "forsake
[Jill]" wisdom, which is personified as a bride.76 Compare also Deut. 31:16
and Hos. 4: 10, where, perhaps in terms of the marriage metaphor, Israel is
accused of committing "prostitution [mi]," by which she has "forsaken [Jill]"
the Lord.
3) Kidner's argument that Prov. 2: 17 should have read "the husband of
her covenant [i'1t;1'iJ ili'~-n~l]" or perhaps "the covenant of her husband [-n~1
i'1i9'~ n'j~]," rather than "the covenant of her God [iJ'i1?~ n'jJ-m~1]," would
be decisive were it not for the fact that there are several examples of inter-
human covenants being identified simultaneously as covenants of God. Ezek.
17: 16-20, for example, condemns Zedekiah for breaking his covenant with
Nebuchadnezzar and assures him of Yahweh's impending judgment because
of Zedekiah's perfidy and rebellious league with Pharaoh Psammetichus II.
first sense of "tamed," which KB recognizes for Jer. 11:19. Cf. W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1,
411,414.
J.A. Thompson offers yet another proposal, understanding t:l'~,?1:Ii as an example of ~1"'~
II, meaning "tribal leader" (Jeremiah, 371).
74 Though noting Gemser's proposal, KB offers zutraulich, Vertrauter, and Rind for
~1"'1:Ii (I). The remaining forty-two occurrences of ~1"'~ (II) bear the meaning "tribal chief."
C.H. Toy says simply of ~1"'1:Ii, "the sense guide, instructor, is not found in the OT"
(Proverbs, 46).
75 Cf. also Hos. 2:9, 17 [ET 7, 15]; and Ezek. 16:43.
76 For this personification, cf. C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of
Proverbs, passim.
For other examples of "forsake" used in marital contexts, cf. Isa. 54:6; 62:4.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 301
Although vss. 16 and 18 state that the covenant and oath were with
Nebuchadnezzar, vs. 19 concludes, "Therefore thus says Yahweh GOD: As I
live, surely my oath which he despised [i1!~ ,~~ 't:17~ ~?-!:l~], and my
covenant which he broke ["Pil ,~~ 'fl":::1'], I will requite upon his head."
Ezekiel considers this inter-human covenant (vassal-treaty) as sacrosanct, in
spite of its extorted ratificatory oath (Ezek. 17: 13), presumably because
Yahweh's name was invoked (so 2 Chron. 36:13). Accordingly, Yahweh
identifies the covenant and oath as his own and characterizes their breach as
"treason against me [';'l-';.p9]" (vs. 20W7 A similar perspective is attested in
Jer. 34:18 with respect to Zedekiah's covenant with the men of Jerusalem
(called "my covenant ['n':l]" by Yahweh) and in 1 Sam. 20:8, where David
refers to his covenant with Jonathan as "a covenant of Yahweh [i1Ji1~ n'J=;l:;l],"
again presumably because Yahweh was invoked as its guarantor.78
4) Against the view that "the covenant of her God [iJ'D?~ n'!~-n~!]"
refers to the Sinaitic covenant is the appearance of the third feminine singular
pronominal suffix on iJ'rt';~, even if such a usage may not be impossible. 79 If
the suffix applies to !:l'i1?~, "she has forgotten the covenant with her God,"
the reference to "her God" seems unaccountably restrictive as a reference to
the God of the Sinaitic covenant. 80 The God of Sinai was Israel's God, the
God of "our fathers," or "your God."81 Alternatively, if the suffix applies to
n":;l, "she has forgotten her covenant with God," the reference to "her
covenant" fails to take adequate account of the corporate identity of Israel as
Yahweh's covenant partner at Sinai and applies an individualistic
interpretation to that event which requires support.
5) To these arguments it may be added that in view of the concerns of
Proverbs as wisdom literature, finding any reference to the Sinaitic covenant
should be deemed unexpected. In general, Proverbs is not particularly alert to
77 Cf. M. Tsevat, "The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the
Prophet Ezekiel" (1959) 199-204. So also C.T. Begg, "Berit in Ezekiel," 77, 79. More
recent evidence of the imposition on vassals of an oath of allegiance by their own deity is
provided by R. Frankena, "The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of the
Deuteronomy" (1965) 131; and M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and
Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (1974) 46f.
Against this view is M. Greenberg, who argues that vss. 19-21 are concerned not with
the vassal treaty of Nebuchadnezzar with Zedekiah, but with Yahweh's covenant with
Israel, which Zedekiah was obligated to uphold and to which there is reference also in Ezek.
16:59 ("Ezekiel 17: A Holistic Interpretation," 152f.; and idem, Ezekiel, 1-20,317-324). To
maintain his view, Greenberg is forced to dismiss the evidence of 2 Chron. 36:13 as a reflex
of the Chronicler's misunderstanding of Ezekiel 17.
78 Cf., e.g., R.P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 166.
79 Cf. "the law of his God [1';:i?~ r1Jirl] is in his heart" in Ps. 37:31.
The LXX lacks the feminine pronoun, KaL 8LQ8~KTjV 8dav E'TTlAEATjOIlEVTj, "and she
has forgotten the covenant of God." Presumably this reading is the result of a graphic
variant in the consonantal text of the Vorlage of the LXX, which read C1'i1?~ rather than
i1'i1?~. With most commentators, the MT ;"1';;"1:\ is to be preferred as the lectio difficilior.
80 By contrast, cf. Ps. 78:10 and 2 Chron. 34:32.
81 Cf. the collective second person pronominal suffix in Lev. 2:13, referring to any
Israelite who brings an offering, "You shall season all your cereal offerings with salt; you
shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God [":j'ii"~ r1'J:;J n't9J be lacking from your
cereal offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt."
302 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
82 C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, 235-237, 269-271;
and A. Robert, "Les attaches litteraires bibliques de Provo I-IX," 505-25.
83 This transformation need not have been particularly radical since it is likely that
some allusion to foreign women, perhaps through double entendre, may underlie the
immoral woman's twofold designation as ;"1:1;'1 and ;"1ll. Alternatively, perhaps by her
prohibited actions, this woman has in effect disavowed her Israelite heritage.
84 Cf. C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, 319 n. 5.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 303
85 This context of an arraignment is made explicit in the Targum of vs. 2, "Arraign ...
and declare ['1m ... n:m~]," a rendering offered also in 20:4 and 22:2, where the MT has
some form of ll"1ii ... t:lEltD. Cf. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 273. Cf. K Nielsen, Yahweh
As Prosecutor and Judge (1978). This legal setting is also discussed by W. Zimmerli,
Ezekiel I (1979) 333ff.; and H.F. Fuhs, Ezechiel 1-24 (1984) 80ff.
86 Cf. CH 185. Cf. the detailed support offered by M. Malul, "Adoption of Foundlings
in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents. A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel
16:1-7" (1990) 97-126.
87 Ezekiel 1-20, 273-306. Cf. also, e.g., C.F. Keil, Ezekiel, 195; A.B. Davidson and
A.W. Streane, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (1916); and J.B. Taylor, Ezekiel (1969)
132ff.
88 Kimchi, for example, relates Ezek. 16:8a, where Yahweh notices Jerusalem for a
second time, to the vision of the burning bush when Yahweh announced his intention to
deliver Israel (so according to S. Fisch, Ezekiel [1950]86).
89 Cf. also Ps. 132:13-17, cited by R.H. Alexander, "Ezekiel," 812.
304 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
90 W.H. Brownlee, Ezekiell-l9, 219-221, 226ff., and passim. So also H.-J. Kraus,
Worship in Israel (1965) 179; J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel (1969) 94ff.; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel
(1970) 201ff.; W. Zimmerii, Ezekiell, 333-353; and R.H. Alexander, "Ezekiel" (1986)
81Off.
91 Ezekiell-l9, 225.
92 Cf. also CM. Carmichael, "'Treading' in the Book of Ruth" (1980) 258f.
93 Cf. M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 179-208; and P.A. Kruger,
"The Hem of the Garment in Marriage. The Meoaning of the Symbolic Gesture in Ruth 3:9
and Ezekiel 16:8" (1984) 79-86; and especially A. Viberg, Symbols ofLaw, 136-144.
94 Cf. W.R. Smith, who discusses the statement which refers to this practice in Tabari's
commentary on the Qur'iin 4:19 (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 104f.). Cf. also
D.R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage, 181-182; E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, 31f.;
and M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 277.
95 Cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiell, 340. Cf. also Deut. 23:1 [ET 22:30]; 27:20.
96 Brownlee's attempt to answer this objection by comparing David's capture of
Jerusalem to a man passionately seizing a woman who acquiesces after a brief struggle is
unconvincing (Ezekiell-19, 225).
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 305
97 M. Greenberg compares m. Pe'a 4:3, "If a poor man threw himself upon [the crop]
and spread his cloak over it [in order to claim it], he is removed therefrom" (Ezekiel 1-20,
277).
98 Traditionally the necessities were "food, oil, and clothing." Such a reference may
find support in the subsequent mention of clothing in vss. 10-12 and perhaps also the use of
nakedness in divorce - leaving the house with nothing. Cf. also the ironic reversal of
symbolism in Isa. 4:1-
99 Hence, illicit sexual relations can be described as "uncovering the edge of the
father's garment," as in Deut. 23:1 [ET 22:30] and 27:20.
100 This symbolism of unity may be favoured by the symbolic joining of clothes in
marriage and in certain divorce rites, where the clothes are suddenly severed. For
examples, cf. M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 152,200 n. 197,206f.,
345.
101 Cf. B. Green, "A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth"
(1980) 142, as cited by R.H. Hubbard Jr., Ruth, 212. Hubbard notes that the gesture may
have simultaneously expressed both a promise of protection as well as a man's readiness for
sexual consummation.
So also J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel, 96. J. Gray compares the custom of a kinsman putting
part of his garment over a widow and cites J. Lewy, "Les textes paleo-assyriens et I' Ancien
Testament" (1934) 31ff. (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 392).
102 Cf., e.g., A Phillips, "Uncovering the Father's Skirt" (1980) 39; E.W. Davies,
"Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage, Part 1" (1981) 143f.; and R.L.
Hubbard Jr., Ruth, 212. In support Hubbard also mentions Deut. 23:1 [ET 22:30]; 27:20;
and Mal. 2:16.
103 c.T. Begg considers that Ezekiel's use of the marriage covenant as a figure for
Yahweh's historic covenant with Israel (or David?) is yet another unique contribution of the
prophet (" Berit in Ezekiel," 79f.).
306 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
104 M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 278. Cf. also, e.g., J. Herrmann, Ezechiel (1924) ad
loc.; B.M. Veil as, Israelite Marriage, 24; M. Malul, "Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible
and Mesopotamian Documents. A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1-7," 126
n. 112i. and P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 79.
10) Ezekiel 1-20, 278.
106 "Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh and all the ordinances;
and all the people answered with one voice, and said, 'All the words which Yahweh has
spoken we will do.'" As D.J. McCarthy concedes concerning this text, any such "public
commitment to follow Yahweh who has just presented Himself in all his power is the
equivalent of an oath [italics mine]" (Treaty and Covenant [1981] 253). So also D.L.
Magnetti, The Oath in the Old Testament, 128.
107 Ezekiel 1-20, 278.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 307
108 Exod. 6:6 was also understood by the Rabbis to imply an oath. Cf. R. Tani).uma,
Wayera, 2 (Midrashic commentary on the Pentateuch dating from the fourth century AD.).
109 Cf., e.g., the use of Jl in Ezek. 43:13 with a proper altar for Yahweh.
110 J. Herrmann, Ezechiel (1924) ad loco Cf. also B. Lang, Wisdom and the Book of
Proverbs,99f. Lang cites the Akkadian term ram, "to settle down," and Ugaritic rmm "to
erect a building," as possible cognates for i191 (op. cit., 168 n. 17).
111 Ezekiel 1, 330f.
308 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
116 So, e.g., W. Zimmerii, Ezekiel 1,46; and C.T. Begg, "Berit in Ezekiel," 81.
117 It should be noted that elsewhere Ezekiel finds little difficulty in reviewing Israel's
history without explicit reference to any n'i~, as in chapter 23, or its future hope, as in
11:14-21; 36:1-38.
W. Eichrodt holds a view of Ezekiel 16 opposite to that being proposed here (Ezekiel,
206). On his view Ezekiel's understanding of Yahweh's divine covenant exercised a
perceptible influence upon the narrative which resulted in the depiction of a marriage
imposing a stronger tie upon the husband.
One final argument against interpreting Ezek. 16:8 as identifying literal marriage as a
covenant is advanced by J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 134. According to Milgrom, the
mentioned oath "should have been expected of the bride, Israel, for it is the bride, not the
husband, who is subject to the laws of adultery." This objection will be considered in more
detail below in 3.
118 J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 134.
119 Cf., e.g., M.G. Kline, "Genesis," 104f.
120 It may be noted that the use of oaths and the protective clause prohibiting Jacob
from taking additional wives (given that his wives have already borne children) are both
features which also find ample parallels in the extrabiblical marriage contracts.
310 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
"though I was their husband." This interpretation has also been favoured by
R.P. Carroll, among others.1 21 If this rendering is accepted, this text would
suggest that Jeremiah also viewed marriage as a covenant. The choice
between these alternative renderings of ,?.l)~, however, is not easy. Jeremiah 3
demonstrates the fact that the prophet was familiar with the marriage analogy
(in 3:14 Jeremiah uses the same idiom, t:l?~ 'n,?p-~ '?J~ 'f' with the same
ambiguity whether he intends "for I am your master [RSV]" or "for I am your
husband [AV]"), and the use of this analogy in Hosea 2 to describe both the
old covenant and a promised new covenant makes quite attractive the
rendering of "husband" in the present text.l 22
Several considerations appear to favour the rendering "lord." First, if
Jeremiah had meant to utilize the marriage analogy, it might be expected that,
at least within the immediate context, he would have employed a feminine
singular reference for Israel, "though I was her husband," rather than the
masculine plural, "though I was their husband [t:l;;J 'n'?p-~ '?J~1]." Second, it
appears that the term '?ll:l does not require a marital reference to be at home
within a covenant context. Compare, for example, the reference in Gen.
14:13 to Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner as "lords of the covenant of Abram
[t:ll:lln1'i:l '?~~]," usually rendered "covenant partners of Abram."123
Finally, the rendering "though I was their lord" may seem tautological in
view of the earlier assertions that Yahweh had made a covenant with his
people and delivered them out of Egypt. The grammar of Jer. 31:32,
however, with '?J~ to be interpreted either as an intensive pronoun, "myself,"
or a nominative absolute, "as for me," stresses not the predicate, as in "though
I was their husband," but the subject, "though I myself was their lord [or
possibly "covenant partner"?]." In other words, it should not be expected that
Jeremiah was introducing some new quality in Yahweh, namely his husband-
like love, to highlight Israel's sin, but merely contrasting Israel's perfidy with
the reminder that their covenant partner was no less than Yahweh, the very
same one who had made the covenant in the first place and had redeemed his
people.
121 Jeremiah, 610. So also J. Coppens, "La nouvelle alliance en Jer 31.31-4," 14-1S, as
cited with approval by OJ. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 33. Cf. also G.R. Dunstan,
"The Marriage Covenant," 246; and S.-T. Sohn, "The Divine Election of Israel," 4Sf.
122 In support of this appeal to Hosea 2, it is notable that the idea of a new covenant for
the end time is found only in Jer. 31:31-34, Hos. 2:20 [ET 18], and Ezek. 36:24-32. As may
be the case in Jeremiah 31, the promised new covenant is expressed in Hosea 2 in terms of
the marriage metaphor. Cf. J.L. Mays, Hosea (1969) SO-S2; and H.W. Wolff, Hosea,
(197~ S1.
1 3 Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 200. Cf. also "For many in Judah were bound
by oath to him [i'? 'ii-\-,1J~ '/~:;l ii11ii';J CI'fj"r':lj" in Neh. 6:18 and "Baal-berith [n'i::1 "~:;lj"
in Judg. 8:33; 9:4 [cf. 9:46].
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 311
significant development or resolution over the first A section. 129 In the first
A section, 1 Sam. 19:1-7, Jonathan successfully defends David before his
father, who was intent on murdering David. In the B section, 1 Sam. 19:8-17,
Michal aids David's escape from her father, but in the end protects herself
from Saul's wrath by accusing David of having threatened uxoricide. While
one may be tempted to sympathize with Michal, her false testimony appears
to have provided Saul with the requisite circumstantial evidence that David
had repudiated his marriage, allowing her to be given to another man. l30 In
addition, her deception appears to have confirmed her father in his estimate of
David and further incited him against David - perhaps accounting for
Jonathan's failure to assuage Saul in 1 Samuel 20, in contrast to his previous
success in 1 Sam. 19:1-7. In any case, in 1 Sam. 26:19 David condemns
exactly this sort of lie which had fed Saul's implacable enmity.131 In the
second A section, 1 Samuel 20, Jonathan, in contrast to Michal, risks his life
to defend David before his outraged father, but to no avail. Accordingly, in
the end David laments Jonathan in 2 Sam. 1:26: "I am distressed for you, my
brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love for me was
more wonderful than the love of women [t:l'tp~ n~rr~o ,'? '1n~rr~ iit:l~'?El~)."
Exegetes who would find in this eulogy a veiled allusion to homosexuality
have missed the point of 1 Samuel 18-20 and the covenant love and loyalty of
Jonathan, which did, in fact, surpass that of Michal. 132
For our present purpose, however, it is enough to notice that a text
which is so deliberate in drawing extensive parallels between David's
relationship to Jonathan and his marriage to Michal does so precisely by
emphasizing that David was in a covenant [n'i:l] with Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:3;
20:8; and 23:18). Indeed, the use of the exchange of clothing in the formation
of Jonathan's covenant with David (1 Sam. 18:4) recalls the similar use of
clothing in the formation of marriage in Ruth 3:9 and Ezek. 16:8.
129 Cf. the discussion of the A-8-A pattern in 1 Samuel 24-26 offered by R.P. Gordon,
"David's Rise and Saul's Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Sam 24-26" (1980) 37-64. The
same structure appears in 1 Samuel 13-15.
130 1 Sam. 25:44. Cf. Judg. 15:2.
131 This justified, but unwitting curse of Michal recalls Saul's earlier unjustified and
unwitting curse of Jonathan in 1 Sam. 14:24. 2 Sam. 6:20-23 appears to suggest that
Michal's offence at David's dancing before the ark was motivated by her preference for her
father to her husband. In vs. 23, it is significant that she is identified as "Michal, the
dau~hter of Saul," rather than "Michal, the wife of David."
32 Cf. also J.A. Thompson, "The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan
Narratives in I Samuel" (1974) 334-38; and P.R Ackroyd, "The Verb Love - 'aheb in the
David-Jonathan Narratives; A Footnote" (1975) 213-214.
RP. Gordon suggests that "brother" may also refer to the covenant relationship (cf. 1
Kgs. 9:13 and Amos 1:9) (1 & 2 Samuel, 212).
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 313
136 Cf. Exod. 20:17; Lev. 18:20; Deut. 5:21; 22:22, 24; Job 31:9; Provo 6:29; Jer. 5:8;
Ezek. 18:6, 11, 15; 22:11; and 33:26.
137 Lev. 20:10 (lx); Provo 30:20; Isa. 57:3; Jer. 3:8, 9; 13:27; Ezek. 16:32,38; 23:37
(2x), 43 (? cf. NIV), 45 (2x); Hos. 2:4 [ET 2]; 3:1; 4:13; and 4:14.
138 B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, I, (1905) 199. Cf. also G.R.
Driver and J.e. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (1935) 37ff.; M. Burrows, The Basis of Israelite
Marriage (1938) 27; W. Lambert, "Morals in Ancient Mesopotanlia" (1957) 195; F. Hauck,
"~OlXEUW, KTA.," TDNT 4 (1967) 730; 1.1. Stamm and M.E. Andrew, The Ten
Commandments in Recent Research (1967) 100; and B.S. Childs, Exodus, 422.
139 Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (1944) 163.
140 P.F. Palmer, "Christian Marriage: Contract or Covenant?" (1972) 621.
The view that a wife was considered the husband's property and the related theory of
marriage by purchase (especially as articulated by P. Koschaker) can no longer be
maintained. Cf. Chapter 7, 2.1 above.
Emphasizing the mandatory death penalty for adultery in Israelite law when the
offenders are caught in flagrante delicto, A. Phillips argues that the concern of the law of
adultery was not with protecting a husband's property because "a wife's position is not to
be confused with that of a daughter. By her marriage the wife became an 'extension' of the
husband himself (Gen. 2:24) ... " ("Another Look at Adultery" [1981] 7, citing his earlier
work, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law, 117ff.).
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 315
141 The hypothetical adultery which was sought by Potiphar's wife with the apparently
unmarried Joseph in Genesis 39 is not termed ~Io\l and, in any case, was refused by Joseph.
142 As a result, for example, it is often observed in connection with Jer. 16:2 that the
OT does not even have a word for "bachelor."
143 "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World" (1978) 241-243.
Yamauchi reports that while Greek girls were married as early as twelve, it was more
common for them to be between fourteen and twenty, while boys normally married after
their military service, that is, after twenty and often closer to thirty. On the other hand, in
Rome at the time of Augustus the legal age for marriage was set at twelve for girls and
fourteen for boys. Cf. also M.K. Hopkins, "The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage" (1964-5)
309-27; and J.L. Blevins, "The Age of Marriage in First-Century Palestine" (1980) 65-7.
144 M.T. Roth suggests that in Neo-Babylonian times girls married at 14 to 20 years of
age, while boys were typically 26 to 32 ("Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of
Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms" [1987]715-47).
This pattern of postponed marriage for men, if it was so, appears to have been due
mainly to economic factors, in that most men did not marry until after their fathers' deaths
in order to realize their inheritance. Cf. also M. T. Roth, Babylonian Ma"iage Agreements
7th - 3rd Centuries B.C., 9.
Roth's conclusions concerning matrimonial age, however, depend primarily on the
indirect evidence of age as reflected in whether or not living parents are mentioned for the
bride and groom in the extant marriage documents and assumed figures for longevity in
ancient Mesopotamia.
145 While the consent of older girls was required, if a girl was under twelve and a half,
she could not refuse a marriage arranged by her father (b. Qidd. 2b).
From the discussion above, it appears that the modern reader must guard against
reading back into the biblical text his cultural assumptions of a large population of
316 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
"available" sexually active unmarried women. The fact that many of those accused of
prostitution in the aT were actually married tells against such a presupposition.
146 Cf. Genesis 34 and Absalom's concern to avenge the seduction/rape of Tamar.
Widows, who in other respects were perhaps the most legally "empowered" women in
the ancient Near East in that they could marry without permission, acquire wealth, etc.,
were likewise expected to be sexually chaste. Cf. Jdt. 8:2-8 and 16:25. Cf. also R. Harris,
"IndeF,endent Women in Ancient Mesopotamia?" (1989) 147.
1 7 Cf. also CH 153 as an example of the criminal liability of a woman for the murder
of her husband. Cf. further CH 151, where women are liable for their premarital debts
(implying a degree of financial activity for women).
In spite of the fact that women do not enjoy a particularly high status in MA culture (cf.
e. Saporetti, The Status a/Women in the Middle Assyrian Period [1979]), it is instructive to
note that women are liable to the laws against adultery (MAL A 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 22, 23,
24), as well as lesser acts of sexual misconduct (MAL A 9). Furthermore, they are
explicitly prohibited from blasphemy (MAL A 2), theft of temple property (MAL A 1),
theft of a husband's property (MAL A 3, 4), theft of private property (MAL A 5),
assault (MAL A 7, 8), murder (MAL A 1O), and magic (MAL A 47).
On the other hand, women can own property, as widows, and the remarried widow can
even acquire her husband's property if he enters her house (MAL A 35)!
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 317
Even MAL A 59, which limits the injuries a husband may inflict on his wife,
presupposes there are limits. This law may be compared to MAL A 44, which limits the
power of a creditor over the person of the debtor. Of interest also is MAL A 39, which
protects women from cruelty if they are in the hands of their creditors, and MAL A 50,
which protects pregnant women from assault by imposing a gradation of sanctions if there
is a resulting miscarriage (perhaps to compensate the husband for deprivation of offspring,
as argued by G.R. Driver and J.e. Miles, The Assyrian Laws, 107), but capital punishment
if the woman dies (apparently on the principle of lex talionis, where the life of a male
murderer is considered equal to that of his female victim).
148 Ancient Israel's Criminal Law (1970) 15f., 110f. Cf. also idem, "Some Aspects of
Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel" (1973) 353; idem, "The Decalogue - Ancient Israel's
Criminal Law" (1983) 6; and idem, "The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11" (1984) 56.
149 "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel," 353.
150 J. Huehnergard, "Five Tablets From the Vicinity of Emar" (1983) Text 1, Ins. 6-7.
Huehnergard suggests a comparison with Rachel's expropriation of the household gods in
Gen. 31:34ff. and employs the above quotation from A.E. Draffkorn, "IlanilElohim" (1957)
219 (of' cit., 28).
15 J. Huehnergard, "Five Tablets From the Vicinity of Emar," Text 2, Ins. 5-10.
318 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN TIlE OT
152 Even if the written law seems relatively indifferent to the concerns of women, it is
doubtful that those entrusted with dispensing justice were supposed to be. As noted by W.
Lambert, in Mesopotamia justice was designed to aid most those who were without rights
("Morals," 192). Cf., e.g., LV lines 161-168; and J.J. Finkelstein, "Laws of Vr-Nammu,"
68.
Cf. also J. Huehnergard, "Five Tablets From the Vicinity of Emar," Text 3, Ins 3-5,
where a wife is designated" father and mother of my estate."
Huehnergard also notes the Nuzi custom of adopting a woman so that she could acquire
or inherit real estate (op. cit, 27 n. 23). Cf. also Z. Ben-Barak, "Inheritance by Daughters in
the Ancient Near East" (1980) 22-33; and K. Grosz, "Daughters Adopted as Sons at Nuzi
and Emar" (1987) 81-86.
The main conclusion to be drawn from these examples is that when the need or desire
arose, women could, at least on certain occasions, assume the roles culturally expected of
men.
153 Cf. Mark 10:11 [and parallels in Luke 16:18 and Matt. 19:9], where Jesus asserts
that adultery could be committed against a wife: Kat A.EYEl aUTOlS, "Os av UIToA.U<J1J
n']v yvvalKa aUTOU Kat ya~~<JlJ ciA.A.TlV ~OlXaTaL EIT' aUT~v ["And he said to them,
'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her. "']
Admittedly, it is possible to translate EIT' aUT1)V as "with her," i.e., with the second
wife, rather than "against her," i.e., against the first wife. Even on this view, however, the
adultery exists only because it is committed against the first wife. Cf., e.g., C.S. Mann,
Mark (1986) 392.
Z.W. Falk notes that the Talmud recognizes the principle of the applicability of
androcentric laws to women, with appropriate gender changes, even if it is inconsistent in
its application (Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth II [1978] 261-
263). Accordingly, b. B. Qam. 15a states, "Scripture made women equal to men in regard
to every law in the Torah" (cf. also Sipre Numbers 2 and Deuteronomy 190). Hence,
"women were never forced to sue through a guardian or representative" according to Falk.
On the other hand, women were prohibited both from bearing witness and from judging (m.
Nid. 6:4) and were not liable in tort (m. B. Qam. 8:4).
Certain other texts may seem to be androcentric and perhaps even supportive of a
double standard in OT stixual ethics, but on closer examination prove not to be so. For
example, the case of the So.ta in Num. 5:11-31 may seem to place a higher premium on the
sexual fidelity of a wife than that of her husband - after all, where in the OT is there a
special ordeal to determine the sexual fidelity of a husband for the sake of his jealous wife?
However, such a question almost certainly misunderstands the intention of Num. 5:11-31.
Based on the apparent effect of the ordeal, causing a miscarriage and infertility (cf. 5 :22,
27f., though other suggestions include thrombophlebitis, false pregnancy, or dropsy - cf.
GJ. Wenham, Numbers, 84), it seems likely that it was an unexpected pregnancy which
prompted the husband's jealousy. If so, what is at issue is not marital harmony so much as
paternity. In support of viewing Num. 5:11ff. as a "paternity rite," cf. A. Phillips, "Another
Look at Adultery," 7f. A similar concern for the paternity of an unexpected pregnancy
(occurring immediately after marriage) seems to be behind Deut. 22:13-21, a text which has
often been misunderstood as reflecting a one-sided concern with a woman's premarital
virginity. Cf. GJ. Wenham, "beta/ah 'A Girl of Marriageable Age'" (1972) 326-48; and A.
Phillips, "Another Look at Adultery," 7f.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 319
3.2 Genesis 38
For example, although Genesis 38 relates Judah's liaison with the disguised
Tamar without moral censure - its interests lay elsewhere - it hardly
endorses prostitution since Judah himself demanded Tamar's execution for
her presumed guilt (so Gen. 38:24). EJ. Fisher thinks that "Tamar's penalty
must be for adultery, not simple prostitution, since this alone carried the death
penalty (Ezk 16:37-40)."154 This is not so clear, however, because according
to Deut. 22:22 adultery only carries a death penalty if the couple are caught in
flagrante delicto; in addition, it is required that both guilty parties be
executed (d. also Lev. 20:10). Neither of these conditions is met in the case
in Genesis 38.
Although it is possible that Judah was operating on legal principles
other than those articulated within Deuteronomic or Priestly law, Tamar's
situation appears to be remarkably consistent with Lev. 21:9 and especially
Deut. 22:13-21.1 55 Tamar was dwelling "in her father's house" (Gen. 38:11)
at the time of her presumed act of prostitution. Furthermore, she is
discovered by her pregnancy. Finally, Judah's right to press for her execution
may stem from the fact that Tamar was not only Judah's daughter-in-law, she
was also promised to Shelah (d. Gen. 38:11).
In any case, Genesis 38 does not support the notion that a man's
philandering was considered morally inoffensive to his wife, or that the only
concern was with the aggrieved rights of the cuckolded husband. This is so
because the text explicitly states that Judah's wife had died (so Gen. 38: 12),
presumably in order to stress Judah's personal eligibility and hence sin in
failing to fulfil the obligation of levirate marriage toward his twice-widowed
daughter-in-law.1 56 Given that Judah acknowledges in Gen. 38:26 that his
own guilt was greater than Tamar's and stresses his fault in driving Tamar to
her stratagem, it may be pedantic to insist that the text further condemn Judah
specifically for consorting with Tamar, particularly since the "prostitution" in
question proved imaginary.
154 "Cultic Prostitution in the Ancient Near East? A Reassessment" (1976) 232 n. 30.
155 For the recognition that Tamar was being charged not with adultery, but with
prostitution I fornication, cf. B.S. Jackson, "Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law," 60; and
A. Phillips, "Another Look at Adultery," 24 n. 57.
156 Cf. Deut. 25:5-10 and Ruth 4:1-12. Cf. also MAL A 30, 31, 33 and HL 193,
which agree that the father-in-law is next in line after any brothers to assume the obligation
of the levirate.
320 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE aT
157 Cf., e.g., L.R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book ofJudges (1987).
158 These parallels within the Deuteronomic History are rooted in the deeper analogy
between Joshua, as the successor to Moses, and each of the subsequent judges of Israel, as
well as in the on-going task under the judges to complete the conquest of Canaan, which
had been begun under Joshua. Judg. 1:18, when emended with the LXX, asserts that Judah
failed to take Gaza, demonstrating the later need for Samson to dispossess these
CanaaniteslPhilistines.
In both texts, Israelites visit an enemy city where, in the nature of the case, the hostile
Israelites cannot easily avail themselves of the hospitality of the city elders. This is the case
not only because of their desire to maintain secrecy, but also because to benefit from the
hospitality of the elders, eating together with them, etc., would result in a commitment of
friendship that would prohibit their intended imminent attack. Cf. the discussion of the
import of shared meals in Chapter 6, 2.3.3. Instead, they find a prostitute [i1~ir i1~~ 1with
whom they choose to spend part of the night.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 321
159 Y. Zakovitch, 'For Three ... and for Four': The Pattern for the Numerical Sequence
Three - Four in the Bible (Hebrew) (1979). Cf. also B.S. Jackson, "Some Literary Features
of the Mishpatim" (1987) 235-242; and G.c. Chirichigno, "Debt Slavery in the Ancient
Near East and Israel: An Examination of the Biblical Manumission Laws in Exod 21:2-6, 7-
11; Deut 15:12-18; Lev. 25:39-54" (1989) 174-175.
Chirichigno summarizes Zakovitch's view (op. cit., 175): "In each law the fourth sub-
section ... [here called the "Exception Case"] deals with an exceptional occurrence which
does not fit in with the general principle - viz., the male slave chooses to remain with his
master rather than going free in the seventh year, and the female slave goes out without
payment when her lord does not fulfil his contractual obligations to her (i.e., Exod 21:8-10).
Moreover, the fourth section ... of each law forms a chiastic structure with the two general
principles in v. 2, 7 ... the male slave goes out free without payment in v. 2 as does the
female slave in ... [vs. 11]; the female slave does not go out free in v. 7 as does the male
slave who chooses to stay with his master in ... [vss. 5, 6]."
[
II. Exception Case (vss. 5, 6): '" : ~ ". I (T .
3.6 There are no texts which demonstrate that the extramarital sexual
activity of men or the sexual activity of unmarried women was a matter of
moral indifference
D. Patrick writes:
"In the realm of extramarital sex, the double standard [where "a
woman owed sexual fidelity to one man, but her husband did not
owe her the same"] permitted a married man to have sexual
intercourse with unattached women. Although prostitution ... was
condemned in ancient Israel, it seems to have been tolerated
[italics added] .... However, extramarital sexual relations
generally, though they were permitted [italics added], were morally
condemned."l72
Similarly, P. Bird states that the harlot "was in every period a figure of
disrepute and shame (Gen 34.31; Judg 11.1; 1 Kgs. 22.38; Isa 1.21; Jer 3.3;
Ezek 16.30), at best merely ostracized, at worst (in circumstances involving
infidelity and defilement) subjected to punishment of death (Gen 38.24; see
also Lev 21.9). But the harlot was also tolerated [italics added] in every
period by men who incurred no legal penalties - or even censure - for the
enjoyment of her services (Gen 38.15ff.)."173 S. Niditch and C.V. Camp
make similar observations, especially with respect to Genesis 38. Rightly
objecting to the double standard inherent in Judah's treatment of his supposed
harlot daughter-in-law, Camp notes that harlots were "marginally acceptable
169 Cf., e.g., M. Tsevat, et al., "i1'71n~ IJethuliih," TDOT II, 342f.; and C. Locher, Die
Ehre einer Frau in Israel (1986).
170 Cf. GJ. Wenham, "betutah 'A Girl of Marriageable Age'" (1972) 326-48.
171 H.G. Reventlow argues that the seduction of an unbetrothed woman was considered
"shameful" and hence morally objectionable (Gebot und Predigt im Dekalog, 78f.). Cf.
also B.S. Childs, Exodus, 422.
This text contradicts the assertion of B. Malina regarding the attitudes of both the OT
and the NT: "in no case is pre-betrothal, non-commercial, non-cultic heterosexual
intercourse (what is commonly called 'fornication' today) prohibited!" ("Does Porneia
Mean Fornication?," 15). For a detailed refutation of Malina, cf. J. Jensen, "Does Porneia
Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina," (1978) 161-84.
172 Old Testament Law, 55.
173 P. Bird, "Images of Women in the Old Testament" (1974) 66f.
324 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
[italics added]" in Israel, particularly by those desiring their services, but only
as long as they were no man's virgin daughter or wife!174
Is it really the case that extramarital relations or prostitution were
"tolerated," "permitted," or "acceptable" in Israel? In what sense are these
terms intended when they are qualified by the mention of social and moral
condemnation?175 Any examination of the evidence is complicated by at
least two factors: First, it is necessary to distinguish actual practice and
attitudes held by the various members of a society from the views and ideals
of its moralists (i.e., in the present case the biblical authors)P6 Second, there
is the further need to distinguish criminal sanction from moral censure and to
guard against the modern tendency to assume that the lack of criminal
sanction necessarily indicates greater moral tolerance, if not approbation.
3.6.1 Genesis 38
In Genesis 38, for example, the "double standard," to which P. Bird, S.
Niditch, C.V. Camp, and others object, pertains to what may be inferred of
Judah's personal value system. It is doubtful, however, that the narrator
shares Judah's viewpoint in this matter; the narrative is thoroughly
disapproving of Judah and correspondingly sympathetic toward Tamar.
In addition to Judah's own explicit confession of Tamar's superior
righteousness (Gen. 38:26), the narrative offers its own eloquent, if less
direct, judgment against Judah through the device of narrative analogy.
Twice before her encounter with Judah, Tamar is depicted as a tragic victim
of the wickedness of Judah's sons: "But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in
the sight of Yahweh; and Yahweh slew him" (Gen. 38:7); "And what he
[Onan] did was displeasing in the sight of Yahweh, and he slew him also"
(Gen. 38:10). The reader cannot fail to see a pattern developing, since Judah
himself recognizes it: "Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law,
'Remain a widow in your father's house, till Shelah my son grows up' - for
174 c.Y. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (1985) 112-114; and
S. Niditch, "The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Gen 38" (1979) 147.
175 For an indication of the contempt in which harlots were held, cf., e.g., 1 Kgs. 22:38;
Amos 7:17; and especially the extended harlot metaphorfor folly in Proverbs 1-7.
It is notable that even in Mesopotamia, where cult prostitutes and common harlots (ex
officio devotees of Ishtar) abounded, it appears that, at least among some thinkers, this
practice was not entirely "acceptable." In the Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom, for
example, a man is advised against marrying such a woman: "Do not marry a prostitute,
whose husbands are legion, a temple harlot who is dedicated to a god, a courtesan whose
favours are many .... " W.G. Lambert briefly discusses this text, summarizing, "Here no
distinction is made between different species of the kind, but all alike are condemned as
unfit for marriage" ("Morals in Ancient Mesopotamia," 195).
176 Cf. the DB document RA 69, 120ff., NO.8 (M. Anbar, "Textes de l'epoque
babylonienne ancienne" [1975] 109-136). Although Anbar considered the text to concern a
husband and wife who agree not to refrain from sexual relations, R. Westbrook has argued
that the text actually prohibits (by mutual oaths) a married man from engaging in sexual
relations with a particular hariot ("The Enforcement of Morals in Mesopotamia" [1984]
753-756)!
Cf. also M.T. Roth, '''She will die by the iron dagger': Adultery and Neo-Babylonian
Marriage," 193 n. 14.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 325
he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and dwelt in
her father's house" (Gen. 38:11). The irony is that while Judah sought to
protect his family from incurring Yahweh's righteous judgment yet once
more, his self-serving deception recalls that of his son Onan and establishes
Judah himself as the third member in the pattern. The reader is prepared for
the refrain, "And what Judah did was displeasing in the sight of Yahweh, and
he slew him also." In effect Tamar saves Judah from the full extremity of his
intended wrong by her deception, itself an ironic reversal and fitting
retribution for Judah's earlier deception of Tamar.1 77
Finally, reinforcing the implicit moral indictment against Judah, in
Gen. 38:20-23 Judah secures the help of his friend Hirah to pay his debt to
the anonymous harlot (Tamar in disguise), perhaps out of a self-condemning
shame)78 This sense of shame is made explicit when Hirah, having failed his
mission, returns and is instructed by Judah to give up further search and to
allow the disguised Tamar to keep the valuable pledge left by Judah, "lest we
be shamed [n:t7 i1,:iiJ If;l]'' (Gen. 38:23)79
177 "Poetic justice" or ironic reversals of this sort are a standard narrative device for
intimating divine judgment within the OT. Cf., e.g., GJ. Wenham, Numbers, 84.
B. Lang says "Tamar, in the book of Genesis, was able to play the harlot without losing
face" (Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs [1986] 98). Such a statement fails to take account
of Tamar's extraordinary circumstance as one who had been wronged by Judah's refusal to
provide his son Shelah as a husband or personally to assume the responsibility of the
levirate.
178 Cf. A. Brenner, The Israelite Woman (1985) 82.
179 So the A V. The RSV "be laughed at" should not be misconstrued as if it merely
implied the fear of a mild social embarrassment. Elsewhere 11:J (cf. its probable by-form,
~!~) connotes notions of shame, disgrace, disdain, and contempt. Cf., e.g., M. GOrg, "~9
baz{jh," TDOT, II, 60-65.
In support of this emphasis on Judah's guilt, R. Alter has observed that the result of the
intrusive placement of the Judah story within the Joseph narrative is that "we move in
pointed contrast from a tale of exposure through sexual incontinence [Genesis 38] to a tale
of seeming defeat and ultimate triumph through sexual continence - Joseph and Potiphar's
wife [Genesis 39]" (The Art of Biblical Narrative [1981]10; I am grateful to A. Lemaire for
drawing my attention to Alter's discussion).
326 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
3.6.3 There are no texts which demonstrate that the non-cultic, non-
commercial sexual activity of unmarried women was a matter of moral
indifference
B. Malina asserts that, apart from ritualistic sexual acts and prostitution, the
willing sexual acts of an unmarried woman were viewed with moral
indifference in the Old TestamenP84 As we have observed, however, the
evidence simply does not support such a claim. In actuality, the fact that only
three Old Testament examples exist for consideration (i.e., Genesis 34,
Genesis 38, and 2 Samuel 13) may reflect the rarity of such acts in the ancient
world. We have already considered each of these texts above (cf. Chapter 7,
2.2.2 and Chapter 8, 3.2); none appears to support Malina's contention.
Specifically, it should be noted that both Shechem's relationship with Dinah
185 The traditional English rendering of ii~:tJ as "folly" cannot adequately convey the
horror evoked by words or actions which are so termed in Hebrew and which are so
regularly met with a death penalty (whether threatened or exacted by the wrath of God or by
human courts). Cf. A. Phillips, "Nebalah - a term for serious disorderly and unruly
conduct" (1975) 237-42.
186 Notable is the fact that the brothers do not object to Shechem because he was an
uncircumcised outsider. Cf. J. Jensen, "Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of
Bruce Malina," 168.
187 Ibid., 166.
188 "The Law of Slavery," 52.
328 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
criminal norms. Even in the case of a particular criminal law, such as the
prohibition of adultery, the fact that adultery is punishable with death only
when the couple is caught in flagrante delicto cannot be construed as
implying that under other circumstances adultery would be "approved" or
even "tolerated."189
Whatever legal apparatus there may have been to enforce a husband's
sexual fidelity, it is clear that a moral obligation of sexual fidelity applied to
the husband no less than to the wife - even where the extramarital relations
would be with an unmarried woman.1 90 This is the case even in
Mesopotamian practice. 191 K. van der Toorn, for example, mentions the
Myth of the Guilty Slave Girl, where "The goddess Inanna accuses the girl
Amanamtagga, 'The-guilty-one', of having learned coitus and kissing from
189 Given the limitations of the present study, it is not possible to consider in more
detail the problematic evidence concerning the penal sanctions which attach to adultery (cf.,
e.g., Provo 6:34f.) and their possible historical development or to enter into the larger debate
concerning the claim that OT law (at least at some stage) was characterized by principles
radically different from those presupposed in ancient Near Eastern law elsewhere.
Specifically, it is claimed that while ancient Near Eastern law considered adultery to be an
offence against the husband, who was consequently authorized to determine the punishment
of his wife (with the law requiring equal treatment for the lover), biblical law considered
adultery to be a sin against God and in every case where the couple was caught in flagrante
delicto demanded the exaction of the death penalty and disallowed the husband the
prerogative to commute the execution. This claim does not deny that other ancient Near
Eastern societies likewise considered adultery as a sin against the deity. It merely asserts
that this moral conviction did not inform their legal practice with the same consistency as is
attested in the Bible.
Those who reject the radical distinctiveness of OT law, especially regarding adultery,
include S.E. Loewenstamm, "The Laws of Adultery and Murder in Biblical and
Mesopotamian Law" (1980 [originally published in Hebrew in 1962]) 146-53; idem, "The
Laws of Adultery and Murder in the Bible. A reply to M. Weinfeld" (1980) 171-172; B.S.
Jackson, "Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law" (1973) 8-38; H. McKeating, "Sanctions
against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society, with Some Reflections on Methodology in the
Study of Old Testament Ethics" (1979) 57-72; idem, "A Response to Dr. Phillips" (1981)
25-26; and J.W. Welch, "Reflections on Postulates: Power and Ancient Laws - A Response
to Moshe Greenberg" (1990) 113-119.
Those who support the radical distinctiveness of OT law, particularly regarding
adultery, include M. Greenberg, "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law" (1960) 5-28;
idem, "Crimes and Punishments" in IDB, I, 737b; idem, "More Reflections on Biblical
Criminal Law" (1986); idem, "Reply to the Comments of John Welch" (1990) 120-125;
S.M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law
(1970); A. Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue
(1970); idem, "Another Look at Adultery" (1981) 3-25; idem, "A Response to Dr.
McKeating (JSOT 20 [1981] 25-26)" (1981) 142-143; idem, "The Decalogue - Ancient
Israel's Criminal Law" (1983) 1-20; and H.J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of
Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (1980) 113.
Cf. also M.T. Roth, "'She will die by the iron dagger': Adultery and Neo-Babylonian
Marriage" (1988) 186-206. Cf. further LV 4; LE 28; CH 129; MAL A 13, 14, 15, 16,
23; and HL 197, 198.
190 With respect to the claim that "sexual relations between a man and an unmarried
woman are taken up only in the case of rape or seduction of a virgin, where it is a civil, not
moral crime," J. Jensen writes, "Such views are frequently expressed, but they do not
appear to rest on a full consideration of the OT evidence. Some of Israel's laws can lead to
a different conclusion; and there are further indications in the historical and wisdom
traditions" ("Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina," 165).
191 Cf. footnote 176 above.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 329
Dumuzi, her husband." Although the text nowhere hints of a legal charge
against her husband of adultery with this single girl, nevertheless, "the act is
referred to as an ikkibu (EM.GIG), a 'taboo' ."192 Other texts likewise stress
the taboo violation or defilement which comes from sexual promiscuity. To
these examples, Van der Toorn adds a reference to Babylonian behavioural
omens which stress the detrimental effects of illicit sexual intercourse.
Compare, for example, "If he is a fornicator (nii'ik): what he owns will
decrease, he will become poor."193
With respect to the biblical data, perhaps the clearest examples of texts
which appear to discourage sexual promiscuity on the part of husbands, even
when it is committed with unmarried lovers, are: 1 Sam. 2:22; Job 31:1; Hos.
4:14; and especially Proverbs 5,194
192 Sin and Sanction, 17f. Against this rendering of ikkibu, cf. M.J. Geller, "Taboo in
Mesopotamia (review of K van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia)"
(1990J 105-117.
1 3 CT 51, 147, Rev. 21, as cited by K van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction, 161 n. 80.
194 Because harlots were frequently married, texts which condemn their use are less
clear since they may merely reflect a condemnation of adultery. Cf., e.g., Jer. 5:7 and Ezek.
24:44 if emended with the LXX.
195 "God" is understood by J.G. Baldwin as a possible reference to the "judges" (cf.
Exod. 21:6; 22:8-9) (1 and 2 Samuel, 61).
196 2 Sam. 12:13 and Ps. 51:5 [ET 4] could be considered counter examples for this
inference.
197 Cf. Exod. 38:8 and the possibly relevant evidence for the concept of unmarried
women being "married" to the deity attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East as well as in
the NT (Luke 2:36; 1 Timothy 5:11). As R. Harris points out, when a nadltum entered a
cloister, it was considered analogous to marriage ("The Naaliu Woman" ([1964]105-135).
For this reason a bib/um was given. Cf. also R. Westbrook, "Old Babylonian Marriage
Law," II, 304.
330 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
sexual promiscuity with unmarried women, there are a few difficulties with
this text which diminish its utility. First, whatever the precise character of
Hophni and Phinehas's offence, the exclusive interest of the text seems to be
in condemning this wrong as an abuse of their priestly office, not as an
offence against their marriages. Second, the clause, "and how they lay with
the women who ministered at the entrance to the tent of meeting," is missing
from two key witnesses, 4QSam a and LXXB. Accordingly, P.K. McCarter
Jr. and R.W. Klein, for example, argue that it should be excised as a gloss
from Exod. 38:8, inspired by a perceived link between the present situation
and the Baal of Peor incident in Num. 25:6-15. 198 In support of the MT,
however, the postulated connection with Num. 25:6-15 is not so strong as
alleged. Further, it is notable that the MT is supported by LXXL and
Josephus, Antiquities 5.339; accordingly, it is possible that the omission in
4QSama and LXXB was merely the result of homoioarchton.1 99 Finally,
although it seems likely that these women are the same as those mentioned in
Exod. 38:8, where "ministered [~~~]" also appears, there has been no
scholarly consensus regarding the precise identity or function of these
women. H.W. Hertzberg suggests that they "have the task of keeping the
entrance clean; this was particularly important for what took place in the
sanctuary."200 J.P. Hyatt makes a similar suggestion and adds the possibility
that they also repaired the tabernacle.201 Alternatively, Hyatt and others have
wondered whether they ministered by dancing and singing (perhaps following
Miriam's example in Exod. 15:20) or functioned as prostitutes, perhaps
accounting for their wealth.202
The suggestion of cultic prostitution in either Exod. 38:8 or 1 Sam.
2:22, however, seems unlikely. This is especially the case in Exod. 38:8,
which explains that Bezalel made the copper laver and its pedestal "from the
mirrors of the ministering women who ministered at the door of the tent of
meeting." As J.1. Durham notes, "it is not likely that a reference associating
the Laver with anything so antithetical to the P concept of cultic acceptability
as cultic prostitution would have been included without some such
explanation as that given in Num 17:1-5 [16:36-40], regarding the use upon
the altar of the copper of the censers of Korah's company of rebels."203 In
any case, since ~~~ is also employed to describe the ministry of the Levites
(Num. 4:23; 8:24), there is no need to assume a different sort of ministry for
198 P.K. McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel (1980) 81; and R.W. Klein, 1 Samuel (1983) 22.
Taking the opposite view, J.P. Hyatt argues that Exod. 38:8 is a gloss deriving from 1
Sam. 2:22 (Exodus [1971]330).
F.M. Cross Jr. compares the mention of "male cult prostitutes" in "houses" which
"were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah" in 2
Kgs. 23:7 (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [1973]201-203).
199 Cf. also R.P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 83.
200 I and II Samuel (1964) 36.
201 Exodus (1971) 330.
202 Cf. G.H. Davies, Exodus (1967) 251; and R.A. Cole, Exodus (1973) 236. Cf. also
Jud~. 11:34; 21:21; and 1 Sam. 18:6.
""203 Exodus, 488.
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 331
these women in either Exod. 38:8 or 1 Sam. 2:22.204 Moreover, the mention
in 1 Sam. 2:22 of the ministry of the women "at the entrance of the tent of
meeting" seems calculated to render Hophni and Phinehas all the more
culpable for their offence, in a manner analogous to the priest's abuse of the
offerings of the worshippers in vss. 13-17.205 Further, the ability and
willingness of Hophni and Phinehas to resort to force to commit their offence
against the offerings mentioned in 1 Sam. 2:16 allow the possibility that they
used similar force to have their way with these women. If so, this was not
cultic prostitution, for which the women presumably would have willingly
offered themselves.
the list of the disavowed sins which comprise chapter 31. 208 Against this
proposal, however, is the fact that while "Virgin' Anath [btlt 'nt]" is a well-
known epithet from the Ugaritic texts, nowhere is 'Anath referred to simply
as the "virgin [btlt =il'?1n:l)," as is required for Job 31:1. Furthermore, as
N.C. Habel notes, "in the pre-Israelite world of the patriarchal heroes where
the poet has located Job, a direct allusion to 'Anath as the rival of Yahweh
would be anachronistic."209
M. Tsevat argues against the traditional reference to lust in vs. 1,
claiming that this interpretation renders vss. 9-12 superfluous. 210 The precise
sin disavowed in vss. 9-12, however, involves overt adultery with a
neighbour's wife, not merely lust for a normally unmarried il'?1n:;;l.211
On the other hand, the more obvious reference to sexual purity may
not be so out of place in Job 31: 1.2 12 For example, there is a possible indusia
between Job's eyes in vs. 1 and God's all-seeing vision in vs. 4.
Furthermore, from the wider context it is apparent that Job recognizes that
God's righteous judgment takes into account not merely overt acts, such as
adultery, but also the thoughts and intentions of the heart, such as the posited
lust in vs. 1. Compare, for example, Job's disavowal that he has rejoiced at
his wealth (vs. 25) or gloated at the ruin of his enemies (vs. 29 - cf. Provo
24:17). Indeed, as R. Gordis has argued, the stress throughout Job 31 is on
the fact that Job has adhered to a standard of piety that goes well beyond such
palpable crimes as murder, theft, etc.213 Here are almost exclusively
clandestine sins of the spirit representing a level of piety consistent with the
earlier reference in Job 1:5, where Job offered burnt offerings for his sons in
case they had "cursed God in their hearts."214
Finally, Sir. 9:5 offers a supportive parallel for the traditional
interpretation of Job 31:1, from which it may well derive: "At a virgin do not
look nmnn ,~ il"n:J:J), lest you be trapped into sin with her."215 M. Tsevat
is unimpressed with this comparison, arguing that "it may be foolish to look
notable that "springs [nj:-1'O]" and "streams of water [~'(r'~,?;l]" are both
plural, while the images for the wife in vs. 15, "cistern [,i:J]" and "well
['~:;l]," are singular. 234 Accordingly, vs. 20 offers the literal meaning of vss.
16f., just as vss. 18f. give the literal meaning of vs. 15.235 Compare also Sir.
26:19-21.
Turning to vs. 18, there is dispute about the reference of "your
fountain [:Jlipo]" in vs. 18a: "Let your fountain be blessed ... [lji,~
:Jliprr'\T]."236 Most scholars appear to understand it as a reference to the
wife comparable to the other water sources in vs. 15, "cistern [,i:J]" and "well
['~:;l]." If, however, "springs [nj:llO]" and "streams of water [~'(r'~,?;l]" in vs.
16 refer to the husband's semen and consequently vss. 16f. to his infidelity,
then it is possible that "your fountain" continues this male imagery with a
reference to the husband's own generative powers as the source of semen. 237
Regardless of how vs. 18a is to be interpreted, vss. 18b and 19 are
clear enough: "and rejoice in the wife of your youth ["lJjllj n~~o notpj],238 a
lovely hind, a graceful doe []lTn7P:,' ~'~iJ~ n~,'~]. Let her breasts fill you at
all times with delight [np-'?:tJ "IX1' iJ'11],239 be infatuated always with her
The older view of Aquila, Saadia, and Ibn Ezra, which finds a reference in vss. 16f. to
descendants, has been defended more recently by A. Cohen (Proverbs [1946] 28), L.A.
Snijders ("The Meaning of zar in the Old Testament: an exegetical study" [1954] 93), and
H. Ringgren (Spruche/Prediger [1962]). On this approach vs. 16 may be either
interrogative, "Should your springs be dispersed outside?," or declarative, "(and so) your
springs will be dispersed outside." Although the latter approach (Snijders and Ringgren)
has the advantage that it does not require an unmarked interrogative, W. McKane considers
it unlikely, noting that water from a cistern running to waste in the streets is normally to be
avoided - a thought which is clearly inapplicable to descendants (Proverbs, 318).
234 This is also the case with "fountain [i;P9]" in vs. 18, although it is uncertain
whether this refers to the wife or to the husband. Cf. below.
235 Cf. C.H. Toy, Proverbs, 113.
236 R.B.Y. Scott offers "be grateful for" as a paraphrase for "let it be blessed (by you)"
(Proverbs, 58). This suggestion is rejected by C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the
0/
Book Proverbs, 204 and 317 n. 15.
23 Yet a third option has been suggested by C.V. Camp, that "your fountain" refers to
"the relationship of the two," i.e., the man and the woman (Wisdom and the Feminine in the
Book of Proverbs, 203f.) This certainly includes an allusion to their sexual pleasure (so
Gemser and Toy) and may also imply offspring (McKane), but not necessarily.
238 For "the wife of your youth," cf. Provo 2:17; Isa. 54:6; and especially Mal. 2:14f.
Cf. W.H. Wolff, Joe/ andAmos, 30.
239 The RSV repainting of "her breasts [~"1]" as "her affection [~"i]," with the
LXX~ and LXXO, ~ BE <pLALa, is possible (as it parallels "love" and is used with the same
verb in 7:18) but unnecessary. As noted by D. Kidner, "the traditional rendering 'breasts'
makes a rather more telling contrast with vs. 20 [which mentions the "bosom" of the
adventuress], and should probably be retained" (Proverbs, 71). Cf. also C.H. Toy,
Proverbs, 115. G.A. Yee notes a chiasm in vss. 19 and 20, with the A members having "her
breasts [~"'J" j ' "the bosom of an adventuress [:-t:i~l PDl" and the B members repeating
m~r1 ('''I Have Perfumed My Bed With Myrrh': The Foreign Woman ('issa zara) in
Proverbs 1-9," 60). Cf. also Ezek. 23:3, where the fondling of breasts is used in a
description of harlotry: "there their breasts [J;1"~] were pressed and their virgin bosoms
[J\1'71t1:l '71] handled."
MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT 337
love ["9t;1 i1,~tlit'1 i1~~iJ~::J]."240 In the view of the author, such intoxicating 241
love for one's wife renders senseless any extramarital relations: "Why should
you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman and embrace the bosom of an
adventuress [i1~j~~ PD p~Dm' i1J!J ',J:J i1Aqin i1~?']?" (Prov. 5:20). Although it
is an allegorical text, perhaps one may compare Provo 4:5b-9 for its
implication of a husband's devotion to his wife: "Get wisdom; get insight.
Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you .. .,
Prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honour you if you embrace
her. She will place on your head a fair garland; she will bestow on you a
beautiful crown."242
Whatever other conclusions may be warranted from this remarkable
paean to marital love, it is clear that the demand for a husband's sexual
fidelity was certainly not too romantic an ideal for the ancient world to
entertain.
4. SUMMARY
240 A number of scholars propose to relocate ProVo 6:22 after 5:19. In support, cf. P.W.
Skehan, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom, 1-8; R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs, 58; and R.E.
Mu~hy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, 59.
which normally means "to stagger, go astray, to be lost," as in vs. 23, can at
1 ODrD,
times be used of the effects of intoxication (as in 20:1 and Isa. 28:7). On this view, the verb
may be rendered "be intoxicated" or "swoon" in vss. 19 and 20. Cf. A. Cohen, Proverbs,
29; R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs, 55; and D. Kidner,Proverbs, 71.
Alternatively, with W. McKane, i1lrD may have the meaning "wrapped in" (Proverbs,
313,319),
242 W. McKane argues that the scene is not of marriage but of a wealthy patroness
embracing her protege since "a bride does not protect her lover, she does not exalt him
(teramemekka), in the sense of securing his preferment, nor does she get honour for her
lover (tekabbedekii) when he embraces her" (Proverbs,305f.). Cf. C.V. Camp, who rejects
McKane's suggestion and defends the traditional view (Wisdom and the Feminine in the
Book of Proverbs, 93-95). Cf. H. Ringgren, who suggests that vs. 9 includes a reference to
wedding customs (Word and Wisdom [1947] 106). Cf. also G. Bostrom, Proverbiastudien,
162.
338 MARRIAGE AS A COVENANT ELSEWHERE IN THE OT
a variety of economic and other matters ancillary to the marriage itself (so
also AJ. Skaist - see Chapter 6, 2.1 and Chapter 7, 2.1.1). With this
distinction in mind, it appears that any rejection of the covenantal nature of
marriage in the Old Testament (e.g., A Isaksson), no less than any defence or
elucidation of that covenantal nature (e.g., B. Glazier-McDonald), is
methodologically flawed if it proceeds by way of a study of the extant
marriage documents.
Furthermore, it was deemed likely that sexual union was understood as
a complementary covenant-ratifying oath-sign, at least by some biblical
authors. In support of this identification of the significance of sexual union, it
was argued (contradicting the theory of "marriage by purchase") that sexual
union is the indispensable means for the consummation of marriage both in
the Old Testament and elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Moreover, it was
recalled how oath-signs, such as a shared meal or handshake, often function
by offering a solemn depiction of the covenant commitment to unity. With
respect to sexual union, clearly this act is ideally suited to depict the "one
flesh" reality which is definitional of marriage in Gen. 2:24, and its use as an
oath-sign finds support in the use of the genitalia in other instances of oath
taking (i.e., circumcision and placing one's hands under another's "thigh").
Finally, we examined several texts, especially Hos. 2:22 [ET 20] and 13:5,
which associate the two relational senses of ll", "know," namely covenantal
and sexual, by means of double entendre. In an extended marriage metaphor
Hos. 2:22 [ET 20] uses ll'" "know," to describe the point at which Israel will
"acknowledge" Yahweh as her covenant partner. This fact appears to
confirm our hypothesis that sexual union, as a marriage covenant-ratifying
act, is the decisive means by which an individual "acknowledges" his or her
spouse as covenant partner (Chapter 7).
3) Finally, we considered a third fundamental objection, namely that
marriage cannot be a covenant because of the double standard of the Old
Testament, which demands a wife's exclusive sexualloyaHy while appearing
to be indifferent to a husband's extramarital sexual behaviour (A Isaksson, J.
Milgrom, and P.F. Palmer). After examination of the alleged examples of
this indifference, it was determined that there are, in fact, no texts which
condone a husband's sexual infidelity. On the contrary, several texts
including Job 31:1; Hos. 4:14; and especially Provo 5:15-23 make clear that
whether or not there was a legal obligation, there was definitely a moral
obligation for exclusive sexual fidelity on the part of a husband. This
comports with the view of this study that the Old Testament considered
marriage as a divinely protected covenant between husband and wife.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, Francis I., "Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure," The Bible
Translator 20 (1969) 29-39
- - , The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, JBL Monograph Series, 14
(Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1970)
- - , The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, Janua linguarum, Series practica 231 (The Hague:
Mouton, 1974)
- - , Job, An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (London: Inter-Varsity, 1976)
Andersen, Francis I. and David N. Freedman, Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, AB 24 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980)
Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman, Amos. A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, AB 24A (New York, London, Toronto, Sydney,
Auckland: Doubleday, 1989)
Anderson, Arnold Albert, The Book of Psalms, 2 vols., NCB (London: Oliphants and
Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1972)
- - , "The Marriage of Ruth," JSS 23 (1978) 171-183
--,2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1989)
Anderson, Gary, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel. Studies in Their Social and
Political Importance, HSS 41 (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1987)
Andreasen, Niels-Erik, "Adam and Adapa: Two Anthropological Characters," AUSS 19
(1981) 179-194
"Art. IV - The General Assembly of 1842," The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review
14:3 (1842) 472-523, at 518-520
Atkinson, David John, To Have and to Hold: The Marriage Covenant and the Discipline of
Divorce (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979)
Baab, Otto Justice, "Marriage," in /DB 3 (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1962) 278-
287
"Baboon Bonding," Discover 11 (April, 1990) 20
Bailey, John A, "Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2-3," JBL 89
(1970) 137-150
Baker, David W. see AT. Desmond, D.W. Baker, and B.K. Waltke, Obadiah, Jonah,
Micah
Baldwin, Joyce G., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1972)
- - , "Malachi 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the OT," TB 23 (1972) 117-24
--,land 2 Samuel. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Leicester, England and
Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1988)
Baltzer, Klaus, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian
Writings, D.E. Green, trans. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971 [from Das
Bundesformular, WMANT 4, 2e Aufl., Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964; Ie Aufl. 1960])
Barash, D.P., Sociobiology and Behavior (New York: Elsevier North-Holland, 1977)
Barnes, William Emery, Malachi with Notes and Introduction, Cambridge Bible for
Schools and Colleges, A.F. Kirkpatrick, ed. (Cambridge: University, 1917 [2nd ed.
1934, F.S. Marsh, ed.])
Barr, James, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961)
- - , "Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant," in Beitriige zur alttestamentlischen
Theologie. Fs fur Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and
R. Smend, eds. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 23-38
- - , "Semitic Philology and the Interpretation of the Old Testament," in Tradition and
Interpretation. Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, G. W.
Anderson, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) 31-64
- - , Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, expanded edition (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987 [1st ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968])
Barth, Markus, Ephesians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 2 vols.,
AB 34, 34A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974)
Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebriiischen Sprache des
Alten Testamentes (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922 [reprinted 1965 by Georg Olms,
Hildesheim])
Baumann, E., "Yada' und seine Derivate. Ein sprachlich-exegetische Studie," ZA W 28
(1908) 22-41 and 110-143
Beckwith, Roger T., "The Unity and Diversity of God's Covenants," TB 38 (1987) 93-118
Beeston, AF.L., "One Flesh," VT 36 (1986) 115-117
346 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Begg, Christopher T., "Berit in Ezekiel," in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of
Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985. Division A: The Period of the Bible
(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 77-84
Begrich, J., "Berit. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform," ZA W 60
(1944) 1-11
Ben-Barak, Zafrira, "The legal background to the restoration of Michal to David," Studies
in Historical Books of the Old Testament, SVT 30 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1979) 15-29
- - , "Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East," JSS 25 (1980) 22-33
Benoit, Pierre, J.T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabba'dt, DJD 2
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1961)
Benton Jr., W. Wilson, "Federal Theology: Review for Revision," in Through Christ's
Word. A Fs for Dr. Philip E. Hughes, W.R. Godfrey and J.L. Boyd III, eds.
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985) 180-204
Berg, Werner, "Der Siindenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16,1-6," Biblische Notizen
19 (1982) 7-14
Berlin, Adele, "Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives," JSOT23 (1982) 69-
85
Bewer, Julius A, see J.M.P. Smith, W.H. Ward, and J.A Bewer,A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and Joel
Biale, Rachel, Women and Jewish Law. An Exploration of Women's Issues in Halakhic
Sources (New York: Schocken Books, 1984)
Bickerman, E., "Couper une alliance," Archives d'Histoire du Droit Oriental 5 (1950-51)
133-56
Bigger, Stephen Frank, "Hebrew Marriage and Family in the Old Testament Period. A
Perspective from the Standpoint of Social History and Social Anthropology," Ph.D.
diss. (University of Manchester, 1974)
Bing, J.D., "Adapa and Immortality," Ugarit-Forschungen 16 (1984) 53-56
Bird, Phyllis, "Images of Women in the Old Testament," in Religion and Sexism, R.R.
Ruether, ed. (New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1974) 41-88
Birnbaum, Solomon A, "The Kephar Bebhayu Marriage Deed," JAOS 78 (1958) 12-18
- - , "The Bar Menasheh Marriage Deed," Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-
Archaelogisch Instituut te Istanbul 13 (1962) 1-26
Blank, Sheldon H., "The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath," HUCA 23 (1950-51)
73-95
Blass, F., and A Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, trans. and revised by R.W. Funk (Chicago and London:
University of Chicago, 1961)
Blau, Joshua, On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, VI/2 (Jerusalem: Ahva, Ltd., 1982)
Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Ezra -Nehemiah, A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1988)
Blevins, James L., "The Age of Marriage in First-Century Palestine," Biblical Illustrator 7
(1980) 65-7
Blocher, Henri, In the Beginning. The opening chapters of Genesis, D.G. Preston, trans.
(Leicester, England and Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1984)
Blommerde, Anton CM., Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, BibOr 22 (Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1969)
i30cher, 0., "Der Judeneid," EvT30 (1970) 671-681
Boecker, Hans Jochen, "Bemerkungen zur formgeschichtlichen Terminologie des Buches
Maleachi," ZAW78 (1966) 78-80
- - , "Anmerkungen zur Adoption im AT," ZA W 86 (1974) 86-89
- - , Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East, J.
Moiser, trans. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg; London: SPCK, 1980)
Boling, Robert G., Judges: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 6A
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975)
Boling, Robert G., and G. Ernest Wright, Joshua. A New Translation with Notes and
Commentary, AB 6 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982)
Borger, RykIe, "Zu den Asarhaddon Vertriigen aus Nirnrud," Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 54
(1961) 173-196
- - , Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestiicke, 2 Bde, 2e Aufl., AnOr 54 (Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1979)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 347
Borger, Rykle, Heiner Lutzmann, Willem H. Ph. Romer, and Einar von Schiiler,
RechtsbUcher, Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, 1/1 (Giitersloh: Gerd
Mohn,1982)
Bossman O.F.M., David, "Ezra's Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined," Biblical Theology
Bulletin 9 (1979) 32-38
Bostrom, Gustav, Prover~iastudien: die Weisheit und das fremde Weib in Spriiche 1-9,
Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N.F., Avd. I, Bd. 30, Nr. 3 (Lund: Gleerup, 1935)
Botterweck, G. Johannes, "Schelt- und Mahnrede gegen Mischehe und Ehescheidung.
Auslegung von Malachias 2,10-16," Bibel undLeben 1 (1960) 179-185
--, "ll};, yii4a'," in TDOT 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 448-481
Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977-)
Brandon, S.G.F., Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1963)
Bratsiotis, N.P., "i~:;J, basar," in TDOT2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975) 317-332
Braun, Roddy L., 1 Chronicles, WBC 14 (Waco, TX: Word, 1986)
Brauner, Ronald A., '''To Grasp the Hem' and 1 Samuel 15:27," JANESCU6 (1974) 35-38
Bravmann, M.M., "Concerning the Phrase 'and shall cleave to his wife'," Le Museon 85
(1972) 269-74
- - , "The Original Meaning of 'A Man Leaves His Father and Mother' (Gen 2.24)," Le
Museon 88 (1975) 449-553
- - , Studies in Semitic Philology (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1977)
Breneman, J. Mervin, "Nuzi Marriage Tablets," Ph.D. diss. (Brandeis University, Waltham,
MA,1971)
Brenner, Athalya, The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical
Narrative, The Biblical Seminar (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1985)
Brichto, Herbert Chanan, The Problem of 'Curse' in the Hebrew Bible, JBL Monograph
Series, 13 (Philadelphia: Society of Bi?lical.Literatu~e, .1963 [reprinted 1968]).
- - , "The Case of the So,ta and a ReconsideratIOn of Biblical 'Law'," HUCA 46 (1975)
55-70
Bright, John, Jeremiah. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965)
--,A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981 [1st ed. 1959; 2nd ed.
1972])
Brinkman, John A., Miguel Civil, Ignace J. Gelb, A. Leo Oppenheim, and Erica Reiner,
eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
(Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute; and Gliickstadt, Germany: U. Augustin, 1956-)
Brockelmann, Carl, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 2
Bde. (Berlin: Reuter und Reichard, 1908-1913 [reprinted 1961 Hildesheim: Olms])
- - , Lexicon syriacum, 2nd ed. (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1928 [reprinted 1965, Hildesheim:
Olms])
- - , Hebraische Syntax (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956)
Brockington, Leonard Herbert, "Malachi," in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew
Black and H.H. Rowley, eds. (London: Nelson, 1962) 656-658
- - , The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, The readings adopted by the translators of the
new English Bible (Oxford, Cambridge, London: Oxford University Press, 1973)
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 [repro 1962, 1966])
Brownlee, William H., Ezekiel 1-19, WBC 28 (Waco, TX: Word, 1986)
Brueggemann, Walter, "David and His Theologian," CBQ 30 (1968) 156-81
- - , "Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gn 2,23a)," CBQ 32 (1970) 532-42
- - , Genesis, Interpretation (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1982)
Bruno, D. Arvid, Das Buch der ZW6lj Eine rhythmische und textkritische Untersuchung
(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1957)
Budd, Philip J., Numbers, WBC 5 (Waco, TX: Word, 1984)
Budde, K, "Zum Text der drei letzten kleinen Propheten," ZA W 26 (1906) 1-28
Bullinger, E.W., Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated (London:
Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898 [reprinted 1968 Grand Rapids, MI: Baker])
Bulmerincq, Alexander von, Der Prophet Maleachi, Band 1: Einleitung in das Buch des
Propheten Maleachi (Dorpat: Acta et Commentationes, Univ. Dorpat, 1926)
- - , "Die Mischehen im B. Maleachi," in Oriental Studies published in commemoration of
the fortieth anniversary (1883-1923) of Paul Haupt as Director of the Oriental
348 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, C. Adler and A. Ember,
eds. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1926) 31-42
- - , Der Prophet Maleachi, Band 2: Kommentar zum Buche des Propheten Maleachi
(Tartu: Kommissionsverlag von J.G. Kruger, 1932)
Burke, David G., "Gesture," in ISBE 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 449-457
Burrows, Millar, "The Complaint of Laban's Daughters," JAOS 57 (1937) 259-276
- - , The Basis of Israelite Marriage, American Oriental Series 15 (New Haven, CN:
American Oriental Society, 1938)
Buss, Martin J., review of L. Peri itt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36),
JBL 90 (1971) 210-212
Callison, Waiter L., "Divorce, the Law, and Jesus," Your Church (May, 1986) 18-23
Calvin, John, The Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol. V, Zechariah and Malachi, J. Owen, trans.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1849)
- - , Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis, Vol. 1, J. King, trans. and
ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint [orig. published in Latin, 1554])
- - , Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony,
vol. 3, C.W. Bingham, trans. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, reprint 1979)
Camp, Claudia V., Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, Bible and Literature
Series, 11 (Sheffield: Almond, 1985)
Campbell Jr., Edward F., Ruth. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and
Commentary, AB 7 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975)
Campbell, Robert c., "Teachings of the Old Testament concerning Divorce," Foundations
6 (1963) 174-178
Cardascia, Guillaume, Les lois assyriepnes. Introduction, traduction, commentaire, Litt.
Anc. du Proche-Orient, 2 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1969)
Carmichael, Calum M., The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1974)
- - , Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 1979)
- - , '''Treading' in the Book of Ruth," ZA W 92 (1980) 248-66
- - , Law and Narrative in the Bible. The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the
Decalogue (Ithaca and London: Cornell University, 1985)
Carroll, Robert P., Jeremiah. A Commentary, OTL 8 (London: SCM Ltd., 1986)
Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984)
Carson, D.A. and H.G.M. Williamson, eds., It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays
in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: University Press, 1988)
Cash dan, Eli, "Malachi," in The Twelve Prophets, Soncino Books of the Bible, A. Cohen,
ed. (London, Jerusalem, New York: Soncino, 1948) 335-356
Cassuto, Umberto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part I: From Adam to Noah,
Genesis I-VI 8, I. Abrahams, trans. (Jerusalem: Magnes, The Hebrew University,
1961)
- - , A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, I. Abrahams, trans. (Jerusalem: Magnes, The
Hebrew University, 1967)
- - , "Second Chapter of the Book of Hosea," in U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies,
I: Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973) 101-140
Cathcart, Kevin J., and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated,
with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, The Aramaic Bible, 14
(Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989)
Cazelles, Henri, "'~ry, chabhar," in TDOT 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 193-197
Ceresko, Anthony R., Job 29-31 in the Light of Northwest Semitic. A Translation and
Philological Commentary, BibOr 36 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980)
Charles, R.H., ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1913)
Charlesworth, James H., Jesus Within Judaism. New Light from Exciting Archaeological
Discoveries, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York, London, Toronto,
Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday, 1988)
Chary O.F.M., Theophane, Aggee - Zacharie - Malachie, Sources Bibliques (Paris: J.
Gabalda et Cie, 1969)
Childs, Brevard S., The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1974)
- - , Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979)
Chirichigno, Gregory Conrad, "Debt Slavery in the Ancient Near East and Israel: An
Examination of the Biblical Manumission Laws in Exod 21:2-6,7-11; Deut 15:12-18;
Lev. 25:39-54," Ph.D. diss. (Council for National Academic Awards, 1989)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 349
<;ig;, M., H. Kizilyay, F.R. Kraus, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur (Istanbul,
1952)
Clark, W. Malcolm, "The Flood and the Structure of the Pre-Patriarchal History," ZA W 83
(1971) 204-10
Clay, Albert Tobias, Babylonian Records in the Library ofJ. Pierpont Morgan, Part 4 (New
Haven: Yale University, 1923)
Clements, Ronald E., Abraham and David. Genesis 15 and its Meaning for Israelite
Tradition, SBT 11/5 (Geneva, AL: Allenson-Breckinridge and London: SCM, 1967)
Clines, David 1.A., "The Theology of the Flood Narrative," Faith and Thought 100 (1972-
3) 128-42
- - , The Theme of the Pentateuch, JSOTSup 10 (Sheffield, England: University of
Sheffield, 1978)
- - , Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; and London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, 1984)
- - , What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament,
JSOTSup 94 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990)
Coats, George W., Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, The Forms of Old
Testament Literature, 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983)
Cody O.S.B., Aelred, "Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites," Biblica 49 (1968)
153-166
Cogan, Morton, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and
Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBLMS 19 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1974)
Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988)
Coggins, R.J., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1987)
Cohen, Abraham, Proverbs. Hebrew Text and English Translation with an Introduction and
Commentary, Soncino Books of the Bible, A. Cohen, ed. (London: Soncino, 1946)
- - , The Soncino Chumash. The Five Books of Moses with Haphtaroth. Hebrew text and
English translation with an exposition based on the classical Jewish commentaries,
Soncino Books of the Bible, A. Cohen, ed. (London: Soncino, 1947)
- - , "Zephaniah," in The Twelve Prophets. Hebrew Text & English Translation with
Introductions and Commentary, Soncino Books of the Bible, A. Cohen, ed. (London:
Soncino, 1948)
Cohen, Chaim, "Studies in Extra-Biblical Hebrew Inscriptions I. The Semantic Range and
Usage of the terms iir,lt\ and iiIJOltli," Shnaton 5-6 (1978-79 [published 1982]) xxv-liii
Cohen, Shaye J.D., "Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel
to Post-Biblical Judaism," Conservative Judaism 36 (1983) 31-45
- - , "From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage," Hebrew Annual
Review, Vol. 7. Biblical and Other Studies in Honor of Robert Gordis, Columbus:
Department of Judaic and Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State
University, R. Ahroni, ed. (1984) 23-39
- - , "The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law," Judaism 34 (1985) 5-13
Cole, R. Alan, Exodus. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (London and Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1973)
Collins, John J., "The Message of Malachi," The Bible Today 22 (1984) 209-15
Corbett, P.E., The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930)
Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1989)
Cowles, Henry, The Minor Prophets; with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical,
designed for both pastors and people (New York: D. Appleton, 1867)
Cowley, A.E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. Edited with Translation and Notes
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1923 [reprinted 1967])
Craigie, Peter c., The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976)
- - , Psalms 1-50, WBC 19 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983)
- - , Twelve Prophets. Vol. 2, The Daily Study Bible Series, J.C.L. Gibson, ed.
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1985)
Cramer, Karl, Amos, BWANT, 51 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1930)
Cresson, Bruce c., "The Condemnation of Edom," in The Use of the Old Testament in the
New. W.F. Stinespring Fs, J.M. Efird, ed. (Durham, NC: Duke University, 1972) 125-
48
350 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cross Jr., Frank Moore, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973)
- - , ".,~, 'el," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 242-261
Cross Jr., Frank Moore, and Richard J. Saley, "Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the
Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria," BASOR 197 (1970) 42-49
Crown, AD., "Aposiopesis in the Old Testament and the Hebrew Conditional Oath," Abr-
Nahrain 4 (1963-64) 96-111
Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum (London: British
Mus~um, Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities, 1896-)
Cuq, E., Etudes sur Ie droit babylonien, les lois assyriennes et les lois hittites (Paris:
Geuthner, 1929)
Curtis, Edward Lewis, and Albert Alonzo Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Books of Chronicles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark and New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1910)
Dahlberg, Bruce T., "On recognizing the unity of Genesis," Theology Digest 24 (1976) 360-
67
Dahood, Mitchell, Psalms I: 1-50, Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 16 (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1965)
- - , "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV," Biblica 47 (1966) 403-419
- - , "The Phoenician Contribution to Biblical Wisdom Literature," in The Role of the
Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean Civilizations. Papers presented to
the Archaeological Symposium at the American University of Beyrouth, March, 1967,
W.A Ward, ed. (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1968) 123-53
- - , Psalms II: 51-100, Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 17 (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1968)
- - , Psalms III: 101-150, Introduction, Translation, and Notes, with an Appendix, The
Grammar of the Psalter, AB 17A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970)
Dahood, Mitchell, and Tadeusz Penar, "Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs," in RSP 1 (Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1972) 71-382
Dalley, Stephanie, "Old Babylonian Dowries," Iraq 42 (1980) 53-74
Daube, David, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: University, 1947)
- - , "Terms for Divorce," in The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, D. Daube, ed.
(London: Athlone, 1956 [reprint by Arno, New York, 1973]) 366
- - , "Rechtsgedanken in den Erziihlungen des Pentateuchs," in Von Ugarit nach Qumran.
Beitriige zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung Otto Eissfeldt zum 1.
September 1957 dargebracht von Freunden und Schiilern, W.F. Albright, W.
Baumgartner, J. Lindblom, J. Pedersen, and H.H. Rowley, eds., BZAW, 77 (Berlin:
W. de Gruyter, 1961) 32-41
- - , "Covenanting under Duress," The Irish Jurist 2 (1967) 352-59
Daube, David, and Reuven Yaron, "Jacob's Reception by Laban," JSS 1 (1956) 60-62
David, Martin, Die Adoption im altbabylonischen Recht, Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche
Studien 23 (Leipzig: Th. Weicher, 1927)
- - , Vorm en wezen van de huwelijkssluiting naar de oud-oostersche rechtsopvatting;
openbare les gehouden bij den aanvang van zijn lessen als privaat-docent in de
oostersche rechtsgeschiedenis en de grieksch-egyptische papyrologie aan de Rijks-
Universiteit te Leiden op Woensdag 31 Januari 1934 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1934)
Davidson, AB., and AW. Streane, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Cambridge Bible for
Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1916)
Davies, Eryl W., "Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage, Part 1," VT 31
(1981) 138-144
- - , "Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage, Part 2," VT 31 (1981) 257-
268
Davies, G.H., Exodus, Torch Bible Commentary (London: SCM, 1967)
Day, John, "Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm LXXVIII,"
VT 36 (1986) 1-12
De Boer, P.A.H., Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judean Piety (Leiden: EJ.
Brill,1974)
Deden, D., De kleine profeten, BOT (Roermond-Maaseik: Romen & Zonen, 1953)
Deissier, Alfons, Zwolf Propheten, Die Neue Echter Bibei, 4 (Stuttgart: Echter, 1981)
Deissler, Alfons, and M. Deicor, Les petits prophetes, II, Michee-Malachi, La Sainte Bible,
Pirot-Clamer 8 (Paris: Letouzey & Ane, 1964)
Delaughter, Thomas J., Malachi: Messenger of Divine Love (New Orleans: Insight, 1976)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 351
Delitzsch, Franz, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, J. Martin, trans., in Carl
Friedrich Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1875 [reprinted 1982 by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI])
Deller, K., "SInn btl (Hosea 12,2). Additional Evidence," Biblica 46 (1965) 349-52
Dentan, Robert C., and Willard L. Sperry, "The Book of Malachi," in The Interpreter's
Bible, 6, G.A. Buttrick, ed. (New York and Nashville: Abingdon; London: Nelson,
1956) 1115-1144
DeRoche, Michael, "Jeremiah 2:2-3 and Israel's Love for God during the Wilderness
Wandering," CBQ 45 (1983) 364-76
Deutsch, Richard R., see Ogden, Graham S., and Richard R. Deutsch
Dever, William G., "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet 'Ajrud,"
BASOR 255 (1984) 21-37
DeVries, S.imon J., 1 Kings, WBC 12 (Waco, TX: Waco Books, 1985)
Dhorme, Edouard, A Commentary on the Book of Job, with a Prefatory Note by H.H.
Rowley; with a Preface by Francis I. Andersen, H. Knight, trans. (Nashville, Camden,
New York: Thomas Nelson, 1984)
Dillmann, A., Die Genesis, 6e Aufi., Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch (Leipzig:
Hirzel, 1892)
Dodd, e.H., According to the Scriptures. The Substructure of New Testament Theology
(Digswell Place, Welwyn, Herts: James Nisbet, 1952)
Dommershausen, Werner, "';"11 chalal II," in TDOT 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980)
417-421
Donner, Herbert, "Adoption oder Legitimation?" Oriens Antiquus 8 (1969) 87-119
Doughty, Charles Montagu, Travels in Arabia Deserta, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1888)
Draffkorn, Anne E., "iianilElohim," JBL 76 (1957) 216-224
Driver, Godfrey Rolles, "'I was [am] no prophet, neither was [am] I a prophet's son.'
(RV)," ExpTim 67 (1955-56) 91-92
Driver, Godfrey Rolles, and John e. Miles, The Assyrian Laws. Edited with translation and
commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935)
Driver, Godfrey Rolles, and John C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2 vols., (Oxford:
Clarendon, vol. 1, 1952, vol. 2, 1955)
Driver, Samuel Rolles, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of
Samuel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1890)
- - , A Treatise on the Use of Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions,
3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1892 [1st ed. 1874])
- - , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1902)
- - , The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes, 3rd ed. (London: Methuen, 1904)
- - , The Minor Prophets: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Introductions, Revised Version with Notes, Index, and Map The Century Bible
(Edinburgh and London: T.e. and E.J. Jack; New York: Oxford, 1906)
Driver, Samuel Rolles, and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book of Job Together with a New Translation, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1921 [2nd ed., 1950])
Driver, Samuel Rolles, and H.e.O. Lanchester, The Books of Joel and Amos, The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University Press, 1915 [1st
ed. 1897])
Duhm, Bernhard, Die zw6lf Propheten in den Versmassen der Urschrift ubersetzt
(Tiibingen: J.e.B. Mohr [Po Siebeck], 1910)
--,Anmerkungen zu den zwolf Propheten Sonderabdruck aus der ZAW31: 1-43; 81-110;
161-204 (Giessen: Rickeische, 1911)
Dumbrell, William 1., "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," The Reformed
Theological Review 35 (1976) 42-52
Dunstan, Gordon R., "The Marriage Covenant," Theology 78 (1975) 244-52
Dupont-Sommer, A., The Essene Writings From Qumran, G. Vermes, trans. (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1961 [reprinted 1973 by Peter Smith, Gloucester, MAD
Durham, John I., Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987)
Dwight, Sereno Edwards, The Hebrew Wife (New York: Leavitt, 1836)
Dyrness, William, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1979)
352 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ebeling, Erich, Die akkadische Gebetsserie "Handerhebung" von neuem gesammelt und
herausgegeben (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953)
- - , ed., Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts, WissenschaftIiche
Ver6ffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 50 (Leipzig: J.e. Hinrichs,
1927)
Ehrlich, Arnold Bogumil, Randglossen zur hebriiischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches
und Sachliches, 7 Bde (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908-1914 [reprint Hildesheim 1968])
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., Ethnology: The Biology of Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1975)
Eichrodt, Walther, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., P.R. Ackroyd, trans. (London:
SCM,1961)
- - , Ezekiel. A Commentary, e. Quin, trans., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970)
- - , "Prophet and Covenant," in Proclamation and Presence. Old Testament essays in
honour of G. Henton Davies, J.1. Durham and J.R. Porter, eds. (London and
Richmond: John Knox, 1970) 167-188
Eissfeldt, OUo, The Old Testament: An Introduction, P.R. Ackroyd, trans. (New York:
Harper & Row, 1965)
- - , "Renaming in the Old Testament," in Words and Meanings. Essays presented to
David Winton Thomas on his retirement from the Regius Professorship of Hebrew in
the University of Cambridge, 1968, P.R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars, eds. (Cambridge:
University Press, 1968) 69-79
Eiliger, Karl, Das Buch der zw6lf kleinen Propheten. ll. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk,
Zephanja, Haggai, Zacharja, Maleachi, ATD 25/2 (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1950 [8e Aufl. 1981])
- - , Leviticus, HAT (Tiibingen: J.e.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966)
- - , Deuterojesaja. 1. Teilband: Jesaja 40,1-45,7, BKAT XIII (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1978)
Elliger, Karl, and W. Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1983)
Emerton, J.A., "New Light on Israelite Religion: the Implications of the Inscriptions from
Kuntillet 'Ajrud," Z4 W 94 (1982) 2-20
Epstein, Louis M., The Jewish Marriage Contract. A Study in the Status of the Woman in
Jewish Law (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1927)
- - , Marriage Laws in Bible and Talmud, HSS 12 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
[reprinted 1968], 1942)
Erlandsson, Seth, "'Ol'i 'acher," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 201-203
- - , "'~~, baghadh," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 470-473
--, ":-ll!, zanah," in TDOT 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 99-104
Even-Shoshan, Abraham, ed., A New Concordance of the Old Testament Using the Hebrew
and Aramaic Text, Intro. by John H. Sailhamer (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker and
Ridgefield, 1984 [Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1983])
Ewald, Georg Heinrich August von, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testamen4 5:
Commentary on the Books of Haggai, Zakharya, Mal'aki, Yona, BarCtkh, Daniel, with
Translation, J.F. Smith, trans. (Edinburgh and London: Williams and Norgate, 1881)
- - , Ausj'Uhrliches Lehrbuch der hebriiischen Sprache des alten Bundes, 8 ed. (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1870)
Eybers, LH., "The Matrimonial Life of Hosea," Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in
Suid-Afrika 7 (1964-65) 11-34
Fairbairn, Patrick, The Christian Treasury (Edinburgh: Johnson, Hunter & Co., 1847)
Fairbanks, L.A., "Animal and human behavior: guidelines for generalization across
species," in Ethnological Psychiatry: Psychopathology in the Context of Evolution
Biology, M.T. McGuire and L.A. Fairbanks, eds. (New York: Grune & Stratton,
1977) 87-110
Falk, Ze'ev W., "Gestures Expressing Affirmation," JSS 4 (1959) 268-269
- - , Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. An Introduction (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1964)
- - , Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, Arbeiten zur Geschichte
des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, 11 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, vol. 1, 1972;
vol. 2, 1978)
Falkenstein, Adam, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, 1 Teil, Bayerische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische K1asse, Abhandlungen - Neue Folge
Heft 39 (Miinchen: Beck, 1956)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 353
Farb, Peter, Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating (New York: Washington
Square, 1980)
Fausset, AR., "Malachi," in A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New
Testaments, vol. 1, R. Jamieson, AR. Fausset, and D. Brown, eds. (Hartford: S.S.
Scranton, 1887)
Feigin, Samuel!., "The Captives in Cuneiform Inscription," AJSL 50 (1934) 217-245
Feinberg, Charles Lee, The Major Messages of the Minor Prophets. Habakkuk: Problems of
Faith; Zephaniah: The Day of the Lord; Haggai: Rebuilding the Temple; Malachi:
Formal Worship (New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1951)
Feldman, David M., Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law (New
York: Schocken Books, 1974)
Fensham, Frank Charles, "The Treaty between Solomon and Hiram and the Alalakh
Tablets," JBL 79 (1960) 59-60
- - , "Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East," BA 25 (1962) 48-50
- - , "The Treaty Between Israel and the Gibeonites," BA 27 (1964 [reprinted in The
Biblical Archaeologist Reader 3, E.F. Campbell Jr. and D.N. Freedman, eds., Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1970, 121-126]) 96-100
- - , "The Covenant-Idea in the Book of Hosea," Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap
in Suid-Afrika 7 (1964-65) 35-49
- - , "The Treaty between the Israelites and Tyrians," in Congress Volume, Rome, SVT 17
(Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1969)71-87
- - , "The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship between Old Testament and
New Testament," TB 22 (1971) 82-94
- - , "Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant," in Near Eastern Studies
in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, H. Goedicke, ed. (Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins, 1971) 121-135
- - , "Genesis 34 and Mari," JNSL 4 (1975) 87-90
- - , "Covenant, Alliance," in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1, J.D. Douglas, et
al., eds. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1980) 326-331
- - , The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982)
- - , Exodus, 3de druk, POT (Nijkerk: G.F. Callenbach, 1984)
- - , "Oath," in ISBE 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 572-574
Finkelstein, Jacob Joel, "Ammisaduqa's Edict and the Babylonian Law Codes," JCS 15
(1961) 103-104
- - , "Sex Offences in Sumerian Laws," JAOS 86 (1966) 355-72
- - , "Cutting the sissiktu in Divorce Proceedings," Die Welt des Orients 8 (1975-76) 236-
40
Fisch, Solomon, Ezekiel. Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and
Commentary, Soncino Books of the Bible, A Cohen, ed. (London: Soncino, 1950)
Fischer, James A., "Notes on the Literary Form and Message of Malachi," CBQ 34 (1972)
315-20
Fishbane, Michael, "Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in
Numbers 5:11-31," HUCA 45 (1974) 24-45
- - , Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985)
Fisher, Eugene J., "Cultic Prostitution in the Ancient Near East? A Reassessment," Biblical
Theology Bulletin 6 (1976) 225-236
Fisher, Loren R., F. Brent Knutson, and Donn F. Morgan, eds., Ras Shamra Parallels: Texts
From Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, 1, AnOr 49 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1972)
Fisher, Loren R., Duane E. Smith, and Stan Rummel, eds., Ras Shamra Parallels: Texts
From Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, 2, AnOr 50 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975)
Fitzmyer, Joseph A, "A Re-Study of an Elephantine Aramaic Marriage Contract (AP 15),"
in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William F. Albright, H. Goedicke, ed.
(Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins, 1971 [= A Wandering Aramaean.
Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula, Montana, 1979,243-71]) 137-68
Fohrer, Georg, "Altes Testament - 'Amphiktyonie' und 'BundT TLZ 91 (1966 [= G.
Fohrer, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte, 84-119]) 801-16,
893-904
- - , Introduction to the Old Testament, D. Green, trans. (London: S.P.C.K, 1968)
Fokkelman, Jan P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel. Vol. 1: King David (2
Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2) (Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981)
Fourie, L.C.H., "Die betekenis van die verbond as sleutel vir Maleagi," M.Th. diss.
(University of Stellenbosch, 1982)
354 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fraine, J. de, Genesis uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd, BOT Deel 1 / Boek 1
(Roermond and Maaseik: lJ. Romen & Zonen Uitgevers, 1963)
France, Richard Thomas, Jesus and the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1971)
Frankena, Rintje, "The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,"
OTS 14 (1965) 122-154
Freedman, R. David, '''Put Your Hand Under My Thigh' - The Patriarchal Oath," BAR 2:2
(1976) 3-4
Frey, Hellmuth, Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende: Die kleinen nachexilischen
Propheten, Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 24, 5e Aufl. (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963)
Friedman, M.A., "The Minimum Mohar Payment as Reflected in the Geniza Documents:
Marriage Gift or Endowment Pledge?" Proceedings of the American Academy for
Jewish Research 43 (1976) 15-48
- - , "Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You Are My Husband'," JBL 99 (1980) 199-204
- - , Jewish Marriage in Palestine. A Cairo Geniza Study, 2 vols. (Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv
University, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies and 'Moreshet' Project
for the Study of Eastern Jewry; and New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1980-81)
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva S., "The Atrahasis Epic and its Significance for our Understanding
of Genesis 1-9," BA 40 (1977) 147-155
- - , "The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers v 11-31)," VT 34 (1984) 11-26
- - , "The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East," Ph.D. diss. (Yale, 1977)
Fuhs, H.F., Ezechiel 1-24 , Die Neue Echter Bibel (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1984)
Fuller, Daniel P., Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1980)
Fuller, Russell, "Does Yahweh Hate Divorce? Malachi 2:16 and Text of Malachi at
Qumran," a paper read at the Annual Meeting of the New England Section of the
Society of Biblical Literature, Cambridge, MA, March 25, 1988 (1988)
- - , "untitled paper on Malachi 2:10-16," (c/o Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02181,
n.d.) 1-12.
- - , "Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16," JBL 110 (1991) 47-57. See also
Fuller's forthcoming treatment of 4QXn a in OJO.
Funk, Robert W., A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek, Sources for
Biblical Study, 2 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1973)
Gadd, Cyril John, "Tablets from Kirkuk," RA 23 (1926) 49-161
- - , "The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus," Anatolian Studies 8 (1958) 35-92
Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis. Studies in Protology and Eschatology,
Foreword by Bruce K Waltke (Winona Lake, IN: Carpenter Books, 1984)
Gaster, Theodor H., Customs and Folkways of Jewish Life (New York: William Sloane
Associates, 1955)
- - , "Sacrifices and Offerings, OT," in IDB 4 (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1962)
147-159
- - , The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation with Introduction and Notes, 3rd ed.
(Garden City, NY: Anchor / Doubleday, 1976)
Gelb, Ignace Jay, review of OJ. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, BO 19
(1962) 161-162
Geller, Markham J., "The Elephantine Papyri and Hosea 2,3: Evidence for the Form of the
Early Jewish Divorce Writ," JSJ 8 (1977) 139-148
- - , "Taboo in Mesopotamia (review of K van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and
Mesopotamia)" JCS 42 (1990) 105-117
Gemser, Berend, "The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law," in
Congress Volume, Copenhagen, 1953, SVT 1 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1953) 50-66
- - , "The rfb- or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality," in Wisdom in Israel and the
Ancient Near East. Presented to Harold Henry Rowley by the Editorial Board of
Vetus Testamentum in celebration of his 65th birthday, 24 March 1955, M. Noth and
O.W. Thomas, eds., SVT 3 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1955) 120-137
- - , "The Instructions of Onchsheshonqy and Biblical Wisdom Literature," Congress
Volume, Oxford, 1959, SVT 7 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1960) 102-128
- - , Sprikhe Salomos, 2e Aufl., HAT 16 (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1963)
Gerstenberger, Erhard, review of Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1963 (AnBib, Vol. 21), JBL 83 (1964) 198-99
- - , "Covenant and Commandment," JBL 84 (1965) 38-51
BIBLIOGRAPHY 355
, Wesen und Herkunft des Apodiktischen Rechts, WMANT 20 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1965)
- - , "::llln t'b pi. verabscheuen," in THAT 2 (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag; Ziirich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1984) 1051-1055
Gesenius, Wilhelm, Hebrew Grammar, rev. by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English ed., A.E. Cowley,
ed. and tr. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910)
- - , Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, S.P. Tregelles, trans. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1949 [German orig., 1835])
Gibson, John e.L., Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol II: Aramaic Inscriptions
including inscriptions in the dialect ofZenjirli (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975)
Gilbert, Maurice, "'Une seule chair' (Gn 2,24)," Nouvelle Revue Theologique 100 (1978)
66-89
Ginsberg, H. Louis, "Studies in Hosea 1-3," in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, M.
Haran, ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960)
Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1928)
Girdlestone, Roger Baker, Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian
Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, n.d.; reprint of 1897 ed.)
Gispen, W.H., Genesis vertaald en verklaard, COT (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1974)
- - , Exodus, E.M. van der Maas, trans., Bible Student's Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan and St. Catharines, Ont.: Paideia, 1982)
Glazier-McDonald, Beth, "Malachi 2:12: 'er we '6neh - Another Look," JBL 105 (1986)
295-298
- - , "Intermarriage, Divorce, and the bat 'f!l nekar: Insights into Mal 2:10-16," JBL 106
(1987) 603-611
- - , Malachi: The Divine Messenger, SBLDS, 98 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987)
Goetze, Albrecht, "Hittite sek- / sak- '(Legally) Recognize' in the Treaties," JCS 22 (1968-
69) 7-8
Gordis, Robert, "Hosea's Marriage and Message: A New Approach," HUCA 25 (1954) 9-
35
- - , The Book of Job. Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies (New York
City: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978)
Gordon, Cyrus H., "Nuzi Tablets Relating to Women," in Miscellanea Orientalia dedicata
Antonio Deimel annos LXX complenti, AnOr 12 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1935) 163-
84
- - , "Hosea 2:4-5 in the Light of New Semitic Inscriptions," ZA W 54 [N.F. 13] (1936)
277-280
- - , "The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets," BASOR 66 (1937)
25-27
- - , Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1965 [Supplement, 1967])
- - , "His Name is 'One'," JNES 29 (1970) 198-199
- - , "Erebu Marriage," in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the
Hurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman, M.A. Morrison and D.I. Owen, eds.
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 155-160
Gordon, Robert Patterson, "David's Rise and Saul's Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1
Samuel 24-26 (Tyndale OT Lecture 1979)," TB 31 (1980) 37-64
--,land 2 Samuel, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984)
- - , 1 & 2 Samuel. A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986)
G6rg, M., ";"19 btIZilh," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 60-65
Goslinga, C.J., Het Tweede Boek Samuel, COT (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1962)
Goss, Karl, "Die literarische Verwandschaft Jeremias mit Hosea," Ph.D. diss. (Berlin, 1930)
- - , "Hoseas Einfluss auf Jeremias Anschauungen," Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 42 (1931)
241-265; 327-343
Gowan, Donald E., "Prophets, Deuteronomy and Syncretistic Cult in Israel," in Essays in
Divinity VI: Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, J.e. Rylaarsdam, ed. (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago, 1968) 93-112
Graetz, H., Emendationes in plerosque Sacrae Scripturae V.T. libros ex relicto defuncti
auctoris manuscripto, 3 Lieff., G. Bacher, ed. (Vratislaviae, 1892-94)
Granqvist, Hilma, Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village I-II. Societas Scientarum
Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 111,8, and VI,8 (Helsingfors:
Centraltryckeriet, 1931,1935)
Gray, John, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, and
Basingstoke: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1986)
356 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grayson, Albert Kirk, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, 2 vols., Records of the Ancient Near
East, H. Goedicke, ed. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, vol. 11972, vol. 21976)
Green, B., "A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth," Ph.D.
diss. (Graduate Theological Union, 1980)
Greenberg, Moshe, "The Hebrew Oath Particle, hay / he," IBL 76 (1957) 34-39
- - , "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law," in Yehezkel Kaufmann lubilee Volume,
M. Haran, ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960) 5-28
- - , "Crimes and Punishments," in IDB 1 (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1962)
733-744
- - , Ezekiel 1-20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1983)
- - , "Ezekiel 17: A Holistic Interpretation," lAOS 103 (1983) 149-154
- - , "More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law," in Studies in Bible 1986: Scripta
Hierosolymitana 31, S. Japhet, ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986)
- - , "Reply to the Comments of John Welch," in Religion and Law. Biblical-ludaic and
Islamic Perspectives, E.B. Firmage, B.G. Weiss, and J.W. Welch, eds. (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 120-125
Greenfield, Jonas c., "Aramaic Studies and the Bible," Congress Volume, Vienna, 1980,
SVT 32 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1981) 110-130
Greengus, Samuel, "The Aramaic Marriage Contracts in the Light of the Ancient Near East
and the Later Jewish Materials," M.A. diss. (University of Chicago, 1959)
- - , "Old Babylonian Marriage Ceremonies and Rites," lCS 20 (1966) 55-72
- - , "The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," lAOS 89 (1969) 505-32
- - , "A Textbook Case of Adultery in Ancient Mesopotamia," HUCA 40-41 (1969-70)
33-44
- - , "Law in the OT," in IDBSup (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1976) 532-537
- - , Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity, Nederlands Historisch-
Archaelogisch Institut te Instanbul (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, 1979)
Greenstein, E.L., '''To Grasp the Hem' in Ugaritic Literature," VT 32 (1982) 217-218
Grelot, Pierre, Man and Wife in Scripture (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964)
- - , "The Institution of Marriage: Its Evolution in the Old Testament," Concilium 55
(1970) 39-50
Gressmann, H., "Mythische Reste in der Paradieserzahlung," Archiv far
ReligionswissenschaJt, 10 (1907) 345-367
Griffith, F.L., "The Millingen Papyrus," Zeitschrift far agyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 34 (1896) 35-51
Grintz, Jehoshua M., "The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites," lAOS 86 (1966) 113-126
Grosz, Katarzyna, "Daughters Adopted as Sons at Nuzi and Emar," in La Femme dans Ie
proche-orient antique, Compte Rendu de la XXXIVeme Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale (Paris, 7-10 luillet 1986), J.-M. Durand, ed. (Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987) 81-86
- - , "Some Aspects of the Position of Women in Nuzi," in Women's Earliest Records
From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Proceedings of the Conference on Women in
the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence Rhode Island, November 5-7,
1987, B.S. Lesko, ed., Brown Judaic Studies 166 (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1989)
167-180 (responses on pp. 181-189)
Gruber, Mayer I., Aspects of Nonverbal Communication In the Ancient Near East, 2 vols.,
Studia Pohl 12/1 and 12/2 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980)
Gunkel, Hermann, Genesis abersetzt und erklart, ge Aufl., HKAT 1/1 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht [1st ed.: 1902], 1977 [= 3rd ed.: 1910])
Ha, John, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History (Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1989)
Habel, Norman C., The Book of lob. A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster and
London: SCM Ltd., 1985)
Halbe, J., Das Privilegrecht lahwes. Ex. 34, 10-26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und
Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit, FRLANT, 114 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1975)
Hallo, William W., "The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia
and Israel," in Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,
P.D. Miller Jr., P.D. Hanson, and S.D. McBride, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 3-
13
BIBLIOGRAPHY 357
Hamburg, B.A, "The biosocial basis of sex differences," in Human Evolution: Biosocial
Perspectives, S.L. Washburn and E.R. McCown, eds. (Menlow Park, CA:
Benjamin/Cummings, 1978) 155-213
Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1990)
Hammond, Philip c., The Nabataeans - Their History, Culture and Archaeology, Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology 27 (Gothenburg, Sweden: Paul Astroms, 1973)
Harper, Robert Francis, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, 14 vols. (Chicago: University
Press, 1892-1914)
Harper, William Rainey, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905)
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980)
Harris, Rivkah, "The Nadltu Woman," in Studies presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, June 7,
1964, R.D. Biggs and J.A Brinkman, eds. (Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of
Chicago Press, 1964) 105-35
- - , "The Case of Three Babylonian Marriage Contracts," JNES 33 (1974) 363-365
- - , "Independent Women in Ancient Mesopotamia?" in Women's Earliest Records From
Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the
Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence Rhode Island November 5-7, 1987,
B.S. Lesko, ed., Brown Judaic Studies 166 (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1989) 145-
156
Harrison, Roland Kenneth, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1969)
- - , Leviticus. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity, 1980)
Hartley, John E., The Book ofJob, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988)
Hasel, Gerhard F., Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 2nd ed.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975)
- - , "Linguistic Considerations Regarding the Translation of Isaiah's Shear-Jashub : A
Reassessment," AUSS 9 (1971) 36-46
- - , "Semantic Values of Derivatives of the Hebrew root s'r," AUSS 11 (1973) 152-69
- - , "Remnant," in IDBSup (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1976) 736-38
- - , The Remnant. The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah,
3rd. ed., Andrews University Monographs,S (Berrien Springs: Andrews University,
1980)
- - , "The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15," JSOT 19 (1981) 61-78
Hauck, Friedrich, "~OlXEUW, KTA.," in TDNT 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967) 729-
735
Hauck, Friedrich, and Siegfried Schulz, "mlpvTj, KTA.," in TDNT 6 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1968) 579-595
Hauser, Alan Jon, "Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis 4:1-16 and Genesis 2-
3," JETS 23 (1980) 297-305
- - , "Genesis 2-3: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation," in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric
in Biblical Literature, DJ.A Clines, D.M. Gunn, and AJ. Hauser, eds., JSOTSup 19
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982) 20-36
Hawthorne, G.F., "Name," in ISBE 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 480-483
Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 2nd ed. (Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1949)
- - , The Babylonian Genesis. The Story of Creation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1951)
Henderson, Ebenezer, The Twelve Minor Prophets. Translated from the original Hebrew
with a critical and exegetical commentary, 2nd ed. (Hamilton, Adams and Co., 1858
[reprinted by Baker, 1980])
Hendricks, Hans Jurgens, "Juridical Aspects of the Marriage Metaphor in Hosea and
Jeremiah," D.Li!. diss. (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, n.d. [1974?])
Herrmann, Johannes, Ezechiel, KAT XI (Leipzig and Eriangen: A Deichert, 1924)
Hertz, J.H., "Foreword," in The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim, 4 vols., I. Epstein, ed. 1
(London: Soncino, 1936) xiii-xxvi
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhem, I and II Samuel. A Commentary, J.S. Bowden, trans., OTL
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964)
358 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Heth, William A., and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce. Towards an Evangelical
Understanding of New Testament Teaching (London, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1984)
Hieronymus (Jerome), "Commentariorum in Malachiam Prophetam," in S. Hieronymi
Presbyteri Opera, Pars I, Opera Exegetica 6 in the Corpus Christianorum series
(TurnhoIti: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1970)
Hillers, Delbert Roy, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, BibOr 16 (Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1964)
- - , Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, Seminars in the History of Ideas
(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1969)
- - , Lamentations. Introduction, Translation and Notes, AB 7A (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday, 1972)
Hitzig, Ferdinand, and Heinrich Steiner, Die zw6lf klein en Propheten, 4e Auf!.,
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch, HAT (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1881)
Hoehner, Harold W., "A Response to Divorce and Remarriage [a paper read by William A.
Heth ]," in Applying the Scriptures. Papers from ICBI Summit III, K.S. Kantzer, ed.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987) 240-246
Hoftijzer, J., "Review: the Nominal Clause Reconsidered," VT 23 (1973) 446-510
Holladay, William L., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Based upon the lexical work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; and Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971)
- - , Jeremiah 1. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1 -25,
Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986)
Holst, Robert, "Polygamy and the Bible," International Review of Missions (London
Edinburgh Geneva) 56 (1967) 205-213
Holtzmann, Oskar, "Der Prophet Maleachi und der Ursprung des Pharisaerbundes," Archiv
jUr Religionswissenschaft 29 (1931) 1-21
Hooke, Samuel Henry, ed., Myth and Ritual. Essays on the myth and ritual of the Hebrews
in relation to the culture pattern of the ancient East (London: Oxford University
Press, 1933)
- - , Myth, Ritual and Kingship. Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the
Ancient Near East and in Israel (Oxford: Oarendon, 1958) ,
Hoonacker, A. van, Les douze petits prophetes, traduits et commentes, Etudes Bibliques
(Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, J. Gabalda et Cie, 1908)
Hopkins, M.K., "The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage," Population Studies 18 (1964-5)
309-27
Horst, Friedrich, "Nahum bis Maleachi," in Die zw6/f kleinen Propheten, T.H. Robinson
and F. Horst, ed., HAT, 3e Auf!. (Tiibingen: J.c.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964 [1e
Aufl. 1938])
House, Paul R., The Unity of the Twelve, Bible and Literature Series, 27, JSOTSup 97
(Sheffield: Almond [Sheffield Academic], 1990)
Hrdy, S.B., The Woman That Never Evolved (Boston: Harvard University, 1981)
Hubbard Jr., Robert L., The Book of Ruth, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988)
Huehnergard, John, An Introduction to Old Babylonian Akkadian (New York: Columbia
University, 1982)
- - , "Five Tablets From the Vicinity of Emar," RA 77 (1983) 11-43
Huffmon, Herbert B., "The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets," JBL 78 (1959) 285-95
- - , "The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo," CBQ 27 (1965) 101-113
- - , "The Treaty Background of Hebrew yada'," BASOR 181 (1966) 31-37
Huffmon, Herbert B., and S.B. Parker, "A Further Note on the Treaty Background of
Hebrew yiida'," BASOR 184 (1966) 36-38
Hugenberger, Gordon P., "Michal," in ISBE 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 348
- - , "Rib," in ISBE 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 183-185
- - , "Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A Survey of Approaches to 1
Timothy 2:8-15," JETS 35 (1992) 341-360
- - , "Marriage as a Covenant: A study of biblical law and ethics governing marriage
developed from the perspective of Malachi," Ph.D. dissertation (C.N.A.A., The
Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education (The College of St. Paul &
St. Mary) and The Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1991)
Hughes, John H., and Frederick C. Prussner, Old Testament Theology, its History and
Development (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 359
Humbert, Paul, "My the de creation et my the paradisiaque dans Ie second chapitre de la
Genese," Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 16 (1936) 445-461
- - , "La femme etrangere du Livre des Proverbes," Revue des Etudes Semitiques 6 (1937)
40-64
- - , "Les adjectifs 'ar' et 'Nokri' et la femme etrangere," in Melanges Syriens offerts jj
M. Rene Dussaud I, Bibliotheque ArcMologique et Historique, tome 30 (Paris:
Geuthner, 1939 [= Opuscles d'un hebraisant. Memoires de l'Universite de NeucMtel,
2~, 1958, 111-118)) 259-66
- - , "Etudes sur Ie recit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genese," Memoires de I'Univ. de
NlJucMtel14 (1940) 1-193
- - , "Etendre la main," VT 12 (1962) 383-395
Hurvitz, Avi, "The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code; A Linguistic Study
in Technical Idioms and Terminology," RB 81 (1974) 24-56
- - , A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of
Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 20
(Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1982)
- - , "The Language of the Priestly Source and its Historical Setting - the Case for an
Early Date," Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem,
August 16-21, 1981. Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language (Jerusalem:
World Union of Jewish Studies and The Perry Foundation for Biblical Research,
1983) 83-94
Hvidberg, Flemming Friis, "The Canaanitic Background of Gen I-III," VT 10 (1960) 285-94
- - , Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament. A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion,
N. Haislund, trans. (Leiden: EJ. Brill; and K~benhavn: Nyt Nordisk Forlag, Arnold
Busek, 1962)
Hyatt, J. Philip, Exodus, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; and London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, 1971)
Isaac, Erich, "Circumcision as Covenant Rite," Anthropos 59 (1964) 444-456
Isaksson, Abel, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple: A Study With Special Reference
to Mt. 19:1 - 12 and 1 Cor. 11:3-16, N. Tomkinson and 1. Gray, trans., Acta
Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 24 (Lund: Gleerup I Copenhagen: Munsgaard,
~~ -
Isopescul, Octavian, Der Prophet Malachias. Einleitung, Ubersetzung und Auslegung
(Czernowitz: KK Hof und Staatsdruckerei in Wien, 1908)
Jackson, Bernard S., "The Problem of Exodus XXI 22-25 (Ius Talionis)," VT 23 (1973)
271-304
- - , "Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law," JJS 24 (1973) 8-38
- - , "Some Literary Features of the Mishpatim," in Wunschet Jerusalem Frieden.
Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization
for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986 (Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New
York, Paris: Verlag Peter Lang, 1987) 235-242
Jacobsen, Thorkild, The Sumerian King List (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939)
- - , "The Eridu Genesis," JBL 100 (1981) 513-529
- - , The Harps That Once... Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1987)
Jagendorf, Zvi, "'In the morning, behold, it was Leah': Genesis and the Reversal of Sexual
Knowledge," Prooftexts: A Journal ofJewish Literary History 4 (1984) 187-192
Jakobson, Vladimir A., "Studies in Neo-Assyrian Law (I. Matrimonial Law; 2. Legal
Practice)," Altorientalische Forschungen 1 (1974) 115-121
James, Edwin Oliver, Myths and Rites in the Ancient Near East. An Archaeological and
Documentary Study (London: Thames and Hudson, 1958)
Japhet, Sara, "Law and 'the Law' in Ezra-Nehemiah," in Proceedings of the Ninth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, 1985 Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near
East (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988) 66-98
J astrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalm4 and the
Midrashic Literature (New York: Traditional Inc., 1903)
Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds., Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten
Testament, 2 Bde (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag und Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag,
1971,1984)
Jensen, Joseph, "Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina," NovT 20
(1978) 161-84
Jepsen, Alfred, "Amah und Schiphcha h ," VT 8 (1958) 293-97
360 BIBLIOGRAPHY
- - , "Berith. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit," in Verbannung und Heimkehr.
Beitrage zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. 1ahrhundert v. Chr. Fs fUr
Wilhelm Rudolph, A Kuschke, ed. (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeckj, 1961)
161-179
Jeremias, Alfred, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, 2 vols., C.H. W. Johns,
ed., c.L. Beaumont, trans. (New York: Putnam's Sons, 1911)
Job, John B., The Covenant of Marriage, The eighth annual lecture sponsored by the
association of Conservative Evangelicals in Methodism. Presented at Wroxham Road
Methodist Church, Norwich, 1 July, 1981 (n.p., 1981)
Jobling, David K, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old
Testament (1 Samuel 13-31; Numbers 11-12; 1 Kings 17-18), JSOTSup 7 (Sheffield,
England: JSOT Press, 1978)
Johnstone, William, "yd' II, 'be humbled, humiliated'?" VT 41 (1991) 49-62
Jones, Alexander, ed., The 1erusalem Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday; London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, Ltd., 1966)
Jones, Douglas Rawlinson, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Introduction and Commentary,
Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM Ltd., 1962)
Jones, Gwilym H., 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols., NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans and London:
Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984)
Joiion, Paul, Grammaire de l'hebreu biblique, 2nd ed. (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1923)
Jiingling, Hans-Winfried, Richter 19 -Ein Pladoyer fur das K6nigtum. Stilistische Analyse
der Tendenzerziihlung Ri 19, 1-30a; 21,25, AnBib 84 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981)
Junker, Hubert, Das Buch Deuteronomium iibersetzt und erklart, Die Heilige Schrift des
Alten Testamentes I1/2 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1933)
- - , Die zw6lf kleinen Propheten. II Hafte: Nahum, Habakuk, Sophonias, Aggaus,
Zacharias, Malachias, Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes VIII/3/Il (Bonn:
Peter Hanstein, 1938)
Kaiser Jr., Walter c., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1978)
- - , Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983)
- - , Malachi. God's Unchanging Love (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984)
Kaiser, Otto, Isaiah 13-39, A Commentary, R.A Wilson, trans., OTL (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1974)
Kalluveettil C.M.I., Paul, Declaration and Covenant. A Comprehensive Review of Covenant
Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, AnBib 88 (Rome:
Biblical Institute 1982)
Kaufman, Stephen A, "The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law," Maarav 1/2 (1978-79)
105-158
Keel, Othmar, The Symbolism of the Biblical World. Ancient Near Eastern Iconography
and the Book of Psalms, T.J. Hallett, trans. (New York: Seabury, 1978)
Keil, Carl Friedrich, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Ezekiel, 3 vols. in 1, J.
Martin, trans., in Carl Friedrich Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old
Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876 [Reprinted Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans,
1982])
Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 3 vols. J. Martin, trans., in Carl
Friedrich Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1878 [Reprinted Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1981])
Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch, The Twelve Minor Prophets, 2 vols., J. Martin,
trans., in Carl Friedrich Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868 [reprinted Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954])
Keller, C.A, "i1~t;\ 'ala Verfluchung," THAT 1 (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Ziirich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1984) 149-152
- - , "J)::lili Sb' ni. schw6ren," THAT 2 (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Ziirich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1984) 855-863
Kellermann, Diether, "O~t;\ 't1sht1m," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 429-
437
Kellermann, Ulrich, "Erwiigungen zum Esragesetz," ZA W 80 (1968) 373-85
Kelley, Page H., Layman's Bible Book Commentary, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1984)
Kennedy, James M., "Peasants in Revolt: Political Allegory in Genesis 2-3," 1S0T 47
(1990) 3-14
Khanjian, John, "Wisdom," in RSP 2 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975) 371-400
BIBLIOGRAPHY 361
Kidner, Derek, Proverbs. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1964)
- - , "Genesis 2:5,6: wet or dry?" TB 17 (1966) 109-114
- - , Genesis. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity, 1967)
- - , Ezra and Nehemiah. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Leicester, England:
InterVarsity, 1979)
- - , Love to the Loveless. The Message of Hosea, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1981)
Kikawada, Isaac M., "Literary Convention of the Primaeval History," Annual of Japanese
Biblical Institute 1 (1975) 3-21
Kikawada, Isaac M., and Arthur Quinn, Before Abraham Was. The Unity of Genesis 1-11
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1985)
Kirkpatrick, Alexander Francis, The Doctrine of the Prophets. The Warburtonian Lectures
for 1886-1890, 3rd ed. (London: MacMillan, 1907 [1st ed. 1892])
Kitchen, Kenneth A., Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL and Leicester:
InterVarsity, 1966)
- - , The Bible in Its World. The Bible and Archaeology Today (Exeter: Paternoster; and
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977)
- - , "Egypt, Vgarit, Qatna and Covenant," in Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (Kevelaer: Verlag
Butzon & Bercker; and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 453-464
- - , "Law, Treaty, Covenant and Deuteronomy," a paper read on 13 July 1988, Old
Testament Study Group of Tyndale Fellowship Cambridge, England (1988)
Klein, Ralph W., Textual Criticism of the Old Testament From the Septuagint to Qumran,
Old Testament Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974)
--,1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983)
Klima, Josef, "Marriage and Family in Ancient Mesopotamia," New Orient (Prague) 5
(1966) 99-103
Kline, Meredith G., "The Two Tables of the Covenant," WTJ 22 (1959/60) 133-146
- - , "Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4," WTJ24 (1961/1962) 187-204
- - , Treaty of the Great King. The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963)
- - , "Abram's Amen," WTJ31 (1968) 1-11
- - , By Oath Consigned. A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and
Baptism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968)
- - , "Genesis," in The New Bible Commentary, 3rd rev. ed., D. Guthrie, ed. (Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1970) 79-114
- - , The Structure of Biblical Authority, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975)
- - , "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," JETS 20 (1977) 193-201
- - , Images of the Spirit, Baker Biblical Monograph (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980)
- - , Kingdom Prologue (South Hamilton, MA: M.G. Kline, 1981-85)
Kline, Meredith M., "The Holy Spirit as Covenant Witness," Th.M. diss. (Westminster
Theological Seminary, 1972)
Klopfenstein, M.A., Die Luge nach dem AT (Ziirich: Gotthelf Verlag, 1964)
- - , "1l:::l bgd treulos handeln," THAT 1 (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser, Ziirich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1984) 261-264
Knudtzon, Jorgen Alexander, Otto Weber, and Erich Ebeling, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, 2
Bde, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915)
Knutson, F. Brent, "Literary Genres in PRU IV," in RSP 2 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975)
153-214
- - , "Literary Phrases and Formulae," inRSP 2 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975) 401-422
- - , "Political and Foreign Affairs," in RSP 2 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975) 109-129
Kodell O.S.B., Jerome, Lamentations, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Obadiah, Joel, Second
Zechariah, Baruch, Old Testament Message, A Biblical-Theological Commentary, 14
(Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982)
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, Supplementum ad Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1958)
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexicon zum
A/ten Testament, 3e Auf!. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967, 1974, 1983, 1990)
Koffmahn, E., Die Doppelurkunden aus der Waste Juda (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968)
Kohler, August, Die Weissagungen Maleachis, Die nachexilischen Propheten (Erlangen:
Deichert, 1865)
362 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kohler, Ludwig, "Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament," JSS 1
(1956) 3-24
Konig, Eduard, Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebriiischen Sprache, Schlussteil des
historisch-kritischen Lehrgebaudes des Hebraischen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897)
- - , Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die biblische Litteratur (Leipzig: T. Weicher,
1900).
Konner, Melvin, The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982)
Korosec, Viktor, Hethitische Staatsvertriige: Ein Beitrag zur ihrer juristischen Wertung,
Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien, Heft 60 (Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1931)
- - , "Die Ususehe nach assyrischem Recht," Orientalia NS 6 (1937) 1-12
- - , "Ehe," in RLA II (Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1938) 281-299
Koschaker, P., Rechtsvergleichende Studien zur Gesetzgebung Hammurapis, Konigs von
Babylon (Leipzig: Veit, 1917)
- - , "Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den altassyrischen Gesetzen," Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 26 (1921) 1-84
- - , Neue keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der El-Amarna Zeit (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1928
[= Abhandlungen der Siichsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philo-Hist. Klasse
39/5, 1929])
- - , "Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft und Mutterrecht in Keilschriftrechten," Zeitschrift
fUr Assyriologie 41 (1933) 1-89
- - , "Eheschliessung und Kauf nach altern Recht, mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der
alteren Keilschriftrechte," Archiv Orientdlnf 18 (1950) 210-296
- - , "Zur Interpretation der Art. 59 des Codex Bilalama," JCS 5 (1951) 104-122
Kraeling, E., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Documents of the Fifth Century
B.C. from the Jewish Colony of Elephantine (New Haven, CN: Yale, 1953 [reprinted
New York, 1969])
Kraetzschmar, Richard, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entwicklung, untersucht und dargestellt (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1896)
Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Worship in Israel (Richmond: John Knox, 1965)
- - , "Der lebendige Gott," EvT 27 (1967 [reprinted in his Biblisch-theologische Aufsiitze,
1972,1-36]) 169-200
Kroeze, J.H., HetBoekJob, COT (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1961)
Kruger, Paul A., "The Hem of the Garment in Marriage. The Meaning of the Symbolic
Gesture in Ruth 3:9 and Ezekiel 16:8," JNSL 12 (1984) 79-86
Kruse-Blinkenberg, L., "The Pesitta [sic] of the Book of Malachi," Studia Theologica 20
(1966) 95-119
- - , "The Book of Malachi according to Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus," Studia
Theologica 21 (1967) 62-82
Kuhl, Curt, "Neue Dokumente zum Verstiindnis von Hosea 2, 4-15," ZA W 52 (1934) 102-
109
- - , The Prophets of Israel, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963)
Kiilling, S.R., Zur Datierung der "Genesis-P-StUcke," namentlich des Kapitels Genesis 17
(Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1964)
Kunstmann, Walter G., Die babylonische Gebetsbeschworung, Leipziger semitische
Studien NF 2 (Leipzig: J.e. Hinrichs, 1932)
Kutsch, Ernst, "Gesetz und Gnade. Probleme des alttestamentlichen Bundesbegriff," ZA W
79 (1967) 18-35
- - , "Sehen und Bestimmen. Die Etymologie von 11'1J," in Archiiologie und Altes
Testament. Festschrift fUr Kurt Galling, A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch, eds. (Tiibingen:
J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeckj, 1970) 165-178
- - , Verheissung und Gesetz. Untersuchungen zum sogennanten 'Bund' im Alten
Testament, BZAW 131 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973)
- - , "11'1:;J bTU Verpflichtung," THAT 1 (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser, Ziirich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1984) 339-352
Lackenbacher, S., "Note sur !'ardat-lili," RA 65 (1971) 119-154
Laetsch, Theodore, Bible Commentary. The Minor Prophets (St. Louis, MO: Concordia,
1956)
Lambdin, Thomas 0., Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons
and London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971)
Lambert, W.G., Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Oarendon, 1960)
- - , "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis," JTS 16 (1965) 287-300
BIBLIOGRAPHY 363
- - , "Trees, snakes and gods in ancient Syria and Anatolia," Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London 48 (1985) 435-451
- - , "Old Testament Mythology in its Ancient Near Eastern Context," in Congress
Volume Jerusalem 1986, SVT 40 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1988)
- - , "Devotion: The Language of Religion and Love" in Figurative Language in the
Ancient Near East, M. Mindlin, MJ. Geller, and J.E. Wansbrough, eds. (London:
University of London, 1987) 25-39.
Lambert, W.G., and AR. Millard, Atra-~asls: The Babylonian Story of the Flood with the
Sumerian Flood Story by Miguel Civil (Oxford: Oxford University, 1969)
Lambert, W.G., and Simon B. Parker, Enuma Elis. The Babylonian Epic of Creation. The
Cuneiform Text (Birmingham, England: W.G. Lambert, on sale by Blackwell's,
Oxford, 1966)
Lamsa, George M., The Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text (Philadelphia, PA: AJ.
Holman, 1933)
Landsberger, Benno, Die Serie ana ittisu, MSL, 1 (Roma: Biblical Institute, 1937)
- - , "Jungfriiulichkeit: Ein Beitrag zum Thema 'Beilager und Eheschliessung' (mit einem
Anhang: Neue Lesungen und Deutungen im Gesetzbuch von Eshnunna)," in
Symbolae Iuridicae et Historicae Martino David dedicatae, vol. 2, J.A Ankum, R.
Feenstra, and W.F. Leemans, eds., Iura Orientis Antiqui (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1968) 41-
105
Lang, Bernhard, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: an Israelite Goddess redefined (New
York: Pilgrim, 1986)
LathaJ!!, James E., The Religious Symbolism of Salt, Theologie Historique 64 (Paris:
Editions Beauchesne, 1982)
Lawlor, J.I., The Nabataeans in Historical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1974)
Leeuwen, C. van, Hosea, 3e druk, POT (Nijkerk: G.F. Callenbach, 1984 [1 druk, 1978])
Leggett, Donald A, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special
Attention to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, New Jersey: Mack, 1974)
Lehmann, Manfred R., "Biblical Oaths," ZA W 81 (1969) 74-92
Lemaire, A, and J. M. Durand, Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire et l'Assyrie de
Shamshi-Ilu, Hautes etudes orientales, 20 (Geneva and Paris: Librairie Droz, 1984)
a
Lemaire, A, "Populations et territoires de la Palestine I'epoque perse," Transeuphratene 3
(1990) 31-74
Lemche, Niels Peter, "The 'Hebrew Slave.' Comments on the Slave Law Ex. xxi 2-11," VT
25 (1975) 129-144
Levenson, Jon D. and Baruch Halpern, "The Political Import of David's Marriage," JBL 99
(1980) 507-518
Levin, M.Z., "A Protest Against Rape in the Story of Deborah," Beth Mikra [Hebrew] 25
(1979) 83-84
Levine, Baruch A, In the Presence of the Lord (Lei den: EJ. Brill, 1974)
- - , Leviticus. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, The JPS Torah
Commentary (Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1989)
Levine, Etan, "On Intra-familial Institutions of the Bible," Biblica 57 (1976) 554-559
Levy, Jacob, Neuhebriiisches und chaldiiisches Worterbuch uber die Talmudim und
Midraschim, 2 Bde. (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1878)
Lewy, Julius, "Les textes paleo-assyriens et I' Ancien Testament," Revue de l'histoire des
religions 110 (1934) 29ff.
- - , "On some institutions of the Old Assyrian Empire," HUCA 27 (1956) 1-79
Lillback, P.A, "Covenant," in New Dictionary of Theology, S.B. Ferguson, D.F. Wright,
and J.1. Packer, eds. (Downers Grove, IL and Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1988)
173-176
Limburg, James, "The Root ryb and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches," JBL 88 (1969) 291ff
Lindblom, Johannes, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1962)
Lipiiiski, E., "Malachi, Book of," in Encyclopaedia Judaica 11 (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter;
and NY: Macmillan, 1971) 812-816
- - , "The Wife's Right to Divorce in the Light of an Ancient Near Eastern Tradition,"
Jewish Law Annual, 4, B.S. Jackson, ed. (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1981) 9-27
Locher, Clemens, "Altes und Neues zu Maleachi 2,10-16," in Melanges Dominique
a
Barthelemy; etudes bibliques offertes l'occasion de son 60e anniversaire, P. Casetti,
et al., eds., Orbis biblicus et orientalis 38 (Freiburg Schweiz: Universitiitsverlag; and
G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 241-271
364 BIBLIOGRAPHY
- - , "'She will die by the iron dagger': Adultery and Neo-Babylonian Marriage," Journal
of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31 (1988) 186-206
- - , Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th - 3rd Centuries B.C., AOAT 222 (Kevelaer:
Verlag Butzon & Bercker; and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989)
- - , "Marriage and Matrimonial Prestations in First Millennium B.C. Babylonia," in
Women's Earliest Records From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Proceedings of the
Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence
Rhode Island, November 5-7, 1987, B.S. Lesko, ed., Brown Judaic Studies 166
(Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1989) 245-255 (responses on pp. 256-260)
Rowley, Harold Henry, "The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah," in Ignace
Goldziher Memorial Volume, S. Liiwinger and J. Somogyi, eds. (Budapest, 1948
[reprinted in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, 2nd.
ed., Oxford: Blackwell; and Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1965, 135-168]) 117-149
- - , "The Marriage of Hosea," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 39 (1956-7 [reprinted
in Men of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy, London: Nelson,
1963,66-97]) 200-233
Rudolph, Wilhelm, ChronikbUcher, HAT (TUbingen: Mohr, 1955)
- - , Hosea, KAT 13/1 (GUtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1966)
- - , Jeremia, 3e Aufl., HAT 12 (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1968)
- - , Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi, mit einer Zeittafel von Alfred
Jepsen, KAT XIII/4 (GUtersloh: Gerd Mohn and Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1976)
- - , "Zu Malachi 2:10-16," ZAW93 (1981) 85-90
Rummel, Stan, ed., Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts From Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible,
vol. 3, AnOr 51 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981)
Sabottka, Liudger, Zephanja: Versuch einer NeuUbersetzung mit philologischen
Kommentar, BibOr 25 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1972)
Sanders, Henry A., and Carl Schmidt, The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and The
Berlin Fragment of Genesis (New York and London: Macmillan, 1927)
Saporetti, Claudio, The Status of Women in the Middle Assyrian Period, Monographs on the
Ancient Near East, vol. 2, fasc. 1 (Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1979)
Sarna, Nahum M., Exploring Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken
Books, 1986)
- - , Genesis. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, The JPS Torah
Commentary (Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1989)
Sasson, Jack M., Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a
Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation, Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies (Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins, 1979)
Sauer, G., "'IJ~ 'li!hlid einer," THAT 1 (MUnchen: Chr. Kaiser; and ZUrich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1984) 104-107
Saurin, Jacques, Kurtzer Entwurff [sic] der Christlichen Theologie und Sitten-Lehre [=
abrege de theologie et morale chretienne, dt.] (1723)
Scharbert, Josef, "'Fluchen' und 'Segnen' im Alten Testament," Biblica 39 (1958) 1-26
- - , "Ehe und Eheschliessung in der Rechtssprache des Pentateuchs und beim
Chronisten," in Studien zum Pentateuch (Fs. Walter Kornfeld), G. Braulik, ed. (Wien,
Freiburg, Basel: Herder, 1977) 213-25
- - , "li::l, brk," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 279-308
- - , "i1'?t;I, 'alah," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978) 261-266
Schmidt, Werner H., Introduction to the Old Testament, M.J. O'Connell, trans. (London:
SCM,1984)
Schoors, A., "The Particle '~," Remembering All the Way, OTS 21 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981)
240-276
Schorr, Moses, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts, Vorderasiatische
Bibliothek 5 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913)
Schreiner, Stefan, "Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung. Betrachtungen zu Mal 2,10-16,"
ZAW91 (1979)207-28
Schumpp, P. Meinrad, Das Buch der zwo/f Propheten, Herders Bibelkommentar X/2 (Die
Heilige Schrift flir das Leben erkliirt) E. Kalt, ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1950)
Scott, R.B.Y., Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, 2nd. ed., AB 18
(New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday, 1965)
Scott, Thomas, The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments, according to the
Authorized Version; with Explanatory Notes, Practical Observations, and Copious
BIBLIOGRAPHY 373
Smith, John Merlin Powis: see H.G. Mitchell, J.M. Powis Smith, and J.A. Bewer, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah
Smith, John Merlin Powis, "A Note on Malachi 2:15a," AJSL 28 (1911/12) 204-206
- - , "The Syntax and Meaning of Genesis 1:1-3," AJSL 44 (1928) 108-115
- - , "The Use of Divine Names as Superlatives," AJSL 45 (1929) 212-213
Smith, John Merlin Powis, William Hayes Ward, and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel,
ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911 [reprinted 1974])
Smith, Morton, "Jewish religious life in the Persian period," in The Cambridge History of
Judaism. Voll: Introduction; The Persian Period, W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein,
eds. (Cambridge, London, and New York: Cambridge University, 1984) 219-278
Smith, Ralph L., Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco, TX: Word, 1984)
- - , "The Shape of Theology in the Book of Malachi," Southwestern Journal of Theology
30 (1987) 22-27
Smith, R. Payne, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, J.P. Smith, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon,
1903)
Smith, Sidney, "The Age of Ashurbanipal," in Cambridge Ancient History, III: The
Assyrian Empire, 1.B. Bury, S.A. Cook, and F.E. Adcock, eds. (Cambridge, London,
New York, and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1929 [1st edition 1925]) 89-
112 ("Assyrian Law" on pp. 104-108)
Smith, William Robertson, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 2nd ed. (Cambridge and
London: Cambridge University, 1903 [reprinted 1963 by Beacon, Boston])
- - , Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions, 3rd ed.
(London and New York: Macmillan, 1927)
Snijders, Lambertus A., "The Meaning of ZlIr in the Old Testament," OTS 10 (1954) 1-154
- - , "il1/i!, zurlzar," in TDOT 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 52-58
Snyman, S.D., "Antiteses in die boek Maleagi," Ph.D. diss. (University of Pretoria, South
Africa, 1985)
- - , "Antitheses in Malachi 1,2-5," ZA W 98 (1986 [orig. published as "Chiasmes in Mal.
1:2-5," Skrif en Kerk, 1984, 17-22]) 436-38
Soden, Wolfram von, "Die Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen," Zeitschrift Jar
Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 43 (1936) 1-31
- - , Akkadisches Handworterbuch, 2e Aufl., 3 Bde (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959-
1985)
- - , Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, samt Ergiinzungsheft zum Grundriss der
Akkadischen Grammatik, AnOr 33 and 47 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1969)
- - , "Zum hebraischen Worterbuch," in Ugarit-Forschungen 13 (Kevelaer: Verlag
Butzon & Bercker; and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 157-164
Soggin, J. Alberto, "Akkadisch TAR ber/ti und hebraisch krt bryt," VT 18 (1968) 210-215
- - , Introduction to the Old Testament From Its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian
Canon, 3rd ed., J. Bowden, trans., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989)
Sohn, Seock-Tae, "The Divine Election of Israel," Ph.D. diss. (New York University, 1986)
Sonsino, R., "Characteristics of Biblical Law," Judaism 33 (1984) 202-209
Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor, New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws, AASOR 10
(New Haven: Yale University, 1930)
- - , "Ethnic Movements in the Near East in the Second Millennium," AASOR 13 (New
Haven: Yale University, 1933) 13-54
- - , lOO New Selected Nuzi Texts, see Robert H. Pfeiffer and E.A. Speiser
- - , '''1 Know Not the Day of My Death' [Gen 27:2]," JBL 74 (1955) 252-256
- - , "Leviticus and the Critics," in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, M. Haran, ed.
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960) 29-45
- - , Genesis. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1964 [3rd ed. 1979])
Sperber, Alexander, The Bible in Aramaic, III: The Latter Prophets according to Targum
Jonathan, The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1962)
Sperber, J., "Der Personenwechsel," Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 32
(1918/19) 23-33
Spoer, Hans H., "Some New Considerations towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi,"
Jewish Quarterly Review 20 (1908) 167-86
Stade, Bernhard, Lehrbuch der hebriiischen Grammatik (Leipzig: Vogel, 1879)
- - , Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments 1 (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1905)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 375
Stamm, Johann Jakob, and Maurice Edward Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent
Research, Studies in Biblical Theology, 2nd. series, 2 (London: SCM Ltd.; and
Nashville, TN: Alec R. Allenson, 1967)
Sternberg, Meir, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of
Reading, Indiana Literary Biblical Series (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,
1985)
Strack, H.L., and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und
Midrasch, 6 Bde (Miinchen: Beck, 1923-1961)
Strassmaier, Johann Nepomucen, Die babylonischen Inschriften im Museum zu Liverpool,
nebst anderen aus der Zeit von Nebukadnezzar bis Darius, Actes du sixieme congres
international des Orientalistes tenu en 1883 11 Leide, II, Section Semitique (1)
(Leipzig, J.c. Hinrichs, 1885)
Stuart, Douglas K.,Hosea -Jonah, WBC 31 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987)
- - , Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia,
PA: Westminster, 1984)
Stuhlmueller, Carroll, "Malachi," in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, R.E. Brown, J.A.
Fitzmyer, and R.E. Murphy, eds. (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1970) 398-401
- - , "Sacrifice among the Nations," The Bible Today 22 (1984) 223-25
Swetnam, James, "Malachi 1,11: An Interpretation," CBQ 31 (1969) 200-209
Symons, Donald, The Evolution of Human Sexuality (New York and Oxford: Oxford
University, 1979)
Tadmor, Hayim, "Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: An Historian's Approach," in
Humanizing America's Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial
Addresses 1980, SBL Centennial Publications, Scholars Press, G.M. Tucker and D.A.
Knight, eds., Society of Biblical Literature Biblical Scholarship in North America, 6
(Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 127-152
Taylor, John B., Ezekiel. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL:
Inter-Varsity, 1969)
Teubal, Savina J., Sarah the Priestess. The First Matriarch of Genesis (Athens, Ohio;
Chicago; London: Swallow, 1984)
The Holy Bible. An American Translation (New Haven, Missouri: Leader, 1976)
The Holy Bible. New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978; London,
Sydney, Auckland, Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979)
The Holy Bible. The Revised Version (Oxford and London: Oxford University; and New
York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1885)
The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments. Newly Edited by the American
Revision Committee, A.D. 1901, Standard Edition (New York: Thomas Nelson &
Sons, 1901)
The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1917)
The New American Bible (Nashville, Camden, and New York: Thomas Nelson, 1970)
The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshi.tta Version, Prepared by the Peshi.tta
Institute, Leiden, Part 3, fasc. 4 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1980)
Thiseiton, Anthony c., "Semantics and New Testament Interpretation," in New Testament
Interpretation, I.H. Marshall, ed. (Exeter: Paternoster; and Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1977) 75-104
Thomas, D. Winton, "The Rootyd' in Hebrew," JTS 35 (1934) 298-306
Thompson, John Arthur, Deuteronomy. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974)
- - , "The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in I Samuel,"
VT 24 (1974) 334-38
- - , "Covenant (OT)," in ISBE 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979) 790-793
- - , The Book ofJeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980)
Thompson, Thomas L., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. The Quest for the
HistoricalAbraham, BZAW 133 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974)
Tigay, Jeffrey H., "Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence," inAncient
Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, P.D. Miller Jr., P.D.
Hanson, and S.D. McBride, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 157-194
Toorn, Karel van der, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: a comparative study,
Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 22 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985)
- - , "Ordeal Procedures in the Psalms and the Passover Meal," VT 38 (1988) 427-445
376 BIBLIOGRAPHY
- - , "Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel," JBL 108 (1989) 193-
205
Torczyner, Harry, Lachish /. The Lachish Letters (Oxford and London: Oxford University,
1938)
Torrance, James B., "Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of
Worship in Seventeeth-Century Scotland," Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970)
51-76
Torrey, Charles Cutler, "The Edomites in Southern Judah," JBL 17 (1898) 16-20
- - , "The Prophecy of 'Malachi'," JBL 17 (1898) 1-15
Tosato, Angelo, II matrimonio net Giudaismo antico e nel Nuovo Testamento (Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1976)
- - , "II ripudio: delitto e pena (Mal 2,10-16)," Biblica 59 (1978) 548-553
- - , II matrimonio israelitico. Una theoria genera Ie, AnBib 100 (Rome: Biblical Institute,
1982)
- - , "The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination," CBQ 46 (1984) 199-214
Toy, Crawford H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, ICC
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899)
Trible, Phyllis, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, Overtures to Biblical Theology
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1978)
- - , Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, Overtures to
Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984)
Trumbull, H.C., The Covenant of Salt, as Based on the significance and Symbolism of Salt
in Primitive Thought (New York: Scribner, 1899)
Tsevat, Matitiahu, "Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and in Israel," JSS 3
(1958) 237-243
- - , "The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel," JBL
78 (1959) 199-204
- - , "Studies in the Book of Samuel," HUCA 34 (1963) 71-82
Tsevat, Matitiahu, Jan Bergman, and Helmer Ringgren, ":-t'71l'1~ bethiUah," in TDOT 1
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 338-343
Tucker, Gene M., "Covenant Forms and Contract Forms," VT 15 (1965) 487-503
- - , "Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon," in Canon and Authority.
Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, G.W. Coats and B.O. Long, eds.
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 56-70
Tur-Sinai [Torczyner], N.H., The Book of Job, rev. ed. (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer, 1967)
Ulrich Jr., Eugene Charles, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (Missoula, MT:
Scholars, 1978)
Van Seters, John, "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of
Israel," JBL 87 (1968) 401-8
- - , "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: a re-examination," HTR 62
(1969) 377-95
- - , Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University, 1975)
Vannoy, J. Robert, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal. A Study of 1 Samuel 11:14-12:25 (Cherry
Hill, NJ: Mack, 1978)
Vaux O.P., Roland de,Ancient Israel, Vol. 1, Social Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hili,
~961 [orig. published as Les Institutions de L 'Ancien Testament, 1, Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf, 1958])
Vawter, Bruce, "The Biblical Theology of Divorce," Proceedings of the Catholic
Theological Society of America 22 (1967) 223-43
- - , On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977)
Veenhof, K.R., review of E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt imAlten Testament und im alten
Orient, BO 23 (1966) 308-13
Veil as, Basil M., Israelite Marriage, J.S. Koulouras, trans. (Athens: n.p., 1956)
Verhoef, Pieter Adriaan, "Some Notes on Malachi 1: 11," in Biblical Essays, Proceedings of
the Ninth Meeting of Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, held at
the University of Stellenbosch, July 1966 (Potchefstroom: Pro Rege, 1967 [reprint in
Nederduits Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif, 21,1980,21-30]) 163-72
- - , Maleachi, COT 19 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1972)
- - , Thfl Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987)
Viberg, Ake, Symbols of Law. A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old
Testament, Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, 34 (Stockholm: A1mqvist and
Wiksell International, 1992)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 377
Vollmer, J., "ili?l? 'ilh machen, tun," THAT 2 (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Ziirich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1984) 359-370
Volterra, Edoardo, review of Emil G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri,
Yale University Press, 1953, Iura 6 (1955) 349-360
Vriezen, Theodorus Christaan, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude
semietische volken. Diss. Utrecht (Wageningen: H. Veenman, 1937)
- - , An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Newton, MA: Charles T. Brantford, 1958)
- - , "Eid," in Biblische-historisches Handworterbuch, Bd. 1, B. Reicke and L. Rost, eds.
(G6ttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962-66) 374-76
- - , "The Exegesis of Exodus 24:9-11," OTS 17 (1972) 100-133
- - , "How to Understand Malachi 1:11," in Grace upon Grace: Essays in Honor ofLester
J. Kuyper, J.1. Cook, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975) 128-36
Vuilleumier, Rene, see Samuel Amsler, Andre Lacocque and Rene Vuilleumier, Aggee,
Zacharie, Malachie
Wadsworth, T., "Is There a Hebrew Word for Virgin? Bethulah in the Old Testament,"
Restoration Quarterly 23 (1980) 161-171
Wallis, Gerhard, "Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis," in Das ferne und nahe
Wort: Fs Leonard Rost, F. Maass, ed., BZAW 105 (Berlin: A. T6pelmann, 1967)
229-237
- - , ":Jilt;l, 'tlhabh," in TDOT 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978) 99-118
--, "P~l, dtlbhaq," in TDOT3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978) 79-84
Waltke, Bruce K, and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990)
Walton, John H., Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context. A Survey of Parallels
Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1989)
Ward, William A., "Reflections on some Egyptian terms presumed to mean 'harem, harem-
woman, concubine'," Berytus 31 (1983) 67-74
Watson, Wilfred G.E., Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques, JSOTSup 26
(Sheffield, England: JSOTPress, 1984, 1986)
Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman (London: Oxford University,
1964)
Watts, John D.W., Obadiah. A Critical Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1969 [reprinted 1981 by Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications])
- - , Isaiah 1-33, WBC 24 (Waco, TX: Word, 1985)
--,Isaiah 34-66, WBC25 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987)
Weber, Robertus, et al., eds., Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1983)
Weidner, E.F., Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Die Staatsvertriige in akkadischer
Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazkoi. Boghazkoi Studien 8-9 (Leipzig, 1923)
Weinfeld, Moshe, "Deuteronomy - The Present State of Inquiry," JBL 86 (1967) 249-262
- - , "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East," JAOS
90 (1970) 184-203
- - , Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972)
- - , "Berit- Covenant vs. Obligation," Biblica 56 (1975) 120-128
- - , "Covenant, Davidic," in IDBSup (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1976) 188-192
- - , "The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East," in Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976) 379-
414
- - , "n'i=;! berith," in TDOT2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) 253-279
- - , "Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against their Ancient Near
Eastern Background," in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish
Studies, Jerusalem, August 16-21, 1981. Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew
Language (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies and The Perry Foundation for
Biblical Research, 1983) 95-129
Weiser, Artur, Das Buch Jeremia, AID 20/21 (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969)
Weiss, David Halivni, "A Note on iltDi~ ~., itD~," JBL 81 (1962) 67-69
- - , "The Use of qnh in Connection with Marriage," HTR 57 (1964) 244-248
Welch, Adam Cleghorn, Post-Exilic Judaism, The Baird Lecture for 1934 (Edinburgh:
Blackwood, 1935)
Welch, John W., "Reflections on Postulates: Power and Ancient Laws - A Response to
Moshe Greenberg," in Religion and Law. Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives,
378 BIBLIOGRAPHY
E.B. Finnage, B.G. Weiss, and J.W. Welch, eds. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1990) 113-119
Wellhausen, Julius, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. Die kleinen Propheten iibersetzt, mit Noten,
5e Aufl. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1892 [4e Aufl. reprinted by W. De Gruyter, Berlin,
1963])
Wendland, Ernst, "Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi," The Bible Translator 36
(1985) 108-121
Wenham, Gordon J., "Legal Forms in the Book of the Covenant," TB 22 (1971) 95-102
- - , "betultIh 'A Girl of Marriageable Age'," VT 22 (1972) 326-48
- - , The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979)
- - , "The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered," JJS 30 (1979) 36-40
- - , Numbers. An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Leicester, England and Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1981)
- - , "The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G.F. Hasel, JSOT
19 (1981) 61-78," JSOT22 (1982) 134-137
- - , "Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden," in Proceedings of the Ninth World
Congress ofJewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985. Division A: The Period of
the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 19-25
- - , Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987)
Wenham, Gordon J., and J.G. McConville, "Drafting Techniques in Some Deuteronomic
Laws," VT 30 (1980) 248-252
Westbrook, Raymond, "Old Babylonian Marriage Law," Ph.D. diss. (Yale University,
1982)
- - , "The Enforcement of Morals in Mesopotamia," JAOS 104 (1984) 753-756
- - , "Biblical and Cuneifonn Law Codes," RB 92 (1985) 247-264
- - , "Lex talionis and Exodus 21:22-25," RB 93 (1986) 52-69
- - , "The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4," in Studies in
Bible 1986: Scripta Hierosolymitana 31, S. Japhet, ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986)
387-405
Westbrook, Raymond, et al., "Responses to Prof. Roth's Paper," in Women's Earliest
Records From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Proceedings of the Conference on
Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence Rhode Island,
November 5-7, 1987, B.S. Lesko, ed., Brown Judaic Studies 166 (Atlanta, Georgia:
Scholars, 1989) 256-260
Westcott, Richard S., "The Concept of berU with Regard to Marriage in the Old
Testament," Th.M. diss. (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985)
Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, J.J. Scullion, trans. (London: SPCK and
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984)
- - , Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, J.J. Scullion, trans. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985)
- - , Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, J.J. Scullion, trans. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986)
Westennann, Claus, and R. Albertz, "m1 rll"/i Geist," THAT 2 (Munchen: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984) 726-753
Wevers, John William, Ezekiel, NCB (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969)
Whitaker, Richard E., ed., The Eerdmans Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard
Version of The Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988)
White, Hugh c., "The Divine Oath in Genesis," JBL 92 (1973) 165-179
White, John Bradley, A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient
Egyptian Poetry, SBLDS 38 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978)
Whybray, R.N., Wisdom in Proverbs, Studies in Biblical Theology 45 (London: SCM,
1965)
Widengren, Geo., "The Persian Period," in Israelite and Judean History, J.H. Hayes and
J.M. Miller, eds. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 489-538
Wierzbicka, Anna, Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis (Ann Arbor: Karoma, 1985)
Wifall Jr., Walter R., "Bone of my Bones and Flesh of my Flesh - The Politics of the
Yahwist," Currents in Theology and Missions 10 (1983) 176-183
Wildberger, Hans, Jesaja.l. Teilband: Jesaja 1-12, BKAT X/I (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972)
- - , Jesaja. 2. Teilband: Jesaja 13-27, BKAT X/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1978)
--,Jesaja.3. Teilband: Jesaja 28-39; Das Buch, der Prophet und seine Botschaft, BKAT
Xl3 (Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 379
- - , "itolitD s'r iibrig sein," THAT 2 (Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser, Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag,
1984) 844-55
Williams, James G., Women Recounted: Narrative Thinking and the God of Israel, Bible
and Literature Series, 6 (Sheffield: Almond, 1982)
Williams, Ronald J., Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto and Buffalo: University
of Toronto, 1976)
Williamson, H.G.M., Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Waco, TX: Word, 1985)
Wilson, Edward 0., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University, 1975)
- - , On Human Nature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1978)
Wilson, John A., "The Oath in Ancient Egypt," JNES 7 (1948) 129-156
Wilson, Marvin R., Our Father Abraham. Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; and Dayton, OH: Center for Judaic-Christian Studies, 1989)
Wilson, Robert W., "Sociology of the Old Testament," in Harper's Bible Dictionary, P.J.
Achtemeier, et al., eds. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985) 968-973
Winckler, Hugo, "Maleachi," in Altorientalische Forschungen, II Reihe, Band III (Leipzig:
Eduard E. Pfeiffer, 1899) 531-539
Wiseman, Donald J., The Alalakh Tablets, Occasional Publications of the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, No.2 (London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara,
1953)
- - , "Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets," JCS 8 (1954) 1-30
- , "Abban and Alalau," JCS 12 (1958) 124-129
- - , The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, Iraq, 20, Part 1 (London: British School of
Archaeology in Iraq, 1958)
- - , "The Laws of Hammurabi Again," JSS 8 (1962) 161-72
- - , "'Is it Peace?' - Covenant and Diplomacy," VT 32 (1982) 311-326
Wolf, Herbert, Haggai and Malachi: Rededication and Renewal, Everyman's Bible
Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1976)
- - , "The Apology of ijattusilis Compared with Other Political Self-Justifications of the
Ancient Near East," Ph.D. diss. (Brandeis University, 1967)
Wolff, Hans Walter, "Erkenntnis Gottes im AT," EvT 15 (1955) 426-431
- - , "The Kerygma of the Yahwist," Interpretation 20 (1966) 131-58 [orig. published in
EvT 24, 1964,73-97]
--,Anthropology of the Old Testament, M. Kohl, trans. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress and
London: SCM Ltd., 1974)
- - , Hosea. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, Hermeneia (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1974)
- - , Joel, Amos. A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, Hermeneia,
W. Janzen, S.D. McBride Jr., and C.D. Muenchow, trans. (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977)
- - , Obadiah and Jonah. A Commentary, M. Kohl, trans. (London: SPCK; and
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986)
Woude, Adam Simon van der, "1 Reg. 20 34'" ZAW76 (1964) 188-190
- - , Haggai, Maleachi, POT (Nijkerk: G.F. Callenbach, 1982)
- - , "Malachi's Struggle for a Pure Community. Reflections on Malachi 2:10-16," in
Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Essays in
Honour of Jurgen C.B. Lebram, J.W. van Henten, H.J. de Jonge, P.T. van Rooden,
and J.W. Wesselius, eds., Studia Post-Biblica 36 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986) 65-71
Woudstra, Marten H., "The Everlasting Covenant in Ezekiel 16:59-63," Calvin Theological
Journal 6 (1971) 22-48
Wright, Christopher J.H., An Eye for An Eye (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983)
Wright, G.E., "The Lawsuit of God. A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32," in Israel's
Prophetic Heritage, B.W. Anderson and W. Harelson, eds. (New York and London:
Harper, 1962) 26-67
Wiirthwein, Ernst, The Text of the Old Testament, E.F. Rhodes, trans. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans,1979)
Yadin, Yigael, "Expedition D - The Cave of the Letters," IEJ 12 (1962) 244-245
Yamauchi, Edwin M., "Ezra, Nehemiah," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 4, F.E.
Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988) 565-771
- - , "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World," Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978)
241-252
- - , "The reverse order of EzralNehemiah reconsidered," Themelios 5 (1980) 7-13
380 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Yaron, Reuven, "On Divorce in Old Testament Times," Revue Internationale des Droits de
l'Antiquite, 3rd series 4 (1957) 117-128
- - , "Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine," JSS 3 (1958) 1-39
- - , "Aramaic Marriage Contracts: Corrigenda and Addenda," JSS 5 (1960) 66-70
- - , Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961)
- - , "Matrimonial Mishaps at Eshnunna," JSS 8 (1963) 1-16
- - , "The Restoration of Marriage," JJS 17 (1966) 1-11
- - , The Laws of Eshnunna, 2nd ed. (Leiden: EJ. Brill; and Jerusalem: Magnes, The
Hebrew University, 1988)
Yee, Gale A, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical
Investigation, SBLDS 102 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987)
- - , "I Have Perfumed My Bed With Myrrh': The Foreign Woman ('issa zara) in
Proverbs 1-9," JSOT 43 (1989) 53-68
Young, Dwight Wayne, "A Ghost Word in the Testament of Jacob (Gen 49:5)?" JBL 100
(1981) 335-342
Youngblood, Ronald F., "::ll,)t;'i abhor, etc.," in TWOT2 (Chicago: Moody, 1980) 976-977
Zakovitch, Yair, 'For Three ... and for Four': The Pattern for the Numerical Sequence
Three - Four in the Bible [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Makor, 1979)
- - , "The Woman's Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce," The Jewish Law Annual, 4,
B.S. Jackson, ed. (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1981) 28-46
Zeitlin, Solomon, "The Origin of the Kethubah: A Study in the Institution of Marriage,"
Jewish Quarterly Review N.S. 24 (1933-34) 1-7
Zevit, Ziony, "A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology," IEl27 (1977)
110-118
- - , "Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date ofP," ZA W (1982) 481-511
Ziegler, Joseph, "Die Liebe Gottes bei den Propheten," Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 11
(1930) 73-77
- - , ed., Duodecim Prophetae. Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate
Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 13 (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1984)
Zimmerli, Walther, Ezekiel!. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters
1-24, Hermeneia, R.E. Clements, trans. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)
- - , Ezekiel 2. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, J.D.
Martin, trans., Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)
INDEX OF SOURCES
1. BIBLE
5:13f., 19f., 28f. 292 4:1018 n23, 48 n3 19:15 130, 130 n28
5:14277 n261, 295 n56 4:lOff. 49 20:5-7262
5:15292 4:13 181 20:7 246 n135, 262, 331
5:19-28200 n134 4:3188,183 n206
5:21174,200 n133 4:3749 20:1497 n57, 107
5:22318 n 153 5:1860,286 n20 21:1-9200 n134
5:27 282, 283, 283 n6, 5:21121 n139, 314 n136, 21:6-7 212 n184
284,288 317,331 21:10-14 97 n57, 107,
5:27f. 318 n153 6:5179 [Chap 7 2.2.2] 249,
5:29277 n261 6:13 293 n52 250 n147, 278, 327
5:31292 7:1-397 n59 21:1472
6285 n18 7:1-4124 n3 21:1570 n 116,118 n130
6:2317 7:2169 n7, 293 21:15-1754 n34, 70,108
6:2ff.177 7:2-4293 n100, 111, [Chap 4
6:12285 n17 7:360,317 6.2.1] 113, 113 n112,
6:23-2719,21 7:3f. 89, 98 120
8:24330 7:4 65 n88, 98 n62 21:19256
9:2138 7:6 50, 97 n59, 270 n234 22258 n182, 286 n23
11:19 130, 130 n28 7:6ff.49 22:2268 n222
11:25136 7:818 n23, 48 n3, 179 22:13 70, 264
12:lff. 97 n57 7:8f. 183, 184 22:13-21 251 n153, 259,
14:4115 n119 7:12183 318 n153, 319, 323,
14:30204 7:12-1488 [Chap 8 3.5] 322-323,
16:15 130, 130 n28, 131 7:13 179 327
n31 7:14119 22:13-29258,260 n 189
17:1-5 [16:36-40]330 8:549 22:153
18:9285 n17 8:1888, 183, 187 n86 22:1670
18:19199 9:2268 n222 22:1972,260
18:21-3119 9:9173 22:19b 259
18:26f. 19 9:17256 22:20f. 108 n 100
20:14178 9:24 271, 275 22:21 308, 323, 326, 326
20:24-28199 n130 10:16196 n113 n183,327
21:2935 10:1718 n23, 48 n3 22:22 121 n 139, 256, 257
25 89, 294 n54 10:18259 n174, 259, 286 n20,
25:1295 n56 10:20 160, 293 n52 292, 314 n 136, 317,
25:lff.89 11:6209n173 319
25:6-15330 11:22160 22:22-27 252 n 156
25:11-13 157 11:28 268 n222 22:22-2960
25:12175 n33, 179 12:7206 22:23f. 286 n21, 287
25:12f. 19, 177 13:3 [ET 2]268 n222 22:23ff. 287
26:10209 n173 13:5 [ET 4]160 22:23-24286 n20, n24
27317 13:6-9317 22:23-27 110 nl0l, 114,
27:870 13:7 [ET 6]268 n222 287,326 n182
30254 n166 13:7-10 [ET 6-9 316 22:23-29246 n 135,252
30:2255 13:873 n130 22:24 257,261,292,308,
30:3-5254 13:14 [ET 13]268 n222 314 n136
30:10 72 13:17 [ET 16 308 22:25 255
31:16283 n6 14:149 22:25-27 185 n82, 286
31:17263,272,274 n249 14:1-250 n22, 286 n24
31:35263,272,274 n249 14:26206 22:27257,261
32:1297 n57 15:12-17317 22:28f. 251, 252 n158,
34:2214 n4 17119 n133 255-260, 257 n174,
35:30 130, 130 n28 17:2-5317 279,327
17:16119 22:2972, 186 n83
Deuteronomy 17:1750 n16, 116 n120, 22:30 [ET 23:1] 75, 322
10 119, 120, 121, 120 n165
1-6143 n70 n137,341 22:30-29257 n174
1:148 n4 18:118 n23, 48 n3 23:1 [ET 22:30]304 n95,
1:8306 18:lff.49 305 n99, n102
2:7275 18:1981 n154 23:4 [ET 3]60
4:4 160 18:21f. 70 nl13 23:4-9 [ET 3-8]97 n59
INDEX OF SOURCES 385
23:6 [ET 5]179 34:10-1222 n47 9:46310 n123
23:19 [ET 18]46, 113 11:1323
2448,340 Joshua 11:2322 n167
24:154 n32, 72, 81 n155 1:5160 11:9143 n73
24:1ff. 61, 234 n89, 318 2177,320 11:10 201 n138, 202
24:1-4 7, 22, 50, 50 n 15, 2:9-11214 n193 n143, 281 n4
51,59,65, [Chap 3 5] 4:20f. 198 n123 11:11202
76-81, 82, 93, 113 6:22308 nl13 11:23 145, 146 n94
n11O,340 6:2597 n57 11:34330 n202
24:2322n167 7:1283 n6, 284, 286 n19 11:39263,272,274
24:3 61, 70, 72, 81 7:25139 n54 13108 n100
24:446,72 9208 13:15ff. 207 n161, n163
24:5 103 n84, 114 n115, 9:1-10:1169 n5 14:3257 nl77, 263 n203
262 n198, 249-250, 9:6, 11, 15f. 177 14:7257 nl77
335 n227 9:8 178, 178 n50 14:10 206 n156, 240
24:17-22259 9:9-11214 n193 n119
25:5 [Chap 7 2.2.2] 249- 9:14 205 n154, 208, 208 14:12240 n119
250,298 n64 n167, 279 n264 14:15308
25:5-10 111, 114 n114, 9:15f.184 14:16 145, 146 n94
[Chap 4 6.2.1] 114- 9:15-20183 15:270,312 n130
115,319 n156 14:9201 n137 15:6320
26:12ff. 49 15:19240 n119 16314
26:17f. 238 n109 17:17130,130 n28 16:1-3 [Chap 8 3.3] 320
26:1850 22:5160 18:24 139 n54
26:1950 22:16284 n13 19 106 n 95, 272 n241,
27:2ff. 198 n123 22:27281 n4 287
27:7206 22:31284 n11 19-20272 n240
27:20304 n95, 305 n99, 22:34138 19:1-5107 n96
n102; 322 n165 2310 19:3235 n92
28:4119 23:8160 19:4207 n161
28:20160 23:12263 19:4-9240 n119
28:30262 23:14 130, 130 n28, 131 19:8207 n161
28:33 268 n222 n31 19:19207 n161
28:54, 56 118 n 130 2410 19:21207 n161
29:9ff. [ET 10ff.] 183 24:22202 n143 19:22 272, 272 n239
29:11 [ET 12] 183, 183 24:25169n7 19:25255 n169, 272
n74 24:26f. 198, 198 n123 21265 n209
29:12 [ET 13]238 n 109 24:27202 n143 21:11272
29:13 [ET 14] 183, 183 21:12263,272,274 n249
n74, 195 Judges 21:21330 n202
29:19 [ET 20]194 1:7207 n161
29:20 [ET 21]183 1:15240 n119 Ruth
29:24 [ET 25]160 1:18320 n158 66
29:25 [ET 26]268 n222 2:1184, 187 n86 1:11f. 114 n115
30:6179,196 n113 2:2 169 n7, 293 1:14160 n146
30:7194 2:10 268 n222 1:1697 n57
30:15f.179 2:17295 n56 1:17193 n102, 200 nBS
30:20 160, 179 2:20181 2:1 236, 236 n97
31:8160 3198 n125 2:11159,268 n222
31:16160,295 n56, 300 3:6293 2:12305
31:17160 5185 n82 2:14207
31:203 n25, 184 645 n72 2:20237
32:640,49 8:19193 n102 3:1236
32:17268 n222 8:33310 n123 3:2236 n97
32:1935 9:2164 3:3273 n243
32:40201 n139, 204 9:2f.230 3:9 75, 240 n119, 305,
32:51 284 n12 9:3 177,202,289 n34 312
33:8-11 21 n45, 49,157 9:4310 n123 4:1-12319 n156
33:9181,269 9:6289n34 4:6115
33:10 18 n23, 19,48 n3 9:23288 4:9-11192n97
34:10 270 n232, 271 9:27 206 n 156 4:11240 n119
386 INDEX OF SOURCES
14:10 143 n73 55:2f. 206 n158 n35, 314 n137, 317
19:18-2538,38 n44 55:3175 n33, 177 3:9314 n137
19:19f. 198, 198n123 55:5268 n222 3:10289 n35
19:21271 56:1-896 3:11 289 n35, n38
19:23-2539 n50 56:3, 5ff. 97 n57 3:13 282 n5
22:21199 n130 57:3314 n137 3:14140 n61, 310
24:53 n25, 175 n33, 181 57:3-10 295 3:20289,289 n35
24:6194 57:4282 n5 3:2129
24:16289 n35 58:7163 4:lf. 39 n50
28:3dc 266 n216 59:1775 n140 4:4a 196
28:5136 n43 59:1921 n46, 38 4:13 88
28:7337 n241 60:339 n50 4:22271
28:15173 n20, 266 n216 60:7, 10 97 n57 4:31295 n56
28:15-18177 60:1570 5:7 160 n 145, 308 nIB,
28:18173 n20 61:1-6112 n106 329n194
28:28145 61:5f. 97 n57 5:7-9293
29: 15 268 n222 61:8175 n33 5:8118 n130, 314 n136
30:1214 61:10 75 n140, 240 n119 5:11289n35
30:lf. 119 61:1Of. 295 6:10 196 nIB
30:1-7120 62178 n47 6:11118 n130
31:1119 62:4300 n76 7:9255 n167
31:1-3120 62:4f. 240 n119, 295 7:9f. 268 n222, 292
32:15136 n45 62:8204 n149 7:9-15293
33:8 3 n25, 169 n7, 173 63178 n47 7:21-23233 n83
n21 63:1640,141, 178,270 7:23 238 n 109
34:6-7209 n173 64:5 [ET 6)75 n140 7:34240 n119
36:915 n9 64:7 [ET 8)40, 178 9:1 [ET 2)290 n41
36:16334 65:25206 9:2 [ET 3)271
37:11145,146 n94 6639 n50, 214 n193 9:5 [ET 6)271
37:38297 66:18ff. 97 n57 9:23 [ET 24)268 n222
40:2235 n92 66:20f. 38, 21 n46 9:24f. [ET 25f.) 196 nIB
41:539 n50 10:25 271
41:24 63 n78 Jeremiah 11:3ff.93
42:4-639 n50 234 11:3-5183,184,187 n86
42:6174,177 1:5271 11:4233 n83, 238 n109
43178 n47 1:16160 n145 11:10 3 n25
43:10 271 2178 n47 11:19299 n73
44:19b 145 2:2 103 n84, 112 n 106, 12:1289 n35
45:4,5271 179 n52, 295 12:3 268 n222
45:6 21 n46, 38 2:8256 n170, 271 12:9209
45:1439 n50 2:13,17,19160 n145 12:16293 n52
45:20268 n222 2:20295 13:14 115 n119
48:1293 n52 2:20ff. 290 n41 13:21299
48:8289 n35 2:22282 n5 13:27295,314 n137
49178 n47 2:32240n119 14:213 n25
49:6, 22-23 39 n50 2:3475 16:2315n142
49:6-8177 2:36139 n54 16:9240 n 119
49:8174 381 n156, 178 n47 16:11160 n145
50:1 72, 140 n61, 282 n5 3:1 72, 234 n89, 322 17:5-2193
51178 n47 n167 17:13 160 n145
51:17210 n175 3:1-5290 n41, 295 19:4160 n145, 268 n222
51:22210 n175 3:1-1081 n156 19:7209
53:10285 n17 3:1-13 64 n82 22:9160 n145
53:11271 3:3323 22:15210 nl77
54112 n106 3:4 299; 299 n68, n72; 22:16271
54:5-8295 300 23:10194,292,293,295
54:6 28 n2, 103, 300, 300 3:6-13 [Chap 4 6.2.1) 23:35115 n119
n76, 336 n238 111-112 24:7238 n 109, 271
54:9187n86 3:6-25295 25:10 240 n119
54:9f.184 3:7289n35 25:15210
54:10 175 n33, 179 3:8 72, 234, 289, 289 25:26 115 n119
INDEX OF SOURCES 391
25:29145 3:13 115 n118 337
29:18174 5:10 21 n46 17 202 n143, 213 n188,
29:23 293, 313 6:521 n46 301 n77, 309, 311
30178 n47 8:10, 14, and 1646 n80 17:1-10 213 n188
30:15 139 n54 8:1443 17:9143 n73
31310 n122 11:1136 n45 17:9-21 213 n188
31:9178 11:3143 n73 17:11-18213 n188
31:31177 11:13 143 n73 17:11-21212,309
31:31f.309 11:14-21309n117 17:12-15213 n188
31:31-34310 n122 11:20233 n83 17:13 183,301
31:32 3 n25, 277, 295, 11:24 136 n45 17:13ff. 183
[Chap 8 2.4.2] 309- 12:1521 n46 17:13-16:18169 n7
310,296 14:5256 17:15ff. 3 n25
31:33238 n109 14:11 233 n83 17:16 183, 183 n74, 194
31:34 271, [Chap 7 14:13 284 n12 n103
2.4.3] 277 16 178 n47, 290 n41, 17:16f. 213 n188
32:10-12192 n97 295, 302, 308 n114, 17:16-20300
32:40175 n33, 183 n74 309, 309 n117, 326, 17:18 183, 183 n74, 211,
33:2019,177 342 212,213 n188
33:20f.157 16:2303 n85 17:18f. 194 n103
33:20ff.3 n25 16:3-7303 17:18-20283 n6
33:25177 16:3-63308 17:19183,183 n74
34195 n109, 311 16:4f. 240 n119 17:19-21301 n77
34:8169 n7, 173 n21 16:8 5, 6, 6 n43, 27 n1, 17:20301
34:8-10 169 75,112 n106, 173 n19, 17:22-24 213 n188
34:10169 n7, 173 n21 183, 184, 187 n86, 18:6 277 n261, 292, 314
34:15173 n21, 202 283, 296, 298 n 66, n136
34:18 173 n21, 301 [8.2.3] 302-309, 309 18:11 277 n261, 292, 314
34:18ff. 193 n102, 195 n1l7, 312, 313, 315, n136
n109 337 18:15277 n261, 292
34:20209 16:8a 303 n88 18:15314 n136
36:2614 n4 16:8-14303 20:4303 n85
42:5200 n135, 201 n138, 16:9240 n119 20:5 187 n86, 204
202 n143 16:10-12 240 n1l9, 305 20:6 187 n86, 204, 306
42:18 174 n98 20:15, 23, 28, 42 204
44:3 268 n222 16:15-43303 20:27 283 n6, 284 n12
44:12174 16:2246 20:31145
45:5145 16:24 307, 308 20:37 169 n3, 309
46:10209 n173 16:24f.307 22:2303 n85
46:11 295 n56 16:25 307, 308 22:11 292, 314 n136
46:20f. 209 n 173 16:30323 23 [Chap 4 6.2.1] 111-
46:24 295 n56 16:31307,308 112,178 n47, 290 n41,
49:4139 n54 16:32 251 n 150, 314 295,309 n117
49:12145 n137 23:3336 n239
50:5175 n33 16:37-40319 23:6,2315 n9
50:6f. 209 n173 16:38314 n137, 316 23:8260 nl90
50:15211 16:39 307, 308 23:37314 n137
50:42 295 n56 16:41 307, 308 23:43314 n137
51:23,28,5715 n9 16:43299 nn, 300 n75 23:44316
16:44-58 303 23:45314 n137
Lamentations 16:53-63 112,112 n106 23:47308
1:2289n37 16:59 3 n25, 183 n74, 24:23 115 n1l9
2:19204,214 194 n 103, 213, 296, 24:44329 n194
3:36,38 143 n73 301 n77, 302-309, 312, 28:19268 n222
3:38144,145 337 30:5309
3:39139 n54 16:59f.183 30:3621 n46
5:6199 n131, 211 16:59ff. 307, 308 33:26 277 n261, 292,
16:59-63 303, 308 293,314 n136
Ezekiel 16:60 175 n33, 296, 302- 34:25 175 n33, 179, 309
1:19,11,23115 n118 309,312,337 34:28209 n173
3:12136 n45 16:62296, 302-309, 312, 34:30f. 238 n 109
392 INDEX OF SOURCES
AKKADIAN
abazum 262, 248 n142 kallatum 246 quppu 241 n121
aSSatum 248 kfpfge 256 ram 307 n110
bariim 170 kirrum 240 riksatu(m) 240, 247
batultu 253 n 159 lamiidum 268 n221 riksu 182 n71, 248
bel pTl:!ati 15 n 8 lubustu 321 n161 sabatum257
biblum 241 n 121, 329 maratum 245 salsate 110 n101
nl97 miimltU 182 n71, 183 n74 siriktum 241 n121
burru 170 n8 mulagu 241 n121 sirku(?) 241 n121
erebu 159 n140 nadftum 107 n 96, 108 sugitum 107 n96
esirtu 222 n100, 329 n197 terbatu(m) 241 n 121,
barapu 287 na'ik 329 2[Chap 7 2.1] 243-
hitta raM 291 n43 nfkutani 256 246,43,248,278
ldU(m) 268 n221, n224 nudunnum 241 n121 terhutu 241 n 121
ikkibu 329 nungurtu 241 n121 zerUm 94
iltu 34 n27 pabati 15 n8 zubulliim 241 n121
ipru 321 n161 pissatu 321 n161
ARABIC
/b's 74
ARAMAIC
it:lEl 53 n28 ~iD 94
EGYPTIAN
rb 268 n221 sp 244 n126
HEBREW
1~ 151 n112 8 1.1.1] 288-291, iiD:l 163 n158
:lil~ 179,312, 312n132 294,337,340,341 i?i '?~-n~ [Chap 2 2.2]
il1n~ 179 '1l:ll 87 n 18 34-36
1~~ 100, 127, [Chap 5 ~':1~ 180 il'?,n:l 253, 253 n 159,
1-2] 128-151, 341 in:l 270 , 331,331 n206
11;1~-~? 127, [Chap 5 1] ~1:l180 :ll 307
128-131, 130 ~1:l (G) + '?~ 263 mill ii"J 304
tD'~ 235-236 il~':l 264-265 OiJ 72, 72 nl25
il'?~ 34 n 27, 183, 193 ilO:l307 p:l1 158-160
tJ;il''?~ 34 n27 '?il~ 235-236 il interrogative [Chap 5
tJ~ 201 n137 ,?~j 309-310 2.2.2] 143-147
il1:l~ 107 rri,p:l286 illil1 213
tJti':'1:l~l 23, 24, 90 ~i:l [Chap 5 2.2.3] 147 161 n68
iDilli 246, 287 ili:l 205 n~i 33 n23
i1nh~-'?~ iltD~ 115 n'i:;J [Chap 6] 168-215, i:lt 169
tJti;~-184, 2in, 285 215,342 illt 178, 300, 327
"1,';1ll1 ntq~ 103 il'ii'?~ n'i:l 297-298, 299, ilit297
1J:l28,29, 88,282, [Chap , 302 .. tJ'i1'?~ III t 93, 100, [Chap
INDEX OF TERMS 399
+"
il~t!lil 81 n156 i~i'i69 !:l'(z) 180
JJ;; -236, 263, [Chap 7 tIIttll 204 tIIl(z) 54 n34, 64, 83, 83
2.4] 267-277, 343 tIIttll + 0'" 204 n158,94,340
'JJ'113 tIIttll + ~::I204 i~ 127, [Chap 5 2.1.2]
0'17il O'ljJ:)jJ 19 1nJ 180 135-137
,~ 61, [Chap 3 4.2.1] 67- 1nJ + "211 ,tIItIi 137
70,83 il")O 50 il~lJ~ 183, 193
ilO::l 75 n141 i~6' 72 nl25 JJJtlil 183
miJJ ilO::l 304 'nn;i~ iElO 75 n141 nntli 169
nio~ 73 n127 iJJJ-i69; 180 n::ltli 169
n1n'i~ 72, 72 nl25 '1JJ!1J) + 1':;1281 n4 n?tli 53, 54, 55, [Chap 3
ni::l180 ,'JJ 28 4.2.3] 72-73, 72
n'i:J ni~ 174 )1JJ 292 n125, 82, 340
ilj,~ 186 JIJJ 72 n 125, 158-160, Oi"tIi 179
tlii::i? 74-76 169 ,atli'169
np" 263 i,)p i!.ll182 n'lt/J 33 n2~, 44
np,? + il~tII 264 ,'6liil i69 illJ~tIi 107,287
1'~ 44 i1nJll 321 ,ptli 169
JJ,tl 236-237 ill'J31'.I) 42 il~.I)in 46, 46 n 77, 81
ila 138 iltvli [Chap 5 2.2.3 and n 156, 292
i~tl 186, [Chap 7 2.1] 2.2.4] 147,148 ttlEln 256
243-247,254,278 ilnEl 15 n9 il91'!'118,19
nJ),ia 236 tIi~"'El107
HITTITE
hamenkanza 22 n 162 -za n224 268 sek- / sak- 268, 268 n224
iaranza 322 n162 kuSata n126 244
LATIN
foedus 3 n25
PHOENICIAN
n"tII 34 n27
SUMERIAN
zu 268 n221
UGARITIC
aU 106 n95 glmt 253 n 159
aft adrt 106 n95 ift 34 n27
b71 sslmt 106 n95 rmm 307 n110
btlt332 yd' 268 n221
btlt 'nt 332
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Deden, D. 20 n37, 31 nll, 127 n15, 132 Erlandsson, S. 29, 29 n6; 288 n32, n33;
n36, 142 n68 289 n37
Deissler, A 20 n37, 31 nll, 132 n36, Even-Shoshan, A. xiii, 169 n3, 263 n203
137, 137 n51, 142 n68 Ewald, G.H.A von 45 n74, 75 n135, 85,
Delaughter, T.J. 132 n36 95,95 n51, 143 n73
Delitzsch, F. 153, 153 n1l6, 297 n60 Eybers, I.H. 333 n221
Deller, K.199n132 Fairbanks, L.A 267 n220
Dentan, R.e. 37 n40, 42 n59, 74 n134, Falk, Z.W. 1; 72 n125; 197 n122; 236;
126 n13 236 n96; 238 n106, n108; 318 n153
DeRoche, M. 295 n57 Falkenstein, A. 189 n92
Deutsch, RR 18 n25, 21 n45, 23 n51, 39 Farb, P. 205 n155, 267 n219
n51 Fausset, AR 13 n2
Dever, W.G. 156 n129 Feigin, S.1. 107 n96
DeVries, SJ. 206 n157, 326 n181 Feldman, D.M. 111 n103
Dhorme, E. 145 n82, 331 n207 Fensham, F.e. 6 n38; 9 n58, n59; 16
Dietrich, M. xi n13; 178 n45, n46, n50, n51; 192
Dillmann, A 153, 153 n116 n99; 193 n101; 199 n132; 201 n139;
Dodd, e.H. 149 n109 208 n167; 211 n180; 254 n165; 268
Dodewaard, 1. van xii n222
Donner, H. 219 n18 Finkelstein, 1.1. 185 n81, 190 n93, 252
Doughty, e.M. 208, 208 n168 n154, 253 n159, 257 n179, 260
Draffkom, AE. 317 n 150 n188, 262 n196, 292 n47, 313 n135,
Driver, G.R. 144 n74, 220, 221, 244, 246, 318 n152
248 Fisch, S. 303 n88
Driver, G.R. and J.C. Miles 159 n140; Fischer, J.A 23 n51
189 n92; 190 n93; 217 n1; 219 n13, Fishbane, M. 19; 21 n45; 66 n92; 97 n58,
n14; 220 n20, n21; 221 n25; 222 n59; 98 n62; 121 n140; 143 n70; 185
n29; 225 n44; 227 n58; 241 n121; n81, n82; 210 n175; 231 n76
244 n125, n126; 249 n143; 256 Fisher, EJ. 319
nl72; 262 n197; 314 n138; 316 n147 Fisher, L.R. xvi
Driver, S.R xii, xiii, 15 n6, 35 n30, 44 Fitzmyer, J.A. 225 n45, 232 n81
n69, 75 n 139,76 n144, 77 n145, 101 Fohrer 9n62
n75, 142 n69, 145 n79, 145 n86, 162 Fokkelman, J.P. 145 n88
n153, 200 n135, 204 n151, 207 Fourie, L.e.H. 50 n13, 157 n134
n163, 270 n232 Fraine, J. de 162 n153
Driver, S.R. and G.B. Gray 201 n207, France, R.T. 149 nl09
331 n207 Frankena, R 293 n53, 301 n77
Duhm, B. 128 n17, 142 n69 Freedman, D.N. xi, 232, 274, 275, 277,
Dumbrell, WJ. 7 n49; 16 n15; 23 n51, 333,334
n52; 24 n57; 48 n3, n4; 49; 49 n5, Freedman, RD. 197 n122, 267 n217
n7, n8, n 9, n 11; 65; 104 n85; 104 Frey, H. 20 n37, 37 n40, 126 n13, 132
n90 n36, 134, 137, 137 n49, 140, 141
Dunstan, G.R 2 n14, 3, 310 n121 n62, 150
Durand, J.M. 194 n106 Friedman, M.A. 186 n83; 226 n54; 227
Durham, J.1. 330 n58; 228; 228 n64; 229 n67, n68;
Dwight, S.E. 115 n117 230 n70, n71, n73; 231; 231 n76,
Dymess, W. 11 n76, 171 n15 n77; 234 n90; 235; 235 n91, n92,
Ebeling, E. xiv, xvi n93; 236 n96; 237 n103; 238; 238
Ehrlich, AB. 56 n38, 128, 128 n17 n105
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 267 n220 Friedrich, G. xvii
Eichrodt, W. 9 n57, n62, 157 n133, 304 Frymer-Kensky, T.S. 154 n 120, 210
n9O, 309 n1l7 n175, 313 n135
Eilers, W. 107 n96 Fuhs, H.F. 303 n85
Eissfeldt, O. xiii, 16 n15, 18 n23, 23 n51, Fuller, R. 33 n21; 36 n35; 42 n61; 57
87,93,101, 164 n162 n46; 59; 59 n58, n59; 63 n79; 93
Elliger, K. xii, xiv, 18 n25, 20 n37, 38 n43; 137; 137 n51, n52
n42, 39 n53, 42 n59, 85 n3, 87 n 12, Funk, R.W. xii, 147 n98
91 n34, 128 n17 Gage, W.A. 151 n112
Emerton, J.A xiii, 156 n129 Galling, K. xvi
Epstein, L.M. 1; 107 n96; 108 n99; 111 Gaster, T.H. 276 n259, 285 n17, 295 n58
nl03; 113 n112; 116 n120; 230 n70, Gelb, I.J. xii, 211 n 179
n71; 238 n108 Geller, MJ. 225 n45, 231 n76, 235 n93,
AUTHOR INDEX 403
Tsevat, M. 112 n 109, 175 n33, 193 n 101, Weiss, D.H. 252 n158, 259 n187
253 n 159, 301 n 77, 323 n169, 331 Weiss, H. 244 n 126
n207, 332, 332 n21O, 333 n216 WeIch, Ae. 7 n51, 8 n52, 13 nl, 35 n28,
Tucker, G.M. 12; 15 n7; 182; 182 n72; 52 n21, 91, 91 n31, 102 n78, 103
183 n73; 192; 192 n97, n98, n99; n82
200 n135; 201 n139 WeIch, J.W. 328 n189
Turner 175 Wellhausen, J. 6 n38; 10 n63; 18; 19; 20
Ulrich Jr., E.e. 55 n37 n38; 31 n11; 42 n61; 49 n 10; 63 n79;
Van Seters, J. 88 n21, 108 n100, 159 68 nl04; 74 n134; 85; 89 n23; 93
n140 n43; 98 n60, n63; 99; 122; 122 n142;
Vannoy, J.R. 10 n72 140 n58; 142 n68, n69; 143; 211
Vaux, R. de xii, xv, 1, 108 n100, 118, n180
118 n130, 158, 158 n138, 186 n83, Wendland, E. 24, 25, 25 n58, 99 n69
191 n96, 231 n76, 244 n126 Wenham, G.I. 6; 19 n28; 31 n 11; 76
Vawter, B. 7, 7 n51, 13, 13 n1, 32, 33, n144; 96; 116 n122; 151 nUl; 154
111, 111 n105, 114 nl13, 118, 118 n120; 163 n157, n159; 181 n63; 195
n130, 121 n139, 162 n156 nl09; 199 n132; 210 n175; 240
Veenhof, KN. 199 n132 n119; 253 n159; 256 n170; 258; 261
Vellas, B.M. 5 n36, 7 n51, 13 n2, 33 n192; 262 n201; 285 n17; 287 n27;
n24, 306 n 104 318 n153; 323 n170; 325 n177; 331
Verhoef, P.A. 7 n51; 14 n3, n4; 15 nlO; n206
17 n18; 20 n37; 23 n51; 24 n55; 27 Wenham, G.I. and J.G. McConville 257
n1; 33 n22; 34 n25; 35; 36; 36 n34; n174, 260 n189
37; 37 n39; 38 n44; 39; 40 n54, n56; Westbrook, R. 46 n78; 59; 62 n72, n73;
42 n58, n 62; 43 n 63; 49 n 11; 50 n 13; 67-69; 71; 71 n118, n120, n122; 73
51 n18; 52 n19; 56 n40; 63; 64; 64 n126; 76 n144; 79 n150; 80 n151,
n83; 65 n88; 68 n 101; 74; 74 n 132; n153; 81 n156; 94; 108 nl00; 110
75 n141; 89 n23; 91 n35; 92 n41; n101; 114 n114; 185 n81, n82; 189
100 n70; 101 n76; 105 n94; 126 n13; n92; 190; 190 n93; 191; 191 n96;
127 n14; 128; 128 n17; 134 n37; 135 192 n99; 217; 217 n3, n4; 218; 218
n41; 136 n45; 140 n60; 141 n63, n6; 219 n 13; 221; 221 n23; 223; 223
. n65; J57 n134 n33; 225; 227 n58; 239 n112; 240
Vlberg A. 193 n100, 195 n109, 197 n118; 241 n121; 244; 244 n124,
n122, 204 n 149, 205 n 154, 211 n126; 245; 245 n128, n129, n130;
n180, 304 n93 246; 246 n135; 247 n139, n140; 248
Volterra, E. 228 n62 n142; 249; 257 n179; 259 n183; 261
Vriezen, T.e. 9 n62, 39 n48, 91 n35, 158 n195; 262 n197; 265 n211, n212;
n138, 180 n59, 197 n122, 208 n166 278; 289 n39; 324 n176; 329 n 197;
Vuilleumier, R. 85 n3 340;342
Wadsworth, T. 253 n159 Westcott, R.S. 2 n 14,27 nl, 191 n96
Wallis, G. 23 n53, 160 n146 Westermann, e. xvii, 151 n112; 153; 153
Waltke, B.K xvii n114, n 115; 159; 161 n 151; 164
Waltke, B.K and M. O'Connor xvii, 61 n163; 165 n166; 198 n128; 207
n68; 64 n81; 67 n95, n97; 69 n109; n165; 244 n 126; 250 n 149; 266
73 n127; 83 n158; 88 n20; 249 n146, n215; 310 n123
252 n158 Wevers, J.W. 211 n180, 304 n90, 305
Walton, J.H. 10 n64, 154 n120, 186 n84 nl0l
Ward, W.A. 110 n102 White, H.e. 193 n101
Watson, W.G.E. 266 n216 White, J.B. 237 n99, 299 n71
Watt, W.M. 111 n103 Whybray, R.N. 271 n238, 298 n63
Watts, J.D.W. xviii, 56 n38, 145 n89 Wierzbicka, A 175, 175 n36176 n37
Weber, O. xvii Wildberger, H. 145 n89
Weidner, E.F. xvi, 266 n213 Williams, J.G. 297 n61
Weinfeld, M. 6 n39; 11 n74; 12; 19 n28; Williams, R.I. xviii, 67 n96, 144 n75
46 n78; 50 n 12; 81 n 156; 168 n 1; Williamson, H.G.M. 16 n14; 18 n22; 66;
170 n8, n10; 174 n27; 175 n31; 177 89 n24, n25; 102; 104
n41; 178 n46, n47, n48; 179 n52; Wilson, E.O. 267 n220
180 n58; 181; 181 n64, n65; 183; Wilson, J.A. 193 nl0l
183 n73; 193 n101; 211 n179; 254 Wilson, M.R. 276 n259, 295 n58
n163; 255 n168; 256 n170, n173; Wilson, R.W. 158 n138
257 n175, nl77; 259 n 185; 328 n 189 Winckler, H. 7 n51, 13 nl, 15,74
Weiser, A xi, 299 n73 Wiseman, D.I. xi, xvii, 71 n121, 108
410 AUTHOR INDEX
n100, 172, 172 n17, 179 n52, 185 Yamauchi, E.M. 16 n14, 37 n37, 102
n81, 189 n92, 207 nl64, 211 n179 n79, 226 n50, 240 n119, 315, 315
Wolf, H.M. 96 n55, 311 n125 n143
Wolff, H.W. xii, 6 n43; 27 n1; 30 n9; 39 Yaron, R. 70 n116; 72 n125; 76 n144; 79
n50; 56 n38; 161 n147; 162; 231 n150; 92 n38; 108 n100; 110 n 101;
n76; 234 n90; 270; 270 n231; 274 118 n129; 121 n139, n140; 186 n83;
n244, n250; 275; 275 n252; 298 n66; 190 n 93; 226; 227 n58; 228 n62; 231
310 n122; 331 n206; 333 n219; 334 n76; 240 n118; 244 n125, n126; 254
n223; 336 n238 n166
Woude, A.S. van der xvi, 8 n54; 13 n2; Yee, G.A. 233,233 n84, 274 n244, 275
20 n37; 23 n51; 33; 33 n20, n23; 34 n25l, 298 n64, 336 n239
n25; 38 n42; 39 n53; 40 n55, n56; 42 Young, D.W. 240 n119
n58, n59; 46 n79; 48; 50 n 15; 54; 54 Young, E.J. xvi
n33, n34; 55 n36; 56 n39, n41, n42; Youngblood, R.F. 46 n78
57; 65; 65 n86; 68 n103; 70 n116; 73 Zakovitch, Y. 247 n140, 320, 321 n159,
n129' 75' 76' 82' 82 n157' 85' 87' 87 321 nl60
n16; 89 ~23:n27; 91; 92; 92 ~39;' 93; Zeitlin, S. 240 n 119
94-95; 94 n47; 104 n85; 121; 122 Zevit, Z. 19 n28, 183 n74, 297 n62
n142; 126; 126 n13; 129; 142; 142 Ziegler, J. xiv, 54 n31, 58, 126 n9, 147,
n66; 143 n70; 340 147 n98, 180, 180 n59
Woudstra, M.H. 180 n59 Zimmerli, W. 295 n56; 303 n85; 304
Wright, C.J.H. 107 n96 n90, n95; 307; 309 n116
Wright, G.E. 11 n 75
Yadin, Y. 229 n65
INDEX OF SUBJECTS