The Great Shift
Page 44
FOREWORD
1. See Gen 15:6, Num 20:12, Deut 9:23, 2 Kings 17:14, Isa 7:9, etc. Some have argued that the phrase ’ein elohim in Ps 10:4, 14:1, and 53:1 strictly means “God does not exist”; see Barr (1961), 62. However, it is God’s presence, rather than existence, that is being denied: NJPS therefore translates, “God does not care,” while NRSV Study Edition explains, “The fool denies not God’s existence, but divine governance of the world and attention to humankind.” Only toward the end of biblical times did faith in God’s very existence begin to emerge as a central item; those who did not perceive God’s presence on their own were now urged to believe, in any case, to “have faith.” Faith was a little click in the brain, a conscious, willful act that opened a door. The early Christian writer Tertullian probably did not utter the words often attributed to him, Credo quia absurdum est (“I believe because it is absurd”), but this well captures the flavor of having faith in the context of the early Roman encounter with Christian teachings. (Tertullian did say something rather similar in his On the Flesh of Christ, 5:4: “The son of God died: this is altogether believable, because it is absurd.” See on this Ruel (1982). Belief existed in spite of what seemed to be true. And so it often is today. That little click, more difficult than ever to achieve in today’s world, is absolutely crucial. But it should leave one wondering: Why is it absent from most of the Bible and the religions of the ancient Near East?
[back]
2. One might say more generally that biblical texts give the impression that ordinary people in biblical times “experienced” God’s presence in their lives, but useful here is Nathan Rotenstreich’s distinction between two German words for experience, Erlebnis and Erfahrung: the former “connotes more than experience in the limited sense. It is an impression absorbed or integrated in the texture of our existence. Sometimes it connotes an event solely or particularly significant for ourselves, thus becoming part of our broader existence. Thus, Erlebnis connotes more an internalization of an occurrence, while Erfahrung connotes more the encounter with something that we undergo, that we experience” (Rotenstreich [1998], 18). If so, what I intend to say is that for most ancient Israelites God’s existence was a matter of Erlebnis, although, as we shall see, for some it was indeed an Erfahrung.
[back]
1. SEEING BIBLICALLY
1. Hermann Gunkel first identified this genre in The Legends of Genesis (1901); see Garsiel (1991).
[back]
2. To be sure, not every divine encounter is so marked, nor are these expressions limited to divine encounters. In particular, to “lift up one’s eyes and see” can either be used to stress that the thing seen came in a divine vision (Gen 24:18; Josh 5:13; Isa 40:26, 49:18, 51:6, 60:4; Jer 13:20; Ezek 8:5; Zech 2:1, 5; 5:1, 5; 5:9; 6:1; 9:6; Dan 8:3, 10:5; 1 Chr 21:16) or, for example, to suggest that the thing was seen from afar (Gen 13:10, 14; 22:4; 24:63–64; 31:10, 12; 33:1, 5; 37:25; Num 24:2; Deut 3:27; 1 Sam 6:13; 2 Sam 13:34, 18:24; Ps 121:1; Job 2:12). But I don’t think that the latter usage detracts from the former. “Looking up,” then “seeing,” then “beholding” is a rather strongly marked way of saying that this was an unusual sight.
[back]
3. On this element in the stories of Gideon and of Manoah and his wife, see below; also Tobit 12:9, Sir 16:27.
[back]
4. Strange to tell, this point has been lost on some modern scholars, who fail to follow the text’s clear hints that what is being narrated is a divine vision. Even Esther Hamori’s otherwise excellent study asserts: “There are several texts in which an angel clearly has physical human form, not in a dream or a vision, but on earth, most notably in Gen 18–19 [the encounter between Abraham and the three strangers], Judges 6 and 13, and Joshua 5 . . . The anthropomorphic realism in Genesis [18] is equally stark. It is only the other two figures who are called angels”: Hamori (2010), 96. See also M. Smith (2015), who (wrongly, I believe) assimilates the waking vision of Gen 18 to the depiction of God in Gen 2–3, where God is indeed represented as having a physical body ordinarily visible to Adam and Eve.
[back]
5. In this case, there is no specific indication of when Abraham caught on. After Sarah’s laughter, “The LORD said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh?’” The mention of “the LORD” may once again be intended to indicate to the reader who was speaking, or it may represent the fact that she has just caught on. However, the fact that Abraham goes on to escort the three men on their journey indicates that he is still in a fog. Cf. the discussion in Savran (2005), 79, 135.
[back]
6. A somewhat ambiguous affirmation, since Hebrew mar’eh, “sight,” sometimes specifically refers to such a vision; note in particular Num 12:8.
[back]
7. I examined some of these in Kugel (2003), 5–36, though readers may notice that I have somewhat modified my understanding of these passages in the present study.
[back]
8. Ibid.
[back]
9. Cf. Isa 7:11.
[back]
10. In fact, the text never says he is anything other than that—but of course, ancient readers would have no doubt that he was a divine being, even without the help of Hos 12:4–5: “In his strength he fought with God, he fought with an angel and prevailed.” Rather than understanding this all-night wrestling match as a vision, some scholars have identified Jacob’s opponent as a demon, who “really” attacked him: see on this Köckert (2003). A lot hangs on what “really” means, as we shall see.
[back]
11. It is only toward the end of the biblical period that angels become independent divine beings with names: see Dan 10:13, 21, etc.; 1 Enoch, ch. 6 and thereafter.
[back]
12. This has led some to lump such angelic appearances together as a “type scene.” On this phenomenon: Arend (1933) and, with respect to the Bible, Alter (1978) and (1981). There can be no doubt that literary conventions characterized ancient Israel’s writings as much as they do all literatures, but the label “type scene” can nevertheless be misleading. In the biblical context, it can conveniently put aside questions of the historical or redactional relationship of two similar accounts, sometimes for plainly apologetic purpose. More important, in the present case it can leave the impression that these are merely literary manipulations, rather than following their cues to uncover the reality being addressed.
[back]
13. See Sommer (2009), 1–11. However, as Sommer goes on to argue, divine bodies were different from human bodies in several important respects: they were apparently made of different material, or no material at all; sometimes (but not always) they were much bigger than human bodies; most important, they could be conceived of as being present in more than one place at a time (pp. 12–57). Even this, however, does not quite cover all the biblical evidence; the true nature of an “angel” in the passages examined in the present chapter argues a somewhat different understanding of God’s apparent physicality. The very vision of a humanlike “body” is clearly an illusion in these passages, one that fades away into disembodied speech. So while God can and does manifest Himself elsewhere in embodied form, and numerous texts speak of God’s eyes, ears, hands, forearms, feet, and so forth, this embodiment is crucially undercut—it is not just a body, or it is only a body by analogy. This stands in contrast to, for example, the physical attributes of Ugaritic deities (who are not encountered in visions), who have “limbs, vertebrae, a spine, a back, a pelvis, lungs, a breast, a chest, collar bones and shoulder blades,” though they can also fly, eat, and drink more than men, “and are simply not chained to the anthropomorphic shape”: Korpel (1990), 89–90.
[back]
14. At other times, God’s body is hidden in a cloud or by fire, or otherwise occulted: Exod 3:2; 13:21; 14:19, 24; 16:10; 19:9, 18; 24:16; 34:5; Num 12:5, 14:14; Deut 4:24, 9:3, 31:15; etc.; on rare occasions He is just “seen” (Exod 24:10).
[back]
15. In fact, sleep researchers know that eyes do actually m
ove behind closed eyelids during sleep, as if actually seeing. This is rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, first identified by Nathaniel Kleitman and Eugene Aserinsky; see Aserinsky and Kleitman (1953). Most vivid dreams reported by subjects occur during REM sleep.
[back]
16.Kugel (1998a), 362–63.
17. Modern scholars suggest that the text’s mention of Jacob just “happening” on the place, along with his setting up a pillar to mark the spot and his naming it Bethel, constitutes a blatant case of protesting too much. Bethel, it seems, was originally the site of a Canaanite temple, complete with its holy pillar (maṣṣebah). See Kugel (2007a), 150–51.
[back]
18. See above, note 12.
[back]
19. Note the nuanced discussion in Sommer (2009), 30–36.
[back]
20. Burkert (1985), 186–88. He writes: “In epic, encounters between gods and men are among the standard scenes; and yet, Homer employs them with marked reserve . . . In order to speak to a human being, a god will usually assume the shape of some friend; it is only the outcome, the turn of events, which gives evidence of the fact that a Stronger One was at work here. Occasionally, the gods will reveal themselves by some token. Aphrodite who comes to Helen as an aged woman is recognized by her beautiful throat, her desirable breasts, and her sparkling eyes; Achilles recognizes Athena at once by the terrifying light in her eyes. After she has lain with Anchises, Aphrodite rises from the couch and reveals herself in all her immortal beauty, which shines forth from her cheeks; her head reaches to the roof of her chamber; Anchises is terror-stricken and hides his face” (p. 187). See also R. Fox (1986): “In epic poems, the gods mixed with men by daylight, [either] gods in disguise . . . or gods made manifest by signs of their power . . . There was no end to the gods’ human disguises, as old men and women, heralds, and frequently, young and beautiful people . . . Did the gods also appear as animals? Occasionally, Homer’s gods appeared ‘like birds,’ but there is no episode when a god turns completely into a bird . . . Essentially anthropomorphic, the gods stalked the world as mortals, disguising themselves so well that people could never be totally sure that a stranger was all that he seemed” (pp. 104–6).
[back]
21. I use this word throughout not in the sense of something false, but what one scholar has defined as “a sensory experience, which occurs in the absence of corresponding external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ, [yet] has a sufficient sense of reality to resemble a veridical perception, over which the subject does not feel s/he has direct and voluntary control and which occurs in the awake state.” See A. S. David (2004).
[back]
22. Lindblom (1962), 173–74.
[back]
2. JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS
1. Sometimes actions are attributed to two different “causers,” a divine one and a human. See Seeligmann (1963), 385–411. In legal matters, David Daube has subtly distinguished between different concepts of human causality in biblical law, and these might profitably be applied to shades of divine causality: Daube (1961); see also Daube (2008).
[back]
2. See the brief but seminal essay of von Rad, “The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom” (1953), included in von Rad (1968), 292–300. The subject has been taken up by other scholars, sometimes in disagreement: see Crenshaw (1969) and Crenshaw (1998), 29–30; Redford (1970); Coats (1973); Wessels (1984); and M. Fox (2001).
[back]
3. In this sense, Israelite wisdom has been compared to the Egyptian concept of ma’at, the divinely established order. “Maat is right order in nature and society, as established by the act of creation,” Morentz (1992), 113. See also Volten (1992) and Würthwein (1976). For a dissenting view: M. Fox (1995); also, M. Fox (1992). Other scholars have rightly stressed the connection between Israelite ḥokhmah and creation: Zimmerli (1976). The point, however, is the underlying set of rules that were established at the creation.
[back]
4. See on this Alter (1981), 216.
[back]
5. The story similarly has Reuben tell Joseph (whom he believes to be an Egyptian official): “We are all of us sons of one man . . . We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan” (Gen 42:12–13). Reuben doesn’t realize how true his words are. Including Joseph, to whom he is talking, they are indeed twelve brothers, all of them the sons of Jacob. See Genesis Rabba, 42:7.
[back]
6. See on this Segal (2011).
[back]
7. See Dimant (1993) and Werman (2006).
[back]
8. Ancient interpreters supposed that the only reason Joseph was not executed—since that would normally have been the fate of a slave who attempts to rape his mistress—was that there was irrefutable evidence of his innocence. See Kugel (1990a), 64, n. 47.
[back]
9. Repeated in Gen 41:28 and 32.
[back]
10. This is of course quite a different statement from that of the book of Judges, “the spirit of the LORD came over [him]” (3:10, 11:29, etc.), or Ezekiel’s “the spirit of the LORD entered into me” (Ezek 2:2, 3:24). Here, the spirit is permanently in residence in Joseph’s brain. John Levison has put the matter clearly: this phrase in regard to Joseph “would suggest spiritual vitality but no special endowment, giftedness without a definitive moment in which that gift was imparted . . . Pharaoh attributes Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams to the divine character of the spirit within him—not the divine spirit that has come upon him”: Levison (2009), 39, 49; see also below, chapter 11.
[back]
11. Auerbach (1957), 9.
[back]
12. Kugel (1998a), 308–9.
[back]
3. THE LAST WILLS OF JACOB’S SONS
1. See Flusser (1966); Baumgarten (1985–86); Maurer (2003) in Schiffman et al. (2003); Alexander (1999); Eshel (1999), 295–324; and below, note 5.
[back]
2. In Greek, ὁ ἄρχων τῆς πλάνης.
[back]
3. This phrase is a reflection of Lev 19:17, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart,” where hatred in the heart means concealed hatred. Instead of hating in secret, Lev 19:17 continues, “you shall surely reprove your fellow and bear no sin because of him.” Further: Kugel (1987).
[back]
4. On the whole question of Jubilees’ position on the origin of evil in the world, see Segal (2007), 97–269. On this passage in particular, pp. 150–63, 169–80, 265–66. My aim in the present chapter is to focus on the attribution of human evildoing to internal and/or external sources; for that reason, I have not dealt specifically with Gen 6:1–4 and the Watchers narrative of 1 Enoch or Jubilees, nor, by the same token, with the interpretation of the Garden of Eden narrative in Gen 2–3, but many of the studies cited below have. See also Stone (1999) and, briefly, Stone (2011), 51–58. Note also Kugel (2013b).
[back]
5. See on this prayer Segal (2007), 259–62, and Kister (2010), which argues that this prayer was borrowed from an earlier source. On “evil spirits who rule the thoughts of people’s minds,” see below.
[back]
6. See also the Aramaic Levi Document, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 3:6–10: “[Levi prays:] O Lord, let the holy spirit be shown to me, and give me sage counsel, and wisdom and knowledge and strength, in order to do what pleases You and [so] to find mercy before You, to praise/sing Your words within me [and do] what is pleasing and good before You. Let no satan rule over me, making me stray [πλανῆσαί με] from Your path, and have mercy on me, O Lord, and bring me close to be Your servant and to minister to You properly.” Similarly: “And Uriel said to me, ‘There stand the angels who mingled with the women [i.e., the Watchers]. And their spirits—having assumed many forms—bring destruction on men and lead them astray to sacrifice to demons as to gods until the day of the great judgment, in which they will be judged with finality’” (1 En 19:1).
[back]
<
br /> 7. On the phrase “rule over me” see Greenfield (1992). “Satan” here and elsewhere appears to be a common (rather than proper) noun: Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel (2004), 129–30.
[back]
8. First published in Sanders (1965), 76–79. Further examples of Qumran apotropaic prayers: 4Q510 frag 1, 4Q444 4QIncantation, 4Q510 4QSongs of the Sagea, possibly also 6Q18 6QHymn and 1QHa Thanksgiving Hymns frag 4; all of these are discussed in Eshel (1999), 69–88. Kister (2010) suggests that “evil inclination” here and (presumably) in Jub 12:20 is related to the meaning of this term in rabbinic writings; cf. Rosen-Zvi (2011), 47.
[back]
9. A vast scholarly literature has been devoted to examining this passage. See among many others: DiLella (1966), 121–25; Hadot (1970), 91–103; G. Meier (1971); Crenshaw (1975), 48–51; S.G.H. Cohen (1984), 89; B. Wright (1989); Winston (1989); Wischmeier (1999); Reiterer (1999); Mattila (2000); Aitkin (2002); Gilbert (2002); Ruger (1970); Beentjes (2002).
[back]
10. Though even presented in the clearest terms, these two poles are sometimes of ambiguous intention. Rosen-Zvi (2011) argues that an earlier, “biblical” view that basically attributed human evildoing to human agency (a proposition that I wish, however, to explore further below) came to be complicated by, or even pushed aside by, Persian demonological accounts for evil’s origin (which then caused the human yetzer to be represented as a demon or otherwise external being), along with Greek ideas that sought a complex (Platonic- or Stoic-influenced) “anthropological” (i.e., rooted in the human self; see below, note 18) explanation for evildoing. Rosen-Zvi ultimately sees in the rabbinic yetzer an attempt to acknowledge these independent sources of sin without, however, renouncing human responsibility. Note also the recent doctoral dissertation of Miryam Brand (2011), which (somewhat similar to Bruno Snell discussed below) seeks to connect the preference of internal or external sources of sin to the literary genre and purpose of the texts involved; the external-source approach is sometimes associated with the angelology and demonology prominent in late biblical and other Second Temple period writings, while the internal-source approach may have been influenced by Greek ideas about the role of conflicting components within the human “inside.”