Pre-exilic Period Research Articles

Stages of Ancient Israelite Religion: From Polytheism to Monotheism

In the past scholars traced monotheism to the time of Moses, around 1200 BC. But in the last decades that date changed to 7th-6th century BC. Further, the discovery of the Ugaritic texts in 1928 on the north coast of Syria has helped historians of religion to notice the development of Israelite religion from a polytheistic Canaanite stratum to monotheistic Yahwism. Through examining biblical and extra-biblical texts, archaeological material, and inscriptions, this study traces the religious similarities of the Israelite and Canaanite culture. Genesis 49, Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 are thoroughly analyzed and conclusions are made about Israel’s original God, and the original tiers of the pantheon. In the pre-exilic period (and perhaps as early as the 8th century BC) Israel enjoyed perhaps a lesser pantheon than that in the Ugaritic texts, but certainly it was considerably more extensive than what the biblical record reports. The God of Biblical Israel may not actually be very different from the gods of the neighboring nations, but claiming that he is, is an important part of the rhetoric promoting devotion to that God alone.

How to write Hebrew Letters in Iron Age II Israel and Judah: Some Observations on the Art of Letter Writing

This article takes a fresh look at the various Hebrew inscriptions of the pre-exilic period, which are to be understood as letters, model letters, or dedicatory inscriptions. In particular, letter introductions and letter endings are examined. Not all elements of the earlier model letter introductions are found in later periods. Military-style letters between superiors and their subordinates are very brisk but nevertheless use various idiomatic and syntactic devices to express their objectives. Letters between colleagues or friends emphasize the blessing of YHWH they wish for their recipients but still differ from dedicatory inscriptions. The unprovenanced Hebrew ostraca published so far employ the same basic greeting formulas known from provenanced materials. Some letters from Arad and Lachish seem to have peculiar endings due to important information being kept for the last sentence.

The Titles of the High Priest of Jerusalem in the Pre-Hasmonean Period

This article studies the main titles documented for the high priest of Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible as well as in a few other sources from the Persian and Hellenistic periods. In dialogue with recent scholarship on the topic, particularly an important article by Noam Mizrahi it argues that the title הכהן הגדול (ha-kohēn ha-gādôl), “high” or “great priest” probably originates in the late monarchic period (seventh century BCE), but only became the standard designation for the high priest during the fifth century BCE. An alternative title, כהן הראש (kohēn ha-ro’š), “head” or “chief” priest, was introduced in Chronicles and other writings in order to designate the high priests of the preexilic period specifically. Finally, a third title, המשיח (ha-kohēn ha-māšîaḥ), “the anointed priest”, was used for some time in priestly circles as part of a bid to transfer a key royal attribute (anointment) to the high priest of Jerusalem, but was eventually replaced with the more standard designation הכהן הגדול.

From Vassal to Empire: The Metamorphosis of Israel's Leadership and Statehood in Ezekiel 17

This article will focus on Ezekiel 17 to show the metamorphosis in Israel's leadership and statehood evident in Ezekiel's prophecy. In the first part I will discuss Judah's vassal status in the preexilic period as presented in the parable and its interpretation (17:1–21). Next I will examine the messianic figure presented in the prophecy's conclusion (17:22–24) and discuss Ezekiel's depictions of Israel's future leadership and statehood. Both parts will show how the comparative study of ancient Near Eastern writings and iconography, especially the Neo-Babylonian imperial propaganda, may lead to a better understanding of Ezekiel's message. Ezekiel, I will claim, depicts restored Israel as a Babylonia-like empire and its future leader as a great Neo-Babylonian king.

The Origin and Character of God: Ancient Israelite Religion through the Lens of Divinity, Yahweh before Israel: Glimpses of History in a Divine Name and Yahweh: Origin of a Desert God

The Origin and Character of God: Ancient Israelite Religion through the Lens of Divinity, Yahweh before Israel: Glimpses of History in a Divine Name and Yahweh: Origin of a Desert God

Tightening the Bonds between Edom and Israel (Gen 33:1–17*): On the Further Development of Edom’s Role within the Fortschreibung of the Jacob Cycle in the Exilic and Early Persian Periods

Abstract The article re-evaluates the role of Edom within the Jacob narrative and its formation processes. The bulk of the narrative stems from the pre-exilic period, supposedly the 8th century BCE. This article’s distinctive thesis is that Edom’s role undergoes certain developments during its Fortschreibung in the exilic and early Persian periods. The article will venture from the reconciliation scene in Gen 33:1–17*—the original ending of the earliest Jacob narrative—and describe the development of Edom’s role at different stages of its literary growth (e.g., the earliest Patriarchal narrative, the Abraham narrative, or within P). It will be observed that the strong and positive bond between Israel and Edom becomes even tightened within this process, which is remarkable because their relationship arguably worsened to a certain degree in the events accompanying the destruction of the Judahite kingdom. The article will investigate the historical realities behind this development.

The Origins of Isaiah 24–27: Josiah’s Festival Scroll for the Fall of Assyria

The Origins of Isaiah 24–27: Josiah’s Festival Scroll for the Fall of Assyria

The Oxford Handbook of the Writings of the Hebrew Bible

The Oxford Handbook of the Writings of the Hebrew Bible

L’araméen dans l’histoire de l’hébreu moderne

Aramaic began to have a great influence on Hebrew as soon as the pre-exilic period, due to the many contacts the Hebrews had with Aramaic-speaking people in the Assyrian empire. But this influence became even more important after the fall of the Jewish realms of Samaria and, above all, in -597, of Jerusalem. When they returned from their Babylonian exile to Jerusalem, the leaders and a large part of the masses had substituted Aramaic for Hebrew. As a result, and despite the restauration made by Esdras and Nehemiah, certain chapters of the Bible itself are written in Aramaic. Later, as Hebrew was becoming progressively restricted to liturgical use, Aramaic replaced it in everyday life, and was adopted as the language of the great Commentaries of the Bible, i.e. the Mishna and the Babylon and Jerusalem Talmuds, before the spread of Arabic resulting from the Islamic conquest, and the adoption of languages of the Gentiles after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 and the ensuing Diaspora.Hebrew morphology has kept some Aramaic features, but Aramaic influence is much wider in the lexicon. A number of Aramaic words were borrowed to name objects and concepts for which a Hebrew word was lacking. Besides Ben Yehuda’s and Bialyk’s new words, many others were introduced by the great writers of the end of the xixth century, translating into Hebrew Yiddish words which were themselves adapted from Aramaic. Another domain in which Aramaic was used are patronyms, translated, for some time, from German into Aramaic rather than Hebrew, which was felt less prestigious.However, nowadays Aramaic has become much less frequent as a source of neology and patronyms. No new words are now coined using it as it was used in the former stages of the history of Hebrew.

Finding Justice in Ancient Israelite Law: A Survey of the Legal System of the Israelites during the Post-Exodus, Pre-Exilic Period

The ancient Israelite tradition (for present purposes, spanning the period immediately post-exodus up until the exilic period) manifests itself in many of the prevailing theories of law and justice underlying the archetypal Western legal system. This article strives to proceed unencumbered by cultural-temporal bias to evaluate the recurring themes of structure, procedure, substance, injunction, sanction, and operation in ancient Israelite law, thereby framing that legal tradition as a cohesive whole which is notable for the parallels that can be drawn between it and the Western legal systems that we now consider ‘just’. More specifically, this article considers notions of democracy, social contract, freedom of speech, equality, rule of law, retroactive law, dissemination of law, civil and criminal procedure, development of law, natural law theory, social-welfare law (including the jubilee laws), lex talionis, and communal responsibility as a basis for punishment.

The Tent of Meeting in the Yahwist and the Origin of the Synagogue

In the past, discussion of the synagogue’s origin has given rise to a great variety of opinions, with dates extending from the Babylonian exile to the Roman period. Whether it arose as a purely secular institution, or was the same as the “house of prayer,” proseuchē, is also debated. In all of the previous discussion scholars have overlooked the biblical references to the “Tent of Meeting” in the non-Priestly J texts (Exod 33,7-11; Num 11,16-17, 24-30), because for so long these texts were dated to the pre-exilic period and therefore deemed irrelevant. However, if they belong to the exilic period, then this would make them quite relevant to the discussion. The Tent of Meeting’s primary function is said to be as a place of prayer for all the people, and it also served as a meeting place for the elders in their governance of the people (Num 11,16-17). This suggests that this lay institution arose during the Babylonian exile to service both the religious and secular needs of the Jewish community there, and that late in this period J constructed an etiology for its origin in the time of Moses in support of its legitimation.

Coexistence of Unconditionality and Conditionality of the Davidic Covenant in Chronicles

TheDavidic covenant is the basis of the hope for a restoration of theDavidic kingdom inChronicles. TheChronicler's retention of both the unconditionality and conditionality of theDavidic covenant does not mean that he was inconsistent; in my view, he views the two as complementary. The royal promise is conditional in the sense that theDavidic kings are disciplined and punished, and the kingdom ceases to exist when it does not meet the conditions set down byYHWH; it is unconditional in thatYHWH'swill never depart from the kingdom, as seen in 1Chron. 17:13 whereYHWHdistinguishes his promise toDavid from his promise toSaul. Following this line of thought, theChronicler yearns for further change in the postexilic temple‐centered society through a restoration of the lost kingdom by appealing to theDavidic covenant. The latter subtends the preservation of theDavidic kingdom in the preexilic period and a possible restoration in the postexilic period.

Dating the Priestly text in the pre-exilic period: Some remarks about anachronistic slips and other obstacles

This article engages with the work of scholars such as Jacob Milgrom and Avi Hurvitz on dating the Priestly text (P) in the pre-exilic period. In response to Wellhausen�s argument that P is guilty of archaising, Milgrom and Hurvitz have always maintained that there would be some �anachronistic slips�. In this article the author points out a few examples from Leviticus which could be understood as �anachronistic slips�. The author also shows the difficulties one encounters when attempting to interpret a text such as Leviticus 26 in the pre-exilic period.

Is There a Redactor in the House?: Two Views on Biblical Authorship

Is There a Redactor in the House? Two Views on Biblical Authorship William S. Morrow (bio) Raymond F. Person . The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature2. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002. Pp. x + 175. John Van Seters . A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. xii + 236. It is not long before a student introduced to the critical study of the Bible encounters the shadowy figure of the "redactor." Ubiquitous and anonymous, apparently the redactor is capable of everything from a small change in wording to the organization of whole books. The authors of both monographs reviewed here question common presuppositions about the activity of biblical redactors. The study of such literary activity is called "redaction criticism," although the connotations of the term "redaction" have changed over time. Originally, redaction referred to editorial processes related to preparing received texts for publication. As applied to the Pentateuch, for example, redaction criticism was once concerned with distinguishing the original documentary sources from editorial revisions that had combined them into their final form. Latterly, redaction has been used to indicate a wide range of revisional activities, in some cases virtually synonymous with authorship. 1If there is a common thread between the earlier meaning of the term and later developments, it consists in the belief that the result of redactional activity is the production of a particular text. Redaction criticism remains interested in discerning evidence that the text transmitted is a revision of an earlier document. [End Page 113] The works of Person and Van Seters raise significant questions about connections between authorship and redaction. In different ways, both challenge what they consider to be improper projections of modern practices onto ancient book-making. Person claims that the concept of authorship is actually unhelpful in describing the development of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). Van Seters denies the necessity of using redaction criticism to discern a history of composition in the law code found in Ex 20.23–23.33, the so-called Covenant Code (CC). In 1943, the German biblical scholar Martin Noth proposed that a single writer (to some extent relying on preexisting sources) composed a work of historiography comprising Joshua–2 Kings that was dependent on the theology and rhetoric of Deuteronomy: the DtrH. He believed the author of the DtrH produced this monumental opus in the exilic period of biblical history. Noth's own scholarship presupposed critical discussions about the composition of the books of Joshua–2 Kings that had taken place since the nineteenth century. At that time, scholars had already noted that the books of the former prophets showed significant use of phraseology and theology that resonated with the book of Deuteronomy. 2 Since Noth's time, the DtrH hypothesis has been subject to two significant modifications. Following the work of Harvard-based Frank Moore Cross, many scholars believe that a first edition (or block) was composed in the late preexilic period with a second completed during the exile. Another influential view, associated with Rudolf Smend of Göttingen, thinks that redaction criticism can expose three or more different layers (or strata) of the DtrH composed during the exilic and postexilic periods. The brief sketch above, of course, paints a picture of postwar scholarship with a very broad brush. In fact, intensive work on the DtrH in the last decade has raised searching questions about the validity of either the block model or the strata model. Some have even gone so far as to question the existence of the DtrH altogether. But, typically, the scholars concerned have used techniques of redaction criticism to obtain their results. 3 A major point of Person's book is to raise serious questions about the competence of redaction criticism to discern different versions of the [End Page 114]DtrH. Person eschews the common distinction between "deuteronomic" and "deuteronomistic" styles in favor of the adjective "deuteronomic." One reason for simplifying the terminology is that the distinction suggests a unitary movement of influence from Deuteronomy to the DtrH, when influences probably ran both ways (p. 6). Behind this judgment is also...

The Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax

A strong tendency in recent historical-critical treatments of biblical literature is to date more and more books, including most of the Pentateuch, to the exilic or post-exilic periods. This development is problematic, not least for linguistic reasons. Hebraists widely agree in distinguishing Classical Biblical Hebrew from Late Biblical Hebrew, the former being roughly the language of Genesis-2 Kings, the latter being found most clearly in Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, and Esther. Classical Biblical Hebrew is usually associated with the pre-exilic period, Late Biblical Hebrew with the Persian period. The present paper contributes to the debate by showing, firstly, that the verbal system used in Late Biblical Hebrew is systematically different and typologically later than the Classical Biblical Hebrew system, and, secondly, that Classical Biblical Hebrew syntax is very close to the syntax found in pre-exilic Hebrew inscriptions. Although the attestation of early Hebrew is too scanty to attain certainty, the facts brought to light strongly indicate that a terminus ad quem of about 500 B.C.E. should be maintained for texts written in Classical Biblical Hebrew.

Exilic and post-exilic prophecy and the orality/literacy problem

AbstractThis paper explores the uses of writing as documented in late pre-exilic and especially in exilic and post-exilic Judaean prophetic texts in the context of the orality/literacy debate. It delineates the impact the rising importance of writing had on Judaean prophecy and attempts to show that writing as a new "technology of the intellect" (J. Goody) irreversibly altered the character of Judaean prophecy. The paper also demonstrates that the concept of an orality/literacy continuum is likely to distort our view of the significance of writing in Israelite prophecy—and, indeed, of Israelite history as a whole. Against this background, it makes sense to reconsider the relationship between prophecy and scribalism. The passages from exilic and post-exilic prophetic texts discussed in the present paper indicate that, from the late pre-exilic period onwards, the contacts between prophets and priests/scribes became closer and closer.

The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation

This article represents a substantial revision and rereading of the two silver plaques found at Ketef Hinnom in 1979. Our new analysis of detailed, high-resolution images made by West Semitic Research reveals traces of letters that were not previously identified as well as clarification of letters that were previously much harder to read and identify. Based on our new analysis and reading of these texts, we can reaffirm with confidence that the late preexilic period is the proper chronological context for the artifacts. We can further reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars: that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible and that they provide us with the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh. The new readings of the text further confirm the assumption that these artifacts are best classified as amulets that were utilized in an apotropaic manner.

When Faith Demands Treason: Civil Religion and the Prophet Jeremiah

Jean-Jacques Rousseau described the principal components of civil religion as the following: Belief in the existence of God, in the life to come, in reward for virtue and punishment for vice, and in religious tolerance. Persons might hold other religious beliefs as well, but such beliefs were personal, lying outside the concerns of the state. On American soil, civil religion was balanced by the idea of separation of church and state, a theme that simply emphasizes the distinction between public, civil religion and private religions or religious beliefs. Ancient Judah likewise had something resembling “civil religion” in late pre-exilic period. The prophet Jeremiah attacked the temple, anticipating its destruction if people did not repent and reform, the king for not providing justice for the weak and defenseless people of Judah, the covenant as mediated and breakable, the gift of the land as conditional, and the religious leaders for currying the favor of people instead of preaching God's truth. The tension between civil religion and the more nuanced religion of Jeremiah led to serious confrontations between the prophet and his contemporaries, confrontations that nearly became deadly for the prophet at times. Jeremiah's thinking influenced post-exilic faith so that it is difficult to image what post-exilic faith in Judah would have looked like without him, but it appears that post-exilic faith developed into something more like the older civil religion than Jeremiah had envisioned.

The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature

After a brief review of the current state of research on the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), Person proposes four perspectives to move the argument forward and to gain new insights: the use of text-critical controls for redactional arguments; the contribution of the study of oral tradition to understand the composition and transmission of biblical texts in ancient Israel; arguments for the postexilic setting of the Deuteronomic school; and the use of comparative material (Udjahorresnet and Qumran) to understand scribal guilds, such as the Deuteronomic school, in ancient Israel. The results of these new perspectives challenge the most widely accepted understandings of the redaction history of DtrH and suggest that the Deuteronomic school was a scribal guild whose redactional activity spanned a long period of time from possibly as early as the pre-exilic period to the Persian period shortly before Ezra. Person's reconstruction of the social setting of the Deuteronomic school includes their return from Babylon to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in order to support the rebuilding of the temple with their scribal skills. This reconstruction leads to new interpretations of Deuteronomic literature (DtrH and Jeremiah).

The Poor in the Old Testament: Some Observations1

AbstractThe positive religious attitude to poverty distinguishes the Old Testament from its environment in the Ancient Near East. According to the worldview held in antiquity, poverty was simply a given fact. In the ancient ideology of kingship, for example, concern for the poor counted as one of the king's special duties; but this concern was designed to preserve the world order, not to change it. The Old Testament view is very different. Prophecy condemns the oppression of the poor in the strongest terms and proclaims Yahweh's comprehensive judgment on their oppressors. Everything thrusts towards change and fundamental remedy. At the same time, the poor (Anawim) count as Yahweh's people in a special sense. It emerges from literary analysis that this special character did not as yet exist in the pre-exilic period. The relevant texts are evidently brief and late ad hoc additions. This is true both of the Torah (Exod 22; Deut 15; 22) and of the prophets (Isa 1-3; Jer; Ezek; Amos; Zeph; Hab; Zech), as well as of the Psalms (passim). There are historical reasons for this. We know from Nehemiah 5 that the impoverishment of wide sections of the population was a problem in the post-exilic community. One possible cause was the economic 'modernisation' which took place in the Persian and Hellenistic period. The poor, who interpreted their fate as the fruit of obedience to the Torah, expected Yahweh to bring about the reversal of that fate, either through the intervention of the Last Judgment or through the coming of the Messiah. As well as Moses (Num 12:3), the Messiah himself (Zech 9:9), was in the end also viewed as being one of the poor.