Dissertation Draft (TRY)

Home , Angim, Animals in the Bible, Antelope of Boston, Asahel, Babylonian Theodicy, Benjamin Mazar

! Fishing for Fish and Fishing for Men: Fishing Imagery in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East !

Dissertation !

Presented in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree doctor of philosophy in

the Graduate School of the The Ohio State University

Tyler Russell Yoder, M.A., B.A.

Graduate Program in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures

The Ohio State University

2015

Dissertation Committee:

Samuel A. Meier, Adviser

Daniel Frank

Carolina López-Ruiz

Brent Strawn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Tyler Russell Yoder

2015

! ! !

! !

Abstract !

This dissertation examines the use of fishing imagery within the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature up through the end of the Iron Age. Outside of the concluding chapter, this study comprises six major units. The introduction grounds the ensuing literary discussion in chapters 2-6 with a survey of the ichthyological and piscatorial evidence from the ancient Near East, as well as a comprehensive lexical study of the fishing terminology employed in the Hebrew Bible. The following five chapters, each of which is a self-contained unit, analyze the gamut of fishing references within the

Hebrew Bible. Chapter two investigates the conceptual phenomenon of divine ﬁshers in the ancient Near East and its relationship to Jer. 16:16-18. The third (Amos 4:1-3; Hab.

1:14-17; Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9) and fourth (tag">Job 40:25-32; Ezek. 29:1-6a;

32:1-10) chapters build directly on this unit by unpacking the chief connotation of this phenomenon, whether directed against humans or monstrous fauna: divinely appointed exile. Chapter five (Qoh. 9:11-12) takes the act of fishing to its logical end by examining its relationship to death. The sixth chapter explores the relationship between fishing and polarity in the final three fishing images within the Hebrew Bible (Is. 19:5-10; Ezek.

26:1-14; 47:1-12). The conclusion synthesizes the assemblage of data examined in the previous chapters, weaving all of the material and literary evidence together to evaluate

ii the function and source of ﬁshing imagery in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to focusing on the use of rhetoric and imagery, this comparative study sheds light on both the complex network of cultural and literary interchange in the ancient Near East. ! ! ! ! ! !

iii ! ! !

Dedication

! !

To my wife and best friend, Cathy Ann rabbôt bānôt ‘āśū ḥāyil wĕ’att ‘ālīt ‘al-kullānāh ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Acknowledgments !

This dissertation is the product of a team effort; it could not haven been accomplished without the support and sacriﬁce of a community of scholars, family, and friends.

To begin, I would like to thank the Melton Center for Jewish Studies, whose generous ﬁnancial support enabled me to ﬁnish this project.

My colleague and fellow dissertating partner, Joe Price, has offered immense help by means of both our regular discourse on pedantic issues related to the Hebrew Bible and the relaying of relevant sources he encountered in his own research.

My professors, Drs. Daniel Frank and Carolina López-Ruiz, have encouraged me every step of the way. A model of kindness, Dr. Frank has offered thoughtful and stimulating counsel throughout my time at Ohio State. In addition to offering invaluable input from the ancient Mediterranean world, Dr. López-Ruiz has provided a steady stream of challenging and constructive scholarly engagement. I am likewise grateful for the sincerity and inspiration of Dr. Brent Strawn, whose own work on leonine imagery originally catalyzed the idea for this project.

My advisor, Dr. Samuel Meier, is the primary reason I applied to Ohio State over

ﬁve years ago. And if for no other reason, my time spent learning from him has proven

v more productive than I could have imaged. He has embodied what it means to leave no stone unturned in research and apply consistent methods, how to think and communicate clearly, as well as how engage respectfully and pursue truth with transparency. My greatest strengths as a scholar and teacher are a testament to his wise counsel and sacriﬁcial investment in my life. My weaknesses likely stem from simply not listening closely enough.

Writing a dissertation with a baby at home and a spouse working full-time meant that most of this writing took place early in the morning, during nap time, and late at night. But regular help from my mother, Becky Yoder, and mother-in-law, Cheryl

Koehler, provided priceless assistance.

Above all, I owe a special debt of gratitude to my wife, Cathy. This project—in fact, this doctoral degree—would not have been possible without her wisdom, encouragement, and unwavering love. Our ﬁrstborn, Asher, was born just before the research for this project began, and his sister, Ellery, was welcomed into the world just as it came to a close. They, too, have sacriﬁced precious time with dada that I am so grateful to now have back. These three are my most favorites, my world. Ph.D. or not, I could not ask for much more. ! ! ! ! !

vi ! ! !

Vita !

August 28, 1984……………………………….Born in Wooster, Ohio

2007……………………………………………B.A. Pre-Seminary and History, Cedarville University

2009……………………………………………Graduate Teaching Assistant, Trinity International University

2009……………………………………………Biblical Archaeology Review Travel Scholarship

2010……………………………………………M.A. Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Biblical Archaeology, Trinity ! International University 2010-2011……………………………………..University Fellowship, The Ohio State University

2011……………………………………………Winner, The Charlotte Susan Roth Memorial Fund Essay Context, The Melton Center for Jewish Studies at The Ohio State University

2011-2012……………………………………..The George and Renée Levine Graduate ! Fellowship in Jewish Studies 2012-2014……………………………………..Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University

2014-2015……………………………………..The Samuel M. Melton Graduate Fellowship in Jewish Studies ! ! vii Publications! Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 124.4 ”.שׁוט שׁוטף Reconsidering“ (2013): 606-10.

“Ezekiel 29:3 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Vetus Testamentum 63.3 (2013): !486-96. ! ! Fields of! Study Major Field: Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Hebrew Bible !Ancient Near Eastern Studies ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

viii

! ! Table of Contents ! ! Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………….…..…iv

Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………v ! Vita……………………………………………………………………………………… vii

Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………… xv

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………….xxvi

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………xxviii

Chapter 1. Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters………………………………..…. 1 1.1 Why Fishing Imagery?……………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 What Fishing Imagery?…………………………………………………………….. 3 1.3 Previous Studies and the Scope of the Present Study………………………………. 4 1.4 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………6 1.4.1 The State of the Field in Metaphor Theory……………………………………….8 1.4.1.1 Richards’ Interaction Theory………………………………………………….8 1.4.1.2 Black’s Associated Commonplaces……………………………………………8 1.4.1.3 Ricoeur’s Tension Theory……………………………………………………..9 ix 1.4.1.4 Lakoff and Johnson’s Cognitive Theory……………………………………….. 9 1.4.1.5 Kittay’s Perspectival Theory…………… ..…………………………………. 11 1.4.1.6 White’s Primary and Secondary Vocabulary……………………………….. 12 1.4.2. Metaphor Research on the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East……………. 13 1.4.3 Analysis of Method…………………………………………………………….. 15 1.4.3.1 Identiﬁcation of Image……………………………………………………… 15 1.4.3.2 Establishment of Text……………………………………………………….. 16 1.4.3.3 Contextualization and Comparison…………………………………………. 17 1.4.3.4 Evaluation…………………………………………………………………... 18 1.5 The World of the Fisher…………………………………………………………….19 1.5.1 Egypt…………………………………………………………………………… 20 1.5.2 Mesopotamia…………………………………………………………………….30 1.5.3 Levant…………………………………………………………………………. 40 1.6 Fishing Terminology in the Hebrew Bible………………………………………….49 1.6.1 “Fisher” dayyāg…………………………………………………………………50 1.6.2 Hook……………………………………………………………………………. 50 1.6.2.1 ḥakkāh………………………………………………………………………..50 1.6.2.2 ḥôaḥ; ḥaḥ……………………………………………………………………..51 1.6.2.3 ṣēn……………………………………………………………………………53 1.6.2.4 sīrāh………………………………………………………………………… 53 1.6.3 Net……………………………………………………………………………… 53 1.6.3.1 rešet “Cast Net”…………………………………………………………….. 53 1.6.3.2 ḥērem “Dragnet”……………………………………………………………. 57 1.6.3.3. mikmar; mikmeret “Dragnet”………………………………………………. 60 1.6.3.4 mĕṣūdāh, mĕṣôdāh, and māṣôd “Cast Net”………………………………….62 1.6.3.5 šaḥat “Net”………………………………………………………………….. 65 1.6.4. Spear……………………………………………………………………………66 1.6.4.1 ṣilṣal………………………………………………………………………… 66 1.6.4.2 śukkāh………………………………………………………………………. 66

x 1.6.5. Fishing…………………………………………………………………………. 66 1.6.5.1 dāyag…………………………………………………………………………66 1.6.5.2. dūgāh “Fishing”……………………………………………………………..66 1.6.5.3 mišṭôaḥ……………………………………………………………………… 66

Chapter 2. Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East…………………68 2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………68 2.2 Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East……………………………………………68 2.2.1 Mesopotamia…………………………………………………………………….68 2.2.2 Ugarit……………………………………………………………………………76 2.3 Divine Fishers in the Hebrew Bible (Jeremiah 16:16-18)………………………….80 2.3.1 Translation………………………………………………………………………80 2.3.2 Literary Context…………………………………………………………………82 2.3.3 Interpretation…………………………………………………………………… 83 2.3.3.1 Egyptian Fishers…………………………………………………………..….83 2.3.3.2 Judahite Fishers………………………………………………………………84 2.3.3.3 Divine Fishers………………………………………………………………. 85 2.3.3.4 Babylonian Fishers………………………………………………………….. 87 2.4 Synthesis……………………………………………………………………………89 ! Chapter 3. Fishers of Men: Divine Disciple as Fishing Image…………………………..91 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………91 3.2 Textual Analysis…………………………………………………………………… 92 3.2.1 Amos 4:1-3………………………………………………………………………92 3.2.1.1 Translation………………………………………………………………….. 92 3.2.1.2 Commentary………………………………………………………………… 94 3.2.1.2.1 Literary and Historical Context…………………………………………..94 3.2.1.2.2 Fishing Terms and Imagery……………………………………………… 95

xi 3.2.1.2.2.1 ṣinnôt…………………………………………………………………. 96 3.2.1.2.2.2 sīrôt……………………………………………………………………96 3.2.1.2.3 Interpretation…………………………………………………………….. 97 3.2.1.2.3.1 Hooked into Exile……………………………………………………..97 3.2.1.2.3.2 From Deportation to Death…………………………………………..100 3.2.1.2.3.3 Cattle-driven by Nose-rope…………………………………………..105 3.2.1.2.3.4 Carried Away on a Shield…………………………………………….106 3.2.1.2.3.5 Marine Transportation………………………………………………..106 3.2.1.2.4 Conclusion………………………………………………………………107 3.2.2 Habakkuk 1:14-17…………………………………………………………….. 110 3.2.2.1 Translation…………………………………………………………………. 110 3.2.2.2 Commentary……………………………………………………………….. 111 3.2.2.2.1 Literary and Historical Context………………………………………… 111 3.2.2.2.2 Fishing Terms and Imagery…………………………………………….. 112 3.2.2.2.3 Ancient Near Eastern Background………………………………………116 3.2.2.2.4 Interpretation…………………………………………………………….127 3.2.3 Ezekiel 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9……………………………………………130 3.2.3.1 Translation………………………………………………………………… 130 3.2.3.1.1 Ezekiel 12:13-14…………………………………………………….…. 130 3.2.3.1.2 Ezekiel 17:16-21……………………………………………………….. 130 3.2.3.1.3 Ezekiel 19:1-9………………………………………………………….. 131 3.2.3.2 Commentary……………………………………………………………….. 132 3.2.3.2.1 Literary and Historical Context……………………………………….. 132 3.2.3.2.2 Interpreting a Prophetic Act in 12:13-14………………………………..133 3.2.3.2.3 Covenant Breach in 17:16-21………………………………………….. 135 3.2.3.2.4 Lion “Netting” in 19:1-9………………………………………………. 138 3.2.3.2.5 Ancient Near Eastern Background………………………………………142 3.2.3.2.6 Interpretation…………………………………………………………….147 3.3 Syntheses…………………………………………………………………………..148

xii 3.3.1 Israelite Fish Deported by Foreign Fishers…………………………………….148 3.3.2 History, Literary Recycling, and the Paradox of Fishing Images…………….. 149 ! Chapter 4. Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery…………………………….. 151 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 151 4.2 Hebrew Bible…………………………………………………………………….. 152 4.2.1 Job 40:25-32 [E 41:1-8]………………………………………………………. 152 4.2.1.1 Translation………………………………………………………………….152 4.2.1.2 Literary Context…………………………………………………………….155 4.2.1.3 How (Not) to Catch a liwyātān……………………………………………..156 4.2.1.4 Interpretation………………………………………………………………..159 4.2.2 Ezekiel 29:1-6a and 32:1-10………………………………………………….. 162 4.2.2.1 Translation………………………………………………………………….162 4.2.2.1.1 Ezekiel 29:1-6a………………………………………………………….162 4.2.2.1.2 Ezekiel 32:1-10………………………………………………………….164 4.2.2.2 Historical and Literary Context…………………………………………….166 4.2.2.3 Hot to Catch a tannīn……………………………………………………….168 4.2.2.4 Interpreting Ezekiel’s Tannin Metaphor……………………………………186 4.3 Enūma Eliš……………………………………………………………………….. 189 4.4 Synthesis…………………………………………………………………………. 177 ! Chapter 5. Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy…………………………… 178 5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 178 5.2 Mesopotamian Literature………………………………………………………….179 5.3 Qohelet 9:11-12……………………………………………………………………183 5.3.1 Translation……………………………………………………………………. 183 5.3.2 Literary Context………………………………………………………………..185 5.3.3 Interpretation………………………………………………………………….. 187 5.3.3.1 What is So ra‘ About a “Net” and “Time?”……………………………….. 187

xiii 5.3.3.1.1 The Use of ra‘ in Qohelet 9:1-12………………………………………. 187 5.3.3.1.2 Qohelet 9:11-12 and Habakkuk 1:12-17 in Dialogue………………….. 193 5.3.3.1.3 Fishing and Death……………………………………………………… 194 5.4 Synthesis…………………………………………………………………………..197 ! Chapter 6. “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”: Fishing Imagery, Polarity, and Prophetic Literature……………………………………………………... 199 6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 199 6.2 It Was the Worst of Times (Isaiah 19:5-10; Ezekiel 26:1-14)……………………. 200 6.2.1 Egypt in Isaiah 19:5-10……………………………………………………….. 200 6.2.1.1 Translation………………………………………………………………….200 6.2.1.2 Historical and Literary Context…………………………………………….205 6.2.1.3 A Dried Up River as Dystopian Literary Symbol…………………………. 207 6.2.1.4 Mourning at the Nile Marina……………………………………………… 213 6.2.2 Tyre in Ezekiel 26:1-14……………………………………………………….. 218 6.2.2.1 Translation………………………………………………………………….218 6.2.2.2 Historical and Literary…………………………………………………….. 220 6.2.2.3 From Impenetrable Rock to Ruins: The Tragic Fate of Tyre……………….222 6.3 It Was the Best of Times Where God Dwells (Ezekiel 47:1-12)………………… 224 6.3.1 Translation……………………………………………………………………. 224 6.3.2 Literary Context………………………………………………………………. 227 6.3.3 Re-creation and a River of Life………………………………………………. 230 6.4 Shattering Stereotypes and Transforming Tropes……………………………….. 239 6.4.1 Fishing and Polarity………………………………………………………….. 239 6.4.2 Ezekiel 47:1-12 as Anomaly………………………………………………….. 242 6.4.3 Ezekiel 47:1-12 as (Apparent) Non-sequitur…………………………………. 262 ! Chapter 7. Reeling It in: Concluding Reﬂections………………………………………244 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………250

xiv ! !

! ! Abbreviations

1. Books, Journals, and Series AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology ABL R. F. Harper. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (Chicago, 1892) Accordance Accordance Bible Software AOB Altorientalische Bibliothek AD J.-L. Cunchillos. Cuando los ángeles eran dioses (Salamanca, 1978) AEL M. Lichtheim. Ancient Egyptian Literature (3 volumes; Berkeley, 1975) AHw W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden, 1965-1981) ARM Archives royales de Mari ASKT P. Haupt. Akkadische und sumerische Keilschrifttexte nach den Originalen im Britischen Museum copirt und mit einleitenden Zusammenstellungen sowie erklärenden Anmerkungen (Leipzig, 1882) BAGD F. W. Danker, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (3d ed.; Chicago, 2000) BBR H. Zimmern. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion (Leipzig, 1901) BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (trans. by E. Robinson; Oxford, 1906) BE The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts (Philadelphia, 1983) BH2 R. Kittel. Biblia Hebraica (2d ed.; Stuttgart, 1909) BH3 P. Kahle. Biblia Hebraica (3d ed.; Stuttgart, 1937)

xv BHK R. Kittel. Biblia Hebraica (2 volumes; Leipzig, 1906) BHS K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart, 1997) Beschwörungs G. Meier. Die assyrische Beschwörungssamlung Maqlû (Osnabrück, -samlung 1967) BM British Museum BMS L. W. King. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London, 1896) BOTD R. O. Faulkner. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (Austin, 1993) BWL W. G. Lambert. Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Winona Lake, IN: 1996) CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago, 1956-2010) CAT M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second enlarged edition) (Münster, 1997) CDA J. Black, A. George, N. Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (2d ed.; Wiesbaden, 2000) CH Code of Hammurapi CLAM M. E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Potomac, 1988) Crum W. E. Crum. A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford, 1939) CSD J. P. Smith, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: founded upon the Thesaurus syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D. D. (Winona Lake, IN: 1998) CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets CTA A. Herdner. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 (Paris, 1963) DNSI J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, eds. Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions (New York, 1995) DP F.-M. Allotte de la Fuÿe. Documents présargoniques fascicule supplémentaire (Paris, 1908-1920)

xvi dRJ W. Thiel. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1973) DTTM M. Jastrow. A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1903) DULAT G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (2 volumes; trans. by W. G. E Watson; Boston, 2003) ETCSL The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature GKC E. F. Kautzsch, ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (trans. by A. E. Cowley; Oxford, 1910) GMVO H. W. Haussig, ed. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient (Stuttgart, 1965) HALOT L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, 2002) Holladay W. Holladay. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1972) ICC A. H. Layard. Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from Assyrian Monuments (London, 1851) IM Tablets in the collections of the Iraq Museum, Baghdad Ištar W. Farber, “Atti Ištar ša harmaša Dumuzi: Beschwörungsrituale an Ištar und Dumuzi und Dumuzi” (Ph.D. diss., Eberhard-Karls-Universität of Tübingen, 1974) JM P. Joüon and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2d ed.; Rome: 2009) K Kouyunjik KAR Keilschrifttexte aux Assur religiösen Inhalts KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit: Enschliesslich der keilalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarits. Teil 1. Transkription (Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976)

xvii LÄ W. Helck, Lexikon der Ägyptologie (7 volumes; Wiesbaden, 1972-1992) Ludlul A. Annus and A. Lenzi, Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer (Helsinki, 2010) MDAIAK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo MEE G. Pettinato. Catalogo die testi cuneiformi di Tell Mardikh-Ebla (2 volumes; Naples: 1979-1980) MES M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. Mythen und Epen in ugaritischer Sprache (Gütersloh: 1997). NBU E. Ebeling, Neubabylonische Briefe aus Uruk (Berlin, 1930-1934). NeK R. Da Riva. “The Nebuchadnezzar Inscription in Nahr el-Kalb,” in Le Site du Nahr el-Kalb (Beirut, 2009), 255-302. OECT Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts PBS Publications of the Babylonian Section (University Museum, University of Pennsylvania) PSD The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/ epsd/index.html) R H. C. Rawlinson. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (5 volumes; London, 1861-84). RBS D. Schwemer. Rituale ind Beschwörungen gegen Schadenzauber (Wiesbaden, 2007) RHB A. Ehrlich. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches (7 volumes; Leipzig, 1912) RIMA Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods RIME Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods RINAP The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period RS Ras Shamra SBH G. R. Reisner. Sumerische und babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit (Berlin, 1896)

xviii SBW O. Keel. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, IN, 1997) STP R. D. Barnett and M. Falkner. The Sculptures of…Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B. C.)…from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud (London, 1962) AJSLL The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature STT O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein. The Sultantepe Tablets (London, 1957-1964) TCL Textes cunéiformes du Louvre TLB Tabulae Cuneiformes a F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl collectae (Leiden, 1954-) TO Textes ougaritiques UBC 2 M. Smith and W. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4 (Leiden, 2009) UET Ur Excavations, Texts UP University of Pennsylvania, The Museum. Publications of the Babylonian Section UT C. H. Gordon. Ugaritic Textbook (Rome, 1965) VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek VS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. WÄS A. Erman and H. Grapow. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache: Im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien (6 volumes; Berlin: 1950-55) WOC B. Waltke and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN, 1990) WUS J. Aistleitner, ed. Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache (4th ed.; Berlin, 1974) YBC Tablets in the Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library YOS Yale Oriental Series

xix 2. Languages, Dialects, Ancient Sources, Biblical and Post-biblical Books, and Versions 1QHa Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot) Akk. Akkadian Aq. Aquila Arb. Arabic Arm. Aramaic b. ‘Abod. Zar. Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah in the Babylonian Talmud b. Šabb. Tractate Shabbat in the Babylonian Talmud CH Classical Hebrew Chr. Chronicles CoT Cofﬁn Text Coverdale The Coverdale Bible Cpt. Coptic DD Dumuzi’s Dream Dem. Demotic Deut. Deuteronomy DSS Dead Sea Scrolls E English EE Enuma Eliš EI Erra and Išum EG Epic of Gilgamesh Eg. Egyptian En. Enoch ESV English Standard Version Eth. Ethiopic EWO Enki and the World Order Ex. Exodus Ezek. Ezekiel Fr. French

xx Gen. Genesis Gk. Greek Hab. Habakkuk HB Hebrew Bible Heb. Hebrew Hos. Hosea IAm Instructions of Amenenope IAn Instructions of Any Is. Isaiah JB Jerusalem Bible Jer. Jeremiah Jon. Jonah Josh. Joshua JPS The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation with the Aid of Previous Versions and with Constant Consultation of Jewish Authorities Judg. Judges K. Kings KJV The King James Version Knox The Holy Bible: A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals Lam. Lamentations Lat. Latin LE Late Egyptian Lev. Leviticus LoA Letter of Aristeas LXX Septuagint m. Šeb Tractate Šebi’it in the Mishnah Mal. Malachi

xxi ME Middle Egyptian MH Mishnaic Hebrew Mic. Micah Mk. Mark MT Masoretic Text Mt. Matthew NAB The New American Bible NABRE The New American Bible, Revised Edition Nah. Nahum NASB The New American Standard Version NEB New English Bible Neh. Nehemiah NET The New English Translation NETS The New English Translation of the Septuagint NIV The New International Version NJPS The New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh NRSV The New Revised Standard Version NT New Testament Num. Numbers Prov. Proverbs Ps. Psalm Qoh. Qohelet REB The Revised English Bible Rev. Revelation RSV Revised Standard Version S Syriac (=Peshitta) Sam. Samuel Schlachter The Schlacter Bibel Segond The Louis Segond Bible

xxii Sir. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Song Song of Songs SoV Stele of Vultures Sum. Sumerian Sym. Symmachus Tg Targum Th. Theodotion TNE Tukulti-Ninurta Epic ToM Testament of Moses Ug. Ugaritic V Vulgate Wycliffe Wycliffe’s Bible Zech. Zechariah Zeph. Zephaniah

3. Miscellany Abb. Abbildung (= illustration) ambig. ambiguous aNE ancient Near East ch. chapter chs. chapters col. column cols. columns D Doppelstamm (=Piel) Dp Pual DN divine name DtrH Deuteronomistic History dupl. duplicate ED Early Dynastic

xxiii fem. feminine fig. figure figs. figures G Grundstamm (=Qal) H Hiphil Hp Hophal K Kethib l. line LB Late Bronze ll. lines MA Middle Assyrian ms. manuscript mss. manuscripts mod. modern N Niphal n. note nn. notes no. number nos. numbers NA Neo-Assyrian NB Neo-Babylonian NK New Kingdom OA Old Asyrian OB Old Babylonian obv. obverse OK Old Kingdom p. page Pap. papyrus pl. plate

xxiv pls. plates pp. pages Q Qere rev. reverse SB Standard Babylonian sg. singular Taf. Tafel (=Table) v. verse vv. verses ! ! !

! !

xxv

List of Figures !

Figure 1. Earliest depiction of rod ﬁshing……………………………………………….21

Figure 2. Relief from an Egyptian tomb (Zau) depicting the deceased’s use of a barbed

ﬁshing spear to catch two ﬁsh……………………………………………………………23

Figure 3. Two ﬁsh transﬁxed by means of a bident…………………………………….. 23

Figure 4. A wall relief from the tomb of Ti (Dynasty 5) featuring seine ﬁshing……….. 24

Figure 5. Three ﬁshers haul in a catch; wall relief from the tomb of Ra-hotep………… 25

Figure 6. Catching a ﬁsh in a seine, transporting it, splitting it, and mending a net……..27

Figure 7. Two men line-ﬁshing from goat-skinned rafts……………………………….. 33

Figure 8. Line-ﬁshing near Nineveh……………………………………………………. 35

Figure 9. One man line-ﬁshing from a goat-skinned raft………………………………. 37

Figure 10. Riverine line-ﬁshing near a Ninevite Castle………………………………… 39

Figure 11. A Mesopotamian relief depicting a ﬁsher, perhaps representing Gilgamesh, transporting a pair of recently caught ﬁsh………………………………………………. 81

Figure 12. The Victory Stele of Esarhaddon from Zinçirli, in which Esarhaddon (not in photo) leads a supplicant (Ba‘alu of Tyre?) away via rope and hook in his cheek……..121

Figure 13. The Stele of Vultures from Tello where Ningirsu holds the šušgal-net ﬁlled with captured citizens of Umma………………………………………………………..146

xxvi Figure 14. A goddess from Mari holding a fountain vessel out of which ﬂow water and marine life………………………………………………………………………………259

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

xxvii ! ! !

List of Tables !

Table 1. The use of ḥaḥ/ḥôaḥ in the Hebrew Bible………………………………………51

Table 2. The use of rešet in the Hebrew Bible………………………………………….. 55

Table 3. The use of ḥērem in the Hebrew Bible………………………………………….58

Table 4. The use of mikmar/mikmeret in the Hebrew Bible……………………………. 60

Table 5. The use of māṣôd/mĕṣūdāh in the Hebrew Bible……………………………… 62

Table 6. Overview of ﬁshing terminology in the Hebrew Bible…………………………67

Table 7. Scholarly and versional positions on ṣinnōt………………………………….. 107

Table 8. Scholarly and versional positions on sīrōt…………………………………………109

Table 9. Eannatum…………………………………………………………………….. 121

Table 10. Enmetena……………………………………………………………………. 122

Table 11. Sargon the Great…………………………………………………………….. 122

Table 12. Curse of Agade……………………………………………………………….122

Table 13. Hammurapi………………………………………………………………….. 123

Table 14. Erra and Išum……………………………………………………………….. 123

Table 15. Adad-nirari II………………………………………………………………... 124

Table 16. Shamshi-Adad V……………………………………………………………..124

Table 17. Tiglath-Pileser III…………………………………………………………….124

xxviii Table 18. Sargon II…………………………………………………………………….. 125

Table 19. Sennacherib…………………………………………………………………. 125

Table 20. Esarhaddon………………………………………………………………….. 126

Table 21. Aššurbanipal………………………………………………………………… 127

Table 22. The disciplinary function of a king’s net……………………………………. 127

Table 23. Haruspicy…………………………………………………………………….127

Table 24. Fishing tools in Job 40:25-32……………………………………………….. 157

Table 25. Piercing the “cheek” of a sea monster in the Hebrew Bible…………………158

Table 26. Fishing tools in Ezekiel 29, 32……………………………………………… 169

Table 27. The use of rešet in Ezekiel………………………………………………….. 170

Table 28. The rešet and exile in Ezekiel………………………………………………. 174

Table 29. Fishing imagery in Enūma Eliš……………………………………………... 176

Table 30. Deadly nets in the ancient Near East……………………………………….. 182

Table 31. The use of ra‘ (+ rā‘āh and rōa‘) in Qohelet……………………………….. 188

Table 32. A dried-up Nile topos in Egyptian literature……………………………….. 210

Table 33. A thematic overview of Ezekiel 47:1-12……………………………………. 228

! ! ! !

xxix ! ! ! ! Chapter 1. Surveying the Water: Introductory Matters

“The Scientist, like the artist, interprets the world around him by making images. Thinking calls for images and images contain thought.”1

“Pictures bring certain ideas very memorable expression, accomplishing what terms could never convey.”2

“Metaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to comprehend partially what we cannot comprehend totally: our feelings, aesthetic experiences, moral practices, and spiritual awareness.”3

1.1 Why Fishing Imagery? The metaphor is a hallmark of Classical Hebrew poetry. Some metaphors, such as “YHWH is king” or “YHWH is warrior,” play a foundational role. The same does not necessarily hold for metaphors from the fishing industry. With access to only two major freshwater sources (i.e. the Jordan River and Sea of Galilee), archaeological research demonstrates that this industry did not play a major socioeconomic role in ancient Israel. It is thus unsurprising that the vast majority of fishing images depict someone other than Israelites actually doing the fishing. The far greater frequency of metaphors from the pasture and vineyard further affirms this reality. Fishing has nevertheless made a substantial contribution to prophetic and wisdom literature.

1 Arnheim 1969, 274, 254.

2 Bultmann 2003, 160.

3 Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 193. 1 All metaphors manifest reality. But given the physical circumstances of a largely agrarian, non-marine, society, what does the sustained presentation of fishing metaphors in the HB actually communicate? According to Glaser, “When one is perfectly familiar with a religious symbol from one’s own tradition and personal experience, and when one finds this symbol in another tradition, more rather than less will be required to penetrate behind the face of the symbol to grasp what it means to the other.”4 Such a caveat immediately confronts the reader familiar with Jesus’ radical call to discipleship (“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” [Mt. 4:19; Mk. 1:17]), which reinvested a 1st CE socio-economic reality with heavy theological overtones—a wholly different tenor from the fishing images used in the HB.5 The endeavor is just as weighty for a modern Western reader, for whom fishing may connote notions as discrete as a relaxing weekend trip on the lake to a local sporting competition. Examining the particular use of fishing image in the HB thus presents a formidable task that demands the scholar approach the text with an open mind and a capacity to mine the gamut of contemporaneous evidence. There are numerous studies on fishing itself, based primarily on the material evidence from all over the aNE, but this is the first literary study devoted to the fishing images used in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as in the Mesopotamian textual records. Due to ancient Israel’s familiarity with fishing particularly from an outsider’s vantage, this calls for a penetrating look into cultural contact with its neighbors to the east (i.e. Mesopotamia) and southwest (i.e. Egypt). The different means by which the HB exhibits fishing imagery—from a symbol of divine retribution to a vehicle for death, to a central component of eschatological blessing—likewise demonstrate the need for such comparative analysis. Though nearly all fishing metaphors in the HB carry overt royal or divine connotations that mirror uses well-attested in Mesopotamian literature, this remains a largely untapped area of research. A study of the diverse literary qualities of fishing images offers a holistic understanding of how one integral component of ancient

4 Glaser 1998, 135 (emphasis mine).

5 For example, even though ﬁshing and hunting derive from a common idea, imagine the different perlocutionary effect of Jesus’ call to become “hunters of men.” 2 Near Eastern society affected the whole, just as the assemblage of disparate materials related to this particular ﬁeld of study enables scholars to integrate these data into related research and move the conversation forward.

1.2 What Fishing Imagery? As the survey of fishing from material remains below demonstrates, the evidence stems back to the earliest human civilizations in the Near East. While techniques vary somewhat according to the particular spatial context in view, humans throughout the world up through the present have maintained an overlapping set of techniques, which largely mirror those already established within Egypt by the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. So what are the parameters of this project? The scope of this dissertation comprises fishing imagery in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature that spans the 3rd millennium BCE through the end of the Iron Age (i.e. Iron III). The following section aims to unpack each of these three elements. First, as the project title indicates, the focus of this project is on fishing imagery. Other studies have examined the material evidence for fishing as an activity, which this introductory chapter surveys below, but this study primarily revolves around fishing images projected in literature. It is also driven by a comparative and inter-disciplinary methodology (see §1.4 below) and thus incorporates archaeological remains, including especially those of an iconographic nature, into the discussion whenever necessary. Second, regarding this notion of literature, the starting point is the HB and its ten explicit fishing images (viz. Jer. 16:16-18; Amos 4:1-3; Hab. 1:14-17; Job 40:25-32; Ezek. 29:1-6a; 32:1-10; Qoh. 9:11-12; Is. 19:5-10; Ezek. 26:1-14; 47:1-12), as well as several ambiguous examples based upon their literary connection to other explicit ones (viz. Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9). While several specialized studies have addressed individual fishing metaphors,6 one point of departure aims to identify, analyze, and evaluate them both collectively and in relation to one another. Another point of departure is the mining of fishing images in the literary inventory of Israel’s neighbors, Egypt,

6 See p. 5, nn. 21-23 below. 3 Ugarit, and especially Mesopotamia. Third, the temporal parameters span the earliest literary records of ﬁshing images (ca. the early to mid-3rd millennium in both Egypt and Mesopotamia) in the aNE up through the NB period (i.e. Iron III).7

1.3 Previous Studies and the Scope of the Present Study Scholars have thoroughly investigated fishing in the aNE, especially the Egyptian and Mesopotamian evidence. Douglas Friedman and Renée Brewer’s survey on fish and fishing, combined with Dietrich Sahrhage’s recent update of Ingrid Gamer-Wallert’s foundational 1970 work on fish and fishing in the Egyptian cult, together provide a detailed reconstruction of the trade in ancient Egypt.8 Tohfa Handoussa’s brief 1988 essay zeroes in on this evidence specifically during the OK.9 Although Armas Salonen’s 1970 monograph10 is by far the most comprehensive general work on fishing in Mesopotamia, misconceptions and errors unfortunately mar its reliability.11 Biblical scholars who have uncritically relied on this work have often been misled. Daniel Potts’ 2012 quite detailed survey of fishing in greater Mesopotamia presents the best starting point for the topic, in general.12 In the counterpart to his own previously mentioned edition on Egypt, Sahrhage offers the standard work on fishing in the Mesopotamian cult.13 Noteworthy among specialized studies is Robert Englund’s masterful work on fishing and fisheries during the Ur-III period.14

7 Due to the nature of the transmission of the HB, however, this study will regularly consult versional evidence from the Hellenistic period onward (e.g. DSS, LXX, S, V, Tg).

8 Brewer and Friedman 1989; Sahrhage 1998; Gamer-Wallert 1970; Daumas 1977, 234-42.

9 Handoussa 1988, 105-109.

10 Salonen 1970.

11 Potts 2012, 220-35.

12 Ibid.

13 Sahrhage 1999.

14 Englund 1990; cf. Butz 1978/1979, 30-44. 4 The Levant has received far less attention. Mendel Nun—destined from birth for a career associated with fishing—wrote a 1964 monograph that has long provided the standard reference on fishing in ancient Israel, though much of the material evidence cited derives from later periods (i.e. Hellenistic and beyond).15 Oded Borowski’s brief treatment helps fill in this gap.16 A number of treatments on fish bones,17 ichthyological motifs from Philistine pottery,18 and a lone essay on fish in a Ugaritic inscription19 round out the relevant work.20 In all this, it is clear that the chief scholarly deficiency on fishing relates to fishing images in the literary records and their integration with the material evidence, to which the discussion now turns. The history of scholarship on fishing imagery in the literature of the aNE is a rather meager history, confined to a handful of article-length treatments of specific issues. Shalom Paul’s 1978 analysis of the fishing metaphor(s) in Amos 4:2 remains the most thoroughgoing example.21 Wolfgang Zwickel’s 1987 essay briefly discusses the role of fishing in Habakkuk.22 Others have dealt with the fishing image in Jer. 16:16 in various ways.23 And though commentaries necessarily offer interaction, they rarely engage the dynamics of a fishing metaphor outside of the immediate context, a narrow approach which, as we will see, often misses its point altogether. Similar general treatments surface in studies of non-biblical inscriptions that include fishing metaphors, such as Georges

15 Nun 1964.

16 Borowski 1996.

17 See pp. 44-9, nn. 231-60 below for bibliography.

18 Bunimovitz, and Ledermen 2010, 58-71; Dothan 1982.

19 de Moor 1996, 155-57.

20 There remains a need for a full-scale synthesis of ichthyological remains in Israel.

21 Paul 1978, 183-90.

22 Zwickel 1987, 72-4; Geiger 2010, 453-56.

23 Aalders 1958b, 133-39; Cho 2009, 97-105. 5 Dossin’s 1948 essay on an OB Mari prophecy.24 The few available comparative analyses, such as that of Jean-Georges Heintz, who addresses the relationship between the net (ḥērem) and holy war (ḥerem) in the HB and aNE literature, and Daniel Bodi, whose comparative study of Ezekiel and EI includes a chapter on their different uses of nets.25 The present study builds on all of the material above, particularly the latter comparative studies, but expands the purview by inspecting the inventory of fishing images in both the HB and aNE literature in order to classify the different uses and evaluate their relationship to one another. Though working with images inevitably requires establishment of typologies, any such attempts remain provisional until one surveys the the landscape of relevant material comprehensively.26 This project thus moves the discussion forward by grappling with the questions: in what ways did literature use fishing metaphors and how did these metaphors reflect both their various contexts (e.g. literary, archaeological, historical, socio-cultural, economic, etc.) and the phenomena of cultural interchange?

1.4 Methodology Any study of imagery and metaphor, and especially one with a cross-cultural scope, demands articulation of how it identifies, delineates, and evaluates evidence.27 Though many of the figures of speech that use fishing imagery in the literary corpora of the aNE use a preposition to compare two entities (e.g. a simile [A is like B] rather than A is B), this study follows the scholarly consensus by adhering to a broad definition of metaphor.28 It also recognizes the fact that metaphors are innately comparative, a fact that

24 Dossin 1948, 125-34.

25 Heintz 1965; idem 1969, 112-38; Bodi 1991.

26 Strawn 2005, 18.

27 This is especially pertinent for the study of religious language, for “every major religion [is] grounded in certain root metaphors…[and features] books which codify root metaphors through various linguistic and generic strategies” (Tracy 1979, 90).

28 According to Stern, metaphors assert similarities (2000, 232). 6 diminishes any meaningful distinction between metaphor and simile despite continued scholarly contention.29 According to Janet Soskice, metaphor is “a figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another.”30 Though the two deliberately juxtaposed entities necessarily derive from different semantic fields, a metaphor is only effective if at least some sign-users within its particular locutionary environment can identify it.31 Context plays a fundamental role in such identification, conditioning its illocutionary force. The nature of this comparative study and the substantial growth exhibited by the field of metaphor over the past half- century32 demonstrates the need to overview its current state,33 as well as its niche within HB studies, before providing an outline my own approach.34

29 Scholars contend the difference between simile and metaphor. Black suggests similes “sacriﬁce the distinctive power and effectiveness of a good metaphor” (1993, 31), but others persuasively demonstrate that such delineation is often merely formal in nature (for a representative example, see Goodman 1968, 77-8). For example, the metaphor “the sun is a golden ball” demonstrates no more “distinctive power and effectiveness” than the corresponding simile “the sun is like a golden ball” (Soskice 1985, 58). There is need, however, to distinguish metaphorical similes from true similes, which represent literal comparisons (e.g. “John is tall like Lebron James”). Accordingly, this present study does not distinguish between these two ﬁgures of speech given their equivalent cognitive sense (cf. Korpel 1990, 55).

30 Soskice 1985, 15. And in the language of the Venerable Bede, a metaphor is a “genus of which all other tropes are species” (cited in Eco 1984, 87).

31 Ibid. If an active metaphor at some point lost its meaning among such sign-users (e.g. “cream of the crop,” “leaf of the book,” etc.), it is known as a dead metaphor and is “for linguistic purposes safely disregarded” (Kittay 1987, 89). Scholars disagree on precisely when a metaphor “dies” and on the potential to revive one, but linguistic register and locutionary context of the speaker cautions against generalizations (cf. Weiss 2006, 189-90). And given the general familiarity with ﬁshing in Israel, dead metaphors play a minimal role in this present study.

32 Booth sarcastically predicted that students of metaphor would outnumber people by the year 2039 (1979, 47).

33 Due to the vast amount of literature on metaphor, the purpose here with the following survey is not to be comprehensive, but to provide a snapshot of some of the most inﬂuential approaches, including especially those upon which this study draws.

34 Weiss has chided biblical scholars who forego integrating metaphor theory into their interpretive work, and thereby preventing readers from knowing to what extent their method affects their conclusions (2006, 24). Her acute warning notwithstanding, Nielsen rightly questions whether one theory ultimately proves more efﬁcacious than another (1989, 66). 7 1.4.1 The State of the Field in Metaphor Theory 1.4.1.1 Richards’ Interaction Theory Up until the 20th century CE, metaphor studies leaned heavily on Aristotle’s “Substitution Theory,” whereby the non-literal term stands in for another (e.g. “man is a wolf” = “man is cunning, threatening, etc.”).35 This dependence has severely waned, however, since the groundbreaking work of I. A. Richards. His “Interaction Theory” departed from the tradition of substitution by classifying a metaphor’s binary elements according to two related features: the “tenor” denotes the “underlying idea or principal subject and the “vehicle” denotes the means through which that same idea or subject is conveyed (e.g. “the world [tenor] is a stage [vehicle]”).36 Moreover, Richards underscored the multifaceted dynamic of metaphor. Much more than an elevated form of language, the “tenor” and “vehicle” work together to “give a meaning of more varied powers that can be ascribed to either.”37

1.4.1.2 Black’s Associated Commonplaces Building on Richards’ cutting edge research, Max Black pushed the conversation forward by identifying the “vehicle” (i.e. secondary subject) as representative of a systemic, rather than an isolated entity. According to Black, the “vehicle” represents a “system of associated commonplaces,” which comprise the images evoked when one hears a word employed metaphorically (e.g. the metaphor “man is a wolf” evokes connotations such as “dangerous, cunning, ﬁerce, predatory”).38 In fact, it is the very interplay between these “associated commonplaces” and the “tenor” which generates meaning in the metaphor. Each subject reﬂects numerous potential “associated commonplaces.” For instance, the metaphor “man is a wolf” evokes commonplaces

35 For an overview of metaphor study from Aristotle to the 20th CE, see Sage 1997, 156-62.

36 Richards 1965, 2:89-138, esp. 99-101.

37 Ibid.

38 Black 1962, 38-47, esp. 40. 8 associated with canis lupus, but only those human characteristics “which can without undue strain be talked about in ‘wolf-language’ will be rendered prominent, and any that cannot will be pushed into the background.”39 Context, not empirical validity, then, is the key to delineating such traits.40

1.4.1.3 Ricoeur’s Tension Theory Thirteen years after Black’s seminal monograph, Paul Ricoeur modiﬁed the discussion to include multiple and larger units of meaning, extending beyond the level of the word to that of sentence and discourse.41 While Black emphasized “interaction” between the vehicle and tenor, Ricoeur perceived the relationship as more tensive (e.g. comparison and contrast) in character. Indeed, the tension itself functions as the metaphor’s locus.42 A metaphor unleashes new layers of reality, “obliterating the logical and established frontiers of language, in order to bring to light new resemblances the previous classiﬁcation kept us from seeing.”43 Drawing on Ricoeur's idea of “virtual experience,” Newsom astutely notes that metaphor also requires active participation by the sign-user, who may misconceive such engagement for literal truth.44

1.4.1.4 Lakoff and Johnson’s Cognitive Theory While Black and Ricoeur drew primarily on the previous work of Richards,

39 Ibid, 41.

40 Numerous scholars have criticized Black’s suggestion that just as the “vehicle” says something about the “tenor” (i.e. the wolf about the man) so the “tenor” says something about the “vehicle” (i.e. the man about the wolf; Soskice 1985, 47; Lakoff and Turner 1989, 131-33; Mac Cormac 1985, 33-8). Thus Pharaoh’s alleged profession, “I am a great dragon” (Ezek. 29:3), suggests that in addition to the Egyptian king resembling a dragon, the dragon also takes on human characteristics. But this is simply unintelligible, convoluting the point of the metaphor. To his credit, however, Black himself apparently abandoned this view in a later treatment (1993, 27-30).

41 Ricoeur 1977, 133. For the French original, see idem 1975.

42 Ibid, 6.

43 Ibid, 197.

44 1995, 193. 9 Lakoff and Johnson shifted the direction of the discussion by emphasizing metaphor’s fundamental role in cognition. Their “Cognitive Theory” presupposes a conceptual system in which both thought and action are “fundamentally metaphorical in nature”45 and where conceptual metaphors engender other metaphors. These broad and variegated conceptual metaphors create social realities that direct human life.46 Some are structural in nature (e.g. “time is money” = time is something we can “waste,” “invest,” “spend,” and “save”), some are orientational (e.g. “boosted/sank my spirits” = “happy is up/sad is down”), while others are ontological (e.g. “control/death with emotions” or “inﬂation makes me sick” = emotions and ideas cast as substances or entities),47 but they each undergird human experiences even though sign-users do not always articulate them with precision.48 Several studies have applied this theory to metaphor in the HB, such as Brettler’s 1989 analysis of the conceptual metaphor “God is king,” which investigates what calling God a king meant in ancient Israel.49 While this theory perspicaciously recognizes that metaphors reside at the cognitive level, scholars have rightly criticized both the arbitrary nature of identifying such subconscious activity50 and the manifold possible arrangements of the linguistic evidence.51 Consequently, this present language-based study emphasizes context over and against conceptual metaphors as the primary constraining force (or: source domain) of meaning in metaphor.

45 1980, 3.

46 Ibid, 156: a “guide for future action.”

47 Ibid, 25-32.

48 Weiss 2006, 17.

49 Brettler 1989, 17-28, 166. Aaron says that Lakoff's approach (exhibited in his two co-authored monographs, one with Johnson and one with Turner) “is undoubtedly the most frequently cited in the exegetical literature on the Tanakh” (2001, 10).

50 Foreman 2011, 25-26.

51 Haser 2005, 173. She further argues that these conceptual metaphors reflect not reality, but rather “the preconceived grid superimposed by linguists on actual linguistic expressions” (192). 10 1.4.1.5 Kittay’s Perspectival Theory Eva Kittay’s “Perspectival Theory” draws on the influence of both Richards and Black.52 Her work endorses the idea of “perspective” over “interaction” and develops a tighter understanding of how the “tenor” (or as she calls it, the “topic”) and “vehicle” interact.53 Though recognizing the importance of commonplace associations, she reasons that they only fill in gaps for contextless metaphors. Conversely, for “metaphors lodged in rich contexts the linguistic and situational environs will supplement or override background assumptions.”54 In other words, Kittay views context itself as the key to unlocking meaning in metaphor. But, as Foreman cautions, not all metaphors appear in “rich contexts” and thus expose the need for some background knowledge.55 For example, despite the limited opportunities to fish in ancient Israel, fishing metaphors in the HB presuppose at least a general Israelite familiarity with the practice, without which the metaphors would be unintelligible.56 According to Kittay, “labels” (i.e. “uninterpreted lexical items”) together comprise a “lexical field.”57 A “content domain” classifies the components of a lexical field, which then represents an even larger unit, a set of related terms known as a “semantic field.”58 In the event that semantic fields overlap and intersect, Kittay suggests that

52 1987.

53 Kittay 1987, 22. Wassell and Llewelyn (2014, 629) instead refer to target (e.g. sin) and source domains (e.g. dirt, a ravenous animal, weight).

54 Kittay 1987, 32.

55 Foreman 2011, 10 n. 48.

56 Ibid.

57 Kittay 1987, 224.

58 Ibid, 229. These terms can relate in a number of ways: overlap, intersect, be embedded in one another (291). 11 “…we should individuate [semantic fields] to the degree that is relevant to us. We may wish to individuate forests, trees within a forest, branches on a tree, leaves on a branch, or the cells which comprise the leaves of a tree. At what point we individuate these nested entities depends on our purposes. Similarly we can view semantic fields as nested and decide to individuate as we see fit for the purposes in hand, purposes which can generally be discerned from the context.”59

Context is thus key to determining the “composition of the semantic field.”60 In sum, a metaphor consists of the apposition of two dissimilar labels (i.e. from two different semantic fields). The purpose of juxtaposing a “vehicle” that is dissimilar to the “topic” allows for the “disordering of the topic and its reordering along the lines of the vehicle.”61 Accordingly, the metaphor in Hab. 1:14 uses fish as vehicle not because fish resemble the topic (i.e. humans), but precisely because their disparity leads to the topic’s reevaluation from an altogether new perspective.62

1.4.1.6 White’s Primary and Secondary Vocabulary Dissatisﬁed with “simplistic” previous work on metaphor, Roger White constructed a heuristic device that offers a “simple representation of the metaphorical process.”63 At the heart of the analogical comparison in metaphor lies a juxtaposition of two situations: a hypothetical and an actual one. The identiﬁcation of one over another depends on perspective.64 The latent duality within a metaphor led White to distinguish

59 Ibid, 176.

60 Foreman 2011, 11.

61 Ibid, 12. A topic equivalent to meaning results in a tautology, merely replacing a literal term for a metaphorical one (9-10).

62 As Nielsen describes it, “imagery, when functioning according to its intention, offers a new way of seeing reality and thereby creates something new” (1989, 55).

63 White 1996, 80. In adducing “man is a wolf” as a parade example of such simplistic work, White cogently recognizes that most metaphors require more extensive “unpacking” of the “actual language of the metaphor" (1-4, 105).

64 Ibid, 115. 12 the two subjects by what he calls “primary vocabulary” and “secondary vocabulary,”65 of which a metaphor is an amalgam of both. The former consists of “words that would belong in a straightforward, non-metaphorical, description of the situation being metaphorically presented,” while the latter “introduces the metaphorical comparison into the sentence.”66 According to Weiss, his method—which requires the three essential steps of determining the two situations, distinguishing vocabulary, and creating primary and second sentences—“helps the reader gain a deeper understanding of the connection between the two elements in the analogy.”67

1.4.2. Metaphor Research on the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East68 Over the last decade, Andrea Weiss has published at least two formal treatments of metaphor in the HB. Her 2006 monograph analyzed metaphors in prosaic literature, particularly within the books of Samuel, by drawing on the methods of Kittay, White, and others, such as Asif Agha, in order to put theory to practice. An essay that applied White’s approach to poetic literature (esp. Psalms) appeared three years later.69 The following expands briefly on this latter in order provide an exemplar of one way biblical scholars have implemented current metaphor theory into their own work on the HB. In the common designation of God as shepherd and Israel as flock of sheep (cf. Ps. 80:2), Weiss discerns the actual situation (i.e. primary vocabulary) as an instantiation of Israelite peril and subsequent crying out to God for rescue (cf. Ps. 80:4, 8, 20). The hypothetical situation (i.e. secondary language), however, points to “a shepherd who tends his flock” that “is called on to listen.”70 She then proceeds to break these two situations down by

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid, 17.

67 Weiss 2009, 481, 486.

68 For a recent overview of the state of metaphor research on the HB, see Van Hecke 2005.

69 Weiss 2009, 475-86.

70 Weiss 2009, 477. 13 dividing the vocabulary specific to each in order to ultimately “create two straightforward, non-metaphorical sentences” (i.e. primary = “God of Israel, give ear, who drives the sheep”; secondary = “Shepherd of the flocks, give ear, who drives the sheep”).71 Articulation of the hypothetical situation over and against the actual one and clarification of the ensuing level of overlap between them are principally important,72 but as she admits, the difficulty capturing its “nuances and complexity” in nonfigurative language presents a weakness of White’s method.”73 Numerous other studies integrating metaphor theory in their textual interpretation of the HB have appeared recently, ranging from monographs devoted to implementing productive theoretical models to nuanced topical studies. In his rejection of a binary approach and advocacy of a “continuum of meaning, David Aaron’s study is an example of the former, as his primary objective is to develop a model for what he refers to as “gradient judgments.”74 Macky likewise focuses on constructing a productive theoretical model for biblical studies, emphasizing especially the psychological and cognitive factors which influenced biblical metaphors.75 In her essay on Ezekiel’s use of metaphors in the war oracle against Tyre, Newsom persuasively demonstrates that metaphors provide much more than embellished language or a literary effect; they, in fact, have “real cognitive content” that uniquely constructs meaning in and of itself.76 Perdue similarly draws attention to a fundamental reciprocity in the use of metaphor: just as metaphors, as “semantic building blocks,” construct new realities, they themselves “are constructed by the very worlds they build.”77 The dynamics of this

71 For the full description, see ibid, 478.

72 Cf. Weiss 2006, 85-120.

73 Weiss 2009, 486.

74 2001, 4, 21, 69-84.

75 Macky 1990, 8-25.

76 1995, 192.

77 Perdue 1986, 297. 14 interchange emphasize both the metaphor’s dependence on context to produce meaning and “innate power to transform vision and its sustaining values.”78 Two recent dissertation revisions offer much closer analogues to the nature and scope of this present study.79 Benjamin Foreman addresses an often overlooked locus of metaphor in the HB: the people of Israel. To that end, he zeroes in on the use of faunal images connoting Israel in the book of Jeremiah.80 Due to its strong literary emphasis, Foreman’s specialized study draws especially from Kittay’s “Perspectival Theory.” Brent Strawn’s monograph on leonine imagery offers a more inter-disciplinary approach that examines the extensive textual and iconographic remnants of the lion throughout the aNE from 1500-332 BCE.81 Its integration of such diverse evidence in order to reconstruct context and probe potential lines of convergence echoes one of the chief aims of the present study, as outlined below.

1.4.3 Analysis of Method 1.4.3.1 Identification of Image The first and most basic step to interpreting a metaphor is to identify the image in view. The very nature of a study focusing on one content domain (i.e. fishing) distinguishes most examples. Within clear fishing domains, some metaphors are readily apparent, such as the description of Babylonian fishers catching Israelite fish in Hab. 1:14-17. Others, such as the mixed bovine and ichthyological imagery of Amos 4:1-3, present complex layers. Still others are couched within larger tropes, such as allegory (Ezekiel 17) and dirge (Ezekiel 19). For these more difficult examples, Kittay’s use of componential semantics to identify incongruity and context (rather than word, sentence,

78 Ibid, 297-9. Cf. Ferré 1968, 331.

79 Though it interacts neither with the HB nor ﬁsh, Watanabe’s contextual approach to studying faunal symbolism in Mesopotamian literature largely adopts Black’s Interaction Theory (Watanabe 2002).

80 Foreman 2011.

81 Strawn 2005. Though the nature of the evidence (i.e. largely ceremonial) distinguishes it from the present study, Way’s exhaustive investigation of donkey symbolism in the HB and aNE provides a masterful integration of text and artifact (Way 2011). 15 or discourse) provides a helpful aid.82 According to componential semantics,83 all words have limitations (e.g. semantic, syntactic, conceptual). The incongruous element between the limitations (i.e. “focus”) plus the shared remainder (i.e. “frame”) together comprise a metaphor.84 Therefore, the fact that a wolf is a canine and a man is a member of the species homo sapiens constrains the metaphor “man is a wolf,” just as it leaves traces of shared features that such incongruity and context expose (e.g. both entities are fearsome, cunning).85 Though humans and fish manifest unique self-evident foci (e.g. taxonomic, size, and habitat distinctions), the resulting material (frame, which includes context) shows that they also share features, like animation and dependence (e.g. fish upon a fisher; humans upon the divine pantheon). In the process of catching a fish, the victim is violently removed from its abode and transported to a new context, where it most likely will die. As a fish is helpless to defend itself against the net of a fisher, so humans cannot circumvent the ineluctable force of the supernal realm. But this frame may go unnoticed without attention to context. Therefore each analysis begins by delimiting the metaphor under investigation and delineating which components apply to the “topic” (i.e. “man”/“God”) and which apply to the “vehicle” (i.e. “fish”/“fisher”).

1.4.3.2 Establishment of Text The identiﬁcation of the metaphor requires an establishment of the text, including an analysis of any textual issues. For biblical exegesis, this study takes the MT as the base text with regular attention to variants from the versions (viz. DSS, LXX, S, V, Tg) in order to present the fuller interpretive dynamics of the issue under investigation. While textual-critical analysis is thus necessary, the largely synchronic nature of imagery

82 For locating incongruity, see Kittay 1987, 64-76. For componential semantics, see pp. 254-56.

83 For a technical introduction to this technique, see Mac Cormac 1985, 79-126.

84 Kittay 1987, 64-5; Foreman 2011, 13.

85 See Kittay 1987, 55-64. 16 diminishes the effect of redactional factors.86 The project will interact with diachronic interpretations of the biblical text when necessary, but the primary concern is the ﬁnal form of the text. In fact, one of the potential beneﬁts of a study of imagery is the exposure of rhetorical features which may vitiate previous redactional explanations.87 A complete translation, textual analysis, and metaphor investigation will introduce each biblical text discussed in the following pages.

1.4.3.3 Contextualization and Comparison The multifaceted contextual approach to this study of fishing imagery is another point of departure from other treatments. After identifying the image and establishing the text, this study situates each exemplar within its various contexts: the immediate literary, the broader literary (i.e. prophetic, wisdom, or even canonical corpora), and the pertinent peripheral contexts (economic, historical [including archaeological and iconographical], political, socio-cultural). As expressed above, this study draws on Kittay’s “Perspectival Theory” and its regard for context as a principal determinant for meaning, affirming Nielsen’s reminder that “no text comes into being or can be read as an isolated unit. [A text] is always part of a network of texts.”88 And with Strawn, this study asserts that “only by understanding the user’s sign-context, at least at some minimal level, can the receiver make sense of and appreciate the content or tenor of the metaphor in a way analogous to the user.”89 But the modern attempt to understand and appreciate an ancient figure of speech and context is no simple task, nor is there a monolithic technique. It requires recourse to diverse voices, including ancient texts, archaeological records, and current metaphor theory. Though all images are representations, not all representations are

86 Foreman 2011, 30. Along these lines, Schökel argues that “synchronic comparison [of images]…is less dated than other aspects [of synchronic study]; it can be separated more easily from the original context. The kingdom of the imagination is less ‘historical,’ symbols are open and expansive” (1988, 140).

87 This idea is adapted from Berlin 1983, 112.

88 2000, 18. Cf. Kristeva 1969, 140.

89 Strawn 2005, 15. 17 readily apparent. The rationale for the adoption of a particular metaphor is not always clear. Some deviate from their usage elsewhere (e.g. Ezek. 47:10).90 Thus each image requires contextualization in order to discern its relationship to other comparable examples.

1.4.3.4 Evaluation Ted Cohen compares the use of a metaphor to an invitation into an intimate community bonded by shared feelings about something.91 But temporal, spatial, and socio-cultural barriers naturally impede such community building. The capacity to engage and articulate the meaning of such an “other” image requires its identification, examination, and contextualization. At a rudimentary level, the fruits of this research published here identify four distinct types of fishing imagery in the HB: divinely appointed retribution (Jer. 16:16-18; Amos 4:1-3; Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 29:1-6a; 32:1-10; cf. Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9), “big-game” fishing (Job 40:25-32; cf. Ezek. 29:1-6a; 32:1-10), tragedy (Qoh. 9:11-12), and polarity (Is. 19:5-10; Ezek. 26:1-14; 47:1-12). This project breaks down these types into thematic treatments based upon their nuanced imagery. The concept of divine fishers in ch. 2 lays the foundation for nearly all future chapters. The corollary to the concept of the divine fisher, namely divine retribution, appropriately follows in ch. 3. The supernatural dimension continues in ch. 4 with specific attention to the fishing of monstrous sea creatures. The concept of a fishing image comes to its logical end in ch. 5 with the discussion of the net as a death tool. And ch. 6 studies the literary role fishing plays in depictions of the best and worst of times. What does a given fishing image communicate in its immediate context? What does it imply about Israelite culture, politics, and theology? How does it relate to other biblical evidence, fishing and otherwise? How does it compare with examples outside the HB and what does that then imply about cultural interchange? The three steps of identification, examination, and contextualization allow for and culminate in these

90 For the signiﬁcance of analyzing a metaphor in a variety of contexts, see Tigay 1996, 304.

91 1997, 233. 18 synthesizing types of questions.

1.5 The World of the Fisher Though the primary aim of this project concerns fishing imagery, the fundamental grounding of all metaphors in realia demands analysis of the socio-economic role fishing played in the aNE. The discussion in this section addresses this need by surveying the archaeological evidence for fish and fishing in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant. Assessing each culture independently affords the opportunity to evaluate more effectively both shared and unique features. To that end, the reader must note that the importance of fishing in each culture does not necessarily correlate with the relative number of fish bones or fishing paraphernalia exhumed. There are several reasons for this disconnect. First, outside of parts of Egypt, the compositional properties of the fishing net simply prevent its preservation in the soil. Though few vestiges of nets remain from the aNE, ancillary archaeological clues (e.g. seine sinkers), as well as iconographic and textual material, corroborate its presence and use. Second, due to a concern with the bone analysis of large fauna during the previous two centuries, many archaeological excavations lacked the requisite time and effort expenditures to employ apposite techniques for examining fish bones (e.g. wet-sieving with fine mesh).92 According to Potts, “neither freshwater nor saltwater fish in Near Eastern antiquity have received the attention they deserve.”93 Aside from these issues, the archaeological data present a fascinating glimpse into the piscatorial realm of the ancient world. Finally, there remains a need to define what comprises fishing within an ancient Near Eastern context. Though moderns formally delineate between the pursuit of large aquatic animals and fish (e.g. “whaling” whales and “hunting” crocodiles vs. “fishing” fish), the ancient audience preserves a degree of ambiguity between these distinctions. For example, the book of Job describes the pursuit of the aquatic creature, Leviathan,

92 Potts 2012, 221; Firmage 1992, 1146-47.

93 2012, 220. 19 with fishing terms and imagery, despite the fact that this animal is something quite different from a fish. This study thus maintains a broad definition where a “fisher” is one who uses fishing implements to catch both fish and any other marine fauna within a body of water.

1.5.1 Egypt94 Despite Egypt’s arid climate, the most significant resource for reconstructing the role of fishing in ancient Egypt is wall reliefs, not artifacts. Yet even so, the main focus of these wall reliefs is typically funerary in nature; rarely do they function merely “to record the use of fish in daily life.”95 Material remains of fish paraphernalia begin to diminish in the OK, at which time chapel scenes burgeon.96 Visual depictions of fishing scenes frequently appear within private tomb chapels.97 Though early illustrations (esp. those from the OK) display fishers as penurious elderly men, the full range of evidence suggests the activity appealed to a broad demographic range (from nobility to peasantry) and served a number of different purposes (pragmatic [i.e. consumption]; religious; sport).98 The sum of available evidence suggests that by the 5th dynasty (ca. 2400 BCE), Egyptians had already developed a number of different fishing media: the spear, hook (-and line), trap, and net.99 And by the 12th dynasty (ca. 1950 BCE), the rod appears for the first time in the aNE.100 Although a well-defined relative chronology for the development of each instrument remains elusive, the early and common attestations of these different instruments in Egypt enable scholars to extrapolate comparable

94 In addition to nn. 7-8 above (p. 4), see earlier works by Radcliffe 1921; Bates 1917, 199-271.

95 Brewer and Friedman 1989, 2.

96 Radcliffe 1921, 307.

97 Handoussa 1988, 105.

98 Brewer and Friedman 1989, 30.

99 Ibid, 21.

100 Ibid. 20 developments in other locales throughout the aNE. For this reason, the following analysis surveys the evidence for each particular ﬁshing tool used in ancient Egypt. !

Figure 1. Earliest depiction of rod ﬁshing (Khnumhotep’s 12th dynasty tomb; Beni Hasan; Newberry and Fraser 1893, 1:pl. 29). Public Domain.

One of the most commonly portrayed fishing instruments in Egyptian art from the fifth through eighteenth dynasties (ca. 2494-1295 BCE) is the spear.101 By the mid-third millennium BCE, several different variations of the fishing spear had already emerged in Egypt. In fact, Egyptians used three different types of this instrument, each of which shows up all over the country: one with a single head (or with a point hafted to the end of the shaft), another with a socketed head (i.e. harpoon), and a dual-headed third variety (i.e. bident).102 The single-headed fishing spear was compositionally monolithic, while the head of the harpoon could detach from its shaft. When harpooning large water game (e.g. hippopotamus, crocodile), one had time to pursue an animal that had been struck because the shaft remained attached to the harpoon’s barbed end after it had protruded the flesh of the target via a retrieving line.103 A common iconographic motif includes each end of a bident spearing two species of fish known from vastly different locales in Egypt (i.e. the tilapia, which preferred the marshy Delta water, and the Nile perch, which

101 Radcliffe 1921, 309.

102 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 21.

103 Ibid, 22-23. 21 preferred the deep, oxygen-rich water of Upper Egypt) as a form of dramatic and propagandistic, yet unrealistic depiction of political unity.104 Similar to the fishing spear, fishhooks emerged all over Egypt beginning in the predynastic period (4th millennium BCE).105 The copper version showed up around that same time but did not proliferate until the ED period (3100-2686 BCE).106 Though its design was initially simple (up through the OK) and relatively small (ranging from 2-6 cm),107 fish hooks developed barbs and more acute curvature over time. The popularity of these barbed, curved versions increased during the 12th dynasty (1963-1787 BCE).108 And by the 18th dynasty (1550-1295 BCE) bronze barbed hooks predominate, changing little from then on through the Roman period.109 Sometimes depicted with a rod (see Figure 3 below),110 reliefs of fishing with hooks show it taking place in a variety of different contexts, whether on the Nile, its canals, or vivaria (i.e. artificial ponds stocked with fish).111

! !

104 Ibid, 24.

105 Ibid, 26. Bone, Flint, and shell ﬁsh hooks go all the way back to the Neolithic period (Hoffman 1991, 75-77, 83, 100-2, 176-77, 186-188).

106 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 26.

107 Radcliffe 1921, 313. He continues: “the head, which in all cases lay in the plane of the hook, was formed by doubling over the end of the shank against the outside of the latter, so as to form a stop or an eye, which might, or might not, have been an open one” (313).

108 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 28.

109 Radcliffe 1921, 313-14.

110 Nobility eventually appropriate the use of the rod during the NK (Friedman and Brewer 1989, 30).

111 Ibid. 22 Figure 2. Relief from an Egyptian tomb (Zau) depicting the deceased’s use of a barbed ﬁshing spear to catch two ﬁsh (Davies 1902, 2:pl. 5). Public Domain. !

Figure 3. Two fish transfixed by means of a bident (Griffith 1900, 4:pl. 13 n. 4). Public Domain.

23 While spears and hooks were designed primarily for capturing singular, large fauna, the development of fishing traps and nets made possible a catch of many smaller fish at once. With regard to traps, Egyptians employed two basic varieties, particularly during the OK112: a barricade, which forced fish into an area more conducive to spear or net them, and a rope-bound weir, which enveloped and detained the fish before transferring them to a container or boat.113 No visual examples have survived of the former, and very few appear of the latter, although one of the few dates back to the 5th dynasty (2494-2345 BCE).114

Figure 4. A wall relief from the tomb of Ti (Dynasty 5) featuring seine ﬁshing (Steindorff 1913, pls. 111-12). Public Domain.

As a much more common alternative to the ﬁsh trap, the net was used by Egyptians from all social strata. Its frequent use in the humid Lower Egypt, however,

112 Radcliffe 1921, 318.

113 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 31. Although only three examples have appeared, spanning the OK up through the 11th dynasty (2023-1963 BCE), Egyptians also apparently used basket traps to ﬁsh. According to CoT 158, Isis’ request of Sobek to retrieve Horus’ severed hands by using a ḥ3d “basket trap” functions as an etiology for this technique (ibid, 37-8).

114 Ibid, 33. 24 explains its negligible material remains.115 Despite this phenomenon, an entire net has survived from Pre-dynastic el-Omari and 2nd millennium BCE traces of net have emerged from excavation at Gebelein.116 It is the iconographic evidence, ﬁrst appearing in a 4th dynasty (2613-2494 BCE) tomb scene at Meidum, that comprises the bulk of our knowledge about ancient Egyptian net ﬁshing.117

Figure 5. Three ﬁshers haul in a catch; wall relief from the tomb of Ra-hotep (Schäfer and Andrae 1925, 249, I). Located at the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. Public Domain.

115 Radcliffe 1921, 317. Material remains ﬁrst appear in the Neolithic period (Friedman and Brewer 1989, 38).

116 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 38; Nun 1997, 316.

117 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 38. 25 In fact, the visual representations depict Egyptians using an assortment of different versions of the net. Typically composed of flax or some other fibrous material, nets varied in size depending on the size of their intended target. For example, one frequently used a personal hand net when pursuing a few small to medium-sized fish near the surface of the water.118 Equally common was the seine (or: dragnet), which, although requiring collaboration from an entire crew to bring in a large catch— typically between 15-20 fishers, according to Jawad119— offered an even more efficient technique. The seine was an extensive strip of netting (up to 250-300 m) with parallel support lines at the top and bottom that had rounded ends attached to a harness that hauled in the catch.120 Floats lined the upper side of the net and sinker weights121 lined the bottom in order to ensure maximal spread. Once it was fully open and parallel to the shore, fishers in two boats, one at each end, dragged to land the fish caught in its mesh.122 The medium sized cast net (6-8 m in diameter), which was thrown either from a boat or the shore, also used stone or lead weights.123 Although complete cast nets from the second millennium BCE have emerged from Deir el-Baḥari, the lack of any clear iconographic representations have led archeologists to suggest they simply were not common in ancient Egypt (for

118 Ibid.

119 Jawad 2006, 6 table 2. Old Kingdom evidence depicts a crew of up to twenty-eight men (Hoffmeier 2003, 335). Seine yields were often so great that ﬁshers wore shoulder harnesses to bring in the ﬁsh, as seen on the mastabas of Princess Idut of the 5th dynasty and Mereruka of the 6th dynasty (2345-2181 BCE; Wilson and Allen 1938, pls. 43, 55).

120 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 42.

121 There is evidence of weights made of both stone and lead (for the former, see Bates 1917, 259; for the latter, see Petrie 1890, 34).

122 Nun 1997, 316. A model in Meketre’s 11th dynasty tomb includes two boats drawing in a seine between them (Winlock 1942, pl. 29).

123 Nun 1997, 316. 26 implications, see ch. 7 below).124 Wall reliefs, in fact, depict scenes of net construction and mending.125

Figure 6. Catching a ﬁsh in a seine, transporting it, splitting it, and mending a net (Tylor and Grifﬁth 1894, pl. 4). Public Domain.

Ichthyological studies have discovered 12 different families of Nile fish, yielding well over 50 species.126 Given the centrality of the Nile within Egypt and the rich source of protein fish afford, these numbers ensured that fishing played a salient economic and dietetic role, even if the professionals held a relatively low social position.127 For example, while fishing scenes figure prominently within tombs, no such burials belong to

124 For the material evidence, see ibid, 316, without citation. For the evaluation of the cast net cited above, see Friedman and Brewer 1989, 41. Bates’ suggestion for this complete lack of evidence as a result of the artistic difficulty to portray the “the torsion of the body of the fisherman casting his net and indeed the whole character of the action, which could only be expressed satisfactorily by a delineation of foreshortened limbs, of straining muscles, and of flying ropes,” as well as it being “foreign to the ideals” and “beyond the powers…of the Egyptian artist” is speculative and overlooks both the abundance of and Egyptian aptitude for composing fishing scenes (1917, 257).

125 Net needles were typically flat pieces of bone, pointed on one end and pierced in the middle (for examples, see Yadin et al. 1961, pl. 343 nn. 24-5). Nets were typically made of flax and other fibers (Radcliffe 1921, 318), with mesh typically between 1/2 to 3/4 inch, but as fine as 1/8 inch (Petrie 1890, 28).

126 Ikram 1995, 36

127 Bates 1917, 266. Fishers did command a level of respect, however, because their profession depended on divine provision. “When a father (i.e. fisher) casts his net upon the water, his fate is in the hands of God. In truth there is no calling which is not better than it” (Maspero 1872, 65-6). 27 fishers.128 Moreover, the vagaries of fishing in a hippopotamus and crocodile infested Nile presented numerous, nerve-racking dangers, on top of exorbitant taxes on each catch.129 Due to the abundance of Nile fish—a reality etched in Israelite memory as preserved in Num. 11:5— it represented a staple component of the Egyptian diet, particularly, but not exclusively, among the lower class.130 Although enormous numbers of fish appear in sacrificial documents dedicated by kings to various members of the pantheon,131 royal and cultic personnel categorically withheld from eating fish.132 Despite such abstention, the former profited from a number of state-run fisheries.133 Fresh fish intended for immediate consumption were flayed and dressed on the boat and shipped to the market, while the rest were taken back to shore, where various options, including salting and pickling, allowed for their preservation, before they were exported or simply eaten later.134 Ancient Israel benefited substantially from this particular Egyptian export (see pp. 45-9 below).135 Within the funerary cult, fish symbolized the transformation from death to new life.136 For example, stock scenes from the NK of fishers catching tilapia limn an explicit

128 Ikram 1995, 112.

129 Note the warning of Dua-Khety: “I’ll speak of the ﬁsherman also, His is the worst of all jobs; He labors on the river, mingling with crocodiles” (AEL 1:189).

130 Wildberger 1991, 247.

131 According to the Great Harris Papyrus, Rameses III offered 15,500 dressed and 15,500 cut up fish, 2,200 white fish, and 441,000 other fish over the course of his 32-year reign—not to the priests, but for the populace as part of a 27-day coronation festival (Breasted 1906, §237, §243).

132 Radcliffe 1921, 321.

133 Bates 1917, 208-9. It does not appear that sacred lakes, which as adjuncts to the temple functioned as a venue to dramatically reenact creation scenes (e.g. the creator deity’s emergence from the Nun), had any role in the ﬁshing industry.

134 Radcliffe 1921, 335.

135 For the transportation of ﬁsh from Nile to Palestine, see Reese, Mienis, and Woodward 1988, 79-84.

136 Drawings on the interior of NK faience bowls depicting tilapia with a lotus bud protruding from its mouth demonstrate this symbolism (Gamer-Wallert 1970, 53-4, 124-26). 28 theological message of rebirth.137 Apotropaic pendants affirm their purifying and protective power.138 The tilapia and Nile catfish are two of the defenders of the solar deity on his daily trip through the cosmos and together serve as a guarantor of resurrection for the dead, protecting them from noxious obstacles in the netherworld.139 Only by procuring right standing before Osiris, the god of the underworld, would the dead, who took on the form of a fish post-mortem, be able to ward off fishers and their dangerous nets.140 A veritable relationship between fish and cult in ancient Egypt extends this animal’s positive connotations even further. During the Late Period (664-332 BCE), the Nile perch (Lates) exhibited its own cult in the aptly named Latopolis (Esna), of which its patron deity, the hunting goddess Neith, transformed into this creature in order to penetrate the primeval waters (Nun).141 Thousands of mummified Lates show up as cultic offerings during this time, particularly at Latopolis where the Nile perch was sacred.142 One such inscription on a mummified Lates found within a bronze tomb reads: “May Neith give life.”143 Yet very rarely do fish appear among the offerings to the deceased,144 due to theological scruples rooted in the tenet that Osiris found such offerings unacceptable, for it was fish that consumed his penis in death.145 Consequently, the high

137 Friedman and Brewer 1989, 30.

138 Handoussa 1988, 108; cf. CoT 4, 35m-n; Petrie 1972, pl. 43 n. 255c.

139 Ibid, 109; Botterweck 1977, 133. The former species was eventually viewed as a form of Horus, slaying the solar deity's foes (Gamer-Wallert 1970, 111; Handoussa 1988, 109).

140 For example, the embalmer deity, Anubis, is seen approaching the deceased, who has transformed into a (mummiﬁed) ﬁsh: “Anubis, the imy-wt, says: I come and am your guardian of Eternity, oh 3bḏw-Fish of true lapis-lazuli” (Gamer-Wallert 1970, 131-2).

141 Ibid, 88-90. The Nile Pike (Oxyrhynchus) later, in the Greco-Roman period, inherited its own temple (Botterweck 1977, l33).

142 Gamer-Wallert 1970, 88-90, 86-119; Sahrhage 1998, 144.

143 Sahrhage 1998, 144.

144 For the phenomenon of ﬁsh mummies in the Late Period, see Brier and Bennett 1979, 128-33.

145 Radcliffe 1921, 325. Ironically, Osiris also bore the symbol of a fish (Hery and Enel 1993, fig. 212). 29 frequency of fishing scenes in Egyptian burials does not reflect an ethereal, afterlife expectation, but rather a reminiscence of life. The phenomenon of fish as funerary offerings thus remains a point of scholarly contention.146

1.5.2 Mesopotamia147 Though Egyptian evidence contributes a great deal to contemporary understanding of fishing techniques in the ancient Near East, each culture demonstrates its own idiosyncrasies and distinctive modifications based on a number of factors (e.g. social, religious, economic, topographical, agronomical).148 With its two major rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, that drain into the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia exhibited a variety of available fishing venues. Though not all excavations have used proper techniques for preserving fish bones (e.g. wet-sieving with fine mesh), those that have boast of a wealth of remains.149 Numbers are not necessarily a reliable litmus test for fish consumption, as seen by the meager tallies at sites that did not use wet-sieving, such as Nippur,150 Lagaš (Tell al- Hiba),151 and the extensive, multi-period site at Uruk.152 Though spatially farther afield,

146 Scholars largely agree that Egyptians did not offer ﬁsh as an offering to the dead (contra Handoussa [1988, 105, 109], who adduces OK evidence in favor of such activity, even while admitting the scarcity of evidence).

147 In addition to the bibliography cited in nn. 10-14 above (p. 4), see Ebeling 1971, 66-70. For a brief survey of ichthyological images in Sumerian literature, see Heimpel 1968, 457-63.

148 One such idiosyncrasy concerns the so-called “fish-man” (Akk. kulullû), offspring of Enki, and a fish- robed apkallu “sage, expert,” which first appear during the Kassite period before burgeoning in the NA period (for the kulullû, see Green 1994, 246-64; idem 1986, 25-30; Wiggerman 1994, 222-46; for Greek evidence of Mischwesen, see Aston 2011; for the apkallu, see Ataç 2010).

149 Potts 2012, 221-2

150 In the 12th season at Nippur only six bone fragments emerged (Boessneck 1978, 162).

151 A mere 57 fragments emerged from Tell al-Hiba (Lagaš), each of which “could have been obtained in the region” (Mudar 1982, 29).

152 After more than 30 seasons of excavation, only 85 fish bones emerged from the extensive multi-period site of Uruk in southern Iraq (Boessneck, von den Driesch, and Steger 1984, 184). 30 the small excavation (six squares, 2 x 2 m) at the prehistoric site of Al Markh on Bahrain, where wet-sieving was conducted, offers a glimpse into the contribution of fishing in ancient Mesopotamia, yielding over 100,000 fish bones.153 While the lengthy duration between receipts makes it difficult to assess just how much fish passed through the market, pre-sargonic literary records from the reign of Lugalanda (24th century BCE) report huge export numbers: 8,720 dried and 4,830 fresh fish in his second year (as well as 600 turtles!) and 9,600 carp in his fifth year.154 Nevertheless, very few fish bones emerged from the excavation at pre-pottery (PPNA) Göbekli Tepe in southeast Turkey, despite the use of wet-sieving, implying fish constituted a minimal role in the diet there.155 What results is a distorted picture of the “real distribution of species and the intensity of their exploitation.”156 What we know is that Mesopotamians ate lots of fish; about this there is no disagreement. What we do not know is how diverse was the taxonomy and just how much they ate.157 An exception to the former comes from the authoritative study of Englund on the Ur III period, which attests approximately 48 different species of fish.158 In terms of fishing methods, Mesopotamian evidence largely mirrors that from Egypt. An ED (3100-2686 BCE) cylinder seal in Berlin shows the use of a fishing spear in which one man pilots (i.e. rows) the boat while another hunts.159 In fact, a number of cylinder seals from the ED period up through the NA period depict a three-pronged spear

153 Roaf 1976, 149-50; cf. von den Driesch and Manhart 2000, 50-67. This section employs a broad deﬁnition of Mesopotamia in order to present both the breadth and diversity of available data.

154 Lambert 1971, 69.

155 Peters and Schmidt 2004, 208; Hoffner 1974, 124. The only reference to a ﬁsher in Hittite literature (lúŠU.PEŠ) comes from the mythological text, The Sun God and the Cow, which is actually Hurrian in origin (for translation, see Hoffner 2003, 155-56).

156 Potts 2012, 222.

157 Ibid.

158 Englund 1990, 214-15, 220-21.

159 For a photo, see Sahrhage 1999, Abb. 48. 31 as a divine symbol.160 From his own royal inscriptions, Tiglath-Pileser I claims to have slain a nāḫira “snorter” (and elsewhere, anšekur-ra ša a-ab-ba “horse of the sea”) with a pariangu “harpoon”—a rare, and likely foreign, term that appears only in MA—at the command of Ninurta and Nergal.161 It is not surprising that lines have yet to appear, given their composition of perishable material. The same does not hold for the hook. Contrary to Salonen’s negative assessment,162 evidence for ﬁshing with hooks appears throughout Mesopotamian history and all across its landscape.163 These hooks, most of which are barbed, range in size.164 Archaeological evidence suggests a wholesale upgrade to copper composition took place during the 5th-4th millennia in accord with developing metallurgy.165 It also evinces a relatively balanced distribution of such copper or bronze hooks throughout the region from the Bronze Age onward, from the marshy lagoons of coastal sites along the Persian Gulf166 to well-known riverine settlements like Susa, from north (e.g. Tell Asmar167) to south (e.g. Uruk, Tello, Ur, Kish, Jamdat Nasr, and Nippur).168 Such dissemination suggests an advanced ﬁshing economy that maximized its various indigenous marine

160 See Black and Green 1992, 85. Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq preferred the harpoon in the middle of the 20th century CE (Philby 1959, 67).

161 RIMA 1/2 A.0.87.4:44.

162 For more on this, see ch. 3 below.

163 For examples of ﬁshhooks, see Sahrhage and Lundbeck 1992, ﬁg. 21. It remains uncertain whether Mesopotamians used a rod, but wall reliefs from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh provide evidence of a line.

164 Tallon 1987, 2:196, nos. 361-70.

165 Potts 2012, 226.

166 For Tell Abraq, see Potts 2000, 63. For Umm an-Nar in the UAE, see Beech 2004, ﬁgs. 46-52. For Saar on Bahrain, see Moon 2005, ﬁg. 5.3g-m.

167 3.4% of animal bones (wild and domestic) came from ﬁsh at Tell Asmar between the ED III and Gutian periods (Hilzheimer 1941, 47-48).

168 Potts 2012, 226; Tallon 1987, 1:154-56 (see the bibliography, as well, for a a broader distribution of hooks found throughout Mesopotamia); for ED and other examples from Uruk, see Van Ess and Pedde 1992, 5 and Taf. 1.1-6. 32 resources; depending on where one lived, there was recourse to marsh or open sea ﬁshing (Tello, Ur) and northern riverine ﬁshing on the Diyala (e.g. Tell Asmar), as well as an abundance of other major opportunities on the Tigris, Euphrates, and their various tributaries (Jamdat Nasr, Kish, Nippur, Uruk).169

Figure 7. Two men line-ﬁshing from goat-skinned rafts (British Museum, Nineveh Gallery 55; photo from Paterson 1915, 25). Public Domain.170

While it is unsurprising that only trace remnants of net have survived due to the combination of an organic composition within a humid climate, ancillary evidence demonstrates its abundant presence in Mesopotamia.171 For example, the plethora of diminutive ﬁsh bones (from sardines, herring, anchovies) exhumed along the coast of Oman in the 6th millennium BCE establish the very early implementation of ﬁne-meshed

169 Potts 2012, 226.

170 http://digital.library.stonybrook.edu/cdm/ref/collection/amar/id/116733.

171 Over 30 terms for net appear in Mesopotamian records (Salonen 1970, 61-69) 33 nets.172 Net weights have been found in Arabia with transverse grooves that entail the attendant use of a net.173 Closer to home geographically, excavation from the mid-3rd millennium site of Khafajah, near the Diyala River in modern Iraq, has yielded actual fragments of a net, together with dozens of fired clay, doughnut-shaped weights (ca. 7 cm in diameter) and a wooden float together near a temple structure.174 Though the former artifacts remain unpublished, the twisting of the net remains evident from photographs; in fact, one particular weight features residue of the net which tied around it.175 A few similar ceramic disks appeared at the tiny Chalcolithic settlement of Haçinebi, overlooking the upper Euphrates, in southern Turkey.176 Lead sinkers appear in the LB shipwreck off the coast of Uluburun, Turkey,177 while comparable examples made of lead, stone, and fired clay surface near the Black Sea between the 6th century BCE and 4th century CE.178 Further evidence for the net in Mesopotamia comes from the Ur III period, where Sumerians used ox tendons as mesh.179 And the combination of myriad, diminutive fish bones (ca. 16,000) from diverse extraction contexts and a dearth of hooks (only one!) found at Çatal Höyük, near the Çarsamba river, also presuppose a regular use of net (or basket) fishing there.180

172 Due to the small ﬁsh (anchovies, herrings, sardines) recovered in great numbers (the thousands) at Ra’s al-Hamra 5 near Muscat (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003), it is likely that casting nets were in use by the 6th millennium BCE on the coast of Oman (Charpentier 1996, 182).

173 Charpentier, and Méry 2008, 123-25 and ﬁg. 8.1-8; Charpentier, Olivier, and Tosi 1998, ﬁg. 8.

174 Delougaz 1940, 54-6, ﬁg. 54.

175 Ibid, ﬁgs. 53, 55.

176 Keith 1998, 507.

177 See Pulak 1988, 1-37.

178 Højte 2005, 135.

179 Englund 2003, §18.

180 Van Neer, Zohar, and Lernau 2005, 141; Potts 2012, 227. 34 Figure 8. Line-ﬁshing near Nineveh (Layard 1853, 231; drawing from Paterson 1915, 49). Public Domain.

As in Egypt, the quick onset of decay—which took place within only hours181— led to early innovation of preservation techniques in Mesopotamia: sun-drying (split and dried: ku6 al-dar(2)-ra; hung on a rope: ku6-sag-kešda; attached to branches: ku6-sag-kúr), salted (ku6-mun-na), crushed into meal (Sum. al-gaz-za-ku6; Akk. nūn-ḫuppê), pickled, and even smoked (Sum. ku6-su-su; Akk. nūn-urruru), though fresh fish (ku6-a-dé) were in high demand.182 The development of preservation ultimately led to commercialization, enabling landlocked Turkish sites like Kilise Tepe (40 km from the sea) and Sirkeli Höyük (20 km from the sea) to benefit from the open sea fishing on the Mediterranean.183 An Ur III text from Garšana that mentions three individuals tasked with purchasing seafood in Guabba—a journey of two to three weeks—reinforces the presence of

181 Bekker-Nielsen 2005, 88.

182 For these different techniques, see Sahrhage 1999, 149-51.

183 Van Neer, Zohar, and Lernau 2005, 149. 35 advanced preservation.184 Though detailed evidence of cooking methods is lacking, Kleinerman and Owen’s recent identification of an Akk. verb “to cook fish” (only the logogram, šeǵ6) provides a glimpse into a sector of the ancient world with which we still have much to learn.185 With access to an array of fecund maritime resources and a close affiliation between fishing and cult, the fisher in Mesopotamia maintained an essential socio- economic position.186 This close relationship between fishing and temple, however, was not always the case, for it evolved from an irregular, individual pursuit into a fully developed and highly structured system.187 An anomalous example of a temple (Nanna- Ningal) from OB Ur leasing away fishing rights to independent fishers, who were then able to retain any surplus fish, stands out from the rest of the evidence that overwhelmingly indicates a high level of state organization.188 Records from Uruk in the Ur III period already attest the development of a hierarchy within the industry, as seen by various references to foreman roles (e.g. gal-šukud “chief fisher”; sanga šukud “fisher foreman”).189 And by the NB period, fishing was restricted almost exclusively to state- sanctioned syndicates, each of which reported to a supervisor (Sum. ugula; Akk. aklul; or

184 Heimpel 2009, 316-17. Similar references exist for shipments from Girsu to other temples throughout Mesopotamia (Bauer 1998, 550).

185 Kleinerman and Owen 2009, 104.

186 For evidence see Deimel 1931, 98-100; Schneider 1920, 55-6.

187 Potts 2012, 229. This is not to suggest the relationship between ﬁsh and cult was a late development, however, for evidence of ﬁsh offerings in extraordinary amounts shows up already at a temple in Eridu from the Ubaid period (6000-4000 BCE, for which see Lloyd and Safar 1947, 94; idem 1948, 119), as well as at Uruk and Lagaš during the Jemdet Nasr period (for which see Ebeling 1971, 67).

188 Butz 1978/1979, 35.

189 Englund 1998, 141-42. He suggests gal-suḫur designates a foreman of some sort, while sanga suḫur identifies an “administrator or bookkeeper of the fisheries.” For the equivalence of the two basic Sumerian readings for “fisher,” ŠU-ḪA and its derivative šukux/šukud, see idem 1990, 230-36. I here transcribe the latter term šukud in accordance with the PSD (cf. Akk. šukuddākku). 36 Sum. nubanda; Akk. laputtû).190

Figure 9. Line-ﬁshing from a goat-skinned raft (Layard 1853, 232; drawing from Paterson 1915, 232). Public Domain.

Due to the diverse water sources, Mesopotamian ﬁshers worked within distinct regions under the auspices of a temple or ruler.191 For example, the temple of the goddess Bau at Girsu (mod. Tello), in the region of Lagaš, governed a number of ﬁsheries in the

190 For a sampling of the different fishing positions, see Sahrhage 1999, 57-71; Deimel 1931, 67-8; Oppenheim 1948, 29, 121 (Ur III). For evidence of the authority of the crown over the fishing industry during the NB period, see YOS 6, nos. 122 and 148. For the institution of fishing police during the Roman period, see Hanson 1997, 104.

191 Potts 2012, 229. For division into ﬁshing districts in the OB period, see VAB 6 no. 60, as well as VS 16, no. 14 rev., NBU, no. 254, and YOS 7, no. 12 in the NB period. 37 ED period.192 There were ﬁshers of the open sea (šu-ku6-a-ab-ba) who worked on the

Persian Gulf as well as freshwater fishers (šu-ku6-a-dùg-ga), who worked inland on rivers and canals.193 More nuanced designations refer to those who governed the marshy lagoons of southern Sumer (šu-ku6-a-šeš “fisher of the bitter waters”) as well as the enigmatic “water holes” (šu-ku6-a-dun-a) and a “fisher of the bitter waters” (šu-ku6-a-

šeš).194 A set of seven fishers, known as the “fishers of the palm grove” (šu-ku6-zú-lum- ma), governed a large territory that included a temple dedicated to Enki. For some, net fishing even became a family business, as seen in the collaborative work of a trio of brothers: Kitušlu, Ur-Nindar and Nesag.195 The evidence thus suggests fishing syndicates eventually represented an exclusive, guild-like community,196 where contracts protected their rights and job security against all other claimants.197 Part of the responsibility of a bureaucrat whose duties included fishing consisted of regular provision of temple offerings, as well as more intermittent festival donations, such as for the Feast of the Malt(-eating) for Ningirsu and the Feast of the Barley(-eating) for Nanše.198 The first millennium BCE Chronicle of the Esagila refers to fishers (šukuddāku) under a certain Puzur-Niraḫ of Akšak “[catching] fish (ibārū) for the meal of the great lord Marduk.”199 The Adapa myth adduces the protagonist’s assiduous work on behalf of the Eridu cult, providing a daily haul of fish for the temple, as a measure of his

192 Bauer 1998, 542-51. For ﬁshing in the cult during the NB period, see Kleber 2004, 133-65.

193 Lambert 1971, 68.

194 Lambert 1971, 69.

195 DP, nos. 278-79, 534.

196 Ebeling 1971, 70.

197 For the OB period, see UP 7, no. 112; for the NB period, see NBU, no. 230). Cf. VAB 6, no. 60 (OB); NBU, no. 254 (NB). Even individuals acquired fishing rights in the NB period—the fishing grounds belonged to them (Ebeling 1971, 70; see UP 2/1, nos. 111-12). According to BE 10 no. 54), fish ponds (TUL.MEŠ) could be leased to private individuals. For such a contract with a private individual, see UP 2/1, no. 208.

198 Potts 2012, 229. For ﬁsh in the Mesopotamian cult, see Van Buren 1948, 101-21.

199 Glassner 2005, 266-67. 38 own righteousness.200 Each temple required a ﬁxed allotment of ﬁsh, and it was incumbent upon the foremen to ensure this number was met.201

! ! Figure 10. Riverine line- ﬁshing near a Ninevite Castle. (S. W. Palace, wall f: slab 2b; Layard 1849b, pl. 39B). Public Domain.202

One of the assigned obligations of the ālik ilki (“the one who performs ilku- service” [i.e. state-mandated service]) could be to ﬁsh for the crown in order to receive some form of reward in return, such as subsistence allowance (ipru) or cultivatable

200 Obv. 1:15’:“He pilots the [b]oat, he does [ippuš] the ﬁshing [ŠU.KU6.UD.DA-ku-tam] for Eridu”; rev. 50’-51’: “For my lord's house, I was catching ﬁsh [abār nūni] in the midst of the sea”). See Izre’el 2001, 9-10, 18-19.

201 Englund 1990, 91-6.

202 http://www.etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/17087.pdf. According to Layard, “This fragment of a bas-relief, although built into the walls of the South-West Edifice, evidently belongs to the North-West Palace” (9). 39 land.203 While designed for the patron deity, fish offerings provided sustenance for cultic personnel during the ensuing sacrificial meal.204 Entire bundles of wholly preserved fish found at Girsu, in what 19th century French archaeologists called a “Maison des fruits,” may have been stored for just such a purpose.205

1.5.3 Levant The evidence for fishing in the Levant echoes the situation in Mesopotamia. For example, Neolithic levels in the SH area at Ras Shamra yielded a meager 15 fish vertebrae without the aid of wet-sieving, which could hardly present an accurate representation of the diet at this Mediterranean harbor city.206 The fishing methods likewise mirror those used in the east. But with no direct religious affiliation, fishing was not a privileged occupation in the Levant. In the 5th century BCE Herodotus places fishers, along with sailors, in the lowest social bracket (2.164).207 Exorbitant taxes (25%) on the total value of all catches at that time led to a diminishing profitability for the fisher.208 Whereas the integral connection between fishing and cult in Mesopotamia enhanced the social status of fishers there, in the Levant, where fish offerings made an exiguous contribution, the picture varied significantly.209 These social and religious elements reveal a fundamental distinction relevant to the scope of this study: Israel’s fishing activity during the Iron Age differed from that of

203 For examples, see Driver and Miles 1956, 115 n. 8.

204 Potts 2012, 230.

205 Englund 1998, 130; Cros 1910, 81-3. For further evidence, see Potts 2012, 233.

206 Blot, and de Contenson 1992, 207.

207 Cf. Hanson 1997, 108-09.

208 Nun 1997, 315.

209 Anomalous evidence for fish offerings in Syria appears at Ras Shamra (see RS 24.250+259), although the divine benefactor of such provisions remains unknown (see Langdon 1989, 193-97, esp. 196). Two fish bones also emerged from a temple structure at Timna, near the Red Sea (Lernau 1988, 241). Deuteronomy 4:16-18 explicitly prohibits the depiction of YHWH in the form of a fish: “a carved image…in the likeness of any fish (dāgāh) that is in the water under the earth.” 40 other contemporary Levantine states along the coast. Philistia and Phoenicia commandeered most of the Levantine coast during Israel’s monarchic era, cutting off a major track of shoreline and most available harbors.210 A few early Hebrew poems in the Torah allude to the prospect of Israelites fishing, such as Zebulun’s coastal residence in Gen. 49:13 and, together with Issachar, the potential for coastal success in Deut. 33:19 (“they shall draw [lit. “suck”] from the abundance of the sea”; cf. Judg. 5:17). The Tosefta likewise mentions that Naphtali (t. Baba Qamma 8) received from Joshua exclusive authority to “set seines and spread cast nets” around the Sea of Galilee. But these references remain isolated support for any well-developed fishing venture in early Israelite history. As this dissertation demonstrates, only one of the nearly dozen fishing references in the HB envisages Israelites actually fishing. Though Israel was clearly familiar with the activity, it lacked a number of dependable and accessible fishing sources.211 But things changed starting in the Hellenistic period. Place names reflecting a burgeoning indigenous fishing industry surface in the Galilee area, from the capital of Gaulanitus, Bethsaida (Heb. “house of fishing”; cf. Mk. 6:45), to the Gk. name for Magdala, Tarichaeae “fish(-processing) factory.”212 The Talmud (b. Pesaḥim 30d) also mentions a certain group of Tiberian fishers known as the ḥārāmê ṭĕberyāh “seine men of Tiberias.” As a result, most of what we know about fishing in Israel during the Iron Age unfortunately comes from outside Israel. Along these same lines, the literary description of fish in the HB presents a general, rather than an intimate, familiarity with marine life. The basic term for fish in

210 Firmage 1992, 1147.

211 The scene shifted in post-exilic Judea, where locals began to take advantage of the only such source: the Sea of Galilee. Recent droughts in Israel have led to signiﬁcant discoveries, from a complete skiff preserved just north of ancient Migdal (Magdala) to a plethora of stone net-weights and boat anchors varying in shape and size, that shed light onto piscatorial activity around the turn of the millennium (Nun 1997, 317). For more on ﬁshing in the New Testament, see Nun 1989; Hanson 1997, 99-111.

212 There was a fish market at Magdala/Tarichae that was noted for its “industrial centers for the processing (e.g., salting; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.45) and exportation of fish and its derivatives, such as garum (“fish sauce”; De Luca 2013, 172). 41 CH, dāg/dāgāh, occurs 34 times (dāg:19; dāgāh 15) times.213 Nearly a third (10x) of these references appear within the phrase “fish of the sea,” which functions as part of a merism with “birds of the heavens” (e.g. Gen. 1:26, 28; 9:2; Ps. 8:9; Hos. 4:3).214 Another four designate the proper geographical name, ša‘ar haddagīm “Fish Gate.” The HB does not delineate between fresh and saltwater fish, using either dāg or dāgāh in all cases outside of references to large marine fauna, if not exclusively figurative designations, such as the tannīn, liwyātān, rahab, and perhaps also the taḥaš “dolphin” (see ch. 4 below for the former two).215 The only distinction made between fish pertains to their correlation with Israelite purity laws in Lev. 11:9-12 and Deut. 14:9-10. The animal was acceptable to eat if it had fins and scales; all those without fins and scales were prohibited.216 Though considered clean, there is no mention of fish as an acceptable offering in the HB.217 Unlike Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Bronze and Iron Age Levantine world has left behind no iconographic representations of fishing. The handful of fish motifs that have emerged from Philistia date primarily to Iron I and reflect customary LB features.

213 The latter term, dāgāh, is used collectively outside of Jonah 2:2.

214 The HB used generic terms to denote a bird, ‘ôp and ṣippôr, yet also added dozens of others to identify speciﬁc avian species.

215 Radcliffe (1921, 416-17) tallied 43 species of fresh water ﬁsh in Israel at the start of the 20th century CE, of which 36 were found in the Jordan and its tributaries. Sixteen of those thirty-six are unique to the Jordan basin, while the others show up elsewhere in the Nile [2], Tigris/Euphrates [7], and Syrian rivers [10].

216 Firmage suggests this delineation reflects an intentional avoidance of snake-like fish (e.g. catfish; Akk. kuppu “goby,” which was preceded by both a snake [MUŠ] and fish [KU6] determinative), a practice attested in Mesopotamia (1992, 1147; Salonen 1970, 185-7). But it could also simply have conformed to an Israelite norm, by which the fish, as an aquatic creature, had fins and scales in order to swim (for which, cf. Douglas 1966, 41-57). For a thorough overview of biblical purity laws with regard to diet, see Houston 2003, 326-36. For an analysis of marine animal elements used by humans in Rabbinic literature, see Neufeld 1973, 309-24.

217 Different kinds of animals were brought to the temple (cf. Lev. 1:2, 14), including those from the “herd” (bāqār), “flock” (ṣō’n), as well as birds (tōr “turtledove”; yônāh “pigeon”), which together reflect the socio-economic reality of an agrarian, pastoral society. That fish do not appear in any such list does not imply a deliberate exclusion; it simply affirms the fact that fishing did not play a major role within the Israelite economy. 42 These drawings correlate with analogues from Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery, which themselves derive from late Minoan III (or Late Helladic) prototypes.218 Among all the designs on ware from Philistia, those of marine fauna, which reflect the heavy Aegean influence there, remain quite rare.219 Examples of Mycenaean IIIC:1 fish designs include a leaping dolphin-like creature on a krater from Stratum XII at Ashdod,220 as well as a krater from Stratum VII221 and a body sherd from Stratum VII or VI at Tel Miqne (Ekron).222 Fish designs are preserved on Philistine Bichrome ware, including a strainer-spout jug found in the “Philistine tomb” (Tomb C1) at Tel ‘Eton,223 kraters from Stratum VIB at Tel Miqne224 and Tel el-Far’ah (S),225 several other examples from Azor and Ashkelon,226 as well as a recent find from Beth-Shemesh that reflects strong Cypriote features.227 While fish motifs proliferate during the end of the LB period, reaching a zenith in the early 12th century

218 Dothan 1982, 204.

219 Ibid, 203-4.

220 Ibid, 203 and fig. 3:9-10; Dothan and Zukerman 2004, fig. 19:4; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005, fig. 3.11:10.

221 Dothan, Gitin, and Zukerman 2006, 86 and ﬁg. 3.23:13.

222 Ibid, ﬁg. 35:7 (x-rayed like the one at Beth-Shemesh).

223 Dothan 1982, 203 ﬁg. 29; Edelstein, and Aurant 1992, 26 ﬁg. 5).

224 There is also an unstratiﬁed example from Ekron (Dothan, Gitin, and Zukerman 2006, 90-91 ﬁgs. 3.28:5; 3.36:3).

225 Dothan 1982, 203 ﬁgs. 12:2, 64:3.

226 Ibid, 203 ﬁgs. 12:1, 64:3.

227 Several unique features of this find distinguish it among the cache of fish designs from Philistia. First, it breaks with tradition by appearing not on the vessel’s exterior, but interior, and shows no sign of complementary motifs (e.g. the common Philistine “spiral”). Second, the fish in view swims to the left, whereas it swims to the right on most other examples. Although rare among Philistine finds, the “x-rayed” depiction of this fish has progenitors from Mycenaean pictorial pottery from the LB period (Bunimovitz and Ledermen 2010, 64-5). 43 BCE,228 these fish designs may serve as “the last echo of the rich imagery of the Late Bronze Age Mycenaean world that finally disappeared at the end of the Iron Age.”229 What replaces this robust decor is “plain, imageless—and generally non-decorated— pottery” that dominates the Israelite landscape following the Philistine settlement in Canaan as well as the production of Myceanaean IIIC:1 and Bichrome.230 Though devoid of early fishing motifs, sparse traces of fishing implements have surfaced from the Levant. Hooks and spears found in the Kebara Cave go all the way back to the late Epipaleolithic or early Neolithic periods (ca. 12,000-7,500 BCE).231 Galili and Rosen discovered a five-pronged, iron-striking head of a fish spear among the wreckage of a 7th century BCE shipwreck off the coast of Dor.232 Hooks show up throughout the greater region, in Syria (Habuba Kabira, Hama),233 southern Turkey (Alalakh),234 and Israel (Hazor, Gaza, Lachish, Megiddo).235 Excavation at the coastal site of Eilat (Ezion-Geber) has produced an array of fishing gear, such as copper and iron fishhooks and fishing spears, as well as yarn used to make nets.236 Further evidence for fishing nets in the Levant has emerged from lead weights found in a fishing boat at that

228 Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, 105.

229 Bunimovitz and Lederman 2010, 68.

230 Ibid, 68; for ideological explanation (e.g. “canonized” during Iron I in order to vary from other decorated pottery and to reﬂect Israel’s “egalitarian ethos”), see Faust 2006, 41-48. Several northern Mycenaean inﬂuenced kraters have surfaced: one at Akko (Buchholz 1993, 41) and another at LH IIIC Byblos (Salles 1980, n. D4B pl. 12, 1, 3 (photos), 13, 2 (drawings).

231 Nun 1964, 15.

232 Galili and Rosen 2008, 70 and ﬁg. 6.

233 For Habuba Kabira, see Strommenger 1980, 51, Abb. 40; for a bronze hook at Hama, see Ingholt 1940, pl. 7, n. 6.

234 See Woolley 1955, 277, pl. 73, H.1-4.

235 For Hazor, see Yadin et al. 1961, pl. 343, n. 24*; for Gaza, see Petrie 1934, pl. 34, nos. 518-521, 525; idem 1952, 15 pl. 16, 194; for Lachish, see Tufnell, Inge, and Harding 1940, pl. 27, nos. 41-3 43; for the single hook found at Megiddo, see Loud 1948, pl. 188, n. 13.

236 Glueck and Albright 1938, 5, 13. For a photo of the fishhooks, see Nun 1964, 71. 44 same shipwreck off the coast of Dor.237 And support for the net comes from needles, made of bone, bronze, iron or wood (and today, plastic), used to weave and mend them, the evidence for which derives from coastal settlements (e.g. Gaza and Jaffa) and, in the 1st century CE, sites along the Sea of Galilee (e.g. Beth-Yeraḥ; Magdala).238 By no means does a dearth of fishing evidence in Iron Age Israel imply a dearth of fish. The HB itself attests an intimate familiarity with seafood, even within an inland conurbation at the top of a mountain. The four references to a certain “Fish Gate” (ša‘ar haddāgīm) on Jerusalem’s north side (cf. Zeph. 1:10; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; 2 Chr. 33:14) affirm a business that bustled from local fishers from Tyre even on a sacred day (Neh. 13:16). In truth, there is evidence for fish preservation in the Levant as far back as the Natufian settlement at Hatoula in the central highlands.239 By the time of the Roman Empire, preservation methods had advanced enough to transport seafood all the way from Lower Egypt to southwest Turkey (Sagalassos).240 It is therefore unsurprising to see LB period fish commerce in nearby locales like Megiddo, Jerusalem, Lachish, Tel Harassim, Tel Jenin, Tel al-Wawayat (including a Nile perch in an Iron I context), and Shiloh, each of which yield fish bones despite their distance from the sea (between 5-50 km).241 Small numbers of fish bones have also been identified at the landlocked sites of Beersheba (1

237 Galili and Rosen 2008, 69 and ﬁg. 5. The same excavation may have uncovered accompanying wood ﬂoats (68). Lead sinkers have also surfaced in a Roman shipwreck off the Carmel coast at Caesarea (Galili, Rosen, and Sharvit 2002, 182-201). A fragment of a linen net, dated to the 2nd century BCE, also emerged at the Cave of Letters (Nun 1993, 55).

238 Nun 1997, 316.

239 Potts 2012, 231. Abundant remains of Triggerﬁsh from Atlit-Yam likewise suggest an advanced array of ﬁsh processing techniques (smoking, salting, sun-drying, etc.) and possibly seafood trade from that submerged Pre-Pottery Neolithic site (Zohar et al. 1994, 231-36).

240 Arndt et al. 2003, 1095-1105. For literary allusion to ﬁsh transported from Egypt to Syria, see the NK tale, the Report of Wenamun, which assumes a setting during the third decade of the reign of Ramses X1 (1090-1080 BCE), see AEL 2:227-28; papyrus Moscow 120, p. 2, ll. 41-2.

241 Potts 2012, 231; Borowski 1998, 174. Among the Iron II yield of fish bones was a truncal vertebra of a large member of the Grouper family (Lernau 1975, 90). Even Assyrians received processed fish from Philistia (duglamaqarte nūni lattu nūni) (Elat 1977, Table 14 [p. 253]). 45 bone),242 Izbet Sartah (1 bone), and Shiloh.243 The presence of fish bones at Iron II Tel Halif in southwestern Judah is especially noteworthy given its particular material context in destruction layers dated to Sennacherib’s 701 BCE invasion.244 Since this international crisis resulted in the formation of an anti-Assyrian league spearheaded by Hezekiah, the fish at Tel Halif imply that commerce continued despite the political chaos.245 But not all fish consumed in Israel originated in the Mediterranean; in fact, many were exports of the Nile, an ironic datum in light of Israel’s frustration in the wilderness about the fish they used to freely (ḥinnām) consume (Num. 11:5).246 To this end, text and artifact converge, for the Report of Wenamun records this same phenomenon: Pharaoh Smendes sends 30 baskets of fish to Wenamun in Syria, along with another 5 baskets from queen Tentamun.247 Coastal sites like Iron I and II Akko and Ashkelon have revealed both salt and freshwater fish, including extensive Nile perch remains.248 The yield from the latter site also includes a bone from the family Bagridae, which derives from the Nile, and a spate of the family Sparidae, stemming from Lake Baradawil in northern Sinai.249 A mélange of marine fauna originating from both the Great Sea and the Nile (e.g. sea breams, drums, sea basses, shark, rays, gray mullets, and Nile perch) appear to have been imported and consumed by residents of LB IIIB Lachish (Level VI).250 A

242 Hellwing 1984, 110.

243 Ibid, 112, table 18; Hellwing and Adjeman 1986, Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

244 Arter 1995.

245 Borowski 1998, 175.

246 See Van Neer, Zohar, and Lernau 2005, 148.

247 See n. 240 above (p. 45) for reference.

248 Borowski 1998, 175. Tel Gerisa and Tel Qasile, both located on the Yarkon River, also have remains of Nile perch.

249 Ibid.

250 Ussishkin 2013, 67. 46 similar diversity of fish remains appears at Beth-Shemesh,251 west of Galilee at Iron I and II Rosh Zait,252 as well as Jerusalem. Excavations at both the Ophel and City of David have uncovered abundant fish remains. Three families of marine fish and four freshwater fish, of which all but the Nile perch thrive in Israel today, have appeared at the former.253 Out of 183 fish bones identified among Iron II loci at the City of David site, nearly two- thirds originated from marine contexts (viz. the Mediterranean; no fish bones have appeared from the Red Sea), while approximately 5/6 of such Iron I items derive from freshwater sources, most likely the Yarkon or Jordan (or their various tributaries).254 The variety of fish found throughout Iron Age Israel and Judah presupposes well-developed regional commercial activity, in general, and amenable trade relations with Egypt, in particular.255 Archaeology thus provides corroboration of the HB’s implicit reference to an inland fish market (i.e. a “Fish Gate” in Jerusalem) during the late Iron Age and into the Persian period. According to Maher, Iron II “represents the greatest period of activity in the Levantine receipt of Nilotic fish specimens.”256 The fish transported from both the Nile and Mediterranean likely shared a common port of entry into Israel, an extrapolation from the fact that sites in Israel with fish from the Nile and Mediterranean outnumber

251 Bunimovitz and Lederman 2010, 67 n. 6.

252 Borowski 1998, 174.

253 Lernau and Lernau 1989, 158. The frequent identification of bones from the Nile catfish, considered non-kosher according to biblical food laws, suggests both that catfish was a popular menu item for residents of Iron II Jerusalem and that kosher diets were not necessarily the norm (Borowski 1998, 174-76). A complementary representation from mollusk remains from Jerusalem’s monarchic period, originating either in the Mediterranean or the Red Sea, only reinforces this issue (177).

254 Lernau and Lernau 1992, table 5; Borowski 1998, 174.

255 Borowski 1998, 175.

256 Mahler 2013, 25. See this source for a faunal list of the different fish imports. For a somewhat conflicting evaluation, see Altmann (2013, 291), who, in focusing on Lachish, suggests that since fish commerce ran through coastal harbors, trade increased when Israel was under Egyptian hegemony, such as the end of the LB period. 47 those indigenous to the Levant.257 Among the five ichthyological species Egypt imported to the Levant (the massive size of Nile perch258; the uniquely lighter dorsal and darker ventral sides of the Synodontis; the lack of scales on a catfish [Bagrus]; the unique shape of the Moon fish [Citharinidae]; the trunk-like snout of the Mormyridae family), each possesses a distinctive, exotic feature, which may indicate their status as a “delicacy” and designate the Levantine seafood trade as a particularly upper-class pursuit.259 Altmann concurs, suggesting that fish consumption was reserved for the social elite.260 The preceding evidence leads to several synthetic observations. First, an overall dearth of fishing paraphernalia within Iron Age Israel—that is, relative to (even older) finds in climatically comparable Mesopotamia—suggests fishing was not a popular activity at that time, though this changes significantly around the Sea of Galilee starting in the Hellenistic period. Unlike the fishing societies of Egypt and Assyria, fisheries have yet to appear in Israel from Bronze or Iron Age contexts. The fishing influence on Israel thus originated elsewhere. Second, the ubiquity of fish bones all over the land, from coastal sites to those far inland, and from a diverse panoply of native and foreign species, presents strong evidence not only for a general familiarity with fish and fishing (at least that conducted by others), but a flourishing commercial seafood industry. Despite an apparent cognizance of various ichthyological species, the fact that biblical writers never divulged anything more than a single generic name for fish preserves a latent distance between their largely pastoral world and the marine world, just as it presents an

257 Ibid. Among the 95 fish bones and teeth excavated at Timna were several species (Sciaenids, Silurids, and possibly Sparids) deriving surprisingly not from the nearby Red Sea, but rather from the far off Nile (Lernau 1988, 245). Lernau suggests this may reflect the palate of the Egyptian workers, who, given their tendency to be paid in fish, preferred seafood from home (for this compensation evidence, see Helck 1964, 816).

258 Lernau suggests the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) was at one point indigenous to Israel based on its geographical distribution (Tel Qasila and Tel Gerisa in Philistia; Jerusalem; Akko; Ashkelon), relative abundance, and the skeletal elements recovered, as well the fact that four of these places had easy access to fresh and seawater ﬁsh (Lernau 1986/1987, 225-36).

259 Mahler 2013, 26.

260 Altmann 2013, 291. 48 idiosyncratic ideal that did not necessarily comport with reality.

1.6 Fishing Terminology in the Hebrew Bible The final groundwork required within this introductory chapter concerns the language itself. What follows is a lexical overview of the different terms related to fishing in the HB. Due to the high degree of overlap between the occupations of the hunter, fowler, and fisher, the source of imagery is not always clear. Fowling, hunting, and fishing share a substantial semantic overlap. For example, E “hunt” can apply to all three domains (e.g. deer, duck, whale), but it is not appropriate to all sub-species: one does not tend to use “hunt” for opossums or prairie-dogs, for one “traps” or “shoots” them, nor does one “hunt” fish. Whether hunting fauna on the ground, in the air, or below the surface of the water, literary descriptions of such activities often deploy similar terms, with regard to both nominal and verbal forms. The Mishnah conflates these different occupations into one term: ṣyydym.261 In fact, the Egyptian verb wḥt likewise means either “to catch fish” or “to net fowl.”262 It is no surprise, then, that poetry often collocates fish and birds, fishing and fowling. For example, the HB juxtaposes fish and birds in order to connote totality by forming a merism that represents creation’s highest high and lowest low.263 The same holds for fishing and fowling, as seen in Qoh. 9:12’s description of the universal fate of all (see ch. 5 below). Due to the shared associations, the source of the image is not always clear. And for this reason, the present study typically engages only the overt fishing images, and ambiguous ones on those few occasions (Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9) that feature intertextual support for this potential source. This survey thus establishes the limits to current knowledge, explaining what is known and what is unknown. This sets the stage for the following five chapters, which explore the contextualized meaning of the fishing imagery used throughout the HB.

261 See m. Šeb 7:4; m. Beṣah 3:1-2; cf. b. ‘Abod. Zar. 19a; b. Šabb. 106b.

262 Bates 1917, 267.

263 Cf. Gen. 1:26, 28; 9:2; 1 K. 4:33; Ps. 8:8; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 4:3; Zeph. 1:2-3. 49 1.6.1 “Fisher” dayyāg While a handful of HB passages presuppose the activity of a fisher (e.g. Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 29:1-6; 32:1-9; Job 40:25), the Hebrew term for this occupation shows up only three times (viz. Jer. 16:16; Is. 19:8; Ezek. 47:10), each in plural form.264 Though marked as a Kethib-Qere in the MT of Jer. 16:16 (K dawwāgīm; Q dayyāgīm), the other two occurrences of this term (i.e. dawwāgīm in Is. 19:8; dayyāgīm in Ezek. 47:10) render the orthographic deviation ultimately irrelevant, for both are valid options for “fisher.”265 While in Is. 19:8 the Egyptian dawwāgīm mourn at the sight of a desiccated Nile, in Ezek. 47:10 dayyāgim celebrate the post-apocalyptic fecundity of a Dead Sea teeming with multifarious species of fish. And in Jer. 16:16, YHWH commissions dayyāgīm to capture people (see ch. 2 below).266

1.6.2 Hook 1.6.2.1 ḥakkāh In each of its three biblical attestations, ḥakkāh exclusively identifies a fisher’s hook (Is. 19:8; Job 40:25).267 Whereas Amos employed the verb wĕniśśā’ (“one will lift up”) with an impersonal agent (presumably Assyria), Habakkuk uses the analogous hē‘ălāh (“he brought/brings up”) to identify the action of the Babylonian monarch, Nebuchadrezzar. In so doing, this reference likens the Babylonians to tyrants who capture foreigners just as fishers prey on fish, removing them from their natural abode (see chapter 3 for further discussion). Isaiah 19:8 poetically parallels dayyāgīm “fishers” with those who “cast a hook into the Nile” (kol-mašlīkê bay’ôr ḥakkāh; see ch. 6 for

264 One further example occurs in LXX Job 40:31 (πλοίος ἁλιέων “boats of a ﬁsher”) in an addition from Th. that illustrates the enormous size of Leviathan.

265 This substantive (dayyāgīm) also shows up in the Thanksgiving Hymns from Qumran (1QHa 13:8).

266 Note the rhetorical transformation of LXX Jer. 16:16 (ἐγὼ ἀποστέλω τοὺς ἁλεεῖς “I myself will send ﬁshers [to capture men]”) in Jesus᾽ calling of the apostles (Gk. ἀπόστολος), Peter and Andrew, in Mt. 4:19 (ποιήσω ὑµας ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων “I will make you ﬁshers of men”).

267 Cf. the denominative MH verb ḥikkāh “to ﬁsh, angle.” 50 discussion). Finally, YHWH rhetorically inquires of Job’s capacity to draw (māšak) the sea monster, Leviathan, out of the water (40:25; see ch. 4 for discussion of this passage). What is more, the versions follow suit, uniformly replicating this Hebrew term: the LXX employs the standard word for “ﬁsh hook” in Classical Greek, ἄγκιστρον, on each occasion, as does V hāmus.

1.6.2.2 ḥôaḥ; ḥaḥ The two substantives ḥôaḥ and ḥaḥ (by-form of ḥôaḥ) together occur 18x in the HB (ḥôaḥ 11x; ḥaḥ 7x). The base meaning of both terms comes from the botanical realm, signifying a thorn. This is how the majority of references use the term (e.g. 2 K. 14:9 bis/ 2 Chr. 25:18 bis; Is. 34:13; Hos. 9:6; Job 31:40; Prov. 26:9; Song 2:2). On all the other occasions it represents a piercing device. For example, ḥaḥ refers to a brooch dedicated to YHWH in Ex. 35:22. The eight remaining attestations signify a disciplinary instrument used to deport captured enemies. Table 1 below compares the forms, literary contexts, and imagery of these references.

Table 1. The use of ḥaḥ/ḥôaḥ in the Hebrew Bible

Reference & Context Parallelism & Imagery 1. 2 K. 19:28/Is. 37:29 (wĕśamtī ḥaḥī bĕ’appekā ūmitgī 1. ḥaḥ :: meteg biśpātêkā “I will place my hook in your nose (and) my bridle in (ambiguous) your lips.” 2. Ezek. 19:4 (bĕšaḥtām nitpāś wayĕbi’ūhū baḥaḥīm ’el-’ereṣ 2. n/a (ambiguous) miṣrāyim “In a net he was seized and they brought him in hooks to the land of Egypt”) 3. n/a (ambiguous) 3. Ezek. 19:9 (wayyittĕnūhū bassūgar baḥaḥīm wayĕbī’ūhū ’el- melek bābel “And they placed him in a neck stock with hooks and brought him to the king of Babylon”

Continued

51 Table 1 Continued

4. Ezek. 29:4 (wĕnātattī ḥaḥīm [corrected from MT ḥaḥiyyīm] 4. n/a (fishing) bilḥāyêkā wĕhidbaqtī dĕgat-yĕ'ōrêkā bĕqaśqĕśōtêkā wĕha‘ălītīkā mittôk yĕōrêkā “I will place hooks in your jaws and cause the fish of your waterways to cling to your scales; and I will raise you up out of the midst of your waterways”) 5. Ezek. 38:4 (wĕnātattī ḥaḥīm bilḥāyêkā “I will place hooks in 5. n/a (ambiguous) your jaws”) 6. Job 40:26 ( 6. “Can you place a rope in his nose or can you pierce its jaw with (fishing) a hook?”) 7. 2 Chr. 33:11 (wayyilkĕdū ’et-mĕnaššeh baḥōḥīm “They 7. n/a (ambiguous) captured Manasseh with hooks”)

Different agents employ a ḥaḥ/ḥôaḥ as a disciplinary instrument. When speciﬁed, it only pierces through the face.268 The nations use a ḥaḥ to lead Jehoahaz (Ezek. 19:4)269 and Zedekiah (Ezek. 19:9),270 there metaphorically represented as young lions, away into exile toward Egypt and Babylon, respectively. The Assyrian king also captures the Judahite king, Manasseh, with a ḥôaḥ (2 Chr. 33:11). Elsewhere YHWH uses it to hook sea monsters (Pharaoh symbolized as Tannin in Ezek. 29:4; Leviathan in Job 40:26) and human leaders alike (Sennacherib in 2 K. 19:28/Is. 37:29; Gog in Ezek. 38:4).271 Reference to deportation in Ezek. 19:4, 9 and 2 Chr. 33:11 presuppose a martial context,

268 For iconographic evidence for this practice see ch. 3 below.

269 Held follows the Tg (šyšln “chains”) here, translating “manacles,” but overlooks the piercing element intrinsic to the term elsewhere (1973, 183).

270 Fohrer (1955, 105) and Zimmerli (1979, 390) suggest ḥāḥ is an interpolation intended to gloss the anomalous loanword sūgar, which precedes the second reference in 19:9 (cf. Akk. šugaru “wooden collar”). The šugaru was a “ladderlike framework that functioned as a restraining device” for captured animals and humans in Mesopotamian martial practice (Gordon 1956, 82). For an iconographic representation of six captives held in such neck-stocks, cf. Basmachi 1954, 116-17, pls. 1-2, ﬁg. 1.

271 The LXX provides little help in identifying the term further, as it uses five different terms in the eight references. The term used in Ezek. 19:4, 9 (κηµός “muzzle”) implies a type of restraining device. 52 while Ezek. 29:4 and Job 40:26 describe the punishment against Pharaoh and Leviathan with fishing images. The context does not illuminate the precise imagery in the other three passages (2 K. 19:28/Is. 37:29; Ezek. 38:4), but it is noteworthy that Ezek. 38:4 replicates Ezek. 29:4 exactly (wĕnātattī ḥaḥīm bilḥāyêkā). The flexibility of Hebrew poetry afforded this literary transformation of a simple thistle into a punitive tool to restrain and exile kings and monstrous mythological creatures (for a literary analogue to this phenomenon, see ch. 3 below).

1.6.2.3 ṣēn (See Chapter 3) 1.6.2.4 sīrāh (See Chapter 3)

1.6.3 Net 1.6.3.1 rešet “Cast Net”272 The substantive rešet, a derivation of the verb yāraš (*wrṯ, Akk. erēšu II) “to take possession,” is the most common biblical term for a “net” (22x).273 It appears most frequently in Psalms for the nations getting caught in the net they hide (Ps. 9:16), the wicked catching the poor in a net (Ps. 10:9), YHWH rescuing the psalmist from the net (Ps. 25:15), and the psalmist asking YHWH both to rescue him from the net his enemy hid without cause to catch him (Ps. 31:5; 35:7; 57:7; 140:6) and that his enemy would get caught in that same net (Ps. 35:8). Two prophets use rešet a total of six times (Ezek. 4x, Hos. 2x) to describe the priests who have been a net spread on Tabor (Hos. 5:1), the nations catching the king of Judah in a net (Ezek. 19:8), YHWH’s use of a net to ﬁsh Pharaoh (symbolized as a sea monster) out of the Nile (Ezek. 32:3)274 or deport the king

272 Cf. Ug. rṯt (KTU 1.4 2:32) and §2.2.2 below (p. 76). On the contrary, Lohﬁnk (1990, 379) concludes that “it is dubious whether rešet…derive[s] from *wrṯ at all,” suggesting instead *rṯy (cf. Akk. rašu). Mommer, however, argues that it is, however, a “primary noun” (2004, 17).

273“The four appearances outside poetry and prophecy all refer to the bronze grate halfway up the altar of burnt offering (Ex. 27:4 bis, 5; 38:5). The term also shows up at Qumran in the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QHa 10:29 with reference to the feet, suggesting hunting or fowling imagery).

274 Mommer spuriously notes that “fish are never caught with this kind of net” (2004, 17). 53 of Judah to Babylon (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20), and compare Ephraim to birds who fly to Egypt or Assyria (Hos. 7:12). The two references in Proverbs speak of the fatuity of pulling a net shut over a bird while it watches (Prov. 1:17) and how the flatterer is actually spreading a net to catch his listener (Prov. 29:5). In the remaining isolated occurrences Bildad refers to to the wicked being caught in a camouflaged net on the ground (Job 18:8) and Zion laments that God captured her in a net (Lam. 1:13). The V translates rešet as rete,275 an instrument used by both fisher and fowler, on all but one occasion (captus “snare” in Ps. 9:16).276 The LXX reads δίκτυον, which is a generic term for “net” in Classical Greek, everywhere other than the Psalter.277 The passages in Psalms use instead either παγίς “trap, snare” (9:16; 24:15; 31:5; 35:7; 57:7;

140:6), θήρα “net, trap” (Ps. 35:8), or the verbal equivalent ἐν τῷ ἕλκύσαι αὐτόν “by dragging him off” (9:30). In all twelve NT references it specifically refers specifically to the net of a fisher (viz. Matt. 4:20-21; Mark 1:18-19; Luke 5:2, 4-6; John 21:6, 8, 11 bis). A precise identification of this term eludes the modern interpreter both because it designated different jobs and a number of different Hebrew verbs activate it (see Table 2 below).

275 Rosén presents compelling evidence in favor of Lat. rete as an old “Kulturwörter” that derives from a Semitic source, such as CH rešet and Ug. rθt (1995, 210-12; cf. de Vaan 2008, 521).

276 Ex. 27:4b and 5, however, omit the term altogether (following the LXX).

277 Cf. BAGD 250. 54 Table 2. The use of rešet in the Hebrew Bible

Using a Reference & Context Parallelism & rešet Imagery pāraś 1. Ezek. 12:13; 17:20 1. mĕṣūdāh (ambig.) spread 2. Ezek. 19:8 2. šaḥat (hunting) out 3. Ezek. 32:3 3. ḥērem (ﬁshing) 4. Hos. 5:1 (hĕyītem…wĕrešet pĕrūśāh ‘al-tābôr 4. paḥ (fowling) “And you have been…a net spread out upon Tabor”)

5. Hos. 7:12 (’ĕprōṡ ‘ălêhem rištī // kĕ‘ôp 5. n/a (fowling) haššāmayim ’ôrīdēm “I will spread out my net upon them; I will bring them down like a bird of the sky”)

6. Ps. 140:6 (waḥăbālīm pārĕśū rešet “And with 6. paḥ :: mōqĕšīm cords they have spread out a net”) (fowling)

7. Prov. 29:5 (rešet pôrēś ‘al-pě’āmāyw “He spreads 7. n/a (hunting or out a net over his feet”) fowling)

8. Lam. 1:13 (pāraś rešet lĕraglayw “He spread out a 8. n/a (hunting or net for my feet”) fowling) ṭāman 9. Ps. 9:16 (bĕrešet-zū ṭāmānū nilkĕdāh raglām 9. šaḥat (hunting or hide “Their foot has been captured in a net that they hid”) fowling)

10. Ps. 31:5 (tôṣī’ēnī mērešet zū ṭāmĕnū lī “You shall 10. n/a (ambiguous) bring me out from a net that they have hidden for me”) ! 11. Ps. 35:7 (kī-ḥinnām ṭāmĕnū-lī šaḥat rištām “For 11. šaḥat no reason they hid their net for me” [transposing (ambiguous) šaḥat and rešet]) **Ps. 35:8 (see #14 below) māšak 12. Ps. 10:9 (yaḥṭōp ‘ānī bĕmaśĕkô bĕrištô “He 12. n/a (hunting) draw in catches the poor when he draws him into his net”) yāṣā’ 13. Ps. 25:15 (kī hū’-yôṣī’ mērešet raglāy “For he 13. n/a (hunting or bring out brings out my feet from a net”) fowling) (H) **Ps. 31:5 (see #10 above)

Continued

55 ! Table 2 Continued lākad 14. Ps. 35:8 (wĕrištô ’ăšer-ṭāman tilkĕdô “Let the 14. šô’āh (hunting capture (H) net which he hid capture him”) or fowling) kūn 15. Ps. 57:7 (rešet hēkīnū lip‘āmay “They 15. n/a (hunting or prepare established a net for my steps”) fowling) šālaḥ send 16. Job 18:8 (kī-šullaḥ bĕrešet bĕraglāyw “For he 16. śĕbākāh has been cast into a net by his feet.” (hunting or fowling) zārah 17. Prov. 1:17 (kī-ḥinnām mĕzōrāh hārāšet bĕ‘ênê 17. n/a (fowling) spread kol-ba‘al kānāp “For no reason is the net spread out in the sight of any bird”)

Whether the rešet spread out over an enemy (pāraś; zārah) or lay just out of plain sight (ṭāman) in order to catch a victim by surprise (lākad; yāṣa’; šālaḥ; kūn; māšak), the poetic and prophetic corpora use it exclusively as a metaphor.278 The vacillation of rešet as a tool to trap animals in the air, on the ground, and in the water reﬂects a cultural phenomenon commonly invoked in ancient Near Eastern literature. Each profession employed different methods to deploy it to catch different species of prey, but pāraś aptly applied to each description. As the data above illustrate, the imagery they evoke often derives from the hunting or fowling realms, but is sometimes left formally ambiguous. A fundamental weakness arises from adducing the mere quantity of biblical references favoring one source or another in order to generalize a particular economic reality. There is thus not necessarily any real correlation between the occupational use of the rešet and the number of biblical attestations demonstrating a particular use. A more productive tool to discern imagery is the literary context itself. Even when no reference to fauna appears, some of the ambiguity dissipates from literary clues such as reference to a net dug in a pit (šīḥāh

278 Cf. Dalman 1964, 328-43. 56 in Ps. 57:7) or to feet (raglayim in Lam. 1:13; Ps. 9:16; 25:15; Prov. 29:5; pa‘am in Ps. 57:7), both of which rule out fishing imagery. The use of ṭāman further implies a ground or tree trap set to ensnare a land animal or bird. These clues notwithstanding, two examples still remain unclear (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20). The striking intertextual affinities (e.g. grammatical, syntactical, and referential) between these two references in Ezekiel, combined with a recycled replicate in 19:8, and the only unequivocal biblical use of rešet as a fishing metaphor later in that same book (viz. Ezek. 32:3), link these four passages together (see Table 27 below). The strong correspondence (e.g. grammar, syntax, referents) within the first three passages (esp. the first two) combined with the ambiguous imagery of rešet in the first two suggest literary recycling. Furthermore, the first three pair rešet with either mĕṣūdāh I “net” (12:13; 17:20) or its by-form mĕṣōdāh “net” (19:9; see §1.6.3.4 below for these terms), while Ezek. 32:3 juxtaposes it with ḥērem “net.” Different agents possess it in Ezekiel. YHWH spreads it out (pāraś) to capture both the pretentious Pharaoh (32:3) and the sacrilegious king of Judah (12:13; 17:20),279 the same referent caught by the nations in 19:8 (see chapter 3 for further discussion of Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; and 19:8; chapter 4 for 32:3).

1.6.3.2 ḥērem “Seine” Though ḥērem occurs much less frequently (9x) than rešet overall, it overtly identiﬁes a ﬁshing net more often than any other term in the HB.280 Each of its attestations are metaphorical and occur in the prophets.281 !

279 For a recent, thorough analysis of the sacrilegious king (akin to German Unheilsherrscher) motif in the HB and aNE, see J. Price forthcoming.

280 For the verb ḥāram “to net,” cf. 11Q19 55:5. The ḥrm denoted the maker of fish nets in Punic (DNSI 1, 405-06). Though Heintz compares this term (typically classified as ḥērem II) to ḥērem I, the sacrificial dedication (1969, 129-37), the use of the term in parallelism (mikmeret “seine” in Hab. 1:15-16; rešet in Ezek. 32:3; cf. māṣōd in Qoh. 7:26) in exclusively marine (Ezek. 26:5, 14; 47:10), as well as idyllic eschatological, contexts (Ezek. 47:10), argues for their distinction.

281 For a description of ḥērem seines used in Israel during the 20th century CE, see Nun 1964, 57-9. 57 Table 3. The use of ḥērem in the Hebrew Bible

How to Reference and Context Parallel LXX Translation use a -ism & ḥērem Imagery šāṭaḥ 1. Ezek. 26:5 (mišṭaḥ ḥărāmīm tihyeh 1. baz 1. ψυγµὸς σαγηνῶν spread bĕtôk hayyām “She shall be in the (ﬁshing) “drying place for (> midst of the sea [a place for] the dragnets” spreading) spreading of nets”)

2. Ezek. 26:14 (mišṭaḥ ḥărāmīm 2. n/a 2. ψυγµὸς σαγηνῶν tihyeh “You shall be [a place for] the (ﬁshing) “drying place for spreading of nets”) dragnets”

3. Ezek. 47:10 (mē‘ên gedī wĕ‘ad-‘ên 3. n/a 3. ψυγµὸς σαγηνῶν ‘eglayim mišṭô (fishing) “From Ein-Gedi to Ein-Eglayim they “drying place for will spread out nets”) dragnets” ‘ālah 4. Ezek. 32:3 (ūpāraśtī ‘ālêkā ’et-rištī 4. rešet 4. ἀνάξς σε ἐν τῷ raise (H) biqhal ‘ammīm rabbīm wĕhe’ĕlūkā (fishing) ἀγκίστρῳ µου “I will bĕḥermī “I will spread my net over haul you up by my you…and they will raise you in my hook.” net.” ṣūd 5. Mic. 7:2 (’īš ’et-’āḥīhū yāṣūdū 5. n/a 5. ἐκθλιβῇ hunt ḥērem “They hunt one another with a (hunting) “affliction” net”) gārah 6. Hab. 1:15 (yĕgōrēhū bĕḥermô 6. mikmeret 6. εἵλκυσεν αὐτὸν ἐν drag wĕya’asĕpēhū bĕmikmartô “He drags (fishing) ἀµφιβλήστρῳ “He it in his net and gathers it in his net”) dragged it with a cast net” zābaḥ 7. Hab. 1:16 ( 7. mikmeret 7. θύσει τῇ σαγήνῃ sacrifice wīqaṭṭēr lĕmikmartô “He sacrifices to (fishing) αὐτου “He sacrifices his net, makes an offering to his net”) to his dragnet”

! Continued

58 Table 3 Continued rīq 8. Hab. 1:17 (yārīq ḥermô “He 8. n/a 8. ἀµφιβαλεῖ τὸ empty empties his net”) (ﬁshing) ἀµφίβληστρον αὐτοῦ “He casts his net” mālaṭ 9. Qoh. 7:26 (See Table 5, no. 4) 9. mĕṣôdīm 9. θηρεύµατα “net” escape (ambig.) lākad capture

In seven out of the nine examples above, the ḥērem functions as a fishing net. The ḥērem in Mic. 7:2 is the only exception,282 although the image in Qoh. 7:26 is ambiguous within its figurative context that describes the seductive woman. In four out of the seven clear fishing references (e.g. Ezek. 32:3; Hab. 1:15-17), as well as in the lone hunting example (i.e. Mic. 7:2), this net transmogrifies from a utilitarian instrument into a martial weapon for capturing human beings.283 Its verbal complements in the HB together identify it as a seine or dragnet. For example, the spreading (šāṭaḥ),284 dragging (gārah), raising (’ālah), and emptying (rīq) suggest a potential sequence for its use from beginning to end.285 Greek σαγήνη (the etymological source for English “seine”) translates ḥērem in four out of the seven fishing references. Deployed from a boat and equipped with floats on top for buoyancy and weights on the bottom to ensure maximum exposure, this

282 The LXX of Mic. 7:2 changes the meaning altogether, rendering ḥērem as ἐκθλιβῇ “afﬂiction” (cf. V ad mortem “to death”).

283 Zwickel 1987, 72.

284 The two references in Ezekiel 26 use the phrase to symbolize Tyre’s demise: soon to be captured in nets, never to be rebuilt again. The reference in Ezekiel 47, however, reverses this idea, employing the phrase to symbolize eschatological prosperity in Jerusalem. For a detailed analysis of these two passages, see ch. 6 below.

285 Dalman likens it, however, to a trawl, which was pulled behind a boat (1964, 361). 59 reading indicates the Hellenistic understanding of the ḥērem as a seine.286 The LXX of Ezek. 32:3 ἀγκίστρῳ “by a hook” deviates, as do the two readings at Hab. 1:15 and 17, which confuse the terms for ḥērem and mikmeret. The V understands ḥērem to be a seine (Lat. sagena) outside of Hab. 1:15-16 (rete “cast net”), demonstrating the same confusion attested in the LXX (cf. Ezek. 26:5, 14; 32:3; 47:10; Hab. 1:17; Qoh. 7:26).

1.6.3.3 mikmar; mikmeret “Seine” The substantives mikmar and mikmeret together occur ﬁve times in the HB. Both designate a net, but only the latter, attested also in Egyptian,287 appears in ﬁshing contexts.288

Table 4. The use of mikmar/mikmeret in the Hebrew Bible

Using a Reference and Context Parallelism LXX Translation mikmeret and Imagery pāraś 1. Is. 19:8 (ūpōrĕśê 1. 1. οἱ βάλοντες σαγήνας καὶ οἱ spread out mikmōret ‘al-pĕnê-mayim haddayyāgīm ἀµφιβολεῖς πενθήσουσιν “And ’umlālū “And those who :: mašlīkê those who cast seines and spread out a net upon the bay’ôr those who are ﬁshers will waters will mourn”) ḥakkāh mourn” (ﬁshing) šākab 2. Is. 51:20 (šākĕbū bĕrō’š 2. n/a 2. ὡς σευτλίον ἡµίεφθον “as a lie kol-ḥūṣôt kĕtô’ mikmār (hunting) half-boiled beet.” “They lie at the head of every street like an antelope in a net”)

Continued

286 Cf. Riede 2002, 239. Although used frequently in Classical Greek, σαγήνη is a hapax legomenon in the NT (Mat. 13:47), where it is ﬁguratively compared to the kingdom of heaven, highlighting the diverse “catch” from which righteous will be separated from wicked at the eschatological judgment.

287 mkmrwty in Amenenope 7:6 (Lange 1925, 47).

288 2Q23 6:1 preserves part of the term [mik]mār.” 60 Table 4 Continued

’āsap 3. Hab. 1:15 3. ḥerem 3. σθνήγαγεν αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς gather (fishing) σαγήναις αὐτοῦ “He gathered it in his dragnet” qāṭar 4. Hab. 1:16 4. ḥerem 4. θυµιάσει τῷ ἀµφιβλήστρῳ make a (fishing) αὐτοῦ “He will burn incense sacrifice to his cast net” (D) nāpal 5. Ps. 141:10 (yippĕlū 5. n/a 5. πεσοῦνται ἐν fall bĕmakmōrāyw rĕšā’īm (ambiguous) ἀµφιβλήστρῳ αὐτοῦ “The wicked will fall into ἁµαρτωλοί “Sinners will fall their own [lit. his] nets”) into his net” !

While the Heb. (nāpal) and Gk. verbs (πίπτω) for mikmar in Ps. 141:10 both imply a fowling metaphor, the use of Gk. ἀµφίβληστρον, which elsewhere only refers to the net of a fisher (Hab. 1:15-17; Qoh. 9:12; cf. Mt. 4:18), and Lat. rete muddles the imagery. In the three clear fishing references mikmeret either parallels the dragnet (ḥērem in Hab. 1:15-16) or, along with pāraś, metonymically represents the fisher itself (Is. 19:8). Though LXX Hab. 1:15-17 also confuses the meanings of mikmeret and ḥērem, translating both as σαγήνη “seine” (mikmeret in 1:15; ḥērem in 1:16) and ἀµφίβληστρον

“cast net” (mikmeret in 1:16; ḥērem in 1:15, 17),289 the Akk. verb kamāru “to pile up” suggests the idea of accumulating prey via either a net or snare, thereby complementing the use of mikmeret in Hab. 1:15-16. The apparent overlapping characteristics and a relative dearth of textual examples preclude a precise delineation between the two terms, but the use of σαγήνη “dragnet” for mikmeret in Is. 19:8, the emphasis on a large-scale yield in Hab. 1:14-17, the cognate evidence from Akkadian, and the V's exclusive

289 The cognate Akk. verb kamāru “to pile up” suggests the idea of accumulating prey via either a net or snare, thereby complementing the use of mikmeret in Hab. 1:15-16. 61 translation of rete together support its function as a seine.290

1.6.3.4 mĕṣūdāh, mĕṣôdāh, and māṣôd “Cast Net” Three substantives derive from ṣwd “to hunt” and denote either a “net” or “snare,” depending on the context.291 Out of their eight attestations in all, two likely require emendation (Is. 29:7 and Ezek. 19:9).292 The meaning of one further use of mĕṣūdāh deviates altogether (Ezek. 13:21), referring to the prey caught in a net, rather than the net itself. Table 5 below analyzes the use of the resulting ﬁve examples in context.293 !

Table 5. The use of māṣôd/mĕṣūdāh in the Hebrew Bible

How to References Parallelism & use a Imagery māṣôd tāpaś 1. Ezek. 12:13 (wĕnitpaś bimṣūdātī “and he will be 1. rešet seize (N) seized in my net”) (ambiguous) 2. Ezek. 17:20 (wĕnitpaś bimṣūdātī “and he will be 2. rešet seized in my net”) (ambiguous) nāqap II 3. Job 19:6 (ūmĕṣūdô ‘ālay hiqqīp “And he encircled 3. n/a surround me with his net”) (ambiguous)

Continued

290 Dalman (1964, 361) argues the mikmeret resembled the more common rešet. In any event, ﬁshers still use both cast nets and dragnets in ﬁshing the Sea of Galilee (Hoffmeier 1997, 936-37).

291 Cf. Schunk 1997, 501-05. He curiously refers to each of the usages in 12:13; 17:20; Qoh. 9:12 as a “hunting net” (502).

292 The reasons for this are two-fold: orthographic (resh-dalet interchange) and overwhelming versional evidence. 1QIsa reads wmṣrtyh (ūmĕṣurōtāh), a translation preserved in the V (obsederunt “they blockaded, besieged”) for mĕṣōdāh in Is. 29:7. The LXX, S, and V unanimously prefer bammaṣṣōret “in a prison” (so BHS, but perhaps rather bammĕṣūdōt from mĕṣūdāh II, which could function as a pun on mĕṣūdāh in 12:13 and 17:20) over bammĕṣōdōt.

293 Nun compares the mĕṣūdāh to Arb. ambatan which designates a trammel net that was spread out at night (1964, 61). The trammel is a three-layered net in which the outer two have larger mesh than the middle one, thereby trapping the fish between them. 62 Table 5 Continued mālaṭ 4. Qoh. 7:26 (ūmôṣe’ ’ănī mar mimmāwet ’et- 4. ḥērem escape hā’īššāh ’ăšer-hī’ mĕṣôdīm waḥārāmīm libbāh (ambiguous) lākad ’ăsūrīm yādêhā ṭôb lipnê hā’ĕlōhīm yimmālēṭ capture mimmenāh wĕḥôṭē’ yillāked bāh “I have discovered: more bitter than death is the woman whose heart is meshes and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is captured by her”) ’āḥaz 5. Qoh. 9:12 (kaddāgīm šenne’ĕḥāzīm bimṣôdāh 5. paḥ (fishing) catch (N) rā‘āh wĕkaṣṣippŏrīm hā’ăḥūzôt bappāḥ kāhēm yūqāšīm bĕnê hā’ādām lĕ‘ēt rā‘āh kĕšettippôl ‘ălêhem pit’ōm “like fish that are caught in an evil net, and like birds seized in a snare, so humanity [lit. sons of man] is ensnared at an evil time, when it falls upon them suddenly”)

While the rešet “spreads over” (pāraś) the enemy, as if on the ground or over the water, the mĕṣūdāh “surrounds” (nāqap)” and “catches” the culprit, who is then “seized” (tāpaś) in its mesh.294 Out of the five unequivocal MT references, only one plainly identifies the source of the imagery: Qoh. 9:12 and the “fisher’s net.”295 The ambiguous images of the remaining four demonstrate the hermeneutical challenges in identifying their semantic values with precision.296 The remaining six usages produce five different Gk. glosses in the LXX: συστροφή “disorderly gathering; band; plot” in Ezek. 13:21 (V fut. pass. ptcp. from

294 The phrases tāpaś bĕšaḥat (Ezek. 19:4, 8) and tāpaś bimṣūdāh (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20) find analogues in Sum. a bí-lù ku6 bí-dab “You [Enlil] disturbed the water, you caught the fish” and, although less well preserved, the OB Akk. [mê idluḫ]-ma nūnī ibār (var. tabār)…[šēta] iddīma (var. taddīma) [iṣṣūrā]ti īšuš (var. tāšuš) “He [Enlil] roiled the water and caught fish…he spread the net and caught birds” (SB text of Erš. n. 160:30-34, p. 128 for Sumerian; cf. KAR 375 2:14-16 for the Akkadian [a bilingual inscription] and n. 31 in ch. 2 below [p. 78]), as well as Akk. ina šēti ba’āru “to catch in a net” (Gadd 1954, 186 6:46).

295 The V reiﬁes the imagery of Qoh. 7:26, however, with laqueus venatorum “snare of a hunter.”

296 Qoh. 7:26 uses māṣôd and ḥērem to ﬁguratively describe the allure of a seductive female (the married woman in Sir. 26:22), which Sir. warns against in 9:3. 63 praedō “prey; robbed”); ὀχύρωµα “fortress”297 in Job 19:6 (V ﬂagellum “whip”); θήρευµα

“net, snare” in Qoh. 7:26 (V laqueus venatorum “snare of a hunter”); ἀµφίβληστρον

“throw net” in Qoh. 9:12 (V hāmus “hook”); and περιοχή “enclosure, passage” in both

Ezek. 12:13 and 17:20 (V sagena “seine”).298 According to Riede, the mĕṣūdāh was, like Gk. ἀµφίβληστρον, cast from a standing position.299 The lack of σαγήνη as a Gk. translation of this term further reinforces its distinction from a seine, such as ḥērem. What obtains from the MT and versional analyses is the fact that, like rešet, the nominal derivatives of ṣwd demonstrate a literary plasticity that reflects a tacit cultural reality, in that professionals could use them for hunting, bird trapping, and fishing. Greenberg cogently notices this ambiguity, suggesting the larger biblical context indicates the imagery may derive from the realm of either the hunter or fowler.300 In dismissing the possibility of fishing imagery, however, he unnecessarily constrains the text. And Allen’s translation of mĕṣūdāh in Ezek. 12:13 as “hunting equipment” is sound, yet one that decisively clarifies an ambiguous text, restricting meaning in order to resolve interpretive tension.301 Each of the ambiguous uses (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; Job 19:6; Qoh. 7:26) could have reified their imagery like Qoh. 9:12, but instead preserved it. As with rešet in Ezek. 32:3, the very fact that mĕṣôdāh in Qoh. 9:12 does, indeed, occur in an explicitly fishing

297 This alteration implies the LXX translator here read mĕṣūdāh II “mountain fortress.”

298 The accompanying pronouns, however, do shift from 1st person to 3rd person (“my enclosure” > “its enclosure”).

299 2002, 239.

300 1983, 214.

301 Allen further elaborates that the net wielded is not a “giant butterﬂy net,” but rather “part of an ambush toward which the frightened victim would be driven to be entangled by netting spread on the ground or to fall into a pit dug under it” (1994, 182-83). Greenberg (1983a, 214) and Block (1997, 376) follow suit, despite the fact that passage does not provides any speciﬁc clues to distinguish the source of imagery. Block himself admits the rešet was used to capture all kinds of animals, but then curiously moves to suggest, “the net would often be spread (prś) over a pit, into which the creatures would be lured,” citing three biblical passages (Is. 42:22; Jer. 18:22 48:43-44) in which neither rešet nor prś (nor any other terms for “net,” for that matter) occur (ibid). He does, however, rightly point out that in several places the rešet was spread out (prś) on the ground, such as in Lam. 1:13 and Prov. 29:5. 64 context precludes the interpreter from simply disregarding this same potential in abstruse passages (see ch. 3 below for further discussion of Ezek. 12:13 and 17:20; ch. 5 for Qoh. 9:12).

1.6.3.5 šaḥat “Net” A relationship between šaḥat, a common term for “pit” in the HB, and fishing terminology obtains only if, as argued persuasively by Held, the references in Ezek. 19:4, 8 actually derive from šaḥat II. According to Held, šaḥat is a homonym of šaḥat that means “net,” following Akk. šētu “net.”302 The Tg favors this poetic reading, as does the parallelism it shares with rešet in 19:8, which in turn mirrors the parallelism attested for rešet :: mĕṣūdāh (cf. Ezek. 12:13; 17:20), rešet :: ḥērem (cf. Ezek. 32:3), and even rešet :: sĕbaakāh (cf. Job 18:8).303 Further support for šaḥat II “net” comes from the intertextuality between Ezekiel 19, 12:13-14, and 17:16-21, as well as the use of ḥaḥ as a disciplinary instrument. Since a literal reading defies the meaning of Ezekiel 19’s heavy metaphorical language (e.g. lions are desolating cities and raping women in 19:7-8), it is wise to hold loosely to any particular view in light of the passage’s multivalent metaphors. As the above analyses clearly indicate, the paraphernalia of the hunter, fowler, and fisher were often interchangeable, employed to communicate a more metaphorical meaning (e.g. tragedy, inescapability, divine retribution, or even eschatological hope).

302 Contra Lang (1981, 97-98). Though most lexica do not mention this distinction, medieval interpreters, like Ibn Ezra, Ibn Janāḥ, and Qimḥi, noticed it centuries ago (cf. Held 1973, 181).

303 See Held 1973, 173-190 for further analysis (cf. Ps. 107:20 and Lam. 4:20 for two potential examples). While he makes a strong case for šaḥat II “net,” his jump to follow the Tg’s reading of ḥaḥīm (šyšln “chains”), despite the relative support for and clarity of this term here and elsewhere in the HB, appears contrived, warranting suspicion. The differences between the Tg (bĕšilšĕlān “in chains”) and the LXX and S (ἐν κηµῷ “in a halter”; bablāmā “in a halter”) does not provide strong evidence for emending the MT here. 65 1.6.4. Spear 1.6.4.1 ṣilṣal (See Chapter 4) 1.6.4.2 śukkāh (See Chapter 4) ! 1.6.5. Fishing 1.6.5.1 dāyag The HB attests only one verb for fishing. It is a hapax legomenon from dāyag that occurs in Jer. 16:16, dīgūm “they fished them” (LXX ἁλιεύσουσιν).304 Lundbom speculates that it refers to net fishing, but the text remains silent on the manner of the action.305 Though the form dīgūm is ambiguous— an unsurprising reality in light of the orthographic vacillation among II-y and II-w verbs—the meaning is intelligible. Accordance, Holladay, and HALOT (1:219) all list it as an unconventional G stem, but one might rather expect dāgūm if that were the case. BDB (345) rather prefers an H stem, though this would demand the consonantal addition of a causative prefix. As noted by GKC (§73b), a preferable solution is to simply re-vocalize this anomalous form as a denominative D stem, which only requires gemination of the medial /y/ (thus diyyĕgū).306

1.6.5.2. dūgāh “Fishing” (See Chapter 3) 1.6.5.3 mišṭôaḥ “Drying Place for Net” (See Chapter 6)

304 Geiger has proposed emending dgym in 1QIsaa 15:11 (corrected from dgyn) to dayyāgīm, thereby conforming to that which is found in Is. 19:8 (2010, 453). Kutscher suggested that dgym replaced dygym, but neither “ﬁsh” nor “ﬁsher” make sense in the context (1974, 38). According to Geiger, dgym is an active participle from dyg (or dwg), thus dāgīm (2010, 454). In light of the orthographic resemblance between yod and waw at this time (ca. 125 BCE), he further opines a scribal error where dygym was read as dwgym, and the medial waw then interpreted as a mater lectionis for an /a/ vowel.

305 1999, 769.

306 So Zorell (1984, 168), Rudolph (1968, 110), and McKane (1986, 379). 66 Table 6. Overview of ﬁshing terminology in the Hebrew Bible

1. Cast Net a. rešet (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; 19:8; 32:3) b. mĕṣū/ôdāh (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; Qoh. 9:12) [or trammel net] 2. Seine a. ḥērem (Ezek. 26:5, 14; 32:3; 47:10; Hab. 1:15-17) b. mikmeret (Is. 19:8; Hab. 1:15-16) 3. Net a. šaḥat II (Ezek. 19:4, 9) (ambig.) 4. Hook a. ḥakkāh (Is. 19:8; Hab. 1:15; Job 40:25) b. ḥôaḥ c. ṣēn (Amos 4:2) d. sīrāh (Amos 4:2) 5. Harpoon a. ṣilṣal (Job 40:31) b. śukkāh (Job 40:31) 6. Drying a. mišṭôa Place for Net

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

67 ! ! !

Chapter 2. Heavenly Fishing: Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East

2.1 Introduction The significance of many metaphors for the divine are readily apparent. For example, pastoral imagery of the shepherd who guides his people, or martial imagery of the warrior who fights for his people, communicates without difficulty. The significance of a divine fisher, however, is not immediately transparent. If human descriptions of the divine world necessarily derive from the time and space of realia in order to communicate a sense of shared meaning, what then does the divine pantheon have to do with fishing? Out of all the potential conceptual relationships, why that of a fisher? This chapter will demonstrate that the central focus of this fishing image for the divine is retribution, portrayed as a fisher catching a fish. What follows employs a two-fold approach to answer these questions. The first half surveys the various strands of aNE evidence that connect the divine realm with the fishing industry. The second half then builds on this by zeroing in on a specific passage from the HB (viz. Jer. 16:16) that portrays YHWH as an overseer of fishers.

2.2 Divine Fishers in the Ancient Near East 2.2.1 Mesopotamia The broad spectrum of terms for “fisher” in Sumerian and Akkadian is dotted with designations that stress, each in their own way, political, occupational, gender, geographical, and other realities. Thus, the šuḫudakku was employed by the state to provide fish for the temple. Others were generic terms (ŠU.PEŠ = bā’iru; ŠU.ḪA) that could be modified to indicate a particular sphere of authority (bā’ir tâmti “sea fisher”; ŠU.ḪA apparim “marsh fisher”) or to distinguish gender (bā’irtu “fisherwoman”). As is

68 characteristic of all theological language, the divine realm is described with words and images appropriated from social, political, and cultic milieus. Both terms, such as titles, and phrases illustrate these representations. For example, though Enlil nowhere receives a fisher title, the language employed to describe his behavior casts him in just this manner, suspending lines and catching fish.1 Nowhere is the connection between the fishing industry and divine realm stronger than with the goddess Nanše who was fundamentally integrated within the cult. As daughter of Enki, the lord of the Apsu, the sweet-water depths, Nanše held authority over both the fishing industry, especially the government fisheries which supplied the pantheon with regular offerings.2 Born on the shore of the sea (peš [= KI.A]-a-ab-ba-ka tu-da-a), she held a prominent position over even its most powerful manifestations, the flood and tempest.3 In EWO (ll. 299-308), Nanše’s father, the god of creativity, appointed her as head over the sea, its inundations, and sexual fertility.4 Her direct association with fish and fishers appears in the obscure Sumerian monologue, The Home of the Fish. In this text, a certain fisher beckons his “beloved sons” (i.e. fish) to take up residence in his “house” (i.e. net).5 It concludes with the fisher’s final summons to the fish to enter the extravagantly supplied house, for upon doing so Nanše, “the queen of the fishers (lú-šu- peš-da), will rejoice with you.”

1 “Father Enlil will cast (bí-íb-sè-sè-ga; taddīma) a net (sa; šētu): that net (sa; šētu) is a net (sa; šētu) for the enemy. The Lord of the Land will suspend (in-dé-dé-e) a line (gù): that line (gù) is a line (gù) for the enemy. The Great Mountain Enlil will stir up (tadlaḫ) the water: he will catch (in-dab5-dab5-bé; tabâr) ﬁsh. The Lord of the Land will lay down a net (sa; šēti): and he will catch birds” (SBH p. 130:16-23 = CLAM p. 154:11 [AME AMAŠANA: “The Bull in His Fold”] V.A.Th. 246 20, p. 8; Black 1996, 27). The Akkadian translation of the Sumerian exhibits numerous errors, including 2nd person, preterite verbs, and a misconstrued second line.

2 For Nanše and her diverse associations, cf. Maxwell-Hyslop 1992, 79-92; Heimpel 2001, 152-60; idem, 1981, 65-139; Holzinger 2001, 160-62. For her iconography, cf. Feldt 2005, 116-26.

3 See Sumerian Temple Hymn #22 in Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969, 33.

4 A certain Lama, unrelated to Lamma/Lamassu, oversees and inspects the ﬁsheries of Gu-edenna, yet the only information about this deity stems from one passage in Gudea, Cylinder B (RIME 3/1 95 12:1-6, p. 95; cf. Foxvog, Heimpel, and Kilmer 1983, 450), precluding any further analysis on this deity’s cultic role.

5 Civil 1961, 154-75; Thomsen 1975, 197-200. 69 Though Nanše alone had direct ties to the fishing industry, two other deities bear the epithet “fisher.” The Sumerian King List (ll.14-15) refers to a certain “divine Dumuzi, the fisher (šu-ku6), whose city was Ku’ara” in Eanna.6 This Dumuzi, whom tradition identified as the father of Gilgamesh and the ill-fated shepherd lover of Inanna/Ishtar, is elsewhere said to be one who wields a net, underscoring the the appropriateness of the epithet for him: “Dumuzi is safe, the beloved of Ishtar…loosen, loosen your sandals [O Dumuzi]…[and] loosen your nets (puṭur pasumātīka).”7 A similar reference appears in a hymn to a certain Papulegarra: “O Papulegarra, the fisher (bā’iru), rejoice and exult!”8 The god-list An: Anum further lists a group of five ŠU.ḪA (“fisher”) deities.9 Another among the few explicit references linking Mesopotamian deities and fishing concerns the moon god, Sin.10 In two different texts, a myth (CT 15, 5-6) and an incantation from Sippar (IM 95317), Sin appears as a marsh fisher (bā’eru) who enjoys

6 Glassner 2005, 120-21; Jacobsen 1939, 88 3:14; Langdon 1923, 12.

7 Black 1983, 31:22. For Gilgamesh’s lineage, cf. Glassner 2005, 120-21.

8 For text see JRAS Cent. Supp. pl. 9 r. 6 31; for bibliography see Streck and Wasserman 2008, 335-356; Rahmouni 2007, 151; Foster 2005, 93-4. Bā’eru is translated as “ﬁsherman” by Rahmouni, but as “hunter” by others (Foster, Streck-Wasserman).

9 Litke 1998, 2:402-12, p. 113. Although ten entries are given (402-11), the final one (412) clarifies in a summarizing manner that only five deities are in view (viz. 402, 404, 406, 408, and 410) and that each belong to a šu-ḫa-ke4 (“fisher”). The names of the five deities are as follows: [d]Nin.gi.LAL; [d](a.da.ak.be.er)ŠU + ÁŠ; dLarsa (UD.UNU.KI).pà.da; dUr5(ur.sa).sa6; dḪI.en.ḪI.sa6.(for a slightly variant order, see YBC 2401 4:26-35).

10 In a musical litany, Nabu is said to trample on a kušû (Lambert 1971, 335-53). Though this uncertain term has been variously translated, most scholars agree it refers to a marine creature, as evidenced by the preceding KU6 determinative, itself a simple fish determinative. Lambert understands it to be a “shark,” while CAD (K 171) reads it as a “crab,” and Loktionov argues persuasively in favor of “crocodile” (2014, 164-67). 70 catching fish.11 As Wasserman cogently notes, both revolve around Sin’s relationship to Ningal.12 The background of the former pertains to his raping of Ningal (cf. 2 Sam. 11:1-5), whose steward, Nanše, goddess of fishing, aids Sin’s fishing expedition in the latter (ll. 24-26). Fish elsewhere function as a metaphor for Sin’s fertility powers, but as a lunar deity, his depiction as a fisher is uncommon.13 On rare occasions the Apsu even designates his abode.14 The conceptual relationship between Sin’s symbol, the crescent moon, and a supernal boat, provides one further thematic link between this deity and the fishing trade.15 Though bā’erūtum can mean both “hunter” and “fisher,” Römer’s suggestion that CT 15, 5-6 has the former in mind due to Sin’s customary bovine representation overlooks the geographical context (i.e. marsh) of the text.16 The overt fishing imagery in the more recently discovered IM 95317 further suggests otherwise. The preceding discussion attests to a veritable connection between divinity and fishing in Mesopotamian thought, but why? In what way and for what reason is the divine world imbued with fishing connotations? The fishing role of Nanše is explicable on the basis of a supernal realm that reflects the same social stratification manifested on earth.

11 The latter reads: “O strong reed (qanûm) of Sin, cane of Magan, let him go down to the heart of the Apsu so the fisher (bā’irum) may catch (ibâr) a fish (nūnam)” (ll.16, 18-19). For this text, see Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 1994, 82-85. The former reads: “Sin loves reeds (api) and canals (udāti); in the river his foot is true. Falcons, axes, and bait he creates before him (to catch game) for the fishing trip (bāerūtim; or “hunting trip”). He then sets his mind (lit. “ear”) on Ningal. Sin called to her, drew near to seek her (in marriage), [kiss]ed her, but did not ask her father (to confirm).” For this text, see Römer 1966, 138-147; Grégoire-Groneberg 1974, 65-58.

12 1995, 61-2. He identiﬁes Ur as the provenance of the text.

13 Cf. Hall 1985, 409, 31.

14 E.g. Šulgi H (Hymn to Ninlil): “Abzu, pure dwelling place of the youth, Sin” (ibid, 430); Ur III epithet 190: “[Its (water) courses {a-du-a-bi}] are (ﬁlled with) ﬁsh; its upper areas (?) with birds” (ibid, 409). Note also that oaths were made at a certain building at Ur known as the é-dub-lá-maḫ, a locale referred to as the “cast net” (Sum. sa-par; Akk. saparru). A late ritual text reinforces the net as a symbol of penal justice when it refers to the practice of “arranging a net to serve as the dwelling place for the divine judges” (BBR 97 rev. 2; see CAD S 162). Cf. Veenhof 2003, 324; Charpin 2013, 80-81).

15 Hall 1985, 414; Wasserman 1995, 61.

16 1966, 143-4. 71 Rationale for the fisher epithets and exploits of Sin (despite the loose conceptual links), however, requires “casting a wider net.” Expanding the purview of metaphors consequently yields a striking result: fishing imagery pervades the Mesopotamian pantheon, but in a slightly different, less direct, way than the manner described above. An array of deities, regardless of their particular domain or role, wields their own cosmic fishing net. For instance, the warrior deity, Ninurta, employed several different varieties of net (sa-šuš-kal/šuškallu in Lugal-e; al-kad4/ḫúb =alluḫappu in Angim) to defeat his enemies.17 The scribal deity, Nid/saba, possessed an inescapable net (Sum. sa- pàr nu-è-e); saparru lā āṣie).18 The arm of Enlil resembled a net (sa-par4-gal) spread over foreign lands.”19 His wife, Ninlil, the mother goddess, wielded her own net (gišparru).20 The sun god, Šamaš, known for his divinatory skill and justice, uses a variety of different types of nets,21 of which the gišparru is the most common.22 As a net ensnares a transgressor, so Šamaš’s “brilliance spreads over (saḫpu) the earth like a net (šuš[k]allu).”23 This reality undergirds the purpose certain oaths were offered “with a net”

17 “[Ninurta], warrior whose net (sa-šu-uš-kal-bi; šuškallāšu) spreads over (šú-a; isaḫḫapu) the enemy” (Lugal-e 1:13); “the battle net (sa-šu-uš-gal; šuškallu) which spreads (šú-šú; sāḫip) over the enemy land” (4R 27 4:58-9); “I bear (mu-da-an-gál-àm) the net (saal-kad4) of rebellious lands” (Cooper 1978, l. 136, pp. 78-79).

18 CT 17 34:13 (R. Thompson). A call to use said net appears later in this same Beschwörung: “may the net ([sa]-pàr; saparru) of Nisaba envelop (liksušu; ḫé-ni-íb-kéš-de5-e-dè) him” (ll. 29-39).

19 Išme-Dagan *12:31: “(Enlil), whose arm is a great net (sa-par4), poured (dub-ba) over the foreign lands” (see Klein 1981, 161).

20 “They cannot escape (lā ipparaššidū) from [Ninlil’s] net (gišparrīša)” (AAA 20 90:9; assigned to the reign of Aššurbanipal in HKL 528).

21 For šuškallu, see 4R 17 r. 13: “your net (šuškallāka) [O Šamaš] overwhelms (sāḫip) all lands” (cf. BWL 134:140-41); BM 36926: “your rays (O Šamaš) cover (saḫpū) the earth like a net (šuškallum)” (cf. BWL 126:5). For gišparru, see TNE 6:rev. 39’ “the net (gišpar) of Šamaš.”

22 Cf. CDA 388; AHw 293a; CAD G 106b-107a.

23 Hymn to Šamaš: BWL 126:5; cf. CAD Š/2:142b. 72 (ina saparri).24 In addition to wielding his own net (sapāru), Marduk’s word figuratively constituted a net (sapāru).25 The goddess of sex and war, Inanna, herself mirrored a net (sapāru).26 This additional evidence then raises the further inquiry: why do so many deities—many of whom have no overt relationship to fishing or fish—use fishing paraphernalia?27 The sum of evidence demonstrates that divine retribution conceptually binds all of these images and descriptions together.28 For example, in an early OB prophecy, a certain Itūr-asdu passes along to his king, Zimri-lim, a prophecy he overheard, in which Dagan pledged to cause the neighboring Yaminite leaders to writhe in a fisher’s chest.29 An even earlier inscription and accompanying relief, the Stele of Vultures (ca. 2450 BCE), graphically portrays Ningirsu’s protection of Eannatum, whom he appointed as king of Lagaš, and retribution against the rebellious citizens of nearby Umma, in the visual manner of an all-encompassing net.30 Elsewhere Enlil, the chief god of the early

24 Charpin 2013, 66. For a recent discovery example of such an ina saparri oath, see OECT 15 131:14 (cf. Charpin 2007, 151). Veenhof (2003, 325-26) extrapolates from these data that some oaths to Šamaš were sworn in a room where this deity's net hung from the ceiling as a visual representation of the severe consequences of perjury.

25 For Marduk’s net, see SAA 03 002, r. 3; EE 5:95; cf. EE 4:112; and the full discussion below in ch. 4. For his word as a net, see 4R 26 4:43-44: “[Marduk], your word is a lofty net (sa-pàr-maḫ; saparra), spread (ša- mu-un-lá; tarṣat) over heaven and earth.” This same phrase is applied nearly verbatim to the apotheosized king, Šulgi: “[Šulgi], you are a net (sa-par4), poured (dub[!]-ba-me-èn) over heaven and earth” (Šulgi 10 122; Klein 1981, 142). The sapāru and šuškallu were both cast nets.

26 gašan-mèn sa-pàr-maḫ ḫe-pi(edin-)líl-lá dúr(!)-ru-na-mén = bēlēku saparra ṣīri <ša> ina ṣēri zāqīqi šurbuṣat anāku “I (Inanna) am the lady, a lofty net, lying in the plain haunted by phantoms” (ASKT, p. 128 rev. 7-8; restoration by Steinkeller 1985, 39-46).

27 For a comparative study of the ﬁve-pronged “trident” (fāle) used in southern Iraq up through the last century and the similar fork of Adad, see Contini and Graziani 2012, 131-147.

28 An obscure Sum. inscription recording Inanna’s rebellion against An attests an extended dialogue with a divine ﬁsher, Adagbir. This conversation functions as an essential component in her insubordination. For this text, see van Dijk 1998, 9-38.

29 ARM 26 233:34-9. For a more detailed analysis of this prophetic passage, cf. n. 32 in ch. 3 below (p. 109).

30 See Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin 1909 for the editio princeps. For a fuller discussion of this inscription and relief, see ch. 3 below. 73 Mesopotamian pantheon, caught both fish and birds.31 A general statement in another inscription elucidates the purpose of this net as that which handles wrongdoing: “those who are of the wrong mind, it is god who collects (tābikšunu) them (in) his net (saškalluššu).”32 It is no surprise, then, that the literature defines the chthonic demonic faction in fishing terms. For example, in DD demon recruiters who search for Dumuzi in order to bring him down to the underworld resemble fishers: “They twist (mu-un-na-sur- ru-ne) a cord (gu) for him and bind (mu-un-na-kéš-d[a-ne]) a net (sa) for him.”33 The fact that these references appear in literature of all types of genre and throughout different historical periods points to an ideology deeply embedded in Mesopotamian thought.34 The concept of catching fish out of the water therefore developed special theological significance in Mesopotamian thought. The various representations of divine fisher emphasize their peerless authority over human life. For example, in the Sumerian epic, Lugalbanda and the Anzud Bird, Inanna pledges martial invincibility to the semi- divine figure, Enmerkar, if he just catches (un-dab5), cooks, garnishes, and sacrifices a certain šuḫurmaš (GiŠ.ŠEŠku6) to her “battle-strength weapon” (á-an-kár á mè).35 To a

31 There are several references to Enlil’s angling, the best preserved of which is an SB text of Erš, no. 160; 3e-34, p. 128 (commentary p. 190): You [O Enlil] stirred up (bí-lu) the water, you caught (bí-dab) the fish. You laid down a net (sa), and you caught (bí-dab) the birds” (Black 1996, 28). A broken passage from a similar text, an Eme-sal hymn (balağ) to Enlil (KAR 375 2:9-15; Black 1996, 28 and n. 15) also depicts Enlil catching fish (nūni ibār). Cf. also n. 294 in ch. 1 above (p. 63) above. Note how these three excerpts use identical terms (both Sumerian and Akkadian, nominal and verbal) for Enlil’s fishing and fowling exploits.

32 JRAS Cent. Supp. pl. 8 5:28 (as cited in CAD Š/3: 382).

33 See Alster 1972, 70-71; cf. the analogous example of Osiris’ ﬁshers in CoT 229. One particular demon was known by the name alluḫappu “hunting net.” The malevolent female demon, Lamaštu, known for terrorizing mothers and their infants, had a hand that was compared to an alluḫappu: “[Lamaštu's] hand is an alluḫappu-net” (4R 58 3 30 (Pinches); PBS 1/2 113 3 16 [dupl.] (Lutz); see Myhrman 1902, 180:30 for an edition of this Lamaštu Beschwörung.

34 One Babylonian cylinder seal from the era of Ur-Nanše depicts a muscular, bearded man carrying a fresh catch of fish (see figure 11). Although the identification of this figure remains uncertain, Heuzey has suggested Gilgamesh as a potential fit (1904, 57). Another iconographic representation of a putative divine fisher appears on a button seal of unknown provenance (Milani 1902, 19 fig. 133; Eisler 1936, 725 n. 5).

35 Wilcke 1969, ll. 399-408, pp. 127-28; for translation, see Black 1998, 64. 74 certain degree, the fisher is to the fish as the deity is to the human. There is an inherently authoritative, if not punitive, element to this manifestation of the divine-human relationship. Just as the human angler, charged with providing fish offerings for the local temple’s patron deity, or simply the responsibility of providing for his or her family, held a position of authority, so does a deity wielding a cosmic net.36 The vivid imagery, however, is more than a mere cultic or social analogue. It symbolizes a foundational theological reality: humanity was created to labor for, obey, and worship the gods who created it; to do otherwise led to punishment. The very reference to divine fishers therefore presupposes the tacit reality of both a defenseless, dependent created order and a well defined concept of divine retribution.37 To that end, each member of the Mesopotamian pantheon was equipped to treat human insubordination.38 Perhaps no better metaphor symbolized, on one hand, the inherent dichotomy between the human and the divine and, on the other hand, the immanent interconnectedness between them.

36 The Akkadian Weidner Chronicle presents a mytho-historical etiology for both the relationship between fishing and kingship as well as the idea of divine retribution. By stealing a fish that Utu-Hegal, the fisher (šuḫudakku), had caught and cooked, yet had not dedicated to a god, the Guti sealed the fate of their dynasty. Marduk rewarded Utu-hegal’s faithfulness by bestowing kingship upon him over Uruk and allowing Sumerians to wrest control from the Gutians and re-establish hegemony over southern Mesopotamia. Utu-hegal eventually spurned Marduk’s favor, leading to his own downfall, drowning in a river. For this text, see Grayson 2000, 150:58-62. An omen in KAR 422 (rev. 15) corroborates the details of Utu-hegal’s death: amūt Utu-ḫegal ša ina sēker nā[ri…]. “The omen of Utu-hegal who [died] when damming the ri[ver].”

37 For a comparative study of ﬁshing as a symbol of divine retribution, see ch. 3 below.

38 For example, cf. the oath sworn by the king of Umma and the ensuing consequence for its breach in two historiographical inscriptions from the reign of Enmetena (2418-2391 BCE): “[If anyone from Umma violates the agreement] may the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil, by which he has sworn, descend upon Ǵiša (Umma)!” (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1 17:6-20); “He cast (bí-šuš) the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) upon it at Enlil’s command” (RIME 1, 1.9.5 1:28-29). 75

Figure 11. A Mesopotamian relief depicting a fisher, perhaps representing Gilgamesh, transporting a pair of recently caught fish (Heuzey 1904, 57). Public Domain. Illustration courtesy of Tommy Beyl (September 2014). ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2.2.2 Ugarit The evidence for divine fishers from the Ugaritic literary corpus centers around one particular figure: Qadiš-wa-Amrar. On three different occasions within the Baal Cycle this emissary and warrior deity bears a “fisher” titular.

76 KTU 1.3 6:9-11 šmšr39 ldgy ’aṯrt Drive, O ﬁsher40 of Aṯiratu!41 mǵ lqdš ’amrr42 Go, O Qadiš-(wa)-Amrar!

39 Š impv. from mšr “set a vehicle in motion, drive” (apparently with a chariot as an object, per DULAT 593), for which cf. Akk. mašāru “to drag (across the ground); drive (a vehicle)” (AHw 624; CAD M 359-60); contra Olmo Lete 1981, 585: “apresurarse, dispararse”; Sanmartín reads šmm šmšr (“schleifen”), taking šmm as a verbal object (1978, 352-53).

40 The majority of scholars agree that Ug. dgy means “fisher” (see UBC 2, 76). The translations of DULAT (1:268) “name of a fish-shaped being; triton” and Yamashita “soldier” (1975, 47-8) are thus exceptions. As with Yamashita, Gordon glosses Ug. dgy in light of Akk. bā’iru “fisherman; soldier,” but prefers the latter meaning here (UT §19.642). DULAT (1:268) reads this as a dual construct “tritons of DN.” A few others read dgy as a dual or plural form: Gibson 1978, 91: “two fishermen of Athirat”; Olmo Lete 1981, 192: “pescador(es) de Aṯiratu.” For the relationship of Ug. dgy to CH dyg, cf. Eissfeldt 1952, 59.

41 For this deity, cf. WUS, 250-52; Lipiński 1972, 101-19. She is elsewhere connected to two major Levantine port cities: Tyre and Sidon (KTU 1.14 4:35-9). In complementary manner, the literature depicts her messenger as a tidal wave (KTU 1.6 5:1-3). Atargatis (Aštarte-Anat), the so-called Syrian goddess (Dea Syria) and later historical manifestation of Aṯiratu, was depicted as a mermaid, whose cult ascribed a prominent role to ﬁsh. For more on Atargatis, cf. Drijvers 1999, 114-16. Watson disagrees, discounting the Ugaritic evidence completely by reading ym as “day” instead of “sea” (1993, 431-34). See Wiggins 2007, 48-50 and DULAT (1:73, 697) for the relationship between Qadiš-wa-Amrar and Aṯiratu.

42 Reference to Qdš[-w-]’amrr occurs in both mythological (KTU 1.4 4:2-3, 8, 13) and ritual (KTU 1.123:26) texts. Only KTU 4:16-17 bifurcates this composite divine name into two entities. While the etymology of the first name (qdš “holiness”), which also characterizes Aṯiratu herself (cf. KTU 1.14 4:34-5), is clear, the second has so far defied explanation. Aistleitner understands it as a variant form of ’amurru (WUS, n. 289). Gordon conversely derives it from mrr “to bless” (UT §33; cf. §1556 and cf. Arb. marīr, “strong, firm”), which has several advantages: 1) it thematically complements the meaning behind the first name; and 2) it comports with the parallel use of brk “to bless” in KTU 1.15 2:19-20; 1.17 1:35-37. Scholars are divided on whether it refers to one or two persons. The double-barreled name split across poetic lines as parallel terms and the similar reference to Baal’s messenger(s), kṯr-w-ḫss, supports the latter. The reference to ǵlmh “her lad” (KTU 1.4 2:29), as well as their typical concatenation within a poetic line, reinforces the former. Cho suggests that a dual usage for this deity in KTU 1.3 6:9-11 would require a medial conjunction in order to make sense of the following singular line (’idk ’al ttn // pnm “Then you [i.e. Qadiš-wa-Amrar] shall set [your] face”). For scholarly defense of the singular position, see Cho 2007, 222-26 (“binomial name” to “indicate the elevated characteristics of the same entity” [223]); GMVO 304. For the binary position, cf. Mullen 1980, 214 n. 172. In light of the complexity of the issue, Meier keenly cautions that, “As in the case of Kothar-wa-Hasis, one must be prepared to find that the duality or singularity of such a god may even vary from work to work” (1988, 127). 77 KTU 1.4 2:28-33 šmḫ rbt aṯ[rt] ym43 Great lady Aṯiratu of the sea rejoiced; gm lǵlmh k[tṣḥ] aloud to her lad [she shouted]: ‘n mkṯr44 ’apq [thmtm45] “See the skilled work of the spring [of the Deeps]!46 dgy rbt ’aṯr[t ym] O Fisher of great lady Aṯira[tu of the sea!] qḥ rṯt47 bdk t/q48[ ] Take a net in your hands Qa[diš] rbt49 ‘l ydm [ ] (Take) a seine in both hands [Amurr]”50 !

43 For this epithet elsewhere, cf. KTU 1.3 4:[49]; 5:40-41. While the overwhelming majority of scholars understand rbt ’aṯrt ym as a divine title, Watson and Wyatt rather suggest the name reﬂects a verb that functions as a word-play: “she who organizes the day” (1993, 432-33); “the great lady-who-tramples- Yam” (2002, 95). There is no evidence, however, in favor of lengthening the ﬁrst vowel, which would be required if it were an active participle (cf. Pardee 2003, 253 n. 98). The term rbt serves as a divine title identifying a queen or queen mother and the term ’Aṯiratu simply indicates her name.

44 Although many have interpreted mkṯr, which refers generally to “skill,” as an epithet of the Qadiš-wa- Amrar (see MES, 1154: “Erfolgreicher”; DULAT 545: “expert”), both the limited, emissary role of this deity and the precious minerals Aṯiratu desired in the immediately antecedent section suggest this term modiﬁes said items as an object of the preceding imperative rather than the messenger deity himself (see UBC 2, 435, 452; Pardee 2003, 257). For a different view altogether, cf. Margalit 1980, 26: “(he of) the spring which nurtures dry land.”

45 This restoration derives from UBC 2, 435. Since ’apq occurs elsewhere in Ug. literature only as a designation for El’s abode, the point of this term here may be to underscore that the “gifts are of a quality that beﬁts the lodging of El” (452).

46 Following KTU2 and de Moor and Spronk (1987, 19), which read ’apq[ ym], contra CTA and KTU1, which instead read ’ap t[ ]. For Ug. ’apq “source, spring,” cf. CH ’āpīq. Most scholars (Pope 1955, 72-80; Schoors 1972, 10-1; Clifford 1972, 49-50; Renfroe 1992, 49-50; DULAT 2004:91) follow this or adapt it slightly (e.g. de Moor 1987, 48: “bottom [of the sea]”). Wyatt’s “cunning work” is an exception (2002, 95).

47 Cf. CH rešet “net”; DULAT 750. See §1.6.3.1 for further discussion of this term.

48 CTA and KTU1 read this as t, while de Moor (1971, 143) and de Moor-Spronk (1987, 19) prefer q, presupposing the DN (Qa[desh]…[Amurr]) in the next line. KTU2 has both.

49 Notice the wordplay of rbt “seine, trawl” (DULAT 2:732) with rbt “Great Lady” earlier in l. 28. Watson, however, reads it in light of Akk. rubbû “to submerge” (2001, 10; cf. CAD R 394; AHw 940b).

50 De Moor suggests this passage reflects the re-opening of the marine fishing season, which occurred during the beginning of March (1987, 48); idem, 1971, 144-45. According to UBC 2, Qadiš-wa-Amrar are commanded to catch fish here in preparation for a banquet, which was standard procedure when one god visited the home of another (453). 78 KTU 1.4 4:2-4 w t‘n.rbt] ’aṯr[t. ym. [And the great lady] ’Aṯira[tu of the sea answered: šm’. lqdš] w ’amr[r. “Listen, O Qadiš]-wa-Amra[r, l dgy.rbt] ’aṯrt.ym O fisher of the great lady] Aṯiratu of the sea.”

Though the precise connection between Aṯiratu and the sea remains elusive, her maritime role and aquatic domain constitute two of her most fundamental features. Her marine association derives not only from her very epithet, “the great lady Aṯiratu of the sea,” and aquatic residence, but also from her particular authority over the divine fisher, Qadiš-wa-Amrar. These characteristics thus liken her to another female deity, the Mesopotamian deity of fishing, Nanše, and provide Canaanite evidence for deities wielding a cosmic net, a reality Dhorme suggested applied to all members of the Mesopotamian pantheon.51 And both governed over watery realms and served in a supervisory role over fishers.52 While the relationship between Aṯiratu and her fisher, Qadiš-wa-Amrar, takes place within the divine realm alone, that of Nanše and her fishers transcended cosmic boundaries by bridging the human and the divine. Moreover, Qadiš-wa-Amrar’s divine epithet, dgy “fisher,” correlates with the concomitant Mesopotamian epithets of Dumuzi (Sum. šukud) and Papulegarra (Akk. bā’iru). More generally, the existence of Qadiš-wa-Amrar preserves a Levantine brand of the widespread Mesopotamian concept whereby deities possessed a net. The limited literary contexts of the Ugaritic references unfortunately provide minimal clarification about the actual fishing role of this messenger deity, but one can surmise from the broader literary context (cf. KTU 1.3 4:38-42; 1.4 3:25-26, 40-44; 4:31-38) that the point of using the ršt/rbt in 1.4 4:32-33 is to bring in food for an upcoming banquet, a common feature

51 1907, 64. The Greek goddess, Aphrodite, shares this same seafaring governance Nanše and Aṯiratu (Pirenne-Delforge 2005, 408).

52 Though Qadiš-and-Amrar may have served other higher gods, the evidence from Ugarit cited above illustrates his special relationship with Aṯiratu (cf. Cho 2007, 223; de Moor 1971, 129). 79 when one god arrives at the home of another.53 Moreover, his divinely sanctioned marine mission to Kaphtor (Crete) and Memphis in KTU 1.3 9-16, use of ﬁshing instruments (rṯt and rbt), and subordinate relationship to a goddess of the sea all point to his distinctive function as a ﬁsher deity.54

2.3 Divine Fishers in the Hebrew Bible (Jeremiah 16:16-18) 2.3.1 Translation

הִ נְנִ י שֹׁלֵַחַ לְדַ וָּגִ ים [לְדַ יָּגִ ים] רַ בִּ ים נְאֻ ם־יְהוָ ה וְדִ גוּם 16:16

וְאַחֲרֵ י־כֵ ן אֶשְׁ לַ ח לְרַ בִּ ים צַ יָּדִ ים וְצָ דוּם מֵﬠַ ל כָּ ל־הַ ר וּמֵﬠַ ל כָּ ל־גִּבְﬠָ ה וּמִ נְּקִיקֵ י הַסְּ לָﬠִ ים׃

Look, I am about to send for many ﬁshers, and they will catch them. declared YHWH, And after that I will send for many hunters55 and they will hunt them from upon every mountain, every hill, and from the clefts of the rocks.56

53 UBC 2, 453.

54 In Eusebius of Caesarea's recounting of Phoenician religious history from Philo of Byblos, who in turn claims to have translated it from Sanchuniathon in the original Phoenician language, he mentions a certain Agreus and Halieus, who together invented hunting and ﬁshing. Their son Chousor (Hephaistos, and later apotheosized as Zeus Meilichius) then discovered the ﬁshing hook, bait, line, and raft (Attridge and Oden 1981, 44-5). This all goes back to Ug. mythology since Chousor and Koṯar-wa-ḫasis represent the same individual (cf. Baumgarten 1981, 143, 165-6). The suggestion of Oldenburg, following Ginsberg, that Koṯar-wa-ḫasis and Qadiš-wa-Amrar were one and the same individual, disregards the distinctive associations and contexts of each title and remains pure speculation (cf. Oldenburg 1969, 99; Ginsberg 1940, 39-44).

55 Though some have found the syntax of rabbīm ṣayyādīm troubling (e.g. Duhm 1901, 141; Giesebrecht 1907, 96), this particular adjective uniquely functions like a numeral in its capacity to precede the substantive it modiﬁes (GKC §132; JM §141b). Holladay views this syntax as “evidently deliberate” and “symmetrical” with the preceding phrase dayyāgim rabbīm (1986, 478).

56 Minuscule 490 omits 16:16b (“And after that…from the clefts of the rocks”), which Ziegler suggests results from haplography where the scribe confused the ﬁrst αὐτούς (following ἁλιεύσουσιν) with the second (following θηρεύσουσιν; so McKane 1986, 379). McKane builds on this theory by suggesting an originally shorter Hebrew text which included only one metaphor: the ﬁsher. In his opinion, this may provide evidence for an originally shorter Hebrew text, to which the hunting image was later added. 80 כִּ י ﬠֵ ינַ י ﬠַ ל־כָּ ל־דַּרְ כֵיהֶ ם לֹא נִסְתְּ רוּ מִלְּפָנָ י וְ לֹא־נִצְפַּ ן ﬠֲ וֹנָ ם מִ נֶּגֶ ד ﬠֵ ינָ י׃ 16:17

For my eyes are upon all their ways they are not hidden from me nor is their iniquity concealed from my eyes.

וְשִׁ לַּמְתִּ י רִ אשׁוֹנָ ה מִשְׁ נֵ ה ﬠֲ וֹנָ ם וְחַטָּ אתָ ם ﬠַ ל חַ לְּלָ ם אֶ ת־אַ רצִ י 16:18 בְּ נִבְלַ ת שִׁ קּוּצֵ יחֶ ם וְ תוֹﬠֲ בוֹתֵ יהֶ ם מָ לְ אוּ אֶ ת־נַחֲ לָתִ י׃ But first57 I will repay their iniquity two-fold58 and their sin because they have defiled my land. With their lifeless idols (lit. carcass of idols)59 and abominations they have filled my inheritance.60

57 According to McKane, rī’šōnāh “is an attempt to mitigate the severity of vv.16-18,” as well as faulty exegesis of v. 16 (1986, lxxiii). Based on its absence in LXX and 16:14-15, 19-21, dRJ (200-01) views it as a secondary gloss and connects it to 16:14-15’s promise of ultimate restoration. Lundbom suggests two different ways to deal with it: 1) as an adverb (cf. Gen. 38:28; Num. 2:9) and proviso establishing prerequisite events before the new oath of v. 16 can be actualized or before the nations come to worship YHWH (v. 19); or 2) read together with mišnēh (see n. 365 below) as an idiom meaning 1 x 2 = 2 or “double” (1999, 771). He then turns to 1 Sam. 1:5, as well as the Aramaic of Dan. 3:19 and the conﬂation of the terms in the LXX (διπλᾶς) to bolster this position (ibid), rendering later interpolation unnecessary. The language here thus should not be taken in a rigidly literal sense, but rather as a hyperbolic description of the (more than) sufﬁcient punishment.

58 Scholars disagree on the meaning of mišnēh. There are two main positions: 1) A literal view that regards mišnēh as a “double” punishment corresponding with two deportations (597, 586 BCE), though scholars who adhere to this position curiously ignore the third localized iteration in 582 BCE (cf. Jer. 52:30; for a representative example of this position, see dRJ 200-01); and 2) a non-literal view that regards mišnēh as an “equivalent, commensurate” punishment in light of both Is. 40:2 (see Von Rad 1967, 80-2; cf. Is. 61:7; Zech. 9:12; Job 42:10) and cognate evidence from Alalakh (Akk. mištannu; see RHB 4:218-19, 285; Tsevat 1958, 125-26; cf. Deut. 15:18). Following McKane (1986, 377; cf. NEB), this latter option accords well with the prominent theme of total, inexorable judgment in the passage, and, when combined with the elevated language employed to communicate this point, renders the idea of a literal punishment insufﬁcient.

59 McKane suggests wĕniblat derives from nĕbēlāh “corpse,” rather than nĕbālāh “folly,” due to the latter’s common afﬁliation with sexual sins (1986, 379). The sense of the phrase wĕniblat šiqqūṣēhem then is more of a castigation of hollow (and deﬁling) idols than “senseless idolatry.” Cf. Lev. 16:19; 26:30.

60 Many think 16:18 is secondary (for a representative example, see dRJ, 199-200). Though remaining ambivalent, Lundbom asserts that claims against its coherence remain largely unfounded (1999, 767-78). Holladay says it looks Jeremianic, and may have been a later addition by him (1986, 477). 81 2.3.2 Literary Context There is widespread consensus that the larger literary section (16:16-18), as well as those surrounding it, function as independent units.61 The first (16:14-15) is a premonitory “Behold, days are coming” (hinnēh yāmīm bā’īm) oracle, the second (16:16-18) a more customary judgment oracle, and the third (16:19-21) a liturgical psalm that celebrates YHWH’s protection. Scholars have frequently classified 16:14-15 as a post-exilic interpolation on the basis of both its hopeful character, which ostensibly defies the surrounding divine judgment context, and its nearly identical citation (and supposedly more natural rhetorical environment) at 23:7-8.62 According to this line of thought, 16:16-18 thus originally followed the warning of impending disaster recorded in 16:10-13.63 There are three apparent flaws with this assumption. First, any argument for 16:14-15 as a hope oracle quickly deflates on the basis that it presupposes a deportation that is yet forthcoming. Though the people would one day praise YHWH for a salvation so great that it renders the miraculous Exodus rescue a faint memory,64 such approbation

61 The ﬁrst two units are prosaic, while the latter is written in poetry.

62 The majority of scholars who interpret 16:14-15 as post-exilic interpolations move 16:14-15 to ch. 23 (e.g. Peake 1911, 218; Hyatt 1956, 777-1142; Carroll 1986, 346; Jones 1992, 234; Bright 1965, 112-13; Nicholson 1973, 144). The majority of scholars regard at least 16:16-17 as authentically Jeremianic (e.g. dRJ, 200), although some, such as Cornill (1905, 206-08), classify the entire section as ex eventu.

63 So Nicholson 1973, 144; Peake 1911, 218; Hyatt 1956, 947; dRJ, 199-200; Janzen 1973, 92.

64 This view sees Second Isaiah’s “New Exodus” motif in Jer. 16:14-15. Though they do share thematic affinity, their distinctive historical perspectives (i.e. pre-judgment in Jeremiah 16, post-judgment in Isaiah 40) caution against any form of interpretive conflation. Holladay nevertheless suggests that the author of Is. 40:2 had access to Jer. 16:14-15 (1986, 478). 82 ensues the most cataclysmic event in Israelite history: the Babylonian exile(s).65 Second, claiming that 16:14-15 is secondary based on its reuse in 23:7-8 overlooks the fact that prophetic recycling is a common (e.g. Jer. 7:32; 19:6) rhetorical technique to recontextualize divine messages. Disregarding the passage because it “fits” better elsewhere (e.g. ch. 23) is simply a smokescreen, for its actual placement in Jeremiah 16 requires explanation. Finally, the incongruous pronominal suffixes in 16:10-13 (2nd masc. pl.) and 16:16-18 (3rd masc. pl.) vitiates the assumption that v. 16 originally came after v. 13.66 Despite literary and rhetorical diversity, Jeremiah 16 as a whole and Jer. 16:16-18 in particular represent a cohesive framework, communicating a terrifying warning of thorough judgment via exile.

2.3.3 Interpretation 2.3.3.1 Egyptian Fishers Holladay has suggested that the ﬁshers of 16:16a are from Egypt, basing his understanding of Jer. 16:16-18 on a “secondary connection” it shares with 16:1-9. He argues against a Babylonian referent because it places too much onus on the relationship between 16:13 and 16.67 In fact, Holladay attempts to solve this problem completely, relegating both 16:10-13 and 14-15 to secondary status and thus bridging 16:1-9 with 16:16-18. He further opines that the appearance of Heb. ’ābal in 16:7 presents a conspicuous relationship with that which describes the Egyptian dayyāgīm in Is. 19:8.68

65 The opening poetic refrain (hinnēh yāmīm bā’īm) is especially common in Jeremiah and Amos (21 out of 24 attestations occur between these two prophets; 15x in Jeremiah, 3x in Amos). The ﬁrst two usages in Amos underscore the coming Assyrian exile (4:2; 8:11), while the last one presents a hopeful post- destruction vision (9:13). In Jeremiah it envisions either an auspicious future day (e.g. Jer. 23:5; 31:27, 31, 38; 33:14), an ominous future day (e.g. Jer. 7:32; 9:24; 19:6; 48:12; 49:2; 51:47, 52), or one marked by both characteristics (e.g. Jer. 16:14; 23:7; 30:3). The three examples outside of these two prophets (1 Sam. 2:31; 2 K. 20:17/Is. 39:6) together anticipate a gloomy future (the latter two refer to Babylonian exile). For a similar biblical example of the inextricable relationship between hope and judgment in Israelite thought, see the juxtaposition of Deut. 29:26-28 and 30:1-10.

66 Cf. Aalders 1958b, 135-38; Foreman 2011, 233.

67 1986, 477.

68 He uses a similar strategy to suggest 18:13-17 as an analogue (ibid). 83 In order to fill in the historical context, Holladay goes on to identify Babylon as the “hunter” in 16:16b.69 Jerome reports that, at his time, the primary interpretive position on these referents designated the fishers as Chaldeans and the hunters as Romans. Holladay applies this general idea of historical succession, but changes the referents.70 In his view, then, the entire section functions to warn Judahites about incoming invasions by Egypt and Babylon. If all these discrete data hold together, the identity of the fisher in Jer. 16:16a depends on the identity of the fisher in Is. 19:8 due to the fact that the qualifying verb (’ābal “to mourn”) in the latter passage appears nine verses before that of the former. In addition to defying Occam’s Razor, this theory flattens the interpretive process by dramatically constraining Jeremiah on thin evidence. His argument against any hint of deportation in this passage conveniently finds support only after his displacement of 16:10-15. This idiosyncratic redaction notwithstanding, Holladay does not address the inventory of fishing imagery elsewhere in prophetic corpus, where Mesopotamians (Assyrians implicitly in Amos 4:2; Babylonians explicitly in Hab. 1:14-17) function as predatory fishers, capturing and exiling Israel and Judah per the decree of YHWH.

2.3.3.2 Judahite Fishers Breaking with the widespread interpretive tradition that fishers and hunters symbolize forthcoming judgment against Judah, the Tg modifies the passage, transforming it into an overtly positive oracle. By replacing the fishing metaphor of the first line altogether (“Look, I am sending killers to the nations [l‘mmyn] and they shall

69 His three arguments in defense of dating the text to the period between 609-605 BCE, which draw from these literary arguments, likewise build on sketchy evidence (ibid, 478). First, the existence of two juxtaposed nations in other passages offers little to support two nations in this passage. Second, his dating of Jeremiah’s loin cloth incident, which includes another reference to nĕqīq hassela‘, to the battle of Carchemish (ca. 609 BCE), in order to serve as a terminus a quo for that in 16:16, results in circular reasoning. Third, the parallelism between darkēhem and ‘ăwōnām in 16:17 and 3:13, where he suggests dĕrākayik means “wealth” offered to Egypt and then Babylon, is just as speculative. Though a late 6th century BCE date cannot be ruled out, the data Holladay presents in its defense appear overly contrived.

70 Ibid, 479. 84 kill them”),71 judgment is redirected against Judah’s enemies. The Tg interprets the fishing image not as evoking deportation, as elsewhere in the prophetic corpus, but rather martial carnage that anticipates divine vindication. Terence Fretheim has recently found favor with this alternative reading. After considering the various interpretive options, he argues the description of Babylon’s demise is apropos following the reference to a return from exile in 16:14-15.72 Fretheim thus notices a sharp contrast between 16:16-17 and 16:18. The first two represent God’s protection of his children in exile and judgment against iniquitous Babylon, while the latter verse soberingly recognizes that even for Judah, salvation follows judgment.73 This view, however, ends up reading an auspicious message into the passage that the text itself does not present. Though 16:14-15 does mention the locale of Israel’s coming exile, the emphasis there is not on the agents who deport them, but Judah’s deportation and YHWH’s rescue. Furthermore, the referents to a 3rd masc. pl. entity in 16:15 (hiddiḥām “he has driven them”; hăšibōtīm “he has returned them”) and in 16:16a (wĕdīgūm “they will catch them”) suggest a degree of continuity between these verses. Classifying 16:16-17 as a salvation oracle, however, disregards this connection, reading against the text.74 The Tg’s interpretive reversal, adapting a judgment oracle to one pronouncing salvation, thus offers little insight into the nature of how the biblical authors employed fishing images.

2.3.3.3 Divine Fishers A very recent—and quite creative—interpretation from Sang Youl Cho maintains Judah is the object of divinely decreed judgment, but identiﬁes the ﬁsher agents as divine

71 Cf. Hayward 1987, 97.

72 2002, 251-52.

73 Ibid, 252.

74 Cf. Foreman 2011, 233-34. 85 beings, or “lesser deities.”75 According to Cho, the thoroughness and totality evoked by the fishing and hunting metaphors in this passage betray “divine omniscience” and thus divine agency.76 Furthermore, the “context offers no reason to apply the two images to Gentile armies.”77 Cho endeavors to reinforce this idiosyncratic reading by establishing the existence of other divine fishers and “warrior deities” throughout the aNE, such as Aṯiratu’s emissary, Qadiš-wa-Amrar (see 2.2.2 above). It is this perusal of cognate literature, especially that of Ugaritic, that leads Cho to merge the mythological reality of Qadiš-wa-Amrar with Jer. 16:16. While both passages involve divine conscription, commanding animate beings to take up fishing equipment and catch their enemies, basic differences with regard to context and genre severely weaken this argument. First, reading an obscure epithet of a particular messenger deity within the Canaanite pantheon into Jer. 16:16 infuses foreign, mythological evidence that overlooks Jeremiah 16’s own literary and historical contexts. The preceding two verses (16:14-15) firmly establish the expectation of a physical return from exile in the ’ereṣ ṣāpōn “land of the north,” a common designation in Jeremiah for Babylon, and more precisely, Babylonian captivity.78 Second, the creative claim that the theme of totality or thorough judgment presumes divine agency remains dubious in light of other prophetic evidence. The very motif in question—fishers as executors of divine discipline—shows up elsewhere in the prophetic literature (Hab. 1:14-17; cf. Amos 4:2; Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 29:1-6a; 32:1-10) designating humans as the agents of deportation. While YHWH plays an integral role in such references, foreign nations fulfill his command by enforcing the prescribed punishment. Cho’s reading thus lifts Jer. 16:16 from its broader contexts and

75 2009, 97-105.

76 Ibid, 98.

77 Ibid.

78 In 24 attestations of this phrase in the HB, 20 occur in Jeremiah (3:18; 6:22; 10:22; 16:15; 23:8; 31:8; 46:10; 50:9). The others show up in Zechariah, who may there depend on his prophetic predecessor (cf. 2:10; 6:6, 8 [2x]). 86 levels out differences in genre between the two corpora. The Ugaritic references revolve around activity pertaining to the pantheon confined to the divine realm, while Jeremiah 16 revolves around Judah’s sin and consequent punishment. Identifying the fishers and hunters of Jer. 16:16 as “lesser warrior deities” overlooks the manner in which prophetic literature uses fishing imagery elsewhere (viz. divinely appointed retribution) and unnecessarily divorces prophecy from history.

2.3.3.4 Babylonian Fishers Jeremiah 16:16 leaves the disciplinary agents of the passage formally ambiguous. If deliberate, Amos 4:2 offers a prophetic precedent. The locative reference in 16:15 (’ereṣ ṣāpôn “north country”) likewise maintains a degree of indeterminateness. At the very least, this ambiguity should caution against any rigid identification of the two referents. The scholarly contention over their identification notwithstanding, all agree that Jer. 16:16 draws on an image from the fishing industry. If this fishing image is not an isolate, but part of a network connecting it to others in the HB, one final position (viz. Babylonians fishing for Judahites) deserves mention due to its reconciling of text, context, and imagery.79 According to this view, the fishers and hunters, commissioned by YHWH to catch humans, together designate the same referent Jeremiah mentions over 165 times (nearly two out of every three attestations [169/262]): Babylon.80 In so doing, he joins his prophetic contemporary, Habakkuk, in employing fishing imagery (cf. Hab. 1:14-17 and ch. 3 below) to signal the coming Babylonian incursion. Though it is not without difficulties, such as the fact that the term bābel does not emerge until 20:4-6, the imprints of this nation, and more specifically, the exile, at whose hands YHWH threatens to execute judgment against Judah, permeate the entire book.

79 Jones’ conjecture that the imagery is more apocalyptic (ultimate future) than historical (the Babylonian exile) in nature, goes too far, overlooking the very nature of judgment oracles, content of Jeremiah 16, and rhetorical effect of divine retribution (1992, 234).

80 The list of scholars adhering to this position includes, Aalders, Nicholson, McKane, Lundbom, Jones, Carroll, Foreman, Janzen, and Zwickel. 87 The use of a fishing metaphor to connote divinely appointed exile naturally within the literary context of Jeremiah 16, which revolves around the theme of impending exile. It also accords with the historical context of late 6th/early 5th century BCE Judah, when social injustice and political turmoil at home converged with the rise of a powerful world power abroad—in fact, one that had just recently been incited to quash rebellion (cf. 2 K. 24:1-4). What is more, this imagery complements the conceptual relationship YHWH shares with fishing instruments elsewhere in prophetic corpus (e.g. Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; 19:1-9; cf. 29:1-6; 32:1-9), where he appoints a foreign nation, typically Babylon, to fulfill a decree of discipline. The effect of 16:16-18 as a whole communicates the theme of inescapable and total punishment.81 The figurative language of 16:16, likens the horde of conscripted fishers and hunters to death-eaters capable of capturing the guilty not only in large numbers (e.g. in nets), but also in the remotest of locales.82 The two images together signify a merism, illustrating the totality of judgment that extends from the depths of the sea to the far-flung mountain precipices. There is thus a palpable irony in the description of that which is supposedly inaccessible (e.g. minnĕqīqē hassĕlā’īm “the clefts of the rocks”) as, in fact, quite within reach. In so doing, the prophet draws on a well- established aNE literary motif, to be discussed in chapters 3-4 below, where a deity delegates to his or her subordinate (i.e. the king) the task of accomplishing divine retribution, exiling a people group with fishing tackle (see 4.2.2 for YHWH himself as a fisher). This metaphor leads to a parenthetical statement in 16:17 emphasizing the “all seeing eye” of YHWH (cf. Prov. 15:3).83 Since he is fully cognizant of his people’s guilt —and 16:17-18 goes to pains to highlight Judah's rap sheet, offering a concise answer to their questions about committed sin in 16:10 (meh ḥaṭṭā’tēnū ’ăšer ḥāṭā’nū laYHWH

81 So Carroll 1986, 346. For a similar biblical example of this concept, cf. Amos 9:1-4.

82 Foreman provides a compelling argument in favor of the last phrase (“clefts of the rocks”) as a fowling, rather than a hunting metaphor (2011, 237-38).

83 Cf. McKane 1986, 378. 88 ’ĕlōhēnū “What is our sin which we have sinned against YHWH, our God?”)—they can expect the looming judgment to be commensurate to the offense. The mišnēh (“double” > “equivalent”) of Jer. 16:18 likewise finds a corresponding record of the sufferings of Judahite dispersion in the kiplayim of Is. 40:2, both of which refer to the onslaught of Babylon in 597, 586, and finally in 582 BCE. Requiring no recourse to redaction, this view furthermore presents 16:16 as a logical explanation of 16:14-15. In so doing, it moves backward in time toward the present, connecting the agents in 16:16 (i.e. “fishers” and “hunters”) with the locale in 16:15 (’ereṣ ṣāpôn “north country”), which Jeremiah elsewhere connects with the Euphrates (46:10). Though Jeremiah may have deliberately left the agents in 16:16 anonymous, connecting them with Babylon, YHWH’s mappēṣ “war club” (51:20), presents the strongest alternative by maintaining a cohesive text, comporting with the immediate and broader literary contexts (e.g. Hab. 1:14-17), as well as the historical context of the late 6th/early 5th century BCE, and reflecting the customary way the HB employs fishing imagery. With the Neo-Assyrian Empire’s cataclysmic fall at the hands of the new world power, Babylon, in the past, and in light of Habakkuk’s forceful depicting of Babylon as a divinely appointed fisher to deport Judahites, who else might Jeremiah and the Judahite audience have envisioned to lead them northward?

2.4 Synthesis The mining of aNE evidence for divine fishers reveals an array of disparate forms. Both Mesopotamia and Ugarit conceived of deities governing the waters and, tangentially, the fishing industry (Nanše in Mesopotamia; Yam and Aṯiratu in Ugarit). Gods bear the epithet of a fisher in both those locations (Dumuzi and Papulegarra in Mesopotamia; Qadiš-wa-Amrar in Ugarit). Though the Ugaritic and biblical evidence differ in fundamental ways, they also share comparable ideas (e.g. both Aṯiratu and YHWH hold supervisory roles over a caste of fishers). The depiction of YHWH as one who sends out fishers in Jer. 16:16-18 introduces this concept by emphasizing his action and control. Like Mesopotamian deities equipped

89 with personal fishing tackle, YHWH also has both the authority to judge and the capacity to ensure commensurate and comprehensive judgment. It is this heavy emphasis on his action and the resulting ambiguity regarding the agent commissioned to fulfill his task, that, as Wuellner remarks, brings to light “the intimate connection between the one who authorizes the fishing and the ones who…go out and do the actual fishing.”84 From a general perspective, YHWH’s recruitment of human fishers to accomplish his plan echoes a fundamental facet of Mesopotamia’s fishing industry: the temple alone authorized fishing rights within its jurisdiction in order to provide fish offerings for the patron deities (see §1.5.2 above). More specifically, this passage in Jer. 16:16-18 draws from a well-established inventory of imagery which uses fishing terminology to signal divine retribution. The characterization of a deity equipped with a cosmic net designed to mete out punishment pervades both Mesopotamian and biblical literature.85 Though Jer. 16:16 does not present YHWH as a fisher, but rather as one who conscripts fishers, the the HB elsewhere portrays him just this way. As one who controls justice, YHWH uses his own fishing tackle to punish offending parties, whether foreign (e.g. Egypt in Ezek. 29-32), domestic (e.g. Israel itself in Amos 4:2; Ezekiel 12:13; 17:20; 19:1-9), or “other” (e.g. Tannin as Pharaoh in Ezekiel 29, 32). It is no surprise, then, that when things fall apart for Job, he compares God’s punishment to a net (mĕṣūdāh) that encircles him (19:6). Ancient Israelite thought thus adapted a foundational theological tenet (i.e. divine retribution) by adopting common aNE imagery (i.e. divine fishers). It is to these “fishers of men” passages that the next two chapters turn. ! ! ! !

84 Wuellner 1967, 92.

85 Note also the connection between nets and punishment in the angelic theophany at 1 En. 56:1: “Then I saw there an army of the angels of punishment marching, holding nets of iron and bronze” (Isaac 1983, 39). 90 ! ! ! ! Chapter 3. Fishers of Men: Divine Discipline as Fishing Image “Do not despise the ﬁsh because they are absolutely unable to speak or to reason, but fear lest you may be even more unreasonable than they by resisting the command of the Creator.” (Basil of Caesarea)

3.1 Introduction A natural corollary to the existence of fisher deities is the use of a fishing tackle and/or a net to fulfill their divine responsibilities. As the previous discussion on YHWH as one who authorizes fishers in Jer. 16:16 demonstrated, the deity ensured justice on earth, exacting retribution on the guilty. Much more than an Israelite innovation, this theological tenet and literary motif was entrenched within an already well-established ancient Near Eastern conceptual tradition. Biblical prophets elsewhere employ an array of dramatic images to announce this idea of looming divine retribution. On no less than five different occasions outside of Jer. 16:16 (Amos 4:1-3; Hab. 1:12-17; Ezek. 12:9-16; 17:16-21; 19:2-9), a prophetic message of judgment incorporates metaphors appropriated from the fisher’s social milieu, a curious Israelite phenomenon in light of both its general suspicion toward the sea and the inconspicuous societal role it appeared to play.1 Why then did biblical prophets conceive of retribution and exile in such terms? A resolution emerges after these references are together viewed through the lens of fishing imagery and situated within their broader historical and political contexts. The signaling of divine justice through the use of fishing imagery is a feature much more at home in Mesopotamian literature, correlating generally with the more prominent

1 This chapter focuses on those passages that emphasize the medium of divine discipline, not the source. Rather than reviewing, this chapter assumes and builds on the extended discussion in the previous chapter, which emphasized both medium and source in Jer. 16:16. Ezekiel 29:1-6 and 32:2-9 also incorporate fishing imagery to connote divine discipline, but the overtly mythological character of that particular material distinguishes it from this here (see ch. 4 below). 91 economic and cultic role of fishing there. Though literary examples span Mesopotamian history (3rd millennium BCE through the NA period), attestations burgeon between the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser III and Esarhaddon, at which time Assyria’s renewed expansionistic interests led to more regular interactions with the Levant. Assyrian royal inscriptions revived this imagery, frequently imbuing martial exploits of subjugation and forced migration with fishing metaphors. The prophets thus preserve a shared reality by framing the prospect of covenantal retribution and exile—concepts that were reified through historical experiences—within fishing metaphors that resemble those propagated by the Assyrians themselves. These images, entrenched in realia, ironically resemble the imagery applied to Assyrian kings within their own inscriptions, likening them to fishers who subjugate and capture foreigners with their net. The chronological and literary propinquity of these fishing metaphors support this concept of shared reality and provide an explanation both for their appearance in the HB as well as their dynamic rhetorical effect. Each biblical reference exhibits its own idiosyncratic issues, which must first be accounted for and evaluated. This careful evaluation then opens the doors for intertextual analysis, placing the peculiarities of each individual passage in the context of the biblical evidence as a whole. The third and final objective is to juxtapose these results, placing the biblical fishing imagery within the context of the ancient Near East in order to discern with greater precision the relationship between the literature and culture of ancient Israel and her neighbors.

3.2 Textual Analysis 3.2.1 Amos 4:1-3 3.2.1.1 Translation

92 4:1 Hear this word, O Cows of Bashan,2 who are on the mountain of Samaria, who are oppressing the poor and crushing the destitute, who say to their husbands3: ‘Bring, that we may drink!’

נִשְׁ בַּ ע אֲ דֹנָ י יְהוִ ה בְּקָדְ שׁוֹ כִּ י הִ נֵּ ה יָמִ ים בָּאִ ים עלֵ יכֶ ם 4:2 וְנִשָּׂ א אֶ תכֶ ם בּצִ נּוֹת וְאַחֲרִ יתכֶ ן בּסִ ירוֹת דוּגָ ה׃ The Lord YHWH has sworn by his holiness4: ‘Behold days are coming upon you when one will lift you up5 with hooks, up to the last of you with ﬁshing6 hooks.

2 On the rare occasion the HB compares humans to cattle (Jer. 31:17; Hos. 4:16), men, not women, are involved. There is little cohesion among the abundance of scholarly commentary on this unique title. For example, Speier sees this as a double entendre based on the putative use of Arb. baṭne (“a voluptuously built girl”; 1953, 306-07). Some see in this reference a specific identification of and accusation against the women of Samaria, whose insatiable desire to carouse and whose controlling of their husbands leads to the perpetuation of injustice against the poor (cf. Paul 1991, 128). Others perceive a religious connotation signifying the women of Samaria’s self-designated title “cows of YHWH,” who worship the “mighty bull of Samaria (Koch 1983, 46; Jacobs 1985, 109-10). Still others prefer a literal reading, where spoiled cattle boss their herdsmen around for water (e.g. RHB 5:237-38; Wolff 1977, 206). Though women are clearly singled out as culpable for the oppression in Samaria, the specific nature of the offenses eludes the modern interpreter. Moreover, the section (4:1-3), as well as the book as a whole, demonstrate that just as all Israel has shared in the injustice, so all Israel will experience the traumatic effect of divine judgment (which in this particular section will manifest itself via exile). The immediate context highlights this point by its vacillation between masc. and fem. forms following this initial feminine appellation.

3 The term ’ādōn is relatively rare for “husband” in the HB (compared to ’īš and ba‘al), but may function here as a foil with the following composite divine reference to ’ădōnay YHWH.

4 Ps. 89:36 contains the only other such example of YHWH swearing by his own holiness, an act similar to swearing by his own self or name (cf. Gen. 22:16; Jer. 51:14) that, according to Paul, underscores the “irrevocability and irrefutability of the forthcoming divine punishment” (1991, 129).

5 niśśā’ is formally either a D or N stem. The ambiguous agent presents the main difﬁculty with the former, but Amos’ reticence toward identifying the human source of coming judgment, as well as the LXX (λήµψονται), support this reading (contra Wolff 1977, 203). An impersonal, active D stem verb occurs elsewhere in the book (e.g. 3:12; 6:12). Though YHWH is “the most natural subject of the verb,” Amos maintains the anonymity of the agent in accordance with his penchant to preserve ambiguity in judgment oracles, such as haharmōnāh in 4:3 (Nwaoru 2009, 468; cf. Ezek. 29:4). The point is not the lack of agent or even textual corruption, but rather that the agent’s identity remains enigmatic (YHWH?; Assyria?)

6 A handful of scholars, including Sellin, Weiser, Maag, and Amsler read dūgāh as a secondary, misleading gloss that suggests the continuation of bovine imagery into 4:2-3 and thereby precludes any hint of authentic ﬁshing imagery (cf. Waard and Smalley 1979, 233 n. 59). The basis for this emendation, which ﬁnds no textual support, is a rather simplistic evaluation of poetic license. 93 4:3 And you all shall depart through the breaches, each one straight ahead. You shall be cast out toward Harmon,’ declared YHWH.”

3.2.1.2 Commentary 3.2.1.2.1 Literary and Historical Context Couched between a set of judgment oracles against Israel for its rampant injustice (3:9-11) and ostentatious affluence (3:12-15) and a sarcastic call to multiply transgression and empty worship (4:4-5) stands this oracle of judgment in 4:1-3. This section directly relates to 3:9-15 by maintaining a focus upon Samaria (3:9) as the object of punishment and oppression as its cause (cf. the use of ‘šq in 3:9; 4:1). More precisely, this unit warns of impending exile on behalf of both unbridled social oppression and decadence, doing so with greater immediacy than is typical for Amos.7 The abrupt shift in imagery from the bovine (4:1) to ichthyological (4:2) realm draws attention to a skillful literary and rhetorical transformation.8 The final verse of the unit (4:3) reifies the meaning behind the elevated language of 4:1-2 by employing imagery not of animals, but actual human captives led into exile as a “despised mass of humanity.”9 Though feigning to be privileged cattle, Amos exposes the Northern Kingdom’s true fate as that of a helpless fish caught by a hook. While Assyrian weakness marked by both internal decentralization and external threats from Urartu had afforded such an

7 Jeremias 1998, 63. Williams draws attention to how 4:1-3 stands out from its surrounding literary context (1979, 209).

8 Paul specifically identifies the audience as the “women of Samaria” who boss around their husbands in order to feed their craving for self-indulgent pleasure (1991, 129). The combination of mixed images (cattle, fish) and mixed forms (masc. and fem. plural), however, caution against over interpreting, for ambiguity and irony are both literary devices wielded by the prophet to communicate his oracle of exile to the Northern Kingdom. Though the audience is initially addressed as plural and fem. (pārōt “cows”), only ’aḥărītken (4:2b) preserves this fem. idea in 4:1-3. Since masc. plural forms are naturally inclusive of both genders, redaction criticism posits that the rest of the exclusively masc. plural forms were altered secondarily from originally fem. ones. The existing divergent forms may, however, serve to indicate a level of joint responsibility from both genders (so Nwaoru 2009, 464), an unsurprising phenomenon within the confines of elevated, metaphorical language.

9 Jeremias 1998, 65. 94 opportunity for political and social prosperity, the prophet here warns the people not only that the tables would soon be turning, but also that reality was not necessarily what it seemed to be. The narcissistic self-indulgence and social injustice of the elite in Israel during the middle of the 8th century BCE demanded a commensurate punishment.10 The prophet communicated the divinely appointed answer by presaging an ominous fate marked by imminent, inexorable, and total exile. In so doing, Amos introduces a central theme of the book (cf. 5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17; 9:4), invokes the idea of retribution theology, and crushes any hope the people laid up in the security of their land.11 This passage, full of vivid rhetoric and images foreshadowing a violent, imminent deportation, yet riddled with problematic issues that have long preoccupied scholars, contributes to both the theological concept of divine retribution and the presentation of ﬁshing imagery in the HB and the aNE.

3.2.1.2.2 Fishing Terms and Imagery The fishing imagery in Amos 4:2 is unique within the HB by virtue of the employment of several rare lexical items: ṣinnôt and sīrôt (as well as dūgāh). While the first is a hapax legomenon in its current form, the latter reflects one of two potential lexical entries. Though the meaning of each is debated among scholars, nearly all12 agree that it represents an authentic 8th century BCE oracle and its imagery derives from the fishing milieu.13 The following discussion examines and evaluates the relevant

10 The seriousness, if not certainty, of this punishment obtains in YHWH’s self-reﬂexive oath formula, a form only Isaiah and Amos employ within the pre-exilic prophetic corpus (e.g. Amos 6:8; 8:7; Is. 5:9; 22:14; 14:24). For this grammatical phenomenon, see JM §165.

11 Jeremias 1998, 63.

12 Kleven disregards the clear shift in metaphor from bovine (4:1) to ichthyological (4:2), as well as the explicit fishing connotation marked by dūgāh later in 4:2, and attempts to circumvent the difficulties of the passage altogether by simply dismissing any potential fishing imagery (1996, 215-27). He instead suggests the passage maintains a rigid focus on the bovine characteristics of those led into exile. This creative, though myopic, assessment fails to account for the language, history of interpretation, and rich transmogrification of imagery in 4:1-3 from cows > fish > humans.

13 Maag reads dūgāh as a gloss incorporated into the text to make the meaning of sīrôt explicit (1951, 138). 95 philological and literary evidence in order to to clarify its meaning in the context of Amos 4:1-3 as well as its place within the broader biblical catalog of ﬁshing imagery as divinely appointed deportation.

3.2.1.2.2.1 ṣinnôt Attempts at identifying ṣinnôt have engendered a handful of different possible solutions, several of which remain highly speculative.14 The broad range of meanings ascribed to this term effectively demonstrates the difficulty in such an endeavor.15 Ascertaining its meaning requires more than a simple lexical analysis; a careful investigation of comparative linguistic, literary, and contextual factors is also necessary. The versions likewise evince disparate glosses for the term, unfortunately offering little clarification. The Gk. phrase ἐν ὅπλοις “tools, equipment” generally refers to “arms, weapons” in the LXX, but here points more specifically to a “shield,” a reflex most likely influenced by the similar Heb. term ṣinnāh “shield.”16 The V (in contis “on poles”) and Theodotion (δόρασιν “spears”) certainly draw on this martial idea, although with a twist that more directly reflects a transformation of Heb. ṣēn “thorn” (Job 5:5; Prov. 22:5). This leads to the most prominent scholarly position: ṣinnôt is not a hapax legomenon, but rather derives from ṣēn “thorn,” representing a specialized meaning within the context of fishing imagery in Amos 4:2.17

3.2.1.2.2.2 sīrôt The second ﬁshing term in 4:2 presents three possible interpretive options: 1)

14 For a breakdown of the different identiﬁcations of ṣinnôt and sīrôt, see Tables 7-8 below.

15 Bodi classiﬁes Amos 4:2 as a “crux” (1991, 178).

16 Tg trysyhwn “their shields” follows suit. For this nuanced meaning elsewhere in the LXX, cf. Ps. 5:13; 90:4.

17 Ṣinnôt occurs in parallelism with paḥ “snare, trap” in Prov. 22:5. A cognate noun with a reduplicated ﬁnal consonant, ṣĕnīnīm “thorns,” occurs in both Num. 33:55 and Josh. 23:15. V in contis “on pikes,” though generally related to Gk. ὅπλον, may more speciﬁcally draw from the imagery of piercing objects, à la Heb. ṣēn “hook.” 96 “hooks,” 2) “pots,” and 3) a meaning derived from the latter, “boats.” The LXX εἰς

λέβητας (“into cauldrons”),18 V in ollis (“in pots”)19 and S bqdr’ (“in cooking pots”) each derive sīrôt from Heb. sīr “pot.” This is the most straightforward rendering given that the grammar (sīrôt is amply and exclusively attested for the pl. of sīr elsewhere in the HB) and the versions both support it. The Tg bdgwgyt (“in ﬁshing boats”), several medieval scholars (Rashi, Kimḥi, Abarbanel), and one modern interpreter (Zolli) adapt this idea, investing it with the idea of a larger, water-based vessel suited for human transportation, hence a “boat.” The majority of scholars, however, understand sīrôt as a variant plural form of sīrāh “thorn” and thus as part of a ﬁshing tackle (viz. “hook”) rather than a portable vessel.

3.2.1.2.3 Interpretation 3.2.1.2.3.1 Hooked into Exile The philological and versional evidence unnecessarily clouds the meaning of the graphic image in Amos 4:2. Following Amos’ rhetorically charged venture around Canaan to ultimately expose and indict the Northern Kingdom itself comes a triad of messages (haddābār; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1) that sets the stage for woe oracles (5:18; 6:1, 4) and visions (7:1; 8:1; 9:1), which more fully illustrate the painful point: divine retribution to be enacted via exile (5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17; 9:4). Within those initial oracles of judgment 4:1-3 singles out the social elite for their oppression of the poor (4:1), highlights the seriousness of their offense (4:2a), and introduces the divinely appointed discipline via deportation (4:2b-3). Transforming agricultural terms (ṣēn “thorn”; ṣīrāh “thistle”) into ﬁshing paraphernalia (i.e. hooks) that highlight geographic displacement, the herdsman from Tekoa takes the familiar and adapts it to communicate a jarring fate. The terms themselves, ṣēn and sīrāh “thorn, thistle,” furthermore contextualize the very expertise of

18 The verse, which translates “and ﬁery pests shall cast those with you into cauldrons heated from below,” apparently misreads the adjective modifying sīrôt (dūgāh “ﬁshing”), perhaps by reading Heb. dalqāh instead (Wolff 1977, 607).

19 V in ollis ferventibus “in burning pots” follows the LXX. 97 the prophet Amos himself. Instead of employing more common Hebrew terms for “hook,” ḥakkāh or ḥôaḥ/ḥaḥ, he skillfully transformed a term endemic to his occupational background, herding sheep (cf. Amos 1:1; 7:14), imbuing it with fresh, nuanced meaning within the context of communicating this oracle of judgment. Sīrôt appears in parallelism with ḥôaḥ (and qimmōš “nettle”) elsewhere (Is. 34:13).20 Ḥôaḥ occurs as an instrument to lead away both humans (Manasseh in 2 Chr. 33:11; Hezekiah in 2 K. 19:28/Is. 37:29; Jehoahaz in Ezek. 19:4; Pharaoh as tannīm in Ezek. 29:4; and Gog in Ezek. 38:4) and mythological creatures (Leviathan in Job 40:26) into exile or general submission. To be sure, interpreting this crux demands one account for the poetic parallelism between ṣinnôt and sīrôt and the overarching meaning of 4:1-3, both of which constrain the meaning of the middle verse. Reckoning these features and comparing them to the ﬁshing imagery found elsewhere in the prophetic corpus and HB offers clarity and resolve to both the diverse interpretations and the various presuppositions underpinning them. The hallmark feature of biblical poetry, parallelism, grounds the meaning of Amos 4:2. The synonymous parallelism over the last two poetic lines pairs both the direct (’etkēm/’aḥărītkēn) and indirect objects (bĕṣinnôt/bĕsīrôt dūgāh). What is more, it uses a verb (wĕniśśā’) to govern both direct objects via ellipsis. This synonymous syntactical structure effectively renders these cola as two sides of the same coin, with the second specifying the totality of the exile. In a passage widely regarded as having to do primarily with exile, the verb šlk “to cast, throw” in 4:3 corroborates the use of hooks as deportation devices in the previous verse. From this perspective Israelites are hooked like ﬁsh in water and then forcibly removed or “cast away” toward a foreign land. Isaiah 19:8 combines this verb with the

20 qimmōš parallels ḥôaḥ in Hos. 9:6 and both ḥôaḥ and ḥārūl “nettle” in Prov. 24:31. 98 direct object ḥakkāh in a poetic representation of a “fisher.”21 An even closer semantic analogue to the idea presented in Amos 4:2-3 obtains in Ezek. 32:4 (cf. Ezek. 29:5, ntš) where YHWH pledges to hook Pharaoh, there mythologically symbolized as tannīm “dragon,” and “cast” (tẉl) him into the open field for carrion to devour his carcass.22 The fundamental contention with this view stems from the pl. endings on both ṣinnôt and sīrôt, which diverge from the masc. pl. endings attested elsewhere.23 The irregular, yet not infrequent, phenomenon of bi-gendered nominal endings in Hebrew animate nouns, however, diminishes the significance of this issue, especially in light of the poetic (and prophetic!) literary context.24 From a grammatical perspective, both terms present similar difficulties. If ṣinnôt derives from ṣēn “thorn,” why does its plural ending diverge from the other biblical examples? And if ṣīrōt is a plural form of sīrāh “thorn,” how is one to explain its anomalous ending? Though there are no easy answers, the phenomenon of bi-gendered plural endings on inanimate nouns is well documented.

21 Cf. Jon. 2:4 for a poetic reflection of YHWH “casting” (šlk) Jonah into the water in a manner reminiscent of a fish. The verbal sequence nś’ + ṭwl occurs in Jon. 1:12, similar to that in Amos 4:2-3 (nś’ + šlk), at the command of the prophet toward the Phoenician sailors in order to quell the tempest. Ironically, Driver (1954, 21), as well as Paul (1978, 185), submit the verb niśśā’ as evidence against equating ṣinnôt with “hooks,” but the evidence from Ezek. 29:4 (cf. 32:4), where Pharaoh as tannīm is “hooked” and drawn up from the water (wĕnātattī ḥaḥīm bilḥāyêkā…wĕha’ălītīkā mittōk yĕ’ōrêkā “I will place hooks in your cheeks…and lift you up from the midst of your streams”) as well as Hab. 1:14-17 (see §3.2.2 below), suggests otherwise.” Paul’s further argument that ṣinnôt as “hooks” does not yield such a basic or derived meaning anywhere else in the HB rests on slim evidence (i.e. the term occurs only twice) and disregards the dynamic nature of poetic language. As Andersen and Freedmen perspicaciously note, ṣēn is used figuratively in each of its three attestations (1989, 421). Cf. Figure 12 (p. 121) below for visual evidence.

22 Exodus 17:4 reverses the usage of nś’ in Amos 4:2, highlighting the protection afforded by eagles’ wings.

23 For ṣinnīm, cf. Job 5:5; Prov. 22:5. For sīrīm, cf. Is. 34:13; Hos. 2:8; Nah. 1:10; Qoh. 7:6. Each reference to sīrāh outside of Amos 4:2 is articular. Harris proposes reading sīr as “thorn” instead of “pot”in Jeremiah’s second vision (1983, 282).

24 Ben-Asher 1978, 1-14. Ben-Asher does not include the idiosyncratic examples of ṣēn/ṣinnôt and sīr/sīrôt in his list of 117 examples of inanimate Heb. nouns displaying a masc. and fem. ending, tacitly classifying them under the “dubious” category (ibid, 1). The very reality of 117 unequivocal examples of this grammatical phenomenon warrants the plausibility of even more in disputed or difficult passages like Amos 4:2. Cf. Boadt 1980, 143 (“nouns with masc. and fem. forms in the plural are common among terminology for natural phenomena”: sun [šemeš], field [śādeh], river [nōhar], cloud [‘āb], height [gāb], stone [’eben], day [yōm], dust [‘āpār], year [šānāh], head [rō’š]). 99 Moreover, the fact that both nouns deviate from the expected norm betrays a purposeful literary flair that unfortunately remains enigmatic, if not impossible to ascertain.25 The deviations reflect authentically diverse endings for these two terms that were at one point normative, putatively acceptable according to certain linguistic standards or within certain linguistic environments. Though the grammatical alignment between text and interpretation leaves unanswered questions, the parallelism, the surrounding literary context (4:1-3), the imagery it projects (i.e. forced exile), and the relationship it manifests vis-à-vis other similar biblical passages combine to cast a coherent message that comports efficiently with what little we know of the prophet’s background and the rhetorical trajectory of the book as a whole. In all this, the prophet skillfully weaves diverse images (bovine in 4:1; fishing in 4:2; human in 4:3) into a complex vignette of divine accusation against the manipulation of power to the detriment of the defenseless, divinely appointed discipline for this injustice, and the looming consequences awaiting Samarian residents.

3.2.1.2.3.2 From Deportation to Death An alternative position that has gained contemporary assent after the publication of Shalom Paul’s seminal study in 1978 relates Heb. ṣinnôt to the Arm. noun ṣn’ (and its derivative forms ṣyn’, ṣynyḥ, ṣnh, and ṣynt’) “basket.”26 Paul applies evidence from the Mesopotamian and Egyptian ﬁshing industry, both of which relied heavily on basket ﬁshing, to strengthen his argument. Though the basket may have been commonly employed in Mesopotamian and Egyptian freshwater locales, this evidence is too

25 The sudden shift from bovine to marine to human images and the dramatic reversal of fortune asserted in the passage (oppressor > exiled; afﬂuence > captive) demonstrate the passage's transformative meaning, in a manner not altogether dissimilar from the phonetic pun in Amos 8:1-2 whereby the prophet interpreted the divine word qāyiṣ “summer fruit” according to its intended meaning, the arrival of Israel’s qēṣ “end”. Cf. Fishelov 1989, 203-04.

26 1978, 183-90; cf. idem 1991, 128-36, which offers minimal changes to the previous analysis. 100 general27 to address the specifics of fishing imagery in Amos 4:2.28 More specifically, he categorizes ṣinnôt as a hapax legomenon, the one and only biblical vestige of Arm. ṣn’. This supposed cognate, however, does not appear until Late Aramaic (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic).29 The lack of historical propinquity between the 8th century BCE context of Amos 4:1-3 and the first attestation of ṣyn’ in Aramaic thus vitiates any potential relationship between these two terms Paul then follows the versions in associating sīrôt with the lexical term sīr “pot.” Out of all the arguments available, this identification garners the strongest support a priori, for everywhere else sīrôt occurs in the HB (1 K. 7:45; Jer. 52:19; Amos 4:2; Zech. 14:20; 2 Chr. 4:11, 16; 2 Chr. 35:13) it communicates just that meaning. In effect, this view suggests the 8th century BCE prophet envisioned a scenario where Israelites were caught like fish via baskets and packed/transported in pots.30 One can reconstruct a similar reality along the Levant whereby Tyrians transported fish throughout the area (Ezek. 26:1-21, esp. 5, 14), even down to the Fish Gate at Jerusalem (2 Chr. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10), but a fundamental question still remains: Is this the point behind Amos 4:2? Paul draws on imagery from a Mari letter, which happens to be the first OB prophetic oracle,31 to contextualize the idea of captives taken up and led away in a fishing

27 Such generalization is nowhere more apparent than in his connection between sīrôt dūgāh “fishing pots,” Sum. gišmá-su-ku6, and Akk. elep bā’iri “fisher’s barge, skiff,” which is undermined by his earlier, cogent conclusion that a marine exile did not fit the outlook of this passage. For these terms, cf. Salonen 1939, 34, 37-8; idem 1970, 71-2; CAD E 95-6.

28 Spears, pikes, harpoons, and nets were all variously employed for saltwater fishing. For further analysis of the instruments and techniques associated with fishing in Mesopotamia, cf. Salonen 1970, 51-53 and 20:1 and 22:1. For iconographic depictions of line fishing in Mesopotamia, cf. Figures 7-10 above.

29 Kaufman 1992, 175-76.

30 His citation of ample Mesopotamian evidence of catching, packing, and transporting fish (following Salonen 1970, 51, 55-7) is conspicuously obvious. Would one expect anything less than such evidence for fishing communities throughout history? In other words, just because Mesopotamians commonly caught fish in baskets, packed, and then transported their catch in pots—techniques common throughout space and time—does not thereby indicate this was the intended prophetic message to an 8th BCE Samarian audience on the verge of national exile.

31 ARM 26 233; cf. Stökl 2012, 2, 29. 101 pot.32 The disputed meaning of the relevant passage notwithstanding, one line from a Mesopotamian text antedating the biblical passage in view by nearly a millennium is hardly compelling evidence in favor of this admittedly difficult prophetic terminology. Grammar thus becomes Paul’s greatest selling point. The exclusive use of sīrôt as “pot” elsewhere in the HB and the late Arm. cognate ṣn’ for ṣinnôt comprises his evidence, proffering what he refers to as the position with the fewest weaknesses. Compromising rhetoric and imagery at the expense of grammar is, however, no real solution, particularly within a genre (i.e. prophecy) known for its elusive character. Moreover, this interpretation muddles the tight parallelism between two synonyms from the agricultural milieu transfigured as fishing hooks designed for deportation. It instead assumes a type of synthetic parallelism marked by a sequential progression from catching fish to packing and transporting fish already or about to be

32 Paul 1978, 189. For the editio princeps, cf. Dossin 1948, 125-34 (later re-edited as ARM 26 233). The relevant section of the text reads: mārī šiprīka ana ṣērīya šu[pram-ma] u ṭēmka gamram ma[ḫrīy]a [š]ukum-ma u šarr[āni ša mār]ī Yamina ina sussul bā’i[ri luša]pšilšunūti-ma maḫrīka luškunšunūti “Send your messengers and place your full report before me! And I will cause the Yaminite sheiks to writhe in the fisher’s chest so that I may place them before you” (ll. 34-39). In this passage, a certain Itūr-asdu passes along a prophecy, transmitted from Dagan to a man in his Terqa temple, to his king, Zimri-lim. Due to the lacunae that include a verb (either pašālu “to writhe” or bašālu “to cook,” a phenomenon which may reflect a geographical dialectic isogloss) essential for interpreting the passage, the specific imagery involved in this exceptional passage remains dubious. Dossin suggests a D stem form of pašālu “to lead away” (ibid, 131; followed by Heintz 1969, 130), whereas von Soden (1950, 398; cf. AHw 841b), Paul (1978, 189), CAD (S 418), and Durand (ARM 26:475) read a Š form, both of which are elsewhere unattested in those stems. The verb does occur in the Gtn, often with reference to dogs “crawling on all fours” (cf. TCL 3:58 eli erbi rettīšunu iptaššilū “They continually crawled on all fours like a dog”; TCL 3:345 aššu eṭir napištišunu eli erbi rettīšunu iptaššilūma “In order to save themselves they continually crawled on all fours”), leading Craghan to adopt this reading (1974, 51 n. 82). I here adopt the majority reading (Š stem). For the Yaminites, see Dossin 1939, 981-99; idem, 1959, 60-62. While some suggest this is evidence in favor of ṣinnôt as “baskets,” the Akk. noun (sussul/sussullu), whether translated “basket” or “chest,” has more to do with transporting fish than catching fish (contra Dossin 1948, 31; Moran 1969a, 623 n. 7, who read ṣuṣṣul “harpoon,” relate it to CH ṣilṣal in Job 40:31, and liken it to a cooking instrument [“spit”], but this term is found nowhere else in Akkadian). Such a difficult, partially effaced line appearing nearly a millennium before the context of Amos 4:2 provides minimal support either way. Considering the inherent difficulties involved, a more productive evaluation of its relationship to potential biblical references is the mere fact that the phenomenon of fishing imagery used to illustrate divine retribution transcended diachronic and geographical boundaries in the aNE. For additional related bibliography subsequent to the editio princeps, cf. Bodi 1991, 177-78: Marzal 1976, 57-58; Finet 1974, 41. 102 salted and dried.33 Conversely, its presentation of lifting Israelites in both baskets and pots (niśśā’ governs both poetic lines), even though these ideas serve two different functions, produces an awkward poetic arrangement. Finally, following Salonen, Paul contends34 that hooks were not used in Mesopotamia after the 3rd millennium BCE nor was there even such a term for “hook” in Akkadian.35 This is simply spurious, for hooks of various shapes, composition, and sizes, appear throughout all of Mesopotamia continuously from the 4th millennium BCE onward,36 largely mirroring the evidence from Egypt, as well (see §1.5.2 above and ch. 7 below).37 Regardless of the ubiquity of their Israelite usage,38 the CH inventory did, in fact, include terms for hooks and the HB employed them in fishing contexts (e.g. Job 40:26; Ezek. 29:1-6; Hab. 1:14-17), thus rendering the literary silence from cuneiform presumptuous and limited.39

33 Whereas Paul suggests that the second term is only a hook if the ﬁrst term is a hook, thereby imposing the grammar upon the parallelism and thus the creative literary capacity of the author(s), a more productive approach allows the parallelism itself to help identify difﬁcult terms.

34 Nevertheless, Paul himself admits that “hooks” makes good sense of ṣinnôt, yet ultimately decides against this because it nowhere else manifests such a “basic or derived meaning” and to do so would only exacerbate its difﬁculty (1991, 131-32).

35 1991, 32; Salonen 1939, 38; idem 1970, 55. A cognate to Heb. ḥakkāh (lú ag-ga, lit. “man of the ﬁshhook”) does occur, however, in Eblaite for “ﬁsher” (MEE 2 8 obv. 10:11; cf. Dahood 1983, 60).

36 For 1st millennium BCE visual evidence from Nineveh dating to the reign of Sennacherib, see Paterson 1915, 231-32.

37 Cf. Brewer and Friedman 1989, 26-31. Paul concedes this point, yet he suggests basket fishing was still the “simplest method for catching fish.” Speculation on what was simplest or most common, while productive generally toward a more refined idea of fishing techniques in the aNE, ultimately contributes minimally to the question of meaning in Amos 4:2.

38 Bronze ﬁsh hooks have been found at Tell ‘addschūl (Petrie 1931-34, 85-7). For hooks used with nets, cf. ibid, 22, 84; idem 1928, 11-13. According to Galling, bones could also be used in this capacity (1937, 168). For copper hooks found near the Gulf of Aqaba, cf. Glueck and Albright 1938, 5, 13.

39 Moreover, it disregards the iconographic evidence of both hooks and lines used in Mesopotamia end Egypt (Paterson 1915, 231-32; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 26-31. Using Ezekiel 29 as a comparison, Williams suggests Amos 4:2 could simultaneously serve complementary functions, literal (the people will be led away with hooks in their noses/mouths) and metaphorical (this deportation will resemble fish caught in hooks; 1979, 209). 103 Since fishers used pots to transport and preserve them for human consumption, what is the rhetorical effect of fish caught in baskets and transported in pots only to be thrown away? The conception of fish transportation in this verse presupposes several crucial features of imagery Paul’s analysis overlooks.40 First, the idea of transporting fish in pots assumes the fish are already dead or are soon to die (via the process of salting and drying). Second, the idea of “casting” in 4:3 (“You shall be cast out toward Harmon”) confuses the purpose behind transporting fish (i.e. human consumption) in the first place, gaining little significance from 4:2. The problem with the first presupposition is that exile, not death, is the primary rhetorical thrust of the oracle of judgment in 4:1-3.41 The residents of Samaria had yet to experience exile and thus had yet to be captured.42 The issue with the second presupposition surfaces only when Amos 4:2 is placed within the context of similar biblical examples where fishing imagery symbolizes both divinely appointed discipline (Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 12:13; 17:16-21; 19:2-9) and a transformed reality (Ezek. 29:1-6; 32:2-9). In these passages, as with Amos 4:2, the emphasis is on the displacement of looming punishment deriving from the fishing metaphor. Divine punishment had been decreed, the import of which transcended the mere idea of relocation. The guilty would be caught, lifted up, and cast like fish extracted from water, forcibly removed from all that was familiar. Those who had manipulated

40 While Paul is just one of many adherents of this position (e.g. Held, Bodi, etc.), his analyses (1978 and 1991) remain the standard modern arguments in its favor, leading others (e.g. NET) to consequently adopt this position.

41 The reading of Snaith (“shields” and “fish pots”) implies this latent reality where Samarians face the threat of an exile that leads to death (1960, 24). Wolff, following Rudolph, cogently recognizes the shift in metaphor from the bovine to ichthyological realm, but prefers to superimpose the fishing imagery onto the the bovine imagery and thus envisions a “harpoon” used as a form of ox-goad, rather than a “fish hook,” which putatively reflects a corpse rather than a deportee (Wolff 1977, 607; Rudolph 1971, 158-61). Conversely, his suggestion that ṣinnôt and sīrôt together image captives being led away by ropes and harpoons ironically envisions more of a cattle drive than a fishing expedition. His reference to Ea triumphing over Mummu in EE (1:72: mummu ittamaḫ ukāl ṣerressu “Ea controlled Mummu, held [him] by a nose-rope”) is irrelevant to the meaning of sīrôt in Amos 4:2 by nature of its radically different context. As Nwaoru acknowledges, ropes without hooks will not catch fish (2009, 467)

42 Cf. Nwaoru 2009, 467. 104 their afﬂuence and power to prey upon and take advantage of the poor and defenseless would suddenly be exposed as mere ﬁsh, caught on a hook, extracted from their natural habitat, and cast away to an unknown and unfamiliar destination.43 In so doing, the oppressor suddenly meets a humiliating, yet commensurate, end.44 Paul’s thorough study unfortunately demonstrates a propensity to miss the forest (i.e. the essence of Amos 4:2 in context) for the trees (i.e. the grammatical details in 4:2), despite its invaluable assemblage of data on the history of interpretation and ancient Near Eastern comparanda.

3.2.1.2.3.3 Cattle-driven by Nose-rope Schwantes, followed by Wolff, developed a third position that attempted to connect Heb. ṣinnôt to a rare Akk. term ṣinnatu “nose-rope,” leading him to suggest “rope,” or better “noose,” for ṣinnôt in Amos 4:2.45 Akkadian ṣinnatu comes to mean “nose-rope,” however, based solely on its position parallel to the more common ṣerretu “nose-rope,” which was a controlling device that passed through either the nose or muzzle of a beast of burden or a human captive.46 In fact, it only occurs in lexical texts alongside ṣerretu, outside of a lone attestation in a very difﬁcult NB letter. For this reason, CAD suggests ṣinnatu may simply be a homonymic variant of ṣerretu.47 What is

43 Note the difficulty with the last term in 4:3. Nwaoru mentions that the ambiguity in this word accords with Amos’ penchant not to disclose the “final destination of those cast out in the context of punishment” (2009, 463-4). It seems to be a geographical term, although an unidentified and unknown one. This anonymity reflects the historical reality of the time, when Israel was prosperous and faced little external threat due to Assyrian weakness. Mishael argues Assyria was in the back of the author's mind, which may be true (although impossible to prove!), but the mystery of the exiles’ final destination ironically accords with a generation bereft of major political powers (1990-91, 160-65).

44 For other examples of reversal in the HB, see 1 Sam 2:4-8; Job 5:11-13; 34:24-28; Ps. 107:40-41; 113:7-8; Qoh. 4:14; Ezek. 17:24; Hos. 2:13-15.

45 Schwantes 1967, 82-3; Wolff 1977, 203.

46 Cf. CAD Ṣ 136.

47 Ibid. Schwantes also turns to a Delphic inscription to suggest that Gk. ὅπλον also meant “rope” (1967, 82-3). Be that as it may, the dubious relationship between the Akkadian and Hebrew terms severely vitiates his argument and renders any attempt to validate this Gk. reading at Delphi insigniﬁcant for the word in Amos 4:2. 105 more, Dossin has recently demonstrated that what was previously understood as ṣinnatu is actually sinnatu, invalidating any formal linguistic relationship between the Hebrew and Akkadian terms.48 Both the speculative connection between Heb. ṣinnôt and Akk. ṣinnatu and the fact that nowhere else in the LXX does ὅπλον mean “rope” render this position dubious.

3.2.1.2.3.4 Carried away on a shield Several modern scholars (Snaith; Driver) read ṣinnôt as a form of Heb. ṣinnāh “shield,” despite a lack of internal and external support. Driver speculates that Israelite deportees were lifted up and carried on shields due to their physical fatigue.49 Moreover, Snaith’s presentation of those carried on shields as corpses misses the point of the imagery altogether: the discipline is not necessarily death, but exile. All this leaves the reader wondering why Assyrian soldiers would carry POW’s with them on shields during their long trek eastward?

3.2.1.2.3.5. Marine Transportation A ﬁfth position reads ṣinnôt as “boats” on the basis of a faulty understanding of the parallel term sīrôt. This position was popular among medieval interpreters, but has curried little support post-Enlightenment.50 Given the context of a prophesied exile from Samaria, it is furthermore very unlikely Amos had a marine deportation in mind.51

48 See Dossin’s note in ARM 13 56:4; Paul 1991, 184. Though captives were, in fact, led at times by ropes through the nose, this does not characterize the exile imagery presented in Amos 4:2 (for iconographic representations of human exiles led away via nose-rope in the aNE, see Rawlinson 1871, 243 [Sargon II]; Mekhitarian 1954, §82).

49 Driver 1954, 20.

50 To my knowledge, Luria is the only modern adherent of this position (1966-67, 6-11).

51 Paul remarks that the idea of a marine exile simply does not fit “the geographical/ideational outlook of the prophet” (1978, 188). 106 3.2.1.2.4 Conclusion The very existence of five different positions on one passage demonstrates the inherent difficulty in ascertaining its meaning and the frustration scholars have experienced in light of this reality. Only one, however, presents a tenable defense of its poetic features, fishing imagery, meaning in context (both 4:1-3 and Amos as a whole), and relationship to other similar passages in the HB. The specialized nuances of ṣinnôt and sīrôt deftly reflect pastoral terms familiar to the prophet that he transformed in order to recontextualize a foundational deuteronomic reality (i.e. divine retribution). As the next section demonstrates, the image of a fisher’s hook forcibly removing a people group from their homeland by divine appointment is not particular to Amos 4:2, but rather a leitmotif of biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature.

Table 7. Scholarly and versional positions on ṣinnôt

ṣinnôt Thorns > Hooks Baskets Boats Shields Ropes, Cords Scholarly 1. Osty 1. Paul 1. Rashi 1. Driver 1. Schwan- Sources 2. Weiser 2. Ibn 2. Metsu- 2. Snaith tes 3. Rinaldi Ganaḥ dat Zion 2. Wolff 4. Sellin 3. Ibn 3. Abar- 3. Koch 5. Dalman Bal‘am banel 6. Maag 4. Eliezer 4. Zolli 7. Rudolph Beaugency 5. Kimḥi 8. Williams 5. Bodi 6. Luria 9. Ibn Ezra (following 10. Harper Held) 11. Nötscher 6. Fishelov 12. Weiser 13. Robinson 14. Cripps 15. Hammershaimb 16. Tur-Sinai 17. Craghan 18. Waard and Smalley 19. HALOT

107 Continued Table 7 Continued

ṣinnôt Thorns > Baskets Boats Shields Ropes, Hooks Cords Ancient 1. V (contis)* 1. NET 1. LXX 1. NABRE Versions and 2. Th. 2. NJPS 2. V (contis)* Modern (δόρασιν)* 3. Tg Translations 3. JPS 4. Aquila 4. ESV 5. Sym. 5. NRSV 6. Th. 6. NIV (δόρασιν)* 7. KJV 3. NEB 8. NASB 4. Lamsa 9. Segond (“weapons”) 10. Schlachter 5. REB 11. Wycliffe (“shafts”) 12. Coverdale (“spears”) 13. Knox (“spears”) ! ! !

108 Table 8. Scholarly and versional positions on sīrôt sīrôt Nettles > Fish Hooks Boats Pots or Harpoons Scholarly 1. Osty 1. Rashi 1. Driver Sources 2. Weiser (“Stacheln”) 2. Kimḥi 2. Paul 3. Rinaldi 3. Abarbanel 3. Ibn Ezra (“baskets”) 4. Schwantes 4. Zolli 4. Snaith (“thorns”) 5. Menahem ben Sarug 5. Maag 6. Eliezer Beaugency 6. Dalman 7. Ehrlich 7. HALOT 8. Cramer 8. Wolff (“harpoon”) 9. Bodi (following Held) 9. Rudolph 10. Craghan (“harpoon”) 11. Fishelov (“baskets”) 10. Harper 11. Cripps 12. Nötscher 13. Hammershaimb 14. Tur-Sinai 15. Waard and Smalley 16. Koch Ancient 1. ESV 1. Tg 1. LXX Versions 2. JPS 2. Aq. and Modern 3. NIV 3. V Translations 4. KJV 4. S 5. NASB 5. NET 6. NRSV 6. NEB (“baskets”) 7. Segond 7. Wycliffe 8. Schlachter 8. Coverdale (“pans”) 9. NABRE 9. REB (“baskets”) 10. NJPS (“baskets”) 11. Knox (“cooking-pan”)

109 3.2.2 Habakkuk 1:14-17 3.2.2.1 Translation

וַתַּ ﬠֲשֶׂ ה אָדָ ם כִּדְ גֵ י הַ יָּם כְּרֶ מֶ שׂ לֹא־מֹשֵׁ ל בּוֹ׃ 1:14

“You [YHWH] make52 mankind like53 the ﬁsh of the sea like crawling things54 that have no ruler.

כֻּ לה בְחַ כָּ ה הֵﬠֲלָ ה יְגֹרֵ הוּ בְחֶרְ מוֹ וְיַאַסְפֵ הוּ בְּמִכְמַרְ תּוֹ ﬠַ ל־כֵּ ן יִשְׂמַ ח וְיָגִ יל׃ 1:15

He [Nebuchadrezzar] brings all of it up with a hook, drags it with his net gathers it in his dragnet, (and) thus rejoices and celebrates.

ﬠַ ל־כֵּ ן יְזַבֵּחַ לְחֶרְ מוֹ וִיקַטֵּ ר לְמִכְמַרְ תּוֹ כִּ י בָהֵמָּ ה שָׁמֵ ן חֶ לְ קוֹ וּמַאֲכָ לוֹ בְּרִ אָ ה׃ 1:16

Therefore he sacriﬁces to his net,55 and makes offerings to his dragnet,56 for by them his portion is fat and his food is rich.

52 Van Dijk’s attempt to reassess this 2nd masc. sg. verb into a 3rd masc. sg. maxat means “to gather” stands on thin evidence (1969, 446; cf. Dahood 1983, 60).

53 The use of the preposition kĕ as an “object of adequacy” following ‘śh is unique to this passage, according to Humbert 1944, 127.

54 Hebrew remeś typically refers to a land dwelling creature which crawls on the ground, but here in Hab. 1:14, as well as possibly in 1 K. 5:13 and Ps. 104:25, it may designate a marine, or at least amphibious, animal.

55 The Tg reads “weapons” instead of “net.”

56 The Tg recontextualizes this reading completely, changing “empty the net” to “send the armies” and “seine” to “standards,” which were worshipped by the Romans (cf. Cathcart and Gordon 1989, 149). For Roman veneration of martial standards following the destruction of the second temple, cf. Tertullian, Apology 16; Josephus, War 6:316. For a more detailed analysis of the Roman worship of such standards, cf. Atkinson 1959, 246-49. 110 הַﬠַ ל כֵּ ן יָרִ יק חֶ רמוֹ וְתָמִ יד לַהֲ רֹג גּוֹיִם לֹא יַחְ מוֹל׃ 1:17

He shall57 then continue to empty his net,58 mercilessly killing nations.”59

3.2.2.2 Commentary 3.2.2.2.1 Literary and Historical Context A century and a half after Amos addressed Samaria, Habakkuk picks up this literary motif once again, approaching it from a different perspective and investing it with fresh meaning for his own context. Habakkuk’s impassioned inquiry (i.e. “How long?”) in 1:2-4 concerning YHWH’s apparent toleration of evil elicits a vexing response in 1:5-11: Babylon is the answer to the problem of rampant Judahite sin.60 Unsatisﬁed, Habakkuk objects, offering a visceral retort that rails against the inhumanness of

57 1QpHab reads ‘l kn yryq ḥrbw tmyd “Therefore he brandishes his sword continually,” replacing the m of ḥrmw “his net” with a b, resulting in ḥrbw “his sword.” This change may derive from an orthographic scribal slip (m > b) or the common biblical phrase, rīq ḥereb “to brandish a sword” (Ex. 15:9; Lev. 26:33; Ezek. 5:2, 12; 12:14; 28:7; 30:11; cf. Ps. 35:3, with ḥănīt “spear” and sĕgōr “javelin”). Roberts follows suit, confidently emending ḥermō to ḥarbo, arguing that the latter’s frequent collocation with rīq tips the scales, thus effectively drawing the fishing imagery to a close in 1:16 (1991, 101). His adamance that 1:17 “speak[s] clearly of Babylon’s military activity” holds, but the assumption that this implies a hunting metaphor overlooks the literary plasticity of the imagery in view, as seen by the fact that elsewhere (in both biblical [Jer. 16:16; 1QH 13:8] and Mesopotamian records [the Assyrian royal inscriptions, for which see Tables 15-21 below]) fishers are imbued with the qualities of the general and the hunter, rendering the line between martial and fishing imagery ambiguous (cf. ibid, 105). The Old Greek (dated to the late 3rd century BCE by Cleaver-Bartholomew (1998, 93), preserves the MT reading, while altering the verb from “empty” to “cast” (ἀµφιβάλω, an LXX hapax legomenon).

58 Cathcart prefers romḥô “spear” over ḥermô “net” due to the fact that a spear has a holder, follows the verb ryq, and has the same consonants. It would thus function as a wordplay on the earlier term for “net.” Supporting his argument is the lack of versional support for DSS ḥarbō “sword,” which probably represents a late-stage correction, once romḥô had become corrupted into ḥermo as inﬂuenced from that term in vv. 15-16. The rationale for all rests largely upon conjecture.

59 The current translation assumes the initial heh in 1:17 is a dittograph from the ﬁnal word in the preceding verse (bĕrī’āh), resulting in the third repetition of the resultative phrase ‘al kēn “therefore” in 1:15-17. This reading obtains strong versional support (cf. 1QpHab [‘al kēn], LXX [διὰ τοῦτο], and V [propter hoc ergo]).

60 Vasholz argues both 1:2-4 and 1:12-17 (which he further takes as one homogenous speech) refer to the Assyrians, rather than the Babylonians, on the basis of his idiosyncratic perspective whereby the prophecy must have been delivered before Nabopolassar (626-605 BCE), the founder of the NB empire, came to power (1992, 50-52). 111 humanity. Though Habakkuk does not report the ensuing historical aftermath—as does his contemporary Jeremiah—its dynamic imagery paints an agonizing picture entrenched in a reality tragically akin to that of Amos in the mid-8th BCE Samaria. The following discussion illustrates how these prophecies used recycled motifs to showcase an ironic historical reality: the same fishing imagery used by ancient Israelites to characterize the divinely appointed justice at the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians was likewise used by Assyrians themselves. In this complex reflex of cultural convergence, opposing forces collided as fishers chased fish that characterized not only themselves but their predators in like manner, events interpreted by both parties as divinely orchestrated.

3.2.2.2.2 Fishing Terms and Imagery Habakkuk augments the imagery in Amos, adding another reference to hooks and introducing the most common ancient Near Eastern representation of fishing imagery, the fisher’s net. This passage thus presents the fullest portrayal of fishing imagery in the HB. Moreover, the three different fishing terms Habakkuk employs differ from those found in Amos 4:2 (and in the following passages, Ezek. 12:13; 17:16-21; 19:1-9). The evidence from Hab. 1:15-17 demonstrates an extensive repertoire of fishing imagery. Hooks and nets together portray humanity as pervasive, defenseless, and utterly dependent fish in 1:14 to construct an imposing portrayal of the Babylonian forces, using various techniques for one pragmatic purpose: world conquest.61 This idea is clearest in 1:15 as the Babylonian leader finds joy in his capture of human beings. With each

61 For an approbative example of an animal without a ruler, cf. Prov. 6:8: “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider its way and be wise! Without having any ruler, officer, or governor, she prepares her food in the summer and gathers her grub in the harvest.” In EG, the mother goddess’ cry of anguish at the demise of her creation in the wake of the flood invokes a comparable idea (cf. 12:123: kī nūnī umalla tâmtam-ma “like a school of fish they [i.e. drowning humans] fill the sea!”). Haak suggests this metaphor communicates the weakening or decentralizing of government Habakkuk witnessed during the last few decades before the exile (1991, 51). He extends this argument further, suggesting that the deterioration of the monarchy was, alongside the issue of social injustice, a major issue for the prophet (ibid, 113). Vanderhooft posits Habakkuk’s “observation of Babylonian imperial practices” as the source of this comparison (1999, 155). 112 subsequent casting of a line and dragging of a net, he accumulates not only more power and possessions, but also pleasure. Wrapped up in this imagery is the reality of exile for nations, such as Judah, who, like a school of fish trapped in a net, are forcibly removed from their homes and displaced to a foreign land. Rather than identifying a particular Mesopotamian ritual,62 the sacrificial activity mentioned in 1:16 serves as an incisive metaphor, in fact, a theological polemic between Babylon and Judah.63 Whereas Habakkuk abhorred the evil he witnessed run amok (cf. 1:2-4), he still recognized that Babylon, who attributed its success to martial strength (a temptation Israel knew all too well, for which cf. 1 Sam. 8; 2 Sam. 24), was worse than Judah (1:13).64 The same net the Babylonians bestowed with sacrifices and offerings—appurtenances typically reserved for a deity—afforded them such an affluent, luxuriant lifestyle. YHWH directly confronts this perspective in his later response to Habakkuk’s second complaint, articulating that the righteous, whether individual or corporate, will live (i.e. survive death that comes to everyone else) not by merely upright deeds, ostensibly manifested by military success, but by trusting (cf. 2:4) regardless of external circumstances.65 More specifically, net worship reflects the well- attested Mesopotamian belief in the net as a divine symbol.66 Since the members of the

62 There is no interpretive connection between cultic fish offerings, which were common in Mesopotamia from the 4th millennium through the NB period (for examples, see NeK 2’:5’ [isḫi nūni apsî “{I, Nebuchadrezzar offered} a string of fish from the Apsu”]; VAB 4 154A 4:38; 92 2:29 [“Every day… I supplied copiously on the table of Nabu and Nana, my lords, a string of fish {isi nūnim}]” ), and the worship imagery here. Vanderhooft proffers that 1:16 illustrates not only worship of the fishing net as a source of martial strength, but also a satire on this Babylonian cultic practice (1999, 156). He wonders if 2:18-19 (referring to man-made gods) provides further evidence for a polemic against and rhetorical reversal of Babylonian cultic norms (ibid, 157), even while humbly acknowledging the speculative nature of this argument and its relative lack of effect on the meaning of the passage.

63 Roberts concurs, stating that “Habakkuk’s comment is hardly a fair appraisal of the religious situation in Babylon, but there is a certain truth to his statement in terms of the ultimate signiﬁcance Nebuchadrezzar placed upon his military” (1991, 104).

64 For similar examples which afﬁrm that both parties are reprehensible, cf. Gen. 38:26; Ezek. 16:52.

65 Cf. Haring 2013, 56-59. Cf. 2 Peter 2:5-9.

66 Contra Zwickel, who suggests reference to the Babylonian cult is an utterly Hebrew projection rather than a reflex of historical awareness (1987, 73). 113 Mesopotamian pantheon each wielded their own net in order to inflict divine punishment, martial victory evinced divine favor, engendering the need to give thanks.67 Habakkuk thus grounds Nebuchadrezzar’s net worship in a fundamental theological reality: battle success derives ultimately from the gods, who extend their net to capture and deport enemies. The prophet’s bewilderment culminates then in his final, desperate claim that YHWH simply allows Babylon to continue conquering and deporting the nations without intervention (1:17). In looking at the section from afar, Habakkuk’s complaint in 1:12-17 is rooted not simply in a vindictive rage against the Babylonian war machine, but rather YHWH’s toleration of idolatry and his reticence to address the escalating violence it produced on an international scene. How could a righteous God appoint such a barbaric, idolatrous nation, that endlessly and futilely sacrificed to its own nets, as a disciplinary tool?68 Habakkuk’s comparison of humanity to fish in 1:14 is a direct indictment against God. In so doing, he refuted the idea that humans lacked a real leader (mōšēl), for the HB elsewhere classifies YHWH in this role (e.g. Ps. 22:29; 59:14; 103:19; Job 25:2; 1 Chr. 29:12; 2 Chr. 20:6; cf. Judg. 8:23).69 The problems for Habbakuk are that YHWH's (in)actions contradicted his position of leadership, and his answer to localized sin involved the proliferation of widespread violence at the hands of a wicked nation. What he witnessed was incongruent with what he knew to be true about God.70 Despite the bleak outlook of looming incursion and divine silence, Habakkuk’s

67 Cf. Dhorme 1907, 64. For a possible Eblaite reference to worshiping a divine net, see MEE 1:1570 (dir- mu), which Dahood normalizes ḥirmu “Divine Net” (cf. also the PN i-ti-ir-mu /’itti-ḥirmu/ “with [me] is the Divine Net” [1983, 60; cf. MEE 1:1008]).

68 Contra Andersen (2001, 189-90), who suggests this idea is far too heavily inﬂuenced by Isaiah's perception of Assyria as “YHWH’s razor” (Is. 7:20). Though Andersen is right to point out Babylon’s indiscriminate slaughtering of all people, even those presumed to be righteous, the relationship between YHWH and Babylon as a divinely appointed instrument is integral to the book’s structure. It is YHWH himself who raises up the Babylonians for the express purpose of addressing injustice (1:6), whether concerning Judah alone or the general injustice among the nations. Habakkuk thus draws attention to a problem that Isaiah either did not see or did not identify.

69 Ibid, 190.

70 Ibid, 187. 114 future had yet to be determined, meaning that God was capable still of reversing his declaration that Babylon was the resolution to sin.71 His decision to take his stand atop a watch post, hoping his complaint had moved YHWH away from what he perceived to be divine negligence and toward mercy, anxiously awaiting YHWH’s response to his cognitive dissonance, makes this immediately clear. The Babylonian exile would eventually clear up any theological misconceptions about the potential relationship between divine judgment and righteousness, for as Jeremiah (e.g. 24:1-10; 25:8-11; 27:1-11; 29:1-14; 39:9-10), Ezekiel (e.g. 5:5-1712:19-20; 16:51-59; 33:27-29), and Lamentations (e.g. 2:19-22) demonstrate, both the righteous and the wicked would together suffer on behalf of the actions of the latter.72 Habakkuk’s honest persistence

71 Contra Andersen, who sees in Habakkuk’s second complaint a universal scope to his cry for justice. Though Habakkuk does, in fact, allude to creation (and specifically, Genesis 1) by the use of its language, Andersen's proposal that Habakkuk’s distress revolves around God’s neglect of creation misses the point. For Hab. 1:14-17 as a reflection of a distortion of the intended created order, see Sweeney (2000, 468). It is not a philosophical debate, but a confrontation entrenched in the fear and exasperation of his own context. Having recently endured the untimely death of Josiah, whose faithfulness to YHWH exceeded that of any other Israelite king (2 K. 23:21-25), and the wickedness of his successor, Jehoiakim (cf. Jeremiah 36), Habakkuk conceived of the nations as diminutive and dependent fish, desperate for their true leader to intervene. While 1:14 does refer to creation’s need for leadership, the sudden shift from the 2nd masc. sg. verb in 1:14 to the 3rd masc. sg. verb in 1:15 (note also the two different variations of pronominal suffix at the end of 1:14 and beginning of 1:15, which may simply reflect two different diachronic stages of textual transmission), which shifts the address from God to the Babylonian king, precludes any potential leveling out of imagery. Habakkuk perceives both the divine and human sphere intimately involved. All creation may be in desperate need of leadership, but Babylon alone has asserted itself as a world conqueror, and, via YHWH’s own command, had set its sights on Judah. And while Andersen is correct that 1:14-17 does not reflect nationalistic overtones (à la Jonah), his attempt to divorce this rich imagery from space and time rings hollow.

72 This is not, however, to say that theodicy found a resolution (but cf. 2:4, where God pledges to rescue the righteous by means of “his” faithfulness). The Old Greek replaces Heb. kullōh “all of it” with συντέλειαν “consummation” (also in Hab. 1:9), which regularly glosses a number of different Hebrew terms, such as kĕlīl “whole” (Judg. 20:40), ’aḥărīt “end” (Deut. 11:12), qēṣ “end” (Dan. 12:13), kāllēh “to bring to an end” (Ps. 58:14 [59:14 in MT]), and kālāh “complete destruction” (Jer. 4:27). In so doing, this narrows the object of divine wrath from humanity to the impious and ever so slightly distances Nebuchadrezzar’s activity from the indiscriminate, universal onslaught exhibited in the MT, thus obviating the brunt of theodicy’s force there. Such a stroke of revisionism may have satisﬁed later contexts, but the experiences of Habakkuk and the generations succeeding him deﬁed such a reality. 115 shows he had neither accepted nor adopted this sobered reality.73

3.2.2.2.3 Ancient Near Eastern Background Habakkuk 1:14-17 is just one of several biblical reflexes of fishing imagery used to connote divinely appointed discipline via exile, but its explicit mention of a foreign nation as the divine instrument (cf. 1:6) to mete out said punishment is unique (cf. Jer. 16:16). One nation’s plundering of another as the result of divine decree is a recurrent motif in Mesopotamian literature known from the 3rd millennium BCE up through the NA period.74 The most visual analogue comes from the SoV, which depicts Ningirsu gripping a net full of captives he has taken from Umma in order to defend Eannatum, king of Lagash (Table 9).75 Later historiographical texts from the reign of Enmetena (2418-2391 BCE), king of Lagash, reflect on that event, envisioning Ningirsu, at Enlil’s behest, casting a “great battle net” (sa-šuš-gal) upon Umma, Lagash’s rival city-state (Table 10). Soon afterward in northern Mesopotamia (ca. 2300 BCE), Sargon the Great left behind a Victory Stele with an (omen) inscription and accompanying relief that virtually mirrors the iconography of the SoV.76 Sargon captures a cohort of enemy POW’s, beats them with a mace, and envelops them in a net (Table 11). A century and a half later, Agade, the first major Semitic conurbation and the fruit of Sargon’s imperial success, fell to the Gutians, a tribe from the Zagros mountains, who pillaged the city and its environs. This watershed event, commissioned by the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon, Enlil, effectively brought the Akkadian Empire to an end. An apologetic account of the city’s fall, The

73 The authentic wrestling within the context of an open future, demonstrative of a theological naiveté to which later Judeans were not privy, offers literary support for a pre-exilic date of the book.

74 Zwickel curiously speculates that since the terms in Habakkuk also show up in Isaiah with reference to Egypt, the ﬁshing imagery did not come from Mesopotamia but rather his own homeland (1987, 73). Unfortunately he arrives at this conclusion without investigating the actual Mesopotamian evidence.

75 Parrot suggests this iconographic example provides a very close analogue to Hab. 1:14-17 (1957, 14).

76 For this text, see Spycket 1945-46, 151-56 (esp. 152, fig. 1); Pézard and Pottier 1926, 35. Amiet opines that on both this and the SoV the king devotes his enemies to the goddess, Ištar (1953, 151-52). 116 Curse of Agade, compares the Gutian forces to a divinely appointed net that ensnares a field of animals (Table 12).77 Hammurapi later refers to himself as a net spread out for his enemy (Table 13).78 While these examples precede Habakkuk’s context by nearly 1,200 years, much closer ones emerge in both the mytho-historical (EI) and historiographical (Assyrian royal inscriptions) literature of the 1st millennium BCE. Habakkuk’s comparison of mankind to fish helplessly caught in a hook and ensnared in a net by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadrezzar (1:14), resembles Erra’s contemplation over whether or not to discipline humanity in EI (1:42; Table 14).79 His decision in the affirmative shows up later within a lengthy speech by Išum (3:18-19) describing the post-judgment aftermath where Babylon and its residents, the objects of Erra’s wrath, are ineluctably caught in a divine net.80 His fury not satiated, Erra craves even more devastation. Rather than simply deporting the Babylonians, Erra eventually transforms into a killer, likening the people of Babylon to

77 Cf. Cooper 1983, 56-9; ETCSL 2.1.5 (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.5#). The common, primarily agricultural, Sum. term gu “cord, net” (cf. Akk. qû “thread, flax”) is here used to denote a “net” or “snare.” As elsewhere, the specific occupational source of net imagery is left ambiguous. Another Sum. text responding to the fall of a major Mesopotamian city, The Lament for Ur, casts the devastation from a different perspective: “Your fisherman (once) carrying fishes, an evildoer captured, how long…?” (Samet 2014, 75:365).

78 In an anomalous, variant passage from the Apology of Hattušiliš, the royal protagonist claims that once Ištar ensnared his arch rival, Urḫitešup “like a ﬁsh in a net” (ḫūpalaza), he then proceeded to arrest and deport him in order to prevent any further insurrection (KBo 6:29 + 2:33-35; Götze 1967, 50-1).

79 Later in that same epic Išum wrestles with theodicy in a similar way to Habakkuk, attempting to cajole Erra that the human offense is not as severe as that of the Anzu, and that Erra’s punitive standards or battle tactics should thus not be universalized (3c:33). See Cagni 1969; idem 1970). Bodi offers a comparative analysis of literary elements found in both EI and Ezekiel, but as demonstrated here, the former shares even stronger afﬁnities with the book of Habakkuk (1991, 162-82).

80 Two Akk. words in parallelism denote the net imagery here (arru “snare, decoy” and šētu “net”), both of which represent tools used by the hunter and fowler. The different terms for “net” in the aNE are quite plastic, just as are the techniques employed by the hunter, fisher, and fowler. 117 livestock led to the slaughter by a butcher (4:94).81 The text here envisions a divine net swallowing up human beings and leading them to death. Each of the five occurrences of a term for “net” in EI signals a divine weapon.82 Though this text goes further than any of the passages in the HB that we are discussing, the idea of divinely appointed deportation by a cosmic net displayed in EI demonstrates that the biblical references reflect a well- established ancient Near Eastern literary trope. Though the interaction in EI is between the supernal and human realm, the most common Mesopotamian examples of divinely appointed discipline using fishing imagery come from the NA historical inscriptions. Outside of the few references deriving from the 3rd millennium and EI, the use of this brand of fishing imagery proliferates in the annals left behind by NA kings. Starting in the 9th century BCE, an annal from the second regnal year of Adad-Nirari II (911-891 BCE) compares this king’s battle strength to a net that causes foreign leaders to tremble with fear (Table 15). A later annal of Shamshi-Adad V (824-811 BCE) similarly likens his subjugation of Nairi to a net (Table 16). References like this burgeon in both quantity and specificity a century and a half later with the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 BCE), who overpowered a trio of southern tribes, Bīt- Kapsi, Bīt-Sangi, and Bīt-Urzakki, “like a cast net” (kīma sapāri).83 A later summary inscription recycles this same imagery in order to describe how Tiglath-Pileser III routed the Puqudu tribe and carried away an abundance of its spoils (Table 17).84 The annals of Sargon II, the king who usurped the throne of Tiglath Pileser III’s son, Šalmaneser V, revivified this literary motif. In Sargon II’s victory over the Mannaeans and their capital city, Izirtu, his annals equate the king’s martial activity to

81 “Its (i.e. Babylon’s) people are livestock, their god (i.e. Erra) is the slayer. He it is whose net is tight(ly bound). They could not draw husbands (out of it), but (rather) died by a weapon” (4:93-94). Akk. māḥiṣu derives from a term which evinces the base meaning of “beater,” but here refers more to “slaying, slaughtering, and butchering” (so Bodi 1991, 173 n. 42; contra Cagni 1969, 114-15).

82 Bodi 1991, 173.

83 BM 118933. Cf. ICC 51a; STP 96; RINAP 1 7:6, p. 31 (= Annal 11 in Tadmor 1994, 46-7, pl. 7).

84 K 3751; cf. 2R 67; RINAP 1 47:13, p. 118 (= The Summary Inscription from Calah 7 in Tadmor 2007, 160-61, pl. 54) 118 that of a net (ḫuḫāriš).85 A nearly identical passage describes his conquest of Tabal as if conducted with a net (šētiš).86 Another annal once again describes how his troops subjugated Marubištu “like a net” (ḫuḫāriš), but adds an important detail: the Assyrian troops brought Marubištu’s ruler and warriors in fetters before Sargon II himself, presumably with the intention of deportation.87 When attacking the island dwellers of Ionia, his historical report most closely reflects the imagery presented in Habakkuk. On that occasion he caught the Ionians as if they were fish (Table 18).88 His son, Sennacherib, similarly scared Lulî, the king of Sidon, away like a fish to Cyprus, where he disappeared on behalf of the awesomeness of Aššur (Table 19). Mesopotamian literary examples demonstrating the greatest literary and chronological propinquity to Habakkuk's fishing imagery come from the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE). In a hexagonal prism celebrating his military achievements, such as the westward campaign against Abdi-Milkūti and the Sidonians, Esarhaddon claims, at the direct commissioning of Aššur, chief of the Assyrian pantheon, to have caught (abāršu) the retreating Sidonian king “like a fish from the midst of the sea” (Table 20).89 The fishing nature of this capture is appropriate given Sidon’s maritime location. His annals rerecord this same event, replicating the imagery identically, on no less than four other occasions (1 5:10-25; 2 1:14; 6 2’:16’; 60 obv. 1’). While the fishing imagery in Hab. 1:14-17 envisions Nebuchadrezzar as a war-mongering tyrant, who, as a fisher, demonstrates his limitless power by capturing the nations in his net as fish, this inscription, in like manner, later alludes to Esarhaddon’s same Sidonian expedition in order to underscore the unrivaled martial prowess and universal sovereignty of his kingship.

85 Cf. Fuchs 1994, 99A; Lie 1929, 15:86.

86 Lie 1929, 200-01.

87 Ibid, 75:5. See Gadd 1954, 177:46.

88 See Lyon 1883, 14:25 [cf. 4:21]; cf. Winckler 1889, pl. 38 4:35).

89 RINAP 4 1, 2:65. 119 Though the attestations of these themes in Mesopotamian literature span nearly two millennia, the frequency multiplies during the 1st millennium BCE royal inscriptions of the NA kings. As with ḥakkāh, ḥērem and mikmeret in Hab. 1:14-17, the Mesopotamian evidence from the 1st millennium BCE likewise uses different terms to communicate a singular point. The number of pertinent lexemes used in the 1st millennium BCE evidence (including EI) is strikingly balanced: sapāru (“cast net”) 8x, šētu (“[generic] net”) 5x, ḫuḫāru (“net”) 5x, šuškallu (“battle net”) 4x, gišparru (“trap”) 2x, kamāru (“net”) 1x, arru (“snare”) 1x.90 The attendant verbs modify these apparatuses in several ways. They either describe different aspects of the fishing process—the act of spreading the net over enemies (saḫāpu “to spread”; katāmu “to cover” [=Sum. šuš “to cover”]) or catching enemies in said spread net (bâru “to catch”)—or modify the net’s inescapability (madādu II “to escape”; naparšudu “to flee”). The evidence as a whole, from the mid-3rd millennium BCE SoV down to Aššurbanipal’s mid-7th century BCE royal inscriptions (Table 21),91 together demonstrates shared imagery that likewise weaves through Hab. 1:14: a monarch cast as a fisher who catches foreign peoples like fish, an inescapable net wielded by that same king, and the divinely appointed discipline that commissioned the event in the first place (see Tables 22-23).92

90 And just as the terms (both in the HB and cognate literature) have particular nuances, they also demonstrate overlapping semantic domains. Though the gišparru was made of wood, and should thus be translated “trap” rather than “net,” it nevertheless customarily parallels other clear terms for “net,” such as šētu and šuškallu (cf. CAD G 106-07). For example, cf. Maqlû (3:157-60), which compares four of the seven terms in view above: kīma ḫuḫāri isḫupu eṭlu kīma šēti ukattimu qarrādu kīma šuškalli ašarēdu ibarru kīma gišparri iktumu danna “it spread over the young man like a net, covered the warrior like a net, caught the pre-eminent one like a battle net, enveloped the strong one like a trap” (RBS 5 13’-2).

91 For examples from Aššurbanipal, see Borger 1996, 235; A §40, 3:53-69.

92 According to Herodotus, the Persians practiced a military operation known as “netting,” which was conducted after the acquisition of fresh territory (Hist. 3:149; 6:31; cf. Strabo Geog. 10:1.10). The conquering army would link hands and empty the land of its people, handing over the now desolate and uninhabited area to someone new. Herodotus mentions this practice particularly in records of island campaigns, such as against Ionia, where it was impractical (Lundbom 1999, 770). 120 Figure 12. The Victory Stele of Esarhaddon from Zinçirli, in which Esarhaddon (not in photo) leads a supplicant (Ba‘al of Tyre?) away via rope and hook in his cheek. Located at the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. Public Domain.93

Table 9. Eannatum

The Stele of Vultures: Eannatum (ca. 2450 BCE) Ningirsu secures victory for Eannatum and Lagash, capturing the citizens of Umma in his cosmic net. (Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin 1909, 95-7; Jacobsen 1976, 247-59; Sollberger 1956, 9-16; Kramer 1963, 310-13)

93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_stele_of_Esarhaddon#mediaviewer/ File:Assarhaddon_Berlin_022008.jpg 121 Table 10. Enmetena

Royal inscriptions of Enmetena (2418-2391 BCE) (cf. Table 10 for this same event) “E-anatum gave the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil to the leader of Giš[a] ([Umma]), and made him swear to him by it” (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1, 16 12-17)

[Whenever I do transgress, may the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil, king of heaven and earth, by which I have sworn, descend upon (ḫé-šuš) Ǵiša (Umma)!”] (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1, 16 34-40; reconstructed by Frayne)

“[If anyone from Umma violates the agreement] may the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil, by which he has sworn, descend upon Ǵiša (Umma)!” (RIME 1, 1.9.3.1, 17 6-20)

“He cast (bí-šuš) the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) upon it at Enlil’s command” (RIME 1 1.9.5 1:28-29)

Table 11. Sargon the Great

Sargon’s Victory Stele (ca. 2300 BCE) Sargon of Agade captures enemies in a net. (Spycket 1945-1946, 151-56 [esp. 152, ﬁg. 1]; Pézard and Pottier 1926, 35; cf. Amiet 1953, 151-52)

! Table 12. Curse of Agade

Curse of Agade (OB version; fragments from Ur III) “Because of him [i.e. Enlil], they stretched their arms out across the plain like a net (gu) for animals.” (Cooper 1983, 159; ETCSL 2.1.5 (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.5#)

122 Table 13. Hammurapi

Code of Hammurapi (1792-1750 BCE) “[Hammurapi], the net (sapāru) (ensnaring) the enemy.” (CH 2 68)

“I [i.e. Hammurapi] am a net (sa-pàr), spread out (lá-a-me-en) for the enemy.” (TLB 2 3:6; Sjöberg 1961, 51)

Table 14. Erra and Išum (EI)

Erra and Išum (8th BCE?) “When the clamor of the inhabitants becomes distresses you and your heart desires to throw a net (šakān kamāri), to kill mankind, and to slaughter the herds of Šakkan.” (1:41-43)

“As if to bind (kamēšu) the evil Anzu, [his net] (šētsu) is spread out (šuparrura[t]).” (3c: 33; reconstructed by Cagni 1969, 98)

“The residents of Babylon—they the bird, you their snare (arru)—you bound (takmiššūnima) in your net (šēti), you caught (tabīr [following Cagni 1969, 107; AHw 4b; contra CAD A/1 38 abāru III]), you slew them, O warrior Erra.” (3:18-19)

“Its people the herds, their god the slayer, whose net (šētīšu) is ﬁnely meshed (inša piqatūma); husbands were not extracted (out of it), but they died by the weapon.” (3:94). For these references, cf. Cagni 1969; idem, 1970; Bodi 1991, 171-73.

123 Table 15. Adad-nirari II

Royal inscription of Adad-nirari II (911-891 BCE) “I spread (asḫup) like a battle net (kīma šuškalli), I enclose like a net (kīma ḫuḫāri); at the mention of my strong name the princes of the four quarters quake like reeds in a storm, at the start of my campaign their weapons melt as if in a kiln” (RIMA l/2 A.0.99.2:21, p. 148; cf. 2R 67:13; dated to his second regnal year)

“The king will clamp down on (usaḫḫap) his servants like a battle net (kīma šuškalli)” (RIMA 1 A.0.99.4: 9’-12’, p. 157; Cf. CT 28 48 K.182+:7 [SB ext.]; dated to his fourth regnal year)

Table 16. Shamshi-Adad V

Royal Inscription of Shamshi-Adad V (824-811 BCE) “I spread over (asḫup) the entire land of Nairi like a cast net (kīma sapāri)” (RIMA 2/3 A.0.103.1:6, p. 183; 1R 29 2 6)

Table 17. Tiglath-Pileser III

Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 BCE) “I spread over (asḫup) Bit-Kapsi, Bit-Sangi, (and) Bit Urzakki like a cast net (kīma sapāri)” (BM 118933; STP 96; ICC 51a; RINAP 1 7:6, p. 31; Annal 11:6 in Tadmor 2007, pl. 7)

“I spread over (asḫup) the Puqudu like a cast net (kīma sapāri), massacred them in great numbers, and carried off much booty from them.” (Text K 3751 = IIR 67; RINAP 1 47:13, p. 118; Summary Inscription 7:13 in Tadmor 2007, 161; dated to Tiglath- Pileser III’s 17th palû [ca. 729 BCE] in commemoration of the construction of Calah’s royal palace, this is the “the most detailed of Tiglath-Pileser’s Summary Inscriptions” [ibid, 154]).

124 Table 18. Sargon II

Royal Inscriptions of Sargon II (722-705 BCE) “I spread over (asḫ[up]) Izirtu, his royal city of the land of the Mannaeans, as with a net (ḫuḫāriš) and I massacred them in great numbers.” (Annal 86; Fuchs 1994, 99; Lie 1929, 15:86)

“[Sargon], valiant one, from whose trap (gišparrīšu) the evildoers do not escape.” (TCL 3 118)

“I covered (ukattima) the entire land of Tabal as with a net (šētiš).” (Annals 200-201; Fuchs 1994, 125; Lie 1929, 200-01)

“Up to Marubištu a fortress which (sits) on a mountain peak and rises from the plain, with…and they overthrew (isḫupū-ma) that fortress as with a net (ḫuḫāriš), and they brought him, together with his warriors, before me in irons and fetters.” (Annals 420-21; Fuchs 1994, 181; Lie 1929, 75:5)

“I spread over (asḫup) those regions as with a net (ḫuḫāriš).” (Gadd 1954, 177:46)

“[Sargon,] who caught the Ionians, who live in the sea as if they were ﬁsh.” (Lyon 1883, 14:25 [cf. 4:21]; Winckler 1889, pl. 38 4:35)

“He spread out over them (isḫupšunūti) like a net (kīma sapāri).” (Winckler 1889, pl. 44 B 6)

Table 19. Sennacherib

Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib (705-681 BCE) “[Lulî], king of Sidon, [became scared of battle], ﬂ[ed] like a ﬁsh (kīma nūni ip[paršid]) [to Cyprus, which is in the midst of the sea, and took refuge [there]. In that same land, he resorted to a mountain] on account of the awesomeness of the w[eapon of Aššur, my lord].” (RINAP 3/2 45:1’-4’).

125 Table 20. Esarhaddon

Royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE) “By the command of Aššur, my lord, I caught him [Abdi-Milkūti] like a ﬁsh from the midst of the sea (kīma nūni ultu qereb tâmtim abāršu-ma) and cut off his head. I carried off his wife, his sons, his daughters, his palace servants, gold, silver, goods, property, precious stones, multicolored garments and linen(s), elephant hide(s), ivory, ebony, boxwood, everything of value from his palace in huge quantities, (and) led away his extensive populace which was innumerable, oxen, sheep and goats, and donkeys in huge numbers to Assyria. (Hexagonal Prism from Nineveh that records Esarhaddon’s military exploits known as Nineveh A [#BM 121005]: ICC pl. 54; RINAP 4 1 2:72-80)

“The one who ﬂed into the sea to save his (own) life did not escape my trap (gišparrīya) and did not save himself. I caught (abāršu-ma) the swift runner (lit. “knee opener”) who took to the stepped ascents of remote mountains like a bird from the midst of the mountains and bound his arms. I made their blood ﬂow out like (water from) a breach in mountain gullies. I ripped out the roots of the Sutu, who live in tents in a remote place, like the striking of a raging storm. Neither he who made his fortress the sea nor he who made the mountain his stronghold escaped my (divine) net (saparrīya) (or) successfully escaped. I ordered the (re)settling of those of the sea to the mountains (and) those of the mountains to the sea. At the command of Aššur, my lord, who can rival me in kingship? Moreover, who among the kings, my fathers, was there whose dominion was as great as mine? From the midst of the sea, my enemies spoke thus: ‘Where can the fox go to get away from the sun?” (RINAP 4 1 5:10-25)

“the one who conquered Sidon, which is in the midst of the sea…I caught (abāršu) Abdi-Milkūti, its king, who had ﬂed in the face of my weapons into the midst of the sea, like a ﬁsh from the midst of the sea and cut off his head. I carried off… [see list above at 1 2:72-80].” (Hexagonal prism that is a truncated version of Nineveh A, known as Nineveh [Prism] B [#IM59046], dated to ca. 676 BCE: RINAP 4 2 1:14-30)

“In my second campaign, (as for) Abdi-Milkūti, king of Sidon, (who) did not fear my lordship (and) did not obey the words of my lips, who trusted in the rolling sea and threw off the yoke of Aššur—I leveled Sidon, his supply city, which is situated in the midst of the sea, like a flood….Abdi-Milkūti, its king, in the face of my weapons, fled into the midst of the sea. By the command of the Aššur, my lord, I caught him (abāršu) like a fish from the midst of the sea and cut off his head. I carried off [see list above at 1 2:72-80; 2 1:14-30].” (Fragment of an octagonal prism known as Nineveh [Prism] D or Nineveh [Prism] S [#BM 134465] that is similar to Nineveh A: RINAP 4 6 2:10’-23’)

“I conquered [Sidon], caught (abāršu) [its king] like a ﬁsh, and cut off his head.” (Broken alabaster tablet from Aššur, now in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum [#EṢ 6262] known as Aššur-Babylon E [AsBbE] RINAP 4 60 obv. 2’-3’) 126 Table 21. Aššurbanipal

Royal inscriptions of Aššurbanipal (668-627 BCE) “the cast net of the great gods (sapār ilī rabûti), my lords, which was inescapable (naparšudi), spread over them (isḫupšunūti), and no one escaped (ipparšid).” (BM 1701 = VAB 7; cf. IIT 9; Borger 1996, 235; Cf. A §40; 4:53-69)

Table 22. The disciplinary function of a king’s net

ABL 1102 rev:7 (vol. 11; p. 1211) “If he ﬂees, he is on his own. The net (šēti) of the king encircles him (lamatuš; Stative from lawû). Your gods will deliver him into your hands.” (K 82-5-22, 116; NA tablet from Nineveh; collated by M. Dietrich and the BM; RCAE 2 264-5; cf. de Vaan 1995, 298-300; von Soden 1966, 14)

Table 23. Haruspicy

BM 22694 (94-1-15, 496) RA 67 41:7 “The king will spread over his slaves like a battle net” (kīma šuškallim isaḫḫapšunūti). (haruspicy of unknown date and provenance; cf. Aro and Nougayrol 1973, 41:7) RA 67 [1973]: 41:7)

3.2.2.2.4 Interpretation Having addressed the language, imagery, and ancient Near Eastern comparanda, one essential question remains: what does Hab. 1:14-17 mean in light of all this? The Babylonians, in general, and Nebuchadrezzar, in particular, function as ﬁshers (and hunters) only by way of the vehicle of metaphorical language. The metaphor affords a writer the potential to transcend the literal in order to communicate fuller or richer meaning. In this passage Habakkuk skillfully applied “the generalizations of his time and

127 environment” to the Chaldeans.94 To that end, the prophet, aghast at the rampant evil within and without his own milieu, summons a deity, who at one point established cosmic order in the primeval past by vanquishing the forces of chaos, to return to form.95 His complaints are not merely philosophical abstractions concerning theodicy, but visceral protests that grow out of a deeply personal and reified situation.96 While fishing played a more integral role in Mesopotamian society than in ancient Israel, this association relies less on a socio-economic extraction than it does upon established literary conventions97 and political climate.98 This is appropriate in light of the fact that, as in Amos 4:2, the ultimate effect of the fishing imagery manifests international implications. The fishing instruments—hook and seine—combine to provide a comprehensive portrayal of divinely appointed exile. Habakkuk and Amos both appropriated imagery more characteristic of the cultures surrounding Israel (Mesopotamia and Egypt) than Israel itself in order to communicate a jarring point: the nation that perceived itself to be a fisher of men had set its sights westward and was suddenly poised to cast his net over the nations, including Judah!

94 Zwickel 1987, 73.

95 Cathcart 2010, 345.

96 Cf. Andersen 2001, 171.

97 In a passage that likely depends on Jer. 16:16, 1QHa 13:9-11 refers to ﬁshers and hunters as those who seek the lives of the unrighteous, doling out judgment upon the “children of iniquity” (bĕnê ‘awlāh). In a similar vein, Mesopotamian theology recognized the existence of one particular demon named alluḫappu “net.”

98 Had economy served as the measure for the fishing metaphor, would not Egypt and its highly developed fishing commerce have filled that role most efficiently? Zwickel’s suggestion that Heb. vernacular related the term “Chaldean” to “fishers” relies on very thin evidence (1987, 73). It is true that the Chaldeans, who had joined Nabopolassar’s forces in the middle of the 7th century BCE, originated near the Persian Gulf and thus would have been familiar with fishing practices. His attempted linguistic comparison (or, in his words, “phonetic allusion”) between the Akkadian term for “Chaldean” (bit-Dakūrri) and Heb. word for “fisher” (dayyāg/dawwāg), as well as Akk. šukuddāku and Sumerian šu-ku6, creates many more problems than it actually answers. One need not relegate the line of argumentation to uncertain linguistic associations in order to conclude that Habakkuk used this instance of fishing imagery appropriately. Though Zwickel admits Habakkuk showed “no further knowledge of the Chaldeans” (ibid), he provides no explanation for how the prophet actually acquired such specialized information in the first place. 128 The evaluation of Habakkuk’s relationship to the Mesopotamian sources suggests neither that Habakkuk, the later of the two, drew on or was even familiar with the imagery from Esarhaddon’s Sidonian incursion, nor that the passages do not also show important differences (for they clearly do!). There is likewise no explicit sign of literary dependence. Both texts have their own distinct contexts. What precisely then is the relationship between Hab. 1:14-17 and the Mesopotamian literature surveyed above? The net as an instrument of hunters, fowlers, and fishers served as an efficient literary demonstration of divine retribution. Such net symbolism shows up in the earliest preserved cuneiform evidence, but falls into desuetude for most of the 2nd millennium BCE, only to resurface in the royal inscriptions of the NA kings. This reemergence thus coincides with Assyria’s reconsolidating of power in the 1st millennium BCE. This literary renaissance—attested in both Mesopotamia (NA period) and Egypt (Saite Dynasty)99—adds archaic imagery to a burgeoning inventory intended to portray these Assyrian monarchs in a certain light. These images proliferated in NA royal self- presentations of the most powerful humans in the known world at the time, disseminated as deliberate propaganda throughout the aNE. It is this same imagery Habakkuk appropriates and perpetuates, though from the opposite perspective. Habakkuk affirms this propaganda, designating the nations as fish about to be caught in the mighty Babylonian net and deported eastward. The Mesopotamian evidence helps contextualize Hab. 1:14-17, demonstrating that the Judahite prophet drew not necessarily from any one passage,100 but from an already burgeoning literary inventory that reflected the socio- political reality of Assyrian/Babylonian hegemony, the growing post-612 BCE reality that Babylon was both the new force on the block and ready to demonstrate such to the world, and the theological reality of punishment as divinely appointed. To this end Habakkuk

99 Cf. Sanders 2009, 149; Hallo 1996, 88-89.

100 Though the extant NB literature does not yet include any ﬁshing metaphors comparable to those used in the NA royal inscriptions, the impact of this reality on Habakkuk is irrelevant. The implementation of said metaphors by a Judahite prophet is not a matter of linguistic translation, but image appropriation and recontextualization of a general ancient Near Eastern leitmotif that, as Amos 4:2 conveys, had already entered Israelite thought. 129 preserves the general idea of exile as demonstrated by Amos by invoking his prophetic predecessor’s ﬁshing imagery to communicate this painful reality a century later in a similar, but very different context. For those with a discerning ear and a familiarity with prophetic tradition, the signs all pointed to an ominous tempest on the horizon.

3.2.3 Ezekiel 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9 3.2.3.1 Translation 3.2.3.1.1 Ezekiel 12:13-14

וּפָרַשְׂתִּ י אֶ ת־רִ שְׁתִּ י ﬠָלָ יו וְנִתְפַּ שׂ בִּמְ צוּדָתִ י וְהֵבֵ אתִ י אֹתוֹ בָבֶלָ ה אֶרֶ ץ כַּ שׂדִִּ ים וְ אוֹתָ הּ 12:13

לֹא־יִרְ אֶ ה וְשָׁ ם יָמוּת׃

I will spread my net over him and he will be seized in my snare. And I will bring him to Babylon, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not recognize it and there he will die.

וְ כֹל אֲשֶׁ ר סְבִ יבֹתָ יו ﬠֶ זְ רֹה [ﬠֶ זְ רוֹ] וְכָ ל־אֲ גַפָּ יו אֱ זָרֶ ה לְכָ ל־רוּחַ וְחֶרֶ ב אָרִ יק אַחֲרֵ יהֶ ם׃ 12:14

And I will scatter to every wind all those who surround him—his helpers101 and all his troops—and I will brandish the sword after them.

3.2.3.1.2 Ezekiel 17:16-21 [17:16] As I live, declared Lord YHWH, surely in the place of the king who enthroned him, whose oath he despised and whose covenant he breached, in Babylon he will die. [17:17] Pharaoh,102 with his strong army and great company, will not help him in battle when siege ramps are erected and siege walls are constructed to cut off many lives.

101 Following the LXX, S, and Tg (sg. “helper” in MT).

102 Scholars are divided on the authenticity of this term. Greenberg, for example, suggests it is much too speciﬁc to be considered original and removes it in an attempt to resolve the integrity of the chapter as a whole (1983a, 315). Block, however, retains the term due to its inherent difﬁculty and because to do otherwise “neutralizes Ezekiel’s penchant for departing from anticipated meanings with unannounced shifts in usage” (1997, 545). 130 [17:18] He despised the oath in breaking the covenant. Behold, he gave his hand and did all these things, [but] he shall not escape. [17:19] Therefore thus said Lord YHWH: As I live, surely it is my oath which he despised and my covenant which he broke. I will place it upon his head.

וּפָרַשְׂתִּ י ﬠָלָ יו רִ שְׁתִּ י וְנִתְ פּשׂ בִּמְ צוּדָתִ י וַהֲבִ יאוֹתִ יהוּ בָבֶלָ ה וְנִשׁפַּטְתִּ י אתּוֹ שָׁ ם מַﬠֲ לוֹ אֲשֶׁ ר מָﬠַ ל־בִּ י׃ 17:20

And I will spread my net upon him and he will be seized in my snare. I will bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him there for the treachery which he has committed against me. [17:21] The choice103 men among his troops will fall by the sword and those remaining will be spread to every wind. Then you shall know that I, YHWH, have spoken. ! 3.2.3.1.3 Ezekiel 19:1-9 19:1 And you, raise a dirge for the princes of Israel, and you shall say: 19:2 What was your mother? A lioness! among lions she crouched; In the midst of young lions she reared her cubs. 19:3 She reared one from her cubs; he became a young lion and he learned to seize prey and ate men.

וַיִּשְׁמְ וּ אֵ לָ יו גּוֹיִם בְּשַׁחְתָּ ם נִתְפָּ שׂ וַיְבִאֻ הוּ בַחַחִ ים אֶ ל־אֶרֶ ץ מִצְרָ יִם׃ 19:4

The nations heard about him; he was caught in their net,104 and they brought him in hooks to the land of Egypt. 19:5 When she saw that she had waited in vain, her hope perished, (so) she took another of her cubs (and) made him a young lion. 19:6 And he prowled in the midst of the lions; he became a young lion, and he learned to seize prey and ate men.

103 MT: “ﬂeeing,” by error of metathesis.” The LXX (followed by V, Cpt., and Bohairic) omits 20b-21a (wahăbī’ōtīhū…mibrāḥāw).

104 Following Held (1973, 173-90). 131 19:7 He knew his widows and destroyed their cities. The land and its fullness became desolate at the sound of his roar.

וַיִּתְּ נוּ ﬠָלָ יו גּוֹיִם סָבִ יב מִמְּדִ ינוֹת וַיִּפְרְ שׂוּ ﬠָלָ יו רִ שְׁתָּ ם בְּשַׁחְתָּ ם בְּשַׁחְתָּ ם נִתְפָּ שׂ׃ 19:8

Then the nations set against him from provinces105 all around; they spread their net upon him and he was taken in their net.

19:9 וַיִּתְּ נֻ הוּ בַ סּוּגַ ר בַּחַחִ ים וַיְבִאֻ הוּ אֶ ל־מֶ לֶ ך בָּבֶ ל יְבִאֻ הוּ בַּמְּ צֹדוֹת לְמַﬠַ ן לֹא־יִשָּׁמַ ע קוֹלוֹ עוֹד אֶ ל־הָרֵ י יִשְׂרָ אֵ ל׃

They placed him in a neck-stock (and took him) in hooks. They brought him to the king of Babylon, (and) brought him into a prison so that his voice would no more be heard on the mountains of Israel.

3.2.3.2 Commentary 3.2.3.2.1 Literary and Historical Context The three Ezekiel passages recycle nearly identical language to promulgate the message of divine discipline. The final two (17:16-21; 19:1-9) replicate and expand upon the generic imagery in the first (12:13). While none makes plain the source of imagery, the use of hooks and net reflect a reality where the roles and implements of the hunter, fowler, and fisher overlap. This study includes all three on account of the ambiguity of their imagery and the use of similar metaphors in explicitly fishing contexts elsewhere in Ezekiel (viz. Ezekiel 26:1-21; 29:1-6; 32:1-9; 47:1-12).106 Though 12:13, 17:16-21, and 19:1-9 may not have fishing most clearly in mind,107 the imagery they project makes a strong case for their definitive relationship to others that do.

105 Against the BHS, Zimmerli suggests emendation is unnecessary here in light of the “clear text tradition and the sustainability of the content” (1979, 390).

106 For 26:1-21 and 47:1-12 see ch. 6 below. For 29:1-6 and 32:1-9 see ch. 4 below.

107 Strawn suggests 12:13 and 17:20 reflect lion hunt imagery, where YHWH as hunter pursues an Israelite king as leonine prey (2009, 51, 56, 71), yet without any explanation. 132 Where the material from Hab. 1:14-17 used fishing imagery to provide a general description of divine discipline via imminent Babylonian incursion, these Ezekiel passages zero in on the punishment of certain individuals in power. As a film producer cinematographically alters the particular shot of the denouement, Ezekiel draws the audience near to the unfolding scene. This perspectival shift produces a palpable irony where a prophet in Judah delivers a general message concerning his nation’s fate, while another prophet in Babylonian captivity demonstrates greater specificity regarding the details of the same event. Conversely, Ezekiel, like Habakkuk, was well acquainted with the political figures in power during Judah’s last years as he himself witnessed Jehoiakim’s rebellion against Babylon and eventual death, the untimely desserts of which fell to his son, Jehoiachin, whom he accompanied along the lengthy trek eastward in fetters. Habakkuk looks forward with perplexity to events yet to transpire, while Ezekiel looks back and mourns with his funeral dirge. Ezekiel thus experienced the aftermath of the horror his prophetic contemporary had earlier struggled to understand: YHWH had commissioned Nebuchadrezzar to capture Judah and her leaders as a fisher catches a fish, removing them from their native land.

3.2.3.2.2 Interpreting a Prophetic Act in 12:13-14 As is characteristic of the prophetic ministry of Ezekiel, who dramatized his oracles more than any other prophet, the point of ch. 12 revolves around a prophetic act. In this particular symbolic role-play, which happens to be the ﬁrst reference to Babylon in the book of Ezekiel, YHWH tasks the prophet with portraying Judah’s looming captivity. To ﬁt the role he packs bags (Heb. kĕlī) representative of an exile, digs a hole in the city wall, carries his belongings on his shoulder through said hole away from the city, and covers his eyes so as never again to see that land, all within the broad daylight and public sight of his fellow exiled Judahite neighbors. Together these actions comprise a sign to the people that the foretold Babylonian catastrophe is both impending and decisive. As the prophet’s actions symbolized deportation, so the people will experience this same fate. What is more, YHWH pledges to spread his rešet over Zedekiah, king of Judah,

133 capture him in his mĕṣōdāh, and transport him blindly to Babylon, where he will die (12:11-13).108 To that end, Zedekiah’s ostensible safeguard, Jerusalem, ironically transforms into the very net that captures him.109 The text thus presents a dual reality where Zedekiah is captured by the Babylonian monarch and forces on one level, and YHWH, the exactor of retribution for those who defy his oath, on another level.110 The interpretation underscores divinely appointed and wide-scale dissemination of Judahites in exile, albeit with a small contingent (’anšê mispār) of escapees whom God preserves for the express purpose of introducing the nations to YHWH (12:14-16). Scholarship largely regards the prophetic act itself as original, but the explanation in 12:10, 12-14 as a secondary interpolation, inserted perhaps by Ezekiel post-586 BCE.111 This proposal hinges, however, on the answer to the question: What is it that Zedekiah will not see? Is it the nearest antecedent, ’ereṣ kaśdīm “land of the Chaldeans” (12:13)? While the blinding of vassal captives was common practice and Zedekiah was, in fact, blinded, such a precise prediction is out of character with biblical prophecy, in general. Since other biblical accounts report that Zedekiah’s eyes were, in fact, gouged out before leaving for Babylon (cf. 2 K. 25:7; Jer. 38:7; 52:11) and due to the fact that Ezek. 17:16-21 does not include this detail, most scholars see 12:13 as ex eventu, regardless of whether or not Ezekiel himself or someone

108 The deportation and blinding of Zedekiah reflect common ancient Near Eastern tactics exacted upon covenant-breaking vassal kings. The punishment of blinding for covenant breach is specifically articulated in Sefire 1A:35-42 (Fitzmyer 1967, 14-17, 52-58; cf. Deist 1971, 71-2). See also the NA relief depicting Sargon II pluck out an enemy’s eyes (Parrot 1958, 82:23).

109 Cf. the Hymn to Enlil (ll. 17, 26), which compares Nippur to an inescapable trap set to capture enemy lands.

110 Cf. Allen 1994, 182.

111 Cf. Uffenheimer 1978, 45-54. Zimmerli suggests the imagery is original in 19:8, recycled in 17:20 and augmented with reference to Babylonian deportation, and then again in 12:13 with the additional remark about blinding (1979, 274). He further speculates that 12:13 was designed for those closest to Zedekiah, while 17:20 was intended for an exilic audience. 134 else served as glossator.112 Another answer to the question (“What is it that Zedekiah will not see?”) may be the prophet’s homeland, Judah itself, mentioned already in 12:6, 12.113 If correct, the line “he will not see it” in 12:13 has nothing to do with blinding.114 Both arguments thus rule out the prospect of this Judahite king ever seeing his homeland again. In any case, rešet and mĕṣūdāh work together, like ḥereb in 12:14, to identify YHWH’s retributive weaponry and showcase their role in his divinely appointed punishment against the king of Judah, as well as the irrevocability of his imminent exile.

3.2.3.2.3 Covenant Breach in 17:16-21 Ezekiel recycles this same motif of the divine retributive net ﬁve chapters later. Where 12:13 interpreted a prophetic act, 17:16-21 (and esp. 17:20) uses a nearly identical message to interpret an allegory, both of which apply speciﬁcally to Zedekiah, king of Judah. In this allegory, an eagle lops off the top of a cedar (17:3) and transplants it (17:4-5) so that it puts forth a low, spreading vine (17:6). This vine grows toward a second eagle in hopes that the eagle would water it (17:7). Even though it was planted in fertile soil and near abundant waters (17:8), its shallow roots would be able to withstand neither the second eagle’s uprooting nor the heavy sirocco (17:9-10). The point of the allegory is cast in political terms: Nebuchadrezzar had already deported Jehoiachin to Babylon (17:12) and replaced him with Zedekiah, who subsequently breached the suzerain-vassal covenant they had established by attempting to acquire Egyptian aid

112 Block sees in this “blinding” not the fulfillment of a specific event (i.e. Zedekiah’s blinding), but rather a general “announcement of the doom of the prince” made possible by the “pregnant use of language, not by specific prediction” (1997, 366-67).

113 So Block (1997, 377-78) and Friebel (1989, 643). As Block notes, this obviates the abrupt shift from Zedekiah not seeing his own land (12:6, 12) to the country of destination, Babylon (12:13). Moreover, this interpretation ﬁnds inner-biblical support in Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding Jehoahaz’s fate (22:10-12) to be carried away captive, never to see his homeland again.

114 One could argue that by definition if he will not see Babylon (because he will be blind) neither will he see his own land. 135 (17:13-15).115 The fate of Zedekiah mirrors that of the well resourced, but thinly grounded, vine. To that end YHWH swears that he will requite a level of punishment on Zedekiah’s head that is commensurate with his own rebellion (17:19), deporting him eastward and felling his troops (17:20-21). The chapter concludes with a poetic coda picking up the allegory again, but with identified characters and a hopeful outcome, in which YHWH pledges to restore the cedar so that it fructifies (17:22-24).116 As Greenberg asserts, 17:19 marks a major transformation from an earthly realm where kings establish covenants and fight battles to a divine realm where YHWH’s own covenantal relationship with Judah, and her king, supersedes and governs over all earthly activity.117 Chapter 17 crushes Zedekiah’s hope in the prospective triumph over Babylon enabled by the mobilization of Egyptian forces, forcefully reminding his exilic audience of YHWH’s universal sovereignty. In a passage which largely echoes 12:13-14, including the recycling of fishing/hunting terminology, this shift in the planes of agency demarcates a fundamental distinction between the two. The role of 17:20 stands out as a loose restatement of 17:16 (this time from a divine perspective) and a wholesale replication of 12:13. Though Ezekiel regularly demonstrates a penchant toward switching metaphors (cf. 19:1-9 and 10-14; 32:2-10; 34:1-16 and 17-31), the purpose of this restatement is not initially clear. Since this verse contributes little to the developing indictment against Zedekiah, what meaningful purpose, then, does its inclusion accomplish?118 The redundant, clunky position of 17:20 may offer a glimpse into the prophet’s psyche. By the very nature of textual reuse, this

115 According to Greenberg (1983b, 153), the historical context here is the end of the reign (and life) of Psammetichus II (589 BCE), while Bakon (2008, 100) and Greenberg (1983a, 315) suggest a later date during the reign of Hophra (588-587 BCE).

116 Not surprisingly, scholars disagree on the exact identiﬁcation of each role. For an overview on the different scholarly interpretations of ch. 17, see Block (1997, 523-26).

117 Greenberg 1983b, 153. “The impact of Yahweh’s assuming personal responsibility for the initiation and the maintenance of the political treaty between Nebuchadnezzar and the vine-monarch draws international affairs and the divine will together” (Durlesser 1988, 80).

118 Durlesser goes so far to suggest that it actually “damages the rhetoric” (1988, 82). 136 verse endorses Ezekiel’s cyclical view of history. Though circumstances change and time marches forward, an underlying reality binds history together. Behind this reality stands the fundamental notion that YHWH views the covenant relationship very seriously. In breaching an oath with YHWH, who served as both witness and guarantor, Zedekiah thereby brought divine judgment upon his own head. 2 Chronicles 36:13 expands on the event’s details, noting that Nebuchadrezzar hišbī‘ō bē’lōhīm “made him [i.e. Zedekiah] swear by God.”119 While this practice has not yet appeared in NB inscriptions, there is NA evidence of a vassal swearing not only by the suzerain’s pantheon, but also by his own gods. Indeed, this text provides evidence for the continued practice.120 Ezekiel 12 and 17 together promulgate Zedekiah’s treachery (ma‘al) against YHWH and the ensuing consequences: capture in YHWH’s net, removal from Judah, and exile in Babylon. If, as Allen suggests, Ezekiel 17 postdates Ezekiel 12, the prophetic act in the former went unheeded by Zedekiah.121 What is clear, however, is that Ezekiel recycles a stock phrase in a new literary context (allegory) and for a particular rhetorical effect (covenant breach), for the purpose of indicting the same individual (Zedekiah). As 17:21 further demonstrates, the king’s failed leadership has implications on a national scale.122 These corporate ramiﬁcations notwithstanding, the punishment revolves fundamentally around the actions of one person. All others suffer collateral damage on behalf of Zedekiah’s inﬁdelity to his earthly and divine covenants. The divine net and snare thus come for him alone.

119 The Chronicler may serve as an early commentary on this Ezekiel passage (so Greenberg 1983a, 315).

120 The parade example being that between Assur-nirari V and Mati’ilu, who swears by both the Assyrian gods and his own, including Adad of Aleppo (Laato 1992, 160-61; Cogan 1974, 46-49; Deist 1971, 71-72; Tsevat 1959, 199-204). Vanderhooft adduces the Esarhaddon-Ba‘alu of Tyre inscriptions as further evidence (cf. RINAP 4:1, 5, 30, 34; cf. Figure 12 above (p. 121) and Seﬁre 1A:7-13 [Fitzmyer 1967, 12-13, 32-40]). The Hittites also invoked both the deities of suzerain and vassal as witnesses in oaths (cf. Hempel 1957, 1512-16).

121 1994, 260.

122 The manifold consequences, individual and communal, for covenant breach are spelled out in Lev. 26:14-33. For a detailed treatment of ma‘al in the HB and aNE, see Milgrom 1976, 236-47. For the concept of king as culpable for the entire nation in Hittite historiography, see Malamat 1955, 12. 137 3.2.3.2.4 Lion “Netting” in 19:1-9 Chapter 19 of Ezekiel consists of a formal dirge (qināh), styled as an allegory, for the nĕśī’ê yisrā’ēl “the princes of Israel.” Although the net imagery in 12:13-14 and 17:16-21 was ambiguous, the overt leonine metaphor in 19:1-9 raises an obvious question: What has this to do with fishing? 19:1-9 merits incorporation into a study like this due to its unique reuse of imagery common to the fisher in both Ezekiel and elsewhere in the HB. The juxtaposition of 19:1-9 alongside 12:13-14 and 17:16-21 also yields some new evidence toward the identification of lion cubs in 19:2-4 and 19:5-9. This section explores these lines of correspondence in order to demonstrate both the fluid inventory of net imagery and its adroit appropriation by the prophet. The overwhelming preponderance of scholarship pertaining to this section revolves around one issue: the identification of the lioness and her two cubs (9:3-4; 5-9). The reams of paper to sort through in order to disentangle scholarly rumination on this crux testify to an inverse correlation with the relative cohesion among scholars. The only real consensus exists for the identity of the first lion cub, and this is because of a reference to deportation in Egypt (9:4b), which implicates Jehoahaz alone.123 The identification of the mother lioness divides between two major positions: Judah (or the Davidic line) and Hamutal, biological mother of both Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Greater disagreement surrounds the identification of the second lion cub.124 Most medieval (Jewish and Christian) and early modern Christian interpreters preferred Jehoiakim due

123 A number of scholars identify 9:4b as an interpolation, which thus completely re-opens the issue. There is no agreement among such scholars regarding the reevaluated identity of the ﬁrst lion cub in the urtext. Suggestions range from Jehoiakim (cf. Brownlee 1972, 93-103), to Jonathan the Maccabee (cf. Irwin 1943, 122), to the Israelites living in Babylonian captivity (Messel 1945, 78-81).

124 Begg provides an invaluable survey of the history of interpretation (up to 1989), including extensive bibliography (1989, 358-69). The following relies heavily on this study. One recent addition to this bibliography is Korpel’s creative identification of the lioness as Jezebel and her cubs as Ahaziah and Jehoram (2009, 70-85). According to Brownlee (1972, 95), the traditional view is Jehoahaz as the first lion cub (19:3-4), Jehoiachin as the second lion cub (19:5-9), and Zedekiah as the vine (19:10-14). 138 largely to a straightforward interpretation based on monarchic succession.125 There are two major weaknesses with this: 1) Jehoiakim was elected king by Neco (2 K. 23:34), not the people of Judah (19:5); and 2) Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem (2 K. 24:6; Jer. 22:18-19; 36:30; 2 Chr. 36:6), not in Babylon (19:9).126 The strengths of identifying this figure as Jehoiakim’s successor, Jehoiachin, are obvious, for they rectify both deficiencies with the previous option: Jehoiachin was, along with Ezekiel(!), deported to Babylon (2 K. 24:12-13) where he apparently died (cf. 2 K. 25:30; Jer. 52:34), just as he was presumably chosen to rule in a natural manner, by the people themselves (Cf. 2 K. 24:6).127 Like Jehoahaz, he too experienced a very short reign. The central problems with this position, however, stem from the incongruity of his alleged voluntary surrender in 2 K. 24:12 and the suggestion in Ezek. 19:8-9 that he was forcibly deported, as well as the increased evil presented in 19:5-9 that would appear to better resemble his father, Jehoiakim.128 The final major position, Zedekiah as the second cub, began to flourish only after scholars put forward the theory of Hamutal (2 K. 24:17) as the lioness.129 The fate of Zedekiah, deported to Babylon where he would die in ignominy, according to 2 K. 25:6-7, aligns with 19:8-9 better than either of the previous two alternatives. While

125 Though this view has diminished recently, Begg takes up this position by arguing adamantly for a sequential development in light of the literary precedents in chs. 17-18 (1989, 366-69). His desire to fit all four of the final Judahite kings into ch. 19 as well as his assumption that Ezekiel would necessarily have mentioned his fellow deportee, Jehoiachin, both appear somewhat forced, if not arbitrary. Durlesser wisely reminds that “the very nature of allegory should warn interpreters against a rigorous identification of every element in the story with historical facts” (1988, 107).

126 The tone of 19:9 further expresses a sense of deﬁnitiveness (cf. 19:14 for this same sentiment), suggesting that the king’s deportation also became his ﬁnal resting place.

127 Begg (1989, 366) argues against Zedekiah based on his presupposition that Ezekiel must have mentioned his fellow deportee, but as Allen demonstrates, the prophet’s high regard for this Judahite monarch (and his preservation of Jerusalem) provides just as strong a counter argument (1994, 288).

128 Moreover, it it is hard to imagine the heightened violence described in 19:6-7 as reﬂective of Jehoiachin, whose reign spanned barely more than three months (cf. 1972, 98).

129 This view ironically burgeoned only after two 19th CE scholars, Orelli and Oort, independently arrived at the conclusion that the lioness represented Hamutal, breaking with what was a unanimous consensus (cf. Begg 1989, 363). Many, such as Durlesser (1988, 108) and Bakon (2008, 101), have since followed suit. 139 Nebuchadrezzar, not Hamutal, elected Zedekiah, 2 Kings interestingly does not report Hamutal being deported with her offspring, as it does for Nehushta, mother of Jehoiachin (2 K. 24:12, 15).130 There is no surefire or simple answer to the identification of the second lion cub. If anything is clear it is that this issue is unclear. The arguments for both Jehoiachin and Zedekiah have strong arguments in their favor. This comparative study, however, presents evidence in favor of the latter alternative. The juxtaposition of nearly identical phrases in 12:13, 17:20, and 19:8 (pāraś + rešet) demonstrates the phenomenon of literary recycling known elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern literature (see §3.2.1.3 above). Though the literary form varies in these passages (prophetic act in ch. 12; allegory in ch. 17; dirge > allegory in ch. 19), the point remains the same: to be captured in a net implies an inescapable punishment.131 This sense of finality reflects the prophetic perception of time as interconnected (e.g. past events led to present circumstances, while the future hinges on present choices) as seen most clearly in the composition of Zedekiah’s dirge before his own death.132 12:13 implied the culprit would no longer see his land, 17:18-21 remarks that the culprit’s covenantal treachery against YHWH will receive commensurate punishment not only upon his own head but those of his comrades, and 19:8-9 claims that lō’-yiššāma’ qōlō ‘ōd ’el-hārê yiśrā’ēl “his voice will no longer be heard on the mountains of Israel.” In no passage was the punishment arbitrary, but rather the consequence for an explicitly

130 It is the prophets who transform the idea of dirge for the deceased, offering them to the living with acute force (cf. Beentjes 1996, 22).

131 Even though Block (2010, 219-20) disagrees with this particular designation, he argues the echoes of Gen. 48:8-9 in Ezek. 19:19 imply that as heir’s of Jacob’s prophecy the last Judahite kings deserved the punishment coming their way, which signaled the end of the dynasty, at least in its current form. The huntress’ use of ḥărāmīm “dragnets” in the ﬁgurative context of Qoh. 7:26 presents a comparable depiction of the net’s efﬁcacy.

132 Cf. Allen 1994, 286. Zimmerli uses the fact that 19:2-9 does not yet suggest a national exile to argue for a pre-exilic date (1979, 396). 140 mentioned offense meted out upon a particular person: mĕrī “rebellion” (12:2-3)133, lĕhāpēr bĕrīt “breaking the covenant” (17:8), and ’ādām ’ākāl wayyēda‘ ’almĕnōtāyw wĕ‘ārēhem heḥĕrīb “He ate men. And he knew his widows and destroyed their cities” (19:6-7). In the case of the latter passage, it is important to note that the description of the second lion includes exacerbated violence compared to the first. In light of the confidence with which one can identify Jehoahaz as the first cub, it is perplexing how Jehoiachin, the king who temporarily helped preserve Jerusalem through his compliance with Babylon (something Jeremiah unsuccessfully begged Zedekiah to emulate in Jeremiah 27; 37:2) and whose promotion in Babylon preserves the sole means of hope at the end of the DtrH, might be identified as this even worse agent in 19:5-9. After all, it was Zedekiah alone whose rebellion led to such an ignominious end (i.e. capture, blinding, deportation, death). The juxtaposition of Jehoahaz as the first lion cub and Zedekiah as the second lion does reflect a biological reality (i.e. both were sons of Hamutal), yet the rhetorical force of this combination derives more from a schematic structure which creates a merism, identifying the first and last of the final four Judahite monarchs.134 While Ezekiel could have transferred the imagery of a transgressor captured in a

133 Admittedly, ch. 12 does not level a speciﬁc accusation against Zedekiah. Though the references to mĕrī (12:2-3) and tō‘ēbāh (12:16) address transgression on a national level, the king, as the nation’s politico- religious leader, was explicitly and most dramatically implicated for the corporate treachery. Zedekiah’s indictments in chs. 17 and 19 justify the punishment promised, averring that he did his fair share to contribute to the ominous ordeal.

134 Recognition of Zedekiah as the second lion cub does not preclude identifying Judah as the lioness, a point conceded even by those who disagree with this position (cf. Block 1997, 604). Brownlee affirms: “The logic of this situation [the “thy” or “your” in vv. 1, 12] is that Ezekiel regarded Judah as his own mother and composed a pair of funeral dirges as deeply moving as he would have composed for his own physical mother, except that an element of ethical indictment is subtly woven into the poems” (1972, 102). Allen subscribes to this view (1994, 287-89). According to Beentjes, in designating Hamutal as the lioness, “the metaphor defeats its object, because first of all Hamutal’s career hides not only from biblical, but also from historical perception” (1996, 25). The prophet’s point, however, is not to provide a historical lesson (such as about Hamutal’s life and destiny), but to “describe…a situation of misery and deportation abroad which has entered (‘Now’), and to connect this negative description with the previous period of glory in the home land (‘Once’)….A consistent reading of the second half of the qīnāh (vv. 10-14) is solid proof that it must be something else that the prophet is looking at” (ibid). 141 divine net to an altogether different king in chapter 19, the preservation of this motif in different literary forms for the express purpose of identifying the very last king of Judah serves a much larger purpose: it symbolizes the very end of Jerusalem, too. Where YHWH provides a ray of hope in 12:13-14 and 17:16-24, 19:1-9 (as well as 19:10-14) shows no prospect of divine intervention and offers no hope for rescue or salvation. The evidence against him (and her!) was overwhelming: from rebellion to covenant breach to widespread oppression and injustice. Ezekiel thus adeptly reproduces a stock phrase to communicate an acute point: Zedekiah’s end was imminent, irrevocable, and emblematic of the fate of the entire country.135 Chapter 19 thus serves as a literary fulfillment of the predictions in 12:13-14 and 17:16-21. The divinely appointed discipline that had been forecasted in very definite terms was here shown to have been faithfully executed by the nations of Egypt and Babylon. In so doing, the divine net was thus realized within the confines of human machinations.136

3.2.3.2.5 Ancient Near Eastern Background The aNE ﬁshing imagery related to Habakkuk described kings fulﬁlling divine mandates to capture vassal kings and their lands. The material contextualizing Ezekiel cuts out the middle man altogether. Binding together all three Ezekiel passages, as well as that in 32:3 (ūpāraśtī ’et-rištī ‘ālāyw “I spread my net upon him”),137 is a phrase that

135 If Zimmerli is correct that this imagery originated in 19:8-9, was reproduced in 17:20, and then again in 12:13, the latent accusation speciﬁcally leveled against Zedekiah becomes explicit. The stock phrase would thus transfer all its various layers of insinuations (e.g. covenant breach in 17:16-21; violence and evil in 19:5-9) in the recycling process, removing all doubt to later audiences just what it meant to have YHWH’s net spread over them.

136 In an ironic twist, the tetragrammaton does not occur in Ezekiel 19, yet its unmistakable divine imprint nonetheless remains.

137 So 12:13. The syntax of 17:20 deviates slightly (ūpāraśtī ‘ālāyw rištī), while 19:8 changes both the number (1st common sg. > 3rd masc. pl. [including the attendant pronominal sufﬁx]) and form (wĕqātal > qātal) of the verb (“They spread their net upon him”). 142 resembles another such one from Akkadian literature: šēta nadû/šuparruru/saḫāpu.138 The idea of a divine net used to exact retribution transcends cultural and geographical boundaries. Its ubiquity in mythological literature throughout space and time led Eliade to refer to the “net” as the “archetype of divine or cosmic retribution.”139 Undergirding these references lies the fundamental concept (see ch. 2 above for a detailed analysis of ﬁsher deities) in which each member of the Mesopotamian pantheon possessed their own net in order to enact vengeance or discipline upon the earthly realm.140 For example, Ningal casts an inescapable net over the rebellious and evil one, before handing him over to her husband, Nungal, who leads him away blindfolded and naked.141 Enlil himself is likened to a “huge net, spread over heaven and earth.”142 Both Marduk and Nergal employ the net as a means to punish unfaithfulness in EI.143 This concept appears at least twice in the OB materials from Mari. ARM 10 80 contains a letter written to Zimri-lim (1775-1761 BCE), king of Mari, in which a certain

138 E.g., referring to a witch “whose net is cast (nadâta šēssa) in the streets” (Maqlû 7:86); “the fowler cast his net (šēdu iddīma) and persistently prayed to Šamaš (BWL 221:1-5); Erra spreads his net over Babylon as if he were attempting to capture Anzu” (Erra 3c:33; šētu reconstructed).

139 Eliade 1991, 149, 159.

140 Cf. JRAS Cent. Supp. pl. 8 5:27: la šāšuru miliktim DN tābikšunu šaškalluššu “those who are of the wrong persuasion, it is DN who collects them in his net; KAR 128:10: tušāḫiz pī mātika la e-té-eq [ma-mi- ti] naṣār šipāri “you taught your country not to transgress an oath (and thus) keep out of the net (of the gods).” KAR 45 rev. 1:17 (SB rel.; var. from dupl. K. 2367:7’ [unpubl.]) complements this idea of a divine net (“I transgressed your net[?] many times, [an act] that is displeasing to you [my god].” When Enki created the world, according to EWO (274-84), he placed in charge of the marshes certain deities whose net would not allow ﬁsh to escape (cf. Kramer and Meier 1989, 48).

141 For this text, cf. Frymer 1977, 81-2. For Šamaš, cf. Wiseman 1958, 649-51: “May Shamash clamp a bronze trap (ḫuḫāru ša siparri) over you; may he cast (lidīkunu) you into a net (gišparri) from which there is no escape (ša lā naparšudi); may he never let you out alive (ayy-ušēṣi napšatkun).” For the inescapability of the net itself, cf. 4R 26 no. 2:11f: “(the net) through whose interstices no ﬁsh escapes.”

142 Cf. Klein 1991, 292-313 (esp. l. 172).

143 Marduk’s word is elsewhere compared to a net (cf. Poebel 1927, 161-76, 245-72 [esp. 262-3]). Aeschylus’ Oresteia (Libation Bearers) shows awareness of the same motif when Orestes vows: “as they by treachery killed a man of high degree, by treachery tangled in the self same net (βρόχος) they too shall die, in the way Loxias (i.e. Apollo) has ordained, my lord Apollo whose word was never false before” (ll. 556-59; cf. Lattimore 1953, 113; for an edition, see Smyth 1963, 214). 143 Inib-šina warned him not to place faith in the king of Ešnunna. Inib-šina reports to the Mariote king a message he overheard a prophetess utter, by which Dagan had pledged to “collect him [i.e. the king of Ešnunna] into a net, which I will draw tight.”144 A second example emerges in ARM 13 23:9-10,145 where a certain Mukannišum, an ofﬁcial under Zimri-lim, reports to his king the message brought to him by a prophet (Akk. aplûm “answerer”). In this foreboding prophecy, the aplûm, speaking on behalf of Dagan once again, presaged Babylon’s doom, which would consist of being gathered (upaḫḫarka) into a net (ana pūgim). In classifying this idea as a symbol of divine justice, Heintz posited the original Sitz im Leben as the “rite of celebration of a victory.”146 Comparable to the modern Western legal practice where a witness pledges to not commit perjury (i.e. “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God”) by placing one hand on a Bible, in one OB text judges order the defendant to “swear an oath in the Šamaš temple in Larsa in the cast net (saparrim).”147 As in the Ezekiel passages, particularly those of 12:13-14 and 17:16-21, the occupational source of the net imagery remains ambiguous. Be that as it may, this metaphorical ensnaring of a rebellious human in the net of a deity is a long-standing Mesopotamian motif that goes back to the earliest textual records.148

144 ARM 10 80:14-15: ù ana šētim ša uqaṣṣaru akammissu. Cf. ARM 10, pl. 35; Dossin 1967. Moran cogently rejects the translation of Dossin (“mais aver le blé que je moissonnerai”), whose reading of še-im for še-tim and coloring of uqaṣṣaru (Heb. qāṣīr “harvest, reap”) with West Semitic inﬂuence are both unwarranted (1969b, 53 n. 1). For a recent assessment of kaṣāru, cf. Waldman 1969, 250-54. Another viable reading for uqaṣṣaru is “I will hold fast” (so Moran 1969, 53 n. 1), but the basic idea of an escapable net obtains in either case. Paul (1978, 189-90) has suggested this text, as well as the following one (ARM 13:23), relates to Amos 4:2, but they much more productively contextualize the material in Habakkuk 1:14-17 and (especially!) Ezek. 12:13, 17:16-21, and 19:1-9.

145 For the transliteration, see Bottéro 1964, 15-43.

146 Heintz 1969, 135.

147 BM 16764:25-6, 35; Veenhof 2003, 325. The é-dub-lá-maḫ “the place of Nanna’s judgment” is likewise known as the “cast net” in an inscription of Amar-Sin (UET 1 71:19-21; see Steinkeller 1985, 39-46). This locale continued to function as a “court” up through the OB period (see Charpin 1986, 332 n. 2).

148 Cf. Malamat 1965, 214-19. Heintz suggests the “divine net” imagery entered Egypt during the 18th dynasty (1969, 135). For more on this idea in Egypt, cf. Alliot 1946, 57-118. 144 Inaugurating this tradition is the well known SoV, on which a relief and attendant oath describe the divine punishment of Ningirsu, patron deity of Lagash. With mace in hand, Ningirsu captures the residents of Umma, Lagash’s rival city-state, in a large net. The accusation brought forth against these ensnared victims, whose floundering indicates a sense of helplessness and inevitability,149 functions as the basis of the (prophetic?) message and stems from a situation of covenant breach. In a reversal of the shift from human to divine planes of agency in Ezekiel 17, the SoV moves from divine to human planes of agency. Ningirsu must first secure victory before Eannatum, king of Lagash, can do so on the human plane. In using material from the Entemena Cones A-B,150 Jacobsen demonstrates this shift in agency by reconstructing the political and theological background to the event, suggesting that the conflict stemmed from a border dispute between the two city-states.151 In order to defend his city, Ningirsu chose to take action, predestining Eannatum to defeat Umma. His seed having been fertilized within Baba and his newborn body sustained by the nursing of Ninḫursaga, he was equipped for battle via instruction from Ningirsu within a dream. Having left Umma vulnerable and in disarray, Ningirsu left Eannatum to take advantage of the situation.152 If this interpretive reconstruction holds, the textual material corresponds directly to the iconographic material, which illustrates Ningirsu carrying the captured citizens of Umma on one side and Eannatum leading his troops to battle on the other. The preserved portion of text represents a nine-fold refrain in the form of an oath whereby the

149 See Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin, 1909; Parrot 1948, 95-7. For a critical edition, see Jacobsen 1976, 247-259. For the text, see Sollberger 1956, 9-16. For translation, see Kramer 1963, 310-13.

150 For this historiographical reference Enmetena recalls Ningirsu ﬁghting against Umma at Enlil’s behest (inim), spreading (bí-šuš) a “great battle net” (sa-šuš-gal) upon it (RIME 1 E1.9.5.1 1:28-29); “E-anatum gave the great battle net (sa-šuš-gal) of Enlil to the leader of Giš[a] ([Umma]), and made him swear to him by it” (RIME 1 E1.9.3.1 16:12-17). Later in this same column, Frayne restores in ll. 34-40 [“Whenever I do transgress, may the great battle net of Enlil, king of heaven and earth, by which I have sworn, descend upon Giša (Umma)!”]. A third passage comes from E-anatum himself and declares that the battle net of Enlil will come against any leader of Umma who reneges against the agreement (col. 17, ll. 6-20).

151 Jacobsen 1976, 250-55.

152 Poebel ﬁrst suggested this reconstruction (1927, 224). 145 Mesopotamian pantheon threatens to send down their various tools of divine retribution (the šuš-gal net of Ninḫursag, Enki, Utu, and Nanna153, as well as the serpent of Ninki) onto Umma in the event of insubordination. In a manner reminiscent of the prophetic act of Ezekiel 12, the SoV thus symbolizes the divine discipline to be exacted in the event of inﬁdelity to the oath.

Figure 13. The Stele of Vultures from Tello where Ningirsu holds the šušgal-net ﬁlled with captured citizens of Umma. Housed at the Louvre, Paris. Public Domain.154

153 This same tripartite sequence occurs with Ninḫursag (col. 17, ll.21-26; dnin-ḫur-sag-k[a]; col. 17, ll. 42-47; col. 18, ll. 8-22). This sequence occurs once again with a battle net of Enki (col. 18, ll. 23-29; 19, ll. 1-7; 19, ll. 20-34), Nanna (19:35-20:6; 21:4-11; 22:7-23:8), and Utu (rev. 1:1-7; rev. 1:24-30; rev. 1:1-3:1).

154 http://www.utexas.edu/courses/cc302k/NE/NE_images/9902210010.jpg 146 3.2.3.2.6 Interpretation The net is just one tool among many (including the sword in 12:14; 21:8-10; etc.) in YHWH’s divine arsenal. As chapter 4 below demonstrates, the implementation of divine weapons for retribution against the covenant breach and treachery of humans comprised just one facet of the arsenal’s capability, of which Ezekiel himself was clearly aware (cf. Ezek. 29:1-6; 32:2-9). The three Ezekiel passages analyzed above highlight the former use, where YHWH uses his net to reprove a human leader who has betrayed his responsibility to lead Israel and failed to promote justice, model humility, and maintain covenant fidelity.155 Each reference, though cut from a common stock, applies to different literary contexts to single out one man, Judah’s last king. Ezekiel 19:1-9 (and esp. vv. 5-9) injects it with a sense of finality, highlighting the reality that there will be no further opportunities for divine deferral. The threshold for discipline had been met, leaving Judah without options, waiting for the hammer to drop or more specifically, the “net to spread.” Like Habakkuk, Ezekiel forecasted a simple solution: Babylon. Ezekiel 17:16-21 used this same imagery within a different genre (allegory) to address the covenant breach, insinuating serious implications as a result of the promise of punishment commensurate to the crime. And though Ezekiel 12:13-14 bears the quality of a more generic indictment, addressing no specific accusation against the guilty party, it inherits and tacitly communicates the gravity of the situation made clear in the other two passages.156 This comparative analysis confirms the assertion of Eliade, which identified the net as the paramount archetype of retribution.157 The use of YHWH’s net herein demonstrates an ancient Near Eastern principle where religion and politics were two facets of the same complex reality. The net is a martial (and judicial) tool that falls upon those guilty of

155 For the idea that the king bears the brunt of punishment as a representative of the people during national catastrophes, cf. Malamat 1955, 1-12.

156 Zimmerli’s conﬁdence in a clear redactional progression from 19:8 > 17:20 > 12:13 is speculative, even while it helpfully demonstrates the adaptation of the imagery over time (Cf. 1979, 166, 274, 393-94).

157 1991, 149, 159. Cf. Sundén, who uses Mt. 13:47-50 to suggest a similar reality: “En Matthieu 13:47-50 le thème de l’intuition de la rétribution cosmique, dont l’archétype est précisément “le ﬁlet,” se trouve obscure par le myth de la peine avec le Jugement Dernier” (1967, 441). 147 covenant unfaithfulness.158

3.3 Syntheses The preceding discussion compares a set of five different passages that use hook and net imagery in order to communicate the onset of divinely appointed discipline. All five manifest their own idiosyncrasies deriving from their different literary and historical contexts, but together each of them utilizes metaphors related to the paraphernalia of the fisher: hooks and nets. The interpretive yield from this comparative analysis goes even further. This final section briefly reviews two overarching extrapolations drawn from the preceding discussion.

3.3.1 Israelite Fish Deported by Foreign Fishers Weaving through each of the five passages under review is the commonality of discipline manifested specifically through exile. Be it by hook or net, Amos, Habakkuk, and Ezekiel all use fishing imagery to express imminent deportation. In Amos 4:2 the ṣinnôt and sīrôt, presumably symbolizing the Assyrian war machine, pull an oppressive Samaria like fish out of their familiar waters and remove them toward an unknown locale. Over a century later, Hab. 1:14-17 replicates this imagery to single out the Babylonians as world conquerors who are on their way to target the nations, including Judah, using a host of different varieties of fishing instruments to subjugate them. The theme of exile is likewise central to all three of the Ezekiel passages, which single out Zedekiah and his troops as the victims to be forcibly removed from their homeland once YHWH’s net finally falls upon them. Though only made explicit in Hab. 1:14, each of the five passages depicts God’s people, be it the political leader(s) or the entire nation, as fish, helpless to defend themselves once the divine declaration of discipline has been made. In the three Ezekiel passages the means of exile is YHWH’s net alone (i.e. rešet; mĕṣūdāh), in Hab. 1:14-17 YHWH delegates this role to Nebuchadrezzar and the Babylonian army, and Amos 4:2 leaves the agency formally ambiguous, even though the context implicates

158 Cf. Bodi 1991, 181-82. 148 YHWH once again as the agent behind the coming punishment. YHWH’s wielding of a cosmic net of retribution mirrors a fundamental tenet of Mesopotamian theology. As shown by a variety of different genres of inscriptions from disparate historical periods, each member of the pantheon possessed a net that they used to arbitrate justice on earth. In fact, the examples start burgeoning in the 1st millennium BCE, particularly within the context of NA historiographical literature. It may be no coincidence, then, that the expansionistic philosophy of Assyria during the 8th century, which produced royal inscriptions that envision their own subjugation and deportation of neighboring lands with fishing metaphors, coincides with the appearance of this same imagery in the biblical corpus. Just as Assyria conceived of itself as a fisher catching other lands like fish, so the biblical prophets described their own fate as helpless fish waiting to be ensnared in either the divinely appointed net of a foreign foe or the very net of YHWH himself. To this end, Mesopotamian and biblical literature depict two sides of the same coin.

3.3.2 History, Literary Recycling, and the Paradox of Fishing Images There is one final question left to address: Why fishing imagery in the HB? Though fishing played an essential role in Mesopotamian commerce and cult, the same was not true for ancient Israel. A general aversion to the sea (i.e. Mediterranean)159 combined with very few available freshwater sites (viz. Galilee, Jordan River) to ensure fishing played no major role in ancient Israel.160 Whence did this literary conceptualization come and for what reason? Grounded in the eastward campaigning of 9th BCE Assyrian kings like Šalmaneser III, who personally interacted with Jehu (or his

159 Riede uses the portrayal of the sea in the book of Jonah as further evidence that Israelites were “non- seafarers,” fearful of dangers lurking in the sea (2002, 240). Cf. Williamson 2006, 226; Foreman 2011, 235-36.

160 Firmage (1992, 1147) argues that, in any event, the fish extracted from the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River would only have been enough for local markets. He extrapolates from the relative dearth of literary and archaeological analysis of fish bones that “the ancient Israelite diet in most places was fish-poor.” The small amount of fish Israelites did, in fact, eat “had to be purchased from foreign agents (Job 40:30; Neh. 13:16).” For more on this, see §1.5.3 above. 149 emissary), Adad-Nirari III, who forced Jehoash into regular payments and besieged Damascus in 796 BCE, and reasserted in the literature of Tiglath-Pileser III and beyond, Amos adeptly interpreted political writing on the wall: it would only be a matter of time before Assyria attempted to claim Israelite territory as its own. In so doing, he preserved and recontextualized an enduring Mesopotamian concept. Though imagery akin to the Assyrian royal inscriptions has yet to emerge from the NB corpus, Habakkuk and Ezekiel did not appropriate their fishing imagery in a vacuum, but rather within the contexts of a well-established historical reality and literary inventory. With the conquest of their northern neighbors from Samaria and the subsequent bi-directional deportation led by Sargon II etched in their shared memory, these two prophets envisioned history repeating itself in the wake of the emergence of a new eastern power: Babylon. It was thus a short hermeneutical step from the horrors of history past to those of history present. This reality at once bound peoples from disparate eras. The fishing imagery in Habakkuk and Ezekiel exemplifies the processes of reinterpretation, the result of which portrayed to some only a general presentiment about looming divine discipline. The interpretive paradigm grounded in history that Habakkuk and Ezekiel used here helped form an acute message, imbued with foreboding meaning, that manifested an inexorable fate of divinely appointed deportation. Mirroring the phenomenon of literary recycling evidenced in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, the biblical prophets reused imagery within their inventory.161 The fact that fishing played such a minimal role in lives of most Israelites makes the rhetorical effect of its imagery all the more dramatic and ironic. This strategic employment of fishing language thus communicated fresh meaning that preserved historical realities shared and experienced by both their Israelite ancestors in tragedy and their Mesopotamian neighbors in triumph.

161 According to Fishbane, “intertextuality is the core of the canonical imagination; that is, it is the core of the creative imagination that lives within a self-reﬂexive culture shaped by an authoritative collection of texts” (2000, 39). 150

Chapter 4. Monster Mash: “Big-Game” Fishing Imagery ! 4.1 Introduction The sea was not the only source of fear in ancient Israel. A closely related manifestation of the marine world is its most fearsome resident: the sea monster. The HB knows at least three names for (or types of) this creature: Leviathan, Tannin, and Rahab.1 A common ancient Near Eastern literary caricature of chaos, in general, and the sea, in particular, these three beasts represented a liminal reality, bridging the human and divine. Though God created the Tannin like the rest of the created order according to Genesis 1, the majority of HB references distinguish it (as well as its counterparts, Leviathan and Rahab) as something altogether “other.” Despite the fact that catching one naturally requires fishing equipment and that numerous texts depict a cosmic conflict between it and YHWH (e.g. Is. 27:1; 51:9; Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps. 74:13-14; 89:11), only three biblical references actually use fishing terminology in such contexts: Job 40:25-32, Ezek. 29:1-6a, and 32:1-10. The latter two passages combine to form an extended metaphor, but they each present unique, as well complementary, features. The former passage stems exclusively from a sequence of rhetorical questions that all but refutes Job’s capacity to actually fish the monster. And while the concept of Chaoskampf is muted in all three, similar imagery functions prominently in Marduk’s conflict against disorder in EE. In spite of the various literary and rhetorical differences between these texts, what unifies each of them is the thematic representation of “big-game” fishing (i.e. fishing for creatures larger than life).

1 Cf. hannāḥāš “the serpent,” which lives at the depths of the sea and submits to YHWH’s command (Amos 9:3). 151 4.2 Hebrew Bible 4.2.1 Job 40:25-32 [E 41:1-8] 4.2.1.1 Translation תִ מְ שֹׁך2 לִ ויָתָ ן3 בְחַ כָּ ה וּבְחֶבֶ ל תַשְׁקִיעַ לְ שֹׁנוֹ׃ 40:25

Can4 you draw out Leviathan5 with a hook?

2 Budde (1913, 246) and Hölscher (1937, 95), followed by Gordis (1978, 480), noted a possible pun between timšōk “you can draw out” and an Eg. pemsaḥ “crocodile” (Arb. timsaḥ; Cpt. temsaḥ). De Wilde (1981, 386), following Delitzsch (1866, 365-66), went so far as to posit an original temśaḥ that was later replaced by liwyātān. The use of māšak, however, is apropos in this ﬁshing context and complementary to the action verbs in other similar contexts (cf. ‘ālah [H] in Hab. 1:15 and Ezek. 29:4; nāśa’ in Amos 4:2).

3 liwyātān occurs six times in the HB. Is. 27:1 (bis) anticipates an eschatological battle between YHWH and a Leviathan qualified as a “fleeing” (bāriaḥ) and “twisting” (‘ăqallātôn) serpent (nāḥāš), as well as a “dragon in the sea” (hattannīn ’ăšer bayyām). According to Ps. 74:14, however, YHWH had already defeated such a multi-cephalic beast in primeval history (cf. Ps. 74:12). The sufferer Job beckons professional diviners, known for their penchant to invoke Leviathan’s chaotic powers, to curse the day of his birth in 3:8. Conversely, both Ps. 104:26 and Job 40:25-41:26 depict Leviathan in a positive light, as a creature of YHWH. Most scholars today affirm a direct conceptual connection between Heb. liwyātān and Ug. lītānu. When taken together, the comparative evidence establishes Leviathan’s aquatic abode and serpentine (or reptilian) form (cf. Ug. bš/ṯn) as its two fundamental traits. Some traditions emphasize its multiple heads (Ps. 74:12-14; KTU 1.3 3:41-42; KTU 1.5 1:1-4, 27-31; cf. Tell Asmar Cylinder Seal), but this is inapplicable to the description in Job 40:25-41:26. Though the HB has preserved divergent traditions for Leviathan, Fox unnecessarily bifurcates them and overlooks the poetic license to emphasize different characteristics (2012, 265). Just because Job 40:25-41:26 does not explicitly adduce Leviathan’s multiple heads or specifically serpentine form does not imply it designates another creature. The sum of evidence argues for a dynamic relationship between YHWH and Leviathan that defies simplistic conclusions (for more discussion, see n. 5 below [p. 152]).

4 MT “you can/will.” Beer (BH2 vel; BHK) and Gray (1921, 332) insert an interrogative particle, which also appears in one MT ms and the Qumran Tg. Budde (1913, 246), Gunkel (1895, 71) and Beer (BH2 frt) alternatively restore Heb. ’ap I “how,” suggesting its deletion was a victim of haplography after ’ap II “nose” at the end of 40:24.

5 For a recent detailed bibliography on the various positions, see Clines 2011, 1190-92. Though its precise identiﬁcation remains not only largely elusive, but also ultimately irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage, this study views Leviathan as a creature the ancient audience would have understood to be real— abnormal features and all. 152 Or restrain6 its tongue with a cord?7

הֲתָשִׂ ים אַ גְ מוֹן בְּ אפּוֹ וּבְ חוֹחַ תִּ קּוֹב לֶחֱ יוֹ׃ 40:26

Can you place a rush8 in its nose?9 Or pierce10 its cheek11 with a hook?

40:27 Will it multiply (pleas) for mercy to you?12 (Will) it speak tender words? 40:28 Will it make a covenant with you, to be taken as your perpetual slave?

6 Scholars and translations have traditionally derived Heb. tašqī‘a from from šq‘ “sink” (for a representative position, see HALOT 2:1645: “restrain, thrust down” [in a trick to catch it]). But Michaelis, in his work on the Samaritan text of Lev. 8:13 [standing in for MT’s ḥābaš “bind”], already identiﬁed a šq‘ II “bind” (1774, 21747; 1775, 179-224), which, with support from certain ancient versions (V ligabis; Aq. συνδήσεις; Th. δήσεις), has led others to follow suit (e.g. Dhorme 1926, 571; Clines 2011, 1158; JB; NEB).

7 Although ḥebel can ambiguously refer to a snare or trap (Ps. 119:61; Is. 5:18), the basic idea of a “cord” wrapped around liwyātān’s tongue is in view here. Cf. Ps. 140:6, where the haughty (gē’īm) use ḥăbālīm “cords” to help capture the psalmist by keeping a rešet “net” ﬁrmly spread out on the ground. Ea’s binding and subjugation of Apsu’s vizier, Mummu, in EE 1:72 offers a similar idea: “Ea controlled (ittamaḫ) Mummu, held [him] (ukāl) by a nose-rope (ṣerressu)” (cf. EE 4:117). While the planes of agency differ in these two contexts (exclusively divine in EE; human-“other” in Job), they both use the illustration of a rope through the nose to emphasize authority. For a similar depiction in Hittite literature, where the mortal Ḫupasiya bound a serpentine creature with a rope, see The Illuyanka Myth (B 1:13’-16’ ; cf. Beckman 1982, 11-25).

8 The ’agmôn is a symbol of weakness in the book of Isaiah (e.g. 9:13; 19:15; 58:5). In Is. 9:13 and 19:15 it contrasts kippāh “palm branch” in order to form a merism, while Second Isaiah uses the image of a bent ’agmôn to identify meaningless fasting efforts (58:5). The fourth and ﬁnal reference, if not a misreading of wĕ’ōgēm “burning” (dittography of ﬁnal nun, so BHS and HALOT 1:10), likens the smoke protruding from Leviathan’s nostrils to that which ascends from a boiling pot and [burning] ’agmôn in Job 41:12).

9 Cf. the last inquiry about Behemoth in 40:24: “Can you pierce (its) nose with snares?”

10 Although the use of nāqab to pierce a victim is conﬁned to bĕhēmôt in 40:24 and liwyātān here, the king of Assyria elsewhere uses a ḥôaḥ to lead Manasseh into exile in 2 Chr. 33:11.

11 Hooks (ḥaḥīm) pierce the cheeks of both the tannīn in Ezek. 29:4 and Gog, king of Meshech and Tubal, later in Ezek. 38:4. Wolfers argues forcefully for ’agmôn as “bulrush" and ḥôaḥ as “bramble,” which there represent absurd weapons for capturing a Leviathan (1990-1991, 170-75). But as Clines quips, it is absurd enough to think he could use a hook (2011, 1158).

12 The depiction of a desperate and humiliated liwyātān continues its presentation from 40:25-26 as an ensnared victim. 153 40:29 Will you play with it as (with) a bird? (Will) you put it on a leash13 for your girls?14

יֶחֱ צוּהוּ בֵּ ין כְּנַﬠֲנִ ים׃ יִכְ רוּ ﬠָלָ יו חַ בָּרִ ים 40:30

(Will) ﬁshing partners15 haggle over it?16 (Will) they divide it up17 among the merchants?18

13 The “binding” connoted by Heb. tiqšĕrennū refers to the domestication of liwyātān, as if it were a pet. Contrary to Tur-Sinai (1957, 564-65), who compares the creature to a bird ensnared and bound in order to be served as a dinner entrée by maidservants (na‘ărôtêkā), there is no hint of slaughter or even conﬂict.

14 Thomas’ alternative reading, “like a young sparrow” (kannō‘ār; cf. Arb. nugharat), achieves efficient parallelism, but at the cost of emending the pl. ending (-ôt), suffix (-êkā), and replacing the prefixed preposition l “for” with k “like” (1964, 114-16). Though Gordis follows this etymological identification, he attempts to do so without resort to emendation, reading nĕ‘ārā instead of nō‘ār, a prefixed l that indicates movement to another state, as well as a distributive pl. form (1978, 491-94). While LXX ὥσπερ στρούθιον παιδίῳ “like a sparrow for a child” appears to support both readings prima facie, the Qumran Tg replicates the MT.

15 Though a hapax legomenon (N.B. not ḥābēr “companion”), the qaṭṭāl nominal form ḥabbārīm presupposes an occupational term (so NJB “the fishing guild”; REB “partners in the fishing”; Terrien 1963, 264 “fishing syndicates”). Tur-Sinai (1957, 565) suggests instead ḥabbār “keeper of the granary” based on Ug. bt ḫbr, but the latter term is rather a GN, i.e. “house of Khubur” (cf. KTU 1.14 3:29).

16 The mercantile context of 40:30, marked by terms like ḥabbārīm and kĕna‘ănīm, establishes Heb. yikĕrū “they will bargain” as a derivative of krh II “to purchase, barter for,” over and against krh III “to give a feast.” Though the LXX (ἐνσιτοῦνται “feed”) putatively follows the latter option, commercial fishers consuming their catch before merchants first divide it up (40:30b) defies the flow of the passage (Clines 2011, 1159).

17 The merchants divide up Leviathan itself, rather than the proﬁt gained by its sale (contra Dhorme 1926, 572-73; Habel 1985, 569-70).

18 In their identification of Leviathan as a whale, the REB and NEB move 40:25-30 back to follow 39:30, arranging it as the last of the wild animals in the first divine speech (cf. Tur-Sinai 1957, 556-77). Both translations then conflate the bĕhēmôt and liwyātān of the second speech into one animal: the crocodile. 154 וּבְצִלְצַ ל דָּ גִ ים רֹאשׁוֹ׃ הַתְמַ לֵּ א בְשֻׂ כּוֹת עוֹרוֹ 40:31

Can you riddle19 its hide with spears?20 Or its head with a ﬁshing harpoon?21

40:32 Lay your hands on it (and) remember the struggle—you (will) not do it again!

4.2.1.2 Literary Context In two lengthy speeches spanning chs. 38-41, YHWH addresses the sufferer, Job, from the midst of the whirlwind. The ﬁrst speech surveys a number of different aspects of the cosmos, including the solar realm (38:12-27), meteorology (13:28-30, 34-38),

19 Heb. hatmallē’ “can you ﬁll?” Based on his reading of the following indirect object, śukkāh, as “boat,” Kinnier Wilson suggests hatmallē’ refers to “loading” Leviathan onto a shipping vessel (1975, 11). The anatomical references to the creature’s skin and head in 40:31, however, presuppose the resumption of a piercing action.

20 Heb. bĕśukkôt “with spears.” This translation follows the JB and Clines (2011, 1160). Though a hapax legomenon, most scholars (for a representative presentation, see Clines 2011, 1160) and translations (so NJPS) connect śukkāh to śikkīm “thorns” in Num. 33:55, both of which perhaps stem from a common Semitic root (both geminate and hollow): śkk “to pierce” (cf. Arb., Eth., and Tigrinia śwk/śkk; Arb. šauk “thorns”). The nuanced use of a śukkāh as a fishing instrument yields a noteworthy analogue in Amos’ two fishing instruments, ṣinnôt and sirôt, for two particular reasons: 1) grammatically, it provides another example of a noun with a bi-gendered plural form; and 2) semantically, it mirrors the literary transformation of a botanical term, viz. that of a “thorn”, into a device designed to catch fish. LXX πλωτόν “swimming; fleet” (followed by Kinnier Wilson 1975, 11; Driver 1957, 52-72 [śeket]) apparently reads Heb. śĕkīt, which occurs elsewhere only in Is. 2:16 (śĕkiyyôt) and may derive from Eg. śkty. This disregards the influence of 40:31 on the following verse, which underscores the creature’s imposing size and power. The mysterious suggestion of Tur-Sinai (1957, 566) that śkwt means “cloves” (ostensibly related to Akk. šikkatu “pin, nail”) fails on the same account.

21 Heb. bĕṣilṣal dāgīm, lit. “harpoon of fish.” Gordis speculates that ṣilṣal dāgīm, the former a hapax legomenon, may derive from ṣilṣal “whirl, buzz” (1978, 482). In accordance with its previous interpretation of Heb. śukkāh, the LXX reads another term for a ship (ἐν πλοίοις ἁλιέων “in ships of fishers” [followed expectedly by Kinnier Wilson, 1975, 11 n.1, who translates “{will you load} his head into a fishing vessel”]; cf. Bowman [1941, B obv. l.6, p. 303, C rev. l. 5, p. 304] for two references to ṣlṣl in a fragmented Arm. inscription, both of which he translates “boat”). Tur-Sinai’s creative proposal that ṣilṣal actually represents bĕṣalṣūl (MH “chive”) misses the point of the passage altogether (1957, 566). The combination of two consecutive piercing weapons leads right into the climactic 40:32, which warns of the grave consequences for attempting to even “lay a hand” on Leviathan. Moreover, Kubina views śukkāh and ṣilṣal as weapons which betray influence from Egyptian mythology, in which Horus uses a harpoon to attack his rival Seth, there manifested as a hippopotamus (1979, 93). 155 astronomy (38:31-33), and eight species of fauna (lion in 38:39-40; raven in 38:41; mountain goat in 39:1-4; wild ass in 39:5-8; wild ox in 39:9-12; ostrich in 39:13-18; horse in 39:19-25; hawk/eagle in 39:26-30), all for the purpose of beckoning his disputant to consider the insight of God and the precision and order of his creation. Job’s terse response in 40:3-5 neither concedes ground nor capitulates, but with conviction pledges to say no more about his own suffering. Although the reader is left wondering how the dialogue might continue at this juncture, YHWH commences a second speech. In this first part of this message, YHWH sarcastically challenges Job to try and “play God” to see if he could do it any better (40:7-14). This reproof then zeroes in on two monstrous beasts, bĕhēmôt “Behemoth” (40:15-24) and liwyātān “Leviathan” (40:25-41:26). To that end, the rational and didactic overtones marking the first speech give way to the poetic, instilling an element of wonder and exposing a concept of justice that transcends the human senses.22 Fronting the lengthy lyrical description of Leviathan is a spate of rhetorical questions that functions to expose the disparity between this creature and Job. In envisioning an epic struggle between the protagonist and liwyātān, the beginning (40:25-26) and end (40:30-32) of this section draw on imagery from the fishing trade. Hovering over this inquisition is an acute irony that stems from the sheer reality that Job would stand no chance against this creature, regardless of the level of his own skill, tools, and methods.

4.2.1.3 How (Not) to Catch a liwyātān No other passage in the HB employs as many different ﬁshing terms as does Job 40:25-32. The rarity and derived meanings of these terms, however, preclude a simplistic description of how exactly to subdue the liwyātan. What is more, the sarcastic nature of the questions YHWH proffers to Job implies these implements would provide little help in catching this creature. A perusal of the terms demonstrates both a diversity of vocabulary and the consequent need to evaluate each one on its own terms (see Table 24).

22 Clines 2011, 1203. 156 Table 24. Fishing tools in Job 40:25-32

Instruments in MT Cross-references LXX. 1. bĕḥakkāh “with a Is. 19:8 (metonymic for fisher); Hab. ἐν ἀγκίστρῳ “with fish hook” (40:25a) 1:15 (used by Nebuchadrezzar to catch a fish hook” Judahites) 2. beḥebel “with a Ps. 119:61 (set up by the wicked); 140:6 φοβεὰν “rope, cord” (40:25b) (used by the wicked to spread a net) halter” 3. ’agmôn n/a κρίκον “ring” “rush” (40:26a) 4. 2 Chr. 33:11 (Manasseh captured and ψελίῳ “ring” hook” (40:26b) exiled with hooks by the king of Assyria); cf. Table 1. 5. bĕśukkôt “with hapax legomenon (although cf. śikkīm πλωτόν “fleet, spears” (40:31b) “thorns” in Num. 33:55) ship” 6. bĕṣilṣal dāgīm “with hapax legomenon ἐν πλόιοις ἁλιέων fishing “in fisher’s boats” harpoons” (40:31b)

Out of all six terms, only one (ḥakkāh) appears in another unequivocal fishing context. The frontal position of ḥakkāh—an exclusive tool of the fisher in the other two biblical attestations—demonstrates that the liwyātān, as opposed to the terrestrial bĕhēmôt (40:15), is an aquatic animal. The use of ḥôaḥ (40:26b) complements this reality, clarifying the method of fishing with a ḥakkāh, although with a bit more poetic license. Where ḥôaḥ typically refers to a thorn or thistle, the derivative form ḥaḥ elsewhere refers to a “hook.” In a passage nearly identical to 40:26b (viz. Ezek. 29:4), the ḥaḥ draws up another monstrous creature, the tannīn (MT tannīm):

157 Table 25. Piercing the “cheek” of a sea monster in the Hebrew Bible

And I will pierce his cheek with a“ וּבְחוֹחַ תִ קּוֹב לֶחֱ יוֹ Job 40:26b hook” And I will place hooks in your“ וְנָתַתִּ י חַחִ ים בִלְחָ יֶיך Ezekiel 29:4a cheeks”

The use of ḥôaḥ as a fishing instrument preserves a literary device that stems back to the 8th century BCE. In Amos 4:2 (see chapter 3), the prophet transforms two botanical terms for “thorn” (ṣēn and sirāh) that appear infrequently in the HB into imposing tools wielded to capture and deport Samarians from their homeland. Yet unlike Amos, the ḥôaḥ in Job 40:26b does not carry overtones of divine retribution. It does, however, demonstrate both the flexibility of Hebrew poetry and a veritable conceptual relationship between the thorn and fish hook in ancient Israelite thought. Sandwiched between the two references to “hook” stand two related implements. While the ḥakkāh and ḥôaḥ pierced the liwyātan’s hide, the ḥebel “cord” and ’agmôn “rush” serve an altogether different purpose. These fibrous implements force the animal into submission. The big-game fisher could theoretically hook the liwyātān from a distance, but binding its tongue with a cord (40:25b) and wrapping a cord made of rushes through its nose would require close proximity. The nature of such activity demonstrates the very otherness of this marine creature. As the rhetoric of the passage forcefully emphasizes, however, all such attempts to subdue the liwyātān are futile, if not absurd. Neither the most advanced technology nor man’s most devastating blow stands against it. In the staccato enumeration of deficient techniques in 40:25-26, the highly sardonic nature of this passage squashes any hope in their efficacy. The A:B::B1:A1 chiasm furthermore suggests this list aims for comprehensiveness, stressing the irony of fantasy (i.e. Job subduing Leviathan) and reality (i.e. Job unable to subdue Leviathan). A hiatus in fishing terminology ensues after 40:26, but resumes in 40:31 with the rare terms śukkôt “spear” and ṣilṣal “harpoon.” Though these terms occur nowhere else in

158 the HB, the images in 40:25-26, the maintained sequence of rhetorical questions, and the qualiﬁcation of the two hapax legomena with anatomical references (‘ôrô “its hide”; rō’šô “its head”) once again presuppose the use of piercing agents. The resumption of ﬁshing imagery in 40:31 forms an inclusio, ranging from the ḥakkāh of 40:25a to the ṣilṣal of 40:31b. Term after term, verse after verse, Job 40:25-31 goes to pains—using a range of dramatic hyperbole—to express the simple fact that Job would stand no chance against liwyātān. The progression of risible images then culminates in 40:32, which offers a solemn warning to any presumptuousness: merely laying a hand on the liwyātān is enough to never risk it again.

4.2.1.4 Interpretation Unlike the humans captured either by the fishing tackle of foreign nations (at the divine commissioning of YHWH) or by YHWH himself (as seen in Jer. 16:16, Amos 4:2, Hab. 1:14-17, Ezek. 12:13, and 17:20), the victim here actually lives in the water. The HB knows several names for a great sea monster: Rahab,23 Tannin,24 and Leviathan.25 While all three creatures appear in Job and at least twenty-five times altogether—often in mythological contexts emphasizing either primeval or eschatological conflict between YHWH and chaos (e.g. Is. 27:1; 51:9; Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps. 74:13-14; 89:11)—only one passage employs fishing imagery: Job 40:25-32. That this passage includes no such conflict despite the presence of fishing paraphernalia only extends the irony further. The fishing metaphors in Job 40:25-32 occur not in prosaic or even prophetic contexts, but in rhetorical questions entrenched within a much larger legal disputation between YHWH and a man he has allowed to experience severe suffering. Each iteration progressively reinforces the same fundamental truth: Job has no shot at catching Leviathan. The litany of inquiries effectively drives this point home by the use of penetrating hyperbole, tacitly demonstrating that the locus of the problem lies not in the

23 Cf. Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps. 89:11; Is. 51:9.

24 Cf. Gen. 1:21; Is. 27:1; 51:9; Ps. 74:13; 148:7; Job 7:12.

25 Cf. Is. 27:1; Ps. 74:14; 104:26; 3:8; 40:25-41:26. 159 efficacy of the equipment, but in Job himself. Neither is the problem specific to Job; it is pertinent to all humans. The pointless prospect of domesticating Leviathan, or even just bringing it into the human realm develops into an over-the-top jest. Job cannot hope to bring it under control or force it into submission (40:25-28), transform it into a child’s play toy (40:29), skin it into fillets ready-made for the seafood market (40:30), or lace its hide with harpoons (40:31), for Leviathan is “other.”26 Coated with razor-sharp rows of shields as armor (41:7) and terrifying teeth (41:6), and equipped with the ability to breathe fire (41:11-13),27 Leviathan is in a league of its own: awe-inspiring, suited for battle,28 and liminal (i.e. bridging the human and divine spheres).29 For all the danger one risks by approaching this beast, however, it shows no signs of belligerence toward either YHWH or mankind.30 There is no overt indication of Chaoskampf and to suggest otherwise requires imposing the force of other contexts on this passage.31 Conversely, YHWH speaks proudly of Leviathan.32 He presumably could

26 Clines 2011, 1192.

27 Ps. 18:9 describes YHWH himself with this attribute (cf. KTU 1.83).

28 Cf. Ps. 74:14a (’attāh raṣṣaṣtā rošê liwyātān “You [i.e. YHWH] yourself crushed the heads of Leviathan”), which assumes “maritime chaos endangered the earth, but was subdued by YHWH” (Uehlinger 1999, 513).

29 Zeus’ hybrid (part human, part serpent) nemesis, Typhon, exhibits similar qualities.

30 Clines, 2011, 1192; cf. Newsom 2003, 249.

31 For an example of such imposition, see Day 1985, 69, 83-4. Kinnier Wilson suggests the Leviathan passage is a reenactment of YHWH’s original battle where this time Job attempts (unsuccessfully, no less) to stand in for YHWH as hero-god (1975, 12; contra Fox 2012, 266).

32 In his analysis of the divergent depictions of deity and sea creature in the HB, Smith persuasively argues that when the latter is domesticated, as is the case here in Job, it reflects the creature’s “beloved” relationship with El, but its pugnacious demeanor elsewhere reflects its relationship with the hero-god (2001, 36-7). The book of Job knows both traditions (cf. 26:12-13; 40:25-41:26). Watson avers that these divergent traditions “mirror the competing voices of the Old Testament regarding the origin of that which is negative in the world in creation and history, since both the option of God’s pan-causality…and dualistic schemas…are attested” (2005, 392). 160 hook Leviathan, but the text says nothing of this.33 In this instance, Leviathan emphasizes both YHWH’s power and human powerlessness. YHWH’s didactic example confronts Job and his questioning of the nature of divine justice with a dramatic illustration of creation and the cosmos that transcends any of his previous assumptions. As the world suddenly becomes much bigger than he had ever imagined, so justice becomes more complex.34 But why fishing imagery? If this language shows up only in hypothetical, rhetorical contexts, what point does it actually communicate? Though the text plainly articulates the ineffectiveness of human techniques against Leviathan, are the fishing terms employed merely because of the creature’s aquatic habitat? Unlike the previously discussed passages in chs. 2-3, there is no hint of exile. But in those previous analyses, fishing imagery typically connotes divine authority, in general, and divine retribution, in particular. Though retribution is not in view, the same paradigm obtains for Job 40:25-32, but the tone is rhetorical and speculative, rather than prophetic and declarative. Job has no shot at taming Leviathan; this responsibility belongs to YHWH alone. Having already claimed to perfect the principles of “just rule” (cf. Job 29) in his own localized context, YHWH challenges Job to implement them in a cosmic one.35 After calling Job to “gird up [his] loins like a man” (’ĕzor-nā’ kĕgeber ḥălāṣêkā) in 38:3 and 40:7, YHWH ups the ante by commanding him, in effect, to try out “playing God” for a bit (‘ădēh nā’ gā’wôn wāgōbāh wĕhôd wĕhādār tilbāš “Dress yourself with majesty and honor; clothe [lit. “you will clothe”] yourself with glory and splendor”). In fact, if Job, is capable of divine responsibilities (zěrôa‘ kā’ēl “[if he has] an “arm like God”; cf. 40:9), then YHWH pledges to endorse his ability to save himself (wĕgam-’ănī ’ôdekā kī-tôšia‘ lĕkā yĕmīnekā [40:14]). This lofty discourse quickly deflates with the awe-inspiring

33 Fox 2012, 266-67. The relationship echoes Marduk’s ownership of a pet mušḫuššu (“snake”), which appears on several NB glazed bricks.

34 O’ Connor remarks that Job 40:6-41:26 revolves not around battle or conﬂict, but rather “God’s pleasure in their [i.e. Behemoth’s and Leviathan’s] beautiful wildness” (2013, 176).

35 Habel 1985, 558. This recalls God’s primordial creation of the tannīn in Gen. 1:21. 161 descriptions of Behemoth (40:15-24) and Leviathan (40:25-41:26) and imagery drawn from the hunt. Just as Job cannot subdue Leviathan with a ḥakkāh or riddle his hide with a ṣilṣal, neither does he have the chops to be God. That the fishing equipment are inadequate against Leviathan thus refers more to the agent wielding it than to the efficacy of the tackle itself.36 But the very imagery itself—restraining, covenanting with, domesticating—likewise demonstrates that fishing (or hunting, for that matter) is not the focal point. Leviathan is no small fry and Job is fundamentally human. Since divine authority is latent in the use of fishing imagery elsewhere and since YHWH alone governs justice, 40:25-32 repeatedly highlights the depth and complexity of divine justice. The “otherness” of Leviathan and the inadequacy of Job to successfully fulfill the challenge offer Job sublime insight not just into his own limitations, but also into mysterious divine machinations and a multifaceted reality where YHWH, like his creation Leviathan, cannot be controlled or domesticated.37 The point of all of this is not to chastise or patronize Job, but to elicit a fresh, dynamic “articulation of faith.”38

4.2.2 Ezekiel 29:1-6a and 32:1-10 4.2.2.1 Translation 4.2.2.1.1 Ezekiel 29:1-6a 29:1-3a In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth (day) of the month, the word of YHWH came to me: Son of man, direct your face toward39 Pharaoh, king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt. Speak and say: “Thus said Lord YHWH:

36 Cf. Fyall 2002, 159.

37 Walton 2012, 409.

38 Balentine 1998, 272.

39 The idiom “set one’s face toward” here replaces the standard ’el with ‘al. 162 29:3b ‘Behold, I am against you, O Pharaoh king of Egypt40 the great dragon41 who lies in the midst of his Nile42 who said, ‘the Nile is mine I made it for myself.’’”43

וְנָתַתִּ י חַחִ ים בִלְחָ יֶיך וְהִדְ בַּקְתִּ י דְ גַ ת־יְאֹרֶ יך44 בְּקַשְׂקְ שֹׂתֶ יך וְהַﬠֲלִ יתִ יך מִ תּוֹך יְאֹרֶ יך וְאֵ ת כָּ ל־דְּ גַ ת 29:4

יְאֹרֶיך בּקַשְׂקְשֹׂתֶיך תִּדבָּק45׃

I will place hooks in your cheeks and will cause the the ﬁsh of your Nile to cling to your scales. I will bring you up from the midst of your Nile and all the ﬁsh of your Nile will cling to your scales.

40 The ﬁxed date of January 7, 587 BCE (Parker and Dubberstein 1956, 28; contrast LXX δεκάτῳ “twelfth [year]” [i.e. 589-88 BCE]) situates this oracle—the earliest among Ezekiel’s prophecies against foreign nations— within the reign of Hophra/Apries (589-570 BCE).

41 Among the 15 HB attestations of tannīn “dragon, monster; serpent”, only those in Ezek. 29:3 and 32:2 deviate in form (tannīm). Outside of a handful of contexts where the word refers to a serpent (viz. Ex. 7:9-10, 12; Deut. 32:33; Ps. 91:13; cf. Neh. 2:13), it typically designates a “(sea) monster” in passages connected to creation (Gen. 1:21; cf. also Job 7:12 and Ps. 74:13, in which it was either subdued or slain by YHWH in primeval history), politics (Jer. 51:9 as Nebuchadrezzar; Ezek. 29:3 and 32:2 as Hophra), and cosmic eschatological conﬂict (Is. 27:1; cf. Revelation 12-13). According to Lewy (1895, 15), tannīn linguistically relates to Greek θύννος “tuna.” Firmer correspondence obtains from Ug. tnn (*tunnānu), well known from the Ba‘al Cycle. In fact, tnn appears eight times in the Ug. corpus (in which two occur in personal names; cf. Whitaker 1972, 619). In three passages it denotes a mighty sea monster killed by either Anat (cf. KTU 1.3 3:40; 1.83:8) or Ba‘al (1.82:1). Elsewhere it shows up in fragmentary contexts (KTU 1.16 5:31-32 [tnn created by El to aid Kirta]; 1.6 6:51).

42 Or “his rivers/streams” (passim). Six of the eight occurrences of this term in 29:1-10 are pl. in form (cf. 29:3, 4 [thrice], 5, 10). Egyptian literature does, in fact, refer to Nile branches as their own, individual “Nile” (Gardiner 1947, 2:153 *f; cf. Freedy and Redford 1970, 471; Boadt 1980, 28).

43 For the pronominal suffix’s datival usage, cf. JM, §125ba. The most natural object of the datival suffix (“I made it for myself”) is the Nile itself, a concept that dovetails nicely with the well-known Eg. understanding of divine kingship and Pharaoh’s governance over the Nile (cf. Currid 1997, 240-44). A reflexive usage is also permissible (i.e. “I made it myself”). For the use of the dative suffix elsewhere in Ezekiel, cf. 5:25; 16:21, 52; 21:32; 27:10; 28:3; 29:3; 31:8; 32:11; 37:15 (Boadt 1980, 30).

44 The LXX and S render all three examples of this term sg. in this verse.

45 The LXX does not translate the last two words of this colon. 163 29:5 I will cast46 to the wilderness,47 you and all the ﬁsh of your Nile. You will fall upon the surface of the open ﬁeld 48 [to be] be neither gathered49 nor collected. To the beasts of the earth and the birds of the heavens I (will) give you as food. 29:6a Then all the inhabitants of Egypt will know that I am YHWH.

4.2.2.1.2 Ezekiel 32:1-10 32:1 In the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, on the ﬁrst (day) of the month,50 the word of YHWH came to me: Son of man, raise a dirge51 for Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say to him:

46 For nṭš as “hurl,” cf. Ezek. 32:4 and Is. 22:17.

47 For YHWH's analogous punishment of the sea monster, Rahab, cf. Ps. 89:11: ’attāh dikki’tā kĕḥālāl rāhab:: bizrôa’ ‘uzzĕkā pizzartā ’ôyĕbêkā “You crushed Rahab to pieces like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your strong right arm.”

48 This same destination for tannīn appears at 32:4. The phrase ‘al-pĕnê haśśādeh broadly refers to an outlier area, such as a forest (1 Sam. 14:25), grazing pasture (Jer. 9:22; 2 K. 9:37), and desolate wilderness (Ezek. 33:27). The references in 29:5 and 32:4 appear to have this latter locale in mind, by nature of both reference to scavenging and death. Both the śādeh and midbār “wilderness” can resemble a place of ṣalmāwet “heavy darkness and death” (Jer. 2:6; Job 10:21). The fate of the apocalyptic θηρίον “beast” in Rev. 19:20, thrown into the lake of ﬁre, draws on this imagery.

49 For ’āsap and qābaṣ as a poetic pair elsewhere in the prophetic corpus, cf. Is. 43:9; Ezek. 11:17; 39:17; Joel 2:16; Mic. 2:12; 4:6; Hab. 2:5; Zeph. 3:8. Though ’āsap generally means “assemble,” this can take on the specialized meaning of “gathered (into a grave)” (cf. 2 K. 22:20; Sir. 38:16; 44:14). This verb also occurs with this meaning on a fragmentary Phoenician burial inscription from Byblos (Cross 1979, 40-44).

50 I.e. March 3, 585 BCE (Parker and Dubberstein 1956, 28).

51 While 32:2b implements an expected qīnāh (3/2) meter associated with a dirge (as well as possibly 32:3, 8a), 32:1-16’s emphasis upon “forensic proof,” not “lament,” leads Zimmerli to suggest that the references to qīnāh in the opening (32:2) and closing (32:16) label the entire section, despite the balanced 3/3 metrical structure elsewhere (1983, 157). 164 32:2 You liken yourself52 to a lion53 of the nations but you are a dragon in the seas! You ﬂail in your rivers make the water turbid54 with your feet and muddy your55 rivers.56 32:3 Thus said Lord YHWH: וּפָרַשְׂתִ י ﬠָלֶ יך אֶ ת־רִ שְׁתִִּ י בִּקְהַ ל ﬠַמִּ ים רַ בִּ ים וְהֶﬠֱ לוּך בְּחֶרְ מִ י׃

I will spread out my net over you in the assembly of many people and I57 will bring you up in my dragnet. 32:4 I will cast you to the earth, and hurl you onto the surface of the ﬁeld. I will cause all the birds of the heavens and all58 the beasts of the earth to satisfy to settle upon you, themselves on you.

52 Though Allen prefers to read dmh I “to destroy” here (1990, 129), most others follow dmh II “to be like,” which most naturally continues the metaphor from ch. 29 and communicates the rhetorical force of shifting imagery from lion to dragon.

53 For royal and divine leonine imagery in Egypt and the aNE, see B. Strawn 2005, 152-86).

54 Cf. Akk. mê dalāḫu which can have both a literal (i.e. “to muddy water”) and metaphorical (“to confuse the political order”) meaning (AHw 152b-153b; CAD D 43a-46a; cf. Garﬁnkel 1983, 65). The passage in Ezekiel incorporates both: as a tannīn, Hophra muddies the water of his Nile; as Pharaoh he confounds international politics by coming to aid Judah. Cf. EE 1:108: dalḫat ti’āmatam-ma urri u mūša idulla “Tiamat was stirred up, roaming around day and night.” For the point of rendering water undrinkable by trampling them, cf. Ezek 34:18-19.

55 So LXX; MT “their rivers.”

56 The term for Nile, yĕ’ōr, occurs eight times in ch. 29, yet surprisingly not once in 32:1-10. This negative complements the exclusive use of conceptual and mythological images in Ezek. 32:2c-10 (e.g. the elements characteristic of the Day of YHWH), which seems to distance the dragon metaphor from realia. The same creature is in view, however, despite the elevated language. Greenberg further notes that the “collocation of the cosmic and the trivial in the description of the monster turns out to be ironic. Not only is the monster effectual only in his limited element, all that he effects there is “muddying”—a disturbance of the peace” (1997, 657).

57 For the 1st sg. (ἀνάξω “I will bring you up in my net”) found in some Greek texts in contrast to the 3rd pl. of the MT, see Allen (1990, 129) and Greenberg (1997, 651): YHWH alone interacts with Tannin in both 29:3-6a and 32:2-10 (both the most immediate antecedent [‘ammīm] and the reference to Babylonian action in the prophetic interpretation [32:11-16] may have inﬂuenced this switch from 1st to 3rd person).

58 MT “the beasts of all the earth.” 165 32:5 I will strew your flesh upon the mountains and fill the valleys59 with your maggot-infested carcass.60 32:6 I will saturate the land (with) the flow of your blood up to the mountains, so the streams will be full of it. 32:7 (When) I extinguish you61 I will cover and I will make the stars dark. the heavens I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not emit its light. 32:8 All the luminaries in the sky I will darken over you. I will place darkness over your land announcement of Lord YHWH.

32:9 I will provoke the heart of many people when I bring about your destruction among the nations—among lands which you do not know. 32:10 I will appall many nations on account of you. Their kings will bristle with horror because of you when I brandish my sword before them. They shall tremble every moment, each one for his own life on the day of your downfall.

4.2.2.2 Historical and Literary Context In his seventh and ﬁnal war oracle, Ezekiel turns his attention southward to Egypt. From his initial commands to prophesy against her in 29:2 and to raise a dirge against her

59 For the image of Edomite bodies similarly strewn across the land, cf. Ezek. 35:8. For other instances of bodily dismemberment, cf. Judg. 19:29; 1 Sam. 11:7. Due to the similarities between the fates of Tannin here and Osiris in the Edfu Horus myth, Margulis argues Ezekiel was probably familiar with this Eg. narrative (1967, 334-338).

60 The last term in 32:5b has been construed in different ways, the evidence for which, see Zimmerli 1983, 155. I here follow the plausible reading of Sym. and S (followed by Greenberg 1997, 652: “worms”; contra Boadt [1980 137-38], who prefers “exalted, high”), reading instead a term related to rimmāh “worm.”

61 For kābah signaling death elsewhere, cf. Is. 43:17 (see Block 1998, 206 n. 44). 166 in 32:2, Ezekiel thoroughly upbraids Israel’s southern neighbor. This oracle, the longest among the seven against foreign nations between chapters 25-32, employs a number of engaging metaphors to communicate both Egypt’s ostensibly elevated position (e.g. a towering cedar envied even by the trees of Eden [ch. 31]; a creative “great dragon” reminiscent of Mesopotamian royal and divine ilk [ch. 29, 32]; a powerful lion [ch. 32]) and its seismic downfall (e.g. descent into Sheol [31:15-18; 32:16-32];62 a “dragon” caught in a net and eviscerated [29:3-6a; 32:3-10]). From its haunting repetition and biting irony, Ezekiel 29-32 comprises one devastating blow after another against Egypt in order to assert YHWH’s pre-eminent authority over all potential rivals. Though Egypt (and metonymically Pharaoh) feigns to threaten YHWH, the pericope progressively exposes its latent weakness and subordination, reverses any such threat, and resolves the putative crisis by vindicating YHWH and pronouncing Egypt’s ignominious fate.63 Though Ezekiel 29-32 shares motifs akin to other prophetic oracles against Egypt, such as Isaiah 18-19 and Jeremiah 46, the “great dragon” metaphor appears only here. And though references to dragons (whether Leviathan, Tannin, or Rahab) occur elsewhere in the HB—to symbolize Chaoskampf (e.g. Job 26:12-13; Ps. 74:12-17) or otherwise (creation in Gen. 1:21; Ps. 104:24-26)—only Job 40:25-32, Ezek. 29:3-6a and 32:2-10 use ﬁshing imagery to describe these passages. Ezek. 29:1-6a and 32:1-10 together form a composite, yet homogeneous, whole. The tannīn “great dragon” and Egypt form a complementary pair: the latter as a stereotype of enmity toward YHWH (spanning the watershed Exodus event up through its recent dominion over Judah in the late 6th c. BCE), and the former as a long-standing “personiﬁcation of chaos or those evil, historical forces opposed to YHWH and his people.”64 Just as Ezekiel hyperbolically likened Tyre to an awe-inspiring mercantile ship in ch. 27 in order to reveal its true fraudulent nature and ominous destiny, so he uses the image of a great tannīn in chs. 29 and 32 as an apropos caricature of Egypt.

62 Williams-Forte conjectures the dragon is an ally of the chthonic Canaanite deity, Mot (1983, 18-43).

63 Cf. Boadt 1980, 170.

64 Heider 1999, 836. 167 4.2.2.3 How to Catch a tannīn Unlike Amos 4:2 and Job 40:25-32, Ezekiel 29:1-6a and 32:1-10 employ terms to convey a fishing scenario which requires no specialized or nuanced meaning (see Table 26 below). Along with Hab. 1:14-17, these two Ezekiel passages (29:1-6a; 32:1-10) provide an expansive catalog of fishing tools. Though both make metaphorical reference to hook and net, the identity of targets differ. The Babylonian king catches humanity (including Judah) like helpless fish in Habakkuk, while YHWH himself catches Tannin, which represents Pharaoh Hophra, in Ezek. 29 and 32. The prophetic interpretations of the dragon metaphor in Ezek. 29:6b-12 and 32:11-16, however, draw on this idea, designating Babylon as the vehicle to fulfill YHWH’s initiative.65 As with Leviathan in Job 40:25-26, YHWH mentions placing a hook in the cheek(s) of Tannin in Ezek. 29:4.66 But the two passages evince different perspectives: In its hypothetical rhetoric, Job 40:25-32 highlights the ultimately futile attempt of Job (or perhaps, any human) to hook and domesticate Leviathan, while Ezek. 29:1-6a and 32:1-10 matter-of-factly reports Tannin’s capture without any trouble. The crux of this distinction hinges on the agent. YHWH effectively crushes any hope Job had of being able to tame the sea monster, but here in Ezekiel 29 and 32 he demonstrates his own capacity to do just that! And though both passages use tools from a fisher’s arsenal to hunt these “big game” marine animals, Job 40:25-32 shows no sign of conflict between YHWH and Leviathan, whom he created. Conversely, cosmic battle images pervade YHWH’s address to Pharaoh-as-Tannin in Ezekiel 29 and especially 32.

65 Ezekiel and his contemporaries, Habakkuk and Jeremiah, each expressed YHWH’s appointment of Babylon as a divine tool of retribution (cf. Hab. 1:2-17; Jer. 20:4-6).

66 The term in Job 40:26 is the derivative ḥôaḥ. Moreover, the term for “cheek” is sg. in Job 40:26, but pl. in Ezek. 29:4. 168 Table 26. Fishing tools in Ezekiel 29, 32

How to catch a Cross-References LXX Tannin 1. ḥaḥim “hooks 2 K. 19:28/Is. 37:29 (YHWH’s hook in Sennacherib’s παγίδας (in its nose); Ezek. 19:4, 9 (the nations hooks in the Judahite “snare, cheeks)” (Ezek. king’s nose); Ezek. 38:4 (YHWH’s hook in Gog’s trap” 29:4a) cheeks); cf. Job 40:26d 2. wĕha’ălītīkā “I Hab. 1:15 (Nebuchadrezzar brings up all of mankind, ἀνάξω “I will bring you including Judah, up with a hook) will bring up” (Ezek. you 29:4c); up” (bis) wĕhe’ĕlūkā “They will bring you up” (Ezek. 32:3c) 3. ūpāraśtī “And Is. 19:8 (designation of a ﬁsher, spreading a mikmeret περιβαλῶ I will spread out out over water); Ezek. 12:13/17:20 (YHWH spreads “I will lay (my net)” (Ezek. his rešet out over Judahite king); Ezek. 19:8 (the (upon 32:3b) nations spread out their rešet out over Judahite king); you)” Hos. 7:12 (YHWH spreads his net out over Ephraim [as if it were a bird]); Ps. 140:6 (the arrogant spread out a rešet over the psalmist); Lam. 1:13 (YHWH spread out a rešet over Judahite); 4. rištī “my See Table 2 above. δίκτυα net” (Ezek. “net” 32:3b) 5. bĕḥermī “my See Table 3 above. ἀγκίστρῳ net” (Ezek. “by my 32:3c) hook”

The stock collocation of pāraś + rešet in Ezek. 32:3 occurs for the fourth time in the book, nearly identically copying the three previous references. While the ﬁrst three (12:13; 17:20; 19:8) create a multifaceted reading by infusing the very prophetic interpretation with divine net imagery, the prophetic interpretation of the extended ﬁshing

169 metaphor in Ezek. 29:1-6a and 32:1-10 does not appear until after the metaphor finishes (cf. 29:6b-12; 32:11-15). The net functions as a divine weapon of YHWH in three of the four passages (and of the Babylonians in the fourth), but only here occurs within an explicit fishing context (see Table 27 below). Nevertheless, the grammatical and syntactical affinities of these four recycled references provide strong evidence in favor of literary dependence.

Table 27. The use of rešet in Ezekiel

ūpāraśtī ’et-rištī ‘ālāyw And I will spread out my net upon him (12:13) ūpāraśtī ‘ālāyw rištī And I will spread out upon him my net (17:20) wayyiprĕśū ‘ālāyw rištām And they spread out upon him their net (19:8) ūpāraśtī ‘ālêkā ’et-rištī And I will spread out upon you my net (32:3)

Ezekiel 29:1-6a and 32:1-10 thus represent an extended metaphor that commences and closes a lengthy oracle against Pharaoh Hophra. The former refers specifically to YHWH hooking the creature (29:4a), causing fish (i.e. either Egyptian officials or, more generally, Egyptian citizens) to stick to its scales (29:4b), hauling them up together (29:4c), and casting it onto the open field as carrion for scavenger animals to consume. This section closes with an Ezekielian trademark, the recognition formula (wĕyādĕ’ū kol- yōšĕbê miṣrayim kī ’ănī YHWH “Then all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am YHWH”).67 When ch. 32 picks up this same image, the discourse retrospectively reflects on

67 Boadt refers to the recognition formula as “the most decisive characteristic of Ezekiel’s theology” (1980, 170). 170 the trouble Tannin caused before it had been caught (32:2). The text then re-describes the catch scene, but with certain deviations. Though YHWH reeled Tannin in with (line and) hooks in 29:4, he employs nets (rešet and ḥērem) in 32:3, without mention of any accompanying ﬁsh. As in 29:5, YHWH casts (nāṭaš) Tannin onto dry ground in 32:4 for the beneﬁt of hungry birds and beasts. From there (32:5-10) the oracle expands the depiction in 29:1-6a by describing a gruesome picture: YHWH strews Tannin’s carcass across the land (32:5), thereby saturating the ground with its blood (32:6), and causes a Day-of-YHWH-like eclipse over Egypt (32:7-8), engendering widespread fear and disgust toward Pharaoh upon his demise (32:9-10).

4.2.2.4 Interpreting Ezekiel’s Tannin Metaphor The distinctive fishing metaphor in Ezekiel 29 and 32 brings together the foregoing discussion in two particular ways. First, along with Job 40:25-32, these passages self-evidently reinforce the idea that to catch a sea monster requires fishing acumen and paraphernalia. In fact, it is the very nature of tannīn as an aquatic creature that requires fishing language at all. The lofty imagery of Ezek. 29:3-6a and 32:2-10, however, achieves much more than recording a piscatorial tale; it offers a glimpse into YHWH’s character and redemptive program: his pre-eminent authority and commitment to faithfully observe his covenantal obligations as suzerain. It is this revelation of divine initiative and action that leads to the second point: the true human identity of tannīn, its unchecked hubris, and the consequent vulnerability of YHWH’s people, together demand justice. Given the metaphor of a dragon and the reality of rebellion, the employment of fishing imagery fills both a physical (i.e. description of big-game fishing) and a theological (i.e. divine retribution) need. Though Job’s hypothetical mission against Leviathan stood no chance, YHWH, as both a divine fisher and executor of justice, fits the bill perfectly.68 Although other passages utilize

68 The punishment prescribed to Egypt in Ezekiel 29-32 presumably does not connect to Hophra’s attempt to relieve a beleaguered Jerusalem (cf. Jer. 37:5, 11), but rather to their failure as an ally, neglecting a “universal morality” (Greenberg 1997, 611-13). Downsizing Egypt to a “lowly kingdom” precluded her pretentious pomp from ever again causing her northern neighbor to stop trusting in YHWH. 171 fishing language to connote retribution against human objects (Samaria in Amos 4:1-3; Judah in Hab. 1:14-17 and Jer. 16:16-18), Ezek. 29:3-6a and 32:2-10 offer a more natural context for this imagery. In their images of fishing for sea creatures, realia, metaphor, and theology converge. Moreover, these two passages maintain—along with Amos 4:1-3, Hab. 1:14-17, Jer. 16:16-18, and Ezek. 12:13-14, 17:26-21, and 19:2-9—the unifying manifestation of divine retribution as exile itself. Both the grisly metaphor of tannīn cast into its wilderness deathbed (29:3-4; 32:4-10) and the prophetic interpretation of this event (29:11-12; 32:9) forcefully communicate the same reality: the deportation of Pharaoh and the Egyptian populace, at the hands of Babylon, to foreign lands where they will perish.69 This theme not only reinforces Egypt’s fate elsewhere in Ezekiel 29-32 (cf. 30:23, 26), but preserves the Ezekielian literary topos of fishing tackle as an explicit means to deport. Though the triad of earlier passages related to the portentous fate of a Judahite king (12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:2-9) leaves the source of the metaphor ambiguous, the unequivocal fishing imagery in 29:3-6a and 32:2-10, combined with lexical links between fishing tools (rešet in 12:13; 17:20; 19:8; 32:3; ḥaḥ in 19:4, 9; 29:4; see Table 27) and action verbs connoting exile (see Table 28), demonstrate a literary cohesion among all five passages. The descriptive treatment of the fishing imagery in Ezek. 29:3-6a and 32:2-10 above has left open the rhetorical effect, indeed the whole point, of Pharaoh as hattannīm haggādôl (29:3; and simply tannīm in 32:2) in the first place. As 12:13-14, 17:16-21, and 19:2-9 clearly attest, Ezekiel could have used net imagery to communicate Pharaoh’s impending judgment without recourse to metaphorically identifying him as a sea monster. Though scholars naturally endeavor to explain this literary phenomenon by either mining Egyptian literature or classifying it as Chaoskampf,70 both fall short. And while the HB does feature examples of YHWH as either having already defeated tannīn (e.g. Ps. 74:1-17; Is. 51:9-10; cf. KTU 1.3 3:38-42; KTU 1.5 1:1-4 = KTU 1.5 1:17-31) or poised

69 Cf. Greenberg 1997, 603, 610; Allen 1990, 105.

70 So Gunkel (1985, 71-77) and Day (1985, 27). Boadt concurs, suggesting that the “original Chaoskampf becomes moralized into the battle of Yahweh to manifest his hegemony over the foreign idols” (1980, 173). 172 to vanquish it in the eschatological future (e.g. Is. 27:1), neither applies here. The precedents set by tannīn Job 40:25-32 and Ps. 104:26 offer the reader a helpful reminder of alternative traditions, for along with them, these two Ezekiel passages likewise do not specifically conform to other biblical tropes. The extended tannīn metaphor in Ezekiel 29 and 32 neither concerns restitution of the cosmic order nor mirrors Egyptian literary expression, but instead employs a unique rhetorical strategy that draws from biblical tradition. The dragon imagery foreshadows Ezekiel’s oracle against Egypt, serving to accentuate Pharaoh’s figure in order to then suddenly deflate it with caustic irony. Conversely, the hattanīm haggādôl both replicates a well-established Mesopotamian royal and divine title (Sum. ušum-gal; Akk. ušumgallu “great dragon”) and draws upon Israelite cosmological history (viz. Gen. 1:21) to overturn sarcastically any of Pharaoh’s presumptuous self-identification as an awe- inspiring monarch among the nations.71 In so doing, Ezekiel appropriated imagery from his current locale, Babylon, which also ironically happened to be the very nation he prophesied would soon reduce Egypt to a lowly kingdom (32:11-12). Ezekiel thus skillfully exposed the true subordinate status of both tannīn and Pharaoh before YHWH, using fishing imagery to communicate a common biblical concept: As a fisher, YHWH was kitted with concomitant equipment, while as a deity committed to justice, he was poised to implement said equipment against those deserving of retribution.

71 For an extensive discussion of this argumentation, see Yoder 2013, 486-96. 173 Table 28. The rešet and exile in Ezekiel

1. Ezekiel wĕkōl ’ăšer sĕbībōtâw ‘ezrōh (Q “And I will scatter to every wind all those 12:14a ‘ezrô) wĕkol-ăgappâw ’ĕzāreh who surround him—his helpers and all his lĕkol-rū troops…” 2. Ezekiel wĕ’ēt kol-mibrāḥâw “The choice men among his troops will fall 17:21 bĕkol-’ăgappâw baḥereb yippōlū by the sword and those remaining will be wĕhanniš’ārīm spread to every wind.” yippārēśū 3. Ezekiel waybi’ūhū… ’el-’ereṣ miṣrāyim // “They brought him to the land of Egypt” // 19:4, 9 waybi’ūhū ’el-melek yĕbi’ūhū “They brought him to the king of Babylon, bammĕṣōdôt and brought him into a prison” 4. Ezekiel wahăpiṣōtī ’et-miṣrayim baggôyim “I will scatter Egypt among the nations and 29:12 wĕzērītīm bā’ărāṣôt will disperse them among (foreign) lands” 5. Ezekiel wĕhik’astī lēb ‘ammīm rabīm “I will provoke the heart of many people 32:9 bahăbī’ī šibrĕkā baggôyim when I bring about your destruction among ‘al-’ărāṣôt ’ăšer lō’ yĕda‘tām the nations, among lands which you do not know”

4.3 Enūma Eliš A third example of “big-game” ﬁshing derives not from ancient Israel, but Babylon, the nation that Habakkuk (1:14:17), Jeremiah (16:16-18), and Ezekiel (12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9; 29:1-6a; 32:1-10) each prophesied would enact YHWH’s call to justice against Judah.72 Like Job 40:25-32, Ezek. 29:3-6a, and 32:2-10, EE,73 one of Mesopotamia’s most highly esteemed literary texts, describes the hunt and subjugation of a massive serpentine monster via the use of metaphors from the ﬁshing trade.74 EE

72 To my knowledge, these represent the only three examples within the literature of the aNE to use explicitly ﬁshing tackle as a means to slay a dragon.

73 Lambert 2013; Lambert and Parker 1966; Labat 1935. For Tablet 5 (see excerpt #4 in Table 29 below), see Landsberger and Kinnier Wilson 1961, 154-179.

74 The numerous copies dating to the 1st millennium BCE, the extensive commentary on the 50 names of Marduk in the seventh and final tablet, and EE’s ritual application in the Babylonian New Year festival (Akîtu), together distinguish it among Babylonians from both a literary and religio-political perspective (cf. Foster 2005, 437). 174 extols the rise of Marduk to the head of the Babylonian pantheon after he defeated Tiamat, divine personification of the primeval open seas, whose body he transformed into various elements of the cosmos (e.g. half of her body became the sky; her spit became the clouds, her head supported a mountain, and her eye sockets served as the source of both the Tigris and Euphrates). To do so he wields his divine net to ensnare her whole before thrusting a strong breeze into her stomach, where he then shoots an arrow to end the conflict.75 In order to quell the rebellion completely, he pursues Tiamat’s entourage, using a net to capture them all at once. In the aftermath of his decisive victory, Marduk uses the monstrous, serpentine carcass of Tiamat to reorganize the cosmos with Babylon as its center.76 The pantheon gladly receives Marduk, wonders at his skillfully crafted weapons, including his net, and ascribes him pre-eminent status.77 The net thus plays an essential role in the slaying of Tiamat. Lambert refers to it as the “crowning example from [Marduk’s] battle equipment.”78 Rather than using in a traditional sense, such as to enclose someone or something within it (cf. the SoV), Marduk employs it as a means to temporarily control and confound Tiamat just long enough so he can deliver the coup de grâce with his bow and arrow.

75 Tur-Sinai also found allusion to EE in Job 26:13, but to do so he had to emend the text to brūḥô śm ym śprh “with his wind he put Sea in his net” in order to acquire parallelism with hllh ydô nḥš bryḥ “his hand pierced the twisted serpent” (1957, 383-4). Though Akk. saparru would provide a well-established cognate to śprh, this neither legitimates the emendation nor establishes the dependence as real (see Cohen 1978, 50, 97-98).

76 The work has been dated anywhere from the middle of the second millennium BCE to the beginning of the ﬁrst millennium BCE. For a helpful survey of the different positions, see Lambert 2013, 439-44.

77 Claims that the EB IV ‘Ain Samiya cup depicts Marduk’s defeat of Tiamat have been refuted (Gates 1986, 75-81).

78 2013, 450. 175 Table 29. Fishing Imagery in Enūma Eliš79

1. Marduk’s “Then he made a net (sapāra) to encircle Tiamat within [or: entrails net (4:41-44, of Tiamat], he stationed the four winds so that none of her would 6:82-3) escape…he attached the net (sapāra) at his side.”

“Bēl [i.e. Marduk] took [lit. “received”] his weapon, the bow, and placed it before them. The gods, his fathers, looked upon the net (sapāra) that he had made.” 2. Slaughter- “Bēl spread out (ušparir-ma) his net (sapārašu) and encircled her. ing Tiamat He released the destructive wind, (which) he had stationed behind (4:95-104) him, in her face. Tiamat opened her mouth to swallow it. [Marduk] inserted the destructive wind so she could not close her lips. The raging winds filled up her stomach; her insides were bloated. She opened her mouth wide. He shot the arrow (and) it broke open her stomach. It cut her insides (and) pierced the heart. He bound her (and) extinguished her life. He cast down her carcass (and) stood upon it.” 3. Capturing As for her divine helpers who had come to her aid, they trembled, Tiamat’s feared, and turned back. They attempted to force (their) way out to allies save their lives (lit. “his life”), (but) were not able to escape the (4:107-14) grasp that enfolded (them). He enclosed them and shattered their weapons. They were cast (nadû-ma) in the net (sapāriš). They sat in the mesh (kamāriš). Hiding in corners, filled with woe. They were bearing his punishment, confined to prison. 4. Cosmic re- He split her in two, like a fish for drying (mašṭê). Half of her set up organization and made as a roof (for) the sky. (4:137-38 [cf. SAA 03 039 Spreading [half of] her as a cover, he established the earth. [After] he rev. 1], had completed his task inside Tiamat, [He spre]ad his net (sapārašu), 5:62-66) let all (within) escape. He shaped the heavens and the netherworld [or: earth], […] their bonds.

79 The translation for the excerpt from EE 5:62-66 is from Foster (2005, 465). While the term for “his net” (saparrašu) is clear, as is the general activity (i.e. Marduk finishing his reorganization of the cosmos), the partially effaced text precludes a precise understanding of this section. 176 4.4 Synthesis So what are we to make of these “big-game” references? Despite their recourse to fishing tackle for the express purpose of catching a monster, two of the three examples (viz. Job 40:25-32 and EE) depict more of a hunt than a fishing expedition. Moreover, all three reveal idiosyncratic features with regard to both the general and specific that require individualized treatment. For instance, EE provides a classic example of Chaoskampf, where a deity battles chaos personified in the form of an imposing creature in order to engender cosmic order. Both Tiamat and Job’s Leviathan boast terrifying fangs, the former of which was equipped with venom-spewing incisors (EE 1:135-36; 3:83-4; Job 41:6). Though Tiamat’s death affords both Marduk’s ascendance and the restructuring of the cosmos, Leviathan nevertheless demonstrates no sign of hostility in Job 40:25-41:26. While other biblical and Ugaritic passages may preserve vestiges of Chaoskampf, the Leviathan in Job, humbled and declawed, shows no such indications. Moreover, Tannin in Ezekiel 29 and 32 bears the earmarks of a haughty, if not hostile, creature (e.g. “The Nile is mine”), but the passage ultimately addresses an historical-political crisis, castigating a human object in its warning of divine retribution, rather than the need for cosmic equilibrium. By their very nature, all three creatures together stand outside of the human order: Tiamat as wild, primeval creator deity whose carcass helps organize the cosmos; Leviathan, who is so fearsome and “other” that precludes a human from catching him as one would a fish; Tannin as ostensible manifestation of supreme, creative power. The general rationale for their ensnaring, however, differs in each case: in slaughtering Tiamat, Marduk quelled her threat against the divine realm, allowed for his rise to power, transformed Babylon into the center of the universe, and harmonized the cosmos; the inability of Job to angle Leviathan emphasizes YHWH’s (and its) otherness and authority; and the Tannin cartoon in Ezekiel exposes Hophra’s pride, impotence, subordination before YHWH, and looming demise. ! ! !

177 ! ! !

Chapter 5. Deadliest Catch: Fishing Imagery and Tragedy

5.1 Introduction The foregoing discussion in chapters 2-4 has posited a number of literary correlations between a metaphorical net and divine justice. Accordingly, if the gods wielded nets and if said nets exacted retribution, as manifested by deportation, this relationship stands just a small hermeneutical step away from its logical end: the net as the “great leveler,” death itself. This natural outgrowth of the net as a negative instrument evokes a vivid portrayal of fate and inescapability, motifs which also describe the net as an instrument of justice. Though Hab. 1:14-17 and the triad of recycled phrases in Ezekiel (12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:1-9) each lay special emphasis on the net as an exiling medium, the idea of the net as an agent of death is a concomitant.1 And while Ezekiel 29 and 32 employ fishing imagery for a distinct rhetorical purpose, the ultimate result of catching the tannīn with a hook and net is the sea monster’s own demise, with carcass strewn across foreign topography and blood saturating the ground.2 In only one biblical text, however, does this connection play a central role. Stripped of political overtones and devoid of covenantal insinuations, the net in Qoh. 9:12 symbolizes the incongruity and unpredictability of life’s most devastating tragedies. The following chapter analyzes the interpretive significance of this particular image in Qoh. 9:12 by first surveying analogous exemplars from Mesopotamian literature before placing it within its own

1 Hab. 1:17 asserts that if YHWH does nothing, the Babylonian king will continue to “empty his net, mercilessly killing nations.” Ezek. 12:13 prophesies the king’s death in his country of exile, while 17:21 refers to the felling of his choice men by the sword. This idea is more subtle in Ezek. 19:9, explaining the purpose of the Judahite king’s conﬁnement so that “his voice would no more be heard.”

2 One could, at least prima facie, argue that the concept of death undergirds all ﬁshing metaphors, but the passages and contexts of those metaphors defy such a simplistic claim. 178 literary context.

5.2 Mesopotamian Literature In contrast to the singular image of a net as death agent, Mesopotamian literature preserves nearly a dozen examples. Though these metaphors stem from different literary contexts (e.g. sorcery, battle, lamentation, etc.) and exhibit different vantage points (e.g. generic, self-referential, etc.), the concept of an inescapable net that captures and leads to tragedy (and typically, death), binds them together. Nowhere is the personiﬁcation of the net as inexorable death clearer in

Mesopotamian literature than in the portrayal of the chthonic demons (gal5-lá-zu) in DD (Table 30:1a). These “big men who bind the neck” (gú kéše-da gal-gal) relentlessly search for Dumuzi, eventually outlasting Utu’s merciful magic that had time and again allowed the protagonist to escape, in order to secure and transport him back to the underworld with them.3 The type of net they use (gu) mirrors that of the Gutians in the Curse of Agade, where at Enlil’s command it devastated the Akk. capital and its environs. While Enlil ensured the efﬁcacy of the net in that text, there is no such assurance in DD. The narrative itself, however, demonstrates this reality via the nature and provenance of the demons, as well as the use of literary repetition. These liminal beings bridge two “worlds” by collecting the human bounty owed to the netherworld.4 Other inscriptions reinforce this attribution, likening the alû demon to that which

3 In CoT 229, which both praises Isis for mourning her husband’s death and requests Osiris’ reassembly and resurrection, the deceased pleads for deliverance against the onslaught of fishers who attempt to bring about Osiris’ ultimate destruction (i.e. “second death”) by destroying his body, as well as his soul and spirit. Later, the deceased confidently asserts that no net will catch him or her (Faulkner 1973, 182-3). BOTD 153A likewise refers to chthonic fishers who use their nets to ensnare the dead. In an ironic twist, this particular spell resolves the tension by transforming the deceased itself into a fisher, enabling her or him to launch an offensive against the netherworld enemies (for a translation, see Andrews 1993, 149-152; cf. 153B for a similar spell).

4 For the net as an agent of death in cultural memory outside of the aNE, see Gill 1876, 181-83; idem, 1977, 161-63; Fox 1977, 234-36; Guerber 1948, 184; Tromp 1969, 172-75; Eliade 1991, 124-52. 179 envelops a human life at death like a net (Table 30:1b).5 Elsewhere demons swoop down like a net in order to infect young children with disease and even commit infanticide (Table 30:1c). Lamaštu, the child-snatching demon well-known for terrorizing mothers and their infants, had a hand that was compared to a such a net.6 The innocent Šubši- mešre-šakkan, protagonist in Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, himself experienced Lamaštu’s terror when she descended upon him, throwing his body into convulsions (ll. 63-72) and then a despondent stupor (ll. 73-79). Cast down on his face (l. 70), he likened his plight to that of a helpless rag doll, thrown around by a “malevolent demon” and immersed in a terrifying “sleep” (šittu) that he likens to a net (šuškalli) that covered (ukattimanni) him (l. 72; cf. Table 30:1d). Though this “righteous sufferer” would ultimately live, the visceral language does not view life as a possible outcome. As a spell that once uttered cannot be undone, so the net inherited an irrevocable connotation in Mesopotamian thought.7 An Akk. incantation from Boğazköy assumes this relationship between sorcery and net imagery in its ironic hex against a witch by way of a net (Table 30:3). Although the net frequently appears as an inescapable force, the literature infrequently describes the result of the capture. Even an ambiguous telos, however, powerfully demonstrated the ominous fate of such an event. When the result is speciﬁed, it is fundamentally negative. As extensively discussed in ch. 3 above, reference to human ensnarement in the martial contexts of Assyrian royal inscriptions often denotes the horror of geographical displacement. Other examples depicting battle activity extend the

5 Cf. Damascus Document 4:14-19 and the “three nets of Belial”: “This [i.e. the terror and pit and snare of Is. 24:17] refers to the three nets of Belial, of which Levi, son of Jacob, said that he [i.e. Belial] caught Israel with them (when) he made them seem to be [lit. gave them before them as] three types of righteousness. The first is harlotry, the second wealth [Charlesworth: “arrogance”], and the third the defilement of the sanctuary. Whoever escapes the first is caught by that and who is saved from that is caught by this” (cf. Charlesworth 1995, 18-19).

6 rittāša alluḫappu “[Lamaštu's] hand is a net” (4R 58 3:30; PBS 1/2 113 3:16 [dupl.]).

7 E.g. “a net (sa-pàr; saparru) (from which there is) no escape (nu-è-e; lā āṣê)” (CT 17 34:13 [dupl. AJSL 35 143:13f]); “I designed a spell for you that cannot be undone (lā pašāri), do not….to the net (sa-pàr; saparrīka) (spread) for you” (STT 168:15f [and dupl. 171:15f]). This image stems from the pragmatic piscatorial need for a tightly-meshed net (e.g. “the net [šētu] was spread out [šuparrurtu] // the net [sapāru] which was spread out [tarṣu] over the sea” (4R 26 no. 2:11f; cf. also SBH 15 7:10). 180 metaphor further, employing the net to symbolize the indiscriminate atrocities of war. One passage in an inscription from Šalmaneser I (1274-1245 BCE) aggrandizes this monarch’s power by comparing it to an “unsparing net of death” (Table 30:2b). Another reference from the anti-witchcraft series, Maqlû (“Burning”), uses a distinctive repetition of different varieties of net to illustrate the terror wreaked upon even the strongest of warriors (Table 30:2a).8 While the net executes divine retribution elsewhere (cf. chs. 2-4 above), the implications in these two texts highlight its impartiality, and, to a lesser extent, its limitless power. In other places this imagery exhibits a very personal element. Whether referring to one’s self or to another, the net delivers a tragic, if not fatal, blow. For example, the spreading net symbolizes calamity overwhelming one’s own home (Table 30:4a). Elsewhere disease takes hold of one’s body, encompassing it like (a ﬁsh caught in) a mesh (Table 30:4b). In the same way is evil (lemnu), in general, like a net’s strong grip, ensnaring one from within (Table 30:4c). And though a witch may afﬂict one as a spreading net brings tragedy, one Maqlû incantation explicitly addresses this matter by calling on Marduk to reverse their fate, delivering the same ill-fated blow to the guilty (Table 30:4d).9 The frequent use of the accompanying verbs saḫāpu (“to spread over”) and katāmu (“to cover”) paints a shadowy vignette. The net delivers not from evil, but to evil. It exacts punishment, justice, and fate. Whether sickness, disaster, or death itself, the net leaves its victims hopeless.

8 The inauspicious death of the Trojan War hero, Agamemnon, covered with a net with while in a bathtub with his lover, echoes this idea in the ﬁrst act of Aeschylus’ Oresteia (cf. Qoh. 9:11).

9 A similar idea appears in the fowling metaphor at 1QH 10:31: “And as for them, the net (rešet) they spread out (pārĕśū) against me caught their feet, and the traps they hid for my life, they themselves fell into them. But my feet stand upon level ground” (cf. Schuller and Newsom 2012, 35:31). 181 Table 30. Deadly nets in the ancient Near East

1. Demons a. “They [i.e. chthonic bounty hunters] twisted a cord (gu) for him [Dumuzi], they bound a net (sa) for him.” (DD 70:157)

b.“You [O man like a net (sa.dul.gin

c. “Swooping down battle net (šuškallum sāḫiptum), ensnaring net (ḫuḫārum saḫieštum […to bringing disease upon children…strangle babies in their cribs, etc]).” (BM 122691 [=1931-4-13.4]; Farber 1981, 60-72; incantation similar in function to the Lamaštu series from “Tel Duweihes”)

d. “Sleep covered me (ukattimanni) like a net (šuškalli).” (Ludlul 21:72) 2. Battle a. “[a malevolent hand] spread over (isḫupu) the young man like a net (ḫuḫāri), covered (ukattimu) the warrior like a net (šēti), caught (ibarru) the pre-eminent one like a battle net (šuškalli), enveloped (iktumu) the strong one like a trap (gišparri).” (Maqlû 3:157-60; RBS 5 13’-2; Abusch and Schwemer 2008, 152; ll. 161-64 in Meier 1967)

b. kīma gišpar mūti lā pādê tebû kakkūšu “the onslaught of his [i.e. Šalmaneser I’s] weapons is like the unsparing net of death (gišpar mūti lā pādê).” (AOB 1 112:14-15; RIMA 1, A.0.77.1, ll.14-15, p. 183) 3. Witches “May the large battle net (sa-šú-uš-g[a-al]) spread over (ḫu-mu-šú; [l]isḫup) the corpse of that witch.” (PBS 1/2 122 r. 5f; Falkenstein 1939, 14) 4. Self- a. “A net (sa.al.ùr.ra; tēšû [for šēšû]) has spread over (bí.íb.šú; issaḫapšu) referential that man in his own house.” (5R 50 2:54f; see Borger 1967, 8:73)

b.“(Disease) overwhelms me (saḫpanni) like a net (šēti), it covers me (kutt[umanni]) like a net ([sa]pāri).” (BMS 12:50; cf. von Soden 1969, 87:50)

c. “the evil (lemnu) that has seized me…has covered me (kut[tumanni]) like a net (šēti), overwhelmed me (saḫpanni) like a battle net (šuškalli).” (Ištar und Dumuzi 71:68-70)

d. “[though] as a net (šēti) to cover me (kattamêya)…I will cover (akattamšunūti) them like a net (šēti)” (Maqlû 2:165, 176; Abusch and Schwemer 2008, 145; ll. 164, 175 in Meier 1967)

182 5.3 Qohelet 9:11-2 5.3.1 Translation 9:11 Again I observed [lit. “saw”]10 that under the sun:11 the race does not (necessarily) belong to the swift,12 nor the battle to the strong, nor even bread to the wise, nor even riches to the discerning, nor even favor to those with knowledge, for time and chance13 happen to them all.

10 r’h is a diplographic addition, and thus unneeded, according to both Galling 1969, 114 and Lauha 1978, 172. Qohelet’s observational activity plays a central role in the book, as seen by 47 attestations of Heb. rā’ah.

11 For different views on the origin of this common phrase in Qohelet (28 attestations), see Lavoie 1996, 441.

12 As Seow demonstrates, the anomalous mērôṣ likely implies a martial, rather than an athletic context (1997, 307). Cf. comparable examples of ﬂeeing in such contexts (Is. 30:16; Jer. 46:6) and when running for one’s life (2 Sam. 2:18-19; Amos 2:14-16). The 2 Samuel 2 passage, where a speedy Asahel pursues David’s foe, Abner, but ironically ends up dying, is a case in point for Qohelet.

13 Scholars regard the paratactic relationship between these two terms as either reflective of hendiadys (so Seow 1997, 308: “timely incident”) or distinct aspects of the same reality (so D’Alario 1998, 459). For a helpful summary of the evidence, see Schoors 1992, 217). Though Heb. pega‘ means “misfortune” when followed by ra‘ in its only other attestation (1 K. 5:18), like its LXX counterpart, Gk. ἀνάτηµα, it carries no inherently negative connotation. “Chance does not always have to be mischance” (Schoors 2004, 410). Within Israelite thought, pega‘ reflects providence, not coincidence. Qohelet himself recognized the role of providence in life’s most startling examples of “happenstance” (9:1, 12). Provan clarifies by describing Heb. pega‘ as “simply something we encounter on the path of life—a circumstance or situation over which we have no control” (2001, 183). 183 כִּ י גַּ ם לֹא־יֵדַ ע הָאָדָ ם אֶ ת־ﬠִ תּוֹ כּדָּ גִ ים שֶׁ נֶּאֱחָ זִ ים בִּמְ צוֹדָ ה רָ ﬠָ ה וְכַצִּפֳּרִ ים הָאֲחֻ זוֹת בַּפָּ ח כָּהֵ ם 9:12 יוּקָשִׁ ים בְּנֵ י הָאָדָ ם לְﬠֵ ת רָ ﬠָ ה כְּשֶׁתִּ פּוֹל ﬠֲלֵ יהֶ ם פִּתְ אֹם׃ For indeed,14 no one knows15 his time. Like fish caught in a maleficent net16 or birds caught in a snare, so all people are ensnared17 at18 a time of calamity19 when it [i.e. time] falls upon them suddenly.20

14 Following Schoors, who maintains gam must be emphatic if kī is explicative (2013, 686); contra Gordis, who prefers a concessive meaning (“although”) based on similar uses in 8:12, 16 (1955, 298).

15 Out of the 36 appearances of yāda‘ in Qohelet, negation precedes it on 14 occasions (4:13, 17; 6:5; 8:5, 7; 9:1, 5, 12; 10:14-15; 11:2, 5 [bis], 6) and it implies a negative answer to a rhetorical question on 6 others (2:19; 3:21; 6:8, 12; 8:1, 17). The lack of knowledge (i.e. human ignorance) is thus a central theme in Qohelet (cf. 2:16, 19; 3:22; 6:12; 7:14; 8:7; 9:5; 10:14; 11:2, 6).

16 Tg, V “hook.”

17 Although some dubiously read yūqāšīm as a Dp (for representative examples, see GKC §52s; Whitley 1979, 81) or N participle (HALOT 1:432), it is actually an old G passive participle, written plene (Schoors 2013, 688). Arguing against the former is the lack of the customary preformative mem (although Gordis remedies this by shifting forward the mem from the preceding kāhēm [1955, 298]), the doubled middle radical (contra Ginsberg 1961, 418, who suggests the preceding vowel is lengthened to compensate for its loss [for this phenomenon, see GKC §20n; §52s]), and any other attestations in the D stem. Other examples of such Masoretic confusion, where Dp’s replaced old G passives, which had long since fallen into desuetude, appear in Ex. 3:2; Jer. 13:10; 23:32. Hitzig curiously argues that the participle here presupposes a scenario where the ensnared remained so throughout the rest of their life (1847, 192).

18 The preﬁxed lamed is temporal in use (i.e. people are ensnared at [i.e. at the time of] a time of calamity), without any sign of purpose or predetermination. For a similar biblical example, cf. Gen. 8:11: “The dove came to him at the time of evening.” For further discussion on time relates to ra‘, see §5.3.3.1.1 below.

19 Some scholars read this as an attributive adjectival relationship (for a representative example, see Hertzberg and Bardtke 1963, 180: “zur bösen Zeit”), while others prefer a construct chain (for a representative example, see Michel 1989, 67: “Zeit des Unheils”) in light of the similar phrase “day of evil” (yôm rā‘āh) in 7:14.

20 Cf. Jer. 15:8, where ‘īr “anguish” and behālôt “terror(s)” “fall upon [Judahites] suddenly” (hippaltī ‘ālêhā pit’ōm). One Tg variant adds a deterministic slant, explaining that this time “is appointed…by heaven” (Levine 1981, 42-3). 184 5.3.2 Literary Context Qohelet 9 approaches the concept of wisdom from several different angles. The first twelve verses’ fixation on fate demonstrates the limitations of wisdom (e.g. it does not exist in the afterlife, according to 9:10; it cannot ensure victory, sustenance, or wealth, according to 9:11), while the final six verses exalt it over physical strength.21 As noticed especially by the regular interchange between ḥay (“living”) and mēt (“dead”) in 9:3-5, the first six verses (9:1-6) emphasize the tension of life and its inevitable and universal antithesis: death.22 Both the concept and problem of death play a major role elsewhere in the book (e.g. 2:16; 3:2, 19-20). Rather than allowing himself to wallow in despair, however, Qohelet then shifts the topic abruptly in 9:7-10, building on this sobered reality in a positive manner by issuing a passionate call to wholeheartedly enjoy life while one has the opportunity. There is nothing to look forward to in the afterlife. The rhetorical roller-coaster continues in 9:11-12 when Qohelet returns to the topic of fate, or more specifically, one’s “time.”23 These two verses form a new subunit24 within the larger pericope of 9:1-12.25 The linking phrase “man does not know” (’ên

21 9:13-16 answers the question: is there any advantage provided by wisdom? According to Ogden, “Wisdom always is the highest value, for it is God who determines man’s fate. Regardless of when death may come, and no matter how incomprehensible life may be, even to the wise man, wisdom is always better” (1982, 167).

22 Ogden identiﬁes an a-a-b, a-b-b pattern of these two roots in 9:4-5 (1982, 162), an oscillation Krüger refers as a “deed-result connection” (2004, 174).

23 Provan views 9:11-12 as the “tailpiece” to 9:1-10 (2001, 183). For the topic of fate in Greek literature, see Hesiod’s “Five Races” in the Works and Days.

24 For 9:11-12 as a well-deﬁned unit, see Lavoie 1996, 440. Although one expects a pĕtūḥāh, not a sĕtūmāh, under šabtī, this does not preclude the commencement of a new section (Seow 1997, 307). According to Walton, the use of a 1st person qātal + inf. clause pattern “often marks a shift in the text’s communication strategy” (2006, 67).

25 Cf. Ogden (1982, 165) for a characteristic assessment. Walton makes a strong case for a larger pericope that reaches back to 8:9 (2006, 67, 128). In favor of this latter position (8:9-9:12) is the resumption of Qohelet’s observational activity (of all that is done “under the sun”) and reference to life’s incongruity (e.g. the righteous receive what they do not deserve in 8:10, 14, yet in 9:11 do not receive their just desserts). Murphy comes to a similar conclusion (vv. 11-12 as the second of two “reflections”), yet within the scope of 9:1-12 (1992, 88-95). Fox further suggests that 9:11-12 has no real relationship to surrounding sections (1999, 295-97). 185 yôdēa‘ hā’ādam [9:1]; lō’-yēda‘ hā’ādām [9:12]) and the complementary use of ra‘ in 9:3 and 9:12 (twice in both verses) together form an inclusio.26 While the first verse emphasizes life’s general unpredictability, the second draws on this idea by applying it specifically to tragedy. The highly structured and rhythmic set of five illustrations in 9:11 highlights the world’s incongruity and lack of “dependable connection between efforts and results, what one deserves and what one gets.”27 Though the swiftest usually win the race and the strongest army usually takes the battle, there is no such guarantee. And though bread, riches, and favor usually follow the wise, discerning, and intelligent (cf. Prov. 13:15), respectively, life is not so predictable. Experience itself overturns any paradigmatic schema of deeds and consequences.28 “Time” and “chance” adhere to no rigid, human structure; one cannot reduce life and death to a set of calculations.29 And tragedy inevitably strikes, without notice. From the perspective of Qoh. 9:1-12, then, one is to enjoy life while he or she has the opportunity (9:7-10)!30

26 Ogden 1982, 165. Conversely, Crenshaw (1987, 164-5) and Whybray (1989, 145-6) see no real connection between 9:11-12 and other surrounding sections. But even those who see 9:11 as the start of a new unit (so Seow 1997, 47, 306-28; Backaus 1993, 274-5; Lohﬁnk 2003, 114-16; Schoors 1982, 116 [classifying 9:11-12 as a new “major division”]) still relate it back to the preceding content.

27 Fox (2004, 65; cf. Ogden and Zogbo, 1997, 338). In Krüger’s chiastic structure, 9:11-12 parallels 11:11-6 based on the correlating themes: “success not at one’s disposal/uncertainty of the future” (2004, 165-75).

28 Dohmen and Rick 2004, 586. According to Fox, “all efforts and talents may founder on the shoals of happenstance” (1999, 89).

29 The movie In A Better World (2010; original title Hœvnen) illustrates this reality by the use of a veil, which is, at all times, the only barrier separating one from death. That veil disappears during personal tragedy, even if only for a second, but quickly returns, enabling the living to carry on. R. Akiba similarly proffered that “All is given in pledge, and a net is spread (mṣwdh prwśh) over all the living” (m. Abot 3:16). In this mixed metaphor, Akiba draws attention to the mystery of human free will and divine sovereignty. Humans are free to do as they choose, but what they do matters; they are responsible for their actions. With freedom (i.e. a pledge) comes culpability (i.e. a net).

30 Siduri, the tavern keeper who confronts Gilgamesh in EG, likewise offers a “carpe diem” lesson, imploring the hero to cherish all that life offers (OB version 10:76-91). 186 5.3.3 Interpretation 5.3.3.1 What is So ra‘ About a “Net” and “Time?” 5.3.3.1.1 The Use of ra‘ in Qohelet 9:1-12 The basic outline of 9:11-12 is lucid: the vagaries of human experience prevent systematization. Life cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. The analogies of a frontrunner not winning a race and the metaphor of a fish suddenly caught in a net palpably communicate this truth. The syntax itself in Qoh. 9:12 reinforces the relationship between a “net” and “time,” for the ensnaring (šenne’ĕḥāzīm) of the former signals the descent of the latter (kĕšettippôl). Though some scholars have suggested mĕṣôdāh as antecedent of the implied subject (i.e. “it”) of the imperfect verb tippôl,31 its relative distance from the verb—dismissing two other closer, viable antecedents, ‘ēt and pāḥ—stretches probability.32 The characterization of both terms as ra‘ thus offers a formal association between them. The spreading of a net to haul in a catch of fish symbolizes the tragedy (i.e. what is so ra‘) of an appointed time that inevitably (but no less tragically!) falls upon its victims. In light of the fact that “time” is the theme of 9:11-12, a fishing net functions as a vivid metaphor that modifies it! But there is more. In what way is the fishing net “maleficent” (ra‘)? And what does it mean to be caught at a “calamitous” (ra‘) time? The fact that the gripping force of the metaphors in Qoh. 9:12 would still obtain without ra‘ itself demonstrates the adjective’s salience to the verse’s overall meaning. The idea of a deadly net does not, however, seem to fit the context prima facie. Tragedy, whether fatal or not, is a widespread plague; inescapable, but not necessarily evil. From life’s first cry to its final breath, however, ra‘ pervades human existence (cf. 8:6). For Qohelet, ra‘ functions in a number of different ways (see Table 31 below). It (or rā‘āh) qualifies the task God gives humans in 1:13, just as it represents that which he will one day judge, according to the book’s very last line (12:14). It can refer to death as a

31 So Seow 1997, 308; Crenshaw 1987, 210.

32 The “‘evil time” of 9:12b is not a temporally deﬁned moment, but the disaster itself, which may come at different moments and can “fall” on man as he moves along the path of life” (Fox 1999, 200) 187 universal phenomenon (2:17; 9:3), as well as an unfair (2:21; 6:1-2; 8:12) or unpredictable event (7:15). ra‘ is engrained within humanity (9:3).33

Table 31. The use of ra ‘ (+ rā‘āh and rōa‘) in Qohelet

1. 1:13; 4:8; a. God gives humans an ‘inyan rā‘ to occupy themselves (1:13). 5:13 (ra‘); 5:12 (rā‘āh b. Along with hebel “breath,” 4:8 considers it an ‘inyan rā‘ when one [bis]) works only for themselves and is never satisﬁed with the fruit of their labor.

c. An ‘inyan rā‘ refers to the misfortune of a father who withheld his riches, only to lose it, with none to offer his progeny, in 5:13 (“bad business deal” BDB 775; “bad luck” HALOT 1: 857). 5:12 considers this a ḥôlāh rā‘āh (“grievous evil” or “grave misfortune;” cf. 6:2) 2. 2:17 (ra‘) Refers to the universality of death in the world (cf. 2:16). 3. 2:21 Though one demonstrates wisdom and skill in their work (e.g. wealth, (rā‘āh) accomplishments, etc.), it will eventually pass down to a successor, and there is no guarantee that successor will steward it well. This is rā‘āh. 4. 4:3 (ra‘) Qohelet remarks that the unborn are better off than both the dead (who have experienced ra‘) and the living (who currently experience ra‘). 5. 4:17 (ra‘) Qohelet equates ra‘ with the offering of a rash vow (lit. “the fools, a sacriﬁce”) that is left unpaid (cf. 5:1). 6. 5:15 That people are born with nothing and die with nothing is a ḥôlāh rā‘āh. (rā‘āh) 7. 6:1-2 It is a rā‘āh and a ḥŏlī rā‘ (“grievous evil” or “grave misfortune”) that (rā‘āh + ra‘) someone else gets to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor. 8. 7:3 ( Part of the idiom 9. 7:14 yôm rā‘āh (“day of evil”) contrasts yôm ṭôbāh (“day of good”), where (rā‘āh) the former refers generally to adversity or tragedy.

Continued 33 Qohelet does not distinguish the adjective ra‘ “evil, pernicious” from noun rā‘āh “calamity.” Variation between these two semantically overlapping terms may simply be stylistic. As the subheadings indicate, the forms of rā’āh in 9:12 (bis) and 10:13 derive from the adjective ra‘ (3rd fem. sg.) rather than from the noun rā‘āh. 188 Table 31 Continued

10. 7:15 Life is unpredictable, in so far as the righteous one perishes “in his (rā‘āh) righteousness” (bĕṣidqô) and the rāšā‘ (“wicked”) prolongs his life “in his evil” (bĕrā‘ātô). 11. 8:3, 5-6 a. In reference to one’s response to a king’s command (8:3): “do not (ra‘; life in the delay when the matter is rā‘” or “do not stand up for a matter (that) is state) rā‘.

b. Obedience precludes one from experiencing (lit. “knowing”) rā‘ (8:5).

c. Though there is a time and way for everything, the rā‘āh of man is heavy upon him (8:6). 12. 8:9 (ra‘) One man’s power over another leads to ra‘ (8:9). 13. 8:11 (rā‘āh Delaying the punishment of a ma‘ăśēh hārā‘āh (“evil deed”) + ra‘) encourages the heart to do ra‘, for there is no fear of retribution. 14. 8:12 (ra‘) ra‘ is not necessarily a correlative of long life. 15. 9:3 a. The universality of death is ra‘. (ra‘ [bis]) b. That the human heart is full of ra‘ is also implicitly considered ra‘. 16. 9:12 As ﬁsh are caught in a net marked by ra‘, so humans are ensnared at a (ra‘ [bis]) time qualiﬁed as ra‘. This “time” transcends human knowledge (cf. 9:11). 17. 10:5 That fools (lit. “folly) are given authority and the rich sit in lowly (rā‘āh) positions is rā‘āh. 18. 10:13 (ra‘) The discourse of a fool is hôlēlūt rā‘āh (“evil madness”) from beginning to end. 19. 11:2 (rā‘āh) rā‘āh refers to unpredictable calamity (cf. 7:14). 20. 11:10-12: a. Given how ephemeral is one’s “prime of life,” one should remove (rā‘āh [bis]) rā‘āh (“pain”) and ka‘as (“vexation”).

b. The yĕmê hārā‘āh (“days of evil”) occur after one’s youth. In light of the previous reference, rā‘āh maintains the connotation of physical pain or ailment from aging. 21. 12:14 (ra‘) Qohelet’s very last word, ra‘, along with ṭôb (“good”), is something God will judge. 189 Though death (māwet) is inexorable, and thus, at times, a neutral term (cf. 3:19), ra‘ is exclusively negative in Qohelet. The severe impact of ra‘ forces Qohelet to admit that the unborn are better off than both the living and the dead (4:3; cf. 7:1). At times human measures can obviate the pain of ra‘ (e.g. 8:3, 5-6), while at others ra‘ is inescapable (e.g. 2:17; 8:12; 11:2). Its dual usage in 9:12 reflects this latter reality. Since skill, strength, and wisdom34 offer no guarantees of success or control in life (9:11), how can one stop the unstoppable (9:12)? Time itself is inscrutably qualified. “Despite their abilities, time and chance can play terrible tricks on all humans, who, unable to discern clearly whether a time is favorable or not, become entangled in a net of misfortune.”35 While the descent of the net at an unfavorable time is itself lamentable, is there a larger context in which one may understand a further dimension to ra‘? Given the predominately negative features of deities as fishers in the aNE, of the fishing net as a means to enact divine retribution, and the frequent depiction of ra‘/rā‘āh throughout Qohelet, be it either moral or amoral, the use of this modifier for both “net” and “time” argues against a neutral connotation in 9:12, as well. And among the two faunal metaphors (fish and bird), which foreground the application to human life in 9:12, ra‘ qualifies only the net that catches fish.36 The idea of a maleficent net fits comfortably within the purview of fishing imagery elsewhere in the HB. The divine net is typically employed on behalf of some form of specified “evil,”37 but in Qoh. 9:12 the net is itself ra‘.38

34 “The vulnerability of wisdom is rooted in the human inability to know the future” (Schoors 2013, 689; cf. Kamano 2002, 208).

35 According to Walton, ra‘ means “misfortune” here because of the emphasis on mankind’s “lack of awareness” (2006, 130); cf. Kaiser 1995, 87.

36 The use of ’āḥaz to govern both faunal metaphors, before shifting to yāqaš when the illustration moves to the human realm, however, militates against any simplistic distinction between ﬁshing and fowling nets.

37 Cf. Amos 4:1-3; Hab. 1:1-4, 14-17; Jer. 16:16-18; Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:2-9; 29:3-6a; 32:2-10; cf. Job 19:6; Ps. 66:11

38 Schoors remarks that when used as an adjective, rā‘āh “enhances the negative content of the substantive it determines” (2004, 148). 190 Qoh. 9:12 makes no insinuation between deed and consequence: “for time and chance happen to them all” (9:11). The broader literary context, however, establishes just such a connection. After having “laid to heart” (nātattī ’el-libbī) and “examined” (lābūr) it all, Qohelet concludes that “the righteous and the wise, and all their works, are in the hand of God” (haṣṣaddīqīm wĕhaḥăkāmīm wa‘ăbādêhem bĕyad hā’ĕlōhīm) in 9:1. According to the following verses (9:2-3a), everyone—both good and bad39—shares in the same “unfortunate” (rā‘) fate (miqreh), which there refers to death.40 Then in 9:3b, Qohelet explains that before this “unfortunate…fate” occurs, the hearts of all the living are full of ra‘ (lēb bĕnê-hā’ādām mālē’-rā‘). Despite the sequential relationship between ra‘ and miqreh, the text stops short of asserting causal overtones. The use of overlapping motifs to frame the literary section of 9:1-12, however, illuminates this connection. On the one hand, the complementary concepts of miqreh’s universality in the opening section (9:1-6) and the unpredictability of ‘ēt in its climax (9:11-12) provide thematic cohesion.41 Everyone “is in the same boat,” constrained by fate and incapable of deciphering it. On the other hand, the three items qualiﬁed by ra‘—the human heart (lēb), the vehicle of tragedy (mĕṣôdāh), and the moment of its actualization (‘ēt rā‘āh)—each complement those same concepts of shared reality. To this end, humans resemble ﬁsh in so far as they share an identical, divinely controlled fate. Why then is the net and the time of its actualization so ra‘? Though some scholars delete ra‘ after mĕṣôdāh (“net”) altogether (following V and Tg), its otherwise strong

39 Following Aq. (καὶ τῷ κακῷ; followed by S and V), according to an instance of homoioarkton in the three-fold alliterative sequence l-ṭ (laṭṭôb wĕlarā‘ wĕlaṭṭāhôr wĕlaṭṭāmē’); contra BHK and BHS, which delete laṭṭôb altogether.

40 For miqreh elsewhere in Qohelet, see 2:14-15; 3:19 [thrice]. Although miqreh generally means “chance, circumstance; incident” (cf. 1 Sam. 6:9; 20:6; Ruth 2:3; cf. Deut. 23:11), Qohelet uses this term to speciﬁcally denote “fate” (Aq. συνάντηµα; Fr. sort; HALOT 1:629), which in both contexts refers to death (Schoors 2004, 203-4). According to Schoors (1998, 12), miqreh denotes the leveling effect of death, while D’Alario considers it the “natural destiny of all men” (1998, 462).

41 In addition to the use of both the term ra‘ and the reference to human ignorance in the pericope’s beginning and end, miqreh (“fate”) in 9:2-3 and its verbal derivative qārah (“to happen”) in 9:11 provide one further cohesive link to this literary unit. 191 versional evidence (MT, LXX) and plausible explanation for omission (homoioteleuton) combined with the collocation of ra‘ and māṣôd elsewhere (viz. mĕṣôd rā‘īm “a net of evildoers” in Prov. 12:12), the nearly wholesale negative depiction of the ﬁshing net in the HB (the only exception being Ezek. 47:10), and the use of repetition elsewhere in this pericope (e.g. ‘ēt) argue forcibly against such drastic emendation.42 Unfortunately those who choose to not emend the text provide only descriptive analyses (see §5.3.3.1.3),43 referring to the net as “evil” from a human perspective44 and an “evil time” as a euphemism for death.45 The literary context, however, indicates that ra‘ does not exclusively originate from sources external to the human condition. As Qoh. 9:1-3 admits, tragedy is, indeed, grievous, but it is not stochastic. Rather, it is ultimately rooted in a heart permeated by ra‘, which renders futile any potential plea of ignorance. Contrary to the idea that Qohelet purports a “tyrannical” deity, wielding his net to cut off human life in arbitrary fashion,46 he explicitly afﬁrms the complex reality of a moral dimension to ra‘. In arguing that ra‘ here is necessarily moral in nature, Longman asserts that death is an obvious expectation at the end of a life “characterized by evil and madness” (emphasis original).47 What emerges for Qohelet is a complex reality. Death itself is ra‘ (9:11-12), but so are its

42 Galling (1969, 114) and Lauha (1978, 172) are two such scholars who delete ra‘ after “net.”

43 For example, Rudman refers to ra‘ as “harmful” in 9:12, but offers no further clariﬁcation as to what this means, outside of excluding moral implication (1998, 469). It is unsurprising that this tendency coincides with a relative dearth of scholarly attention given to 9:11-12 (Lavoie 1996, 439). Ogden and Zogbo offer a more productive, although still general, analysis when they note that “evil” in 9:12d “describes some event or situation that has negative or painful results” (1997, 342).

44 Though Qohelet does distinguish between quality of death, “he is only interested in the negative, viewing it from the standpoint of the man who suffers the misfortune (5:12-16), not the one who beneﬁts” (Fox 1999, 67). Cf. the “dreadful bed,” a net spread out and camouﬂaged in a thicket, into which birds unknowingly fall in Homer’s Odyssey (Cook 1993, 247 22:468-72).

45 Ogden and Zogbo 1997, 341; Ogden 1982, 165.

46 Lavoie refers to humans as victims “left to the arbitrary control of the Creator who determines the the pernicious fate of everybody,” due to their ignorance and impotence (1996, 44).

47 1998, 227. 192 impartiality and residence within each human heart.48 Just as speed does not ensure victory, righteousness does not secure a long life (7:15). Sinner and saint share the same fate (9:1-3). The spreading of a “maleficent net” (i.e. the personification of death’s blow) at a “calamitous time” (i.e. the moment of death) confirms this.

5.3.3.1.2 Qohelet 9:11-12 and Habakkuk 1:12-17 in Dialogue Though Habakkuk and Qohelet differ in respect to both literary context (prophecy vs. wisdom literature) and particular use of fishing imagery (Babylonian exile; unpredictability of life’s tragedies), they also share several noteworthy affinities which shed light onto the use of ra‘ as it pertains to fishing imagery. First, both Qohelet (3:18-21; 9:12) and Habakkuk (1:14-17) compare humanity to fauna. In fact, Qoh. 3:18-21 and Hab. 1:14-17 together suggest mankind is created in an image akin to animals.49 According to the former, humans are “but beasts” (šĕhem-bĕhēmāh hēmmāh lāhem), destined for the same fate (miqreh). Qoh. 9:12 complements this sentiment, positing that humans, like fish, are caught suddenly and unawares. In the same vein, Habakkuk likens humans to defenseless fish of the sea, awaiting their ignominious fate in the net of the divinely appointed Babylonian forces (1:14-17). Second, the term ra‘ plays a fundamental role in both Qoh. 9:1-12 (and in the book, as a whole) and Habakkuk’s second disputation in 1:12-17. Within this prophet’s first disputation, he claims YHWH makes him endure things like ’āwen (“disaster”), ‘āmāl (“harm”), šōd (“oppression”), and ḥāmās (“violence”), without either hearing his cry nor delivering him (1:2-4). Habakkuk then builds on this initial accusation later in 1:13 by asserting that YHWH’s eyes are “too pure to look at evil” (ṭĕhôr ‘ênayim mēr’ôt rā‘), yet ironically “gaze upon traitors” (tabbīṭ bôgĕdīm) and remain silent when the “wicked swallow up those more righteous than he” (bĕballa‘ rāšā‘ ṣaddīq mimmennū).

48 Regardless of the precise E translation for the second ra‘ in 9:3 (e.g. “evil” or “repulsiveness,” as that which refers to meager bovine bodies in Gen. 41:3), what results is an assertion about humans themselves.

49 Schoors 2013, 688; Lavoie 1996, 445. According to D’Alario, “man is no different than ﬁsh or birds from the perspective of his unpredictable fate” (1998, 459). 193 Faced with Babylonian deportation as the answer to Judahite oppression and sin, the prophet abhors the idea of a common fate for both the righteous and unrighteous. Qohelet, too, laments indiscriminate (9:3) and unpredictable (9:12) death, as well as the incommensurate destiny of those righteous who die earlier than the wicked (7:15). But while Habakkuk uses YHWH’s own “purity” and his fellow Judahites’ righteousness as reason enough to rebut the divine plan, Qohelet observes evil in all people (9:3), affording him a different vantage point into divine machinations. Both Qohelet and Habakkuk shudder at death, but only the the former articulated an explanation for the apparent impartiality of the use of a divine net.

5.3.3.1.3 Fishing and Death Unlike many other HB passages that employ fishing imagery to connote divine retribution (e.g. Jer. 16:16; Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 29:3-6a; 32:2-10), the fishing metaphor in Qoh. 9:12 is primarily gnomic in scope. In those passages, the divine net symbolizes divine authority (to mete out justice). It maintains this general connotation in Qoh. 9:12, for it is God who controls miqreh (“fate”), but more precisely signals the destiny of all people.50 The cause for its descent stems neither from a broken covenant (as in Ezek. 17:20; Hab. 1:2-11), nor from oppression at the hands of the social elite (à la Amos 4:1-3), nor even from the arrogance of a foreign king (à la Ezekiel 29, 32), but rather from the inevitable (and devastating!) fate of humans every day in space and time. Though Qohelet elsewhere delineates between righteous (ṣaddīq) and wicked (rāšā‘) (e.g. 3:17; 7:15; 8:14; 9:2), all such distinctions break down in the context of reality. In fact, Qoh. 9:12 “is the only text in the Bible that uses this image without any moral connotation.”51 There is no safeguard or insurance against this net, for woman and man together share the same ultimate fate: death. Within the unpredictability of the specifics (i.e. “no one knows his time”) is the predictability of the general (i.e. “all people are

50 Lavoie 1996, 446. Schoors unnecessarily extends this notion by suggesting the net here symbolizes “arbitrary fate” (2013, 688).

51 Lavoie 1996, 446. 194 ensnared at a ‘time of calamity’”). Scholars have long noticed the centrality of death within Qohelet’s discourse. Lavoie refers to it as “la véritable nemesis du Qohélet.”52 According to Lo, it “sets the stage for Qohelet’s arguments and binds the book together.”53 The same holds for ch. 9 itself, a “particularly intense exposition on the implications of death.”54 While 9:12 admittedly emphasizes the suddenness of the ‘ēt rā‘āh rather than its cause,55 all scholars agree that the dual references to “time” convey an especially traumatic event. Some circumspectly allow for an idea of “time” broad enough to incorporate not only death, but also any other manifestations of tragedy within life.56 The reason for this is plain: 9:12 does not explicitly refer to death in either temporal reference. Moreover, the following major section, 9:13-10:15, builds on 9:11-12’s idea of human ﬁnitude and the lack of guaranteed results in life.57 These observations notwithstanding, other scholars maintain that at least one (if

52 1992, 53. For direct references to death in Qohelet, cf. 2:14-16; 3:18-21; 4:2; 7:1; 9:3-6; for indirect ones, cf. 1:4; 9:12; 12:1-7.

53 Lo 2008, 85. She goes on to elucidate Qohelet’s dynamic relationship to death, which moves from hating life (2:17), to preferring death to life (4:2-3), heralding non-life (Heb. nāpel “stillborn child”) over life (6:3-6), opting to visit a grief-stricken house before a wedding banquet (7:1-4), suggesting death is better than the wiles of a (seductive) woman (7:26-29), to ﬁnally concluding that the living have hope (9:3-6; p. 93).

54 Burkes 1999, 68.

55 Walton 2006, 129.

56 Those who hold to a broad designation of ‘ittô in 9:12a include: Elster 1855, 114; Podechard 1912, 419; Aalders 1958a, 207; Reichert and Cohen 1984, 92; Loader 1979, 111-2; Glenn 1994, 327; Provan 2001, 183; Schoors 2013, 686; Walton 2006, 130. Those who hold to a similarly broad designation of ‘ēt in 9:12d include: Lohﬁnk 2003, 121; Krüger 2004, 174; Seow 1997, 308: “a timely incident”; Fox 1999, 259: “a complex of circumstances that occur together;” Provan 2001, 183; Walton 2006, 130 (“the certainty of death… remains in the background and fails to provide an interpretive function”); Lavoie 1996, 446; Schellenberg 2002, 118 (“unknowable future”).

57 Walton 2006, 131; Backaus 1993, 275. 195 not both) attestation of ‘ēt in 9:12 denotes death itself.58 There are three lines of evidence in favor of this specific designation. First, as many scholars note, and as already elucidated in the previous section above, 9:12 evinces strong associations with 9:1-6, where miqreh and the moment of death represent equivalent entities. Second, the possessive (‘ittô) and calamitous (‘ēt rā‘āh) modifiers constrain the ‘ēt in view.59 In the two other attestations of ‘ēt + possessive suffix in Qohelet, one refers to the beauty of God’s creativity in ‘ittô (3:11), and the other refers to a predetermined death date for each person (7:17).60 Qohelet distinguishes between the ‘ēt rā‘āh (“time of calamity”) and the yôm rā‘āh (“day of adversity”) in 7:14, the latter of which plainly refers to non-lethal tragedy or adversity. The plausible correspondence in 9:12 between ‘ittô and the moment when the “maleficent net” ensnares, combined with Qohelet’s allusion to death elsewhere via reference to “one's time” (7:17), together provide rationale for this subtle literary variation. Third, the fishing imagery itself presupposes death.61 While the grammar delimits the meaning of neither ittô nor ‘ēt rā‘āh to death (i.e. both references are formally

58 Those who argue ‘ittô in 9:12a refers to death include: Fox 1999, 296-7; Jenni and Westermann 1975, 383; Olivi 2003) 189; Barton 1980, 2:164; Levy 1912, 119-20; Buzy 1946, 259; van der Ploeg 1953, 59; Steinmann 1955, 99-100; Spangenberg 1993, 142; Wilch 1969, 116; Menchén 1995, 125; Gilbert 1998, 177; Crenshaw 1987, 164-5; Longman 1998, 237; Backaus 1993, 274. Those who argue ‘ēt rā‘āh refers speciﬁcally to death include: Ogden and Zogbo 1997, 341; Lauha 1978, 173; Backhaus 1993, 274-5; Schwienhorst-Schönberger 1994, 109; Fischer 1997, 134-5; Rose 1999, 146; Gordis 1955, 298.

59 According to Krüger (2004, 174) and Lohﬁnk (2003, 121), ‘ēt is the key term in 9:11-12.

60 Most scholars classify Qohelet 9:11-12, as well as the book in general, as a tour de force on determinism (cf. Delitzsch 1982, 365-7; Rudman 1997, 418 [“God harvests human beings in order to impose the appropriate event in the individual’s life; cf. 411-12]; Fox 1999, 66 [“It is not that speciﬁc injustices are fated, but that injustice itself is built into the world and nothing can be done to remedy it”]; Lavoie 1996, 447; contra D’Alario 1998, 462-63 [“destiny is not an automatic, predetermined mechanism”]; see 3:10-15 for a depiction of God’s mysterious freedom). Despite the lack of a reference to God in 9:11-12, Qohelet operates with a plain sense of the divine control of fate (cf. 3:11; 7:14; 9:1-3; 11:5).

61 Contra Lavoie, who suggests the faunal metaphors emphasize human bêtise (1996, 444). 196 ambiguous), the metaphor of a fish caught in a net assumes this idea.62 Ps. 116:3 bolsters this idea in its conceptual presentation of the underworld as an inescapable strand of ropes (ḥebel) and nets (māṣôd).63 Unlike other prophetic passages (e.g. Jer. 16:16; Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:20-21; 19:2-9; 29:3-6a; 32:2-10) where the rhetorical objective of fishing tackle is made explicit (i.e. deportation), the metaphor here includes no such interpretive qualification and thus obtains its straightforward meaning: the rationale for catching a fish or a bird is to kill it (and not to throw it back).64 Qohelet could have circumvented the ambiguity in this metaphor (e.g. stating the intended image explicitly, such as in Amos 4:1-3; evading a life-threatening comparison altogether, such as the use of yôm rā‘āh in the immediate context of Qoh. 7:14; etc.), but instead used two faunal metaphors that naturally pointed to an identifiable, rather than an abstract, example of tragedy: death, the one “time” from which no one escapes.65

5.4 Synthesis Like the aNE passages discussed above, Qoh. 9:12 does not present even the slightest prospect of rescue. Once ensnared in a divine net there was simply no escape.

62 This is not to say that fish were never released or that meshes sometimes failed. The bonds of any trap can always be freed by the trapper itself, allowing the captured animal to escape. The HB even offers examples of the dead coming back to life. But the imagery captures not the specifics or exceptions of the physical world, but the general and customary. And the basic point of fishing in the aNE was to provide a livelihood for one’s family or placate a deity with offerings. For humans it connoted life, but for fish it connoted death. Therefore, given the overwhelming propensity of caught fish to eventually be consumed and nets to efficaciously perform the job for which they were intended, fishing images, when viewed from the perspective of the fish, assume death.

63 Following the emendation of r > d (mĕṣārê > mĕṣādê), which offers a more natural parallel to ḥebel, as suggested by HALOT 1:624. A broken passage from 1QHa 21:21 acknowledges this same theme in its reference to “snares of Abaddon” ([ṣmy ’bdwn]) which ﬂank an already spread out net of (the) “pit” ([np]rśh ršt š[wḥh]), the reconstruction of which follows Schuller and Newsom 2012, 67:21.

64 “But he saw they had all fallen, in great numbers, In blood and dust, like ﬁsh that the ﬁshermen Have drawn up on the curved beach out on the hoary sea In a net that has has many meshes” (Cook 1993, 246 22:383-86a).

65 Cf. Seow 1997, 321. Despite its dreadful effect, Qohelet perceived death to be woven into the very fabric of life (cf. 3:2-8). 197 This comports with the shared Mesopotamian and Israelite conception of the afterlife as a meager replica of life on earth. Whether envisioning disease, death, or some other form of human tragedy, the net presents a dark symbol that contrasts vivacity. Qoh. 9:12 affirms, from the standpoint of its victims, the universal presentation of a metaphorical divine net as a negative tool. It does not give; it only takes away. Its enclosure, similar to the lowering of a theatrical curtain, signals the descent of time and the termination of life itself. Not necessarily a tool of divine retribution, the net in Qoh. 9:12 stands out from all other biblical examples of fishing imagery. According to Qohelet, every human has a predetermined “time,” of which they themselves are ignorant. But the “time” is fixed nonetheless. To that end, righteousness is no real security, for one way or another, time will fall—just as a net likewise ensnares—each human at his or her appointed moment. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

198 ! ! ! ! Chapter 6. “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”: Fishing Imagery, Polarity, and Prophetic Literature ! 6.1 Introduction While the fishing metaphors discussed up to this point have been active instruments, the portrayal of fishing in the following three examples from the HB emphasize not a specific act-consequence progression, but a state. In each example, the state in view is a radical transformation of the status quo. The drying up of the Nile River in Is. 19:5-10 leads to a devastating collapse of Egyptian society that renders fishers aghast and unemployed. In Ezek. 26:1-14, Tyrian pride in its mercantile prosperity and ostensible indestructibility leads to its conversion into a Waterloo, where fishers take advantage of its ruins as a place to dry their nets. And in Ezek. 47:1-12, the prophet envisions an eschatological resurgence of life where the return of the divine presence engenders both a topographic and economic overhaul. From a rhetorical perspective, these three passages together connote polar realities: the worst of times for Egypt and Tyre, but the best of times for the locale where the divine presence resides. The following chapter offers a detailed analysis of the individual character and presentation of each passage before juxtaposing them with one another in order to make comparative assessments. And due to the distinctive features of the second Ezekiel passage within the HB and Israelite topography and economy, the discussion concludes with a final reevaluation of the peculiar nature and function of fishing language in texts that concern a geographical location where fishing played a relatively negligible role.

199 6.2 It Was the Worst of Times (Isaiah 19:5-10; Ezekiel 26:1-14) 6.2.1 Egypt in Isaiah 19:5-10 6.2.1.1 Translation

4וְנִשְּׁ תוּ־מַיִם1 מֵהַיָּם2 וְנָהָר3 יֶחֱרַ ב וְיָבֵ שׁ 19:5

Water from the sea will be dried up5 and [the] river [i.e Nile] will run dry and be parched.

1 This passage resembles the vocabulary employed to depict Baal’s vanquishing of Yam in KTU 1.2 4:27: yqṯ b’l.wyšt.ym). Does this Ug. excerpt mean “the sea dried up” (root nšt), or “Baal drank the sea” (root šty), or “Baal placed sea” (root šyt), or “Baal dispersed the sea” (root štt)? For discussion see Smith 1994, 351-56.

2 Most scholars agree that hayyām here is a poetic designation for the Nile itself (see Wildberger 1991, 230), a comparison known even by historians in antiquity (cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., 35.11: in Nilo cuius est aqua maris similis “in the Nile, whose water resembles the sea,”; Seneca, Nat. Quest., 4A.2: continuatis aquis in faciem lati ac turbidi maris stagnat: “it [i.e. the Nile] stagnates in a continuous [ﬂow] of water with the form of a wide, muddy sea”). Blenkinsopp goes even further, positing the Nilotic inundation as the speciﬁc referent behind hayyām (2000, 313). For familiarity with this annual Eg. event elsewhere in the prophetic corpus, cf. Amos 8:8; 9:5; Jer. 45:7-8; 46:7.

3 Poetic parallelism between yām and nāhār occurs frequently in the Psalter (24:2; 66:6; 72:8; 80:12; 89:26; 98:7-8; cf. Is. 50:2; Nah. 1:4; Job 14:11).

4 Job 14:11-12 employs comparable language and imagery (i.e. the drying of a river) to symbolize the ﬁnality of death, as well as the enervated existence in the afterlife. Though Werner (1986, 48) opines that Is. 19:5 cites the Joban verse, Balogh effectively repudiates this claim due to the common poetic juxtaposition of ḥrb and ybš (cf. Is. 42:15; 44:27; Jer. 50:38; 51:36; Nah. 1:4) and the lack of any peculiar features that single out these two texts as dependent (2011, 242 n. 161).

5 The LXX derives wĕniššĕtū from an active form of šth (πίονται “they will drink”), rather than from nšt in the N stem. In so doing, ὕδωρ (= Heb. mayim) functions accusatively, which requires the insertion of a subject, ὁι Αἰγύπτοι, carried over from 19:4. Croughs keenly observes that this particular development arose not from confusion over the meaning of nšt, since LXX 41:17 correctly renders this verb (ἐξηράνθη “has been dried up”), but may have been inﬂuenced by Ex. 7:24 (2001, 85). 200 9וְהֶאֶ זְנִ יחוּ6 נְהָ רוֹת7 דָּ לֲ לוּ8 וְחָרְ בוּ יְאֹרֵ י מָ צוֹר 19:6

The streams will stink (and) Egypt’s Nile branches will diminish and run dry.

6 Many scholars consider this a “double formative” or “mixed” verbal form, exhibiting customary features of both a Heb. perfect and an Arm. Aphel (see GKC §53p; WOC §27.4c; cf. GKC §19m, §53g), which others simply identify as a prosthetic alef that aids in pronunciation (Watts 2005, 306; Wildberger 1991, 230). 1QIsaa preserves only the h, but 4QIsab replicates the MT. Though a hapax legomenon, znḥ I “to decay; be rancid” exhibits cognate evidence in Arb. (zaniḫa “to be rancid”; z/saniḫ “to stink”). Presuming wholesale transposition, Wildberger opines it is a loanword from Eg. ḫnš (1991, 246; for Eg. ḫnš, see Calice 1936, 754).

7 In light of nĕhar-kĕbār “Chebar Canal” in Ezek. 1:1 and nahărôt bābel “the rivers of Babylon” in Ps. 137:1, Wildberger suggests nĕhārôt here refers to artiﬁcial canals, while the yĕ’ōrê māṣôr are Nile branches (1991, 230, 246). Huddlestun questions this proposal, however, on the basis that only the current passage has an Egyptian locale in view (1996, 183).

8 Though some scholars (Croughs 2001, 85; Gray, 1912], 327) attribute the LXX’s omission of this verb to a lack of comprehension, it handles the term consistently in 17:4 and 19:6 (ἔκλειψις; ἐξέλιπον). Alternatively, the problem appears to derive from Heb. znḥ, in light of the use of ἐκλείψουσιν, as the ﬁrst verb in LXX 19:6 may represent Heb. dll.

9 For yĕōrê māṣôr elsewhere in the HB, cf. 2 K. 19:24 (= Is. 37:25); Mic. 7:12. Though most scholars concur that māṣôr is a stylistic variant of miṣrāyim “Egypt,” this identiﬁcation has not gone unchallenged. The LXX (διώρυγες τοῦ ποταµοῦ “canals of the river”) distinguishes it from other references to Egypt, removing any formal association. Kaiser (1974, 98; following earlier scholars, such as Delitzsch, Dillmann, and BHK) suggests mṣr might strictly identify strictly Lower Egypt, yet this overlooks the fact that the passage renders judgment upon the entire nation, not just the northern sector. Calderone (1961, 427-30) proposes transferring the initial m of māṣôr to the construct term, leading to yĕōrêm ṣūr “channels of rock” (with enclitic m). This emended form would thereby literally represent the Nilotic cataracts just as it would metaphorically allude to a looming “siege” (Heb. ṣwr). In his opinion, this reference points to Kush, not Egypt, for miṣrāyim appears seven times in 19:1-4 alone (428). As Huddlestun cogently recognizes, however, its parallelism with nĕhārôt weakens this argument (1996, 183). While Tawil uses Assyrian sources to help identify māṣôr in 2 K. 19:24 (= Is. 37:25) with Mt. Muṣri (modern Jebel Bashiqah), the clear Egyptian context of Isaiah 19 precludes this connection in v. 6 (1982, 195-206). Despite the deviating versional evidence and few recent alternative proposals, cognate evidence (Akk. muṣur/miṣir “Egypt”) and the poetic structure of Is. 19:6 afﬁrm the scholarly consensus. 201 קָ נֶ ה וָ סוּף10 קָמֵ לוּ11 ﬠָ רוֹת12 ﬠַ ל־יְאוֹר ﬠַ ל־פִּ י13 יְאוֹר 19:7

וְ כֹל מִ זְרַ ע יְאוֹר יִיבַ שׁ14 נִדַּ ף וְאֵ ינֶ נּוּ

10 Either an Egyptian loan (< ṯwfy; so Albright 1934, 65) or a Semitic loan into Egyptian (< čwf; so Ward (1974, 339-99).

11 Heb. qml occurs only here and Is. 33:9, where it denotes a reversal of prosperity in Lebanon. The semantic idea of “rot, grow moldy” garners cognate support from Syr. qĕmal “become moldy” (CSD 508), Arb. qamila “to become covered with black blotches (plants, after rain)” (HALOT 2:1108), and Akk. qummālu “skin complaint (affecting sesame, in particular)” (CDA 291).

12 There are two contextually plausible options for understanding ‘rh/‘rr: from either Heb. ‘rh “to be bare, strip” or an Eg. loanword ‘r(t) “papyrus.” Most scholars today adhere to this second position (see Wildberger 1991, 231). The former view, followed by V nudabitur “will be laid bare” (cf. BDB 788), would parallel the final line’s reference to the desolation of all that was once verdant. The presence of two other nominal derivatives from ‘rh in CH (mĕ‘ārah II “bare place”; ‘erwāh “nakedness”) weakens the likelihood of a third, as does the lack of an accompanying verb. If the previous qml elliptically governed ‘ārôt, the reading would become nonsensical. The latter, followed by LXX τὸ ἄχι “marsh grass” (itself a transliteration of Heb. ’āḥū “sedge, grass” [Gen. 41:2, 18; Job 8:11], both of which are loans from Eg. iḥ), S lw‘’ “duckweed” (CSD 328), and Tg rwbyh dnhr’ “the flax of the river”(Balogh 2011, 213; see Löw 1973, 317 n. 258; DTTM 1455-56), would fit naturally within its own poetic line, for papyrus grows near riverbeds and parallels the two analogous terms in the previous colon, qāneh “rush” and sūp “reed.” For this Egyptian term, see WÄS 1:208 (“stalk of a lotus blossom”). Herz (1912, 496-97) first made the proposal, but in a haphazard manner. Thacker later clarified the position, noting that “The word is especially frequent in the medical texts and LE documents in the sense of “rush,” but in ME documents it has more commonly the deriving meaning of ‘pen.’ A fem. form ‘rt is found in the Gk. period meaning “stalk (of the lotus flower)” (1933, 164). Since the fem. form does not occur until the Gk. period, Muchiki suggests that either the “Eg feminine form is accidentally not attested in the earlier period in Eg documents, or that Eg ‘r became a feminine noun when entering Hebrew” (1999, 253). The καὶ preceding this term in the LXX restores what may have been an original waw that dropped off due to haplography (ibid, 231).

13 “The final phrase is widely attested in the versions (so 1Qa, 1Qb, 4Qb, S, and Tg; contra LXX, followed by V), but many scholars delete ‘al-yĕ’ōr as a dittograph (for a representative argument, see Wildberger 1991, 231). The syntax of 19:7, awkward as it may be, demonstrates very strong versional support. As Waard has persuasively argued, there is little justification in omitting this phrase, since the following reference to pī yĕ’ōr likely specifies a “mouth” (so NIV) or “estuary” (1997, 84).

14 I have restructured the MT’s poetic structure by moving yībaš (cf. disjunctive mērĕkāh underneath) back into the previous line in order to balance the primary verbs in 19:7c-d. 202 Rush and reed will rot away15 (together with) papyrus along the Nile, at the mouth of the Nile16 All the sown ﬁelds by the Nile will be parched (and) driven away until nothing is left.

וְאָ נוּ הַדַּ יָּגִ ים וְאָבְ לוּ17 כָּל־מַשְׁלִיכֵי בַיְאוֹר חַכָּה18 וּפֹרְשֵׂי מִכמֹרֶת19 ﬠַ ל־פְּנֵ י־מַ יִם אֻמְ לָ לוּ 19:8 The ﬁshers will mourn; all those who cast a hook into the Nile will lament; and those who spread a net upon the water will languish.

15 The rationale for restructuring the MT here by moving this colon forward from v. 6 depends on parallelism (so Thacker 1933, 164). The first two poetic lines of v. 6 demonstrate strong synonymous parallelism (he’eznīḥu::dālălū/ḥārĕbū; nĕhārôt::yĕ’ōrê māṣôr), obtaining greater nominal and verbal specificity from the first to the second. The shift from two hydrological references to a pair of botanical items makes for a cumbersome transition in the current MT organization, but achieves a natural fit with the following colon. Its semantic parallel in another Eg. loan, ‘ārôt, produces a bicolon structure that addresses agricultural concerns, marsh plants in v.7a-b and farm land in v.7c-d. The admittedly difficult syntax and vocabulary of 19:7 ensures this structural emendation remains tentative, even while it best accounts for both parallelism and sense.

16 Guillame (1963, 382-83) reads ‘al-pī as ‘alpê based on Arb. ‘alafun “green or dried fodder for the animals,” but this isolated linguistic connection combined with the lack of versional support and the relative clarity of the MT makes emendation unnecessary (so Wildberger 1991, 231).

17 As with the last two lines in 19:7, I have reorganized the ﬁrst two of 19:8 in order to separate what constitutes three independent units. Note the mūnāḥ under wĕ’ābĕlū, which links it to the following verbless clause.

18 For this term, see §1.6.2.1 below.

19 For this term, see §1.6.3.3 below. 203 22וּבֹשׁוּ עֹבְדֵ י פִשְׁתִּ ים20 שְׂרִ יקוֹת21 וְ אֹרְ גִ ים חוֹרָ י [חָ וֵ רוּ] 19:9

The ﬂax workers will despair; the combers and the weavers will grow pale. וְהיוּ שָׁתֹתֶיהָ [שְׁתִתֶיהָ]23 מְדֻכָּאִים כָּל־עֹשֵׂי שֶׂכֶר24 אַ גְמֵ י־25נָפֶשׁ 19:10

Her weavers will be crushed (and) all her hired workers will be personally grieved.

20 According to Wildberger (1991, 231), the pl. of pēšet refers to flax stalks, “which have to be worked in order to extract the bast fiber.” Similarly, the ‘ōbdê pištīm pull the flax out of the ground, preserving the long flax fibers, lay them in sheaves, and leave them to dry on the ground, before combing them with a particular device that enables the stalk strands to be separated (248; for visual evidence of this process, see Erman and Ranke 1923, pl. 36, 1 and illustration 224).

21 This poetic structure follows the S and V, as well as the BHS suggestion, retracting the atnāḥ from śĕrīqôt, which here is a substantival participle (so V pectentes “combers”; Tg Jonathan dsrgyn “those who comb”), rather than an adjective, to pištīm (so Wildberger 1991, 232, who unnecessarily emends the hireq- yod to hireq in śĕriqôt).

22 As the MT stands, ḥôrāy modiﬁes the second substantival participle in 19:9b (’ōrĕgīm). This hapax legomenon presumably derives from the verbal root ḥwr “to grow white; pale.” Though the LXX, V, S, and Tg each seem to presuppose a noun behind their translation, no two versions agree. Conversely, 1QIsaa and 4QIsaa (and likely 1QIsab) instead read ḥwrw. Although this verb appears only once in the MT, it occurs elsewhere in Isaiah (29:22) and parallels bôš, just as in this passage. Well before the Qumran discoveries, Pinsker suggested reading ḥāwērū here (1863, 133), leading many other since to follow suit (e.g. R. Clements 1980, 168; Wildberger 1991, 232; Huddlestun 1996, 186-87). Based on the uncertainty of ḥôrāy, the strong, divergent evidence from Qumran, and the precedent for this term’s parallelism with bôš elsewhere in Isaiah, I also tentatively adopt ḥāwērū here (so Waard 1997, 84).

23 Following Eitan’s initial proposal (1925, 419-20), most scholars now accept šātōtêhā as šĕtītêhā, an Eg. loan denoting “one who weaves” (śḫt-tj; Cpt. štit “weaver” [Crum 598]; Arm. šty “to weave” [DTTB 1637]; Akk. šatū “to weave”). This view accords with the LXX (ὁι δίαζοµενοι “those who weave”) and ﬁts the context better than Heb. šēt “pillars” (i.e. nobles[?]), which lacks clarity and grammatical agreement with the masc. pl. mĕdukā’īm (contra Balogh 2011, 244). Cf. šĕtī “warp” in Lev. 13:48-59. The Tg presents a third option, rendering this term from šth “to drink” (“the place where one drinks its waters will be crushed”), but this relies on the unwarranted emendation of the following noun (śeker), for which see n. 24 below (p. 204).

24 The LXX and S (followed by Blenkinsopp 2000, 312-13) read šēkār “beer” (so “brewers” here) instead of śeker “wages” and thus “hired workers,” but the MT is lucid and thus requires no such emendation. Cf. Prov. 11:18 for a complementary juxtaposition of ‘āśah and śeker. Goldman offers a third option, skr “dam,” which, if not for the lack of versional evidence and clarity of the MT, would form a clever parallel with its verbal cognate in 19:4 (1952, 50).

25 MT ’agmê = ‘agmê, both of which refer generally mean to “grieve.” For the interchange of initial gutturals, see WOC 5.6f, 5.8. Ignorance of this grammatical idiosyncrasy led to V lacunas ad capiendos pisces “ponds for capturing fish,” presupposing Heb. ’ăgam “pool.” For further discussion on this issue, see Nöldeke 1886, 727; Goldman 1952, 50. 204 6.2.1.2 Historical and Literary Context Isaiah 19:1-15 constitutes an oracle against Egypt drawn from the generic mold of a “theophany report,” which comprises two fundamental elements typically cast in poetic form: a theophany and its ensuing natural consequences (e.g. meteorological, agricultural, and emotional).26 The first person divine voice dominates 19:1-5, presenting the Egyptian political crisis from a macro perspective as an effect of YHWH’s approach. Just as YHWH speaks before allowing Judah to implode in Isaiah 3, so he deals with Egypt here in Isaiah 19.27 The ensuing consequences of theophany transcend the political, devastating the Egyptian economy as a result of the desiccating of its life source, the Nile River (19:5-10). Though the final section (19:11-15) breaks with 19:1-10 on a syntactic level (e.g. the initial emphatic adverb ’āk and the sudden disappearance of conjunctive waw’s, which occur frequently throughout 19:1b-10), the content continues the ominous forecast by zeroing in on the delusion within the royal court itself. These three sections, each with their different emphases, depict a tragic future for all spheres of Egypt (e.g. social, economic, political), manifesting the express result of YHWH’s visitation. All of this gives way to 19:16-25, which Barton refers to as one of the most universalistic oracles in the HB.28 In this extended image of YHWH’s eschatological care for all nations, the recurring phrase bayyôm hahū’ reminds the reader of the judgment described in 19:1-15, as well as the dramatic reversal orchestrated by YHWH himself that affords salvation even to Egyptians.29 Outside of the superscription in 19:1a and the prosaic statement in 19:15, the overwhelming majority of scholars divide Is. 19:1-15 into three sections (19:1b-4, 5-10, and 11-15). From there, two different positions have developed regarding the structural unity. Based largely on thematic or stylistic factors, the first view notices discontinuity

26 Sweeney 1996, 541. Cf. Herbert 1973, 121.

27 Wildberger 1991, 239.

28 1995, 35.

29 For this literary unit, see Hagelia 2005, 73-88. 205 between the three sections. For example, Wildberger argues that “v. 5 introduces a brand new theme”30 and Kaiser remarks that “the continuity of ideas between the three stanzas…is so loose, and the transition of ideas from the first to the second so great, that the close connection between contents of the first and third stanzas has suggested to some commentators that vv. 5-10 are a later interpolation.”31 Wildberger maintains the prophet as author of 19:1-4 and 11-14, but relegates 19:5-10 to a later interpreter who knew Egypt firsthand.32 This argument, however, dismisses the constraining force of the literary form (i.e. the “theophany report”) upon the passage altogether. Once the reader takes the influence of the genre into account, it becomes clear that, rather than a secondary insertion, 19:5-10 forms an indispensable component of the entire passage.33 The focus on topographical and economic features particular to Egypt provides a natural explanation for the increase in Egyptian loanwords in 19:5-10, rendering redaction unnecessary. The interrelated phenomena of agricultural demise and political chaos as products of divine judgment is a recurring motif in ancient Near Eastern prophetic literature, such as Ezek. 30:1-19, which

30 1991, 234. He goes on to say: 19:1-4 describe a “severe internal crisis in Egypt…[and] vv. 5-10 describe an economic breakdown…with no apparent relationship between this and the political crisis in vv. 1-4.”

31 1974, 99. Like Kaiser, who dates this passage to the Persian period and assigns its composition to a literary devotee, Clements also regards it as post-Isaianic, yet maintains its relative unity (1980, 166). Sweeney and Balogh, however, argue for much earlier, pre-exilic dates (Sweeney: a redaction from the time of Manasseh [1996, 274]; Balogh: between 717 and 671 BCE [2011, 304]). Nicacci builds a case for an 8th BCE date on the basis of the historical context (1998, 214-238), an hypothesis deemed improbable by Sawyer (1986, 58).

32 1991, 235. Clements agrees, but goes even further, suggesting none of 19:1-15 reﬂect the work of the 8th century BCE prophet (1980, 167-68).

33 So Childs, 2001, 142-43; Marlow 2007, 229-42; Sweeney 1996, 265; Balogh 2011, 296. Marlow’s suggestion that the poetic structure of 19:5-10 (bicolon, tricolon, monocolon, bicolon, tricolon) “has been deliberately constructed around a pattern…in order to focus attention on the climactic stanza” [i.e. 19:7] is sheer conjecture in light of this section’s noticeably awkward syntax (2007, 240). In fact, the literary solidarity of 19:1-15, shifting from theophany to social unrest to agricultural and economic collapse to political delusion, and its fitting denouement in 19:15 argue against any climactic statement in 19:5-10. 206 dovetails Egyptian defeat with a scorched Nile.34 Beyond identifying generic and thematic affinities, this alternative view finds support in the use of skr II “to shut up, dam” (cf. Gen. 8:2; Ps. 63:12), rather than skr I “to hire” (itself a hapax legmomenon), in 1:4, which introduces a central concern of the following section: the drying of the Nile.35 Moreover, the initial weqatal in 19:5 (wĕniššĕtū) strengthens the literary cohesion between these two sections. The composite unit of 19:1-15 thus represents “different facets of the same national catastrophe.”36 Overarching the entire section is a cumulative demonstration of YHWH’s hegemony over all realms—political and social, cosmic and natural—and the ensuing ramifications upon the defiant nation. From her impotent gods in 19:1, to her parched Nile in 19:5-10, to finally her vacuous political advisors in 19:11-14, the dual merisms in 19:15 together form an appropriate coda: Egypt’s fate has been sealed.

6.2.1.3 A Dried Up River as Dystopian Literary Symbol Egypt’s immense socio-economic dependence on the mighty Nile provided a powerful literary trope.37 The annual inundation, beginning in June and reaching its zenith in early Autumn, paved the way for agricultural fertility, economic stability, and political prosperity,38 while the rare event of its desiccation brought the nation to its

34 Another biblical example appears in the oracle against Babylon in Jer. 50:35-38, where the sword comes against various deluded leaders in tandem with a drought that dries up her watercourses. Cf. an Akk. text that describes, from a future perspective, the rise of a prosperous king who obtains divine favor that engenders agricultural fecundity leading to social exultation (A 2:2’-8’; Grayson and Lambert 1964, 12-14). Kaiser refers to Is. 19:5-10 as a midrash on Ezek. 30:12a, though he apparently employs a broad deﬁnition of the term since the two prophetic oracles are largely unrelated (1974, 102).

35 For a thorough and compelling argument in favor of this identiﬁcation, see Hays 2008, 612-17. The use of skr, a variant of the more common sgr “to close, shut,” here correlates with the use of this cognate term in both Akk. (sekēru) and Northwest Semitic. In light of the strong cognate evidence, Hays postulates a pre- exilic date for this passage (616).

36 Marlow 2007, 234.

37 Homer reinforces this point in his reference to both the nation of Egypt ([ἡ] Αἴγυπτος) and the Nile itself ([ὁ] Αἴγυπτος) in a nearly identical manner (Odyssey 4.477; 17.448).

38 The Nile “creates his good things of every sort” in the “Hymn to the Inundation” (Foster 1973, 301-10). 207 knees. Egyptian literature demonstrates familiarity with this striking dichotomy, appropriating the palpable tragedy that would ensue from a failed inundation as a rhetorical means to communicate a broad range of meaning. The Prophecies of Neferti, a text that dates to the start of Amenemhet I’s reign (ca. 1900 BCE), but which purports to reflect a much earlier context (the reign of the 4th dynasty pharaoh, Snefru), presents just such a drastic juxtaposition of a period of chaos with an idyllic era (Table 32:1).39 The rhetorical aim of the “pseudo-prophetic” text is apologetic in nature, criticizing the current regime by constructing a scene of “artificial gloom” in order to legitimate Amenemhet I’s reign and aggrandize his redemption.40 In desiring to be entertained, Snefru summons Neferti, a priest of the feline goddess, Bastet, to wax eloquent before him with “choice words.” Upon his arrival, Neferti prophesies the overthrowing of the nation before its eventual deliverance by the redeemer-king, Ameny (an abbreviation of Amenemhet I), who restores order and justice to the land. The sage envisions a nation fraught with upheaval; the Nile has transformed into a parched riverbank, foreigners (‘’mw “Asiatics”) have infiltrated, and family members turn against one another in violence. To that end, the natural and social converge to describe comprehensive disarray, the extent of which is summarized in the line, “The land is entirely lost, no remnant is left…destroyed, none cares about it” (ll. 23-24).41 The Admonitions of Ipuwer (Table 32:2), a text dated to either the First Intermediate Period (ca. 2000 BCE) or the Middle Kingdom, demonstrates many of the same general rhetorical features of The Prophecies of Neferti.42 In so doing, this vaticinium ex eventu describes a scene marked by calamity and desolation before envisioning an ideal monarch poised to turn things around. Filled with lamentation and mourning over the plight of a depressed nation, The Admonitions of Ipuwer provides

39 The 18th dynasty ms., Pap. Petersburg 1116B, contains the entire text (Shupak 2003b, 107).

40 Ibid; AEL 1:139.

41 Shupak 2003b, 108.

42 The earliest textual evidence, Pap. Leiden 344, dates to the 18th or 19th dynasty (Shupak 2003a, 93). 208 further examples of foreign invasion at the hands of Asiatics (ll.3.1; 4.5-4.6) and internal strife characterized by fratricide (5.9-5.11). The widespread desolation manifests itself in a Nile that recklessly overflows, wreaking havoc upon a land ill equipped to channel its sustenance, as well as in human infertility. This bleak scene contrasts the halcyon depiction of a rejuvenated economy marked by the sailing of ships and the deployment of fishing nets. Two polarizing realities stand side by side in The Instructions of Amenenope (IAm) and The Instructions of Any (IAn; Table 32:3-4).43 Both envision a dystopian Egypt plagued by Nile failure, the implications of which affect both fauna and fishers alike only in IAm. These same two texts likewise quickly reverse the current quandary, although in distinctive ways: IAm with a portrayal of the piety and hope of the ideal (i.e. “silent”) man; IAn with a simple literary reversal, which transmogrifies a dry riverbed into a deep lake. Similar to the book of Proverbs in the HB, the wisdom exhibited in both of these Egyptian instructions exhibits a gnomic dimension that casts the polarized states as typological constructs for the best of times and the worst of times. In contrast to the generic types presented in the two preceding wisdom texts, The Famine Stele firmly establishes its description of Nilotic failure within a particular context, the Third Dynasty reign of Djoser (Table 32:5).44 Despite this appearance, scholars agree that the text, as it currently stands, is a product of the Ptolemaic period.45 Distraught over a tumultuous seven-year disappearance of Hapy, the personification of the Nile’s fertility, Djoser, upon the advice of a priest of Imhotep, seeks out Khnum, the deity who controls marine life, and his bolt that restrains the Nile flood.46 In his appearing to Djoser in a dream, Khnum ensures an end to the current plight. In return, Djoser pledges to allocate a percentage of Upper Egypt’s revenue to Khnum’s Elephantine

43 Though found on a number of different mss., BM Pap. 10474 preserves IAm in full (Lichtheim 2003b, 110); IAn derives from a 21st or 22nd dynasty ms., Pap. Boulaq 4 (idem 2003a, 115).

44 This inscription survives in 32 columns engraved on a Sehel Island granite rock (Lichtheim 2003c, 130).

45 Ibid.

46 For Egyptian religious background of Hapy and Nun, see Bonneau 1964; Kurth 1982, 486-7. 209 temple, part of which derives from ﬁshers. Another Ptolemaic inscription, this time disguised as an early prophecy from the NK, adds to the literary cache of examples that use a dried up Nile to symbolize a dystopian reality (Table 32:6).47 The inscription presents a potter-turned-prophet who, when brought before a certain Amenophis48 at the temple of Isis and Osiris, delivers an extensive list of doom oracles ﬁlled with descriptions of foreign incursion and nine separate accounts of martial defeat, before dying immediately after delivering the prophecy. True to form, the tide turns when one particular foreign invader, the “belt wearers” (ζωνοφόροι), begins decimating its own population (P2 col. 1, ll. 27-28; col 2, ll.

49-50), abandoning their city like a “drying place for a ﬁsher” (P2 col 2 ll. ll. 35-58),49 which ushers in a new era of restoration.

Table 32. A dried-up Nile topos in Egyptian literature50

1. The “The river of Egypt is empty, Prophec- One can cross the water on foot, ies of One will seek water for the ships to sail on. Neferti Its course has become a riverbank…” (Section 6)

“Perished indeed are those good things, Those fish ponds (where there were) those who clean fish Overflowing with fish and fowl. All good things have passed away, The land is burdened with misfortune.” (Section 7) (For this translation, see Shupak 2003b; for the text, see Helck 1970, 24-30)

Continued 47 Although the extant 5 mss. stem from the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE, most scholars agree that a Dem. original stands behind the text (van der Meer 2010, 300; cf. Koenen 1968, 178; Kerkeslager 1998, 68).

48 This could refer to any of four 18th dynasty monarchs named Amenophis, though see Koenen 1968, 182 for an argument for the ﬁrst one, Djeserkare (1525-1504 BCE).

49 van der Meer 2010, 301 (see p. 303 for his translation). For this ﬁshing image, see §6.2.2 below.

50 Leclant and Yoyotte’s proposal (1952, 23) to add to this list Taharqa’s supplication to Amun to withhold a famine belies the reality of devastation seen in the rest of the examples (Huddlestun 1996, 74) 210 Table 32 Continued

2. The “Indeed, the Nile overﬂows, none plough for it; Admonitions Everyone says: We do not know what has happened throughout the of Ipuwer land. Indeed, women are barren, and none conceive, Khnum does not create because of the condition of the land” (ll. 2.3-2.4) ______“[It is indeed good] when ships sail upstream… [It is indeed] good when the net is drawn” (ll. 13.9-10).

(For this translation, see Shupak 2003a; for the text, see Gardiner 1909, 24, 87). 3. Amenenope “Comes tomorrow, today has vanished, The deep has become the water’s edge. Crocodiles are bared, hippopotami stranded, The fish crowded together. Jackals are sated, birds are in feast, The fishnets have been drained. But all the silent in the temple, They say: ‘Re’s blessing is great.’ Cling to the silent, then you find life. Your being will prosper upon earth.” (7:1-10)

(For this translation, see Lichtheim 2003a; for text, see Budge 1923, 12, 43, pl. 3). 4. Instruction “When last year’s watercourse is gone, of Any Another river is here today; Great lakes become dry places, sandbanks turn into depths.” (Maxim 43 8:8-9)

(For this translation, see Lichtheim 2003b, 113; for the text, see Suys 1935, 80).

Continued

211 Table 32 Continued

5. The Famine “I was in mourning on my throne, Stele Those of the palace were in grief, My heart was in great afﬂiction, Because Hapy had failed to come in time In a period of seven years.” (pl. 4, col. 2)

“Khnum…holds the door bolt [to the Nile ﬂood] in his hand …It is he who governs…fowl and ﬁsh and all one lives on.” (pl. 4, col. 9)

“All ﬁshermen, all hunters, who catch ﬁsh and trap birds and all kinds of game…I exact from them one-tenth of the take of all of these” (pl. 6, cols. 24-25)

(For this translation, see Lichtheim 2003c; for the text, see Barguet 1953, 15, 19-20, 29-30). 6. Prophecy of “And the [ri]ver [will come not having adequ]ate water, but a little, the Potter s[o] that [the land] will be scorched” (pap. 2, col. 1)

“And these things will be at the end of the evils, when (the) fa[lling] of (the) leaves of foreign men has come to Egypt….the city by the sea will be a drying pl[ace] for ﬁsherman….And the Nile that had been lacking in water will be ﬁlled.” (pap. 3, cols. 2-3)

(For this translation, see Kerkeslager 1998, 67-79; for the text, see Koenen 1968, 178-209)

While each of the above texts incorporate a similar motif (i.e. a dried up Nile) to communicate a similar reality (i.e. holistic devastation), they do so by means of different genres and distinctive rhetorical aims. Moreover, they bear witness to many other ways to describe social upheaval, disabusing the reader of any monolithic or frozen paradigm. Nevertheless, the reuse of the Nile’s ﬂuctuation as a literary metaphor endured for most of pharaonic Egyptian history and beyond. Lichtheim identiﬁes a literary topos that characterizes such regression from order

212 to disorder as “national distress.”51 Though not necessarily historical, examples function as rhetorical devices which describe the problem of evil as a social phenomenon. As the juxtaposed examples of negative and positive events above indicate, the “national distress” trope often employs antitheses (e.g. “what was great has become small;…the slaves have become masters; the masters are slaves; the riverbed is dry…”).52 Just a cursory degree of familiarity with Egyptian geography and economy renders the literary penchant to use Nilotic failure as a means to convey such bleakness unsurprising. All of Egyptian life hinged upon its annual rising; its absence conversely constituted disaster. Pharaohs considered its ﬂood an auspicious omen that legitimated their kingship, just as Egyptian literature did not miss the theological connection between pharaonic death and its low levels.53

6.2.1.4 Mourning at the Nile Marina A corollary to the centrality of the Nile in Egyptian economy is the relative importance of its fishing industry. While Habakkuk and Isaiah both refer to different fishing methods (viz. hook and net), the former specifies the actual catching stage (bĕḥakkāh hē‘ălāh “he brings [all of it] up with a hook”; wĕya’aspēhū bĕmikmartô “he gathers it in his dragnet,” Hab. 1:15), while the latter uses language that generally characterizes the activity (mašlīkê bay’ôr ḥakkāh “those who cast a hook into the Nile; pōrĕśê mikmōret ‘al-pĕnê-mayim “those who spread a net upon the face of the water,” Is. 19:8). Contrary to the relatively minor role fishing played in Israelite economy, limited in opportunity (viz. Sea of Galilee, Jordan river) and paling in comparison to the sustenance

51 AEL 1:10.

52 Ibid. For a similar, although different generic form, see Van Leeuwen’s “world upside down” (WUD) topos (1986, 599-610). Lichtheim refers to the theme in IAm as a “reversal of fortune,” which ﬁts nicely with Ezek. 47:1-12, for which cf. Volten 1941, 371-79, for a fuller discussion of this prominent Egyptian literary motif. For a comparable theme in Mesopotamian literature, see cf. Buccellati 1972, 241-64.

53 Some (e.g. Taharka) considered its flooding a favorable omen confirming the legitimacy of one’s kingship (cf. Eide, Hägg, Pierce, and Török 1994, 1.26.9); it is low when Thutmose III dies (cf. Currid 1997, 243-44; Balogh 2011, 242). 213 provided by the agrarian and pastoral domains, fish comprised a staple component of the diet for Egyptian residents from all social strata.54 Whether stemming from a neighboring foreign nation like Israel or from Egypt itself (as seen in the previous section), any description of Egyptian economic depression naturally included mention of the Nile. Other oracles against foreign nations in the HB make this clear. Just a few chapters earlier than Is. 19:5-10, Isaiah 15 elucidates Moab’s downfall as a result of hydrological failure.

The waters of Nimrim are a desolation; the grass is desiccated the vegetation ends and the greenery is no more

In a similar vein, Jeremiah 50:38a and 51:36 employ language to describe Babylon’s own desolation.

! A drought (will come) against her waters; they will be dried up Therefore thus said YHWH: Behold, I will contend for your cause I will avenge your vengeance I will dry up her [i.e. Babylon’s] sea and I will desiccate her fountain.

Each of these passages from oracles against foreign nations shares with Is. 19:5-10 the use of hydrological failure to communicate divine judgment. Though grounds for this punishment revolve around theological indictments (cf. Jer. 50:2, 31-2; 51:7), the judgment itself manifests itself in a holistic manner, affecting diverse social sectors, including the virility of the land. These literary examples from both Egypt and Israel reﬂect a shared typology that signaled national catastrophe.55 As with the Egyptian material, the HB likewise appropriated the same imagery to target its own people and locales. In 14:2-6, Jeremiah addresses Jerusalem itself on the basis of a devastating drought, which affects all elements of society: the gates of the city languish (’umlĕlū), the people lament prostrate (qādĕrū lā’āreṣ), the ground is dismayed (ḥattāh), the doe

54 Herodotus (Hist. 2.91; cf. also 2.77) notes the importance of fish even for the Egyptian peasant class. See §1.5.1 above in ch. 1 for discussion of fish and fishing in ancient Egypt.

55 Wildberger 1991, 245. 214 abandons her newborn fawn due to lack of grass, and the wild asses pant for air (šā’ăpū rūaḥ) since there is nothing to eat. Though some argue for a higher degree of Isaianic familiarity with Egyptian literature,56 the lack of any direct evidence of dependence, the general, rather than acute, affinities, and the unique internal structure and rhetorical function of each text, together sagaciously warn against over-interpretation.57 Huddlestun argues accordingly that a close comparison of the Egyptian literary examples of national distress with Is. 19:5-10 “reveals no particular details or patterns of similarities that would compel one to conclude that a specific knowledge of these or the literary traditions they reflect played a part in the composition of the biblical description.”58 The painting of nature’s collapse in Is. 19:5-10 comports rather with the customary reverberations induced by theophany, as seen elsewhere in the HB.59 In a similar manner to the metaphorical use of fishing tackle as a manifestation of exile elsewhere in the prophetic corpus (see ch. 3 above), the prophets likewise drew upon a broad, transnational cache of images and terms to describe the breaking down of nature. Related to these typological references is the most formative event in the cultural memory of ancient Israel: the Exodus from Egypt (cf. Is. 43:3; Hos. 2:15; 11:1). It is in Israel’s departure from Egyptian bondage that she not only became a nation but commenced a formal relationship with YHWH (cf. Ex. 13-15). In his miraculous deliverance of Israel through the splitting of the Red Sea as his soon-to-be covenantal partners fled the pursuit of an impetuous Pharaoh, YHWH demonstrated his unrivaled cosmic power. A common reminiscence throughout the HB, this recycled memory serves not only as a reminder of the historical salvation procured by a powerful, yet immanent deity, but also this same deity’s capacity and commitment to continue actualizing the

56 See Montet 1968, 109-10; Marlow 2007, 234.

57 So Huddlestun 1996, 194-98.

58 Ibid, 194.

59 Ibid, 194-95. 215 same traits he exhibited at the Red Sea crossing—strength, control, protection, etc. For example, Ps. 66:6 admonishes the audience to extol YHWH on behalf of his awe- inspiring deeds, such as when he “transformed (hāpak) the sea into dry land.” The speaker in Is. 63:11-12 calls to mind “the one who brought them [i.e. Israel] up out of the sea…who caused his majestic arm to go at the right hand of Moses, who separated the waters before them to make for himself an eternal name.” In a wake-up call just before the third servant song, Isaiah 50:2 challenges the despondency of his people by alluding to YHWH’s splitting of the Red Sea and its implications for their current context. ! Why was there no man (when) I came? No one answering (when) I called? Is my hand too short to ransom? Is there not strength in me to deliver? Behold, I lay waste to the sea at my rebuke; I make the rivers a wilderness. ! Their ﬁsh stink from lack of water and die from thirst. And in an idyllic vignette of the eschaton, Zech. 10:11a draws upon this same imagery when it describes YHWH’s approach (‘ābar; LXX “they” [i.e. Israelites?]).

He will pass through the sea of distress and smite the waves; and all depths of the Nile will dry up.

Both the typological oracle of national distress and YHWH’s foundational deliverance at the yām sūp resonate in Is. 19:5-10. Isaiah invokes Exodus imagery in order to reiterate and recontextualize YHWH’s power over all facets of his creation, as well as the consequences for recalcitrance. Just as YHWH “made the sea into dry land (ḥārābāh)” to provide Israel a route of escape out of Egypt (Ex. 14:21), he here (re)enters Egypt (bā’ miṣrayim) in order to stir up internal conflict (siksaktī), muddles its counsel (wa‘ăṣātô ’ăballēa’), and appoints a harsh overlord to dam it up (sikārtī), all of which lead to a lifeless Nile, barren cropland, and an unemployed, distraught workforce. And though this passage correlates with other literary types where drought leads to social disarray, it does not simply replicate boiler plate imagery. The inclusion of a handful of hapax legomena (št; śryq; mzr‘; znḥ; ḥwry; ‘rt) and other rare words (’nh [bis]; nšt [thrice]; qml [bis]; ‘gm [bis]), including several Egyptian loans (št; y’r; ‘rt; swp), 216 demonstrate not only a higher register of language, but a patent familiarity with Egyptian culture and flora.60 Despite the prophetic penchant to describe desolation by referencing hydrological failure, only Is. 19:5-10 includes a snapshot of its effect on the fishing trade. Over and against the omission of such allusions within oracles against Judah, Moab, and even Babylon, the indispensable role of the Nile and the fishing industry in ancient Egypt renders its incorporation into Isaiah 19 inconspicuous.61 Is. 19:5-10 thus functions to signal YHWH’s continued hegemony over Egypt and its looming agricultural and socio-political upheaval. Akin to YHWH’s dispatching of Babylonian fishers to mete out judgment against Judah in Jer. 16:16 and Hab. 1:14-17— or even his own fishing of humans in Ezek. 12:13-14, 17:16-21, and 29:1-6a (cf. 32:1-10) —is the use of a “harsh overlord” (’ădōnīm qāšeh) to help accomplish his discipline, aborting the life blood of Egyptian society.62 Even though Egyptian thought held Pharaoh, through the use of cultic rites and ceremonies, to guarantee the Nile’s fecundity, Isaiah 19 turns this idea on its head.63 No explicit divine speech or reference occurs in the passage, yet its content bears YHWH’s earmarks at every turn, representing the dire ramifications of his activity in 19:1-4 and 11-15. The devastation is total in scope, affecting both the physical and the emotional, the animate and the inanimate, the natural resources and the one who works them; under the heavy hand of YHWH’s judgment, all

60 Though Is. 19:1-15 and Ezek. 29:1-6a (cf. 32:1-10) share a common general target (viz. Egypt), the imagery behind Pharaoh as a vulnerable sea monster in the latter derives from Mesopotamian tradition. Moreover, Ezekiel portrays the fisher as YHWH, who calls for imminent onslaught at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar, while the fishing imagery in Is. 19:5-10 reflects only human fishers bereft of work due to wholesale socio-political devastation.

61 Ahituv’s inquiring of how Isaiah “knew so little about Egypt, its landscape and culture,” which ﬁnds resolve in that nation’s “strangeness” and the cultural barrier separating it from Judah, disregards this evidence entirely (1998, 7).

62 Note the conflation of Jer. 16:16’s thematic collocation of fishers and hunters and Is. 19:8’s terminology (prś + mkmrt) in 1QHa 13:9-11 to describe a purification process by which God protects the psalmist and equips him for judgment: “You placed me in a dwelling place with many fishers (dygym) who spread a net (mkmrt) upon the face of the waters and hunters of those who commit iniquity (lit. “children of iniquity”). And there you established me for judgment” (see Schuller and Newsom 2012, 42-3).

63 For this pharaonic role, see The Famine Stele (ll. 17-18; Lichtheim 2003c, 133). 217 creation withers.64 On top of the juxtaposition of social, economic, and political upheaval, the fallout for various professions indicates a multifaceted disaster. Since all aspects of the Egyptian world depended on the Nile, all aspects atrophied when it failed. Without water there is neither fish nor fishers, flax nor textile workers. The record of tragic events in Is. 19:5-10 may therefore stem less from a specific historical iteration of a failed inundation and more from the envisioning of a supernatural, eschatological one, where YHWH storms onto the earthly plane, demonstrating his power over the mighty Nile once and for all.65 On such a day Egyptians are said to erect a stele (19:19) in honor of YHWH, when they, together with Assyria and Israel, will constitute a “blessing in the midst of the earth” (19:23).

6.2.2 Tyre in Ezekiel 26:1-14 6.2.2.1 Translation 26:1 And so it was in the eleventh year66, in the ﬁrst month [that] a word of YHWH came to me: 26:2 O human, because Tyre said regarding Jerusalem ‘Aha’, the gate(s) of the peoples will be broken; it has swung around to me. I will be full now that she is laid waste. 26:3 Therefore thus said the lord YHWH: Behold I am against you, O Tyre! I will bring up many nations against you (just) as the sea brings up its waves. 26:4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and demolish her towers. And I will scrape away her dirt away from her and make her a bare cleft.

64 For examples of human withering in the HB, see 1 Sam. 2.5; Jer. 14:2; 15:9; cf. Hos 4:3.

65 Huddlestun 1996, 198.

66 Albright 1932, 93 proposes adding “(or twelfth)” due to chronological ambiguity. 218 מִשְׁטַח67 חֲרָ מִ ים68 תִ היֶה בְּתִ וֹך הַ יָּם כִּ י אֲ נִ י דִ בַּרְתִּ י נְאֻ ם אֲ דֹנָ י יהוה והָ יְתָ ה לְבַ ז לַ גּוֹיִם׃ 26:5

She will be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets, for I have spoken, declares the lord YHWH. And she will become plunder for nations. 26:6 And her daughters who are in the ﬁeld shall be killed by the sword. Then they will know that I am YHWH. 26:7 For thus said the lord YHWH: Behold I am bringing against Tyre from the north Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, king of kings,69 with horses, chariots, and horsemen, a horde of many people (or: soldiers?). 26:8 Your daughters who are in the ﬁeld, he will kill with the sword. And he will set up against you a siege wall. He will erect a siege ramp and raise up a shield against you. 26:9 He will direct the shock of his battering ram(s) against your walls and with his swords he will strike down your towers. 26:10 From the abundance of his horses he will cover you [with] their dust. From the voice of horsemen and the wheels of his chariot he will quake your walls when he comes into your gates—just as those who enter a breached city. 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword and your mighty pillars will fall down to the earth. 26:12 They70 will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise. They will demolish your walls and strike down your pleasant houses. They will place your stones and trees in the midst of the sea.

67 The mištaḥ (cf. LXX φυγµὸς; V siccatio) identiﬁes the place designed for the drying of ﬁshing nets after a catch (Botterweck 1977, 136). This form likely represents the construct of mištôaḥ in 47:10 (Bauer and Leander 1965, §69x).

68 For this term, see §1.6.3.2 in ch. 1 above.

69 See Zimmerli 1983, 35-36, for a summation of the ancient Near Eastern development of this phrase.

70 LXX: “he” passim. 219 26:13 And I71 will cause the noise of your songs to cease. The sound of your lyres will no longer be heard.

וּנְתַתִּ יך לִצְחִ יחַ סֶ לַ ע מִשְׁטַ ח חֲרָ מִ ים תִּהְ יֶה לֹא תִ בָּ נֶ ה עוֹד כִּ י אֲ נִ י יהוה דִּ בַּרְתִּ י נְאֻ ם אֲ דֹנָ י יהוה׃ 26:14

And I will make you a bare cleft; you will be a place for the spreading of nets, never to be built again. For I, YHWH, have spoken, declares the lord YHWH.

6.2.2.2 Historical and Literary Context In contrast to rest of the nations addressed in Ezekiel’s war oracles (chs. 25-32), the extensive pericope of 26:1-28:19 targets Tyre, a Phoenician city-state within Canaan.72 In the initial subunit of the first of four literary sections, 26:1-14 enumerates this city’s sin and consequent punishment in 26:1-6 and explicates the solution to said sin in 26:7-14. Though scholars disagree about the relationship between the various parts of the chapter,73 there is widespread unity regarding its overall structure (so 26:2-6, 7-14, 15-18, 19-21).74 Evidence from elsewhere in Ezekiel’s war oracles—where 29:6b-12 and 32:11-15 interpret the extended fishing metaphors in 29:1-6a and 32:1-10, as well as the figurative descriptions of Tyrian and Egyptian royalty descending into the netherworld (26:19-21; 32:17-32)—suggests that 26:7-14 deliberately recycles text from 26:1-6, functioning as a prophetic commentary on the preceding material.75 The divinely appointed instruments of judgment—a king from the north and his

71 LXX: “he” passim.

72 According to Odell, “Tyre is included in these oracles because it was one of the neighbors to whom Zedekiah turned for support as he plotted his rebellion” (2005, 334).

73 E.g. Wevers (1969, 200) thinks 2-6 are secondary and based on 7-14; Saur (2008, 34) delineates between an oracle of doom that uses water imagery (26:3-6) and another which describes Nebuchadrezzar’s destruction of Tyre (26:7-14); and Zimmerli (1983, 35) argues that the original oracle ﬁnished with 26:5a, as noticed by the recognition formula, before it “was then expanded in terms of a more precise actualization.”

74 Newsom 1995, 194.

75 Ibid; Zimmerli 1983, 33. 220 army—strongly resemble the oracles already discussed above in chs. 2-3 (e.g. Jer. 16:16-18; Amos 4:1-3; Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 19:1-9). Unlike those warnings, where the foreign entity, be it an individual or a nation, took on the role of a fisher of humans, the piscatorial images in Ezekiel 26 instead display the catastrophic destruction laid upon Tyre, highlighting its metamorphosis from a stalwart of martial prowess to a perpetual pile of rocks well-suited to serve as a spot for fishers to dry their nets. The island of Tyre’s distinctive geographical position, located roughly the length of six contiguous football fields away from the Levantine coastline, afforded the city exceptional defensive stability.76 Both Ezekiel and the Assyrian king, Esarhaddon, referred to Tyre in comparable terms: Heb. bĕtôk hayyām “in the midst of the sea” (26:5; 27:32) and Akk. ša qabal tāmtim “in the midst of the sea.”77 Because no military force conquered Tyre until Alexander’s siege in 332 BCE—and then only after he had constructed an enormous causeway out to the island—some have suggested Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre implies a heavy redaction that culminated in the 4th century BCE.78 As Zimmerli cogently observes, however, “this assumption creates a host of additional difficulties, which would be better avoided in view of the relatively clearly discernible political relationships in the first half of the sixth century and in view of the possibilities afforded by these relationships for the elucidation of the Tyre oracle.”79 Indeed, although his Levantine martial presence is tacit within earlier oracles (e.g. Ezek. 17:12; 19:9; 21:24, 26; 24:2), it is not until Ezek. 26:7 that the name of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, occurs in the book. And though complementary circumstantial evidence

76 Odell 2005, 336.

77 RINAP 4 60:7.

78 For a thorough presentation of this position, see Gegenwart 2010, 77-84, esp. 78-80.

79 1983, 24. 221 abounds,80 the only explicit assertion of a Babylonian siege against Tyre, however, derives from Josephus (Ant. 10.11:1), who cites an excerpt from the Phoenician history of Menander Ephesius that reports an ultimately inconclusive thirteen year blockade during the reign of a certain Ithobaal, whose regnal tenure remains dubious. While no scholarly consensus has emerged from numerous historical reconstructions of this alleged besiegement, the historical context and the literary features of the oracle reﬂect the prophet’s familiarity with Tyrian culture.81

6.2.2.3 From Impenetrable Rock to Ruins: The Tragic Fate of Tyre Its physical separation from the Phoenician shore combined with its natural and artiﬁcial harbors to yield impressive martial advantages, just as its naval prestige and extensive commercial maritime activity afforded impressive economic revenue.82 Moreover, as Phoenician tradition claims the city’s origins stem back to a pair of rocks afﬁxed to the Mediterranean depths,83 nearly everything about Tyre—including its name (ṣūr “rock”) and cultural symbols (e.g. impenetrable fortress, prosperous maritime economy)—exuded hubris. It is this cultural memory of Tyre shared by nations throughout the aNE that emboldened Ezekiel to cleverly promulgate Tyre’s defeat by transforming the very features that embodied its strength into an image of doom.84 Even the most formidable rocks eventually succumb to the regular tidal cycle, a reality

80 For example, one NB receipt lists provisions for “the king and the soldiers who went with him against the land of Tyre” (Unger 1931, 36-37; for the text, see 286, 293: n. 26, col. 5, l. 23). Moreover, an assemblage of administrative documents report a Babylonian campaign against Tyre and indicate the island fortress was under Babylonian hegemony by no later than 570 BCE (idem 1926, 314-17, esp. 316). For full discussion on the various evidence, see Katzenstein 1997, 328-32.

81 For a summary of the historical evidence for Babylonian activity in the Levant during the early 6th century BCE, see Zimmerli 1983, 22-24; Wiseman 1985, 21-39.

82 Newsom 1995, 195. Papyrus Anastasi I refers to the city as a prosperous mercantile capital: “They tell of another town on the yumma [i.e. the sea], named Tyre of the Port. Water is taken to it in freighters; it is richer in ﬁsh than sand” (Allen 2003, 12 [20.7]).

83 Nonnus, Dionysiaca, 40:429-534.

84 Newsom 1995, 195. 222 depicting unceasing waves and erosion in 26:4. And as an island conurbation ideally equipped to oversee all forms of commercial maritime activity (e.g. naval, mercantile, piscatorial), the prophet ironically equates the result of such erosion as a fitting locale for fishing nets. As Egyptian society depended on the annual Nile inundation, so Tyre relied on its maritime commerce. Ezekiel exposes the invulnerable claims of both as a form of disillusionment, for YHWH held sway over all natural phenomena, foreign and domestic. As the prophet exhibits frequently throughout 26:1-28:19, Tyre’s pride demonstrated an affront to YHWH’s power. In refuting Jeremiah’s admonishment to submit to Babylon, Zedekiah sought out reinforcement from an ostensibly dependable Tyre (Jer. 27:3), a contradiction Ezekiel exposes over the course of this 76 verse diatribe. As with the image of fishers mourning a desiccated Nile in Isaiah 19, the portrayal of Tyre in Ezekiel 26 portends the city’s ignominious fall in a manner customized to its particular character. From its familiarity with certain topographical features described in this island fortress’ besiegement (26:7-18) to its awareness of both the commencement of this event85 and the fact that Nebuchadrezzar, indeed, commandeered such an action,86 this oracle demonstrates Ezekiel’s nuanced appropriation of a general literary form (i.e. war oracle). The use of idiosyncratic fishing images in 26:5, 14 likewise sticks out. While the fishing images in Isaiah 19 and Ezekiel 26 both rhetorically function to illustrate wholesale desolation, they do so in different ways. In the former, the drying up of Egypt’s “fountain of life” dissolves the fishing industry, putting fishers out of business and into a state of lamentation. In the latter, military invasion leads to the breakdown of Tyre’s social structure, denuding it of an impregnable fortification system and leading its prosperous maritime commerce into desuetude, never to resuscitate (26:14). Though Nilotic failure brought Egyptian economy to a sudden and total halt, Ezekiel compounds

85 Zimmerli 1983, 35. “In view of the rectifying divine oracle in 29:17-21, one is forced to the conclusion that 26:7-14 was added certainly after the beginning but also before the end of the siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, a siege which ended quite differently” (37). From his perspective, the original prophecy (26:1-5a) first incorporated 26:5-6, which occurred soon after Jerusalem’s fall, before the final supplementation of 26:7-14, the final form of which was solidified “before New Year’s day of Jehoiachin’s 27th year, that is before April 26, 571” (39-40).

86 See n. 80 above (p. 222). 223 irony onto Tyre’s foundering by referring to its dilapidated rubble as an asset to sea fishers (cf. Is. 7:25). The very industry it formerly manipulated (i.e. “richer in fish than sand”) has been transferred to another and the eroded foundation on which it was built now services their work. The Mediterranean fishing business continues in spite of Tyre’s downfall and local fishers now take advantage of its only tangible remnant, the eroded rocks which used to serve as its defense, to dry their seines after a catch. Though she had schemed to convert Jerusalem’s fall into her own gain (26:2), Ezekiel derisively crushes any such hope by imposing an equivalent demise upon Tyre itself that transpires in such a manner that all will witness it and lament (26:15-18).87 In this, she indeed becomes a “plunder for the nations” (26:5).

6.3 It Was the Best of Times Where God Dwells (Ezekiel 47:1-12) 6.3.1 Translation

47:1 And he brought me back to the opening of the temple. And behold, the water was ﬂowing out eastward from underneath the threshold88 of the temple—for the temple faced east. The water was descending down below from the right side of the facade (lit. “shoulder”) of the temple on the south end of the altar.89

87 For example, reference to “the gate(s) of the peoples” is a communal referent to the Jerusalem (Zimmerli 1983, 34).

88 The miptan, typically translated “threshold,” is actually a platform or podium on which is placed a throne (Bodi 2010, 28). Out of eight attestations in the HB, ﬁve occur in Ezekiel. Since the ﬁrst three (9:3; 10:4, 18) describe the ascension of YHWH’s glory when it leaves the temple, this reference in 47:1 recalls the divine presence in the temple, a salient element in this pericope.

89 According to Zwickel, these waters resemble the “sea of cast metal” (hayyām mūṣāq) in the temple and resume the motif from 1 K. 7:23-26 (1995, 147). 224 47:2 And he brought me out along the path of the north gate and he took me around the outside path to the outside gate90 that faces eastward. And behold water was trickling out91 from the south (lit. “right”) side.92 47:3 Meanwhile the man went out eastward, a line93 in his hand. He measured94 1,000 cubits and led me through the ankle-deep water (lit. “he led me through waters, waters of ankles”). 47:4 He then measured [another] 1,000 [cubits] and led me through knee-deep water. He then measured [another] 1,000 [cubits] and led me through [what was now] waist- deep water. 47:5 He then measured [another] 1,000 [cubits],95 [leading to] a wadi which I was unable to cross because the waters had risen [so much that] the wadi was deep enough to swim [in],96 but impossible to cross. 47:6 And he said to me: “What are you staring at, human?” And he took me out and brought me back to the bank of the wadi. 47:7 When I got back, I encountered (wĕhinnēh) many large trees (or: an exceedingly large tree) on both banks of the wadi.

90 Zimmerli deletes this phrase, identifying it as a “double scribal error…[and] explanatory gloss” (1983, 504).

91 For Hebrew pak, cf. Ug. bk and Eg. pg3. The gentle ﬂow of this river recalls the Isaianic reference to Judah’s rejection of the enigmatic “gently ﬂowing waters of Shiloah” in 8:6.

92 Rabbinic tradition (Sukkah 3.10) connects this ﬂow of water to that brought into existence at creation.

93 For other terms for measuring tools in Ezekiel, see 40:3: pĕtīl pištīm “cord of linen” and qĕnēh hammiddāh “measuring reed.”

94 Out of ﬁfty-two total attestations, Heb. mdd “to measure” occurs three times in 47:1-12 and thirty-six times in Ezekiel 40-48. Zimmerli’s suggestion that the measurements in 47:3-5 can “be dispensed with without loss” overlooks the integral role measurement plays within the passage (1983, 509).

95 I.e. just past the 2,000 meter mark.

96 For “swim,” see GKC §24d; von Soden 1991, 165-70. Cf. Eliade 1972, 293-97, 309 for a “crossing of waters” motif. 225 47:8 And he said to me: “This water (lit. “these waters”) is ﬂowing out to the eastern region, (where it) descends over the Arabah, and enters the sea—the sea of stagnant97 waters. The waters are then healed,

וְהָ יָה כָ ל־נֶפֶ שׁ חַ יַּה אֲשֶׁ ר־יִשׁרֹץ אֶ ל כָּ ל־אֲשֶׁ ר יָבוֹא שָׁ ם נַחֲ לַ יִם יִחְ יֶה וְהָ יָה הַדָּ גָ ה רַ בָּ ה מְ אֹד כִּ י בָ אוּ 47:9 שָׁמָּ ה הַמַּ יִם הָאֵ לֶּ ה וְיֵרָ פְ אוּ וָחָ י כֹּל אֲשֶׁ ר־יָבוֹא שָׁמָּ א הַ נָּחַ ל׃ and every living thing which swarms thrives wherever a wadi (MT: two wadis)98

flows. There are many many different kinds of fish because (when) these waters enter there, they are healed. So everything lives where the wadi flows.

וְהָ יָה ﬠָמְ דוּ ﬠָלָ יו דַ וָּגִ ים מֵﬠֵ ין גֶּ די וְ עד־ﬠֵ ין ﬠֶגְלַ יִם מִ שׁטוֹחַ לַחֲרָ מִ ים יִהְ יוּ לְמִ ינָ ה תּהְ יֶה דְ גָתָ ם99 47:10

כִּדגַ ת הַ יָּם הַ גָּ דוֹל רַ בָּ ה מְ אֹד׃

And fishers stand beside it (i.e. the wadi-turned-sea) from En-gedi to En-eglaim, [since] it is a place for the spreading of nets. The variety of its fish is like the fish of the Mediterranean, exceedingly abundant.

97 The MT ’el-hayyāmmāh hammūṣā’īm is perplexing. The LXX reads mayim instead of yām (τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς διεκβολῆς), but has the beneﬁt of grammatical agreement (“the water[s] of the outlet”). Recent scholarship has postulated a number of explanations. Driver renders hammūṣā’īm as a Hp participle from ṣw’ “to be polluted” (1938, 186-87). Zimmerli (1983, 507) follows the BHS suggestion (emending heh to ḥeth), which results in an adjectival variant of ḥāmīṣ “salted” (cf. Is. 30:24). S sry’ “stagnant,” however, suits best within a context underscoring a miraculous transformation from death to life (so Block 1998, 688).

98 Some scholars find this dual form incomprehensible (e.g. Zimmerli 1983, 507), while others maintain it by either connecting it to cognate literature. Postulated connections with Mesopotamian imagery (e.g. “the overflowing vase” motif; the two rivers Marduk creates in EE) do not fit well unless Ezekiel had Mesopotamian topography in mind (cf. Bodi 2010, 29). Ugaritic literature presents stronger evidence, such as El’s residence situated at the source of two rivers (mbk nhrm; KTU 1.3 5:6-7; cf. Clifford 1972, 158-59). But its cosmic context vitiates any potential relationship this locale shares with the problematic term in Ezekiel. RHB 5:158 emends to naḥălām (“their [i.e. the waters’] wadi”). Zechariah 14:8 assumes a binary river system emanating from Jerusalem, one half of which moves eastward and another half which flows toward the Mediterranean. If dependent on Ezekiel here, the interpretation would be expansive, for 47:1-12 only refers to a unidirectional watercourse. The versional evidence (LXX, S, Tg, V) provides strong support for a sg. form, which I adopt here.

99 This translation follows the sg. suffix of the LXX, breaking with the MT (“their fish”), which may presuppose dawwāgīm as the antecedent (cf. Nocquet 2010, 335). 226 47:11 As for its swamps and marshes—they are not healed, [for] they have been given salt [deposits].100 47:12 And over the wadi all kinds of food trees ascend on both banks. Their leaves (lit. “its leaf”) do not wither, nor does their fruit cease [to grow]. Every month they produce fresh fruit because their water flows out from the sanctuary. Their fruit provides (lit. “become”) food and their leaves [provide] healing.

6.3.2 Literary Context Ezekiel 47:1-12 is sandwiched between an extensive tour, where a “bronzed man” (40:3) guides Ezekiel throughout the grounds of a new, eschatological temple complex (Ezekiel 40-46), and an updated delimitation of land boundaries and reorganization of tribal allotments (Ezek. 47:13-48:35). Its exuberant description of a life-giving river that ﬂows from the temple, irrigating the North and the South equivalently, displays the full effect of the return of the divine presence to the midst of his people as foreshadowed in 43:1-12. This passage thus appears at a structural hinge point serving as a conceptual bridge between two visions: the temple and the land.101 Even though it does not conclude the book, there is widespread consensus that Ezekiel’s visions together culminate in 47:1-12.102 Most scholars classify the section as a “vision report,” due to its emphasis upon sight and interpretation, yet others supplement this by also referring to it as an “oracle of salvation.103 References in this passage to speciﬁc geographical designations (e.g. Arabah, En-gedi, En-eglaim) and limited renewal (viz. the inability of the “swamps and marshes” to become fresh) ground the eschatological description in real space and time.

100 Many scholars delete 47:11 because of its emphasis on the (ostensibly much later) salt-mining industry and consequent lack of cohesion with the immediate context (for a representative argument, see Eichrodt 1970, 581).

101 Nocquet 2010, 440-41.

102 For representative arguments, see Zimmerli 1983, 514; Nocquet 2010, 341.

103 Hals 1989, 338. Zimmerli refers to 46:19-24 and 47:12 both as “guidance scenes,” even though both passages represent “two different worlds” (1983, 508-09). 227 The section nevertheless draws on well-established biblical themes like creation, temple, and social upheaval in order to reconstruct, and ultimately transform, their meaning for a paradisal context. Due to the high volume of repetition, peculiar directional descriptions, and abrupt interruptions, the following provides a four-step proﬁle of the literary progression in 47:1-12:

Table 33. A thematic overview of Ezekiel 47:1-12

1. Ezekiel’s tour guide walks him through the sacrificial kitchens, where he is surprised to see a trickling of water issuing from the mipṭān (47:1) 2. The guide leads Ezekiel from the sanctuary circuitously through the inner north gate to the lower platform before moving through the outer north gate and around to the outer east gate, where, to his surprise, that same water had begun to bubble up on the south side (47:2). 3. The guide and Ezekiel work downstream together, stopping at increments of 1,000 cubits to measure its depth, which progressively increases until they are no longer able to pass through without swimming. Apparently preoccupied with his measurement task, the guide then turns to Ezekiel to make sure he is up to speed on the magnitude of what exactly they are witnessing. (47:3-6) 4. The two men return to the riverbank where, after a terse observation by the prophet about the myriad of trees flanking it, the guide elaborates upon not only the extent of the water’s course (to the Dead Sea), but also both the manifold implications of its vivifying properties (e.g. spawning of diverse fauna, converting saltwater into freshwater, providing employment to those in the fishing industry, and trees that perpetually yield edible and medicinal fruit) and the rationale for such an astonishing scene: its origin in the temple, where YHWH once again resides. (47:7-12; cf. 48:35)

Though the verse division in both the MT and most English translations shroud its structural symmetry, this pericope divides neatly into two balanced subunits: one narratival (47:1-7) and the other discursive (47:8-12).104 Despite such thematic balance, scholars disagree on its structural unity. Due to the frequent use of “uncharacteristic

104 Block 1998, 690. 228 forms, doublets, repetitions, grammatical anomalies, substantive infelicities, and awkward repetitions,”105 some posit a number of redactional accretions. For example, Zimmerli identifies multiple interpolations throughout the passage, such as 47:3a (due to the use of qaw, unique in Ezekiel, rather than one of the synonymous terms used in 40:3), 47:6b-8aα (an interruption of the guide’s discourse), and 47:9abα and 10-11 (superfluous summary [47:9]; resumption that stems back to 47:8, rather than 9 [‘ālāw]; parenthetical observation [47:11]).106 In terms of redaction history, he regards the bulk of 47:1-8 as original (minus 47:3a), only to later be supplemented by at least three separate additions: 47:9 as an elaboration on the waters; 47:10 as still further elaboration on these waters; 47:11 as an even later addition (as well as possibly 47:12b).107 A bifurcated perspective positing an exilic redaction and a post-exilic extrapolation is more common.108 Nevertheless, others have offered compelling counter-arguments that stem from the culling of cognate literature109 and the interpretation of those same grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic issues as markers of a structural symmetry that reflects a “deliberate literary composition” rather than an assemblage of later editorial and marginal glosses.110

105 This list derives from Block (1998, 689), though he himself disagrees with the notion that they indicate multiple redactional layers.

106 1983, 505-08. Zwickel follows suit, but also adds 47:9bβ as a further secondary addition due to its repetition of a nourishment motif (1995, 140-54).

107 Zimmerli 1983, 513-14.

108 Konkel 2001, 192-93. Pohlmann classiﬁes the two redactional layers as “pro-gôlah” (i.e. exilic) and “pro-diaspora” (i.e. post-exilic), assigning only 47:1, 8, 9aBb, 10a, 12 to the ﬁrst (2001, 612-17). Rudnig (2000, 167-83, 339) similarly sees vv. 1, 8, 9aBbB, 12a as original; Vogt (1981, 174) agrees, though with the addition of vv. 2b and all of 9.

109 Cf. Tuell 1992, 68-71.

110 Block 1998, 690; Tuell 2000, 115). Nocquet largely agrees, outside of 47:11, which he still relegates to secondary status (2010, 340). 229 6.3.3 Re-creation and a River of Life The ancient concept of a life-giving river, of which Ezek. 47:1-12 is just one iteration, exhibits an extensive literary legacy both within and without the HB tradition. Already in the late 3rd millennium, an excerpt from Gudea’s Cylinder B (14:19-16:2) describes an elaborate scene of functionality and fecundity on the basis of the marital consummation by the divine couple, Ningirsu and Bau/Baba.111 In an evocative illustration of fertility, rams and ewes mate freely, resulting in an abundance of lambs, just as calves flank their healthy mothers (15:5-9). Gudea’s recently constructed temple, Eninnu, bursts with joyful music (15:19-22). Moreover, a river flows full of rushing water and in nearby marshes reside diverse species of fish (14:25-26). Though the life-giving character of Ezekiel’s vision stems not from divine sexual activity, the relationship between temple and abundant, fish-filled waters links the two texts.112 Where earthly fecundity ensued from divine intercourse in Gudea Cylinder B, the late 2nd millennium “autobiographical” Marduk Prophecy employs analogous imagery both to promote Marduk’s ascendance within the pantheon and sanction Nebuchadrezzar I’s ransacking of Elam.113 This prophecy showcases several exceptional theological features: it offers a rare example of a Mesopotamian deity, who customarily governed a particular city or region, exhibiting international sovereignty, just as it is the “only true

111 For the text, see Thureau-Dangin, TCL 8; for a recent edition, see RIME 3/1 96-7.

112 Tuell 1992, 70. Sharon creatively argues for a strong, yet complex, relationship—if not a dependence— between these two texts based on an ostensible correlation between increasing abundance attendant to both the construction of Gudea’s Eninnu and the delineation of degrees of holiness in Ezekiel’s temple vision (1996, 103). She then curiously posits the notion of a “progressive sanctification” that leads to a “final sanctification” marked by the pouring out of divine blessing in the form of “fertilizing water.” But as Zimmerli cogently observes, there is no interest in sanctity or “ritual protection from the stream which emerges from the realm of the holy” (1983, 509).

113 For the text and an edition, see Borger 1971, 3-24; for E translation, see Longman 1991, 132-42, 233-35. Lambert offers a compelling argument in favor of Marduk’s ascension to the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon precisely during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar I (1964, 3-13), whose victory over Elam immensely bolstered social morale (Longman 1991, 141). 230 divine autobiography extant from Mesopotamia.”114 When an idealized “king of Babylon” (i.e. Nebuchadrezzar I) arises (2:19),

Ning[irs]u will rule. The rivers will carry fish. The fields and plains will be full of yield. The grass of winter (will carry on) to summer. The grass of summer will carry on to winter. The harvest of the land will bloom. The marketplace will flourish. He will set evil aright….And I [i.e. Marduk], the god of all, will make peace with him. (3:5’-11’; 21’-22’)

While Gudea Cylinder B and Ezek. 47:1-12 both ground the various manifestations of abundance (e.g. marine life, agricultural, socio-economic, ethical, theological) in a new or renewed temple complex,115 here it stems from the rise of a reformer king and his special relationship with the newly promoted head of the pantheon.116 But several points provide an even stronger link between this text and Ezek. 47:1-12. For though the Marduk Prophecy alone functions as political propaganda, both it and Ezek. 47:1-12 presage an idyllic epoch where rivers teem with ﬁsh and agricultural prosperity abounds (cf. Ezek. 47:13-48:35). In the latter two texts, said prosperity stems from the authority of one particular deity (i.e. Marduk and YHWH), rather than the copulation of a divine pair.117 It is thus clear that despite the distinctive contexts of each of these three texts, as well as their particular details, they together envision a blissful

114 Longman 1991, 134, 37. According to Roberts (1977, 183-87), the inscription is a classic example of political propaganda.

115 For a potential example of a conceptual link between temple and blessing (for both merchant and farmer) at Ugarit, see Tuell’s analysis of KTU 4.5:68-73 (1992, 70-71).

116 The reference to ﬁsh in Gudea Cylinder B, however, situates them not in the river, as here and Ezek. 47:1-12, but in the marsh.

117 In Herodotus Hist. 1.107, Astyages’ daughter, Mandane—who eventually gives birth to the founder of the Persian Empire, Cyrus—appears to Astyages in a portentous dream in which she produces such a flood of water (i.e. the clout of her offspring) that it waters all of Asia (i.e. deposing Astyages). 231 event where rushing waters flow and life abounds.118 Though Gudea Cylinder B and the Marduk Prophecy attest to similar general motifs, Ezek. 47:1-12 represents just one example among a handful of texts that envisage terrestrial transformation, be it from an antediluvian or eschatological temporal scope, marked by the issuing of a fructifying river of life. The most well-known example of such a watercourse flows out of God’s primeval abode on earth, the Garden of Eden. According to Gen. 2:10-14, what begins as a single river eventually divides into four tributaries and continues in different directions to irrigate the earth.119 Ezek. 47:9 presents two more noteworthy examples of shared language with the opening chapters of Genesis. First, the adjectival phrase kol-nepeš ḥayyāh “every living creature” occurs four times in the MT, but elsewhere only in the context of God’s post- flood covenant in Genesis 9 (vv. 12, 15-16), there designating in each case his treaty partners.120 Without the initial noun kol, the collocation nepeš ḥayyāh occurs five more times, all of which occur in the various creation contexts of Genesis 1-2 (1:20, 24, 30; 2:7, 19).121 Second, the verb which denotes the action of kol-nepeš ḥayyāh, šrṣ “to swarm,” exhibits a similar textual distribution.122 The usage in Ezek. 47:9 echoes the emphasis upon life that typifies that exhibited in the initial creation scene (Gen. 1:20-21)

118 Fish (as well as a frog and bull) appear on a high tankard from 13th or 12th century BCE northern Syria where two men, one of which is probably divine (as suggested by the crescent above him), ﬂank a tree of life. That the context depicts no natural water source, but rather a garden or draw-well, suggests that the emphasis revolves around the life-giving power of water (see Salles 1983, 201-09).

119 Many scholars have postulated some degree of intertextual relationship between these two passages (for a thorough comparative analysis, see Tuell 2000, 171-89).

120 Clifford’s argument (1972, 98-103) against anything other than a “general similarity” between these two passages based on their varying geographical contexts suffers from the genetic fallacy (Levenson 1976, 28-29).

121 Nobile also compares 47:9 and Gen. 1:20 (2009, 95).

122 Although the term does occur outside of Genesis, only one of its 14 total attestations occurs outside the Torah. Five occur in the food laws of Leviticus 11 (vv. 29, 41-43, 46), two refer to the plague of frogs (Ex. 7:28; Ps. 105:30), and another characterizes the burgeoning population of Israelites sojourning in Egypt (Ex. 1:7). 232 and the ﬂood narrative’s depiction of re-creation (7:21; 8:17; 9:7).123 Together with the description of the river which waters the Garden of God in Gen. 2:10-14, the peculiar replication of šrṣ and kol-nepeš ḥayyāh draws from a shared cache of creation language. Though each of the different passages stems from unique contexts (e.g. primeval and eschatological; Mesopotamia and Judah) and depicts fundamental differences (e.g. the universal scope of Genesis 1-11124; the singularity of the river in Ezekiel 47), thereby cautioning against extending the connection too far, the portrayal of a life-giving river springing from the presence of God intimates more than “allusion to a common stock of images.”125 In so doing, Ezekiel appropriates a foundational idea (i.e. divine presence in Eden) in order to evoke Eden imagery, a feat executed skillfully, without any explicit reference to this locale (but cf. Ezek. 28:13-14).126 There is a veritable Zion tradition in the HB, that does, in fact, specify such a relationship between the city of God and a rushing river. One must not overlook the implicit irony in this association, for though Jerusalem had access to a natural spring at the foot of the city in the Kidron Valley (i.e. the Gihon Spring), the city “was certainly not abundantly watered.”127 The eschatological transformation of Zion into a port city in Is. 33:20-21 therefore shatters any such stereotypes.128 !

123 Peripherally, the cognate noun šereṣ “swarming thing” and dāgāh are the ﬁrst forms of life to appear in the initial creation account (Nocquet 2010, 334).

124 The preoccupation with tribal boundaries in 47:13-48:35 offers an incisive caution against imposing a universalistic scope onto Ezek. 47:1-12 (cf. Kennedy 2005, 104-5).

125 Tuell 2000, 172; cf. Nocquet 2010, 336. Despite the omission of the term “Eden” in Ezekiel 47, Terblanche suggests this locale undergirds the scene the prophet beholds (2005, 127). He similarly compares the idea of land transformation from barren wasteland to Eden in Ezek. 36:33-6 with that which 47:1-12 describes (131). And according to Tuell, the equivalence of Eden and Zion is made explicit in Ezek. 28:13-14, implied in Is. 11:6-9 and 65:17-25 (Cf. Gen 1:29-30), and presumed in 1 En. 25:3-5, though contrasted by Jubilees 8:19, which maintains their distinction (2000, 186).

126 Tuell 2000, 172.

127 Kaiser 1974, 348-49.

128 For this passage, see Roberts 1983, 15-25; Wildberger 1991, 298-99. 233 Behold Zion! City of our appointed feasts! Your eyes will see Jerusalem— a pasture at rest, an immovable tent129— whose stakes will never be moved, nor will its cords be broken. But there the majesty of YHWH [will be] for us a place of broad rivers and streams [lit. wide of hands] [where] no oar-driven boat130 can go nor can majestic ship pass.

Joel 4:18 preserves this idea in its future description of Judah as a place where mountains (cf. Ezek. 40:2, where Ezekiel’s temple also sits atop a mountain) drip with milk and wine, leading to full stream beds, and a spring issues forth from the temple by traveling eastward.131

And in that day: The mountains shall drip with grape juice and the hills shall ﬂow with milk.132 And as for all the streams of Judah they shall ﬂow with water. And a spring will go forth from the house of YHWH and irrigate the Valley of ! Shittim [or: “Valley of Acacias”]. Zech. 14:8 provides a further example of such a river emanating from Jerusalem in the far off future, though it does not mention the temple itself. Its additional assignment of the Dead Sea as a terminus and elaboration of Ezekiel’s hint at a lack of seasonal variation

129 Clifford claims that this reference describes “the Tent of Meeting, the predecessor of the Temple, which had disappeared centuries before” (1972, 158).

130 Tg “ﬁsher’s boat” (see Chilton 1987, 67). Scurlock prefers to interpret ṣī as an ambiguous “coming forth,” rather than the traditional designation of a ship, thereby understanding YHWH himself to be a “place of rivers and streams” (2010, 279-80). To that end, she draws from an OA reference to divine Aššur as an “impassable swamp” as support. In addition to neglecting the propinquity between the comparanda in view, her argument overlooks the lucid internal parallelism within the passage itself.

131 For this passage, see Crenshaw 1995, 196-205. See also Ps. 46:5: “There is a river whose streams make rejoice the the city of God, the holy dwelling of Elyon” (cf. Ps. 65:10). Note the juxtaposition of Judah’s blessing with Egypt’s desolation in Joel 4:18-19.

132 For a similar example of reversal in Eg. fortune highlighting the limpidity of the Nile, see Ezek. 32:14.

133 For the latter assertion, Petersen observes that a hint at the lack of seasonal variation, mentioned in Zechariah 14, is provided by the clause “their leaves will not wither” (1995, 146). 234 (cf. 47:12),133 together suggest a degree of literary dependence on the Ezek. 47:1-12 account.134

On that day living waters shall issue forth from Jerusalem, half of them to the Eastern Sea and half of them to the Western Sea. It shall continue [lit. “be”] in [both] summer and winter.135

Each of these passages provides an exemplar of a tradition that identifies that place where the divine presence resides, be it the primeval garden or the temple, as a future source of freshwater flow.136 No two look exactly alike; each exhibits its own distinctive features of this phenomenon. Though the multifaceted process of adjudicating the extent of intertextuality between each lies outside the scope of this project, juxtaposing them here alongside comparable literary permutations from the rest of the aNE shows they are cut from the same typological cloth. Ezekiel 47:1-12 is not a literary isolate, nor is it merely a replica. What all this demonstrates is that the motif of an idealized future with a river flowing from a source of divine presence “could take many forms and was not confined to any single systematized shape.”137

134 So Terblanche, who argues that the literary relationship between Zech. 14:8 and Ezek. 47:1-12 represents more than an inner-biblical allusion, asserting that the former served as a commentary on the latter by adapting it for a new context (2004, 120-29).

135 For similar symbolic demonstrations of gushing water in the HB, see Is. 8:6; 30:25; Joel 1:20; 4:18; Zech. 13:1; 14:8 (cf. Is. 11:6-8; Ps. 46:5; 87:17).

136 Petersen 1995, 146.

137 Eichrodt 1970, 584. This particular motif had a substantial exegetical effect on post-biblical literature. The most detailed illustration commences the final chapter of Revelation. Building directly on both Genesis and Ezekiel, Rev. 22:1-2 expands and reifies the ambiguous elements in its literary forerunner in order to create its own hybridized account: “Then [the angel] showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of its [city] street; moreover, on either side of the river, [was] the tree of life with its twelve varieties of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” For other later echoes of Ezek. 47:1-12, see Sir. 24:30-31 and LoA 89 (cf. Tacitus [Hist. 5, 12], who speaks of a fons perennis aquae “perpetual fountain of water”). For rabbinic legends connecting the waters issuing from the temple with fertility and health, see Patai 1947, 55-69, 85-9. 235 Having demonstrated its place within a well-developed literary tradition, it is now appropriate to discuss the particular meaning of 47:1-12 within its various contexts. On three different occasions (47:1-2, 7), each before the tour guide resolves Ezekiel’s bewildering struggle to interpret his experience, the interjection hinnēh occurs.138 What the prophet experiences astonishes him now, just as it initially did when he saw the kĕbôd ’ĕlōhê yiśrā’el for the first time since its traumatic departure in 11:22-23. The very role of the tour guide in Ezekiel 40-48, functioning as a seer for the seer himself, demonstrates the expected nature of such a response. YHWH had indeed returned to his abode, but nearly everything else had changed, including its very name (48:35 yhwh šammāh “YHWH is there”).139 The brand of Zion theology which promulgated an indestructible Jerusalem had been exposed as mere pretense, but the horror of Babylonian incursion had passed and Ezekiel’s vision assuages the exiles’ languishing via this dramatic illustration of hope. Unlike the biblical parallels to this Ezekielian motif, the locus of such hope was not specifically geographical in nature, for the temple and its water source are “deliberately dissociated from the city of Jerusalem.”140 The result for Ezekiel was a complete topographical paradigm shift that lifted the divine presence from the categories of time and space and united it with its conceptual progenitor, the garden of Eden.141 According to Ezekiel’s vision, the place where God dwells is no longer constrained by, but rather transcends, all prior associations (i.e. temporal, political, geographical, etc).142 In a dramatized depiction of progressively nonsensical images, the prophet witnesses a categoric turning of reality onto its head. A rivulet now issued eastward from

138 As Block remarks, “by the time the prophet reached this phase of the tour, the sights he had witnessed had so gripped him that his excitement affected the literary quality of the report” (1998, 690).

139 For a “return of the deity to his temple” motif in the aNE, such as in EI, see Bodi 1991, 193-218.

140 Tuell 2000, 186. References to “Jerusalem” disappear in Ezekiel after 36:38 and “Zion” is absent from the book entirely.

141 For the use of agrarian and pastoral imagery to describe the eschaton, cf. Is. 11:6-9, which emphasizes the peace that derives from “the earth’s full knowledge of YHWH,” and Amos 9:13, which envisions the coming age as wildly prosperous for both the farmer and the vinedresser.

142 Tuell 2000, 187 n. 48 (cf. 189). 236 the temple, filling up the Kidron Valley, and somehow proceeded through the highlands and descended into the Arabah as an overflowing, impassable river.143 And this river emptied into a sea that, though formerly filled with salt, had transformed into a freshwater version that teemed with diverse species of marine fauna.144 The Dead Sea had been brought to life! What began with the restoration of God’s presence thus developed into a fully-functioning and self-sufficient ecosystem.145 Upon witnessing such a breathtaking spectacle, Ezekiel could join his prophetic predecessor, Jeremiah, in affirming the Yahwistic epithet: mĕqôr mayim ḥayyīm “the fountain of living waters” (Jer. 2:13). Though formerly relegated to a relatively marginal societal position, this river functioned as a stimulus package for the fishing industry as seen by a syndicate of fishers encircling this body of water, net in hand.146 What was historically a pastoral and agrarian society would soon give way to a flourishing fish market. A notion previously employed as a symbol for judgment against Tyre in 26:5 (mišṭaḥ ḥărāmīm) thereby becomes one of blessing for Judah (mišṭôaḥ laḥărāmīm). More broadly, everything that came in contact with this river sprang to life, inaugurating perpetual fertility without fear of desiccation or seasonal change. Even the Lisan (Heb. lôšan), the “tongue-shaped peninsula jutting out into the sea from the eastern shore,” though devoid of marine life, finds a way to bolster

143 As with the very existence of a spring emanating from underneath the divine presence and eventual transformation of the Dead Sea, the terse description of the eastward hydrological ﬂow does not rigidly conform to natural processes, but stems rather from a miraculous act. Whether the prophet envisioned a cleavage in the Mount of Olives or a complete reshaping of gravitational properties (i.e. water naturally running upward) is uncertain, though both would accord with the sense of the passage.

144 For the implication of this conversion to freshwater, see the function of rp’ “to heal” in 47:8-9, contrary to that in v. 11.

145 Niditch 1986, 217.

146 These two geographical references form a merism signifying the fishers surrounding the lake (Milgrom and Block 2012, 232). Concerning the dubious etymology of En-eglaim (modern ‘ain jiddi), if it its parallel En-Gedi refers to a young goat (i.e. “spring of the kid”), then perhaps En-eglaim identifies a young bovine (i.e. “spring of the calves”). Moreover, due to the temporal context of 47:1-12 (i.e. eschatological), mention of calves there recalls the springing forth from their stalls when the “sun of righteousness rises with healing in his wings” (Mal. 4:2; cf. Is. 11:20). 237 an already burgeoning economy through the mining of its salt.147 As the consummate restorer, the fingerprints of God’s healing power appear everywhere, effecting a holistic change and renewing the broken relationships between deity, human, and land.148 In so doing, Ezekiel’s eschaton does not simply reproduce the blissful beginning, but instead recreates it.149

! !

Figure 14. A goddess from Mari holding a fountain vessel out of which ﬂow water and marine life (SBW 188, ﬁg. 256; cf. Sharon 1996, 99-109, for a similar example of Gudea). Line drawing courtesy of Judith Daniels.

147 Milgrom and Block 2012, 233. Not only does salt contribute to a process of transformation, it also echoes one of puriﬁcation (cf. 2 K. 2:20-21), covenant (Lev. 2:13; Num. 18:19; 2 Chr. 13:5), or possibly even ritual sacriﬁce (Ezek. 43:24) (Nocquet 2010, 335).

148 Cf. Block 1998, 700. This re-integration renders unnecessary Stevenson’s claim that the symbolism of 47:1-12 is cosmic (Stevenson 1996, 142). For God as a healer in this passage, see Kennedy 2005, 103. Unlike the “plant of life” in EG (11:283-311), which deﬁes Gilgamesh’s attempted capture, the healing power of the river in Ezek. 47:1-12 lies not in its ﬂow or volume, but rather its source, and restores the land indiscriminately (although cf. 47:11).

149 Di Pede, and Lichtert 2010, 328. 238 6.4 Shattering Stereotypes and Transforming Tropes 6.4.1 Fishing and Polarity Unlike the fishing images employed throughout the rest of the HB, the three passages discussed above emphasize not the angling act itself (e.g. to mete out divinely appointed judgment, e.g. Jer. 16:16-18; Amos 4:1-3; Hab. 1:14-17; Ezek. 12:13-14; 17:16-21; 19:2-9; 29:1-6a; 32:1-10; to catch an actual marine creature, e.g. Job 40:25-32; Ezek. 29:1-6a; 32:1-10; or to engender death, e.g. Qoh. 9:11-12), but rather a range of effects on its industry. The first two (i.e. Is. 19:5-10; Ezek. 26:1-14) portray the horror of societal collapse, while the third envisions an idyllic eschatological scene. Though they each have discrete contexts, together they connote polar realities. The comparative link between them, however, is conceptual—or better, typological— in nature, not temporal. The threats of judgment directed against Egypt and Tyre are firmly situated in an historical context, even if its identification remains ambiguous, while the oracle of salvation in Ezek. 47:1-12 stands outside of time altogether. As a maker of metaphors (Ezek. 21:5), Ezekiel was no stranger to the process of constructing, deconstructing, and transforming language. Having already demonstrated his familiarity with themes of creation and recreation in Genesis, his radical reshaping of the image of Sodom provides a complementary example. When Lot beholds this conurbation for the first time, he immediately recognizes it as: “well-watered everywhere…like the garden of YHWH, like the land of Egypt” (Gen. 13:10). The shared memory of its eventual demise in Genesis 19 became a byword among the prophets (cf. Ezek. 15:56-7), symbolizing desolation and debauchery.150 Ezekiel, himself quite familiar with this idea, ascribed to Judah the denomination of Sodom in order to underscore her wickedness. Yet the prophet shatters this stereotype, abruptly interrupting his castigation of Judah with a dramatic reversal by which YHWH will restore their fortunes (16:53), return them to their former state (16:55), and establish his covenant with them (16:62). Is it any surprise, then, that the eschatological depiction of healing and recreation that unfolds in Ezek. 47:1-12 includes the Sea of Sodom (i.e. the Dead Sea), transforming

150 Cf. Is. 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Ezek. 16:46-9; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Lam. 4:6. 239 what was dead into a harbor where life thrives?151 As Newsom cogently observes, Ezekiel “reminds one that it is a prophetic activity to define what these metaphors are, to subject them to critique, and to make new ones which can redescribe reality in a liberating manner.”152 The judgment cast upon Egypt in Isaiah 19 and Tyre in Ezekiel 26 conform to expectations. The former’s complete dependence on the annual flooding of the Nile and the latter’s prosperity and pride in its control of marine commerce and island defense led to their fishing industries as natural targets of foreign derision. With regard to the centrality of the Nile, Ezekiel’s own prophecies against Pharaoh implicitly recognize this fact in YHWH’s pledge to turn Egypt into an utter wasteland (29:9b-12), drying up its Nile (30:12).153 The fishing images in Is. 19:5-10 and Ezek. 26:1-14, though typologically related, are self-contained, employing punishment representative of the particular locale in view (Egypt’s desolate Nile; Tyre’s fallen city) in order to expose their impotence relative to YHWH. And though the life-giving river in Ezekiel’s vision comports with Nilotic traits, this does not imply the prophet intended to replace an Edenic motif with that of an Egyptian one.154 In fact, the Edenic imagery is hard to overlook. Though forced to abdicate his Edenic throne (Ezek. 28:1-10), the king of Tyre’s loss becomes the incongruous blessing of another domain. But what it ultimately achieves is radical and ironic. Egypt and Tyre collapse under the loss of the basis of their success, while Israel develops a completely new topographic and socio-economic identity, marked by features resembling both Egypt and Tyre, that demonstrates its success. Although formerly incapable of sustaining marine life, one of Israel’s most arid realms thus turns into a

151 4 Ezra draws on this shift by presaging a day when “the sea of Sodom shall cast up ﬁsh” (5:7).

152 1995, 204.

153 For a comparable, although much later apocalyptic example of rivers vanishing upon a theophany, see ToM 10:6. Nocquet’s claim that Ezek. 29:1-4 and 47:1-12 signal a “strong and intentional contrast” is perhaps misguided, or at least too strong, since it overlooks basic rhetorical disparities between them, as well as their very different ﬁshing metaphors (2010, 334). A much more productive contrast surfaces with Ezek. 26:1-14.

154 Contra Nocquet 2010, 442. 240 perpetual paradise.155

6.4.2 Ezekiel 47:1-12 as Anomaly Though each of the three passages draws from a generic leitmotif (i.e. water as the literary crux of life) that appears elsewhere in the aNE, including the HB, the conceptual glue that holds them together is the use of fishing imagery to depict polar extremes. Despite their shared perlocutionary effect, each manifests distinctive literary features and stems from different historical contexts. Though Is. 19:5-10 and Ezek. 26:1-14 both use fishing images to indicate “the worst of times,” the positive reflex of fishing imagery in Ezek. 47:1-12 distinguishes this passage from all others in the HB. In every single example of fishing image in the HB—save one, Ezek. 47:1-12— the connotation is negative.156 From the common use of fishing tackle as a disciplinary tool to its other functions as a mere means to catch a sea monster, an instrument that brings about death, or a way to signal the downfall of a water-dependent society, the manner in which it is used in Ezek. 47:1-12 is anomalous. While Isaiah and Ezekiel adroitly manipulated the topographical and socio-economic realities of Egypt and Tyre to portend their foundering, what the latter prophet accomplishes in 47:1-12 required more innovation. What makes this transformative use of fishing imagery possible for Ezekiel is the creation of a new river altogether. The only positive description of fishing in the HB is thus a product of something unnatural and “other,” counter to the physical reality of ancient Israel. It is a new divine work that affords such a radical transformation. If Isaiah had desired to forecast the resurgence of the Nile, the universalistic depiction of international harmony in 19:16-25 presented an ideal opportunity. Though 19:22 does refer to YHWH’s willingness to heal that land, no such specific fishing imagery reappears. Ezekiel’s extensive oracle against Tyre in 26:1-28:19 shows no such prospect

155 Terblanche 2004, 132. For an alternative perspective, see Rev. 21:1, which foresees not the establishment of a vigorous sea, but its complete dissolution.

156 Bodi 1991, 170-71. He rightly concludes that the meaning of the phrase “the spreading of nets” is thus contextual. 241 of hope for this island. Instead, Ezekiel 47:1-12 appropriates imagery apposite to Israel’s neighbors and superimposes it onto the eschatological blueprint of that place where God dwells. In so doing, this lone positive fishing image (ironically?) reflects the foreign provenance of the book as a whole: Babylon, where fishing played an integral socio- economic and religious role.

6.4.3 Ezekiel 47:1-12 as (Apparent) Non-sequitur It is appropriate that this study concludes with a discussion of Ezek. 47:1-12, for it efficaciously exposes the incongruity of fishing imagery written by people who both inhabited a land largely devoid of natural water sources and evinced a “typical allergy to the sea, seafaring, and international trade.”157 Not only did Judah, throughout most of the Iron Age, lack “a natural outlet to import and export products and commodities” due to the Philistine stranglehold on the southern Levantine coast,158 but the sea represented one of the most powerful symbols of evil in Israelite thought. After accounting for cultural interchange during the first half of the first millennium BCE between Israel and Assyria/ Babylon, perhaps one can more easily reconcile the negative images.159 But what about Ezek. 47:1-12? This passage functions as the culmination of a lengthy hiatus for God’s dwelling. From the garden to the temple and all the attendant human problems that led to their abandonment, Ezek. 47:1-12 portrays a magnificent climax. The prophet’s vision, disconnected from historical limitations, imagines a tranquil end to all fear of future brokenness. And at the center of its portrayal lies a jarring, counterintuitive vignette of a river emanating from the temple and fishers flocking around a thriving sea that once was dead. If fishing was apparently marginalized in ancient Israel and if biblical fishing

157 Blenkinsopp 2000, 343.

158 Corral 2002, 144.

159 For such an example from apocalyptic taken to the extreme, see 1QHa 11:27-37 (Schuller and Newsom 2012, 35-9), whereby “nets of wickedness” (mṣwdwt rš‘t) and a “seine of wretched ones [which is] upon the surface of the waters” (mkmrt ḥlk’ym ‘l png mym) are tools of judgment used to ensnare hypocrites (n‘lmym) on the day of total consummation (klh). 242 images are everywhere else negative in tone, why then does fishing play such a central and positive role here? An image more germane to Israelite topography and economy would have been agrarian (e.g. always-in-season vineyards that fill the land) or pastoral (e.g. pastures with a myriad of roving flocks or herds) in scope. Instead the glory of Israel’s long awaited hope includes the gushing of a river at the peak of a mountain that leads to the Dead Sea, around which fishers flourish because of the profusion and mélange of marine life. Ezek. 47:1-12 takes what appears to be a non-sequitur assertion (i.e. a fishing industry centered around the salty waters of the Dead Sea) and overturns it, crushing and transforming all previous assumptions and expectations for what constitutes the eschaton. There is no one allusion or idea or reference that grounds this dramatic example of reinterpretation (Ger. Fortschreibung). It is rather an amalgam of different allusions, ideas, and references combined into one. From a temporal perspective, Ezek. 47:1-12 recreates a foundational creation scene and customizes it for an eschatological context. From a literary perspective, it superimposes elements of foreign nations in history (e.g. Tyre’s ostensible Edenic character based on its mercantile prosperity; the dependability and fecundity of the Nile in Egypt) to reconstruct the future. From this latter perspective, Jerusalem becomes an idealized version of Tyre and Egypt. The very source of the transformation, however, precluded those nations from such a makeover. A new Egypt or Tyre would not be enough, nor would a simple replication of God’s garden. Though the future world would comprise elements of the present one, they would be reorganized so drastically to be nearly unrecognizable. That is, except for one key element. YHWH’s presence would prove to be both the catalyst and sustaining force necessary to effect such a radical metamorphosis: where there was no watercourse, there now is a mighty river; where there was a constant cycle of building up and breaking down in nature (i.e. seasons), there now is perpetual life; what was once resistant to life now flourishes with it; where there once were shepherds and vinedressers, there now are fishers; where once the sea was a danger, it now is the source of life; and where once God’s presence had departed, it now has returned to stay forever.

243 ! ! !

Chapter 7. Reeling It In: Concluding Reﬂections ! “Angling is somewhat like Poetry, men are to be born so: I mean, with inclinations to it, though both may be heightned by discourse and practice, but he that hopes to be a good Angler must not only bring an inquiring, searching, observing wit; but he must bring a large measure of hope and patience, and a love and propensity to the Art it self; but having once got and practis’d it, then doubt not but Angling will prove to be so pleasant, that it will prove to be like Vertue, a reward to it self.”1 (emphasis original)

“Of Recreation there is none So free as Fishing is alone; All other pastimes do no lesse Than mind and body both possesse: My hand alone my work can doe, So I can fish and study too.”2 (excerpt from “The Anglers Song”) ! The nearly dozen references to fishing in the HB together demonstrate a level of familiarity with this practice in ancient Israel. Only upon closer review, however, do these passages reveal a much more nuanced situation. This final chapter synthesizes the discussion from the previous six chapters in order to assess the contribution that fishing makes in the HB. Material and iconographic evidence demonstrate that fishing contributed prominently within the social, religious, and economic spheres of ancient Egypt and

1 Walton and Cotton 2014, 29.

2 Ibid, 67. 244 Mesopotamia. In fact, most modern fishing methods derive from ancient Egypt. By the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, Egyptians had already developed a number of different techniques, including the use of a rod and line. Non-organic remains, such as seine sinkers and fish hooks, appear all over both places. Not surprisingly, literary records from Egypt and Mesopotamia likewise attest knowledge of a vast array of fishing instruments, as well as ichthyological species. With the Nile River functioning as Egypt’s lifeblood, seafood comprised a major component of the diet for middle and lower-class Egyptians. A similar picture maintains for Mesopotamians, who capitalized on the diverse assortment of natural and artificial fishing sources. Unlike Egyptian fishers, those in Mesopotamia acquired a high level of social respect, a feature directly related to the strong connection there between fishing and cult. The picture looked conspicuously different in the southern Levant. The fish consumed in ancient Israel was typically not locally harvested. A well-developed commerce originating in Egypt provided Israelites with the vast majority of their seafood diet. Though the biblical authors demonstrated familiarity with a number of different types of fishing implements (see ch. 1), durable objects fail to appear in the archaeological record. Moreover, practical limitations restricted Israelite participation in the fishing industry, at least up until the rise of Hellenism there. Unlike the advanced knowledge of different marine species in the literature of Mesopotamia and Egypt, the biblical texts preserve knowledge of only one. The noun dāg is the singular term devoted to all ichthyological species without qualification. This limited vocabulary with respect to the marine world contrasts with the diverse record of terrestrial and aviary fauna preserved in the biblical text. That many such rare faunal terms appear in the same place —the prophetic corpus—where most fishing metaphors occur reinforces a reality where fishing was not only marginalized, but known primarily from its practice elsewhere. The material and literary evidence converge to suggest that fishing played a minor role within ancient Israel itself during the Iron Age. Biblical scholars and archaeologists agree on this

245 point.3 But the way in which the biblical texts use fishing images reveals a much more complex scenario. Each reference to fishing or fishing paraphernalia in the HB occurs within a metaphorical or figurative context. And for metaphors to communicate effectively— particularly those which reflect practice uncommon within the particular sign-context— they must draw on a well-established or general familiarity. To this end, Egyptian influence cannot be denied. The abundance of Egyptian fish that have emerged from Israelite soil underpins as much. Yet despite the rich artifactual, visual, and literary vestiges of fishing techniques in Egypt, hardly a trace survives from one of the most common fishing implements known from both biblical and Mesopotamian sources: the cast net (e.g. rešet; mĕṣūdāh). What is more, the fishing images in the HB simply do not reflect common Egyptian literary techniques. In spite of Israel’s close proximity to an internationally influential culture with an advanced fishing industry, the origin of its own literary employment of fishing images in the texts that we have preserved derives from elsewhere. The biblical authors, for all their apparent lack of personal experience with fishing, did not incorporate their fishing metaphors haphazardly or within a vacuum. Rather, they skillfully grafted them into texts in ways complementary to those employed in Mesopotamian literature. What results is a multifaceted picture. While the potential efficacy of a given fishing metaphor required only general familiarity, the actual HB uses are anything but generalized. Instead they demonstrate nuanced appropriations from a transnational literary inventory that communicate acute warnings or assertions or promises that reveal an awareness of rhetorical function. On the one hand, ancient Israel’s economy was largely agrarian and pastoral. Only sparse fishing evidence emerges from there during the Iron Age. On the other hand, the HB incorporates fishing metaphors that reflect established literary conventions in Mesopotamian literature. The medium for this

3 For a sample representative, see Noth 1957, 130; Galling 1937, 167; Neufeld 1973, 315; Hanson 1997, 99. As Radcliffe maintains, “Israelites…bent on spoil rather than on the sport of their catch…continued this characteristic throughout their history, and remained to the end uninfected by the joy or passion of Angling. Their desire was fish…” (1921, 409). 246 literary interchange and shared imagery remains uncertain.4 But the ways the biblical authors used fishing metaphors nevertheless suggest these images originate outside Israel. How exactly then did the biblical authors use fishing images? And what are these cross-cultural connections? In nearly every biblical example, the agent(s) doing the fishing are non-Israelites. This phenomenon affirms the foreignness of fishing images in the HB, just as it helps reconcile their predominantly negative connotation. A third of these images render YHWH as the fisher (Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; 29:3; 32:2; cf. Amos 4:2; Qoh. 9:12), the invariable purpose of which is to depict divine retribution. The preceding pages have noted how Ezekiel portrays YHWH as a fisher who punishes Pharaoh via a fishing net and hook (chs. 29, 32) in order to sarcastically upend this king’s pride. In so doing, the prophet culls a standard royal epithet from Mesopotamian lore (i.e. “great dragon”) and dramatically overturns it (see ch. 4). More generally, the very notion of a deity possessing his or her own net reflects a fundamental reality in Mesopotamian thought. Each member of the Mesopotamian pantheon was equipped with a cosmic net for the express purpose of treating human insubordination (see ch. 2). The biblical authors ascribe this same capacity to YHWH. Job 40:25-32 presupposes as much in its categoric refutation of Job’s capacity to subdue Leviathan (see ch. 4). The remaining two-thirds of fishing images in the HB describe foreigners doing the fishing. In every case the outlook is ominous. Jeremiah 16:16 envisions YHWH as a fishing syndicate’s foreman—a notion that echoes the comparable role of the goddesses, Nanše in Mesopotamia and Aṯiratu in Ugarit—who instructs Babylonian fishers to catch Judahites (see ch. 2). The fuller context argues that the result of this fishing mission is exile. Amos 4:1-3 and Habakkuk 1:14-17, as well as Ezek. 12:13 and 17:20, more

4 The presence of an EG fragment found at Megiddo, as well as cuneiform evidence at Jerusalem itself, suggests that at least some Judahite scribes were familiar with Mesopotamian scribal practice. The Babylonian provenance of Ezekiel’s prophecy—where half the fishing metaphors in the HB occur— extends this argument further. For additional evidence in this regard with respect to the deluge story, see Finkel 2014. For a catalog of the cuneiform evidence in ancient Israel found up through 2006, see Horowitz and Oshima 2006. For two more recent cuneiform discoveries from Jerusalem, see Mazar et al. 2010, 4-21; idem, 2014, 129-139. The tracing of connections between Israelite scribal tradition and literary interchange with Mesopotamia is an area that could benefit from further research. 247 forcefully draw a connection between fishing and divinely appointed exile (see ch. 3). In so doing, Habakkuk and Ezekiel exemplify the process of literary recycling as they reinterpreted Amos’ earlier general prophecy in order to address the major issue of their own time: the Babylonian incursion. These images of fishing as a means to enacting divine retribution together replicate the very literary practices that proliferate within the roughly contemporary royal inscriptions of the NA period. In a striking twist, these shared images line up even down to the matter of perspective. Just as royal inscriptions portrayed the Assyrian king as a fisher, capturing enemy lands like fish at the commissioning of a deity, so the biblical prophets envisioned Israel and Judah as helpless fish, waiting to be ensnared in the net of a foreign king. In chapter five we observed how Qohelet 9:12 extends the image of a fishing net intended for humans even further. Bemoaning the inevitability and inescapability of death, Qohelet turns to the fishing net to illustrate the “evil time” each human experiences. To this end, Mesopotamian imagery once again finds a home in the HB (see 5.2). The final three fishing images in the HB designate a state rather than an action (see ch. 6). To this end, each portrays polarized realities: the best of times and the worst of times. The war oracles against both Egypt in Is. 19:5-10 and Tyre in Ezek. 26:1-14 incorporate fishing images as they envisage wholesale societal collapse for these two locales. Standing within a well-grounded Egyptian literary trope, the former describes the crippling effects of a dried up Nile. And in the latter example, fishers signal the downfall of a sturdy island fortress, whose ruins ironically benefit others. Ezekiel’s eschatological vision in 47:1-12 of a recreated Israel uniquely transforms these two depictions of desolation. This lone positive fishing image in the HB also happens to designate the only such example where Israelites fish, and it is a place

248 where Israelites could not conceivably fish at all.5 It also comports with prominent exemplars from both Sumerian (i.e. Gudea Cylinder B) and Akkadian (i.e. Marduk Prophecy). The return of the divine presence becomes the agent of change that enables such a radical vision of the future. What ensues is not a mere copying of creation themes, but rather a complete reconstruction of topographical and socio-economic norms in Judah. In this idyllic portrayal, a formidable river issues from Jerusalem, emptying into a revivified Dead Sea and perpetually healing the land along the way. Agrarian (Amos 9:13; Is. 2:4), pastoral (Is. 11:6-8), or even socio-religious (Is. 19:16-25) visions of the eschaton speak plainly to an Israelite audience. But a vision that removes seasons altogether, changes topography, and transforms a wilderness into a thriving fish market is not simply dramatic. It is foreign, incongruous, and jarring. These same three modifiers characterize the function and effect of the rest of the fishing images in the HB. Whether referring to divinely appointed exile at the hands of a foreign ruler, the inescapability of death, or a reconstituted eschaton, these images jolt the Israelite audience, forcing it to pause and contemplate the gravity of the message. But the incongruity, jarring rhetorical effect, and foreignness of each come to light only when one both evaluates these images in relation to one another and grounds them in their material and cross-cultural contexts. Within an economy dominated by the cultivation of land and the raising of livestock, as well as a culture only generally familiar with fishing from its use elsewhere, the otherness of fishing images in the HB is unsurprising. The violent fishing image effectively drew from the general to communicate the jarringly tragic and counter-cultural otherness of the specific. By recontextualizing language in a way that was consistent with Mesopotamian literary conventions, the biblical authors employed fishing imagery not to communicate about catching fish, but rather about catching humans.

5 For a similar transformative reflex of fishing imagery in the NT, see Mt. 4:19 and Mk. 1:17. Wassell and Llewelyn (2014, 627-46) cogently identify generic differences between the fishing images in the HB and those in the NT. Socio-cultural developments also contribute to this disconnect. The negative metaphorical uses in the HB derive from a time when fishing did not play a major role within the southern Levant itself, whereas the transformed meaning in the NT shows up when the Galilean milieu had turned into a major fishing market. This is evidence for foreign influence in the former. 249 ! ! ! ! Bibliography Aalders, G. C. Het boek De Prediker. Commentary op het Oude Testament. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1958a.

______. “The Fishers and the Hunters.” Evangelical Quarterly 30 (1958b) 133-39.

Aaron, David H. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery. The Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism 4. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Abegg Jr., Martin G., James E Bowley, and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. 2 Volumes. Boston: Brill, 2003.

Abusch, Tzvi. “Hunting in the Epic of Gilgamesh: Speculations on the Education of a Prince.” Pages 11-20 in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph’al. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Dan’el Kahn. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2008.

______. “Marduk.” Pages 542-49 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn et al. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Abusch, Tzvi and Daniel Schwemer. “Das Abwehrzauber-Ritual Maqlû (“Verbrennung”).” Pages 136-186 in Omina, Orakel, Rituale ind Beschwörungen. Texte aux der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, New Series 4. Edited by Annette Krüger. Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008.

Aḥituv, Shmuel. “Egypt that Isaiah Knew.” Pages 3-7 in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology. Ägypten und Altes Testament 40. Edited by Irene Shirun-Grumach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998.

Ahuis, Ferdinand. “Behemot, Leviatan und der Mensch in Hiob 38-42.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011): 72-91.

Aistleitner, Joseph. Die mythologischen und kultischen Texte aux Ras Schamra. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1964.

250 ______. Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache. 4th ed. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historisch Klasse, Bd. 106, Heft 3. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974.

______. “The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah, with Some Observations on Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 77-106.

______. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. American Oriental Series 5. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1934.

Allen, James P. “The Craft of the Scribe.” Pages 9-14 in Context of Scripture. Volume 3. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994.

______. Ezekiel 20-48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Alliot, M. “Les rites de la chase au ﬁlet, aux temples de Karnak, d’Edfou et d’Esneh.” Revue d’égyptologie 5 (1946): 57-118.

Alster, Bendt. Dumuzi’s Dream: Aspects of Oral Poetry in a Sumerian Myth. Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 1. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1972.

______. “Nanše and Her Fish.” Pages 1-18 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Edited by Yetschak Sefati, Pinhas Artzi, Chaim Cohen, Barry L. Eichler, and Victor A. Hurowitz. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005.

______. “Tiamat.” Pages 867-69 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2d ed. Edited by Karen van der Toorn et al. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Altmann, Peter. “Diet, Bronze and Iron Age.” Pages 286-96 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Bible and Archaeology. Volume 1. Edited by Daniel M. Master. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013.

Amiet, Pierre. “Le Symbolisme Cosmique du Répertoire Animalier en Mésopotamie.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 50 (1956) 113-126.

______. “Les Combats Mythologiques dans l’Art Mésopotamien du Troisième et du Début du Second Millénaires.” Revue Archéologique 42 (1953) 129-64.

251 Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Andrews, Carol ed., The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. Translated by Raymond O. Faulkner. Austin: University of Texas, 1993.

Annus, Amar and Alan Lenzi. Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts VII. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2010.

Arndt, A. et al. “Roman Trade Relationships at Sagalassos (Turkey) Elucidated by Ancient DNA of Fish Remains.” Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (2003): 1095-1105.

Arnheim, R. Visual Thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1969.

Aro, Jussi and Jean Nougayrol. “Trois Nouveaux Recueils d’Haruspicine Ancienne.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 67 (1973): 41-56.

Arter, S. Preliminary Report on the Faunal Material from Field IV 1993 Excavations at Tell Halif. Washington: Lahav Research Project, Smithsonian Institution, 1995.

Artzi, Pinḥas. “All the Nations and Many Peoples”: The Answer of Isaiah and Micah to Assyrian Imperial Policies.” Pages 41-53 in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph’al. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Dan’el Kahn. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, ! 2008. Aston, Emma. Mixanthrôpoi: Animal-human hybrid deities in Greek Religion. Liège: Centre International d’Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique, 2011.

Ataç, Mehmet-Ali. The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010.

Atkinson, K. M. T. “The Historical Setting of the Habakkuk Commentary.” Journal of Semitic Studies 4 (1959): 238-63.

Attridge, Harold W. and Robert A. Oden. Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 9. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. 252

Backaus, Franz Josef. ‘Denn Zeit und Zufall trifft sie alle’: Studien zur Komposition und zum Gottesbild im Buch Qohelet. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 83. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1993.

Bakon, Shimon. “Zedekiah: Last King of Judah.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 36 (2008): 93-101.

Balentine, Samuel E. “‘What are Human Beings, That You Make So Much of Them?’ Divine Disclosure from the Whirlwind: ‘Look at Behemoth.’” Pages 259-78 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Balogh, Csaba. The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18-19 concerning Egypt and Kush. Oudtestamentische Studiën 60. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Barguet, Paul. La Stèle de la Famine, À Séhel. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1953.

Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Hildescheim: G. Olms, 1965.

Barnett, R. D. and M. Falkner, The Sculptures of…Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B. C.)… from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud. London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1962.

Barr, J. “Philo of Byblos and His ‘Phoenician History.’” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 57 (1974-5): 17-68.

Barstad, Hans M. “Die Basankühe in Amos IV 1.” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 286-97.

Barta, Winfried. “Das Gespräch des Ipuwer mit dem Schöpfergott.” Studien zur ! altägyptischen Kultur 1 (1974): 19-33. Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Volume III. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.

Barton, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. Edinburgh, 1912 (=1980).

Barton, John. “Intertextuality and the ‘Final Form’ of the Text.” Pages 33-37 in Congress Volume, Oslo 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

253 ______. Isaiah 1-39. Shefﬁeld: Shefﬁeld Academic, 1995.

Basmachi, F. “An Akkadian Stela.” Sumer 10 (1954) 116-19.

Bates, Oric. “Ancient Egyptian Fishing.” Harvard African Studies 1 (1917): 199-271.

Bauer, J. “Die vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte.” Pages 431-585 in Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und frühdynastische Zeit. Edited by P. Attinger and M. Wäﬂer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

Baumgarten, Albert I. The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 89. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Beckman, Gary M. “The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 14 (1982): 11-25.

Beech, Mark J. In the Land of the Ichthyophagi: Modelling Fish Exploitation in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman from the 5th Millennium BC to the Late Islamic Period. Abu Dhabi Islands Archaeological Survey 1. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004.

Beentjes, Panc C. “What a Lioness was Your Mother: Reﬂections on Ezekiel 19.” Pages 21-35 in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Speciﬁc and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes. Edited by Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra. New York: Brill, 1996.

Beer, G. “Iob.” Pages 1105-54 in Biblica hebraica. Edited by R. Kittel. 3d ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1913.

______. “Textual notes to Job in Biblia hebraica.” Pages 1062-1112 in Biblia Hebraica. 2d ed. Edited by R. Kittel. Stuttgart: Württemburgische Bibelanstalt, 1909.

______. “Textual notes to Job in Biblia hebraica.” Pages 1105-54 in Biblia Hebraica. 3d ed. Edited by Paul Kahle. Stuttgart: Württemburgische Bibelanstalt, 1937.

Begg, Christopher T. “The Identity of the Princes in Ezekiel 19. Some Reﬂections.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses LXV (1989) 358-69.

______. “The Reading in Ezekiel 19, 7a: A Proposal.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 65 (1989) 370-80.

254 Bekker-Nielsen, Tønnes. “The Technology and Productivity of Ancient Sea Fishing.” Pages 83-95 in Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region. Black Sea Studies 2. Edited by T. Bekker-Nielsen. Oakville, CT: Aarhus University, 2005.

Ben-Asher, Mordechai. “The gender of nouns in Biblical Hebrew.” Semitics 6 (1978) 1-14.

Ben-Shlomo, David. Philistine Iconography. A Wealth of Style and Symbolism. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.

Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series 9. Edited by David M. Gunn. Shefﬁeld: The Almond Press, 1983.

Betz, Hans Dieter. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1986.

Bezuidenhout, Louis C. “Die rivier van die lewe in Esegiël 47—Motief, mite en metafoor”. Hervormde theologies studies 55 (1999): 587-600.

Bienkowski, Piotr. “Fishing.” Pages 117-18 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski and Alan Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2010.

Binger, Tilde. “Fighting the Dragon.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6 (1992): 139-49.

Black, Jeremy. “Babylonian Ballads: A New Genre.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 25-34.

______. “The Imagery of Birds in Sumerian Poetry.” Pages 23-46 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian. Cuneiform Monographs 6. Edited by M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Groningen: Styx, 1996.

______. Reading Sumerian Poetry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1998.

Black, Jeremy and A. Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas, 1992.

Black, Jeremy, Andrew George and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000.

255 Black, Max. “More About Metaphor.” Pages 19-41 in Metaphor and Thought. 2d ed. Edited by Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993.

______. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1962.

Blackman, A. M. The Rock Tombs of Meir I. London: Sold at the ofﬁces of the Egypt exploration fund, 1914.

Bleakley, Alan. The Animalizing Imagination: Totemism, Textuality and Ecocriticism. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1-39. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

______. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

______. “Transformations of Royal Ideology in Ezekiel” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, eds., 208-248. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010.

Blot, Jacques and Henri de Contenson. “Les vertèbres de poisson de Ras Shamra.” Pages 207-09 in Préhistoire de Ras Shamra: Les Sondages Stratigraphiques de 1955 à 1976. Volume 1. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 8. Edited by Henri de Contenson. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilizations, 1992.

Blumenthal, Elke. “Die Prophezeiung des Neferti.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 109 (1982): 1-27

Boadt, Lawrence. Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29-32. Biblical et Orientalia 37. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.

Bochart, Samuel. Hierozoicon, sive, bipartitum opus De animalibus Sacrae Scripturae. 2 Volumes. London: Thomas Roycroft, 1663.

Bodenheimer, F. S. Animal and Man in Bible Lands. 2 Volumes. Collection de Travaux de ! l’Académie Internationale d’Historie des Sciences. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Bodi, Daniel. “Les Apocalypses Akkadiennes et Biblique: Quelques Points Communs.” Revue des études Juives 169 (2010) 13-36.

256 ______. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 104. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.

Boessneck, Joachim. “Tierknochenfunde aus Nippur.” Pages 153-87 in Excavations at Nippur, Twelfth Season. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 23. Edited by M. Gibson et al. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1978.

Boessneck, Joachim, Angela von den Driesch and Ulrich Steger. “Tierknochenfunde der Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Baghdad in Uruk-Warka, Iraq.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 15 (1984): 149-89.

Bonneau, Danielle. La crue du Nil; divinité égyptienne à travers ans d’histoire, 332 av.-641 ap. J.-C., d’après les auteurs grecs et latins, et les documents des époques ptolémaïque, romaine et byzantine. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1964.

Booth, Wayne C. “Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation.” Pages 47-70 in On Metaphor. Edited by S. Sacks. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979.

Borgeaud, Philippe. “L’Animal Comme Opérateur Symbolique,” P. Borgeaud, Y. Christe and I. Urio, eds.) L’Animal, L’Homme, Le Dieu Dans Le Proche-Orient Ancien: actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1981 (Leuven: Peeters, 1984) 13-19.

Borger, Rykle. Beiträge sum Inschiftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J, und T sowie anders Inschriften. Mit einem Beitrag von Andreas Fuchs. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996.

______. “Das dritte “Haus” der Serie bīt rimki (VR 50-51, Schollmeyer HGŠ NR. ! 1).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21 (1967): 1-17. ______. “Gott Marduk ind Gott-König Šulgi ale Propheten.” Bibliotecha Orientalis 28 (1971): 3-24.

Borowski, Oded. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira, 1998.

Bottéro, Jean. “Lettres de Mukannišum.” Pages 15-43 in Textes Divers. Edited by G. Dossin et al. Archives Royales de Mari 13. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1964.

Pages 132-39 in The Theological Dictionary of the Old ”.דג“ .Botterweck, G. Johannes Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Volume 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

257 Bowman, Raymond A. “An Aramaic Journal Page.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 58 (1941): 302-13.

Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt. Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. 4 Volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1906.

Brettler, Marc Zvi. God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76. Shefﬁeld: Shefﬁeld Academic Press, 1989.

Brewer, Douglas J. Fishermen, Hunters and Herders: Zooarchaeology in the Fayum, Egypt (ca. 8200-5000 bp). BAR International Series 478. Great Britain: B. A. R., 1989.

Brewer, Douglas J. and Renée F. Friedman. Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989.

Brier, B. and M. V. L. Bennett. “Autopsies on Fish Mummies: Possible Identiﬁcation of the Classical Phagrus.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 65 (1979): 128-33.

Brooke, George J. “4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:11.” Pages 253-65 in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christenum. Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 97. Edited by Bernd Kollmann, Wolfgang Reinbold ind Annette Steudel. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.

Bright, John. Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.

Brownlee, W. H. “Two Elegies on the Fall of Judah (Ezekiel 19).” Pages 93-103 in Ex Orbe Religionum. Studia Geo Widengren, XXIV mense apr. MCMLXII quo die lustra tredecim feliciter explevit oblata ab collegis, discipulis, amicis, collegae magistro amico congratulantibus. Volume 1. Studies in the Histories of Religions 21-22. Edited by C. J. Bleeker, S. G. F. Brandon, and M. Simon. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Buccellati, G. “Le Beatitudini sullo sfondo della tradizione sapienziale mesopotamica,” Bibbia e Oriente 14 (1972): 241-64.

Buchholz, Hans-Günter. “A Mycenaean Fish Krater from Akko.” Pages 41-55 in Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe Dothan. Edited by Michael Helzter, Arthur Segal, and Daniel Kaufman. Haifa: Haifa University, 1993.

258 Budde, Karl. Das Buch Hiob: übersetzt und erklärt. 2d ed. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 2/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913.

Budge, E. A. Wallis. Facsimiles of Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Second Series. London: Trustees of the British Museum 1923.

Bultmann, Christoph. “Friedensvisionen im Alten Testament und für Leser des Alten Testaments.” Pages 159-80 in Religion, Gewalt, Gewaltlosigkeit: Probleme, Positionen, Perspektiven. Edited by Christoph Bultmann, Benedikt Kranemann, and Jörg Rüpke. Münster: Aschendorff, 2003.

Bunimovitz, Shlomo and Zvi Ledermen. “A Unique Philistine Fish Motif from Tel Beth- Shemesh.” Israel Exploration Journal 58 (2010): 58-71.

Burkes, Shannon. Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 170. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.

Butz, Kilian. “Fischabgabe und Feldabgabe in Fischen und Vögeln an den Nanna-Tempel in Ur in altbabylonischer Zeit? Ein Versuch.” Archiv für Orientforschung 26 (1978/1979): 30-44.

Buzy, D. “L’Ecclésiaste.” Pages 189-280 in La Sainte Bible. Volume 6. Edited by L. Pirot and A. Clamer. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1946.

Cagni, L. C. L’epopea di Erra. Studi semitici 34. Rome: Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente dell’Universita, 1969.

______. Das Erra-Epos Keilschrifttext. Studia Pohl Dissertationes Scientiﬁcae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 5. Rome: Pontiﬁcium Institutum Biblicum, 1970.

Calderone, P. J. “The Rivers of ‘Maṣor.’” Biblica 42 (1961): 423-32.

Calice, F. Grundlagen der ägyptisch-semitischen wortvergleichung, eine kritische diskussion des bisherigen vergleichsmaterials. Beihefte zur Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 1. Vienna: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen institutes der Universität, 1936.

Cannon, W. W. “The Integrity of Habakkuk cc. 1. 2.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 2 (1925) 62-90.

Caquot, A. “Le Léviathan de Job 40, 25-41, 26.” Revue Biblique 89 (1992): 40-69.

259 Caquot, A. and M. Sznycer. Textes ougaritiques I: Mythes et légendes. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974.

!Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1986. Cassuto, U. Biblical and Oriental Studies. Volume 2: Bible and Ancient Oriental Texts. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975.

Cathcart, Kevin J. “A New Proposal for Hab 1,17.” Biblica 65 (1984) 575-76.

______. “‘Law is Paralysed' (Habakkuk 1.4): Habakkuk’s Dialogue with God and the Language of Legal Disputation” in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, 339-53. New York: T & T Clark, 2010.

______. “The trees, the beasts and the birds: fables, parables and allegories in the Old Testament.” Pages 212-22 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995.

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.

Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. London: SCM, 1986.

Cavigneaux, A. and F. N. H. Al-rawi. “Charmes de Sippar et de Nippur.” Pages 73-89 in Cinquante-Deux Reﬂexions sur le Proche-Orient Ancien: Offertes en homage à Léon De Meyer. Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 2. Edited by H. Gasche et al. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.

Charlesworth, James H. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.

Charpentier, V. “Archaeology of the Erythraean Sea: Craft, Specialization and Resources Optimization as Part of the Coastal Economy on the Eastern Coastlands of Oman During the 4th and 3rd millennia BC.” Pages 181-92 in The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania. Series Colloquia 16. Edited by G. Afanas’ev, S. Cleuziou, J. Lukacs, and M. Tosi. Forli: ABACO, 1996.

Charpentier, V., B. Olivier, and M. Tosi. “Un Village de pêcheurs néolithiques de la péninsule d’Oman: Suwayh 2 (SWY-2), première campagne de fouille.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28 (1998): 21-38.

260 Charpentier, V. and S. Méry. “A Neolithic settlement near the Strait of Hormuz: Akab Island, United Arab Emirates.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38 (2008): 117–136.

Charpin, Dominique. “Économie, société et institutions Paléo-Babyloniennes: Nouvelles sources, novellas approches.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 101 (2007): 147-82.

______. “‘I am the Sun of Babylon’: Solar Aspects of Royal Power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia.” Pages 65-96 in Experiencing Power, Generating Authority. Edited by Jane A. Hill, Philip Jones, and Antonio J. Morales. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2013.

______. Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi. Hautes études orientales 22. Paris: Libraire Droz, 1986.

Cheyne, T. K. Job and Solomon. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1887.

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987.

Cho, Sang Youl. Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the Hebrew Bible. Deities and Angels of the Ancient World 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007.

______. “The Divine Title “Fisherman” In Jeremiah 16:16.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 35/1 (2009) 97-105.

Cinquante-deux Réﬂexions sur le Proche-Orient Ancien offertes en homage à Leon De Meyer. Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 2. Ghent, 1994.

Civil, M. “The Home of the Fish. A New Sumerian Literary Composition.” Iraq 23 (1961): 154-75.

Clay, Albert T. Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1923.

Cleaver-Bartholomew, David. “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk.” Ph.D. diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1998.

Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1-39. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. 261

Clifford, R. J. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monographs Series 26. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994.

______. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Harvard Semitic Monographs 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Clines, David J. A. Job 38-42. Word Biblical Commentary 18B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011.

Cogan, Mordechai. Imperialism and Religion : Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974.

Cohen, Harold R. Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 37. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978.

Cohen, Mark. The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. Vol. 1. Potomac, MD: Capital Decisions Limited, 1988.

Cohen, Matatyahu. “On Behemoth and Leviathan in Job 40:15, 24.” Beit Mikra 158 (1999): 193-208.

Cohen, Ted. “Metaphor, Feeling, and Narrative,” Philosophy and Literature 21 (1997): 223-44.

Coleman, Shalom. “The Dialogue of Habakkuk in Rabbinic Doctrine.” Abr-Nahrain 5 (1964-65): 57-85.

Collins, Billie Jean, ed. A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East. Handbok of Oriental Studies 64. Boston: Brill, 2002.

Collon, Dominique. “Les Animaux Attributs Des Divinités Du Proche-Orient Ancien: Problèmes D’Iconographie.” Pages 83-85 in L’Animal, L’Homme, Le Dieu Dans Le Proche-Orient Ancien: actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1981. Edited by P. Borgeaud, Y. Christe and I. Urio. Leuven: Peeters, 1984.

Contini, Riccardo and Simonetta Graziani. “Fāle.” Pages 131-47 in Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 2. Edited by Giovanni B. Lanfranchi et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.

262 Cook, Albert. Homer, The Odyssey: A Verse Translation, Backgrounds, Criticism. 2d ed. A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993.

Cooke, G. A. The Book of Ezekiel. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936.

Cooper, Jerrold S. Curse of Agade Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.

______. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur: an-gum dím-ma. Analecta Orientalia ! 52. Rome: Pontiﬁcium Institutum Biblicum, 1978. Cornelius, I. “Anat and Qudshu as the ‘Mistress of Animals’: Aspects of the Iconography of the Canaanite Goddess.” Studi Epigraﬁci e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 10 (1993): 21-45.

______. “Paradise motifs in the ‘eschatology’ of the Minor Prophets and the iconography of the Ancient Near East. The concepts of fertility, water, trees and ‘Tierfrieden’ in Gen 2-3.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 14 (1988): 41-83.

Cornill, D. Carl Heinrich. Das Buch Jeremia. Leipzig: Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz, 1905.

Corral, Martin Alonso. Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations. Biblica et Orientalia 46. Rome: Editrice Pontiﬁco Istituto Biblico, 2002.

Cox, S. Book of Job. London: C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1880.

Craghan, John F. “Mari and Its Prophets. The Contributions of Mari to the Understanding of Biblical Prophecy.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 5 (1975): 32-55.

______. “The ARM X ‘Prophetic’ Texts: Their Media, Style, and Structure.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 6 (1974): 39-57.

Cramer, K. Amos. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930.

Crenshaw, James L. Ecclesiastes. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.

______. Joel. The Anchor Bible 24c. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

______. Reading Job: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011.

263 ______. “The Shadow of Death in Qoheleth.” Pages 205-16 in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien. Edited by John G. Gammie et al. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978.

Cripps, R. S. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos. 3d. ed. London: S. P. C. K., 1960.

Cros, G. Nouvelles fouilles de Tello, publiées aver le concours de: Léon Heuzey, François Thureau-Dangin. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1910.

Croughs, Mirjam. “Intertextuality in the Septuagint: The Case of Isaiah 19.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 34 (2001): 81-94.

Cross, Frank Moore. “A Recently Published Phoenician Inscription of the Persian Period from Byblos.” Israel Exporation Journal [1979]: 40-44.

______. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973.

Cunchillos, J. -L. Cuando los ángeles eran dioses. Biblioteca Salmanticensis 14. Salamanca: Universidad Pontiﬁcia, 1976.

Currid, J. D. Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms III, 101-150. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970.

______. “The Minor Prophets and Ebla.” Pages 47-67 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth.” Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

D’Alario, V. “Liberté de Dieu ou destine? Un autre dilemma dans l’interprétation du Qohélet.” Pages 457-63 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum 136. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Dalley, Stephanie. Old Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum mainly from Larsa, Sippir, Kish, and Lagaba. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 15. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.

Dalman, Gustaf. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Volume 6. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964.

264 Dandamayev, M. A. “Die Fischerei in neubabylonischen Texten des 6. ind 5. Jahrhunderts v. u. Zeit.” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte 4 (1981) 67-82.

Danelius, Eva and Heinz Steinitz. “The Fishes and Other Aquatic Animals on the Punt- Relief’s at Deir el-Baḥri.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53 (1967) 15-24.

Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.

Darby, William J., Paul Chalioungui and Louis Grivetti. Food: The Gift of Osiris. Vol I. New York: Academic, 1977.

Da Riva, Rocio. “The Nebuchadnezzar Inscription in Nahr el-Kalb.” Pages 255-302 in Le Site du Nahr el-Kalb. Edited by Anne-Marie Afeiche. Bulletin d’Archeologie et d’Architecture Libanaises (BAAL) Hors Serie 5. Beirut: Ministry of Culture, Republic of Lebanon, 2009.

Darnell, John C. “A Midsummer Night’s Succubus—The Herdsman’s Encounters in P. Berlin 3024, the Pleasures of Fishing and Fowling, the Songs of the Drinking Place, and the Ancient Egyptian Love Poetry.” Pages 99-140 in Opening the Tablet Box: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster. Edited by Sarah C. Melville and Alice L. Slotsky. Boston: Brill, 2010.

Daumas, F. “Fischer und Fischerei.” Pages 234-42 in Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by W. Helck and E. Otto. Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1977.

Davies, Norman de Garis. The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrâwi. Part II.-Tomb of Zau and Tombs of the Northern Group. 2 volumes. Boston: Sold at the ofﬁces of the Egypt exploration fund [etc.], 1902.

______. The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes. New York, 1922.

Day, John. God’s Conﬂict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985.

______. “Inner-biblical Interpretation in the Prophets.” Pages 230-246 in “This Place Is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite prophets in Recent Scholarhsip.” Sources for Biblical Theology and Study 5. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

Deimel, P. Anton. Šumerische Tempelwirtschaft zur Zeit Urukaginas ind Seiner Vorgänger. Rome: Pontiﬁcio Istituto Biblico, 1931.

265 Deist, F. E. “The Punishment of the Disobedient Zedekiah.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 1 (1971): 71-2.

Delitzsch, Franz J. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Francis Bolton. 2 volumes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1866 (5th reprinting, 1968).

______. Ecclesiastes. Translated by M. G. Easton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 (German original: Hoheslied und Kohelet [Leipzig: Dorfﬂing & Franke, 1875]).

Delougaz, Pinhas. The Temple Oval at Khafājah. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1940.

Dhorme, E. Le livre de Job. Paris: Gabalda, 1926.

Dhorme, P. “Le séjour des Morts chez les Babyloniens et les Hébreux.” Revue Biblique 4 (1907): 59-78.

Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. Mythen und Epen in ugaritischer Sprache. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 3/6. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1997.

______. “Baal, Leviathan und der siebenköpﬁge Drache Slyt in der Rede des Todesgottes Môt (KTU 1.5 I 1-8 parallel 27a-31).” Aula Orientalis 17-18 (1999-2000): 55-80.

Di Pede, Elena and Claude Lichtert. “Figures de la ﬁn des temps chez Ézechiel: Nouvelle création ou recherche du paradis perdu?” Pages 317-29 in Les Prophètes de la Bible et la Fin des Temps. XXIIIe congres de l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible (Lille, 24-27 août 2009). Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2010.

Pages 560-88 in The Theological Dictionary of the Old ”.רעע“ .Dohmen, C. and D. Rick Testament. Volume 13. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Dölger, Franz Joseph. Ichthys: Das Fisch-symbol in frühchristlicher Zeit, ichthys als Kürzung der Namen Jesu Iēsous Christos Theou Uios Sōtēr. 5 Volumes. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910-43.

Dombradi, E. Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozeßurkunden. 2 Volumes. Freiburger Altorientalishe Studien 20/1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996.

266 Dossin, Georges. “A propos du nom des Benjaminites dans les “Archives de Mari.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 52 (1959): 60-62.

______. “Benjaminites dans les texts de Mari” in Mélanges Syriens offerts à R. Dussaud, 981-99. Vol. 2. Paris: P. Guethner, 1939.

______. Correspondance féminine: Transcrite et traduite. Archives Royales de Mari 10. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1978.

______. La correspondance féminine. Archives Royales de Mari 10. Textes Cunéiformes 31. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1967.

______. “Une Révélation du Dieu Dagan a Terqa.” Revue d’Assyriologie 42 (1948): 125-34.

Dossin, G. et al. Textes divers. Archives Royales de Mari 13. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1964.

Dothan, Trude. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1982.

Dothan, Trude and A. Zukerman. “A Preliminary Study of the Myecenaean IIIC:1 Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 333 (2004): 1-54.

Dothan, Trude and D. Ben-Shlomo. Ashdod VI. The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968-1969). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2005.

Dothan, Trude, S. Gitin, and A. Zukerman. “The Pottery: Canaanite and Philistine Traditions and Cypriote and Aegean Imports.” Pages 71-175 in Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995-1996. Field INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period). Edited by M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan, and S. Gitin. Jerusalem: W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.

Drijvers, H. J. W. “Atargatis.” Pages 114-16 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2d ed. Edited by Karen van der Toorn et al. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Driver, G. R. “Babylonian and Hebrew Notes.” Die Welt des Orients 2 (1954) 19-26.

______. “Difﬁcult Words in the Hebrew Prophets.” Pages 52-72 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957.

267 ______. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel.” Biblica 19 [1938]: 175-87.

Driver, G. R. and John C. Miles. The Babylonian Laws. 2 Volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Duhm, D. Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.

______. Das Buch Jeremia. Tübingen: J C. B. Mohr, 1901.

Durand, Jean-Marie. Archives Épistolaires de Mari. Archives Royales de Mari XXVI. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988.

Durlesser, James Arthur. The Metaphorical Narratives in the Book of Ezekiel. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2006.

______. “The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel.” Ph.D. ! diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1988. Ebeling, E. Die akkadische Gebetsserie “Handerhebung.” Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1953.

______. “Fisch.” Pages 66-7 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971.

______. “Fischen.” Page 68 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971.

______. “Fischer(ei) (nachsargonisch).” Pages 69-70 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971.

Ebeling, E., B. Meissner, and E. F. Weidner. Die Inschriften der Altassyrischen Könige. Altorientalische Bibliothek 1. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1926.

Eco, Umberto. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1984.

Edelstein, G. and S. Aurant. “The ‘Philistine’ Tomb at Tell ‘Eitun.” ‘Atiqot 21 (1992): 23-41.

Edzard, Dietz Otto. “Art. Kaldu (Chaldäer)” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5 (1980): 291-97.

268 ______. Gudea and His Dynasty. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 3/1. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1997.

Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. 7 Volumes. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908-1914.

Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Translated by Cosslett Quin. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.

Eide, T., T. Hägg, R. H. Pierce, and L. Török, eds. Fontes Historiae Nuborium: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD. Volume 1. Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1994.

Eisler, R. “Diktys von Byblos ind die Zwiebeln.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 12 (1936): 721-26.

Eissfeldt, O. Taautos und Sanchunjaton. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1952.

Eitan, Israel. “An Egyptian Loan Word in Is. 19.” Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1925): 419-20.

,Jerusalem: Mosad Bi’alik .קשרי כלכלה בין ארצות המקרא׃ בימי בית ראשון .Elat, Moshe 1977.

Eliade, Mircea. Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism. Translated by Philip Mairet. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.

______. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Bollingen Series 76. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Ellermeier, Friedrich. Prophetie in Mari und Israel. Theologische und orientalische Arbeiten aus Göttingen 1. Nörten-Hardenberg bei Göttingen: Selbstverlag Dr. Friedrich Ellermeier, 1977.

______. Qohelet, I/1: Untersuchungen zum Buche Qohelet. Herzberg: Jungfer, 1967.

Elliger, Karl. Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1953.

Elster, E. Commentar über den Prediger Salomo. Göttingen: Dieterichschen, 1855.

269 Emerton, J. A. “Leviathan and ltn: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon.” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 327-331.

Englund, Robert K. Die Fischerei im archaischen Uruk. M.A. Thesis, Munich, 1984.

______. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1990.

______. “Texts from the Late Uruk Period.” Pages 15-233 in Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und frühdynastische Zeit. Edited by P. Attinger and M. Wäﬂer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

______. “Worcester Slaughterhouse Account.” Cuneiform Digital Library 2003/1: §18.

Enns, Peter. Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Erman, Adolf and Hermann Grapow. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache: Im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien. 6 volumes. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1950-55.

Erman, Adolf and Hermann Ranke. Äegypten und äegyptisches leben im altertum. Tübingen: Mohr, 1923.

Eshel, Hanan. “The Two Historical Layers Attested in Pesher Habakkuk.” Zion 71 (2006) 143-52.

Falkenstein, A. “Sumerische Beschwörungen aus Boğazköy.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 45 (1939): 6-41.

Farber, W. “Atti Ištar ša harmaša Dumuzi: Beschwörungsrituale an Ištar Ištar und Dumuzi.” Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen, 1974.

______. “Zur älteren akkadischen Beschwörungsliteratur.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 71 (1981): 51-72.

Faulkner, R. O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Printed for the Grifﬁth Institute at the University Press, 1964.

______. The Ancient Egyptian Cofﬁn Texts. Volume 1. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd., 1973.

Faust, Avraham. Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance. Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2006. 270 Fecht, G. Der Vorwurf an Gott in den “Mahnworten des Ipu-wer.” Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1972.

Feldt, Laura. “Fishy Monsters: Updating the Iconographic References of V. Scheil ‘La Déesse Nina et Ses Poissons.” Pages 116-26 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Edited by Yetschak Sefati, et al. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005.

Ferré, Frederick. “Metaphors, Models, and Religion.” Soundings 51 (1968): 327-345.

Feucht, E. “Fishing and Fowling with the Spear and the Throw-stick Reconsidered” in The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Studies Presented to Lászlo Kákosy by Friends and Colleagues on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Studia Aegyptiaca 14 (Budapest: La chaire d’Egyptiologie, 1992) 157-169.

Finet, André. “Citations littéraires dans la correspondence de Mari.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 68 (1974): 35-47.

Finkel, I. “Raining Fish,” Nouvelles Assyriologique Brèves et Utilitaires (2002): 19.

______. The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. New York: Doubleday, 2014.

Firmage, E. “Zoology.” Pages 1146-156 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Volume 6. NewYork: Doubleday, 1992.

Fishbane, Michael. “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” Pages 39-44 in Congress Volume, Oslo 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Fischer, A. A. Skepsis oder Furcht Gottes? Studien zur Komposition und Theologie des Buches Kohelet. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 247. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.

Fishelov, David. “The Prophet as Satirist.” Prooftexts 9 (1989): 203-04.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. Biblica et Orientalia 19. Rome: Pontiﬁcal Biblical Institute, 1967.

Fohrer, Georg. Ezechiel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Tübingen: Verlag J. C. B. Mohr, 1955.

Foreman, Benjamin A. Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of ! Jeremiah. Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. 271 Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3d ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005.

Foster, John L. “Hymn to the Inundation”: Four Hieratic Ostraca.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973): 301-10.

Forti, Tova L. Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Fox, Charles Elliot. The Threshold of the Paciﬁc. New York: Arno, 1977.

Fox, Michael V. A Time To Tear Down and a Time To Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

______. “Behemoth and Leviathan.” Biblica 93 (2012): 261-67.

______. Ecclesiastes. The JPS Bible Commentary Series. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004.

______. “The Inner Structure of Qohelet’s Thought.” Pages 225-38 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum 136. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Foxvog, D., W. Heimpel, and A. Kilmer. “Lamma/Lamassu. Pages 446-53 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 6. Edited by Dietz- Otto Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1983.

Frankena, R. Kanttekeningen van een Assyrioloog bij Ezechiël. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Frankfort, H. Sculptures of the Third Millennium B.C. From Tell Asmar and Khafájah. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications XLIV. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939.

______. Stratiﬁed Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1955.

Frayne, Douglas. Presargonic period (2700-2350 BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods. Volume 1. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2008.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Freedy, K. S. and D. B. Redford. “The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 462-85. 272 Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2002.

Friebel, Kelvin. “Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Their Meaning and Function as Nonverbal Communication and Rhetoric.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1989.

Frymer, Tikva Simone. “The Nungal-Hymn and the Ekur-Prison.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 20/1 (1977): 78-89.

Fuchs, Andreas. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994.

Fyall, Robert S. Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job. New Studies in Biblical Theology 12. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002.

Fuchs, Andreas. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994.

Gadd, C. J. “Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud.” Iraq 16 (1954): 173-201.

Galili, Ehud and Baruch Rosen. “Fishing Gear From a 7th-Century Shipwreck off Dor, Israel.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37 (2008): 67-76.

Galili, Ehud, Baruch Rosen, and Jacob Sharvit. “Fishing-gear Sinkers Recovered From an Underwater Wreckage Site, Off the Carmen Coast, Israel.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 31 (2002): 182-201.

Gallant, T. W. A Fisherman’s Tale. The Museum of Classical Archaeology. Gent, Belgium: C. G. B. G., 1985.

Galling, Kurt. Biblisches Reallexikon. Handbuch zum alten Testament I. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1937.

______. Der Prediger: Die Fünf Migilloth. Tübingen: J. C. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1969.

Gamer-Wallert, Ingrid. Fische und Fischkulte im Alten Ägypten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970.

______. “Fische, profane.” Pages 224-28 in Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Volume 2. Edited by W. Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1977.

______. “Fische, religiös.” Pages 228-34 in Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Volume 2. Edited by W. Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1977.

273 Gammie, John G. “Behemoth and Leviathan: On the Didactic and Theological Signiﬁcance of Job 40:15-41:26.” Pages 217-31 in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien. Edited by John G. Gammie, et al. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978.

.Edited by D. Fränkel. Jerusalem: S. A .קהלת עם פירוש רבינו סעדיה גאון .Ga’on, Sa‘adya Wertheimer, 1968 (= M.-Sziget 1903).

Gardiner, Alan H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. London: Oxford University, 1947.

______. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden (Pap. Leiden 344 Recto). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1909.

Garﬁnkel, Stephen Paul. “Studies in Akkadian Inﬂuences in the Book of Ezekiel.” Ph.D. diss., University of Columbia, 1983.

Gaster, T. H. Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East. New York: Norton, 1977.

Gates, Marie-Henriette Carre. “Casting Tiamat Into Another Sphere: Sources For the ‘Ain Samiya Goblet.” Levant 18 (1986): 75-81.

Gegenwart, Geduetete. “Ezechiel 26, Sacharja 9 ind der Eroberungszug Alexanders des Grossen.” Pages 77-84 in “My Spirt at Rest in the North Country (Zechariah 6:8)”: Collected Communications to the XXth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. Helsinki: Peter Lang, 2010.

Geiger, Gregor. “Mygd (QIsaa 15:11) Fischer.” Revue de Qumran 24 (2010): 453-56.

Gelb, I. J. “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973): 70-98.

George, A. R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University, 2003.

Gese, Hartmut. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40-48): Traditionsgeschichtlich Untersucht. Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie 25. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1957.

Gese, Hartmut, Maria Höfner, and Kurt Rudolph. Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer. Die Religionen der Menschheit 10/2. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1970.

274 Gesenius, W. and F. Buhl, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 17th ed. Leipzig: Vogel, 1915.

Geyer, J. B. “Twisting Tiamat’s Tail: A Mythological Interpretation of Isaiah XVIII 5 and 8.” Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987): 164-179.

Gibson, J. C. L. “A New Look at Job 41.1-4 (English 41.9-12).” Pages 129-39 in Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson. Edited by Robert P. Carroll. Shefﬁeld, JSOT Press, 1992.

______. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978.

Giesebrecht, F. Das Buch Jeremia. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907.

Gilbert, M. “Qohelet et Ben Sira.” Pages 161-179 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum 136. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Gill, W. Wyatt. Life in the Southern Isles. London: Religious Tract Society, 1876.

______. Myths and Songs from the South Paciﬁc. New York: Arno, 1977.

Ginsberg, H. L. “Baal’s Two Messengers.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 95 (1944): 25-30.

.Tel Aviv: M. Nyuman, 1961 .(פרוש חדש לתורה נביאים וכתובים) קהלת .______

______. “Two Religious Borrowings in Ugaritic Literature, II. The God Ptah in Ugaritic Mythology?” Orientalia 9 (1940): 39-44.

Glaser, Ida. “Teaching the Old Testament in the Context of Islam.” Pages 131-43 in Make the Old Testament Live: From Curriculum to Classroom. Edited by R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Glenn, D. R. “Mankind’s Ignorance. Ecclesiastes 8:1-10:11.” Pages 321-29 in Reﬂecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes. Edited by R. B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Glueck, Nelson and W. F. Albright. “The First Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion- geber).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 71 (1938): 3-18.

275 Goldman, M. D. “Lexicographical Nots on Exegesis.” Australian Biblical Review 2 (1952): 50.

Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1968.

Gordis, R. “Job XL 29: An Additional Note.” Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964): 491-94.

______. Koheleth—The Man and His World. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 19. New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1955.

______. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies. Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, Moreshet 2. New York City: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978.

Gordon, C. H. “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil.” Pages 1-9 in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1966.

______. Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit. Berytus: American University of Beirut, 1977.

______. Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontiﬁco Instituto Biblico, 1965.

Gordon, E. I. “Of Foxes and Princes: The Neck-Stock in the Newly Discovered Agade Period Stele.” Sumer 12 (1956): 80-84.

Götze, Albrecht. Ḫattušiliš: Der Bericht über seine Thronbesteigung nest den Paralleltexten. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.

Grafman, R. “Bringing Tiamat to Earth.” Israel Exploration Journal 22 (1972): 47-9.

Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 1- XXXIX. Volume 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

Gray, John. The Book of Job: A Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921.

Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

276 ______. Assyrian Rulers of the Early Third and Second Millennia BC (To 1115 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Volume 1. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1987.

______. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Volume 2. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1991.

______. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Volume 3. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1996.

Grayson, A. Kirk and Jamie Novotny. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), Part 2. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period ! 3/2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Grayson, A. K. and W. G. Lambert. “Akkadian Prophecies.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 18 (1964): 7-30.

Green, Anthony. “A Note on the Assyrian ‘Goat-Fish’, ‘Fish-Man’ and ‘Fish-Woman.’” Iraq 48 (1986): 25-30.

______. “Mischwesen B. Archäologie. Mesopotamien.” Pages 246-64 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 8. Edited by Dietz-Otto Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.

Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1-20. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983a.

______. “Ezekiel 17: A Holistic Interpretation.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983b): 149-54.

______. Ezekiel 21-37. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

______. “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 181-208.

Greenstein, Edward L. “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic.” MAARAV 3/2 (1982): 195-216.

Grégoire-Groneberg, B. “Abriss eines thematischen Vergleichs zwischen CT 15,5-6 und CTA 24 = UT 77. Ugarit Forschungen 6 (1974): 65-58.

Grelot, P. “Jean VII, 38: Eau du rocher ou source du temple?” Revue biblique 70 (1963) 43-51. 277 Grifﬁth, F. L., ed. Beni Hasan, Part IV: Zoological and Other Details. Facsimiles by Howard Carter, M. W. Blackden, Percy Brown, and Percy Buckman. London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1900.

Grottanelli, Cristiano. “The Enemy King is a Monster: A Biblical Equation.” Studi Storico-Religiosi 3 (1979): 117-35.

Guerber, H. A. Myths of the Norsemen: From the Eddas and Sagas. Toronto: George G. Harrap & Co., 1948.

Guillaume, A. “A Note on Isaiah XIX 7.” Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1963): 382-83. Gunkel, Hermann. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895.

Guttandin, Thomas, et al. Inseln der Winde: Die maritime Kultur der bronezeitlichen Ägais. Berlin: Institut für Klassische der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, 2011.

Haak, Robert Donel. Habakkuk. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 44. Leiden: Brill, 1991.

Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985.

Hagelia, Hallvard. “A Crescendo of Universalism. An Exegesis of Isa 19:16-25.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 70 (2005): 73-88.

Halbe, Jörn. Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34, 10-26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975.

Hall, Mark Glenn. “A Study of the Sumerian Moon-God, Nanna/Suen.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1985.

Hallo, William W. “Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis.” Pages xxiii-xxviii. The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Volume 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

______. Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Hammershaimb, E. The Book of Amos. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970. 278 Handoussa, Tohfa. “Fishing Offering in the Old Kingdom Period.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 44 (1988): 105-09.

Hanson, K. C. “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 27 (1997): 99-111.

Haring, James W. “Chaos, Kingship, Councils, and Couriers: A Reading of Habakkuk 2:1-4 in its Biblical and Near Eastern Context.” M.A. Thesis, Ohio State University, 2013.

Harper, W. R. Amos and Hosea. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905.

Harris, S. L. “The Second Vision of Jeremiah, Jer 1:13-15.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 281-82.

Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Haser, Verena. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Experientalist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005.

Haussig, Hans Wilhelm, ed. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1965.

Hays, Christopher B. “Damming Egypt/Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of sir and the Unity of Isa 19,1-10.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120 (2008): 612-17.

Hayward, Robert. The Targum of Jeremiah: Translation, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 12. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987.

Heider, George C. “Tannin.” Pages 833-36 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn et al. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Heimpel, Wolfgang. Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

______. “Nanše A. Philologisch.” Pages 152-160 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 9. Edited by Dietz-Otto Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001.

______. “The Nanshe Hymn.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33 (1981): 65-139.

279 ______. Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur. Studia Pohl 2. Rome: Pontiﬁcium Institutum Biblicum, 1968.

______. Workers and Construction Work at Garšana. Bethesda: CDL Press, 2009.

Heintz, Jean-Georges. “Le Dieu au Filet, Étude d’un thème de souveraineté divine du Proche-Orient antique dans ses rapports avec les origines du ‘ḥerem’ biblique.” Ph.D. diss., École Biblique et Archéologique Française, 1965.

______. “Oracles Prophétiques et “Guerre Sainte” selon Les Archives Royales de Mari et L’Ancien Testament” in Congress Volume, Rome 1968, 112-138. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 17. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Helck, Wolfgang. Die Prophezeiung des Nfr.tj. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970.

______. Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches. Volume 5. Mainz, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; in Kommission bei F. Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1964.

Helck, Wolfgang and Eberhard Otto, eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. 8 Volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972-1992.

Held, Moshe. “Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew.” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973): 173-90.

Hellwing, Salo. “Human Exploitation of Animal Resources in the Early Iron Age Strata at Tel Beer-Sheba.” Pages 105-15 in Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Edited by Ze’ev Herzog. Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology and Ramot Publishing Co., 1984.

Hellwing Salo and Yitzhak Adjeman. “Animal Bones.” Pages 141-52 in ‘Izbet Ṣarṭah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel. BAR International Series 299. Edited by Israel Finkelstein. Oxford: B. A. R., 1986.

Hempel, Johannes. “Bund.” Pages 1512-516 in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Volume 1. Edited by Kurt Galling. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1957.

Herbert, A. S. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah 1-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973.

Hertzberg, H. W. and H. Bardtke. Der Prediger—das Buch Esther. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 17, 4. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1963. 280 Hery, François-Xavier and Thierry Enel. Animaux du Nil, Animaux de Dieu. Aix-en- Provence: Édisud, 1993.

Herz, N. “Isaiah 19,7.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 15 (1912): 496-97.

Hesse, Brian and Paula Wapnish. Animal Bone Archeology: From Objectives to Analysis. Manuals on Archaeology 5. Washington: Taraxacum, 1985.

Heuzey, Léon. “Autres Monuments Figurés: provenant des fouilles du Captaine CROS.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 6 (1904): 53-8.

Heuzey, Léon and F. Thureau-Dangin. Restitution matérielle de la stèle des vautours. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1909.

Hillers, Delbert R. “Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets.” Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 1964.

Hilzheimer, Max. Animal Remains from Tell Asmar. Translated by Adolph A. Brux. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 20. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1941.

Hitzig, F. Der Prediger Salomo’s. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 7. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1847.

Hodder, Ian. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991.

Hoffman, Michael A. Egypt before the Pharaohs: The Prehistoric Foundations of Egyptian Civilization. Revised edition. Austin: University of Texas, 1991.

Pages 936-937 in The New International Dictionary of Old .”דיג“ .Hoffmeier, James K Testament Theology and Exegesis. Volume 1. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

______. “Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt.” Pages 327-351 in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Richard E. Averbeck, Mark W. Chavalas, and David B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2003.

Hoffner, Harry A. Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. American Oriental Society 55. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1974.

______. “The Sun God and the Cow.” Pages 155-56 in Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

281

Hoftijzer, J. A Search for Method. A Study in the Syntactic Use of the H-locale in Classical Hebrew. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Højte, J. M. “The Archaeological Evidence for Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region.” Pages 133-160 in Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region. Edited by T. Bekker-Nielsen. Oakville, CT: Aarhus University, 2005.

Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

______. “Plausible Circumstances for the Prophecy of Habakkuk.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 123-130.

Hölscher, Gustav. Das Buch Hiob. Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1937.

______. Hesekiel, der dichter und das buch: eine literarkritische untersuchung. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1924.

Holzinger, E. Braun. “Nanše B. Archäologisch.” Pages 160-62 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 9. Edited by Dietz-Otto Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001.

Horowitz, Wayne and Takayoshi Oshima. Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006.

Houston, W. J. “Foods, Clean and Unclean.” Pages 326-36 in Dictionary of the Old Testament, Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003.

Houtsma, M. Th. Textkritische Studien zum Alten Testament. 1. Das Buch Hiob. Leiden: Brill, 1925.

Huddlestun, John Robert. “Who Is This That Rises Like the Nile?”: A Comparative Study of the River Nile in Ancient Egypt and the Hebrew Bible.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1996.

Humbert, Paul. “En marge du dictionnaire hébraïque.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 62 (1950): 199-207.

______. Problèmes du livre d’Habacuc. Neuchatel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1944.

282 Huffmon, Herbert B. “Prophecy in the Mari Letters.” The Biblical Archaeologist 31 (1968): 101-124.

Hyatt, J. Philip. “Jeremiah.” Pages 777-1142 in Interpreter’s Bible. Volume 5. Edited by George A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1956.

Ikram, Salima. Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 69. Leuven: Peeters, 1995.

Ingholt, Harald. Rapport préliminaire sur sept campaigns de fouilles à Hama en Syrie (1932-1938). København: E. Munksgaard, 1940.

Irwin, William A. The Problem of Ezekiel: An Inductive Study. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1943.

Isaac, E. “1 [Ethiopic Apocalypse of] Enoch [Second Century B.C. - First Century A. D.]: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 5-89 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 1. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Isaacs, Ronald H. Animals in Jewish Thought and Tradition. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 2000.

Izre’el, Shlomo. Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death. Mesopotamian Civilizations 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001.

Jacob, Edmond, Carl-A. Keller and Samuel Amsler. Osee, Joël, Abdias, Jonas, Amos. Commentaire de L’Ancien Testament XIa. Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1965.

Jacobs, Paul F. “Cows of Bashan’: A Note on the Interpretation of Amos 4:1.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985) 109-10.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. “The Stele of the Vultures Col. I-X” in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, Barry L. Eichler, ed., 247-259. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1976.

______. The Sumerian King List. Assyriological Studies 11. Chicago: Chicago University, 1939.

______. The Treasures of Darkness. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1978.

Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973.

283 Jawad, Laith A. “Fishing Gear and Methods of the Lower Mesopotamian Plain with References to Fishing Management.” Marina Mesopotamica Online 1 (2006): 1-37.

Jenni, E. and C. Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Volume 2. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1975.

Jeremias, Jörg. The Book of Amos: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

Jirku, A. Der Mythus der Kanaanäer. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1966.

Jones, Douglas Rawlinson. Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary. Translated by R. A. Wilson. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974.

______. “Qohelet.” Pages 83-93 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995.

Kamano, N. Cosmology and Character: Qohelet’s Pedagogy from a Rhetorical Critical Perspective. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 312. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.

Katzentsein, H. Jacob. The History of Tyre: From the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 B. C. E. 2d, revised ed. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 1997.

Kaufman, S. A. “Aramaic.” Pages 173-78 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Keel, Othmar. Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob: Eine Deutung von Ijob 38-41 vor dem Hintergrund der zeitgenössischen Bildkunst. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 121. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

______. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. New York: Seabury Press, 1978.

______. “Zwei kleine Beiträge zum Verständnis der Gottesreden im Buch Ijob (xxxviii 36f., xl 25).” Vetus Testamentum VT 31 (1981): 223-25.

284 Keel, Othmar and Christopher Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by T.H. Trapp. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998.

Keel, Othmar and Thomas Staubli. Les animaux du 6ème jour: Les animaux dans la Bible et dans l’Orient ancien. Musée de zoologie Lausanne / Editions universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 2003.

Keith, K. “Spindle whorls, gender, and ethnicity at Late Chalcolithic Haçinebi Tepe.” Journal of Field Archaeology 25 (1998): 497–515.

Kennedy, D. F. “God as Healer in the Prophetic Literature of the Hebrew Bible”. Horizons in Biblical Theology 27 (2005): 87-113.

Kerkeslager, Allen. “The Apology of the Potter: A Translation of the Potter’s Oracle.” Pages 67-79 in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology. Ägypten und Altes Testament 40. Edited by Irene Shirun-Grumach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998.

Kimchi, Rabbi Davidis. Radicum Liber. Berlin: G. Bethge, 1947.

Kissane, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary. Vol. 1. Dublin: Browne and Nolan Limited, 1941.

Kittay, Eva Feder. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Kleber, K. “Die Fischerei in der spätbabylonischen Zeit.” Weiner Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 94 (2004): 133-65.

Klein, J. “The Coronation and Consecration of Šulgi in the Ekur (Šulgi G).” Pages 292-313 in Ah, Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and the Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1991.

______. “The God Martu in Sumerian Literature.” Pages 99-116 in Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. Edited by I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen: Styx Publications, 1997.

______. Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur. Ramat- Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1981.

Kleinerman, Alexandra and David I. Owen. Analytical Concordance to the Garšana Archives. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology (CUSAS) 4. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2009.

285 Kleven, Terence. “The Cows of Bashan: A Single Metaphor at Amos 4:1-3.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 215-27.

Kloos, Carola. Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition int he Religion of Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1986.

Knobel, Peter S. The Targum of Qohelet. The Aramaic Bible 15. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991.

Koch, Klaus. The Prophets. Vol. 1, The Assyrian Period. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Koenen, Ludwig. “Bemerkungen zum Text des Töpferorakels und zu den Akaziensymbol,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 13 (1974): 313-19.

______. “Die Adaptation ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof.” Pages 143-90 in Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24-26 May 1982. Edited by E. Van’t Dack, P. Van Dessel, and W. Van Gucht. Leuven: Orientaliste, 1983.

______. “Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel.” Pages 139-87 in Apokalyptik ind Ägypten: eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 107. Edited by A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.

______. “Die Prophezeiungen des Töpfers” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 2 (1968): 178-209.

Konkel, M. Architektonik des Heiligen. Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40-48). Bonner Biblische Beiträge 129. Berlin: Philo, 2001.

______. “Die Zweite Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40-48).” Pages 154-79 in Gottesstadt und Gottesgarden. Zur Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels. Edited by O. Keel and E. Zenger. Freiburg: Herder, 2002.

Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 8. Münster: UGARIT-Verlag, 1990.

______. “Kryptogramme in Ezechiel 19 und im ‘Izbet-Ṣarṭa- Ostrakon.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121 (2009): 70-86.

Kottsieper, Von Ingo. “Was ist seine Mutter?” Eine Studie zu Ez 19,2-9.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105 (1993): 444-461. 286

Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sumerians: their history, culture, and character. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963.

Kramer, Samuel Noah and John Maier. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. New York: Oxford University, 1989.

Kristeva, Julia. Σηµειωτικὴ: Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1969.

Krüger, Thomas. Qoheleth: A Commentary. Translated by O. C. Dean Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

Kubina, Veronica. Die Gottesreden in Buche Hiob. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um die Einheit von Hiob 38,1-42,6. Freiburger theologische Studien 115. Freiburg: Herder, 1979.

Kupper, J. R. L’iconographie du dieu Amurru dans le glyptique de la Iér dynastie babylonienne. Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1961.

Kurth, D. “Nilgott.” Pages 485-89 in Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Volume 4. Edited by W. Helck. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1982.

Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Laato, Antti. Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 33. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992.

Labat, René. Hemerologies et Menologies d’Assur. Etudes d’assyriologie 1. Paris: Libraire d’Amerique et d’Orient, 1939.

______. Le poème babylonien de la création. Paris: Adrien-maisonneuve, 1935.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980.

Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic ! Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1989.

287 Lambert, Maurice. “Fischer(ei) (presargonische).” Pages 68-69 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971.

Lambert, Maurice. Review of S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 59e (1965): 133-36.

Lambert, W. G. “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis.” Journal of Theological Studies 16 [1965]: 287-300.

______. Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

______. “Studies in Marduk.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47 (1984): 1-9.

______. “The Converse Tablet: A Litany with Musical Instructions.” Pages 335-53 in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971.

______. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” Pages 3-13 in The Seed of Wisdom; Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek. Edited by W. S. McCullough. Toronto” University of Toronto, 1964.

Lambert, W. G. and Simon B. Parker. Enuma Eliš, The Babylonian Epic of Creation: The Cuneiform Text. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.

Landsberger, B. “Jahreszeiten im Sumerisch-Akkadischen.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8 (1949): 248-72.

______. “Remarks on the Archive of the Soldier Ubarum.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 9 (1955): 122-31.

______. The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. 2 vols. Pontiﬁcium Institutum Biblicum: Rome, 1962.

Landsberger, B. and J. V. Kinnier Wilson. “The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Elish.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20 (1961): 154-179.

Lang, Bernhard. Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel. ! Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981.

288 Langdon, Stephen. Historical Inscriptions, Containing Principally the Chronological Prism, W-B. 444. The Weld-Blundell Collection. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 2. London: Oxford University, 1923.

______. The Legend of Etana and the eagle: or the epical poem “The City they hated.” Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1932.

Langdon, Susan. “The Return of the Horse-Leader.” American Journal of Archaeology 93 (1989): 185-201.

Lange, H. O. Das Weisheitsbuch des Amenemope: aus dem Papyrus 10,474 des British Museum. Historisk-ﬁlologiske Meddelelser 11/2. København: A. F. Høst & søn, 1925.

Lattimore, R. Aeschylus I: Oresteia. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1953.

Lauha, Aarre. Kohelet. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neurkirchener Verlag, 1978.

Lavoie, Jean-Jacques. La Pensée du Qohélet: Étude exégétique et intertextuelle. Montreal: Fides, 1992.

______. “Temps et Finitude Humaine: Étude de Qohélet IX 11-12.” Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 439-47.

Layard, A. H. Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London: J. Murray, 1853.

______. Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from Assyrian Monuments, London: Printed by Harrison and son; Sold at the British Museum, 1851.

______. Nineveh and Its Remains. London: J. Murray, 1849.

______. The Monuments of Nineveh. London: J. Murray, 1849. Second Series, 1853.

Leclant, Jean and Jean Yoyotte. “Notes d’histoire et de civilisation Ethiopiennes. A propos d’un ouvrage recent.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’architecture orientale 51 (1952): 1-39.

Leichty, E. The Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

289 Lernau, Hanan. “Animal Remains.” Pages 86-103 in Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 4. Edited by Yohanan Aharoni. Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers, 1975.

______. “Fish Remains.” Pages 241-46 in The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna. Researches in the Arabah 1959-1984 1. Edited by Beno Rothenberg. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, 1988.

______. “Subfossil Remains of Nile Perch (Lates Cf. Niloticus); First Evidence from Ancient Israel.” Israel Journal of Zoology 34 (1986/1987): 225-36.

Lernau, Hanan and Omri Lernau. “Fish Bone Remains.” Pages 155-61 in Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 29. Edited by Eilat Mazar and Benjamin Mazar. Jerusalem: Keterpress Enterprises, 1989.

______. “Fish Remains.” Pages 131-48 in Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports. Volume 3. Qedem, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 33. Edited by Alon de Groot and Donald T. Ariel. Jerusalem: Keterpress Enterprises, 1992.

Levenson, Jon Douglas. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1994.

______. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48. Harvard Semitic Monograph Series 10. Cambridge, MA: Scholars Press for the Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976.

Levey, Samson H. The Targum of Ezekiel: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 13. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987.

Levine, Étan. The Aramaic Version of Qohelet. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981.

Levine, Louis D. “Sargon’s Eighth Campaign.” Pages 135-51 in Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Bibliotecha Mesopotamica 7. Edited by Louis D. Levine, and T. Cuyler Young, Jr. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1977.

Levy, L. Das Buch Qoheleth: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sadduzäismus. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912.

Lewy, Heinrich. Die semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen. Berlin: R. Gaertner, 1895. 290 Lichtenstein, Murray H. “The Poetry of Poetic Justice: A Comparative Study in Biblical Imagery.” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973): 255-65.

Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 volumes. Berkeley: University of California, 1975.

______. “Instruction of Amenemope.” Pages 115-22 in Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003a.

______. “Instruction of Any.” Pages 110-15 in Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003b.

______. “The Famine Stela.” Pages 130-34 in Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003c.

Lie, A. G. The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria: Part 1: The Annals. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1929.

Lieberman, S. The Tosefta…The Order of Mo’ed. New York: Bet ha-midrash le-rabanim be-Ameriḳah, 1999.

Limet, Henri. “The Cuisine of Ancient Sumer.” Biblical Archaeologist 50 (1987): 132-47.

Lipiński, E. “Recherches ugaritiques 4.” Syria 50 (1973) 35-51.

______. “The Goddess Aṯirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit.” Orientalia Lovaniensia 3 (1972): 101-19.

Litke, R. L. A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: dA-nu-um and An: Anu šá amēli. New Haven, CT: Yale Babylonian Collection, 1998.

Livingstone, Alasdair. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. State Archives of Assyria 3. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1989.

Lloyd, S. and F. Safar. “Eridu: A Preliminary Communication on the First Season’s Excavations: January-March 1947.” Sumer 3 (1947): 84-111.

______. “Eridu: A Preliminary Communications [sic] on the Second Season’s Excavations: 1947-1948.” Sumer 4 (1948): 115-25.

Lo, Allison. “Death in Qohelet.” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 31 (2008): 85-98.

291 Loader, J. A. Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 152. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979.

Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “Anat’s Victory over the Tunnanu.” Journal of Semitic Studies 20 (1975): 22-27.

Pages 368-96 in The Theological Dictionary of the Old ”.ירשׁ“ .Lohﬁnk, Norbert Testament. Volume 6. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

______. Kohelet. Würzberg: Echter Verlag, 1993.

______. Qoheleth. Translted by Sean McEvenue. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2003.

Loktionov, A. “Kušû: Crocodile after all?” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaries (2014.4): 164-67.

Long, Jesse C., Jr. “Theory in Archaeology: Culture Change at the End of the Early Bronze Age.” Pages 308-18 in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Edited by S. Richard. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

Longman III, Tremper. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991.

______. The Book of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Loud, G. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-1939. Oriental Institute Publications 62. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948.

Löw, Immanuel. Aramäische Pﬂanzennamen. New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1973.

De Luca, Stefano. “Capernaum.” Pages 168-180 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Bible and Archaeology. Volume 1. Edited by Daniel M. Master. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013.

Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20. Anchor Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

(Amos 4:3).” Beit Mikra 30 (1966-67) ונשֹֹֹא אתכם בצנות ואחריתכן בסירות דוגה“ .Luria, B ! 6-11.

292 Lyon, D. G. Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s Königs von Assyrien (722-705 v. CHR.). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1883.

Lytle, E. “Ἡ Θάλασσα κοινη:/ Fishermen, the Sea, and the Limits of Ancient Greek Regulatory Reach.” Classical Antiquity 31 (2012) 1-55.

Maag, Victor. Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos. Leiden: Brill, 1951.

Macadam, M. F. Laming. The Temples of Kawa I. The Inscriptions. 2 volumes. London: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Mac Cormac, Earl R. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1985.

Machinist, P. “Fate, miqreh, and reason: Some reﬂections on Qohelet and biblical thought.” Pages 159-75 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenﬁeld. Edited by Z. Zevit et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

Mack, Russell. Neo-Assyrian Prophecy and the Hebrew Bible: Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Contexts 14. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011.

Macky, Peter W. The Centrality of Metaphors To Biblical Thought: A Method for Interpreting the Bible. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 19. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.

Maier, W. A. ’Ašerah: Extrabiblical Evidence. Harvard Semitic Monographs 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

Mainzer, Moritz. “Über Jagd, Fischfang ind Bienenzucht bei den Juden in der tannäischen Zeit.” Ph.D. diss., Der Grossherzogl. Hessischen Ludwigsuniversität zu Giessen, 1910.

Mahler, Edward F. “Animal Husbandry.” Pages 21-8 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Bible and Archaeology. Volume 1. Edited by Daniel M. Master. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013.

Malamat, Abraham. “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBridge, eds., 33-52. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

293 ______. Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical Historiography: A Parallel.” Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955): 1-12.

______. “Prophetic Revelations in the New Documents from Mari and the Bible” in Congress Volume, Genève 1965, 207-27. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 15. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Mangan, Céline. The Targum of Job. The Aramaic Bible 15. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991.

Manniche, L. City of the Dead: Thebes in Egypt. London: British Museum Publications, 1987.

Margalit, Baruch. A Matter of “Life” and “Death”: A Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4-5-6). Neukirechen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1980.

Margulis, B. Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1967.

Marlow, Hilary. “The Lament over the River Nile—Isaiah xix 5-10 in Its Wider Context.” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 229-42.

Marti, D. Karl. Das Buch Jesaja. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900.

Maspero, Gaston. Du genre épistolaire chez les Égyptiens de l’époque pharaonique. Paris: A. Franck, 1872.

Mathis, Claudia. “‘Sieh doch den Behemot!’ Die zweite Gottesrede Ijob 40,6-41,26.” Biblische Notizen 11 (2002): 74-85.

Marzal, Angel. Gleanings from the Wisdom of Mari. Studia Pohl 11. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976.

Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. “The Goddess Nanše: An Attempt to Identify Her Representation.” Iraq 54 (1992): 79-92.

Mayer, W. “Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu, 714 v. Chr.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient- Gesellschaft 115 (1983): 56-134.

Mazar, Eilat, Wayne Horowitz, Takyoshi Oshima and Yuval Goren. “A Cuneiform Tablet ! from the Ophel in Jerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal 60 (2010): 4-21. !

294 ______. “Jerusalem 2: A Fragment of a Cuneiform Tablet from the Ophel Excavations.” Israel Exploration Journal 64 (2014): 129-139.

McKane F. B.A., William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol II. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1986. van der Meer, Michaël N. “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of the Contemporary Accounts From Hellenistic Egypt.” Pages 281-316 in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Michaël N. van der Meer, Percy van Keulen, Wido van Peursen, and Bas ter Haar Romeny. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Meier, Gerhard. Die assyrische Beschwörungssamlung Maqlû. Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 2. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag 1967.

Meier, Samuel A. The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Harvard Semitic Monographs 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Meissner, Bruno. Babylonien und Assyrien. Volume 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitäsbuchhandlung, 2910.

Mekhitarian, Arpag. Egyptian Painting. New York: Skira, 1954.

Menchén, Carrasco J. Historia cronistica: Cronicas, Esdras y Nehemias. El mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 9. Madrid: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1995.

Mendenhall, George E. “Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Covenant Making.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 133 (1954) 26-30.

Messel, N. Ezechielfragen. Oslo: I kommisjon hos J. Dybwad, 1945.

Messerschmidt, Leopold. “Tabula Babylonica V. A. Th. 246 musei Berolinensis primum editur commentarioque instruitur.” Ph.D. diss., University of Berlin, 1896.

Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “Intertextuality: Allusion and Vertical Context Systems in Some Job Passages.” Pages 257-80 in Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Heather A. McKay and David J. A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 162. Shefﬁeld: Journal for the Study of the Old ! Testament Press, 1993.

295 ______. “The Enigma of Job: The Deconstruction of God in Intertextual Perspective.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23/2 (1997): 1-19.

Michaelis, J. D. “Anzeige der Varianten im Buch Hiob.” Pages 217-47 (1774) and 179-224 (1775) in his Orientalische ind exegetische Bibliothek 7 (1774-1775).

Michel, D. Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 183. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989.

Middlemas, Jill. “Ships and Other Seafaring Vessels in the Old Testament” in Let us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty- Fifth Birthday, Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Boston: Brill, 2012) 407-21.

Milani, Luigi Adriano. “L’arte e la religion preellenica alls luce die bronzi dell’antro idea creates e die monument hetei.” Pages 1-96 in Studi e materiali di archaeologia e numismatica. Volume 2. Firenze: Babèra, 1902.

Milgrom, Jacob. “The Concept of Ma‘al in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 96 (1976) 236-47.

Milgrom, Jacob and Daniel I. Block. Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38-48. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.

Millard, A. R. “The Sign of the Flood,” Iraq 49 (1987) 63-69.

Miller, P. D. “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew.” Ugarit Forschungen 2 (1970): 180-81.

______. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973.

.Beit Mikra 124 (1990-91) 160-65 ”.הנה ימים באים עליכם“ .Mishael, Yosef

.Pages 16-19 in The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament ”.רֵֶשֶׁ ת“ .Mommer, P Volume 14. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz- Josef Fabry. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Montet, Pierre. Egypt and the Bible. Translated by Leslie R. Keylock. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968 (French Original: Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé, ! 1959).

296 Montgomery, James A. “Hebraica.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 58 (1938): 130-39.

______. “Ras Shamra Notes IV: The Conﬂict of Baal and the Waters.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 55 (1935): 268-77.

Moon, J. “Tools, Weapons, Utensils and Ornaments.” Pages 163-233 in The Early Dilmun Settlements at Saar. Edited by Killick, R. and J. Moon. Ludlow: Archaeology International, 2005. de Moor, Janny. “In the beginning was Fish. Fish in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 84-93 in Fish: Food From the Waters, Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1997. Edited by H. Walker. Totnes, Devon: Prospect Books, 1998. de Moor, Johannes C. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Leiden: Brill, 1987.

______. “Fishes in KTU 4.427:23-29.” Ugarit-Forschungen 28 (1996): 155-57.

______. The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba‘lu According to the Version of Ilimilku. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 16. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1971. de Moor, J. C and K. Spronk. A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Leiden: Brill, 1987.

Moran, William L. “Akkadian Letters.” Pages 623-26, 629-32 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton Studies on the Near East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1969a.

______. “New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy” Biblica 50 (1969b): 15-59.

Muchiki, Yoshiyuki. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic. Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 173. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.

Mudar, Karen. “Early Dynastic III Animal Utilization in Lagash: A Report on the Fauna of Tell Al-Hiba.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41 (1982): 23-34.

Mullen Jr., E. Theodore. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. ! Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.

297 Müller, H-P. “Buchbesprechungen.” Zeitschrift Assyriologie 66 (1976): 306.

Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Twelve Prophets. Louvain: Peeters, 1993.

Murphy, Roland E. Ecclesiastes. Word Biblical Commentary 23A. Dallas: Word Books, 1992.

Myhrman, David W. “Die Labartu-Texte. Babylonische Beschwörungsformeln nebst Zauber-verfahren gegen die Dämonin Labartu.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 16 (1902): 141-200.

Nel, P. J. “Cosmos and Chaos: A Reappraisal of the Divine Discourse in the Book of Job.” Old Testament Essays 4 (1991): 206-26.

Neufeld, Edward. “Fabrication of Objects from Fish and Sea Animals in Ancient Israel.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973): 309-24.

Neusner, Jacob. The Tosefta. Translated from the Hebrew. Second Division, Moed (The Order of Appointed Times). New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1981.

Newberry, Percy E. and G. Willoughby Fraser. Beni Hasan, Part I. London: Egyptian Exploration Fund; Sold by K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1893.

Newsom, Carol A. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Tyre.” Pages 191-204 in “The Place is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 5. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

______. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University, 2003.

Nicacci, Alviero. “Isaiah XVIII-XX from an Egyptological Perspective.” Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 214-238.

Nicholson, Ernest W. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1-25. Cambridge: ! Cambridge University, 1973. Niditch, Susan. “Ezekiel 40-48 in a Visionary Context.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 208-24.

Nielsen, Kirsten. “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible.” Pages 17-31 in Congress Volume, Oslo 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. Boston: Leiden, 2000. 298 ______. There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 65. Shefﬁeld: Shefﬁeld Academic Press, 1989.

Nies, James B. “A Net Cylinder of Enmetana.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 36 (1916): 137-39.

Nissinen, Martti and Charles E. Carter, eds. Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 233. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

Nobile, Marco. “Il motivo della crescita delle acque in Ez 47,1-12 e in Sir 24, 30-31 e suoi sviluppi successivi.” Pages 223-35 in Sapienza e Torah. Atti della 29a Settimana biblica. Bologna, EDB, 1987.

______. Saggi su Ezechiele. Spicilegium 40. Rome: Antonianum, 2009.

Nocquet, Dany. “Ez 47,1-12 et le jaillissement de l’eau à la ﬁn des temps: Vers une nouvelle Égypte?” Pages 331-43 in Les Prophètes de la Bible et la Fin des Temps. XXIIIe congres de l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible (Lille, 24-27 août 2009). Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2010.

Nöldeke, T. Review of Friedrich Delitzsch, Prologemena eines neuen hebräisch- aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 40 (1886): 718-43.

Norin, S. I. L. Er spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsügsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel. Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament series 9. Lund: LiberLäromedel/Gleerup, 1977.

Noth, D. Martin. Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Grenzgebiete der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft. Theologische Hilfsbücher 3. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1957.

Nötscher, F. Zwölfprophetenbuch oder Kleine Propheten. Würzburg: Echter, 1948.

Nun, Mendel. “Cast Your Net upon the Waters: Fish and Fishermen in Jesus’ Time.” Biblical Archaeology Review 19.6 (1993): 46-56.

______. “Fishing,” Pages 315-17 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East, ed. Eric M. Myers. vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University, 1997.

299 .Tel Aviv: ha-Ḳibuts ha-me’uḥad, 1964 .הדיג העברי הקדום .______

______. The Sea of Galilee and Its Fishermen in the New Testament. Kibbutz Ein Gev: Kinnereth Sailing Co., 1989.

Nussbaum, M. C. The Fragility of Goodness. Luke and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986.

Nwaoru, Emmanuel O. “A Fresh Look at Amos 4:1-3 and Its Imagery.” Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 460-74.

Obermann, J. “How Baal Destroyed a Rival. A Magical Incantation Scene.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 67 (1947): 195-208.

Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005.

O’Connor, Kathleen M. “Wild, Raging Creativity: The Scene in the Whirlwind (Job 38-41).” Pages 171-79 in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Edited by Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 20013.

Ogden, Graham S. Qoheleth. Shefﬁeld: JSOT Press, 1987.

______. “Qoheleth IX 1-16.” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 158-69.

Ogden, Graham S. and Lynell Zogbo. A Handbook on Ecclesiastes. New York: United Bible Societies, 1997.

Oldenburg, Ulf. The Conﬂict between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Olivi, P. J. Lectura super Proverbia et lectura super Ecclesiasten. Collectio Oliviana 6. Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 2003.

Olmo Lete, Gregorio del. Mitos y Leyendas de Canaán según la Tradición de Ugarit. Madrid: Eds. Cristianidad, 1981.

Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and J. Sanmartin, eds. Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Edited by W. G. E. Watson. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

300 Oppenheim, A. Leo. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eames Babylonian Collection in The New York Public Library. Tablets of the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1948.

______. “Mesopotamian Conchology.” Orientalia 32 (1963): 407-12.

Oppenheim, A. Leo and Erica Reiner. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1977.

Ornan, Tallay. “Who is Holding the Lead Rope? The Relief of the Broken Obelisk.” Iraq ! 69 (2007): 59-72. Oshima, Takayoshi. The Babylonian Theodicy: Introduction, Cuneiform Text and Transliteration with a Translation, Glossary and Commentary. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 9. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2013.

Osty, E. Amos, Osee. Paris: Cerf, 1952.

Parayre, Dominique. Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques. Topoi Supplement 2. Lyon: Maison de L’Orient Méditerranean —Jean Pouilloux, 2000.

Pardee, Dennis. “The Ba‘lu Myth.” Pages 241-74 in Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Parker, Richard A. and Waldo H. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. Providence, RI: Brown University, 1956.

Parker, Simon B, ed. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Writings from the Ancient World 9. Translated by Mark S. Smith et al. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.

Parrot, André. Le musée du louvre et la bible. Cahiers d’archéologie biblique 9. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1957.

______. Samaria, the Capital of the Kingdom of Israel. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Philosophical Library, 1958.

______. Tello: vingt campagnes de fouilles (1877-1933). Paris: Albin Michel, 1948.

Patai, Raphael. Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual. New York: T. ! Nelson, 1947. 301 Paterson, Archibald. Assyrian Sculptures: Palace of Sinacherib. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1915.

Paul, Shalom. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

______. “Fishing Imagery in Amos 4:2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 183-90.

Peake, A. S. Jeremiah I. The Century Bible. New York: Henry Frowde and Edinburgh: T.C. & E. C. Jack, 1911.

Perdue, Leo G. “Job’s Assault on Creation.” Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986): 295-315.

Perlman, A. L. Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament. Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, 1978.

Peters, J. and K. Schmidt. “Animals in the Symbolic World of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli-Tepe, South-eastern Turkey: A Preliminary Assessment.” Anthropozoologica 39 (2004): 179-218.

Petersen, David L. Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Pettinato, G. Catalogo die testi cuneiformi di Tell Mardikh-Ebla. Materiali epigraﬁci di Ebla 1. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 1979.

______. Testi amministrativi della biblioteca L. 2769. Materiali epigraﬁci di Ebla 2. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 1980.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Amulets. Warminster, UK: Aris & Philips, LTD, 1972.

______. Ancient Gaza, Tell el Ajjūl. 5 volumes. London: British School of Egyptian Archaeology, 1931-52.

______. Gerar (tell dschemme). London: British School of Archaeology, 1928.

______. Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London: Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1890.

Peyron, Amedeo. Lexicon linguae Copticae. Taurini: Ex Regio typographeo, 1835.

Pézard, Maurice and Edmond Pottier. Catalogue des antiquités de la Susiane (Mission J. de Morgan). Paris: Musée National du Louvre, 1926. 302 Philby, H. St. J. B. “The Eastern Marshes of Mesopotamia.” The Geographical Journal 125 (1959): 65-69.

Pidcock-Lester, Karen. “‘Earth has no Sorrow that Earth Cannot Heal’: Job 38-41.” Pages 125-32 in God Who Creates:Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBridge Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Pinches, T. G. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Part 44. London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1963.

Pinney, Roy. The Animals in the Bible: The Identity and Natural History of All the Animals Mentioned in the Bible. New York, Chilton, 1964.

Pinsker, S. Einleitung in das babylonisch-hebräische Punktationssystem…nebst einer Gramamtik der hebräischen Zahlwörter von Abraham ben Esra. Vienna: Philipp Bendiner, 1863.

Pirenne-Delforge, Vinciane. “Aphrodite.” Pages 407-09 in Encyclopedia of Religion. 2d ed. Edited by Lindsay Jones. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005.

Pitard, Wayne T. “The Binding of Yamm: A New Edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.83.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57 (1998): 261-80.

Podechard, E. L’Ecclésiaste. Etudes Bibliques. Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre, 1912.

Podella, T. “Der ‘Chaoskampfmythos’ im Alten Testament. Eine Problemanzeige.” Pages 283-329 in Mesopotamica-Ugaritica-Biblica: Festschrift for Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 232. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993.

Poebel, A. “Sumerische Untersuchungen II.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 37 (1927): 161-76, 245-72.

Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel. Volume 2. Göttingen: ! Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 2. Leiden: Brill, 1955.

______. Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible 15. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.

303 Postgate, J. N. Review of Armas Salonen, Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien nach sumerischakkadischen Quellen: eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 35 (1972): 196.

Potts, Daniel T. Ancient Magan: The Secrets of Tell Abraq. London: Trident, 2000.

______. “Fish and Fishing.” Pages 220-35 in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Edited by D. T. Potts. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell, 2012.

Preisendanz, Karl. Papyri Graecae Magicae die Griechischen Zauberpapyri. Vol. 1. München: Saur, 2001.

Presworsky, Rabbi Pinchus. Animals of the Torah. Flushing, NY: Pinchus Presworsky, 2010.

J. H. Price. “Sacrilegious Kings in the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University, forthcoming.

Prinsloo, G. T. M. “Lions and Vines: The Imagery of Ezekiel 19 in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Descriptions and Depictions.” Old Testament Essays 12 (1999): 339-59.

Procksch, D. Otto. Jesaia I. Leipzig: A Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1930.

Provan, Iain. Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Pulak, Cemal. “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign.” American Journal of Archaeology 92 (1988): 1-37.

Quaegebeur, Jan. “Divinités Égyptiennes Sur Des Animaux Dangereux,” in P. Borgeaud, Y. Christe and I. Urio, eds.) L’Animal, L’Homme, Le Dieu Dans Le Proche-Orient Ancien: actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1981 (Leuven: Peeters, 1984) 131-143.

in Jes 40:2 = Äquivalent?” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche כִּפְלַיִם“ .Rad, Gerhard von Wissenschaft 79 (1967): 80-82.

Radcliffe, William. Fishing from the Earliest Times. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1921.

Rahmouni, Aicha. Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. Translated by J. N. Ford. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

304 Rawlinson, George. The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World. 2d ed. Volume 1. London: John Murray Albemarle Street, 1871.

Reese, David S., Henk K. Mienis and Fred R. Woodward. “On the Trade of Shells and Fish from the Nile River.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 264 (1988): 79-84.

Reichert, V. E. and A. Cohen. The Five Megilloth. The Soncino Books of the Bible 12. London: Soncino, 1984.

Renan, E. Book of Job. Ludgate Hill: W. M. Thomson, 1859.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “UT 68 and the Tell Asmar Seal.” Orientalia 53 (1984): 448-52.

Renfroe, F. Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien- Palastinas und Mesopotamiens 5. Ugarit-Verlag, 1992.

Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Reprint edition. The Mary Flexner Lectures on the Humanities 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965 (1936).

Ricoeur, Paul. La métaphore vive. Paris: Seuil, 1975.

______. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. Translated by Robert Czerny. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1977.

Riede, Peter. Im Spiegel der Tiere: Studien zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Tier im alten Israel. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 187. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002.

Roaf, Michael. “Excavations at Al Markh, Bahrain.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 6 (1976): 144-60.

Roberts, J. J. M. “Isaiah 33: An Isaianic Elaboration of the Zion Tradition.” Pages 15-25 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth.” Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

______. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991.

______. “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective.” Pages 83-92 in Essays on the Ancient Near East in the Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Edited by Maria de Jong Ellis. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977.

305 Robinson, T. H. Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1/14. Tübingen: Mohr, 1954.

Römer, W. H. Ph. “Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-epischen Texten (2). Ein Lied über die Jugendjahre der Götter Sîn und Išum (CT 15, 5-6).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 86 (1966): 138-147. van Rooy, H. F. “Parallelism, metre and rhetoric in Ezekiel 29:1-6.” Semitics 8 (1982): 90-105.

Rose, M. Rien de nouveau. Nouvelles approaches du livre de Qohéleth. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 168. Fribourg Suisse: Editions Univeritaries Fribourg, 1999.

Rosén, Haiim B. “Lat. rete.” Indogermanische Forschungen 100 (1995): 210-12.

Leviathan and Job in Job 41:2-3.” Journal of Biblical :מי הוא? לי הוא?“ .Rowold, Henry Literature 105 (1986): 104-109.

Rudman, Dominic. “The Anatomy of the Wise Man: Wisdom, Sorrow and Joy in the Book of Ecclesiastes.” Pages 465-71 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum 136. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

______. “Woman as Divine Agent in Ecclesiastes.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 411-27.

Rudnig, T. A. Heilig und Profan. Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40-48. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 287. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.

Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1968.

______. Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 13/2. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971.

Rundgren, F. “Der Fisch im Semitischen.” Pages 72-80 in Ex Orbe Religionum. Studia Geo Widengren. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Ruprecht, Eberhard. “Das Nilpferd im Hiobbuch: Beobachtungen zu der Sogenannten ! Zweiten Gottesrede.” Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 209-31. !

306 Ryder, M. L. “Remains of Fishes and Other Aquatic Animals.” Pages 376-394 in Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research. Edited by Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs. New York: Praeger, 1970.

Sacchi, P. “Nota a Is. 19,7.” Rivista Biblica Italiana 13 (1965): 169-70.

Sage, V. R. L. “Metaphor in Literature.” Pages 156-62 in Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language. Edited by P. Lamarque. New York: Pergamon, 1997.

Sahrhage, Dietrich. Fischfang und Fischkult im alten Ägypten. Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 70. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1998.

______. Fischfang und Fischkult im alten Mesopotamien. New York: P. Lang, 1999.

Sahrhage, Dietrich and Johannes Lundbeck. A History of Fishing. New York: Springer- Verlag, 1992.

Salles, J.-F. La nécropole “K” de Byblos. Paris: Éditions ADPF, 1980.

______. “Un Vase Syrien À Décor Figuré.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (1983): 201-09.

Salonen Armas. Die Fischerei im Alten Mesopotamien: nach Sumerisch-Akkadischen Quellen. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia: Helsinki, 1970.

______. Die Hausgeräte der alten Mesopotamier: nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Teil II. Helsinki: Suomaleinen Tiedeakatemia, 1966.

______. Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der 4. Tafel der Serie HAR- ra=hubullu) Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Helsinki: Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1939.

Samet, Nili. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur. Mesopotamian Civilizations 18. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014.

Sanders, Seth L. The Invention of Hebrew. Chicago: University of Illinois, 2009.

Sanmartín, J. “Glossen zum ugartischen Lexikon (II).” Ugarit Forschungen 10 (1978): ! 349-56.

307 Saur, Markus. Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 386. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Sawyer, J. F. A. “‘Blessed Be My People Egypt’ (Isaiah 19.25). The Context and Meaning of a Remarkable Passage.” Pages 57-71 in A Word in Season. Essays in Honour of William McKane. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 42. Edited by James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies. Shefﬁeld: JSOT Press, 1986.

Schäfer, Heinrich and Walter Andrae. Die kunst des alten Orients. Berlin: Propyläen- verlag, 1925.

Scheil, V. “La Déesse Nina et ses Poissons.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 15e (1918): 127-34.

Schellenberg, A. Erkenntnis als Problem. Qohelet und die alttestamentlische Diskussion um das menschliche Erkennen. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 188. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002.

Schneider, Anna. Die Anfänge der Kulturwirtschaft: die sumerische Tempelstadt. Staatswissenschaftliche Beiträge 4. Essen a. d. R.: G. D. Baedeker, 1920.

Schökel, Luis Alonso. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia Biblica 11. Rome: Editrice Pontiﬁcio Istituto Biblico, 1988.

Schoors, Antoon. Ecclesiastes. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.

______. “Introduction.” Pages 1-13 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum 136. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

______. “La Structure Littéraire de Qohéleth.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 13 (1982): 91-16.

______. “Literary Phrases.” Pages 1-70 in Ras Shamra Parallels. Volume 1. Edited by L. R. Fisher. Rome: Pontiﬁcum Institutum Biblicum, 1972.

______. The Preacher Sought To Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Part I, Grammar. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 41. Leuven: ! Peeters, 1992. !

308 ______. The Preacher Sought To Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Part II, Vocabulary. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 143. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

Schuller, Eileen M. and Carol A. Newsom. The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa. Early Judaism and Its Literature 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.

Pages 501-05 in The Theological Dictionary of the Old ”.מְצִוּדָה“ .Schunk, K.-D Testament. Volume 7. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Schwantes, Siegfried. “Note on Amos 4 2b.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1967): 82-3.

Schwemer, Daniel. Rituale ind Beschwörungen gegen Schadenzauber. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 117. Keilschrifttexte aux Assur literarischen Inhalts 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007.

in Numbers 24.24 and צי Scurlock, Joann. “Departure of Ships? An Investigations of Isaiah 233.23.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (2010): 267-82.

Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. “Nicht im Menschen grunted das Glück” (Koh 2,24). Kohelet im Spannungsfeld jüdischer Weisheit ind hellenistischer Philosophie. Herders Biblische Studien 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1994.

Segert, Stanislav. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meer.” Archiv Orientální 23 (1955): 575-619.

Seidl, Ursula. “The Rôles played by Fish on Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seals.” Pages 134-42 in The Iconography of Cylinder Seals. Warbing Institute Colloquia 9. Edited by Paul Taylor. London: The Warburg Institute, 2006.

Sellin, E. Das Zwölfprophetenbuch. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 12/1. Leipzig: Deichert, 1929.

Seow, C. L. Ecclesiastes. Anchor Bible 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

Seux, M.-J. Épithètes Royales: Akkadiennes et Sumériennes. Paris: Letouzey Et Ané, ! 1967.

309 Sharon, Diane M. “A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple Hymn? Ezekiel 40-48 and Gudea.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 24 (1996): 99-109.

Shupak, Nili. “The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage: The Admonitions of Ipuwer.” Pages 93-8 in Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003a.

______. Prophecies of Neferti.” Pages 106-10 in Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Edited by W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003b.

Sjöberg, Åke W. “Ein Selbstpreis des Königs Ḫammurabi von Babylon.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 54 (1961): 51-70.

Sjöberg, Åke W. and E. Bergmann. The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin Publisher, 1969.

Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

______. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University, 2001.

______. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 1. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 55. ! Leiden: Brill, 1994. Smith, Mark S. and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 114. Leiden, Brill: 2009.

Smith, R. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, founded upon the Thesaurus syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Edited by J. Payne Smith. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1957 [1896-1908].

Smyth, H. W. Aeschylus II. Loeb Classical Library 146. Reprint edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963 (= 1926).

Snaith, Norman H. Amos, Hosea, and Micah. London: Epworth, 1960.

______. The Book of Amos. Part One: Introduction. London: Epworth, 1957. von Soden, Wolfram. “Aramaische Wörter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein Vorbericht. I (agâ - *mūš).” Orientalia 35 (1966): 1-20.

310 ______. Das Gilgamesch-Epos. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1958.

______. “Ist im Alten Testament schon von Schwimmen die Rede”. Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 4 (1991) 165-70.

______. The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East. Translated by Donald G. Schley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

______. “Verkündung des Gotteswillens dutch prophetisches Wort in den altbabylonischen Briefen aus Mâri.” Die Welt des Orients 5 (1950): 397-403.

______. “Zur wiederherstellung der marduk-gebete bms 11 und 12.” Iraq 31 (1969): 82-9.

Sokoloff, Michael. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1974.

Sollberger, Edmond. Corpus des inscriptions “royales” présargoniques de Lagaš. Genève: Librairie E. Droz, 1956.

______. The Business and Administrative Correspondence Under the Kings of Ur. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1966.

Sommerfeld, Walter. Der Aufstieg Marduks: die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982.

Soskice, Janet Martin. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

Spangenberg, I. J. J. Die boek Prediker. Skrifuitleg vir bybelstudent en gemeente. Kaapstad: Lux Verbi, 1993.

Speier, S. “Bemerkungen zu Amos.” Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 305-10.

Spurgeon, C. Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells us. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1935.

Spycket, Agnès. “Illustration d’un texte hépatoscopique concernant Sargon d’Agade (?).” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 40 (1945-1946): 151-56.

Steindorff, Georg. Das Grab des Ti. Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in Ägypten 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1913.

311 Steinkeller, P. “A Note on sa-bar = sa-par4/pàr “Casting Net.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 75 (1985): 39-46.

Steinmann, J. Ainsi parlait Qohèlèth. Reprint edition. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1973 (=1955).

Stern, Josef. Metaphor in Context. Cambridge: MIT, 2000.

Stevenson, Kalinda Rose. Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 154. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996.

Stökl, Jonathan. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison. Boston: Brill, 2012.

Strawn, Brent A. What is Stronger Than a Lion?: Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 212. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005.

______. “Whence Leonine Yahweh?: Iconography and the History of Israelite Religion.” Pages 53-85 in Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Martti Nissinen and Charles E. Carter. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 233. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

Streck, Michael P. and Nathan Wasserman. “The Old Babylonian Hymns to Papulegara.” Orientalia 77 (2008): 335-356.

Strommenger, E. Habuba Kabira. Eine Stadt for 5000 Jahren. Mainz: Von Zabern, 1980.

Sundén, Hjalmar. “Le mythe de la peine et la retribution cosmique: quelques remarques psychologiques.” Pages 435-45 in Le mythe de la peine. Actes du colloquia organisé par le centre international d’etudes humanistes et par l’institut d’etudes philosophiques de Rome. Rome, 7-12 Janvier 1967. Edited by E. Castelli, P. Ricoeur, et al. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1967.

Suys, Émile. La Sagesse d’Ani: Texte, traduction et commentaire. Analecta Orientalia 11. Rome: Pontiﬁcio Istituto Biblico, 1935.

Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1-39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. The Forms ! of the Old Testament Literature 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

312 ______. The Twelve Prophets. Volume 2. Berit Olam, Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000.

Tadmor, Hayim. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007.

Tadmor, Hayim and Shigeo Yamada. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP), Volume 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Tallon, Françoise. Métallurgie susienne I: De la fondation de Suse au XVIII avant J.-C. 2 volumes. Notes et Documents des Musées de France 15. Paris: Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1987.

Tawil, Hayim. “The Historicity of 2 Kings 19:24 (= Isaiah 37:25): the Problem of Ye’ōrê Māṣôr.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41 (1982): 195-206.

Terblanche, Marius. “An Abundance of Living Waters: The Intertextual Relationship Between Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-2. Old Testament Essays 17 (2004) 120-29.

in the Book of ﬠֵדֶן A Sign To the Reader: The Proper Name“ .______Ezekiel.” Old Testament Essays 18 (2005): 124-34.

Terrien, Samuel. Job. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament XIII. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé Neuchatel, 1963.

:(Is. xix 7).” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933) ﬠָ רוֹת Thacker, T. W. “A Note on 163-65.

Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973.

Thomas, D. Winton. “Job xl 29b: Text and Translation.” Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964): 114-16.

Thomsen, Marie-Louise. “‘The Home of the Fish’: A New Interpretation.” Journal of ! Cuneiform Studies 27 (1975): 197-200.

313 Thompson, R. Campbell. The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal Found at Nineveh, 1927-8. London: Printed by order of the Trustees, sold at the British museum [etc.], 1931.

Thureau-Dangin, François. Une Relation de la Huitième Campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.). Musée du Louvre. Département des antiquités orientales. Textes cunéiformes 3. Paris: Libraire Paul Geuthner, 1912.

______. Les cylinders de Goudéa découvertes par Ernest de Sarzec à Tello. Musée du Louvre. Département des antiquités orientales et de céramique antique. Textes cunéiformes 8. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1925.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

Tooman, William A. “Transformation of Israel’s Hope: The Reuse of Scripture in the Gog Oracles.” Pages 50-110 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. van der Toorn, Karel, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Toy, C. H. Judaism and Christianity; a sketch of the progress of thought from the Old Testament to New Testament. Boston: Little Brown, 1891.

Tracy, David. “Metaphor and Religion: The Test Case of Christian Texts.” Pages 89-104 in On Metaphor. Edited by S. Sacks. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979.

Tremayne, Arch. Records from Erech: Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (538-521 B.C.). Yale Oriental Series VII. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1925.

Tromp, Nicholas J. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament. Biblical and Orientalia 21. Rome: Pontiﬁcal Biblical Institute, 1969.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Alalakhiana.” Hebrew Union College Annual 29 (1958): 125-6.

______. “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 199-204.

Tufnell, Olga, Charles H. Inge and Lankester Harding. Lachish II (Tell Ed Duweir). The ! Fosse Temple. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1940.

314 Tuell, Steven Shawn. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.

______. “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezekiel 47:1-12 and Genesis 2:10-14.” Pages 171-89 in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBridge Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Tur-Sinai, N. H. The Book of Job: A New Commentary. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1957.

Tuttle, G. A. “Case Vowels on Masculine Singular Nouns in Construct in Ugaritic” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies. Ed. by G. A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Tylor, J. J. and F. L. Grifﬁth. The Tomb of Paheri: at el-Kab. London: Ofﬁce of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1894.

Uehlinger, C. “Leviathan.” Pages 511-15 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2d ed. Edited by Karen van der Toorn et al. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Uerpmann, H.-P. and M. Uerpmann. Stone Age Sites and their Natural Environment: The Capital Area of Northern Oman. Part 3. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 31/3. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 2003.

Uffenheimer, Binyamin. “Ezekiel 12:1-16” in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East, Yitschak Avishur and Joshua Blau, eds., 213-14. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein’s, 1978.

Unger, Eckhard. Babylon; die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1931.

______. “Nebukadnezar II. und sein Sandabakku (Oberkommissar) in Tyrus.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 3 (1926): 314-17.

Ussishkin, David. “Lachish.” Pages 63-75 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Bible and Archaeology. Volume 2. Edited by Daniel M. Master. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013. de Vaan, Joannes Maria Cornelia Theodorus. “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs”: Die Sprache des Bēl-ibni. Alter Orient ind Altes Testament 242. Neuckirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. de Vaan, Michiel. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7. Leiden: Brill, 2008. 315 Van Buren, Elizabeth Douglas. “Fish-Offerings in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Iraq 10 (1948): 101-21.

______. The fauna of ancient Mesopotamia as represented in art. Rome: Pontiﬁcium Institutum Biblicum, 1939.

Van der Ploeg, J. Prediker uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. De Boeken van het Oude Testament 8, 2. Roermond: J.J. Romen & Zonen, 1953.

Van Ess, Margarete and Friedhelm Pedde. Uruk. Kleinfunde II. Ausgrabungen in Uruk- Warka Endberichte 7. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1992.

Van Hecke, Pierre J. P., ed. Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 187. Leuven: Peters, 2005.

Van Dijk, H. J. “Does Third Masculine Singular *Taqtul Exist in Hebrew?” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 440-47.

______. Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1-28,19). A New Approach. Biblica et Orientalia 20. Rome: Pontiﬁcal Biblical Institute, 1968. van Dijk, J. J. A. “Inanna raubt den “großen Himmel”. Ein Mythos.” Pages 9-38 in Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu Seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994. tikip santakki mala bašmu. Cuneiform Monographs 10. Edited by Stefan M. Maul. Groningen: Styx Publications, 1998.

______. Textes Divers. Tabulae Cuneiformes a F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl collectae. Leiden: Nederlandsch Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1957.

Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Proverbs 30:21-23 and the Biblical World Upside Down.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 599-610.

Van Neer, W., ed. Fish Exploitation in the Past: Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group, 6-10 September 1993. Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274. Tervuren: Kononklijk Museum boor Midden-Afrika, 1994.

Van Neer, W., I. Zohar, and O. Lernau. “The Emergence of Fishing Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A Survey of Evidence from Pre- and Protohistoric Periods.” Paléorient 31/1 (2005): 131-57.

Van Selms, A. “The Root k-ṯ-r and its Derivatives in Ugaritic Literature.” Ugarit Forschungen 11 (1979): 739-44 316 Vanderhooft, David Stephen. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Monographs 59. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999.

Vasholz, Robert L. “Habakkuk: Complaints or Complaint.” Presbyterion 18 (1992): 50-52.

Veenhof, K. R. “Fatherhood is a Matter of Opinion. An Old Babylonian Trial on Filiation and Service Duties.” Pages 313-32 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Edited by W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.

Velde, H. Te. “Nile.” Pages 626-27 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2d ed. Edited by K. van der Toorn et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Vermeylen, J. Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique. Isaïe, I-XXXV, miroir d’un demi- millenaire d’expérience religious en Israël. Volume 1. paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1977.

Vermeule, E. T. and V. Karageorghis. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1982.

Vila, Emmanuelle. L’exploitation des animaux en Mésopotamie aux IV et III millénaires avant J.-C. Monographie du Centre de recherches archéologiques 21. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque, 1998.

Vogt, E. Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezekiel. Analecta Biblica 95. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.

Volten, Aksel. “Ägyptische Nemesis-Gedanken.” Pages 371-79 in Miscellanea Gregoriana: raccolta di scritti pubblicati nel i centenario della fondazione del Pont. Museo egizio 1839-1939. Tipograﬁa Poliglotta Vaticana, 1941.

Volz, Paul. Der Prophet Jeremia. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1921.

A. von den Driesch and H. Manhart, “Fish Bones from Al Markh, Bahrain.” Pages 50-67 in Archaeozoology of the Near East IVB. Edited by M. Mashkour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin. Groningen: Centre for archeological research and consultancy, 2000.

Waard, Jan de. A Handbook on Isaiah. Textual Criticism and the Translator 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Waard, Jan de. and Williams A. Smalley. A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Amos. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1979. 317 Wakeman, Mary K. God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

Waldman, N. M. “Akkadian kaṣāru Semantic Equivalents.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28 (1969): 250-54.

Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walton, Izaak and Charles Cotton. The Compleat Angler. Edited by Marjorie Swann. Oxford: Oxford University, 2014.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary: Job. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

Walton, Timothy Lee. “Experimenting with Qohelet: A Text-Linguistic Approach to Reading Qohelet as Discourse.” Ph.D. diss., Vrije Universiteit, 2006.

Ward, W. A. “The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP and the Common Origin of Egyptian ČWF and Hebrew SÛF: ‘Marsh(-Plant).’” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974): 339-99.

Wassell, Blake E. and Stephen R. Llewelyn. “‘Fishers of Humans,’ the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, and Conceptual Blending Theory.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014): 627-46.

Wasserman, Nathan. “Sîn Goes to Fishing.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1995): 61-2.

Watanabe, Chikako E. Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia: A Contextual Approach. Wiener Offene Orientalistik 1. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 2002.

Waterman, Leroy. Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire: Translated into English, with a Transliteration of the Text and a Commentary. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 18. 4 volumes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1930-1936.

Watson, Rebecca S. Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of “Chaos” in the Hebrew Bible. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 341. ! New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. ! !

318 Watson, W. G. E. “An Antecedent to Atirat and ‘Anat?” Pages 315-26 in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays presented in honor of Professor John C. L. Gibson. Edited by N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd. Ugaritisch- Biblische 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996.

______. “Aṯrt ym: Yet Another Proposal.” Ugarit-Forschungen 25 (1993): 431-34.

______. “Correcting a gaffe”. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (2001.1): 10.

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1-33. Word Biblical Commentary 24. Revised ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Way, Kenneth C. Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol. Winona Lake, ! IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Weeks, Stuart, Simon Gathercole, and Loren Stuckenbruck, eds. The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, With Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinent 3. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.

Weiser, A. Das Buch der zwölf Kleinen Propheten. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 24/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949.

Weiss, Andrea L. “A New Approach to Metaphor in Biblical Poetry.” Pages 475-86 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay. Edited by Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

______. Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Werner, W. Studien zur alttestametlischen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 173. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ! 1986. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. The Century Bible. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1969.

319 Whitaker, R. E. A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1972.

White, Roger M. The Structure of Metaphor: The Way the Language of Metaphor Works. Philosophical Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.

Whitley, Charles F. Koheleth: His Language and Thought. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 148. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979.

Whitney, K. William. Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth in Second Temple and Early Rabbinic Judaism. Harvard Semitic Monographs 63. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Whybray, R. N. Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Wiggerman, F. A. M. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. CM I. Groningen: Styx, 1992.

______. “Mischwesen A. Philologish. Mesopotamien.” Pages 222-46 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Volume 8. Edited by Dietz-Otto Edzard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.

Wiggerman, F. A. M. and A. Green. “Mischwesen” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 8/3 ! (1997): 4:222-64. Wiggins, S. A. A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 235. ! Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. ______. “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess.” Ugarit Forschungen 23 (1991): 383-94.

in the Old Testament in עת Wilch, J. R. Time and Event. An Exegetical Study of the Use of Comparison to Other Temporal Expressions in Clariﬁcation of the Concept of Time. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Wilcke, Claus. Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1969.

Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13-27: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Wilde, A. de. Das Buch Hiob eingeleitet, übersetzt ind erläutert. Oudtestamentische studiën 22. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

320 Williams, A. J. “A Further Suggestion About Amos IV 1-3.” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979): 206-11.

Williams-Forte, Elizabeth. “The Snake and the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during the Bronze Age.” Pages 18-43 in Ancient Seals and the Bible. Edited by Leonard Gorelick and Elizabeth Williams-Forte. Malibu, CA: Undena, 1983.

Williamson, H. G. M. Isaiah 1-5: a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. London: T & T Clark, 2006.

Wilson, J. A. and T. G. Allen, eds. The Mastaba of Mereruka. 2 volumes. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1938.

Wilson, J. V. Kinnier. “A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and Leviathan.” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975) 1-14.

Winckler, Hugo. Die keilschrifttexte Sargons, nach den papierabklatschen und originalen neu hrsg. Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer, 1889.

Winlock, H. E. Excavations at Deir el Baḥri, 1911-1931. New York: MacMilan, 1942.

______. Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-Re at Thebes. Cambridge, MA: Published for the Metropolitan Museum of Art by Harvard University Press, 1955.

Wiseman, D. J. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University, 1985.

______. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958.

Wolfers, David. “Brush and Bramble.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 19 (1990-1991): 170-75.

______. “The Lord’s Second Speech in the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990): 474-99.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos: A commentary on the books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Translated by Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride, Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Woolley, Leonard. Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. Reports of the Research committee of the Society of antiquaries of ! London 18. London: Society of Antiquaries, 1955.

321 Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of “Fishers of Men.” Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967.

Wyatt, N. Religious Texts from Ugarit. 2nd ed. Biblical Seminar 53. Shefﬁeld: Shefﬁeld Academic Press, 2002.

Yadin, Y. “A Note on the Scenes Depicted on the ‘Ain-Samiya Cup.” Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971): 82-5.

Yadin, Y. et al. Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957-1958. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961.

Yamashita, T. “Professions.” Pages 47-48 in Ras Shamra Parallels. Volume 2. Edited by L. R. Fisher. Rome: Pontiﬁcum Institutum Biblicum, 1975.

Yehuda, Elieser ben. Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis. Jerusalem: Hemda and Ehud ben Yehuda, 1950.

Yeivin, Z. “A Silver Cup from Tomb 204a at ‘Ain Samiya.” Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971): 78-81.

Yoder, Tyler R. “Ezekiel 29:3 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013): 486-96.

Ziegler, Joseph. Beiträge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta- Unternehmens 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958.

Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

______. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48. Translated by James D. Martin. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Zohar, Irit, et al. “Exploitation of grey triggerﬁsh (Balistes carolinensis) by the prehistoric inhabitants of Atlit-Yam, Israel: a preliminary report.” Pages 231-37 in Fish Exploitation in the Past. Proceedings of the 7th meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group. Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274. Edited by W. Van Neer. Tervuren, 1994.

Zolli, Eugenio. “Amos 4, 2b.” Antonianum 30 (1955): 188-89.

Zorell, Fransiscus. Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti. Rome: Pontiﬁcium Institutum Biblicum, 1984.

322 Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Die Tempelquelle Ezechiel. XLVII: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” Evangelische Theologie 55 (1995): 140-54.

______. “Zu Habakuk 1,15f.” Biblische Notizen (1987): 72-74.

323